ML20072A706

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.January - March 1994

ML20072A706
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/31/1994
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V39-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V39-I1, NUDOCS 9408150162
Download: ML20072A706 (41)

Text

-..

NUREG-0750 Vol. 39 Index 1 ilNDEXES TO1

'NUCLEARsREGULATORY::

COMMISSION 1: ISSUANCES 4anuary;- Vlarcr 99L

'I

/s?sneau;%.

gy

>,x i1Hf S

) f{/%@SY' f

(;M*e

't U S. NUCL$AR REGULATORY COMMISSION W:g..

788 28Ae! '4 7 '

0750 R PDR

i

'I Available from L

j Superintendent of Documents l

U.S. Government Printing Office Mail Stop SSOP I

Washington, D.C. 20402-9328 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, j

4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.

l l

Single copies of this publication are available from f

National Technical Information Service I

Springfield, VA 22161 i

l Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services Office of Administration

)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC '20555-0001 (301/415-6844)

\\

l NUREG-0750 l

Vol. 39 Index 1 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES January - March 1994 i

i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.

Prepared by the Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301/415-6844)

i I

Foreword i

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

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

l Information elements common to the cases heard and ruled upon 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 number Subject matter ofissues and/or rulings Type of hearing (for construction pennit, operating license, etc.)

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

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

1. Case Name Index ne case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of h:aring, the type of issuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.

2. Digests and Ileaders l

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

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

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

He header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility j

name, docket number, type of hearing, date of issuance, and type of issuance.

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

!il l

l l

i i;

4 3

3. Legal Citations Index This index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alpha-numerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. These citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and statutes may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability of the citation, it is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance.

l

'Ihc references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are generally l

followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular issuance. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.

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

4 l

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

iv

NUREG-0750 Vol. 39 Index 1

~

flND$XEsnO)

LNUCliEARiRnsULATORE '

COMMISSION]#[$0ANCES)

?JanuaryHLMsrch3994 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

4,....

l l

l' l

i l

l i

I a

I CASE NAME INDEX i

l i

ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

ENTORCEMENT; ORDER APPROVING AND INCORPORATING STIPULATION IOR SETTLEMENT l

OF PROCEEDING AND SE1TUNG AND TERMINATING THE PROCEEDl 4G; Docket No.

j

%I6055-CivP-R (ASLBP No. 9348241-CivP-R) (Civil Itnalty), LBP-94-10, '9 NRC 126 (1994)

BABCOCK AND WILCOX COMPANY MA1 TRIALS UCENSE RENEWAL; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Authorizir i Anwndment to l

Hearing Request); Docket No. 70 364-MI Ren (ASLBP No. 94-68741-MI Ren; (Materials Ucenne No. SNM-414); LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 47 (1994)

GENERAL PUBLIC UTILTTIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION REQUEST IOR ACrlON; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; Docket No. 50-289; DD-94-3, 39 NRC 163 (1994)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Discovery Related to Office

(

of Investigation Report); Docket Non. 50-4244)LA-3, 50 425-OLA-3 (ASLDP No. 9347101-OIA 3)

C (Re: License Amendment; Transfer to Southern Nuclear); LBP-94-6,39 NRC 105 (1994)

/

GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, et al.

~

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (On Peution to lmervene)

Docket No 50-458-OLA (ASLBP No. 91680-04-OLA); LBP-94-3,39 NRC 31 (1994)

INNOVAT!YE WEAPONRY, INC.

j',

ENFORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Terminating Proceeding), Docket No.

03430266-EA (ASLBP No. 93-697-05-EA) (Byproduct Material License No. 3423697-01E) (EA 7

93-067); LBP 94-1, 39 NRC 9 (1994)

LLDYD P. ZERR L

PROGRAM FRAUD; INITIAL DECISION, Docket No. 9F0l-PF (ASLBP No. 93473-01 PF);

AU-94-1, 39 NRC 131 (1994)

NORTHEAST NUC11AR ENERGY CDMPANY l

REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2.206, Docket No. 50-423; l

DD-941,39 NRC 79 (1994)

ONCOLOGY SERVICES CORPORATION ENFORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Rufing on Parties' Piediscovery Motions to Dismiss l

or for Summary Disposioon); Docket No. 0%31765-EA (ASLEP No 93474-OLEA) (EA 93 006)

(Order Susperahng Byproduct Material License No. 37-2854041); LDP-94-2, 39 NRC !! (1994)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY l

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling upon Motion j

to Reopen Record); Docket Nos. 50L275-OLA-2, 50-323-OLA-2 (ASLBP No. 92-669-03-OLA 2)

(Construction Period Recovery) (Facility Operating Ucense Nos. DPR-80, DPR-82); LDP 94-9, 39 4

NRC 122 (1994)

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILrrY DISTRICT e

DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-312-DCOM; CLI-94 2, 39 NRC 91 (1994)

SEQUOYAH FUEL.S CORPORATION ENFORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Supplementa! Ittidon to Intervene); Docket No.

448027-EA (ASLBP No. 9444401 EA) (Source Material Ucense No. SUB-1010), LBP-94 8, 39 NRC 116 (1994)

I i

1

i CASE NAME INDEX SEQUOYAH FUEIS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS ENIORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Intervention Motion; Refemng Ruling to the Commission); Docket No. 48027-EA (ASLBP No. 94-68441-EA) (Source Material Ucense No.

SUB-1010); LDP 94-5. 39 NRC 54 (1994)

TRANSNUCLEAR, INC.

EXPORT UCENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 11004649 (Ucense No.

XSNM02748); CLI-94-1, 34 NRC 1 (1994) j U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY l

REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CER.12.206; DD-94-2, 39 NRC 86 (1994)

UMETCO MINERAL 3 CORPORATION MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Request for lleanag);

Docket No-408681-MIA-2 (ASLBP Ns 94-688-01-MLA-2) (Source Materials License No.

SUA-1338); LBP-94-7, 39 NRC 112 (1994)

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY REQUEST 10R ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-29; CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) t I

l l

i 2

4

_i 1

1 s

i I

l I

i I

l f

DIGESTS l

ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

4 Q L941 TRANSNUCLEAR. INC (Export of 9115% Enriched Uramum), Docket No. l1004649 (Ucense No. XSNM02748), EXPORT LICENSE; January 19,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER j

)

A The Commission denies a petition to intervene and request for a hearing on a heense application for the export of 280 kilograms of higb<nnched uraniuns in the form of mixed uranium and thorium carbide 3

fabricated as unirradiated fuel, to COGEMA in France to be processed for recovery of the uranium and i

l thanum. De Commission determines that the Petitioner is not enntled to intervene is a natter of nght

{

i under the Atomic Energy Act and that a hearing, as a matter of discretion, wouki not be in the pubhe f

interest and is not needed to assist the Commission in umking the deierminations required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, for issuance of tir export hcense.

l B

lastitudonal interest in providing informadon to the public and the generalized imerest of its 3

)

nrrrhership in minimizing danger from proliferation are insufficient for an organization to estaNish standing i

d under section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended l

C Section 304(bX2) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 mandates that the Commission

[

}

establish procedures for pubbe participation in nuclear export licensing proceedings when the Commission

/

{

finds that such participation will be in the public interest and will assist the Commission in making the 7

a statutory determinations required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The criteria set out in 10 x

CF.R. 6 !!0.84(a) for granting a hearing in export licensing cases as a matter of discretion acwmmodate

[

y this mandate.

D The focus of section 134 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as anended,is on &scouraging the l

continued use of high<nriched uranium ("HEU") as reactor fuel and not on protsbiting the exportation, per

/

{

se, of HEU.

)

CLI 94-2 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL IJTILITY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Stanon),

2 Docket No. 54312 DCOM, DECOMMISSIONING; March 1,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER j

A

%e Comrmssion denies Sacranento Municipal Uchty District's petition for review and motion for l

directed certification of LBP-93-23,38 NRC 200 (1993),in which the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board,

/

inter alia, admined a contention filed by Environmental and Resources Conservation Orgamzation.

B Although interlocutory review is disfavored and generally is not allowed as of right under our rules j

of practice (see 10 C.F.R. 6 2.730(f)), the criteria in section 2.786(g) reflect the limited circumstances in 7

wluch interlocutory review may be appropriate in a procec&ng.

I C

The mere expansion of issues rarely, if ever, has been found to affect the basic structure of a proccesng in a pervasive or unusual manner so as to warrant interlocutory review pursuant to section 2.786(gX2).

j CLI-94-3 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 5429, i

REQUEST FOR ACTION, March 18,1994 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1

A The Commission denies the request of Petiuoner, Environnentahsts, Inc., for an adjudicatory heanng regardmg decommissioning plans for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The Commission finds that the Peutioner has filed to identify any action taken by the NRC that requires the offer of a hearing.

The Commission notes that even if Petitioner had identified such an accon, it has failed to allege an interest to justify intervention in such a proceeding; and that, furthermore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that a

&scretionary hearing is warranted.

D De Comnussion will decline a grant of a petitioner's request to hah decommissioning activines where a petidoner has failed to address, much less satisfy, the four tra&tional cntena for injunct we relief:

3 I

l 4

3

DIGESTS 15SUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (1) irreparable injury, (2) probability of success on de nerits. (3) lack ofinjury to others, and (4) the pubbe interest. Any request for energency sebef should address those criteria.

C The only "right" to an opportunity for a hearing under section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act exists for those actions that are idenuned in section 189.

D NRC reguladons exphcitly provide only for nonce to be given to the pubhc regarding Commission approval of a proposed decommissioning plan.10 CFA 9 50.82(e).

E Under NRC regulations, a licensee may mnks changes to its facility without prior Commission approval if those changes do not involve an unreviewed safety question or do not violate the terms of the bcense.10 Cf.Il 6 50.59(aXI).

F A meniber of the public may cl.allenge an action taken under 10 Cf.R. I50.59 (changes to a facility) only by means of a petition under 10 CFA (2.206.

. Under 10 Cf.R. 8 71.12, an NRC heensee is giwn a general license to ship or transport material G

that is subject to NRC licene in an NRC-approved package widmut approval by the Commission.

H Concerns regardmg acceptance by a low-level waste facihty reguised by an Agreenunt State Program of matenals removed isom a nuclear power plant must be directed to the state in which the facihty resides, not the NRC.

I A low-level masse facihty can accept special nuclear matenal (SNM) for disposal only under an NRC license that it holds, not under a state license under which the facihty has accepted reactor materials f

and components removed from a nuclear power plant site.

J Assunung there exists an NRC proceeding on the issues of concern to a petidoner, that petidoner must satisfy the minimum requirements of 10 Cf.R. I 2.714 which governs intervention in NRC proceedings.

K In order to saisfy the criteria for grard of a petition for intervendon, a pedtioner umst allege a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to de challenged action and is hkely to be redressed i

by a favorable decision.10 Cf.R. I 2.714(aX2).

L la order to nret the test far organiza6onal stanchng, an organizadon must allege: (1) that the

)

action will cause an " injury in fact" to either (a) the orgamzadon's interests or (b) the interests of its rnembers; and (2) that the injury is within the " zone of interests" protected by either the AEA, de Energy Recrganization Act (ERA), or the National Environrnental Policy Act (NEPA).

M A petitioner's identi6 cation of four organizational members whose interests have allegedly been j

injured or might be injured by accons taken in relation to the decommissioning process does not sansfy the Snjury in fact" piong of the orgamzational standing test wlere those nrmhers live near the proposed site for the dasposal of scactor materials and components and not near the site of the nuclear power plant from which the materials are to be removed.

N Where a petiboner's organizauonal address is farther than 50 miles nom a nuclear power plant site,it is outside ewn the radms within which the NRC normally presumes standing for those actions that l

may have sigm6 cant offsite consequences at plaras that are operating at full power.

O A heanng pedtion or supplementary pention that does not allege any concrete or particularized injury that would occor as a result of the transportanon of reactor materials or components to a low-level waste facihty, fails to demonstrate any " injury in fact."

P A hearing pention or supplenentary petition that alleges only that petitioner's members live "close" j

to transportation routes that will be used for shipnents of reactor materials and components to a low level waste facihty and does not identify those routes or explain how "close" to those routes the petitioner's numbers actually live, fails to demonsuate " injury in fact."

Q Under secoon 16)(c) of the AEA, the Commission has the inhemat discretion to insotute a proceedmg even where none is required by law.

R The institunon of a proceeding where one is not required is appropriate only where substantial health and safety issues have been identihed.

