ML20133G792

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISSUANCES.July- September 1996

ML20133G792
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/31/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V44-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V44-I1, NUDOCS 9701160166
Download: ML20133G792 (21)

Text

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

l 1

i l

l NUREG-0750 Vol. 44 Index 1 j p-. -

mm s -,, 7w -

~ eg.,- ,

sm.: m s i  !. . . . . . .

! 9 L

ilNDEXESITO

. . . .~

i l E

~

!NUCLEARfREGUlhATORYs -

l I (COMMISSIO. NllS'SOANCES!

c j.) .y;,

d >. <

l w .'..: ...;.r.... .m: . . . , . m-... . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .

s

!Udl9yNSep<:5:'tsmb ens 1996;:

< ~

B<

e x

~

- # ' O f::f  ::O -

p .

R .. . . .

4

,.3:"pKREGoj;t.

Ej .

i p

y; lL:

':Af .Ap

j. >

' / f. [':

\ f h.. ; N'T g  :

$g:

r w

- . . . .

1  ;  :-m::s yp pg; J ,

l [

L

^

%gy 4"k. .J[  :!

4

^

! U.S. NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION i

t I

i j

} 9701160166 970131 1 PDR NUREG j 0750 R PDR i

i f

1

i l

4 l

i i Available from ,

Superintendent of Documents l U.S. Government Printing Office i P.O. Box 37082 J Washington, DC 20402-9328 l

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 i Springfield, VA 22161 1

l 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)

\

I I

l

l i

)

l NUREG-0750

$ Vol. 44

{ index 1 t l

. INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY l l

l COMMISSION ISSUANCES i

l i

i i

! July - September 1996 ,

I i

1 J

i I

! 1 i

i

} '

i l

i i

i i -. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

i i Prepared by the

! Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services 1 Office of Administration j; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j

Washington, DC 20555-0001

(301-415-6844)

I e

_ . ._ _ __ ___ _ _ .. _ . _ __ _ . _ _ .m .__._ - - .- _ . . _ , _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _

l f

l I

Foreword .

Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative law Judges (AIJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM) are presented in this document. These digests and indexes are intended to scrw 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 legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes)

Name of facility, Docket number Subject matter of issues and/or rulings Type of hearing (operating license, operating license sinendment, etc.)

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

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

1. Case Name Index The case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type of issu ance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.

2. Headers and Digests ne headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows: the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (All), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

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

The digest is a bricf 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.

3. Legal Citations Index This index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alpha-nu merical 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.

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

iii l

\

4. Suldect Index l

Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and l 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 folloed by the issuance number and the full text reference. ,

S. Facility index This 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.

)

)

l l

iv I

l

i 1

l j

l I

i

{

i4 1

4 i CASE NAME INDEX l

CHEML7RON CORPORATION, INC.

REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cl R. 5 2 206; Docket No.

040-08724. DD-96-9, 44 NRC 47 (1996)

EMERICK S. MCDANIEL i

REAGOR OPERATOR LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Scheduhng); Docket No.

55-21849-OT (ASLUP No. 96-716-01-0T) (Re- Ucense Amendnrni) (Transfer to Southern Nuclear);

12P-96-13, 44 NRC I (1996) '

REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE; INfTIAL DECISION, Docket No. 55-21649.OT (ASLBP No.

96 716-01-0T) (Re: Ucense Anrndment) (Transfer so Southern Nuclear). LBP 96-17,44 NRC 79 a (1996) 3 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. et al.

OPERATirdG LICENSE AMENDMENI'; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motions: Reconsideration.

Terminarion of the Proceeding); Docket Nos. 54424-OLA 3,50-425-OLA 3 (ASLBP No X

93-67141-OlA 3) (Re: Ucense Amendnent) (Transfer to Southern Nuclear); LDP-%I6, 44 NRC 59 (1996)

{

y TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ~

REQUEST FOR AG10N; FINAL DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R 12.206; Docket No. ---

50-390; DD-9610, 44 NRC 54 (1996) /.

REQUEST FOR AGION; DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.12.206; Docket No. 54390; '

DD-96-il, 44 NRC 69 (1996)

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ---

j DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granung Monon to Videotape Prehearing s Conference); Docket No. 54029-DCOM (ASLBP No. 96 718-Ol-R). LBP 96-14. 44 NRC 3 (1996) L i DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Adnuttmr Contention and Estabhshing

} Unganon Schedule Regarding "New Dose Argunrnt"), Docket No. 54029-DCOM (ASLBP No, j 96-7184)l.R); LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 8 (1996) l DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Granimg Monon for Summary Disposition);

} Docket No 54029-DCOM (ASLBP No. %718-Oi-R); LDP-96-18, 44 NRC 86 (1996) 1 l

j l I

i l

h k i 1

1

)

l 4

k i

1 4

1 1

4 1

- . - . . - - . . -. - . . .--._-m.. .- .--- - , - - - - - . . - - . - . - -

~ .__

i l

l

• l l

l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS ,

i LDP El3 EMERICK S. McDANIEL (Denial of Apphcanon for Reactor Operatur Ucense) Docket No. ,

55-21849-OT (ASLBP No. 96-7140147T) (Re. License Anrndnwnt) (Transfer to Southern Nuclear); 2 ,

REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE; July 12,1996, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Scheduhng) 3 LBP 9414 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nucia Ib.cr Station) Ducket No. 50- C 029-DCOM (ASLdP No. 96-718-01-R); DECOMMISSIONING, July 12,1996, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granung Monon to Videotape Preheanng Conference) y A The Licensing Loard grants a participant request to videntape a peheanng cooference,6n&ng 7 that, although language in a 1978 policy statement appears to restnct television and still canrra coverage of /

Board procce&ngs to accredited news nrea, it is apparent under current agency pracuce there is no such C

-~

hnutation.

