ML20203A006
| ML20203A006 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/31/1998 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V48-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V48-I1, NUDOCS 9902090263 | |
| Download: ML20203A006 (46) | |
Text
__
t NUREG-0750 Vol. 48 Index 1 v
INDEXES TO~
l NUCLEAR!: REGULATORY;:
JCOMMISSION: ISSUANCES? 4 7
' July - September 1998 to, L<
g.
3 Q..c..}
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg2oggggg,staai 0750 R PDR
Available from Superintendent of Documents
- U.S. Government Printing Office l
RO. Box 37082 Washington, DC 20402-9328 i
A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.
Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 1
i b
i I-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 t-
NUREG-0750 Vol. 48 Index 1 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES July - September 1998 U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~
Prepared by the Office of the Chief'.nformation Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301 - 415 - 6844)
)
)
' Foreword Dipses and inders for imananas of the Cornmemion (CIJ), the Atomic Safety and j
l
~ Licensing Ihmid Panel (IEP), the Mministrative law Judges (AIJ) the Directors'
)
Deceion (DD), and the Decisium on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM) are psesented in this document.1hese digests and inders are intended to serve as a guide to the imunnces.
~
Information clearnes common to tie cases heard and ruled upon ase:
Case name (ownes(s) of facility)
Full text reference (volume and pgination)
]
. Imuntre number Imues mind by appellants Irpi citations (cases, segulations, and statutes)
. Name of facdity, Dncket nunder Subject matter of imucs anNor ruliny Type of Iraring (opemting license, operating license amendnunt, etc.)
Type of imuence (numorandum, osdes; decision, etc.)
These information elenwnts are displayed in one or more of five seprat formats
. armnyd as folkwvs:
1.
Case Nasme Index The case name index is an alphabetical anangment of the case names of the imuances.' Fach case name is folk)wed by the type of hearing, the type of issuan,
docket number, imuance nunder, and full text reference.
2..
Henders and Digests
. Tim headers and dipses are presented in issuance number order as follows: the Commeauon (C13), the Atomic Safety and ljcensing Ikurd Panel (IEP), tir
. Mnunstrative law Judges (AlJ), tir Directors' Decisiom (DD), and the Decisiom on
' IVtitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).
j The header identifies the issuance by imuance nunder, case name, facility name, docket nunder, type of hearing, date of imuance and type of issuanm.
m
. The digest is a brief nanative of an imue followed by the sesolution of the issue and any lept references used in sesolving the imue, if a given imuance covers more j
than one haue, then seprate digsts are used for each issue and are designated j
a(J.dedy.
1
- 3. ; Imani Citutkum ladex i
1 This index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alpin-nunwrical l
anangnents of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Oilers. These citations are listed as given in tir imuances. Changes in segulations and statutes may have occuned to cause chanys in tir nunder or name andkr applicability of the citation. It is then fore
- important to cormider tir date of the imuance.
1he references to cases, segulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by
]
' phrases that show the application of the citation in the pasticular issuance. These J
phases are followed by the imuance nunder and the full text reference.
,. c k
I f1 l
i i
i l
4 l
e w
e.
> 4. - Suhjed ladex Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate tie imues and subjects coveied in tie imuanas.11e sutiect heading are followed by phrases that
' give specdic information about tie subject, as discuwd in the iwuarxrs tring indexed.
1hese pivases aie folked by the issuance nunder and tie full text reference.
i 5.
Fadlity ladex This index consists of an alplatetical arrangnent of facility names from the issuance. The nane is folked by docket nunder, type of learing, date, type of 1
insuance, imuance number, and full Icxt referenm.
i 1
i 4
l i
)
i s
l 1
l IV i
)
-. - -.. _ ~..- - - _ _ _..
I
_l I
f 1
CASE NAME INDEX ATLAS CORPORATION
.l MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; HEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Peuuon of the State of l
Utah Disnuued as Untinely); Docket No. 443453-MLA-2 (ASLilP No.98-747 02-MLA) (Re:
Tailings Pile Integnty); LBP-98-18,48 NRC 78 (1998)
BALTIMORE GAS &.11ECTRIC COMPANY OPIRATING LICENSE RENEWAL; ORDER REFERirtNG PETITION IOR INTERVEMTION AND REQUEST IOR llEARING TO ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL; Docket i
Nos. 54317, 50-318; CLI-98-14. 48 NRC 39 (1998)
OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50 317-LR 50 318-IR; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998)
OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 54317-LR. 50-318-i
~
LR; CLI 98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1991t)
T l
COMMONWEALTil EDISON COMPANY 7
i REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.12.206; Docket Nos. STN
~
50 456, STN 30 457, STN 50-454, STN 50 455, 54237, 54249, 54373, 50 374, 50 254, 50-265, C
50 295, 50 304; DD-98-8, 48 NRC !!2 (1998)
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER REQUEST IUR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. 6 2.206; Docket No. 030-14526 (license No. 374X1062 07) DD 98-7,48 NRC 97 (1998)
DUKE ENERGY CO*PORATION S
OPERATING I.lCENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER REFERRING PETTTION ICR INTERVENTION AND REQUEST FOR IIEARING TO ATOMIC SATETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL; 4
Docket Nos. 54269, 50 270, 50 287; CLI-98-17, 48 NRC 123 (1998)
ENVIROCARE OF LfTAH, INC.
REQUEST 10R ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. 6 2.206. Docket No. 44 8989 (ficense No. SUA 1559), DD 98-9, 48 NRC 173 (1998)
HYDRO RESOURCES, INC.
MATERIALS LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 448968 ML; CLI-9816, 48 NRC 119 (1998)
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION MATERIAIS LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Demal of Request for a Stay Filed by the State of Utah); Docket No. 40 8681-MLA 4 (ASLDP No. 98 748-03 MLA) (Re:
Material License Anuntinent), LBP-98-19, 48 NRC 83 (1998)
MATERIALS IJCI'NSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Grant of Petition (or a Hearing); Docket No 40-8681-MLA-4 (ASLDP No 98-748-03'MLA), LDP-98-21, 48 NRC 137 k
(1998) 3 JOHN BOSCHUK, JR.
ENFORCEMENT ACTION. MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Approving Settlernent Agreenent and Disnussing Proceeding); Docket No. IA 98-19 (ASLDP No. 98-741-03-EA); LBP-98-15. 43 NRC 57 (1998) i
+
]
f
_,m.
4 CASE NAME INDEX LDURDES T. BOSCHUK ENIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving beulemens Agreenrnt and Disnessing Proceeding); Docket No IA 98-20 (ASLBP No-98-742 04-EA); LBP-98-16, 48 NRC 63 (1998)
NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER; Docket No. 50-443-LA; CU-98-18,48 NRC 129 (1998) j OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng on Petitions to Intervene); Docket No. 50-443-LA (ASLBP No. 98 746-OLLA); LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 157 (1998) l NOKrilEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENr; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Standmg laue);
Docket No. 54423-LA (ASLBP No. 98-740-02-LA); Docket No. 50-423 LA (ASLDP No.98-744 02-LA); LBP-98 20, 48 NRC 87 (1998)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Standing lasue);
)
Ducket No. 50 4234A-2 (ASLBP No. 98-743-OLLA); LBP-98 22,48 NRC 149 (1998) j PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L.LC.
INDf?ENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI, CU 9813,48 NRC 26 (1998)
INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Motion for Reconsideration), Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI (ASLBP No. 97 73242-ISFSI); LBP-98-17,48 NRC 69 (1998)
QUIVIRA MINING COMPANY MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 448905-MLA; CU-98-il, 48 NRC 1 (1998)
STATFMENT OF POLICY ON CONDUCT OF ADJUDICA1 DRY PROCEEDINGS POUCY STATEMENT; CLI 98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998)
I i
i 2
,j
m._,
__w_.._
_.w w.-__._.w i
DIGESTS ISSUANCFJB OF TIIE NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION CLI 98-il QUIV1RA MINING COMPANY (Ambrosia Lake Facihty. Grants, New Mexico), Docket No. 40-8905-MIA; MATERIA 1.S LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 17, 1998-, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l
A The Commission reviews an Atomic Safety and Licensmg Bourd decision that denied a request for hearing and leave to latervene to challenge a materials license amendment. The Conunission affirms the i
Boar (s hndang that the Peuuoner lacks standing to intervene The Petitioner's economic interests, which were unrelated to any radmhigical harm, did not fall within the zone ofinterests of the Atomic Energy Act, tfr Commission found.
B To oemonstrate starahng in Conunission licensing proceedings under AEA i 189a, a penooner nust allege a parucularized injury tluit is farly traceable to the challenged acuon and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
C increased compeuuan represents a cogmzable Article Ill injury D
Under our case law, to estabhsh standing to interwne, a peutioner must not only demonstrate injury in fact, but also must show that the asserted injury is arguably wnlun the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statute at issue.
E NEPA's purpose is to protect tir environnent, not the economic interests of those adversely affected by agency decisions. A peutioner who suffers only economic injury has no standing to bring a challenge under NEPA.
F The fact that ecommuc interest or motivation is involved will not preclude stand ng, but the petitioner must also be threatened by environnental harm.
O Merely because one is injured by a paracular agency action does not neces.sarily mean one is within the zone of interests prutected by the applicabic statute. The zone of interests test would prove neaningless ifit encompas, sed any party affected by an agency's decision.
H The penanner naist establish that the injury he complains of (his aggrievenent, or the adverse effect upon him) falls within the " zone ofinterests" sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violation forms the legal basis for his complaint The two-pronged test set forth by the Supreme Court thus asks: (1) what are tle interests " arguably.. to be protectes' by the relevant statutory provisions; and (2) are the petiuoner's interests that are affected by the challenged agency action among them? Narkmal Credit Union Administratum v First National Bank & Trust Co.,1I8 S. CL 927. 9M (1998).
I The Atomic Energy Act contains no provision intended to bmit cornpeution, either as an end la stself or as a neans to another stanatory purpose. Unhke the statutes under which the couns have found competitors within a statutory
- zone of interests " the AEA includes no espress provision effecovely cordoning off a portion of the market from competition. The AEA concentrates on the licensing and regulation of nuclear matenals for the purpose of protecting public health and safety and the comnmn defense and secunty. These provisions by themselves do not necessanly turn all compeutor licensees mto suitable challengers of agency action.
J Permitting rouune adjuchcatory ch.dtenges to agency decisions solely because one company nues to complaia of a compeutive advantage would be nore hkely to frustrate than to further statutory objectivese K
Section 84 of the AEA,42 U.S C. I 2014, was intended by Congress rnerely in ensure that beensees did not have to bear unnecessary costs. Section 84 has nothing to do wnh compeutors' interests.
CLI-98-12 STATEMENT OP POLICY ON CONDUCT OF ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDINGS; POLICY STA11. MENT. July 28,1998 C1198-13 PRIVATE FtJEL STORAGE, LLC. (Independent Spent Ibel Storage Installation), Docket No. 72-22 ISFSt. INDEPENDENT SPfNT FUEL ST ORAGE INSTALLATION, July 29,1998. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 3
a w
wwg v.>-ww--
w wder-wr-u-me--=wr-w e-w-4e w-
--w w
-e+
.w--
e e
r----
ww--wrw-w-'-w---.weex-w w'
w--w s
ra-ww-'w--
r-- - -------
w mr w
w-w--wrv,w,-.-e-.
ww.-u.
l' l
\\
i DIGESTS ISSUANCE 5 OF Tile NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION A
The Commission considers two appeals of an Atonne Safety and Idcensmg Board decision.1.BP-984,47 NRC 142 (1998), which made various tuhngs on intervenuon. The Commission affirms the Board's j
grant ofintervention to the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservauon. W Comnussion also affirma j
the Daard's decision to deny the intervention request of the Sciendsts for Secure Waste Storage.
B The Commission rnust grant intervenuon to any perwn whme " interest may be affected by the proceeding " Atomic Energy Act 6189a,42 U.S C. I 2239(a). To deternune whether a petuioner's interest provides a sufficient basis for intervenoon, the Commission has long looked for guidance to current judicial concepts of standing.
C Where an organizanon asserts a right to represent the interests of numbers, ju&cial concepts of stanang require a showing that: (1)its nernhers would otherwise have standmg to sue in their own nght, (2) the interests that die orgamzauon seeks to protect are germane to its purpose; and (3) neither de claim asserted nor the relief requested requires an in&vidual member to participate in the orgamzation's lawsuit See Hwnr v. Waskngson Srare Apple Adnerung Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (l917). langstanding agency practice also requires an orgamzadon to demonstrate that at least one of its nrmbers has authorized it to represent the member's interests.
1 D
An organizanon must allege that one of its armbers will suffer a concrete and parucularized injury I
that is fairly traceable to the challenged acuon and bkcly to be redressed by a favorable decision.
E The Comnussion histancally has accorded substanual deference to board determinauona for or against stanang, except wlen the board has clearly misapphed the facts or law.
F The interest that the organization seeks to represent in a procee&ng nut be germane to the organizndon's overall purposes. The " germaneness" test requires that an "organizauon's haganon goals be perunent to its special espertise and the grounds that brmg its armhership together? The purpose of the test is to ensure "a modicum of concrete adverseness by reconcihng memlership conce,as and htigauan topics by prevenong associations from being nrrely Isw hrms with stamhng." (Citations onutted.)
G The Comminion considers appeals of hcensiig board ruhngs on discreuonary intervennon under an " abuse of discretion" standad.
H Generabzed espertise, even scientihe emir.nce, is an insufhciers substitute for panicularized knowledge of the issues actually in dispute.
I Whether there was "disenminauon in the site selettion process"is not a cogmzable claim in our adju&catory proceedings. President Chnron's esecuuve order on environmental jusuce, Exec. Order No.
12.8911,3 C F R. 859 (1995), espreuly stated that it creates no trw legal nghts or remedies; accordingly, it imposed no legal requirenents upon the Comnussion. Its purpose was nerely to underscore certain provisions of existing law. The only "esisting law" applicable to tne environnental justice issues in this proceedmg is the National Environnental Puhey Act (NEPA)
J Disparate impact analysis is the Commission's principal tool for advancing environmental justice under NEPA. Questions of mouvuuon and social equny he outside of NEPA's purview. The NRC's goal with respect to analyzing disparate impacts is to identify and adequately weigh, or mitigate, effects of die proposed action on low-incone and nunonty commuruties.
