ML20246F064

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISSUANCES.January- March 1989

ML20246F064
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/31/1989
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V29-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V29-I1, NUDOCS 8908300143
Download: ML20246F064 (47)

Text

..~.o.........,..,,m............ m m...,.

w.s, w.,..o.... -

..e..,.

./ 6,.

.q. v.u. m. ~ %,n.c...: x. :w..... /,i m.-,.

~

.,,...c-N$f,,.1.l'hN.g&&;;'$..b5NSi$.h$hnbb$.$5?$m$$hNO'5:. DOS 5((n;..-

?

p. 7'-

.~.

$h.'i$h;$$....

u.u.

.. '..( '

.rs:m,,;

,< ;,vm.?

s.a.:sn., m r:

+I n ~.

2

'm., o...tm#w,

,My A c,;..~#, 6( >.

a 4

x

~nw. w..

6 1

-l0 4y 4* W@

NUREG-0750 ~

J

$Mp

' Vol. 29 9

s-

% u...

Index 1

~n+.

9, %.O.

'rT

Nt,^;"

AH,s,;+t 1.

b*y%.M...eA

'pL H n "iND$XESSTON2M !.'Yf :.,

3-

, % o ' > f 'f c pyw+;e * ' V

• t ' * +<sm v W twe Y"Y9W 'Y Y wt Rvo*M

• n **N9W* t' '% of H+ t'yv'^ + M + *W 9%. V'm *Me;nMpW W** *'+%4,tt'H.W

,% 4.> ec!*l,*:,.. f Q f

^

,, ',,. c, i.'> < ' 'a

~

5

'6

^4

>, 4 $'

l,e 7,-

l

,.f,,

• > w

>'t,

, 9, ~,c n

W K. m NU6d8MfRIE.OEAYUN O, M~F :'

J

. ? v;":...T COMMISSI.ON.lSSUANCES,r!'? %, '

m e.

~

o' ng-e ~ w

',) >

~,

w-

..g m,

..".,1 4

.3, '.y<c <

/

m;

, 5

,s y

i j.. j, '.'i W S,

't 4

s i<',,,

/

x+

6

-d

, 5 e r% < p.s 4 4y, t....?,j

~

January March 1989F S<'.'

j s

t

, +...

>9 s

g

,1 < >

. +,,

,,4 - *

,3 4,

s.

2'

- a

~.

s-35.

}t

,,. "'. :, t 3

-1 s

^ s

't.>,,

i e-s<

~

. , J J,

f

(

3 1,

s,,,

'x>-

' +

c

~, R EQg,h,.('

}

y, t.

5 l

0

' y g

/ ' '

~

' \\; ; * >

. s s

w s

,>,,u- ),

i v

2, s

g 9

" s l

(

4 m

o,

..~.

<y'

,0

' q 0:'

', E,, ' '.

6=

' i g

^ p

' %g 88 A

g

)

\\

l$}l

. t

,5

't ;> >

J

<>/

f','s h<kh'

'l

^

g o

e A

, >, 6 I.

~

1 s

t

.. 4 s

i 1

i 6

8908300143 890731 I

i PDR NUREG p

0750 R PDR g

! s h

,4. q.re.%

3.,7

. 7 ~. - _,. 4 -....;......_...,

,_ g j

~,..,.y.- m e, s.

. c. e,q.

x,

.......,y.,:

..,,.. -.,;, w c...

][J.fJ'.'IJc:..',2'*2*iN.U,$r;,'$5,..,,...h 'j M $f*}4' k*j h.... a. h.fi$4}k?.',',

...s

.. ~.-.

.,s,.

jh 3

s i..,

,.., ~,.

s.. :;

gl e

p,

. Q

~

.Y

~

'.) ;

,k.

.a 9 '.

. g 4

4, y,

n ji Available from

^

.+.

g.

Superintendent of Documents -

^~

U.S. Government Printing Office

(

Post Office Box 37082 i'

Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 I

-}.'

A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, g

4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound ed]tions for this publication.

b Single copies of this publication

,t l

are available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 4.

- [

s.r..

s_

r 4

?

(v

!=

t-Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Fervices Office of Administration and Resources Management i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 p

(301/492-8925)

y 4:

.',i 4

4

_ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - ' ~ ' - ' ^ - ~ - -

m-pyy *e

..py,; W%>

llgg 8%.g:l;

-A o

t '.

-. gg*n

), japp

.y.

y E i "p' M C

=

a.%. -

76.

l

,z

. h.

NUREG-0750 l,

. 7**,-4 m (

..rq Vol. 29

,a

$+f '.o hp Index 1 s A.,>#.e.

• f-j n~, $;f.,kh,'

t A

p 1 i qa A t +

t INDEXES TO

- p. n*.u.mr%

g. "

~di.

9 v, F *. *

&'g, H i

"qA

~

~

i.

NUC_ EAR REGULATORY-a.

?.

fdes$w 1

)i COMM SSION ISSUANCES u

i,I w

a J!

A@.

t 4

1,Mg.*L.p,,.

January - March 1989 N.E

' vfTfjW,-

ma

. a.s,

..r n,

y

m. gy.

.w n.

.x.

4 n.

m a

a

! PM. +,,.,,

fj %

e..

749 n

. pg.

3;4 1r

.- f

p,

.

-.. vJ

$ (

c J f eh Apg 4 s.

g

.$ ; y+$ f W..,.;

'f

- fM r xv..

+

e U

~n.

y 24

.n... %y{%Q.p w :.

m

.wlf?W A, w

?{\\l[.. g),t**

!b.h ;,Q *.

k%1 1

w 4a.'+t sp

,.m.y W

n.....

W)@ *%;;,;w w

MCa pf'Tf ge'-

A

.al ltw.;: f.ft,*l:

s.

,tys3..w Yg

%,y,,Jfi!.*...

4

%. 9, M

~

~s

.. #.Y

D $4k v

a

. f y',%. N~.,

m]h 0.S. hCLEAR REG

.)k '.

.n I

3 We

.i tb%r ;

-:3.,.

Ap (M,ap.%.:..' :..,

• 7 3

I y

., ?r ;.v e..S..

IMl a

Prepared by the I'.

24. T Division of Fieedom of information and Publications Services QR ~i{

$kff,ih[F f.yd'~

Wi Office of Administration

[jflhW M, g}fq,;.g"f U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission pg3 g Washington, DC 20555

) p @egf7 SM v (301/492-3925)

. r, 4pA M;,

NN{h hh *.p:. -..=

m$

5M, f;

)

w q.7 N

hhh I

sene@h.1tkhMN

. h 5

I h

h YI c m@m%@d. MM@m.M-,@aw#W$

b M

Md w

w....q W.J. w. W.

nm W,::WM, ; :.m, wi

..~.

,,: a

• =

., e..

e 4

....______,.__.i_-------------------------'"--^^^

.o

s I

\\

l i

l i

i l

N 1

w Foreword j

Digests and indexes for issuanas of the Cornmiesion (CLI), the Atomic l

Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Tanel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (AU),the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions of Rulemaking are presented in this document.

i I

These digests and indexes are in' ended to serve as a guide to the issuances.

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

Case name (owner (s) of facility)

Full text reference (volume and pagination) i Issuance number l

l l

Issues raised by appellants l

1egal citations (cases, regul2tions, and statutes)

Name of facility, Docket number Subject matter ofissues and/or rulings Type of hearing (for construction permit,operatinglicen:.e.etc.)

Type olissuance (memorandum, order, decision,etc.).

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

1. Case Name Index ne case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type ofissuance, docket r. umber,issuat.cc number, and full text reference.

2. Digests and lleaders ne headers and dgests are presented in issuance number order as follows:

the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (ALAB),

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.(LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (AU), the Directors'. Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking.

The header identifies the issuance by issuance number, nse n/,me, facility name, docket number, type of hearing,date ofissuance, and type ofissuance.

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

I Be A

iii

_ _ _ _ _ _ =

1

3. Legal Citations index B

alphanumerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. These This index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and Statutes may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability of the citation. It is inerefore important to consider the date of the issuance.

l The references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are generally l

followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular l

issuance. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.

4. Subject Index Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicste the issues and subjects covered in the issuences. The subject headings are followed by phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the issuances being indexed. Tluse phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.

5. Facility Index This index conist> of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from the inuance. The name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date, type of issuance, issuance number,and full text reference.

i l

u

l

&y Q f L! <

9l3 R@::=,n -

Yp n -,.

sg QQ< '

w 3a..

kQ ha e*f4[**,

m 5 '. <.

4 es.% LA (d

~

.M

's:. y M[W.,

CASE NAME LNDEX M)M. Q 1

Q*P.O QQ

. W. '

1

• .

• I 1 **

• N/

1. Y ADVANCED MEDICAL SYS11MS, INC.

[hp?

SPI:CIAL PROCEEDING, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 3416055-SP (ASLBP i.,4.,

C*

i No. 87 545 01-SP) (Suspension Order); LBP 89-11. 29 NRC SU, G989) h s'

' Ne *

.5

- f.

ALL C1IEMICAL IS(TTOPE ENRICIIMENT. INC.

I b*

5 h

/

CONS 1R1rTION PERMIT AND OPERATING UCENSE; DECISION; Docket Nos 54603CP/OL, Nf' *

• h[N j, f 50-604 CP, ALAB-913,29 NRC 267 (1989)

-M +

j y*,

d CONSTRUCI10N PERMIT AND OPERA 11NO LICENSE; INITIAL DEOSION; Docket

.N)'f'.' **c".

M i

Nos. 50403 CP/OL 50404CP (ASGP Nas-88 570-01-CP/OL, 88 57141 CP); LBP-89 5, 29 NRC

..; f

• , * []

99 0 989)

/l GENERAL E2CTRIC COMPANY eF*

e dW

.h i

g).

REQUEST FOR AC110N; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.206, Docket Na 74 1113; u..

Y..-~

DD-891,2) NRC 'G5 0989)

' T..

//. '

i GENERAL PUBUC ITITLT!1ES NUCLEAR CORPORATION. et at

%,f i [m s"

(( L M _

OPERgr1NG UCENSE AMENDMENT; 11NAL INITIAL DECISION; Dwiet No. 504MOLA M"

i,. 6Q:

(ASLBr No. 87-554-3 01.A) (Daposal of Acciennt-Generated Water); LBP-89-7. 29 NRC 138 0989)

M'&M

[ d@,

ENFORCEMENT; ORDER (Approving Scalanent Agreement and Terminatmg Proceed.ng); Docket g ry...

II&O INSPECTION COMPANY. INC-ye M* ~

t%b

'3 No. 3429319 (ASMP Na 88-575 01-CivP) (EA-87-145) (Material Ucense Na 42-26838 41);

s M~ y i h *?

M AU-891,29 NRC 319 0989)

";K yQ IJONO ISLAND UGifTING COMPANY N

M; D '.

',, [ ;L,.

• '[

j OPERATING UCENSE; DECISION; Ducks Nos. 34322-Ob3,50322-Ob5; CU-89-2,29 NRC 211

,r if 0 989)

I e, -

~"y*.

4 OPERATING UCF.NSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docka No. 50322-Ob3 (Emergency

" *j a7C Planmng); ALAB-911,29 NRC 247 (1989); CU-891,29 NRC 89 0989)

V q m;pty ' f OPERATING UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Rulmg a Contentions); Dociet

• j, '

Oydyi No. 54322 Ob5R (ASGP Na 89 58101 Ob5R) (EP Emerase); LBP 891,29 NRC 5 0989) gi WNdq,+hg~

OPERATING UCENSE; ORDER; Dosias No. 50-322-Ob5 (EP Exernse). ALAB-912,29 NRC 265

• p g 4;,

g 0 989)

,. Q Q g [9 $

PRECISION 1;DGGING A PERFORATING COMPANY

-3, h CIVIL PENALTY; ORDI'R (Approving Settlement Agrarnent and Terminating Proceedes); Docket K' ?

. %

• Q* *.,ry% 4, !,

y No. 3419498 (ASOP Na 88-578 02 CivP) (EA 87-1&4) (Matenals 1)cese Na 35 17186-02);

(($:t

[

AU-89 2,29 NRC 322 0989)

+ q h, j '[

PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW IIAMPSIERE, et al.

., ',, Q t M ;

OPERATING UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Docka Nos. 54443 OL 50444 OL (Offsite Emergency Planning), ALAB 910,29 hAC 95 (1989); CU 894,29 NRC 243 0989)

• ' s J.,*

/,

,. '.g OPERA 11NO UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Review of Quebec Earthquake); Docka q;- ;e y Naa. 54443 OL 50444-OL (ASLBP Na 8247102-OL) (Offsne Eme gency P'annmg), 2P-89-3, g

29 NRC 510989) d;*.

g OPERA 11NO UCENSE; MEMOkANDUM AND ORDER (Rulmg a Mauon for Sumrr.ary Depassuan l,

'y of Jeant Imarvenor Cetennons 44A and 44F); Docket Nos 54443-OL,50444 OL (ASLBP

..i*'- 1 No. 8247142-OL) (Offsite Emergmcy Plannmg); LBP 89-8, 29 NRC 193 (1989)

.f g,j g i OPERATINO UCENSE, )WORANDUM AND ORDER (Rulmg m Mouons by Scacoast W

y

@N(b b'y -

Qyg.

Anti-Po!)ution Imgue and Massachusetts Anarney General Concerning Waiver of Camrnission hMW Financia! Quahficauon Rules); Dociet Nos. 54443 OL 54444-OL (ASLBP Na 82-47102-OL)

[iUs s.

(Offsite Emer8mey Planning); LBP-891A 29 NRC 297 0989)

!N., *.

i

. m d a. 4 *2 J

l.U &m Y

M g> y

~

i

• g M MMf thy y/ '

e);,

Ms@g W

l m

.fjg

, yf 1

n Q$ h

.'.u.p 4

Q&

M~

k $ h,..A3,. y,

w...a,,.fc.MhMN8k...N,M.[PMMYMM$

.m

.m

.s r -

e t

)

j

n__.

4 CASE NAME INDEX E

OPERATINO UCENSE; MEMORANDLN AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 54443 Obt,50444-Ob1 (Onsite Emergency Plamung and Safety lasues); A1AB-909,29 NRC 1 (1989); CU 89-3,29 NRC 234 (1989)

OPERAUNO UCENSE; MEMORANDUM ANL OstDES (Denying Mouan to Admit Enemise Contenuon or to Roopen Recad); Docket Nos. 54443-Obt,50444-Ob1 (ASGP No.88-583 01-OL) (Onane EP Emerase); LBP-89-4,29 NRC 62 (1989)

OPERAUNO UCENSE; MEMORANDLW AND ORDER (Summary Ihsposition); Docket Nos. 54443-Obl. 50444 Ob1 (ASGP Na 88-858-01-OL) (Onsite Emergency Planning and Safety Issues); LBP-89-9,29 NRC 271 (1989)

SACRAMESTO MUNICIPAL LTIUTY DISTRICT REQLTST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDFR 10 C.F.R. 2.206; Docket No. 54312; DD-89 2. 29 NRC 337 (1989)

UNTVERSTIY OF CAUFORNIA, BERKE 12Y OPERATINO UCENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER (Dumiseng the Proceedmg); Docket Na 54224-OI.A (ASLDP No. 87-574-07 OLA); LBP-89-2,29 NRC 49 (1989)

VERMONT YANKEE NUCGAR POWER CORPORADON OPERATINO UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Mouan for Reconsiderauon of Severe-Accident Ruimg); Docket Na 50-27' OLA (ASGP Na 87-547-02-LA); LBP-89-6, 29 NRC 127 (1989) l l

l

.. summ'M'

) h:

~

f rj

,f

~

' h h{

g f._ r.-

m>~ib kd J

f 1

a l

.,g{/.l fs.

{ l!

%.4 a

l

'i t i' N U -

3; Q,(

v.

2-

'k N

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Ti!E Nt) CLEAR REGULATORY COMMBSION

{ DG M

i Q

Q;i s

p t ),,'; ;

.,y i..

G,

. A fd*

(

i w

. Y Q hb CLf-80-1 l

'N4 MI-LONO JSLAND UGE11NO COMPANY (Shorenam Nuclear Pom Station, Umt 1), Dmies l

No 54322 O!A E,mergency Planning); OPERA 11NO UCENSE; February 2,1989; MEMORANDUM

. 2**

JY TI-AND 03(DER

, QQ a ;M W*'.[ U '

• he Commission determines that Inicevenois' motim regardmg an aspect d applicarts er.arrgency j

A ffMT % '

plan coratitutes a motion to reope a portim of its record eat has been closed and, therefore, mur be g

y W > M)[;y f

4 judged against the ypropnate sodards in 10 C.FA $ 1754(a)0). 'Ibe Commissmn fmds that Intervmors

., 'i,

d bsve failed to comply with ha seqmremains for eve considermg a mutmn to scopen sad, sectadmgly, deiics Dd M

d. l.

B the motion.

9 la order to prevaD on a request to reopen the record, the movant must dannnstrate that (1) hs.'7.,

s

,,n

(

motion is timaly,i.e., th at the issue is now ueks to raise could nut have been raised earbsr,(2) the anonam j

)

, @( @[ ((l( Q l

.g p, " '

M eddresses a eignifcant safery or envimnmattalissue; and (3) e materially differern resuh would be or wouM e,

have been likely had the newly pmffered evidence been considered.10 CJA i1734(aX1)-(3) Sie, e s.,

) ' *c .

,Ng' o(g

'1 9

Georgia Pomer Co. (Vogt1s Eeetne Geierstag Piaru, Uniis 3 and 2), AIAB-872,26 NRC 127,149-50

-Ch ;.

i (19#7%

, '4 l. -

• 4Whlh,M C

he Commisson's aguisdes mpdn that a modon to reopen the record must be occanpanied 9

"[fyT4'h@hg-by one or more effidsvits which 6a forth the factusi and/m techmcal bnis for the movant's claim that the three criteria in 10 CIA $ 1734(aX1).Cl) have ba n satisfied.10 CIA i 2.734(b).

gyg l

D

%b-4W ^

The new matenalin support of a motion to scopen the remrd must be ses furth with a degree;g, of pardculanty in excess of the basis and specifmity sequirener,ts corrained in 10 CIA $1714(b) for<i

.Mbh adnussible cornentions.