4

_ _ ~

U f

I r

E I

f l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF 11tE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS i

LBP 8 INNOVATIVE WEAPONRY, INC (Albuquerque, New Mexico), Docket No. 030-30266-EA f

(ASLBP No.93-697 05-EA) (Byproduct Material Ucense No. 3423697-OLE)(EA 93-067); ENIORCE-I MENT; January 11,1994, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Terminanng Proceeding) f LBP-94-2 ONCOIJ0GY SERVICES CORPORATION, Docket No. 03431765-EA (ASLEP No.93-674 i EA) (EA 93 006) (Order Suspending Byproduct Material Ucense No. 37-2854 4 01); ENTURCEMENT; January 24,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Parties' Prediscovery Motior.s to Dismiss 2

or for Summary Disposition)

/

A la dus license suspension proceedmg, de Ucensing Board rules on prediscovery rnotions to dismiss

(

or for sumnary disposition negarding a dozen of de litiganon issues specified by licensee Oncology Services Corporation.

i l

B As a creature of the Congress, the agency can only wield that enforcement authonty it has been 6

given by legislative enactment. See 5 U.S.C 1558(b).

C C

Previous judicial interpretanon makes it clear that the Commission's enforcement authority under sections 16th,161i(31 and 186a of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 42 U.S C. Il220l(bk 2201(iX3),

2236(a), is wide ranging, perhaps uniquely so. See Siegel v. AEC,400 F.2d 778,783 (D.C Cir.1968).

I D

The Commission's broad authority under AEA section 182,42 U.S C 6 2232(a). to de6ne regulatory

]

requirenrnes hkewise has received judicial recognition. See Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC,880 F.2d 552,558 (D.C Cir.1989) (determination of what consututes " adequate protection" of the public heahh 3

and safety for reactor facihties under section 182 is a matter congressionally comnuned to the Commission's sound &scretion).

?

E A valid agency order mandaung requirenrnts for a particular heensee is on an equal footing with a vahd regulation affecting licensees generally. See AEA i161b,42 U.S.C 1220l(b). See also Wrangler

~i laboratones, ALAB-951,33 NRC 505,518 & n.39 (1991).

l F

The choice of whether to use a general rule or an individual order to estabbsh a standard is one r

within "the informed discretion" of the agency. See NI.RB v. Bell Aerospace Co.,416 U.S. 267, 294 (1974); SEC v. Chencry Corp., 332 U.S.194, 203 (1947). This pnnciple recognizes that in the face of l

a broad congressional mandate such as that given to the NRC, an agency simply cannot be expected to 2

j anticipate and promulgate a rule relative to each activity that a regulated entity undertakes. Therefore, to

[

permit administratiw agencies to deal effectively with the varied, complex regulatory problems they face, j

j those agencies rnust retain the power to address those problems on a caserby-case basis by issuing orders.

g See Chenery,416 U.S. at 203. In the words of the Suprene Court, to do otherwise "is to exalt form over necessity." Id. at 202.

O There snay be instances when an agency's determinauon to proceed by order rather than rulemaking would amount to an abuse of Ascretion. See Dell Aerospace,416 U.S. at 294.

H A general "due process" concern about the agency's failure to give expbcit pnor notice of the standards set forth in an order generaDy is not suf6cient to estabhsh an agency abuse of discreuon in making a choice to proceed by order rather than by regulation, given the Supreme Court's recogmtion of the discretion afforckd agencies to utilize individual orders to establish bindmg standards. See Bearer East, i

inc. v. EPA, Region III, %3 F.2d 603,609 (3d Cir.1992).

1 I

In determining whether an agency has abused its discretion in choosing to proceed by order rather I

i than regulation, the critical factor appears to be whether the challeriged agen y order "6ll[s] interstices in i

the law" or wheder it creates a new standard, cirher because the order overrules past precedents rehed 5

i f

}

f I

1 l

l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS upon by the party subject to the rubog or because it is as issue of 6rst impression. See United food &

Commercial Workers International Union, local No.150 A v. NLRB,1 F.3d 24,34 (D C Cir.1993). Only in the latter instance is a concera about the retroncave applicadon of the order warranted.

J When it relies on the agency's general statutory rnandate to " protect the public health and safety" instead of a specafic, previously issued regulation, order, segulatory guide, or license condidon as the basis for imposing an enforcement sanction, the Staff must be prepared to establish with specificity the health and safety consegences of the bcensee action or inaction about which it complains. Ultinately, the Staff nest show how the standard to which it would hold the licensee (and presumably others similarly situated) tegard ng those maners is a reasonable component of agency's general statutory mandate to protect the public health and safety.

K After au factual allegations in an issue speci6ed is an enforcement proceeding are presumed to be true and all reasonable inferences are made io favor of the party sponsoring the issue,if there is no set of facts that would endtle that party to relief on the issues, dismissal is appropriate. See Hishon v. King &

Spalang. 467 U.S. 69,73 (1984).

L Consistent with the analogous agency tules regarding contenuons 6led by intervenors, see 10 C F.R.

12.714(dX2Xii), it is within the IJcensmg Board's authonty in an enforcenent proceeding to entertain a Staff monon seeking dismissal of issues speci6ed by the opposing party. See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.718.

M W Conurussion intended to de6ne the scape of an enforcement proceeding under 10 C.F.R. 12.202 to hmit the Licensing Boani to a determination regarding the suf6ciency of the legal and factual pre & cates oudined in the Staffs enforcenent order as of the time the order was issued. %e essent to winch j

subsequent circumstances warrant agency acdon to modify or withdraw a suspension order generally is a matter that is within the &scredon of the Staff and is not subject to consideration in an agency adjudication.

Cf. San 1.nis Obispo Mothers for peace v. NRC,751 F.2d 1287.1314 (D.C Cir.1984), vacated in part and rehearing en banc gransed on other grounds,760 F.2d 1320 (1985), aff'd en banc,789 F.2d 26, cert.

)

devued,479 U.S. 923 (1986).

N The question of the presiding officer's authority to consider whether the Staff should act so revine or withdraw a challenged suspension order can be distinguished from instances in which the Staff actually has acted (1) to mo&fy or withdraw a previously issued order during the pendency of an adjudicatory proceeding regarding that order, or (2) to enter into an agreement to take such actions to seule a procce&ng.

la both of the latter instances, agency rules provide that the Staff's action is subject to scrutiny by the presiang of6cer. See 10 C.F.R. Il2.203,2.717fb).

LDP-94-3 GULF STATES UrlLITIES COMPANY, et at (River Bend Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-f 458-OLA (ASLBP No.93-680 040LA); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 27, 1994; MEMOltANDUM AND ORDER (On Petition to Intervene) i A

In this Decision, the ljcensing Board grants a peution to intervene and request for a hearing.

I Stan&ng was granted on the basis that the property interest of a petitioner in a nuclear facihty, who was a co-owner of the facility, might be jeopardized by potential ensafe operation of the facihty caused by underfunding. The Board accepted one of seven contentions. The accepted contention was based on potential unsafe operanon of the facihty caus-d by a lack of fun &ng.

B license amendnents can be made immediately effective solely at the discretion of NRC Staff,

)

following a determination by Staff that there are no significant hazards considerations involved. Immediate effectiveness 6a&ngs are not subject to review by licensing boards.

C in past NRC cases, stan&ng based on injury to property has been denied because the property interests in question were too far removed from the purpose of the underlying statutes governing those proceedings. Those cases primanly involved economic interests of ratepayers and taxpayers or general concerns about a facility's impact on local utility rates and the local economy. Notwithstandmg the ratepayerhaxpayer line of cases, property interests can confer standing since the Atomic Energy Act affords radiological protection for both human life and property. There is standing in this procce&ng since the Petitioner's stated interest is to protect its property, the nuclear facihty, from radiological hazards arising from the facility's unsafe operation.

D Injury in-fact in this procec&ng was based upon potential damage to a co-owner's property interest in a nuclear facihty. Potential property damage included loss of the co owner's share of the facility, kiss of plant power and revenue, and potential habihty to third parties from radiological accidents.

6

~

l

\\

I DIGESTS 1

ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS 1

E A petitioner need not estab ish that injury will inevit:,Li; result from the proposed action to show 1

an injury in fact, but only that it may be injured in fact by the proposed action.

F Licensee's argument that a lack of fun &ng could not adversely affect plant safety because the plaat would be safely shut down is rejected by the board. This argunent contradicts the radonale of 10 C.F.R. 50.33(f)(2993) requiring appbcants for operstmg licenses to demonstrate that they possess reasonable assurance of obtaining funds necessary to cover estimated operation costs for the period of the licenses.

O Although an electnc utihty's 6aancial quah6 canon usually cannot be the subject of litigation in t

NRC operating license proceedmgr., this exernption does not apply to operators of a nuclear facility that are i

not electric utilities.

H Absent ra&ological heahh and asfety concerns, environmental concerns, or antitrust matters subject to NRC license con &tions, contractual disputes between co owners is nuclear facihties ordinarily should be l

resolved by the appropriais state, local, or federal court.

I Contractual esputes among electric utihties regarang interconnection and transmission provisions, rates for electric power and services, cost-sharing agreernents,loog-term and short-term planning functions, j

l and similar, utility 4 elated operational agreenents are matters that fall within the jurisdiction of FERC or j

appropriate state agencies that tegulate electric unlities.

J Ucensing boards have no jurisdiction to enforce hcense con &tions unless they are the sutiect of I

an enforcement action initialed pursuant to 10 CS,R.12.202a (1993). The petitioner's only recourse in this instance is to request enforcement action by the Staff pursuant to 10 Cf.R. 5 2.206 (1993).

1 LBP-94-4 BADCOCK AND W10CDX COMPANY (Pennsyl ania Nuclear Services Operations, Parks Town-ship, Pennsylvania). Docket No. 74364.ML-Res (ASLBP No. 94-687-Ol-MleRen) (Materials Ucense No.

j SNM414); MATERIALS LICENSE; February 2,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Authorizsng Anendment to Hearing Re:paest)

LBP-94-5 SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore, Oklahoma Site Decon- -

taminanon and Decommissioning hnding) Docket No.448027.EA (ASLBP No. 94-684-01-EA)(Source l

Material Ucen e No. SUB-1030); ENIORCEMENT; February 24,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting intervention Motion; Referring Ruling to the Comnussion)

A in this pruceeding concerning a Staff enforcenent order issued in accordance with 10 C F.R.

(2.202, the Licensing Board grants a petition for leave to intervene, concluding that (1) interverition in support of a Staff enfarrenent order is permitted, (2) the Ittitioner established its stan&ng to intervene in this particular proceeding; and (3) the intervention motion was timely filed. Ad&tionally, the Ucensing 1

Board refers its ruling on the first mattes to the Commission for its review.

(

B Once a party to whorn a Staff enforcenient order is directed requests a hearing, a person favoring I

the order is presented with the likelihood that an adjudicatory pmceeding would be conducted that could have two possible outcomes: the presiding officer wouki fully sustain the order or it would not, either became the presieng officer would reject the order in whole or in part or because the order would be l

i 1

l modihed or withdrawn by some unilateral Staff action or by a settlement between the Staff and the parties contesting the order. Given these two possible outcomes, only if the person supporung the enforcenent i

order is permitted to participate in the proceeding can it protect its interest in seeing that the order and the requirenents the order irnposes are sustained. Therefore,if the person supporting tte order also can l

establish a particularized injury that it or its members will suffer in the event the order is not sustained, i' is entitled to intervene as of right as a

• person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding" under section 189a(l) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,42 U.S C.12239(aXI), and/or 10 C.F.R.12.714(aXI).

C A Staff action to relax or rescind the con &tions in an enforament order that is the subject of an ongoing adjudication would be subject to review by tir ;4esidmg officer with input from 611 parties so the proceedmg. See Oncology Servims Corp., LBP-94-2,39 NRC 11,26 n 12 (1994).

I

(

D Pursuant to 10 Cf R. 6 2.203, any settlement between the Staff and any of the pames subject to an enforcement order must be reviewed and approved by the presiding of6cer. In such a circumstance, a panicipant intervening in support of the order would have an opportunirj 1o vindicate its imerest in having tir order sustained fully by demonstrating why the seulenent proposal would not be in the public interest.

E la assessing whether an intervenor has made the necessary showing of particularized injury to estabbsh its right to intervene in a proceeding, the presiding ofncer is constrained to apply contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing. See Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1),

7 l

I i

i

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS CLI-93 21,38 NRC 87,92 (1993). This requires that the pesiang officer assess whether Cw intervenor will suffer any " injury in fact" relative to its interests in de procee&ng and whether those alleged interests are withis the " zone of interests" protected by the perunent statutes and reguladons under which the petitioner seeks to participate in the proceeding. See id.

F To estabbah de requisite injury in fact, a petitioner snust allege a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the action at issue and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in the pucceding See Perry, CLI-93-21,38 NRC at 92.

