ML20070M898
| ML20070M898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/1994 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V38-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V38-I2, NUDOCS 9405040123 | |
| Download: ML20070M898 (60) | |
Text
. - _ -. _ =
NUREG-0750 Vol. 38 Index 2
~
< s:.,
t.m.
7,3 v:.)
k-
!INDEXnSnOi h-
~ 3NNdliEABilsnGulI4ThRN '
' Jl gg a tygVigigglONilSSOAMUEs,s 1
s 3, a
g L
Nd
- 7g?
c jh
=1
- ~., 1
{
dup [D[ecem3..::g.b_ e r$.3:...:. 7,
s..
.,..993)
.j; g ;;
9 g'
~
a w
s.
[j P
g..'
.y:)
[-
x s
^
); sf.
r
[i.
s s
gB REG;j 9[
if s
hl h
?>o,
f
-t g g' k 2 1 i
a.
a 2
o 4
N W,
fh
.a
[weUg a
e a
c p
e
,j
- M. ii:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9405040123 940430 PDR NUREG 0750 R PDR l
t l
I E
NUREG-0750 Vol. 38 index 2
' r - -' '~' " "+ *~ ~ + :
? v'
'~
l,'-t' - '
'~ +' ~
r-r > ' > +'
+
s J
1
" INDEXES TO.
J
- a1
> :. J>
i l
I ~ L L ' mN0 CLEAR REGOLATORY
~
w.
~
O.
I, CO.M.M..ISSION lSSOANC.ES' 'n'D,.
i i V :</ ..
c,
l r-e r
t r
l
^
!,<g}
t,j> '.
^'.,
+
t
,M,,
",i (J0ly + Dec0mbs' f1993'E ' ' i l",
'>s l
i "NA i
~l sl, o
t s
^
l y
e,
)i A
[
)p *.
- > g +
s Ws+s
)
)
gNl y ",,
3 1
s 4,
s
',^
+
t s'
'4
(
)Aw s
I,
^~s x
.~
>, n m/s s
y
~
f}
4 s
s
-s pyREGy%.
', 4 4
g j
q f.
1
. g c4,g.
s
-o j
'. j 7
. ~
s o
.s 1
>2 s
. g%.
y
'f4
?
}
N
'sg
_s s
s
/
't L. s g
'o<,
,e o
( <r -
O 0 1 s
y 4 ~g -
~
7, n
m
]
l
~
+,
/.G->
t,,
,p E
h s
l ^
bQ ' Y 5'
t s 5
0 :~ :
' '~
ts
- m*.
- a 3
e q
l 1
v
^
s
's 4
I y
A
(
~
1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
l 9405040123 940430 PDR NUREO 0750 R PDR
L F
Available from Superintentendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Mall 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 i
Springfield. VA 22161 1
Errors in this publication may be reported to the i
Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Servicos l
. Office of Administration '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.]
Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301/492-8925) l 11
)
NUREG-0750 Vol. 38 index 2 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES July - December 1993 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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)
... = ~
~
~
l..
Foreword Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LDP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ),
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)
Ibil text reference (volume 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 issuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.).
These information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as follows:
- 1. Case Name Index The case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type of issuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.
i
- 2. Digests and IIcaders I
The headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows:
the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP),
1 the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denlats of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
The header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility j
name, docket number, type of hearing, date of issuance, and type ofissuance.
The digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given usuance covers more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are deignated alphabetically.
ill
- 3. I.egal Citations Index This index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alpha, numerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. These 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.
~
'Ihe 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,
- 4. Subject Index Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects covered in the issuances. The subject headings are followed by phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the issuances being indexed. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.
- 5. Facility Index The 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.
l l
-1 l
iv -
,. ~... _. -
,... -. - -. ~ _.
... ~.. ~ - - _
l 4
3 '
s ll 4
CASE NAME INDEX 9
ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
ENIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR AITIRMING IN PART AND j
REVERSING IN PART ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD'S ORDER, AND REMANDING ISSUES; Docket No. 341605LCivP (Civil Penalry); C119L22, 38 NRC 98 (1993)
ENFORCEMENT AGION; ORDER; Docket No. 30-1605LOvP (Ovil Penalty); C119L24, 38 NRC 187 (1993)
ENIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No 3416055 OvP-R (ASLDP No. 91682-01 OvP-R) (Civil Penalty), LBP-9126, 38 NRC 329 (1993)
BALTIMORE GAS AND Ii1CTRIC COMPANY i
REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR *S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 8 2.206, Docket Nos. 72-8, 54317, 54318; DD 9114, 38 NRC 69 (1993) 2 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENr; MEMORAADUM AND ORDER (Termination of Procec4hng),
f-Docket No. 50 293-OLA (ASLDP No. 91678 OLOLA) (EnciMy Operatmg thense No. DPR 35);
REQUEST 10R ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 4 2 206; Duet No. 50 293, i
d DD 9517, 38 NRC 264 (1993); DD-9120, 38 NRC 351 (1993)
CAROLINA POWER AND UGIIT G)MPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf R. 6 2.206; DocLet Nos. 50324 54325; DD-9121, 38 NRC 356 (1993)
/
CWVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al.
OPERATINO UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockel No. 544440LA 3; 7
CU 9L21, 38 NRC 87 (1093) 4 RLQUEST l'OR ACTION; SUPPIIMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C FR. { 2.206;
~
Docket No. 50-440 (IJcense No. NPF-58); Dl19315, 38 NRC !$9 (1993) i f1VE STAR PRODUCTS, INC. and CONSTRUCTION l'RODUCTS RIMARCH, INC.
ENIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Of Docket No.19L027R; CLI-93 23, 38 NRC 169 (1993)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
a OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Ixicket Nos. 50-424-OIA 3, 50-425-OLA 3; CLI 9Ll6, 38 NRC 25 (1993)
OPERA 11NG UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Case Managenent); Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3, 54425-OLA-3 (ASLDP No. 93-67101-OIA-3) (Re; Ucense Amendrnent; Transfer to Soutlern Nuclear); UIP-9115, 38 NRC 20 (1993) j OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Discowry Motion); Docket 1
Nos. 50-424-OlA-3, 54425-OtA-3 (ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA 3) (Re: License Anrndrnent; i
Transfer to Sourhern Nuclear); LBP-9118, 38 NRC 121 (1993)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Georgio PowerTGtion to Recondder Scope of Proceedmg); Docket Nos. 30424-01A-3, 50-425 0LA 3 (ASLDP No.
9167101-OLA-3) (Rc: Ikense Anrndment, Tramfer to Souitrrn NucSar); LBP-9121, 38 NRC 141 (1993)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Reriewed Motion to Compel Staff Ptwiuction of Docunents)- Docket Nos 50424-OLA-3, 50-42LO!A 3 (ASLBP No.
91671431-OIA-3) (Re: tJcense Anendrnent; Transfer to Southern Nuclear); LBP.9L22,3S NRC 189 (1993) 9 i
i i
r e,me - N I
i I
t
y i.)
L CASE NAME INDEX l.
REQUl3T IUR ACTION, Mr.MORANDUM AND ORDLR; Docket Nos. 54 321, 5 4 366, 50-424, 54425; CU 9315, 38 NRC 1 (1993)
LlDYD P. Zl:RR PROGRAM FRAUD, RULINO ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; Ducket No. 9101-PP (ASLDP No. 9347341 PF); A!J9L1, 38 NRC 151 (1993) l NORTilEAST NUCLEAR ENEROY COMPANY
' OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; DICISION AND ORDER (Terminating Proceeding by Summary Disposition); theket No. 54336-OLA (ASLBP No. 92-66542-OLA) (IOL No. DPR-65)
(Spent f%el Poul Iksign); LDP 9312, 38 NRC 5 (1993)
NUCLEAR ENEROY SERVICES REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S Dr. CISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.12,206; Docket No. 34 22060; DD-93-16,38 NRC 255 (1993)
ONC0100Y SERVICES CORPORATION ENIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 30 31765-EA (Suspension Order) (Byproduct Material Ucense No. 37-2854041); C119117, 38 NRC 44 (1993)
ENIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting in Part NRC Staff Motion to Delay Proceeding; Requiring Submission of Staff Status Reports); Docket No. 030-31765-EA (ASLDP No.93-674 0 LEA) (EA 93406) (Order Suspending Pyproduct Materiat IJccuse No. 37 28544 01);
LEP 9120, 38 NRC 130 (1993)
PACirtC OAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY OPLRATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 54275-OLA 2, MtOLA.2 (Construction Period Recovery); CL1-9L18, 38 NRC 62 (1993)
OPERA 11W '1 CENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Discovery Request /Referng Ruling to Commissioni, Docket Nos. 50 27FOL/v7,543234LA-2 (ASLBP No.92-669 0LOLA 2) tCmstruction Period Recovery) (Twility Operaurg Licenses No. DPR-80 DPR-82);
LDP-9113, 38 NRC ll (1993)
OPERATING LICENSE AMEh'9 MENT; MTMORANEilM AND ORDER (Telephone Conference Call, IV13/93); Docket Nos. 54275-OLA 2,5432LOLA-2 (ASLDP No. 924694LOLA-2) (Construction Period Recovery) (Twility Operating License Nos. DPR-80, DPR 82); LBP-9117, 38 NRC 65 (1993)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL LTTILTTY DISTRICT DECOMMISSIONING, MiiMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 54312 DCOM, CL1-9119,38 NRC 81 (1993)
DECOMMISSIONING; SECVND PREllEARING COM 2AENCE ORDLR (Proposed Contentions; Summary Duposition Motion); Docket h 50 312-DCOM-R (ASIEP No. 93477-Of.DCOM R)
(Decommissioning Plan) (Fucilary Operatius lleense No. DPR-54); LDP 9123, 38 NRC 200 (1993)
SEQUOYAH ITE13 CORl' ORATION MATERIALS UCENSU AMENDMLNT; MEMORAhDUM AND ORDER (Withdrawal of Apphcation and Terminanen of Proceeding); twket No. 4408027-MLA (ASLBP No. 9142L01-MLA) (Source
. Material Ucense No. Sut>1010); UIP-9125,38 NRC 304 (1993)
SillPMENTS OF IUEL 11(OM LONG ITLAND POWER AUTHORTTY'S SilOREllAM NUCIIAR IOWFR STATION TO PilllADELPlilA ElICTRIC COMPANY'S LIMERICK GENERA 11NG STAllON REQUEST IOR ACTION DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cfit {2.206; Docket Nos $4352, 54353, 50 322, DD-9122, 38 NRC 345 (1993)
ST. JOSEril RADIOt.00Y ASSOCIATES, INC., and JOSEPil L. FISilER, M.D. (d b.a. ST, JOSEPli RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., and I1SilER RADIOLDGlCAL CLINIC)
ENTORCEMENT ACTION, ORDER; Docket Nos. 034003240A,999-90003 EA (ASLBP No.
9167242-EA); 1RP-9Ll4, 38 NRC ll (1993)
STATE OF NEW JIRSEY TRANSPORT OF NUCLEAR MATERIAI3; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Ihket No. 93 01.Mne; CLI 93-25, 38 NRC 289 (1993) l t
2
.i l
1-j c
i
)
CASE NAME INDEX TWIN IAI.LS CLINIC & ilOSPITAL ENIORCEMENT AcIlON; ORDER APPROVING AND INCORPORATING STIPULATION 10R SETTt1 MENT OF PROCEIDING AND SE1TijNG AND TERMINATING Tile PROCEISING, Docket No. 30 3224acivP (ASLhP No. 934814)1-CivP) (EA 93482) (llyproduct Macrial Ucense No.1127085 01); LEP-93-24, 38 NRC 299 (1993)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LNERGY REQUEST 10R ACflON; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; DD 93-18, 38 NRC 331 (1993)
VERMONT YANKfE NUCLEAR POWER CORIORATION OPERATING LICENS11 AMENDMERf; MEMORANDUM (Termir.ation of thxeding) Docket No.
-l l
50 271 OLA 5 (AStEP No. 92-665-02-OLA 5) (TOL No. DPR 28); LBP 93-16, 38 NRC 23 (1993)
I OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMTNf; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR; Daket No. 50 2714LA-5, CLI-93 20, 38 NRC 83 (1993)
RT. QUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECIVR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; Docket No. 50 271;-
DD 93-19. 38 NRC 337 (1993); DD 93 23, 38 NRC 384 (1993) i j
J n
J d
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAR RFCULATORY COMMISSION J
CLI-93-15 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. (llatch Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2, Vngile Electric Generaung Plant, Units I and 21 Docket Nos. 5432!. 5G 366. 50 424,54425, REQUEST 10R ACTION; July 14,1993, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
& Comndssion sua sponte wcates and renands to the NRC Staff for further consideration de Staff *: paruul decision under 10 C F.R.12.206, DD-918, 37 NRC 314 (1993). & Corrutussion takes i
such action in view of de cornrnonabry of sone of de issues deci&d in the peddon imdi with nuiriers in C
a pendmg beense transfer proceceng and with other maners remainmg for decision in tie section 2.206 petition l
D The Conunission generally discourages use of section 2.206 procedures as an avenue for deciding maners that are under consi& ration in a pending adjud cauon; however dus general rule is not intended to bar petnioners from seeking imnediate enfwcenent medon from the NRC Staff in circumstances in which die presiding officer in a proceeding is not empowered to grant such relief 1
CLI 93-16 GEORGIA 10WER COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle (Jectric Generating Plant. Units I and 2),
Docket Nos. SO424.OIA3,54-425-OLA-3, OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Augnst 19, 1993;
/
MEMORANDUM ANJ ORDEA 4
f A
lhe Commisuon conwits the appeal of a hcensing board decision, lap-93-5,37 NRC 96 (1993),
m 3
wtd6 granted a Petidener*r request for intervendon and for hearing on a proposal by the Georgia Power z
Company to transfer its operating authority owr 'he Vogtle nuclear power plant to a new licensee; the O
Board's decision also admitted one consohdaied comention. The Commission denies the appeal and affirms 3
the Ucensing Board's order, nading that the Pedtioner has standing to intervene and has submitted admissible contendon.
B h integrity or character of a licensee's management personnel bears on the Commission's ahility to find reasonable assurance that a facihty can be safely operated.
y C
Lack of eidier technical competence or character quahfications on the part of licensee or applicant is sufficient grounds for the revocation of a heense or the denial of a liccasc application.
i D
in making deternunations about character, the Corrarussion may consider eviderice bearing upon the hcensee's can&>r, truthfulness, wiP;ngness to abide by regulatory requirements, and acceptance of responsibihty to protect public health and safety. Ihrwever, not every beensing action throws open an opprturuty to engage in an inquiry into die " character" of the licensee. There rnust be some direct and obvious relationship between the character issues and the licensing ardon in dispute.
E The past perfornumce of rnanagement rg lugh-ranking of6cers, as renected in debberate violations of ecgulauons or untruthful reports to the Crunruission, may ind care whether a heensee will comply with ngency standards, and will candidly respond to NRC inquiries.
P To deternune whether a peutioner has established suflicient interest to intervene in a proceeding
[.
the Comtrunskwi has long applied jud cial concepts of standmg 1
O hv standing, a peuhoner nmst allegr,an *iryury in fact" from the beenr.ing action being challenged, and this injury tuust be to an interest arguably within de rone ofinterests prntected by the goverrung stature.
j h alleged injury rnust be concrete and pamcularized, fairly traceable to the challenged nedon, and likely to te redressed by a favorable decision.
Il (br proceedings involving the issuance of a construcuon permit or operaung license, the Commis-sion generally has recognized a presumpdon in fam of standmg for those pettuoners who have sufficient comacts widun the geographic area that could be afTected by a release of hssion products. Ilowever, for t
d 1
~
4 gr DIGFSTS ISSUANCES OF 'IllE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISMON diis presumption to apply to heense anendnent pmecedings, the proposed action nuit involve " clear im.
plications for the offsite environnent, or snajor eheradons to the facihty with a clear potential for offsite consequences? Ilarida Power and Ught Cn (St. Imcie Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-89 21, 30 NRC 325,329 (1989). Otherwise the petitioner nest allege a specinc " injury in fact" that will result from the proposed action.
I A request to transfer operating authority under a full-power hcense for a power reactor may be deened an action involving " clear implications for the offsite environnrnt," for purposes of determining threshold injury.
J Under 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(bX2Xiii), if an apphcados contains asputed information or omits required information, the petitioner normally must specify the portions of de applicaios that are in dispute or are incomplete. llowever, a pedtioner need nm refer to a perdcular partion of the licensee's applicauon when the beennee neither identi6ed, nor was obligated to idemify, the disputed issue in its apphcation.
C1193-17 ONCOthGY SERVICES CORPORATION, Docket Na 30 31765-EA (Suspension Order)
(Byproduct Material IJanne No. 37-28540 01), ENIORCEMENT ACTION, August 19,1993; MEM-
. ORANDUM AND ORDLR A
The Commission tienies Oncology Services Corporation's request to reverse LDP-93-10,37 NRC.
455 (1993). which granted in part the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff's nation for an ad&tional delay of this enforcement proceeding, and vacates as moot portions of LBP-934,37 NRC 207 (1993), an order that had granted the NRC Staff's original rnotion for a stay.
D De presid ng off cer may delay an enforcenent proceeding for good cause.
10 C.F.R.
{2.202(cX2Xii). In determining wheder good cause exists, the presiding of6cer nest consider both the pul>lic interest as well as the interests of the person subject to the imnzdiately effective order.
C In determining whether to delay the conduct of an enfon:eners hearing pursuant to 10 Cf.R.
6 2.202(cX2Xii), de Conunission need not choose twtween the test apphed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Eight Thousand Eight flundred and Fifty Dollars (18,850) in United States Currency,461 U.S.
555 (1983), and the test applied by the Supreme Court in FDIC v. Mallen,486 U.S. 230,242 (1988), but may weigh the factors considered by the Court in both cases.
D la determining whether good cause esists for delay of an enforcemes proceeding, the factors to be considered in bal4ncing de competing interests indude (1) length of delay,(2) reason for delay,(3) risk of erroneous deprivation,(4) auertion of one's right to prompt resolution of the controversy,(5) prejudice to the hcenace, including harm to the licensee's imerests and harm to the hcensee's ability to mount an adequate defense.
E De determination of whether the length of delay is eseessive depends on the facts of the particular case and the nature of the proceeding.
F ne risk of erroneous deprivation is reduced if the bcensee is given an oppratunity to request that the presidmg officer set aside the immediate eflectiveness of the suspension order by challenging wircher the suspension ordrr, including de need for imnwdrate effectiveness, is based on adequate evidence.
G Staff's showing of possible laterference with an investigat on being conducted by the NRC Office
. of Investigations and a strong interest in protecting the integrity of the investigation in conjunction with a demonstration that de risk of erraneous deprivation has been reduced weighs heavily in the Staff's favor.
Il irrespective of whether 6e licensee failed to cludienge de basis for tie immediate effectiveness of the Staff's suspension order, a licensee's vigorous ogyosition to a stay and its insistence on a prompt adjudicatory heating are entitled to strong weight.
I Without a particularized showing of harm to the licensce's interests, licensee's argunent that the stay affects its interests and de hcensee's vigorous opposinon to a stay do not tip the scale in favor of sta licensee when balancing the competing interests.
C119318 PAClI1C GAS AND ELffTRIC COMPANY'(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 21, Docket Nos. $0L275,OLA.2,50L323-OLA-2 (Construccon Period Recovery); OPERATING IJCD4SE AMENDMFNr; August 19,1993-MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
he Conunission declines to address the issue, referred by the Licensing Board, of whether an Applicant should be required to discione to Intervenor a dnctinent prepared by the institute for Nuclear Power Operations The Commission noted that, after the Board had teferred the issue to dw Commist, ion, the Applicai.t agreed to disclose the docunrnt and the LAensing Boaniissued a protecove order addressing the -
6 I
i
)
- j DIGFSI'S ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION conditions uner which the document is to be released. The Comnussion found that dese events ren& red Commission interlocutwy seview of the matter unnecessary under 10 CF R.12.786(g).
B Where subsequent developnwnts indicated the absence of any immediate controversy suggesting that interlocutory review was appropriate of a licensing boar (s order to disclose an asertedly pnvileged docuarnt, the Commission declines review of de licensing boar (s refemd ruhng.
CU.9Ll9 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL LJTILIfY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Oenerating Station),
Ibcket No. 50w312-DCOM, DECOMMISSIONING; September 10,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission provides guidance to the Atomic Safety and ucensing Board on one aspect of Environnwntal and Resources Comervation Organizadon's (ECO's) environmental contention which the Commission admitted in its decision, CU.913,37 NRC 135 (1993).
CU-9120 VERMONT YANKEE NUCW'AR POWER CORPORATION (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) Docket No. 50 271 OLA 5; OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; September 16, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission af6rms the Ucensing Board's ruling that the Board lacked authority under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.107(a) to address a notice of withdrawal that the Ucenace had fded after a heanng request had teen teferred to de Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel but before the Ucensing Board had issued a Notice of Ilearing. De Comrmssion reverses de Ucensing Board's related ruling that the NRC Staff's acceptance of the withdrawal had the effect of terminating the proceeding, tu the interest of ef6ciency, the Commission dismisses the proceeding on its own authority, rather than remanding it to the Board.
B Under 10 CF.R 62.107(a), the Ucensing Board assumes jurisdicdon to address de withdrawal of an application in e Heense amendment proceeding only afier the issuana of a Notice of Hearing as provided in 10 CF.R.12.105(e)(2). Priw to that issuance, the Commission (or NRC Sraff, by delegation of authority) has esclusive jurisdiction to address such withdrawals.
i C
The Commission's regulations do not grant the NRC Staff the audiority to terminate a license amendnwn proceeding arter a hearing request has been referred to the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel but before the presiding licensing board or of6cer has issued a Notke of Hearing. Nor has the Commission, through case law, accorded Staff such authority. Rather, it is the presiding board or of6cer that has jurisdiction to terminate proceedings under such circumstances.
CU-9121 Cl.EVELAND ELECTRIC VLLUMINATING COMPANY. et al. (Perry Nucles power Plant, Unit 1), Docket No. 50 440OLA3; OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; September 30, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Comnussion considers the appeal of a Ucensing Board decision, LBP-92-4,15 NRC 114 (1992), which denied, on the basis ci lack of stunding. de appellants
- petition for leave to intervene and for a hearing on a secraest by Cleveland Electric Diuminating Company to amend its oprrating license for the Perry facility, Unit 1. The liceme amendment transfers the reactor vessel manial surveillance withdrawal schedule from the Perry plant's technical speci6 cations and transfers the s6edule to the facihty's updated safety analysis report. On the ground that the aprellants alleged suf6cient injury for standing, the Commission grants the appeak rewrina the Licensirg Boald's order, and remands the Petitioners' contenoon to the Board for an evaluarion of the contention's admissibility.