Such sugortmg information must M more than mere 10egatuas; h sm.st ba

[j p@M tantamount to evidence. Pacific Gas and Dectne Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power P; ant, Umts 1 and 2).

., s, ;

}

't ;

1. ,b " d AIAB.7?S.19 NRC 1361,1366 (1984), aff'd sub nom. San Ims Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NktC,751 4

F 'id 1287 (D C. Car.1954), aff'd en rah's en lanc,739 F.24 26 (1986), cert. denied,479 U.S. 923 0956).

,%M F;7 E

y' If a mo6or. to tagen i in 10 Cf.R. (17344b). It is +

1. h must be traed at evidence through aff, davit (s) as reqmrod y g ['7'k U

?

4 surely to vapress a willingness to pmnde unspecified, addmanal 6e

@y%M; [

informathm at sans unknown case in tne futurs. Metropohtan Mson Co. (Thru Mile Island Wucles*

Stenon, tinit I), CLU85-7,21 NRC 1104,1106 0985), quotes imuisiana Pow and Ug* Ca (Weterfoid

,,hj Q,Te f.

t.

Steam Destric Stenon, Unit 7.), A1AB-753,18 NRC 1321,1324 (1983).

.Q F

2 OMc; &

In denyirs an intenenor's motim to admit a new cernenuco alleging an appbcant's tencompLmee with 10 CIA ? 30.47(bX12), which reqmres provision for emersency medical vervices for con.ammaiad

• J

• Vyt{G h}

irGured individuals in the event of an accident, which is eunsidered by thn Commissmo as a mossan to reopcm h

a portion of the r scord that is closed, the Ceniminion is not addressmsthe ments of the proposed contenbon

<,,<, %,/ y., {

m the applicant's nmecmp!;ance with 10 CJ.lt 150.47(b)(12).

min'3 Co. (Perry Nacle.ar bwer P! ant Umts 5 and 2).1BP 8b24.14 NRC 175,181 (1981).See Cleveland Dectne !!!uminst

. j' M V' k CL1-89 2

p. If (

1DNO ISLAND UGPTNG COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Statim, Unit 1), Dociat Q 'h( i ' p Nos. bO-32LOL 3,50-322 OL.5, CFI' RATING LICENSE: March 3,1989. DECISION

, i g

A

[

On duncted cert;fcatim from the Appealinnard en the ques 6cn of whether the conduct of the

' ' l,; p )

• h Intervonar Governments in the Shoreham proceedrg warrants their dismasal frare, it isoceedmg. or some eher sancuan, the Commissian emcludes that the 1marranors' wmful dcEance of Ucensmg Basrd aders

. 3 0,, y g

cawd great harm and delay to Applicant's effons to demonstrate the su!!iciency ofits emergency plan and g';.9 to the integrity of the Commission's adjudicatory process. Accordingly,in view of all of the cucumsances, i

..m a

+qQ:

% p.

?&fQ w 13,a gQ,p

\\

~

3p p3 l

4 M

1*N

. & u.

1

a' ama 3

MW y i

~

[M!d,

~

g n &,emp

~g.

i n,

_p.&

. ;y s.

s v.y.

I

1 j

C i

i 1

l i

\\

DIGESTS i

ISSt'ANCFS OF TI!F NUCllAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

E'""

l U

the Comnussion dismisses Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton as parues i

frorn all pendmg proceedings.

B in its Statement of Pohey ou Conduct d licensing Proceedmss, CU-81-8,13 NRC 452 0981), the Carmussion estabhshed a gradueted esala nf sanctions including, in severe cases of a participam*a failure to meet is obhgauuns, dmissal from inc proceeding.

C in its Statemem af Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceedmgr, the Commission ideruned the fellowing facters to canaider in decidmg what sancuou to impare: "the rela 6ve imponance of the unmet obliga ion,.its potenbal for harm to other parues or the orcerly conduct of the proceedmg, whether its occurrece is an isolated incident or a pan of a pauern of behavior, the importance of the safety or envsronmemal concerns raised by the party, and an of the circumstances." 13 NRC at 454.

D The Comrmssion fmds inst the Cuunty's pmduction et a detailed emergency plan daung back to 1983 and its announcement that h would no longer comply with se Board's discovery orders, both events occurring in June 1988, cons 6tute a heanng in which one party conuols the information to be daselosed and

'he evidence that may be produced to be so gmcaly unfair and biased as to amount to hardly any heanttg at all.

E The Governmenue obstructiomst acnce and refusal tocumply with discovery obligations as ordered by the Board were patently unfair to the Apphcam and enecuvely "stallei the proceedmg m tts tracks."

Commonweahh Edison Co. (Dyron Nuclear Power Stadon, Units I and 2), ALAB-678,15 NRC 1400,1417 (1982).

F In determinmg whether sanctions should be imposed against the Imervenor Governments, the Cornmission notes that the record amply demonstrates that the Governments have engaged in a pauern of seststance to Board orders and authority.

Takir3 mo accoum all the circumstances,the Commission fashions a sanc6cn that will,if poss;ble.

(

G i

mingate the harm caused by the parnes* failure to ful*,11 their obligations and that will bnns about improved future compliance not just for this cae but for future cases and panies as wcD.

li Even though NRC reguladons recognize a disunct scle for state and local governments in hRC proceedings. the Commission has always held that aD parnes, including imerested states and local governments, must suietly adhere to NRC requiremems. Oulf States Utihties Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), AIAB 444,6 NRC 760 0977).

CU-89-3 PL'BUC SEPNICE COMPANY OF NEW IIAMPSHIRE, et al. (Snabrook Stanon. Umts 1 and 2), Docket Nos.50-443-01 1,50444-01,1 (Oasite Emergency Planmng and Safety lasues). OPERATING UCENSE; March 6,1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

The Commissim den,es mouons urging recmsiderauon of its decisiu.in CU-88-10, 28 NRC 573, on the basis (1) that the Osmmission should not hsve deded Imervaiors' rule waiver peduon on the ground that no sigmf. cant safety quesnon was presemet because the parues were unaware of that cruenon, und (2) that the Commission should no. have resolved decommissioning fundmg issues on the basis of the exisung record. The Cc.nmissaan deternunes that implicit in the "compelhng circumstances" standard for grammg rule waiver is a seqturement that a rule waiver peution show that the safety maner at issue,if not "cornpelung,"is at least "sigm5 cant" and thus, absent sd a showing, the Comnussion should be espected to deny the petition. On the decomnussionmg decision, the Commission determines that when CU 7. 28 NRC 271, invoked both the reopening requuemems and the standards for a late 41ed contenuon, Intervenes must have been on notice that they should make an evidenuary case when they preacnted their con,errans and that Applicants' pnma faca case wouk, prevail absent evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the Commission was under no obhsstion to search for *a needle in a haystack" with reference tc a Egure for spem fuel ecsa which appeamd in a massws document mcorporated by reference in the Massachusetts Anorney Generars motion to reopen the record.

B Impheit in the "compelhng curumstances" standard in an agency whose rmssion is to enst re public henith and safety is that to qualify for eensideration, a rule waiver neution would need to show that the safety snaner at assue, sf not *corrpelhng," was at least "sigruncant."

C The Comnussion's interest m fmancial cpiah5cauons is focused on any poesible relauonstup to safety. Absent a showing of safety sigmficance, the Commissim should be expected to deny rule waiver petuons.

4

4 a

{

DIGESTS ISStJANCI:s OF TllE NOCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1,j D

Smco the perues did not p:esent any contrary argummi on safety significance in their mahons for aconsiderauon. the Comnussion mamtams the view that, having; pmytded for decommisatoning fading, a f

rule waiver is not necessary to addreas a sigraficant safety problern on its merns.

E Parbes must c?early iden6fy evidence on which they n!y.

F A peunaner nu.y not simply incorporate massive docianets by reference as the basis for or as a staiemas of lus comennons. Wholesale incorporanon by nference does not serve the purposes of a pleadmg.

O Parues shall clearly idennfy the matten on which they imend to rely with reference to a specific point. The Commission cannot be fauhed for not having searched for a needle that may be in a haystad.

II Where a contenuan is based en a factual underpmnirg in a documet that has been essetially sepudiated by the source of that documem, the comendon ma) be dismissed unless the imervenor offers another independent source.

1 A mauan for recormderanan cannot open the door for a new comannon, nar can a peny complain when at receives essennally what it requested.

CU494 PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW IIAMPSII!RE, et al. (iumbmok Station, Unita 1 and 2). Dodet Nos. 50-443-01,50 444 OL (Offsite Emergency Piminag); OPERATING UCENSE; March 6, 1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

he Comrmssion deternunes that Interveners had na met their burden of showing a lack of fundamental fairness in the hearms schedule that rose to the level of a vicladon of due proccas.

B The schedule at issue sunply cannot be amid to be ao dracaman as to raise an issue of consutudanal due-procesa dimensions.

l l

I o

o 1

B i

wwvme,,9 ma.

l Yl

( My,{- ~ k: Y]k M} ,r w;;j h g M,a .TM NO; w& p DIGESTS - h, y;? ISSUANCES OF Tl!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING APPEAL BOARDS rJ, l AI.AB 909 PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSIIIRE, et al. (Seabrook Statim, Unns 1 and s [k'( 2), Docka Nos. 50 443-01 1,54444-01,1 (Onsiis Emergency Planning and Safety Issues); OPERATING 2 jg l;@. UCENSE; January 17,1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER @M A In the absence' of an appeal from a Ucensing Board's gam of the applicants' motion for summary disposinun e an issue relating to the invirmmemal qualificatim of a particular cosaial cable used g. ,h N. pnnsipsDy for data transminion in the Seabrook facDity's camp rte system, LBP 88-31,28 NRC 652, 4tM/ Q @b the Appea! Board conducts a sua spome sview d that decision and afttrms it ~ B It is appeal board practice to review en its own initiative any untppealed licensing board decision ,gC that fmally disposes of sigmftcant safety or environmemaliasues. A1AB-910 PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW IIAMPS1!!RE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Umts 1 and 2), Ae yg .y Q fu i Docket Nos. 50443-01,54444-OL (Offsite Emergmcy Planning); OPERATING UCENSE, February 8 g ,,Q d' 1989, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A[% h ' aQ.i P)p dh f A he Appeal Board forwards to the Comnussion for decision the imervenors' motim for directed cenificatim of a Licensing Board order establishing a hearing schedule for the remaming issues peding in a the offsite emergency planning phase of this opasting license proceeding. ' h B he Appeal Board ordmarily will aview a scheduling order en a motion for duected certificat ce l g; 4i for the limited purpose of determining whether the adiedule sa fonh therein dopnvce a party of procedural g due process. See A1AB-889,27 NRC 265,269 (1988); ALAB-864,25 NRC 417,420 21 (1987); ALAB-

.lg 858,25 NRC 17,2421 (1987).

2,\\k ~ 'e't h 7 A1AB-911 LONG 1SLAND UGif!ING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Statim, Unit 1), Dockca / fcg3 ^QM W No. 50322-OL3 (Emergency Planning); OPERATING UCENSE; March 13, 1989, MEMORANDUM yt% "hM k AND ORDER '@M A Following the Comminaion's termination of the proceeding by its dismissal ef the imervanors, the Appeal Board dismisses their pendmg appeals frorn the Licmsing Board's daNon on cenain anergency . Qy*Q l$*Q [f" - j. WQ j* planning issues. LBP-88 24,28 NRC 311 (1988), and,in the caercise of hs sua spome review authority. renders an advismy opinian cm the resuhs ofits aview of the record on those issues a M T*,j[*d Oti, NM4P pf* Under leg-established, Conumssion mdarsed practice, in the atmence of an appeal, the Ageal B 4 Board sviews *sua spume 'any fmal disposition of a licensing proceedmg that either was or had to QJap( % p $ f

• p d.4d,M*$g{

71 j Q be founded upon substantive determinations of significant safety er environmemal issues?" Sacramame r M.micipal Utihty Distnet (Rancho Seae Nuclear Generating Statian), ALAB 655,14 NRC 799,803 (1981) + 4Mg*N. p (quotes Washington Public Power Supply Systan (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB 571,10 NRC / 7M i 687, 692 (1979)). See also Northern States Power Ca (Monticello Nuclear Omanting Plam, Una 1), ' %n a % fmf,M'hkh s ALAB 611,12 NRC 301 (1980). C Ahhough the Appeal Board usually undertakes sua spome review in proceadmss that have becorne 'My%h,jSM [* uncemested because all of the interveners have either withdrawn or declined to appeal, sus spose review , { M yp ;t h'y* 4 ' is not precluded where imervenas have been dismissed as a sanction. See, e g., Casumers Power d5 p Co. (Madland Plam, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-691,16 NRL $97 (1982), review dechned, CU-83-2,17 NRC 69 (1983). t)u o f s -it > p - . 2,; [ d 3 s \\ q[*[ M"f, heahh, safety, and environmemalissues en which a substantial evidentiary record already custs. D he purpose of Appeal Board sus spame review is prmaction of the public imerest in general (as k dstk Opposed to a panicular litigant's imerest) by providmg another independent level of review of signif; cam ,f Q y {*7 % p* q

m. n. ;ff p%,,, '

%o n 9 4 j 1 h ge a , y [ '. m[, .pu 1 . x,, 4 9 ) g ] 'N y l

• @@ \\ l r

E M $ $ n%f M QMA. i m a?m$*; '/ f ',9 aH I &_Sj&, Wh I ', AM Md!@I-@%$@ $ D N.E. b n,

l e. 1 1 i DIGESTS ISSt:ANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND IJCENSING APPEAL BOARDS H-E The Appeal Board generally will not undertake sua spmte review where all the parties have agreed to a stipuisted seulement of the contested issues, effectively resuhing in e &amissal of the proceeding. Pbrtland General Electnc Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant) ALAB 7%,21 NRC 4 (1985). F he Comnussian's Rules of Pactice allow the talung of official notice mly d*any fact of which a coun of the United States may take juecial notice or of any techmeal or scienufic fact within the knowledge of the Comnussion as an expen body? 10 CJ.R. (2.743(i). O Absent NRC tegulauons or evidence to the contrary. it can be presumed that a stauan that undertakes to become a pan of an established Emergency Broadcan System will carry cut in any emergency (nuclear or otherwise) the responsibihbes it has assumed. 11 If,in the course of sua spome review, the Appea1 Board concludes that correcove actim iverse to a party's imerest is necessary, the Board ordmarily affords that pany an opponunity to address the matter. See 05shces Power Systems (Manufactanna License for Flaanna Nuclear Power Plams) ALAB489,16 NRC 887. 891 n8 (1982). I The followmg technicalissues are discussed: Emergency Brundcast System; Role Confbet Faced by School Bus Dnvers Dunng Emergencies. ALAB-912 LONG ISLAND LIGITTING COMPAh"If (Shoreham Nucicar Power Station, Unit I), Docket - No. 54322-Ole 5 (EP Exercise); OPERATING LICENSE; March 13,1989; ORDER Imt ementmg the Commician's decision terminsung this proceeding (CU 89 2,29 NRC 211), A A the Appeal Board issues an order endmg its consideration d the mauers before iL B Unreviewed licensms board decisians do not have precedendal effect. See Duka Power Co. (Chere kee Nuclear Sta6on, Units 1. 2, and 3). ALAB-482,7 NRC 979,981 st4 (1978). ALAB-913 ALL CIIEMICAL ISOTOPE ENRICIIMEhT, INC. (AlChemIE Facility-1 CPDF; AlChemIE fucihty 2 Oliver Sprmss). Docket Non. 50 603-CP/01,54604 CP; CONSTRUCHON PERMIT AND OPERATING LICENSE; March 20,1989 DECISION A The Appeal Board conducts a sus sponte review of the fjcensing Board's decision in favor of the applicant in this uncontested, combmed construcnun permit / operating beense proceedmg far two facilibes that will use gas centnfuge machmes to enrich nonradioacuve isotopes for medral, indusmal, and other uses. With twoininor clanficanons,the Appeal Board affirms the Ilcensing Board's authonzanon d the issuance d construction perrmas and an operaung beense for the plarus. B E

WQf@haj~.ifgis7 ;,.j,q.c,g,gg.,j [$bi' % p e gg g{ig p% h' d S Tifk% D;,) t k? e 4 jd Q..'n .g h wW QI\\'.' l f e L q u is j g[ y As s

r. h DIGESTS

[4A$ ISSUANCES OF Tile A'lOMIC EAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS %Y. ?g& ? M LBP-891 00N3 ISLAND UGHTING 00MPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1), Docta P 'I %t G#M - '. Oh Na 50 3224L.5R (ASI.BP No. 89-58101 OI 5RJ (EP Enercis6 OPERATING LICENSE; January 3. M a 3989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER L s.b h '* h A Applying the standarda set out in this proceeding in AIAB.903,28 NRC 499 (1988),the Uoensms ,d~p' f Board accepts for litigation postions a 6ve (out of a total d twenty) contentions advanced with respect to the 1988 caermas of the Applicant's offsite emergency plan fa the Shoreham Station which adequately b , g p/ aDego a faDure in an essennal plan element toqumns signi6 cant plan revisiam to ewrect. he Licenmot + 3 f} ' y(",f{ *'n 1e 7 "r Board denias contentions that aDege facts that do not materially daar fra. hose found m to cmstitute a fundamemal flaw in the litigation d the 1986 encreias and adnuta those alleging facts that do not matenaDy 7 y % jj~ differ from those found to consntute a fundamental f.sw in the earlier litigadort ,j p) 9 Because litigstion of affaite emergency plan caercises must be completed in 2 years foDowhg the y Ts. B ,'g g ky $ caercise, en appellate decision that follows an initial decision and severses the denial of a comenne would j /hg;p/$ $ '/ / 9q Mf M - leave httle if any time to hear and decide the comention. Therefore,the Licensing Board concludes that [' MM defemng appeals of its sulings on contentions could afices the proceeding in 6 pervasive or unuas.a! mannee O and certines those rulings to the Appeal Board d ft C Footnote 4 to 10 CJ.R. Part 50, Appendia EdWJ.1 defmes the scope of the "fut patticipstmn p# J4 3 exerciac" that is required poor to full-power operation of a nactor as one in which *apprepnate citaite local N g h47 ^"$ and State authorities and hcensee pe sonnel" participate. It does not require the puticipation of organiunons sudi as the Amaican National Red Cross,the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Agriculture,the Fedein? {g j , ;[Th.( f a g dW Av'ation Adminisustion, and the Long Island Rail Road. /[4 *%@$ p.p.1 i M D lt is inappropriate to consolidate an otherwise inadnuasible contendon with me that is admissible3 f M;1, if to do ao would nquire an applicant to mount a defense that is substantiaDy different or capanded from Q .Y. that which is reauired by the admined contennon. 7 . W?\\Q"% UNWERSITY OF CAUFORNIA, BERKELEY (Research Reactor), Docka No. 542'!4 OLA - h ?;( LBP 89 2 (ASGP Ni 87-574-07 OLA); OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; January 5.1989, ORDER j@MtMPj8 f y@m?SWf PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW IIAMPSEIIRE et al. (Scabrook Stanon, Unita I and e '%*g p UIP-89-3 2), Docket Nos 54443 OL, 50444-OL (ASLBP No. 82 47102 OL) (Offaite Emargency P.anning). i, OPERATING UCENSE; January 30,1989; MEMCQANDUM AND ORDER

