ML20082F368
| ML20082F368 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1995 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V40-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V40-I2, NUDOCS 9504120101 | |
| Download: ML20082F368 (40) | |
Text
....
NUREG-0750 Vol. 40 Index 2
~,s,
-,.,y,,.
gzemm,,,,
?$
' E
- jj j.
INDEXES TO l J F
NUCLEAR REGULATORYT
/
3 li
' COMMISSION ISSUANC$Eil =
d
~
4 h'
. * ~%
' jn!
/
~ '4Jijly - December 1994
- l
%mm s
v
.2 p
48 REGfj 3
- ^
' O
(
t q
Q s :.
?
g o
+
o p
g
,g y
s O
q%
~
' p A
%e
=
ea
??j "3:3 $:.
- 4..
y-.
v
.v R
gg o
s-U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM-MISSION 9504120101 950331 PDR NUREG 0750 R PDR 2
+-4m s>
r B
,:l '
c'
.t 4
Available from i
?:
Superintendent of Documents i
U.S. Government Printing Office
' l P.O. Box 37082 Washington, DC 20402-9328 i
A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.
I Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service
. i Springfield, VA 22161 l
l i
I i
i i
l t
i i
t i
I Errors in this publication may be reported to the
}
Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services i
Office of Administration l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301/415-6844) 1
' l l
.l b
u
i J
t NUREG-0750 i
Vol. 40 Index 2 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY i
COMMISSION ISSUANCES i
t July - December 1994 1
1 a
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 (301/415-6844) 1
.I
_e L
Foreword i
Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ),
the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking i
(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:
l" Case name (owner (s) of facility) l' Full text reference (volume and pagination) l Issuance number l
Issues raised by appellants l
Legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes)
J Name of facility, Docket number i
Subjet 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.
- 2. Digests and lleaders The headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows:
the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP),
the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
'Ihe header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hearing, date of issuance, and type of issuance.
The digest is a brief narrative cf 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
t l
- 3. Legal Citations Inder j
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 l
of the citation it is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance.
The references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular issuance. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text j
reference.
i
- 4. Subject Index l
Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues j
and subjects covered in the issuances. De subject headings are followed by phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the j
issuances being indexed. These phrases are followed by the issuance number l
and the full text reference.
l
- 5. Facility Index l
De index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from i
the issuance. The name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date, type of issuance, issuance number, and full text reference.
i i
i I
i iv f
i 6
f a
i I
~
1 1
5 CASE NAME INDEX ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY REQUI ST FOR ACTION; DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R 5 2.206, Docket Nos. 54528, 54529, 54530; DD-948. 40 NRC 127 (1994)
BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTfiUTE COLUMBUS OPERATIONS REQUEST FOR AGION, DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. 5 2 206, Docket No. 70-08; DD-94 l1. 40 NRC 359 (1994)
CAMEO DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE, INC.
ENFORCLMENT; DECISION (Granung NRC Staff Monon for Summary Digmsitwn). Docket No.
3429567 ChP (ASLBP No. 9468601-CivP) (Byproduct Matenal License No 20 27908-01) (EA 93-005). LBP-9434, 40 NRC 169 (1994)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, et al.
REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2 206; Docket Nos. 50 325.
50-324, DD-94-9, 40 NRC 159 (1994)
CHEMETRON CORPORATION MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMEti; Mt'MORANDUM AND ORDLR (Request for Hennng);
Dixket No. 40 8724-MLA f *.aLBP No 94495-01-MLA) (Source Matenal License No. SUB-1357);
LDP 9420, 40 NRC 17 '4994s MATERIALS LICENSE A vlLNDMLNT; MLMORANDUM AND ORDfR (Motmn to Disnuss 1
Proceeding). Docket No. 4&B72&MLA (ASLBF No. 9&695-0.LMLA) (Source Matenal License No.
I SUB-1357), LBP-94-30,10 NRC 135 (1994)
DR. JAMES E. BAUER I
r ENFORCLMENT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Prediscovery Dispossove Mouansh l
}
Docket No. IA 94411 U.SLBP No. 94-69645-EA); LBP-9440, 40 NRC 323 (1994) j LNERGY IUELS NUCLEAR. int.'
M ATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT: MI.MORANDUM AND ORDER (Peution for Hearmg);
1 Docket No. 40-8681-MLA 3 (ASLBP No. 94-693-02 MLA 3) (Source Masenals License No SUA 1358); !.BP-9433, 46 NRC 151 (1994) j REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. 5 2 206; Docket No. 40 8681 1
(License No. SUA 135ft); DD-94-10. JO NRC 353 0994) i GEORGIA POWLR COMPANY. et al.
i OPLRATING LICLNSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3, 50-425 OLA 3; CL1-9415, 40 NRC 319 0994) l OPERATING LICENSE AMLNDMLNT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDIR (Mouun to Accept Additional i.
Factual Haus); Docket Nos 50-42&OLA-3. 50-425 OLA-3 (ASLDP No. 93-671-01 OLA-3) (Re:
l-banse Anrndment; transfer to Southern Nuclear); LDP-94-22, 40 NRC 37 (1994)
OPLRATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Deposition of Mr. Ball Shipmant Docket Nos 54424-O!A-3, 54425 OLA-3 (ASLDP No 93-671-01 OlA-3) (Re: License i
l Amendnrnt; Transfer to Southern Nuclear). LDP 9424, 40 NRC 83 (1994) i i
OPERATING LICENSL AMLNDMENT; MLMORANDUM AND ORDER (Staff Responses to l
Inicrvenor's Fast Request for Admisuons. Second Sci of Intermgahries). Docket Nos. 50-42&OIA-3, 54425-OLA-3 (ASLBP No. 91671-01 OLA-3) (Re: License Anendnent; Transfer to Southern j
Nucleart LBP 9426, 40 NRC 910994)
OPE RATING LICENSE AMLNDMENT: MLMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to Accept I
Addmonal f actual Bans); Dmket Nos 50-42&OLA 3, 50-425-OLA-3 (ASLBP No. 93-671-01-Of.A-3)
)
(Re. License Anwndmeni, Transfer to Southern Nuclear); LBP 94-27. 40 NRC 103 (1994) i t
I l
t e
e P
1 1
1 1
1 l
)
CASE NAME INDEX OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motion for Reconsideranon.
Adnussions; Second Order); Docket Nos. 50 42&OLA 3, S425 OLA4 (ASLBP No.
9167101 OLA-3) (Re: Ucense Amendnwnt, Transfer so Southern Nuclear); LBP-9431,40 NRC 137 (1994)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Summary Disposiuon:
Illegal Transfer Allegation), Docket Nos. 50 424-OLA-3, 50-425-OLA-3 (ASLBP No.
93 67841 O!A-3) (Re: License Amendment; Transfer to Southern NucIcar); LDP-9437,40 NRC 288 (19941 GULF STATES tmLITIES COMPANY, et al.
OPfRATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND OkDER; Dockt..t No 50-458-OLA:
CLI 9410, 40 NRC 43 (1994)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY REQUEST IDR AGION; DIRILTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R.12.206; Docket Nos. 50-498, 50 499; DD 94-13, 40 NRC 377 (1994)
INDIANA REGIONAL CANCER CENTER ENFORCEMINT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Pre &scovery Disposieve Monons);
lbcket No. ON30485-EA (ASLBP No. 94-68542-EA) (EA 93-284) (Order Mo&fying and Suspenang Byproduct Matenal Ucense No. 37-28179 01), LBP-94-21, 40 NRC 22 (1994)
ENIORCEMENT, MEMOEtANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Disnussing Proceedang); Docket No. OW30485-EA (ASLBP No. 94-68002-EA) (EA 91284) (Order Modifymg and Suspending Byproduct Matenal Ikense No. 37-28179-01); LBP-94-36, 40 NRC 283 (1994)
INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE ENIORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Appmung Settlemes Agreement and Terminatmg Procec&ng); Docket No. 030 09792-CivP (ASLBP No. 9&689-02-CisP) (LA 93-111) (Bypmduct Marenal License No. ILO2752-08); LBP-9428, 40 NRC 117 (1994)
Kell! E HINDS ENFORCFMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approvmg Settlemeni Agreement and Disnussing Procec&ng); Docket No. IA 94-Ol2 (ASLBP No 9&o97-06-EA); LBP 9432, 40 NRC 147 (1994)
LOUISlANA ENERGY SERVICES. L.P MATIRIALS LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockre No. 70-3070-ML (ASLBP No.
9164102-ML) (Special Nuclear Matenal Ucense); LBP 94-38, 40 NRC 309 (1994)
NUCLFAR SUPPORT SI:RVICES, INC.
ENIORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Appmving Settlemes Agreement and Ternunating Proceeding); Docket No. EA 93-236 (ASLDP No 94692-05-EA); LBP-94-25,40 NRC 88 (1994)
ONCOLOGY SERVICES CORPORATION ENFORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Disnuning Proceedmg); Docket No. 0%31765-EA (ASLBP No. 93-674-0AEA) (EA 93-006) (Order Suspeneng Byproduct Matenal Ucense No.
37-28540-01), LBP-9429, 40 NRC 123 (1994)
PACII'IC GAS AND ELifrRIC COMPANY OPERATING LICIESE AMENDMLNT; INmAL DECISION (Comtruenon Penod Recovery / Recapture);
Docket Nos. 50-275-OLA-2, %323-OLA-2 ( ASLBP No. 92-669-OLOIA-2) (Construcuon Period Recovery) (Tacihty Operstmg Ucense Nos. DPR-HO, DPR-82); LBP-9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
ROBERT C. DA!!I.Y ENIORCEMENT: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Ternunarmg Proceedmg); Docket No. IA 944X)1 (ASLBP No 9&6910&EA); LBP 9425,40 NRC 88 (1994)
ROSEMOUNT NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS, INCORPORATLD (formerly Rosemount. Incorporated)
REQUEST I-OR ACTION DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. 5 2.206; Docket No.
99900271; DD-94-12, 40 NRC 370 (1994)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT DLCOMMISSIONING. ORDER; Docket No 50-312-DCOM (Decomnussiomng Plan): CLl44-14, 40 NRC 133 (1994)
DLCOMMISSIONINC REMAND, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ternunaung Procec&ng) Docket No S312-DCOM R (ASL.BP No 91677 01-DCOM R) (Decomnusuotung Plan) (Farihty Operating Uceme No. DPR 54L LBP-9423,40 NRC 81 (1994) 2
CASE NAME INDEX SAEE'IY LIGHT CORPORATION, et al.
ENEORCEMINT; ORDER (Approving Senlemens Agreenem and Ternunating Procecengsr. Docket Nos. 03405980-OM&OM-2, 030 05981-OM&OM-2. 03405982-OM&OM 2, 03408335-OM&OM-2, 03008444-OM&OM-2, 030 0596ML&MI 2. 030-05982 ML&MI 2, 030 05980-EA. 030-05982 EA (ASI.SP Nos. 89-590-01-OM, 94598-01-OM 2, 92-659-01-ML,92-664 02-MI 2,93-675 MEA);
SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION MATERIALS 1.lCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Motmn for Reconsideration); Docket No. 448027-MLA 3 (ASLBP No. 94-700-04-MLA-3) (Source Matenals
- 1) cense No. Sub 1010); LBP-9&39. 40 NRC 314 (1994)
SEQUOYAH IULIS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS ENIORCINENT; ORDER, Docket No. 40 8027-EA (Decontanunation and Decomnusuomng isnding);
CLI-94-9, 40 NRC I (1994)
ENIORCLMLNT; ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR INTERIDCUTORY REVIEW AND/OR MOTION TOR DIRECTE1, CERTIEICATION; Docket No. 40 8027-EA (Decontaminatmo and Decomnussiomng funding); CLI-94 il, 40 NRC 55 (1994)
ENIORCEMINT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Ducket No. 40 8027-EA (Decontanunation and Decommissiomng Fun &ng); CLI-9&l2,40 NRC 64 (1994)
ENIORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 448027-EA (Decontanunatmn and Deconmussiomng I' mbug): CLi-9413, 40 NRC 78 (1994) v LNFORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 448027 EA (ASLBP No.
9068441-LA) (Source Maienal License No. SUB-1010) (Decontanunation and Decomrnissiomng fun &ng); LDP-9419,40 NRC 9 (1994) 3
, - - _ ~.
I r-l-
l l.
l 8
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CLI M 9 SLQUOYAH FUEL 3 CORPORATION and GENLRAL ATOMICS (Gore Oklahoma Site). Docket No 448027-EA (Decontanunanon and Decomnussionmg Funding). ENFORCEMLffli July 21,1994.
1 ORDER i
l A
The Comnussion denies General Atonues' monon seekmg to stay discovery in this proceethng until (1) the Comnussion determines whether it will grant General Atomics' Petitmn for Review of LBP-94-17 and/or Monon for Directed Cert 2ficatmn; and (2) assunung that the Comnussmn grants the Petinon% tion, the Comrnission deternunes wuh finahty the junsdictmnal issues raised in General Atonues' prevmusty filed Monon for Summary Disposilmn or for an Order of Disnussal B
Where a party nles a stay monon wah the Comnussmn pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.730 (which contains no stamlards by which to decide stay rmmons), the Commission will turn for guidance to tfw general stay standards in sectmn 2.788.
j C
tuierf acutory appeals or peutmns to the Commissmo are not devices for delaying or halting licensing j
board proceedings. The sinngens four-pan standard set forth in sectmn 2.788(e) makes a difhcult for a 7
pany to obtain a stay of any aspect of a heemmg board proceedmg Therefore, only in unusual cases should j
the mirmal discovery and other processes be delayed pendmg the outcome of an appeal or peuuon to the Comnussion. Cf.10 C F R. I 2.730ig),
D The Comnussmn ducs not consider the incurrence of hugation expenses to constuute irreparable injury in the contesi of a stay decision. " Mere heigation expense, even substantial and unrecoupable cost, does aos consurute irreparable injury." Metropohtan Ed son Co. (Three Male Island Nuclear Station. Unit 1). Cl.I#17, 20 NRC 801, 804 (1984), quosmg Consunwrs Power Co. (Mid!and Plant Umts I and 2),
j ALAB-395. 5 NRC 772,779 (1977), in t= n quotmg ReneFouation Board v. Bannercraft Co.,415 U.S. I, i
i 24 (1974). "[Ilnjunes, however substanual. in terms of rmmey, tmr and energy necessanly expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough" to render an injury irreparable. %rgima Petroleum Jebbers Ass'n v.
Federal Power Conmusamn, 239 F.2d 921,925 (D C. Cir 1958). Accord Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse m
Nuclear Power Stanon. UnHs I. 2, and 3), ALAll 385,5 NRC 621 (1977t E
Were a party subjected to overly burdensome discovery, the beensing board has full authonty to prevent or modify unreanonable escovery demands 10 C.F R. 4 2.740(c),
4 1
F Under normal circumstances, monons for a stay of discovery should be hied wuh the beensmg board rather than the Comnussion See 10 C F R. I 2.730(a).
G The Comnussmn has the authonry to exercise us "mherent supervisory powers over adjudientory pmcec&ngs" and to address the stay monon itself, rather than cuher disnnas it or refer it to the licensing board-Ohio Easim Co (Prrry Nuclear Power Plant Umt 1), CLI-91-15, 34 NRC 269, 271 (1991),
reconsideratmn demed. CL I-92-6. 35 NRC N6 (1992),
H ineparable injury is the most imponant of the four factors set forth in secuan 2.78H(e). Pubhc Semce Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station. Umts 1 and 2), CLIM3, 31 NRC 219, 258 (1990),
j aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Massadmsetts v. NRC,924 F.2d 311 (D C. Cir 1 cert denied,112 S. Ct.
j 275 (1991). Comequently, where a movant (as here) fails to show irreparable harm, then it must make an overwhelming showmg that it is hkely in succeed on the nrnts. See, e g., Kert-McGee Chenne.al Corp.
(West Chicago Rare Earths beihty) ALAB 928,31 NRC 263. 269 (19W))(absent a showing of irreparable harm novant must demonstrate that the reversal of the hcensing board is a " virtual certainty")
- l
)
5
)
- l 1
4 4
m.~
6 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t.
l The imponance and novelty of sigmhcant jurisdictional issues of first impression are, in and of themselves. Insufhcient to jusufy a stay. Cf. Kerr-McGee Chenucal Corp. (West Chscago Rare Earths Facihty), ALAB-928,31 NRC 263,270 (1990).
J Where the party seeking a stay has failed to meet its burden on tir two most important factors (irreparable injury and hkehhood of success on the meritst the Comnussion need not give lengthy consideration to de other two factors (pubisc interest and harm to other parhcst Kerr-McGee Chenucal Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths racihty), ALAB-928,31 NRC 263,270 (1990).
K The nere pouibihty that a stay would save other panies frorn incurnng sigmhcant htigation expenses is insufRcient to offset de movant's failure to demonstrase irreparable mjury and a strong hkehhood of success on the nrnts.
CLI.94-10 GULF STATES U'!!LITIES COMPANY, et al (Raver Bend Stahon. Unit ik Docket No,50 458-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 23,1994. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Conmussion considers the appeal of a Urensing Board decision. LBP-94-3,39 NRC 310994),
whn:h granted a request for intervemion and for hearing on two apphcanom subnutted by the Gulf States Utihties Company (GSU). la one apphcation. GSU sought to transfer its operating control over the River Bend nuticar power plant to a new heensee. GSU's second applicanon sought a heense amendnrnt to reflect a change in the ownership of GSU The Comnussion desues the appeal and afhrms the Ucensmg Board's order, findmg that the Pentioner has met the threshold requirements for stan&ng and an adnussible contennon.
B To deternune whether a petinoner has alleged the requasite interest to intersene, the Commission i
apphes judicial concepts of stan&ng.
i C
Fw staner.g. a petiooner must allege a concrete and paniculanzed injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and hkely to be redressed by a favorable decimon.
D la the abwnce of a clear nusapphcanon of the facts or nusunderstandirig of law, the Licensing Board'sjudgarnt at the pleading stage that a party has crossed the stan&ng threshold is entitled to substannal deference.
E The Atonne Energy Act authonzes the Comnussion to accord pmiection from radiological injury to tmth health and propeny interests. See AEA. Il103b,16lb. 42 U.S C. Il213.hM 220l(b).
F Comnussion regulations recograze that underfunding can affect plant saferv Under 10 C.F R.
6 50.33(fX2A apphcants - with the excephon of electric unhhes - seeking te operate a facihty must demonstrate that they possess or have reasonable assurance of obtaimng the sunds necessary to cover esumated operahon costs for the penod of the beense. Behind the Anancial quahhcations rule is a safety rauonale.
