ML20046D070

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances. January-March 1993

ML20046D070
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/31/1993
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V37-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V37-I1, NUDOCS 9308160096
Download: ML20046D070 (55)

Text

,

NUREG-0750 Vol. 37 index 1 l

ilNDEXES;TO i

NOdL.EARsREGOLATOFIYi 1COMMlSSIONilSS.UANCnS:

FJanuaryi-ilbrc!Mi9s31

~

i

!g

b 4:

._ l::0 )

y

3;

- f \\.

fg-i hii..

.N w.._.,g

4 :

l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

?

k i

i 9308160096 930731 PDR NUREC 3

0750 R PDR i

4

+

i

\\

l l

l Available from Superintentendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.

i Single copies of this publication are avai'able from National Technical l

Information Service,' Springfield, VA 22161 l

1 i

l i

i i

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

(301/492-8925) i

I 1

-~~

l NUREG-0750 Vol. 37 index 1 i

INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES January - March 1993 U.S. NUCLEAR REGUL.ATORY COMMISSION Prepared by the Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services

{

Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301/492-8925) l

i I

l l

Foreword i

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

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

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

Case name (owner (s) of facility)

Full text reference (volume and pagination)

Issuance number Issues raised by appellants Legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes)

Name of facility, Docket numter Subject matter of issues and/or rulings Type of hearing (for construction permit, operating license, etc.)

Type of issuance (memorandum. o-der, decision, etc.).

These information elements are displayed in one 7 more of five separate formats arranged as follows:

1. Case Name Index The case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type of j

l issuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.

J l

\\

2. Digests and lleaders i

l The headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows:

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

l l

the Administrative Law Judge (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

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

(

Re digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the j

issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuance l

covers more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically, til

-l l

t I

l l

3. Legal Citations Index His index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alpha-l numerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. These l

citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and statutes i

may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability i

of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance.

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

4. Subject Index Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects covered in the issuances. He subject headings are followed 19 phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the issuances being indexed. Rese phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.

5. l'acility Index l

De index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from i

the issuance. The name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date, l

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

1 1

J l

I i

IV l

i i

I

i l

I l

l 1

(

k i

\\

l CASE NAME INDEX i

k ADVANCL'D MEDICAL SYSEMS, LNC.

ENTORCEMENT ACDON; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Doches Na 3016055-OM (EA 87-139) i (n -- - :--um Order); CU-93-8, 37 NRC 181 (1993) i BABCOCK AND %11 LOX I

DECOMMISSIONING; ORDER; Docket Na 74135-DCOM; CU-93-9,37 NRC 190 0993)

DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Ilcaring Requem and Termmating Pmceadmg); Dmiet Na 74135-DCOM (ASGP Na 92 667-03-DCOM) (Decommissioning Plan)

(Materials Ucense No. SNM-145); 1.RP-934,37 hTC 72 (1993) l CAROUNA POWTR AND UGifT COMPANY 1

REQUEST IOR ACDON; PARTIAL DIRFLTOR*3 DECISION UNDER 10 CIA (2.206; Dmiet Nm 54324. 50325,50 400; DD 93-3. 37 NRC 113 (1993)

CLEVEIAND EUITRIC IILUMINAUNG COMPANY. ca al RIQUEST IOR ACDON; DIRECTOR'S Dif!SION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 52.206; Dmiet Na 50440 (Licerse No. NIV 5E); DD-93-5,37 NRC 238 (1993) l DETROIT EDISON COMPANT, et at RFQUEST IDR ACllON; PARRAL DIRECIDR*S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 82.206; Dmiet No.

54341; DD93-3. 37 NRC 113 0993)

REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206; Dmiet Na 54341; DDL93-6, 37 NRC 246 (1993) 11DRIDA POWER AND UGITT COMPANT, et al.

I RIQUEST IOR ACDON; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDLR 10 Cf.R.12.206; Dmier Na 50-250, l

54251 (License Na DPR-31. DPR41), DD-934,37 hTC 225 (1993)

GIDTECll ASSOCIATES, INC.

ENFOP. CEMENT ACDON; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Terminating Pmceeding); Docket Na 03aL20693-EA (ASLBP Na 9347001.EA) (Matenals Ucense No. 29-1822205-02); LEP-93 2,37 NRC 61 (1993) l GEORGIA PO*12 COMPANT, et at OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER; Dmiet Nm 54424-OIA-3,50-425-OIA 3; CU-934 37 NRC 172 (1993)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENI; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Admittmg a Pany); Dmket Nos. 50424 CIA-3,50 425-OIA-3 (ASulP Na 93471-OloLA-3) (Re: Ucense Amendment)

(Transfer w Southern Nuclear); IEP-93-5,37 NRC 96 (1993)

Gulf STAES LTIUTIES COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACDON; PARDAL DIRECIDR'S DECSION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 52.206; Dmiet No.

50 458; DDL93 3,37 NRC 113 (1993)

IDUISIANA INERGY SERVICES, L.P.

MATERIALS UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Apphcant's Motion m Compel Discovery); Dmiet Na 743070-ML (ASGP Na 91-641-02-ML) (Special Nuclear Materiala Ucense); LBP-93-3,37 NRC 64 (1993)

ONCOIDGY SERVICES CORPORAllON ENIORCEMENT ACHON; MEMORANDUM AND ORDI2 (Granting in Pan NRC Staff Motion to Delay Pmceedmg; Requinna Submiazion of Staff Status Repon and Joint Prehearing Repon); Docket No. 03431765-EA (ASLBP Na 93-674-m-EA) (EA 93-006) (Order Suspending Bypmduca Maienal Ucense Na 37-28540 01); LBP-93-6, 37 NRC 207 (1993)

I i

1 i

I

l CASE NAME INDEX i

PAQFIC GAS AND E1ILTRIC COMPANT

)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; PRElITARING CONIT.RENCE ORDER (Rulmg upon Intervenna 3%d6m and Aut,annng Ilcaring); Docket Nm. 50 275-01A 2, 54323OIA-2 (ASLEP No. 92-669-03 OLA-2) (Casuuenan J% nod Rocovery) (Faciluy Operaung Ucenses Ncs. DPR-80, DPR-82), LDP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993)

SACRAMES70 MUN10 PAL LT!!JIY DISTRK.T DECDMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dmiet No. 50 312-DOOM; CU-93-3,37 STC 135 (1993)

DECOMMISSIONINCr, ORDER; Dmiet Na 54312-DCX)M; CU 91-5,37 NRC 168 (1993)

SEQUOYAll EUELS CORPORATION MA1T. RIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORD11 (Rulmg on Requen for 11earms and Request for Wuhdrawal of Applicade); Docket Na 448027-M1A (Source Material Ucense Na SUB-1010); CU-93-7,37 NRC 175 (1993)

TEXAS UTTIIDES 11LETRIC COMPAhT REQUEST FOR ACTION; PARDAL DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CJ.R. 82.206; Dmics Nos. 54445,54M6; DD-93-3,37 NRC 113 (1993)

TEXAS L"IIIJUES 110CDUC COMPANT, et at CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dmiet No. 50446-CPA; CL1-93-2,37 NRC 55 (1993); CJ-9310,37 NRC 192 (1993) i OP11AllNG LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Dmain Na 54446; CU-93-1,37 NRC 1

- l (1993); CU-93 4,37 NRC 156 (1993)

REQUEST IOR ACDON: DIRIETOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CJ.R. 52.206; Dmics Nos. 54445, 544#r, D&93-1,37 NRC 39 (1993)

REQLT.ST JOR ACDON; DIRECTOR'S DljCISION UNDI_R 10 Cf.R. 82.206, Dmiet Na 50445; l

DD-93-2,37 NRC 52 (1993)

WAS!!INGTON PUBUC POWT.R SUPPLY SYSTEM REQLYST IOR ACDON; PAR 11AL DIREC. OR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 CJ.R 62.206; Docket No.

T 54397; DD 93-3,37 NRC !!3 (1993) l l

2 t

i

s 1

I l

i I

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAlt RIX;ULATORY COMMISSION i

i CL1-93-!

TEXAS L"IILTITES ELbCTRIC COMPANY, as at (Camand.e Peak Seam Doctric Stanen. Unit

'2), Dmia No 50446; OPERATING UCENSE; January 29,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i

l A

The Cornr-na dmins the request d Cidzens for Fair Unlity Rqpdanan (CFUR) for a hearug m the pmposed ianuana. d a. operanng license fer Comanche Nk, Unit 2. The Commission finda that it cannat rearm the hearing en the Unit 2 pmweding as a maner of discrenan, beacd on a hearing request that does nat address the criterm for late imervendon and reopenmg of the remrd. He Commismian does 4

not procl.ade CFUR fann filing a renewed hearing request that addresses the relevara regulatory standards.

l B

Unul de full-power license far a nuclear reactor han saually buen issued, the possibility of a reopened hearing is not ersimly foreclosed; a persan may request a hearing cancerning that reactar, even though the origmal tune period specified in the Federal Register nonce for filing intervention pesinons has i

)

expired, if the requester can sansfy the late imervenuan and impemng criscria.

j C

A perse secting a discrononary hearing aner the expiration of abe time pened for fdms intervennon j

pennons should either addnss the late intervennan and reopening criteria or explain why they do not apply, D

A party that volumarily withdraws imm a pmceeding that was later resolved by a setdemera i

ag eemera must satisfy the late imerventim standards before seeking to reopen the record of that proceding.

C1193-2 TEXAS UTIIJITES El.fCDUC COMPANY, et al. (Camanche Peak Steam Doctric Sanon. Unit 2). Dmiet Na 50446.CPA; OPERATING UCENSE; February 3,19a3; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

De Comnumanan denies the requcst of B. Irene Orr and D.I. Orr for a stay of the issuance of the low-power operanng license for Comanche Pr.ak Unit 2. The Commission fmda that Petinoners' stay request cannat pmperly be considered in the operanng heense proceedmg because they are meither parnes to that proceeding nar have they addreased in their stay requcst the five factou for late filed imervennan pennons. Furthermore, the Commission carmat consider Petinoners' auy request in the construcuan permit amendment promeding, to winch Petinoners are a pany, because they have failed to relate the stay request to any action in that pmceeding.

B Where penneners who have filed a request to stay issuance of a low-power license are not parties to the operanns licanac emceeding, and where petinoners' request does not addreas de five factors far late imervennon found in 10 Cf.R. 5 2.714(aXI)(i)-(v), the request cannot pmperly be considered in that opersung license promeding.

i C

The pmvision for stays in 30 Cf.R. 5 2.788 provides only for stays d decisians or senars in de pr-4g under review.

D Where peuuoners do not reiste their stay request to any acnon in the promeding under review, the request for stay is beyond de scope of 10 Cf.R. 6 2.788. Such a request is more propedy a petinan for unmediate mfortzsnent action under 10 Cf.R. 8 2.206.

1 E

Section 2.788(b)(2) of to CE.R. specifies that an applicanon for a atay enust comain a cancise statemern of the gmunds far stay, with refermee to the factors specifad in paragraph (c) of that secnan.

l F

Pursuant to 10 Cf.lL 8 2.788(eXI)-(4), the factors to be considered in decrmming whether to grara or deny an applicanon for a stay are: 0) whether the moving party has mace a stmng showing dist it is likely to prmail en the merits (2) whether the party will be irreparably injured unicas the stay is grained;

0) whether de grannns of a stay would harm other panies; and (4) wiu:re d.: public imerest lies.

O TE Comnussion requires that a party seeking oral argument must explam how eral argument would easist it in scoching a decisiarc

)

l 3

l l

l 1

i l

l.

I A

---

~--.-

--w-e-n

.w e m. r

1 I

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCII.AR RI'C1:IATORY CO%1%11% ION I

QJ-93-3 SACRAMENIU MUNICIPAL 1millY DISTRICT (Rancho Seca Nuclear Gencianna Stanm),

Dodet Na 54312-DCOM; DFCOMMISSIONING. March 3,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER M and Resounes Conservauan Orgamzanan's A

1hc Conunission grams, in part, E..-_

(ECO's) appeal of the Ausnic Safety and Ucensmg Board's order,IJIP-92-23,36 NRC 120 (1992), in that the Commazion grams discreuanary upervenuan, admits one camcnnon and permits IIX) to amend another. Also, the Comnussion treating this case sui genens, as a mauer of disexuan, ducets Staff not to assue the dooammissioning order pending complenan of the pmceeding before the Ucensing Board.1hc Comnussion dmies IIXTs appeal wuh respect to all oths contendms.

B The Commissian has the suihanty to grant imervenuan, as a mauer of discredon, pursuara to the Comnussian's authority to hold hearings and to permit parnetpation in its pmceedmas.

j C

1he plendmg requirernerns sa out in 10 CJ.R.12.714 do nas preclude a patty imm films emtenuans in the ongmal request for hearmg and petition to imervene, but to be admissible the comennons must meet the spezafic plesdmg requirem sus set out in section 2.714(b) and (d).

D Parnes who appear before the Commission bear sesponsibihty for any passible misapprehensiort of their positim caused by the inadequacies of their hnefs.

E "Resurned operaum"is an ahernadve to the decision to cease operanun of a plam and, as such, need not be considered as an ahernanve to a proposal to decommissim except perhaps in estraordinary cucumstances (e.g., neuonal emergency).

F

- Under the Nanans1 EnvuonmemalIblicy Act (NEPA)the Commission's considerauon of the"no-actim" ahernative need not go amo envimitmental irnpacts of decommissioning a facility that could be I

avoided only by the highly speculative and not reasonably foreseushle resumed operanan of a facility. See 1

NRDC v. Callaway,524 F.2d 79,92-93 (2d Cir.1975).

i G

A petinoner may not rely solely on fact that Staff has posed questians no a licensee to suppon the I

peuuoner's comeraian where the licensee has filed a detailed response to Staff's inquiry and the pennoner has had substannal opportunity to review the response prior to the filing ofits comennons.

II A contenne will be deemed admissible if the peunmer idennfics a deficiency that is obvious on the face of a Lcensmg documera that is required to be filed. See 10 Cf.R. 8 2.714(bX2Xiii).

1 in subnutung an affumanve safety comention, as opposed to allegmg a deficiency that is obvious e the face of a liccrismg documam that is required to be filed, a petinoner must idennfy the specific bases for the tornenuon, allege facts or espert opinian that suppon Gm comennon, provide references to specific sources and documema on which peudoner imends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinie, and identify a maienal factual legal dispute with the applicara. See 10 Cf.R.12.714(b) and (d).

J Informanan enchanged betwcen Staff and liczasce is not considered offcred for filing in an adpdicauan and, thus, is not subject to the prtwisions of 10 Cf.R. 5 2.701.1%:inoners have access to such mformanon that is placed in the pubhc ductaners room.

K Staff and hcmsee clearly have an obligation to keep the Ixensing Board and the petitioner appnsed d any relevant and maumal new informanon.

j L

An urifaiered wporturuty to amend contandons estends only unni 15 days pnor to the fust i

preheanng conference.10 Cf.R. 6 2.714(a)(3).

]

M A peuunncr may seek to amend his or her contemians or fue new cornentions if data or conclusians in subsequern NRC envimnmemal review documents differ signifwandy from the data or conclusians in the spphcam's environmemal documents.10 CE.R. I 2.714(b)(2Xtii). Such comemians are subject to late-filed cnteria ses out in 10 Cf.R.11714(a)(IXi).(v). Ilowver, when the informanan in die Staff environmental documents is otherwise unavailable, it is possible that the " good cause for lateness" factor may be sansfied by this unavailability.

QJ-9L4 TEXAS U111111f.S ELICTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Doctric Stanon, Unit 2), Dude No. 50-446 OL; OPERATING IJCENSE; March 9,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDDt A

1he Commission denics a petition for late intervenson because Ibntioner's unjusnfied lateness with the petinon, failure to demonstrate that it could contribute to Gw development of the record, and the delay that would result frarn the insntunon of new proceedmgs more than coumerbalanced the two minor factors in Petineer's favor.

I l

4 l

t l

J 1

l l

l l

l i

l

i 1

DIGESTS

?

ISSUANCES OF Till' NUC11 AR REGtLATORY COMMISSION B

lasuance of a full power hcense chmes out an operanng license proceedmg and associmied canstncuan permit pmceedmg Any subsequent challenges on thme matters must be in the form of a secuan 2.206 peunan.

C lais imervenuon is pmsible unul iuuance of a full power beense Therefore, issuance of a low-power beense does not bar laie mtervendm.

D Under tradinonal pnnciples, ses judicata and collateral estoppel, the bar against subsequers hngatum of an issue aheady hugated examds only to panics to that pmceeding. Ilere, QUR was never a pany.

E A person seektng late imervention in a pmceedmg in which the record has been closed must also address the reopening standards, but not necessanly in the same pennan. Ilowever, h is in the penumer's best imerest to address both the late intervanan and reopening standards together.

F A pmspecuve pentumer has an affirmative duty to danonstrate that it ha. standmg in each prc=dmg in which h seeks to participate since a peudoner's status can change over time and the bases or its standmg in an carber pmceeding may no longer obtain.

G A peuuoner may seek to rely on paar demonstrations of standing if those pnw demonstradans are (1) specificaDy idenuf.ed and (2) shown to correctly reflect the current status of the pennoner's standmg.

11 CIUR has been aware of dw issue of the instauanan of Thermo-las at Comanche Peak Unit 2 for over 6 months and that h had been - or should have been - aware of the general issue of Therme-lag for several years. Derefore, QUR has failed to demmstrate that h has " good cause" for its late fihng.

I Peuunner sausfies the second and fourth pans d the five late intervention criteria in 10 C.F.R.

i l

62.714(a)(1)(i>{vy When there is currently no pmcendmg, assuming argumdo that the pentiener has standmg, thers will generally be no other means by which that interest can be protected. Likewise, because there is currently no pmceedms, there will be no edier party to represem pennuner's interesL. IIowever, these two f actors are the least important of the five factos.