B To determine whether a [ctitioner has estabhsh6.d the requisite interest to intervene in a proceeding, L
. the Commission has long applied contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing.
a C
To demonsrate standing, the petitioner nmst allege a concrete and parucularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and is hkely to be redressed by a favorable decision. The injury also must he to an interest arguably within the zone of interests protected by dw governing statute. Injury may be actual or threatened.
D The kan of the rights to notice, opportunity for a hearing, and opportunity for judicial review constitutes a discrete injury.
E Standing may tw based upon the alleged loss of a procedural right, as long as the pmcedure at.
Issue is designed to protect against a threatened concrete irdury.
F lbr construction permit and operating heense proceedmgs, the Commission generally has recog-r aired a presumption in favor of standmg for those persons who have frequent contacts with the area near.
a nuctrar power plant. In liceme anrndnrnt proceedings, residenn near a nuclear facihty is suf6cient to establish injury for standmg if the propmed action invdvmm
- obvious potential for offsite consequences?
5 7
f T
t i
DIGESTS ~
ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION i
See 11orida Power and Ught Cn. (St. Locie Nuclear Power Plant, Umts 1 and 2), CU-89 21. 30 NRC 325.
329-30 (1989).
CU-93 22 ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC (One Factury Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), Docket No.
30Ll6035fivP (Civil Penalty); ENI'ORCEMFNr ACfION; September 30,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART ATOMIC SAitTY AND UCENSING t
BOARD'S ORDER. AND REMANDING ISSUES A
Tie Commission affirms in part de Atomic Safety and uccasing Board's decision. LEP-919, i
33 NRf' 212 (1991), in which the Ucensing Daard granted de Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff's nodon for sumnary disposition in a proceeding to inipose a $6250 civil penalty on the Ucemce, Advanced Medical Systems, lac. Tte Commission reverses the Ucentang Board's disposition of otw violation and j
remands to er Daard for further proceedmgs allissues related to that violation.
B The party seeking summary judgment bears die burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact and t!w evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary disposition.
C To preclude summay disposition, when the proponent has nrt its burden, the party opposing the 1
motion may r,at rest upon mere allegadcas or tienials, but nmst set forth specific facts showing that tirre I
is a genuine issue. Bare assertions or general denials are not suf6cient.
D he opposing party na st controwrt any material fact properly set out in the statenunt of material facts that Frompanies a sunnmry disposition modon or that fact will be deemed admitted.
E When the movant has satia6ed its initial burden and has supported its nwxmn by aftidavit, the opposing party must either proffer rebuttal evidence or submit an affidavit explaining why it is impractical to do so. If the presiding otheer determines imm afndavits 61ed by the opposing puty that the opposing party cannot present by affidavit the facts essential to justify its oppotition, the presiding officer may order a continuam:e to permit such afndavhn to be obtained or may take other appropriate accon.
I F
A licensee is excused from complying with the nasinwm permissible dose standards set out in 10 CF.R. I 20101(a), only if de licensee can satisfy ttw conditions set forth in section 20.201(b).
O Prior NRCinspection reports that conclude that at the time of an instection there were no regulatory violations found do not in themselves raise a genuine issue of material fact. The failure by the NRC to detect a violation does not necessarily prove the irgative that no violation existed. De NRC instectors are not omniscient, and limited NRC resources preclude careful review of all but a fraction of the licensed activity.
.H Wiro determining what constitutes a survey.10 CF.R. (20.201 reqmres consideradon of nere than quantitative treasurements of radiation levels used to determire exposure.. It n!ao requires, wlere appropriate, consideration of physical surveys of the location of nuterials and equipnent.
I An evidendary heanng is necessary only if a genuine issue et9.terial fact is in dispute.
CU-93-23 FIVE STAR PRODUCTS, INC, and CONSTRUCTION HODUCTS RESEARCil. INC, 01 Docket No. 1-93-027R; ENFORCEMENT ACrlON; October 21. s993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l
The Commission denies Petitaoners' motion to quash or rrodify a subpoena issued by the NRC A
p Staff in the course of an investigation to deiermine if Petitioners have violated NRC regulations and to d
detL1une if safety-related problems exist at NRC-licensed facilities. The r,ew enforcement date for the f
sut oena la Nowmter 1,1993.
t B'
Section 507 of 10 C.F A was adopted both to impienent ucction 211 of the Energy Reorganization j
i Act and to incorporate into NRC regulatiam tie Commission's huthonty under secuon 161 of the Atomic Energy Act.
C In general, an agency suteena is enforceable if (1) it is for a proper purpose authorired by Camgress; (2) the information sought is clearly relevant to that purpose and adequately described;. and (3) statutory procedures are followed in de subpoena's issuance.
The philosoi y underlying the adoption of section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act and t
D its implearnting regulatmns is that any emphryce of an NRC licensee or of a 6rtn that deals directly or indirectly with NRC licenwes on nuclear related matters and who is in a position to have information relat4ng to nuclear safety rimst feel free to come to the NRC with that inforristion.
l 8
~
. ~.
.~
I)1 GESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGU1ATORY COMMISSION E
A dc(ect in notetials provided by a "suppber" or "wndor" can prove just as dangerous to public heshh and safety as a defect in materiale provided by a " contractor" that has a nere complex or long-term relationship with the NRC heenaec.
F 1he risk to public health and safety - and the NRC's responsibehty to potect that public teakh and safety -is not nessured simply by the length of time in the contractual relationship betwere the NRC heensee and de commercial entity poviding the guods and services at issue.
O The protection afforded to employees who may be able to provide infornation to de NRC regarding threats to the public health and safety cannot be measured by the length of their employer's contract with the NRC licensee.
Il ne risk to public heahh and safety, the NRC's responsibility to potect it, and de amount of protection afforded to "whistleblower" employees cannot be neasured by the length of de contractual relationship between a licensee and a supplier of goods. His is especia'ly true w1ere the "suppher" offered goods and services that were certi6cd to meet de NRC's requirements for instalianon in safety-related appheations.
I l'nfling a purchase order issued by an NRC licetuce by a vendor or " supplier" consututes a contract between those two parties.
J The term " contractor" in section 211 of the Energy Reorgamration Act and 10 C.FA 150.7 of NRC regulations includes - at a minimum - employers such as " vendors" or " suppliers" that manufacture and offer for sale materials that are (1)intemled for use by NRC liccances and (2) certified to meet de requirements of 10 CER. Part 50. Appendia B.
K Cement and groot sold to NRC licensees under Part 50 Appendia B certiGcation are " basic components" whose failure could create a substantial safety hazard, as de6aed by 10 CFA 1213(aXI) and (2).
L A vendor or suppher who itacif cerunes that its products were manufetured and ook! in accordance with Part 21 cannot reverse itself and allege that Part 21 does not cover de tcanufacture of dese products.
M A vendor or supplier who certif es its products were manufactured and sold is accordance with Part 21 is required to " permit duly authorized repesentanves of the [NRC) to inspect its records, premises, activities, and basic components as necessary to effectuate the purpuses of [Part 21]" 10 CF R. I21.41.
N An entity that maintains an on-going contrac4ual telationship with a omnufacn - to test that manufacturer's products, which are den sold to NRC licensees, is a " subcontractor" of the manufacturer within the neaning of section 211 of the linergy Reorganization Act and 10 C.F.R. 6 50.7.
O
- Whistleblowers" are protected under section 211 of the Energy Reorgamration Act and 10 CFA B 50.7, regardless of the accuracy of their altrgations.
P A supplier's subsequent act of ceasing to selt materials ceroned under 10 CFA Part 50 Amsha B does not remove an employee's protectiou for engaging in potected activity that occurred prior to that suppher's ceasing to sell such materials.
Q Tur purpones of 10 CFA 150.7, the term " contractor"is mW hmited to those persons who perform work within the prttected area.
R For purposes of 10 CFA 6 50.7, de NRC has jurisdiction over an ettployer with a long history of poviding naterials, including safety-related materials, to the nuclear indusuy amt over acts by det enployer -
that are direerly related to its transactions with NRC liceruces.
S-Congress intended, in posing de Energy Reorganization Act, that the NRC have tie ability to conduct hs own investigations under ttm Atomic Energy Act during the pendency of a Department oflabor proceeding.
T The remedies provided by an arbitrator in a "whistleblower" case are similar to those provided by the Department of labor b ruch a case - they assist tie enployee an an individual. Those remedies do not assist the NRC in perfornung the dunes assigned it by Congress - protecting the tights of workers in the nuclear industry and ensuring the free flow of information to de NRC U
Tne Commission will not rule on clainn of pivilege in discovery disputes in the abstract.
CL19L24 - ADVANCED MEDICAL, SYSTEMS, INC (One Iwtory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), Docket No.
. 416055CivP (Civil Nnalty). ENFORCEMENT ACTION; Noveniher 24,1991. ORDLR A
The Commission denies petitions, one from the NRC Staff and the other from de Licensee, seeking reconsideration of the Commission's September 30,1993 Memorandum and Order, C1J-93 22, 38 NRC 9
L l
t e-em+
r--m--
y4
4 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCl. EAR REGULATORY CtBIMISSION 98, which afhrmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part, the Atomic Safety and licensing Board's dechion, Li!P 919,33 NRC 212 (1991). In LDP-919, sie (Jceming Board granied the Nuclear Regulatory Canmission Staff's nmoon for sunanary esposition in a pucecang to irnpose a $6250 civil penalty on IJcensee, Advanced Medical Systems, Inc.
ClJ-93 25 STATE OF NEW JERSEY (Depatnrnt of law and Pubhc Safety's Requests Dated October 8,1993), Docket No. 9H)l Mise; TRANSPORT OF NUCLIAR MATERIALS; Deamber 3,1993; MIIMORANDUM AND ORDER A'
The Comndssion denies the petition for leave to interwne and request for an a4udicatory hearing filed by the State of New Jersey on the legahey of barge shipnruts because there is no pending application for a license or permit for either the Philadelphia Electric Company or de long Island Power Authority related to de fuel shipirents. Moreover, ewn if there were such a proceeding, New Jersey failed to satisfy Commission rules governing intervention in hearings or reopening of proceedings B
Intervention is not available where there is no pending "procceang" of the sort speci6ed in rection '
I89a.
C A general bcense is a license under de Atomic linergy Act that is grarded by rule and nmy be used by angne who tieets the term of the rule,"widumt the Aling of applications with tic Commission or the lasuance of licensing docunwnts to particular persons." 10 C.P.R. 670.18. NRC rules establish ruany geners! licenses, including a general hcene for NRC licensees to trasport keensed nuclear material in NRC. approved containers.10 C.F.R. 71.12.
D There would be no point to the NRC's general hcensing ademe if a hcenace's enere une of a genera license triggered individual licensing pmceedmgs.
E Good cause is the weightiest of the late interwndon standards. Lating a favceable slowing on gned cause, a pentioner must show a compelhng case on de remaining factors. New Jersey gave short shrift to de remaining four factas.
4 i
j
- 1 4
10 i
.1 l
1 1
4 1
W'>
T-g.
i 1
l d
i e
=
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TiiE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LDP-9312 NORrilEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Ibwer Station, Unit 2),
Ducket No. 50M6-OLA (ASt.BP No. 92-66542-OLA) (I-OL No. DPR-65) (Spent Nel Pool Design),
(
OPERATING IJLTESE AMENDMINr; July 9,1993, DECISION AND ORDER (Ternsnating Proceeding 1
by Surnmary Dispostion)
LBP-9313 PACIFIC GAS AND 11ECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power 1%nt, Unita 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50 275-OLA-2,50 32LOLA-2 (ASt.BP No. 92469-03-OLA 2)(Construedon Period Re-covery)(lucihty Operating License Ncs. DPR 80. DPR.82); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 19,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Discovery Request / Referring Ruling to Canmission)
Ruhng on an intervenor discovery request, the licensing Donrd orders production of a report of M
A the Institute for Nuclear Power Operanons (INPO), subject to a protectin cader; refers its ruling to the 1
Comndssion; and stays die effectiveness of its disclosure &rective penang Conunission action.
B Under NRC rules,11 is not clear when a balancing of interests is required before pernutting l
dirlosure of a report that is claimed to cutain trade secrets or pnvileged or con 6dential conmercial or i
Anancialinformation. The Federal Rules of Civil Piocedum clearly permit a balancing. See Fed. R. Ov, I
C P. 26(cX7). NRC rules include a comparable balancing test, see 10 CP.R. { 2.740(cK6), but this test is 7
subject to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.790, la parucular, the bahncing test appears to be overridden r
by section 2 790(bX6). Cf. Pacinc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and z
2), CLI-80 24.11 NRC 775 (1980)(necess by intervenors to occunty plan permitted subject to protective C
order)
LBP-93-14 ST. JOSEPH R ADIOLOGY ASSOCIATLS, INC., and JOSEPil L. FISHER, M D. (d b.a. ST, JOSEPH RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., and I'ISHLR RADIOLDGICAL CLINIC), Docket Nos.
030-00326EA,999 90003-EA (ASLDP No. 93-67242 EA); liNIORCEMENT ACTION, July 20, 1993; t
/
ORDER
~
LilP-9115 GEOROLA POWER COMPANY, et al (Vogtle Liectric Generating Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA 3. 50 42SOLA 3 (ASLDP No. 9L671010LA 3)(Re: license Artendment; Transfer to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING LJCENSE AMENDMElff; July 21,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Case Management)
A The Board determined that wlen a contention is adnutted < no a proceedmg, the coinention determines de scope of discovery However, as a notter of case management, the Board limited the hrst phase of discovery and hearing to the proffered bases. After the Iraring on the 6rst phase, de Board f
l smuld determine whether it had a complete record for decision or whether furtiwr discovery and a further henring are necessary.
H An sfmittrd contention deternines the scope of the proceeding C
Discovery may tw limited to admitted bases during etw hrsi phase of a proceedmg. After the heating 4
on die nrst phase, de Board can deternune wlwther it has a complete record for decision or wieder further
-ducovery is necessary.
LUP 9316 VERMONT YANKrE NUCLEAR POWl:R CORPORATION (Verinrent Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Ibcket No. 50 271 Ot A.5 (ASLBP No. 92 665 024LA.5) (l'OL No. DPR-28)i OPERATING t
IJCLNSE AMENDMENT. July E 1993; Mr.MORANDUM (Termination of Proceeding)
LDP 93-17 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (DiaNo Canyon Nuclear Ibwer Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50 275-OLA 2, 50 32LOtA2 ( ASt.BP No. 92469-OLOLA.2) (Construction lYriod e
n 4
I
DIGINN ISSUANCFJi OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS Recovery)(Wcility Operating Ucense Nos. DPR 80 DPR-82); OPERATINO LICENSL AMENDMENT; August 13,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDf.R (telephone Onnference Call,8/13S3)
A la tesponse to a request by Intervenors for further discowry concerning alleged attempts to alter 6te Ings (the subject of an admitned contendon) as to which the NRC's Office of Invendgation had made prehndnary inquiries but found no further irvaufry warranted, the Ucensing Board defers action on de modon pending cross examination at the hearing of the custodian of the records regarding any possible falsi6 cation.
The Board aho requires det a sanidel copy of the letter raising the question be nude available to de Intervenors.
LDP-93-18 GEORGI A POWER COMPANY, et al. (Vngtle Electric Oenerating Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-424-OlA3, 5442LOLA.3 (ASLBP No. 93-67101<>LA-3)(Re: Ucense Amendment; Transfer.
to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENr; September 8,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Discovery Motion)
A The Board ruled that atmetnents were privileged both as attorney work-product and attorney-client privilege when t!w statements were given to Apphcant's attorneys at a time that they had reason to believe they were relevant to an 01 investigation that could occur. An allegation that the laterviewees were
" hounded" to nuke them tell a commna story is not enough to overcome the privilege. Nwever, persuasive evidence, presented at a hearing, of " hounding" or other improper anorney conduct could overcome the privilege..
B Proof at a hearing that clients had been " hounded" or otherwise improperly treated could overcone a claim of privilege, either under Gr work product privilege or the attorney-client privilege. Whers a party is on notice that such proof any be presented,le nmy be ordered to have disputed docunents available at the hearing for purposes of possible produedon.
C Attorney-client and work-product privileges are not limited to a controlling group with a corpo-ration, he privileges are broadly construed to encourage full information-gathering by attorneys. Upjohn Crt v. United States,449 U.S. 383 (1981).
D An evidentiary privilege frid by a corporation may be waived only by an authorired employce.
LDP 9%I9 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY (Ptigrim Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-2910LA -
(ASLBP No. 91678-03-OLA)(hcility Operaung Ucense No. DPR45); OPERATING UCENSE AMEND-MENT; September 13,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Termination of Proceeding) 1.BP-9520 UT)lDGY SERVICES CORPORATION, Docket No. 0343176 LEA (ASLDP No. 91674-01 EA)(LA 93-006)(Order Suspending Byproduct Material Ucetime No. 37 28544 01); ENTORCEMENT ACTION; September 21,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting in Part NRC Staff Motion to Delay Proceeding; Requiring Submission of Staff Status Reports)
A In response to a third NRC Sisit motion for an additional delay in conducting a heense suspension proceeding, the Ucensing Board orders disecrvery delayed for seventy 6ve days.
B in determining whether to delay an enforcement proceeding pending the outcome of a Staff investigation,6w factors must be weighed. They are: (1) length of de delay;(2) reasons for the delay; (3) risk of erroneous deprivation of the due process property or hberty interests of de licensee or any oiler party;(4) assertion of the right to a hearing by tie party opposing the delay; and (5) prejudice to sfm party opposing the delay See CL1-9117,38 NRC 44,49.$2 (19931 C
In assessing the balancing factor of de reasons for the delay in de Moceeding, de presiding tifiker is called upon to appraise two separnte concerns. First, there is the question of what legitimate government interent is served by the delay. This involves an inqufry into the propriety of the Staff's demonstration that tlere will be a detrirnental impact on the investigative process if the delay is not granted. Ad.litionally, dere is the quendon of whether de StaiY has shown that dere is a legionate basis for tle period of delay it seeks _ his involves an hiquiry into wheder the Staff has made "a credible showing that it is attempung to complete its invesdgation espeditiously." LDP.9110,37 NRC 435,462, aff'd, CL1-93-17,38 NRC 44
. (1993).
D h is the rule in administrative hearings that hearsay evidence is generally admissible so long as it is reliable (as well as relevant and material) evidence. See Duke Power Co. fPerkins Nuclear Power Stadon, Units I,2, and 3), AIAIL668,15 NRC 450,477 (1982).
12 r
i,
'rF"
y
- P
.r
f DICESTS ISSUANCES OF TiiE ATOMIC sal'ETY AND LICENSING BOARDS -
fi Two components that nde up the factor of prejudice to the pany opposing delay in an enforcenrnt proceedmg are prejuece to de party's ability to conduct hcensed activities and pieju&cc to its ability to defend against sie charges in the enforcenent order, F
Regarding the atihty of de pany opposing any delay in an enforcenent proceedmg to defend itself against the charges leveled by the Staff, although tle passage of tinw la hkely to affect the memory of some witnesses, de prejudice arising from this phenomenon la extrenely &fficult to gauge in &e abstract. See CLI 9517,38 NRC at 58 59.
O in granting a Staff request to delay an enforcement proceeding, the presiding officer has the responsilulity to minimim the effects of any delay and to monitor closely the status of the Staff's inwstigation to ensure that due diligence is teing esercised to tring in inquiry to a conclusion. See id. at 60.
LBP 9121 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. S1424-OLA-3,50 425-OLA-3 (ASLBP No. 934714)l OLA-3)(Re: Ucense Arrendment; Transfer to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 24,1993, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Georgia Power Motion to Reconsider Scope of Proceeding)
A Tie Board acknowledged error in an earlier opinion, sesulting fmm accepting the unoppond argunents of Intervennt and therefore In'erpreting a portion of the latervenor's Auended Peudon out of context. His opinion narrows the issues. -
B Motions for seconsideradon are for the purpose of pointing out errors in de existing record, not for stating new argunents. However, new argunents have been preserued and there is no time pressure in
/
tlw present status of this case. Consequently, the Board chose in its discretion to decide tte motion on the nents by grandng it.
C Intervenors must carefury comnmnicate the scope of their contentions so that neither the board nur the other parties need to guess their neaning. Unclear contentions may be construed narrtm-ly rather enn havmg the pardes search for natterials that might have twen referenced by a vague, unspecific reference.
D he Board refused to rule that contentions could not reference material not included in the petition.
It considered it more important that the contentions be clearly worded, with or wi&out references, and that the parties not be required by a nonspecific reference to hunt for a needle in a haystacit E
ne anrruled petition should be construed in hght of all four cornern of the document, and inevidual passages should not be interpreted out of context.
LBP-9122 GEORGIA iM.)WER COMPANY, et at (Vogtle Electric Generating Phmt, Uniis I and 2) Docket Nos. 50424-OLA-3,50-42LOLA-3 (ASLDP No. 93471-01 OLA.3)(Re: Ucense Anendurat; Transfer to Southern Nuclear); OPf1ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Fowmher 17, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Renewed Motion to Compel Staff Pmduction of Docurnents)
A-De Licensing Board granted, in part, Staff's Motion to &fer discovery of certain documents related to an ongoing investigation. In limiting the extent of the deferral, dw Board used a balancing test comprised of four factors: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of tle right to a prompt pmceeding, an!(4) the prejudice to the defendant of a delay in the civil proceeding. It applied the Commission's guidance that these elenents are guides in balancing the interests of the claimant and the Gowmment to assess whether the basic due pmcess requirenent of fairness has q
been smLiied in a particular case.'" Oncology Service < Corp., CL1-9117,38 NRC 44, $1 (1993). quoting -
_ Un;ted States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred azul Fifty Dollars in United States Cunency,461 U.S 555,
$65 (1983). (De Commission also considers the %k of erroneous deprivation" (38 NRC at $7) which appears to apply prinarily in cases of the imnediatley effective suspension of a hcense. In this case there is no suspemaion, so we deal with the h, win to GPC entirely under the factor covenng "nrejudice to it) he Board also considered the diligence being exercised by the Staff to bring ttr investigations to a chse.
Onceingy Services,3814RC at 60.
i B
he Ucensing Board weighed sevemi factors related to the Staff's request for a delay due to an
]
angoing investigahon and concluded that only part of the Staff's requested delay should be granted.
1 LDP4123 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station),
Docket No. 50 312-DCOM.R (ASLHP No. 91677 01-DCOM-R)(Decomnussioning Plan)(hicility Oper-ating Ucense No. DPR-54); DECOMMISSIONING; November 30,1993, SECOND PREHEARING CON-J IT.RENCE ORDi'R (Proposed Contentions, Sumnery Disposidon Motion) 13 l
H I'
. ~
I DIGESTS ISStJANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS r
A' The IJcensing Board issues a Prehearmg Conference Order ruhng on proponed contentions -
^:;
submined by %e Environnwntal and Resources Conservation Organization (IIO)in response to Commission Orders in CLI-93-3 (37 NRC 135), CL1-93-12 (37 NRC 3551, and CLl-93-19 (38 NRC 81). ECO submitted -
contentions in duce areas - deconunissioning funding, has of offsite power (LOOP) and de Environmental Assessment / Safety Evaluation Report (EA/SER). The Board accepts two separate funding contendons -
determining that they raised signincant questions with respect to the viat il3y of the decommissioning fun &ng i
plan and that material stMdned in opposition would have required a ruhng on the nerits,inappmpriate at de comention stage of de proceeding. The Board also grants summary drsposition of the one IJ00P contention previously accepted by the Conmussion.