G Comnussion regulanons mandate that a contenuon mclude a specibe statenent of the issue of law or fact to be raued or controvened, a bnef esplananon of the bars of tir cemtention, and a concise staienent of the alleged facts or expert opimon that suppon the contenuon. together with references to those specific sources and docunent on which de pennoner miends to rely to prove the contennon. The petismner must also demomtrate that a genume dispute exists with the apphcant on a matenal issue of law or fact.
H At the contention hhng stage the factual suppon necessary to show that a genuine dispute exists need not be in formal evidennary form nor be as strong as that necessary to withstand a sununary disposihon monon.
CU 94-11 SLQUOYAH FULLS CORPORATION and GENER AL ATOMICS (Gore, Oklahoma Site). Docket No. 448027-EA (Decontanunacon and Decomnussiomng,Fundmg); ENFORCEMENT; August 23. 1994; ORDER DENYING PETTTION FOli INTERLOCLTORY REVIEW AND/OR MOTION FOR DIRECTID CERT!IlCATION A
General Atonuts ("GA") hied with the Comnusuon a pleaang styled " Pennon for Review and/or Motion for Directed Cernhcation" of an interlocutory order (LBP-94-17,39 NRC 359 (19940 issued by the Ucensing Board. In that plea &ng, GA challenged the bernung Board's demal of GA's monon seekmg either an order grantmg summary 4sposition in its favor regarding all issues in this proceeding or an order of disnessal The issue on appeal is whether, pursuant to 10 C.F R.12.78Ng), the Commission should eserrise its dacrenon to review the Licensmg Board's imerlocutory order. The Comnussion denies GA's Peution on the ground that it fails to sausfy either of the two conditmns for mterlocutory review set forth in 10 C.F.R 6 2.7BNg) 6
l h
y DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION B
Tim Comnussion in this procce&ng treats a challenge to an interlocutory order as a Pettuon for Review under 10 CLR. 4 2.786 rather than as a Motion for Directed Ceruncanon under 10 C.FA il 2.711t(i) and 2.7Xkf)
C Tir Connuission has a lungstanding pohey disfavonng interlocutory seview (other than appeals pursuant to 10 CIR. I 2.714a), and will undertake such review enly in the most compelhng circumstances.
D A bcensmg board decismn refusing to &snuss a party from a procce&ng doe 6 not, without more, corsutute a compelhng circumstance jusufying interlocutory review.
E The Conmussma, under ses present appellate system, has emenamed petiuons for rev ew of an otherwise imerlocutory order - akan to a motion for directed certification - if the peutmner can satisfy one of the entena under secuon 2.786(g).
F Sectmn 2.786(g) of the Compussion's regulanons allows interlocutory review only where the question presetued either: "(1) Threatens the pany adversely affected by it with immediate and senous ineparable impact wtuch. as a pracucal matter, could not be alleviated through a peutmn for review of the presi&ng of6cer's 6nal dectuon' or (2) Affects the baue structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner "
G The Comnussion ahnhahed the Atonne Safety and Ucensing Appeal Board Panel in 1991, but its decisions sull carry precedenual weight.
H la is well estabhshed in Cnmmissma junsprudence that the nere comnutment of resources to a tranns that may later pmve to have been unnecessary does not consutute suff eiers grounds for an interlocutory review of a heensmg board order.
I A party may noi obtain inscrlocutory revice merely by asserting potential delay and increased expense attributable to an allegedly erroneous ruhng by the hcensing bonrd.
J Mere pocrnhzed representauons by counsel or unsubstanu.ned assertions regardmg "imme& ate and senous irreparable impact" are msulhcient to sausfy nmvant's burden of proof.
K Tir Commissmn sees no 'substanual hum" ansmg imm a puny's conunued involvement in a proceedmg until the beensmg board can resolve factual questions perunent to the Comnussion's juris&cuon.
L Although a dc6 move ruhng by the heensing board that the Commission actunH; has junsecuon noght rise 10 the level of a persasive or unusual effect upon the nature of the proceedmg. a prehnunary ruhng that mere factual dewlopnrnt is necessary &rs not nse to that level M
The fact that an appealed ruhng touches on a juns&ctional issue does not. in and of stacif, mandate interlocutory revsew.
N The rnere issuance of a ruhng which is imponant or novel does not, without rnare, change the bauc stracture of a procce&ng, and thereby jusufy interkmutory review.
CLI 9412 SEQUOYAll WLLS CORPORATION and GLNERAL ATOMICS (Cmre Oklahoma Sne) Docket No. 404027.EA (Drcontanunanen and Decomnussioning Fundmgn ENFORCEMENTI August 23,1994, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A
in an enforcenrne procee&ng involving fun &ng for decantanunanon and decomnussinfung of the Sequoyah Fuels facihty near Gore, Oklahimia, the Comrrusuun demes appeals of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's orders LDP 94-5,39 NRC 54 (1994A and LDP-9&B,39 NRC 116 0994), wtuch granted miervenhon to a penboner who favors the enforcenent action. The Comnussion afhrms LBP-94-5 which granied stan&ng azul afhrms thP-9&8 only to the eatent that et rehed upon this 6ndmg of standing.
D The Comnussion has authonty to dehne the scope of pubhc parucipatwn in us proceedmgs beyond that which is required by statute Consistent with this authonty the Co'nnussion pernuts panicipation by those who can show that they have a cogmaable interest that may be adwrsely affected if the pmceedmg has one outconr rather than another, includmg timse who favor an enforcenrnt schon.
C Intervenuon by interessed persons who suppon an enforcenent acuon does not dmunish the atency's &acrenon in matianng enforcenem procee&ngs tecause the Commission need not hold a heanng on whether another path should have been taken The Comnussmn may lawfully linut a heanng to consideratmn of the remedy or sancimn proposed in the order.
D in enforcenem proceedmFs, settlements between the Staff and the beensee, once a maner has i
been rmuced for hearmg. are subject to revww by the persiding ofheer.10 C F R. I 2.203. Thus, once an enforcenrnt order has been set for heanng at a heensee's request, the NRC Staff no longer has umramnried escreton to offer or accept a compmnuse or settlenent 7
I
i DIGESTT ISSUANCES OP THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
At the heart of the standmg inquiry is whether the petitioner has alleged such a personal stake in the outconw of the controversy as to demonstrate that a concrete adverseness entsis which will sharpen tlw presentanon of issues. To demonstrate such a " personal stake." the Comnussion apphes contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing. Accor&ngly, a peutioner must (1) allege an *iryury an fact" that is (2) fairly traceable to the challenged action and (3)is hkely to be redressed by a favorable &mision.
F The alleged snjury, wiuch may be either actual or threatened, must be both concrete and particu-lanzed. out
- conjectural" or "hypotheucal" As a result. standmg has been demed when the threat ofinjury is too speculative.
G An organizauot s ekmg representauonal standmg on behalf of its nwmbers may meet the " injury.
in-fact" requirenwnt by denumstrating that at least one of its nrmbers. who has authonzed the orgamzabon to represent lus or her inscrest, will be injured by alw possible outcome of the proceedmg.
H To meet the " injury in fact" requirement the peaconer need only show a reahsuc threat of sustaming a & rect injury to etw peutmner as a result of the challenged action.
I It must be demonstrated that the injury is fairly traceable to the proposed action. Such a deternunanon is not dependent on whether the cause of the injury flows directly from the challenged action, but whether the chain of causation is plausible.
J la nuist be hkely as opposed to merely speculanve that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decissort CLI#13 SEQUOYAH FUEli CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore, Oklaborna $ stet Docket No. 448027 EA (Decontanunation and Decomnussioning Funding); ENFORCLMENT; August 23.1994.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
la an etiforcenent proceedmg involvmg fundmg for decontanunation and decomnussiomng of the Sequoyah hiels Facihty near Gore, Oklahoma, the Commission demes appeals of LBP419. 40 NRC 9 (1994). in which the Atonue Safety and Licensing Board granted intervenuon to the Cherokee Natmn Relymg on the analysis cc.ntaned a s c<cnpanmn decision. CLIW12. 40 NRC 64 (1994k the Comnussmn fmds that otherwise quas46ed peuteuers are not barred from parucipation in heanngs simply because they seek to support an enforcenwm order, C U W 14 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL trf!LITY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Genermung Stauont Docket No. 50 312-DCOM (Decomnusammng Plan); DECOMMISSIONING; September 2.1994. ORDER A
The Commissmn hfts its earher restriction on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff's abib!y to issue a decomnussmnmg order. given that no issue remains for adjud canon and the Licensing Board ternunated the pmceedmg CLIW15 GEORGIA PowTR COMPANY. et al (Vogile Elecinc Generaung Plant. Units I and 2L Docket Nos $4424-OLA-3,50 425-OLA-3. OPERATING LICENSE AMLNDMENT; December 21.1994.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission demes a pennon for mierlocutory review filed by the Intervenor. The peauon requested interlocutory revww of an Aionne Safety and beensmg Board order. LBPM37,40 NRC 288 (1994L mhich granted m part the Georgia Power Company's nmuon for summary &sposinon of one of the Intervenor's allegauons. The Comnumon hnds that the Intervenor ed not demonstrate a need for amerlocutory revww.
B The Comnussmn has kmg dafavored imerlocutory tevww C
A bcensmg Board decismn rejecung or admnting parucular issues for consuleraimn does not in and of itself in&cate that a proceedmg will be affected in a pervasive or unusual manner The basic structure of an ongomg adjudication is not changed merely because an mterlocutory Licensmg Board ruhng is incorrect, even af it confhcu with case 'aw or Comnussion regulations.
D The Comnussmn will step into mierlocutory situarmns only when a heensmg board ruimg creates amnedsate arreparable injury or fundamwntally impacts the course of a proceeding _
+
f B
t
~ -.. - --.
a DIGESTS LSSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAIETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-94-19 SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore. Oklahoma Site), Docket No. 40 8027-EA (ASLBP No.94-684-01-EA)(Source Malenal License No SUB-1010)(Decontanunanon and Decomrmasiemng Fundmg). ENFORCEMLNT; July 7,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Grantmg Intervenuon Motion)
A In this pmceeding concermng an NRC Staff enforcenem order issued m accordance with 10 CI R.
l 2 202, the Licensmg Board concludes that a Nauve American tnbe wishmg to participate in the proceedmg to suppwt the Staff's enforcenrnt order has estabhshed its stan jmg and presented two htigable contentions.
B in order to grant an miervenor party status in a proceedmg, the presiding officer must find that the peutmrer nrets the contemporaneous judicial concepts of standmg This requires that the intervenor estabhsh that at will suffer injury in fact relatne to its amerests in the proceedsng and that those alleged interests are wulun the zone of mierests pnWected by the statutes and regulanons under mhsch the petitioner seeks to paructpaie in the pioceedmg See, e g., Cleveland Dcctne !!!uminatmg Co. (Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Umt iL CLI-93-21,38 NRC 87,92 (1993L i
C To represent the mierests of sts members, a Native Anencan enbe must idenufy at least one rnember who will be mjured and obtaan authorizanon to represent that indnidual See, e 3. Houston Ughung and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Genernung Station. Umt 1), ALAB SM,9 NRC 377. 390 96 (1979).
D Longsianding Commission pracuce suggests thal the beneht of the doubt should be given to i
the potennal miervenor m order to obviate disnussal of an intervention petinon because of maruculate l
draftsmanship or procedural pleadmg defects See, e g, %rgmia Elecuic and Power Co. (North Anna Power 5: anon. Unns I and 2L ALAB 146,6 ALC 631,633-34 t1973). See also LBP-94 8. 39 NRC 116, 120 & n.7 (1994L appeals pendmg 4
LBP-94-20 CHLMETRON CORPORATION (Bett Avenue. Harvard Avenue, and McGean-Rohco Sites, Nemburgh Heights and Cuyahoga Heights, Oluo), Docket No. 40 8724-MLA (ASLBP No. 94-695-OL MLA)(Source M.itenal License No SUB-1357); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 7,1994; i
MLMORANDUM AND ORDER (Request for Heanng) 1BP M 21 INDIANA REGIONAL CANCER CENTER, Dockel No. 0343(M85-EA (ASLBP No. 94-685-02-EA) (EA 9F284) torder Modifying and Suspending Byproduct Malenal License No. 37-28179-01);
l ENFORCLMENT; July 12.1994, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Prediscovery Dispositive Motions) l A
in this bcense suspension and modincanon enforcement pmceedmg. the Licensmg Board rules on prediscovery disposmve nmuons regardmg ten issues specahed by the parues for huganon B
Under Atomic Energy Act provisions such as subsections (b) and b) of secuon 161,42 U S C.
i I 220l(b). OL the agency's authonty to protect the public health and salery is uniquely wide-ranging. That, however is not the same as saymg that it is unlmured. In exercismg that authonty,includmg its prerogauw l
to bnng enforcenrnt actmns. the agency is subject to sont restramts. See, e p., Hurley Medical Center (One Hurley Plaza. I hat. Michigant Al)-10-2, 25 NRC 219, 236-37 & n.5 (1987) (NRC Staff cannot apply a comparanve-performance standard in civil penalty proceedmps absent fair nonce to heensees about i
the paranrters of that standard). One of those constraints is the requnement of consututional due process.
C A party respomimp to an agency enforcement complaint has been accorded due process so long as the charges agamst it are understandable and it is afforded a full and fair opportumty to meet those j
charges See Cmmens State Bank v I DIC. 751 F.2d 209,213 (8th Cir 1944L Put somewhat differently,
'"[p]IcadinFs in adrrumstranse proceedings are not judged by standards apphed to an indicment at conunon i
i e
9 i
i t
)
f l* -. -
y t
lc L
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS i
I law,' but are treated more hke civil pleadings where the concern is with nonce,
" Id. (quonng Aloha Airknes Inc. v. CAB,598 F.2d 250,262 (D C. Cir,1979)).
l D
When there is no claim of a lack of understandmg regareng the nature of the charges m an NRC Staff enforcement order, the fact that the vahdsry of the Staff's assertions have not been hogated is no reason to preclude the Staff from utihrms those charges as a bans for the order. The adjuecatory procce&ng inststuted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.202 affords those who are adversely affected by tir order with an opportunity to contest each of the charges that niake up the Staff 3 enforcenent deternunation, an opportunity intended to protect their due process nghts. The "unhtigated" nature of the Stairs allegauons an an enforcenent order thus is not a consututional due process de6ciency that bars Staff reliance on those allegatmns as a component of the enforcenent order, E
lasue and claim preclusion pnneiples (i c., res judicata and collateral estoppel) are applicable in NRC adjudicatory procee&ngs. See, e g., Ohio E& son Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), LBP-92 32,36 NRC 269,283 & n.27 (1992)(csong cases), petitions for review pendmg, Nos. 92-1665, 93 1665, 93-l672,93-1673 (D C. Cir ).
F Tir fact that the NRC Staff's charges in support of an enforcement order may be "trarsay" allegations does not provide sufficient reason to &snuss those claims ab imuo. See Oncology Services Corp.. LDP 93-20, 38 NRC 130.135 n.2 (1993)(hearsay evidence generally admissible in adnumstrative heanng if rehable, relevant, and matenal). Rather, so long as those allegauons are in dispute, the vah&ty and suf6ciency of any " hearsay" information upon which tiry are based generally is a matter to be tested in the context of an evidenuary heanng in which the Staff must provide adequate probative evidence to carry its burden of proof.
G One or more of the bases put forth by the NRC Staff as support for an enforcement order may be subject to &ssmssa;,1 st is estabhshed they. lack a suf6cient nexus to 11 e regulated activmes that are the f
focus of the Staffs enforcenent acima H
In a proceedmg regar&ng an NRC Staff enforcement order, conustent with the analogous agency rules regarang contenuons 6ted by interven us, see 10 Cf R. 6 2 714(d)(2itu), if it can be estabhshed that there is no set of facts that would enutie a party to rehef relative to a proposed issue, then dismissal of that issue is appropnate. See Oncology Services Corp., LDPM2,39 NRC 11,23 n 8 (1994).
I As is evident from the Conumasion's enforcement pokey statement, regulatory requirenrnts -
inclu&ng heense condations - have varying degrees of pubhc health and safety sigm6cance. See 10 CJ R.
Part 2. App. C, IIV & e 5 Consequenity, as part of the enforcement process, the relative importance of each purported violation is evaluated, which meludes takmg a measure of its technical and regulatory i
sigm6cance, as well as considenng whether the violanon is repetinve or willful. See id. 66IV B. IV.C.
Although. in contrast to civil penalty actions, there generally is no specshcanon of a " seventy level" for the violahons idenu6ed in an enforcement order amposing a heense termmapon, suspension, or modi 6 canon, see id iVIC, tlus evaluauve process nonetheless is unhzed to deternune the type ared seventy of the enrrecove actmn taken m the enforcenent order.
J.
In malms a deternunanon about whether a hoense suspension or rnodihcanon order should be sustained, a presi&ng of6cer must undertake an evaluaove process that may involve assessmg, among otter thmgs, nhether str bases assigned in the order support at both in terms of the type and duranon of the enforcement actmn. And, just as with the NRC Staff's inmal deternunanon almut imposmon of the enforcenent order. a relevant factor may be the pubbe health and safety signi6cance of the bases specahed t
m tie order.
K As the Comnussma recently noted, "the choice of sancuan is quintessentially a matter of the agency's sound discreuon." Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohm 44041),
CLIMf>. 39 NRC 285,312 (1994)(footnote onutted). In this regard, a presi&ng of6cer's review of an NRC Staff enforcement acnon would be hnuicd to whether the Staff's choice of sanction constituted an abuse of that discreuun LBPW22 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle Electnc Genernung Plant Umts I and 2), Docket Nos 50-424-OLA-3,50 425 OLA 3 (ASLBP No. 93 671-01-OLA 3)(Re: License Anendment; Transfer to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 28, 1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motion to Accept Addinonal Factual Basis) 10 6
l l
l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICFNSING BOARDS A
The Licensing Board determines that an intervenor may move to admit into the proceeding a :ww basis for an already adnuned contention. When it does so, the requirements for a late-6ied contention arJ not apphcable, but the Imervenor must show that it is umely to consider die new basis, in hght of its senousness and of the umchness with which it has been raised. The Licensing Board also perm:tted Intervenor to 61e a reply to Whcant's response to his mobon to add a new basis to his contention.
B Once a contenhon has been admined, Intervenor may htigate a new basis for the adnutted contention (fathng wittua the scope of the contention) without mecung tim five-pronged test for a late-6 led contention.
The test for admamng the new basis is whether it is tinely to consider the new basis, in hght of its senousness and of the unrhness with winch it has been raised. The more serious the safety emphcanons of the proposed new baus, the less important delay in presenung the basis.
