ML20091R611

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Biennial Report. Fiscal Years 1993 - 1994

ML20091R611
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/31/1995
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
NUREG-1363, NUREG-1363-V06, NUREG-1363-V6, NUDOCS 9509070103
Download: ML20091R611 (54)

Text

_

1 kmC PORM EJS -

U.O. NUCLEAR REQULATORY CCMMISSION

1. REPORT NUMBER i

1108, Rev and Num-aSoi, sene.

BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET tr, a any.)

NUREG-1363 (See instructione on the reverse)

Vol. 6

2. TrTUE AND SUOMla

3. DATE REPORT PUBUSHED Atomic Safety and Ur-daa Board Panel Biennial Report: Fiscal Years 1993 - 1994 l

uourg ytan AuFust 1995

4. NN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHUR(5)

~

6. TYPE OF REPORT i

Biennial 7, PERIOD COVERED (inclusive Dates)

Fiscal Years 1993 - 1994

s. PeRPORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME mo and mamne addre..C. pnMos DMelon, Omco or Region, U.S. Nuchar Regulatory Commission, and J

AND ADORESS (N NR memno madrese n omir ier, onede n

.)

Atomic Safety and IJcensing Board Panel

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4

Washington, DC 20555-0001 4

9. SPOMORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADORESS (if NRC, type "Same as atxwe"; if contractor, provide NRC DMelon, Orflee or Region, U.S. Nuoleer Regulatory Commission, and mali 6ng address.)

i Same as 8. above

~

a

10. SUoPLEMENTARY NOTES -

1 p

j

11. ASSTRACT (200 words or sees) t In Fiscal Year 1993, the. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ("the Panel") handled 30 proceedmgs. In

- Fiscal Year 1994, the Panel handled 36 proceedings. The cases addressed issues in the construction, operation, and maintenance of 6mmercial nuclear power reactors and other activities reqairing a license from the Nuclear i

Regulatory Cn==i== ion. 'Ihis report sets out the Panel's caseload during the year and summarizes, highlights, and analyzes hew the wide-ranging issues raised in those proceedings were addressed by the Panel's judges and licensing boards, t

4

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRPTORS (Ust words or phrasse that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

13. AVAILABluTY STATcMENT Unlimited ASLBP Biennial Report

" y*'

,[ '** *'" **"

- Fiscal Years 1993 - 1994 Unclassified Five-Year Projections Contentions Filed

• • "*)

Unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 9509070103 950831 is. eRice PDR NUREQ 1363 R PDR..

l NUREG-1363 1

Vol. 6 l

i l

1 i

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL BIENNIAL REPORT

l

^

\\

i FISCAL YEARS 1993-1994 4

1 i

l i

i i

i August 1995 l

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20555-0001

AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1.

The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Lower Level, i ashington, DC 20555-0001 2,

The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P. O. Box 37082,

_ Washington, DC 20402-9328 3,

The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161-0002 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica-tions, it is not intended to be exhaustive, Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; licensee event reports:

vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee docu-ments and correspondence.

The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purenase from the Government Printing Office: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference pro-ceedings, international agreement reports, grantee reports, and NRC booklets and bro-chures. Also available are regulatory guides. NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regula-tions, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances.

Documents ava.ilable from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG-series reports and technical reports prepared by other Federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal articles, and transactions. Ferteral Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports can usua. obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC con-ference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publica-tion cited.

Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Office of Administration, Distribution and Mail Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, Two White Flint North,11545 Rockville Pike, Rock-ville, MD 20852-2738, for use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, Ncw York, NY 10018-3308.

i-NUREG-1363 Vol. 6 1

4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL BIENNIAL REPORT i

FISCAL YEARS 1993-1994 i

}

l l

t t-i i

August 1995 i

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20555-0001 I

l 4-

1 i

?

i i

i i'

i Memorial i

I 4

i to 1

1 Robert M. Lazo i

t i

I I

..,.. f.. h/[ ;'...

-QfR4]ykt k

pg:h.?.: ?cW...

=

~

• ~

r u;.

.~

h

.-a

~r

[,

Qlg1

/

\\

l.

l W

I'Y i

t 1

i

}

5:

s 1

i l

t l

1 This Biennial Report is dedicated to Robert M. Lazo who died in office on l

May 6,1994 following 22 years of distinguished and faithful public service as a Member, Acting Chairman, and Deputy Chief Administrative Judge of j

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. His friends and colleagues remember him with affection and respect.

i e

i NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 i

i

_ -. _ =.. _

ABSTRACT in Fiscal Year 1993, the Atomic Safety and from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This Licensing Board Panel ("the Panel") handled 30 report sets out the Panel's caseload during the proceedings. In Fiscal Year 1994, the Panel year and summarizes, highlights, and analyzes handled 36 proceedings. The cases addressed how the wide-ranging issues raised in those inues in the construction, operation, and

- proceedings were addressed by the Panel's judges maintenance of commercial nuclear power and licensing boards.

reactors and other activities requiring a license iii NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

4 e

t

' CONTENTS i

W

-A BSTRACT...............................................................................

~ EX EC UTIVE S UM M ARY.................................................................... vii

. Ove rview ~.............................................................................. ' vii '

' Doc ke t D a t a '.......................................................................... vii 1 Ad m i ni st rati on.......................................................................... l I.-

- I NTR OD U CTI ON -....................................................................

1 1

I I. PAN EL DUTI ES........................................................................

3

1. : Pa nel H ea ri ngs......................................................................

3

<: 2. ) Types of Hea rings..................................................................

3

' 3.

H igh.Leve l Was te....................................................................

4 l

- 4.

O ther Panel Responsibilities.........................................................

4 Ill. ENHANCING THE ADJUDICATORY PROCESS........................................

7 l

. 1.

Improving Case Management 'Iechniques.............................................

7

}

2.

Utilizing New 'Ibchnologies.........................................................

7

[

3.

The 'IWo White Flint NoEth Hearing Room............................................

8 l

1 I V. ' CAS E LOA D........................................................................... 11 i

)

1.

Overview...........................................................................

11

}

2.

The Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994 Dockets.............................................. 11 l

3.

Projected Fut ure Caseload........................................................... 13 V.

PERSONNEL AND SU PPORT.......................................................... 15 4

i n. Pa nel Members i..................................................................... 15 l

2.

Professional and Support Staff....................................................... 16 3.

Awa rd s an d Activities................................................................ 17

}

r VI. SIG NIFICANT D ECISIONS............................................................ 19 l

1.

Antitrust..........................................................................

19 21. Stays in NRC Proceedings.......................................................... 19 23.

Standing 'Ib Intervene in NRC Proceedings............................................ 19 4.'

Contention in N RC Cases............................................................ 21 5.

Injunctive Relief Based on Wasting of Assets........................................... 22

6. ' Attorney Client and Work-Product Privileges.......................................... 22 7.

. Discovery in NRC Proceedings :....................................................... 22 8.

J u risd ict ion 1....................................................................... 23 9.~ ! Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act Violation........................................... 24

10. J Decommission i ng........... ~...................................................... 24 1 11. En forcement Act ions '................................................................ 25

12. Financial Qualifications.............................................................. 25 i

v-NUREG-1363, Vol. 5.

. 1 i

.i

+

13 Double J eopardy................................................................... 26

. VH. CO N C LU SI O NS....................................................................... 27 Appendices A Organizational Cha rt................................................................... 29 '

- B_

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994....................... 31

'C Biographical Sketches of Panel Members................................................. 33 D Selected Issuances of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards............................... _ 39 E, Major Federal Statutes and Regulations Relevant to ASLBP Adjudications................... 43 Tables 1.'

Fiscal Year 1983 Docket Recapitulation................................................... 11 2.'

Fiscal Year 1994 Docket Recapitulation.................................................... 11 3.

1993 Pa nel Caseloa d..................................................................... 11 4.

1994 Pa n el Caseloa d........................................................

12

. 5. Months Fiscal Year 1993 Cases Were on Docket............................................ 13 6.

Months Fiscal Year 1994 Cases Were on Docket............................................ 13 Figures

- 1. - Fiscal Year 1983 Caseload Mix by Percent.................................................. 12

. 2. Fiscal Year 1993 Caseload Mix by Percent.................................................. 12

3. Fiscal Year 1994 Caseload Mix by Percent.................................................. 12

4. Fiscal Year 1995 Projected Caseload Mix by Percent......................................... 13

5. Fiscal Year 19(X) Projected Caseload Mix by Percent.....................

13 1

a i

NUREG-1363, Vol. 5 -

si

_=_.--..

k EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Overview ees, and one involved an NRC employee in a Pro-The caseload for Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994 focused on issues arising out of the continuing operation of Completed Proceedings - Of the docketed cases

. more than 111 nuclear power plants or related facili-closed in FY 1993,36 percent were closed within 6 ties, and programs related to 7,(XX) nuclear materials months from the time they were first docketed and licensees and other nuclear licenses. The Panel's 64 percent were closed in less than 1 year. For 1994, fiscal year,like the Commission's, begins on Octo-73 percent of the cases closed were on the docket six ber 1. The 1993-1994 cases reflected the kinds of months or less.

disputes that arise from the regulation of a mature industry. In keepingwith budget constraints and the Administration

- NRC program to reduce the frequency of reports, the Licensing Panel has replaced its Annual Report Staffing - During Fiscal Years 1993-1994, one full-with a Biennial Report.

time judge (legal)left the Panel and became a part-time judge, one fulltimejudge died, and three part-Docket Data timejudges retired from the Panel. At the end of the period, September 30,1994, the Panel had 14 full-Caseload - There were 30 cases on the Panel's time and 21 part-time judges.

docket in Fiscal Year 1993 and 36 in Fiscal Year 1994. In FY 1993,13 cases involved nuclear power The Panel's Electronic Docket - The Panel re-plants or related facilities,15 involved other Com-placed its fulltext INQUIRE system with a personal mission licensees, and one involved an NRC em-computer LAN-based system using Personal Li.

playee in a Program Fraud Civil Remedy Act pro-brarian Services Software. This new system will 3

cceding. In FY 1994, seven cases involved nuclear represent a potential annual cost savings for the 4

power plants,28 involved other Commission licens-Panel of $30,(XX) to $40.(XX).

4

?

4 vii NUREG-1363., Vol. 6

I.

INTF ODUCTION He intent of Congress when enacting the Atomic Third, in deciding whether a license, permit, Energy Act was to provide that the public's views amendment, or extension should be granted to a l

regarding nuclear matters be given full particular applicant, individual boards must be consideration. Public participation at the NRC more than mere umpires. Where appropriate, reaches fruition in licensing hearings which are they are required to go beyond the issues placed conducted on the record before independent before them by the parties in order to identify, tribunals.

explore, and resolve significant questions involving threats to the public health and safety which come The public can participate in NRC hearings in to the boards' attention during the proceedings.

one of three ways: (1) by submitting written statements for consideration by hearing tribunals; In recent years, the Panel's caseload has shifted (2) by making oral presentations at hearings; or away from the large nuclear power plant operating (3) by becoming "intervenors" in hearings with full license and construction permit proceedings that participatory rights as parties, including dominated its docket during earlier years. The croosexamination of other participants. Parties to site decontamination, enforcement actions, reactor NRC hearings may appeal adverse decisions to license amendment, and materials license the Commission and, ultimately, to Federal proceedings that are taking their place continue to Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court of the raise difficult and sometimes unexplored United States, questions of law and scier:e. And in the near future, projected proceedags involving facility Adjudicatory hearings at the NRC are conducted decommissioning, license renewal, applications to by licensing boards or presiding officers drawn license high level and low level waste repositories, from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and new reactor design certifications are Panel. Nuclear reactor licensing and construction anticipated to be complex and highly contested permit hearings before these boards have been and will involve novel scientific issues. The high among the most complex, lengthy, and level waste repository proceeding scheduled for controversial administrative proceedings Yucca Mountain, Nevada, in particular, has the conducted by the Federal Government. This has potential for being one of the most complex and resulted principally from three factors. First, these controversial administrative proceedings ever hearings routinely have involved difficult conducted by the Federal Government.

interrelated questions of policy, law, physics, engineering, and risk assessment, often at the The Panel handled 30 cases in Fiscal Year 1993 cutting edge of science and technology, where and 36 cases in Fiscal Year 1994. This report boards must confront highly technical and summarizes, highlights, and analyzes how the scientific theories, opinions, and research wide-ranging issues raised in these proceedings findings. Second, difficult technical questions at were addressed and resolved by the boards and the NRC hearings are often resolved in the the judges of the Panel during the two-year complicated environment of k> cal concerns about period. This report also describes the present the consequences of severe accidents and the status of the Panel, recent adjudicatory national debate over the role nuclear power developments at the NRC, and present and should play in meeting the Nation's energy needs.

projected future caseloads.

1 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

II. PANEL DUTIES 1.

Panel IIcarings subcontractors, and vendors for contesting penalties (ranging from monetary fines and civil Contested hearings at the Nuclear Regulatory penalties to facility shut-down and license Commission (NRC) are conducted either by revocation) brought against them by the NRC three-member boards or by single presiding staff for alleged infractions of NRC regulations.

officers drawn from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. The NRC's regulations Antitrust Procccdings. liearings can be conducted provide the opportunity for numerous types of on antitrust grounds to contest the licensing of a hearings. These hearings include:

nuclear reactor. These hearings allow affected parties to challenge the licensing of nuclear Rcactor Licensing. The Atomic Energy Act of reactors if the operation of such reactors would 1954, as amended by the Energy Reorganization create or maintain a situation inconsistent with Act of 1974 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 the antitrust laws.

