ML20058L409

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISSUANCES.January- June 1993

ML20058L409
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/30/1993
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V37-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V37-I2, NUDOCS 9312160325
Download: ML20058L409 (77)

Text

1_ _._ ___ _ _

1 i

r t

1 P

L l

4 l

l NUREG-0750 Vol. 37 Index 2 w

Sqnv v

sv~, yf.w s 3

.j.;,.,,,

g,..

a>

yme s.

._e

)

.. -w

" - ~

A -

, N b'.

. l.b y

2

4. :%.

.. &#'hr C '&:;...

^

• A4 a

e ilNDEXE$iT6p3mdi 1 f [NOCIIEAR$sdGijkidjhd '

2 i MysisliS$(O%is5DASDEMNh J a'

.~ a w

< m n < wg -

m ne M. hIa+':.$41.N:h; n.

• NN U.p.$2d~.-w. v vMh,.-

8 A --

G WA'"%Lm.

l, 5. :mw>

M Gs o !aik.,'w 9

d 2

... 9

,.,,y..3.:.,:7+y, ~.-c.:

w.e.,w

,nn w:.

r

. :gu.., m. v-s

.+

r,7:>p,

<cws

.y>

,.m::*. c, n.

2.

s

.r v.g.g

.s msy;;;;e

<w

.-:g:

+

x r.._.ugian.g--

s.

c.,

..vc.

w

w

.,.m v m$si

.ygg. 4 x >

j

.. v, y,. &

s- ;w :... i g *ir P "^^

??iMi;::-LW';

M.:r

^

,x

w. :.

..4

.sr 4

s c

sy c

-*y h:;4,.

.9>:e A.

• s :.'..t t.

y 3

-.. mm m.m v

x. f.

,.m a

_.c.

$m.

- n MA$ik

$\\.!

h,. }

I:h' v

%[.p;.',M

!dD?,.,. $M'. '-Fk$

."h s:.,[h y.,.,,,.

Fdi d-

+h s-a.w.%:[.s.w F

s ;;O.ir

~arn':n. c p%.M;5 'sy.+:p f.-% h rl::

m i

s g

3;;;;f*r.,..c a;;. s

&n s p.sw +

u M@4:g9

...p+g'x :v.m I

2 Z: :: A

'%:~'"='~--

s rt

% ~. g:W,w. p.a+ cM W m.W$d W M e @%m.e. y -#v%gs't:g?

a m*

NT@N #%MMf3DM;N$M@f[N@:g#"Mw %:

~ ':s a. s V

R.. c - 'm~y;p.+;.g:w +g: e@m::

si yys Wln d :mm:im:.gptqpfyf. v ^.v'n::

wsx.:etdWa.5m4TMpggg'ggg'W'WM L '.JN r s??,gY.3&fD

~

syv

• p f;%c

.gygpe a

MM y

+, e::MN:iF MAN 8.

fr

$@fi!OMNAM:

"M

I

@@SM3SNM@iGr ""Y5MM *

'%4rlillJ$C+/h wM>yilhMMiin.~vw." ""!W. ;.

j

-o-e, w;.g.vdM. max Mide y>ggwb5'.e%.!+57.w^^>k' ;dNw' :.M pd.#ng.'dG M~b 6

w.Q*>.mdn p v xwxes:%s~gr^ m wuom n

m." go + a e ym gi;;;, NdN.M. N.DCdMb 4 65M-SY'Oh.,M.m bNMNDQ..

w

~

'!dde r

1. M c

j

d.

df% hN hk _S.g e.:we wv ~ %+pwm m -

8 r

w..wg -s;p-.m.

1. x;-m.v:.+N. I5s.

2 w

m.

d g

m~ww.%

.m m..peme mswpg e amaynema&,x e

mw ew3 w ^ w e 3m-w

+

ow eews 4

1~.

I mmm.

m

(

wwm em urs %

e

,gg; w a y%.-.m We enceq mW

%edp%gh seywg e.

ra.q% d e 4 w eemump mer = "

w.m. Me*g%.pd%MY.7%g2My<.A'.h,w w gWmWw g%wA

-a-

%.:e.

.r~: s

--- ~ ~- -

m.p ~,. a w

• +" ~.

3?al7;P,ff^% ?$v(h.byYM:%p v.yI.4,.M.n:'N

., 'mA...y$":h Tkv a :wn yMW.W.W3$M n -

y<

mw :.m%~p;v.f^%gD

. -.. _ ~ ~ f

~ %,,.u:bbYd MM

.@N]w&

wvm

--~

~~w-'""~'#

an -

-n

.s.-

em p n.-

n F

'fMT.. J'*$@

2 2'W n' %86DTM.DJd!Mf DW Sl%. vm ^

M

'%MM'sQ a'h :M.4wo.$4..FMf!,.ar+xCim:

d

^

M7M

1..

c -

.6 A.

x

.:4 Mi% whRen g 3

.s e ;64 haWJ.%K.;@

me wr 5 m?a leN

4...r x 4 WW' " M&:gd.eQ'Khtcoi m.a. --

F

.~ '

g. s*y;jMM. m.N >PG h'G.gfL*W.

%ge QVJh.'

"M" rw nog &y-g'5.A::;(E%QW4yWa.ygh.

• **h=4 2 o;;..

4 %

hf!-

?

+MS.

hvWN.

p*4:5.MEMW A=M --

a%y& pay.gm_ 3Mw.g geW%O,:=n.w m pm &m ggg pgg 3

s. gag;pc.y;;gy,,, y W,4

.nsp:um.mmmmwwwwwomw==-=.,r_

y n, m me m.

w n.. n.

Sw mgygu.w;ppwy.:wg An -mo uw.=

x 63wS ge w g

,m-wymarteem. ne w-

-4,..

A&I d d #4 mW h

..m c -w e.w..A w&s:

b 4 A.Md.

MjaWA:M4%%.W WMh6%'

e,r. wos4.. w'LW:waw w -m

.'C sw A

=

e

+

.M&W;i& M % $ ~:SM:-4l6:SM G::.

WR

&~

W W26 Wi:d$;.j#u& NN&S W @ Vi:b Sik v &*m m n=*mrn =-

.n...-

a n

.n vs

%.C, % AfMM~n,:a&Q Jy'if44n~.

m, t!. ^

.f.m&;Ky<t@ M.MT Q:w W J K'

%,w

^4 L

.i W9%

• n

- %n 3p e

m. w m.

o u tww

. n a

n ww:xwmk.mn. r:~u w:s.ma w

u.,x ru.s

m. A,.e, m

u,s.

-x

.5 i

+

p s.g' a

.v.m.:. x,.:

.. c - ~

m.: 3w

... + <..

I

.a xwe w c.

g.

me i

$.&,s..r.M.^YAs% ::rwnmw mug s.,.M ;;w:p#ff.??$.:. ":.

Q EWNh. M.v e )

4x^

v:em.,3, '[

cs

b.;nge N

f

-.W. 7-/n d;-l< N.f,.< - g. t e'yw.' F. n; M

• y y,

w>M-; 54 -

1

-Scs

• g g::s'ns.m:

nV. ?e%:.;;g:v-wt:

ww;.,

+x ent:

y

. w

s.. :::

z,

,m,.. u. ~. 3 a

u /Q 'n.c.,s., e

-s~

.x 7 n,' w,-. v[n n e

-,.c.

s.

r ew -

m mc wm.

,zn. m.,.. c.w.

t ns n

• x g

waW MM:.J 'fh#m..W:n>x am. #~?

nn.. x.

7.' F4:i.+ c e.

h

,%:h c,.v M

j j 1r$' J

..r.

.: h,ij e. -... f Q '.w.

gd;;k.4 Neh'd. ~g w%n. egg g.,gM, n ~

'. J q.vgW Nne M J %na):

i d.Q p'7 Amra,

3 r myn,. ;%..,..@.?* g'-w mp">y%

s4-man.%

. e 4

. L,Q

. =r -

h:

%w^

• ,.Y U"' w a,0'!'B/:aIj d:(,

,s.-'*#

v-

.s

^

,v.

, N h' b f. v/

?bW$h'['k"kd A'?. ' 5' $YY "M....

.c

,I g... k, e..yl /. i T y. r 0 6,.g 4' N+ ' N[e if 9'A Y

.m/'

O/

I.

. $YN

.M-'.T"'Js Y/ N#J..

.,..-s%

.k Md*gi $* 44bC'" * ' %.es~y,m % ?q

- ~'

' ;0

% 2%sgra ce: w.ua, %. &' - "

b N~ M N

5>

MkiWiM '

W%

Mtm%+n%WW ps m:>

m.m.> :m..

x n:.

.r w -

1 s gm,.? ~ www.

a s, " y m w:c~ r;, w.. w &z emg w

aur %

m..

.c e m y".

.:.g m r+ :.,_

, m;..

~m w;m.yq:2;- >

+

mb

.y

~

n$:vy

+

s_ q g

9*

9 9

4 1

1 1

1 j

i b

9312160325 931130 L 4

PDR NUREG f

0750 R PDRg a

4 y

d 4

b

Available from Superintentendent of Documents U.S. Govemment Printing Office Mail Stop SSOP Washington, D.C. 20402-9328 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.

Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service Sptgfield, VA 22161 Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 205SS-0001 (301/492-8925) 9

NUREG-0750 Vol. 37 Index 2 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlON ISSUANCES January - June 1993 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY"[RDMMISSION Prepared by the Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301/492-8925) 4

Foreword Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (AU),

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

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

Case name (owner (s) of facility)

Full text reference (vohune and pagination)

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

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

Type of issuana (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 followed by the type of hearing, the type of issuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.

2. Digests and lleaders The headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows:

the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP),

the Administrative Law Judge (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

'Ihe header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hearing, date of issuance, and type of issuance.

The digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the

' sue 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 alphabetically.

lil

3. Legal Citations Index This index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alpha-numerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. Dese citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and statutes may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance.

The 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 reference.

1. Subject Index Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues 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, nese 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 the issuance. The name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date, type of issuance, issuance number, and full text reference.

iv l

4 CASE NAME INDEX ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

LNIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 3416055-OM (EA 87-139)

(Decontansnauon Order); CLI-934, 37 NRC 181 (1993)

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY. et al.

REQUEST IOR ACTION, FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206; Docket Nos.

50-528, 54529, 50-530; DD-93-II, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

ARKANSAS PO%IR AND LIGfT COMPANY REQUEST TOR ACTION; HNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R 62.206, Docket No.

50 368; DD.9L11, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

BAB(X)CK AND WILCOX DECOMMISSIONING; ORDER; Docket No 74135-DCOM; CL1-93 9, 37 NRC 190 (1993)

DECOMMISSIONINO; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Heanng Request and Ternnnatmg Proceedmg); Docket No. 74135-DCOM (ASLBP No. 924674)LDCDM)(Decomnussioning Plan)

(Maienals Ucense No. SNM-145); LDP-914, 37 NRC 72 (1993)

CAROLINA POWIR AND LIGTT COMPANY REQUEST TOR ACTION; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 52.206; Docket Nos. 50 324, 54 325, 50400; DD-913, 37 NRC 113 (1993)

REQUEST IOR ACTION, FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206; Docket Nos 54324,54325; DD-9111,37 NRC 402 (1993)

CAROLINA PO%IR AND L1Giff COMPANY. et al.

I REQUEST IOR ACTION, MNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDLR 10 C.F.R. 3 2.206; Docket No.

l 50-400, DD-9111,37 NPC 402 (1993)

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC 111UMINATING COMPANY, et al.

REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR *S DECISION UNDER 10 C.FA 5 2.206; Docket No. 50-440 (Ucense No. NPF-58); DD'93-5, 37 NRC 238 (1993)

REQUEST JOR ACTION, RNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.FA 52.206; Docket No.

50-440, DD-9111,37 NRC 402 (1993)

COMMON %'EALTH LDISON COMPANY REQUEST IOR AC110N; HNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206; Docket Nos.

50 295, 50-304, 50 373, 54374, 50-454, 50-455, 50-456, 50-457; DD-93-II, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC PO%IR COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION, HNAL DIRff!OR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. 5 2.206; Docket No.

50L213. DD-9111,37 NRC 402 (1993)

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK REQUEST TOR ACTION; HNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C1.R. 6 2.206; Docket No.

54247; DD-9Fil, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

CONSUM 2S PO%IR COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION; HNAL DIRTCTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. 6 2.206; Deket No.

50-255, DD 9111, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

DCIROTT EDISON COMPANY, et al.

REQUEST IOR ACTION; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R 6 2.206; Docket No.

54341; DDL913, 37 NRC 113 (1993)

REQUEST TOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C1.R. 62.206, Docket No. 54341; DD-93-6, 37 NRC 246 (1993) 1 l

a CASE NAME INDEX REQUEST IOR AGION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.12.206; Docket No.

54341; DDL9311,37 NRC 402 0993)

DUKE IOSTR COMPANY, et at REQUEST 10R ACTION; HNAL DIRECTOR *S DECISION UNDER 10 CIA 5 2 206; Docket Not 50 369, 50-370; DD-93 ll, 37 NRC 402 0993)

DUQUESNE UGHT COMPANY, et at REQUEST TOR ACTION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CIA 5 2.206; Docket Nos.

50'334, 54412; DD-93-II, 37 NRC 402 0993)

EN7IRGY OPERATIONS, LNC.

REQUEST FOR ACTION, MNAL DIRTLTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Docket Not 54382, 50-416,' DDL9111, 37 NRC 402 0993)

HJDRIDA PO%IR AND UGHT COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION; ITNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CIA (2.206; Docket Nos.

50-250, 54251, 50 335, 50-389; DD-93-11, 37 NRC 402 0993)

HDRIDA PO%IR AND UGHT COMPANY et al.

REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CIA 12.206; Docket Nos. 54250, 50L251; DD-93-4, 37 NRC 225 (1993); DD-9113, 37 NRC 493 0993)

FIDRIDA POHIR CORPORATION REQUEST IOR ACTION, FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CIA 52.206; Docket No.

54302; DD-9111,37 NRC 402 0993)

GENERAL PUBUC Ifr!LITIES NUC2. EAR CDRPORATION REQUEST IOR ACTION; HNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Docket Nos.

50L2}9, $h289; DD.93-II, 37 NRC 402 0993)

GEO-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Terminating Procreding); Docket No.

03420693-EA (ASLBP No. 91670-01-EA) (Materials Ucense No. 291822205 02); LBP-912, 37 NRC 61 (1993)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.12.206; Docket Nos.

50-321,50w366, DD-93-11,37 NRC 402 0993)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMEfff; ORDER; Docket Nos. 50L424OLA-3, 50-425-OLA-3, CU-934,37 NRC 172 0993)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Admitting a Party); Docket Nos. 544244LA-3,544254LA-3 (ASLBP No. 93471414LA-3) (Re: Ucense Anradment)

(Transfer to Southern Nuclear); LBP 93-5,37 NRC % 0993)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Stay Requent and on Scheduhng); Docket Not 50-424-OLA-3, 54425-01A-3 (ASLEP No. 9347141-OLA-3) (Re:

Uconse Amendment; Transfer to Southern Nuclear); LBP-9F8,37 NRC 292 0993)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Order to Mr. Mosbaugh to Release Six Tapes); Docket Nos. 5442441A-3, 50-4254LA-3 (ASISP No. 9F671-014LA-3) (Re:

Ucense Amendment; Transfer to Southern Nuclear); LBP-93-il,37 NRC 469 0993)

REQUEST IOR ACTION; PARTIAL DIRF4 TOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. 52.206; Docket Not 54321, 50 366, 50-424, 50-425. DD-918, 37 NRC 314 0993)

R14UEST IOR ACTION; TINAL DIRILTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R 52.206; Docket Nos.

50 424, 50-425, DD.9111, 37 NRC 402 0993)

GULJ STATIS ImLTTII3 COMPANY REQUEFT IOR ACTION; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CIA $2.206; Docket No.

50458; DD93-3,37 NRC 113 0993)

REQUEST IOR ACTION; HNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Docket No.

50-458, DD 93-II,37 NRC 402 0993)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND PO%IR COMPANY, et al.

REQUIST IOR ACTION; TINAL DIRECTOR *S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.12.206; Docket Nos.

h498, 50 499; DD-9111, 37 NRC 402 0993) 2 t

l l

CASE NAME INDEX ILLINOIS POWT.R COMPANY, et al.

l REQUEST TOR ACTION; ITNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CER. 8 2.206; Docket No.

l 50461; DD-93-II,37 NRC 402 0993)

INDIANA AND MICHIGAN PO%TR COMPANY j

REQUEST TOR ACTION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 5 2.206; Docket Nos..

j 50 315, 50-316; DD-93-II, 37 NRC 402 0993)

INTERSTATE NUCLEAR SERVICE CORPORATION REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf R. 62.206; Docket No.

03004632; DD-93-9,37 NRC 365 0993)

IOWA ELECTRIC UGHT AND POWTR COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Docket No.

50'331; DD-93-11,37 NRC 402 (1993)

LOUISIANA EhTRGY SERVICES, LP.

MA7 TRIALS UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Applicant's Mouon to Compel Disconry); Docket No. 743070-ML (ASLBP No. 91441-02-ML) (Special Nuclear Materials Ucense); LBP-93-3,37 NetC 64 (1993)

MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER C)MPANY REQUEST TOR ACTION; 17NAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Docket No.

50L309; DD-9111,37 NRC 402 (1993) i NEBRASKA PUBLIC PO%IR DISTRICT

)

REQUEST IUR ACTION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.12.206, Docket No.

50 298; DDL9118,37 NRC.402 0993)

NIAGARA MORAWK PO%IR CORPORATION REQUEST IOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CJ.R. 62.206; Docket No. 50L220.

DD 93-10,37 NRC 3810993)

REQUEST IOR ACTION, FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. 52.206; Docket Nos.

50-220,50-410; DD-9kil,37 NRC 402 0993)

NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Docket Nos.

54245, 50 336, 50-423 DD-93-11, 37 NRC 402 (1993) hDRTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACTION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Docket NA 54263,50-282,54306; DD-93-II,37 NRC 402 0993)

ONCOLOGY SERVICES CORPORATION

+

ENIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 30 31765-EA (Suspension Order) (Byproduct Material License No. 37-28540-01); CU-9113,37 NRC 419 0993)

ENIORCEMINT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granung in Part NRC Staff Motion to Delay Proceeding; Requiring Submiasion of Staff Status Report and Joint Prcheanng Report); Docket No. G30-31765-EA (ASLEP No. 93-674-03-EA) (EA 93 006) (Order Suspending Byproduct Material l

Ucense No. 37-28540-01); LBP-916,37 NRC 207 0993)

ENIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting in Part NRC Staff Motion to Delay Proceeding; Requiring Submission of Staff Status Report; Certifying Question to the Commission); Docket No. 30 31765-EA (ASLRP No. 93-674-03-EA) (EA 93406) (Order Suspending Byproduct Material Ucense No. 37-2854041); LBP-9110, 37 NRC 455 0993)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; PREHEARING CONITRENCE ORDER (Ruling upon Intervention Petition and Authorizing Hearing); Docket Nos. 505275-OLA-2, 50 323-OLA-2 (ASLBP l

No. 92-669-OLOLA-2) (Construction Period Recovery) (Facihty Operating Uceme Nos DPR-80 DPR-82)- LBP-911, 37 NRC 5 0993)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; PREHEARING CONITRENCE ORDER (Late-Filed j

Contentions and Discovery); Docket Nos. 50L275-OLA-2, 50L32LOLA-2 (ASLBP No.

92-66943-OLA-2) (Construction Period Recovery) (fincility Operating umnse Nos. DPR-80, DPR-82);

i LBP-93-9, 37 NRC 433 0993)

I 3

l l

l l

t

(

i CASE NAME INDEX REQUEST FOR ACTION; [1NAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Dacket Nos.

54275, 50 323; DD-93-il, 37 NRC 402 0993)

{

PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND UGHT COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION,11NAL DIRECTOR'S DEOS10N UNDER 10 Cf.R. 6 2.206; Docket Nos.

54387,505368; DD-93-11,37 NRC 402 0993)

PHILADI1PHIA ELILTRIC COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION, ITNAL DIRFLTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Docket Nos 54352,50L353; DD-93-11,37 NRC 402 (1993)

PHILADufHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.

REQUEST TOR ACTION, ITNAL DIRECTOR'S DEOS10N UNDER 10 C.IER. 6 2.206; Docket Nos.

54277. 54278; DD 93-11, 37 NRC 402 0993)

PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al REQUEST IOR ACTION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DEGSION ; ". DER 10 CJ.R. 6 2.206; Docket No.

54344; DDw93-11,37 NRC 402 (1993)

RANDAll C. OREM, D O.

ENIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 30'31758-EA (Byproduct Materials License No. 34-2620l4)l), CLI.93-14,37 NRC 423 0993)

R101ARD P. GRIII DENIAL OF PLTITION IVR RULIMAKING; Docket No. PRM 5456; DPRM-93 I,37 NRC 347 (1993)

SACRAMENTO MUNIGPAL UTIllTY DISTRICT DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50'312-DCOM, CU-913, 37 NRC 135 0993); CU-9112,37 NRC 355 0993)

DECOMMISSIONING; ORDER; Docket No. 50 312-DCOM; CU-915,37 NRC 168 0993) i SEQUOYAH FUEIS (X)RPORATION MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Request for Hearing and Request for Withdrawal of Application); Docket No. 40 8027-MLA (Source Marenal License No. SUB-1010); CU-93-7. 37 NRC 175 0993)

REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 6 2.206; Docket No. 44 8027; DD-93-7,37 NRC 303 0993)

SOUTH CAROLINA E114TRIC AND GAS COMPANY. et al.

REQUEST IOR ACTION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DEQSION UNDER 10 CJ.R. 6 2.206; Docket No.

54395; DD-9111,37 NRC 402 0993)

SOUTHERN CAUTORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al.

REQUEST 10R ACTION; 11NAL DIRECTOR'S DEGSION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Docket Nos.

54361, 54362; DD-93-11, 37 NRC 402 0993)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY REQUEST IOR ACTION; ITNAL DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 5 2.206; Docket Na' 54259, 505260, 542%, 54327, 50 328, 54390, 50'391; DD-93 il, 37 NRC 402 0993)

TEXAS LTTILII1ES ELILTRIC COMPANY, et mL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMFNT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No, 50-446 CPA; CU-912,37 NRC 55 0993); CU-9%IO,37 NRC 192 (1993)

OPERATING UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-446; CU-93-1,37 NRC 1, 0993); QJ-93-4, 37 NRC 156 0993); CU-93-11,37 NRC 2510993)

REQUEST TUR ACTION; D' RECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. (1206; !>ocket Na 50-445, 50446; DD93-1,37 NRC 39 (1993)

PIQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECSION UNDER 10 CJ.R. 52.206; Docket No. 50 445; DD-912,37 NRC 52 0993)

REQUEST TOR ACTION, PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DEQSION UNDER 10 CT.R. 52.206; Docket Nos. 50-445. 50-446; DR913,37 NRC 113 0993)

REQUEST IOR ACTION; TINAL DIRIETOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.12.206, Docket Na 50 445, 50446; DD-93-11, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

REQUEST IOR ACilON; DIRECTOR'S DEGSION UNDER 10 CT.R. 6 2.206; Docket Nos. 50445, 50446; DDL93-12,37 NRC 477 (1993) 4 i

I I

i l

l

CASE NAME INDEX i

TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY REQULST IOR ACTION; FINAL DIRECIOR'S DLCISION UNDER 10 Cf.P 6 2.206. Docket No.

50L346; DD-93-II,37 NRC 402 (1993)

UMLTCO MINERALS CORPORATION g

MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; INr '.AL DECISION; Docket No. 40 08681-MLA (ASISP No.

92W601-MLA) (Source Matenal licenr No. SUA-1358); LEP-93-7, 37 NRC 267 (1993)

UNION 12ffrRIC COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION, FINAL DIRII(OR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Docket No.

50483; DD 93-il,37 NRC 402 (199')

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWCF CORPORATION REQUEST IOR ACTION; FINAL DIR.'CTOR'S DECISION UNDER IQ Cf.R.12.206; Docket No.

f 50 271; DD-93.II,37 NRC 402 (19933 1

VIRGINIA ELECIRIC AND POWER COMI%NY l

REQUEST IOR ACTION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Docket No6.

50 280, 50w281. 54338, 50-339; DD-93-11, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC FO%TR SUPPLY SYSTEM REQUEST IOR ACrlON; PART!AL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. 52.206; Tbeket No.

50 397; DD 93-3, 37 NRC 113 (1993)

REQUEST TOR ACTION; ITNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 6 2.206; Docket No.

50 397; DD 93-II, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

WOLI CRIIK NUCLEAR OPERATINO CORIORATION REQUEST FOR ACTION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Docket No.

i

$0 482; DD-93-II, 37 NRC 402 (1993) t O

l I

\\

5 1

I I

I e

\\

l l

l l

i l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES Ol' TIIE NUCLEAR RIX;ULATORY COMMISSION l

CLI-93-1 TEXAS trI1LITIES ELLCTRIC COMPANY et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit l

2), Docket No. 50 446. OPERATING LICENSE; January 29,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER j

1he Commission denies the request of Ciuzens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR) for a hearing A

i on de proposed issuance of an operating Emme for Comanche Peak. Umt 2. De Commission fmds that l

it cannot reopen the hearing on the Unit 2 proceeding as a snatter of dia:retion, teed on a heanng request that does not address the criteria for late imervention and reopening of the record The Commission does q

not preclude CFUR from filing a renewed hearmg request that addrenes the relevant regulatory standards.

B Until the fu!i-power limnse for a nuclear reactor has actually been issued, the possibihty of a reopened heanng is not encrely foreclosed, a person may request a hearing concerning that reactor, ewn l

though the anginal time period specified in the Federal Register notice for fding imervention pennons has expired,if the requester can sausfy the late inervention and reopening criteria.

C A person seeking a &scretionary heanng after the expiration of the line period for flhng intervention peutions should eitter address the late intervenuon and reopening critena or explain why they do not apply.

e D

A party that volumarily withdraws from a promeding that was latrr resolved by a settlenera l

agreenent nwt satisfy the late imervention standards tcfore seeking to reopen the record of that proceeding.

CLI-93-2 TEXAS (fnLITIES E!ICTRIC COMPANY. et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Elertnc Station, Umt 2), Docket No. 50-446.CPA; OPERATING LICENSE; February 3,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l

A The Commission denies the request of B. trene Orr and D.l. Orr for a stay of the issuance of de low-power operating hmme for Comanche Itak Unit 2. De Comnussion finds tha! Fetiooners' stay request cannot properly te considered in the operating license proceedmg because tiry are neither parties to that proceeding nor have tiry addressed in their stay request tir five factors for late 4iled intervenuon petitions. Isnthermore, de Commission cannot consider Petitioners' stay request in tte construction permit amendnent procceang to which Petitioners are a party, because stry haw failed to relate the stay request to any acuan in that proceeding.

B Where petiuoners who have filed a request to stay issuance of a low-power limnac are not parues L

to the operatmg liceme proceedmg, and wtere pentioners' request does not address the five factors for late imervention found in 10 Cf.R. 5 2.714(aKI)6)-(v), de request cannot pmperly be considered in that operaung beense pmceedmg.

C De pmvision for stays in 10 Cf.R. 6 2.788 provides only for stays of decisions or actions in tie pmceeding under review.

D Wiere petitioners do not relate their stay request to any action in de pmcee&ng under review,112 I

request for stay is tryond the scope of 10 CJ.R. 6 2.788. Such a request is rnore pmperly a petition for immc& ate enforcenent action under 10 CJ R. 6 2.206.

E Section 2.788(bX2) of 10 Cf.R. specifies that an application for a stay snust contam a cordse statement of De gmunds for stay, with referram to the factors speci6ed in paragraph (c) of enat section.

F Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.788(eXI)44), the factors to te considered in determining wtr*ber to grant or deny an apphcation for a stay are: (1) whether the moving party has made a suong showing that it is hkely to prevail on the nerits; (2) whether de party will be ineparably injmed unless the stay is granted, (3) whetter tir granting of a stay would harm otter parties; and (4) wtere the public interest bes.

i G

The Commission requires that a party seekmg oral argument must explain how oral argurnent would I

assist it in reaching a decision.

7 I

I s

i I,

DIGESTS ISSUANCES Ol'TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

CLI-93-3 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Gencruting Station),

Docket No. 50'312 DCOM; DECOMMISSIONING, March 3,1943, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

ne Commission grams, in part Environmental and Resources Conservation Orgamzauon's (ECVs) appeal of the Atonue Safety and Licensing Board's order, LBp-92-23, 36 NRC 120 (1992), in that de Commission grants discretionary imervention. adnuts one contention and pernuts EG) to amend anoder. Also, the Commition treating dus caw sul genens, as a natter of discretion, directs Staff not to issue de decommissiorung order pen &ng compleuon of de proceeding before tie Licensing Board. Tim Conunission demes ECO's appeal with respect to all other contenuons.

B ne Commission has the authonry to grant intervention, as a matter of d scretion, pursuot to the Comnussion's authority to hold tranngs and to permit participanon in its proceedings, C

The pleading requirements set tv1 in 10 C.FA 12.714 do not preclude a party from bbng i

contentinns in the original request for heanng and petition to intervene, but to be admissible the comentions must meet the specific pleadmg requirenrnts set out in section 2.714(b) and (d).

D Parties who appear before the Conunission tear responsibility for any possible misapprehension i

I of their position caused by the inadequacies of deir bnefs.

E Resuned operanon" is an alternative to the decision to cease operation of a pland and, as such, need not te considered as an ahernanve to a proposal to decomnussion racept perhaps in extraordinary circumstances (e C., national emergency).

F Under the Nanonal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the Commission's consideration of the "no-action" mhernauve need not go into environnental impacts of decomnussioning a facihty that could be avoided only by the highly speculative and not reasonably foremecable resuned operation of a facility See NRDC v. Callaway,524 F.2d 79,92-93 (2d Cir.1975).

G A petitioner muy not rely solely on fact that Staff has posed questions to a licensee to support the peutioner's contention where the becmee has filed a detained response to Staffs inquiry and tir petitioner has had substantial opportunity to review or sesponse pnar to de fihng of its contentions.

H A contention will te deemed admist,ible if the petitioner idenuhes a deficiency that is obvious on de face of a liansing document that is required to be filed See 10 CIA 5 2.714(bX2Kiii).

1 in submitting an affirmauve safety contention, as opposed to alleging a dehciency that is obvious on the face of a licensing document that is required to be 61ed, a peaconer nest idemify the specific bases for the contemion, allege facts or expert opinion that support tte contention, provide references to specinc sources and docunents on which petitioner imends to rely to establish time facts or expert opinion, and identify a matenal factual legal dispute with the applicant. See 10 CIA $ 2.714(b) and (d).

J Informaon exchanged tetween Staff and Scensee is not considered offered for filing in an adjudication and, thus, is not subject to the prosisions of 10 Cf.R. 6 2.701. Ittitioners have access to such informauon that is placed in the public documem room.

K Staff and bcensee clearly have an obhgation to keep the Ucensing Board and de peutioner apprised of any relevam and material new information.

L An unienered opportumty to amend contenoons extends only until 15 days pnar to tha hrst preheanng conference.10 Cf A 12.714(aK3).

M A peutioner may seek to anend his or her contennons or file new contentions if data or condssions in subsequent NRC environurmal rey cw docunwnts differ significandy tium de data r conclusions in the applicant's environmemal documems.10 CJ A I 2.714(bX2)(iii). Such contentions are subject to late-hied critena set out in 10 Cf.R. 6 2.714(aXIXi)(v). However, when the informanon in the Staff enviromnental docunents is otherwise unavailable, it is possible that de " good cause for lateness" faaor may be satished by this unavailabihty.

