Text

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISSUANCES.January- June 1996
	ML20135B001
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/30/1996
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V43-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V43-I2, NUDOCS 9612040124
	Download: ML20135B001 (49)
	v • d • e

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

.a 1- +a n m. ~ +

i . . . .

+ -,-,.. a n, n.n n v, l n. ~. r , - 3

-mmmum ~,~.. - - .n..

_..w.nw , -

. < , . w 1 ,

( \

o 1

NUREG-0750 1 I

a. y. c i,

' Vol. 43 >

s__ Index 2 I i

. g'r %

lb "' $

,g f.,/,,,

/,,,,

> ____v q< _ _ _ _ ___ ks s

," f .

4, *1 w , ,>) , s +vs 4, > c h

^ > , ~<o v /> g , o > s, 's c ,

s'< Y l

& , s ,, ,,-<> <

, s < , . . , '

^< , ' ' v, ' <e% > s - +',2 4 'd

)

c :: 9 : & e DINDEXEShTOL ' " T"c" '

< f .

j y K, Q#;NOC$Ei 5, R5GdLdTURY I" . - -

, , c .

l .

Lv ' ?n~~-,

); 4 , .gu , , <

COMMISSION]', . I lv , s D* s

> - s,' N ? "

,+. ISSUANCES .

v

- Ans-

> s ,' $?'

- - s b >

. A !

, + - ,

% /

f ss y es,' *d

~

/

p l ,

4 s,' : j fM,T .' ' January:s

,o . .

< - u <. ~ . -

s,-

June 1'995 ,

'( ^

l

, > , > s. , + s '

2 . .. . .

.n o _ < . .

~.

. -, 1, s,

n,2,

,+

v r

s

s < < , < > . .

3

< /

4, 9 ^,.<x s',

} a' , ' -#>. ^ N 4 '

- , s

. s~ <, -z r -

!h

^ ^

'^

f '

J '

s s >., <

R$G l ' , , l s .

s

.wi x , v,r:~ , .,,is, y

- s .

- . s ,

- .- s~ ,* ^

> , s > , s

.e , > , s3,, ,s , s . ,s-s > , 4 s., ya

/W9 A ss,% ^ 'I ' '

< V ,ie 6 sv

n ,

S

^

r, s

+

s,, m. -

.3 , o, s -

, - s .

y

<< wo; s

n .

3

, , > , , . , us v< z ,

s H, A , , - r '

^ - : ,"

c s'm - , '< -

4 y) . 4 , &g 4 7

5 s <

. ,, :, . s . .

n.,

<1 - ., ,' ^'

> , , ' p+ , s ^ '

, Os

's

, , , s

, i,' ' 8 y

.[,.(y ,/' ' ,, < d '

.u . ' ' , s~ , , f

-, .~ - . - . , < ,3, s , ,, ,, , '<s^ ',

~,,

w

~

s > - , ,a ~s,, s

,s,a-<

,. . ,y x

s.s.

s ,

,+/,,y s m'. *

?. ,

gx, ',v a,

,w'c c a . '. s ',

. g; q

,, ' v v y

r, J ,> ,, + ,,X ']

~ ,,

m. ,, - ,- - ' .

}- '

's +.."~ 5 , '

s

, *n' . , , , ,

,2 m ., ^

4,">> . r s

, l,->,>,

<s x ,,.< . , .

(>, , (' 4 ,e<.' , , sfu. s %.,. !,

, q,, ,,;-

-s a .

N+

s ,,,s s sg v r, <

~,/ - >, ,, , s s

- ,.c.- >,

,..nn s s>= ,,. ~ ss

,,s

, ~ , ys

'< ,, j ,y ,

[ g

,,.cy,.,;g

,, 74 a 1;.,

5),

N

.ov j v , *j ^ "*

f %.x , ,

j, < ,, y ,gy' 7,},. 3 > e v~

^

s, g,.

'^

^> s , j - 1 ' . , . ,'.

+,,',,s<e>, ' j,

",+g.>' > '

< /

' , v >s z y a j ^ > +' '

. ,4. ,.

,,s , < ,,- ,N, ss < - s s s 4s <- - .>

' s < >

.y

- , > x < -s s _ss , , . s- *,

,s s - +< , .

-r k 'n'. ?

.k.

- s L A-

ei eu; SSION L~ . .

A.

~

l. Y.

9612040124 960930 PDR NUREG b 0750 R PDR 1

,l i

. . . . . . . .. . . . . -. <. . . . v. .r.- -*-+ -y

.qb5 h ksMt wwgah, ,.c h.hwh4f 4h/khhNb. a: ,: a.a - ...M N -N:~ r'mhNiD9MNW*g.N#" -----

a ' m. -- h '

+ .ng.(i -

i,s

~- - w *'ar::- ,

,. '. ~ . . . . . .

s...' . . .. ~ .- .

i ,. ! ,

w. q 3'-..u.4.* i %-.1/ * ...o e ir.., M *w* * < ; 6;;t " * ' -

'y,

'ap M,(%.ss?.4/.

m 10 M:..gLD.?d':"."MO

-MI. 44 -

G.r v . +; **. - - - ,"i'i..','J'.,-

' JE i u, ,

t., ,-,..,

. - ..:- 1 2

,j, 'gj , 9r .'r9 *4 e "

f E' y y a ,k* , ,.* . s

. .w ,/ 4 '

. . , . s *

. * .~

'^, '_.

4 es "9 i

Available from ,

Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office !

P.O. Box 37082 Washington, DC 20402-9328 ;

A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, l 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.

Single copies of this publication are available from i National Technical Information Service l Springfield, VA 22161 ,

l I

l t

i 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) e

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

l

! NUREG-0750 i Vol. 43 l l Index 2 i

l INDEXES TO i l

l NUCLEAR REGULATORY !

COMVilSSION ISSUANCES !

January - June 1996 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOFLY . COMMISSION l l

Prepared by the I Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301/415-6844)

Foreword Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel (Il3P), 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 serve as a guide to the issuances.

Information elements cx>mmon 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 amendment, etc.)

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

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

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 issuance, docket j number, issuance number, and full text reference. -

1

2. Ileaders and Digests The headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows: the Commission (C1J), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Iloard Panel (LUP), the I Administrative LawJudges (AIJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM)

The header identifies the issuanz by 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 issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically.

3. Legal Citations Index This index is divided into fourparts and consists of alphabetical or alpha-numerical I 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 I

e

?

i i

4. Subject index l l

Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and i

subjects covered in the issuances. The subject headings are followed by phrases that give specific information about the subject, as dhu in the issuances being indexed. ,

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

i

5. Facility Index .

. This index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from the ;

- issuance. The name is followed ty docket number, type of hearing, date, type of issuance, issuance number, and fuh text reference. ,

l 4

i I

=

iv

l l

i i

i

~

CASE NAME INDEX i

i ALL REACIOR UCENSEES WTTH INSTA111D THERMOGG f1RE BARRIER MATERIAL REQUEST IOR ACrlON; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFA 12.206; DD %3, 43 NRC 183 (1996)

ARIZONA PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY l REQUEST ICR ACTION; DIRECTOR *5 DECISION UNDER 10 C.FA 12.206; Docket Nos. 54528, f $4529, 54530; DD %4,43 NRC 309 (1996)

REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR *5 DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 3 2.206; Docket Nos. 54528.

54529,54530; DD-%8,43 NRC 344 (1996)

CIIVELAND ELECTRIC IU.UMINATING COMPANY, et al.

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER; Docket No. 5444401A); CU-%4. 43 NRC 51 (1996) ,

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK REQUEST IOR ACrlON; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.FA 9 2.206; Docket Nos. 50-247, 54286 (Ucease Nos. DPR 26, DPR 64); DD-%6, 43 NRC 333 (1996)

EASTERN TESTING AND INSPECTION, INC.

ENTORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Denying bcensee Motion so Set Aside imme&ase E&cuveness); Dockes Nos. 03405373-EA, 03432163-EA (AS12P No. %71442-EA)

(EA 96085) (Order Suspending Byproduct Matenal Ucense Nos. 29-0981441 and 294981442);

LBP-%9,43 NRC 218 (1996)

ENFORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approwng Settlement Agreenent and Disnussing Procee&ng); Docket Nos. 030-05373-EA,03432163-EA (ASLBP No. %714-02-EA)

(EA 96485) (Order Suspending Byproduct Maienal Ucense Nos. 294981441 and 294/81442);

LBP-%II,43 NRC 279 (1996)

GEORGIA INSTTIUTE OF TECHNOLDGY OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; THIRD PREHEARING CDNf'ERENCE ORDER; Docket No.

54160-Rea (ASLBP No. 95-70441-Ren) (Renewal of Facihry Ucense No. R-97); LEP-%8, 43 NRC 178 (1996) .I OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Telephone Confuence Call, 5/15/96); Docket No 54164Ren (ASLBP No. 94-704-01-Run) (Renewal of facihty Ucense No.

R-97); LBP-410, 43 NRC 231 (1996) )

GULF STATES LJTILITIES (T)MPANY, et al.

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Grant of Motion to j Tenninate Procee&og); Docket No. 504580LA (ASLBP No. 93-680-04 OLA); LBP-96 5, 43 NRC l 135 (1996) I KERR-McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION l MATERIA 13 UCENSE; ORDER; Docket No. 40 2061-ML; CU-96-2, 43 NRC 13 (1996) l LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.

MATERIALS LICENSE; PARTIAL INTTIAL DECISION (Resolving Contenuons H. L and M); Docket No. 70 3070-ML (ASLBP No. 9164142-ML)(Special Nuclear Matenal Ucense); LBP-96-7,43 NRC 142 (1996)

NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY OPERATING LICIWSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhr.g on Intervenuon Peti 6on); Docket No. 50 245-OLA (ACLBP No. %711-014LA); LBP 961,43 NRC 19 (1996)

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER (Ternunating Procee&ng); Docket No. 50-245-OLA (ASIEP No. %711 Oll-OLA); LBP-46,43 NRC 140 (19%)

1

_ , . _ _ _ _ __ , . _ . , , . . , . , . - -- . - - - - . , , _ , . _,.,--.--r

CASE NAME INDEX ONCOLOGY SERVICES CORPORATION CIVIL PENALTY; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Distmsamg Proceeding); Docket No. OB31765-CivP (ASLBP No. 95 708 01-CivP) (EA 94-006) (Byproduct !

Matenals License No. 37 28540 01); LBP%3,43 NRC 93 (1996)

PECO ENERGY COMPANY REQUEST FOR AGION; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR.12.206; Docket Nos.

54277, 54278, DD45,43 NRC 322 (1996) !

PORTLAND GENERAL E11GRIC COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION, DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. 5 2.206; Docket No. S344 (bcense No. NPF-1), DD47, 43 NRC 338 (1996)

RADIATION ONCOLDGY CENTER AT MARLTON (ROCM)

CIVIL PENALTY; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approvmg Settlernent Agreemera and Ternunaung Proceeding); Docket No. 3432493-CivP (ASLBP No. 95-70942-CnP) (EA 93472) (Byproduct Matenals Ucense No. 29-28685-00; LDPN4, 43 NRC 101 (1996)

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT REQUEST IUR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. 5 2.206; Docket No. 50 312 (License No. DPR 54); DD47,43 NRC 338 (1996)

SEQUOYAH ITELS CORPORATION MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; INTTIAL DECISION (beense Amendment Applicauon),

Docket No. 448027-MLA-3 (ASLBP No. 94-70041-MLA 3) (Source Maienals Ucense No.

SUB-1010); LBP412,43 NRC 290 (1996)

SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS ENFORCEMENT ACTION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 40 8027-EA (Decontanunation and Decommissiomng Funding); CLl%3, 43 NRC 16 (1996)

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. 6 2.206; Docket No. 50 206 (Ucense No. DPR 13); DDW7,43 NRC 338 (1996)

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY DECOMMISSIONING, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50429; CLI41,43 NRC 1 (1996)

DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No. 50-029-bCOM. CLIM5. 43 NitC 53 (1996)

DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 54029 (for Relief Under 10 C.f R.12.206). CLl%6. 43 NRC 123 (1996)

DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. S029-DCOM (Decomnussiomng Plan); CLi%7,43 NRC 235 (1996)

DICOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Pennon to Imervene); Docket No.

54029-DCOM (ASLBP No. 96 713 01-DCOMt LDPN2, 43 NRC 61 (1996)

REQUEST FOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I2.206; Docket No.50-029 (Licenne No. DPR-3t DD41, 43 NRC 29 (1996)

REQUE.ST IVR ACTION, SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cl R. 6 2.206;

! Docket No.50-029; DD42,43 NRC 109 (1996) l REQUEST FOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. 5 2.206; Docket No. 50 029 (beense No. DPR-3). DD-96-7, 43 NRC 338 (1996)

I I

2

I i

l '

6 i

1

! l l

I l

(

i l

l 1

(

l i

! DIGESTS

! ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

l 1

l CI196-1 YANKEE ATOMIC El.ICTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon). Dociet No. 50 029; i DECX)MMISSIONINO; January 16,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1 A The Conurassion refers so de Atonne Safety and I.icensing Board. for a ruhng on stan&ng and contenuons and with guidance ce seural povel issues and a suggested espe &ted schedule, plea &ngs 68ed regarding Peuuoners' imerwanon in a proceeding to consider approval of a plan to deconsmssion de Yankee Nuclear pour Station (" Yankee NPS").

Is The maner now before the Connassion follows de Commission's recem seinstatenwns, in hgts of i

a & cision by de First Circuit Court of Appeals, of its pre-1993 pohey of provieng an opportumty for an adjuecatory tranng on nuclear power reactor decommissioning plans.

C Where a peutioner has not espressly requessed a heanrg on sus petition, but wlere it seems clear from the peticon as a whole dias a hearing is what de petitioner destres, the Commission will not &snuss that peuuan solely on de basis of such a techmcal ples&ng defect.

D la ordre to establish standng to intervene in a procee&ng a petitioner must demonstrate that (1)it has suffered a &stinct and palpable harm that consurutes injury in-fact witua the zone ofinterests arguably prosected by the govermng statute;(2) that du injury can faarty be traced to the challenged acuon; and (3) that de injury is hkely to be redressed by a favorable decision.

E As the Comnussion has noted on other occasions, a prospecove irmervenor may not denve standing to parncipate la a procee&ng from another person who is not a pany to the acuan or is not a number of its orgawzation.

F Once a party demonstrates that It has stan&ng to inservene on its own accord, that party may then raise any coinenuan that, If proved, will afford the party rehef from the injury it nebes upon for stan&ng.

O The Comnussion construes the provision in 10 C F.R. 4 2.714(g), in accordance with de relevant case law, i.e., that an intervenor's contenuens snay be knuted to those that wir afford it rebef from the injuries asserted as a basis for standing.

11 A fair rea&ng of de Comnussion's decomnussioning rules at 10 Cf.R. 6 5022 is that it is for the hcensee in the 6rst instance to choose the decompusssosung opuon and that neither tre DECON nor the SAFSTOR opuan can be deemed unacceptable a pnari.

I The principal entenas for judging a decomnussiomog ahernative is the proposed une required for decomnussaomns compleuan 10 CfJt. I 50.82(bXIXi). Both de SAFSTOR and the DECON alternatives would, in general, nwet de enserion in that section and in de Final Genene Environmental Impact Statement on Decomnussaoning of Nuclear Facibues (CEIS).

J la ad&non to meeting the "unw" requuenwrn in 10 Cf.R. 4 50.82(bXIXi), decomnussioning i plans must also meet other apphcable NRC regulations, inclu&ng the "as low as is reasonably actuevable" i (ALARA) requirenwnt in 10 Cf.R, i 20,ll01(b).

K !

One of the purposes of revising 10 C.F.R. Part 20 was to change tte status of ALARA from the hortatory suggesuan in old 10 Cf R. 5 20 l(c) to the mandatory requirenwns in the current 10 Cf.R.