B The Comnussion's general statement of pohey on canrra coverage of bcensmg Board heanngs sets conanons for tir use of television and still cameras "by accreated news nrea" 43 Fed Reg 4294 (1978). ',

However, under current agency pactice, any inevidual or organiraimn may videotape a Commission-conducted open uretmg so long as their acuvities do not dasrupt the proceeding See U.S. Nuclear [ 'i Regulatory Comnussion, "A Guide to Open Meeungs," NUREG/BR-0128, Rev. 2 (4th ed ) (" Conduct z c in the Meeung Room . , e. You may . Alm, photograph or video tape meetmgs usmg canrras in -

7 designated 6xed pontions without ad&uonal hghtmg" (emphasis m ongmal)) As a consequence, the y general pohey statement on cameras at Board heanngs, which was ailopted in 1978 on a "tnal basis," no -

E longer appears to reficci agency pactice to the degree it would preclude anyone other than the news nrdia from videotaping Board proceedings ,7 C Videotaping of a Board proceedmg rnust be done in a manner that does not present an unacceptable estracuon to the participants or otherwise d srupt the procec&ng. To this end, anyone videotaping a >

g procce&ng held in the Alonue Safety and beensmg Board Panel Heanng Room must abide by the folk) wing -

condinons: (1) Cameras must remam stationary in the designated camera area of the Ucensmg Board Panel i Hearing Room. (2) No additional lightmg is pernutted (3) No addinonal nuerophones will be pernutted outside of the designated canrra area. A connection is available in the designated canera area that provides [

a & rect feed from the heanng room audio system. y D As was noted in the 1978 pohey statenrnt,43 Itd Reg 4294, m mstances when a Ucensmg -

Board is unng other facihties, such as a state or federal courtroom, the Board generally will follow the 7 canera pohcy govermng that facihty, even if it is stricter than the agency's camera puhey. Nonetheless, i the Board reserves the nght to impose restnctions beyond those Fenerally used at the facihty to prevent d srupuon of the proceeding and mamiain an appropriate ju&cial atmosphere.

E The Board may ternunate videotaping at any time it concludes a videotape-related activity is being carned out in a manner that interferes with the good order of the proceeding LBP-9615 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Stanont Docket No.50-029 IX'OM (ASWP No. 96-71841-R); DECOMMISSIONING, July 31,1996 MEM.)RANDUM AND ORDER (Adnuttmg Contention and Estabhshing Ungation Schedule Regardmg "New Dose Argument")

A In this proceeding concenung citizen gruup challenges to the decomnussionmg plan for the Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon, acung pursuant to the Commission's direcuve in CLI.947,43 MC 235 (1996), to consider wirther informanon 6 led with the Comnussion after the bsensmg Board dismissel the proceedmg for want of any htigable contenuons will now provide for an admnsible contenuon, the Board concludes

• that (1) a bahmcing of the Ave " late-6hng" factors m 10 C F R 12 714(axi) estabhshes the Pennoners*

i 3

i t

i i I i

}

l.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

~

i i

i l

l l

I

- l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS l

l 1

l new mformanon should not be sancken, and (2) a poruon of the Pentioners' new informauon provides a I i suf6cient basis to adnut a comennon. l l B Contentions play a vital role in agency hcensing adju& cations by franung the issues for considera-

! tion. See Texas Uuhues Generaung Co. (Comanche Peak Stearn Electnc Statmn, Umts I and 21, LBP 8125, 14 NRC 241,243 (1981).

C A lack of precision about what is a contennon and what are its bases serves to obfuscate the general pnnciple that contemions, not bases, are hiigaied in NRC adju& canons.

D Exercising his or her general authority to simphfy and clanfy the issues, see 10 C.F R.12.714(f),

a presidmg of6cer can recast what a petitioner sets out as two contemions imo one. ,

E A Commission &recuon to the presseng of6cer to consider the admissibahiy of a panicula late- l hied matter does not preclude the presiding of6cer from giving the same consideration to other late-6 led ,

information submitted by a pensioner relevam to that maner. Cf. Carohna Power and Ught Co (Shearon l Hans Nuclear Power Plant, Units 14), ALAB-526,9 NRC 122,124 (1979) (in remand procee&ng on l management capabihty issue, ad&tional peunoners' auempt to seek late intervenuon to paruopate on that

.. Wue must be assessed under laie-intervenuon cnteria)

F Ahhough a presiding of6cer must assess all nye faciors in determining whether to adnut a late-61ed issue, all the factors need not be given equal weight. In t'mi connecuon, considerable importance generally has been attnbuted to factor one " good cause" for late fihng - in that a failure to meet this factor enhances considerably the burden of jusufying the other factors. See Long Island Ughtmg Co (Shweham Nuclear Power Stanon, Unit 1), ALAE 743,18 NRC 387,397 (1983); Houston Lightmg and Power Co. l (South Texas Project Umts I and 2), LDP-82 91,16 NRC 1364,1367 (1982); see also Flonda Power &

Light Co. (St imcie Nuclear Power Plant, Umi 2), ALAB-420,6 NRC 8,22 (1977)(when good cause is demonstrated, other factors are given less weight)

G Among the other four " late-6hng" factors, factors three and hve - contnbuuon to a sound record and broaderung issues /dclay in the procee&ng - generally have been considered as having the nest signi6cance in procee&ngs an wtuch there are no other parties or ongoing related procee&ngs. See Shoreham, ALAD-743,18 NRC at 399,402;see also South Texas, LBP-82-91,16 NRC at 1368.