NgWhgy*Q s.,'

LBP 89-4 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSIERE,et at (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2). 4,, C /c u A,5,w, Dodet Nos. 50-443 01-1,50 444-OL.1 (ASGP No. 88-58341-OL) (Onsite EP Esercise); OPERATING F Gh* M h UCENSE; January 30,1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER f De Licenseg Board denies certain Ir.tervenots' motion to admit exercise comentaon. or, in the ( .Q[-$gj;% A ff '=1Q. ahernative, to reopen the record. / C-dN:h?if r B A licensing board possesses the inherern right (indeed, the duty) to determme in the first instance . y M C.d the bounds of its brisdiction. Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuc1 car Station, Urnts 1. 2, and 3), ALAB 591.11 s NRC 741,742 (1980) Q; [MAQ}j(M)' t C Pursuant to 10 CJ,R. 6 2.714(a)(1) and (b), any ecruendon that is not Eled within 15 days poor 1[Ij io.he soidmg of a special preheanna conferer.cc cr thsi is not tLad withm 15 d.ya prior to the holdmg of q.3 g, t - the fast prehearing cmfans 6f a special pnheanng corJerence has not been held), as deaned to be late a

g. p7, Q filed, and any request to fJt a nonnmely comention may be gramed based upon the balancing of the 6ve

. Q;44 s, factoIs-c] '{]j]' .gp c i , ~A m,4* yn - _f hp h<IMMh@ scg p q% 4a A _. %x y'; ' f; s .q m.a u. ,).)d h; h Y 9 s 1 4 h3M[ y i ' w wM e l n I Mk.bMMd MM ~ym @&yWCX.. j pm / ig pWJahh. k M n-

a. n. e m.

t. y

l3 t DIGESTS ISSI'ANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC S AITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS ,jE D ,ection M9a of the Atonue Energy Act does not provide members t1the public with rn unquabfied rght to a ).canng, but rather the Act pum.u the estabbshn.em of reasonable threshold requsremenu for the admession of contenuons, and the Bye. factor uait in 10 C.F.R. 4 2.714 mpresems a permissible exercise of that authority. Duke her Co. (Cassubs Nuclear Stanon Units I and 2), CL18319,17 NitC 1041, 1045-47 (1983). In Union of Cevemed Sciem as v. NRC,735 F.2d 1437 (1984), the Court of Appeals nenher held norimplied that the Act eithe.r prohibits the estabhshment of reasonable threshold requiremems, such as the five-factor test, for n e admission of contentions, or precludes the apphcation of standards to reopen a closed moord under 10 C.KR 6 2.*h4. I Good cause can be Shown for falhng to paree a comention in a t'mely manner if interveners submit thes untention promptly after neciving the pertinent document, and au that is required is that they state the reasons (i.e., the basis) for the comemion by refernng to that document, sr d set forth assertions and concluims drawn therefrom. See llouston lighung and Power Ca (Allens Creek Nuckar Generanna Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, !! NRC 542,548-49 0980). F Pace the insdtutiarial unavailabihty of a licensing-related cscument is remored, intevemrt must promptly tannulate their contemions. See Duke bor Ca (Catawba Nucicar Stauon, Umts 1 and 2), CL183-)9,17 NRC M41 (1983). G Absent good cause for late f11mg, a compeHing showing must be made on the other four factors in 5 2.714(a)(1). Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stauon, t.aits 1 and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725,1730 0982). Ilowever, favorable fmdmgs on some or even all of the other factors in the rule need not ie. a given case outweigh the effect of inexcusable tardmess. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Vaucy Reprocessing Plant), CLI.754,1 NRC 273,275 (1975). Il The second and fourth factors in 5 2.714(a)(1) are accorded less weight than the three other factors. With respect to the third factor, a petitinner should set out with as much particulanty as possible the precise issues is plans to cover,idenufy its prospectiw witnesses, and summanze their proposed tesumony. Commonweahh Edison Ca (Braiowood Nuclear Power Stauon, Units I and 2), CLI.868,23 NkC 241, 245 46 (1986) 1 Section.'t734 in a pan of the adjudicatory process provided for under 6189(a)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act. In contraat, a 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 prtadure can hardly be equated with the ability to Ltigate issues in an adjudicatory setting, accomparued by a nght of apwal to tne Appeal Board and an entitlement to petition for Commission review if disaausfied with the appcUste resuh. Washington Pubhc ber Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB.747,18 NRC 1167,1176 (1983). J A mere threshold rMwmg is msufficient because it is wc!! settled that a proponent of a mo&m to nopen has a heavy bu den. 51 Fed. Reg. 19,535 (1986); Kansra Gas and Dectne Ca (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB.462,7 NRC 320,328 (1978). K Even though a maner is timely raised and involves sigraficam safety connaderations, no reopening of the evidennary heanng wiu be requimd if the affidavits submitted in response to the motion demonstrate that there is no genuine unresolved issue of fact,i.e.,if the undisputed facts estabhsh that the apparently sigmficant safety issue does not exist, has been resolved, or for some other reason will have no effect upon the outcome of the pmceedmg '!he quesuons whether the matters sought to be raised present sigmficant safety issues and whether they present tsiable issues of fact are intenwined and will be so treated. Vermom Yankee Nuclear her Corp. (Vermant Yankee Nuclear her Staaan), ALAB.138,6 AEC 520,523-24 r1973). L Barren aUeganons that the NRC Staff has acted in bad fai.h will be ignored. The presumption of ngulanty supports the of5cial acts of public officern and,in the atsence of clear evidence to the contrary, s we pmesume that they have properly disearsed thrar ofEcial dunes. United States v. Chemial Foundation, ins., U2 U.S.1. H-15 (1926). M Only faev raisms a sigrtificas safesy isme, not conjecture a speculatim, can support a reapanirts camma Pacific Gas and Dectnc Ca (Drablo Canyan Nuclear her Plant, Unita 1 and 2), AIAB.775,19 NEC 1361,1367 alB (1984). N It is swrnelNRC procedure, when an esercise inspecuan report idaittfies "open items," for the Staff to caduct a foUowup inspection to determine whether those open items should be closed in a subsequent inspecuan report. 10 t d 8 E i l 1 l 1 i i )

a. l E LDP-89-5 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATDMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS All CHEMICAL ISOTOPE ENRICHMENT, INC. (AlChemIE Facihty4 CPDF; AlOiemIE Facihty 2, Oliver Spnnss). Docket Nos. 54603 CP/OL,54604 CP (ASLDP Nos. 88-57401-CP/OL, 68-571-01-CP); CONSTRUCIlON PERMIT AND OPERATINO LICENSE; February 1,1989-INTRAL } DECislON A Ahhough the Appbcant does not imend to use the subject cemrifuge machines for enriching uranium, because the machines am capable of drang so, they are defined as a production facihty and must be Lcensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Canmission as provided by illiv and 101 of we Atomic Energy Act of 1954, en amended. B Where chemical hazards mlated to the producuan of stable isosopea are unrelated to maienals licensed under the Atomic Energy Act and the hazards will be subject to regulauon by other agencies, the issues considered ofimponance in licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Camnussion are those associated with ensunng adequate pmtecuan of the common defense and secunty. C ne exact nature of the precaut:ans the beensee will take to provide physical pmtection, material control, and accountmg for special nuclear matenal will be withheld fmm pubbe disclosure in a heensmg proceedmg, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 61790(d)(1). LDP-89 6 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon), Docket No. 50 271 OLA (ASLEP No. 87-547 02-LA); OPERATING IJCENSE AMENDMENT; February 2,1989, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A De Licensmg Board, on the basis of a recent court optmon as well as a funher explansuon of an endier ruhng, grants reconsideranon of hs cactusion in LBP-88-26 (28 NRC 440 (1988)) of a comention raising questions as to the risk of a particular severs accident (a self-sustaining zirconium fire in the spent fuel pool). he Board also amends an esisting comention to include the severe-accidem emsideranons as an addinonal basis. We Board refers its suhng to the Appeal Board and postpones hs effectivmess until af er the Appeat Board acts on the referral. B Paruca are not expected to respond to monans for reconsideranan absent an invitation imm the licesing Board to do so. C Although the Nanonal Envirmmemal Puhey Act does not in itself mandate the considerano.i of the naks of a beyond design-basis accident, the Comnussian's Seves Accident Policy Statemmt,50 Fed. Reg. 32,138, 32,144 (1985), permits etanunation of the nsk of such accidems in a spent fuel pool expansion proceeding. D he Commission's Severe Accident Policy Statement permits examinadan of the nsk of such acci-dems, usmg the methodology spcDed out in the Commission's NEPA Pblicy Statement,40 Fed. Reg. 40,101 (1980). E Referral of a ruhng to the Appeal Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 61730(f), is appmpnate where review of that ruhng is necessary to prevent detnmmt to the pubhc huerest and unusual delay in the Proceedmg. LEP 89-7 GENERAL PUBUC LTILIITES NUCLEAR CORPORAT10N et al. (Three Ele Island Nuclear Station, Umt 2), Docket Na 543240LA (ASLBP Na 87-554 3-OLA) (Disposal of Accident-Generated Water); OPERATING UCENSE AMLNDMENT; February 2,1989; FLNAL INTD AL DECISION A The Board approves Applicants' pmposal to evaporate the accidem-generated water (AGW) sesulnns from the hree Mle lund ucciJmt. As e resuk of the evaporation process, achd ra&oactive masenais would be drawn off avid shipped for bunal he hquid wastes, whose pnmary radioactive carnpaners is tnuum, would be evaporated. B The Board found that implemmtanan of Apphcams' pmposal would have extremely small ra&stion exposure cor: sequences, both to workers and the general publac. C As Imervenos poimed out, there would be some 4 me asving through radioacuve decay if the AGW ware stored on siis far 30 yeamt However, she total dose that trusht be saved by stanns the wastes on site, paraurang dr. cay pour to _, .. would be no more than 36.4 person-rem, but the cost of the storage I ahernadve was estenaamd as eumed $800,000. hus, the dose saving was considered inadaluate to riquue that omat taperuhtum. D Appbcants' proposal to evaporate AGW shall be approved by the Ucensms Board unless it fmds . hat another ahernanvc is obviously supenar. It is Imervenor.' burde to propose the other alternanve. De l l

• * * " i l

3p-11 '1 l ) N l 1

e. e l l i i ~51 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BO4RDS + burden of proof remams on the Appbcants, who must show by a preponderance of the evidunce that the other ahernative is not obviously superior. E h is the hcensmg board's obbgation to cansider all the facts in the record and to deterrtine whether ahernauves to Appheama* pmposal are obviously supenor. At the heanng stage,it is no los.ger nlevant whether the Prehmmary Environmental Jmpact Staternern was deficienL The hearmg record is part of the agency record on which an environmemal decisian is reached. F ne agency's $1000 per person rem semdard for reducing radioactive affluent is ap;>1icable to a proposed license amendment regarding the evaporation of AGW that is conta inated by radioscovsty. When m the total radianon exposure ir no more thart 36.4 peruco rurn, it is not appropnate to require Applicarry to spent 8800,000 to funher reduce the ra6 anon exposure consequences of its proposed scuan. G The following techmcalissues are discussed; Radianon releases from tritium svapora: ion; Tntium, heahh effects of; Maximally esposed offsite person; Dase to the total exposed populauan; baporsuon of radianon contamir,ated water; Occupadanal exposures; Accident naks, shipment and bunal; Dcse modeling; MIDAS code; Radianon, low-level (heahh effects); Raaanen, genetic risk; Cat esumstei, ahemadve p oposals; Ra6snan consequences, alternatives comparediTritium, measurement of; Microorganisms, effect of evaporanon system. IllP-89 8 PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW llAMPSilIRE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units ! and 2), Docket Nos. 54443-OL, 50-444 OL (ASLBP No. 82-47102-OL) (Offsite Emergency Planning); l OPERATING UCENSE; February 16,1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LBP-39-9 PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSlHRE, et al. (Seabrisok Stanon. Unita 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50 443 OL 1,50 444 OIA (ASLBP No. 88 858-01 OL) (Onsite Emergency Planning and i Safety lasues); OPERATING UCENSE; March 3,1988n MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A After considering issues raised by a surr. mary disposinan motion, the Licensing Board admitted genume issue of fact under three bases for an ernergency planning contennm. h encouragsd the parties to develop agreed site visitation proconures to runolve issues under one of the bases. B 1egal standard for summary disposinon reviewed. C Relationship among emergency planning regulations and guidance smewed. D The following technical issues are discussed: llearing damage frorn sirens; Discamfort from strens; Stren loudness; reflection from buildmgs; Measurement of elapsed nme for alert:1g and notificanon (emergency planning); Readmess of emergency personnel - mobile suen (VANS) dnvers; Measurement of thpsed tune for route transit (emergency planning); Siren rotauen, effect on sound levels. LDP-8910 PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSlHRE, et al. (Seabrook Staucn, Unita 1 and 2). Docket Nos. 54443-OL, 50-444 0L (ASLDP No. 82-471-024L) (Offsite Emergency Planning); OPERATING UCENSE; March 8,1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER U19-89-11 ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. (One fictory Row, Oeneva< Ohio 44041) Docket No. 3(L16055 SP (ASulP No. 87 545 01 SP) (Suspension Order); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 21. 1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A in this Memorandian and Order, the Licensing Board holds (1) that dus challenge to an immediately effecnvc suspensum order is not moot despite the subsequent revocanon of the suspension order and usumpnan d operations by the Licensee under an amended beense, and (2) that an award of attorney's fees smdes the Equal Access to Justice Act 5 U.S.C. 6504, is,in appropnate circumstances, within tiie Board's suttority. B While the burden of estabbshing a causal connecuan between an enforcement procecang and perallel action by the NRC Staff in its regulatory capacity may indeed be a heavy one, the quesdon of "prevaihng party" status under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAIA),5 U.S C. 5 504, turns on an analysis of the apphcahitfacts rather than narrow and summed construcnans of the statutory terms in the EAJA. C The Fqual Access to Jusuce Act,5 U S.C. I 545, has been severely hmited by subsequent legisladan that precludes the NRC from using any of its appropriated fonds no pay the expenses of imervenors. See, e.g., 5 502 of the Energy and Water Development Approprianons Act of 1981, Pub. L No. 96 367; and 6 502 of the Energy and Water Developmerit Appropnauons Act of 1989, Pub. L No.104371. his restnetion has been interpnted to encompass any awards under the EAJA. See Mauer of Availabihty of Funds for Payment of Intervenor Attorney Fees - Nuclea; Regulatory Commission,62 Comp. Gen. 692 (1983) (B-208637); Busmens & Professmnal hops for che Pubhc Interest v. NRC,793 F.2d 1366 (D.C. Cir.1986). \\.