I 20 Il01(b); thus, A1 ARA is an essernial part of Federal Ra&auon Protecuon Guidance.

l Wtule a bceasee's ctuace of decomnussioning options is not beyond s!l challenge, such a challenge to a heensee's chaser of shernative decomnussiomas procedures cannot be based solely on differences in esumated collecove occupanonal doses on the order of snagstude of the enomates in de GEIS.

M A bcensee's actmns do sit violate the ALARA pnnciple simply because some way can tw idenufted I to reduce ra&ation esposures furtt.tr. The pracucahry and the cost of the measures required to actueve these l

)

3

l 1

i DIGESTS l ISSUANCES OF 'IllE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

reductions as well as "odier societal and socioeconomic consderations" must sino be taken into account j See 10 C F R I 201003 (dehrutma of ALARA).

N h Comnussion will generally had that exposures are ALARA when further dose reducuons would cost name than $1000 or $2000 for each person-rem reduction achieved. See generally " Regulatory Analyses Gu dehnes " NUREG/BR-0058. Rev. 2 (19953 ]

i O N essential purpose of the requirement in 10 C F R. I 50 82 is to provide " reasonable assurance" of adequate fundmg for decommissiomng hs. to be enutled to rehef, a penuoner needs to show not only that a hcensee's decottmussionmg cost estinate is in error, but that there is not reasonable assurance timt tie correct amount wdl be paid.

P To the extent that a peuuoner's cotaention alleges "dlegal" past conduct in violauon of NRC regulauona, those allegauons are more properly the subject of a separate enforcement acuon.

CU %2 KERR-McGLE CHEMICAL CORPORATION (West Chicago Rare Earths facihty), Docket No.

442061 ML; MATERIA 13 UCENSE; February 21,1996; ORDER A' The Comnunion considers a request by the Ucensee to ternunate this procee&ng as moot and to vacate the procee&ng's underlying decisions. Because tius procceang solely concerns the Ucensce's request for onsste esposal of null taihngs, and all parties concur that the Ucensee no longer seeks onsite

&sposal, the Comnussion terminates the proceceng as moot. The Compussion chooses as a pokey matter to vacate and thereby chnunate as precedent all three underlying decisions in stus proceedmg.

B The Comnussmo is not bound by ju&cial practice and need not follow juecial standards of vacatur.

CU-96-3 SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore, Oklahoma Site). Ducket No. 448027-EA (Decentanunanon and Decommissiorung Fun &ngt LNFORCEMENT ACTION, february 27,19%; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Conumssion grants the Intervenors' peution for review of the Atonne Safety and Ucensing Board's Menoratutum and Order approvmg a joint seulenent agreement between the Ucensee, Sequoyah Fuels Corp., and the NRC Staft h Cormrusann aim pernuts the State of Oklahoma to hie a bnef anucus ,

cunae to aid the Comnussmn in its review of the Board's order. I B A state that does ma seek party status or to participate as an "mterested state" in the procce&ngs below is ma pernutted to hie a pennon for Comnusuon review of a hcensms board ruhng If the Comnussion takes review, the Comnussion may pernut a person who is not a party, including a state, to hie a bnef snucus cunae.10 C.F R. I 2.715(d). i CW %4 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al tPerry Nuclea Power Plant, Umt l ik Docket No. 54440-OLA 3 OPERATING UCLNSE AMENDMENT; March 7,1996; ORDER '

A The Comnusuon grants the Cleveland Electnc illuminaung Company's peution for review of the Atonne Safety and Licensmg Board order, LBP-95-17,42 NRC 137 (19951 The Board's order gramed ate latervenors' rnouon for summary &sposmon and ternunated die procce&ng.

CU-%5 YANKLE ATOMIC LLECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon), Docket No. 50 i 029 DCOM, DECOMMIS$10NING, March 7,1996 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I A The Comnussion dechnes to &squahfy two Comnussioners or the NRC Staff from parucipaung in i the case;in& cates that it plans to review the bcensmg Board's March I decision (LBP-42,43 NRC 61 l (1996)), suggests appropnate areas of inquiry for the parues' bnefs; and keeps m place the current stay of j the Board decision, pen &ng Comnusuon review of LBP 9u-2. l B li in Comnussion pracuce that the Conmussioners who are subject to a recusal mouon wdl decide that motion themselves, and may do so by annumg a joint decision. j C A prohibited commurucauon is not a concern if it does not reach the ultmmte decision maker- i D Where a pmiubited conunumcanon is not mcorporated mio advice to the Comnusuon. never reaches l the Comnussion, and has no impact on the Comrmssion's decimon, it provides no grounds for the recusal of Comnunioners j E Conmusuon gmdance does not consutute factual prejudgment where the guida" - i, based on i regulatory interpretauons, pohey judgnents, and sentauve observa!mns about dose estimate are denved from the puhhc record F Where there are no facts from which the Comnussmn can reasonably conclude that a prohibited commumcation was made with any corrupt mouve or was other than a simple unstake. and where a Report of the Office of the inspector General conhrms that an mmicem nustake was made and that the Staff was 4

i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j i

t not guilty of any actual wrongdoing. and where the mistake did not ulumately affect the proceceng the Comnussian will not esnuss the Staff from the procce&ng as a sanctma for having made the prolulnied comenumcanon.

G Where the Conmussme issues a stay wholly as a matter of its own &screnon, it does not need to address the facetas hsicd in 10 C.F.R. I 2.788.

CLI4 6 YANKEE ATOMIC E11CTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. S 029 (Ivr Rehef Under 10 C F R.12.206L DECOMMISSIONING, Apnl I,1996, MEMORANDUM AND +

ORDER A h Comrmsuon revrws, sua sponte, the drmal by tie thrector of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon, under 10 C F R 6 2.206, of two emergency monons filed by Peutmners challengmg metmues by the Licensee in decomnusuomt.g the Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon. These peuunns follow de Cornnussmn's reins'atenrnt of its pre-1993 interpretanon of NRC deconunissiomng regulanons, which protubit a hcensee frorn undenakmg " major" decomnussiomng activmes pen &ng NRC approval and pnor to de opportumty for a hearing.

B h Comnusuon affirms the Duretor's Decinons, fm&ng no abuse of Ascreuon. The Comnussion issues this Mernorandum Opuuon so desenbe the reasons why it has decided not to disturb the Director's demal of the two peuunns & two decmons now become fmal agency action in ttus maner C The Comnussion retams plenary authonry to review Director's decisions.10 CF R. I 2.206(cx t).

D NRC regulanons specahcally povide that the Comnussion will not entenaan appeals from the Director's decision, see 10 C.F.R. I 2.20Ncx2)(1995% however, the Conutussion may undenake sua sponte review of each demal of a 2.20h peut on to ensure that de Ducctor has not abused his discretion. See 10 i

C F R.12.20Ncx i) (1995). '

E If dw Conutussmn takes no acuan to reverse or mosfy a Director's decision within tweary-hve

]

(25) days of issuance of the decismn it becomes hnal agency acton.10 C F.R.12.20Nc) 1).

F The Comnusuon can exteno ' sua sponte review ume to consider whether it will take rev ew of l a Director's decision. 1 O Where there is no evidence ...at potential small occupalmnal esposures wdi violate Comnussion !

regulanons in 10 C.F R. Pan 20. the Comnussion cannot And public health and safety hazards jusufying an enforcenent acuon to halt a heensee's deconurussiomng acovines H l It is clear from past Conurussmn nimenents and from pnor NRC Staff pracuce that sone "pehm-inary" or "nunor" acoviues have always been perrruned in adsance of NRC approval of a deconurussiomng plan ,

1 Ahhough the Comnussion did not caphcidy hnut M its Statement of Consderations accompanymg the 1988 decommisimmng rule changes, the scope of decontanunanon allowed, it is clear that a hcensee nmy not complete decomnussmmng pnor to NRC approval t'y simply "decontanunaimg" the enure facihty But,it is equally clear that some decoruanunacon is allowed J Whsle the Conutussmn has not had occasmn to define terms such as " major" &smanthng m prior contested decomnussiomng cases. such as Shoreham and Rancho Seco, the Comnussion has conusiently contemplated that a heensee could conduct a range of acuvities that were not " major" in advance of decommissionmg plan appoval.

K Actual pre 1993 pracuce si shutdown plants was de undenaking of soew nunor disassenibly and decontanunanon pnar to decomnusuoning plan approval, and the NRC elected not to interfere with those actmues.

L Agency practice, of course,is one indicator of how an aFency mierprets us regulatmns See Power Reactor Developnent Co v. Imernanonal Umon. 367 U S 3%. 408 (1%1 t M h NRC's Statenwnt of Conuderstmns for de 1988 decomnusuoning rule and its pe-1993 decismns and pracuce comemplased that a heensee mould be able to conduct some nunar or prehnunary work pnor to approval of a deconmussmmng plan Clearly, however, at sonr post such work is no longer

mmor" or may vmste decomnusuonmg ahernatives At that point a heensee must cease work pendmg NRC approval of de decommisuotung plan following any leanng that has been requested on the plan N isrther Comnusurm acuan to develop and enforce more precise gmdehnes on what acuvines can or canmW be dare prmr 10 decomnuss omng plan approval would nos be an effecuve use of hirured NRC 5

l l

t i

j l

l

~ _.

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR RFGULATORY COMMISSION resources, based on a single case and given the hkely issuance in the near future of a new decomnussiomng rule.

O Where de estimated person-rem esposure from a heensee's punor decommissiomng acovmes represents a reasonably small poruon of de total esumated done origmally available for possible SAFSTOR treatnent, the madertaking of those decomnussmning acuvines does not compromise a meatungful SAF-STOR opuon or the hearmg process in which peutioners are parucipanng.

P The Comnusuon will hah decommisuorung acuviues. "punor" or not, that in&vidually or cumula-tavely threnien the continued viabihty of de SAISTOR deconmussioning alternauve when it is the subject of an adjuecatory heanng CLl%7 YANKLE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station). Docket No. 50-029-DCOM, DECOMMISSIONING; June 18,1996, MEMORAND*JM AND ORDER A in LBP-96-2. 4.1 NRC 61 (19%), the Board gramed stan&ng to two Peuuoners but dechned to admit any of their contentmns, demed their request for an adnutustrative heanng, and ternunated the instant proceceng pentioners appealed, and sought reversal of the Board's rejection of their contennons, and also challenged for a tlurd ame certain guidance given by the Comnussion in CLl%I,43 NRC 1 (1996),

carher in stus proceeding YALC and the NRC Staff opposed Pennoners' argunrnas on appeal and urged afhrmance of LBP-96-2. Ahernauvely. YALC challenged Peuuoners' standmg to seek a heanng. The Conmunsion grants in part and demes in part Pennoners' appeal, tejects YAEC's arguments regar&ng stanang, and remands the case to the Licensmg Board for funher procee&ngs consistent with tlus opinion.

B Once a party demonstrates that it has stanang to intervene on its own accurd, that party may then raise any contenuun that, if proved, mill afford the party rehef from the injury it rehen upon for stanang.

C Under Conurussion junsprudence, prounury alone normally does not estabhsh stan&ng (outside the nuclear power reac.or construcuon permit or operaung license contest) absent an obvious potenual for .

offuse consequences.

j D Where die Licensmg Board rests its hneng of staneng on a combinauon of (a) the prononers' prounury to the beensed facihty, (b) ge'suoners' everyday use of the area near the reactor, and (c) the deconmussiomng effects desenhed in the Comnussmn s !988 GEIS, the Comnussion defers to the Board's 4

finang "that none, even if nunar, pubhc esposures can be anticipated" and "will be visited" on peuunners' rnembers.

E Under the Comnusuon's Tontention Rule," 10 C F R.12.714, a peuiioner not only must demonstrate standmg but also must proffer with specaheity at least one adnussible contenuon For a consennon to be admissible, a pettuoner must refer to the specahe poruon of the beense apphcanon being challenged. state the issue of fact or law associated wnh that pornon, and provide a " basis" of alleged facts or expert opinions. together with references to specahe sources and docunrnts that estabhsh those facts or espcrt opuuons. The baus nmst be sufhetent to show that a genmne espute custs on a matenal issue of fact or law. ,

F Ahhough 10 C.F k. 5 2 714 Imposes on a pennoner the burden of gomg forward with a sufhcient !

faerual baus, it does rmt stuft the ukurmte burden of proof from the apphcant to the peuuoner. j G Secuan 50 82te) of 10 C F R. expressly requires that decomnusswmng be performed in accordance '

with the regulanons, inclueng de ALARA rule in 10 C F R. I 201101.

I H ALARA may not be insoked to restnet beensee decisions on, for cuample, whether to deconurussion j en operating nuclear power reactor or whether to build one m the hrst place (as opposed, say. to a coal plant). ALARA conre mio play only after such basic choices are made and requires a hcensee to carry oui ris acuvity in a manner ;alculated to nummise raeauon esposures as much as is practical consistent with the purpose for which the hcensed acuvity is undenaken.

I A heenace's choice between DLCON and SAFSTOR (or their vanants)is presumpuvely reasonable under the ALARA pnnciple.

J lt would be unreasonable to require the Commission contmually to rehtigate issues that may be estabbshed faurly and efhciently m a smgle rulemakmg procec&ng This pnnciple apphes also to environmental issues raised under the Nanonal Environnemal Pohey Act K The fact that a very small poruon of a sne nmy Imt be relcasable does not preclude the release of the overwhelnung resmunder of the site 6

s

l i

l DIGESTS i ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !

l l

1 L Petiuoners are not absolutely barred from hugating the DECON-SAISTOR choice on ALARA J grounds It is, however, peuuoners' burden to show " extraordinary circumstances" sebutung the presumphon that the licensee's chmce is reasonable. i M The fact that peunoners raise an argunem for the first tmr late m a proceeding is not necessanly l

fatal where the argunrnt rests sigmficantly on a docunwnt prepared only shonly before the argunent is I proffered and where peutsoners promptly bring it to the adjudscator's artenuon.

N The Licensing Board. rather than tir Comnussion itself. tradiuonally develops the factual record in de hrst instance.

O A decommissiomng plan by its very nature deals with a myriad of uncenainnes and the Comnus. 1 sion's regulations cannot be construed to require the plan to predict the future with precision. )

P The Comnussion's regulations do not require a heensee, at the ume it socks approval of its j decomnussiomns plan. to decide whether it will move spem fuel into dry cask storage.

Q A consension challengmg tir reasonableness of a deconurussiomng plan's cost esumate is not hugable if reasonable assurance of decomnussioning costs is not in senaus doubt and if the only available rehef would be a formahstic redraft of the plan with a new estimate.

R lo obtain a heanng on the adequacy of the decomnussionang plan, petitioners must show sone specific, tangible hnk between the alleged errors in the plan and the heahh and safety impacts they invoke.

5 The stan.iard for determining that the funds for decomnussioning the plant will be fortheonung is I whether there is " reasonable assurance" of adequate funding not whether that assurance is "tronclad,"

T A deconmussiomns funding nrchamam is externalin nature where its collecticiw are made thmugh I Power Contracts and are deposiled in an independent and urevocable trust at a comnercial bank and where I the trust is executed in comphance with 10 CF R.150.75(e)(1)(ai).

U Peuuoners must subnut rnure than speculanon in order for a contenuon to be adnutted for htigation.

V Although the Comnussion has a general responsihihty to ensure that decomnussemng operations do not jeopardue pubhc health and safe'v. no statute or regulauon Frams the Comnussmn authonty to reqmre the hcemee to pay (m effect) compensatory damages to pnvate individuals.

W Completed deconutussiomng ac+ines are beyond the scope of a deconmussiomng proceedang that deals solely with the propnety of a deconutussmmng plan and future deconinussiomng acuvines. j X The standard for innums an SEIS is set forth in 10 C F R. I 5192. There must be either substantial '

changes in the proposed acuon that are relevant to environnental concerns, or segmftcant new circumstances or mtormanon relevant to environnrntal concerns and heanng on the proposed acuon or its impacts.