K Part 50 haancial quabhcations provisions are not apphcable in roto to Part 72 ISFSI applicants, but should merely be used as guidance. Financial quahhcahons standards estatilished for reactor heensmg do not necessanly apply outside the reactor content. Our hnancial quahhcanons standards and other hcensing regulations do not requae the board to undertake a full blown inquiry into an applicant's likely busmess success. To the maximum enters possible, both the NRC Staff and the bcensing board should avoid econd-guessing pnvate business judgnrnts.
C1198-14 BALTIMORE GAS & LLECI'RIC COMPANY (Calvert Chffs Nucles Power Plant Umts 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 506317. 50-318. OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; August 19.1998. ORDLR REfTRRING PETITION FOR IfGERVENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL A
The Commission refers to the Atomic Safety and Licensmg Board Panel, for assignment of a Licensing Board to rule on, a peutmn to intervene and a request for heanng hied in the matter of the Licensee's apphcation for renewal ofits operaung licenses for Calvert Chffs Uruts I and 2. The Coniminion provides the Licensing Board with guidance for the conduct of the procec&ng if a heanng is granted, and a suggested schedule for any such procee&ng.
4
i 1
i DIGESTS ISSUANCE 8 OF TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION B
The scope of a procce&ng on an operaung becaw renewal application is limited to a review of the plant structures and components that will require an aging managenent review for the period of extended operation and the plant's systems, structures, and components that are subject to an evaluation of time-Lmited aging analyses. Sea 10 C.F.R. Il 54 21(s) and (c), and 54 4.
C Review of environmental lasues in a heensmg rerzwal procee&ng is brruted in accordance with 10 C.P R. Il 51.71(d) and 5195(c).
CLI-98-15 BALTIMORE GAS & ELICTRIC COMPANY (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos 54317-LR, 50 318-LR; OPLRATING LICENSE RENEWAL; August 26, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Tim Conunission recognizes that license renewal apphcations rer.guire a major comrmtment of resources and effort by the renewal applicant, the NRC Staff, the Commission itself, and any party opposed to renewat Tlw Commission intends ilus bcense renewal proceedmg to be managed in a way that prevents unnecessary delays and digressions and at the same tsme ensures a fair and nuaningful process.
B The Comnussion has inherent supervisory authority to oversee the agency's own administrative adjudicauons, an authonty that perfosce includes instructions and guidance to its licensing boards.
C Uke other kinds of Conunission guidance, our case-speci6c scheduhng guidance is nonbinding by nature.
D The Commission esercises its inherent supervisory authority both by issuing generic pohey statements on the conduct of hcensing proCeedmgs and by issuing orders to the Board offering guidance that is specihc to particular cases.
E While we may deal with nuitters before us in adjudicatory hearings only on the basis of the record that has tren compiled, the NRC is not a court constrained to the " passive virtues" of ju&cial accon. We have regulatory responsibihty, which includes the avoidance of unnecessary delay or excessive inquiry in our licensing procee&ngs Ulumately the nembers of de Comnussion are responible for the actions and puhey of this agency, and for that reason we have injur:nt authonty to review and act upon any adjudicatory matter befors a Comnussion tnbunal - subject only to the constraints of acuan on the record and reasoned explanation of the conclusions, rehhc Servkr Co. of New flumpdire (Scabrook Station Units 1 and 2),
C1177 8,5 NRC 503,51617 (1977).
F Pursuant to its inherent supervisory authority, the Conutussion over the years repeatedly has issued orders expediting Board procec&ngs and suggesung urne frarres and schedules. See, e g., Imisiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichnent Center), CLI-97-3,45 NRC 49,50 (1997); YanArt Atomic Dactric Co.
(Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-96-1,43 NRC I,9-11 (1996); State o/New /ency (Department oflaw and Public Safety's Requests Dared October 8,1993), CLI 93-25,38 NRC 289,291 (1993); long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Umt I), CLi-88-9,28 NRC 567,569 71 (1988). Although the Commiss6on expects such guidance to be followed to the maximum extent feasible, the Liceming Board muy deviare from the proposed schedule when circumstances require.
O Commission orders expediting cases do not reflect infleuble or arbitrary action, but rather the Commission's best judgnent on how to speed up the adjuscatory process without prejudicing anyone's nghts to participate meaningfully. Although the Board should narrow the issues reqmnng discovery and hnut the rounds of &scovery,it should nevertheless ensure that these actions were consistent with fairness to all parties and that we do nor expect the Licen ing Board to sacrifice fairness and sound decisionmaking to expeste any heanng granted under this application.
H When tte Comnussion heats extensions of tmr to utuations mvolving unavoidable and extreme circumstances we simply give content to our rule's general" good cause" standard.
I De Comnussion has tradinonally exercised plenary supervisory authonty over its adjudications and adjudicatory boards. This authonty allows it to inscrpret and customize its process for individual cases.
See, e.g., Safety Lght Corp. (Bloomsburg Site Decontanunauon and ucense Renewal Denials), CLI-92-13, 36 NRC 79,91 (1992)(Commission exercises its authonty to mosfy applicable procedural rules). Indeed, 10 C.F.R.12.711 explicitly provides that the Commission may ext:nd or shorten the Line for action set forth in the rules and may set time linuts where the rules do not prencnbe a limit.
J The Commission, as the agency's ultimate adjuscator, alko has full authority to denne the scope of its proceedings. Geo Tech Associares (Geo. Tech Laboratones). CLI-92-14, 36 NRC 221, 222 (1992).
Cf OMo Edson Co (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Unit 1), CLi-91 15,34 NRC 269,271 (1991).
l 5
l l
l
L DIGFSTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION K
To the extent that Peudoner is attempting to attack the regulanons directly, it is precluded from doing so under 10 C.F.it 12,758.
L Ahlviugh Petiuoner is enuded to hie any contenuon that it believes is germane to the requested licensing acuan, it is not enutled to have cach of those contentions admitted for htiganon.
M The extent of the Board's auttmrity to raise contenuons sua sp<mre is a matter within die Commission's supervisory authority, and depends largely on an appropriate division of authority between the Board and the agency's regulatory Staff - a question of resources and expertise peculiarly within the Commission's province to decide.
N Although we expect the Board to adhere to our scheduhng guidance to the maximum extent possible, we recognize that particular circumstances may jusufy deviations from our guidance, and we therefore have refrained from mandating a schedule.
CL1-98-16 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC (2929 Coors Road. Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 448%8-ML; MATERIAUB LICENSE; September 15,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission exercises its inherent supervisory authonty over the conduct of adju&catory proceedings to reverse the Presiding Officer's ruhng in LDP-98 9. 47 NRC 281 (1998), to admit an area of concern on the Navajo nation's permitting.
B Whether non-NRC permits are required is the responashihty of bodies that issue such permits. auch as the federal Environmental Protection Agency the Navajo na ion, or state and local authorities. To And otherwise would resuh in duphcate regulation.
C Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 20.2007, an applicant may not rely on its license from the NRC as a waiver of its obligation to obtain permits required by other agencies. However, section 20.200 is " advisory and is not inten&d to imply that the NRC will take enforcement action for violations of other environmental protection regulations issued under statutes other than the Atomic Energy Act." Standards for Protection Against Ratiation: Final Rule,56 fed. Reg. 23,360, 23,382 (May 21,1998),
CLI-98-17 DUKE ENEROY CORPORATION (Oconee Nuclear Stauon, Units I,2, and 3), Docket Nos. 50-269,54270,54287; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 15,1998 (re-served September 16, 1998); ORDER REITRRING PETITION IUR INTERVENTION AND REQUEST IOR 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 peutien to intervene and a request for hearing filed in the matter of the Licensee's applicauon for renewal of its operating beenses for Oconee Nucicar Station, Umts I,2. and 3.
The Commission provides the Licensing Board with guidance for the conduct of the proceeding if a hearmg is granted, and a suggested schedule for any such pmceeding.
B The scope of a pmceedmg on an operating licenAe renewal is linuted to a review of the plant structures and components that will require an aging management review for the period of extended operation and the plant's systems, structures, and components that are subject to an evuhiation of time-hmited aging analyses. See 10 C F.R. IIR21(a) and (c),54 4.
C Review of environmental issues in a heensing renewal procec&ng is hnuted in accordance with 10 CF R. Il 5171(d) and 51.95(c).
CLi-98-18 NORTH ATLANTIC ENEROY SERVICE CORPORATION (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-443-LA: OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 17,1998; ORDER A
The Commissica esercises its inhetent supervisory authonty over the conduct of pmcecangs to take sua sponte review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order, LBP-98-23.
48 NRC 157 (1998),in this proceeding on an apphcanon by North Atlanuc Energy Service Corporation to amend its operating Lcense for the Seabrook Stauan, Unit i nuclear reactor. he Board granted intervention to the Scacoast Anti-Pollution league (SAPL), denied intervention to the New England Coahuon on Nuclear Pollution, and addressed S APL's argument against " segmentation,"1.e., that license apphcants should not be pertrutted to effectuate a major operational change requinng several licenne amendments thmugh separate amendment requests rather than through a single request.
CLI 98-19 BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (Calvert Chffs Nuc!rar Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 54317-LR. 50-318 LR; OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; September 17, 1998.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission grants the National Whistleblower Center's petition for discretionary interlocutory review and gives Petinoner adeuonal time, until Septemhe 30,1998, to file contenuons in this pmceeding.
l 6
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCIEAR REGULATORY CONT %tLSSION B
h Conassmo does not ordinarily review interlocutory Board orders denying extensions of time.
C
& Commission may review interlocutory orders pursuant to its general supervisory jurischenon over agency adjudscations.
D To be adnummble, contentions amat sansfy the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R.11.714.
E The Ucennng Board posseues considerable audumty to modify de general deadhnes set out in or Comnssion's rules, and the Comnussion espects it to continue to esercise that authonty when appropriate.
i i
i i
1 7
_l I
k DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS L
LBP-9815 JOHN BOSCHUK, JR. (Order Prohibiting luvolvenros in NRC-Licensed Activities), Docket No.
IA 98-19 (ASLBP No. 98-74103-EA); ENIURCEMENT ACTION; August 5,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlenrot Agreement and Dismissing Proceedmg)
ED LDP-98-16 IDURDES T. BOSCHUK (Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activines) Docket
. /
No. IA 98 20(ASLBP No. 98-74244-EA); ENIORCEMENT ACTION; August 5,1998; MEMORANDUM
~
AND ORDER (Approving Settlearnt Agreement and Dismissing Proceedng)
LBP-98-17 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC (Independent Spent Ibel Storage Installation). Docket No. 72-
/
22-1Sf51(ASLBP No. 97 732 02-ISFSI) INDEPENDENT SPENT IVEL STORAGE INSTALLATION-
[
August 5,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Mout,= for Reconsideration)
A in this procee&ng concerning the application of Private Fuel Storage, LLC (PFS), under 10
~
C.F.R. Part 72 to construct and operate an independent spent fuel storage installasjon (lSFST), the Licensmg J
Board grants an Intervenor motion for reconsideration of a portion of its ruhngs in LBP-9813,47 NRC 360 (1998), and adnuts contentions concerning the validity of the Appbcarx's physical security plan (PSP) as tle PSP reben on the local county shenff's office to exercise law enforcerrent authority at the PFS ISFS!
./ I located on tir reservauon of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians.
7h B
A properly supported reconsideranon motion is one that does not rely upon (1) enurely new theses
,,,, ~
or arguments, cacept to the extent it attempts to address a presi&ng officer's rshng that could not reasonably J/
have been anocipated. see losiaiana Energy SerWces LP. (Chuborne Enrichment Cerner), CLI-97-2, 45 E,
NRC 3,4 & n.1 (1997) (citing cases); or (2) previously presented argunrats that have been rejected, sec Nuclear Engineering Co. (Sheffield, Illinois few-level Radmactive Waste Disposal Site), CLI-80 i, I I NRC I
I,5 (1980). Insiend, the etwant must idenofy errors or denciencies in the presi&ng officer's determinacon irukcating the questioned ruling owrlooked or misapprehended (1) sone legal principle or decision that should have controlling effect; or (2) some critical factual information. See Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Uruts 1 and 2), LBP-94-31,40 NRC 137,140 (1994); Philadelphia Electric Co.
I (Umerick Generating Station, Units I and 2) LBP-83-25,17 NRC 681,687,rev'd.md renmded on other
~
grounds. ALAB-726,17 NRC 755 (1983). Reconsiderauon also may be appropriately sought to have the presi&ng officer correct what appear to be inharmonious rulings in the same decisiott See LBP-98-10,47 NRC 288, 2% (1998).
I LBP-98-18 ATLAS CORPORATION (Moab, Utah), Docket No. 40 3453-MIA-2 (ASLBP No. 98 747-
[
02-MIA) (Re: Tailings Pile Integnty); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 13, 1998;
/
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Itution of the State of Utah Dismissed as Unumely)
A The State of Utah sought to intervene in a heenne procee&ng concerning the long-term safekeepmg i
of a uranium mill taihngs pile at Moab, Utah. However, the State's petition was considered untinely i
pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.1205(d). The State argued that at had been cooperaung with the NRC in an attempt to agree about the proper treatment of tius taihngs pile and that it peuuoned as soon as it learned that its cooperative effort was not bearing fruit The Presid ng Officer held that a delay in 6hng a request for a heanrig may not be excused because a person chose to rely on the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion to protect its interests. Accordingly, the State's petition was &amissed.
B A delay in 6 ting a request for a heanng may not be excused because a peuuoner chose to work
~
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in order to protect its interests.
LBP-98-19 DlTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (Receipt of Material from Tonawanda, New York). Docket No. 40-8681-M1A 4 (ASLBP No. 98-748-03-MLA) (Re: Material Uceme Amend-ment); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENf; August 13,1998, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (De-nial of Request for a Stay Filed by the State of Utah) 9 e
m i
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS A
A request for a stay under 10 C.F.R. Subpart L must be tinely. Under 10 CLR. I 2.1263, motions for stay or temporary stay of any bcensing decision issued by tie Cornmission "must be fled at the tune a requestfor a hearing or pettrwn so intervene is filed or whhin 10 days of the staf's acrwn, whichever is lurer." A party nuy not wait unni an action is taken under the license before hhng a request. Accor&ngly, tle petition of the Sune of Utah for a stay was denied.