G la reviewing affidavits on the issue of wheder a petiooner has establisted its injury in fact so as to I

have stan&ng to intervene, the presidmg officer nest bear in mind the often-repeated admonicon to avoid I

"the famihar trap of confusing the stan&ng determinanon with the assessment of petitioner's case on tie nents." City of Los Angeles v. National Highway Traf6c Safety Administration,912 F.2d 478. 495 (D C Or.1990)(citations omitted)

H if, on Ow basis of the presentations by the participants, the pesi&ng officer is unable to conclude relative to an intervenor's properr, that there is "no potennal for offsite consequences" from contamination from a licensee's site, see Ferry, CLI-93-21,38 NRC at 95, then there has been a sufficient demonstration ofinjury in fact to provide standing to interwne as of right in a proceeding.

I Although 10 C.F.R. 52.714(aXI) has been interpreted to require that the late-filed factors be addressed in the imtial late intervention petition, it is within a presi&ng of6cer's discretion to permit an intervenor to make a belaied lateness showing. See Boston Edison Co. (Pilgnm Nuclear Fuwer Station),

ALAB.816,22 NRC 461. 466 68 (1985).

J In interpreung a statute or regulation, the usual inference is that different language is intended to mean efferent things. See Umred States e. Stauffer Chemical Co.,684 F.2d 1174,1186 (6di Cir.1982),

affd,464 U.S.165 (1984).

K The inference regarding differing neanings for difIering language might be negated by a showing that the purpose or history behind the language demonstrates that no efference was intended. See Stauffer Chemical Co.,684 F.2d at 1186.

L For an intervenor who wishes to become a party to a hearing to protect its interest in seeing that the Staff enforcenent order challenged in a proceeding is sustained, the matter adversely affectmg the petitioner's interest is not the " order," with which it agrees, but the agency's " proceeding" selative to that order, which carries the potential for overturning or mo&fying the order in derogation of the pennoner's interests. Therefore, the language of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.202(aX3) estabbshing a 204 fay deadline for hearing i

I requests by any person " adversely affected by the order" is not applicable to such a petitioner. Instead, the pentioner's intervendon is gewerned by the terms of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(aKI), which is appbcable to "lalny person whose interest may be affected by a proceedmg," and is subject to any time hrruts that are estabhshed in accordance with that section.

M If the only agency issuance provieng constructive nonce of a filing deadhne for heanng requests is a Staff enformment order issued in accordance with 10 CF.R. 6 2.202(aX3) that, by its ternu, is not applicable to persons who wish to intervene in support of the order, then an intervention petioon filed by such a person cannot be deened unumely for failing to meet an appropnately noticed 6hng deadhne.

N Even in the absence of any constructive nonce of when an intervention peution rnust be 6ted, the possitnhry rernains that an intervenor had actual notice of de pendency of an enforcenent proceeding and j

failed to make a twely intervendon request following that notice. See 54 Fed. Reg. 8269, 8272 (1989).

O Because it is their interest in the proceedmg" rather than the " order" that is relevant for a person wishing to intervene in support of a Staff enforcement order, the perunent actual notice was that affording the intervenor knowledge that an adjudicatory proceeding would be commenced. Receipt of the hearing request of a person adversely affected by the order constitutes such nonce. By 6 ting an intervention motion widun 10 days after receipt of such a hearing request, an intervenor acts seasonably relative to that actual nonce. Compare 10 C.F.R. I 21205(cX2Xi)(hearing request must be hied within 30 days of actual nonce).

P Until a determination is made that an intervenor has proffered a litigable contention, a presi&ng officer's ruling that the petitioner has estahhshed its standing is not 6nal so as to be appealable pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.714a. See Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Stanon),

ALAB.595,11 NRC 860, 864-65 (1980).

8 l

l

~

~-

l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AN!1 LICENSING BOARDS l

Q Because the question of whether intervenuon as of right exists for a petitioner that wants to emer a 10 C.FA ( 2.202 enforcement order proceeding to support the Staff's order is of sone nement for the l

structure of diis proceeding, as well as the Conmussion's adjudicmory process generally, and in order to alleviate any delay in Cornnussion consideration of this matier pending the Licensing Board's determinanon regarding the admissibihty of the intervenor's contentions, in acccedance with 10 C.F.R.12.730(f) it is appropriate for the Board to refer its ruhng on the petitioner's right to intervene to the Commission for its imme& ate review. Cf. Statenrnt of Policy on Car, duct of Ucensing Proceedings, C1181-8,13 NRC 452,4%57 (1981)(in licensing hearings, licensing boards should seek Commission guidance on signi6 cant legal or policy questions and should do 30 in a manner that will avoid delay in the procecdmg).

LBP-944 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. (Vogtle Electric Genersong Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA 3,50-425-OLA-3 (ASLBP No.93471-01 OLA 3)(Re: License Anradment; Transfer to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 3,1994, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Discovery Related to Of6cc of Invesugmion Report)

A Factual informauon contained in a 4ompleted inwst4ation report will be segregated and released if there is no speci6c allegation of how the release would hurt a future enforcement action or deter future i

1 predecisional communications within the Staff of the Comnussion.

B The Board reviewed the Rules of Practice,10 C.F R. 62.790(aX5) and (a)(7) as well as the i

"Statenes of Policy, lavestigations, inspections, and Adju6catory Proceedings," 49 Fed. Reg. 36,032-34 (1984). It concluded that both docununts required the release both of factualinformation and of the Staff's opinions in the Of6ce of Investigation Report. The Board was heavily influenced by: (1) the failure to allege any specine adverse inplications for an enforcenent accon; and (2) the Staff's decision to release the Ofhce of Investigation Report, tims narrowing the effect of an immediate releam of requested information.

The Board reasoned that since the report would be released anyway, there would be litik adverse impact on the Staff from releasing it now.

C Discovery of Staff docunents may be appropriate when there is no specihc allegation of an adverse impact either on a future enforcenent action or on intra-Staff discussions.

D The "Statemem of Policy: Investigations, Inspections and Adjudicatory Procedure" requires the release of Staff docuness after an investigation is complete and during the period of Staff evaluation of that investigation. Contrary language found in the Statement is by way of pieliminary explanation and is not as signi6 cant as the operative language, which escludes any esemption from releasing Staff docunents during a time that investigation results are being evaluated.

E When the Staff of the Commission requests that docununts be treated as privileged, the Board may exercise its authority as presiding ofncer and may release docunents. However,it should hmit its ruling to what is newssary to fairly adjudicate the pending case, and it may require release pursuant to a pmtecove order is order to sasisfy a Staff request to avoid publicity during a continuing process of evaluating the results of an investigation.

LBP-94-7 UMETCO MINERAIS CORPORATION, Docket No.40-08681-MLA 2 (ASLDP No. 94488 f MLA-2)(Source Materials Ucense No. SUA-1358), MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; March 4 I

1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Request for Hearing)

LBP-94-8 SEQUOYAH FUELE CORPORATION (Gore, Oklahoma Site Decontanunation and Decommis-siomag Funding), Docket No. 40-8027-EA (ASLBP No. 94-684-01-EA) (Source Material License No.

SUB 1010); ENFORCEMEFG; March 22,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Supplemental Petition l

to intervene)

A in this proceeding concerning a Staff enfurcemem order issued in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 12.202, the Ucensing Board concludes that an intervenor wishing to participate in the pmceedmg to support the Staff's enforcemem order has presemed two lingable comentmas B

NRC regulations require that an admissible comention consist of (1) a specinc statenrnt of the issue to be raised or converted; (2) a brief explanation of the bases for the comention; (3) a concise statenrnt of the alleged facts or expert opinion supporting the cornention on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at any hearing; and (4) sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists on a material issue of law or fact. See 10 C.F R. 6 2.714(bX2). A failure to comply with any of these requirements is grounds for dismissing the comemion.

i 9

l l

e l

DIGESTS l

ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS C

A contention's proponent must be afforded an cpporturuty to he fuard in respoene to objeccons to the comention. See Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Aliens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Unit 1),

ALAB-565,10 NRC 521,525 (1979).

D The obvious intent of the prucedural requicements on coraendons is to ensure the ideno6 cation of bona 6de htigaove issues. A concern has been expressed in agency adjudicatory directives about not utilizing pleading " niceties' to exchade parties who have a clear, albeit imperfectly stated, imerest. See Houston Ughting and 1%wer Co. (South Texas Project. Units I and 2), AIAB-549, 9 NRC 644,649 (1979). Dus suggests that an intervenor's identi6 cation of a legitirnate issue should not be negated becau.w of its use of sonrwhat imperfect phraseology.

LBP 94-9 PACIFIC GAS AND ElILTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). Docket Nos. 542754LA 2,54321OLA-2 (ASlJP No. 92 669-034LA 2)(Construction IYriod Recovery)(Fucility Operating Ucense Nos. DPR-80, DPR-82); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 23,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling upon Monon to Reopen Record)

A De Uceming Board denies Intervenor's rnation to reopen the evidentiary record based on an i

I inspection seport raising new unresolved items concerning irnplerrentauon of the mairnenance/ surveillance l

program (an issue in de proceeding). De Board prenused its ruling on an af6 davit by de NRC inspector (upon whose statenwnts the Imervenor sched) that none of the unresolved items would confhet with or undernune his prior testimony he denial is without prejudice to the later 61ing of a motion to reopen by Intervenor bawd on any such unresolved items that are demonstrate:S as signi6 cant and possessing substanove implications with respect to implementation of the maintenance / surveillance propam.

LBP 94-10 ADVANCED MEDICAL $YSTEMS, INC. (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), fWhet No.

3616055-OvP-R (ASLEP No. 93482 01-CivP-R) (Civil 1%nalty); ENIORCEMENT; March 31. 1994, ORDER APPROVING AND INCORPORATING STIPULATION IOR SE'ITLEMENT OF PROCEEDING AND SE1TLING AND TERMINATING THE PROCEEDLNG l

l l

l 10 l

l l

I

= _... _ -. -. _ -...

1 l

l 1

I I

i 1

DIGESTS ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

\\

f I

AU.94-1 LLOYD P. ZERR. Docket No. 9M1-PF (ASLBP No. 9M73-01-PO; PROGRAM FRAUD; March 9.1994; INTilAL DECISION 1

C b

=

w

=

r

~

^...

/

7 5

=

{

?

l i

I j

i I

L l

s I

s l

l i

I

)--

i i

l 1

l l

4 j

l l

l i

4 f

j J

)

DIGESTS i

ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS

• DECIslON i

i f

]

DD'94-1 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, Docket No. 50 423; REQUEST IOR ACTION; February 9,1994; DIRECIOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. I 2 206 A

he Director, Off ce of Enforcernent, denies a Petition 61ed by Paul M. Blanch (Peutioner) pursuant to 10 CF.R. I 2.206. De Petition requested that the NRC take enforcenerd action, in ad& tion 10 that taken in a May 4,1993 enforcenent action, against Northeast Nuclear Energy Company for certain activities thar he alleged consctured violations of 10 CF.R. 66 50.7 and 50.5.

g B

la view of the NRC's hmited resources, it is normally rnore appropriate to focus on new enforcenent actions, rather than reopen closed actiors.

DI194-2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (Hanford Site); REQUEST FOR ACTION, February 22,1994; L

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 3

The Director, Of6ce of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, denies a Petition 61ed by F.

I A

Robert Cook requesting that tle Dutctor of the Of6cc of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards exercise a

his authority to require a heense applicanon from dw U.S. Departnrnt of Energy with respect to certain p

high-level radioacuve wastes, consisting of spent nuclear fuel generated at Nuckar Regulatory Commission-i licensed nuclear teactors, stored in hot cells and the 200 Area Burial Ground at the Hanford Site in the f

State of Waslungton. As basis for this request, the Petitioner asserts that the hot cells and 200 Area at the

[

Hanford Sire are storage facilities for higtvlevel ra6oactive wastes subject to section 202(3) of the Energy 3

2 Reorganization Act of 1974 and the regulatory authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

B Research and developnent, rather than nceipt and storage of high-level radiouctive waste, is the pnmary une of hot cells in Buil&ngs 324,325, and 327 at the Pacinc Northwest Laboratory (PNL) with respect to NRC.hcensee-generated materials. Accor&ngly, these PNL builangs are not subject to regulation by the NRC pursuant to section 202(3)of the Energy Reorganizauon Act of 1974.

S '

C Neither the Hanford 20) Ana Bunal Ground nor either of its subarcas (200 East and 200 West) 3 is used prirnarily for receipt and storage of high-level radioactive waste from NRC-licensed activities.

L l

Accordingly, these facihties are not subject to regulation by the NRC pursuant to section 202(3) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

4 DD-94-3 GENERAL PUBLIC LITILJflES NUCliAR CORPORATION (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, i

Unit I), Docket No. 50 289; REQUEST FOR ACTION, March 31, 1994, DIRECTOR'S DECISION j

UNDER 10 C.F.R. I2.206 j

A The Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulauon dennes a Petioon dated July 10,1992,6 led j

with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Robert Gary, on behalf of the Nnnsylvania Institute for 1

Clean Air (PICA) requesting that the NRC take action with respext to GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN).