Y If parues beheve that the agency's pnar genene review reached the wrong conclusions, the proper renedy is a pention for rulemakmg. not a bugation contenuon challenging the basis for a Conmussion rule.

Z Pursuant to 10 C F R.12.74hs), the Comnussion may take official notice of publicly available documents filed an the docket of a Federal Energy Regulatory Comnussion proceedmg.

AA Tir followmg techmcalissues are discussed Decomnussiomng; ALARA.

l l

7

4 1

3 i

i 1

{

4 i

J i

DIGESTS '

ISSUANCES OF THE ATUMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS

)

I LBP-%I NORIHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuckar Power Station, Uma 1),

Docket No. 505245-OLA (ASLBP No. 96-71141 OLA); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 7,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on tmervenoon Petition)

LBP%2 YANKEE AIUMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-

}l l 3 ;

029-DCOM (ASLBP No. 96-71MI-DCOM) DECOMMISSIONING; March I,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Petition to Intervene), l

, i A la this protee&ag concermag diallenges to vanous aspects of de decornrmssioning plan for the

~

Yankee Nuclear Power Station, based on guidance furnished by de Conumssica in CLI-Ei,43 NRC I j (1996), the IJoensing Board concludes that the citizen groups pennomns to intervene have established dieir i !

stan&ng but have failed to presem a htigable comennon, which requises that the prome&ng be dismissed. -

1 B To comply with the basic stan&ng requisenrats, a pennoner must denenstrale that (1) it has '

suffered or will suffer a disunct and palpable harm that consuruses injury-in-fact within the zone of interests > .

arguably protected by the govermng statute; Q) the injury is fairly caceable lo de challenged action; and I (3) the injury is hkely to be redressed by a favorable decision. See CIl%I,43 NRC at 6. -

C When an organization seeks to imerverse on behalf of ats enembers, lhat enuty nuast show that it has ;

j en indivedual enember who can futtil the necessary eleness to estaFhsh sun &ng and who has authorized 7 h the orgamracon to represem his or her interests. See CLl%I,43 NRC at 6. 9 )

D Intervenor organizations estabhshed thest stan&ng to antervene and seek relief regarding alleged

{ l heakh and safety or environnwntal injwies that may be visited upon their enembers who seside and engage in vanous acavstics in the area within 10 miles of a nuclear facihry to be dec" f Because some, ;

)

even if srunar, public exposwes can be anticipated frorn de decommissioning process, the llensing Board '

is not "la a posauos at this threshold stage to rule out as a matter of certainry the existence of a reasonable E ,

possibility" that decommissiomng might have an adverse impact so those, such as peauoners members, who s hve or recrease in such close proxirety to the facihty, or use local waste transportanon routes. Virgirua :

Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54. 56 ,

(1979). -

l E Pentioners who have estabhshed their stan&pg so presem a contenuon that seeks modi 6 canon or j rejectma of a nuclear facihry deconmussioning plan so as to avoid health and safety or environnental -

injury to the pubhc also can pursue any comention alleging such mo&6 cation /rejectma rehef based os 7 l circumst- such as purported occupanonal exposure to facshry workers from decommissiomng activities. /

! See CLJ41,43 NRC at 6.

F Under 10 C.F.R.12.714(b)(2)(ii)-(iii), to be admissiNe a contenuon rnust contain a specinc statenrm of an issue of fact or law raised or controverted in a procee&ng that is supported by a " basis" of alleged facts or expert opinions, together with references to spect6c sources and documems that estabhsh those facts or opsmons. The basis nussi be sufficies to show that a genuine dispute exists with the apphcant on a material issue of fact or law. Moreover, while the intervenor need not prove its case at the comention stage or present factual support in affidavit or evidentiary form sufhcient to withstand a summary disposioon mocon, it nonetheless must make a nunimal showmg the matenal facts are in &spute such the a further inquary is appropriate. And, of course, any corwemion must fall within the scope of the issues set forth in the nonce of opmrtunity for heanns on dw proposed hcensmg acten. See Georgia Institute of Technology '

(Georgia Tech .> search Reactor), CLI-95-12,42 NRC i11, i1718 (1995).

(

l 9

4 p .

j .

I E

f 1

4

I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS G la challerging the contents of a decomnussioning plan fasluoned pursuant to 10 Cf.R.

I SO 82(b)(1), (2), a comention not only nest allege some content deficiency in the deconmussiorung plan, but that this purported de6ciency has some health and safety sigm6cance for tie decorn'russiomng process as a whole. Put another way, to craft a bugable contenuon faulung a decornmissiomng plan for a de6ciency in content, besides provi&ng a baus sufhcient so questmn the plan's accuracy. there nmst also be a showmg that a genuine &sputed matenal issue of fact or law custs about whether tie purported sNwicoming has some tangible negative impact on the overall abahry of the decomrtussiomag process authned in the plan to protect dw pubhc health and safe'y. Cf Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Station. Umts j i and 2), ALAB-942, 32 NRC 395,414 (1990) (contenuon that purported emergency planning caercise I dc6ciency precludes a Andmg of reasonable assurance that protecove measures can and will be taken must show that exercise revealed more than nunar or isolated flaw so plaa and that plan flaw can only be reme&cd through sigm6 cant plan revision).

H A hugable comennon asserang that a reactor deconmussmning plan does not comply with the funang requireness of 10 C.F.R. I SO 82(b)(4) and (c), must show not only that one or more of a plan's cost esumate provisions are in errut. "but that there is not reasonable assurance that the amount will be paitL" CLI-%I,43 NRC at 9. A peutioner must estabhsh that some reasonable ground custs for conclu&ng that the hcensee will not have sufficient funds to cover decomnussiomng costs for the facihty. ,

I A peuuoner should be pernutted to respond to challenges to a comention before the contenuon '

is esrassed. See Houston lighung and Power Co (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Umr 1).

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

J Tlw " rule of reason" govermng National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)interpretauon provides that an agency need not consider " remote and speculauve risks." Limenck Ecology Acuon v. NRC,869 F.2d 719,739 (3d Ctr.1989).

K A contenuon basis concernmg a transportation cask accident that rehes on a report posmlaung an accident sceneno wnh constions that 51) withm the parameters of 10 C F R.171.73(c) govermng cask accident test consoons is not subject to &snussal under 10 C F R.12 758 as improperly challengmg that accident test con &uon regulation L A docunrnt put furth by an intervenor as supporung the basis for a comention is subject to scruuny both for what at does and does not show. When a report is the central suppon for a contenuon's basis, the contents of that report are what are before the Board and, as such. is subject to Board scruuny, both as to those portions of the report that support an intervenor's assertions and those port ons that do not.

M Because only accident scenanos that are ist " remote and speculauve" need be the subject of a NEPA analysis, af the informanon in any imervenor-proffered documem regarding such a scenano fails to in&cate that ttus threshold has been crossed, then a comennon challengmg NEPA compliance based on a ;

failure to analyze that scenano need not be adnutted. See Vermon Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont i Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon). ALAB-919,30 NRC 29,44-47 (1989), remanded for additional fmengs, CLI 90-4,31 NRC 333 0990).

LBP-96-3 ONCol.DGY SERVICES CORPORATION (Harnsburg, Pennsylvania). Docket N1030-31765-CivP ( ASLBP No. 95 708-01-CnP)(EA 94006)(Byproduct Matenals Licenre No. 37 28540 01); CIVIL

, PENALTY; March 28, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreemem and l

Dismissmg Procceang)

LBP-%4 RADIATION ONCOLOGY CENTER AT MARLTON (ROCM) (Marlton. New Jerse)), Docket No. 30-32493-CivP (ASLBP No. 95-7094)2-CivP) (EA 93 072) (Byproduct Matenals License No. 29-

. 2M685-Olk CIVIL PENALTY; March 28,1996 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlemem

! Agreenent and Ternunaimg Procee&ng)

A The licensing Board approves a joint settlenent agreenrnt govermng both this caval penalry procer&ng and a related peoceedmg and terrmnates this procee&ng (Simultaneously. the Lscensmg Board in the other civil penalty pmcecang approved the jomt agreenent with respect to that prew&ng. See LBP-43,43 NRC 93 (1996)

LBP-%5 GUtf STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, et al (River Bend Station. Umt 1) Dockel No. 50-458-OLA (ASLBP No. 93-680-0&OLA); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 29. 1996;

! MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Grant of Monon to Ternunate Procee&ng) 10

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS A The Licensing Board grants a nxxion of the bankruptcy trustee of the Imervemw, Cajun Electric Couperative, to ternunate its htigation, without prejuece, contesung a heense amendment requested by Gulf States Uuhties.

B Under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a voluntary dismissal of a court accon is generally without prejudice to dw action being remsututed at a later date. Ahhough there is no provismo in the Comrmssion's Rules of Practice that conesponds to the voluntary &smissal procedure in Rule 41, Elw Board found that Ltmse provisions were apphenble in llus case, especially since the public interest theoretica'ly would be served if Cajun could later estabbsh that aikhtional financial assurances were needed Moreover, the Board found that it was unfair to impose a form of pum.hnent, such as a bar of future acuon, against an Imervenor whose decisions were bemg &rected by a person (the bankruptcy trustee) with legal responsibehues other than those that supponed the ongmal peuuon.

LBP-96-6 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Power Stauon, Utut I),

Dockei No. 54245-OLA (ASLBP No. 96 711-Oll-OLAL OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Apnl 15,1996. ORDER (Terminanng Proceedmg)

LBP 96 7 LOUISIANA ENERGY EERVICES. L.P. (Claiborne Ennchnem Center), Docket No. 70 3070-ML

( ASLBP No. 91641-02-ML)(Special Nuclear Matenal Ucense); MATERIALS LICENSE; Apnl 26.1996; PARTIAL INTTIAL DECISION (Resolvmg Contentions H, L, and M)

A la dus Parual Imual Decision in the combined construction pernut-operaung license procee&ng for the Chuborne Ennchnent Center, the Licensms Board resolves in favor of the Apphcant Intervenor's contemmns H conceming the adequacy of the Appheant's emergency plan and L and M concerning the sufficiency of the Apphtant's safeguards nrasures.

B ne Comrmssion's rules of practice for the wnduct of formal adjudicatory heanngs provide in 10 C FA i 2.732 that the appheant has the burden of proof to the proceedmg. Thus, in order for the apphcant to prevail on each contested factual issue, the apphcant's position must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Plutadelphia Electne Co. (Umenck Generaung Statmn, Umts I and 2), ALAB-819,22 NRC 681. 720 (19tl5h Pacific Gas aml Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plam, Units I and 2).

ALAB 763,19 NRC 571,577 (1984). See i Cnaries H. Koch, Jr., Admitustrative Law and Practice 6 6 44 (1985).

C Under the Comnussion's regulamry scheme for emergency planmng as certain facihties possessmg and using special nuclear rnatenal or source and byproduct matenal, an enrrgency plan for respondmg to the hazards of an accidental release consututes one of the Apphcant's procedures that rnust be found adegoate i under 10 C F R. ll40 32(c) and 70 23(ax4) to prmeet heakh and numnuze danger to hfe or property.

D A regulatory guide, however, only presents the Staff's view of how to comply with dw regulatory

! reqmremems Such a gmde is advisory, not obhgatory and, as the guide itself states at the bottom of the first l page: " Regulatory Guides are not substitutes for regulations, and comphance with them is not required."

E The Comnussion's matenal control and accounting regulanons reqmre that the hcemce of an en-nehmem facihty "shall estabhsh implenrnt, and maintam a NRC-approved material comrol and accounung system," 10 C.FA $ 74 33(a), through the creauon of a fundanrntal nuclear material control plan. 10 C.F R. 8 74.3)(bk F The following techmcalissues are discussed Emergency plan, safeguards procedures LBP-96-8 GEORGIA INSTITtTTE OF TECHNOLDGY (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta. Georgia),

Docket No. 54164Ren (ASLBP No. 95-704-01-Ren)(Renewal of Facihty Ucense No. R-97) OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; Apnl 30,1996; THIRD PREHEARJNG CONFERENCE ORDER l

A The Aronus Safety and Ucensing Board issues a Preheanng Conference Order setung forth deternunanons made at a preheanng conference on Apnl 24,1996, includmg witness schedules and other maners beanng on the evidennary heanng scheduled to commence on May 20,1996.

B The Rules of Pracuce do not permit parucular Staff witnesses to be subpoenaed But a hcensing board, pursuant to 10 C F R. I 2.72(xhX2), may. upon a showing of excepuonal circumstances, require the atiendance and testimony of named NRC personrri Where an NRC employee has taken positions at odds with those espoused by witnesses to be presented by the Staff, on matters at issue m a proceedmg. excepuonal I circumstances esist. The Board deternuned that differmg views of such matters are facts &ffenng from l

thaw hkely to be presemed by the Staff witnesses and, on that basis, required the attendance and tesoneny of the named NRC personnel 11

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP 96 9 EASTERN 'IESTING AND INSPECTION, INC., Docket Nos. 03405373-EA, 03432163-EA (ASLDP No.96-7144)2.EA)(EA 96-085)(Order Suspen&ng Byproduct Matenal License Nos. 29-09814 01 and 29 09814-02); ENFORCEMENT ACTION; May 10,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Licensee Mouon to Set Aside immedmte Effecuveness)

A Ruhng on a Licensee request to rescind an NRC Staff deternunation to make imnr&ately effective an enforcement order suspendmg two Licensee byproduct matenals licenses, the Licensing Board denies the Licensee's mouon, concluding that for certain bases in the order, the Staff had nrt its burden under 10 C F R. 5 2.202(c)(2Ki) to estabbsh by " adequate evidence" that (1) those charges are not based on " mere suspicion unfounded allegations, or error " and (2) there is a need to make the orar effective imme&ately.

B The movant challenging a Staff deternunation to make an enforcenrat order immediately effective bears the burden of going forward to denxestrate that the order, and the Staffs deternunanon that it is necessary to make the order immediately effective, are not supported by " adequate evidence" witlun the neaning of 10 C.F.R.12.202(c)(2Xi), but the Staff has the ultimate burden of persuasion on whetter this standard has been nrt. See 55 Fed. Reg 27.645, 27.646 (1990L See also St. Joseph Ra& ology Associates.

Inc. (d b.a. St. Joseph Ra& ology Associates, Inc., and Fisher Ra&ological Chnic). LBP-92-34, 36 NRC 317, 321 22 (1992).

C When the character and veracity of the source for a Staff alleganon are in doubt, a presi&ng officer will be unable to credit the source's informauon as sufficiently rehable to provide " adequate evidence" for that alleganon absent sufficient independent cornboraung informanon.

D in considermg whether there is probable cause for an arrest, couns have held that informahon supphed by an idenufied ordinary citir.en witness may be presumed rehable. See, e g., McKmney v.