H Generally a " good cause" 6neng based on "new mformauon" can be resolved by a straightforward inquiry into when the information at issue was available to the petsuoner. In some instances. however, the answer to the " good cause" factor may involve more than looking at the daies on the various &)cuments j aubmitted by the peutioners, insicad, the inquiry turns on a more complex deternunauon about when, as a cumulative maner, the separate pieces of the new information " puzzle" were suf6ciently in place to make the parucular concerns espoused reasonably apparent.

I The technical nature of the issues involved m a procee&ng cuts against an assertion that the legal r sen of counsel m NRC proceedmgs should be given weight under the

• late-6hng" factor regardmg assistance in developmg a sound record. And, mitwithstandmg the fact an mtervenor is enutled to make us case through cross-exanunanon, that factor cannot be weighed favorably when the presiang of6cer has no reason to anticipate that cross-examinanon by counsel will be the sole means, or even the central method, for estabhstung the petitioner's case. See Texas Utihues Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Stauon, Uma 1), ALAB-868,25 NRC 912,926 (1987).

J In assessmg the " late-6hng" factor of assistance in developing a sound record, the need to conduct &scovery no doubt may excuse a lack of specincuy about potennal witnesses' tesumony in those nomechnical cases where any testmmnial evidence likely will come from hcensee employees or contractors See Comanche Peak, ALAB-868,25 NRC at 925-26.

K An assernon that the " late-6hng" factor regardmg broademng the issues and delaying the proceeding takes on added sigmficance because of the impact of delay on the apphcant's abihty to conduct acuvities for wiuch it needs authonzation does not comport with the estabhshed rule that "a hcensmg board [is]

to deternune whether the procee&ng - not hcense issuance or plant operanon - will be delayed."

Ptiiladelphia Electne Co. (Umenck Generating Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-828,23 NRC 13,23 (1986)

(footnote unutted).

L Because a pentioner who otherwise has stan&ng can put forth any comennon that would enutie that petinoner to the rehef it seeks, see CLI 961,43 NRC 1,6 (1996). in deciang whether to admit a late-6 led contention the peuunner otherwise would be enutled to hugate, the fact the pennoner's contennons 4

l

l 1

l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS i

focus primanly on matters that will protect the interests of others does not mean the petitioner's "imerest"

Imuld be afforded short shnft in assessing the late-6 ling factors of wirther other neans or other partses I will prosect the peutioner's interests.

l M A presiding of6cer cannot consider a monon for summary esposinon, with supporting afhdavits, j in connecuon with a deterrrunation about the admissibihty of a consenima.

N One possible answer to a monon for summary esposition is the assertion that discovery is needed l

to respond fully to the monon. See Pubhc Service Co of New Hampshire (Scabrook Stanon, Units I and '

2), CL1-92-8,35 NRC 145,152 (1992). Such a request generally should be made in a pleading supported by an affidavit. See id. The funcuonal equivalent of such a hhng may be the statements of counsel during a pieheanng conference outhning the discovery needed to support the party's case.

LDP-% 16 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et at (Vogtle Elecinc Generatmg Plant, Umts I and 2k Docket Nos 50-424-OLA 3,50 42FOLA-3 (ASLBP No.93-6714)l OLA-3)(Re: Ucense Amendmem)(Transfer to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 19,19%; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motions: Reconsideration, Ternunanon of tie Proceeding) l A The case was disnussed after the sole smervenor withdiew his pennon and contention pursuant ,

to a senlenwnt with Georgia Power Company, et al. The Licensmg Board deternuned that the withdrawal l could be pertmeted after reviewmg the effect of the withdrawal on the issues pending in tte proceeding.

It deternuned, without reviewing the seulement agreement, that it was in the pubhc imerest to accept the withdrawal of the pentson and the contennon.

B When a party requests to withdraw a petition pursuant to a settlement, it is appropnate for a heensing board to review the settlement to determine whether it is in the pubhc interest 10 C.F R { 2.759. When the board has held catensive hearings and has analyzed the record, it may nos need to see the settlement agreement in order to conclude that tlic withdrawal of the petition is in the pubhc imerest.

C Imervenor requested to withdraw his pennon. The Ucensing Board, knowing that the withdrawal was pursuant to a settlernent agreement, reviewed the settlement to deiermine if it was in the pubhc mierest.

10 CF.R. I 2.759 D The Board had held extensive beanngs and had analyzed the record. It was convinced, even without seeing the settlement agreement, that the withdrawal of the pennon was in the pubhc interest.

LDP 96-17 EMERICK S. MCDANIEL (Denial of Apphcanon for Reactor Operator License), Docket No.

5521849-0T (ASLBP No. 96-716-01-0T) (Re: License Amendmem) (Transfer to Southern Nuclear);

REACIOR OPERATOR LICENSE; September 3,1996; INITIAL DECislON A After reviewing in detail each of tlw clamu made in this informal proceedmg, conducted under 10 C.F.R. Part 2 Subpart L, the Presiihng Officer sustained the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion in its deternunation that the apphcant ed not pass the wnnen puruon of his esaminanon to become a hcensed operator of a nuclear power plant.

