ML20115B110
| ML20115B110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/30/1996 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V43-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V43-I1, NUDOCS 9607090246 | |
| Download: ML20115B110 (25) | |
Text
. - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NUREG-0750 Vol. 43 Index 1 m
-~
w
[NS ~
.c e
. INDEXES T0; 1
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY '
l COMMISSION' ISSUANCES'
'~
i
_p
_4;s;,-
sg pa
.y 2
e m"2 w
i::<d JO;i
[Q JEl
.n; i
m l
.U S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY. C.OMMIShlON Y'
(
I g
9607090246 960630 g
\\
0750 R PDR
l l
i l
l l
Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office P.O. Box 37082 Washington, DC 20402-9328 i
A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.
Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 l
l i
l l
i Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services l
Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301/415-6844) 4 J
4
)
i
l l
Vol. 43 Index 1 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY l
COMMISSION ISSUANCES 1
January - March 1996 i
I 1
U.S. NUCLE AR R'EGULATORY" COM MISSION Prepared by the Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301/415-6E44)
)
}
Foreword Digests and indexes forissuances of the Commission (CU), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM) are presented in this document. These digests and indexes are intended to ser e as a guide to the issuances.
Information elements common to the cases heard and ruled upon are:
Case name (owner (s)of facility)
Full text reference (volume and pagination)
Issuance number Issues raised by appellants l
1egal citations (cases, regulatians, ami statutes)
I l
Name of facility, Docket number l
Subject matter of issues and/or rulings f
Type of hearing (operating license, operating license amendment, etc.)
Type of issuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.)
These information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats i
arranged as follows:
I 1.
Case Name Index i
i The case name inder is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type of issuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.
l l
2.
Headers and Digests The headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows: the Commission (CU), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative LawJudges (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
The header identifies the issuance ty issuance number, case name, facility 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 i
issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically.
3.
Legal Citations Index This index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alpha-numerical arrangements of Cates, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. These citations are listed as given in the be ances. Changes in regulations and statutes may have oxurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuanx.
The references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the ciwtion in the particular issuance. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.
iii tj 4
i i
t i
1
4.
Seldect Index Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects covered in the issuances. The subject headings are folkmed 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.
l-5.
Facility Index This index a>nsists 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.
l i
l i
1 l
l l
l l
I iv 1
1 i
7 e
I i
. _... - ~ _. - -. -
. - - -. - ~. _ - -.
t l
l I
I l
t J
l n
i CASE NAME INDEX CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. et al.
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMINT; ORDER; Docket No. 50 4440LA-3; CLI-%4. 43 NRC 51 (1996)
KERR-McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION MATERIAL.S UCENSE, ORDER; Docket No. 442061-ML; CLI-96-2, 43 NRC 13 (1996)
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY l
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on latervenuon Penuon); Docket No. 54245-OLA (ASLBP No. %71141-OLA); LDP-961,43 NRC 19 (1996)
ONCOLDGY SERVICES CORPORATION CIVIL PENALTY; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlernent Agreement and Disnussing Proceedh.g); Docket No. 03431765 CivP (ASLBP No. 95-708-01 CnP) (EA 94-006) (Byproduct i
Materials License No. 37-2854001); LBP-%3,43 NRC 93 (1996) l RADIATION ONCOLDGY CENTER AT MARLTON (ROCM)
CIVIL PENALTY; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Terrninanng Proceeding); Docket No. 3432493-CnP (ASLBP No 95-709-02 CivP) (EA 93-072) (Byproduct Materials License No. 29-28685-01); LBP-%4, 43 NRC 101 (1996)
SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORAllON and GENERAL ATOMICS ENFORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 40 8027-EA (Decontanunauon and Decomnussaomng Funding); CLI-96 3, 43 NRC 16 (1996)
YANKEE ATOMIC ELTLTRIC (UMPANY l
DECOMMISSIONING: ME MORANDUM AND ORDER; Dod a No. 5M)29; CLi-%I. 43 NRC 1 (1996)
I DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50 029-DCOM. CLI-%5,43 NRC 53 (1996)
DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Pention to Intervene); Docket No.
50429-DCOM (ASLBP No. %713-Ol DCOM); LBP-%2, 43 NRC 61 (1996)
REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. 6 2.206; Docket No 50 029 (Ucense No. DPR 3); DD %I, 43 NRC 29 (1996)
REQUEST FOR ACTION; SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. (2.206, Ivcket No. 50429; DD-96-2, 43 NRC 109 (1996)
I 1
I i
I 1
l l
l l
i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tf!E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
CLI-%-1 YANKEE ATOMIC E1ECFRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon). Docket No.50-029; DECOMMISSIONING, January 16,19% MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1
A
'the Commission refers to the Aionuc Safery and Licensmg Board, for a ruhng on stan&ng and i
1
{
contenuons and with guidance on several novel issues and a suggested expedite:1 schedule, pleadings filei
}
regarding Pennoners' intervennon in a pmeding to consider approval of a plan to decomnussion the
[
Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon (" Yankee NPS").
4 B
The maner now before the Comnussion follows the Comnussion's recent remstatement,in hght of 1
a decision by the First Cireme Court of Appeals, ofits pre 1993 pokey of provieng an opportumty for an adjudicatory heanng on nuclear power reactor decomnussiomng plans.
j C
Where a peunoner has not expressly requested a heanng on its petition, but where it seems clear from de peuuon as a whole that a hearing is what the peuuoner desires, the Comnussion will not disnuss 7
that pennon solely on the basis of such a technical pleading defect.
j D
in order to estabbsh stanang to intervene in a pmceedmg, a runoner must demonstrate that (1)it l
has suffered a &sunct and palpable harm that consututes injury-indact within the zone of amerests arguably'.
I protected by the guverning statute: (2) that the mjury can fairly be haced to the challenged action; and (3)
/
~
J that the injury is hkely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
1 E
As the Comnussion has noted on other occasmns, a prospective intervenor may not denve standing 9
to parucipate in a proceedmg from another person who is not a pany to the action or is not a rnember of Sr its orgamzauon i
F i
Once a party demonstrates that it has standing to intervene on its own accord, that party may then ra:se any contennon that, if proved, will afford the party rebef from the injury at rel-s upon for standing.