B A license mny be granted containing a con & tion, such as a requirenrnt for subsequent testing before material may be imported under the hcense. De con & tion does not create a fresh opportututy for 61 sng a request for a stay, Timehness dapends on when the anendment was issued and not on the ful6liment of subsequent conditions.
LDP-98-20 NORTIIEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Pour Station, Unit 3),
Docket No. 50 423-LA (ASLBP No. 98 7402-LA); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 25,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Stan&ng Issue)
A la this pmceeding on the license amendment apphcation of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, the Licensing Board conchides that the Pendoner, Cinzens Regulatory Comrnission, has stan&ng to intervene.
B in assessing whether a peutioner has set forth a sufncient " interest" to intervene in the licensing 1
proceeding under tne Atomic Energy Act and the agency's regulanons, the Comnussion has for over two decades applied c4ntemporaneous judicial concepts of standing. Portland General Electric Ca (Pebble Spnngs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 76-27,4 NRC 610,613-14 (1976).
C As du Commission has reiterated, "[tio demonstrate stan&ng, the petitioner rnust allege a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged acbon and is hkely to be redressed by a favorable decision" Cleveland Electrac /fluminarmg Ca O'erry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1). CLI 93-21, 38 NRC 87,92 (1983).
D Ad&tionally, "ltlhis injury nest be to an interest arguably wittua tk zone of interests protected by the govermng statute,"i.e, the Atomic Energy Act or the Nidional Envirordnental Pohey Act of 1%9.
Perry. CLI-93-21,38 NRC at 92.
E When an organizadon seeks to intervene as the authaized representauve of its members, the orgamzanon must demonstrate that at least one of its nrmhers has standag and has authonzed the orgamzation to repienent him. The organization also nmst show that the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the purpow of the organizauon and that neither dw claim asserted nor the rehef sought requires the pardcipation of an individual member in the proceedmg. friwne fuel Storage, LLC, Ondependent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI 9813,48 NRC 26,30631 (1998).
F in evaluating peuuoner's standing to intervene, Comnussion precedent directs that we construe the peution in favor of the f *unoner. Georgia Insrusse of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor Adanta, Georgia), CLI-9512, 42 NRC 'lli, 115 0 995).
LBP-98-21 INI'ERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (Receipt of Material from Tonawanda, New York). Docket No. 48681-MLA 4 (ASLBP No. 98 74843-MLA); MATTRIALS LICENSE AMr,NDMENT; September I,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Grant of Petition for a Hearing)
A A state may protect the interests of itt ciuzens or its lands, waters, wi!dhfe, and other natural resources. provi&ng that it demonstrates that the proposed licensing acuan will cause its citizens or natural resources to be hkely to suffer injury that is " distinct and palpable, parucular and concrete, as opposed to being conjectural or hypothetical." Applying ttus standard, a state may have standing to challenge whether the NRC has improperly granted a hcense amendment to allow de receipt and processing of uramum-beanng material that allegedly contains hazardous waste.
B ne Presiding Officer will attempt to facihtate negadations between parties when they are seeking to resolve some or all of the pending issues.
j C
Once a party is determined to have stan&ng, it may raise any concern dus is found to be cermane to de proceeding.
]
LBP 98-22 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3),
Docket No. 50-423-LA-2 (ASLBP No.98-743 03-LA); OPERATING LICENit. AMENDMENT, Septem-ber 2,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Stan&ng lasue)
A in ttus proceeding on the beense amendnent apphcation of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company to add a new sump pump subsymm at Millstone Unit 3, the Licensing Board concludes that de Peutioner, Citizens Regulatory Commission, lacks standing to intervene.
10 l
I i
l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS B
in desernuning whether a peutioner has set forth a sufhcient " interest" within the meaning of the Atomic Energy Act and the agency's regulations to intervene as of right in an NRC licensing proceeding, the Commission long ago held that contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing are to be used. Portland GeneralElectric Co. (Febble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-76-27,4 NRC 610,613-14 (1976).
C To estabhsh stan&ng, the peutmner must assert an actual or threatened, concrete and particularued injury, ie., an injury in fact, that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and hkely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Quivira Afusing Co. (Ambrosia lake Facabry, Grants, New Mexico), CLI-98-ll, 48 NRC 1,6 (1998); Georgia larruare of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Adanta, Georgia),
CLI-9512, 42NRClil, 115 (1995);Sequoyah Turir Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI 9412,40 NRC 64, 71 72 (1994).
D The injury also must be to an interest arguably within the zone of interests protected by the statute governing NRC proceedings, the Atonne Energy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1%9.
Quiviin, CLI-98-11,48 NRC at 6; Perry, CLI-93-21. 08 NRC at 92.
E When a numbership organization requests intervention as the sepresentative of its numbers, tim organization must show that an individual member has standing to parucipate and has authonzed the organization to represent him. Prnare fact Storage. LLC (Independent Spent fuel Storage innallation).
CLI-98-13,48 NRC at 26,30-31 (1998).
F An organizauon also rnust demonstrat Omt the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the purpose of de organizanon and neither the clain) alleged nor the sehef sought necessitate the paticipation of an individual member in the proceeding. Prhuse fuel Storage, CLI-98-13,48 NRC at 3431.
O In order for a peutioner to avail itself of the presumpoon found in agency precedents that nearby residence to a nuclear power plant confers standmg. Um hceme amendment at issue in the procee&ng must present an " obvious potential for offsite consequences." florula Power & Ught Co. (St. Imc e Nuclear Power Plant, Units ! and 2). CLI-89-21,30 NRC 325,330 (1989).
H The desertrunation whether a peutioner's asacrted injury is fairly traceable to the proposed acuan "is not dependent on whether the cause of the injury flows &recdy from the challenged action, but whether the chain of causauon is plausible." SequoyaA fuel.r. CLI-94-12,40 NRC at 75.
LDP-98 23 NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION (Seahrook Station Unit 1), Docket No. 54443-LA (ASLBP No.98-74M)5-1AJ OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 3,1998 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Petitions to intervene)
A In this Decision, the Ucensing Board grants a peudon to intervene and request for a hearing by the Seacoast Anti-Pollution 1xague (SAPL) and rejects the petition of New England Coahuon on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) for falure to estabhsh stan&ng. SAPL's Contention I regarding potential nsk due to steam generator tube failure is accepted. A decision on SAPL's other three proposed contendons is postponed pen &ng receipt of ad&tional information from the pnues.
j B
Commission case law estabbahes that potentialinjury sufficient to confer stan&ng to people residing
)
near a nuclear facihty occurs when a heensing action has obvious potential for offsite crmsequences.
C A full-blown analysis is not required to demonstrate stan4ng since peutioners are not required in estabbsh the existence of potential injury with certainry "at the threshold [ dan &ng phasel" Moreover, at i
this threshold standmg stage, pennoners' argunents will be viewed in their favor, and even the potential I
for minor ra&ologica! exposure will be enough to create the requisite injury in fact.
i D
Ucensing boards have no juris&ction to determine whether beense arnendments should be made imrnediately effective since Commission rules make clear that these decisions can only be nale by Staff.
E Except perhaps for egregious pleaang defects,it is not good policy to &nnuss contentions nerely for procedural reasons, especially where the challenged acuvines potentially could affect public heahh and I
safery.
F Federal agencies arguably should not allow an applicant to prewnt licensmg medons separately if such separate actions are part of a common action t' at has greater adverse consequences when viewed as n
a whole.
l lI l
l l
l i
____m l
l J
l 2
l 1
e l
i 2
i i
I 4
a i
i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-98-7 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CEN1ER (Plutadelphia, Penn-sylvania). Docket No. 03414526 (License No. 37 00062-07); REQUEST IT)R ACTION; August 28,1998; DIREC OR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I2.206 l
A The Dit.ctor, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, has denied a petition 6 led by Ann Lovell requesting that the Commission take immediate action to suspend or revoke the NRC license issued to the Department of Veterans Administration Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As grounds for j
her request, the Petitioner asserted that esecutive managenrnt is operaung in a manner that has the potential to present a signi6 cant d4mger to public health and safety. Speci6cally, the Peutioner asserted that; Thr.
l Licensee comistently violated NRC requirenrnts and failed to take corrective action; the Ucensee has a i
history of supplying false informanon to the NRC; Petitioner and others became contarmnated as a result of l
what she believed was an intentional incident; and that employees are fearful of raning safety concerns. The i
Peutioner also asserted that the NRC may have withdrawn a civil penalty because it was not " cost-effective" to pursue de issue against de Department of Veterans Affairs. The Director denied de peuuon based upon his determinauon that the Petitioner did not provide a suf6cient basis for taking any schon to suspend at revoke the Ucensee's license.
DD-98-8 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Nuclear Power Stauon, Umts I and 2; i
Byron Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3; LaSalle County 1
Station, Umts I and 2; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Stacon, Units I and 2; Zion Nuclear Power Station, A
Units I ar.d 2), Docket Nos. STN 54456, STN $4457, STN 34454. STN 34455, 50-237, 54249,50-i 373,54374,50-254,54265,54295,54304; REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 31,1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 4
A The Director, Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Reguladon, has taken acbon regarding a petition Bled by the National WhistleMower 1.egal Defense and Education hmd requesung that the NRC take action i
with regard to Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed). Speci5cally, the Peauoner requested that the NRC take imnediate " corrective" action and impose civil penalues against Comed based upon CorrI#s y
j
- interference" with de willingness of employees to file Problem Idenu6 cation Fvems, and " intentional prohibition" of employees from directly communicating with the NRC. For the reasons explained in the Director's Decision, the petition has been denied.
B The Umted States Departarnt of Labor has in the past assured that agreements reahed by parues 1
in proceedings before it under section 211 of the Energy Reorganizanon Act do not contain provisions that l
unlawfully interfere with an individual's right to engage in pmtected acovity.
i DD-98-9 ENVIROCARE OF UTAH,INC. (SrJt (mke City, Utah). Docket No. 448989 (License No SUA-1 1559); REQUEST IOR ACTION; September 14, 1998; DIRECIVR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R.
j i 2.206 j
A The Director of de Of6ce of Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards denies a petition dated December 12,1997,61ed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Dr.1homas B Cochran on behalf c'f the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and supplemented on May 6,1998 (petition).
l The NRDC requested that the NRC immediately suspend all licenres held by Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
(Envirocare). Speci6cally, NRDC requested that the NRC (1) conduct an immediate investigation of issues l
raised in the petiuon and inmediately suspend Envirocure's NRC heense; (2) conduct an investigation of
]
possible criminal violations of section 223 of the Atonne Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act); (3) immediately suspend Envirocare'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 j
each current and former Envirocare employee personally on a con 6dential basis, to advise them of their 5
1 i
i 13
)
n i
j 4
.--c.
7,,.
,,-,.--cv-
....-~ - - - - -
mm---
i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS l
I rights to inform the NRC of unsafe practices and violations, to inform them of the protections available to them, and to ask them if they have any information that they wish to discione, on a confidential basis or otherwiw; and (6) order a special independent 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 petition and requested that tim NRC (1) suspend all licennes Envirocare has with the NRC;(2) request the State of Utah to suspend all heen.ws that Envirocare holds with the State of Utah under the purview of the Utah Division of Radiation Control;(3) the license l'
suspensions indicated in (1) and (2) above are to be enforced until such time as NRC and the State of Utah 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 currerd and past employee j
l on an individual basis and obtain a sworn statement from each, indicanng (i) whether they were inumidated l
by the unlawful Envirocare Employee Agreement, (ii) whether they withheld or attered any health, safety, or environmental information in any Envirocare report, or in any written or oral comrnunication with any othcial of the State of Utah, EPA or NRC, and (iii) whether they failed to report any hr.alth, safety, or environmental information to appropriate authorities, and in cases where there was information withheld.
j altered, or not reported, identify fully what the infornration said, and (5) investigate the extent to which such informatzon, revealed under (4) above, has affected existing and past licenus held by Envirocare issued by NRC or the State of Utah, under the purview of the Utah Division of Radiation Control.
C After an evaluation of the petiuon, the Director concludes that the Petitioner did not raise any issues that would warrant granong the requested actions.
1 l
l I
le l
l l
l l
I I-l l
..m.
I 1
[
l l
I i
l i
i.