C There is no regulatory requirement that an intervenor supply all the bases known at tlw tmr he Elch a contenuon. What is required is the 6hng of bases that the intervenor intends to rely on.10 CER.
8 2 714(b)(2)(ii).
D Intervenor may reply 1o Apphcant's Response to Intervenors' Motion for a new basis for its contennon. In that reply, Intervenor should demonstrale, with parucularity: (1) that he understands the answers that have been Eled and that (despite those answers) there is an important, genuine issue of fact that Georgia Power has matenally nusted the Staff of the Comnussion concertung tie pubhc safe.y and healih. and (2) that he did mW unnecessarily & lay the 6hng of this new basis for its contention.
LBP-94-23 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nudear Geterating Stanon),
Docker No. 50-312-DCOM-R (ASLBP No.93-677 01-DCOM-R)(Decommissmmng Plan)(I-acihty Oper-ating License No. DPR-54); DECOMMISSIONING REMAND; August II,1994 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Terminaimg Proceeding)
A The Licensing Board, in response to a smuce of withdrawal with prejuece of the only intervenor in the proceedmg, grants the withdrawal and terrrunates the proceeding.
LDP 9&24 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Umts I and 2) Dodet Nos. 50-424-OLA 3,50 425 OLA-3 (ASLBP No 93-671 Ol-OLA 3)(Re; License Anwndnent; Transfer to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Aufust 18.1994. MEMORANDUM AND OprDER (Deposition of Mr. Bill Shipman)
A
'llus Memorandum and Order weighs whether or not to order the deposuion of a person who is senously ill. The Board dechned to order the deposinon. It deternuned that Intervenor had failed to demonstrate thal the bencht of the proposed &scovery outweighs the burden, given the importance of the issues at stake m the haganon and the anymrtance of the proposed &stovery in resolving the insirs, B
However, the Board alan noticed that the proposed deponent was wilhng to be deposed h therefore estabhshed constions under which a volumary deposioon might be taken C
Intervenor has the hurden of demonstratmg that the benefn of a depossuon of a senously all person outweighs the burden, given the importance of the issues at stake in the huganon and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues D
'the lawyer of an illin&vidual sought as subject of a deposinon may not assen that the deposmon would impose an undue tmrkn unless the pmposed subject seeks 10 be protected or there is some season to queshon the ranonality behmd the person's wilhngness to be deposed.
E Tim Licensing Board establishes conanons under which a voluntary agreement may be teached concerning the deposinon of a seriously ill individual.
LBP 94-25 NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. (Order Requmng the Renoval of an in&vidual from NRC-Licensed or Regulated Acuvines and Order Directing Review of Personnel Secunty Files (Effective Imnreately)), Docket No. EA 43 236 (ASLBP No.94-692 05-EA); ROBERT C, DAILEY (Order Pro-hibiung Involvement m Certam NRCOcensed or Regulated Acuvmes (Effecuve immediately)), Docket No. IA 94 003 ( ASLEP No. 9469104 EA); ENFORCEMENT; Auguni 18,1994. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Seulenent Agreenrnt and Ternunnung Proceedmg)
A The Licensmg Board grants ajoint monon of the parues to approve a seniement agreenwnt. approves the agreement, and terminates the procceang.
LBP 9426 GEORGIA POWI R COMPANY, ei al. (Vogtle Electne Generating Plant, Unns I and 2) Docket Nos. 50'424-OLA-3,505425-OLA 3 (ASLBP No.93-671 Ol-OLA 3)(Re: License Amendment; Transfer il 1
y,.
i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 22,1994, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Staff Responses to intervenor's First Request for Adnussions, Second Set of lmerrogatones) l A
The Board held that the Staff stands on the same famng as any party widi respect to requests for adnussions. Neither 10 CER. I1742 nor any other section of the regulations provides for any different treatnrnt of the Staff The Board also found that Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is helpful in interpreung the Comnussion's rules concerning admissions. The Board said timt the Staff would not be held to its adnussions if new informanon causes it to change its view of the pubhc interest.
B With respect to interrogatones asked of the Staff, the Board held that the Staff is not required to answer interrogrones unless this Ucensmg Board Ends: (O answers to the in errogatones are necessary to the determination of this case, and f2) answers to the interrogatones are not ressonably attaanable from any other source.10 CER. I2.720(hK2)(ii); compare 10 C F.R. I 2.740b(a).
C With respect to requests for admissions addressed to the Staff, the Board held that the Staff stands on the sane fooung as any party Neither 10 CER. I 2.742 nor any other section of the regulatwns provides for army &fferent treaunent of the Staff. The Board a'so found that Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is helpful in interpreung the Commission's rules concerning adnussions. The Board also said that the Staff would not be held to its admissions if new information causes it to change its view of the public interest.
D With respect to interrogatories asked of the Staff, the Board held that the Staff is not required to answer interrogatones unless this Ucensing Board Ands: (1) answers to the interrogatones are necessary to the determination of tlus case, and (2) answers to the interrogarones are not reasonably attainable from any other source.10 CER, 5 2.720(hX2Xii); compare 10 C F R 12.740Na).
LBP-94-27 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle Electric Generaung Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 5442&OLA-3,50-425 0LA-3 (ASLBP No.93-6714H-OLA-3) (Re: Uume Anrndment, Traaster to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 26,1994, MEMORANDUM AND j
ORDER (Denying Motion to Accept Ad&tional Factual Basis)
A The test to be apphed to deternune whether to admit for hugauon a new basis for an admitted contention is "whether the rnation [to adnut the contenuon] was unwly and whether it presents important informanon regarding a sigm6 cant issue " Consuners Power Co. (Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), LDP-8&20,19 NRC 1285,12% (1984). Applying this test. Imervenor's mouan to adnut a new basis for an admitted contention is denied.
B To deternune whether techmcal specthcations have been violated, the wor &ng of the specincations must be carefully eaamined to deternune the precise sneamng of those specincanons.
C
'the Board rejected an allegation that I censee had breached a committnent to the NRC that went beyond its techmcal specihcations. The sileged comnutment related to keeping the contammeni hatch closed.
Yet opening of the hasch was an open and obvious actmn and the Board does tux accept the argument that the action reflected adversely on the character and competence of the Licensee.
O The followmg techrucal issues are dacussed. Acuon statements; technical specificanons; Con-tainmeni equipment hatch, Emergency mode; dicact operation; Emergency power; Limiting con &uons of operanon: techmcal spect6catwns; 1.oss of all eleetncal power; Operable-dehmuon in technical speci-Acations, Ressdual heat removal sysient operabihry; Site area emergency i
LBP 94-28 INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE (Indianapohs. Insana). Docket No. 030-09792 CivP (ASLBP No. 94-6ft9-02-CivP) TEA 93111) (Byproduct Matenal Ucense No. 13 02752-08);
ENFORCEMENT; August 29, 1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Ternunaring Procec&ng)
LBP-94-29 ONCOLOGY SERVICES CORPORATION, Docket No. 030 31765-EA (ASLEP No. 93-674-OL EA)(EA 910Dr>)(Order Suspenem; Byproduct Material License No 37 48540 01). ENIORCEMENT; August 31,1994 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissmg Procee& ngl LBP 9430 CHEMETRON CORPORATION (Bert Avenue Harvard Avenue, and McGean-Rohco Sites, Newburgh Heights and Cuyahoga Heights, Ohio), Docket No. 40-8724 MLA ( ASLBP No.946954)LMLA)
(Source Maienal License No. SUB-1357); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMElfT; September 1,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motion to Dismiss Proceeding)
LBP-94-31 GEORGI A POWER COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle Electnc Generating Plant, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-42&OLA 3. 50'425-OLA 3 (ASLBP No. 93-67101-OLA-3) (Re: License Anrndment: Transfer 12
r
'A ;
f
.o a
y-A
^
g,
~
w i
1 DIGESTS l
f
, sy, ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS l.
7 E to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING UCENSE 'AMENDMEfff: September 9,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motion for Reconsideration: - Admissions; Second Order).
A The Board denied a Staff motion fa reconsideradon, setting forth standards for nwxions for reconsideration. Such nodons inust he Aled wittun 10 days of the date of issuance of tir motion being f
challenged. The Board also adopted the substantive standard that a motion for leave to reargue or rehear a snodon will not be granted unless it appears that there is some decision er sorne pnnciple of law that
,l would have a controlling effect and that has been overlooked or that there has been a misapprehennon of.
the facts.
I B
' The Board said that it is appropriate to require the Staff to answer requests for adnussions' 1
concerning the truth of fmdmgs in its own seport, which contains important collateral facts. It also is 1!
appmpnate to require the Staff to release segregable facts on which decisions have been made, even if those facts are contained in predecisional docunents Facts than are inextricably intertwined with opinions in predecisional documents need not be released.
'{
C 11 is appropnate to requur the Staff to reveal the names of individuals involved in completing L[
important Staff wort intervenors may only call as witnesses Staff members who me necessary to their l
case, but an inportant step in helping them to determine if testimony is necessary is to 6nd out who was involved. For the same reason, it is appropriate to require the Staff to disclose the name of an indmdual
{
who may have filed a formal diffenns professional opinion.
D A stay shall not he granted when the only hartn to a party is a strategic loss through complying.
with a request for adsmssions. However, a party may delay the need to respond by 6hng a motion for an extension of tine.
i E.
Motions for reconsideration must be Aled within 10 days of the date of issuance of a challenged i
order.
I F
A motion for leave to reargue or rehear a monon will not be granted unless it appears that there is some decision or some pnnciple of law that would have a controlhng effect and that has been overlooked y
or that there has been a unsapprehension of the facts.
l 0
It is appropriate to requue the Staff to answer requests for adnussions concermng the truth of
.l Andmis in its own report, which contains important collateral facts.
i H
. It also is appropriate to require the Staff to release segregable facts on which decissons have been made, even if those facts are contaned in predecisional documents. Facts that are inextncably intertwined i
with opomons in predecisional documents need not be released.
~!
-l The Staff must respond to interrogatories requesting die names of Staff involved in issmns a key report or involved in issuing a farmal diffenng professional opinion.
t J
' A stay shall not be granted when the only harm to a party is a strategic loss through complying wnh a request for admsssions. However, a puny may delay the need to respond by 6ling a motion for an
'l extension of time.
s LBP-94 32. KELLI L HINDS (Order Prohibitmg involvement in Ucensed Activides), Docker No. IA-94 012 (ASLBP No. 94697-06-EA); ENR)RCEMEfff; October 3,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i
(Approving Settlenent Agreement and Disnussmg Proceedmg)
LBP-94-33 ENERGY FUELS NUCLEAR,INC., Docket Na 448681-MLA-3 (ASLBP No.944934)2-MLA-3)(Source Maserials Ucense Na SUA 1358); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 21,1994, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ittition for Heanng)
~ i LDP-94-34 ' CAMEO DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE, INC,, Docket No 30-29567-CivP (ASLBP No 94-686 ',
ChP)(Byproduct Material Ucense Na 20 27908-01)(EA 93-005); ENFORCEMENT; November 1,1994, DECISION (Grantmg NRC Staff Motion for Summary Disposition) -
LBP 94-35. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (DinNo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50 275 OLA-2,50 323-OLA 2 (ASGP Na92-669-03-OLA-2)(Construction Penod i
Recovery)(Facihry Operatmg License Nos. DPR 80 DPR-82), OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; November 4,1994, INff!AL DECISION (Construction 1%riod Recovery / Recapture)
LBP 9436 INDIANA REGIONAL CANCER CENTER, Docket Na 030-30485-EA (ASLBP Na 94-685 E
02 EA)(EA 93 284)(Order Modifying and Suspendmg Byproduct Matenal Ucense Na 37-28179-01);
ENFORCEMENT; November 4,1994, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Distrussms Proceeding) i 13 j
i I
i I
i i
I t:
=
y, e
q DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS I
LBP 94-37 GEORGIA POWER COMPAN1(, et al. (Vogtle Electnc Generating. Plant, Units I and 2), Docket
' Nos. 54424-OLA-3, 50 425-OLA-3 (ASLBP No.93-671-01-OLA 3)(Re: License Amendnent; Transfer to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; November 8,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Summary Disposinon: IllegalTransfer Alleganon)
A Applican(s motion for summary &sposition is granted in part. After viewing all evidence favorably toward intervenu, the Board assuurd that Apphcant had in&rectly transferred control ofits operating beense wnhout appropriate wntren perrassion from the NRC. However, the Board held that even if Licensee had rnade such a transfet, that without more would not demonstrate that the requested hcense amendment (to transfer operanng autbonty to a new heensee) should be condmoned.
B for transfer of the hcense to be restricted, Intervenor wou!d need to show that the reciptent of the heense is lacking in character or antegnty. This could be demonstrated in this case only by showmg material nusrepresentations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Consequently, the heanng in this case will be restncted to questions related to alleged rmarepresentanons.
C This Memorandum and Order gran s in part ' Georgia Power Company's Moten for Summary Disposition of Intervener's filegal Transfer of Ocense Allegations"(Mouon). The consequence is that there will he a hearing hmrted to the issue of whether Georgia Power Company, et al. (Georgia Power) has nusled the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion with respect to tie comrol of heensed operations of the Vogtle Electnc Gererating Plant (Vegtlek D
A rompany must retam actual control of hcensed acuvines. Even indirect transfers of a hcense are prohibited. If all that was protubited was a transfer of the right to control heensed activities, then there would be no need to specify that " indirect" transfers also were prohibited. What as important is that the i
licensed enuty, wiuch has been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Comnusamn, should not enter anto a i
new relationship that pernuts ineviduals who are not included in the hcense to mntrol hcensed acnvit es, directly or mdirectly.
E Once Apphcant has submitted a motion that makes a pmper showing for summary &sposiuon, the htmus test of whetirr or not to grant the summary disposmon motion is whether Intervenor has presented a genmne issue of fact that is relevant ta its allegauon and that could lead to sonw form of rehef.
F In the case of a hcense amendment apphcation that would resuk in the transfer of an operanng beense, the transfer may be restnered if tne proposed recipient of the hcense is laclung in character and imegnty. Not every previous defect on the pan of the recipient would require that the hcense transfer be condmoned or denied. For example, merely showmg that the bcense had previously been illegally tramferred to the recapsent would not bar the grantmg of the amendnent unless the illegal transfer was E
accompamed by maienal orrussions of fact or misstatements to the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussmn.
G A hcemee nusy not transfer an operatmg heense for a nuclear power plant enher ducetly or indirectly Even if formal authonty is nuuntained in an acceptable form, if people not included in the beense have substanual influence over the operation of the nuclear power plant, the onussion of their nanws from the hccme may be improper. Only apprornate consent en wntmg by the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion may vahdate an unauthorized transfer of influence to operate the plant.
H for each alleganon of a nusrepresentauon. tie Board will need to know as precisely as we can:
(1) what was said. (2) in what context the statement existed, (3) the proof that die statenrnt was inaccurare or incomplete, (4) when hf apphcable) the statement was corrected, and (5) why we should be concerned about the length of delay between the statement and when it was corrected. Tais will require proof of a tmw hne of actual events, demonstraung not only that they occurred but also wten they occuned.
1 The Board also will require that the proof offered will make sonr alkwance for inaccuracies in expression, understandmg, and memory. So the Board will need to know also how much time passed before the alleged nusstatenrnt was nunde.
J 1 would be helpful to us if smw hnes and charts were used to commumcate Intervenor's points clearly. Such simple and easy-to-grasp devices would be appreciated in the fihngs of all tlw pames.
LBP-94-38 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L P. (Claiborne Ennchnrnt Centerk Docket No. 743074ML (ASLBP No. 9164102-ML)(Special Nuclear Matenal Ucense), MATLRIALS LICENSE; November 18, 1994. MLMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Section 2 740(f) hke its counterpart in the last sentence of Rule 3hd) of the Federal Rules of Civd Pro
- dure from which the Comnussion's provision was coped, applies exclusnely to situations where a 14
\\:
DIGESTS -
ISSUANCES OF THE ATO%flC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS person or party smally fails to respond to a set of interrogatones or docunem sequesas. See 8 Charles A. Wnght et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 5 2291 at 809-10 (1970). See, e g., Laclede Gas Co. v.
Warnecke Corp.,604 F 2d 561,565 (8th Cir.1979).
B Where a party has filed objections to one or more interrogatores or docunwn requests ur set forth partial, albeit incomplete, answers in a discovery response, the last sentence of secuan 2.740(f) has no apphcabihty The proper procedure in such a situauun is for the party opposmg the discovery to await the fihng of a remtion to compel and den respond to that rnouon.
LI!P %39 SEQUOYAll fulls CORPORATION Docket No. 40 8027-MLA 3 (ASLBP No.94-700 %.
MLA-3)(Source Materials license No Sub 1010h MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; November 22,1994 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Motion for Reconsuleration)
A Wlule the threshold showmg at the intervention stage of a Subpart L procee&ng is excec&ngly g
j low, a statemem of concera must be plead with enough speci6 city to allow a presiding of6cer tie abthry
[
to ascertsa whether or not what the intervenor seeks to bugate is truly selevant to the subject matter of the 1
proceeding.
i l
B A proponent of a motion does not have the nght to reply to an answer to the motion; parues who do not setk leave to file a reply are expressly densed tte opportunity to do so.
LDP-94-40 DR. JAMES E. BAUER (Order Prohibmng involvement in NRC-Licensed Acuvities), Docket No.
I IA#0ll (ASLBP No. 94 6%05-EAL ENFORCEMEN!'; December 9,1994; MEMORANDUM AND l'
ORDER (Ruhng on Prediscovery Disposmve Motions)
A in llus procec&ng concermng an NRC Staff enforcement order prohibit ng the involvement of Dr.
James E Bauer in NRC-licensed acovmes, ttw Licensing Board rules on pre &scovery espoutive numons regardmg a number of the issues specified by the parues for hugauon.
J B
Clamung a constitutional dernvanon ansmg from a delayed adjudication generally requires some showmg of preju&ce. See Oncology Services Corp., CLI 93-17. 38 NRC 44, 50 51 (1993).
C The pendency of a related ennunalinvesugatwn can provide an appropnaie basis for postponmg huganon on a Staff enforcenent order. See id at 53-56 D
The Staff will not he precluded, as a maner of law, from relymg on alleganons as the basis for an enforcement order if there is a "suff eient nexus" between the allegations and the regulated activines that formed the focus of the Staff's order. In&ana Regional Cancer Center, LBPM21,40 NRC 22,31 (1994).
E If it can be shown there is no set of facts that would entitle a party to rehef relative to proposed issue m an enforcemerw proceedmg, then esmassal of that issue is appropnate. See In&ana Regamal Cancer Cemer, LBP 94-21,40 NRC at 33 & n 4. Oncology Services Corp., LBP-94 2,39 NRC I1,23 & n 8 (1994).