ClJ-93-4 TEXAS tmLITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Stearn Electric Station, Unit 2), Docket No 50-446-014 OPERATING LICENSE; March 9,1993, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

Tir Commission demes a petinon for late intervention tecause Petitioner's unjustified lateness with the peution, failure to demonstrate that it could contribute to tte development of the record, and de delay that would resuh from the insutution of new proceedmgs nrwe than counterbalanced the two nunor factors in Pennoner's favor.

8

l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLTAR REGULATORY EUMMISSION B

issuance of a full-power liceme closes out an operaung license pmceedmg and associated construction pernut pmeredmg Any subsequem challenges on those matters anust be in de form of a secuan 2 206 peuuon.

C Late intervennon is possible until issuance of a full-power bcense. Therefore, issuana of a low-pour hcense does not bar late interwntion.

D Under tra&uonal pnnciples, res judicata and collateral estoppel, de bar against subsequent htigation of an issue already htigated extends only to parties to that procec&ng. Here CIUR was never a party.

E A person seeking late intervenuon in a prowe&ng in which the record has been closed must also address the reopening standards, but not necessarily in de same peution. Homever,it is in de petitioner's best interest to address both the late imervenuon and reopening standards topeder.

F A prospective petitioner has an afhrmauve duty to demonstrate that it has stan&ng in each procee&ng in which it seeks to participate since a petitioner's status can change over time and the bases or its standing in an earlier procce&ng may no longer obtain.

G A peuponer may seek to rely on prior demonstranons of standing if those prior demonstrations are (1) specifically idenafied and (2) shown to correctly reflect the current status of de peutioner's stan&ng.

H CFUR has been aware of the issue of the installation of Thermo4 Jig at Comanche Peak Unit 2 for over 6 mambs and that it had been - or should have been - aware of the general issue of Derrno-lag for several years. Therefore, QUR has failed to demonstrate that it has " good cause" for its late filing.

I Petitioner sausfes the second and fourth par ( the five late imervention entena in 10 C.F.R.

5 2.714(aXIXiF(v). When dwe is cunently no pmceeding, assuming arguendo that de petitioner has stan&ng, dere will generally be no other neans by which that imerest can be pnnected. Likewise, because there is currently no proceeding, there will be no other party to represent petitioner's intenst. However, these two factors are the least importam of de five factors.

J CFUR's request provides no season to conclude that it could contribute to the developnent of a sound record. Vague assertions regarding petitioner's ability or resources are insuf6cient. QUR fails to list any specsfic docunent it plans to intmdum or on which it intends to rely, in spite of the documentation I

developed by the NRC and placed in de public domain. CFUR also fails to identify any single expert or summarize its proposed testimony.

j K

De fifth factor for late intervenuon, the potential for delay if the petinon is gramed, weigin heavily against Petiuoner. Oraming CIUR's request will result in the establishment of an entirely new formal proceeding, not just the aheration of an already estabhshed hearing schedole.

CU-9L5 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL LrTIUTY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stauon),

Docket No. 50L312-DCOM, DECOMMISSIONING; March 15,1993, ORDER A

The Commission denies the intervenur's arction for reconsideration of CU-93-3 which, inter alia, granted intervention as a rnauer of discretion, admmed one contennon, pernutted anendnrnt of anoder, and affirmed the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards rejection of all other contentions.

B Dere is no general duty, even in conceped proceedings, for Staff to inform an imervenor of Staff's every conununication with the licensee that takes place dunng the usual course of Staff's review of an apphcation.

C Staff and hcensce have an obhgmion to keep the licensing board and intervenor appnsed of any relevam and matenal vrw informanon.

i CLI-93 6 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle Dectric Generating Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos 5M24-OLA-3,50425-OLA-3; OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMFET; March 18,1993; ORDER A

Tir licensee, Georgia Power Company, apphed for a stay pending appeal of the hcensing boarfs order, LDP-915, 37 NRC % (1993), granting intervention to Allen 1. Mosbaugh in an amendnent procce&ng concerning rN transfer of operating authonty under the hcemes. Because de Licennee's pnncipal ground for a stay, i.e.,its objection to proceeding with discovery during de genderry of a enminal invesugauon of the I.jcensee and its employees, was related to Staff object.ons to discovery sti!! before the lixnsing Board for determinaion, the Commission refers the stay application to the Ucensing Board for consideranon l

C1193-7 SEQUOYAH FUEIS CORPORATION, Docket No. 40 8027-MLA (Source Materia 11)ceme No.

SUB-1010); MATIRIA13 UCENSE AMENDMEfff; March 18,1993; MEMORANDUM AND OPDER (Ruhng on Requem for Hearirtg and Request for Withdrawal of Applicmion) 9 I

i

4 DIGESTS ISSUANCES Ol' TIIE NUCLEAR RI'GULATORY COMMISSION A

h Conmussion acknowledges Sequoyah Fuels Corporation's nouf cation to NRC of de with-drawal of sts application for a materials hceme ancednrnt pertaieing to groundwater monitonng, treats it as a request to wnhdraw the application, and grants permission for withdrawal of de apphcation. Conse-quently, de Commission denics a request by Nauve Anericans for a Clean Environnrnt and the Cherokee Nation for a hearing on the matenals license amendment.

B The Cummission will treat a heenace's announced withdrawal o a license anrudment appheadon r

pnar to a nouce of traring as a request to the Commission, pursuant to 10 Cf.R. I 2 ID7(a), for permission to withdraw the apphcanon.

CLI-93 8 ADVANCED MEDICAL SYS11.MS, INC. (One factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041). Docket No. 30'16055-OM (EA 87-139)(Decontaminanon Order); ENIORCEMENT AfTION; March 30,1993, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

De Commission denies Advanced Medical Systems's (AMS) petition for revrw of a hcensing teard order UlP-92-36, 36 NRC 366 (1992), that disnussed as moot a challenge to two immediately effective decontamination orders issued by the Nuckar Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff to AMS. De Commission also denies AMS's request for conschdation of all procee&ngs involving the Licensee.

B In determining wheder to grant, as a matter of discretion, a petition for review of a Ucensing Board order, the Conutussion gives due weight to the existence of a substantial question with respect to the consideradons set fonh in 10 Cf.R. 5 2.786(b)(4)(1992).

C The mootness doctrine denves from die Consutution's hmitauon on federal courts' jurisdiction to

" cases" or "comroversies." Although the Commission is not strictly bound by the docuint., the agency's adjudicatory tribunals have generally adhered to the principle.

D A case is moot when there is no reasonable expectauon that the matter will recur and interim rehef or intervening events have eradicated the effects of the allegedly unlawful action.

CU-93-9 B ABCOCK AND WRf0X (Apollo, Pennsylvania Ivel Fabrication liicility), Dockei No. 70135-DCOM; DECOMMISS10NINO; March 30,1993; ORDER A

The Comrrussion had previously extended the eine within which the Ittiuoner could perfect her appeal of a Ecensing board decision denying her request for hearing and sernunating the proceeding. The Comnussion dismisses the appeal on de ground that the Petitioner failed to file a Statenrnt of Appeal as required tiy 10 Cf.R. I 2.1205(n).

B in a Subpan L procee&ng, a Peutioner's appeal of a heensmg board's fmal order is subject to

&smissalif the Petitioner fails to file a Statenrnt of Appeal within the line period specified in or within an extended tine period permined t'y Conunission order.

CLI-93-10 TEXAS UlluTIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Statian, Unit 2), Docket No. 50 446-CPA; CONSUtUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; March 30,1993; MEMORAN-DUM AND ORDER A

The Commission considers two appeals of a heensing board decision, LBP-92-37,36 NRC 370 (1992), that denied or appe!! ants' pentions for review and for hearing on a request by Texas Utihtes Electric Company to extend air construccon permit for Comanche Itak Unit 2. The Commission &smisacs the appeals as moot smtr the Ucence's substanual completion of Unit 2's construction obviates the need for any further extensionof de completion date under the construction permit One of the appeals is dismissed on the addnional ground of failure to perfect the appeal by fihng a bnef. The Commission also vacates the bcensing board decision below.

B Commission appellate practice has long stressed the necess ty of a trief. A nere recitation of an appellant's prior positions in a proceedmg or a statenrnt of his or ter general &sagreenent with a deciriors result is no subsatute for a brief that identifies and explains the errors of the Ucensing Board in the order below.

C The mootness doctnne derives from the " case" or " controversy" requirenrnt of anicle H1 of the Constitution. The Commission is not bound ty the case or controversy requuement, but generally follows I

the doctnne, absent the most compelhng reasons.

D Generally, a case will te moot when the issues are no longer " live," or die parties lack a cognizable interest in the outcome. The mootness doctnne apphes to all staFes of review, not merely to die time when a petioon is fded. Comequently, when effective erhef cannot be granted tecause of subsequent events, an appeal is dismissed as moot.

10

?.

4'

)

DIGESTS ISSUANCES Ol' TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E

A heensee's substantial completion us construction, lawfully undertaken during de pendency of petiooner's challenge to a construenon extension request, renders nmot any controversy over furtter r

extemion of de compledon date ie the construction pernut.

F Section 185 of tle AEA,42 U.S C.12235, estabbshes that a construction pernut will not expire and no rir. hts under de permit will be forfeited unless two circumstances are present: (1) the facility is not completed, and (2) the latest dme for completion has passed. If construction is conplete, not furder extension of de completion date is required.

G Commission regulations provide that the substantial completion of a facihty's cor.struction satisfies de AEA's requirements regarding congleuon of the facihty. See 10 Cf.R. il 50.56 and 50.57(a)(1)(1993).

H Gescrally,if a hcen ce hies an appbcanon for a new bcense for an activity previously authorned at least 30 days prior to the expiratma of the existing liceme, the existing beense will not be deened to have expired until the appheadon has been finally deternuned See 5 U.S C.1558(c)(1992); 10 C.F.R.

1 2.109.

I The fihng of a timely request for an extension of de congletion date nuuntains the construction pernut in face by operation of law and, accor&ngly, de hcensee ney lawfully continue construction activities pending a final deternunadon of its a;plicauon.

J The only quesuon litigable in a construction permit extension proceeding - whether de beensee has denumstrated " good cause" for de extension - is no longer of legal interest after tte licensee has lawfully completed construction under the permit and requires no further extension of de completion d.ne.

1 K

Proceedings on construction permit catensions are houted in scope to challenges to the licemec's asserted " good cause" for the extension, and are not an avenue to challenge a pen &ng operating liceme.

L A case may not be moot when de &spute is " capable of repetition, yet evading review." Southern Pacific Terminal Ca v. Interstate Commerce Commission,219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911). The exception applies only to cases in which the challenges action was in its duration too short to be litigated, and there is a reasonable expectadon that de same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.

C1193-ll TEXAS UTIUTIES E11CTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 2), Docket No. 50-446; OPERATING LICENSE; April 6,1993 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

The Comnussion dernes the modon of Pentioners 11. liene Orr and D.I. Orr for a stay in further construction of, and issuance of a full-power hcense for, Comanche Itak Unit 2. W Conunission finds that the Ittinoners are not parties to - and have not sought intervenuon in - the Unit 2 operaung bcense proceeding and notes that de construction permit amendment proceeding has been ternunated and that requests relaung to a stay of construcuan are therefore mom.

B Furthermore, the Comm nion summarity rejects the motion for intervention 61ed by R. Micky Dow and Sandra long Dow because it fails to address eider the 6ve factors for a late-61ed imervemion petition or the standing requirenents.

C Finally, the Commission considers ad denics, as a " Motion for Reconsideracon" and/or a " Motion to Hold in Abeyance," Petitioners

• request to stay CLi-93-10,37 NRC 192 (1993), and to stay issuance of de full-power hceme pen &ng judicial review of that crder ar.d de instant decision.

D A request fu a stay of an acuan is moot if the action has aircady been lawfully conpleted.

E Persons who are not parues to an operating Ecense procce&ng must petition for and be granted late intervenuon and reopening before they can move for a stay of issuance of the operating bcense.

F A petition for late imervention that does not address the 6ve factors in 10 Cf.R. 62.714(aXIKib(v) or the stan&ng requirenems in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(dXI) can be summarily rejected by the Commission.

G The Comnussion itself may delay or deny tie issuance of a hcense because of relevant safety problems - even if no formal proceedings under section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S C. I2239 are pen &ng.

H The provisions of 10 C.T.R.12788 apply only to requests for stays of decisions of the licensing teard, not decisions of de Comnussion itself. A request for a stay of a previous Commission decision and a stay of the issuance of a full-power license pen &ng judicial review is more properly enntled a " Motion for Reconsideration" and/or a " Motion to Hold in Abeyance."

l I

The Commission can fmd that construction of a nuclear power plant has been properly completed j

without resolving alleganons of irregularity relaung to its construction where a review of the plead ngs in& cates that Petiooners have not in fact alleged that construction deficiencies actually exist.

11 l

I i

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

a J

The proper method of raisina a challenge to the issuance of an operating bcense is to 61e a petinon for imervenoon in the operating hceme proccesling.

CLI 93-12 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UIILITY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generabng Station),

Docket No. 50-312-DCOM, DECUMMISSIONING; May 26,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

ne Commission denies Sacranento Municipal Utility Distnct's motion for reconsideration of CLI-93-3, in which the Commission gramed the Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization 1

discretionary intervention, adnutted one contention, and pernuned amendnrntef another in a proceeding to consider a proposed order approvmg a deconmissiomng plan for, and authorizing decommissioning of.

l the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generatmg Statmn.

B

%e Commission has the authority to grant imervenuon, as a nuuter of escretion, pursuant to the Corunnssion's authoriry to hold leanngs and to pernut participation in its proceedings.

C he Commission rejects an argunent raised for the 6rst time in a motion for reconsideration as a basis for reconsideintion of its admission of a contenuon.

D he provisions of 10 Cf.R.12.714(bX2Xiii) with respect to the 61ing of contentions based on

&fferen::es terween data and conclusions in the Staff's environnental review documents and the licensee's or applicant's environmemal report are not intended to add or remove from consideration any factor to be balanced in the deterrmnation of the admissibility of a late-Eled contemion under 10 CJ.R I2.714(a).

E late-filed comentions, including those filed on subsequemly issued NRC environmental review documents, are subject to the late-6 led critena set out in 10 Cf.R. I 2.714(aXIXi)-(v).

F Even without a showing that the Staff's environnemal review docunents signi6cantly effer from the applicant's environmental report, a petiuoner may be able to meet late 41ed contemion requirenrnts, e g., by presenung signi6 cant new evidence not previously available.

G A showing that de Staff's environmemal review documems signi6 candy differ from the apphcant's environmental report, although ord narily suf6ciem to show good cause for lateness, is not in itself suf6cies to make an environmemal contention admissible, because the petitioner must still meet the other criteria in 10 C.FA $ 2.714(a).

H A generic environnental impact statenem on decomnussioning cannot be categorized as an "applicam's document" for purposes of 10 C F.R. 6 2.714(bX2Xiii).

CU-93-13 ONCOI.DGY SERVICES CORPORATION, Docket No. 30 31765-EA (Suspension Order)

(Byproduct Material License No. 37-28540-01L ENFORCEMENT ACTION; June 4,1993; MEMORAN-DUM AND ORDER A

ne Commission grams Oncology Services Corpnrauon's petrtion for review of LBP-934,37 NRC 172 (1993), which granted in part the Nuclear Regulatory Co.nmission Staff's motion for delay of this enforcenent proceeding. However, because it was likely that de stay would expire before the Commirsion could provide any relief, if warranted, to the Licensee on the petition, de Commission took the unusual step of directing the Ucensing Board to refer to de Commission any ruling granting an additional stay of the procee&ng.

B Revew of an interlocutory order will be gramed if one of tir enteria in 10 Cf.R.12.786(g)is satis 6ed.

C Satisfaction of one of the criteria in tecnon 2.786(bX4) is not mandatory in order to obtain imerlocutory review. The Commission may consider de enteria listed in section 2.786(bX4) when reviewing interlocutory matters on the scrits, but when determining whether to undertake such review, the standards in section 2.786(g) control the Commission's determinanon.

CLI-93-14 RANDAll C. OREM, D O., Docket No. 30 31758-EA (Byproduct Materials Uceme No. 34-26201-01). ENFORCEMENT ACTION; June 4,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

The Commission reviews a seulenent agreement between the Ucensee and the NRC Staff, which was approved by the Licensing Board in LBP 92-18, 36 NRC 93 (1992). Ahhough the Commissioe

[

i capresses reservations with respect to aspects of the agreement, the Commission determines to permit die agreenent to take effect. De Commission also re-enphasizes de inportance of applicants' and licensees' obligation to submit complete and m: curate informanon and reiterates de Commission's longstandmg i

interpretation of materialinformanon under the Atomic Energy Act. Onirman Selin and Commissioner i

I Curtiss &sapprove the order in part.

12 l

1 4

I i

1 j

l

.~.

o L

t L

1 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUC1JMR REGULA1 DRY COMMISSION B

Tim Commission in dependent on heensees and applicams for accurate information to assist the Comunsion in carrying out its regulatory responsibilities and expects nothing less than full candar from

(

heensees and appbcants.

C Under section 186a of de Atonne Energy Act and de Commission's implenenting regulations.

the materiahty of information " depends upon whether information has a natural tendency or capabihty to influence a reasonable aFerry expert" Virginia Dectric and Power Ca (North Anna Power Stanon, Uruts I and 2), CLI-7622. 4 NitC 480 (1976), aff*d. 571 F.2d 1289 (4th Or.1978).

D The Comnussion need not rely on a false statenrnt in order for it to te material, not must de statenrnt in fact induce the agency to grant an apphcanon E

The nature (e g., physical attributes and capabiblics) and the status of an apphcant's pmposed facihty are matenal narters in a decision whether to grant a radioacave byproduct materials beenne.

F Even if an appbcant turns to a consultant to help prepare a license apphcation, sie appbcant renuuns esponsible for the contents of the apphcation.

G Despite its reservanons about aspects of a settienent agreement, the Commission d<es not 6nd de agreement to be, on balance, against tie public imerest.

a e

{

l m3 i

1 i

n

i 1

l I,

l l

l l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF 11IE A10%11C SAFETT AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-93-1 PACillC GAS AND 11ILTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuckar Power Plant, Units I and l

2), Docket Nos, 54275-OLA-2,54323-OLA-2 (ASLBP No. 92-6694%OLA-2) (Construenon Itried Re-i covery) Gacihty Operaung Ucense Nos. DPR-80, DPR-82)- OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Jan-l nary 21,1993. PREHEAPJNG CONFERENCE ORDER (Ruhng upon Intervention Itution and Authorir.mg i

lleanng)

A 11e Ucensing Board grants tte request for a heanng/petinon for leaw to iutervene of a pedtioner in a poceedmg concerning the proposed estension of operating bccmes to recover or recapture into those d

beenses the period of construction of the reactors.

l B

To establish stan&ng, a petitioner must demonstrate that it has suffered or will suffer " injury in j

fact " that the injury falls within the zone of imerests sought to be potected by tir statutes bemg enforced, a

and that the injury is redressable by a favorable decision in the puceedmg. Pubhc Service Co. of New l

Hampshire (Seabrook Stadon. Unit 1), CI191-14, 34 NRC 261,266-67 (1991).

l C

A demonstration of " injury in fact" must te actual but reed not te mobstannat Houston Lighting i

and Power Co. (South Tesas Project, Units 1 and 2). LDP-79-10, 9 NRC 439,447-48 (1979), aff'd. ALAB-549,9 NRC 644 (1979). The incrernental nsk of reactor operation for an ad&6onal 12-15 years is sufficiem l

to invoke rir resumption of injury in fact for persom resident from 10 to 20 nmes from de facihty. To require a direct showing would in effect emasculme the hearmg procedures t y offering a learing that could not in fact hkely be obtained Nordern Indiana Pubhc Service Co. (Bainy Genernung Station, Nuclear-1).

ALAB-619,12 NRC 558,564 (1980).

D A troup does not have stan&ng to assert the imerest of plant workers, wtere it has no such u~irkers among its menbers.

E The Comnussson's revised contenuon rule, which "raiseld] the threshold" for tte sutumssion of comentions, has been held vahd on its face, altteugh suscepuble to misapplicanon so as irapmperly to deny l

l the admissibihty of contendons raising naterial issues. Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC,920 l'.2d 50 (D.C. Cir.1990L F

Tim scope of review for construcuan period recapture pocce&ngs may be bmader than that for license renewal, inasmuch as tir Conumssion issued a rrw ruk (10 CJ.R. Part 54) for hccme renemal specihcally spelbng out and hmiting tir scope of such pmceedmgs.

I G

Ewn though a heense anendnent request is filed many years prior to its actual need, it will not be Jeened premature wtere there is no specihed appucation period However, ariy con &tions found necessary will be applied as of the date of tte licensing board's fmal decision or (assuming that tte board does not I

bar the amendnents) of tte bcense amendnrnt, wluchrver comes later.

H Alttrugh the 10 Cf.R. 6 2.206 forum may te technically available for a peu6oner that wistra l

to assert operanonal problems,it is not tir esclusive forum Where operanonal issues are relevam to a j

[

recapture pmceedmg, tiry may also be raised in that pmcee&ng. Moreowr, the heanng rights available l

thmugh a section 2.206 petition are scarcely equivident to, and not an adequate subsetute for, tranng rights available in a Lcensing proceedmg See Wastungton Pubbc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project l

No. 3), ALAB 747,18 NRC 1167,1175-77 (1983).

1 1

in a construction penod recapture proceedmg, implememation of mmmenance and surveillance pmgrams may be challenged, even though tir paper pograms are not bemg mosfed irrespeenve of how compretensive a p ogram may appear on paper. it will be essentia!!y without value unless it is einely, conunuously, and properly implernemed l

l 15 I

l 1

l 1

l l

\\

l C.

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TERE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS J

Numerous, repetiuous cited violations or other incidenis may form de basis im a contenuon questionmg the adequacy of a maintenance or surveillana program, even though none of de individual violations or oder incidents nses to the kvel of a menous safety issue. When sufhcient repetitive or smilar incidents are demonstrated, aggregation and/or escalation of sanctions may be in order.

j K

la proving its claim, a petitioner is nct hmned to the specific facts rehed on to haw its contenuon accepted, as long as de a&htional facts are material to the contention.

L The " ironclad obligation" of a peutioner to esanune pubhcly available docunentary evidence in support of its contentions applies only to informauon in support of a contention. A requirenrnt also to enamine contrary publicly available docunentary evidence would unduly exacerbate the considerable threshold that a petiooner nest already rmet under the current revised contention rules.

M A contention attempting to raise an issue of the lack of long-term spent fuel storage is baned as a rnatter of law from operanng bceme and operating license amendnrat proceedmgs.10 CIA 16 51.23(a).

51.53(a).

N

'De Commission has knuted the scope of htigation on emerEency preparedness exerenes to a consideration of whrder de resuha of an exercise indicate that energency plans are fundanentally named.

O A contention challenging the appropriateness of a *no sigsfacant hazards consderauon" findmg of f

de NRC Staff is outside the Board's jmisdiction. It is solely within tir province of de Staff.10 CIA 150.58(bX6)

P in a situation where an Environmental Impact Statenrnt (EIS)is neader required nor categorically excluded, a contention seeking an EIS, filed prior to de Staff's issuance of an Environnental Assessment (EA),is premature. After Staff issuance of an EA, a late-filed contention may be submitted (assuming de EA does not call for an EIS).

LBP-93-2 GE0LTECH ASSOCIATES. li!C. (Geo-Tech laboratories,43 South Avenue, Fanwood, New Jersey 07023), Docket No. OB20693-EA (ASLBP No.93-670-01-EA)(Materials License No. 241822205 02);

I'NIORCEMENT ACTION; February 1,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Ucrnunating Proceedmg)

LBP-93-3 UDUISIAN A ENERGY SERVICIS, L.P. (Claiborne Enrichnrat Center), Docket No. 70L3070 ML (ASLBP No. 91-641412-ML) (Special Nucker Materials Ucense); MATERIALS UCENSE; February 2.

1993-MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Applicant's Motion to Compel Discovery)

A Intenogatones that seek the discheure of the factual bases and legal requirements that underhe comentions consutute pmper discovery of the intervenor so long as the interrogatories do not seek the "nratal impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal draries of an attorary or other representative of a pany concerning de procee&ng" B

A party objecting to a discovery inquest on the basis that the inforrnation is protected by the attorney work product pnvilege bas the burden of establishing that the materials are protected by 10 CIA (2.740(bX2). A nere assertion that de information withheld consututes attorney work product is insufficient to nuet the objector's burden of establistung the attornry work product privilege.

LDP-93-4 BABOOCK AND WIlf0X (Apollo, Penmylvania Fuel Fabncation facihty), Docket No. 70-135-DCOM (ASLEP No. 92-667-03.DODM)(Materials Uceme No. SNM-145), DECOMMISSIONING; i

February 5,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Heanng Request and Terrainating Proceed-ing)

A Ruhng on de request of five in&vidual Petitioners for an informal hearing to contest licensee Babcock & Wilcon's anendnrnt application seeking agency approval of its proposed decommissioning plan for its Apollo, Fenmylvania fuel cycle facihty, de Presieng Officer denies the Fentioners' hearing request for lack of staning and terminates the proceceng.

B The Conunission has chosen to apply contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing to ascertain who. under section 189afi) of de Atonne Energy Act (AEA),42 U.S.C. I 2239(aXI), is a

• person whose interest may be affected by de proceeding" so as to te enutled to a heanng regar&ng a hcensing acuan.

See, e g., Sacranento Municipal Utility Distnct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generadng Station) QJ-92-2,35 NRC 47,56 (1992); Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) CLI-76 27, 4 NRC 610,61314 (1976).

C To sausfy these judicial standards, a prospective party must show (1) that it could suffer an actual "mjury in fact" because of de Lcensing procee&ng, and (2) that its interest arguably is withm tir

• zone of 16 i

+

i i

l DIGFSI'S ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICI'.NSING BOARDS interests" to be protected by the pertinent statutes under which de pestioner seeks to challenge the bcensing action See, e.g., Rancho Seco CW.92,2,35 NRC at 56; XYbble Spnngs, C13 76 27,4 NRC at 611 D

The imec componems of the injury in fact requirement are injury, cause, and remedial tenefit See Valley Ivrge Chnsban College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & Sutte, Inc.,454 U.S.

464,472 (1982), Sm generally 13 Charles A. Wright, et al Federal Practim and Procedure il3531.4.6 (2d ed 1984). The showing necessary to satisfy esse elements recently has been characterized as follows:

• Alsough variously described, the asserted injury must te %stinct and palpable' ant' 'particular landi concrete' as opposed to being ** conjectural.. l ] bypothetical,'" or ' abstract." T e injury need not already have occuned but when future harm is asserted, it must be ' threatened,' **cre.sinly ingenang.'"

and '"realimd imnediate.'" Addmormhy, there must be a causal nesus terweet it e asserted injury and the challenged acton. In other words, the alleged hurm must have 'resulted' in a ' concretely demonstrable way' from the claimed infractions. Tiere must also le a sufficient causal connection tetween the alleged harm and the requested rernedy so that de complaining party 'standls] to profit in some personal imerest."'

Cleveland Electric Bluminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plam, Unit I). LBP-92-4, 35 NRC 114.121 i

(1992) (footnotes omitted). See also 1.mjan v. Defenders of Wildhfe,119 L Ed. 2d 351,364 (1992).

I E

When a pentiorer is challengmg sne legabry of goveranent reguladon of sonrone else, injury an fact as it relates to factors of causation and redressability is *arenarily 'substantially more difficult

• to estabhsh" Imjan,119 L Ed. 2d at 365 (quoting Allen v. Wright,468 U.S. 737,758 (1984); Simon v.

Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rightr, Orgamzauan,426 U.S. 26,44-45 (1976); and Warth v. Sel&n,422 U.S.

490, 505 (1975)).

F A hearing petitioner hears the burden of estabbshing that de vanous injunes alleged to oocur to its AEA-pmtected health and safety interests or in Nanonal Environmental Phlicy Act (NEPA)-pmtected 3

environmentalinterests satisfy ate trine componems of er injury in fact requirement. See Itrry. LBP-92-4 35 NRC at 120. See aho Imjan,119 L Ed 2d at 364.

G For purposes of assessing injury in fact (or any other aspect of standing), a hearing peuboner's factual assertions,if uncontroverted, must te accepted. Sec. e.g.,Imjan,119 L Ed. 2d at 364-65, Pentell v City of San Jose,485 U.S.1,7 (1988).

H In evaluating a pentioner's claims of injury in fact, car must te taken to avoid "the famihar trap of confusing the stan&ng determination with the assessment of peutioner's case on the trents." City of Ims Angeles v. National Eghway Traffic Safety Administration,912 F.2d 478,495 (D.C. Cir.1990) (citations omiued), cert. denied,117 L Ed. 2d 460 (1992).

t In tir face of comraverung factual submissions made by de hansee and the NRC Staff, it is appropnate, in a manner akin to a summary &sposinon determination, to undertake a ments-type evaluation

(

of the sufhciency of factual bases for a hearing peudoner's claims of standing. See Consuners Power Co.

'i (Midland Plant, Units I and 2A LDP-78-27,8 NRC 275,277 n 1 (1978). See also 13A Wright, et al., supra, 5 3531.15, at 97-99.

J To estabbsh standing in NRC bcensing adju& canons, petitioners often seek to rely upon proxinuty j

to a bcensed facihty, particularly under what is commonly referred to as the " fifty-mile rule." This so called

• rule " dich is more in the nature of a presumpuon. is denved from a sinng of commercial power reactor adjuscatory determinations. The common thread in these decisions is a recognition of the potential effects at sigmficant & stances imm or facihty of tir accidema; release of fissionable materials. 7hrough their rehance on this singular factor, these cases now stand for de general proposition that a pentioner living withm approximately fifty miles of a commercial power reactor willle considered to have the requisite infury in fact for standing to contest a request for issuana of a facihty construccon permit, an clerating bcense, or an amendnent to such a pernut or hceme that has obvmus and potemially wide-ranging offsite

~

radelogical comequences. See, e.g., Florida Power & IJght Co. (St. Luc e Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL149-21,30 NRC 325,329-30 (1989); Gulf States Utihties Co. (River Bend Station, Units I and 2), ALAB.183,7 AEC 222,223-26 (1974).

K The Commission has made it clear that the

• fifty-mile" presumption utihred for comnercial power reactors does not a; ply in materials hmnaing actions. Instead, a pronorer most show,in accordanz with 10 C.F.R. 8 2.1205(g), what par 6chlar impact er planned limnsmg schon will have upon its legitimate (e.g., health, safety, or envuonnemal)imerests. See 54 Fed. Reg. 8269, 8272 (1989). 7herefore, to meet the burden of proving that it has the requisite injury in fa:t, a pentioner in a materials hcensing procee&ng 17 t,

--w

--+y-r+

-se---

r7 wr

.-W'-

i i

i DIGESTS i

I ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS i

nmst pmvide some evijence of a causal hnk between or & stance it resides from tir facihty and injury to its kgmmate incrests.

