ML20151Z279
| ML20151Z279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1998 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V47-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V47-I2, NUDOCS 9809210238 | |
| Download: ML20151Z279 (68) | |
Text
-. - . . _ - - - . _ - . . . _ . - . . - . - . . . . . - - - . . . - -. . - . . . . . - . . . - - - - - - . - - . - .. . . - . .
NUREG-0750 Vol. 47 Index 2 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES January - June 1998 j## ""**%,
!)s LO
/
7' O
\
g i
. + ..+
. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
~
i 92 O g 980930 0750 R PDR
l Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office RO. Box 37082 Washington, DC 20402-9328 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.
Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 I
l Errors in this publication may be reported to the Office of the Chief information Officer l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- l. Washington, DC 20555-0001
- l. (301-415-6844) i l
l
i
}
J !
i l
< j NUREG-0750 i l Vol. 47 i index 2 9
i :
i i
4 INDEXES TO r NUCLEAR REGULATORY
> COMMISSION ISSUANCES l
! l 1
i l January - June 1998 l
4 i
i I
1 i
i 1
i l
}
(
l lj,S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSJON j Prepared by the i
Office of the Chief information Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
{ (301 - 415 - 6844) i
)
e a
L l l
l.
l L Foreword ,
i L- . Dipses and indexes forismances of the Commesion (CLI), the AtomicSafety and
! Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for R&a=Wg (DPRM) are presented in this document. Dese digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the -
issuances.
< Infonnation ekments common to the cases heant and ruled upon are: ,
Case name (owner (s) of facility) .
Full text reference (volume and pegination) -
Issuance number - ~
Issues raised by appellants ,
Irpl citations (mses, segulatiom, and statutes) I l Narce of facility, Docket number I
( Subject matter of issues and/or ruliny l Type of hearing (operating license, operating liame amendment, etc.) . 'j j
~
. Type of issuance (memorandum, onier, decision, etc.) =
These iriformation elements are displayed in one or more of Eve separate formats I ananged as follows: .i
' 1. Case Nanne index j
! The case name index is an alphabetical anangement of the case names of the l lr msuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type of issuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.
-1 Henders and 1%ests l i-
. The headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows: the
, . Commmsion (CLI), the Asomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel (IBP), the ;
. Administrative law Judges (AIJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on
[-
Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
- The header identifies the issuana by issuance number, case name, facihty name, t docket number, type of hearing, date of issuance, and ty ofissuance.
l The dipst is a brief nanative of an issue followed the resolution of the issue 1 and any lept references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuance covers more j than one issue, then separate digests are used for each imue and are designated
. ' alphabetically.
l.
- 3. Legal namanna Inder u
This indexis divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alpha-numerical anangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. Dese citatiors are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and statutes may have occuned to cause ,
l changes in the number or name anNor applicability of the citation. It is therefore I irnportant to consider the date of the isuana.
L The references to cases, segulatioas, statutes, and others are generally followed by l
phrases that show tie application of the citation in the particular issuance. Dese phrases are followed by the issuana number and the full text refetence.
l i
ll iki i
l l
l
-.-e g w +--
- _ . ._ .- .. . .- =.
J
~
- 4. Subject Index-Subject words and/or phrases, ananged alphabetically, indicate the issues and - l subjects covered in the issuances The subject heading are followed by phrases that : )
give speafic information about the subject, as discussed in the issuances being indexed. j
. 'Ihese phrases are followed by th ie ssuance number and the full text referena. ;
- 5. FacMity Index l
This index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from the ,
issuance. The name is followert by docket number, type of hearing, date, type of )
- issuanx, imuance number, and full text referena, i
i 1
i IV F
I l
I l'
I i
. . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ . ~ . . . _ - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
l i
- __l I i
e I CASE NAME INDEX t
i i
CONAM INSPECTION, INC. -
l CIVIL PENALTY; FIRST PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (Telephone Conference,1/14/98);
i Docket No. 3431373-CivP (ASLBP No. 98-735-01-CitP) (EA 97-207) (License No. 12-16559-01) l (Order imposing Civil Monetary Penalty); LBP-98-2, 47 NRC 3 (1998)
. HYDRO RESOURCES, INC.
l MATERIALS UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 40 8968-ML; CU-98-4, 47 NRC
' til (1998); CLI-98-8,47 NPO 314 (1998); CLI-98 9, 47 NRC 326 (1998) -
l MATERIALS LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Grannng Temporary Stay of Staff Licensing j Action and Ruling on Motions); Docket No. 40-8968-ML (ASLBP No.95-706 01 ML); LBP-98-3, 47 r NRC 7 (1998)
MATERIALS UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Pention to intervene and Setting Schedules); Docket No. 40 8%8-ML (ASLBP No.95-706 01-ML); LBP-98-4, 47 NRC 17 (1998)
(
[
MATERIALS LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Modon for stay and Request for /
~ ~~
Prior Hearing, Lifting of Temporary Stay, Denying Motions To Strike and for leave To Reply);
Docket No. 40-8968-ML (ASLBP No. 95 706-01-ML); LBP-98 5, 47 NRC 119 (1998) i MATERIALS LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Petinons and Areas of Concern; i
Granting Request for Hearing; Scheduling); Docket No. 40-8968-ML (ASLBP No.95-706 01-ML)
$ j 1
(Re: 14ach Mining Ucense); LBP-98-9,47 NRC 261 (1998) f l MATERIALS UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denial of Modon to Disquahfy Presiding j j l
Officer); Docket No. 40-8968 ML (ASLBP No. 95-706-01-ML) (Re: Imach Mining and Milling d 4 Ucense); LBP-98-ll, 47 NRC 302 (1998) L l MATERIALS UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (ENDAUM and SRIC's Motion for Reconsideradon of LBP 98-9); Docket No. 40-8%8-ML (ASLBP No. 95-706-01 ML) (Re: Imach '
i l Mining and Milling License); LBP-96-14,47 NRC 376 (1998) l l INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION '
MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 40-8681 MLA f (Alternate Iked Materia 0; CU 98-6, 47 NRC !!6 (1998) l LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, LP MATERIALS UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Addressing NEPA Contentions); Docket No.
70-3070-ML; CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 77 (1998) l MATERIALS UCENSE; ORDER; Docket No. 70-3074ML; CU-98 5,47 NRC 113 (1998) l NORTH ATLANTIC ENEROY SERVICE CORPORATION g REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; Docket No. 50 443 (Ucense No. NPF-86); DD 98-3, 47 NRC 71 (1998)
NORTHEAST LfrIUTIES
, REQUEST FOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; Docket Nos. 50 245, 50 336, 50-423, 50 213 (Ucense Nos. DPR 21, DPR 65, NPF-49, DPR-61); DD 981, 47 NRC 23 l (1998)
REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 51206, Docket Nos. 50 245, 50 336, 50-423 (Ucense Nos. DPR-21. DPR-65, NPF-49); DD-98-4. 47 NRC 381 (1998)
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 52.206; Docket Nos. 50 282,
! 54306, 72-10; DD-98-2, 47 NRC 37 (1998) 4 1
a i
A
,i i
1 i
~l
{ I a
)
l CASE NAME INDEX POWER INSPECTION, INC.
ENIORCEMENT AC710N; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Disdssing Case); Docket No. 30 20644-CivP (ASLBP No. 984J7-OLGvP) (Re: Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty); LBP.98-6, 47 NRC 140 (1998)
INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 72-22 ISFSI, 712LISFSI-PFS; CLI-98-7, 47 NRC 307 (1998)
INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Rulings on Standing, Contentions, Rule Waiver Petition, and Procedural / Administrative Matters); Docket No.
72 22-ISFSI (ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSD; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion for Reconsideranon); Docket Nos. 72-22-ISFSI,72-22-ISFSI-PSP (ASLBP Nos.97-732 02-ISFSI. 97-73242-ISFSI-PSP); LBP-98-8, 47 NRC 259 (1998)
INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALL.ATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORD2R (Ruhng on Mouans for Reconsideration of LBP-98-7); Docket No. 7L22-!SFS! (ASLBP No.97-732 42-ISFSD; LBP-98-10,47 NRC 288 (1998)
INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALL.ATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on State of Utah Physical Security Plae Contentions); Docket No. 7L22-iSFSI (ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISPSD; LBP-9813, 47 NRC 360 (1998)
SOtTDIERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, er al REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.FR.12.206; Docket Nos. 34361, 54362; DD-98-5,47 NRC 390 (1998); DD-98-6,47 NRC 3% (1998) 1RANSNUQ1AR. INC.
EXPORT LICL iE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nm. 11004997,11004998 (License Nos.
XSNM 3012, XSNM-3013); CLJ-98-10,47 NRC 333 (1998) 21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES. INC.
ENPORCEMENT ACTION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Docket Nos. 03430266, 03430266-CivP (License No. 42-23850-02E) (EA 96-170) (Confirrnatory Order); CLI-98-1, 47 NRC 13 (1998)
ENFORCEMENT ACTION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 030 30266-CivP (ASISP No.
97-729-01-ChP); LBP-98-1, 47 NRC 1 (1998)
U.S. ENRICHMENT CORPORATION REQUEST FOR AC110N; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 70 7001; CLI-98-2,47 NRC 57 (1998)
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Decision on Standing); Docket No. 50-029-LA (ASLBP No.98-736 01-LA); LJP-9512, 47 NRC 343 (1998) 2
__I I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CLI-981 21st CLNTURY TEChin)LOGIES, INC, (Fort Worth, Texas), Docket Nos. 030-30266, 030- f 30266 CivP (Ucense No. 42-23850-02E)(EA 96-170)(Con 6rmatory Order); ENFORCEMENT ACTION, O hhruary 19,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 7 A The Commission grants a motion Gled jointly by the NRC Staff and the Licensee for termination of a Confirmatory Order proceeding ininated by the Ucensee. De Ucensee had requested a heanng on c
(
the Order, which modined the license to require that the Licensee develop and implement cernun wntten '
C procedures, and develop, and submit for NRC approval, trairung and audit plans. The joint monon was F Eled following a settlement agreement reached by the Ucenace and the NRC Staff (and approved by the Licensing Board)in a related civil penalry proceeding, which was also 'niuated by the Ucensee.
B
[
The Commission 6nds that the fundamenud issue is the same in both proceedings: whether ceruun C conditions in the license issued to 21st Century Technologies are jusu6ed on heahb and safety grounds. ;
The Comnussion therefore concludes that good cause exists to ternunate the Con 6rmatory Order proceeding _,
in view of the approved settlement and ternunation of the civil penalty proceeding. For this reason, and .,
because the terms of the Settlement Agreement suggest that the Staff and the Licensee will be able to reach ,/ J mutually agreeable license terms, the Comnussion dechnes to undertake sua sponte review of the Ucensing Board s approval of that agreement.
7g
,s, g C ne Conunission looks with favor upon settlements. Sequawn fueLr Corp (Gore, Oklahoma Site), J-CLI-97-13,46 NRC 195. 205 (1997). '2" i CLI-98-2 U.S. ENRICHMFNr CCRPORATION (PadrM, Kentucky) Docket No. 70 7001; REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 19,1998: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ~[ _,
A The Commission denies USEC's petition, submitted pursuant to 10 C.F R. 6 76.62(c), for review /
of the Duector's Decision that partially denied USEC's request for an amendment to the Certi6cate of Comphance for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The Commission rejects all technical bases for the b-peution assened by USEC and allows the Director's Decision to become 6nal.
A CL1-98-3 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Center) Docket No. 70 3070 ML- ^
MATFAIA!J LICENSE. April 3,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Addressing NEPA Contenuons) /
A The Commission defers to and affirms the Boar (s finding in LBP-96 25,44 NRC 331 (1996),
that the proposed facility is unlikely to have a signi6 cant effect upon market pnces for enrichment services.
[
/
but a!so directed the Board not to give cacessive weight to the pnce-effects 6ading, given the uncertainties '
of the future uranium ennchment market. The Commission further directed that the Board, in perforuung 7 its ukimate cost-bene 6 balancing under NEPA consider not only the facihty's effects on market prices, f.
but also the other bene 6ts of the facility that are cited in the FEIS The Comnussion af6tms the Boar (s holding than the FEIS "no-action" section should be revised. Lastly, the Comfrussion reverses the Boar (s holding that the FEIS not include any discussion of socioeconomic or " secondary" benc6ts, and instead holds that the NEPA cost bencht analysis appmpnately may consider and balance both negative and posiUve socioeconomic effects.
B The Commission also reverses in part and afhrms in pan the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Boar (s Final Imual Decision, LBP-97 8, 45 NRC 367 (1997), ruling on environmental jusuce contenuona. The Comnussion revenes the Boar (s requaement for a further invesuganon mio racial discnnunation in siting, mN af6rms the Boar (s requirement for further analysis of the disparate impacts on two impovenshed Afncma-American communiues.
C The pnncipal goals of an EIS are twofold. to compel agenues to take a "hard look" at the enGamental consequences of a proposed project, and to pernut the pubhc a role in the agency's decision-mnking process. See Robertson v hierhow Vauey Citizens Counca 490 U.S. 332,349-50 (1989); Hughes l
i i
l l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION River M'atershed Conserwacy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437,443 (4th Cir.1996). The EIS is intended to foster both infomed decision mnking and informed public participation, and thus ensure that the agency does not act upon incomplete informanon. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Couned, 490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989).
D Although the statute itself does not mandase a cost-bene 6L analysis, NEPA is generally regarded as calling for some sort of a acighing of the environmental costs against the economic, technological, or other public benefuts of a proposal. See, e g., Idaho By and Through Idaho Public Utilities Commission v.
/CC,35 F.3d 585,595 (D C. Cir.1994), Calvert Cl(ffs' Coordmating Committee, Inc. v. AEC,449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir.1971). The EIS need not, however, always contain a formal or mathemancal cost-beneet analysis. See, e s., Sierra Club v. Lynn, 502 F.2d 43,61 (5th s'ir.1974), cert. denied. 422 U.S.1049 (1975).
See also Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, 40 C.F.R. I 1502.23.
E NRC regulations direct the Staff to consider and weigh the environmental, technological, and other cc ts and bene 6:s of a proposed action and its alternauves, and. to the " fullest extent pracucable, quantify the various factors considered." 10 C.F.R. 5 51.71(d). If important factors cannot be quann6ed, they nuy be discussed qualitatively.14.
F Misleadmg information on the economic benefits of a project could skew an agency's overall assessment of a project's costs and bene 6ts, and potentially result in approval of a project that otherwise would not have been approved because of its adverse environmental effects. See, e.g., Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d at 446.
G in assessing how economic bene 6ts are portrayed, a key considerucon of several courts has been whether the economic assumptions of the FEIS were so distorted as to impair fair consideration of the project's adverse environmental effects.14. at 466 (cinng South loussiana Environmental Council, Inc. v.
Sand,629 F.2d 1005,101I (5th Cir.1980)).
H in NRC licensing adjudications, it is the licensing board that compiles the 6nal environmental
" record of decision," balances a proposed facility's benefits agamst its costs, and ultimately decides whether to liccuse the facility. The adjudicatory record and board decision, and any Comnussion appellate decision, become, in effect, part of the FEIS. See, e.g., Philadelphia Electric Co. (lamerick Genernung Station, Units I nud 2), ALAB 819,22 NRC 681,705-07 (1985.).
I To assist the NEPA cost-bene 6 analysis, the NRC ordinarily examines the need a facihty will acet and the bene 6ts it will create. See Loutriana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center),
LBP-96-25,44 NRC 331,346-47 n.$ (1996)(and cases cited therein).
J Although the Commission has the authority to reject or modify a licensing board's factual 6ndings (see Public Scrwce Co. o/New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33,42 (1977); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB-355,4 NRC 397,403-05 (1976)),
it will not do so lightly (see Catawba,4 NRC at 403).
K Under NEPA, the FEIS rnust include a statement on the alternatives to the proposed accon. See 42 U.S C. i4332(2)(C)(iii). Generally, this includes a discussion of the agency alternauve of "no action"(see 40 C.F.R. I1502.14(d)), which is most eacily viewed as maintaining the status quo. Association of Public Agency Customers v. Bonneville Power Administration,126 F.3d 1158,1188 (9th Cir.1997).
L 7he extent of the no action" discussion is governed by a " rule of reason." See Cirrzens Agams:
Burlington, Inc. v. Bussy 938 F.2d 190,195 (D C. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 L.S. 994 (1991). The discussion need not be exhausuve or inordinately detailed. Farmland Preserwrms Associari<m v. Goldschmidt,611 F.2d 233,239 (8th Cir.1979). Such discussions typically are relatively short. See, e g., id.; Headwaters, lac. v. Burram of Zond Management, 914 F,2d 1174,1181 (9th Cir 1990).
M The "no action" analysis should contain a concise, desenpuve summary comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the no action alternauve to the proposed action. See CEQ " Memorandum to Agencies-Answers to 40 Most Asked Quescons on NEPA Regulanons," 46 Fed. Reg.18,026 (Mar. I,1981); see also 40 C.F.R. I1502.14 (CEQ guidance). The section should state the priacipal reasons why the no-acuan option was eliminated from consideration.
N Socioecononne bene 6ts such as new jobs and tax revenues are frequently termed " secondary" bene 6ts because they ordinarily are not the pnmary reason cited to jusufy a project NEPA does not bar an examinauon of secondary beac6%
0 A NEPA cost-bene 6t ar m for either reactor or nonreactor facilities, appropriately may consider and balance socioecononut effects. + th negauve and possve.
4 i
l
l l
1 l
l 1
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l
P Execuuve Order 12898,3 CJ.R. 859 (1995), on environmentaljustice, by its own terms, established no new rights or remedies. See E.O.12898, i 6 609. Its purpose is to merely " underscore certain provision [s]
j of exisung law that can help ensure . hat all comnainines and persons across this Nation live in a safe and healthful environrnent." See Memorandum for the Heads of All Departments and Agencies,30 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 279 (Feb.14,1994).
Q An inquiry into racial discrimination in siting would go well beyond what NEPA has traditionally been interpreted to require. No agency or judicial decision has invoked NEPA to consider claims of racial disertmination. The Council for Environmental Qunhty's draft guidance focuses exclusively on identifying and adequately assessing impacts of the proposed action on minority populations, low income populations, and Indian Tribes. It nakes no mention of a NEPA-based inquiry into racial discrirnination.
R An agency inquiry into a license applicant's supposed disenminatory motives or acts would be far removed from NEPA's core interest "the physical environment - the world around us, so to speak." l Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy aw I' % 766, 772 (1983).
l S Were NEPA construed broadly to require a full em every conceivable aspect of fed" rally licensed projects, "available resources may be spread so tlus e_ ies are unable adequately to pursue protecuon of the physical environment and natural resources ' at 776. See also Public Urihries Commission v. TERC, 900 P.2d 269, 282 (D.C. Cir.1990). NLl'A gives agencir broad discretion to keep their inquiries within appropriate and manageable boundaries. See South Iomssana Environmental Council, Inc. v. Sand, 629 P.2d at 1011.
T The site screening process is used by a license applicant to identify sites that may meet the stated goals of the proposed acuan. It is not uncommon for only one of many possible sites to be deemed .
reasonable. See, a g., Tongass Conserwarwn Society v. Cheney 924 P.2d 1137,1141-42 (D.C Cir.1991). l U CEQ's implementing guidance provides that an EIS must "[rligorously explore . . all reasonable alternatives." 40 CJ.R. I1502.14(a)(emphasis added). Tur those alternatives that have been eliminated from detailed study, the EIS is reqmred merely to %riefly discuss" why they were ruled out. Id. Where (as here)"a federrJ agency is not the sponsor of a project, the federal government's consideration of alternatives may accord substantial weight to the preferences of the applicant and/or sponsor in the atting and design of the project." City of Grqpevina y. DOT,17 P.3d 1502,1506 (D C. Cir.1994), cert. denied 513 U.S.1043 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).
V Agency adjudications require advance notice of claims and a reasonable opportunity to rebut them.
Our own longstanding practice requires adjudicatory boards to adhere to the terms of admitted contentions See, a g., Brock v. Roadway Exprras. Inc.,481 U.S. 252,264-65 (1987)(plurality opinion of Marshall,1);
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resosnes Defense Council,435 U.S. 519,353 54 (1978).
W Adverse impacts that fall heavily on minority and impoverished citizens call for particularly close scrutiny.
X " Disparate impact" analysis is our principal tool for advancing envitonmentaljustice under NEPA.
The NRC's goal is to idenufy and adequately weigh, or mitigate, effects on low-income and nunonry communities that become apparent only by considering factors peculiar to those communities.
CLI-98-4 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 40-8968.ML: MATERIALS LICENSE; April 16,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Commission temporanly stays the effectiveness of the Presidmg Officer's Memorandum and Order, LDP-98-5,47 NRC 119 (1998), thereby staying the effective date of the materials license that the l NRC Staff issued to Hydro Resources, Inc.
l B he Commission may issue a temporary stay to preserve the status quo without waiang for the bling I of an answer to a motion for stay.10 C.PA 5 2.788(f). The issuance of a temporary stay is appropnate where petiuoners raise senous questions that, if pennoners are correct, could affect the balance of the stay f
factors set forth in 10 C.PA I 2.788(e).
- CL1-98 5 LOUISLANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), Docket No. 70 3070-ML;
! MATERIALS LICENSE; April 30,1998; ORDER A The Commission grants the rnation Sled by the apphcant. Louisians Eiwrgy Services, to pernur it to withdraw its license appbcanon and terminate the proceeding. This renders moot all remaining issues in this case. He Commission therefore dismisses the pendmg pentions for Comnussion review of the Atonut Safety and Licensing Board Orders, LBP.97-3, LBP-97-22, and the Board's March 3,1995 unpublished 5
1 l
l 1
l l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
order ruling on LES's decomnussioning fun &ng estimate. The Commission also vacates these three Board s
orders. '
D While unreviewed Board decisions do not create binding precedent, where as here the unreviewed rulings " involve complex questions and vigorously disputed interpretanons of agency provisions." the I
Comt tission chooses as a policy matter to vacate them and thereby climinate any future confusion and l
dispute over their meaning or effect. Cf Kerr McGee Chemical Corp (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), 1 CU-96-2,43 NRC 13,15 (1996).
C The resjudicura or other preclusive effect of a previously decided issue is appropriately decided at the time the inne is raised anew.
CU-98-6 INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (White Mesa Uranium Mill), Docket I No. 40-8681-MLA (Alternate lied Material); MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; April 30, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A 'The Comnussion denies three Petitioners
- appeal of two orders by the Ucensmg Board which found that Petitioners lacked standing to parucipate in the proceeding.
B Proxinuty alone does not suf5ce for stan&ng in matenals licensing cases. See, e g., Final Rule,
" Informal Hearing Procedures for Materials Licensing Cases." 54 Fed. Reg. 8269, 8272 (Rb. 28.1989);
see generally Georgra Insruute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor), CU-9512,42 NRC 111, 115-17 (1995).
C For Peutioners to qualify for standing, their asserted injuries from the action that would be approved by dat license amendment umst be distinct and palpable, particular and concrete, as opposed to being conjectural or hypothetical. See, e.g.. Steel Co. v. Citizensfor a Better Environment, I18 S. Ct.1003,1016 (1998); warth v. Seldin. 422 U.S. 490,501,508,509 (1975); Sequoyah fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site),
CLI-9412,40 NRC 64,72 (1994).
D If Peutioners fail to respond to a Presiding OfEcer's reasonable and clearly articulated requests for more specific informanon regarding Petinoners' claims of standing, the Presiding Officer is fully justified in rejectmg the pennons for intervention.
E De Commission generally defers to the Presidmg Officer's determinations regarding standing, absent an error of law or an abuse of escretion. See Georgio Tech, supra. 42 NRC at 116.
CU-98-7 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LL.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility), Docket Nos. 72-22-ISFSI 72-22-ISFSI.PFS; INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; June 5,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A j The Commission grants the petition 61ed by the applicant, Pnvate Fuel Storage. LLC., for l interlocutory review and reversal of the Chief Judge's ruling to create a separate board to consider all I issues concerning its Physical Security Plan. While the Commission agrees with the Chief Judge that he has sufficient authority to establish muMple boards to adjudicate a single license application, and also agrees that assigning discrete issues to multiple boards may sometimes prove a useful tool for resolving proceedings expeditiously,it concludes that a second board was not called for here, given the procedural posture of the case. Once the initsal Board rules on the admissibility of all pending contennons, including the secunty contentions, the Chief Judge may reconsider whether a second board would be desirable.
B The Comnussion does not readily review interlocutory licensing board rulings, but will do so if a particular ruling (1) "[t]hreatens the party adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irreparable impact" or (2)"[alffects the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner." 10 C.F.R.
12.786(gXI) and (2); see Oncology Services Corp., CU-9313, 37 NRC 419 (1993). j C "[TJhe Chief Administrative Judge of the Ucensing Board Panelis empowered both (1) to establish two or more licensing boards to hear and decide discrete poroons of a licensing proceeding; and G. to determine which paruons will be considered by one board as distinguished from another." Public Service Co. of New flampsh&e (Seabrook Station, Uruts I and 2), ALAB-916,29 NRC 434,438 (1989)(footnote omitted).
D The Comnussion expects the Chief Judge to exercise his authority to estabhsh multiple boards only when: (1) the proceeding involves escrete and separable issues; (2) the issues can be more expc&uously handled by nultiple boards than by a single board; and (3) the multiple boards can conduct the procee&ng in a manner that will not burden the parues unduly.
6
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CLI-98-8 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120) Docket No. 40'8968-ML; MATERIA 13 IJCENSE; June 5,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A h Commission demes a petition for review of a Presiding Officer's order denying a stay request that Pentioners filed with the Presiding Of6cer, &amisses as moot a stay request that Peuuoners filed duectly with the Comrnission, and lifts a temporary stay that the Cornmission had issued in CLI-98-4,47 NRC 111 (1998).