I f
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX 4
CA513 1
l Air Courier Conference of America v. American Postal Workers Unkm, 498 U.S. 517, 523-24 (1991) showing necessary to prevail on zone-of-interests test for standing to intervene; CU-98 II,48 NRC 11 (199 0 Allied-General A. clear Servkes (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station). ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, 422 (1976); LDP 82 26,15 NRC 742, 743 (1982) acadenne interest in outcome of proceeding as basis for stan&ng to intervene; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 141-42 (1998)
Arizona Public Servkr Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generaung Station Units I, 2, and 3), CLI-91-12, 34 NRC 149,155 (1991) j weight given to pentioner's support for contentions; CU-98-12,48 NRC 22 (1998) l Assocksted Gas Distributors v FERC, 899 P.2d 1250 (D.C. Cir.1990) statutory limits on comperation; CU-98-il,48 NRC 15 n.4 (1998)
Associated Gas Distributors v. FERC, 899 F.2d 1250,1259 (D C. Cir.1940) competitive injury as basis for standing to intervene; CLI-98-il,48 NRC 7 (1998)
Association of Data Processung Service Organn:athms v. Camp, 397 U.S.150,152-53 (1970) j economic interests compnsing injury in fact for standing to intervene; CL1-98-il, 48 NRC 8 (1998) l' Association of Data Processing Servuce Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. l$0,155 (l970) econornic competition as basis for stan&ng to intervene under the Atomic Energy Act; CU-98-II,48 NRC 12 (1998)
Babcock and Wilcos (Apollo, Pennsylvania fuel Fabricapon Facility), LBP-934, 37 NRC 72, 8481 (1993) standing requirements applied to Subpart L hearing requests; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 141 (1998)
Babcock and Wilcos Co. (Pennsylvania Nuclear Services Operations, Parks Township, Pennsylvania),
LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 47, 49 (1994) l stan&ng requirements applied to Subpart L hearing requests; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 141 (1998)
Babcock and Wilcos Co. (Pennsylvania Nuclear Services Operations, Parks Township, Pennsylvania),
LBP-94-4, 39 NRC 47, 52 (1994) speci6 cation of areas of concero prior to seeing hearing nie; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 142 (1998)
Baltunare Gas & Electric Co. (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLt-98-15,48 NRC I
45, $2-53 (1998)
I Commission authority to issue guidance to licensing boards; CU-98-16,48 NRC 120 (1998) esercise of Commission supervisory authonry to take sua sponte review of segmentation issue; CU-98-18, 48 NRC 130 (1998)
Belforti v. NRC. 725 F.2d 1380,1381-82 (D C. Cir.1983)
I Commission authority to dehne the scope of its procce&ngs; CU-98-IS, 48 NRC 54 (1998)
Bennert v. Spear,117 S. Ct.11541161 (1998) breadth of appbcable zone of interests for stan&ng to intervene; CU-98-il,48 NRC 6 (1998)
Bennerr v. Speer,117 S. CL 1154,1167 (1998) f zone-of-inten.sts test to satisfy " prudential" requirernent of standing; CLI-98-ll, 48 NRC 6 (1998)
Benners v. Spear, 520 U.S. a 117 S. Ct.1154,1163 (1997) irreducible constituunnal minimum requirements for stan&ng; LBP.98-21,48 NRC 140 (1998)
Bennerr v. Spear, 520 U.S 117 S. Ct.1154,1l67 (1997) s zone-of-interests requirement for stan&ng to intervene; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 141 (1998) l 15 t
i f
7 t-
- - - - - - ~ -~
i 1
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Calumet Industries, Inc. v. Brock, 807 F.2d 225, 229 n 3 (D C. Cir.1986)
)
compeutor's standing to " contest agency's failure to similarly burden others; CLI-98 II, 48 NRC 13 (1998)
Carolina Power and Light Co (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units I, 2, 3, and 4), CU-80'12,11 NRC 534,516 (1980) authority of hcensing boards and presiding officers to & rect Staff in the performance of its safety reviews; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 143 (1998)
Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 333 F.2d 411, al6 (8th Cir 1976) htigability of economic injury under NEPA; CLi-98-il,48 NRC 8 (1998)
Cincinnati Cas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CU 82-20,16 NRC 109, 110 11 (1982)
Board authority to raise issues sua sponte in operating bcense renewal procec&ngs; CLt-98-15, 48 NRC 55 a.7 (1998)
Cincinnats Gas and Electric Co. (William it Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), LBP-82-47,15 NRC 1538, 1542 (1982) applicability of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in NRC proceeengs; LBP.98-23, 48 NRC 160 n.1 (1998) l Cities of Statesville v. AEC, 441 F.2d 962,975 (D C. Cir.1%9) hmits on compeution under Atomic Energy Act, CLi-98-ll. 48 NRC 14 (1998)
Cory of im Angeles v. L.wms. 461 U.S. 95,102 (1983) actual or imminent injury necessary for grant of statuhng to intervene; CL!-98-!!,48 NRC 6 (1998)
City of Las Angeles v. National liighury Trr#c Safety Adaunistration. 912 F.2d 478, 495 (D C. Cir.
l 1990), afd, CLI-9412, 40 NRC 64 (1994) avoidance of ments assessment in determination of stan&ng; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 142 (1998)
]
City of Los Angeles v Unused States Department of Agrsculture. 950 F. Supp.1005, tot 112.1013 (C D.
Cal. 1996) htigability of environmental issues by economic competitor; CU 98-11, 48 NRC 9 (1998)
City of Rochester v. Unned States Postal Service. 541 F.2d %7,972 (2d Cir.1976) segmentauon of bcensing actions involving safety issues, NRC pohcy on; 1.SP-98-23,48 NRC 169 (1998)
Clarke v. Securities industry Association, 479 U.S. 388, 389 (1987) breadth of appbcable zone of interests for standing to irdervene; CU 98-II,48 NRC 6 (1998) i Clarke v. Securities industry Association. 479 U.S. 388, 399-400 (1987) showing necessary to prevail on zone-of-interests test for stan&ng to intervene; CU 98-II,48 NRC 10 (1998)
Clarke v. Securities industry Associasion, 479 U S. 388, 398-99, 403 (l987) economic competitson as basis for standing to intervene under the Atomic Energy Act; CU-98-il, 48 NRC 12 (1998)
Clewland Electric illuminating Co. (Petry Nuckv Power Plant, Unst 1), C1193-21, 38 NRC 87, 92 (1993) basis for standing to intervene in NRC lices ing procee&ngs; CLi-98-il, 48 NRC 6 (1998) showing necessary to denwnstrate organizatio al standing to intervene; C119813, 48 NRC 31 (1998) showing necessary to establish standing; !.BP '8 22, 48 NRC 154 (1998)
Clewland Electric illuminaang Co. (Perry Nuclear k met Plant, Unit 1), C1193-21, 38 NRC 87, 92, 94-95 (1993) showing necessary to demonstrate standing to inter ene; LDP 9& 20, 48 NRC 91, 92 (1998)
Clewland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Powen Plant, Unit 1), CU-93-21, 38 NRC 87, 95 n 10 (1993) avoidance of merits assessment in determination of s an&ng, LDP-98-21,48 NRC 142 (1998)
. Clewland Dactric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Powe. Plant, Units I and 21. CL1-86-7, 23 NRC 233, 234 (1986) supervisory authonty of Comtnission to instruct.scensing board in management of proceedmgs; CLi-98-15, 48 NRC 51 n.1 (1998) 16
~
~
-~ _
j l/
n i
I 5
I I
i l-I-
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES j
Clewland Electric Illuminstmg Co. 0%rry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit I), CLI 93-21,38 NRC '87. 95 (1993) geographic proximity as basis for standing to intervene on license amendrnent, showing necessary for; I
LBP-98-22,48 NRC 155 0998); LBP-98-23,'48 NRC 162 (1998) l'V Clewland Electric Illuminasing Co. (l%:ry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-93-21,38 NRC 87. 95-96
.p (1993) proof accessary at threshold stage for standing to intervene; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 162 0998)
Cr -
fra FJhon Co. (Brandwood Nuclear Power Station,' Units I ant, 2), LBP-85-20, 21 NRC 1732, -
1741 (1985), rev'd and remanded on osher grounds, CU.86 8,23 NRC 2410986) speci6cuy required in stating areas of concern; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 142 n.7 0998)
I>
C-Z Edhrm Ca (Zion Station, Unitr I and 2), ALAB416,12 NRC 419, 426 0980) scope of admissible areas of concern; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 143 (1998)
Consolidused Edhrm Co. of New York Undiaa Point, Unit 2), CLI-74-23,7 AEC 947,951-52 (1974)
.. refemi of mareers to Staff for posthearing resolution; LBP-98-19, 48 NRC 84 0998)
Consolklated Edison Co. of New Yort Ondian Point, Units 2 and 3), CLI-82-15,16 NRC 27, 32 0982) germaneness test of interest that orgardzation aceks to represent; CLI-98-13,48 NRC 33 0998)
Curators of the Uniwrzity of Mhsourt, CLI-917,33 NRC 295,296-97 (1991)
Commission authority to issue case-specine guidance; CL1-98-15,48 NRC 52 n.4 (1998) 1 Curasors of the Uniwrsity of Missouri, CL1-95-1, el NRC Tl, 98 0 995)
' weight given to NUREOs, Regulatory Guides, and other Commission guidarre; CLi-98-15, 48 NRC Si n.2 (1998)
Curators of the Uniwesity of Mesourt, CLI-95-1,4I NRC 75,98,100 (l995) reliance on Staff guidance to allege that an appbcation is deficient; LBP 98-21,48 NRC 143 0998)
- Curators of the Uniwrsity of Mhsourt ClJ-951, di NRC 71,1210995) relevance of the adequacy of Staff safety review to winher an action should he approved; LBP 98-21, 48 NRC 143 (1998)
Dettums v. NRC, 863 F.2d 968, 978 (D.C. Cir.1988) showing necessary to establish injury in fact; LBP-98-21, da NRC 1410998) i Dubou v. Depurrment of Agricufrure,102 F.3d 1273,1282-83 (Ir Cir.1996), cerr denied,117 S. O.
t 2510,138 L Ed. 2d 1013 0977) frequency and duration of visits to establish stamhng t'o challenge licensing of independent spent fuel storage installatior; CL1-98-13, 48 NRC 32 0998)
. Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., LBP-94-33, 40 NRC 151,153 54 0994)
' standard for state intervention; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 146 0998)
Energy Fuels Nuclear, lac. (Whier Mesa Uranium Mill), LBP 97-10, 45 NRC 429, 4310997)
' standing where stase asserts jurisdiction over materials involved; LBP 98-21, 48 NRC 147 0998)
' EmWrocare of Utah, /nc, LBP-92-8, 35 NRC 167,172 0992)
- Judicial concepts of standing applied la NRC proceedings; LBP 98 21,48 NRC 140 (1998)
Envirocare of Urah, Inc., LBP 92-8. 35 NRC 167,173 0992) showing necessary to establish injury in fact; LBP-98 21,48 NRC 1410998).
First National Bank & Trust Co. v. National Credit Union Administration, 988 Y.2d 1272,1277 n 4 (D.C.
Or.1993) c competitor's standing to intervene on the basis of assertion that it is enforcing entry-restricting legislation CLI-96-il,48 NRC 15 a.5 (1998)
- first National Bank & Trust Co. v. National Credit Union Administration, 988 F.2d 1272,1278-79 (D.C.
Cir.1993) economic cntupetition as basis for standmg to intervene where statute involves a restraint on competition; CLI 98 il, 48 NRC 14 (1998)
- Thons Corp. v. Shalala, 860 F. Supp. 859, 862 (D.D.C 1994) compeutive injury as basis for standing to intervene; ClJ 98 II, 48 NRC 7 0998) '
Florida Audubon Society v. Bentsen. 94 P.3d 658, 665-66 (D C. Cir.1996)
- environmental nesus for litigabibry of economic issues; O 1-98-11,48 NRC 9 0998) 17 w
t LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Florida Power & Ught Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-89-21, 30 NL 325, 329-30 (1989) geographic prominuty as basis for stan&ng to intervene; LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 93 (1998) showing of injury in fact in cases without obvious offsaie implicadons; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 142 (1998) riorida rowr & Ught Ca (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Uruts I and 2), CLI-89 21, 30 NRC 325, 330 (1989) geographic proxitoity as basis fu standing to intervene on license amendment, showing necessary for; LBP-98-22,48 NRC 155 (1998)
Florida Power & Ught Co. Crurkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), ALAB-952,33 NRC 521, 529 (1991) showing necessary to demonstrate organizational stan&ng to intervene; LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 91 (1998)
Florida power and ught Ca (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant Units 3 and 4), ALAB-952,33 NRC 521, 532, afM CLI-9113,34 NRC 185 (1991) abuse of discretion standard apphed to appeals of heensing board ruhngs on &scretionary interven-tion; CLI 98-13, 48 NRC 34 (1998)
Morida Powr and Ught Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI 9113, 34 NRC 185,187-88 (1991)
Comnussion authority to issue case-speci6c guidance; CLI-9815, 48 NRC 52 n 4 (1998)
Fritioson v. Alexander, 772 F.2d 12251242-43 (5th Cir.1985) segmentation of hcensing actions involving safety issues, NRC policy on; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 169 (1998)
Gencrul Public firiluies Nuclear Corp. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generaung Station), LBP 96 23, 44 NRC 143, 157-58 (1996) potential for offsite consequences of decreased steam generator tube inspections; LBP-98 23,48 NRC 163 (1998)
Gentrul ruhlic Uriluies Nuclear Corp. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), LDP 96-23, 44 NRC 143, 158 (1996) j level of injury necessary to establish threshold standing; LDP-98-23, 48 NRC 162 (1998)
Geo Tech Auociares (Geo Tech Laboratories), CU 92-14, 36 NRC 221, 222 (1992)
Commission authority to issue caseapeci6c guidance; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 52 n.4 (1998)
Cornmission authesity to denne the scope of its proceedings; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 53,54 (1998)
Georgia lasriture of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12, 42 NRC 111, 115 (1995) construction of intervention peution in hght most favorable to petitioner; LBP 98-22, 48 NRC 155 (1998) juacial concepts of stan&ng applied in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-ll, 48 NRC 6 (1998); CL1-98-13, 48 NRC 30 (1998); LBP-98-21,48 NRC 140 (1998) rnember authorization requirement for organizational stanang to imervene; CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 31 (1998)
)
proof xcessary at threshcN stage for stan&ng to intervene; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 162 (1998) l showing necessary to denan,strare organizational standing to intervene; LBP 98-20, 48 NRC 91, 92 j
(1998) showing necessary to establish stan&ng; LBP 98-22, 48 NRC 154 (1998)
Georgia Insruere of Technology (Georgia T:ch Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI 9512, 42 NRC
' Ill,116 (1995)
Commission deference to board deternunations on stan&ng to intervene; CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 32 (1998) stan&ng to intervene on basis of potential injury to petitioners resi&ng near a nuclear facihry; LDP 98 23, 48 NRC 162 (1998)
Georgia lastirare of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12, 42 NRC lil,117 (1995)
{
frequency and duration of visits to estabush stan&ng to challenge beensing of independent spent fuel
- storage installation; CLI-98-13,48 NRC 32 (1998) 18
- - -- - ~
i I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generaung Plant, Units I and 2), CL1-93-16, 38 NRC 25 (1993) showing necessary to establish injury in fact; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 159 (1998)
{
Ceargic Power Co. (Vogtle Electnc Generating Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-93-16, 38 NRC 25, 32 (1993) injury-in-fact and rene-of interests requirernents for stan&ng to intervene; LBP-98 21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Genersdag Plant, Units I and 2), LDP-94-31, 40 NRC 137,140 (1994) proper support for reconsideration rnocons; LBP-98-17,48 NRC 73 (1998)
Guy Ssarer Urdities Co. (River Bend Stauon, Unit I), CLI-94-10, 40 NRC 43, 47 (1994) sonemf-interests test to satisfy
- prudential" requirement of stan&ng; CU-98-il, 48 NRC 6, 8 (1998)
)
Guy States Utdsries Co. (River Bend Station Unit 1), CLI-94-10, 40 NRC 43, 47-48 (1994) 4 Commission deference to board deternunations on standing to intervene; C119813, 48 NRC 32 (1998)
Hazardous Weste Treatment Counca v. ETA, 861 F.2d 277, 280, 281, 283, 785 (D C, Cir,1988), cert.