LDP-96-18 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECI'RIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauonk Docket No.50-029 DCOM (ASLBP No. 96 718-01-R); DECOMMISSIONING; Sepember 27,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Motion for Surnmary Disposmon)

A In tius procecang concerning citizen group challenges to the decomnusswmng plan for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station, the bcensing Board grants Licensee Yankee Atonue Elecinc Company's (YALC) monon for summary disposition. The Board concludes the intervenors faaled to estabhsh any genuine disputed material factual issues regardmg YAEC's showing that the differenual between the total occupational doses associated with facihty decomnussiomng under its chosen DECON decommissioning opuon and the ahernauwe SAFSTOR option would not fall outside of the genene DECON/SAFSTOR l dafferential " envelope" previously recogmzed by t'w Commissson as sigmhcant in assessing whether a hcensee's choice of the DECON decomnussiomng opuon would wansgress either the pnnciple that ra&auon doses should be kept "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) or the diciales of the Nanonal Environnental Pohey Act of 1%9 (NEPA) l B The party filing a sununary disposstion nonon has the burden of demonstratmg the absence of any genuine issue of malenal fact See Advanced Me& cal Systems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva Ohio 44411), CLi 93-22,38 NRC 98,102 (1993L In this regard,10 C.F.R.12.749(a) requires that the moving pany include a statemes of material facts about which there is no genuine issue to be heard in contrast, the opposing party muss append to its response a statement of matenal facts about which there esists a genuine 5

l l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS 1

i l

l inue 10 be heard. If the responeng party does not adequately controvert natenal facts set forth in the nmuon, the party fates 114 possibahty that those facts may be deened adnutted. If, however, the evidence before the Board does not estabhsh the absence of a genuine issue of matenal fact, then the monon must be denied even if there is no opposing evidence. See Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plani, Units I and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741,753-54 (1977). Nevertheless, a party opposing a motion cannot rely on a simple demal of the movant's material facts, but rnust set forth specihc facts showing there is a genuine issue of matenal fs:t See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(b).

! C A presiang ofhcer need consider only those purponed factual esputes that are *matenal* to the resoluten of the issues raised in a summary &sposinon rnotion. See Anderson v. bberty bhbv, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242,248 ('986)(factual disputes that are "irrelevarW or unnecessary" will not preclude summary judgnent).

D in opposing summary &sposition by seeking to estabhsh the existence of a genuine espuie regar Sng a tusenal factual issue, a party must present sufhciemly probative evidence. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249 (evidence that is "merely cokrable" or is "not signincantly probative" will not preclude I summary judgners).

E in opposing sumnuary disposition by seeking to establish the existence of a genuine dispute '

regar&ng a material factual issue, a party that had &scovery following the 6hng of the &spositive nxxion generall, _anmd interpise cl.sims based on a lack of information as the vahd basis for a genuine malenal I factual espute.

1" In oppoung sununary disposition by seeking to estabhsh the existence of a genuine espute regar&ng a matenal factual issue, a party's bald aswruon, even wlen supported by an expert, will not l citabbsh a genuine matenal factual espute. See United States v. Various Slot Marhises on Guam,658 F.2d 697,700 (9th Cir.1981)(in the context of a summary judgment motion, an expert must back up tus i opimon with specific facts); see also McGianchy v Shell Chemical Co.,845 F.2d 802,807 (9th Cir.1988)

(espert's study based on

• unsupported assumpoons and unsound extrapolation" cannot be used so support sununaryjudgment monon).

G 7he following techmcalissues are d:scussed Proponionakry between occupational esposure rate for completed decomnussioning activities and exposure rate for ad&uonal ra&oacuve inventwy. =

i I

l l

4 I

I I

t

I I

i t

3 i

l i

1 1

1 1

4 4

i J

j DIGESTS j ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS 1

4 1

DD-949 CHEMETRON CORPORATION, INC, (Cleveland, Ohio), Docket No. 480 08724 REQUEST

IOR ACTION, July 3,1996; DIRECOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2 206 l A The Director of the Of6cc of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards grants. in part. Peauoner's

] requese under 10 C.F.R.12.206 that NRC cornpel Chenrtren to commence action to decomanunate the i Harvard Avenue site to the extent this is required by the License Anendnents of May25.1993, and June

{ 7,1996, cid the Orders dated May 5,1992, and October 26, 1993, so the extent these actions wen not taken in the time originally speci6ed by IYuuoner, this request is derued. In ad& tion, the Director demes 3

Petinoner's second request that NRC impose sancuons against Ormetron for fashng to comply with its i November 14,1988 Con 6rmation of Comnutnent to decontaminale the Harvard Avenue site. On March j 22,1989, the Duector formally acknowledged receipt of the peunon and demed the Peuuoner's request j for imnrdsate rebef because NRC considered that Chemetrun's acuons demonstrated rturumally sufAcient progress toward decontamination.

B For violauons of NRC requirenents relating 10 sites on the Site Decomnussiomng Management Plan, the NRC will consider civil penahies where (1) the licensee or responsible party fals to comply 4 with an order compelhng payment amo an escrow account; or (2) the hcensee or responsible party fa la so j comply with a requirement or an order compelhng cleanup when there is already sufficient decongrussioning j funang " Action Plan to Ensure Timely Cleanup of Site Decomnussiomng Management Plan Saws"(Apnl 10, 1992).

l 5 DD 9610 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Watts Bar Nuclear Plantk Docken No. 54390; REQUEST j FOR AC1'lON, July 9,1996; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2.206

~

A The Director of the OfAce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denied Peuuoner's request under 10 C F R. I 2.206 that the NRC rescind the operaung beense of the Watts Bar Nuclear Ptars (WBNF) due to what Petmoner claimed was a previously unreviewed problem related to ra&oacuse sedimems in the " Watts

} Bar Lake"(lower Watts Bar Reservoir (LWBR)). The Director found that sc& ment from the LWBR could q not be drawn into WBNP's coohng water as the LWBR is downstream from the plant. The Director also j noted, wuh regard to Peutione. claim ', hat no acuon is being considered to remove ra&oacuve material l from the LWBR or restrict use of that body of waier, that a DOE report on the reservoir describes selected remedial action to be taken with regard to the LWBR. Finally, the Director noted controls in place at j

WBNP to prevets rasoactive material from being discharged into the environment and that the facihty e

nects apphcable NRC requirements sufncient to allow at to operate.

i DD-96 il TENNESSE", VALLEY AUTHORITY (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Umt I), Docket No. 54390; Docket No 5439&, August 15, 1996; DIRECTOP'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2 206 A By a letter dated January 25, 1996, and supplemented by a letter dated January 30,1996, Ms.

