ML20196K505
| ML20196K505 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1999 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V48-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V48-I2, NUDOCS 9903310043 | |
| Download: ML20196K505 (81) | |
Text
k EA i
i
=
NUREG-0750 Vol. 48 m
Index 2 g
=-
INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY r
.?
COMMISSION ISSUANCES
.i
(
July - December 1998 L
ps REgy
^
i 4
4
?
O
(
O r
5 R
S ;'@+... +,#
j
=
'f
)
7 E
b L
E 0750 R PDR
fll
. Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office P.O. Box 37082 Washington, DC 20402-9328 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.
Single copies of this publication are available from Natiorial Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 Errors in this publication may be reported to the Office of the Chief Information Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301-415-6844) l
\\
l l
l l
NUREG-0750 Vol. 48 Index 2
)
l INDEXES TO NUCLEAR R EGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES i
July - December 1998 a
1 l
l U.S. NUGLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION l
Prepared by the Office of the Chief Information Officer y"
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 j
(301 -415 - 6844) i
I Foreword Dipsis and indexes forissuanas of the Comadssion (CU), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative law Judges (AU), the Di ectors' Decisiom (DD), and the Decisiars on Petitiom for Rulemaking (DPRM) are presented
~
in this document. These digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the issuances.
Informatic.n elements common to the cases heard and mied upon are:
Case name (owner (s) of facility)
Full text referenw (volume and pagination)
Issuance number Issues raised by appellants Iept citations (cases, regulations, and statutes)
Name of facility, Docket number Subject matter ofissues and/or ruling Type of hearing (operating license, operating license amenament, etc.)
Type of issuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.)
I These information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as fol'ows:
I.
Case Name Index The case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of tie issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type of issuance, docket numter, issuance number, and full text referenx.
2.
IIcaders and Digests The headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows: the Commission (CU), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Parel (LBP), the Administrative I.aw Judges (AIJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
The header identifies the issuanw by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hearing, date of issuance, and type of issuance.
The digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuance covers more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically.
3.
12 gal Citations Index
'Dds index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical nr alpha. numerical l
arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. These citations are listed as given in the issuanas. Changes in regulations and statutes may twwe occuned to cause changes in the numler or name and/or applicability of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance.
The references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are genemlly followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular issuance. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.
iii i
I l
l lL
c 1
4.
SubjectIndex Subject wonis and/or phrases, ananged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects a>vered in the issuances. De subject headings are followed by phrases that give specific infomation about the subject, as discussed in t!e issuances beingindexed.
Rese phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference, e'
5.
FacEty Index His index consists of an alphabetical anangenrnt of facility names fsom the issuance.. The name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date, type of issuance, issuance number, and full text reference.
8 l
l IV
_l I
4 1
e s
CASE NAME INDEX
/
ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
MATERIALS UCENSE RENEWAL; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Consolidation of Proceedings; g
Grant of Interventions); Dacket No. 30-16P55-ML&ML-REN (ASLBP Nos. 99-765-01 ML,95-707, 02-ML-REN) (Denial of Renewal of h'aterials License No. 3419089 01); LDP 98-32, 48 NRC 374 4
(1998)
REQUEST IOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 4 2.206; Docket No. 030 16055 (License No. 3419089-01); DD 98-II,48 NRC 309 (1993)
ATLAS CORPORATION M8TERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Pention of the State of L
Utah Disnussed as Untirnely); Docket No. 40 3453-MLA-2 (ASLBP No. 98-74742-MLA) (Re:
y Tailings Pile Integrity); LBP-98-18, 48 NRC 78 (1998) a BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 2
OPERATING UCENSE itENEWAL; ORDER REFERRING PETITION FOR INTERVFNTION AND
(
REQUEST FOR I' EARING TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL; Docket A
Nos. 54317,54318; CU-98-14,48 NRC 39 (1998) 7 OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50 317-LR,50-318-LR; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998); CU-98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998); CU-98 25, 48 NRC 325 (1998)
/
OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; MEMORANDUM AND ORDPR (Denymg Intervention g
Petition / Hearing Request and Dismissing Proceeding); Docket.Nos. 50 317-LR, 50 318-LR (ASLBP No. 98-749-01-LR); LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 232 ('998)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Distrussing Intervention Pecuan); Docket Nos. 50 295 LA-2, 50-304-LA-2 (ASLBP Nr. 98 750 06-LA); LDP 98-24, 48 NRC 219 (1998)
LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Standing issue); Dxket Nos.
50-295-LA, 54304-( A (ASLBP No. 98-7444)4-LA); LDP-98 27, 48 NRC 271 (1998)
REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12 206; Docket Nos. STN
$0156, STN 50-457, STN 50 454, STN 50 455, 5G237, 50-249, 54373, 54374, 54254. 50 265,
~
50 295,50 304, DD-98 8,48 KRC 112 (1998)
CONAM INSPECrlON, INC.
CIVIL PENALTY; MEMORANDUM AND ORE 7R (Approval of Settle,rnt Agreement and Dismissal g
of Proceeding); Docket No. 30 31373-CivP (ASLBP No. 98-735-01-CivP) (EA 97-207) (License No.
12-16559-01) (Order impoeng Cf A Monetary Denalty); LBP 98-31, 48 NRC 369 (1998)
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.FJt.12.206; Docket No. 50-213-,
DD-98-12, 48 NRC 117 (1998)
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL C2NTER REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R { 2.206; Dock't No. 034 j
14526 (Ucense No. 3740062-07); DD-98-7,48 NMC 97 (1998)
DUKE ENERGY CORPGRATION OPERATida UCENSB RENEWAL; ORDER REFERRING PETITION FOR INTERVENTION AND 3
REQUEST IOR HEARING TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL; Docket 8
Nos. 50 269, 50-270, 50 287; CLI-98-17, 48 NRC 123 (1998)
N
}
S N
p%
' 4 is 1
i
_I I
CASE NAME INDEX OPLRATING UCENSE RENEWAL; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Petition to Intervene);
Docket Nos. 50 269-Ut, 50-270-LR, 50-287-Lk (ASLBP No. 9S 75242-LR); LBP-98-33, 48 NRC 381 0 098)
ENVIROCA*E OP ITTAH, INC.
REQUEST K)R ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNNER 10 CF.R. 5 2.206; Docket No. 40 8989 (Uce se No. SUA 1559); DD-98-9,48 NRC 173 (1998)
FLORIDA POWER & UGHT COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R.12.206; DD-98-10, 48 NRC 245 (1998)
HYDRO RFSOURCES, LNC.
MATERIALS LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 4(L8968-ML; CL1-98-16, 48 NRC 119 (1998); CU-98-22,48 NRC 215 (1998)
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 40 8681-MLA-4; CU-98-23, 48 NRC 259 (1998)
MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDEk (Denial of Request for a Stay Filed by the State of Utab); Docket No. 40 8681 MLA 4 (ASLBP No. 98-748-03-MLA) (Re:
Materal License AmendmenO; LBP-9819, 48 NRC 83 (1998)
MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Grant of Peution for a Hearing); Docket No. 40-8681-MLA 4 (ASLBP No. 98-748-03-MLA); LDP 98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998)
JOHN BOSCHUK, JR.
ENFORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and
[
Distnissing Proceeding); Docket No. IA 98-19 (AFLBP No. 9&-74103-EA); LBP-98-15, 48 NRC 57 l
(1998) l LOURDES T. BOSCHUK l
WORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Seitlenr* Agreernent and Dismissing Proceeding); Docket No. IA 98-20 (ASLBP No. 98-742-04-EA); Lb 1816, 48 NRC 63 (1998) j MAGDY ELAMIR, M.D.
j i
ENFORCEMENT ALTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and J
l Terminathg Proceeding); Docket No. IA 97-070 (ASIEP No. 98 734-01-EA) (Order Superseding j
Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Ucensed Activities (Effective Inunediately)); LBP 98-25, 48 i
NRC 226 (1998)
NORT'1 ATLANTIC ENERGY SERY1CE CORPORATION OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER; Docket No. 506443-LA; CLI-98-18, 48 NRC 129 l
0908) l OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-443 LA, l
5(b443-LA-2, CU-98-24, 48 NRC 267 (1998) l OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMEN!'; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Petitions to l
Intervene); Docket No. 50 443-LA (ASLBP No.98-74M)5-IA); UIP-98-23,48 NRC 157 (1998) l NOlrTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY j
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50 423 LA-2; CU 98-20, 48 NRC 183 (1998)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Standmg issue);
Docket No. 50 423 LA (ASLBP No. 98 740 02-LA); LBP 98-20, 48 NRC 87 0998)
DPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Standing Issue);
Docket No. 50423-LA 2 (ASLBP No. 98-743-03-LA); LBP-98 22, 48 NRC 149 (1998)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Contentions);
Docket No. 50 423-LA (ASLBF No. 93-740-02-LA); LDP-98-28, 48 NRC 279 (1998)
PRIVATE PUEL STORAGE, LLC.
INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 72-22-ISFSL CU-9813, 48 NRC 26 (1998) 2
m
)
CASE NAME INDEX INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGF INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Motion for Reconsideration); Dncket No. 72-22-ISFSI (ASLBP No. 97 732 02-ISFSI); LBP-98-17,48 NRC 69 (1998)
INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE NSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Late Filed Contentions Regarding August 1998 Low, Utah Rail Spa License Application Amendment); Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI (ASLBP No.97-732 02-ISFSn, LBP-98-29, 48 NRC 286 (1998)
QUIVIRA MINING COMPANY Md "?. RIALS LICENSE AMENDME!G, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 40 8905-MLA;
.f.-98-11, 48 NRC 1 (1998)
AANDALL L HERRING SPECIAL PROCEEDING; INITIAL DECISION (Application for Senior Reactor Operator License);
Docket No. 55-22234-SP (ASLDP No. 98-745-01-SP); LBP 98-30, 48 NRC 355 (1998)
STATEMENT OF POLICY ON CONDUCT OF ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDINGS POLICY STATEMENT; CU-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION REQUEST IOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; Docket No. 50 271 (License No. DPR 28); DD-98-13, 48 NRC 395 (1998)
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50029-LA; CL1-98-21, 48 NRC 185 (1998) l l
i l
I 1
I i
1 I
l i
1 i
I L_
j
1
__l I
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS510N CLI98.ll QUIVIRA MINING COMPANY (Ambrosia Lake Facility, Grants, New Mexico), Docket No. 40-8905-MIA; MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 17,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Conunission reviews an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decision that denied a request for hearing and leave to intervene to challenge a materials license amendmenL The Commission affirms the Board's findirig that the Petinoner lacks standing ta intervene. The Peutioner's economic interests, which were unrelated to any radiological harm, did not fall within the zone ofinterests of the Atomic Energy Act.
the Commission found.
B To demonstrate standing in Commission licensing proceedings under AEA i 189a, a petitioner must aller
.'arized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a fa
. / cision.
C ancreased competition represents a cognizable Article IIIinjury.
D Under our case law, to establish standing to intervene, a petiooner must not only demonstrate injury in fact, but also nmst show that the asserted injury is arguably within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statute at issue.
E NEPA's purpose is to protect the environrnent, not the economic interests of those adversely affected by agency decisions. A petitioner who suffers only economic injury has no standing to bring a challenge under NEPA.
F The fact that economic interest or motivation is involved will not preclude standing, but the petitioner must also be threatened by environmental harm.
G Merely because one is iny red by a particular agency action does not necessarily mean one is within the zone of interests protected by the applicable statute. The zone ofinterests test would prove mea +ingless if it encompassed any party affected by an agency's decision.
H The p.utioner must establish that the injury he complains of (his aggnevernent, or the adverse effect upon hin ) falls within the None of interests" sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violauon forms ae legal basis for his complaint The two-pronged test set forth by the Suprerne Court thus asks; (1) wl.at are the interests " arguably.. to be protected" by the relevant statutory pmvisions; and (7) are the petitioner's interests that are affected by the challenged agency action among them? Narsonal Credit Union Admmistration v. First NationalBank & Trust Co., II8 S. Ct. 9;% 935 (l998).
I
'Ihe Ar.ntuc Energy Act contains no provision intended to limit compeanon, either as an end in itself or as a meat? to another statutory purpose. Unlike the statutes under wisch the courts have found compeutors within a statutory None of interests," the AEA includes no express provision effecovely cordoning off a portion of the market from compeution. The AEA concentrates on the licensing and regulation of nuclear materials for the purpose of protecung public health and safety and the common defense and secunty. These provisions by therrnives do not necessarily turn all compentor licensees into suitable challengers of agency action.
J Pernutting routine adjudicatory challenges to agency decisions solely because one company sues to complain of a competitive advantage would be more likely to frustrate than to further statutory objectives.
K Section 84 of the AEA,42 U.S.C. 5 20!4, was intended by Congress merely to ensure that licennees did not have to bear unnecessary costs. Section 84 has nothing to do with compentors' interests.
CLI-98-12 STATEMENT OF POUCY ON CONDUCT OF ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDINGS; POLICY STATEMENT; July 28,1998 CLI-9813 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installanon), Docket No. 72-22-!SFSl; INDEPENDENT SPE!G FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; July 29,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 5
I 1
i
_J l
l 4
6
\\
l 1
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
A The Comnuuion considers two appeals of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decision. LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142 (1998), wluch made various rulings on intervention. De Comnussion affums the Board's grant of imervendon to the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation. De Commission also afbrms the Board's decision to deny the intervention request of the Scientists for Secure Waste Storage.
B The Commission nmst grant intervention to any person whose " interest may be affected by the pmceeding." Atomic Energy Act 6189a,42 U.S.C. I 2239(a). Tc deternune whether a peanoner's interest provides a sufficient basis for intervenuon, the Commission has long looked fur guidance to current judicial concepts of standing.
C Where an organision asserts a right to represent the interests of ruembers, judicial concepts of standing require a showing that: (1)its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests that the organization seeks to protect are germane to its purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires an individual number to participate in the orgamzation's lawsuit.
See Hunt v. Washington Stare Apple Adverrisms Commission. 432 U.S. 333 (1977). Langstanding agency practice also requires an organization to demonstrate that at least one of its rncmbers has authorized it to represent the member's interests.
D An organization must allege that one of its mernbers will suffer a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and likely to be redresse( by a favorable decision.
E De Commission historically has accorded substantial deference to board determinations for or agamst standing, except when the board has c;early misapplied the facts or law.
F
%e interest that the organization seeks to represent in a proceeding must be germane to the organization's overall purposes. The " germaneness" test tequires that an "r ganization's litigation goals be perunent to its special expertise and the grounds that bring its mernbersh.p together." The purpose of the test is to ensure "a modicum of concrete adverseness by reconciling m enbershy concerns and litiganon topics by prevenung associauons from being rnerely law firms with starding." (Cauons onutted.)
G The Comrnission considers appeals of licensing board r@:;s on discretionary intervention under s
an " abuse of discretion" standard.
H Generalized expertise, even scientiAc eminence, is an insuf6cient subsatute for particularized knowledge of the issues actually in dispute.
I Whether there was "disenminauan in the si e selection process"is not a cognizable claim in our t
adjudicatory proceedings. President Cthron's esecutive order on environmental justice, Exec. Order No.
12.898,3 C.F.R. 859 (1995), espressh stated that it creates no new legal rights or remedies; a cordingly, it imposed no legal reqmrements upon the Commission. Its purpose was merely to undersco<e cenain provisions of existmg law. The only "etisting law" applicable to the environnentaljustice issues in this proceeding is the National Environmeme Policy Act (NEPA).
J Disparate impact analysis is the Commission's principal tool for advancmg environstental justice j
under NEPA. Quesuona of motivation and social equity lie outside of NEPA's purview. The NRC's goal j
with respect to analysing disparate impacts is to identify anJ adequately weigh, or mitigate, effects of the proposed action on low-incorne and minanty communities.
K Part 50 financial quahfications provisions are not applicable in roto to Part 72 ISFS1 applicants, but should nerely be u "d as guiduce. Finardal quah6cabons standards established for reactor licensing io not necessarily apph outside the reactor context, Our nnancial quah6 canons standards and other licensing regulations do not require the board to undertake a full-blown inquiry imo an applicant's likely business success. To the maximum extent possible, both the NRC Staff and the licensing board should avoid second-guessing private business judgments.
CLi-98-14 BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). Docket Nos. 50-317, 50 318; OPERAT!NO UCENSE RENEWAL; August 19,1998; ORDER REFERRING PETTTION FOR INTERVENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING TO ATOMIC SArETY AND LICENSING BOARD PAMEL A
The Comnussion refers to the Atomic Safety and ucensing Board Panel, for assignnent of a Ucensing Boani to rule on, a petition to intervene and a request for hearing filed in the mater of the Licensee's applicanon for renewal ofits operating licenses for Calvert Cliffs Ututs 1 and 2. The Commission provides the Ucenmag Board with guidance for the conduct of the proceeding if a heanng is gramed, and a suggested schedule for any such proceWing.
6 m
._ l I
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION B
The scope of a proceeding on an operating license renewal application is limited to a review of the plant structures and co nponents that will require an aging managenrat review for the period of extended operation and the plant's systems, structures, and components that are subject to an evaluation of time-hmited aging analyses. See 10 C.F.R. fl.%21(a) and (c), and 54.4.
C Review of environmental issues in a heensing renewal proceeding is limited in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Il 91.7t(d) and $1.95(c).
CU 9815 BALTIMORE OAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 317-LR, 50 318-LR; OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; August 26, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Comtnission recognizes that license renewal applications require a major conunitment of resources and effort by the renewal applicant, the NRC Staff, the Commission itself, and any party opposed to renewal. The Conunission intends this license renewel proceeding to be nunaged in a way that prevents unnecessary delays and digressions and at the same time ensures a fair and rneaningful process.
B The Commission has inherent supervisory authority to oversee the agency's own adnunistrative adjudications, an authority that perforce includes instructions and guidance to its licensing boards.
C Uke other kinds of Commission guidance, our case-specific scheduling guidance is nonbinding by nature.
D
'the Commission exercises its inherent supervisory authority both by issuing generic policy statements on the conduct of licensmg proceedings and by issuing orders to the Board offering guidance that is specific to particular Lases.
E While we rnay deal with matters before us in adjudicatory hearings only on the basis of the reud that has been compiled, the NRC is not a court constrained to the " passive virtues of judicial acuon. We have regulatory responsibility, which includes the avoidance of unnecessary delay or excessive inquiry in f
our licensing proceedings. Ultimately the membea of the Commission a 4 iesponsible for the actions and policy of this agency, and for that reason we have inherent authority to review and act upon any adjudicatory matter before a Comrnission tribunal-subject only to the constraints of action on the record and reasoned explannuon of the conclusions. Panic Service Co, rf New Hampskre (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2),
CU 77-8,5 NRC 503,516-17 (1977).
F Pursuant to its inherent supervisory authority, the Commission over the years repeatedly has issued orders expediting Board proceedings and suggesung time frames and schedules. See, e.g.. Lomsiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-97 3,45 NRC 49,50 (1997); Yankee Aromic Electric Co.
(Yunkee Nuclear Power Station), CU-961,43 NRC 1,9-11 (1996); Srare ofNew Jersey (Department of Law and Public Safety's Requests Dated October 8,1993), CU 93-25,38 NRC 289,291 (1993); Long fstand Ugking Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CU-88-9,28 NRC 567,569-71 (1988). Although the Commission expects such guidance to be followed to the maximum extent feasible, the Licensing Board may deviate from the proposed schedule when circumstances require.
O Comnussion orders expediting cases do not reflect inflexible or arbitrary action, but rather the Commisamn's best judgment on how to speed up the adjudicatory process without prejudicing anyone's rights to participate rneaningfully. Although the Board should narrow the issues requiring discovery and limit the rounds of discovery, it should nevertheless ensure that these actions were consistent with fairness to all parties and that we do not expect the Ucensing Board to sacrince fairness and sound decisionmaking to expedite any bearing granted under this application.
H When the Comnussion hnuta extensions of time to situations involving unavoidable and extrene circumstances we simply give content to our rule's general " good cause" standard.
I The Comnussion has traditionally exercised plenary supervisory authunty over its adjudications and adjudicatory boards. This authority allows it to interpret and customize its process for individual cases.
See, e.g., Safety hght Corp. (Bloomsburg Site Decontaminanon and License Renewal Denials), CU-9213, 36 NRC 79,91 (1992) (Commission exercises its authority to modify applicable procedural rules). Indeed.
10 C.F.R. 6 2.711 explicidy provides t' sat the Commission may extend or shorten the time for action set forth in the rules and may set time limits where the rules do not prescribe a lirrut.
J The Commission, as the agency's ultirnete adjudicator, also has full authority to define the scope of its proceedings. Geo Tech Asrociares (Geo Tech Lahoratories), CU-92-14, 36 NRC 221, 222 (1992).
Cf Ohio Ediron Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Utut 1), CU-91 15,34 NRC 269. 271 (1991).
7
r
_l I
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION K
To the estent that Petitioner is attempting to attack the regulations directly, it is precluded from doing so under 10 CfA i2.758.
L Although Petitioner is enutled to Ble any conteraion that it believes is germane to the requested hcensing action, it is not entitled to have each of those contenuons admitted for liugation.
M The exiest of the Board's authority to raise contentions sua sponte is a matier within the Commission's supervisory authority, and depends large y on an appropnate division of authority between the Board and the agency's regulatory Staff - a question of resources and expertise peculiarly within the Comnussion's province to decide.
N Although ws expect the Board to adhere to our scheduling guidance to the maximum extent possible, we recognize that peticular circumstances may justify deviations from our guidance, and we therefore have refrained from mandating a schedule.
CL198-16 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 40-8968-ML; MATERIALS UCENSE; September 15,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission exercises its inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of adjudicatory proceedings to revene the Presiding Officer's ruling in LBP-98-9,47 NRC 281 (1998), to admit an area of concern ou the Navajo nauon's permitting, B
Whether non4RC permits are required is the responsibility of bodies that isse such permits, such as the Feoeral Environnental Protection Agency, the Navajo nation, or state and local aumorities. To fmd otherwise would result la dupbcate regulation.
C Pursuant to 10 Cf.R. I 20.2007, an applicant may not rely on its licenu from the NRC as a waiver of its obligation to obtain permits required by other agencies. However, section 20.2007 is " advisory and is not intended to imply that the NRC wiD take enforcement action for violations of other environmental protection regulations issued under statutes other than the Atomic Energy Act." Standards for Protection Against Radiation: Final Rule,56 Fed. Reg. 23,360,23,382 (May 21,1991).
CU-98-17 DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units I,2, and 3), Docket Nos. 50-269,50-270,30'287; OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; September 15,1998 (re-served September 16, 1998); ORDER REFERRING PI:TrrlON FOR INTERVENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL A-The Commission refers to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel, for assignment of a Licensing Board to rule on, a petition to intervene and a request for hearing filed in the matter of the Ucensee's application for renewal of its operating licenses for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1,2, and 3.
The Commission provides the Ucensing Board with guidance for the conduct of cle proceedmg if a hearing is granted, and a suggested schedule for any such proceeding.
B The scope of a prc,ceeding on an operating license renewal is linuted to a review of the plant structures and componenu that will require an aging management review for the petiod of extended operation and the plant's systems, structures, and components that are subject to an evaluation of time-limited aging analyses. See 10 Cf.R. Il5411(a) and (c),54.4.
C Review of environmental issues in a licensing renewal proceedmg is linuted in accordance with 10 C11 Il 5 L71(d) and 51.95(c).
CU-9818 40RTH ATLANTIC ENFRGY SERVICE CORPORATION (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) Docket Nc. 50 4s *-LA; OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; Septen,ber 17,1998, ORDER A
The Commission exercises its inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of proceedings to take sua sponte review of the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order, LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 157 (1998),in this proceeding on an application by North Atlanuc Energy Service Corporanon to amend its operaung license for the Seabrook Station, Unit I nuclear reactor. The Board granted intervention to the Seacoast Anti-Pollution bag n (SAPL), denied intervenbon to the New England Coahtion on Nuclear Pollution, and addressed SAPL's argument against " segmentation," i.e., that license applicants should not be permitted to effectuate a major operational change requiring teveral license amendments through separate amendarnt requests rather than through a single request.
CU-98-19 BALTIMORE GAS & EIJCTRIC COMPANY (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 317.LR,50 318-LR; OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; September 17, 1998, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Congrussion grants the National Whistleblower Center's petition for discretionary interlocutory review and gives Peutioner additional tirne, until September 30,1998, to Sie contenuons in this proceedmg.
8 i
I
I l;
i
_J l
o DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR RECI'LATORY COMMISSION B
The Commission does not ordinarily review interlocutory Board orders denying extensions of time.
C The Commission may review interlocutory orders pursuant to its general supervisory jurisdiction over agency adjudications.
D To be admissible, contenti ns must sudsfy the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R.12.714.
E
& IJcensing Board possesses considerable authority to modify the general deadlines set out in the Commivion's rules, and the Commission expects it to continue to exercise that authonty when appropriate.
CLI-98-20 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Minstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3),
Docket No. 50-423-LA-2; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 23,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Comnussion affirms the Board's conclusions that the Petitioner 1.icks standing because it failed to demonstrara that the requested amendrnent either has " obvious potential for offsite consequences" or would otherwise pose a plausible risk of " injury in fact" to itself or its representauve member.
CLI-98 21 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-029-LA; LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 23,1998; MEMORANDL%I AND ORDER A
On June 12 1998, the I.lcensing Board issued LBP-98-12,47 NRC 343, rejecting three petitions to intervene and terminaung this proceeding - on the ground that Petitioners had failed to esta19.ish standing.
All three Petitioners appealed LDP-98-12 to the Commission. The Commiscon affirms d e Boarfs rejection of one petition to intervene and, in the alternative, dismisses the same Petitioner's appeal on procedural grounds. The Commission reverses the Board's rejection of the remaming two intervention petitions. Finauy, the Commission curtails the scope of this proceeding and offers guidance to the Board.
B The Commission's organizational and representational standing criteria are ultimately grounded on section 180a of the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA"),42 U.S.C. 8 2239(a), which requires the Commission to provide a hearing upon the request of any person "whose interest snay be affected by the proceeding?
C
'Ihe Commission's procedural regulations provide that, to establish standing as of right, an intervention petition mu.t set forth with particularity "the reasons why petitioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to.
the specific aspect er aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which peutioner wishes to intervene" and also "the interest of the petitioner in the pmceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why the pentioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the factors in paragraph (dXI) of this section." 10 C.F.R. 52.714(aX2). The ttferenced provisions of subsection (dXI)in turn provide that the Board shall consider the following three factors when deciding whether to grant standing to a petiuoner (i) the nature of the pectioner's right under the [AEA] to be made a party to the proceeding; (ii) the nature and extent of the petitivner's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; and (iii) the possible effect of any order that may be emered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.10 C.F.R.
12.714(dXIXI)-(iii).
D An organization may satisfy the standing criteria set forth in sections 2.714(aX2) and (d)(1) in either of two different ways - based either upeu the licensing action's effect upon the interest of the petitioning organization itself (i.e., organizational standing) or upon the interest of at least one of its members who has authorized the organization to represent lum or her (i.e., representanonal standing). See, e.g.. Georgia l
infriture of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor. Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12,42 NRC 111,115 (1995).
E When determining whether a petitioner has established the necessary " interest" under subsection j
(dXI), the Comnussion has long looked for guidance to judicial concepts of standing. See, e.g., Quivira j
Mining Co. (Ambrosia Lake Pacility, Grants. New Mexico), CL1-98-11. 48 NRC 1,5 6 (1998); Georgia Tech, CLI-9512, 42 NRC at 115. The federal junnprudence provides that, to quahfy for standing, a petitioner must (1) allege a concrete and particularized injury that is (2) fairly traceable to the challenged action and (3) hkely to be redressed by a favorable decision. See, e s., Sreef Co. v. Citizens for a Serier Environment,118 S. Ct.1003,101f,(1998); Kelley v. Selin. 42 F.3d 1501,1508 (6th Cir.1995). '!hese l
three criteria are commonly referred to, respectively, as " injury in fact," causality, and redressability. The injury may be either actual or threatened. See, e s., Wildemess Society v. Griles, 824 F.2d 4,1I (D.C. Cir.
1987). In addition, the Commission has required potential intervenors to show that their " injury in fact" bes l
arguably widiin the " zone of interests" protected by the statutes governing the proceeding - here, either the AEA or the Nanonal Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). See Ambrosia lake Facility, supra,48 NRC at 6.
9 i
L
p:
t l
i l'
i-
_I I
l I
L
- DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONIMISSION I
F Regarding governrnemal participation,10 C FA 12.715(c) provides that presiding of6cers wdl offer states, coumics, municipalides and/or agencies thereof a reasonable opportunity to participare in a proceeding. However, section 2.715(c) does not emitte those governmental bodies to full pany stams.
O A licensing board's deternunations regarding standing are entitled to substantial deference and the Commission will generally uphold them absent un error of law or an abuse of discretion. International i
Uranium (USA) Corp. (Wlute Mesa Uranium Mill), CL1-98-6,47 NRC 116, i18 (1998). '
{
'H
. Spent fuel management is off-limits in a license terminadon plan proceeding. which is con 6ned i
to a review of the matters speci6ed in 10 CER. 5 50.82(aK9) and (10). The requirement in 10 CIR.