[. J J EYs DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SArETY AND LICENSING BOARDS f D A Licensing Board's authority to award attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 5 U.S C. I 504, is lirruted only as to intervenon in NRC adjudicataty or regulatory proceedmas. The EA1A connnues to authorize, in appropnate circumstances, fees and expenses to licanaces who, as peutionen, challenge NRC enforcement senons. 5 The Licensmg Board has authority to entertain requais for fees and capenses under the Equal Access to Juance Act,5 U.S.C. 6 504, in enforcement proceedmss where the Lcensee prevails on all or some of the issues joined for litigation. F ne grant af declaratory relief reqsures amtmative answers to two separate but related questans. First, does a genuine and live controveny exist sufficient to support a declaratory order. Second, is the issuance of declaratory rebet appropnsis. The former is necessary to ensure that a board has junsdiction over the matter to be decuted, without which it carmot issue any rehef, declaratory or otherwise. The latter is necessary because declaratory rehef is discreuanary and is to be gramed only to terminate a controversy or ehminate uncertamty and svoid unnecessary draay. O De revocanon of an immediately effecuve suspension order does not render a challenge to the suspensiwi order moot where there was injury that was " capable of repetition, yet evadmg review." Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Intentate Commerce Canmission,219 U.S. 498,515 (1911). 11 / Licensing Board's authonty nows from and thus is hmited to those maners contained in the Notice of IIcanng. Ilowever, a Board is not precluded from reaching and deciding all the issucs necessary to resolve the particular case before h simply because their resoludon might have generic implicadons. B

1, m. 2y. y, c.,.... r g...,.. ~ o.,. ,s3-j

f., '. -. s.y.,.-r

. i; ? g.:. -.$ ?....,].,. h~ 3, p. W[D.,,$/..y. ,,.o i ,w C4(M.h') 4Q$,dj.,5-Q(N.,. i' (? ; d, %44!P@!fgev l +, ..r/v n . ygb; @n w, pQ' )$ je%g, My -M-DIGESTS (2~ ISSUANCES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

h,*,,

9 'Mp - ?q. *. .k( - AIJ 891 Il&G INSPECTION COM?ANY,INC.,1hket Na 3429319 (ASLBP Na 88 575-01 CavP)(EA-6 87145) (Maierial license No. 42 26838K), ENFORCEMENT; January 9,1989; ORDER 1[fj, Al)-89-2 PREC1510N IJDOGING & PERFORA11NG COMPANY, Docket Na 3419498 (ASLBP Na 88 578 02 CwP) (EA 87184) (Materials license Na 35 17186-02); CIVIL PENALTY; March 15, 1989, ):?. -+ J ?.. ORDER ' w,., .g,>p.'- Q ( 3. ~ 4 eT* ... e-$- 2, (4 .g Q 3 l ,'[g::$.1[ J - + s

• n! l

,.r.,h s ?? b'At ,l st ^, r n i., L J.' $ 4 y.a - w.'.. gr 4* 4$ ?' w i x.f {.

d. 4 e

S* !) - i ,, A) .q %r f. s gg n 4 o. h, F ~p y o ;! ' ? ' ,4 4

• ?

g 4) 'dM 1 i 8', r . rv. .t . r; mi-l ' k f's-m;; ,q,,.c 4. 9ii i 15 ', :jg. ) N., g 4' g ' i_, g 7 pd eg*, gp+ y.r. re, S,,.:wm l7% Cl t q sn ;.^<y d rv g, 4... s%;", t. + y r 4 6

,.. y m -- - - ?*hh 4 -Q r k; V y p ] y w .p .fk.k l y 1 2 Mt DIGESTS l ) ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS Q} .u D: k' DD.89-1 GENERAL EI.ECITIC COMPANY (Wilmington, Nonh Carolina Facility), Dociet No. 41113;

• y REQUEST POR ACTION; March 13,1989; DIRECTOR'S DEOSION IMDER 10 CIA i 2.206

"$k A The Deputy Executive Direetw for Nuclear Matenals Safety, Safeguards, and Operations Suppet 0 grants in part and denies in pan a Petition filed pursuant to 10 Cf.R. 5 2.206 by Vera M. Eng'ish and dernes 47 action requested in a previous pention filed by Mrs. English which was defened in an carher Director s Decision, DD-8611,24 NRC 325 (1986). SpecificaDy the present Petidon sous4 hpc,:ition of a civD g penalty in the amount of $40,635,000 upon General Electric Company (GQ, plus $37,500 per day for every a (( day aner April 6,1987, that GE did not take omrective action for escrimination against Mrs. Enghsh, and qW imposition of a licmse condinon upon GE requiring the Ucensee to fuDy compenssie Mrs. Enghsh fm her s losses endured as a resuh of GE's actions. In this Decision, to the catent that the Peddoner requested that >wQ h' the NRC take enforcernet action against GE for &senmanation against Mrs. English, the Petiden has been 9 ?, g gamed. Ilowever, to the entent that the Petitioner requested that the NRC impose a civD penalty in the p amount stated above, and to the ertent that the Petitioner requested ht the NRC irnpose a Lcense condinon A. %g:. upon GE requiring it to fuuy compensate Mrs. English, the Petition has bem denied. f '9 9( ' 'j B Generally, when a complaint has been 61ed with h Departmem of bbor aUeging &senmination g

}$

by an NRC licensee, the NRC defers consideration of the matter antD the Department of bbar has actet [ red N C As long as he does not abese his discretion, a Director, in making a decisim regar&ng a 10 . g, CIA (2.206 petitim. is free to reJy on a variety of sources of informadon, including documents issued pp yn by other agencies. ] p g$ p. D According to k Entweement Pblicy, an sedm by plant mae agement above first-line supervision q { y ( y" "oT" in violation of 8 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act against an employee is classif,ed as a Seventy leve! Y,3 tai Il violation, 2 ,4 '. E ne section in the Enforconent Policy that provides for escaladan for prior poor performance Q 3 4 .g mfers to the IJcensee's enforcement history in the tres of eencern. y)A, p " Prior notice" under the Enforcemmt Policy refers to specific notice of pardeular typer of evetts F vj. or potential conditions affecting licensed operations. i y G y, % g4 4 7 In 1210 of the Energy Reorganistion Act, Congress has explicitly given to the Depanmern of 7 -h Labor the authonty and responsibility to provide traditional,labw-related remeens such as compensation for 4 M[ individuallosses, while reserving to h NRCits authonty unde the Atarnic Energy Act to take mforcernent h 4 / p'*4 4 actim against its licenaces for vtoistions of NRC requirements. '!his statutory systern has been implemented

== 'Q through a Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies. The NRC does not have the authority Ih[ - to order individual cunpensation. 4 1 5 DD-89 2 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL LTILflY DISTRICT (Rar,cho Seco Nucicar Generating Statico), f ~1 Dockes No. 54312; REQUEST JOR ACTION, March 21,1989, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 ?Q}g gQ. [ CIA I 2.206 p't 4 ' g: 1 A he Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Reguladon denies a peddon f!!ed by Ms. Barbar 'td Q MoDer that requested the Nucle.r Regn: story Comrrussion (NRC) to shut down the Rancho Seco Nuclear N {E A

m Generating Station (Rancho Seco). The Petitioner based her request on aDeganons that (1) SMUD "4

management crimmally (willfuDy) &sregarded public heahh and safety as shown by incidents between 1980 ' C d' and 1984, and again in 1988,in which SMUD reJensed excessive amoums of water contairung rs&onuclides; v 7Q[M4 ,, M $ f (2) indications on the pressurizersupport lugs demonstrate embntdement as a resuh of rapid cooldown events at Rancho Seco; (3) pipe wad thinning has occuned; (4) in March 1988, while staning the reactor, SMUD O. f Q . d.M%p - A i M%p;n 1 %'9 % 3 O;w' y,. f h gy ,e wn ,4 mo , 2 &yr n;.; G Tk M Q%k er l?k w M, ..,% g h ,, 3 30 Qt.. t hg Q y, - s

• * " * * ~ ~

e l l l l DIGESTS Mp ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS but control of Rancho Seco anf was watts to shut the plant t'.Avn; and, (5) illegal drug use et Rancho Seco poses a danger to public health and ufety. B Where a peduaner provices docummution to estabbsh a factual basis for a request and that documemation contradicts peudoner's assened facts pnma facie, the Daector, NRR, need not take sedan on the request. C Where the NRC is considering a peddoner's request under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 and the peutioner makes the same request on the same basis as a part of a subsequent penum, the relevant pardon of the latter peduon may be considered as a supplement to the former peddon. D Where the NRC has taken enforcement action against a heensee for violadans of the Commasian's regulatory requirements, the NRC will not normally reopen the enforcement action in response to a petinoner's requeu far enforcement aedon based on the violadon. E The following technical issues are ducussed: Release of Radioacuve Matenals in T;.ffluents; In. Service Inspection Program kunim, Pipe well thinmng. t __m.____.______ m

p

JEELE N MlWidMNhhy;hghag g-g.g. _. i pg; j},,. w 4 sl. A .( 2% t!ra4 n :C ~;s ]Y 'C , q k' h LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES D h*% )h

• t' Alabama Power Co. Caseph M Fedey Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), AIAB-182,7 AEC 210, amanded on

[h othat grounds,CLi 74-12,7 AEC 203 0974) D ses judicata enhed to seismic review issues resolved during emsuuction permit proceedms; 12P-to 3, 29 NRC 56 0989) g "4 g Alton & S. Ry v. International Ass'n d Machmists,463 F.2d 872,878 (D.C. Or.1972) ]/ iest for smnt of declaratory judgment in enforcernent proceedms; 12P-8911,29 NRC 315 0989) .- ( Bluefmid Water WmLs and improvement Co. v. Pubbe service Commission d West Virginia,269 U.S. 679 M 00) yp safay consideraties in rate setting: LBP.8610,29 NRC 303 0989) W [7 Boston Edison Ca (Pilgrirn Nuclear Power Station), AIAB 816,22 NRC 461,468 (1985) .n content requirernenu for petions to reopen a record, ISP-89-3,29 NRC 59 (1989) b l Boston Edse Co. (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Statim), C118216,16 NRC 44,45 0982), aff'd sub nom. Bellato W q

v. NRC,725 F.2d 1380 (D.C. Qr.1983) gpp genene determinatim d the scope of licensable sciavities apphcabla to the ernire regu!sted industry; g

,.v g,

IEP-8911,29 NRC 317 0989) y 15%$$ Busmess & Professional 1%ople for the Pubhc Interest v. NRC,793 F.2d 1366 (D.C Or.1986) Q7 g g payment of irnervonors' expenses with NRC funds;13P-8911,29 NRC 312 0989) 4g Capital Engineering & Mfg Co.,Inc. v. Weinberger,695 F. Supp. 36 (D.D.C.1988) j e effect of hfting ofimmediatrJy effective suspension order on plantiff's challenge to the suspension; C 7 '$ g(,. Carchna Power and Light Ca (Shearon IIarris Nuclear Nwer Rant) ALAB-837,13 NRC 325,536 37 0986) p h LBP-8911,29 NRC 315 0989) g changed circurnstances considered in applying res judicata; 12P-89-3,29 NRC 57 (1989) < <V gCy Carchua Pbwer and light Ca (Shearan IIsms Nuclear Power Plant), LBP 8tL11,23 NRC 294,364-69 0986) g 4

9. @

sisen slest synerns, loudness requimnents for, LBP 89-9,29 NRC 274 n.5 0989) g Q l Carolina Power and light Co. (Shearon llanis Nuclear Power Plac, Units 1,13, and 4), AIAB 526,9 NRC } 122, 124 0 979) +did,,; Jurisdiction d bcensmg board to consider motim to reopera;IEP-89-4,29 NRC 67 n.5 0989) Q M j hk . jb Chapman t. U.S. Commodity Ibtuns Trading Canmission,788 F.2d 408 (7th Cir.1986) N d "' state and local governmmi responsibihues as interveners; CLI-89129 NRC 232 (1989) Cincinnati Gas and Electne Co. (Wilham II. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), AIAB-727,17 NP.C 760, l M 772 0 983) , iMpyf role cortflict in emergency markers; AIAB 911,29 NRC 256 (1989) Mg, Oeveland Doctric Illuminating Co- (Perry Nuclear Power P', ant, Units ! and 2), A1AB-443,6 NRC 741, %1 753 54 0 977) l jip burden on proponcre a motion for summary disposition;IEP.89-9,29 NRC 273 0989) ',% t Oeveland Lectne IDurninsting Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Plam, Umts 1 and 2), LBP-8124,14 NRC 175,181 y" Wld (1981) mmis considerations in determuting motions to reopm; CLi-891,29 NRC 94 n2 0989) 'f Commonweahh Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Pow.r Stssim, Units I and 2), CL1-868,23 NRC 241,245 , $$,{j (1986) ]gg ighi acconied io nve racims con,idend in dete,mm g inte intervention P. iions; tBP.89-4,29 NRC 10 (1989) g ,,ps : N wel ( "w f Wv i Mh! o b ye ,y*dh ih N g 19 n dhf g + %ykM ; Nh , TYO I yyy .M,p \\ ( e-9' e

c. m-, n-.

l p A. .s i $ $kQY5* *

• f,,.[-.*4

',s.,, a.?., so. l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES l

i

^ e Commonweahh Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Ibwer Stancri, Units 1 and 2),1BP-85-20,21 NRC 1731 17410985), rev'd and mananded on other grounda, CU-86 8,23 NRC 2410986) . incorporinan of massive documems by reference na bass for comsruions; CU-89-3,29 NRC 2410989) Commonweahh Edison Co. (Bymn Nuclear Power Station, Uruta 1 and 2), ALAB478,15 NRC 1400,1417 (1982) harm to cher parnes and the proceeding from sciusal to comply with discrwery order, CU-89-2,29 NRC 224 (1989) / Commonweahh Edison Co. of New York (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), A1AB 616,12 NRC 419,426 (1980) 4 genene determinanan of the scope of licensabic activiues apphcable to the ensue regulated industry; I IEP 89-11.29 NRC 317 0989) l Connecticut Light and Pour ca v. Feden! Energy Regtdstory Commissist,627 F.2d 467,469 70 -} (D.C. Or.1980) effect of satiement of fmancial issues on nminess of cas: ch:11ensmpuspe=m order.1BP-8911,29 NRC 315 (1989) Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (In&an Nnt, Uniu 1,I and 3), CU-75-8,2 NRC 173,175 (1975) - \\ standard for institution of 2.206 proceedmss; DD-89-2,29 NRC 343 0989) Consumers Power Co. O&dland P! ant, Uniu 1 and 2), ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982), review declined, 2 I CU-83-117 NRC 69 (1983) appellate sus spome seview where intervenar's conduct has amourned to a waiver of far tacal nghts; Dairyland Power Coopwative (La Cmsse Boilms Water Reacior),1EP-82 58,16 NRC SIL 519 0982) ]) A1AB.911,29 NRC 250 n.7 0989) burden on proponern of monan for senmary disposinan; LBP-89-9. 29 NRC 272 0989) ] Duke Power Ca (Catawba Nuc1 car Station, Uruts 1 and 2), A1AB 813,22 NRC 59,78 0985); CU-8319,17 j NRC 1041,1045 47 0983) t hearing rights on emergency escreke rauhs;ISP 894,29 NRC 68 n.8 0989) N Duke Power Ca (Chercise Nuc1 car Stanart,Uniu 1,2, and 3), AIAB-452,7 NRC 979,981 n.4 (1978) preadendal e5ect of unreviend licensmg board decismns; A1AB 912,29 NRC 265 0989) Duke Power Ca (Dedtins Nucicar Station,Umts 1,2, and 3), ALAB 591, Il NRC 741,742 0980) w nght of heensing board to determme bounds of its own jurisdicuan;1EP-89 4,29 NRC 67 (1989) ( i Duquesne Ught Ca v. Barasch,109 S. Ct. 609,1021. Ed. 2d 646 (1989) { safety consideratioris in rate satung;ISP 89-10,29 NRC 3010989) Fmal Rule on Emergency Plannms, CU-80 40,12 NRC 636,638 0980) tune regaremem for emergency noufication;ISP 89-99,29 NRC 283 0989) FPC v.11 ope Natural Gas Co.,320 U.S. 591,605 0944) safety considersnans in rate setting,IEP 89-10,29 NRC 303 0989) i Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Eactnc Genermung Plant, Umts 1 and 2), AIAB 87A 26 NRC 127,136 0987) i dismissal of comanuon that rehes on repudtsted documem for its basis; CU.89-3,29 NRC 2410989) Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Bectne Genersung Plant, Units I and 2), AIAB-87126 NRC 127,149-50 0957) test for reopenmg a record, CU-891,29 NRC 93 0989) I GUARD v. NRC,753 F.2d 114, (D.C. Cir.1985) laigabihty of 1ste41od comention on medical services far comaminated injured ind viduals; CU 891,29 NRC 92 n.1 (1989) - Gulf States Utihnes Ca (Raver Bend Stauon, Units 1 and 2), AIAB-444,6 NRC 760 (1977) state and local government responsibihues as imervonors; CU-89-2,29 NRC 232 0989) 11ouston Ughung and Ibwe Co. (Allens Creek Nuc1 car Generating Stauan, Unit !), AIAB-590, Il NRC 542 i 0 980) standard for determuurg need for change in safe shutdown earthquake, LBP 89 3,29 NRC 57 (1989)' 11ouston Lighnns and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Station, Unit 1), A1AB-590,11 NRC 541 548 49 (1980) showmg necessary fw estabhshmg weaknesses in emergency response staff trammg; LBP.89-4,29 NRC 70 (1989) 20 i l p,,. I

) l l l i l LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX g, CASES g Ilouston Lighang and Nwer Co. (South Texas Project, Unns 1 and 2), ALAB.381,5 NRC 582,591 (1977) ,b "W junedicuan to reopen a construcuan permit proceeding at operaung I cense stege; UlP-89-3. 29 NRC 53 n 6 (1989) Ilounon Ushung and hwer Co. (South Texas Project Units : rnd 2), ALAB 637,13 NRC 367 (1981) l imerlocutory review, standard for, CU-89 2,29 h%C 228 (1989) Jones v. Niagara Fronner Transponsuon Authonty 836 F.2d 731,73406 (2d. Ctr.1987), cen demed. 000 U.S 000,109 S. Ct. 74 (1988) sute and local smernment responsibihues as amervemns; CU 89-2,29 NRC 232 (1989) Kansas Gas and Liectnc Co. (Wolf Cieck Generanna Station, Unit 1), ALAB-279,1 NRC 559,576 (1975) purpose of specificity requirement for contendons; LBP 89-7,29 NRC 153 (1989) Kansas Gas and Dectric Co. (Wolf Creek Generstmg Sution, Unit 1), ALAll-4617 NRC 320,338 (1978) burden on proponent of mons to reopen, LBP 89 4,29 NRC 73 (1989) Kansas Gas and Dectnc Co. (Wolf Creek Generaung Stanon, Unit 1), C1177-1,5 NRC 1,3-5 (1977) declaratory judgrrent on the availatnuty of awards of attorney's fees in NRC enforcement proceedess; LBP 89-11,29 NRC 31) (1989) IMO v. County of Suffolk,628 F Supp. 654,664-66 (E.D.N.Y.1986) tesnng of t'olicant's oflaite emergency plan; CL1-89-129 NRC 230 n.25 (1989) LILCO v County of Suffolk,628 F Supp. 654, f65 (E.D.N.Y 1986) unconsstu6 anal interference with a preempted federal area; C1189-2,29 NRC 230 (1989) Img lahnd Lightmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Sunon, Unit 1), LBP-82-115,16 NRC 1923,1935 (1982) dismissal of comenuons as a sancuan wher. pnor fmdmg of default and sancuans cere not effecuve; CU-89129 NRC 222 (1989) lag Island Lighung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stadon, Unit 1), LBP-82-115,16 NYC 1923,1935-36 (1982), aff'd, ALAD-788,20 NRC 1102 (1984) dismtssal of comenuons as sancuan for failure to comply with discovery order; CU-89-2,29 NRC 225 (1989) Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electne Stauon, Unit 3), ALAB-753,18 NRC 1321,1324 (1983) specificity required of matenal supportmg mouans to reopen; CU 89-1,29 NRC 94 (1989) leaiisaana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Doctric Stadon, Unit 3), C11861,23 NRC 1,6 n.2 (1986) newspaper reports as evidennary support for monon to reopen, LBP-89-3,29 NRC $7 n.15 (1989) Lautsiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electnc Sudan, Urut 3), LDP-81-48,14 NRC 877,883 (1981) showrg necessary to prevail on summary dispost6an modon; LBP-89-9,29 NRC 273 (1989) Massachusetts v. United States,856 F.2d 378 (? st Cir.1988) rebuttal of reahsm pnnetple; CL1-89 2,29 NRC 218 (1989) Matter of Availa141ity of Funds for Payment of Intervenor Anorney Fees - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 62 Comp. Gen. 692 (1983) (B-208637) payment of antervenors' expenses with NRC funds; LEP-8911,29 NRC 312 (1989) Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile taland Nuclear Sunon, Unit 1), ALAB 698,16 NRC 1200,1298-99 (1982) weight accorded to IT.MA findmgs; LBP-89-1,29 NTC 19 n.45 (1989) Metropolnan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon, Umt 1), CL185 7,21 NkC 1104,1106 (1985) specificity required of material supportmg monons to reopen; CU 89-I,29 NRC 94 (1989) M2ssisuppi Power and Usha Co (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725,1730 (1982) showing necessary on other factors absmi showing af good cause for late filing; LBP-89-4,29 NRC 70 (1989) . onroe County Conservation Society,Inc. v. Volpe,472 F.2d 693,697 98 (2d Cir.1972) M Luaphany of deficiencies m Prehminary EIS;IJ1P-89 7,29 NRC 141 (1989) Neuanal flodey Imgue v. Metropohten Hockey Club,Inc.,427 U.S. 639,642-43 (1976) state and local gewernmem wrponsibihuca as interveners; CU-89129 NRC 232 (1989) i E ~

e LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX Ec CASI3 9 New England Coahuon on Nuclear Pu11ution v. NRC,582 F.2d 87,93 Ost Cir.1978) level of pmof required for reasonable assurance of applicam a snancial qu=Grunm., CU 89 3,29 NRC 239 9 989) Nonhern Indiana Public Semce Ca (Dailly Genersung Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB-224,8 AIC244,251 (1974) appmpnate means for avaadmg discovery; CU 89 2. 29 NRC 225 0989) Nonhern Indiana Pubbe Semce Ca (Dailly Generanng Stanon, Nuclear-1), CU-78 7,7 NRC429,432-33 J (1978) authonty of NRC Duector to rely on informanon frorn other agencies m making a decision DD'891,29 NRC 3310989) Northern $tates Power Co. (Monncello % clear Generating Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-611,12 NRC 30! 0980) appellate sua sponte mview, standard for; ALAB-911,29 NRC 250 0989) Nnnhern States Power Co (Munncello Nuclear Genersung Nnt, Unit I), CU-72-31,5 AEC 25,26 0972) rule waiver. standard for arant of, CU-89 3,29 NRC 39 0989) showmg necesary for waiver of regulations; LBP-89-10,29 NRC 300 0989) Nonhern Staten Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generating Nnt, Unus 1 and 2), ALAB-107,6 AEC 188, 192, reconsiderauon denied ALAB 110,6 AEC 247, aff'd, CU 7312,6 ALC 241 (1973) disenvery used to assist in 4he framma of contenuons, prosenpuon against LDP-89 3,29 NRC 58 (1989) Nuclear Fuel Services.1nc. (West Valley Reproceammg Nnt), CU-754, I h1C 273,275 0975) showmg necessary on other factors absent showmg of good cause for lam niing: LBP 89-4,29 NRC 70 (.989) Offshore Power Systems (Manufactunns License for Homung Nuclear Power Nas), ALAB-689,16 NRC 8R7, 891 n.8 0982) nghi of parnes to addican fmdmg by appeal board of need for correcove acnon, ALAB-911,29 NRC 263 n.95 (1989) Opinion of the Justices,302 Mass. 605,615-19 (1939),19 N.E.2d 807,81415 defminen of admirustranve authonty;13P-89-8,29 NRC 199 0989) Pact 6c Gas and Deanc Co. (Diablo Canyon % clear Power Nnt Units 1 and 2), ALAB 653,16 NRC 55,72 0 981) defminan of pnma facie showmg for waiver of regulations; IEP-89-10,29 NRC 300 0989) Pacific Gas and

Dearic Co (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Nnt,

Urats 1 and 2), AIAB 728,17 NRC 777, 807, revnew deelmed. CU-83 32,17 NRC 1309 (1983) chauenges to FEMA review process in emergency esercise proceeding; LBP 891,29 NRC 19 0989) i Pactf.c Gas and Ocetnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Nnt Units 1 and 2), ALAB 775,19 NRC 1361, i 1366 0984), aff'd sub nom. San laus Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Ca.1984), 3 aff*d on reh's en banc,769 F.2d 26 0956), cert. denied 479 U.S. 923 0956) i l specificity agmred of material supparung monons to reopen; CU-89-1,29 NRC 93 0989) Pacific Gas and Doctnc Co (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unita 1 and 2), A1AB 775,19 NRC 1361, i I 1367 n.18 (1984) support required for motions to reopen; ISP-894,29 NRC 74 (1989) I Pacific Gas and Doctric Co- (D ablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2), A1AB-880,26 NRC 449 0 987) hugsbdity of severe. accident comentions; LBP-89-6,29 NRC 132 0989) Pac 46c Gas and Dectric Co (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI4&l2,20 NRC 249 0954), aff'd sub nom. San lads Obispo Mahers for Pe. ace v. Nf C,751 F.2d 1287,1305 09 (D.C. Cu.1964), aff'd en banc,789 F.2d 26 (D C. Cir.1986) eenhquake effects on emergency planrung, need for consideration of, LBP-89-3,29 NRC 54 (1989) l Pacific Gas and

Dearie Co. (thablo Canyon Nuclear Power Nnt,

Unita 1 and 2),1SP 4,26 NRC 159, i f 167 0 987) adimsaibility of cme?y Elod severs. accident contenuon; LBP 89-6,29 NRC 132 n.110989) Pacine Gas and Dectne Co. (statuslaus Nuclear Pteract. Ung 1), LEP-77-45,6 NRC 159,163 0977) { surnmary dspnsinon, standard for graru of;I.DP-89-9,29 NRC 273 nd 0989) f l y 1 I s B k

a 1 LEG AL CITATION 3 'NDEX CASES 2 E.. Ponland General Dectre Co. Urojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB 534,9 NRC 287,289-90 n.6 (1979) ' 2), ALAB-819,22 NRC 681,70407 Philadelphia Dectne Co. (Limenck Generaung Stauen Umis 1 si (1985), revww dechned, CU-86 5,23 NRC 125 (1986) record of decision on operaung beense amendment proceedmg. LBP.89-7,29 NRC 190 (1989) juradicuan of heensing ocara it sensider mouon to reopen; LBP-894,29 NRC 67 n.5 (1989) Portland General Dectnc Co. Grojan Nuckar Plant) ALAB@6,21 NRC 4 (1985) appeliste sua spame review where parum have eg eed to a supulated seulement; A1AB-911 (1989) Power Authont) of the State of New York (Gmene County Nuclear Power Plam, Unit 1),GP 7745,6 NR 159, 163 (1977) summary disposition, standard for grant of. LBP-89 9,29 NRC 273 (1989) Public Semce Co. of New llamphire (Scabrook Staunn, Units I and 2), ALAB 271,1 NRC 478 (1975) imedocutory review, standard for. CU-89-2,29 NRC 228 (1989) INbbe Servme Co. of New llampshire (Seabrook Stauan, Urum I and 2), ALAB-271,3 NRC 478,482-8 (1975) referral of mouan for duccted ceruftcation to the Cornrrussion; AIAB-910,29 NRC 96 (1989) Pubbe Service Co. of New Ilamphne (Seabrod Stauen, Units I and 2), A1AB-838,23 NRC 585,592 (1 escepuon to prosenpuan against interlocutory appeals, IEP-89-1,29 NRC 9 (1989) Pubbe Sems: Co. of New llampshire (Seabrook $tauon, Um s 1 and 2), ALAE 864,25 NRC 417,42421 showing neceasary to demonstrate lack of fundamemal fatrness in scheduhng dectston; CU-89 gl (1987) 244 (1989) Pubhc Semce Co. of New llampshue (Seabrook Stauon,Umts I and 2), ALAB 889,27 NRC 265,269 (19 showmg necessary to demonsuate lack of fundamanal fairnens m scheduhng decision; CU-89 244 (1989) Pubhc Semce Co. of New Ilamphue (Seabrook Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-895,28 NRC 7,11 (1988) referral af requests for waiver of regulation where pnma facie showmg as made to the Comrmasson, GP 89-10,29 NRC 300 (1989) Public Semce Co. of New Itampshue (Seabrook Stsuon, Units I und 2), ALAB-895,28 NRC 7,16 (1988) rule waiver, standard for grant of, CU-89 3,29 NRC 239 (1989) Pubhc Semcc Co. of New Hamphire (Seabronk Station, Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-895,28 NRC 7,17 (1988) showmg required for grant of waiver of fmancial quahficauons rule; LBP 89-10,29 NRC 303 (1989) Pubbe Semce Co. of New Itampshire (Scabrook Stau<m, Umts I and 2), AIAD-899,28 NitC 93,97 n.11 (1988) prosenpuon agamst changes in focus of a contemim as Ltigauon progresses; GP-89-7,29 NR 0 989) Pubhc Semce Co. of New llampahue (Seabrook Stauon, Umts 1 and 2), CU-77 8,5 NRC 503,522 (197 aff'd sub nom. New Englaad Coahuon on Nucinar Pollution v. NRC,582 L2d 87,95 Ost Cir.1978) Lugabihty of deficiencies in prehnunary DS; LBP-89 7,29 NRC 141 (1989) Sacramemo Mumcipal Uuhty Datnet (Rancho Seco Nuclear Genernung Stauan) ALAB 655,14 NkC 7 (1981) appeliste sua sponte review, standard for; ALAB-911,29 NRC 250 (1989) San Luis Obispo Mothers for Pet.cs v. NRC,751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir,1984), aff'd en banc (on other gr 789 F.2d 26, cen. denied. 000 U.S. 000,93 L. Ed. 2d 302 0966) severe-accident considerauons for operstmg boense amendments; LBP-894,29 NRC 133 (1989) SEC v. Sloan,436 U.S.103,10910 0978) test for g ant of declaratory judgment m enforcemerz pmceedmg; LBP-89.I1,29 NRC 315,316 (198 Sequoyah Fuels Corp. (UF Producuon Facih% CU-66-19,24 NRC 50G,512 n.2 (1986) genene determinsuon of the scope of beensable ecuvtues appbcable to the enure regulated mdustry 6 IEP 89-11,29 NRC 317 0989) 23

{', l i l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX E. Southern Califonus I4ison Co. (San Onofre NucN Genersung Stauon, Unita 2 and 3), CD-81-33,14 NkC CASFS 1091 (1981) carthquake effects on emergency plann,g, need for considerauon of, thP-89 3,29 NRC 54 (1989) e Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v.1merstate Jommerce Comrmssion,219 U.S 498,515 0911) excepuan pernuttmg review where there was injury that was capable of repeuumt, yet evadmg review; IEP 8911,29 NRC 314 0989) Statemem of Pohey em Conduct of Licensmg Pmceedmas, CL1-81-8,13 NRC 452,454 0981) facum to consider m decidmg what sancuons to impose, CLI 89 2,29 NRC 223 (1989) Tennessee Valley Authonty (Browns Ferry Nuclear Piem, Umts I and 2),IEP-7610,3 NRC 209,216 (1976)

.

nrporaum of massive documems by refemnce as basis for contenuons; CU-89-3,29 NRC 241 (1989)

Texas Uubaas ucctne Co. (Camanche Peak Steam Dectne Stauan, Umt 1), ALAB-868,25 NRC 912,930 (1987) purpose of specificity requirerr,mt for comenuons; LEP-89-7,29 NRC 153 (1989) stages of agency considersuan of environmen,al assues;1EP 89-7,29 NRC 142 (3989) Toledo IAtson Co, (Davis Besse Nuclear Power Stauon), ALAB 300,2 NRC 752,758 0975) appealabihty of summary dispontuon of comenuons; ALAB-909,29 NRC 2 (1989) Unmn of Concemed Scienuats v. NRC,735 F.2d 1437 (D C. Cir.1984) weight accorded to IT.MA fmdmgs on emergency preparedness; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 8 0989) Urunn of Concerned Scienuats v. NRC,735 F.2d 1437,1443-44 (D C. Car 1984) Icgal authorny for adnussion requirements for late 41c4 car,tentions and mouona to reopen; LDP-89-4,29 NRC 68 n.8,72 n.18 (1989) Umted States v. Chemical Ivundabon,Inc.,272 U.S 1,1415 (1926) p mumpnan of argulanty m NRC caecuuan of sta obhganons;ISP 89-4,29 NRC 73 (1989) Vermont Yankee Nuclear her Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Sisuon), ALAB 138,6 AEC 520, 523 24 (1973) standard for hcenamg board conanderauon of issues sought to be hugated under mouon to reopen; LBP-894,29 NRC 73 0989) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermom Yankee Nuclear her Stanon), ALAB-869,26 h1C 13, 25-27 (1987) appellate review of ruhngs adnunmg comenuans;IEP-891,29 NRC 9 n.14 0989) Vermom Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC,435 U.S. 519,553-54 (1978) purpose of specificity requuement for comecuens; 1EP-89-7,29 NRC 153 0989) Virgmia Doctne and Power Co (North Amia ber Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAll 491,8 NRC 245 (1978) appePe's sus apome review of uncontested proce imgs; ALAB-913,29 NRC 268 (1989) Virginia Doctnc and Power Co (North Anna ber Stanon. Umts 1 and 2), ALAB 555,10 NRC 23,26 0979) expert wunena's responsibihty to provide foundauana for his or her conclusions; 13P-89 7,29 NRC 171 (1989) Washington Pubhc Power Supply System Olanford No. 2 Nucicar Power Plam), ALAB-l!3,6 AEC 2510973) appellate sua spume review of uncomested proceedmgs; ALAB-913,29 NRC 268 0989) Washington Pubbc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Propet No. 2), AIAB-571,10 NRC 687,692 0979) appellate sus spame review, standard for; ALAB 911,29 NRC 250 (1989) Washington Pubbe Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD 84 7,19 NRC 899,923 (1984) standard for msutution of 2.206 pmceedmgs, DD 89 2,29 NRC 343 (1989) Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Pm3ect No. 3), A1AB 747,18 NRC 1167,1876 0 983) comyirstrihty of 2.734 and 2.206 m abihty to bugate issues, LBP-894,29 NRC 72 n.18 (1989) Washmgton Pubhc Power Supply Syr.cm (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and 5) LiiP-77-15,5 NRC 643, 644-45 0 977) carisuuction actmeues pnar to issuance of a hrmted authonzauon; LBP-89-11,29 NRC 314 n.14 0989) Wemssem v. bradford,423 n'.S.147,149 (1975) test for gaat of declaraory pdgment m enfon.cmem pmecedmg; ISP-89 !!,29 NRC 315 0989) E I

m eq,qw;- y< T.aj n - - ' ~ " ~

,, ;a y!

• lh

s

.h$ i

ts v hn.,

4G $$W fif/ i I s LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX R LGULATIONS WQ l .l i' ' 10 CF.R.14(n) L 'i ^ defirstian of comesied proceeding. IEP 89-5. 29 NRC 103 (1989) i 10 CIA.1104(cX4) M 4M{l . fmancial qualincanons et elect:ic utilities, lidgebihty of; IEP-89-10, 29 NRC 298. 301 (1989) 10 C.F.R. 2.202(f) ( > [. challenge to cenantationahty of immediately effective orders; 1EP-89-11,29 NRC 314,316 (1989) 4/ 10 CF.R.1203 i . p& ; licensing board obligatim to aview setthrnent agreemems; AU-891,29 NRC 319 (1989), AU 89-2,

1. s i

29 NRC 322 (1989) 4R' 10 C.F.R.1206 d*t , applicability to request to modify sesmic criteria for an operenng licerse; LBP-89-3,29 NRC 53 Jh (1989) 3 (d denial of retitian alleging cacessive radioactive m! eases i. sffluema, pnssurizer embntilement, pipe wat V:j.i thinning. loss of reactor contra. and illegal drug use, DD-89129 NkC 337-43 (1989) d pennan for enforcement sedan on retahatory discrimination issue, DD 89-1,29 NRC 326 36 (1989) ..Nf. 10 CF.R.1710 i#d recei;t of service by mail, IEP-894,29 NRC 130 (1989) fySp 10 C.FR.1714 y(:l,$$ ' 4p.2#t, basis and specificity requirernents for anergency emercise comm6ans; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 41 (1989) iVt ' M deadhne for f:Img annenuons; IEP 89-4,29 NRC 67 n.8 (1989) five facsar test for admission of 1ste-fJed cetmuons; ISP-894. 29 NRC 67 n.8 (1989) d h reopening a record en safety issues, IEP-89-10,20 NRC 297 (1989) .ke .o+., 10 CJ.R.1714(a) Mg M balancing of late-filing criteria for amendment of contation; IEP 894, 29 NRC 131 (1989) 4 < p JM[ critens for judging lawfded interven6cn petaions; ISP 89-3,29 NRC 51 $3 (1989) 'IifFd; 10 C.F.R.1714(a)(1) ij GGSh 1,E;13 appbcabihty of hve-factor tesi for late imervendon to emergency exercise comennons. ISP-89-1,29 '

• 4.h i NRC 8 (1989) 6;,

6ve factar test for admission of late-f. led calentions; CU 89-1,29 NRC 91,92,93 (1989) "'f'Nhg,h goud cause showirig requised for late-fded contandons; IEP-894,29 NRC 67 st8 (1989) M g Q 10 CJ.R.1714(b) S 9 4,yy g y comenum requuemem for imervenuan; 1EP-89 3,29 NRC 53 (1989) 'Y R[{[ijlI.5cf .W.Q spem5 cite required 3 emergency exercise catendans; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 23 (1989) specificity required of meierial supporung motims to reopen; C1189-1,29 NRC 93 (1989) 4 ..y y f 10 CF.R.1714a y h4 appealabihty of demals of motions to reopen; IEP 89 3. 29 NRC 60 (1989) @j; w k' appealatahty of orders deying contenuans; ISP-891,29 NRC 9 n.12 (1989) - M*f@N '

1. 4' 10 CF.R. 2.717(a) gS f ansdicUan to reopen a construenon permit pmceeding at operatu g licerse stage; ISP-89-3, 29 NRC

, g( h& ; Mg 53 n.6 (1989) d.