5 l
G The Comnussion construes the provision in 10 CER. 6 2.714(g), in accordance with the relevant case law, i e., that an intervenor's contemions may be hmated to those that will afford it rehef from the a
injunes assened as a basis for stan&ng l
H A fair rewhng of the Conunission's decomnussiomng rules at 10 C.F R.150 82 is that it is for dw herme in the first instance to choose the decomnussiomng opuon and that neither the DECON nor the l
SAFSTOR opuen can be deemed unacceptable a prion.
i The pnncipal entenon forjudging a decomnussiomng alternative is the proposed time equired for 4
I 7
decomnussiomng completion.10 C F R I 50 g2(bXI Kit Both de S AFSTOR and the DLCON alternauves would, in general. meet the entenon in that secten and in the Final Getenc Environmental impact Statement I
J on Decommissioning of Nuclear hicahues (GEISL i
j s
In ad&uon to meeung the "ume" requirenrnt in 10 C F.R.150 82(bWiki), decomnussiomng i
plans must also ineet other applicable NRC regulanons, including the "as low as is reasonably actuevable" i
( ALARA) requirement in 10 C F R. 5 20110)(b).
I K
One of the purposes of revismg 10 C.FR. Part 20 was to change the status of ALARf. from i
tv hortatory suggesuon in old 10 C F R. 6 20 l(c) to the mandatory requiremrnt in the current 10 C F R.
1201101(b); thus, ALARA is an essennal part of federal Ra&auon Protection Guidance.
L While a hcensee's choice of decomnussmning optmns is not beyond all challenge, such a challenge to a bcensee's choice of alternauve decomnussmmng procedures cannot bc Nsed solely on &fferences in esumated collecove occupanonal doses on the order of magrutude of the esumates in the GLIS a
j M
A bcensee's accons do not violate the ALARA pnnciple simply because some way can be idenufied j
to reduce ra&ation exposures further The pracucahty and the cost of the measures required to adueve these 1
I 4
i J
3 4
l t
l i
\\
k i
I I
i e
4 e
- - - - -,, - - ~ ~ ' ' " " ' ' " * ^ " " ' ' ' ^ " ~ " " ' ' ' ^ " ^ ^ ^ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ '
1 I
I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCI EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
reduccons as wen as "odwr societal and socioecononuc consideranons" must also be taken into account.
l See 10 C F R.1201003 (dchniuon of ALARA).
N The Comnunion will generally had that exposures are ALARA when further dose reducuans i
would cost more than $1000 or $2000 for each person-rem reduction achieved. See generally " Regulatory Analyses Guidehnes," NUREG/BR 0058, Rev. 2 (1995k O
The essential purpose of the requirement m 10 Cf.R. 5 50 82 is to prodde " reasonable assurance" i
of adequate fun &ng for decomnus*iomng. Thus, to be enulled to rehef, a peutioner needs to show not only that a licensee's decmiurussiomng cost esumate is in error, but that there is not reasonable assurance that l
the correct araount will be paid.
i P
To the extent that a peuuonci s contenuon alleges " illegal" past conduct in violanon of NRC regulations, those allegations are more pmperly the subject of a separate enforcement acuan.
CLI-%2 KERR McGEE CHLMIC AL CORPORATION (West Clucago Rare Earths Facihty), Docket No.
40-2061 ML; C1196-2,43 NRC l3 (1996)
A The Commissicn considers a request by the Ucensee to ternunate this proceeding as moot and to vacate the procee&ng's underlying decisions. Because this procee&ng solely concerns the Ucensee's request for onsite &sposal of mil, uuhngs, and all parues concur that de Ucensee no longer seeks onsile l
&sposal, the Comnusnon terminates the procec&ng as moot. The Comnussion chooses as a policy matter to vacate and thereby chaunate as precedent all three underlying decisions an this procce&ng.
i B
'he Comnussion is not bound by judicial practice and need not follow judicial standards of vacatur.
CLI-%3 SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore Oklahoma Site), Docket l
No. 40 8027-EA (Decontanunauon and Deconumssiomng Rmding); ENFORCEMENT ACTION; kbruary 27,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Comnussion grants the intervenors' peuuon for review of the Atonue Safety and Ucensing Board's Memorandum and Crder approving a joint settlement agreement between the Ucensee, Sequoyah Fuels Corp., and the NRC Staff The Comnussmo also pernuts the State of Oklahoma to hle a bnef anucus cunae to and the Conurussion in its review of the Board's order B
A state that does not seek party status or to prucipate as an "interestsi state" in the proceedings f
below is not pernutted to hie a peution for Commission review of a licensmg board ruhng. If the Comnussion l
takes review, the Comnussion may pernut a person who is not a party, mcluding a state, to hic a bnef anueus cunae.10 CJ R. I 2.715(d).
CLI-%4 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Pos er Plant. Umi l) Docket No. 50 440-OLA 3, OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 7,1996; ORDl'.R A
The Comnussmn grants the Clevelni Electnc Illununaung Company's pecuon for reuew of the Atomic Safety and Licensmg Board orJer, LBP-95-17,42 NRC 137 (1995). The Board's order granted the Intervenors' motion for summt.ry &sposmon and sernumued the proceedmg CLI-96-5 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Stanont Docket No. 50 024 DCOM, DECOMMISSIONING. March 7,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l
A The Comnussion dechnes to disquahfy two Comnussioners or the NRC Staff from parucipanng in l
the case; indicates that it plans to review the Ucensing Board's March I decision (LBP-%2,43 NRC 61 l
(1996); suggests appropnate areas of mquiry for the parues' bnefs; and keeps in place the current stay of the Board decision, pending Comnussion review of LBP-96-2 B
lt is Comnussion pracuce that the Comnussioners who are sub ect to a recusal motion will decide f
that motion thenucives, and may do so by issuing a joint decision C
A prohibited conunumcanon is not a concern if it does not reach the ulumate decmon maker.
D Where a prohibited commurucauon is not ;ncorporated into advice to the Coinmission, never reaches the Comnussion, and has no impact on the Comrrussion's decismn, it provides no grounds for the recusal of Comnussioners.
E Conutussion guidance does not consutute factual prejudgnent where the guidance is based on i
regulatory interpretanons, pohey judgments, and tentative observauons about donc enumates that are denwd from the pubhc record F
Where there are no facts from which the Comnussmn can reasot. ably conclude that a prohibited commumcation was made with any corrupt mouve or was other than a simple nustake, and where a Repon of the Ofhce of the inspector General conhrms that an innocer,t nustake was made and that tte Staff was 4
l
i I
i l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
l 1
not guilty of any actual wrongdoing, and where the mistake &d not ulumaiety affect the procee&ug. the Comnussion will not esmiss the Staff from the procee&ng as a sancuon for having made the protubited commumcation-G Where the Commission issues a stay wholly as a matter of its own discretion, it does not need to address the factors listed in 10 C.F R. I 2.788.
l t
i i
I l
l I
5 i
I 1
1 _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - -. -
1 a
i l
i e
1 t
l.