I 172.218(b)(that an application for aerminadon of a Part 50 license include a description of how spent fuel stored under the general license will be removed from the reactor sile)is unrelated to the requirement in section 50.82(aX9) for submission of a license terrrunation plan (LTP). Section 72.218(b) tequires the licensee, at the time is 61es its licerese terminution request, to submit a description of how spent fuel will
[
be removed. By contrast, section 50.82(aX9) specifically provides that the LTP may be 61ed in advance of the submission of the license termination request. The scope of this proceeding is likewise not determined by the Commission's regulation requiring the submission of a plan for management and removal of the spent fuel (10 CER.150.54(bb))
for that regulation nowhere mentions the LTP, Rather, the scope of the LTP application is de6ned solely by the terms of 10 CIR.150.82(aX10), as read in light of the filing requirements of 10 C.F.R.150.82(aX9XiiXA)<0). Importantly, sections 50.82(aX9) and (10) do not refer to spent fuel managenwnt. This omission in the Commission's decommissioning rule was intentional. See Final Decommissioning itule,61 Fed. Reg. at 39,292.-
I Where a governmental entity has neither 61ed a tinwly appeal of LBP-98-12 nor offered any explanation of the appears untimeliness, this procedural default alone suf6ces to justify rejection of the untimely appeal in !!s entirety.
J
_ The Commission does not expect pro se litigants alwsys to meet the same high standards to which j
l-the Commission holds entities represented by lawyers. However, a pro se litigant is nevertheless espected to comply with the Comrmssion's basic procedural rules - especially ones as simple to understand as those I
estabbshing tiling deadlines. See Marropoliron Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1),
ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193,1247 (1984) (citing Statement of Policy on Conduct oflicensing Proceedings, CL1-81-8,13 NRC 452,454 (1981)),rev'd la port on other grounds, CLI-85-2,21 NRC 282 (1985).
K While missing a deadline for appeal is not necessarily a jurisdictional bar to further acdon on an appeal, the Commission has historically excused a failure to meet appeal deadlines only in " extraordinary and unanticipated circumstances." Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB-684,16 NRC 162.165 n.3 (1982). Its general policy has been to enforce them strictly. Id. See also Florida Power ondlight Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CL1-91-5,33 NRC 238,240-41 (1991).
L Not all organizations with governmental ties are entitled to paracipate in Commission proceedings I
as governmental " agencies? The federal, state and local governments are all replete with numerous boards, commissions, advisory comnuttees, and other organizations - all of wluch have governmental or quasi-governmental responsibihties. The Commission does not, however, undentand section 2.715(c) to authorize automatic participation in its adjudications by each and every suby 4 state and local government. The l
Commission concludes that advisory bodies, by their very nar ro far removed from having the representative authority to speak and act for the public that they a.
J'ify as governmental entities for purposes of section 2.715(c). However, such an entity may still comre sa views to the board by a variety of other means (e s.,6hng bnefs omicus curian or providing witnesses ior other parties). See Privare fuel Storage. LLS. (Independent Spent Ibel Storage installadon), CLI 98-13,4b NRC 26,35 (1998).
M 1he scope of a license terminadon plan is coextensive with the scope of the plan itself.
N in 1996, when the Cernmission pronailgated the current version of its decommissioning rule, the l
Commission considered the license termination plan (LTP) a signi6 cant enough event that the Commission j
required tba LTP to be treated as a license amendment, complete with a hearing opportunity. See Rnal l
Decommissioning Rule. 61 Fed. Reg. at 39,284, 39,286, 39.289. Acceptance of the view that the LTP is a
- kind of bortatory document, without important effects, would defeat the carefully crafted process that the Commission established just two years ago.
O The minimal current effects of a license termination plan (LTP) do not render a hearing on the LTP super 8uous. The LTP has at least one importantfuture consequence which must be lidgated now or 10 E
_J l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OP TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONIN11MION never. De NRC's appmval of the LTP would entitle the Licensee to proceed with its Anal decommissioning acuvities secure in the knowledge that, absent extraordinary circumstances, the NRC would not later (at the license termination stage) second. guess its site survey methodology. Indeed, the regulation governing license ternunation - 10 C.F.R.150 82(aXI1)- does not provide for consideranon of this methodology's adequacy at the termination stage. Thus, the LTP approvul's effects would, in a sense, lie dormant enut the Licensee sought to ternunate its license. At that future time, however, the LTP's effects would become critically important because the LTP's prior approval would greatly restrict the scope of this agency's review of the request to terminate the license and would Nwise precimle Peutioners from challenging any part of the survey methodology. The LTP stage,in other words, is Petitioners' one and only chance to litigate whether the survey methodology is adequate to demonstrate that the site has been brought to a condi%t suitable for license termination. They are precluded from doing so at the license terminadon stage. In short, the tirne to obuun a hearing on license termination decismas comes at the LTP stage, as the Commissiorls rules unambiguously provide.
P Allegations of injury such as the clairn that ineffectual cleanup of the reactor site under the license terminanon plan (LTP) may result in adverse heahh effects, loss of aesthe.ic enjoyment, and dinunished property values for those who live, work, or play in the immediate vicinity are sufficient for standing.
Numerous judicial decisions reengnize allegations closely simii,tr 'a 'hese as sufficient " injury in fact" for standing in environmental cases. See, e.g., Dubois v. USDA.102 F.3d 1273,1282 (1st Cir.1996); Sierra
(
Club v. Cedar Point Od Co., 73 P.3d $46, 555-57 (5th Cir.1996); Kelley v. Selm, 42 F3d 1501,1509 1
(6th Cir.1995). See generally Animallegal Defense rund v. Glidman,154 F.3d 426 (D.C. Chr.1998)
(en banc)(collecting cases). The Commission also has regularly admitted into its proceedings petitioners who show a close conneccon to the site, either as neighbors or regular visitors, and a realistic possibility that the NRC licensing action could injure them. See, e g, Priwne fuel Storage, CLI-98-13,48 NRC at 3132. Indeed, in its two most recent decomnussioning decisions, one involving Yankee Rowe iaelf, the Commission concluded that nearby citizens could challenge the efficacy of the facility's decommissioning activities. See Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-96 7,43 NRC 235,247 48 (1996), Sequoyah fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma, Site), CLL94-12,40 NRC 64,71-75 (1994).
Q An ill-considered license termination plan - for example, one with inadequate provisions for radiation monitoring - plausibly could result in injury to people who live near a decommissioned facility and reasonably nught be expected to come into contact with the site.
R N purpose of the license termination plan (LTP) process is to ensure that the property will be left in such a condition that nearby residents can frequent the area without endangering their health and safety.
To insist that potential intervenors show more - that they demonstrate with certainry that they will be allowed onto the site once the license is terminated - would go beyond what is necessary to show injury.
.in. fact in license termination cases. In the context of an LTP that proposes unrestricted release, requests for hearings would founder on the requirement to show a future legal enutlement to enter the property, a showing no one realistically can be expected to make at the LTP stage. N Conumssion cannot accept that result, as it would undercut its deliberate decision in 1996 to provide for an opportunity for a hearing on approval of LTPs.
S Even in the absence of a showing of injury away from the reactor site, it is enough for standing in license termananon plan (LTP) proceedings to allege that an improvident approval of an insufficient LTP today could result in future real impacts to people traversing the current onsite land. After license termination (whether with resuicted release or, as in this proceeding, unrestricted release), that land presumpavely will be sufficiently accessible to the public to a!Iow a colorable claim of a realistic threat of injury sufficient to establish standing.
T A claim that I.icensee's proposed surface contanunation putterns allow grossly contaminated patches and hotspots to be overlooked is relevant to the adequacy of both the site rernediacon plan and the final radiation survey (10 C.P.R. I 50.82(a)(9XiiXC), (D)). A claim that the license ternunanon plan (LTP) failed to address sigmficant environmental information such as the changes in site characterisocs, including paving and compacuon of soil, which are likely to affect the flow of conuuninated groundwater is relevant to the presence of "new information or significant environmental change associated with the heensee's proposed terminauon activities" (10 C.P.R.150.82(aX9XiiXG)). Consequendy, these two grounds for concern fall within the scope of an LTP proceeding.
l 11 l
l r
j l
l
J l
l DIGFSTS ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U
The Commission does not require a petitioner to demonstrate the " certainty" of his position's correctness at the " standing" stage of a proceeding. Sequowth Tacts Corp., CLI-94-12,40 NRC at 74.
V If the license termination plan (LTP) were approved despite a failure to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 50.82(aX9):ii), then the subsequent implementauon of the LTP and termination of the possession-only license could result in the inappropriate release of a site that still poses a threat to pubhc health and safery. For this reason, the threatened injuries are " fairly traceable" to the licensing action at issue in this LTP proceeding.
W in a license termination plan (LTP) approval proceSdmg, a decision in petitioner's favor would result in a denial of the licensee's request for Commission approval of the LTP or a Commission-mandated change to the LTP, For dus reason, the asserted injury is susceptible of redress.
X No regulation or Commission decision requires submission of expert a**idavits in order to demonstrate standing. Ordy when techmcal fact disputes arise at the standmg stage are such affidavits necessary. See Sequoyuh fuels Corp., CU-94-12,40 NRC at 7175.
Y When determining total effective dose equivalents, it la inappropriate to use worst case-s:enario assumptions.
Z A licensee of an atomic power reactor is enutled to a general license to operate an independent spect fuel storage installation OSFSD as lonit as it retains its Part 50 license and as long as it stcses spent fuel in a cask approved by rulemaking for listing in 10 C.F.R.172.214. However, once the Commission termionies the licensee's Part 50 license, the licensee's authority under the general license (should it employ one) would automatically and simultaneously end, because the general ISFS! license draws its eVatence solely from the Part 50 license. Thus, if the licensee wishes to operate an ISFS! to hold the spent fuel for the period of time following the ternunation ( f the Part 50 license, it mustjfrst obtain a site-spect6c ISFSI license under section 72.40 of the Commission's regulations - a process that requires safety and environmental reviews and provides the public un opportunity to seek a hearing on the underlying license application.
AA Adjudications are not the oppropriate forum for resolving complaints about NRC Staff conduct.
See Curators ofshe University of Missourt CU-95-8,41 NRC 386,3% (l995).
CU-98-22 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 40 8968-ML MATERIALS LICENSE; October 23,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER t
A
'Ihc Commission demes Eastern Navajo Dine Against Uranium Mining and the Southwest Research l
and Information Center's joint petition for interlocutory review of the Presidmg Of6cer's September 22, l
1998, scheduling order that, among odwr things, split the proceeding into phases.
B The Commission does not readily entertain petitions for review ofinterlocutory rulings by presiding officers or licensing boards, particularly on schedul.ng or other " housekeeping" rnatters, but will do so if a particular ruling (l) "[tlhreatens the party adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irreparable impact" or (2) "{alffects the basic structure of the proceedmg in a pervasive or unusual manner? 10 CIR.
I 2.786(gXI) and (2h see Oncology Services Corp., CU-93-13,37 NRC 419 (1993).
i C
The Commission aho stands ready, as we recently have emphasized. to one its supervisory authority l
to step into ongoing adjudications when necessary to clanfy iu view on substanuve or procedural questions.
I See Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CU.98-12,48 NRC 18,23 (1998); cf.
/ktrunare Gas & Electric Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), C1198-19,48 NRC 132 (1998)(adjusting filing deadlines).
D lt would be unproductive and premature for the Commission to consider whether hugation nn some questiom, can be suspended indc6nitely when the Presiding Of6cer himself has not yet decided to do so and in a situnuon where additional developments may shed more light on the question. Compara Louiswna Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-95-7, 41 NRC 383, 384 (1995) (interlocutory Commission review denied on issue that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bourd would possibly have to revisit in light of new federal legislation).
CU 98-23 INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (Recetpt of Material from Tonawanda, New YorO, Docket No. 40 8681 MLA-4; MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; November 24,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission reviews an Atorruc Safety and ucensing Board decision that denied a request for hearing and leave to challenge a materials license amendment Tim Commission affirms the esonrd's Anding that the Petitioner lacks standing to imervene. The 1%tationer's alleged economic interest as a %mpeutor" 1
i 12 7
I 1
~
i e
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the marketplace - an interest unrelated to any radiological harm - did not fall within the cone of interests of the Atomic Energy Act, the Comtmssion found.
B Merely because one may be injured by a partcular agency action does not necessarily mean one is within the s;one of interests to be protected by a given statute. " Corr (udtive" harm, by itself, is not enough to satisfy both the " injury-in-fact" and " zone of intenests" tests of standing.
C la is well established that a petitioner who suffers only economic injury lacks standing to bring a NEPA-based challenge to agency accon.
D in the cad, out analysis of judicial standing cases seeks simply to deternune whether a petitioner's particular asserted " interest" provides an appropriate basis under section 189a of the AEA for triggering an adj,idicatory heanog and pernuning a pentioner to imervene as a party to such a hearing.1he NRC is not an article III court, and thus, although we customarily look to and apply judicial concepts of standing, we are not bound to do so. Our principal concern is to ensure that par ies participating in our adjudicatory proceedings have interests that are cognizable under the Al'A, our governmg stamte.
B It has long been our practice as an agency to reject stsnding for petiooners asser mg a bare economic I
irsury, unlinked to any radiological harm. Cornpetitors, whose only " interest" is lost buainess opportunities, could readily burden our adjudicatory process tvith open<nded allegations designed not to advance public health and safety, but as a dilatory tactic to interfere with and impose costs upon a competitor.
(
CLI.98-24 NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION (Seabrook Stauon, Unit 1), Docket Nos. 50 443-LA, 50-443-LA-2; OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; November 24,1998; MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission grants North Atlantic Energy Service Corporauon's monon to withdraw its proposed amendments for the Seabrook Station and dismisses the related adjudicatory proceedings as moot We also vacate the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Memcrandum and Order, LEP-98-23,48 NRC 157 (1998), which had not been reviewed at the time the case became moot.
]
B The Commission's customary practice is to vacate board decisions that have not been reviewed
{
at the time the case becomes moot. See Louisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center),
CL1-98-5,47 NRC 113,114 (1998); Kerr-McGee Chemacal Corp (West Oicags Rare Earths Facility),
CL1-98-25 BALTIMORE CAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50L317-LR,50 318-LR; LICENSE RENEWAL; December 23, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i
l A
in this renctor license renewal proceeding (the nrst of its kind), the Commission justi6es its decision to treat license renewal apphcations expedinously and then upholds the Board's rejection of a Petitioner on grounds that it neither subnutted tinely contentions nor met the late 6?ing standards for its two unamely
(
comenrions. De Comnussion also explains why it has the authority to ondify its procedures either by Policy Statement or on a case-by-case basis.
B One of the Commission's leading considerations in issuing the Policy Starement on Conduct of A4/udicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998),was the need to deal with license renewal in a fair and ef6cient way.
C De Commission has long understood that the potentint was there for a large number of utilities to seek license renewal soon, and that the renewal process would have to be both fair and ef6cient The Commis. ion has likewise long understood the need for a predactable and stable hcense renewal process.
With an eye on actueving a prompt and fair resolution of proceedings, the Policy Statement sought "to ensure that agency proceedings are conducted efficiently and focus on issues germane to the proposed l
actions under consideration." Palio Statement, CLI.98-12,48 NRC at 18.
I D
The Commission remams mindful of its " broad regulatory lautude" under the Atomic Energy Act to establish its "'own rules of procedure,, and methods of inquiry?" Nuclear lq/ormorion Resource Service v. NRC %9 F.2d 1169,1177 (D.C. Cir.1992)(en banc), quoring vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v, Natural Resources Defense Crmncif. 435 U.S. 519,543 (1978); see Union af Concerned kien 6u
- v. NRC 920 P.2d 50,53-54 (D.C. Car.1990). Only if the Commission were convinced that the ef6ciency measures it and the Board have taken were unlawful or unjust would the Comrrussion backtrack from them.
E
%e Commission rejects the argument that the Jrarement of Pohcy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998), amounts to an unlawful rule because it was issued without the prior notice and opportunity for comment required under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Policy 13
r:
i l
_l l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF 1 IE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Statement red.x1 no one's substantive rights and changed no basic procedures. It simply updated the Commission's prior procedural guidance to the boards (issued in 1981) and suggested vanous procedural devices designed to foster more efficient and expeditious proceedings. See Baltunore Gas & Electric Co (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, L.its i and 2), C1198-15,48 NRC 45,51 (1998). It continued the Commission's policy of giving the boards suf6cient discretion to handle cases in a way that ensures fair and accurate decisionmaking. See Policy Slasement, CL1-98-12,48 NRC at 20. In sum, CLI-98-12 is no more than it purports to be, a policy statenrnt on adjudicatory procedur,:s. and therefore it did not require notice-and-corrment in advance of issuance. See 5 U.S.C 5553 (" statements of policy" and " rules of agency orgam:.;
meedure, or practice" exempt from notice-and comment requirenrnt); see generally Twy Corp, s 2 l20 F.3d 277,287 (D C Cir.1997); Amertcan Hospisrd Association v. Bowen,834 F.2d 1037,104W tt)C Cir.1987).
P to conudenng motions for extensions of time, the Commission's construction of " good cause" to require a showing of " unavoidable and extreme circumstances" constitutes a reasonable means of avoiding undue delay in this important license renewal proceeding, and for assuring that the proceeding is adjudicated promptly, consistent with the goals set forth in the Policy Statement and the APA.
G The Board's applicanon of the " unavoidable and extreme circumstances" test to Pentioner's request for an extension of time was consistent with not only the Commission's own directive in CLI 9814 and Pohey Srarement (G.!-98-12,48 NRC at 21) but also with tir Boar (s own extensive authority under 10 C.F.R. (2.718 to schedule and regulate proceedings.
H The Cornmission's position, reiterated several times in recent years, is that NRC licensing proceedings are not governed by APA requirements for formal on the-record adjudications, except in particular situations where Congress has so mandated. See, e.g.. Final Rule," Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of 1.lcense Transfers," 63 Fed. Reg. 66,721,66,722 (Dec. 3,1998), referring to 5 U.S.C 6 554(a).
1 The Conunission does not doubt its obligation to treat all parties to our proceed ngs fairly -
indeed, the Commission's original scheduling order in this proceeding could hardly have been clearer on the Cornmission's com nitment to fairness (CLI-98-14,48 NRC at 4243)- but the Comnussion cannot see how its effort to expedite the Calvert Cliffs proceeding prejudiced Petitioner's right to participate meaningfully in it J
'the Comrmssion rejects Petitioner's argument that 10 C.F.R. I?.3 requires the Commission and the Board to apply the "speciftc rule" of secuan 2.711(a) setting forth the " good cause" standard rather than the " general rule" of section 2.718 permitting the Board to establish the proceeding's schedule. The l
Commis son sees no conflict between the two rules. In any event, section 2.3 applies only to confhets between rules within Part 2 Subpart G, and rules outside that subpart it is irrelevant to purported conflicts between rules within Subpart G.
K Peutioner's complete failure to provide specific information about hs concerns precluded any finding that " good cause,"in a meaningful sense, justified NWC's requested extensions of time prior to that date.
)
L Unreviewed board rulings do not consutute precedeut or binding law at this agency. See, e-g..
j Florida Power and I.ight Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-893,27 NRC 627,629 n.5 (1988)).
l M
la CLi-98-15 (an earlier order in this proceeding), the Commission rejected Petitioner's attack agairls the Commission's " milestones" approach and poimed out that the suggested milestones were neither inflexible nor bereft of mechanisms for taking unexpected developments into account. See CLI-9815,48 NRC at 51-52. 55-56. The Comnussion adheres to the views it expressed in CLI-98-15.
N As the Commission explained in CLI-98 15 (an earlier order in this proceedmg), "10 C.F.R. I 2.71i explicitly provides that the Commission may extend or shorten the time for action set forth an the rules and may set time limits where the rules do not prescribe a limit " CLI-98-15,48 NRC at 53. The Commission i
also stressed that it "has traditionally exercised plenary supervisory authority over its adjudications and adjudicatory boards. This authori:y alluws it to interpret and customize its process for individual cance.
See, e.g., Sqfery Light Corp. (Bloomsburg Site Decontamination and Lkense Renewal Denials), CLI 92-13, 36 NRC 79,91 (1992) (Commission exercises its authority to modify applicable procedural rules).* 14.
O lt has laug been the practice at tlus agency that boards may change the deadline for filing contentions to allow sufficient tirne for responses prior to the prehearing conference - a practice that our Appeal Board explicitly approved at least twice, in situations all but identical to ours. See Houston Lighting sad Power Co.
14 1
1
l I
l J
_l l
l 1
l 1
1 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-574, !! NRC 7,1213 & n.15 (1980); Houston Ug/ning and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Urus 1), ALAB-565,10 NRC 521,523 (1979). As the Appect Board commented in Allens Creek, "it makes a good deal of sense to structure the proceeding so that all participimts know, before they arrive at the conference, what pcstion the proponents of15e plant are taking on the various contentions." 10 NRC at 523.
P The regulation governing the filing period for proposed conteations states simply that they must be 61ed "not later than.. fifteen.. days prior to the holding of the first preheanng conference." 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(bXI)(emphasis added). By its very terms, this regulation establishes only the farest time for filing prcposed contentions; it nowhere precludes entner the Board or the Comnussion from shonening that time frame indeed. section 2.718(e) prtwides the Board with broad au'hority to "[rlegulate the course of the bearing" and section 17)l(a) permits the Commission or Board to "shortenl}" regulatory time frames "for good cause" he Board here had " good cause"in that the alteration of the time frarne would permit the Board and Petitioner to consider the Staff's answer to the proposed cor/entions prior to the scheduled date of the prehearing conference (pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(c), the Staff's answer would otherwise be i
due the day of the preheanng conference).
Q The extent of the Board's authority to raise contentions sua sponte is a mattcr within die Commission's supervisory authority, and depends lar6y on an appropriate division of authority between the lioard and th agency's regulatory staff-a quewon of resources and expertise pecuharly widun the Commission's province to decide.
R Given Petitiorer's failure to raise any admissible comenuons itself, the Board had no occasion to raise contentions sua sponte and, mdeed, lacked authority to do so. See florida Power and Light Ca (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant. Units 3 and 4), Cl.591 13,34 NRC 185,188-89 (1991).
S We do not consider secuons 2.714(bXI) and 2.718 to be at odds with each other., ne former establishes a " default" filing deadline for conrentions in proceedings in cases where the Board issues no j
order under sections 2.711 and 2.7184) setting such a deadline.
1 T
I.ongstanding NRC practice obliges Petitioner to show that its imtimely contencons satisfy the i
Commission's late-61ing requirements. Moreover, given that Pentioner is in essence (though not in form)
)
seeking an order pernutting it to raise late-61ed enntendons, our conclusion in the text is also consistent i
with 10 Cf.R.12.732 that "the applicard or the proponent of an order has the burden of prcof."
l U
The Commission has itself summarily dismissed peuuoners who failed to address the Ave factors for a late-filed petition. Tesas Utiliiss Electric Ca (Comanche Peak Smam Electric Station, Unit 2), CLI-93-11,37 NRC 251. 255 (1993). See alto Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-816, 22 NRC 461,465-66 (1985) /"given its failure even to address the section 2.714 lateness factors, (the]
intervention petition was correctly denied because it was untimely").
V Petitioner's failure to address the required standards for late-filed contentions in its wnnen October 13th submission prevents it frotn now complaining that it was denied an opportunity to do so, orally. at a prehearing conference.
W ne most important of the late-filing criteria by far is " good cause."
X Petitioner provides no 2xplanation how or why the kAls are germane to either ofits two contentions.
This omission contravenes our regulatory requirements that a cogwntion be acco:npanied by "[a] concise statene:nt of the allegedfacts or expert opinion which support the contendon., together with referencer to those specyic sources and documents.
on which the petitmner intends to rely [and also).
(s}ujicient information.. to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact,,. includ[ing) references to the specyic pornons of the application.. that the peutioner disputes and the supporting seasons for each dispute." 10 Cf.R.12.714(bX2Xiib(ip)(emphasis added).
See also Yanker Atomic Electric Co. ()ankee Nuclear Power Station), CL1-96-7,43 NRC 235,248 (1996).
Mere reference to documents does not provide an adequate basis for a comention. See Public Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLI-89-3,29 NRC 234,240-41 (1989). This absence of specificity and support is, without more, a suffwicut ground for rejecung the two contenuons.
See Sacramento Municipal Uribry District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Station), CLI-93-3,37 NPC 135. I44 (1993).
Y "Neither Section 189a of the Atonuc Energy Act nor $ 2.714.., permits the 6hng of a vague, imparticularized contention." See Final Rule, " Rules of Practice for Dornestic Licensing Proceedings -
Procedural Changes a the Hearing Process," 54 Frd. Reg.3),168,33,170 (Aug. II,1989).
I 15 I
i
C r
-l I
)
J l
)
I I
t DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
2' Regulations do not require the Staff to submit RAls to the Board or to serve them on pentioners.
Sacramento Munic&al Utility Dutrict (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI 93-3,37 NRC 135, 152-53 (1993). Under our longstanding practice, contenhons must rest on % ucen.se application, not on NRC Staff reviewt Contrary to Peutioner's view, the NRC Staff's mere p..ing of questions does not i
suggest that the applica' ion was incomplete, or that it provided insufficien information to frame contentions, anu Pentioner has cated no language in the RAls suggesung otherwise.
AA The NRC Staff's rnere posing of questions does not suggest thst the application was incomplete, or that it pmvided insufficient information to frame contentions. RAls are a standard and ongoing part of NRC licensing reviews. Questions by the NRC regulatory Staff simply indicate that the Staff is doing its job:
making sure that the application, if granred, will result in safe operation of the facility. The Staff assuredly I
will not grant the renewal application if the responses to the RAls suggest unresolyrd safety concerns. The Commission considers many applications suficiently complete for purposes of docketmg, and for starting the adjudicatory process, even though the Staff subsequently poses questions to the applicants regarding those applications.
BB A petitioner can engger a separate adjudicatory review only if it comes forward with timely and concrete concerns ofits uwn. Mere reference to the Staff's requests for additional information is insufficient.
1 CC This is not to say that RAls are always irrelevant to the adjudicatory process. If a peutioner concludes that a Staff RAI or an applicant RAI response raises a legiumate question about the adequacy of the application, the petitioner is free to posit that issue as a new or amended contendon, subject to complying with the late-filing standards of section 2.714(a). See Baltimore Gas 4 Electric Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP 98 26,48 NRC at 243 (1998). See, e.g., Louisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), LBP-91-41,34 NRC 332, 338-39 (1991). Indeed, one reason for having a generic late-filed contention provision in the regulanons is to have a logical, prenoticed method for intervenors to raise concerns in proceedings that relate to newly developed informanon.
DD If the Commission were to take Petitioner's preferred approach, and allow pectioners to await completion of the RAI process before framing specific comentions, the henrmg process frequently would take months or years even to begin, and espedited proceedings, such as it e Commission contemplated for license renewal, would prove impossible.
l'E The Commission rejects Petitioner's assertion that the Board erred in denying Peutioner's inntion to delsy the prehearing conference and the contention deadline until Peudoner had been given the opportunity to conduct discovery of the Staff pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Il 2.740(b) & (c),2.752. This assertion contravenes the terms of the cued regulation, as well as longstanding NRC case law. Sections 2.740 and 2.752 apply only to " parties"- a status Petitioner does not have in this proceeding. Moreover, other regulations apphcable to obtaming discovery from the Staff likewise apply only to " parties." See 10 C.F.R. Il2.720(hX2Xii),
2.744(a).(e). Finally, as the Boasd correctly pointed out in its Septenter 21st order (slip op. at 2),
" longstanding agency precedent precludes an intervenor from obtaining discovery to assist it in framing contenuons."
i i
1 l
i 1
1 16 i
I i
_.I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP 98-15 JOHN BOSCHUK, JR. (Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-licensed Activities) Docket No.
IA 98-19 (ASLBP No. 98-741-03 EA); ENFORCEMENT ACTION, August 5,1998; MEMORANDUM
)
AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Dismissing Proceeding) j LBP 98-16 IJOURDES T. BOSCHUK (Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities), Docket j
No. IA 98-20(ASLBP No. 98-742-04-EA); ENFORCEMENT ACFION; August 5,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Dismissing Proceeding)
)
LBP-9817 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC. (Independent Spent 1%el Storage lastallation). Dcaet No. 72-22-ISFSI (ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSD; INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTAILATION; August 5,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Monon for Reconsiderauon)
A la this proceeding concerning the application of Private lhel Storage LLC. (PFS), under 10 C.F.R. Part 72 to construct and operate an independent spent fuel storage ;nstallauon (ISFSD, the Licensing Board grants an Interwnor motion for reconsideration of a pornon of its ruhngs in LBP-98-13,47 NRC i
360 (1998), and admits contentions concerning the vahdity of the Applicant's physical secunty plart (PSP) as the PSP relies on the local county shenff's of6ce to exercise law enforcement authonty at the PFS ISFSI located on the reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Gosbute indians.