L Dy its terms. NEPA im;mses procedural rader than substantive constraints upon an agency's decisionnakmg pincess: Tir state.c requires only that an agency undertake an appropnate assessnrnt of de environnental impacts o ses action without mandating that de agency reach any parbcular result r

concerning that acuon. See

• g., Robertson v Methow Wiley Ciuzens Council,490 U.S. 332,350 (1989) i M

De Supreur "J.ourt has recognized that de procedural rights accorded a person by a statute such as NEPA are acewed "special" comiderauon alu n deciding whether dere has been injury in fact regareng thoe.;gnts. Injury in fact to those procedural rights can be successfully estabhshed with a less rigorous showing on tir normal injury in fact eierrents of redres6 ability and imnediacy. See Lujan,119 L Ed.

2d at 372 n.7 (person kving near dam site may be able to challenge environnentalimpact staienent (US) relating to dam hcense even though unable to estabbsh with certainry that the EIS will cause beense to be withheld or ahered and despile de fact elam will not be completed for many years). This relaxation does not, however, extend to de requirenent that a peutioner umst suffer sone concrete injury imm de proposed agency action, wluch still omst be shown apart from any interest in having de procedures observed. See id.

at 372 n.8, cf. Rancho Seco. CU-92-2,35 NRC at 60 61 (alleged " informational injury"is of" questionable t

value" as basis for standing to challenge failure to prepare adequate US).

N Assuming that the Peutioners' claims regar&ng injury to economic interests (e g., property values, local tax revenues) as a result of licerned activities are cognizable in this proceeding, the Petitioners

• formulation of their concerns in terms of undefmed economic injury to the local cornmunity as a whole fails to address the question most relevant to drir stan&ng to parucipaic, i.e., what is the economic injury cach of them would suffer.

(

O If a heanng pentioner dcra not request permission to intervene in a pmceeding as a matter of i

discreuon, see Pebble Springs, CU-76-27,4 NRC at 61417, it is not necessary to determine whether it could te aff<rded such intervention.

LEP-93-5 GEORGIA PO4T.R COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle Dectric Generating Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos 50 424-OLA-3,50L425-OLA-3 (ASLBP No.93-671-01-OIA-3)(Re: Ucense Anendment)(Transfer to Southern Nuclear). OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMFNfi February 18, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Admitting a Party)

A The itensing Board grants de intervemion peution of a person who hves 7 days per month in a houre located 35 miles from a nuclear power plant in a license arrendernt case. Ucemee sougtd thmugh I

the anendnent to transfer operating authonty over its plant to a new operating company. Petitioner alleged e

i that the new operaung company lacked the character and competence to operam the plant.

B Umnsee and the Staff argued that relief could not be granted because denial of the requested amendment would not solve the alleged pmblem, which relates to in&viduals involved both in the new operaung company and in the present company. The Board reasoned that stan&ng can be based on alleging that de transfer of operating authority would violare regulatmy reqmrenants for character and competence et operators of nuclear pact plants, and it also ruicd that standing to intervene cannot be destroyed because the alleged problem may also affect the current operations of the plant.

C In a Ucene amendnrnt case involving allegations of managenent's lack of tir required character and competence, there is an obvious potenual for offsite consequences, so standing is analogous to that in an operating license case. Piorida Power & Ught Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2),

(11-89-21,30 NRC 325 (1989).

D in a heense anrndnent case involving allegations of the unfitness of management, there is an obvious potemial for offsite consequences, so standing is analogous to that in an operating license case.

Flonda Power & Ught Co. (St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Ututs I and 2), CLI-89-21,30 NRC 325 (1989).

j Comequently, standing was granted to a petitioner who bved 35 miles from the nuclear power plant for 7 l

days per nuntit E

The hmnse to operate a nudcar power plant may only te transferred to a company that has de necessary character and competence to provide an adequate assurance of safety dirough its managenent practices.

18

I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS l

F A comennon was adnutted that alleged Gud a hcemed operator of a nuclear power plant had improperly abenated control of its plant without wntten approval from the NRC he Board said that this might adversely reflect on tir character and competence of de individuals who took control of the plant i

G A contenbon may he udnutted to the proceeding in satisfacuan of tir contentions requirement af it alleges adverse facts. not included in the amendnrnt application, that would enutic peutioner to rehef.

LBP 93-6 ONCOIDGY SERVICES CORPORATION, Docket No. 03431765-EA (ASLBP No.93-674 EA) (EA 93-006) (Order Suspending Byprod.act Material License No. 37-28540-01); ENIORCEMENT ACTION, March 26,1993. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granung in Part NRC Staff Motion to Delay i

Proceeding; Requmng Submission of Staff Status Report and Joint Pretraring Report)

A in response to an NRC Staff motion for a 120 day delay in conducting a license suspension I

procee&ng, the Ucensing Board orders discovery stayed for the requested penod.

B in deternuning wheder to delay the conduct of an enforcenent hearing pursuant to 10 CF.R.

5 2.202(cX2Xii), the appropriate focus for the seguired " good cause" determination is the guidehnes set forth by de Supreme Court in United States v. Dght Thousand Eight Hundred and lifty Dollars (58,850)in United States Cunency,461 U.S. 555 (1983). As descrited by the Court, dus test " involves a weighing of four factors: length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice i

to de defendant." Id. at 564 i

C De first two delay factors - length of the delay and the reason for the delay - are closely selated.

As the Court poimed out in 58.850, short delays need less jurufication than long delays. See id at 565.

j D

he issue of " probable cause" is a relevant factor in considering a licensee's assertion under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.202(cX2Xi) diat their is not sufficiem evidence to support de inmediate effectiveness of a Staff j

enforcenent order. See 57 Fed. Reg. 20,194, 20,196 (1992). Cir.arly, however, in determining +ther j

there are adequate grounds for regulatory action, a Ucensing Board is nor called upon to raess a limnsee's pornual cnnunal culpability relating to that action. By the sane token, the Board's responsibility under secuan 2.202(-X2Xii) to determine whether a delay in an enforcemets prucce&ng is appropriate does not carry with it the responsibility to render an independent judgnent about the " probable cause" for any crinunal proceedmg put forth as a basis for that delay. Thus, sechan 2.202(cX2Xii) does not sanction such a Board " probable cause" evaluation.

E Relative to the third delay factor - the licensce's assertion of its right to a heanng - notwith-standmg an earlier failure to challenge the basis for the immc& ate effectiveness of a Staff suspension orAr, a beensee's vigorous pmtest about any delay in a procce&ng puts this elemeta on tir licemee's side of de balance.

F he final component of the balancing process - injury to the licensee - can te defineal to encompass not only injury to the licensee, but harm to others that it asserts will be affected by the delay.

G A Ucensing Board must tred the Commission's admomtion to monitor any delay in an ertforcement procee&ng to ensure that

• good cause" for the delay conunues to caist. See 57 Fed Reg. at 20,197, his requirement is a recogation that, from de tine an order is hrst emered granting an enforcena:nt hearing delay request, the balance then in favor of delay begins an inesorable reversal until at some point, tir balance will tilt in favor of going forward with the adnunistrative tranag. h is t!r Board's duty to ascertain, as precinely as it can, wtre de balance swings in favor of going forward with the procee&ng.

H Tim Commission's statenent of considerations regarding the adoption of 10 CF.R. ( 2.202(cX2Xii) does not suggest that any &sunction termeen stare and federal criminal proceedings is selevant in terms of a " good cause" determination to delay an enforcement hearing. See 57 Fed. Reg. at 20,197.

LBP-93-7 UMETCO MINERALS CORPORATION, Docket No. 40-08681-MLA (ASLBP No. 92 666 MLA)(Source Material Ucense No. SUA-1358); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; April 12,1993, INITIAL DECISION A

It is settled procedure, however, that guidelines, let alone proposed guidelines as involved lere, are not protected from confrontauon. Unlike regulanons, they merely present acmptable nethods of meeting regulatory requirenents and are sutgeet to questioning in adjudicatory heanngs. Metropohtan Edison Co.

(hree Mile Island Nuclear Strdon, Unit 1), ALAL-698,16 NRC 1290,1299 (1982).

B Subjects for future liceme amendnent consideranon are not matters that can be considered for adjudicahon. Carohna Power and Ught Co. (Slearon Harns Nuclear Power Plsnt, Units 1,2,3, and 4),

CLI-8012,11 NRC 514,51617 (1980).

19

_ ~

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF 'IllE ATOMIC SAITIT AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-93-8 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle Dectric Generating Plant, Units I and 2L Docket Nos. S424 0LA-3, S0 425-OLA-3 (ASLBP No.93-671-01-OLA 3)(Re: Umnse Anradnent,Tran.fer to Southern Nuclearl; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; April 21.1993. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Stay Request and on Scheduhng)

J A

he Board denied Apphcant's request for a stay of discovery, En&ng that all four factors in 10 a

CJ R. 5 2.788(e) were adverse to de request. Appbcam's ground for irreparable injury, that it was also facmg an enforcenem investigation and that the discovery obligations would disiulvnntage it, was found j

wanung.

4 B

Tir Board estabbsted a scledule for &scovery that provided a brief delay while de Comnussion i

I considered Apphcant's appeal. It also deternuned that Apphcant's ofhcials, whose conversations had twen surreptinously taped by intervennr pnnr to this btigation, should not be deposed until after dry had reviewed de taped conversations. Intervenor was asked to request the return to him of a copy of the tapes that he had given to a congressional comnutta. The purpose of the request was to permit Applicant to discover the tapes, which otherwise are only in the hands of the Offim of Investigation and de Congress and may l

1 be subject to objecuons to &acovery.

C Discovery in a license amendnent case does not cause irreparable injury to Appbcant because it is sutsect to a conunuing civilinvestigation. The Board said that there would not even be irreparable inhury if there were a Grand Jury inquiry.

i d

D he Board apphed de principles of 10 CJ.R. 5 2.788(c) and denied the request for a stay.

E Pursuant to authonty granted by 10 CJ.R. 5 2.718, the Board deferred depositicos of Appbcam's ofhcers until after dry could review estensive audio tapes that had been surreptitiously made rd their conversations prior to this litigation. The Board thought that, since Intervenor already had this extensive evidence that it had assembled informally, fairness requires that Ocensee have a chana to review this potenually adverse evidence before its officers undergo formal depositions.

i LBP-93-9 PACIFIC GAS AND DJf!RIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2). Docket Nos. S275-OLA-2,50 323-OIA-2 (ASLBP No. 92-669-03-OLA-2)(Construction Penod

)

Recovery)(Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80, DPR-82); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; June 17,1993. PRDIEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (Late-Filed Contentions and Discovery)

A in a procec&ng concerning de proposed estension of operaung bcenses to recover or recapture into those licenses de penod of construction of the reactors, the Licensing Board denies duee late-filed contentions (ahhough permittmg certain aspects of those contenuons to be htigated under a previously

]

accepted contention), rules on vanous &acovery monons, and sets schedules for the procce&ng.

B In ruling on late-filext comentions, a licensing board is required to determine whether the contennon nrets appbcable contenuon requirenents, as set forth in 10 CJ.R. 5 2.714(b) and (d), and, in addition, whether the proponent of the contention has satisfied the late 61ed criteria set forth in 10 Cf.R. I 2.714(a)(1).

A hansing board need not address tirse considerations in any particular order, ahhough both are required for admissibihty of a late-filed comention C

he late-filed factors ce not equally weighted, nor do all have to be evaluated favorably to de propotem of a late-61ed comention for the contenuon to be admitted. Good cause for late filing has been described as the most significant, but all 6ve must be considered. Absent a showing of good cause for late filing, a stronger showing must be made on de other factors.

D Pnor to the Staff's issuance of an Environmemal Assessment determining whether an Environriental Impact Statenrnt need be prepared. it is premature to enteruun a comention calhng for issuance of an EIS.

E A d cision under 10 CJ.R. I 2.206 on a request for a show-cause order is no more than a decision of an NRC Division Director. It is not subject to appellate review at the trhest of a pany, either before the Commission or a Court of Appeals. It thus does not consutute an adjudicatory decision under section IB9b of de Atonne Energy Act of 1954. as anended. 42 U.S.C.12239(b), and would not ever: bar the petitioser from seeking rehef before NRC in an adju&catory forum. were one available.

F The bare pendency of an investiganon does not reflect that flere is a substantive problem, that dere has been any violation, or that there even exists an outstanding sigm6 cam safety issue and, accor&ngly, cannot serve as valid bases for a contennon.

20 l

J

?

.-e._

4 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS G

Repons prepared by the insutuie for Nuclear Power Operahons (INPO) are not privileged in de tradinonal sense but, rather, are subject to nondisclosure under de Freedom of Informahon Act. Wiether C one reports may be released to a party in litigation (possibly subject to a protecove order) depends on naeting entena spelled out in 10 Cf.R. I 2.790(b)(4).(6).

H Discovery against the NRC Staff is subject to &fferent standards than would be applicable between other parues.10 Cf.R.12.720(h). Availabihty of informanon in the NRC Pubhc Docunent Room will har discovery of the information.

l 1

De following iecimical % sues are escussed: Maimenance and surveillance programs, Vermo-

]

Lag insu?ation.

LBP-93-10 ONCOLOGY SERVICES CORIORATION, Docket No. 3431765-EA (ASWP No.93-674 EA)(EA WOO 6)(Order Suspening Byproduct Matenal Ucense No. 37-28540 01); ENIORCEMENT ACTION; Juw 23,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granung in Patt NRC Staff Motion to Delay Procec&ng; R quinng Submission of Staff Status Report; Cerufymg Question to de Comnuuion)

A In response to an NRC Staff motion for an additional delay in conducting a Ecense suspension

]

proceeding, the Licensing Board orders &scovery stayed for unery days and, at de &reenan of the l

Commission, certifies the question whether the procee&ng should be delayed further.

B Ahhough a Ucensing Board decision to delay a procee&ng in light of ongoing NRC Staff and

]

state investigations la nra appealabic, see 10 Cf.R. 5 2.730(fL under the agency's longstan&ng rules and i

practice governing review of interlocutory maners that determination or, ahernatively, sie issues presented j

by that ruling could cane before the Commission (1) by de Board's discretionary referral of that ruling i

to ate Comnussion, see id. il2.730(fL 2.786(g),(2) by &scretionary Board cerufication of a question on any issues (decided or undecided) relating to that ruhng or by the Comminion's direction that de Board i

cerufy a quesuon to it relative to such issues, see id il 2.718(i),1786(g); or (3) by the Comnussion taking review of that ruhng or issues relating to that ruhng in accordance with its plenary power to oversee the l

co: duct of agency adiu& canons, see Pubbc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CL1-77-8,5 NRC 503,515-17 0977).

C De

• good cause" prevision of 10 C.FA 5 2.202(c)(2)(ii) incorporates a balancing test described by de Suprene Court in United States v. Eight nousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,850) in United States Currency,461 U.S. 555,564 09831, as entaihng *a weighing of four factors: length of delay, the reason for the delay, tte defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to de defendant." See j

GP-93-6,37 NRC 207,213-14 0993).

D The first two delay factors -length of de delay and de reason for the delay - are closely relaird.

As the Court pointed out in $8,850,461 U.S. as Sti5, short delays need leu justification than long delays.

E ne potentially deleterious impact of a civil adju& cation on an ongoing investigation and any crim-inal prosecution that could follow has generally been recog'uzed as a factor nerating serious consideration in determining wtetter delay of de civil procee&ng is appropnate. See LDP-93-6,37 NRC at 214. See also United States v. Premises bx:ated at Route 13,946 F.2d 749,755Olth Cir.1991); United States v.

Ivrty-Seven nousand Nine Hundred Dghty Dollars ($47,980)in Canadian Currency,804 F.2d 1085,1089 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied,481 U.S.1072 0987).

F To obta n an investigauon-related delay of an agency adju& cation, besides provi&ng the Board with an adequate explanauon of the reasons why an ongomg investigation will be inpaired without a delay in the procee&ng, the Staff nmst make a credible showmg that it is attempting so completc its investiganon expeditiously. So long as that informanon is in hand, de Board's duty to momtor any delay generally i

does not reqmre that it engage in overseeing the precise details of etactly how the Staff is employing its imesuganve resources and whether its efforts are mecung with succeu.

t G

A heenu(s challenge to a Staff request to delay a proceeding is not an appropriate forum for j

htiganng the licensce's potential cnminal liability vis a-vis an ongoing investigation. See LDP-93-6,37 1

NRC at 216.

H Relauwe to de third delay factor - the beenwe's assertion of its nght to a hearmg - a licensee's pmtest about any delay in a p ocee&ng puts this element on de hcemee's side of de balance. Nonetheless, i

a licensee's failure to invoke the 10 CIA $ 2.202(cK2)(i) procedure to challenge a suspension order's l

inme& ate effecsveness, and thereby availitself of an important ogyortumty to avoid a significant portion j

1 21

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF T1IE ATOMIC SAIITY AND LICENSING BOARDS of the harm asserted as the ovem&ng ground far denying a Staff & lay sequest, senders de support dus factor provides hmited, at best, 1

A Limmng Board has a general duty to travutor dune Staff acevities that are posited as a basis for delaying a proceeding to ensure that er Staff is proceedng in good faith and to nurumize tir effects of any delay. See LBP-934,37 NRC at 22421.

LBP-93-11 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. et al. (Vogtle Electric Genermung Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos 50 4244LA 3,50-4250LA-3 (ASLBP No.934714)l-OLA-3) (Re: license Anendment; Transfer to Southern Nuclear). OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; June 24.1993. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Order to Mr. Mosbaugh to Release Six Tapes)

A The licensing Board determined that Six Tapes, which were compiled at the drection of an attorney from 277 taped conversations, were not entitled to te potected from discovery because tiry are either artorney work product or subject to attorney-chent privilege.

B

%e Licensing Board apphed NRC's &scovery rules regar&ng Gr work product doctrine, as act I

out in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(bX2). It went through each of the enteria of 8e rule and systematically deternuned I

that there were several reasons that the Six Tapes were not pnvileged. Tir Board also reviewed case law precedents relevant to tir interpretation of de segulatory enteria.

I

)

l l

1 l

l

}

O 4

4 1

T

)

22 4

- - ~

• sn-

.w.,y

_ " ' ~ ---. __ __, j

I l

1 I

l l

DIGFSIS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISION DD-931 TEXAS UTILITIES 12.ECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Comancie Peak Sicam Dectric Stanon, Units I and 2k Docket Nos. 54445, 50 446; REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 15, 1993 DIRECTOR'S DEC!SION UNDER 10 CIA (2206 A

The Dnector of the Offu:e of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes a gration filed by Michael D.

Rohn on behalf of the Nanonal Wtustleblowers Center and certam confidental allegert 'De Petioon alleged that: (1) Tesas Utibties Dectne Company (TUEC or Ucensee) made nuter;al false statenrnts before the Atonne Safety and utensing Board (ASLB) durmg hearmga on WEC's apphcation for an operaung turnse in order to conceal sigmlicant safety flaws in the design for pipe support systenu at Comanche Peak Steam Dectne Stauon (CPSES); namely. that in violation of 10 CJ.R. Part 50 Appemha B. TUEC transferred pipe support packages fur review and cerufication between pi;r suppnrt design gro,ps that ased different, i

muluple design entena; (2) WEC's material false statemems delayed construcuan of CPSES Unit I and tims l

were germane to a contention in a related proceedmg that TUIC had intentmnally delayed construcuon of l

CPSLS Unit 1; (3) TUEC, Catuens Association for Sound Energy (CASE), and tie NRC Staff dehterately wittdeld information from the ASLB about er transfer of pipe support reviews letween pipe support i

design groups; and (4) WEC employees responsibic for making matenal false stateness to the NRC continue to perform critical engincenng and quabty assurance tasks at CPSES. Petitioners requested that the NRC provide the following rehef: (1) hold licensing heanngs to deterrmne wirther tir Limnsee has tir requisine character and competence to operate a nuclear power facihty; (2) fine and otherwie penalize i.

j TUEC for makmg material false statenrnts to the NRC: (3) anvesugate wirther the NRC Staff knew of I

TUEC's alleged matenal false statenents and failed to act on such knowledge; and (4) deternune which high-level n,anagers were responsible for WEC's makmg matenal false statenems, and ban such persons from all hcen ed nuclear facihues.

l DD-93-2 TEXAS LTTIUTIES E1ILTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Comancir Peak Steam Deetnc Stauon, Unis I). Docket No. 54445; RLQUEST FOR ACTION; January 15,1993; DIRIXTOR'S DECISION UNDIR l

10 CJ.R. I 2.206 A

~1he Director of the Office of Nucicar Reactor Regulanon concludes that a petition filed liy Sandra long Dow and Richard E. Dow raised no substantial lealth or safety concern to call into quesuon the conunued safe operation of Comanche Peak Steam Dectric Station (CPSES) and, therefore, denies sie peution In a Mohon to Reopen the Record filed by Petinoners in tte CPS 13 operating bcense pmceedmg for Units 1 and 2, Itutmners alleged that Tenas Utihues Dectric Company (TUtr or Ucensee) repentedly made false and misicadmg statenrats to the Atomic Safety and Licensmg Board (ASIE)regardmg the pipe support design process at CPSES, and that the ASLB rehed on stus false infornatite wlen it issued an operaung beense for Unit 1.

l DD &3 TEXAS LTITUTIES E2JCTRIC COMPANY (Comanche Peak Sicam Dectric Stauon, Umts 1 l

and 2). Docket Not 54445,54446; CAROLINA POWER AND UGHT COMPANY (Brunswick Stanon, Umts I and 2), Docket Not 50 324,54325 CAROLINA POWER AND UGifT COMPANY (Sheamn II.trns Nuclear Power Plant), Docket No 50-400, DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Ennco Fermi l

Atomic Power Plant Unit 2), Docket Na 54341; WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM i

(WPPSS Nucles Project No. 2), Docket No. 54397, Gulf STATES UTILTMES COMPANY (River Bend Stauon, Umt 1). Docket No 50-458, REQUEST FOR ACTION; February 1,1993, PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.FA $ 2.206 l

23 l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIREClORS' DECISIONS A

By a petiuon dated July 21, 1992, tie Nuckar Infornmtion and Resource Service and o&ers I

(IYutioners) requested pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 that the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) l take enforcenent accons in light of fire bamer test failures. Fare hamers are generally required at operating commercial nuclear power plams by de NRC's regulatiorn or facihry bcense con &tions. Petinoners subnutted ad&tional filings on August 12,1992. September 3,1992, and Decemter 15,1992 Speci6cally, I

lYutioners requested that de NRC Staff issue, by September 5,1992, Generic letter (GL) 92-XX which had been circulated for pubhc comnent on February 11,1992, and which discussed test results and I

recommended accons negarding Thermo-Lag 3341 hre bamer material. Petiuoners also requested that the NRC close nucicar power plants that cannot prove through independent tesung that they meet NRC fue turner requirements and that de NRC issue a stop. work order regar&ng the installauon of hre bamer rnaterial at Comanche Itak Steam Doctric Station (CPSES).

D On Felnuary 1,1993, ce Durctor of the Ofhce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued a Partial Director's Decision that gramed in part and denietiin part the rehef sougla by Itutioners.

C To de extent Pet:tioners sougia issuance of the Generic letter, relief was granted. On December 17,1992, ce NRC Staff issued GL 9248, "thernelag 3301 Fire Bamers." With regard to the other requests, rehef was demed. Speci6cally, for opersong facihties, tie Director concluded that 6re watches pernutted by the NRC seguireness applicable to the faciboes in question provided reasonable assurance of adequate protecnon of pubbc health and safety. As for stopping work at CPSES Unit 2, the Duector concluded that the Licensee proceeded at its own risk during de construction phase and that de NRC Staff would evaluate the safety issues associated with installation of Thermo lag material at the operating license stage.

D issues raised by Petitioners in their December 15,1992 submittal were not considered in the Parnal Ducctor's Decision, but will te considered in a Final Director's Decision.

DD-93-4 IWRIDA POWT.R AND UGHT COMPANY, et al. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plara, Units 3 and 4). Docket Nos. 50L250,54251 (Usen e Nos. DPR 31, DPR-41); REQUEST IOR ACTION; March 23,1993; DIRECTOR'S DFCISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206 A

The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes a pention fled by Mr. James A. Riccio on tchalf of Pubhc Citizen, Cneenpeace. Nuclear Informauon & Resource Service, and the Safe Energy Comniusticanon Council (Pentioners). fvtitioners requested that the NRC issue an order to show cause to the Flonda Power & Ugts Company (Ucensee) as to why the Turkey Point Nuclear Units should not remain closed or have its operaung license suspended by de NRC unless and unul such time i

i as the Ucensee demonstrates full compliance with the NRC's energency planning regulations. As bases for this request, Ittinoners alkged a number of deficiencies regar&ng emergency planning et the Turkey Point Umts as a result of the effects of Hurncane Andrew. Deftciencies were alkged in de following areas: nonfication dunng an accident, noti 6cauon of persons with slecial needs, evacuation plans, and coor& nation between the Ucensee and federal. sta:c, and local agencies. Petinoner also alleged that the NRC alkmed the Ucensee to restart the reactor without any coordination, advance nouce, or request that IIMA con 6rm offsite capabihues.

DD 93 5 CIDT1AND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Pcmer Plata. Unit I), Docket No. 50-440 (Ucense No. NPF-58); REQUEST TOR ACTION; March 28,1993; DirGCTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 A

The Dnector of de Ofhee of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a pention 61ed ty the lake County Board of Comnussioners (IYtitioners). Specifically, the pention alleged that de temporary storage of low-Icvel radioacGve waste at the Perry Nuclear Ibwer Plant will have to be extended beyond the current 5-year bmit for temporary storage, necessitating the need for an environmemal impact su'tement and a pubhc heanng; the risk of storing low-level ra&oacuve waste on site was not envisionrd in the anginal environnemal impact statement, and de construccon of a storage facihty is a fundanental diange in the operaung license of the plant and a more sigtuh ant change than anticipated by the 10 C.F.R. 550.59 procedures. Peutioners requested that de Comnnssion take acuan so that (1) a pubhc learing is held prior to construcuan of an onsite, low-level ra&oactive waste storage facihty at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant and (2) ce construction of the storage facility is suspended until(a) the NRC or the Uceniec produces an environmental impact statement on the nsks due to ensite storage of low-level radioactive waste and (b) the NRC pmmulgates regulations regar&ng sturage of low-level ra&oactive wastes at nuclear power plant sites.

l 24

I l

l DIGESTS ISSUANCFS OF DIRECTORS' DFCISIONS DD-93-6 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY. et al. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), Docket No.

50-341; REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 31,1993; DIRFff0R'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 A

The Director, Offim of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, denies a Petition hied pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

62.206 by Robert Karnlewitz requestmg that action be taker with regard to tte Detroit Ed son Company's (DECO *s) Fermi-2 nuclear plant. De IVtitioner requested that ttr Fermi-2 operating hcense be suspended i

f undl certain accunty supervisors at Fermi-2 had been replaced. As bases for that request, tir Peduoner muerted that certain Fermi-2 Securny Department supervisors hed and subnutted falsihed documents to the NRC, and that they engaged in a conspiracy to revoke or Petiooner's access to ate protected area at Fermi.

The reasons for tir denial are fully set forth in om Decision.

B Tim institution of procee&ngs pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.202 is appropriate only where substantial tralth and safety issues have been raised.

DD-93-7 SEQUOYAH IVELS CORPORATION (Gore, Oklahoma facihty), Docket No. 4M027; RE.

QCST IOR ACTION; April 14,1993; DIREClOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 A

The Director of de Ofhm of Nuclear Material Safery and Safeguards denies a petition filed by Diane Curran, Esq., on behalf of Nanvc Americans for a Clean Environment (NACE), with t!e Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion Staff (Staff) requesting the NRC to immediately order Sequoyah Feels Corporation (SIC) se stop transporting liquid raffman; fertilizer off SIC's Gore, Oklahoma site. He Petitiorer's request for immediate action was based on its contentions that tte rafhnate fertilizer had been handled in a way that posed an unacceptable and imnediate nnk to the public health and safety. De Petitioner sought relief based on allegations that (1) the raf6nate contains potentially toxic radionuchdes and leavy netals and is also very caustic; (2) on May 4,1992, when an individual was driving on a public highway past one of SfC's properties known as the "Old Monsanto Ranch" where raffmate was being sprayed from a tJuck onto a pasture, de individual's face and arms were sprayed with raffmate that was carried by the wind through the open window of his truck, and. as a result, the individual suffered second, and third, degree burns;(3) at the request of Mr. lance Hughes, NACE's Executive Director, on May 10,1991, at the SIC site, Unda Kassner, en NRC Senior Radianon Specialist in NRC Region IV, interviewed the individual and observed lus burns; (4) the incident described by the individual has been referred to the

• allegations" office in Region IV, but the NRC has, to date, taken no further action; and (5) in at least three other instances, persons, animals, or vegetation have been injured by exposure to the raffinate.

D Where Petitioner has not asserted any violation of NRC requirenents and has submitted insufhciera evidence to conclude that the injuries of an individual were caused by the Ucemec's activities or that there is a substantial pubhc lealth and safety hazard,immediate relief will be denied.

C Where Petitioner has not provided de factual basis for its request with de speciheny required oy 10 C.F.R. I 2.206, action need not be taken on in request.

D The following technicalissues are discussed: Hazards of radioactive and clemical matenals in rafhnate fertilizer; Release of radioactive matarials in effluents to unreatncted areas (application of rafhnate fertilizer); Release of heavy netals in effluents to unrestricted areas (application of raffinate fertilizer);

Effect of application of rafhnate fertilizer.

DD-93-8 GEORGIA POWER (X)MPANY, et al. (Vogtle Electnc Generating Plant. Units I and 2; Hatch Nuclear Pbnt, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 321, 54 366, 50 424, 50-425; REQUEST FOR ACTION; April 23,1993; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I2.206 A

he Acting Duector of the Of6cc of Nuclear Reactor Regulation concludes that er petition filed by Messrs. Marvin B. Hobby and Allen 1. Mossbaugh (fttitioners) raised no sutstantial health or safety concern to call into question the continued safe operation of de Vogtle and Hatch nuclear facilities operated by Georgia Power Company (GPC) and the Southern Nuclear Operating Compan; (SONOPCO) In addition, the Acting Director concluded that no unauthorized transfer of the Vogtle operatmg hcenses occurred, and that, based on the NRC Staff's review of information available to date, none of the issues decided call into quertion GPC's character, competence, fundamental trustworthiness. and comnutnrnt and safety with gespect to the operation ofits nuclear facilities.

B Certain concerns raised by Ittitioners were partially substantiated. V,olations of regulatory requirenrnts have occurred in the operations of ;he Vogtle and Hatdi facihties. Notices of Violation and a civil penalty have been issued to GPC for certain of these violations.

25 l

t l

~

DIGl'STS ISSUANCES Of DIRE'70RS' DLCISIONS I

C Certain other issues have not yet been addressed by the Acong Ducetor and will te the sutdect of l'

a Final Dnector's Decision.

DD-93-9 INTERSTATE NUC&AR SERYlCE CDRPORATION (Indian Orthard, Massachusetts), Docket No. 030-04632; REQCST TOR ACTION; May 7,1993; DlitEr"CF'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R.

)

i 2.206 A

The Dnector of die Ofhce of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards grants in pan and denies in

]

part a pection filed by Gloria M Mitchell and linda Hanunons, on behalf of de in&an Orchard Citizens Council (lOCC) rhich requessed acuon with regard to the Interstate Nuckar Service Corporation (INS) st In&an Orchwd, Massachusetts Peutumers nude ten requests and four demands. htinoners asserted as lees for their requests and demands that de residents of de In&an Orchard neighborhood of Spnng6 eld, Massachusetts, hve in,.kme promtr:uty to INS and have expressed great concern about health issues related to the operanon of INS, especia!!y since de pubhcabon of an anicle in de Spnng6 eld Sunday Repubhcan on June 7.1992, concerning ra&abon levels at the INS penneter fence, onsite waste storage by INS, and INS discharges to de city sewer system.