denied, 490 U.S.1106 (1989) economic competi, tion as basis for stan&ng to imervene under the Atomic Energy Act; CLI-98 il, 48 NRC 13 (1998)
Hazardous Waste Treasment Counca v. % mas 885 F.2d 918, 927 (D C. Cnt. 1989) limits on competition under Atomic Energy Act, CU-98 il, 48 NRC 15 (1998)
Usart Grain & Fred Inc. v. Bergland, 446 F. Supp. 457, 487-88 (D. Kaa.1978), ag'd. 602 F.2d 929 (10th Cir 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S.1073 (1980) htigabihry of economic injury under NEPA; CLI-98-il,48 NRC 9 (1998)
Houston Ughrms and Power Co. (South Tesas 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)
Nouston Ughtrag and Powr Co. (South Texas Project, Units I and 2), LBP 79-10, 9 NRC 439, 447-48, afd, ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644 (1979) showing necessary to estabbsh injury in fact; LBP 95-21, 48 NRC 141 (1998)
Humane Society of the United States v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 45, 56, 58-59 (D.C. Cir.1988) germaneness test of interest that orgamzation seeks to represent; CL1-98-13, 48 NRC 33 (1998)
Hunt v. krhsngton State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) showing necessary for grant of representational stan&ng to intervene; CUM 8-13,48 NRC 31 (1998)
Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120). CU-98-8, 47 NRC 314, 320 21 (1998)
)
applicability to tirneliness of stay requests; LBP-9819, 4d NRC 85 n.2 (1998)
Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929 Coors Rom!, Suste 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), CLI-98-9, 47 NRC 326, 332 (1998) supervisory authority of Commission to instruct beensing board in rnanagenent of procecangs; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 5! n,1 (1998)
Insernational Uranium (USA) Corp. (Wlute Mesa Uranium Mill), CL1-98 6, 47 NRC 116,117 (1998)
)
showing necessary to demonstrate organizanonal stan&ng to intervere; CU-98-13, 48 NRC 31 (1998) standard for state intervention; LBP 98-21, 48 NRC 14.s (1998)
International Uranium (USA) Corp. (White Mesa Uranium Mill) CLI-98-6, 47 NRC 116,118 (1998)
Comnussion deference to board deternunations on standing to intervene; CLI-9813, 48 NRC 32 f
(1998)
/avestment Co. Iartiture v. Camp, 401 U.S 617, 620 (1971) l economic compeution as basis for standing to intervene under the Atomic Energy Act; CU-98-il, 48 i
NRC 12 (1998)
/ersey Central Powr sad Ught Co (Forked River Nuclear Generaung Stadon, Unit 1), ALAB 139,6 AEC 535 (1973) economic interests protected under NEPA; CU 98-II,48 NRC 10 (1998)
Keuy v. Sefan, 42 F.3d 1501,1508 (1995) construction of intervenuon petitions in favor of complaimng party; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 162 n.2
)
(1998)
I 19 l
1 l
l l
l
l l
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Uguid Grrkic industries Corp v. FERC, 29 F.3d 697 (D.C. Chr.1994) compective injury as basis for standing to intervene; CU-98-ll, 48 NRC 7 (1998) j Uquid CarMic indusines Corp. v. FERC, 29 F.3d 69?, 704 (D C. Cir.1994)
)
zone-of-interests test for standing to intervene; CU 98-il, 48 NRC 8 (1998) l purpose of zone of-interests test for stan&ng to intervene; CLI-98-ll, 48 NRC 11 (1998)
Uquid Car %ic industries Corp. v. FERC, 29 F.3d 697, 705 (D.C. Cir.1994) l economic competidon as basis fu, stansng to intervene where statute involves a restramt on competition; CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 14 (1998) bg Island Ughmg Ca. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-788, 20 NRC 1102,1159 (1984) 1 refenal of natters to Staff for postheunng resolution, LBP-98-19, 48 NRC 84-85 (1998) bag Island ughtmg Ca (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon Unit 1), ALAB-832,23 NRC 135,1381159']
(1986) discretion of licensing bond to grant untirnely stay motion; LBP 98-19, 48 NRC 85 (1998) bg Idaad Ugking Co. (Shortham Nuclear Power Station, Unit ik CU.88-9, 28 NRC 567, 569 (1988) supervisory authonty of Comrrussion to instruct hcensing tmard in management of procecengs; CI198-15, 48 NRC 51 n.1 (1998) kng Island Ughting Ca (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stadon, Unit I), CLI.88-9, 28 NRC 567, 569-71 (1988) i licensing board authonty to grant tine extensions; CU-98-15,48 NRC 52 (1998) by Island Ugkmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon, Unit !), CLI-88-il, 28 NRC 603, 60344 (1988)
Conunission authority to issue case specihc guidance; CU-98-15, 48 NRC $2 n.4 (1998) bag Island Ughtmg Ca (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stauon, Unit I), CU.911, 33 NRC i (1991)
Comnussion authonty to issue case-specific guidance; CU-9815, 48 NRC 52 n 4 (1998) kng Island Ugking Ca (Shoreham Nuclear Power Srauon, Unit I), CU-91-2, 33 NRC 61 (1991)
Comnussion authonty to issue case-specibe guidance; CU 9815, 48 NRC 52 n.4 (1998) long Island Ughtmg Ca (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stadon, Umt 1), CLI 91-4, 33 NRC 233, 237 (1991)
Commission auttmrity to issue cue-specinc guidance; CU-98-15, 48 NRC 52 n 4 (1998)
Umg Island Ugkmg Ca (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), LBP 85-12, 21 NRC 644, g/f'd, ALAB-818, 22 NRC 651 (1985), rev'd on other gmundr. CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22 (1986) licensing board authority to rule on effectiveness of agrectnent that raises a question abaut status of sheriff's ofhce to act as local law enforcement agency; LBP-98-17, 48 NRC 75 a 4 (1998) hg Island Ughtmg Ca (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon, Urut 1), LBP-88-13, 27 NRC 509, remanded for further proceedmgs. ALAB-905,28 NRC 515 (1988) i licensing board authority to rule on effectaveness of agreenent that raises a question about status of sheriff's of6ce to act as local law enforcenent agency; LBP.98-17, 48 NRC 75 n.4 (1998) 1.ouisiana E.nergy and Power Aushority v. FERC,141 F.3d 364, 361 (D C Cir.1998) competitive injury as basis for standing to intervene; CU-98 il,48 NRC 7 (1998)
Misiana Energy and Power Authonry v. FERC,141 F.3d 364, 367-68 n.5 (D.C. Cir.1998) statutory bmits on competiuon; C1198-il,48 NRC 15 n.4 (1998)
Whiana Energy Servrces. LP, (Chuborne Enrichment Center), CU-97-2, 45 NRC 3, 4 & n I (1997) -
pmper support for reconsideruuan motions; LDP.98-17,48 NRC 73 (1998)
Loalslana Energy Servkes, LP. (Claiborne Ennchnent Center), CU 97-3,45 NRC 49, 50 (1997)
Commission order for expe&uon of proceeding and suggesting ume frares and schedules; CU-9815, 48 NRC 52 (1998) buhiana Energy Services. LP. (Cl,ubome Enrichment Center), CLI-97-15, 46 NRC 294, 302, 308 (1997) appbcabihty of nnancial quali6 cations requirenents to independent spent fuel storage installation applicants; CLI-9813, 48 NRC 36 (1998) hiaiana Energy Servicss, l.P (Claiborne Ennchnrnt Center). CU-98-3,47 NRC 77,100,10106 (1998) litigabihty of environmental jusuce issues in NRC proceedings; CLI 98-13, 48 NRC 35-36 (1998) baissana Energy Services LP. (Claiborne Ennchment Center), LBP-95 41, 34 NRC 332, 332-39, 347, 354 (1991) reliance on Staff guidance to allege that an appbcation is dehcient; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 143 (1998) 20 I
i
e LEGAL CITATIONS INDFJ CASES Lajan v. Defenders of Wilditfe, 504 U.S. 555 (1991) irreducible constitutional mininum requiremems for standing; LDP 98-21,48 NRC 140 (1998) tajan v. D-fenders of Wildige, Sol UK 555, 560 62 (1992) basis for standing to intervene in NRC licensing proceedings; CLI 98-II,48 NRC 6 (1998)
McKinney v. Department of the Treasury 199 F.2d 1544,1553 (Ysd. Cir.1986) gernumeness test of interest that organization seeks to represent; CLI.98-13,48 NRC 34 n.3 (1998)
MD Mrmaceutical Inc. v. Drug Edorcemens Administration,133 F.3d 8.1I (D C Cir.1998) competitive injury as basis for standing to intervene; CLI-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; CLI-98 il 48 NRC 15 a 4 (1998)
Medical Association of Alabuma v. Schwiker, 554 F. Supp. 955, 964 65 (M.D. Ala.), ag'd, 714 P.2d 107 (tith Cir 1983)(per carium) germaneness test of interest that organization seeks to represent; CL198-13, 48 NRC 34 n.3 (1998)
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit !) 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 Ediwn Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I), CLI 85-2, 21 NRC 282, 316 (1985) zone-of-interests test to satisfy " prudential *' requitement of standing; CLI-98-il, 48 NRC 6 (1998)
Michigan Gas Co. v. FERC,115 F.3d 1266,1272 (6th Cir.1997) competator's standing to intervene on the basis of assertion that it is enforcing entry restricting legislation; CLi-98-il, 48 NRC 15 n.5 (1998)
Morales v. Transworld Airlmes, Inc.112 S. Ct. 2031 !!9 L Ed. 2d 157,60 USLW 4444 (1992) standard for grant of a stay; LBP 98-19, 48 NRC 85 (1998)
Mountain States Irgal Foundation v. Glidman 92 F.3d 1228,1236 (D C. Cir.1996) competit ve injury as basis for standing to intervene; CLI 98.ll,48 NRC 8 (1998)
MOVA Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Shalala,140 F.3d 1060,1076 (D C Cir.1998) statutory Imuts on competition; CL1-98-il, 48 NRC 15 n.4 (1998)
Nathmal Coal Association v. //odel, 825 F.2d 523, 530 n.9 (D C Cir.1987) hmits on competition under Atonuc Energy Act; CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 15 (1998)
National Coal Association v. Nodel 825 F.2d 523,533 (DC Cir.1987) litigation of competitive interests, circumstances appropriate for; CLI-98-il, 48 NRC 14 (1998)
National Credes Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co., Il8 S. Ct. 921 (l998) economic competition as basis for standmg to intervene where statute involves a restraint on competition; CLI-98-il,48 NRC 14 (1998)
Natwnal Credst Union Administratwn v. First National Bank & Trust Co.,118 S. Ct. 927, 935 n.6 (1998) statutory linuts on competition; CL1-98-11,48 NRC 15 a.4 (1998)
National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co.,1I8 S. Ct. 927,935-36 & n,7 (1998) showing necessary to prevail on rone-of-interests test for staruhng to intervene; CLI-98-II,48 NRC 10, 11 (1998)
National Credst Uniem Administration v. First Nathmal Bank & Trust Co., i18 S. CL 927,935-37 A nn.6, 7 (1998)
- cornrnon bond" restriction for intervention on the basis of economic interests; Q19811, 48 NRC Il-12 (1998)
National Federation of Federal Employees v. Cheney. 883 F.2d 1038,1041 (D C Cir.1989), cert. denied.
4% U.S. 936 (1990) economic competition as basis for statuhng to inservene under the Atomic Energy Act; CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 13 (1998)
Newda Land Action Association v. United States Forest Servke, 8 F.3d 113, 716 (9th Ctr.1993) litigability of economic injury under NLPA; CLI-98-il, 48 NRC 8 (1998)
Northeast NucIcar Energy Co. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), LBP.92 28, 36 NRC 202, 21213 (1992) potential for offsite consequences of decteased steam generator tube inspections; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 163 (199P) 21 o
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Northeasr Nuclear Energy Co. (M !btone Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1), LBP 96-1, 43 NRC 19, 26 (1996) potential for offsite consequences of decreased steam generator tube inspections; LBP 98-23, 48 NRC 163 (1998)
Northern States Power Ca (Path 6nder Atomic Plant). LBP-89-30, 30 NRC 311, 31213 (1989) standing requirernents apphed to Subpart L heanng requests; LDP 98-21, 48 NRC 141 (1998)
Nurfcar Engineering Ca (Shef6 eld, Ilhnois, Imw-level Radioactive Waste Dnposal Site), ALAB-473,7 NRC 737,745 (1978) burden on petitioner for discretionary intervention; ClJ 98-13, 48 NRC 35 n.4 (1998)
Nuclear Engineerug Ca (Sheffiekt, Illinois low level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), CLI-801,11 NRC I,5 (1980) raising previously rejected arguments in reconsideration motions; LEP-98-l.,48 NRC 73 (1998)
Nuclear hierals, Inc., IEP-91-27, 33 NRC 548, 551 (1991) pursuit of negotiations as good cause for late 61ing; IEP 98-18,48 NRC 80 (1998)
Ohio Edison Ca (Itrry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-9115,34 NRC 269,271 (1991), reconsidera-tion denied, CLI-92-6, 35 NRC 86 (1992)
Commission authonty to denne the scope of its proceedings; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 54 (1998)
Ohio Ed4 son Ca (Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), Cl192-6, 35 NRC 86,90 (1992)
Commission authority to issue case specine guidance; CIJ-98-15,48 NRC 52 n 4 (1998)
Ohio Edison Ca (Ivrry Nuclear Power Plant Umt I), LBP-91-38, 34 NRC 229, 252 (1991), aff'd in part on other gmands, CLI-92-II,36 NRC 47 (1992) ubstract, hypothetical injury as basis for standing to torervene; LBP 98-21, 48 NRC 142 (1998)
Old Town Trolley Tourt, Inc. v. Washington histropolaan Area Transis Commission.129 F.3d 201, 203 (D C. Cir.1997) competitor's standing to intervene on the basis of assertiori that it is enforcing entry-restncting legislation; CLI-98-ll, 48 NRC 15 n.5 (1998)
Pac @c Gas and Electric Ca (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-223,8 AEC 241 (1974) economic interests protected under NEPA; CLI-98 il,48 NRC 10 (1998)
PacMc Cas and Electric Ca (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2), LBP-92 27, 36 NRC 196, 199 (1992) organizational standing to intervene on basis of geographic proximity of number; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 159-60 (1998)
Panhandle Producen and Ro.wley Owners Association v. Economic *egulatory Administrasum, 822 F.2d t105, i107-09 (D C. Cir.1987) j statutory hauts on compeution; CLI-98-il, 48 NRC 15 n 4 (1998)
Panerwn v. Alpine Ciry, 663 P2d 95, % (Utah 1983) mandatory requirement for sesolutions to be in wnung; LBP 98-17,48 NRC 74 (1998)
Perro-Chem Procrasing. Inc. v. EPA, 866 F.2d 433, 435-36 (D C. Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. I106 j
(1989) i economic competition as basis for standing to intervene under the Atomic Energy Act; CLI-98-il, 48 NRC 13 (1998)
Philadelphra Electric Ca (Umcrick Generating Station, Units 1 an:t 2), IEP-82-43A.15 NRC 1423
{
(1982) licensing board authonty to rule on effectiveness of agreement that raises a quesuon about status of shenff's office to act as local law enforcenwns agency; LBP-98-17,48 NRC 75 nd (1998)
Philadelphia Electric Ca (bmerick Generating Station Units I and 2), LBP-83-25,17 NRC 681,687, rev'd and remanded on other grounds. ALAB-126, K7 NRC 755 (1983) proper support for reconsideration motions; LBP 98-17, 48 NRC 73 (1998)
Philadelphia Electric Co (Peach Bottom Atanic Power Stat on. Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 21 (1974) scope of admissible areas of concern; LDP-98-21, 48 NRC 143 a 9 (1998)
Port of Astoria v. Hodel, 595 F.2d 467, 474 (9th Cir.1979) zone-of-interests requirernent for standing to intervene; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 141 (1998) 22
2
-.. n
.~s.