I i
i I
i i
1 i
a I
l i
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS l
LBP-961 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Umt 1),
Docket N150 245-OIA (ASLBP No. %71101OLA); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMEbff;itbruary l
7,19%, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Intervention Peution) l LBP-42 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon), Docket No. 50-j 029-DCOM (ASLBP No. %713-01-DCOM); DECOMMISSIONING; Marcn 1,1996; MEMORANDUM
{
AND ORDER (Denying Feution to Interverr) l A
In sfus proceceng concermng challenges to vanous sapects of the decomnussiomng plan for the j
Yankee Nuclear Power Station, based on guidance furnished by the Comnussion in CLI-%I,43 NRC 1
]
(1996), the Licensing Board concludes that the citizen gnrgs petinomng to intervene have estabhshed their standing but have failed to present a Lugable comennon, which requires that the procee&ng be dismissed.
B To comply with the basic stan&ng reemnents, a pennoper must demonshate that (1) it has suffered or will suffer a &stinct and palpable harm inal consurutes injury-in-fact within the zone of interests arguably proiccred by the gowrmng statute; d) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the mjury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision See CLI-961,43 NRC at 6.
C When an orgaruzatn,n seeks to imervene on behalf of its members, that entiry naast show that it has an in&vidual rnember who can ful611 the necessary elenrnts to estabbsh standing and who has authorized l
the organizauon to represent his or her interests. See CLI-%),43 NRC at 6.
D Intervenor orgamzanons estabhshed their standmg to intervene and seek rehef regarding alleged j
hesith and safety or environmental injunes that may be visited upon their numbers who reside imd engage l
in various activines in the area withm 10 nules of a nuclear facihty to be decomemsnoned. Because some, even if nunor, pubhc exposures can be anocipated from the decomnussiomng process, the Licensing Board is not "in a posinon at ttus threshold stage to rule out as a mauer of certamty the existence of a reasonable possibihty" that decomemssiomng nught have an aJverse imr.act to those, such as pectioners members, who hve or recreate m such close proxinury to the facihty, or use local waste transponation routes. Virgima l
Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-522,9 NRC 54,56 (1979).
E Peanoners who have estabbshed their man &ng to present a contenuon that seeks cio&ficanon or i
rejecuon of a nuclear facihty decomnusuomng plan so as to avoid health and safety or envuunnental j
injury to the puble also can pursue any contemion allegmg such modi 6 canon / rejection relief based on circumstances such as purponed occupanonal esposure to facihry workers from decomnusuomng activiues.
See CL1-96 I,43 NRC at 6.
F Under 10 C.F.R.12.714(b)(2)(ii)-(ni), to be adnussible a contenuon rnust contam a speci6c i
statenem of an issue of fact or law raised or controvened in a procecoing that is supponed by a 'tasis" of alleged facts or expert opimons. together with references to specific sources and docamerns that estabbsh those facts or opimons. The basis umst be sufficient to show that a genuine dispute exists with the appbcant 4
on a material issue of fact or law. Moreover, wlule the intervenor need not prove its case at the comennon stage or presers factual support in affidavit or evidentiarv form sufficient to withstand a summary &sposmon snouon, it nonetheless must make a nurumal showing that maienal facts are in espute such that a further aqwry is appropna'e. And, of course, any contenuon must fall within the scope of tie issues ses forth in the nouce of opportumty for heanng on the proposed hcensing acuen. See Georgia insuture of Technology (Georgia Tech Rercardi Reactor), CLI-95-12,42 NRC til, 117-18 (1995).
7
.-_m~
b DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS I
i l
l 0
In challengmg the coments of a decommissioning plan fashioned pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
l 4 50.82(b)(1),(2), a contention not only rnust allege some content de6ciency in the decommissioning plan, a
but that this purported denciency has some health and safety sigmftcance for the decomnussiomng process as a whole. Put another way, to craft a htigable contention faulung a decomnussioning plan for a dc6ciency
~
in content, besides provi&ng a basis suf6cient to question the plans accuracy, there must also be a showing l
that a genmne &sputed matenalissue of fact or law exi::ss about whether the purported shortconung has l
some tangible negative impact on the overall abihty of the decomnussioning process outhned in the plan l
to protect the pubhc heahh and safety. Cf. Public Service Co. of New Harnpslure (Seabrook Station, Units l
1 and 2), A1AB 942,32 NRC 395,414 (1990)(comennon that purported emergency planning exercise dc6ciency prechides a 6nding of reasonable assurance that protecuve measures can and will be taken naast show that exercise revealed more than minor or isolated Gaw in plan and Litt plan flaw can only be remeded through sigm6 cant plan revision).
t l
H A litigable coatention asserting that a reactor decommissiomng plan does not comply with the
[
funding requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.82(b)(4) and (c), must show not only that one or more of a plans cost estimate provisions se in error, "but that there is not reasonable assurance that the amount will be paid."
CLI-961,43 NRC at 9. A petiooner must estabbsh that some reasonable ground exists for concluding that the beensee will not have sufficient funds to cover decomnussiomng costs for the facihty.
(
I A pennoner should be permitted to respond to challenges to a contenuon before the comennoa l
is &smissed. See Houston Ughung and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station Uma 1),
ALAB-565,10 NRC 521,525 (1979).
l J
The " rule of reason" governing Nanonal Environmental Pohey Act (NEPA) interpretation provides that an agency need not consider " remote and speculauve risks." Limcrick Ecology Action v. NRC,869 l
F.2d 719. 739 (3d Cir 1989).
K A comention basis concerning a transportanon cask accident thne rehes on a report postulaung an i
accident sceneno with condinons that fall within the parameters of 10 CF.R. 971.73(c) govermng cask accident test consoons is not subject to &smissal undei 10 C F.R.12.758 as improperly challengmg that accident test condition regulanon.
l L
A document put forth by an intervenor as supporung the basis for a contenuon is subject to scruuny j
both for what it does and does not show, When a report is the central support for a contenuons basis, the l
contents of that report are what are before the Board and, as such, is subject to Board scrunny, both as to l
those pornons of the report that support an intervenors assertions and those poruons that do not.
l.
M Because only accident scenanos that are not " remote and speculauw" need be the subject of a l
NEPA analysis, if the informanon in any imervenor-proffered document regarang such a scenano fails to i
indicate that this threshold has been crossed, then a contennon challengmg NEPA comphance based on a failure to analyze that scenano need not be adnuned See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon), ALAB-919,30 NRC 29,44-47 (1989), remanded for add,tional fin &ngs, CLI-90 4,31 NRC 333 (1990).