F Consistent with the analogous agency rules regardmg contenuons hled by mtervenors, see 10 C.F R.
I 2 714(d)t2His), issues that would consutute " defenses" to an enforcenrnt order are subject to disnussal under the appropnate circumstances, See Indiana Regsonal Cancer Cenier, LBP-94-21,40 NRC at 33 n 4.
G in assessing whetaer the bases assigned support an order in terms of both the type and durahon of the enforcement acuon, a relevant factor may be the pubhc health and safety sigm6cance,inclu&ng the nescal appropnateness, of the spectned bases. See id. at 33 34 H
in proceedmgs involvmg challenges to Staff enforcement orders, the overarchmg matter for consideranon is whether the order should be sustained and the prest &ng ofhcer's authonty regar&ng this quesnon "is to consider 'whether the facts en the order are true and whether the remedy selected is supported by those facts.'" Oncology Services Corp, LBPM2,39 NRC at 25 (quoting Boston E& son Co, (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Statmn), CLI-8216,16 NRC 44,45 (1982), aff'd, Belkati v. NRC,725 F.2d 1380 (D C.
Cir.1983). The bases assened in an enforcement order thus do provide the pnncipal franework for the pruece&ng. As a consequence, any legal, or factual sasue a party wants to prapose in challenging (or supportmg) an enforcenent order must bear some relationship to those bases by ten &ng to estabissh, either alone or with other issues, that sonw expbcit or amphcit legal or factual predicaic to tte order should mA (or should)le sustamed. Further, a party called upon to denumstrate this relaunnship must be able to do so by more than a bald pronouncement that the issue is "televant " Cf Advanced Mescal Sysiems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva, Oluo 44041), CLIW6. 39 NRC 285,308 (1994)(mere assenions of &spute over matenal facts do not invahdate grant of summary disposmont
!!!PM41 SAIETY LIGIT CORPORATION, et al. (Bloomsburg Site Decontaminuuun, Decommission-ing, License Renewal Denials, and Transfer of Aucts), Docket Nos. 030 05980-OM&OM-2, 030-15
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS 05981-OM&OM-2, 034059824)M&OM-2, 03008335-OM&OM 2, OD08M4 OM&OM-2, 030-05980-MLAMle2,030-05982-ML&ML2, OB05980 EA,030 05982-EA (ASLBP Nos 89-59G41-OM,90 598-Ol-OM 2,92459-01-Mio 92 664-02-ML2,93-67544-EAK ENFORCEMENT; December 28,1994; OR-DER (Aptwoving Sennenent Agreement and Ternsnating Proccechngs) i r
I t
i 16
l i
1 DIGESTS ISSUANCFS OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS j
4 1
DD'94-8 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (Palo Veide Nuclear Generanng Stat on, Units 1, 2, and 3), Docket Nos 50 528. 50 529, 50-530.RI QUEST l'OR ACTION, August 12,1994 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2.206 A
The Director of die Ofhce of Enforcement demes a Peunon dated I ebmary 1.1994. filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion (NRC) by Thomas J Saporua. Jr., and supplernented on May 18, 1994.
requesung enforcement actmn pursuant to 10 C F R. I 2.206 (Petmont The Peution requested that the NRC: (I p require a show cause procerdmg pursuant to 10 C F R.12.202 to modify. suspend, or revoke the Licensee's operatmg bcenses for Palo Verde Generatmg Stanon; (2) itutsate "appropnate actions" to require the Ucemce to rex:pgnize the Duckeye, Artzona Regional Office of the Nanonal Whistleblower Cerder (Buckeye) as an agency to which Ucensee employees may raise safety concerns about eperations at Palo Verde without fear of retahauon by the beensee;(3) request the Ucemee to encourage employees ni Palo Verde to contact Buckeye to idenufy cafety concerns about operations at Palo Verde to ensure a workmg environment that is free of hosuhty and pronntes the raismg of safety concerns by employees without fear of retahatwn, and (4) cause the bcemce to encourage employees at Palo Verde to contact the NRC in the sanz way as it would Buckeye B
On May 18,1994. Penuoner supplemented his Peutmn and requested that the NRC require Ucen ce contractors to: (1) provide information regarding 6hng complamis with the Department of Labor to tirir employees "as part of their normal employment package"; and (2) properly post the NRC Form 3 in and around the contractor's place of busmess and site busmens trailers and ofhees.
C Aftet an evaluanon of the Pennon, tie Director concluded that Peuuoner did not raine any issues that would warrant grantmg the requested actions.
DD-94-9 CAROUNA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY. et al. (Brunswick Steam ilectnc Plant. Umts I and 2) Docket Nos 504 25, 50-324, REQUEST LOR ACTION. October 19, 1994 DIRECTOR'S DLC1510N UNDER 10 C i R. l 2 206 A
The Director of the Othee of Nuclear Reactor Regulauon granted in part and dented in part a peuuon dated October 14, 1994. subnutted by the Nanonal Whisticblower Center (NWC), the Coastal Alliance for a Safe Environment. and Charles A. Webb (Peutmners) requestmg that the Nucleat Regulatory l
Comnusuon take actmn with regard to the Brunswick Steam Ucetne Plant (Brunswick). Umts I and 2, of the Camlina Power & Ugtu Company (Licenseet The pennon requested that: the NRC Staff enter into a conhdenuahry agreement with NWC to fehtaie the release of addiuonalinformation; the NRC immediately il' require the beensee to state whether at has,in fact, known about cracks in the reactor shroud since at least l
1984, the NRC's Ofhee of Invesuganons (OD deternune whether Uccosee management engaged in ennunal wrongdoing, comnencmg m 1984, when Licensee management grunally failed to report the caistence of I
cracks in the core shroud qo the NRC; and inursediate suspennon of the operating heense for Brunswick j
pendmg the cnnunal anvesugation The Petinoners alleged that the Ucensee had falsely asserted to the NRC that cracks in the reactor shroud had been recently discovered, but that, in fact, the Ucensee had discovered the cracks 9 years carher and the Ucensec's management instructed the engmeets who detected the cracks to prepare paperwork that would emure that no report would be inade to the NRC; the unwithngnens to i
- port a sigmhcant safety problem m the NRC demonstrates that the Ucensee does tmt have the character or
]
sniegnty to eperate a nuclear f acihty; and the beensee is withny to take unreasonable nsks with the pubhc l
health and safety After evaluanon of the Petmon and an 01 invesugation. the Director concluded that 17 i
I i
l N
i l
77 i
a y
1 a
~
+
/
.g Al i.! L l[
DIGESTS
~
1SSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS I
Peanoners failed to taase 'a substantial health or safety concern regar&ng either the presence of core shroud cracks or the Ucensee's knowledge of and reportmg of core shroud cracking at the Brunswick facihty..
l s
- DD-94-10. ENERGY FUELS NUCIIAR. INC., Docket No. 40 8681 (License No. SUA 1358); REQUEST t
. FOR ACilON; December 14,1994; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. I 2.206 -
.f A
The Honorable Michael D. Imavitt, Governor of the Stae of Utah, and the Utah legislature
.{
requessed, by a letter daled May 2,1994, and Utah Senate concurrent Resolution No.11, "Resciution '
J}
. Regar&ng NRC Action Regareng Disposal of Uraniurn By-Produce 1994 General Session," that the Nuclear
=t
. Regulatory Comrmssion modify Unetco Minerals Corporation Source Material License No. SUA 1348 (now
. held by Energy Fiels Nuclear. Inc.), to ref!ces the enginal request of the Ucensee for authority to &spose -
l of 5000 cubic yards of fle(2)I product maurial per in situ leach facthey at the White Mesa Uramum Mill i
t facihty Pentioners also requested that the Commission confer with the State of Utah and provide opportunity
[
for comment prior so the issuance of license amendments involving uramam null taihngs &sposal in Utah,,
f 1
and that the NRC obtain the enneurrence of the Governor and 1 gislature before issuing hcense arnendnwnts involving &sposal of uramum null taihngs in Utah. After careful considerauon of Peutioners' requests, the
[
Director of the Office of Nuclear Malerial Safety and Safeguards grants the request so moefy Source
}
Materials Ucense No. SUA-1348 and the request to confer with the State of Utah insofar as the NRC shall p
provide duect and Federal Register nonce of signi6 cant materials licensing actions in the State of Utah, y
and demes the request so obtmo concurrence of Petitioners before issuing hcense amendments involving e
disposal of uramum null taihngs in Utah.
DD-94-il. BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE COLUMBUS OPERATIONS (Columbus, Ohio), Docket No. 70 08; REQUEST FOR ACTION, December 14,1994; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R i 2.206 A
he Director, OfEce of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, grank a petiuon 6 led by the ij Battelle Permii Opposition Comnuttee for an investigation of certain au&t 6ndmgs involving Battelle 1;
Menwrial Insutute (BMI) and for enforcenent acuan, as appropriate. Petitioner asserted that BMI appears to be a facihty out of control in its handhng of ra&oactive matenal, that a potmtial threat exists to the surroun&ng neighborhood through BMrs operauons, and that the level of NRC oversight of BMI acuvities is of concern. The Director grants the peiiuon in that the NRC Staff has invesugated the audit fin &ngs and has taken appropriate enforcement and other acnons and has taken appropriate action to malress the.
conce ns regar&ng NRC's oversight of BMrs beensed acuvmes.
DD 94-12. ROSEMOUNT NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS, INCORPORATED (fornerly Rosemount, Incorpo-t rated)(talen Prairie, Mmnesota). Docket No. 99900271; REQUEST FOR ACTION, December 15,1994, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. I 2.206 A
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation grants, in part, petmons Gled by Paul M. Blanch requesting imme& ate enforcement acuon agamst Rosemouni Nuclear Instruments, Inc., for faihng to notify the Comnussion of defects in pressure erannemtiers as required by 10 CF.R. Part 21, and asking ine NRC,
.{
to noufy all users of Rosemount transmmers and trip deviece of "significant safety problems" found dunng
)
. an NRC inspection.
DD-94-13 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY (South Texas Project. Units 1 and 2), Docket i
Nos. 50-498. 50 499; REQUEST FOR ACTION; December 20,1994; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER.
'i lo C F.R. I 2.206
[
A he Director of the Ofhce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation grants in part and demrcs in part a petinon subnutted pursuant to 10 C.F.R I 2.206 by Mr. Thomas 1 Saponto (Petitioner) requesung action whh regard so the South Texas Pmject (STP), Umts I and 2, of the Houston Power and Lighnng Company (HIJkP or the Licenseek B
Penuoner requested the NRC to issue civil penalties against the Licensee and/or Ucensee inanage-rnent personnel at STP for &senrmnanon This request has been granted insofar as the NRC on October 26,1994, issued HLAP a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalry in the amourn of
[
S100,000 for a violaur,n of 10 C.F R. 6 501 C
With regard to the Pentioner's request for the NRC to insutute a show-cause action pursuant to 10 p
C i R 12 202 to mo&fy, suspend, or revoke HL&P's NRC operating hcenses authonzmg the operanon of.
STP, Units I and 2, and that the NRC rake appropriate actions to cause the imnediale shutdown of the two 1
t 5
I 15 i'!
t I
e f
I li e
i
't
. ~.
.g_g - - - -
'p1 s
p.
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS i
reactor caes at STP, the Directa 6 ads that the Petitioner has not raised substantial health or safety iaues in the petiuon and denies those pornons of tim petition.
[..
6 f
i h
(
1 19
~..
~...._
1 l
4 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASE 3 Advanced Medical Systems. Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva. Ohio 44041), CLI-93-22, 38 NRC 98.102 (1993) buren m twoponent of summary disposinon motwn; LBP-94-34, 40 NRC 171 (1994)
Advanced U
' \\> stems, Inc. (One Faetary Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), CL1-93 22, 38 NRC 98,102 03 (1993t -
mon demed CLI-93 24,38 NRC 187 (1993) sumn.,.
muon standards; LBP-94-37,40 NRC 2W (1994)
AJvanced %.in al Systems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva Ohm 44041), CLI-94-6, 39 NRC 285, 308 (1994) burden on opponent of suminary disposinon; LBP-94-21, 40 NRC 32 n.3 (1994) pleadmg requ renrnis of opposing enforcement orders: LBP 94-40, 40 NRC 336 n.7 (1994)
Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Genen. Ohio 44041), CLi-946, 39 NRC 285, 312 (1994)
I agency discretmn in imposmon of sanctions; LDP-94-21, 40 NRC 34 n.5 (19%)
Advanced Medical Systems. Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohm 44041), CLI-9e6, 39 NRC 285, 313 (1994)
NRC discretmnary authunty to imnate enforcenrnt proceedings, CLI4kl2, 40 NRC 70 (1994)
Allen v, Wnghi, 468 U.S. 737, 756 (1984) denial of standmg where mjury-in-fact is too speculanve; CLI-9412, 40 NRC 72 (1994)
Aloha Airknes, Inc. v. CAB, 598 F.2d 250. 262 (D C. Cir.1979) pleadsng requirenrnts in enforcenent proceedings; LDP-9421, 40 NRC 30 (1994) 7 Anzona Pubhc Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generanns Stanon, Unita 1, 2, and 3), CLI-9112, 34 NRC 149,155 (1990 effect of corporate restructunng on huancial quah6catras to operate facihty safety; CLI-94-10, 40 NRC 53 (1994)
Anzona Pubhe Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generatmg Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), DD-92-1, 35 NRC 133, 143-44 (1992) standard for insinuuon of shn.:ause proceedmgs; DD-9413, 40 NRC 386 (1994)
Aniona Pubhc Service Co (Palo hie Nuclear Generaung Staten, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-742,18 NRC 380. 383 (1983)
NRC policy disfavormg mterlocutory review; CLi-9411,40 NRC $9 (1994)
Armed forces Radmboology Insuiute (Cobali-60 Storage Facihty), ALAB-682,16 NRC 150,153-54 (1982) geograpluc proumity as bases for standing to intervene; CLI-9&l2, 40 NRC 75 n.22 (1994)
Babcock and Wilcos Co, (Penasylvama Nuclear Services Operations, Parks Township, Pennsylvania),
\\
LBP-944. 39 NRC 47, 50 (1994 l
authoney to represent an organirahon for purpose of estabhshing standing to intervene; LDP-94-20, 40 l
NRC 19 (19941 a
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S 186, 2N (1962)
I judicial concepts of standmg apphed in NRC proceedmgs; CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 71 (1994) l Bellotu v NRC. 725 F.2d 1380 (DC. Cir.19R4 miervennon m suppon of enforcenent actions CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 39 (1994) scope of enforcenent proceedmys, CLI-9&I2, 40 NRC 69 (1994)
=
21 i
A d
l 1
5 i
t a.
( -......
~
' LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASE 3 I
l:
Boston f/hson Co. (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Station), CLI-82-16,16 NRC 44, a5 (1982), aff'd, Bellotti v.