B The requests of ht tioners diat were granted are that de NRC: (1) panicipate in a putu creting in In&an Orchard to respond to the concerns of de neighborhood residents; (2) hold an unannounced inspecuan of INS,(3) provide to de Peutsoners a copy of the NRC regulations under which INS operates; (4) check adjoining Park Depanment land, including Dimmock Pond, for contaminanon and illegal dumping of waste material; (5) determine what INS ha:= done with waste material not shipped; (6) provide to de Peutioners or docket numler for INS;(7) idennfy a Pubhc Document Room (PDR) for INS and its location; and (8) describe the type of monitonng done, who does it, and how frequently. Requests that were cenied are that the NRC: (1) check homes in the area for radioactive contamination; and (2) che41 Imon Pond for contamination and for possible illegal dumping of waste material Petitioners' demands that mete denied are that: (1) ra&ation readings outside %e INS fence perineters be 1)" at all tinrs; (2) *0" nuclear waste byproducts from INS be allowed to emer Spongfield a water / sewer system; and (3) under no circumstarues should INS be allowed to store nuclear waste on its propeny. Petitioners' demand that INS stop using residenual streets, speci6cally Nagle and Nichols Streets, to go to and from its plant was mooted by de voluntary actions of INS.

DD.93-10 NIAGARA MO11AWK POWT.R CORPORATION (Nme Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit !),

Docket No. 50 220. REQUEST IOR ACrlON, May 9,1993; DIRFLTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. I 2.206 A

he Director of the Ofbee of Nuclear Reactor Regulatmn grants in part and denies in part a peutum Eled with the Nuckar Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff by Ben 1. Ridings (Petitioner) on i

October 27,1992, requesting that the NRC issue an imnediately effective order directing Niagara Mohawk Power Co paratiot (NMPC) to cease power operation of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Unit 1 (NMP-1) and i

piece tir reaciar in a cold-shutdown con & tion. The hainoner sought rehef teed on allegatmns that (1) l NMPC is operating NMP-1 in violation of de requirements for availabihty of emergency core cooling i

system (ECCS) high-pressure coolant injecten (HPCI), (2) NMPC has failed to provide the mandatory emergency backup poser to the HPCI system at NMP-1, and (3) 45% of the containnrat isolation valves

[

have adrrJtustrative deficiencies hunoner also alleged that NMPC, NMPC's quahty assurance group, and de NRC had reviewed these safety concerns and, contrary to any practicaljusti6 cation had remair%d silent. Petinoner concluded that de NRC and NMPC's qusliry assurnar organization have failed *n remin it.dependera, and therefore called for a congresnonal investigation into these marters.

B The General Design Cntena (GDC) do not app 9 to plants mith.onstruction permits issued prior to May 21,1971, such as NMP 1. Such plants comply with he intent of the GDC, and do not need emernptions from de GDC; tiry mere evaluated on a plant-specine insis, determined to be safe, and hcensed by the Commismen.

l C

fur a plant with an Ernergency Core Coohng System con prised of redundant, safety-grade l

core spray and automatic depressunzanon systems designed to accommodate de range of losoof-coolant l

a cidents from the smalkst up to de largest line break, a safety-grade feedwater system operating in an IIPCI rnode is not needed to satisfy ECCS requirenents.

D he Price-Anderson Act requires cach utihty to provide S200 milhon in liabihty insurance for pubhc habtiary cluns that might anse from a nuclear accident at its site. In addition, all commercial onclear 26 I

i I

l 4

t t

4 i

DIGFSTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DLCISIONS power plam Scensees must parucipate in an industry public habihty self-insurance plan which subjects each licensee to a potential habihty of $63 nulhon for each commercial nuclear power plant that it operates for claims that might anne from a single nuclear accident at any comnrreial nuclear power plam bcensed by the NRC. NMPC has obtained and is maimaining the appropriate amount of liabihty insurance.

E The following technical issues are discussed: Core spray system; Automatic depressurization system. Feedwater system in high-pressure coolant injection mode; Non-safety-related nethods for coolant injecuan; Inservice tesdng program apphed to feedwater system and comamnent isolation valves; Appendix 4

J tesung of comainnem isolation valves; Consistency and completeness of techmcal specificanons and updated Final Safety Analysis Report separding listing of containmem isolation valves, valve stroke tine requirenems, and valve acmation signals; and licenna self-assessnrnt program - Regulatory Comphance Group, Quahty Pirst Progrant DD-93-Il TEXAS UTIUTIES IIICTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Dectnc Station. Units I and 21 Docket Nm 50-445, 54 466; CAROUN/. PO%TR AND UGHT COMPANY (Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Umts I and 2), Docket Nm 50L324,54325; CAROLINA PO%TR AND UGifT CDMPANY, et al. (Shearon Harna Nuclear Powet Plant), Docket No. 50-400; DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plan;. Unit 2k Docket No. 54341; WASHINGION PUBUC PO%IR SUPPLY WSTEM (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), Docket No 54397; GUIE STATES LTTILITIES CDMPANY (River Bend Station, Unit 1) Docket Na 50-458; ARKANSAS PO%IR AND UGlTT CDMPANY (Arkansas Nuckar Two), Docket Na 54368; DUQUESNE UGHT COMPANY, et al. (Beawr Valley Power Station, Units I and 2h Docket Nos. 5 4 334, 50-412; COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 54456, 50 457; 1ENNISSEE VALIIY AUTHORITY (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plag Units I,2, and 31 Docket Nm 50-239,54260,54296; CDMMON%T.ALTH EDISON COMPANY (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 21 Docket Nm 50 454, 50-455; UNION I2ICTRIC COMPANY (Callaway Plant, Unit I) Docket Na 50-483; IIllNOIS POWER COMPANY, et at (Chnson Power Station, Unit 1), Docket Na 54461; INDIANA AND MICHIGAN POWER CDMPANY (Donald C. Cook Nuckar Plant, Units I and 2), Dociet I

Nos. 54215,50-316; NEBRASKA PUBUC POWER DIS 111CT (Cooper Station Unit 1). Docket No. 50-298, FLORIDA PO%IR CDRPORATION (Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuckar Generating Plant), Docket a

No. 54302; TOLEDO EDISON CDMPANY (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Stanon, Unit th Docket No.

50'346; PACITIC GAS AND IIICTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and j

21 Docket Nos. 54275,54323; IOWA IIICTRIC UGHT AND POHIR COMPANY (Duane Arnold Energy Cemer) Docket Na 50-331; ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stanon, Unit I

1k Docket Na 50416; CONNECTICLTT YANKEE ATOMIC PORTR COMPANY (Haddam Neck Plant),

Docket Na 54213; GEORGIA PO%T.R CDMPANY (Edwin L Hatch Nuckar Power Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nns. 54321,54366; CONSOUDA1ED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YOIP Gndian Point.

Unit 2), Docket Na 50L247; CDMMONWEAL Di EDISON COMPANY (La Salle Coi.ay 5 tion, Units I

1 and 2), Docket Nm 50 373, 54 374; PHILADEU'HIA ELECTRIC CUMPANY (LJr erid Generanng i

Stanon, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 54352,54353; MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POV LR COMPANY (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), Docket Na 5430t DUKE POWER COVPANY, et al. (William B.

l McGuire Nucicar Station, Units I and 2) Docket Nm 54369,50L370, NORTHE*.ST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone, Units 1,2, and 31 Docket Nm 5 4 245, 50 336,30-423, NORTHM STATES i

PO41R COMPANY (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Unit 11 Docket No. !%263; N1*GARA 1

MOHAWK PO%IR OORPORATION (Nme Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), Dorhet N4. 54 220,50-410; VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (North Anna Power Stauon,1%s 7 and 2), Docket Nos. 50L338,50L339; GENERAL PUBUC LTTIUTIES NUCLIAR CORPO' is Mr Creek Nuckar F,:nerating Stationk Docket Na 54219; CONSUMERS PO%TR Cr ar..? O.

As Nuclear Power heility); Docket Na 54255; ARIZONA PUBUC SERV!CE COMPAl i J P e, crde Nuclear Genermung Station, Units I,2, and 3), Docket Nos. 54528,5452% 50L53 UX /!11A ELICTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Uras 2 and 3),.

<P 40-277, 50'278; CLIVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclet

v. Plant, Unit

1) Docket Na 50-440, NOR11IERN STATES POWER COMPANY (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Units 1 and 21, Docket Nos-54282,54306; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. (San Onofre Nuc1 car Generating Stanon, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 5436!, 54362; TENNESSEE 27 I

i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRFCTORS' DECISIONS VALLEY AUTHORTTY (Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2) Docket Nos $4327,50 328, HOUSTON UGHTING AND IOWER CUMPANY, et al. (South Texas Project, Umts 1 and 2k Docket Nos. 50-l' 498, 50-499; I1DRIDA POWER AND UGiff COMPANY (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos $4335,50 389; SOUTH CAROUNA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, et al (Virgil C Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1) Docket No. SG395; VIRGINIA E11CTRIC AND IOWER COMPANY (Surry Nuclear Power Stanon tW

• and 2), Docket Nos. 50-280,50-281; PENNSYLVANIA PO%TR AND UGHT COMPANY (Squehanna Steam Dectric Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-387, 54388. GENERAL PUBLIC 5TILfTIES NUCLFAR CORPORATION (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon Unit 1) Ducket No. SP 289, IORTLAND GENERAL ITECTRIC COMPANY, et al (Trojim Nuclear Plant, Unit l), Docker No. 50-344, ITDRIDA PO%IR AND UGifT COMPANY (Turkry Pois Nuclear Generating Plam, Uni s 3 and 4), Docket Nos. 50 250,54251; VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR

?

PO%IR CORf0 RATION (/erinont Yankee Nuclear Power Stanonk Docket No. 54271; GEORGIA IO%IR COMPANY, et s (Vogtle Dectne Generating Station Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 54424, 50-425; ENTERGY OP RATIONS, INC (Waerford Steam Dectric Station, Unit 3), Docket No. 50 382; TENNESSF.E VA112Y AUTHORITY (Warts Bar Units I and 21, Docket Nos. 54390, 54391; WOLF CREEK NUCLEM OPERATING CORPORATION (Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit I), Docket No.

50482, COMNONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Zion Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 54295, 54304, RECJEST IOR ACTION, May 23,1993; FINAL DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R.

I 2.206 A

On February 1,1993, de Director of de Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued a Partial Director's Decision Under 10 CF.R.12.206 (DD-93-3, 37 NRC 113 (1993)) respon&ng to a petition dated July 21,1992, submitted by de Nuclear Information and Resouru Service and others (Petiooners) which requested that the U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Comnussion (NRC) take enforcement actions in light of Thernelag fire barner test faihees. Fire terriers are generally required at opernung comnercial nuclear power plams by the NRC's regulations or facihty license condinons. Peutioners subnutted adational filings on August 12,1992. September 3,1992, and December 15,1992. Allissues raised by Petitioners except thane raised in the December 15,1992 supplement were addressed in DD-93-3. The remaining issues were to be addressed in a Final Director's Decision.

B New concerns regar&ng Thermo Lag material raised in the December 15, 1992 fihng can be summarized as de existence and creation of voids in Thernplag material, staples in the naterial, and possible erroneous information given to utihues concerning the weight of the nuiterial Petitioners aho restated assernons made in drir earher fibngs regar&ng alleged inconsistencies in testa conducted to deternune the toxicity of Thernelag matenal when it is burned.

C Ittinoners requested that de NRC imnr&stely suspend the operatmg licenses and construction pernuts of nuclear facihues that use 11ernetag or, ahernatively, that de NRC order cadi licensee to remove and replace its Thernelag dunng its next refueling outage or before beginning operauon.

D On May 23,1993, de Director issued a Final Director's Decision Under 10 CF.R. 5 2.206 which addressed Petitioners

• renmining issues and denied the relief sougla by de Itutioners. The Director concluded that no substantialleahh and safety issues had been raised by the Ittiuoners.

DD 93-12 TEXAS UTIUTIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al(Comanche Peak Steam Dectnc Station Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445,50-446; REQUEST IUR ACTION; June 4,1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 A

On June 11,1992, de Nanonal Whistleblower Cemer and its chents Messrs. Joneph J. Macktal and S.MA Nasan (Petitioners) submitted a letter to the US Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion (NRC) alleging new evidence of restncuve settlement agreements entered into by the Texas Utihties Dectric Company (Ucensee) regar&ng its Comanche Itak Steam Dectric Suuion, Units I said 2 (CPSES). The letter was referred to de Ofhce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation far de preparation of a response and was considered as a petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2 206. Ad&uonal letters were submined by Ittitioners on October 6 and November 19,1992, and were considered as supplemems to die original Feution.

B The Itution alleged that certain settlement agreemems entered inno by the Ucemee and certain forner coowners of CPSES contained restrictive langunfe in violation of section 211 of de Energy keorganization Act (ERA) and 10 C.F R. 5 50.7. In ad&uon, Petitioners alleged that the settlerrent agreerrents have resuhed in the soppressinn of information associated with de safe operanon of CPSFS 28 l

l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES Ol' DIRECTORS' DECISIONS and that er Licensee *s scsponse to de Ittition dated October 16,1992, contained incorrect and mislea&ng information to the point of being matertally fahe.

C On the basis of this information, de Petitioners asked the NRC to suspend de license to operate CPSES Unit I and the pernst to construct CPSES Umt 2. The Ivudoners also asked ce NRC to take immediate accons, specihcally that (1) a licensmg board be established to allow pubhc scrutiny into the beenue's alleged practice of paymg " hush money"; (2) tte NRC nonfy the licenwe and the forner co-owners that no settknent agreement can preclude empkwees av others from providing information to perstms involved in proceedings before the NRC;(3) copies of de settlemem agreenents be made pubhc and provided to Petiuoners' counsel, and (4) the NRC noufy the counsel for one of the forcer co-owners I

that he and otters are free to disclose safery-related information about CPSES to othe:s.

D De rehef sougts has been gramed in part and demed in part by the Duector of the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. fYtinoners sought that the NRC nonfy the licenue and the forner co-owners that no settlenent agreenent can preclude individuals and organizations from bringing safety information to the NRC This was done he Pentioners also sought that conies of er settlement agreenents with the three former co-owners be made public. His was done. Finally, de Petinoners requested that the counsel for one of the forner co uwners be nonned that he is free to disclose safety information to the NRC De NRC has caused this to happen, E

he other rehef sought by Pentioners has been denied The Duector determined that de facts in this matter dsd not warram de institution of proceedings, Parties are encouraged to settle their disputes.

Public puhey only denuinds that a clear avenue be available to individuals and entiues to bring safety concerns to the NRC i

DD-93-13 FLORIDA POWER AND LJGiff COMPANY,et al. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units i and 4E Docket Nos. 54250,50 251; REQUEST IOR ACTION; Jur.e 7,1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION I

UNDER 10 CF.R. I2.206 A

ne Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, denies a Petition fded by Mr. Regino R.

l Diaz-Robainas requesting that the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion not permit Florida Power and light Company to resume operating Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant Umts 3 and 4 after Hurricane Andrew i

I until the concerns raised in the Ittition are addressed. As basis for the request, the Petitioner alleges deficiencies in the areas of compliance with energency procedures, evacuation mechanisms and offsite powrr and wmrrenication systems, reliabihty and margin of safety of emergency diesel generators, radiation nurutorin, secunty. imerim fire protection, comphance with plant Technical Specification requirenems, Technical Speca6 cation and design basis adequacy, bcensee staffing and economics of reconstruction, and coesistence of nuclear and fossil umts.

B Pursuant to 10 CIR. 5 50.59, licensees must deternune, and docunrnt in safety evaluations, wtether a proposed change to tie facility as described in the safety analysis report can be made without prior NRC approval or vnust be made by license anendment.

C When a plant is in an Unusual Event or other emergency con &non,10 Cf.R. 5 5034(s) allows a f

I licensee to take reasonable action that departs from a license condition or a technical specihcation wien this action is imme&ately needed to protect the public leahh and safety and no action consistent with de license -

condinons and technical specifications that can provide adequate or equivalent protection is immediately apparent-D Seccon 5034(y) requnes that the licensee's acuon permitted by 10 Cf.R.150.54(s) shall be

]

approved, as a rninimum, by a heensed senior operator prior to takmg de action.

j 29 l

1 l

l l

I s

i l

l l

J DIGl'STS ISSUANCE OF DENIALS OF PETITION IVR RULEMAKING 1

i DPRM-931 RICHARD P. GRH1, Docket No. PRM $456; January 8,1993; DENIAL OF PETITION IVR gj l:

RULEMAKING A

The Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion (NRC)is denying a petition for rulenak:ng (PRM 5456)

I submitted by Richard P. Grill on August 16, 1991. The Petitioner requested that Or NRC anrnd 10 1

Cf.R. Part 50, " Domestic Ucensing of Producuan and Utihzauon Tscilines," and issue new regulations, 1

as newssary, to add lightning-indumd and other electrical transieras to the required list of phenomena that licensed nuclear pcra r plants and other nuclear facilities must be designed to safely withstand. The peution is being denied became the design and construction of exisung nuclear power plaats adequately protect plant electrical systems from the effect of electncal trannents, and there is no evidence at this time that electrical systems and corr.ponents have not been designed to withstand the effects of electrical transiems r

in such a manner as to require additional generic regulatory accon.

B The following technical issues are dacussed: General Design Criteria 2 & 4. Appendia A 10 C.F.R. Part 50; Electncal tranuents; Ughtning protection; Nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP)-

i 1

J

}

/

E 1

l.

i 7

I l

u

?

L i

i I

I I

l I

I e

31 I

l 1

6 k

I a

.,---,-----ww-me--r,-e--e,--,==,,,,eew,,v.,*---+-,am-e-=,,.s,,--ye,-

i l

j i

il l

i l

l l

1 i

i i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES l

I A.L Meckhng Barge Lines, Inc. v. United Staics, 368 U S. 324, 329 (1%I) vacation of lower court decision when a procec&ng tecomes moot; 0J-93-10, 37 NRC 205 (1993)

Advanced Me& cal Systems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Gerrva Oluo 44041), AL1-87-4, 25 NRC 865, l

870'71 (1987)

[

challenge to stay rnations, based on faded tremories or unavailable witnesses or documents; j

LEP-93-6. 37 NRC 220 n.51 (1993) f Advisory Comnuttee Note to 1970 Anendments to Fed R. Ov. P.,48 F.RD. 459,499 (1970) j discovery rules regarding work product doctrine; LBP-93-11,37 NRC 472 (1993) l Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241 (1937) i caw or controversy standard for mootness; CL1-410,37 NRC 200 0993)

Air Line Pilots Association Int'l v. UAL Corp., 897 l.2d 1394,13% (7th Cir.1990)

I test for mootness; CLI-93-to, 37 NRC 200 (1993)

Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Furley Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLl41-27,14 NRC 795,797 (1981) binden of pmof on stay requests; LBP-93-8,37 NRC 295 (1993) l Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 758 (1984) l estabinshment of causation and redressability wtrn a petitioner is challenging legality of governnent regulation of sonrone else; LBP-93 4,37 NRC 81 n.20 (1993)

American Ovil liberties Union v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554,1567 n.32 (D.C. Or.1987) removal of t*yproduct nnrial from RCRA segulation; LBP-93-7, 37 NRC 288 n.Il0 (1993)

Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-91-12. 34 NRC 149 0991) vali&ty of a contention when genuine espute no longer exists; LBP-93-9,37 NRC 445 a.29 0993)

Arned Furces Ra&obiology Research Insotute (Cobalt-60 Storage l'acihty), ALAB-682,16 NRC 150, a

153-55 0 982) geograptus proxinuty as basis for stan&ng to intervene in matenals hcensing acuans; LDP-93-4, 37 NRC 84 n.28 0993)

Arnow v. NRC, 868 F.2d 223 (7th Cir.1989) reviewabihty of directors' decisions; LBP-93-9, 37 NRC 444 (1993) l B & B Chenucal Co. v, LPA, 806 F.2d 987,990 (lith Cir.1986) licenscr's claim of future adverse effects as basis for overcoming board's fineng of moolness; CLI-93 8,37 NRC 186 (1993)

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) test for stay of enforcenent action; LBP-934. 37 NRC 214 0993)

Boston F4 son Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Stanon), ALAB-816, 22 NRC 4610985)

I consideration of tincliness of contemions prior to considenng their vah&ty and admissibility; LBP-93-9, 37 NRC 437 (1993)

Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LEP-8524. 22 NRC 97,98-99 0985), aff'd on other Crounds, ALAB416,22 NRC 4610985) geographic prounuty as basis for stan&ng to intervene in operating license anendment pmcee&ngs; LBP-93-5,37 NRC 106 0993) 33 i

i i

l J

I l

l i

e 1

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES j

l Brooks v. Atomic Energy n==i " 476 F.2J 924, 925, 928 (D C. Or.1973) effect of construr. con permit extenuon request on status of pernut; CLI-9310,37 NRC 202 e 40, 203 (1993)

Carchna Power and Ught Co. (Slearon llarris Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069, 2112 (1982) requirements for service of docunents on intervenors; CLI-93 3,37 NRC 153 n.47 (1993)

Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-7,19 NRC d

432, 438 (1984) unreliabihty of testimony of expert witness as basis for summary disposition; LBP-93-4,37 NRC 88 n 47 (1993)

Carolina Power and Light Ca (Shearon liarris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1,13, and 4), AIAB-184,7 AEC 229,237 (1974)

I requirenrats for service 6,' documents on intervenors; C!193-3,37 NRC 153 n47 (1993)

Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units I,13, and 4), CL1-8412,11 NRC 514,51617 (1980) scope of litigable issues in heense arnendnent pra-Angs; LBP-93-7, 37 NRC 277 (1993) i l

Carstens v. NRC. 742 F.2d 1546,1551 (D.C. Or.1984), cert. denied 471 U.S.1136,105 S. Q. 2675, 86 L Ed. 2d 694 (1985) scope of NRC discretumary authority; LBP.93 7,37 NRC 289 (1993)

Cemer for Science in the Public Interest v. Regan,727 F.2d !!61, !!70 (D.C. Or.1984) applicability of nipotness when an agency's order no longer has effect; CLJ-918,37 NRC 185

)

(1993)

Chevron v. NRDC,467 U.S. 837, 862 (1984) de6nition of ore; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 288 (1993)

Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey,938 F.2d 190,195 (D.C. Or.), cert denied,112 S. Ct. 616 (1991) consideration of alternatives to decommissiomag; CLI-93 3,37 NRC 143 n.19,144 n.24 (1993)

Otizens Association for Sound Energy v. NRC, 821 F.2d 725. 731 (D.C Cir.1988) effect of construction permit extension request on status of permit; CLI-9310,37 NRC 202 n40 (1993)

Otizens for Fsir Utihty Regulation v. NRC,898 F.2d 51 (5th Or.), cert denied, til S. Q. 246 (1990) j failure to meet enteria for late imervention; CL1-9k4,37 NRC 159 (1993)

City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016,102422 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam), cert. denied 484 U.S.

870 (1987) consideration of shernatives to decommissioning; C1193-3, 37 NRC 143 a 19 (1993)

City of Ims Angeles v. National Highway 7raf6c Safety Adnunistration, 912 F.2d 478, 495 (D.C Cir.

1990) (citations emined), cert. denied,117 L. Ed. 2d 460 (1992) nerits deternanations when assessing injury in fact; LBP-9%4,37 NRC 82 (1993)

Cleveland Dectric Illuminating Co. (Pt:rry Nuclear Power Plant, Umt 1),12P-92-4, 35 NRC 114,121 (1992) showing necessary to establish injury in fact for standing so intervene; LBP-93-4,37 NRC 81 (1993)

Cleveland Dectric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) LBP-82-67,16 NRC 734, 736 (1982) supplementation of discovery aesponses, LBP-93-3,37 NRC 65 (1993)

Comnunce for Open Media v. ICC,543 F.2d 861, 86748 (D.C Gr.1976) application of tinely venewal doctrine in NRC proceedings; CU-93-10,37 NRC 202 n.39 (1993)

Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Station, Units I and 2), DD 81-5,13 NRC 728,731 (1981) risk to licensee in constructing nuclear power plants; DD-9F3. 37 NRC 132-33 (1993)

Cmm. J.h Edison Co. (Zion Station Units 1 and 2), AIAB-196,7 AEC 457,460 (1974) discovery rules rTCarding work product doctrine; LBP-93-II,37 NRC 472 (1993)

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. NRC, 924 F.2d 311 (D.C Or.1991) scope of NRC discrenonary authority; LEP-93-7,37 NRC 289 (1993) 34 i.

1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX j

CASFS I

ConnAire, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportanon, 887 F.2d 723 (6th Cir.1989) circunstances in which nontras exception is apphed; CI19L8. 37 NRC 187 (1993)

Consohdated Edison Co of New York (Indian Point. Units 1,2 and 3) C1175-8, 2 NRC 113,175-76 (1975) standard for insutution of show-cause proceedmgs; D4931,37 NRC 50 (1993); DD912, 37 NRC 54 (1993); DD-93-3, 37 NRC 133 (1993); DD-93-4. 37 NRC 236 (1993t DD-915, 37 NRC 244 i

(1993) DD-936,37 NRC 248 (1993); DD-93-7,37 NRC 312 (1993), DD-93-8,37 NRC 345 1

(1993); DS93-9, 37 NRC 379 (1993), DD-9%10, 37 NRC 403 (1993); DD-93-II,37 NRC 418 (1993); DD-93-12, 37 NRC 491 (1993), DD-9113, 37 NRC 514 (1993)

~

I Consuners Power Co. (Midland Plant. Umts I and 2), ALAB-106,6 AEC 182,184 (1973) ht gability of implenemation c,f maintenance and surveillance programs in operating beense extension proceedmg; LBP 93-1, 37 NRC 19 (1993)

Consuners Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), CU-74-3,7 AEC 7 (1974) immediate suspension of safety-related work without prior written notice; DD.93 3, 37 NRC 132 (1993)

Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-78-27, 8 NRC 275,277 a.1 (1978) nents-type evaluanon of sufGeiency of peutioners' factual bases for claims of standmg; LBP-93-4,37 NRC 83 (1993)

Consuners Power Co. (Palisades Nuclea Power Facihty), 0182-18,16 NRC 50, $1 (1982) vacarion of decismo below when a proceeding becomes moot; CL1-93-10,37 NRC 205 (1993)

+

County of Ims Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) de6mtion of "mnotness"; C1193-8. 37 NRC 185 (1993); CLI 93-10, 37 NRC 200 (1993)

Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC,975 F.2d 871 (DC Cir.1992), cert. denied 61 U.SLW,. 3647 (Mar. 22,1993)

Institute for Nuclear Power Operations docunents as pnvileged informanon; LBP-93-9, 37 NRC 451 (1993)

Cuane v. NRC,772 F.2d 972 (D C. Cir.1985) risks of low-power operauon; CL1-93-2, 37 NRC $9 n.3 (1993)

Detrat Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Umt 2). ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760,1764-65 (1982) informanon available 6 months pnar to 61ing of intervennon pention as good cause for late Gling; i

CU-93-4, 37 NRC 164 (1993)

Detroit Edison Co. (Ennco Fermi Atanic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760,1765 (1982) showing memssary on other factors when good cause is not denenstrated for late 6hng; LDP-9E9, 37 NRC 436 (1993)

D,ike Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station Units I and 2), ALAB-687,16 IRC 460,468 (1982), vacated in part on otter grounds, C118k19,17 NRC 1041 (1983) responsibilities of parues to exanune publicly available docunents that could serve as a foundation j

for contenoons; CL1-93-3, 37 NRC 147 n.30 (1993); LBP-93-1,37 NRC 22 n.29 (1993)

Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2). CU-83-19,17 NRC 104) (1983), aff'd sub com. Umon of Concerned Scientists v. NRC,920 F.2d 50 (D.C Cir.1990) deferral of Shng contentions utail Staff has issued environnental and safety review dacunents; CU-953, 37 NRC 154 (1993) weight given to entetia for deternuning admissibihty of late-6ted cornentions; LBP-93-9, 37 NRC 436 l

(1993)

Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1,2, and 3), ALAB-431,6 NRC 460, 462 (1977) showing necessary on other factors where good cause for late 6hng is not simwn: CU.93-4, 37 NRC 165 (1993)

Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-143,6 AEC 623,625 (1973) responsibihty of parties to seveal relevant inforrnation in their possession; LBP-951,37 NRC 22 n.29 (1993) i 35 4

t 1

l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDFJ CAsr_s i

responsibihty of Staff and hcensee to inform board and imervenor of sigmficant new information;

{

C11915,37 NRC 170 0993)

Duke Power Co. (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear Stauon, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-143,6 Air 623,626 0 973) obhganon of parties to inform board of relevant and material new information; QL93 3,37 NRC 153 0 993)

Duquesne Ught Co. (Beaver Valley Power Stanon, Unit 2), LBP44-6,19 NRC 393,412 0984) responsibihty of parties to examine publicly available documents; LBP-911,37 NRC 22 n29 0993)

Ibir v. EPA,795 F.2d 851,854-55 (9th Cir.1986) mootness of construction permit extension proceedmg because of completion of construction; CU-9130,37 NRC 200 0993)

ICC v. WOKO, 329 U.S. 223 0946) denial of license applications fur material false statenents; LBP-93-5,37 NRC 101 n.I3 0993) t Fewell Gemechnical Engineering,12d. (Thomas E. Murray, Ra&ographer), C1192-5, 35 NRC 83, 64 0 992) vacation of lower court decision wten a proceeding becomes moot; CU-9110,37 NRC 205 0993) i Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94 (1968) derivation of moomess doctrine; Q193 8, 37 NRC 185 0993)

Florida Power and Ught Co. (St. Imcie Nuckar Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89 21,30 NRC 325 (1989) geographic protinuty as basis for standing to imervene in operating bcense amendment proceedings; LBP-93-5,37 NRC 106 0993) residence 35 miles from a plant for one week a month as basis for stan&ng; IEP-958,37 NRC 297 0 993) residence requirements for intervention in operating license extension procee&ngs; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 10 (1993)

/

Florida Power and Light Ca. (St. Imcie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89 21,30 NRC 325, 6

329-30 (1989) geographic proximity as basis for stan&ng to imervene; LBP-93-4,37 NRC 83 0993)

Flanda Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units i and 4L Cl191-5,33 NRC 238, 240-41 0 991)

&smissal of appeal for failure to Ele supparung brief; CL193-10, 37 NRC 198 0993)

Flunda Power and Ught Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plass, Units 3 and 4), CU-91-13, 34 NRC 185, 188 0 991)

Commission d scretionary authority to hold heanngs and permit participation in proceedings; j

CL193-3,37 NRC 1410993)

Fnends of Keeseville, Inc. v. IIRC. 859 F.2d 230, 234 (D C. Cir.1988) licensee's claim of future adverse effects as basis for overcormng board's fm&ng of mootness; i

C1193-8,37 NRC 186 0993)

Fnends of Keeseville, Inc. v. FERC, 859 F.2d 230,234,237 (D.C Cir.1988)

I possibihty of future action of licensee as basis for mootness exception; CU-93-8,37 NRC 188 0 993)

Georgia Ibwer Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-859,25 NRC 23 (1987) jurisdiction over issues when appeals are pen &ng; CL1-9F8,37 NRC 185 n.3 (1993)

Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), Q192-3,35 NRC 63,66 0992) need for appellule bnefs; CU-9%10,37 NRC 198 0993)

Ceargia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units I and 2L Q192-3, 35 NRC 63,67 (1992) content of appellate briefs; C1193-10,37 NRC 198 0993)

Governmers of V:rgin Islands v. Gereau, 523 F.2d 140,147 (3d Cir.1975), cert denied,424 U.S. 917 0 976) maners of which the Commission may take official notice; Q1913,37 NRC 147 n.30 0993)

Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2h ALAB 183,7 AI!C 222,223-26 0974) geographic prominnty as basis for stan&ng to intervene;1.RP-914,37 NRC 83 0993) 36 l

1

1 j

1 i

i I

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES i

Hale v. United States Departrnent of Justice,973 F.2d 894, 898 a.5 (10th Cir.1992), petition for ac filed. No. 92-7433 (U.S. Jan. 28,1993) showing newssary to establish con 6dentiahty of a source; IEP-9110, 37 NRC 463 0993)

Hamhn Testing laboratories, Inc., 2 AEC 423,428 (19M), aff'd, 357 F.2d 632 (6th Or.1966) standard of honesty expected of materials hcensecs; CU-9114,37 NRC 427 (1993)

Heckler v. Cheney,470 U.S. 821 (1985)

Comnussion authonry to review Staff dccision to take enforcenent action; LBP-911,37 NRC 18 (1993) reviewability of directors' decisions; LBP-93-9,37 NRC 444 (1993)

Hickrnan v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) i discovery rules regarding work product doctrine; LBP-93-11,37 NRC 472 (1993)

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S 495, 511 (1947) attorney work product cited as basis for refusal to answer interrogatories; 2P-9b3,37 NRC 67 (1993)

Houston Ughung and Power Ca (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), CLI-8432,12 NRC 281,291 0 980) l Commission authority to consider apphcant or licrnnee diaracter in licensing decisions; LBP-93-5,37 NRC 101 (1993)

Houston Lighting and Pt.. Co. (South Texas Project, Units I and 2), LBP-7910,9 NRC 439,447-48 0979), aff'st AIAB e 4 9 NRC 644 (1979) demonstration of 1. cy in fact for standing to intervene in operating licenae extnsion proceeding:

LBP-93-1, 37 F ' 11 (1993)

Houston Uglaing and 1 tv r Co. (South Texas Project, Umts 1 and 2), LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659, 673 79 0 984)

Comnussion auttw g to consider applicant or bcensee character in licensing decisions; LBP-93-5,37 t

NRC 101 (1993)

Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Mme Workeis, 325 U.S.161,168-69 0945) definition of cre; LBP-P3-7,37 NRC 288 (1993)

Joseph J. Macktat, CU-89-12,30 NRC 19,23 a.10989) justification required in request for oral argument; CU-912,37 NRC 59 n4 0993)

Kerr-McGee Cienucal Corp. (West Osicago Rare Earths l'acility), CL142-2,15 NRC 232,269 0982),

aff'd sub som. Oty of West Chicago v. NRC,701 F.2d 632 (7th Or.1983)

+

NRC junsdiction over nonradiological contamination; LBP-93-4,17 NRC 92 a.57 0993)

Kerr-McGee Ommical Corp. (West Chicago Rare Es1hs Facility), LBP-86 4,23 NRC 75,82 0986) i l

burden on party who seeks to apply attorney work product; LBP-93-3, 37 NRC 69 (1993) l Kerr-McGee v. NRC, 903 F.2d I (D.C. Cir.1990) l de6aition of byproduct snaterial; LBP43-7,37 NRC 273 0993) leflore Broadcasting Co. v. ICC,636 F.2d 454 (D.C. Or.1980) denial of license applications for material false statements; IEP-915,37 NRC 101 n.13 0993)

?