B A properly supported reconsideration motion is one that does not rely upon (1) entirely new theses or arguments, except to the extent it attempts to address a presiding officer's ruhng that could not reasonably have been anticipated, see louisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), C1197-2,45 NRC 3,4 & n.1 (1997)(citing cases); or (2) previously presented arguments that have been rejected, see Nuclear Engmeerms Co. (Shetheid. Illinois Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposa! Site), CL180-1, i1 NRC
- 1. 5 (1980). Instead, the movant must identify errors or de6ciencies in the presiding officer's determination indicating the questioned ruling overlooked or misapprehended (I) some legal principle or decision that should have controllmg effect; nr (2) sorne critical factual information. See Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-94-31,40 NRC 137,140 (1994); Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Umerick Generating Station, Units I and 2), LBP.8315,17 NRC 681,687, rev'd and remanded on other grounds, ALAB 726,17 NRC 755 (1983). Reconsideration also may be appropriately sought to have the presieng of6cer conect what appent in be mharmonious rulings in the same decision. See LDP-9810,47 NRC 288, 2% (1998).
LBP 98-18 ATLAS CORPORATION (Moab, Utah) Docket No. 40-3453-MLA-2 (ASLBP No. 98-747-02-MLA) (Re: Tailings Pile Integrity); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 13. 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Peuuon of the State of Utah Dismissed as Untimely)
A The Stae of Utah sought to intervene in a license proceed og concerning the long-term safekeepmg of a uranium mill tailings pile at Moah, Utah However, the State's petioon was considered untimcly pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.1205(d). The State argued that it had been cooperaung with the NRC in an attempt to agree about the proper treatment of this tailings pile and that it petitie'ed as soon as it learned that its cooperative effort was not bearing fruit. The Presi&ng Of6cer helJ that a delay in fling a request for a hearing may not be escused because a person chose to rely on the Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission to protect its interests. Accordingly, the State's pention was &snussed-B A delay in hhng a request for a hearing may not be excused because a petitioner chose to work with the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion in order to protect its interests.
LBP-98-19 INTERNA 710NAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (Receipt of Material from Tonawanda, New York) Docket No. 40-8681-MLA-4 (ASLBP No. 98 748 03-MLA) (Re: Material License Amend-rnent); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMEt(T; August 13,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (De-nial of Request for a Stay Filed by the State of Utah) 17
I l
l l
I l
)
t I
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETV AND LICENSING BOARDS
{
A A request for a stay under 10 C.P.R. Subpait L must be timely. Under 10 C.P R.12.1263, motions for stay or temporary stay of any licensing decision issued by the Commission "must be]Iled or the atme a j
request for a hearmg or petition to intervene is filed or within 10 days of the staf's action, whidever is later" A par'y may not wait until an action is taken under the license before 61ing a request. Accordingly, the petition of the State of Utah for a stay was denied.
i B
A license unay be gratited containing a condition, such as a requirernent for subsequent testing l
before material may be imported under the license. The condition does not create a fresh cpportunity for filing a request for a stay. Tirneliness depends on when the amendment was issued and not on the ful611 ment of subsequent conditions.
LBP-98-20 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3),
Docket No. 50 423-LA (ASLBP No.98-740'02-LA); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 25,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Standing lasue)
A In this proceedmg on the license amendment application of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, the Licensing Board concludes that the Petitioner, Citizens Regulatory Commission, has standing to intervene.
B In assessing whether a pentioner has set forth a sufficient " interest" to intervene in the licensing proceeding under the Atomic Energy Act and the agency's regulations, the Comnussion has for over two decades applied contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing. Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-7ti-27,4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976).
C As the Commicion has reiterated, "[tio demonscrute standing, the petitioner must allege a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision." Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), C1193-21, 38 NR(" 87,92 (19h3).
D Additionally, "[tihis injury must be to an interest arguably within the zone of interests protected by the govermng statute," Le., the Atomic Energy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Perry, CL1-93-21,38 NRC at 92, E
When an organization seeks to intervene as the authorized representauve of its members, the organization must demonstrate that at least one of its members has standing and has authorized the organization to represent him. The organization also must show that the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the purpose of the organization and that neither the claim asserted nor the relief sought requires the participation of an individual member in the proceeding. rrrwue fuel Storage, LLC. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CL1-98-13,48 NRC 26, 30 31 (1998).
F In evaluating petitioner's standing to intervene, Commission precedent directs that we construe the petition in favor of the petitioner. Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Adanta, Georgia), CLl-95-12,42 NRC 111,115 (1995).
LBP-98-21 DRERNATIONAL URAN!UM (USA) CORPORATION (Receipt of Matenal from Tonawanda.
New York), Docket No. 40-8681-MLA-4 (ASLBP No.98-748 03-MLA); MATERIA!.S LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 1,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Grant of Peution for a Hearing)
A A state omy protect the interests of its citizens or its lands, waters, wildhfe, and other natural resources, providing that it demonstrates that the proposed licensing action will cause its citizens or natural resources to be likely to suffer injury that is " distinct and palpable, particular and concrete, as opposed to being conjectural or hypothetical." Applying this standard, a stat may have stand ng to challenge whether the NRC has improperly granted a license amendment to allow the receipt and processing of uranium-bearing material that allegedly contains hazardous waste.
B
'the Presiding Of5cer will attempt to facilitate negotiations between parues when they are seeking to resolve some or all of the pending issues.
C Or.s a purty is determined to have standing, it roay raise any concern that is found to be germane to the proceeding.
LBP-98-22 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Power Station. Unit 3),
Drxtet Ne M42LLA-2 (ASLDP No. 98 743-01LA); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMETU, Septem-ber 2,1998; MEMORANDUM Aw ORDER (Resolving Standing lasue)
A in this proceeding c _ license amendment application of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company to add a new sump pump subsystem at Millstone Unit 3, the Licensing Board concludes that tle Peutioner, Citizens Regulatory Commission, lacks standmg to intervene.
1 18 l
l l
l.
l J
l i
I l
I i
l l
DIGESTS l
ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS B
la determining whether a petidoner has set forth a sufficient " interest" within the nuaning of the Atomic Energy Act and the agency's reguladons to irdervene as of right in an NRC licensing proceeding, the Commission long ago held that contempornneous judicial concepts of standing are to be used. Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CU 76-27,4 NRC 610,613-14 (19761 l
C To establish standing, the petitioner must assert an actual or threatened, concrete and particularized l
injury, i.e., an injury in fact, that la fairly traceable to the challenged action and likely to be redressed l
by a favorable decision. Quivira Mining Co. (Ambrosia Lake Pacihty, Grants, New Mexico), CU-9811, 44 NRC 1,6 (1998); Georgia Insrirure of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia),
CLI-95-12,42 NRC 111,115 (1995);Sequoyah fuels Corp. (Gore Oklahorna Site), CU-94-12,40 NRC 64, 71 72 (1994).
D The injury a!.o trast be e' an interest arguably within the zone ofinterests protected by the stanta j
governing NRC proceediv Le Atorme Energy Act and the Nadonal Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
QuMra, CU-98-11,48 hAC at 6; Perry, CU-9.t21,38 NRC at 92.
E When a membership organization requests intervention as the representadve of its snembers, die organization must show that an individual member has standing to participate and has authorized the
(
organization to represent him. Priwne fuel Storage. LLC (Independent Spent Puel Storage Instalianon),
CU-98-13,48 NRC at 26,30-31 (1998).
P An organizatf m also must demonstrate that the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the purpose of the organizanon and neither the claim alleged nor the relief sought necessitate the participation of an individual member in the proceeding. Prhare fuel Storage, CU-9813,48 NRC at 30 31, G
In order for a pedtioner to availitself of the presumption found in agency precedents that nearby residence to a nuclear power plant confers stand;ng, the license amendment at issue in the proceeding must present on " obvious potential for offsite consequences." Florida Power & Ught Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CU-89 21,30 NRC 325,330 (1989).
H The deternunation whether a petitioner's asserted injury is fairly traceable to the proposed action "is not dependent on whether the cause of the injury flows directly from the challenged action, but whether the chain of causadon is plausible." Sequoyah fuels CU 9412,40 NRC at 75.
LBP 98-23 NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION (Seabrook Scuon, Unit I), Docket No. 50-443-LA (ASLBP No. 98 746-05-LA); OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENf; September 3,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Petitions to Intervene)
A in this Decision, the Ucensing Board grunts a petition to intervene and request for a hearing by the Seacoast Anti-Pollution league (SAPL) and rejects the petitino of New England Coalition on Nuclear l
Pollution (NECNP) for failure to establish standing. SAPL's Contention i regarding potenual risk due to steam generator tube failure is accepted. A decision on SAPL's other three proposed contentions is postponed pending receipt of additionalinformation from the parties.
B Comnussion case law establishes that potentialinjury sufficient to confer standing to people residing near a nuclear facility occurs when a licensing action has obvious potemial for offsire :1nsequences.
C A full-blown analysis is not required to demonstrate standing since petitioners are not required to establish the existence of potential injury with certainty "at the threshold [ standing phase]." Moreover, at this threshold standing stage, petitioners' arguments will be viewed in their favor, and even the potential for minor radiciogical exposure will be enough to create the requisite injury in fact.
l D
Licensing boards have en jurisdiction to determine whether license amendments should be made immediately effective since Commission rules make clear that these decisions can only be made by Staff.
E Except perhaps for egregious pleading defects,it is not good policy to dismiss contendons merely for procedural reasons, especially where the challenged activities potentially could affect public health and j
safety.
i l
P lideral agencies arguably should not alinw an applicant to present licensing actions separately if
(
such separate acuons a: part of a common action that has greater adverse consequences when viewed as a whole.
LBP-98-24 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Zion Nuclear Power Station. Units 1 and '), Cocket I
Nos. 50 295-LA-2,50L304 LA-2 (ASLBP No.98-750 06-LA,, UCENSE AMENDMENT; October 5,1998,
(
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissing Interwntion Petidon)
I A
in this proceeding in which the Joint Intervenors seek to imervene in connection with the NRC Staff's no sigm6 cant hazards consideration determination regarding the license anendment applicstion of l
l l
19 l
l l
I i
J
1 l
_l i
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSLNG BOARDS Commonwealth Edison Company for its Zion Nuclear Power Station, the !bensing Duard concludes that 10 i
C F.R. 650.58(bX6) precludes any challenges to the Staff's 6ading and dismisses the intervention petidon.
B Section 50.58(bX6) of 10 C.F.R. stands as a bur to the Joint Petitioners' intervendon petition seeking to challenge the Staff's Anal no significant hazards consideration determination.
C The Ucensing Board has no jurisdiction to consider an intervendon pention seeking to challenge a Staff's Snal no migrd6 cant hazards consideration determmanon. Only the Commission has the discretion upon its own nation to review such a 6nal 6nding.
LDP-98-25 MAGDY ELAMIR, M.D. (Newark, New Jersey), Docket No. IA 97 070 (ASLBP No. 98 734 01-EA) (Order Superseding Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Ucensed Activities (Effective Immediately)); EN'rORCEMENT ACTION; October 8,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlearnt Agreement and Terminating Proceeding)
A lo an enforcernent proceeding, the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board approves a acttlement agreement betuwe &c parties and terminates the proceedmg.
LBP-98 26 BALTIMORE GAS & ELECfRIC COMPANY (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-317-LR,50 318-LR (ASLBP No.98-749 01-LR); OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; October 16, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying laservention Petition / Hearing Request and Dismissing Proceeding)
A la this proceeding concerning the application of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company to renew the 10 CF.R. Part 50 operating licenses for its two-unit Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, the Ucensing Board denies the sole peddon to intervene and request for c hearing and ternunales the proceeding bscause of the Peddoner's failure timely to subtrat any admissible contendons.
B The label " areas of concern" has no rneaning in the context of a formal adjudicatory proceeding conducted under 10 CF.R. Part 2, Subpart G. Comport 10 C.F.R. 4 2.714(b) (pentioner must submit contentions in Subpart G proceeding) with 10 CF.R. I 2.1205(eX3)(petitioner rnust submit areas of concern in 10 CF.R. Part 2 Subpart L informal adju& cation).
C If a peutioner fails to address the Ave criteria in 10 CF.R.12.714(a) that govern late-6 led contentions, a petitioner does not neet its burden to establish the admissibiliry of such contentions. Cf Art:ona public Service Co. (Pulo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units I,2, and 3), CLI-91-12,34 NRC 149,155 (1991)(peutioner has burden to supply information necessary to demonstrate admissibility of contentions under 10 CF.R. I 2.714(bX2) cnteria).
D The provisions of 10 CF.R. 62.714 concerning amending and supplementing a hearing tv-quest / intervention peution set an automaue outside limit for the 6hng of contentions, but only in the absence of licensing board action in accordance with its 10 C.F.R. Il2.711(a),2.178 authority to regulate the proceeding by, among other things, setting schedules. Licensing board authority in this regard is well established in ager:nj practice. Sec. e.g., Prrvare het Storage, LLC (Independent Spent ! bel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142,159 63, af'd on other gr ands, CLI-9813,48 NRC 26 (1998);
General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-96 21,44 NRC 143, 150 54 (1996).
E How thoroughly the Staff conducts its bcense application preacceptance review process and whether Its decision to accept an application for 61ing was correct are not maners of concern in an adjudicatory proceeding. See Curators of the University of Afesouri, CU 95 8,41 NRC 386, 395-96 (1995); see also New England rower Co. (NEP, Units I and 2), LBP-78-9,7 NRC 271,280 81 (1978).
F The focus of an adjudication is the adequacy of the applicanon as it has been accepted and docketed for licensing review. See 10 CF R.12.714(bX2Xiii). If there are de6ciencies in that applicanon. in its contentions a petitioner can specify what those are and, if the petitioner is correct such that the application is insuf6cient to support issuance of the requested license, den the application must be denied.
O The Staff's po-tacceptance requests for addroonal information (RAls) and mecongs with an applicant to escuss the status ofits application are not matters that give any cause for delaying the fibng of petitioner contentions.
H The agency's licensing review procedures, including 10 CF.R. 6 2.102, contemplate an ongoing process in wir ch the application may be mo&hed or improved See Cururors,41 NRC at 395, New Englamt Power,7 NRC at 281. Staff RAls directed to the applicant and SOspplicant status meeungs are well-estabhshed parts of that dynamic process.
l l
20 t
W
_l l
e DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATO, Ilc SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS I
The availability of the application, not ongoing Staff and applicant license review-related acuvities, is the central concern relative to setting a deadline for filing contentions. See Priwire fuelStorage 47 NRC at 160 (delay in niing contentions relating to security plan portion of application granted because of need to issue protective order to grant petitioner access to security plan).
J Staff RAls, applicant RAI responses, and Staff / applicant status meetings are not irrelevant to the adjudicatory process. Fur esample, if a petitioner concludes that a Staff RAI or an applicant RAI response raises a legitimate question about the adequacy of the application, the petitioner is free to posit that issue as a new or amended contention, subject to complying with the late-filing standards of section 2.714(a).
LBP-98-27 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Ziot, Nuclear Power Station Units I and 2), Docket No. 50 295/304-LA (ASLBP No. 98-744-04-LA); LICENSE AMENDMENT; November 5,1998; MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Standing Issue)
A In this prwedmg on the license amendment application of Commonwealth Edison Company, the Licensing Board concludes that the Petitioner, Edwin D. Dienethal, lacks standing to intervene.
B In ascertaining whether a petitioner has pied a sufficient " interest" within the meaning of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations to intervene as of right in a licensing proceeding, the Commission years ago held that contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing are to be applied. Pontaml GeneralElectric Ca (Pebble Spnngs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 76-27,4 NRC 610,613-14 (1976).
C To establish standing the petinoner must state a concrete and particularized injury,i.e., an injury la fact, that is fairly traceable to the challenged licensing action and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Yankee Atomic Electnc Ca "ankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185,195 (1998);
i Quivira Minang Ca (Arnbross Lake Facility, Grants, New Mexico), CLI-98-il,48 NRC 1,6 (1998).
D The asserted injury may be either an actual one or hartn that is threatened in the future, but the itgjury must be to an interest that is arguably within the zone ofinterests protected by the statutes governing NRC proceedings - the Atonne Energy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1%9. Yankee Atomic, CLI 98-21,48 NRC at 195-96. Quivira, CLI-98-11,46 NRC at 6.
E in Commission license amendment proceedings -in contrast to proceedings for tractor construc-tion permits or operating licenses - the presumption found in agency precedents that confers standing, without more., on a petitioner who resides or otherwise conducts activities in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant applies only if the challenged license amendments present an " obvious potential for offsite conse-quences? Florida Pemr & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL1-89-21,30 NRC 325, 330 (1989).
LBP 95-28 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Ucit 3),
Docket No. 54423-LA (ASLBP No. 98-740-02 LA); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMElff; November 12,198, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Contentions)
A In this license amendment proceeding, the IJcensing Board 6nds that none of the proffered contendons of the Petitioner, Citizens Regulatory Comrnission, meet the regulatory requirements for admission so the Petitioner's intervention petition must be denied.
B A proffered contention that, even if proven, would be of no consequence because it would not enutle the petitioner to any relief must also be dismissed.10 CF.R.12.714(dX2)Oi).
C A petitioner's proffered contentions must be con 6ned to the subjects delineated by the hearing nonce and contentions concerning matters outside that denned scope cannot be admitted. Public Service Ca of huhana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units I and 2), ALAB-316,3 NRC 167,170 71 (1976).
LBP 98-29 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L.L.C (Independent Spent Fuel Storage trastallation), Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI (ASLBP No.97-732 02-ISFSI); INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; November 30,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Late-Filed Contentions Regarding August 1998 Low, Utah Rail Spur License Application Amendment)
A In this proceeding concerning the application of Private Fuel Storage L.L.C (PFS), under 10 CF.R.
Part 72 to construct and operate an independent spout fuel storage instalianon (ISI@, the Licensing Board denies latervenor requests to accept late-Gled contentions concerning a revised proposal to construct a rail spur that would be used to transport spent fue' shipping casks to the PFS facility.
B In considering whether under factor one of the 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(sXI) standards there is good cause for late-61ing based on the time it took an intervenor to prepare and file its contentions regarding the 21 l
_l I
DIGESTS ISSUANC%9 OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS application asnendrnent, such a 6nding depends in each instance on the scope and complesity of the "new" informanon the intervenor relies upon as the basis for late-hling.
C In instance in which a new cantention purportedly is based on infurmation contained P 1 document recently made put,ucally available, an important consideration in judging the contention *s timeliness is the extent to which the new contenuon could have been put forward with any degree of specincity in advance of the document's release. Sei Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stauon, Un ts 1 and 2),
ALAB-737,18 NRC 168,172 n.4 (1983); ace al.ro l'anAce Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 8,26 (1996).
O Among the 6ve late-61ing standards of 10 Cf.R. 62.714(aX1), the good cause factor has been accorded a preeminent role such that the moving party's failure to satisfy tnis requirement mandates a compelling showing in connection with the other four factors. See Commonweatrh Edi.ron Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2), CL1-86-8,23 NRC 241,244 (1986).
E Among the four remmuing late Eling standards of 10 Cf.R-12.714(aXI), factors two and four -
availability of other means to protet.t the petitioner's interests and extent of representation of pentioner's interests by existing parties - are accorded less weight than factors three and Sve -- assistance in developing i
a sound record and broadening the issues / delaying the proceeding. See Bruidwood. CLt-86 8. 23 NRC at 245.
F Relative to factor thne - assistance in denloping a sound record - for a contention that is essentially a legal question, an intervenor failure to specify witneues or testimony does not count as heavily against admissibility as it otherwise might have. At the same time, in hne with the Commission's Braidwood reasoning, see CLI-86-8, 23 NRC at 246, a strong showing under this factor for a legal contention may require a more detailed desenption of the authority for the intervenor's legal claim.
O The agency's licensing review procedures contemplate a dynamic process in which an application may be moditied or improved without "renoticing" the application. At the same time, an intervenor is fies to mount an adjudicatory challenge to any application revisions proffeted after the deadline for Bling contentions, at least so long as the new or amended contentions rncet the late flhog criteria of section 2.714(aXI). See Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2),
LBP-98-26,48 NRC 232,243 (1998), appealpending.
LBP-98-30 RANDALL L HERRING (Senior Reactor Operator Ucense for Catawba Nuclear Station) Docket No. 55-22234-SP (ASLBP No.98-745 01 SP); SPECIAL PROCEEDIN0; December !!,1998; INTilAL DECISION (Application for Senior Reactor Operator Ucense)
A The Presiding Officer, in a proceeding subject to she informal hearing procedures of 10 C.P.R.
Part 2, Subpart L denies the appeal of an Applicant for a Senior Reactor Operator license for the Catawba Nuclear Station from the NRC Staff's denial of lus license application.
LBP.98-31 CONAM INSPECTION, INC. (Itasca, Ulinois), Docket No. 30 3137FCivP (ASLBP No. 98-735-01-CivP)(EA 97 207)(License No. 121655941) (Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalry); CIVIL PENALTY; December 16,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approval of Settlement Agreement and Dismissal of Proceeding)
A in a civil penalty proceeding, the Licensing Board approves a settlement agreement between the NRC Staff and the Licenses and dismisses the proceeding.
l LBP-98-32 ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. (1020 lendon Road, Cleveland, Ohio), Docket No. 30 16055-ML&MI REN (ASLEP Nos.99-765-01 ML 95-707-02-MI REN)(Denial of Renewal of Materials License No. 34-19089 01); MATERIALS LICENSE RENEWAL; December 23,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Consolidation of Proceedings; Grant of Interventions)
A The Presiding Officer consolidates proceedings for (1) the renewal of a materials hcense and (2) contesting the Staff's denial of that renewal, and determines that one issue common to both proceedings
]
.(and potennally disposinve of at least the denini proceeding) be litigated first. The Presidmg Officer also admits two intervenors to the denial proceediag aial scia dutcs fur various Alings by the parues under the informal hearing procedures of 10 C.F.R. Part 2. Subpart L B
In a proceeding subject to 10 Cf.R. Part 2, Subpart L, oral presentations under 10 Cf R.12.1235, where determined by the Presiding Officer to be necessary, do not contemplate cross-examinanon of witnessen by parties but only questions posed by the Presiding Officer.
i i
22 i.
p
._ l I
I DIGESTS
!$SUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-98 33 LUKE ENERGY CORPORATION (Ococce Nuclear Station. Units I, 2, and 3), Docket Nos M269 LR,50-274tR, S287-LR (ASLBP No.98-752 024R); OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL:
December 29,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Petition to Intervene)
A la this Decision concerning license extension for the Oconce reactor, the licensing board demes 1
intervention to three individuals and one organization. Although finding that the organization and individuals had standing to intervene, none had proffered un admissible contention.
B The "proumity presumption" used in teactor construction and operating license proceedings also should apply to tractor license estension proceedings. For construction permit and operating bcense proceedings, NRC case law recognizes a presumption that persons who hve, work, or otterwise have contact within the area around a reactor han standing to intervene if they live within close proximity of the facility (e.g.,50 miles). Reactor license estension cases should be treated similarly because they allow operation of a reactor over an additional period of time during which the reactor can be subject to some of the same equipment failure and personnel error as dunng operations over the ongmal period of the license.
C Pending Staff review of a license extension application does not conantute a fatal defect in the application and does not afford an adequate basis for a conention. Such "open items"in license applications j
are not unusual and are not generally a cause fot concern since they eventually must be dealt with by Staff before a heenas can be granted, Petitioners must do more than just show that Staff review is ongoing, but rather, they must identify instances where the application itself is allegedly in error.
D 1he NRC considers CEQ guidelines, but it is not bound by them if they substantively impact on l
the way the NRC performs its regulatory funcoons.
E Where NRC regulations provide that applicants for operating license renewals do not have to furnish environmental infor.*.ation regardmg the onsite storage of spent fuel or high-level waste disposal. low-level waste storage and disposal, and miad waste storage and disposal, these subjects are barred as contencons.
F petitiocers generally are not excused from their hearing obligations despite the large number of documents in the licensing application.
l f
i l
N
]
_J l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECIMONS DD 98 7 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER (Philadelphia, Penn-sylvania) Docket No. 03014526 (License No. 37 00062 07); REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 28,1998; DIRECTOR'S DECNON UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206 A
'Ihe Dira-we of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, has denied a peution 61ed by Ann Imvell requesting tha w Commission take immediate action to suspend or revoke the NRC license issued to the Department of Wterans Administration Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania As grounds for her request, the Petitioner asserted that executive managernent is operaung in a roanner that has the potential to present a signi6 cant danger to public health and safety. Specifically, the Petitioner asserted that: The Licensee consistently violated NRC requirements and failed to take corrective action; the Licensee has a history of supplying false information to the NRC; Petitioner and others became contaminated as a result of what she believed was an intentional incident; and that employces are fearful of raising safety concerns. The Petitioner also asserted that the NRC may have withdrawn a civil penalty because it was not " cost-effective" to pursue the issue against the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Director denied the pctition based upon his determination that the Peunoner did not provide a suf6cient basis for taking any action to suspend or i
revoke the Licensee's license.
I DD-98-8 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, l
Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3; lasalle County Station, Units I and 2; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2; Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-456, STN 50 457, STN 50-454, STN 50-455,50-237,54249. 50-373,50 374,50 254,50 265,54295,50 304; REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 31,1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. 6 2.206 A
The Director Offee of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has taken action regarding a petition 614 by the National Whistleblower legal Defense and Education Fund requesting that the NRC take action l
with regard to Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed), Specifically, the Petitioner requested that the NRC take immediate " corrective" action and impose civil penalties against Comed based upon Comed's
" interference" with the wilhngness of employees to Ale Problem Idenufication Furma, and " intentional j
prohibition" of employees from directly communicating with the NRC. For the reasons explained in the Director's Decision, the pection has been denied.
B The United States Department of Labor has in the past nasured that agreements readed by panies in proceedings before it under section 211 of the Energy Reorganizanon Act do not contain provisions that unlawfully interfere with an individuars right to engage in protected activtry.
DD 98-9 ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, INC. (Salt Lake City, Utah), Docket No.448989 (Ucense No. SUA.
1559), REQUEST FOR ACTION; September 14,1998; DIREC1'OR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.
( 2.206 A
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards denies a petition dated Decernber 12,1997, Aled with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Dr. Thomas B. Cochran on behn!f of the Natural Resources Defense Council INRDC), and supplememed on May 6,1948 (pention1 The NRDC requested that the NRC inunedsately suspend all licenses held by Envirocare of Utah, Irc (Fnvirocare). Specifically, NRDC requested that the NRC (1) conduct an immediate investigation of issues raised in the peution end immediately suspend Envirocure's NRC license; (2) conduct un investigation of possible criminal violations of section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act); (3) inunediately suspend Envirocore's license with the State of Utah, under section 274)(2) of the Act; (4) investigate the adequacy of the State of Utah agreement state program to protect whistleblowers;(5) contact each current and former Envirocare employee personally on a con 6dential basis, to advise them of their 25
t
_l I
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS rights to inform the NRC of unsafe practices and violations, to inform them of the protections available to them, and to ask theta if they have any information that they wSh to disclose, on a confidential basis or otherwise; and (6) order a specialinde[x:ndent review of Envirocare's relationships with its employees, along the lines of the review ordered by the NRC for the Millstone site.
B On May 6,1998. NRDC supplemented the pention and requested that the NRC (1) suspend all licenses Envirocare has with the NRC;(2) request the State of Utah to suspend all licenses that Envirocr.re holds with the State of Utah under the purview of the Utah Division of Radiation Comrol;(3)'he license suspensions indiented in (1) and (2) above are to be enforced until such time as NRC and the State of Utm have completed the actions under (4) and (5) below; (4) undertake a program, in cooperation with the State of Utah and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to contact each and every current and put employee on an individual basis and obtain a sworn statement from each, indicating (i) whether they were intimidated by tte unlawful Envirocare Employee Agreement 01) whethat they withheLJ or altered any health, safety, or environmental inforrnation in any Envirocare report, or in any written or oral communication with any official of the State of Utah, EPA or NRC, and (iii) whether they failed to report any health, safery, or environmental information to appropriate authoritics, and in cases where there was information withheld, altered, or not reported, identify fully what the informauon said, and (5) investigate the extent to which such information, revealed under (4) above, has affected existing and past licernes held by Enytrocare issued by NRC or the State of Utah, under the purview of the Utah Division of Radiation Control.
C After an evaluation of the petition, the Director concludes that the Peutioner did out raise any issues that would warrant granting the.Muested actions.
DD-98-10 FIDRIDA POWER & LIGifT COMPANY (St. Lucie Nudear Power Plant. Umts 1 and 2; Turkcy Point Nuclear Oenerating Plant. Units 3 and 4) Docket Nos. 50 335, S389,54250, 54251 (License Nos. DPR-67, NPF-16 DPR-31, DPR 41); REQUEST FOR ACTION; Octobe-21,1998. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. I 2.206 DD 98-il ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. (Cleveland, Ohio), Docket No. 03016055 (License No. 34-19089-01), REQUEST IOR.4CTION; November 4,1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. I 2.206 DD-98-12 CONNECTICLTI YANKEE ATOMIC FK WER COMPANY (Haddarn Neck Plant) Docket No.
