Text

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISSUANCES.July- September 1994
	ML20080E436
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/31/1994
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V40-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V40-I1, NUDOCS 9501130244
	Download: ML20080E436 (33)
	v • d • e

l c

r.

NUREG-0750 Vol. 40 l

i l

l index 1 I

n:;.,----,--,--+,.s=,-g

.~

3. :v.g. -

g

- s 4

> :: g 9

g.g

....v^..s.. ~ -^...r

.:q s.

[8W X JINDEXES'w:.. -JO; 2 ' '.

t

,J M=NOCliEA,RfREdOLATDRb >

@,8 l

a

===

a W,COM. MISSIONi.lSSUANCES,L,,T l

n

~

1 f" '

f6

(

~

p>

m

,.E e a;t' 'e,; --:..,..:: b' e.!..M. ? "99'"4'I';>

k'

^

r *1 ;

id u. :.,..,yHS' 'i?... :

LYi ' 'X l' b

b b;

e

','/ '

.s 4

^

d'

$s v

i F

x r>

v y,

l v -

l t,

ognea;,uy

~{.'f*'{ g

-(

f f

4 s

x f,;.j s:QQ.f..

3..

i.-

~

g...

g s

s 4

4 l,;

. ~-..

a

7' 4--

' ' 'h' " ;i.,

m

'l 1.f e.

3.

..,..,E Q,:

4

[.'

y

I g

' b-::

' ('4: $g -

s

o r

31 14.

k s

..Lj

?

~ ' V,)]:.....

.i e % f" l lll_.'

^

i nur e;m.

p

., x

~

A

?;

f[i!

f.

l

.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM ISSION l

I 9501130244 941231 1

PDR NUREG j

0750 R PDR t

1 f

1 i

,,c-,--,,,-----,.n

e--w-,-,-

{

l Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office P.O. Box 37082 Washington, DC 20402-9328 l

A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.

Single copies of this pub lication are available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 1

l 1

l l

Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 l

(301/415-6844) l I

l l

r_.,,

i l'

i t

NUREG-0750 j

voi. 40 Index 1 li i

I l

INDEXES TO j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES i

July - September 1994 i

i

?

l 1

i 1

l 4

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

l 1

i 1

l Prepared by the i

Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 i

(301/415-6844) i 1

1 i

. -- - -, a

~.-..

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

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

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

Case name (owner (s) of facility).

Ril text reference (volume and pagination)

Issuance number issues raised by appellants i

Legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes) i Name of facility, Docket number

{

Subject maner of issues and/or rulings - ~

Type of hearing (for construction pennit, operating license, etc.).

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

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

1. Case Name Index l

l

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

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

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

Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

- l De header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hearing, date of issuance, and type of issuance.

De digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuance covers more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically, lil i

m.

_.. _...~.

3. Legal Citations Index Dis index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alpha-numerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. Dese citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and statutes -

may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability 1 of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance.

De references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular issuance. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference, j

4. Subject Index Subjxt words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues

)

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

and the full text reference.

S. Facility Inder j

l The index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from the issuance. The name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date, f

j type of issuance, issuance number, and full text reference.

i i

l i

Iv i

l i

- - ~,

4i j

i i

I i

4 CASE NAME INDEX ARIZONA PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY REQUEST ICR ACIlON, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. I2.206; Docket Nos. 54528, j

54529. 50 330; DD 94-8. 40 NRC 127 (1994) l CHEMETRON CORPORATION i

l MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Request for Heanng);

Docket No. 40-8724-MLA (ASLEP Na 94495-OLMLA) (Source Matenal License No. SUB-1357L LBP-94-20. 40 NRC 17 (1994)

'l MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motion to Disnuss

]

Proceedingt Docket Na 44872*MLA (ASLBP Na 94495-OLMLA) (Source Material Ucense No.

SUB-8357), LBP-94-30,40 NRC 135 (l994) l GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Monon to Accept Additional d

Facmal Basish Docket Nos. 504244LA 3. 50-4250LA 3 (ASLEP Na 9L675-01-OLA-3) (Re:

2 Ucense Attendnent; Transfer to Southern Nucleart LBP-94-22, 40 NRC 37 (1994)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Deposinon of Mr. Ball i

Shipmant Docket Nos. 50-424OLA-3,54425-OLA.3 (ASLBP Na 9347141-OLA-3) (Re: Ucense

~'

Anrndnent; Transfer so Southere Nuclear); LDP-94-24,40 NRC 83 (1994)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Staff Responses to Imervenor's First Request for Adnussions, Second Set of Intereogatories), Docket Nos. $0-4244LA 3, 54425-OLA 3 (ASLBP Na 93471-01-OLA 3) (Re: Ucense Anendnent; Transfer to Southern Nucleart LBP-94-26, 40 NRC 93 (1994)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MLMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Matmn to Accept b

A&tuonal Fuctual Basisk Docket Nos. 50 4244LA.3, 50 425 OLA 3 (ASLEP No. 93471414LA-3) 1 (Re: Ucense Aurndment. Transfa so Southern Nucleark LBP-94 27,40 NRC 103 (1994)

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Marion for Reconsideration:

Adnussmas; Second Ordert Docket Nos. 50 4240LA-3. 50-425-OLA 3 (ASLBP No l

9347841 OLA-3) (Re: bcease Anendment, Transfer to Southern Nucleart LBP-94-31,40 NRC l

137 (1994) l GULF STATES UTlWTIES COMPANY, et al.

OPERA 71NG UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No 544584LA:

CU 94-10, 40 NRC 43 (1994)

INDIANA REGIONAL CANCER CENTER ENIORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDIR (Ruling on Prediscovery Disposmve Mouons);

Docket No. 030 30485-EA (ASLBP Na 94485-02-EA) (EA 93-284) (Order Modifying and Suspending Byproduct Matenal Ucease No. 37-28179-01). LBP-94-21, 40 NRC 22 (1994)

INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE ENFORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlenent Agreement and Ternunaung Proceedingh Docket No 03049792-CivP (ASLEP No 94 689-02<ivP) (EA 93-111) (Byproduct Malenal Ucense Na 13-0275248h LEP-94-22, 40 NRC 117 (1994) j l

NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES. INC.

ENI-ORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Seulemes Agreement and Ternunaung

{

Proceeding); Docket Na LA 93-236 (ASLEP No 94-692-05-EAK LBP-94-25,40 NRC 88 (1994) a i

1 1

e I

i i

i I

l CASE NAME INDEX ONCOLDGY SERVICES CURPORATION ENFORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Disnnsmg Proceedmg); Dockce No. 030 31765 EA (ASLBP No 93-674-03-EA) (EA 93 006) (Order Suspending Dyproduct Material beense No.

37-285401) LBPM29,40 NRC 123 (1994)

ROBERT C DAIIIY ENIORCEMENT, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approvmg Settlement Agreement and Ternunaimg Proceeding); Docket No. IA 94403 (ASLBP No. 94 691 MEA); LitP-94-25,40 NRC 88 (1994)

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT DECOMMISSIONING. ORDER, Docket No. 54312-DCOM (Decomnussiorung Plan). CLIM14. 40 NRC 133 (1994)

DECOMMISSIONING REMAND, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ternnnaung INoemhng); Docket No 54312-DCOM-R (ASLBP No. 93-677-Ol-DCOM-M) (Decommissioning Plun) (Facihty Operaung Ocense No. DPR 54); LBPM23,40 NRC 81 (1994)

SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS ENFORCEMENT; ORDER; Docket No. 40-8027-EA (Decontanunauon and Decomnussmning Funding);

CLI-94-9, 40 NRC 1 (1994)

LNFORCEMENT; ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR INTERLDClTIORY REVIEW ANIWR MOTION IUR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION, Docket No. 40-8027-EA (Decontanunanon and Decomnusmomng Ivnding); CLl#ll,40 NRC 55 (1994)

ENFORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No 40 8027-EA (Deconiansnanon and Decornnussiomng fundingt CUM 12,40 NRC 64 (1994), CLIM13,40 NRC 78 (1994)

ENFORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Graining Intetvenuon Monon), Docket No.

448027-EA ( ASLBP No 94-68441-EA) (Source Maienal License No SUB 1080) (Decomanunauon and Decomnussiomog Fundmg); LBPM19,40 NRC 9 (1994) i l

i 1

i i

2 i

l

f l

I i

i l

I l

l i

DIGESTS l

ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGUI ATORY COMMISSION 1

l CLJ44 9 SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore, Oklahoma Sitek Docket No. 40 8027.EA (Decomamination and Decommissioning lim &ngk ENIORCEMEIG; July 21. 1994, ORDER A

De Comrmsuon denies General Atomics' nmuon seekmg to stay discovery in this proceedmg unul (1) the Comnussion desernunes whether it will grant General Atomics' Fentmn for Review of LBP-94-17 and/or Monon for Duerted Ceruncasmn, and (2) assonng that the Commssion grants the Feution/ Motion.

j the Comnusuon deternnes with finahry the juis&cnonal issues raised in General Atormes' previously filed s4ouon for Summary Duponuon or for an Order of Dismissal.

i B

Where a party Eles a stay motion with the Comnussion pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.730 (which comains no standards by which to decade stay monons), the Conunission will turn for gedance to the general stay standards an section 2.788.

C Imerlocutwy appeals or peutions so the Comnusuon are not devices for delaymg or halung bcensing board proceedings. The sinngent four-part standard set forth in section 2.788(e) makes et chfficult for a l

party to otsam a stay of any aspect of a bcensing board proceeang. Derefore, only in utmhual cases simuld the normal discovery and other piecesses be delayed pendmg the outcome of an appeal or pecuan to the Comnussion. Cf 10 CFR. I 2.730(gk

[

D The Commissma does not conader the incurrence of heiganon expemes to consurute irreparable l

injury in the coment of a stay decision. " Mere htigation expense, even substamial and unrecoupable cost, does not commtute irreparable injury? Metropohtan E& son Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit ik CLl44-17. 20 NRC 801,804 (1484k quotag Consunwrs Power Co. (Midland Plant, Umts I and 2k ALAB495,5 NRC Tf2,779 (1977), in tura quonng Renegoustion Board v. Bannercraft Co.,415 U.S. I, 24 (1974). "[f)njures, howem substannal, en terms of money, time and energy necessanly expended an r",' absence of a stay, are hot enough" to siender an injwy ineparable Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v.