George. 556 F. Supp. 64% 648 (N.D. !!!.1983) (citing cases), aff*d, 726 F.2d 1l83 (7th Cir.1984). l In deternumng whether there is " adequate evidence" wittun the nramng of 10 C.F R. 5 2 202(cx2Xi) to l support the imme& ate effecuveness of an enforcenent order, applying this presumpuon to a witness who 1 as corroboraung a fanuly member's alleganons may be inappropriate because that relanonship creates a j possible bias that also bnngs the corroboraung witness' rehabihty into substanual question, '

E Under 10 C F R. I 3010fcX2), an intennonal act that a person kmms causes a violation of a heensee I procedure is considered "dehberate nusconduct" acuonable under secuon 30.10(aXI). As a consequence, I an asseruon that a person who created a <kxument contanmng fahe informauon did not intend to nuslead i

the agency (or did not actually nuslead the agency) appears irrelevant Instead, the focus is on whe'her the i person's acuon was a knowmg violanon of a heensee procedure that could have resulted in a regulatory J

violanon by the subnussion to the agency of matenally incomplete or inaccurate information. See 56 fed.

l Reg. 40.664, 40.670 (1991) (statmg that "(flor situauons that do not actually result in a violanon by a 1 hcensee, anyone with the requisite knowledge who engages in deliberate nusconduct as defined in the rule !

has the sequisne intent to act in a :nanner that falls wulun the NRC's area of regulatory concern The fact that the acuan may have been intercepted or corrected pnar to the occunence of an actual violauon has no bearing on whether, from a heahh and safety standpoint, that person should be involved in nuclear activurs ")

F Obsent a showing that provides sone reas<mable cause to believe that, because of bias or nustake, an agency mspector cannot be considered a c. edible obser er inspector's ducet personal observations should !

be credited in ccmsidenng whether alleganons based on those observations are supponed by " adequate evidence" widun the meamng of 10 C.F.R. I 2.202(cx2Xi) hs is based on the accepted presumpoon that :

a government officer can be expected faithfully to execute his or her official dunes See Ututed States v. l Chenucal Foundauon. Inc.,272 U S 1,14-15 (1926) i G Under 10 C F R 6 2.202(cx2Xih to support an immediate effecovenen deternunation for an l enforcenent order, besides showing that the bases for the order are supponed by

adequate evidence," l the StatY must show there is a need for immediate effecuveness that is supported by " adequate evidence" That need can be er.ablished by showmg either that the alleged violauons or the conduct supporung the violanons is willful or that the pubhc health, safety, or interest requires immediate effecoveness.

LBP4610 GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (Georgia Tech Research Reactor. Atlanta. Georgia).

Docket No. 50164Ren ( ASLBP No 95 704-01-RenHRenewalof Facihty license No R 97h OPERATING LICENSE RISiEWAL; May 16. !996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Telephone Conference Call, 5/15/96) 12

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS A in a Memorandum and Order setung furth ruhngs of the Atonne Safety and Licensing Board dunns a telephone conference call on May 15,1996. the Licensing Board granted (with one linuted exception) the NRC Staffs motion to exclude the prepared testimony of Ms. Glenn Carroll. the intervenor's representative.

The Board deternuned that Ms. Carroll lacked personal knowledge of the matters in the tesumony (with one excepuonk as well as experuse to discuss matters in her testimony (which for the most part had been denved from documentary evidence) The Board concluded in this regard that the underlying documents themselves were the "best evidence" of what they stated. The Board ruled that the intervenor could seek to introduce tir underlying documents to ile extent relevant and that the tesumony could ue entered into the record as an opening statenrnt of position, B The Ucensing Board also denied Georgia Tech's motion to bar Ms. Carroll as a witness for any purpor t but granted Georgia Tech's motion to exclude Ms. Carroll's prepared testimony to the same extent as it had excluded this tesumony in response to the Staff monon.

C Prepared testimony may be struck where the witness lacks personal knowledge of the matters in the tesunmny and lackt expertise to interpret facts contained therein.

LBP-%Il EASTERN TESTING AND INSPEGION, INC., Docket Nos. 010-05373-EA. 030-32163-EA (ASLBP No. 4714-02-EA)(EA %085)(Order Suspen&ng Byproduct Matenal Ucense Nos. 29-09814-01 and 29-09814-02); ENFORCEMENT AGION; June it,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Senlearnt Agreement and Dismissing Proceeding)

A Ruhng on a joint request by Ucensee Eastern Testing and Inspection. Inc., and the NRC Staff to approve an agreenent serthng this license suspension enforcement proceeding. the Licensing Board approves the parues' accord and disnusses the case.

B As is true with court proceedmgs reqmnng judicial approval of settienents. see, e g.. Evans v.

Jeff D.,475 U.S. 717,727 (1986); Jeff D. v. Andrus. 899 F.2d 753, 758 (9th Cir.1989); in re Warner Commumcations Sec. Ung.,798 F.2d 35, 37 (2d Cir 1986). a presi&ng of6cer does not have the authonry to revise the parues' settlement agreement without their consent. A presi&ng of6cer thus must accept or reject the settlenunt with the provismns proposed by the paruet C When the parues agree to settle an enforcement proceeding, the Licensmg Board loses junsection over the settlenrot agreement once the Board's approval under 10 CFR. 52.203 becomes Anal agency penon. See Carohna Power and Ught Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Units I, 2 3. and 4),1 CLi-8412.11 NRC 514. 517 (1980); Ptuladelphia Electnc Co (Unenck Generaung Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB-726.17 NRC 755,757 58 (1983). Thereafter, supervisory authonry over such an agreenent rests with the Commission.

LDP %I2 SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION. Docket No. 448027 MLA-3 (ASLBP No.94-700.(M-MLA 3)(Source Matenals License No. SUB 1010); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; June 21, 1996; tNTilAL DECISION (Ucense Anrndment Applicanon)

A in ilus Decision. the Presiding Othcer 6nds that Imervenors fail to prove dc6ciencies in a management reorganizatmn and sustains a Staff issuance of a license anendment for that purpose.

13

i 1

I

I a

I 1

l I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECLSIONS f

DD-961 YANKEE ATOMIC ElI4TRIC (UMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon), Docka No. 50 029 l (Ucense No. DPR-3p; REQUEST FOR ACTION; February 22,1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 3

l 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 ..

{ A The Duector of the OfEm of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies in part and grams in part a pentaan dated January 17, 1996. subrruned to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Otizens Awareness '

Network and New England Coahtion on Nuclear Pollunom (Pensioners), requesting that the NRC take action with respect to Sve activities conducted by Yankee Atomic Electnc Company (YAEC or ucensee) at the l

Yankee Nuclear Power Stance in Rowe, Massachusetts (Yankee Rowe or the facility). The peution was also moot in part. The petition sequests that the NRC comply with Otizens Awareness Network lar, v. -; I Unned Staies Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Yankee Atonne Electnc Co. 59 F.3d 284 (1st Or. -

1995) and imme&ately order: (A) YAEC mot to underuke, and the NRC Staff not to approve, further

~

?

l major dismanthng acovines or other decommissioning acovities. unless such activities are necessary to ensure the protection of occupatmnal and pubhc heahh and safety;(B) YAEC to cease any such activities; '

4 and (C) NRC Regica I to sciaspect Yankee Rowe to deiermise whether there has bece compliance with /

l the Commission's Order in CLJ-95-14,42 NRC 130 (1995), and so issue a repori withim 10 days of the

~

, requested order ao Region L --. --

j B 1he Pentioners' request that shipments of low-level ra&ometive waste be prohibited is demed . ;. E i because that activity is permsssible, prior to approval of a desammissaomng plan, under the pre-1993

~ -~

imerpretauon of the Commission's decomnussioning regulauons. Peuuoners' request that four other 1 l activities be prohibited is enont, ahbough the activities would have bcea pernussible, prior to approval of a ,

j decommissiomng plan, under the pre-1993 interpretanon of the Commissson's decommissioning segulations. -

, Ad&tionally, Peuuoners' request for an inspection of Yankee Rome to deternune comphance with CLI . ,

14 and an inspection seport was granted.

DD-96 2 YANKEE ATOMIC ELE 4TRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) Docket No. 50 j

.. 029; REQUEST ICR ACFION; March 18,1996; SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER -

l 10 C.F.R. I 2.2%

A The Director of the OfSce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a supplemental peution daied

l February 9,1996, Eled with the Nuclear Regmatory Comnussion by Otizens Awareness Network and New ;

i England Coahuon on Nuclear Pollution. The supplemental pennon sequests that the Conunission: (1) reverse the February 2,1996 decinna of the NRC Staff on the emergency aspects of a January 17.1996 '

pention Oed pursuas to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206, and (2) require Yankee Asomic Electric Company to cease a ;

sia unlawful deconunissioning activines and to duect the Staff to cease approving or acqmencing to such I unlawful decomrmssiomns activities. By Order dated February 15. 1996, the Commission dechoed to ., !

severse the February 2,1996 decision of the NRC Staff on the emergency aspects of the January 17.1996 I petition, and duested the NRC Staff so address the arguments advanced by Pentioners at page 13 of the l supplemental pection in a supplememary section 2.206 decision.

l B The Director demed the sequest to prohibit the conduct of sia acovines idenufbed at page 13 of the supplenratal pection because they are pernussible, prior to approval of a decommissioning plart, under a the pre-1993 interpretauon of the NRC's decommissioning regulanons, and thus under Otizens Awareness Network Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Yankee Aromic Electnc Co.,59 F.3d 284 (1st Or.1995).

15 4

1 l

1 i

n

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

DIGESTS ISSUANCFS OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-96-3 All REACTOR LICENSEES WITH INSTALLED THERMO-LAG FIRE BARRIER MATE-RIAL; April 3,1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2.206 A By pennons dated September 26.1994, from the Citizens for Fair Ouhty Regulanon and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service dated October 6,1994, from the Maryland Safe Energy Coahuon, dated October 21,1994, from the GE Stockholders' Albance and Dr. D K. Cmquemani, dated October 25,1994, from the Toledo Coahtion for Safe Energy, dated October 26,1994, from R. Beujan, dated November 14, 1994, from B. DeBolt, and dated Deceneer 8.1994. from the Nucle;s informanon and Resource Service and the Oyster Crec.k Nuclear Watch, Petitioners requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission (NRC) take acnon with regard to the use of Thernn. Lag matenal by reactor hceraces as 6re barners.

Pennoners requested a vanery of accons including imme& ate shutdown of reactors where Thenno-Lag matenal is used.

B In a Director's Decision issued on Apnl 3.1996, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon denied the rehef sought by IVrmoners. With regard to the requested shutdown of operaung facihties usmg Thermo.

Lag matenal, the Director concluded that fire watches pernutted by the NRC requuenents applicable to the facihues in quescon provided reasonable assurance of adequate protecuon of pubhc health and safety. With regard to the semanung issues raised by Petiuorers, the Director concluded that they are being addressed by hcensees ia a manner that ensures adequate protection of pubhc health and safety.

DD-96-4 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station). Docket Nos.

50-528, 54 529, 54 530; REQUEST FOR ACTION, June 3.1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R I2.206 A With the excepuon of granting the request thm the Nuclear Regulatory Comrmssion (NRC) take escalated enforcenent action against the Licemee, Anzona Pubhc Service ( APS) Company, the Director of the Of 6ce of Enforcement demes the requests set forth in the peuunns dated May 12,1993 (as supplemented I on May 28,1993. October 26.1993, and January 15,1994) May 27.1994 (as supplenented on July 8.

1994), and November 14,1994. 6 led by Thomas J. Saponto, Jr., Flonda Energy Consultants. and Linda

{

Mitchell (Prunoners). The Peutioners requested that the NRC (1) ininate a procee&ng pursuant to 10 j

C.F.R 5 2.202 to nuxhfy, suspend, or revoke the Palo Verde operatmg beenses; (2) nunate scuons to ,

imme&ately shut down Palo Verde; (3) issue escalaLd enforcement schon against the Licensee and/or ljcensee managenent personnel; (4) take immediate accons to survey Palo Verde employees to ascertain any chalbng effect and discover any management act.ons effecove in knuting the clulhng effect;(5) issue a notice of violanon to APS for rentinuing to employ The Atlantic Group (TAG) as a labor contractor at Palo Verde; (6) invesugate alleged material false statements made by Wilham F. Conway and reqmre that he be reheved of lus dunes; (7) investigate comments about Mr. Saponto appening in an APS letter dated j August 10. 1993; (8) invesugate the tensnanon of Joseph Straub; (9) imonte a "chilhng-effect letter" to i APS regar&ng Mr. Straub's ternunacon; (10) issue an order requinng APS to bring the Palo Verde units to 0% power unut APS can demonstrate that correcuve actions have been taken to obviate any inference of a hosule work environment at Palo Verde; (11) issue a demand for mformation requesong speci6ed l informanon from APS concenung the work environment at Palo Verde and the effect that the employnent l

of certain named in&viduals has on the work environment and why the NRC should have con 6dence that i the named in&viduals will comply with NRC regulanons; (12) take escalated enforcenent acnon egian:

TAG and any of its employees found to have engaged m wrongdomg; (13) require APS to provide Mr.

)

l Saponto a make-whole remedy for ternunating him and fashng to rehire lum; and (14) require actions by APS to abate and obviate the chilhng s. .ct caused by the failure to provide employee proiccuon for Mr.

Saponto The Director has reviewed the Peutioners' requests and concerns and concluded that the need for further action has not been substantiated The reasons for the partial denial are fully set forth in the Director's Decisum.

DD %-5 PECO ENERGY COMPANY (Peach Bonom Atonne Power Station. Omts 2 and 3). Docket Nos. l 54277,54278, RIQUEST FOR ACTION; June 10,1996, flNAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 i C F R. I 2.2% l A The Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon demes a pecuon dated October 6.1994, ,

Eled by the Maryland Safe Energy Coahuon (Peuuoner). The peunon requests the Nuclear RcFulatory l Comnussion (NRC) to immediately shut down both reactors at Peach Bottom statmg that (1) the nsk of 6re near electneal control cables due to combusuble msulanon could cause a catastrophic mutdown, 16

\

1

r 1

DIGESTS ISSUAh CES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS l

l l (2) cracks were found in the structral support (core shroud) of the reactar fuel in Peach Bortom Umt 3, i indicaung possible cracks in other pm 's of the reactor vessel. (3) de NRC escovered that both reactors had l no enrrgency coolmg water for an hou. on August 3,1994, and (4) other chrome problems exist at Peach Bottom according to an August 16,1994 f(RC report. In adation, the Peuuoner raises a concern about tie lack of an analysis of the synergssac effects of cracks in muluple reactor vessel components. After a review i

of the Prunoner's concerns, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's concerns do not raise substanual l

lealth or safety issues warranung the requeued accons. The reasons for the denial are fully set forth in the Director's Decision.

B Nuclear power reactor hcensees are reqmred by 10 C.F.R. 550.55a to implenent inservice inspecuon programs that nret reqmrenrnis set forth in the Amencan Society of Mechmucal Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Codet The scope of de inservice inspecuan programa for reactor pressure vessels armi thcar internal compotents is presenbed by ASME Code l XI. Division 1, subsecuons IWA and !WB. Ucensees are required by de ASME Code t XI, art. IWA 6000, to submit the results of the inspecuens to the NRC within 90 days of completion.

l DD-96-6 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (In&an Pois, Umts 2 and 3). Docket

! Nos. 54247, 50 286 (Ucense Nos. DPR 26. DPR 641; REQUEST FOR ACTION; June 10, 1996; l DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2206

( A The Director of the Ofhce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes a peution 61ed on May 18,1995, l requesnq that the operaung hcense for Indian Poim Units 2 and 3 be suspended umil the beensees have completed dw acuons requested by Genene tetter 95-03, "Circumferenual Crackmg of Steam Generator Tubes." The Pentioner also requested that the NRC hold a pubhc nreting to explain ses response to this request DD.96-7 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power $iation). Docket No. 54 029 (License No. DPR-3); SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTIUTY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Gerrratmg Station), Docket No. 4312 (Ucense No. DPR 54); PORTLAND GENERAL ELECfRIC COMPANY (Tmjan Nuclear Planta pocket No. 54344 (Ucense No. NPF.1); SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA l EDISON COMPANY (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung Stauon, Unit I), Ducket No. 50 206 (Ucense No.

DPR-13); REQUEST FOR ACTION, June 14.1996; DIRECf 0R'S DECI',10N UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2 206 A The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulaten dernes a peution dated Apnl 1,1996, l

subnuned to the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion by Ciuzens Awareness Network, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and mne other organizatmas. The peuuon requests that the NRC; (1) suspend the

! current plan by Yankee Atonue Electnc Company to :erms, transport, and bury the Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon (or Yankee Rowe) reactor pressure vessel (RPV); (2) reqmre bcensees of Yankee Rowe. Rancho Seco Nuclear Genermung Station. Trojan Nuclear Plant. and San Onofre Nuclear Generatmg Station. Umt 1, who are now developmg plans to remove, transport, and bury their respecove RPVs. to suspend such

( operanons, and (3) require the owners of the four nuclear power plants to present substanual metal and weld j specinros from tirst respecove RPVs to the NRC for analpis in order to study and matenally archive the radianon emhntilenem phenonrnon B The Director demes the petmon because the Peutwners dad not provide sufhcies bases to warrant the suspension of decomnussiomng plans or activmes at the four nuclear power plants, and because sufficient informanon is available to the Siaff to address such radiarmn embnttienent phenomenon in a manner that I protects pubhc health and safety without the issuance of an order.

i DD-96-8 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVIC COMPANY (Palo Verde Nuclear G~neraung Station. Umts I,2.

l and 3), Docket Nos. 54 528. 50 529. 54 530; RWIST FOR ACTION, June 25. 1996; DIRifTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2.206 i A 1he Director of the Ofhce of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon parnally demes a peuuon dated May 1

27,1994, as supplenented on July 8.1994, filed by Thomas J. Saponto. Jr., for himself and on behalf of I'londa Energy Consultants. Inc. (Petsuoners) Specihcally. Peutmners' requests I,2,3,5. and 6. subnutted in the July 8,1994 Supplement, were aJdressed and demed on the basis that the concerns raised have been sausfacionly addressed and do not raise substanual health and safery concerns warranting the requested l action The Peutionen requested that the Nuclear Regulaiory Corrnussion (t)insutute a proceeding pursuant l to 10 C F R.12 206 for the modshcanon, suspension, or revocauon of the Palo Verde operacy heemes for l

Uruts 1. 2 and 3;(2) nuxhfy die Palo Verde operaung beennes to reqmre operauon at 86% power or less; 17 i

l l

l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS (3) reqmre the Ucensee so subnut a no sigmftcant hazards safety analysis to justify operation above 86%

power: (5) require om Ocensee to analyze a design-basis steam generator tube rupture event to show that the offsite radiok>gical consequences do not exceed the knuts of 10 CJ R. Part 100; and (6) require the Licenser to dernonstrate that its emergency operaung procedures for steam generator tube rupture events j are adequate and that the plant operators are suf6ciently trained in the procedures. The renmimng issues

were addressed in the Director's letter dated July 26.1994, acknowledging receipt of the penuon and in a l Directur's Decision (Db964. 43 NRC 309). issued on June 3.1996. The reasons for om parnal dernal are fully set forth in the Director's Decision.

1 1

1 l

r t

l l

l i

1 18 l

l l.

I 1

_ _ -__ ____ _._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - . . _ _ _ - m t

i I

l l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES All Reactor Ucensees with installed Bernu> Lag Fire Barner Mmerial, DD-96 3,43 NRC 183 (1996) ehugation of concerns about fue barrier material; DD %5,43 NRC 324 a.3 (1996)

ATX, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportanon, di F.3d 1522,1527 (D C. Cir.1994) communicanons that violate separanon of functions; CLl%5,43 NRC 57 (1996)

Businen and Professional People for the Pubbs Imerest v. Atomic Energy Conumssion,502 F.2d 424,428 l (D C. Cir.1974)

[ speci6caty seguirement for comemions; CU-96-7,43 NRC 248 n.7 (1996)

CAN v. NRC. 59 F.3d 284, 291-92, 294 (1st Cir.1995) heanng rights on component semoval grier to approval of decommissiomng plan; CLI 96-7, 43 NRC 242 (1996)

Carchna Power and Ught Co. (Shearon Hams Nuclear Power Plant), LBP-85-5, 21 NRC 410,413 (1985) effect of requirenrat for evidentiary support for comentions; CU-96-7. 43 NRC 248 a.7 (1996)

Carohns Power and Ught Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plam, Umts I,2,3, and 4), CU412, il NRC 584,517 (1980) bcensing board junsdiction following approval of settlenes agreenents; LBP-96.ll, 43 NRC 282 n.1 (1996)

Cinzens Awareness Network lac. v. NRC,59 F.3d 284 (1st Car.1995) j esmanthng acuvities prior to approval of decommissierung plan; DD%I,43 NRC 30-49 (1996) y heanns nghts on decomrmssiomag plans; CU%I,43 NRC 5 (1996)

Cleveland Ele-tric Blununaang Co. (Pury Nuclear Power Plam Urus 1), CU-93-21,38 NRC 87,92 (1993) application of judicial concepts of standing in NRC proceedings; LBP41,43 NRC 21 (1996) standing to intervene, showing necessary to estabbsh; CU41,43 NRC 6 (1996)

Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point. Units I,2, amt 3), CU-75-8, 2 NRC 173,176 (1975)

I standard for insatuuon of show.cauce proceedings; DD45,43 NRC 331 (19%); DD-96-8,43 NRC 358 (1996)

, Costle v. Paci6c Legal Foundanon, 445 U.S.198, 204 (1980) i burden on opponem of summary Asposinon motion; CU47,43 NRC 249 n.9 (1996) f Curators of the University of Missouri, CU-95-1, 41 NRC 71,132 a 81 (1995) plea &ng seqmsenrnas for appeals: CU%7,43 NRC 272 (1906)

Dellums v. NRC, 863 F.2d 968, 971 (DC Cir.1988)

I

' stan&ng to intervene, showing necessary to estabhsh; CU41, 43 NRC 6 (1996)

Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-813, 22 NRC 59, 83 (1985) argunents raised for nrst time on appeal; CU%7,43 NRC 260 (1996)

Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environnental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 78-81 (1978) menus requiremem between the injury clairned and the right being assened, CU41,43 NRL 6 (1996)

Evans v. Jeff D.,475 U S 717, 727 (1986) authonry of press &ng of6cer to change settlenent agreenems; LBP%11,43 NRC 282 n.1 (1996)

I 7 19 4

i k

l 1

1 3

4

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Flanda Power and Ught Co- (St. Lucie Nucicar Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CL1-89 21, 30 NRC 325, 329 (1989) standing to intervene, another nonparty persua as basis for; CLI-%1, 43 NRC 6 (1996) stan&ng to intervene on basis of geographic prormuty; LBP-961, 43 NRC 25 (1996) 11onda Power and Ught Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Umts I and 2), CLI-89-21,30 NRC 325, 329-30 (l % 9) j promnuty as basis for standing to intervene; C11%7, 43 NRC 247-48 (1996)

Ge'ieral Pubhc Uubties Nuclear Corp. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generaung Stationk DD-9518. 42 NRC 67 (1995) core shroud cracking, mspecuan pnar to refuchng outage; DD-%5, 43 NRC 324 n.1 (1996)

Georgia insutute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor), CLI-9510, 42 NRC 1, 2 (1995) heensing board responsibihty to develop factual record, CLI-96 7,43 NRC 255 (1996)

Georgia laststute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactork C1195-12, 42 NRC Ill, 115 (1995) showing necessary to denve organizational stan&ng from a meneer; LEP-96-1,43 NRC 22 (1996)

Georgia insutute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactork Cl L95-12, 42 NRC Ill, 116 17 (1995) prounury as basis for stan&ng to intervene; CLI-%7,43 NRC 247-48 (1996) !

Georgia insurate of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor), CLl-95-12,42 NRC 111.117-18 (1995) !

plea &ng requiremems at intervention stage; LBP %2,43 NRC 71 (1996) j Gulf States Uuhues Co. (Raver Bend Station, Unit 1), CLI-94-10. 40 NRC 43,47 (1994) j showing necessary to denn srgamzanonal stan&ng from a member; LBP-%I,43 NRC 22 (1996) '

Gulf States Uuhues Co. (Rsver Bend Station, Uruts I and 2), ALAB-183, 7 ALC 222, 226 (1974) stan&ng to intervene on basis of geographic prourrury; LBP-96-1,43 NRC 25 (1996)

Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U S. 458, 467 (1983) rulemaking as ahernauve to huganon of genene issues; CLI-96-7,43 NRC 251 (1996)

Houston Ughung and Power Co. (Allena Creek Nuclear Generaung Stauon, Urut 1), ALAB-535,9 NRC j 377, 390 % (1979) ;

showing necessary to denve organizational staneng from a number, LBP-%I,43 NRC 22 (1996) '

Houston Ughung and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Station, Unit I), ALAB 565,10 NRC 521, 525 (1979) treatrnent of issues raised in reply nhngs; LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 83 a.17 (1996)

Houston Ughung and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Genermung Stauon, Umt 1), ALAB-582, il NRC i 239, 242 (1980) i arguments raised for first ume on appeal, CLI-96 7. 43 NRC 260 (19%)

Houston Ughung and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Stauon, Uma !), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542 (1980)

{ evidentiary support required for contentions; CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 248 n 7 (1996) i Houston Ughung and Power Co, (South Texas Project, Umts I and 2A ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644, 646-47 '

(1979) arganizauonal stan&ng, basis for; LBP-961,43 NRC 21 (1996)

Houston Ughung and Power Co. (South Texas Project Uruts 1 and 2), ALAB-799, 21 NRC 360, 382 (1985) withdrawal of only adnuited contenoon and &snussal of procce&ng with preju&ce; LBP-96-5,43 NRC 137 (1996)

Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 758 (9th Cir.1989) authonry of presi&ng of6cer to change sentement agreenents, LBP-96 ll,43 NRC 282 n.1 (1996)

Joseph J. Macktat CL1-89-18, 30 NRC 167,169-70 (1959) authonty of Comnussioners to decide recusal motions for themselves, CLI-945,43 NRC 57 (1996) 1 Kelley v. Scha, 42 F.3d 1501,1506 (6th Cir.1995) mjuryan-fact standard for intervenoon in NRC procecengs; LBP 96-1, 43 NRC 21 (1996)

Kelley v. Schu, 42 F 3d 1501,1513,1518-20 (6th Car ), cert. denied.115 S. Ct. 2611 (1995) acceptahihty of agency rehance on pnor deternunations; CLt-96-7. 43 NRC 251 (1996) resoluuon of genene is.ucs by rulemaking rather than case-by-case hugauon; CLI-96 7, 43 NRC 277 (1996) 20 l

~ . . . -

. LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX J

CASES l

Umcrwk Lcology Achon v NRC, 869 F 2d 719,739 (3d Cir.1989) rule of reason in consideranon of accident nsks; LBP%2,43 NRC 89 (1996) '

lang bland Ughung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon, Unit 1), ALAB432,23 NRC 13$ 141 .

(1986) rights of prevaihng party to defend ulumate resulin reached by a board; CLI-%7, 43 NRC 247 n 6 (1996)

, l.mng i land Ughung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stauon, Umt I), CLI-90 8, 32 NRC 201, 207 n.3 (1990) actions that '" materially and demonstrably" affect decomnussiomng opuons or "substannally increase" decomnussiomog costs; CUN6, 43 NRC 129 (1996) scope of activities pnar to decomnussiomng plan approval; DD41, 43 NRC 36 (1996), DDN2, .

43 NRC 113 (1996) long bland bghting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon Uma 1), CLI-912. 33 NRC 61,73 a 5 (1991) actatues that consurute deconumsswmng; CU-96-6,43 NRC 129 (1996) scope of activines pnar to decomnussiomng plan approval; DD-96-1, 43 NRC 36 (1996); DDN2.

l 43 NRC 113 (1996) long Island Ughung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon, Utut 1). CLI-918,33 NRC 461,468 69 (1991) 4 state's right to 61e peutson for review; CU43,43 NRC 17 (1996)

Long Island Ughung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Umt 3), CLI-91-g, 33 NRC 461,471 (1991) scope of acovines pnar to decomnussiorung plan approval; DD-96-1,43 NRC 43 (1996)

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildhfe, 5M US 555, 560 61,112 S. Ct. 2130. 2136 (1992) injury in-fact standard for imervennon in NRC procee&ngs; LBPWI,43 NRC 21 (1996) standing to intervene, showing necessary to establish; CLI%l,43 NRC 6 (1996)

Marun v. OSHRC,499 U S.144.156 57 (1991) agency procuce as inacator of how an agency imerprets its regulauons; CLI-96-6. 43 NRC 129 ;

(1996)

McKmney v. George, 556 F. Supp. 645, 648 (N D. III.1983), aff'd. 726 F.2d !!83 (7th Car.1984) schabshty of fanaly members as witnesses; LBP-%9,43 NRC 221 (1996)

Misssssappi Power and Ught Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stanon Umts i and 2), AIAB-130,6 AEC 423, 426 (1973) evidenuary support required for comennons: CLIN 7,43 NRC 248 a 7 (19961 M6ssissipps Power and bght Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Statmn, Umts I and 2) LBP 73-41,6 ALC 1057 (1973) withdrawal of contenuons without prejudice, LBP45,43 NRC 136 (1996)

Mississippi Power and Ught Co. v. Mississippa, 487 U.S 354. 3474 (1988) recovery of operaung expenses through FERC-mandated wholesale rates to retail customers, CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 267 (1996) l Nuclear Informatmn and Resource Service v. NRC, %9 F 2J 1169,1174-77 (D C. Cir.1992) '

rulemaking u alternauve to huganon of genene issues, CLI-96 7, 43 NRC 251 (1996) l Oluo Csurens for Responsible Energy. DPRM-88-4, 28 NRC 411 (1988) l nsk posed by noncomphance with one regulauon, DDh3. 43 NRC 195 (1996) i Pacihe Gas and llectric Co (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Ulurs I and 2). Al.AB-583,11 NRC 1 447, 448 49 (1980) asate's nght to file petmon for review; CLl 96-3, 43 NRC 17 (1996)

Pacs 6c Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Uruts I and 2), ALAB-644.13 NRC 903, 937 (1981) status of regulatory guides; LBP47,43 NRC ist (1996)

Pacshc Gas and Electnc Co. (TAablo Canyon Nuclear lower Plant. Umts i and 2), ALAB-763,19 NRC 571, 577 (1984) burden un appheant in matenals beense proceeding, LBP-96 7. 43 NRC 144 (1996)

I 21 l l

l l

1

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

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Paci6c Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Umts i and 2), LDP 92-27, 36 NRC 1 %, 199 (1992) af6 davit requirenrnt to estabbsh representational standing; LBP.96-1,43 NRC 23 (1996) showing necessary to denve orgamzauonal standing from a member; LBP 961,43 NRC 23 (1996) itter Kiewer Sons' Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engurers, 714 F.2d 163,170 71 (D C. Cir.1983) communicanons that violate separation of funcuons; CLI-96-5, 43 NRC 57 (1996)

Ptoladelphia Electric Co. (Umenck Generarmg Stauon. Units I and 2), ALAB-726,17 NRC 755,757-58 (1983) beensmg board junsdiccon followmg approval of settlement agreements; LBP-96-II,43 NRC 282 n.1 (1996)

Plutadelphia Electne Co. (Urrenck Generating Sianon. Umts I and 2), ALAB 819, 22 NRC 681,720 I (1985) burden on apphcant in matenals heense proceeding; LBP-96-7,43 NRC 144 (1996) l Portland General Elecinc Co. (Febble Spnngs Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2), CU-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 61a (1976) {

escreuonary grant of standmg to intervene; LBP-96-1,43 NRC 26 (1996)

Power Reactor Development Co. v. Internanonal Umon, 367 U.S. 3%, 408 (1961) agency praeuce as mdicator of how an agency interprets its regulations; CU-96-6,43 NRC 129 (1996)

Press Broadcasung Co., Inc. v. FCC, 59 F.3d 1365,1369 (D C, Cir,1995) commurucanons that vmlate separauon of funcuans; CU 96-5, 43 NRC 57 (1996)

Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampsture (Seabrook Starmn, Umts I and 2), ALAB-942, 32 NRC 395, 414 (1990)

Lugable contenuous faulung decomrmasiomng plan for a de6ciency in content; LBP-%2,43 NRC 76 (1996)

Pubhc Service Co. of New Hangshire (Seabrook Staiion, Units I and 2), LBP.76-4, 3 NRC 123 (1976);

ALAB-949, 33 NRC 484, 485 (1991) pleading standards for counsel famahar with NRC requirements; LBP 961, 43 NRC 24 (1996)

Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma (Slack Fez Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-573,10 NRC 775. 786-87 (1979) pleading reqmrements for appeals, CU-96 7, 43 NRC 272 (1996)

Pubbe Service Lketne and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generaung Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB-136, 6 AEC 487,489 (1973) evidenuary support reqwred :ct contenuons; CL! 96 7, 43 NRC 248 n 7 (1996)

Puerto Rico Electnc Power kuthonty (Nonh Coast Nuclear Power Plant Urut I), ALAB-648,14 NRC 34, 37 (1981) argunents raised for Srst time on appeal; CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 260 (1996)

Sacranento Mumcipal Vuhry Distnet (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Station), CLI-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 61 (1992) housekeepmg stays to facihtate orderly judicial review; CLI-96 5, 43 NRC 60 (1996)

Sacramento Mumcipal Vuhry Distnct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 61 n.7 (1992) actmues that consutute decommissiomng: CLl46, 43 NRC 129 (1996) i decomnusuotung acuvines pernuned pnor to approval of decomnussiomng; DD-961,43 NRC 36 (1996), DDw2, 43 NRC 113 (1996) l Sacramento Mumcipal Uuhty Distnet (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stanon), CLl-93-3, 37 NRC 135, 152 (1993) .

discrenon of Comnussion to issue stays; CU-96 5. 43 NRC 60 (1996) l Sacramenio Mumeipal Vuhty Distnet (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generarug Station), CU-93-3, 37 NRC 135, 142 (1993) standad for rejecuan of contenuons; CLl%7,43 NRC 249 (1996) l 22 i

I i

l 1

i l

1 l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES t

l Sacranrmo Murucipal Unhty District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung ENion), CLI-93-3, 37 NRC 135, l 145-46 (1993) rejecuan of contenuons in a decomtrussemos procee&ng as too speculauve; CLI 96-7,43 NRC 267 l (1996) l Sacramemo Mumcipal Vuhty Distnct fRancho Seca Nuclear Generaung Stanon), LBP-93-23, 38 NRC 200, l 246 (1993) l approval process for change from spent fuel storage to dry cask storage; LBP-%2,43 NRC 79 i (1996) i SEC v. levine 881 F.2d 1165,1180 (2d Cir.1989)

[ changes in settlemem agreemesas following court approval; LBP-96 II,43 NRC 282 n.1 (1996)

Sequoyah Fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-9412, 40 NRC 64, 71-72 (1994) showing necessary to denve orgamzational standing from a nrmber: LBP-%I, 43 NTC 22 (1996)

Sierra Club v Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 740 a 15 (1972) apphcanon of test of mjury-in-fact to the quesuon of standing; CLI-96-1,43 NRC 6 (1996)

St 30seph Ra& ology Associates, Inc. (d.b a St. Joseph Ra& ology Associates, Ine , and Fisher Raeological Chnic) LBP-92-34, 36 NRC 317, 32122 (1992) i Staff burden in estabhshmg adequate evidence for immediate effectiveness of enforcernent order; l LBP-96-9,43 NRC 216 (1996)

Statement of Pobey on the Conduct of licensing Procce&ngs, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452, 454 (1981) j errrbness of affidavits showing represemmional stan&n ;; LBP-%I,43 NRC 24 (1996)

Umon of Concerned Scienusts v. NRC,920 F.2d 50,5152 (D C Cir.1990) spec 6 city requirements for intervenuon peouons; CLI-%7,43 NRC 248 (1996)

Umted States v. Chenucal Foundauon, Inc., 272 U.S. I,14-15 (1926) weight given to NRC inspector's observanons; LBP-96-9, 43 NRC 225 n.9 fl996)

Umted States v. Hill, 500 F.2d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1974) adequate evidence test for im ne&atc effeuiveness of enforcement orders; LDP-%9, 43 NRC 215 (1996)

Umled States Bancorp Corp. v. Bonner Mall Partnerslup,115 S. Ct. 386 (1994) effect of voluntary settlemeia on claims to vacatur; CLI-%2,43 NRC 14 (1996)

Vermont Yansee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Staion), ALAB-919, 30 NRC 29, 44-47 (1989), remanded for ad&uonal 6ndings, CLI-90 4, 31 NRC 333 (1990) hugabihty of accident scenanos in decommissiomng proceedings; LBP-96 2, 43 NRC 90 (1996)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRC, 435 U.S 519, 554 (1978) burden on opponent of summary &sposmon monon; CLI-%7, 43 NRC 249 n.9 (1996) i Virgima Electne and Power Co. (North Anna Power Stanon, Umts I and 2), A1AB-522, 9 NRC $4, 56 l

(1979) rmnar pubhc exposure as basis for adtmssmn of contention contesung decomm,ssiomng acuvines; CLI.47, 43 NRC 247 (1996)

! stan&ng to inservene in decommissioning proceceng on basis of geographic prominury LBP-%I,43 l NRC 25 (1996); LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 70 (1996) l Warner Communicauens Sec. laug , 798 F 2d 35, 37 (2d Cir 1986) I i

authoney of presi&ng of6cer to change settienent agreements, LBP 96-il, 43 NRC 282 n.1 (1996)

Warth v. Selen 422 U.S 490, 511 (1975) orgamzational standmg, basis for; LBP-961, 43 NRC 21 (1996) i Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD-84-7,19 NRC 899,923 (1984) standard for insutunon of show cause proceedings; DD %5,43 NRC 331 (1996h DD-96-8,43 NRC 358 (1996)

Western Industnal X-Ray inspectmn Co., LBP-95-22, 42 NRC 205, 21213 (1995) finahey of settlenrnt agreerrent followmg Comnussmo sua sponte review; LBP-411, 43 NRC 282 aI(1996)

Wilderness Society v. Griles, 824 F.2d 4.11 (D C. Cir.1987) injury-in-fact standard for mierventmn in NRC procce&ngs; LBP-%), 43 NRC 21 (19%)

23 l

l

1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Yankee Atomic Electnc Co- (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon). CLI-95-14,42 NRC 130 (1995) hearing rights on decomnnssiomng plans; CLI41,43 NRC 5 0996): CLI-%7. 43 NRC 242 0 996)

Yankee Atonne Elecinc Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Stati m), CL1-95-14. 42 NRC 130,136 (1995) deconmussiomng activities pnor to approval of decomnussioning plan; CLI-96-6,43 NRC 127 (1996) l

)

i I

24

i i -

4

)

s i

i t

I i

I f

1 1

1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CFA i 12(d)

OIG invesagation of separation of fuocoons violation; CU-%5,43 NRC 57 (1996) 10 CIA 2.104(d) apphcabihty to source material bcenses; MP %I2,43 NRC 304 (1996) j 10 CIA 2.104(dX3)

authority to issueskeness; LBP-9612,43 NRC 304 (1996) 2 10 CfA 2202 i

oral argumens following reo gt of writica submissions; IEP-49,43 NRC 229 (1996) 10 CfA 2.202(aX5) /

) effectiveness of enforcement orders; LBP-%9,43 NRC 215 (1996) I t

evidena ao support Staff claim of dehberate misconduct by bcensee; LBP-96-9,43 NRC 227 (1996) 10 CfA 2.202(b) 7-i answers to allegations in Staff enforcement order; 2P %9,43 NRC 214 n.1 (1996) /

t challenges to immtdate effectiveness of license suspensions: OP-96-il,43 NRC 280 (1996) d I 10 CIA 2202(cX2Xi) s ;

adequate evidence test for immediate effectiveness of enforcement orders; LBP-%9,43 NRC 221,226 (1996)

? _

appeals of immediate effecoveness of enfweement orders; LBP-96-9,43 NRC 215 (1996) _

challenges to immediate effectiveness of bcense suspensions; 2P-Ell,43 NRC 280 (1996) 10 Cf A 2203 7 licensing board jurisdiction following approval of settlement agreements; IEP %II,43 NRC 282 n.1 ;

(1996) bcensing board review of settlement agreements; GP-96 3,43 NRC 94 (1996); LBP-96-4,43 NRC 102 (1996) scope of Conunission sua sponte review of settlemem agreements; GP-96-il,43 NRC 283 n.1 (1996) 10 CfA 2.206 '

core shroud cracking, request for action on; DD 96-5,43 NRC 323-32 (1996) craciang of steam generator tubes, request fa license suspension pending cornpleuon of actions requested by genene letter; DD 96 6. 43 NRC 333-37 (1996) dismanthng activities prior to approval of decomnussioning plan: DD-96-1,43 NRC 30 49 (1996) forum for contesting procedural irregulannes in managernent reorganization; LBP-96-12,43 NRC 306 I (1996) forum for htigaung alleged violations of regulations; LBP-942, 43 NRC 85 (1996) forum for requesung enforcement action; CLI-%7,43 NRC 269 (1996) bosole wwk environment at Palo Verde, request for action on; DD %4,43 NkC 310-21 (1996) removal, transport, and burial of reactor pressure vessel; DD-96-7. 43 NRC 338-43 (1996) _.

steam generact sube rupture concerns; DD-96-8,43 NRC 345-58 (1996)

Thermo-Lag as fire bamer material, request for action on use of; DD-%3,43 NRC 184-210 (1996) i 10 CIA 2.206(cXI) l Comnussion authonry to review Director's Decisions; CLi-964. 43 NRC 126.128 (1996)

{ 10 Cf.R. 2.206(cX2) j appeals of Director's Decisions; CLI-96-6, 43 NRC 127-28 (1996) i t

4 i

l l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CF R 2.714 burden of going forward on contemions; CLI.%7,43 NRC 262 (1996) showmg necessary for intervenuon on decomnussiorung plans; CLI-96-1,43 NRC 5 (1996) spec 6 city requireness for intervenoon pennons; CLI-%7,43 NRC 248 (1996) l 10 Cf.R. 2.714a) j standard for reinsutunon of intervention; 2P-96 5,43 NRC 137 (1996) l treatment of issues raised in reply 6Lngs; LBP-96 2,43 NRC 83 n.17 (1996) i 10 C F R. 2.714(agl) standard for admission of late-filed comentions; CLI-96 7. 43 NRC 255 (1996) l 10 C F.R. 2.714a)(lXiHv) critena to be addressed for arguments raised for Arst time on appeal, CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 260 (1996) 10 CJ R 2.71*aK3) tinwhness of amendnem of intervention pennon; LBP-%I,43 NRC 24 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(bXI) argunents raised for hrst ome on appeal; CLI.%7,43 NRC 260 (1996) supplenent to intervenuon peutions; CLI-%7, 43 NRC 255 n.15 (1996) 10 CJ R. 2.714bX2) l pleading requirenrnts for contentions; CL1-%7,43 NRC 24849 (1996) 10 CJ R. 2 714bX2XiiMau) pleading reqmreness for contenuons; LBP 96-2,43 NRC 70 (1996) 10 Cf R. 2.714(bX2Xin) rejecuan of comennons; CLI-%7,43 NRC 246 (1996) 10 Cf R. 2.714dx2) pleading requirements for contenuons; CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 248 (1996) j 10 Cl' R. 2.714dX2XiHii) l rejection of contemions; CLI-E7,43 NRC 246 (1996) l 10 Cf.R. 2.714dX2Xii) amendnrnt of contenuons based on apphcant's environmental report; CLI-96 7,43 NRC 249 a 8 (1996)

I langabihty of contention that, even af proven, would not enutie peutioner to relief; LBP-96-2, 43 NRC l 78, 91 92 (1996) stadard for rejecuon of contentions; CLI-96 7, 43 NRC 249 (1996) 10 Cf R. 2.7143) limits en an intervenor's parucipauon in a proceeding; CLI-961, 43 NRC 6 n.3 (1996) l 10 C F.R. 2.714afa) appeals of &snussals of comennons; CLI-96-5, 43 NRC 59 (1996) 10 C F R. 2.715te) review of heensing board approval of settlenem agreenrm; CLI-96-3,43 NRC 17 (1996) 10 C F R. 2.715(d) state's right to hie pection for review; CLI-96-3, 43 NRC 17 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.720(h):1) subpwna of inevidual NRC Staff witnesses; LBP-96-8. 43 NRC 180 (1996) 10 CE R. 2 720(hX2) heensing board authonty to subpoena indr4 tual NRC Staff witnesses LBP-96 8, 43 NRC 180 (1996) 10 C F R. 2.732 burden of proof in nwenals license proceedings LBP-96-7, 43 NRC 144 (1996) burden of proof of comphance with decomnussioning funang regulanons; CLI-96-7,43 NRC 259 (1996) 10 Cf R. 2.743(c)

( fonnat for prenled w:itten tesurnony; LBP-96-10,43 NRC 233 (1996) 10 C F R. 2.74)(i) official nonce of pubhcly available documents; CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 261 n 21 (1996) 10 C F R. 2 758 dismissal of challenFes to regulanons LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 89 a 29 (1996) l l

26

o LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 2.760 Anahty of parnal imtial decision; LBP 96-7. 43 NRC 176 (1996) 10 Cf R. 2.780(aHc) distincuon between en parte comnmaications and corrumtucations in violarma of separation of functions; CU-96 5,43 NRC 56 a2 (1996) 10 Cf R. 2.781(a) violanon of separation of functions restrictions; CLI-96 5. 43 NRC 55, 56 n2 (1996), CLI-96 7, 43 NRC 243 n)(1996) I 10 Cf R.1781(c) disposinon of communicamn violaung separauon of funcuans; CU-96-5, 43 NRC 55 (1996); CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 245 n.3 (1996) 10 CF.R. 2.786 peutions for review of initial decision; LBP 96-12,43 NRC 307 (1996) j review of partial imoal decismos; LBP 96-7. 43 NRC 376 (1996) i scope of Comnussion sua sponte review of settlement agreemems; LEP-%II,43 NRC 283 n.1 (1996) I 10 Cf R. 2.786(b) i review of order graming summary disposioon; CLL%4. 43 NRC 51 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(bX2H3) peuuons for review of partial imtial decisions; LBP.%7,43 NRC 177 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(bX4) appeals of parual imual decisions; l.BP %7, 43 NRC 176 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(d) paracipanon by interested state as anucus cunae; CLI-96 3. 43 NRC 17 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.788 need to address traeuonal factors in escrenonary grant of stay; CLI-96-5, 43 NRC 60 a7 (1996) 10 CE R. 2.790idXI) protection of exlubits containing propnetary informauon; LBP-96-7,43 NRC 167 (1996) 10 Cf R Part 2, Subpart L urrsng of heanngs on matenal license amendment requests: LBP %i2, 43 NRC 305 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.1201(a) heanngs on matenals beense amendnrats; LBP-96-12, 43 NRC 291 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(a) I heanns nghts on matenals bcense amendurnts; LBP 96-12,43 NRC 292 (1996) I 10 C F R. 2.1205(aXI) J hear'ng nghts on rna:enals hcense anendnrnts; LBP-9612,43 NRC 305 (1996) 10 C F R. 2.1205(cx2) turung of tranngs on matenal license amendment requests; LBP-96-12,43 NRC 305, 306 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(dW3) hogab!e issues in matenals bcense enrndment pror.ahna s; LBP-9t,12, 43 NRC 292 (1996) 10 Cf R. 2.1205(g) heensing board authonty to deternune scop of heigable issues in matenals beense amendment proceeeng; LBP-96-12, 43 NRC 292 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(jX3) intersennon peuuons for rnaienals hcense amendnent procceengs; LBP-96-12,43 NRC 292 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(1)

Staff authonry to act on matenals hcense anendnent apphcation; LBP-96-12,43 NRC 304 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(m) con &uons or knuts on parucipauon in matenals hcense amendment proceedings; LBP-96-12, 43 NRC 292 (1996) 10 Cf R. 2.1209(a) authonty of presieng officer to regulate the course of a proceeding; LDP-9612,43 NRC 292 (19%)

10 Cf.R. 2.1231 NRC Staff participauon in informal procceengs, LBP.96-12. 43 NRC 291 (1996) 27 1

i l

l I

1 I

]

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'1ATIONS l

10 Cf.R. 2.1258 6nahiy of imoal decision; LDP-El2,43 NRC 307 (1996) 10 CJ R. Part 20 j esposure hnuts dunng decomnussioning; Cij-%6,43 NRC 128 (1996) '

exposure nsks resulung from inadequate personnel traimng; LBP-%9,43 NRC 228 (1996) 10 C F R. 20.l(c) apphcabihty of ALARA to decomnussiomng; CLI-%1, 43 NRC 7 a.4 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 20.1003 appbcation of ALARA to decommissiomng; CLI-%7,43 NRC 251 n.10 (1996) l cost consideranons in actueving ALARA standard. CLI-%I,43 NRC 8 (1996) I de6mtion of ALARA: CL1-96-7, 43 NRC 249 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 201101 l ALARA requirements for decommissiomag; CL1-%7, 43 NRC 243, 249-55, 268 (1996) applicabihty of ALARA to decomnussiomag; CL1-%1, 43 NRC 7 (1996); IBP 96-2,43 NRC 71 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 20.110l(b) burden on Licensee to adiieve ALARA standard; CLI.%7,43 NRC 249 (1996) dose-saving alternauves, requirement for heenwes to use; CLI-947,43 NRC 250 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 20.2102(ax2) radiacon program content and implementauon of audit records; LBP-96-9,43 NRC 217 (1996) 10 C F.R. 20.2106(c) completeness of dosirnetry records; LEP-96-9. 43 NRC 217 (1996) 10 Cf.R. Part 25 imervenor access to classi6ed matenal on matenal control and accounung at uranium enrichment facihues; LBP-47,43 NRC 168 (1996) 10 CF.R. 30 9 false ceruncahon of radiographer as vmlation of; LSP-96 9. 43 NRC 216, 221-22, 226 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 309(a) {

incomplete and inaccurate training information; LEP-96 9, 43 NRC 223 (1996) '

violation of LDP 96-9,43 NRC 221 a 5 (1996) 10 Cf R. M9(c) violanon of; LBP-49, 43 NRC 222 n 5 (1996) 10 CF.R. 3010 accountabihty of independent auditors; LBP-96-II, 43 NRC 286 (1996) false cerancanon of radiographer as violauon of; LBP 96-9, di NRC 216, 22122, 226 (1996) l 10 Cf.R. 30.10(b) misleaang certifranon of radmgrapher traimng and expenence; LBP-96-9,43 NRC 223 (t996) 10 C F.R. M10taWI) penalty for debberate nusconduct; LBP-96 9, 43 NRC 224 (1996) 10 C F R. M10(aX2) nusleading cen 6 cation of radmgrapher training and expenence; LBP 96-9, 43 NRC 223,224 a.8 (1996) 10 CF R. M10(cM2, dehberate nusconduct; LBP-%9, 43 NRC 224 (1996) 10 Cf.R. M33-standards for materials beenxe apphcanons; LBP-96 7, 43 NRC 144 (1996)

10 C F R. M34(c) radioacove matenals shipment prior to decommissioning plan approval, DD-%I, 43 NRC 46 (1996) 10 CF R Part 34 tesung of employees perfarnung NRC licensed acovmes; LBP 96-il,43 NRC 285 (1996) 10 C F R. 34 2 correlauon between radmgrapher's assistant and ra&ographer; LDP-96-9,43 NRC 223 n.7 (1996) 10 C F R. 34.24 cahbration of survey neters and associated docurrentauon; LBP-%9. 43 NRC 217 (1996) 28 l

l l

1

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C F.R. 34 27 future to complete utihzauon records; LDP-96-9, 43 NRC 2!7 (1996) 10 CIA 34.31 l unquah6ed and untnuned employee thrected to perform radiography; LBP-%9, 43 NRC 216 (1996)

! 10 CTR. 3431(b) instruccon requirements for radiographers; LBP-%9, 43 NRC 217 (1996) 10 Cf R. 34.33(a) rezeroing of pocket dosinrters; LBP 49. 43 NRC 217 (1996) 10 Cf R. 34 43(b) postexposure surveys of sealed sources; LBP-96-9, 43 NRC 217, 224 (1996)

CJ R. 34 44 wntien nou6 cation to employees of requirenrnts of; LBP-Elf,43 NRC 287 (1996)

( .0 CJ R. 40.3

authonty to inue hcenses; LBP 9612,43 NRC 304 (1996) 10 Cf R. 40.310) content of emergency plans for special nuclear materials beensees; LDP 96 7,43 NRC 145 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 40.3lyM3Xs) site fearures to be included in energency plans for uranium enrichment facihties; LBP-%7, 43 NRC 148-50 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 40 310)(3Xii) types of accidents considered in errrrgency plans for uranium ennchment facihties; LBP-%7,43 NRC 152 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 40.310X3Xv) nutigaung actsons to be included in emergency plans for uramum enrichnent facahnes; LBP-%7, 43 NRC 153,162 (1996) l 10 Cf.R. 40.310X3)(vii) emergency responsatuliues of hcensee employees at uramum ennchrnent facshaies; LBP-%7,43 NRC 156, 159 (1996) 10 C F.R. 40.31GX3xviii) nou6 cation of authannes of enrrgency at uramum ennchment facthry; LBP-%7,43 NRC 154,155, 159. 163 (1996) 10 CfR 403thX3Xs) i tramng of stuft personnel to handle emergency situations at uramum enrichmem facihty; LBP-96-7,43 !

NRC 156 (1996) 10 CJ R. 40.310X3xxi) postacektrot restoration of uramum ennchnrnt facihties to a safe condition; LBP-%7,43 NRC 162 (1996) 10 CJ R. 40 32 standards for matenals bcense apphcanons, LBP 96-7,43 NRC 144 (1996) 10 C.F R. 40.32(c) emergency planung requnenrus for faahues possessing and 2 sing special nuclear matenals as source and byproduct matenal. LBP-96-7, 43 NRC 145 (1996) 10 C F R. 40.41 part-urne versus full-time posmons for complenon of decomnussiomng as violanon of, LBP-9612. 43 NRC 298, 299 (1996) 10 C F.R. 40.41(c) radioacuve matenals shipment pnor to decomnussioning plan approval, DD-961,43 NRC 46 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 4042 i time and efficiency consideranons in agency evaluation of decomrmasiomog plans. LBP-9612,43 NRC 297 (1996) 10 C F.R. 40 42(fM4Kiv) deadhne for compleuon of decommissiomag; LBP-W12,41 NRC 296. 299 (1996) 29 i

h l

f f

l l

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'IATIONS 10 C F R. 40 42(g)(4) and (h) proposed management reorgamzation as violauon of; LBP-%12, 43 NRC 299 (1996) 10 CF.R. 50.7 penalty for denial of employnrat for engaging in protected acoviues; DD-96-4, 43 NRC 315 (1996) 10 CF.R 50 36(c)(2) ,

fire watches as compensation for use of inadequate hre barrier material; DD-%3, 43 NRC 1% (1996) '

l 10 C.F R. 50.48 satisfacuon of 6re prosecuon requirenents with Thernplag; DD-96-3. 43 NRC 198, 200 (1996) I 10 CF.R. 50.55a inservice inspecuan of reactor vessel compcmems; DD-96 5, 43 NRC 325 (1996) 10 C F R. 50 55afgx3) reporung of inservice inspecuan acuvines; DD-%5,43 NRC 327 (1996) i 10 CF.R. 50 59 i decomnussiomng acuvines pernutted prior to approval of decommissiomng plan; CLI-%6, 43 NRC 128 (1996); DD-%), 43 NRC 31, 33, 35. 42 (1996) 10 C F.R. 50 59(c) amendnunt of technical specincauons; LBP 96 2, 43 NRC 80 (1996) 10 CF.R. 50 61 l momeonng reactor pressure vessel embr niement; DD-%7, 43 NRC 340 (1996) j 10 C F.R. 50.72 violanon of; DD-96-8. 43 NRC 356 n.26 (1996) 10 C.F R. 50.75(c) n,1 removal and disposal of spent fuel as a decomnussioning acuvity; LBP-96 2. 43 NRC 77 (1996) !

10 CF.R. 50.75(e) assurance of funding for decommissiomng plans that include onsite storage; CLI-%7,43 NRC 258

! (1996)

! 10 CF,R. 5075(ex1)tii) i decomnussionmg funding arrangenents; C I-%7,43 NRC 261 (1996) I 10 CF.R. 50.81 '

l creditor interests in uramum enrichment facabues; LBP 96-7,43 NRC 144 (1996) l 10 CF R. 50 82

]

l challenges to apphcam's choice of decomminioning opuons; CLI-96-1,43 NRC 7 (IN) conduct of dnomnussiomng acovities pnor to 6nal approval of decomnussiomns plans; CLI-96-7,43 l NRC 241 (1996) 10 CF R. 50 82(a) l decomnussioning funding arrangenrms for prematurely shutdown reactors; CLI.96-7,43 NRC 262 l (1996) 10 C.F.R. 50.82(bki) and (2) content of decomnussiomng plans; CLI-96 7, 43 NRC 244, 256-58 (1996) decommissioning plans, contem of; C11961, 43 NRC 7 n 4 (1996); LBP 96-2. 43 NRC 73, 74-75 (1996) l 10 CF R. 50 82(bMI)ti) j acceptahnhty of ahernanve means of deconumssioning plan, CLI 96-1, 43 NRC 7 a.4 (1996); LBP-96 2 - '

43 NRC 73 n6 (1996) choses of decomnussionsg ahernanves; CLl 06-7. 43 NRC 251 (1996) 10 CER. 50 82(bH4) decomnussiomng costs, reasonableness of. CLI-961, 43 NRC 9 (1996); LBP-96-2. 43 NRC 75, 80 (1996) decomnussiomng funding reqmrements; CL1-96 7, 43 NRC 244. 258-6' (1996) 10 C F R. 50 82(c) decomnussiotung funding reqmrements, CLI-96 7. 43 NRC 244, 258-67 (1996); LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 80 (1996) i i

30 !

I I

I t

LEGAI.. CITATIONS INDEX REGl'LATIONS 10 C F.R. 50.82(d) detal required in decomnussiorung plans if there is a delay in a major dismantlement activity; LDP-96-2, 43 NRC 79 (1996) 10 C F R. 50.82(e)

ALARA standard apphed to decomnussiomag: CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 250 (1996) notice of beanng on deconussioning plan; CLI-%7,43 NRC 243 (1996) 10 C.F R 50 82(f)

Commission pohey on decomnusseomng: LBP %2,43 NRC 73 n 6 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 50.85(c)(1) assurance of funding for decomnussiomng plans that include onsite storage; CLI-%7,43 NRC 258 (1996) 10 C F R. 50.85(c)(2) inclusion of cost adjustments in decomnussiomng plans; CLI-%7,43 NRC 258 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 50 91 requirenrat for no sigruficant hazards considerauon analysis for bcense amendurnt DD-96-8. 43 NRC 346 n.1 (1996) 10 CJ R. 50.92 standard for deternumng no sigm6 cant hazards; DD %8, 43 NRC 346 a.1 (1996) 10 C F R. Part 50, Appendts A violarma by use of Thernplag as 6te barner: DD 96-3. 43 NRC 187 (1996) 10 C F R. Part 50, Appendia A GDC 3 sausfacnon of 6re protecuon requirements for operating nuclear power plants; DD 96-3, 43 NRC 198-200 (1996) 10 C.F R. Part 50, Appendis A GDC 14,15, 30. and 31 reqmrements for steam generator tube macgnty; DD-96-8, 43 NRC 356 n.25 (1996) 10 CF R. Part 50, Appendia E emergency classi6 canon levels for steam generator tube rupture event; DD-48,43 NRC 348 (1996) 10 C F R. Part 50. Appendia H morutonng reactor pressure vessel embrittlement; DD %7,43 NRC 340 r1996) 10 C F.R. Part 50, Appendia R failure to report test results on combusubihry of Thernelag as Are barrier enaienal. DDL%3,43 NRC 205 (1996) violanon by use of Thernplag as fire barner; DD-96 3, 43 NRC 187 (1996) 10 C F R Part 50, Appendia R, IlliG Thermo-Lag as a 6te barner matenal. DD-%), 43 NRC 195,198-201 (1996) 10 Cf R Part 51 standards for matenals hcense applicanons LBP-47,43 NRC 144 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 51.23(a) acceptable penod for use of any comtunation of wet and dry fuel safe storage methods; LBP 96-2,43 NRC 77 (1996) safe-storage penod for spent fuel, LBP-96 2, 43 NRC 78 (1996) 10 C F R, 51.71(d) carly site release, consideranons in; CLl%7,43 NRC 274 (1996) 10 C.F R. 51.92 standard for issmng a supplenental environmental impact staienrnt; CL1-%7. 43 NRC 269 (1996) 10 C.F.R 5192(aK2) enviramnental impact statenenas for decomnussionmg activities LBP42, 43 NRC 85, 88, 90 91 (1996) showing required for considerarma of alternauves to decomnussmmng plan; CLl47,43 NRC 274 (1996) 10 C F R. 70 22(b) matenal control and accesung at uraruum ennchnrnt facihues. LBP-96-7, 43 NRC 165-66 (1996) 31

1 I

j LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS l

10 CF R. 70.22(i) content of emergency plans for special nuclear matenals hcensees; LBP-96-7,43 NRC 145 (1996) 10 CF.R. 70.22(ix3)ti) site features to be included in emergency plans for uranium ennehment faciheies; LBP-%7,43 NRC 148 50 (1996)

I 10 CF R. 70 22(iX3Xv) l nungaung actions to be included in emergency plans for uramum enrichment facahues; LBP-%7,43 NRC 153,162 (1996) 10 C F R. 70.22(iX3 Xvii) emergency responsibahues of hcensee employees at uramum ennchment facahues; LBP-96-7,43 NRC

!$6.159 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 70.22(iX3)(viii) noti 6 canon of authonties of emergency at uramum enrichnent facihty; LBP-96-7,43 NRC 154,155, 159, 163 (1996) 10 CF.R. 70.22(ix3xa)

. training of shift personnel to handle emergency situauons at uramum ennchment facihty; LBP-%7. 43 NRC 156 (1996) 10 CF.R 70 23 standards for materials beense apphcanons; LBP-%7,43 NRC 144 (1996) 10 CF R. 70 23(ax4) emergency planning requirenrms for facibues possessms and using special nuclear matenals or source and byproduct matenal; LBP-96-7, 43 NRC 145 (1996) 10 CF R. 70.23(ax6)