50 213; REQUEST FOR ACTION: November 16, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.
1 2.206 DD-98-13 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 54271 (License No. DPR 28); REQUEST FOR ACTION; December 7,1998-,
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.12.206
_I l
e e
l l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Accura of Benevus v. Reich, 90 F.3d 1403,1407-08 (9th Cir.1996) simultaneous appeals before the Commission and the U.S. Court of Appeals challengmg the same order; CLI-U-25, 48 NRC 336 n.1 (1993)
Air Courier Conference of Amerias v. American Postal Workers Union, 498 U.S. 511, $23-24 (1991) showing necessary to prevail on zonc<>f-interests test for standing to interveue; CLi-98-ll,48 NRC 11 (1998)
Air Courier Cogerence of America v. American Postal Workers Union, 498 U.S. Sl7,524 (1991) zonemf-inerests test for standing to intervene; CLi-98-23, 48 NRC 263 (1998) 4 Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwc!) Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), A5 ',B 328, 3 NRC 420,
/ -
422 (1976); ISP-82-26,15 NRC 742, 743 (1982) g acadenne interest in outcome of proceeding as basis for standmg to intervene; LBP 98 21,48 NRC 7
141-42 (1998)
American llospiral Associatwa v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1031,1046-47 (D.C Cir.1987) i exempoon of statements of policy and rules of agency orgastion, procedure, or practice from
(
notice-and-comment requirement; CL1-98-25,48 NRC 34: o998) r, #
i Animal liga! Defense Fund v. Glickman,154 F.3d 426 (D.C. Cir.1998) (en banc) h-7 judicial concepts of standing appbed in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 208 (1998)
Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generaung Station, Units I,2, and 3), CLI-9112,34 I
NRC 149,155 (1991)
L burden on petitioner to demonstrate admissibihty of late-61ed contentions; LBP-95 26,48 NRC 241 a
(199F)
I weight given to petitioner's support for contencons; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 22 (1998)
[
Associated Gas Distributors v. FERC. 899 F.2d 1250 (D.C. Cir.1990) y statutory limits on competition; CL1-98-ll, 48 NRC 15 n.4 (1998)
Associated Gas Distrdiutors v. TERC, it99 P 2d 1250,1259 (D C Cir.1990) competitive injury as basis for standing to intervene; CLI-98-II, 48 NRC 7 (1998)
Association of Data Processmg Service Organizations v. Camp, 391 U.S.150,152-53 (1970) economic interests comprising injury in fact for standing to intervene; CLI 98-ll,48 NRC 8 (1998)
Association qr Cara Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. !*0,155 (1970) economic competition as basis for standing to intervene under the Atomic Energy Act; CLI-98-il,48 NRC 12 (1998)
Babcock and Wilcox (Apollo, Pennsylvama Ibel Fuhrication licility), LBP-93 4, 37 NRC 72, 80-81 (1993) standint requirements apphed to Subpart L hearing requesu; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 141 (1998)
Babcock and M'ilcar Co. (Pennsylvania Nucler Services Operations, Parks Township, Pennsylvania),
LBP-94 4, 39 NRC 47, 49 (1994) standing requirements applied to Subpart L hearing requests; LBP-98 21,'48 NRC 141 (1998)
Babcock and H"ilcox Co. (Pennsylvama Nuclear Services Operations, Parks Township, Pernsylvania),
LDP-94-5, 39 NRC 47, 52 (1994) speciEcation of areas of concern prior to seeing hearing file; LBP-95-21,48 NRC 142 (1998)
Bahim:>re Gas & Electric Co. (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI-98-15, 48 NRC l
45, passim (1998) l Cormnission authority to provide guidance to licensing boards during ongoing proceedings; CL198-21, 48 NRC 210 (1998) 4%
27 4) 8 h
W b
t l
l l
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CA WS j
Balthnore Gas & Electric Co. (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-98-15,48 NRC l
45, 52 53 (1998)
Comnussion authority to issue guidance to licensing bords; CL19816,48 NRC 120 (1998) exercise of Conunission supervisory authority to take sua sponte review of segmentaCon issue; CLI-98-18,48 NRC 130 (1998)
Baltimore Gas & Electrk: Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
=r Plant, Units I and 2). CL198-19,48 NRC r
132 (1998)
Commission authoriy to step into ongoing pro to clarify its views on procedure matters; j
]
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nucle awer Plant Units I and 2), Cll-98-25,48 NRC 325, 349 (1998)
S:aff requests for additional information as basis for contendans; LBP 98-33,48 NRC 387 (1998)
Baltimore Gar and f,lectric Co. (Calvert Cliff: Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-98-26,48 NRC 232, 243 (1998) late-61ed contentions chauenging liccase application revisions, criteria to be addrened by; LDP-98 29, 48 NRC 302 (1998)
Belforrl v. NRC, 725 F.2d 1380,1381-82 (D C. Cir.1983)
Conunission authority to define the scope of its proceedings; CL1-98-15,48 NRC 54 (1998)
Benners a Spear,117 S. Ct.1154 !!61 (1998) breadth of applicable zone of interests for standing to intervene; CL1-98-il,48 NRC 6 (1998)
Bennerr v. Spear,117 S. Ct.1154,1167 (1998) economic interest as basis for standing to intervene; CL] 98 23, 48 NRC 263 (1998) zone of-interests test to satisfy " prudential" requiremmt of standing; CLI-98-ll, 48 NRC 6 (1998)
Bennerr v Spear, 520 U.S. a 117 S. Ct.1154,1163 (1997) irreducible constitutional minimum requirements for standing; LBP-98 21,48 NRC 140 (1998)
Bennerr v. Spear, 520 U.S. a !!7 S. Ct.1154,1167 (1997) zone-of-interests re :irement for standing to intervene; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 141 (1998) w Boston Edson Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power S'ation), ALAB-816, 22 NRC 461, 465-66 (1985) penalty for late intervention petitioner's failure to address the section 2.714 lateness factors; CL1-98-25,48 NRC 347 n.10 (1998)
Boston Ediwa Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Striion), ALAB-816, 9. NRC 46, 468 (1985) discretion of licensing beards to allow petitioner to argue orally at pretiearing conferet.ce that its contentions saus6ed late-61ing criteria; CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 348 n.ll (1998) precedential effect of unreviewed licensing board rulings; CLI-98 25, 48 NRC 348 n.11 (1998)
Calumer /ndustries, bic. v. Brock, 807 P.2d 225, 229 n.3 (D C. Cir.1986) competitor's standing to contest agency's failure to similarly burden others; CLI-98-il,48 NRC 13 (1998)
Carolina Power and Light Co (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1,2, 3, and 4), CLi-8012,11 NRC 514, $16 (1980) authority of licensing boards and presiding of6cers to direct Staff in the performance of its safety reviews; LDP-98 21, 48 NRC 143 (1998)
Chauill Truck Lines, Inc. v. United Stores, 533 P.2d 411, 416 (8th Cir.1976) environrnental interests of litigant whose sole motive is economic self-interest and welfare; CL198-23, 48 NRC 264 (1998) liogability of economic injury under NEPA; CLI-98-II, 48 NRC 8 (1998)
Cincinnard Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nucienr Power Station, Umt II, CL1-82-20,16 NRC 109, 110 11 (1982)
Board authonty to raise issues sua sponte in operating license renewal proceedings; CL1-98-15, 48 NRC 55 a.7 (1998)
Cincinnarf Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82 47,15 NRC 1538, 1542 (1982) applicability of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in NRC proceedings. LBP-98 23, 48 NRC 160 n.1 (1998) 28 I
1 l
l
l
_l I
l l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES cities of Statesville v. MC, 441 F.2d %2, 975 (D.C. Cir.1969) j limits on competition under Atomic Energy Act; CU-98-il,48 NRC 14 (1998) l Citizens Anureness Networt v. NRC, 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir.1995) suspension of Commission approval of decommissioning plan; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 196 (1998)
City of !.os Angeles v. Lyons, est U.S. 95, 102 (1983)
' actual or imminent injury necessary for grant of standing to intervene; CLt-98-11,48 NRC 6 (1998)
City of Los Angeles v. National liighnay 1>pfic Safety Administration, 912 F.2d 478,495 (D.C. Cir.
1990), af'd, CLi-94-12,40 NRC 64 (1994) avoidance of merits assessmen in determination of standing; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 142 (1998)
City of Los Angeles v. United States Deparrment of Agriculture, 950 F, Supp.1005,1011-12,1013 (C.D.
Cal.1996) htigability of environmental issues by economic ccmpetitor; CLI-98 ll, 48 NRC 9 (1998)
City of Rochester v. United States Postal Service. 541 F.2d %7,972 (2d Cir.1976) segmentation of licensing actions involving environmental issues; LBP-98-31,48 NRC 390 (1998) segmentation of licensing actions involving safety issues, NRC policy on, LBP 98-23,48 NRC 169 (1998)
Clarke v. Securities Industry Association, 419 U.S. 388, 389 (1987) breadth of applicable zone of interests for standing to intervene; CLi-98-ll,48 NRC 6 (1998)
Clarke v. Securities Indurtry Association, 479 U.S. 388, 399-400 (1987) showing necessary to prevail on zone-of-interests test for standing to intervene; CL1-98-ll,48 NRC 10 (1998)
Clarke v. Securities industry Association, 419 U.S. 388, 398-99, 403 (1987)
. economic competition as basis for standing to intervene under the Atomic Energy Act; CU-98 ll,48 NRC 12 (1998)'
Clawland Electric Illwninating Co. rPerry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CU-86-20, 24 NRC 518, 1
519-20 (1986), af'd sub nom Ohio v. NRC, 814 F.2d 258 (6th Cir.1987)
. participation of governmental enuties on appeal; CL1-98-21,48 NRC 202 n.5 (1998) j Clewland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Unit 1), CLI-93-21,38 NRC 87 (1993).
1 kinds of harm necessary to sustain a claim of prosedural injury; CU-98-20,48 NRC 184 n.1 (1998)
Clewland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit I), CU 93-21, 38 NRC 87,92 (1993) basis for standing to interwne in NRC licensing proceedings; CLI-95-11,48 NRC 6 (1998) showing necessary to demonstrate organizanonal standing to intervene; CU-9813,48 NRC 31 (1998) showing necessary to establish standing; LBP-98 22,48 NRC 154 (1998)
Clewland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CU-93 21,38 NRC 87,92, 94-95 (1993) i showing necessary to dernonstrate standing to intervene; LBP-98-20,48 NRC 91,92 (1998)
Clewland Electric lituminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit I), CU 93-21,38 NRC 87, 95 n.10 (1993) avoidance of merits assessment in determination of standing; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 142 (1998)
Clewland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CL186-7,23 NRC 233, 234 (1986) supervisory authority of Commission to instruct licensmg board in management of proceedings; j
CL1-98-15,48 NRC 51 n.1 (1998)
Clewland Electric Illununating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-93-21, 38 NRC 87. 95 j
(1993) geographic proximity as basis for standing to intervene on license amendment, showing necessary for, LBP 98-22, 48 NRC 155 (1998); LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 162 (1998)
Clewiand Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CU-93-21,38 NRC 87,95-%
(1993) proof necessary at threshold stage for standing to intervene; LBP 98-23,48 NRC 162 (1998)
Cofman v. Alyeska Pipeline services Co. and Arcric Slope Inspection Services. ARB Case No. %-141.
Final Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, June 24, 1996, slip op, at 2-3 availability of settlement agreements under FOIA; DD-98-10, 48 NRC 252 (1998) i 29 i
i i
J
__l l
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Commonwealth Edison Co- (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Uruts 1 and 2), CU-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 244 (1986) weight given to good cause when determining adtmssibility of late 41cd contentions; LBP-98 29,48 NRC 293 (1998)
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI 86-8,23 NRC 241, 245 (1986) weight given to criteria for determining admissibility of lats-61ed contentions; LBP 98-29, 48 NRC 294 (1998)
Commonweatrh Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), LBP-85 20, 21 NRC 1732, 1741 (1985), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, CU-86-8, 23 NRC 241 (1986) speci6 city required in stating areas of concern, LDP-98-21,48 NRC 142 n.7 (1998)
Commonweatrh Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units I and 2), ALAB.616,12 NRC 419, 426 (1980) scope of admissible areas of concern; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC i43 (1998)
Consolidated Edhon Co. of New York (Indian Point, Unit 2), CLI.74-23,7 AEC 947,951-52 (1974) referral of rnatters to Staff for post-hearing resolution: LBP-98-19, 48 NRC 84 (1998)
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Units 2 and 3), CLI-82-15,16 NRC 27, 32 (1982) germaneness test of interest that organization seeks to represent; CL1-98-13, 48 NRC 33 (1998)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-634,16 NRC 162.165 n.3 (1982) standard for acceptance of untirnely appeals; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 202 (1998)
Curators of the University of Missourt CU-91-7, 33 NRC 295, 296-97 (1991)
Commission authority to issue case-specine guidance; CU-9815,48 NRC 52 n.4 (1998)
Curators of the University of Missourt CLI-95-1,41 NRC 71,98 0995)
\\
weight given to NUREGs, Regulatory Guides, and other Commission guidance; CLI-98-15,48 NRC i
51 a.2 (1998)
Curators of she Uniwrsity of Missourt CU-95-1,41 NRC 71,98,100 (1995)
)
reliance on Staff guidance to allege that an applicatico is deAcient; LBP 98-21,48 NRC 143 (IW8)
Curators of the Uniwrsity of Missouri, CU-95-1, 4i NRC 71,120 (t995) cross examination by parties in informal proceeding; LBP-98-32, 48 NRC 379 (1998)
Curasors of the Unnerstry of Musourl CU-95-l,41 NRC 71,121 (1995) relevance of the adequacy of Staff safety review to whether an actico should be approved; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 143 (1998) l Curators of she Uniwrsity of Missouri, CU-95-8,41 NRC 386, 395 (1995) rnodification or amendmen'. sf license application; CU-98 25, 48 NRC 350 (1998); LBP 98 26, 48 NRC 243 (1998)
Curators of the Uniwrsrry of Missouri, CU-95-8, 41 NRC 386, 395-96 0901) -
litigability of Staff conduct of review pro-essen; LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 242 (1998); LBP-98-33, 48
)
j NRC 387 (1998) l Curators of the Uniwesity of Missourt, CLl-95-8. 41 NRC 386, 396 0995) litigability of complaints about NRC Staff conduct; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 213 (1998)
Dellums v. NRC, 863 F.2d %8, 971 (D C. Cir.1988) showing necessary to establish injury in fact; LBP-98 21, 48 NRC 141 (1998)
J Derroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-79-1,9 NRC 73,78 0979) geographic proxinuty as basis for standing to intervene in operating license extension proceeding; LBP-98-33, 48 NRC 385 n.10998)
Dubois v. USDA,102 F.3d 1273,1282 (1st Cir.1996) l judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; CU-98-21,48 NRC 208 0998) l Dubois v. USDA,102 F.3d 1273,1282-83 (1st Cir.1996), cerr. denied,117 S. CL 2510,138 L FA 2d j
1013 0 977) l frequency and duration of visits to establish standing to challenge licensing of independent spent fuel storage installation; CU-98-13, 48 NRC 32 0998)
Daks Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CU-98-17,48 NRC 123 0998) criteria for admission of contentions in operating license extension proceedings; LDP 98-33, 48 NRC 383-84 0 998) 30 i
.J y
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Duke rowr Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460, 467 n.12, 468 (1982) use of discovery to frnrne contentions, restrictions on; CLI 98 25,48 NRC 351 (1998)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1048 (1983) responsibihties of petitioners in light of volume of license applicanon documents; LBP-98-33, 48 NRC 392 n.3 (1998)
Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB 615,12 NRC 350, 352 (1980) burden on inte intervention petitioner; CLi-98-25, 48 NRC 347 n.9 (1998)
Energy fuels Nucleas. Inc., LBP-94 33,40 NRC 151,153-54 (1994) standard for state intervention; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 146 (1998)
Energy fuels Nuclear, fac, (White Mesa Uranium Mill), IEP-97-10, 45 NRC 429, 431 (1997) standing wbere state muerts jurisdiction over materials involved; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 147 (1998)
Envirocare of Utah, Inc., LBP-92-8,15 NRC 167,172 (1992) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 140 (1998)
Envirocare of Utah, Inc., LBP-92-8, 35 NRC 167,173 (1992) showing necessary to establish injury in fact; LDP-98 21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
First National Bank & Trust Co. v. National Credit Union Admmirtration, 988 F.2d 1272,1277 a.4 (D.C.
Cir.1993) competitor's standing to intervene on the basas of assertion that it is enforcing entry-restricting legislation; CL1-98-ll, 48 NRC 15 n.5 (1998)
First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Natwnal Credit Union Administration. 988 F.2d 1272,1278-79 (D.C.
Cir.1993) economic competition as basis for standmg to intervene where statute involves a restraint on competition; CL1-98-11, 48 NRC 14 (1998)
Firons Corp. v. Shalala, 860 F. Supp. 859, 862 (D D C.1994) competitive injury as basis for standing to intervene; CLI-98 il, 48 NRC 7 (1998) riorida Audubon Society v. Bentsen 94 F.3d 658, 665-66 (D C, Cir.1996) environmental nexus for litigabihry of ecunomic issues; CLI-98-ll, 48 NRC 9 (1998)
Florida rower and ught Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-893,27 NRC 627,629 n.5 (1988) precedential effect of unreviewed board rulings CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 343 n.3 (1998)
Florida Power and ught Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-89 21, 30 NRC 325, 329 (1989) geographic proximity as basis for standing to intervene in operating license extension proceeding; LBP-98 33, 48 NRC 385 n.1 (1998)
Florida Power and ught Co. (St. Lucis Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CL1-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 329 30 (1989) geographic proximity as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 93 (1998) showing of injury in fact in cases without obvious offsite implications; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 142 (1998) riorida Power and ught Co. (St. Imcie Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 330 (1989) geographic proximity as basis for standing to intervene on license amendment, showing necessary for; LBP-98-22,48 NRC 155 (1998); LDP 98-27, 48 NRC 276 (1998)
Florida Power and Ught Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), ALAB-952,33 NRC 521,529 (1991) showing necessary to demonstrate organizational standing to intervene; LBP-98-20,48 NRC 91 (1998)
Florida Power and ught Co. (Tuckey Pomt Nuclear Generating Plant, Uruts 3 and 4), ALAB-952, 33 NRC 521, 532, af'd, CL1-91-13, 34 NRC 185 (1991) abuse of discretion standard applied to appeals of licensing board rulings on discretionary interven-tion; CL1-9813,48 NRC 34 (1998) riorida Power and Ught Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 atul 4), CLI 91-5, 33 NRC 238, 240-41 (1991) standard for acceptance of untimely appeals; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 202 (1998) i 31 7
l 1
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-91-13, 34 -
NRC 185,187-88 0991)
Commission authonty to issue case-specific guidance; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 52 n.4 0998) riorida power and ught Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generaung Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI 91 13, 34 NRC 185, 108-89 0 991) board authority to raise issues sua sponte in operating license renewal proceedings; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 346 0998)
Ferrioson v. Alesander, 772 F.2d 12251242-43 (5th Cir.1985) segmentation of heensing actions involving safety issues, NRC policy on; 12P 98-23, 48 NRC 169 (1998)
General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-96-23,44 NRC 143, 150-54 (1996) authority of presiding officer to ser deadlines for fihng contentions; LDP-98-26, 48 NRC 242 0998)
Generul Public Utilities Nuclear Corp. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generadog Station), LBP-96-23, 44 NRC 143, 157 58 (1996) potential for offsite consequences of decreased steam generator tube inspections; LDP 98-23, 48 NRC f
163 (1998)
General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-96-23, 44 NRC 143, 158 0 996) level cf injury necessary to establish threshold standing; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 162 0998)
{
Geo-Tech Associates (Geo-Tech Laboratories), CL1-92-14, 36 NRC 221, 222 0992)
I Commission authority to define the scope of its proceedings; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 53, 54 0998)
)
Comscission authority to issue case speci6c guidance; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 52 n 4 0998) i I
Georgia farnrure of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12, 42 NRC lit,115 (1995) cons:ruction of ittervention petition in Eght rnost favorable to petitioner; LBP 93-22, 48 NRC 155 (1998); LBP-98-27,48 NRC 276 0998) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; CL1-98-ll, 48 NRC 6 (1998); CLI-98-13.
48 NRC 30 0998); LBP-98-21,48 NRC 140 (1998); LBP-98-27,48 NRC 275 0998) member authorization requireinent for organizational standing to intervene; CLI-98-13,48 NRC 31 (1998) organizational and representational standing to intervene, enteria for; CLI-98 21,48 NRC 195 (1998) proof necessary at threshold stage for standing to intervene; LBP-98 23,48 NRC 162 0998) showing necessary to demonstrare organizational standing to intervene; LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 91,92 (1998) showing necessary to estabbsh standing; LBP-9422, 48 NRC 154 (1998)
Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI 95-12,42 NRC 111, 116 0 995)
Commission deference to board determinations on standing to intervene; CL1-9813, 48 NRC 32 j
(1998) geographic proximity as basis for stand 6ng to intervene in operating license extension proceeding.
l LBP-98-33,48 NRC 385 0998',
standing to intervene on basis of potential irdury to petitioners residing near a nuclear facility; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 162 0998)
Georgia Institure of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia) CLI-95-12,42 hRC 111, 117 (1995) l fxquency and duration of visits to establish standing to challenge licensing of independent spent fuel I
storage installation; CLi-98-13,48 NRC 32 0998)
Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Units 1 and 2), CLI-93-16,38 NRC 25 0993) showing necessary to establish injury in fact; LBP-98 23. 48 NRC 159 0998)
Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Elecuic Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLi-9316, 38 NRC 25, 32 0993) injury-in fact and zone-of-interests requirenents for standing to intervene; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 141 (1998) 32 1
7 I
J l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES George Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Units I and 2), LBP-94-31, 40 NRC 137,140 (1994) proper support for reconsideration motions; LDP-98-17,48 NRC 73 (1998)
Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units I and 2) ALAB-183,7 AEC 222,226 (1974) geographic proximity as basis for standing to intervene in operating license extension proceeding; LDP-98-33, 48 NRC 385 n.1 (1998)
Gulf States Util. ties Co. (River Bend Station, Unit 1), CLI-94-10, 40 NRC 43,47 (1994) zone of-interests test to satisfy " prudential" requirement of standing; CL1-98-ll, 48 NRC 6, 8 (1998)
Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Unit I), CLI-94-10,40 NRC 43,47 48 (1994)
Commission defer nce to board determinadons on standing to intervene; CL1-98-13, 48 NRC 32 (1998)
Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Unit 1), LBP-94 3, 39 NRC 31,34 n.1 (1994), qf'd on other grounds, CLI-94-10,40 NRC 43 (1994) licensing board authority to review Staff immediate effectiveness determinations, scope of; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 204 n.7 (1998)
Hazardous Waste Treatment Couu,: v. EPA, 861 F.2d 271, 280, 281, 283, 285 (D C. Cir.1988), cert.
denied, 490 U.S.1106 (1989) economic competition as basis for standing to intervene under the Atomic Energy Act; CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 13 (1998)
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 861 F.2d 277,284 (D C. Cir.1988), cen. denied, 490 U.S.
1106 (1989)
Atomic Energy Act and National Environmental Policy Act as entry-restricting statutes; CLI 98-23,48 NRC 263 n.1 (1998)
Hazardous Waste Trearment Council v. EPA, 861 F.2d 277, 285 (D C. Cir.1988) cert. denied. 490 U.S.