Jane A. Fleming (Petitioner) requested a fair and imparual review of the enure hcensing process for the i Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Uma I (Watts Bar), operated by the Tennessee Valley Authonty (TVA) and further i requested that the low. power bcense for Waus Bar be suspended or revoked until such review is completed l j and the issues in dapute are resolved. The request was considered as a pennon subnutted pursuard to 10 C.F R. I 2.206.

B In a Director's Decision issued on August 15,1996, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

, demed the rehef soughi by Feutioner. The Director concluded that Peuuoner had failed to provide a basis i to warrant a review of the Watts Bar hcensing process and has failM to raise any safety concerns that would warrant suspension or revocation of the operating hcense for Waric F h 7 4

1 4

4 l

a 4 .--

1 s

i s

e 4

4 4

(

l i

1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES i

j Advanced Medical Systems. Inc. (One Factmy Row, Geneva. Ohio 44041), CLI-93 22, 38 NRC 98,102 j (1993) 4 standard for grant of summary disposation rnution, LBP-9618,44 NRC 92 (1996) l Alfred 3. Morabito (Semor Operator Ucense for Beaver Valley Power Sution, Unit I) LBP-88-10, 27 i NRC 417 (1968), LBP-8816,27 NRC 583 (1996) j standard for I, censing of reactor operators; LBP-96-13. 44 NRC 2 (1996t LBP-96-17,44 NRC 80 (1996)

Anderson v. Libeny Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) matenality of factual disputes for purposes of sununary disposition; LBP-96-18. 44 NRC 99 (1996)

• B41onore Gas and Electnc Co. (Calvert CliYs Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 and 2), LBP 7315,6 AEC 375, 377 (1973) ternunation of proceeding on basis of settlement agreenent; LBP-96-16. 44 NRC 63 (1996) i Carchna Power and Light Co. (Shearon Hams Nuclear Power Plant, Umts 1-4). ALAB 526. 9 NRC 122, 124 (1979)

} distincuon between contenoons and bases in applying late-6hng standards. LBP-%15, 44 NRC 24 i

(1996) l Cinzens Awareness Network. Inc. v. NRC, 59 F.3d 284, 288-90 (1st Cir.1995) l

+

l agency-sanctioned program for dismanthng reactor components prior to approval of decomnussiorung l plan; LBP-96-15,44 NRC 14 a 3 (1996) i i I Cleveland Electric Illununaung Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2) ALAB-443,6 NRC 741, l I 753-54 (1977)

{

j burden on proponent of summary disposanon motion; LBP.%I8, 44 NRC 92 (1996) )

I Combusuon Engineenng. Inc. (Hemaute Fuel Habncation Facihty) LBP-89-31, 30 NRC 320 (1989) '

1 supulanon in settlement agreement for wphdrawal of intervenor; LBP-9616. 44 NRC 63 (1996)

Conschdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Poir.t. Units I, 2, and 3), CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173,175

) (1975) a standard for instituuon of show-cause proceedings; DD-96-il,44 NRC 78 (1996)

Consunwrs Power Co (Pahsades P* ant), ALAB-70, 5 AEC 280, 288 (1972)

I withdrawal pursuant so an agreenrnt prior so admission of a contenoon or party; LDP-96-16,44 NRC 61 (1996)

Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2). ALAB-687,16 NRC 460, 469 (1982) l good cause for late 6hng of contentions based on rnore than one docunent; LBP-9615,44 NRC 26 n.10 (1996) i

^

nonda Power & Ught Co. (St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2), ALAB-420, 6 NRC 8, 22 (1977) weight given to good cause for laie Ahng; LBP-9615, 44 NRC 24-25 (1996)

General Pubhc Utihues Nuclear Corp. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Uma 2), LBP-92 29, 36 NRC

225 (1992) j dismissal of action without prejudice where board did not review settlenent agreenrni; LBP-9616, i 44 NRC 64 (1996)

{ Georgia insuture of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor), CLI-95-12, 42 NRC li t, 118 (1995) j standard for admission of new-dose argument consention; LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 31 (1996) i i

f 9 1

i l

1 e

d 1 I

l I

I

' I 4

l l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Houston Ughung and Power Co. (South Texas Project. Units I and 2), ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644, 649 (1979) apphcabihty where petiuoners have established stan&ng as of nght; LBP-9615,44 NRC 29 n.12 (1996) l Housion Ughting and Power Co (South Texas Project. Units I and 2), ALAB 799,21 NRC 360,382 l (1985)

[ withdrawal pursuant to an agreenrnt pnar to admission of a contention or party; LBP 96-16. 44 i NRC 61 (1996) l Houston Ughtmg and Power Co. (South Texas Pmject. Units I and 2). LBP-82 91.16 NRC 1364.1367 l (1982) weight given to good cause for late Ahng; LBP-%l5,44 NRC 24 25 (19%)

Houston Lighung and Power Co. (South Texas Project. Units I and 2). LDP 82 91,16 NRC 3364.1368 (1982) weighi given to abshty to contnbute to a sound record and delay in the proceceng in deterrruning admissibahty of late 6 led contentions: LBP-96-15. 44 NRC 24-25 (1996)

Lsng Island Ughung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Umt 1). ALAB-743,18 NRC 387, 397 (1983) weighs given to good cause for late 6hng. LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 24-25 (1996)