NRC, 725 F.2J 1380 (D C, Cir,1953) bcensing teard authority to esmiss issues in enforcement proceedings: LEP-9440, 40 NRC 336 n.7 l
(1994)
Central Electric Power Cooperanve, Inc. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), C118126,14 NRC 787, 790 (1981) content of motions for reconsideranon; LDP-9639, 40 NRC 315 n.2, 317 (1994)
Choctaw Nanon v. Cherokee Nation, 393 F Supp. 224, 246 (E D. Olda 1975) riverbed ownership claims of Indian Nation for purpose of estabhshing standing to intervene; LBPM19, 40 NRC 14 n.19 (1994)
Citizens State Bank v. FDIC, 751 F.2d 209, 213 (8th Cir.1984) due process reqmremems for enforcement actions; LBP-94-21, 40 NRC 30 (1994)
City of West Chicago v. NRC, 701 F,2d 632 (76 Cir.1983)
NRC nonhcation to states of beensmg actions; DD-94-10,40 NRC 357 (1994)
Cleveland Liectric Illaminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit I), CLI 93-21, 38 NRC 87, 92 j
(1993) 1 judicial concepts of stan&ng applied in NRC procceangs; CLI-9410, 40 NRC 45 (1994); CL1-94-12, I
40 NRC 72 (1994) satisfaction of mjury-in-fact and aone-of-interests tests for stan&ng to intervene; LBPM19, 40 NRC 14 (19941 showing necessary to demonstrate standing to intervene in informal procee&ngs; LBP 9433, 40 NRC 156 (1994)
Cleveland Electne 11!uimnanng Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2L ALAB-736,18 NRC 165, 166 (1983) heensing board refusal to disnuss a party from a proceedmg as basis for imerlocutory appeal; CLI 9411,40 NRC 59 (1994)
Commonwealth E& son Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-817, 22 NRC 470, 474 & mtl617 (1985) issuance of m>portant or novel decision as basis for imerlocutory appeal, CLl#ll,40 NRC 61 (1994)
Comnmnweahh Edison Co. (Brandwood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-890, 27 NRC 273, 278 (1988) sancuonmg of vmlanons m operaung bcense procceengs; LBP-9435, 40 NRC 253 n 33 (1994)
Commonweahh E& son Co. IByron Nuclear Power Stanon. Umts 1 and 2) ALAB-735,18 NRC 19, 23-24 (1983) pleading requuemenis for pensions for interlocutory review; CLi-9&ll, 40 NRC 61 (1994)
Comnmnweahh Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2). ALAB 770,19 NRC 1863, 1169 (1984) showing necessary for denial of operatmg heense amendment, LDPM35,40 NRC 253 n.34 (1994)
Commonweahh E& son Co. (Lon Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-Il6, 6 AEC 258, 259 (1973) comnutment of resources as irreparable impact for purpose of obtaming interlocutory review; C1194-11, 40 NRC 61 (1994)
Comnwnweahh E& son Co. (Lon Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-226, 8 AEC 381, 389 (1974) cases developed through cross-enanunanon rather than intervenor's own witnesses; LBP-9435, 40 NRC 191 (1994)
Connecucut Bankers Association v. Board of Governots, 627 F.2d 245 (D C. Cir.1980) factual support required for admission of contenuons; CLI-94-10,40 NRC 51 (1994)
I Consohdated E& son Co. of New York (In&an Point Umts I, 2 and 3), CLI 75-8, 2 NRC 173,176 (1975) standard for insutunon of show cause proceedings; DD 94-9. 40 NRC 166 (1994), Di>9413, 40 NRC 386 (1994)
Consohdated Eason Co. of New York (Inaan Point. Umts I, 2, and 3), CLI 77 2, 5 NRC 13,14 (1977) burden on novant for interlocutory review; CL!#11, 40 NRC 61 (1994) 22
(_
p' l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l
CASES l
r h
Consohdated Edson Co. of New York, Inc. (Indian Point, Umt 2), CU-7423, 7 AEC 947 (1974) delegauon of post-hearing resolution of issues to Staff; LDP 9435,40 NRC 273 (1994)
Consurrers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units 1 and 2), ALAB-395,5 NRC 772,779 (1977) irreparable injury standard for grant of a stay: CU-949, 40 NRC 6 (1994)
Consuners Power Co. (Midland Plam, Ututs 1 and 2), ALAB-691,16 NRC 897, 911 (1982) onussmn of information as inatenal false statenent; LBP-9437,40 NRC 2% (1994)
Consuners Power Co. (Midland Plant Umts I and 2A CU-7&3, 7 AEC 7.12 (1974) intervennon in support of enforcenrns orders, CLI-9412, 40 NRC 69 (1994)
Consunwr. Power Co (Midland Plant. Umts 1 and 2), CU-83-2,17 NRC 69, 70 (1983) importance of false statements to hccmee character deternunanons; LDP-94-37, 40 NRC 2% (1994)
Consunwrs Power Co. (Midland Plant, Umts 1 and 2), LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1285,12% (1984) standad for adnussion of a new basis for a contention; LBP 94-27, 40 NRC 105 (1994) test for brigable issues; LBP-94-22, 40 NRC 39 (1994)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Umts I and 2). LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1285,1297 (1984) impanance of false statements to hcensee character deternunations: LBP 94-37, 40 NRC 2% (1994)
Consurrers Power Co. (Midland Plant. Umts I and 2), LBP-85-2, 21 NRC 24, 32-33,118 (1985). vacated as nmot, ALAB-842, 24 NRC 197 (1986) imervenuon in support of enforcement orders; CU-9412, 40 NRC 69 (1994)
Consumers Power Co (Pahsades Nuclear Power Facihty), AU-841,12 NRC 117,119-28 (1980) escovery of opimon poroons of NRC Staff docunrnis; LBP-94-26, 40 NRC 98 (1994)
Dairyland Power Cooperanve (La Crosse Boihng Water Reactor), LBP-80 26,12 NRC 367, 37&75 (19801, review of ceruned question, ALAB418,12 NRC 551 (1980) intervennon in support of enforcenent orders; CIL9412, 40 NRC 69 (19U)
Data Disc, Inc. v Sysiems Technology Associates, 557 F.2d 1280,1285 (9th Cir.1977) heensmg board view of its own juns& coon as basis for interlocutory review; CU-9&ll,40 NRC 62 n 5 (1994)
Detroit E& son Co (Ennco Fermi Aronue Power Plant. Umt 2) ALAB-469, 7 NRC 470, 471 (1978) replies to answers to motmns. LDP 9439. 40 NRC 316 (1994)
Detroit Leson Co. (Greenwood Energy Center Umts 2 and 3). ALAB472, 7 NRC 570, 571 n 1 (1978) effect of decision grantmg intervennon on appealability of earher interlocutory decisions. CLl4&l2, i
40 NRC 67 (1994)
Duke Power Co (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear Siation, Un/ts I and 2), ALAB-669,15 NRC 453, 477 (1982) heensing board authoney to adopt portions of meervencr's proposed hn&ngs that include techmeal analyses, opuuon, and conclusions; LBP 9435, 40 NRC 191 (1994) i Duke Power Co. v. Carohna Environnental Study Group. Inc., 438 U.S. 59. 72 (1978)
I judicial concepts of stanang apphed in NRC procee&ngs; CU 9412, 40 NRC 71 (1994)
Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Stauen, Unit I), ALAB-109. 6 AEC 243, 244 (1973) weight given to hcennns board's standing deternunalmns; CLI 94-10, 40 NRC 46 (1994)
EPA v. Mank, 410 U.S. 73. 87-88 (1973) producuon of Staff &ssentmg professmnal opimons; LBP-9426. 40 NRC 99 (1994) flonda Power and Light Co (St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. Uruts I and 2). CU-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 329-30 (1989) standing to intervene on basis of frequent contacts in area near nuclear facihty; CI19412, 40 NRC 75 (1994)
Flonda I%er and Light Co (Turkey Point Nuclear Generatmg Planr., Umts 3 and 4), ALAB-952, 33 NRC
)
521, 530 (1991) authonry to represent an orgaruzanon for purpose of estabhshmg stan hng to intervene; LBP-9420, 40 NRC 18 (1994)
General Liectnc Co. (Vallecitos Nuclear Center. General Electne Test Reactor), LBP-78-33, 8 NRC 461 464 68 (1978) escovery of Staff answers to quesuons concernmg creability of its case, LBP 9426, 40 NRC 98 (1994) 23
k LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-9316, 38 NRC 25, 32 (1993) sowing necessary to demonstrate standing to intervene in informal proceedings; LBP-9&33, 40 NRC 156 (1994)
Georgia Iwer Co. (Vogtle Electne Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLi-945, 39 NRC 190 (1994) enteria for grant of interkrutory review; CLI-9411, 40 NRC 60 (1994)
Gulf States Unliues Co (River Bend Station Umi l), CLl-94-10. 40 NRC 43, 47-48 (1994) weight given to heensing board ruhngs on standmg to intervene; CL1-9&l2,40 NRC 72 (1994)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985)
NRC discretionary authonry to imtiate enforcement proceedings; CLI-9&l2, 40 NRC 70 (1994)
Houston Ughung and 1%er Ca (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Stauon, Unit l), ALAB-535,9 NRC 377, 389-400 (1979) demonstrauon of injury in-fact by organization seeking representational standmg; CLI-9&l2, 40 NRC 73 (1994)
Houston Ughung and Power Ca (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Stauon, Umt 1), ALAB-535, > NRC 377, 390- % (1976) standard for establishing representauonal stamhng to intervene; LBP-94-19, 40 NRC 15 n.25 (1994)
Houston Ughtmg and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Station, Umt I), ALAB-565,10 NRC 521 (1979) rephes to answers to motions; LBP-94-39, 40 NRC 316 (1994)
Houston Ughting and Power Co (South Texas Project, Units i araf 2), ALAB 549,9 NRC 644,646 (1979) demonstracon of orgamzational standmg m informal proceedings; LBP-9420, 40 NRC 18 (1994)
Houston Ughting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units I and 2), LDP4&l),19 NRC 659, 674 75 (1984)
{
importance of false statements to hcensee chanrter determinations; LDP-94-37, 40 NRC 295 96 (1994)
Hurley Medical Center (One Hurley Plaza, Flint, Michigan), All-87-2, 25 NRC 2!9 236-37 & n.5 (1987) scope of board authonty to take enforcenwns accons LBP-9421,40 NRC 30 (1994)
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (kress Creek Decontanunation) L11P-M&lB. 23 NRC 799, 802 (1986) intervenuon in support of enforcement orders; CLI.9412, 40 NRC 69 (1994)
Kerr McGee Chenscal Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths facility), ALAB-928, 31 NRC 263, 269 (1900) j showmg nect isary on success on-the-nwnts standard in absence of irreparable irCury; CLI-949, 40 NRC 7 (1994)
Laclede Gas Co. v. Warnecke Corp., 604 F.2d 56L 565 (8th Ctr.1979) good cause for fiulure to respond to documem requests or inteirogatones; LBP 9438, 40 NRC 310 (1994)
Long Island Lightmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stauen. Umt 1), ALAB 773,19 NRC 1333,1341 (1984) burden on executive pnvilege claimant; LDP 94-26. 40 NRC 98 n.i t (1994)
Long laland Lightmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Umt I), ALAB461, 25 NRC 129,138-39 (1987)
)
comnuinrnt of resources as irreparable impact for purpose of obtasmng interlocunwy review; CLI-94-il,40 NRC 61 (1994; Long Island Lighung Co (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Umt 1). CLl4&ll, 23 NRC 577 (1986) fundamental-flaw standard for deternumng adequacy of emergency planmng; LBP-94-35,40 NRC 190 (1994)
Long Island Lightmg Co (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon. Umt 1), LBP-77-II, 5 NRC 481, 484 (1977) authonty to represent an organization for purpose of estabhslung standing to intervene; LDP 94-20, 40 NRC 19 (1994) long Island Ugnung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Urut 1), LBP 8118,14 NRC 71,72 (1981) rephes to answers to nmuons, LDP-94-39, 40 NRC 316 (1994)
I 24 l
I
.1 l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES i
Long island Ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I). LDP 82-82,16 NRC 1144,1164 (1982) production of Staff dissentmg professional opimons; LBP-94-26, 40 NRC 99 (1994)
Long bland Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1144, l165 (1982) l burden on executive pnvilege cliumant; LBP-9426,40 NRC 98 n.it (1994)
Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,105 (1983) demal of stan&ng where injury-in-fact is too speculative; CU-94-12, 40 NRC 72 (1994) los Angeles v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 912 F.2d 478, 495 (D C. Cir.1990) grant of organizational standing where injury has small chance of occurnng; CLI-9412,40 NRC 74 n.19 (1994)
Lausiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Stanon Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076, 1088 n.13 (1983) i intervenor's use of opposition's prepared direct testimony of experts; LBP-94 35, 40 NRC 191 n.8
)
(1994) j Lujan v. Defemiers of Wildhfe,112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) injury-in-fact standard for intervention in NRC procce&ngs; CU-94-10, 40 NRC 45 (1994) judicial concepts of stan&ng apphed in NRC proceedings; CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 72 (1994)
Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unii !),.'. LAB-774.19 NRC 1350 (1984) omission of informanon as matenal false statenent; LBP 94-37, 40 NRC 296 (1994)
Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt 1), CU-8&l7, 20 NRC 80), 8N (1984) irreparable injury standard for grant of a stay; CLI 94-9, 40 NRC 6 (1994)
Motmpohtan Edson Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt 1), CU-85-9. 21 NRC 1118.1136 (1985) licensee character and competence, importnnce of; LBP-9437, 40 NRC 295 (1994)
Moog Industnes, Inc. v. FTC, 355 U S. 411, 413 (1958)
NRC ascretionary authonry to imtiate enforcement procee&ngs; CLIM12, 40 NRC 70 (1994)
National Wildhfe Federation v. Hodel, 839 F.2d 694, 704 (D C. Cir.1988) denial of standing where injury in-fact is too speculative; CLI-9412, 40 NRC 72 (1994)
Northern States Power Co. (Pathhnder Atomic Plant), LDP-90 3, 31 NRC 40,45 (1990) geographic prnamuty as basis for standing to intervene; CLi-9&l2, 40 NRC 75 n.22 (1994)
Northern Staics Power Co. (Prairic bland Nuclear Generating Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 193 (1973), aff'd on other grounds, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973), aff'd sub nom. BPI v. AEC, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir.1974) weight given to hcensmg board's stan&ng deternunasions; CL1-9410, 40 NRC 46 (1994)
Nuclear Ergineering Co. (Shefheld, Ilhnois, low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737 (1978) intervennon in support of enforeenent actions; CU412,40 NRC 68 (1994)
O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U S. 488, 494 (1974) injury-in-fact standard for standng to intervene; CLI-9&l2, 40 NRC 72 (1994)
Ohio Edison Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CU-91 15, 34 NRC 269, 271 (1991),
reconsideranon demed. CLI-92 6, 35 NRC 86 (1992) forum for hhng stay of discovery requests; CU-94-9, 40 NRC 7 n I (1994)
Ohio Edison Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Unit 1) LBP 92 32, 36 NRC 269, 283 & n.27 (1992) appheabihty of res judicata and collateral esioppel in NRC proceedings; LBP-94-21, 40 NRC 30 n.1 (1994)
Ohio National Life Insurance Co. v Umted States 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir.1990) licensing board view of its own junsection as basis for interlocutory review; CLI-9411,40 NRC 62 n.5 (1994)
Oncology Services Corp., CL1-93-13, 37 NRC 419, 420 21 (1993) cntena for grant of interlocutory review; CL1-9411, 40 NRC 60 (1994)
Oncology Services Corp., LBP 9k20, 38 NRC 130,135 n.2 (1993) adrrassibihty of hearsay evidence in NRC procecangs; LBP-9421,40 NRC 31 (1994) 25
E LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASF.S Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umis I and 2), ALAB-504, 8 NRC 406, 410 (1978)
NRC policy dufsvunng interlocutory review, CLI-94 II,40 NRC 59 (1994)
Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), LBP-931, 37 NRC 5, 20 (1993) hnutanons on anendnrnt of contennons; LBP 94-22, 40 NRC 40 n 8 (1994)
Pennsylvama Gas & Water Co. v. FPC, 463 F.2d 1242,1246-47,1249-52 (D C. Cir.1972) objecuans to settlement orders; CU %12, 40 NRC 71 n.10 (1994)
Prunon for Enrrgency and Reme&al Acuon, CLI-78-6, 7 NRC 400, 405-06 (1978) agency sacrecon in choice of enforcement actions; DD-94-8, 40 NRC 129 n.1 (1994)
Petioon for Shutdown of Certain Reactors, CU-73 31, 6 AEC 1069,1071 (1973) agency dnercuan in chince of enforceneni acuans; DD-94-8,40 NRC 129 n.1 (1994)
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebbk Spnngs Nuclear Plant, Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-273,1 NRC 492, 444 (1975) weight given to bernung teard's standing deternunanons; CLI-94-10,40 NRC 46 (1994)
Ptrtland General Electnc Co. (Pebble Spnngs Nuclear Plant Umis I and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, old (1976)
Comnussmo authoney to dehne scupe of pubhc parucipauon in its procee&ngs; CLl412, 40 NkC 69 (1994)
Pubhc Service Co. of Indsana (Marble lhli Nuclear Generaung Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167,17(k71 (1976) scope of htigable issues, CU-9&lo, 40 NRC Si (1994)
Pubhc Service Co of In&ana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generaung Station. Umts I and 2), AI AB-405, 5 NRC 1890 (1977) substanual mjury standard for grant of interk>cutory review; Cl19411, 40 NRC 62 (1994)
Public Service Co of In&ana (Marble Hill Nuclear Genernung Sianon, Umts I and 2), CU-8010,11 NRC 438, 440 41 (1980)
Conwassion authonty to dehne scope of pubhc parucepanun in its procce&ngs, Cl1-94-12, 40 NRC 69 (1994)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stanon. Umts I and 2), ALAB-858, 25 NRC 17, 21-22 (1987) commstnrnt of resources as irreparable impact for purpose of obtaimng mierlocutory review; CU41l. 40 NRC 61 (1994)
Pubhe Service Co of New Hampshite 6embrook Station, Umts I and 2), C1188-10. 28 NRC 573, f00 j
(1988) safety conuderations of hermee's 6nancial quahfications, CU-94 lo 40 NRC 4K (1994)
Pubhc Service Co of Niw Hampshire (Seabrook Station. Umts I and 2), CLI-90-3, 31 NRC 219, 230 31 (1990) j deleganon of post-heanng resolunon of issues to Staff; LBP 94 35, 40 NRC 273 (1994) l Pubhc Service Co of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stauon, Umts I and 21, CU-90 3, 31 NRC 219, 258 (1990), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Massachusetts v. NRC, 924 F.2d 311 (D C, Cir.), cert. derned, 112 S Ct. 275 (1991) j weight given to irreparable injury standard for grant of a stay; CU-94 9, 40 NRC 7 (1994)
Rerrgouation Board v Bannercraft Co 415 U.S 1,24 (1974) j l
trreparable-in.;ury standard "w grant of a stay, CUM 9, 40 NRC 6 (1094) l Sacranento Mumcipal Vuhty Distnet (Rancho Secu Nuclear Generaung Station). CU-92 2, 35 NRC 47,56 (1992) econonue imerests pmtected under Nanonal Environmental Pohey Act; LBP-9&l9, 40 NRC 14 n 21 (1994) can&ng reqmrenrnes in informal procer&ngs; LBP-9420, 40 NRC 18 (1994) l l
26 l
l l
l l
l i:
l l
l l
f LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Sacramento Mcracipal Uplary Distnct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stauon), CU-942, 39 NRC 91, 93 (1994)
Comnussion policy on imerlocutory appellate review: CLI 94 il,40 NRC 59 (1994); CU-94-15,40
+
NRC 321 (1994)
Sacranento Mumcipal Unhty District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stanon), CLI-94-2, 39 NRC 91,94 (1994) stamlard int grant of interlocutory review; CL1-9415,40 NRC 321 (1994)
Sacramemo Mumcepal Uhhty Distnet (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stanon), LBP-93-23, 38 NRC 200, 239-40 (1993) surnmary dispoution standards LEP-94-37,40 NRC 293 (1994)
Safety Light Corp. (Bloomsburg Site Decontanunauon and Ucense Renewal Denials), CU 92-13. 36 NRC 79, 854 6 (1992) r irreparable-mjury standard far grms of interlocutory review; CLI-9415, 40 NRC 322 (1994)
E Safety Light Corp. (Bloomsburg Site Decomanunauon and Ucense Renewal Demals), CLI-9213, 36 NRC
- 79. 89 90 (1992)
Board authonry to conschdate issues C1194-10,40 NRC 51 (1994)
Safety Light Curp. (Bloomsburg Site Decontununacon), ALAB-931. 31 NRC 350, 361 (1990) hcensing board view of its own junsdicuon as basis for interlocutory review; CU 94 il,40 NRC 60 (1994)
Safety Light Gwp. (Bloorruburg Site Decontaminanon), ALAB-931, 31 NRC 350, 362 (1990) smhrect trar,sfer of hcensee control without nonfication; LBP-94 37. 40 NRC 291, 295 (1994)
Safery Ught Corp (Bloomsburg Site Decomanunauon), CU-92-9. 35 NRC 156 (1992) junsdictional m - as haus for interlocutory review; CL194-il. 40 NRC 63 (1994)
Scenic Hudson Prescrvauon Conference v. f ederal Power Commisuon, 354 F.2d 608, 620 (2d Ctr,1%5) responsibihues of boards to evaluate factual sesumony and judge its sigmficance; LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 192 (1994)
Sequoynh Fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site) CL1-94-11,40 NRC 55. 59 (1994)
Conmussion panicy on interlocutory appellate review; CU-94-15,40 NRC 321 (1994)
Siegel v. AEC, 400 in2d 778, 783 (D C Cir.1968)
Staff authonty to vuhze radiacon exposure incident u basis for suspension and modification of byproduct matenal heense; LBP-9421, 40 NRC 28 (1994)
Simon v. Easiern Kentucky Welfare Rights Orgamzauon. 426 U.S. 26. 38, 43 (1976) rairessahil.ty s'widard for standing to intervene; CL1-94-12, 40 NRC 76 (1994)
Smith v. ITC, 403 F Supp.1000,101^ (D. Del 1975) burden on clan utna of executive privilege; LBP-9426, 40 NRC 98 n.lt (1994)
Soumern Cahforma E:hson Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung Station. Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-717,17 NRC 346. 367 (l'113) heensing board i.uthonty to adopt poruons of intervenor's proposed fishngs that include technical analyses, opit, ion, and conclusions, LBP 9435, 40 NRC 191 (1994)
Staiement of Pohey an Conduct of Ucenung Proceedings. CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452, 456-57 (1981) cntena for graos of interlocusory review; CL1-94ll,40 NRC 60 (1994) 7ennessee Valley Authonty (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Ututs I A, 2A. IB. and 2B), ALAB-418, 6 NRC 1, 2 (1977) contem of manons for reconsideranon, LDP-9439. 40 NRC 317 (1994)
(
Tennessee Valley Authonry (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Umts I A. 2A, IB and 2B). ALAB-463, 7 NRC 341, 356 (1978) cases developed through cross-exanunacon rather than innrvenor's own witnesses; UlP 9435, 40 NRC 191 (1994) 7exas Uchues 1:lectne Co. (Comanche Peak Sicam Liectnc Stauon. Umts I and 2), CU-89-6. 29 NRC 348, 353 at n 2 (1980s rephes to answers to monons-LBP-9439. 40 NRC 316 (1994) 27 t
[
L I
i LEGAL CITATICT51NDEX CASES 1exas Unbues Generaung Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electne Station, Umts I and 2), LBP-82 87,16 NRC 1195,1199 (19826 tesponshihties of boards to evaluate factual testimony and judge sts sigm6cance, LBP-94-35,40 NRC 192 (1994)
Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units I, 2, and 3), ALAB-385, 5 NRC 621 (1977) irreparable-injury stand.ird for grant of a stay; CLI-94-9, 40 NRC 7 (1994)
Union Eleetne Co (Callaway Plant, Umts I and 2). LBP-78 31, 8 NRC 366, 368 (1978), aff'd, ALAB-527, 9 NRC 126 (1979) imervenuon in support of enforcenent orders; CLI-94-12,40 NRC 69 (1994)
Umon of Concerned Scienuses v. NRC, 824 F.2d 108 (D C. Cir.1987) cost or nsk-benent consideranons in reasotmble assurance 6mbng for operaung hcense issuance; LBP 94-35, 40 NRC 189 (1994)
Valley IWge Chnstaan College v Amencans Umted for Separauon of Church and Stare, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982) demal of standing where injury in-fact is too speculauve; CLIMl2, 40 NRC 72 (1994)
[
Vermon Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vernuun Yankee Nuclear Power Stmion). LBP-9(k6, 31 NRC 85 (1990) htigable issues in operntmg hcense amendment proceedmg to recover construccon penod; LBPM35, 40 NRC 188 (1994)
Vrginia Electnc and Power Co (North Anna Power Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-146,6 AEC 631, 633-34 (1973) board pohey on comeinion pleadmg imperferuons; LDP-94-19,40 NRC 15 (1994)
Vuginia Electne and Power Co. (North Anna Power Stanon. Umts I and 2), ALAB-146. 6 AEC 63), 634 (1973) anendment of interventwo petitions to cure defects; LBP-94-20, 40 NRC 20 n 3 (1994)
Virgima Electne and Power Co (N,wth Anna Power Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB 522, 9 NRC $4, 57 n 5 (1979) weight given to licensing board's standing deternunations; CLIM10,40 NRC 46 (1994)
Virgmia Liectne and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-741,18 NRC 371, 378 n11 (1983) potennal for delay and increased expenw as irreparable isnpm:t for purpose of obtairung inserlocutory review; CLIW11, 40 NRC 61 (194)
Virginia ilectnc and Power Co (North Anna Power Station, Uruts I and 2), CLi-76-22, 4 NRC 480,489 (1976). aff'd sub nom Virgmia Liectric and Power Co v. Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion, 571 F.2d 1289 (4th Car 1978) unission of infornution as matenal false statement; LBPW37, 40 NRC 296 (1994)
Vugima Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Federal Power Commiunon, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D C. Cir.1958) arreparable injury standard for grant of a stay; CLI-94-9. 40 NRC 6-7 (1994)
Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD-84-7,19 NRC 899, 923 (1984) standard for ensurunon of show-cause proceedings; Dn94-9, 40 NRC 166 (1994)
Wlurmore v. Arkansas, 495 U S.149,158 59 (1990) demal cf standing where snjury-in-fact is too speculauve; CLIW12, 40 NRC 72 (1994)
Wilderness Socrty ( Gnies, 824 l' 2d 4. II (D C. Ctr 1987) nature of mjury needed to estabhsh standmg to meervene; CLIM10,40 NRC 47 (1994p Wisconun Elecine Power Co. (Pumi Beach Nuclear Plant Umt 2), M.AB-137, 6 AEC 491, 50M5 (1973) cases developed though cross enanunatmn rather than miervenor's own annesses; LBPM35. 40 e
NRC 191 (1994) 28 L
i I
h i
[
f i
._.-_._. _ -. _._ _. ~.. _ _ _ _ _
l l
l l
l I
i i
I I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS i
10 C F.R. 2103(b) licensee nght to notice that its request for ainthonry to extend radsation therapy trearnwnts was derued.