("the Act"), and its implementing regulations require that a hearing be held on every Commission-Ordered Proceedings. IIcarings can be application for a combined construction permit conducted for any nuclear-related matter that the and operating license for a nuclear facility that Commission directs be heard. For example, produces electric power. The combined hearing although hearings are not required under the provides an opportunity for affected individuals Administrative Procedure Act for agency and organizations to raise health, safety, and rulemaking, recently promulgated Part 52 of the antitrust issues. In addition, post-construction NRC's regulations provides for a hearing hearings on combined licenses are allowed under opportunity to contest proposed rules which circumstances when the facility's acceptance would certify designs for new reactors. Sce 10 criteria have not been met and there is no C.ER. 52.51.

reasonable assurance of adequate protection.

Separate hearings may be held on applications for Pctsonnci Afatters. IIcarings also may be construction permits or for operating licenses for conducted by Panel members for cases involving a nuclear power plant or related facility if a non-nuclear related activities. Such hearings combined license is not requested.

include cases involving employee grievances or agency personnel action. Hearings also are License Amendments. Affected parties may available to resolve differing professional opinions challenge proposed license amendments for and for individuals to contest agency action nuclear reactors which seek to alter the operating involving fraudulent claims brought under the mode or the physical configuration of the reactor.

Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986.

If the public health and safety warrants, hearings will be required before the license amendment is 2.

Types ofIIcarings authonzed.

IIcarings at the NRC may be either formal or Afatcriais Licenscs. Hearings may be conducted to informal. The Panel's formal proceedings are contest NRC licensing actions involving the governed by the Administrative Procedure Act,5 commercial use of nuclear materials. These cases U.S.C. 551, et seq., as implemented by the include licensing actions involving the Commission's own rules of practice set out at 10 manufacture, treatment, disposal, or storage of C.ER. Part 2. Formal proceedings consist of the radioactive and the commercial use of radioactive traditional procedures used in non-jury Federal materials used in such fields as nuclear medicine, court cases including pretrial discovey between well logging, and radiography.

the parties and formal trial procedures at the hearing. Formal procedures traditionally have Enforcement Proceedings. IIcarings are available been used at the NRC in cases involving the to individuals, employees, licensees, contractors, licensing of reactors and for enforcement 3

NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

proceedings brought by the agency against are loaded in the LSS's electronic repository.

individuals and licensees.

This electronic document data base will eliminate the need for most discovery after the Department Informal hearing procedures are authorized in of Energy's license application has been docketed matters affecting one of the NRC's more than for hearing.

7,000 materials licensees. Informal proceedings are generally conducted under the procedures in 4.

Other Panel Responsibilities 10 C.ER. Part 2 Subpart L. While the deliberative process for judges remains the same The Panel also performs a nuniber of other additional services for the NRC such as:

under either type of hearing, informal hearings involve significantly different procedures for Adrisory opinions-The Panel monitors all developing the record upon which decisions must proposed rules, regulations and legislation be based. The prmeipal differences include th affecting the NRC's hearing process and advises use of a s, gle presiding officer (as opposed to a the Commission when potential problems exist.

m threemember licensing board), yvr,tten submittals Upon request, the Panel furnishes comments to i

by the parties instead of a hearmg on the record, the Office of the General Counsel on rules and and,if the presidmg ors.cer determmes it to be regulations proposed by that office.

necessary after considermg the written submittals, oral presentations by the parties subject to Drafting NRC Procedural Rules-The Panel is questioning by the presiding officer. Subpart L currently working on a rewrite of the proceedings do not allow for discovery by the Commission's Rules of Practice to make them parties or for cross-examination by a party of the more easily understandable and useable and other parties' witnesses, expert or conventional, consistent with rules followed by other agencies.

Upon completion, the proposed draft will be 3.

Iligh Level Waste presented to the Commission for rulemaking. In the past, the Panel has worked with other NRC The Panel has several responsibilit.ies regarding offices in drafting procedural rules under 10 the projected high-level waste repository C.ER. Part 2.

scheduled to be built at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Ultimately, the Panel's administrative judges will Electronic Filing Services-In 1993, the Panel be responsible for making the initial decision in a formed a committee with other NRC offices to formal hearing on whether this repository satisfies consolidate and computerize the NRC's applicable safety and environmental requirements adjudicatory dockets. This project is still ongoing.

and should be granted a license.

During the same period, Panel members joined a consortium of volunteer government and private In recent years, the Panel has helped develop sector representatives to develop methods of procedural rules governing licensing hearings for electronic document filing in administrative the facility. The Panel also affords legal and hearings. The NRC was chosen as the pilot technical advice and support to the Licensing federal agency for this project. After the project's Support System Admimstrator (LSSA) for completion, the electronic filing standards developing the electronic document management developed will be reviewed to determine whether system for licensing the facility. The LSSA they should be adopted for NRC adjudicatory oversees the development of the Licensing proceedings.

Support System (LSS), a state-of-the-art, electronic document capture and retrieval system Altcenatire Dispute Resolution-Panel members and to be housed in the Department of Energy and the Panel's Legal Counsel are trained in used by parties and licensing boards in the Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques. This high-level waste proceedings.

resource is available to the agency and to NRC l

offices for mediation and facilitation services.

Within the next few years, the Panel will adjudicate discovery disputes after LSS Managing Court Reporting Services-The Panel is documents (estimated at up to 20 million pages) responsible for managing NRC court reporting NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 4

. -~.... -...

4-3 I

1, l

services for all proceedings, meetings, depositions, the Commission's Advisory Committees' meetings public hearings, oral arguments, and investigative -

and out-of-town Commissioners' meetings. The

interviews held in the United States, including its Panel also provides reporting services for

protectorates, and the countries of Canada and investigative interviews of the Office of.

Mexico.L In addition to its own adjudicatory Investigations and the Office of the Inspector needs, the Panel provides for the court reporting General and for selected meetings and workshops service needs for the rest of the NRC including conducted by other Commission offices.

i i

i i

f i

it t

i 1

4 i

]

1 3'

L i

^

5 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 P

III. ENIIANCING TIIE ADJUDICATORY PROCESS 1.

Improving Case Management techniques. In addition, the Panel has adopted a Techniques program of assigning settlement judges, when appropriate, to litigated cases to assist the parties During Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994, the Panel in settlement negotiations.

continued to streamline and improve the hearing process. For informal hearings, the informality of 2.

Utilizing New Technologies Subpart L requires that presiding officers be The Panel has m.ereasmgly relied upon computer innovative in creating and shaping the record and support systems m its day-to-day operations.

resourceful in ensuring an expedited proceeding These systems have proven to be particularly with a just outcome. Although these informal important for expeditmg adjudicatory proceedings require only a single judge, the Panel proceedmgs, managmg the Panel s voluminous has adopted a procedure of assigning a legal or and complex hearmg records, and supportmg technical judge from the Panel as an assistant to Panel admmistration the designated presiding officer. Thus, while obtaining the benefits of the informal procedures, Important technology innovations for expediting the ass,gnment preserves the cross-expertise of hearings have included the installation of i

the traditional three-mernber heensmg boards to computerized work stations for the judges and key ensure issuance of fully-mformed decisions.

Panel personnel. To assist in decision writing, judges can now access full text documents from For formal bearings, boards and presiding officers their computers using in-house customized take an active role in shaping the issues before database management systems while them by such measures, when appropriate, as simultaneously doing legal research on the consolidatmg the contentions of the parties. In computer through external systems such as complex proceed, gs mvolving numerous issues LEXIS and WESTLAW. In addition, as presently m

under several distinct topics, the Panel often configured, judges and professional support staff creates separate, parallel licensing boards to can, from their desks, draft, share, and comment handle one or more topics. In addition to the on proposed decisions; access and quickly search time saved through parallel adjudication, each either the Panel's electronic docket or the board can be assigned Panel members whose Commission's document retrieval system; and expertise best matches the issues to be resolved.

communicate with each other or other employees In addition, to further enhance efficiency, boards of the NRC through the Commission's electronic segregate topics at hearings and subdivide hearing mail system.

schedules into distinct phases so that each phase deals most efficiently with discrete groupings of Document availability and case management related issues. Boards also actively monitor the techniques have been considerably enhanced by discovery segment of proceedings to expedite the the Panel's electronic docket. For routine hearings, documents received by the Panel are case.

abstracted and entered into the adjudicatory For both formal and informal proceedings, boards database by the end of each working day. In and presiding officers affirmatively foster an selected complex cases, the full text of significant atmosphere conducive to the free exchange of documents such as pre-filed testimony and views among the parties and encourage the hearing transcripts are electronically indexed and possible settlement of disputed issues. A large added to the database. Once in the database, the percentage of proposed contentions and issues in system contains indexing, companion search, and NRC proceedings are thus resolved informally.

retrieval capabilities. During the 1993-1994 Boards and presiding officers also continuously period, the Panel's INQUIRE system (a full-text encourage the settlement of entire proceedings. To database manager for document storage) was this end, the Panel has initiated programs to train phased out for a more efficient, up-to-date, and its judges in alternative dispute resolution less expensive system. The new system, Personal 7

NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

l 1

1 Librarian Services (PLS), designed by the Panel to 3.

The Two White Flint North Hearing utilize the agency's local area network system Room (Autos) implementation plan, is PC LAN based and can be maintained on a stand-alone personal in July 1994, the Panel moved its offices to the computer. A network version of this system on a Two White Flint North building in Rockville, network file server has potential annual cost Maryland. These new quarters include a hearing savings of $30,(XX) to $40,(XX).

room designed specifically for conducting NRC j

i i

&ammadismh m

~

1 v-t l

.+

l L

W e

l I

i' New Panel hearing room at Two White Flint North licensing and enforcement adjudications. The available to accommodate approximately 100 i

judges' bench, counsel tables, and the witness, members of the public.

I clerk and reporters' boxes are arranged in a circular configuration that affords all participants With proceedings such as the high-level waste repository and the monitored retrievable storage an essentially unobstructed view of events within facility in the offing, the Panel will need to add l

the "well of the court." Audience seating is state-of-the-art audio, video, and computer l

l NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 8

t L

i l

technology to enhance efficient conduct of National Standards Institute's X.12 standards for l

hearings. Immediate plans for the new hearing electronic data interchange (EDI). EDI makes it room include the installation of a speakerphone possible for one computer to communicate 2

j system that will permit conference calls between directly with another regardless of the software the presiding officer and off-site parties using the and hardware involved, thereby eliminating not j

rnicrophones and speaker system in the hearing only the mail system, but also all human handling t

room.. The Panel also plans to install a local area now required for one party to transmit a network (LAN) in the room (possibly radio based) document to another. Widely used in many 1

that, using notebook computers, will allow the industries including banking, trucking, and retail, presiding officer, counsel, and witnesses to locate an EDI filing standard for textual documents and view electronic text or imaged versions of could save enormous amounts of both money and exhibits and record materials, perform time. For example, the time allowed for service of wordprocessing or spreadsheet functions, and do documents in large cases (which can add up to a

research using LEXIS/NEXIS, WESTLAW, or months) would be eliminated, as would the cost of 4

CD-ROM library materials via outside computer postage and duplicating. He result would mean databases. Thus, the Panel will have a paperless thousands of dollers of savings in a complex case.

courtroom capable of accessing the largest cases

~,

and legal databases instantaneously.

In addition, the Panel's project could establish a L

By creatively combining off-the-shelf systems, the standard useable throughout NRC as well as by e

cost of this modern courtroom will be modest.

all administrative agencies. Given the potential i

l.

He savings to the parties will pay for the delays and unreliability consequent from the modernization on the first large case.

- explosive growth of the Internet, a working EDI standard could take on critical importance and 3

j-Also during the period, the Panel began serving as enormous value. The Panel hopes to complete i

the test vehicle for a project to draft standards for writing the standard and obtaining ANSI X.12 i

electronic filing. The project would use American approval of it in the next 12 to 18 months.

1 i

1 4

i i

t i

3 1

J V

I i

1 i

1 1

E 9

NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 i

IV. CASELOAD 1.

Overview Commission licensees, and one involving an NRC employee. Fourteen new cases were docketed and The Panel's 1993-1994 caseload continued to 11 cases were closed in FY 1993, and, in FY 1994, reflect a trend, beginmng during the late 1980's, 17 new cases were docketed and 12 cases were toward more focused proceedmgs of a greater closed

• technical and legal diversity typical of a maturing industry. Unlike earlier years, construction The Panel's 30 cases in 1993 totalled 8 less than in permit and operating license proceedings for 1992. The decline in 1993 was caused by a nuclear reactors did not dominate the Panel's significant drop in the number of enforcement docket.

cases from 18 in 1992 to only 9 in 1993. The Panel had projected at least 15 enforcement cases for 2.

The Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994 Dockets 1993 based on the average number of enforcement cases in the three previous years of 17.3. The During Fiscal Year 1993, as shown in Tables 1 and 1993 reduction was believed to be an anomaly 2, the Panel had 30 proceedings on its docket. Of which was not expected to continue in the future.