1106 (1989) environmental interests of htigant whose sole motive is economic self-interest and welfare; CLI-98 23, 48 NRC 265 (1998)
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. Thomas, 885 F.2d 918, 927 (D C. Cir.1989)
J l
limits on competition under Atomic Energy Act; CLI 98 ll,48 NRC 15 (1998) i Hiatr Grain A Fred, Inc. v. Bergland, 446 F. Supp. 457, 487-88 (D. Kan.1978), qf'd, 602 F 2d 929 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S.1073 (1980) litigability of economic injury under NEPA; CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 9 (1998)
Houston Ughting and Powr Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), AIAB 565,10 NRC l
521, 523 (1979) licensing board authority to change deadline for Bling contentions; CLt-98-25,48 NRC 344 (1998)
Houston Ughting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB 574,11 NRC j
7,1213 & n.15 (1980) licensing board authority to chage deadline for Sting contentions; C1J-98 25, 48 NRC 344 (1998)
Hauston Ughtmg and Powr Co. (South Texas Project Units I and 2), ALAB-549,9 NRC 644,649 (1979) dismissal of contentions for procedural reasons, policy on; LBP 98-23, 48 NRC 166 (1998)
Houston li % ting and Towe Co. (South Texas Project Units 1 and 2), LBP 79-10, 9 NRC 439,447 48, ag'd, ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644 (1979) l showing necessary to establish injury in fact; LBP 98-21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
Humane SocPry of the Unced States v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 45, 56, 58-59 (D.C. Cir.1988) l germaneness test of interest that organization seeks to represent; CL1-9813, 48 NRC 33 (1998)
I Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adverrising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) showing necessary for grant of representational standing to intervene; CtJ 98-13,48 NRC 31 (1998)
Hydro Resources. Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101 Albuquerque, NM 87120), CLI-98-8,47 NRC 314, 320 21 (1998) applicability to timehness of stay requests; LBP 98-19,48 NRC 85 n.2 (1998) 33 l
I i
l I
_l I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CAU Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), CLI 98-9, 47 NRC 326, 332 (1998) supervisory authority of Commission to instruct licensing board in managemrint of proceedings; CLI-98-15,43 NRC 51 n.1 (1998) te ernational Uranium (USA) Corp. (White Mesa Uranium Mill), CLI-98-6, 47 NRC 116,117 (1998) showing necessary to demonstrate organizational standing to intervene; CLI-98-13,48 NRC 31 (1998) standard for state intervenuon; LBP-98 21,48 NRC 145 (1998)
International Uranium (USA) Corp. (White Mesa Uranium Mill) CLI-98-6, 47 NRC 116,118 (1998)
Commission deference to board determinations on standmg to intervene; CLI-9813,48 NRC 32 (1998); CL1-98-21, 48 NRC 201 (1998)
Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U.S. 617, 620 (l971) economic competition as basis ftr standing to intervene under the Atomic Energy Act; CLI-98-II,48 NRC 12 (1998)
/ersey Central Prwr and Ug4 Co (Forked River Nuclear Generating Station, Umt 1), ALAB-139, 6 AEC 535 (1973) econorrue interests protected under NEPA; Cis-98-il, 48 NRC 10 (1998) l Kelley v. Selin. 42 F.3d 1501,1508 (1995) construction of intervention petitions in favor of complaining party; LBP-98 23, 48 NRC 162 n.2 (1998) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 195 (1998)
Kelley v. Selin 1501,1509 (6th Cir.1995) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; CL!-98-21,48 NRC 203 (1998)
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facihty), CLI-96-2, 43 NRC 13 (1996) vacatur of board decisions that are unreviewed at the time a case becomes moot; CLI-98 24 43 NRC 269 (1998)
Uquid Carbonic Indsstries Corp. v. FERC, 29 F.3d 697 (D C Cir.1994) compeutive injury as basis for standing to intervene; CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 7 (1998)
Uquut Carbonic Indarrries Corp. v. FERC, 29 F.3d 697, 704 (D.C. Cir.1994) separability of injury-in-fact and zone-of-interests tests; CLI-98 23, 48 NRC 264 (1998) zone-of-interests test for standing to intervene; CLI-98-II, 48 NRC 8,11 (1998)
Uquid Carbonic Industries Corp. v. FERC, 29 F.3d 697,105 (D C. Cir.1994) economic competition as basis for standing to intervene where statute involves a restraint on compention; CL1-98 il, 48 NRC 14 (1998) bag Island ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB 788, 20 NRC 1102,1159 (1984) referral of matters to Staff for post-hearing resolution; IEP-98-19, 48 NRC 84-85 (1998) l.ong Island ughtmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB 832, 23 NRC 135,138 (1597)
]
(1986) discretion of licensing board to grant unumely stay motion; LBP-98-19, 48 NRC 85 (1998) hmg Island ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Umt 1), CL1-88-9,28 NRC 567,569 (1988) supervisory authority of Commission to instruct licensing boatd in management of pmceedings; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC Si n.1 (1998) bag Island ughting Co. (Shortham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), CLi-88 9. 28 NRC 567, 569-71 (1988) licensing board authority to grant urne extensions; CLI-9815,48 NRC 52 (1998) i kng Island Ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Statica, Unit 1), CL1-88-il, 28 NRC 603, 603-04 i
(1988)
Commission authority to issue case-specific guidance; CLI-98-15, 43 NRC 52 n.4 (1998) bas Island ughtmg Co. (Shoreham Nudear Power Station, Unit 1), CL1-91-1, 33 NRC l (1991)
Commission authority to issue case-speci6c guidance; CL1-98-15, 43 NRC 52 n.4 (1998) kng Island ughtmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-2, 33 NRC 61 (1991)
Commission authority to issue case speci5c guidance; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 52 n 4 (1998) bag Island ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-4, 33 NRC 233, 237 (1991)
Commission authority to issue case-speci6c guidance; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 52 a.4 (1998)
(
34
_.l:
l l
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Iong Island I.lghs Co. (%reluun Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP 85-12, 21 NRC 644, ufd, ALAB-818, 22 NRC 65. (1985), rev'd un other groundr, CU-86-13,24 NRC 22 (1986) licensing board auch sity to rule on effecoveness of agreement that raises a question about status of sheriff's office u act as local law enforcement agency; LBP 98-17,48 NRC 75 n.4 (1998) long Island IJghteg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-8813, 27 NRC 509. remanded for further proceedings, ALAB-905, 28 NRC 515 (1988) licensing board authority to rule on effectiveness of agreernent that raises a question about status of sheriff's of6ce to act as local im enforcement agency; LBP-98-17,48 NRC 75 n.4 (1998)
' Long Island Lighg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-7,33 NRC 179,183 (1991) litigability of challenges to Staff signiAcant hazards consideration determination; LBP-98-24, 48 NRC 222-23 0 998)
Louisiana Energy and Power Authority v. FERC,141 F.3d 364. 367 (D.C. Cir.1998) -
competitive injury as basis for standing to intervene; CU-9811,48 NRC 7 0998) fouisiana Encery and Power Authority v. FERC,141 F.3d 364, 367-68 n.5 (D.C. Cir.1998) economic interest as basis for standing to intervene; CU-98 23,48 NRC 263 (1998) statutory limits on competition; CL1-98-il,48 NRC 15 n.4 (1998) fouhiana Energy Servkes, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-95-7,41 NRC 383,384 0995) denial of interlocutory review on issue that might have to be revisited in light of new federal l-legislation; CLI-98-22,48 NRC 218 (1998) fouisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-97-2,45 NRC 3,4 & n.l.0997) proper support for reconsideration motions; LBP-9817,48 NRC 73 0998) fouisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-97-3,45 NRC 49,50 0997)
Commission order for expedition of proceeding and suggesting time frames and schedules; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC $2 (1998)
(
Louisiana Energy Servkes, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-97-15,46 NRC 294, 302, 308 (1997) applicability of financial quali6 cations requirernents to independent spent fuel storage installation applicants; CU 98-13, 48 NRC 36 (1998) l Louisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-98-3,47 NRC 77,100,10106 0991i) 1 l
litigability of environmental justice issues in NRC proceedings; CU.98-13,48 NRC 35 36 0998)
Louisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CU-98 5,47 NRC 113.114 (1998) f vacatur of board decisions that are unreviewed at the time a case becomes moot; CU-98-24, 48 S
' NRC 269 0998) -
fouisiana Energy Servkes, LP, (Claiborne Enrichment Center), LBP-91-41, 34 NRC 332, 338 39 (1991) burden on peutioner contesting applicant's RAI response; CU-98-25,48 NRC 350 (1998) l louisiana Energy Servkes, LP. (Claibarne Enrichment Center), LBP-95-41, 34 NRC 332, 338-39, 347, 354 0 991) i reliance on Staff guidance to allege that an application is dc6cient; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 143 (1998) l l
1.ujan v. Defenders of Wildlye, 504 U.S. 555 (1991)
}
irreducible constitutional minimum requirements for standing; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 140 (1998)
Lajan v. Defenders of Wildtsfe, 504 U.S. 555, 560-62 (1992) basis for standing to intervene in NRC licensing proceedings; CU-98-II,48 NRC 6 (1998) j McEinney v. Department of the Treasurjs 799 F.2d 1544,1553 (Fed. Cir.1986) germaneness test of interest that ort,anization seelts to represent; CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 34 n.3 0198)
I MD Pharmaccurical Inc. v. Drug Enforcemens Administration,133 F.3d 8. Il (D.C. Cir.1998) l competitive injury as basis for standing to intervene; CU-98-11,48 NRC 7 (1998)
MD Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Administration,133 F.3d 8,12 (D.C. Cir.1998) statutory limits on competition; CU-98-ll,48 NRC 15 n.4 (1998)
Medical Association of Alabama v. Schwiker, 554 F. Supp. 955, 964-65 (M.D. Ala.), qf'd, 714 F.2d 107 (llth Cir.1983) (per curiam) germaneness test of interest that organitarion seeks to represent; CH-98-13, 48 NRC 34 n.3 0998)
Mekher v. FCC,134 P.3d 1143,1163 (DC. Cir.1998) sinultaneous appeals before the Commission and the U.S. Court of Appeals challenging tbc same
- order; CU 98 25,48 NRC 336 n.10998) j 35 i
- l l
.mf
_l I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES 8/etropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit 1), ALAB-729,17 NRC 814, 889-90 (1983), rev'd in part on other grounds. C1184-ll, 20 NRC 1, 4 (1984) litigability of issues that are the subject of generic rulemakings; LBP.98-33, 48 NRC 391 (1998)
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile bland Nuclear Station, Unit 1). ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193,1247 (1984), rev'd in part on other grounds, CLI-85-2, 21 NRC 282 (1985) procedural standards to which pro se intervenors are held in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 201-02 (1998)
Metropolitan Edison Co. ('three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I), CLI-83-25,18 NRC 327. 332 (1983) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 140,141 (1998)
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt 1), ClJ.85-2,21 NRC 282, 316 (1985) zone-of. interests test to satisfy " prudential" requirenrnt of standing; CL1-98-il, 48 NRC 6 (1998)
Michigan Gas Co. v. FERC,115 F.3d 1266,1272 (6th Cir.1997) competitor's standing to intervene on the basis of assertion that it is enforcing entry-restricting legisladon; CLI-98-il, 48 NRC 15 n.5 (1998)
Mississippi Fower & Ught Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stanon, Units I and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982) burden on late intervention petitioner; CLI 98-25, 48 NRC 347 n.9 (1998)
Morales v. Transworld Airlines, Inc.112 S. Ct 2031,119 L F4 2d 157,60 USLW 4444 (1992) standard for grant of a stay; LBP 98-19, 48 NRC 85 (1998) i Mountain States legal Foundation v, Glickman, 92 F.3d 1228,1236 (D.C Cir.1996) co,apentive injury as basis for standing to intervene; ClJ-98 il,47 NRC 8 (1998); C!198-23, 48 NRC 264 (1998)
MOVA Phannaceutical Corp. v. Shalala,140 F.3d 1060,1076 (D.C. Cir.1998) statutory limits on competition; CLI-98-il, 48 NRC 15 n 4 (1998); CLI-98-23, 48 NRC 263 (1998)
National Coal Association v. Hodel, 825 F.2d $23, 530 n.9 (D C Cir.1987) lirmts on compestion under Atomic Energy Act; CLI 98 II,48 NRC 15 (1998)
National Coal Association v. Hodel, 825 F.2d 523. 533 (D C Chr.1987) htigation of compendve interests, circumstances appropriate for; CL1-98-ll,48 NRC 14 (1998)
National Credit Union Adnunistratwn v. First National Bank & Trust Co.,118 S Ct. 927 (1998) economic competition as basis for standing to intervene where statute involves a restraint on competition; CL1-98-II, 48 NRC 14 (1998)
National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co.,118 S. Ct. 927,935 n.6 (1998) statutory hmits on compention; CLI-98-ll, 48 NRC 15 n.4 (1998)
National Creda Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co., i18 S. Ct. 927,935-36 & n.7 (1998) showing necesary to prevail on zone <1f-interests test for standing to intervene; C1198-ll, 48 NRC i
10, 11 (1998)
National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co.,118 S. Ct. 927,935-37 & an 6.
7 (1998)
" common bond" restriction for interwntion on the basis of economic interests; CLI 98-il,48 NRC 11,12 (1998)
National Credit Union Adamistration v. National Bank & Trust Co.,118 S. Ct. 927,935-36 & nn.6, 7, 938, 940 (1998) economic interests that satisfy tone-of-interests test in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-23,48 NRC 262 63, 264 (1998) i National Federation of Federal Employees v. Cheney 883 F.2d 1038,1047 (D.C Cnr.1989), cert. denied, 1
496 U.S. 936 (1990) l economic compentine as basis for standing to int rvene under the Atomic Energy Act, CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 13 (1998)
Newsda hund Action Association v. United States Forest SeMce, 8 F.3d 113, 750 (9th Cir.1993) htigability of ecmomic mjury under NEPA; CLI-9411, 43 NRC 8 (1998)
New England Power Co. (NEP, Units I and 2), LBP-78-9, 7 NRC 271, 284f t (1978) litigabihty of Staff conduct of review processes; LBP-98 26, 48 NRC 242 (1998) 36 7
I
I 1
I I
I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES New England Prneer Ca (NEP, Units I and 2), LBP 78-9. 7 NRC 271,281 (1978) modi 6 cation or amendment of license application; LBP-98-26,48 NRC 243 (1998)
Nonh Atlantic Energy Service Corp. (Seabrook Station, Unit I), CL1-9818,48 NRC 129 (1998) sua sponte interlocutory review of novel segmentauon lasue; CLI-98 22,48 NRC 218 (1998)
Nonh Atlantic Energy Service Corp. (Seabsuck Station, Unit I), LDP-98-23,48 NRC 157,162 (1998) geographic proximity as basis for standmg to intervene in operaung license extension proceeding; l
LBP-98-3148 NRC 385 (1M8)
Nonheast Nuclear Energy Co. (Millsame Nuclear Power Station Unit 2) LBP-92 28, 36 NRC 202,21213 (1992) powntial for offsite consequences of decreased steam gener.nor tube inspections; LBP 98-23, 48 NRC 163 (1998).
Nonheast Nuclear Energy Ca (Millstotte Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) LBP-96-1,43 NRC 19,26 l-(1996)
[
potential for offsite consequences of decreased steam generator tube inspections; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 163 (1998) r l
Nankern States Power Ca (Path 6nder Atomic Plant), LBP-89-30,10 NRC 311,312-13 (1989) l standing reqmrements applied to Subpart L hearing requests; LBP 98-21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
Nonhern Sarras Power ca (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 192, reconMn denied, ALAB-110,6 AEC 247, af*d, CLI-73-12,6 AEC 241 (1973) l use of discovery to frame contentions, restrictions on; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 351 (1998)
[
Nuclear Engineerms Ca (Shef6cid Illinois. Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sile), ALAB-473,7 l
NRC 737,745 (1978) burden on petitioner for discretionary intervention; C119813,48 NRC 35 n.4 (1998)
Nuclear Engineering Ca (Shefheld, Illinois Low-level Radioactive Waae Disposal Site), CLI-801,11 i
I NRC 1,5 (1980) raining previously rejected uguments in reconsideration motions; LBP 9817,48 NRC 73 (1998) l Nuclear Iq/ormation Assource Service v. NRC, 969 P.2d 1169,1177 (D.C. Cir.1992) (en banc)
NRC broad regulatory latitude in establishing its own procedural ru'es and methods of inquiry; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 341 (1998)
. Nucitar Metals, Inc., LBP 9127, 33 NRC 548, 551 (1991) pursuit of negotiations as good cause for lats Bling: LBP 9818,48 NRC 80 (1998)
Ohio Edison Co. (PinTy Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLl 9115, 34 NRC 269,271 (1991), reconsidem-tion denied, CL1-92 6, 35 NRC 86 (1992)
Commission authority to defice the scope of its proceedmgs; C119815,48 NRC 54 (1998)
Ohio Edisen Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1), CLI-92 6,35 NRC 85,90 (1992)
Commission authority to issue case-speciSc guidance; CLI 98-15,48 NRC 52 n.4 (1998)
Ohio Edison ca (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit I), LBP-9138,34 NRC ?29, 252 (1991), qf'd in parr on other grounds, Ct192 II,36 NRC 47 (1992) j abstract, hypothetical injury as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
Old Town Trolley Tours. Inc. v,1Vashington Merropolitan Area Tro rit Commkston,129 P 3d 201,203 (D C. Cir.1997) competitor's standing to intervene on the basis of assertion ' Aat it is enfoteing entry-restricting legislation; CLI 98 ll, 48 NRC 15 n.5 (1998)
Oncology Services Corp., CL1-93-13, 37 NRC 419 (1993) standard for grant of inserlocutory review; CL1-98 22, 48 NRC 217 (1998)
Pacgc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-223, 8 AEC 241 (1974) economic interests protected under NEPA; CU 98-!!. 48 NRC 10 (1998)
Pac @c Gas and Electric Ca (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2), AIAlb600,12 NRC 3, 8 (1980) j applicability of standing and late-filing reqmrements to governmental entities participating under j
section 2.715(c); CL1-98 21,48 NRC 202 n.5 (1998) i 57 l
_I I
l LWGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Pacyc Gas and 17ectric Ca (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-86-12,24 NRC.
1, 4 5 (1986), tev'd and remanded on other growuls, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,199 P.2d 1268 (9th Cir.1986) chstlenges to Staff signi6 cant hazards consideration determination; CL1-98-21. 48 NRC 204 a.7 (1998)
. Pacyc Cas and Elettric Ca (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unita 1 and 2), LBP 92 27,36 NRC 196, 199 (1992).
organizational manding to intervene on basis of geographic proximity of member; LDP 98-23,48
. NRC 159-60 (1998); LBP 98-33, 48 NRC 385 (1998)
Pacific Gas and Elect ic Ca (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-93-1,37 NRC 5, 29-30 (1993) l titigability of issuis that are the subject of generic rulemakings; LBP-98-33,48 NRC 391 (1998)
Panhandle Producers and Royalty Owners Association v. Economic Regulatory Administration, 822 P.2d 1105,1107 09 (D.C Cir.1987) statutory lirmts on cornpetition; CLI-98-il,48 NRC 15 n.4 (1998)
Patterson v. Alpar Cuy, 663 P.2d 95, 96 (Utah 1983) mandatory requirenn nt for resolutions to be in wnting; LBP 98-17,48 NRC 74 (1998) l Petro-Chem processing,1,ic. v. EPA, 866 P.2d 433, 435-36 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S.1106 (1989) economic competition as basis for standing to meervene under the Atomic Energy Act; CLI-98-la 48 NRC 13 (1998)
Philadelphia Electric Ca (limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP 82-43A,15 NRC 1423
. (1982) licensing board authority to rule on effectiveness of agreement that raises a question about status of sheriff's aflice to act as local law enforcement agency; LBP-98-17, 48 NRC 75 n.4 (1998)
Philadelphia Electric Ca (Linerick Generating Station, Units I and 2), LBP 83-25,17 NRC 681,687, rev'd and remanded on other grounds. ALAB-726,11 NRC 755 (1983) proper support for recomideration motions; LBP 98-17,48 NRC 73 0998)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216,8 AEC 13, 20 21 (1974) scope of admissible areas 2f concern; LBP-98 21,48 NRC 143 n.9 0998)
Port of Assoria v. Ifodel, 595 P 24 447, 474 (9th Cir.1979)
. zone-of-interests requiremen for standing to intervene; 2P-98-21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
Port of Astoria v. Ilodel. 595 P/.td 467, 474 75,476 (9th Cir.1979)
- economic harm as basis for standing to intervene under NEPA; CLI-98-!!,48 NRC 9 (1998)
Portland Audubon Society v. Hodel, 866 P.2d 302,309 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 479 US. 9110989) litigabihty of economic injury under NEPA; CLI-98-il,48 NRC 8 (1998)
Portland General Electric Ca (Ptbile Spring Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613 14 0 976) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 6 0998); CLI 9813, 48 NRC 30 0998); LBP 98 20, 48 NRC 91 (1998); MP-98 21,48 NRC 140 0998); LBP 98-22, 48 NRC 154 0998); LBP-98-27,48 NRC 275 0998) l Prhute fuel Storage, LLC Ondepenitent Spent Puel Storage Pacility), CU-98-7,47 NRC 307 (1998.1 1
nmitiple boards, circumstances ag propriate for appointment of; CL1-98-12, M NRC 210998)
Primte Puel Storage, LLC Ondepend:nt Spent Puel Storage Installation), CLI 98-13, 48 NRC 26, 30 31 l
(1998) j geographic proximity as basis for standing to intervene in license termination proceedmg; CLI-98-21, I
48 NRC 208 (1998) germanenen test for organizational interest; LBP 98 20, 48 NRC 92 (1998) showing necessary for snembership organization to establish standing; LDP-98-22, 48 NRC 154 0998)
Privute Fuel Storage, LLC Ondependent Spent Puel Storage Installation), CLI-9813, 48 NRC 26,32 1998) weight given to licensing board judgtlents on threshold standing questions; LI-98 20,48 NRC 184 g
0 998).
4 i
38 l
i
3 l
\\
__ I I
l 1
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Prnare fuel Storage, LLC. Ondependent Spent NI Storage Installation), CL1-98-13, 48 NRC 26, 35 (1998) partisipation by governmental advisory body as amicas curiae; CU-98-21,43 NRC (1998)
Prnwee fuel Storage, LLC Ondependent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 1, CU-9813, 48 NRC 26, 35-37 (1998)
Commission authority to issue case-speciac guidance; CU-98-15, 48 NRC 52 n.4 (1998)
Priware fuel Storage, LLC Ocdem Spent N1 Smrage Instalianon), LBP 98-7, 47 NRC 142 (1998) discretion of licensing boards to a!!ow petitioner to argue orally at prehearing conference that its contentions satisfied late-Rling criteria; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 348 n.ll (1998) litigabibty of challenges to NRC Staff review; CLI 98-25, 48 NRC 352 (1998)
Prinne fuel Storage, LLC (Independent Spent NI Storage Installation), LDP 98-7, 47 NRC 142, 159-63, ef'd on other groundr, CU-98-13, 43 NRC 26 (1998) authority of presiding officer to set deadlines for Bling contentions; LBP 98-26, 48 NRC 242 (1998)
Primie fuel Storage. LLC Ondependent Spent NI Storage Installation), LDP 98 7, 47 NRC 142,160 (1998) delay in 61ing contentions relatmg to security plan portion of application granted because of need to issue protective order to grant petitioner access to security plan; LDP 98-26, 48 NRC 242 (1998)
Prfwite fuel Storage, LLC (Indepeedent Spent NL Storage Installation), LDP-95-7, 47 NRC 142,179 (1998) litigability of issues that are the subject of generic rulemakings; LBP 98-33,48 NRC 391 (1998)
Public Service Ca ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-459, 7 NRC 179,189 96 (1978) licensing board authority to rule on effectiveness of agreement that raises a question about status of sheriff's office to act as local law enforcenrnt agency; LBP-98-17, 48 NRC 75 n.4 (1998)
Public Service Ca ofIndiana (Marble 11111 Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB461, 7 NRC 313,318 (1978) referral of maaers to Staff for post hearing resolution; LBP-9819, 48 NRC 84 (1998)
Public Servke Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-737,18 NRC 168,172 n 4 (1983) sumdard for adrnission of lare-filed contention based on document recently made publicly available; LBP-98-29,48 NRC 292 (1998)
Public Service Ca of New Hampshl r (Seabrook Station, Uruts I and 2), ALAB-899, 28 NRC 93, 97 (1988) amendment of contention basis; LBP 98 29,48 NRC 297 (1998)
Public Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-924, 30 NRC 331, 373 n.1% (1989) discretion of licensmg board to grant untimely stay mudon; LBP-98-19, 48 NRC 85 (1998)
Public Service Ca of New Nayshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CU 77-8, 5 NRC 503, 516 (1977)
Commission authortry to issue case-speci6c guidance; CU-9815, 48 NRC 52 (1998)
Public Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CU 77 8, 5 NRC 503, 51617 (1977) supervisory aut ority of Commission to instruct licensing board in management of proceedings; h
CU-98-15, 48 NRC Si n.1 (1998)
Public Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units I and 2), CL1-89 3, 29 NRC 234, 240 41 (1989) pleading requirements for contentions at admission stage; CU-98-25,48 NPC 348 (1998) speci6 city required in stating areas of concern; LDP-98 21, 48 NRC 142 n 7 (1998)
Public Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLI-90 3, 31 NRC 219, 229 0 990)
Commission authority to assume functions of presiding officer; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 20 (1998) supervisory authority of Commission to instruct licensing board in management of proceedings; CU-98-15, 48 NRC 51 n.10998) 39 7
I
[
l l
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASI3 Public Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit I), CL1-9114,34 NRC 261,266 (1991) showing suf6cient to establish standing to intervene; LBP-98 21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
Public Service Co. of OA!ahoma (Black Ibx Station, Units ! and 2), ALAB-573,10 NRC 775,780 n.18 (1979) applicability of Rderal RLies of Civil Procedure in NRC proceedings; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 160 n.1 (1998)
Puget Sound Power end Ught Ca (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), LBP-79-16,9 NRC 711, 715, gg'd, ALAB-559,10 NRC 162 (1979) reliance on government to represent its interest es good cause for late-6ted hearing request; LBP-9818, 48 NRC 80 (1998)
Puget Sound Power and ught Ca (Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Project. Units I and 2), LBP-82 74,16 NRC 981,983 (1982) academic laterest in outcome of proceeding as basis for standing to interwne; LBP 98-21, 48 NRC 141 (1998)
Quivira Mining Ca (Arnbrosia Lake Fucility, Orsats, New Mexico), CLI-98-11,48 NRC 1 (1998) standing requiresnents applied to Subpart L hearing requests; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 141 (1998)
Quivira Mining Ca (Antrosia Lake heility, Grants New Mexico), Cl198 ll, 48 NRC 1, 5-6 (1998) judicini concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-13,48 NRC 30 (1998);
CL1-98 21, 48 NRC 195-% (1998); LDP 98-20, 48 NRC 91 (1998n LBP-98-27, 48 NRC 275 (1998)
Quivira Mining Ca (Antrosia Lake Pacility, Grants, New Mexico), CLl-98-11, 48 NRC I, 6 (1998) showing necessary to establish standing; LBP 98-22, 48 NRC 154 (1998)
Quiwra Mining Ca (Ambrosta Lake Facility, Grants, New Mexico), CL198-il,48 NRC I,12,13 (19o8) ecoaomic interest as basis for standing to intervene; CLI 98 23, 48 NRC 261, 262, 264 (1998)
Randall C. Orca D.O., CL193-14, 37 NRC 423, 429 30 (1993)
Cornrnission authority to (saue case-speci6c guidance; Cl19815, 48 NRC 52 n.4 (1998)
Reyiblatt v. NRC,105 F.3d 715, 721 (D C. Cir.1997) zone.cf-interests test to natufy " prudential" requirement of standing; CLE-93 ll, 48 NRC 6, 8 (1998)
Rochester Gas & Elcrreic Corp. IR,B. Ginna Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), LDP 83 73,18 NRC 1231,1233-36 (1983) renoticing of amended license spplication, need for; LBP 98-29,48 NRC 301 (1998)
Rockwell Inzritational Corp. (Rocketdyne Division), ALAB-925, 30 NRC 709, 721 11 (1989), qf'd, CLl-90 5, 31 NxC 337 (1990) auderity of licensing boards and presiding of8cers to direct Staff in the performance of its safety reviews; LDP.98 21,48 NRC 143 (1998)
Sabme River Authority v. United States Department of Interior, 951 F.2d 669, 674 (5th Cir ), cert denied, 506 U.S. 823 (1992) standing to intervene on basis of geog aphic proximity; CL1-98-II, 48 NRC 9 (1998)
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLE-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 56 (1992), review denied sub nom. Environmental & Resources Conserwrion Organization v. NRC, 996 l
F.2d 1224 (9th Cir.1993) economic interests protected under NEPA; C1198-ll,48 NRC 10 (1998) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; LBP 98 21,48 NRC 140 (1998)
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-93-3, 37 NRC 135, 144 (1993) pleading requirements for contentions at admission stage; CLI-98 25, 48 NRC 34> (1998)
Sacramento Municipal Utihty District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), C1193-19, 38 NRC 81 (1993)
Commission authority to issue case-specine guidance; CLI-9815, 48 NRC 52 n.4 (1998)
Sqfery Leht Corp. (Blonmsburg Site Decontamination and License Renewal Denials), CLI 9213, 36 NRC 79, 91 1992)
Conmnasion authority to interpret and custonize its pmcess for individuct cases, CLI-98-15,48 NRC 53 (1998) 40 l
l l
I:
_l I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Comnsalon authonty to shorten tuin, period for filing contentions; CLI-98 25, 48 NRC 343-44.
(1998)
Schering Corp. v. FDA, St P.3d 390,395-96 (3d Cir.), cerr. denied, 516 U.S. 907 (1995) statutory linuts on compet tion; CU-98-11,48 NRC 15 a.4 (l998) i Sequoyah fuels Curp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI 94-12,40 NRC 64,7172 (1994) showing necessary to establish standing; LBP-98-22, 48 NRC 154 (1998)
Sequoyah nele Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma, Site), CU-%12, 40 NRC 64, 7175 (1994) expert affidavits required in support of claims of standing; CU-98-21,48 NRC 210 n.13 (1998) geographic proxinuty as basis for standing to Amervene in license tennination proceeding; CLI-9841, 48 NRC 208 (1998)
SequovaA fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Sim), CU.%I2,40 NRC 64,72 (1994) standard for stam intervention; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 145 (1998)
Sequoyah ruela Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma bite), CL1-94-12,40 NRC 64,'74 (1994) evidendary support required at threshold pleading stage; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 209 (l998); LDP-98-23, 48 NRC 162 (1998)
Sequo.wh fuels Corp. (Gote. Oklahoma Sim), CU-9412,40 NRC 64,75 (1934) determination of whether petitioner's esserted injury is traceable to proposed action, basis for, LEP 98-22,48 NRC 155 (1998) germaneness test for organis.ationul interest; LDP-98 20, 48 NRC 92 (1998) kinds of harm necesrary to susuun a claim of procedural injury: CU.98-20,48 NRC 184 n.1 (1998) showing of causal link between assened harm and licensing action to establish standing to intervene; LDP-98 27, 48 NRC 276 (1998)
' Sequoyah fuels Corp. (Gore Oklahoma Site), CLI 94-12, 40 NRC 64,75 a.22 (1994) standing to intervene on basis of potendal injury to Ietitioners residing near a nuclear facility; LBP-98 23,48 NRC 162 (1998)
Sequoyuk fuels Corp., LBP-915,33 NRC 163,164-65 ( %I) standing requirements opphed to Subpart L hearing requests; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
Sequoyah fuels Corp., LBP-%39, 40 NRC 314, 316 (1994) specilicity required in stating areas of concern; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 142 (1998)
Sequoyah fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahorna Site Decomamination and Decommissioning hoding) LBP 94-5, 39 NRC $4,66-67 (1994) standing requirements applied to Subpart L heanng requests; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
Sequoyah fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site Decontamination and Decommissioning Funding), LBP-%5, 39 NRC 54,68 (1994) avoidance of merits assessment in determnadon of standing; LBP 98 21, 48 NRC 142 (1998)
Sequoyah fuel Corp. (Gore Oklahoma Site Decontamination and Decommissiomog hnding), LBP-%8, 39 NRC !!6,119-29 (1994) dismissal of conentions for procedural reasona, policy on; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 166 (1998)
Sequoyah Fuels Corp., LBP 96-12, 43 NRC 290, 306 (1996) authority of presiding of6cer to approve, deny, or condition any licensing action under his jurisdic.
tion; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co 73 P.34 546,535-57 (5di Cir.1996) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; CU-98-21,48 NRC 208 (1998)
Sierra Club v. Aforron, 405 U.S. 727,734 35 (1972) general intermt in cultural, histencal, and economic resources of a geographic area as basis for standing to Imervene; LBP-98-21. 48 NRC 142 (1998)
. State of New Jersey (Department of Law and Public Safety's Requests Dated October 8,1993), CU 03-25, 38 NRC 289,291 (1993)
Commission order for expedition of proceeding a::d suggesting time frames and schedules; CU 98-15, 48 NRC 52 (1998)
Starrment of Policy on Conduct of Afludicatory Proceedings, CU-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998)
Commission supervisory authority over conduct of adjudicatnry proceedi'igs; CLI-98-16,48 NRC 120 (1998) 41
1
__l I
t LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES criteria for adnussion of contenoons in operating license extension proceedings; LBP-98 33,48 NRC 383-84 (1998)
I schedule for opersting license renewal proceeding; CL198-14, 48 NRC 43 (1998) scheduling authority and responsibilities of licensMg boards; CL1-98-25, 48 NRC 336-37, 340 (1998) scheduling snilentones for completion of operating license renewal proceeding; CL1-98-17, 48 NRC 127 (1998) scheduling of proceedings, NRC policy on; CL198-13,48 NRC 37 (1998) supervisory authority of Conunission to instruct licensing board in management of proceedings; CL1-9815,48 NRC it (1998)
Statement of Polisy on Conduer of Adjudicatory Preweedings, CL1-9812,48 NRC !8. 20 (1998) consideration of complexity of issues and interests of parties in establishing schedules; CLI-98-22, 48 NRC 217 (1998)
Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CL1-98-12,48 NRC 18, 23 (1998) s Commission auttw. airy ta step into ongoing proceedings to clanfy its views on procedural anatters;
)
CL1-98-22,48 NRC 217 (1998)
Conunission sua sponte review of novel issues; Cll-98-18 48 NRC 130 (1998)
Starement of Policy on Conduct of Licensmg Proceedings, CL1-81-8,13 NRC 452 (1981) scheduling nulestones for cornpletion of operating license renewal proceeding; CL1-98-14,48 NRC 43 j
(1998), CLI-98-17,48 NRC 127 (1998) j supervisory authority of Comnussion to instruct licensing board in management of proceedings; j
CLI-98-15,48 NRC 51 n 3 (1998) type of guidance provided by; CLI-9812, 48 NRC 19 (1998) i Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedingt, Cll 81-8,13 NRC 452,454 (1981)
\\
procedural standards to which pro se intervenors are held in NRC proceedings; CL1-98-21,48 NRC 201 02 (1998) responsibilities of petitioners in light of volurne of license application documents; LDP 98 33, 48 NRC 392 a.3 (1998)
Steel Co. v. Cittens for a Berrer Environment, i18 S. Ct.1003,1016 (1998) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; CL1-98-21,48 NRC 195 (1998) standard for state intervention; LBP-98-21,48 NRC "5 (1998)
Strickland v. Alderman 74 F.3d 260,265 (1lth Cir. le applicability of Equal Protection Clause to diff*
'tment of dissimilarly 4tuated competitors; CL1-98-ll,48 NRC 17 n.8 (1998)
Tennessee Valley Aarhority (Browns Ferry Nucles
..s 1 and 2), LBP 7610, 3 NRC 209, 216 (1976) specificity required in stating areas of coth. LGP-98-21, 48 NRC 142 n.7 (1998)
Tennersee Valley Authority (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plam, Units I and 2) ALAB 515,8 NRC 702 (1978) weight given to environmental or other permits issued by other regulatory bodies in NRC licensing decisions; CL198-16, 48 NRC 122 n.3 (1998)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB 515, 8 NRC 703 (1978) l licensing board authority to rule on effectiveness of agreement that raises a quesnon about status of l
sheriff's ottice to act as local law cuforcement agency; LEP-98-17,48 NRC 75 n.4 (1998)
Tesas Urdiries Electric Co. (Camanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CL1-92-12, 36 NRC 62, 69 (1992) burden on late intervention petitioner to address five lateness factors; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 347 n.9 (1998)
Texas Urdities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units I arul 2), CLI-92-12, 36 NRC 62, 70 (1992) principle governing determination of lateness; LBP-98-18,48 NRC 80 (1998; Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electne Station, Unit 2), CLI-93-II, 37 NRC 251, 255 i
(1993) penalty for late intervention peutioner's failure to address the section 2.714 lateness factors; CLL98-25,4 NRC 347 n.10 (1998) i I
42 l
l
~
l l
i
[.