(

eieral Power Commissma,259 F.2d 921,925 (D.C. Car.1958). Accord Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse I

Nu:Icar Power Station. Units I,2, and 3), ALAB-385,5 NRC 621 (1977).

E Were a party subjected to overly burdensone &acovery, the beensing board has full authonry so prevem er nm&fy unreasonable discovery demands.10 C.F.R. I 2.740(c)

F Under normal circunstances, motmns for a stay of discovery should be filed with the bcensing board rather than the Comnussion. See 10 C.F R. I 2 730ta).

G The Comnussion has sie authonry to exercise its "mherent sapervisory powers over admacatory Imecengs" and to address tie stay snonon itself, rather than ather dismiss it or refer it to tlw bcensmg board. Ohio Edison Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Umt I), Ql-9115, 34 NRC 269, 271 (1991L reconsideration demed. CLI-924,35 NRC 86 (1992t H

Irreparable injury is the most important of the four factors set forth in section 2.788(e) Pubhc l

e Service Co of New Hampshire (Seahrook Station, Units I and 2k CLI-90 3,31 NP.C 219,258 (1990),

aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Massachusetts v. NRC,924 F.2d 311 (D C. CarJ, cert. demed.112 S. Ct.

i 275 (1991) Consequently, where a movant (as here) fails to show irreparable harm, then it must make an overwhelming showing that it in hkely to succeed on the encrits. See, e g. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.

(West Clucago Rare Earths Facility), ALAB-928,31 NRC 263,269 (1990)(absent a showing of irreparable harm, movant smst demonstrate that the reversal of the beensmg board is a " virtual certamry").

l s

i l

i i

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGt'LATORY Cost %11SSION I

The ingertance and novelty of sigm6 cant juridcuonal issues of hrst impression are, in and of thennetws, insufhcies to jusufy a stay. Cf. Kerr-McGee Chenucal Cap. (West Oicago Rare Lanhs Facihtyk ALAB-928. 31 NRC 263,270 (1990)

J Where the parry seekag a stay has failed to neet ses burden on the two most important fm1ws Orreparable injury and hkehbood of success on the nentsk the Conumssion need not give lengthy conuderanon to the other two factors (pubhc interest and harm to other paruest Kerr McGee Chenucal Corp (West Chicago Rate Earths I3cihtyL ALAB 928. 31 NRC 263,270 (1990).

K h mere possibssy that a stay would save other parues from incurnng sigmncan huganon expenses is insufhcies to offset the mosam's failure to demonstrate arreparable injury and a strong bichhood of success on tir nrnts.

CLIW10 GUtf STATI3 lff t1 RIES COMPANY, et al (Raver Bend Stauon, Umt 1). Dockes No. 50 458 OLA: OPERATING LJCENSE AMENDMENT; August 23,1994. Ml}10RANDUM AND ORDER A

The Comnussion conuders the appeal of a Ucensing Board decisun, LIIPM3,39 NRC 31 (1994),

which granted a request for imervenuon and for heanng on two apphcanons subnutted by the Gulf States Ouhties Company (GSth la une appheation, GSU sought to transfer its operating control over the River Bend nuclear power plant to a new beensee. GSU's second apphcanon sought a heense anrn& rent to reflect a change in the ownership of GSU. The Conumasion demes the appeal and afhrms the bcensing Board's order. 6u&ng that the Petiuoner has nrt the threshold requirenents for stan&ng and an adnussible contenten.

B To deternune utether a pennoner has alleged the sequisite interest to intervene, the Comnusuon apphes judicial concepts of stan&ng C

For stan&ng. a pennoner nest allege a concrete and paniculanzed injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged actwo and hkely to be redressed by a favorabb decismn.

D la the absence of a clear nusappheauon of the facts or nusunderstanding of law, the Ucenung Board's judgment at the pleading stage that a party has croswd the standing threshold is enutled to substantial deference.

E The Atorme Energy Act authanzes the Comnusuon to accord prosecuan from radiological snjury to both henhh and property imerests. See AEA, il 103h,161b,42 U S C. Il 2133(b), 220 stb).

F Comnusuon regulanons recogmze that underfundmg can affect plant safety Under 10 Cf R.

6 50 3)(f)(2L appheams - with the excepuun of electnc utshnes - seeking to operate a facihty must demonstrate that they possess or have reasonable assurance of obtaimng the funds necessary to cover esunured operanon costs for tir penod of the heense. Behind the nnancial quahnentions rule is a salety ranonale G

Comissuon regulauons mandate that a contentma mclude a specific statenrnt of the issue of law or fact to be riused or conarmened, a bnef explananon of tte bases of the contennon and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expen opomon that support the conternion. together with referenc6s to those specine sources and docunrot on which the pennoner sniends to rely to prove the contentmn The pentster must also demonstrate almt a genuine &spute exists with the apphcam on a matenal issue of law or fact H

At the contentmn Ahng stage the factual support necessary to show that a genuine espute exists aced out be am formal evidenuary form, not be as strong as that necessary to withstand a sumanary ditosinon monon CLIM11 SEQUOY AH FUELS EURPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore, Oklahorna Sack Ducket Nu 40 8027-EA (Decomanunanon and Decomnussmmns fun &ngn ENFORLLMENT; August 23,1994.

ORDER DENYING PETfilON FOR INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW AND/OR MOTION f-OR DIREC.TED CERT!fEATION A

General Atonucs ("GA") 6ied with the Conumsson a pleading styled ~ Pennon for Review and/or Mouon for Directed Cemfranon" of an meerlocutory order (LBPM'7,39 NPC 359 (1994)) issued by the beenung Board in that pkshng, GA challenged the Licensing Board's demal of GA's mouon seekmg either an order granung sumnury esposmon m its favor regar&ng allissues in this procce&ng or an order of ennussal The issue on appeal is whether, pursaant to 10 C F.R.12 786(g), the Comnussion should exercise its &screnon to rewww the Licensing Board's interlocutory order. The Comnussma demes GA's Pention on the ground that it fails to satisfy either of the two conditens for interlocutory review set forth an 10 C F R. I 2.786 3) 4 1

1 i

i l

l l

l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE SUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION B

he Conmussion in this puccedmg treats a challenge to an interlocutory order as a Peuuon for Review under 10 CI R 6 2 786 rather than as a Mouon for Directed Cerufication under 10 C.F.R. Il 2.718(i) and 2 730tf).

C ne Cornnussion has a longstan&ng policy disfavonog interlocutory review (other than appeals pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.714a). and will undertake such teHew only in the most compelbng circumwances D

A 5.acensing tmard decision refusing to disnuss a party from a proceeding does not, without riawe.

consuture a compelhng circumstance justifymg interlocutory review.

E he Conmussion, under ses present appellate systerrt has entenained peutions for revrw of an j

otherwise imerlocutory order - aba to a motion for directed ceruficauon - af the peuuoner can sausfy one of the cntena under sectme 2.78Mg).

i F

Secuan 2.7bkg) of the Comnussion's regulauons allows imerlocutory review only where the quesuon pesented either. *(l) Breatens the party adversely affected by it with inmediate and senous l

ineparable impact wha:h, as a practical matter, could nc4 be alleviated through a petmon for review of r

the preu&ng oftner's final decssion; or (2) Affects the basic structure of the procer&ng in a pervasive or unusual manner

G De Conurusssun abobshed the Anotruc Safety and licensing Appeal Board Panel in 1991. but its f

decasmns sull carry precedemaal weight.

l H

k as well estabbshed in Commission junspnsdence that the mere comnumrut of sesources to a hemag that may later prove to have been unnecessary does not consuture sufficies grounds for an i

imerlocutory review of a heensmg board order.

I A party may not ottain amerlocuury review merely by assertmg potenual delay and increased espense attnbutable to an allegedly erroneous ruhng by the beensing board J

Mere generahzed represeniauons by counsel or unsubstamisted asseruons regar&ng immediate l

and senous arreparable impact" are insufficient to natisfy movant's tarden of proof.

K The Comnussmn sees no "substanual harm" ansmg from a party's continued involvement in a proceceng unut the bcensmg teard can resolve factual quesuons pertmem to the Comnussmn's junsecuon L

Although a dehmuve ruhng by the hcensing board that the Comnussion actually has juns&ctmn j

nught nze to the level of a pervasive or unusual effect upon the nature of the proceedmg. a prehnunary j

ruhng that nere factual developnem is necessary &ws ont nse to that level.

l M

De fact that an appealed ruhng toudes on a junsdicuonal issue does not, in and of ancif, mandate imerkemory review N

The mere usuasce of a ruhng which as unportam or novel does not, without nuwe, change the banc structure of a proceceng. and thereby jusufy interlocutory revra.

CU l 2 SEQUOY AH FUELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore. Oklahoma Sitch Docket No. 44h027-EA (Decontanunanon and Decommissiomng Fundmgh LNFORCLMENT; August 21 1994; i

MEMORANDUM AND ORDFR I

A in an enforcenrm procce&ng involving fun &ng for decontanunatmn and decomnumonmg of the i

Segacyah Fuels Facihty near Gore. OLlahoma, the Comnussmn demes appeals of the Atonne Safety and Licenung Board's orders LBP-945,39 NRC 54 (1994),and LBP-948. 39 NRC 116 (1994l, which granted mtervermon to a peutaoner who favors the enforcemem act on he Commimon affirms LBP 945 which i

I granted stan&ng and aff rms LBP.9&B only to the cuent that it rehed upon this fin &ng of stan&ng.

B The Comnussson has authonty to define the scope of pubhc parucipation in sts procee&ngs beyond that wtuch a required by statute Conustem with this authonty the Comnusson pernuts participatmn by those who can show that they have a cogmrable mierest that may be advenely affected if the procec&ng has one outcome rather than another. inclu&ng those who favor an enforcenrm actmn C

Imervennon by mieressed persons who suppon en enforcenrne actmn does not &numsh the agency's 4scretmn in imcaung enforcerrets procee&ngs because the Comnussion need not holJ a heanng on j

ohether another path should have been taken. The Comnusuon may lawfully hnut a heanns no consideration i

of the renedy or sanction poposed in the order.