. these proceedings,13 involved nuclear power In 1994, as predicted, enforcement cases increased plants or related facilities,15 involved other to 18 and there were a total of 36 docketed cases, 1

Commission licensees, and one involved NRC a 20 percent increase over 1993.

personnel.

The Panel's 1993-1994 caseload followed the i

Table 1. Fiscal Year 1993 Docket Recapitulation trend, begun in the late 1980's, of cases primarily concerned with NRC enforcement actions, Status of Cases Date No. of Cases materials licensing actions, and actions pertaining to the regulation of nuclear reactors that have Pending 10/01/92 16 been licensed and are operating. This caseload Docketed FY93 14 differs significantly from the three previous Total FY93 30 decades which were dominated by construction Closed FY93 11 permit and operating license proceedings for l'ending 10/01/93 19 licensing new reactors. Tables 3 and 4 set out the number and types of cases that were on the Table 2. Fiscal Year 1994 Docket Recapitulation Table 3.1993 Panel Caseload Status of Cases Date No. of Cases Pending 10/01/93 19 Docketed FY94 12 Antitrust 1

'Ibtal FY94 36 Decommissioning 1

. Closed FY94 12 Enforcement 18 Pending 10/01/94 24 License amendment 9

Materials Licenses 5

Personnel matters 1

In 1994, there were a total of 36 proceedings,7 Other 3

involving nuclear power plants. 28 involving other i

11 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

Table 4.1994 Panel Caseload dg UCENSING AMENOMENTS s

y Types of Cases Number of Cases

[

k Decommissioning 1

.jk9 Enforcement 18 ENFORCEMENTL y y Licensing amendments 3

( j" oTNER Materials licenses 9

C

=

Personnel matters 2

PEASONNEL MATTERS i

Other 2

ANninus 3.3 MATERIALS UCENSE 16.7 The difference in cases between the earlier era and the present era is graphically demonstrated by comparing Figure 1, infra, depicting the Figure 2. Fiscal Year 1993 caseload m,x by percent i

caseload mix for 1983, with Figures 2 and 3, infra, representing the caseload mix for 1993 and 1994.

In Fiscal Year 1983, construction and operating "E"^" 8 license proceedings accounted for 62 percent of oTNEn se 55 the Panel's docket. Although license amendment proceedings constituted a significant 26 percent, f

uATEniAts uceNsEs no significant number of enforcement actions and 4

88 materials licensing proceedings were docketed. In 1

Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994, in contrast, there were i

PERSONN L MATTERS no active operating license or construction permit j

proceedings, and enforcement actions, license ENFORCEMENT' 4

UCENSE AMENDMENTS amendments, and materials licensing proceedings es r

accounted for 80 and 83 percent of the docket, 4

DECOMM SSiONING e

respectively, for those years.

Figure 3. Fiscal Year 1994 caseload mix by percent OPERATING UCENSE 9 47.6 Licensing boards and presiding officers exercised effective case management techniques during 1993-1994. Sixty four percent of cases closed in OrNER FY 1993 had been on the docket less than 1 year and 36 percent had been on the docket for only 6 SPEC AL months or less. In 1994,73 percent of cases closed UCENSE AMENDMENT 2e.2 that year had been on the docket for 6 months or o NStagi,0N PERMIT gess, gn agg; tion, as shown in Tables 5 and 6,57 percent of the 30 cases in 1993 and 58 percent in Figure 1. Fiscal Year 1983 caseload mix by percent 1994 had been on the docket for less than 1 year.

NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 12

T;ble 5.

Months FiscalYear 1993 Cases Were on Docket ENFOnCEMENT h

. j

{-

D: ration of Cases No, of Cases Percent jj}

+

DECOMMISIONING Mdik

, il G.6 1 to 3 months 7

18 PERSONNEL 7

' Q ll.

4 to 6 months 8

21 01,H,ER 7 to 9 months 5

14

'7 10 to 12 months 5

13 uccNec AgcNDuENT

' C MxrEnists ucENsE More than 12 months 13 34 so AEMANDS 7.2 T ble 6.

Months Fiscal Year 1994 Cases Were on Figure 5.

Fiscal Year 1996 Projected caseload mix Docket by percent Duration of Cases No. of Cases Percent Beginning after 1996, an influx of new types of cases is expected on the Panel's docket. These 1 to 3 months 8

22 cases will be in addition to the baseload of reactor 4 to 6 months 8

22 license amendment, enforcement, and materials 7 to 9 months 0

0 licensing cases which the Panel is presently 10 to 12 months 5

14 handling. Areas where new cases are projected to occur include: 1 More than 12 months 15 42 License extension ofexisting reactors-The Commission is actively getting the reactor 3,

Prolected Future Caseload operating license renewal process on track so that Figures 4 and 5 forecast the Panel's near-term reactors may operate for a longer period than the caseload mix for Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996, period for which they are presently licensed. A respectively. Just as in Fiscal Years 1993 and new license renewal rule is expected to be issued which will make the license renewal of older 1994, enforcement, license amendment, and materials licensing proceedings are expected to reactors a more viable option. Potentially, a dominate the Panel's near-term docket, with these substantial number of hearings could be types of proceedings accounting for approximately generated by license renewal applications.

81 percent of the projected Fiscal Year 1995 Standard design certi/ication of new docket and 71 percent of the projected 1996 reactors-Rulemaking hearings are expected in docket.

1995 to certify the designs of the General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and the UCENSE AMENOMENTS ABB-Combustion Engineering System 80. During "6

the mid-to late-1990's additional hearings are oTgEa also projected for certifying novel light water jdyp designs employing passive features and modular DECOMMISSIONING 61

- y construction. Passive-design reactors will include PcRSONNEL MATTER $

t h %' ti M 600 W %d NW M

[ hl. !$E*fMENT Simplified BWR, for certification in the near ncum33 -

p @@jg/

7.7 term, and potentially the CANDU, MHTGR, a.it f PRISM and PIUS for certification in the long MATERI ALS UCENSE IM IIn addition to those listed here, there is aho some slight potential for hearings concerning carly site selection of new reactors and Figure 4.

Fiscal Year 1995 Projected caseload mix

"a*!p'cra"[iIgld""*e MicaYi[nl# # *"""'"i""""i' d

by percent 13 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

term. These hearings may ultimately result in the Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Prior to site licensing construction of new reactors which, in turn, will and possibly as early as 1997, licensing boards will require combined construction permit / operating begin ruling on discovery disputes for the LSS license hearings.

document loading. See discussion in Section II, Iow-lercl waste-Under the Low-level Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, states are required to provide low-level waste disposal Decommissioning-Increased decommissioning facilities individually or in compacts with other hearings are expected in the near term for nuclear states. Although mast state compacts are moving reactors whose licenses expire or retire early, slowly in planning sites, future hearings may well Contested cases are also projected to increase for eventuate to license low-level waste sites for some decommissioning materials licensees' sites, some Non-Agreement States.

of which could emanate from the Commission's Action Plan to Ensure Timely Cleanup of Site Iligh-Icrcl wastc-Licensing hearings are projected Decommissioning Management Plant Sites (See 57 in the year 2001 for the high level waste facility at ER.13.389. April 16,1992).

i 1

1 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 g

V.

PERSONNEL AND SUPPORT I

1.

Panel Members technical and legal matters likely to be raised during the proceeding.

To ensure the Commission's workload is met, the Commission appointment of administrative judges Panel has imtiated an active program to establish to the Panelis based upon the appointee's registers of persons qualified for appointment to recognized experience, ach.ievement, and the Panel in the wide range of disciplines independence in his or her field of expertise, required. The Panel also provides training for its Once appointed, judges are assigned, as cases judges in complex technical areas and in the arise, to individual licensing boards where their rapidly changing legal areas involved in nuclear professional expertise will assist in resolving the law.

t.

pagg-w.g mug.asssa===- n -

.. er, ;. y# 1 1y 1y..Q:.>;

r,( x f y

'3 1J

1. _

.7

.,2

...zrqupt7

....r

.jpg

' I h;b. ^ I U,. :; y t OkN6jjy 4

.JU Dic1A

p, m

. q;y;c.g c

1 y.

,- -;' E

';,..;7, y

.e

~

.R W

Q' k

?

l[/

.[

1.

o Panel meeting at National Judicial College First row:

(Standing) J. Whetstine, (seated) G. Anderson, E Ilooper, D. Callihan, W. Jordan, C. Bechhoefer, P. Lam, J. Frye,11. Foreman, E. Johnson, R. Lazo, M. Miller, and (standing)

E. Leins.

Second row: Senior Federal Circuit Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert, H. Rein, K. McCollom, G. Bright, R. Foster, C. Kelber, G. Bollwerk, G. Tidey, L Rubenstein, D. Schink, I. Smith, G. Ferguson, P. Morris, and II. Cotter.

Third row:

J. Kline E. Luebke, E Shon, R. Cole, M. Margulies, L. Dewey, P. Bk>ch, T. Moore, R. Pierce, J. Gleason, J. Carpenter, E.11i11, R. Parizek, T. Elleman, ' nd Professor Elizabeth James.

o 15 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 f

During the 1993-1994 period, the Panel had legal training and keeps Panel members informed available a total of 39 judges (16 full-time and 23 of important nuclear-related activities and legal part-time). See Appendix B. By academic proceedings; (4) oversecs, with the help of the discipline, they included 111awyers,10 public Administrative Support Staff, the Panel's health and environment scientists,9 engineers,7 legal / technical library; and (5) participates in the physicists, and 3 physicians. Collectively, they evaluation of computer support appropriate to the held 60 postbaccalaureate degrees in engineering, conduct of adjudicatory proceedings, scientific, or legal disciplines, and as a group they represented more than nine centuries of Ilistorically, individual licensing boards have experience in the nuclear field. See Appendix C.

obtained technical support from a Panel reactor Several part-time members are or have been safety engineer and an environmental health heads of departments at major universities or scientist. However, both positions were vacated national laboratories.

some years ago and have not been filled because u

of personnel ceiling limitations. During Fiscal Some j. dges left the Panel or changed their Panel Years 1988 through 1990, technical assistance, status during the period. In September 1993, particularly in physics and computer l

Judge James II. Carpenter went from a full-time development, was provided by the Panel's Senior to a part-time member. The Panel subsequently Technical Advisor. This position was vacated in lost two more full-time members when its Deputy 1991 and has not been filled. Currently, the Panel Chief Admimstrative Judge, Robert M. Lazo, died uses Administrative Judges (Technical), when they m May 1994, and its Chief Admmistrative Law are available, to perform these support functions.

Judge, Morton M. Margulies, retired in July 1994.

Three of its part-time members, Judges Sheldon J. Wolfe, Walter II. Jordan, and Glen O. Bright, Administratire Support also retired from the Panelin the summer of 1994.

As of the end of Fiscal Year 1994, the Panel had Program Support-The Program Support and 14 full-time and 21 part-time judges.

Analysis Staff (PSAS) performs the Panel's administrative duties and assists in planning, 2.

Professional and Support Staff developing and coordinating administrative programs to support the Panel's hearing mission.

Support for the activities of the Panel, individual its main responsibilities include, adjudicatory licensmg boards, and the Panel's judges is filing requirements, budget assistance, hearing structured along functional lines: (1) legal, (2) space and facilities, labor relations, librany techmeal, and (3) admmistrative. The Chief support (legal and technical), management of the Admmistrative Judge af the Panel manages and NRC court reporting contract (excluding the supervises these interrelated support activities.

reporting contract for the Office of the Secretary),

paralegal services, personnel, professional service Technical and legal Support contracts, and travel. PSAS is also responsible Legal support and advice for the Panel and its 39 for Performing a wide range of automated data pmssing (ADP) services, includmg ma, tenance m

full-and part-time judges is provided by the of the Panel,s electrome docket.

Panel's Legal Support Staff. The staff consists of tne Panel's Chief Counsel, a Staff Senior Attorney, and seasonal interns and law clerks who are Information Processing Section-The Chief of the added as required by the caseload.

Information Processing Section reports to the Director, PSAS. This section is responsible for Directed by the Chief Counsel, the Technical and supporting the Ibnel by developing and implementing:

Legal Support Staff: (1) provides legal advice, (1) docket management services; (2) adjudicatory research capabilities, opinion drafting, editing database management through automatic data services, and support at hearings;(2) supports the processing (ADP) systems; (3) general office support Chief Administrative Law Judge s. :h assistance services; (4) legal and technical library services; and (5) on a broad range of policy matters;(3) provides ADP training, research, development and assistance.

NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 16

i

}

l l

1 l

3.

Awards and Activities resulted in a significant contribution to the work i

of the Commission.

Awards Length of Government Service In Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994 liigh Quality The Panel has been well and faithfully served by Increase awards were received by Espanola E both judges and staff. During the period the j

llughes Robert R. Pierce in recognition of high following awards were given:

l quality service which resulted in a significant contribution to the work of the Nuclear Ten years:

Sherma K. Donovan Judge Peter i

Regulatory Commission.

S. Lam Twenty years: Judge Richard E Cole Carolyn Special Achievement awirds were received by K. Ecker Judge James P. Gleason l

James A. Cavanaugh, James M. Cutchin V (2),

i Lee S. Dewey, Sherma K. L)onovan, Carolyn K.