_I I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Texas Utilities Generating Co. (Cornanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), CLt-81-24,14 NRC 614 (1981)
(-
licensing board procedure for raising inues sua sponte; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 23 (1998)
Troy Corp. v, Browner,120 F.3d 277, 287 (D.C. Cir.1997) exemption of statements of policy and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice from notice-and comment tequirement; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 341 (1998)
UMETCO Minerals Corp., I BP-92-20, 36 NRC 112 (1992) good cause for late 61ing of hearing request; LBP-94-18, 48 NRC 80 (1998)
UMETCO Minerals Corp., LBP-92-20, 36 NRC 112,115 (1992) standing requirements applied to Subpart L hearing requests; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 141 (1998) standards for state intervenuon; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 145 (1998) standing where state asserts jurisdiction over materials involved; LBP.98-21,48 NRC 147 (1998)
UMETCO Minerals Corp., LBP.93-7, 37 NRC 267, 268-69 (1993) challenge to ornendment authorizing the tesung of a process to extract uranium from feed material; LBP-98 21,48 NRC 144 (1998)
UME7CO Minerals Corp, LBP-94-7,39 NRC !!2 (1994) economic interests as basis for standing under Atomic Energy Act; CL1-98-il,48 NRC 10 (1998)
Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC 735 P.2d 1437,1441 (D.C. Cir.1984)
Commission scheduling and guidance challenged as denying nunningful public participation; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 50 (1998)
Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 920 F.2d 50, 53-54 (D.C. Cir.1990)
NRC broad regulatory latitude in establishing its own procedural rules and methods of inquiry; CL1-98-25,48 NRC 341 (1998)
UPS Worldwide Forwarding, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 66 P.3d 621, 626 (3d Cir.1995), cert.
denied, 516 U.S. Il71 (1996) competitive injury as basis for standing to intervene; CLI 98-il,48 NRC 7 (1998)
UPS Worldwide forwarding. Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 66 F.3d 621, 63631 (3d Cir.1995),
cert. denied, 516 U.S.1171 (1996)
- statutory limits on compeution; CLI-98-II, 48 NRC 15 n.4 (1998)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-87-7, 25 NRC 116, 118 (1987) organizational standing to intervene on basis of geographic proximity of member; LBP-98 23, 48 NRC 159 (1998); LBP-98-33,48 NRC 385 (1998)
Vermons Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Sta6cn). LBP 90-6, 31 NRC 85, 90 91 (1990) licensing board authority to review Staff significant hazards consideration determination; LBP-98-24, j
48 NRC 223 (1998) i Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LDP-90-6, 31 NRC 85, 91 (1990) authority to make immediate effectiveness determinations; LBP 98-23, 48 NRC 165 (1998) f Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pour Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. $19, 543 (1978)
NRC broad regulatory latitude in establishing its own procedural rules and rnethods of inquiry; CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 341 (1998)
Virginia Elec.ric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-342,4 NRC 98, 105-06 (1976) economic interests as basis for standing under Atomic Energy Act; CL1-98-il,48 NRC 10 (1998);
CL198-23,48 NRC 265 (1998)
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Umts I sad 2), ALAB-522,9 NRC 54,57 (1979) frequency and durution of visits to establish standing to challenge licensing of independent spent it:e!
storage instalianon; CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 32 (1998)
Warth v. Seldin. 422 0.3. 490, 501. 508, 509 (1975) standard for state intervention; LBP-98-21,48 NRC I45 (1998) 43 l
m
r
_I I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Wilderners Society v. Griles, 824 P.2d 4,11 (D.C Cir.1987) threatened or actual injury as basis for establishing standing to intervene; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 195
)
(1998) l Wisconsin Electric Power Ca (Kcohkonong Nuclear Plant, Unit. I and 2), CLI-74-45, 8 AEC 928, 929 I
(1974) use of discovery to frune contemons, restrictions on; CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 351 (1998) 1 Wisconsm Electric rmr Ca (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-696,16 NRC 1245,1263 (1982) use of discovery to frame contentions, restrictions on: CL198-25,48 NRC 351 (1998)
Yankee Atomic Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Stacon) CL1-%1,43 NRC 1 (1996)
Cornmission authonty to issue case-specinc guidance; CU-98-15, 48 NRC $1-52 (1998) rankee Atomk Electre Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Statioa), CL1-96-1,43 NRC 1, 6 (1996) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; LBP-95)3, 48 NRC 383 (1998) showing necessary to establish injury in fact LBP-98-23,48 NRC 159 (1998)
Yankee Atomic Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-961,43 NRC 1,9-11 (19n6)
Comnussion order for expedition of proceedmg and suggesung time frames and schedules; CLI-98-15.
48 NRC 52 (1998)
Yanker Atomk Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Statico), C11%7,43 NRC 235,247 (1996) geographic proxinuty as basis for standing to intervene in license renewal proceedings; LBP-98-26,48 NRC 242 n.8 (1998)
Yankee Atomic Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CU-96-7,43 NRC 235, 247-48 (1996) geographic proximity as basis for standing to intervene in license tenninadon proceeding; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 208 (1998)
Yankee Atomic Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CL1-%7,43 NRC 235, 248 (1996)
Commission deference to board desernunations on standing to intervene; CU-9%I3, 48 NRC 32 (1998) pleading requirements for comentions at admission stage; CU-98-25, 48 NRC 348 (1998)
Yanker Atome Electric % (Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon), CLI-%7, 43 NRC 235, 248 49 (1996) evidentiary support for contentions; LBP-98-33, 48 NRC 383 (1998) speci6 city required of contentions, LBP-98 23, 48 NRC 163 (1998)
Yankee Atomic ElectMc Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon), CU-%7,43 NRC 235, 257 & n.16 (1996) bcensing of independent spent fuel storage instalianons; CL1-98-21, 48 NRC 212 (1998)
Yanier Atomic Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CU-98-21,48 NRC 185,195 (1998) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC poceedings; LBP 98 27,48 NRC 275 (1998)
Yankee Atomic Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-2,43 NRC 61, 79 (19%)
licensing of independent spent fuel storage installations; CU 98-21,48 NRC 212 (1998)
Yanker Atomic Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Stuion), LBP-%15, 44 NRC 8. 26 (1996) standard for admission of late-61ed contention based on document recently made publicly available; LDP-98 29, 48 NRC 292 (1998)
_I I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf.R. Part 2 pohey statement on conduct of proceedings; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 19 (1998) 10 CfA Part 2. Subpart A sufheiency of license renewal applicauon for dockedng in light of unanswered StatY requests for additional information; LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 237 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 2.3 Commission authority to modify its standard for granting extensions of tinw; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 342 (1998) heessing board authority to change deadline for hiing contenuons; CLi-98-25,48 NRC 384 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.102 modi 8 cation or amendrnent of license application; LDP 98-26, 48 NRC 243 (1998) 10 CIA 2.102(a) effect of Staff requesta for additional information on docketing of license renewal application; CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 150 (1998) 10 CFA 2.105 notice requirements for amendments to Class 104 licenses; LBP-98-24, 48 NRC 224 (1998) 10 C F.R. 2.105(aX4XI) exception to rule prohibiting challenges to Staff significant hazards consideration determination, LBP-9814, 48 NRC 22122, 223, 224 (1998) 10 CIA 2.202(aX5)
I Commission authority to issue immediately effective order to modtfy, suspend, or revoke a license; DD 98-9,48 NRC 178 (1998) 10 C P.R. 2.203 licensing board review of settlement agreement: LBP 98-15, 48 NRC 59 (1998); LBP-98-16, 48 NRC 65 (1998); LDP-98-25, 48 NRC 227 (1998); LBP 98 31,48 NRC 369 (1998) 10 C PA 2.206 air cooling method as backup cooling rnethod for spent fuel, request for investigation of; DD-98-12,48 i
NRC 317 23 (19981 forum for addressing safety concerns about license amendment; CLI-98 23. 48 NRC 266 (1999 independent safety analysis review, denial of request for; DD 98-13, 48 NRC 395-415 (1998) interference with or prohibition of employees from reporting safety concerns, request for action on; DD-98-8,48 NRC 113-18 (1998) licensee discrimination for raising safety concerns, request for action on; DS98-10,48 NRC 246-57 (1998) purpose of peution process under; CLI-98-il, 48 NRC 17 (1998) radiacon alarm to detect unnonitored discharges of cobalt-60 into sewer system. request for action on; DD 98-11,48 NRC 309-16 (1998) radiation safety program deficiencies, request for action on; DD-98 7, 48 NRC 98-111 (1998) restrictive clauses in employment contracts regarding reporting of safety concerna, request for acnon on, DD 98-9, 48 NRC 174-82 (1998) treatment of late-61ed hearing request as petition under; LBP 98-18,48 NRC 82 (1998) 10 Cf.R. Part 2, Subpart O areas of concern contrasted with contentions; LBP-98 26,48 NRC 241 n.5 (1998) 45
_I l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.FA 2.710 deadline for 6 ling appeals of standing decisions; CLi-98-21,48 NRC 201 a3 (1998) deadline for receipt of documents served by expedited means; CU-98-14, 48 NRC 44 (1998);
CLI-98-17,48 NRC 128 (1998) incasurement of 61ing penods from date of service of updated hearing fle; LBP-98-32,48 NRC 378 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 2.711 Comnussion authonty to change time for action set forth in rules: CU-9815, 48 NRC 53 (1998)
Commission authonty to shorten time period for 61ing contentions; CU-98-25, 48 NRC 343-44 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 2.711(a) authonty of presiding officer to set deadlines for 61ing contentions; LEP-98-26,48 NRC 237,241 (1998)
Commission authority to modify its standard for granting extensions of time; CL1-98 25,48 NRC 342 (1998) good-cause standard for extension of time; CL1-98-15,48 NRC 53 (1998) sc.heduhng and guidance challenged as contrary to; CU-98-15, 48 NRC 50 (1998) 10 C.P.R. 2.714 appeals by governmental entities; CU-98-21,48 NRC 202 n.5 (1998) challenge to Commission's fadure to provide suf6ent infonnation and allow time to develop contenuons sufficient to trigger a hearing; CU-98-25, 48 NRC 336 (1998) contention requirement for intervennon; CL198-21, 48 NRC 213 (1998) late 41ed supplemental and amended petition to intervene; LBP~98 23,48 NRC 160 (1998) scope of litigable issues in operating license renewal proceedings: CU-98-15, 48 NRC 54 (1998) standards for adnussibility of contenoons: CU-98-19, 48 NRC 134 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a) burden on petitioner to demonstrate adnussibility of late-6ied contentions: LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 241, 243 44 (1998) 10 C.FX 2.714(aXI) admissibility standards for late 41ed contentions; U1P 98-29, 48 NRC 290, 291, 307 (1998) burden on proponent of late-61ed contentions; CL1-98 25. 48 NRC 347 (1998) hearing rights on license amendrnents; LBP 98-22, 48 NRC L53,156 (1998) interest requirement for interversion; LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 91 (1998); LBP-98-27, 48 NRC 275, 278 (1998) late 41ed conrentions based on previously unavailable Staff review documents; LBP 98-33,48 NRC 337 (1998) requimnents for acceptance of untimely intervention petitions: LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 159,161 (1998) weight given to good "ause when determining admissibility of late 41ed contentions, LBP-98-29, 48 NRC 293 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(aXIXi)-(v) applicability of late 41ing requirements to governmental participants; CU-98 21, 48 NRC 202 n.5 (1998) burden on late intervenrion petitioner to address Ave factors of; CU-98 25,48 NRC 337, 347 n.9 (1998) pleading requirements for untimely intervention petttions; CL1-98-21, 48 NRC 202 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(aXI)-(2) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; LBP-98-33,48 NRC 383 (1998) requirernents for intervention; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 159 (1998) 10 C.FA 2.714(aX2) applicability of standing requirements to governmental participants; CU-98-21, 48 NRC 202 n.3 (1998) expert af6 davits required in support of claims of standmg; CL1-98-21. 48 NRC 210 n.13 (1998) interest requirenrnt to establish standing as of right; CU-98-21,48 NRC 195 (1998) particulanty required of intervention peutions; LRP-98-20, 48 NRC (1998); LBP 98 22, 48 NRC 153 (1998) threshold pleading requirements for intervention petition-s; LBP 98-27,48 NRC 275 (1998)
I l
l 7
l 1
j
l I
l l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 2.714(aX3) deadline for amendment of hearing petition; LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 236 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) areas of concern contrasted with contentions; LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 241 n.$ (1998) 10 C.P.R 1714(bXI) l deadhne for amendment of heanng petition; LDP 95-26,48 NRC 236 (1998) i licensing board authority to change deadline for Bling comentions; CLi 98-25,48 NRC 344 (1998) right of intervenor to contention Bling deadline based on date of initial prehearing conference; l
LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 241 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(bX2) j burden on petitioner to demonstrate admissibibry of late-6 led contentions; CLI-96 25, 48 NRC 346 (1998); LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 241 (1998); LDP-98-29, 48 NRC 290, 291, 307 (1998) burden on proponent of admissible contentions; CLI 98.!2. 48 NRC 22 (1998) limits on scope of contentions; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 22 (1998) standards for admissibility of contentions; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 163 (1998); LBP-98 33, 48 NRC 383 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(bX2Xii)-(lii) pleading requirements for contentions at admission stage; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 348 0998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(bX2Xiii) admissibihty of contentions in operating license renewal proceeding, regulations guiding board deteniuna-tion on; CLI-9814, 48 NRC 41 (1998) demonstration of materiahty of contendon; LBP-98-33,48 NRC 383, 386 (1998) scope of litigable issues in license renewal proceeding; LDP-98 26, 48 NRC 247 (1998) speci6 city required of contentions; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 349 (1998); LBP-98-23,48 NRC 163 (1998) standard for admission of contentions in operating license renewal proceeding; CLi-98-17,48 NRC 125 (1998) support for contentions; CLI-9812. 48 NRC 22 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(c) good cause for changing deadline for 61ing contentions; CLI-98-25. 48 NRC 344-45 (1998) scheduling of answers to intervention petitions; LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 236 (1998) 10 Cf R. 2.714(d) sadmissibiuty standards for late-Bled contentions; LBP-98-29, 48 NRC 291 (1998) 10 C F.R. 2.714(dXIXiMiii) three-factor test for grant of standing to intervene; CLI 98-21, 48 NRC 195 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(dX2) dimussal of contentions that would not entitle pentioner to relief; LBP.98 23,48 NRC 164 (1998) rednessability standard for admission of contentions; LBP-98-33, 48 NRC 383 (1998) standards for admissibility of contentions; LDP-98-23,48 NRC 163,164 0998) i 10 Cf.R. 2.714(e) i admissibility standards for late 41ed contentions; LBP-98-29,48 NRC 291 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714a appeals of denials of intervention; CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 336 (1998) appeals of rulings on contennons; CLI.98-12,48 NRC 23 (1998) deadline for appeal of intervention rulings; LBP-95 22, 48 NRC 156 (1998); LBP 98 24, 48 NRC 224 (1998); LBP-98-27, 48 NRC 278 (1998); LDP-98-33, 48 NRC 394 (1998) deadline for appeals as of right; CL1-98-25, 48 NRC 336 n.1 (1998) interlocutory appcals of threshold standing rulings; CU-98 20, 48 NRC 183 (1999) sua sponte review of intervention rulings in interests of expedition and economy of effort' CL1-98-18.
48 NRC 130 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714a(a) appeal of denial of intervenuca CL1-98-21, 48 NRC 194 (1998)
I deadline for appeals of intervention rulings; LBP-98 26, 48 NRC 244 (1998) deadhne for 61ing appeals of standing decisions; CU.98.. 48 NRC 201 n.3 (1998)
I j
47 l
l i
r
_I I
I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf R. 2.714a(b) appeal of denial of intervention: CU-98-21, 48 NRC 194 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.715(a) means for petitioners to contribute to the proceedmg other than as intervenors; CU-98-13,48 NRC 35 (1998) 10 Cf R. 2.715(c) applicability of late-61ing requirements to governnuntal participants; CLl-98-21,48 NRC 202 n.5 (1998) participation by governnwntal advisory bodies; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 200, 202-03 (1998) participatory status of governnwntal entities under; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 196 (1998) 10 CER. 2.718 administrauve fairness in expedition of proceeding; CL1-98-15,48 NRC 53 (1998) authonty of presiding of6cer to set deadlines for tiling contentions; LBP-98-26,48 NRC 237,241 (1998)
Commission authority to modify its standard for granting extensions of time; CLI 98-25, 48 NRC 342 n.2 (1998) licensing board authority to regulate proceedings, scope of; CLI 98-12,48 NRC 20 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 2.718(e) licensing board authority to change dead! ne for 61ing contentions; CU-98 ?5,48 NRC 345 (1998) supervisory authority of Coaunission over bcensing boards; CU-98-15, 48 NRC 53 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.718(i)
Commission authority to direct certi6 cation of novel legal or policy questions; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 23 (1998) 10 CER. 2.718(m) scheduling and guidance challenged as contrary to; CU-98-15,48 NRC 50 (1998) supervisory authority of Conunission over licensing boards; CLI-98-15 48 NRC 53 (1998) 10 CER. 2.720(h) discovery against NRC Staff, limits on; CU-98-12, 48 NRC 23 (1998s discovery against NRC Staff, timing of; CLI-98-14, 48 NRC 42 (1998); CU-98-17, 48 NRC 126 (199F) 10 CER. 2.720(hX2Xii) discovery by nonparties, restrictions on; CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 351 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.722(a) consolidation of materials license renewal and denial proceedings; LDP-98 32,48 NRC 376 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.730(c) discretion of licensing boards and presiding of5cers in management of proceedings, scope of; LBP-98-19,48 NRC 85 (1998) 10 CER 2.730(f) referral of rulings on novel issues; C1198-12,43 NRC 23 (1998) 10 CER. 2.732 burden on late intervention petitioner; C1198-25, 48 NRC 347 n_9 (1998) 10 CIA 2.740 discovery against NRC Staff, timing of; CU-98-14, 48 NRC 42 (1998); CU-98-17,48 NRC 126 (1998) scheduling and guidance challenged as contrary to; CU-98-15, 48 NRC 50 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.740(b) and (c)
Commission authoeiry to restrict discovery in licensing proceeding; CU-98-15, 48 NRC 53 (1998) propriety of board's stay of discovery from NRC Staff; CU-98-25,48 NRC 351 (1998) 10 CIA 2.742 discovery against NRC Staff, timing of; CU-98-14. 48 NRC 42 (1998); CLI-9817, 48 NRC 126 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.743 cross-examination by parties in informal proceeding; LBP-98 32,48 NRC 379 (1998) 10 CSA 2.744 discovery against NRC Staff. limits on; CU-9812, 48 NRC 23 (1998) discovery against NRC Staff, timing of; CLI-98-14, 48 NRC 42 (1998); CU-98-17, 48 NRC 126 (1998)
I 48
)
1 I
i
\\
f
_I I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 1
10 Cf.R. 2.744(ab(c)
&scovery by nonparties, restrictions on; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 351 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.749 surnmary disposition motions in operating license renewal proceedings, standard for; CLI-98-14,48 NRC 44 (1998); CLI-98-17,48 NRC 128 (1998) 10 C P.R. 2.752 propriety of board's stay of discovery from NRC Staff; CL1-98-25,48 NRC 351 (1998) 10 CJA 2.756 scheduling and guidance challenged as contrary to; CLI-5815,48 NRC 50 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.758 litigability of challenges to Comrnission regulations; CLl-98-15,48 NRC 54 n.6 (1998); LBP-98-33,48 NRC 391 (1998) htigabihry of challenges to r.tandards for termination of reactor license; CU-98-21, 48 NRC 211 n.14 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.758(b) showing necessary for challenges to application of regulations; LBP-98 33, 48 NRC 391 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.760a Board authority to raise issues sua sponte in operating license renewal proceedings; CLI-9815,48 NRC 55 n.7 (1998); CL1-98-25,48 NRC 345 (1998) licensing board authority to raise matters on its own initiative; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 22-23 (1998) 10 CIA 2.786 deadline for petition for review of licensing board initial decision; LBP-98-30, 48 NRC 368 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(b) deadline for answers to petitions for review; LDP-98-19, 48 NRC 86 (1998) 10 Cf R. 2.786(bX2) length and content of petitions for review; LBP 9818,48 NRC 82 (1998) 10 CfA 2.786(c) deadline for petitions seeking discretionary Comnission review; CL1-98 25, 48 NRC 336 n.1 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(gXI) standard for grant of interlocutory review; CLI-98-22,48 NRC 217 (1998); LBP-9819,48 NRC 86 n.3 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(gX2) standard for grant of interlocutory review; CLI.98-22, 48 NRC 217 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.788 standards for grant of stays; LBP 98-33,48 NRC 39) (1998) i 10 Cf.R. 2.790tt) proprietary treatment of pleadings, procedure for; LBP-98-19,43 NRC 85-86 (1998) 10 Cf.R. Part 2. Subpart L appeal of decial of senior reactor operator license; LDP-98-30, 48 NRC 356 (1998) areas of concern contrasted with contentions; LBP 98-26, 48 NRC 241 n.5 (1998) 10 Cf.R 2.1205 appeals of intervention denials; CL198-ll, 48 NRC 3 (1998) hearing nghts on materials license amendments; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 139 (1998) 10 Cf R. 2.1205(b) cross examination by parties in informni proceeding; LBP-98-32, 48 NRC 379 (1998) 10 C P.R. 2.1205(d) deadline for intervention petitions where notice of opportunity for hearir.g has not been published; LDP-9b-21,48 NRC 139 (1998) judicial concepui of unnding applied is NRC proceedings, LBP-98-21,48 NRC 140 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(dXI) deadline for filing timely request for dubpart L hearing; LBP-98-18, 48 NRC 79 (1998) 10 CfA 2.1205(dX2) deadline for filing hearing request where no notice is published, LBP-98-18,48 NRC 79 (1998) purpose of good-cause stan: lard for untimely filings; LBP-9818, 48 NRC 80 (1998) i 49 l
l E
p i
i L._I I
I l
'e I
- LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.P.R. 2.1205(e)
. conwnt of hearing requests for petitioners other than applicant; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 139-40 (1998) pleading requirements for areas of concern in infonnat proceedmss; LBP-98-32,48 NRC 376 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(e)(3) '
areas of concern contrassed with contentions; LBP 98-26, 48 NRC 241 n.5 (1998)
^ 10 CSA 2.1205(g) l NRC Staff election to participate as party in informal proceeding; LBP-98-32,48 NRC 375 (1998)
.10 CSA 2.1205(h) -
gennaneness test for admission of areas of concern; LBP 98-21,48 NRC 140,142 (1998); LBP-98 32, t
43 NRC 376 (1998) l 10 C.F.R. 2.1205(f) '
- tred to address tale-61ing requirements in untimely is aring requests; LBP-98-18, 48 NRC 81 (1998) 10 CSA 2.1205(0(1) dismissal of inexcusably late petitions; LBP-98-18, 48 NRC 82 (1998) good cause for late 61ing of hearing request; LBP-98-18,48 NRC 79 (1998)
(
10 CF.R. 2.1205(lX2) l treaunent of late 41ed hearing request as 2.206 petition; LBP-98-18, 48 NRC 82 (1998) l 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(o) l deadline for niing appeals of intervention rulings, LBP-98-21,48 NRC 148 (1998) deadline for petition for review of denial of hearing request; LBP-98-18,48 NRC 82 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1209(a) f-discretion of licensing boards and presiding officers in managernent of proceedings, scope of; l
LBP 98-19, 48 NRC 85 (1998) l 10 CFA 2.1209(k) j cross examination by parties in informal proceeding; LBP-98-32,48 NRC 379 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1211(b) participation trf governmental entity in informal proceeding, af6 davit requirement; LBP 98 32, 48 NRC l-375 (1998) schedule for niing supporting wrinen evidence in informal proceeding; LBP-98-32,48 NRC 378 (1998) l 10 CIA 2.1213 NRC Staff election to participate as party in informal proceeding; LBP-98-32,48 NRC 375 (1998) l 10 CSA 2.1231 treatment of case files as hearing 61es; CLI-9812,48 NRC 24 (1998)
[
10 C.P.R. 2.1231(a) availability of hearing file to petitioners; LDP-98-21,48 NRC 147 (1998); LBP 98 30,48 NRC 356
.(1998) t.