Edf' M -

3 u#lll{$&wm nF .v "h 4 NL Q f j& af 'hlkh w sg had T & $ $r. bf$!$ M q %@ m %y;;,.y e ~w ; -.7,-_ <~w v - e mo v - ~se- - w

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX E' RI;GULATIONS 10 C.F.R.1718 declaratory judgment on the availabihty of awards of auorney's fees in NRC enforcement proceedu-gs; l LBP-8911,29 NRC 311 (1989) I 10 C F.R. 2.718(i) cerufsuon of ruhng admitung severe-accident comenuon to the appeal board; LDP-89-6, 29 NRC 135 (1989) smerlocutory revaew, standard for; CL1-89 2,29 NRC 227 (1989) l referral of mouon far directed cetuficauon to the Commission; ALAB 910, 29 NRC 96 (1989) l l 10 C.F.R.1718(i) and (m) ceruficauon of ruhng because of uma constramta on hugenm of emergency excrease comentions; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 9 (1989) 10 C.F.R. 2.730(e) nght of peuuoner to Ele a abuttal; LEP 89-3,29 NRC $2 n.3 (1989) 10 C.F.R. 2730(f) referral of ruhng on severe accident contenuon to the appeal board, LBP-89-6,29 NRC 135 (1989) 10 C.F.R. 2.734 legal authonty for admmim sequiremems for mouans to reopen; LBP-89-4,29 NRC 68 n.8 (1989) reopenmg a scord to accept a late-filed contenuon; LBP-89-10,29 NRC 297 (19F9) showsng necasary to reopen a record, LBP-89-4, 29 NRC 71 n 17, 72 n.18 (1989) standards for judging mouans to mopen, C1J-89-1,29 NRC 91,93 (1989); LBT 89 3,29 NRC $3 (1989) 10 C F.R. 2734(a)(l>(3) i test for reopenmg a scord, CLI-89-1,29 NRC 91 (1989) 10 Cf.R.1734(b) affidavit requirernem for mouans to norm; CL1-891,29 NRC 93-94 (1989); LBP-89-3,29 NRC 53 (1989) 10 C.F R.1740(e) amendment of pnor discovery responses, amervenor raponsibihty for; CL1-89-2,29 NRC 221,226 (1989) 10 C.F.R. 2.743(i) official notice of adjudicauve facts, standard for, ALAB-911,29 NRC 253 n 26 (1989) 10 CJ.R.1749 burde on opponem of summary dwpostuon mouan; LDP.89-8,2r NRC 206-07 (1989) stimmary disposition of legal delegauon issue, mauan for; IJIP-89-8,29 NRC 193 (1989) summary disposiuon, legal standard for. LBP 89-9, 29 NRC 272 (1989, 10 Cf.R. 2.749(d) burden on proponent of mouon for summary disposinon; LBP-89-9,29 NRC 272 (1989) summary dispostban, standard for grant of, LEP-89 9,29 NRC 273 n.4 (1989) 10 CJ.R.1752(a) prehcanns conferences on operaung license amendmem cases, absence of, IJ1P-89-7, 29 NRC 190 (1989) 10 Cf.R 2.758 ancorporsuon of massive documents by reference sa basis for comennons; CL1-89-3,29 NRC 240 (1989) waner of rubbe utibben enenspuon inun financial quahficauors requimment; LDP 89-10, 29 NRC 298, 303 (19b9) 10 Cf.R. 2.758(a) challenges to Commission regulauens, prosenpuch agamst; 1EP-8910,29 NRC 299 (1989); LDP 89-II, l 29 NRC 317 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 2.758(b) defiruuan of *special cutvmr.ances** necessary for waiver of Cbmmission ngtlanons; LDP 89-10,29 NRC 300 (1989) 26 Bg. -N 4 i

n-, e a l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX ~ ErrLMTIONS escepuon to prosenpuen agamst challenges to Commissian regulanons; IJ1P.89-10,29 NRC 290 (1989) radonale for wawer rule; GP 89-10,29 NRC 301 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 2.758(c) showing necasary for weiver of regulauens; IEP-89-10,29 NRC 300 (1989) 10 CJ.R.17P. board authonty to raise sua spra assues on emergency planmng; LDP-89-9,29 NRC 274 n.5 (1989) 10 CF R 2.785(bX1) mterlocutory review, atsndard for, CLi 89-2, 29 NRC 227 (1989) 10 CJ.R. 2.785(d) Comnussion authonry to direct ceruficauan of bcensms board ruhnge; CLf 89 2,29 NRC 217 n.5 (1989) 10 CJ.R. 2.790(d)(1) proter 6on of evidence of safeguard and secunty matters, LBP-89 5, 29 NRC 102,109 (1989) 10 Cf.R.1%rt 2, Appendix C sancbon for retahatory discrimmauon; DD 891,29 NRC. (1989) 10 CJ.R. 20.10l(a) ews: penalty far radiographer overexposure; All 891,29 NRC 319 (1989) 10 CT.R. Part 50 inherent ngt of inter"enors to bugate emergency planmng issus; GP-894,29 NRC 67 n.8 (1989) secuans not opphcable to producuan facibues; LDP-89 5, 27 NRC 105 (1989) 10 CJ.R. 50.2 producuan facihty, defimnan of; AIAB-913,29 NRC 268 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 50.33(f) fmancial quahrscauons evidence required for Lcensms of producuan facihty: LilP N9-5,29 NRC 110, 112 (1969) fmancial qur.hficauana of electne udhuca, hugabibty of; LBP-8910, 29 NRC 298,30] (1989) 10 Cf.R. 50.34 desenpuon of proposed producuan facihty, requiremems for; IEP-89-5, 29 NRC 205,121,122 (1989) 10 CJ,R. 50.34(a)(8) appbcabihty to pmducuan facihty heensing; GP-89 5,29 NRC 106 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 5034(a)(10) caempuun from emergency planmng requirements for prodocu n facihdes; LDP-89 5,29 NRC 106,107 n.3 (1989) 10 C.F.R. 50.34(b)(5) e nergency nonfirauon requiremems; LBP-89-9,29 NRC 273 (1989) 10 C F.R. 5034(bX6)(d), (v) exempson imm emergency planmna reqturernema for producuan facih6cs; LBP-89-5,29 NRC 106.107 n3 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 5034(b)(6)(v) FSAR contphance with emergency plannmg requirernents for nauficauan of the public of an emergency; ISP-89-9,29 NRC 273 (1989) 10 CJ.R. 5036 technical specificauans requiremems for pmducuan facihty; LBP-89-5,29 NRC l'4 (1989) 10 CJ,R. 5042(a) app 2w.thihty to producuan facihty hcensmg; GP-89 5,29 NRC 106 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 50 47 dendhas far filing emergency plarvung comenuans, LEP-89 4,29 NRC 67 (1989) la CJ.R. 50#1(aXI) elemers.s to be tested m emergency escreases; GP 891,29 NRC 9 (1989) i ~ B u 5 1 l i }

e LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGl'LATIONS 'l 10 C.T.R. 50.47(a)(2) 8-apphcabihty of five-factor test for late mtervenuon to emergaicy exercise comenuans; LBP-891,29 h1C 8 (1989) emergency emeresse as a requisite to bcense issuance; LBP-89-4,29 NRC 72 n.18 (19f 9) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(1)-(16) gmdance document explauung p' nmng cntena of, LBP-89-9,29 NRC 27J (1989) u 10 C.F.R. 50.47'b)(1), (3) apphcam imerfsm wnh state and local gcwcrnments durmg emergencies, IEP-89-1,29 NRC 19-22 (1989) 10 CJ.R. 0.47(b)(5) guidance document explanung planmng craena of, LBP-89-9,29 NRC 274 (1989) nauficauan seqmrements for plume expor.ure pathway EPZ, ALAB-911,29 NRC 251 (1989) pubhc nouficauon system tesung an emergency exercues, IEP-89-1,29 NRC 23-24 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 50.47(b (6) f EBS message broadcast f!aws danng emergency exercises; LDP-89-1,29 NRC 25 (1989) emergency news center operauons flaws durms emergency exercues; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 27 (1989) eginpment and recepuon failures m amergency commumcantms equipment; LDP-89-1,29 h1C 39 (1989) informauan commurucannn fiam dunns emergency eme:,:ises; IEP 89-1,29 NI C 39-40 (1989) ingesuan pathway protecove agns tesung an emergency esercise, IEP-&l,29 NRC 30 1989) mannonng and decemtammauan of pubbc and emergency wohers; lBP-89-1,29 NRC 38 (1989) plume caposus pathway panecuve acuans teaung in emergency exercue; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 3132 (1989) 10 Cf.R. $0.47(b)(7) emergency news camer operabans flaws dunng emergency exercues; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 27 (1989) anges6an pathway protecuve actions tesung in emergency exercue; LBP 891,29 NRC 30 (1989) plume aposuse pathway pmtec6ve acuans tesung m emergency caercise; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 3132 (1989) pubbc mformauan matenals dintnbunon, mcluuen in emergency exercue; IEP 89-1, 29 NRC 15 (1989) pubhc nouficauon system tesung an emergency exercises; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 23-24 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 5047(b)(9) angestion pathway praecuve acuans tesung in emergency esercise; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 30 (1989) plume exposure pathway pmtecove ecuans testmg m emergency encretse, LBP-89-1,29 NRC 31-32 (1989) 10 CJ.R. 50.47(b)(10) bus evacuanon of schoolcluidren; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 35-36 (1989) angesuan pathway prosecuve acuans tes; g in emergency enercise; IEP 891,29 NRC 30 (1989) morutoring and documammation of pubbi and emergency woders; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 38 (1989) plume exposue pathway pmtecuve acuara tesung in emergency exercise, LBP-89-1,29 NRC 31-32 (1989) protocuve actions for schools outside EPZ, LBP-89-1,29 h1C 11 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 50.47lb)(12) acequacy of Shareham's emergency medical service provisions for comammated truured an&viduals; CL1-89-1,29 h1C 91 (1%9) medical services for coraanunated injured mdividuals, inclusion in emergency excrease; LDP-891,29 NRC 34 (1989) l vacation of Commun an amerpreuiuan of; CL189-1,29 NRC 92 n.1 (1989) l l

a l i 7 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l g@ j RI'4ULATIONS ,f 10 Cf.R. 50.47(b)(84) O-U elements to be tested in emergency exercises; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 9 (1989) junsdicuan where several beensing boards have been used to resolve d2screte segments of a proceedms; CL1-89 2,29 NkC 215 n.3 (1989) traimng program far anergency response personnel; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 41 (1989) 10 CJ.R. 50.47(b)(15) trainmg program for emergency response personnel, LBP 891, 2F NRC 41 (1989) 10 C r,g, So47(c) Red Cross parucipauon in emergency exercises; LDP-89-1. 29 NkC 14 (1989) 10 C.F.R. 5047(cx1) amendmem of, to codify reaham pnrdple; CLI-89 2,29 NRC 218 (1989) appbcant compenssuon for lack of state md local government panicipadon in emergency plannmg; LBP-89 8,29 NRC 194 0989) authonty to compel imervenors to develop an emergency plan; CLI 89-2,29 NRC 222 (1989) challenges to reabsm nde; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 18 (19H9) cnucal assues in htigaung reahsm contenuons; CL1-89 2,29 NRC 224 (1989) interpretanon of; CLI 89 2,29 NRC 219 (1989) refusal to cenply with discovery order as means for obiauung appellate review; CL1-89-2,29 NRC 227 (1989) school preparednus ses mg in cmergency exercises; LDP-89-1,29 NRC 10 (1989) state and local guvernment refusal to participate in emergency exercises; LitP-89-1,29 NRC 16 (1989) summary.disposiuan of reaham contenuans, demal of; C1189-2, 29 NRC 218 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 5047(cXI)(id)(B) apphcant interface wah state and local governmems dunng emergencies; LDP-89-1, 29 NRC 19 22 (1989) rebuttal of resham pnr.aple; C13-89 2,29 NRC 218 (19F9) 10 CJ.R. 50.47(d) authonty for low-powcr hcense pendtr:g resoluuan of emergency planneg comendons; CLI-89-2,29 NRC 213 (1989) 10 CJ.R. 50.49 environmemal que%cano't of RG58 coaxial cable, need for, ALAB 900, 29 NRC 2 (1989) 10 CJ.R. 50.57 heahh, safety, and common defene and secunty mauers considered in operadng hcense amendment proceed.ngt UiP.89-7,24 NRC 190 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 50.57(a)(4) financial quehfica6ons of electnc utihues, Edgabihty of; LBP-8910,29 hRC 298,301 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 50.57(c) authonzauan for 255 power where emergency plannmg issues are pendtag CL1-89 2, 29 NRf_' 216 0 98 % 10 CJ.R. 505E Advtsary Cornminee on Reactor Safeguards review of producuan facihty applicauon; LBP-89-5,29 NRC 108 (1989) 10 CJ.R. 50.75(c)(1)(i), (eXI)(ii) decommissiomns paymmis requtred prior to recetpt of opernung heers CL1-89 3,29 NRC 237 n.4 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 50.92 beahh, safety, and cornmon defmse and secunty rnatters considered in operstmg licmse amendment proceedmg; LBP-89-7,29 NRC 19D 0989) 10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appendia A GDC 4 environmemal quahfaanon of kO58 coaual ceb1c. reed for. ALAB-909,29 NRC 2 0989) 10 CJ.R. Iirt 50, Append:x A, CDC 17 apphenbihty to low-power opersuan, CL1-b9-2, 29 NRC 229 (1989) 29 .. [NM 4 l J

.-c.- "~ ~ LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX I REGULATIONS E 10 CJ.R. Part 50, Appendia C f.nancial quahficauens evidence required for Leonsmg of producuan facihty; GP-89 5,29 NRC 113, 112 (1989) 10 CJ.R. Pan 50, Appendia C,11 NRC btaff star,dard of review of fmancial quah6 canons for heensmg of pmducuan facihty; ISP-89-5, 29 NRC 110 (1989) 10 CIIR. Pan 50, Appendia E cacanpuan imm emergency plannmg seqturemems for producunn facihues, IEP-89-5,29 NRC 106,107 n.3 (1989) I'SAR compliance with emergency planmng requuemems for notificauan of the pubbe of an emergency; tilP-89-9,29 NRC 273 (19R9) 10 CJ.R. Part 50 Appendia E, IV.D.3 pubhc nouficauon system testmg m emergency exercises; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 23-24 (1989) ume requirement for emergency nouficauon; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 31 si.79 (1989); IEP 89-9,29 h1C 283 (1989) 10 C1.R. Pan 50, Apparidam E. IVJ commumcaunns network testmg m emergency exercises; 1EP-89-1,29 NRC 17 (1989) junsdicuan where several hcensms tooards have been used to resolve discrete segments of a proceedmg; CLI 89 2,29 NRC 215 n.3 (1989) 10 Cf.R. Pan 50, Appendia E, IVJ l bus and ambulance panicirauon in emergency exercises; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 17 (1989) federal egency parucipauan m emergency exercues; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 16 (1989) ingestion pathway protecuve acuans teaung an emergency exercise; IEP 89-1,29 NRC 30 0989) ) pubhc nouficauon system testmg in emergary exercises; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 10 (1989) time constramis on hugation of emergency exercise contenuons, ISP-891,29 NRC 8 (1989) 10 CJ.R. hn 50, Appendix E. IVI.1 n 4 Red Crosa pameipsuon in emergency excreases; ISP-89-1,29 NRC 14 (1989) school preparedness tesung m ernergency enerewes; LBP-891,29 h1C 12 (1989) .' C F.R. Pan 50, Appendia E, IVI.6 cearegate care center commumcauons and procedures, y,clusion an emergency exercise; IEP-89-1,29 NRC la (199) angesuon pathway pascuve acuans teaung m emergency emeretse; ISP-89-1,29 NRC 16 (1989) school preparedness tesung in emergency exercises; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 10 (1989) 10 CJ.R. Pan 50, Appendix I, Il assessment of radiauon done to rnewnally exposed offsite person; ISP-89-7,29 NRC 150 (1989) 10 CJ.R. hn 50, Appendin 1, iD assessment of radisuon exp sure to the general pubbc; ISP-89-7,29 NRC 143 (1989) --=t benefit calculation for disposal of accident-generated water at TMI, ISP 89-7, 29 h1C 180 (1989) 10 CIA Nn 51 constructu n permits for producuan facihues; IEP 89-5,29 NRC 105,122 (1989) 10 Cf.R. S.102(c), 51.1 J3(c) record of Jacision on operating bcense amendment proceeding; LDP-89-7,29 NRC 190 (1989) 10 Cf.R. 51.1t.4(a)(3) issues to be decided on an appbcation for an operaung bcense amendment for a utibzauon facihty; IEP-89 7,29 NRC 190 (1989) 10 CJ.R. 70.7 violauw, of, by retahasary disenmmation; DD-891,29 NRC 332 (1989) 10 CJ.R. Part 95 protecuan of classified matenal at pmduction facihty; IEP-89 5, 29 NRC 110 (1989) 10 CJ.R. Pan 100, Appendta A, V(s) standard for deterrrarung need far change m safe shutdown earthquake; ISP-89 3,29 NRC 57 (1989) 1 i 30 Ehi$'% . &? i l }

LEGAL CITA." IONS INDEX t REGULA 110NS E*$. 95 29 exempnan of pmduction facihry from fmancial pnmetion and indernnity regturerne 10 CJ.R. Pan 140 NRC 106 n.2 (1989) j 47 CJ.R. Part 73, Subpart G signal strength requirenems for ernergency hmedcasts: ALAB.911,29 NRC 253 (1989)i l 0 989) pnmary service area for amergency broadcast symem messsges; ALAB-911: 47 CJ.R. 73.14

sages, gmundwave signn! strength >cquued fa pomary service area for emergency broadcas 47 CJ.R. 73.182(e)