Long Island Lighung Co. (Shoreharn Nuclear Power Station. Omt 1), ALAB 743,18 NRC 387. 399,402 (1983) weight given to abthry to contribute to a sound record and delay in the procceeng in deternunmg ednussibahty of late-Aled contemions; LDP %l5, 44 NRC 24-25 (1996)

McGhnchy v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 807 (9th Cir.1988) factual support required of expert witness in opposing summary disposition; LBP-9618,44 NRC 103 (1996)

Pacific Gas and Liectnc Co- (Humboldt Bay Power Plant. Unit 3). LBP-88-4, 27 NRC 236. 238 (1988) ir rnunauon of proceeding on basis of settlement agreement; LBP-96-16, 44 NRC 63 (1996)

Philadelphia Electne Co. (Unenck Genersmg Stauon Unns I and 2). ALAB-828. 23 NRC 13, 23 (1986) weight given to contervion's abibry to delay decomnussioning proceceng; LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 30 (1996)

Ptuladelphia Llectric Co- (Unwrick Generming Stanon. Units I and 2), LBP-89 24. 30 NRC 152 (1989) heensing board review of settlearnt agreenents; LBP-9616. 44 NRC 63 (1996)

Pubhc Service Co. of Colorado (Furt St Vrain Independent Spent hiel Storage Instalianon). attachment to ,

CL1-91-13, 34 NRC 190 (1990) j with&awal pursuant to an agreenent pnor to admission of a contenuon or pvty; LBP 96-16, 44 NRC 61 (1996)

Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Stauon. Units I and 2), CLI 92-8. .$5 NRC 145,152 (1992)  !

discovery request as response to sununary disposmon monon LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 38 (1996)

Roget W. Llhngwood (Semor Operata License for Catawba Nuclear Stance). LBP-89-21, 30 NRC 68 (1996) standard for licensing of reactor operators; LBP-%)),44 NRC 2 (19%); LDP-96-17. 44 NRC 80 (1996)

Sacranento Municipal Vuhty Distnet (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stanon) LBP 94-23, 40 NRC 81 (1994) withdrawal imm procee&ng with pre;uece according to terms of senlenrra agreenent, LBP-96-16.

44 NRC 64 (1996)

Statenent of Pohey on Conduct of Ucensing Procee&ngs, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,455 (1981) heensing board role in settlements; LBP 96-16. 44 NRC 62 (1996)

Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units I, 2 and 3), LDP-73-43. 6 ALC 1062, 106) (1973) ternunation of procee&ng on basis of sentement agreenent. LBP 9616. 44 NRC 64 (1996) 10 l

1 I

l i

I l '

l l

l I

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CA513 l

1 l

l Texas Unheies Ekctric Co. (Comanche Peak Sicarn Elecine Stauon. Unit 1), ALAB-868. 25 NRC 912,

[ 926 (1987) expertise and expenence of counsel as basis for adnussion of late-6 led contentiori; LBP-9615, 44 NRC 28 (1996)

Texas Unhues Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Sicam Electric Sianon Units I and 2), LBP-81-25,14 NRC 241, 24) (1981)

I role of comennons in NRC bcensing adjudications; LBP-%IS, 44 NRC 21 (1996)

! Texas Unhtws Electric Co. (Comanche P*ak Sicam E1cerne Stasion. Units I and 2), LBP 88-18A, 28 NRC 101 (1988); LBP-88-188, 28 NRC 103 (1988)

! ternunauon of proceeding on basn of settlement agreenrnt; LBP-bl6,44 NRC 64 (1996) l United States v. Vanous Slot Maclunes on Guam, 658 F.2d 697, 700 (9th Car 1981) factual support requurd of expert witness in opposing summary disposinon; LBP 96-18,44 NRC 103 (1996)

Waslungton Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD-84-7,19 NRC 899,923 (1984) standard for insutuhon of show-cause proceedings, DU%II,44 NRC 78 (1996)

L i

I Il i

l l

l

--_~~_- - _ ~ - - - - . _ - - - - - - _ - . . .._ _ _ ,

l I

I I

l b

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS

)

l g 10 CF R 2.203 I

heensing board review of settlemems in operating license and anendmem cases; LBP-96-16, 44 NRC 65 (19 % )

i 10 C F.R. 2.206 request to review enure hcensing process, denial for failure to raise any safety concerns; DD'96-II, 44 NRC 69-78 (1996) request that licensee be cornpelled to complete deconyaminauen; DD-96-9, 44 NRC 47 (1996) 10 CFR. 2.714(aXI) applicanon of late-Ehng standards; LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 24 (1996) distincuon between contemions and bases in applying late 6hng standards; LBP-96-15,44 NRC 22 X

(1996)

I

' new-dose argument as basis for late-6hng argument. LBP 9615, 44 NRC 12,17, 23. 31 (1996),

J

- )

l LBP-%18, 44 NRC 89 n.1 (1996) 'I. i 10 C F R. 2.714(b)(2) specincity requiremem for comentions; LBP.9615, 44 NRC 22, 37 (1996)

{ '$ l r ~Z 10 C F.R. 2 714(f) F

[

heens.ng board authonty to simplify and clanfy assues. LBP %15, 44 NRC 22 (1996)  ; -

10 C.F R. 2.715(c) r  ;

parucipation by saate governmeras; LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 21 at7 (1996); LBP %IS. 44 NRC 92 n.8 2 (l996) ]

10 CJ.R. 2.714a(a) .

appeals of iniervention rulings; LBP-%15,44 NRC 42 (1996) 10 C F.R. 2 749(a)

I ' o .