Thirty years: Judge Charles Bechhoefer Chief 1

Ecker, C. Joyce McDow, Florence M. Miller, Counsel Lee S. Dewey l

Doris M. Moran, and Jack G. Whetstine in recognition of a special achievement which Fifty years:

Doris M. Moran l

I l

e.

I i

4 s'

i k

u J J i

l l

l l

w.

L

.,s-t ie m j..

l 9

i 5-k.4d l

Doris Moran receiving an award from Judge Cotter 4

17 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 l

i i

Actiritics ofNote Supreme Court's opinions electronically. That system was named Project flermes by the Court.

In Fiscal Year 1993, Chief Judge Cotter, acting as SCON and Project liermes succeeded in Chairman of the Supreme Court Opinion revolutionizing the distribution of the court's Network (SCON), turned over control of Project opinions. The 170 paper copies previously IIermes to Associate Justice Sandra Day handed out on opinion day have been replaced by O'Connor. SCON, a volunteer, non-profit full text availability of opinions throughout the consortium of judges, bar associations, country within 24 to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />. Interestingly, information providers, libraries, and vendors, was SCON was terminated once its purpose was formed to establish a system to distribute the fulfilled, a rarity in Washington.

c I

I

\\

i e

fll T

o' n

e in '. -

j

. j.

a

~

Judge Cotter with Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 18

VI. SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS i

i During Fiscal Years 1993-1994, the Panel's boards potentially far-reaching consequences because,if and presiding officers published 72 decisions and Perry and Davis-Besse had their antitrust license issued several hundred memoranda and orders in conditions lifted, most other electric utilities connection with the 66 proceedings on the Panel's would have requested similar relief, docket. See Appendix D. All published board decisions are available in full text in Nuc/ car 2.

Stays in NRC Proceedings Regulatory Commission Issuances and also Several important Panel decisions dealt with electronically in the Energy Libraries of attempts to stay NRC proceedings. In Oncology LEXIS/NEXIS and WESTLAW. Some of the Services Corporation LBP-93-6,37 NRC 207 more significant of these formal issuances are (1993), the licensing board granted a 120 day stay summarized below.

of an enforcement proceeding sought by NRC staff to protect the confidentiality of ongoing 1.

Antitrust federal and state criminal investigations In 1993 a significant antitrust decision examinc concerning the licensee. Although the board and affirmed the continuing applicability of those found some prejudice to the licensee from laws in the Perry /DavisBesse proceeding. Ohio delaying the NRC proceeding, it determined that, Edison Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit on balance, the greater harm could occur from 1: C/cvc/and Electric Illuminating Company and premature disclosures m the enmmal 70/cdo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear investigations. It, nevertheless, recognized a duty Power Station, Unit 1) 1.BP-92-32,36 NRC 269 to monitor the delay to ensure that the good cause (1992). In this proceeding, the operating utilities for delay continued, and it warned that the delay would be cancelled once th? balance tilted in requested that the antitrust license conditions be deleted for the Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear favor of going ahead w:th the hearing process. It facilities. They contended that the conditions also moved forward with aspects of the hearing were no longer justified because these facilities which were unaffected by the investigations. To had higher costs of generating electric power monitor the delay, it set timetables for submitting compared to competing resources. Thus, they status reports on the ongoing investigations, reasoned, the facilities could not assist in the creation or maintenance of a situation 3.

Standing To Intervene in NRC inconsistent with the antitrust laws as set out in Proceedings Section 105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act, as Several 1993-1994 decisions involved the issue of amended. The beensing board rejected beensees,

.. standing to intervene" in NRC licensing argument by focusing on the purpose of the proceedings. 'Io demonstrate that a petitioner has antitrust laws and analyzing the nature of market sufficient standing to participate as a party in an power. The board concluded that, m an electne NRC proceeding, the petitioner must show that utility case such as this, the test for determim;ng a the licensing action in question may cause it situat,on mconsistent with the antitrust laws is i

actual injury in fact and that the petitioner's weighed m terms of the possession and use of interest is within the zone of interests protected market power. The board found that market by the NRC's governing statutes.

power is determmed by numerous factors such as firm size, market concentration, barriers to entry Standing Based on Irtjury to Property Interests into the market, pricing policy, profitability, and past competitive conduct. Because market power A standing issue of first impression was decided is not limited, as argued by the licensees, to the in a proceeding involving the transfer of comparative cost of doing business as measured ownership and installation of a new operator for by the cost of power generation, there was the River Bend nuclear reactor. GulfStates insufficient basis for suspending the Perry and Utilitics Company (River Bend Station, Unit 1).

Davis-Besse license conditions. This case had LBP-94-3,39 NRC 31 (1994). There the licensing 19 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 t

=

board granted standing on the grounds that the licensee claimed that a third party lacks standing property interest of the petitioner, who was a in this type of proceeding. In allowing co-owner of the facility, might be jeopardized by intervention, the board reasoned that the tribe's potentially unsafe operation of the facility caused interests could potentially be adversely affected if by under-funding. The board acknowledged that the order was not sustained, or if it was modified in past NRC cases standing had traditionally been or withdrawn by some unilateral staff action or by denied based on property interests. However, it a settlement between the staff and the parties.

distinguished those cases because those property Sequoyah Fuels Cocporation and General interests were primarily based upon economic Atomics (Gore, Oklai:oma Site Decontamination interests of ratepayers and taxpayers or general Funding), LBP-94-5,39 NRC 54 (1994).

concerns about a facility's impact on k) cal utility rates and the h> cal economy, and were too far Standing Under NEPA removed from the purpose of the underlying A Standing was denied in Babcock and Wilcox statutes governing those proceedings. The board (Apollo, Pennsylvania Fuel Fabrication concluded that the property interests in this case Facility-Decommissioning Plan), LBP-93-4,37 were protected by the Atomic Energy Act since NRC 72 (1993) when petitioner sought standing the petitioner's stated interest was to protect its under the National Environmental Policy Act property, the nuclear facility, from radiological (NEPA). Because NEPA requires federal agencies hazards arising from the facility's unsafe to undertake appropriate assessments of the operations.

environmental impacts of their actions, the petitioner claimed that it sustained injury in fact Establishing Partictdarized injury to a Petitioner when the NRC staff filed a more limited

""*"'"'^"*'""U""*"*I""

Ens"nmental mpact &atenwnt w% mspect to a In Sequoyah Fuels Corporation and General Proposed h,eens{mg activity. In deciding this o

Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma Site), LBP-94-5,39 NRC 54 (1994), a petitioner sought to establish claim, the presidmg officer recogmzed that under injury sufficient to confer standing to intervene by alleging that ground water flow from a nuclear site A " !""'.e lement standard exists m determmmg mjury m fact since the public has the might migrat; onto his property. Tb controvert right to be mformed about the envuonmental this assertie.i. the licensee of the facility furnished consequences of an agency s actions. Howmr, tw affidavits from ;echnical personnel contending concluded that the petitioner had failed to show a that such nigration was not possible. In granting concrete harm to a legitimate health, safety or mtervention, the hcens, g board concluded that m

envir nmental interest because its mjury the test for determining injury was whether there complaint was confined to economic interests was a " potential for consequences" to a petitioner.

@E Pr Perty values, local tax revenues) and it The board found such a potential here since had framed its concerns m terms of undefined groundwater conceivably could move in the injury to the h> cal community as a whole rather general direction of the petitioner's property. The board cautioned that it must avoid the familiar than to mjury the petitioner itself would suffer, trap of confusing the standing determination with Standingfor License Recapture and License the assessment of the petitioner's case on the rutension Proceedings merits.

The potential for an accident conveyed standing Third Party Standing To interrene in Ertforcement to intervene in a license recapture proceeding. In Proceedings Pacific Gas and Electric Comparty (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-93-9, A novel standing question was addressed by a 37 NRC 433 (1993), a petitioner contended that licensing board when a native American tribe the 13 to 15 additional years that would be added attempted to intervene in an NRC enforcement to a nuclear facility's cperating license (recapture proceeding to support an NRC staff enforcement time for construction of the facility) was a order. Third parties rarely attempt to intervene in potential accident threat sufficient to establish enforcement actions against NRC licensees. The requisite injury in fact. The licensee argued that NUREG-1363 Vol. 6 20

the extension of operating time sought by the 4.

Contentions in NRC Cases recapture amendment was purely a ministerial or Another h.ne of 1993-1994 Panel decisions administrative change to the license which could delmeated the acceptability of contentions not produce injury in fact. The licensing board proffered by mtervenors for litigation. In Pacific granted standing on the basis that the risks Gas and Electric Company (Dit bio Canyon associated with a potential accident during the Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2), LBP-93-9, recapture period are the same as for the original 37 NRC 433 (1993), the utility claimed that the operating period; therefore, residency within a issue raised m one of the contentions was barred 50-mile radius of the plant was sufficient in because it had been addressed in a prior Partial establishing standing just as it was in the original Dnutor's Decision under 10 C.ER. 2.206. The operating license proceeding.

board ruled that the claim was not barred from litigation because a Director's Decision under 10 in kms Utilitics E/cctric Company (Comanche C.ER. 2.206 is not afforded appellate review, even Peak Steam lilectric Station, Unit 2), LilP-92-37,36 for abuse of discretion, and thus does not NitC 370 (1992) a board was asked to grant standing to constitute an adjudicatory decision under Section intervene in a construction permit extension proceeding 189(b) of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended,42 in which a utility had requested a three year extension U.S.C. 2239(b). On a procedural issue, the board for completing construction of its nuclear facility. The also ruled that the validity and admissibility of board concluded that the same standing principles apply late-filed contentions in the case should be to an extension of an existing construction permit as considered before ruling on their timeliness. Even they do for a new construction permit or operating though the contentions theoretically could have license application. Thus, one of the petitioners was been summarily dismissed for being late-filed granted standing on the basis of his residence being without considering the contentions' admissibility, located within 50 miles of the nuclear facility.

the board reasoned that it was in the public Separately, in the 7 crus Utilitics decision, the tmard interest to take this approach because the addressed a petitioner's claim that a personal injury he seriousness of the asserted safety and had sustained, allegedly resulting from the utility's environmental problems alleged merited a closer mismanagement, supported his standing in the look to avoid the possibility of not considering proceeding. The board denied this claim because the them for a purely procedural reason, alleged mismanagement was not related to the proposed extension of the construction permit Another case involved the admission of completion date and the petitioner's grievances were contentions in a license recapture proceeding grounded in employment rights and could not be where the licensee requested that the years for redressed by any decision concerning license extension constructing its nuclear facility not be included as that would be issued in the proceeding.

part of the 40 year operating license period. In Pacific Gas and E/cctric Compa,.y (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-93-1, Standm.g Based on Proof of Residence 37 NRC 5 (1993), the utility sought to limit the scope of the petitioner's contentions claiming that In C wrgia Power Company, et al. (Vogtle Electric the recapture proceeding was an administrative Ger.< rating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-92-38,36 change equivalent to a proceeding for a license NRC 394 (1992), a standing decision turned on renewal wheN contentions are limited to issues of proof of residence. Tb meet the standing age-related degradation of structures, systems, requirement, a petitioner claimed residence within and components. Because the Commission had 50 miles of the Vogtle Plant. The licensee not enacted regulations regarding the scope of disputed petitioner's residence by asserting that contentions allowable in recapture proceedings, petitioner had declared his only residence to be in the licensing board ruled that the scope in those another state and that he had voted there. The cases should be similar to that permitted in any board placed the burden of proof on the license amendment involving a degree of risk to petitioner to establish residency by a the public. Ilowever, as characteristic of the preponderance of the evidence.

limited scope of most license amendment cases, 21 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

the licensing board ruled that the scope of 6.

Attorney Client and Work-Product contentions in this case was limited to direct Privileges challenges to the permit holder's asserted reasons In Georgia Power Company, et al. (Vogtle Electric that show good cause j,ustification for the delay Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LUP-93-11,37' for construction.

NRC 469 (1993), the intervenor claimed attorney-client and attorney work-product privilege for six tape recordings sought by the A third case regarding contentions mvolved a licensee during the discovery phase of the significant procedural question. In Georgia Power proceeding. The intervenor had been instructed Company (Wgtle Electric Generating Plant, Units by his attorney to make excerpts of several tape 1 and 2), LBP-94-22,40 NRC 37 (1994),

recordings of conversations he had with various LDP-94-27,40 NRC 103 (1994), the question licensee employees in preparation for a hearing presented was whether the board should apply the before a Department of Labor Administrative requirements for filing new contentions in 10 Law Judge. The intervenor previously had given C.ER. @ 2.714(a)(1) when an intervenor attempts these tapes to the NRC Office of Investigations to add a new basis to an existing contention. The and a Congressional Subcommittee. In board decided that the @ 2.714(a)(1) requirements concluding that the intervenor must produce these do not apply because intervenors are not required tapes, the licensing board found that the tapes to supply all the bases known at the time they file were not privileged because the intervenor had their contentions. The board went on to conclude not acted as his attorney's agent when preparing that the test for accepting new bases should be the tapes and the original tapes were not prepared whether the motion for accepting the basis was in anticipation of the hearing. An attorney timely and whether the new bases present workproduct privilege also did not apply since important information regarding a significant none of the attorney's thought processes were issue.

alleged to be directly disclosed in the tapes. The board further concluded that intervenor waived any privilege that may have attached to the tapes by submitting them to the NRC Office of 50 Injunctive Relief Based on Wasting of investigations and to the Congressional Assets Subcommittee.