J CFUR'a request prtmdes no reason to conclude that h could contribute to the developnent of a I

sound recad. Vague assernons regardmg pennoner's abihty or resources are insufficient. CFUR fails to I

hst any specific document h plans to intmduce or on which h imends to rely,in spite of the documentadon developed by the NRC and placed in the pubhe domain. CIUR also fails to idennfy any single expert or j

summarize its pmposed tesnmony.

i K

he fifth factor for late intervendon, the potennal fur delay if the pendan is granted, weighs heavily against Pentioner. Granting GUR's request will resah in the establishment of an entirely new j

formal pr-Amg, not just the aherador. of an already estabhshed hearing schedule.

CU-93-5 SACRAMENID MUNICIPAL UIIIJfY DISTRICI (Rancho Seco Nuclear Gener:6ng Stanan),

Docaes No. 50L312-DCDM, DECOMMISSIONING; March 15,1993; ORDER A

The Comnussen denies the imervenor's maion for reconsuierauon of QJ-93-3 which, mter alia, granted imervmunn as a mauer of discrenun, admiued one contendan, permined amendment of another, and affirmed the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's rejection of a!! other contendons.

8 There is no ameral duty, even in contested proceedmgs, for Staff to irtform an imervenor of Staff's cvety communicauan with the Ecmsee that takes place dunng the usual course of Staff *a review of an l

sppbcanan.

C Staff and hcensee have an obliganon to keep the beensmg board and imervenor apprised of any I

relevam and material new irtformanon.

CU-934 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ci at (Vogtle Dectric Generanng Plant Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50424-OLA-3,50425-OLA-3; OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; March 1B,1993; ORDER A

he Ucenace, Georgia Power Company, applied for a stay pending appeal of the licensing board's order, LBP-93-5, 37 NRC 96 0993), grannns imervenan to ADm L Mmbaugh in an amendmmt proceedmg concerning the transfer of opeatmg authonty under the beenses. Because the Licensee's principal ground for a stay,i.e.,its obpction to pmceeding with discovery durmg tic pendency d a crinur.s1 invesnganan of the Licensee and hs employees, was related to Staff objections to discovery still before the Licensmg Board far determinanon, the Commission refers the stay applicadon to die Licerming Board for consideratiort CU-93-7 SEQUOYAll IUELS CORPORATION, Docket Net 40-8027-MLA (Source Material License No.

SUB-1010); MATTJt1A13 UCENSE AMENDMENT; March 18,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Request for lleanng and Request for Withdrawal of Application) l 5

i i

i I

i l

i j

l DIG 13TS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAR RI'Gt'LATORY COMMISSION f

A he Cammission adnowledges Sequoyah N1s Corporadon's notificanon to NRC of the with-drawal of its application for a matenals bcense amendment pennining to smundwater memitoring, treats it k

as a aquest to withdraw the a;plicanon, and grants permusion for withdrawal of the applicanon. Corse-quently, the Comrmasion denies a request by Nanvc Amencans few a Clean Environmers and the Cherokee i

Nanan for a hearing on the matenals bcense amendment.

B h Commasian will trent a licensee's announced wahdrawal of a heense amendment apphesnan prior to a notace of heanns as a request to the Comnussion, pursuara to 10 CE.R. I 2.107(a), for permisuon to withdraw the applicanon.

C1193-8 ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC, (One I,ictory Row, Geneva Ohio 44041), Dodet No. 30Ll60554M (EA 87139)(Decentamination Order); ENIORCEMIAT ACIlON; March 30, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

he Commission demos Advanced Medical Systems' (AMS) petition for review of a licensing board order, IEP-92-36, 36 NRC 366 (199/), that &amissed as met a dallenge to two immediately i

j effective decamaminanon orders issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Communion (NRC) Staff to AMS. %

Commission also dmics AMSs* request for consolidation of all promedmgs involving the Ucensee.

i l

B In determmmg whether to grant, as a maner of disemim, a pennan for review of a licensing l

board order,the Commasma gives due weight to the existence of a sulutannal spestion with respect to Gm r

I consideranons sa fonh in 10 Cf.R. $ 2.786(b)(4) (1992).

l C

De momness doctrine denves inxn the Consniunon's hmaanon on federal couns' jurisdiction to i

j

" cases" or

• controversies." Ahhough the Commission is not striedy bound by the doctrme, the agency's adjudicatory tribunals have genera:Iy adhered to the principle.

D A case is moat when there is no reasonable expectatum that the mauer will recur and intenrn schef w intervening evems have era &cated the effects of the allegedy unlawful scuart C1193-9 BABCOCK AND WIIIX)X (ApaDo, Pennsylvarus Fuel fishncauan l'acility). Dodet Na 70'135-IXX)M; DIIX)MMISSIONINO; Mard 30,1993; ORDER A

%c Commission had previously extended the time wnhin which the Petinoner could perfect her appeal of a bcensmg board decision denying her nxiuest for hesnng and termmating the proceedmg. De Commission dismisses the appeal on the ground that the Petitioner failed to Ele a Statement of Appeal as I

requised by 10 Cf.R. 62.1205(nk I

B in a Subpan L pmceeding, a pennoner*a appeal of a licensing board *a fmal cader is subject ta 6smasalif the pontioner fails to file a Statement of Appeal wathin the time period specified in 10 CJ.R.

5 2.1205(n) or within an extended time period permiund by Commission order.

j CU-93-10 1T.XAS LT!!JnES EIICTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Stanon Unit 2), Dudet No. 50-446.CPA; CONSTRUCllON PERMIT AMENDMIAT: March 30,1993; MEMORAN.

f DUM AND ORDER S

A N Lornmunon considers two appeals of a licensmg board decision,IEP.92-37,36 NRC 370 l

0992), that demed the appellams' pentions for review and for beanns on a request by Texas Uninies l

Elearic Campany to extend the cmstruction permit far f'amanche Ibak Unit 2. De Cornmissicm dismisses the appeals as moot since the Ucensee's substannal complenon of Unit 2's construenan obviates the need for any funher extension of the cornplenan date under the construcnon permn. One of the appeals is I

6smissed on the addinonal ground of failure to perfect the appeal by films a brief. N Commission also vacates de licensing board decision below.

B Commissian appc11ste praaice has long stressed the necessity of a brief. A mere recitstion of an appellant's prior pusinons in a promeding or a statemern of his se her general &sagreement widt a decision's result is no substitute for a bnef that iden6fies and explains the errcns of the Licensing Board in the order below.

i C

he meiness doctrine derivis frurn the " case" or "ctatroversy" requiremern of arncle Ill of the Consutuisan. h Commasion is not bound by the case or canuoversy requirement, but generaDy follows the doctrme, absma the most compelling reasons.

D Generally, a case will be moot when the issues are no longer "uve"or the pardes lack a cognizable imenst in the outcoms. De montness doctrine applies to all stages of review, not merely to the time when a pension is filed. Cmsequently, when effecnve relief cannat be granted because of subsequent events, an appealis &smissed as moca.

6

?

F l

I l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCtIAR RFCt'I.ATORY COMMI% ION s

E A hoensee's substanual compicuan of corsuucuan, lawfully undenaken dunng the pendency i

af peudaner's chaDenge to a emsuucuan extension request, renders moat any conuuversy over funher cuension d the comp!cuan date in the cassuuction perrrut.

F Sann 185 of the AEA,42 U.S.C 6 2235, establishes that a construenon pernut will not empire and no nghu under the permit will be forfened unless two circumuances are prescra: (1) the facihty is not complened, and (2) the latest da's for compleuan has passed. If construcuan as canplete, no further extension d the cornplenan date is requued.

O Cornnussmn regula6ms prende that the substandal comp!cuan of a facility's consuvaiun sansfacs the AEA's sequimnents agardmg cornpledon d the facility. See 10 C.F.R. Il 50.56 and 50.57(aX1)(1993).

i l

11 GeneraDy,if a lumnsee files an applicadan for a new bcense far an acdvity previously authorized at least 30 days pnar to the capiranon of the existmg license, the caisnng bcense will nos be deemed to have empired unn! the application has been fmany determmed See 5 U.S.C. 4 558(c) (1992); 10 CF.R. 1 2.109.

1 The fdeg of a timely request for an extension of the complede daie maimains the consuuction i

permit in force by opersuan d law and, accordingly, the hcensee may lawfully contmue consuuctmn activities pendmg a fmal determinanon ofin applicadan.

J The only quesnan lingsbic in a construcha permit entension proceedmg - whether the licensee has demanstrated " good cause" for the extension - is no langer of legal interest after the hcensee has lawfully completed construction under the permit and requires no further exiension of the compledon date.

K Proceedmgs an consuuction permit extensions are limited in scope to challenges to the licermec's assened

• good cause" for the estmston, and are not an avenue to chaDenge a pending operating license, I

L A case may not be moat when the dispute is " capable of repetition, yet evading seview." Southern The encer an applies n

Pacific Ternunal Co. v. Imerstate Commerce Commission,219 U.S. 498,515 (1911).

only to cases in which the chaDenged acnon was in its duradon too short to be litigated, and there is a i

reasmable expectaden that the same complaining party will be subject to the same acnon again.

i 1

k k

i l

i l

I i

I 7

l

- 1 i

i I

i i

Y

1 l

1 1

DIGESTS ISSUANCES Ol' TIIE ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING DOARDS t

LBP-93-1 PAC!nc GAS AND ELICTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Dmies Nos. 542754)LA-2,54323-OLA 2 (ASLBP No.924694-01A-2)(Consuucnon htood Re-covery) (Facihty Operanng liceses Nos. DPR-80 DPR-82); OPERATING IJCENSE AMt'NDMENT; January 21,1993; PRElIEARING CONIIRENCE ORDER (Ruling upon 1mervendon Pennon and Autho-rinns llearing)

A The Licensing Board grants the request for a hearing / pennon for leave to interwne of a petinoner j

in a promedmg concorrung the proposed extension of operating licenses to recover or recapture into those heenses the pened d construction of the reactois.

B To establah sanding, a petitioner must demonstrate that it has suffered or will suffer " injury in l

fact," that the injury falls within the acne ofiracrests sought to be protected by the statutes being enforced, and that the injury is redressable by a favorable decismn in the proceedmg. Pubbc Service Ca of New Ilampshire (Seabrook Stanon, Unit 1), CL1-91 14,54 NRC 261,26467 0991).

C A demonstradon d " injury in fact" must be actual but need not be substannal. Ilouston Lighnns and Ibwer Ca (South Teams Project, Units I and 2). LDP-79-10,9 NRC 439,447-48 (1979), aff*d, AI.AB-549,9 NRC 644 (1979). He increrneraal risk of reacts operauon for an addinonal 12-15 years is suf5 dent I

to invoke the presump6an of injury in fact for persons resident from 10 to 20 mDes from the facility. To l

require a duect showing would in eficci emasculate the hearing procedures by offenna a heanng that could not in fact likely be obtained. Nonhern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Ocreranrig Station, Nuclear-1),

i ALAB-619,12 NRC 558, 564 (1980).

D A group does not have standing to assen the imerest of plant workers, where it has no sudi workers among its members.

E De Commission's revised contention rule, whids *'raiscid] the threshold" for the submission of conumnons, has been held valid on its face, ahhough suscepuble to misapplicatwn so as improperly to deny the adnnssibihty d comennons raising matenal issuca. Union d Concerned Sciennsts v. NRC,920 F.2d 50 (D C. Cir.1990).

F The scope of seriew for cmsuucnon pened recapture proceedings may be broader than that for bcense renewal inasmuch as the Commission issued a new rule (10 C.F.R. Pan 54) for licerse renewal i

j specificaDy spelling out and liminns the scope of such proceerLngs, i

G liven though a license amendment request is fded snany years pnar to its actual need, h will not be deemed gwemature where ti.cre s no speci6ed application period. Ilowever, any condiuons found necessary will be appbed as of the date d the licensing board's final decision or (assuming that the bosrd does not l

bar the amendments) d the license amendment, whichever comen later.

11 Ahhough the 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 forum may be technicahy available for a penuoner that wishcs to assen operaaonal problems, it is not the cactusive femm. Where opcrational issues are selevam to a secapture pmceeding, they may also be raised in that prWng. Moretwer, the hearing rights available thmugh a secnon 2.206 petinen are scarcely equivalent to, and not an adequate subantuie for, hearing rights available in a licensing proceeding. See Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project i

No. 31 ALAB.747,18 NRC 1167,1175-77 0983).

d I

in a construction period ecapture proccedms, implementadon of maintenance and surveillana prograns may be chauenged, even though the paper programs are nm being rnodified. Innspeenve of how comprehassive a program may appear on paper, it will be essentially without value unless k is timely, 3

canunuously, and properly implemersed.

4 4

9 i

l i

j 1

1 i

1 iu..

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile A1DMIC S AITTY AND 1.lCFNSING BOARDS l

J Nmerous, repmanous cited violanans or aher incadems may form the basis for a conten6an questioning the adequecy of a maimenance or surveillance pmgram, even though none of the individual violanons or other incidems rises to the level of a serious safay issue. When sufficiera apebnve or similar incidents are demmstrated, aggreganon and/or escalation of sanctions rnay be in order.

K in poving its claim, a pcsmunct is not limited to the specific fans relied on to have its comenuun accepted, as long as the addinonal facts are material to the comannon.

L 1he "armclad obhgation" of a petinaner to examme publicly availabic docsimcmary evidence in suppon of its catennons apphes atly to informanon in support of a commtion. A requirement also to examine contrary pubhcly available documentary evidence would unduly enacerbate the considerable threshold that a peutioner must aheady meet under the current revised comendan rules.

M A cornendon enempting to raise an issue of the lack d long-term spent fuel storage is baned as a mauer of law from operating license and operanns license amendment pmenedings.10 C.F.R. Il51.23(a),

5!.53(a).

N The Commissian has hmited the scope of lingation on emergency preparedness esercises to e cataidermuon d whether the resuha of an exercise indicate that emergency plans are fundamentally flawed.

O A contenuon challenging the appmpriatenas of a *no significam hazards consideration" finding of the NRC Staff is outside the Board's jurisdgsion It is solely wi:hin the province of the Staff.10 CJ.R.

I50.58(b)(6).

P In a situanan where an EnvuonrnemalImpact Staiement (EIS)is nenher required nor categorically excluded, a conten6an seeking an DS, filed prior to the Staff's issuance of an Environmemal Assessment (EA),is prananrre. After Staff issuance of an EA, a late-fded comemian may be submined (assuming the t

EA does not all far an US).

LBP-93-2 GEO-TIrl! ASSOCIATES,INC. (Geo Tedi Laborniories,43 South Avenue, Junwood, New Jersey M023), Dodet No. 03420693-EA (ASLBP No. 93-67401-EA)(Maierials Ucense Na 291g22205 02);

i ENIORCEMENT ACTION;I'chruary 1,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Ucrminating Pmceeding) l LBP-93-3 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, LP. (Claiborne Ennchment Camer), Doder No. 70L3070-ML (ASI.BP Na 91-641412.ML) (Special Lclear Materials Domse); MALT. RIALS UCENSE; February 2.

l 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Applicam's Monon to Compel Discovery) l A

Iraermgatones that seek the disclosure of the factual bases and legal regturamems usat imderhe comentions cmstitute pmper discovery of the is.4crvmor so lang as the imermgatories do not seek the I

l

• memal impressions, conclusions, opinions orlegal theories of an suorney or other representa6ve of a pany l

cmocrnmg the pmcezdutg."

D A pony objectmg to a discovery request on the basis that the information is pmtected by the

.)

anorney work pmduct pnvilege has the burden of establishing that the materia'.s are protected by 10 Cf.R. 5 2.740(b)(2). A mere anaertim that the informanon wnhheld consututes attorney work pmduct as i

insuff.crera to meet the objector's burden of establishing the suorney work product privilege, LBP-93-4 BABCOCK AND Wllf0X (Apollo, Pennsylvania Fuel Fabricanon Facility), Dockes No. 74 135-DOOM (ASLBP No 92-667-03-IXX)M) (Materials License No. SNM-145); DECOMMISSIONING; February $.1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying llearing Rcquest and Ternunating Pmceed-mg)

A Rulmg on the request of five individssa Petitioners far en informal hearing to comest licensee Babcock & Wilcon's amendmera applicadon seeking agency apprm31 d its proposed decommissioning plan for its Apollo, Pennsylvania fuel cycle facihty, the Pmsidmg Offuer dmies the Putinonas' hearing sequest for lack of standing and terminates the pmceedmg.

B The Commission has chasm to apply comemporaneous judicial cancepts of standmg to ascensin who, under section 189a(1) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA),42 U.S.C. 6 2239(a)(1),is a

• person whose imenest may be affecied by the proceeding" so as to be emitled to a hearing regarding a licensing action.

See, e.g., Sacramemo Manicipal Unhty Distna (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Stanon), CU-92 2,35 NRC 47,56 (1992); Portland Gmeral Electric Co. (Pebble Sprmgs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CU-7627, 4 NRC 610,613-14 (1976).

C To satisfy these judicial standards, a pmspective pony must show (1) that h could suffer an acsual "anjury in fact" because of the Loensing proceeding, and (2) that its imerest arguably is withm the

• zone of le

a DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC S AITTY AND 1.ICINSING BOARDS l

l imerests" to be pm6ected ny the pertment statutes under which the peti 6aner secks to challenge the licensing l

acnon. See, e a-, Rancho Seco, CLI-92 2,35 NRC at 56; Ithble Spangs, C1J-76 27,4 NRC at 613.

D De three components of the injury in fact regaremmt are injury, cause, and remedial benefit.

See Valley lurge Chnsdan College v. Amencans United for Separadun of Church & State,Inc.,454 U.S.