I D

in enforcenent pocee&ngs. settlements between the Staff and the licensee, once a matter has been nonced for hearmg. are subject to revise by the pesidmg othcer.10 C F R. I 2.203. Thus, once an j

enforcenrnt order has been set for beanng at a heensce's request, the NRC Staff no longer has untranuncled

&scretmn to offer or accept a compronune or settienent j

I l

l l

I I

t I

i i

i t

i l

k L

i i

f DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E

At de bean of str stan&ng inquary es whetler the petitiorer has alleged such a personal stake in

(

ttw outconw of the couroversy as to denumstrate that a concrete adverseness exists wtuch will sharpen tte I

presentation of issues. To denenstrate such a

personal stake." the Comnuasson applies cornemporaneous ju&cial concepts of standmg Accor&ngly, a pentioner nmst (1) allege an " injury an fact" that is (2) fairly traceable to the challenged acnon and (3) ss hkely to be redressed by a favorable decisum F

The alleged injury. stuch may be esder actual or threatened. nest be both concrete and parucu-lanzed, not " conjectural" or "hypoetrtical" As a result. st.inang has been demed when tle thress of injury I

is too speculauve.

G An orgamzauon seeking represemauonal starbig on behalf of its members may nwet the

injury, ia-fact" requucurnt by demonstratmg stuu at least a se of tis nwmbers, who has authorued the orgamzation to represent lus or her amerest, will be mjured by the possible outcome of she procec&ng H

To meet tre "mjury in fact" requirement the petmoner need only show a reahzuc threat of sustaining a & rect injury to de pennoner as a result of the challenged acnon.

1 It must te dermmstrated that the injury is fairly traceable to the proposed actwn. Such a deternunanon u not dependent on whether de cause of tie snjury flows direedy from dw challenged accon.

but whether de chain of causation is plausible.

J It must be hkely as opposed to merely speculauve that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision-CLI %I3 SEQUOYAH IVELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore. Oklahoma Sne). Dodet l

No 44h027 EA @eem.. ; and Decomnussmmng isn&ng); ENFORCEMENT, August 23. 1994; MLMORANDUM ANDORDER A

in an enforcenrnt procce&ng involvmg funang for decontanunauon and decomnussmnmg of the Sequoyah ivets Facahry near Cant. Oklahoma, the Comnussmn demes appeals of LBP-94-19,40 NRC 9 (1994L in wtuch the Atorme Safery and Licensmg Board gramed intervenuon to the Cherokee Nanon.

Relying on ttw analysis contasned m a compamon decmon. CLI-9412,40 NRC 64 (1994), the Comrrussmn hads that otherwise quahfwd penuoners are ma ba:Ted from participarmn m leanngs simply because they t

seek to suppen an enforcement order CL2-9414 SACRAMENTO MUNI~8LL UTILITY DISTRICT tRancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stanon).

Docket No. 54312-DCOM (Dew n. iomng Plank Dif0MMISSIONING; September 2.1994. ORDLR A

The Compussma lifts st?

c restneuon on the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussmn Staff's abihty j '

to issue a decomnusamtung e a that no issue remains for adju& canon and the Licensing Board terrmnated tiw pnwee&ng.

i l

1 i

l I

l 0

l l

i l

l l

l I

I i

i l

l I

1 j

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE A1DMIC SAfTTY AND IJCENSING BOARDS l

LBP-94-19 SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore, OLlahoms SneL Docket i

j No. 40L8027-EA (ASLBP No. 9448441-EA)(Source Material Ucense No. SUB 1010)(Decontanunmion I

and Decomnussinang Fun &ngh ENf0RCEMENT; July 7,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i

(Grammg imervennon Motion)

A la stus pecce&ng concerning an NRC Staff enforcenem order issued is accordance with 10 C.F R.

I 2.202, the Ucensing Board concludes that a Native American anbe wistung to parucipner in Elw procee&ng to suppet the Staff's enforcenes ordet has established its standing and prescued two htigable comemions.

3 B

la order to gram an imervenor party status in a pmcee&ng, the pesading officer must find that i

the pennoner meets de contemporaneous ju&cial concepts of stan&ng. Tius requires that the antervemir estabhsh that it will suffer isymy in fact telauwe to its imerests in the pmceeeng and tint those alleged interests are wntum de zone of iniesests protected by the statutes and regulanons unjer wtuch ste pennoner necks so participme is ste procee&ng. See, e g, Cleveland Dectnc Illuminsung Co. (lyrry NucIcar Power Plant Umt IL CL1-93-21,38 NRC 37,92 (1993).

C To represeni the innerests of its errmbers, a Nauve Amencan tribe nmst idenufy at least one enember f

sto will be injured and etnais authanzmion to repesent that in&vidual. See, e g., Houston Ughting and,

Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Station, Unit I), A1AB-535,9 NRC 377,39M6 (1979).

D tangstaaeng Commasseos pracun suggests that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the posenual imervenor in order to otmate &srmssal of an imervention pention because of snaruculaie draftsmanslup or pocedural plea &ng defects. See, e g Virgmia Dectnc and Power Co. (North Anna Pouer Stauan, Umts I and 2), ALAB-146,6 AEC 631,633-34 (1973). See also LBP 94-8. 39 NRC 116 120 & a.7 (1994L appeals pen &ng.

LBP 91-20 CHEMETRON CORPORATION (Bert Avemie, Harvard Avenue, and McGean Rohco Sines, Newburgh Heights and Chryahoga Hmghts, Otuo) Docket No. 40 8724-M1A (ASLBP No. 94-69543-MLA)(Source Matenal Ucense No. SUB-1357k MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 7,1994-,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Request for Hearing)

LBP 94-21 INDIANA REGIONAL CANCER CENTER, Docket No. 030-30485-LA (ASLBP No. 94485-i 02-EA)(EA 93-284)(Order Modifying and Suspending Bypoduct Matenal Ucense No 37-28179-Olk ENf0RCEMENT; July 12,1994 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Prediscovery Dispostave Monons)

A la tius hcense suspension and mo&ncauon enforcenent poceedmg the Ucensmg Board rules on f

pre &scovery esposmve motions regarding een issues specihed by the pernes for huganon.

B Under Atomic Energy Act provisions such as subsections (b) and (i) of secuan 161,42 U.S C, i 220l(b),(i), tie agency's authonty to protect the public health and safety is unsquely wide ranging. Thu, hcmever,is not the same as saying shat it is unhunted. In esercismg that autlety. inclu&ng sts prerogauve to long enforcenes actions, the agency is subject to sonw restraims. See, e g., Hurley Me& cal Cemer (One Hurley Plaza, Fhm, Michigan), All-87-2, 25 NRC 219, 236 37 & a 5 (1987) (NRC Staff cannot apply a comparauve-performance standard in civil penalty procee&ngs absem fair amtice to hcensees about the parameiers of thal standard) One of those constraints is de requirenwm of constitunonal due process.

C A party respon&ng to an agency enforcenent complaint has been accorded due pot.ess so long i

i as ste charges agamst it are 1mdcrstandable and it is afforded a full and fair opportunity to meet those charges. See Ciuzens State Bank v. FDIC,751 F.2d 209,213 (8th Cir.1984). Put somewha &fferemly, 1p] lea &ngs in adnunistranve pocaengs are not judged by standards apphed to an inactmem at common l

7 i

I I

4

't

l 1

DIGESTS ISSUANCFS OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS

!aw,' but are seated more hke civil pleaangs where the concern is with notice.

" Id (quotmg Aloha Anhnes. Inc. s. CAB. $98 F.2d 250, 262 (D C. Cir.1979n D

When there is no claim of a lack of understaneng tegar&ng the nature of tlw charges in an NRC Staff enfmenent order, the fact that de vahery of tir Staff's asseruons have rme been hugated is no reason to preclude ttw Staff from unhamg those charges as a basis for the order. The adjudicatwy pruece&ng insutuicd pursuam to 10 C.f R.12 202 affords those who are adversely affected by the ordrs with an opportumsy to comest each of the charges that make up the Staff's enfmement deternunanon, an opporturury amended to protect their due pocess r ghts The "unhugated" nature of the Staff's allegauons so an enfortemem order thus is not a consutunonal due process de6cwncy that bars Staff rehance on Omse allegawns as a comporem of de enforcement order.

L Issue and clam preclusion pnnciples O e.. res judicata and collateral estoppel) are apphcable an NRC adjuecatory procce&ngs. See, e 3. Oluo Ednon Co (Perry Nuclear Powet Plant. Umt I). LBP.92-32,36 NRC 269. 283 & a 27 (1992)(cmng casest peuunas for tevww pen &ng, Nos. 92-1665. 93 1665.

911672. 91167) (D C. Cu ).

F The fact that the NRC Staff's charges in support of an enforcement order nmy be " hearsay" allegasmas does not provide sufficwni reason to disnuss those clama ab imuu. See Oncology Services Corp, LBP-93-20, 38 NRC 130.135 n 2 (1993)(hearsay evidence generaHy adnusuble in adnumstranve heanng af rehable relevant. anJ inatenait Rather, so long as those alleganons are in dupute. the vah&ty and sufficwncy of any 'incarsay" information upon which tiry are based generally is a matter to be tested in the contest of an endenuary heanng in wtuch tir Staff must prende adequate probauve evidence to carry its burden of proof G

one or nave o' the bases put furth by the NRC Staff as suppen for an enforcement order may be subject to &snussalif it is estabbshed they lack a suthcent neaus to the regulated actanties that are the focas of the Staff a enforcenent actwn.

H In a pmcee&ng regarding an NRC Staff enfeetnent order consistent with the analogous agency rules regar&ng conwnnons hied by intervenors, see 10 C F R.12 714(dK2xu t if it can be estabbshed that dere as no set of facts that would entitle a party to rehef relauve to a proposed tssue, then &snussal of that i

assue is apprupnate. See Oncology Services Corp. LBP-941,39 NRC i1,23 n 8 (1994L I

As as evules from de Comnussmn's enforcenent pohcy statement. regulutory reqmrements -

inclu&ng beense con &tmas - have varymg degrees of pubhc tralth and safety sigmhcance. See 80 Cf R.