.. -. ~. -.. -
....... -. - ~..
I l-g l'
4
- r F
l i
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES i
- Port of Assoria v. Nodef, 595 F 2d '. f ** 75, 476 (9th Cir 1979) '
r l
economic harm as basis fe.wt w under NEPA; CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 9 (1998)
. Portland Aadubon Society v. Ha 4 #
' *i Cir.), cerr. denied, 479 U.S 911 (1989)
. htigabihty of economic injus,: s
- % CL4
.l, 48 NRC 8 (1998) -
Porrland General Electrk Ca (Itb ' % aclear Plant. Units I and 2), CL1-E27, 4 NRC 610 j
613-14 (1976) judicial concepts of standing apphed in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-il,48 NRC 6 (1998); CLI-98-13,
' ' 48 NRC 30 (1998); LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 91 (1998); LBP-421, 48 NRC 140 (1998); LBP-98-22, 48 NRC 154 (1998)
Primse Feel Storage, LLC (Independent Spent NI Storage Nility), CLI-98 7, 47 NRC 307 (1998) multiple boards, circumstances appropriate for appointment of; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 21 (1998)
Primse fuel Storage, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26, 30 31 (1998) i
. germaneness test for organizational interest; LBP-E20, 48 NRC 92 (1998) showing necessary for numbership organization to establish standing; LBP-98-22,48 NRC 154 (1998)
Primre fuel Storage (Independent Spent NI Storage installation s, C.!08-13, 48 NRC 26, 35 37 (1998)
Commission authority to lasue case-specinc guidance; Cu-98-15,48 PtC 52 n.4 (1998)
Public Service Ca ofIndiana (Msble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Unis I and 2) ALAB-459, 7 NRC 179,189-% (1978) licensing board authority to rule on effectiwness of agreenunt that raises a question about status of sheriff's of6ce lo act as local law enforcement agency; LBP-98-17, 48 NRC 75 n.4 (1998)
Public Service Cc. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generaung Station, Ututs I and 2), AIAB-461, 7 NRC 313,318 (1978) referral of marters to Staff for posthearing resolution; LBP-98-19, 48 NRC 84 (1998)
Fabik Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-924, 30 NRC 331, 373 ~
n.IM (1989) discretion of licensing board to grant untimely stay monon; LBP 98-19,48 NRC 85 (1998) l Pubik Servka Ca of New HampsAire (Seabrook Station Units I and 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 516 i
(1977) 1
-- Commission authority to issue case-specinc guidance; CLI 98-15, 48 NRC 52 (1998)
Pmblic Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CL1-77 8,5 NRC 503,516-17 i
. (1977) supervisory authority of Commission to instruct licensing board in management of proceedings; CLI-415,48 NRC 51 n.1 (1998)
Public Service ca of New flampshire (Seabrook Station Uniin I and 2), CLI-89-3, 29 NRC 234, 240-41 i
- (1989).
I PmNic Service Ca of New Nampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLI-90 3, 31 NRC 219, 229 specincity required in stating areas of concern; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 142 n.7 (1998)
(1990)
Commission authority to assume functions of presiding officer; CLI-9812,48 NRC 20 (1998) supervisory authority of Commission to instruct licensing board in management of proceedings; CL1-9815,48 NRC 51 n.1 (1908)
Public Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stacon, Unit I), CLI-9114. 34 NRC 261,266 (1991) showing suf6cient to establish standing to intervene; LBP-98 21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
PmMic Servke Ca of 04tuhana (Black Fox Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-573,10 NRC 775,780 n.18
- (1979) apphcability of Itderal Rules of Civil Procedure in NRC proceedings; LBP-98 23,48 NRC 16Q n.1 (1998)
Paget Sound Power and IJahr Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), LBP-7916,9 NRC 711, 715, af'd, ALAB 559,10 NRC 162 (1979) reliance on government to represent its interest as good use for late Bled hearing request; LBP-9818, 48 NRC 80 (1998) 23 i
i
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES fares Sound Power and ught Co. (SkagitManford Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), LBP-82-74,16 NRC 981,983 (1982) academic interest in outcome of proceeding as basis for stan&ng to intervene; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
Quivira Afining Co. (Ambrosia Lake Facility, Grants, New Mexico), CLI-98-il,18 NRC I (1998) stan&ng requircrrents apphed to Subpart L heanng requests, IEP-98-21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
Ouivira Afi.,ing Co. (Ambrosia Lake licihty, Grants New Mexico), CLI.98-ll, 48 NRC 1, 5-6 (1998) judeial concepts of standing apphed in NRC proceedings; CLI 98-13, 48 NRC 30 (1998);
Quivira Afining Co. (Ambrosia Lake Facility, Grants, New Mexico), CLI-98-II,48 NRC 1,6 (1998) showing necessary to establish stan&ng; LBP-98-22, 48 NRC 154 (1998)
Randall C, Orem, D.O., CU-93-14, 37 NRC 423, 429-30 (1993)
Comnussion authority to issue case-specific guidance; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 52 n.4 (1998)
Reyrbluts v. NRC,105 F.3d 7l5, 721 (D.C. Cir.1997) zone-of-interests test to satisfy " prudential" requirenent of standing; CLI-98-ll, 48 NRC 6, 8 (1998)
Rockwell International Corp. (Rocketdyne Division), ALAB 925, 30 NRC 709, 721-11 (1989), aff'd, CLI45,31 NRC 337 (1990) authority of hcensing boards and presiding othcers to & rect Staff in the perfonnana of its safety i
reviews; LBP-98-21,43 NRC 143 (1998)
Sabine River Authority v. United States Deparrment of inserior, 95l F.2d 669, 674 (5th Cir), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 823 (1992) standing to intervene on basis of geographic nexus; C1198-il,48 NRC 9 (1998)
Sacramento Afunicipal Utilary Durrict (Rancho Seca Nuclear Generating Station) CLI-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 56 (1992), review denied sub nom. Envsronmental & Rewarces Con.rerweion Organi:arim v. NRC,996 i
F.2d 1224 (9th Cir.1993) economic interests protected under NEPA; CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 10 (1998) ju&cial concepts of standing applied in NRC procee&ngs; LDP 98-21, 48 NRC 140 (1998) j Sacramense Alunicipal Utilary Durrset (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-93-19, 38 NRC 81
]
(1993) 1 Commission authority to issue case-speci6c guidance; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 52 n.4 (1998)
Sqfety Ught Corp. (Bloomsburg Sue Decontamination and Ucense Renewal Denials), CLI-92-13, 36 NRC 79, 91 (1992)
Corrurassion authority to interpret and custonure its process for individual cases; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 53 (1998) j Schering C8FP. v. FDA, 51 F.3d 390, 395-% (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 907 (1995)
I statutory limits on competition; CLI-98-II, 48 NRC 15 n 4 (1998)
Sequoyah fuelr Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI 94-12, 40 NRC 64, 78 72 (1994) showing necessary to establish staneng; LBP-98 22, 48 NRC 154 (1998)
Sequoyoh fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site). CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 72 (1994) standard for state intervention; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 145 (1998)
SequovaA ruel Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 74 (1994) proof necessary at threshold stage fur stan&ng to intervene; LBP-98 23, 48 NRC 162 (1998)
SegwyuA Fucir Corp. (Gure Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 75 (1994) determination of whether pectioner's asserted injury is traceable to proposed action, basis for; LDP 98-22, 48 NRC 155 (1998) germaneness test far organizauonal interest, LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 92 (1998)
Sequmuk Turls Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 75 n.22 (1994) stan&ng to intervene on basis of potential injury to peutioners reu&ng near a nuclear facihty; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 162 (1998) 5equoyah fuelt Corp., LBP-91-5, 33 NRC 163,16445 (1991) s,anding requirements apphed to Subpart L beanng requests, LBP-98 21, 48 NRC 141 (1998)
Segurnch fuelr Corp., LBP-94-39, 40 NRC 314, 316 (1994) speci6 city required in stating areas of concern; LBP 98-21, 48 NRC 142 (1998) 24
i-i i
l l
l LEGAL CITATIONS INP2X CASES Sequawah fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site Decontanunation and Decommissioning ibnding), LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54,66-67 (1994) standing requirements apphed to Subpart L heanng repests; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 141 (1098)
Sequoyah fuels Corp. (Gure, Oklahoma Site Decontanunason and Decommissioning Ibnding), LBP-94-5, 39 NRC 54,68 (1994) avoidance of merits assessment in determination of standing; LDP-98-21, 48 NRC 142 (1998)
Sequoyuh fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site Decontare nacon and Decommissaoning Ibnding) LDP 94-8, 39 NRC 116,119 29 (1994) dismissal of contentions for procedural reasons, policy on; LBP-98 23,48 NRC 166 (1998)
Sequoyah fuels Corp., LBP-96-12, 43 NRC 290, 303 (1996) authority of presiding of6cer to approve, deny or condition any licensing acuan under his jurisdic.,
tion; LBP-98 21,48 NRC 141 (1998)
Sierra Club v. Morron, 405 U.S. 727, 734-35 (197!)
general intettst in cultural, historical, arri economic resources of a geographic area as basis for standang to intervene; LDP-98-2' 48 NRC 142 (1998)
Ssate of New Jersey (Department of Isa and Public Safety's Requests Dated October 8,1993), CLI 93-25, 38 NRC 289,291 (1993)
Commission order for expeditjon of proceeding and suggesting time frames and schedules; CL1-98-15, 48 NRC 52 (1998)
Statement 4 Policy on Conduct 4 Adjudkatory Proceedings, CLI 98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998)
Comnission superviwry authority over conduct of adjudacatory proceedings; C1198-16,48 NRC 120 (1998) schedule for operating bcense renewal proceeding; CLI-9814, 48 NRC 43 (1998) scheduhng milestones for completion of operaung hcense renewal proceeding; CL1-9817, 48 NRC 127 (1998) scheduling of proceedings, NRC pohey on; CLt-98-13,48 NRC 37 (1998) supervisory authority of Comnussion to instruct licensing board in management of proceedings; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 51 (1998)
Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudncasory Proceedings, CLT98-12. 48 NRC l8, 23 (1998)
Comrnission sua sponte review of roovel isaues; CLI-9818, 48 NRC 130 (1998)
Statement of Policy on Conducs of Ucensing Proceedmgs, CLb81-8,13 NRC 452 (1981) scheduling milestones for completion of operaung bcense renewal proceeding; CLI-98-14, 48 NRC 43 (1998); CLI 98-17, 48 NRC 127 (1998) supervisory authority of Commission to instruct licensing board in management of proceedings-,
CL1-98-15, 48 NRC 51 n.3 (1998) type of guidance provided by; CLi-98-12, 48 NRC 19 (1998)
Steel Co. v. Chrizens for a Better Environment, i18 S. Ct.1003,1016 (1998) standard for state interwntion; LBP-98 21,48 NRC 145 (1998)
Isrkklo=l v. Alderman, 74 F.3d 260, 265 (lith Cir.1996) apphcability of Equal Protection Clause to different treatnent of dissimihrly situated compeutors; CLI-98-il,48 NRC 17 n.8 (1998)
. Tennessee Valley Aushorary (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units I and 2), LBP 76 IO, 3 NRC 209, 216 (1976) specificity required in stating areas of concern; LBP 98 21, 48 NRC 142 n.7 (1998)
Tennessee Valley Aushority (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2), ALAB-515, 8 NRC 702 (1978) weight given to environmental or other permits issued by other regulatory bodies in NRC licensmg decisions; CLI-98-16, 48 NRC 122 n.3 (1998)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant. Units I and 21, ALAB-515, 8 NRC 702 (1978) licensing board authority to rule on effecoveness of agreenent that raises a quesuon about status of sheriff's of6ce to act as local law enforcement egency; LBP-98-17, 48 NRC 75 n.4 (1998)
Tesas Unlisits Electric Co (Comanche Peak Steam Electne Stanon, Units I und 21, CLI-92-12, 36 NRC 62, 70 (1992) principle govermng deternunation of lareness; LBP-98-18,48 NRC 80 (1998) 25
s LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Tesa utilities Generating Ca (Coenanche Itak Steam Electnc Stanon, Umts 1 and 2), CLI-8124,14 NRC 614 (1981) licensing board procedure for raising issues sua sponte; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 23 (1998)
UME7CO Mineralt Corp., LBP-92-20, 36 NRC 112 (1992) good cause for late fihng of beanng request; LBP 98 IS,48 NRC 80 (1998)
UMETCO Minerals Corp., LBP-92-20. 36 NRC 112,115 (1992) standing requirements apphed to Subpart L hearing requests; LDP 95-21, 48 NRC 141 (1998) standards for state intervention; LDP 98-21, 48 NRC 145 (1998) standing where state asserts jurisdiction over materials involved LBP-98-21,48 NRC 147 (1998)
UME7CO Muwinir Corp., LBP-93-7, 37 NRC 267, 268 69 (1993) challenge to amendment authorizing the tesung of a process to extract uramum from. feed material; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 144 (1998)
UMETCO Minerals Corp., LBP-94 7, 39 NRC 112 (1994) economic interests as basis for stan&ng under Atomic Energy Act; CLI-98-il,48 NRC 10 (1998)
Union of Concerned Scientirrs v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437,1441 (D.C. Cir.1984)
Commission scheduling and guidance challenged as denying meaningful public participanon; CLI-9815, 48 NRC 50 (1998)
UPS Worldwide Forwrding, Inc. v. United States Pw*al Servke, 66 F.3d 621, 626 (3d Cir.1995), cert.
denied, 516 U.S. I171 (1996) competitive injury as basis for standing to intervene; CLI-98-il, 48 NRC 7 (1998)
UPS Worldwide Forwardmg, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 66 F.3d 621, 630u31 (3d Cir.1995),
cert. denied, 516 U1 1171 (1996) statutory tirruts on compeuuon; CLI-98-il,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)
Vermont rankee Nuclear rowr Corp. (Vermoct Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon), LBPM6,31 NRC 85, 91 (1990) authority to make imme& ate effectiveness determinations; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 165 (1998)
Virginia Electric and rower Ca (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 342, 4 NRC 98, 105 46 (1976) economic interests as basis for standing under Atomic Energy Act; CLi-98-II,48 NRC 10 (1998)
Virginia Electric and Power Ca (North Anna Power Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 57 (1979) frequency and duracon of visits to catablish standing to challenge licensing of independent spent fuel storage installation; CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 32 (1998) l Worth v. Seldm 422 U.S. 490, 501, 508, 509 (1975) standard for state intervention LDP 98-21, 48 NRC 145 (1998)
Yanker Asomic Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI41, 43 NRC I (1996)
Commission authority to issue case-specific guidance; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 51-52 (1998) rankee Asomic Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-961,43 NRC 1, 6 (1996)
)
showing necessary to estabbsh injury in fact; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 159 (1998)
Yankee Aromic EZactric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-96-1,43 NRC 1, 9-11 (1996)
Commisson order for cape &uon of proceed ng and suggesting a me frames and schedules: CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 52 (1998)
Yankee Atomic Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) CLI-96-7,43 NRC 235, 248 (1996)
Commission deference to board determinations on stan&ng to intervene; CLI-9813. 48 NRC 32 (1998)
Yankee Asamic Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CU 96-7,43 NRC 235,24849 (1996) i specincity required of contentions; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 163 flN8) i l
26
.- -.- _..~ - -. _ - _ -- - -.
i I'
I i
i l
i i
i LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX 4
REGULATIONS j
I 10 C.F.R. Part 2 l
policy statenrot on conduct of proceedings; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 19 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 2.202(aX5)
Commission authority to issue imrnediately effective order to rnodify, suspend, or revoke a license; a
DD-98-9,48 NRC 178 (1908) 10 Cf.R. 2.203 licensing board review of settlement agreement; LBP 9815,48 NRC 59 (1998); LBP 98-16, 48 NRC i
65 (1998)
)
10 Cf.R. 2.206 4
interference with or prohibition of employees from reporung safety concerns, request for action on; i
DD-98-8,48 NRC 11318 (1998) purpose of peution process under; CLi-98-il,48 NRC 17 (1998) 4 ra&ation safety program de6ciencies, request for action on; DD-98-7, 48 NRC 98111 (1998) j restrictive clauses in employment contracts regarding reporting of safety concerns, request far action on; j
DD-98-9, 48 NRC 174 82 (1998) treatarnt of late-bled hearing request as peution under; LBP-9818, 48 NRC 82 (1998) i 10 Cf.R. 2.710 1
deadhne for receipt of docunents served by expedited sneans; CLI 98-14, 48 NRC 44 (1998);
CU-98-17,48 NRC 128 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.711 Commission authoney to change time for action set forth in rules; CL1-98-15,48 NRC 53 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.711(a) good-cause standard for extension ad time; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 53 (1998) f scheduling and guidance challenged as contrary to; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 50 (1998) e 10 Cf R. 2.714 l
late-61ed supplemental and amended petition to intervene; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 160 (1998)
]
scope of htigable issues in operating license renewal proceedings; CLl 98-15, 48 NRC 54 (1998) 4 standards for admissibility of contentions; CLI-9819,48 NRC 134 (1998) l 10 CSR. 2 714(aX1) j hearing rights on license amendments; LBP-98-22,48 NRC 153,156 (1998) j interest requirenent for intervention LBP-98-20,48 NRC 91 (1998) j requirements for acceptance of untimely intervention pennons; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 159,161 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(aXI)-(2) requirements for intervention; LBP-93-23, 48 NRC 159 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(a)(2) particulanty required of intervenoon petiuons; LDP-98-20, 48 NRC (1998); LBP-98-22,48 NRC 153 i
(1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(bX2)
]+
hmits on scope of contentions; CLI-9812,48 NRC 22 (1998) burden on proponent of adnussible contentions, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 22 (1998) standards for admissibihty of contentions; LBP-98 23,48 NRC 163 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.714(bX2Xiii) admissibility of contentions in operating hcense renewal proceeding, regulations guiding board deternuna-tion on; CLI-98-14, 48 NRC 41 (1998) i 27 i
)
.~ -.....
I-l
.f b
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS l
s speciticity required of consennons; LBF-E23,48 NRC 163 (1998) standard for adnussion of contentions in operaung hcense renewal proceedmg; CLI-9817,48 NRC 125 (1998) support for contentions; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 22 (1998)
,10 CIA 2714(d)(2).
dismissal of consentions that would not enntle pentioner to relief; LBP-98 23,48 NRC 164 (1998) standards for admissibihty of contentions; !.3P-98-23,48 NRC 163,164 (1998) 10 CIA 2.714a
- appeals of rulings on consentions; ClJ-98-12,48 NRC 23 (1998).
i deadhne for appeal of intervention ruling; LBP-98-22,48 NRC 156 (1998) sua sponse review of intervention rulings in interests of espedition and economy of effort; CLI-98-18, 48 NRC 130 (1998) 10 CFA 2.715(a)
(:
means for petitioners to contribute to the proceedmg other than as intervenors; CLI-98-13,48 NRC 35 (1998) 10 CF.R. 2.718 adnunistrative fairness in espe & tion of proceeding; CLI-98-15,48 NRC $3 (1998) licensing board authority to regulate proceedings, scope of; CLI 98-12, 48 NRC 20 (1998)
I 10 Cf.R. 2.718(e).
supervisory authonry of Comnussion over licensing bourds; CLI-9815,48 NRC 53 (1998) 10 CSA 2.718(l)
Commission authority to direct certincation of novel legal or policy quesdons; CLI-9812, 48 NRC 23
)
(1998) 10 CF.R. 2.718tm) j scheduhng and guidance challenged as contrary to; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 50 (1998) supervisory authority of Commission over licensing boards; CLI-9815, 48 NRC 53 (1998) 10 CSA 2.720(h) discovery against NRC Staff, hmits on, CLI 9812, 43 NRC 23 (1998) discovery against NRC Staff, timing of; CL1-95-14,48 NRC 42 (1998); CLI-9817,48 NRC 126 (1998)
. discretion of hcensing boards and presiding of6cers in management of proceedings, scope of; ISP-419, 48 NRC 85 (1998)
.10 CIA 1730(f) referral of rulings on novel issues; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 23 (1998) 10 CfA' 2.740 l
discovery against NRC Staff, timing of; CLi-98-14, 48 NRC 42 (1998); CLI-98-17, 48 NRC 126 (1998)
~
scheduling and guidance challenged as contrary to; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 50 (1998)
J
- 10 CFA 2.740(b) and (c) -
i 0
authonty to restrict discovery in licensing proceeding; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 53 (1998)
- 10 CJA 2.742 discovery against NRC Staff, timing of; CL1-98-14, 48 NRC 42 (1993), CLI-98-17, 48 NRC 126 (1998)
- 10 CEA 2.744 discovery against NRC Staff, limits on; CL1-98-12,48 NRC 13 (1998) d scovery against NRC Staff, timing of; CLI-98-14,48 NRC 42 (1998); CL1-98-17, 48 NRC 126 (1998) 10 CEA 2.749 summary disponition motions in operating license renewal proceedings, standard for; CLI 98-14,48 NRC 44 (1998); CU 9tbl7, 48 NRC 128 (1998)
.10 Cf.R. 2.756 -
. scheduling and guidance challenged as contrary to; CL1-98-15,48 NRC 50 (1998)
..10 CfA 2.758 htigability of challenges to Commission regulations; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 54 e 6 (1998) 10 CSA 2.760s
- Board authority to raise issues sua sponte in operating license renewal proceedmgs; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 55 n 7 (1998).
28 i
4 n
r
ll 4
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS licensing board authority to raise rnatters on its own initiadve; CLI-9812,48 NRC 22-23 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(b) deadline for answers to pentions for review; LBP-98-19,48 NRC 86 (1908) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(bX2) length and content of petitions for review; LBP-98-18,48 NRC 82 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.786(gXI) standard for grant of interlocutory review; LBP-98-19, 48 NRC 86 n.3 (1998) 10 CfA 2.790(b) proprietary treatnant of pleadings, procedure for; LBP-98-19,48 NRC 85-86 (1998) 10 CIA 2.1205 j
j.
appeals of intervention denials; CLI 98-il, 48 NRC 3 (1998) l hearing rights on materials beense amendnrnts; LDP-98 21,48 NRC 139 (1998) 10 C.FA 2.1205(l) need to address late-61ing requirements in untinwly heanng requests; LBP-9818, 48 NRC 81 (1998) 10 Cf.R.11205(f)(1) dismissal of inescusably late petitions; LBP-98-18, 48 NRC 82 (1998) good cauw for late Bling of hearing request; LBP-9818,48 NRC 79 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(IX2) i treatment of late-hied heanng request as 2.206 petition; LDP-98-18,48 NRC 82 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(d) deadline for intervendon petitions where notice of opportunity for hearing has not been published, j
Judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC proceedings; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 140 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(dXI) deadbne for filing tinely request for Subpart L hearing; LBP-98-18, 48 NRC 79 (1998) 10 CfA 2.1205(dX2) deadline for 61ing hearing sequest wirre no notice is published, LBP-98-18, 48 NRC 79 (1998) purpose of good-cause standard for untimely 6 tings; LBP-98-18,48 NRC 80 (1998) 10 CIR. 2.1205(e) content of hearing requests for pentioners other than appbcant; LDP-98-21,48 NRC 139-40 (1998) 10 CIA 2.1205(h) germaneness sent for areas of concern; LBP-98 21,48 NRC 140,142 (1998) 10 CSR 2.1205(o) l deadhne for 61ing appeals of interventinn rulings; LDP 98-21,48 NRC 148 (1998)
I deadhne for petioon for review of denial of hearing request; LBP-98-18,48 NRC 82 (1998) 10 CER. 2.1209(a) discretion of licensing boards and presiding officers in management of proceedings, scope of; LBP-98-19, 48 NRC 85 (1998) 10 CIA 2.1231 treatmers of case 61es as hearing Ales; CLI-9812, 48 NRC 24 (1998) 10 CIA 2.1231(a) availability of hearing Ale to petitioners; LBP-98-21. 48 NRC 147 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 21233(c)
{
speciEcity required in stating areas of concern; LBP-98 21,48 NRC 142 n.8 (19<8) 10 CIA 2.1241 authonty of presiding of6cer to facilitate settlements; LBP-98-2L 48 NRC 138 9998) 10 CJ R. 2.1251(c)
Commission authonry to oft'er guidance on implementation of; CLl-98-15, 48 NRC 52 n.4 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 2.1253 prerequisite to seeking judicial review; LBP 98-19, 48 NRC 86 (1998) 10 C FA 2.1263 discretion cf licensing boards and presiding officers in managernent of proceedings, scope of; 1 BP-98-19, 48 NRC 85 (1998) timeliness to motion for stay; LBP-98-19, 48 NRC 84 (1998) i I
l 29
\\
t n
12 GAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10' Cf.R.19.16, Id20 sentricdve employeedelseed practices and contractual provisions relative to reporung of safety concerns as violation of; DD-98-9,48 NRC 175,178 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 20.2007 Edgability of pernsteing authority of non-NRC bodies; CU-98-16,48 NRC 120,121 (1998) 10 CSA 30.7 discrinnandon against licensee employee for raising safety concerns as a violation of; DD-98-7, 48 NRC N ;1998) 10 CSA 35.13(c) replacement of Radation Safety Officer without receiving a license amendment; DD 98-7, 48 NRC 105 (1998)
.10 CSA 35.21(a) and 35.22(a)(3) comhuing a meedng of the Radiadon Safety Comenttee without a quorum as a violation of; DD-98-7, 48 NRC 105 (1998) 10 Cf.R. Part 40 source material license to process natural uranium ore and other material for their uranim content and to possess nn!!ing wastes; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 143 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 40.7 resenctive employec-related practices and contractual provisions relative to reporung of safety concerns as violauon of; DD-98 9,48 NRC 175,178,179,180 (1998) 10 Cf.R Part 40. Appen&x A applicabihty to 114(2) byproduct material; CLI-98-!!,48 NRC 4,16 (1998) processing of alternate feed material; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 144 (1908) 10 CFA 50.7 Aling of problem idenuncarion forms as a prueected activity; DD-98-8, 48 NRC 113,115 (1998) resenctive con 6dentiahty provisions in a discovery agreenent; DD-98-8,48 NRC 114, ll6 (1998)
. 10 CSA 50.7(f) restrictive conndentiality provisions in a &scovery agreement as a violation of; DD-98-8,48 NRC 114 (1998) -
'10 CIA 50.58(bX6) authority to make immedase effecdveness determinations; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 165 (1998) 10 Cf.R. 50.59 -
elimination of requirenant to have recirculation spray system inject directly into reactor coolant system following design-basis accident; LBP 98-20, 48 NRC 89 (1998) 10 CSA 50.92 safety of decreased inspections of s'eam generator tubes; LBP-98-23,'48 NRC 164 (1998) 10 CIA 50.92(c) (1998) consisaency of Staff no signi6 cant hazards Ending with; LEP 98-23,48 NRC 159 (1998) 10 CFA St.45(d) weight given to environmental or other permits issued by other regulatory bod es in NRC bcensing decisions; Cll-9816, 48 NRC 122 n.3 (1998) 10 CSA $1.71(d) environmental issues htigable in operaung license renewal proceeding; CLI 98-14, 48 NRC 41 (1998) 10 CSA 51.71(d) environmental issues litigable in operating license renewal proceeding, bmits on; CLI-98-14,48 NRC 41 (1998); CLI-98-17,48 NRC 125 (1998) 10 CSA $1.95(c) t
- environmental issues heigable in operating license senewal proceeding, limits on; CLI-9814. 48 NRC 41
'.(1998); CLI-98-17, 48 NRC 125 (1998) t-lirnis on environnental review for license renewal; CLI-9812. 48 NRC 22 (1998) s 10 CFA Part $4 -
scope of license renewal procee&ngs; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 22 (1998) 30
i.
i f
l' 1
l l-".
l:
i l.