. deadline for making hearing file available; LBP-98-32,48 NRC 378 (1998) j 10 CfA 2.1233 schedule for Eling supporting wrinen evidence in informal proceeding; LBP 98-32, 48 NRC 378 (1998)
- 10 CPA 2.1233(c) specincity required in stating areas of concern; LBP.98-21,48 NRC 142 n.8 (1998)
. supplements to hearing Sles; LBP-98-30,48 NRC 356 (1998) 10 CIA 2.1235 '
-=
- cross examination by parties in informal proceeding; LBP-98 32, 48 NRC 379 (1998) 10 CIA 2.1235(a) deferral on aquest for oral presentations pending receipt of wriaen presentations; LBP 98 32, 48 NRC
' 380 (1998) 10 CSA 2.1241 authority of presiding officrr to facilitata settlements; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 138 (1998)
NRC policy on settlements; LBP 98 32,48 NRC 379 (1998) l
.10 CJ R. 2.1251(c)
Comminion authority to offer guidance on implementation of; CLI 98-15,48 NRC 52 n 4 (1998) i 10 CSA 2.1253 prerequisite to seeking judicial review; LBP-9819, 48 NRC 86 (1998) 1-1 l
M
_I I
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CFA 2.1263 discreuon of licensing boards and presiding officers in managenent of pmceedings, scope of; LBP-98-19,48 NRC 85 (1998) timeliness of motion for stny; LDP 98-19, 48 NRC 84 (1998) 10 CFA 19.ll(c) notice of employee rights and protections, posung requirements; DD-98-10,48 NRC 249 (1998) 10 Cf.R.19.16,19.20 restrictive employec-related p acuces and contractual provnions relative to reporting of safety concerns as violation of; DD-98-9, 48 NRC 175,178 (1998) 10 CFA Part 20 appbcability of worst-case scenario assumptions in calculation of site release criteria; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 211 (1998) applicability to shutdown facility; DD-98-12, 48 NRC 320 (1998) radiation exposure to members of public from nitrogen intrusion in reactor vessel. DD-98-12, 48 NRC 318 (1998) e i
radioacave contamination of storm drains from overflow of refueling water tank; DD-98-10,48 NRC 255 (1998) 10 CF.R. 20.303 (1985) radiation alarm to detect unmonitored discharges of cobalt-60 mto sewer system as means of compliance with; DD-98-ll,48 NRC 314 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 20.303(ak 20.401(cX3) unmonitored discharges of cobalt-60 into sewer system as violation of; DD 98 il, 48 NRC 309 n.1 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 20.1003 detinition of critical group; CL1-98-21, 48 NRC 211 n 14 (1998) 10 CF.R. 20.1402 opplicabihty of worst-case scenario assumptions in calculation of site release criteria; CLI-98-21, 48 i
NRC 211 n.14 (1998) 10 CFA 20.1402 calculation of total effective dose equivalent for site telease enteria; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 200 (1998) 10 CF.R. 20.2003 ur. monitored discharges of cobalt-60 into sewer system as violation of; DD-98 II,48 NRC 309 n.1 (1998) i 10 CFA 20.2007 litigability of permitting authority of non-NRC bodies; CLI 98-16,48 NRC 120,121 (1998) 10 CFA 30.7 discrimination against licemee employee for raising safety concerns as a violation of. DD-98 7, 48 NRC 99 (1998) 10 CIA 35.13(c) replacement of Radiation Safety Officer without receiving a license imendment; DD-98-7,48 NRC 105 (1998) 10 Cf R. 35.21(a) and 35.22(aX3) conducting a nweting of the Radiation Safety Committee without a quorum as a violation of; DD 98 7, 48 NRC 105 (1998) 10 CSA 30.35 compuance of matenals license renewal application with sequirements of; LBP-98 32, 48 NRC 377, 380 (1998) 10 CF.R. Part 40 source material license to process natural uranium are and other material for their uranim content and to possess milling wastes; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 143 (1998) 1 51 1
I l
7 l
l
r 1
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS l
10 CF R. 40.7 j
restrictive employee-related pracdces and contractual provisions relative to reporting of safety concerns as violation of; DD-98-9,48 NRC 175,178,179,180 (1998) 10 CF.R. Part 40, Appe1 dix A applicability to ll.e(2) byproduct material; CLI-98 il, 48 NRC 4,16 (1998) processing of a'iernate feed material; LBP 98-21, 48 NRC 144 (1998) 10 CF.R. Part 50 applicability to shutdown facility; DD-98-12, 48 NRC 320 (1998) 10 CF.R. 50.7 agreements or conditions of employment that restrict employees from engaging in protected activiues.
proscription against; DD 98-10, 48 NRC 249 (1998) 61ing of problem identi5 cation forms as a protected activity; DD 98-8,48 NRC 113,115 (1998)
(
restrictive confidentiality provisions in a discovery agreenent; DD-98 8, 48 NRC 114,116 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 50.7(f) restrictive con 6dentiality provisions in a discovery agreement as a violation of; DD.98-8,43 NRC 114 (1998) restrictive settlement agreements that discourage employees from engaging in protected activities, proscription against; DD.9810, 48 NRC 249 (1998) 10 CF.R. 50.21(b) htigability of challenges to Staff sigm6 cant hazards consideranon determination on amendment of Clan 104 IWnse; LBP-98-24,48 NRC 222 (1998) 10 CF.R. 50.22 notice requirements fur amendments to Class 103 licenses; LBP 98-24, 48 NRC 224 (1998) 10 CF.R. 50.46 i
demonstration of compliance with requirenrnts of; DD 98-13,48 NRC 403 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 50.51(b) notice requirenwnts for amendments to Class IN licenses; LBP-98 24, 48 NRC 224 (1998) 10 CF.R. 50.54(f)
NRC request for information on adequacy and availability of design-basis information; DD-98-13,48 NRC 307, 409 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 50.54(bb) content of decommissioning plans; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 196 (1998) content of license tertmnation plan regarding spent fuel management; CLI.98-21,48 NRC 203, 204 (1998) 10 C F.R. 50.58(b)(6) amhanty to make immediate effecuveness deternunations; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 165 (1998) hogability of challenges to Staff signi6 cant hazards consideration determination Cil 98-21, 48 NRC 204 n.7 (1998); LBP 98-24, 48 NRC 220. 721-24 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 50.59 i
ehmination of requirement to have rectreulation spray system inject directly into reactor coolant system following design-basis accident; LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 89 (1998) safery evaluation requirement for changes in spent fuel pool cochng system; DD-98-12, 48 NRC 322 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 50.71 design-basis issues that require reporung; DD-98-13,48 NRC 398,399 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 50.72 Da;ly Event Reports, licensee responsibility to make; DD 9813, 48 NRC 397 (1998) design-basis issues that require repotting; DD-98-13,48 NRC 398,399 (1998) 10 C F R. 50.73 design-basis issues that require reporting; DD-9813,48 NRC 398, 399 (1998) 10 CF.R. 50.82(a)(2) certincations of pervrmnent cessation of operations; DD-98-12,48 NRC 318 (1998) 10 CF.R. 50.82(a)(9)
Aling time for license termination plan; CIJ-98-21, 48 NRC 196 97 (1998) 52 i
l l
F l
j l
)
l k
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX j
REGULATIONS l
scope of li:igable issues in a license ternination plan proceedmg; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 201, 204-05, 207 (1998) 10 CER. 50.82(a)(9Xii) application of caumlity and redressability standards to claims of injury related to failure to sausfy this regulatory requirement; CLi-98 21, 48 NRC 210 (1998) j content of licenw ternunation plan regarding spent fuel management; CL1-98-21,48 NRC 199 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 50.82(aX9XiiXA)-(0) scope of licer,.ie terminadon plan proceeding; CLI-98 21, 48 NRC 205 (1998) 10 C.FA 50.82(aX9XiiXC), (D) htigability of challenges to site rernediation plan and final radiacon survey; CLi-98-21, 48 NRC 209 (1998) 10 CER. 50.82(aX9XiiXG) litigability of challenges to license terrnination plan based on new information or environmental change; CLI-98 21,48 NRC 209 (1998) 10 CER. 50.82(aX10) applicability of worst-case scenario assumpuans in calculation of site release crueria; CL1-98-21,48 NRC 211 (1993) applicanon of redressability standard to claims of injury related to failure to sadsfy this regulatory requirement; CL1-98-21,4S NRC 210 (1998) scope of litigable issues in a license termination plan proceeding; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 201, 205, 207 (1998) standard for Commission approval of a license terminauon plan; CLi-98-21, 48 NRC 197 (1998) 10 C F R. 50.82(aXI1) challenges to site survey methodology in license terminanon rian proceeding; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 206 (1998) 10 C.FA 50.82(b) termination of reactor operating license contrasted with operating license amendment; CL1-98-21, 48 NRC 207 a.ll (1998) 10 CER. 50.82(e) applicability of worst-case scenano msumptions in calculation of site release criteria; CL1-98 21,48 I
NRC 211 (1998) i 10 C.FA 50.91 and 50.92 l
notice provisions for issuing immediately effective license amendrrents; LBP-98-24, 48 NRC 223 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 50.92 safety of decreased inspections of stearn generator tubes; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 164 (1998) 10 C.FA 50.92(c) (1998) consistency of Staff no signi6 cant hazards Anding with; LBP 98-23,48 NRC 159 (1998) 10 CER, Part 50. Appendix A de6nition of single-failure criterion; DD-9813,48 NRC 398 (19CS) 10 CF.R. Part 50, Appendix B, Catenon XVI correcove action for de5ciencies affecting design basis requirements; DD 98-13,48 NRC 399 (1998) 10 CER. 51.23 l
presumptions about high-level waste storage; LBP-98-33, 48 NRC 391 (1998) l 10 C.FA St.45(c) l costs quanti 6 cation of environmental impacts of rail spur construccon for spent fuel tranport:
l LDP-98 29, 48 NRC 294, 296 n.8 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 5145(d) weight given to ensironmental or other permits issued by other regulatory bodies in NRC licensing decisions: CLI 98-16, 48 NRC 122 n.3 (1998) 10 C.F R. 51.52 htigabiliry of challenges to Corrmussion regulations; LBP-98 29, 48 NRC 305 nn.25, 26 (1998) 10 C.FA 51.53(c) adequacy of environmental report for license extension; LBP-98-33,48 NRC 390 (1998) 53 l
l
r
._l l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULN110NS 10 C.F.R. 51.53(cX2), (cX3Xi) environmental information on onsite storage of spent fuel or low-level wastes for operating license extensions, need for; LBP-98-33,48 NRC 391 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 51.71(d) environmental issues lidgable in operating license renewal proceeding, tirnits on; CU-98-14, 48 NRC 41 (1998); CLI-98-17,48 NRC 125 (1998)
' 10 Cf.R. 51.95 L envi:enmental information on onsite storage of spent fuel or low-level wastes for operating license extensions, need for; LBP 98-33,48 NRC 391 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 51.95(c) environmental issues licsable in operating license renewal proceeding, limits on; CLI-98-14, 48 NRC 41 (1998); CLI-9817,48 NRC 125 (1998)
- limit on environmental review for license renewal; CL1-98-12, 48 NRC 22 (1998); LBP 98 33, 48 NRC 384 (1998) 10 C PA Part 54 -
e review of liceme renewal application, scope of; LBP-98-33,48 NRC 383 84 (1998) scope of license renewal proceedings; CLI.98-12, 48 NRC 22 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 54 4 limit on safety review for license senewal; CL1-98-12,48 NRC 22 (1998); LBP 98-33,48 NRC 384 (1998) scope of litigable issues in operating license renewal proceeding; CLI-98-14,48 NRC 41 (1998);
CU-9817,48 NRC 125 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 54.21(a) and (c) linut on safety review for license renewal; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 22 (1998); LBP-98-33,48 NRC 384 (1998) scope of litigable lasues in operating license renewal proceedings; C1198-14. 48 NRC 41 (1998);
CLI-98-15,48 NRC 54 (1998); C1J-98-17,48 NRC 125 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 54.29 and 54.30 limit on safety review for license renewal; CL1-98-12,48 NRC 22 (1998); LBP-98-33,48 NRC 384
- (1998) 10 Cf.R. 55.33 examination standards for senior reactor operator licenang; LBP-98-30,48 NRC 357 (1998) 10 C.P.R. 55.35(a) deadline for reapplication of senior reactor operator license; LDP-98-30, di NRC 357, 368 (1998) 10 CfA 55.35(b) extension of time for waiver of written test for senior reactor operator license; LBP-98 30,48 NRC 368 (1998)'
10 Cf.R. 81.45(aX1I) testing of senior reactor operator candidases for knowledge of facisity eniergency plan; LBP-98-30,48 i
NRC 362 (1998) 10 CIA 55.71(d) limit on envionmental review for license renewal; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 22 (1998) limit on environmental review for operating licena, exiension; LBP-98 33,48 NRC 384 (1998) 10 C.P.R. Part 71 litigabilse) of challenges to; LBP-98-29,48 NRC 299 n.ll,300 nn15,17,304 on.22,23 (1998) 10 CSA Part 72 consideration of spent fuel snanagement in license ternunation clan; ClI-98-21,48 NRC 203 (1998) licenas amendment to construct rail spur to ship spent fuel to independent spent fuel storage installation; LBP-98-29,48 NRC 288 (1998) licensing of intermodal transfer facility, need for; LBP-98 29, 48 NRC 296 (1998) physical security plan for indepenoent spent ruel storage installation, chaltenges to adequacy of; LBP-98-17,48 NRC 70 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 72.6(cXI) licensing of intermodal transfer facility, need far; LBP-98-29, 48 NRC 296, 299 (1998) 54
-]-
l
_l I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CIA 72.40 scope of litigable issues in license tennination plan proceedings; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 213 (1998) 10 CIA 72.100(b) costs and effects of rail spur construction for spent fuel tranport; LBP-98-29,48 NRC 294 (1998) 10 CFA 72.210 licensing of independent spent fuel storage installations; CLI-98 21,48 NRC 212 (1998) licensing of onsite dry cask storage facihty; CL1-98-21,48 NRC 198,199,205 (1998) scope of litigable issues in license termination plan proceedings; CL1-98-21,48 NRC 213 (1998) 10 C.PA 72.214 determinant of type of license for independent spent fuel storage installations; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 212 (1998) 10 CSA 72.218 content of license terminunon plan regarding spent fuel numagement; CU-98-21, 48 NRC 203 (1998) 10 CfA 72.218(b) consideration of spent fuel management in context of license ternunation plan approval; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 204 (1998) termination of reactor operating license contrasted with operating license amendnrnt; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 207 n.ll (1998) 10 CFA Part 73 conndential treatment of Alings related to secunty plan; LBP-98-17,48 NRC l n 2 (1998) litigability of challenges to; LBP-98-29, 48 NRC 300 n.17, 304 nn.22, 23 (1998) 10 CfA 73.51(dX6) requirement for documented liaison with local law enforcenunt agency; LBP-98-17,48 NRC 75 (1998) 10 Cf.R. Part 73 Appendix C effectiveness of agreement that raises a question about status of shenff's of6ce to act as local law enforcement ar,ency for facility on Reservation; LBP-98-17,48 NRC 71,75 (1998) 10 CfA 150.20 preclusion r4 byprodnet material licensee from involvement in NRC-licensed activities including Agreement State sctivities; LBP 98-15, 48 NRC 58 (1998); LDP-98-16, 48 NRC 64 (1998X LBP-98-25, 48 Nkc 230 (1998) 40 CFA 1500 weight given to Council on En itonmental Quality guidelines in NRC proceedings; LBP-98-33, 48 NRC 389 (1998) 40 Cf.R.1508.25 costs and effects of rail spur construction for spent fuel tranport; LBP 98-29,48 NRC 294 (1998) 55
_l I
1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Administrative Procedure A :, 5 U.S C 16 551-558 scheduling and guidance challenged as contrary to; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 50 (1998)
Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S C, 5 553 exemption of staternents of policy and rules of agency organizacon, procedure, or practice from nouce-and-comment requirernent; CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 341 (1998)
Administranve Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.1554(a) applicability to operating licene renewal proceedings; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 343 (1998)
Adrmnistrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C 1554(b) administrative fairness in scheduling; CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 343 n.4 (1998)
/
applicability to operating license renewal proceedings; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 343 (1998) g consideranon of conveniente and necessity of parties in expedited scheduling; CLI-9815,48 NRC 51 (1998)
(
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S C 5 556(c) 7.
challenge to expedited schedule for operating license renewal proceeding; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 50 (1998) di Adrninistrative Procedure Ac,, 5 U.S.C 65 356(cX5), 557(dXIXE)
- y. -
consideration of convenience and necessity of parties in expedited scheduhng; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 51 6 -
(1998) f3 Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C i558(c)
C-administrative fairness in scheduling; CL1-98-25, 48 MRC 343 n.4 (1998)
I L' Atomic Energy Act, ll.ef2),42 U.S.C. (2014(eX2) a defimtion of byproduct material; CLI-98-il, 48 NRC 4 n.1 (1998)
I Atornic Energy Act, 81, 42 U.S.C 12111 5
approval of settlement agreement and incorporation into licensing board order; LBP 98-25,48 NRC 227
[
(1998)
Atomic Energy Act, 84, 42 U.S.C. (2014
~
economic costs of managing l'.e(2) byproduct materials, litigability of; CLI-98 ll,48 NRC 16 (1998) transfer of 11.c(2) byproduct material to Department of Energy; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 145 n.14 (1998)
Atomic Energy Act, 103,105, 42 U.S.C 16 2133. 2135 linuts on competition under; CLI-98-ll, 48 NRC 15 (1998)
Atonne Energy Act,161b and o,42 U.S C 6 2201(b) and (o) licensing hoard review of seulement agreement; LBP-98-15, 48 NRC 59 (1998); LBP-9816, 48 NRC 65 (1998); LBP-98-25, 48 NRC 227 (1998)
Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S.C.12231 scheduling and guidance challenged as contrary to; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 50 (1998)
Atomic Energy Act,170 f aancial assurance to cover public liability, need for licensee to demonstrate; DD-98-ll,48 NRC 309 n.1 (1998) t' Atomic Energy Act,186 reasons for licenas revocation; DD-98-9,48 NRC 178 (1998)
Atomic Energy Act,189a, 42 U.S C 4 2239(a) economic interest as basis for standing to intervene; CLI-98-23, 48 NRC 261 (1998) e hearing rights on license amendments; LBP-18-20, 48 NRC 91 (1998); LBP-98-27, 48 NRC 274-75. 278 (1998) hearing rights on matenals license amendment; CU-98-ll,48 NRC 5 (1998) 57
_l I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-23,48 NRC 264 (1998) organizational and represemational standing criteria; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 194 (1998) pleading requirements for contentions at admission stage; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 349 (1998) standing to intervene in NRC proceedings; CLJ-9813,48 NRC 30 (1998)
Atonuc Energy Act,189all), 42 U.S.C. 5 2239(aK!)
hearing rights on license anendments; LBP-98-22, 48 NRC 153,156 (1998) interest requirement for intervention; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 139 (1998)
Atomic Energy Act,223 referral of alleganons on criminal violations to FBL DD 98-9, 48 NRC 176 (1998)
Atomic Energy Act, ch. 18, 42 U.S C. 4 2271 et seg.
authority to enforce settlement agreements; LBP 98-25,48 NRC 227 (1998)
Energy Reorganization Act,211,42 U.5 C.15851 (1988 and Supp. V 1993) discrimination against licensee employee for raining safety concerns; DD-98-7,48 NRC 99 (1998) prohibinon on restrictive agreenwnts that interfere with employee reporting of safety concerns; DD-98-8, 48 NRC 11314 (1998); DD-98-10, 48 NRC 251 (1998) restrictive employee-related practices and contractual provisions relanve to reporung of safety concerns as violauon of; DD-98 9,48 NRC 175,178,179,180 (1998)
Exec. Order No. 12,898, 3 C.F.R. 859 (1995) litigabality of environmental justice issues in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-13. 48 NRC 35 (1998) lieedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C 1552 (1988) availabihty of settlement agreements under; DD-98-10, 48 NRC 252 (1998)
Indian Child Welfare Act,25 U.S.C, i1901 er seg.
representational nuthority of Nauve American tribe beyond its reservation borders; &
13,48 NRC 33 (1998)
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 4 7901 et seg.
defimtion of byproduct material; LDP-98-21,48 NRC 144 all (1998)
Utah Code Ann. I10 3 506 (1997) mandatory requirement for resolutions to be in writing; LDP-98-17, 48 NRC 74 (1998)
Utah Code Ann. I1113-5 (1997) requirement for adoption of "absopriate resolutions" by parecipating public agency governing bodies; LDP-98-17, 48 NRC 72, 73, 74 (1908)
Utah CrJe Ann. I1113 20 (1997) publicahon of resolutions relatirig to interlocal cooperative agreement; LBP-9817,48 NRC 74 (1998) l l
l 58 l
l I
I
I 1
l l
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTIIERS i
128 Cong. Rec. H8816 (daily ed. Dec. 2,1982) (staternent of Rep. lejan) econonisc injury under Atonne Energy Act, interpretation of; CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 16 n.6 (1998) 128 Cong. Rec. S2968 (daily ed. Mar. 30,1982) (statement of Sen. Domenici) economic injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretauon of: CU-98-11,48 NRC 17 n.7 (1998) 128 Cong. Rec. 52973 (daily ed. Mar. 30.1982) (statement of Sen. Simpson) economic injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretation of; CU-98-II, 48 NRC 16 n.7 (1998) 128 Cong. Rec. S2975 (%ily ed. Mar. 30,1982) (statenrnt of Sen. Simpson) economic injury under Atornic hgy Act, interpretation of; CU-98-il,48 NRC 16 n.7 (1998) 128 Cong. Rec S2976 (daily ed. Mar. 30,1982) (statement of Sen. Wallop) economic injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretation of; CU-98 !!,48 NRC 16 o 6 (1998) 123 Cong Rec. S2977 (daily ed. Mar. 30,1982) (statement of Sen. Schmitt) economic injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretation of; CU-98-II,48 NRC 16 n.6 (1998) i 128 Cong. Rec. S13056 (daily ed. Oct.1,1982) (statement of Sen. Simpon)
I economic injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretation of; CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 16 n.6 (1998) 128 Cong Rec. 515313 (daily ed. Dec. 16,1982) (statement of Sen. Schmin) economic injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretation of; CU 98-il,48 NRC 16 n.6 (1998)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 applicability in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 23-24 (1998) discovery management in operating license renewal proceeding; CU 98-14, 48 NRC 41 (1998);
CU-9817,48 NRC 125 (1998) 1 David 1 Hayes and James A. Hourihan, "NEPA Requirements for Pnvare Projects," 13 B.C. Enytt. Aff. L Rev. 61,75 (1985) litigability of economic injury under NEPA; CU 98-ll,48 NRC 9 (1998)
H.R. Conf. Rep. No.97-884, at 44 (1982) economic injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretation of. CU-98 ll, 48 NRC 16 n.7 (1998)
Lars Noah, " Sham Petitioning as a Threat to the Integrity of the Regulatory Process" 74 VC. L. Rev.1, l
7 (1995) l intervention to tngger litigation costs and impose other administrative burdens on competitors; 1
CU-98-II, 48 NRC 15-16 (1998) l a
I i
i 59
]
)
i i
l 3
1
__l I
SUBJECT INDEX ABUSE OF DISCRETION standard applied to appeals of licensing board rulings on discrenonary intervention; CLI-9813,48 NRC 26 (1998)
ADJUDICATORY BOARDS authonty over Staff actions; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 185 (1998); LBP 98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998)
ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDINGS couaideration of issues involved in rulemakior; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 45 (1998) moot, deciding novel issues in; CLI-98-24, 48 NRC 267 (1998)
NRC suthority to define scope of; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998)
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE See Chief Administrative Judge ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT applicability to formal on-the-record NRC adjudications; CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 325 (1998) nonce-and-comment procedures for policy statements, applicability of; CLt.98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998)
AFFIDAVITS expert, requirement for standing to intervene; CLi 98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998)
AGREEMENTS i
restrictive, prohibiting disclosure of safety concerns by employees; DD-98 9. 48 NRC 173 (1998)
I restriedve, that unlawfully interfere with individual's right to engage in protected activity, prohibition against; DD-98-8, 48 NRC 112 (1998)
ALARM SYSTEMS l
to detect unmonitored discharges of cobalt-60 into sewer system; DD 98-il,48 NRC 309 (1998)
AMENDMENT i
of intervention petitions, deadline for; LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998) of licenne apphcation; LDP.93-26,48 NRC 232 (1998)
AMICUS CURIAE participation by governmental advisory bodies as; CLI-98 21,48 NRC 185 (1998)
APPEALS l
of licensing board tulings on discretionary intervention; CL198-13. 48 NRC 26 (1998) j of rulings on contentions; CLI 98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998) j APPEALS. INTERLOCUTORY of licent.ing board judgments on threshold standing questions; CL!-98 20, 48 NRC 183 (1998)
APPEALS, UNTIMELY by governmental entities; CLI-98 21, 48 NRC 185 (1998) standard for grant of; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 185 (1998)
APPLICANTS Part 72, ne "cability of Part 50 nnancial quali6 cations provisions. CL1-9813, 48 NRC 26 (1998)
{
AREAS OF JNCERN contentions distinguished from; LBP-98-26,48 NRC 232 (1998) germaneness test for admission of; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 137 (1993); LBP-98-32,48 NRC 372 (1998) specificity required in staung; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998)
I 61 j
l I
l r
)
._ l I
SUBJECT INDEX ATOMIC ENERGY ACT amendment or mndi6 cation of license application; LBP 93-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998); LBP-98-29, 48 NRC 286 (1998)
Commission latitude to establish its own rules of pacedure and methods of inquiry; CLi-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) lingability of economic interests under; CLi-98-II, 48 NRC 1 (1998) j BIFURCATION OF PROCEEDINGS unlawful suspension or segmentation of issues; CU-98 22,48 NRC 215 (1998)
BOARDS See Adjudicatory Boards; Licensing Boards BYPRODUCT MATERIAL unauthorized transfer of; LBP 98-15,48 NRC 57 (1998)
CASE FILES i
treatment as a hearing tie; CLI-98-12. 48 NRC 18 (1998)
I CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE authonty to appoint multiple boards; CL1-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998)
CIVIL PENALTIES reduction through settlement; LBP-98-31,48 NRC 369 (1998)
discharges to public sewer, request for radiation alarm to detect; DD-98-il,48 NRC 309 (1998)
CONSOLIDATION OF PROCEEDINGS materials license renewal and %nial proceedings; LBP-98-32, 48 NRC 372 (1998)
CONTENTIONS admissibihty of; CLI 98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998); LBP-98-28, 48 NRC 279 (1998) appeals of rulings on; CU-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) areas of concern distingushed from; LBP-98-26,48 NRC 232 (1998) burden on proponent of; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) challenging Commission rules or regulations; CLI-9815,48 NRC 45 (1998); LBP-98-29,48 NRC 286 (1998) challenging generic issues covered by rulemaking; LBP-98-33, 48 NRC 381 (1998) challenging license applications; LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998) challenging license review-related activities; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998); LBP-98-26,48 NRC 232 (1998) deadlines for 6 ling; CU-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) dismissal for procedural reasons, policy on; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 157 (1998)
)
extension of time for ihng; CLI-98-19,48 NRC 132 (1998); LDP-98-26,48 NRC 232 (1998)
Aling deadlines, central concern relative to semog; LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998) in license extension proceedings, limits on scope of; LBP-98 33, 48 NRC 381 (1998) license-review related activities; LDP-98-29, 48 NRC 286 (1998) limits on scope of; CU 98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998); LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1993); LBP-98-28, 48
'NRC 279 (1998) on validity of physical security plan, admissibihty of; LBP 98-17,48 NRC 69 fl998) particulanty required of; CLI-98 25, 48 NRC 325 (1998); LBP-98-33,48 NRC 381 (1998) pending Staff review as basis for; LDP-98-33,48 NRC 381 (1998) redressabihty context for adtrussibility of contentions; LBP-98-28, 48 NRC 279 (1998) support for; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (19'8); CU 98-25, 48 NRC 325 (1998); LBP-98-28, 48 NRC 279 (1998); LBP-98-33, 48 NRC 381 (1998) weight given to late tiling standards; LBP-98-29, 48 NRC 286 (1998)
CONTENTIONS, LATE-FILED
)
burden on proporznt of; CLI 98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) good cause for delay; CLI-98 25, 48 NRC 325 (1998); LBP-98 29, 48 NRC 286 (1998) pleading imperfections in; LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998)
COOLING SYSTEMS i
air coohng method as backup cooling for spent fuel; DD 98-12,48 NRC 317 (1998) 62
]
l I
t b
_l I
SUBJECT INDEX COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY GUIDEUNES weight in NRC proceedings; LBP 98-33,48 NRC 381 (1998)
CROSS-EXAMINATION by parties in informal proceedings; LDP-98-3148 NRC 372 (1998)
DAILY EVENT REPORT licensee responsibility to make; DD-98-13, 48 NRC 395 (1998)
DECISIONS licensing, expedition and thoroughness ceasiderations, CU-98-25, 48 NRC 325 (1998) unreviewed, precedential effect of; CU-98 25,48 NRC 325 (1998)
DEFENSE-IN-DEPTH approach to backup safety systems for spent fuel; DD 98-ll 48 NRC 317 (19"8)
DESIGN-BASIS ISSUES reporting requirements; DD-98-13,48 NRC 395 (1998)
DISCOVERY Board authority to request that parnes specify issues for; CU-9812, 48 FRC 18 (1998) by nonparties; CU-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) information to be provided to other parties prior to commencement of; CLI-9812, 48 NRC 18 (1998);
CU-9817,48 NRC 123 (1998) licensing bourd authority to resolve disputes; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) management in operating license renewal proceeding; CLI-98-17,48 NRC 123 (1998)
NRC policy on management of; CU-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998)
DISCOVERY AGAINST NRC STAFF linuts on; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998); CU-98-25, 48 NRC 325 (1998) prior to issuance of review documents; CU-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) regarding Safety Evaluation Repert and Final Environmental Statement; CU-98-17, 48 NRC 123 (1998)
DISCRETION See Abuse of Discretion DISCRIMINATION agamat licensee employee for raising safety concerns; DD-98-7, 48 NRC 97 (1998) in site selection process; CU-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998)
DOSE calculation methodology for effluent releases from spent fuel cooling; DD 98-12,48 NRC 317 (1998) total effective dose eqmvalent, worst-case-scenario assumptions in determining; CU-98-21, 48 NRC 185 (1998) 1 ECONOMIC INJURY l
market competition as basis for standing to intervene; CU-98 ll,48 NRC 1 (1998); CU-98 23,48 NRC 259 (1998) 1 EMERGENCY PLANS testing of senior reactor operator license candidate for knowledge of, LBP-98 30,48 NRC 355 (1998)
ENERGY REORGAN!ZATION ACT restrictive agreements that unlawfully interfere with individual's right to engage in protected activity, prohibition agamst; DD-98 8,48 NRC 112 (1998)
ENIORCEMENT ACTION for violations of other environmental protection regulations lasued under statutes other than Atomic Energy Act; CLI-9816,48 NRC 119 (1998) precluding byproduct material licensee from involvement in NRC-licensed activities; LDP-98-15,48 NRC 57 (1998); LBP-98-16,48 NRC 63 (1998)
ENVIRONMENTAL, ISSUES litigable in operating license renewal proceedings; CU-98-14,48 NRC 39 (1998); CU-98-17,48 NRC 123 (1998)
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE discrimination in site selection process; CU 9813,48 NRC 26 (1998) disparate impact analysis; CLI-9813,48 NRC 26 (1998) 63 1
l
i
_.I I
i l
SUBJECT INDEX i
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Gre hazard considerations in applicant's rail corridor; LBP-98-29, 48 NRC 286 (1998)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW for operating license renewal, limit on; CL! 98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998)
EVIDENCE expert artidavita in support of intervenuon petitions, need for; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998)
EXfENSION OF TIME Comnussion construction of good cause; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) for filing contendons; CLI-9819, 48 NRC 132 (1998); LDP-98-26, 48 NRC 2i1 (1998) for waiver of wntten test for senior reactor operator license; LDP-98-30,48 NRC 355 (1998) +
good-cause standard for; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998) in operating bcense renewal proceedings; CLI 98-25, 48 NRC 325 (1998) licensing board authonty to grant; CLI-9815, 48 NRC 45 (1998) i
" unavoidable and exotme circumstances" test for; CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 325 (1998)
FAIRNESS
{
administrative, in expedited proceedmg; CLI-9815, 48 NRC 45 (1998); CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 325 (1998)
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE j
applicabihty in NRC proceeding; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998); LBP 98-23,48 NRC 157 (1998)
{
FEEDWATER SYSTEMS automatic shutdome of reactor because of problems with; DD 98-13, 48 NRC 395 (1998)
FILINGS f
obliganon of parues to provide legal and factual support for; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMEf(f commencement of evidentiary heanng prior to issuance of, CL1-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) discovery against Staff prior to issuance of, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998); CLt-98-17,48 NRC R3 J
(1998)
FINANCIAL QUAllFICAT10NS applicability of Part 50 provisions to Part 72 independent spent fuel storage installation applicants; i
CI198-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998)
FIRES hazards in applicant's rail corridor, consideration in environmental report; LBP 98 29, 48 NRC 286 f
(1998)
FIEARING REQUESTS cornent for peutioners other than apphcant; LBP 98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998) l good cause for late filing of; LBP 98-18,48 NRC 78 (1998) on materials license amendments; LDP-98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998)
HEARINGS commencement prior to isruance of Staff Safety Evaluation Report or Final Environmental Statement; CtJ-9612,48 NRC 18 (1998)
IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS DETERMINATIONS on license amendments, licensitig board jurisdiction to make; LBP-98 23, 48 NRC 157 (1998)
I INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION
{
l applicability of Part 50 Enancial qualifier.nons provisians to Part 72 applicants; CLt-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998) i wIicable to; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 185 (1998) types of berm 4
INFORMAL '.H:11L)lNGS cross taff no gnikant hazards sonsideration determination; LBP 98-24, 48 NRC 219 (1998) jurisdiction to determine whether license amendmems should be made iminediately effecuve; LDP 98-23, 48 NRC 157 (1998) multiple, authority c' Oiief Administrative Judge to appoint; CU-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) public inte est indings on settlement agrectnants' LBP-98 25,48 NRC 226 (1998) tesponsibilities in operaung license renewal proceedings; CU-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) rulings on standing to iniarvena. deference given to; CU-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998); CU-98-20, 48 NRC 183 (1998); CU-98 21,48 NRC 185 (1998)
. U : !NG L
'.kDS, AllTHORITY
' in managiu woceedingc; CU 98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998); CU-98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998);
e U'
.M
>J ~ ~"4" 198-25,48 NRC 325 (1998); LBP-98-19,48 NRC 83 (1998);
to 6
- * - in sp : (" # 6 '
NRC 45 (1998); CU-98-25, 48 NRC 325 (1998) to direct tium n,
, "r
- dty reviews; LBP-94 21,48 NRC 137 (1998); LBP-9026, 48 NRC 232 ('998) to expedite proceedings; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (15 1?-98-19,48 NRC 132 (1998) to grant euensions of time; CU-9815,48 NRC 45 to raise issues sua sponte; CU-98-12,48 NRC 18 n) o to regulate proceedmgs; CU-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) to resolve complaints about NRC Staff conduct: CU-98-21, 48 L'ItC 185 (1998) to review signi6 cant hazards consideration detere'aation; LBP-98 24,48 NAC 219 (1998)
MALVrENANCE grouping of work orders to aruRctally reduce number of outstanding requests; DD-98-10,48 NRC 245 (1998) staffing requirements in technical speci6 cations; DD-98-10,48 NRC 245 (1998)
MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENTS penalty for; LBP-98-15, 48 NRC 57 (1998); LBP-98-16, 48 NRC 63 (1998)
MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT PROCEEDLNG standing to intervene in; CU-98-ll,48 NRC 1 (1998); CLI-98-23, 48 NRC 259 (1998)
MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENTS hearing rights oni LBP-98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998)
MONTFORING l
cobalt 60 discharges to public sewer; DD-98-il,48 NRC 309 (1998)
MOOTNESS vacatur of unreviewed board decisions because of; CU-98-24,48 NRC 267 (1998) j l
I 66 l
l t
i 1
(
l i
l
l l
_l l
l l
l SUBJECT INDEX MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION inharmonious rulinga raised in; LBP-98-17,43 NRC 69 (1998) matters raised for 6rst time in: LBP-98-17,48 NRC 69 (1998) overlooked or misapprehended legal or factual matters raised in; LBP-98-17, 48 NRC 69 (1998) previously rejected arguments raised in; LBP-98-17, 48 NRC 69 (1998)
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT environmental justice considerations ender; CL1-98-13,48 NRC 26 (1998) litigability of economic interests under; CLI-98-il,48 NRC 1 (1998); CLI-98-23. 48 NRC 259 (1998)
NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION for amendment to Class 104 license, litigability of challenges to; LBP-98-24,48 NRC 219 (1998)
NOTICE of amendment to Class 104 license, requirernents for; LBP-98-14, 48 NRC 219 (1998) of employee righu nnd proisetions, posting requirements; DD 98-10, 48 NRC 245 (1998)
. NOTICE AND COMMENT PROCEDURES applicability to Commission policy statements; CU-98-25, 48 NRC 325 (1998)
NRC RESIDENT INSPECTORS time spent on site, NPC policy regarding; DD 98-10, 48 NRC 245 (1998) 14RC STAFF contentions challenging license review related activities of; LBF-98-26,48 NRC 232 (1998) discovery against: CL1-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998); CU-98-17, 43 NRC 123 (1998) idenuncation of witnesses; CU 9812,48 NRC 18 (1998) licensing board authority to resolve complaints about conduct of; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998) no signincant hazards consideranon oetermination, challenges to; LBP a8-24, 48 NRC 219 (1998) open items in review as basis for contentions; LDP-91-33, 48 NRC 381 (1998) participation as a party in informal proceedings; Ls?V 32,48 NRC 372 (1998) requests for additional information, license renewal implications of; CLI-98-25, as NRC 325 (1998) safety reviews, authority to direct the performance of; LBP.98-21,48 NRC 137 (1908); LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION approval of issues raised sua sponte by licensing boards, requotment for; CU 98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) broad regulatory latitude to establish its own rules of procedurc and methods of inquiry; CU-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) guidance, nouNading natine of; CU-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998) referral of rulings on novel issues to; CU 98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) responsibility for non-NRC permits; CL1-9816,48 NRC 119 (1998)
NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION, AUTHORTTY supervisory, over conduct of adjudicatory proceedings; CLI-98-16, 48 NRC 119 (1998) to assurne functions of presiding ofncer; CU-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) to denne scope of its proceedings; C1.!-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998).