LBP.96 3 ONCOUDGY SERVICES CORPORATION (Harnsburg, Pennsylvarua). Docket No. 030-31765-CivP (ASLBP No. 95108-Ol-CivP)(EA 94-006)(Byproduct Materials License No. 37-28540 01); CIVIL PENALTY; March 28, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Disnussmg Procee&ng)
LBP 96-4 RADIATION ONCOLOGY CENTER AT MARLTON (ROCM)(Marlton, New Jersey), Dock 3 No. 30 32 893-CivP (ASLBP No. 95 709 02-CisP) (EA 93#2) (Byproduct Materials License No. 29-28685-01); CIVIL PENALTY, March 28,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Ternunarms Proceeding)
A The Licensing Board approves a joint settlement agreement govermng both this civil penalty procce&ng and a related procee&ng and terminates tius procee&ng. (Simultaneously, the Ucensmg Board in the other cavel penalty procet&n(t approved the joint agreemem with respect to that procee&ng. See LBP-96 3,43 NRC 93 (1996),
1 4
l a
e i
i 4
e f
1 1
1 i
~.
l
}
l i
b r
4 DIGESTS ISSUANCFS OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS l
i D3%I YANKEE ATOMIC E11CTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Staues), Docket No. 50 029 (License No. DPR-3), REQUEST FOR ACTION,Ichruary22, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER IO C.F R. I 2.206 A
& Director of de Off ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon denies in part and grants in part a peauon daied January 17, 1996, subnuned to de Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion WRC) by Citizens Awareness Network and New England Conhtion on Nuclear Pollution (Peutionerst requesung that the NRC take action with respect to fne acuvities conducted by Yankee Atonne Electne Company (YAEC or Licensee) at the l
Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon in Rowe, Massachusetts (Yankee Rowe or the facihty). h peuuon was also
'y 1
l moot in part. W peuuon requesta that the NRC comply with Citizens Awareness Network inc v. Jnited
}
i States Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion and Yankee Atonue Electnc Co.,59 F3d 284 (1st Cir 1995) and immrdiately order (A) YAEC not to undertake, and the NRC Staff not to approve, further major dismantling E
acuvities or other decommissioning activines, unless such acuvities are necessary to ensure the protection
~
of occupanonal and pubhc health and safety; (B) YAEC to cease any such acuvices, and (C) NRC Region I to reinspect Yankee Rowe to deternune whether there has been compliance with the Comnussion's Order
?
/
in CLI 95-14,42 NRC 130 (1995), and to issue a report within 10 days of the requested order to Region 1.
J j
B h Pecuoners' request that shipments of low-level radioacuve waste be prohibited is denied because that activity is pernussible, pnor to approval of a decomnussiomng plan. under the pre-1993 interpretanon of the Comnussion's &comnussiorung reFulauons. Peutioners' request that four other 2
acuviues be prohibiied is moot, ahhough the acuvines would have been pernussible, pnor to approval of a g
deconurussioning plan, under the pre-1993 interpretanon of the Conurussion's decommissioning regulanons.
4 Additionally, Pentioners' request for an mspection of Yankee Rowe to deternune comphance with CU --
l 14 and an inspecuan report was granted.
DD-%2 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-j 029-REQUEST FOR ACTION, March 18,1996; SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 A
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon dcases a supplemental peution dated February 9,1996, filed wuh the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion by Citizens Awareness Netwosk and New England Coahuon on Nuclear Pollution The supplemenial pennon requests diat the Comnussion-I (1) reverse tne Irbruary 2,1996 decision of the NRC Staff on the emergency aspects of a January 17, 1996 pennon Aled pursuant to 10 C.F R. 6 2.206, and (2) require Yankee Atonne Electne Company to I
cease sit unlawful decomnussiomng acuvines and to direct the Staff to cease approvmg or acquiescing to b l such unlawful decomnussiomng actmties. By Order dated February 15,1996, the Comnussion dechned to j
reverse de February 2,1996 decision of the NRC Staff on thr energency aspects of the January 17.1996 peunon. and directed the NRC Staff to address the argunents advanced by Peuponers at page 13 of the supplemental peuuon in a supplenentary secuon 2.206 decision.
It The Director detued the request to prohitut the conduct of six activiues idenafied at paFe 13 of the supplenental peution because dry are pernussible, pnor to approval of a decomnuswomng plan, under the pre-1993 macrpretauon of the NRC's decommisuomng regulanons, and thus i nder Cmeens Awareness Network inc. v U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnusnon and Yankee Atonne Electnc Co 59 F3d 284 (1st Cir.1995).
9 m
,_u-,
m.
-.-,,e.,,,ye,.,
_.,-_.y,_w.,,,.,.m
,g7_-y..,
. - ~. - ~. -
i l
d l
8 I
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX i
CASES k
i ATX. Inc. v. U S. Department of Transportauon, 41 F.3d 1522,1527 (D C, Gr.1994) comrnumcanons that violate separanon of funcuons; CLI-96-5, 43 NRC 57 (1996)
Cituens Awareness Network Inc. v. NRC, 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir 1995) d dismanchng acovities pnor to approval of decommissiotung plan; DD 96-1,43 NRC 3049 (1996)
Iranng rights on decomnussiorung plans; CLI-961,43 NRC 5 (1996) l Cleveland Electnc illuminaung Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Unit 1), CU-93-21, 38 NRC 87, 92
(
(1993) applicauon of juecial concepts of stan&ng in NRC proceedmgs; LBP 96-1,43 NRC 21 (1996) stan&ng to intervene, showing necessary to estabhsh; CLI 961. 43 NRC 6 (1996)
/
Dellums v. NRC, 863 F 2d %8, 971 (D C. Cir.1988)
I stan&ng to interwne, showing necessary to establish; CU-961, 43 NRC 6 (1996) 7 l
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group. 438 U.S. 59, 78-81 (1978) nexus requirement between the injury clamed and the right being assened; CU-%1,43 NRC 6 I
(1996) f Flonda Power and bght Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2), CLI-89-21, 30 NRC 325, n
329 (1989) standing to imervene, another nonparty person as basis for; CU-96-1, 43 NRC 6 (1996) stan&ng to intervene on basis of geographic prommuty; LBP 961, 43 NRC 25 (19%)
Georgia insutute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor), CU-95-12. 42 NRC til, 115 (1995)
~
showmg necessary to denve orgaruzanonal stan&ng from a member; LBP 961, 43 NRC 22 (1996) 7
+
Georgta insutute of Technology (Georgia lech Research Reactor) CLI-9512, 42 NRC til, 117-18 (1995) plea &ng trquirements at intervennon stage; LBP.96-2,43 NRC 71 (1996) 1 Gulf States Unhues Co. (River Bend Stanon, Umt 1), CLI-94-10, 40 NRC 43, 47 (1994) showing necessary to denve orgamzauonal stan&ng from a member; LBP-96-1,43 NRC 22 (1996)