464, 472 (1982). See generally 13 Charles A. Wnght, et al., Federal Pract ce and Procedure 683531.4 4 (2d ed.1984). he showing necessary to nadsfy these clernets recently has been daracterized as follows:

"Although variously desenhed, the assened injury must be *disunct and psipable* and

• par 6cular land]

conciete* as apposed to bems ** conjectural,,, [,] hypothencal,*" or *abstraa.* he injury need not sheady have occuned but when fature harm is assened,it must be 'thmatened,* **cenainly impendmg"*

and *"real and immedists."* Additionally, there must be a causal nexus between the asserted injury and

+

the challenged saian, in other words, the alleged harm must have *resuhed* in a *conentely demonstrable way* imm the claimed infracuans. here must also be a sufficient causal connection between the alleged harm and the requested remedy so that the complaining pany

• stand [s] to profit in same personal interesL*

• Cleveland Electne Illununating Ca (Perry Nuclear Pbwer Plant, Unit 1), IEP-924,35 NRC 114,121 (1992)(footncnes anuned). See alsolmjan v. Defenders of Wildhfe,119 L Ed. 24 351,364 (1992).

E When a peuuaner is aallenging the legahty of government reguladon of sameune else, irdury an fact as it relates to factors of causation and adressability is " ordinarily 'substandaDy more ddficuh* to establish." Imjan,119 L Ed. 2d at 365 (quoting Allen v. Wright 468 U.S. 737,758 (1984); Simon v.

Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organizadon,426 U.S. 26,44-45 (1976);and Wanh v. Seldin,422 U.S.

490, 505 (1975)).

F A heanns pennoner hears the burde of establishing that the various injuries aDeged to occur to its AEA-protected health and safety iruerests or its National Envuonmental Policy Act (NEPA). protected environmmtalinterests satisfy the three companata of the injury in facs requirement See Perry,IEP-92-4, 35 NRC at 120. See also Lujan,119 L Ed. 2d at 364.

3 G

For purposes of assessing injury in fact (or any other aspect of standing), a hearing petitioner's factual assernans, if uncontrevened, must be accepted. See, e g 1mjan,119 L lid. 2d at 364-65 PenncIl

v. Cay of San Jose,485 U.S.1,7 (1988).

li la evaluatmg a peutmner*a claims of injury in fact, care unust be taken to avoid "the fandliar t sp I

of confusmg the standmg determination with the assesammt of pendoner's case m the mcrits." City ofIms Angehs v. National Ilighway Traffic Safety Administradm,912 F.2d 478,495 (D.C. Cir.1990) (citations erniund), cert derued,117 L Ed. 2d 460 (1992).

I In the face of canuevening factual submissions made by the hcensee and the NRC Staff, h is amenpnate, in a manner akin to a summary disposine determinadan, to undenake a merits-type evaluadon I

of the sufficiency of factaal bases for a hearms painoner's claims of standing. See Consumers Ibwcr Co.

(Midland Plara Uruts I and 2),IEP 78-27,8 NRC 275,277 n.1 (1978). See also 13A Wright, et al., supra, 6 3531.15, at 97 99.

J To establish standmg in NRC licensing adjudications, petinoners often seck to rely upon proumity to a lumnsed facihty, pardculady under what is commonly afened to as the " fifty-mile rule" his so called 4

"mle," whid is more in the natme of a presumpuon, is denved imm a string of commercal power nactor j

adjudicamry dcnermmanons. The cornman thmed in these decisions is a recogninon of the potennal effects st signifwers distances from the facibty of the accidental slease of fissioruble snaterials nmugh their j

zhance on this singular factor, these cases now stand for the general proposition that a peudoner hving j

within appmaimately Efty miles of a commercial power nactor will be considered to have the requisite injury in fact for standmg to contest a request for issuance of a facility construction permit, an operating t

license, or an amendment to such a pennit or license that has obvious and potendaDy wide-ranging offsite radiological consequences. See, e.g., Florida Ibwer & Light Ca (St incie Nuclear Ibwer Plant, Umts 1 and 2),(2J-B9 21,30 NRC 325,329 30 (1989); Gulf States Utilides Ca (River Bend Stadan, Uniu I and 2), AIAB-183,7 AEC 222,223 26 (1974).

K The Commission has made it cicar est the " fifty-mile" pusumptim utilized for commercial power reactois does not apply in materials licensing medans. Instead, a pennoner must show,in accordance with l

10 C.F.R. (11205(g), what panicular impaa the planned licensing action will have upon its leginmate (e g., heahh, safety, or envirmmemal) imermia. See 54 Fed. Reg. 8269, 8272 (1989). Therefore, to meet the burden of proving that it has the requisite injury in fact, a petidea in a mauzials licensing pmceeding 11 4

I i

)

l i

j I'

i l

I

i f

DIGESTS ISSUANCI'S OF Tile ATOMIC SMTTY AND LICFNSING BO ARDS must prtwide surt.e evidence of a causal link beween the distance it reaules imm the facihty and injury to us legidmase mierests.

L By its scrms. NEPA impoacs procedaral rather than substandvs cunstraints upon an agency's j

decisionmaking pmcess: he statute requires only that an agency undertake an appropriate assessrnent I

d the awunnmemal impacts of its ecuan without mandating that the agency mach any pardeular result l

concermng that scuan. See, e.g., Rubenson v. Methow Valley Ciurens Council,490 U.S. 332,350 (1989).

[

M The Supreme Court has recosmred that the proondural rights amorded a pesan by a statute such as NLPA are accorded *special" consideration when decidmg whether there has been injury in fact aganimg -

thoac rights. Injury in fact to those procedural rights can be successfully established with a less rigorous showing on the nnrmal injury in fact eternerus of redressabihty and immediacy. See Imjan,1191. Ed.

2d at 372 n.7 (person living near dam site may be able to challenge environmemalimpset statenern (EIS) alating to dam bcense even though unable to establish with certainry that the DS will cause Lcense to be withheld or ahered and despite the fact dam will not be completed for many years). This alaxadon does not, however, catend to the requirement that a petinoner must suffer some concrete injury from the proposed agmey action. which sdB must be shown span frorn any irnerest in having the proceduns observed. See id.

at 372 a.8, cf. Rancho Seco, CU-92-2,35 NRC at 6%1 (aBeged "mformadonal injury" is of "quesnanable value" as basas far standmg to chaDenge failure to prepare adeguate DS).

N Assummg that the Petstiones' claims regarding injury to econormc innerests (e.g., pmpany values, local taa revenues) as a resuh d licerned acuvines are cognizable in this proceeding, the Peudaners' formuladan of their concerns in terrns of undermed economic injury to the local community as a whole fails to address the quesdon most relevara to their standing to panicipate,i.e., what is the ecmamic injury cada of them would suffer.

O If a hearing petitianer docs not request permission to intervene in a proceedmg as a matter of Ascreuen, see Fehble Springs, CU-76-27,4 NRC at 61417,it is not nemssary to determine whether it could be afforded sudt imervendon.

i LBP-93-5 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. et al. (Vogtle Elecuic Generating Plara, Units I and 2), Docket Nos 50-424-01A-3,50-425-OIA-3 (AS2P No. 93-671-01-OLA-3) (Re: Ucenac Amendmern)(Transfer -

l to Southcrn Nuclear); OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMIAT; February 18. 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Admining a Pany)

A The licensmg Bosnt grams the intervention peutian of a perset who lives 7 days per mmth in a house located 35 rniles from a nuclear power plant in a license amedmcra case. Licensee sought through the amedman to transfer operanng suiharity over its plant to a new operating campany. Petitioner alleged that the new operating company lacked the characts and campetmce to operate the planL 4

B licensee and the Staff argued that rehef could not be gramed because deial of the mquested l

amendrnern would not solve the alleged problem, which relates to individuals involved both in the new I

operating company and m the pnscru company. %c Board reasoned that standmg can be based on alleging that the transfer of operaung authority would violate regulatory tequirements for character and competence of operaton of nuclear power plams, and h also ruled that standmg to imervene cannat be desuoyed because the alleged problem may also affect the currera cperadons of the plant.

C in a license amendment case mvolvmg allegations of managernera's 1sdt of the aquimd character and enmpetence, there is an obvious potenual for offsite consequences, so standing is analogous to that m an operanna license case. Flanda Power & light Co. (St. I.aacie Nuclear Power Plata, Units 1 ani 2),

CU.89-21,30 NRC 325 (1989).

D in a license amendmmt case involving aDeganons of the unfitness of management, there is an obvious pmendal for offaite consequences, so standing is analogous to that in an operaung license case.

Florida Power & light Co. (SL Imcae Nuclear hwer Plara, Units 1 and 2), CU-89-21,30 NRC 325 (1989).

Consequeuly, standing was gramed to a petidoner wholived 35 miles from the nuclear power giant for 7 l

days par momh.

l E

The licerse to operaie a nuclear power pinrn may only be tansferred to a company that has the i

newssary d.aracter and cranpetence to prtwide an adequate assurance of safety through its unanagernera praedces.

l 12 i

i DIGESTS ISSUANCI;S OF Tile ATOMIC S AllTY AND IJMNSING BOARDS I

F A contenuun was adnuued that alleged that a bmnsed operatur of a nuclear power plant had impmpurly abensted conuul d its plars without wnnen appnwalimm the NRC. De Duard said that dus might adversely seflect an dw character and competence of the indwiduals who tod contral of the plam.

l 0

A contenuan may be admined to the procee&ng in sausfaenna d the contennons requirement if it alleges adverse facu, not included in the amendment apphcanun, that would emitle petinaner to nebef.

l 1.BP-93 6 ONCOIDGY SIMi&S CORPORA 110N, Do6ia No. 03431765.EA (ASIEP No. 9347443-1.A) (EA 93406) (Order Suspendmg Bypmduct Mater el license No. 37-28540-01); ENIORCEMEST

[

AC110N; Mant 26,1993, MEMORANDUM AND ORDEk Sranting in Part NRC Staff Monon to Delay Proceedmg; Requinng Submissim of Staff Status Report and Janc Prehearing F, ant)

A la inspese to an NRC Staff mana for a 120-day delay m conducting a scense suspension Iwucceding, the licensmg Basrd ordens discovery stayed for the requested penud.

B in determinmg whether to delay the conduct of an enforcement learing pursuaa to 10 Cf.R.

3 62.202(cX2)(ii), the appmpriate focus fa the required " good cause" determinsnan is the guidelines set l

fonh by the Supreme Coun in United States v. Eight housand Eight llundet and fifty D dlars (55,850)in i

United State Cunency,461 U.S. 555 (1953). As described by the Coun, this test "mvalves a weighing of

(

four facioss: Icogth d delay, the inason for the delay, the defmdant's assernan of his right, and prejud ce to the defendars." Id. at 564.

C The first two delay factors -length d the delay and the reason for the delay - are clusc3y scisted. -

As the Court poimed out in 58,850, shon delays need less jusufcation than long delays. See id, at 565.

D The tasue of "pmhaMe cause" is a relevant factor in considering a Ecensee's assernon under 10 CJ.R. 62.202(cX2)(i) that there as not sufficient evidence to support the imme&ste effecnveness d a Siaff enforcement order. See 57 Fed. Reg. 20,194, 20,196 (1992). Clearly, however, in determinmg whether there are adequate gmunds for segulatey acum, a Ixensmg Board is not called upon to assess a heensee's pmenual enmmal culpability relanng to that action. By the same taken, the llaard's responsibility undes secuan 2.202(cX2Xii) to determine whether a delay in an enforcernent proceeding is appnrpriate does na carry with it the sesponsibility to render an indepmdet judgment about the "prubable cause" far any crmunal pmceedmg put farth as a besia for that delay. nus, accdon 2.202(cX2Xii) does not sancton such a Board "pmtuble cause" evabation.

E Relative to the thud delay factor - the licensee's assernon of its right to a hearing - notwith-stan&ng an earher failure to challenge the basis for the immediate efYecuveness of a Staff suspensum order, a hcensee's vigamus prmest about any delay in a pmocedmg puts this element on the Econsee's aide of the balanu.

F The fmal componet d de balancmg process -injury to the beensee - can be defmed to l

l enmmpass nra only injury to the licensee, but harm to mhers that it asserts will be affected by the delay.

O A liansing Board must heed the Commission's admorunan to momia any delay in an enfacement pnx4edmg to ensure that " good cause" for the delay continues to esist. See 57 Fed. Reg. at 20,197. This sequienent is a mogmnan that,Imn the tame an ader is first emered grunnng an enforcement hearing delay request, the balance then in favor of delay begms an inesorable revenal until, at some point, the l

balance will tih in favar d somg forward with the adnunistranvc heanng It is the Board's duty to ascertain, as precisely as in can, when the balance swings in favor d going forward with the pr-%g.

II The Commission's statement d considerauons regardmg the ador an of to Cf.R. I 2.2n2(c)(2)(ii) n does not suggest that any disuncnan between state and federal enminal proceedings is televara in terms d l

a " good cause" determmanon to delay an enforcement heanng. See 57 Fed. Reg. at 20,197.

13 l

i i

.I

l l

l l

1 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRI:CTORS' DEC15 ION DD-93-1 1TXAS L'fIUTIES EIFrIRIC COMPAST, et al. (Cumanche 1%ak Steam Doctnc Sta6an, Unita

• 1 and 2), Docket Ncs. 54445, 50444 REQUEST IOR ACTION; January 15, 1993; DIRECT. OR*S DicSION UNDER 10 CF.R. I2.206 A

The Direciar of the OfLee of Nuclear Reactor Reguladan denies a petition filed by Muhael D.

Kahn on behalf of the NadmalWhistleblowers Center and certain confidandal aDegers.1he Ibtition alleged that: (1) Teams Unhtia Doctric Company (TUEC or Licensee) made material falso s.atements befse ihe Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) dunng hearings on 1UEC's applica6on im an operaung hcense i

in order to conceal significam safety flaws in the design for pape support systems at Cumanche Peak Sicam Denne Station (CPSES); namely, that in violadan of 10 CE.R. IMt 50, Arpendia B. TUEC transferred pipe suppet packages for review and certification between pipe support design gmups that used different, muhiple design entena; (2) TUEC's matenal false statemems delayed constructimi d CPSES Unit 1 and thus I

wene germane to a caramdan in a related proceeding that 1UEC had intenunnally delayed construenan of l

CPSES Urtit 1; (3)1UEC, Citizes Association for Sound Energy (CASE), and the NRC Staff deliberatcJy withheld informadan from the ASLB about tha transfer of pipe support reviews between pipe support design smups; and (4)1UEC anployees raponsible for making maienal falac statemenia to the NRC connnue to perform cntical engmeering and quality assurana taska at CPSES. Penuoners sequested that the NRC provide the following schef: (1) hold lxesing heanngs to daernune whether the Licermee has the requiante character and competence to operate a melear power facihty; (2) fmc and otherwise penalize TUEC inr making material false staianatta to the NRC: (3)investignie whether the NRC Staff krrw of TLTC's alleged matenal falso staurnema and failed to act on sud knowledge; and (4) determine which high level managers wre responsible for TLTC's makes material fahe statemema, and ban such persma from all Econsed nuclear facilines.

l DD 93-2 TEXAS UTI!JIIES ElIf!RIC COMPANT, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Doctric Station, Unit 1). Docket Na 54445; REQUEST 10R ACTION; January 15,1993, DIR!ff0R*S DECISION UNDER 10 CE.R. 5 2.206 A

1he Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulanun cmcludes that a petition filed by Sandra l

Img Dow and Richard E Dow rained no substantial heahh or safety con =rn to callinto questian the corunued safe operation of Cumande Peak Sicam Doctric Stanon (CPSES) and, therefore, dcnies the paitinet in a Motion to Roopen the Record f. led by Persners in the CPSES operanns hcense proceeding for Units 1 and 2, Petitiones alleged that Texas U.ilitia Dectnc Company (IUEC or Licensec) sepeatedly made false and misleading statements to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) regarding the pipe suppois design process at CPSES, and that the ASIE relied on this falac information when h issued an operating hoense for Unit 1.

l DD-93-3 1T.XAS UT11Jf1ES E11CIRIC COMPANT (Cumanche 1%ak Steam Dectnc Sts6an, Units 1 i

and 2). Docket Nos. 50445,54446; CAROLINA POWER AND UGiff COMPANT (Brunswick Station.

Units 1 and 2), Dudes Nos. 50 324,54325; CAROUNA POwTR AND UGirr COMPANT (Sherron llama Nuclear Power Plant). Docka No. 544R DETROIT EDISON COMPAST, a al. (Enrico Fmni Aunnie Power Plant, Unit 2), Docket Na 54541; WASIIINGTON ITBUC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS Nuclear Projea Na 2), Docket Na 54397; GUIT STATES L'IIIIIILS COMPANT (River Bend l

Station,Umt 1), Docket Na SM58; REQUEST JOR ACTION; Pobruary 1,1993. PARTIAL DIRECIOR'S i

DEC2SION UNDER 10 CE.R. 6 2.206

)

IS i

I l

i i

l

1 l

l i

DIGESTS ISSOANCF.S OF DIRFCTORS' DECISIONS A

By a peuum dated July 21,1992, the Nuclear Informadan and Resource Service and others l

j (Peuuoners) requested pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.206 that the U.S. Nuclear Regulaiory Comnussion (NTC) take enforcemers actions in light of fire bamer test failuns. bre bamers are generally requimd at operating commercial nuclear power plams by the NRC's ngulataans or facility license enn& dons. Peudoners submined addtuonal fihngs an August 12,1992, September 3.1992, and Demmber 15.1992. Specifically, huuar.ers requested that the NRC Staff issue, by September 5,1992, Gmeric Imter (GL) 92.XX whidt had been cirulated for public comment on February ll,1902, and which A=-~I teat results and recommended actions regarding Thermo4mg 3341 fire barrier material. Paineers also requested that the NRC close nuclear power plams that cannot prove through independent tesdng that they meet NRC fire bemer requirements and that the NRC issue a stopwork order regarding the instaustion of fire barrier material at Comanche Peak Steam Elecuic Station (CPSES)

B On February 1,1993, the Directar d the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulade issued a Pardal Duector's Decisian that grarned in part and denied in past the relief sought by Pentimes.

C To the essent hudaners sought issuance of the Generic later, relief was granted. On December 17, 1992,the NRC Staff issued GL 92-08,"Dicrmertag 3341 Fire Barriers? Wah agard to the other I

requesis, relsef was denied. Specificany, far operating facihdes, the Duector concluded that fire watches pernuned by the NRC nquuements apphcable to the facihties in quesdon provided reasanabic assurance d adequate pnnecdon of public heahh and safery. As for stopping work at CPSES Unit 2, the Director l

concluded that the Limnsee proceeded at its own risk dunng the construcuan phase and that the NRC Staff would evaluate the safety issues associated with installation of herinadag matmal at the operstmg licmse stage.