burin on opponent of summary &sposinon motion. LBP-96-18, 44 NRC 92 (1996) nght of parues to Ele answers to summary &sposinon motions; LBP-96-18, 44 NRC 91 n.7 (1996) 10 C.F R. 2.749(b) burden on proponent of summary esposition monon; LBP-%18,44 NRC 93 (1996) 10 C.F R. 2.749(c) affidavit requirenant for opponent of summary &sposioon motion; LBP-9618, 44 NRC 100 (1996) 10 C.F R 2.749(d) standard for grant of summary esposiuon monon; LBP-96-18,44 NRC 92 (1996) i

' 10 C F.R. 2.759 licensing board approval of withdrawal of petsuon without reviewing settlenent agreernent; LBP 96-16, 44 NRC 60, 62, 6.l (1996) 10 C.F R 2.763 i

I appeals of denials of reactor operator hcenses, LBP-96-17, 44 NRC 85 (1996) 10 C.F R. 2.786 appeals of densals of reactor operator hcenses; LBP 96-17,44 NRC 85 (lW6) '

10 C.F.R. 2.788 basis for a stay: LBP.%I8. 44 NRC 105 a 18 10 C F R. 2.1201(aX2) -

informal hearing on denial of reactor operator hcense, LBP-96-17, 44 NRC 79 (1996) l i

13 i

s i

k 4

l

\

i d

1 1

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX i REGULATIONS l

10 C.F R. 2.1231 NRC Staff subnussion of hearing file in informal proceeding; LBP-9617,44 NRC 79 (1996) 10 CER. 2.1241 board review of settlements in informal proceedings, need for; LDP.%I6, 44 NRC 62. 63 (1996) 10 C.F.R. Part 20 itnowledge ihm rens operator exanunation may cover; LBP %I7,44 NRC 81 (1996) verincation of comaminated site's cornpliance with radiauon protection requirenrnis; DD49, 44 NRC 54 51 (1996) 10 C.F R. 201011 ALARA stand.ird for decomnusssomng. LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 18 (1996) 10 C F R. 20,1302 heensing of plane prior to resolution of open issues associaied with rauanon rrunutonog system; DD-96-11, 44 NRC 72. 73 (1996) 10 C F R. 40.42(a) renewal of heense to possess depicted uranium comanunanon. DD49,44 NRC 49 (1996) 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A. GDC 60,63, and 64 heensing of plans pnor to resoluuan of open issues associated with ratimson nwtutonng system; DD%ll,44 NRC 72 75 (1996) 10 C.F.R. Part 55 standard for hcensing of reactor operators; LBP%I7. 44 NRC 80 (1996) 10 CFR. 55.41(b)(ll)-(12) leginnucy of questions on reactor operator hcense emanunzion. LBP%17, 44 NRC 81 (1996) 14 l

4 i

1, 4 l 1

1

.l 1

4 1

4 i

l<

i I 4 i

}

l 1

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATVIES a

4 1

q Adnsnistranve Procedure Act, 5 U.S C 1552b(cM10) j NRC camera policy in adjuecatory procee&ngs; LBP %I4,44 NRC 6 a I (1996)

• j Aioac f.nergy Act, t 189. 42 U.S.C 2239 j NRC pohey on settlemers agreements; LEP %I6. 44 NRC 60 (1996) d d

a s'

1 7

l /

j

- /

l A i J C 1 - ~

3 j

4 r /

v a E i

i n

-)

I I

i  !

15 # -

f ch 4

e k

i i

1'

t

}

A 1 1

J, l

j i

i 4

i l

l 1

1 i

b i l s

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX I

OTifERS I

1 7 fed R. Ov. P. Rule 23(e) court sNwoval of settlemes agreemess, need for; LBP 9616, 44 NRC 62 (1996) l v

/

• X I /

t -

n I J.

j

, /_ ,

a = z i-C Y $

w -

l t -

. C, e,

• 4 s

I I

e 4

i J

4 1

i 4

4 1

a 1

(

e J

1

't 17 1 i 4

i i

1 1

i

. o J

j

I t

i i

l 1

l SUBJECT INDEX ALARA challenges to decomnussioning alternatives; LBP-%I5, 44 NRC 8 (1996)

CIVIL PENALTIES for vioiauon of schedule for decommissiomng; DD-%9, 44 NRC 47 (19%)

CONTEN110NS authoney of presi&ng of6cer to simphfy; LBP %I5, 44 NRC 8 (1996) role in agency heensing adju& canons: LBP %15. 44 NRC 8 (1996) speci6 city and basis requirements for; LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 8 (1996)

, CONTENTIONS, LATE FILED assistance in development of sound record; LBP-9615,44 NRC 8 (1996) authoney of presiang of6cer to consider late.6 led informanon other than that which the Conurussion hat, erected it so consider; LBP-EIS, 44 NRC 8 (1996)

} delay in the proceceng: LBP 96-15,44 NRC 8 (1996) 6ve-factor test for adrnission of; LBP-96-15,44 NRC 8 (1996)

D good cause for delay; LBP %15, 44 NRC 8 (1996) {

/

other means and parties to protect intervenors' interess; LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 8 (1996) i DECOMMISSIONING {-

ALARA-based challenges to ahernatives; LBP-96-15. 44 NRC 8 (1996) M I l civil penalty for violation of schedule for; DD%9, 44 NRC 47 (1996)

{ occupaconal ra&ation exposure rates vs rates for adenonal radioacnve inventory; LBP-9618, 44 NRC 3

86 (1996) [

/

DECONTAMINATION mouon to compel heensee to congnence; DL196-9, 44 NRC 47 (1996)

DISCOVERY following the niing of the disposiuve monon, burden on opponent of sumnwy disposinon that had ,

i opportunity for; LBP-%l8, 44 NRC 86 (1996)