B The Comnussion is willing to entertain pentions for review ofinterlocutory rulings in Subpart L cases in the rare situations where such rulings (1) threaten a party with serious, imme& ate, and iruparable harm or (2) affect the basic structure of the proceedmg in a pervasive or unusual manner, C h Commission has the authority to consider a matter even if the party seeking interlocutory review has not satisfied the criteria for such revi;w.
D h mere issuance of important ruhngs does not, without more, merit interlocutory review. See Sequo.wd Fuel: Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-II,40 NRC 55,63 (1994). Even legal error does not necessarily justify interlocutory review, Instead, Peutioners need to demonstrate that they are threatened with "imme& ate and senous irreparable impact which, as a practical rnatter, could not be allaviated through a pennon for review of the presiding of6cer's final decision." 10 C.FA 5 2.786/ 4 )(1).
E Section 2.1263 of the Commission's informal Heanng Regulations provides that any request for a stay of Staff licensing accon pen &ng completion of an adjuecation under Subpart L rnust be filed at j the time a request for a hearing or petition n intervene is 61ed or within 10 days of the Staff's action, i whichever is later. The Comnussion does not, however, construe section 2.1263 to preclude parucipants from later renewing their stay request, which was timely filed under this section, if they are subsequently threatened with serious, immc& ate, and irreparable harm.
F For purposes of interlocutory review, irreparable harm does not qualify as "immediate" merely because it is likely to occur before completion of the hearing _ Such a reading of the w d "immediare" would stretch the definition of that word quite beyond recognition, G The Commission (and, earlier, the Appeal Board) have granted interlocutory review in situations where the question or order must be reviewed "now or not at all."
H An alleged failure by the NRC Staff to comply with secuon 106 of the Nanonal Historic Preservauon Act does not " imply" the " irreparable" injury necessary for interlocutory review. To obtain such review, Petitioners are required to dow the threat of irreparable harm, not nerely to " imply"it.
I Absent a clear congressional statement, adjudicatory tnbunals should not infer that Congress l intended to alter equity practices such as the standards for reviewing stay requests. The National Etoric l
Preservation Act contains no such clear congressional statement.
J A plainoff seeking injunctive relief nmst prove arreparable harm; a mere violation of NEPA or other environmental statutes is insufficient to merit an injunction.
K The National Historic Preservation Act contains no prohibiuon against taking a " phased review" of a property. Section 470(f) of that statute provides,in relevant part, only that a federal agency shall," prior to the issuance of any license . , take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or cligible for inclusion in the National Register." Nor does federal case law suggest any such prohibition. De regulanons implemenung section 470(f) are ambiguous on the matter.
L In such a fact-specinc area of disagreement as the necessity for a stay, and at such an early stage of the procee&ng, the appellate forum's deference to the trier of fact is quite high.
M Just as procedural rulings involving discovery and admissibibry of evidence or the scheduling of hearings rarely rneet the standard for interlocutory review, likewise the Presiding Of6cer's denial of Peutioners' motion for leave to 61e a reply brief does not rise to the level menung the Comnussion's interlocutory review. On such interlocutory matters, the Commission generally defers to the Presiding Officer.
CLI-98-9 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coor Road, Suite 101 Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 40 8%8-ML; MATERIALS LICENSE; June 5,1998, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Commission affirms the Presiding Officer's decision not to recuse himself from the proceeding.
B his agency has an established practice of refusing to use procedural technicaliues to avoid addressing &squali6 cation monons.
7
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C Section 2.704(Df the Commission's Subpart G regulations is meant to ensure both the integnty and the appearance of iregrity of the Commission's formal hearing process. See long hland f.Jglitung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stauan. Ur.it 1), ALAB-907, 28 NRC 620, 623 (1988) (" parties in an adjudicatory proceeding have a right to an impartial adjudicator, both in reahty and in appearance to a reasonable observer"), quorms Metropoffran Eduon Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-85-5,21 NRC 566. 568-69 (1985). Because this rationale apphes with equal force to Subpart L informal proceedings, section 2.704(c) should be applied to those proceedmga as well.
D Where the Prnsiding Officer himself revealed all the facts on which Petiooners based their motion to disqualify him, and where the scope of Petitioners' challenge calls into question neither his probity nor objecuvity, the Commission does not believe that the failure to 61e an afhdavit as required by 10 C.F.R.
5 2.704 is fatal to the motion. This conclusion is also consistent with the Comnussion's practice of refusing to use procedural technicalities as a means to avoid reaching the merits of a disqualification monon.
E Where a Presid ng Officer's job discussions with a law firm representing a party to ilus proceeding ended more than 6 months before he was designated to sit in this proceeding, and where the firm toward which he is supposedly biased rejected his job application, the Commission sees no reason to conclude that the Presiding Officer's impartiahty might reasonably be questioned under 28 U.S.C.1455(a).
F The Commission generally applies a very high threshold for disqualificauon when considering recusal mocons. Joseph J. Mackrol, CLI-89-14,30 NRC 89,92 n.5 (1989).
G Where the Presidmg Officer was not " seeking employrnent" with the law firm at or after the time he was designated as Presiding Officer in this proceeding, he did not violate 5 C.F.R.12635.604 of the Standards of Ethical Conduct piornulgated by the Office of Government Ethics, which secuon applies only to executive bramh employees seekmg employrnent H Section 2635.606(b) of 5 C.F.R. of the Standards of Ethical Conduct provides . hat, even where an offer of employment is rejected or not made, an agency "may determine that an employee" who has sought but is no longer seeking employment "shall nevertheless be subject to a period of disquahficauon upon the conclusion of employment negonations." However, this regulation merely gives "the agency designee" (here, Chief Judge Cotter? 3e option of disqualifying an employee of his office from working on a matter, even though the employee had not run afoul of any spec:fic provision of the Office of Government Ethics' regulations.
I The Commission could exercise its inherent supervisory authority to' disqualify the Presidmg Officer. However, in the absence of any information that would present a concern as to the integnty
, of the process, the Commission declines to take euch action.
l CLI-98-10 TRANSNUCLEAR, INC. (Export of 933% Enriched Uranium), Docket Nos. I1004997,11004998 (license Nos. XSNM-3012, XSNM-3013); EXf0RT LICENSE; June 5,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l A The Commission denies the Nuclear Control Insutute's request for intervention and a hearing on i
two applicauons of Transouclear, Inc., for licenses to export highly enriched uraruum (HEU) to Canada.
The Commission deternunes that the Pentioner is not enntled to intervene as a matter of nght under the Atonuc Energy Act, and that a hearing as a maner of discreuon would not be in the public interest or assist l
the Commission in making the determinations required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, for issuance of the export licenses, B Insututional interest in providmg informanon to the public and the generalized interest of their memberships in trunimszmg danger from proliferanon are insufhcient for standmg under secnon 189a C 7he third critermo under secuon 134a(3) requires that the United States government have in place i an active program to develop a low ennched uranium (LEU) fuel or target for use in the particular reactor l
to which the HEU exports are being made.
(
i D The requirenwnt under section 134a(3) of an acuve program for the development of an LEU fuel or target that can be used in the particular reactor to which the HEU exports are bems made may be tret where the Commission determmes that the pnncipals are acung in good faith toward concluding a formal agreement to complete the development of such a prograrn.
E Judgments of the Executive Branch regardmg the common defense and security of the Uruted States involve matters of foreign policy and national secunty, and the Commission can properly rely upon those judgments.
I 8
i l
_l l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS
_i LBP-98-1 21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES, INC (Furt Worth, Teans), Docket No. 03430266-CivP (ASLBP No. 97 729-01 OvP); ENTORCEMENT ACTION; January 12, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND 3
ORDER r, A In this civil penalty enfor ement proceedmg, the Ucensing Board accepts the parties' proffered -
settlement agreement.
/
LDP-98-2 CONAM INSPECTION, INC. (Irasca, Illinois), Docket No. 30-31373-CivP (ASLBP No. 98- 7 735-01-CivP)(EA 97 207)(Ucease No. 12-16559-01) (Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty); CIVIL '
PENALTY; Janmary 21. 1998; FIRST PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (Telephone Conference.
1/14/98) -
3 A The. smic Safety and Licensing Board in a civil penalty proceeding issues an inical prehearing [
conference order setting forth rulings made during a telephone preheanng conference on January 14,1998.
B Prepared resumony is generally used in licensing proceedings, but there is no requirenent to do so 7-in enforcenent proceedings.
LDP-98-3 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. I C 448%8-ML (ASLBP No.95-706 01-ML); MATERIALS LICENSE, January 23,1998 MEMORANDUM ""'*
f A
AND ORDER (Granting Temporary Stay of Staff Licensing Action and Ruling on Monons) 4O Claims of irreparable injury to natural, histanc, and religious resources frorn premining ground 0/
cleanng activities present the type of potennally harmful activiues the temporary stay provision (10 C.F.R.
I 2.788(f)) was meant to prevent.
3.
B Potentially harmful action may be stayed unal such time as a ruhng can be rnade on the ments of I a motion to stay the effecoveness of a Staff licensing action, usually until such time as the other parties ~,
have been given an opportuniry to provide their answers. '
s LBP-98-4 INDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101. Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. a 40-8968-ML (ASLBP No. 95-706-01-ML); February 9,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying :~
Petition to Intervene and Semng Schedules)
A By terms of section 2.713(a), the Comrrussion's lack of tolerance for [ undignified) conduct by t attorneys applies equa!!y to partes. Peutioners to becorne parties to NRC proceedings . . are subject to the same requirements in their pleadings before (the ASLBPI #
LBP-98-5 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101. Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket .
No. 40L8%8-ML (ASLBP No.95-706 01-ML); MATERIAUi LICENSE; April 2.1998; MEMORANDUM /
AND ORDER (Denying Motion for Stay and Request for Prior Hearing,12 fung of Ternporary Stay, Denying Motions To Strike and for Imave To Reply)
LBP-98-6 7'
POWER INSPECTION, INC., Docket No. 3420644-CivP (ASLBP No. 98-737-02-CivP) (Re Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalry); ENFORCEMENT ACTION; April 20,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissmg Case)
LBP.98-7 PRIVATE PUEL STORAGE, LLC. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI (ASLBP No.97-732 ft2-!SFST); INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; April 22,1998 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Rulings on Standmg. Contenuons Rule Waiver Petinon, and Procedural /Admitustrative Matters)
A in this proceedmg concerrung the application of Privare Fuel Storage, L.L C., under 10 C.F.R. Part 72 to construct and operate an independent spent fuel storage installanon (ISFSI), the Licensing Board rules on (1) the issues of standmg and admissibility of contencons relative to pending hearing requesta/intervenuon petitions either supporung or opposing the application; (2) a 10 C.F R. I2.758 rule wasver petition; and (3) various admirustra ve and procedural matters, including the use of " lead" parties and informal discovery.
y l
. .~ .- - . - - . ----~.-_ ~~. ...-~+.s_~~~ .- .-. - -. . ~.,_
i I
l i
DIGESTS ,
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS B 1.ongstanding agency pracuce requires that an individual, group, busincas enuty, or goveranwntal enuty that wants to intervene "as of right" as a full party la an adjudicatory proceeding concermng a proposed
-j licensms action nmst establish that it (1) has 6 led a timely intervention pection or meets the standards that 5 permit considerauon of an unnmely petition; (2) has standing to intervene; and 0) has proffered one or more contentions that are litigable in the pweeding. See 10 C.F.R. Il2.714(aKI)-(2), (bX2), Further, the
(
i Commission has recognized that, notwithstanding a potential party's failure to me-t the clernents necessary to estabhsh its standing to intervene as of right, it is possible, as a matter of discretion, to afford that participa:w party status. See forrland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I an i 2),
CLI 76-27,4 NRC 610,614-17 (1976).
C Each inservention petition rnust be umely 61ed as presaibed in the notice of opportunity for hearing issued by the agency. For a pention that is not Sled on tine to be accepted for consideration, the participant seeking to intervene must demonstrate that a balancing of the 8ve factors set forth in 10 C.F.R.
l t 2.714(aXIXIF(v) support accepting the peution. Those factors include: (1) good cause, if any, for failure '
to nie on time; (2) the availabihry of other nwans whereby the petitioners interest will be protected; (3) the extent to which the petiuoner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound r record; (4) the extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties; and (5) the '
extent to which the peutioner's participation wiH broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
D Relative to the question of standing as of right for those seeking party status, the agency has applied contemporaneous judicial standing concepts that require a parucipant to establish (1) it has suffered or will suffer a distinct and palpable injury that constitutes injury-in-fact within the zones of interests arguably protected by the governing statutes (e.g., the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), the National l
Environarntal Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)); (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and
- 0) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. See l'ankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-96 I. 43 NRC 1, 6 (1996). Ibrther, when an entity seeks to intervene on behalf of its mernbers, that entity must show it has on individual member who can ful61) all the necessary elements and who has authorized the entity to represent his or her interests.
E in assessmg a petition to deternune whether the requisite standing elements are met, which the presidmg of6cer must do even though there are no objections to a petitioner's standing, the Commission bas indicated that a presiding of6cer is to " construe the petition in favor of the petitioner." Georgia Institure of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-9512,42 NRC 111,115 (1995).
F A petitioner can be granted party status, as a matter of discretion, based upon the presiding of6cer's consideration of the following factors: (a) weighing in favor of allowing intervention are (1) the extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record,(2) the nature and extent of the pennoner's property,6nancial. or other interest in the proceeding, and 0) the possible effect of any order which may be emered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest; and (b) weighing against allowing intervention are (4) the availability of other means whereby petitioner's interest will be protected, (5) the extent to which the petinoner's interest wiu be represented by exisung parues, and (6) the extent to which petitioner's paracipation wiD inappropriately broaden or delay the proceeding.
rabbit Sprmss, CLI-76 27,4 NRC at 616.
G When the facility to be licensed is to t,e located on a reservation of a Native American tribe that is i
who!!y within the borders of a state, that state's asserted h.alth, safety, and environmental interests relative to its citizens hymg, worLog, and traveling near the proposed facility and in connection with its property
)
adjoining the reservauon and the proposed transportadon routes to the facihty are suf6cient to establish its standing.
H Asseruon of standing based on general interests of one Native Amencan tribe or its members in vast " aboriginal lands" that encompass tribe's existing reservanon and reservation of second tribe on which i
facihty to be licensed is to be built is inconsistent avith the congressionally recognized status of the two l tribes as disunct entines with separase reservations some 75 trule a apart. Standing for the 6rst tribe rnust, j
therefore, be established based on contacts ofindividual tribal members with the reservation of second tnbe j
where the facility is to be located.
j 1 Assertion that individual engages in activines in "the vicinity" of the location of the facility to be '
licensed is too general to provide him with standing as of right individually orin a r7presentational capacity.
See Atlas Corp. (Moab, Utah Facility), LBP-97-9,45 NRC 414,426 27 (desenpuon of acovities as "near,"
10 e -~m+-- s-.,, y, y. .m . .-- y -- - , . . , - - . - y:,wwm+r- t.-o. - ~ w
. . . ~ ~ _ ~ . . ~ . - . ~ . - - - - . - . . - . - - - - - . ~ -. -- _----_-_ -.~-... ~..__ -
i l
i DIGESTS ~
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS -
in "close proximity." or "in the vicinity" of facility in questien insuf6cient to establish standing), af'd, CLI-97 8,46 NRC 21 (1997). -
J Standing under 10 Cf.R. ( 2.714 is not predicated on whether a petitioner wishes to take a position for or against a pending licensing application. Rather, it turns on the pentioner's ability to show that it has one or more cognizable irderests that will be adversely impacted if the proceeding has one outcorr eather than another. See Nuclear Engmeering Co. (Shef6 eld, Illinois, telsvel Radicactive Waste Disposa!
Site), ALAB-473,7 NRC 737,743 (1978).
K Nothing in the general terms of 10 C.F.R.12.714 governing intervention petidons exempts a discretionary intervention request from its late-61ing provisions.
L Under factor one of the ave-factor late intervention balancing test in 10 Cf.R.12.714(aXI), an attempt to jusdfy late Bling as a reasonable failure to andcipate that a state's university comnmnity would not be willing to discuss the scienu6c nerits of a proposed instam facility does not account for the precept that the failure of some other group to " carry the ball
- does not constitute good cause for late Bling. See Texas Uritirles Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), CL1-88-12,28 NRC 605,609 (1988), reconsiderurma denied on other grounds. CLI-89 6,29 NRC 348 (1989), qfd, Citizens for Fair Utiliry Regulation v. NRC, 898 F.2d 5L (5th Cir.), cerr. denied. 498 U.S. 8% i1990).
M Wien lacking good cause for late Bling under factor one of the 6ve-factor late intervention balancing test set forth in 10 Cf.R.12.714(aXI), a peutioner must snake a parocularly strong showmg on the other four factors. See, e.g.. Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1,2, and 3), ALAB-431,6 NRC 460,462 (1977)(ciong cases).
.N Ability to 6le 10 C.F.R.12.715(a) limited appearance statements or otherwise provide a group's expertise to other participants generally is not pertinent ander factor two of 6ve-factor late intervenoon balancing test set forth in 10 Cf.R.12174(aXI) because it gives insufHcient regard to the value of adjudicatory participation rights. See Duke Powr Co. (Anwndment to Matenals License SNM-1773 -
Transportation of Spent Ni from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Stanon), ALAB-528,9 NRC 146,150 & n.7 (1979).
O Under factor four of the hve-factor late intervention balancmg test set forth in 10 Cf.R.
42.714(a)(1), NRC Staff interests generally are assumed not to be coextensive with those of a private peutioner. See Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nucl car Project No. 3), ALAB-747,18 NRC 1167,1174-75 & n.22 (1983).-
P in the 6ve-factor balancing test for late intervenuon petioons under 10 Cf R.12.714(a)(1), factor two - other means to protect pentioner's interests - and factor four - adequacy of existing representation 1
- are accorded less signi6cance in the balance. See Tesas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), CLI 93-4,37 NRC 156,165 (1903).
Q interest in presenting " sound science
- to presiding of6cer is laudable, but provides no basis for standing either as an interest cognizable for standing purposes or as one that will be the subject of actual or imminent injury upon the grant or denial of a license. See Shefield, ALAB-473,7 NRC at 743 (legal and nuclear organizations seeking to support low-level waste site renewal applicanon lack standing because no
' showing that granting or denying application would injure any cogruzable interest of either organization or its members); Allied-GeneralNuclear Services (Barnwell hl Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB428, 3 NRC 420, 422 (1976) (when no showing of injury to cognizable interests of its individual members by licensing action, assened abihty of civil liberties organization and its mernbers to provide informanon and data on civil rights issues inadequare to provide basis for standing).
R Of the six Pebble Springr factors for assessing a discretionary intervenuon request, factors one, four, 6ve, and sin are basically coextensive with the last four factors of the late-filing standard of 10 .
l Cf.R. I 2.714(a)(1). with Pebble Springs factor one - assistance in developing a sound record - having l l' signi6 cant away. See Pebble Springs, CLI-76 27,4 NRC at 616-17.
j S . Ibr a proffered legal or factual contention to be admissible, it must be pled with specincity. In addition, the contention's sponsor must provide (1) a brief explanation of the bases for the contention; (2) a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that will be relied on to prove the contention, j
together with the source references that will be rehed on to establish those facts or opinion; and (3) i suf6cientinformauon to show there is a genuine dispuie with the applicant on a matenalissue oflaw or fact. ,
which must include (a) references to the specisc portions of the application (including the accompanying
{
environrnental and safety reports) that are disputed and the supporting reasons for the dispute, or (b) the !
i 11 !
l l
y i.r g - + , -,qw, + . , - . #..,y.,q.,9~-u- .-m % ,. .. .- m.-. ,-ww ----,.. .,y ,g, 7,r- , yy1 .----,-. ,.
- - - .~ .
i i
l l
I l
! DIGESTS f ISSUANCE 0 OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS l
identi6 cation of any purported failure of the applicadon to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law and reasons supparung the deficiency alleguuon. See 10 C.F.R. 62.714(bX2Xi)-(iii). A contenuon that fails to meet any one of these standards must be dismissed, as must a contenuon that, even if proven, would be of no consequence because it would not enutle a pennoner to any relief. See id 5 2.714(dX2).
T An adjudication is not the proper forum for challenging applicable statutory requirements or the basic structure of the agency's regulatory process. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atonuc Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13,20, d'd in part on other grounds, CLI-74-32,8 AEC 217 (1974). Similarly, a contenuon that attacks a Comnussion rule, or which seeks to litigate a matter that is, or clearly is about to becone, the subject of a rulemaking, is inadnussibic. See 10 C.F.R.12.758; Potomac Electric Power Ca. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generaung Stauon, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-218,8 AEC 79,85.
89 (1974). This includes contentions that advocate stricter requirements than agency rules impose or that otherwise seek to lingare a generic determinadon established by a Commission rulemaking. See PacMc Cas sad Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2). LBP 931,37 NRC 5,29-30 (1993);
Public Service Co. of New Nampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82106,16 NRC 1649,1656 (1982); see also Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon), CLI-96 7,43 NRC 235,251 (1996); Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units I,2, anJ 3), LBP-91 19, 33 NRC 397,410, d'd in parr and rev'd in part on otAcr grounds, CL1-91-12,34 NRC 149 (1991). By I the same token, a contention that simply states the petitioner's views about what regulatory policy should be does not present a litigable issue. See Peach Bonom, ALAB-216,8 AEC at 20 21 & n.33.
U The scope of an adjudicatory proceeding is speci6cd by the notice of hearmg! opportunity for hearing and contentions that deal with matters outside that defined scope must be rejected. See, e g., Public i Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Genernung Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167, l
170 71 (1976); Porrland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287,289 n.6 (1979).
V Any issues of law or fact raised in a contention must be material to the grant or denial of the license application in question, i.e., they must make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding so as to entitle the petiboner to cognizable relief. See 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(dX2Xii); 54 I'ed. Reg. 33,168, 33,172 (1989). This requirement of materiality embodies the notion that an alleged error or de6ciency regarding a proposed licensing action must have some signi6cance relative to the agency's general responsibihty and authoeiry to protect the pubhc health and safety and the environment. See Saabrook, LBP-82106,16 NRC at 1656 (safety contention "must either allege with particularity that an applicant is not complying with a speci6ed [ safety) regulanon, or allege with particularity the existence and detail of a substannal safety issue on which the regulacons are silent (footnote onutted)); see also Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), LBP-82116,16 NRC 1937,1946 (1982).
W The bald assertion that a matter ought to be considered or that a factual dispute exists so as to nerit further consideration of a matter is not suf6cient. See Sacramento Afunicipal Ur/hry District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generanng Station) LBP-93 23,38 NRC 200,246 (1993), review declined, CLI-94-2,39 NRC 91 (1994); see also Connecticur Bankers Ass'n v. Board of Governors, 621 F.2d 245, 25l (D.C. Cir.1980).
Nor does mere speculation provide an adequate basis for a contention. See Yankee Nuclear, CLI-96-7,43 NRC at 267. Instead, a pennoner must provide documents or other factual information or expert opinion that set forth the necessary technical analysis to show why the proffered bases support its contention. See Georgia Insnrure of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), LBP-95-6,41 NRC 281,305, wcased in part and remanded on other grounds, CLI.95-10,42 NRC 1, af'd in part. CL1-95-12, 42 NRC 111 (1995).
X With respect to documentary or other factual information or expert opinion alleged to provide the basis for a contention, the Board is not to accept uncriucally the assernon that a document or other factual informanon or an expert opinion supplies the basis for a contenuon. In the case of a document, the Board should review the information provided to ensure that it does indeed supply a basis for the contention. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-919,30 NRC 29, 48 (1989), wcased in part on other grounds and remanded, CLI-90 4,31 NRC 333 (1990); see also Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stauon, Units I and 2), CLI-89-3, 29 NRC 234, 241 (1989)
("where a contenuon is based on a factual underpinning in a document that has been essentially repudiated by the source of that docurnent, the contennon may be dismissed unless the intervenor offers another 12 l
l I
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS independent source"); Yankee Nuclear, LBP-96 2,43 NRC nt 90 ("[a) document put forth by an intervenor as the basis for a contention is subject to scrutmy both for what it does and does not show"). By the same token, an expert opinion that merely states a conclusion (e g, the application is "de6cient," "madequate,"
or " wrong") without providing a reasoned basis er explanauon for that conclusion is inadequate because it deprives the Board of the abihty to make the necessary, reRective assessment of the opinion as it is alleged to provide a basis for the contention.
i Y In framing contentions regardmg a proposed licensing action, the focus of a petitioner's concern I should be the license application. See 10 C.F.R. 52.714(bX2Xiii). In tlis regard, a contention that fails
{
directly to controvert the license application at issue or that mistakenly asserts the application does not address a relevant lasue is subject to dismissal. See Rancho Seco, LBP 93-23,38 NRC at 247-48, Georgia l Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP 9121,33 NRC 419,424 (1991), appeal dhmnsed CLI-92-3,35 NRC 63 (1992).
Z Although hcensing boards generally are to litigate "contennons" rather than " bases," it has been recognized that "[t)he reach of a contention necessardy hinges upon its terms coupled with its stated bases."
See Pubhc Service Co. of New HampsSire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-899,28 NRC 93,97 (1988).
AA Incorporation by reference of one or more of the comentions of other petitione s is permitted in agency proceedings, albeit subject to the ave late-61ing factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 8 2.714(aXIXi)-(v)if adopuon by reference is sought after the time for 6 hag contentions has expired.
BB As set forth in 10 C.F.R.12.714(aXIXi)-(v), the factors that must be balanced in determinmg whether to adnut a late-61ed comention are (1) good cause, if any, for failure to 61e on time; (2) the availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected, (3) the extent to which the peutioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; (4) the extent to which the pennoner's interest will be represented by exisung parues; (5) the extent to which the peutioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. See, e.g., Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1046-47 (1983).
CC Relative to the first factor set forth in 10 C.F.R.12.714(aXIXi)-(v) t!uit umst be balanced in determimag whether to adnut a late-61ed contention, unavailability of propnetary documents does not provide good cause for delay in 6hng a contention when review of nonproprietary materials timely available indicates proprietary information was not necessary to the development of the late-61ed contenoon. See Catawba, CL1-83-19,17 NRC at 1043,1045 (if contention's factual predicate otherwise availablc, unavailability of document does not constitute good cause for late 61ing); see also Yankee Asomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP 96-15,44 NRC 8. 26 (1996); Philadelphia Electric Co, (Limenck Generating Station Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-39,18 NRC 67,69 (1983).
DD Relative to the 6rst factor set forth in 10 C.F.R.12.714(aXIXi)-(v) that must be balanced in determining whether to admit a late-Eled contenuan, lacking good cause for delay in Bling a contention, !
a peticoner must make a compelling showing on the other four factors. See Commonwestrh Eddos Co. !
(Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Units I and 2), CLI-86-8,23 NRC 241,244 (1986). Factors two -
)
no other means to protect the peutioner's interests in the contenuons - and four - extent to which other parties can represent those interests - e, however, to be accorded less weight than factors three and Sve.
l See id. at 245.
EE Relative to the 6ve factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(aXIXi)-(v) that must be balanced in determining whether to admit a late-6ted contencon, in connecuon with factor three - sound record development - the Commission has directed that the proponent of a late-61ed contention should, with as much particulanty as possible, "'idennfy its prospecuve witnesses, and summarize their proposed testimony.'" Id. at 246 (quoting Mhsusippi Power and light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725,1730 W)).
FF The standard for seeking a waiver if a rule or regulation in an adjucacation is set forth in 10 C.F.R.
62.758(b), which provides. "The sole grc ad for Muuon for waiver or excepuon shall be that special circumstances with respect to the subject nuo ar of the parucular proceedmg are such that the application of the rule or regulabot,(or provision thereof) would not serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was adopted." Procedurally, section 2.758(b) requires that the petinon rnust be acccmparued by an af6 davit (1) identifying the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which the application 1
l l
l
[
t i l 13 l
i l
l l
l l
l l
l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Ti!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS of the rule would not serve the purposes for which it won adopted, and (2) setting forth with particulanty the "special circumstances" alleged to justify the waiver or exception requested.
GG ?aragraphs (c) and (d) of section 2.758 state that a party's failure to make a prima facie showing on the section 2.75R(b) rule waiver standard precludes further consideration of the matter, while a presiding officer that 6nds a prima facie showing has been made must cerufy the petition to the Commission for its ,
consideration.
HH in connection with a 10 CF.R. 6 2.758 rule waiver petition, a peuuoner seeking to establish a pnma facie case that "special circunntances" exist such that the rule would not serve the purposes for which it was adopted umst make three showings. First, relative to estabbshing the requisite "special circumstances" exist to support the waiver, the peutioner must allege facts not in common with a large class of facilities that were not considered, either exphcitly or by necessary implication, in the rulemaking proceeding for the rule sought to be waived. See Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLI 20,30 NRC 231,235 (1989). Put another way, the circumstances alleged must be unique to the particular facshty at tasue. See Pact /ie Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2),
ALAB-653,16 NRC !!, 72-74 (1981). Speculauon about future events is, however, an inadequate basis j to estabhsh the necessary "special circumstances." See Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stanon, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-895,28 NRC 7,24-26, rev' din parr os other groundr. CLI-88-10,28 NRC i
573 (1988). I II Also with respect to the need to demonstrate "special circumstances"in requesting a rule waiver puruant to 10 CF.R.12.758, the petinoner must show apphcation of the rule will not serve the purposes for which it was adopted. See Seabrook, CLI-89 20,30 NRC at 235. Explicit statements in the statement j
of considerations are a primary source for determining the purposes for which the rule or regulanon was j
adopted. See, e 3., Seabrook. CLI-88-10, 28 NRC at 598-600; Seabrook, ALAB-895, 28 NRC at 12. '
Further, in ascertaimng a rule's purposes and whether those purposes would be impaired, it is pernussible to consider future events the agency logically would have anticipated in promulgating its rules. See Houston Lighting arulPower Co. (South Texas Project Units I and 2), LBP 83 37,18 NRC 52,59 (1983). On the other hand, in seeking to establish that the rationale for the rule has been undercut, conjectural staternents that verely lughlight the uncertainty surrounding future events are not,in and of themselves, suf6cient. See rubin Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), LBP-89-10,29 NRC 297,301, rev'd, ALAB-920,30 NRC 121 rev'd. CLi 89-20,30 NRC 231 (1989). Moreover,it has been estabhshed that a valid purpose for which the rule or regulanon was adopted, within the meamng of 10 CF R. 5 2.758.
includes ebminating Staff case-by case review of a generic issue in individual applications and removing such an issue from adjudication in any operadng license proceeding. See Seabrook, ALAB-895,28 NRC at 14,16-17; see also Carolina Power and Ught Ca (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-837,23 NRC 525,547 (1986).
JJ The third showing that must be made by a 10 CF R.12.758 rule waiver peution is that the circumstances involved are " unusual and compelling" such that it is evident from the petition and other allowed papers that a waiver is necessary to address the merits of a "signi6 cant safety problem" relauve to the rule at issue. Seabrook, CL1-89 20,30 NRC at 235. Justifying a waiver, therefore, requues that a petiooner establish the issue raised is a signilicant safety problem, even if there clearly are special circumstances that undercut the rationale for the r' ale. See Public Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-920,30 NRC 121,129 (1989). Safety issues that are " conceivable" or " theoretical" do not fulhll this requirement, however. See Seabrook. CL1-89-20,30 NRC at 243-44, Further, any claim of sigm6cance must be viewed in the context of any other protecove truasures that are in place to prevent safety problems. See id. at 244 KK In accordsnce with 10 CF.R. 6 2.714(f)-(g), a presiding of6cer is authonzed to control the general compass of the heanng by consolidadng issues and linuting party participation to avoid the presentauon of irrelevant, duplintive, or repetitive evidence. When some of a petiooner's adnutted contentions challenging an application have been adopted by other intervenors, other contentions proposed by different parues challenging the application have been conschdated because of their related subject matter, and one of the parues has Aled a single contention expressing general support for the application, it is appropnate to designate " lead" parties for the lingation of the vanous admitted contentions.
11 The party assigned the role of lead party has primary responsibility for hugaung a contention.
Absent some other presiding officer directive, the party with the lead role in support of a contencon is to 14
.- .. ~ .
I 1
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS l conduct all discovery on the contention; file or respond to any dispositive or other umtions regardmg the contention; submit any required prehearing briefs on the issue; prepare prefiled direct testimony, conduct any re& rect exanunation, and provide any surrebuttal tesumony regardmg the contention; and prepare posthearing proposed 6ndings of fact and conclusions of law on the contention. De party that has the lead role in opposing a contenuon has similar duties, with its hearing responsibihues including conducting l witness cross-examination and recross-examination and preparing rebuttal testimony as appropriate. For
)
any given contention, the lead party is responsible for consulting with the other " involved" parties (i.e any '
party that adopted its contenuon. 61ed a contention that has been consolidated or has opposed the same contention) regarding hugation activities, but the ultimate htigating responsibility for the contention rests with the lead party.
MM During an informal discovery process that includes the exclange of relevant documents and interviews with individuals with relevant information, parues are expected to be specMc in their information 1
requests and provide access to requested information and knowledgeable individuals to the maximum degree 1 possible. Failure to parucipate in the informal discovery pncess consistent with the presiding ofhcer's directives rnay result in appmpriate Board sanctions.
LBP-98-8 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE. L.LC. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installauon), Docket Nos. ,
72-22-ISFSI. 72-22-ISFSI-PSP (ASLBP Nos. 97-732-02-ISF51. 97-73242 ISFSI-PSP); INDEPENDENT j SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; April 23,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying j Motion for Reconsideracon)
LBP 98-9 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coors Road. Suite 101, Albuquerque. NM 87120). Docket No. 40 8%8 ML (ASLBP No.95-706 01-ML)(Rx Imach Mining License); MATERIALS LICENSE; May 13,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Petitions and Areas of Concern; Grunting Request for llearing; Scheduling)
A Three peutioners in this 10 C.F.R. Part 2. Subpart L proceeding were adnuued as parues after considering whether they had suffered injur, an fact whether they had 61ed timely petitions, and whether they had stated at least one valid area of concern.10 C.F.R. Il205(h), Other peticons for a hearing were denied.
B Pehtioners may have standing if they reside close enough to a planned project so that there is a reasonable apprehenaion ofinjury from implementation of the project. When the Staff of the Commission delays issuance of the full license that is apphed for, the Staff's reluctance to act without further information is an indication of the reasonableness of petitioners' apprehensions ofinjury.
C Even though a license is condiuoned so that certain activities cannot be taken without further Staff approval, the scope of the license is not narrowed. A petiooning organization has standing to request a hearing if any of the activines under the license may cause injury to its imerests or to one of its members.
D A peutiomng organizauon is not enucled to standing unless its member, on whom it relies for representational standing. spect6es with particularity how the activities of the project will cause the member an injury.
E An area of concern is relevant or germane to a proceedmg if it falls within the scope of the t challenged license application. The standards for adnutting an area of concern are more lement than for
' admitting contentions in Subpart G proceedings. l F A party may ask a judge to participate in public meetings designed to facilitate settlement of the case. If a party seeks settlement negonations in the judge's chambers, it must ask the Commission to autho ize those negoustions.
O in a Subpart L case. a presiding of6cer may propose ways of narrowmg issues, of setting deadlines for completion of aspects of a case, of idenufying issues for seulement on legal briefs. and for eliciting procedural suggestions from the parties.
H An orgamzation seeking stan6ng as the representauve of one ofits members must subnut a wntten statement authorizing it to be the representative and staung other facts necessry to establish standing.
! Unless there are special circumstances, the Presiding Of6cer has discretion to consider written statements I that do not meet the formal requirements for an af6 davit.
I A presiding officer may make reasonable arrangements to assure that the admission of muluple l parties will not cause unnecessary redundancy in the presentation of the case. The parties may be required to make reasonable arrangements to coordinate their presentations.
15
l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-9810 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC, Ondependent Spent Fuel Storage Install *n), Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI (ASLBP No. 97 732-02-ISFSI); INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; May 18,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Motions for Reconsideistion of LBP-98-7)
A In this proceeding concerning the application of Private Ibel Storage. LLC., under 10 C.F.R. Part 72 to construct and operate an independent spect fuel storage installation GSFSI), the Licensing Board rules ou motions for reconsideration and/or clarification ofits decision in LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998),
admitting parties and contenoons.
B in the context of the record before the presiding ofhcer, including the arguments of the participants, if the presiding officer's reasons for rejecting an intervenor's contentions "'may teasonably be discerned /"
Motor Vehicle Mayfacturers Ars'n of the United States v. Ssate Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Co.,
463 U.S. 29,43 0983) (quoting Bowman Tron.rporration, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Systems, Inc., 419 U.S. 281,286 (1974)), the presiding officer has provided an adequute explanation for that decision.
C If a party seeks to rely on information as a basis for admitting or rejecting a contention that clearly falls outside the stated scope of its original arguments, this is an impermissible ground for seeking reconsideranon. See Louisiana Energy Services. LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CLI-97-2,45 NRC 3, 4 0997)(reconsideration monons may not rest on a "new thesis").
D When similar aspects of other contentions have been rejected, consistency concerns counsel that the presiding officer consider a renewed argument regarding a comparable component of an adtrutred contenuon to ensure the presiding officer has not overlooked a similar matter. See Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Umerick Generating Stanon. Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-25,17 NRC 681,687 (1983)(reconsideration asks that the deciding body take another look at exisung evidence because evidence has been misunderstood or overlooked).
E Attaching a document in support of a contention without any explanation of its sigm6cance does not provide an adequate basis for a contention. See Louisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), LBP-9141,34 NRC 332,338 0991).
LBP 98-!! HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101 Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 40 8968-ML (ASLBP No. 95-706-01-ML)(Rc; leach Mining and Milling License); MATERIALS LICENSE; May 26, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denial of Motion to Disqualify Presiding Officer)
A An administrative judge rules that he should not be disqualified as a judge because of employment negotiations that had been terminnaed over 6 months previously with the law firm that represents Licensee in this case. He states that the motion for disquali6 cation inappropriately relies on 5 C.F.R. I 2635 604(a),
which bars a government employee from serving in a maner if it will have a " direct and predictable effect on the Gnancial mterests" of an employee that *is seeking" employment LBP 98-12 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY fYankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50 029-LA (ASLBP No.98-736 01-LA); LICENSE AMENDMENT; June 12, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Decision on Standing)
A In this Memorandum and Order concerning the application of Yankee Atomic Electric Company for approval of its license termination plan, the Licensing Board detues petitions for hearing and intervention on grounds of lack of standing.
B Setting forth specific aspects of subject ruarter of the proceeding for which intervention is sought is not related to establishing standing rquirements.
C Filings not authorized by rules of procedure or leave of the Board are not considered in decisions.
D Not all governmental or quasi-governmental encues are enutled to participate in NRC adjudicative proceedings.
LBP 98-13 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC. Ondependent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI (ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI); INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; June 29,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on State of Utah Physical Secunty Plan Contentions)
A in stus proceeding concerning the app 5 cation of Private Fuel Storage, L.LC., under 10 C.F.R. Part 72 to construct and operate an independent spent fuel storage installation, the Licensmg Board rules on the admissibibty of contentions concerning the Applicant's physical secunty plan (PSP).
B Ibr a proffered legal or factual contention to be admissible. It nmat be pied with specincity. In addiuon, the contention's sponsor omst provide (1) a brief explanation of the bases for the contencon; <2) j 16 l
t I
l l
l
l l
l 1
l I
l l
l l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that will be relied on to prove the contention, together with the source references that will be relied on to estabbsh those facts or opinion; and (3) suf6cient information to show there is a genuine dispute with the Applicant on a material issue of law or fact, which must include (a) references to the speci6c portions of the applicanon (including the acconpanying environmental and safety reports) that are disputed and the supporting reasons for the dispute, or (b) the idenafication of any purported failure of the application to contain info nution on a relevant matter as
[ required by law and reasons supporting the dc6ciency allegation. See 10 C.F.R. 52.714(bX2)(i)-(iii). A j contention that fails to rnect any one of these standards must be dismissed, as must a contennon that, even l if proven, would be of no consequence because it would not entitle a pentioner to any relief. See id.
5 2.714(dX2).
} C An improperly based challenge to a license application includes one shat is rooted in a misreading
! or misinterpretation of the license application. See Georgia lastuure of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), LBP-95-6,41 NRC 281,300,weared in part and remanded on other grounds, CLI 95-10,42 NRC 1, af'd in part on other grounds, CLI-9512,42 NRC 111 (1995).
D There are two distinct inquiries involved in connection with the formulation of Intervenor PSP contentions: (1) whether to provide access to the secunty plan so the Intervenor can use it to draw up its contentions; and (2) what is the informanon - documentary, expert opinion, or otherwise - necessary to support the admission of the Intervenor's proffered contentions.
E The Board-mandated requirements i.: Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2),
LDP-82 St,16 NRC 167,177 (1982), that an intervenor group obtain the services of a security expert and subject uself to a protective order as conditions of obtaining access to a security plan so it could I then " develop" more specinc contentions are prudent precautions in light of the potential sensitivity of the information in a security plan. Without those requiremeurs, a Board would lack assurance that the individuals reviewing a plan on behalf of a petitioner both understand the need to afford the plan con 6dential treaunent and are serious about formulaung and pursuing contenuons relating to the plan, as opposed to simply seeking access as a matter of curiosity.
l F An intervemog State fulftlls the Cazawba preconditions for access when it (1) subjects itself to a Board-approved protective order governing its access to and disclosure of the information in the PSP, and (2) for access purposes provides the functional equiva:ent of a security plan " expert" by proffering one of the NRC-approved State officials designated by the State Governor under 10 C.F.R. 673.21(cXIXiii), as j having a "need to know" such that he or she should have PSP access and thereby become responsible for I
maintarung the requisite "informanon protection system" that will protect against unauthorized disclosures j from the plan. See id. 5 73.21(a).
O in assessing whether to give an intervenor access to a secunty plan, there is no question about the seriousness of the imervenor's interest in challenging the plan when it commits, in the event the individual supporting its contentions is found not to be an expert, to obtain such an expert for the litigation of any admined contenuons (or to withdraw those contentions).
H Once having PSP acass, any contention an intervenor formulates is then subject to the same basis and speci6 city requirements as other contenuons. Expert opinion support is not required for a comention, at least as long as there is other supporung information suf6cient to provide the contentioh with an admissible basis.
I When the individual put forth by an latervenor as sponsonng a contention is found not to provide
" expert" support for the contencon, in assessing the contention the presiding officer must then consider whether the other supporung information provided is suf6cient to establish that the contention is admissible.
J Although a revised rule will not become effective for six months, for the purpose of determining the adnussibility of an intervenor's contennon, the rule's adoption by the Comrrussion gives it a regulatory force a presiding of6cer cannot disregard. See Potomac Dectric Power Co. (Douglas Pomt Nuclear Genernung Stanon, Units I and 2), ALAB 218,8 AEC 79,85 (1974).
LBP-98-14 HYDRO RESOURCES, LNC. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101. Albuquerque, NM 87120) Docket No. 40-8968-ML (ASLBP No. 95 706-01 ML) (Re: leach Mining and Milling license); MATERIALS LICENSE; June 30,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (ENDAUM and SRIC's Motion for Reconsid-erauon of LBP 98-9)
A latervenors' Monon for Reconsideration is denied.
l l
17
W ;
t
, i I '
i-
?
l i '
t L: I i
l- DIGESTS
(' ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC 8AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6 i i .
l:
B In a Subpen L proceeding in which tiere are many areas of corsern, the completeness of an
! . applicmion can be determined in the coment of the areas of concern rather than as a separate area of- '
concern. Incompleteness or contradictions in the application may be part of interwnar's case for its other l7 : areas of contaro.
,C. l
. A Presiding OfEcer desormanes areas of concern. During the proceeding, proof may be submitted l:
i to suppiment the application. Hence, the Presiding Of6cer's determnation does not depend solely on
-}
whether en application is complete or orderly -l D: Malarial issues will be considered in a Subpart L proceeding, even if there omst be some delay '
because some of the information concerning those inues is not yet available. The method of snanaging a case and scheduling the desermination of issues is within the discretion of the Presiding Of6cer, who may '
.[
choose to use a prehearing conference to obtain information relevant to this responsibility.
I
- i. l
!' l 1
i.
l.
l- l 1
i i
. l l.
1 i
l:
r l-t i
1 I
'i i ..
l L
! 1B t
l l
_ . - - _ ~ -
l ii 4
_.J l 1
1 1
DIGESTS j ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-981 NORTHEAST IIITLITIES (M;ilstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1,2, and 3; and Haddam Neck Plant), Docket Nos. 50-245,54336,50-423,54213 (License Nos. DPR 21, DPR-65, NPF-49, DPR 61);
February ll,1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 A By a pennon dated March 3,1997, submitted by Albert A. Cizek (Petitioner), Pentioner requested
- that the licenses of the three Millstone nuclear reactors and the Haddam Neck nuclear reactor held by j Northeast Utihties (NU or Licensee) be modified by placing certain conditions on the operating licenses
, of each of these facihues. De conditions would call for automatic and speci6c enforcement sanctions j based upon the occurrence of certain violanons or events. Pentioner alleged that the licens: conditions
- were warranted based on the Ucemee's poor past performance including knowing, willful, and reckless past violanons of NRC requirements.
i B The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued a Director's Decision on February
] 11,1998, concluding that the petinon contained no information of which the NRC was not already aware and denying Peauoner's request for spec 46c enforcement related license conditions. The Director concluded that a mechanisnc enforcement approach is neither necessary nor appropriate to encure regulatory compliance at the Millstone and Haddam Neck facilities. Extensive efforts have been and are being taken by the Ucensee to ensure that future operation of the Millstone units and the decommissiomng of the Haddam Neck facihty are accomplished safely. The NRC Staff has in place an extensive oversight program to ensure that the
, Ucensee meets its objectives.
DD-98-2 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (Prairie Island Nuclear Generaung Plant; Prairie Island independent Spent Fuel Storage Instalianon), Docket Nos. 50 282, 50 306, 72 10; REQUEST FOR ACTION; February 11,1998. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER !0 C.F.R. 5 2.206 A The Directo 1f the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition filed by the Prairie Island Indian Comnai. *y pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206. The petition asked that the NRC: (1) Snd that the Ucensee violate. NRC regulations by using an independent spent fuel storage instalianon before establishing conditions for 7fely unloading TN-40 dry storage containers, (2) suspend the license until all signincant issues concernil., :he unloading process have been resolved, (3) provide the Petitioners with an opporturuty to participate fully in reviewing the unloading procedures for the casks, and (4) update the relevant technical specifications to incorporate mandatory unloadtng procedure requirettrats for the TN-40 dry storage containers.
DD.98-3 NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION (Scabrook Station, Unit 1). Docket No. 50 443 (Ucense No. NPF-86); REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 17,1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2,206 A The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulauon denied a petition 61ed by The Seacoast
- Anti-Polluuon 1.cague. The peution requested that the NRC
- (1) suspend the operating license far Seabrook Station until such orne as a thorough root-cause analysis of the reasons underlying the development of d
leaks in piping of the B' train of the residual heat removal (RHR) system is conducted; (2) review
- weld documentation and inspection documentation in the leakage area; (3) review the quahacation of the
- piping involved; (4) review the plant's quality assurance procedures for welds and piping,(5) addreas past allegations of improper welding and installation of substandard piping at Seabrook Station in its review i and relate the alleged piping and weld dc6ciencies to other plant systems; and (6) delay the restart of
} Seabrook Station following repairs to the RHR piping system, pending completion of all requested actions.
1 The Director concluded that no evidence was found of improper welding pracuces or substandard piping j that contributed to pipe leakage or that would result in generic implicaoons to other plant systems and that l would require suspension of Seabrook's operaung license.
t i
19 l
i i 1 1
)
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD.98-4 NORTHEAST LTILITIES (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1,2, and 3), Docket Nos. 50-245,50 336. 50-423 (License Nos. DPR-21. DPR-65 NPF.49); REQUEST FOR AGION; June 1,1998, DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206 A By a pention dated February 2,1998, submitted by the Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) and the Nuclear Informauon and Resource Service (NIRS) (Pentioners), Petitioners requested that the NRC take immediate action to revoke Northeast Utili6es' (NU's or Licensee's) licern to operate the Millstone ,
nuclear power plants Units 13 due to both ongoing NU management intimidation and harassment of the NU workforce, as well as p;sistent NU defiance of NRC regulations and directives to create a quesconing attitude that would allow NU employees to challenge NU management on safety issues without fear of harsasment or reprisal. Petitioners also requested that the NRC refer the Nuclear Oversight Focus 98 List (list), the existence of which Petitioners believed buttressed their above claims, and reported NU management attempt to destroy the list to the Department of Justice (DOJ) due to a potencal coverup.
B in a Director's Decision dated June 1.1998, the NRC denied Penuoners' requests as desenbed above. With regard to the request for license revocation, the Decision stated that, based on the NRC Staff's examination of NU's responses to NRC requests for information as well as independent NRC invendgative efforts, the NRC Staff concluded that the wordmg at issue in the list was due to poor word choice rather than an effort by NU management to inhibit or suppress NU employees' ability to speak out on safety concerns.
The Staff also concluded that the recall and destruedan of the list by NU was an attempt to avoid continued dissenunacon of a document widely viewed to have been misinterpreted. The Staff noted the estensive efforts NU has made in the area of employee concerns, including the NRC ordered use of an independent third party organizadon to oversee NU efforts in this area. Petitioners' request for license revocation was therefore denied. Finally, the Decision explained that NU's recall of the list was not inappstpriate given the facts, and that NU had no obbgation to provide the list to the NRC. Accordmgly, Petitioners' request to refer the list's reca!! to DOJ was also denied.
DD-98-5 SOLTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, er at (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung Stadon, Umts 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50 361, 50 362; REQUEST FOR ACTION, June 5,1998; DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 A The Director, Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, demues a petibon fded by Patricia Borchmann requesting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take immediate action to prevent the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Unats 2 and 3 from restardng. In support of the requested action the Petitioner assened a variety of safety issues concerning the SONGS units, including the adequacy of the emergency evacuation plans for SONGS, the size of the SONGS pressurizers, the condition of the SONGS Unit i rnembrane under the spent fuel pool (SFP) and SFP leak detection monitoring, loss-of-coolant accident dose calculations, the potential for criticality accidents due to the use of higlwiensity storage racks in the SFP, the NRC's failure to comprehensively address issues that have been raised and the withholding of certain data, the production of tntium, and the curnulative effects of low-level radianon.
DD-98-6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, er al (San Onofre Nuclear Generatmg Station, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50 361, 504 62; REQUEST FOR AGION; June 11. 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2206 A The Director, Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, denies a petition filed by Stephen Dwyer requesting that an investigation be conducted to deterrmne if San Onofre Nuclear Generanng Stauon (SONGS) Unit 2 has experienced degradation in the steam generator supports similar to that found in Unit 3, that further seismic anasynis be performed for the SONGS steam generators, and that a retrofitting upgrade of the steam generator supports be accomplir.hed at this time. As basis for the requests, the Peunoner stated that the abstiry of the SONGS steam generators to withstand a major seismic event is senously compronused by the degradation observed in the SONGS Unit 3 steam generator internal tube supports dunng its 1997 refueling outage.