ALAB-911,29 NRC 252 n.210989) I f l ( 1 i i 31 I

- ry m.n m,mm., m _. x, 7.. .f -a + - n,,,r;, '(* jr ;g iN-S 2' W-N+ 4-

• _ *i b h]M G$* 1 3 y;k[F j

) y *%y % WM p ;'Maj g L q' m n j-g& 4 m %)?Q AM ..%g$qu t-4 %,n n a%,. .-p j M.1 4 c 7 L 'ay j y j ( r. W LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX j g ,l

• Q l g

ETATUTES M e N4 v 'I Y t Q &J t %yg l 5 Admuustrative Procedure Act 5 U.5L. 552,553 } 4 di h' .. I design objective of emergency public notification system; 2P-89-9,29 NRC 273 (1989) JI Admuustrative Procedarc Act,5 U.S.C. 557(b) h .1 enset of Depamnant d 14bar Administrative law Judge *a initial decisian on NRC or pames to an %jgt / 7 ' NRC proceeding; DD-89-1,29 NRC 331 (1989) e 3 Atomic Energy Act, liv,101 qy; 7 3y definition d production facility; 2P 89 5,29 NRC 104 (1989) .>8 sbgM atomic Energy Act,102b 3 d% l Advisory Canmines on Remetar Safeguards

• seview of production facility apphcanon; GP 89-5,29

.Gy 9 i NRC 108 (1989) h[M, h ! Atomic Energy Act, It9s W1 yi hearing nghts an emergmey planning issues; 2P-89 4,29 NRC 68 n8 (1989) . h g:y ! ' fin p ' Atomic Energy Act,189a(1) heanns rights en asnergmey exercise resuhs; LBP-89-4,29 NRC 68 n.g (1989) 2.{}f % g Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S.C. 2014v,2131 i; f / 4, 6 pmduc6m facuity, definition ef; AIAB-913,29 NRC 268 (1989) k[ i Atwnic Energy Act,42 U.S.C. 2:39a(1) WS ,Q gg i C ' mandatory heanngs on uncontested constructim perms apphcations; ALAB-913,29 NRC 268 0989) y Energy and Water Deseloynant,*.ppropnadons Act of 1981, 502, Pub. L No. 9G367 J,.,. yh f paymeni of intervmors' expenses wnh NRC funds, LBP 89-11,29 NRC *12 0989) (*M h% '5,. ff f M Energy and Water Development Appmpriations Act of 1989, 502, Pub. L No. 104373 j j paymmt of irnervances* expenses wnh NRC funds; 2P 8911,29 NRC 312 (1989) ky%s;4 [f* g, W3 Energy Reaganization Act,210,42 U.S.C. 5851 ent d cu n a reta dMadon casm M8M,2) M 2,2 W hh Ph reportuig requirements for retaliatory disenminada, DD-8P.1,29 NRC 333 0989) ' )^. @f T$ Energy Reorsamzatim Act,210(g) b$ loss of protectaan of, by whistleblower, for deliberately causing a violanon; DD-891 29 NRC 331 n.9 y f pW* C E 36 (3939) Uph y@[t .QfjQ Equal Access to Justim Act,5 U 5 C. 504 ' Y award of attorney's fem and expenses, LBP-8911,29 NRC 308,3110989) F ual Access to Justics Act 5 U.S.C. 504(a)0) 4 circumstances precluding awant d anomeys' fees and capensas; GP-8911,29 NRC 312 0989) P.%t.

%1f.

= ?fy%. A,7 Equal Access in Justico Act. 5 U.S.C. 504(c)0) 4 3.fhg gb ' - agency specific proomhuy for applying fra suorneys' fees and capenses; 2P-89-11,29 NRC 311 n.9 h.g 0 989) s1! Nhhd-deftrunan of

• adversary adjudicates"; !.BP-8911,29 NRC 311 n9 0989)

'[QItZ q,f 6 Equal Ascess to Justico Act, 5 U 5.C. 504(d) j paymera of attorneys' fees and expenses from an agency's own appropriated funds. LBP-8911,29 NRC f *te J g g.c --gj ' j 312 0 989) d W h(Jhd )q /$ a v. A lt MN &o w s ,kr&hW 4k. %gg / p 4,, 5 % nt-.y - e A ii D %y ,8 y l' 33 w .t 3%QQ [ . hpfhtf a) 4,+ g Qj skm

• 1

~ '3[I) 3

j M_ LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATLTES Massachusetts Civil Defense Act (CDA),1950 Man. Acis 639 of authonty of the governor to delegate polace powen to povate parties dunrig emergencies; LBP-848, 29 NRC 196 (1989) l 4 I 4 i 1 I l 2 ~ 1

,r.w,= w.y.,.. w ,. ?, E

• " > i.. &

.,;s?S;_if*Nlx',b? g 3r% E. W [,*[ g(d g f' ',{ i 9 O, w - A. If J '. + y .N r. -j - -- 4 i4 g ? !h LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX M OTilERS j 9C 4.i Fed. R. Civ. P.12(bX6) .bf! SI factual arguments against cmentimi bases as summary disposide motion; LBP-891,29 NRC 7 (1989) Fed. R. Civ, P. 201(b) j judicial amics of adjudicative facts; AI.AB-911,29 NRC 254 n.26 (1989) J -,, g , 'l 11ouse Judiciary Committee, ILR. Rep. No. 1418,96th Cong.,2d Sess. (1980), reprinal in 1980 9 ;.g. / / T' U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 4914 ,y[j9 p[J y purpons of Equal Access to Justics Act; LBP-89-11,29 NRC 312 (1989)

s. \\..hl C

, Y. h',' i ,a. 3 3 gd0 $.= [ ,J. kl W .j g 4 C.- Vf. G ~ ,4 4,

j d

t: d u .aa x kh I f+- g. g yl ps, W W ~ C'$,[yy?5 'h fM{t j ' Ny,cuw (l. l+i b 2II[h' w,l( 1 h w.; g Qy h,

• g&b<euk": lf*f q's c

. bi T f M)2 fT'!Z(' Or;d(! . 1f. wn ck .f. :. a,& s

• y,'4g..,f, i a

) +, m $??) '. ~ lh b.I. f wm l:

a..

g....a.., - 4. l' a. e

e a ,? .___m__ M P 1 SUBJECT INDEX j m$4 ACCDENTJ (Jf nsks of, fran shyvnent and burial of radioactive wasius; LDP 89-7,29 NRC 138 (1989) h. ACCIDEh7S, SEVERE consideranon of, for spent fuel pool expansion; GP-89-6,29 NRC 127 (1989) 1-r.ucanium fue in spr'n fuel pool; LBP-89-6,29 NRC 127 (1989) ADhENISTRATIVE FAIRNESS in heanng schedule; CL1-894,29 NRC 243 (1989) ADVISORY COMMr! TEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS referral of appbcanon for stable asatope production facihty to; LBF-89-5,29 NRC 99 (1989) AITIDA\\TTS requiwi in suppon of motions so reopen; CLi 891,29 NRC 89 (1989); LbP 89-3,29 NRC 51 (1989); LBP-89-4,29 NRC 62 (1989) ALTERNATIVES to evaporanon of accidem-generated water, burden of proof an; GP-89-7,29 NRC 138 (1989) ad APPEALS J 8 of dunussals of contennons, excepuan to prosenpna agamst; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) AFPELIATE REVIEW Cannumon endonement of scheduling order pnar to; A.AB-910,29 NRC 95 (19f,9) see also Review Appellate Sua Sponte ATOMIC ENERGY ACT . lj heanns r:ghts on operaung brense appbcauena; LBP-894,29 NRC 62 (1989) .3L ATTORNEYS' FEES award of, in NRC proceedings; LBP-89-11,29 NRC 306 (1989) BUS DRIVERS roh confhes durmg emergencies; A1AB-911,29 NRC 247 (1989) CENTTJFUGE MAOIINES t for ennching uranium, defuuuan as a producuan facihty; LBP-89-5,29 NRC 99 (1989) CERI1TICATION of ruhng on adnussibihty of emergsney exercise contentions; LBP 89-1,29 h1C 5 (1989) see also Duccted Ceruficanon CfYJL PENALTY es:sLauan of, for pnar violauons; DDL89-1,29 NRC 325 (1989) far muuse of sealed sounes far oil and gas wc!! loggmg; ALI-89-2, 29 NRC 322 (1989) for radiographer overcapasure, seulement agreement on; AL1-89-1,29 h1C 319 (1989) for retahatory ducnminanon; DD-891,29 NRC 325 (1989) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION in security plan, protecnon of; LBP-89-5,29 NRC 99 0989) COMMUNICATIONS equipment and recepdon failures; LBP 80-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) tesung of, an emergency exercses; GP-89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) CONOREGATE CARE CENIERS acuvsuan and testing of procedures and cornmumcanons of; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) i 37 s. 4 -_-___m__.__m__

4 4 SUlUECT INDEX CONSTRI.lCTION PERMIT PROCTEDINOS mandatory, on unconunned apphcauana; AIAB-913. 29 h7C 26' 09V9) COff!AMINATED INWRED INDIVIDUALS inaung of transport and care capabihuca far, LBP 89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) CONTJ 910NS consolidauan ef; IEP-891,29 NRC 5 (1989) esadhne for fihng of; LDP-894,29 NRC 62 0949) dacovery used in the frarning of; 1EP-89 3,29 b'RC 51 (1989) emergency exercue, ceruficanon of ruhng on adnussion of, IEP 89-1,29 NRC 5 0989) incaporanon of massive documems by reference a lusia for, CL189-3,29 NRC 234 0989) j secanaideranon of exclusion of, LDP 89-6,29 NitC 127 (1989) thrmhold roquarements for admission of, LBP-894,29 NRC 62 0989) CONTENTIONS, IATE-ITLID because of insututional unavailabihty of bcensmn-related document; LBP-89-4,29 NRC 62 (1989) disnussal for failure to addreas fivs factars of 13 CER,2 714(a)0),1EP-89-1,29 NRC 5 0989) on fmancial quahficadona; 1RP-8910,29 NRC 297 0989) showmg nacasary on other four factors, sheens good caure for late fahng; LBP-894,29 NRC 62 0 989) showmg of good cause for, IEP-89-4,29 NRC 62 0989) COST-DENT.I1T ANALYSIS of shernauves to evaporsuon of accadem-generhuul water, LBP-89-7,29 NRC 138 0989) DI.CISIONS unreviewed, precedenual effects of; A1AB-912,29 NRC 265 (1989) DECLARA'IT)RY RELIEF standard for grant of, ISP-89-11,29 NRC 305 (1989) DECOMMISSIONING fundms, resoluuan of, on buis of exaatmg m:crd; CU 89 3,29 XRC 234 (1989) DECONTAMINATION of special-facihty evacuees, teaung of, an emergency exercises; ISP-891, 29 NRC 5 (1989) DEPARTMINT Of 1ADOR junadiction over complemts of at.haiory diacranmauan; DD 89-1,29 NRC 325 (1989) DIRECTED CERTIl1 CATION Commias on authority for, CU 89 2,29 NRC 211 (1989) of bcensing board order estabhshang hearms achafule; ALAD-910,29 NRC 95 0989) DIREClORS' DEC2SIONS saurtaa of informanon rehed on for, DI1891,79 NRC 325 0989) DISABLED PIESQNS humabound, tatma of atnitty to evacuaie: IBP 891,29 NRC 5 (1989) DISCOVERY amendment of responses, naponsibihty of irnervenors for, CU 89-2,29 NRC 2110989) obaaructionist tacuss and infunal to comply wah; CLI 894 29 NRC 211 (1989) pimeense order as sherr.auve to comphanoi wah; CU 89-2,29 NRC 2110989) sancnon fe failure to comply with, CU-852,29 NFC 218 0989) use in the framing of coruenuona, pra.cnplaon agamst; LBP.89-3,29 NRC 510989) DISLWMINATION retahasary civil penahr for, DD-891,29 NRC 325 (1989) DLSM3 SAL as sancunn for governmes irnervenors' falne to comply with discovery order, CU 89 2,29 NRC 211 0 989) of micrvenors, appr.liste sua spmue review of, ALAB-911,29 NRC 247 0989) DOSE maumaty exposed offaite person, LDP 84-7,29 NRC 138 0989) to total exposed populanon, ISP-89-7,24 NRC 138 0989)

[. Y l SUBJECT INDEX DOSE MODELING MIDAS Code, rf snuum releases from evaporation of accident-generated wanr, LBP-89-7,29 NRC 138 (1989) DRUG USE at Rancho Seco, sueganons of DD-89-2,29 NRC 337 (1989) EARTilQUAKES Quebec, effect on emergency planmns for Seatwook facihty; LDP-89 3,29 NRC 5) (1989) tectems provmee of, and htigabihty of sesnue issues at operstmg beense stage; ISP-89-3, 29 NRC 51 (1989) LMBRTITLEMENT from rapid soadown evems; DD-89-2,29 NRC 337 (1989) EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYST1.M requiremen.s for, ALAB-911,29 NRC 247 (1989) ' ' EMLRGENCY EXERCISES deadlute '.'or complenon of hugabon of; LEP 89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) scope of participauon in; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 5 (s989) EMLRGENCY PLANNING eanhquake consideranons in, IEP-89 3,29 NRC 51 (1989) exercise inspection reports; [EP 894, 29 NRC 62 (1989) low power opersnan (25%) pendmg naoluuon of contenuons on; CL1-89 2,29 NRC 211 (1989) sofusal of swa and local governmems to perucipate in; LBP-89-8,29 NRC 193 (1989) relabonship among ngulations and guidance; LBP-89-9,29 NRC 271 (1989) EMERGENCY PLANS board authonty to compel state and local governmems to develop; CL1-89 2,29 NRC 211 (1989) failure to comply with discovery order for, C1189-2,29 NRC 2110989) naufscation nquiremmts, ALAB-911,29 NRC 247 (1989) EMERGENCY \\T.lDC115 parucipation in emergency exercises; LDP-89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) EMERGENCY WORKERS l monnormg and decumamination of; IEP-891,29 NPC 5 (1989) readmess of, LBP 89-9,29 NRC 271 (1989) ENERGY REOPCANIZATION AET OF 1974 prisdiction over complaims of retabatory dacnmmanon; DD-891,29 NRC 325 (1989) ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS effect on 2.206 peuno,s; DD-89-2,29 NRC 337 (1989) ENFORCEMENT ORDERS - challenges to, LBP-89-11,29 NRC 306 (1989) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS of stable isotope production facihty; IEP-89 5,29 NRC 99 (1989) g 3 ENVIRONMENTAL QUAllFICA110N of coanal computer cabic, appellate sua spome review of gram of sinnmary disposidan of; ALAD-909, { 29 NRC 1 (1989) EVACUATION i of schoolchildren, tesung of, durms emergemey exercises; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) response to traffic impediments; LDP-89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATTiS rnenauntmara e( einynsd tune for soute transit; (EP 89-9,29 NRC 271 (1989) E VAPORATION of accideegenerated water, LEP 89-7,29 NRC 138 (1989) EVIDTNCE massive documents incorporated by reference as support for mmennons, CLI-89-3, 29 NRC 234 (1989) EXCfEDON to presenption against appeals of dismissals of comenuans; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) E't 39 1

e + r'm S11BJECT INDEX " x%.'"- IT.DLRAL AGENCIES parucipauon in emergency eneretses; ISP-89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) II,DERAL PRLEMPTION unconsdruuanal interfennce by state and local governments with; CLI $9-2,29 NRC 211 (1989) l'EMA MNDINGS weight accorded to; IEP 89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) RNANCIAL QUALIDCATIONS heahh and safety concerns; CLI 89-3,29 NRC 234 (1989) of appbcnnt for stable isotope pmductmn facihty, ISP-89-5,29 NRC 99 (1989) HRES arconsum, in spent fuel pool, LEP-89 6,29 NRC 127 (1989) GENL'11C RISK of low level radisuon releases; IEP-89 7, 29 NRC 138 (1989) IIEALTH AND SAIIT. Y financial quahrtcanons cons;deranons in; C1J-89-3,29 NRC 234 (1989) NRC responsibihties for; CLI-89 3, 29 NRC 234 (1989) IIEALTH EDTITS heanng damage from sirens, ISP-89 9, 29 NRC 271 (1989) of low level radasuon releases; 1EP-89 7, 29 NRC 138 (1989) of tridum releases; LilP-89 7,29 NRC 138 (1989) IIEAR!NG RIGIITS on operstmg beense appheadona; lEP-89-4,29 NRC 62 (1989) liEARINGS mandatory, on unconusted construcuan permit appbcanons; A1AB-913,29 NRC 267 (1989) INSPEC110N PROGRAMS in-service, resuha of at Rar,cho Seco DD-89-2,29 NRC 337 (1989) INSPECTION REPOICS open items, followup of; ISP-89 4,29 NRC 62 (1989) l.VIIRPELTATION of 10 CJ.R. 50.47(c)(1), CL1-89-2, 29 NRC 211 (1989) IN"!T.RVENORS expenses of, NRC payment of, ISP-89-il,29 NRC 306 (1989) INTERVENTION PCTITIONS, IATE-HIID test for admission of; LBP 89-3, 29 NRC 51 (1989) ISOTOPES stable, appellate sua sponte review of heensms bosrd authonzadon is construcuon permits and operaung hcerwes; A1AB-911,29 NRC 267 (1989) stable, NRC bcensing encarns over producson of, LDP-89 5, 29 NRC 99 (1989) JURISDICTION to apply sancuans where several licensmg boards have been c'nvened to resolve discrete segments of a case; CLI 89 2,29 NRC 211 (1989) right of brensing board to determine na own bounds, ISP-89 4,29 NRC 62 (1989) to reopen a record on sessnue issues; IEP-89-3, 29 NRC 51 (1989) 11 GAL ALTilORTIY delegouun of sune and local government pohes powers; LBP-89 8, 29 NRC 193 (1989) IJCENSING BOARDS authonty to sward attorneys' fees; 1EP-8911, 29 NRC 306 (1989) review of NRC Staff actions; LDP 894, 29 NRC 62 (1989) nght w determme bounds of its own junsdu uon; IEP 894,29 NRC 62 (1989) LICENSLNG PROCIIDLNGS smoureuered, appellate sua sponw severw of, ALAfb913, 29 NRC 267 (1989) 40 E