B De rules governing the admissibihty of contentions (10 CER. 2.714(b) and (d)) were amended in 1989 to raise the threshhold for the adndssion of contentions. Those rules now require, inter aba, a specific statement of law or fact to be raised or controverted, a brief explanation of the bases, a concise statement of facts or expert opinion that support the contemion (with references to specific sources and documents), and sufEcient information to show that a genuine issue exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue. On NEPA issues, comentions are to be based, at least initially, on the applicant's or.
beensee's environmemal report. The contemion must, if proved, enutle the claimant to some telief.
C in adopting a higher threshhold for contentions, the Commission was not requiring that an intervenor or petitioner prove its case prior to the admission ofits contention. Tie revised rules are intended to require de intervenor to send pertinent poruons of an application, and to staie the applicam's position and g
petidoner's opposing view. Tlwy also permit a petitioner to explain de6ciencies of an apphcation. However, the mere circunstance that an intervenor tnay not cite an epi cation document in its contention does not di per se invalidate the contenuon.
D De scope of permissible contentions is normally bounded by the scope of the proceeding itself.
On remand from the Comrmssion, however, the scope of issues is con 6nc4 to issues idenafied by the Commission. Beyond that, however, an intervenor nmy seek to nie late 4 led contentions, subject to a balancing of the Eve factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(aXiHv), wittun the scope of slw entire proceeding.
E The " raised threshold" for contentions must be reasonably aggdied and is not to be rnechanically construed. Rules of practice are not to be applied in an " overly %rmahstic" manner.
F la considering a late 41ed contendon, a Ucensing Board nmst balance de 6ve factors set forth in 10 CF.R. 52.714(a)(i)-(v). Of these, de preeminent factor has long been recognized as factor (i), good l
cause for failure to 6le on time. Where a petitioner or intervenor fails to simw good cause, the other four factors nmst weigh heavily in its favor for a pennon or contention to be granted.
O in considering late 4 led contentions, a licensing board's balancing of tim five factors must be 4
reasonable - taking into account not only a balancing of the lateness but also each of the other factnes, includmg nutigating circumstances,if any. A board has broad discredon in tte circumstances of individual cases.
H To be accepted, a late 41ed contention must satisfy not only the late.nled factors but also the requirenents for contendons. A heensing board need not address these considerations in any particuhir orde, aldmugh both are required for admissibihty. Analyzing the contention nquirements first pernuts a honrd to determine wirther or not a signincant health and safety or environmental question is being advanced, thus aulating the board in considering lateness fartor (iii), de contribution to an adequate record to be made by the intervenor..
I De Commission has kmg accepted contentions challenging the adequacy of regulatory guides.
J Decommissioning fund ng costs esclude the cost of removal and disposal of spent fuel (10 CER.
l $0.75fc) n 1), but do not clearly exclude costs of interim onsite storage of spent fuel. The cost of casks to store spent fuel in an ensite Independent Spent het Storage Installation do not appear to be excluded.
K De legal standards governing notions fat summary d spommon purvant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749 were recently reiterated by the Comminion in Advanced Me& cal Systems. f~
J L
NRC regulations pertaining to envimamental assessments do i require consultadon with other agencies. They only require a " Dst of agencies and persons consulted. and idenuncation of sources used."
10 CER. (51.30(sX2) y 14
)
1 i
j
4
-l
'l
- l l
I l
{1 DIGTSTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS M
A contendon that simply alleges that some general, nonspecine nutter ought to be considered &ies not provide the bass for an admissible contention.
N There is no 50 mile presumption for determining areas in which environmental impacu umst be evaluated.1he 50-mile presumption is applicable in deternuning injury in fact for standing purposes under i
certain circumstances. The standing requirement has always been sigmhcantly less than for demonstrating j
an acceptable contention.
O Environmental cantentions, to the essent possible, nest be submitted on the basis of the licensce's j
Environmental Report (ER) and nuiy not await the Staff's environnrntal docunent. The contentions may be anended or expanded if there are data a conclusions in the NRC issuance that differ sigm6cantly from data or conclusions in the ER.
P An order admitting and denying various contendons is not immediately appealable under 10 C.F.R.
J 6 2.714a where it neither wholly denies nor grants a petition for leave to intervene / request for a hearing.
Q The following technical issues are discussed: Decoc'.missioning hmding, loss of Offsite Power.
LBP-93-24 1 TIN FALIE CLINIC & HOSPITAL, Docket No. 30-32240 OvP (ASLBP No.93-681 4 1-OsP)(EA 93-082)(Byproduct Material Ucense No. I127085 01); ENIORCEMINF ACTION; December 8,1993; ORDER APPROVING AND INCORPORAr!NG STIPULATION IOR SCfTLEMENT OF PROCEEDING AND SETTilNG AND TERMINATING THE PROCEEDING A
Where settleners of a maner as proposed by the parties is in the public interest, it should be approved by the Licensing Board.
1 IM-9325 SEQUOYAH RJELS CORPORATION, Docket No. 40LO8027-MLA (ASLBP No. 91-623-01 MLA) (Source Material IJcense No. Sub-1010); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; December 15, 1993 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Withdrawal of Application and Termination of Proceeding)
A The Presiding Officer issues a Memorandum and Order allowing the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation to withdraw its license renewal application and to terminate the license senewal proceeding.
B Although the power of a presiding officer to grant a withdrawal on prescribed terms and conditions under 10 C.F.R. 62.107(a) involves &scretionary judgnent, the Connission's regulation is modeled on Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules r f Ovil Procedure and its exercise is reviewable for any abuse. See leCompte v. Mr. Chip,Inc.,528 F.2d 601. 604 (5th Or.1976).
C la supporting con &tions on the withdrawal of an apphcation, the record nmst reveal that the procee&ng dernonstrates sone legal injury to a private or public interest that the constions are designed to I
chminate. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Ithon Generating Station Units I and 2), A1AB-657,14 NRC 967, 9784 9 (1983).
D The jurisdiction and power of a presiding of6cer in specinc cases nie limited by the authority delegated by the Commission. Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units '
I and 2), ALAB-316,3 NRC 167 (1976).
E The discretionary responsibility of the presiding ofncer to coraider imposing conditions on a license withdrawal must be exercised with due regard to the legitimate interests of all parties in the pmceeding.
See 12Compie v. Mr. Oiip, Inc.,528 F.2d 601,6M (5th Cir.1976); see also American Cyananad Co. v.
McGhee,317 F.2d 295,298 (5th Or.1963).
The purpose of the rule to dismiss proceedings on conditions is "primarily to prevent voluntary F
&smissals which unfalsiy affect the other side, and to permit the imposition of curative conditions."
Alamunce Industries, Inc. v. Filene's,291 F.2d 142,146 (1st Dr.1961).
G The common law rule supporting &e withdrawal regulation reflects that an upphcant has an unquali6ed right to have on action dismissed unless the estnissal would legally preju&cc other parties in a way other than by snatituting a future proceeding of the same Lind. See Jones v. Securities and Exchange Commission,298 U.S.1,19-21 (1935).
H Even if a withdrawal request comes after the issuance of a hearing notice,10 C.F.R. 5 2.107 interposes no obstacle to an applii. ant's ability to withdraw a renewal applicatinrt i
Regulations should be construed to avoid absurd results and provide expression to their intended purpose. Armsuong Paint and Varnish Works v. Nu-Enanel Corp.,305 U.S. 315,333 (1938).
J Conditions imposed on a license renewul applicadon withdrawal by a presiding officer must not only bear a selationship to the conduct and legal harm at which they are nined, but the hann must be docunenied in the record See imCones v. Mr. Chip, Inc.,528 F.2d 601,60445 (Sih Or 1976).
.l.l 15 1
J l
l 1
l
'I 1
i i
O
-.,. =
--.-. ~. -
3 f
I UlGESTS ISSUANCl3 OF T!!E ATOMIC SAFETY ANb LICENSING BOARDS L
K Decause GE licenace's request to condurs decorrunisiuoning in aaxaGince with an overall decom-ndssioning plan generaby has been considered a heense anendnent rv est, interested parties have been
~ ble to esercise hearinr rights under section 189ta) of the Atonde igy Act. See Kerr-McGee Corp.
a (West Chicago R.rt Earths Facility), CLJ-82 2,15 NRC 232, 237 (1982), affd sub nont City of West Oiicago v NRC,701 F.2d 632 (7th Cir.1933). But see Comadssion Staff Requirenents Memorandum, Chilk to l'arter and Taylur, hne 30,1993, wtere heasings on a reacts decomminioning plan are considered wholly a matter of Comniission discretion.
LBP-93 ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS,INC,(Ote Fnciary Row, Geneva Ohio 44041), Docket No.
30-16055-CivP-R (ASLBP No. 93 6824!avP-R) (Civil Penalty); E'.rVRCIMENT ACTIOF; Decerrter 14,1991; MEMORANDUM AND ORDl3R si I
[
9 h
e 3
t
o w
4 DIGFhTS ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 1
i A U-93-1 UDYD P. ZERR, Docket No. 93 01-PF (AS12P No. 9347341-PF); PROGRAM RAUD; j
September 20,1993, RUUNG ON DEFENDAPTI"S MOTION TO DISMISS me m
i
/
1
/
r r
L C
h 4
W d
a
/
J 9*
a a
. 4 17 I
i Y.
i d
4
-,--v-r-
,----,--n,,
a-
,r,-
,,--_,-w,-
,--.v,--
7-,
s 1
A 1
4 l+
s 5
k DIGESTS i
ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISION DD 93-14 ItALTIMORE GAS AND EllCTRIC COMPANY (Calvert Chffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installauon), Docket Nos. 72-8. 50 317,50-318; REQUEST ICR ACTION; August 16,1993. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.FA I 2.206 A
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards denies a Pention 61ed by the Maryland Safe Energy Coalition regarding the licensed Independent Spent luel Storage Installation (ISPSI) j at de Calvert Cbffs Nuclear Power Plant. ftdtioner had requested that the NRC: (I) halt the transfer of nuclear waste from the spent fuel pool to the ISFSI und! certain alleged safety problenu had beers fully solved (2) conduct hearings for further rulemaking and regulation of nuclear waste at the plant; and (3) deny a Certificate of Compliance (COC) and suspend the license issued to tie Ucensee for dry cask storage j
of spent fuel until the concerns set forth in the Pc6 tion had been addressed by tfe NRC and the Licensee.
Prelinunarily, the Director noted that the licensing of this ISFSI did not fall under the Subpart of 10 C.FA Part 72 requiring rulemaking and issuance of a COC for approval of the cask design and, therefore, denied this part of the Pedtion. (Earlier, the Director had informed the Petitioner that its request for further rulemaking and regulation of dry cask storage was a request to modify the Commission's regulations and had advised the Peutioner to follow the provision of 10 C.F.R. I 2.802 ifit sought rulemaking.) The Director then considered each of the safety problems alleged by tie Petidoner and concluded that the Ittitioner had not raised any substanual health and safety issues. De Director, therefore, denied the remaining actions requested in the Petstion.
DD-93-15 CLEVE!.AND L11CTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit I), Docket No. 506440 (Ucense No. NPP 58); REQUEST IOR ACrlON, September 21,19o3; SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDIR 10 C.FA 6 2.206 A
The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, supplements his denial of this petition regarding the construction and operation of an interim onsite low-level rachoactive waste processing and storage facihty that was set forth in DD-93 5 (37 NRC 238 (1993)). In DD 93-5, the Director had crmeluded that the construction and operation of the proposed interim facility did not raise any substantial public heahh and safety issues and that the Ucensee ba:1 comphed with all appheuble NRC tegulations and guidance. His Supplemental Decision was prepared to respond to a lener from the Ittitioner to the Commission asserting that DD-93 5 fell far short of denwmstrating the safety of the interim low-level waste facility itself and only addressed the effect the facility could have on existmg equipment at tie plant in this Supplemental j
Decision the NRC Staff reviews the Ucensee's safety evaluation and supporting documentation for the i
design. construction, and operadon of de interim facihty and concludes that those activides do not raise an "unreviewed safety question" under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.59 and that the design and operation of the facihty will conform to the Licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) prepared for operation of the Ittry plant. In i
confirming his earlier decision, the Director clanfied tie following points: (1) with hmited exceptions, the design and operation of the interirn facility do not involve changes in the handling and storage of low-level 2
l radhmtive waste as described in the ISAR;(2) those few changes to the FSAR description do not involve j
unreviewed safety questions; and (3) therefore, under secuon 50.59, NRC teview and appmval was not required for construction and operauon of the facihty, no federal aedon was required for the constrwuon i
and operad<m of this facility, and de requirements of the Nadmmi Environnrntal Pobey Act (NITAl and j
the Commission's NEPA irrplenennog reguladons do not agply DD-9316 NUCLEAR FNERGY SERVICES, Docket No. 30 22060; REQUEST IOR ACTION; Novemt>er 19, 1993; D!Rii.CTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2.206 i
19 i
1 l
i i
i
~ ~ -
.. ~..
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS A
ne Director, Office of Enforcenrnt, responds in a Director's Decision to issues raised in a peution fded by Ernest C. Hadley on behalf of A:nold Gundersen (Petitioner) pursuant to 10 CF.R. 5 2.206 and subsequent correspondence from the Pe6tioner and his wife. The Petidoner requested that action be taken with regard to Nuclear Faergy Services (NES). The Petitioner sought, among other things: (1) prompt and.
decisive enforcenrat action against Niis for procedural and license violations, barassrrent of Petidoner, and material misstatements nuide to NRC inspectors; and (2) an inmediate review of all pending investigations -
and the reasons for delay in taking enforcenent action against NES As a basis for this request, the Petitioner i
asserted that he was terminated from his position as senior vice president with NES after asserting to his management that certain violations had occurred, and that when de Region Iimpection report was submitted to NES which erroneously found no merit to his assertions, NES knew, or should have known, that the report -
contained material misstatements of fact and failed to notify de NRC of such snisstatements le violation of 10 C F.R. (50.9. The Director has granted in part and denied in part the requests inade by the Petitioner.
The reasons for the denial are fully set forth in the Decision.
B The NRC has several enforcement options available to it, including Notices of Violations, civil 2
rnonetary penalties, and orders to suspend, modify, or revoke licenses.
.]
C Congress explicitly gave to the Department of Labor the authority and responsibility to provide traditional, labor.erlated renedtes to individuals for their losacs resulting from discrinunation, while reserving to the NRC the authority under the Atomic Energy Act to take enforcenrnt action against NRC licensees and individuals for violations of NRC requirenrnts. It is not within the NRC's authority to provide
)
a personal remedy to individuals for such discrimination.
- I
)
D The NRC has the authority to take enforcement action against NRC licensees and individunts for violations of NRC requirenrats. Such enforcenent action is imended to provide a form of " protection" for wlustichlowers in that the purpose of such action is tu deter such conduct and to send a message to de licensee and other licensees that discrimination against employees for raising safety concerns will not te tolerated.
E Matters relating to the conduct of NRC ernployees, including allegations of employee misconduct, j
are not within the scope of 10 CF.R.12.206. Rather, such matters are within tlw authority of the NRC Office of the Inspector General, t
DD'93-17 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station). Docket No. 50 293 (License No.
DPR 35); REQUEST IVR ACrlON; November 19,1993, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.
6 2.206 A
A petition, dated October 30,1991, requested de Commission to seconsider an earlier Conmssion approval of a task force recomnendntion that the NRC not reconsider its " reasonable assurance" 6nding regarding emergency preparedness at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Stadon. The Petitioner set forth ten bases for that request. Subsequently, the htitioner raised additional concerns, some of which are rotated to matters raised in the petition, in correspondence with a Commissioner's office, the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, and de Chairman. The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has considered 1
all of tr4e matters raised in the petition, as deened supplenrnted by relevant additional mattern raised in the j
sebsequent correspondence, and has denied the petition.
DD-9318 U.S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (Hanford Site); REQUEST FOR ACTION; Dece.nher 2,199h DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 A
The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, denies a petition 6ted by the Confederated Thbes and Bands of the Yakima indian Nation sequesting that the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards exercise his authonty to tequire a license application from the 1).S.
Departnent of Energy (DOE) with respect to certain high-level radioactive wastes at the llanford Site in tie State of Washingmn and to espedite regulation dereof in accordance with the provisions of 10 CF.R. Part j
30 or other applicable chapters of the Code of Federal Regulations. As basis for the request, the htitioner 1
maserts that IX)E cunently is in violation of Part 30 raquirenrats for a license since "various near surface geologic repositories, refened to as cribs, ditches, trencies, and single shell tanks." but meetmg the 10 C.F.R. Part 60 definition of " geologic reporJtory," have received and currently hold in "k>ng-term storage" or " disposal," "high-level radioactive waste."
B Applicanon of section 202(4) of the Errrgy Reorganization Act of 1974,42 U.S C. 5 5842(4), to j
determine NRC's juriutiction with respect to certam storage tanis at llanford turns upt n the latemion of 1
20
- 1
~
i l
J 1
DIGESTS ISSUANCFS OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS l
.I Cungress or DOE at the tine the faciboes were authorized and not on the likehhood that the tanks might j
jl in fact he uwd for long-term storage C
DOE has advised NRC that it intends to setrieve and process de high-level wasies in both single--
shell and double-shell tanks for disposal in an offsise repository. Should DOE undertake to dispose of these wastes is situ, then the NRC would esercise its regulatory authority, as applicable, under section 202(4).
-J D
De legislative history with respect to section 202(4) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 j
is clear that Congress did not intend for NRC to regulate any eaisting facilities, at least ucul such time as they might be authorized for use as long term storage or disposal facilities.
I E
The cribs, ditches, and trenches are not " facilities authorized for de express purpose of subsequent long-term storage of high-level ra&oactive wast aw '*av are not subject to the bcensing or related l
regulatory authority of the NRC pursuant to seCr Jn 202(4) at he Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
DD 93-19 VERMONr YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power l
Station), Docket No. %271; RI' QUEST IOR ACTION; December 14, 1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. 5 2.206 A
The Director of tle Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies petitions 6ted with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff by Michael J. Daley on behalf of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (lYtiuoner) on April 8.1993, and April 11,1993, requesting tle NRC to take immediate action to require that the Vermont Yankee reactor semain in cold shutdown until plant nanagenent can provide proof that the energency diesel generators at the plant are able to nwet their safety function. Petitioner sought rehef based on assertions that (1) diesel generatur 'A was damaged by overload conditions suffered during testing in August through October of 1990; (2) de "B" unit also suffered under the same testing regine; (3) one of the causes of the repeated faihren of de "A" unit in de summer of 1992 was the damage from i
this testing;(4) the overloading resulted frorn inappropriate actions taken in response to an NRC-identined j
violation indicaung that the emergency diesel generators had for 20 years not been tested at loads consistent with the maaimum espected accident load; and (5) the foregoing raises a number of questiom that must be i
I imnwdiately answered if Vermont Yankee is going to be allowed to depend on these machines to fulfiD the
-)
regulatory requirements for adequate onsite emergency backup power systems.
B Ve following technical imes are discussed: Design basis energency desel generator capacity; denni6on of lond for emergency diesel generators, inclu&ng real load, reactive load, power factor; diesel generator cyhnder liner failure, including role of overload in causing, role of fatigue (from operation) in i
causing, resulting from original rnanufacturing flaws in liners, and likelihood of recurrence /probabihty of existence of other hidden Raws; relation of surveillance and other tesung to detection of cyliner hner flaws in energency diesel generatur; and overload of odier equipment i
i DD-93-20 HOSTON EDISON COMPANY (Pilgrim Nuclear Powe.r Station), Ducket No. M293; REQUEST fOR ACTION. December 14,1993; DIRECI'OR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.P.R. I2.206 -
j A
A petition, dated May 26, 1993, requested the Commission to take immediate action to delay l
tle scheduled startup of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, or, in the alternative, to order its imnediate shutdown if the lilgrim Station was permitted to start up before tle petition could be acted upon. Tim petition contended that hardware mo&Acations were necessary to eliminate errors in reactor water-levet nraswement lecause de system in place at Pilgrim does not adequately measure the water level of de reactor vessel and thus constitutes an unacceptable risk to the lealth and safety of the public. The D rector of de Ofhce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has considered all of de natters raised in the petition, and has denied de petition.
DD-93 21 CAROLIN A POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Brunswick Sicam Electric Plant, Units I and 2),
Docket Nos. 50 324, 50-325; REQUEST FOR ACTION; December 14, 1993; DIRIrTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CAR. I 2.206 A
A pe'.ition, dated April 28, 1993, requested de Commission to immediately shut down tle Brunswick Steam Electric Pbm on the hasis of asserted receipt of allegations from a Brunswick employee.
The peution alleged that operations at Brunswick Steam I'lectric Plant had reached crisis proportions, actung forth 6ve statemerus as the bases for that conclusion and Ittitioner's reqaest for imrnedmie shutdown. The Director of the Office of Nuclear Rearsar Regulation has considered all of the marters raised in the petition, and has demed the petition.
21 a.
I
- j I
.1 DIGI 5TS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECislONS DD-93-22 SHIPMENTS OF PUEL FROM LONG ISLAND PO%TR AUTHORflTS SilORLllAM NU-
~
CLEAR POWER STATION TO PillLADELPHIA 12LCTRIC COMPANTS UMERICK GENERATING l
STATION, Docket Nos. 50 352,50 353,54322, REQUEST IOR ACI'lON; December 23,199); DIREC.