Pat 2. App C, IIV & e 5. Consequeruly. as pan of the enfmenem process, the relauve importance i

of each purported vmlasma is evaluated, mtuch meludes talang a nrasure of its technica! and regulatory sigtuficance, as well as considenng whether the vmlanon is repetmve or willful. See id tilV.B. IV C.

Altimugh. en contrast to cini penalty achons, there generally is no specificanon of a " seventy I al" for the scolanons idemined in an enfmement order imposms a hcense sermmanon, susperaion, or mo&hcanon, see id iVIC. dus evaluauve pmcess nonetheless is unhzed to deternune the type and seventy of the curreenve actmn taken an ite cnfarcenent order 3

in makmg a deterr masmn about whether a hcense suspensmn or moahcauon order should be sustaned. a presidmg officer must undertake an esaluative process thai may involve assessmg. anump other tiungs, wtether the banes aangned in the order support it both in terms of the type ared duratmn of the enfmemes aetmn And. Just as with the NRC Stafra imual deterrrunation atume imposition of tte enforcenre ceder, a relevant factor may be the pubhc henhh and safety ugmhcance of the bases speci6ed m the ouder K

As ste Commnske recemly noted "the chmcc of sancuon is quimessennally a matter of the agency's sound &screuon" Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. (One iactory Row, Geneva. Oluo 4JNIL CLI 944. 39 NRC 2115,312 (1994) (footnuie onutted) In this regard a presading ofhccr's review of an NRC Staff enforcement actwn mouki be hnused to ahetter the Staff's cimice of sancuan consutured an abuse of thar &seretmn LBP-9422 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. et al. (Vogtle Elecinc Generaung Plani. Umts I and 2). Docket Nos %424-OLA 3. 54425 0LA 3 (ASLBP No. 93 671 01-OLA h (ke. Lscense Anendnwnt. Transfer to Smithern Nuclemi. OPERATING LICENSE AMLNDMLNT. July 28,1994 MEMORANDUM AND ORDE.R (Moima to Accept Ad&tmnal Factual Basal 1

l l

8 l

l I

l j

l l

l I

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS

)

i l

A The Ucenung Board deternunes thm su intervenor may rnove to admit imo the pmceedmg a srw basss for an already admmed contennon. % ten n does so, the requirements for a late-6ted contenuon l

are not apphcable. but ste Imervenor must show that n is tunely to consider ine rrw basis, an hght of ns senousness and of the amchness with which n has been raised. The Ucensmg Board also pernutted I

imervenor to file a reply to Applicant's response to his immon to add a new basis to his contennon.

l B

Once a comentum has been adtrutted. Intervenor nmy hugare a new basis for the adnutted comenuun I

(fathng with:n de scope of the comienuon) without mecong the five-pronged test for a late-6 led contenuon The test for adnutting the new tusis is whether at is tmrly to consider the new basis, in hght of us senousness and of the timchress with which it has been raned. The more senous de safety miphcatums of the proposed new haus, de kna important delay in presenung die basis C

There is no regulatory requirenrm that an iniervenor supply all the bases known at de une he 61es a comennon. Wimt is required is the fihng of bases that the aniervenor intends to rely on 10 C F.R.

12,714tbM2)(u).

D Imervenor inay reply to Apphcant's Response to latervenors' Mouon for a new basis for us l

contennon. In diat reply. Intervenor should detnonstraie, with paruculanry: (1) that he understands tte answers that have been Aled and than (despur those answers) there is an important. genume issue of fact i

j that Getrgia Power has matenally nusled the Staff of de Conmussma concerning the pubhc safety and health, and (2) that he did not unnecessanly & lay she Ahng of dus new basis for its comennon.

t l

LBP44-23 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL trTILD'Y DISTRICT (Rancho Se:o Nuclear Generaung Stationk 1

[

Docket No. 50 312-DCOM-R (ASLBP No 93-677-01-DCOM-R)(Deconumssuming Plan)(Facihty Oper-l aung I cense No. DPR-54); DECOMMISSIONING REMAND. August 11.1994; MLMORANDUM AND l

ORDLR (Ternunams Procec&ng) l A

The Licenung Board. m response to a mmce of mithdrsw;J wnh prejudice of the only smervema l

in the proceedmg. grams the withdrand and ternunates the procwJing l

LDP44-24 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. et al (Vogtle F' mc Getrranng Plant. Units I and 2k Docket I

l Nos. 50-424-OLA-3,50-425-OLA-3 (ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3)(Re: License Anrndment; Transfer l

to Southern Nucleart OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMINT; August 18.1994; MLMORANDUM AND i

ORDLR (Depossoon of Mr Bill Shipman) i l

A Tius Menuwandum and Order weighs whether or not to order the deposmon of a perum who is senously ill The Board dechned to order the deposiuon it &tcrnuned that Intervemw had failed to demonstrate that the bene 6: of the proposed &scovery outmenghs the burden. given the importance of dae i

sisues at stake an the haganon and the miportance of the proposed discovery in resolvmg die issues.

l B

tkvwever, the Board also nouced that the proposed deponent was withng to be deposed h therefore j

catabbshed con &uons under miuch a voluntary drposman nught be taken J

C Intervenne has the burden of demonstratmg that the bencht of a deposition of a senously ill person outweghs the burden. given the importance of the issues ut stake en the hugation and the importance of the pmpoecd discovery in resolvmg the issues D

The lawyer of an ill mdmdual sought as subject of a deposman may not assen that the &posinun

)

would impoec an undue burden unless the proposed subpect seeks no be protected or there is sone reamn 1

to question the rationahry behind the person's wilhngness so be deposed.

E The Licensms Board estabbshes con &uons under wtuch a voluntary agreenrnt may be reached concermng the deposmon of a senously ill indmdual LBP 9425 NUC11AR SUPPORT SERVICES. INC. (Order Requinng the Renuwal of an Indmdual fmm NRC-Ucensed or Regulated Activmes and Order Directmg Revww of Personnel Secunty Fdes (Lffecuve Impr&ately)k Dockes No LA 9k2% (ASLBP No.94-092 05 f.A) ROBERT C. DAILEY Khder Pro-hihmng involve nent in Cenam NRC-bcensed or Regulated Activunes (Lifecove irr nedsately)k Docket No. IA 94003 (ASLBP No. 94691 M EA): ENFORCLMEN1; August 18.1994 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approvmg Settlenem Agreenes and Ternunatmg Proceeding)

A The Licensmg Board grams a some nucon of the parues to approve a settlenent agreenrne. approves the agreenem and scrnunaies the proceeding l

LBP4426 GLORGI A POWER COMPANY. et al (Vogile Elecinc Generstmg Plant. Uruts I and 2L Docket Nos 50-424 OLA 3. 50 425-OLA-3 ( ASLBP No 93 671-01-OLA 3)(Re: bcense Amendment. Transfer I

l 9

l l

l i

I t

1 t

I

i l

I i

i DIGESTS i

ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS j

i to Southera Nudcar); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 22.1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Staff Responses to Imervenor's first Request for Adnussions. Second Set of Inimogatunes)

A The Board held that the Staff stands on the sane foonng as any party with respett to requests for adnussens Neither 10 C F R.12 742 nor any other sectmn of the regulations provides for any efferem treatment of the 5taff W Board also found that Rule 36 of the Federal Ruks ad Civil Procedure is he!pful in interpretmg the Conmussmn's rules concernmg admissions. The Board sad that the Staff would not le held to its adnussmns af nrw information cauws at to change ats view of the pubhc interest.

B With se pect to imetrogatones asked of the Staff, the Board held that tir Staff is not requared to j

answer meerrogatones unless stus Ucensing Board Ends. O) answers to the interrogatones are necessary so the detertiunanon of clus case. and (2) answers to the imerrogatones are not reasonably attanable from any other source.10 C.F R. 6 2.720(hK2xis); compare 10 C.F R. I 2.740b(a)

C Wub respect to requests for adnusuons addressed to the Staff, the Board held that the Staff stands on the sane footmg as any pany Neather 10 C F R. j 2.742 not any other sectwo of tir regulanons provides for any efferent treamrm of the Staff The Board also found that Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Csvil Procedure is helpful in meerpreung the Comnussion's rules concertung adnussions. The Board also said than the Staff would not be held to its aderssmus if new informanon causes it to change its view of the pubhc imerest.

D With respect to imermgalones asked of the Staff. the Board held that the Staff is not reqmred to answer mierrogatones unless this bcensmg Board f ads: 0) answers so the interrogatones are necessary to the dewrnunation of tius case. and (2) answers to the tutermgatones are not reasonably attanable from any other source.10 C F R. I 2.720thM2xii); cornpare 10 C.F R. I 2 740b(a).

LBP-9427 GEORCIA POWER COMPANY. et al (Vogile Elecine Generatmg Plant. Units I and 2) Docket -

Nos. 50-424-OLA3. 50-4254)LA-3 ( ASLBP No. 9b671010LA 3)(Re: Licenw Amendnrat; Transfer to Souttern Nucleart OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 26.1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR tDenymg Monon to Accept Addmonal Factual Baws)

A The test to be apphed to determstr whether to adnut for hugation a new hans for an adnuned cinzennon is *wherher the motmn (to adnut the contennon] was umely and wtrther it pesents amportant mformatmn regareng a ugru6 cam issue" Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant. Unus I and 2k LBP-l 84-20.19 NRC 1285.1296 0984) Applymg stus test. Intervenor's nmuon to adnut a new baus for an adnuned contennon is demed B

To deternune wtrther technical specihcanons have been violated, the wor &ng of the specihcatmns must be carefully eaarrvied to deterrmne the precise nramng of those speci6 cations.

C The Board resected an alleganon that beensee had breached a comnutment to the NRC that wem beyond its techmcal speci6catwns. The alleged comnutment related to keepmg the comamnent hatch closed.