o SL'IUECT INDEX k MEDICAL SERVICES for contammated injured individuals, adequacy of Ulf0 plan for. LDP-89-1,29 NRC 5 0989) G for contaminated anjured andmduals, denial of mouon to mopen a record on bans of alleged snadequacica an; CU-891,29 NRC 89 (1989) MICROORGANISMS effcet of evaporauon system on: LDP-89-7,29 NRC 138 0989) MONTTORING of special-facihty evacuees, issung of, m emergency exercises; LDP-89-1, 29 NRC 5 0989) NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POUCY ACT Intrden of pmof en aherneuves to evaporauen of accident-generated water; UIP 89-7,29 NRC 138 (1989) severe accident consideruunns under; LDP-89-6,29 NRC 127 (1989) NOTICE OF !!EARINO hmr.auon on bugable assues by; LBP 89-il,29 NRC 306 (1989) NOTIFICATION emergency, measurement of clap 6cd ume for, LBP 89 9, 29 NRC 271 (1989) emerFency, requirements for, ALAB-911, 29 NRC 247 0989) ten 6ng of, in emergency exercise; LDP-891, 29 NRC 5 (1989) NRC SIAIT bcensmg board aview of scunna of, ISP-89-4,29 NRC 62 (1989) NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION suthtmty to direct ceruficauon of assues; CLI 89 2,29 NRC 211 (1989) endorsement of schedulmg order pnor to appellate review; ALAB-910,29 NRC 95 (1989) enforcernent pohey for seventy level Il violauon:.; DD 891, 29 NRC 325 (1989) heahh and safety responsibihues of; CU-89 3,29 NRC 234 (19P9) pobey on sancuons; CLI 89-2, 29 NRC 211 (1989) OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES from evaporsuon of accident-generated water at TM1; LDP-89-7,29 NRC 138 0989) OITICIAL NOTICE standard for taking, ALAIL911,29 NRC 247 0989) OIL AND GAS 41LL IDGGING misuse of scaled sources in; AU 89-2, 29 NRC 322 (1989) OPLRATING LICENSLS fmancial quahricanons entena for, CU 89 3,29 NRC 234 09h9) OPERADONS, LOW-POWIR st 25% of used power, pendmg resoluuon of emergency plannmg comenuens; CU 89-2,29 NRC 211 0 989) PIInLCAL SIrURrrY of facihty pmducmg stable isotopea; LBP-89 5,29 NRC 99 (1989) P#t WALL T!CNNING si Raneb Seco, allegauona of; DD-89-2,29 NRC 337 (1989) POUCE PO41RS deleganon of, to apphcant's emergency asponse tearn; LBP-89 8,29 NRC 193 0989) POUCY STATEMENI3 of review of severe accidents for spent fuel pool espansion; UIP-89-6, 29 NRC 127 (1989) on appbcauon of sanc6ons; CL1-89 2,29 NRC 2110989) PRECEDENT 1AL EFITCT 1 of unreviewed hcensmg board decismns, ALAB 912,7) NRC 265 0989) PRODUCTION FACILITY defuntion of centnfuse n.achines as; LDP-89-5,29 NRC 99 (1989) PROOF, BURDEN OF on counderauon of shernauves under hTPA; LEP-89-7,29 NRC 138 (1989) I 41 l r.' l o ' 1 ~ M l l i l l

s I 'iUBJECT INDEX Ei PROTEC11VE ACTIONS kgesnan pathway, tesung of imploma tauon of; LBP-891, 29 NRC 5 0989) y plume caposure pathway, testmg of implementanon of; LBP-891,29 NRC 5 (1989) 1 PROTECTIVE ORDER as alternauve to comphance with discovery order; CU 89 2,29 NRC 211 (1989) PUBlJC INFORMATION insung mluirements for, LBP-89-1,29 h1C 5 (1989) RADIATION EXPOSURE of radiographer, civil penahy for, AL1-891,29 NRC 319 (1989) RADIATION RELEASES by Rancho Seco, allegauons of, DD-89-2, 29 NRC 337 (1989) from tnnurn evaporauon; IEP 89-7,29 NRC 138 0989) RADIATION, IDW-IIVEL healm effects of; ISP-89-7,29 NRC 138 0989) RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS from TMI accident, slupment and bunal of; IEP-89-7, 29 NRC 138 (1989) RADIOGRAPIIER overcaposure, civil penahy for. AU-89-1,29 NRC 319 (1989) REAUSM PRINCIPLE challenge to; IEP-89-1,29 NRC 5 0989) s.andard for rebuttal of; ClJ-89-2,29 NRC 2110989) RECONSIDERATION as a means for introducing a new contennon; CIE89 3,29 NRC 234 0989) of damal of rule waiver peunon, denial of; CL1-89-3,29 NRC 234 (1989) of esclusion of rentendon on severe accident in spent fuel pool; ISP 894,29 NRC 127 (1989) responses to monons for, IEP-894,29 NRC 127 (1989) REIT:RRAL OF RUUNG to appeal board, standard for, IEP-89-6, 29 h7C 127 (1989) REGULATIONS fmancial quahficauons exempnan for electne utihues, waiver of; LBP 8910,29 h%C 297 (1989) interpretsuon of 10 CJ.R. 5047(c)(1); CU-89 2,29 NRC 2110989) reabsm rule, challenge to; LBP-89-1,29 h7C 5 (1989) standard for grant of waiver of; CU-89 3, 29 NRC 234 0989) REOPENING A RECORD affidavit required in suppen of, CU-89-1, 29 NRC 89 (1989); LBP-89 3,29 h1C 51 (1989) burden on proponent of mouon for; LBP49-4,29 NRC 62 0989) comparabihty to 2.206 procedures; LBP-89-4, 29 NRC 62 0989) on seismic issues, recent earthquake as cause for, IEP-89 3, 29 h1C 51 (1989) showing necessary for; CU-891,29 NRC 89 (1989) specificity seguired of matenal in support of a monon for CU-89-1,29 NRC 89 0989) suppun required of monons for, IEP-89 4,29 NRC 62 0989) to acapt a latewfded contendon on (mancial quahfications; LBP-8910,29 NRC 297 0989) RES JLT;CATA appbesbihty to seisnue issues risolved during consuuchon permit proceedmg; LBP-89-3,29 NRC 51 0 989) REVIEW, APPELLATE SUA SKhTF of grans of summary dispostuon of envirortmental quahfesuon assue; ALAB 909,29 NRC 10989) of scatlemes agreements; ALAB-911,29 h%C 247 0989) of uncontested combined construcuan permiyoperating hcense proceedmg; ALAB-913,29 NRC 267 (1989) purpose of, ALAB-911,29 NRC 247 0989) nghts of pernes where need for camcuve acuan is found upon, ALAB Oll,29 h1C 247 0989) aunnard for; AIAB 911,29 NRC 247 (1989) 42

w - 4 l SUBJECT INDEX I REVIEW, thTERIDClflORY ,g standard for, CU-79-2, 29 NRC 211 (1989) ROLE CONTLICT by bus dnvers durms emergencies; ALAB oll,29 NRC 247 (1989) RULf;S OF PRACTICE admmistrauve fairness in schedulmg. CU 89-4, 29 NRC 243 (1989) affidavit requiremem for masons to reopen; CU-89-1,29 NRC 89 (1989); LBP-894, 29 NRC 62 (1989) appellate sua spome review, standard for, ALAB-911,29 NRC 247 (1989) appellate sua spante review where inervcnors have been dismissed as a sancuan; ALAB-911,29 hTC 247 (1989) attuneys' fees, sequest for award of; IBP-89 il, 29 NRC 306 (1989) burde of pmur on ATPA issues; LHP-89-7,29 NRC 138 (1989) burde en pmpment of racuan for summary dispostuon; UlP 89-9,29 NRC 271 (1989) burden en proponent of monon to mopen; LBP-89-4,29 NRC 62 (1989) ceruncauon of rulmg on adrrussibahty of emergency esercise contennons; LBP-89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) comparabihty of motions to reopen and 2.206 pmadures; LBP 89-4,29 NRC 62 (1989) consohdsnan of admissible and inadmissible contentions; LDP-891,29 NRC 5 (1989) consohdauan of requests for show cause proceedings; DD-89-2,29 NRC 337 (1989) contenuans supponed by repudiated documents; CU-89-3,29 NRC 234 (1989) contradictory supporung documents a basis for show cause proceedms; DD-89-2,29 NRC 337 (1989) deadhne for f.hng contentions; !.BP 89-4,29 NRC 62 (1989) declaratory rehef, standard for grant of; LBP 89 il,29 NRC 306 (1989) directed cerufacadan of schedulmg order, ALAB-910,29 NRC 95 (1989) evidenuary support for contentions; CLI-89 3,29 NRC 234 (1989) 6ve-factor test for late-filed contennans; LBP-89-4,29 NRC 62 (1989) intervenuon by a state; CU-89-2,29 NRC 211 (1989) hugabihty of issues on enforcement; LDP-89-11,29 NRC 306 (1989) offtetal nouce, standard for takmg; ALAB 911,29 NRC 247 (1989) purpose of appellate sua sponte sview; ALAB-911,29 NRC 247 (1989) referral of ruhng to appeal board, GP 89-6,29 NRC 127 (1989) responses to mouans for moonsiderauon; LBP 89-6,29 NRC 127 (1989) rights of parties where need for carmcuve acuan is found upon appellate sua spome review; ALAB-911,29 NRC 247 (1989) showing necessary far moperung a secord, CU-89-1,29 NRC 89 (1989) showmg of good cause for late f,1ms of contendon: LBP 89 4,29 NRC 62 (1989) srucif1c2ty required of mouans to reopen; CU-891,29 NRC 89 (1989) stare decisis effect of unreviewed hcensing board decisions; A1AB-912,29 NRC 265 (1989) sua sponte review authonty of appeal boards; ALAB 909,29 NRC 1 (1989) summary disposiuan, star.dard for; GP-89 9, 29 NRC 271 (1989) support sequued for mosmns to reopen; LDP-89-4,29 NRC 62 (1989) mawes of mdes or mguladons; CU-89-3,29 NRC 234 (1989) SAll Si!LTDOWN fiARTilQUAKE reevaluarmn uf, m hght of Quebec eenhquake; LBP 89 3,29 NRC 51 (1989) TAfIGUARDS PROTLCflONS for facihty producing stable isotopes; LEP 89 5,29 NRC 99 (1989) SAITTY ANALYSIS for facihty producmg stable isotopes; LDP-89 5,29 NRC 99 (1989) SANCDONS dismissal from proceedmg for failum to comply with discovery order, CU-89-2,29 NRC 211 (1989) factor.: considered in imposiuon of; CU-89-2, 29 NRC 211 (1989) NRC pahey on appbcauun of; CU 89-2,29 NRC 211 (1989) 43

=,, 4,. SUBJECT INDEX .a...E SClul)UUNGORDER admimstrouve Jaarness oi; CU-89 4,29 NRC 243 (1989) directed cernfication of; AIAB-910,29 NRC 95 (1989) SCIPOLE rdcipadon n; erneigency esercisca; LDP-89-1,29 NRC 5 (1989) nAED SOURCES nususe of, m o;l and gas well logyng; A1189 2,29 NRC 322 (1989) SEIShDC ISSULS seapming a secord on; LBP 89-3,29 NRC 51 (1989) SETILEMENT AGREEMENTS appellate sua sponte review of, ALAB-911,29 NRC 247 f"9) on monetary penalty for misuse of scaled sources for oil a < : is well logging; AU-89-2,29 NRC 322 (1989) on monetary penalty for radiographer overexposure; A1589-1,29 NRC 319 (1989) SilOW CAUSE PROCEEDINGS contradictory supporung documents as tusis for, DD-89-2, 29 NRC 337 (1989) consohdeuen of requests for; DD 89-2, 29 NRC 337 (1989) SIREN SYSTEM heanns damage from; LBP-89-9,29 NRC 271 (1989) tesung of, an emergency exercise; LBP-89-1, 29 NRC 5 (1989) SPECIAL FACIUTIES parumpetion m ernergency exercises; LBP-891,29 NRC 5 (1989) SPECIAL NUCLER MATERIAL physical protecdon and matenal control and accouraing for; LBP 89 5,29 NRC 99 (1989) SPENT FLT.L POOL self-sustaimng nrconium fire in; IBP 894,29 NRC 127 (1989) SPENT IM POOL EXPANSIOh severe-accident considerauons for 1!f P f-6,29 NRC 127 (1989) STARE DEClslS EITTLT of unreviewed licensing board dec suns; AIAB-912,29 NRC 265 (1989) STATE AND IDCAL GOVERNMENTS dismissal fran p:oceeding for failure to comply with discovery order, CU 89 2,29 NRC 211 (1989) interface of apphcant with, during radiological emergencies; LBP-89-1, 29 NRC 5 (1989) intervendon by; CU-89-2, 29 NRC 211 (1989)

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION burden on pmpanent of mouan for, LBP-89 9,29 NRC 271 (1989) legal standard for, LBP-89 9,29 hRC 271 (1989) of environmemal quahficadon issue, appellate sua sponte review of grant of; ALAB-909, 29 NRC 1 (1989) of reabsm cenaandons; CU-89-2,29 NRC 211 (1989) SUSPENSION ORDERS immediately effecuve, challenges to; LBP-89-II,29 NRC 306 (1989) TIIREE hELE ISLAND evaporation of accidem-generated water from; LBP-89-7,29 NRC 138 (1989) TRAININO PROGRAM far Ulf0 omergency response personnel, adequacy of LBP-89-1,29 b7C 5 (1989) TRTTTUM heahn effects of, LBP-89 7,29 NRC 138 (1989) measurement of, LBP 89-7,29 NRC 138 (1989) radiation releases from evaporadon of; IEP-89-7,29 NRC 138 (1989) VIOIATIONS severity level II, enforcement palwy for; DDL891,29 NRC 325 (1989) 44 2 t

-o SUBJECT INDEX E WAIVER of fmancial quahfications eacmption 4tonial of request for; CU 89-3, 29 NRC 234 (1989) of fmancial quahfications rules. LBP-89-10, 29 NRC 297 (1989) WA'IT,R accident-generated, evaporated; IEP 89-7,29 NRC 138 (1989) WlIISTLEBID%7.RS civil penalty far retaliatory discrmunauon agamst, DD-891,29 NRC 325 (1989) ZIRCONIUM self-sustaming fue in spem fuel pool, Lugability of, LBP-89 6,29 NRC 127 (1989) l 1 l 4s .y.. j i f r p 1 i s E

vy n-v,3.,,.._ q ~ ,c,, J...9, ~b** <kdhl;l _ g y ,.c. y o %y

sn p

)[A 9, ?' j [ x k ~ V j $a FACILITY INDEX .N 4 w AICIEME PACIUTY 100F; ALGEMIE FACIUTY-2 Oliva Springs; Docket Nos. 50403-CPKL, gp 'E[ 50 604P tb. CONSTRUC110N PERMIT AND OPERATING UCENSE; Febniary 1,1989, INTTIAL DECSION; M i[i( 1EP 89 5,29 NRC 99 0989) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND OPERATING UCENSE; March 20, 1989, DECSION; AEAB-913, j %h J 29 NRC 267 (1989) ONE FACTORY ROW, GENEVA, 0100 44041; Dodes Na 3016055 SP ] "c-SPECIAL PROCEEDIN0; March 21,1989 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; IEP-89-11,29 NRC G

• ^

nie. 306 0 989) RANQlO 2ECO NUC11AR GENERA 11NO STA110N; Doda Na $4312 l8 REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 21,1989, DIRECIDR'S DECSION UNDEk 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206; DD89-2,29 NRC 337 0989) RESEAROI REACTOR; Dodes No. 50 224 OEA %y. ' OPERATINO UCENSE AMENDME!ff; January 5,1989; ORDER (Distruisms the Proceedmah i "Q IEP-89 2,29 NRC 49 (1989)

$p/

-f SEABROOK STATION, Units 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 50-4434L 50$4444L OPERATING UCENSE; January 30,1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Review of Quebec ($ Earthquake);1EP-89-3,29 NRC 51 (1989) .Q, OPERATINO UCENSE; February 8,1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-910, 29 NRC g,q 95 0 989) 1 ' gk g OPERA 11NO UCENSE; Fetruary 16, 1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Moue . hh' for Summary Disposition of 3mnt Intervens Comennons 44A and 44B); LBP-89-8,29 NRC 193 T/ 0 989) 1 +. I OPERATING UCENSE: March 6,1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, CU-89-4,29 NRC 243 f Y2 %.( (1989) j OPERATING UCENSE; March 8,1989; MEMORANDUM AND O'tDER (Rulms on Monans 75 ff by Seacoast Anti-PoDunan 1Aague and Massachuscus Anorney General Concernmg Waiver of ,e1 l.** M-Commissim Financial Quahncanon Rules); LBP-89 30,29 NRC 297 (1989) 67, 4 SEABROOK STATION, Umis 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-443 41-1, 50 444-01 1 OPERATING UCENSE; January 17, 1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-909,29 NRC 1 ',g (1989) ? ' OPERATINO UCENSE; January 30, 1989, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denyms Moum to -x '.5 j' OPERATING UCENSE; March 3,1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Summary Disposuion); fis Admit Exercise Contentie or to Roopen Record); IEP-89-4,29 NRC 62 0989)

• M IEP-89-9,29 NRC 2710989) r

[W OPERATING UCENSE, March 6,1989. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CU 89-3,29 NRC 234 "/. * .. W V" 0 989) Mb SilORDIAM NUCLEAR POWER STA110N Unit 1; Docket Na 50 322-01 3 N'i lh OPERATING UCENSE; February 2,1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CU-89-1,29 NRC 89 '.hef* M* 4 [Q{PC,# 4

1. T 0 989)

OPERATING UCENSE; March 13, 1989; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB-911,29 NRC ,7 g- -.l; 247 0 989)

h Gg kb q

. ith;.; ..y 9: ]h[] .l.v. 4, AQ 4 ' z m-. y I 8 s &; . j* 1 ~Q'j %f fi jf _}}