A Commission materials licensee, which had been 7.

Discovery in NRC Proceedings ordered by the Commission to decommission and Discorcry of Confidential Information decontammate its site, attempted to sell a significant portion of its corporate assets to a In Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (Diablo sister foreign corporation while an enforcement Canyon Nuclear Power Plan, Units 1 cnd 2),

case against the licensee was pending. In an L BP-93-9,38 NRC 433 (1993) and LBP 93-13,38 unpublished opinion, Safety Light Corporation, et hRC 11 (1993), the intervenor sought to discover al. (Bloomsburg Site)(January 22,1993), the information contained in certain reports prepared

. licensing board enjoined the licensee from by the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations disposing of its assets on authority of 10 C.ER.

(INPO) concerning maintenance and surveillance 2.718(m) which allows a presiding officer to programs at the licensee's nuclear plant.

"[tjake any action consistent with the [ Atomic Although a Federal Circuit court of appeals had Energy] Act [19 C.ER. Chapter 1], and sections earlier determined that INPO reports furnished to 551-558 of Title 5 of the United States Code (The the NRC need not be released under the Freedom Administrative Procedure Act). The board of Information Act (FOIA), the board found that concluded that: (1) the sale could impair the INPO reports are not privileged in the traditional ability of the licensee to decommission the site by sense, but rather only subject to nondisclosure the dissipation of the licensee's assets; and (2) not under the FOIA. After due consideration of the dn'mmissioning the site could endanger the need for the information by both parties and the public health and safety, board and the fact that the request was limited to NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 22

a single INPO report, the Board ruled that the Power Company (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, report should be made available to the intervenor Units 1 and 2), LilP-94-26,40 NRC 93 (1994).

subject to a protective order limiting access to the information to specified intervenor The third ruling pertained to discovery of NRC representatives, allowing no copying of the investigative reports. The NRC Staff requested information, and allowing reference to the that it be aliowed to delay producing requested 1

material to be made in litigation only through in discovery for 128 days while its Office of camera sessions.

Investigations completed an m, vestigation.

Georg a Power Company (Vogtle Electric Discorcry in the Vogt/c Procccdings Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-93-22,38 NRC 189 (1993). The ir vestigation, which had Three significant discovery rulings were made been ongoing for about three years, previously during the discovery phase of an enforcement had been the basis for deferring document proceeding involving the Vogtle reactor. The first production for 75 days. In determining whether involved the deliberative process privilege. The to grant this additional extension, the board used deliberative process privilege allows documents a balancing test comprised of four factors:(1) the pertaining to government decision-making to be length of the delay, (2) the reason for delay, (3) the withheld from public disclosure so that defendant's assertion of the right to a prompt government officials will not temper their candor proceeding, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant with a concern for appearances during the of a delay in the civil prc,eceding. The board also decision-making process. The privilege can be considered the stati Agence in bringing the invoked in NRC proceedings, but it is qualified investigation to a close. Weighing these factors, and it can be overcome by an appropriate the board limited the extension to 39 days based showing of need. During the logtic proceeding, primarily on its concern that the longer the delay the staff wanted to delay producing an Office of in discovery, the more likely that key witnesses Investigations report whib it decided on whether would be lost and recollections would fade.

to institute an enforcement action. Weighing the needs of the parties, the board decided that the 8.

Jurisdiction entire report did not have to be produced Jurisdiction of Licensing Boards immediately, but the factual information did have to be produced because ofits importance to the A number of important jurisdictional rulings were outcome of the proceeding. With respect to the made in a license amendment proceeding for the opinion portions of the report, the board limited River Bend nuclear facility where a Board the staff's request for additional time to one accepted a contention that a lack of funding could month but it also tempered this early release by cause unsafe operation of a nuclear power plant.

allowing these portions to be subject to a GulfStates Utilitics Company (River Bend Station, protective order requiring the parties to hold -he Unit 1), LDP-94-3,39 NRC 31 (1994). An electric information in confidence. Georgia Power utility cooperative, which was a co-owner of the Company (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units facility, cha!!cnged a proposed merger that would 1 and 2), LBP-94-6,39 NRC 105 (1994).

replace the principal owner and operator of the facility, Gulf States Utilities, with a utility holding The second significant discovery ruling in Vogt/c company and an independent operating company pertained to discovery against the NRC staff. The owned by the holding company. The co-op Iioard held that the staff stands on the same claimed the changes would adversely affect its footing as any party in regard to answering ownership rights in River Bend and impair requests for admissions because neither 10 C.ER.

existing interconnection agreements that it had 9 2.742 nor any other section of the regulations with Gulf States. The co-op also contended that specifically provide for different treatment of the staff.

the NRC should enforce certain River Bend license condit ons which it claimed were being i

The board also ruled that the staff wa:: not required to answer interrogatories if they were not necessary to the violated. The board found that most of the determination of the case and if the information was co-op's claims involved contractual disputes reasonably attainable from other sources. Georgia between the co-op and Gulf States that did not 23 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

J

(

come under NRC jurisdiction becausv they were 9.

Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act not related to the facility's safe operation or Violation environmental concerns. According to the board, in In the Matter oflloyd P Zerr, AU-94-1,39 contractual disputes should be resolved by the NRC 131 (1994) and AU-94-2, May 4,1994 Slip appropriate State, local, or Federal courts. The Opinion, a board decided the Panel's first case board also determmed that the subject under 10 C.ER. Part 13, the NRC's mterconnection agreements pertamed to implementation of the Program Fraud Civil mterconnection and transmission provisions, rates Remedics Act. The NRC had charged a former for electric power and services, cost sharmg NRC employee with 23 false claims for obtaining agreements,long and short term planning monies from the government to which he was not functions. and similar utility-related operational entitled. Although the amount so obtained by the agreements, and were matters that fall withm the ex-empk>yee was $8,855.68, the NRC sought Junsdictum of the Federal Energy Regulatory penalties and assessments totaling $132,771.50, Commission or appropnate State agencies that including $28,514 for expenses the government regulate electne utilities. Fmally, the board ruled incurred in investigating the alleged fraud. The 23 that existmg NRC license conditions could not be false claims included reimbursement requests for enforced in the present license amendment overtime work, house rental, furniture rental, car proceedmg because bcensmg boards have no rental, and meals during the ex-employee's Junsdiction to enforce bcense conditions unless rotational assignment in an NRC regional branch they are the subject of an enforcement action office. The ex-empk>yee claimed that he had not imtiated pursuant to 10 C.ER, 202a.

knowingly overcharged the government, blaming the overcharges on mistakes, a lack of knowledge NRCJurisdiction Orce Owners of Licensces of travel regulations, and sloppy record keeping.

(Piercing the Corporate nil)

In rejectmg this defense, the Administrative Law Judge found that the exemployee had roorted to fraudulent documentation for some claims and in a motion for summary disposition, the parent that he eithen had or should have had actual corporation of a uranium reprocessing company knowledge that 22 of the 23 claims were false. As sought to be removed from an NRC order making recompense, the judge found that the ex-employee it jointly and severally liable for providing should pay a total of $21,711, an amount which financial assurance for decommissioning its included a double assessment for the $8,855.68 in subsidiary's nuclear processing facility near Gore, false claims paid by the government. 'Ile judge Oklahoma. Sequgah Fuels Corporation und excluded additional penalties requested by the General Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma Site NRC staff on the basis that the ex-employee had Decontamination and Decommissioning Funding),

already been subject to criminal prosecution, had LBP-94-17,39 NRC 359 (1994). The parent lost his position with the NRC, and had corporation asserted that Section 161 of the Wabursed the government for the false claims he Atomic Energy Act does not apply to had collected. The judge thus reasoned that the non-licensed entities such as itself. The board ex-employee had already paid significantly, and found that a principal issue in the proceeding was that this price established for fraudulent conduct whether the NRC could regulate a parent should act as a deterrent for others.

corporation as a defacto licensee that exercised

10. Decomm.issioning enough control over the activities of a licensee subsidiary to permit disregarding the corporate in a case involving potentially far-reaching form which separates the parent from the decommissioning issues for nuclear facilities, a subsidiary. In denying summary disposition, the fuel processing company sought to withdraw a board found that the parent had been involved in pending license renewal application and terminate some of the subsidiary's activities, but that the the proceeding. Sequoyah Fuels Corporation, degree of such involvement could not be LDP 25,38 NRC 304 (1993). Intervenors determined without funher evidentiary opposed the withdrawal based on their fear that development in the proceeding.

the facility could be decommissioned without NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 24

them having an opportunity to confront the Referance OfPost-Wlation Actiritics licensee's decommissioning plan. Although the presiding officer acknowledged that he could in the same license suspension proceeding, the condition the withdrawal, he declined to interfere medical clinic sought to present evidence showing with the decommissioning process because the that the suspension should be lifted because it withdrawal was not prevented by Commission had corrected the alleged improper activity after regulations. IIe also reasoned that preventing the the order was issued. The board held that withdrawal m,ght mmimize the NRC staff's post-suspensien activities were not relevant i

regulatory role in overseeing decommissionmg because the scope of the proceeding was limited activities and delay decontamination of critical to the sufficiency of the legal and factual areas.

predicates autlined in the suspension order. The board furt ter held that the extent to which post suspensio 1 activities warrant action to modify or withdraw a suspension order is a matter within

11. Enforcement Actions the discretion of the NRC staff and is not subject to consideration by a board.

Agency Discretion To Prescribe Licensee Ccmduct Not Required by Agency Regulation

12. Financial Qualifications Several significant financial qualification rulings in a license suspension proceeding, a were involved m a River Bend bcense amendment Pennsylvania medical clinic claimed that the enforcement action taken against it lacked legal proceeding. Gulf States Utilitics Company (River Bend Station, Unit 1), LBP 3,39 NRC 31 basis because no specific NRC requirements were (1994). The first concerned the beensee's claim violated. Oncolog Senices Corporation, LBP-94-2,39 NRC 1 (1994). The NRC that a lack of funding for the reactor could not enforcement order had charged the clinic with adversely affect safety because the plant would be "significant corporate management breakdown."

safely shut down if funding became a problem.

The order had cited various incidents of alleged The board rejected this argument because it contradicted the rationale of 10 C.ER. 50.33(f) mismanagement in support of this charge, but none violated NRC statutory provisions, requiring applicants for operatmg licenses to regulations, license conditions, technical demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to specifications, or orders. In upholding the order, UP.erate a nuclear reactor. The board noted that the board concluded that Federal agencies like the this regulation is based upon safety factors, NRC, vested with broad congressional regulatory ingluding the concern that msufficient fundm, g, mandates, have the discretion to take enforcement ght cause licensees to cut corners on operating actions against unaccepiable conduct even though or mamtenance expenses. The board further the specific actions are not covered by agency noted that even dunng shutdown there are

' ccident risks associated with a nuclear reactor, rules or regulations. The board reasoned that agencies should be allowed to set standards by individual order because they cannot possibly The second ruling concerned the question of anticipate and promulgate a rule relative to each whether financial qualification should be an issue activity that they undertake. The board further in the proceeding. The licensee argued that it noted that although the discretion to regulate by should not since the NRC's " financial individual order might not apply when an order qualification" rule exempts electric utilities from could create a new enforcement standard that a demonstrating financial qualification, llowever, licensee had no reason to rely on, this exception the board found this exemption to be inapplicable was not present in this case because there was no siice 10 C.ER. 50.33(f) applies only to electric showing that the staff's concern about ut lities. The operating company for River Bend,

" management breakdown" would be inconsistent wl.ose under-funding would allegedly cause the with administrative precedent.

safety concerns, was not an electric utility.

25 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

13. Double Jeopardy Judge denied this motion on grounds that the er n n I settlement would not result in double In a case under 10 C.ER. Part 13 involving the je Pardy in the NRC civil case because the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, the NRC staff Pretrial diversion agreement in the criminal action had sought to collect funds and sizable civil did not constitute jeopardy as contempla'ed by penalties for alleged false claims the defendant the double jeopardy clause. Under the pretrial made to the NRC. In the Matter of Lloyd R Zerr, ALI-93-1,38 NRC 151 (1993). A settlement had diversion agreement, defendant merely had been reached in an earlier criminal case against obtained the benefit of not being prosecuted at this defendant for the same cause of action when the cost of not being placed in jeopardy. The the defendant made restitution of funds to the judge also noted that Congress may impose both government.13ased on that settlement, the a criminal and civil sanction for the same act and defendant sought dismissal of the NRC civil suit, that there was nothing in the pretrial diversion aiguing that, among other things, the NRC suit agreement which prohibited the NRC from violated the Fifth Amendment by placing him in instituting an action against the defendant under doublejeopardy. The Chief Administrative Law the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act.

NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 26

VII. CONCLUSIONS Given the economic, energy, and public health facilities. These new proceedings will msure a and safety costs imposed upon Commission continuing supply of complex questions involving i

applicants, licensees, and the public at large in the a novel mix of law and science for th,

, el to event of unnecessary or avoidable delays in the resolve.

nuclear licensing and enforcement hearing process, the Panel will continue its program to The Panel is currently concerned with

• ying improve procedures and make the hearing process itself for new kinds of proceedings arising out of i

P ant life extensions, the decommissioning of older l

as efficient as possible.

plants, construction of new facilities (like the The Panel's current docket, consisting mainly of Louisiana Energy Services enrichment facility),

enforcement, license amendment, and materials the approval of new plant designs, and the licensing cases, reflects a maturing of the nuclear licensing of new low-level-waste facilities. These industry from the construction and initial new proceedings will ensure a continuing supply operation era to an operations and waste handling of complex questions involving a novel mix of law era. This docket is not expected to remain and science for the Panel to resolve.

constant.

Given the economic, energy, and public health On the horizon are new kinds of proceedings and safety costs imposed upon Commission arising out of plant life extensions, the applicants, licensees, and the public at large in the decommissioning of reactors and materials event of unnecessary or avoidable delays in the facilities, the construction of new facilities (like nuclear licensing and enforcement process, the the Louisiana Energy Services enrichment Panel will continue its endeavors to improve facility), the approval of new plant designs, and procedures and make the hearing process as the licensing of high-level and low-level waste efficient as possible.

27 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 J

a..

A J.

4.L_m es

.,t,4=

m

.4.w,.5 m

.am-4.w Jd m_...

2m..

h i -

l 4

'l i

s 2

i i.

i 9 '

i I

t i

4 1

i I

I

- i I

l t

J APPENDICES e

0 4

4 J

4

f 4

i.

a 0

I l

d I

J. '

t J

g 6

5 1

1-t T

1 d

4 W

f i

i m

__- _ _ ~ _

APPENDIX A i

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART I

l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL l

l Conducts hearings for the Commission and performs such other regulatory functions as the Commission authorizes. The Chief Administrative Judge develops and applies procedures governing the activities of boards, admin-Istrative judges, and administrative law judges, and makes appropriate rec-a ommendations to the Commission concerning the rules goveming the con-duct of hearings, i

l Chief Administrative Judge (Chairman)........... B. Paul Cotter. Jr.

j Deputy Chief Administrative Judge (Executive)..... James P. Gleason Deputy Chief Administrative Judge (Technical)..... Frederick J. Shon THE PANEL i

Conducts alllicensing and other hearings as directed by the Commission primarily through Individual Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards appointed i

by either the Commission or the Chlef Administrative Judge. There is no fixed number of positions in the Panel. The PanelIs comprised of: (1) ad-ministrative judges (full-time and part-time). who are lawyers. physicists,

)

engineers, and environmental scientists; and (2) administrative law judges j

g who hear antitrust, civil penalty, and other cases and serve as Atomic j

Safety and Licensing Board Chairpersons. One to three administrative judges serve as presiding efficers alone or on boards for a broad range of proceedings.

l CHIEF COUNSEL i

h Provides alllegal and technical support to the Chief Adm:nistrative Judge, the " administrative law judges, boards, and panel.

3 i

Chief Counsel...................................... Lee S. Dewey l

l l

4 l

PROGRAM SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS STAFF l

Provides planning, development, coordination, implementation, and analy-ses of policies and programs in support of the Panelincluding budget; per-sonnell labor relations; professional services; travel; space and facilities; equipment; contracts; information management including ADP equipment i

and development; adjudicatory files and services; library facilities; steno-l graphic and clerical services including field hearing space; equipment man-agement and coordination; meetings; employee training and development;

{

FotA: license fee data; security; and safety engineering.

Provides support and services in informatin management which includes computerized adjudicatory files, license fee data, management information systems, and other management information applicable to Panel activities.

P Manages court reporting contract for all offices except the Commission's offloos.

i Director....................................... J a ck G. Whet s tine j

l 8

29 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

APPENDIX B ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994 I. Panel Members 2 l

Officers B. PAUL COTTER, JR.

FREDERICK J. SiiON Chief Administrative Judge Deputy Chief Administrative Judge (Technical)

DR. ROBERT M. LAZO MORTON B. MARGULIES Deputy Chief Administrative Judge (Executive)

Chief Administrative Law Judge Full-Time Administrative Jufges JUDGE CHARLES BECHiiOEFER JUDGE CIIARLES N. KELBER Attorney Physicist JUDGE PETER B. BLOCH JUDGE JERRY R. KLINE Attorney Environmental Scientist JUDGE G. PAUL BOLLWERK 111 JUDGE PETER S. LAM Attorney Nuclear Engineer JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER JUDGE TilOMAS S. MOORE Oceanographer Attorney JUDGE RICHARD E COLE JUDGE THOMAS D. MURPHY Environmental Scientist Health Physicist JUDGE JAMES P. GLEASON JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH Attorney Attorney Part-Time Administrative Judges JUDGE GEORGE C. ANDERSON JUDGE GEORGE A. FERGUSON Marine Biologist Physicist Seattle, Washington Shady Side, Maryland JUDGE GLENN O. BRIGHT JUDGE HARRY FOREMAN Engineer Physician

. Norman, Oklahoma St. Paul, Minnesota JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN JUDGE RICHAPb E FOSTER

~ Physicist Environmental Scientist Davidson, North Carolina Sunriver, Oregon JUDGE THOMAS S. ELLEMAN JUDGE DAVID L HETRICK Nuclear Engineer Physicist Raleigh, North Carolina _

'Ibeson, Arizona 2All ASLEP Officer, professional and administrative staff and full-time Panel memben are based in Bethesda, Maryland.

31 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

i-i JUDGE ERNEST E. HILL -

JUDGE MARSHALL E. MILLER

-Nuclear Engineer

. Attorney.

Danville, California 1 Daytona Beach, Florida i

9.E PEM A. MORRIS -

- JUDGE FRANK E HOOPER l

Marine Biologist

, Maryland Ann Arbor, Michigan l

JUDGE RICHARD R. PARIZEK JUDGE ELIZABETH B. JOHNSON Geologist Nuclear Engineer University Park, Pennsylvania

- Oak Ridge, Tennessee JUDGE WALTER IL JORDAN n

or d Physicist l

' Oak Ridge, Tennessee JUDGE LESTER S. RUBENSTEIN -

Nuclear Engineer JUDGE JAMES C. LAMB III Oro Valley, Arizona

- ha e H l$,

rth Carolina JUDGE DAVID R. SCHINK Oceanographer

-JUDGE EMMETH A. LUEBKE Physicist JUDGE GEORGE E TIDEY Chevy Chase, Maryland Physician i

Houston, Texas JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM JUDGE SHELDON J. WOLFE Electrical Engineer Attorney Stillwater Oklahoma McLean, Virginia l

II. Professional Staff LEE S. DEWEY ROBERT R. PIERCE

- Director and Chief Counsel Senior Attorney Technical and Legal Support Staff Ill. Administrative Officers JACK G. WHETSTINE JAMES M. CUTCHIN V Director Chief Program Support and Analysis Staff Information Processing Section l

l NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 32

APPENDIX C BIOGRAPIIICAL SKETCHES OF PANEL MEMBERS i

ANDERSON, GEORGE C. B.S., University of the American Bar Assoc!ation: Senior Research British Columbia (1947); bl.A., University of Associate and Project Manager, the Urban British Columbia (1949); Ph.D., University of Institute; and attorneyadviser, U.S. Securities and Washington (1954). Dr. Anderson, currently Exchange Commission. Judge Bloch has Professor Emeritus at the School of published several articles on the conduct and Oceanography, University of Washington, has management of criminal investigations.

been a part-time member of the Panel since 1973.

In addition to authoring over 40 publications in BOLLWERK, G. PA UL, III. B.A., Um.versity of the fields of limnology and oceanography, Dr.

Notre Dame (1975); J.D., Georgetown Umversity Anderson has held numerous teaching, research, Law Center (1978). Judge Bollwerk has been a and administrative positions during his career of fulltime legal member of the Panel since July 1991.

over 40 years the University of Washington, the Before being appointed to the Panel, Judge Atomic Energy Commissio'n and the National Bollwerk served as an admimstrative judge on the Science Foundation. He was Director of the Atomic Safety and Licensmg Appeal Panel, a School of Oceanography at the University of senior attorney on the staff of the NRC Office of Washington for several years.

the General Counsel, a Special Assistant U.S.

Attorney with the Department of Justice, and an BECIIIIOEFER, CIIARLES. A.B., magna cum associate attorney in the law firm of Gardner, laude, Harvard College (1955); LLB., Harvard Carton & Douglas in Washington, D.C. After Law School (1958). Judge Bechhoefer has been a graduating from law school, he clerked for a full-time legal member of the Panel since 1978.

Federal district court judge and a Stae supreme Before his appointment to the Panel, his Federal court judge. Judge Bollwerk is currently on the service included positions a, Counsel to the faculty of the National Judicial College as a Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, lecturer on managing complex cases.

attorney with the Office of the General Counsel of BRIGIII GLENN O. B.S., University of the Atomic Energy Commission, and Oklahoma (1949): M.S., University of Oklahoma attorney-adviser m the Office of the General (1950). Judge Bright served as a fulltime member Counsel, U.S. Housing and Home Finance of the Panel from 1972 to 1990 and continued as a Agency. He is currently a Vice-President and part-time member until August 1994. Before his member of the Board of Governors of the appointment to the Panel, he spent 22 years with National Association of Admmistrative Law the Phillips Petroleum Company or its successor Judges. He is a former editor of the subsidiaries in varioa technical and management Admmistrative Judiciary News and Journal and a positions overseeing nuclear matters, including past member of the Executive Committee of the one year as a technical consultant to the National Conference of Admimstrative Law Government of Venezuela, and several years at the Judges and has held several leadel ship positions Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in charge within the Sect,on of AdmimstratLe Law of the i

of experiments for SPERT I and SPERT II.

American Bar Association.

CALLIIIAN, A. DIXON. A.B., Marshall University BLOCH, PETER B. B.S., Tufts University (1962);

(1928); M.A., Duke University (1931); Ph.D., New LLB, Harvard Law School (1965); LLM.,

York University (1933); D.Sc. (Hon.), Marshall Harvard Law School (1%7). Judge Bkwh has University (1%1). Dr. Callihan has been a been a full-time member of the Panel since 1981.

part-time member of the Panel since 1963. In his His prior positions include: Assistant Director of 60-year career, he has held positions as a the Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S.

physicist with the Union Carbide Corporation Department of Energy; attorney-advisor, Office of and Columbia University, and as assistant Opinions and Review, FERC; Executive Director professor at the College of the City of New York.

of the Commission on Law and the Economy of Dr. Callihan is currently the chairman or member 33 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

of several committees concerning nuclear reactor Chief Administrative Judge of the Department of operations for the United States Army and the llousing and Urban Development Board of American Nuclear Society. In 1988, he received Contract Appeals, a trial attorney with the U.S.

the American National Standards Institute's Department of Transportation, and in private Meritorious Service Award.

practice for 6 years. Ile is on the faculty of the National Judicial College, is a member of the CARPENTER,JAAfES II. B.A., University of American Law Institute, and is a recognized Virginia (1949); M.A., Johns llopkins University leader in the use of computers in managing (1951); Ph.D., Johns llopkins University (1957).

complex cases. Ile is a trustee of the American Dr. Carpenter had been a full-time member of Inns of Court Foundation, former Chair of the the Panel from 1981 until September 1993 when he Board of Directors of the Supreme Court Opinion became a part-time member. In addition to Network, has held severalleadership positions numerous publications in the fields of marine with the American Bar Association and the science and environmental chemistry and research Federal Bar Association. lie has written activities for the Chesapeake Bay Institute, Dr.

extensively in the field of administrative law.

Carpenter has held teaching and administrative positions with Johns llopkins University and the ELLE3 FAN, TI/OAfAS S. B.S., Denison University University of Miami (Coral Gables). During his (1953); Ph.D., Iowa State University (1957). Dr.

36-year career, Dr. Carpenter has been on the Elleman was appointed to the Panel as a editorial boards of several national journals, held part-time member in 1990. Over the course of his senior positions in several professional 40-year career, Dr. Elleman has conducted associations, and chaired or participated in research in private industry, including Carolina numerous professional committees on Power & Light Co. and General Atomics, and at environmental issues, particularly the marine North Carolina State University where he is environment. Dr. Carpenter was a member of the currently a professor of nuclear engineering, a committee that issued the BEIR I report department he headed from 1974 to 1979. lie has (Committee on the Biological Effects of lonizing published more than 60 articles in the field of Radiation).

nuclear chemistry. Dr. Elleman is also an American Board of Ilealth Physics Board COLE, RICIIARD F. B.S.C.E., Drexel University Certified licalth Physicist.

(1959); M.S.S.E., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1961): Ph.D., University of North FER'1USON, GEORGE A. U.S., Iloward Carolina (1%8). Dr. Cole has been a full-time Un. mity (1947): M.S., lioward University (1948);

member of the Panel since 1973. In addition to Pl n Catholic University (1965). Dr. Ferguson publishing numerous articles on water, wastewater has been a part-time member of the Panel since treatment, and international training of 1972. During his 46-year career, he has held environmental engineering, Dr. Cole has held teaching, administrative, and research positions teaching, administrative, and engineering with Howard University, the U.S. Naval Research positions in the United States and Guatemala Laboratory, the University of Pennsylvania, and with the University of North Carolina, Clark College (where he was Chairman of the Pennsylvania State University, and the State of Physics Department). Dr. Ferguson is a member Pennsylvania. Ile has held severalleadership of the American Physical Society and several positions and committee assignments with teaching associations.

numerous professional associations, and is a Diplomate of the American Academy of FOREAfAN,IIARRY. B.S., Antioch College (1938):

Environmental Engineers.