LBP-94-40. 40 NRC 333. 338 (1994) 10 C F R. 2 202 intervenuon in support of enforcement action. CLI 0&l2. 40 NRC 67 (1994); CL1-9413, 40 NRC 79 (1994)
Staff authonty to uuhic radation esposure incidem as basis for suspension mut nah6 cation of byproduce snatenal heense; LDP-9421. 40 NRC 29 (1994) 10 C.F.R. 2.202(axI) basis for Staff enforcenent accons; LDP-9&21, 40 NRC 28. 29 (1994) l scope of Commission authonry; I.BP-94-40. 40 NRC 329. 3M (1994) 10 C F R. 2.203 heensing board rr acw of settlement agreenrnis; LBP-9&28. 40 NRC 117,118 (1994); LDP-9432,40 a
NRC 147 (1994). LDP-94-36. 40 NRC 234 (1994); LHP 9441, 40 NRC 341 (1904) pressdang officer's responsihihty to review settice eareements; CLI-94-12. 40 NRC 71 (1994) 10 C f R 2.206 defects in pressure transnutters; D!>94-12, 40 NRC 370-76 (1994)
J forura for hugaung water pollunon concerns that are outside the scope of hcense ar rndment g roccethng; LDP-94-33, 40 NRC 15455 (1994) mvesugation of heensee's handhng of radioactive matenals. DD'9411, 40 NRC 359-69 (1994)
.nagerial, secunty, and hunum perfornumce problems at South Texas Proiect; DD-94-13, 40 NRC j
378-87 (1994) l reactor shroud cracks at Drunswick, request for actwn on. DD 949. 40 NRC 160 67 (1994) request for opporiumty to comrnent on license arnendments mvolving uramum riull taihngs disposal in Utah: DD.94-10. 40 NRC 35458 (19941 I
10 C F.R 2.701(c)
.I compicuon date for hhngs; LBP-9420, 40 NPC 20 (19941 1
10 C.F R. 2.714(a) intervenuon en support of enforcenent metmns. CLI 9412. 40 NRC 68 (1994); LDP 9419. 40 NRC 14 11 (1994) 10 C F R 2.714(a)(1) l intervenuon nghis m support of Staff enforcenrni nrJer; LBP-9&l9. 40 NRC 12 n 7 (1994) standasds for orgamzational or representatmnal standmg to interverr; LBP-9&l9. 40 NRC 11 (1994) i test for hugable issues. LBP-9422. 40 NRC 39 (1994) 10 C F R 2.7144b)(2) and edN2p standads for adr,ussible consennons. CL1.94-10. 40 NRC 51 (1994) 10 C l R. 2.714fbx2)(n)
I duelosure reqmrements for coutecnon baws LDP 9&22, 40 NRC 39 n 6 (1994) i disnussal of issues that consurute defenses. LBP-9&40. 40 NRC 334 a 5 (1994)
Staff authonty to defense" issues; LHP-9&21. 40 NRC 33 n 4 (1994) f' 10 C l R. 2 714sf) conschdation of micrvenors' imgaimn presentaimns LBP,9419. 40 NRC 15 n.28 (1994)
I l
29 s
I i
f i
i i
s LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf R. 2.714a appeal of board deternunation on intervention rights in support of Staff enforcenrra order; LBP419, 40 NRC ll n.2 (1994) appeal cf intervenuon ruhng; CLI 94-10, 40 NRC 45 (1994); CL1W12, 40 NRC 66 (1994); CLI41),
40 NRC 78 (1994) effect of decision granting intervention on appealabihty of earher umlocutory decisions; CLi-94-12. 40 NkC 67 (1994)
NRC pohey disfavonng interlocutory review; CLI-94-il. 40 NRC 59 (1994) 10 C.F.R. 2.714a(s) appeals of intervennon ruhngs; LBPM19, 40 NRC 16 (1994) 10 CLR. 2.716 Board authoney to consohdate issues; CLl#10, 40 NRC 51 (1994) 10 CLR. 2.718 licenung tmard authonry to adnut new basis for adnutted contention; LBPM22,40 NRC 39 (1994);
LBPM27,40 NRC 105 (1994) 10 C F R. 2.718(i) interlocutory appeal based on jumdicuonal question; CLI-94-il, 40 NLC 59 (1994) 10 C.F.R 2.720thX2)(ii) standard for requinng Staff answers to interrogaiones; LBP-M-2 40 NRC 95 (1994) 10 C F R. 2.730 service requuements for answers to rnonons for reconsideration. LBPM39, 40 NRC 317 (1994) stay of discovery; CLIM9, 40 NRC 4 (1994) 10 C.F.R. 2.730ta) forum for 6hng stay of discovery requests, CLIM9,40 NRC 7 n.1 (1994) 10 CLR. 2.730tf) referral of ruhng that affects basic struerure of proceeding; CLI-94-12,40 NRC 67 (1994) 10 CLR, 2.730rg) effect of hhng of a snonon or certi6 cation of a question on status of a proceedmg; CLIM9. 40 NRC 5, 6 (1994) 10 CLR. 2.732 burden on rnnvant for inserloculory review; CLI.94-II. 40 NRC 61 (1994) 10 C.F R. 2.734 standards for motions to reopen a record. LDPM35,40 NRC 273 (1994) 10 CLR. 2.740(bx1) produccon of pubhcly available documents; LBP-94-26, 40 NRC 98 (1994) 10 CLR. 2,740(c) depositmn of ill person; LBPM24. 40 NRC 84-85 (1994) good <ause requirement for proscente orders; LBP-94 38, 40 NRC 311, 312, 313 n 3 (1994) heensing tmard authonry to manage discovery, CLIW9. 40 NRC 7 (1994) 10 C F R. 2.740rf) protecnve orders, requuenrnis for fihng tretions for; LEPM38, 40 NRC 310 (19W) 10 C.I' R. 2.740b(a) standard for requaing Staff answers to interrogalones; LBPM26, 40 NRC 95 (1994) 10 C.F R. 2.742 Board treatnrnt of NRC Siaff requests for adnussions; LDP-94-26, 40 NRC 95 (1994) interpretanon relative to special treatnent of Staff adnussmas. LBP426. 40 NRC 96 (1994) 10 C F.R. 2.743(b) deadhne for fibeg cross esanunanon phms: LBPM35, 40 NRC 193 (1994) deadline pnur so heanng for sulmussion of wnnen ter.umony; LBPM35,40 NRC 192 (1994) 10 C F R. 2743(bW2) ranonale for subnussion of cross <xanunanon plans only to the board. LBPM35,40 NRC 193,194 n II (1994) 30
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CE R. 2.74414) standard for requinng Staff answers to interrogarones: LBP-9426, 40 NRC 95 (1994) 10 CE R. 2 749 rephes to answers to sumrnary esposinon motions; LBP-9437,40 NRC 298 (1994) summary Asposition standards; LBP-9437,40 NRC 293 (1994) 10 Cf R. 2.749(a) burden on oppotent of summary disposituin motion, LBP-94 34. 40 NRC 171 (1994)
Staff monons for summary espoution, LBP 9434, 40 NRC 169,171 (19W) 10 C F R. 2.749(b) i failure to respond to summary esposauon monon; LBP-94 34,40 NRC 171 (1994) 10 CJ R. 2.749(d) evidennary support for summary &sposinon rnations; IEP-94-34. 40 NRC 171 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 2,760 inmediate effecoveness of summary dnposition decision, LBP-94-34. 40 NRC 179 (1994) 10 CE R. 2.771 reconsideration of board formulanon of issues; LDP-94-40, 40 NRC 337 n 9 (1994) standards for a nmuon for reconsideration; IEP-94-31, 40 NRC 139 (1994) 10 Cf R. 2.786 deadhnes for pentions for review; LBP 94-35, 40 NRC 282 (1994) effectiveness of decisions pen &ng ju&cial review; LBP 94-34, 40 NRC 179 (1994) 10 C F R. 2.78Na) 6nahey of decision approving settVnent agreement; LBP-94-36, 40 NRC 284 (1994) hnahay of decision when Commission dechnes review; LDP-94-29, 40 NRC '.24 (1994) 10 C F R. 2.7M6(bi(2) length of pections for review; LDP 94-34, 40 NRC 379 (1994) 10 C.F.R. 2.78NbH4)
Cornnussion auttmnry to rule on peutions for review; LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 282 (1994) grounds for review of summary espositmn rnations, LBP 94-34,40 NRC 179 (1994) 10 Cf R. 2.78Mg)
Commission &scretionary authonty to review licensing board imerlocutory orders. CLl-9&ll,40 NRC 60 0 994) decisions that warrant interlocutory review; CL1-9415, 40 NRC 321 (1994) revrw of referred ruhng that nught affect the bansc structure of a proceceng, CL1-94-12,40 NRC 67 (1994) 10 Cf R. 2.78Ngxl), (2) amerlocutory appeal based on junsecuonal quesuon; CLI-9& t l, 40 NRC 59 (1994) standard for imerlocutory review, CL1-94-il 40 NRC 59 (1994) 10 C.F R 2.7884c) standards for a stay; CLI-949. 40 NRC 5, 6 (1994) 10 C F R 2.1205(c)(1) nouce ralmrements for hcense amendment apphcanons. DD-val 0, 40 NRC 357 (1994) 10 CE R. 2.1205(d) interest and areas of-concern requirenrnts for staneng to amervene in informal procecangs: LBP-94-33, 40 NRC 152,156 (1994) 10 C F R. 21205(dX3) ples&ng reqmrements for statemems of concern in Subpart L procecengs; LBP.9439,40 NRC 316 (1994) 10 CI R 21205(g)
Ju&cial reqmrenems for stanang in infornuit procecangs, LBP-9420, 40 NRC 18 (1994); LBP 9433, 40 NRC 152 0994) hugable usues in Subpart L procee&ng on management competence for decomnuniomng; LBP 94-39, 40 NRC 315 (1994) 31 i
l l
)
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGl'LATIONS 10 CJ R. 2.1213 5taff participntion in informal heanngs; LBP-9433, 40 NRC 151 n 1 (1994) 10 C.F R. 2123!
Staff responsibihty to provide traring 6te to presi&ng of6cer and parues; LBP-%33,40 NRC 157 (1994) 10 CER. Part 2, Appen&x C aggreganon of violanons for assessnrnt of cml penalues; LEP-94-34, 40 NRC 176 (1994) noncated violanons, cntens for; DD-94-il,40 NRC 361 (1994) penahy for employee disennunanon; DD-94-13,40 NRC 379 (1994)
Seventy level Il violation for defects in Rosernount pressure transmitters; DD-9412, 40 NRC 372 (1994) 10 CJ R. Part 2. Appen&s C. IV & n.5 vananon in pubhc health and safety segm6cance of heense conditions; LBP 94-21, 40 NRC 33 (1994) 10 C F.R Part 2, Appendia C, IV.B. IV C evaluanon of safety signa 6cance of hcense violauons; LBP-94-21,40 NRC 33 (1994) 10 C F.R. 20 20l(b) survey requirenrnis for brachytherapy indmm-192 remote afterloa&r sealed source; LDP 94-40, 40 NRC 335, 337 (1994) 10 C F R. 201501(b) survey reqmrenents for brachytherapy indiunpl92 rernote afterloader scaled source; LBP 94-40,40 NRC 335 n 6 (1994) 10 C F R. 20.1801 failure to secure L.i.carones containmg radioactive matenals; DD# t t, 40 NRC 365 (1994) 10 C F.R. 20 2005 accutacy of ra&oactive matenals measurements, DD-94-ll, 40 NRC 361 (1994) 10 C F R. Part 21 reporting requirements on defects in pressure transnuners; DD-94-12, 40 NRC 370 (1994$
10 CJ R. 21.3 dehnision of " basic components supphed'; DD-94-12, 40 NRC 370 (1994) dehninon of deviation"; DD-9&l2, 40 NRC 373 n 4 (1994) 10 C F R 21.21 contractor responsituhty to nonfy licenwe or purchaser of devianons in components: DD 9412, 40 NRC 374 (1994) reporting reqmrenents for reactor shroud cracks; DD-949, 40 NRC 165 (1994) 10 CJ R. 2161 civil penuhrs for Seventy level II violaisons: DD.9412, 40 NRC 376 (1994) 10 C F R. 30 9ta) accuracy and completeness of maicnal provided by beensees to NRC; LBP-9&34,40 NRC 173 (1994) 10 C F R. 30.32(h) enempnon from regarements of-LBP.9441, 40 NRC 344 (1994) 10 CJ R. 30 35 enempuon from requirements of LBP-944), 40 NRC 344 (1994)
Anancial requirements for deconumssuming; LBP 94-41, 40 NRC 343, 345, 348, 350 (1994) 10 CJ R 30 36 site decomnussioning for unreemeted use; LBP 9441, 40 NRC 343, 349 (1994) 10 CJ R. 3513(e) heense amendarna reymrements for change in address or area of use, LBP 9&34, 40 NRC 172 (1994) 10 C F R. 3518 t
basis for suspension or nwda6 canon of byproduct material heense; LBP 94-21,40 NRC 29 (1994) 10 C.F R. 35 4N(a) survey reqmrements for brachytherapy in&um 192 remote afterloader waled source; LBP-9440,40 NRC 328, 337 (1994) 32 r
i i
LEGAL CITATIGhS ANDEX RECT'LATIONS 10 C F R. Part 40, Appencha A, I 2 uranium null ta>Iings disposal in large verses small facahties;. DD 9410,40 NRC 355-56 (1994) 10 C F.R. 50.7 ernpkw discnnunanon because of reporting of safety concerns; DD 9413,40 NRC 379 (1994) 10 C.F R. 50 tota) expirapon of reured reactor facihty bcense without tmrly renewal; DD 9411, 40 NRC 364 n.2 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 50 33(f)(2)
(mancial quah6 canons consideracon for transfer of operating authoney: CLI.94-10. 40 NRC 48 (1994) 10 C.F R. 5049 environmental quah6cauon rnamienance/ surveillance system componenis; LBP-9535,40 NRC 204. 208 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 50.55albM2). (3) standards for inwrvice inspeenon programs and inservice testmg programs; LBP 9435. 40 NRC 199 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 50.57(aK3). (6) stamlards for operanng license issuance; LBP-9435,40 NRC 189 (1994) 10 C.F.R. 50 59 safety evaluanon requirements for violanon of Technical Speo6 canons; UIP-9427, 40 NRC 109 (1994) 10 C F R. 50 65 effectiveness of NRC mamtenance rule, LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 188 (1994)
' 10 Cf R. 50.72 reporung requirements for reactor shroud cracks; DD-94-9, 40 NRC 165 (1994) 10 Cf R. 50.73 reportmg requirements for reactor shroud cracks; DD-949. 40 NRC 165 (1994) threshold requirement for Licensee Lvent Report; 1 BP-94-35, 40 NRC 200 (1994) 10 C F.R. 50 80 transfer of operauons control; CLI-9410,40 NRC 45 (1994) 10 C F.R. Part 50. Apswnds A f ailure of motor +perated valve to cycle on actuanon signal as vmlanon of smgle-failure entenon; LBP 9435, 40 NRC 270 (1994) 10 C F R. Part 50. Appen&s A. GDC 19 safety sigm6cance; LDP 94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1994) 10 C F.R. 71.5(a) radioacuve contanunanon of flathed hauhng radwaste; DD-9&ll. 40 NRC 364 n.2 (1994) 49 C F R.173 44ttbx1) ra&oactive contaminanon of flatbed hauhng radwaste; DD-9&ll, 40 NRC 364 a 2 (1994) 33 l
l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Atonne Energy Act. 63 NRC authonty to issue hcenses for disposal facihtaes without obtaimng state concurrence; DD 94-10, 40 l
NRC 357 (1994)
Atomic Energy Act. 81. 42 U.S C.12111 hcensing tmard authonty to review settlenrnt agreements. LBP-9432, 40 NRC 147 (1994) heenung board review of settlement agreenrins; LBP-9436, 40 NRC 284 (1994) l NRC authonty to issue beenses for disposal facihties without oboumng state concurrence; DD-94-10,40 NRC 357 (1994)
Atonne Energy Act. 84 NRC authonty to issue beenses for disposal facahnes without obtainmg state concurrence; DD-9410, 40 NRC 357 (1994)
Atonne Energy Act,103b. 42 U.S C. 4 2133tb) rad ological injury to property as baus for stan&ng to intervene; CL1-9410. 40 NRC 48 (1994)
Atonne Energy Act,103e. 42 U.S C.12133(c) operatmg hernse term hnuts. LDP-94-35, 40 NRC 185 (1994)
Atomic Energy Act.103d. 42 U.S C.12133(d) standards for operaung heense issuance. LBP-9435. 40 NRC 189 (1994)
Atomic Energy Act.161b. 42 U S C. 220l(b) heenung board authonry to resiew seulenrnt agreenents; LBP-9432, 40 NRC 147 (1994) heensing board revier of setilement agreenents; IBP-94-36. 40 NRC 284 (1994) rasological injury so prryerry as basis for stanang to intervene; CLI-9410, 40 NRC 48 (1994)
Staff authority to utshie radianon exposure incident as basts for suspenuon and nxxhfication of byproduct natenal heense; LBP-94-21. 40 NRC 28. 29-30 (1994)
Atonue Energy Act,161c. 42 US C.1220l(c)
Comnussion authority to Imid heanngs on enforcement actwns. CLI-9412. 40 NRC 69 (1994)
Atonue Energy Act. Ibla. 42 U S C i 2201(o)
Staff authonty to utahae ra&ation exposure incident as basis for suspension and nxxhficanon of byproduct matenal heense. LBP-9421, 40 NRC 28, 29-30 (1994)
Alonuc Energy Act, 1610. 42 U S C. 6 220l(o) heenung board review of settlenrnt agreenents; LBP-94-36. 40 NRC 284 (1994)
Atonne Energy Act. IR2a. 42 U S C. 6 2232(a) standards for evaluanon of hcensee proFrams. LDP 9435, 40 NRC 188 (1994)
Alonne Energy Act. lit 4 transfer of heensee control without nonficanon. CLI-9&l5. 40 NRC 320 (1994); LBP-94-37,40 NRC 291. 29 & 95 (1994)
Atopue EnerFy Act,186a. 42 U S C 1223Na)
Conmussion authonty to revoke or suspend a hcense; LbP-94-21, 40 NRC 28 (1994) hearmg nghts on operating heense anendments; CLI-94-10. 40 NRC 47 (1994) onusuon of informanon as matenal false staienwns. LBP-9437,40 NRC 2% (1994)
Atonue Energy Act.189ati). 42 U S C. 5 2239(a)(1) imersention m support of enftscenrnt acnons; CLl-94-12. 40 NRC 68. 69 (1994); LDP-9419, 40 NRC 12 n 7 (1994) 35
g LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STA111TES Atonne Eurgy Act, 234, 42 U.S C. 5 2282 hcensing board review of settlement speenem; LBP-94-28,40 NRC 117,118 (1994)
' Energy Reorgamzanon Act of 1974. 210 employee discriminmuon as a wolation of; DD-94-13,40 NRC 379 (1994) l i
?
I i
I f
?
l l
l l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS Am. Jur. 2d 22, Monons, Rules, and Orders { 27 (1971) reargunent or retranng of a amuon, standard for grant of a request for; LBP-94-31,40 NRC 140 (1994) 56 Am Jur 2d Supp 24 25 monons to renew versus monons for reconsideranon; LHP-9431, 40 NRC 140 n I (1994)
Ernest Gethorn and Walliam F. Robinson. Ji. Summary Judgnrnt m Adnurustrauve Adjudication, 84 Harv.
L Rev. 612 (1971), al 613 dehnetion of collateral facts; LBP-94 31, 40 NRC 141 (1994) l ed. R. Civ P 26tc) good-cause requirement for protective orders; LBP-94-38. 40 NRC 311 (1994)
Fed R. Civ. P. 36 interpretanon of 10 C.F R. 2.742 relanve to special treatnwns of Staff adnussions; LBP 94-26. 40 NRC
% (1994) red. R Civ. P 37(d) objections to document requests or interrogatones. LDP-9438, 40 NRC 310 (1994) f'ed. R. Civ. P. 56 witneu demeanor in summary disposition tesumony; LBP-94 37, 40 NRC 294 (1994) 2A Janes W. Moore et al., Moore's l'ederal Practice 182 0712 -1) at p.12-54, and 112 07[2 2] at pp 12-69 to 12 70 (2d ed.1994) deterpunation of subject matter junsdiction when facts presented give nse to factual controversy; ClJ-947, 40 NRC 62 a.5 (1994) 5A Jarres W. Moore et al., Mowe's Federal Practice 152 08 at pp. 52156 to 52-157 (2d ed 1993) deternunanon of subject maner junndiction when facts presented give nse so factual controversy; CLI 94-7, 40 NRC 62 n 5 (1994) 6 Moore's Federal Practice Part 2. 1 56 15i4) (1993) depoution importance in summary dispoutmn resumony; LHP 94-37, 40 NRC 294 (1994)
It Charles A Wnght et aL Federal Practice and Procedure 12291 at 809-10 (1970) good cause for failure to respond to docunent requeses or interrogatones; LBP-94-38, 40 NRC 310 (1994) 37
--....s
SUBJECT INDEX AGRLEMLNTS voluntary, on deposinon of ill person; LBP-94-24, 40 NRC 83 (1994)
APPEAL BOARDS precedential weight accorded to Jecninns of; CLI-94-il. 40 NRC 55 (1994)
APPEALS stay of dncovery pending; CL1-949. 40 NRC 1 (1994)
APPEALS INTERLOCLTTORY burden of pmot on; CLI-94-il. 40 NRC 55 (1994)
Comnussion pohey on; CLI-94-il, 40 NRC 55 (1994) irreparable impact standard for grant of; CLI-94-It 40 NRC 55 (1994) persasive effect on nature of proceeding; CLI-94-il. 40 NRC 55 (1994)
AUXILIARY BUILDING venulauon rystem; LBP-9435. 40 NRC 180 (1994)
BRACHYTi(ERAPY high-dose-rate arkhum-192 scaled source. LBP-9429, 40 NRC 123 (1994)
/
radianon survey fin iridium-192 remote afierloader scaled source; LBP-94-40. 40 NRC 323 (1994)
BREACH OF COMMITMENT
~
beyond techmcal specificanons; LilP-94-27. JO NRC 103 (1994)
BRIE I S clanty of. LBP-9437. 40 NRC 288 (1994)
BYPRODUCT M AILRIAL e
secuan lle(2) dnposal in m-utu leach facility; DD 9410, 40 NRC 353 (1994)
HYPRODUCT MATLRIAL LICLNSE AMENDMLVT change in area of use or address. LDP-94-34. 40 NRC 169 (1994)
BYPRODUCT MATERIAL S LICENSE i
settlemers aFreenent on suspensson. LBP-9436, 40 NRC 283 (1994) suspensmn.. LBP 9429. 40 NRC 123 (1994) suspensica or nmdahcatmn proceeding: LBP-9421, 40 NRC 22 (1494)
CABLES failure. LBP.9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
CLR'lIIICATION
+
See Duceted Cemficanon CHI:CK VALYLS ASW pump vault drain. LBP 9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994) main feedwater. LBP-94-35. 40 NRC 180 (1994)
)
icchmcal dncumon of. LBP-9435. 40 NRC 180 (1994)
CHLMICAL AND VOLUME CONTROL SYSTEM I
diaphragm leakage; LDP-94 35, 4/) NRC 180 (1994)
CIVIL PLNALTILS l
calculanon of amount; LBP-9&34. 40 NRC 169 (1994) empk ce dncrinunanon; DD-94-13, 40 NRC 377 (1994) l 3
requirements int iuuance of. DD-9412. 40 NRC 170 (1994) j i
1 39 I
___ _-- _ _ __A
SUBJECT INDEX -
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL apphcabihty in NRC proceedmgs. LBPM21,40 NRC 22 (1994)
CONTAINMENT equipment hatch; LBP 94-27, 40 NRC 103 (1994); LBP-9435. 40 NRC 180 (1994) fan cochng unit backdraft dampers; LBPM35, 40 NRC 180 (1994) personnel airlock, tests of; LBP 94-35. 40 NRC 180 (1994)
CONTFNrlONS adnutted, new basis fos: LBP 94 22, 40 NRC 37 (1994) factual support necessary at Ahng stage; CU-94-10, 40 NRC 43 (1994) late-hied basis for; LBP-94-27,40 NRC 103 (1994) hnutauons on anendment of; LDP-94-22, 40 NRC 37 (1994) pleathng imperfecunns; LBP-94-19, 40 NRC 9 (1994) plea;hng requirenrnts for; CLI 94-10, 40 NRC 43 (1994) scope of hogable issues; CLI-94-10, 40 NRC 43 (1994)
CORROSION piping; LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING pendency of, as basis for stay of enforcement proceedmg; LBP 94 40,40 NRC 323 (1994)
CROSS-EXAMINATION intervenor's presentation of case through, LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
DECISIONS appellate, precedential we.phs accorded to: CLI-94-II, 40 NRC 55 (1994)
DECOMMISSIONING for unrestncted use; LBP-94-41, 40 NRC 340 (1994) hfung of restneuon on Staff abably to issue ordes for; CLI-94-14, 40 NRC 133 (1994) management competence; LBPM39,40 NRC 314 (1994) of research areas. adequacy of, DD 94-il, 40 NRC 359 (1994) site remediauon requirenrnis for; LBP-91-20, 40 NRC 17 (1994)
DLCONTAMINATION of research areas, adequacy of; DD-94-ll, 40 NRC 359 (1994)
DEFINITIONS i
operable in Techrucal Specincanons; LBP-9&27,40 NRC 103 (1994)
DEPOSITION ill person; LBP-94-24, 40 NRC 83 (1994)
DIESEL GENERATORS failure to achieve rated vohage; LBP-94-35. 40 NRC 180 (1994) testcock valves; LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
DIRECILD CERTillCATION challenges to inscriocutory order treated as peacon for; CUW11, 40 NRC 55 (1994)
DISCOVERY failure to respond to imerrogatorm or document sequests; LDPM38, 40 NRC 309 (1994) hcensmg board authonty to manage; CLl#9, 40 NRC i (1994)
NRC Staff docunents: LBPM26, 40 NRC 93 (1994); LBP-9431, 40 NRC 137 (1994) objechons to interrogstones or document requests; LBP.9438,40 NRC 309 (1994) r stay of; CLIW9,40 NRC I (1994)
DISCRIMINATION employee, for seporting safety cos., erns; D0L9&l), 40 NRC 377 (1994)
DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING failure of intervenor to rure denciencies m hearing requess as basis for; LBP-9430, 40 NRC 135 (1994)
DUE PROCESS mece of charges and opportumty to respond to enforcement acunns; LBP-9421,40 NRC 22 (1994) h
m.
I SUBJECT INDEX EIILTRICAL EQUIPMENT environnemal quahhcation of; LDP-94 35,40 NRC 180 (1994) testoranoa of electrical panels; LBP 94-)S,40 NRC 180 (1994) -
EllCikiCAL POWER loss of; LBP-9427,40 NRC 103 (1994)
EMERGENCIES.
site area; LBP-94-27,40 NRC 103 (1994)
EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM safety-injecuon. accunnilator tanks; LBP-9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
EMERGENCY POWER
- diesel generator: LBP-9&27,40 NRC 103 (1994)
ENIT>RCEMENT ACTIONS agency daseretion in choice of; DD 948,40 NRC 127 (1994) civil penalty for employee discnnunation, DD-94-13,40 NRC 377 (1994)
Consurunonal due process requireness; LDP-94-21,40 NRC 22 (1994) inservention in support of. CLi-94-13, 40 NRC 78 (1994) legal basis for Comnussion authonty to take; LDP 94-21, 40 NRC 22 (1994) prohibiting individual's involvenrnt in NRC-heensed activities; LDP-94 40, 40 NRC 323 (1994) removal of individual from licensed or regulated activenes; LBP-9425,40 NRC 88 (1994) settlement agreenents; CLI-9412,40 NRC 64 (1994) sufhciency of charges; LBP-94 40,40 NRC 323 (1994) sufhciency of charges based on hearsay alleganons; LBP-9&21,40 NRC 22 (1994)
ENFORCLMENT ORDERS intervention in support of; LDP-9419,40 NRC 9 (1994)
ENI:ORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS 6
heense suspension and modecanon; IEP-9421, 40 NRC 22 (1994) heensing board auttmnty to dismiss issues in; LBP-94-21,40 NRC 22 (1994); LEP 94-40. 40 NRC 323 (1994)
NRC discrenon in smuation of; CL19412, 40 NRC 64 (1994) scope of pubbe pametpanon; C119&l2,40 NRC 64 (1994) scope of, IEP-9&21, 40 NRC 22 (1994); LBP 9&40, 40 NRC 323 (1994) stay of; LBP 94-40, 40 NRC 323 (1994)
ENGINEERED SAITTY FEATURES unplarmed activation of; LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
ENVIRONMENTAL QUAllf1 CATION of electncal equipnent, maintenance of, LBP 9435. 40 NRC 180 (1994)
EQUIPMENT rnessunng and test, control of; LBP-94-35,40 NRC 180 (1994)
EVIDENCE, HEARSAY enforcenrnt aetums based on; LBP-94-21, 40 NRC 22 (1994)
EXTENSION OF TIME stay compared to; LBP 9431. 40 NRC 137 (1994) f1NANCIAL QUAL!!1 CATIONS interpretation of tegulanons; CLI-9410, 40 NRC 43 (1994)
.F ilRIS electrical panel; LBP-94 35. 40 NRC 180 (1994)
IUEL HANDLING BUILDING techmeal discussion of; LBP-94 35, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
GAS DLCAY TANK missed survedlance; LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
GENERATORS See Diesel Generators; Sacam Gercrators 41 l
I 1
l
SUBJECT INDEX HEARING REQULSTS effect of failure to csur deficiencies in; LBP-9430, 40 NRC 135 (1994)
HEAT EXCHANGERS compmers cochng water; LBP 9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
HOUSEKEEPING control of foreign matenal and cleanhness; LDP-94-35,40 NRC 180 (1994)
INFORMAL PEARINGS areas of concern. basis for presi&ng officer's deternunaten on; LBP-9&20, 40 NRC 17 (1994)
INFORMAL HEARINGS standmg to imervene in; LBP-9420, 40 NRC 17 (1994)
INTERROGATORIES NRC Staff as target of, LBP-94-26,40 NRC 93 (1994) g' NRC Staff involved in prepanns key report; LBP-94-31, 40 NRC 137 (1994)
INTERVLNOR withdrawal from procec&ng wrth prejudice; LBP-9423. 40 NRC 81 (1994)
INTERVEf(flON in support of enforcement actions; CLI-9413, 40 NRC 78 (1994); LBP-94-19, 40 NRC 9 (1994)
!!fTERVLNTION PETTTIONS amendment to cure defects; LBP-9420, 40 NRC 17 (1994) plea &ng requatetnents for statements of concerns in Subpart L proceedings; LBP-9439, 40 NRC 314 (1994)
JURISDICflON
.anterkrutory appeal based on question of; CLI-9&ll. 40 NRC 55 (1994)
LICENSEE CHARACTER AND COMPETENCE bcense transfer restrictions; LBP-94-37,40 NRC 288 (1994)
' LICENSEE EMPIOYEES mechanism for reportmg safety concerns at Palo Verde; DD-9&B, 40 NRC 127 (1994) reporting of safety concerns. DD-941). 40 NRC 377 (1994)
LICENS11S transfer of operanonal corarol. CL1-9415, 40 NRC 319 (1994); LBP 9437, 40 NRC 288 (1994) i LICENSING BOARDS authonry to adnut new basis for contentir n; LBP-9422, 40 NRC 37 (1994) authonty to approve settlement agreenents; LDP 94-41, 40 NRC 340 (1994) authonry to &snuu issues in enforcement proceedmgs; LBP-94-21, 40 NRC 22 (1994); LBP-9440, 40 NRC 323 (1994) authonty to mosfy escovery demands: CLI 94-9,40 NRC i (1994) review of senlenent agreenents; LBP-9428,40 NRC 117 (1994); LBP-9&32,40 NRC 347 (1994) weight given to stan&ng deternunatmns; CL1-94-10, 40 NRC 43 (1994)
LILTING AND RIGGING DEVICES j'
control of, LEP-9435, 40 NRC 180 (19941 l
LUBRICANTS ssorage and handhng; LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
MAIN ITEDWATER PUMP overspeed inp; LBP-9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
MAINTENANCE backlog at South Texas Project; DD 94-13, 40 NRC 377 (1994)
MAINTENANCE AND SURVLILLANCE PROGRAM standards and scope; LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
MANAGEMENT COMPETENCE decomnussioning acuvines; LBP-9439,40 NRC 314 (1994)
MATLRIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT decomnussionmg and sne reme&ation, LBP 9420, 40 NRC 17 (1994) 42 I
1 l
l l
l w__-___-____-__
SUBJECT INDEX -
MISREPRESENTATIONS proof of; LBP-94-37,40 NRC 288 (1994)
MOUTNESS serrrdnation of proceeding on grounds on; LBP 94-29,40 NRC 123 (1994)
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION substantive stamlard, IEP-94-31, 40 NRC 137 (1994) tinebness of, LBP-9431, 40 NRC 137 (1994)
MOTION TO COMPEL deposinun of ill person; LBP 9424,40 NRC 83 (1994)
MOTIONS rephes to answers to; LBP-9439,40 NRC 314 (1994)
MOTORS wrong size installed, LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
NOTIFICATION contractor responsibihty to notify Ecensee or purchaser of deviauons in components: DD 9&l2, 40 NRC 370 (1994)
NRC STAIF Board trearnrnt of requests for adnussmns; LDP 94-26, 40 NRC 93 (1994) discovery of docunrnas from; LBP-94-31,40 NRC 137 (1994) discovery of nance of individuals involved in prepanns key report; LBP-94-31, 40 NRC 137 (1994) interrogatories asked of; LBP-94-26,40 NRC 93 (1994) sununary disposition monons; LDP 94-34, 40 NRC 169 (1994)
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS transfer of operauona comrol, CLJ-94-10, 40 NRC 43 (1994)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION authonry to issue hcense anendnents without obtaimng concurrence of state gosernments; DD-94-10, 40 NRC 353 (1994) legal basis for enforcement actions: LDP 94-21, 40 NRC 22 (1994)
OPLRATING LICENSE AMENDMENTS construction period recovery; LBP-9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
PENALTIES See Civil Pennines PHYSICAL SECURTTY PLAN effectiveness at South Texas Project; DD-94-13,40 NRC 3T. (1994)
PIPE SUPPORTS anubber damage; LBP 94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1o94)
PIPING corrosion; LDP-9435 40 NRC 180 (1994)
PRESIDING OIT1CEN reuew of sentement agreenents; ClJ 9&I2, 40 NRC 64 (1994)
PROOF nusrepresentatmns; LBP-94-37, 40 NRC 288 (1994)
PROOF, BURDEN OF interlocutory appeals; CLJ-9&ll, 40 NRC 55 (1994)
PROTECTIVE ORDERS requirenrnts for fihng nonons for. LDP-94-38, 40 NRC 309 (1994)
PUMPS nuxihary saltwater; LBP 9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994) ccmrifugal charging; LBP 9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
RADIATION poshngs, failure to utahze; DD 9411, 40 NRC 359 (1994)
RADIATION MONITOR wall-mounted, as radiauon survey detectmn instrunrm; LBP 9&40, 40 NRC 323 (1994) 43 I
i l
i
]
1 4
7 -.
p SUBJECT INDEX i-RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM
[
'pg invesugation of hcensee audit of; DD 94-il,40 NRC 359 (1994)
RADIATION SAIITY OITICER failure to inform NRC of change in: DD-94 l!, 40 NRC 359 (1994) restrictions on licensed activmes; LBP-9436, 40 NRC 283 (1994)
RADIATION SURVEY requirements for brachytherapy iridium 192 rernote afterloader sealed source LDP-94-40, 40 NRC 323 -
(1994)
RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION I
flatbed haufmg radwaste; DD-94-ll,' 40 NRC 359 (1994)
- r. '
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS CONTROL adequacy of hcensee progranr. DD-94 ll. 40 NRC 359 (1994)
RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL uranium null tailings; DD-9410, 40 NRC 353 (1994)
REACTOR cavity sump wide range level chantel, LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
REACTOR CDOLANT SYSTEM leakage; LBP-94 35, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
REACTOR CORE shroud cracks, reponmg requirenrnts; DD-94-9, 40 NRC 159 (1994)
- fuse fasture in rod control system: LDP-94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1994) steam generator low level. LBP-94-35,40 NRC 180 (1994)
RECONSIDERATION contern of neons for; LBP 94-39. 40 NRC 314 (1994)
REGULATIONS inierpretation of 10 CF R. 2.730(c); LBP-94-39. 40 NRC 314 (1994) inscrpretanon of 10 C.F R 2.1205(d) LBP-94-39. 40 NRC 314 (1994) interpretation of 10 C F R. 2.1237(a) LBP 94-39. 40 NRC 314 (1994) interpretatma of 10 CF.R. 50.3h0(2); CLI-9&lo, 40 NRC 43 (1994)
REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS standards for; LBP-9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
REPORTING REQUIREMI.NTS defects in Rosemount transnveters: DD-9&l2. 40 NRC 370 (1994) reactor shroud cracks; DD 949,40 NRC 159 (1994)
RLS JUDICATA applicabdity in NRC proceedmgs LBP-94-21. 40 NRC 22 (1994)
RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEMS operatnhty; LDP 9527, 40 NRC 103 (1994)
REVIEW diwreemnary; CLI-94-II, 40 NRC 55 (1994) standard of; LBP-9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
REVIEW, INTERLOCUTORY Comnussion pohey on; CLI-9415,40 NRC 319 (1994) standards for grara of; CLi-9415, 40 NRC 319 (1994)
ROD CONTROL SYSTEM fuse failure; LBP 9&35, 40 NRC 180 (1994) i ROSEMOUNT TRANSMIT'ITRS I
nouficanon of defects m: DD-9412,40 NRC 370 (1994)
RULES OF PRACTICE Board treatnrnt of NRC Staff requests for admissions; LBP-94 26, 40 NRC 93 (1994) j brrfs. clanry of; LBP-9437. 40 NRC 288 (1994)
I collateral estoppel m NRC proceedmgs; LBP-9421, 40 NRC 22 (19941 44 i
l l
i i
i']
i I
l j
i l
'I
p.
SUBJECT INDEX contentam plea &ng requirernents; CU-94-10, 40 NRC 43 (1994); LBP-94-19, 40 NRC 9 (1994) cross <xanunzion of other parties' witnesses; LBPM35, 40 NRC 180 (1994) deposstion of ill person; LBP 94 24,40 NRC 83 (1994) escovery; LBP-94-38, 40 NRC 309 (1994) escovery stays: CUW9, 40 NRC I (1994) disnussel of issues in enforcement proceedmgs; LBP-94-40, 40 NRC 323 0994) interlocutory appeals; CLI-9411,40 NRC 55 (1994) inserk>cutory review standards: CUhl5,40 NRC 319 (1994) intervention petition plea &ng requirements: LBP-9439, 40 NRC 314 (1994) late-6 led basis for contenton; LBP 94-27, 40 NRC 103 0994) nudions for reconaderation; LBP-94-31,40 NRC 137 0994) new basis for already adnuned contention; LDP-94-22, 40 NRC 37 (1994) proof of rniarepresentations; LDP-94 37,40 NRC 288 (1994) proposed fin &ngs of fact; LBP-94 35,40 NRC 180 (1994) reopening of proceedags; LBPM35, 40 NRC 180 (1994) repines to answers to nwions; LDPM39,40 NRC 314 0994) res judicata in NRC pmecedings; LBPM21,40 NRC 22 0994)
Staff answer to requesis for adnussions concerning truth of hn&ng in reports containmg collateral facts; LBP-94-31, 40 NRC 137 0994) starvting to intervene; CUMIO. 40 NRC 43 0994), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64 0994L LBP 94-19, 40 NRC 9 0994) stay pen &ng appeal, CU-94-9. 40 NRC 10994) stay versus extension of time; LDPM31,40 NRC 137 0994) nununary &sponinon, burden on opponent oL LBP-94-37,40 NRC 288 0994)
SECURITY failure to secure laboratunes contairung ra&oactive snatenals; DDMI1,40 NRC 359 0994)
SEISMIC CLIPS uninstalled. LBPM35, 40 NRC 180 0994)
SERVICE OF DOCUMElfIS answers to motmns for reconsideranon, LDP-9439, 40 NRC 314 0994)
SETTLLMENT AGREEMENTS licensmg tmard approval of. LBP-9425. 40 NRC 88 0994); LBP-9441, 40 NRC 340 41994) heenung huard review of, LBPM28, 40 NRC 117 0994)' LBP-94-32, 40 NRC 147 0994) paracapatton in heensed acuvines; LBPM32,40 NRC 147 0994) restriction of Ra& anon Safery Officer from engagmg in heensed activities; LDP-94-36, 40 NRC 283 0 994) review by presi&ng ofncer; CLIM12,40 NRC 64 0994)
Stf0T Pf1NING OPERATIONS procedurals during; LBP-94-35. 40 NRC 180 0994)
SHOW-CAUSL PROCELDINGS standard for msutution of; DDM9, 40 NRC 159 09m DD-94-13, 40 NRC 377 (1994)
SOURCE MATERIALS LICENSE AMLNDMENT uranium mill taihngs disposal; LBPM33,40 NRC 1510944)
STANDING TO INTLRVENE apphcation of ju&cial concepts in NRC proceedmgs; LBPM19, 40 NRC 9 (1994) archeological and rehgious concerns as bans for; LBPM33,40 NRC 1510944) causanon standard, CLIMl2, 40 NRC 64 0948) injury-in-fact standard for grsnt of, CUhl0, 40 NRC 4) 0994t CLIM12, 40 NRC 64 (1994) judicial concepts apphed m NRC proceedmgs; CLIM10, 40 NRC 43 0994), CLIM12,40 NRC 64 0994L LBP-94-20. 40 NRC 17 09944 LDPM33, 40 NRC 1510994) organnational interests; LBP.9420. 40 NRC 17 0994) redressabihty standard. CLI-94-12. 40 NRC 64 0994) 45
SUlUECT INDEX
)
representauonal, authorization for; LBP-94-19, 40 NRC 9 (1994) weight given to bcensing board judgmem at pleading stage; CU-94-10,40 NRC 43 (1994)
STAY consurunonal dernvanon ansing from delayed ad udication as basis for, LBP 94-40,40 NRC 323 (1994) i entension of time compared to; LBP-94-31,40 NRC 137 (1994) forum for Ahng requests for; CLI-94-9, 40 NRC I (1994) harm tcKither-parues standard; CLI-949, 40 NRC 1 (1994) irreparable-injury standard. CU-949, 40 NRC i (1994) pendmg appeal, CLI-949, 40 NRC 1 (1994) pubhc interest standard; CLI-949. 40 NRC 1 (1994) success-on-the-merits standard. CU 94-9, 40 NRC 1 (1994)
feedwater nozzle craclung; LBP 9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
STRONTIUM-90 suspennon of heense to receive or use; LBP-9421,40 NRC 22 (1994)
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION l
burden on opponens of; LDP-9424, 40 NRC 22 (1994); LBP-9437,40 NRC 288 (1994) burden on proponent of monon for; LBP-9434,40 NRC 169 (1994) evidentsary support for motions for; LBP-9434,40 NRC 169 (1994) legal standards for; LBP-94-34, 40 NRC 169 (1994)
Staff nmuons for; LBP-94-34, 40 NRC 169 (1994)
SURVLILLANCE over radioacuve source; DD-9411,40 NRC 359 (19W)
SURVEY INSTRUMENTS fasture to cahbrate at proper frequency; DD-9411,40 NRC 359 (1994)
TECHNICAL SPLCIFICATIONS actmo statenrnts; LBP-9627, 40 NRC 103 (1994) operable dc6ned in; U1P-9427, 40 NRC 103 (19941 violations of; LBP-9427, 40 NRC 103 (1994) f TERMINATION OF PROCLEDING nmoiness grounds for; 1.BP-9429, 40 NRC 123 (1994) withdrawal of intervenor as basis for; CLI-94-14. 40 NRC 133 (1994) withdrawal of sole intervenor as basis for; LBP-94-23, 40 NRC 81 (1994)
TRAINING heenwe fadure 1o provide; DD-N-il 40 NRC 359 (1994)
TRANSIIR OF CONTROL indsrect, nou6 canon requirenrnts; LBP-94-37,40 NRC 288 (1994) non6 canon requerenents, CU-94-15, 40 NRC 319 (1994)
URANIUM MILL TAILINGS disposal; LBP-9433, 40 NRC 151 (1994) disposal in Utah; Da94-10. 40 NRC 353 (1994)
UTAH uranium null taihngs disposal in: DD 9410, 40 NRC 353 (1994)
UTE TRIBE archeological and rehgmus resources; LBP 9633, 40 NRC 151 (1994)
VALVES ausihary saltwater pump crosus. I BP-9435. 40 NRC 180 (1904) component coolmg water; LBP 9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994) high-pressure turbine stop; LBP-94-35, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
Unntorque; LBP 9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994) nume-operased. fadure to cycle on actuation LBP-9&35, 40 NRC 180 (1994) testeock, on diesel generakt; LBP 9435, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
See also Check Valves 46
+
1 i
i
SUBJECT INDEX VENTILATION SYSTI.MS auxiliary buil&ng, LDP-94 35,40 NRC 180 (1994)
(
VIOLATIONS aggregation in calculation of civil penalty; LBP-9434, 40 NRC 169 (1994) nonessed, entena for; DD-9411. 40 NRC 359 (lW4) of technical specifications, interpretation of, LBP-9427, 40 NRC 103 (1994)
Severity 1svel II. DD-94-12,40 NRC 370 (1994)
Severity 1svel !!!. LBP-9434, 40 NRC 169 (1994)
Seventy level IV; DD-94 il, 40 NRC 359 (14'94) t WATLR pol 1UTION uranium null tashngs esposal activines and. LBP-94 33,40 NRC 151 (1994)
Wil!5T11BLDWERS protection of-DD 948. 40 NRC 127 (1994) 47 W
m,_..
I a
l FACILITY INDEX BLRT AVENUE, HARVARD AVENUE, AND McGEAN-ROHCO SriLS NEWBURGH IIEIGHTS AND CUYAHOGA HEIGHTS, OHIO; Docket No. 40 8724 MLA MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 7,19W, MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Request for Heanng). LBP-9420, 40 NRC 17 (1994) 1 MATLRIALS LICENSE AMENDMLNT; September 1.1994. MI MORANDUM AND ORDER i
(Motion to Disnuss Proceeding)' LDP,9430, 40 NRC 135 0994) i BRUNSWICK STEAM LLLCTRIC PLANT, Umts I and 2. Dxkei Nos. 50-325, 50'324 REQULST I'OR ACTION; October 19. 1994; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDLR 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206; DD-949, 40 NRC 159 (1994)
CLAIBORNE ENRICHMENT CLNTLR; Docket No. 743070 ML MATLRIALS LICENSE; November 18 1994. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-94-38, 40 NRC 309 41994)
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Umts I and 2; Docket Nos. 54275-OLA-2, 50 323 O!A.2 OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; November 4.1994. INITIAL DECISION (Construction Penod Recovery /Recapturet LBP-9635, 40 NRC 180 (1994)
GORE, OKLAHOMA SITE, Dotket No. 40 8027-EA LNIORCEMENT; July 7,1994, MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Grantmg Intervemson Mouon);
LBP-9419. 40 NRC 9 (1994)
LNIORCLMLNT; July 2L 1994. ORDI R. CL1-9&9. 40 NRC 1 (19W)
LNIORCEMLNT; August 23, 1994 ORDER DENYING PETITION LOR INTERLOCUTORY 1
REVIEW AND/OR MOTION IOR DikECTED CLRTIFICATION. CLI-94-il, 40 NRC 55 (1994) l LNFORCEMENT; August 23, 1994 MLMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-9412,40 NRC 64 41994L CLl-94-13, 40 NRC 78 (1994)
PALO VLRDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Ututs I, 2. and 3. Docket Nos. 50 528, 50-529, j
j 50-530 REQUEST IOR ACilON, August 12, 1994. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. 42.206; DD-948,40 NRC 127 (1994)
RANCHO SECO NUCLIAR GENLRATING STATION; Docket No. 50-312-DCOM DLCOMMISSIONING, September 2,1994; ORDLR. CLI-9&l4. 40 NRC 13) (1994)
DECOMMISSIONING REMAND; August II,1994. MLMORANDUM AND ORDER (Terrrunatmg I
Proceedmg); LBP-9423,40 NRC 81 (1994)
I RIVLR BLND STATION, Umt 1; Docket No. 50 458-OLA OPLRATING LICENSE AMENDMLNT; August 23, 1944. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.
CLI-9410. 40 NRC 43 (1994)
SOUTH TEXAS PROJi CT. Ututs I and 2. Docket Nos. 50 498. 50-499 REQUEST IOR ACTION, December 20. 1994. DIRECTOR'S DFCISION UNDER 10 C.I' R.
12 206, DD-9413, 40 NRC 377 41994)
VOGT11 LLLCTRIC GLNERATING PLANT, Umts I and 2 Docket Noa 50-414-OlA-3, 50-425-OLA 3 OPERATING LICLNSE AMENDMLNT; July 28. 1994 MLMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motma to Accept Additmnal Iactual Bamt LBP 9&22. 40 NRC 37 (1994)
OPiRATING LICINSE AMENDMENT; August 18, 1994: MI.MORANDUM AND ORDLR i
(Depowwn of Mr B l! Shipman); LDP-9&24. 40 NRC 83 (1994, r
49 I
l l
l i
J
,a w---e,.
...w,w,,..,
6 FACILITY INDEX l
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 22, 1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Staff Responses to Innervenor's First Request for Adnussions. Second Set of Interrogatories); LBP-94-26, 40 NRC 93 (1994)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 26, 1994 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Monon to Accept A&htional rectual Basis); LBPM27,40 NRC 103 (1994)
. OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 9.1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Marion for Reconuderanon: Adnussions; Secorul Order); LBPM31,40 NRC 137 (1994)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; November 8.1994. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Sununary Disposinon: Illegal Transfer Allegation); LDPM37,40 NRC 288 (1994)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; December 21,1994 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLIMIS, 40 NRC 319 (1994) 50 L
e i
j i
1 l
1