]

The Petitioner alleged discrepancies in the Dauphin County Radiological Energency Response Plan (RERP) 1 and that de Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) and tie Dauphin County RERPs fail j

to provide for the use of military vehicles in the event of a radiological emergency, and requested that IIe NRC order GPUN to " power down" Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit I (TMI-1) unal a workable emergency evacuation plan is in place. In various supplenents to de Peuuon, the Pentioner alleged 1

additional deficiencies in enrrgency preparedness planning and dnlis, and requested that the 10.rnile plume l

exposure pathway for TMI-I be expanded to include the City of Wrrisburg, that the NRC conduct an 1

independent de novo investigatica of htitioner's concerns, that the NRC require GPUN to remit 51 million i

per year to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for emergency planning around TMI-1, or in the alternative that the NRC federalize the collection and &stribution of energency preparedness funds, and that the NRC i

l e

13 1

i a

4 l

l l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS tupire that the RERP for Dauphin County be hmited to suo pages, tabted, waterproofed, color-coded, and l

i e large type for case of use is an energency, and include allimplernenting procedures. After en evaluation l

of the PEMA and Dauptun County RERPs by the Federal Energency Managernent Agency, the Director I

concludes that Petitioner raised no substattial public health or safety concerns and that enere is reasonable I

assurance that adequate offsite prometive uneasures un and will be taken to protect the health and safety of the public in the event of a radiological emergency at TM1-1.

I 14 l-t

l l

l l

l l

1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES 1

I i

i Ackerly v. Ley, 420 F.2d 1336,1341 (D.C. Cir.1969) purposes of deliberative pmcess exenipion; LRP 94-6, 39 NRC 108 (1994) tihed-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Nel Receiving and Storage Stadon), ALAB-328,3 NRC 420 l

(1976) i interversion in suppoet of Staff eurorcenrat order; LBP-94-5,39 NRC 64 (1994) l Arned Nrces Radiology Research Institute (Cobalt-60 Storage 1%cihty), AIAB-682,16 NRC 150,154 i

(1982) i geographic proximity of numbers as bnsis for organization's standing to intervene; LBP-94-4. 39 NRC 51 (1994)

(

Babcock and Wilcox (Apollo, Pennsylvania Fuel Fabrication Facihty), LBP-92-24, 36 NRC 149 (1992) 7 authority of presiding of6cer to allow amendment of intervention peti 6ons in Subpart L proceedings; J

LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 49 a.4 (1994)

Beazer East, Inc. v. EPA, Region III, %3 F.2d 603, 609 (3d Cir.1992)

/

NRC discretion to use individual orders to establish binding standards; LBP-94-2. 39 NRC 22 (1994)

[

Belloto v. NRC,725 F.2d 1380,1382 m.2 (D C, Cir.1983)

=

intervendon in support of Staff enforcerrent order, LBP-94-5,39 NRC 63. 64 (1994)

[

Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), AIAB-816,22 NRC 461, 46648 (1985) g factors to be addressed in late intervention petsnon; LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 71 a 18 (1994) r Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-82-16,16 NRC 44, 45 (1982), aff'd, Bellord v.

NRC,725 F.2d 1380 (D.C. Cir.1983) scope of htigable issues in hearing on suspension order; LEP-94-2, 39 NRC 25 (1994)

Braunkohle Transport, USA (Import of South Afrran Uranium Ore Concentrate), CLJ-87-6,25 NRC 891,

[

893 (1987) discretionary grant of a hearing on export license, criteria for; C2.J-94-1,19 NRC b (1994)

Cincinnati Gas and Dectric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power S:stionk ALAB-595,11 NRC 860, 864-65 (1980) appealabihty of intervention rulings; LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 76 n.24 (1994)

City of Los Angeles v. National Highway Traf6c Safety Administration,912 F.2d 478, 495 (D.C. Cir.

1990) confusion of standing determinations with nerits determinations; LEP-94-5,39 NRC 68 (1994)

Cleveland Electric Dlurrunating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CL1-93-21,38 NRC 87,92 (19w) injury-in-fact and zone-of-interests tests applied to intervention in support of Staff enforcement order; LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 66-67 (1994) injury-in-fact showing for intervention in Subpart L proceedings, LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 49 (1994) injury standard for intervention in NRC proceedings; C1J-94-3,39 NRC 102 (1994) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; CLI-94-1,39 NRC 5 (1994)

Cleveland Dectric Illuminatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), C1J-93-21, 38 NRC 87, 95 n.to (1993) concrete and particularized injury needed to support intervention; LEP-94-5, 39 NRC 68 n.12 (1994)

Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), LBP-92 4, 35 NRC 114,123 n.45 (1992), rev'd, CLI-93-21, 38 NRC 87 (1993) 15

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES stanang injury linked to potential consequences to those in geographic prosinuty to nuclear faciht)",

GP-94-5,39 NRC 68 n 13 (1994)

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York On&an Point Units 1, 2, and 3), CU-75-8, 2 NRC 173,175 (1975) standard for insatution of 2206 proceedings; DD-94-3,39 NRC 185 (1994)

Consobated Edison Ca of New York Undian Pomt, Units I,2, and 3), CU 75-8, 2 NRC 173,176 (1975) standard for discretionary snautution of NRC proceedings; CU-94-3, 39 NRC 103 (1994)

Consunrrs Power Co. (%dland Plant Uruts I and 2), WiP-78 27,8 NRC 275,277 n.1 (1978) evidentiary inquiry to deterrnine stan&ng to intervene; LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 52 n.6 (1994)

Consurners Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1285,1299 a.15 (1984) criteria for reopening a record; LBP-94-9,39 NRC 124 (1994)

Consuners Power Co- (Palisades Nuclear Power Facility), AU-801,12 NRC 117,119-20 (1980) standard for production of privileged docunents; LBP-94-6, 39 NRC 108 (1994)

Dairyland Power Cooperative (la Crone Boiling Water Reactor), LBP-80L26,12 NRC 367 (1980) intervention in support of Staff enforcenent order, LDP-94 5, 39 NRC 66 a.9 (1994)

Edlow International Co. (Agent for the Goverenrnt of India on Application to Espcst Special Nuclear Material), CU-76-6, 3 NRC 563. 572 78 (1976) institutional inierest in providng infornation to the public and generalized interest of nrmberships in enirarnizing danger frorn nuclear prohferation as basis for standing to intervene; CU-94-1, 39 NRC 5 0994)

EPA v. Enk, 410 U.S. 73, 87, 93 S. Ct. 827 0973) purposes of deliberative process esemption; LEP-94-6, 39 NRC 108 (1994)

Florida Power and Ught Co. (St. Imcie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), CU-7812, 7 NRC 939, 948-49 (1978) evidentiary inquiry to deserrnine standing so intervene; LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 52 n.6 (1994)

Florida Ibwer and Ught Co. (St Lucie Nuclear Pour Plant Units I and 2), C1189-21,30 NRC 325, 329-30 0 989) showing necessary to dernonstrate injury in fact where potential for offsite consequences is not obvious; LBP-94-4,39 NRC 51 (1994)

Florida Power and Ught Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4), ALAB-952,33 NRC 521, 528-30 (1991) test for organizational antervention; CU-94 3,39 hPC 102 (1994) florida Power and Ught v. Lonon,470 U.S. 729,739 (1985) scene of heanng rights under AEA section 189a; CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 1010994)

General Electric Co. (Exports to Taiwan), CU-812,13 NRC 67,70 (1981) institutional interest in providag information to tir p-blic and generahzed interest of nrnderships in mininazing danger from nuclear probferation as basis for stan&ng to intervene; CLI.94-1,39 NRC j

5 0994) l Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Elecuic Generating Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-93-16, 38 NRC 25 0993) judicial tests of s.anding applied in NRC procee&ngs; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 35 (1994)

Georgia Ibwer Co. (Vogtle Elecinc Generating Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-91-33, 34 NRC 138,140-41 0 991) presumption that nembers authonze organization to represent their interests; LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 5 1

a.50 0994)

Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-183,7 AEC 222,223-24 0974) geographic proximity of rnembers as basis for organization's stan&ng to intervene; LBP-94 4, 39 NRC 510994)

Hale v. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration,722 F.2d 882,885 0985) burden of p oof in administrative and civil actions; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 134-35 (1994)

Harper v. Virginia Dep's of Taxation 125 L Ed. 2d 74 0993) retroactive applicanon of individual orders to estabbsh binding standards; LBP-94-2,39 NRC 22 n.7

(

(1994) s 16 1

l

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX

]

CAS13 i

Heckler v. Chaney,470 U.S. 821 (1985) reviewabihty of section 2.206 pentions; LBP-94-5. 59 NRC 64 a.5 (1994)

Inshon v. King & Spalding,467 US. 69,73 (1984) standard for dismissal of summary disposition issues; 13P-94-2, 39 NRC 23 (1994)

Houston Ughting and Power Co. (Allens Cnek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-565,10 NRC 521, 525 (1979)

)

responses to objecnons 1o coment ons; LBP-94-8, 39 NRC 119 (1994) 4 Houston Ughting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units I sud 2), ALAB-549,9 NRC 644,646,647 (1979) demnnstration of organizmional stan&ng to imervene; IEP-94-4, 39 NRC 50 (1994) j Houston tigiuing and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644, 649 (1979) l NRC policy on admissibility of contentions with pkading 4J.;.m ; LBP-94-8, 39 NRC I20 (1994)

Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Genernung Station Unit I), AIAB-424,6 NRC 122,123 (1977) economic interests of ratepayers and taxpayers as basis for stan&ng to intervene; LDP-94-3,39 NRC 37 (1994) long Island Ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Poner Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743,18 NRC 387,390 n.4 (1983) standards for escrenonary intervention; IEP-94-5, 39 NRC 65 n.7 (1994) -

Long kland ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I). ALAB-773,19 NRC 1333,1341, 1342 (1984) applicahihty of delibernove process exemptien to Of6cc of Investigations' report; LBP-944, 39 NRC 108 (1994)

Long Island Ligtning Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit ik AIAB-861,25 NRC 129,135 (1987) standard for grant of discretionary interlocutory seview; CU-94-2,39 NRC 94 (1994)

Long bland Ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuckar Power Station Unit 1), Q189-12,26 NRC 383. 384-85 (IW7) justifecmion for 10 mile emergency planning zone; DD-94-3, 39 NRC 181 (1994) long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuckar Power Station. Unit ik CLIWS, 32 NRC 201,207 n.3 (1990) prehminary decommissioning activities pnar to submission of decommissioning plan; CL1-94-3,39 NRC 100 n.2 (1994)

Imng Island ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuckar Power Station, Unit 1), l.SP-82-82,16 NRC 1844,1164-65 (1982) standard for protection of factual material; LBP-944,39 NRC 109 (1994) l Metroprlitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CL1-83-25,18 NRC 327,332 (1983) injury-in-fact saandard for intervention in NRC export license procee&ng; CU-94-1, 39 NRC 5 (1994) rone of interests requirement for intervention in Subpart L proceedings; LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 49 (1994)

Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile kland Nuclear Station Unit I), CL1-85-2,21 NRC 282, 316-17 r

(1985) stan&ng to intervene on the basis of property interests other than those associated with physical damage from radiological harards; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 38 (1994)

Metropolitan E& son Co. (Tluce Mde Island Nuckar Station Unit ik DD.-84-18,20 NRC 243 (1984) inclusion of Harnsonburg in Three Mile hiand evacuation plan; DD-94-3,39 NRC 181 (1994)

Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuckar Stanon. Unit 1), IEP SI-59,14 NRC 1211,1553-69 (1981), aff'd, ALAB497,16 NRC 1265 (1982), aff*d, C1183-22,18 NRC 299 (1983) adequacy of 10-mile emergency planning rene for ihree Mile Island, DD-94-3, 39 NRC 181 (1994) l National Distillers & Chemical Corp. v. Departnrnt of Energy,498 F. Supp. 707,720 (D. Del.1980),

l aff'd. 662 F.2d;754 fremp. Ener. Ct. App 1981)

I 17 1

I 1

1

1 l

LEGAL Cra'ATIONS INDEX l

CASES renoactive application of inevidual orders to establish binding standards; LDP-94-2, 39 NRC 22 a 6 (1994) f NLRB v. Bell Aeru. pace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 292 n.23, 294 (1974) 1 NRC escrenon to use enforcement anler or rulemaking to establish a standard; GP-94-2, 39 NRC 21-22 & n.6 (19941 Nosthern Staes Ibwer Co. (Path 6nder Atomic Plant), LBP-89 30, 30 NRC 311, 312-17 (1989) authority of presiding of6cer to anow amendnunt of imervention petitions in Subpart L proceedmgs; LBP-94 4, 39 NRC 49 n.4 (1994)