Gulf States Unhues Co. (R2ver Bend Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB 183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974) 1 standing to intervene on basis of geographic proximity; LBP.96-l, 43 NRC 25 (1996) i Houshn Ughung and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Scauon, Umt II, ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 390 4 (1979) showing necessary to denve orgasu.auonal stan&ng from a member; LBP-9M,43 NRC 22 (1996)
Houston Ughtmg and Power Co (Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Stanon, Umt 1), ALAB-565,10 NRC 521, 525 (1979) treatment of issues raised in reply fihngs, LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 83 n 17 (1996)
Houston Ughung and Power Co. (South Texas Project. Umts I and 2). ALAB 549, 9 NRC 6 4, 646-47 4
(1979) orramzanonal staning, basis for LBP-96-1, 43 NRC 21 (1996)
Joseph J Macktat. CLI-89-18, 30 NRC 167,169-70 (1989) authonry of Comnussioners to decide recusal monons for themselves, CL1-%5,43 NRC 57 (1996)
Kelly v Sehn. 42 F.3d 1501,1508 (6th Gr.1995) injury-in-fact standard for imervennon in NRC procee&ngs; LBP-%1, 43 NRC 21 (1996)
Umenck Ecology Acuon v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719, 739 (3d Cir.1989) rule of reason in consideranon of accident raks, LBP-%2,43 NRC 89 (1996)
II
,f r
i i
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Long Island Ughtmg Co (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stauon, Umt I), CLI-90'8, 32 NRC 201, 207 n.3 (1990) scope of acuviues pnor to decomnussiomng plan approval; DD-961,43 NRC 36 (1996) ; DD-%2, l
43 NRC 113 !!996)
Long Island Lighung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Umt I), CLI-912, 33 NRC 61, 73 n.5 (1991) i scope of actmties pner to decomnussiomng plan approval, DD 96-l, 43 NRC 36 (1996) ; DD-96-2, l
43 NRC 113 (1996) l Long Island Lightmg Co (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-8. 33 NRC 461,468 69 I
(1991) state's right u hie pention for review; CU-96-3, 43 NRC 17 (1996) 1mng Island Lig.hting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon. Unit 1), CU-91-8, 33 NRC 461, 471 (1991)
)
scope of acuvities prior to decomnussioning plan approval DD-96-1,43 NRC 43 (1996)
Lujan v. Defenders of Waldbfe,112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) injury-in-fa : standasd for intervenuon in NRC proceedinbs; LBP-96-1,43 NRC 21 (1996)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildhfe, 504 U S. 555, 56461,112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) standing to intervene, showing necessary to estabhsh; CU-41, 43 NRC 6 (1996)
Pacific Gas and Elecinc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umre I and 2), ALAB-583,11 NRC 447, 448-49 (1980) state's npb> u hie peution for review; CLI-%3, 43 NRC 17 (1996)
Paci6c Gas anr %we Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), UlP-92-27, 36 NRC 1%,199 (IN.
affidant requirenrnt to estabhsh representational standing; LBP-961,43 NRC 23 (1996) showing necessary to denve organnauonal standmg from a nrmber; LBP-961,43 NRC 23 (1996)
Peter Lewet Sons' Co v. U.S Army Corps of Engmeers, 714 F.2d 163,17471 (D C. Cir.1983) commumeaucus that violate separanon of functions; CLl-96-5, 43 NRC 57 (1996) i l
Ponland General Liectne Co. (Pebble Spnngs Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2) CLI-76 27,4 NRC 610,616 (1976) dis,:renonary grant of standing to intervene; LBP-%I, J3 NRC 26 (1996)
Press Broadcasung Co., Inc v. FCC, 59 F.3d 1365,1369 (D C. Cir.1995) comnunnications that violaie separauon of funcuans: CLI 96-5. 43 NRC 57 (194)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stanon. Umts I and 2), ALAB-949, 33 NRC 484, 485 (1991) pleadmg standards for counsel fanuliar with NRC requirements; LBP-96-1,43 NRC 24 (1996)
Pubhe Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stasion, Umts I and 2) LBP-76-4. 3 NRC 123 (1976) pleading standards for counsel fanuhar with NRC req nrenrnts; LBP-961,43 NRC 24 (1996)
Pubhc Seruce Co. of New Hampshire (Seahrook Stapon, Units i Md 2), ALAB-942, 32 NRC 395, 414 (1990) htigable contentmns faulung decommissio:nng plan for a de6ciency in content; LBP 96 2, 43 NRC 76 (1996)
Sacramento Municipal Ouhry Distnet (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stanon), CLI-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 61 (1992) l housekeepmg stays to facihtate orde.ly judicial review; CU-96-5, 43 NRC 60 (1996)
Sacramento Mumcipal Vuhry Distnet tRancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stauon). CLI 92-2, 35 NRC 47,61 I
n.7 (1992) i decomrmssioning actinues pernutted pnar to approval of decomnussmning; DD-96-1,43 NRC 36 (1996); DD-96 2, 43 NRC 113 (1996)
Sacranento Mumcipal Vuhry Distnet (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Station), CLI 93-3, 37 NRC 135, 152 (1993) discrenon of Comnussion to issue stays; CU-%5, 43 NRC 60 (1996)
Sacranrmo Mumcipal Vuhry Distnct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stanon) LBP-93 23, 38 NRC 200, 246 (1993)
.pproval process for change from spent fuel storage to dry cask storage; LBP-96-2,43 NRC 79 (1996) t l
12 r
l 4
e i
e 4
)
1 I
1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASf3 Sequoyah Ibels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 71-72 (1994) showmg necessary to denve orgamt.ational standing from a nrmber; LBP-96-1,43 NRC 22 (1996)
Secrra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740 a 15 (1972) apphcatson of test of injury-in-fact to the question of standing; CLI-%I,43 NRC 6 (19%)
Statement of Pohey on the Conduct of Ucensing Procceangs, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,454 (1981) tinrhneness of afhdavits showing representational stanang; LBP-%I,41 NRC 24 (1996)
Umted States Bancorp Corp v. Bonner Mall Partnership.115 S. Ct. 386 (1994) eft'ect of voluntary settlenwns on claims to vacatur; CLI-%2,43 NRC 14 (1996)
Vernont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-919 30 NRC 29, 44-47 (1989), remanded for addinonal finangs, CLI-90 4, 31 NRC 333 (1990) hagabihty of accident scenarios in decomnussiomng proceedings; LBP-%2, 43 NRC 90 (1996)
Virgmaa Liectric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC $4, 56 (l979) stan&ng to intervene in deconunissionin;; proceeding on basis of geographic proximity LBP-%I. 43 NRC 25 (1996); LBP %2,43 NRC 70 (1996)
Warth v. Sel&n, 422 U.S. 490, 511 (1975) orgamzational standing, basis for: LDP-%I, 43 NRC 21 (1996)
Wilderness Society v. Gnies. 824 F.2d 4,11 (DC. Cir.1987) injury-in-fact standard for intervention in NRC procecengs; LBP-961,43 NRC 21 (1996)
Yankee Atonne Elecinc Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI.95-14. 42 NRC 130 (1995) heanng nghis on decomnussiomng plans; CLI-%1,43 NRC 5 (1990) i l
i I
I h
l 13 I
1
... _. - - - ~.