"j TOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CP R. I2.206 A
The Director, Oflice of Nucient Material Safety and Safeguards, denies a petition Aled on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Environnental Protection and Energy requesting that the Nucleat Regulatory l
Commission (Commission) ' (1) amend lang Island Power Authority's (LIPA) hcenae and approval of UPA's deconunissioning plan to speci6cally address the transfer and transport of LIPA's fuct to Pisladelphia Dectne Company (PECo), (2) perform an Favironmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to 10 CFA 131.30, and detennination based on dw EA; pursuant to 10 CFA 5 51.31, regarding de poposed transfer and transport of de fuel by barge from UPA to PECo, which addresses de naks anociated with die shipnrat of the fuel along and through New Jersey's coastal sone; (3) perform a Cnisideration of Alternatives in awardance with Section 102(2XE) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 40 CSA i 1509.9(b) which addmsnes alternative means of transporting fuel from UPA to PECo; and (4)immediately stay PECo's June 23.1993 license amendnrnts, tim Cernficate of Compliance regarding the IF-300 issued to Pacific Nuclear Systens, and LIPA's license and general license to transfer the fuel pursuant to 10 CP R. I 7112 pending comptedon of de above actions and cornpliance whh the consistency process under' the Coastal 7ene Mamtgenent Act (CZMA). The litttionct further requested that the Commission take Imnediate action to hali ongoing shipnents of fuel from UPA's Shurcham Nuclear Power Station to PECo's Unerick Generating Station pending consideration of the nerits of the petition. As basis for de requesta, the Petinoner asserts that' (1) the NRC failed to consider alternatives under NEPA for de proposed action; j
(2) the NRC failed to perform an EA for the transfer and barge transport of UPA's fuel,(3) the NRC's EA for PECo's license amendments was inadequate; (4) the ffRC violated NEPA by segnenting the appuval j
of tie transfer and transport by barge, (5) tie NRC fmled to require WPA to obtain necessary approvals, and (6) the NRC violated the CZMA by failing to regaire necessary consistency reviews-B Under tlw eaisting regulatory scheme. a licensee's transport of nuclear fuel is by general license.
No NRC approval of the specihc route by which the Shoreham fuelis transported to Umrtick is aequired.
Because ruute selection is a private decision not requiring federal approval, no route-specahe NEPA analysis is necesary. The Comnunion has held that where a heensee can act without NRC appoval, there is no federal acuon requiring an environnental review under NEPA.
C Generic NRC resolution of environnental issues - and the consequent preclusion of case-specific reviews - is fully lawful. -
D
% S-4 Table,10 CPA 15L52, specs 6cally provides that it applies when
- irradiated fuel is ll shipped from the reactor by truck, rail, or tmrge"(emphasis added). The provisions of the Tahle encompass the environmental Impacts of the shipnrnt of fuel from one reactor to another tegardless of whether those impacts are being contenplated as part of NRC action concerning the reador receiving the fuel or the reacmr from which the fuct is being shipped.
-E Decauw the shipnent of fuel falls wittun de " envelope" of enviromvental consequences that have already been analynd (and found nil) citler generkally or in the original impact statenwnts for de specine plants at issue here, NEPA does not require any further evaluation of alternatives. hs no NRC analysis of other potential routes or nrans for transporting the Shoreham fael to Unerick is required.
F A general bcense to transport licensed material is conferred under 10 CSA 5 71 12 to any beemce of the Conumnion, as long as certain provisions are net, provided the licensee obtains approval of the palage under other provisions of Part 71.
G Since the tramfer of the fuel from LIPA to PECo is expressly authorised by 10 CF.R. 670.42, which prnides that any licensee may transfer nuclear material to an individual authorized to receive such nmterial under terms of a specilie or general heense inued by the Commission, LIPA is not reqmred to obtain NRC approval to transfer the fuel to PECo.
H The main purpose of the Coutal Zone Managenrnt Act is to encourage aux! assist states in pepuring and inglenentmg nmnay.enent programs to peserve, protect, develop, and rentere the tesources of the coastal sone of the United States 1
Wlere a state ha su approved program, tlw Consial Zone Managenent Act provides for subminion of a conshtency certificautm to obtain a " required thienal heeme or pernnt."
22
r DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS J
The NRC did not issue any license or permit for llPA's aclection of a coastal route. Route selection, escept in circunstances not applicable here, is a decision made by a ptivste entity. It is not an activity far which LIPA or PECo applied for a ' required federal license or permit? 16 U.S CA. I1456(cX3XA)
(Supp.1993) Because the NRC does not regulate the route selection, no NRC action fell within Ow Coastal 7ene ManaFenent Act.
DD-93-23 VERMONT YANKEE NUCI. EAR POWER CORPORATION (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon). Docket No. 50-771; REQUEST FOR AcilON; Decerrber 28. 1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CP.R. 62.206 A
A petition, dated September 1,1993, requested the Commission to reconsider the August 2.1993 proposed civil penalty assessed against the Vermord Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation for operating the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station outside Technical Speca6 cations from October 15,1992, until April 6,1991 The petition requested reconsideration based upon four assertions regarding the actions of
' the licensee and the NRC's response to these actions. *lhe Director of the Othee of Enforcement has considered all of the snarters raised in the petition and has denied the petition.
'l l
.l 1
_~.. _ _...
l l-l' l
.o 6
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l
CASES i
A L Meckling Barge Unes, Inc. v. United States, 368 U.S. 324, 329 (1%1) effect of mootness of a proceeding on the decision below; CLI-93-17, 38 NRC 49 (1993) i Adann v. Dole, 927 F.2d 771, 777 (4th Cir.1991) cent. denied,112 S. Ct.122 (1991) applicability of NRC protection to employees of contractors and subcontractors; C119123, 38 NRC 182 (1993)
Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S.144,157 (1970) burden on proponent of surnmary disposition; CU-93-22, 38 NRC 102 (1993)
Admiral Insurance Co. v. United States District Court 881 F.2d 1486,1492 (9th Cir.1989) appheation of attorney-chent privilege in a corporation; UlP 9318, 38 NRC 124 (1993)
/
Advanced Medical Systems, AU-87-4, 25 NRC 865, 869-71 (1987) test for delay of discovery; LBP-93-22, 38 NRC 190 sti (1993) 7 i
Advanced Medical Systems, Inc., CLI-9122, 38 NRC 98,10243 (1993), reconsideration denied.
CLI-9124, 38 NRC 187 (1993) r.
applicabihty of federal rules in NRC proceedings, LDP-9123, 38 NRC 240 (1993) d Advisory Committee Note to 1970 Amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P.,48 F.R.D 459,499 (1970) discovery of trial preparation materials; LBP-9118, 38 NRC 123 (1993)
/
7 Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. furley Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210,214, y
remanded on other grounds, CU-74-12,7 AEC 203 (1974)
]
apphcation of collateral estoppel principics in adnunir.trative proceedings; G19116, 38 NRC 38-39 n 27 (1993) application of judicial standards for summary judgment in NRC proceedings; CLI.93-22, 38 NRC 102 I
(1993)
[
Alamance Industries, Inc. v. Fiiene's, 291 F.2d 142,.146 (1961) purpose of imposing conditions on the dismissal of proceedings, LEP-93-25, 38 NRC 315 (1993)
=
Anrrican Cyanamid Co. v. McGhee, 317 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir.1%3) 4 prer,iding officer's junsdiction to place conditions on a license apphcation withdrawal, LBP-9125, 38 NRC 315 (1993) i Arrerican Farm Unes v. Black Ball Freight Service, 397 U.S. 532 (1970)
Cornnussion laritude la application of raise &threstmid standard for admission of contentions; LBP-9L23, 38 NRC 206 (1993) j Anrrican flespital Ass'n v. National lateur Relations Board,111 S. Ct.1539,1543 (1991) 9 agency authority to proceed by generic rule rather than by case.by-case adjudication; CLI-93-25,38 NRC 294 (1993) i Andrus v. Siena Club, 442 U S. 347, 358 (1979) categories of federal actions for NIIPA purposes, DD-9122, 38 NRC 374 (1993) i Arizona public Service Co. (Pulo Verde Nuclear Generating Stahon, Units I, 2, and 3), CLI-9112, 34 NRC 149,155-56 (1991) licensmg authonty to consider the reach of hs jurisdiction to fashion a remedy in determining
- l redressabihty; CLI-9116, 38 NRC 38 n.25 (1993)
Armstmng Paint and Varnish hka v. Nu-Enanel Corp, 305 U.S. 315 (1938) inscrpretation of regulations to avoid absurd resulta-LBP-9125, 38 NRC 319 (1993) i I
i 25 1
l 1
k
..----...-w-
. - - - ~ ~ - -. - - ~
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASl3 Bahimore Gas and Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983) purpac of environnemal analysis of federal actions under NEPA; Di>9k22, 38 NRC 374 (1993)
Bahinure Gas and Decuic Co. v. Natural Resources Drfense Couned, 462 U.S. 87,101 (1983) generic rnethod for evaluadon of environmental inpacts of federal m:tions imder NEPA; Di>93-22, 38 NRC 376 (1993)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) test for gram of delay of proceedings; ClJ-9%I7,38 NRC 50 (1993)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 314, 530 (1972) test for dr. lay of discovery; LSP-9122, 38 NRC 190 n.1 (1993) 11arry v. Barchi,443 U.S. 55 (1979) balancing of factors for grant of delay of proceeding; C119117, 38 NPC 60 (1993)
Buffington v. Balumore County, 913 F.2d 113 (4th Cir.1990), cert. demed 499 U S. 906,113 S. Ct.
I106 (1991) attachnent of double jeopardy in a jury trial; AlJ-931,38 NRC 153 (1993)
Career Education, Inc. v. Departurnt of Education, 6 F3d 817, 820 (D C. Cir.1993) adoption of material from governnent court tmers, Di>9522,38 NRC 370 n.2 (1993)
Carolina Power and IJght Co. (Sh& liarris Nuclear Power Phuu) AIAB437, 23 NRC 525. 536 (1986) apphcation of collateral estoppel principles in administradve proceedmgs; CL1-93-16, 38 NRC 39 n.27 (1993)
Carchna Power and Light Co. (Shearon liarris Nuclear Ibwer Plant), ALAB 837,23 NRC 525,544 (1986)
)
apphcabihry of Table S-4 toslightly irradiated nuclear fuel; DD-9122, 38 NHC 377,380 (1993)
Ouwenu v, Burnet 283 U.S. 691 (1931)
-j i
applicability to premature closmg of heensed facihtica; LDP 9F25, 38 NRC 320 (1993)
Cities of Campbell v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,770 F.2d 1180,119192 (11C. Cir.1985)
]
standard for exercise of agency discretion to reopen a proceeding; CL1-9125,38 NRC 293 (1993)
Cuy of Alexamiria v. Federal Eghway Administration,756 F.2d 1014,1018 (4th Cir.1985) federal actions cetegorically eactuded from NEPA pmvisions requiring detailed environmental assessrnents; Di>9122, 38 NRC 374 (1993)
Cleveland Board of Education v. toudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 547 (19115)
.q length of delay of proceedmg; CL1-9117,38 NRC 53 (1993)
-l Cleveland Dectric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit I), Clj.9121,38 NRC 87, 94 (1993) consideration of collective bases for a contention rather tima compartnrntalization; LDP 9b23,38 NRC 212 (1993)
Cleveland Electric Illumina6ng Co. (Perry Nuclear 1%wer Plant, Unit I), IllPM25, 32 NRC 21 (1990) challenges to changes in technical specifications; Cll-93-21,38 NRC 93 (1993)
Cleveland Ekrtric tiluminating Co. (Perry Nuclear itwer Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741, 75154 (197/)
application of judicial standards for sunmwy judgnent in NRC proceedings; CLI.9522,38 NRC 102 (1993)
Commonwealth Edison Co. (7. ion Stanon, Units I and 2A AIAB-185,7 AEC 240 (1974) scope of discovery; LBP-9115,38 NRC 21 r.2 (1993)
Commonweahh Edison Ca (Zion Station, Unita I and 2), AIAB-196,7 Air 457,460 (1974) discovery of trial preparation nuuerials, ISP-9L18, 38 NRC 123 (1993)
Cennmonwealth of Massa &netts v. NRC,924 F.2d 311 (D.C. Cir.1991) intent of energency planning regulauons; DD-9Ll7,38 NRC 268-69 (1993)
Community Nutrition insutuic v. Young,773 F2d 13%,1%4 (D C. Cir.1985) agency authority to dmpense with an evidenuary bensing; Clj.9122, 38 NRC 120 a 85 (1993)
Cwsolidated IMison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Units I, 2, and 3), CLI 758, 2 NRC 173,175 (1975) standard for institudon of show-cause proceedmgs, DD-93-14, 38 NRC 77 (1993); Di>93-20, 38 NRC 355 (1993); DD-9119, 38 NRC 349 (1993) 26
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Omsolidated Edison Co. uf New York findiaa Pomt, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-7L8, 2 NRC 173,176 (1975) standard for insutution of show cause proceedmgs; DD-9121, 38 NRC 36L64 (1993); DD-9L22,38 ERC 383 (1993)
Consumers Power Ca (Midland Plant. Un;ts I and 2), CIL74-3, 7 AEC 7,12 (1974)
- Commission latitude in application of rained-threshold standard for admiscion of comentions; LDP 93-23, 38 NRC 206 (1993)
Consuners Power Co- (Palisades Nuclear P' ant), LBP N 20,10 NRC 108,115 (1979) showing of injury in fact for standing in decommissioning proceedings; LBP-93-23, 38 NRC 249 (1993)
Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d 878 (D.C. Cir.1992), cert. denied,1231. la 2d 147 (Mar. 22,1993)
ICIA exemption for Institute for Nuclear Power Operations report; LBP-9L13, 38 NRC 12 (1993)
Cross. Sound Ferry Services, Inc v. Interstate Comnerce Commission, 934 F.2d 327, 334 (D.C. Or.1991) trigger for NEPA environnental analysis requirements; DD-9L22, 38 NRC 375 (1993)
Defenders of Wildhfe v. Andrus, 627 F.2d 1238,1245,1246 (D C. Cir.1980) trigger for NEPA environmental analysis requiretients; DD-93-22, 38 NRC 375 (1993)
Dellums v. NRC, 863 F.2d 968, 971 (D.C. Car.1988) injury-in fact standard for standmg to intervene, CLI-9121, 38 NRC 92 (1993)
Department of Justice v. Reporter Comminee for I-reedom of the Press,489 U.S. 749,776-80 (1989) degree of speci6 city required for goveranent to prevail on asserunn of confidentiality as an esception so disckmne under TUIA; CLI 9117, 38 NRC 56 (1993)
Detroit i% son Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Ibwer Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760,1765 (1982) showing necessary on other four factors when good cause for late Sling is om shown; LBP-9L23, 38 NRC 207 (1993)
Detroit fasun Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-78-ll, 7 NRC 381, 386, aff'd, ALAD-470,7 NRC 473 (1978) applicability to licensee's character for purpose of transfer of operating authonty; CL1-9116, 38 NRC 36 n.22 (1993)
Diversi6ed Industries, Inc, v. Meredsch,572 P.2d 596 (8th Cir.1978) application of attorney client prmlege in a corporation; LBP-93-18,38 NRC 124 (1993)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuckar Station, Units I and 2), ALAD-825, 22 NRC 785, 79) (1985) applicability of Table $4 to slightly irratiated nuclear fuel; DD-93-22, 38 NRC 377, 380 (1993)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CU-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1045-47 (1983) consideration of mitigating factors in determining admissibility of late-filed conte nions; LBP-93-23, 38 NRC 207 (1993)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CLI-8119,17 NRC 1681,1048 (1983) good enuse for late imervention; CLI-9L25,38 NRC 295 (1993)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units i and 2), CI183-31,18 NRC 1303,1305 (1983) applicauon of attorney-client privilege in a corporation; LBP-9118, 38 NRC 124 (1993)
Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units I,2, and 3), ALAB.668,15 NRC 450, 477 (1982) admission standards for tienraay evidence; LDP-93-20, 30 NRC 135 a 2 (1993)
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envimnnental Stmly Group, Inc., 438 U.5 59, 74 (1978) standmg to intervene on basis of geographic proximity; CLI-9316, 38 NRC 34 (1993)
I~cology Action v. AEC, 492 F.2d 998,1002 (2d Cir.1974) purpose of generic envimnnental review; DD-9122,38 NRC 376 (1993)
Erlenbnugh v. United States,409 U.S. 239 (1972) reading of NRC regulations on expiration, termination, atal tenewal of material licenses; LHP-9125, 38 NRC 318 (1993)
IDIC v. Mallen. 486 U.S. 230,242 (1988) test for determining length of a delay in a proceedmg; CU 93-17, 38 NRC 51 (1993)
)
l q
27 I
.I 1 -
1 i
-. ~. -
d 11G AL CITATIONS INDIG CASES Fewell Geoicctmical Engineering, Ltd. (Thonus E. Murray, Radiographer), CU-92-5, 35 NRC 83, 84 (1992) mootness of proceeding relating to grant of stay; CU 9Ll7, 38 NRC 49 (1993)
Finlay Testing laboratories, Inc., IEP 88 I A, 27 NRC 19 (1988) preju&m to claimants from delay of procce&ng; CU-93-17,38 NRC 59 (1993) ibrida power and ught Co. (St. Incie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), CLt.8441,12 NRC 650 (1980) standad for reopening a proceceng after exptration of review period-CU-93-25,38 NRC 293 (1993)
Florida Ibwer and Ught Co. (St. Imcie Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2) CL1-89-21,30 NRC 325, t
329 (1989) geographic 1*oximity as basis fur stan&ng to intervene in operating license ernendment procee&ng; CU 9316, 38 NRC 33 (1993); CLI-9121, 38 NRC 95 (1993) 7 I'larida Power and Ught Co. (St. Imcie Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI.89-21,30 NRC 325, i
329-30 (1989) presumpoon of standing on twis of geographic proximity in decommissioning proceedmgs; LEP-9L23, 38 NRC 249 (1993)
Fransaw v. Lynaugh, 810 F 2d 518 (5th Cir.1987), cert. denied,483 U.S.1008 (1987) double jeopardy apphcations; AU-931, 38 NRC 153 0993)
Gagne v. Northwestern National Insurance Co., 881 F.2d 309, 314 (6th Cir.1989) board's statement about witness's cre&bihty as seversible error; CU-93-22, 38 NRC 112 a.50 (1993)
General Pubhc Utilities Nuclear Corp. (Three Mde Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Oyster Creek Nuclear Genesaung Station), CLI-814,21 NRC 561,35165 (1985).
litigability of section 2.206 petition that raises issues being considered in pen &ng adjudication; CLI-9315,38 NRC 3 0993)
Grand Jury Subpoenas, 89 3 and 89-4, John Doe 89129 v. Under Seal,902 F.2d 244, 248 (4th Cir.
1990) authority to waive attorney-chent privilege; LDP-93-18, 38 NRC 126 (1993)
Gulf States Utihties Co. (River Bend Stanon Units I and 2K ALAH-444,6 NRC 760,772 (1977)
Hamlin Testing Laboratories, Inc.,2 AEC 423,428 (1964), aff'd sub nom. llamhn Testing Laboratories, contentions challenging adequacy of Regulatory Guides; LDP-93-23,38 NRC 214-15 (1993)
Inc. v. AEC, 357 F.2d 632 (6th Cir.1966) pant performance as a sneasure of licensee's character; CU-93-16, 38 NRC 31 (1993)
]
llarper Trucks, Inc. v. Albed Welding Supply, 2 U C.C. 835 (D, Kan.1986)
- i de6nition of a contractor for purpose of protecuco of whistleblowers; CL1-9123,38 NRC 180 n 4 j
(1993) licivenng v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 390, 399 (1937) authority of Congress to impose both civil and criminal sancuons with respect to the same act or omission-AU.93-1, 38 NRC 155 (1993)
Hicknwa v. 7ayke, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) escovery of trial preparation nmterials; 1.BP.93-18,38 NRC 123 0993) llimfar v. United States,174 Ct. CL 209, 355 F.2d 606 0966) defminan of a contractor for purpose of protection of whistlebkmers; CIL9123,38 NRC 180 a 4 j
(1993)
I Horne Bros., Inc. v. Laird. 463 F.2d 1268 (D.C. Cir.1972) suspension of centractor to allow time for prepuration of crinunal case; CLI-93-17, 38 NRC 57 n.4 0 993)
Houston Lighting and Ibwer Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Stat'on, Urut 1), ALAB-629,13 NRC l
75, 78 (1981) burden on opponent of sununury disposinon; CL1-9L22,38 NRC 102 0993)
Houston LJghting and IN,wer Co (South Texas Project, Units I and 2). CLI.8432,12 NRC 281,291 0 980) lack of technical competence or character quahncatinns as grounds for revocation of heense.
l CU 9Ll6,38 NRC 310993) 28 4
4 w
l l.EGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES
-l rI Ilouston Ughting and Power Co. (South Texas Project Units 1 and 2), l.Bp-79-10, 9 NRC 439,443 (1979) presumpdon of standing on basis of geographic proximity in decommissioning proceedings; LBP 9123, 38 NRC 249 (1993)
Jones v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 298 U.S. I,19-210935) right of an applicant to withdraw an application; LBP 9L25,38 NRC 316 0993)
Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generanng Station Umt 1), ALAB-327. 3 NRC 408,411 i
(1976) j interlocutory orders appropriate for Commission review; CU-9118,38 NRC 63 (1993)
.I Kerr-McGee Corp. (West Chicago Race Earths heility), CU-82-2,15 NRC 232,237 0982), aff'd sub nom. City of West Chicago v. NRC,701 F.2d 632 (7th Cir.1983) l 1
hearing rights on decommissioning; LBP-93-25,38 NPC 326 0993) l leCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc,, 528 F.2d 601, 604 (19'6) presiding of6cer's jurisdiction to place conditions on a license pplication withdrawal, LBP-93-25, 38 q
Linerick Ecology Action v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719,725,743 (3d Cir.1989)
-j NRC pohey on Council on Environnental Quality regulations; DD-9122,38 NRC 374 n.13 0993)
Logan v. Zimnerman Brush Co.,455 U.S. 422 (1982)
)
delay of hearing as violation of individual's due process rights; CU-93-17,38 NRC $0, 510993)
Long Island Ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), ALAB-743,18 NRC 387,397 0 983) j showing necessary on other four factors wirn good cause for late filing is not shown; LBP-9123, 38 NRC 207 0993)
Imng Island Ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLi-8&l3, 24 NRC 72,30 (1986)
')
deGnition of " adequate protective measures in the event of a radiological emergency'; DD-9117, 38
)
l NRC 268 0993)
Long Island Ligh6ng Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon, Una ik CLI-87-5,25 NRC 884. 888 0987) letters of aprement with the Red Cross; DD-9117,38 NRC 286 0993)
Long Island Ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CU-90-8, 32 NRC 201, 207-08
'j 0990); CLI-912,33 NRC 61,70 0991) route-speclAc NEPA analysis for barge transport of abghtly irradiated nuclear fuel, DD-9122, 38 NRC 375 0993)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildhfe,112 S. Ct 2130,2136 (1992) injury-in fact standard for standing to intervene; CLI 93-21, 38 NRC 92 0993) standard for establishing injury in fact; CU-9116, 38 NRC 32.1993)
(
Matsushita Electncal Industrial Co., Ltd. v, Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 58487 0986) turden on opponent of summary disposition; CL1-9122,38 NRC 102 0993)
Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 0976) delay of hearing as violation of individual's due process rights; CU-93-17,38 NRC 50,510993)
McGarry v. Secretary of the Treasury, 853 F.2d 981, 985 (D.C Cir.1988) geographic proximity as basis for standing to intervene; CLI-9121,38 NRC 94 n.9 0993)
Metropolitan Edison Co (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CU-79-8,10 NRC 141,147 48 (1979) licensing board authority to linut discovery; LEP-93<l5,38 NRC 21 n.2 (1993)
Metmpolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CU-8125,18 NRC 327, 332 0983) application of judicial concepts of standmg in NRC pmceedings; CLl-9121, 38 NRC 92 0993)
Metropolitan Edima Co. (Three Mde Island Nuclear Station, Unit Ik CU-85-9,21 NRC 1118,1D6-37, aff'd sub nont in re Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., 771 F.2d T20 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied,475 U.S.