D issues raised by Peudanes in their December 15,1992 submittal were not considered in the Partial Duector's Decisim, but will be conssdered in a Final Dunctor's Decision.

DD-934 FLORIDA POWER AND11GHT COMPANY, et alJfurkey Pmnt Nucicar Generanng Plara, Uruts 3 and 4), Docket Nos. 54250,54251 (License Nos. DPR-31, DPR41); REQUEST FOR AC110N; March 23,1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION L'NDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 A

he Direciar of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Reguladan denies a paidan filed by Mr. James A. Riccio on behalf of Public Citizen, Greer pcace, Nuclear Informada & Resource Service, and the Safe Energy Cmununicadon Council (Pastioners). Peudoners requested that the NRC issue an order to show cause to the Florida Power & Light Company (licensee) as to why the Turkey Poira Nuclear Unis should not remain clased or have its operaung license suspended by the NRC unless and undl such time as the Licensee demonstrates full compliance with the NRC's emergency planning regulations. As bases

[

for this mquest, Petiuoners eUeged a number of deficiencies regar&ng emergency planning at the Turkey Pbint Umts as a resuh of the effects of Ilumcane Andrew. Deficiencies were alleged in ce fouowing neuf.cadon dunng an accident, notificadan of persons with special needs, evacuada plans, and amas:

coordinadan between the Licensee and federal, state, and local agencies. Petiuoner also aDeged that the NRC aHowed the Licensee to restant the reactor without any coordinadon, advanz nonce, or request that IEMA confirm offsite capabilities.

DD 93-5 C1MELAND 11 ECTR]C IILUMINA11NG COMPANY et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit

1) Docket Not 54440 (License No. NPF-58); REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 28,1993; DIRECTOR'S 1

DECISION UNDER 10 CER i 2.206 A

he Duector of die Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a peudon filed by the Lake County Board of M-" (Pentioners). Specifically, the passion aneged that the temporary storage oflow-level radionedve waste at the Perry Nuclear Power Piara will have in be extended beyond the currera 5-year limit for temporary storage, necessitanng the need for an envimnmental impset statement and a public heanng; the risk of storing low-level radioactive waste on site was nut envisioned in the wiginal ermronmernal impact statement; and the construction d a saomge facility is a fundamental change in the garanns license of the plant and a enore sigruficant change than andeipnted by the 10 C.F.R. 550.59 pr-+Anm. Putinaners requestad that the Commission take action so that (1) a public hearing is held prior to censuucuan of an maite, low-level radioactive waste storage facility at the Perry Nuclear Poect Plant and (2) the consuuction d the storage facility is suspended until M Ae NRC or the licensee produces an envunnmernal impact statemera on the risks due to onsite s%ge of low.ievel ra&oacdve waste and (b) the NRC prornu1 gates regulations regar&ng storage oflow,4evel radioactive e antes at nuclear power plant slics.

16

i r

?

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRFCTORS' DIT1510NS i

e DD-93 6 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, et al. -(linrico Fermi Ausnic lbwer 1%nt. Unit 2). Dociet No.

50 34I; REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 31,1993; DIRECTOR'S DIIISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 A

The Duector Offios of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, denies a Petinan filed gumuarn to 10 C.F.R. 52206 by Robert Karalewitr aquesting that action be taken with agard to the Detroit Edison Company's (DECO's) Fermi 2 nuclear plara. De Pentioner sequested that the Fermi-2 operndng hcense be auspended i

until certain security supervises at Fermi-2 had been replaced. As bases for that request, the Peutioner j

assened that certain Fermi 2 Security Depanment supervtsors lied and sobrniusd falsified documerna 50 the NRC, and that they engaged in a conspiracy to ievoke the Petinoner's access to the prtmected area at Fermi.

The masons for the dernal are fully set forth in the Decision.

B 1he irentia-m of proceedings pursuarn to 10 C.FA 5 2.202 is appropriate only where substamial health and safery issues have been raised.

I E

t 5

17 t

I l

l l

l l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASI3 A.1 Mecklu:g Barge Lines, Inc. v. Umted States, 368 U.S. 324,329 (1961)

' acauan d decision below when a pmceedmg becomes moat; C1J-93-10,37 NRC 205 (1993) v Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. (One Faaary Row, Goneva, Ohio 44041), A11874,25 NRC $65, 870-71 (1987) challenge to stay monons, based on faded memories or unavailable witnesses or docum,nts; I

IJIP-934,37 NRC 220 n.51 (1993)

Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Itawunh, 300 U.S. 227, 241 (1937) i case or controversy standard for mootness; CIJ-93-10,37 NRC 200 (1993)

Air line IWis Associanan Int'l v. UAL Corp., 897 F.2d 1394,1396 (7th Cir.1990) l test for mootness; C13-93-10,37 NRC 200 (1993)

I Alien v. Wnght, 468 U.S. 737, 758 (1984) estabhshment d causadon and redressabilny when a peddoner as chilenging Icgsli:y of government regulation of someone else; IEP-93-4,37 NRC 81 n.20 (1993)

Armed krces Radiobsology Research Institute (Cobsit40 Storage ficility), ALAB-682,16 NRC 150, I

153-55 (1982) geographic prcaimity as basis for standmg to intervene in materials licensing acums; LDP-93-4, 37 NRC 84 n.28 (1993) l 11 & B Chenucal Co. v. LPA, 806 F.2d 987,990 (11th Gr.1986) 1xWs claim of future adverse efects as basis inr overouming board's findmg of moniness; C1193-8,37 NRC 166 (1993)

Barker v. Wango,407 U.S. 514 (1972) test for stay of enicscement acuan; LDP-93-6,37 NRC 214 (1993) flosion Edason Co. (Pilgnm Nacicar Power Station), IllP-85-24,22 NRC 97,98-99 (1985), aff*d on other gmunds, ALAB-816,22 NRC 461 (1985)

I geographic prosimity as basis for standmg to intervene in operating license amendment proccedmgs; i

IEP-93-5,37 NRC 106 (1993)

Brooks v. Atomic Energy Commission,476 F.2d 924, 925,928 (D C. Cir.1973) effect of construction permit estension nquest on status of permit, C1193-10,37 NRC 202 n.40, 203 (1993)

Carolina Power and Light Co. (Sheare 11arris Nucicar Plant Units 1 and 2), IEP-84-7,19 NRC 432, 438 (1984) unreliability of testimony of espen witness as basis for summary disposmon; LDP-93-4,37 NRC 88 n.47 (1993)

Camlina Power and Light Co. (Shearon llarns Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), IJIP-82-119A,16 NRC 2069,2112 (1982) nquiremems for service d documems un intervenars; C1J-93 3,37 NRC 153 n.47 r1993)

Camhna Power and Light Co. (Shearon llarris Nuclear Power Plant, Units I,2,3, and 4), ALAB-184,7 j

AEC 229,237 (1974) requiremems for service of documents en imervenors; C12-93-3,37 NRC 153 n.47 (1993) y Center for Science in the Pubhe Imerest v, Regan, 727 F.2d 1161,1170 (D.C. Cir.1984) i applicability of mootness when an agency's order no longer has effnet; CLI-93-8,37 NRC 185 l

(1993) 1 3

I 19 g

1 f

l 4

1 i.-_.,_,_

e i

\\

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX cAsrs Guns Against Burhngtm, Inc. v. Busey,938 F.2d 190,195 (D.C Cir.), cen. denied,112 S. CL 616 f

0 991) cmsiders6an of alternadves to decaramassonmg: C1J-93-3,37 NRC 143 n.19,144 n.24 0993)

[

Otinns Associauan for Saund Energy v. NRC,821 F.2d 725,731 (DC Car.1988) effect of consuucuan permit euension roguem on status of permit; CL1-9110,37 NRC 202 a40 0 993)

Otares for lisir Udiny Regulation v. NRC, 898 F.2d 51 (5th Cir.), art. 'demed 111 S. CL 246 0990) failure to meet cnteria for laic interversion; C11934,37 NRC 159 0993)

Cny of Angnan v. Iludel, 803 F.2d 1016,102422 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam), cert. Annd,484 U.S.

i 870 0 987) consider:6an of ahernauves to decernmissioning; C1193-3,37 NRC 143 n.19 0993)

City of Ims Angeles v. Nanmal 111ghway Traffic Safety Administradan,912 F.2d 478,495 (i.;.C Or.

I 1990) (citsuans omiued), cent denied 117 L. Ed. 2d 460 0992).

merits determmanons when assesung injury in fact; LBP-934,37 NRC 82 0993) -

Ocveland Electric illuminuung Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), LBP-924,35 NRC 114,121 0 992) showmg -ry to estabish injury in fact for standing to intervene; ISP-934,37 NRC 810993)

)

Oeveland Doctnc Illuminatmg Ca (Perry Nuc1 car Power Plant, Units I and 2), IEP-8247,16 NRC 734, 736 0 982) supplementauan of discovery responses; 1BP-913,37 NRC 65 0993)

Comminee for Open Media v. FCC,543 F.2d 861,86748 (D.C Cir.1976) l spplianon of nmely senewat doctrine in NRC psMngs; C119110,37 NRC 202 n.39 0993).

[

Commnnweahh Edson Ca (Byron Stanon Units I and 2) DR81-5,13 NRC 728,7310981)

[

risk to licensee in consuucung naclear power plams; DD.913,37 NRC 132-33 0993)

OmnAire, Inc. v. U.S. Depenment of Trampmation, 887 F.2d 723 (6th Cir.1989) circumstanas in whidi mootness excepdon is applied, CL1-93-8,37 NRC 187 (1993)

Consolidated Edison Co. of New Yod Ondian Point Units 1,2, and 3), C1175 8, 2 NRC 173,175-76 l

0 975) l standard for insutution of show-cause groceedmgs; DD-93-1,37 NRC 50 (1993); DD-93-2, 37 NRC

. j 54 0993); D&93 3,37 NRC 133 0993); DD934,37 NRC 236 (1993) DD-93-5,37 NRC 244 0993); D&93-6,37 NRC 248 0993)

Consumers Ibwer Ca (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-1M,6 AEC 182,184 0973) i inigability of implememadon of maintenance and surveillanw pmgrams in operaung licer,se extermian pmccedmg; ISP-931,37 NRC 19 (1993)

I Consumers Ibwer Ca (hMand Plant, Units 1 and 2), C1174-3,7 AEC 7 0974) immed2 ate suspension of safety-related wod without pnor wrineo amice; DD-93-3,37 NRC 132

)

0993)

Consumers Ibwer Co. (hMand Plant, Units 1 and 2), LDP-78-27, 8 NRC 275, 277 n.10978) ments-type evaluanun of sufficiency of pennoners' factual bases for clains of standmg: LEP-914,37 j

NRC 83 0993)

Consumers Ibwer Co. (Palisado Nuclear Power fincihty), CLI 82-18,16 NRC 50,51 (1982) vaca6m of decisim below when a pmceeding becomes moat; C119310,37 NRC 205 0993)

Comty of Los Angchs v. Davis,440 U.S. 625,631 (1979) defintuan of mootness"; CIL93-5,37 NRC 185 0993); C119110,37 NRC 200 (1993) -

Cuomo v. NRC,772 F.2d 972 (D.C Cir.1985) risis of low-power operanon; C1J 93 2,37 NRC 59 n3 0993)

Deuat FAsan Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-7M,16 NRC 1760,176445 0 982) inftsmation availabic 6 momhs prior to filing of imervendon peunon as good cause for late fding; j

CU-93-4,37 NRC 164 0993)

Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), A1AB487,16 NRC 460. 458 0982), vacated j

in part on other gmunds, C1183-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983) 20

.-9 r

LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASf3 respmmihibucs d parues to esamme pubhcly availabic discuments that emld acrve as a foundade for comenuarm; CU 93 3, J7 NRC 147 n 30 (1903); WiP-93-1,37 NRC 22 n.29 0993)

Duke Nwer Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stadm, Umts I and 2), GJ-83-19,17 NRC 10:1 0983), afrd sub mrn. Urnan of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 920 F.2d 50 (D C. Cir.1990) deferral of fdmg comendons until Staff has inu4 envuonmenLal and safety KvmW documents; GJ-93-3,37 NRC 154 0993)

Duke Power Co. (IVrime Nuclear Stauon, Units 1,2, a.4 3), ALAB 431,6 NRC 460,462 (1977) showing necessary on other factors where good cause N late ftimg is nas shown; QJ 93-4, 37 NRC 165 (1993)

Duke Ptmer Co. (Wilham B. McGuire Nuc1 car Stadon, Umts 1 and 2), AIAB 143,6 AFf 623,625 0973) mapmsibihty of panics to reveal relevara informaum m their possession; LDP-93-1,37 NRC 22 n.29 0 993) rempormihihty of Staff and beensee to inform board and intervenor of significarn new information; CU-93-5,37 NRC 170 (1993)

Duke Ibwer Co. (Wi" sam B. McGuue Nuclear Stauon, Units 1 and 2), AIAB-143, 6 ALC 623, 626 0 973) ubhgauan of parues to inform board of relevant and material new mformadon; CU-9F3,37 NRC 153 0 993)

Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valicy Power Stadm Unit 2). LDP 84-6,19 NRC 393,412 (1984) sempansib'hty of pardes to examine pubhcly availabic documentary natenal; IJIP-93-1,37 NRC 22 n.29 0993)

Iair v. LPA,795 F.2d 851, 854 $5 (9th Cir.1986) mootness of cmstruenon permit extension procteding because of compledon of construcuon; OJ-9110, 37 NRC 200 0993)

ICC v. WOKO,329 U.S. 223 (1946) demal of license appbcauons because of material false statements; ISP 93-5, 37 NRC 101 n 13 l

0 093) i Fewell Gecacchnical Engmeenng, Ltd. (Dunnas E. Murray, Radiographer), CU 92-5, 35 NRC 83, 84 0 992) vacauon of decisim below when a proceeding becomes moat; Clj 93-10,37 NRC 205 0993) 11ast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94 (1968) denvauon of moomess doctrme, CU 93-8,37 NRC 185 (1993) llanda Nwer and Light Co. (St. Luce Nuclear ibwer Plant Uruis 1 and 2), CU-89-21,30 NRC 325 0 989) geographic proximity as basis for standing to miervene in operstmg hcerme amendment proceedmgs; UtP 93-5,37 NRC 106 0993) residence requirements for operstmg license extensmn proceedmgs; UIP-93-1,37 NRC 10 (1993) lionda Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Ibwer Piant, Units 1 and 2), ClJ-89-21,30 NRC 325, 329-30 0 989) geo&raphic proxinuty as basis for standmg to imervene; IJ1P-93-4, 37 NRC 83 0 993)

Flonda Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Genera 6ng Plam, Umts 3 and 4), QJ-91-5,33 NRC 238, 240 4 1 (1991) damissal of appeal for fauure to ftle supporting bnef; QJ 93-10, 37 NkC 198 (1993) 11onda Power and 12ght Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Gencrutmg Plant, Units 3 and 4), QJ 91-13,34 NRC 185, 188 (1991)

Commission discre6anary authonty to hold heanngs and pernut par 6cipadon in proceedmgs; GJ-93-3,37 NRC 1410993)

Friends of Keeseville, Inc. v.17 RC, 859 F.2d 30, 234 (D C. Car.1988) licensee's cLsirn of fuuae adverse cHects as basis far overexwnmg board's findmg of montness; QJ-93-8,37 NRC 186 0993) 21 l

I l

[

r l

l l

I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX cAsrs 2

Fnends d Kecseville, Inc. v. IliRC, 859 F.2d 230, 234, 217 (D.C. Cir.1988) l posaihility of future action of heensee as basis for manusess cacepdon; CU 93-8,37 NRC 188

{

0993)

I Georgia hw Co. (Vogtle I'lecinc Generating Plant, Uruts 1 and 2), AIAB-859, 25 NRC 23 0957)

[

junsd cnon over issus when appeals are pendmg; CU-93-8, 37 NRC 185 n.3 0993) -

Georgia hw Co. (Vogtle Dettnc Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CU-92-3, 35 h1C 63,66 0992) need it.c appellate bnefs; CU-93-10,37 NRC 198 (1993).