J EXAMINATION

! reactor operator, challenges to questions / answers. LBP-96-13, 44 NRC i (19%)- LDP-96-17, 44 NRC 79 I (1996) i INTERYENTION PETT110NS I

withdrawal on basis of settlernent; LBP-9616, 44 NRC 59 (19%)

! NRC POLICY +

l canrra coverage of agency proceedings; LBP %-14, 44 NRC 3 (1996) j on settlement agreements; LBP%I6, 44 NRC 59 (1996) i

' I NRC PROCEEDINGS camera coverage pohey; LBP-96-14, 44 NRC 3 (1996)

OPERATING UCENSES requircrrents to be rnet before issuance of; DD%ll,44 NRC 69 (1996)

PREHEARING CONTERENCES j canrra coverage of, LDP 9614, 44 NRC 3 (1996) l P12ESIDING OFFICERS authonty to simphfy and clanfy contentions; LBP-9615,44 NRC 8 (19%)

l 19 i q 1

i 1

{ '

i j

t i .

1

_ _ _ _ - - - _ . - . . .-. _ .. . . . _ _ . _ _ ~ . _ _ . _ _ . ._. ..

SUBJECT INDEX RADIATION EXPOSURE proportionahty between occupauonal rate for completed decommissiomns and rate for a&htional i

radioactive inventory; LDP-%18. 44 NRC 86 (1996)

RADIOACTIVE COP (TAMINATION reservoir se&ments; DD-9610,44 NRC 54 (1996)

RADIOACTIVE EITLUENTS conirol of; DD %10, 44 NRC 54 (19%)

RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING re<purenents no be nwt pnor to licensing of plant; DD-96-il, 44 NRC 69 (1996)

REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSING l hearing on examination resuks; LBP 9417. M NRC 79 (1996) '

training standards for; LBP-9613. 44 NRC 1 (1996) l REACTOR OPERATORS reemanunation of. LBP-%l3, 44 NRC 1 (1996) i REGULATORY GUIDES i

devianons from. DIl%II,44 NRC 69 (1996) i RESERVOIRS

' radoacuve contanunanon of sedinents; DD-%IO. 44 NRC 54 (1996) l RULES OF PRACflCE )

authonry of presiding ofhcer to consider late-Aled information other th m that which the Comnussion l has erected it so consider; LBP 9615. 44 NRC 8 (1996) '

I burden on proponenr of sununary &sponnion monon; LBP-%IS. 44 NRC 86 (1996) canera coverage of agency procce&ngs; LBP-%14,44 NRC 3 (1996) contennon role in agency heensing adju& cations; LBP-%I5. 44 NRC 8 (1996) 6ve-factor test for admission of late-6 led contenuons; LBP-96-15,44 NRC 8 (1996) good cause for late 6hng of contennons; LBP-%I5. 44 NRC 8 (1996)

NRC pohey on settlement greenents; LBP-96-16. 44 NRC 59 (1996) premature monon for summsy &spoution; LBP-%l5. 44 NRC 8 (1996) sper:Acuy and basis requirements for contentions; LDP %I5. 44 NRC 8 (1996)

SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT challenges to conclusions of. DD-96 il. 44 NRC 69 (1996)

SEDIMEP(T radioacave contanunauon of. DD'%10, 44 NRC 54 (19%)

SETTLEMEP(T AGRELMENTS wnhdrawal of intervention pennon on basis of. LBP-96-16. 44 NRC 59 (1996) )

SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDINGS 1 l

standad for insolution of. DD96-il. 44 NRC 69 (1996)

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION burden on opponent that had &scovery following the 6hng of the &sposiuve nwtion; LBP.%I8. 44 NRC 86 (1996) burden on proponent of; LBP-96-18, 44 hRC 86 (19961 factual support for expert op nion in opposing; LBP-%I8. 44 NRC 86 (1996) genuine esputed material issue of fact; LBP-%I8. 4 NRC 86 (1996) materiality of factual espute; LBP 96-18, 44 NRC 86 (1996) premature nwoon for. LBP-%15, 44 NRC 8 (1996)

TRAINING reactor operator' LBP-%I3. 44 NRC I (1996)

VIDEOTAPING preheanng conferences; LBP-9614. M NRC 3 (1996)

VIOLATION of schedule for decomnussioning; DD-96 9. 44 NRC 47 (1996)

WITilDRAWAL of intervennon petioon on basis of settlenent. LBP-%16. 44 NRC 59 (1996) 20 l

l

i i

i i '

1

}

i 3

t i

FACILITY INDEX l

i l

4

' i VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, Uruts I and 2; Docket Nos. %424-OLA 3, S425-OLA-3 l OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 19, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER j (Motions: Reconsideration. Terrnination of the lumeng); LBP-9616,44 NRC 59 (1996) 3 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT; Docke No. 50-390

REQUEST FOR ACTION; July 9,1996; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR. 12 206, DD-96-10. 44 NRC 54 (1996) )

REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 15, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R.12.206, DD %II, 44 NRC 69 (1996)

YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Docket No. S029-DCOM DECOMMISSIONING; July 12, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granung Monon to i

Valectape Preheanng Conference); LBP 96-14, 44 NRC 3 (1996)

DECOMMISSIONING; July 31, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Adnumng Contenuon and

Establistung Utigation Schedule Regarding "New Dose Argument"); LBP 9615,44 NRC 8 l (1996) C j ,

DECOMMISSIONING; September 27, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granong Monon for 7.  !

~

Summary Disposition); LBP %18, 44 NRC 86 (1996) i i

y I a

i I

a i l 1

J 21 a

J d

._ . - - -