1082 0 986) evidence applicable to deternunations of hcensee's character; CU 9116,38 NRC 310993) stand.ird fnr determining hcensee's character and competence; CU 9316,38 NRC 310993) l J
i 29 j
i
.. l l
4 i
l
.a
~,
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX e
CASES National Labor Relations Board v. Robtuns Tiro,437 U.S. 214 (1978)
- legree of speci6caty required for governerent to prevail on asseroon of conftdentiahty as an exception to disclosure under IOLA: C119Fl7,38 NRC 56 0993)
National Trust for llistoric Preservauon v. Dole, 828 F.2d 776,780 (D C. Cir.1987) federal ecuans cetegorically escluded frorn NEPA provisions requiring detailed environnratal assessnents; DI19122, 38 NRC 374 (1993)
Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC, 606 P.2d 1261,1267-68 (DC, Cir.1979)
NRC jurts&ction over radioactive waste storage tanks at Departarnt of Energy site; DD 9Ll8, 38 NRC 334, 335, 336 (1993) 3 Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 arnt 2), C1173-12,6 AEC 241, 242 (1973), aff'd sub nom. BPI v. AEC,502 F.2d 424 (DC, Or.1974) finding necessary for board to summarily dupone of all argununts on tie basis of plea &ngs; C119L22, 38 NRC 102 (1993)
Nuclear Ibel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CL1-75 4,1 NRC 273,275 (1975) weight given to good cause for failure to 61e a contenuon on line; LEP-93-2138 NRC 207 (1993)
Oncology Services Com, C119bl7,38 NRC 44, 51,60 (1993) test for satisfaction of due process requisenent of fairtras; LBP 93-22, 38 NRC 193 (1993)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plag Units I and 2), ALAB-410, 5 NRC 1398,1404 n 16 (1977) balancing test for protection of privileged mater; IEP.93-13, 38 NRC 16 n.5 0993)
Pacinc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umt I and 2), ALAB-880, 26 NRC 449. 458-59 0 987), rev'd on other grounds sub nean. Sierra Club v. NRC, 862 F.2d 222 (9th Or.
1988) plen&ng requirerernts for coruemions; IEP-9k23, 38 NRC 234 n 96 (1993)
Pacinc Gas and Electric Co. (Dsablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), C1180 24,11 NRC 775 0 980) access to privikged nuuter subject to protective order; IEP-93-13, 38 NRC 1516 (1993)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI-816,13 NRC 443 0981) litigability of section 2.206 petition that raises issues being considered in pemhng adju& cation; CLL93-15,38 NRC 3 (1993) -
1%cl6c Gas and Electric Cn (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), LBP 911,37 NRC 5, 9-12 (1993) presumption of staruhng on basis of geographic prominuty in deconuiussioning proceedings, LDP-93-23,38 NRC 249 0993)
Paci6c Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ISP-911,37 NRC 5.
- 13 (1993) threshold for Mmission of contentions; ISP-9b23, 38 NRC 206 0993)
Pacinc Gas am! Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ISP-93-1, 37 NRC 5, 24 21 (1993) grounds for amendnrnt of contentions; !.BP.93-21, 38 NRC 148 0993) 1% cine Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Piant, Units I and 2), ISP 9L9, 37 NRC 431 436 37 (1993) purpose of rensidering a contention's potential contribution to a sound record in deternuning its a.1missituhry; IEP-9123. 38 NRC 207 (1993)
Panne Gas and Electric Co. (Humbokit Bay Power Plant, Umt 3), ISP-86-1,23 NRC 25 0956) litigatuhty of decomnussioning activities where production has stopped at a facility; LBP-9F25, 38 NRC 310 0993)
Paci6c Gas and Elecuic Co. (Stamslaus Nuclear Pmject. Unit 1), CL182-5,15 NRC 404,405 0982) withdrawal of applications after issuance of notice of truting; CL19116, 38 NRC 38 n.26 0993)
Pacific Gas arul Electne Co. (Stanislaus Nockar Pmject Unit 1), LDP 78-20,7 NRC 1038,1040 0978) scope of discovery; LBP-93-15,38 NRC 21 n.2 0993) 1 I
s 1
~
~
?
L-
. LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Philadelphia Dectrk Co. (liuhon Cenerating Station, Uniu I and 2), ALAll-657,14 NRC 967,974, 978-79 (1981) eest for imposing condsdons on withdrawal of an application; LSP-9125, 38 NRC 309, 315 (1993)
. Philadelphia Dectric Cn (t)merick Generating Station Units I and 2), ALAB.830, 23 NRC 59,60 n.1 (1986) hmics on jurisd ction to nuaers in controversy; LBP 9L25,38 NRC 321 (1993)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (tJmerick Generaung Station, Units I and 2), ISP-85-14, 21 NRC 1219 (1985) docunentation of letters of agreenwns required for reasonable assurance (,nding on emergency preparedness; DD 9Ll7,38 NRC 287 n.7 (1993)
Puller v. Columbia Brundcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464 (1962) chastisement of applicant as reversible error; CLI-9522,38 NRC 120 n 85 (1993) i Poller v. Columtds Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473 (1%2) weight given to record support for opponent of surnmary disposition; C1193-22, 38 NRC 102 (1993)
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Andrus, 825 F. Supp,1483 (D. Idaho 1993)
NEPA requirenents triggered by route selection for barge transport of slightly irradiosted nuclear fuel, DD-93-22,38 NRC 378 (1993)
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Stations, Units i and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167 (1976) presiding ofheer's jurisdiction to place conditions on a license applicadon withdrawal, LBP-93-25,38 NRC 315 (1993)
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Ilill Nuclear Generating Station Units s and 2), ALAB.316, 3 NRC 167,170 71 (1976) scope of lidgable issues; CLI 9116, 38 NRC 30 (1993)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Stadon, Unit 1) CLl-91-14, 34 NRC 261,266 67 (1991) 4 j
injury-in fact standard for standmg to intervene; CL1-93-21,38 NRC 92 (l%3) standard for establishing injury in fact; CL1-9116, 38 NRC 32 (1993)
.J Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 21 ALAB-899,28 NRC 93,97 dl (1988), aff'd sub nom. Massachusetts v. NRC,924 F.2d 311 (D.C. Cir), cert denied,112 S, Ct.
275 (19911 licensing board authonty to hnut discovery; LDP-9Ll5,38 NRC 21 n.2 (1993) scope of litigable issues determined by basis for contention, CtL93-16, 38 NRC 42 (1993)
Pubbe Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89 3, 29 NRC 234,240-41 (1989) contentions referencing other, massiw documents; LBP-93-21,35 NRC 146 (1993)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLIW2,31 NRC 197,217 (1990) intent of emergency planning requirenrnts; DD 9117,38 NRC 268 (1993)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Umts I and 2), C1J 92-8,35 NRC 145,154 (1992) burden on opponent of surnmary disposition; CIL93-22,38 NRC 102 (1993) i Puerto Rico Electne Power Authority (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 11 ALAB-605,12 NRC 153,154 (1980) jurisdiction to teaminate a proceeding; CLl-9k20, 38 NRC 85 (1993)
&NMe Lage Iniu(c ish rm i Sns v. United Staics Department of the Navy,898 F.2d 1410,1420 (9th f5,1990) federal actions cetegorically excluded imm NEPA provisions requiring detailed environnental assessnwnis; DD-9L22,38 NRC 374 (1993)
Radiation Technology, Inc. (Lake Denmark Rom!. Rockway, NJ 07866), ALAB-567,10 NRC 533, 546 (1979) violation of to C.F R. 20 201(a); CLi-93-22, 38 NRC 110 n 44 (1993)
Radium Mmes, Inc. v. United States,139 Ct. Cl.144,153 F. Supp. 403 (1957) de6nition of a contractor for purpose of protectma of whintlebkwers; CL1-93 23, 38 NRC 180 n4 (1991) 31
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Randall C Oiem. D.O., C119Ll4, 37 NRC 423,427 (1993) '
NRC policy on truth and accuracy of information from licensees; CLt-9117,38 NRC $5 0993)
Regents of the University of California (UCLA Research Reactor), LDP42-93,16 NRC 1391 (1982) imposition of licensing boar (s judgmeta upon litigators; CU-9122,38 NRC 115 n64 (1993)
Robertson v Methow Valley Citizens Council. 490 U.S. 332, 355-56 0989) categories of federal actions for NEPA purposes; DD-93-2138 NRC 374 (1993)
Sacrar.rnto Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CU-92-2,35 NRC 47, 56 (1992), aff'd, Environnwntal & Resourms Defense Conservation Organization v. NRC, No. 92 70202 (9th Cir. June 30, 1993) appucation of judicial conwpts of standing in NRC proceedings; CU-9116,38 NRC 32 0993);
Cl19L21,38 NRC 92 (1993) i Sacrawnto Municipal UtiHty District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), C11913, 37 NRC 135, 142-43 (1993)
)
interpretation of secdon 1714(b)(2) as a plemling requirement and as a principle of interpretation-,
-J LDP-9121, 38 NRC 146 (1993)
Santobello v. New York, 4(M U.S. 257, 92 S. Ct 495, 30 L. Ed 2d 427 (1971) enforceability of plea agreements; AU-9Li 38 NRC 154 (1993)
Sequoyah Fuels Corp., Cl193-7, 37 NRC 175,179 0993) withdrawal of applications after iuvance af notice of heanng; CU-9116, 38 NRC 38 n.26 099.1)
Shipornts of HistrLevel Nuclear Power Pird Waste 1hrough and to Illinois DD-8ktt 18 NRC 713, j
713-16 0 983)
{
resprmsibility for developing safety stapJards for design and perfornance of packages for transport of radmacave materiak; DD 9122 37 NRC 372 n.6 0993)
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 'Yi ">4-35 0972) geographic proximity as basis for standing to intervene; C119121,38 NRC 94 a.10 (1993)
Sierra Club v. Watunt, 808 F. Supp. 852 (D.D.C.1991)
NEPA sequirements triggered by route selection for barge transport of slightly irradiated nuclear fuel; DD-912138 NRC 378 0993)
Simon v. Eastern Kenmcky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26 38 0976) tedressabihty of injury in fact; CL193-16,38 NRC 39 0993)
Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CU-81-8,13 NRC 45A 457 0981)
Commission policy on use of summary disposition preadures; C1193-22,38 NRC 115 n.65 0993)
Susquehanna Valley A!!iance v. Three M:le 1 stand, 619 F.2d 231 (1980) applicability to transfer of slightly irradiated fuel between licensecs; DD-9122,38 NRC 3810993)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unita 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418.1421 e 4 (1977) presumption of standing on basis of geographic proximity in decommissioning pruccedings; LBP 9123,38 NRC 249 0993)
Tennessee Valley Autixrity Olartsville Nuclear Plant, Units l A, 2A. IB, and 2B), ALAB418,6 NRC L 2 j
(1977) new arguments in motions for reconsidendoe; LBP-9121,38 NRC 145 0993)
Texas Utihties Electric Ca (Comanche peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), ALAB-868,25 NRC 912, 930 0 987) purpose of basis requirenrnt for contentions; LDP-9121,38 NRC 14&47 0993)
Texas Utilities Electnc Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, UuP !). ALAB-868,25 NRC 912, 932 33 0 987) purpose of basis and specificpy requirenrnas for admission of contentions; CLI-9116,38 NRC 42 0 993)
Texas Utilities Electric Ca (Comanche Peak Stearn Electric Station, Unit 2), CU-914,37 NRC 156,161, 174 0 993) pleading requirenrnts for motions to reopen, C1193-25, 38 NRC 296-97 & n $ 0993) 32
IIGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Texas Utihties Electric Co. (Comanche Ivak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), CL1-88-12,28 NRC 605, 8 9 (1988), reconsideration denied, CL1-894 29 NRC 348 (1988), aff'd sub com. Cittnens for Pai Unlity Regulation v. NRC,898 P.2d 51 (5th Or.1990)
Awwing necessary on other factors where good cause for late intervention has not been shown; CLl43-25, 38 NRC 296 (1993)
Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche XYak Steam Electric Station Units I and 2), CU-92-12, 36 NRC 62, 67 (1992) avalahihty of intervention where there is no pee &ng procee&ng; CU-9125, 38 NRC 292 (1993)
Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Stearn Electric Station, Units I and 2), LSP 84-10,19 NRC 509, 517-18 (1984) new arguments in modons for reconsideration; itP-93-21, 38 NRC 145 (1993)
Texas Utibties Electric Co. (Comanche Ibk Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2) IEP-84-50,20 NRC
+
1464, 1468 69 (1984) linutations on attorney.chent and work. product privileges; LDP-93-18, 38 NRC 125 (1993)
Texas Utibries Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), ISP-8125,14 NRC 241,243 (1981) licensing board authority to hmit discovery; LBP-9115,38 NRC 21 n.2 (1993)
Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Resse Nuclear Power Stadon, Units 2 and 3), ISP-81-33,14 NRC 586 (1981) contested license appbcation withdrawn! cases; LBP 9125,38 NRC 316 (1993)
Transco Secunty, Inc. v. Freeman, 639 F,2d 318 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 820 (1981) suspension of contractor to allow time for preparation of crinunal case; CU-93-17, 38 NRC 57 n4 (1993)
Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB.527,9 NRC 125,132 39 (1979)
NRC jurtsdiction to inspect facilides of licensee contractors and subcontractors; CU-93-23, 38 NRC 183, 185 (1993)
Union of Concerned Sciendsts v. NRC, 824 F.2d 108,117-18 (D.C. Cir.1987) level of acceptable risk in emergency planning; DD'93-17, 38 NRC 269 (1993)
Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 920 F.2d 50, 56 (D.C. Cir.1990) threshold for admission of contendons; LUP-9123, 38 NRC 206 (1993)
United States Departnrnt of Justice v. landano,61 U.SLW. 4485 (U.S May 24,1993) pendency of criminal procec&ng as caune for delay of administrative proceeding; CU-93-17, 38 NRC 54 (1993)
United Staten v. Baggett, 901 F.2d 1546 (lith Cir.1990), cert, denied, 498 U.S. 862, til S. Ct.168 (1900) attachment of double jeopardy when the court accepts a guihy plea; AU-911,38 NRC 153 (1993)
United States t. Comley, 890 F.2d 539, 541 (1st Cir.1989) standards for enforcenent on NRC subpoenas, CLI.93-23, 38 NRC 178,186 (1993)
United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 607 (1941) apphcability to prem;uure closing of heensed facihties; LDP-93-25,38 NRC 320 (1993)
United States v. Ught Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars in United States Currency,461 U.S. 555 (1983) test for grant of delay of proceedings; CLI-93-17, 38 NRC 50 (1993)
United States v. Dght Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars in United States Cunency,461 U.S, 555, 564-65 (1981) trat for delay of discovery; LBP 93-22, 38 NRC 190 n I,193 (1993)
United States v. Forty-Seven Thousand Nme llundred Dghty Dollars (in Canadian Currency), 804 F.2d 1085,1089 (9th Cir.1986). cert. denied,481 U.S 1072 (1987) premature release of information as basis for ad&tional delay of enforcement procec&ng; CU-9317, j
38 NRC 55 (1993)
United States v. Halper,490 U.S. 435,109 5. Ct.1892,144 L Ed 2d 487 (1989) analysis of doutile jeopardy and due process; AU 911,38 NRC 154 (1993)
United States v. Munsingwcar, Inc., 340 U S 36, 39 40 (1950) effect of mootness of a prucce&ng on the decision belonCLt-9Ll7,38 NRC 49 (1993) 33 1
i l
. ]
~
m.
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASIG United Stmes v. Powell,379 U.S. 48,57-58 (1964).
standards for enforcement. of NRC subpoenas; CLI.9k23, 38 NRC 178,186 (1993)
United Sta es v. Premises located at Route 13,946 F.2d 749,755 (lith Cir.1991) premature release of information as basis for additional delay of enforcement proceeding; CLI-9Fl7, 38 NRC 55 (1993)
. United States v. Premises located at Route 13,946 F.2d 749,756 & n.ll (lith Or.1991) prejudice to claimants from delay of proceeding; CU-9517,38 NRC 51 (1993)
United States v. Schaffner,771 F.2d 149 (6th Or.1985) pretrial diversion agreement as jeopardy; AU-951,38 NRC 153,157 (1993)
United States v. Soto Alvarez, 958 F.2d 473 (1st Cir.1992), cert denied, 000 U.S. 000,113 S. Ct. 221 (1992) pretrial diversion agreement as jeopardy: All93-1,38 NRC 153 (1993)
Upjohn Co v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 396 97,101 S. Ct. 677, 685-86 (1981) application of attorney-client privilege in a corporation; LDP-9118,38 NRC 124 (1993)
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S.
4fA, 472 (1982) standad for establishing injury in fact; Cl193-21,38 NRC 92-93 (1993)
Veg-Mix, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 832 F.2d 601, 60748 (D.C. Or,1987) agency authority to dispense with an evktentiary hearing; CLI-912138 NRC 120 n.85 (1993)
Vernmnt Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defenu Council, Inc.,435 U.S. 519, 553-54 (1978) pleadmg requirements for contention basis, LBP-93-23,38 NRC 213,246 (1993)
Virginia Dectric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-522,9 NRC 54. 56 (1979) geographic pmmimity as basis for standing to intervene; CU.93-16, 38 NRC 34 (1993); CU-93-21, 38 NRC 95 (1993); LilP-9123,38 NRC 249 (1993)
Virginia Dectric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Stauon, Units I and 2), AIAB.584,11 NRC 451, 455 (1980) burden on opponent of summary disposition; CLI-.93 2L 38 NRC 102 (1993)
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-722,17 NRC 546, 551 n$ (1983)..
licensing board authoriry to limit discovery; LBP-9115,38 NRC 21 n.2 (1993)
WaAington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD44-7,19 NRC 899,923 (1984) standard for institution of show-cause proceedings; DD-93-14, 38 NRC 77 (1993); DD-93-19, 38 NRC 349 (1993); DD-9120, 38 NRC 355 (1993); DD-9F21, 38 NRC 364 (1993); DD-93-22, 38 i
NRC 383 (1993)
Wilderness Society v. Griles, 824 F.2d 4,11 (D.C. Or.1987) standard for establishing injury in fact; CLI-9516,38 NRC 32 (1993), CU-9121,38 NRC 92-93 (1993) 34 a
v a a
a a,-
n-
. m e
-i,,,
A
...: sa eM.a 4
_.a.em
.-as_3--as-.me nde---'
r.