Georgia Ibwer Co. (Vogde Electne Generating Plant, Unita 1 and 2), CU-92-3,35 NRC 63,67 0992) -

coment d appellate briefs; CU-93-10,37 NRC 198 (1993)

Gowenunent of Virgin Islands v. Gereau,523 F.2d 140,147 Od Cir.1975), cert. denied,424 U.S. 917 (1976) maners of whidi the Commission rnay take of6cial naice; CU-93-3,37 NRC 147 n.30 (1993)

{

Gulf States Utilinea Co. (River Bend Stanon Unita 1 and 2), ALAB-183,7 AEC 222,223-26 0974) l geographic proximity as basis for standing to imervene; LDP-93-4,37 NRC 83 0993) 11eckler v. Geney,470 U.S. 8210985) -

l Commission authority to review Staff deciaim to take m.orsement acnon; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 18 l

0 9931 I

IIxkman v. Taylor,329 U.S. 495,511 0947).

auerney work produa cited as basis for nefusal to answer imerrogatories; LBP-93-3,37 NRC 67 0 993) j lloustan 1.ighUng and Power Co. (South Texas Projeu, Units 1 and 2), CU-8(k32,12 NRC 281, D1 i

0 980)

Commissiori authonty to consider applicant or licensee character in Lcensing decisions; ISP-93 5,37 NRC 101 (1993) flouston Lighnns and Power Ca (South Texas Project, Unita 3 and 2), WIP-79-10, 9 NRC 439,44748 0979), aff*d, AIAB-549,9 NRC 644 0979)

{

demonstranan of mjury in fact for standing to intervene in operstmg Lcense catension proceedmg; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 110993)

Iloustan 1.ighnng and Power Ca (South Teams Project Units 1 and 2), UiP-8413,19 NRC 659, 673 79 0 984)

Commissian authonty to consider applicant or 1mermee character in licensing decisions; IEP.93-5,37 l

l NRC 1010993) l hacph 1. Mack,al, CU-89-12, 30 NRC 19, 23 n 1 0 989) jusuficanon sequired in requat for eral argumem; CU-93-2,37 NRC 59 n.4 0993)

Kerr-McGee Chemical Cup. (West Oicago Raiz Earths licihiy), CU-82--2,15 NRC 232, 269 0982),

aff'd sub anm. City of West Chicago v. NRC,701 F.2d 632 pih Cir.1983)

NRC jurisdiction over manradiological cantammadan; 1EP-934,37 NRC 92 n.57 0993)

Kerr-McGee Chemical Cmp. (West Oicago Rue Earths facility), IEP-864,23 NRC 75, 82 (1986) l burden on party who socis to apply auorney work product pnvilege; IEP-93 3,37 NRC 69 (1993)

Leflore Bmadcacmg Co. v. TCC,636 F.2d 454 (D C, Cir.1980) dmial of license aghcanons because of material false statements; 1EP-93 5,37 NRC 101 n.13 0993) las Island lightmg Co. Gamesport Nuclear Power Stanan, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-292,2 NRC 631, 65(L510975) l paendal fm delay of proceedmg where laie intervennon peu6m is filed after issuance of low-power license; CU-93-4,37 NRC 167 (1993)

{

Img Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuc1 car Power Stanon Unit 1), AIAB-903,28 NRC 499,505 0 988) i enmpmeras of fundamental flaw in an emergency preparedness plan; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 32 0993) l Img Island Lighnng Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CU-86-11,23 NRC 577,5810986) fundamemal Asw sandard for determining adequacy of emergency preparedness caercaes; LDP-93-1, 37 NRC 32 0993) i l

+

)

22 i

j l

4

j i

l 1

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX 1

C El'S s

Img Island 1.ighnng Co. (Shnreham Nuclear Power Stanon. Unit 1), IEP4242,16 NRC 1144,1159-62 (1982) use of judicial interpmadon of federal rule as gtudence far interpretanon of analognus NRC rule, IEP-913,37 NRC 68 (1993)

Lujan v. Defenders d Wildhfe,1191. Ld. 2d 351, 364 (1992) showing necenaary to establish injury in fact for standmg to miervene; LBP-93-4,37 NRC 81,82 l

(1993) i Mame Yankee Atorruc Pomer Co (Mame Yankee Atums Nwer Station) ALAll 161,6 AIC 10(D (1973) compliance wah NRC regulauans as a prerequisite to safe opersdon of a nuclear power plant; s

DR93-3,37 NRC 121 (1993)

Metropolitan Edison Co- (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon Unit 1), A1AB.772,19 h7C 1193,120608 (1984); CU45-9,21 NRC 1118,113637 (1985)

Commissma suthority to consider applicant a Lcensee characia in licensing decisions; ISP-915,37 NRC 101 (1993)

Mississippi Ptwer and light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stadnu, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704,16 h1C 1725, 1727 n2 (1982)

{

effect of low-power licanae issuance on late intervennun: CU-93-4,37 NRC 160 (1993)

Murphy v. Ilunt,455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982)

~

dermitaan d "mocaness"; C1J-93-10,37 NRC 200 (1993) j Natural Reseurces Dciense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 21314 (D.C. Ctr.1988) appbconon d amwly senewat doctrme in NRC pre ~e4gs; CLI-93-lo,37 NRC 202 n.39 (1993)

Nonh Carulma w Ric.c. 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971) test for mootnoss; C1193-10,37 NRC 200 (1993)

Northessi Nuclear Energy Co. (Millstane Nuclear hwer Station, Unii 2), ISP-92-28, 36 NRC 202, 203,

['

208-11 (1992) admissihihty of contemiens addrnssmg amendments that would make operation safer, ISP-93 5,37 j

NRC 108 (1993) i Nonheast Nucicar Energy Co. (Mamagne Nuclear Nwer Stanon. Umts I and 2), ISP-75-19, I h7C 436, 437 (1975) responsihihty no inform panics af communicanons between Staff and licensee; CU 93-5,37 NRC 170 (1993)

Nonhern Indiana I%lic Servwe Co. (Bailly Genera:mg Stanon, Nuclear-1), ALAB.619,12 NRC 558,564 l

(1980) residence requuunents for operating license catension proceedmgs; 1EP-93-1,37 NRC 12 (1993) i Nonhern States Ibwer Co. (Prairic Island Nuclear Generadng Plant Units 1 and 2). A1AB-455,7 NRC 41, 54 (1978), remanded an other grounds sub nom. Mmnesota v. NRC,602 F.2d 412 (D C, Cir.1979)

]

applicabihty of " cane er controversy" sequirement in NRC proceedings; CW-9310,37 NRC 200 n.28 i

(1993) l spphcability of moouwsa doctrine in NRC proceedmas; CU-934,37 NRC 185 (1993)

NRIX' v. Callaway,524 F.2d 79, 92 (2d Car.1975)

I resumed operanon as an ahernadve to decommissianmg; CW-93-3,37 NRC 144 n.23 (1993)

Nuclear Information Resaun:e Service v. NRC,969 F 2d 1169 (1992) rev' wahility d onicacernent acdons tmder Part 52; LBP 931,37 NRC 18 n.22 (1993) w Pacific Gas and Doctric Co. (Diablo Canyan Nuclear Power Plara, Units 1 and 2), CU44-12,20 NRC 249 (1984); CU44-13,20 NRC 267 (1984) lingsbilny of effects of sinnaltaneous plant accident and canhquake; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 34 (1993) j Pacific Gas and Doctric Ca (Diablo Canyan Nuclear Power P! ant Uniu I and 2),IEP-92-27,36 NRC 1 % (1992) prerequisites to achieving party status; LDP 93-5,37 NRC 106 (1993) i Paci6c Gas and Dectric Ca (Stanislaus Nuclear Project. Unit I), CU42 5,15 NRC 404,405 (1982) unstment d annmncement of withdrawal of applicane as request for permission to withdraw l

spplicadon, CU-93-7,37 NRC 179 (1993) 23 i

1 J

t

-m

,-----s e

- I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASFS

+

i

[

Pmnell v. City of San Jane,485 U.S.1,7 0988)

I weight given to petiuoner's factual asacrtions when assmaing injury in fact. LBP-93 4, 37 NRC I2 l

0 993) l Painm far I:mergency and Remedial Acuan, CIJ-78-6,7 NRC 400,4210978) defense-in-depth concept for consuucuan of nuclear power plants: DDL93-3,37 NRC 118 (199E)

{

Philadclphia Doctra Cu (limench Gener:6ng Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB.765,19 NRC (A5, UG57 l

0 984)

Y obligauan of perues to infann teard of relevanL and material new informadon: C1J-93-3,37 NRC l

153 (1993)

Philadelphia Doctric Ca (Peach Battam Atomic lbwer Stanon, Unita I and 2), IEP-75-22,1 NRC 451, 454-55 (1975) l seliance on parscipation in anothr. proceedmg to demonstrate standmg to intervene; QJ-93-4,37 NRC 163 0993)

P.auand General l'.lecisic Co. 0%bble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),03-7627,4 NRC 610, 613 14 0 976) l applicadan of judicial wicepts of standing in NRC pmceedmss; LBP-93-4,37 NRC 80 (1993) 1%nland General Doctnc Ca (1%bble Springa Nucimr Plant, Umia I and 2), CLJ-7627,4 NRC 610, 614-17 0 976)

Commission discrenunary authority to hold hearings and permit participadon in procendmgs; QJ-93-3,37 NRC 141 (1993)

Pnumer v. Newkirk,422 U.S. 395,4010975)

I case or mmtroversy standard for mootnas; QJ-93-10,37 NRC 200 0993)

Process Gas Consurners Group v. U.S. Depenment of Agriculune, 694 F.2d 728,769 (D.C. Cir.1981) range of shemadves so proposed sedan that must be considered; QJ-93-3,37 NRC 145 n.24 0993) l Public Service Ca of Indians (Marble 11111 Nuc1 car Genersung Stauon, Unita I and 2), CLI 80-10,11 i

NRC 438,442 (1980)

Commission dmcrenanary authority to hold hearings and permit par 6cipadun in proceedmgs; i

QJ-93-3,3~ NRC 1410993)

Public Servi e Ca of New Ilamphire (Scabmak Stauen, Unit 1), QJ-91-14, 34 NRC 261,26667 0991)

I prerequisites to schieving party status; LBP-93 5,37 NRC 106 0993) tats for standmg to imervene in construenan period recovery proceedms; LBP-93-1,37 A*RC 9 0 993)

Public Serviw Ca of New llamp6 hire (Seabmuk Station, Unit 1), QJ-9114, 34 NRC 261,26668 0991) denal of standmg where alleged irdury would not abase if d,allenged amendamni were denied; QJ 93-10,37 NRC 204 n.50 0993)

Pubbe Service Ca of New llamphare (Seabmak Stauan, Unit 2), QJ-844,19 NRC 975, 977 (1984) effect of construenon pennit extenswn request on construction ecsivines; QJ-93-10,37 NRC 202 0 993)

Pubhc Service Co. of New 11ampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), QJ-89-8, 29 NRC 399 (1989) l nsks of low-power operunan; QJ-93-2,37 NRC 59 n.3 0993)

Public Service Ca of New llampshire (Seabmak Stadun, Units 1 and 21, IEP 83-17,17 NRC 490, 493-94 (19E3) applicability of stiorney work pmdu t pnvilege to comenGon basia; LBP.93-3,37 NRC 69 (1993) l Public Service Ca of New llampshire (Scabmd Stanan, Units 1 and 2), IEP-83-17,17 NRC 490, 494-95 0 983) une of judicial interpreta6an of federal rule as guidance for imerpretanan of analognus NRC sule; IEP-93 3,37 NRC 68 0993)

Public Service Ca of New llampshire (Scabmak Station, Units 1 and 2), IEP-83-17,17 NRC 490,495 0 983) burden on pany assers.ng suarney work product privilege; IEP-93 3,37 NRC 69 0993)

Reeve Alcunan Airways, Inc. v. United States, 889 F.2d 1139,1143 (DC. Cir.1989) i neganve publicity as besu for overcanung board's fmdmg of nontness; QJ-93 5,37 NRC 187 0993) l 24 i

4-m

.gn a,

e

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CAM'S Rohenaun v. Mahow Vancy Quzens Council,490 U.S. 332,350 (1989) procedural constraints on agency doo smwking pmcess; UIP 934,37 NRC 93 (1993)

Roe v. Wade,410 U.S.113,125 (1973) sevww stages at which momness doctrine is appbcable; GJ 93-10,37 NRC 200 (1993)

$scrameme khmicipal Unhty Distnct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stanan), QJ.92 2,35 NRC 47,56 j

(1992) apphcanon d judicial concepts of standmg m NRC proceedmas; IJIP-93 4, 37 NRC 80 (1993)

Safety Light Corp. (Bloomsburg Sac Dcemamma6an and License Renewal Denial). CU-9213,36 NRC 79, 89-91 (1992) consohdanon of pmceedmgs involving substandally d,fferent facts; C1J-93-8,37 NRC 185 (1993)

San Luis Obispo Mo:hcrs for Peace v. NRC,751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir.1984), reh's gramed,760 F.2d 1320 (D.C. Gr.1985), aff'd,789 F.2d 26 (D.C. Gr.1986) h6sabihty of effects of semitaneous plant accident and canhquake; lalP-93-1,37 NRC 34 (1993)

Securities & linchange Carmussion v. Sloan,436 U.S.103,109 (1978) apphcability of mootness when an agency's order no larger has effect; QJ-93-8,37 NRC 185 (1993) heanng nghts where issues are moot; QJ-93-10,37 NRC 205 (1993)

Secunties & Lachange Commission v. Sloan,436 U.S.103,109-10 (1978) cucumstances m whida mootness cacepson is applied; CLI 93-8. 37 NRC 187 (1993)

Shelly v. NRC,651 F.2d 780,787 (D.C. Cir.1980), vacated and remanded,459 U.S.1194, vacated and l

remanded to the NRC as muot 706 F.2d 1229 (D.C. Gr.1983)

I heanng rights whem assues are moot; CU-93-10,37 NRC 205 (1993)

Sunan v.1; astern Kentucky Welfarc Rights Orgamzanon,426 U.S. 26,4445 (1976) l l

estabhshmem af causanon and redressabihty when a petinoner is chauenging legality of gmernrnent reculatim of samcone else; UIP-93-4,37 NRC 81 n.20 (1993)

Southern Pacific Termmal Ca v. Imerstate Commerce Comnussmn,219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911) apphcability of mootness when an agency's order no longer has c!Yuct; QJ-93-8,37 NRC 185 (1993) l cacer6on to moomens doctnne; CL1-93-10,37 NRC 205 (1993) f l

Tennessee Valley Authonty (Dmwns Ferry Nucicar Plant, Umts 1,2, and 3), ALAB-677,15 NRC 1387,

[

1394 (1982) l obliganon of parues to inform board of relevant and matenal new informadon; CU-93-3,37 NRC 153 (1993)

Temessee Valley Authonty (Waus Bar Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), Al.AB413,5 NRC 1418,1420 21 (1977)

Commissian discreuonary authonty to hold heanngs and permit parucipauun m pmmodings; CU-93-3,37 NRC 141 (1993)

Texas Udhues Uectnc Ca (Camanche Peak Sicam Doctnc Stauan, Unit 1), CU-864,23 NRC 113, l

117-18 (1986) l reasons for requiring specification of constmetum comple' inn dates; CU-93-10,37 AVC 201 n.34 i

(1993)

Texas Udlines Doctnc Ca (Camanche Peak Steam Dectnc Stanon. Unit 1), CU-864,23 h1C 113,120 n.5 (1980), aff'd sub nom. Cidzens Associadon for Sound Energy v. NRC, 821 F.2d 725 (D.C. Or.

1987) effect of aDowing construction pemut to expue without requcstang an extension; QJ-93-10,37 NRC l

201 n.35 (1993) i Texas U6hties De.ctric Ca (Comanne Peak Steam Dectne Stadan, Unit 2), CU-92-1,35 NRC 1,6 (1992); CJ-934,37 NRC 156,16462 (1993) fomm for rehef when full-power operating liccase has issued, CU-93.lo,37 NRC 205 (1993)

Texas Unhues Doctnc Ca (Camanche Peak Steam Dectric Statim, Units I and 2), CU4812,28 NRC 605,609-12 (1988), as mod 4cd, CU-894,29 NRC 348 (1989) l failure to mees criteria for late imerveraimi; CU-934,37 NRC 159 (1993) 2s 1

t 1

I l

l 1

4 s

J i

l 1

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CAS13 l

t Teams Unhues Decinc Ca (Conanche lhk Steam Doctric Stanan, Units 1 and 2), CU-92-1,35 NRC 1, i

6 a5 0992) effect of low. power heense issuance on late imervenuan; C1193 4,37 NRC 160 (1993) standard for grant of a hearing pnor to operanns license issuance; CU431,37 NRC 3 (1993)

Tenas Utihties Doctnc Ca (Comanche Peak $ team Doctric Stanan, Units 1 and 2), CU-92-12,36 NRC '

i 62, 68 49 (1992) jusnfication sequued in request fur oral argument; CU412,37 NRC 59 n4 (1993)

Transweatern Pipeline Ca v. F1 RC, 897 F.2d 570, 575 (D C. Cir.1990) r standard for disrmasal d appeal on awatness grounds; CU-9310,37 NRC 200 (1993) l Tulas Gamma Ray, Inc., ISP.91-40,34 NRC 197,305 (1991) aggreganan of level IV violanuns; LDP-931,37 NRC 19 (1993) 5 Union of Concerned Sciennsis v. NRC,920 F.2d 50 Q.C. Cir.1990) contenden requuement far intervenun; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 13 (1993)

Umted States v. D.ar.,690 F.2d 1352,1357-58 (11th Cir.1982)

[

defmine d " material statement"; DD-911,37 NRC 46 (1993)

Unitcd Sutes v. Eight 7housand Eght llundred and Fifty Dollars in United States Currency,461 U.S. 555 (i983) focus of good.came determmanon in stay request; IEP 93-6,37 NRC 214 (1993)

United States v. Munsmgwear, Inc,340 US. 36 (1950) vacane of decision on mootncas grounds; C119310,37 NRC 197 (1993)

United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,340 U.S. 36, 3941 (1950) vacatum of decision below when a proceeding becomes mont; C1193-10,37 NRC 205 (1993)

United States v. Weinstmi,231 F.2d 699, 701 (D.C. Cir.1956) definine of *%atenal statement 7 DD-9kl. 37 NRC 46 (1993)

Valley Nrge Chrisdan Conese v. Americans United far Separaton of Church & State, Inc.,454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982) compunems of injury in fact; LBP-93 4. 37 NRC 81 (1993)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Nwer Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear hmer Stauan), AIAB-138,6 AEC 520, 528 (1973) function of NRC rules to ensuie protocuan rather than defme it; DD-913,37 NRC 121 (1993)

[

Vermet Yankee Nuclear hwer Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear hwer Sianan), AIAB-179,7 AEC 159, 183 (1974) requuemems for service of documems on irnervenurs; CU-9F3. 37 NRC 153 st47 (1993) l Vermant Yankee Nuclear hwer Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), IEP-90-6. 31 NRC 85, 94-95 (1990) f scope of htigable assus in operating license extension pmcoedings; LDP-911,37 NRC 14,30 (1993) l Vermant Yankee Nm; lear Power Corp. v. NRDC,435 U.S. $19,535 36 (1978)

I 1

seaponsibility of smervenors to structure their parucipanon so that it is meaningful; C1193 3. 37 l

NRC 147 n.310993)

P Vtrginia

Dearic and Power Ca (Nonh Anna Nwer Stanan Umts 1 and 2) A1AB.522,

9 NRC 54,57

[

0 979) geographic proximity as basis for standing to imervene in operating hcense amendment proceedings; IEP-9L5,37 NRC 106 n.30 (1993) i Virginia