Long Island Lighting Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-292,2 NRC 631, l

65451 0975) potential for delay of proceedmg where late intervention petition is 6ied after issuance of low-power license; CU-93-4, 37 NRC 167 (1993) l Img hland Ughting Cb. (Shoretuun Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-903,28 NRC 499,505 (1988) components of fundarvN Aaw in an emergency preparedness plan; LBP-911,37 NRC 32 0993) 1.ong Island Ughung Co moreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), C1186-11,23 NRC 577,5810986) fundamental Raw standard for deterraining adequacy of etrergency r.,y A caercises; LBP-9ki, 37 NRC 32 0993) 1.ong hland Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-8, 33 NRC 461,468 0991) stays of Commission decisions; CU-9311,37 NRC 263 0993) l l

l 37 l

I

\\

f.

4 i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASLS

?

tong Island Ughung Co (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), GP-82-87,16 NRC 1144,1158 (1982)

[

appbcabihty of attorney chem pnsilege to discovery of underlying facts from their source; i

LBP-93-II,37 NRC 473 (1993)

Long Island Lighung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Pomer Station, Unit I), LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1144,115942 (1982) use of judicial imerpretation of federal rule as guidance for imerpreta6on of analogous NRC rule; LBP-93-3,37 NRC 68 (1993) louisiana Power and Ught Co. (Water 1ord Steam Electric Stanon Unit 3), CLI-861, 23 NRC 1, 5 (1986) pendency of an investigation as basm for a contennon; LBP-919,37 NRC 446 (1993)

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildhfe,119 L Ed. 2d 351,364 (1992) showing necessary to establish injury in fact for stamhng to imervene; GP-93-4, 37 NRC 81, 82 (1993)

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station). ALAB-161,6 AEC 1003 (1973) comphance with NRC tegulations as a prerequisite to safe operation of a nuclear power plant; DD 93-3, 37 NRC 121 (1993)

Metropohtan Edison Co. (nree Mile Island Nuclear Stanon, Unit 1), AIAB-698,16 NRC 1290,1299 (1982) htigabih:y of challenges to regulatory guides; LBP-93 7,37 NRC 276 (1993)

Metropohtan 121aan Ca (Three Mie Island Nuclear Station, Umt 1) ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193,1206-08 (1984); CU-85-9, 21 NRC 1118,113637 (1985)

Commission authonry to consider applicam or licensee character in licensing decisions; GP-93-5,37 NRC 101 (1993)

Mississippi Power and Light Ca (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stanon, Umts 1 and 2), ALAB 704,16 NRC 1725, 1727 n.2 (1982) effect of low-power hcense issuance on late interwmion; CU-914, 37 NRC 160 (1993)

Murphy v. H at. 455 U.S 478,481 (1982) i definiuon of "mootness"; CU-93-10, 37 NRC 200 (1993)

Namral Resourws Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway,524 F 2d 79,92 (2d Cir.1975) l remuned operation as an ahernative to decommissiomng; CLI-93-3, 37 NRC 144 n.23 (1993)

Namral Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. I'PA, 859 F.2d 156, 213-14 (D.C Cir.1988) apphcanon of umely renewal doctrine in NRC promedmgs; CU-9310,37 NRC 202 n.39 (1993)

North Carohna v. Rice,404 U.S. 244,246 (1971) test for mootness; CU-93-10, 37 NRC 200 (1993)

Northeast Nuclem Energy Co. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), LBP-92-28, 36 NRC 202,203, 208-11 (1992) admissibility of contentions addressing amendments that would make opermion safer; LBP-93-5,37 l

NRC 108 (1993)

Northeast Nuclear Energy Co (Montague Nuclear Power Stanon, Units I and 2), LBP-75-19,1 NRC 436, 437 -(1975) i responsibihry to inform pames of communications lerween Staff and licensee; CLI-93-5,37 NRC j

170 (1993) l Northern Indiana Public Service Ca (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), ALAB-619,12 NRC 558,564 (1980) residence seguirements for operaung beense extension pmceedings; LBP 93-1,37 NRC 12 (1993)

Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units I and 2), AIAB-455,7 NRC 41, 54 (1978), remanded on other Crounds sub nom. Ennesota v. NRC,602 F.2d 412 (D C. Cir.1979) applicabibry of " case or controversy" requiremem in NRC proceedmgs; CLI-93-10,37 NRC 200 n.28 (1993) applicabihty of mootness doctrine in NRC proceedings; CU-958, 37 NRC 185 (1993)

Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. (West Valley Reprocessmg Plam), CU-75-4,1 NRC 273, 275 (1975) weight given to good came in determining admissihihty of late-filed contentions; LBP-93-9,37 NRC 436 (1993) 38 i

k I

I

9 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASLS i

Nuclear Informatson Resouru Service v. NRC, 969 F.2d 1169 (D C, Cir.1992) l sevwwabihty of denials of secuan 2.206 peutions; LBP-93-9, 37 NRC 444 n.26 (1993) rewrwability of enforcement actions under Part 52; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 18 n.22 (1993)

Pacdc Gas and Dectnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plaut Units I and 2), CLI 84-12,20 NRC j

249 (1984); CU-84-13,20 NRC 267 (1984) litigabihty of effects of simuhaneous plant accident and carthquake; LBP 93-1,37 NRC 34 (1993)

Pacihc Gas and Dectric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CL1-8612, 24 NRC 1, 4-5 (1986) discretionary authonty of Commission to grant a stay; LBP-93-8,37 NRC 295 (1993)

PaciGc Gas and Dectric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), UlP-92-27,36 NRC 196 (1992) prerequisites to achieving party status; LBP-93-5,37 NRC 106 (1993)

Pacthe Gas and Dectric Co. (Stanislaus Nuclear Project Unit 1), CL1-82-5,15 NRC 404,405 (1982) treatnrnt of announcemem of withdrawal of appbcation as request fa permission to withdraw application. (2193-7,37 NRC 179 (1993)

Pennell v. City of San 3ose,485 U S. I,7 (1988)

I weight given to petitioner's factual assertions when assessing injury in fact; LEP-93-4, 37 NRC 82 (1993)

Petition for Emergency and Renedia! Acnon, CLI-78-6,7 NRC 400,418 0978) obhganon of licensees to provide Commission with accurare and sinely information; CU-93-14,37 NRC 4." (1993)

Petition fw Da:rgency and Remedial Action, CU-78-6, 7 NRC 400,421 (1978) defense-in-depth concept for constrr':uon of nuclear power plants; DD-93-3,37 NRC 118 (1993)

Philadelphia Decnic Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2), AIAB-765,19 NRC 645,656-57 (1984) obliganon of parues to infwm board of relevant and material new information; CL1-913,37 NRC j

153 0 993)

Philadciphia Dectne Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-22,1 NRC 451, 454-55 (1975) i schance on participation in another procee&ng to demonstrate stan&ng to intenene; CL1-93-4,37 NRC 163 (1993)

~

Portland General Dectnc Co. (Pebble Spnngs Nuclear Phun, Urits 1 and 2), CU-76 27,4 NRC 610 097f) basis for grant of &scretionary intervenoon; CL1-93-12, 37 NRC 358 0993)

Pcwtland General Dectnc Co. (Pebble,Cprings Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CU-76-27,4 NRC 610,

[

6:3-14 0 976) i application of ju&cial concepts of stan&ng in NRC procee&ngs; LBP-9L4,37 NRC 80 0993)

Port! nd General Dectne Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CU-76 27,4 NRC 610, 614-17 0 976)

Commission discretionary authority to hold hearings and permit participation in procee&ngs; j

CLI-9L3,37 NRC 1410993) e Preiser v. Newkirk,422 U.S. 395,4010975) case or controversy standard far mootness; CU-93-10,37 NRC 200 0993)

Process Gas Consuners Group v. U.S. Depstment of Agriculune, 694 F2d 728, 769 (D.C. Cir.1981) range of alternatives to proposed action that must be considered; C1193-3,37 NRC 145 a.24 0993)

Public Service Co. of Irdhana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), C118MO,11 NRC 438,442 0980)

Commisuon discretionary anthority to hold hearings and permit pametpation in proceedmgs; CU-9L3,37 NRC 1410993)

Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CU-91-14,34 NRC 261. 266-67 0991) prerequisites to achieving puty status; LBP-915,37 NRC 106 0993) tests for stan&ng to intervene in construction pened recovery prome&ng; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 9 (1993)

I i

1 l

s i

l 1

l

i IIGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASLS Pubhc Service Co. of New Ham;mhire (Seabrook Stauon, Unit 1), CU-91-14,34 NRC 261,266-68 0991) denial of stan&ng where alleged injury would not anae if challenged amendmers were denied; CU-93-10, 37 NRC 204 a 50 (1993)

Pubhc Sernce Co. of New Hamp6 hire (Seabrook Stanon, Unit 2), CU444,19 NRC 975,977 (1984) effect of constn.ction pernut extension request on construction activities; CLI.93-10,37 NRC 202 (1993)

Pubbe Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Station, Units I and 2k CU-77-8,5 NRC 503,516-17 (1977) nupervisory authority of Commission to ducct that ruhngs be referred to it; LBP-9110, 37 NRC 458 n 10993)

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stanon Umts I and 2), QJ-894,29 NRC 399 (1989) risks of low-power operadon; CU-93 2, 37 NRC 59 n.3 (1993)

Public Servim Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CU-90L3,31 NRC 219,257 &

n.59 0940) cntena for grant of a stay pendmg appeal; LBP-918,37 NRC 295 0993)

Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-8kl7,17 NRC 490, 493-94 0 983) applicabihty of attorney work product to contention basis; LBP-913, 37 NRC 69 0993)

Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Station, Units I and 2), LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490, 494-95 0 983) use of ju&cial interpretation of federal rule as guidance for interpretation of analogous NRC rule; UP-913,37 NRC 68 0993)

Public Servia Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Station, Units I and 2) LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490,495 0 983) burden on party asserdng attorney work product privilege; LBP-9k3, 37 NRC 69 (1993)

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire v. NRC,582 F.2d 77 Ost Or.1978)

NRC authority to impone license con &tions related to nonradiological environmental hazards; DD917,37 NRC 310 0993)

Pub;ic Service Co. of New Hampshire v. NRC, 582 F.2d 77, 82 (1st Or.1978) scope of NRC discretionary authanry; LBP-9k7,37 NRC 289 0993)

Reeve Aleucan Airways, Inc. v. United States, 889 F.2d 1139,1143 (D C Cir.1989) negative pubhcity as Imsis for overcoming board's fmding of nootness; CLI-93-8, 37 NRC 187 0 993)

Robertson v. Methow Valley Otizens Council 490 U.S. 332,350 0989) procedural constraints on agency decisionmaking process; LBP-954,37 NRC 93 0993)

Roe v. Wade,410 US 113,125 0973) seview stages at which mootness doctrine is applicable; CU-93-10, 37 NRC 200 0993)

Sacramento Municipal Utibry District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CU-92-2,35 NRC 47,56 0 992) application of ju&cial concepts of stan&ng in NRC proceedings; LBP-9L4,37 NRC 80 0993)

Safe Energy Continon of Michigan v NRC,866 F.2d 1473 (DC. Or.1989) reviewabihty of duectors' decisiora; LBP-93-9,37 NRC 444 (1993)

Safety Ught Corp. (Bluonsburg Site Decontaminadon), CU 92-9,35 NRC 156,158 0992) standard for discretionary interlocutory review; CU 93-13,37 NRC 4210993)

Safety Light Corp. (Bloonaburg Site Decontamination and Ucense Renewn! Denials), CU-92-13, 36 NRC 79, 85 (1992) standard for 6scretionary interlocutory seview; CLI-93-13,37 NRC 4210993) i Safety Ught Corp. (Bkomsburg Site Decontamination and banse Renewal Denial), CU-92-13,36 NRC l

79, 89-91 0 992) consolidation of proceedings involving substantially different facts: CLI.93-8,37 NRC 185 0993)

San 1 mis Otuspo Mothers for Peax v. NRC,751 F.2d 1287 (D C Cir.1984), reh'g granted 760 F.2d 1320 (D C Gr.1985), aff'd, 789 F.2d 26 (D C Or.1986) htigabibry of effects of simultaneous plant accident and carthquake; MP-931,37 NRO 34 0993) 40 i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Secunties & Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industnes, Inc.,628 F.2d 1368,1378-79 (D.C. Or.1980) prejudice to apphcam's defense in criminal prosecution as grounds for a stay; IEP-93-8. 37 NRC 295 (1993)

Secunties & Exchange Comnussion v. Skun,436 U1103,109 (1978) applicabihty of mootness when an agency's order no longer has effect: CLI-93 8,37 NRC 185 (1993) tranng rights where issues are moot; CLI-9110, 37 NRC 205 (1993)

Secunties & Exchange Conunission v. Sloan,436 US 103,10910 (1978) circumstances in which mootness enxption is appbed, CU-9L8, 37 NRC 187 (1993)

Sholly v. NRC,651 F.2d 780,787 (D.C. Cir.1980), vacated and remanded, 459 U1 1194, vacated and semanded to tie NRC as moot, 706 F.2d 1229 (D.C. Cir.1983) hearing rights wlere issues are moot; Cll-93-10, 37 NRC 205 (1993)

Siegal v. AEC, 400 F.2d 778. 783 (D.C. Cir.1968). cert. denied, 439 U.S.1(u6, 99 S O. 721, 58 L la 2d 705 (1978) scope of NRC discrebonary authonty; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 289 (1993)

Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization,426 UA 26,44-45 (1976) establishment of causation and redressabihty when a letitioner is challenging legality of governnent regulation of someone ele; IEP-93-4,37 NRC Bl n.20 (1993)

Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Comnerce Conunission,219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911) apphcabihty of mootness when an agency's order no longer has effect; CIJ-93-8, 37 NRC 185 (1993) exception to mootness doctrine; CU-93-10, 37 NRC 205 (1993)

Statement of Policy on Conduct of Ucensing Proceedings, CL1-81-8,13 NRC 452,456 (1981)

Commission policy on settlenrm agreements; DD-9112, 37 NRC 486 (1993)

Synalloy Corp. v. Gray,142 F.R.D. 266, 269 (D. Del.1992) waiver of privilege by disclosure of documents; LBP-93-II,37 h1C 475 n.14 (1993)

Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Feny Nuclear Plant, Units I,2, and 3), ALAB-677,15 NRC 1387, 1394 (1982) obhgation of parues to inform board of relevant and maerial new informanon; CLI-9k3,37 NRC t

153 0 993)

Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAIM13,5 NRC 1418,1420 21 (1977)

Commission discretionary authonty to hold heanngs and permit participadon in proceedmgs;

(

CLI-93-3, 37 NRC 141 (1993)

Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Itak Sicam Electric Station, Unit 1), CU46 4,23 NRC 113, 117-18 (1986) reasons for requiring specification of constructmo completson dates; CL1-93-10, 37 NRC 201 n.34 0 993)

Texas Utlities Electnc Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Station, Umt 1), CL1-86-4, 23 NRC 113,120 i

n.5 (1986), aff'd sub norn. Otizens Association for Sound Energy v. NRC, 821 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir.

1987) effect of allowing construction permit to expire without requesting an extension; CLI-93-10, 37 NRC 201 n.35 0993)

Texas Utihties Electnc Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), CLI-92-1, 35 NRC I,6 0 992) forum for rehef wlen full-power operating liceme has issued; CLI-93-10,37 NRC 205 (1993)

Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), CL1-93-4, 37 NRC 156 0 993) comideranon of timchness of contentions prior to considenng tirir vahdity and admissibibty; LBP-919, 37 NRC 437 (1993) 41 l

e-

a LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES r

Texas Utilities Decnic Co. (Comancle hak Steam Doctric Stanon, Umt 2), CU 93-4,37 NRC 156,

[

164 62 (1993) forum far rehef wien full-power operanng licene has issued; CU-93-lo,37 NRC 205 (1993)

Texas Utihties Electric Co. (Comande hak Sicam Dectric Stanon Unit 2), CU-9Fil,37 NRC 251,259 (1993) resolution of concerns about resuichve language in settlenent agreenents; DD-93-12,37 NRC 487, 488 (1993)

Texas Utihties Dectric Co. (Comanche hak Steam Dectric Station, Units I and 2), CU-88-12,28 NRC 605, 609-12 (1988), as modified, CU-89-6,29 NRC 348 (1989) failure to neet criteria for late intervention; CLI-934,37 NRC 159 (1993)

Texas Utilities Dectric Co. (Comancie Peak Sicam Decnic Station Units I and 2), CU-88-It 28 hTC 605, 611 (1988) standard for admission of contendons addressing correenve action pmgram dc6ciencies; CU-93 il,37

[

NRC 260 (1993)

Texas Unhties Dectric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Dectric Station, Units 1 and 2), CL1-92-1,35 NRC 1, 6 n.5 (1992) effect of low-power licene issuana on late intervendon; CU-93-4, 37 NRC 160 (1993) i standard for grant cf a hearing prior to operating license issuance; CU-93-1,37 NRC 3 (1993)

Texas Utibties Decnic Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Decnic Station Units I and 2), CU-92-12,36 NRC 62, 68-69 (1992) justi6 cation required in sequest for oral argument; CU-952,37 NRC 59 a.4 (1993)

Texas Utihties Dectric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Decnic Station, Units i and 2), CU-92-12,34 NRC 62, 70 (1992) consideration of timehness of contemions prior to considering their validity and admissibility; LBP-93-9, 37 NRC 437 (1993)

Texas Utilities Decnic Co. (Comande Peak Steam Doctric Station, Units I and 2), DD-93-3,37 NRC I13 (1993)

Thernpl.ag combustibihty; LBP-93-9, 37 NRC 443 (1993)

Texas Utilines Dectric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Decnic Station, Units I and 2), LBP-88-18B,28 NRC 103 (1988) restrictive language in seidenent agreements: CU-93-11, 37 NRC 261 (1993)

Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 897 F.2d 570,575 (D.C. Or.1990) standard for dismissal of appeal on mootness smunds; CU-93-10,37 NRC 200 (1993)

Tulsa Gamma Ray, Inc., LBP-91-40, 34 NRC 297, 305 (1991) aggregation of level IV violations; LBP-951,37 NRC 19 (1993)

Union of Concerned Scientists v. AEC,499 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir.1974) litigabihty of dialienges to regulatory guides; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 272 (1993)

Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC,920 F.2d 50 (D.C, Or.1990) contention requirement for intervention; LBP-93-1, 37 NRC 13 (1993) showing of genuine dispute with apphcant on material issue of law of Let; CU.9512,37 NRC 362 (1993)

United States v. 22.80 Acres of land,107 F.R.D. 20, 22 (N.D. Cal.1985) apph: ability of attorney-client privilege to discovery of underlying facts from their source; U:P-93-11,37 NRC 473 (1993)

United Sunes v. Diaz,690 F.2d 1352,1357-58 (llth Cir.1982) de6nition of " material statement"; DD'911, 37 NRC 46 (1993)

United States v. Eight Thousand Dght Hundred and Fifty Dollars in United States Currency,461 U.S. 555 (1983) focus of good <ause deterruination in stay request; LBP-934, 37 NRC 214 (1993)

United States v. Dght Thousand Dght Hundred and Rfty Dollars in United States Currency, 461 U.S.

555, 564 (1983) four-factor test for grant of a stay; LBP-93-10,37 NRC 460 (1993) 42 N

s it

i i

l l

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Unned States v. Forty-Sewn 7housand Nine llandred Eighty Donars in Canadian Curwney,804 F.2d

{

1085,1089 (9th Cir 1986). cert. demed,481 U.S.1072 (1987)

]

cffect of civil adjudicapon on civil investiganon as basis for stay of discovery in civil prome4hng; j

i LBP 93-10, 37 NRC 460-61 (1993)

United States v. Kordel, 397 U1 1, 90 S. Ct. 763 (1970) j preju&ce to applicant's defense in crinunal prosecution as gmunds for a stay; LBP-918, 37 NRC j

i 295 (1993)

United States v. lepez, 728 F.2d 1359,1362 (1. 5 Or.), cert. demed, 469 U.S. 828 (1984) relevance of material false statement to hcensng; CL1-93-14, 37 NRC 428 a.4 (1993)

Umted States v.'Imeben, 838 F.2d 751,754 (5t' Or.1988) sanctions for fahe statement made to U.S agencies; CLI-9314. 37 NRC 428 (1993' United States v. McIntosh, 655 F.2d 80, 82-F, (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 9 4 (1982) relevance of material false statemem to dicensing; CLI-9114, 37 NRC 428 a4 (195 Uruted States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) vacation of decision on mootness gmunds; CLI.9110, 37 NRC 197 (1993)

United States v. Munsingwcar. Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39-41 (1950) vacation of lower court decision when a procec&ng becomes moot; CU-93-10, 37 NRC 205 (1993)

United States v. Noble,422 UA 225,239 (1975) disclosure principles in civil and administran e proceedings; LBP-93-il,37 NRC 474 (1993)

United States v. Premises located at Route 13,946 F.2d 749,755 (lith Cir.1991) effect of civil adjudicanon on civil investigation as basis for stay of discovery in civil proceedmg; LBP-9110, 37 NRC 460-61 (1993)

United States v. weinstock, 231 F.2d 699,701 (D C. Cir.1956) defimtion of " material statenrm"; DD-934, 37 NRC 46 (1993)

Umted States Departnem of Justim v. LanJanc 124 L Ed. 2d 84 (1993) imphcation of confidemiahty nemasary fr. extension of stay of &scovery; LBP-93-10,37 NRC 460 (1993)

Umted States Departnrnt of Justice v. Imndano, 61 U.SLW, 4485 (U.S. May 25,1993) basis for continuing stay of enforcement proceeding; CLI-9113,37 NRC 420 (1993)

Valley Forge Oiristian College v. Americans United for Separation of Quirch & State, Inc.,454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982) components of injury in fact, LBP-93-4, 37 NRC 81 (1993)

Vermom Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vernunt Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB 138,6 AEC 520, 528 (1973) function of NRC rules to assure protection rather than define it; DD-93 3,37 NRC 121 (1993)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vernmnt Yankee Nuclear Power Staion), ALAB-179,7 AFf 159, 183 (1974) requirements for service of docunrnts on intervenors; CL1-93 3,37 NRC 153 n.47 (1993)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Staion), LBP-906,31 NRC 85.

94-95 (1990) scope of htigable issues in operating bcense extension promedmgs; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 14,30 (1993)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC,435 U.S. 519,535-36 (1978) responsibahry of intervenors to structure their parbeipation so that it is neaningful; CU-93-3,37 NRC 147 n.31 (1993)

Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Stabon, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-324,3 NRC 347, i

(

358, aff'd, CLI-76-22, 4 NRC 480, 486 (1976) sanctions for fahe statement made to U.S. agencies; CLI-9314,37 NRC 428 (1993)

I Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALML522,9 NRC 54,57 (1979) geographic proximity as basis for standing to intervene in operating heense amendment proceedings; LBP 9L5,37 NRC 106 n.30 (1993) 43 i

i i

t i

t LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASUi

.irgmia Dectric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Statian, Units I and 2), C1176 22,4 NRC 480.

(1976), aff'd, 571 F.2d 1289 (4th Or.1978) neeriahty of statenents and omissions of information; CU-93-14, 37 NRC 427-28 (1993)

Virginia Dectric and Power Co (North Anna Power Station, Uniu I and 2). CU-76-22,4 NRC 480. 487 (1976), aff'd sub nom. Virginia Dectric and Power Co. v. NRC, 571 F.2d 1289,1291 (4th Cir.1978) definicon of *nsienal statement"; DD-911, 37 NRC 46 (1993)

Virginia Dectnc and Power Co. v. NRC, 571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) denial of license apphcations for material false statements; IEP-93-5, 37 NRC 101 a 13 (1993)

Warth v. Scldin,422 U.S. 490, 505 (1975) establishment of causstion and redressabihty when a pentioner is challengmg legabty of governrrent regulanon of someone cive; LSP-93-4,37 NRC 81 a.20 (1993)

Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2). DD44-7,19 NRC 899,923-24 (1984) standard for institunon of show-cause proceedings; DD-93-1,37 NRC 50 (1993); DD-93-2,37 NRC 54 (1993), DD-93-3, 37 NRC 133 (1993); DD-93-4, 37 NRC 236 (1993); DD-93-5,37 NRC 244 (1993); DD-934,37 NRC 248 (1993); DD-93 7,37 NRC 312 (1993), DD-93-8,37 NRC 345 (1993); DD-93-9, 37 NRC 379 (1993); DD 93-10, 37 NRC 401 (1993) DD 9311,37 NRC 418 (1993) DD-93-12,37 NRC 491 (1993); DD-93-13,37 NRC $14 (1993)

Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nucicar Project No. 3), ALAB-747,18 NRC !!67, 1175-77 (1981)

I forum for htigation of maintenance and surveillance program concerns; LBP 93-1,37 NRC 18 (1993)

Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB.747,18 NRC 1167, 1180-81 (1983) showing necessary on other factors where good cause for late filing is not shown; CU-93-4,37 NRC 166 (1993)

Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. I and 2), CU-82-29,16 NRC l

i 1221, 1230 (1982) effect of construction permit extension request on construcuan activities; CU-93-10,37 NRC 202 (1993)

Weinstein v. Bradford,423 U.S.147,149 (1975) circumstances in which mootness exception is apphed; C11-93-8, !? NRC 187 (1793)

Weinstock v. United States, 231 F.2d 699,701-02 & n.6 (D.C. Or.1956) sanctions fcr false staternents made to U.S. agencies; CU-93-14,37 NRC 428 (1993)

Westinghouse Dectric Corp. v. Repubhc of the Phihppines,951 F.2d 1414,1427-30 (3d Or.1991) waiver of privi'ep ly disclosure of docunents; LBP-93-II,37 NRC 475 (1993)

Westmoreland v. National Transportation Safety Board, 833 F.2d 1461,1462 (llth Or.1987) standard for dismissal of appeal on mootness grounds; CU-93-lo,37 NRC 200 (1993)

Westnuseland v. National Transportation Safety Board. 833 F.2d 1461,1463 (Ilth Or.1987) licensee's claim of future adverse effects as tesis for overcoming bourd's finding of mootness.

CL1-934, 37 NRC 186 (1993)

Wisconsin Dectne Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-666,15 NRC 277,278 (1982) responsibihties of parties for inadequacies in laiefs; CU-93-3, 37 NRC 143 a 17 (1993)

I 1

44 l

1 i

?.

i

,i

l l

l, l

l l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CER. Part 2 i

standard for grant of a hearing prior to operating license issuance; O l.93-1,37 NRC 3 0993) 10 CJ.R. 2 4 construction pernut as a heense; CU-93-10. 37 NRC 202 a.38 0993) 10 CE.R. 2.102(a) j responsibihty to inform pardes of communications between Staff and beenwe; CLI-93-5, 37 NRC 170 0 993) 10 Cf.R. 2.107(a) scope of Comnussion autbanry over withdrawals of applications; C119L7, 37 NRC 179 0993) 10 CJR. 2.109 applicabihry of automatic extension proviuons; CU-93-il 37 NRC 263 (1993) j application of timely renewal doctrine to apphcation for extension of construction compledon date; C1193-10. 37 NRC 2010993) 10 Cf.R. 2.109(a) effect of pen &ng license extension request on expiration of license; CU-93-10,37 NRC 202 0993) mootness of stay request. CU-9511, 37 NRC 254 0993) 10 CJA 2.201(c)

Staff authonty to make orders imme&ately effective; CU-9FE. 37 NRC 183 0993) 10 Cf.R. 2.202 revocanon of matenals hcense for failure to pay annual fee; LBP-93-2,37 NRC 62 0991) shutdown of facilides using 7hermo-lag 6re barriers, denial of request for; DD-93-3,37 NRC 133 0993) i standard for institution of show cause pmcee&ngs; DD-93-1, 37 NRC 50 (1993); DD 912, 37 NRC 54 0993); DD-914, 37 NRC 236 0993); DD-915, 37 NRC 244 0993); DD 93-7, 37 NRC 312 0993). DD-919, 37 NRC 379 0993), DD-93-12, 37 NRC 4910993), DD-93-13, 37 NRC 514 0 993) 10 Cf.R. 2.202(b) failure to answer charges supportmg revocation order as basis for &smissal of hearing request.