20 l
.- - . . . ~ - - - - -
4 j
i i
, _l I
- 4 3
a J
i b
i 4
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES l
1 t
j Admaced Afedical Syrrems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva, OH 44041), ALAlk929, 31 NRC 271, 279 (1990) discreuonary interlocutory review of Subpart L rulings, Commission authority to grant; CL1-98-8,47 j NRC 320 n.3 (1998) l Admaced Afedical Systems, Inc. (One Fuctory Row, Geneva OH 44041), CL1-94-6, 39 NRC 285, 312 j (1994) 3 justification for Commission imposition of license conditions; CLI-98-1,47 NRC 14-15 (1998) e Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-27,14 NRC 795,797
{ (1981) j burden on stay pentioner; CLI-98-8, 47 NRC 324 (1998) 1 Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420,
{ 422 (1976) j academic interest in a proceeding as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 270 (1998)
- standing to intervene by organizations suppardng license application; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 176 (1998)
Athed General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), LBP-82 26,15 NRC 742, 743 (1982) f academic interest in a proceeding as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 270 (1998) f Amoco Productwn Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 53l (1987)
\
( statutory violation as a showmg of irreparable harm for purpose of stay; CL1-98 8, 47 NRC 322-23 l l (1998) i Amos Trear & Col. v. SEC, 306 F.2d 260,267 (D.C. Cir.1962)
Anson v. Earrburn, 582 F. Supp.18, 21 (S D. Ind.1983) l l '
j extent of discussion of alternatives in FEIS; CL1-98 3,47 NRC 99 n.16 (1998) 4 Arizona Public Service Co. (Pulo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3), LBP-91-19,33 1 NRC 397,410, ag'd in part and rev'd in part on other smunds. CL1-9112,34 NRC 149 (1991) d litigability of challenges to agency rules and regulations; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 179 (1998)
} Associarwn of Pubhc Agency Cusromers v. Bonneville Power Administration,126 F.3d 1158,1188 (9th Cir.1997) l defuntion of no-action alternative; CLI-98 3, 47 NRC 97 (1998) 1 Atlas Corp. (Moab, Utah Facility), CLI-97 8, 46 NRC 21, 22 (1997) penalty for failure to respond to presiding of6cer's requests for information; CL198-6,47 NRC 118 l (1998) j Asias Corp. (Moab, Utah Nility), LBP-97-9, 45 NRC 414, 426 27, af'd, CLI-97-8. 46 NRC 21 (1997) standing to intervene based on description of acoviues as " neur," in "close proxmuty," or "in the 1 vicimty" of facihty; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 171 (1998)
Babcock and Wdcox (Apollo, Pennsylvania Fuel Fabricauon Facihty), LBP-93-4, 37 NRC 72, 78 n.6, 94 I a.64 (1993)
)*
economic injury as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-9812,47 NRC 354 (1998)
Babcock and Wilcar (Apollo, Pennsylvania Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP-93-4, 37 NRC 72, 80-81 (1993)
, applicability of standing requuements in informal proceedings; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 270 (1998)
] Sabcock sad Wikar (Apollo, Pennsylvania Fuel Fabricauon Facihty), LBP-93-4, 37 NRC 72, 81 (1993) test for standing to intervene in informal proceedings; LBP-98 9, 47 NRC 269 (1998) i 1
21 i
i l I 1
}
1
3 i' i l
j 1
1 i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX i CASES Babcock cad Wilcox (Apolite, Pennsylvania Fuel Fabrication Fucality), LBP-93-4,37 NRC 72,83-84 & n.28 (1993) geographic proximity consideradons for intervetsdon in materials license proceedings; LBP-98 9,47
. NRC 27172 (1998)
Bab:o6A and Wilcox Co. (Pennsylvania Nuclear Services Opeutions, Parks Township, Pennsylvania),
l LBP-94 4, 39 NRC 47, 49 (1994) t
' applicability of standing requirements in informal proceedings; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 270 (1998) l Babcock and Wilcox Co. (Itansylvania Nuclear Services Operations, Parks Township, Pennsylvama),
LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 47,50 (1994) iqiury-in-fact test for organizational standing to intervene; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 271 (1998)
Babcock and Wilcos Co. (Pennsylvania Nuclear Services Operanons, Parks Township, Pennsylvania),
LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 47, 51-52 (1994) l geographic proximity consideranons for intervention in materials license proceedings; LBP-98 9, 47 NRC 272 (1998)
Babcock and Wilcar Co. (Pennsylvania Nuclear Services Operations. Parks Township, Pennsylvania),
LBP 94-4, 39 NRC 47, 52 (1994) speci6 city of areas of concern at intervention stage; LDP 98-9, 47 NRC 273 (1998)
{
l Bean v. Jourhwestern Waste Management Corp., 482 F. Supp. 673 (S.D. Tex.1979), d'd mem., 782 F.2d 1038 (5th Cir.1986) forum for challenging land-use decisions alleged to be racially discriminatory; CLI-98 3,47 NRC 103 n.21 (1998)
Bennert v. Spear, 520 U.S.154,167,117 S. Ct.1154,1163 (1997) irreducible consatutional mininum requirements for standing to intervene; LBP 98-9, 47 NRC 269 ,
(1998) l Bennerr v. Spear, 520 U.S.154,167,117 S. Ct.1154,1167 (1997) prudential standing requirements; LBP-98-9. 47 NRC 269 (1998) l Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-85-24,22 NRC 97,99 (1985), d'd on other i grounds, ALAB-816, 22 NRC 461 (1985) I geographie proximity considerations for intervention in materials license proceedings; LBP 98-9, 47 I NRC 271-72 (1998)
Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Systems, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974) l licensing board responsibility to explain reasons for rejection of contentions: LBP-9810,47 NRC 290-91 (1998)
Brock v. Roadwry Express. Inc., 481 U.S. 252, 264-65 (1987) (plurality opinion of Marshall,1) scope of litigable issues; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 105 (1998)
Cal (ornis v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 761 (9th Cir.1982) purpose of information disclosure function of EIS; CLI-98 3,47 NRC 88 (1998)
Calverr Cigs' Coordmoring Committee, Inc. v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir.1971) cost-beo fit balancing required by National Environmental Policy Act; CL1-98-3,47 NRC 88 (1998)
Carolina Power and light Co. (Shenron Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-837, 23 NRC 525, 547 (1986) chmination of Staff case-by case review of generic issue in individual applications and removing issues frorn adjudication as a valid purpose for adoption of a rule; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 239 (1998)
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 30 U.S.1 (1831) apphcabihty of trust ielationsh'p doctrine to prelicensing hearing rights on matenals license; LBP-98 5,47 NRC 135 (1998)
Chester Residents Concerned for Qualhy Living v. SeV 132 F.3d 925 (3d Cir.1997) forum for challenging land use decisions alleged to be raci41y discriminatory; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 103 n.21 (1998)
Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190.195 (D C. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 994 (1991) rule of reason applied to discussion of no-action alternative in FEIS; CLI-98 3,47 NRC 97 (1998) l 22 i
i
l l
I i
I l
l l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES l
Citizens Against Burlington, lac. v. Busex 938 F.2d 190,197-98 (D.C Cir.), cert. denied. 502 U.S. 994 (1991)
I consideration of secondary benefits in NEPA cost-benefit balancing; CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 99 (1998) i City of Carmel sy the,$ea v. Department of Transportation,123 F.3d 1142,1150"51 (9th Cir.1997) I purpose of information disclosure function of EIS; CLl-98 3, 47 NRC 88 (1998) l Chy of Grapevine v. Deparonent of 1ransportation,17 F.3d 1502,1506 (D C Cir.1994), cert. denud, 513 U.S.1043 (1994) weight given to applicant's preferences in consideration of alternatives; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 104 (1998)
City of Grapevine v. Department of Transportation,17 F.3d 1502,1507 (D.C Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S.1043 (1994)
{
NEPA-based inquiry into racial discrimination, need for; CLI-98 3,47 NRC 102 (1998) '
- l. C:ity of Grapevine v. Deparonent of Transportation,17 F.3d 1502,1508-09 (D.C Cit.), cert. denied, 513 U.S.1043 (1994) completion of National Historic Preservation Act review prior to agency approval of a project, need !
for; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 324 n.16 (1998)
{
City of Las Angeles v. National Highway Trafic Sqfety Administration, 912 P.2d 478, 495 (D.C Cir.
1990), af'd, CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64 (1994) l distinction between standing determinations and assessment of petitioner's case on the merits; 1 LBP-98-9,47 NRC 272 (1998)
City of IVes, Chicago, Illinois v. NRC, 701 F.2d 632 (7th Or.1983) prelicensing hearing rights on materials bcense application; LBP-98-5,47 NRC 135 (1998) !
Clewland Electric Illununating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1), CLI-93-21,38 NRC 87. 93-94 l
(1993) injury alleged to occur because of a change in agency procedure as basis for area of concern; LBP-9&-9,47 NRC 281 n.45 (1998)
Clewland Electric illwninating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umt 1), CL1-93-21,38 NRC 87, 95 n.10 (1993) disunction between stan&ng determinnuons and assessment of petitioner's case on the incrits; ;
Colorado Riwr Tribes v. MarsA 605 F. Supp.1425,1439-40 & n.11 (CD. Calif.1985) implication of harm as basis for stay request; CLJ-98-8, 47 NRC 322 (1998)
Combustion Engineering. Inc. (Hernacite Fuel hbrication Facihty) LBP-89-23, 30 NRC 140,145 (1989) authorization for representanonal standing; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 271 (1998)
Commonweatrh Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 244 (1986) showing on other four factors where good cause for late 61ing is not demonstrated LBP-98-7,47 NRC 208,211 (1998)
Connecticut Bankers Association v. Board of Governors, 627 F.2d 245,251 (D.C Cir.1980) factual support as contention basis, need for; LBP.98-7,47 NRC 180 (1998)
Consermtion low Foundation v. Busex 79 F.3d 1250,1272 (1st Cir.1996) violation of NEPA as caure for injunctive relief; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 323 n.13 (1998)
Connnental Airlines Corp., 901 F.2d 1259,1262 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied,113 S. Ct. 87 (1992) disquali5 cation of judge for employmer't4related reasons; LBP-98-II, 47 NRC 304 (1998)
Carators of the Uniwritty of Missourt CLI-9517,42 NRC 229,232-33 n.I (1995) conduct of petitioners; LBP-98 4, 47 NRC 19 (1998)
Carstors of the Uniwrsity of Missourt LBP-9018,31 NRC 559,565 (1990) purpose of organization an defining scope of injury to member of organizanon; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 271 n.15 (1998)
Dailey v. City of Lawson, 425 F.2d 1037 (10th Cir.1970) furum for challenging land-use decisions alleged to be racially discrinunatory; CLI-98 3,47 NRC 103 n.21 (1998)
Dellums v. NRC 863 F.2d 968,971 (D.C Cir.1988) test for standing to intervene in informal prome&ngs; LBP 98-9,47 NRC 269 (1998) l t
l 23
1 l
4 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Detroir Edison Ca (Enrico lirmi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-78-tl,7 NRC 381,388, gg'd, ALAB 470,7 NRC 473 (1978) economic interests as basis for standing to intervene; LBP 98-12,47 NRC 358 (1998)
Derroir Edison Co. (Enrico hrmi Atomic Power Plam, Unit 2), LBP-78-37, 8 NRC 575, $83 (1978) authorizauon for representauonal standing to intervene; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 271 (1998)
Duke Pmr Ca (Amendment to Materials Licenae SNM 1773 - Transportadon of Spen Ibel frorn Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at .McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-528, 9 NRC 146,150 & n.7 (1979) limited appearance statement as other nunns to protect late intervendon pentioner's interests; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 173 (1998)
Duke Pmr Ca (Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-355,4 NRC 397,403-05 (1976)
Commission authonty to reject or modify a licensing boarts factual findings; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 93 (1998)
Duke Pmr Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460. 467 (1982), rev'd on other grounds, CL1-83-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983) conditional admission of secunty plan contentions; LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 366 n.4 (1998)
Duke Powr Ca (Catawbs Nuclear Station, Urdts I and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1043,1045 (1983) lui of good cause fur late tihng where contention's factual predicate is otherwise available; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 208 (1998)
Duke Power Ca (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CL1-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1046-47 (1983) cnteria for adnutting late-filed contentions; LDP 98 7, 47 NRC 183 (1998)
Duke Pmr Ca (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), IEP-81-1,13 NRC 27, 33 (1981) considerations in determining a petitioner's ability to contnbute to a sound record; LDP-98-12, 47 NRC 357 (1998)
Duke Powr Ca (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), LBP-82-51,16 NRC 167,177 (1982) conditions under which an intervenor may pursue security plan contentions; LBP-98-13,47 NRC 366 (1998)
Duke Pmr Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), LBP-82-l!6,16 NRC 1937,1946 (1982) materiality of safety contentions; LDP-98 7,47 NRC 180 (1998)
Duke Power Ca (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units I,2, and 3) ALAB 431,6 NRC 460, 462 (1977) showing necessary on other factors where good cause is lacking for late filing; LDP-98 7,47 NRC 173 (1998)
East-Bibb Twiggs Neighborhood Association v. Macon Bibb Planning & Zoning Commusion. 8% P.2d 1264 (lith Cir.1989) forum for challenging land-use decisions alleged to be racially discriminatory; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 103 a.21 (1998)
Energy Fuelt Nuclear, Inc. LBP-97-10, 45 NRC 429, 430-32 (1997) showing necessary to demonstrate standing, guidance from presiding officer on; CL1-98-6,47 NRC 117 (1998)
Enos v. Marsh, 769 F.2d 1363,1373 (9th Cir.1985) scope of FEIS analysis of licensing impacts on property valuer: CLI-98-3,47 NRC 109 a.27 (1998)
Envirocore of Urah, fac., LBP-92-8, 35 NRC 167,172 (1992) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; LDP-98-9,47 NRC 269 (1998)
Envirocare of Utah, Inc., LBP-92-8. 35 NRC 167,173 (1992) test for standing to intervene in informal proceedings; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 269 41998)
Farmland Preserverwn Association v. Goldschmidt, 611 F.2d 233,239 (8th Cir.1979) extent of discu sion of no-action alternative in FEIS; CL1-98-3, 47 NRC 97 (1998)
Florida Power and fJght Ca (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI-89-21,30 NRC 325, 329 (1989) authorization for representational standing; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 270 (1998)
Florida Power and light Ca (St Lucie Nuclear Power Mant Units I and 2), ClJ-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 329-30 (1989) geographic proxinuty as basis for standing to intervene in license amendnent proceedings; LBP-9812, 47 NRC 355 (1998) 24 r
LEGAL CITArIONS INDEX CAEES Florida Power and Ug4: Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CU-89 21,30 MRC 325, 329 30 0 980) injury in fact for standing to intervene in cases without obvious offsite implications; LBP 98-9,47 NRC 273 (1998) injury-in-fact test for organizational standing to intervene; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 2710998)
Florida Power and ught Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant Units 3 and 4), ALAB 952, 33 NRC 521,528-30 (1991) injury in fact to organimional interests; LBP-98-12,47 NRC 347 0998)
Flynn v. United States By and Through Eggers,186 P.2d $86,591 (3d Cir.1986) absent clear Congressional statement, adjudicatory boards cannot infer that standards for reviewing stay requests have changed; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 323 n.13 (1998)
Forest Consenation Council v. United States Forest Servke, 66 F.3d 1489,1496 (9th Cir.1995) violation of NEPA as cause for injunctive relief; CLI-98-8, 47 NRC 323 n.13 0998)
Fundfor Animals v. Lujan, 962 F.2d 1391,1400 (9th Cir.1992) violation of NEPA as cause for injunctive relief; CU-98-8, 47 NRC 323 n.13 (1998)
Gannett Satellite information Network, Inc. v. Derger, 894 P.2d 61, 67 (3d Cir.1990) government responsibility for actions taken by a private licensee; CU-98-3,47 NRC 1% n.23 0998)
Genemi Public utilities Nuclear Corp. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Starion, Unit I), AIAB-881,26 NRC 465, 473 (1987)
Commission maard for overturning a hearing judge's findings; CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 93 (1998)
Georgia institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor Atlanta, Georgish CLI-95-12,42 NRC 111, 115 (1995) conattuction of petition in favor of petitioner in determining standing to intervene; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 168 0998) organizational standing to intervene on the basis of individual member's interests; LDP-98-12,47 NRC 346-47 (1998)
Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CU 95-12,42 NRC 111, !!5-17 (1995) proximity as basis for stunding in materials license amendment proceeding; CU-98-6,47 NRC 117 n.10998)
Georgia /ntritute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CU-95-12,42 NRC 111, 116 (1995) weight given to licensing bonrd rulings on standing to intervene; CLI-98-8, 47 NRC 325 a.19 0998) weight giean to presiding officer's determinations regarding standing; CLI-98-6,47 NRC 118 (1998)
Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgiah LBP-95 6,41 NRC 281, 300, sacated in part and remanded on other grounds, CU-95-10,42 NRC 1, afd in part on other grounds, CU-95-12,42 NRC 111 (1995) improperly based challenge to license application; LBP-98-13,47 NRC 365 n.3 0998)
Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia) LBP-95 6,41 NRC 281,305, wscatsd in part end remanded on other grounds. CU-95-lo,42 NRC 1, afd in part, CU-95-12, 42 NRC 111 (1995) factual support as contention basis, need for; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 180-810998)
Georgia Powr Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units I and 2), CU-93-16,38 NRC 25,32 0993) injury in-fact and zone-of-intetests requirements for standing to intervene; LBP 98-9,47 NRC 269 0 998) standard for grant of organizational standing to intervene; LBP-98-12,47 NRC 347 (19t,8) test for staruhng to intervene in informal proceedings; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 269 (1998)
Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-94-5, 39 NRC 190,193 0994)
"now or never" situation for interlocutory review; CL1-98-8,47 NRC 321 n.7 (1998)
Georgia Powr Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2), CU-94-15, 40 NRC 319,321 (1994) legal error as justiacation for laterlocutory review of Subpart L rulings; CU-98 8, 47 NRC 320 n.4 0998)
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Georgia Pour Ca (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-95-15,42 NRC 181,184 (1995)
"now or never'* situation for interlocutory review: CL1-98-8,47 NRC 321 n.7 (1998)
Georgia Power Ca (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units I and 2), LBP-90 29,32 NRC 89, 92 (1990) authorization for representational standing to intervene; LBP 98-9,47 NRC 271 (1998)
Georgia Power Ca (Vogde Electnc Generating Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-91-21, 33 NRC 419,424 (1991), appeat dismi.rsed, QJ 92-3, 35 NRC 63 (1992) dismissal of contentions for failure to directly controvert the license application; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 181 (1998)
Griggs v. Duke Power Ca. 401 U.S. 424 (1971) basis for racial discrirnination; CLI-98 3,47 NRC 105 n.22 (1998)
Gu(f States Utilities Ca (River Bend Station, Unit 1), CLI-94-10, 40 NRC 43, 47-48 (1994) weight given to licensing board rulings on standing to intervene; CLI-98 8,47 NRC 325 n.19 (1998)
Hall v. Small Bariness Administration, 695 P.2d 175,178,180 (5th Cir.1983) disquah6 cation of a judge because of a staff mernber's conflict of interest; LBP-98-il,47 NRC 304 (1998) l Headurers, Inc. v. Bureau of Iond Management, 914 P 2d!!74,1181 (9th Cir.1990) !
catent of discussion of no-action alternative in PEIS; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 97 (1998)
Howron Ughting and Powr Ca (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC '
377, 389-400 (1979) authority of presiding of6cer to accept veracity of petitioners' assertions of residence and injury, LBP-98-9,47 NRC 275 (1998) i l
Howron Ughting and Power Ca (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station Unit I), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 390 % (1979) l injury in fact to individual member as basis for representanonal standing; LBP 9812, 47 NRC 355 (1998) l Hourton Ughting and Powr Ca (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 393-94, 396 (1979) injury-in-fact rest for organizational standing to intervene; LEP-98-9, 47 NRC 271 (1998)
Howron Ughting and Power Ca (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-630,13 NRC 84 (1981) interlocutory review of admissibility rulings; CLI 98-8,47 NRC 324 n.18 (1998)
Howron Ughting and Power Ca (South Texas Project Units 1 and 2), ALAB-549,9 NRC 644,646-47 (1979), ag's, LBP-79-10, 9 NRC 439, 447 48 (1979) injury-in-fact test for organizational standing to intervene; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 271 (1998) ,
Howron Ughtsas and Powr Ca (South Texas Project. Units I and 2), CLi-82-9,15 NRC 1363,1365-67 I
(1982) disqualincation of licensing boards, grounds for; LBP-98-ll, 47 NRC 303 (1998) l Howrom Ughting and Pour Co. (South Texas Project, Units I and 2), ALAB-639,13 NRC 469,473 I (1981) ]
"now or never" situation for interlocutory review; CL!-98-8, 47 NRC 321 n.7 (1998) l Howrom Ughtmg and Powr Ca (South Texas Project, Units I and 2), CLI-82-9,15 NRC 1363,1365-67 (1982) i federal disquali6 canon standards applied to NRC judges; CLI-98-9, 47 NRC 331 (1998) I Howron Ughting and Powr Ca (South Tetas Project. Units I and 2), LBP 79-10, 9 NRC 439, 447-48, gf'd, ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644 (1979)
"acmat," " direct," or " genuine" interest in outcome of proceeding required for intervention; LBP-98-9, j 47 NRC 270 (1998) '
Houston Ughting and Power Ca (South Texas Project Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-37,18 NRC 52, 59 i (1983) '
consideration of future events in ascertaining a rule's purpose; LBP 98-7, 47 NRC 239 (1998)
Hughes %er Watershed Conserwney v. Glickman, 81 P.3d 437,443 (4th Cir.19%)
)'
principal goals of environmental impact staternent; CLI-98 3, 47 NRC 87 (1998)
I i
26
1 l
I 1
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES l
Ilughes River Warsrshed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437,446 (4th Cir.1996) effect of misleading economic informanon on NEPA cost-benefit balancing; CL198 3,47 NRC 89 '
(1998)
Idaho By and Through Idaho Public Utilities Commission v. ICC, 35 P.3d $85,595 (D.C. Cir.1994) cost-bene 6: balancing required by National Environmental Policy Act: CLI-98-3,47 NRC 88 (1998)
Joseph /, Macktal, CL!-89-14, 30 NRC 85, 91 (1989) 1 affidavit support for motions for disqualiacation; CL!-98-9,47 NRC 331 n.4 (1998) !
Joseph J. Macktal, CL1-89-14, 30 NRC 85, 92 n.$ (1989)
- . threshold for disqualiacation; CL1-98-9,47 NRC 331 (1998)
Kansar Gas and Electric Co- (Wolf Creek Generadng Station, Unit 1), ALAB 327,3 NRC 408,413 (1976)
"now or never" situadon for interlocutory review; CL198-8,47 NRC 321 n.7 (1998) i Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (West Chicago Rare Eartha Facility), ALAB-928, 31 NRC 263,269 (1990) j weight given to success on the merits in determining stay motions; LBP-98 5,47 NRC 420 (1998) l Kerr-McGee Chemscal Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility 1, CLi-82-2,15 NRC 232 (1982) j prelicensing hearing rights on materials license yptication: LBP-98-5,47 NRC 134 (1998)
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facihty), CL1-96-2,43 NRC 13,15 (1996) vacatur of unreviewed licensing board rulings; CLI-98-5,47 NRC 114 (1998)
Ufeberg v. flealth Services Acquisition Corp, 486 U.S. 847, 859-61 (1988) appearance of bias or prejudgment as basis for disquali6 cation of a judge; LBP-98 II,47 NRC 303 (1998)
Uteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548, 553 n.2 (1994) j appearance of bias or prejudgment as basis for disquali6 cation of a judge; LBP-98 il,47 NRC j 303-04 (1998) i bag Island Ughting Co. (Shoreharn Nuclear Power Stauon, Unit 1), ALAB-818, 22 NRC 651, 662-64 I (1985) state authority to set radiological standards; LBP 98-12, 47 NRC 352 (1998) bag Island Ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-901, 28 NRC 302,306 08, petition for review denied, CLI-88-11,28 NRC 603 (1988) authority of chief administrative judge to establish two or more licensing boards to hear discrete I portions of a proceedmg; LBP-98-8, 47 NRC 260 (1998) j fong Island ughring Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1); ALAB 901, 28 NRC 302, 307, i peration for review denied, CLI 88-11, 28 NRC 603 (1988) standard for review of chief administrative judge's decision to establish two er more licensing boards i to hear discrete portions of a proceeding; LBP-98-8,47 NRC 260 (1998) l Long Island ughtmg Co (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), AI.AB 902, 28 NRC 423, 430 &
n.11, perition for review denied as moor, CLI-88-II,28 NRC 603 (1988) authority of chief administrative judge to establish two or more licensing "coards to hear discrete portions of a proceeding; LBP 98-8,47 NRC 259-60 (1998) bag Island Ughtmg Co. (Shorchum Nucicar Power Station Unit ik ALAB-907, 28 NRC 620,623 (1988) right of parues to impartial adjudicator; CL1-98-9, 47 NRC 330 n.3 (1998)
Long Island ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-87-12, 26 NRC 383, 395 (1987) adjustments to size of emergency planning zone; DD-98-5, 47 NRC 394 n.1 (1998) long Island ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit th CLI-91-3, 33 NRC 76, 80 (1991) standard for grant er internecute;y review of Subpart L rulings; CLI-98 8,47 NRC 320 n.3 (1998)
Ung Irland ughting Co. 'Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 896 qf'd, ALAB-818, 22 NRC 651, rev'd on other grounds, CLI-8613, 24 NRC 22 (1985) request for parties' views on ef6cacy of seeking judgrnent in some other judicial forum relative to questions such as stare authority on tribal lands; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 246 n.31 (1998)
Louisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichnent Cearer), CLI-98-3,47 NRC 77,10146 (1998) litigability of discrimination in site selection process; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 203 (1998)
Ioa4rkina Energy Servicer LP (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CLI-97-2,45 NRC 3, 4 (1997) content of discussion on no action alternative in FEIS; CLI 98 3,47 NRC 99 (1998) raising new issues in reconsideration motions: LBP-9810,47 NRC 292, 293,298 (1998) 27
l II LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES
' behiana Energy Services, LP, (Claiborne Enrichnwnt Center), CU 97-2,45 NRC 3, $ (1997) responsibility to liugate material issues in licensing proceedings; LBP-9814, 47 NRC 378 (1998) buhlana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-97-15, 46 NRC 294, 302 (1997) apphcability of Part 50 6nancial quali6 cations requirements to Part 72 licensees; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 187 (1998) buiriana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CLI-98-3,47 NRC 77,101-02,109 (1998)
EIS analysis of social and environmental impacts on minority and disadvantaged cornmunities; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 272 (1998) buisiana Energy Servkes, LP, (Claiborne Enrichnwn Center), LBP-96-25,44 NRC 331, 346-47 n.5 (1996) need for facihty, assessment under Nanonal Environmental Policy Act, CU-98-3,47 NRC 89 (1998) buisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Cecter), LBP-97 8, 45 NRC 367,374-76 (1997) prelicensing bearing rights of Native American tribe on spacerials license; LBP 98-5,47 NRC 136 (1998)
Loshfana Energy Services, LP, (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-97-15, 46 NRC 294, 306 08 (1997) I adequacy of applicant's Anancial quali6 cations to construct and operate facility; LBP-98-10, 47 NRC '
295 (1998) buisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-97-2,45 NRC 3,4 (1997) raising new issues in reconsideration notions; LBP-98-10, 47 NRC 292, 293, 298 (1998) buhiana Energy Services LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-98-3,47 NRC 77, 97-99 (1998) discussion of no-action alternative, adequacy of; LBP-98-10,47 NRC 294 (199S) buisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU 97-15, 46 NRC 294, 306-08 (1997) adequacy of applicant's Anancial qualincations to construct and operate facility; LBP-98-10, 47 NRC 295 (1998) budsiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-98-3, 47 NRC 77, 97-99 (1998) discussion of no-action alternative, adequacy of; LBP-98-10, 47 NRC 294 (19W) buhiana Energy Services. LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), LBP 91-41, 34 NRC 332, 338 (1991) standard for document support of a contention; LDP-9810, 47 NRC 298-99 (1998)
Louisiana Power and Ught Ca (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076, 1107 (1983) showing necessary between alleged errors and safety impacts; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 180 (1998) k}an v. Defenders of Wildlye, 504 U.S. $$5 (1991) irreducible constitutional minimum requirements for standing to intervene; LBP 98-9,47 NRC 269 (1998)
Marsh v. Oregon Naturul Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 371 (1989) purpose of information disclosure funcuon of EIS; CU-98-3,47 NRC 88 (1998)
Massachusetts v. Warr, 716 F.2d 946, 952 (lat Cir.1983) violation of NEPA as cause for injunctive relief; CU-98-8, 47 NRC 323 n.13 (1998)
Merropolitan Edison Ca v. People Against Nuclear Energy 460 U S. 766,172 (1983) consideration of social and economic factors in NEPA cost-bene 6: balancing; CL1-98-3, 47 NRC 88 (1998)
Metropolitan Edison Ca v. People Againrt Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 772, 776 (1983) scope of NEPA analysis; CU-98-3,47 NRC 102-03 (1998)
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Againn Nuclear Energy 460 U.S. 766,712-79 (1983) litigability of psychological suess; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 226, 228, 233, 234 (1998)
Metropolitan Edhon Ca (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-83 25,18 NRC 327, 332 (1983) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; LBP 98-9,47 NRC 269,270 (1998)
Metropolitan Edhon Ca (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CL1-85-2,21 NAC 282,316 (1985) injury-in-fact and zone-of-interests tests of standing to intervene; LBP-98-12, 47 NRC 346 (1998)
Metropolitan Edison Ca (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI.85 5, 21 NRC 566,568-69 (1985) right of parties to impartial adjudicator; CU-98 9,47 NRC 330 a 3 (1998) 28
]
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l CASES Mississippi Power and Ught Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units I and 2), ALAB 704,16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982) particularity required of late-61ed contendons; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 208 (1998)
Moose lodge No.107 v. Irvis, 4(T1 U.S.163 (1972)
)
government responsibility for actions taken by a private licensee, CLI-98 3,47 NRC 106 n.23 (1998)
Mowr Vehicle Mannfacturers Arsociation of the United States v. State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) licensing board responsibility to explain reasons for rejection of contendons; LBP-98-10,47 NRC 290-91 (1998)
National Wildlife Federation v. Burford, 835 P.2d 305, 318, 323-24 (D.C. Cir.1987) I proof rather than assumpdon of threat of irreparable injury as basis for injunctive relief; CL198-8,41 NRC 323 n.13 (1998) .
)
t Natural Resources Defense Council v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., 906 P.2d 934, 939 n.6 (3d Cir.
1990) absent clear Congressional statement, adjudicatory boards cannot infer that standards for reviewing stay requests have changed; CLI-98-8, 47 NRC 323 n.13 (1998) ,
Natural Resomes Defense Council v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., 906 P.2d 934, 940 (3d Cir. l 1990) statutory violation as cause for injunctive relief; CLI 98-8, 47 NRC 323 n.14 (1998) i Natural Resources Defenre Council, Inc. v. Nodel, 865 P.2d 288, 294 (D.C. Cir.1988) 1 information disclosure function of environenental impact statenwnt; CL1-98-3,47 NRC 88 (1998) j Nawto Tribe ofIndians v. United States, 624 P.2d 981,987 (1980) '
applicability of trust telationship doctrine to prelicensing hearing rights on materials license; LBP-98-5,47 NRC 136 (1998) j Nonheast Nuclear Energy Co. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-96-1,43 NRC 19,23 !
(1996) !
af6 davit requirement for representational stinding to intervene; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 275 (1998)
Northam Cheyenne 7Hbe v. Hodel, 851 P.2d 1152,1157-58 (9th Cir.1988) proof rather than assumpdon of threat of irreparable injury as basis for injunctive relief; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 323 n.13 (1998)
Northam Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), ALAB-204, 7 AEC 835, 838 (1974) conduct of petitioners: LBP-98-4,47 NRC 19 (1998)
Nonhem Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1). LBP-74-80, 8 AEC 770, 772 n.1, aff'd, ALAB 239,8 AEC 658 (1974) af6 davit support for motions for disquahfication; CLI-98-9, 47 NRC 331 a.4 (1998)
Northem States Power Co. (Pathfinder Atomic Plant) LBP-89-30, 30 NRC 311, 3l2-13 (1989) applicability of standing requirements in informal proceedings; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 270 (1998)
Northem Stases Power Co. (Pathander Atomic Plant). LBP 90 3, 31 NRC 40,44-45 (1990) geographic proximity considerations for intervention in matenals license proceedings; lop-95-9, 47 NRC 27172 (1998)
Norrhem States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), CLI 80 36,12 NRC 523, 527 (1980) request of governmemal agency to participate in amendment application process as cause for a hearing; LBP-98-12, 47 NRC 356 (1998)
Nuclear Engtneering Co. (Shef6 eld, Illinois, Low-level Radioactive Wasie Disposal Site), ALAB-473,7 NRC 737,741 & n.3 (1978) weight given to academic and professional interests in determining late intervention peutioner's standing; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 178 a.7 (1998)
Nuclear Engineering Co. (Shef6 eld, Ulinois, Low-l.svel Radioactive Waste Disposal Site) ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737,743 (1978) injury in fact for standing to intervene in cases without obvious offsite implications; LBP 98 9,47 NRC 273 (1998) materiality of contentions; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 239 (1998) showing necessary for intervention in support of a license application; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 172 (1998) 29
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES weight given to acadetmc and professional interests in determining late intervenuon petitioner's standing; LDP-98-7,47 NRC 176 (1998)
Nuclear Engineering Co. (Shef6 eld, Illinois, kw-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473,7 NRC 737,743-44 (1978) discretionary intervention, weighing of factors for grant of; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 250 (1998)
Nuclear Engineering Co. (Shef6 eld, Illinois, low-12 vel Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473,7 NRC 737,745 (1978) burden on intervention peutjoner to dernonstrate shility to contribute to a sound record; LBP-98-12, 47 NRC 357 (1998)
Naclear Engmetring Co. (Shef6 eld, !!hnois, Low-Level Radioactive Wasee Disposal Site), ALAB-494, 8 NRC 299, 300 n.1 (1978) discretionaiy intervention by professional societies; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 178 n.7 (1998)
Nuclear Engineering Co. (Sherbeld, Illinois, Low 4evel Radioactive Waste Disposal Site). ALAB-494, 8 NRC 299,301 n.3 (1978) affidavit support for rnotions for disquah6 cation; CU-98-9,47 NRC 331 a 4 (1998)
Ohio Edison Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit I), LDP-91-38,34 NRC 229,232 (1991), qf'd in part es: other grounds, CLI-92-II, 36 NRC 47 (1992) abstract hypothetical injury as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 270 (1998)
Oncology Services Corp., CL1-9313,37 NRC 419 (1993) standard for interlocutory review; CLI-98-7,47 NRC 310 (1998)
Oncology Smicas Corp., CL1-93-13, 37 NKC 419, 420 21 (1993) standard for grant of imerlocutory review of Subpart L rulings; CLI-98-8, 47 NRC 320 n.3 (1998)
Pacyic Gas and Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conserwrion & Development Commisswn, 461 U.S.190, 20712 (1983) jurisdiction with regard to radiological health and safety; LBP-98-12,47 NRC 352 (1998)
Pacyic Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Carivon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-653,16 NRC 55, 72 74 (1981) special circumstances for grant of rule waiver; LBP 98 7, 47 NRC 239 (1998) facyic Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5, 29-30 (1993) hcigability of cluillerges to agency tules and regulations; UIP-98 7,47 NRC 179 (1998)
People of Village of Gambell v. Nodel, 774 F.2d 1414,1423 (9th Car.1985) statutrey violation as a showing of irreparable harrn for purpose of stay; CL1-98-8, 47 NRC 323 n.12 (1998) repsica Inc. v. Mchfillen, 764 F.2d 458, 460 61 (7th Cir.1985) disqualincution of judge for employment-related reasons; LBP-98-11,47 NRC 304 (1998)
Personnel Administrator of Afarsachusetts v. Ferney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979) showmg necessary to prove racial discriminanon; CLI-98 3,47 NRC 105 a.22 (1998)
. Philadelphia Electric Ca. (Urnerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-789, 20 NRC 1443,1447 (1984)
' economic interests as basis for standing to intervene in informal proceedings; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 270 (1998)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Umerick Generaung Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 705 07 (1985) record of decision as part of 6nal environmental impact statement; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 89 (1998)
Philadelphia Electre Co. (Umerick Generating Station, Units I and 2), LDP-83-25,17 NRC 681, 687 (1983) reconsideranon motion asserung that evidence has been misunderstood or overlooked; LBP-98-10,47 NRC 2% (1998)
Philade&hia Electric Co (Limerick Generating Stacon, Units I and 2), LBP-83-39,18 NRC 67,69 (1983) lack of good cause for lais filing where contenoon's factual predicate is otherwise available; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 208 (1998) 30
_____.____________m
LEGAL CITATIONS INDFJ CASES Philadelphsa Electric Co. (Peach Bonom Atomic Power Station, Umts 2 and 3). ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20, ef'd in part on wher grounds. CL1-74-32, 8 AEC 217 (1974) challenges to statutory requirements or basic structure of agency's regulatory process; LEP-98 7,47 NRC 179 (1998)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bouom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB 216,8 AEC 13, 20 21 & n.33, gy'd in port on other grounds, CLI 74 32, 8 AEC M7 (1974) litigabihty of peuuoner's views on regulatory policy; LBP 98-7, 47 NRC 179 (1998)
Porr of Astoria v. Nadel, 595 F.2d 40/,474 (9th Cir.1979) prudendal standing requirements; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 269 (1998)
Porrland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Unitr 1 and 2), CL1-76-27, 4 NRC 610,616 (1976) factors considered in grant of discretionary intervention; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 167 (1998); LBP-98-12, 47 NRC 357 (1998)
Porrland General Electrk Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 76 27,4 NRC 610, 616-17 (1976) 6scretionary intervention, Comnussion authority to grant; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 167,250 (1998) weight given to late irservention petitioner's abihty to contribute to a sound record; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 177 (1998)
Porrland General Electre Co. (frojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287,289 n.6 (1979) scope of an adjudic,, tory proceeding; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 179 (1998)
Potomac Electric Pmr Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 218, 8 AEC 79,85 (1974) admissibility of contention challenging revised rule that has not yet become effective; LBP-98-13,47 NRC 368 a.7 (1998)
Pmomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 218, 8 AEC 79,85,89 (1974) htigability of challenges to agency rules and regulations; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 179 (1998)
Provulence ittwd Commumry Association v. EPA, 683 F.2d 80, 83 (4th Cir.1982) agency discretion in scope of NEPA analysis; CL1-98-3,47 NRC 103 (1996)
Public Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167 (1976) no sigmficant hazards consideration issues outside of board jurisdiction; LBP 98-12,47 NRC 345 (1998)
Public Servsce Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generadng Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167,170 71 (1976) scope of adjudicatory proceeding; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 179 (1998)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33,42 (1977)
Commission authority to re)ect or rwxhfy a licensing board's factual 6ndmgs; CLI-98-3. 47 NRC 93 (1998) ombik Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-471,7 NRC 477,509 n.58 (1978) consideranon of secondary benefits in NEPA cost-benefit balancing; C1J-98-3,47 NRC 1009 (1998)
PsN4 Service Co of Nw Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units ! and 2), ALAB 734,18 NRC 11,15 (1983) legal error as jusu6 cation for interlocutory review of Subpart L rulings; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 320 n.4 (1998)
Public Servece Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Stacon, Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-895, 28 NRC 7,12 (1988) source fer determining purpose for which rule or regulation was adopted; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 239 (1998) 31
l i
! l 1
l l
l l l l l l
e LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l CASES I i
Public Service Co. of New Hanshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-895, 28 NRC 7,16-17 j
(1988) elimination of Staff case-by-case review of generic issue in individual applications and removing l issues from adjudication as a valid purpose for adoption of a rule; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 239 (1998) l Puhuc ,Lalce Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-895, 28 NRC 7,24-26, rev'd in part on other grounds. CLI-88-10, 28 NRC 573 (1988) l 1
speculauon about future events as basis for rule waiver request; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 239 (1998)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Stanon, Units I and 2), ALAB-899, 28 NRC 93, 97 ]-
(1988) scope of a contention; 1.SP-98 7,47 NRC 181 (1998)
( Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-899,28 NRC 93,97 &
n.11 (1988), petition for review denied sub nom. Commonweakh of biassachusens v. NRC, 924 F.2d 311, 332-33 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 899 (1991) a Corrumssion practice to adhere to terms of admitted contenuons; CL1-98-3, 47 NRC 105 (1998) I Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-916, 29 NRC 434, I 437 38 (1989) jurisdiction of nrst board where two or more licensing boards have been estabbahed to hear discrete l portions of a proceading; LBP 98-8,47 NRC 259 (1998)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-916, 29 NRC 434,438 (1989) authority of Chief Administrative Judge to create twc or snore boards to hear separate issues in a proceeding; CL1-98-7,47 NRC 311 (1998); LDP-98-8,47 NRC 259 (1998)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Rampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 920, 30 NRC 121,129 (1989) l sigmftcant safety issue as jusufication for a rule wiuver; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 239 (1998) l i Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Stanon, Umt 2), CLI-84-6,19 NRC 975, 978 (1984) '
l economic interests as basis for standing to intervene in informal proceedings; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 270 (1998)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Rayshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLI-88-10. 28 NRC 573, i
598-600 (1948) l source for determitung purpose for which rule or regulation was adoped; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 239 1 (19"8)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Ututs I and 2), CLI-89-3, 29 NRC 234, 241 (1989) board responsibility to review docunent proffered as factual support for contention, LDP-98-7, 47 NRC 181 (1998)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLI-89-20, 30 NRC 231,235 ]
I (1989)
I' j special circumstances for grant of rule waiver; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 238,239 (1998) ungual and compelling reasons for waiver of a rule; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 239 (1998) l Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stauon, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-20, 3') NRC 231, 243 44 ,
!' (1989) I safety tasues that do not fulfill the requirement for a rule waiver; LBP-98-7. 47 NRC 239 (1998) l Public Scrwce Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), CL1-90L3, 31 NRC 219, 258 (1990). eff'd on other smunds sub nont Massachusetts v, NRC, 924 F.2d 3l1 (D C. Cir), cers. denied, 112 S. Ct. 275 (1991) l weight given to ineparable injury in applying stay criteria; LBP 98-5, 47 NRC ! 20 (1998) !
I Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Stauon, Unit 1), CL1-91-14, 34 NRC 261, 266 (1991) l l injury in-fact and none-of-interests requirements for standing to imervene; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 270
[ (1998)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Nampshire (Scabrook Station, Units I and 2), LBP-82-106,16 NRC 1649, 1656 (1982) I
, litigability of challenges to agency rules and tegulations; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 179 (1998) l materiali*' of safety comentions; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 180 (1998) l l
l 32 l
t l
l
=--
e i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX
, CASES Pubhc Service Ca qf New flampshire (Seabrook Stanon Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-10,29 NRC 297,301, try'd, ALAB-920, 30 NRC 121, rev'd, CL1-89-20, 30 NRC 231 (1989) consideration of future events in ascertaining a rule's purpose; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 239 (1998)
Pub #c Service Electric and Gas Ca (Hope Creek Generanng Station, Unit 1), ALAB-739,19 NRC 13, 20 (1984) disqualiacation of licensing boards, grounds for LDP-98-il,47 NRC 303 (1998)
Pubhc Usiurus Commusion v. FERC 900 P.2d 269,282 (D.C. Cir.1990) agency discretion in scope of NEPA analysis; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 103 (1998) scope of impacts considered under NEPA; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 88-89 (1998) i Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (SkagisHanford Nuclear Power Project. Units I and 2), LBP-82-74,16 l NRC 981,983 (1982) I academic interest in a proceeding as basis for stan&ng to intervene; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 270 (1998) I RJ.J.E. v. Kay, 977 P.2d 573 (4th Cir.1992), ag's 768 F, Supp.1144 (E.D. Va.1991) forum for challenging land-use decisions alleged to be raciaDy discrirninatory; CL1-98-3,47 NRC 103 n.21 (1998) i Robertson v. Methow Whey Citizens Counc#, 490 U.S. 332, 348 (1989) !
principal goals of National Environrm.atal Pohey Act; CL1-95 3,47 NRC 87 (1998)
Roberrma v. Methow %#ey Citizcas Counc#, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989) information disclosure function of environrnental impact statement; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 88 (1998)
Robertson v. Meshow W#cy Citizens Cowicil, 490 U.S. 332, 349-50 (1989) principal goals of environmental impact statenrat; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 87 (1998)
Robertson v. Markow Wury Cirizens Council, 490 U.S. 332,350 (1989) l i
standard for selection of environmental option in cost-benent balancing; CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 88 (1998) j Rockwll International Corp. (Rocketdyne Division), ALAB-925, 30 NRC 709,712-13 n 1 (1989) rulings that affect the basic structure of a proceeding; CL1-98 7,47 NRC 310 (1998) i Roarevcit CampobeHo International Park Commission v. EPA, 684 P.2d 1041,1047 (1st Cir.1982) standard for site-by-site NEPA review; CLI 98-3,47 NRC 104 (1998)
Sacramento Municipal Urihty Dist ict (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Station), CLI 93-3, 37 NRC 135, 152 n.46 (1993) service of future documents on intervenors after termination of proceeding: CLI-98-5,47 NRC 115 a 1 (1998)
Sacramento Municipal Urihry Distract (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generanns Station), LBP 93-23,38 NRC 200, 246 (1993), review dechned, CL194-2,39 NRC 91 (1994) factual support as contention basis, need for; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 180 (1998)
Jacramento Municipal Utility Derrict (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Stauon), LBP-93 23, 38 NRC 200, 247-48 (1993), review dachned. CLI.942, 39 NRC 91 (1994)
&smissal of contentions for failure to directly controvert the license applicanon; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 181 (199;)
Sacramento Municipal Utlury District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CL1-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 56 (1992), review denied sub nom. Environmensal .8 Resources Conserwition Organizarwn v. NRC 996 P.2d 1224 (9th Cir.1993) economic interests as basis fur stan&ng to intervene in informal procee&ngs; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 270 (1998) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 269 (1998)
Seminvie Nation v. United States 316 U.S. 286, 296 (1942) applicability of trust relationslup doctrine to prulicensing hearing rights on materials bcense; !
LDP-98-5,47 NRC 136 (1998)
Sequovan fuels Corp., LBP-915, 33 NRC 163,16465 (1991) l i
applicabibty of standing requirements in informal proceedings; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 270 (1998) i Sequo)=4 fuels Corp., LEP-96-12,43 NRC 290. 296 (1996) l authority of presiding officer to approve, deny, or constion licenses; LBP-98 9,47 NRC 269 n.14 '
(1998)
SequmeA Fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CL1-94-9, 40 NRC 1, 6-8 (1994) l weights given to criteria for grant of a stay; LBP 98-5,47 NRC 120 (1998) ;
33 l
l l
i i l l
I 1
i i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASFJ Sequoyah fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CL1-94-11, 40 NRC 55,59, 63 (1994) standard for grant of interlocutory review of Subpart L rulings; CL1-98-8,47 NRC 320 & n.3 (1998)
Seguoyuh fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahorna Site), CL1-94-12,40 NRC 64,72 (1994) showing neassary to dernonstrate injury in fact from materials license amendnunt; CL198-6,47 ,
NRC 118 (1998) i Seguoyuh fuelr Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CL1-97-13,46 NRC 195,205 (1997)
Commission policy on settJenent of contested proceedings; CL1-98-1,47 NRC 16 (1998) <
Seguayuh fuels Corp. (Gore Oklahorna Site), CLi-97-13,46 NRC 195,205 06 (1997) I public-intesest standard for approval of settienent agreements; !J1P-98-1, 47 NRC 2 (1998)
Seguoyah fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site Decontaminanon and Decommissioning Funding), LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54 (1994) distinction between stan&ng deternunations and assessment of peutioner's case on the ments; l LBP-98-9,47 NRC 272 (1998)
Sequowh fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site Decontanunation and Decomanssioning Fundag). LDP-94-5, [
39 NRC 54,66-67 (1994) applicability of standmg requirements in informal proceedmgs; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 270 (1998) ,
. Scquoyah fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site Decontamination and Decommissioning Funding), LBP-94-5, l 39 NRC 54,67-91 (1994) '
geographic prosinuty considerations for intervention in materials license proceedings; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 272 (1998)
Sierra Club v. Lynn, 502 F.2d 43, 61 (5th Cir.1974), cerr. denied, 422 U.S.1049 (1975) nature of cost-bene 6 balancing required by Naoonal Environmental Policy Act; CI198-3,47 NRC ;
88 (1998) '
Sierra Club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497, 504 (1st Cir.1989) violation of NEPA as cause for injuncove relief; CLI-9H-8, 47 NRC 323 n.13 (1998)
Sierru Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734 35 (1972) '
standing to intervene on basis of general cultural, historical, and economic interests of the area; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 273 (1998)
South Louisiana Environmental Council, Inc. v. Sand, 629 F.2d 1005,101l (5th Cir.1980) agency discretion in scope of NEPA analysis; CL1-98 3,47 NRC 103 (1998) assessment of how economic benefits are portrayed in NEPA cost-bene 6 balancing; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 89 (1998) consideration of social and economic factars in NEPA cost-benent balancing; CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 89 (1998)
St. Afary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) showing recessary to prove racial discrimination; CL1-98-3,47 NRC 105 n2.2 (1998)
Steel Co. v. Cittzens for a Berrer Environment, i18 S. Ct.1003,1016 (1998) showing necessary to demonstrate injury in fact from materials license amendment; ClJ-98-6,47 NRC !!7 (1998)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Waus Bar Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418 (1977) weight given to peatmoer's ability to contribute to a sound record in standing deternunation; LBP-9812,47 NRC 357 (1998)
Tennessee Valley Authorny (Watta Bar Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418,1421 0 977) authorization for representational standing; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 270-71 (1998)
Texas utilities Elecirte Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-870,26 NRC 71, 74 (1987) interlocutory review of discovery ruhngs; CL1-98-8,47 NRC 324 s18 (1998)
Tesas Urillries Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Elecinc Stauon, Units I and 2), CL1-88-12,28 NRC 605, 609 (1988), reconsideration denied on other grounds CL1-89 6, 29 NRC 348 (1989), af'd.