Yet openmg of the hatch was an open and obvmus actson and the Board does sms accept the argument that the acnon reflected adversely on the character and compesence of the beensee.

D The follommr techmeal usues are &scussed-Acnon staienews: tectuucal specihcanons. Con-tamnrot eqmpment hatch Enrrgency mode- &cset operanon; Isnergency power. Linunng condmons of operaten. techmcal specahcanons. Loss of a!! electrical power: Operable: dennmon in technical speci-6catmns. Resadual heat remosal system

cperabihty; Sne area emergency.

LBP-94-28 INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE tin &anapohs. Imhana). Docket No. 030-09792 CnP (ASLBP No. 90689 02-CivP)(EA 9Lill)(Byproduct Maienal Ucense No.1L02752-010; ENFORCLMENT. August 29.1994 MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Approving Settlenrnt Agreenem i

and Ternunanns ProceeJmg) 1 LBP-9&29 ONCOIEGY SERVICES CORPORATION. Docket No 030u3t?65-LA ( ASLDP No. 93-67&Oh EA) (EA 9huo6) (Order Suspe.uhng Byproduct Maienal L6cenw No 37-28540 01); LNFORCEMENT; August 31.1994 MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Dismissmg Proceeding)

LBP 9430 CHEMETRON CORPORATION (Bert Avenue. Harvard Avenue, and McGean-Rohco Sites.

Newburgh Heigtus and Cuynhoga Heights. Otno). Duket No 44 8724MLA (ASLDP No. 94695-OLMLA)

(Source Mmenal IAense No SUB-1357)- MATI. RIALS LICENSL AMENDMENT; September 1.1994, MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Motion to thsnuss Proceeding)

LBP-9431 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. et al (Vogtle Elecinc Generstmg Plant. Umts I and 2). Ducket Nos 50 424 OLA-3. 50-425-OLA 3 ( ASLBP No 9k671-014)LA-3)(Re: License Amendmem.Tsansfer i

10 I

t l

l

l i

(

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATO%11C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMLNT; September 9,1994; MEMORANDUM l

AND ORDER (Monon for Reconsiderauon: Adassmns; Second Order) l A

The Board demed a Staff notion far reconsiderauon, setung furth standards for monons for l

reconuderanon Such nonons umst be Aled within 10 days of the date of issuance of the monon being l

challenged. Tim Boad also mbered the substamsve standad that a numa for leave to reargue or rehear

(

a monon wih not be granted unless it appears that there is some decuion or some pnneiple of law that l

would have a controlhas effect and that has been overkmked or that these has been a misapprehensma of l

the facts.

B The Board said that et as appropnate to require the Smff to answer requests for adussmas concermns the truth of And ngs in its own report, which con:ans important collateral facts. It also is apprornate to requur de Staff to release segregable facts on which decinons have been made, even if those facts are commned in predecisional docunents. Facts that are inextricably intertwined wmb opituons is predecinonal docunents need not be teleased l

C lt is appropnate to regmre the Staff to reveal de names of momduals involved in completing I

amportant Staff worlt Iruerveurs may only call as witnesses Staff rnembers who are necessary to their l

case, but an important step an helping them to deterinine if testimony is necessary is to imd out who was i

involved. fur the sane reason, at is appropnate to reqmre the Staff to disclose the name of an individual

(

who nay have 61ed a formal d ffenng professional opirma i

D A stay shall not te gramed when the only harm so a party is a strategic loss through complying

(

with a request for adusuons Howewr, a party may delay the need to respond by 6hng a snouon for an extensma of imm.

l E

Motions ftr reconsideraten must be 6 led within 10 days of tiw date of issuance of a challenged order.

I l

F A nonon for leave to reargue sr rehear a nmuon wat not be granted unless it appears that there is some doctuon or some pnnetple of law that would have a controih 1 effect and that has been overlooked l

or that there has been a nnsapprehensvn of the facts.

l G

lt is appropnase to require the Staff 40 answer requens for aJnussmns concernmg the truth of l

nndings in its own report, which contans ingwatant collateral facts H

h abo is appropnate to require the Staff to release segregable facu on which decismns have been made, even if those facts are contared in predecisional documents. Facts that are inextncably intertwined with spmans an predecisional docunents need not be released I

The Staff must respond to interrogatones requesung the nanes of Staff involved in issmng a key report or involved in issmag a formal diffenng pmfessional opmron J

A stay shall not be granted when the only harm to a party is a strategic loss through complying i

with a request for adussmns. However, a party nmy dday the need to respond by fihng a motion for an entenuen of une 1

1 i

1 l

l I

il

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

i 1

i e

4 i

a J

e L

a t

1 I

e."

I l

DIGESTS IS$UANCES OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION j

e h

i DD 94-8 ARIZONA PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Stanon, Umts I,2, I

and 3), Docket Not 54528, S529,54530. REQUEST f0R ACTION; August 12,1994, DIRECTOR'S l

DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 A

The Dwector of the OfEce of Enforcemcat demes a IVunon dated Fetwuary 1,1994, filed with the Nuclear Reguimory Commission (NRC) by Thonus J. Saporito, Jr., armi supplemented on May 18.1994, sequesung enforcement action pursuas so 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 (Petition). The Precios secuested the de NRC: (i) require a show<:ause procerang pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.202 to umdify. suspend, or sevoke she Uceasee's opervung bcenses far Palo Verde Genermung Stauon; (2)intiane "appropnate accons" so seguire the Ucensee to recognize the Bacieye Arizona Regional Othee of the Nanonal Winstleblower Center (Buc'd,e) as an agency to whidi Ucensee enployees may raise safety was about operanons at Palo Ver a rannout fear of setabanon by de Ucensee;(3) request the Ucensee so encourage employees l

at Alo Verde no contact Beckeye so idenufy safety concerns about operanons at Palo Verde to ensure a warning environment that is frce of hosubty and promotes the ransmg of safety concerns by employees

{l

without fear of retalianon, and (4) cause the Licensee to encourage employees at Palo Verde to contact the f

NRC to the same way as it would Buckeye.

B On May 18.1994, Peuuoner suppeememed las Pention ed sequested that the NRC seqmre Ucrasee

[

contractors so: (1) provide infonnation regardmg fihng comp arms with the Departnem of 14mr so shew t

j employees "as part of des morn.al ernployment package"; ard (2) properly pose the NRC Furm 3 in and l

around the contractor's place of business and sne business trailers and offices.

C Afur en evaluance of the Penuan, the Director concluded that Petiooner did not raise any issues that would warrant gianung the sequested actions.

l.

i i

+

w i

q l

4 4

3 j

13 1

5 l

f i

1 1

i ie

.-9p w--.-,-w

-.w-7..,

y

-y y

w

,,sw-.%-

,-r-.--

-m----

--+-e-r--

m-mwcwe-w.eW&h-6--

Nhe*'

l 4

I i

l l

l 4

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES i

l Adwaced Me& cal Systems, Inc. @ne Factory Row, Geneva, Ohic, 4404th C1J.94-6, 39 NRC 285, 308 (1994) burden on opponem of summary espontion; LBP-94-21,40 NRC 32 a 3 (1994)

Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 4404lL CLI-94-6, 39.NRc 285 312 (1994) agency escrenan in imposition of sanccons; LBP-9421,40 NRC 34 a 5 (1994)

Advanced Me& cal Syssesna. lac. (One Faciary Row, Geneva Otuo 44041L CLl-944, 39 NRC 285, 313

{l994)

NRC &scienonary authonty to imusu enforcemem procee&ngs; al-94-12,40 NRC 70 (1994)

Alles v. Wnghi, 468 U.S. 737. 756 (1984) demal of stan&ng whese injwy-an-fars is too speculaove; al-94-12, 40 NRC 72 (1994)

Aloha Anhnes, lac. v. CAB, 598 F.2d 250, 262 (D.C Car.1979) pkaang A+.- as enforcement procee&ngs; 12P-94-21. 40 NRC 30 (1994)

Anana Pubhc Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Umts I,2, and 3). CL P

NRC 149.155 (1991) j effect of corporate restructunng on (mancial quah6 canons to operate facihry safety; C13-9410,40 NRC 53 (1994)

Anana Pubhc Service Co. (Palo Verde Nackar Generanng Stanon. Units 2 and 3L ALAB-742,18 NRC 380. 383 (1983)

NRC pohey esfavonng imerlocutory seview; CU-94-il,40 NRC 59 (1994)

Arrned Forces Ra&otuology insutuse (Cobah40 Storage FacihtyL AIAB482,16 NRC 150,153-54 (1982) geograptue prourruty as basis for stan&ng to imervene; CLI-9&ll. 40 NRC 75 a 22 (1994)

Babcoi and Walcon Co. (Pennsylvana Nuckar Services Operations. Parks Townslup, Pennsylvama).