I LBP-912, 37 NRC 62 0991) 10 CE.R. 2.202(cX2) l amendmera of; CU-9FB 37 NRC 188 0993) 10 CE.R. 2.202(cX2)(i) f failure to invoke procedure to chanenge imme& ate effecdveness of stay; LBP-9110. 37 NRC 464 l

0 993) licensee right to contest immediate effectiveness of suspznsion or&:r; LBP-916, 37 NRC 211 m.9. 216 0 993) 10 CJ.R. 2.202(cK2X1i) good-cause burden for extension of stay; LBP-93-10, 37 NRC 460 0993) stay of discovery in civil procee&ng tiecause of cnnnnat investigation; LBP-9110. 37 NRC 458 (1993) i stay of enforcement proceeding, Staff motion for; LEP-916, 37 NRC 209, 212, 213, 216, 222 m33 1

0993) t 45

.w_n_

.,,_.e,.w.,___.,_,,.,____._n__._,_-____._-----_

1

(

i i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RI'C1'LATIONS 10 C.f A 2.202(d) effecoveness of order terminating proae&ng; LDP-93-2,37 NRC 63 0991) 10 CIA 2.203 Conunissica pehey an sentenrnt agreements; DD.93-12,37 NRC 486 0993) 10 CFA 2.204 Staff auttmty to make orders immediately effective; CL1-934,37 NRC 183 0993) 10 CJ.R. 2.205 Comuussion pobey on seulement agreenents; DD-93-12,37 NRC 486 0993) 10 CIA 2 206 effect of pending peauon on intervention in liceme anradmem case; LBP-93-5,37 NRC 98 a.2 0993) emergency-related concerns at Turkey Point following llumcane Andrew; DD93-4,37 NRC 226-37 0993); DD-9k13, 37 NRC 494 515 (1993) i fahe and mi6ica&ng information by accurity personnel at Fermi; DD-93-6,37 NRC 246-49 0993) t fire protection concerns at nuclear power plams; DD.9Fil,37 NRC 408-18 (1993) forum for challenges to operaung bcense tint has been issued; QJ-93-4. 37 NRC 160 0993) forum for htigation of rnainienance and surveillance program concerns; LBP-911,37 NRC 17 0993) forum for obtaining relief after issuance of a full-power license; CL1-9FIO,37 NRC 205 0993) misrepresentauona an transfer of control; DD-93-8. 33 NRC 315-46 0993) offsite transport of liquid raffinate fertilizer, healih and safety risks; DD-9L7. 37 NRC 304-13 0993) pen &ng proceeding as basis for stay sequest; LBP-9F8, 37 NRC 298 n.10 0993) t raeanon exposure concerns about decomamination facihty; DD 93-9,37 NRC 366-80 (1993) restrictive clauses in ownership transfer agreenents; QJ-9111,37 NRC 256-57 (1993) restrictive seuleurm agreenents far Comanche Itak; DR9312,37 NRC 478-92 0993) review and ceruficanon of pipe support systems at Comanche Peak; DD 93-I,37 NRC 40 510993),

DD 93-2, 37 NRC 52-54 0993) reviewability of directors' decisions; LBP-93-9, 37 NRC 444 0993) i safety concerns about Nine Mile Point Station; DD-93-10,37 NRC 382-4010993) standard for institunon of show-cause procee&ngs; DD 9L6,37 NRC 248 0993) 7hernu>1ag fue barners, adequacy of; DD-93-3, 37 NRC 114-34 0993) trentrnent of stay request as peution for imnediate enforcenes acuan; C1J-93 2,37 NRC 58 0993) 10 CIA 2.206(cX1) and (2)

Conunission aumority to review Staff decision to take enforcenes action; LEP 93-1,37 NRC 18 0993) 10 CJ.R. 2.701 applicability to information passed between Staff and a licensee; ClJ-913,37 NRC 152 n.46 0993) definition of ' party"; CL1-93 3, 37 NRC 152 a 45 0993) 10 CIA 2.701(b) entitlenem of imervenor to service of documents; CLJ-9F3,37 NRC 152 0993) 10 CJ.R. 2.710 cause for extension of ume for fihng cornensons; QJ-93-5. 37 NRC 170 0993) 10 CIA 2.712 de6nition of aparty"; QJ-93-3, 37 NRC 152 n 45 0993) 10 CIA 2.714 amendnent of ClJ-93-3,37 NRC 142 n 15 0993)

[

five factors to te addressed by late 4 led challenges to technical specibcations; LBP.93-1,37 NRC 19 (1993) plea &ng requirenrnts for admissibihty of contentions; CL1-93-3,37 NRC 140 0993) stan&ng and conention sequirements for imervention; QJ-93-3,37 NRC 1410993) 10 CIA 2.714(a) orgaaivanon of a petition that comphes with; CL1-93-3,37 NRC 142 0993) 10 CIA 2.714(aXI) i svendance by intervenor; LBP-93-3, 37 NRC 67 0993) factors to be addressed by late 41ed hearing sequests; 1.EP-912, 37 NRC 63 0991) 46

?.

4 t

I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 6ve-factor nest for adnauion of late-61ed comentions; 13P-93-9,37 NRC 436 (1993) f 10 Cf.R. 2.714(aXIXi) satisfaction of tinuliness cnteria of section 2.734(aXI) as denmostranon of good cause for late-6ied j

intervenoon petition; CU-93-4, 37 NRC 162 n.2 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2714(aXIXi)-(v) applicalihty to supplenental or anended contendons imed on Staff environnemal review docunents; CU-9FI2. 37 NRC 361-63 (1993) cnteria to be addressed by anwndcd conteminns bawd on changed data in environmemal teparts; C1193-3,37 NRC 154 (1993) failure to address Eve factors for late intervenuan; CU-9L11,37 NRC 265 (1993) five factors to-be addressed by late imervemian petioon; CU 9k2,37 NRC 58 (1993); CU-93-4,37 NRC 163 (1993); CU-93-11,37 NRC 255 (1993) 6ve-factor test for late imervention by intervenor who has withdrawn; CU-93-1. 37 NRC 3 (1993) late imervention requirencat for nonparty seeking stay of licensing; CU-93-il. 37 NRC 254-55 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(aXIXiii) relationship of " significance" and " materially differem result" criteria to petitioner's ability to contribute to a sound record. (11-93-4, 37 NRC 162 n.2 (1993) 10 CJ.R.1714(aXIXv) consideration of delay factor in 6 hog a acparate anotion to reopen; CU-914. 37 NRC 162 (1993) 10 CJ.R. 2.714(aX2) evidentiary support required for comentions; LBP-93-3, 37 NRC 67 (1993) reliance on participation in another proceeding to denxumtrate stan&ng to intervene; CU-93-4,37 NRC 162 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(aX3) deadhne for amendnent of contentions; CU-913,37 NRC 153 (1993) 10 CIA 2.714(b) pleading requirenents for comentions; CL1-913,37 NRC 142,150 (1993) requirements for admission of contentions: LBP-9F9, 37 NRC 436 (1993) 10 CJR. 2.714(bXI) l comention requiremem for intervention; 13P-93-1. 37 NRC 13 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.714fbX2) admissibility of managenem characta and conyctenet cxunemions; 1.2P-9F5,37 NRC 105 (1993) admission of contention mileging material omissions from anendnent applicauon; LEP-93-5, 37 NRC 104 (1993) basis for environnemal comentions prior to issuance of Staff environnratal review;IEP-93-9,37 NRC t

440 (1993) denial of intervenuon petition is failure to sub nit admissible comention; CL1-9110,37 NRC 195

[

(1993) r evidentiary support required for contentions; CU-93-3. 37 NRC 151 (1993) j existence of material issue of law or fact with respect so supplemented decommissioning plan; CU-913, f

37 NRC 150 (1993) incorporation of original petition by reference in supplement to petition; CU-913,37 NRC 142 (1993) pleading requirenents for contencon dealing with ernergency preparedness issues; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 33 (1993) 10 CIA 2.714(bX2XiMiii) pleading requirenents for late-61ed contentions; CU-9511,37 NRC 255 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(bX2Xii) evidentiary support required for cornenoons; LBP-953,37 NRC 67 (1993) 10 CJ.R. 2.714(bX2Xiii) amendneta of contemians based on changed data in environmemal reports; CU-93-3,37 NRC 154,155 (1993) good cause for late $ ling of contentions bued on Staff envuonnemal review documents; CU-9F12,37 NRC 361-63 (1993) 47 1

i l

I

I J

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RI'GULATIONS speci6 city required of allegations in contenuous; LBP-93-5, 37 NRC 103 (1903) standard for challenge to environrnemal report; CL1-93-3,37 hTC 147 (1993) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(d) pleading requuenrnis for contentions; CL1913, 37 NRC 142,150 (1993) r requirenrnts for admission of comentions; LBP-93-9,37 NRC 436 (1993) 10 Cf.R.1714(d)(1)

• stan&ng requirenems fur late imervemion; C1193-II,37 NRC 255 (1993) 10 CIA 2.714(dX2Xii) a&nissibihty of contention that would not enutie peutioner to schef, even if proven; CU-93-3, 37 hTC 142 (1993)~

10 CIA 2.714a.

appeal of imervention order LBP-951, 37 NRC 38 (1993) dismissal of appeal for failure to file supporung inef; CU-93-10,37 NRC 198 (1993) licensee appeal of intervennon o;d:. ; CL1-916, 37 NRC 172 (1993) 10 CIA 2.714a(c) appeal of intervention order; LBP-951, 37 NRC 38 (1993) 10 CIA 2.715(c) participation of state pubhc atihues commission under, LBP-93-1,37 NRC 36,37 (1993) l 10 CIA 2.716

}

consolidauon of proceedings involving substantially efferent fars; G3-958,37 NRC 185 (1993) i 10 CIA 1718 l

case management authonty of licensing boards; LBP-9L8,37 NRC 299 (1993) 10 CJA 2.718(i) certi6 cation of request for extension of stay :o Commission; LBP-93-IO, 37 NRC 458 (1993) i discretionary referral of ruhngs to Commission; LBP-93-10,37 NRC 458 n.1,468 (1993) 10 CIA 2.720(h) release of information subject to a protecuve order, LBP-93-9,37 NRC 452 (1993) 10 CIA 2.730(f) interlocutory appeal of stay of discovery; LEP-9110,37 NRC 458 n.1 (1993)

I 10 CIA 2.734 apphcarion of reopening requirements to late 41cd imervention petition; (13-9L4, 37 NRC 161 (1993) reopemng a record to stay bcensing of a plant; CLI-9111,37 NRC 255 (1993) 10 CJA 2.734(aXI) satisfacuan of timehness criteria as demonstration of good cause for lateness of section 2.734(aXIKi);

CL1-934,37 NRC 162 n2 (1993) 10 CIA 2.734(aX2) relationship of *signi6canm* cnterion to peutioner's abihty to contribute to a sound record; CL1-9L4 37 NRC 162 n2 (1993) 10 CIA 2.734(ax3) selationship of

• materially differem result" criterion to petitioner's abihty to contribute to a sound record; CL1-914,37 NRC 162 n.2 (1993) 10 CJ.R. 2.740(bX2)

+

burden on party who seeks to apply attorney work product, LBP-913,37 NRC 69 (1993) discovery rules regarding work preduct doctnne; LBP-9111,37 NRC 472 (1993) material covered by attorney work product; LBP-93-3,37 NRC 68 (1993) 10 Cf.R 2740(e) supplementation of discovery responses; IEP-913,37 NRC 65 (1993) 10 CIA 2759 Commission pohey on settlement agreements; DD'9k12, 37 NRC 486 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.786 fmahty of initial decision for purpose of aceking review; LBP-9k7,37 NRC 290 (1993) imerlocutory review of decision delaying enforcenent procee&ng; (1J-9113,37 NRC 420 (1993) 48

+

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RLGULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 2.786(b) petinan for revsew of decontanunation orders; CU-93-8,37 NRC 182,188-89 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(b)(4) standard for gram of petioons for review; CR93-8. 37 NRC 184 (1993) standad for imerlocutmy review on the ments; CU-93-13,37 NRC 421 (1993) 10 CJ.R. 2.786(d) schedule for 6hng briefs when stay will expire before bnefs must be filed; CLI-9113,37 NRC 421 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(g) dureted ceru6 cation of decision to extend stay of discowry; LBP-93-10,37 NRC 458 n.1 (1993) discretionary referral of rulings to Commission; LdP-9110,37 NRC 458 n.1 (1993) effect of referral of ruhng on applicauon for interlocutory review; CLl-93-6, 37 NRC 174 (1993) standard for Commission leview of licensing board decisions; CU 93-13. 37 NRC 420 (1993) 10 CIA 1788 decisions and actions for whidi stays are applicable; Cu912,37 NRC 58 (1993) effect of teferral of ruhng on siny application; CU-93-6,37 NRC 174 (1993) nexus requirernem for stay requests; QJ-93-II,37 NRC 253 (1993) page hmit for stay requests; CU-93-II,37 NRC 254 (1993) stay motion 61ed concurrently with appeal, CU-916,37 NRC 173 (1993) 10 CJ.R 2.788(bX2) 1 content of stay applicanons; CLI-93-2,37 hTC 58 n.2 (1993) 10 CIA 178S(e) criteria for grant of a stay pending appeal; 2P-93-8,37 NRC 295 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.788(eXI)-(4) factors en be addressed by stay motions; CU-912,37 NRC 58 n.2 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.790 informanon slut is privileged under ICIA exemption 4; LBP-919,37 NRC 451 (1993) 10 CIA 1790ta44)

ICIA exemptiot 4 criiena; LBP-93-9,37 NRC 451 (1993) 10 CIA 2.790(b)'4) natwe of privileged information; GP-93-9, 37 NRC 452 (1993) 10 CIA 2.79NbX4H6) inadequacy of information supphed to deternune whether it is privileged;IEP-93-9,37 NRC 452 (1993) 10 CIA 2.790(bX5) necessity of information for effectiw performana of Board's dunes; LBP-93-9. 37 NRC 452 (1993) 10 CIA 2.802 proposed rule on storage of low-Irvel radioactin wastes at nuclear power plant sites; DI193-5. 37 NRC 239 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 2, Subpart L challenge to decommissioning plan; LBP-914, 37 NRC 77 (1993) 10 CIA 11205(d) standing to intervene in decommissioning pmceedag; GP-914,37 NRC 77 (1993) 10 CIA 2.1205(g) geographic proximity as basis far standing to intervene in materials licensing actions; LBP-93 4, 37 NRC 83 (1993) standing to imerwne in decommissioning proceedng; LBP-914,37 NRC 77 (1993) 10 CIA 2.1205(n) appeal of denial of heanng request; LBP-93-4,37 NRC 94 (1993) content of appeal of hearing or intervention denials; CU-93-9,37 NRC 191 n.1 (1993) 10 CJ.R.11213 Staff participation as a party in informal proceedmgs; LBP-914,37 NRC 79 n.8 (1993) 49 t

e t

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIO M 10 CFA 21231 I

availabihty of hearms file; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 269 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.1233(c) pleading requirements for contentions addressing deficiencies in hanse anendnrnt; LBP-9F7,37 NRC 273, 276 (1993) 10 CE.R. 2.1239 i

challenges to Staff guidance; LEP-914, 37 NRC 89 a 49 (1993) 10 CIA Part 2, Appendas C enforcenent action on intentionally inaccurate unsworn oral statements; DD 93-8,33 NRC 326 (1993) violations la wtuch a notice of violation need not be issued; DD-93-8,33 NRC 335,336,338, 340

~

(1993) 10 CIA Part 2, Appendix C, IV importanz e,! level IV violations; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 19 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 2, Appendix C, VI.B.2(c) consideration of similar violauons in prior enforcement actions in assessing amount of civil penalties; CU-93-8, 37 NRC 185 (1993) i 10 Cf.R. 917(a)(4) placenent of fire endurana test reports for fue barrier material in Public Docunent Room; DD-9F3.

37 NRC 119 n.5 (1993) 10 CIA Part 13 effect of settlemes agreements on actions brought as a resuk of investigations by NRC's independent inspector General; CU-93-14, 37 NRC 430 n.6 (1993) 10 CIA Part 20 exposure limits for nuclear poww reactors; DD-93-9,37 NRC 372 (1993) radiation surwy requirements for deco.

- facilities; DD 93 9, 37 NRC 376 (1993) requuenents for low-level radioactive waste storage at dewatarmaation facility; DD-93 9,37 NRC 370 (1993) t 10 CFA 20.l(c)

ALARA requirenrats for decontaminauon facihties; DD-919,37 NRC 377 (1993) 10 CIA 20.105(b) radiation levels at perimem of decontamination facility; DD-93-9,37 NRC 369 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 20.105(c) exposure hmits for gaseous effluents; DD-93-9,37 NRC 373 (1993) f 10 CE.R 20106 radionuchde conannations in gaseous effluents foDowing Hunicane Andrew; DD 9F13,37 NRC 502 (1993) 10 CIA 20.201(b) radiation survey requirenants for decomamination facilines; DD-959,37 NRC 376 (1993) 10 CIA 20.303 discharge of radioactive materials imo city sewer systems; DD'9F9,37 NRC 373,377 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 20401 recordkeeping requireness for radiation survrys at decontamination facibties; DD-93-9. 37 NRC 376 (1993) reporting reqmrements for radioacuve discharges imo city sewer systems; DD-919,37 NRC 373,377 t

(1993) 10 CIA 20.1003 definipon of

• effective dase equivalent"; LBP-9F4,37 NRC 85 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 20.110)(b)

ALARA requirenrats for decontamination facihties; DD-919,37 NRC 372 (1993) 10 CJ.R. 201301 I

exposure hmits for penmeter of '

'on facihry; DD-919,37 NRC 372 (1993) 10 CFA 20.1301(a) cy%tue imits for perineter of decontaminanon facihty; DD-93-9,3) hkC 309 (19931 I

$9 e

i i

t

l 1

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX a

RLGULATIONS 10 CIA 20.2003(aKI) types of radioactive nmenals that can le discturged amo city newer systems; DD-93-9,37 NRC 377 l

}

(1993) i 10 CJK Pat 20 Appen&x B. Table 2, col. I I

radionuclide concentrations in gaseous effluems following Hunicane An&rw; DD-93-13,37 NRC 502 t

(1993) 10 CIA Pan 30 extension of period for temporary storage of low-level ra&oactive was at nuclear power plant site; l

DD-93 5,37 NRC 239 (1993) heennee request for stay of order suspen&ng t'yproduct materials hcense; LBP-93-6,37 NRC 209,223 (1993)

]

requireness for low level radioactive waste storage at decontarranation facihty; DD-919,37 NRC 370 i

(1993)

[

j 10 CIA 30.9 effect of regulations on starutory concept of matenality; CU-93-14,37 NRC 428 (1993) j i

10 CIA 30.33(aX2) deternunation neassary for licensing of tiyproduct material facility; QJ-9114, 371.'RC 428 (1993) j licensing of a facility pnar to completion; CU 93-14,37 NRC 426 (1993) i 10 CFA Part 40 requirenrats for low-level ra&oactive waste storage at decontamination facihty; DD-93-9,37 NRC 370 (1993) tailings classihed as tivproduct material; LBP-93-7, 37 NRC 278. 279-80 (1993) f 4

10 CIA 40.4 dc6nition of ore; LBP-93-7, 37 NRC 286 (1993) 10 CIA 4042(c) dehnition of source matenal, GP-93-7,37 NRC 269 a.6,289 n.Il5 (1993) compliance with maserials license provisions pending termination of Imense; CU-917,37 NRC 178 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 40.61(a), 40.62(aXb) recordkreping requirenents for 1yproduct materials; LBP-93-7, 37 NRC 283 (1993) 10 CIA Part 40, Appen&x A Chierion 5 f

environmental impact auessrnent of onsite dispo6al of sourm maierial; GP-917,37 NRC 285 (1993) impact assessments of source matenal; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 290 (1993) 10 CJA Part 50 l

application of &fferent engincenng/ design approm::hes in review and certihcation of pipe supports; DD93-1,37 NRC 43 (1993) j effect of quality assurance de6cmacies on habihty insurance; DD93-10,37 NRC 383 (1993) i requirernents for low-lewt radioactive waste storage at decontamination facihty; DD-93-9. 37 NRC 370

[

(1993) 10 CIA 50.2 I

resumed operation as an alternative so decommissioning; C13-913,37 NRC 145 (1993)

I 10 CIA 50.7 l

restnetive language in settlemem agreements; DD 9112, 37 NRC 479, 483, 484-85 (1993) 10 CIA 50.7(f)

I restnetions in settlenent agreencras; CL2-93-11,37 NRC 262 (1993) restrictive clauses in ownership transfer agreements; CU-93 il,37 NRC 25&57 (1993) restricaveness of language in settlemem agreenetas; DD-9512,37 NRC 480 (1993) t 10 CIA 50.9(a) definition of matenal falw statenent"; DD-911,37 NRC 46 n.16 (1993)

I 10 Cf.R. 5012(aKI) nsk to public Iwalth and safety of exemptions from regulations; DD-93-3,37 NRC 121 n.10 (1993) 10 CIA 50.23 ternunation of const uction permit on issuance of operating license; CU-9110. 37 NRC 198 (1993) l 51 4

)

.i

't e

.,,. L

4 4

]

I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX i

f REGULATIONS l

1 10 CJ.R. 5034(bk6) contem of FSAR subnuned with operaung hanse applicauon; LBP-93-5,37 NRC 99 n3 (1993) l 10 CJA $034(bk6Ki) l wporting aqum ments for apphcam's organizabonal structure, allocation of responsibihues and f

authonues, and persommi quahfications; 1RP-93-5, 37 NRC 102-03 (1993) 10 CFA 5036(cW2) fire watches as renedud actions; DD-93-3, 37 NRC 122 (1993) t hrruting conditions for nuclear power plam operauon; DD-93-3. 37 NRC 122 a 13 (1993) 10 CTA 5044(cW3) i Cornnussion authonty to unpose ternunation date for imenm nrasures; 1.BP 9kl. 37 NRC 27 a 40 t

(1993) 10 CJ.R. 5046 apphcabihty of analytical techniques for ECCS evaluation to plams constructed lefore May 21, 1971; DD 93-10, 37 NRC 385-89 (1993) 10 CIA 5047(b) s components of fundamemal flaw in an energency preparedness plan; LBP-9kt,37 NRC 32 (1993) i 10 C1.R. 50.47(bXI5)

}

hugabihry of contention quesnoning traimng and preparedness of energency personnel; LBP-9kt,37 t

I NRC 32 (1993) i l

10 CIA 50.48 4

I' adequacy of Thermo-lag material to meet fue proscetion seguirements; DD-913,37 NRC 119,120 (1993) 30 CIA 50 40 envirrnmental quahhcanon of non-safety-nlated cahics; LBP-93-9,37 NRC 448 (1993) j 10 CE R. 50 54(c) f cansfer of melcar power plant control without wnuen permission of NitC; LBP-93-5,37 NRC 102 (1993)

[

10 CJ.R. 50.54(s) failure to venfy PORV operabihty because of unavailability of normal hghung in containment; j

DD-93-13, 37 NRC 509-10 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 50.54(y) approval of decision to depart from Technical Speci6 cations during Hurricane Andrew; DD-93-13,37 NRC 509-10 (1093) 10 CJR 50.55fb) good cause for construction estension request; CLJ-9110,37 NRC 1% (1993)

I good cause for delay of construction completion; DD-9k12, 37 NRC 479 (1993) 10 CfA 50.55am) l leakage rate testing of water-scaled conuunment isolanon valves; DS9110,37 NRC 395 (1993) 10 CIA 50.55a(f)

}

applicabihty of imervice tesung program to Nine Male Point feedwnter system; DD93-10,37 NRC 388 1

(1993) i 10 Cf.R. 50.56 j

sausfaction of AEA nquirerrent for completion of a facihry; CLl-93-10,37 NitC 201 n35 (1993)

I terminacon of construction permit on issuanx of operating Leeme; CLI-93-10,37 NRC 198 (1993) 10 CF.R. 5057

)

heahh and safety findmgs for issuance of operaung limnse; LBP-915,37 NRC 101 (1993) 10 CJ R. 50.57(aXI) satisfacuan of AEA requirenrnt far compleuon of a facihty; CLI-93-10,37 NRC 201 n.35 (1993) 10 CIA 5038(bX6)

Commission junsdiction over challenges to Staff "no significant hazards consideration" imdmg; LBP-93-1, 37 NRC 35 (1993) i 52 i

sf f.

2 -.--

w t

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 50.59

~

construccon of a storage facihty far sempurary storaFe of low-level rasnacuve wastes at a nuclear power plam site; DD-93-5, 37 NRC 239-42 (1993)

]

evaluanons required for installation and operation of ra&amenvc waste microfi:'rmion systems; DD-93-8, 33 NRC 341,342 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 50.59(aX2) accons that involve an vnreviewed safety question; DD 93-5. 37 NRC 243 (1993) 30 Cf.R. 50.62(d),50.63(c)

Comnussion authonty to impose ternunanon date for imerim mea 6ures; Lisp-931,37 NRC 27 n.40 (1993)

~

I 10 CJA 50.71(c) wvision of f3AR after plam licensing; LBP-915,37 NRC 99 n.3 (1993) 10 CIA 50.72 noti 6 cation of departure from Technical Speci6 cations; DD-9113,37 NRC 510 (1993) l notihcation requirenents for plam shutdowns required by Technical Specifications; DD-934,33 NRC 327 (1993)

Red Phone noti 6carions; DD-93-8, 33 NRC 339 n.10 (1993) 10 CIA 50.73 i

"taking" Ucensee Event Reports; DD-93-8,33 NRC 335 (1993) sepurung requirements for opening of dilution valves that are required to be locked chmed. DD 93-8,33 NRC 329 (1993) 10 CIA 50.75 consideranons in deternuning whether to gram an exemption from funang requirements for 1

I decommissioning; Cll-93-3,37 NRC 149 (1993) 1 10 CJR 50.75(eXIXii) esemption from funding acquirements for decommissioning; CU-913,37 NRC I48 (1993); CLI-9F12, 37 NRC 360 (1993) 10 CIA 50.82(b) approval of funding plan as basis for approval of deconuthsiomag plan; CLI-913,37 NRC 149 (1993) 10 CIA 51.10Rc) nortfor-power considerstmns in operating license cuension promedings; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 36 (1993) 10 CIA Part 50, Appendia A adequacy of Thermo-Lag mmerial to meet fire pmtection requirenents; DD-93-3,37 NRC 119,120,133 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part TO, Appendia A. GDC 2 and 4 protection against hghtmg-induced and other electncal phenomena; DPRM-93-1,37 NRC 347 (1993) 10 CE.R. Part 50, Appen&m A, GDC 33. 35, 36, 37 applicability to plants constructed tefore May 21,1971; DD-93-10, 37 NRC 384-85, 387, 388, 390, 392 (1993) 10 CJK Part 50 Appen&x B review of field changes for pipe supports; DD-93-1,37 NRC 41 (1993) scope of NRC inspection of pahty assurance prograna; DD 9Fil,37 Imc 415,417 (1993) tratafer of pipe support packages for review and certibcanon between design groups that used different design criteria; DD-93-1,37 NRC 40 (1993) 10 CIA Part 50, Appendix B, Cnteria I, II, XVI-XVil quality assurance responsibilities of heensecs; LBP-918,37 NRC 295 n.7 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion 111 transfer of design review responsibility terween pige supiert design groups; DD-93-1,37 NRC 45 (1993) 10 CIA Part 50, Appendia E components of fundamental flaw in an energency preparedness plan; 2P-951, 37 NRC 32 (1093) testmg of emergency plan prior to nestart fotlowing Imrricane; DD-93-4,37 NRC 22S (1993) i i

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RECl)LATIONS 10 CER. Part 50 Appendix !

exposure hnuts for gaseous efnuents; DD.93-9. 37 NRC 373 (1993)

Technical Specs 6 canon requirenents for nuclear power restas; DD.93-9,37 NRC 372 (1993) 4 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendia 3 leakage limit de6ciencies of Nine Mile Pois contannunt isolation valves; DD-9110,37 NRC 389,390 (1993) leakage hmits for containnent isolation valves; DD-9kl0,37 NRC 383 (1993)

'f NRC Staff concerns about NMP-1 comphase with requirements of; DD-93-10, 37 NRC 389 (1993) 10 CIA Part 50, Appendix 3, Ef, llG and 11H leak rate tests for containnent isolauan valves; DR93-IO,37 NRC 389, 393 (1993) 30 Cf.R. Part 50,' Appen&n 3, IRC.3 leakage hmits for containnent isolmion valves; DD'93-lb,37 NRC 389 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 50 Appen&n K mpplicability of analyucal andmiques for ECCS evaluation to plants constructed before May 21, 1971; i

DD-93-10,37 NRC 385,387 (1993) 10 CIA Part 50, Appe adix R interim fue protecnon at Turkey Point following Hurricane Andrew; DD.93-13, 37 NRC 505 (1993)

Thermo-Lag fire barriers, de6ciencies in; DD-93-3,37 NRC 115,120,133 (1993); DD-93-11, 37 NRC 408 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appendix R. IRA screen wash system as ahernative water supply system for fue protection; DD-9F13,37 NRC 506 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appen&x R, IRG safety of plant whose fue barners fail to rnect fue endurance rating criteria; DD-913,37 NRC 122 (1993) 10 CJA Part 51 environmental assessrrent of decommissioning plan for fuel fabricadon facihty; LEP-93-4,37 NRC 78 l

(1993) 10 Cf.R. 51.20 EIS requirenrats for consuuction period recapture amendments; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 36 (1993) 1 EIS requirements for temporary onsite storage facihty for low-level radioachve wastes; DD-93-5,37 NRC 242 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 51.21,51.22

]

EIS requirements for construction period recapnue anrn&nents; IEP 93-1,37 NRC 36 (1993) 10 CEA 51.23(a) litigabilny of ra&oacave waste storage and &sposal conarns in operating license proceedings; i

LEP-93-1, 37 NRC 29 (1993) 10 CJA 5145 adequacy of environnental report on decommissioning; CLI-93-3,37 NRC 143,144 a.23 (1993) 10 CIA St.53(a) liogabihty of radioactive waste storage and disposal concerns in operating bcense anendnrnt proceedings; LEP-93-1, 37 NRC 30 (1993) l need-for-power consideradons in operating license extension prome&ngs; LBP-911,37 NRC 36 (1993) j 10 CIA 51.95(a) need-for-power considerauons in operating license extension procee&ng% LBP-911,37 NRC 36 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 52 reviewabihty of denials of section 2.206 petitions; LBP-93-9,37 NRC 444 rL26 (1993) reviewabihty of enforcement actions undcr; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 18 n.22 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 54 scope of litigable issues in operating license renewal prome&ngs; LBP-9F1, 37 NRC 14 (1993) 10 C F R M 17 prematunty of operating beense extension application; IEP-911, 37 NRC 14 (1993) 54

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 54.29 scope of hagable issues in operating hceme renewal proceedmgs; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 14 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 61.50 weight given to genenc letters when licensee has comnuned to follom that guidance in its section 50.59 evaluation; DD-93-5, 37 NRC 244 (1993) 10 CIA Part 70 dccomnussioning of fuel fabricauon facihty; LDP-93-4,37 NRC 77 (1993) requnenents for low-level radioacove waste storage at decontanunation facihty; DD.93-9, 37 NRC 370 (1993) 10 CF.R. 71.5 ~

transport of lowl evel ra&oacaw inaterial through residential streets; DD-93-9, 37 NRC 378 (1993) l l

10 Cf.R. 73.71 conmalnent of safeguards problerns; D(193-8, 33 NRC 339, 340 (1993) obbganon of applicant to disclose crinunal or felonious acts; LBP-93-8, 37 NRC 295 (1993) l Red Phone nouhcations; DD-93-8, 33 NRC 339 n.10, 340 (1993)