Nuclear Engineering Co. (Shefheld. Dhnois 1.ow-tsvel Ra&oactive Wasic Disposal Siic), AIAB-473,7 NRC 737 (1978) imervemion in support of Staff enforcement order, LDP-94-5, 39 NRC 64 (1994)

Nuclear Informauon Resource Service v. NRC, %9 P.2d 1169,1878 (D C Cir.1992) (en banc) reviewability of section 2 206 petitions; LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 64 n.5 (1994)

Oncology Services Corp., CU-93-13, 37 NRC 419, 420 21 (1993) standard for grant of escretionary interlocutory review; CU-94-2, 39 NRC 93 (1994)

Oncology Services Corp., LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 11, 26 n.12 (1994)

)

Str.ff actions that are reviewable by licensing boards; GP-94-5, 39 NRC 66 a 8 (1994)

Paci6c Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLi-86-12,24 NRC I, 4-5 (1986) j injunctive schef, criteria for; CU-94-3, 39 NRC 100 n.5 (1994) 1 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Umenck Generwing Stauon, Un'ts I and 2), ALAB 789, 20 NRC 1443,1447 J

(1984) economic interests of ratepayers and taxpayers as basis for stan&ng to intervene; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 37 (1994)

Ibrtland General Electric Co. (Febble Springs Nuclear Plant, Um s 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, I

613-14 (1976) judicial tests of stan&ng apphed in NRC proceedngs; GP-94-3, 39 NRC 35 (1994)

Portland Geceral Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLl-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 614 17 (1976)

&suetionary intervention in NRC procce&ngs; CL!-94-3, 39 NRC 103 (1994)

Portland General Elecnic Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CU-76-27,4 NRC 610,616 (1976) standards for discretionary intervention GP-94-5, 39 NRC 65 n.7 (1994)

Pubbe Service Co of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generaung Staion Umts I and 2), CLi-8010,11 NRC 438,439 (1980) judicial tests of standing applied in NRC proceedings; LEP-94-3, 39 NRC 35 (1994)

Pubbc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Genermung Staion Units I and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167,170w71 (1976) scope of litigable issues in operming license amendnent proceedings; LBP-94 3,39 NRC 40 (1994)

Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) CL1-91-14, 34 NRC 261, 266 (1991) satisfaction of judicial standing requirements; GP-94-7, 39 NRC !!5 (1994)

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-9114, 34 NRC 261, 267 (1991) redressabihry standard for estabbshing injury in fact; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 35 (1994)

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CU49 20,30 NRC 231 (1989) litigabihty of haancial quahncaaons in NRC procec&ngs; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 39 a.4 (1994)

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabok Station Units I and 2). LBP-89-4, 29 NRC 62,73 (1989) reopening a record, critena for. LBP-94-9, 39 NRC 124 (1994)

Sacramento Mumcipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CU-92-2,35 NRC 47,56 (1992) economic interests as basis for standng to intervene; LBP-94-7, 39 NRC 115 (1994) judmial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedwgs; CU-94-1, 39 NRC 5 (1994) zone-of-internsts requirement for intervention in Subpart L procee&ngs, LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 49 (1994) 18

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Sauarremo Municipal Utibty District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Sianon), CL1-92-2,35 NRC 47, 59 41 (1992) insututional interest in proviang information to the public and generalized interest of nunterships in minimizing danger from nuclear poliferadon as tesis for stan&ng to intervene; CLI-94-1,39 NRC i

5 (1994)

Sacranemo Municipal Untity Distit (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Stanon), CLI 92-135 NRC 47,61 n.7 (1992) pehminmy decomrrussioning activities pior to submission of decommissioning plan; CLI.94-3,39 NRC 100 n.2 (1994)

Sacranento Municipal Utihty District (Rancho Seco Nuckar Generaung Station), CLI 913, 37 NRC 135, 141 (1993); C1J-93-12, 37 NRC 355, 358 (1993) standard for discretionary latervention; Q194-3, 39 NRC 103 a.ll (1994)

Sacranemo Municipal Utility Distnct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station). LBP 93-23, 38 NRC 200, 2054J6 (1993) pkading requirements at contention admission stage; LBP-94-3,39 NRC 42 (1994)

Safety Light Corp. (Bkxwnsburg Site Decontaminacon), C11-92-9, 35 NRC 156,158,159 (1992) cnteria for deternining aPFopriateness of discretionary inscriocutory review; CtJ-94-2, 39 NRC 93-94 (1994)

San Luis Obispo Moders for Peace v. NRC,751 F.2d 1287,1314 (D.C Cir.1984), vacased in part and rehearing en banc granted on other grounds,760 F.2d 1320 (1985), aff'd en banc,789 F.2d 26, cert-denied,479 U.S. 923 (1986) scope of agency adju& canon on suspension orders; LBP-94139 NRC 26 (1994)

SEC v. Ornery Corp., 332 U.S.194, 202,203 (1947) authority of Staff enforcement order compared to segulation; LBP-94139 NRC 20,22 (1994)

Siegel v. AEC,400 F.2d 778,783 (DC Cir.1968) scope of NRC enforcenent authority; LBP-94-2,39 NRC 21 (1994)

State of New Jersey, CLI-93-25,36 NRC 289,29194 (1993) scope of licemee authority to transport bcensed materials under a general license; Q194-3, 39 NRC 102 (1994)

Stmenent of Policy on Conduct of Ucensing Proceedings, CtJ-81-8,13 NRC 451456-57 (1981) referral of ruhng to Commission; LEP-94-5, 39 NRC 76 (1994)

Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-413,5 NRC 1418,1421 (1977) economic interests of ratepayers and taxpayers as basis for stan&ng to imervene; LDP-94-3,39 NRC 37 (1994)

Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-413,5 NRC 1418,1422 (1977) showing necessary on potennal record contribuuon factor where, absent discretionary intervention, no hearing will be held; LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 76 a.4 (1994)

Transnuclear Inc. (Export of 93.15% Enriched Uramum) CLI-94-1, 39 NRC l. 5 (1994) injury-in-fact showing for imervention in Subpart L proceedings; LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 49 (1994)

Transnuclear, Inc. (Ten Appbcations for 1.ow Enriched Uranium Esports to EURATOM Member Nations).

QJ-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 529-32 (1977) institutional interest in povi&ng infornuition to the pubhc and generalized interest of menterships in minimizing danger from nuckar proliferation as basis for standing to intervene; CL194-1, 39 NRC 5 (1994)

Tulsa Gamma Ray, Inc., LBP-91-40, 34 NRC 297, 317-18 (1991) conbinanon of in&vidual instances of licensee conduct for finding of corporate management breakdown; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 23 (1994)

Union of Concerned Scienusts v. NRC, 880 F.2d 552,558 (D C Cir.1989)

NRC authonry to denne regulatory requirements; LEP-94 2, 39 NRC 21 n.4 (1994)

United Food & Comnercial Workers international Union, local No.150-A v. NLRB, i E3d 24. 34 (D C Cir.1993) s 19 i

i l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES I

test for agency abuse of &scretion in vetroactive application of individual orders to estabbsh bindmg standards; LBP-94-2,39 NRC 22 (1994)

Umted States v. leggen & Platt, Inc., 542 F.2d 655, 658-59 (6di Cir 1976), cert denied, 430 U S. 945 (1977) l standard for proiection of factual muerial; LEP.94-6, 39 NRC 109 (1994) l United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683, 705, 41 L Ed. 2d 1039, 94 5. CL 3090 (1974) purposes of debberative process enempoon; LEP-94-6, 39 NRC 108 (1994)

United States v. Stauffer Chenucal Co., 684 F.2d 1174,1186 (6th Cir.1982), aff'd, 464 U.S.165 (1984) rules for statutory construction where efferent language is intended so mean different things, LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 72, 73 a 19 (1994)

Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-342,4 NRC 98, 10445 (1976) showing of injury to stabhsh standing to intervene; LBP-94-3,39 NRC 38 (1994)

Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), AIAB-522,9 NRC 54, 56-57 (1979) geographic proximity of members as basis for organization's stan&ng so inu:rvene; LDP-94-4, 39 NRC 5451 (1994)

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490. 511 (1975) showing newssary so dermastrase organizational standing to imervene; LBP-94-4,39 NRC 50 (1994)

Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), D&84 7,19 NRC 899,924 (1984) standard for institution ot' 2.206 proceedings; DD94-3,39 NRC 185 (1994)

Washington Public Power Sopply Sysarm (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), AL.AB 747,18 NRC 1167 I175-76 (1983) peutions 6 led under section 2.206 as substitute for adju&cmory proceeding; LBP 94-5,39 NRC 75 a.22 (1994)

Westinghouse Elecnic Corp. (Export to South Korea) CIJ-8430,12 NRC 253,257-60 (1980) institutional interest in provi&ng information w the public and generalized interest of memberships in minimizing danger from nudear prohferation as basis for stan&ng to intervene; C1194-1, 39 NRC 5 (1994)

)

Wrangler Laboratories, ALAB 951, 33 NRC 505,518 & n.39 (1991)

NRC enforcemers orders compared to regulations; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 21 (1994) l l

i.

(

20 l

l l

l

\\

.. - - - ~ - ----. -.--

i i

1 l

l 1

i i

i i

t f

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l

REGULATIONS i

a 10 Cf R. 2.4 j

dcEnition of electric utiliry for purpose of applymg Enancial quahncations exempdon; GP-943,39 NRC 42 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 2.202 intervenoon in support of Staff enforcemem order; GP-94-5, 39 NRC 59, 60, 63 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 2.202(a)(1) authority of 5:aff enforament order compared to regulauon; LBP 942, 39 NRC 20 (1994) inscrpretanon of "bcename or other person subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission"; LBP.94 5, 39 NRC 73 a 19 (1994 X

10 CfA 2.202(aX2)

'A' imerpretation of "heemee or other person"; LBP-945, 39 NRC 73 n.19 (1994) 2-10 CfA 2 202(4)(3) noum of enformment order, LBP 94-5, 39 NRC 60, 71 (1994) 7 relationship hetweca secoon 2.714(aXI) and, I.EP-94-5. 39 NRC 72-73, 75 a.22 (1994) d bmehness answer /hearmg request under; LEP-94-5, 39 NRC 75 e 22 (1994)

L Z

10 CfA 2.,2(b)

[

answers to enforceur.nt orders; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 25 (1994) p.

interpretation of " licensee or other person to whom the Commission has issued an order"; LBP-94-5, 39

.P

.~

g NRC 73 a 19 (1994) 2 10 Cf R. 2.202(cX2Xi) 7 grounds for comesung immediare effectiveness of suspension order; GP-94-2, 39 NRC 26 a.ll (1994) 10 CfA 2202a licensing board jurisdiction to enforce license conditions; GP-943, 39 NRC 44 (1994) 10 C.F.R. 2.203 authority of presiding of5cer to consider appropriateness of Staff action; GP-942, 39 NRC 26 n.12 (1994) bcensing board review of settlement agreements; LBP-945, 39 NRC 66 n.8 (1994) 10 CJA 2.206 l

emergency planning denciencies at 'hree Mile Island, anegations of; DD-94 3, 39 NRC 16486 (1994) forum for enforcement of license o.dations; LDP 94-3, 39 NRC 44 (1994) i forum for public challenges to licer ce actions taken pursuam to section 50.59, CL1-943, 39 NRC 101 n.7 (1994) inclusion of Harnsburg in Three Mile Island evacuauon plan; DD-94-3, 39 NRC 181 (1994) j NRC licensing of DOE facilities, request for; DD 94-2, 39 NRC 87-90 (1994) petitions filed under, as substitute for adjudicatory proceedmg; LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 75 n.22 (1994) request for enforcement action against utility management for harassment, intimidation, and discrimination for reporting of safety concerns; DDL94-1, 39 NkC 79-85 (1994) reviewability of decisions under; GP-94-5, 39 NRC 64 n.5 (1994) standard for institution of proceedings under; CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 103 (1994); DD-94-3, 39 NRC 185 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(a) imervention in support of Staff enforcenrnt order; LBP 94-5, 39 NRC 63 (1994)

/

21 ll 4

4

'1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 4

10 CIA 1714(aXI) relationship between section 2.202(aX3) and, LEP 945,39 NRC 72-73,75 a.22 (1994) timeliness of inserwation petition Eled within 10 days after notice of enforcemes order; LEP-945, 39 NRC 75 (1994) 10 CIA 2714(aXIXi)-(v) ave-factor test for late intervention; LBP-94-5,39 NRC 71 (1994) 10 Cf R. 2.714(aK2) d content of intervention petitions; CLI-94-3,39 NRC 102 n9 (1994) intervenson requirements in operaticg license amendment proceeding; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 34 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(aX3) amendment of imervention pections; LEP-94-4,39 NRC 49 (1994) 4 10 Cf.R. 2.714(b) a 1

cornention requiremes for intervention; LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 62 (1994) 10 CIA 1714(bX2)