Ph.D., Ohio State University (1942): M.D.,

University of California (1947). Dr. Foreman has COTTER, B. PAUL,JR. A.B., Princeton been a part-time member of the Panel since 1971.

University (1959); J.D., Georgetown University Dr. Foreman's career spans 52 years in three (1968). Judge Cotter has been the Chief professional fields. In addition to publishing Administrative Judge of the Panel since 1980.

numerous professional papers in the biological Before 1980. Judge Cotter was a member and then and chemical fields, Dr. Foreman has held NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 34

teaching, administrative, and research positions Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency in Aldermaston, with the University of hiinnesota and the England, the International Atomic Energy Agency University of California, the latter involving work in Cuernavaca, hicxico, and at the Los Alamos in the area of radiation and biomedical research National Laboratory.

at Los Alamos.

IIILL, ERNESTE. B.S., University of California, FOSTER, RICIIARD F. B.S., University of Berkeley (1943): hl.S., University of California, Washington (1938); Ph.D., University of Berkeley (1959). Judge Hill has been a part-time Washington (1948). Dr. Foster has been a member of the Panel since 1972. Currently the j

part-time member of the Panel since 1981. Dr.

president of Hill Associates, a nuclear engineering Foster is the author of numerous professional consulting company, Judge Hill has held papers on the discharge of heat and radionuclides numerous nuclear engineering and management into water pathways, and has headed o-posi+ ions in the private sector, with the Atomic participated on several panels and committees on Energy Commission, and at the Lawrence radiation and the environment for, among others, Livermore National Laboratory.

the U.S. Public Health Service, the National IIOOPER, FR4NK E B.A., University of

)

Academy of Sciences, the International Atomic California (1939); Ph.D., University of hiinnesota Energy Agency, and the NRC Advisory (1948). Dr. Hooper has been a part-time member Comm,ttee on Reactor Safeguards. During his of the Panel since 1973. Currerfly a Professor i

52-year career, Dr. Foster has also held research Emeritus at the University of Alichigan, Dr.

and management positions with the State of Ilooper has held teaching and administrative Washmgton, the University of Washington, and positions at the University of hiichigan, the numerous laboratories and companies at the Institute for Fisheries Research, and the llanford, Washington facility.

University of hiinnesota. In 1962-63 and again in 1966, Dr. Hooper was an aquatic ecologist with GLEASON, JAMES E B.S.S., Georgetown the Atomic Energy Comm,ssion. From 1979 to i

University (1948); LL.B., Georgetown University 1988, he was chairman of the Ecology, Fisheries (1950). Judge Gleason has been a part-time member of the Panel since 1980 and held a similar and Wildlife Program in the School of Natural Resources at the Umversity of hiichigan.

appointment from 1967-1970. In 1992, he became a full--time Panel member. During his 43-year JOIINSON, ELIZABETII B. B.S., Western career, Judge Gleason has held numerous elective Kentucky University (1943); hi.S., Vanderbilt and appointive offices at the county, State, and University (1952). Judge Johnson has been a Federallevel; taught at the University of hiaryland part-time member of the Panel since 1975.

and Harvard University; maintained a private law Currently on the staff of the Instrumentation &

and consultant practice; and served as an aide to Controls Division of the Oak Ridge National two U.S. Senators.

Laboratory, Judge Johnson has held physicist and engineer p sitions on various Union Carbide IIETRICK, DA VID L. B.S., Rensselaer Pol technic Corporation nuclear projects at Oak Ridge and Y

Institute (1947); hi.S., Rensselaer Polytechm.c elsewhere, and was a research assistant with the Institute (1950): Ph.D., Umversity of Caliform.a, hianhattan Project. During her 50-year career, Los Angeles (1954). Dr. Hetrick became a Judge Johnson published numerous Atomic part-time Panel member m 1972. During his Energy Commission and other professional career as a physicist, Dr. Hetrick has worked as a papers, principally concerned with reactor private consultant to General Atomics, Hughes experiments and nuclear criticality.

Research Laboratories, the hiarquardt Corporation, and Brookhaven National JORDAN, HALTER IL A.B., University of Laboratory. He has taught physics at California Oklahoma (1930); hi.S., University of Oklahoma State University at Northridge, the University of (1931); Ph.D., California Institute of Technology Bologna in Italy, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, (1934). Dr. Jordan has been a part-time member and at the University of Arizona. Dr. Hetrick has of the Panel from 1970 until his departure in July also worked on nuclear projects at the United 1994. Dr. Jordan is the author of numerous 35 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

articles, professional papers, and books in the IJAfB,JefAfES C.,III. B.S.C.E., Virginia Military nuclear and radar fields, and is a Fellow of the Institute (1947); M.S., Massachusetts Institute of American Nuclear Society and the American Technology (1952); Sc.D., Massachusetts Institute Physical Society. In addition to holding teaching of Technology (1953). Dr. Lamb has been a positions at the University of South Dakota and part-time member of the Panel since 1974.

the University of Tennessee, Dr. Jordan spent 27 Currently a distinguished visiting professor of civil years at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in engineering at George Washington University and various research and management positions, professor of sanitary engineering at the University ending his long tenure there as its Deputy of North Carolina, Dr. Lamb has also held Director.

teaching, engineering, management, and research positions in private industry, at Newark College of KELBER, CIIARLES N. B.A., University of Engineering, University of North Carolina, and Minneapolis (1947); Ph.D. University of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Minnesota (1951). Before joining the Panel as a IJZO, ROBERT AI. B.S., Um.versity of Alberta full-time member in 1990, Dr. Kelber was the (1946); M.A., University of Llritish Columbia Panel's Senior Technical Advisor from 1988 to 1990. Ile also served in various senior technical (1950); Ph.D., Uruversity of Notre Dame (1954);

J.D., Rutgers Umversity (1958). Dr. Lazo has positions in the Division of Nuclear Regulatory been a member of the Panel from 1970 through Research at the Atomic Energy Commission and at the NRC. Before joining the Commission in 1994, first m a parttime capacity from 1970 until 1972, and, from 1976 until his death in May 1994, 1973, Dr. Kelber was a senior scientist at Argonne National Laboratory for 18 years. He is a Fellow in a fulltime capacity. Between 1977-80, he served as the Executive Secretary of the Panel, of the American Nuclear Society and the and since 19S0, as the Deputy Chief American Physical Society.

Administrative Judge. Before jommg the Panel as a fulltime member, Dr. La'zo maintained a private KLINE,JERRYR. B.S., University of Minnesota I gal practice and was a member of the I,atent (1957); M.S., University of Minnesota (1960);

Departments of both Standard Oil of New Jersey Ph.D., University of Minnesota (1964). Dr. Kline and Bell Telephone Laboratories.

has been a full-time member of the Panel since 1980. Before he was appointed to the Panel, Dr.

LUEBKE, EAfAfETII A. B.A., Ripon College Kline held various research and management (1936); Ph.D., University of Illinois (1941). Dr.

positions with the Puerto Rico Nuclear Center, Luebke became a part-time member of the Panel the Argonne National Laboratory, the Atomic in 1987 following 15 years of service as a full-time Energy Commission, and the NRC. Ile is the member. A Fellow of the American Nuclear author of numerous scientific papers and reports Society and recipient of a Presidential Certificate in the fields of radioccology and soil science.

of Merit for Microwave Radar Research, Dr.

Luebke spent 27 years in private industry involved IstAf, PETER S.

B.S., Oregon State University in the design, testing, and operation of nuclear (1967); M.S., Stanford University (1968); Ph.D.,

power plants for submarines. Before that, he Stanford University (1971). Dr. Lam was taught at the University of Illinois and was a appointed to the Panel as a full-time judge in research leader at Massachusetts Institute of 1990. He joined the Nuclear Regulatory Technology.

Commission as a reactor systems engineer in 1983 and became Chief of the Reactor Systems Section AlcCOLLOAf, KENNETII A.

B.S., Oklahoma State of the NRC Office for Analysis and Evaluation of University (1948); M.S., University of Illinois Operational Data, in 1986. Before coming to the (1949); Ph.D., Iowa State University (1964). Dr.

Commission, Dr. Lam held various positions with McCollom has been a part-time member of the General Electric and the Argonne National Panel since 1972. Ile is currently Dean and Laboratory. He has taught engineering courses at Professor Emeritus of the College of Engineering, San Jose State University and George Washington Architecture and Technology, Oklahoma State University.

University. During his 44-year career, he has NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 36 i

I held teaching, research, and administrative de Nemours and Co. from 1951 to 1957, and positions with Oklahoma State University, Iowa served the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as State University, and the Atomic Energy Division Director, Office of Operations, and Director, of Phillips Petroleum Company. In addition, he Division of Reactor Licensing.

has held numerous leadership positions with several professional associations and the AfURPII); TIIOAMS D. B.S., Union College Oklahoma Board of Registration for Engineers (1956); M.S., Um.versity of Rochester (1957); M.S.,

and Land Surveyors.

Rensselaer Polytechme Institute (1972). Prior to his appointment as a full-time member of the AfARGULIES, Af0RTON B. B.A., Brooklyn Panel in 1992, Judge Murphy held various College (1953); J.D., Brooklyn Law School (1954).

management positions with the Department of the Judge Margulies has been a full-time member of Navy, the private sector, and on the Nuclear the Panel since 1982 with his retirement in July Regulatory Commission staff. He is a member of 1994. Before his appointment to the Panel, Judge the Health Physics Society, the American Nuclear Margulies served as an Administrative Law Judge Society, and is certified by the American Board of (1%9-1982), Regional Counsel, and trial attorney Health Physics.

i for the Interstate Commerce Commission, and as PARIZEK, RICIMRD R. B.A., University of a member of the Army Judge Advocate General's Connecticut (1956): M.S., University of Illinois Corps.

(1960); Ph.D., University of Illinois (1961). Dr.

AflLLER, AfARSIMLL E. A.B. with honors, Pageh was appointed as a part-time admmistrative judge in 1990. He has been a University of Illinois (1935); LL.B., University of pm ssor in die Geobgy Depanment at Illinois (1937). Judge Miller was a full-time Pennsylvama State University since 1961 and is member of the Panel (1974-1985) and has been a president of his own consulting firm. Dr. Iarizek part-time member since 1985. Judge Miller was sepal poshmns in pmfessmnal an Administrative Law Judge for the U.S.

ssociations and has authored or co-authored Department of Labor for 11 years and previously nmre than 120 scientific and techm, cal papers.

a partner for 15 years in the Washington, D.C.,

law firm of Danzansky & Dickey. He is the REIN, IMRR)' B.S., New York University (1953);

author of several books on legal practice.

M.D., State University of New York (1957); J.D.,

University of Florida (1982). Dr. Rein was MOORE, TIIOAMS S. B.A., Miami University appointed to the Panel as a part-time (Ohio)(1%8); J.D., Ohio State University (1972)-

administrative judge in 1990. Dr. Rein is an active Judge Moore was appointed to the ASLUP in trial lawyer and has 23 years of active clinical 1991 after a distinguished 10-year career as an medical experience. Currently, Dr. Rein's trial

]

administrative judge on the Commission's Atomic work is limited to medically related cases. Dr.

Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. Judge Moore Rein has published several medical papers and j

was in private practice in the firm of Volpe, texts, including two on medical malpractice. He Boskey and Lyons, worked in the Civil Division of has also conducted seminars and courses for the Department of Justice, served as lawyers across the United States pertaining to the administrative assistant to the Governor of Ohio, discovery and trial processes related to cases and clerked for Judge Miller on the Sixth Circuit involving medical qurtions.

before joining the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1980.

RUBENSTEIN, LESTER S. B.S., University of Arizona (1953); M.S., Carnegie Institute of MORRIS, PETER A. B.A., Swarthmore College Technology (1%2). Judge Rubenstein was (1943); Ph.D., University of Virginia (1951). Dr.

appointed to the Panel as a part-time member in Morris served as a fulltime administrative judge 1990. Before joining the Panel, he served in with the Panel from 1981 to 1987. He was various leadership capacities with the Nuclear appointed as a part-time judge in 1991. Before Regulatory Commission, including Assistant serving on the Panel, Judge Morris worked as Director for Region IV Reactors, NRR; Director, Operational Physics Supervisor with E.I. duPont Systems Division and Standardization, NRR; and 37 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

C I

Assistant Director, Division of Systems SMITII,IVAN W Pre-Law, Ohio State University, Integration, NRR. Before joining the Atomic Mexico City College, Kent State University Energy Commission in 1967, he worked for the (1946-48); J.D., Wm. McKinley School of Law National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1952). Judge Smith served the Panel as Chief as a researcher and for the TRW and Administrative Law Judge from 1978 through Westinghouse corporations. Judge Rubenstein has 1992, and he has been a full-time member of the written several articles and papers and lectured Panel since 1975. Before his appointment to the on the policies and licensing procedures of the Panel, Judge Smith served as an Administrative Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Law Judge for the Social Security Administration and as a trial attorney in the Antitrust Division of SCll/NK, DA VID R.