LBP-94-4. 39 NRC 47, 50 (1994) authonry to represem an organizanon for purpose of estabhslung standmg to intervene; LBP 9420,40 NRC 19 (1994) i Bana v. Carr. 369 U.S.186. 204 (1962) i juecial concepts of stan&ng appbed se NRC procee&ngs; CLI-94-12. 40 NRC 71 (1o94) l Bellotti v. NRC,725 F 2d 1380 (DC Cir.1983) imervent on an support of entaramear acuans, CLI-9412,40 NRC 39 (1994) scope of enfan:emem procee&ngs; CLI-9412,40 NRC 69 (1994)

Choctaw Nanon v. Cherokee Nation. 393 F. Supp. 224. 246 (E.D. Okla.1975) nverbed ownership claims of Indian Nanos for purpose of estabhslung stan&ng to imervene, LBP-94-19,40 NRC 14 n.19 (1994) l Cakens State Bank v. FDIC,751 F.2d 209. 213 (86 Cir.1984) j due process requiremens for enforcernent acuans, LBP-94-21, 40 NRC 30 (1994) j Cleveland Electne Illurrunanng Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit IL CLI-93 21,38 NRC 87. 92 j

I (1993) jud>cial concepts of stan&ng appbed in NRC procee&ngs; CU-94-10, 40 NRC 45 (1994L CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 72 (1994) sausfaccon of injury 4n-fact and zone-ofanierests tests for stan&ng to intervene; LBP-94-19, 40 NRC 14 (1994)

I 15 I

l

--..-.-..,.,n.,.._,,,

n,,,.n.n.,1.

i i

l l

t l

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES L

Cleveland Electnc Illununaung Co. (Perry Nuclear Orwer Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB-736,18 NRC 165, i

166 (1983) l heensing board refusal to disnuss a party frnen a procee&ng as tesis for interloculary appeal, Q19411,40 NRC 59 (19M)

Commonwealth Edaon Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Stanon. Umts I and 2) ALAB-817, 22 NRC 470 474 & nn.16-17 (1985) issuance of irnpuriant or novel decision as bans for imerlocutory appeal, CtJ-9411,40 NRC 63 1

(1994) j Conunonweakh L& son Co (Byron Nuclear Power Statmn Umts I and 2). ALAB-735.18 NRC 19. 2124 (1983)

I plea &ng requuenents for peonons for amerlocutory review; CLIWil,40 NRC 61 (1994)

Conunnnweahh E& son Ca (Zaon Stanon. Umts I and 2), ALAB-Il6,6 AEC 258. 259 (1973) conuminent of resources as arreparable impact for purpose of obtantung smerlocutory review; Q194-II,40 NRC 61 (1994)

Connecacut Bankers Associanon v. Board of Governors, 627 F.2d 245 (D C. Cir.19H0) factual support seqmred for adnussmn of comennons; CLI-94-10, 40 NRC 51 (1994)

Consohdated E& son Co of New York (Insan Pmni. Umts 1. 2. and 31, CL1-77-2, 5 NRC 13,14 (1977)

I burden on movant for interlocutory review; CLI-94-il. 40 NRC 61 (1994)

Consuners Power Ca (Midlarul Plant. Umes 1 and 2), ALAB-395, 5 NRC 772, 779 (1977) i nTeparable injury standard for grant of a stay; C119&9. 40 NRC 6 (1994)

Consuners Power Ca (Malland Plant. Umts I rM 2). CLl-74-3, 7 AEC 7,12 (1974) imervemma in support of enforcement orders; CLI %I2. 40 NRC 69 (1994)

Consuners Power Ca (Madiand Plant. Umts I and 2). LBP-8420.19 NRC 1285.1296 (1984) standad for ahmssmo of a new baut for a contention LEP-94-27, 40 NRC 105 (1994) test for hugable issees; LDP-94 22, 40 NRC 39 (1994) i Consuners Power Ca (Midland Plant. Umts I and 2). LBP-85-2. 21 NRC 24, 32 33,118 (1985), vacated as enoot. ALAB-842, 24 NRC 197 (1986) anservemma in support of enforcenes orders. CLI-9412. 40 NRC 69 (1994) i Consumers Power Co. (Palnades Nuclear Power Facihry). ALI-801,12 NRC 117,119-28 (1980)

&scovery of opinion porpons of NRC Staff documents; LBP426. 40 NRC 98 (1994)

Daar> land Power Cooperanvc (la Crose Bonhng Water Reactork LBPai0-26.12 NRC 367,374-75 (1980),

revew of cert &cd queumn. ALAB-618.12 NRC 551 (19t01 satervennon in support of enforcenrnt orders CLI-9412, 40 NRC 69 (1994)

Data Disc, Inc. v. Systerns Technology Associates. 557 F 2d 1280.1285 (9th Cir.1971) heenung board view of its omo juns&cton as basis he interkrutory revrw; CLIMil, da NRC 62 a 5 (1994)

Detrat Edson Ca (Greenwood Lnergy Center, Umts 2 and 3). ALAB-47t,7 NRC 570. 571 n.1 (1978) l effect of dectuon graramg miervennon on appealatuhty of earher unerlocutory deciuons; CLIMl2, 40 NRC 67 (1944)

Duke Power Co. v. Carohna Environnrntal Study Caoup. Inc., 438 U.S 59. 72 (1978) ju&cial concepts of stan&ng apphed in NRC proceedmgs; CLl#12. 40 NRC 78 (1994)

Duquesne Laglu Co (Beaver Valley Power Statmn. Uma 1) ALAB-109. 6 ALC 243, h4 (1973) weight gnen so bcenung board's stan&ng deternunatmns, C1JW10. 40 NRC 46 (1994)

EPA w. Mink. 410 U.S 73, 87-88 (1973) producten of Staff essenung professmnal opimons; LBPM26. 40 NRC 99 (1994)

Flonda Power and Light Co (St. Luce Nuclear Powet Plant, Umts I and 2). CLI-89-21,30 NRC 325, 329 30 (19897 stan&ng to meervene on baus of frequera contacts in area near nuclear facihty; CLJ#12,40 NRC 75 (1994)

Flanda Power and tagla Co (Turkey Pant Nuclear Generatmg Plant. Umts 3 and 4L ALAB-952, 33 NRC 521, 530 (1991) authonry to represent an orgaruzauon for purpose of estabbshmg stan&ng to intervene; LBPM20. 40 NRC 18 (1994) 16 l

l l

l t

l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES General Electnc Co. (Yallecitos Nuclear Center. General Dectric Test Reactor), LBP 78-33, 8 NRC 461 464 68 (1978) dscovery of Staff answers to questions concermag cre&bihty of its case; LDP 9026, 40 NRC 98 (1994)

Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Eleetne Generating Plant Umts I and 2A CLI-945, 39 NRC 190 (1994) cruena for grant of interkeutory seview; CL19411,40 NRC 60 (1994)

Gulf Stmes Utahtses Co. (River Bend Stanon Umt 1), CLI-nl0,40 NRC 43,47 48 (1994) wesghs given to hcensing board ruhngs on stan&ng to intervene; CLI-9&l2, 40 NRC 72 (1994)

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S 621, 831 (1985)

NRC dacrcuonary authonty to imtiate enforcement proceedags; CU-94-12,40 NRC 70 (1994)

Houston Ughtmg and Power Co (Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Station, Uma it ALAB-535,9 NRC 377, 389-400 (1979) demonstracon of injury-in-fact by organizanon seeking repesemational standing; Cl19412,40 NRC 73 (;994)

Houston Ughung and Power Co. (Allens Cnck Nuclear Genermung Staimn, Unit I), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 390$96 (1976) standird for estabbstung represemanonal stanang to intervene; LBP-9419. 40 NRC 15 n.25 (1994)

Houston Ugtumg and Power Co. (South Teams Project. Umts I and 2L ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644, 646 (1979) denenstranon of organitaimnat standmg in informal pacecengs; LBP 9420. 40 NRC 18 (1994)

Hurley Medical Cemer (One Hurley Plaza. Ihnt, Mactugan), AU-87 2. 25 NRC 219, 236-37 & n 5 (1987) scope of board authonty to take enforcemes acuons. LBP-9421, 40 NRC 30 (1994)

Kerr-McGee Ormical Corp (Kress Creek Decontarmnationk LBP.8618. 23 NRC 799, 802 (19tm) acuervenuon in support of enforcenem. orders: CU-9412, 40 NRC 69 (1994) l Kerr-McGee Cienucal Corp. (West Ctucago Rare Larths Facibry) ALAB-928, 34 NRC 263, 269 (1990) j showing arassary on success on-the-ments standard in abrnce of ureparable injury; CLI-949, 40 NRC 7 (1994) teng Island Lightmg Co (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon. Umt I), ALAB-773,19 NRC 1333,1341 (1984) burden on clamant of execunvc pivdege; LA%94-26, 40 NRC 98 a 11 (1994) lang Island uglumg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Powr Stauen. Umt in, ALAB-86;, 25 NRC 129.138-39 i

(1987) i commsunem of resources as arreparable impact for purpose of obtaimng interlocutory review-l CU-94-11,40 NRC 61 (1994) hmg Island Ughtmg Co. (Shoreham Nalear Power Station, Umt IL LBP 77-II, 5 NRC 481,484 (1977) authoney to repesent an orgmuranon for purpose of estabhshmg stan&ng to intervene; LDP-9420,40 NRC 19 (1994)

Img Island ughtmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stauon, Uma IL LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1844 l164

-(1982) produccon of Staff disseming professenal opmons; LBP-94-26, 40 NRC 99 (1994) long Island Ughtmg Co (Shoreham Nuclear Power Staima. Uma 1). LBP-82-82,16 N* 1144, lib 5 (1982) burden on clamant of executive pivilege; LBP-9426, 40 NRC 98 a il d994) les Angeles v. Lyons. 461 U S 95.105 (1983) demat of standing mhere an)ury-in. fact is too speculauve. CL1-9412,40 NRC 72 (1994)

Los Angeles v. Nanonal Highway Traffic Safety Adnumstratmn, 912 F.2d 478. 495 (D C. Cir.1990) grant of orgamzaconal stan&ng where injury has smaL chance of occurnng; CL1-9412. 40 NRC 74 n 19 t1994)

Lujan v. Defendrrs of Wildhfe,112 S. Ct. 2130. 2136 (1992) l anjury-in-fact standard for intervenuon in NRC procw&ngs; CLI-9&lo. 40 NRC 45 (1994) l ju&cial concepts of stan&ng apphed in NRC proceedings; CLI-9&l2, 40 NRC 72 (1994)

Metropolitaa E& son Co (Three Mde island Nuclear Stanon, Umt 1), CU B&l7, 20 NRC 801, HM (1984) mTeparable injury standard for grant of a stay; CU-949, 40 NRC 6 (1994) l 17 l

i i

i.

h l

l

(

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDD:

CASES Moog Industnes, !=

v. ITC. 355 U.S. 411, 413 (1958) l NRC escrenonary authonty to imuste enforcement procee&nFs; Cll-9412, 40 NRC 70 (1994) i Nanonal Waldhle Federanon v. Hodel, 839 F.2d 694, 7N (D C. Car 1988) demal of stan&ng where injury-in-fact is too speculauve; CLI-9412. 40 NRC 72 0994)

Northern States Power Co. (Pathfinder Atonnc Plant). LBP-90-3, 31 NRC 40. 45 (1990) geographic prourmty as taas for staa. ling to intervene; CLI-94-12,40 NRC 75 n.22 (1994)

Northern States Twer Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Genermung Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB-107,6 AEC 188. 193 (1973), aff'd on other grounds, CLI-7312. 6 AEC 241 (1973). aff'd sub nom. BPI v. Alf.