I 10 Cf.R. Part 73, Appendix 0 obhgation of applicant to disclose crrninal or feloninus acts; LEP 93-8, 37 NRC 295 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 100 dose hmirs for tempwary onsne storage facility for low-level radioactive wastes; DD-93-5,37 NRC 242 (1993) effects of extension of operating licenses on population distance standards; LBp.93-9,37 NRC 439 (1993) 10 Cf R. Part 100. Appendix A, III(c) de6nition of " safe shutdown earthquake"; DD-93-3, 37 NRC 127 (1993) 10 CfA 173.441(b) radia,an survey requirernents for shipping vehicles; DD-93-9,37 hTC 369 (1993) 40 CIA Part 190 EPA standards appbcable to nuclear facibues; DD-93-9, 37 NRC 372 (1993) 40 CT.R. Part 261 definition of hazardous wastes; LBP-9%7, 37 NRC 278 m.60, 279, 280 (1993) 40 Cf.R. Part 261, Subpart A,261.3

&sposal of hazardous waste puxed with radioactive waste; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 270 (1993) 44 CF.R. Part 350 scope of IIMA review of energency preparedness; DD-93-4,37 NRC 227 (1993) 49 Cf.R. Parts 174189 transport of low-level radioactive snaterial through residential streets; DD-93-9,37 NRC 378 (1993)

I i

1 55

(

f

I i

l t

1 l

l l

i l

l I

i l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTT.S l

i l

l 18 U.S.C 1001 i

sent for materiality of a staicment; CL-93-14, 37 NRC 428 & n.4 (1993) l Administranve Procedure Act,5 U.S C 558 applicability of automatic extension provisions; CU-9Fil, 37 NRC 263 (1993) amotness of stay request; CU-93-11,37 NRC 254 0993)

Administrative Procedure Act. 9(b), 5 U.S C 558(c) application of timely renewal doctrine to applicanon for entension of construction complenon date; CU-9310, 37 NRC 201 (1993)

/

s Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S.CA. 2113(aX2), (bX2) l transfer of typroduct matenal prior to license termination; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 271 (1993)

I l

Atomic Energy Act,11e(2), 42 U.S CA. 6903f17) 7 defimtion of byproduct material; LDP-93-7, 'M NRC 270 (1993)

/

tailings as byproduct matenal; IEP-93-7, 37 NRC 268, 278 n.61 (1993)

Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S C. 2012, 2013

'I statutory objectives in reculation of sourm natenal cre; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 289 (1993)

Z 4

l Atomic Energy Act,42 U.SC 2013

?

j statutory objectives in regulation of source matena. are; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 289 (1993)

Atemic Erx. gy Act 42 U.S.C 2014(eX2) definition of byproduct material; LBP-93-7. 37 NRC 286 (1993)

Atomic Energy Act,108, 42 U.S C 2138 7

resumed ope.ation as an alternative to decommissicrung; CU-93 3, 37 NRC 144 n.23 0993)

C I

Atomic Energy Act.161c,161i,1610, 42 U.S.C 2201(c), 2201(i), 2201(c) l hmits on NRC enforcenrnt authority; DD-917, 37 NRC 310 (1993)

~

j Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S C 2201(b) statutory objecoves in regulauon of source material are; LDP-93-7,37 NRC 289 (1993) l Atomic Energy Act,182,42 U.S.C 2231 i

information required on character of applicants; IEP-915,37 NRC 100 (199')

l Atomic Energ* Act,185, 42 U.S.C 2235 l

circumstances under which a construction permit will expire; CU.93-10,37 NRC 201,203 (1993) l construction permit as a license; CU-93-lo, 37 NRC 202 n.38 (1993) l rrootness of construction permit extension proceedmg because of complenon of cormtruction; CLI.93-10, 37 NRC 200 (1993) l Atomic Energy Act,186. 42 U.S.C. 2236 Lnuts on NRC enforcenrnt authority; DD'917,37 NRC 310 (1993)

Atonne Energy Act,186a,42 U.S C 2236(a) interpretauon of maletial false statenent; CU-9114,37 NRC 428 (1993) revocation of license for matenal fdse statenrats; DD 931,37 NRC 46 (1993) LBP-93 5,37 NRC 101 9

n.13 (1993)

Atomic Energy Act, IB6c,188,42 U.S C 2236,22^6 resumed operation as an alternative to decomnunioning; CUSL3,37 NRC 144 n.23 (1993) i

[

Atomic Energy Act,189,42 U.S.C 2239 i

Comnussion authority to delay or deny Lcense issuance d.J-93-11. 37 NRC 25$ (1993)

U l

,,s

... -..... + + '

[

i I

t i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATtTl'I3 r

1 Atomic Energy Act,189a,42 U.SC 2239(a) changes to groundwater umniacsing plan as a matenals hcense anendment; CL1-917,37 NRC 177 (1993) effect of invitation to intervention peudoner to speak inlanelly with Staff and beenwe on party status, CLI-93-4, 37 NRC 167 o 4 (1993) hearing rights on a case that has become moot, CLI-93-10, 37 NRC 203 (1993)

Atomic Energy Act, IS9a(1),42 U.S C. 223%XI) apphcation of ju&cial concepts of staruhng in NRC procce&ngs, IEP-93-4, 37 NRC 80 (1993)

Awnue Energy Act,189b. 42 U.SC 2239(b) status of directors' decisions; 1EP-93 9, 37 NRC 444 (1993)

Atonue Energy Act,191 timing of a heanng in decomnnasiosng cases; CL193-3,37 NRC 152 (1993)

Atomic Energy Act, 232, 234, 42 U.S C. 2280, 2282 linuts on NRC enforcement authonty; DD-93 7, 37 NRC 310 (1993)

Atomic Energy Act,274b authonty of states over ra&oactive materials; DD-93-9, 37 NRC 368 (1993)

Energy and Water Development Appropnations Act,1993, Pub. L No. 102-377,502,106 Stat.1315,1342 (1992) preclusion of agency fun &ng of peuboners; LBP-93-4,37 NRC 94 n.65 (1993)

Energy Reorgaaivation Act of 1974,206,42 U.SC 5846 Unnts on NRC enforcearnt authority; DD.93-7,37 NRC 310 (1993)

Energy Reorganizanon Act of 1974,211,42 U.SC 5851 linuts on NRC enforcenen: authority; DD-93-7,37 NRC 310 (1993)

Energy Reorganization Act,210,42 U.SC 5851(a) allegauons of perjured tesumony during DOL procee&ng; DD.93-8,33 NRC 315 (1993) restrictive language in settienent agreenents; DS93-12, 37 NitC 479. 480, 483, 484-85 (1993)

Freedom of Information Act, Exernpuan 7(D), 5 U.SC 552(b)(7XD) showing a~e=zary to estabhsh confidentiality of a source; LDP-93-10,37 NRC 463 (1993)

National Envimnmental Poliev Act,102, 42 U.S C. 4332 imposmon of licenre con &uons on use of hquid rafhnate fertilizer; DD93-7,37 NRC 310 (1993)

Program Fraud Ovil Renr&cs Act. 31 U.S C 3801 et seq.

effect of settlement agreements on actions brought as a resuh of investiga: ions by NRC's independent Inspector General; CU-93-14,37 NRC 430 n6 (1993)

Uranium Mill Taibngs Ra& anon Control Act,101 definition of processed are as 197soduct material; IEP-93-7. 37 NRC 288 (1993) i i

58 i

.l 6

T j

l l

l

i l,

s l

i i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS d

I i

l

)

3 Am. Jur. 2d, Agency 0986) Ct. at 509-10

{

responsibibty of licensees for acts of their employees; LBP-92 25,36 NRC 173 0992) 1 P. Areeda & D. Turner, Anutrust law,1104, at 7-8 pnarity to compeution over claims that restrictive agreenents are necessary to nutigate economic disness; LBP-92-32, 36 NRC 309 n.135 0992) 11 P. Areeda & D. Turner. Anatrust Law 1323, at 106 0978) applicabihty of pnnciples of sepose in NRC proceedings; LBP-92-32,36 NRC 283 0992)

Il P. Areeda & D. Turner Antitrust law,1501, at 322

/

definition of " market power"; LBP-92-32, 36 NRC 290 0992)

Att'y General's Manual on the Administra0ve Procedure Act 67 (1947)

Ol pohey to withlmld voluntary interview transcnpts until end of inestigation; ClJ-92-10, 36 NRC 3 n.1 (1992)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) f discovery rules regarding work product doctrine; LEP-93-11,37 NRC 472 (1993)

{

1 H R. Rep. No. 1470,91st Cong.,2d Seas, 0970) i l

low cost as a predicate for imposition of antitrust bcense condaions; LBP-92-3136 NRC 301 (1992)

~

5 l

H R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Seat 265 (1946) i j

trauscript rights on voluntary testinony-ClJ-92-10, 36 NRC 4 n.2 0992)

T i

E. Kintner, An Anutrust Pnmer 15 (2d ed.1973)

I pnncipal purpow of Sherman, Clayton, and Federal Trade Commission acts; LBP-92-32,36 NRC 290 0 992)

IB J. Moore, J. Lacas & T. Currier, Moore's Federal Practice. 10441[3.-3] (2d ed 1988) apphcability of collateral estoppel where Subpart G and Subpart L procredings are consohdated.

LEP-92-16A,36 NRC 210992)

A. Neal. The Antitrust laws of the Umted States 126 (2d ed.1970) accountability of dominant commercial entity for its market power; LDP-92 32, 36 NRC 290 (1992)

Prelicensing Antitrust Review of Nuclear Power Plants: Heanngs before the Joirs Committee on Atomic j

Energy,91st Cong.,1st Sess. 37-38 (1%9) (remarks of Rep. Hohheld, JCAE Chairman) l purpose of prohibioon against postlicensing antitrust review; CLJ-92-11, 36 NRC 56 0992)

Prehcen ing Anutrust Review of Nuclear Power ants: Heanngs on S. 212, H.R. 8289, H R. 9647, and S.

g 2765 Before the Joint Comrtt on Atomic ncrgy,91st Cong.,1st & 2d Sess. 0969-70) g rahonale for NRC prehcensing anntrust review; IEP-92-32,36 NRC 300 0992)

S. Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong.,1st Sess. 206 (1945) transcnpt rights on voluntary tesumony; CL1-92-10, 36 NRC 4 n.2 0992) r S. Rep No. 1247, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 0970) i low cost as a predicate for imposinon of antitrust license condiuons LBP-92-32,36 NRC 3010992) j l

I A N.1,inger, Sutherland Statutory Construction 18 22.34.35 (4th ed.1985) i appbc.dsle rules where Subpart G and Subpart L proceedmgs are consobdated, LBP-9216A, 36 NRC 20 n.6 0992) 2A N. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construchon 648.06 (4th ed.1984) at 308

[

weight given to legislative history; CLJ.92-10, 36 NRC 4 n.2 0992) i I

59 s

1

..-. m ----- m m

me..

-:w.

-1

4 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHER5i L Sulhvan, Handbook of the law of Anutrust iS. at 30 (1977) defiriition of " market power"; LBP-92-32. 36 NRC 290 (1992)

Sutherland Statutory Comtruccon i46.05 (4th ed.1984) applicable rules where Subpart G and Subpart L proceedings are consohdmed LBP-92-16A. 36 NRC 20 a 6 (1992) 18 C. Wnght and A Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (1350, at 20004 (2d ed.1990) 1 tinchness considerations in raising absence of subject nuitter junsdiction; 1.DP-92-32, 36 NRC 287 n 46 (1992) 18 C Wright, A. Miller & E Cooper, Federal Practice and Prowdure 5 4423 (1981) apphcabihty of collaterni estoppel where Subpart G and Subpart L proceedings are conschdated, i

LBP-92-If A, 36 NRC 21 (1992)

^

18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E Cooper, Federal Practim and Prowdure 5 4478 (1981) law of the caw as bar to rehtigation of same issue in sulucquent stages of the sane procerdmg; LBP-92-32, 36 NRC 283 (1992)

I t

1 i

L 4

r M) i l

i I

I N. 49 m*h 1

4 i

l l

SUllJECT INDEX l

i ACCIDENTS coincidental occurrence with natural esasters, htigabibty of; LDP-93-1. 37 NRC 5 (1993) l ADJUDICATORY BOARDS l

delegated authonty of; LBP-93-7, 37 NRC 267 (1993)

I g

l ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDlJRE ACT l

tinely renewat doctnne; CU-9kl0, 37 NRC 192 (1993) q ALARA decontamination facibry requirenents; DD 919, 37 NRC 365 (1993)

AMENDMENT of contentions; CLI 93-12, 37 NRC 355 (1993)

See also Construction Fernut Anrndarnts, Uxnse Amendments; Materials tjcense Anendment, I

I Operating Uceme Anrndncm APPEAIS coment of onefs; CU-9110, 37 NRC 192 (1993) 3 l

esnussal for failure to file a Statenent of Appeal, C1193-9. 37 NRC 190 (!993)

/

dismissal on mootness grounds; CLI-93-10, 37 NRC 192 (1993)

~

estension of time for; CU-93-9,37 NRC 190 (1993)

~

APPUCANTS

[

responsabibty to provide accurate information; CU-9114, 37 NRC 423 (1993) 1 See also Ucensees

~

i ATDMIC L'NERGY ACT 7

byproduct nutenal definition, LBP-93-7, 37 NRC 267 (1993)

I construcuan pernut amendnents; CU-9110,37 NRC 192 (1993) duties of licensees'appUcants to provide accurate informanon; CU-9114, 37 NRC 423 (1993) matenal false statenrnts; CLi-93-14, 37 NRC 423 (1993) i satisfaction of construction requirenrnts; CLI-93-10. 37 NRC 192 (1993) standing to intervene; LBP-93-4, 37 NRC 72 (1993)

ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT burden on party objecung to discovery on basis of LBP-913,37 NRC 64 (1993) taped conversanons of heensee us; LBP-93-11, 37 NRC 469 (1993)

ATTORNEY <LIENT PRIVIMGE l

apphcabihty to surreptinously taped conversauuns; LBP-93-11, 37 NRC 469 (1993)

BOARDS See Adjudicatory Boards; Ucenr.iog Boards BRACtIYT}IIAAPY misadmirustranon, LBP-93-6, 37 NRC 207 (1993); IR-93-10, 37 NRC 455 (1903)

URIEPS appe!! ate. cornent of, CU-9310, 37 NRC 192 (1993) responsibihty for inadequacies in; CU-913, 37 NRC 135 (1993)

BYPRODUCI MATIRIAL definition of; LDP-93-7, 37 NRC 267 (1993) reprocessed km-level radioactive waste as: LBP-93-7, 37 NRC 267 (1993) 61 i

l i

i l

~.

SUBJECT INDEX l

BYPRODUCT MATLRIAL LICFRSE suspension, delay of proceedmg; 2P-93-6, 37 NRC 207 0993)

CASE MANAGEMENT authonty of licensing boards; LP" B,37 NRC 292 0993)

CERTIFICATION of pipe support systems; DD 93-1, 3'. ' AC 39 0993); DD-93-2, 37 NRC 52 0993)

See also Directed Ceru6cauon COLLATERAL l'STOPPEL applicability to nonpartws; CL1-93-4, ;7 NRC 156 099I)

COMMISSION escreunnary authonty to grant imervention; C1193-3. 37 NRC 135 0993); CLI-9L12,37 NRC 355 0 993) review of seidement agreenents; CU 9114,37 NRC 423 0993)

See also Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion COMMUNICATIONS between Staff and hcensee, obligation to inform imervenor of. CU-93-5, 37 NRC 168 0993)

COMIONENTS fraudulemly certified; LBP-93-1, 37 NRC 5 0993)

CONSTRUCTION complecon during pendency of construcuan extension request; CLI-93-10,37 NR( 192 0 993) tmding of completion pen &ng resoludon of allegadons of irregulanty; C119Fil, J7 NRC 2510993)

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD RECAPTURE PROCEEDING forum for hogation of operational issues relevant to; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993)

CONSTRUCTION PERMTT AMENDMENTS circumstances appropriate for expiration and forfeiture of rights under; CU-9110, 37 NRC 192 0993) l CONSTRUCTION PERMTT EATENSION compleuen of construction during pendency of request for; CU-9110, 37 NRC 192 (1993) good cause for; CU-93-10, 37 NRC 192 0993)

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXTENSION PROCEEDINGS scope of, CU-93-10, 37 NRC 192 0993)

CONSTRUCTION PERMITS satisfaccon of AEA reqmreness for facility complenon; CU-93-10, 37 NRC 192 (1993)

CONSULTANTS responsibihty of licensees /apphcams for; CLI-9kl4,37 NRC 423 0993)

CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES admamstranve dence neies in. DD-9310, 37 ' ' 381 0 993) imervice tesung program; DD-93-10,37 Nie 1 0993) surveillan tesong; DD-93-8. 37 NRC 314

-1 COVfENTIONS adverse facts not included in beme amendnent apphcanon; LDP-93 5,37 NRC 96 0993) affirmative safety; CU-93-3,37 NRC 135 0993) amendrrent of C11953,37 NRC 135 0993); CLI93-12,37 NRC 355 0993)

EIS requests in; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) evidenuary support required for; CU-93-3,37 NRC 135 0993) interrogatones requesung daciosure of factual bases and legal requnements underlying; LDP-913,37 NRC 64 0993) pendency of investigauon as basis for; LDP-93 9,37 NRC 433 0993) pleading requiremerns for; LBP-9kl. 37 NRC 5 0993) previously unavailable environmental review docunents as basis for; CU-913, 37 NRC 135 (1993) requireurnt for imervention; LBP-93-1, 37 NRC 5 0993) responsibibry of parues to examine public.ly available doeunentary evidence in support of; LBP 93-1,37 NRC 5 0993)

]

Staff questmns to beensee as basis for; C1193-3,37 NRC 135 0993) l 1

62 l

t i

I SUBJECT INDEX CONTENTIONS, IATE-FILID tawd on Staff environnental review docunents, requirenents for; CU-93-12, 37 NRC 355 0993) criteria used by bcensing boards to deternune admissibility of; 12P-93-9,37 NRC 433 0993)

US preparauon; LBP-93-9,37 NRC 433 0993)

[

US requests in; LBP-93-1, 37 NRC 5 0993) good cause for; CL1-93-3,37 NRC 135 (1993) f meighting of five factors applied to determine admissibility of; ISP-93-9,37 NRC 433 0993)

COOLANT non-safety related methods for injecuan of; DD-93-10, 37 NRC 3810993)

CORE See Reactor Core CRIMINAL IN\\T.STIGATION delay of enfurrenrnt procerdmg because of, LBP-93-10,37 NRC 455 0993)

DECISIONS Commission, stay of; CU 93-11, 37 NRC 251 (1993)

DECDMMISSIONINO covironmemal impacts under NEPA; CU-913, 37 NRC 135 (1993) funding plan contentions, CLI-9312,37 NRC 355 0993) generic emironnental impact statenrnt as applicant's docunent for purposes of section 2.714(b)(2)(iii);

CU-93-12,37 NRC 355 0993) radiological contamination from; LBP-93-4, 37 NRC 72 (1993)

{

resumed operadon as an alternative under NEPA; CU-913,37 NRC 135 0993) stay of order for; CU-93-12,37 NRC 355 0993) 1 DECONTAMINATION FACILTTY perirncier radiation levels; DD-93-9,37 NRC 365 0993)

DEFICIENCIES in evacuation plans; DD-93-4,37 NRC 225 0993)

DEFINITIONS byproduct material; ISP-93-7,37 NRC 267 0993) material statenent; DD-93-1,37 NRC 39 (1993); DD-93-2, 37 NRC 52 0993) mootness; CU-93-8,37 NRC 1810993)

DELAY OF PROCEEDINO good cause for, IEP-934,37 NRC 207 0993) heense suspension, Staff mmion for; IEP-934,37 NRC 207 0993)

DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEMS automatic; DD-93-IO, 37 NRC 3810993)

DIESEL GENERATORS emergency backup, adequary at Turkey Point; DD-93-13,37 NRC 49311993)

DIRECTED CERTIFICATION of decision to delay proceeding; LBP-93-10,37 NRC 455 (1993)

DISCOVERY against NRC Staff; IEP-93-9,37 NRC 433 0993)

INPO reports as privileged matter, IEP-919,37 NRC 433 (1993) irreparable. injury in license anendment case; LBP-93-8,37 NRC 292 0993) privileged maner; LBP-93-3,37 NRC 64 0993) stay of; LBP-934. 37 NRC 207 0993) taped conversations as attorney work product; LBP-93-II,37 NRC 469 0993)

EARTHQUAKl:S l

coincidersal occurrence with accidents, htigabihty of, LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) fire barner integrity; DD-93-3, 37 NRC 113 0993)

EfTECTIVENESS of order tertuinadng proceedmg; LBP-912,37 NRC 610993) 63 i

t l

1 i

O s

SUHJECT INDEX EECTRICAL POWER offsite systems rehabibty at Turkey IWnt; DD-9313, 37 NRC 493 (1993)

ELILTRICAL TRANSIEN"!3 miequacy of General Design Cnteria to protect against, DPRM-93-1. 37 NRC 347 0993)

ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES j

adequacy of General Demgn Cntena to protect against. DPRM-93-1,37 NRC 347 0993) j EMERGENCIES depanure from Technical Specifications during; DD93-13, 37 NRC 493 0993)

EMERGENCY BACKUP PO4TR for high-pressure coolant injection system; DD-93-10,37 NRC 381 (1993)

[

EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTI.M high-pressun, molant injection; DD-9110. 37 NRC 3810993) redundancy in'; DD-9110,37 NRC 3810993)

EMERGENCY EXERCISES fundanental flaw standard; IEP-931,37 NRC 5 0993) scope of Ungation on; IEP-911,37 NRC 5 0993)

EMERGENCY PLANNING hurricane-related deficiencies in; DD-914,37 NRC 225 0993); DD-9113. 37 NRC 493 0993)

EMERGENCY PLANS coordmation bermeen licemce and federal, state, and local agencies; DD9L4,37 NRC 225 0993)

ENIORCEMEYf ACTION for fire barrier test falhue; DD 93-3,37 NRC 113 0993) traring rights on; LBP-93-10,37 NRC 455 (1993) stay pending appeal, IEP-934,37 NRC 292 0993)

ENIORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS appealability of delay of;1BP-9110,37 NRC 455 0993) delay in: CL1-93-13,37 NRC 419 0993) stay of; LBP-93-6,37 NRC 207 0993)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS for extension of iemporary onsite storage of radioactive wasics at nucicar power plant; DD-93-5,37 NRC 238 0993) generi:, on decommissioning as applicant's document for purposes of section 2.714(bX2Xiii); CL1-93-12, 37 NRC 355 0993) premature requests fcr; LEP-9Fl. 37 NRC 5 0993) timing of subnussion of contentions addressing need for; IEP-919,37 NRC 433 0993)

ENVIRONMENI AL IMPACTS of decomnnssioning, considerauon under NEPA; CLI-93-3, 37 NRC 135 0993)

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW late 41ed contentions based on Staff docunents; ClJ-93-12, 37 NRC 355 0993)

EVACUATION deficiencies in plans for. DD-93-4,37 NRC 225 0993)

EXTENSION OF TIME for perfecting appeal; CL1-93-9, 37'NRC 190 0993) for temporary onsite storage of radioacove wastes at nuclear power plant; DD-93-5,37 NRC 238 0993)

IEEDWATER SYSTEMS i

high-psessure coolant injecuan nude; DD 9110,37 NRC 3810993) l inservice tesang program; DD-9Fl0,37 NRC 3810993)

I'INAL SAFETY ANALYSIS RIJ' ORT containnrot isolation valve requirenrats; DD-9110. 37 NRC 3810993)

)

IlRE BARRIERS Thermo Lag matenal in; DD 93-3,37 NRC 113 0993)' LBP-911,37 NRC 5 0993)

IIRE PROTT4 TION intenm, at Turkey Pomt; DD-9513,37 NRC 493 0993) 64 I

l

SUlijECT INDEX I

Tirrmo-tag 6re bumer concerns; DD-93 il,37 NRC 402 (1993); LBP-93-9, 37 NRC 433 0993)

IIRE WATOIES

+

as compensation for 6re barners; DD-93-3,37 NRC 113 0993)

IRE!IX)M OF INIORMATION ACT applicabihry to INPO reports; LBP-919, 37 NRC 433 0993)

GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA

(

adequacy to protect agamst clecnical phenonena; DPRM 93-1,37 NRC 347 0993) applicabihty to plants with construction permits issued pnor to May 21,1971; DD-93-10,37 NRC 381 (1993)

GENERATORS See also Diesel Generators HAZARDOUS MATERIALS storage and handling at Diablo Canyon; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993)

HEALTH AND SAFETY responsibilities of NRC; CL19111,37 NRC 2510993)

HEARING REQUESTS failure to answer charges supparung revocation order as basis for distnissal of; LEP-93-2,37 NRC 61 0993)

Lue-6 led, facrors to be addressed by; LBP-9L2. 37 NRC 610993) premature, scheduling of; LBP-911,37 NRC 5 0993)

HEARING R1 gifts of licensee on byproduct rnaienal license suspension; LBP-9L6,37 NRC 207 (1993) on enforcemem actions; LBP-93-10,37 NRC 455 0993)

HEARINGS i

discretwnary, after espiration of time for 6hng amerwntion petitions; CLJ-911,37 NRC I 0993)

HEAVY MElALS releases from Equid rafhnate fertihzers; DD-93-7,37 NRC 303 0993)

HURRICANES emergency planning for; DD-93-4,37 NRC 225 0993) resumpnon of Turkey Paim operation following Hurricane Andrew; DD 9313, 37 NRC 493 0993)

INFORMAL PROCEEDINGS disnussal of appeal for failure to 61e a Statenrnt of Appeal, CL1-9F9,37 NRC 190 0993)

INJURY IN FACT components of; IEP-914,37 NRC 72 0993) to economic imerests; LBP-914,37 NRC 72 0993)

See aho Irreparable injury INSTilVTE IUR NU(LEAR POWER OPERATIONS pnvilege accorded to reports of, LBP-93-9, 37 NRC 433 0993)

INTERROGATORIFS disclosure of factual bases and legal requirenents underlying comemions; LBP-913,37 NRC 64 (1993)

INTERVENTION by party who has withdrawn; CLI-93-1,37 NRC 10993) discretionary; LBP-93-4,37 NRC 72 0993) d,scretionary authonry of Commission to grant; CLJ-93-3,37 NRC 135 (1993); CtJ-9312,37 NRC 355 i

0 993) geographic prominuty as basis for standing in heense amendnrnt case; LBP-915,37 NRC % 0993) organizational. represemation acquirements; LDP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993)

INTERVENTION PETITIONS late-61ed, factors to be addressed in; CLJ-93-2,37 NRC 55 0993) good cause for. CLJ-93-4, 37 NRC 156 0993) pleading requirenrnts; CLI 93-11, 37 NRC 2510993)

INTERVENTION, LATE after issuance of low-power bcense; CLI-93-4, 37 NRC 156 (1993) 65 i

1 l

i

SUHJECT INDEX i

dscreuonary tranng prior to operaung license issuance; CU-911,37 NRC I (1993) good ceune for CLi-9k4,37 NRC 156 (1993)

INTIMIDATION plant review board rnemters; DD-918, 37 NRC 314 (1993)

IRREPARABLE INJURY descovery in heense anendment case as; LitP-918,37 NRC 292 (1993)

See also injury in Iscs JURISDICTION after issuance of a full-power heense; CLI 914, 37 NRC 156 (1993) to hear challenges to Sta4 *no sigmhcant hazards consideratwn" fining; lliP-911,37 NRC 5 (1993)

LIABIUTY INSURANCE seqmrenrnts for nuclear pwer plants; DD-93-10,37 NRC 381 (1993)

LICENSE AMENDMENTS t

litigability of subjects for future consideration as; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 267 (1993)

LICENSE ITE revocation of hcense for failure to pay; UIP-912,37 NRC 61 (1993)

UCENSEE EVENT REPORTS "taking," to remain on sdedule; DD918, 37 NRC 314 (1993)

UCENSEES hearing rigtas on byproduct naterial license suspension; LBP-93-6,37 NRC 207 (1993) hearing rights on enforcenent accons; LEP-93-10,37 NRC 455 (1993) material false statenrnts about transfer of control DD 918,37 NRC 314 (1993) responsihihty to provide accurale informanon; CU-93-14,37 NRC 423 (1993) netf-assessnent programs; D&93-10, 37 NRC 381 (1993) transfer of control; DD-918, 37 NRC 314 (1993) transfer of operating authonty; CU-916, 37 NRC 172 (1993)

UCENSES Commission authority to delay or deny issuance of; C1.19 fit,37 NRC 251 (1993) effect of application for new license on expiration of esisting hcense, CU-93-10,37 NRC 192 (1993)

See also Dyproduct Material License UCENSING BOARDS case managenent authority; LBP-918, 37 NRC 292 (1993)

UGtfTNING ndequacy of General Design Criteria to protect against; DPRM-93-1,37 NRC 347 (1993)

MAINTENANCE htigability of adequacy of program in operating Ecense extension proceedmg; LBP-911,37 NRC 5 (1993)

MANAGEMENT CHARACI'ER AND COMPLTENCE litigability of lack of, in operating license amendnent proceeding; LBP-915, 37 NRC % (1993) transfer of operating control and; DD-9L8, 37 NRC 314 (1993)

MATERIAL FA1SE STA'IEMENTS de6aition of; DD-911,37 NRC 39 (1993); DD-93-2,37 NRC 52 (1993) matenahty of information and; CU 9314, 37 NRC 423 (1993) on review and cem6 cation of pipe support systems; DD-93-1, 37 NRC 39 (1993); D&912,37 NRC 52 (1993) transfer of control and; DD93-8,37 NRC 314 (1993)

MATERIAL INIORMATION j

Commission interpretation of; CL1-9114, 37 NRC 423 (1993)

I dehninon of, D&93-I,37 NRC 39 (1993); DD-912,37 NRC 52 (1993)

MATERIALS UCLNSE AMENDMENT nou6catmn of NRC of withdrawal of apphcation for; CU-93-7,37 NRC 175 (1993)

MATI'RIA13 UCENSE PROCEEDINGS stan&ng to intervere in; LBP-9L4, 37 NRC 72 (1993) i 66 i

l I

l e

J SUBJECT INDEX MISADMINISTRATION brachytherapy treatnents with suded source iridium-192; IEP-93-6,37 NRC 207 0993)

MOOTNESS case or controversy lirrutauons on; CU-93-8,37 NRC 1810993) definicon of, CU-918,37 NRC 1810993); CU-9110,37 NRC 192 0993)

&snussal of appeals on grounds of; al-93-10,37 NRC 192 OW3) excepuon to; CU-93-10,37 NRC 192 0993) request for stay of agency action; al.9%II,37 NRC 2510993)

MOTIONS TOR RECDNSIDERATION raising matters for the first tme 'n; CU-93-12,37 NRC 355 0993)

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IOUCY ACT j

cost-tenefit balancing for operaung hcense extension; 1EP-911, 37 NRC 5 (1993) environmemal assessnrnt requireness for agency decisionmaking process; LBP-91-4, 37 NRC 72 0 993) litigability of long-term spent fuel storage in operating licenne and operating license amendment procee&ngs; LBP-911,37 NRC 5 0993) prenaturity of comention requesung US; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) resumed operation as an alternative to decommissioning; CD-913,37 NRC 135 0993) rule of reason; CU-913,37 NRC 135 0993) timing of subnussion of contentions addressing need for US; LEP-919,37 NRC 433 (1993)