B.A., Pomona College (1952);

the Federal Trade Commission. He also served as M.S., University of California, Los Angeles (1953);

a county prosecutor, Deputy Director of the Ohio M.S., Stanford University (1958); Ph.D., University Department of Liquor Control, and engaged in of California, San Diego (1962). Dr. Schink has the private practice of law.

been a part-time member of the Panel since 1974.

Currently a professor of oceanography and formerly the Associate Dean of the College of TIDEY, GEORGE FR4NCIS. B.A., University of Geosciences at Texas A&M University, Dr. Schink Virginia (1980); M.D., University of Virginia has written monographs and professional papers (1984). Dr. Tidey was appointed to the Panel as a on marine geochemistry, silicon, radium, radon, part-time member in 1990. He is currently an and early digenesis. Dr. Schink has also held assistant professor in obstetrics and gynecology at teaching and research positions at the Palo Alto the University of Texas Medical School. He Laboratory, Teledyne Isotopes, the University of taught in the same field at George Washington Rhode Island, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University and is engaged in a private practice in and Stanford University. In addition, Dr. Schink these areas. Dr. Tidey has coauthored several has served on several advisory panels for the articles on female fertility. He is a member of the National Science Foundation and the United American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nations.

the American Fertility Society, and the American Medical Association.

SIION, FREDERICKJ. B.S., Columbia University.

Judge Shon has been a full-time member of the Panel since 1972 and currently serves as its WOLFE, SIIELDONJ. A.B., Harvard University Deputy Chief Administrative Judge (Technical).

(1942); LL.B., Georgetown University (1956).

Before his appointment to the Panel, Judge Shon Judge Wolfe was a full-time member of the Panel held management positions with the Atomic from 1976 to 1988, when he assumed part-time Energy Commission, and worked as a physicist status. He remained a part-time member until with the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory and his retirement from the Panel in June 1994.

several corporations within the nuclear industry.

Before his appointment to the Panel, Judge Wolfe Judge Shon has also served as a consultant on was a partner in Coal Mines Equipment Sales reactor safety to the Spanish and Danish Atomic Company of Terre Haute, Indiana, an attorney Energy Commissions, and taught nuclear with the Civil Aeronautics Board, and, for 20 engineering at the University of California at years, a trial attorney with the Civil Division of

Berkeley, the U.S. Department of Justice.

NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 38

APPENDIX D SELECTED ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS October 1,1992 to Septemtwr 30,1994 ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. (One Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-20,40 NRC 17 Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041)

(July 7,1994)

Memorandum and Order, LDP-92-36,36 NRC Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-30,40 NRC 366 (December 14,1992) 135 (September 1,1994)

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINKFING Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-26,38 NRC COMPANY and TOLEDO EDISON 329 (December 14,1993)

Order, LBP-94-10,39 NRC 91 (March 31,1994) vfs-e se Nucha P er at n, nt )

BABCOCK AND WILCOX (Apollo, Decision, LBP-92-32,36 NRC 269 (November 18, Pennsylvania Fuel Fabrication Facility) 1992)

Memorandum and Order, LDP-92-31,36 NRC GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR 255 (November 12,1992)

CORPORATION, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)

Memorandum and Order, LDP-93-35,36 NRC 355 (December 10,1992)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-92-29,36 NRC 225 (October 5,1992 e orandu d Order, LBP-93-4,37 NRC 72 Memorandum and Order, LBP-92-30,36 NRC 227 (October 16,1992)

BABCOCK AND WILCOX COMPANY GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle (Pennsylvam,a Nuclear Services Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)

Operations. Parks Township, Pennsylvania)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-92-38,36 NRC Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-4,39 NRC 47 (February 2,1994)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-5,37 NRC %

(February 18,1993)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-12,39 NRC 215 (April 22,1994)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-8,37 NRC 292 (April 21,1993)

OF ISON COMPANY,(Pilgrim Nuclear Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-11,37 NRC 469 (June 24,1993) r d

, LBP-93-19,38 NRC ye[em er 3) e r nd and Order, LBP-93-15,38 NRC 20 CAMEO DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE, INC.

Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-18,38 NRC Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-13,39 NRC 249 (May 4,1994)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-21,38 NRC CHEMETRON CORPORATION (Bert Avenue, Harvard Avenue, and McGean-Rohco Sites, Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-22,38 NRC Newburgh Heights and Cuyahoga Heights, Ohio) 189 (November 17,1993) 39 NUREG-1363, Vol. 6

- Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-6,39 NRC 105 Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-1,39 NRC 9

- (March 3,1994)

(January 11,1994)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-14,39 NRC LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, LP.

251 (May 20,1994).

(Claiborne Enrichment Center)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-15,39 NRC

_' Memorandum and Order, LBP 93-3,37 NRC 64 254 (May 23,1994)-

(February 2,1993)

Memorandum and Order, LBP 94-11,39 NRC L Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-16,39 NRC 257 (May 25,1994) 205 (April 5,1994)

NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-22,' 40 NRC 37, COMI%NY (Millstone Nuclear Power (July 28,1994)

Memorandum and Order, LDP-94-24,40 NRC 83 (August 18,1994)

Decision and Order, LDP-93-12,38 NRC 5 (July 9, 1993)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-26,40 NRC 93 (August 22,1994)

NUCLEAR SUPPORT SERVICES, INC.

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-27,40 NRC Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-25,40 NRC 88 103 (August 26,1994)

(August 18, 1994)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-31,40 NRC 01110 EDISON COMPANY (Perry Nuclear 137 (September 9,1994)

Power Plant, Unit 1)

GEO-TECll ASSOCIATES, INC. (Geo-Tech hCision LBP-92-32,36 NRC 269 (November 18, Laboratories,43 South Avenue, Fanwood, New 2)

Jersey 07023)

ONCOLOGY SERVICES CORPORATION, H rr sburg, Pennsylvania Memorandum and Order LDP-92-33,36 NRC 312

'(November 18,1992)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-6,37 NRC 207 Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-2,37 NRC 61 (February 1,1993)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-10,37 NRC GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, ET AL (River Bend Station, Unit 1)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-20,38 NRC 130 (September 21,1993)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-3,39 NRC 31 (January 27,1994)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-2,39 NRC 11 (January 24,1994)

INDIANA REGIONAL CANCER CENTER Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-29,40 NRC Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-21,40 NRC 22 123 (August 31,1994)

(July _12,1994)

PACIFIC GAS AND' ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE (Indianapolis, Indiana)

Plant, Units 1 and 2).

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-28,40 NRC Prehearing Conference Order, LBP-93-1,37 NRC

' 117 (August 29,1994) 5 (January 21,1993)

INNOVATIVE WEAPONRY, INC.

Prehearing Conference Order, LBP-93-9,37 NRC (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 433 (June 17,1993)

NUREG-1363, Vol. 5 -

40

Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-13,38 NRC 11 JOSEPH RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES,INC.,

(July 19,1993) and FISHER RADIOLOGICAL CLINIC)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-93-17,38 NRC 65 Memorandum and Order, LBP-92-34,36 NRC (August 13, 1993) 317 (November 20,1992)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-9,39 NRC 122 Order, LBP-93-14,38 NRC 18 (July 20,1993)

(March 23,1994)

TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et ROBERT C. DAILY al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-25,40 NRC 88 (August 18, F)94)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-92-37,36 NRC

( ###* #'

}

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating TWIN FALLS CLINIC & HOSPITAL Station)

Order, LBP-93-24,38 NRC 299 (December 8, Second Prehear.mg Conference Order, LBP-93-23, 1993) 38 NRC 200 (November 30,1993)

UMETCO MINERALS CORPORATION, P.O.

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-23,40 NRC 81 Box 1029, Grand Junction Colorado 81502 (August 11,1994)

I"It 1 Decision, LBP-93-7,37 NRC 267 (April 12, SEQUOYAli FUELS CORPORATION

)y9 randu an rd r, LBP-93-25,38 NRC Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-7,39 NRC 112 (March 4,1994)

SEQUOYAll FUELS CORPORATION AND Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-18,39 NRC GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore, Oklahoma Site Decontamination and Decommissioning Funding) 369 (June 30,1994)

Memorandum and Order, LUP-94-5,39 NRC 54 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER (February 24,1994)

CORPORATION (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-8,39 NRC 116 (March 22,1994)

Memorandum, LBP-93-16,38 NRC 23 (July 28, 1993)

Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-17,39 NRC 359 (June 8,1994)

LLOYD P. ZERR, In the Matter of Memorandum and Order, LBP-94-19,40 NRC 9 Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

(July 7,1994)

AU-93-1,38 NRC 151 (September 20,1993)

ST.JOSEPil RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Initial Decision, ALJ-94-1,39 NRC 131 (March 9, INC., and JOSEPH L FISHER, M.D. (d.b.a. ST 1994) 41 NUREO-1363, Vol. 6 i

APPENDIX E MAJOR FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS RELEVANT TO ASLBP ADJUDICATIONS Federal Statutes Part 30. Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct 1.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Material 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., Pub.L 83-703,68 STAT. 919.

Part 32, Specific Domestic Licenses to Manufacture or Transfer Certain Items 2.

The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as Containing Byproduct Material amended,42 U.S.C. 201-401, Pub.L 93-438, 88 STAT.1233.

Part 33, Specific Domestic Licenses of Broad Scope for Byproduct Material 3.

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended,42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.,

Part 34, Licenses for Radiography and Pub.L.95-604, 92 STAT. 3021.

Radiation Safety Requirements for Radiographic Operations 4.

Administrative Procedure Act,5 U.S.C.

551-559.

Part 35, Medical Use of Byproduct Material 5.

Hansportation Safety Act of 1974,49 U.S.C.

Part 39, Licenses and Radiation Safety 1801 et seq., Pub.L.93-633, 88 STAT. 2156.

Requirements for Well Logging 6.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source as amended, Pub.L.91-190,83 STAT 852.

Material 7.

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub.L Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production 95-95,91 STAT. 685.

and Utilization Facilities 8.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,42 U.S.C.

Part 51, Environmental Protection 10101 et seq., Pub.L.97-425, % STAT 2201.

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions Regulations Part 53, Criteria and Procedures for Determining Adequacy of Available Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (26 Parts):

Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity Part 0, Conduct of Employees Part 55, Operators' Licenses Part 2, Rules of Practice for Domestic Part 60, Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Licensing Proceedings Wastes Geologic Repositories Part 19, Notices, Instructions, and Reports Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Land to Workers; Inspections Disposal of Radioactive Waste Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Radiation Nuclear Material Part 21, Reporting of Defects and Part 71, Packaging and Transportation of Noncompliance Radioactive Material 43 NUREG-1363, Vol. 5 A

Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria

' Storage of Spent Fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)

Part 73, Material Control and Accounting of Part 140, Financial Protection Requirements-Special Nuclear Materials and Indemnity Agreements.

I l

i i

d

' NUREG-1363, Vol. 6 44

~..

mC FORM 336 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM11SION

s. REPORT NUMBER (Aisigned by NRC, Add Vol.,

(24)

Supp., Rev., and Addendum Nurn.

mCu isa2, b= =.

8' any-)

san saca BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-1363 (See instructions on in. revers.)

Vol. 6

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1%nel Biennial Report: Fiscal Years 1993 - 1994 yoy7g ygin August 1995

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

6. TYPE OF REPORT

5. AUTHOR (S)

Biennial 3

7. PERIOD COVERED (inclusive Dates)

Fiscal Years 1993 - 1994

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (if NRC, provide Division Offsce or Region. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornrnission, and malung address; if contractor, provido name and mailing address.)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 2055541001

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZAllON - NAME AND ADDRESS (if NRC, type "Sarne as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Div6sson, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and rnalling address.)

j Same as 8. above

10. LUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 4

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less) i In Fiscal Year 1993, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ("the Panel") handled 30 proceedings. In Fiscal Year 1994, the Panel handled 36 proceedings. 'Ihe cases addressed issues in the construction, operation, and maintenance of commercial nuclear power reactors and other activities requiring a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This report sets out the Panel's caseload during the year and summarizes, highlights, and analyzes how the wide-ranging issues raised in those proceedings were addressed by the Panel's judges and licensing boards.

l

13. AVAILABluTY STATEMENT j

12. MEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that wH1 assist researchers in locating the report )

Unlimited

14. SECURITY CLASSIFCATON ASLBP Biennial Report (This esse)

Fiscal Years 1993 - 1994 Unclassified Five-Year Projections (This nepori)

Contentions Filed.

Unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGE S

16. PRICE NRC FOAM 336 (2-89)

i l

i i

1.

1 i

4 l

e i

n i

I i-i L

i l

l i

Printed l

on recycled l

paper k

p-l ederal Recycling Program i

_----- ~ ~

lauwaHC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEi' '"

BIENNIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1993-1994 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FIRST CLASS MAIL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID USNRC PERMIT NO. G-67 120555139531 US NRC-0ADM 1

1AN19A19819C1 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRNATE USE. $300 DIV FOIA yp3.png.NUREGPUBLICATIONS SVCS 2WFN-6E~l WA SHING TON DC 20555

. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - -