ML20138C189

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISSUANCES.July- December 1996

ML20138C189
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/30/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V44-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V44-I2, NUDOCS 9704300062
Download: ML20138C189 (52)

Text

_

I 1

l l

NUREG-0750 i

Vol. 44 index 2 I

58 -amp ]-flW A +, ,9fd/c-k U',5 98"'y #88 K'7 g ', {+ 4)', pyf 1('P4 a.94,G[; 9,ffy ]( v"' P*

pyvW>rfff *'

• e'o3; f

y~ -wn 4*#T 41#;f ayv&4l$'g 40%'9;;

• • yP',y'f' . ., p '{, .'7-'rftt) nw ,,-'t w'fpy }sQ{

, (. . t 8 g vi; ,

'; 6 .y ' G .; [V o.

l  ; n . , , ,. . .. ...', , ,, e ,

W qr fl, a, s i / i ' ;'3,5;;j - " ' ' ~ ~ ' ^*:

<'ig,,jrb p' y ' /})'. O ' ?;ey'. "'

: n. . >c . , . <,~ t e RP,,

filNDEXESWOM% TTC Ish JNUClIEAR{RE_dDl!AIQRMLW@.$. n. -_ .- $

eM@FCOMM~ISSIONilSSUANCESP.lN9 I>

k,'~~'

i,'},. f  ? '

j

^

l,

.'-}..

t'.'

y

.p'

,1 g<'e w ,

s. ~ +

e, . ,, g y, ;v

)_ ,

, 4 'c , .k' N ,

a.L

, , ' . r l'.

- 4 u, ';l ,__ ,,

, . . . . N,e . + , , .

3 E4 a .

'JulyM mDecemberi19961 . .. . . .

g p. : s

' F

h. - ,<^i' ,

i . . . x s .

! B',, ,, , n. ,

gWREGg g. , n m

f <

p- b, . ;

f 0 i . , .,

- .x . se, f; 0 , - k (,0

. , i .O k ~ I. -

l i B; --

W: p. : > .

J O; g,

n'  :.W- "

3s

(

w.

,p:

.g , q- ,

l ,

fl .

t wa.,w .z V.

,9a'

w:f:s y n ., n T- , .

Ma 's < a

, a .

s-y' ' .' ~< #

' 'k .,' . . ..c

,s.,. 't . i h,k...r #* 6 i)

(([','g' ' .

o .r , v . - ,

! .g.)e f [

a;;o, r',%+44 N'

'-' ' ,S [ f .{"'- - r' f 4 fr ,[

=

i,*t g 4

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOAY COMMISSION ~

4 1

9704300062 970430 PDR NUREG 0750 R PDR

l Available from Superintendent of Documents  !

U.S. Government Printing Office RO. Box 37082

' Washington, DC 20402-9328 4 l

A y sar's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, .

4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication. I Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 i

l l

l Errors in this publication may be reported to the

' Office of information Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, DC 20555-0001 l (301 - 415 - 6844) l

)

i

\

! i 4

'I i

I . . _ .

2

)

l I

l

! NUREG-0750 i Vol. 44 Index 2 l

1 INDEXES TO

NUCLEAR REGULATORY l COMMISSION ISSUANCES 4

j July - December 1996 i

4 4

i i

i i

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Prepared by the

Office of Information Resources Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301 -415 - 6844) 1

Foreword Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CU), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel (UIP), the Administrative Law Judges (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM) are presented in this document. These digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the issuances.

Information elements mmmon 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 Ixgal 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:

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 ofissu ance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.

2. Ileaders and Digests The headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows. the Commission (CU), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel (UlP), the Administrative Law Judges (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

The header identifies the issuance by issuan 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 four parts and consisui of alphabetical or alpha-nu merical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. These citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and statutes may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance.

'Ihe 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 1

4. Subject Index .

Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects covered in the issuances. The subject headings are followed by phmses that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the issuances being indexed.

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

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

l l

l l

lV

i f

1 l

\

l 1

l CASE NAME INDEX L

ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS REQUEST FOR AGION; DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; All Dockets (All

! Ucenses); DD'9612, 44 NRC 169 (1996)

ALL POWER REAGOR UCENSEES

( REQUEST FOR ACTION: FINAL DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF R.12 206, DD-96-18, 44 NRC 271 (1996)

CHEMETRON CORPORATION, INC.

REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF R. 5 2.206; Docket No.

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

CLEVELAND ELEGRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY ANTTTRUST; DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R.12.206; Docket Nos. 50-440 A. 50 346-A; DD-9615, 44 NRC 204 (1996)

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. /

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-440-OLA-3; 7 CU %I3,44 NRC 315 (1996)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. 7 REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R.12.206; Docket Nos. 50-413, -

50-414 (Ucense Nos NFP 35, NPF-52); DD-%I4,44 NRC 187 (1996) e.

EMERICK S. McDAN!ra, '

REACTOR OPERA'OR UCENSE, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Scheduhng). Docket No. #

55-2184s'OT (AiLBP No. %716-01 OT) (Re: Ocense Amendnwnt) (Transfer to Southern Nuclear), ---.

LBP-93-13, 44 NRC 1 (1996) ',

i REACTOR OPF f.ATOR LICENSE; INTTIAL DECISION; Docket No. 55 21849-0T (ASLBP No.

96 71641-O'i) Ne: Ucense Anendnwns) (Transfer to Southern Nuclear); GP-9617, 44 NRC 79 '

(1996)

REACTOR CPERN GR LICENSE; ORDER; Docket No. 55-21849-0T, CU-%II 44 NRC 229 (1996)

FLORIDA POV ER MD UGHT COMPANY l REQUEST FTP, ACTION; DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF R. 5 2.206: Docket Nos. 50 335, 50-389 (Ucense Nos. DPR-67, NPF-16); DD-9619, 44 NRC 283 (1996) .

i 110RIDA POWER CORPORATION

\ REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECIslON UNDER 10 C.F R.12.206; Docket No. 5(k302; j DD-9613, 44 NRC 180 (1996) i GENERAL PUBLIC (IT!UTIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION l

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Intenenuon i Petioon); Docket No. 54219-OLA (ASLBP No %717 02-OLA); LBP-96 23,44 NRC 143 (1996)

REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206; Docket No. 54219; DD-96-22, 44 NRC 413 (1996)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motions: Reconsi&vation, Ternunanon of the Proceeding); Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA 3. 50-425-OLA 3 (ASLBP No.

93-67141-OLA 3) (Re

Ucense Amendnrnt) (Transfer to Southern Nuclear); LBP-%I6, 44 NRC 59 (1996) -

JAMES L. SHELTON ENIORCEMENT AGION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approvmg Settienwnt Agreement); Docket No. IA 95 055 (ASLBP No. 96-712-01 EA); LBP%I9, 44 NRC 121 (1996) i i

4 i I 4

1 b

i j , i a

1 -- - --

CASE NAME INDEX JUAN GEZMAN ENIOFCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlenent Agreenrnt and Disniissing Proceeding), Docket No IA 96-020 (ASLBP No. 96-715-03-EA); LBP-96 20, 44 NRC 128 (1996)

LOUIStANA ENERGY SLRVICES, LP.

MATERIALS LICE.NSE; ORDER; Docket No- 743070 ML; CL1-%8. 44 NRC 107 (1996)

MATERIALS LICENSE; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Resolving Contentions J.4. K, and Q); Docket No. 70 3070-ML (ASLBP No. 91-64102-ML) (5pecial Nucirar Material Ucense); LBP %-25, 44 NRC 331 (1996)

MAINE YANKLE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R 9 2.206; Docket No. 50-309; DD 96-20, 44 NRC 290 (1996)

NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY REQUEST IUR AGION, DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I2.206; Docket No 50-245 (Ucense No. DPR-21); DD416, 44 NRC 214 (1996); DD417,44 NRC 221 (1996)

REQUEST FOR ACTION; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206, Docket No.

54245 (Ucense No. DPR-21); DD-96 23, 44 NRC 419 (1996)

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Schedules for Further Filings and for Preheanng Conference); Docket No. 7218-ISFSI (ASLBP No.

97 720-01 ISFSD; LBP-%22, 44 NRC 138 (1996)

INDLPENDENT SPENT IVEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motion to Suspend Proceeding); Docket No. 72-18-ISFSI (ASLBP No. 97-72048 ISFSD; LBP-%26, 44 NRC 406 (1996)

REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206; Docket Nos 54282, 54306, 72-10; DD-96-21, 44 NRC 297 (1996)

SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS ENFORCEMENT ACTION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approval of Seitlenrnt Agreenrnt and thsanssal of Case); Docket No. 40 8027 EA (ASLBP No- 94 684-01.EA) (Source Mmenal Ucense No. SUB 1010); LBP 96-24,44 NRC 249 (1996)

TENNESSEE VAllIY ALTTHORTTY REQUEST FOR ACTION, FIN AL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. 6 2.206; Docket No.

54390; DD-%IO,44 NRC 54 (1996)

REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R 5 2.206; Docket No. 54390.

DD 96 il,44 NRC 69 (1996)

TESTCO, INC.

ENFORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settienent Agreenwnt); Docket No.15040032-EA (ASLBP No. 96-71948-EA) (EA 95101); LDP-96-19, 44 NRC 121 (1996)

U.S, ENRICHMENT CORPORATION REQUEST FOR ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 70-7001, 70-7002; CLl%IO, 44 NRC 114 (1996); CLl%12,44 NRC 231 (1996)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTLM OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Withdrawal of Apphcation); Docket No 54508-OL (ASLBP No 83-486-01 OL); LBPN21, 44 NRC 134 (1996)

YANKEE ATOMIC EllCTRIC COMPANY DECOMMISSIONING; ORDER; Docket No. 54029-DCOM; CLl%9,44 NRC 112 (19%)

DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granung Motion to Videotape Preheanng Conference); Docket No. 50-029-DCOM (ASLBP No. 96-718-01 R); LBP-%14, 44 NRC 3 (1996)

DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Adnutting Consennon and Estabbshing Utiganon Schedule Regarding New Dose Argunrnt"); Docket No. 50-029-DCOM (ASLDP No.

96 7184)l R); LBP%15,44 NRC 8 (1996)

DECOMMISSIONING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Granung Motion for Surnnery Disposmon);

Docket No. 54029-DCOM (ASLBP No. %718-01-R); LBP&18, 44 NRC 86 (1996) 2

i-___--_

(

l l

DIGESTS ISSUANCE 5 OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9

CLI-96-8 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. (Claiborne Ennchment Center), Docket No 70-3070-ML; MATERIALS LICENSE; October 2,1996; ORDER l A The Comnussion considers a petition for review of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Parual <

t Imtial Decision LBP-%7,43 NRC 142 (1996). The Petiooner requested review of only that section in tlw 1 ,

j decision that resolved all contenuons on ernergency planning in favor of the Applicant. The Comnsssion L q grants the petition for reyww in part and denies the peuuon in part. The Comnussion grants the petition only [

[ en a smgle issue: wheder the Applicant's emergency plan clearly desenbes the intended role and training <

j of the Apphcant's onsite Are brigade. Fin &ng that the Applicant has adequately clanhed the role of the 8

onsite Are bngade, the Conutussion 6nds no need to remand this question to the Board The Commission -

I 0

orders that appropriale revisions be made to the Safety Analysis Repoit (SAR) and Safety Evaluauon Report 3 (SER) to reRect the clan 6cd understan&ng of the onsste Are brigade's role. Z l B Estabhshed NRC piactice pernuts the hcensmg board, where appropnate, both to refer nunor safety [

matters to the NRC Staff for posthearing resolution, and to nuke pre &ctive 6ndings on emergency planning -

that will be subject to postheanns ven6 cation. But only those matters not material to the basic 6adings { _'.

necessary for issuance of a license may be referred to the NRC Staff for postheanns resolution - e.g., e f

j nunor procedural or ven6cauon questions. --

3 CLI-96-9 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Stationk Docket No. 50- = _

{ 029-DCOM; DECOMMISSIONING; October 18,1996- ORDER , C. ~

( A The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a decision and order granting Yankee Atonuc y l Electric Company's Monon for Summary Disposition in this decommissioning procce&ng. LBP-%

g 18,44 NRC 86 (19961 The Intervenors (Ciuzens Awareness Network and New England Coalition on g Nuclear Pollution) 61ed with the Comnussion a Peuuon for Review of LBP 96-18 and also sought to -

stay the effecoveness of LBP %I8 pen &ng Comnussion consideranon of their Petiuon for Review. N -

Comnussmn concludes that the Intervenors' Petition for Review raises no substantie.] questions calling for -

Comnussion review of the Board's grant of sununary disposition, and therefore demes the Peution for i Review and dismisses tlw Stay Motion as moot. However, the Comrrussion imposes an adnunistranve stay y to pernut a reviewing court to consider in an orderly way any request for ju&cial stay that the Intervenors -

may nie. 7 CU-96-10 U.S LNRICHMENT CORPORATION (Paducah. Kentucky, anJ Ptketon. Ohio), Docket Nos. 70- 6 7001, 70-7002; REQUEST FOR ACTION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Comrnission considers four peutmas for review of an imrial Director's decision approving l ceru6 cates for compliance for the U.S. Enrichment Corporation's gaseous diffusion plants in Piketon, Ohio, j and Paducah, Kentucky. For failure to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 76, the Commission denies j two peuuons for review, and refers these pemions to the NRC Staff for review and response. On the ground I that no " good cause" was shown, the Comnussion denies a request for an extension of the time penod for

] seeking Comnussion review of, and subnutung conments on, the Director's decision The Commission

! also denies a request that any interested party be pernursed to 6le a peution for review; only those parues I that participated in the inical comment stage may petition for review of the Director's decision under Part +

70.

B To be chgible to petioon for review of a Director's Decision on the ceru6 canon of a gaseous ,

&ffusion plant, an interested party must have either submitted wriuen comments in response to a prior 4

3 60

= .vww - - - - - - " - - - .- .. w - _ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ -- ,.w g--- v-w.-w

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register notice, or provided oral comments al an NRC mecung held on the apphcanon or comphance plan.10 C.F.R.176.62(c).

C Part 76 contemplates a Commission decision on petioons for review of ceru6 cation decisions wielun a relauvely short (60-day) une penod. See 10 C.F.R.176.62(c). Extending the Part 76 peution deadhne in the absence of a strong reason is not compatible with the contemplated review penod.

CLi % ll EMERICK S. McDANIEL (Denial of Application for Reactor Operator Lkense), Docket No. 55-21849.OT; REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE; November 13,1996; ORDER A On September 11,1996, Mr. Emerick S. McDanel 6 led a Peauon for Review of the Iniual Decision in tais case LBP-96-17, 44 NRC 79 (1996), in which the Presiding Of6cer rejected Mr. McDaniel's challenge to the NRC Staff's rejecuon of his claim that he had par, sed his reactor operator exanunation.

The Comnussion denies the Petition for Review because it fails to rase any substamial question jusufying Comnussion review as provided under 10 C.F.R.12.78h(b)(4), incorporated imo Subpart L in 10 C F R.

I 2.1253.

CL1-96-12 U.S. ENRICHMENT CORPORATION (Paducah, Kemucky, and Piketon, Ohio), Docket Nos. 70-7001,70 7002, REQUEST FOR ACTION; November 22,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Conumssion denies two monons for reconsideration of CLi%IO. 44 NRC 114 (1996), which rejected two petioons for review of an Imual Director's Decision approving ceruncates of comphance for the United States Enrichmem Corporation's gaseous diffusion plass in Piketon, Ohio, and Paducah, Kemucky.

The Comnussion also denies two peuuons for review of the initial Director's decision and rejects a third pennon for review asilaie-68ed.

D To be ebgible to pennon for review of a Director's Decision on the ceru6 cation of a gaseous diffusion plant, an interested party must have eider subnuned wntien comments in response to a pnor Federal Register nouce or provided oral comnwnts at an NRC nreung held on the apphcation or comphance plan.10 C.F.R.176.62(c).

C Individuals who wish to peuuon for review of an imtial Director's decision must explain how their "imerest enay he affected" 10 C.F R.176 62(c). Fur guidance. pennoners may look to the Comnussion's adjudicatory decisions on standing. See, e g., Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactur, Atlanta, Georgia) CLI-95-12,42 NRC 111,115-17 (1995).

D No environnental assessnrns or environnwnsal impact statement is required for the issuance, amendment, moda6 canon, or renewal of a ceruficate of comphance of gaseous diffusion ennehment facihues pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 76. 10 C.F.R.151.22(c)(19), Ahhough NRC regulations do not require a general review of the environn. ental impacts associated with the issuance of cernficates of cornphance, an environmemal assessnrnt of the impacts of comphance plan approwd is requared E An analysis of potemial accidents and consequences is required by 10 C F R. I 76 85 and should include plant operaung lustory that is relevant to de potennal impacts of accidents.

CLI.9613 CLIVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuc. lear Power Plant, Umi l), Docket No. 50-440-OLA-3, OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; December 6,1996; MEMORAN-DUM AND ORDER A The Commission reviews an Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board decisaon that concluded that any change to tir Perry Nuclear Power Plam's withdrawal schedule for reactor vessel material specimens must be treated as a hcense amendment, and granted the Intervenors' motion fur summary disposinon. LBP-95-17,42 NRC 137 (1995). De Comnussion reverses and vacates the Ucensing Board's decision. The Comnussion 6nds that not all agency approvals granted to beensees consutute license anrndnunts.

B Section 11 B3 of 10 C.F R. Part 50, Appendia H. requires bcensees so seek pnor NRC Staff approval for all material specimen withdrawal schedule changes.

C la evaluaung whether an NRC authorization represents a license arnendnunt widiin the nraning of secuon 189a of the Atonne Energy Act, courts repeatedly have considered whether the NRC approval gramed the licensee any greater operating authonty or otherwise altered the onginal terms of a heense D Where an NRC approval dues not pernut the beensee to operate in any greater capacity than originally prescribed and all relevant regulations and bcense terms remam apphcable, the authorization does not amend the bcense.

E Any changes to the matenal specimen withdrawal sdiedule that conform to the ASTM standard referenced in Append s H will not exceed the operaung authonty already granted under the hcensee's 4

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

Igense and therefore will nu represent a hcense anendnent. That the NRC Staff may wish to venfy in advance that a proposed withdrawal schedule revision conforms to the required technical standard does not l make the Staff approval a hcense anendnrnt.

i l

i 1

1 5

i

l l

i

{ -

i 1

l L DIGESTS

{ ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS l

l LBP-96-13 EMERICK S. McDANIEL (Denial of Applicanon for Reactor Operator Ucense), Docket No. ,

55 21849-0T (ASLBP No. 96 716 010T) (Re: Ucense Anundrnent) (Transfer to Southern Nuclear); 1 REACTOR OPERATOR UCENSE; July 12.1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Schedubag) $

LBP-bl4 YANKEE ATOMIC EECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon), Docket No. 50-  :

029-DCOM (ASLBP No. 96 718 01 R); DECOMMISSIONING; July 12. 1996; MEMORANDUM AND z ORDER (Granting Motion to Videotape Preheanns Conference)  ;

A The Ucensing Board grants a participsnt request to videotape a prehearmg conference,6nding 7 i

i that, although language in a 1978 policy statement appears to restnet selevision and sult camera coverage of /

Board proceedings to accrested news me&a, it is apparent under current agency pactice there is no such hnutauon. ]

B The Conmussion's general statement of pohey on camera coverage of Ucensmg Board beanngs sets 1 con &uons for the use of television and soll canrras by accredited news mc&a." 43 fed Reg. 4294 (1978). /,

However, under cunrts agency practsce, any individual or orgaruzation may videotape a Comnussion-l <

conducted open rneeung so long as their activines do not &srupt the proceedmg. See U.S. Nuclear i [

l Regulatory Commission, "A Guide to Open Meetings," NUREG/BR 0128. Rev. 2 (4th ed) (" Conduct > -

in the Meeting Room . , e. You may . . Alm, photograph or video tape meeungs insing cameras in 3 designated fued posmons without additional I ghting * (emphasis in ongmal)). As a consequence, the h '

general pohey statenent on cameras at Board beanngs, which was adopted in 1978 on a " trial basis," no C E longer appears to reflect agency pactice to the degree it would preclude anyone other than the news me&a C from videotaping Board procee&ngs. Z C Videotaping of a Board proceeding must be done in a manner that does not present an unacceptable distraction to the parucipants or otherwise &srupt the procee&ng. To this end, anyone videotaping a  :

proceeding held in the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel Heanng Room must abide by the following 2 i conscions; (1) Cameras must remain stauonary in the designated camera area of the Ucensing Board Panel  ;

~

1 Hearing Room. (2) No ad&uonal hghung is permuted. (3) No a&htional nucrophones will be pernutted I outside of the designated camera area. A connection is available in the designated camera area that provides ',

l a & rect feed from the hearing room au&o systent y D As was noted in the 197b policy statement,43 Fed Reg 4294, m instances when a Ucensing -

l l Board is using other facshnes, such as a state or federal courtroorn, the Board generally will follow the 7 camera pohey goverrung that facihty. even if it is stncier than the agency's camera pokcy. Nonetheless, i the Board reserves the nght to impose restnctions beyond those generally used at the facihty 10 Fevent

&aruption of the poceedmg and maintain an appropnate ju&cial atmosphere l E The Board may termmate videotaping at any time it concludes a videotape.related acovity is being carned out in a manner that interferes with the good order of the procee&ng.

LDP-96-15 YANKEE ATOMIC ERCTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station). Docket No. 50-029-DCOM (ASLBP No. 96-7184)l R); DECOMMISSIONING; July 31, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND l ORDER (Adnutung Contention and Estabhshing Ungation Schedule Regar&ng "New Dose Argument")

g A la this proceedmg concermng citizen group challenges to the decomnussionmg plan for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station, acting pursuant to the Comnussion's &rective in CLi-96-7,43 NRC 235 (1996), to consider whether information Eled with the Commission after the Ucensing Board &snussed the proceedmg for wani of any heigable contennons will now provide for an adnussible consention, the Board concludes l

' that (I) a balancing of the 6ve " late-fihng" factors in 10 C F.R. 6 2.714(a)(1) cstabbshes the Pennoners' j 7 i

i i

b I

i d

i d

0

DIGESTS ISSUANCl3 OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND I,1 CENSING BOARDS new informanon should not be sencken, and (2) a pornon of the Peutioners' new information povides a sufficient basis to admit a comention.

B Contenoons play a vital role in agency heensing adju& canons by franung tir issues for considers-hon. See Texas Duhues Generaung Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Stanon. Umts I and 2), LBP-8125, I4 NRC 24 t. 243 (1981).

C A lack of pecision about what is a contenuon and what are its bases serves to obfuscate de general principle that contentions, not bases, are htigated in NRC adjuecanons.

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

a presiding officer can recast what a petiooner sets out as two contentions imo one.

E A Comnussion direction to the presiding ofhcer to consider the adnussibihty of a parucular late-31ed maner does not preclude the presiding othcer from giving the same consideration to other late-6ied informanos subnutted by a petitioner relevant to that matter. Cf. Carchna Power and ught Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant. Umts 1-4), ALAB-526, 9 NRC 122,124 (1979) (in remand procee&ng on management capabihty issue, additional petiuoners' anempt to seek Ime intervenuon to parucipate on that issue must be assessed under late-intervemson entena).

F Ahhough a presi&ng officer must assess all Ave factors in deternuning whether to adnut a late Eled issue, all the factors need not be given equal weight. In this connecuoa, considerable imponance generally has been attnbuted to factor one " good cause" for late niing - in that a failure to nret dus factor enhances considerably the burden of jusufying the other factors. See long Island Ughung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB 743,18 NRC 387. 397 (1983); Houston Ughung and Power Co (South Texas Project, Units I and 2), LBP-82-91,16 NRC 1364,1367 (1982); see also Honda Power &

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

G Among the other four " late-6hng" factors, factors fluee and Svc - contribution to a sound recad and broadening issues / delay in the proceeding - generally have been considered as having the mosa sigmhcance in procee&ngs in wluch there are no other parties or ongoing related proceedings. See Shoreham, ALAB-743,18 NRC at 399,402; see also South Texas, LBP-82-91,16 NRC at 1368.

H Generally a " good cause" fin &ng based on "new information" can be resolved by a streghtforward inquiry into when the information at issue was available to the pennoner. la some inunces, however, the answer to the " good cause" factor may involve rnare than looking at the dates on the vanous documents subnuned by the petitioners. Instead, the inquiry turns on a more complex determinanon about when, as a cumulauwe maner, the separate pieces of the new information " puzzle" were sufnciently in place to make the parucular concerns espoused reasonably apparent I The technical nature of the issues involved in a proceeding cuts against an asseruon thm the legal acumen of counsel in NRC proceedings should be given weight under the " late-6hng" factor regarang assistance in developing a sound record. And, notwithstandmg the fact an intervenor is enueled to make its case through cross <manunation, that factor cannot be weighed favorably when the presiding ofhcer has no reason to anucipate that cross-examination by counsel will be the sole means, or even the central method, for estabbshing the pentioner's case. See Texas Unhoes Dectric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Dectne Station, Unit 1), AI.AB-868,25 NRC 912,926 (1987).

J In assess og the " late-6hng" factor of assistance in developing a sound record, the need to conduct escovery no doubt may excuse a lack of specincity about potennal witnesses' testimony in those nontechnical cases where any tesumonial evidence hkely will come from hcensee employees or contractors.

See Comanche Peak, AIAB-868,25 NRC at 925-26.

K An assertion that the

• late 6hng" factor regarding broadening the issues and delaying the proceceng takes on added sigmncance because of the impact of delay on the applicant's abihty to conduct activities for wluch it treds authonzation does not compon with the estabhshed rule that "a heensing board [is]

to deternune whether the proceeding ~ not hcense issuance or platit operation - will be delayed."

Ptuladelphia Dectric Co. (Limerick Generaung Station, Umts I and 2) ALAB-828,23 NRC 13,23 (1986)

(footnote onutted).

L Because a penuoner who otherwiiie has stan&ng can put forth any contention that would entitle that pentioner to the relief it seeks, see CU-961, 43 NRC 1,6 (1996), in deci&ng whether to adnut a late-hied comennon the peunoner otherwise would be entitled to htigate, the fact the peutioner's consennons 8

i

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

DIGESTS j ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINC DOARDS t

I focus prirnanly on matters that will protect the insevents of others does not nran the pennoner's " interest" should be afforded short shrift in assessing the late-6hng factors of whether other nrans or other parues wdl protect the peutioner's imerests.

l M A presi&ng ofhser cannot consider a motion for summary esposition, with supporting afhdavits.

in connecuon with a determinauon about the admissbihry of a contennon.

N One possible answer to a motion for summary &sposition is the assertion that &scovery is needed to tespond fully to the monon. See Public Service Co. of New Hampalaire (Seabrook Station. Umts I and

, 2), CLI-92 8. 35 NRC 145,152 (1992). Such a request generally should be made in a plen&ng supponed

! by an afhdavit. See id. 7he functionalequivalent of such a Shng may be the staiements of counsel during I a preheanng conference outhning the discovery needed to support the party's case.

LBP 9616 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. et al. (Vogtic Electnc Genermung Ptars. Units I and 2). Docket

Nos. 50 424-OLA-3. 5M25-OLA 3 (ASLBP No. 93-671-01-OLA-3)(Re

Ucense Armendnent)(Transfer

! to Southern Nuclear); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT: August 19,1996; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER (Motions: Reconsiderauon. Termination of the Proceeding)

A The case was &snussed after the sole intervenor withdrew his pennon and contenuon pursuant to a settlenent with Georgia Power Company, et al The Ucensing Board determined that the withdrawal could be pernuued after reviewing the effect of the withdrawal on the issues pen &ng in the procee&ng.

It determined, without reviewing the settlement agreement, that it was in the public imerest to accept the

withdrawal of the peution and the contention.

B . When a party requests to withdraw a peuuon pursuant to a settlement. it is appropnaie for a heensing l

j board to review the senlernem to deternune whether it is in the public interest.10 C.F.R. 9 2.759. When the board has held entensive hearings and has analyzed the record, it may not need to see the settlement l

agreenent in order to conclude that the withdrawal of the petinon is in the pubhc interest.

C imervenor requested to withdraw his peution. The Ucensing Board, knowing that tie withdrawal was pursuant to a settlenent agreenem, reviewed the settlement to deternune if it was in the pubhc interest 10 C.F R. I 2.759 D The Board had held extenssve heanngs and had analyzed the record. It was convinced. even without i seems the settlenrnt agreement, that the withdrawal of the petiuon was in the public interest.

l LDP-%17 EMERICK S McDANIEL (Demal of Application for Reactor Operator Ucense). Docket No.

55 23849-0T (ASLBP No. 96 716 01-0T) (Re: Ucense Anradment)(Transfer to Southern Nuclear);

REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE; September 3,1996; INITIAL DECISION A After reviewing in detal each of the claims made in this informal proceeding, conducted under 10 CJ.R. Part 2, Subpan L, the Presi&ng Ofhccr sustained the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion in its deternunanon that the apphcant &d not pass the wntten portion of his exarrunation to become a bcensed operintor of a nuclear power plant.

LBP-%18 YANKLE ATOMIC ELI.CTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station). Docket No. 50-029-DCOM (ASLBP No. 96-718-01-R); DECOMMIS$10NING; September 27,1996 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Motion for Summary Disposition)

A la this procee&ng concermng citizen group challenges to the decommissioni jlan for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station, the Ucensing Board grants Licensee Yankee Atonne Elec.nc Cornpany's

! (YAEC) motion for summary esposinon. The Board concludes the Imervenors failed to estabbsh any r genuine &sputed malenal factualissues regarding YAEC's showing that the differential between the total l occupanonal doses associated wuh facihty decommissioning under its chosen DECON decomnussiomng

! option and the ahernative SAFSTOR option would not fall outside of the generic DECON/ sal'STOR differential "envekve" previously recognized by the Comnussion as sigmhcant in assesung whether a licensee's choice of the DECON decommissioning oppon would transgress either the pnnciple that

, radiauon doses should be kept "as low as reasonably achievable"(ALARA) or the dictates of the Nanonal l Environnrntal Pohey Act of 1969 (NEPA).

l B The party Ahng a summary disposition motion has the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of matenal fact. See Advanced Medical Systems. Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva. Ohio 44041), CLI.93-22,38 NRC 98.102 (1993). In this regard,10 C.F.R. I 2.749(a) requires that the moving party include a staienent of matenal facts about which there is no gemune istw to be heard. In contrast, the opposing pany must append to its response a statenets of material facts about which there exists a genui e 9

4 i

i I

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

I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TEIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ILOARDS issue to be heard. If the respon&tig pany does not adequately conuovert material facts set fonh in the mouon, the pany faces the possibihty that those facts may be deened adnutted. If, however, the evidence before the Board does not estabbsh the absence of a genuine issue of matenal fact, then the rrnuon must be j derued even if there is no opposing evidence. See Cleveland Electric Illuminnung Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741,75F54 (1977). Nevertheless, a pany opposing a motion cannot rely on a simple denial of the movant's maierial facts, but must set forth speci6c facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact. See 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(b).

C A press &ng officer need consider only those purported factual esputes that are " material" to the resolution of the issues raised sa a summary &sposioon motion. See Anderson v. Uber'y bibby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242,248 (1986)(factual disputes that are " irrelevant or unnecessary" will not preclude summary judgment).

D in opposing summary Asposioon by seeking to estabbsh the existence of a genuine espute regar&ng a matenal factual issue, a pany must present suf6ciemly probauve evidence. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249 (evidence that is "merely colorable" or is "not sigm6cantly probative" will not preclude summary judgment).

E in opposing summary &sposiuon by seeking to establish the existence of a genuine dispute l regarang a matenal factual issue, a party that had escovery following the Ahng of the dispossove monon I generally cannot interpose claims based on a lack of information as the vahd basis for a genuine material factual dispute.

F la opposmg summary &sposinon by seeking to estabhsh the existence of a genuine dispute regar&ng a rnatenal factual issue, a pany's bald assertion, even when supponed by an expert, will not estabhsh a genume material factual espute. See United States v. Vanous Slot Machines on Guam,658 ,

F.2d 697,700 (9th Cir.1981)(in the context of a summary judgnent monon, an expert must back up his j

opmion with specific facts); see also McGhnchy v. Shell Chenucal Co.,845 F.2d 802,807 (9th Car.1988) i

! (expert's study based on unsupported assumpoons and unsound extrapolation" cannot be used to support j summary judgnent muuon). 1 G The followmg technical issues are &scussed. Proportionahey between occupauonal caposure rate I I

for completed decomnussioning activities and exposure eate for ad&tional ra&oacuve inventory.

i LBP-9619 JAMES L. SHELTON (Order Prohibiung involvenrnt in NRC-Ucensed Activines (Effective immedmsely)), Docket No. IA 95 055 (ASLBP No.96-712 Ol-EA), and TESTCO, INC. (Order imposing i Civil Monetary Penalty; General Ucense). Docket No. 15000032-EA (ASLBP No. 96 71944-EA) (EA 95-101); ENFORCEMENT ACflON, October 1,1996, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement)

A The Atomic Safety and Licensmg Board approves a settiennent agreement in a consolidated enforcenent procee&ng.

LBP-96-20 JUAN GU7. MAN (Order Prohibiung Unescorted Access or Involvement in NRC-Ucensed Activi-nes). Docket No. IA 96 020 (ASLBP No. 96 715-OLEA); ENIORCEMENT ACTION; October 16, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approvmg Settlenent Agreement and Disnussing Procee&ng) i LDP-96-21 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), Docket l No. 545084)L (ASLBP No. 8k486-01-OL); OPERATING LICENSE; October 16, 1996; MEMORAN-

! DUM AND ORDER (Withdrawal of Apphcation)

A The Atomac Safety and Licensing Board grants the Apphcant's monon to withdraw its operating I

heense apphcation and to ternunate the procee&ng.

B ne NRC cannot delegate to a local group the responsibihty under the National Environnental

! Pohey Act (NEPA) to prepare an environmental assessnent (EA). The EA must be prepared by NRC, not l a local agency, although in prepanng an EA the Staff may take into account site uses proposed by a local i agency.

l C Ternunanon of an operatmg license apphcanoe gives nse to a need. pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 51.21, for ac TA to consider the impacts of the ternunation.

D Because a construcuon pernut ternunation would appear to have impacts that encompass operaung branse ternunation impacts, one EA would appear to suffice for both actions.

I LBP-96-22 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (Independent Spent f,sel Storage Installation), Docket No. 72184SFSI( ASLBP No.97-720 01.lSFSD; INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLA.

10 I

DIGFETS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS I

TION; October 24,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Schedules for Further Fihngs and for Prehear-l ing Conference) l A in a proceeeng in which a hcense for an independent dry cask spent fuel storage installation is l being sought, the Atonne Safety and Licensmg Board desenbes standards for imervenuon and estabhshes dates for amenang peutsons and for the intial preheanng conference.

B State agencies may choose to participate either as a party under 10 C.F.R. I 2.714 or as an interested 1 state wnder 10 C F R. 6 2 715(c). To perucipate under 10 C.F R.12.714. a state agency must sausfy the 1 same standards as an in&vidual pectioner.

C To parucipaie under 10 C.FA 5 2.714. a pensioner must estabhsh its stan&ng. rnust indicate ele aspects of the proceeding in which it seeks to parucipate, and must proffer at least one acceptable contention.

D in determining whether a penuoner has the requisite stan&ng, the Commission uses contempo-raneous ju&cial concepts of stan&ng. Under those standards, the pentioner must demonstrate (1) that it has suffered or will hkely suffer " injury in fact" from the proposed licensing action; (2) that the injury is arguably wsdun the zones of interest sought to be protected by the statute being enforced; and (3) that tte injury is redressable by a favorable decision in the procee&ng.

E A group may demonstrate that it has suffered or will hkely suffer injury in fact either through organizational injury or irijury to a number that it represems.

• F In&an Tnbes hawe teen permitted to intervene as an emity, without demonstraung that a particular Inbe nernber has an interest and wishes to be represented by the enbe. They also have participated in the more rouune manner of idenufying a inbe member who has inevidual standing but wishes tnbe represemauott i LBP-%23 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating )

Sta' ion). Docket No. 50-219-OLA (ASLBP No. 96-717-02-OLA). OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMEbrl';  !

October 25,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on intervemion Petition)

A la tius procee&ng concermng cit, zen group challenges to a proposed technical speci6 canon change regarding heavy load handhng over the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generaung Stauon spent fuel pool, the Licensing Board rules (1) Peuuor,ers Nuclear Informanon Resource Service (NIRS) and the Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch (OCNW) have estabhshed representauonal stan&ng as of nght; (2) Peutioner Ciuzens Awareness Network has failed to show either that it is enntled to stan&ng as of right or that it should he given discreuonary stan&ng, but nonetheless will be pernutted to parucipate as an anucus curiae; and (3) Peutioners NIRS and OCNW have put forth an admissible legal comesson regardmg vahdsty of the pmposed technical speci6 cation revision under the agency s " defense-in-depth" pohey.

B A technical speci5 cation is a hcense con &uon, and a hcensee request to change that condition consututes a request to anrnd the hcense that creates adjudicatory hearing nghts under Atonuc Energy Act i189a. 42 U.S C. I 2239(a). See Cleveland Elecnic illununaung Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Uma 1).

CLI.93-21,38 NRC 87,91 a 6,93 (1993).

C To have standing to participate as of right in a proceeding regardmg an agency hcensing accon, a petitioner must demonstrate that (1)it has suffered or will suffer a distinct and palpable injury that constitutes injury in fact wittun the zone of interests arguably protected by the govermng statute;(2) tie injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is hkely to be redressed by a favorable decision, in adation, when an organization seeks to intervene on behalf of its members, that entity must show it has an individual number who can fulfill mil the necessary elemems and who has authonzed the organization to represem his or her interests. See Yankee Atomic Electnc Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLl%I.

43 NRC I,6 (1996).

D in making a standing octernunanon, a presiang officer is to " construe the [imervention] peittion in favor of the pennoner." Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia),

CLI.95-12,42 NRC 111, Ii5 (1995).

E Relative to a threshold stan&ng deternunanon, even nunor radiological exposures resulung from a proposed bcensee acuvity can in enough to create the requisite injury in fact. See Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) LBP42,43 NRC 61,70, affd, CLI 96-7, 43 NRC 235, 246-48 (l996).

F If ineviduals relied upon to estabbsh representational standing for an organization fail to indicate they are members of that organization, their proximity to the facihty cannot be used as a basis for 11

DIGESTS ISSUANCFS OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS I

representational stan&ng. See Flortda Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Cenerating Plant Units i 3 and 4), ALAB-952,33 NRC 521,530-31 (representational stan&ng not present when inevidual rehed on I for stan&ng is not organization armber, but only representative of another organization). aff'd, CLI.91-13, 34 NRC 185 (1991).

G Concern that " bad precedent" may be set in procee&ng that could impact the pennoner's abdity to 1 contest similar matters in another procce&ng is "generahred grievance" that is "too academic" to provide l the requisite injury in fact needed for standing as of right. See Ohio E& son Co. (Perry Nuclear Power l Plant, Unit I), LBP 9138,34 NRC 229,248 49 (1991),aff'd as to another ruling, CLI-9211,36 NRC 47 (1992), petition for review ennussed City of Cleveland v. NRC,68 F.3d 1361 (D C. Cir.1995).

H Under the six-factor test for discretionary intervenuon, a pnmary consideration is the Arst factor of assistance in developing a sound record. See Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, i Units I and 2), CLI 76 27,4 NRC 610,617 (1976). )

I Ahhough requests for amicus cunae participation do not often anse in de conteat of Ucensing i Board hearings - in which factual questions generally predominate - because an anucus customanly does not present witnesses or croas<xamine other parues' witnesses, this happenstance "does not perforce preclude the granting of leave in appropriate circumstances to Ale bnefs or nemoranda amicus curiae (or to present oral argument) on issues of law or fact that sull remain for Ucensing Board consideration." Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-862,25 NRC 144,150 (1987).

hus, in the context of a proceeding in which a legal hsue predominates, pernutung a petitioner that lacks stan&ng to Ale an arrucus pleadmg addressing that issue is enurely aiyropnate.

J Particularly in the content of deahng with pro se petsuoners, a Aneng regareng a contention's speci6 city should include consideration of the consention's bases. See Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-899,28 NRC 93,97 (1988)(both comention and stared bases should be considered when quesuon anses regar&ng adnussibihty of contention).

K If clear argulatory constraint mandates that a hcensee take (or not take) a parucular action, to gain the adminion of a contention founded on the premise dw bcensee will not folkm that requirenrnt.

a peuuoner must rnake sone partaulanzed demonstration that diere is a reasonable basis to beheve the licensee would act contrary to the emphcit terms of that regulatory requirement L la respomhng to a summary disposmon motion, a party can assert, with appropnase supporung af6 davits, that it needs escovery to answer the dispositive monon. See Pubhc Service Co. on New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2) CL1-92-8,35 NRC 145,152 (1992).

LBP 96 24 SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore, Oklahoma Site Decon-tamination and Decommissioning Funding), Docket No. 40-8027-EA (ASLBP No 94 684-01-EA)(Source Material Ucense No. SUB 1010); ENFORCEMENT ACI' ION. November 5,1996, MEMOR ANDUM AND i ORDER (Approval of Settlement Agreement and Disnussal of Case) )

A This decismn approves a settlearnt agreenent between the Nuclear Regulatory Conumssion Staff and General Atomics, thereby terminating this proceeding i B The licensms board's funcuan in reviewing settienent agreenents, as dehneated in 10 C.F R. )

6 2.203, calls for settlements to be approved by the board and an adju& cation of any issues that may be required in the pubhc interen to &spose of the proceeding C he rationale for provt&ng due weight to the position of dw Staff inay be grounded on the mented understanding that, in the end, the Staff is responsible for maintainmg protecuon for the heahh and safety of the pubhc and, in the absence of evidence substantiaung challenges to the exercise of that responsibihty, 7

the Staff's position should be upheld. I j '

D The issue is not whether the matter before the Board presents the best settlement that could have been obtained. Tlw Board's obhgation instead is nerely to deternune whether the agreement is "within the reaches of the pubhc interest." Umted States v. Gillette Co ,406 F. Supp. 713,716 (1975).

LBP 9625 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), Docket No. 70-3070-ML 4 (ASLDP No 9164102-ML)(Special Nuclear Material Ucense); MATERIAIS LICENSE; December 3, 1990; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Resolving Contenuons J 4 K, and Q)

A In this Partial Initial Decision in die combmed construcuon pernut-operating license proceeding for the Claiborne Ennchment Center, the Ucensing Board resolves in favor of the Intervenor environmental contentions J 4 and K concerning de adequacy of the NRC Staff's treatment in the Anal environmental e

12

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TiiE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS impact statenwns of the need for the facihty and the no-acuon ahernative and contention Q concerning tle Apphcant's financtal quah6 canons to construct the poposed facihty.

B The NRC, not the Appbcant, has the burden of complying with NEPA. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stauon, Umts I and 2h CLI-8519,17 NRC 1041,1049 (1983). But the label of a contention as an environmental or NEPA comennon does not automancally allocate the burden of proof. Rather,it is de subject marter of the contenuon that determines upon whom the burden technically falls C Tlw study and description of shernatives is ate "hnchpin" of the environmemal impact statenwns process. Monroe County Conservation Council,Inc. v, Volpe,472 F.2d 693,697-98 (2d Cir.1972). ]

D NEPA's requirement of a " detailed statement" serves a number of purposes. First, it requires the agency so compile a reviewable environmental record demonstrating the agency has made a good faith effort to consider the environmental values NEPA seeks to safeguard and taken a hard look at alw environmemal consequences of its action. Second, the detailed statement serves as an environmental full &sclosure law providog agency decisionmakers, as well as the President, the Congress, the Council on Environnental Quality, and the public tie environmental cost-benent information that Congress thoeght they should have I about each qualifying federal schon. Third, "the requirenrot of a detailed statement helps insure the integnty of the process of decision by precluding stubborn problems or serious cnticism f*um being swept under the rug." Silva v. Lynn. 482 F.2d 1282,1285 (1st Cir.1973).

E Although the ecuan-forcing procedures of NEPA "are almost certain to affect the agency's substantive decision, it is now well settled that NEPA itself does not mandate parucular resuhs, but simply presenbes the necessary pocess." Robertson v. Methow Valley Cinzens Council,490 U.S. 332,350 (1989).

F 11 is clear that 10 C.F.R.151.45(c) requires the Applicant to include in its Environnental Report (ER) a cost-beneht analysis of ste proposed facihty. In the words of the regulation, that analysis must i

" consider (] and balance ()" the vanous environmental effects or costs of the proposal against the vanous l

" environmental, econonuc, technical and other benehts" of the project. The "need" for the facihry is simply a catchword for the pnncipal or pnmary benent of the proposed facihey that goes on the benc6: side of j the cost-bene 6t ledger. A cost-henc6: analysis cannot be perferned consistent with the Commrasion's I regulanons and section 102(2) of NEPA without weighing the bene 6ts or need for the project on one side of the equation with tlw costs or environmental effects of de project on alw other side.

G The Conunission's regulanons specincally direct that the Staff's Anal environmental impact statement address the need for the proposed facihty. See 10 Cf.R Part 51, Appen&x A; 10 CF.R.

Il 5170(b), 51.90.

H Labchng the regulatory sequirenrns as the "need" for the proposed facihty is rncrely a shorthand expression to describe the pnncipal beneficial factor that is to be weighed against the vanous costs of the proposal in stnking the cost. bene 6a balance required by NEPA and the Comrrussion's implementing regulations-I Whaiever the pnncipal benent provided by the proposed facihty, it must be addressed in the Anal environmental impact staienens as the need for the facthty and, "to the fullest estent practicable," the bene 6 must be quantined.

J Because the need for the proposed faciliry is de60suonally the primary beneht against which the vanous costs of the poject are neighed in the cost-bene 6s analyses and NEPA does not dictate any substantive outcome for the cost-bene 6e balancing process, the principal beneht of the project does not have to anse to any minimum level or meet any other pescnbed standard.

K Because NEPA and the Conunission's implemenung regulations require the Staff to address the no acuan ahernative in the Anal envimnnental impact statement, and the Commission's regulations, in turn, require the Applicant to discuss in the ER the ahernatives to the proposed action that will help the Staff to develop and explore the shernatives that rnust be discussed under section 102(2XE) of NEPA, section

$145(b) necessanly requires the Apphcant to address the no-action ahernauve in its environmental report.

L The adequacy of the Staff's treatment of the no-action ahernahve in the 6nal environmentalimpact staience must be judged by the rule of reason. Citizens Against Burhngton, Inc. v. Busey,938 F.2d 190, 195 (D C. Cir.1991).

M Pursuant to the general interpretational rule that statutory or regulasury provisions that relate to the same subject matter should be construed la pari materia (see 2B Sutherland Stat. Const il5101, 51.03 (5th ed.1992)),10 Cf.R.150.33(f), as the other agency regulatory provision deahng with Anancial

!?

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS quahncations, is the hkely source for obtaining insight about how to interpret the general language of the Note following 10 C.F.R. I70.22(ax8).

N The history of the Comnussion's Part 50 and Pas <0 Enancial qualihcations requirenrnis fully supports a parallel construction of those regulations in terr.as of the showis,g necessary to establish that an applicant " appears to be financially quahned" under 10 C tR. 5 70.23(aX5).

LBP-96-26 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (Independent Spera Fuel Storage lasiallation). Docket No. 72-18-ISFSI(ASLBP No. 97 72401-15FSI); INDEPEliDDrT SPElfT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLA-TION; December 3,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDE4 (Motion to Suspend Proceeding)

A la a pmceeding invoMag a proposed license fur an independent dry <ask spent fuel storage installation, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board grants the Apphcant's notion to suspend the proceeding, pending resolution in state court of a state agency's deternunation concerning site suitability. The Licensing Board also demes a cross motion to disnuss the application without prejudice. The Board imposes quarterly reporting requirements on the Applicant during tle suspension period.

B in a situation where a panicular course of action by an Apph: ant is being challenged under state law, whether or not that action is a violation of state law is not a quesuon for which a Licensing Board is an appropriate arbiter but rather is a question for state authonties to deternune.

4 I

i j

14 J

i d

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

}

i t

I i

I l

i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DDw96-9 CHEMETRON CORPORATION, INC. (Cleveland, Ohio), Docket No. 040LO8724. REQUEST FOR ACTION; July 3.1996. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CIR, t 2.206 A The Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Matertal Safety and Safeguards grants,in part Petitioner's request uader 10 C.F.R.12.206 that NRC compel Chemetron to commence action to decontanunale de Harvard Avenue site to the extent this is required by the License Amendnwnts of May 25,1993, and June 7,1996, and de Orders dated May 5.1992, and October 26. 1993; to the extent dwse actions were not taken in the tine onginally spec 6ed by Pttitioner, this request is denici in additson, the Director denies f Petitioner's second request that NRC impose sanctions against Chemetron for faihng to comply with its f November 14,1988 Confirmanon of Comnutment to decontanunate the Harvard Aveme site. On March 3

22,1989, de Director formally acknowledged receipt of the pension and denied the Peuuoner's request  ;

for imnwdiate rehef because NRC considered that Chemetron's actions demonstrated nunimally suf6cient -

progress toward decontamination. -

B i For violations of NRC requirements relatmg to sites on de Site Decomnussiomng Management f i Plan, the NRC will consider civil penalues where O) the hcensee or responsible party fails to conply

• l with an order compelhng payment into an escrow account; or (2) the beensee or responsible party fails to

{ l comply with a requirement or an order compelbng cleanup when there is already sufficient decommissiomng f [s  !

funding. " Action Plan to Fc3ure Timely Cleanup of Site Decommissiomng Management Plan Sites"(Apnl h 7 )

10, 1992).

r r j C ] )

DD-96-10 TENNESSEF VALLEY ALTTHORTTY (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant), Docket No. 50 390; REQUEST  :

FOR ACTION, July 9,1996; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2.206 ,

A The Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denied Peutioner's request under 10 i

C.F R. I 2 206 that the NRC rescind tiw operating hcense of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBNP) due to what Peutioner clasmed was a previously unreviewed problem related to radioactive sediments in the " Watts (

Bar lake"(lower Waus Bar Reservoir (LWBR)). The Director found that sediment from the LWBR could ',

not be drawn into WBNP's cooling water as the LWBR is downstream from the plant. W Director also -

noted, with regard to Pennoner's claim that no accon is being considered to remove radioscuve material from the LWBR or restnct use of that body of water, that a DOE report on the reservoir describes selected remedial action so be taken with regard to the LWBR. Finally, the Director noted controls in place at WBNP to prevent radioactive matenal from being discharged into the environment and that the facihty encets applicable NRC requirements suf6cient to allow it to operate.

DD.96-il TENNESSEE VALLEY ALTTHORITY (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Urut I), Docket No. 50 390, August 15,1996, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 A By a letter dated January 25, 1996, and supplememed by a letter dated January 30,1996, Ms.

Jane A. Fleming (Peorioner) requested a fair and imparual review of the entire hcensing process for the Wans Bar Nuclear Plaat Unit I (Watts Bar), operated by the Tennessee Valley Authonty (TVA) and further requested that the low-power hcense for Watts Bar be suspended or revoked until such review is completed and the issues in dispute are resolved. The request was considered as a petition subnutted pursuant to 10 C.F R. I 2.206.

B in a Director's Decision issued on August 15, 1996, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denied the rehef soughs by Petitioner. The Director concluded that Petitioner had failed to provide a basis to warrant a review of the Watts Bar licensing process and has failed to raise any safety concerns that would warrant suspension or revocation of the operaung hcense for Watts Bar.

15 4

.. -- = - - - . .

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-96-12 ALL NUC11AR POWER PEANTS, All Dockets (All Ucenses), REQUEST FOR AGION; September 26,1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R I 2.206 A By petioon da6cd March 5,1996, Peutioner Charles Morris requessed that the operaung hcenses of all nuclear power plants he imnw&ately suspended, and remain suspended due to v hat Peuuoner saw as a need to currect repeated errors in the plants' undervoltage relay setpomis and clertncal distnbuuon system designs Pennoner provided a number of reasons to suppen tus request.

B in a Director's Dectsion dated September 26,19%, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon 1 demed de rehef sougtu by Petmoner, conclu&ng that no substantial health and safety issues had been raised by Peuunner to wanant the scuon requested, as the NRC Staff had adequately addressed Peuuoner's concerns. With regard to de request for imme&ste suspension, the Director concluded that hcensees had to a large degree also already addressed the issues raised by Feutioner.

D0'9613 FEORIDA POWER CORPORATION (Crystal River Nuclear Generatmg Plant Umi 3), Docket No. 50 302; REQUEST TOR AGION, October 7,1996; DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

I 2.206

A The Acung Director grants a petinon 6 led by Mr. Louis D. Putney Esq. on behalf of Barry L Bennett, to ttw extent that it requested the NRC to determine the vahd ry of alleged secunty denciencies at Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Umt 3 (CR3). Most of the elleganons v7re not substanuated. The Acting Director denies the penuon to de calent the it requested the Actmg Director to insutute a proceeding i to suspend or revoke the operating bcense of CR3, pursuant to 10 CI.R. 6 2.202, upon con 6rmauon of dw I vah&ty of the allegations. Tlw Acung Direciar deternunes that wuh respect no ate Peiluoner's substannated concerns and other secunty concerns idemified by the NRC Staff, the Ucensee took appropnate action to correct the de6ciencies and no further action is warranted.

B There is no regulatory requirenant to report tie resuha of dnlis to the NRC unless certain safeguards system weaknesses are escovered dunng the dnlis that could allow unauthorued or undetected access to proiccted or vital areas of the reactor. See 10 Cf.R.18 73.55 and 73.71.

DD-96-14 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 l 413,54414 (Ucense Nos. NFP 35, NPF.52), REQUEST FOR AGION, October 10,1996; DIRECTOR'S l

DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. I 2.206 A By a pennon dated february 13,1996. Charles Morris (Peuuoner) requested that the U.S. Nuclear

, Regulatory Conumssion (NRC) suspend the operaung hcenses for the Catawba Nuclear Stanon (Catawba)

! and ten other umdenu6cd hcensees due to these plants lackmg ciremt breaker coordinanon. On May l, 1996, Pentioner subnutted an addendum to his penuon, hsting a number of cases involvmg tune otter nuclear power plants for which lack of prosecuve device coord nanon had been idennhed.

B in a Director's Decision dated October 10,1996, the Actmg Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon demed dw rehef souglu by Feuuoner Wah regard to Catawba's lack of circuit breaker coor&nanon, the Director ccmcluded that the Licensee had documented adequate techrucal jusu6 canon for tir lack of such coordinahon. Wuh regard to the oder plants menuoned in de pennon and addendum. tte Director concluded that those cases had already been addressed by way of the NRC's inspecuon report item closcout process.

DD 96-15 C11VI1AND E11GRIC ILEUMINATING COMPANY (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Umt I; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Stanon, Umt I), Docket Nos. 50 444A,50 346-A; ANTFTRUST, October 17, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. I 2.206 A In a peuunn, dated January 23, 1996, and supplenented by letters dated May 31, and August 13,1996, the CHy of Cleveland, Otuo, which owns and operates Cleveland Pubhc Power, requested the Executive Director for Operanons to take enforcement action against the Cleveland Electne Illummating Company for allegedly violaung the anuirust hcense con &tions apphcable to na nuclear umts The peution, which raised four speci6c issues, was referred to the Director, Ofhce of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon, for review pursuant to 10 C F R,12.206.

B in a Director's Decision 6ssued c>n October 17, 1996, the Acting Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation deternuned that no NRC procce&ng should be insututed and no further regulatory action by the NRC is required regarding de issues raised by Feutioner. The Acung Director concluded that de matters raised were either effectively resolved by the lederal Energy Regulatory Comnuss on (IT.RC) or are pen &ng before FERC and are within its junsdict on to decide; and the Peutioner odierwise failed to simw at had been harmed 16

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

1 d i l

i f

DIGESTS 4

ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-96-16 . NORTHEAS: NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Power Stanon Umt I),

j Docket No. 50 245 (Ucense No. DPR-21); REQUEST JOR AGION; October 31,1996. DIREGOR'S T DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 I A The Acung Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has denied a pention by Anthony J. Ross that

} enforcement acti on be taken against Nordrast Utihues and certain managers for violations involving the

! gas turbme banery, harassment and iminudation, and falsi6 cation of miclear documents. Following his l l assessnwnt of the petinon, the Acung Director concluded that appropriate enforcement action had already I l been taken for senen of the Peutioner's concerns while other concerns were not substanuated so that j l additional enforcenes action was not warramed and the peution should be demed. l j B Technical issue escussed. maimenance and surveillance.

] DD 96-17 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Power Stanon Unit 1),

j Dncket No. 50+245 (Ucense No. DPR-21); REQUEST JOR ACTION, Octut er 31, 1996; DIREGOR'S l

DECislON UNDER 10 C.F.R. I2.206 i A he Acung Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has denied a petiuon by Anthony J. Ross that )

j de NRC sequire Nortleast Utihues to review all esisung work orders for the past 10 or 12 years to ensure that Quahey Assurance nuxor and connection work does not have certain de6ciencies and take enforcenent j acuan aganst NU and its managers, based upon the Peuuoner's assertions of intmudation and harassment i j and inadequase work comrol and procedure comphance. Followmg his seview, the Actmg Director has i deternuned that none of the techmcalissues raised by the Peuunner reflect a lack of procedural comphance 1

or warram ad&uonal achon by the Staff, and that the Peutioner's assertion of harassment and iminudanon does not warram any action.

j ~

B Techmcal issue &scussed. quahty assurance.

DD-9618 ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES; REQUEST FOR AGION; November 6,1996; FINAL

] DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206

A The Actmg Director of the Ofhee of Nuclear Reactor Regulauon demes in part and pants in part i

a petition dated Apnt 13,1994, subnutted to the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion (NRC) by Mr Paul M Blanch (Pentioner) requesung that de NRC take imnw& ate schon with regard to all power reactor hcensees concernmg the potenual failure of the fuel in spent fuel pools for all reactors in the Umted Staies.

] B Penuoner requested that tie NRC imme&ately issue an informahon mmce or other appropnate J nou6 cation forwar&ng all information in its possession to all power reactor heensees regardmg the poiential j failure of fuel in spes fuel pools and remin&ng bcensees of their responsibihues to perform unely operabihty driernunations. Tius sequest was gramed in part based on issuance by the NRC of generie communicanons to hcensees on failure of spent fuel.

C Peutmner also requested that the NRC direct each heensee to immediately perform an evaluauon of the potenthi failure of spem fuel in spent fuel pools to deternune comphance with its cunent beensing basis This request was granted in part based on evaluations performed by the NRC Staff of both the design and operational aspects of spent fuel pool storage issues for all operating reactors.

D Fmally, Pensioner seemed to suggest that the exercise of enforcement &scretson by issuance of a

, Notice of Enforcenent Discretion (NOED) may be appropriate concermng spent fuel pool issues raised in

, the peuuon. Based upon the review of the information provided in the peution, the NRC Staff has not idenuhed any circumstance warranung the issuance of a NOED.

DD%l9 - f1ORIDA POWER AND LIGirl' COMPANY (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), l

$ Docket Nos. 50-335,50 389 (Ucense Nos. DPR 67. NPF-16); REQUEST FOR ACTION, November 18. I i 1996; DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206 A The Acung Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon denics a pection dated June 12, 4

1996,6ted with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to 10 C.F R. 6 2.206 by Thomas J g, Saponto on behalf of lumself and the National Utigation Consultants (Petitioners). The Petiiioners requested j the NRC (1) to issue a con 6rmatory order requinng that the Florida Power & Ught Company (Ucensee)  ;

not operaie the St. Lucie Plant, Umt I, above 50% of its power-level capacity, (2) to require the Ucensee to speci6cally identify the *' root cause" for the premature failure of the steam generator tuhmg, and (3) to require the Licensee to speci6cally state what conective nrasures will be implenented to prevent recurrence i of steam generator tube failures in all de steam generators in Umt I and Umt 2. The Itutioners' requests were based on assenions that (1) the Ucensee's Uma I steam generator tubes have degraded to de estent  !

b 17 i

DIGESTS ISSUANCES Ol' DIRECTORS' DECISIONS that more than 2500 of the tubes have been plugged. (2) de Licensee has not idenuhed de root cause for de premature falure of the steam generatur tubing,(3) the LAensee will most hkely expenence sinular tube ruptures on other generators at de stauon, and (4) the Ucensee's "FSARs [ Final Safety Analys : Reports]

and atw NRC's Cl Rs (Code of federal Regulanons) requae that the insegnty of dw primary systerm on Unit I and Uma 2 not be breached."

DP-96-20 MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (Mame Yankee Atonue Power Stauon). Docket No. 50 309; REQUEST FOR ACllON; November 20,1996; DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CER.

I 2.206 A The Acung Ducciar of the Ofhce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) demes a peuuon hied with the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussma (NRC or Conumssion) by leuer dated January 20,1996, by Anne D.

Burt on twhalf of de Inends of de Coast - Opposing Nuclear Pollunon (Petitioner) requesting that accons be taken regardmg sie Maine Yankee Asotruc Power Stanon (Mame Yankee) operated by the Mairw Yankee Atonue Power Company (the Licensee). The peutma is demed based on the Acung Director's analysis of de technical issues, set fasih in fle Decisson, which analysis showed no techmcal baus warranung granung the petition. Peuuoner's requests for inunechase acuon and for en informal leanng were demed by the Duector, NRR, by Iruer dated May 13,1996,for alw reasons stated in that leuer.

B The followmg techmcal issues are discussed- Adequacy of contamnent design at cr above enginally authorized power level, Microhssunng of low-fernte stainless steel weldments.

DD.%21 NORTHERN STATES POWE'R COMPANY (Praine Island Nuclear Genernung Plant, Uruts I and 2), Dodet Nos. 54 282, 54 306, 72-10; REQUEST FOR AGION; November 27, 1996; D!RECOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2 206 A The Acung Durctor of de Orhce of Nuclear Reactor Regulauon demes a petmon dated June

$.1995, subtmated to de Nuclear Regulatory Compusuon (NRC) by tte Praine Island Coahuon Against Nuclear Storage (PICANS). now known as the Prmne Island Coalmon, and dw Nuclear Informauon and Resource Service (Peuuoners) requesung shar de NRC immedimely suspend the operaung bcenes for Praine Island Nuclear Generaung Plant, Umts I and 2, operated by the Northern States Power Company B Petiuoner presented four concerns. Prmne Island sicam generators are suffenng from tube degradauon and may rupture unless proper tenung is conducted and correcove acuons are taken, The Prame island reactor vessel head penetranons have stress-corrosion cracks which, if ma found and conected. may result in a catastroptuc accident involving the reactor control rods. Plans for unloading dry cask storage umts in an energency were not psoperly sevwwed by the NRC and do not sausfy NRC requirements. Finally, the phyncal integnty of de Prairie is sand crane requires physical tesung and a safety analysis before future crane use followmg its handhng of a heavy load for an emiended pened of tinw.

C Fur ttw reasons explasned in the Direcior's Decision, the Actmg Duector concludes that madequate bases exist for granting Feuuoners' request DD-%22 GENERAL PUBUC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generaung Scanon), Docket No. 54219; REQUEST FOR AGION, December !!,1996, DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2.206 A The Actmg Director of the Ofhee of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes peutrons dated May Il and June 14,19%, hied with tie Nuclear Regulatory Comnusuon (NRC) by Mr. Wsiham decamp, Jr.,

on behalf of Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch (Pennoner) requesting dw NRC to invesugate statements made by GPU Nuclear Corporauon fGPU) in the Apnl 1996 publicauon Neighborhood Update (de Licensee's news magazine) and dunng sworn tesunmny on March 7,1996, before the L icey Township Zomns Board of Adjustment and take appropnate disciphnary actmn. The statements are that GPU and itw Comnussion agree that a Ucensee anendment request that involves the novenent of spent fuel from alw Oysier Creek Nuclear Genermung Station spent fuel pool to the storage fadhty wlule the plant is at power "ss not a safety issue but a procedural one" and that it is unsafe to operaie the Oyster Creek reactor wuhout full core offload capacity. The Peuuoner asserts that the staterrents are false, referencmg language in an NRC Bulleun sinung that tte NRC Staff determined that the Ucensee's proposal involved an umevwwed safety questmn and that the NRC ruled in February 1985 in 10 C,F R Part 53 that reactors may safely be run without full. core offload capactry.

B When de NRC receives an anendment apphcnuon, it is sequued to follow specihc procedures set forth in 10 C.F R I 50 91 l

18 1

i i

e

_ .. __ _ _ __ - ~. -

___m._ . - _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ _.

i l i l l l DIGESTS i ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS

• DECISIONS k

l C  %%1e a full-core reserve capability is not an NRC bcensing or safety requirenent, maintenance of full-core reserve would enhance safety to sonw extent, and would also be needed so prevent euended l reactor outages in tim event a core nest be discharged in order to inspect the reactor pressure vessel and I perform other routine and unscheduled maisenance operarsons. j DD-96-23 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Uma 1). >

! Docket No. 54245 (Ucense No. DPR-21); REQUEST FOR ACTION, December 26,1996i PARTIAL

! DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CER i2.206  !

l A By a petmon dated August 21,1995, and supplenemed on August 28,1995, from Mr George  ;

l Galatis and We de People, Inc. (Peutionerst Pennoners raised issues regarding the Mdistone Nuclear Poner l Sistmn, Umt I (Millstone Unit I), opermaed by Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO or Ucensee).

Petitioners assened thal the Ucensee has knowingly, withagly, and flagrantly operased Mdistone Unit I l in violation of Ucense Anendnents No. 39 and No. 40. Speca6cally, Petitioners assert that NNECO has '

offloaded more fuel assembbes into the Mdistone Unit I spent fuel pool (SFP) dunng refuchng cutages l than permined under these hcense anendmrus. Peutioners also asserted that Ucense Anendmems No. 39 i and No. 40 for Mdistone Umt I are based on masenal false staternents rnade by the Ucensee in documents i subnuned to the NRC. E B Based on their assertions, Peutioners requested a venery of actions. IVutioners requested institunon of a proceeding under 10 CER. 6 2.202 to suspend de hcense for the Millstone Umt I facihry for a pennd of 60 days after the unit is brought imo compliance wnh the beense and tie design basis and to revoke om

[ operating beense for the Mdistone Unit I facshty unut it is in full conyhance with the terms and condaions

( of its hcense. Pennoners also requested that, before reinstatement of the hanne, a detailed independent 1 analysis of the offane dose consequences of the total loss of SFP water be conducted.

l C in a Partial Dnector's Decision issued on December 20,1996, the Acung Director of the Ofhce of l Nuclear Reactor Regulanon noied that IVutioners had assened wrongdoing on the part of the Ucensee and ,

j that the NRC Staff has tvg yet completed its review of this issue. I i D However, as ele NRC Staff had completed us techmcal assessment of core offloading practices at Mdistone Umts I,2, and 3 and Seabrook Umt I, the Acung Director considered it appropriate to issue a Pm1ial Director's Decision discussing this issue and desenbmg acuans taken by the NRC whach, in part, address Petiuoners' requests.

I f

19 i

i i

(

?

k i

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

\

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Advanced Me& cal Systems, Inc. (One Factory Ruw, Gerrva. Ohio 44041), CLI-93 22, 38 NRC 98,102 ,.

(1993) standard for grant of summary disposition motion; LBP-9418,44 NRC 92 (1996) ,

Alabama en rel. Basicy v. Corps of Lngineers, 411 E Supp.1261,1267 (N.D. Ala.1976)

" detailed statement" requirement of NEPA; LBP 96-25, 44 NRC 341 (19%)

Alfred 1 Morahno (Semor Operator I.icense for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-88-10, 27 NRC 417 (1988), LBP 8816, 27 NRC $83 (1996) standard for hcensing of reactor operators; LBP-9613, 44 NRC 2 (1996); LBP 96-17,44 NRC 80 (1996) /

All Pressunzed Water Reacturn, DD-95-2,41 NRC 55 (1995) 7 vessel head penetration cracking; DD-96 21,44 NRC 3054)6 (1996) 7 American Cyhmier Manufacturers Comnunce v. Department of Transportanon, 578 F.2d 24, 27-28 (2d Cir. ,

1978) /

d heanns nghts on license amendmems; CLI-9613,44 NRC 329 a.37 (1996)

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)  ; -

maienahry of factual disputes for purpose of summary d sposinon; LDP-9618, 44 NRC 99 (1996)  ? i l

Anzona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Genereung Station, Umts I, 2, and 3). ALAB-336, 4  ;-~ -

NRC 3,4 (1976) inclusion of secondary benc6es in NEPA cost-beneht analysis: LDP 96-25, 44 NRC 374 (1996)

[

Batumore Gas and Electne Co. (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), LBP 7315,6 AEC 375, 377 (1973)

')-

termir, anon of proceeding on basis of settlement agreenent; LBP-96-16, 44 NRC 63 (1996) ,

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

hearing nghts on hcense amendmems; CLI 96-13, 44 NRC 329 n 37 (19%)

Calvert Chffs' Coorenaung Conurutice v AEC,449 F.2d 1109,1813 & a3 (D C. Cir 1971) acuan-forcmg procedures of NEPA; LBP 96-25, 44 NRC 340 (1996)

Carchna Power and Ljpt Co. (Shenron Hanis Nuclear Power Plant, Unns 1-4), ALAB 526,9 NRC 122, 124 (1979)

&sunction between contentions and bases in applying late-6hng standards; LBP-9615,44 NRC 24 (19%)

Cmzens Awareness Network, Inc. v. NRC, 59 F3d 284, 288-90 (1st Cir.1995) agency-sancuoned program for dismanthng reactor componems pnar to approval of decomnnsiomng plan; LBP 96-15,44 NRC 14 n.3 (1996)

Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. NRC, 59 E3d 284, 291 (1st Cir.1995) eactusion of secondary benents from NEPA coss-bene 6 analysis; LDP-96 25, 44 NRC 375 (1996)

Cmzens Awareness Network, Inc. v. NRC, 59 F3d 284, 295 (1st Cir.1995) standard for deternuning whether challenged NRC authonzanons consutute bcense amendments; I CLI-96-13, 44 NRC 326 27 (1996) l Cleveland Electnc illununaung Co. (IYrry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741,

753-54 (1977)

J burden on proponem of summary disposinon motion; LBP-9618, 44 NRC 92 (1996) 1 1

J 21 4

i j

1 u . . _ . . - - _ _ - -_ , _ _ _ _ - _ . - .__ _ _ _

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

i i I '

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES I

i l

Cleveland Electric Bluminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plam, Unit 1), CLI-93-21, 38 NRC 87, 91 a.6, l

93 (1993) l hearing rights on technical specificanon changes; LBP-%23,44 NRC 150 m.6 (1996)

Combusuon Engineering, Inc. (Henutite Fvel Febncasion Facihty), LBP-89-31, 30 NRC 320 (1989) supulauon in settlement agreenent for withdrawal of imervenor; LBP-9616, 44 NRC 63 (1996) i Consohdaeed Edison Co. of New York (inaian Pant Umt 2), CLI-74-23,7 AEC 947,95152 (1974)

I anatters appropriate for posthearing resolution tiy NRC Staff; CLI-97 8,44 NRC 108 (1996) l C9W Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point. Umts 1, 2, and 3), CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173,175 l (1975) l standard for lassituuon of show cause proceedings: DD 96 II,44 NRC 78 (1996); DD-9612, 44 l

NRC 178 (1996); DD 9613,44 NRC 185 (1996) l Conschdmed Edison Co. of New York (Indian Puint Units I, 2, and 3), CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173,176 l

l (1975) l standard for institution of show,cause proceedings; DD-9&id,44 NRC 202 (1996); DD 9621, 44 NRC 297 (1996)

Consumers Power Co. (Mid'and Plant, Units I and 2), CU-74 5, 7 AEC 19, 31 (1974) burden of proof on environnental comentions; LBP-%25,44 NRC 338 (1996)

Consunrrs Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-86-33, 24 NRC 474 (1986); LBP-8&39, 24 NRC 834 ('986)

environmental assessnrnt of sernunation of operating license appbcation; ISP.%21,44 NRC 136 I (1996)

Consumers Power Co. (Pahsades Plant), ALAB-70,5 AEC 280, 288 (1972) withdrawal pursuant to an agreenent pnar to adtrussion of a consention or party; LEP-96-16, 44.

NRC 61 (1996)

Duke Power Co (Carawba Nuclear Station Units I and 2), ALAB 355,4 NRC 397, 405 (1976) tred for power in cost-benefit balancing; LBP-%25,44 NRC 347 a.5 (1996)

Duke Power Co (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAlb687,16 NRC 460,469 (1982) good cause for late 6 hag of contentions based on more than one docunwnt; LBP-%l5,44 NRC 26 ,

n.10 (1996)

Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Sianon, Umts I and 2), CU-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1049 (1983) challenge to treatmem of no-action ahernative in environnental review and Anal environmental impact statement; LBP-9625,44 NRC 338 (1996) -

Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Stanon, Umts 1, 2, and 3); LBP 76-18, 3 NRC 627, 642 n.3 (1976) inclusion of secondary benefits in NEPA cost-benefit analysis; LBP-96-25,44 NRC 374 (1996)

Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Stauon, Units I, 2, and 3), LBP-82-81,16 NRC 1128 (1982) condmons on withdrawal of operating license apphcation; LBP 9621,44 NRC 536 (1996)

Flanda Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-420, 6 NRC 8, 22 (1977) weight given to good cause for late 6hng; REP 96-15,44 NRC 24-25 (1996)  ;

Flonda Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Umt 2), ALAB 435,6 NRC 541, 544 (1977) l Staff review of environmental matters, adequacy of; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 349 a6 (1996)

Flonda Power and Ught Co, (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), DD-8115,14 NRC 589 (1981) 1 NRC jurisdiction over issues pendmg before federal Energy Regulatory Conunission; DD El5. 44

{

NRC 212 a 6 (1996) 11onda Power and Light Co. (St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), DD-95-10,41 NRC 361 (1995)

Staff posture on issues before lederal Energy Regulatory Comnussion: DD E15, 44 NRC 212 n 6 (1996)

Flonda Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generatmg Plant, Umts 3 arid 4), ALAB-952, 33 NRC

$21, 530 31 aff'd, CL1-91 13, 34 NRC 185 (1991) geographic prounuty as basis for representational standing in lieu of individual authonzation; LBP %23,44 NRC 159 a.ll (1996) i 22 l

I i

i e

J \

1 i

I l i

1

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES General Pubhc Uulities Nuclear Corp. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Uma 2), LBP-92-29, 36 NRC 225 (1992)

&snussal of action withou' prejuece where board &d not review settlenent agreernent; LBP.96-16, 44 NRC 64 (1996)

Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CL1-95-12, 42 NRC l

1II, 115 (1995) l consuuction of intervention pentions for determining standing; LBP-96 23, 44 NRC 158 (1996)

Georgia lastitute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12,42 NRC III,115-17 (1995) stan&ng under Part 76 to request review of Derector's decision; CLI-%12,44 NRC 236 (1996)

Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12, 42 NRC lit, il8 (1995) standard for adnussion of comennon with new-dose argument; LBP 9615, 44 Ntic 31 (1996)

Georgis Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Umts I, 2, 3, and 4), LBP 74-39, 7 AEC 895, 915 (1974) inclusion of secondary benehts in NEPA cost benchi analysis; LBP-%25,44 NRC 374 (1996)

Gottheb t. Wiles, il F.3d 1004,1014 (1993) factors considered in hcensing board ruhng on settienent agreenents; LBP-96 24, 44 NRC 257 (1996)

Gulf Staies Utihtnes Co. (Raver Bend Station, Umis 1 and 2), LBP 75-50, 2 NRC 419, 446 (1975) inclusion of secondary benc6ts in NEPA cost-benefit analysis; LBP-%25, 44 NRC 374 (1996)

Houston Ughung and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Umis I and 2), ALAB 549, 9 NRC 644, 646-47 (1979) orgamzatmnal standing to intervene, showing necessary to demonstrate; LBP 96 22,44 NRC 141 (1996)

Houston Ughting and Power Co. (South Texas Project Umts I and 2), ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644,649 (l979) applicabihry where peutioness have estabhshed standing as of nghi. LBP-%-15,44 NRC 29 a 12 (1996)

Houston Ughung and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Umts I and 2), ALAB-799, 21 NRC 360, 382 (1985) withdrawal pursuant to an agreenent pnor to adnussion of a contention or party; LBP 9616,44 NRC 61 (1996)

Houston Ughung and Power Co (South Texas Project, Umts I and 2), LBP-82-91,16 NRC 1364,1367 (1982) weight given to good cause for late hhng; LDP %I5,44 NRC 24 25 (1996)

Houston Ughung and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Unns I and 2), LBP-82-91,16 NRC 1364,1368 (1982) weight given to ability to contnbule to a sound record and delay in the procec&ng in deternuning adnussibiluy of late-hied contenuons; LBP-9615, 44 NRC 24-25 (1996)

Ilhnois Power Co. (Chnson Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB.340, 4 NRC 27,49 (1976) inclusion of secondary betwhis in NEPA cost-benchi analysis; LBP-%25,44 NRC 374 (1996)

Kelley v. Sehn, 42 F3d 1501,1515 (6th Cir ), cert. denied,115 S. Ct. 2611 (1995)

NRC authont.auons that do not ingger heanng rights, CLI.9613, 44 NRC 327 (1996)

Kenneth G. Perce (Shorewood, Ilhmus), CLI-95-6, 41 NRC 381 (1995) review demed for faulure to raise substantial issues; C11%ll,44 NRC 230 (1996)

Kleppe v Sierra Club, 427 U.S 390, 409 & n 18 (1976) action forcing procedures of NEPA; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 340 (1996) long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1), ALAB.743,18 NRC 387, 397 (1983) weighi given to good cause for late fthng; LBP-%I5,44 NRC 24-25 (1996) 23

)

1 I

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASf3 1mg Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743,18 NRC 387, 399, 402 (1983) weight given to ninhty to comnbute lo a sound record and driay in tir proceeding in deternumng adnussibibry of late-hied consennons; LBP %15,44 NRC 24-25 (1996)

Long Island Ughung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Umt 1), CLI-918, 33 NRC 461,47172 (1991) adnumstrative stay to pernut reviewing court to consider request for juactal stay; CLI-96-9,44 NRC 113 (1996)

Massachusetta v. NRC, 878 F.2d 1516,152122 (1st Cir.1989)

NRC muttenzations that do not ingger tranng nghts; CLJ-%13, 44 NRC 327 (1996) ,

Massachusens v. NRC, 924 F.2d 311, 331 (D.C. Or.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 899 l bcensmg board authonty to make pred cuve findings regar&ng emergency planning; ( LI-97-8, 44 NRC 108 (1996)

Matsumoto v. Bnnegar, 568 F.2d 1289,1290 (9th Gr.1978) effect of NEPA schon-forcing procedures on agency's substanuve decision; LBP-96 25,44 NRC 342 (1996)

McGhnchy v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 807 (9th Or.1988)

~

factual support required of espen witness in opposing summary disposmon; LDP %i8,44 NRC 303 (1996)

Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt 1), CLI-83-25,18 NRC 327, 332 (1983) ju&ual concepts of standing applied in NRC procee&ngs; LBP 96-22, 44 NRC 140 (1996) l Mmnesota PIRG v. Butz, 541 F.2d 1202.1299 (Bah Or.1976), cert. demed, 430 U.S. 922 (1977) i

" detailed statenent" requirenrnt of NEPA; LBP-%25, 44 NRC 341 (1996)

Monroe County Conservauon Council, Inc. v. Volpe, 472 F.2d 693, 697 98 (2d Or.1972) consideranon of alternauves to proposed agency action, imponance of, LBP W25, 44 NRC 341 (19%)

New England Coahuon on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87,93 (1st Cir.1978) informanon requiremems for deternuning financial quah6cauons; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 384 (1996)

New York Shipbuildmg Corp.,1 AEC 842, 844 (1%I) I scope of matters considered in review of settlenem agreements; LBP-%24, 44 NRC 256 (1996)

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Pumt Nuclear Stanon Unit 2), ALAB-264,1 NRC 347, 352 (1975) need for power in cost benefit balancing; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 347 n.5 (1996)

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp (Nme Mile Poius Nuclear Stanon, Unit 2), LBP-83-45,18 NRC 213 (1983) standards for state agency participauon in hcensmg of independent spent fuel storage facihty; l LBP %22,44 NRC 140 (1996)

North Anencan inspection, Inc. (P.O. Box 88, Laury: Stanon, Pennsylvama 18059), ALJ 86-2, 23 NRC 459, 460 (1986) standards used in support of troard approval of seulement agreenwnes; LBP-%24, 44 NRC 256 I (1996)

NRDC v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 79, 92-93 (2d Cir.1975) consideranon of alternatives to proposed aFency acuan, importance of; LDP-E25, 44 NRC 341 (1996)

NRDC v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 838 (D C. Or.1972)

" detailed statenent" requiremem of NEPA, LBP-%25, 44 NRC 341 (1996)

Nuclear fuel Services (West Valley Reprocessing Plani), ALAB-263,1 NRC 208, 216 n 14 (1975) standards for staie agency parucipaiion in heensing of independent spent fuel storage facihry; LBP-422,44 NRC 140 (1996)

Otuo Eason Co (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Uma 1), LBP-9138, 34 NRC 229, 248-49 (1991), aff'd as to another ruhng, CLI-92 il, 36 NRC 47 (1992), peuuon for review dismissed, City of Cleveland v.

NRC, 68 F.3d 1361 (D C. Or.1995) generaheed gnevance as injury m fact; LBP-96-23, 44 NRC 159 (1996) 24

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES P & R Temner v, FCC, 743 F.2d 918, 928 (D C, Car.1984) standard fur determiniig whether challenged NRC authorizations constitute bcense amendments; CLI-%I3,44 NRC 329 (1996)

Pacthe Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plam, Uruis I and 2), ALAB-763,19 NRC 571, 577 (1984) burden of proof on environmemal cornentions; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 338 (1996)

Pacthe Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 81-6,13 NRC 443 (1981) scope of issues htigable under secuon 2.206; DD-%23, 44 NRC 421 (1996)

Pacihc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), LBP-92-27, 36 NRC 196 199 (1992) showing necessary to demonstraie standing to intervene; LBP-96-22, 44 NRC 141 (1996)

Pacihc Gas and Electne Co. (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Uma 3), LBP-88-4, 27 NRC 236, 238 (1988) ternunauon of proceeding on basis of settlement agreement; LBP-96-16,44 NRC 63 (1996)

Philadelphia Electric Co- (Umerick Generating Stanon, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 706 (1985) supplementation of FEIS by bcensing board decision and adjudicatory record, LDP-96-25, 44 NRC 369-70 (1996)

Philadelphia Electric Co. (Umerick Generating Station, Umis I and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 720 (1985) burden of proof on environmental consentions; LBP-96 25, 44 NRC 338 (1996)

Philadelphia Elecine Co (Umenck Generstmg Sianon, Units I and 2), ALAB-828,23 NRC 13,23 (1986) weight given to contenuon's abihty to delay deconunissioning proceedms; LBP 9615, 44 NRC 30 (1996)

Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Lnwrick Generaimg Stauon, Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-836, 23 NRC 479, 494 (l986) matters appropeiale for posthearing resoluuan by NRC Staff; CLl-97 8,44 NRC 108 (1996)

Philadelphia Electne Co. (Limenck Generstmg Ssation, Umts I and 2), LBP.89 24, 30 NRC 152 (1989) hcensing tmard review of setilement agreenents; LBP 96-16, 44 NRC 63 (1996)

Purtland General Electne Co. (Pebble Spnngs Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 616 (1976) discretionary standing, governing factors for; LBP 96-23, 44 NRC 160 (1996)

Portland General Electnc Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531,9 NRC 263, 273 (1979) nodihcanon to bcensee USAR without a heenu amendnent; CL1-%13,44 NRC 328 (19%)

Public Service Co. of Colorado (Fort St. Vram Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), attachment to CLI-91-13, 34 NRC 190 (19H))

withdrawal pursuant to an agreement prior to admission of a contenuon or party; LBP-9616,44 NRC 61 (1996)

Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-459, 7 NRC 179,184 (1978) need for power in cost-benent balancmg; LBP 96 25, 44 NRC 347 n.5 (1996)

Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stauon, Umt 1), CLI-91-14, 34 NRC 261, 266-67 (1991) showing necessary to demonstrate standmg to intervene; LBP-96 22, 44 NRC 141 (1996)

Pubhc Service Co of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Umts I and 2), ALAB-349, 4 NRC 235, 269 (1976) inclusion of seconbry benents in NEPA cost-beneht analysis; LBP-%25,44 NRC 374 (1996)

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stanon, Units I and 2), ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 90 (1977) need for uramum enrichment facihty; LBP 96-25, 44 NRC 336 (1996)

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrouk Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-471, 7 NRC 477, 489 n 8 (1978) burden of proof on envuonnental contennons; LBP-96-25,44 NRC 339 (1996) 25 l

~~4 _.-____-~-_____.__..-.m..... ._.-m.______ __.__ __ ___ . _

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-862,25 NRC 144,150 (1987) anucus curiae in licensmg proceedings; LBP%23,44 NRC 161 (1996)

Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-899,28 NRC 93,97 (1988) standard for admissibihty of pro se intervenors' comentions; LBP423,44 NRC 162 (1996)

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station. Units I and 2), CLI 781,7 NRC 1,1411 (1978) l financial source information requirenents for newly forned organaauons; LBP%25. 44 NRC 390 (1996)

Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units I and n. CLI-92-8, 35 NRC 145,152 (1992) descovery request as response to summary esposanon nudion: LBP-9615,44 NRC 38 (1996);

. LBP&23,44 NRC 166 n.20 (1996)

Pubhc Service Co_ of Oklahoma (Black Foa Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 573,10 NRC 775, 848 (1979) need for power in cess-beneht balancing; LBP&25,44 NRC 347 n.5 (1996)

Ra&auon Oncology Cemer at Marhan (Mariton, New Jersey), LBP 95-25, 42 NRC 237,238-39 (1995) .

challenges to enforcement orders; LBP420,44 NRC 129 (1996) l Ra&ation Oncology Cemer at Marhon (Marhon, New Jersey), LBP-96 4,43 NRC 101,102 (1996)  ;

standards used in support of board approval of settlenem agreemems; LBP-%24,44 NRC 256 j (1996)

Robertson v. Methow Valley Casizens Council,490 U.S. 332,348 (1989) environnemal conmutment of NEPA: LBP-96 25,44 NRC 339 (1996)

Rocirster Gas and Electric Corp. (Sierbng Power Project Nuclear Unit No.1), ALAB-502, 8 NRC 383, 388 a.Il (1978) need for power in cost benent balancing; LBP-96 25,44 NRC 347 n.5 (1996)

Roger W. Elkngwood (Senior Operator License for Catawba Nuclear Stanon), LDP-89-21, 30 NRC 68 (1996) standard for heensing of reactor operaturs; LBP%I),44 NRC 2 (1996), LBP %17, 44 NRC 80 (1996)

Rulemakmg on the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste (Waste Con 6dence Rulemaking), CLI-8415, 20

! NRC 288 (1984) l waste disposal arrangenems for ceru6 cation of gaseous &ffusion plant; CLI%12, 44 NRC 244 (1996)

Sacranento Municipal Utility Disuict (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generanns Stanon), CLl-92-2,35 NRC 47,56 (1992) i judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC procee&ngs; LBP%22,44 NRC 140 (1996) t Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Stauon), LBP 94-23, 40 NRC 81 (1994) withdrawal from proceeding with preju&ce according to terms of settlenrm agreement; LBP %-16, 44 NRC 64 (1996)

San Lms Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,751 F.2d 1287,1313 (D C. Car.1984), referersmg remarks  !

of Sen. Hickenlooper,100 Cong. Rec. 10,171 (1954), reh'g en banc on other grounds, 789 F.2d 26, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 (1986) heanng nghis on heense amendments; CLl41), 44 NRC 326 (1996) l Sequoyah feels Corp. (Gore Oklahoma Site) CLIW12,40 NRC 64, 71 (1994) l considerations in licensing board's public imerest Anding on serilenent agreenent; LBP424,44

! NRC 257 (1996) l Sequoyah Fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Sate) LBP%l9, 40 NRC 9,13-14 (1994) organizanonal standmg to imervene by Indian inbes; LDP422, 44 NRC 141 (1996) ,

Silva v. Lynn, 482 F.2d 1282,1284 (1st Cir.1973) i

detailed statenent" requirement of NEPA; LBP%25,44 NRC 341 (1996) 26 I-4

?

i

{

l '

l

1 i

l l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l l

CASES l

Staternent of Pohey on Conduct of licensing Proceedings, CLI-818,13 NRr' 452,455 (1981) hcensing teard role in settleness; LBP-%16, 44 NRC 62 (1996, Statement of Policy on Ccaduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-818,1314RC 452,456 (1981)

NRC pohey on settlenent of consented proceedmgs; LBP-96-24,44 NRC 256 (1996) l Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen. 444 U.S. 223, 227 28 (1980) effect of NEPA acuon forcing procedures on agency's substaraive decision; LBP 96-25,44 NRC 341 42 (1996)

Tennessee Valley Authonty (Browns irrry Nuclear Plant, Umts I, 2, and 3), LDP-73-43, 6 AEC 1%2, 1063 (1973) ternunation of proceeding on basis of settlement agreement; LBP 96-16, 44 NRC 64 (1996) )

Texas Unhues Electne Co. (Comanche Peak Sicam Electric Stacon, Unit 1), ALAB-868,25 NRC 912, 1 926 (1987) experuse and experience of counsel as basis for adrmssion of late-hied cotuention; LBP-9615,44 NRC 28 (1996)

Texas Utihues Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Stanon. Units I and 2), LBP41-25,14 NRC 241,243 (1981) role of comentions in NRC bcensing a%udications; LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 21 (1996)

Texas Utihues Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Stanon, Units I and 2) LEP-88-18A,28 NRC 101 (1988); LBP-88-18B, 28 NRC 103 (1988) I termination of proceeding on basis of settlement agreenrra; LBP-9616. 44 NRC 64 (1996) l Three M le Island Alert, Inc., 771 F.2d 720, 729 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied 475 U.S.1082 (1986) l standard for deternuning whether c'allenged NRC autimmations constitute beense anendments; 1 CLI-9613,44 NRC 326 (1996)

Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., 771 F.2d 720, 729-30 (3d Cir.1985), cert denied 475 U.S 1082 (1986)

NRC authorir.auons that do not trigger heanng rights; CLI 9613,44 NRC 327 (1996)

Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Stauon, Uruts !. 2, and 3), L.BP 771, 5 NRC 133 (1977).

aff'd wnh nmdihcauons. ALAB-560,10 NRC 265,295-99 (1979) I hcense condinons on whcchng and interconnecuon obhganons; DD 96-15, 44 NRC 20647 (1996) J Trout Unknuted v. Morton, 509 F.2d 1276,1282 (9th Cir.1974) ,

" detailed statement" requirement of NEPA; LBP 96-25, 44 NRC 341 (1996) l Unwico Mmerals Corp., LBP-94-18, 39 NRC 369 (1994) I organizational standing to intervene by indian nbes; LBP 96 22,44 NRC 141 t.N6)

Uruon of Concerned Scientists v. NRC,735 F.2d 1437,1451 (DC. Cir.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S.

1832 (1985) heanng rights on Staff evalvauon of proposed rnaterial specimen wnhdrawal schedule; CLI-9613,44 NRC 330 (1996)

Unned States v. Gillette Co., 406 F Supp. 713, 716 (1975) scope of licensing board's public interest determinanon on settlement agreement; LBP %24, 44 NRC 257 (1996)

Unned States v. Vanous Slot Machines on Guam 658 F.2d 697, 700 (9th Cir.1981) factual support required of expert witness in opposmg summary disposinon; LBP-9618,44 NRC 103 (1996)

United States Energy Research and Development Adnunistration (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant),

CLi-7613, 4 NRC 67, 77 (1976) burden of proof on environnental contentions; LBP 96-25,44 NRC 339 (1996)

Vennont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-179, 7 AEC 159, 175 (1974) need for power in cost-benefit balancing; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 347 n 5 (19%)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp (Verrnons Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CL1-74-40, 8 AEC 809, 813 (1974)

NRC defense-in depth pohey; LBP-96-23, 44 NRC 162 n.14 (19%)

27

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX .

CASES l

Vernas Yankee Nuclear Iwer Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear -Power Station), LBP-87-7,25 NRC 116, i 118 (1987) standards for state agency parucipataon in heensing of independent spent fuel storage facihty: l LBP 96-22,44 NRC 140 (1996) I l Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978) )

envuonnental comnutment of NEPA: LBP 96-25,44 NRC 339 (1996)

Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Santion. Units I and 2). ALAB-522,9 NRC

54. 56 (1979) evidence of possible offsite consequences as basis for standang to irnervene; LEP 96-23,44 NRC 159 a.12 (1996)

Vuginia Electnc and Power Co. (Surry Power Station, Units 3 and 4), LBP-74-68, 8 Aff 506. 528 (1974) inclusius of secondary benents in NEPA cost bencht analysis; LBP-96 25, 44 NRC 314 (1996)

Waalungton Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD 84-7,19 NRC 899,923 i (1984) l standard for innuiunon of show-cause proceedings; DD-96-il, 44 NRC 78 (1996); DD-9614, 44 i NRC 202 (1996r, DD-96-21,44 NRC 297 (1996)

Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD-84-7,19 NRC 899,924 j I

(1984) standard for instnution of show<ause proceedings; DD-9612, 44 NRC 178 (1996); DD-96-13, 44 NRC (1996)

Yankee Alonuc Electnc Co. (Yankes War Power Station), CLI-%1,43 NRC 1,6 (1996) authorizmuon for organnanonal utg; LDP 96-23. 44 NRC 156 (1996)

Yankee Atonac Electnc Co. (Yankee tack ar Power Sianon), LDP 96-2, 43 NRC 61, 70, aff'd, CLI-47, 41 NRC 235, 246-48 (1996) ,

nunor radiological exposure as injury in fact for purpose of standing; LDP-96 23, 44 NRC 158 I (1996)

Yunime Atomic Electnc Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP415, 44 NRC 8, 21 (1996) scope of hugable issues; LBP%23,44 NRC 162 (1996) 28 I

l l

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

l t

I h

1 i

i a

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C F R 2.4 f ,

j de6:uuon of " person" relative to standing to intervene; LBP %22, 44 NRC 140 (1996)

~

j 10 C F.R. 2.202 request for show-cause proceeding regard ng reactor core of6oading pracoces, D496-23, 44 NRC 420 ,

(1996) secunty dc6cencies as basis for sequest for suspension of hcense; DD-%13,44 NRC 181 (1996) i 10 C F.R. 2.203 considerations in hcensms board's pubhc interest 6nd ng on settlement agreenent; LBP %24, 44 NRC 252. 255, 256, 258 n.10, 259, 260, 261 n.2 (1996) /

hcensing board review of settlements in operating license and amendment cases; LBP-%l6 44 NRC 7 j 65 (1996), LBP 96-19,44 NRC 122,123 (1996); LBP 96 20, 44 NRC 130 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.206 J-contanment design adequacy and weld nuerohssuring concerns, request for action on, DD-96-20,44 / ',

NRC 290-96 (1996) {  ;

errors in undervoltage relay setpoints and electrical distnbunon system, request for operating heense z. Z suspension for; DD-%12,44 NRC 169-79 (1996) . ; [

l failure potential of spent fuel in spent fuel pools; DD-96-18, 44 NRC 272-82 (1996) __

l falsincanon of nuclear docunums concerrung gas turbine banery; DD-9616, 44 NRC 214 20 (1996) r I forum for hogating concerns about matenal specimen withdrawal schedule; CLI-9613. 44 NRC 3M (1996) full core reserve capabihty in spent fuel pool, need for; DD%22,44 NRC 414 (1996) .-

lack of coordmation of circuit breakers, request for suspension of operaung beense for; DD %B4, 44 Z NRC 187 202 (1996) -

of6oa&ng of spem fuel assembhes in excess pernuited by heense anwndment; DD %23, 44 NRC 420 32 (1996) quahry assurance motor and connection work on gas turbines, de6ciencies in; LSP %I7, 44 NRC 221 28 (1996) request that beensee be compelled to complete decontanunation; DD-96-9, 44 NRC 47 (1996) ,

request to review enure hcensing procers 4-nial for failuse to rane any safety concerns; DD-96 il, 44 NRC 69-78 (1996) secunty deficiencies as basis for request for suspension of license; DD El3, 44 NRC 181-86 (1996) steam generatur tube degradation. stress corrosion crackJng of vessel head penetrations, unloading of dry cask storage units, and physical integnty of heavy crane at Praine Island plant; DD-96-21, 44 NRC 298 313 (1996)

I steam generator tube fash;res, sequest for hcensee to idenufy root cause of, DD-96-19,44 NRC 283-89 0996)