Anihng required for bcensing of uramum (nnchment facihty; LBP-96-7,43 NRC 166 (1996) 10 C F R. 70.33(tM3Xii) types of smdents considered in energency plans for uramum ennchnent facihties; LBP-96-7,43 NRC 152 (1996) 10 CER. 70 33(iX3xai) postaccident restorahon of uramum ennchnent facihues to a safe condition; IEP-%7, 43 NRC 162 (1996) 10 CER. 70 41(a) radioacuve matenals shipment pnor to decomnussiomng plan approval, DD-%),43 NRC 46 (1996) 10 CJ R. 7044 creditor interests in special nuclear matenal, LBP %7, 43 NRC 144 (1996) 10 CF R. Part 71 radioacuve matenals shipnwnt pnor to decomnussiomng plan approval; DD-%1. 43 NRC 46 (1996) 10 C F R. 71.5(a) docunentauon for transporung hcensed matenal outside a heensee's facihty; LDP-%9,43 NRC 217 (l996) idenrahcanon of acuvity or transport inden on 'RADIOACTIVL" label, LBP %9, 43 NRC 217 (1996) stabihzation of packages contaimng radioacuve matenal for transport outside a licensee's facihry; LBP-%9, 43 NRC 218 (1996) 10 C F R. 71.73 c) I challenge to test penneter for transponauon casks; LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 89 n 29 (1996) 10 C F R. Part 72 hcensing requirenwnts for dry cask storage; LBP-%2,43 NRC 79 (1996) 10 C F R. Part 72, Sut'part L dry cask ceruficanon process; LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 79 (1996) 10 CF R. 72 40 licensing requirenrnes for dry cask storage; LBP-96-2,43 NRC 79 (1996) 10 CF R, 72 40 tax 5). (13) transfer of high-level radioacove maste to a transportanon cask; LBP-%2,43 NRC 80 (1996) 32 t

l l

i l

l f

I l

l l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 72.44(d) approval process for change from spent fuel storage to dry cask storage; GP-%2,43 NRC 79 (1996) 10 CJ R. 72.46 approval provss for change from spent fuel storage to dry cask storage; LBP-96 2. 43 NRC 80 (1996) transfer of high-level radioacuve waste to a transportanon cask; LBP-%2. 43 NRC 80 (1996) 10 C F R. 72.4a(c) transfer of high-level radioacuve maste to a transportanon cask. LBP-96 2,43 NRC 80 (1996) 10 C F R. 72.104, 72.212(bX2), (4) approval process for change from spent fuel storage to dry cask storage; LBP-%2. 43 NRC 79 (1996) 10 CJ R, 72 212(bX4) transfer of high-level radioacuve waste to a transportanon cask; LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 79 (1996) 10 Cf R. 74 33 implementation of natenal control and accounting at uranium ennchnent facibhes; LBP 96-7, 43 NRC 167-69,17L 172-73 (1996) 10 Cf R. 74 3Aa) rnaienal control and accounung at uranium ennchnent facihties: LBP-96-7, 43 NRC 166 (1996) 10 Cf R. 74.33(aX2) and (3) performance objecoves of nuclear matenal control plans for uramum ennchment facihties; LBP-96-7, 43 NRC 166 (1996) j 10 Cf.R. 74 33(b) nuclear natenal control plans for uramum enrichnrnt facibues; LBP-%7,43 NRC 166 (19%)

10 Cf R. 74 33(cx5) deteccon program for masenal control and accounung at uratuum ennehment facihues; LBP-%7,43 NRC 166.173-76 (1996) 10 Cf R. Part 100 design-baus steam generator tube rupture event. reanalysis of radiological consequences of, DD-96-8, 43 NRC 346, 347, 355, 356 n.24 (1996) 10 C F R.140.15.17 Anancial protecuon tequirenrnas fue uranium ennchnent facihty beensing; LBP-96-7, 43 NRC 144 (1996) 10 Cf.R. Part 140, Appendia A 6nanctal protecaon requirenrnes (or uranium enrichnent facihty beenung; LBP-96-7,43 NRC 144 l (1996) 49 Cf R.172 403 idenu6 canon of acuvity or transport indes on "RADIOACIWE" label; LBP 46 9, 43 NRC 217 (1996) 49 C F R.177 817(a) docunentauon for transporting hcensed matenal outside a heensee's facihty; LBP-49, 43 NRC 217 .

(1996) 49 C F R.177.842(d) l stabihzation of packages contaimng radioacuve notenal for transport outside a heensee's facihty; LBP-%9, 43 NRC 218 (1996)

I 33 I

l l

l

1 l

l I

i l

t

! LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l STATITIES i

Adrmnistrauve Procedwe Act,5 U.S.C 6551(8) and (9) parues directed so address sigm6cance of *hcease" and " licensing"; CU-96 4,43 NRC 52 (1996)

Adnumstranve Procedure Act, 5 U.S C 6 553 rule changes without motice and opportunity for comnent; CU-96 7,43 NRC 259 (1996)

Agreenrat Between the United States of America and she Internauonal Atomic Energy Agency for sie Apphcanon of Safeguards in the United States of America, Nov. 18,1977, 32 U.S.T. 3062, 3082, art. 72(b) applicabihty to licensing of uranium ennchment facihties; LBP-96 7. 43 NRC 17471 (1996) !

Appbcanon of Safeguards in the United States of Amenca, Nov. Ib, 1977, 32 U.S.T. 3062, 3082, art. 73 I authonty of IAEA over maserial control and accounang as wamum enridment facihties; LBP-96-7,43 NRC I?! (1996)

Atomic Energy Act, ett 6,153; dL 7, 863; ctt to J

hcensing of uranium ennchment facihties; LBP-96-7,43 NRC 144 (1996) /

Atomic Energy Act. 62, 42 USC. 2092 f '

apphcabihty to source material Ecenses; LBP-%I2,43 NRC 304 (1996)

Atorme Energy Act 81,42 U.S C 62111 ; -

heensing board review of settlement agreenrers; LBP-96-3,43 NRC 94 (1996); LBP-%4, 43 NRC 102 _

(1996); LBP-%31,43 NRC 281 (1996) - '

Atonne Energy Act.103 apphcabihty to source material beenses; IEP-%I2,43 NRC 304 (1996) ,

authonry to issue hcenses; LBP-96-12,43 NRC 304 (1996) -

Atomic Energy Act,16th,42 US C 12201(b) I licensing board review of seulement agreements; LDP-%3, 43 NRC 94 (1996); LBP-%4,43 NRC 102 -

(1996); LBP-96-II,43 NRC 281 (1996) l Atonne Energy Act,161o, 42 U.S C 6 2201(o) bcensmg board seview of settlement agreements; LBP-%3,43 NRC 94 (1996); IEP-%4,43 NRC 102 (1996); LBP %II,43 NRC 281 (1996)

Atonue Energy Act,189a heanng nghts on management reorganisation; IEP-96-12, 43 NRC 304. 305 (1996) 4 Atonne Energy Act,189(aX2XA) hearing rights on materials beense amendernts; LBP-96-12,43 NRC 305 (1996)

Atonuc Energy Act,42 U.S C. (2239(a) rule changes without notice and opportunity for comnent; CU%7,43 NRC 259 (1996)

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 210 (now 211) denial of employmesa for engaging in proiected activities; DDL96-4,43 NRC 315 (1996) bcensee instrucuan of employees on requuements of; DD-96-4, 43 NRC 316 (1996)

Inspector General Act of 1978, as arnended. Pub. 1.95-452, 5 U.S C. App.

OlG investigarion of separauon of functions violation; CU45,43 NRC 57 (1996)

National Envimamental Pohey Act 42 U.S C,4321 et seg hearing rights on component removal prior to approval of decommissiomng plan; CU47,43 NRC 242 (1996) 35 1

a l

4

l

! LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUT13 l

National l'.avironrrental Pohey Act,102(2xC), 42 U.S C. 4332(2xC) -

supplenental environnemal impact statenents for decomnussiorung; CLI-96 7, 43 NRC 269 (1996)

Sols. Wind. Waste, and Geothermal Power ProducDoo lncenuves Act of 1990 Pub. L No. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2834 heensing of uranaum ennchinent facihties: LBP-96-7. 43 NRC 144 (1996)

Treary on ete Non-Prohferanon of Nuclear Weapons, July I,1%8, 21 U.S T. 483 applicabahry to hcensing of uraruum ennchnem facibues; !BP 96-7, 43 NRC 170 (1996)

L 1

n i

i I

I l

f i

l l

b 1

4 1

1 j .

i 1

l J

J

)

l t

1 i

l 1

J 4 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX I OTHERS 1

a i

3 K. Davis and R. Purce Administrative law Treatise i16.13 (1994) l apphcanon of test of injury-in-fact to the question of stan&ng: CLI-Ei,43 NRC 6 (1996) i j

red. R. Civ. P. 41 l damissal of a procee&ag without prejudice; LBP-96-$, 43 NRC 137-38 (1996) l l

Charles H. Kods, Jr., Adnumstratiw Law and Practice 6.44 (1985) i l

burden on applicant la niascruls license procee&ng: LBP-%7,43 NRC 144-45 (1996) l

Lsessing and Regulason of Nuclear Reactors. Hearings before the Joint Conurutsee on Atomic Energy, I j 90th Cong.,1st Sess., pt. I, at 471 (IM7) i i speciAcity sequirement for comennons; CLl-%7,43 NRC 248 a.7 (1996) ' '

= -

I

/ '

p

/

j i i -

-1

! p !

i i

l i e t I ?

I l

1 i

4 i

l i

) 37 i

1 i

II I

i i

l

r ,_ _ - - ._ ... - ~ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ - __

I 1

1 '

i l

l 1

! l l

l >

l l

l l l 4 ,

I l

SUBJECT INDEX ACCIDINTS renzte and speculauvs nsks; GP-96 2,43 NRC 61 (1996) risk of full-core off-luedng to spent fuel pool dunng refuehng; LBP-961,43 NRC 19 (1996)

! ADJUDICATORY BOARDS i role of; CW.%7,43 NRC 235 (1996)

! ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS resoluuon of factual issues: QJ %7,43 NRC 235 (1996)

AGREEMENTS See Settlemes Agreements ALARA applicabihty so decommissioning; CU-%1,43 NRC 1 (1996); CU-96-7, 43 NRC 235 (1996);

LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 61 (1996) y cost considerations in deternurung applicability of; CU-96-1,43 NRC 1 (1996) 7 AMENDMENT -

See Mmerials Ucense Amendnent; Operating Ucease Anendments f AMICUS CURIAE _

parucipation by imerested state; CU-%3,43 NRC 16 (1996) ;

APPEALS r from Directors' Deasions; CU-964. 43 NRC 123 (1996) :

BOARDS -

See Adjudcatory Boards; IJcensing Boards BRIEFS d revww proceceng on summary dsposinon order, CU %4,43 NRC 51 (1996)

BURDEN OF PROOF in formal adju6catory heanags; MP-47,43 NRC 142 (1996)

I in immedate effectiveness aview for enforcement orders; LBP-%9,43 NRC 211 (1996) in intervennon; CU-%7,43 NRC 235 (1996) i CIVIL PENALTIES 1 challenges to: LSP-%3, 43 NRC 93 (1996); lllP-96 4, 43 NRC 101 (1996) )'

COMMISSION sua sponte review authonry; CU-%6,41 NRC 123 (1996)

See also Nuclear Regulatory Commission COMMUNICATIONS separahon of functions violation; CU-96 5,43 NRC 53 (1996)

SUMMARY

DISPostr10N review of order granung; CLI-964,43 NRC 51 (1996)

SURVEYS See Ratological Surveys TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS for failure to fale htigable contention, LBP %6,43 NRC 140 (1996) without prejudice; LBP W5, 43 NRC 135 (1996)

TESTIMONY prepared, stncken wheir witness lacks personal knowledge: LBP.%10, 43 NRC 231 (1996)

TESTING of radiographers; LBP-96-9. 43 NRC 21I (1996)

See also Eddy-Current Tesung TURBINE BUILDING insulatwo removal; DB%2,43 NRC 109 (1996)

URANIUM CNRICHMENT FACILITIES nuclear matenal control plans for; LBP-%7,43 NRC 142 (1996)

VACATUR l i

on mootness grounds; CLI-42,43 NRC 13 (19%)

VAPOR CONTAINER esterior pipe renwval; DD-%2,43 NRC 109 (1996) l VIOLATIONS '

debberate nuwonduct; LBP-%9,43 NRC 211 (1996) radaauon safety LBP-%3, 43 NRC 93 (1996); LBP.96 4, 43 NRC 101 (1996)

WASTE See Radioactive Waste WASTE PROCESSING SYSTEMS temporary; DD %2. 43 NRC 109 (1996)

WASTE TANK rmmval pnar to approval of decomnussionmg plan; DD %),43 NRC 29 (1996)

WITNLSSES NRC Staff subpoenaed as; LBP-96-8,43 NRC 178 (1996) personal knowledge of prepared testmmny; LBP %IO. 43 NRC 231 (1996) I rehahshty of relauves for corroboranon; LBP-%9,43 NRC 211 (1996) l 1

1 II l

l

\

46

I l

l l

i

l l

I l * ,

i f

l I '

l FACILITY INDEX i

I l CLAIBORNE ENRICHMEfG CENTfA; Docket No. 70 3074ML MATERIALS UCENSE; April 26, 1996; PARTIAL INTTIAL DECISION (Resolving Contemions H.

, L, and M); IEP-%7,43 NRC 142 (1996)

( GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH REACIDR, Atlanta, Georgia; Docket No. 50164Ren l OPERATING UGNSE RENEWAL; Apnl 30, 1996; THIRD PRDIEARING CONFERENCE ORDER, LBP-48,43 NRC 178'(1996)

OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; May 16, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Telephone '

Conference Call,5/15/96); LBP-%l0,43 NRC 231 (1996)

INDIAN FOINT, Umts 2 and 3; Docket Noa. 54247, 54286 REQUEST FOR ACTION; kne 10, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 5 2.206; DI)%6,43 NRC 333 (1996)

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Uma 1: Docket No. 54245-OLA f

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMDG; Fetruary 7,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng l on Imervecoon Peution); IEP.%I, 43 NRC 19 (1996) 2_.

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; April 15, 1996; ORDER (Tenmnaung Promxbng); LBP. [

96-6, 43 NRC 140 (1996)

PALO VERDE NUC1. EAR GENERATING STATION, Units I, 2, and 3; Docket Nos. 54528, 54529, C 54530 -

REQUEST IOR ACTION; June 3,1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CJ R. 5 2.206; 2 DD-96-4, 43 NRC 309 (1996) ;

REQUEST 10R ACTION; June 25, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CJ.R.12.206, _

DD %8, 43 NRC 344 (1996)

PEACH BOTTOM ATOMV' POWER STATION, Umts 2 and 3; Docke; Nos. 54 277, 54 278 REQUEST IVR ACTION, June 10,1996; f1NAL DIRECIDR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

12.206; DD %5,43 NRC 322 (1996)

PERRY NUClf.AR POWER PLANT, Unit 1: Docket No. 50 4440LA-3 OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; March 7,1996; ORDER; CU-E4,43 NRC 51 (1996)

RANCHO SECO NUC11AR GENERATING STATION, Docket No. 54312 REQUEST TOR ACTION; June 14, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CJ R. 52.206; l DD %7,43 NRC 338 (1996)

RIVER BEND STATION, Umt 1: Docket No. 50 458-OLA I

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; March 29, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDTR (Grant l

cf Monon so Ternunate Proceeding); LBP.96-5,43 NRC 135 (1996)

SAN ONOFRE NUCIIAR GENERATING STATION, Umt 1: Docket No. 50-206 REQUEST TOR ACTION; June 14, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 5 2.206; DI)%7,43 NRC 338 (1996)

TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT; Docket No. 54344 REQUEST FOR ACTION; June 14, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 5 2.206; DD.%7,43 NRC 338 (1996)

WEST CHICAGO RARE EARTHS FACILTTY; Docket No. 40 2061.ML

MATERIALS UCENSE; February 28, 1996; ORDER; CU-E2, 43 NRC 13 (1996) 1 i

47

l 1

FACILITY INDEX i

YANKEE NUCEEAR POWER STATION, Docket No. 50029 DECOMMi$$10NING, 3anuary 16, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLl%1,43 NRC 1 (1996)

Dif0MMISSIONING: March 1,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Petinon to -

Intervene); EBP42, 43 NRC 61 (1996)

DECOMMIS$lONING; March 7,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDE.R; CLl%5,43 NRC 53 (1996)

DirOMMIS$10NING, Apnl 1,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI 46,43 NRC 123 (1996)

DECOMMISSIONING; 3une 18.19%; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CL196-7,43 NRC 235 (1996)

REQUEST FOR ACTION- February 22, 1996; DIRICIOR'S Dir! SIGN UNDER 10 C F R. 5 2.206; DD%),43 NRC 29 (1996)

RFQUEST FOR ACTION. March 18, 1996; SUPPLLMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. 5 2.206; DD42, 41 NRC 109 (1996)

REQUEST FOR ACTION, June 14, 1996; DIRF.CTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2 206-,

DD-96-7, 43 NRC 338 (1996) l i

l I

I l

l l

4:

i i

ML20135B001

Text

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search