- -. - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
- -. - ~ ~. - -
b i
l I
i T
i 1
1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l
REGULATIONS I
1 I
I J
OlG invesuganon of separauon of functions violauon; CLI-%5, 43 NRC 57 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 2.203 licensing board review of sentement agreements; LDP-96-3,43 NRC 94 (1996); LBP 44. 43 NRC 102 (1996) 10 C.F R. 2 206 dismanthng acuvines prior to approval of decomnussiomng plan; DD-%I, 43 NRC 30 49 (1996) forum for htigaung alleged violations of regulanons; LBP %2, 43 NRC 85 (1996) 10 C F.R. 2.714
/
showing necessary for intervention on decomrissioning plans; CL1-96-1,43 NRC 5 (1996)
I 10 C F.R. 2.714(a)
J treaunent of issues raised in reply filings; LDP 96-2. 43 NRC 83 n.17 (1996) l 10 C.F.R. 2.714(aW3)
/
umehness of anwndment of intervention pennon; LBP-961,43 NRC 24 (1996)
(
)
10 C.F.R. 2.714(bX2)(iiHui) 1 pleading requirements or contenuons; LBP %2, 43 NRO 70 (1996) r 10 C.F R. 2 714(dX2Xii) hogabihty oi -ontenuon that, even if proven, would not enutie pentioner to rebef LBP-96-2, 43 NRC
~
78, 91-92 (19di f'
10 C.F.R. 2.714(g) l hrruts on an intervenor's parui'pation in a proceeding; CLI-96 l, 43 NRC 6 n.3 (1996) 10 C F R. 2.714a(a) d l
appeals of disnussals of contenoons; CLI-%5, 43 NRC 59 (1996) 1 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c) i review of heensing board approval of settlement agreement; CLI-%3, 43 NRC 17 (1996)
I 10 C.F R. 2.715(d)
-l l
state's right to file pention for review; CLI-%-3, 43 NRC 17 (1996) 1 10 C.F.R. 2.758 l
dismissal of challenges to regulanons; LBP-%2. 43 NRC 89 n 29 (1996) 10 C.F R. 2.780(aHc)
)
i distincuon between ex parte commumcanons and communicanons in violanon of separauen of funcuons-CU %5. 43 NRC 56 n.2 (1996) 10 C.F R. 2.781(a) l violanon of separanon of functions; CU-96-5. 43 NRC 55. 56 n.2 (1996) 10 C F R. 2.781(c) dispoution of communicauon violaung separauon of funcuons; CLI-96-5. 43 NRC 55 (1996) 10 C.F R. 2.786(b) review of order granung summary disposmon. CLI-%4,43 NRC 51 (1996) 10 C.F R. 2.786(d) parucepauon by interested state as anucus curiae; CLI-%3. 43 NRC 17 (1996) l 4
15 4
3
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 2.708 need to address traditional factors in discreuonary grant of stay; CU-%5,43 NRC 60 n.7 (1996) 10 CER 20l(c) applicabihty of ALARA to decommissiomng; CLI-%I,43 NRC 7 n 4 (1996) 10 CER. 201003 cost considerations in achieving ALARA standard. CLI-96-1,43 NRC 8 (1996) 10 C F R. 20.1101 apphcabihty of ALARA to decomnussioning; CLI-96-1,43 NRC 7 (1996); LBP-96 2,43 NRC 78 (1996) 10 C F R. 30.34(c), 40.41(c) radioactive materials shipment prior to decommissioning plan approval; DD-961, 43 NRC 46 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 50.59 scope of activmes pnor to decomnussiomng plan approval; DD-%1. 43 NRC 31, 33, 35, 42 (1996) 10 C F.R. 50.59(c) a amendment of techmcal speci6 cations; LBP-96-2,43 NRC 80 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 50 75(c) n.l removal and disposal of spem fuel as a decommissioning activity; LBP-96 2, 43 NPC 77 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 50.82 challenges to applicant's choice of decomrnissiomng options; C11961,43 NRC 7 (1996) 10 CF R. 50.82(bXI) and (2) decomnussioning plans, content of, CLI-96-1, 43 NRC 7 n.4 (1996); LBP %2, 43 NRC 73, 74-75 (1996) 10 C F.R. 50.82(bXlXi) acceptabihty of ahernative means of decommissioning plan; CLI-961, 43 NRC 7 n 4 (1996); LBP-96 2, 43 NRC 73 n.6 (1996) 10 C.F R. 50.82(bX4) decomnussioning costs, reasonableness of, CLI-961, 43 NRC 9 (1996) ; LEP %2, 43 NRC 75, 80 (1996) 10 CER. 50 82(c) decomnussiomng funding requirements; LBP 96 2,43 NRC 80 (1996) 10 C.F R. 50 82(d) detail requued in decomnussioning plans if there is a delay in a major dismantiemen' activity; LDP-%2,43 NRC 79 (1996) 80 CER, 50.82(f)
Comnussion pohey on decommissiutung; LBP-%2,43 NRC 73 n.6 (1996) j 10 C.F.R. 51.23(a) acceptable penod for use of any combinanon of wet and dry fuel safe storage methods; LBP %2, 43 NRC 77 (1996) safe-storage period for spent fuel; LBP-96 2, 43 NRC 78 (19%)
l 10 C.F R. 51.92 aK2) l environmentafimpact statements for decomnussionmg acuvities; LDP-%2, 43 NRC 85, 88, 90591 i
(1996) 10 CER. 7041(a) radioacuve matenals shipment pnor to decomnussiomng plan approval, DD-%1,43 NRC 46 (1996) 10 CER. Part 71 radioacuve matenals stupment pnor to decomnussiomng plan approval; DD-96-1,43 NRC 46 (1996) 10 C F.R. 71.7Xc) challenge to test penmeter for transportauon casks; LBP-%2, 43 NRC 89 a 29 (1996) 10 CER. Part 72 heensmg requirements for dry cask storage. LDP-%2. 43 NRC 79 (1996) 10 C F.R. Part 72, Subpart L l
dry cask cerufication process; LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 79 (1996) l l
l 16 i
i l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C F.R. 72 40 licensing requirenents for dry cask storage; LBP %2. 43 NRC 79 (1996) 10 C.F R. 72.40(a)(5), (13) transfer of highlevel radscactive waste to a transpo.tation cask; LBP-%2,43 NRC 80 (1996) 10 C.F R. 72.44(d) approva! process for change from spent fuel storage to dry cask storage; LBP-%2,43 NRC 79 (1996) 10 C.F R. 72,46 approval process for change from spent fuel storage to dry cask storage; LBP-96 2, 43 NRC 79 (1996) transfer of lughievel radioactive wasic to a transportation cask; LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 80 (19%)
10 C.F.R. 72.48(c) transfer of high-level radioactsve waste to a transporta6on cask; LBP-%2, 43 NRC 80 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 72.104 approval process for change from spent fuel storage to dry cask storage; LBP-96 2, 43 NRC 79 (1996) 10 CER. 72.212(bX2). (4) approval process for change from spent fuel storage to dry cask storage; LBP 96-2, 43 NRC 79 (1996) 10 CER. 72.212(bX4) transfer of high-level radioactive waste to a transportation cask; LBP-96 2. 43 NRC 80 (1996) l l
17 l
l l
4 1
)
(..