502 F.2d 424 (D C. Cir.1974) weight given to bcensing boarfs stan&ng arternunations; CLI-94-10. 40 NRC 46 0994)

Nuclear Engineenng Co. (Shefheld. Ilhnois. Low-level Ra.hoacuve Waste Disposa! Site). ALAB 473, 7 NRC 737 0978) intervemion in support of enforcemem act;:es. CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 68 (1994)

O'Shea v 12ttleton, 414 U S. 4R8. 494 0974) in)ury in-fact standad for stan&ng to imervene; CLI-94-12. 40 NRC 72 0994) l Oluo E& son Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Umt I). CL1-91-15. 34 NRC 269. 2710991).

l reconsuleration detued. CLI-92-6, 35 NRC 86 0992)

L l

forum for fahng stay of &scovery requests; CLI-94-9. 40 NRC 7 a.10994)

Ohio FAson Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Urut I). LBP-92-32. 36 NRC 269, 283 & n.27 0992) appheatukty on res ju&cata and collateral estoppel in NRC proceedings; LBP-94-21,40 NRC 30 n.1 0994)

Otuo Nanonal Lafe insurance Co. v. Umsed States. 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Car 1990) hcensmg board view of its own junsdicuon as basis for interlocutory review; CLI 94 il,40 NRC 62 a.5 0994)

[

Oncology Services Corp CLI-93-l). 37 NRC 419. 42G210993) cnrena for gram of imerlocuanry review; CLI-94-il. 40 NRC 60 (1994)

Oncology Services Corp, LBP-93-20. 38 NRC 130 135 n.2 (1993) l normssibthry of hearsay evidence m NRC procee&ngs. LBP-94-21. 40 NRC 310994) l Paci5e Gas and Elecine Co. (Deablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-504, 8 NRC l

406. 410 0 978) i NRC pohey &sfavorms amerlocutory review; CLI-94-II,40 NRC 59 0994)

Pacinc Gas and Ekctnc Co. fDiablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2). LBP 93-1, 37 NRC 5, 20 0 993) larmtauons on amendment of contenuons-LDP-94-22. 40 NRC 40 a 8 0994)

Pennsylvama Gas & Water Co v. FPC, 463 F.2d 1242.1246-47,1249-52 (D C. Crr.1972) ob)ecuans to settlemem orders; CLI-94-12. 40 NRC 71 a 10 0948) l Peuuon for Emergency and Reme&al Acuan. C1178-6. 7 NRC 400. 405 06 097tt) agency escrenon in chace of enforcement acuons. DD-94 8, 40 NRC 129 n 10994)

Pecuan for Shutdown of Certain Reactors, C1173-31, 6 AEC 1069.10710973) agency discrenon in clwmee of enforcement a-oons; DD-94-8. 40 NRC 129 a 1 (1994) c Portland General Electne Co (Pettle Spnngs Nuclear Plant. Umts I and 2), ALAB-273,1 NRC 492,494 0 975) meight gnen to hcensmg boar (s stanang determmanons; CLI-94-10, 40 NRC 46 0994)

Purtland General Dectne Co. (Pebble Spnngs Nuclear Plant. Umts I and 2). CLI-76-27. 4 NRC 610. 614 0 976)

Conumssaon authorrry to define scope of pubhe parucipanon in its procec&ngs; ClJ-94-12, 40 NRC 69 0 994)

Pubbe Service Co of In&ana (Marble }8P :'.iclear Generat:ng Stanon. Umts I and 2). ALAB-316. 3 NRC 167.170-710976) scope of bogable issues; CLI-94-10. 40 NRC 510994)

Pubhc Service Co of In&ana (Marble Hill Nuclear Genermung Stanon. Umts ! and 2), ALAB-405. 5 NRC 1190 0977) substamial injury standard for grant of interlocutory review; CLI-94-II, 40 NRC 62 0994) 18

i

)

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES l

l Pubhc Semce Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generaung Stauon. Umts I and 2), CLI-8410.11 l

NRC 438, 440 41 (1980) l Conession audianty to de6ne scope of publu: paractpauon in its proceedings; CL194-12. 40 NRC 69 (1994) l Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampslure (Seahrook Stamn. Umts I and 2), ALAB-858, 25 NRC 17, 21-22 (1987) comnutnrat of resources as nwparable impact for purpose of obtaming interlocutory review; Ct.1%II,40 NRC 61 (1994)

Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stauun, Umts I and 2). CL1-88-10, 28 NRC 573, 600 (1988) safety consideranons of heensce's haancial quah6 cations; CLIWlo, 40 NRC 48 (1944)

Pubhc Semce Co. of New Hampslure (Seabruok Station, Umts I ano 2). CLI-90w3. 31 NRC 219, 238 (1990) affd on other grounds sub nom. Massachusetts v. NRC, 924 F.2d 311 (D C. Car ), cert. demed.

112 S. C1275 (1991) l weight given to irreparable in)ury standard for grant of a stay; C119&9, 40 NRC 7 (1994)

Renegotianon Board v. Bannercraft Co., 415 U.S. I. 24 (1974) ureparable injury standard for gram of a stay; C1J-909, 40 NRC 6 (1994)

Sacramento Mumcipal Vuhty Distries (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generarmg Stanon), CLI-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 56 i

(1992) econonne interests protected under Nauonal Esmronnental Pohey Act; LBP-9419, 40 NRC 14 n.21 (19%)

standmg requiremems in informal proceedags; LBP-94-20, 40 NRC 18 (1994) i Sacramento Mumcipal Unbry Distnet (Randm Seco Nuclear Generating Stanon), CLI-94-2, 39 NRC 9L 93 1

(1994)

NRC pohey disfavonng interlocumry review, CLIhlt 40 NRC 59 (1994)

Safety Laght Corp. (Bloomsburg Sue Decimaanunanon and License Renewal Denials), C1192-13, 36 NRC

79. 89-90 (1992)

Board authority so consohdase issues. C1J410, 40 NRC 51 (1994)

Safety Light Corp. (Bloomsburg Site Decontaitunarmn), ALAB-934. 31 NRC 350, 361 (1990) heensmg tmard vrw of its own junsdicuan as basis for imerlocutory seview; CLIWil, 40 NRC 60 (19*4)

Safety taght Corp (Bloomsburg Site Decontanunatmn), CtJ 92-9, 35 NRC 156 (1992) junsdicuonal issues as bass for tuerlocutory review; CLJull. 40 NRC 63 (1994)

Siegel v AEC, 400 F 2d 778. 783 (D C. Cir 1968)

Staff authonry to utihze radiapon exposure incident as basis for suspension and moda6 canon of byproduct matenal hcense; LEPM21. 40 NRC 28.1994)

Simon v. Eastern Kenrucky Welfare Rights Orgamzauon. 426 U.S 26. 38, 43 (1976) redressabihty standard for standmg to amervere. CLl412,40 NRC 76 (1994)

Snuth v FTC, 403 F. Supp 10rx).1016 (D Del 1975) burden on claimam of esecuuve pnytlege; LBPM26,40 NRC 98 n 11 (1994)

Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensmg Proceedmgs. C181-8,13 NRC 452, 456-57 (1981) cntena for grant of imerlocutory revrw; CLI%il. 40 NRC 60 (1994)

Toledo EAson Co (Davis Besse Nuclear Power Stauon. Umts 1. 2. and 3). ALAB 385, 5 NRC 621 (1977) aneparable injury standard for grant of a stay; CLIM9. 40 NRC 7 (1994)

Unma Electne Co (Callaway Plant. Umts I and 21, LBP-78-31. 8 NRC 366, 368 (1978), aff'd.

ALAB-527. 9 NRC 126 (1979) imervenuon in support of enforcemem orders; C1J 94-12,40 NRC 69 (1994)

Valley Forge Qinstian College v Amencans Umied for Separanon of Church and State,454 U.S. 464.

472 (1982) demal of stand.ng where mjury-sa-fact is too speculauve; CLI94-12, 40 NRC 72 (1994) 1 1

19 l

i

1 l

l r

l l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Vrgima Decnic and her Co (North Anna hw Statwn, Umts I ami 2L ALAB-146,6 ALC 631, 633-34 (1973) bean' pebey on contenuon phidmg imperfections; ISP419,40 NRC 15 (1994)

Vugima Dectne and her Co. (North Anna ha Stauun. Umts I and 2), ALAB 146, 6 ALC 631. 634 (1973) anendment of amervennon petiuons to cure defects; LBP-94-20,40 NRC 20 a 3 (19W) j Virguna Electne and her Co. (North Amia Mer Stanon. Umts I and 2L ALAB-522,9 NRC 54,57 n5 (1979) weight ghen to Lcensmg board's standing deternunauons; CLI-9410, 40 NRC 46 (1994)

Virgima Ekctnc and her Co (North Anna Mer Stanon, Units I and 2), ALAB-741,18 NRC 371, 378 a.Il (1983) 1 potenrtal for delay and increased expeme as irreparable impact for purpose of obtaimng interlocutory I

revrw; CLI-9411,40 NRC 64 (194)

Vuguus Petroleum Jobbe s Ass'n v. Federal her Comnussion, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D C, Cir.1958) ureparable injury standard for grant of a stay; CLI-94-9. 40 NRC 6-7 (1994)

%1utmore v. Arkansas,495 US 149,158-59 (1990) detual of standmg whue injury-in-fact is too speculauve: CLJ 04-12, 40 NRC 72 (1994)

Wilderness Socrty v. Gnles. 824 F.2d 4. II (D.C. Dr.1987) nature of snjury aceded to estabbsh standmg to intervene; CLI-9410, 40 NRC 47 (1994) i l

l i

j 1

20

l l

l t

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS W

k 10 Cf.R. 2.202 interwnuon in support of enforcemes artme; CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 67 (1994); CU-94-13, 40 NRC 79 i