CirLrens for fair urthry Refulanon v. NRC, 898 F.2d 51 (5th Cir.), carr. denied 498 U.S. 896 (1990) good cause for late filing, failure of another group to
- carry the ball *' as; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 173 (1998) 34
+
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Texas Utiliries Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Elecnic Station, Unit 2), CLI-93-4, 37 NRC 156,165 (1993) weight given to academic and professional interests in deternuning late intervention peutioner's standing; LDP-98-7,47 NRC 174 (1998)
Tongass Conservation Soctery v. Cheney 924 F.2d 1137,1140 (D.C. Cir.1991) information disclosure function of environmental impact statement; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 88 (1998)
Tongass Consermtion Society v. Cheney 924 P.2d 1137,114142 (D.C. Cir.1991) extent of discussion cf alternatives in FEIS; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 98,104 (1998)
Tongass Consermtion Society v. Cheney 924 F.2d 1137,1143-44 (D.C. Cir.1991) scope of FEIS analysis of licensing impacts on property values; CL1-98-3,47 NRC 109 n.27 (1998)
Town of Huntmgron v. Marsh, 859 F.2d 1134,1143 (2d Cir.1988) proof rather than assumption of threat of irreparable injury as basis for injunctive relief; C13-98-8,47 NRC 323 n.13 (1998)
Town of Runtmrton v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 648, 65154 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S.1004 (1990) violauon of NEPA as cause for injunctive rehef, CLI-98-8,47 NRC 323 n.13 (1998)
Tulsa Gamma Ray Inc., LBP-9125,33 NRC 535 (1991) l prepar,td testimony in enforcernent proceedings, need for; LBP-98 2, 47 NRC 5 (1998) l Umesco Mmerals Corp., LBP-92-20, 36 NRC 112,115 (1992) applicability of standing requirements in informal proceedmgs; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 270 (1998) l i
Umerco Mmerals Corp., LBP-94-18, 39 NRC 369 (1994) l NRC policy on standing of Native Amerienns; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 272 (1998) l Umcrco Minerals Corp., LBP-94-18, 39 NRC 369, 370 (1994) injury-in-fact requirement for standing to intervene in informal proceeding; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 265 n.3 (1998) j Union of Concerned Scienststs v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 735 F.2d 1437,1447 i (D C. Cir.1984), cert, denied 469 U.S.1132 (1985) responsibiLty to litigate material issues; LBP.98-14, 47 NRC 378 (1998)
Unned $ sates Department of Energy (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Pland, ALAB-688.16 NRC 471, 474 (1982) interlocutory review of scheduling rulings; ClJ-98-8, 47 NRC 324 n.18 (1998)
Unned States v. tombert 695 F.2d 536, 540 (lith Cir.1983) proof rather than assumptinn of threat of irreparable injury as basis for injunctive rehef; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 323 n.13 (1998)
Unued Stares v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391, 398 (1973) .
applicability of trust relationship doctrine to prelicensing hearing rights on materials license; LBP-98-5, 47 NRC 136 (1998)
Unned States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 225-26 (1983) applicability of trust relanonship doctnne to prelicensing hearing rights on matenals license; LBP-98-5. 47 NRC 136 (1998)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pour Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. $19, 553-54 (1978) scope of litigable issues; CL1-98-3, 47 NRC 105 (1998)
Vernumt Yankee Nuclear Powr Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-179,7 AEC 159, 172 (1974) effect of minicading economic irdormanon on NEPA cosobenefit onlancing; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 94 (1998)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Powr Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-li9,7 AEC 159, 177 (1974) consideration of secondary benefits in NEPA cost-benef,t balancing; CLI-98 3, 47 NRC 100 (1998)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ALAB-919. 30 NRC 29, 48 (1989), meated in part on other grounds and remanded CL1-90-4,31 NRC 333 (1990) board responatbility to review document proffered as factual support for contenoon; LDP 98-7,47 NRC 181 (1998) 35 i
B LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Vermrmt Yankee Nuclear rowr Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power StatiorJ, LBP 87-7,25 NRC 116, 118 (1987)
" interest" and "interesied" denned as synonymous with standir.g; LBP-98-12, 47 NRC 356 (1998)
Village of Arlington Heights v. Aterropolitan Housing Development, 429 U.S. 252 (1977) ,
showing necessary to prove racial discrimination; CLI-95 3, 47 NRC 105 n.22 (1998)
Warr4 v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 508, 509 (1975) showing necessary to demonstrate injury in fact from materials license amendment; CL1-98-6,47 NRC 117-18 (1998) l Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747,18 NRC 1167, 1874-75 & s.22 (1983) extent to which late intervention petitionefs interests will be represented by other parties, weight given to; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 174 (1998)
Washmgron v. Davu, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) showing necessary to prove racial discrimination; CLI 98-3,47 NRC 105 n.22 (1998)
Weinberger v. Romeo-Berkele.x 456 U.S. 305 (1982) statutory violanon as a showing of irreparable harm for purpose of stay; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 322 (1998)
Westmghouse Electric Corp. (Nuclear Puel Export Ucense for Czech RepubHc - Temehn Nuclear Power Plants), CLI-94-7, 39 NRC 322, 331 (1994) redressability element of standing to intervene; LBP 98-12,47 NRC 347 (1998)
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832) apphcabihty of trust relationship doctrine to prelicensing hearing rights on matenals license; LBP 98-5, 47 NRC 135 (1998)
Yankee Atomic Electrec Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) CLI-96-1,43 NRC 1,6 (1996) cnteria for invoking representauonal standing; LDP-98-12, 47 NRC 354 (1998) judicial concepts of stand #ng applied in NRC proceedings; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 168 (1998)
Yankee Aramic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-961,43 NRC 1,9 (1996) showing necessary between alleged errors and safety impacts; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 180 (1998)
Yankee Atomic Electre Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-96-7,43 NRC 235, 251 (1996) htigability of challenges to agency rules and regulations; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 179 (1998)
Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-%2, 43 NRC 61, 75, #d, CLI %7, 43 NRC 235,258 (19%)
trmreriahry of safety contentions; LBP 98-7, 47 NRC 180 (1998)
Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 61, 75, (d CLI-96 7 43 NRC 235,267 (1996) .
factual support as contenuon basis, need for; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 180 (1998)
Yankee Aromic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP 96 2, 43 NRC 61, 90 of'd CLI-96 7, 43 NRC 235 (1996) scrutiny of document proffered as basis for contention for what it does and dnes not show;
!.BP-98 7,47 NRC 181 (1998)
Yanker Arrnnic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-9615,44 NRC 8,26 (1996) lack of good cause for late filing where contenuon's factual predicate is otherwise available; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 208 (1998) 36
i
_l I 1
l 1
i i
l i
4 1
1 1
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX
'l REGULATIONS 1
ll j
i 5 Cf.R. 2635.604 4 applicabihty to heensing board judges; CL198-9,47 NRC 33132 (1998) j disquah6 cation of licensing board judge because of employrnent negouanont LDP-98-il,47 NRC 303 9
(1998)
, 5 Cf.R. 2635.604(a) disqtC6 canon of judge for employment-related reasons; LBP 98-il,47 NRC 304 (1998) j 5 CJ R. 2635.604(c)
- agency discretion to disquahfy licensing board judge; CLI-98-9,47 NRC 332 (1998) l 5 CFR. 2635.606 disquahfication of licensing board judge because of employrnent negouanons; LBP-96-il,47 NRC 303 (1998)
! 5 Cf.R. 2635.606(b) j disquah6 cation of judge where offer of employnent is rejected, CLI-98-9, 47 NRC 332 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.203 j Comnussion policy on settlement of contested proceedings; CL1-98-1, 47 NRC 16 (1998); LBP-98-1,47
- NRC 1 (1998) i conformance of Slings with service requirements; LDP-98 4. 47 NRC 20 (1998) l 10 Cf.R. 2.206 4
- enforcement-related license conditions, request for; DD-98 l,47 NRC 24-36 (1998) harassment and inumidation of licensee employees by management, request for acuon on; DD-98-4, 47
)i NRC 382-89 (1998) j integrity of steam generator supports, request for acuan on; DD 98-6, 47 NRC 396-408 (1998)
- piping leaks in Residual Heat Removal system, request for action on; DD-98-3,47 NRC 7175 (1998) 1 safety of dry cask unloading process; DD-98-2, 47 NRC 38-56 (1998)
]. systematic problems at SONGS, assessment of, DD 98-5, 47 NRC 390 95 (1998) l treatment of late intervenoon request as pention under; LDP 95 9, 47 NRC 279, 287 (1998) i 10 Cf R. Part 2, Subpart G fornud heanng for uranium enrichment facili:y heensmg; CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 84 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.704 nuthority of Chief Administrauve Judge to create two or more boards to hear separate issues in a proceeding; C1198 7, 47 NRC 311 (1998) 10 CJil 2.704(c) referral of disquali6 cation motion to the Commission; CL1-98 9,47 NRC 330 (1998)
, 10 Cf.R. 2.710 deadbne for completion of discovery; LBP-96-2, 47 NRC 5 (1998) a 10 Cf.R. 2.712 conformance of Elings with service requirements; LBP-98-4,47 NRC 20 (1998)
] 10 Cf.R. 2.713 j notice of appearance, request for apphcant's counsel to Ale; LDP-98-2, 47 NRC 6 (1998) 1 penalty for contemptuous conduct; LDP-98-4,47 NRC 18 (1998) l 10 Cf.R. 2.714 i applicabihty of late-61ing standards to request for dastrenonary intervenuan; LEP-98-7, 47 NRC 173 n.5 j (1998)
! aspects of intervention as foundation for standing; LBP-98-12, 47 NRC 346 (1998) 4
} 37 i
j t
i 1
e a
i
~
d b
4
h I
s LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGtJLATIONS interest de6ned as synonymous with standing; 1.BP-98-12,47 NRC 356 (1998) late-6 led intervenoon pention supparung license application: LBP 98-7,47 NRC 163 (1998) ,
standing to intervene in support of license application; LBP 98-7, 47 NRC 172 (1998) l timeliness of 61ings seeking escretionary intervention; LBP 98-9, 47 NRC 279 a.40 0998) ;
10 CP.R. 2.714(a)
Anarrvention by Nauve American tribe; LBP 98 7,47 NRC 157 (1998) i 10 Cf.R. 2.714(a)(1) i amendment of contention without adstressing late-6hng criteria; LDP-98-13, 47 NRC 371 n.10 (1998) l applicability of late-6 ting standards to state intervenor; LBP-98 7,47 HRC 164 (1998) dismissal of contenoon for failure to meet late-61ing criteria; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 208 (1998) .
weight given to late intervention pentioner's ab'lity to contribute to a sound record, LBP-98-7,47 NRC l 177 (1998) l 10 CF.R. 2.714(aKlXi)-(v) criteria for admitung late-61ed contentions, LBP-98-7,47 NRC 183 (1998) 6ve factors to be addressed in late intervention petition; LDP-98-7,47 NRC 167,172 0998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(aXI)-(2) intervention as of right, standard for; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 167 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(aX3) treatment of unauthorized pleadinCs; LBP-98-12,47 NRC 346 (1998)
]
10 CE R. 2.714(bX2) I admission standards for areas of concern after hearing Sie has been made available; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC !
280 (1998) !
intervention as of right, standard for LBP-98-7,47 NRC 167 (1998) scheduling of service of intervenors' contentions that are based on the hearing record; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 286 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(bX2)(i)-(iii) pleading requirements for contenuons; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 178 (1998); LBP 98-13, 47 NRC 365 (1998) .
10 Cf.R. 2.714(bX2Xiii) I focus in framing contentions regarding a licensing scuan; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 181 (1998) timely Shng of environmental contentions; CL1-98 3,47 NRC 89 (1998) i 10 Cf.R. 2.714(dX2) I admissibility of contentions that would not enutie intervention pentioner to relief; LBP-98 7,47 NRC '
178 (1998); LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 365 (1998) i 10 Cf.R. 2.714(dX2Xii) I materiahty of issues raised in a contention; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 179 (1998) 10 C.P.R. 2.714(f) licensmg board authonty to dc6ne or consolidate contentions; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 182 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(f)-(g) authority of presiding officer to assign lead parties and consohdate contentions; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 242 (1998) 10 CJ R. 2.714a(s) ,
appealability of intervention rulings; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 249 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.715
" interested" dc6ned as synonymous with standing; LBP-9812, 47 NRC 356 (1998) 10 C.P.R. 2.715(a) ,
linuted appearance statement as other means to protect late intr:rvenuon pet tioner's interests; LDP-98 7, 1 47 NRC 173 (1998) limited appearance statements in support of hcense appbcanou; LBP 95-7,47 NRC 163 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.715(c) scope of participanng governmental entities; LBP-98-12,47 NRC 355 (1998) standmg to intervene of governmental agency; LBP 9812,47 NRC 355 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.717 jurisdiction of muluple boards in a single proceeding; CLI-98 7,47 NRC 311 (1998) 38 1
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C F.R. 2.721 i authority of Chief Admimstrauve Judge to create two or more boards to hear separate issues in a I proceeding; CLI-98-7, 47 NRC 311 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.730
{
conformance of Bhags with service requisements; LBP 98-4,47 NRC 20 (1998) l 10 Cf.R. 2730(c) I replies to peutions, need for Board permission for; LDP 9812, 47 NRC 346 (1998) l 10 Cf.R. 2.743(bX3) prepared testmumy in enforcement proceedings, need for; LBP-98-2,47 NRC 5 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.758 authority of adjudicatory body to consider its own jurisdicuon; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 184 n 9 (1998) elinunation of Staff case by case review of generic issue in individual applications and senaving issues from adjudication as a valid purpose for adoption of a rule; LDP-98 7,47 NRC 239 (1998) litigability of challenges to agency rules and regulanons; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 179 (1998) peution to waive Comnussion rules; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 238-42 (1998) waiver of Part 72 appbcable to licensing of independent spent fuel storage instalianon; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 157,247 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.758(b) petition for waiver of Purt 72 and section 51.23; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 163 (1998) standards governing rule waiver petitions; LDP-98 7,47 NRC 238 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(g) j standard fas grant of interlocutory review of Subpart L rulings; CL1-98-8,47 NRC 320 n.3 (1998) !
10 Cf.R 2.786(gXI) i showing necessary for grant of interlocutory review of Subpart L ruhngs; CLI-98-8. 47 NRC 320 I (1998) 10 Cf.R 2.786(gXI) and (2) standard for interlocutory review; CLI-98-7,47 NRC 310 (1998) 10 CFA 2.788 l content of application for temporary stay; LBP 98-3. 47 NRC 9.11 (1998) criteria for grant of a stay; LBP-98 5, 47 NRC 120,138 (1998) replies to responses to stay motions; LDP-98-5. 47 NRC 137 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.788(b) restrictions on length of stay motions; LBP-98-5,47 NRC 121 n.1 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.788(d) replies to responses to stay notions; LBP 95-5,47 NRC 137,138 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.788(e) criteria for grant of a stay; LBP-98-5, 47 NRC 120 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.788(f) temporary stay of Staff licensing sction; LBP.98 3,47 NRC 9 (1998) temporsty stay to preserve the status quo, Comnussion authonty to issue; CLJ-984, 47 NRC 112 (1998) 10 Cf.R. Part 2, Subpart I formal heanng for uramum enrichment facihty licensmg; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 84 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205 catension of deadline for subnumng amended heanng requests; LDP 98-9,47 NRC 265 (1998) faibre of intervention peutions on the merits; LBP-98-4, 47 NRC 19 n.2 (1998) hearing rights on matenals license applicanon; LBF-98-9, 47 NRC 264 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.120$(a) scope of htigable issues; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 273 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(c) hearing rights on source or byproduct materials :icense; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 268 (1998) 10 Cf R. 2.1205(cXI) deadline for Eling hearing requests on materials licenses; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 268 (1998) 39
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(d) late intervenuon petitions in materials license proceeding; LBP 98-9,47 NRC 267 (1998) responsibility of presiding of8cer in ruling on request for hearing on materials license application; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 268 (1998) scope of presiding ofGeer's determination on hearing requests 6led under; LBP-98-9. 47 NRC 280 (1998) 10 CfA 2.1205(e) amendment of heunns requests based on new inforumtion; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 267 (1998) content of hearing requests Sled by person other than applicant in connection with materials licensing action; LBP-98 9,47 NRC 279-80 (1998) content of request for hearing Aled by person other than applicant; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 268 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1203(g) geographic proaimity considerations for intervenoon in materials license proceedings; LBP-98-9,47 NRC '
272 n.16 (1998) intervention by proponents of licensing actions; LBP-98-3,47 NRC 11 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(h) areas of concern in informal proceedings, scope of; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 263 (1998) content of hearing requests based on new infarrnation in Safety Evaluation Report; LBP 98-9,47 NRC 267 (1998) responsibility of presiding othcer in ruling on request for hearing on materials license application; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 268 (1998) scope of presiding ofacer's determination on hearing requests 61ed under section 2.1205(d); LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 280 (1998) 10 CIA 2.1205(k) late intervention petitions in materials Ucense proceeding; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 267 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(kXI) formation of orgamzation after 61ing deadline as good cause for late 6lmg; LDP-98-9,47 NRC 279 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(IXI) factors to be addressed by late intervention peutions in materials license proceeding; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 279 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(l)(IXi) and (ii) criteria to be addressed by late intervention petitions in informal proceedings; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 267 (1998) 10 CFA 2.1205(h(2) treatment of late intervention request as 2.206 petiuon; LBP-9'8 9,47 NRC 279 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(m) authority of presiding of6cer to consulidate parues; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 284 (1998) stay of actions taken under; LBP-98-3,47 NRC 9 (1998) 10 CFA 2.1205(o) appeal of order dismisstag petitioner, LBP-98-4, 47 NRC 20 (1998) appealability of intervention rulings; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 287 (1998) 10 CSA 2.1209 issuance of order dismissing peuuoner without awaiting responses from the parties; LDP 98 4,47 NRC !
I 19 (1998) pleadings stricken from the record; LBP 98-4,47 NRC 20 (1998) replies to responses to stay enouons; LBP-98-5, 47 NRC 137 (1998) ;
10 Cf.R. 2.1209(a) I litigability of separate area of concern that is already lidgable with respect to adnutted areas of I concern; 1.BP 98-14, 47 NRC 377 (1998) 10 Cf.R.11213 Staff participation as a party to an informal proceeding; LDP-98-9, 47 NRC 266 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.123t(s) availabihty of hearing Ale to imervenors; LBP-98-9. 47 NRC 287 (1998)
- l l
J
~
l i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CSA 2.1233 scheduling of service of intervenors' written filings; LBP-98-9. 47 NRC 286 (1998) 10 CSA 2.1233(d) scope of and basis for decision by presiding off cer in informal proceeding; LBP 98-14, 47 NRC 378 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1237 Staff participation as a party to an infornut procending; LBP-98 9,47 NRC 266 (1998) 10 CIA 2.1251(a) effectiveness of order dismissing petitioner; LBP-98 4,47 NRC 20 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 2.1253 interioutory review of rulings in materials licensing proceedings; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 320 (1998) 10 CFA 2.1263 criteria for grant of a stay; LBP-98-5,47 NE' 120,138 (1998) replies to responses to stay motions; LBP-98-5,47 NRC 137 (1998) nght of petitioner to renew stay request; CL1-98-8,47 NRC 321 n.5 (1998) i temporary stay of Staff licensing action; LBP-98-3,47 NRC 9 (1998) '
10 Cf.R. Part 20 litigability of challenge to; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 186 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 20.1003 i ability of soil renzdiation 6 nres 3 in license termination plan to meet ALARA standard; LBP-98-12, 47 )
NRC 352 (1998) background radiation deterndnation. adequacy of bases for, LBP-9812,47 NRC 349 (1998) 10 CIA 20.1201 1 calculation of dose limits and effective dose equivalents; LBP-98-2, 47 NRC 4 (1998) j 10 CIA 20.1301 s groundwater restoration standard; LBP-98-5, 47 NRC W8 (1998) 10 C.PA 20.1401(b) compliance of license ternination plan with; LDP-98-12,47 NRC 348 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 20.1402 ability of soil remediation Bgures in license ternunanon plan to meet ALARA standard; LBP 98-12, 47 NRC 352 (1998) compliance of site release criteria in license termination plan wtth; LBP-9812,47 NRC 352 (1998) 10 CFA 20.2007 failure to obtain permit from Native American tribe as area of concern; LBP-98-9. 47 NRC 281 (1998) 10 CfA 40.32 burden on license applicant to demonstrate adequate assurance of safety and protection of the environ-nunt; LBP-9814,47 NRC 378, 379 (1998) 10 CSA Part 40, Appendia A vulnerability of groundwater to liquid waste disposal, litigability of; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 282 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 50.7 document reference to isolation of " cynics" from group culture as violation of; DD-98-4,47 NRC 384 (1998) 1(i Cf R. 50.47(cX2) adjustments to size of emergency planning zone; DD 98-5,47 NRC 394 n.1 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 50.54(f) consolidation of con 6rmatory action requests; DD-98-1, 47 NRC 27-28 (1998) nou6 canon of NRC prior to restart of reactors, requirement for; DD-98-1, 47 NRC 26-27 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 50.54(q) traf6c capacity analysis in emergency plan, need for; DD-98-5, 47 NRC 392 (1998) 10 CfA 50.82 deonition of license termination in license termination plan; LBP 98-12. 47 NRC 349 (1998) 10 CfA 50.82(aXIX1), (ii) licensee certi6 cation of cessation of acdvities; DD-98-1,47 NRC 32 (1998) 41
1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CFA 50.82(aX9) activities beyond the scope of; LBP-98-12, 47 NRC 353 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 50.82(aX9Xii) components of license termination plan; LDP-98-12,47 NRC 344 (1998) information concerning spent fuel management in license termination plan, need for; LBP-98-12, 47 NRC 351 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 50.82(b) ,
desenption of decommissioning activities in site release plan, need for; LBP-98-12,47 NRC 352 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 50.92 no significarrt hazards consideration determination; LDP-98-12,47 NRC 344 (1998) 10 CfA $0.100 suspenaion of license pendmg establishment of dry cask unloading procedures: DD 98-2,47 NRC 38, 43,44 n.2 (1998) i 10 C.FA Part 50, Appendix A GDC 2 i
seismic analysis of arcant generator suppurts, request for, DD-98-6, 47 NRC 405 (1998) 10 C.P R. Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V notice of violation for de6ciencies in dry-cask storage activities; DD-98-2, 47 NRC 41 (1998) 10 Cf R. Part 50, Appendix C l
applicabihty of financial quali6 cations requirements to Part 72 licensees; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 187 (1998) 10 CIA Part 50, Appendix E, IIV '
trafBc capacity analysis in emergency plan, need for; DD-98-5,47 NRC 392 (1998) l 10 CSA Part 51 applicability to uranium enrichment facihty licensing; CL1-98-3,47 NRC 84 (1998) rmundwater contanunation from retention pond, potential for; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 216 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 51.104(aX2) litigability of adequacy of discussion of environmental issues in Anal environmental impact statement; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 89 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 51.23 lingability of challenge to; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 197, 202,229 (1998) waaver of waste conftdence decision embodied in; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 157,163,240,241-42,247 (1998) 10 CSA St.23(a) challenge to continued applicability of generic determinanon in; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 241 (1998) 10 CFA 51.23(b) waiver of EIS analysis provision of; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 242 (1998) 10 CIA 51.45 air quality analysis requirements for independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 198 (1998) environmental report requirement for uranium enrichment facility licensmg; CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 84 (1998) 10 CIA 51.45(b) cumulative irnpact considerations of ISFSI relative to other hazardous facilines; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 201 (1998) efauent characteristics and environmental impacts of seepage from retention pond; LBP 98 7, 47 NRC 217 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 51.45(c) consideration of alternatives to ISFS!; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 218 (1998) cost-bene 6L analysis for ISFSI, adequacy of; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 204,220 (1998) cost-beneat analysis of risks of transportation of spent fuel; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 200 (1998) environmental impacts of spent fuel storage, adequacy of consideration of; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 199 (1998) selection of rail or road access to ISFSI site, adequacy of desenption of considerations in; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 223 (1998) 42
l i
l i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 51.45(d) assessment t,f permits and enullements associated with independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 197, 218 (1998) 10 C.F.R. $1.52 applicability of Table S 4 to independent spent fuel storage installations; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 199 (1998) hugability of challenges to; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 201, 228 (1998) weight for shipping cask outside the parameters of; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 200 (1998) 10 C.FR. 51.52(a) applicability of Table S-4 to independent spent fuel storage installanons; LDP-98 7,47 NRC 199 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 51.52(b) environmental analysis requned for transportation of spent fuel to independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 199 (1995) 10 C.F.R. 51.60 environmental report requirement for uranium enrichment facility licen-ing; C1198-3, 47 NRC 84 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 5161 litigabihty of challenges to; LBP 98 7,47 NRC 202 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 51.71 consideration of secondary benefits in NEPA cost-bene 6: balancing; CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 99 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 51.7)(d) assessment of permits and entitlements associated with independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP-98-7. 47 NRC 218 (1998) nature of cost-bene 6s balancing required by National Environmental Policy Act; CIJ 98-3,47 NRC 88 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 51.97(c) basis for Staff FEIS for uranium enrichment facility hcensmg; CL1-98-3, 47 NRC 84 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 51.102 content of FE!S section on need for facility; CL1-98-3, 47 NRC 85 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 5L102, 51.103 responsibility for compfhng 6nal environmental record of decision; CLI 98-3,47 NRC 89 (1998) 10 C.F.R. Part 70 distincoon between financial quali6cutions standards of Port 72 and; LBP-98-10. 47 NRC 295 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 70.23(a)(5) disunction between financial quali6 cations standards of Part 72 and; LBP 98-1,1,47 NRC 295 (1998) 10 C.F.R. Part 71 coverugt of licensees and contract carriers; LBP-96-10, 47 NRC 291 (1998) litigabihty of challenges to; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 184,186,190,192 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 71.0(d), 71.4 heense needs for intermodal transfer facility; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 184 (1998) 10 C.F.R. Part 72 adoption of contentions of other intervenors by reference; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 236 (1998) applicahility of Part 50 Anancial quali6 cations reqmrements to; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 187 (1998) authority to construct and operate independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP-9813, 47 NRC 363 (1998) definition of independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP 98-7, 47 NRC 212 (1998) design of spent fuel storage system to support unloading activities; DD-98-2, 47 NRC 40 (1998) chsunction between 6nancial quali6 canons standards of Part 70 and, LBP 98-10,47 NRC 295 (1998) license to possess and store spent fuel at independent spent fuel storage installation, LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 157 (1998) waiver of; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 157,163, 240, 247 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 72.2(b) dehnition of independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP 98 7. 47 NRC 183 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 72.3 de6nition of person in context of license applicant for independent spent fuel storage installation; LDP.98-7, 47 NRC 183 (1998) 43 I
(
i
- ~
l I
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 72.6(cXI) l license needs for intermodal transfer facility; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 184, 237 (1998) 1 10 Cf R. 72.11 i content of application for spent fuel storage installation regarding cask maintenance and unloading; j DD-98-2,47 NRC 38, $152 (1998) i 10 Cf.R. 72.12 license needs for intermodal transfer facility; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 184 (1998) material omissions from applicanon for spent fuel storage installation regarding cask maintenance and unloading; DD-98 2,47 NRC 38,52 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72.22(e) distincdon between Anancial qualifications standards of Part 70 and; LDP-98-!C,47 NRC 295 (1998) financial qualiGcations of applicant to construct independent spent fuel storage installa-tion; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 229,237 (1998) financial qualiAcanons of applicant to engage in Part 72 activities; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 187,214 (1998) i safety of cask design for ISFSl; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 230 (1998) i 10 Cf.R. 72.24 radiadon and environmental momtoring reqturenents for ISFSl; LBP 98-7, 47 NRC 217 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72.24(d) groundwater effects of independent spent fuel storage installation and transportation of spent fuel; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 192 (1998) l l
10 CJ R. 72.24(d)(2)
{
adequacy of independent spent fuel storage installation design to prevent accidents; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 195 (1998) adequacy of structural design of independent spent fuel storage installation to withstand probable maximum Sood; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 191 (1998) l 1
10 C.P.R. 72.30(a) l decommissioning plan for independent spent fuel storage installation, adequacy of, LBP-98-7,47 NRC 196 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72.32 compliance of applicant with offsite notificanon and coordinanon requirements; LBP-9810,47 NRC 292 (1998) training of operators of ISFSI, adequacy of, LBP-98-7,47 NRC 232 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72.32(6) I radiation monitoring, adequacy of ISFSI provisions for; LDP-98-7,47 NRC 229 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72.32(aX2) transportanon accidents, need for ISFSI application to address; LDP-98-7,47 NRC 232 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72 32(a)(7) training of operators of ISFSI, adequacy of; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 232 (1998) 10 Cf.R 72.32(a)(8) emergency planning requirernents for populanons living outside independem spent fuel storage installa-con; LBP-98 7. 47 NRC 227 (1998) 10 C.P.R. 72.40(a)(6) financial quali6 cations of applicant to engage in Part 72 activines; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 187 (1998) 10 CJA 72.60 suspension of licenses for independent spent fuct storage installations, reasons for; DD-95-2,47 NRC 44 n.2 (1998) 10 CF R. 72.82(e) reporting of preoperational test results; DD-98-2, 47 NRC 30-40 (1998) 10 Cf,R. 72.90(a) land use patterns and ownership in victmty of ISFSI, adequacy of desenption of, LBP-98 7,47 NRC 224-25 (1998) location of rail spur, failure to describe; LBP 98 7. 47 NRC 224 (1998) road expansion authorisanons, failure to desenbe; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 224 (1998) r I
44
l I
i i
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS IU CE.R. 72.90(c) land use punerns and ownership in vicimty of ISFSI, adequacy of description of; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 224-25 (1998) 10 CER. 72.90(e) economic impacts of ISPSI, need for considerauon of; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 222 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72.92 collection and evaluation of flood record, aquirement for construction of independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 192 (1998) 10 C.P.R. 72.98 probable maxinmm Good for independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 191 (1998) 10 CIR. 72.98(b) land use patterns and ownerslup in vicinity of ISFSI, adequacy of desenption of, LEP-98 7,47 NRC 224-25 (1998) radiological contaminauon of agricultural products for human consumption, potential of ISFSI for;
!.RP-98-7, 47 NRC 222 (1998) septic tank impact on groundwater and ecology; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 223 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72.98(b) & (c) regional and cumulative environrnental impacts of ISFSI, failure of applicant to discuss; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 216 237 (1998) 10 CER. 72.98(cX2) economic impacts of ISFSI, need for consideration of; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 222 (1998) 10 CJ.R. 72.100 regional and cumulative environmental impacts of ISFSI, failure of applicant to discuss; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 216 (1998) risks of pamculate enussions from construcuan and cement activities as ISFSI; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 20 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72.100(b) ecological and species impacts of ISFS!; LBP 98 7,47 NRC 204, 205, 221 (1998) economic impacts of ISFSI. need for consideration of; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 222 (1998) groundwater effects of independent spent fuel storage installation and transportation of spent fuel; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 192 (1998) selection of rail or road access to ISFSI site, adequacy of description of considerations in; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 223 (1998) septic tank impact on groundwater and ecology; LBP-98 7. 47 NRC 223 (1998) 10 CIR. 72.104 adequacy of enalysis of radiation shielding at ISFSI, LBP-98-7,47 NRC 209 (1998) radiation exposures from independent spent fuel storage insta!!ation, adequacy of control nuasures.
LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 194 (1998) 10 CER. 72.106(b) compliance of independent spent fuel storage installauon with dose limits; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 185 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 72.108 adequacy of WAS101238 to satisfy; LBP-94-7,47 NRC 200 (1998) ecological and species impacts of ISFSL LBP-98-7,47 NRC 204 (1998) groundwater effects of independent spent fuel storage installation and transportation of spent fuel; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 192 (1998) litigability of challenges to; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 201 (1998) 10 CF.R. 72.122 lingability of challenges to; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 216 (1998) pouce of violation for dc6ciencies in dry-cask storage activities; DD 98-2, 47 NRC 55 (1998) 10 CIR. 72.122(b)(2) cask-pad stability during scisnde event at ISFSI, LBP-98-7,47 NRC 206. 210 (1998) 10 CIR. 72.122(b)(4) radiation and environauntal monitoring requirernents for ISFS!; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 217 (1998) 45 l
5 l
1 l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX I REGULATIONS 10 CE.R. 72.122(f) '
I design feature to allow onsite inspection and maintenance of canisters and claddmg, need for; j LBP 98-10,47 NRC 293 (1998) '
inspection and maintenance of safety components, including cladding and canisters; LBP 98-7, 47 NRC 189 0 998) procedure for wrifying tim presence of helium in storage canisters, adequacy of; LBP-93 7,47 NRC !
189 (1998) seal maintenance and enwrgency seal replacement on ory storage casks: DD-98-2, 47 NRC 38, 40, 45 (1998) 10 CE.R. 72.122(h) confinenent barriers and systems for maintenance and unloading of dry storago casks; DD-98-2,47 1
NRC 38, 40, 45-47 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72.122(f) loading and storage of dry storage casks prior to development of safety procedures for unloading; DD-98 2, 47 NRC 38, 40, 48-50 0998) 10 Cf.R.12.126 radiation and environmental monitoring tequirements for !SFSI; LDP.98-7,47 NRC 217 0998) 10 Cf.R. 72.126(c) & (d) effluent characterisucs and envuonmental impacts of seepage from retenuon pond; LEP 98-7,47 NRC 217 0 998)
)
10 Cf.R. 72.126(d) radiation exposures from independent epent fuel storage installation, adequacy of control measures; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 194 0998) l0 Cf.R. 72.128(a) inspecnon and maintemmce of safety components, including cladding and carunters; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 189 0 998) cask-pad stability dunng seismic event ut ISFS1; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 206,210 (1998) procedure for verifying the presence of helium in storage canisters, adequacy ef; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 189 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72.128(aXI) design feature to allow onsite inspection and maintenance of canisters and cladding. need for, LBP-98-10,47 NRC 293 (1998) 10 C.P.R. 72.130 decommissiomng criteris relauve to dry storage casks; DD-98-2,47 NRC 38,40,50 510998) 10 CE.R. Part 72 Subpart O quality assurance program for independent spent fuel storage installation, adequacy of; LEP-98-7,47 NRC 188 0998) 10 Cf.R. 72.150, 72.152 notice of violation for deficiencies in dry-cask storage activities; DD-98-2,47 NRC 55 0998) 10 Cf.R. 72.180 limits on stand-alone security measures to onsite transportation of spent fuel; LBP-98-13,47 NRC 373 0 998) spent fuel transportanon considerations in secunty plan, litigability of I BP-9813, 47 NRC 371, 372 0 998) staffing capability to respond to safeguards contingency events; LBP-9813,47 NRC 368 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72.184(a) litigability of challenge to; LBP-9813,47 NRC 372 0998) 10 Cf.R. 72.210 authority to store fuel in an independent spent fuel storage facility; LDP-98-12, 47 NRC 351 (1998) sedressability element of standing to intervene; LBP-98-12,47 NRC 350 (1998) 10 Cf.R. Part 73 intervenor access to security plan under protective order, LDP 98-13,47 NRC 363 0998) 10 Cf.R. 73.21(a) responsibility of state designee with security plan access; LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 367 0998)
{
n l
l l
l l
t LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS >
10 Cf.R. 73.21(cXIXiii) stata designee with security plan access; LBP-98-13,47 NRC 367 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 73.25 physical protection of intermodal transfer junction, litigability of; LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 371 (1998) l protection against termrism and sabotage, htigability of adequacy of security measures for; LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 372 (1998) ,
10 Cf.R. 73.26 I physical protection of intermodal transfer junction, litigability of; LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 371 (1998) 10 CFA 73.37 !
spent fuel transportation, physical protecuon of; LBP 9813,41 NRC 372 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 73.37(bX4) central communications center, liogabihty of challenge to adequacy of; LBP 98-13,47 NRC 373 (1998) 10 CIA 73 45 physical protection of intermodal transfer junction, litigabihty of; LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 371 (1998) protection against terrorism and sabotage, litigabihty of adequacy of security measures fore LBP-98-13,
)
47 NRC 372 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 73.46, 73.50 physical protection of intermodal transfer junction, litigability of; LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 371 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 73.50(bX4) alarm system performance, litigability of, LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 371 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 73.50(gX2) description of response times of local law enforcement personnel in security plan, need fur; LBP-98-13. I 47 NRC 369 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 73.51(d) admissibility of contention challenging number of secunty personnel; LBP 98-13,47 NRC 368 (1998) l 10 C.P.R. 73.51(dx6) description of tempanse times of local law enforcement personnel in security plan, need for; LBP 9813, 47 NRC 369,374 (1998) 10 Cf.R. Part 73, Appendix B, Criterion V.A l
security personnel equipment and training, htigability of adequacy of; LBP 98-13,47 NRC 369 (1998) 10 Cf.R. Part 73, Appendia C local law enforcement assistance in physical protection of ISFSL LBP-98-13,47 NRC 369 (1998) physical protection of intermodal transfer just on, litigability of; LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 371 (1998) protection against terrorism and sabotage, litigabibry of adequacy of security measures for; LBP 98-13, 47 NRC 372 (1998) 10 Cf.R. Part 73. Appendix C, 6 3.d description of response times of local law enforcement personnel in security plan, need for; LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 369,373 74 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 76.62(c) review of Director's Decision; CLI-98-2, 47 NRC 57 (1998) 10 Cf.R. Part 100, Appendix A request for evaluanon of faults other than capable faults; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 191 n.14 (1998) 10 Cf.R. Part 100 Appendia A, I!!!(c) definition of safe shutdown earthquake; DD-98-6, 47 NRC 405 n.2 (1998) 36 Cf.R. Part 800 NRC responsibilities under National Historic Preservation Act; LBP-98-5, 47 NRC 122 (1998) 36 CIA 800.3 (1997) review of effects of licensing action on historic site; LBP-98-5, 47 NRC 121 (1998) 36 Cf.R. R00.3(b) flexibility in implementauon of review of historic properoes; CLI-98-8. 47 NRC 324 n.17 (1998) 36 CIA 800.3(c) phased comphance with National Histone Preservation Act review of a property; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 324 a 17 (1998) -
l I 47 l
l l
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS l
40 C.F.R.146.4 l definition of exempted aquifers; LBP 98-5,47 NRC 127 (1998) 40 C.PA 1502.14 content of discussion on no-action alternative in IT.1S, CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 98 (1998)
)
40 C.FA 1502.14(a) )
consideradon of alternatives to proposed action, scope of; CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 104 (1998) '
40 C.P.R.1502.14(d) consideration of no-action alteranilve in Anal environmental impact statement; CLI 98-3,47 NRC 97 (1998) j 40 C.F.R.1502.23 i nature of cost-benefit balancing required by National Environmental Policy Act; CL198-3, 47 NRC 88 I (1998) l 40 C.FA 1508.8%) !
consideration of secondary benefits in NEPA cost bene 6s balancing; CL1-98-3,47 NRC 99 (1998) ;
43 C.FA Part 7
]
NRC responsibilities under Archeology Resources Protection Act; LEP-98-5,47 NRC 122 (1998) l l
i J
l 48
i
__I l i
i I
, LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l STATUTES l
Atomic Energy Act.182a non6 canon of NRC prior to restart of reactors, requirement for; DD-98-1, 47 NRC 26 27 (1998)
Atomic Etergy Act,189, 42 U.S.C. (2239 er seq.,
prehcensing heanng rights on mutedals bcense applicatiori; LBP-98-5,47 NRC 134 (1998)
- stay of effectiveness of license pending health and safety hearing on apphcauon; CL1-98-8,47 NRC 317 (1998)
Atomic Energy Act.189a(l),42 U.S C, (2239(a) 4 interest requirement for standing to intervene in materials license proceeding; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 268 j (1998) l Clean Air Act, !!!
! air quahty analysis reqturenunts for independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 198 (1998)
Clean Water Act,404 water permits required for independent spent fuel storage instalianon; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 198 (1998) l Emergency Planning and Community Right-to Know Act of 1986,42 U.S.C 641100111050 comphance of apphcant with offsite nott6 cation and coordinauon requirements; LBP-98-10,47 NRC 292 (1998) l j Energy Policy Act of 1992, 42 U S C, 22%b-6 4 national secunty and defense intereau in maintaining domestic source of enriched uraruum; CLI 98-3, 47 ,
l NRC 95 (1998) I a
Energy Policy Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. 2297, 2297a, 2297e (1992) l l promotion of dorrwatic uranium ennchment technologies; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 95 (1998)
Energy Policy Act of 1992,42 U.S C. 2297a(8) '
need for domestic source of uranium enriclunent services; CL1-98-3,47 NRC 95 (1998)
Execuuve Order 12898, "Isderal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Mmority Populauons and l Low Incone Populauons? 3 C.P R. I859 (1995) disparate impact analysis of racial discrimination in facihty siting, CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 100 (1998) environmental jusuce issues in stung of ISFSI, need to address; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 233 (1998)
NRC pohey on standing of Native Americans- LBP-98-9,47 NRC 272 (1998) prelicensing hearing rights of Nat;ve Ancrican tribe on materials license, LBP-98 5, 47 NRC 136 I
(1998) l Executive Order 12898, 4 6-609 l rights and remedies estabushed by; CL1-98-3, 47 NRC 102 (1998); CL1-98 5,47 NRC 115 n.2 (1998)
Nanonal Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S C.14321 at seg. (1994) applicability to manium ennchment facility bcensing; CLI-98 3, 47 NRC 84 (1998) economic interests as basis for standing to intervene in informal proceedings; LBP 98-9,47 NRC 270 i (1998)
! Nanonal Environmental Pohey Act 42 U.S.C. b 4331 l pnncipal goals of; CLI-98-3, 47 NRC (1998)
- Nanonal Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S C. I4332 content of environriental impact statenent; CLI-98 3,47 NRC 87 (1998)
National Environmental Policy Act. 42 U.S.C. (4332(2)(C) proposals requinns preparauon of environmental impact statement; CLI 98-3, 47 NRC 87 (1998) i 49 k
i d
i f l I i
l 4
1
1 l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Nadonal Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C 4332(2XCXiii) consideration of alternadves in 6nal environmental impact statement; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 97 (1998)
National Historic Preservation Act,16 U.S.C (470 (1%6) absence of historis surveys as grounds for temporary stay of Staff licensing action; LBP-98-3,47 NRC 9 (1998)
Nanonal Historic Prs servation Act,106,16 U.S C 6470(f) cause for injuctia relief; CU-98-8. 47 NRC 323 n.14 (1998) lasuance of license poor to compWon of refiew process unde:r; LBP 98-5. 47 NRC 120,123-25 (1998) j stay of effectiveness of license pendg lustoric property review; CU-98-8,47 NRC 317, 323 n.15 l (1998) l Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 J.S.C. 5841,10101 10270 I NRC statutory authority to issue a Part 72 license to a private entity; LDP-98-7,47 NRC 183 (1998) l Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,42 U.S,C ll10131(aX5),10222(aX5Xb) l new arguments ir Anancial quali6 cations contention improperly raised in motion for reconsideradon; l LBP-98-10. 47 NRC 295 (1998) I Nuclear Waste Policy Act,135(h),42 U.S.C 10155(h) l Comnussion authonty to license a private offsite fuel storage facihty; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 240 (1998) l Price-Anderson Act 42 U.S.C 52210 '
new arguments in Anancial quah6 cations contention improputy raised in motion for reconaderation; LBP-9810,47 NRC 295 (1998) l USEC Privatization Act,42 U.S C 2243(fX2XB) (1996 & Supp.1997) '
need for domestic source of uramum enrichment services; CU-98 3,47 NRC 95 (1998)
$ U.S.C. 554 and $37 responsibihty to litigate material issues in licensing proceeding; LBP-98-14,47 NRC 378 (1998) ,
28 U.S.C 5455(a) j dissatisfaction with a judge as basis for disquah6 cation motion; LBP-98-il,47 NRC 30405 (1998) ;
recusal of judge where impartiality might reasonably be quesuoned CU-98-9,47 NRC 331 (1992) l 44 U.S.C i1508 '
Fedemi Register as construcuve notice to all U.S. residents; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 173 (1998); LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 279 (1998)
Utah Code Ann. i19-2-108 air quality analysis requirements for independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP-98-7,47 N1C 198 (1998)
$0 l
l l
ee.
( ~ -- ~ _ - - .~.
I j
l I i 1
i
?
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS 101 Cong. Rec. 58321, S8323 (daily ed. July 20,1989) (statement of Sen. Domenici)
- i nauonal security and defense interests in maintaimng duroestic source of enriched uramum; CL1-98-3,47 NRC 95 (1998) 115 Cong. Rec. 40,416 (1970) (remarks of Sen. Jackson) action-forcing pmcedures mandated by National Environmental Policy Act; CL1-98-3,47 NRC (1998)
H R. Rep. No. 102-474,102d Cong., 2d Sess., pt.1, at 143 (1992)
U.S. policy on protection of donwstic uranium enrichment industry; CLI-98 3, 47 N%C % n.15 (1998) l, 11R. Rep. No. 102-474,102d Cong., 2d Sess., pt.1, at 144 (1992) nced for dornestic source of uranium enrichment services; C1198-3,47 NRC 95 (1998) y U.S. pobey on protection of domestic urantum enrichment industry; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 95 (1998) ~
O Memorandum for the Heuds of All Departments and Agencies, 30 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 279 (hb.14 l 1994) [,,,
purpose of E.O.12898; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 102 (1998) f
, Note, Rethinking the Trust Doctrsne in Federalindian law, 98 Harv. L Rev. 422 (1984) (,
( applicubihty of trust relationship doctrine to prelicensing heanng nghts on materials license; LEP-98-5, =3 8
47 NRC 136 (1998) -t Random huse Dictionary of the Engluh language at 712 (Unabridged ed.1973) ':
defamtion of "immediate'*; CLI-98-8, 47 NRC 321 n.6 (1998) CC S. Rep. No. 101-60,101st Cong.,1st Sess. 8, 20, 43 (1989) -
i need for domestic source of uranium ennchnent services CLI 98 3,47 NRC 95 (1998)
S. Rep. No. 101-470,101st Cong. 2d Sess. 2 (1990) '
need for domestic source of uranium enrichment services; CLI-98 3,47 NRC 95 (1998) J l S. Rep. No. 102 72,102d Coug.,1st Sess. 144-45 (1991) [
national security and defense interests an maintaining domestic source of ennched uranium; CL1-98-3, 47 I NRC 95 (1998) i r
51
5 i.
_l I 4
1 4
i 1 SUllJECT INDEX I
i ACCIDENTS l
- adequacy of independent spent fuel storage installation design to prevent LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142
! (1998)
ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS -
! scope of review; CU-98 8. 47 NRC 314 (1998)
- AFTIDAVITS
} supporung inotion for disquahachnon; CLI-98-9, 47 NRC 326 (1998)
AMENDMENT of Certi6cate of Comp!tance for gaseous diffusion plant; CLI-98-2,47 NRC 57 (1998) s APPELLATE REVIEW j
Corrutussion authority to reject or modify a licensing boar (s factual findings; CU-98 3,47 NRC 77 j 1
< (1998) . l l of presidmg officer's determinations regarding standing; CLl-98-6, 47 NkC 116 (1998) O J l APPLICANTS /
l burden to denenstrate adequate assurance of safety and protecuan of the environment; LBP-9814,47 _
NRC 376 (1998) ,
j weight given to preferences of, in siting and design of project; CU-98 3,47 NRC 77 (1998) -
d i
AREAS OF CONCERN standards for admission; LDP 98-9. 47 NRC 261 (1998) 2 j ATOMIC ENERGY ACT I j prelicensing hearmg rights on materials license; LSP-98-5,47 NRC 119 (1998) j CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE l l
for gaseous diffusion plant, amendnent of; CL198-2,47 NRC 57 (1998)
CHIEP ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE I '
authority of to establish two or urne licensing boards to imar discrete portions of a proceeding; i
LBP-98-8,47 NRC 259 (1998) j CIVIL PENALTIES J reduction of; LBP-98-l,47 NRC 1 (1998) l CONDUCT OF PAR *1ES frivolous, disrupove, and contemptuous, penalty for; LBP-98-4, 47 NRC 17 (1998)
I CONNECTED ACTIONS linkage between independent spent fuel storage installation and national high-level waste program; LBP-95-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
- CONSOUDATION OF PARTIES in Subpart L proceedings; LBP 98-9, 47 NRC 261 (1998)
CONSTRUCTION l of intervention petition in favor of petitioner; LDP-98-7,17 NRC 142 (1998)
COKTEMPT penalty for. LBP-95-4, 47 NRC 17 (1998)
- COTTENTIONS J acceptance where subject to pending rulemaking; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998); LBP-98-13,47 NRC j 360 (1998)
]
l sa l
1 i -
i 1
1 1
I SUBJECT INDEX challenges to materials license application, litigabiMey of; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998); LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 360 (1998) explanation of reasons for ruhng on admissibility of; LBP-98-10,47 NRC 288 (1998) information required in suppo t of; LBP-95-7, 47 NRC 142 0998) materiality of issues raised; LBP-98 7. 47 NRC 142 0998) of other petitioners, incorporation by reference; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) scope of litigable issues in; CL1-98 3,47 NRC 77 (1998); LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) sped 6 city and basis requirements for admissibthty of, LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998); LBP-98-13,47 NRC 360 (1998) supporting information or expert opinion; LBP-98-10, 47 NRC 288 0998); LDP-9813,47 NRC 360 0 998)
COffrENTIONS. LATIwFILED 6ve factor test for admission of; LBP-98 7. 47 NRC 142 (1998) good causr for delay; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) other means and other pernes to protect imervenors' interests; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 142 (1998) sound record development as factor in admission of; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
CORRECTIVE ACTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM NRC order directing slurd-party implementadon of; DD-98-l. 47 NRC 23 (1998)
COST-BENEITT ANALYSIS for ISPSI adequacy of'. LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) formal or mathematical in EIS. requirement for; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 77 (1998) nuslesdmg inforrnanon on economic bene 6ts of a project, effects of; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 77 0998) scope of, for uranium enrichnwnt facihty; CtJ-98-3,47 NRC 77 0998) socioeconomic or secondary benc6ts balanced in FEIS; CL1-98-3,47 NRC 77 0998)
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUAIJrY guidance on consideration of alternatives under NEPA; CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 77 0998) guidance on identifying and assessing racial discrimination in siting; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 77 0998)
DECISIONS explanation of reasons for; ISP-98-10,47 NRC 288 (1998) i DECOMMISSIONING '
adequacy of independent spent fuel storage installation design to permit; LBP 98-7, 47 NRC 142 0998) cost estinates; DD-981,47 NRC 23 0998) post-shutdown stivities report: DD 98-1. 47 NRC 23 (1998)
DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING for independent spent fuel storage installation, adequacy of; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998)
DECOMMISSIONING PIAN for independent spent fuel storage installation, adequacy of; LBP-98-7. 47 NRC 142 0998)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY conAict with duties and prerogatives of; LDP-98-7. 47 NRC 142 0998)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION review of partial denial, CLI-98-2, 47 NitC 57 0998)
DISCOVERY deadline for completion of; LDP-98-2,41 h"tC 3 0998) informal, responsiNiities of parnes; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 0998)
DISCRIMINATION in siting of ISPS!; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
DISQUALIFICATION NRC policy on using procedural techniques to avoid motions for; CLI-98-9,47 NRC 326 0998) of licensing board judge because of employrrmat ageions with licensee's law hrm; LBP 98-II,47 NRC 302 0998) of licensing board judge, threshold for; CLI-98-9,47 NRC 326 0998)
DOSE from land apphcation of wastewater; LBP-98-5,47 NRC 119 (1998)
See also Effective Dose Equivalents 54
1 i
SUBJECT LNDEX I
See also Effective Dose Eqmvalents
{
DOSE LIMITS calculation of; LBP 98-2,47 NRC 3 (1998) l compliance of independent spent fuel storage installation with; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) for restored groundwater; LBP-98-5,47 NRC 119 (1998)
DRY STORAGE CASKS TN-40, safety of unloading process; CD-98-2, 47 NRC 37 (1998) 1 EARTHQUAKES i evaluation basis; CLI98-147 NRC 57 (1998)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS of ISFSL need for consideration of; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENTS calculation of; LBP-98-147 NRC 3 (1998) l EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONES adjustments to size of; DD 98-5,47 NRC 390 (1998) l i
EMFRGENCY PLANS l for independent spent fuel storage installation, adequacy of' LBP 98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998) i traffic capacity analysis in; DD-98 5,47 NRC 390 (1998) i ENFORCEMENT rnedianistic approach as license condition; DD-98-1,47 NRC 23 (1998)
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS l' prepared testirnouy in; LBP-98-147 NRC 3 (1998)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT as part of record of decision; CL148-3,47 NRC 77 (1998) analysis of need for facility in; CL1-98 3,47 NRC 77 (1998) j prmcipal goals of; CLI 95-3,47 NRC 77 (1998) '
See also Final Environmental Irnpact Statement ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS of independent spent fuel storage installation, adequacy of consideration of; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE disparate impacts; CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 77 (1998) l prelicensing hearing rights of Native American tribe on materials license; LISP-98-5,47 NRC 136 l
' (1998); LBP-98-5,47 NRC 119 (1998) racial discrimination in siting; CLI-981,47 NRC 77 (1998) ]
rights and remedies under Executive Order 12898; CLI-98 3,47 NRC 77 (1998) l ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT '
range of alternauves to ISFS! considered in; LBP-98-7. 47 NRC 142 (1998) j EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 1 rights and remedies afforded by, Cll 98-3,47 NRC 77 (1998)
EXTENSION OP TIME NRC Staff request for; LBP-98-4, 47 NRC 17 (1998)
FILINGS unauthorized, treatment of; LBP-981147 NRC 343 (1998) s'.NAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT socioeconomic or secondary benents balanced in; CL1-98 3,47 NRC 77 (1998)
FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS to engage in Part 72 activines; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
FIh0DS collection and evaluation of records relevant to construction of independent spent fuel storage installa-tion: LBP 98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) probable maximum, for independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998)
GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT ametuiment of ceruncate of compliance for; CL1-98-2, 47 NRC 57 (1998) 55 i
i up.