='
.J+a i
s d
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 2.105(cX2) jurisdiction in a license anendment proceeding after issuance of Notice of ticanag; C1193-20, 38 NRC 84 (1993)
Notice of Ileanng requirettents, LBP-9FI6, 38 NRC 24 (1993) 10 C.F.R. 2.107(a) j jurisdicdon over withdrawal of operating bcense anendnwns applicatwns; LBP-9116, 38 NRC 24 (1993) presid ng officer's jurisdiction to place con &nons on a license application withdrawal; LDP-9125, 38 NRC 314, 315 (1993) withdrav 4 of application after issuana of notice of tranng; CLI-9Ll6. 38 NRC 38 n.26 (1993),
/
Cll> L20, 38 NRC 84 n.1 (1993); LDP 9125, 38 NRC 309, 314 (1993)
-f l
10 C.F.R 2.202 forum for challenging transport of fuel under a general heense; CLI 93 25, 38 NRC 293 n.2 (1993) standard for institution of show-cause proceedmgs; DD 9114, 38 NRC 77 (1993)
(
(
answers to enforcearnt orden; LBP-9114, 38 NRC 18,19 (1993)
Z 10 C.F.R. 2.202(cX2)(i) risk of ermneous deprivation, assessnwnt of; CLI-9517, 38 NRC 57, 58 (1993); LBP-93-20, 30 NRf'
[
137 (1993) r 10 CER. 2.202(c)(2)(ii) l good cause for delay of enforcement procecangs; LDP-9120, 30 NRC 133 (1993)
NRC Staff request fur delay of proceeding; CLI-9Ll7,38 NRC 48 (1993) principles for delay of pmceedings; CLI-9Ll7,38 NRC 49, 50 n.2 (1993)
[
10 CER. 2.206 effect of delay of discovery on pending pentions under, LBP 9122, 38 NRC 190 n.1,194 (1993) enforcenent acbon for wlusticblower discrimination; DD-9316, 38 NRC 256-63 (1993) forum for addressmg license changes after anendment has been approved. ClJ 9k21, 38 NRC 91,93 (1993) forum for contesung decommissioning activines; LBP-93-25, 38 NRC 327 (1993) licensing of high4 vel radioactive waste at flanford, DD-9118, 38 NRC 332 36 (1993) linuts on authority of directors; DD 93 22, 38 NRC 375 (1993) htigubility of issues raised in pending adjudications; C119115, 38 NRC 2 (1993) j htigability of NRC employee misconduct under; DI19116,38 NRC 262 (1993) i quality apurance breakdown and erroloyee harassment,u Unmswick Plant; DD.9121, 38 NRC 35644 1
(1993) reactor water level neasurenrnt system at Pilgnm Station; DD-93-20, 38 NRC 3$155 (1993) i reasonaNe auurance hndmg on energency pregmredness at Pilgrim Stanon; DD 9Ll?, 38 NRC 264-88 (1993) j reconsideration of civil penahy for opesating outside technisal specificanons; DD93 23, 38 NRC 384 91 4
(1993) request for action on barge sturnents of nuclear fuel, Cl19L25, 38 NRC 291 (1993) safety of dry caak storage; DD-9tl4. 38 NRC 7479 (1993)
P4, i
1 33 a
n
..,_. ~,-
..,w.-+, --
c--
-.-w*
-v
~ -- -**
w
a ci I
L l
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX Rf4ULATIONS safety of energency diesel generators at Vermont Yankee; DD-9119, 38 NRC 338-50 (1993) mfety of interim onsite processing and storage facility for low level wastes; DD 9115, 38 NRC 160 68 (1993) transport and transfer of fuel from Shoreham to 1.inerick; DD-93 22, 38 NRC 368-83 (1993) 10 C.F.R. 2.206(a) l-NRC action on transport of fuel under a general liceme; CU 9125, 38 NRC 293 n.2 (1993) 10 CF R. 2.206(c) review of directors' decisions; CU-9115,38 NRC 2 (1993) 10 CF.R. 2.708(b)'
timit on size of trutervention documents; CU-9125, 38 NRC 291 a.1 (1993) 10 CFA 2709 Commission discretion to accept lengthy intervention docunrnis; CU.93-25,38 NRC 291 a 1 (1993) l-10 CF.R. 2.714 -
intervention on transfer and transportation of Shoreham's fuel; CL1-93-25, 38 NRC 291 (1993) 10 CER. 2.714(a) i adrnissibility criteria for amended contendons; CU-9119,38 NRC 82 (1993) r-applicability to anendnrat of contention; LEP 9123,38 NRC 224,226 (1993) responsibibly of intervenor to address late-61ing factors; LBP-9123. 38 NRC 228, 229, 230, 234, 235, 238 (1993) 10 C.FA 2.714(aXI) interest requirenent for stamling to intervene in operaung liceme anrndnunt proceeding; CU-9121,38 NRC 91 (1993) 10 CER. 2714(aXIXiF(v) adnussibihty criteria for anraded contenuons; CU-9119, 38 NRC 82 (1993)
Ave-factor test for admission of late-filed contendons; LBP 9123, 38 NRC 206 07, 224, 226, 250 (1993) sumdards for late intervention where no Federal Register notice has been issued; CU-93 25, 38 NRC 295 (1993) 10 CFA 2.714(aX2) content of intervention petitions; CL1-93-21,38 NRC 92 (1993) 10 CFA 2.714(b) admissibility criteria for anended contentions; al-9319, 38 NRC (2 (1993) contention requirement for intersention; CLL93-21,38 NRC % (1993) threshold for admission of contentions; LDP-9L23, 38 NRC 205, 224, 227, 233 (1993) il 10 CFA 2.714(bX2) admissibihty of contentions that raise only issues of law; CL1-9121,38 NRC % (1993) admissibility of loss-of-ofhite-power contentions; IEP-9123,38 NRC 227,228,230 (1993)
Interpretation as a pleadmg requirement and as a principle of interpretation; LBP-93-21,38 NRC 146 (1993)-
pleading requirements for contentiom; CU-9Ll6, 38 NRC 39 (1993) 10 CFA 2.714(bX2Xili) pleading requirements for ctmtentions; CU-93-16,38 NRC 40'41 (1993) 10 CER. 2.714(d) admissibility criteria for amended contentions; CU-93-19, 38 NRC 82 (1993) 1, threahold for adndssion of contenuans; LDP-93-23,38 NRC 205,224. 227 (1993) 10 CER. 2.714(dX2) pleading sequirements for contentions; CL193-16, 38 NRC 39 (1993) 10 CER. 2.714(e) ochnissibihty of contentions that raise only issues of law; CU-93-21, 38 NRC 9 (1993) 10 CFA 2.714a appeal of denial of standing; CL1-9121, 38 NRC 92 (1993) appealabihty of orders ttuit nrides wholly grant nur deny a petition for intervention; IBP-93-23, 38 NRC 252 (1993) 36 t
t
,yr u
j 4
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RF,GULATIONS basis for appeals of licensmg board decisions; CU-9F16, 38 NRC 29 (1993) 10 CIA 2.718(e)
& vision of discovery imo two phases; LEP-9F15,38 NRC 2122 (1993) 10 CIA 2.7180) certiAcation of licensing teard queshons to Conunission; Cl1-93-19. 38 NRC 82 (1993) cenncation of questions on disclosure of privileged neuer;12P.9113,38 NRC 14 (1993) 10 C.PA 2330s.f) referral of rulings on &nclosure of privileged natter; LEP-93-13 38 NRC 14,16 (1993) review declined on interkwutory discovery order; C119F18,38 NRC 63 (1993) 10 C P.R. 2.740 lindts on scope of escovery; LDP-9Ll3,38 NRC 22 (1993) 10 C.P,R. 2340(bX2) discovery of trial preparadon maienals; ISP 9118, 38 NRC 123 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.740(c) balancing test for protecton of privileged puuter; UIP-9513, 38 NRC 16 a.5 (1993) 10 Cf.R, 2349 basis for sumnury disposition; CIL9319, 38 NRC 82 (1993)
Commission standards for ruling on summary disposition motions; CU-9122, 38 NRC 102 (1993) foundation for summary esposinon; IEP-93 23, 38 NRC 213 (1993) summary disposition for failure to raise genuine issue of material fact. LEP-9312, 38 NRC 6 (1993) summary &nposition of loss ofmffsite-power contention; lBP-9123, 38 NRC 204, 239 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2349(a) burden on opponent of summary disposition; CIL9122, 38 NRC 103 (1993) 10 CIA 2349(c) cominuances to permit afndavits to be obtained by opponents to sumnwy disposiunn; CU-9k22, 38 NRC 103,117 (1993) hearing rights where long delay occurs between proposal and imposition of civil penalty; CU-93-22, 38
' l NRC 3:9 (1993) 10 Cf.R. L,49(d)
(
basis for determination of a sumnary disposition notion; CU 9122, 38 NRC 115 n.65 (1993) i Anding necessary for board to sumnarily &spose of all argunrots on the basis of plea $ings; CLI-9L22, 38 NRC 102 (1993) 10 CJA 2.760 6nality of bcensing tmard decision; LEP-9L12,38 NRC 10 (1993) 10 CIA 2.772(j)
Comnussion referral of pecuons to hcensing boards; LEP-93-16,38 NRC 24 (1993) 10 CFA 2386 6nahty of decision for purpose of review; LEP-93-25, 38 NRC 328 (1993)
Anahty of licensing board decuion; L.BP-93-12, 38 NRC 10 (1993) prerequisites for judicial review; ISP-9bl2, 38 NRC 10 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2386(bX2) -
length of petitions for review; LSP-9k12, 38 NRC 10 (1993) 10 CIA 2386(hX2X3) content of petitions for review, ISP-9125, 35 NBC 328 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(b)f3) rephes tu petrtions for review; IEP-9312,38 NRC 10 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(g) imerheutory orders appropriate for Commission review; C119118. 38 NRC 64 (1993) 10 Cf R. 2390
&sclosure of privileged mauer; LilP-9313, 38 NRC 15 (1993) incorporation of IOlA provisions under; LBP-9113, 38 NRC ILl4 (1993) 10 CIA 2390ta)(4)
ICIA exemption far institute for Eclear Power Operations n port. LDP 91tl 38 NRC 12 (1993).
37 I
~ ]
l
- -l I
I i
l
. l IEGAL CITATIONS INDEX i
REGULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 2.790(b) balancing test for release of docunents subject to pondisclosure;IEP-9113,38 NRC 14 (1993) 10 CER. 2.790(bX4H6) -
availabihty of documents covered by TO1A esemption; LBP-9113,38 NRC 1215 (1993) 10 C.F.R. 2.790tbX6) balancing test for release of docutnents subject to condisclosure, LBP-93-13, 38 NRC 15 (1993) 10 CER. 2.802 forum for addressing concerns about regulation of dry cask storage; DD-93-14,38 NRC 72 (1993) 10 Cf.R, 2.802(a) forum for arguing inconsistency between authorizing statutes and implementing regulations; DD-9122, 38 NRC 375 (1993) 10 CFR, 2.1205(c), (d) tennng opptwtunity on NRC anendnrnt of cestificate of compliance for Shoreham fuel shipping cask; C1J 9125,38 NRC 294 (1993) 10 Cf R. 2_1205(cX2) deadlines for twaring requests where no Federal Register notice has been issued; Cl193-25, 38 NRC 294 a4 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 21205(d) timchness requireurnis fur hearing requests wlere no Federal Register notice has been issued, C1J-9125, 38 NRC 294 n 4 (1993) e 10 Cf.R. 2.1251(a) finahty of decision for purpose of review; LEP-9L25, 38 NRC 328 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2125)(d) limits on jurisdiction to matters in controversy; LBP-934 38 NRC 321 (1993) 10 C F.R. Part '2, Appendiz C authority of Director e Ofhce of Laforcerr.ent, CLI-9k22, 38 NRC 117 (1993) r enforcenent options; DD-?tl6, 38 NRC 259 (1993) penalty fut failure to estabhc a 06 y management program; LDP 93-24,38 NRC 301 (1993) severity level !!! violations; ClJ-9122, 38 NRC 100 (1993) 10 CF.R. Part 2, Appendia C, IV categorization of violations; DD 9L23, 38 NRC 387 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 2, Appendia C, VI.B.2(d) escalation of base penalties, LBP 9L24,38 NRC 301 (1993) 10 CLR. Part 20 bounds on environmenial impacts of decommissioning; LBP-9123, 38 NRC 241 (1993) done limits for independent spent fuel storage installation; DD 93-14, 38 NRC 75,76 (1993) 10 Cf R. 20.l(c) intervals for reading domincters in hot cells; CLI-9122,38 NRC 112 n.50 (1993) 10 Cf R. 20.101(a)
' form-4 requirenent; CLJ-9122, 38 NRC 106 (1993) linut for whole-body dose in restricted area; CLI-9122, 38 NRC 100,104,105-06 (1993) 10 Cf R. 20.10!(b) esception to linut for whole-body dme in restricted area; CLI-93-22, 38 NRC 100,10506 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 20.102(bX1)
I'orm-4 requirements; CLJ-9F22,38 NRC 107 0993) 10 CLR. 20.20l(b) discrepancy between estinated and actual esposure rates as violation of; CLI-93-22, 38 NRC 109 n36 (1993) hot-cell surveillance mettuxi, ClJ 93-22, 38 NRC 101,108-11 (1993) i licensee violation of, IEP-9126, 38 NRC 329, 330 (1993) 10 Cf.R Part 21 NkC Jurisdict. ion to inspect conuactor or sebcontractor facihties; CLJ 9123, 38 NRC 181 n.5 (1993) safety tesung and certifvation of concrete and grout; CLJ 9L23, 38 NRC 175,181,133 0993) 38 a
p
.n.
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 1
10 C.FA 21.3(aXI) and (2) dc6nition of " basic components"; CLI-93-23,38 NRC 181 a.5 (1993) 1 10 Cf.R. 21.41 NRC jurisdiction to inspect contractor or subcontractor facilides; C119123, 38 NRC 181 a 5 (1993) 10 CSA Part 26 dc6nition of a contractor; C119123, 38 NRC 178,182 (1993) i 10 CfA 26.2 applicability of htness-for-duty programs to decommissioned reactors; LBP-9L23, 38 NRC 219 (1993)
,j 10 Cf.R. 26.3 1
applicability of dr6nition of cownctor to whistleblower protection; CLI-9123,38 NRC 182 (1993) 10 CIA Part 30 3
regulation of high-level radioactive waste at llanford; DD 93-18,38 NRC 332 (1993)
]
10 CSA 30.7 j
settlement agreeme,ts restricting ability to raise safety concerns; DS9kl6, 38 NRC 262 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 30.9, 30.10
.j material false statements as basis for NRC enforcenent actions; CLI-93-17, 38 NRC 56 (1993)
I to Cf.R. 30.34 retroactive apphcation of Commission rules; C1193-22,38 NRC 118 a.77 (1993) 10 CFA 34.33fc)
~l margin of error in radiation surveys; CLI-9122, 38 NRC 109 (1993) 10 CFA 35,32
'1 pennity for failure to establish a quahty management program; LBP-9124, 38 NRC 301,302 (1993) 10 CfA 35.51(b) margin of error in radiation surveys; CL1-93-22, 35 NRC 109 (1993) i 10 CIA 40.42 -
licensee failure to supply completed NRC 314 form or radiation survey for decommissioning; LHP 9125,38 NRC 318 (1993) propricry of licensee's nonproduction activities where licensee is unable to comply with its end-of-license conditions; LBP-93-25,38 NRC 311 (1993) 10 C.F.R. 40.42(b) effect of no66 cation of license ternination on license renewal proceeding; LBP 9125,38 NRC 310.
324 (1993) hearing rights on terminadon of a license; LDP-9125, 38 NRC 311 (1993) prompt nod 6 cation of license termination required of licensee; LBP-9125, 38 NRC 325 (1993) 10 CIA 4042(cKI) decommissionmg equirements prior to license expiradon; LBP-9125, 38 NRC 310 (1993)
J 10 C.F.R. 40.42(c)(2Xi) and Oii)fD) decommissioning funding plan requirements; LDP 9125,38 NRC 316 (1993) 10 CIA 40.42(e) continuadon of license beyond expiradon date; ISP-9k25,38 NRC 310. 318 (1993) termination of license prior to completion of decommissioning; LBP-93-25,38 NRC 313 (1993) 10 CFA 40.41(b) status of licenses pending agency determination on application for renewal; LBP-9125, 38 NRC 308 (1993) 10 C.ltR. 50.2 classineation of slightly irradiated fuel, DD-93-22, 38 NRC 370 n 3 (1993)
'j 10 Cf.R. 50.4 reporting requirenents for changes, tests, and experurents at interim onsue low-level radioactive waste processing and storage facihties; DD'9115, 38 NRC 161 (1993)
I 10 Cf.R. 50.7 dehniuon of a contractor; CLI 9123, 38 NRC 179,180 81 (1993) protection of whistichlowers regardless of accuracy of allegations; CLi-9123, 38 NRC 181 n 6 (1993) 39
~.
1 1
l l1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RECl)LATIONS l-i 1
10 CSA 50.7(a) j l
protection nf licensee employees from retahation for whistleblowing; CLI-9123,38 NRC 177-78 & n.2 l
(1993) 10 Cf.R. 50.7(aXI) i whistleblower activities protected under; CLI-93-23, 38 NRC 178 (1993)
)
10 C.F R. 50.13 security considerations in decommissioning funding; LBP-93-23, 38 NRC 220, 221, 231, 233 (1993)
-l 10 Cf.R. 50.33(f) 1 financial considerations in Part 50 liecosing actmties; LBP-93-23, 38 NRC 218 (1993)
'l 10 CFA 50.34(bX6Xi) applicabiliry of licensee character determinadon in transfers of operring authority; CLI-9116, 38 NRC
]
30 (1993) 10 CFA 50.36(b) incorporation of technical specihcations in licenses; CLI-9121,38 NRC 91 a 6 (1993) 10 CER. 50.42 presiding ofhcer's jurisdiction in a proceeding concerning a heense apphcation's withdrawal request, LBP-93 25, 38 NRC 314 (1993) 10 Cf R. 50.47 emergency preparedness at Pilgrim Stadon, DD 9117, 38 NRC 266 (1993) 10 CIA 50.47(aXI)
Andmg ou emergency preparedness necessary for operating hcense issuance; DD-9317, 38 NRC 267 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 50 47(b) standards for energency response plans; DD'9Ll7,38 NRC 268 (1993)
-]
10 CER. 50 49 licensee failure to properly use industry information; DD-9123, 38 NRC 388, 389 (1993)
]
10 Cf.R. 50.54(c) determination necessary for transfer of operating authority; CLI-9116, 38 NRC 31 n.9 (1993) 10 CJA 50.54(sX2Xii) reasonuble assurance fuuhng on emergency preparedness at Pilgrim Station, DD-9117,38 NRC 266, J
j 267-68 (1993) 10 C.P.R. 50.54(sX3) j weight given to FEMA 6nding on emergen y preparedness; DD 9517,38 NRC 272 (1913) j 10 CFA 50.54(bb)
Independent Spent Wel Stora*, &% tion costs as a consideration in decumsrussioning funding; LBP 9123, 38 NRC 21/, 218. 219 (1993) 10 CIA 5057(aX3) reasonable assurance find og necessary for issuance of operaung bcense; Cll-9116,38 NRC 31 (1993) 10 CER. 50.59 disposition of changes tests, and experiments at interim onsite lowevel radionctive waste processing and storage facthties; DD-91-15, 38 NRC 161 (1993) licensee failure to properly use industry infornation; DD-93 23,38 NRC 388 (1993) 10 Cf R. 50.59(aKI)
NRC approval needed for facihties that pose no unreviewed safety questions; DD-9L15,38 NRC 162 (1993) 10 CER. 50 59(aX2) criteria for determining esistence of unreviewed safety qtestion, DD-9L15,38 NRC 16162 (1993) safety of interim onsite processing and storage facility for low-level wasten. DD-9515, 38 NRC 161-62 (1993) 10 CER. 50.63 calculation of frequency of loss of offsite power; LBP-9123, 38 NRC 226 (1993) 10 Cf R. 50.65 rmmitoring effectiveness of nuiintenance programs; LBP 9113, 38 NRC 15 (1993) 40
f I.EGAL CITATIONS INI)EX REGU!ATIONS 2
10 C FA 50.71(c) seporting requirernents for changes, tests, and esperinents at tnienm ennite lowevel radioactive waste processing and storage fadlities; DD-9115, 38 NRC 161 (1993) 10 CfA 50.75 defects in pleathng of deconunissionmg funding consention; LDP 93-23, 38 NRC 214 (1993) demonstration of reasonkle assurance of adequacy of fyndmg for deconunissioning: LilP.9123,38 NRC 217 (1993) 10 CfR, 50.75(c) n.1 costs considered in decomminioning funding, LDP-93-23, 38 NRC 216, 218 (1993) 10 CIA 50.80(c) determinnfion necessary for transfer of operating authority; CLl-9116, 38 NRC 31 (1993) 10 CJ R. 50 82 defects in pleadmg of decommissioni'ig funding contention: LDP-9123,38 NRC 214 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 50.90 forum for changing technical speci6 cations; CLI-9b21, 38 NRC 91 a 6 (1993) 10 CF.R. Part 50, Appendix B licenses responsiinbry to identify defects in safety related compments before installatian; DD 9119, 38 NRC 345, 347 (1993) safety testing and certification of concrete arul grout, CLI423,38 NRC 174,175,176,18481,18)
(1993) service lives of safety-related componean, DD-9L23, 38 NRC 389 (1993) 10 CIA Part 50, Aptendis B, Criteria XL XVI failure to evaluate test results following unsatisfactory scram; DD 93-23, 38 NRC 385, 387 (1991) 10 C FA Part 50, Appendia C, VIB i and 2. VU A guidance for determining civil penalties; DR9L23, 38 NRC 390 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appensha C, Xill tropening of closed enforcearnt actions; DD-9123, 38 NRC 391 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appendia E.
emergency exercise requirements. Dik9117, 38 NRC 2n7 (1993) 10 CF R Part 50, Appendia H, IIH.3 NRC approval requirements for chanpes to withdrawal schedule for reactor vessel material specimens; CLI 9121, 38 NRC 89 (1993) 10 Cf.R, Part 50, Appendix 1 bounds on envinsmental impacts of decommissioning; LDP 9k23, 38 NRC 241 (1993) 10 C F R Part 51 environmental assesanrnt of independent spent fuel storage installation; DD-93-14, 38 NRC 71 (1993) to Cf.R. 51.10(a)
NRC policy on Council on Lnvirounwntal Quality regulations, DD 9L22, 38 NRC 374 n.13 (1993) 10 CfA 5120 applicability of wivisonnental impact statenrnts to interim low-level radioactive waste processing and disposal facdiv; DD93-15,38 NRC 167 (1993)
. 10 Cf.R. 5121 categories of fedeni actions far NEPA purposes; DD 9L22, 38 NRC 374 (1993) environnental anses:nwns of anendmenta allowing tranAport of slightly krradiated fueli DD-9b22, 38 NRC 370 (1993) 10 C F R. 51.25 operating leense-stage en4onmental impact conside. rations for trai,,,,.. of nuclear fuel; DD-93 22, 38 NRC 377 m 16 (1993) 10 Cf R. 51.30 envinenental nasennent of transport and trainifer of fuel from one facihty to another; Dn93 22,38
)
NRC 368 (1993) 10 CfR 513fXa)(2)
NRC cunwitation with oiler agencies on envrmnnwnial nuessnrnts; LHP-9123, 38 NRC 244 (1993).
41 l
i i
i a
1 1
1 i
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX s
REGt1ATIONS i
10 CER. 51.3451.35 requirenents for issuance of an envimnnerual assessment; LDP 93 23, 38 NRC 244 (1993) 10 CER. 51.31 environmental impact statenrnt on decommissioning; LDP 93-23, 38 NRC 241 (1993) nsits of barge shipnrnt of nuclear fuel; Dt19k22,38 NRC 368 (1993) 10 C.FA 5134(b) j board autionty to nxxhfy a Staff environmental assessnent or nnding of no significant impact; LilP 9123, 38 NRC 245 (1993) 10 C F R. 51.52 applicabihty of Table $-4 to slightly irrahated fuel; DD-9122,38 NRC 380 (1993) consideration of environnentAl impact 2 of fuel transport at Con 5truClion permit stage; DD-9h22, 38 NRC 377 (1993) purpose of generic values for environnental irnpacts of fuel transports; DD-9122, 38 NRC 376 (1993) 10 C F.R. 51.53(a) operating-license-stage environmental impact considerations for transport of nuclear fuel, DD 93-22, 38 NRC 377 n.16 (1993) 10 C.PA 51.70 requirements for lasuance of an environmental impact statenent; LBP-93-23, 38 NRC 244 (1993) 10 CER. 51.319 sources of Staff ermr on environmental assessnrnt; LBP-9123, 38 NRC 245 (1993) 10 CFIL Part 60 definition of " geologic repository"; DD-9118, 38 NRC 332 (1993) 10 CER. 70.18 application requirenents for general licenses; CL19L25, 38 NRC 294 (1993) 10 CFA 70.42 authority to transfer fuel between nuclear power plants; DD.9122, 38 NRC 381 (1993) 10 C.F R. 70.42(b)(5) license requirements for transfer of fuel to another licensee; CLI-9125, 38 NRC 294 n.3 (1993) 10 CTA Part 71 container for transport of slightly irradiated fuel; DD 9122, 38 NRC 371,373 (1993) protective neans for inmhated fuel during transport; DD-93-22,38 NRC 376 (1993) to CER. 71.4 classincation of slightly irradiated nuclear fuel as 6ssile innterial; DD-9122,38 NRC 372 n.7 (1993) 10 C.FA 71.12 outhority to tramport radioactive materials under a general license; DD 9k22, 38 NRC 373, 378 (1993) learing rights on license anendnwns allowing receipt and possession of fuel from one nuclear plant by another; CLl 93-25, 38 NRC 291 (1993) licensing requirenents for transport of nuclear material, CL1-93-2$,38 NRC 294 (1993) stay of general license to transfer fuel, DIA9122, 38 NRC 368 (1993) 10 C.F171.12(a) right to transport fuct under a general liceme, DD-9122, 38 NRC 370 (1993) 10 C.FR 71.12(b) restrictions on transport of relicactive materials imder a general license; DD-9F22, 38 NRC 373 (1993) 10 C.FA Part 72 Subpart H materials license to allow spent fuel storage in an independent spent fuel storage installation; DD 9114, 38 NRC 71,72 (1993) 10 CER. 71.88 lindts on routes and nunles of transport for radioactive materials; DD-9122,38 NRC 373 (1993) 10 CER. Part 72 6nancial matters considered uraler, LDP-93-23, 38 NRC 218 (1993) 10 CER. 72.104 environnental dow linuti for independent spent fuel storage installation; DD-9114, 38 NRC 77 (1993) 42
~,
. - - ~
n. -.