' violanon of whechng and interconnection obhgauons, NRC junsdiction over; DD-%l5,44 NRC 20513 (1996) 10 C.F.R. Part 2. Subpart G f hearing nghts on con 6rmauon of compliance with industry standard; CLl-%I3,44 NRC 330 (1996) f 10 C F.R. 2.71l deadhne for 6hng contennons; LDP %22, 44 NRC 141 (1996) l i

i 29

{

1 i

d 4

d i

e .-

1 3

d i

i

( __ _ _ . _ _

l l

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RECULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 2.714 participanon by staie agencies in heensing of independent spent fuel suorage facihty; LBP %22, 44 l NRC 140 (1996) l 10 C.F.R. 2.714(aXI) l spphcation of late-fihng standards: LBP-415, 44 NRC 24 (1996) j distincuon between contemions and bases in applying late-6hng standards; LDP.%15,44 NRC 22 l (1996) new-dose argument as basis for late-hhng argunent; LBP-%l5, 44 NRC 12,17, 23, 31 (1996);

LBP-9618, 44 NRC 89 a 1 (1996) standards to be addressed when raising new issues; LBP-96-23,44 NRC 156,163 al6 (1996) sianding to intervene in NRC proceeding to bcense independent spent fuel storage facihty; LBP-422, 44 NRC 140 (1996) 10 C.F R. 2.714(aX3) amendment of intervention peutions; LBP-%22, 44 NRC 141 (1996) 10 CFR. 2.714(bXI) deadt.ne for 6bng contentions; LBP-96-22, 44 NRC 141 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(bX2) contennon eequiremem for inservention; LBP-96-22, 44 NRC 141 (1996) specincity requirenrne for contentions; LBP-9615, 44 NRC 22, 37 (1996), LDP-96-23, 44 NRC 162 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(bX2Xii) basis sequirenrat for contentions; LDP %23,44 NRC 162,167 (19%)

10 C.F.R. 2.714(bX2Xiu) consenuona challengmg deficiencies in environnental review; LDP-%25,44 NRC 338 (1996) 10 C F R. 2.714(f) hcensing board authonty to simphfy and clanfy issues, LBP 9615,44 NRC 22 (19%)

10 C F R. 2.7144(a) appeals of intervennon ruhngs; LDP-%IS, 44 NRC 42 (1996); LBP-96 23, 44 NRC 168 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 2.715(a)

Limited appearance staienents in beensing procee&ng for independent spent fuel storage instalianon; LBP-%22,44 NRC 141 (1996) 10 C.F R. 2.715(c) parucipation by state agencies in hcensing of independent spent fuel storage facihty; LBP-%22,44 NRC 140 (1996) parucipanon by state governnrnts; LDP-%I5, 44 NRC 21 n 7 (1996), LBP %IB,44 NRC 92 n 8 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 2.732 burden of proof on environnental contennons. LBP %25, 44 NRC 338 (1996) burden on proponent of summary disposmon LBP-96-23,44 NRC 166 (1996) 10 CJ R. 2.749(a) burden on oppotrnt of summary disposition numon; LBP.%i8,44 NRC 92 (1996) nght of panies to hie answers to summary 6.posmon motions; LBP-%IS, 44 NRC 91 *./ L'906) 10 C F R 2.749(b) burden on proponens of summary esposition monon; LBP %l8,44 NRC 93 (19%)

10 C F R. 2.749(c) affidavit requirement for opponent of summary esposmon motion; LBP-96-18,44 NRC 100 (19%)

10 C F.R. 2.749(d) standard for grant of summary disposinon motion, LDP-%I8, 44 NRC 92 (19%)

10 C F R 2.759 heenung board approval of withdrawal of peution without reviewing settlenent agreement; I BP %16, 44 NRC 60, 62, 63 (1996) weight given to position of Staff in seulement of contested proceedmgs; LBP %24, 44 NRC 256 (19%)

30

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 2.760 Anahey of partial iniaal decision; LBP %25, 44 NRC 404 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.763 appeals of denials of reactor operator hcenses; LBP-%I7,44 NRC H5 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.764 imnwihase effccuveness of heensing board order approving sertienwnt agreement; LBP-9619,44 NRC 122 (1996) inurrdiate effecuveness of hcensmg board order ternunating proceeding; LBP %21,44 NRC 137 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2 771 l basis for peution for reconsideranon; CLI-97-8, 44 NRC 110 n.2 (1996) l 10 Cf.R. 2.786 appeals of denials of reactor operator heenses; LBP-%I7,44 NRC 85 (1996) revww of bcensing board order approving settlement agreement; LBP-9619,44 NRC 122 (1996) review of bcensing board order terminaung proceeding; LBP-%21, 44 NRC (1996) review of parual iniual decision; LBP %25, 44 NRC 404 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(b) comphance with Regulatory Guides as basis for pennon for review; CLl-97 8,44 NRC 108 n 1 (19%)

10 Cf R. 2.786(bX2)-0) answers to peuuon for review; LBP-%25, 44 NRC 405 (1996) ,

10 C F.R. 2.786(b)(4) l ehgibihty to Ale petition for review; LBP %25, 44 NRC 40445 (1996) l review denied for failure to raise substanual issues; CLI-%9, 44 NRC 113 (1996); CL1-%II,44 NRC 230 (1996) 10 C1.R. 2.788 basis for a stay; LEP-%I8, 44 NRC 105 n 18 10 C F.R. 2.790(ay4) prosecuon of information on heensee's 6nancial posnion, LDP-%24, 44 NRC 255 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2 802 forum for chahenges to NRC regulanons; CLI-96-10,44 NRC 118 (1996) support foi petmons for rulemaking; CLI-%12,44 NRC 234 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.1201(ax2) informal hearing on denial of reactor operator heense; LBP-%I7,44 NRC 79 (1996) 10 CfJL 2.1231 NRC Staff subnussion of heanng 61e in informal proceeding, LBP-%I7,44 NRC 79 (1996) 10 Cf R. 2.1241 board review of settlements in informal proceedings, need for; LBP.%16,44 NRC 62,63 (1996) weight given to posnion of Staff in settlement of contested proceedmgs; LBP 96-24, 44 NRC 256 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 2.1253 review densed for fasture to rane substanual issues; CLI-96 il,44 NRC 230 (1996) 10 C.F.R. Part 2 Appendix C noti 6 cation requirenrnts for severny level IV violauons, DD-96-23, 44 NRC 423 (19%)

10 C F.R. Part 20 knowledge that reactor operator emanunatmn may cover; LBP 96-17. 44 NRC 81 (1996) venfnation of contanunated sne's compliance with radianon protection requirenrnts; DD-96-9. 44 NRC 50 51 (1996) 10 CJ R. 20.1011 ALARA standard for decomnussiorung; LBP-%I5,44 NRC 18 (1796) 10 C F.R. 201302 bcensing of piani pnar to resolution of open issues associated with ratiation rnonitoring system; DD-96 il, 44 NRC 72, 73 (1996) 31 l

i

l i

LEGAL CITATIONS INi&A REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. Part 21 design &ncienc.es in spent fuel pool decay heat removal systems; DD-9618, 44 NRC 273 (1996) fuel pool coohng loss imm drain down; LBP-96-23,44 NRC 152 n.7 (1996) 10 C F R. 40 31(jXvn) and (a) enegency plan content on responsibihues of hcensee personnel, CL1-97-8,44 NRC 109 (1996) 10 C F.R. 40.36 financial responsibihry for site dec6marmnanon; LBP-96-24, 44 NRC 282, 259, 260, 262 (1996) 10 C.F.R, 40.36(e) rnethod for provieng 6nancial assurance of decommissioning; LBP %24,44 NRC 263 (1996) ,

10 C.F.R. 40.42(c) renewal of heense to possess depleted uramum contamination; DD-%9,44 NRC 49 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 40.42(cX2XtiiXD) detailed cost esumate fur decommissiomng, LBP-96-24, 44 NRC 262 (1996) )

10 Cf.R. 50.5 fals 6 canon of surveillance documems on gas turbine battery; DD-96-16, 44 NRC 215, 218 (1996) independent analysis of offsise : lose consequences of total loss of spent fuel pool water; DD-96-23, 44 NRC 421, 431 (1996) 1 l

quahey assurance motor and connecuon work on gas turbines, deficiencies in: LBP 96-17, 44 NRC 222 (1996) l 10 C.F R. V)7 barassnent and inumidation of hcensee employees for raising safety concerns; DD.%I6. 44 NRC 215 (1996); LBP-96-17, 44 NRC 222 (1996) ,

10 C.F.R. 50 9 l I

independent analpis of offsite dose consequences of total loss of spent fuel pool water; DD-96-23, 44 I

NRC 421, 431 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 50.9(a) heensee obhganon so ensure completeness and accuracy of comnwnicauons with NRC; DD-96-22, 44 NRC 414 n 1 (1996) ]

l0 C.F R. 50.21(b), 50 22 Anancial quahhcanons consideranons in enrichnent facihty heensing; LBP-%25,44 NRC 381 (19%)

10 C F R 50 33tf) 6nancial quah6 canons considerauons in ennchment facihty bcensmg; LDP-%25, 44 NRC 381, 386,  !

387, 389, 390, 391 (1996) l Anancial quahfications consideranons for newly forned organuanons; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 382, 384,  !

393 (1996) l 10 C F.R. 50.33(fX3) I apphcabihty to 6nancial quah6 cations consideranons for newly formed organuauons; LBP-96-25,44 NRC 394, 395 n.22 (1996) 10 C.F R. 50 36 coraent of techtucal speci6 cations; CLi-%13, 44 NRC 318 (1996) 1 10 C.F R. 50 36(cXI) l distincuon between safety hmit and design feature; LDP-96-23, 44 NRC 153,16.3 (1996) I licensee responsibihry to estabhsh safety hnuts for acuvines affecung fuel rod cladding and fuel pool kner integrity; LDP-96 23, 44 NRC l$1 (1996) 10 C.F.R, 50 36(cXI)-(3) design features in techmcal specihcauons as they relate to safety hmits; LBP %23, 44 NRC 153-54, 162 n 15 (1996) 10 C F R. 50.36tc)(4) denmuon of design features; LBP-96-23, 44 NRC 153,163 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 50 40ib) appheabihty to rewly formed ennchnent facihty; LBP-96-25,44 NRC 384 (1996) 6nancial quah6 canons consideranons in enrichment facihty bcensing; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 381, 386, 391 (1996) l 32

. _ , _ . _ _ _ . - __ _ _ . _ _ . ._ ___ ._._.__.._ _._._ m _.__ __ _ ..._._ _ ___ ..m_._.- _m.m- -_

i-

{ i i  !

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX j

! REGULATIONS I

pnnciples for deternuning compliance with fmancial quahncmions; LBP 96-25,44 NRC 388, 389, 390 l (1996)

]

10 Cf.R. 50.54(f) J licensee informational requirenrnis so desenbe correcove actions; DD-%23,44 NRC 424,425,427 I (1996) 10 Cf.R. 50.54(p) compensmory secunty measures that decrease effectiveness of secunty systems; DD 96-13, 44 NRC 184 i (1996) 10 Cf.R. 50.55(a) construccon completion deadhnes for enrichnent facihues; LBP-%25,44 NRC 393 n.18 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 50.55a(g) inspection of large piping welds; DD %20, 44 NRC 295 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 50.59 changes to Technical Speci6 cations fut dry cask unloa&ng, need for; Db96 21,44 NRC 303 (1996) evaluation of procedures for ofacading irra&ated fuel into spent fuel pool; DDE18,44 NRC 280 (1996) failure to conduct adequale safety evaluations of spens fuel pool cooling system; DD96-23, 44 NRC 424 (1996) mo&6 canon to bcensee USAR widmut a license anendnrnt; CLI-9613,44 NRC 320 (1996) use of reactor buil&ng crane to transfer spent fuel from spent fuel pool to transfer cask for shipneut to dry cask suorage facihty: DD %22, 44 NRC 415, 416 (1996) 10 Cf R. 50.59(c) operating bcense anendarns requirenrnt for activity involving unreviewed safety question; DD-96-22, 44 NRC 415 (1996) 10 Cf.Rf 50.59(c)(2) license anendment requirenwnt for change to the FSAR that confhets with technical specinca ions.

CLI-9613, 44 NRC 329 n.39 (1996) 10 C F.R. 50 61 nueronssunng of low-fernie stainless steel welds in large piping, safety sigm6cance of; DD 96-20,44 NRC 294 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 5067 expansion of performance-based rule for shutdown to spent fuel pools; DD %18,44 NRC 277 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 50.90 cask movement acuvities as unreviewed safety issues; DD-96-22,44 NRC 415 (1996) evaluation of procedures for ofnonding irradiated fuel into spent fuel pool; DD-%IB, 44 NRC 280 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 50 91 NRC consultauon with state in procesamg operaimg license anrndment apphcations; DD-96 22,44 NRC 416 (1996) 10 C F.R. 50.9150.92 issuance of techmcal specincation change penang compleuon of adjudicatory proceveng; LBP %23, 44 NRC 148 n.2 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 50.109(aX3) consideration of possible safety enhancement back6ts; DD-%18,44 NRC 276 (1996) 10 Cf_R. Part 50, Appenen A. GDC 60. 63, and 64 heensing of plant prior to resolution of open issues associated with radiation monisonng system' ,

DD96 il,44 NRC 72 75 (1996) 10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appendix B j failure to take adequate design control measures for spent fuel pool coohng system; Db96 23, 44 NRC j 424 (1996) 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendia C j apphcabihty to newly forned enrichment facihty; LBP-96 25, 44 NRC 393 96 (1996)

]

6nancial quah6 cations considerations in enrichnent facihty hcensing; LBP 96-25,44 NRC 382 (1996)  ;

33 l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.F R. Part 50, Appendiz C.ll.A.1 Enancial quah6 cations considerations for newly formed organizauons; LDP %25, 44 NRC 383 (1996) .

l 10 C F R. Part 50, Appendia C.II.A.2 Anancial source information requirenems for newly formed organizations; LDP 96-25, 44 NRC 383, 395 1 (1996) 10 C F.R. Part 50, Appendia H surveillance program for momtoring fracture toughness of behhne materials in light-water reactor vessels; CLI-96-l), 44 NRC 317 (19%)

10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appendas H, Ill! B.1 standard for determining when a matenal speciurn or surveillance capsule must be withdrawn; CLI-96-13, 44 NRC 317 (1996) 10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appen<hx H, Illl.B,3 interpretauon of, C11%13, 44 NRC 320 a 9, 321330 (1996) 10 Cf.R. Part 51 environmental assessarna/environnental impact statenent requirement for ceru6cate of compliance for gaseous diffusion plant; CLI-96-12, 44 NRC 238, 246 (1996) licensing board responsibihty to deternune adequacy of environnemal review; LBP-96-25,44 NRC 339 (1996) 10 C F.R. 51.10(a) consideration of avoided environnental impacts from noacuon ahernauve; LBP-96-25,44 NRC 372 (1996) 10 C F.R. 51.28 environmental assessment of termination of operaung hcense apphcnuon; LBP-96-21, 44 NRC 136 (1996) 10 C F R. St.22(c)(19) environmental assessnrnt/ environmental impact statenrni requirement for ceruncate of comphance for gaseous diffusion plant, CLi-412, 44 NRC 238, 247 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 51.41 environmental assessnwns of construcuon pernut ternunation; LBP 96-21,44 NRC (1996) 10 Cf.R. 51.45 burden of proof on enviionmental contentions; LBP %25, 44 NRC 338 (19%)

consideration of alternauves to ennchnent facihty; LBP 96-25,44 NRC 337 (1996) content of environnental report for uranium ennchment facihty; LBP %25, 44 NRC 370 n.8 (1996) 10 C F R. 5145(b)(3) ahernauves to proposed uratuum ennchment facihty, consideranon of; LBP-96 25, 44 NRC 370 n 8 (1996) 10 CER. 5145(c) content of environrnental review; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 349 n 6 (1996) quanu6 cation of effect of pnce compeution on ennchment services markel in cost-benent analysis; LBP %25,44 NRC 366 (1996) 10 C F.R. 51.45(e) adverse information included in environmental reviews; LDP 96-25, 44 NRC 349 n.6 (1996) 10 C F R. 5160 burden of proof on environmenial contenuons; l.BP 96-25, 44 NRC 338 (1996) consent of environmental report for uranium ennchnent facility; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 370 n 8 (1996) 10 C F R. St.70(b) conuderation of no-acuan alternative in NEPA cost-bencht balancmg; LBP-96 25, 44 NRC 370 n 8 (1996) format of environmental impact statements; LDP-%25,44 NRC 348 (1996) 10 C.F.R. St.71(d) quanti 6 canon of effect of pnce compeution on ennchnent services market in cost-bene 6 analysis, LDP-%25,44 NRC 366 (1996) quanutative and quahtauve factors in cost-benehi balancing; I BP 96-25, 44 NRC 348 (1996) 34

l 1

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS l

10 CF R 51.80 burden of proof on environnrntal contentions; LBP 96 25, 44 NRC 338 (1996) l d

10 C F R. 51.90 l

< consideration of no action alternative in NLPA cost-benent bal,uring; LBP-%25,44 NRC 370 a 8 (1996) format of environmental impact staieness; LBP-96 25,44 NRC 348 (1996) quanutative and quaistauve factors in cost-bene 6e balancing; LBPN25,44 NRC 348 (1996) 10 C F R. 51.97(c) burden of proof on environnental contentions; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 338 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 51.102 supplementation of FEIS by heensing board decision and adjudicaiory record LBP%25,44 NRC 369 (1996) 10 C.F.R. $1.104(b) heensing board opportumty to review Staff environmental assessnrnt of operaung license apphcation termination; LBP421,44 NRC 136 (1996)

! 10 Cf.R. 51.105 licensing board responsibihry to consider cost-benent balance among confhcung factors; LBP-%25,44 NRC 339 (1996) 10 Cf R Part $1, Appeixha A

, consideration of no-acuan ahernanve in NEPA cost-bene 6t balancing; LBF 96-25, 44 NRC 370 a 8 (19%)

10 Cf.R. Part 53 i 1

full-core reserve capacity, need for; DD422, 44 NRC 417 (1996) j 10 Cf.R. Part 55 l standard for licensmg of reactor operators, LBP417,44 NRC 80 (1996)  ;

10 C.F.R. 55 41(bX11H12) 1 legiomacy of questions on reactor operator heense exanunauon; LBP%l7,44 NRC 81 (1996) l 10 C F.R. 70.22(aX8) l apphcabihty to newly forned enrichnent facihty; LDP-96-25, 44 NRC 384, 385 (1996) l haancial quahncations in Part 70 bcense appheations; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 381 (19%) i 10 CF.R. 70.22(iX3 Xvii) and (x) j emergency plan content on training of energency workers; CLJ-97 8,44 NRC 109,110 (1996) '

10 Cf.R. 70 23 financial quahncations consideranons in enrichment facihty bcensing; LBP425, 44 NRC 381 (1996) 10 Cf.R. 70.23(aK5) apphcabihty to newly forned enrichnent facihty; LBP-96 25, 44 NRC 384, 385, 391, 392, 393 n.18, 404 (1996) nnancial quatincanons considerations in enrichnent facihty beensing; LBP-%25,44 NRC 381, 3%