?

showing necessary for admission of contentions; LDP 94-8, 39 NRC 118 (1994) standards for admissible contunnons; LBP 9&3,39 NRC 40 (1994) 10 CfA 2.714(bX2Xiii) materiality of Enancial assurance issues sciating to decommissioning funding; CLI-94-2,39 NRC 92 (1994) 10 CIA 2.714(dXI)0ii) consideration of effect of enforcement order on pentioner supporting order. LBP-%5,39 NRC 65 j

(1994) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(dX2) standards for admissible coraentions; ISP-943,39 NRC 40 (1994) 10 CSA 2.714a appealability of intervention rulings; LBP 94-3, 39 NRC 45 (1994); LBP 44-5,39 NRC 76 n 24 (1994) appeals of denials of hearing sequests; LBP-94-7,39 NRC 115 (1994) 10 CIA 2.714a(a) appeals of intervention rulings; LRP-94-8, 39 NRC 120 (1994) deadline for petitions for review; LBP-94-3,39 NRC 45 (1994) 10 CEA 2.714a(c) 4 appealability of licensing board orders; CLI-94-2, 39 NRC 93 n1 (1994) a 10 CIA 2.717(b) authority of presiding officer to consider appropriateness of Staff action; LEP 94-2, 39 NRC 26 n.12 (1994)

Staff actions that are reviewable by beensing teards; LBP-945,39 NRC 66 n.8 (1994) 10 Cf f 2.718 standard for distnissal of summary disposition issue LBP-942,39 NRC 23 a 8 (1994) 10 CJA 2.730(f)

Commission policy on interlocutory review; CLI-94-2,39 NRC 93 (1994) intervention in support of Staff enforcenwnt order; IEP-94-5, 39 NEC 60 (1994)

I i

referral of ruling to Cornmission; LBP-94 5,39 NRC 76 (1994) i 10 CIA 2.734

)

criteria for reopening a record; LBP-94-9,39 NRC 123 (1994) 10 CEA 2.743(c) admissibility standards for afndavits supporting nxxions to reopen a record; LBP-94-9,39 NRC 124 (1994) 10 CSA 2.744(d) standard for produccon of privileged documents; LBP-94-6, 39 NRC 10748 (1994) 10 CfA 1786(g) circumstances appropnate for interlocutory review; CLI-94-2,39 NRC 93 (1994) directed certincation of inues arising out of interlocutory order; CLI-94-2, 39 NRC 92 (1994) s 22 1

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGt'IATIONS 10 CIA 2.788 injunctiw rehef, criteria for; CU-94-3, 39 NRC 100 a.5 (1994) 10 CEA 2.790(aX5) claims of privilege for Of6ce of lawstigations' report; 12P-944, 39 NRC 107 (1994) 10 CSA 2.790(aX7) applicabihry so predecisional docunents; LBP-944, 39 NRC 107 (1994) 10 CIA 2.1205(cX2) fthng deadline when no nodce of opportunity for hearing has been pubhded; LBP-94-7,39 NRC 113.

114 (1994) 10 Cf.R 2.1205(cX2Xi) tinwhness of imervention petidon Aled within 10 days after notice of enforcenwns order; LEP 94-5, 39 NRC 74 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(cX3) statenem of concerns in beanng sequests; 12P 94-4, 39 NRC 52 (1994)

' 10 CFA 2.1205(dX4) carace of hearing sequests; LBP-94-7,39 NRC 113 (19H) 10 CSA 2.1205(g) judicial stand ds for standing to laterverr in Subpart L proceedings; LBP-944 39 NRC 49 (1994) 10 CIA 2.1205(kX1), (2) standad for acceptance of amendment of intervention pention containing new areas of concern; LBP-94-4,39 NRC 53 a.8 (1994) 10 CFA 11209 discretenary authority of presiding of6cer in Subpart L proceedings to allow amendnent of imervention petitions; LBP-94-4,39 NRC 49 (1994) 10 CJ il Part 1 Appendia C reopemag of enforcement actions; DD-94-1, 39 NRC 82 (1994) 10 CFA Part 2 Appendis C, VI.A. VLB.2(b) considersion of limasee's corrective actions in imposing suspension orders; 1.SP-94-139 NRC 25 (19M) 10 CIA Part 1 Appendix C, VIC(2) standard for suspemion of byproduct snaterial license; LDP 94-139 NRC 25 n.10 (1994) 10 CSA Part 2 Appendia C, VI.C(2Xa)

NRC authority to suspend byproduct muerial lianse; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 19,20 (1994) 10 C FA Part 2. Appendix C. YlLA combinadan of individual instances of hcensee conduct for 6nding of corporate management breakdown; LBP-94139 NRC 23 (1994) 10 Cf.R.13.2 de6airma of false claim; AU-94-1,39 NRC 134 (1994) requirenrnes of proof of intent to defraud; AU-94-l,39 NRC 134 (1994) 10 CIA 13.3(aXI) civil penalty per claim; AU-94-1,39 NRC 153 (1994) culpabihty of defendant; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 153 (1994) interpretation of "know or has reason to know"; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 134 (1994) scope of false claims; AU-941,39 NRC 134 (1994) 10 CIA 13.3(aX2) de6nition of individual claims; AU-94-I,39 NRC 134 (1994) 10 CFA 13.3(aX3), (4) appbcability of law to unpaid claims; AU-94-1,39 NRC 134 (1994) 10 CIA f 3.3(aX5) assessmems in addition to civil penalties; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 153 (1994) requirements of proof of intent to defraud; AU-94-1,39 NRC 134,142-43 (1994) 10 CF.R.13.12 notice-of-hearing requirenent; AU-94-1. 39 NRC 332 (1994) i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf R.1330(b) burden on complainant; AU-9&l,39 NRC 134 (1994) 10 CSA 1331(a)

--" ' of mitiganng factors is assessnrat of civil penahy and damages; AU-94-1,39 NRC 157 (1994)

I double damages; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 153 (1994)

I government loss and invesiigation costs and amounts of civil genaldes and assessnrnts; AU-94-1,39 NRC 155 (1994) 10 CFA 1331(b) deterninants of amounts of civil penalties and assessments; AU-94-l. 39 NRC 153,154,157 (1994) 10 CFA 1331(bXI) number of false clai:ns and amounts of civil penahies and assessments; AU-9&l,39 NRC 154 (1994) 10 CFA 1331(bX2) nme period over which claims were Sted and amounts of civil penaldes and assessnrnts; AU 941, 39 NRC 154 (1994) 10 CSA 1331(bX3) degree of culpabihty and amounts of civil penalties and assessnents; AU-94-1,39 NRC 154 (1994) 10 CSA 1331(bX4) amount of claims that were 61ed and amounts of civil penalues and assesssents; AU-94-1, 39 NRC j

154 (1994) 10 CSA 13.31(bX5), (6) gmeranent loss and investiganon costs and amounts of civit penaldes and assessments; AU-9&l,39 NRC 155 (1994) 10 CSA 13.31(bX8) pattern of conduct and amounts of civil penalties and assessnents; AU-941,39 NRC 154 (1994) 10 CSA 1331(bX9) concealamat efforts and amounts of civil penalties and assessments; AU-9&l,39 NRC 154 (1994) 10 CFA 1331(bXt4) complesity of program and defendant's sophistication and amounts of civil penalties and assessments; 1

AU 94-I,39 NRC 154 (1994) 10 CFA 1331(bX16) deterrence facts and amounts of civil penalties and assessments; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 155 (1994) 10 CSA 1331(c) consideration of rnitigating factors in assessnrnt of civil penalty and damages; AU-94-1,39 NRC 157 (1994) 10 CFA 1337(c) appeals of iretial decnions; AU-94-1,39 NRC 158 (1994) 10 CIA 1337(d) i Snahty of initial decisions; AU 94-1,39 NRC 158 (1994) 10 CSA 1338(a) proof of service for rwAion for reconsideration; AU-94-1,39 NRC 158 (1994) 10 Cf.R.1339 appeal of initial decsion; AU 941,39 NRC 158 (1994) i 10 CfA 1339(a), (bXI) deadhne for appeal of intial decision; AU-941,39 NRC 158 (1904) 10 CEA 1339(bX2) appeal of denial of motion for reconsideration; AU-941, 39 NRC 153 (1994) 10 CSA 20.201(b) survey requirements for use of brachytherapy source; UIP-94-2, 39 NRC 27,28 (1994) 10 CFA 35.20,35.21 radiation safety of6cer's visits to bracbytherapy facility; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 18 (1994) 10 CFA Part 35, Subpart G applicabihty to byproduct snaterial license suspension; LBP-94-2,39 NRC 26-27 (1994) 24 l

l l

r

(

1 IIGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C F.R. 40.36 financial pian requirements for decomnussioning plans; LBP 94-8,39 NRC 119 (1994) 10 CF.R. 40.42(cX2)(iiiXD) financial plan requirernents fw deconunissioning plans; LBP-94-8, 39 NRC 119 (1994) 10 CFA part 40, Appendia A econonde costs considered in licensing decisions affecting waste disposal, LBP-94-7, 39 NRC 115 a.9 (1994) 10 C.FA 50.5 J

enforcement action for deliberste nusconduct andcr; DD-94-1,39 NRC 79, 81 (1994) 10 CIA 50.7 penalty for harassment, intimidation, and discrimination for reporting of safety concerns; DD 94-1,39 NRC 79, 80 (1994) 10 Cf R. 50.33(f) applicabiliry of 6nancial quah6 cations esemption to parent corporation for electric utibty: LDP-94-3,39 NRC 42 (1944) effect of funding de6ciencies on plant safety; LDP.94-3,39 NRC 39 (1994) litigability of Enancial quahfications in NRC proceedings; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 39 n.4 (1994) 10 CSA 50.33(g) licensee responsibibty so submit stais and local ernergency sespome piar.s; DD'94-3,39 NRC 184 (1994) size of emergency planning zones; DD-94-3,39 NRC 180 (1994) 10 CFA 50.47(aXI) j emergency preparedness reasonable-assurance standard for operating license issuance; DD-94 3, 39 NRC I

172 (1994) 10 CfA 50.47(aX2) scope of FEMA energency planning jurisdiction; DD-94-3,39 NRC 165 (1994) meight given to FEMA 6ndmgs on energency preparedness: DD-94-3, 39 NRC 172,183 (1994) 10 CIA 50.47(bX8) maintenance requisernents for emergency equipnent and supplies: DD-N-3, 39 NRC 178 (1994) 10 CFA 50.47(bX14) adequacy of enrrgency exercise and drill schedule; DD-94-3, 39 NRC 182 (1994) 10 Cf R. 50.47(bX15) training requirenrats for radiological energency response personnel; DD 94 3, 39 NRC 177 (1994) 10 CfA 50.54 lianse conditions relating to emergency preparedness; DD'94-3, 39 NRC 172 (1994) 10 CF.R. 50.54(sX2Xii) standard for reactor shutdown for ernergency preparedness desciencies; DD'94-3, 39 NRC 172-73 (1994) 10 CF.R. 50.54(sX3) weight given to FEMA f.ndmgs on energency preparedness; DD-94-3,39 NRC 173,183 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 50.54(bb) i funding plan for spent fuel storage costs in decomnussioning plan; CLI-94-2, 39 NRC 93 (1994) 10 CIA 50.59 licensee authority to make changes to a facibry without prior NRC approval; CL1-94 3,39 NRC 101 (1994) preliminary decommissioning activines pner to submission of decommissioning plan; Cit 94-3,39 NRC 100 (1994) public challenges to beensee actions taken pursuant to; CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 101 n.7 (1994) 10 CfA 50.75 decommissioning funding requirements, CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 99 (1994) 10 CF.R. 50.82 decommissioning funding requirements for licenne termination; CLL94-3, 39 NRC 99 (1994) 10 Cf.R. 50 82(a).

decommissioning plan requirements for termination of license; CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 99 (1994) s 25 i

1

l I

t LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l

RECULATIONS I

10 CFA M82(e) learing rights on decommissioning activities; CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 101 n.6 (1994) notice requirenrnts prior to Commission approval of decomnussiomng plan; CU 94-3, 39 NRC 99 (1994) 10 CFA 5091 l