f F
i i
i i
e i
i 1
I 1
i i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Ai nistrahve Procedure Act. 5 U.S C.1551(8) and (9) ptaics directed to address signi6cance of " license" and "beensing"; CLi %4, 43 NRC 52 (1996)
Atonne Energy Act, 81, 42 U.S.C.12111 licensing board review of settlenent agreenents; LBP.%3,43 NRC 94 (1996); LBP-%4. 43 NRC 102 (1996)
Atonuc Energy Act,161b, 42 U.S C.1220l(b) j heensing board review of settlernent agreements; LBP-%3,43 NRC 94 (1996); LBP-%4,43 NRC 102 (1996)
Atonne Energy Act, 1610, 42 U S C.12201(o)
(
licensing board review of settlement agreenrnts; LBP %3. 43 NRC 94 (1996); LBP-96-4, 43 NRC 102 2
(1996)
/
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. Pub. L 95-452, 5 U.S C. App.
~
OlG insesagation of separanon of functions violation; CLI45,43 NRC 57 (1996)
[
2
/
~
m i
l
,+
19 l.
_._._.~_m
.. ~. ~ _ _ _ _. - -
l i
l t
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS 3 K. Da is and R. Pierce, Adnunistrative Law Treanw l16 13 (1994) applicanon of test of injury-in-fact to the question of standing; CLI 96-1, 43 NRC 6 (1996) i i
i i
l 1
I i
1 I
I 2i
)
s i
-..._.__.m 1
i
.(
I 1
1 4
i 4
I h
I SUBJECT INDEX 4
i ACCIDENTS remote and speculanve nsks; LBP-96 2, 43 NRC 61 (1996) i risk of full-core off-loading to spent fuel pool dunng refueling; LBP 961,43 NRC 19 (1996)
AMM applicabihty to decomnussioning; CLi bl. 43 NRC I (1996); LBP-96-2. 43 NRC 61 (1996) l cost consideranons in deternuning apphcabihty of; CLl-961, 43 NRC 1 (19%)
i AMICUS CURLAE I
parucipanon by interested state; CLI-%3,43 NRC 16 (1996) l BRIEFS review proceeding on sumnuary dnposition order; CL1-96-4, 43 NRC 51 (1996)
CIVIL PLNALTIES challenges to; LBP-96-3, 43 NRC 93 (1996); LBP-96-4. 43 NRC 101 (1996) i
{
COMMUNICATIONS
/
I separauon of functions viola 6on; CL1-96-5. 43 NRC 53 (1996)
I l
COMPONINT COOLING WATER SYSTEM 2
removal pnor to approval of decomnussioning plan; DD-%i,43 NRC 29 (1996)
~
t CONTENTIONS
~
hnutauons on hugable issues; CLI-%1,43 NRC I (1996)
Z pleading requirenrnts for; LBP-%2, 43 NRC 61 (1996) replies to challenges to; LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 61 (1996)
[
l supporung docunentauon; LBP-96-2,43 NRC 61 (1996)
/
4 COOLANT SYSTEM, MAIN l
decontaminauon of DD-%2, 43 NRC 109 (1996) l insulanon removal; DD %2, 43 NRC 109 (1996)
DECOMMISSIONING ALARA requirenents apphed to; CLI-96-1, 43 NRC 1 (1996) alternauves, enteria for judging CLI-96-1, 43 NRC 1 (1996) economic cost consideranons; DD'961. 43 NRC 29 (1996) 6nancial assurance, hugabihty of; LBP-%2, 43 NRC 61 (1996) funding, reasonable assurance standard CLI 961, 43 NRC 1 (1996) pernussible acuvines pnor to plan approval; DD-96-2,43 NRC 109 (1996) radiauon dose consideranons. LBP-%2, 43 NRC 61 (1996) regulanons, interpretauon of, CLI 96-1, 43 NRC 1 (1996)
DECOMMISSIONING PLANS i
challenges to contents of; LBP 96-2,43 NRC 61 (1996) i reope of activines pnor to approval of DD'961. 43 NRC 29 (1996) l DECOMMISSIONING PROCIEDINGS l
hogable issues in; LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 61 (1996) standing to irmervene in, LBP 96-2. 43 NRC 61 (19%)
DECOMIAMINATION of nuun coolant system. DD 96-2. 43 NRC 109 (1996)
DIESEL GENERATORS renuwal pnar to approval of decomnussioning plan, DD'%I, 43 NRC 29 (1996) 23
-,,..,_.__...m..