(1996) 10 C F R. 70.23(c) 6nancial quahhcations requirements for enrichnent facihties; LBP425, 44 NRC 385, 386, 388 (1996) 10 C F.R. Part 72 bcense apphcable to independent spmt fuel storage facihty; LBP-96-22,44 NRC 139 (1996) 10 C F.R. 713 dentation of independent spent fuel storage instalianon, LBP 96-23, 44 NRC 148 n.3 (1996) 10 C F R. 72.106(b) accident analysis for dry cask unloading; DD-96-21,44 NRC 309 (1996) 10 C F.R. Pa t 72, Subpart F retnevabihty of spent fuel from dry cask units; DD-96 21,44 NRC 310 (1996) 10 C F.R. 72122(1) retrievabihty of spent fuel from dry cask units; DD-96-21,44 NRC 310 (1996) 10 Cf R. Put 72. Subpart K coiidation for storage of spent fuel at reactor-site ISFSI, LBP-96-23,44 NRC 148 n.3 (1996) 35

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX

' REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 72.212 standards for using NUHOMS cask system; LBP-%23,44 NRC 164 (1996) 10 C.F R. 72.214 approved spent fuel storage casks; LBP 96 23,44 NRC 148 n.5 (1996) 10 C F.R. 72.236(a) standards for using NUHOMS cask system; LBP %23,44 NRC 164 (1996) j 10 C.F.R. 73.2I l safeguards information in inspecuon repons, disclosure of; Da%I3, 44 NRC 181 (1996) j 10 C.F R. 73.55 reporung requirements for denciencies in secunty dnlis; DD-96 83,44 NRC 183 (1996) 10 C F.R. 73.7) deadhne for reportmg safeguards events; DD 96 I3, 44 NRC 18184 (1996) J reponmg requirements for dc6ciencies in secunty drills; DD.%13,44 NRC 183 (1996)  ;

10 C.F.R Part 73 Appendia G l deadhoe for reparung safeguards events; DD-9613,44 NRC 184 (1996) l 10 C.F.R. 76.35(n) l responsibility for decontanunauon and deconunissionmg costs at gaseous diffusion plant, CLI 96-12, 44 NRC 241 (1996) l 10 C.F.R. 76.37 chgituhiy to nie peution for review of Director's decision; CLI-9610,44 NRC 115,117 (1996);

CL1 %I2,44 NRC 233 (19%)

nouncauon of implenentauon of seismic upgradmg of gaseous diffusion plant; CLI-%I2,44 NRC 247 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 7639 chgibihty to f.le peuuon for review of Director's decision; CLI-% 10, 44 NRC 115 (19%); CL1-9612, 44 NRC 233 (19%)

10 C.F.R. 76 45 nouncauon of implementation of seisnue upgrading of gaseous diffusion plant, CLI-9612,44 NRC 247 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 76.62(c) deadhne to request review of Director's decision on cenincanon of gaseous diffusion plani; CLi-96-12, 44 NRC 233,234,245 (1996) chgibihey to 6ie penuon for review of Director's decision, CLI.9610. 44 NRC 115,117 (1996) forum for challenges to; CLI-96-10, 44 NRC 118 (1996) 10 C F R. 76.72(b)

Conmussion authonry to refer peutions for review to NRC Staff for review and response; CLI-9610, 44 NRC 118 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 76.74(b) extension of une to 61e peuuon for review of Director's decision; CLI.96-!0, 44 NRC 117 (1996) showing necessary for exiension of tmr deadlines under Part 76; CLI 96-12, 44 NRC 236 (1996) 10 C.F.R. 76.85 offsite radiological consequences of gaseous diffusion plant, analysis of, CL1-96-12, 44 NRC 245 (1996) 10 C.F.R. Part 100 approach to ensunng integnty of steam generator tubes; DD-96-21,44 NRC 300 (19%)

worst-case analysis of shield plug dmp accident LDP 96 23,44 NRC 158 (1996) 10 C.F R.150.20(b) fonns for nou6 canon of involvenent in NRC-hcensed neuvines; LBP %I9, 44 NRC 124 (1996) 10 C.F.R.150 20(b)(1) detail required in nouncanon os involvement in NRC licensed acuvines, I BP 96-19, 44 NRC 124 (1996) 40 C.F.R.1500.1 environmental comnunnent of NEPA; LBP-%25, 44 NRC 339 (1996) 36 s

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

l 1

l r

l I

l i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S C. Il 551(8),(9) de6 muon of hcense; CLI-96-13,44 NRC 329 n.37 (lv96)

Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S C 6 552b(cX10)

NRC camera pohey in adjudicatory procee&ngs; LBP-96-14. 44 NRC 6 n.1 (1996)

Adnunistrauve Proctdure Act, 5 U.S C.1553(e) chgibihty to petinon for issuance, amendrnent, or repeal of a rule; CLi-9612, 44 NRC 234 (1996)

Atonue Energy Act 42 U.S C 5 2021 preclusion of state htigation of a&huonal liabihty if settlement agreenrnt is accepted, LBP424, 44 NRC 282 (19%) /

l Atonne Energy Act 81, 42 U.S C l 2111  %

mo&6 cation of order protubiting involvenent in NRC heensed acuvines; LDP 96-19,44 NRC 123 J (1996)

Atomic Energy Act,147 _/.

safeguards information in inspection reports, disclosure of. DD-%l3, 44 NRC 181 (1996) [ '_

~

Atomic Eneigy Act,161b.o 42 U.S C 5 2201(b).(o) 2:-

heensing board review of settlernent agreenrnts; LBP-96-20,44 NRC 130 (1996) ,

mo&6 canon of order prohibiting involvenrnt in NRC-hcensed cctiviues; LBP%I9. 44 NRC 123 _ [

~

(1996) "

Atomic Energy Act,182a. 42 U.S C 5 2232 '

l consent of sechnical speci6 canons on special nuclear maienals: CLl%ll 44 NRC 318 (1996)  ;

enformation requirements for deternunmg 6nancial quah6 cations; LBPN25,44 NRC 384 (1996) -

Atonne Energy Act,189, 42 U.S.C 6 2239 --

NRC pohey on settienent agreements; LBP416,44 NRC 60 (19%) -

4 Atomic Energy Act,189a, 42 U.S C 5 2239(a)

I hearing nghis on operaung hcense amendments; CLIMI), 44 NRC 326 (1996) hearing nghts on technical specincahon changes; LBP-96-23, 44 NRC 150 n.6 (1996) i removal of matenal specimen withdrawal schedule from plant tecimical speci6 cations as violanon of; CU413,44 NRC 319 (19%)

stanang to intervene in NRC procee&ng to beense independent spent fuel storaFe facility; LDP 96-22, o 44 NRC 140 (19%)

Atomic Energy Act,189a(IXA), 42 U S C 5 2239(aXIXA) issuance of technical speci6 cation change pen &ng completion of adju&caiory proceeding; LBP-96-23, 44 i NRC 148 n.2 (1996)

Atonne Energy Act, 234, 42 U.S C 6 2282 modification of order prohibinng involvenent in NRC-licensed acuvities; LBP 96-19,44 NRC 123

. (1996) l Atomic Energy Act,1403(d) responsibihry for decontanunation and decomnussioning costs at gaseous diffusion plani; CLi%I2, 44 NRC 241 (19%)

i Energy Pohey Act of 1992, 42 U.S C 2297(a)(1) a purpose of U.S Enrichment Corp ; LEP425. 44 NRC 368 (1996)

Energy Puhey Act of 1992, 42 U.S C 2297c-l(a) 37 I

1

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES congressional mandate for U.S Ennchnent Corp.; LBP-%25, 44 NRC 368 (1996)

Federai Power Act fl212(g) and 212(h) heense condinons as tran-actions

. to circumvent protubiuons agaanst retad wtrehng; DD-%l5,44 NRC 207 (1996)

Nanonal Environmental Pohey Act,101, 42 U.S.C.14331(a) environmental comnutmem of NEPA; LBP-%25, 44 NRC 339 (1996)

National Environnental Pohey Act,10l(b), 42 U.S C, 5 4331(b) level of governnew conunstnent required so protect the environnent; LBP-%25,44 NRC 339 (1996)

Naisonal Envummental Pohey Act,102, 42 U.S C. 54332(2XA) acuan-forcmg procedures; LBP 96-25, 44 NRC 340 (1996)

Nanonal Environmental Pohey Act, 102(2), 42 U.S C. I4332(2) content of environmental impact stateness; LBP 96 25, 44 NRC 347 (1996)

Nanonal Envuonmental Puhcy Act,102(2)(A), (C), and (E) heensing board responsibihry to deiernune agency comphance with; LBP-%25,44 NRC 339 (1996)

Nanonal Environmental Pohry Act,102(2XB), 42 U S C. (4332(2XB) consideration of alternauves; LBP.%25,44 NRC 340 (1996)

Nanonal Lovironarnial Pohey Act,102(2XC), 42 U.S C.14332(2XC) requirements for effectuaung a cost-benc6: analysis; LBP 96 25, 44 NRC 340 (1996)

Nanonal Environnental Puhey Act,102(2XC)(iii). 42 U.S C.14332(2XC) requuenent for discussion of shernauves to proposed acuan. LBP-96 25,44 NRC 340 (1996)

Nanonal Envuonmental Pohry Act,102(2XE), 42 U.S C. 5 4332(2XE) considerasion of shernauves to proposed action; LBP-96-25,44 NRC MMI (1996)

USEC Pnvaurahon Act, Pub. L. No 104-134,110 Stat 1321 (1996) 42 U.S.C. 5 2297h 10 comnercial sale of DOE ennched uramum, LBP-96 25, 44 NRC 356 (1996) 38

l l

i I

I l

l l

i I

l l

s I 2 h l l

1 t

{ LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l

OTHERS l l

l l

i l Charles H Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and Practice 5 6 44 (1985)

~

burden of proof on environnrntal contentions; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 338 (19%) i 100 Cong. Rec. 10,171 (1954) (Sen. Pastwe's remark), repnnted in 3 legislative History at 3175 1 hearing nghts on hcense anrndnents; CLI-96-13,44 NRC 326 (1996) i l'ed. R. Cav. P. Rule 23(c)

! court approval of settienent agreernents tred fw; LBP-9616,44 NRC 62 (1996)

! H R. 8862, 83d Cong , 2d Sess. 5189 (1954), repnnted in i Atonne Energy Comm*n Legislative History

[ of the Alonue Energy Act of 1954 at 105, 167 48 (1955)

I heanng nghts on licenac artrndnents; CLI-9613,44 NRC 326 (19%) /

H R. 9757, 83d Cong , 2d Sess. I 181 (1954), repnnted in I Legislauw History at 541, 625  ;'

licensing and Regulanon of Nuclear Reactors: Hennngs before the Joint Comnuttee on Atomic Energy, 90th Cong ist Sess. 347, pt 1, Appendia 12 (1967)

J l

l critena and procedures for deternuning Anancial quahncanorts; LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 387 (1996) 7 l 28 Sutherland $(at. Const. 51.01,5103 (5th ed.1992) [ ,

construction of statutwy or regulatwy provisions that relate to the sane subject matter; LBP-96-25, 44 ,

E i NRC 384 (1996) } T Webster's Tiurd New iniernanona! Dicnonary 1929 (19711 _ ~ ,

l de6nition of requirenrnt. LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 348 n 5 (19%)

[

l 1 -

h 9

39 ti

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

s I

d l

SUlUECT INDEX l

l ACCIDD4TS i

I assessment for ceru6 canon of gaseous effusion plants; CLI-96-12, 44 NRC 231 (1996)

ALARA l challenges to deconurussiomng ahernauves; LBP %15, 44 NRC 8 (1996)

AMENDMENT of intervention peiuons, deadhne for; LBP %22, 44 NRC 138 (1996) l See also Operasmg License Amendments AMICUS CURIAE parucepanon in heensing proceeding as; LBP-96 23, 44 NRC 143 (1996)

ANTITRUST license conanon to provide whechng and interconnection services, DD-96-15, 44 NRC 204 (1996) 4 ATOMIC LNERGY ACT

(

i esclosure of safeguards informauon in inspecuan repons; DD-96-13, 44 NRC 180 (1996) )

hearing rights on technical specs 6 canon changes; LBP-96 23, 44 NRC 143 (1996) C i injury-in-fact standard for stan&ng 10 inservene; LBP-96 23, 44 NRC 143 (1996) {

representational stan&ng to intervene; LBP-96-23, 44 NRC 143 (1996) ,

BURDEN OF PROOF P l on environmental comentions; LbP 96-25, 44 NRC 331 (1996) [

CERTIFICATES OF O ).'APL!ANCE  ;

for gaseous &ffusion plants; CLi-96-12, 44 NRC 231 (1996) [

CERTIFICATION /

of gaseous diffusion plant, peuuon for review of; CLI-96-10, 44 NRC 114 (1996)

CIRCUIT BREAKERS v lack of coordination; DD-9614, 44 NRC 187 (1996)

CIVIL PENALTIES for vinlation of schedule for decomnnssiomng; DDM-9,44 NRC 47 (1996)

COMMENT PERIOD on Directors' decisions, extension of; CLI-96-10, 44 NRC 114 (1996) i i COMMISSIONERS authonry to refer peutions for review to NRC Staff for review and response; CLI %IO,44 NRC 114 (1996)

CONSTRUCTION PERMITS environmental assessrnent of ternunauon of, LBP 96-21, 44 NRC 134 (1996)

CONTAINMENT DESIGN without & agonal rods, adequacy at or above onginally authonzed power level; DD-%20,44 NRC 290 ,

(1996)

CONTENTIONS authonty of presi&ng officer to simphfy; LBP-9615. 44 NRC 8 (1996) environmental, burden of proof on; LBP-96 25, 44 NRC 331 (1996) possible failure to comply with regulatory requirements; LBIA96-23,44 NRC 143 (1996) role in agency licensing adjuecarions, LBP-96-15,44 NRC 8 (1996)

I specihcity and basis requirements for; LDP-96-15, 44 NRC 8 (1996); LDP-96-23,44 NRC 143 (1996) i i .

4 e

l l l t

1 4

9 4

. - , -e. - , , --- -, ,- --. . . - , . . - - ~ . . . .--, c - - , - - - _ ,----..--,--w., ,-. . . - . . ..w-, --..~.n... . -, . - -,

l l

SUlljECT INDEX l

1 CONTENTIONS, LATE-flLED assistance in developnent of sound record, LBP-9615,44 NRC 8 (1996) authnnty of pressang officer to consider late-6 led informauon other than that wluch the Comnussion has directed it to consider; LBP-%I5,44 NRC 8 (1996) delay in the proceediog; LBP-%I5,44 NRC 8 (1996)

Ave. factor test for adnession of; LBP-%IS,44 NRC 8 (1996) good cause for delay; LDP-%l5. 44 NRC 8 (1996) other neans and parues to protect intervenors' imerest; LBP-96-15,44 NRC 8 (1996)

COST DENET'IT ANALYS'S to construct uramum ent.chment facihty; LBP %25,44 NRC 331 (1996)

CRANE heavy-load, physical iniegr ty of, DD-96-21, 44 NRC 297 (1996) reactor building, to transfer spent fuel from spent fuel pool to transfer cask for shipnem to dry cask ,

storage facihty; DD-9642,44 NRC 413 (1996)

CRITICALITY risks of uranium deposits at gaseous diffusion plant; CLI-%I2, 44 NRC 231 (1996)

DECAY HEAT REMOVAL potential design denciencies in spent fuel pools; DD-9618, 44 NRC 277 (1996)

DECOMMISSIONING ALARA-based challenges to alternaives; LBP %IS,44 NRC 8 (1996) civil penalty for violama of schedule for; DD%9, 44 NRC 47 (1996) occupational ra&ation esposure rates vs raies for ad&tional radioactive inventory; LBP 96-18, 44 NRC 86 (1996) of gaseous diffusmo plant, 6nancial assurance of, CLI 9612, 44 NRC 231 (1996)

DECONTAMINATION enancial responsibihty for; LBP-%24, 44 NRC 249 (1996) motion to compel heensee so comnence, DD-%9, 44 NRC 47 (1996) of gaseous d4ffusion plant. financial agsurance of; CU-%12, 44 NRC 231 (1996)

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY decontaminanon and decomnussioning responsibahues for gaseous diffusion plant, CLI-%I2,44 NRC 231 (1996) oversight of nuclear safety; CU-96-12, 44 NRC 231 (1996)

DIRECTORS' DECISIONS chgibihty to 61e petiuon for review of, CLI-%IO,44 NRC 114 (1996); CLl%12,44 NRC 231 (1996)

DISCLOSURE safeguards informuuon in inspecuon repans; DD-%I3,44 NRC 180 (1996)

DISCOVERY followmg the hhng of the disposisive numn, burden on opponent of summary &sposition that had opponumty for; LBP 9618, 44 NRC 86 (1996) to answer summary &sposmon nations; LBP-%23,44 NRC 143 (1996)

DRY CASK STORAGE unloa&ng umts in an emertency; DD-%21,44 NRC 297 (19%)

ElICTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ceremt breaker coordinahon; DD-96-14, 44 NRC 187 (1996) design errors, DD-bl2, 44 NRC 169 (1996)

EMERGENCY unkmeng of dry cask storage umts, DD %21, 44 NRC 297 (1996)

EMERGENCY LIGirl!NG improper lugs used for; LBP bl7. 44 NRC 221 (1996)

LMERGENCY PLANNING predicuve 6nsngs by beensing boards; CLI-%8,44 NRC 107 (1996) 42 l

t l

SUBJECI' INDEX EMPLOYEES See Ucensee Employees ENFORCEMENT ORDERS challenges so; LI5P420,44 NRC 128 (1996)

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for ceru6caic of comphance for gaseous deffusion plant, need for; CLi%I2,44 NRC 231 (19%)

for eernunanon of operaung bcense apphcanon; LBP%21,44 NRC 134 (1996) ,

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT l for ceruncate of compliance for gaseous diffusion plant, need for; CLl%I2, 44 NRC 231 (1996) purpose of, LBP 96-25,44 NRC 33) (1996) 7u; 4w Eind L6*isumar.ai 14ips h m ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES burden of proof on contentions; LBPN25,44 NRC 331 (1996)

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT cost-benent analysis requirement; LBP425,44 NRC 331 (1996)

EQUIPMENT, SAI'ETY-RELATED improper Raychem splices, cable bend radius, and connections; LBP-%I7,44 NRC 221 (1996) ,

EXAMINATION I reactor operator, challenges to quesuons/ answers; LBP413, 44 NRC 1 (1996); LBP417, 44 NRC 79 l (1996)

EX1ENSION OF TIME for seeking review of Director's decision; CLINIO,44 NRC 114 (1996) l i

under Part 76, good-cause showing requwed for; CLl%!2, 44 NRC 231 (1996)

FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS on surveillances of gas turbine battery; DD416,44 NRC 214 (1996)

IT.DERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC junsdiction to decide maners pending before; DD%15,44 NRC 204 (1996)

IEDERAL PREEMPTION preclusion of state htiganon of additional habihty for decontanunauon if seulenrm agreement is accepted, LBP424,44 NRC 249 (1996) l EINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT NRC Staff treatmem of need fut facihry and no-action alternative; LBP%25, 44 NRC 331 (1996)

FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS ,

for snaienals hcense; LBP425,44 NRC 331 (1996) l IINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT challenges to adequacy of; CLl#12, 44 NRC 231 (1996)

GAS TURBINE fuel forwarding pump and motor connection work; LBP417,44 NRC 221 (1996)

GAS TURBINE BATTERY fals 6 canon of nuclear docunrnts concermng; DD416,44 NRC 214 (1996) ,

GASEOUS DiflUSION l'LANTS l ceruncates of compliance for; CU412,44 NRC 231 (1996) petiuon for review of ceru6casion of; CU410,44 NRC 114 (1996)

GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION i horizontal and verucal bedrock fractures as migranon pathway; CLI%I2, 44 NRC 231 (19%)

HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION of heensee employee for reporting safety concerns DlW616, 44 NRC 214 (1996); LBP%l7, 44 NRC 221 (1996)

HEALTH EFIICTS

! histoncal and current, al gaseous diffusion plant; CLI 96-12, 44 NRC 231 (1996) llEARING RIGHTS on technical speci6 canon changes; LBP423, 44 NRC 143 (19%)

43 a

1 i

1 SUllJECT INDEX INDEPENDENT SPENT IUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION l condioon for suorage of spem fuel si reactor site; LBP-96-23,44 NRC 143 (1996) intervennon in hcensing proceeding; LBP-9622,44 NRC 138 (1996)

INDIAN TRIBES l

stan&ng to iniervere in NRC procecangs; LBP-96-22, 44 NRC 138 (1996)

INJURY IN FACT generalized grievance as LBP-%23,44 NRC 143 (1996) minor radiological exposure as; LBP 9423, 44 NRC 143 (1996)

INSPECilON REPORTS disclosure of safeguards informanon in; DD-96-13,44 NRC 180 (1996)

INTERESTED PERSON for purpose of obtaining review of Director's decision; CL1-%I2, 44 NRC 231 (1996)

INTERESTED STATE participation in hcensing proceedmg for independem spem fuel storage instalianon, LBP-96-22, 44 NRC B38 (1996)

INTERVENTION discreuunary; LDP-96-23, 44 NRC 143 (1996) licensing proceeding for independem spent fuel storage installation; LBP %22, 44 NRC 138 (1996)

(NTERVENTION PETITIONS construction of, in deternumng sianang; LBP 96-23, 44 NRC 143 (1996) withdrawal on basis of settlenent; LBP-9416, 44 NRC 59 (1996)

JURISDICTION to decide matters penang before Federal Energy Regulatory Comnussion DD'96-15,44 NRC 204 (l996)

LICENSE CONDITIONS amitrust, so provide whechng and imerconnecuan services; DD-9615. 44 NRC 2N (19%)

LICENSEE EMPLOYEES harassnwat and inumidanon; DD-bl6, 44 NRC 214 (19%); LBP 96-17, 44 NRC 221 (1996)

LICf.NSEES nusiepresemauon of inuiugranon status; LBP-96-20, 44 NRC 128 (1996) protubition on involvement in NRC licensed activenes; LBP-96-19, 44 NRC 121 (1996); LBP-9620, 44 NRC 128 (19%)

LICENSING BOARDS approval of settienent agreements; LBP-%l9, 44 NRC 121 (1996) responsibehues in sentenrnt of contested proceedings, LBP 96-24,44 NRC 249 (1996)

LIMTTED APPEARANCE STATEMENTS in heensing proceeding for independent spent fuel storage insiallation; LBP-96-22, 44 NRC 138 (1996)

MAINTENANCE gas turbine banery surveillance, DD-%I6, 44 NRC 214 (1996) i MATERIALS LICENSE finnncial quahhcanons for; LBP-9625,44 NRC 331 (1996) i MISREPRESLNTATION

[ of bcensee's imnugration status; LBP %20, 44 NRC 128 (1996)

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ALT action enforcing procedures of; LBP425,44 NRC 331 (1996) consideration of alternauves to uramum enrichnwnt facihty; LBP-96-25,44 NRC 331 (1996) environmenial assessnenvenvironmemal impact statemem requirenwns for ceruncate of compliance for gaseous effusion plant, CL1-9612, 44 NRC 231 (1996) need for facihty; LBP425,44 NRC 331 (1996)

NRC responsibihty to perform anvironnental assessment of ternunation of operating license apphcanon; LBP%21,44 NRC 134 (1996) 44 l

l 1

l

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

SUBJECT INDEX NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION

' effect on technical speci6 canon inuance pnar to completion of adju&catory heanng; LBP-96-23, 44 l - NRC 143 (1996)

NOTIFICATION of seismic upgra&ng of gaseous &%sion plant; CLI412,44 NRC 231 (1996)

NRC LICENSED ACr!VITIES prohibition on involvenrat in; LBP-9719,44 NRC 128 (1996); LBP-96 20, 44 NRC 128 (1996)

NRC POLICY camera coverage of agency proceedings; LBP414,44 NRC 3 (1996) defense in depth; LBPN23,44 NRC 143 (1996) on settienent agreenents; LBP%l6, 44 NRC $9 (1996)

NRC PROCEEDINGS l camera coverage policy; LBP%I4,44 NRC 3 (1996) l NRC staff l posthearing sesolunon of emergency planning issues, CLI-96 8. 44 NRC IM (1996) prior approval for all material specimen withdrawal schedule changes; CLIM13,44 NRC 315 (190) treatnent in FEIS of need for facihty and no-action ahernauve; LBPN25,44 NRC 331 (1996) .

weight given to position on settienwnt agreenent; LBP424,44 NRC 249 (1996)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION responsibihty to perform environmental assessment of ternunation of operating hcense apphcation; LBP%21,44 NRC 134 (1996)  !

!, OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENTS NRC authunzations as; CU%I3,44 NRC 315 (1996) I NRC processing procedures for; DD-%-22,44 NRC 41) (1996) I techmcal speci6 cation changes; LEP 96 23, 44 NRC 143 (1996) l OPERATING UCENSE APPLICATIONS l withdrawal of; LDP421,44 NRC 134 (1996)

OPERATING LICENSES requirenents to be met before issuance of, DD'96-II,44 NRC 69 (1996) i PREHEARING CONFLRENCES camera coverase of; LBP%l4,44 NRC 3 (1996)

PRESIDING OFI1CERS i authonty to simplify and clanfy contentions; LBP%l5,44 NRC 8 (1996) l 4

PRIVATIZATION j

( of uranium enrichnent facihty, review of impacts of; CLI%l2, 44 NRC 231 (1996) l PROOF l See Burden of Proof I QUAIRY ASSURANCE i motor and connection work on emergency gas turbine; LDP%I7,44 NRC 221 (1996) i RADIATION EXPOSURE l pronortionahty between occupational rate for completed decommissioning and rate for additional radioactive inventory; LBP418,44 NRC 86 (1996)

RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION aging of buikhngs and risk at gaseous &ffusion plant; CLI%l2,44 NRC 231 (1996) l- reservoir sediments; DD 9610,44 NRC 54 (1996)

RADIOAGIVE EFFLUENTS I control of, DDNIO,44 NRC 54 (1996)

RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING l requirements to be met prior to licensing of plant; DD%II,44 NRC 69 (1996)

REACTOR CORE offtonding practices; DD96-23,44 NRC 419 (1996)

REACIOR OPERATOR LICENSING hearing on examinanoi. results; LBPN!7,44 NRC 79 (1996) i

! 45 i

l i

l a

d-I -,

SUBJECT INDCX review of bcensing board Andings on exanunatiori results, denial of; CLI-%II,44 NRC 229 (1996) training standards for; LDP-%I3,44 NRC 1 (1996)

REACTOR OPERATORS reenaminanon of; LBP-%I3, 44 NRC 1 (1996)

REACTOR VESSEL matenal specimen withdrawal schedule, change to; CL1-96-13,44 NRC 315 (1996)

REACTOR VESSEL HEAD PENETRATION stress. corrosion cracking; DD-%21,44 NRC 297 (1996)

REFUELING OLTTAGES reactor cote ofnoading practices; DL196 23,44 NRC 419 (1996)

REGULATIONS imerpietauon of 10 C.F R Part 50, Appendix H tilB.3; CLI-%13,44 NRC 315 (1996) imerpretation of 10 C.F.R. 51.45(b), (c); LBP-E25, 44 NRC 331 (1996) interpreamtion of 10 C.F.R Part 51, Appendia A; LBP-%25, 44 NRC 331 (19%)

steam generator tube integrity; DD-%I9,44 NRC 283 (1996)

REGULATORY GUIDES deviations from; DD 96 il,44 h6C 69 (1996)

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS on status of state court htigation; LBP-96-26,44 NRC 406 (1996) secunty drill results; DD-9613,44 NRC 180 (1996)

RESERVOIRS ,

radioacave contammauon of seemtats; DD-96-10,44 NRC 54 (1996)

REVILW demal for failure so raise substannal issues; CLI-96-9,44 NRC 112 (1996); CLI 96-II,44 NRC 229 (19%)

of Direcuw's decision, chgibehty to 61e petition for; Ctj %10, 44 NRC 114 (1996), CU-%I2, 44 NRC 231 (It%)

under Part 76, standard for; CU-%I2,44 NRC 231 (19%)

RULES OF PRACTICE authonty of presidmg officer to consider late-6 led information other than that which the Conurussion has erected it to consider; LBP 9615,44 NRC 8 (1996) i authonzanon for representauonal standing to imervene; LBP-%23,44 NRC 143 (1996) burden of proof on environnental coniennons; LBP %25, 4 NRC 331 (1996) ~

burden on proponent of summary disposition mouon; LBP-96-18,44 NRC 86 (1996) camera coverage of agency proceedings; LBP-%le,44 NRC 3 (1996) contention role in agency hcensing adjuecations; LBP-9615,44 NRC 8 (1996) contemion scope, specincity, and basis requirenrnts; LBP-%23,44 NRC 143 (1996) discovery to answer sunwnary disposition motions; LBP-9623,44 NRC 143 L1996) discretionary intervention; L3P 96-23, 44 NRC 143 (1996)

Ave-factor tese for admission of late-Aled coniemions, LBP-%l5,44 NRC 8 (1996)

Food cause for laie-6hng of contenuons; LBP %I5, 44 NRC 8 (1996) injury in-fact standard for stanang to imervene; LBP %23,44 NRC 143 (1996) heensmg board responsabahty to review settienent agreements, LBP-96 24,44 NRC 249 (1996)

NRC pohey on settlemes agreenems; LBP %I6,44 NRC 59 (1996) participanon t'y intsested staie or local governnent. LBP %22, 44 NRC 138 (19%)

petsuons for review under Part 76; CLI-9610,44 NRC 114 (1996) premature motion for summary &sposinon; LBP-%15,44 NRC 8 (1996) representational standing to intervene; LBP-96-23,44 NRC 143 (1996) review under Part 76, standard for; CLI 96-12,44 NRC 231 (1996) specincity and basis requirenwnts for cornennons; LBP %15,44 NRC 8 (1996) standing to imervene in hcensmg procee&ng for independent spent fuel storage instalianon; LBP %22, 44 NRC 138 (1996) j l

1 46 1

1

d SUIUECT INDEX q

l SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION in inspecuon reports, &sclosure of; DD-96-13, 44 NRC 180 (1996)

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

SECURITY PLANS reporting requirements for dnll results; DD%l3. 44 NRC 180 (1996)

SEDIMENT rascactive comanunation of. DD-96-10. 44 NRC 54 (1996)

SLTTLEMEfft AGREEMENTS heensing board approval of. LBP 96-19. 44 NRC 121 (1996) licenssng board responsibt! sty to review; LBP-b24,44 NRC 249 (1996) withdrawal of intervennon petition on basis of; LBP-%I6. 44 NRC 59 (1996)

SHOW-CAUSE PROCEEDINGS ,

standard for insurution of; DD-96 il. 44 NRC 69 (1996) i SITE SUTTABILITY independent spent fuel storage facihty; LBP426. 44 NRC 406 (1996) i SPENT FUEL l failure potential in spent fuel pools. DD-9618, 44 NRC 277 (1996) 1 SPENT FUEL ASSEMBLIES )

l number offloaded dunns refuehng outages; DD-96-23. 44 NRC 419 (1996)

. SPENT FUEL POOLS l

i decay heat removal systems; DD 96-18, 44 NRC 277 (1996) expansion of performance-based rule for shutdown to; DD%l8. 44 NRC 277 (1996) l l l full-core reserve capsbibry. DD-96-22, 44 NRC 413 (1996)

STANDING j ehgibihty to pennon for review of Director's decision. ClJ-96-12. 44 NRC 231 (19%) l I

STANDING TO INTERVENE ju&cial concepts apphed in NRC proceedings; LBP%22,44 NRC 138 (1996)

STANDING TO INTERVENE. ORGANIZATIONAL as of nght; LDP%23. 44 NRC 143 (69%)

authorszation for. LBP 96-23. 44 NRC 143 (1996) showir cecessary for; LBP422. 44 NRC 138 (1996)

STATE iirJULATORY REQUIRMENTS "  !

interpretauon of; LBP 96-26,44 NRC 406 (1996)

STAY adrmnistranve, to pernut reviewing court to conuder request for ju&cial stay; CLl 96 9. 44 NRC ll2 (19%)

STEAM GENERATOR TUBE DEGRADATION mechanisms; DIK96-21. d4 NRC 297 (1996) request for hcensee to idenufy root cause; DD419, 44 NRC 283 (1996)

STEAM GENERATOR TUBFS regulanons governing insegnty of. DD 96-19. 44 NRC 283 (1996)

STRESS CORROSION CRACKING reactor vessel head penetranon; DD421, 44 NRC 297 (1996)

SUMMARY

DISPOSTTION burden on oppones that had escovery following the fahng of the disposiuve motion. LBP418,44 NRC 66 (1996) burden no proponent of. LBP 9618, 44 NRC 86 (1996) discovery to answer motions for; LBP%23, 44 NRC 143 (1996) factual support for expert opinion in opposing. LBP-96-18. 44 NRC B6 (1996) genuine &sputed rmuenal issue of fact; LBP-9618. 44 NRC 86 (1996) materiahty of factual &spuie; LBP418. 44 NRC 86 (1996) premature monon for; LBP415. 44 NRC 8 (1996) 47 1

1 I

l 1

l I

SUBJECT INDEX l

l SUSPENSION OF OPERATING LICENSE for circuit breaker coordination dc6ciencies; DD%I4. 44 NRC 187 (1996) for errors in undervohage relay secpoints and electrical distnbmion systern designs; DD%I2. 44 NRC 169 (1996)

SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDING petuling resolution in state court of site suitabihty issue; LBP-9626,44 NRC 406 (1996)

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS change in heavy load handling over spens fuel pool; LDPN23,44 NRC 143 (1996) bauung condition for opernuon; DD%l6, 44 NRC 214 (1996)

TERMINATION OF PROCELDING because of withdrawal of operating hcense application; LDP421,44 NRC 134 (19%)

TRAINING

, reactor opernaar; LDP413, 44 NRC 1 (1996) l UNDERVOLTAGE RELAY SETPOINTS errors in; DD412, 44 NRC 169 (1996)

URAN!UM deposits at gaseous diffusion plant, criticahty nsks; CUN12,44 NRC 231 (1996) synergistic irnpacts of heavy metal releases and; CU%I2,44 NRC 231 (1996)

URANIUM ENRICJIMENT FACRJTIES certincate of cornphance for; CLl%I2,44 NRC 231 (1996)

Anancial qual 6 cations to construct; LBPN25, 44 NRC 331 (1996)

VIDEOTAPING preheanng conferences; ISP414, 44 NRC 3 (1996)

VIOLATION of schedule for decornnussioning; DD49,44 NRC 47 (1996)

WASTE DISPOSAL high-level, reasonable assurance for cerufmanon of gaseous diffunon plant; CLl%l2. 44 NRC 231 l (19%)

l WELDS low-fernie stainless steel. vnicrofissuring; DD420, 44 NRC 290 (1996)

WHEELING AND INTERCONNECTION SERVICES NRC juriuhesion over; DD 9615. 44 NRC 204 (1996)

WITHDRAWAL of intervention pennon on basis of acttlenu nt; LBP416,44 NRC $9 (19%)

L l

l i

i 48

i l

l n

l FACILITY INDEX l .

CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, Umts I and 2. Ducket Nos. 50-413, 50-484 REQUEST FOR ACTION. October 10. 1996; DIRECOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. 5 2.206, l DD-96-14,44 NRC 187 (1996)

CLAIBORNE ENRlCHMENT CENTER; Docket No. 70 3070-ML ,

M ATERIALS UGNSE; October 2,1996. ORDER; CLI-96-8. 44 NRC 107 (1996) I MATERIALS UCENSE; December 3,1996; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Resolvmg Coniemions J 4. K. and Q); LBP 96-25, 44 NRC 331 (1996)

CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, Unit 3; Docket No. 50 302 l REQUEST FOR ACilON; October 7,1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R.12,206, DD-96-13. 44 NRC 180 (1996)

DAVIS-BESSE NUCl.IAR POWER STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 50 346-A ANTITRUST; October 17, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.12.206; DD-96-15.

44 NRC 204 (1996) i INDEPENDENT SPENT IUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION, Docket No. 72-18 ISFSI I INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION. October 24. 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Schedules for Further Filmgs and for Preheanng Conference); LBP422,44 NRC l

138 (1996) l INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; December 3,1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Morion to Suspend Proceeding); LBP-96-26,44 NRC 406 (1996)

MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER STATION; Docket No. 50-309

' REQUEST FOR ACTION; November 20, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 12.206; DD-96-20, 44 NRC 290 (1996)

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR l'OWER STATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50 245 REQUEST FOR ACTION, October 31, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R.12.206; DD416, 41 NRC 214 (1996); DD-96-17, 44 NRC 221 (1996)

REQUEST FOR ACTION; December 26, 1996; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.12.206; DD-96-23, 44 NRC 419 (1996) 1 OYSTLR CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Docket No. 50'219 I OPE RATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; October 25, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Intervenhon Pelinon); LBP423, 44 NRC 143 (1996) l REQUEST FOR ACTION. December 11, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R.

6 2.206; DD-96 22, 44 NRC 413 (1996) s PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Umt I; Docket No 50-440 ANTITRUST; October 17. 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.12.206; DD415.

44 NRC 204 (1996)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; December 6.1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR; CLI 96-13, 44 NRC 315 (1996) i PRAIRlE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, Umtr I and 2. Docket Nos. 50 282, 50-306, i 72-10 RLQUEST FOR ACTION, November 27,19%; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.

6 2 206; DD-96-21, 44 NRC 297 (1996) l 49 3

4 I I j

l 4

4 1

FACII,ITY INDEX ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Unsis I and 2; Dockee Nos. 50 335, 50 389 REQUEST l'OR ACTION, Novender 18, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.

5 2.206; DS96-19,44 NRC 283 (1996)

VOGTIE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, Umts I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-424-OLA-3, 50-425-OLA-3 OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 19, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Mouons: Reconsideranon Ternunahon of the Proceeding); LBP %I6, 44 NRC 59 (1996)

WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT; Dodet No. 50-390 REQUEST FOR ACTION; July 9,1996; I'INAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 12.206; Da96-10,44 NRC 54 (1996)

REQUEST IOR ACTION; August 15, 1996; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R.12.206, DD 96-ll, 44 NRC 69 (1996)

WPPSS NUC11AR PROJECT NO. 3, Ducket No. 545084L OPERATING LICENSE: October 16, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Withdrawal of Application), LBP-%21,44 NRC 134 (1996)

YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION; Docket No. 50429-DCOM DECOMMISSIONING; July 12, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granung Motion se Videotape Prelcanns Conference); LBP-96-14. 44 NRC 3 (1996)

DECOMMISSIONING; July 31, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Admitting Contenuon and Estabhstung taligauon Schedule Regarding "New Dose Argunens"); LBP-%I5,44 NRC 8 (1996)

DECOMMISSIONING; September 27, 1996; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granung Monon for Sunirnary Disposnion); LDP-96-18,44 NRC 86 (1996)

DECOMMISSIONING; October 18, 1996; ORDLR; CLi 96-9, 44 NRC 112 (1996)

I i

- - - _ _ _ - _ _