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS to CfA Part 72. Subpart K Certi6cate of Compliance requirenents for dry cast storage; D&9Ll4,38 NRC 72 (1993) 10 CfA 73.37(a)d). (bx7) dehnition of highly irradiated reactor fuel for purpose of transport security; DD-93 22, 38 NRC 373 n.9 0 991)
NRC review of fuel shipnent soutes; DD.9122, 38 NRC 379 n.18 (1993) 10 CSA Part 100 accident dose hmits for interim low lewl sadioactive waste processing and disposal facility; DD 9115, 38 NRC 165 0993) 10 CFA 100 !!
difference between energency planning regulations and sitmg and engineering design requirements; DD-9117, 38 NRC 268 (1993) 10 CFA 1331 -
authority of administrouve law judge to rnitignie penalues and assessnents and obvinte double punhhment; AU-911,38 NRC 156 0993) 15 C P R 930.51(b). 930.57 consistracy certi6 cation needs for barge shipnent of aligtaly irradiated nuclear fuel between licensees; D4912138 NRC 382 0993) -
40 CFA Part 1500 applicability of Council on Env'.mmental Quality regulations in NRC proceedings; DD-9122,38 NRC 374 (1993) 40 CFA 15073 categories of federal utions for NEPA purposes, DD.9122, 38 NRC 374 (1993) 40 CJA 15073(b)(2)(4),1508.4 federal actions catef orically escluded from NEPA provisions requiring detailed environnental ar.sessmesa; DD 9L2138 NRC 374 0993) 40 C.ER.1509.9(b) consideration of al ernatives to burge shipnum of fuel from Shorrham to IJmerick; DD 9L22,38 NRC 368 (1993) 44 CIA Part 350 scope of IT34A revew of energency plans; DW9117,38 NRC 270 0993) i 49 CFA 173 416 autority to transport re&oactive materials under a general license: DR9L2138 NRC 373 0993) l l
43 i
1 1
)
i
.... _. _. _ ~ _ _..
4 i
.i 1
1 a
LEGAL CTTATIONS INDEX STATUTES 1
4, 18 U.S C 287 violations of, AU-9FI ^* NRC 151 (1993) 18 U.S C,1001 l
material fal.c statenr for cn.nimal action; CL1-93-17, 38 NRC 56 (1993) j violations of; AU-9)
- 151 (1993)
Atomic Energy Act, lis, u v.a.C 2014(s) de6nition of " persons" subject to NRC sulyorna authority; CU-93-23, 38 NRC 177 (1993)
Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C 2014(aa) classification of shghtly irradiated fuel, DD 93-22, 38 NRC 370 c.3 (1993) j j
Atomic Energy Act. 81, 42 U.S C 2111b settlement of civil penalty proceethng: LBP-9124, 38 NRC 300, 302 (1993)
C l
Atomic Energy Act,161, 42 U.S.C 2201
[
l NRC authonty over licemce contractors and subcontractors, scope of CU-9123, 38 NRC 184 (1993) f l
Atomic Energy Act,161b, 42 US C 2201(b) y witlernent of civil penalty proceeding LBP 9124, 38 NRC 300, 302 (1993)
O b
Atomic Energy Act. "
42 U.S C 2201(c)
I applicabihty of N, tion to employees of contractors and subcontractors; CLI-9123, 38 NRC l
178, 186 (1993)
'!~
T:
l subpoena authority on aKC, scope of. CLI-9123, 38 NRC 177 (1993) 1 Atomic Energy Act, 1610, 42 U.S.C 2201(o)
]
settlernent of civil penalty proceeding; WiP-93 24, 38 NRC 300, 302 (1993)
[
Atomic Energy Act,182a, 42 U.S C 2232(a) i applicability of licensee character determination in transfers of operstmg authority; CLI-9F16, 38 NRC
[
30 (1903)
+,... -
j Commission authonty to deiermine an applicant's character; CU.9116, 38 NRC 30 (1993) t, l
retroactive application of Commission rules; Cl.1-9122, 38 NRC 118 n 77 (1993) j Alomic Energy Act,184, 42 US.C. 2234 i
determination necennary for tramfer of operaung authority, CU-93-16, 38 NRC 31 a 9 (1993) l Atomic Energy Act,189a, 42 U.S C 2239(a) l change in reactor vessel withdrawal schedule as violation of. CU 93-21, 38 NRC 90 (1993) hearing rights op decomnussioning; LDP-93-25, 38 NRC 326 (1993) hearing rights on heensing issues; CL1-9k21, 38 NRC 92 (1993) l hearing rights on transfer and transpenation of Shoreharn's fuel; CU-9125,38 NRC 291,292 95 l
(1993) j Atomic Energy Act, 234 limits on civil penalues; DD-91-23, 36 NRC 390 (1993, 3
Atomic Energy Act, ch 18, 42 US C 2271, et seg Commission enforcenwns authority on settlement agreements: LDP-93-24, 38 NRC 300, 302 (1993) l Clean Water Act, 401(a)(1) water quality certincation requirements for NRC bcensees; LDP-93 25, 38 NRC 323 (1993)
C) sf 1
45 i
r l
L 1
i
m LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX
+
STATirrES Coastal Zone Managenent Act,16 U.S.C.A.1456(cX3)(A) (Supp.1993) consisiency certification needs for barge shipnent of slightly irradiated nuclear fuel between licensees; DD-93-22, 38 NRC 382, 383 (1993)
Department of Energy Organizadon Act,301, Pub.1. No. 95-91,42 U.S.C 7151 cansfer of functions of Energy Research and Developarnt Adnunistration to Secretary of Errrgy; i
DD-9118,38 NRC 333 n.1 (1993)
Energy Reorganization Act. 202(4), 42 U.S.C. 5842(4) geologic repositories at Hanford site for purposes of NRC negulation; DD-9318,38 NRC 333,335
- f
. (1993)
Errrgy Reorganization Act, 206, 42 U.S.C 5846 reporting requirements for defects in certified materials; CLI-93-23,38 NRC 174 (1993)
Energy Reorganization Act, 211, 42 U.S.C 5851 applicability of NRC protection to employees of contractors and subcontractors; CLI-9M3,38 NRC 178, 179, 180-82 (1993) dennition of contractors and subcontractors as employers for purpose of protection of wldsdeblowers; C119123,38 NRC 177 (1993) employee termination for raising legitimaic safety violations; DD9116,38 NRC 256-63 (1993) protection of licenwe employees imm retaliation for whistleblowing; CtJ-9123,38 NRC 176,177 (1993) protection of whistleblowers regardless of accuracy of allegations, CLt-9k23,38 NRC 181 n 6 (1993)
Freedom of Informanon Act, Exemption 7(D), 5 U.S.C 552(bX7XD) degree of specincity required for governnent to prevail on assertion of con 6denuality as an excepdon to disclosure under; CL1-9kl7,38 NRC 56 (1993) llazardous Matenals Transportation Act 49 U.S.C.1801
. authonty of Secretary of Transportation tmder, DD-9122, 38 NRC 372 n 8 (1993) responsibility for developing safety standards for design and performance of packages for transport of radionctive snaterials; DD 93-22,38 NRC 372 (1993)
Ilobbs Act. 28 U.S C 2342 standard for exercise of agency discretion to reopen a proceeding; CL1-9125,38 NRC 293 (1993)
National Envimanental Iblicy Act,102(2XC), 42 U.S.C 4332(2XC) environmental analysis of federal actions under; DD 93-22, 38 NRC 374, 375 (1993)
Nanonal Environmental Policy Act,102(2XE) consideration of alternatives to barge shipment of fuel from Shoreham to Limerick; DD93-22,38 NRC 368 (1993)
Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986,31 U.S.C 3801-3812 violations of, A15931,38 NRC 152 (1993) 46 i
5 y
g r
p y
y g
-, =
+-fa
,, n H
.=+- + ~
-e
... - -. --._ ~.-
i h
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTIIERS Calamni and Perillo, Contracts i31 (1970) definition of a contractor for purpose of potection of whatleblowers CLJ-9123, 38 NRC 180 n 4 (1993) 124 Cong. Rec. 29,771 (1V78) (remarks of Senator Hart)
NRC authoruy to conduct its own innstigation dunng the pendency of a Drpartment of labor proceeding; CL3 91-23, 38 NRC 184 (1993)
Fwnsworth, Conrrects 46 3 14, 3.24 (1982) definition of u cc<nrsctor for purpose of potection of whisdeblowen, CL193-23, 38 NRC 180 n.4 (1993)
/
l red. R. Ov, P. 26(b)O) discovery of tnal preparation rnaterials; LSP 9118, 38 NRC 123 (1993) 7 Fed R Gv. P. 26(cK7)
)
balancing test for disclosure of pivileged fnatter; LBP-93-13, 38 NRC 15 (1993) f Fed R. Ov. P. 41(aK2)
{
pesiding othcer's jmisdiction to place conditions on a license apphcation withdrawal; LEP-93-25, 38 2
NRC 315 (1993) 2
[
5 I
l Fed R. Civ P. 56 application of Judicial standants o sutwruary dispoution, CLJ-9122, 38 NRC 102 (1991)
Fed. R. Ov. P. 56(e)
~
burden on opponent of sunmuery disposidon; CLi 9k22, 38 NRC 103 (1993)
Fed. R. Evid. 501 -
I limitations on attwney< bent and wori product pnvileges. LSP-91-18, 38 NRC 125 (1993)
[
9 Mangenent Directives: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "NRC Organintion and hinctions," Chapter 9 27, 68 0123.031 and 0123.032 J
delegation of Commission authoney to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; CLt-9L20, 38 NRC 85 n.2 (1993)
)
Model Ruks of Profenianal Cornfuct Rule 1.7 Lnutations on attorney <lient end work product pnvileges; LEP-9115, 38 NRC 125 (1993)
Restatenrnt (Second) of the law of Contracts (50 (1979) definition of a contractor for purpose of protection of whisdeblowere; CLI 93-23, 38 NRC 180 n.4 3
l (1993)
S. Rep No. 911277, p.13 (1974) hmitations on anorney chent and work-product pnvileges; ISP-9118, 38 NRC 125 (1993)
S. Rep No, 753, 92nd Cong, 2d Sess.1 (1972), repnnted in 1972 U S. Code Cong. A Admin. News 1
4D6 purpose of Coastal Zone MAnagenent Act; DIL&3-22, 38 NRC 382 (1991)
S Rep. No. 91980, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1974)
NRC juriuliction over radioactive waste storage tanks ai Departnrnt of Energy site; DD-9118,38 NRC 334 n.3 (1993)
)
Uniform Comnercial Code, art. 2, tlCC.12-206(1)(b) 4 delimtion of a contractor for purpose of protectmn of whisticblowers, C119L23, 38 NRC 180 n.4 (1993) s 47 i
a i
l
)
a I
4 SUBJECT INDEX l
l AGREEMENTS a
pretrial diversion; AU 911,18 NRC 151 (1993)
See also Settlenrnt Agreements AMENDMENT environmental contentions; CL1-93-19, 38 NRC 81 (1993) l See also Operadng License Amendments; Operating License Amendrnent Proceedings APPLICANTS disclosure of document prepared by Insurute for Nuclear Power Operauons; CLI-9318, 38 NRC 62
~
j (1993)
J ATOMIC ENERGY ACT i
class of license; CL193-25, 38 NRC 289 (1993) licensee's character and competence; CLI-93-16, 38 NRC 25 (1993)
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVIIEGE d
i statements given to applicants' attorneys relevant to 01 investigadon; LBP-93-18. 38 NRC 121 (1993) 3 DOARDS See Licensing Boards g
BRACHWIIERAPY P
medical misadministration; LBP 93-20, 38 NRC 130 (1993) y BYPRODUCT MATERIAL m
transfer to authoiized recipient, enforcenrnt order for. LBP-9114, 38 NRC 18 (1993)
CASE MANAGEMENT
~f descovery limits; IEP-93-15, 38 NRC 20 (1993)
CEMENT safety standards; C1193-23, 38 NRC 169 (1993)
CERTIMCATE OF COMPLIANCE stay request; DD-93-22, 38 NRC 365 (1993) 1 CIVIL PENAIMES challenges to; CLI-93-24, 38 NRC 187 (1993) radiation survey dehciencies; LBP 93-26, 38 NRC 329 (1993) request for reconsideration of; DD-93-23, 38 NRC 384 (1993) j reversal and renumd of proceeding; CL1-93-22,38 NRC 98 (1993)
^
settienent agreement on; LDP-93-24, 38 NRC 299 (1993)
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT *CT consistency certification; DD 9122, 38 NRC 365 (1993) purpose of; DD-93-22,38 NRC 365 (1993) 1 COBALT-60 teletherapy unit. LDP-93-14, 38 NRC 18 (1993)
CONCRETE i
passiwly cooled vaults, thermal limits of, DD-93-14, 38 NRC 69 (1993) i CONMDENTIALITY i
degree of specincity required for government to prevail on asserbon of, as an exception to disclosure under ICIA' CLI-93-17, 38 NRC 44 (1993) 49 1
A i
4 1
<w-w e---*
~ - -
-m f
SUBJECT INDEX CONGREGATE CARE FACl!Jf10S letters of agreement with; DD 9kl7,38 NRC 264 0993) r CONTEX110NS admissibibty in operating bcense anendrnent proceeding; CLI 9Fl6,38 NRC 25 (1993) amended, interpretation of; LDP-9121, 38 NRC 143 (1993) anrndment of; CU 9%I9. 38 NRC 810993) appellate review of orders ruhng on admissibiliry of; LBP-9123,38 NRC 200 0993) based on newly provided analyses, admissibility standards; Cl.1-93-19,38 NRC 810993)
' basis as scope of discovery; LBP 93-15,38 NRC 20 0993) ciudienges to Regulatory Guides; LDP 9123,38 NRC 200 0993) environmental, basis for; LBP-93 23, 38 NRC 200 0993) limits on scope of, LDP-9123,38 NRC 200 (1993) loss of offsite power; CU-93-19, 38 NRC 81 (1993) references to other materials in: LBP-9121,38 NRC 143 (1993) speci6 city required of; LBP-9121, 38 NRC 143 0993) i threshold for admissibihty; LDP-93-23,38 NRC 200 0993)
CON 1TNTIONS, LATE-TILED 6ve-factor test for admission of; LBP 9L23,38 NRC 200 0993)
CONTRACTORS defects in materials provided by; CU-9123. 38 NRC 169 0993) naining deficiencies at Brunswick Plant; DD-93-21,38 NRC 356 0993)
- CORPORATIONS attorney-client and work product privileges in; LBP-9hI8, 38 NRC 121 (1993)
CRITICALI!Y ANALYSIS KENO model, ISP-9112, 38 NRC 5 0993)
Monte Carlo analysis; LBP-9%!2,38 NRC $ 0993) vertical buckhng term in: LBP-93-12,38 NRC 5 0993)
CROSS-EXAMINATION licensing board deferral of action un &scovery request pending; LBP-93-17,38 NRC 65 0993)
DECDMMISSIONING funding for; LBP-9123,38 NRC 200 0993)
DECOMMISSIONLNG PLANS fuel shipnrnts as part of, for Shoreham plant; DD-93-22,38 NRC 365 0993) hearing rights on; LBP 93-25,38 NRC 304 (1993)
DECONTAMINATION of handicapped persons at reception centers; DD-93-17,38 NRC 264 0993)
DEFINITION
" adequate protective sneasures in the event of a ra&ological emergency"; DD-93-17,38 NRC 264 0 993)
DEFINITIONS geologic repository; DD 9F18,38 NRC 3310993) subcontractors; CLI-93-23. 38 NRC 169 0993)
DELAY enforcenent prowedings, Staff raluent for; CL1-9317, 38 NRC 44 0993) heense suspension proceeding; U P-93 20, 38 NRC 130 0993) of discowry, balancing test for; LBP.9L22, 38 NRC 189 0993)
' DEPARTMENT OF ENFRGY NRC authority ;o require licenne application from; DD93-18,38 NRC 3310993)
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR authenty to address employee discrimination issues, DD-9116,38 NRC 255 0993)
DEPRESSURfZATION reactor water level errors during; DD-93-20, 38 NRC 3510993)
$0 1
. j i
4 mr-e-
.w-a p
m g
y
,mm ww
y 4
s-a-.
4
. + w--Wla M
e-4
+
w 4"
i.i.-
4 SUlijECT INDEX DESIL OENERATORS cyhn&t hner failure; DD-9119,38 NRC 337 (1993) design-basis capacary; DD 9319, 38 NRC 337 (1993)
DISCIDSURE ~
lastitute for Nuclear Power Operations report; CL1-9L18,38 NRC 62 (1993) privileged matter. referral of rulings on; IEP-9113, 38 NRC 11 (1993)
DISCOVERY abstract rulings on dispuies about privilege in; CL19123, 38 NRC 169 (1993) contendon basis as determinant of scope of; LDP 93-15, 38 NRC 20 (1993) delay of, LDP-93-22,38 NRC 189 (1993) falsi6 cation of fire logs; LBP-93-17,38 NRC 65 (1993) harm to licensee fmm delay of; LDP 93-22,38 NRC 189 (1993) limits imposed by board on; LDP-9115,38 NRC 20 (1993) privileged maner; LDP 9%I3. 38 NRC 11 (1993) review of interlocutory order; CU-93-18,38 NRC 62 (1993)
' l trial preparadon materials; LDP-9118, 38 NRC 121 (1993)
DISMISSAL OP PROCEEDING
-l double jeopardy gmunds; AI.J-93-1, 38 NRC 151 (1993)
DOSE See Radia: ion Done DOS! METERS f
failure to read at required imervals; CLI-93-22, 38 NRC 98 (1993); CLi 9124, 38 NRC 187 (1993)
. i DOUDIE JEOPARDY program fraud proceeding as; Al.J-93-1,38 NRC 151 (1993)
DRY CASK STORAGE canister radiation limits, inspection, and monitoring; DD-9314,38 NRC 69 (1993)
CertiAcate of Compliance requirenrnts for; DD 9114,38 NRC 69 (1993) safety of; DD-93-14,38 NRC 69 (1993)
EMERGENCY PLANNING intent of requirements for; DD-9117, 38 NRC 264 (1993) interpretation of CamunisJon regulations; DD-9317, 38 NRC 264 (1993) torus vent interfacing with; DD-93-17,38 NRC 264 (1993)
EMERGENCY PLANS state and local interfaces; DD-9117, 38 NRC 264 (1993)
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS reasonable assurance 6nding for Pilgrim Station; DD-9117, 38 NRC 264 (1993)
EMP!DYEES
- ]
See Licensee Employees;. NRC Emplo>ves ENERGY
- ]
See Depiutment of Energy ENERGY REORGANTIATION ACT employee protection; C1J.93-23,38 NRC 169 (1993)
NRC licensing of DOE facilities; DD-9118, 38 NRC 331 (1993) scope of NRC activitics; DD-9116,38 NRC 255 (1993)
ENIORCEMEfG ACflONS against beensees for discrimination against whistleblowers; DD-93-16,38 NRC 255 (1993) matters being considered in pending adjudicationi CLI 9315, 38 NRC 1 (1993) options; DD-9116, 38 NRC 255 (1993)
ENIORCEMENT ORDl'RS
]
I answers to; LDP-93-14, 38 NRC 18 (1993)
ENf0RCEMEtn PROCEEDINGS delay lo; CL193-17,38 NRC 44 (1993) stay of; LBP 93-20, 38 NRC 130 (1991) 51 j
i i
i
SUlijECT INDEX ENY!RONMI.NTAL ASSESSMENTS consultation wnh othes agencies, LEP-9123, 38 NRC 2M) (1993) fifty-mile presumption for determining areas that rnust be evaluated, LEP-93 23, 38 NRC 200 (1993) fuel transport by barge from Shoreham to unwrick; DD-93-22,38 NRC 365 (1993)
-l ladependent spent fuel storage instaHadon DD-93-14, 38 NRC 69 (1993)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS applicabihty to interim low-level radioactive waste processmg and disposal faelhty; DD-9115,38 NRC 159 (1993) -
ENVIRONMENTA1, ISSUES basis for contendons on; LBP-9123,38 NRC 200 (1993) generic resolution of; DD-9b22,38 NRC 365 (1993)
EVIDENCE hearsay, standard of admissibility; LilP-9120, 38 NRC 130 (1993)
EXEMETION from compliance with radiation dose standard, CU-93-2138 NRC 98 (1993)
FALSIFICATION fire kiga; IEP 93-17,38 NRC 65 (1993) j 11NAIJIY licensing board decision, for purpose of review; IEP-9112,38 NRC $ (1993) i
'l FINANCIAL ISSUES decommissioning funding; LDP-93-23, 38 NRC 200 (1993) 11RE logs, discovery concerning alleged attempts to aluw; LEP-9317, 38 NRC 6$ (1993) i FRAUD deferral of prosecution for; A1193-1, 38 NRC 151 (1993)
IRIIDOM OF INIORMATION I
exemptions; LBP 9%I3, 38 NRC 11 (1993)
TREEDOM OF INIORMATION ACT l
speci6 city required for gowrnment to prevail on assertion of con 6dendality as an exception to disckmure under; CU 9F17,38 NRC 44 (1993)
IUEL shghtly irrmfiated, shipnents from Shoreham to Umcrick; DD-9122,38 NRC 365 (1993)
FUEL SHIPMENTS barge transport from Shoreham to Lincrick; CU-93-25, 38 NRC 289 (1993)
GENERAL UCENSES licensing proceedings tnggered by use of; CL1-9k25,38 NRC 289 (1993) transport of licenwd nuuerial under; CLl-9k25,38 NRC 289 (1993); DD-9F22, 38 NRC 365 (1993)
GENERATORS See Diesel Generators GEOLDGIC REPOStrORIES NRC jurisdiction over; DD-9%18, 38 NRC 331 (1993)
IIEALTil AND SATETY-NRC responsibihties; CLI-9123, 38 NRC 169 (1993)
IIEARING RIGirrS J
on decommissioning plans; LBP-93-25,38 NRC 304 (1993) i on transport of slightly irradiated fuel between nuclear power plants, CL1-93-25, 38 NRC 289 (1993)
IMMEDIATE EI1TCrIVENESS
. enforcement order, request to set aside, LBP-9bl4,38 NRC 18 (1993)
INDLITNDENT SPENT IVEL STORAGE INSTALLATION
]
radiation done hnuts; DD 9114,38 NPC 69 (1993)
-]
INJURY IN l'ACT
.l loss of pmcedural right as, C11-93-21, 38 NRC 87 (1993) 52
)
I
i SUlijECT INDEX loss of rights to notice, opportunity for a hearing, and opportunity for judicial review as; C1193-21, 38 NRC 87 (1993)
INSPECTION -
dry cask storage canister, for errbriulenent, corrosion, or leakage; DD9114, 38 NRC 69 (1993)
INSTIL'tfrE 10R NUCLEAR POWER OPERAllONS discovery of report subject to peutective order; LEP-93-13, 38 NRC 11 (1993) report, dachwure to intervenor; CU-9118, 38 NRC 62 (1993)
IN'IT.RVENTION where there is no peruling proceeding; CLI 9125,38 NRC 289 (1993)
INTERVENTION PETITIONS cffect of withdrawal of; LBP-9k19, 38 NRC 128 (1993)
I late-filed, showing necessary for; CU-93-25, 38 NRC 289 (1993) l pleading requirements for; C119125,38 NRC 289 (1993) application withdrawals; CU-9120, 38 NRC 83 (1993)
' JURISDICTION licensing board limits; LDP-9L25, 38 NRC 304 (1993) operating license amendarnt apphcation; LBP-9116, 38 NRC 24 (1993) j 4
LABOR See Departnrnt of tabur.