NO SIGNIflCANI' HAZARDS DETERMINATION jurisdiction to hear challenges to; LEP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) l NOTIFICATION of EPZ population, hurncane effects on; DD 914, 37 NRC 225 0993) of NRC of withdrawal of natenals license anendment application; CU-93 7,37 NRC 175 0993) of persons with special nreds, for evacuation purposes; DD.914,37 NRC 225 0993)

NRC PROCEEDINGS standard for grant of review; CU-958,37 NRC 181 (1993)

NRC STAFF

&scovery against; 1EP-93-9, 37 NRC 433 (1993) i obhgation to inform intervenors of its communications with hcensee; CU-915, 37 NRC 168 (1993)

NUC1LAR POWER PLANT OPERATIONS alienauon of control; LEP-915, 37 NRC 96 0993)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION authonty to regulate the processing of source material; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 267 0993) health and safety responsihihtics; CU-93-II,37 NRC 2510993) supervisory authority of, IEP-9310. 37 NRC 455 0993)

See also Commission OPERATING UGNSE challenges to issuancr M; CU-93-il,37 NRC 2510993) extension to recaptr.e construction penod; LBP-93-9. 37 NRC 433 0993) transfer of control; DD-93-8, 37 NRC 314 (1993)

OPERATING UCDUE AMENDMENT nunagement character and competence as basis for intervention; LEP-915, 37 NRC % 0993) transfer of operating authonty; CU-916, 37 NRC 172 (1993)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT PROCEIDING discovery as irreparable injury in; LBP-93-8, 37 NRC 292 0993)

OPERATING UCl:NSE EXTENSION cost-benefit balanemg for; IEP-911,37 NRC 5 0993) jusufication of request for; LitP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) scheduhng of heanng on request filed years prior to actual need for; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) scupe of review for; 1EP-911,37 NRC 5 0993) 67 l

1 l

l l

l l

l l

I SUBJECT INDEX f

i OPERATING UCENSE EXTENSION PROCEEDING issues ht! gable in; GP-911,37 NRC 5 0993) bugabihty of long-term spent fuel storage in; LEP-931,37 NRC 5 0993) standmg to intervene in; LDP 93-1,37 NRC 5 09931 OPERATING UCENSE. ITU POWER scopemng a record prior to issuance of; CU-93-1, 37 NRC 10993)

OPERATING UCENSE, LDW-pow 1R stay request denial, CL1-93-2. 37 NRC 55 0993)

[

l OPERATIONS See Nuclear Power Plant Operations l

l ORAL ARGUMENT l

jusu6 cation for seeking; CU-93-2,37 NRC 55 0993)

PIPE SUPPORT SYSTEMS

[

review and cem6 canon of; DD-93-1,37 NRC 39 0993); DD-93-2, 37 NRC 52 0993)

PRICE-ANDERSON ACT babihty insurance requirements for nuclear power plants; DD-93-10,37 NRC 3810993)

PRIVIIIGE l

See Attorney <lient Privilege QUAUTY ASSURANCE licensee self-assessment program; DD-93-10,37 NRC 3610993)

RADIATION kvels at perimet:.r of decontaminanon facihty; DD-93-9,37 NRC 365 0993) monitoring at Turkey Point; DD-93-13,37 NRC 493 0993)

RADIATION DOSE decontanunation facihty requirenrnts; DD-93-9,37 NRC 365 0993) effecove dose equivalent; LBP-9L4,37 NRC 72 0993) i RADIOACTIVE RELIASES discharges to city newer system; DD-93-9, 37 NRC 365 0993) liquid rafhnate fertihrer effluents; DD.917, 37 NRC 303 0993)

RADIOAC17VE WASTE STORAGE long-term, litigability in operating license proceedings; LBP-931,37 NRC 5 0993) onsite at decentamination facihty; DD-919,37 NRC 365 0993) onsite at nuclear power plants; CU-913,37 NRC 135 0993) rather than reprocessing for uranium; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 267 0993) temporary onsite, at nuclear gewer plant, estension of limit for; DD-915,37 NRC 238 0993)

RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS installation and operanon concerns; DD-918,37 NRC 314 0993)

RADIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION from decommissiomng activities; LBP-914,37 NRC 72 0993)

RADIONUCUDES in hquid raf6nate fertihzers; DD-93-7,37 NRC 303 0993)

RAITINATE FERTluZER safety concerns about; DDL93-7,37 NRC 303 0993)

REACTOR CORE spray system; DD'93-IO, 37 NRC 381 (1993)

RECONSIDERATION l

See Motions for Reconsideration l

REGULATORY GUIDES l

challenges to; LBP-93-7. 37 NRC 267 0993) 6 REOPENING A RECORD by party who has withdrawn; CLI-93-1,37 NRC 10993) mteria to be addressed by monous for. CU-93-4, 37 NRC 156 0993) prior to license issuance; CU-93-1, 37 NRC 10993) d4 i

0 l

1

I r

i SUllJECT INDEX F

I RES JUDICATA apphcabibry to nonpurues; CU-93-4,37 NRC 156 0993)

RESIDUAL HEAT RLMOVAL PUMP failure to declare inoperable; DD 93-8, 37 NRC 314 (1993)

RLVIEW of heensmg board order &smissing decomamination orders on mootness grounds, denial of; CU-918, 37 NRC 1810993) of pipe support systems; DD-931, 37 NRC 39 09"); P" 73-2, 37 NRC 52 0993)

P scope for costruction period recapture procer&ng:; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) standard for gram of. C119L8,37 NRC 1810991)

RLYlEW, INTERLOClHORY escretionary; LDP-93-10,37 NRC 455 0993) of decision granung extemion of stay of enforcement proceeding; CU-93-13,37 NRC 419 0993)

REVOCATION OF UCENSE for failure to pay annual fee; LBP-912, 37 NRC 610993)

RUIIS OF PRACTICE affirmative safety comennons; CLI-913, 37 NRC 135 0993) anendnent of contentions; C11913, 37 NRC 135 0993) appellate bnefs, content of; CI193-10,37 NRC 192 0993) artorney work product privilege; IEP-913,37 NRC 64 (1993); LDP-93-il,37 NRC 469 0993) briefs, responsibility for inadequacies in; CL1-913,37 NRC 135 0993) case nanagenent authority of liceming boards; LRP-93-8, 37 NRC 292 (1993) cernfication of issues to; LBP 9110,37 NRC 455 0993)

Commission discretionary authority to gram intervention; CL1-9k12,37 NRC 355 0993) contention requirenrat for intervention; LDP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) enteria for grant of a stay; CU-93-2. 37 NRC 55 0993) dacovery of pnvileged matter; LBP-9F3. 37 NRC 64 0993); LBP-93-9, 37 NRC 433 0993) discredonary hearing after expiranon of tine for 61ing imervention peutions; CU-93-1,37 NRC 1 0993) discretionary intervention; IEP-9b4. 37 NRC 72 0993) disraissal of appeal for failure to 68e a Statenrnt of Appeal; RI-919, 37 NRC 190 0993) dismissal of appeals on nuxaness grounds; CU-9110,37 NRC 192 0993) evidemiary support required for comentions; CU-93-3, 37 NRC 135 0993) forum for begntion of operational issues relevant to a construcuan period recapture proceeding; LBP-93-1, 37 NRC 5 0993) good cause for late 61ing, CLI 9L4, 37 NRC 156 (1993) group stan&ng to intervene; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) injury-in-fact demostration, LBP 93-1, 37 NRC 5 0993) interlocutory teview of decision granting extemion of stay of enforcemem proceeding; CU-9313, 37 NRC 419 (1993) issues litigable in an operating bcense extension procee&ng; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) juris&ction aner issuance of a full-power liceme; CU-93-4,37 NRC 156 (1993) junsdicuan of boards to lear challenges to Staff "no significant harards considernuon" 6nding; LBP-93-1, 37 NRC 5 0993) late-61ed contentions; LBP-93-9,37 NRC 433 0993) late-filing requirements for contentions based on Staff environnemal review docunents; CLI-93-12, 37 NRC 355 0993) inootness of request for stay of agency schon; CU-93-11,37 NRC 2510993) nonpany participation; CU-914,37 NRC 156 0993) nonparty request for stay of agency acuan; CL1-9111,37 NRC 2510993) nonunrfy intervennon pennons; CU-93-4,37 NRC 156 0993) oral argunent, jusufication for seeking; CLI-912,37 NRC 55 0993) pendency of investgation as basis for contentions; LBP 919,37 NRC 433 0993) l 1

l i

r-

-+e 7

e-

-e

o SUBJECT INDFJ L

pleading requirenrats for contentions; Q193-3, 37 NRC 135 (1993); GP 93-1, 37 NRC 5 (1993) plemhng requirenrnts for intervendon petioons; CLI-93-4,37 NRC 156 (1993); QJ-9111,37 NRC 251 (1993) raising matters for the first ome in nouons for reconsideranon; QJ-93-12, 37 NRC 355 (1993) i reopemng a record after withdrawal of a party, C1193-1,37 NRC 1 (1993) reopening a record pnor to bcense issuance; CLI-911, 37 NRC I (1993) responsibihbes of partes to inform boards and imervenors of relevant and material erw information; ClJ-915,37 NRC 168 (1993) responsibibucs of parties to inform licensing board and pennoner of relevant and naterial new information; QJ 93-3,37 NRC 135 (1993) responsiinhty of parues to exanune pubhcly available docunentary evidence in support of its comentions; LDP-911,37 NRC 5 (1993) reviewabihty of show-cause proceedings; LEP-93-9, 37 NRC 433 (1993) scheduling of hearings; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993)

I service of documents; C11913,37 NRC 135 (1993)

Staff obbganon to in'orm intervenors of its communications with licensee; CLI-93-5,37 NRC 168 (1993) standard for insutution of show-cause proceedmgs; DD-93-4, 37 NRC 225 (1993); DD-93-5, 37 NRC 238 (1993); DD-93-6, 37 NRC 246 (1993), DD-93 7, 37 NRC 303 (1993) standards to be addressed by monons to reopen; QJ-93-4, 37 NRC 156 (1993) standing to imervene in opernung license extension proceeding; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) standmg to intervene; CLI-93-3, 37 NRC 135 (1993); LBP-93-4, 37 NRC 72 (1993) stay of Commission decisions; Cll-93-ll,37 NRC 251 (1993) stay pending appeal in civil enforcenent; LBP-93-8, 37 NRC 292 (1993) stay request ty nonparty; QJ-93-2,37 NRC 55 (1993) weight given to 6ve factors applied to late-61ed contentions; LDP-93-9,37 NRC 433 (1993) withdrawal of materials hcense amendment application; CLI-93-7,37 NRC 175 (1993)

RULES OF PROCDURE injury-in-fact considerations in deternuning standmg to imervene; LBP-93-4,37 NRC 72 (1993)

)

SAFEGUARDS 4

concealnent of problems; DD-918,37 NRC 314 (1993)

SAFETY INFORMATION restrictions on disclosure in settlement agreements; DD-93-12, 37 NRC 477 (1993)

I SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT age-related degradation of, LBP 93-1, 37 hTC 5 (1993)

SCHEDUllNG of hearing on hceme amendment request filed yens prior to actual need, LBP-93-1, 37 NRC 5 (1993)

SEALED SOURCFS indiundl92, for human M 0, yy treatments; LEP-93-6,37 NRC 207 (1993) 7 SECURITY access to protected areas; D1193-6,37 NRC 246 (1993) l falsihcation of docunrnts by supervisors; DD-934, 37 NRC 246 (1993)

Turkey Point deficiencies; DD-93-13. 37 NRC 493 (1993)

SEISMIC ISSUES fire turner integrity; DD 93-3, 37 NRC 113 (1993)

See also Earthquakes SERVICE OF DOCUMINTS information exchanged between Staff and hcensee; CLI-913, 37 NRC 135 (1993)

SETTLEMENT AGRELMENTS l

Commission review of; Q193-14, 37 NRC 423 (1993) resnictions on disclosure of safety information in; DD-93-12,37 NRC 477 (1993)

SEWER SYSTEMS radioactive discharges to; DD-919, 37 NRC 365 (1993) 1 70 s

SUBJECT INDEX SHOW-CAUSE PROCLEDINGS appellate review of; LBP 919,37 NRC 433 0993) e bar,is and specificity aquirements for 2206 pentions; DD-9k7,37 NRC 303 0993) standard for institution of, DD'93-4, 37 NRC 225 0993); DD'93 5,37 NRC 238 0993); DD-9L6,37 NRC 246 0993)

SHLTfDOWN miscalculation of margin, DD-93 8, 37 NRC 314 0993)

SOURCE MATERIAL NRC authonty to regulate the processing of; LBP-9k7,37 NRC 267 (1993)

SPENT FUEL STORAGE long-term, hagabihty in c,perating bcense and operating been e anendnrnt proceedmgs; LBP-93-1, 37 NRC 5 0993)

See also Radianctive Waste Storage STANDING TO INTERVENE Conunission authority to grant; CL1-93-3,37 NRC 135 0993) fifty-mile rule; LEP-93-4. 37 NRC 72 0993) geograpluc proximity as basis in license anendnent case; LBP-93-5,37 NRC % 0993) in materials license proceedings; LDP-93-4,37 NRC 72 0993) in operating licenr.e extension proceeding; LBP-9FI,37 hTC 5 0993) injury in fact and zone of interests tests for; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993); LBP-93-4,37 NRC 72 0 993) judicial concepts applied in NRC proceedings; IEP-93-4,37 NRC *t2 0993) nents-type evaluation of claims of; LBP-93-4,37 NRC 72 0993) participation in anodw:r proceedmg as basis for; CU-93-4,37 NRC 156 (1993) reliance on prior denenstrations of; CL1-93-4, 37 NRC 156 0993)

STAY Commission decisions; al-93-il, 37 NRC 2510993) critena for grant of; CU-93-2,37 NRC 55 0993); LBP-93-8,37 NRC 292 0993) decisions or actions appropriately considered fcr; CLI-93-2, 37 NRC 55 0993) discovery as irreparable injury for purpose of obtaining; LBP-93-8,37 NRC 292 (1993) good cause for; LDP-93-10,37 NRC 455 0993) mootness of request for; CLI-9111,37 NRC 2510993) nonparty request for; CLI-93-2,37 NRC 55 (1993); CLI-93-II,37 NRC 25I (1993) of discovery in byproduct material license suspension proceeding; LBP-916, 37 NRC 207 (1993) of enforcement proceeding, extension of; CLI-9313,37 NRC 419 0993) of issunnce of decommissiomng order; CLI-93-12,37 NRC 355 0993) of low-power operating license, denial of; CLI-912,37 NRC $5 0993) pendmg appeal, of order granting intemation in operating liceme amendnent proceedmg; CLI-916,37 NRC 172 0993) pending appeal in civil enforcement; LBP-93-8, 37 NRC 292 0993) showmg necessary for grant of; LBP-93-10,37 NRC 455 0993)

SURVEILLANCE Lti ability of program adequacy in operating bcense estension proceeding; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) t testing of containnent iaolation valves; DD-934. ^'l NRC 314 0993)

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS changmg modes with required equipnrnt inoperable; DD-918,37 NRC 314 0993) consistency and completeness of, DD-9110, 37 NRC 3810993) departure dunng an emergency; DD-93-13,37 NRC 493 (1993) opening of dilution valves when required to t= locked closed; DD-93-8, 37 htC 314 (1993)

TESTING inservice program apphed to feedwater system and containnent isolation valves; DD-9110,37 NRC 381 0993) surveillance, of conuunnrnt isolation valves; DD-9%8, 37 NRC 314 0993) 71 s

SUBJECT INDEX TRANSPORT s

liquid raffinate fertilizer; Do93-7. 37 NRC 303 (1993)

URANIUM j

J repocessing of low + vel wastes for; LBP-93-7,37 NRC 267 (1993)

VALVES dilution, opening of; DD-93-8. 37 NRC 314 (1993)

See also Containnent Isolation Valves t

i t

E i

e l

5

?

k, I

l 1

1 i

FACILITY INDEX APOLID, PENNSYLVANIA FUEL FABRICATION FAOLITY; Docket No. 74135-DCOM DECOMMISSIONING; February 5,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Heanng Request and Ternunating Proceeding); LDP-914,37 NRC 72 (1993)

DECOMMISSIONING; March 30, 1993; ORDER; CIJ-93-9, 37 NRC 190 (1993)

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR TWO; Docket No. 54368 REQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23,1993; f1NAL DIRECTOR *$ DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

i

$ 2.206; DD 93-11, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

BEAVER VAllIY POWER STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 54334, 50 412 REQUEST FOR ACTION, May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DEQSION UNDER 10 CJ.R.

6 2.206; DD-9311, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

BRAIDWOOD NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Uruts I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-456, 5 4457 REQUEST TOR ACTION, May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DEQSION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

8 2.206; DD'9311, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

BROWNS IIRRY NUC11AR P1 ANT, Umts 1,2, and 3; Docket Nos. 54 259, 50-260, 50 296 REQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23,1993; 11NAL DIRECTOR *S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

8 2.206; DD.93-11, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

BRUNSWICK STATION, Units I and 2, Docku Nos 54324, 54325 REQUEST 10R ACTION; February 1,1993; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 6 2.206; DD 913, 37 NRC 113 (1993)

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, Units 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 54324,54325 REQUEST TOR ACTION; May 23,1993; T1NAL DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 CJ.R.

r i2.206; DD-9111, 37 NRC 402 (1993) l BYRON NUC1IAR POWER STATION; Dacket Nos. 50 454, 50 455 REQUEST POR ACTION; May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CJ.R.

6 2.206, DD-93-11, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

CALLAWAY PLAhT, Unit I; Docket No. 50483 REQUEST FOR ACTION, May 23, 1993; ITNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

62.205; DD-9111,37 NRC 402 (1993)

CLAIBORNE ENR10fMENT CENTER; Docket No. 743074ML MATIRIALS LICENSE; February 2,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Ruhng on Apphcant's l

Motion to Compel Discovery); IEP-93-3, 37 NRC 64 (1993)

CLINTON POWER STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 54461 i

REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23, 1993. FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CJ.R.

$2206; DD-93-11,37 NRC 402 (1993)

COMANQlE PFAK STEAM ELICTRIC STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-445 REQUEST IOR ACTION; January 15, 1993; DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 1D CIA 62.206; DD-912, 37 NRC 52 (1993)

CX)MANOIE PEAK STEAM E11CTRIC STATION, Unit 2; Docket No. 54446 CONSTRUCTION PERMrf AMENDMENT; Tehruary 3,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CL1-912, 37 NRC 55 (1993)

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; March 30, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CL1-9110, 37 NRC 192 (1993) 73 l

l l

FACILITY INDEX i

I l

OPERATING UCENSE; January 29, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLl-931,37 NRC 1 0993)

OIT. RATING UCENSE; March 9,1993, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CU.93-4, 37 NRC 156 0 993)

OPERATING UCENSE; Apnl 6,1993, MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR; CU-93-II,37 NRC 251 (1993)

COMANCHE PLAK STLAM ELECTRIC STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nm 50-445, 50-446 REQUEST IOR ACTION; January 15, 1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CIA 52.206, DD-931,37 NRC 39 0993)

REQUEST FOR ACTION, f ebruary 1,1993; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 CF.R. 6 2.206; DD.93-3, 37 NRC 113 0993)

REQUEST TOR ACTION; May 23,1993; 11NAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. 12.206; DD-93-il 37 NRC 402 0993)

REQUEST FOR ACTION; June 4,1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. 6 2.206; DD'93-12, 37 NRC 477 0993)

I COOPER STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 54298 REQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23, 1993. FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

6 2.206; DD-93-II, 37 NRC 402 0993)

CRYSTAL RIVER UNTT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PIAf(T; Docket Nm 50-302 REQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23,1993; 31NAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CIA i

6 2.206; DD-93-11, 37 NRC 402 0993)

DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWIR STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 50L346 REQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CIA 5 2.206; DD-93-11, 37 NRC 402 0993)

DIABID CANYON NUGEAR POWER PLANT, Units 1 and 2; Docket Nm 50L275, 50 323 t

REQUEST FOR ACTION, May 23, 1993; ITNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

5 2.206, DD-9111, 37 NRC 402 0993)

DIABID CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos 50 275 OLA-2, 50-323-OLA-2 OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMLNT; January 21, 1993; PREHEARING CONIIRENCE ORDER (Ruhng upon latervention Peution and Authorizing Hearing); LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993)

OPTRATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; June 17, 1993; PREllEARING CONITRENCE ORDER (1.me. Filed Contennons and Discovery); LBP-93-9,37 NRC 433 0993)

DONALD C COOK NUCLEAR P! ANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50L315, 50L316 REQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23,1993; 11NAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

6 2.206; DD-93-il, 37 NRC 402 0993) f DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTIR; Docket No. 50 331 REQUEST IOR ACTION, May 23,1993; T1NAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. 6 2.206; DD-93-11, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

EDWIN I HATOI NUCLEAR PO41R PLAffT, Ututs I and 2; Docket Nm 50L321,50 366 REQUEST IOR ACTION; April 23, 1993; PARTIAL DIRI4 TOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

62.206; DD-934,37 NRC 314 0993)

REQUEST IOR ACTION, May 23,1993, T1NAL DIRECIDR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

6 2.206, DD-93-11, 37 NRC 402 0993)

ENRICO IIRMI ATOMIC PORTR PLANT, Unit 2; Docket No. 50L341 I

REQUEST FOR ACTION-Tebruary I,1993; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DIrlSION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 6 2.206; DD-93-3, 37 NRC 113 0993) i REQUEST FOR ACTION, March 31, 1993; DIRILTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 6 2.206, DD'93-6,37 NRC 246 0993)

REQULST IOR ACTION, May 23, 1993; ITNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. 1 2.206: DD-93-II,37 NRC 402 0993) 14

(

i i

l

FACIlJTY INDEX GEO. TECH LABORATORIES, 43 South Avenue, Fanwood, New Jersey 07023; Docket No.

03420b91LA LNFORCEMENT ACIlON; February 1,1993. MEMORANDUM AND ORDL1t (Terminating Pnxredingt LBIL9LL 37 NRC 61 (1993)

GORE, OKLAllOMA FAGIJTY; Docket No. 44 8027 REQUEST IOR ACTION; April 14, 1993; DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.12.206; DD.93-7,37 NRC 303 0993)

GRAND Gulf NUQIAR STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-416 REQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23, 1993, ITNAL DIRECTOR'S DEQSION UNDLR 10 Cf.R.

5 2.206; DD-93-II, 37 NRC 402 (1993) t IIADDAM NECK PLANT; Ducket No. 54213 REQUEST 10R ACTION; May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

l2.206; DD 9111,37 NRC 402 0993)

INDIAN ORQlARD, MASSACHUSLTTS FAOLITY; Docket No. 030 04632 REQUEST IOR ACTION, May 7,1993; DIRECTOR'S DFOSION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 52.206; DD-919,37 NRC 365 (1993)

INDIAN POINT, Unit 2; Docket No. 54247 RI4UEST IOR ACTION: May 23, 1993; FINAL DIREETOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

6 2.206; DD.93-ll,37 NRC 402 (1993)

LA SAllE COUNTY STATION, Units I and 2, Docket Nos. 50 373, 54374 i

REQUEST IOR ace 0N; May 23,1993; I'INAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

6 62.206; DD-9111,37 NRC 402 0993)

LIMERICK GENERATING FTATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 352, 54353 REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23,1993;11NAL DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

12.206; DD-9111,37 NRC 402 (1993)

MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWT.R STATION; Docket No. 50 309 RIQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

$2.206; DD 93-11,37 NRC 402 0993)

MILLSTONE, Unita 1,2, and 3; Docket Nos. 54 245, 54 336, 50-423 REQUEST 10R ACTION; May 23,1993; 11NAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

52.206; DD'9111,37 NRC 402 (1993)

MONTICELtJO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, Unit 1; Docket No. 54263 REQUEST ICR ACf10N; May 23,1993; f1NAL DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

12.206; DD 93-II, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

NINE MIII POIVT NUCLEAR STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 54220 REQUEST TOR AC110N, May 9,1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 6 2.206; DD-9110, 37 NRC 381 (1993)

NIVE Mill POINT NUCLEAR STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 54 220, 50-410 i

REQUEST FOR ACTION, May 23, 1993; I'INAL DIRECIOR'S DEQSION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

$ 2.206; DD-9111, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

NOR111 ANNA POWTR STATION, Unita 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 50-338, 5 4 339 REQUEST IOR ACI10N, May 23.1993; f1NAL DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

12.206; DD-9111,37 NRC 402 (1993)

OYSTER CRIIK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION; Docket No. 50 219 REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23, 1993; ITNAL DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

6 2.206; DD 9111. 37 NRC 402 0993)

PALISADES NW'.dAK POV,'ER FAOLITY; Docket No. 54255 i

REQUEST FOR ACIlON; May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECIOR'S DEQSION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

6 2.206, DD9111, 37 NRC 402 (1993) 75 i

i b

i

FACILITY INDEX PALD VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Units I,2, and 3; Docket Nos. 50-528, % 529, 54530 REQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R.

62.206; DD9Fil,37 NRC 402 (1993)

PEAGI BOTTOM ATOMIC LOWER STATION, Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 50-277, S278 REQUEST JOR ACTION; May 23, 1993; l'INAL DIRICIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

52.206; DD-9111,37 NRC 402 (1993)

PERRY NUCILAR POWER PLAffT Unit I; Docket No. 50440 REQUEST IOR ACTION; March 28, 1993; DIRECIOR'S DLCISION UNDER 10 CJ.R.12.206; Da93-5,37 NRC 238 (1993) l REQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23, 1993, FINAL DIRECTOR'S Dirts 10N UNDLR 10 CF.R. 8 2.206; DD-9klt, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

PRAIRIE 15 LAND NUC1J.AR GENERATING PLAhTT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 282, 50 306 REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23,1993; T1NAL DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

12.206, DD-93-11,37 NRC 402 (1993)

RANCHO SECO NUCIIAR GENERATING STATION, Dwket No. 54312-DCOM DECOMMISSIONING, March 3,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. CL1-93-3,37 NRC 135 0 993)

J DFCOMMISSIONING; Marct: 15, 1993; ORDER; C13-93-5,37 NRC 168 (1993) l DECOMMISSIONING, May 26,199t MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLi-93-12,37 NRC 355 l

(1993) l RIVER BEND STATION, Unit 1; Dodet No. 50-458

[

REQUEST TOR AC110N; February 1,1993; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 6 2.206; DD 93-3, 37 NRC 113 0993)

REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23,1993; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DEQSION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

62.206; DD-93-11,37 NRC 402 0993)

SAN ONOFRE NUOLAR GENERATING STATION, Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 54 361, 50-362 REQUEST 10R ACTION; May 23,1993; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 CJ.R.

52206, DD-93-11,37 NRC 402 (1993)

SEQUOYAH NUC1LAR PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 54 327, 50 328 REQUEST 10R ACTION; May 23, 1993; ITNAL DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

12.206; DS9113, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

SHEARON HARRIS NUC1LAR POWER PLANT; Docket No< 54400 RA-QUEST TOR ACllON; February 1,1993; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 CJ.R. 6 2.206; DD-93-3, 37 NRC 113 0993)

REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

6 2.206; DD93-11, 37 NRC 402 0993)

SOLTTH TEXAS PROJECT, Units 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 50498,,*0-499 REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23,1993; F1NAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

5 2.206; DD-9111, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

ST. LUGE NUCII.AR POWER PLANT, Units 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 54335, 50 389 REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CJ.R.

92.206; D&93-II,37 NRC 402 0993)

SURRY NUCLIAR PO%TR STATION, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-280, 50 281 REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23, 1993, FINAL DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

62.206; DD.9FII,37 NRC 402 (1993)

SUSQUEllANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Units I and 1, Docket Nos. 50-387, 50 388 REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23,1993,11NAL DIREC10R'S DEOSION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

12.206, DD-93-11,37 NRC 402 0993)

THRIE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STAT 10N, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-289 REQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23,1993; 11NAL DIRECTOR'S DEQSION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

l 62.206; DD-9111,37 NRC 402 0993) l l

l 76 1

a 2

FACIlJTY INDEX TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT, Unir I; DxLet No. 54344 REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23,1993; 11NAL DIRECIOR'S DICISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

5 2.206; DD-93.II, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, Ututs 3 and 4, Dxket Nos. 50 250, 50 251 REX)UEST FOR ACTION; March 23, 1993, DIRFCTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CIR 5 2.206; DD-93-4, 37 NRC 225 (1993)

REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDI.R 10 Cf.R.

6 2.206; DD-9Fil, 37 NRC 402 0993)

REQUEST IOR ACTION; June 7, IW3; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 52.206, DD-93-13, 37 NRC 493 (1993)

VERMONT YANKEE NUQ1AR POWI:R STATION; Docket No. 54271 REQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23, 1993, FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECSION UNDi~.R 10 CJ.R.

6 2.206 DD.9111, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

VIRGIL C SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, Umt 1; Docket No. 50 395 REQULST IOR ACTION, May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C1.R.

5 2.206; DD 9111, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-424, 50 425 REQUEST IOR ACTION, Apnl 23, 1993; PARTIAL DIREETOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R.

5 2.206: DD-93-8, 37 NRC 314 (1993)

REQUEST IOR ACTION, May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DEGSION UNDER 10 CF.R.

(2.206; D&93-il 37 NRC 402 (1993)

)

VOGT11 ELECTRIC GENERATLNG PLANT, Umts I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3, 50-425OLA-3 OPERATING LICENSE A.MENDMENT; February 18, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J

(Admitung a Party); LBP-915,37 NRC % 0993)

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 18, 1993; ORDER; CLl 9L6, 37 NRC 172 0993) 4 i

OPERATING IJCENSE AMENDMENT; April 21,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng

)

(

on Stay Request and on Scheduhng)- LBP-93-8,37 NRC 292 0993)

)

l OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; June 24, 1993, MEMORAhVUM AND ORDER (Order to l

Mr. Mosbaugh to Releme Sis Tapes); LBP 93-ll,37 NRC 469 (1993) l WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Unit 3. Docket No. 54382 l

REQUEST IOR ACTION; May 23,1993,11NAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

5 2.206, DD93-II, 37 NRC 402 0993)

WATTS BAR, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50 390, 54391 l

REQUEST IOR ACTION, May 23,1993; 11NAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CJ.R l

6 2.206, DD-93-II, 37 NRC 402 0993) l WI111AM B. McGUIRE NUC11AR STATION, Units I and 2. Docket Nos. 50 369, 50 370 l

REQUEST IOR ACTION, May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf,R.

l 5 2.206, DIF9111, 37 NRC 402 (1993)

WOLJ CREEK GENERATING STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-482 REQUEST FOR ACTION; May 23, 1993; FINAL DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CE.R.

i 2.206, DD-9111, 37 NRC 402 0993)

WPPSS NUCLLAR PROJECT NO. 2, Docket No. 54397 l

REQUEST IOR ACTION; Tebruary 1,1993; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CT R 6 2.206: DD-93-3,37 NRC 113 (19931 REQUEST IOR ACDON; May 23, 1993; ITNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF R.

l 12.206, DD 9All, 37 NRC 402 0993) l ZION STATION. Units I and 2; Dotket Nos. 54 295, 50 304 REQUEST IOR ACTION. May 23, 1993. FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDLR 10 CJ.R.

6 2 206. DD-91tl, 37 NRC 402 0993) 77

.ovr.--

m---

-..---v=