to direct certincanon of novel legal or policy questions; CU 98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) to direct public proceedings; CL1-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998); CLI-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) to grant extensions of time; CU-98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998); CLI-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) to issue guidance to licensing boards; CL1-98-16, 48 NRC 119 (1998) to modify procedural rules; CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 325 (1998) to ses milestones for completion of proceedmgs; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998) to step into ongoing adjuications to clarify its view on substantive or procedural questions; CU-98 22, 48 NRC 215 (1998) to take sua sponte review of novel issues; CLI 9818, 48 NRC 129 (1993)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT immediate effectiveness determinations; LDP-98-23, 48 NRC 157 (1998) segmentanon through separate requests for; CU 9818, 48 NRC 129 (1998)
OPERATING llCENSE F.XTENSION PROCEEDING geegraphic proximity as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-98-33, 48 NRC 381 (1998) 67 M
bn 4
1 l
l l
SUBJECT INDEX OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL effect of unresolved RAls on grant of application for; CU-98-?A 48 NRC 325 (1998) environmental review, scope of; CU-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998) safety review, scope of; CU-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998)
- OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL TROCEEDING -
environmental inues htigable in; CU-9817,48 NRC 123 (1998).
licensing board authority to raise issues sua sponte; CU-98-25,40 NRC 325 (1998) licensing board responsibilities; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) limit on scope of; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) management of; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 45 (1998); CU-98 25,48 NR2 325 (1998) milestones for completion of; CU-9817,48 NRC 123 (1998)
~ogy 4 CU-98-14,48 NRC 39 (1998); CU-98-17,48 NRC 123 t1998) j' PARJ.!S obligation to adhere to time frames speci6ed in 10 C.P.R. Part 2 and scheduling orders; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) obligation to provide legal and factual support for Slings; CU-98-12,.t8 NRC 18 (1998)
PERMITS non-NRC, responsibility for, CU 98-16, 48 NRC 119 (1998)
PETITIONERS obligations in light of large number of documents in licensing appl" Jon: LBP 98-33,48 NRC 381 j
' (1998)
PHYSICAL SECURITY PLAN
~
admissibility of contention on validity of; LBP-98-17,48 NRC 69 (1998)
POUCY STATEMENTS applicabihty of notice-and-comment procedures to; CLI-98 25, 48 NRC 325 (1998) on conduct of adjudicatory proceedings, lerting considerations in issuance o'; CU-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998)
PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT of unreviewed board decisions; CU-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998)
PRESIDING OFFICER authoney to disect Staff in the performance of its safety reviews; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998)
Commission authority to assume functions of; CLI 9812, 48 NRC 18 (1998) discretion in management of proceedings; LBP-98-19,48 NRC 83 (1998)
-facilitanon of secth:mena; LBP 98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998)
PRO SE UTIGANTS standard of compliance with procedural rules; CU-98-21. 48 NRC 185 (1998)
PROBIIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS 6 ting of, as protected activity; DD-98-8, 48 NRC !!2 (1998) 1 PROPRIETARY MATERIA 13
)
treatment of pleadings as; LBP-98-19,48 NRC 83 (1998)
RADIATION EXPOSURE to rnembers of public from nitrogen intrusion event; DD-98-12, 48 NRC 317 (1998)
RADIATION SAFETY COMMTITEE meeting without a quorum; DD-98-7. 49 NRC 97 (1908)
RADIATION SAFLTY OFFICER replacernent without receiving a license amendment; DD-98-7,48 NRC 97 (1998)
RADIATION SAFETY PROGRAM de8ciencies, request for action on; DD 98-7,48 NRC 97 (1998)
RADIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION cobalt-60 in public sewer line; DD 98 il, 48 NRC 309 (1998) of licensee employees, weakness in radiation safety program contributing to; DD-98-7, 48 VRC 97 (1998) -
overSow of refueling water tank loto storm drains; DD-98-10,48 NRC 245 (1998)
.8 i
l-l j
_l l
SUBJECT INDEX l
RAIL LINE economic and environmental costs of construction and operation of; LBP 98-29. 48 NRC 286 (1998)
RAIL TRANSPORT of spent fuel; LBP-98-29,48 NRC 286 (1998)
REACTOR VESSEL nitrogen intrusion event; DD-98-12, 48 NRC 317 (1998)
RECIRCULATION SPRAY SYSTEM clinsnation of requirement for injection direc.tly into reactor coolant system following design-hasis accident; LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 87 (1998)
License amendment requirements for change in function of; LBP-98-28. 48 NRC 279 (1998)
RECONSIDEPATION OF RULING j
on conteistion admissibility; LDP-98-17, 48 NRC 69 (1998)
RECORDS improper destruction of; LDP 98-15, 48 NRC 57 (1998); LEP-98-16, 48 NRC 63 (1998)
REDRESSABILITY I
interpretation of, for license ternunation plan approval proceeding; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998)
REFERRAL OF RULINGS on novel issues; CL1-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998)
REFUELING WATER TANKS radiological contamination from overtlow into storm drains; DD-98-10. 48 NRC 245 (1998)
REGULATIONS interpretation of 10 C F.R. 612.3, 2 711(a), 2 718; CL1-98-25, 48 NRC 325 (1998) interpretation of 10 C.F.R. Il2.714(a); CLI-98 25, 48 NRC 325 (1998) interpretation of 10 C.F.R. Il50.82(a), 72.218(b), 50.54(hb); CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 185 (1998) interpretation of 10 C.F.R.18 72.40, 72.214 CLI-98 21, 48 NRC 185 (1998) non-NRC, enforcement action for violations of; CLI 9816, 48 NRC 119 (1998)
See atro Rules of Practice REVIEW standard for licensing board intervention rulings; CLI 98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998) sua sponte, of novel issues, Comnussion authonty to take; CLI 9818,48 NRC 129 (1998)
See sLm Environmental Review REVIEW, INTERLOCUTORY discretionary, for extension of time; CLI-98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998) of lasue that licensing board might have to revisit in light of new federal legislation; CL1-98-22, 48 NRC 215 (1998) of scheduling or other housekeeptog matters; CLI-98-72,48 NRC 215 (1998) standard for grant of; LBP 98-19, 48 NRC 83 (1998) sua sponte, of segmentauon issue character &d as novel; CLI 98 22. 48 NRC 215 (1998)
RULEMAKING htigability of issues involved in; CLI 98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998)
RULES OF PRACTICE administrative fairness in expedited proceeding; CL19815,48 NRC 45 (1998) admissibility of contenaans; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 45 (1998); CLI-9819,48 NRC 132 (1998); /
[
areas of concern in Subpurt L proceedings; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998) burden on proponent of late 61ed contentions; CLI-98-25. 48 NRC 325 (1998) challenges to license applications LDP-98-26,48 NRC 232 (1998) l Commission authority to oversee agency's own administranve proceedings; CLI-9815,48 NRC 45 (1998); CL1-98 22, 48 NRC 215 (1998)
Commission discretion to direct public proceedings; C1198-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998) contentions distinguished from areas of concern; LBP 98 26, 48 NRC 232 (1998) deadlines for amending and supplemenung intervention petitions and bearing requests; LBP-98-26,48 NRC 232 (1998) discretionary interlocutory review; CLI-98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998) f 69
r
_l l
l i
l 4
SUBJECI' 1N%
extensions of tirne for 61ing contentions; CLI-98-19,48 NRC 132 (1998); LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998) extensions of time in operaung license renewal proc edings; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) good cause for unumely subnussion of contentions; W3P-98-29, 48 NRC 286 (1998) injury-in-fact requirenwet for standing to intervene; LBP-98 20,48 NRC 87 (1998) intervention pention, construction in favor of petinoner; LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 87 (1998) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedmgs; LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 87 (1998); LDP-98-27, 48 NRC 271 (1998) jurisdiction of licensing boards to consider challenges to Staff signi6 cant hazards consideration determination; LBP-98-24, 48 NRC 219 (1998) late filing of request for Subpart L hearing; LBP-98-18,48 NRC 78 (1998) litigabit issues in license termination plan proceeding, scope of; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998) notions for reconsideration; LEP-98-17,48 NRC 69 (1998) nonparty participanon in licecie amendnwnt proceedings: CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 185 (1998) operating license renewal proedings, scope of; CLI-98-14,48 NRC 39 (1998); CLI-98-17,48 NRC 123 (1998) parncipation by governmental entines; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 185 (1998) pleading imperfections in late-6ted contentions; LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998) precedential effect of unreviewed board decisions; CL198-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) pro se litigants, responsibilities of, CLI 98-21, 48 NRC 185 (1998) reactor operating license renewal proceedings, expeditious conduct of; CU-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) scheduhng authority of licensing boards and presiding officers; LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998)
I Staff authority to conduct license application preacceptance review; LBP 98 26,48 NRC 232 (1998) standing to intervene in rnaterials license amendment proceeding; CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 1 (1998) standing to intervene, judicial concepts applied in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998);
LDP-98-22,48 NRC 149 (1998) j standing to intervene, organizational and representationat CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998) stay of license condition; LBP 9819,48 NRC 83 (1998) sua sponte adoption of issues by licensing boards; CLI-98-15. 48 NRC 45 (1998); CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 325 (1998) untinely appeals by govemmental entities; CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 185 (1998) vacatur of unreviewed licensing board decisions; CLI-98-24,48 NRC 267 (1998) zone of interests for standing to intervene; CLI 98 23, 48 NRC 259 (1998)
SAI'ETY EVALUATION REPORT comrneneement of evidentiary hearing prior to issuance of; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) discovery against Staff prior to issuance of; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998); CLI-98-17,48 NRC 123 (1998) for changes to spent fuel pool cooling system; DD-98-12,48 NRC 317 (1998)
SAFETY REVIEW authonty to direct Staff in performan,:c of; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998); LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998) for operating license renewal, limit on; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998)
SCHEDULES AND SCHEDULING Commission authnrity to set rnilestones for completion of proceedings; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) contention Eling deadlines, central concern in setting; LBP-98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998) expedidon of operating license renewal proceeding; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 45 (1998) extensions of time; CLI 98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998); CLI-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998) fairnurs in espedition of, CLI-98-17,48 NRC 123 (1998) interlocutory review of rulings by presiding ofticers; CL1-98-22, 48 NRC 215 (1998) licensing board authority to expedite proceedings; CLl-9819, 48 NRC 132 (1998) licensing board authority to set; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998); CU 98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998)-
)
measuring Eling periods from date of service of updated hearing file; LBP-98-32,48 NRC 372 (1998) i l
1 I
70 l
l I
7-
_l l
l SUBJECT INDEX milestones for completion of operating license renewal proceeding; C119814,48 NRC 39 (1998);
CU-98-17, 48 NRC 123 (1998) obligations of parues to adhere to; CU-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998) written evidence in informal proceeding; LBP-98-32, 48 NRC 372 (1998)
SEGMENTATION generic consideracon outside licensing process; CU-98 24, 48 NRC 26V (1998) of licensing actions, prohibition where conseq xes are greater when actions are viewed as a whole; s
LBP-98-23,48 NRC 157 (1998) through bifurcation of proceedings; CU-98-22,48 NRC 215 (1998) through scparate amendment requests; CLI-98-18,48 NRC 129 (1998); CLI-98-2d 48 NRC 267 (1998)
SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR UCENSE reapplication criteria; LBP-98-30, 48 NRC 355 (1998)
SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS by expedited means, deadline for receipt of; C1198-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998); CL1-98-14, 48 NRC 39 (1998); CU-9817,48 NRC 123 (1998)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
{
civil penalty reduction through; LBP-98-31, 48 NRC 369 (1998)
NRC policy on facilitating; LDP-98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998); LBP-98-32,48 NRC 372 (1998) precluding byproduct material licensee from involvement in NRC-licensed activines; LDP-98-15,48 NRC 57 (1998); LBP-9816, 48 NRC 63 (1998); LBP-98-25, 48 NRC 226 (1998) public interest 6nding by licensing board; LDP 98-25, 48 NRC 226 (1998); LBP-98-31,48 NRC 369 (1998)
SEWER SYSTEM alarm system to detect unmonitored discharges of cobalt-60 to; DD 98-il,48 NRC 309 (1998)
SIGNIDCANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION licensieg board jurisdiction to determine whether license anendtnents sho3ld be made immediately effective; LDP-98-23,43 NRC 157 (1998)
SINGLE-FAILURE CRITERsON challenges to; DD 98-13,48 NRC 395 (1998)
SITE SELECTION j
discrinunation in; CU-98-13,48 NRC 26 (1998)
$1TE SURVEY l
rnethodology, litignbility in license terminauon plan proceeding; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998)
SPENT FUEL nir cooling nethod as backup cooling rnethod for; DD-98-12,48 NRC 317 (1998) management, htigability in license termination plan proceeding; CU-98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998) rail transport of, LBP-98-29,48 NRC 286 (1998)
STANDING TO INTERVENE Commission deference to licensing board rulings on; CU-9513,48 NRC 26 il998) l econonne interest as a competitor in the marketplace as basir for, LR98 23, 48 NRC 259 (1998) evidentir.r> support requued for; CU-98-21, 48 NRC 185 (1998) geographic proximity as basis for; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 157 (1998); LEP 98 2'F,48 NRC 271 (1998);
ISP-98 33, 48 NRC 381 (1908) germaneness test for interest souglx to be protected; LBP-98 22, 48 NRC 149 (1998) in environrnental canes, injury in fact; CLI-98 21,48 NRC 185 (1998) in heense anendment proceeding, standard for grant of; C1198-20. 48 NRC 183 (1998) in license amendnent proceedings, three-factor test for; CU 98 21,48 NRC 135 (1998) in license extension proceedings; LBP-98-33, 48 NRC 381 (1998) in materials license amendment proceeding; CU-98 il,48 NRC 1 (1998) injury-in-fact reqmrement for; CU-98-il,48 NRC 1 (1998); LBP 98 22,48 NRC 149 (1998) irreducible constitutional minimum requirements for; LDP 98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998) 71
l SUBJECT INDEX judicial concepts applied in NRC proceedings; CU-98-13,48 NRC 26 (1998); CLl48 21, 48 NRC 185 (1998); CLI-98 23,48 NRC 259 (1998); LBP 98-20, 48 NRC 87 (1998); LBP-98-2!,48 NRC 137 (1998); LBP 98-22, 48 NRC 149 (1998); LBP-98-27, 48 NRC 271 (1998); LBP-98-33,48 NRC 381 (1998) on basis of standing in prior license amendment procee&ng; LDP-98-22,48 NRC 149 (1998) organizational, interest requirement for; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998) organizauonal, representauon of members; LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 87 (1998) presumpove, on basis of geographic proximity; LBP-98-22,48 NRC 149 (1998) proof necessary at threshold stage; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 157 (1998) representadoral, germaneness test of interest that orgamzation seeks to represent, CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998) representational, member standing and authorization requirernents; LBP-98-22, 48 FRC 149 (1998) reprenntauenal, showing necessary to establish; CLi-98-13,48 N'C 26 (1998); CLi-98-21,48 NRC 183 (1998) standard for states; LBP-96-21,48 NRC 137 (1998) zone-ofetesesta requirement; CLI-98-il, 48 NRC 1 (1998); CLI 98-21,48 NRC 185 U P);
IEP-96-20, 43 NRC 87 (1998); LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998); LDP-98-22, 48 NRC 149 (1998)-,
LBP-98 27,48 NRC 271 (1998)
STATES standing to imervene, standard for; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998) unumely inteivenuon in materids license amendmen' proceedmg; LBP-98-18, 48 NRC 78 (1998)
STAY of liccue constion; LBP-98-19, 48 NRC 83 (1998' timekras of reauest for; LBP-98-19,48 NRC 83 (1998)
S7EAM GENERA 10R TUBES risk tif failure; L).P-98-23, 48 NRC 157 (1998)
SUA SPONTE ISSUES bcensirg Ad autkority to adopt, CLl-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (19V81 licensing turd authority to raise; CL1-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998)
SUBPART L HEARIN(i late nled reqxar for; t BP-9818,46 NRC 78 (1998)
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION in operating liceese rerewal p.oceeding, standard for grant of; C1198-14,48 NRC 39 (1998);
CL1-98-17,48 NRC 123 (1998)
)
standard for une of, CLI 98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) 4 SUMP PUMP SUBSYSTEM in Engineered Safety Featsres building, bcense anendment sough; for; LBP48-22,48 NRC 149 (1998)
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS licensee failure to establ.sh or implement procedures to meet; DD-98-10, 48 NRC 245 (1998) rnuintenance staffing reqmtearnts; DD-98-10,48 NRC 245 (1998)
TESTS senior reactor operator licence, gramng of, LBP-98-30,48 NRC 355 0998)
VACATUR of unreviewed licensing board decisions; CLI-98-24,48 NRC 267 (1998)
WEB SITE for reporting employee safety concerns; DD-9810,48 NRC 245 (1998) i WHISTLEBLO%T.RS interference with or prohibition of amployees from reporting safety concerns; DD-98-8, 48 NRC 112 (1998); DD-98-10, 48 NRC 245 (1998) non&sclosure clauses in employs'ient contracts; DD-98-9, 48 NRC (73 (1998); DD 98-10,48 NRC 245 (1998)
WfrNESSES NRC Staff, identi8catha of; CLI 98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998) 72
~l l
1 l
u
i
_I l
SUBJECT INDEX ZONE OF INTERESTS economic interest as competitor, unrelated to radiological harm; CU-98 23,48 t!RC 259 (1998) in licenne amendment proceeding; LDP 98-27,48 NRC 271 (1998) test 6v standing to intervene; CL1-98-II,48 NRC 1 (1998); LBP 98-27,48 NRC 271 (1998)
}
l 73 I
i 1
_l l
FACILITY INDEX AMBROSIA LAKE FACILITY, Grants, New Mexico; Docket No. 40-8905-MLA MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMfRT; July 17, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND 0:tDER; CLI.90ll, 48 NRC l (1998)
BRAIDWOOD NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units i and 2; Docket Nos. STN 50-456, STN 50-457 REQUEST FOR ACTION, August 31, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 52.206; e
BYRON NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. STN 50-454, STN 50-455 REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 31, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UMDER 10 C.F R. 52.206; DI)98-8,48 NRC !!2 (1998)
CALVERT CLDTS NUC12AR POWER PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 317 LR, 50'318-LR CiPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; August 19, 1998; ORDER REFERRING PEITTION FOR INTERVINflON AND REQUEST FOR HEARING TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL; CU-98-14, 48 NRC 39 (1998)
OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; August 26, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLl-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998)
OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; September 17, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CU 98-19,48 NRC 132 (1998)
OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; October 16, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Inta s tion Petition / Hearing Request and Dismissing Proceeding); LBP 98-26, 48 NRC 232 (1998)
OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; December 23, 1998. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-98-25,48 NRC 325 (1998)
DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 50 237, 50 249 REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 31, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206; DD-98-8, 48 NRC !!2 (1998)
RADDAM NECK PLAVT; Docket No. 50-2I3 REQUEST FOR ACTION; November 16, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206; DD-98-12, 48 NRC 317 (1998)
LASALLE COUNTY STATION, Units I and 2; Tiocket Nos. 54373, 54374 REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 31, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 92.206; DD-98-8, 48 NRC 112 (1998)
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit 3; Docket No. 50-42LLA OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; August 25, 1998, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Sumding issue); LBP 98-20, 48 NRC 87 (1998)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 2,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Standing issue); LBP 98-22, 48 NRC 149 (1998)
OPERATINC LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 23, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-98 20,48 NRC 183 (1998)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; November 12, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Contentions), LBP-98-28, 48 NRC 279 (1998)
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, Units 1,2, and 3; Docket Nos. 50L269, 50 270, 54287 OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; September !$,1998 (re-served September 16,1998); ORDER REFERRING PETITION FOR INTERVENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL; CL1-98-17,48 NRC 123 (1998) j 75 I
i t
e-
_l l
i l
FACILITY INDEX OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; December 29, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Peution to Intervene); LDP-96-33,48 NRC 381 (1998)
QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 154, 50-265 REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 31. 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206; DD-98-8,48 NRC 112 (1998)
SEABROOK STATION, Unit 1 Docket No. 50 443-LA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 3,1998. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Petitions to Intervene); LBP-98 23,48 NRC 157 (1998)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; September 17, 1998; ORDER; CLI 98-18, 48 NRC 129 (1998)
SEABROOK STATION, Unit 1; Docket Nos. 50 443-LA 50 443-LA 2 OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; November 24, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-98-24, 48 NRC 267 (1998)
ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units 1 and.2; Docket Nos. 50-335, 50 389 REQUEST FOR ACTION; October 21, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206; DD-98-10, 48 NRC 245 (1998)
TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, Units 3 and 4; Docket Nos. 50 250, 50 251 REQUEST FOR ACTION: October 21, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206; DD-98-10, 48 NRC 245 (1998)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR FOWER STATION; Docket No. 54271 REQUEST FOR ACTION; Decenter 7.1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 'O C.F.R. 4 2.206, DD-98-13,48 NRC 395 (1998)
YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STA110N; Docket No. 50-029-LA UCENSE AMENDMENT; October 23, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998)
I ZION NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-295, 5 4 304 UCENSE AMENDMENT; November 5,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Standing issueV, l.BP-98-27, 48 NRC 2710998)
REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 31, 1998 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. {2.206; DD-98-8. 48 NRC 112 (1998)
ZION NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos 50'295 LA-2,30'3M-LA-2 LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 5,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissing latervention Petition); LDP-98-24, 48 NRC 219 (1998) 76 i
I