Stan authority to make turnse anendnrnts immediately effective; LBP 94-3,39 NRC 34 n.1 (1994) 10 CFA Part 50, Appendia E size of emergency planning zones; DS94 3, 39 NRC 180 (1994) 10 CFA 71.12 l

licensee need for funher Commission approval to ship licensed material un&T a general license; CLI-%3,39 NRC 101 (1994) 10 CIA llo.84(aX1). (2) discrenonary grant of a hearing on export license, criteria for; LU-94-1,39 NRC 6 (19M) 10 CFA Il0.84(b) intervention standard for uranium export beense proceeding; CLI-94-1,39 NRC 4 n.4 (1994) 44 Cf.R. Part 350 l

cycle of emergency plan reviews and updates; DR94 3, 39 NRC 179 (1994) 44 CIA 350.5 basis for FEMA's reasonable assurance 6nding on status of emergency preparedness; DD 94 3,39 NRC 172, 175 (1994) 44 CSA 3M13(a) basis for FEMA's withdrawal of approval of energency plans; DD 94-3, 39 NRC 173 (1994) l I

i I

I 5

l 26

4 1

I l

i i

I

}

l a

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Administranvc lyocedure Act, 5 U.S.C 558(b) scope of NRC enforcenent authority; LBP 94-2, 39 NRC 21 (1994) l Administranve Procedure Act, S U.S.C 558(c)

}

basis for suspension orders; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 21 n.$ (1994) j Atomic Energy Act, 2f, 42 U.S.CA. 2012(f) inderruufication agamst interstate damage from radiological accidents, LBP-943, 39 NRC 37 (1994) l Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S.C.A. 2019 unhty functions that lie within the jurisdiction of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 44 (1994)

Atomic Energy Act, 81, 42 U.S.C 2111 L

licensing board approval of settlement agreements; LBP-94-10, 39 NRC 127,129 (1994) l Atomic Energy Act,103b,42 U.S.CA. 213)(10 property interests as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-94 3, 39 NRC 38 (1994) standard for license issuance; LBP 94-3, 39 NRC 37 (1994)

Atomic Energy Act,134,42 U.S.C 2160d applicability to HEU blended down for use as LEU reactor fuel; CU-941,39 NRC 7 & n.6 (1994) uramum export restrictions; CU-94-1,39 NRC 3 n.3 (1994)

Atomic Energy Act,134(aX2), (3), 42 U.S.C. 216nd(aX2), (3) applicabihty to exportation of HEU versus transportauon of IIEU; CLt 94-1,39 NRC 7 (1994)

Atomic Energy Act,161, 42 U.S.C. 2201 authonty of Staff enforcernent order compared to regulation, LDP-94-2,39 NRC 20 (1994)

Atomic Energy Act,16th, 42 U.S C 2201(a) scope of NRC enforcernent authority; LBP 94-2,39 NRC 21 (1994) s i

standard for establishing a binding norm by which a licensee must abide; LBP 94-2,39 NRC 19 (1994)

Atomic Energy Act,161b, 42 U.S.C 2201(b) l licensing board approval of setrJement agreements; LBP-94-10, 39 NRC 127 (1994) l NRC enforcenent orders compared to regulations; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 21 (1994) l property interests as basis for standing to irnervene; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 37 (1994) l standard for license issuance; IEP-94 3, 39 NRC 37 (1994) 1, Atornic Energy Act,16lc,42 U.S.C 2201(c) i l

Commission discretion to institute proceedings where none is required by law; CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 103 (1994) f Atomic Energy Act,161i(3), 42 U.S C 220!(iX3) scope of NRC enforcenent authority; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 21 (1994)

Atomic Energy Act, 1610, 42 U.S C. 220l(o) licensing board approval of settlement agreements; LBP-94-10, 39 NRC 127,129 (1994)

Atomic Energy Act,182a, 42 U.S.C 2232(a) scope of NRC authority to impose requirements; LBP-942, 39 NRC 21 n.4 (1994) standard for establishing a binding norm by which a heensee nmst abide; LBP 94-2, 39 NRC 19 (1994)

Atomic Energy Act,186a, 42 U.S.C 2236(a) standard for estabbshing a binding norm by which a licensee must abide; LBP-94-2,39 NRC 19 (1994) j standard for license suspension; LBP 94-2, 39 NRC 21 n.4 (1994)

I 3

l

{

n 1

4 i

I L

m

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTFS Atornic Energy Act,189a zone-of-interests test for standing to imervene in informal proceedings; LBP-94-7, 39 NRC 115 (1994)

Atomic Energy Act,189a(1),42 U.S.C 2239(aXI) bearing rights on decomruissioning activities; CU-94-3. 39 NRC 10M)1 (1994) hearing rights on export lianses; CU-941, 39 NRC 4 (1994) intervention in support of Staff enforcenent order; LBP-94-5. 39 NRC 63 (1994) judicial con = pts of stamiing applied in NRC proceedings; CU-94-1, 39 NRC 5 (1994) i

[

Ovil Fraud Remedies Act. 31 U.S.C 3801(5)

I requirenrnts of proof of intent to defraud; A1194-1,39 NRC 134,142-43 (1994)

Ovil Fraud Remedies Act,31 U.S.C 3801(5XB) l interprecation of "know or has reason to know"; AU-94-1. 39 NRC 147 (1994)

Ovil Fraud Remedies Act. 31 US C. 3801(9XbXI)

I de6nidon of individual claims; AU-94-l. 39 NRC 134 (1994) f Civil fraud Remedies Act,3t US C 3801(9XbX2), 3801(9XbX3)

I applicability of law to unpaid claims; AU-94-l. 39 NRC 134 (1994) i Ovil Fraud Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C 3801(aX3XA) dc6nidon of false claim; AU-94-1,39 NRC 134 (1994)

Ovil Fraud Rernedies Act. 31 US.C 3802(aXI) assessments in addition to civil penaldes; AU-94-1,39 NRC 153 (1994) civil penalry per claim; AU 94-1,39 NRC 153 (1994) culpability of defendant; AU 94-1,39 NRC 153 (1994) false claims to fraudulent!y obtain government monies; AU-94 l 39 NRC 131 (1994) interpretation of "know or has season to know"; AU-94-1,39 NRC 134 (1994) scope of false claims; AU-941,39 hPC 134 (1994) l Ovil Fraud Remedies Act. 31 U.S C 3802(aX2xC) civil penalty for fraudulent clairns; AU-94-1. 39 NRC 133 (1994)

Ovil Fraud Remedies Act. 31 U.S.C 3802(aX3) assessments in addition to civil peneNes; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 153 (1994)

Ovil Fraud Remedies Act,31 U.S.C 3803(f) burden on conplainant; AU-94-1,39 NRC 134 (1994)

Ovil Fraud Remedies Act. 31 U.S C 3803(gX2Xa) notice-of-hearing requirement; AU 94-1, 39 NRC 132 (1994)

Energy Policy Act of 1992 Pub. L No. 102-486 uranium export restrictions; CU-94-1,39 NRC 3 n.3 (1994)

Eragy Reorganizadon Act. 202, 42 U.S.C $842 NRC authority over DOE facihties; DD-94-2, 39 NRC 88 (1994)

Exec. Order No.13.657, reprinted in 50 U.S C.A. 2251, app. at 199 (1988) sespos bility for offsite emergency planning; DD-94 3,39 NRC 165 (1994) a Freedom of Information Act Exempoon 5 claims of privilege for Of6ce of Investigations' report; LBP-944, 39 NRC 107 (1994)

Nuclear Non-Proliferadon Act of 1978,304,42 U.S.C 2155a policy on pubhc participation in export licensing; CU-94-1,39 NRC 5 (1994)

Nuclear NoMwhferadon Act of 1978,304(bX2),42 US.C 2155a(bX2) rnechamsm for public pardcipadon in esport licensing; CU-94-1. 39 NP.C $ (1994)

Rural Electn6 cation Act of 1936, 7 U.S CA. 901, et seq. (1980) nonpro6t electric cooperatives; LBP-94-3,39 NRC 34 (1994) i

'l 8

l I

i 4

I i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX 0111ERS 138 Cong. Rec. 1111440 (daily ed. October 5,1992) (remarks of Representative Scbumer)

,{

intent of Scimrner anendment to Atomic Energy Act; CLJ-94-1,39 NRC 7 (1994)

Congressional Statenant of Findmgs and Declaration of Purposes. Pub. L No.99-509, 6 6102 4

purpose of Program Fraud Ovil Remedies Act; AIJ-94-1, 39 NRC 133,15657 (1994)

U.S. Dep* of Jusace, Anorney Genera!*s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 88 89, 91 (1947),

repnnted in Administranve Confenace of the U.S., Federal Administrative Procedure Sourcebook 154-55.157 (2d ed.1992) basis for suspension orders; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 21 n.5 (1994) 4 x

2 f

b r

2.

=

<p C

d m

e i

l 0

29 6

v

i I

(

1 l

l l

\\

e SUBJECT INDEX

^

l 1

ABUSE OF DISCRETION deternsnauon to proceed by adjudication rather than rulemaking as; LBP-942, 39 NRC 11 (1994) j AGREEMENT STATES NRC jurisdiction over low-level waste facilities in, CLI-943, 39 NRC 95 (1994)

AMENDMENT of imervenuon p Aitions; LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 47 (1994)

{

API'EALS, INTERLOCtJf0RY j

NRC policy on; CU-94-2, 39 NRC 91 (1994)

I of intervention rulings; LBP 94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994)

ATOMIC ENERGY ACT Schonrr Anundnent; CLI-94-1, 39 NRC I (1994) j BURDEN OF PROOF of intent to defraud; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 131 (1994) y l

BYPRODUCT MATERIALS LICENSES C.

suspension proceeding; LBP-942, 39 NRC 11 (1994)

[

terninanon of proceeding on snodi6 cation of, LBP 94-1, 39 NRC 9 (1994)

CIVIL PENALTIES h

for harassment and intirnidation of, and discrinunation against, whistleblowers; DD-%1, 39 NRC 79 I

(1994)

?

for program fraud. AU-94-1, 39 NRC 131 (19%)

[

COWENTIONS I

plemiing requirenents for admission of, IEP-94 8, 39 NRC 116 (1994) responses to objections to admission of; LBP 94-8, 39 NRC 116 (1994) speci6 city and basis requirements for; LBP-9&8,39 NRC 116 (1994)

DAMAGES assessments for program fraud; AU-94-1,39 NRC 131 (1994)

DEADUNES l

61ing, where no notice of opportunity for hearing on source material licenne amendnent has been published; LBP-94-7,39 NRC 112 (1994) i DECOMMISSIONING activities, injunctive relief to halt; CL1-94-3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) l nc4sce of. CLl-94-3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) n DECOMMISSIONING PLANS f

challenges to orders approving; CLI-94-2, 39 NRC 91 (1994) g Commission approval of; CI19&3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) funding for spent fuel storage costs; CU-94-2, 39 NRC 91 (1994) hearing rights on; C11963,39 NRC 95 (1994) i DEPARTMEW OF ENERGY

)

l NRC licensing jurisdiction over high-level radioactive waste disposal facihties of, DD-942, 39 NRC 86 (1994) i DISCOVERY Staff investigative report; LEP-946, 39 NRC 105 (1994)

A.

i 4

{

31

t i

i SUllJECT INDEX 3

DOUBLE JEOPARDY I

agreements reached with goverenrnt as basis for claim of AU-941, 39 NRC 131 (1994)

DUE PROCESS violation by failure to give explicit prior notice of standards set forth in an order; LBP-94-2. 39 NRC 4

11 (1994) j EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONES i

plume exposure pathway, size of, DD 94-3, 39 NRC 163 (1994)

)

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS l

funding, federal colleenan and disuibution of. Da94 3, 39 NRC 163 (1994)

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS 4

11ere Mile Island, miequacy of; DD-94-3, 39 NRC 163 (1994)

EMPLOYEES See NRC Employees ENERGY REORGANIZA110N ACT NRC licensing of DOE faciboes; DD942,39 NRC 86 (1994)

ENFORCEMENT AC110NS 4

enforcement of NRC license comhuons; LBP-94 3, 39 NRC 31 (1994) for harassment and intimidarion of, and escrmunation against, whistleblowers; DDw941, 39 NRC 79 j

(1994) intervention in support of; LBP-94-5. 39 NRC S4 (1994); LIIP-94-8, 39 NRC 116 (1994)

NRC legal basis for; 12P 94-2, 39 NRC 11 (1994) i reopening; DD 9&l, 39 NRC 79 (1994)

ENPORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS j

dismissal of issues is; LBP 94-2, 39 NRC 11 (1994) notice of. LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994) e EVACUATION PLANS Three Mile Island, adequacy of; DD-94-3,39 NRC 163 (1994)

EXPOl4 UCENSING PROCEEDINGS public peticipation in; C1.1-94-l, 39 NRC 1 (1994)

EXPORTS high-enriched uranium in die form of mixed uranium and thorium carbide fabrica:cd as unitradiated 3

fuel; CL1-941,39 NRC I (1994)

FALSE CLAIMS definition of; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 131 (1994)

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION l

Jurisdiction; LBP-94-3,39 NRC 31 (1994) 4 FINANCIAL QUAIJFICATIONS I

applicabihty to litigation against nuclear facility operators that are 'not electric utilities; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 31 (1994) 1 7

standing to interwne on basis of, LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 31 (19M) 3 underfunding and unsafe operation, LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 31 (1994)