LETTERS OF AGREEMENT adequacy for Pilgrim Station energency planning; DD-93-17,38 NRC 264 (1993)
UCENSE SUSPENSION PROCEEDING delay of; LDP-9120, 38 NRC 130 (1993)
UCENSEE EMPLDYEES discrinnna' ion ngainst whistleblowers; DD-93-16, 38 NRC 255 (1993) harassment and intimidation of. DD-9121, 38 NRC 356 (19931 protection of whistleblowers; CLI-9123, 38 NRC 169 (1993)
UCENSEFS character and competence; Q.193-16, 38 NRC 25 (1993) contractual relationships; CL1-9k23, 38 NRC 169 (1993) transfer of operating authority; CL1-9116,38 NRC 25 (1993) truth and accuracy of.information provided to NRC by; CU 9317, 38 NRC 44 (1993)
LICENSING BOARD DECISIONS Anality for purposes of review; LDP 9L12,38 NRC 5 (1993)
UCI'NSING BOARDS approval of scuknrnt agreements; LDP-93 24,38 NRC 299 (1993) ainu managenent authority; LDP 93-15,38 NRC 20 (1993) discretmn in managing proceedmgs; LBP-93-25, 38 NRC 304 (1993) discretion to decide nwxion for reconsieration on the rnerits; LBP 93-21, 38 NRC ' 43 (1993)
Jurisdictional hmitations; LBP-93 25, 38 NRC 304 (1993)
'j LICENSING PROCEEDINGS j
general license use as a trigger for; C1193-25, 38 NRC 289 (1993)
IJQUID NATURAL GAS Pl>Mr safety relevant to independent spent fuel storage installation; DD-9314,38 NRC 69 (1993) j IX)SS OP OITSTIE LOWER iechnical discussion of; LBP-9L23. 38 NRC 200 (1993) j MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS rnonitonng effectiveness of; LDP-9113,3B NRC 11 (1993) leventive, breakdown at Brunswick Plant; DD-91-21,38 NRC 356 (1993)
MANAGEMEBfr CllARACIT.R AND COMPETENCE standard for determination; C119Ll6,38 NRC 25 (1993) l MATERIAIS UCENSE spent fuel storage in independent spent fuel storage installation, DD-9114, 38 NRC 69 (1993) 53 r
2
.g.
~~
- _ _ ~. -,
I SUll, LECT INDEX MATI: RIALS LICINSE RENEWAL withdrawsI of appbcatsn; LilP-93-25, 38 NRC 304 (199h MEDICAL MISADMINISTRAllON irid um-192 source lodged in patient's abdonrn; LDP-9120, 38 NRC 130 (1993)
MONTf0 RING internal, of dry cask aiorage canisters; DD-9114, 38 NRC 69 (1993) mamtenance programs; LDP 9kl3. 38 NRC 11 (1993)
MOCTI' NESS of proceeding, effect on decision below; C119Ll7, 38 NRC 44 (1993)
MOTIONS IOR RlrONSIDERATION
- new arguments in; LilP-93-21, 38 NRC 143 (1993)
MOTIONS TO COMPEL, tinchness of, LIlP-9118, 38 NRC 121 (199M NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT es==i+<wh>n of shernatives to fuel transport by barge from Stacharn to Unriick; DD-9122, 38 NRC s
365 (1993) environmental aucannents; 1BP pit?, 38 NRC 200 (1993) generic resolution of envuonnental issues; DD 9122. 38 NRC 365 (1993) transport of nuclear fuel under general heense; DD-9L22, 38 NRC 365 (1993)
NOTICli OF IIEARING -
miuirenents for; LilP-9316, 38 NRC 24 (1993) withdrawal of license apphcation after iisuance of; LDP-9125,38 NRC 304 (1991)
NRC LMPLOYIIS titigability of udsconduct of; DD-9Ll6, 38 NRC 255 (1993)
NRC POLICY truth and accuracy of information from licensees; CU 93-17, 36 NRC 44 (1993)
NRC PROCELDINGS judicial concepts of standing apphed in; C119%I6,38 NRC 25 (1993)
NRC STAl'F request for delay of enforcanent proceedmg; LDP 93-20, 38 NRC 130 (1991)
NUCLIAR MATERIAL SAlhTY AND SA11 GUARDS DIRlrIOR audmrity to require license application from Departurnt of Energy; DD-9118, 38 NRC 331 (1993)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION enforcenrnt of subpoenas; CL19343, 38 NRC 169 (1993) henhh and safety responsibihiies; CLI 9123, 38 NRC 169 (1993)
OlllCE OF INVESTIGATIONS delay in enforcement pmceeding because of interference with; CLI-9317, 38 NRC 44 (1993)
OITSITE POWER kus of. CLl93-19, 38 NRC 81 (1993).
technical discussion of; LDP 9123, 38 NRC 200 (1993)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT PROCELDINGS standing to intervene in, CU-93-16, 38 NRC 25 (1993); CU-93-21,38 NRC 87 (1993) termination of; LDP 9Ll6,38 NRC 24 (1993)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENTS transfer of reactor vessel maserial surveillance wahdrawal scledule from technical specifications to safety analysis report; C1193 21, 38 NRC 87 (1993) withdrawal of applications; CLI 93-20,38 NRC 83 (1993); LBP-9116,38 NRC 24 (1993)
PENALTY
' See Civil l%nalties PRFJUDIG to party ogposing delay of enforceprnt proceeding; LBP-9120,3A NRC 130 (1993)
PR131 DING OfTICERS autlority to grant a license upphcauon withdrawal, LDP-9125, 38 NRC 304 (1993)
~
54 3
,4
. Su g
n.
,u_
~.
~ i.
SUlijECT INDEX tesponsiinimes regarang delay of procec&ngs; LDP-9120, 38 NRC 1.30 (1993)
PRIVil1GE See Arturney-Client Privilege; Work-Product Privilege -
' PRIVIL1GED MATTER balancing test for discowry of; LBP 9F13,38 NRC 11 (1993)
PROGRAM IRAUD motion for dismissal on grounds of double jeopardy; A1J.911,38 NRC 151 (1993)
PROTECTIVE ORDfRS
&sclosure of INPO report under: CLI 93-18, 38 NRC 62 (1993) discovery of reports subject to; LUP-93-13, 38 NRC 11 (1993)
QUALfTY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS breakdown alleged at Brunswick Plant; DD-9L21, 38 NRC 356 (1993) penahy for failure to estabbsh; LEP-9124,38 NRC 299 (1993)
RADIATION bnuts of dry cask storage canisters; D&93-14, 38 NRC 69 (1993)
RADIA110N DOSE
- hunts for uldental retcases from interim low-level radioactive waste pmcessing and disposal facility; DD-93-15, 38 NRC 159 (1993) linets for independent spent fuel storage installadoa; DD-93-14,38 NRC 69 (1993) standards, exenpuon from compliance with; C1J-9122,38 NRC 98 (1993)
RADIATION EXPOSURE civil penalty for; CLI-9F24, 38 NRC 187 (1993); LEP-9126,38 NRC 329 (1993)
RADIATION SURVEYS civil penalty for dc6ciencies in; CIJ-9124, 38 NRC 187 (1993) considerations in determining civil penahy for denciencies in; LDP-93-26,38 NRC 329 (1993) detarainants of what constitutes; Cl193 22,38 NRC 98 (1993)
RADIOACrlVE MATERIALS.
improper storage of; DD-9116, 38 NRC 255 (1993)
RADIOACilVE WASTE, IllGil-LEVEL Departnrat of Energy site, NRC juris&ction over; DD-9k18, 38 NRC 331 (1993)
RADIOACTIVE WASTE, LOW-IIVEL Interim onsite processing and storage facihry for; DD9L15,38 NRC 159 (1993)
RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE aingle-shell tanks NRC jurisdicnon over; DD-9kl8, 38 NRC 331 (1993)
See also Dry Cask Saxage; Geologic Repositories REACTOR water level neasurenrnts at Pilgrim Stauon; DD-9120,38 NRC 3$1 (1993)
REACIOR VESSEL material specimens, changes to withdrawal schedule; Q193-21, 38 NRC 87 (1993) rnaterial surveillance withdrawal schedule transferred from technical speci6 cations to safety analysis report; C119121,38 NRC 87 (1993)
RECErrlON CENTERS-monitoring of handicapped persons at; DD-9117, 38 NRC 264 (1993)
RECONSIDERATION of civil penalty, request for. DD-9123,36 NRC 384 (1993)
RF1ERRAL OF RULINGS dnclosure of privileged nutter; ISP 9L13, 38 NRC 11 (1993)
REGULATIONS energency planning, interpretation of; DD 9kl7. 38 NRC 264 (1993) interpretation of 10 C F R. 50 7; C119123, 38 NRC 169 (1993) intertutation to avoid absurd results; LilP 9125, 38 NRC 3N (1993) safety simulards; CtJ-93 23, 38 NRC 169 (1993) 53 s
)
l i
n
,n.
m t
SUllJECT INDEX l
I RfDULATORY OUlDES contentions challenging the a&quacy of. LBP-9123, 38 NRC 200 (1993)
REMAND director's decision; Cl19115, 38 NRC i (1993)
RIDPENING A RECORD stand.rrd for esexise of agency discretion le; CL1-93-25, 38 NRC 289 (1993) 8'LS JUDICATA bur on litsgation of violations; CLI 9124, 38 NRC 187 (1993)
RF.STittJflON 4
for false claims; A119ki,38 NRC 151 (1993)
REVIEW j
6nahty of licensing beerd decision for purposes of, LBP-9Ll2, 38 NRC $ (1993) judicial, prerequislies for: LBP-9Ll2. 38 NRC $ (1993) -
length of peutions far; LDP 9112, 38 NRC 3 (1993) replies to pentions for; 1.BP-9112,38 NRC 5 (1993)
REVIEW, APPELLATE j
i of orders ruling on adnussibility of contentions; LBP 9123,38 NRC 200 (1993)
REVIEW, INTERIDCtff0RY decision ordering disclosure of INPO report; CLI 93-18, 38 NRC 62 (1993)
REVOCATION Of' LICt:NSE 1
lack of technical competence or character quahneadons as grounds for; CLI-9116, 38 NRC 25 (1993)
RISK ASSESSMrNT fuct transport by barge from Shoreham to Lirnerick; DD-9122,38 NRC 363 (1993)
RULES OF PRACTICE appellate reilew of orders ruling on admissibihty of contentions; LDP-9L23. 38 NRC 200 (1993) artorney<lient privilege; LDP 93-18, 38 NRC 121 (1993) contention admissibility; CtL9116,38 NRC 25 (1993)
{
delay in discovery; U1P-9122,38 NRC 189 (1993) discovery of privileged inauer; LEP-9Ll3, 38 NRC ll (1993) discovery ruhngs; CtL9123,38 NRC 169 (1993) hearsay evidence; LBP-9120,38 NRC 130 (1993)
' 1 interlocutory review of decision ordering disclosure of INPO report; CLI-9L18, 38 NRC 62 (1993) interpretation of arnended peutions; LhP-93-21. 38 NRC 143 (1993) interpretation of regulations. LDP-9L25, 38 NRC 3M (1993)
Jurisdiction over application wittuirawals; CLI-93-20,38 NRC 83 (1993)
- i i
latedited contentions, Ave-factor test for admission of; LBr-9L23,38 NRC 200 (1993)
I new arguments in nulons for reconsideration; LDP-9121,38 NRC 143 (1993) pleming requirements for intervention petitions; CLI 9L25, 38 NRC 289 (1993) references to other materials la contendons; LBP 93-21,38 NRC 143 (1993) section 2.206 procedures used to decide maners being considered in pending adjudication; CL19113, i
38 NRC 1 (1993)
I specincity requ red of contentions; LDP.93-21, 38 NRC 143 (1993) standing to itnervene; CLI-9116, 38 NRC 25 (1993); C119L21,38 NRC 87 (1993) standmg to intervene where there is no pemling proceeding; CtL9L25,38 NRC 289 (1993) sununary disposition; CtL9122,38 NRC 98 (1993); LilP 9L23, 38 NRC 200 (1993) ictmination of proceedings; CU-9120,38 NRC 83 (1993).
threshold for mimissibility of contenti<ms; LEP-93-23, 38 NRC 200 (1993) withdrawal of license apphcation, LDP-9L25,38 NRC 304 (1993) wnrk product privilege; LilP-9118, 38 NRC 121 (1993) sal'ETY dry cask storage, DD 9114, 38 NRC 69 (1993) interim onsite processing and sternge facility fur low-level war,tes; DD-9kl5, 38 NRC 159 (1993) 56 -
i
.~j I
i i
I
+,,,-
+, - -
yy
-c-
m
- ~.
.-- - m e
SUHJECT INDEX stand. ads for eenent and grout; C119F23, 38 NRC 169 (199.l)
See also llealth and Safety; Unreviewed Safety Question SAITTY ANALYSIS REPORT nransfer of reactor veuel material surveillance withdrawal schedule from technical speci6 cations to; CU-9121,38 NRC 87 (1993)
SECURffY vulnerabibty of Brunswick Plant to terrorist attack; DD-93-21,38 NRC 356 0993) l SE'IT!IMENT AGREEMINTS approval by licensing boards; LDP 9L24, 38 NRC 299 0993)
Sil0W CAUSE PROCLEDINGS standard for insutution of; DD-9114,38 NRC 69 (1993)
SPIWT FUEL with pinhole leaks in dry cask stwage: DD-9114,38 NRC 69 (1993)
SPTNT FUEL POOL ngplication for expansion of; LDP 9L19,38 NRC 128 0993) criticality calculations; LBP-9112,38 NRC 5 (1993) transfer of nuclear waste from; DD-9514,38 NRC 69 (1993)
STANDING TO INTERVENE geogra:Aic proximity as basis for; C1193-21,38 NRC 87 (1993) injury in fact and interest requirenrnts for; CLI-9121, 38 NRC 87 0993); CLI-9kl6,38 NRC 25
?
0 993) judicial concepts apphed in NRC proceedings; G19316,38 NRC 25 (1993); CL193-21,38 NRC 87 l
0 993)
STAY.
enforcenent proceedings; C119bl7,38 NRC 44 0993) hve factor test for grant of, LDP 93-20, 38 NRC 130 0993)
. i liceme anwndnwnt allowing fuel transport by targe from Shoreham to unwrick; DIA9b22, 38 NRC 363 0 993)
SUBCONTRACTORS
&finition of; CLI 9123, 38 NRC 169 0993)
SUBPOENAS enforcenent date; CLI 93-23, 38 NRC 169 (1993) nmiion to quash or nulify; CLI-9F23,38 NRC 169 0993)
SUMMARY
DISPOSTI!ON basis for; CLI-9%I9,38 NRC 810993) burden on opponent of, C1193 22,38 NRC 98 (1993) burden on proponent of; CU-9122,38 NRC 98 0993) failure to raise genuine issue of material fact as grounds for; LDP 9112,38 NRC $ 0993)
. j legal standards for, LDP 93-23, 38 NRC 200 0993)
NRC's failure to detect a violation as a genuine issue of matenal fact, CLi 9L22, 38 NRC 98 (1993)
SUltLIERS defects in amterials provided; CL1-9343, 38 NRC 169 0993)
SURVEll. LANCE cylmdct kner flaws in enrrtency diesel generators; DD-9119,38 NRC 337 0993)
TECllNICAL SPECIFICATIONS civil pennhy for operation outside of, DI19L23, 38 NRC 384 (1993) transfer of reactor vessel material surveillance withdrawal schedule to safety analysis report, CLI-93 21, 38 NRC 87 0993)
Tl2rtilERAPY UNITS transfer to authorized secipient, enforcenwnt order for; LDP-9114, 38 NRC 18 0993)
TERMINATION OF PROCf.I; DING nuterials license renewal; 1 BP-93-25, 38 NRC 3410993) '
nmutness grounds; CL19b20, 38 NRC 83 0993) 57 l"'
5 7
3 m
4 w*y eb wg-m-
e w
- ~.. -.
SUlijECT INDEX widwhawal of intervention and hearing mtions as grounds for; LBP-93-19, 38 NRC 128 (199.t)
TiiRRORISM vulnerability of Drunswick Plant to; DD-9121. 38 NRC 356 (1993)
T13 TING blackness, LDP 9bl2, 38 NRC 5 (1993) cylinder hner Saws la emergency diesel generators; DD-9k19,38 NRC 337 (1993)
TRANSITIR OF OPERATING AUTilORflY.
Injury-in-fact as basis for standmg to intervene on; CU-93-16, 38 NRC 25 (1993)
TRAN57' ORT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS federal regulation of; DD 9122, 38 NRC 365 (1993) route selection: DD 9122, 38 NRC 365 (1993)
UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTIONS criteria for determining the existence of, DD 93-15, 38 NRC 159 (IW3)
YACATION OF DECISION director's decision; CU 9315, 38 NRC I (1993)
VENDORS defects in materials provided; CU-9L23, 38 NRC 169 (1993) manuals, quahry assurance in oversight of integrity of, DD-9k21,38 NRC 356 (1993)
VIOI.ATIONS operation outride Technical Speci6 cations; DD-93-23, 38 NRC 384 (1993)
WAIVER attorney-client and work product privileges, by a corporation; lllP-9118, 38 NRC 121 (1993)
WATER QUAUTY section 401 certi6cadon; ISP-93 25, 38 NRC 304 (1993)
Wi!!STLEBLOWERS harassment and inumidation of; DD-9121, 38 NRC 356 (1993) pmtection of, CLI-9123, 38 NRC 169 (1993)
WORK-PP.ODUCT PRIVILEGE statenrnis given to applicains* attorneys relevant to O! investigauon; U1P-9118, 38 NRC 121 (1993)
$8 i
=
...-. - ~~ -. - - ~... - - -- - -. - - -. -
__~- --,
i e
if b
4 FACILITY INDEX 1
BRUNSWICK STEAM E!ECTRIC PLANT, Units 1 and 2. Docket Nos. 50 324, 50 325 REQUF5T FOR ACI'!ON; December 14, 1993. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R 6 2.206; DD-9121, 38 NRC 356 (1993)
CALVERT CLIITS INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; Docket Nas. T2-8, 54 317, 50-318 REQUEST FOR ACTION. August 16, 1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; 1
I DD-9114, 38 NRC 69 (1993)
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 54275-OLA-2, 54323-OIA 2 OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 19, 1993, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Discovery Request / Referring Ruling to Commission); LDP 9113, 38 NRC 11 (1993)
OPERATING LJCENSE AMENDMENT; August 13, 1993, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Telephone Conference Call, 8/13/93); LBP-93-17, 38 NRC 65 (1993)
[
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 19, 1993, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER-
^
CLI-9%I8, 38 NRC 62 (l993)
/
f HANIORD SITE REQUEST IOR ACTION; December 2,1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R.12 206; DD-9118, 38 NRC 331 (1993)
E IIATCH NUCLIAR PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 54321, 54366 RiiQUEST FOR ACTION; July 14, 1993, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; C119115, 38 NRC I y
I (1993)
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit 2; Docket Nes. 54336-OLA
~
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 9,1993, DECISION AND ORDER (Terminating Proceedmg by Sununary Disposition); LDP-9112, 38 NRC 5 (1993)
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Unit I; Docket No. 50-440 OPERATING LJCENSE AMENDMENT; Septernber 30, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CL1-93 21,38 NRC 87 (1993)
REQUEST FOR ACTION; September 21, 1993; SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R.12206; DD-9115,38 NkC 159 (1993)
P!liiRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Docket No. 54293 OPERATING LJCENSE AMENDMENT; September 13, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Terminauon of Pmceeding); LEP-9119, 38 NRC 128 (1993)
REQUEST IUR ACTION; November 19, 1993; DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R.
a l
6 2.206; DD-9117. 38 NRC 264 (1993)
REQUEST FOR ACflON, December 14, 1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CER.
f 5 2.206; DD-9F20, 38 NRC 351 (1993)
(
RANCHO SECO NUO. EAR GENERATING STATION. Docket No. 54312-DCOM i
DECOMMISSIONING. September 10, 1993, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CI19119,38 NRC i
81 (1993)
DirOMMISSIONING, November 30, 1993; SECOND PREllEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (Proposed Contenoons; Sumnmry Disposioon Motion); LEP 9L23. 38 NRC 200 (1993) l 1
59 j
I l
I
. -. - ~- -. -.
m._ _ _
t FACILITY INDEX VERMONT YANKG NUCIIAR ICWLR STATION; Docket No. $4271 REQUEST FOR AC110N. Decender 14, 1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R-62.206; DD-9319,38 NRC 337 (1993)
REQUEST FOR ACI10N, Decemler 28, 1993; DIRECTOR'S DICISION UNDR 10 C.F.R. 12.206; DD-93-23,38 NRC 384 (1993)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Dockel Na 542714LA-5 OPERATING LICENSU AMENDMENT; July 28, 1993; MEMORANDUM (Termination of Proceeding); LDP-93-16, 38 NRC 23 (1993)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; Septemtwr 16, 1993; MLMORANDUM AND ORDER; ClI-93-20, 38 NRC 83 (1993).
WCTLE ELECIRIC GENERATING PLANT, Units I and 2: Docket Nos.30-424,54425 REQUEST FOR ACTION; July 14, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CU 93-1$,38 NRC i (1993)
VOOTLE ELECTRIC GlNERATING PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 54424-OIA-3, $0-425-OLA4 OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 21, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Case Management); LBP-93-15,38 NRC 20 (1993)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; August 19, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLl-9316,38 NRC 25 (1993)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; Sepicmler 8,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Discovery Motion), LDP.93-18, 38 NRC 121 (1993)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; September 24,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Georgia Power Motion en Reconsider Scope of Pmceedang); LBP 93-21, 38 NRC 143 (1993)
OPERATING UCINSE AMENDMENT; November 17, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Renewed Motion to Corrq=1 Staff Production of Documents); LBP-93-22,38 NRC 189 (1993) 2 f
-)
i 60 l)
.l
.1 L
i
. -