O SUBJELT INDEX DISQUALIIlCATION of Comnursioners, authenty of Comnussiowrs to decide monons for; CLI-96-3,43 NRC 53 (1996)
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS apphcabihty to allegations of illegal past acuans; CLI-El, 43 NRC 1 (1996)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS for decomnussioning; LBP-96 2,43 NRC 61 (1996)
EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS disunguished from comrnumcations involving separanon of functiotu; CLI-96-5,43 NRC 53 (1996)
INTERf3TED STATE participanon as amicus cunae; CLI-96-3,43 NRC 16 (1996)
INTERVENTION discrenonary grant of; LBP 961, 43 NRC 19 (1996)
INTERVENTION PETITIONS late amendnrnt of; LBP-%I,43 NRC 19 (1996) pkading defects; CLI-961,43 NRC i (19%)
pkahng standard for counsel fanuhar with NRC proceedings; LBP %1, 43 NRC 19 (1996)
ION-EXCHANGE PIT cleanup pnor to approval of decomnussiomng plan; DD-%). 43 NRC 29 (1996)
LICENSING BOARDS discretion to grant intervention; LBP 961,43 NRC 19 (1996) review of settlement agreements. LBP-%3, 43 NRC 93 (1996); LBP-96 4, 43 NRC 101 (1996)
MOOTNESS vacatur on grounds of, CL1-%2, 43 NRC 13 (1996)
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT rule of reason; LBP 96-2, 43 NRC 61 (19%)
NEUTRON SHIELD TANK removal pnor to approval of decomnussiomng plan. DD-%l. 43 NRC 29 (1996)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT PROCEEDINGS standmg to intervene in; LBP-961,43 NRC l9 (1996)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENTS challenges to; LBP-96-1, 43 NRC 19 (1996)
PRECEDENTS ebnunanon through vacatur; CLI-96-2, 43 NRC 13 (19%)
PREJUDGMENT Comnussion gmdance as, CLI-%5, 43 NRC 53 (1996)
PRIMARY AUX 1tJARY BUILDlNG tank renoval, DD-%2, 43 NRC 109 (1996) i RADIATION DOSE See ALARA RADIATION MISADMINISTRATION civil penalues for; LBP-%3. 43 NRC 93 (1996)
RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS interpretauon of; CLI-961,43 NRC i (1996)
RADIOACTIVE WASTE SHIPMENTS I
pnor to decommissiomng plan approval, DD-%I,43 NRC 29 (1996)
REACf0R CORE full off-loading to spent fuct pool dunng refuehng, LBP-961, 43 NRC 19 (1996) i REACTOR VESSELS l
consohdauon of sediment in; DD-%2. 43 NRC 109 (1996)
RECUSAL l
violanon of separanon of funcuons as basis for; CLI-%5,43 NRC 53 (1996)
REGULATIONS ALARA requirements; CLl-%I,43 NRC 1 (1996) 24
SUBJECT INDEX challenges to; LBP %2. 43 NRC 61 (1996) decommissiomng, interpretanon of; CLI %I, 43 NRC 1 (1996) radiation protecuon standards; CLI-%I, 43 NRC 1 (1996)
REVIEW of settlement agreenents; LBP-%3,43 NRC 93 (1996); LBP-%4,43 NRC 101 (1996) of summary &sposition order. 6hng and brienng instructions; CLI-%4, 43 NRC 51 (1996) peunons 6led by monparticipaung state government; CLI-96-3,43 NRC 16 (1996)
RULES OF PRACTICE adnussibihty of contentions; CLI %l. 43 NRC 1 (1996) challenges to Commission regulations; LBP-%2, 43 NRC 61 (1996) contention adnussibihty in decommissioning proceedings; LBP 96 2,43 NRC 61 (1996) discretionary stays; CLI %5, 43 NRC 53 (1996) io)ury-in-fact and zone-of interests tests for standing to intervene; LBP %2, 43 NRC 61 (1996) 1 intervenuon penoons, technical pleading defects in: CLI-96-1, 43 NRC l (1996) organization,J sea-eng to intervene; LBP-%2, 43 NRC 61 (1996) participanon by interested state or government; CLI %3, 43 NRC 16 (1996) 4 recusal monons, Commission authonry to decide; CLI-96-5,43 NRC 53 (1996) stan&ng to imervene in decommissiotung procee&ngs; CLI-961, 43 NRC 1 (1996); LBP-96-2, 43 NRC i
61 (1996) vacatur on moniness grounds; CLI-%2,43 NRC 13 (1996)
SAFETY INJECTION BUILDING equipment removal from; DD 96-2, 43 NRC 109 (1996)
SEPARATION OF IUNCTIONS prolubited communication as violanon of, CLI-%5, 43 NRC 53 (1996)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS licensing board review of; LBP 96-3,43 NRC 93 (1996); LBP 96-4,43 NRC 101 (1996)
SPENT FUEL COOLING SYSTEM pipe and component removal prior to approval of decomnussioning plan. DD-%I, 43 NRC 29 (1996)
SPENT FUEL POOL eiectncal conduit instalianon pnor to approval of decomnussioning plan; DD %1, 43 NRC 29 (1996) fuel chute isolanon pnor to approval of decommissioning plan; DD-%1, 43 NRC 29 (1996) upender removal, DD-96 2, 43 NRC 109 (1996)
STANDING TO INTERVENE based on another person who is not a party; CLi-96-1,43 NRC l (1996) discrenonary grant of; LRP-%I, 43 NRC 19 (1996) geograpluc proxinury as basis for; LBP-%1,43 NRC 19 (1996) injury-in-fact and zone-of interests tests for; LBP 96 2, 43 NRC 61 (1996) judicial concepts apphed in NRC procee&ngs. LBP 961, 43 NRC 19 (1996) operaung license amendment proceedings, LBP-%I,43 NPC 19 (1996) organizauonal. af6 davis requirement for; LDP-%),43 NRC 19 (1996) organizational. authonzauon for; LBP-%2, 43 NRC 61 (19%)
showing necessary to estabhsh; CLI-%1,43 NRC 1 (1996)
STAY escretionary, need to address factors for; CLI-96 5, 43 NRC 53 (1996)
SUMMARY
DISPOSTTION review of order granung; CLI-%4. 43 NRC 51 (1996)
TURBINE BUILDING insulanon removal, DD 96 2. 43 NRC 109 (1996)
VACATUR on mootness grounds; CLI-96-2, 43 NRC 13 (1996)
VAPOR CONTAINER euenor pipe removal, DD 96-2, 43 NRC 109 (1996) 25
~.
l SUBJECT INDEX l
i I
l VIOLATIONS l
radsation safety; LBP %3, 43 NRC 93 (1996); LBP-96-4. 43 NRC 101 (1996)
WASTE PROCESSING SYSTEMS l
temporary; D!>%2, 43 NRC 109 (1996)
WASTE TANK renuwal pnor to approval of decommissioning plan; DD-%f, 43 NRC 29 (1996)
I 1
t l
1 l
l 1
l l
26 l
-_......__.._.m...
....m..
i, 1
1 1ig-ii d
I r
i FACILITY INDEX MILL 3 TONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit 1; Docker No. 54245-OLA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 7,1996; MEMORANDUM ANJ ORDLR (Ruhng j
on !nterventson Peuuon); LEP %1, 43 NRC 19 (1996)
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Unit le Docket No. 544440LA-3 OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 7.1996; ORDER; CLI-%4, 43 NRC 51 (1996)
WEST CHICAGO RARE EARTHS FACILITY; Docket No. 442061-ML MATERIALS LICENSE; February 21, 1996; ORDER; CL1-96-2, 43 NRC 13 (1996) j YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION; Docket No.50-029 l
DECOMMISSIONING; January 16, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-961,43 NRC 1 (1996)
DECOMMISSIONING; March I 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Pennon to Intervene); LBP-96 2. 43 NRC 61 (1996) i DECOMMISSIONING. March 7,1996. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI.%5,43 NRC 53 (1996) l REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 18. 1996; SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. 8 2.206. DD-96 2. 43 NRC 109 (1996) i 27
.a..
-- - -. - ~. -
...