(1994) i Staff authony to unha rahation expost.e incides as basis for suspension and mudincanon of byproduct matenal beense; LBP 94-21,40 NRC 29 (1994) 10 CfA 2.202(aXI) basis for Staff enforcenra acuans; LEP-94-21,40 NRC 28,29 (1994) 10 CFA 2.203 hcensing board review of settlement agreenents; LBP-94-28, 40 NRC 117,118 (1994) psendmg officer's responsdahry to teview seulemens agreemems; CU-94-12,40 NRC 71 (1994) 3 i

l 10 CFA 2.701(c)

/

compleuon daie for filings; LBP 94-20,40 NRC 20 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(a) imervemion in surport of enforcement achons; CU.94-12, 40 NRC 68 (1994); LBP-94-19,40 NRC l(Lil (1994)

R 10 CIA 2.714(aWI) 3

/

imerveanon nghts in suppon of Staff enfortemes order; 2P-94-19,40 NRC 12 a.7 (19M) standards for orgamzauonal or,y._

a : stan&ng to imervene; LEP-94-19, 40 NRC 11 (1994) i-sest for hogable issues; LBP-94-22, 40 NRC 39 (1994) 10 CIA 2714(bX2) and (dK2) 3 standards for shrussible consentions; C11-94-10, 40 NRC $1 (1994) 10 C.FA 2.714(bX2)6i) disclosure sequireness for contennom bases, GP-94-22,40 NRC 39 e6 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(dX2Xii)

Staff authonty to " defense" issues; LSP-94-21, 40 NRC 33 a.4 (1994) 10 Cf,R. 2.714(f) conachdanon of imervenors' briganon presentauons; LBP-94-19,40 NRC 15 a.28 (19941 10 Cf A 2 714a appeal of board desernunanon on imerventmo rights in support of Staff enforcement order, LBP-94-19, o

40 NRC 11 se2 (1994) appeal of uservenuon ruhngs; CU-94-10, 40 NRC 45 (1994); CU-9412, 40 NRC 66 (1994)-.

l CU-94-13. 40 NRC 78 (1994) effect of decinos granung imervemion on appenlainhty of carher inr slocutory decisions; CU-94-12,40 l

NRC 67 (1994) l NRC pohey disfavonng inserlocutory nview; GL94-il, 40 NRC $9 (1994) 10 CIA 2.714a(s) appeals of imervenuon ruhngs; LBP-94-19,40 NRC 16 (1994) l 10 CIA 2.716 Board authonty to consohdate issues; (2.1-94-10, 40 NRC $1 (1994) 10 CIA 2.718 f

hcensing board authonry to adnut new basis for a contemwn; LBP-94 22, 40 NRC 39 (1994);

{

LBP-94-27,40 NRC 105 (1994) 1 21 4

l 1

l l

I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RECT'LATIONS 10 Cf.R. 2 7186) l imerlocutory appeal based on junasenonal questmn; CLI 9611, 40 NRC 59 (1994) 10 CF R. 2.720(hX2Xis) standard for requinng Staff answers to interrogaiones; LBP-9&26, 40 NRC 95 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 2.730 i

stay of &acovery: CLJM9,40 NRC 4 (1994) 10 Cf R. 2.73(Na) forum for 6 hag stay of escovery requests; CLIM9, 40 NRC 7 n.1 (1994) 10 Cf R. 2.730tf) referral of ruimg that affects base structure of procee&ng; CLI-9&l2,40 NRC 67 (1994) 10 C F.R 2.730fg) effect of fibng a monon for ceruhcauon of a quesuon on status of a procee&ng; CLI-94-9. 40 NRC 5, 6 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 2.732 bur &n on snovant for interlocutory renew: CLl#11,40 NRC 61 (1994) 10 Cf R. 2.740(bMI) producnon of pubhcly available documents; LBP-9&26, 40 NRC 98 (1994) 10 Cf R 2.740(c) depouuon of all person. LEP-94-24. 40 NRC B4-85 (1994) hcensing board authonry to manage escovery; CLJ-949,40 NRC 7 (1994) 10 Cf R. 2.740b(a) standard fa requinng Staff answers to meerrogarones; LBP *&26, 40 NRC 95 (1994) 10 Cf A. 2742

[

Board nearment of NRC Staff requests for adnussions; IEPM26, 40 NRC "5 (1994) l interpretanon relanve to special neatmem of Staff admissic LBPM26, 40 NRC 96 (1994) 10 Cf R. 2.7444d) l standard for requinng Staff an wers to imerrogatones; LBPN26, 40 NRC 95 (1994) 10 Cf R.1771 standards for a monon for reconuderanon; LBPM31,40 NRC 139 (1951) 10 Cf R. 2 7fWa) 6aahry of deciuon when Comnusuon dechnes renew; LBPM29,40 NRC '24 (1994) 10 Cf R 2.786(g)

Comnusson 4screnonary authonry to renew heenung board imerlocutory orders;."LIMII,40 NRC l

60 (1994) revww of referred ruhng that rmght affect the bauc structure of a procceang; CLl#12, 49 NRC 67 (1994) 10 C F R. 2.7fwgNIL C) unerlocutory appeal based on juriuhetnwial quesuon. CLI9411. 40 NRC 59 (1994) standard for smerlocutory review, CLI-94-il,40 NRC 59 (1994; 10 C F R. 2 7884e) standards for a stay; CLl#9. 40 NRC 5, 6 (1994) 10 Cf R. Part 2. Appendia C. IV & a5 i

vanauon in pubhc health and safety signi6cance of hcen e condmons; LBPM21, 40 NRC 33 (1994) 10 Cf R. Pari 2, Apperubs C, IV B. IV C evaluanon of safety sagiu6canx of hcense violanons; LBPM21. 40 NRC 33 (1994) 10 C.F R 21205fdxg) j ju&cial requirements for stan&ng in informal proceedmgs; LilP-94-20, 40 NRC 18 (1994)

I 10 Cf R. 3518 basis for suspension or mo&6 canon of byproduct matensi heense; LDPM21, 40 NRC 29 (1994) 10 Cf R. 50.3Nfh2) 6nancial quah6 canons consideration for transfer of operaung authonty, CL1-94-10, 40 NRC 48 (1994) 10 Cf R 50.59 safety evaluanon requiremems for wolauon of Technical Speci6 cations-LBP-9427, 40 NRC 109 (1994) 22

)

l l

i I

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX i

REGULATIONS 1

i 10 CJ R. 50 80

.l mfer of operanons control; CLIM10. 40 NRC 45 (1994) l

)

i 5

I F

I f

U 1

l i

i 1

l l

l t

i l

i i

I f

1 1

i i

(

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l

STATUTES 4

t I

f Aionne Energy Act.103b. 42 U.S C 5 2133(b) raiological injury to propeny as tesis fw stan&ng to imavene; CLI-94-IO. 40 NRC 48 (1994) l Aaonne Energy Act,161b 42 U.S.C 5 2201(b) ra&ological injury to propeny as baus for stan&ng to intervene; CLI-94-10,40 NRC 48 (1994)

Staff authonty so unhze raesuco exposure incidete as basis for suspension and moaficauon of f

byproduct rnaienal heense; LBP M 21. 80 NRC 28. 29-30 (1994)

Anne Energy Act.161c. 42 U.S.C 6220l(c) g Comerisson authonry to hold beanags on enfwcement accons; C1,1-94-I2,40 NRC 69 (1994) i l

Anonne Energy Act. 8%. 42 U.S C.1220l(4 Staff authonry to utihar ra&ation esposure incident as basis for suspension and nmxh6 canon of byproduce natenal bceme; UIP-94-21,40 NRC 28, 29-30 (1994)

Asenue Energy Act,186a. 42 U.S C 12236(s)

Comnussion authonty to sevoke or suspend a hcense; LBP-94-21, 40 NRC 28 (1994) l Atonne Energy Act,189a. 42 U.S C 5 2239(a) heanng nghts on operaung bwnse amendments; CL1-9410, 40 NRC 47 (1994)

Alon=c Energy Act,189a(l) 42 U.S C 6 2239(a)(1) intervennon in support of enforcement actens; CU-94-12. 40 NRC 68,69 (1994); LBP-94-19,40 NRC i2 a.7 (19'1)

Aeonue Energy Act. 234. 42 U.S C 5 2282 hcenung board review of seulemem agreemeus; LBP-94-28, 40 NRC 117.118 (1994)

I i

i 1

4 1

i l

.-~..

...... ~. _

l i

i I

l 4

i I

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTilERS i

i r

Am Jur. 2d 22, Motions, Rules, an' Orders $ 27 (1971) reargumem er retrarms of a moten, standard fu grant of a request for; LBP-94 31,40 NRC I40 (1994)

% Am. Jur. 24 Sapp. 24-25 l

monons to tenew versus exmans for reconsiderauco; LBP-94-JI 40 NRC 140 a.1 (1994) l Fed R. Cav. P. 36 imerpretanon of 10 CFA 2.742 relative so special treamma of Staff adnessions; LBP 94-26,40 NRC i

96 (1994) beest Calhare and Wi!!ima F. Robinson, Jr., Surnary Judgrrent in Administrative Adjudication, 84 Harv.

7' L Rev 612 (1971), at 613 r

de6ainos of collateral facts; LBP-94-31,40 NRC 141 (1994) 7 2A James W. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Pracuce 112.07[2.-11 at p.12 54, and 112.07[2.-2] at pp.

~

1249 to 12-70 (2d ed.1994) d' deternunation of subject snaner junsdscuos whca facts presented give rise so factual controsersy; h

CU.94 7, 40 NRC 62 a5 (1994)

SA James W. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice 152.08 at pp.52-156 to 52-157 (2d ed 1993)

'D F

l CU.94-7,40 NRC 62 s.5 (1994)

~

?

desernunaten of subject maner jmisdicnon when facts presemed give rise to factual controversy; i

~

t l

5 i

I 2

l i

l l

9 6

l l

U l

r

.r

I 5

l j

SUBJECT INDEX 1

1 t

l AGREEMDfTS voluntary, on depoumon of ill person; LBP-94-24, 40 NRC 83 (1994) a l

ML20080E436

Text

Navigation menu

Search