Dearic and Power Ca (Nunh Anna Nwer Statian,

Unita 1 and 2), CI176-22,4 NRC 480,487 l

0976), aff*d sub nom. Virginia Decuie and Power Co. v. NRC, 571 F.2d 1289,129) (4th Cir.1978) l defininen of "matenal statement"; DD-93-1,37 NRC 46 (1993)

Virgmia Doctnc and Power Ca v. NRC,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) demal of lu:ense applicanons because of material false statements; IEP-93-5,37 NRC 101 n13 0 993)

I Wanh v. Seldm,422 U.S. 490,505 (1975) estabbshmem of causa6m and redressabihty when a peuuoner is challenging legabty of government regulatim of someone else; IEP-93-4,37 NRC 81 n.20 (1993) i

)

26

)

r I

i l

1 i.

l i

i

i I

L LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASI'S I

Washingum Pubbc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nucicar N.icca No. 2), D&84-7,19 NRC 899,923 (1984) standard for insntunan d show-cause proceedmgs; DD93-1,37 NRC 50 (1993); DD-93-2, 37 NRC 54 (1993); DD-93-3,37 NRC 133 (1993) DD-93 6,37 NRC 248 (1993)

Washington 1%blic lbwer Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Npet No 2), DD-84-7,19 N. " 899,924 (1984) standard for matitunon of showcause proceedmgs; DD-934,37 NRC 236 (1993): DD4

5. 37 NRC 244 (1993)

Washington Pubhc Nver Supply Systern (WPPSS Nuclear Npct No. 3), ALAB-747,18 NRC 1167 1175 77 (1983) forurn for hnganon of maunenance and surveillance prograrn conecms; IJIP-931,37 hWC 18 (1993)

Washingum Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Npet No. 3), A1.All-747,18 NRC 1167, 1184 81 (1983) showing necessary on other factors whers good cause fut late films is not shown CL1-93-4, 37 NRC o

166 (1993)

Washingian Public Nver Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Npet Nos. I and 2), CL3-82-29,16 NRC l

1221, 1230 (1982) effecs of sunsuucunn parmit extension sequest en consuuction activines; CIJ-93-10,37 NRC 202 (1993)

Weinsicm v. Bradfont,423 ILS.147,149 (1975) circumstances in which moniness esapuan is applied, CLI-93-8,37 NRC.187 (1993)

Wasimoreland v. Nananal Transponatinn Safety llaard, 833 F.2d 1461, '1462 (11th Car 1987)

?

standard for dismissal of appeal on mootness grounds; CLI 93-10,37 NRC 200 (1993)

Westmamland v. Nananal Transpanadan Safety Board, 833 F.2d 1461,1463 (11th Cir 1987) liaansee's claan of luture adverse effects as basis for overcoming board's finding of monancas; i

~

CLI-93-8,37 NRC 186 (1993)

Wascansin 13ectne Ibwer Co. (Puint Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAll-v4,15 hVC 277,278 (1982) responsibibties of pardes for inadequacies in bncfs; ClJ-93-3,37 NRC 143 n.17 (1993) l f

I i

l l

27 l

l

)

l i

l 1

l

I J

s LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.FR. Pan 2 standard for grara of a hearing pnar to operanng licerne issuance; CIJ 93-1, 37 NRC 3 (1993) 10 C.F.R.14 construc6an permit as a hcense; C1193-10,37 NRC 202 n.38 (1993) 10 CF.R. 2.102(a) responsitility to inform parues of conmunicadons between Staff and Lcensee; C1J-93-5,37 NRC 170 (1993) 10 CF.R.1107(a) scope d Commission authonty mer withdrawals of applicaduns; C1J-93-7,37 NRC 179 (1993)

(

10 CFR.1109 C

applicadon of timely renewal doctrme to applicadon for extension of construc6un compleuon date;

~7 C1193-10,37 NRC 201 (1993)

I f

10 CF.R. 2.109(a) f?

effect of pending license catension request on espiradon of bcense; ClJ-93-10,37 NRC 202 (1993) 10 CF.R.1201(c) g

?

Staff authority to make orders immediately effecuve; CL1-93 8,37 NRC 183 (1993) 10 CF.R. 2.202 H

n revocanon d matenals license for failure to pay annual fee; IJIP-93-2,37 NRC 62 (1993)

[

I*

shutdown of facihnes using herma lag fue bamers, denial of roquat inr; DD-93-3,37 NRC 133 (1993) d; standani for insutution of show-cause pmceedmas; DD-93-1, 37 NRC 50 (1993); DD 93-2, 37 NRC 54 (1993); DD 934,37 NRC 236 (1993); DD-93-5,37 NRC 244 (1993)

W 10 CFR. 2.202(b) failure to answer darges supponing revocation order as basis far disnussal of hearing request; 12P-93-2,37 NRC 62 (1993) 10 CF.R. 2.202(cX2) amendment of; C1J 93-8,37 NRC 188 (1993) 10 Cf.R.1202(cX2Xi) hcmsee sight to contest immediate efec6veness of suspension order. IEP-93-6,37 NRC 211 n.9,216 (1993) 10 CF.R. 2.202(cX2Xai) stay of enforcemers pmocedmg, Staff munan far; IEP-93-6, 37 NRC 209,212, 213, 216, 222 m.53 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 2.202(d) effec 6veness of order terminating pmeceding; 13P-93-2,37 NRC 63 (1993) 10 CF.R.1204 Staff authority to make ordas immediately effec 6ve; C1J-93-8,37 h1C 183 (1993) 10 CJ.R. 3.206 effect of pending painan en antervenuen in licenas amendment case; LEP-93-5,37 NRC 98 n.2 (1993) emergency planning at Turkey Point, adequacy of, DD-93-4,37 NRC 22637 (1993) false and misleading informa6an by security pesonnel at Fermi; DD-93-6,37 NRC 24H9 (1993) forum for litiganan of maintenance and surveillance pmgram concerns;IEP-93-1,37 hTC 17 (1993) 29 h

l

,w-.

.-----,--------w--

-,---rw--w-e--eww-*w---==r-=-*-w,+v--gwe"*'-

--W

m l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX f

RE:GULA710NS l

1 furum for obtaining relief after issuance of a full-power hcense; CU-934,37 NRC 160 (1993);

CU-93-10,37 NRC 205 (1993) revww and cern6 cation of p pe supp wt systems at Comanche Peak; DD 93-1,37 NRC 4451 (1993);

DD93 2,37 NRC 52-54 (1993) i standard for inantunon of show-cause proceedmgs; DD-93-6,37 NRC 248 (1993)

Therm

• lag hre banien, adequacy of; DD-93 3,37 NRC 114-34 (1993) ucatment of assy nxtuest as petinan for imme&ste enforcement acnon; CU-93-2,37 NRC 58 (1993) 10 CIA 1206(cXI) and (2)

Cmunission authority to review Staff decmion to take enforcement acnon; IEP-931, 37 NRC IB i

(1993)

I 10 CJA 2.701

{

applicrbihty to informanon passed between Staff and a licensee; CU-93-3,37 NRC 152 n.46 (1993) dorminan d "peny"; CU-93-3,37 NRC 152 n.45 (1993) i l

10 CIA 2.701(b)

L emicament of imervenor to service of documems; CU-93-3,37 NRC 152 (1993) l 10 CF.R 1710 cause for catension d time for filing annenuons; CU-93-5,37 NRC 170 (1993) 10 CF.R. 2.712 l

dermition of pany"; CU-93-3,37 NRC 152 n.45 (1993) l 10 CJA 2.714 l

amendment of; CU-93-3, 37 NRC 142 n.15 (1993) l fwe factors to be addressed by late-filed challeges to technical specificanons; UIP-93-1, 37 NRC 19 (1993) pleadmg requirernents for admissibibty of commtima; CU-93-3,37 NRC 140 (1993) standmg and contendon,y.

for intervendon; CU-93-3,37 NRC 141 (1993) l 10 CFA 2.714(a) l orgsmranan of a pennan that comphes with; CU-93-3. 37 NRC 142 (1993) 10 CIA 1714(aX1) avadance by intervenar. IJP-93 ',37 NRC 67 (1993)

J factors to be addremed by late-fi'od heanng requests; IJsP-93-2, 37 NRC 63 (1993) 10 CFA 1714(aXIXi) saturaction of timchness crnena cf section 1734(a)(1) as demonstrauca of good cause for laio-filed interannon petitian; CU 93-4,37 NRC 162 n.2 (1993) 10 CF.R.1714(aXIXi)-(v) critena to be addresacd by amended oumentions based on changed data in avinntmental sepot; CU-93-3,37 NRC 154 (1993); CU-934,37 NRC 163 (1993) five factors to be addressed by late-filed petitians to intervene; CU-93-2,37 NRC 58 (1993) five-factar test for laie intervendon by intervenor who has withdrawn; CU-93-1,37 NRC 3 (1993) 10 CIA 1714(aXIXiii) relationship of "sigmficance" and " materially dificrent seault" critens to pennoner*a ability to conuibute to a sound record; CU-93-4,37 NRC 162 n.2 (1993).

10 Cf.R.1714(aXIXv) consideraban of delay factor in filing a separate mouan to senpen; CU-934,37 NRC 162 (1993) 10 Cf.R.1714(aX2) evidennary support required far camendans; UlP-93-3,37 NRC 67 (1993) i seliance en perncipanan in another proceedmg to demonstrate stan&ng to imervme; CU-934,37 NRC 162 (1993) 10 CF.R. 2.714(aX3) deadhne for amendment of contentions; CU-93-3,37 NRC 153 (1993) 10 CF.R.1714(b) picading requirements for comemians; CU.93 3. 37 NRC 142,150 (1993) 10 CJ.R.1714(bXI) comennan requirement for innvention; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 13 (1993) 30

r l

f LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RFCtL4*f10NS

[

10 CJ.R. 2.714(b)(2) admmsibility of managemera charseter and campetence contennons; IEP-93-5,37 NRC 105 (1993)

[

aondssian of contendan alleging matenal emissons from amendmem application; IEP-93-5,37 NRC 104 (1993) denial of intervenuan petiuce for failum to submit admissible comennon; CLI-93-10,37 NRC 195 (1993) evidendary supyet required for comemions; C1J-93-3,37 NRC 151 (1993) existence of material issue of law or fact with respect to supplemcmed decommissinning plan; CL1-93-3, 37 NRC 150 (1993) incorporunon of miginal peudon by aferenos in suppiemem to petinon; C1J93-3,37 NRC 142 (1993) pleadmg requirements for comendan deshng with emergency preparedness issucs; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 33 (1993) 10 CFA 1714(b)(2)(ii) evidentiary suppet required for contendons; LilP-93 3. 37 NRC 67 (1993) 10 CIA 1714(b)(2)(iii) amendment of contennons based on changed data in environmental reports; CL1-93-3,37 NRC 154,155 (1993) specificity required of a!!cganons in catendons; 1EP-93-5,37 NRC 103 (1993) standard for challenge to envms s imal report, CLI-93-3, 37 NRC 147 (1993) 10 CJ.R 2.714(d) pleading requiremema for comenuans; C1J-93-3,37 NRC 142,150 (1993) 10 CFA 2714(dX2Xii) admissibihty of emuendan 4 hat would nos enttile peudoner to alief, even if pr<= m; CLI-93-3, 37 h1C 142 (1993)

?

10 CFA 1714a appeal of imervennon order; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 38 (1993) dismissal of appeal for failuse to file supponing bnef; C1J-9310,37 NRC 195 (1993) limnsee appeal of imervende order, C13-93-6, 37 ATC 172 (1993) 10 CFA 2.714a(c) appeal of imervention order; ISP-93-1,37 h1C 38 (1993) f 10 CIA 2.715(c) panicipanon of state public utihues commission under; IJIP-931,37 NRC 36,37 (1993) 10 CFA 1716 conschdadan of proceedangs involving substandally differem facts; CL1-93-8,37 NRC 185 (1993) 10 CF.R. 2.734 apphcanon of reopening requiremems to late-filed imervendon peudon; C1193-4,37 NRC 161 (1993) 10 CF.R. 2.734(aX1) satisfac6en of timelmess critena as demonstraban of good cause for lateness of secdon 2.714(aX1)(i);

CL1-93-4,37 NRC 162 n.2 (1993) 10 CIA 2.734(aX2) relatannship of sigruficance" criterion to petinoner's ability to contnbute to a sound record; CIJ-93 4, 37 NRC 162 n.2 (1993) 10 C1.R. 2.734(aX3) relanonship of %aterially different result" cnterion to peudoner's ability to contribute to a sound record; CL3-93-4,37 NRC 162 n.2 (1993) 10 CIA 1740(b)(2) burdcn en party who seeks to apply anarney work product pnvilege; 1EP-93-3,37 NRC 69 (Ipa?)

material covered by anarney work product; 1EP-93-3, 37 NRC (4 M3) 10 Cf.R. 2.740(e) 1 supplementatie of discovery responses; IEP-93-3,37 NRC 65 (1993)

I 10 CIA 2.786(b)

I pention for review of decornaminanon orders; C1J-93-8. 37 NRC 182,188-89 (1993) l 31 I

i 1

l i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS l

l 10 CF.R.1786(b)(4)

I standard for grant of peuunns fur review; CU-93-8. 37 NRC 184 (1993)

ID CF.R.1786(g) effect of referral of ruling on applicanon for imerlocutory review; C1193-6,37 NRC 174 (1993) 10 CFA 2.788 i

decisions and acnons for which stays are applicable; CU-93-2,37 NRC 58 (1993) effect of rufenal of rulmg on stay appbcanon; (2193-6,37 NRC 174 (1993) stay monon filed concurrendy with appeel; CU-934,37 NRC 173 (1993) 10 CIA 1788(b)(2)

I content of stay applicanons; CU-93-2,37 NRC 58 n.2 (1993) l 10 CIA 1788(c)(!)-(4) factors to be addressed by suy monans; CU 93-2,37 NRC 58 n.2 (1993) 10 CJA 1802 j

pmposed rule on siorage of low-level radioacnve wasics ai nuclest power plant sites; DD 93-5. 37 NRC i

239 (1993) 10 CFA Pan 2, Subpan L challenge to decommissioning plan; IEP-93 4,37 NRC 77 (1993) 10 CFA 11205(d) a standing to intervene in decommissioning pruccedmg; IEP-934,37 NRC 77 (1993) 10 Cf.k 11205(g) geograpdc prommity as basis far standing to intervene in materials licensing actions; IEP 93-4,37 NRC 63 (1993) standmg so imervene in decommissioning prewcadmg; IEP 93-4,37 NRC 77 (1993) 10 CFA 11205(n) appee! of denial of hearing request; IEP-934,37 NRC 94 (1993) coment of appeal of denial of beanns or inicrvennen denials; C1193-9,37 NRC 191 n.1 (1993)

[

10 CFA 2.1213 Staff parncipanon as a pany in informal pmceedings, IEP-93-4,37 hTC 79 n.8 (1993) 10 CF.R.11239 challenges to Staff guidance; IBP-93-4. 37 NRC 89 nA9 (1993) 10 Cf.R. hn 2, Appendia C. IV imponance of level IV violanons; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 19 (1993) 10 CJA Part 2, Appendia C. VIE.2(c) consuleration of similar violauens in pnor enfonement acnons in assessing a sount of civil penalns; C1193 8,37 NRC 186 (1993) 10 CIA 9.17(a)(4) placemem of f.re endurance nest repons for fue barner matenal in Pablic Doc ament Room; DD-93-3 37 NRC 119 n.5 (1993) 10 CIA 20.1003 defuutim of "effeetm dose equivalem"; LEP-93-4,37 NRC 85 (1993) 10 CFA Put 30 catensim of pennd for temporary storage of low-level radioactive waste at nuclear powee clarn site; DD 93-5,37 NRC 239 (1993)

Lcensce requcat for stay of order suspending byproduct materials hcese; IEP-934,37 NRC. 209,223 (1993) 10 CJA 40A2(c) compliance with materials license provisions pending termination of heense; CU-93 7,37 NRr 178 (1993) 10 CF.R. Pan 50 applicanon of differcru engincenng/ design approaches in review and cenificanon of pipe suppats; DD-93-1,37 NRC 43 (1993) 10 CFA 50.2 resuned opersnan as an ahernanve to docanmissioning; CU43-3,37 NRC lt.5 (1993) 32 I

e LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX f

El:Ct'IATIONS l

1 v

10 CF.R. 50.9(a) derminan of %sienal false staternent"; DD-93-1,37 NRC 46 n.16 (1993) l 10 C.F.R. 50.12 risk to public healih and asfety of esempuera fran regulauans; DD-93 3,37 NRC 121 n30 0993) 10 Cf.R. 50.12(aXI) rid to public heahh and safety of exempuans frum regulanans; DD-93-3,37 NRC 121 n.10 (1993) l 10 CF.R. 50.23

}

termmation of sumsuucuan permit on issuanas of operaung Iconse; C1193-10,37 NRC 198 (1993) 10 CFA 5034(b)(6) comesa of FSAR submined with operaung license applicadon; LBP.93-5,37 NRC 99 n.3 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 5034(bX6)(i) l mpardng requimnems for appbcam's organizational structum, allocade of mapmsibilines and authorities, and personnel quahficadons; LBP-93-5,37 NRC 102-03 0993) l 10 Cf.R. 5036(c)(2) fue watches as remedlial acuans; DD-93-3,37 NRC 122 (1993) hmiting condidars for nuclear power plant operanon; DD-93 3,37 NRC 122 n13 0993) 10 CF.R. 50.44(cX3)

Commission authority to impose urmmation date for imenm snessura; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 27 n.40 0 993) j 10 CF.R. 50.47(b) components of fundamemal Asw h an emergency preparedness plan; 1EP-93-1,37 NRC 32 0993) 10 CF.R. 50.47(t)(15) hugabihty of contenden qu snarung traming and preparedness of emergency personnel; 1EP-93-1,37 i

NRC 32 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 50.48 adequacy of Thermo-lag material to meet fire protecnon requiicments; DD 93-3,37 NRC 119,120 (1993) to CF.R. 5034(c) transfer of nuclear power plant comrol without wrinen permission of NRC; UIP-93 5,37 NRC 102 i