)

GENERAL UCENSES authority to ship radioactive materials under, CLI-9&3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) standing to interwoe in renewal proceeding; LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 47 (1994)

HEARING REQUESTS j

i contern of; LBP 94-7, 39 NRC 112 (1994) on materials limase renewals; LBP 94-4,39 NRC 47 (1994) statenrot of areas of concern; LEP 944, 39 NRC 47 (1994) 4 HEARING RIGIfTS l

on decommissioning plans; CU-9&3, 39 NRC 95 (1994)

HEARINGS 3

discretionary; CU-94-1, 39 NRC 1 (1994) i i

i 32 s

N 4

4 9

4 4

SUBJECT INDEX IMMEDIATE EFIT,CTIVENESS license anrodnunts: LBP-943, 39 NRC 3l (1994)

INFORMAL HEARINGS rules wtree no notice of opportunity for hearing has been published; LBP-94-7,39 NRC ll2 (1994) source matenal heense amendrnent; LBP-94-7, 39 NRC 112 (1994)

INJUNCTIVE REUEF to halt decommissioning activities, enteria for; CU-94-3,39 NRC 95 (1994)

INTERPRETATION 10 CFA 2.202(aX3),2714fa)(1); LBP-94-5,39 NRC 54 (1994)

INTERVENTION criteria for grant of; CU-94-3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) geographic proximity as basis for; LBP-94-4,39 NRC 47 (1994) in esport beensing procee&ngs; CL1-941,39 NRC 1 (1994) in support of Staff enforcement order; LBB94-5,39 NRC 54 (1994); LBP-94-8, 39 NRC 116 (1994) operating license snendment proceedings; LBP-94 3,39 NRC 31 (1994) organizational stan&ng; LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 47 (1994) rulings, appe!! ate review of; LBP-94-5. 39 NRC 54 (1994)

INTERVENTION PETTTIONS amendnrnt of; LBP 94-4,39 NRC 47 (1994) 6 ting deadline in enforcement procee&ng; LBP-94 5,39 NRC $4 (1994) lae-61ed, factors to be addressed in; LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994)

JURISDICTION Federal Errrgy Regulatory Commission; LBP-94-3,39 NRC 3l (1994) i licensing board, over Staff orders; LDP-94-2, 39 NRC 11 (1994); LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994)

NRC licensing of Departrnent of Energy high-level radioactiw waste disposal facilities: DD'942, 39 NRC 86 (1994)

UCENSE CDNDITIONS enforcenrat of LDP-94-3, 39 NRC 31 (1944)

UCENSEES contractual disputes between co owners ot' nuclear facilities: LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 31 (1994)

I UCENSING BOARDS approval of settlenent agreements; LSP-94-10,39 NRC 126 (1994) authority to dismiss issues in enforcenrnt proceedings; LBP-94-2,39 NRC 11 (1994) l juris&ction over Staff orders; LBP-94-2,39 NRC 11 (1994); LBP-94-5,39 NRC 54 (1994)

MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS reopening a record based on inspection report raising new unresolved items about; LBP-94-9, 39 NRC 122 (1994)

MATERIALS UCFNSES See Byproduct Materials licenses NOTICE of decommissioning; CU-94-3. 39 NRC 95 (1994) of enforcenent proceeding; LDP 94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994) of enaterials license renewal; LBP-944,39 NRC 47 (1994) of opportunity for hearing on source material license amendnunt; LEP-94-7,39 NRC 112 (1994)

NRC EMPLOYEES program fraud violations; AU-94-l, 39 NRC 131 (1994)

NRC STAFF discovery of; LBP-94-6, 39 NRC 105 (1994) licensing board jurisdiction to review actions of; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 11 (1994); LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994)

NUCLEAR NON-PROUFERATION Act public participation in nuclear esport bcensing procce&ngs; CLI-94-1, 39 NRC 1 (1994) i 33 l

1 1

i l

j 4

SUlijECT INDEX NUCIIAR REGULATORY COMMISSION discretionary authority to institute procec&ngs; CL1-943, 39 NRC 95 (1994) discretionary authority to use rulemahng or adjudication; LBP-94-139 NRC 11 (1994) enforcenrnt authority of; LEP 942, 39 NRC 11 (1994) jurisdiction owr low-lewi waste faciliues in Agreenent States CU-943, 39 NRC 95 (1994)

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS report, dissernination of factual informatmo comained in; LDP 94-6,39 NRC 105 (1994) j i

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENTS

)

imnediate effectiveness; LBP-94-3,39 NRC 31 (1994) j OPERATING UCENSES changes to facilides without NRC approval; CU-94-3, 39 NRC 95 (1994)

ORDERS comparison with regulations; LBP-94139 NRC 11 (1994)

PENAtTiES See Civil IVaalties POLICY STATEMENTS discovery of Staff documents; LBP 94-6,39 NRC 105 (1994)

PRESIDING OFFICERS authority to seule proceedings; LBP 962, 39 NRC 11 (1994) discredon to allow anendment of intervendon petitions in Subpart L proceedings; WP 94-4,39 NRC 47 (1994)

)

PROGRAM FRAUD I

car remal; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 131 (1994) furninue natal; AU-94-1,39 NRC 131 (1994) house rental; AU-94-1,39 NRC 131 (1994) eneals and incidental expenses; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 131 (1994) overtier clams; AU-94-1,39 NRC 131 (1994) penahies and assessments; AU-94-1,39 NRC 131 (1994) personal car use; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 131 (1994) travel expenses; AU-94-1, 39 NRC 131 (1994) i I

PROOF See Burden of Proof PROPERTY INTERESTS standing to interwne on the basis of; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 31 (1994)

PROTECTIVE ORDERS applicability to Staff investigative report; LDP-94-6, 39 NRC 105 (1994)

RADIOACTIVE WASTES, HIGH-LEVEL NRC licensing of Departprnt of Energy 6sposal faciinies; DD-94-2, 39 NRC 86 (1994)

REI'ERRAL OF RUUNGS on intervention in enforcement proceeding; LBP 94-5. 39 NRC 54 (19%)

REGULATIONS comparison with orders; LBP 942,39 NRC 11 (1994) interpretation and application; IEP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994)

REOPENING enforcettent actions; DD 94-1,39 NRC 79 (1994)

REOPENING A RECORD criteria for; LBP-949, 39 NRC 122 (1994) inspection report raising new unresolved items about implementation of maintenancehurveillance l

program; LBP-94-9, 39 NRC 122 (1994) l REVIET appellate, of intervention rulings, LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994) r See also Appeals, Interlocutory l

SUBJECT INDEX RUGMAKING dioice between adjudication and; GP-94-2, 39 NRC 11 (1994)

RUGS OF PRACTICE appellate review of imervenuon rulirigs; UIP 945, 39 NRC 54 (1994) disemery of Staff inwstigative report; GP-944,39 NRC 105 (1994) dismissal of issues in enforcenent proceedings; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 11 (1994) 61ing deadline for intervendon petitions in enforcemem proceeding; LEP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994) injunctive relief; CLI-94 3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) insdtution of 2.206 proceedings; CLI 94-3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) interlocutory seview policy; CLI-94-2, 39 NRC 91 (1994) intervention, ctiteria for grant of, CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) organizational standing so intervene; CU-94 3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) pleading requirenrnts for admission of contentions; LBP-948,39 NRC 116 (1994) referral of rulings to Commission; GP-945,39 NRC 54 (1994) response so objections to admission of contentions; LBP-94-8,39 NRC 116 (1994) review of NRC Staff actions; GP-94-5,39 NRC 54 (1994) l settlement of contested actions; LEP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994) l speci6 city and basis requirenents for contentions; LBP-94-8,39 NRC 116 (1994)

I standing to imervene; CL1-94-1,39 NRC i (1994) standing to intervene in support of Staff enforcenent order, LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994)

SANCflONS basis for imposition of; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC 11 (1994)

SETrGMENT AGREEMENTS l

licensing board role in; GP-94-5,39 NRC 54 (1994); LBP-94-10, 39 NRC 126 (1994) l presiding of5cer's role in; LBP-94-2, 39 NRC ll (1994) i public inserest considrations; LBP-94-10,39 NRC 126 (1994) l SOURCE MATERIAL UCENSE informal headng on; LBP-947,39 NRC 112 (1994) t SPECIAL NUCUAR MATERIALS acceptance by low-level waste facilities; CLI-94 3, 39 NRC 95 (1994)

SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIA 13 LICENSE senewal; LBP-94-4,39 NRC 47 (1994)

SPENT FUEL STORAGE funding for costs of; CLI-94-2, 39 NRC 91 (1994)

STANDING TO INTERVENE deterranations of, versus ments deternunanons; LEP-94-5. 39 NRC 54 (1994) 6nancial quah6 canons as basis for; LDP-94-3, 39 NRC 31 (1994) gerrrahred interest of membership in mimmizing danger from prohferation as basis for; CU-94-1,39 NRC i (1994) geographic proximity to route for transport of radioactive materials as basis for; CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) w general license renewal proceeding; GP-94 4, 39 NRC 47 (1994) l ia support of Staff enforement order; LEP-94-5,39 NRC 54 (1994) j injury-in-fact and zone-of-interests tests for; LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 47 (1994); LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994) institutional interest in providing information to the public as basis for; CU-941,39 NRC I (1994) on source material license amendnent; LBP-94 i, 39 NRC 112 (1994) organizational, iniury-in-fact and zone-of-interests for; CU-94 3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) organizadonal, presumpoon of; LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 47 (1994) personal property damage as injury in fact; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 31 (1994) property inserests as basis for; LBP-94-3,39 NRC 31 (1994) speculadve injury as basis for; LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 31 (1994) 35

~

l 1

l SUBJECT INDEX STATVTORY CONSTRUCTION general rules; LBP-94-5,39 NRC 54 (IN4) i SUBPART L PROCEEDINGS anwndarm of intervemion petitions; LDP-944,39 NRC 47 (1994)

)

See also informal Proceedings SURVE!!1ANCE PROGRAMS reopening a record lased on inspection report raising new unresolved items about; LBP-94-9, 39 NRC 122 (1994)

TERMINA110N OF PROCELVING on byproduct irmaerial license sno&fication; LBP-94-1, 39 NRC 9 (1994)

TRANSPORT OF RADIOACI'lVE MATERIAIS authority under general license; CLl%3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) geographic prosimity to route as basis for stan&ng to imervene; CU-94-3. 39 NRC 95 (1994)

URANIUM 1

high<nriched, exports as mixed uranium and thorium carNde fabricated as unirradiated fuel; CUM 1, 39 NRC 1 (1994)

WHISTLEBID% IRS harassnent, intimidation, and discrimination; DDMI, 39 NRC 79 (1994) 36

_y I

l i

l

~

~

. A FACILITY INDEX DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units I and 2; Ducket Nos, 50 275-OLA-2, 50 323-OLA 2 OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; March 23, 1994, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng upon Motion to Reopen Record); LBP.94-9, 39 NRC 122 (1994) i GORE, OKLAHOMA $1TE DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING; Docket No.

448027 EA ENr#OR& MENT; February 24, 1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Intervention Motion; Referring Ruling to the Conmussion); LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994)

ENFORCEMENT; March 22, 1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Supplernental Petition to Intervene); LBP-94-8, 39 NRC 116 (1994)

HANFORD STTE REQUEST FOR ACTION; February 22, 1994; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R.12.206; DD 94-2, 39 NRC 86 (1994) f PENNSYLVANIA NUCLEAR SERVICES OPERATIONS, PARKS TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA; Docket No. 70 364-M1 Ren C

/

MATERIALS UCENSE; February 2,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Authorizing

~'

Arnendrnent to Hearing Request); LDP 94-4, 39 NRC 47 (1994)

RANCllO SECO NUCMAR GENERATING STATION, Docket No. 50 312-DCOM

[

DECOMMISSIONING; Mach 1,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-94-2, 39 NRC 91 1

(1994)

RIVER BEND STATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50-4584LA s

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 27,1994, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (On

~

Petition to Intervene), I.BP-94 3, 39 NRC 31 (1994)

THREE MILE ISLAND NUCEAR STATION, Unit 1; Docket No 54289 REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 31, 1994; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. (2.206; DD-94-3, 39 NRC 163 (1994)

VOGTE ELECI'RIC GENERATING PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 30-424-OL.A-3, 50-425-OLA 3 OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; March 3,1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Discovery Related to Office of Investigation Report); LBP-94-6, 39 NRC 105 (1994)

YANKEE NUCEAR POWER STATION; Docket No. 5429 REQUEST FOR ACTION; Much 18, 1994; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 95 (1994) l l

J 37 l

.