SUBJECT INDEX l
I GROUNDWATER I contamination by lixiviant injected hito aquifers, potential for; LBP-98-5, 47 NRC !!9 (1998); l LBP-98-9,47 NRC 261 (1998) I crempted aquifers; LDP-98-5, 47 NRC 119 (1998) restoration standard, LBP-98-5,47 NRC 119 (1998)
HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION of licensee employees by management; DD 98-4,47 NRC 381 (1998) I HEALTH AND SAFETY protection during extension of nme to install nwdi6 cations to seismic design; CLI-98-2, 47 NRC 57 I (1998)
HEALTH EFFECTS of posalated seismic event; CLI-98-2,47 NRC 57 (1998) l HEARING RIGHTS prelicensing, on materials license application; LBP-98-5,47 NRC 119 (1998)
HELIUM in storage canisters, procedure for venfying the presence of; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
HIGH-PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM design issues; DD-98-1,47 NRC 23 (1998)
HISTORIC SITES review reqmrements pnor to license issuance; LBP-98 5,47 NRC 119 (1998)
INDEPENDENT SPENT MJEL STORAGE INSTALLATION adequacy of assessnwnt of pernuts and entrttements associated with; LBP-93-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) characterization as pernuurne repository; LDP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) technical speci6 cations, natincanon of; DD 98-2, 47 NRC 37 (1998) use before establishing safe unloadmg condations for dry storage containers; DD-98-2, 47 NRC 37 (1998)
INFORMAL HEARINGS interlocutory review of rulings in; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 314 (1998)
See also Subpart L Proceedings INJURY IN FACT for standing to intervene, specinccty required to establish; LDP-98 7,47 NRC 142 (1998) geographic pronirruty and Staff de'ay of issuance of full heense as basis for apprehensions of; 13P-98 9, 47 NRC 261 (1998)
INSPECTION and muintenance of safety components, including cladding and canisters; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
INTERMODAL TRANSFTIR FACl1ITY license needed fur; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
INTERVENORS access to security plans; LBP 98-13,47 NRC 360 (1998) lead, authority of licensing board to designate; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
INTERVENTION as of right, enteria for; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) by a state; LDP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) by Nadve Arrerican tribe; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 142 (1998) by proponents of licensing actions; LBP-98-3,47 NRC 7 (1998) uncontested, determinanon of standing; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998)
INTERVENTION, DISCRETIONARY ability to assist in developing a sound record as standard for; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) applicabihty of late-6hng standar'
INTERVENTION, LATE adequacy of existing representation; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
Sve factor test for; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) other means to protect petiooner's interests: LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) 56 t
~
i
SUBJECT INDEX I?CERVPNTION PETITIONS construction in favor of pedtioner in making standing determinations; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
INTERVENTION PETTTIONS, LATE-PILED 6ve-factor test for aceptance of; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) good cause for; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) 1RREPARABLE INJURY ,
~
to natural historc, and religious resources; LBP-98-3,47 NRC 7 (1998) l weight applied in determining stay modons; LBP-98 5,47 NRC 119 (1998)
JURISDICTION )
where two or more boards have been established to hear discrete portions of a proceeding; LBP-98-8, 47 NRC 259 (1998)
UCENSE CONDITIONS effect on scope of license; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 261 (1998) enforcement-related; DD-98-1,47 NRC 23 (1998) j jusufscation on health and safety grounds; CU-98-1,47 NRC 13 (1998) i UCENSE TERMINATION PLAN I components of; LBP 98-12,47 NRC 343 (1998)
UCENSEE EMP1JDYEES harassment and intimidation by management; DD-98-4, 47 NRC 381 (1998)
LICENSES fa interrnodal transfer facilities, need for; LBP 98 7, 47 NRC 142 (1998)
UCENSING BOARD JUDGES
)
1 disqualihcation because of employment negotiations with licensec's law firm, denial of motion for; LBP-98-il 47 NRC 302 (1998) i participation in settlements; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 261 (1998) '
recusal of; CLI-98-9,47 NRC 326 (1998)
UCENSING BOARDS authority of chief administrative judge to estabhsh two or inore, to hear discrete portions of a proceeding; LBP 98-8, 47 NRC 259 (1998) authority to create separate boards in a proceeding; CU 98-7, 47 NRC 307 (1998)
Commission authority to reject or modify factual Andings of; CU-98-3, 47 NRC 77 (1998) discretion in raanaging proceedings; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 314 (1998); LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 142 (1998) jurisdiction of trst board where two or more boards have beca established to hear discrete portions of a proceeding; IEP-98-8,47 NRC 239 (1998) seaponsibility to explain reasons for decisions or rulings; LBP-98-10, 47 NRC 288 (1998)
LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENTS applicability under 6ve-factor test for lan: intervention; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998)
MAINTENANCE of safety components, including cladding and canisters; LDP-98 7,47 NRC l42 (1998)
MATERIALS UCENSE stay of effective date; CU-98-4,47 NRC 111 (1998)
MATERIA 1.5 UCENSE APPUCATION htigability of challenge to; LBP-98-13,47 NRC 360 (1998)
MATERIALS UCENSE PROCEEDING standing to intervene in: CU-98-6, 47 NRC 116 (1998)
MINING ACTIVTTIES in siru, temporary stay of license to conduct; LBP-98-3,47 NRC 7 (1998)
MINORTTIES disparate hnpacts at imihy siung on; CU-98 3, 47 NRC 77 (1998)
MCTTION FOR RECONSIDERATION raismg matters for first time in, LDP-9810, 47 NRC 288 (1998) related matters raised in: LBP-98-10, 47 NRC 288 (1998)
MCTTIONS rephes to responses to; CL1-98-8,47 NRC 314 (1998) 57 l
r
SUBJECT INDEX NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POUCY ACT consideranon of alternatives, guidance on; CLI-98-3. 47 NRC 77 (1998) license applicant's site screening process: CU-98-3, 47 NRC T7 (1998) needs assessment for independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP-98 7,47 NRC 142 (1998) no-action alternative considered under, CU-98-3,47 NRC 77 (1998) principal goals of environmental impact staternent, CLI-98-3,47 NRC 77 (1998) record of decision; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 77 (1998) secondary benents considered in cost bene 6: balancing; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 77 (1998)
NATIONAL HIGH-LEVEL WASTE PROGRAM linkage between independent spent fuel storage installation and; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT failure of NRC Sta!Y to comply with, as basis for stay request; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 314 (1998) phased review of a property; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 314 (1998)
NATIVE AMERICANS applicability of trust doctrine to prelicensing hearing rights on materials h ense application; LBP-98 5, 47 NRC 119 (1998) tribal standing to intervene; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE consideration under NEPA; CU 98-3,47 NRC 77 (1998) sule of reason applied in consideration cf; CU-98-3, 47 NRC 77 (1998) scope of analysis; CU-98-3, 47 NRC 77 (1998) to ISPSL conside.ation of; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
NOTICE construedve, Federal Regiswr as; LBP 98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998)
NOTIFICA110N of NRC prior to restart of reactors; DD 981,47 NRC 23 (1998)
NRC POUCY on settlement of conrested proceedings; CL1-98-1,47 NRC 13 (1998); LBP 98-1, 47 NRC 1 (1998) on use of procedural techniques to avoid addressirs disquali6 cation motions; CU-98-9,47 NRC 326 (1998)
NRC PROCEEDINGS responsibility to litigate sterial issues in; LDP 98-14, 47 NRC 376 (1998)
NRC REVIEW of 6nal design information prior to installation of modi 6 cations; CU 98-2, 47 NRC 57 (1998)
NRC STAFF licensing actions, lemporary stay of; LDP-98-3, 47 NRC 7 (1998) request for extension of time; LBP-98-4, 47 NRC 17 (1998)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION authority to issue tereputary stay; CLI-98-4, 47 NRC 111 (1998) authonty to limit environmental inquay; CU 98-3,47 NRC 77 (1998) authenty to reject or modify a licensing board's factual 6mdings; CU-98-3, 47 NRC 77 (1998) statutory authonty to issue a license to a private entity; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) supervisory authority to disqualify licensing board judges; CLI-98-9, 47 NRC 326 (1998)
PENALTY for contemptuous conduct LBP-98 4,47 NRC 17 (1998)
See siso Civil Penalties PERMANENT REPOSITORY independent spent fuel storage installation characterized as; LBF 98 7, 47 NRC 142 (1998)
PIPING leaks in Residual Heat Removal tystem; DD 98-3, 47 NRC 71 (1998)
PLEADINGS language of; LBP-98-4,47 NRC 17 (1998)
PRESIDING OfTICER authority to consolidate parties; LDP-98-9,47 NRC 261 (1998) 58
SUBJECT INDEX authority to manage proceedings through scheduling of filings; LDP-98-9,47 NRC 261 (1998) scope of and basis for decision by; LBP-98-14,47 NRC 376 (1998) weight given to deternunations regarding standing; CLI-98 6, 47 NRC 116 (1998)
PUBLIC HEARINGS in vicinity of nuclear power plant, request for; DD-98-1,47 NRC 23 (1998)
PUBl.JC INTEREST standard for approval of settlement agreernents: LBP-98-1,47 NRC 1 (1998) standard for grant of a stay; LDP-98-5, 47 NRC 119 (1998)
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM for independent spent fuel storage matallation, adequacy of; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
RAQAL DISCRIMINA170N in siting; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 77 (1998)
See also Environmental Justice i
RADIATION EXPOSURES from independent spent fuel storage installation, miequacy of control rneasures; LEP-98 7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
RADIATION MONfrORING royairements for independent spent fuel storage instalianon; LDP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
RADIATION SHIELDING at ISFSI, adequa:y of analysis of; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998)
RADIOIDGICAL CONTAMINATION of agricuirural products for human consumption, potential effects of ISFSI on; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) of groundwater by liaiviant injected into geologic aquifer; LBP-98 5, 47 NRC 119 (1998) !
of soil during prior snining acovatics, release during new acovities; LBP-98-5,47 NRC 119 (1998)
RECORD OF DECSION as part of environmental irnpact sta.ement, CLI-98 3,47 NRC 77 (1998) )
RECUSAL of licensing board judge because of employment negotiations with beensee's law 6rm; LBP-9811,47
)
NRC 302 (1998) i of licensing board judge for job discussions with party's law 6rm; CL1-98-9, 47 NRC 326 (1998) l RES JUDICATA timing of dectaions on; QJ-98-5,47 NRC 113 (1998)
RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYS7EM Pi pmg leaks la; DD 98-3, 47 NRC 71 (1998)
RESTART notiucation of NRC prior to; DD-98-1, 47 NRC 23 (1998)
RETENTION POND j potential for overflow and groundwater contamination from; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) l REVERSAL OF RU1JNG j to creale g separate board to consider secunty plan issues; CL1-98 7,47 NRC 307 (1998) 1 REVIEW of Director's Decision partially denying request for amendment of Certificate of Compliance for gaseou. l diffusion riant; QJ-98-2, 47 Nkr' 57 (1998)
See abo Appe!! ate Review REVIEW, INTLRLOCUTORY j
discreuonary, standard for grant of; CLI-98-8, 47 NRC 314 (1998) ,
standard for grant of; CL1-98-7,47 NRC 307 (1998); CLI-98-8,47 NRC 314 (1998) l RULES AND REGULATIONS interpretation of 10 C.F.R. 2.713(a); LBP-98-4,47 NRC 17 (i998) l l inscrpretation of 10 C.F.R. 2.788(f) and 2.1263; LBP-98-3,47 NRC 7 (1998)
I litigability of challenges to; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 142 (1998); LBP-98-13,47 NRC 360 (1998) l RULES OF PRACTICE .
admissibility of coaentions, specificity and basis requirements for; LBP 98 7, 47 NRC 142 (1998) l
$9 ,
1 l
l SUBJECT INDEX 1
areas of concern in Subpart L procee&ngs; LBP 98-9,47 NRC 2610998) i authority of licensing board to designate lead intervenors or parties; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) authority of presiding officer to manage procee&ngs; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 2610998) challenges to license apphcation, litigability of; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998); LBP 9813,47 NRC 1
360 0 998) '
contention acceptance where subject to pending rulemaking; LBP 98-13,47 NRC 360 0998) discretionary intervenoon, standard for grant of, LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) effect of license conditions on scope of license; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 261 (1998) explanation of seasons for rulings on contentions; LBP-98-10,47 NRC 288 0998) 6hngs not authorized by rules of procedure, treatment of; LBP 98-12,47 NRC 343 (1998) 6ve-factor erst for late intervention; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) l
)
geographic proxirruty and Staff delay of issuance of full license as basis for standing to intervene- '
LBP-98-9,47 NRC 2610998) good cause for tate Bling of contentions; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) I good-cause requirement for late intervention petitions; LBP 98 7, 47 NRC 142 (1998) incorporrion by reference of one or more of the contendons of other petitioners; LBP-98-7,47 NRC -
142 (1798) inforrnal discovery, responsibilities of parties; LBP 98 7,47 NRC 142 0998) l interest requirement for intervennon; LDP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) i interlocutory review of licensing board suling to create a separate board; CLI-98 7,47 NRC 307 0998) interlocutory review, standard for grant of; CLI 98-8, 47 NRC 314 (1998) intervenor access to secunty plans; LBP-98-13,47 NRC 360 0998) intervennon as of right, criteria for; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) intervention by a state; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) !
irnervention by Native Amencan tribe; LBP 98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998) judicial concepts of standing apphed in NRC proceedings; LBP-98-7. 47 NRC 142 0998) I late-filed contentions, 6ve-factor test for adnussion of; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) l lais 611ag standards applied to discretionary intervenuon; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) licensing board discrcoun in managing proacdings; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 314 0998) li'igabihty of bases for contentions; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) lingabihty of challenges to Commission rules; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) materiality of issues raised in contenoons; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) member authorization for representauonal stan&ng to intervene; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 261 (1998) participation of licensing board judges in settlements: LBP 98-9,47 NRC 2610998) prepared testimony in enforcerneur proceedings; LBP-98 2. 47 NRC 3 0998) seulement of contested proceedmgs; CLI-98-1,47 NRC 13 0998) I raising matters for 6rst ume in motion for reconsideration; LBP-9810,47 NRC 288 0998) representational standing to intervene, speci6 cation of ruember irdury for; 2P 98-9,47 NRC 2610998) res judicata, tinung of decisions on; CL1-98-5,47 NRC 113 (1998) scope of an adjudicatory proceeding; IllP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) scope of contentions; CU-98-3, 47 NRC 77 (1998) sonad record development as a factor in admission of late'61ed contencos; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 l
0 998) speciacity and basis requirements for adtmssion of contentions; LBP 9813,47 NRC 360 0998) spec 6 city required to establish injury in fact for standing to intervene; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) sumdard for seeking a waiver of a rule or regulation in an adjudication; LBP 98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) standing to inicrvene in materials license procee&ng; CLI-9%6, 47 NRC 116 0998) stan6ng to intervene where imervenoon is uncontested, LBP-98 7,47 NRC 142 (1998) stay of order; CLI-98-4,47 NRC 111 (1998) stay pending appeal; ClJ-98-8, 47 NRC 314 (1998) ]
support for contenucas; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) supparung information for contencons; LBP-9810, 47 NRC 288 (1998) timehness of intervenum, ytitions; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 0998) vacatur; CU-98-5,47 NRC 11: 0098) 60
SUBJECT INDEX zone of interests test for standing to imervene; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
RUUNOS explanation of reasons for; LBP-98-10, 47 NRC 288 (1998)
SCHEDUUNO of 61ings, use by presiding officer to expedite informal procee&ngs; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 261 (1998)
SECURITY PLANS access of intervenor to; LBP-98-13, 47 NRC 360 (1998) l SEISMIC ANALYSIS of steam generator supports at SONGS, request for; DD-98-6,47 NRC 396 (1998)
SE!SMIC DESIGN l cask-pad at ISFSI, LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) of gaseous diffusion plant, request for amendment of Cernficare of Compliance; CLI-98 2, 47 NRC 57 (1998)
SERYlCE OF DOQ1MENTS on intervenors after termination of proceeding; CLI-98-5,47 NRC 113 (1998)
SE7TLEMENT AGRE1MENTS as basis for termination of proceeding; CU 98-1, 47 NRC 13 (1998)
NRC pobey on; CU-98-1,47 NRC 13 (1998); LBP-98-1,47 NRC 1 (1998) public-interest standard for approval of; LBP-98-1,47 NRC 1 (1998)
SETTLEMENTS l
participation of licensing board judges in; LBP 98-9,47 NRC 261 (1998) '
SITE SCREENING applicant's process under NEPA; CU-98-3,47 NRC 77 (1998)
SITE SELECTION for ISFSI, discrinunatory effects of; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
STTE SUITABluTY geotechnical, of independent spent fuel storage int,tallation; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998)
SOIL contaminated. potential for radiological releases durir.g new activines; LBP-98-5,47 NRC 119 (1998)
STANDARDS OP ETHICAL Q)NDUCT applicability to licensing board judges; CU-98-9,47 NRC 326 (1998)
FTANDING TO INTERVENE aspects of intervention as basis for; LBP 98-12, 47 NRC 343 (1998) geographic proximity and Staff delay of issunnce of full license as basis for; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 261 (1998) la materials hcense proceeding, proximity as biais for; CU-98-6, 47 NRC !!6 (1998) injury in fact and zone of inuests tests for; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998) interest required to establish; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) judicial concepts applied in NRC proceedings; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998); LBP-98-9,47 NRC 261 (1998)
Native Anerican tribe; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998) participation of governmental agency; LBP-98-12, 47 NRC 343 (1998) representational, nonaflidsvit authorization by member, LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 261 (1998) representational, specification of member injury for; LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 261 (1998) specificity required to establish irQury in fact; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998) state interest in, LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998) where intervention is uncontested; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
STATES access to security plan; LDP-98-13,47 NRC 360 (1998) intervennon by; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998)
STAY criteria for grant of; LBP-98 5,47 NRC !!9 (1998) of in sita mining activines; LBP 98 3, 47 NRC 7 (1998) pending appeal, deadline for fibng request for; CLI-98-8,47 NRC 314 (1998) 61 l
SUBJECT INDEX public interest considerations in determining motions for; LBP-98-5,47 NRC 119 (1998) replies to responses to motions for; LDP-98-5,47 NRC 119 (1998) temporary, of Staff licensing accon; LBP-98-3,47 NRC 7 (1998) temporary, to preserve status quo; CLI-98-4, 47 NRC 111 (1998)
STEAM GENERATOR SUPPORTS insegnty at SONGS; DD-98-6, 47 NRC 396 (1998)
STORAGE CANISTERS procedure for verifying the presence of hehum in: LBP 98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
SUBPART L PROCEED!NUS applicability of secuan 2.704(c) in; CL1-98-9,47 NRC 326 (1998) I areas of concern, standards for admission: LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 261 (1998)
{
consolidation of parues; LBP-98-9,47 NRC 261 (1998) !
litigability of separate area of concern that is already litigable with respect to adnuued areas of concern; LBP-98-14,47 NRC 376 (1998) scope of and basis for decision by presiding officer; LBP-98-14,47 NRC 376 (1998)
See also Informal Hearings TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS independent spent fuel storage instalianon, modi 6 cation of; DD-98-2,47 NRC 37 (1998)
TERMINA7 ION OF PROCEEDINGS service of documents on intervenors aner; CL1-98-5,47 NRC 113 (1998) settlernent agreement u basis for; CLI-98-1, 47 NRC 13 (1998)
TLSTIMONY prepared, in enforcement proceedings; LBP-98-2,47 NRC 3 (1998) ]
THERMAL DESIGN of independent spent fuel storage insta!! anon, adequacy of; LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 142 (1998)
TRAINING 3
and ceru6 cation of personnel for independent spent fuel storage installation, adequacy of; LBP-98-7, 47 )
NRC 142 (1998)
TRANSPORTATION OP SPENT PUEL radiological impacts of; LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998)
TRT!7UM LUMINOUS OUNSIGifr5 manufacturing standards; LBP-981,47 NRC 1 (1998) ,
TRUST RELATIONSHIP DOCTRINE
{
applicability to prelicensing heanng rights on materials hcense application; 1.BP-98-5. 47 NRC 119 ;
(1998) l URANIUM E.NRICHMENT market pnces; CLI-98-3,47 NRC 77 (1998)
VACATUR of unreviewed rulings; CLI-98-5,47 NRC 113 (1998)
VIOLATIONS progranenauc concerns at Millstone facility; DD-98-I. 47 NRC 23 (1998)
WAIVER OF RUlIS OR REGULATIONS special circumstances for; LBP-98 7. 47 NRC 142 (1998) standard ice seeking; LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998)
WASTEWATER dose from land application of; LBP-98 5, 47 NRC 119 (1998)
WATCH LIST characteristics of plants on; DD-98-1, 47 NRC 23 (1998) 62 l
j j
1 1
I 1
f i
l
)
j FACILITY INDEX i
J CLAIBORNE ENRICHMENT CENTER; Docket No. 70 3070-ML l MATERIALS LICENSE; April 3,1998, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Addressing NEPA . ,
j Contentions); CLI-98 3,47 NRC 77 (1998)
] MATERIALS LICENSE; April 30, 1998 ORDER; CLI-98-5, 47 NRC 113 (1998)
- HADDAM NECK PLANT; Docket No. 50-213 REQUEST FOR ACTION. February ll,1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; DD 98-1,47 NRC 23 (1998)
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Urats 1, 2, and 3; Docket Nos. 54 215, 50-336, 50-423 REQUEST FOR ACTION; February 11, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206, DD 98-1, 47 NRC 23 (1998)
REQUEST FOR ACTION; June 1,1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.12 206; l DD-98-4,47 NRC 381 (1998) #
1 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT; Docket Nos. 50 282, 54306 %
,I REQUEST FOR ACTION; February 11, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R.12.206, DD-98-2,47 NRC 37 (1998) 7 PRAIRIE ISLAND INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; Docket No. 72-10 REQUEST FOR ACTION; February 11, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CSA 12.206; '.
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Units 2 and 3; Doeket Nos. 54 361, 50 362 d
REQUEST FOR ACTION, June 5,1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 42.206; '
DD-98-5, 47 NRC 390 (1998) '
REQUEST FOR ACTION, June 11,1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.12.206; DD 98-6,47 NRC 396 (1998)
SEABROOK STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-443
- REQUEST POR ACTION, March 17, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.12.206, j DD-98-3, 47 NRC 71 (1998)
! %1DTE MESA URANIUM MILL; Docket No. 448681-MLA MATERIAIS LICENSE AMENDMENT; April 30, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-98-6, 47 NRC 116 (1998)
YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION; Docket No. 50 029-LA LICENSE AMENDMENT; June 12. 1998. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Decision on Standing);
LBP.98-12, 47 NRC 343 (1998) ' '
I I
I 1
o 1
1 4
l 1
4 s
a
f l
NUREG-0750 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES SEPTEMBER 1998 Vol. 47, index 2 JANUARY - JUNE 1998 a
c O
) e a e "o X Z v4 W U u E O 4 W 4
1 a c4 a4 e-e Z
O MO w WU COO 4E 4eED 4 0 cC g O 2
MOO g 3 4tE 8NM WO mu2O4Z
- 1 camaSH l%1 m,Z c t> MWD na mO. 3 4
&DOWNA 4
i i
e i
!