0 993) 10 CF.R. 5035(b) good cause for cannrucuan catension mquest; CL1-9310,37 NRC 196 0993) 10 CE.R. 5036 sausfacdon of AEA requ2rement for complawn of a facuny; CIL93-10,37 NRC 201 n35 (1993) terminauan of construcuan permit on issuanw of operadng license; C119310,37 NRC 198 0993) 10 CF.R. 5037 health and safety fmdings for issuance of operanng hcense; UIP-93-5,37 NRC 1010993) 10 Cf.R 50.57(aXI) satisfacnon of AEA requirement for complaian of a facihty; C1193-10,37 NRC 201 n35 0993) a 10 CF.R. 5038(bX6)

Commissian jurisdiction over challenges to Staff "no signincant hazards considera6ca" fmdmg; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 35 0993) 10 CF.R. 50.59 construcnan of a storage facilny for semporary storage of low-level radioacuve wastes at a nuclear power plant site; DD 93 5,37 NRC 239-42 0993) 10 CF.R. 5039(aX2) acnons that involve an unrevacwed safety quesuon; DD-93-5,37 NRC 243 0993) 10 CF.R. 50.02(d), 50 63(c)

Cunnussion authonty to impose terminanan date for interim measures; LDP-93-1,37 NRC 27 a40 0 993) 10 Cf.R. 50.71(c) revision d FSAR after plant licensing; 12P-93-5,37 NRC 99 n3 0993) i 33

t

.i i

i I

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS l

10 CFR. 50.75 i

consideradms in determuung whether to grant an enemption from fundmg requirements for decianmissioning; CLI 93 3, 37 NRC 149 (1993)

)

i 10 CFR 50.75(c)(1)(ti)

{

crempban imm funding requiremems int decommissi<aung: CU 93-3,37 NRC 148 (1993)

/

l 10 C.FR. 50 82(b)

I apprmul of funding plan as besu for appnwal d decommissiming plan; CL1-93 3,37 NRC 149 (1993) l 10 CF.R. Pan 50 Appedia A adequacy d Thermelag maienal to moes fire protesian requirements; DD-93-3,37 NRC 119,120,133

.(

(1993) 10 CFR. Pan 50, Appcndia B i

review of field changes for pipe suppans; DD-93-1,37 NRC 41 (1993) trarafer of pipe suppen packages for seview and certification beiween design grougu that used ddferent

{

design critena; DD-931,37 NRC 40 (1993) 10 CF.R. Pan 50, Appedia B, Cnierie 111 transfer d daign seview raponsibility betweca pipe suppen design gmups; DD-931,37 NRC 45 l

(1993) 10 CFR.1%n 50, Appendia E

- d fundamemal flaw in an emergency preparodness plan; LBP-93-1, 37 NRC 32 (1993) r teaung of emergency plan prior to restan following humcane; DD 93-4,37 NRC 228 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Pan 50 Appendix R Thermo-lag fire bamers, deficiencies in; DD 93-3,37 NRC 115,120,133 (1993) l 10 CF.R. Pan 50, Appendis R 111.0 safety of plam whose fire barriers fail to meet fire endurance rating entena; DD-93-3,37 NRC 122 l

(1993) 10 Cf.R. Pan $1 envuunmmtal assessment of decommissioning plan for fuel fabrication facility; LBP-9M 37 NRC 78 (1993) 10 Cf R. 51.20 Ils nxiuuemems for construction period sucapture amendmems, LDP-93-1,37 NRC 36 (1993) l FIS sequirements for temporary onsite storage facility for low. level radioactive wastes; DD-93-5,37 NRC 242 (1993) l 10 CFR. 51.21 envuonmental assessmem nuguiremets for anstruction pened accapture amendments; LDP-93-1,37 i

NRC 36 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 51.22 l

ISS n:quuements for emstrucunn period recapture amendmems; LilP-93-1, 37 NRC 36 (1993) 10 CF.R. SL23(a)

Lugabihty of radioactive waste storage and dapmal concerns in operaung hcense proceedings.;

LBP-93-1,37 NRC 29 (1993) 10 CfR. 51 A5 i

ada:!usey of envimnmemal report on decommissioning; CU 93 3,37 KVC 143,144 n23 (1993) 10 CF.R. St.53(a) litigability of radioactive waste storage and disposal corwerns in operanng license amendnmnt

,ceedmas; LBP-931,37 NRC 30 (1993) n ad far power eensiderations in operating license entmsion proceedings; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 36 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 51.95(a), SL106(c) need fcr power eensider 6ans m operaung license eatmaion proceedings; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 36 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Pan 52 j

reviewabihty of enforcement schans under, IEP-93-1,37 NRC 18 n.22 (1993) i 10 CF.R. Pan 54 scope of htigable issues in operating beense renewal pmceedings; LBP-93-1. 37 NRC 14 (1993) 34

)

i l

[

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX El:Gl'LATIONS i

10 CF.R. 54.17 prematurity of operaung Ikenne catensmn applicanart; IEP-93-1. 37 NRC 14 (1993) 10 CF.R. 54.29 smpe of hugable issues in ogeranns license wnewal pmecedings: IEP-93-1,37 NRC 14 (1993) 10 Cf.R. 61.50 weight given to generic icuers when licerace has ccanrmited to follow that guidance in its section 50.59 evalumnon; D&93 5,37 NRC 244 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Pan 70 decomnussioning of fuel fabncauon facdny, IEP-934,37 NRC 77 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Pan 100 1

dose hnnis for tempursry omiis suunge facility for low level radiusctive wasies; DD-93-5,37 NRC 242 (1993) 10 Cf.R. Part 300, Ap;wndia A, !!!(c) defunnan of " safe stundown carthquake"; DD93-3. 37 NRC 127 (1993) 44 CIA Pan 350 acupe af I-EMA wriew of cmcrgency preparedness; DD 934,37 NRC 227 (1993) t

?

?

- 35

4 f

i l

l l

1 I

i i

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Administradve Pmcedum Act 9(b),5 U.S.C $58(c)

I applicadon of umely unewal doctrine to applicadon for catcassan of construc6cn compleuon date, CU-93-10,37 NRC 201 (1993)

Atomic Energy Act,108,42 U.S.C 2138 l

resumod nperanon as an ahernabwe to decommissioning; QJ-93-3,37 NRC 144 n.23 (1993)

Atomic Energy Act,182,42 U.S.C 2231 4

l informa6an nquired on character of applicants; UlP-93-5,37 NRC 100 (1993)

Atomic Energy Act,185,42 U.S.C 2235 circumstances under which a consuuc6an permit will empire; QJ-93-10,37 NRC 201,203 (1993) j consuucdon remut as a license; QJ-93-10,37 NRC 202 n.38 (1993) mootness of consuuctwo permit estension pmceeding because of completion of construednn; CU-93-10, 37 NRC 200 (1993)

Atonue Energy Act, IW revocation of license for material false statemasts; DD-931,37 NRC 46 (1993); UIP-93-5, 37 NRC 101 n.13 (1993)

Auxnic Energy Act,186c,42 U.SC. 2236 resumed operanon as an ehernanvo to decommissiomng; QJ-93-3,37 STC 144 n.23 (1993)

Auunic Energy Act,188,42 U.S.C 2236 sesumed operauon as an ahernative to decaumissioning: CJ.93 3,37 NRC 144 n.23 (1993)

Atomic Energy Act,189a,42 U.S.C 2239(a) changes to groundwater monitoring plan as a materials Lcense amendment; C1J-93 7,37 NRC 177 (1993) effect of invitadon to intervendan penuoner to speak informally with Staff and licensee on party status:

CU-93-4,37 NRC 167 n.4 (1993) hearing rghts on a case that has become unoot; CU-93-10,37 h7C 28 (1993)

Atomic Energy Act,189a(!),42 U.S.C 2239(a)(1) application of judicial ameepts of standing in NRC proceedmgs; LBP-93-4,37 STC 80 (1993)

Atomic Energy Act,191 timmg of a hearing in docummissiorung cases; QJ-93-3,37 h1C 152 (1993)

Energy and Water Development Appmpriations Act,1993, IW L No.102-377,502,105 Stat.1315,1342 (1992) preclusion of agency fundmg of peunoners; UIP-93-4,37 NRC 94 n.65 (1993) i I

I 4

37 l

l i

i i

I i

d I

1 e

i I

i I

3 l

a i

l l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX

{

OTiiERS l

l l

4 Davis, Admirustranve IJw Treatise (24:1, at 208 (2d ed.1983) i j

lack af succcas on threshold issue of standing attnbutable to meager financial recuras d peunoners, 4

LBP-93-4,37 NRC 94 (1993)

)

Federal Rules of Civil Pruemdure Rulo 26(b)(3) material crwered by attorney work prodact; IJIP-93 3, 37 NRC 68 (1993)

Federal Rules of Cranraal Proc xiume, Rule 16(b) empsaaion of discrwery beyond limits of; CU-93-6, 37 h1C 173 (1993) 4 Moore's Federal Pracna 126.64[1] (2d ed.1991), at 26-349 i

l purpose d attorney work product rule; LBP-93-3,37 NRC 69 (1993) 1 13 Wnght, et al., Federal Practics and Pmendure $5 3531.4.6 (2d ed.1984) i corrqwmatts of injury in fact; LBP-93-4, 37 NRC 81 (1993)

I 13A Wright, et al., Federal Pracnce and Procedure 5 3531.15, at 97-99 meriu-type evaluation of suf5ciency of peutioners' factual bases for claims of statufing; LBP-93-4,37 NRC 83 (1993) l i

i e

I i

i 1

1 I

i l

l

t SUBJECT INDEX ACQDENTS comcidental occunmcc with natural dasasters, lingsbility of; LBP-93-1, 37 NRC 5 (1993)

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT timeJy renewal doctrine; CU-93-10,37 NRC 192 (1993)

AMENDMENT of comen6cns; CU-93-3,37 NRC 135 (1993)

See also Consuuction h:rmit Ameruiments; Materials License Amendment. Operaung Ucenac Amendment APPEALS coment of briefs; CU-93-10,37 NRC 192 (1993) dr.smissai for failure to fJe a Statement of Appeal; CU-93-9, 37 NRC 190 (1993) dismisnal on mootness grounds; CU-93-10,37 NRC 192 (1993) catension af nme for; CL1-93-9,37 NRC 190 (1993)

ATOhDC ENT.RGY ACT construedan permat amendments; CU-93-10,37 NRC 192 (1993) satisfaction of construcuan requiremems; QJ-93-10,37 ATC 192 (1993) standing to intervene; LBP-914,37 NRC 72 (1993)

ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVIILGE burdcn on pany objecting to dacovery on basis of; LBP-93-?; 37 NRC 64 (1993)

HRACI!YT1[ERAPY misadministration; LDP-93-6,37 h1C 207 (1993) brill 5 appellate, canient of; CU-93-10,37 NRC 192 (1993) responsibihty for inadequacies in; CU-93-3,37 hTC 135 (1993)

BYPRODUCT MATTRIAL UCENSES i

suspension, delay of proceeding; LBP-93-6,37 hWC 207 (1993)

CERTUICATION of pipe suppnrt systems; DD-911. 37 NRC 39 (1993); DD-93-2, 37 htC 52 (1993) l 3)LLATERAL ESTDPPEL applicabibty to nonparues; CU-93-4, 37 NRC 156 (1993)

COMhDSSION r

ducredanary authonty to grant imervennon; CU-93-3, 37 NRC 135 (1993)

(X)MMUN1 CATIONS between Staff and licensee, obligadan to inform imervenor of. CL193-5,37 h1C 168 (1993)

COMPONESTS fraudulemly cerufted; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993)

CONSTRUCnON compledon during pendency of construedan extension request; CU-9310,37 NRC 192 (1993)

CONSTRUCDON PERIOD RLCAPTURE PROGEDING farum for litiganon of operauonal issues relevara ta, LBP-93-1,37 hTC 5 (1993)

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENTS czrcumstancca appmpriate for expiradan and forfenure of rights under, CU-93-10,37 NRC 192 (1993) 41

_ ~_.

b r

i SUIUECT INDEX

?

5 CONSTRUCTION PfRMIT EXTINSION I'

canplenan of construcuan dunng pendency of mquest for CU-9310,37 NRC 192 0993) good cause for; CU-93-10, 37 NRC 192 0993) i CONS 1RUCDON PERMIT EX11NSION PROCEEDINGS i

scope of; CU-93-10,37 NRC 192 0993)

CONS 1RUCDON PERMITS l

sansfacnon of AEA requimnems for facihty compicnan; CU-93-10,37 NRC 192 0993)

COVfAMINATION See Radmlagical Contamination OOS*IT.NTIONS affumanve safety; QJ-93-3,37 NRC 135 0993) alleging adverse facts not included in hcense amendment applicadon; LBP-93 5, 37 NRC 96 0993)

I amendment of; CU-93-3,37 NRC 135 (1993) based on pmviously unavailable envunnmental review documems; C1193 3,37 NRC 135 (1993)

EIS requests in; LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) i I

eviderituiry support requued far; CU43-3,37 NRC 135 0993) i imerro6 stories sequesnng d-lane of factual bases and legal acquirements undedying; IJ1P-93-3,37 NRC 64 0993) pleading.w,;._

_ for, IJIP-93-1, 37 NRC 5 0993) requmnant far imervemian; UlP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) responsiNiity of parnes to casmine publicly availabic documemary evidene in support of; UlP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993)

Staff quesnons to twensee as basis fe; CU-93-3,37 NRC 135 (1993)

CONTENTIONS,1A1E-IILED EIS requests in; IJIP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993) t good cause for, CU43-3,37 NRC 135 (1993)

DECOMMISSIONING envuonmemal impacts under NEPA; CLI-93-3,37 NRC 135 OW3) radelogical cantaminanen imm; UIP-93-4,37 NRC 72 (1993) resumed operanan as an ahernadve under NEPA; CU-93-3. 37 NRC 135 0993) l DlIICENCIES in evacuanan plans; DD-934,37 NRC 225 (1993)

D171NT110NS of material statement; DD93-1,37 NRC 39 0993); DD-93 2,37 h3C 52 (1993) of nootness; CU-934. 37 NRC 181 (1993)

DELAY OF PROC 1TDING gnad cause for; UIP-934,37 NRC 207 0993)

DISCOVERY of privileged mauer, LilP-913,37 NRC 64 0993) stay of; LBP-934,37 NRC 207 0993)

EARDlQUAKES f

coincidemal occurrmcc with acculents, lingabihty of; IJIIL931,37 NRC 5 0993) 4 fue barrier imegrity during; DD93-3,37 NRC 113 0993)

EITECTIVENESS of order m:rminating proceeding; IllP-93-2, 37 NRC 61 (1993) i EMERGENCY EXERCISES fundamental flew standard; LDP-911,37 NRC 5 0993) scope of linganan en; IJIP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993)

EMERGENCY PIANNING humcano related deficiercies in; DD-93-4,37 htC 225 0993) i l

EMERGENCY PLANS l

coordinanon between hcensee and federal, state, and local agerwies; DD-93-4,37 h1C 225 0993) l d2 I

l t

e i

SUIUECT INDEX IXIORCEMIXT ACTION far fue barna tast failure; DD 93 3,37 NRC 113 (1993) stay of procerdngs; IEP-934,37 NkC 207 (1993)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATIMENT for eatmaion of tanporary onsiis storage d radiuscuve wastes at nucicar power plant; D1193-5,37 NRC 238 (1993) prematuse requens far; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC7T.

of decamnussioning, canaiderstion under NEPA; QJ 913,37 NRC 135 (1993)

EVACUATION defriencies in plans for, DD-934,37 NRC 225 0993)

EX71NSION OF TIME for perfacting appeal; C1J-93-9,37 NRC 190 (1993) far temporary onsite storage of rad.osedve wastes at nuclear power plant; DD-93 5,37 NRC 238 (1993)

HRE IIARRIfJtS Therrno-lag rnatcrial in; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) 7hernm-lag tem failure; DD 93-3,37 NRC 113 0993)

FIRE WATOIES as compensation for fue barriers; DD-93-3,37 NRC 113 (1993)

IIAZARDOUS MA71RIA13 starage and handling at Diablo Canyon; 1EP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993)

IIEARING REQUESTS faihue to answer sharges supportmg revocadan orda as basis for dismissal of; IEP-93-2,37 NRC 61 0 993) late-filed, factors to be addressed by; IEP-93-2,37 NRC 610993) premature, schedulmg of; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993)

IIIARING RIGitTS of licenses an byproduct material Ecense suspamon; 1EP-934,37 NRC 207 (1993)

IIEARLNGS

- escredanary, after expiradan of uma for filing intervention petitimm; C1J-931,37 NitC 1 (1993)

I!URRICANES emergency planning for; DD-93-4,37 NRC 225 0993)

INFORMAL PROCEEDINGS dismissal of appeal for failure to fde a Statemers of Appeal, QJ-93-9, 37 NRC 190 (1993)

INJURY IN FACT components d; IEP-93-4,37 NRC 72 (1993) to econmuc interests; IEP-93-4,37 NRC 72 (1993)

IN7ERROGATORII3 disclosure of factual bases and legal requirements underlymg comandons; ISP-93-3,37 NRC 64 0993)

INTERVENTION by pany who las withdrawn; CL1-93-1,37 NRC 10993) descredunary authonty of Commission to grant; CL1-93 3,37 NRC 135 (1993); IEP-934,37 NRC 72 0 993) geographic proximity as basis for standmg in license amendment case; IEP-93-5,37 h1C 96 (1993) organindmal, representauan requiremems; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993)

INTERVEN'!10N PI'!1T10NS, IATE-17ED factors no be addressed in; QJ-93-2, 37 NRC 55 (1993) good cause for, QJ-93-4,37 NRC 156 (1993)

INTERVENTION, LATE after issuance of low-power beense; ClJ-934,37 h1C 156 (1993) discredonary hearing prior to operating license issuance; QJ 93-1,37 NRC 10993) good cause for, QJ-93-4,37 NRC 356 0993) 43 f

I l-

[

L

~

~

SUIUECT INDEX k

i JURISDICDON.

after assuance of a fullpmer license; C1J-93 4,37 NRC 156 (1993) to hear chalkges to Staff *ho signif. cant har.ards conaideradon" fmdmg; UIP-93-i. 37 NRC 5 (1993)

IJCENSE IIE revocadan d Lcense for failure se psy; IJsP-93-2,37 NRC 61 (1993)

IJCENSE13 heanns rights en byproduct material Lcense suspension; IJIP-934,37 NRC 207 (1993) transfer of operstmg authonty: CU 934,37 NRC 172 (1993) i UCENSES cffect of applicauon for new license um espiranon of caisung bcense; C1J-93-10. 37 NRC 192 (1993)

See also Byproduct Maierial Licenses; (hmrating Ucense MAINTLNANCE htigability of adequacy of pogram in operating license catension proceeding; 12P-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993)

MANAGEMENT CilARACTER AND COMPLTENCE laigability of lad of, in operanna license amendment proceeding; IEP-93 5. 37 NRC % (1993)

MATLRIAL FALSE STATEMENTS dermiuan ef; DD93-1. 37 NRC 39 (1993); DD-93-2,37 NRC 52 (1993)

+

on review and certincanon of pipe support systems; DD-93-1,37 NRC 39 (1993); DD-93-2,37 NRC 52 (1993)

MA1T. RIAL STATEMENT defmine of; DD-93-1,37 NRC 39 (1993); DD-93-2, 37 NRC 52 (1993)

MATIRIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT naufa:auan of NRC of withdrawal of applicanon for; CU 93 7, 37 NRC 175 (1993)

MA1T_ RIALS UCENSE PRONTnINGS standing to intervene in; UIP-93-4. 37 NRC 72 (1993)

MISADMINISTRAllON durma brachytherapy treatments with scaled-source iridium-192; 12P-934, 37 NRC 207 (1993) 3 i

MOOTNESS case or conuoversy limitanans on; CU 93-8,37 NRC 181 (1993) derminan of; CU-93-8,37 NRC 181 (1993); C1J-93-10, 37 NRC 192 (1993) damissal of appeals an grounds of; CU-93-10. 37 NRC 192 (1993) encepdan to; CU-93-10,37 NRC 192 (1993)

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POlJCY ACT.

cost-benera balaneir:g for operanns license catension; 12P-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) envmmmernal assessment requirements for agency decisionmaking pocess; IEP-93-4. 37 NRC 72 l

(1993)

{

hngability of long-term apers fuel storage in operaung licenac and operstmg bcense amendment proceedmgs; IEP-931,37 NRC 5 (1993) prematurity of contendon requesting DS; 12P-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) r resumed opera 6an as an ahernauve so decommissioning; CL1-93-3,37 NRC 135 (1993) rule of reason; CU-93-3,37 NRC 135 (1993)

NO SIGNIHCANT 11AZARDS DETERMINA110N

]

I junsdiction to hear challenges so; IEP-93-1,37 h1C 5 (1993)

NO11DCATION of LPZ populadan, hurricane effects on; DD-93-4, 37 51C 225 (1993) of NRC of withdrawal of materials Loense amedment appbcadan; CU-93-7. 37 NRC 175 (1993) i of persons with special needs; DD93-4,37 NRC 225 (1993)

NRC PROCEEDINGS standard for grans of myiew; CU-93-8. 37 NRC 181 (1993)

NRC STAIF obliga6co no inform intcrvenors of its communicanons with licensce; CU 93-5,37 NRC 168 (1993) 44 l

l l

I l

i i

SUlOECT INDEX i

NUCLF.AR POWi R ILANT OiTRATIONS abensdan of comrol; UIP-93-5,37 NRC 96 (1993)

OPLRAUNG UCENSE AhENDhE.hT management character mi campetena as basis fw interven6an; IEP-93-5, 37 NRC 96 (1993) transfer of operudng authorny; CU-934,37 NRC 172 (1993)

OPERAllNG UCENSE EXTENSION cost-benefit balancing for, IEP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) jusnficanon of aquest for, ISP-931,37 NRC 5 (1993) o scheduling d heanng on aquest f, led years prior to actual need for IEP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) i scope d review fw; UIP-931,37 NRC 5 (1993)

[

OITRAUNG UCENSE EXTENSION PROCEEDING issues laigable in; UlP-931,37 NRC.5 (1993) standmg to intervene in; UIP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) litigabihty of long-term apent fuel suzuge m; IEP 93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993)

OPERATING UCENSE, It'll POWER reoponns a sconi pnor to issumme of; CU-93-1,37 NRC 1 (1993)

OPERAllNG UCENSE.1DW-LOW 12 stay request denial; CU 93-2,37 h1C 55 (1993)

OliRAllONS ahananan of conual, LBP-93-5,37 NRC 96 (1993) t ORAL ARGUML'NT juadficane for sacking; CU 93-2,37 NRC 55 (1993)

PIPE SUPPORT SY37 EMS mview and ceruficanon of; DD-93-1,37 NRC 39 (1993); DD93 2,37 NRC 52 (1993)

PRIVILEGE See Attarney Work Product Pnvilege l

RADIATION DOSE i

effective dose equivalent; UIP 934,37 NRC 72 (1993) l RADIOACIlVE WASTE SlDRAGE long-term.11dgability in operating license proceedmgs; ISP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) storage onsite at nuclear power plama; CL1-93 3,37 NRC 135 (1993) temporary onsite, at nucicar power plant, catension of limit for. DD-93-5, 37 NRC 238 (1993)

RADIO 1DGICAL CONTAMINATION i

from decommissioning ac6vities; UlP-934,37 NRC 72 (1993)

RLOPLNING A RICORD i

by party who has withdrawn: CU-931,37 NRC 1 (1993) criteria to be addressed by mo6ans for; CU 934,37 hTC 156 (1993) paar to license issusace; CL1-93-1,37 NRC 1 (1993)

RES JUDICATA spplicabihiy to neoparues, CL1-934,37 NRC 156 (1993)

REVIEW of Itcensmg boani order damissing decentaminad<m orders on momness grounds, denial of; CU-93-8 i

37 NRC 181 (1993)

)

of pipe suppen systems; DD93-1. 37 NRC 39 (1993); DD 93-2,37 NRC 52 (1993) scope for consuuc6cn period recapture proceedmas; ISP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) standard for grant af; CU-93-8,37 NRC 181 (1993)

REVOCATION OF UCENSE l

fa failure to pay annust fee; LEP-93-2,37 NRC 61 (1993)

RU115 OF PRACDCE l

affirmadve safety consensors; CU-93-3,37 NRC 135 (1993)

I amendment of contendons; CU-93-3,37 NRC 135 (1993) appeliste bnefs, content of; CU-93-10,37 NRC 192 (1993) asunney work product privilege; UlP-93 3,37 NRC 64 (1993) l 45 t

I i

I e

r

i SUlUECT INDEX bncIs, n:spmsibility for inadajuacies in; QJ-93 3,37 NRC 135 (1993) l contenuun requuement for imervendon; LBP-931,37 NRC 5 (1993)

~

cnteria for grant of a sisy; C13-93-2,37 NRC 55 (1993) discovery of pnvileged mauer, IllP-93-3,37 NRC 64 (1993) discredmary hearms after capir 6m of time for fihng imervmnon pennons, C1J 03-1,37 NRC 3 (1993) discredonary imervenuun; Lisp 93-4, 37 NRC 72 (1993)

I dismissal of appeal for failuie to Ele a $tstement of Appeal, Q3 93-9, 37 hWC 190 (1993) i dismissal of appeals on motanens gnumds; QJ-93-10, 37 NRC 192 (1993) evidennary support requued far comemmns; QL93-3,37 NRC 135 (1993) forum for litigatie of operational sasses relevam to a construenon period recapture proceeding:

IJIP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) good cause for late filing; Q193-4,37 NRC 156 (1993) smup standing to imervene; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) injury in-fact demonstration; IJIP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) issucs lingsble in an operaung lacerne extension proceeding; IJIP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) junsdiction after issuance of a full-power license; Q193-4,37 NRC 156 (1993) t jurisdicsion of boards to hear challenges to $taff no signif cant hazards considerasan" finding; IEP-931,37 NRC 5 (1993) nonpany panicipanon; Q1934,37 NRC 156 (1993) i nanumely intervention petinans; Q1934,37 NRC 156 (1993) oral argument, jusn5 cation for seeking; Q193 2, 37 NRC $5 (1993) pleadmg requirements for comemians; Q193-3,37 NRC 135 (1993); 1.BP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) pleadmg requiremems for intervendon pennes; QJ-93-4,37 NRC 156 (1993) renpming a acord after withdrawal of a pany; CL1-931,37 NRC 1 (1993) reopming a record pnar to licanse issuance; QL93-1,37 NRC 1 (1993) responsibilities of pernes to inform boards and intervenors of relevant and material new informa6nn; C1193 3,37 Nk0135 (1993); CL1-93-5,37 NRC 168 (1993) responsihihty of pames to examine publicly available documemary evidence in support of ha contenunns; IEP-93-1,37 NRC f (1993) scheduling of hearmss; IEP-931,37 NRC 5 (1993) service of docuraems; C1193-3,37 WC 135 (1993)

Staff obligation to inform imervmors of its communications with licensee; C1193-5,37 NRC 168 (1993) standard for insstudon of show cause proceedings; DD-934,37 NRC 225 (1993); DD M-5,37 NRC 238 (1993); DD-93-6,37 NRC 346 (1993) standards to be addressed by motions to reopen; CLI-93-4,37 NRC 156 (1993) standing to intervene; C1193-3,37 NRC 135 (1993); IEP-934,37 NRC 72 (1993)

F l

standing w imervene in operadng license entensum proceeding; 1BP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993) stay request by nonparty; Q193-2, 37 NRC 55 (1993) withdrawal d materials heense amendment applicadon, C1193 7,37 STC 175 (1993) l RU113 OF PROC 1VURE i

injury-in-fact consideranons in determining standing to imervene, IEP-93-4,37 NRC 72 (1993)

SAllTY-REIATID LQUIPME, f Y

r age related degradadon of; IEP-93-1,37 NRC 5 (1993)

SCIIEDUllNO of hearing on heense amendment request filed years prior to actual need; LBP-93-1 37 NRC 5 (1993)

$EA11D $OURCES iridmin-192, for hmnan brachytherapy treatmems; LDP-93-6, 37 NRC 207 (1993)

SECURffY access to protected areas; DD-93-6, 37 NRC 246 (1993) falsification of documents by supervisors; DD93-6,37 NRC 246 (1993) t 46 i

I

(

l l

SUlijECT INDEX l

l I

$13SMIC ISSUES fire hamer integrity; DD-93-3, 37 NRC 113 0993)

SERVICE OF IXX1!MENIT informanon cadianged between Staff and licensee; CL1-93-3,37 NRC 135 0993)

SilOW CAUSE PROCEEDINGS standard for inudtunon of; DD 93-4,37 NRC 225 (1993); DD-93-5, 37 NRC 235 (1993); DD 93-6,37 NRC 246 0993)

SPENT It*EL STORAGE long-term, lidgelslity in opersung license and operating becrae amendmmt proceedmgs; 1EP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993)

STANDING 10 INTERVENE Commission authmity to grant, C1J-93-3,37 h1C 135 0993) f.fty-mile rule; IEP 934,37 NRC 72 0993) geogsphic priaimity as bants in license ammament case; IEP-93-5, 37 NRC 96 (1993) in materials license pmcecdangs: IEP-934, 37 NRC 72 0993) in operating license cuension pruceeding; IEP-931,37 NRC.5 0993) injury-in-fact and zone-of-imensis tests for. LEP-931,37 NRC 5 (1993); i.EP-934,37 NRC 72 0993)

.j judicial concepts apphed in NRC pmceedings; LilP-934,37 NRC 72 (1993) meriwtype evalua6an of claims of; IEP-934,37 NRC 72 (1993) participanon in another proceedmg as basis fur Clj 934,37 NRC 156 0993) l rehance on prior danonstradons of; ClJ-93-4,37 NRC 156 0993)

STAY cnteria for sani of; C1193-2,37 NRC 55 0993) decisions or acnons appmpriately canidered for, C1193-2,37 NRC 55 0993) nonparty request f<r, C1193-2,37 NRC 55 0993) of discovery in byproduct material license suspmsion proceeding; 12P-934 37 NRC 207 0993) of low-power operating license, denial of; C1193-2,37 NRC 55 0993) pending appeal, of order grandng intervendon in operaung license amendment pmceeding; CLI-93-6,37 NRC 172 0993)

SURVE!! LANCE PROGRAM i

htigabihty of adequacy in operndng license cuension pmceedmg; 13P-931,37 NRC 5 0993) i I

l 1

i l

l i

47 I

l i

l j

l i

i

l t

(.

FACILITY INDEX I

J 5

i l

APOIID, PENNSYLVANIA FUEL FABRICAllON l'ACIJIY; Dmiet No. 74135 DCDM 3

DECOMMISSION!NO; February 5,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Ilcaring l

Request and Terminating Proceedingk LBP-934,37 NRC 72 0993)

I DECOMMISSIONINO; Man:h 30,1993; ORDER; QJ-93-9,37 NRC 190 (1993) d BRUNSWICK STATION, Uruts 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 50 324. 50-325 REQUEST IOR ACTION; February 1,1993; PARTIAL DIRECTOR *S DIiCIS10N UNDER 10 CFA 5 2.206; DD-93-3,37 NRC 113 (1993)

I g

j QA! BORNE ENRIGIMENT CENIER; Docket No. 70 3070.ML j

MATERIA 13 UCENSE; February 2,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng an Appbcant's Muuan to Cornpel Discovery); IEP-93-3,37 NRC 64 0993)

COMANOIE PEAK STEAM ELILTRIC STATION, Unit 1; Dmiet No. 54445 REQUEST IOR ACDON; January 15, 1993; DIRECTUR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62,206; i

I DD-93-2,37 NRC 52 0993) l COMANOIE ITAK STEAM 11ECTRJC STATION, Unit 2; thket No. 50446 CONSTRUCDON PERMIT AMENDMENT; February 3,1993; MEMORANVUM AND ORDER; CLJ-93-2,37 NRC 55 (1993) l CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMLhT; March 30, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; i

QJ-93-10,37 NRC 192 (1993) l OPERATINO LICENSE; January 29, 1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; QJ-93-1,37 NRC 1 0 993)

OP1 RATING 13 CENSE; March 9,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDIR; QJ-93-4,37 NRC 156 0 993)

COMANOIE PEAK STEAM EllLTRIC STATION, Unita 1 and 2; Dmiet Nos. 50-445, 50446 REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 15,1993; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CE.R. 82.2M; DD-93-1,37 NRC 39 (1993)

REQUEST IOR ACDON; February 1,1993; PARTIAL DIRILTOR'S DECSION UNDER 10 CIA 52.206; DD 93-3,37 NRC 113 0993)

DIABlD CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Umts I and 2; Dutiet Nos. 50 275-OM2,

$G323OLA-2 i

OPERA 1TNO UCENSE AMENDMENT; January 21, 1993; PRElIEARING CONIERENCE ORDER (Ruhng upon Interventies Peution and Authorizirs 11 earing); IEP-93-1,37 NRC 5 0993)

ENRICO IT.RMI ATDMIC POWER PLANT, Unit 2; Docies No. 50341 REQUEST IOR ACTION; February 1,1993; PARI 1AL DIRECTOR *5 DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 42.206; DD-93-3,37 NRC 113 (1993)

REQUEST IOR ACDON; March 31, 1993; DIRECIDR*S DEOSION UNDlR 10 CIA 51206; DDv93-6,37 NRC 246 (1993)

OEO-TEGI lABORA*! DRIES,43 South Avenue, Fanwomi, New Jersey 07023; Dm;ket No.

030-20693-LA l

ENIORCEMENT ACDON; February 1,1993; MLMORANDUM AND ORDER (fernunating Proceedmg); IEP-93-2, 37 NRC 61 0993)

PLRRY NUCLEAR POWLR PIANT, Unit 1: Ducket No. 50440 ItEQUEST IOR ACDON; Mant 21t,1993; DIRECIDR'S DEOSION UNDER 10 CIA 51206; DD-93-5,37 NRC 234 (1993) l 49 i

l i

l l

1

l FACILITY INDEX RANCIIO S100 NUCIIAR GENERARNG STADON; 1hiet No. 50 312-DCOM DICOMMISSIONINO; March 3,1993; MLMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-93-3,37 NRC 135 (1993) i f

DLCOMMISSIONING; March 15, 1993; ORDER; C1193-5,37 NRC 168 (1993)

RIVER 11END STATION, Unit 1; Dmiet No. 50-458

-[

j REQUEST FOR ACTION; February 1,1993; PARRAL DIRlrTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 t

l Cf.R. (1206; DD-93 3,37 NRC 113 (1993) l SilEARON I!ARRIS NUCLEAR PO%TR PLANT; Ducket No. 50400 REQUEST IVR ACDON; February 1,1993, PARRAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UhDER 10 l

Cf.R. 91206; DD-93 3,37 NRC 113 (1993) j TURKEY POINT NUC11.AR GIATRATING PLANT, Units 3 and 4; Dakes Nus. 5 4 250, 50-251 REQUEST IOR ACTION; March 23, 1993; DIRLCIDR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 5 2.206; I

DD-93-4,37 NRC 225 (1993)

I VOGIII EllCTRIC GENERADNG PLANT, Unas 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 54424CLA-3,50425 OIA-3 l

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 1E,1993; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Admiuing a Pany); 12P 93-5,37 NRC 96 (1993)

OPERATING IJCENSE AMENDMENT; March 18, 1993; ORDER; CL1-93-6,37 NRC 172 (1993)

WPPSS NUCIIAR PROJECT NO. 2; Ducke No. 50'397 REQLIST IOR ACTION; February 1,1993; PARDAL DIRICTOR'S DTEISION UNDER 10 CER.12.206; DD-93-3,37 NRC 113 (1993)

I

~

f t

50 I

I i

.