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C P.R. 54 4 -
limit on safety review fur license senewal, CLI 9812,48 NRC 22 (1998)
- scope of heigaNe issues in operanns license renewal proceeding; CLI-9814. 48 NRC 41 (1998);
J CLI-96-17,45 NRC 125 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 54.21(a) and (c)
{
lienis on safety teview for license renewal, CLI-98-12,48 NRC 22 (1998)
' scope of heigaWe issues in operanng bcense senewal procee&ngs; CLI-98-14, 48 NRC 41 (1998)-
' CLI-98-15,48 NRC 54 (1998); CLI-98-17, 48 NRC I23 (1998) 10 C.F.R. 54.29 and 54.30 '
line on safety seview for hanse renewal; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 22 (1998) l t
- 10 Cf.R 55.71(d) and St.95(c)
Ernit on environnental review for license genewal; CLI-9812,48 NRC 22 (1998) 10 C.FA Part 72 physical security plan for independent spent fuel storage installation, challenges to alequacy.cf; i
I con 6dential treatment of 61ings related in security plan; LDP 98-17,48 NRC 71 n.2 (1998).
- 10 CFA 73.51(d)(6).
I requirenwnt for documented liaison with local law enforcement agency; LBP-98-17, 48 NRC 75 (1998) l 10 Cf.R. Part 73, App. C 1
effectiveness of agreement that raises a quesuon about status of sheriff's of6ce to act as local law
' j enforcement agency for facihty on Reservation; LBP-98-17,48 NRC 71,75 (1998) 10 C F.R.150.20 preclusion of byproduct snaterial beenace from involvenent in NRC-licenned activines including i
Agreernent State acnvines; l.BP 98-15, 48 NRC $8 (1998); LBP-9816, 48 NRC 64 (1998) j d
.1 1
i 7
)
4 31 l
J
~
3 y
we, v w e-r --
-v w -
av e+--
rr+r--
4 1
1
_I l
I e
i i
I i
I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES s
Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S C 68 551558 scheduhng and guidance challenged as contrary to; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 50 (1998)
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S C 1554(b) consideration of convenience and necessity of parues in expe&ted scheduhng; CR98-15,48 NRC 51 (1998)
Administranve Procedure Act, 5 U.S C. 5 556(c) challenge to expedited schedule for operatmg license renewal proceeding; CR9815, 48 NRC 50 (1998)
Administranve Procedure Act. 5 U.S C fl556(c)(5), 557(d)(1)(E) consideradon of convenience and necessity of parues in expedited scheduhng; CM9815, 48 NRC 51
/
(1998)
Atomic Energy Act, l!.e(2),42 U.S.C (2014(e)(2)
O l
dc6nition of byproduct material; CR98-11, 48 NRC 4 n.1 (1998)
(
Atomic Energy Act, 84, 42 U.S C. ( 2014
/
{
economic costs of managing II.e(2) byproduct materials, htigabibty of, CR98-il, 48 NRC 16 (1998)
{i i
transfer of !!.e(2) byproduct material to Department of Energy; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 145 n.14 (1998)
=-
l Atomic Energy Act, 103,105, 42 U.S C 68 2133, 2135 limits on compeution under; CR98 il,48 NRC 15 (1998) l Atonde Energy Act,161b and o, 42 UJC 6 2201(b) and (o)
Z-licensing board review of settlernent agreerrent, LBP-98-15, 48 NRC 59 (1998), LBP-9816, 48 NRC j
65 (1998)
Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S.C 6 2231 I
scheduling and guidance challenged as contrary to; CLI 9815,48 NRC 50 (1998)
Atomic Energy Act,186
[
reasons for heense revocation; DD-98-9,48 NRC 178 (1998)
Atomic Energy Act,189a, 42 U.S C 12239(a) hearing rights on hcense amendments; LBP 98-20, 48 NRC 91 (1998) hearing rights on materials license anendment; CG98-il,48 NRC 5 (1998) standing to intervene in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 30 (1998)
Atomic Energy Act,189a(l), 42 U.S C 6 2239(a)(1) j hearing rights on heense amendments LBP-98-22, 48 NRC 153,156 (1998) interest requirernest for intervendon; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 139 (1998)
Atomic Energy Act, 223 refenal of allegations on criminal violan o. to l'BI, DD-98-9, 48 NRC 176 (1998) i Energy Reorganization Act,211,42 U.S C 6 Sel (1988 and Supp. V 1993) l discrunination against bcensee employee for raising safety concerns; DD 98-7,48 NRC 99 (1998) l protubition on restrictive agreements that interfere with employee reporting of safety concerns; DD-98-8, j
48 NRC 113-14 (1998) restrictive employee-related pracuces and contractual provisions relative to reporting of safety concenu as violation of. DD-98 9, 48 NRC 175,178,179,180 (1998)
Exec Order No. 12,898, 3 CF.R. 859 (1995) htigability of environmental justice issues in NRC proceedings; CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 35 (1998)
Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S C i1901 er seg representational authority of Native American :nbe beyond its reservation borders; CtJ-9813,48 NRC 33 (1998) f 33
]
1 l
t 4
1 4
b i
I a
LEGAI, CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Uramum Mill Taihngs Rahation Control Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 5 7901 et seg dehnition of byproduct amterial. LBP 98-21,48 NRC 144 n.ll (1998)
Utah Code Ann. I10 3-506 (1997) snandatory requirenrnt for resolutions to be in writing; LBP-9817, 48 NRC 74 (1998)
Utah Code Ann. 6 11-13-5 (1997) requirenent for adoption of " appropriate resolutions" by participuting pubbe agency governing bodies; LBP-98-17,48 NRC 72,73,74 (1998)
Utah Code Ann. 6 11-13-20 (1997) publication of resolutions relating to interlocal cooperative agreenwat; LBP 98-17,48 NRC 74 (1998)
. _. _..-. ~__-...__ ~ --
_I I
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS 128 Cong. Rec. H8816 (daily ed. Dec. 2,1982) (staternent of Rep. Imjan) economic injury under Atornic Energy Act, irnerpretation of; ClJ.98-ll,48 NRC 16 n 6 (1998) 128 Cong. Rec S2968 (daily ed. Mar 30,1982) (statenrot of Sen. Donenici) economic injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretation of; CLI-98-II,48 NRC 17 n.6 (1998) 128 Cong. Rec. S2973 (daily ed, Mar. 30,1982) (statenwnt of Sen. Simpson) economic injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretation of; ClJ-98-ll,48 NRC 16 n 6 (1998) 128 Cong. Rec. S2975 (daily ed Mar. 30,1982) (statement of Sen. Simpson) economic injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretation of; CLl-98-il, 48 NRC 16 n.6 (1998) 128 Cong. Rec. S2976 (daily ed. Mar. 30,1982) (statenent of Sen. Walky) econonue injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretanon of; CLI-98 ll,48 NRC 16 n 6 (1998) 128 Cong. Rec. S2977 (daily ed. Ma. 30,1982) (statenwnt of Sen. Schnutt) economic injury under Atonne Energy Act, interpretation of, CLI-98-ll,48 NRC 16 n 6 (1998) 128 Cong. Rec. Sl3056 (daily ed. Oct.1,1982) (statement of Sen. Simpson) economic it,sry 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. Schrmtt) economic injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretation of; CLI 98 ll,48 NRC 16 n.6 (1998)
Rd. R. Civ. P. 26 applicabiliry in NRC proceedings, CU-98-12, 48 NRC 23-24 (1998) discovery rnanagement in operating license renewal proceedmg; CLI 9814,48 NRC 41 (1998);
David J. Hayes and James A. Hourihan, "NEPA Requirements for Pnvate Projects," 13 B C. Enytt. Aff. L Rev. 61,75 (1985) litigaNiity of economic injury unir NITA; CLI-98 il,48 NRC 9 (1998)
Il R. Conf. Rep. No.97-884, at 44 (1982) economic injury under Atomic Energy Act, interpretation of; CL198.ll, 48 NRC 16 n 6 (1998)
Lars Noah, " Sham Petinomng as a Threat to the Integrity of the Regulatory Process? 74 N C. L Rev. I, 7 (1995) intervention to trigger litiganon costs and impose other administranve burdens on competitors; CU-93-ll,48 NRC 1516 (1998) i 35 r
a
- - ~.
~
.~
J l
l l
I i
f d
t SUBJECT INDEX ABUSE OF DISCRETION standard applied to appeals of liccasing board rulings on du,cretionary; CU-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998)
ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDINGS d
consideration of issues involved in rulemaking; CU-9815,48 NRC 45 (1998) l NRC authonty to define scope of; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998)
AGREEMENIS restrictive, prohibiting disclosure of safety concerns by employees; DD-98-9,48 NRC 173 (1998) d restrictive, that unlawfully interfere with individual's right to engage in protected activity, prohibition against; DD'98-8, 48 NRC 112 (1998)
APPEALS of heensing board rulings on discretionary imervention; CU 98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998) of ruhngs on contentions; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998)
APPUCANTS 3
Part 72, applicabibty of Part 50 nnancial quah6 cations peovisions; CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998)
/
AREAS OF CONCERN
~
germaneness test for admission of; LBP-98 21, 48 NRC 137 (1998)
~
speci6 city requiad in staring; LDP-98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998)
[
ATOMIC ENERGY ACT litigability of economic interests under; CU-98-il,48 NRC i (1998)
BYPRODUCT MATERIAL
/
j unauthorized transfer of; LBP-98-15, 48 NRC 57 (1998)
CASE FILES 1
treatment as a hearing 6ie; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998)
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 4
authority to appoint multiple boards; CU 9812,48 NRC 18 (1998)
CONTENTIONS admissibility of; CU-98-15,48 NRC 45 (1998) appeals of rulings on; CLl-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998) burden on proponent of; CU-98-12,48 NRC 18 0998) challenging Cununission rules or regulations; CU-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998) dismissal for procedural reasons, pohey on; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 157 (1998) d estension of time for 6hng; CU 98-19,48 NRC 132 (1998) limits on scope of; CU-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) on validity of physical secunty plan, admissibihty of; LDP-98-17,48 NRC 69 (1998) support for; CU-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998) j DISCOVERY
. against NRC Staff, linuts on; C1198-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) i against NRC Staff, prior to issuance of review documems; CU-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998) against NRC Staff regardmg Safety Evaluation Report and Final Environmental Statement; CU 98-17, 48 j
NRC 123 (1998)
Board authority to request that parties specify issues for; CU-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) information to be provided to other parues prior to commencement of, CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998);
CLI-9817,48 NRC 123 (199M) 1 n
4 J
w
e SUBJECT INDEX licensing board authority to resolve disputes; CLI 98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) management in operadng hcense renewal proceeding; CLt-98-17, 48 NRC 123 (1998)
NRC policy on inanagement of, CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998)
DISCRIMINATION against licensee employee for raising safety concerns; DD-98-7,48 NRC 97 (1998) in site selection process; CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998)
ECONOMIC INJURY market compedtion as basis for standing to intervene; CU-98 ll,48 NRC 1 (1998)
ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT restrictive agreements that unlawfully interfere with individual's right Po engage in protected activity, prohibition against; DD-98-8. 48 NRC !!2 (1998)
ENTORCEMENT ACTION for violadons of other environmental protection reguladons issued under statutes other than Atomic Energy Act; CU-98-16, 48 NRC 119 (1998) precludmg byproduct nuterial licenice from involvement in NRC hcenned activides; LBP 98-15, 48 NRC 57 (1998); LBP-98-16,48 NRC 63 (1998)
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES litigable in operadng license renewal proceedings; CU 9814, 48 NRC 39 (1998); CLI-98-17, 48 NRC 123 (1998)
ENVIRONMD(TAL JUSTICE discrimination in site selection process; CLI-98-13. 48 NRC 26 (1998) disparate impact analysis; Cll-98-13,48 NRC 26 (1998)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW for operating heense renewal, hmit on, CLI-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998)
EXTENSION OF TIME for Bling contentions; CLI-98-19,48 NRC 132 (1998) good-cause standard for; CLI-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998) heensing board authority to grant; CU 98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998)
FAIRNESS in expedited proceeding; CU-98-15. 48 NRC 45 (1998)
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE applicability in NRC proceeding; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998); LBP 98-23,48 NRC 157 (1998)
FIUNGS obhgation of parties to provide legal and factual support for; CU 9812,48 NRC 18 (1998)
FINAL D4VIRONMENTAL STATEMENT commencemet4 of evidentiary hearing prior to issuance of; CLI-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998) discovery against Staff prior to issuance of; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998); CU-9817,48 NRC 123 (1998)
FINANCIAL QUAUFICATIONS applicabihty of Part 50 provisions to Part 72 independent spent fuel storage installation appucants; CU-9813, 48 NRC 26 (1998)
HEARING REQUESTS content for pentioners oder than apphcant; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998) good cause for late filing of, LDP-9818, 48 NRC 78 (1998) on materials licenne anendmer,ts, LDP-98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998)
IIEARINGS comnencement prior to issuance of Staff Safety Evaluation Report or Final Environmental Statement; CLI-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998)
IMMEDIATE EFTEC11VENESS DFTERMINATIONS on license amendments, hcensing board jurisdiction to make; LDP-98-23, 48 NRC 157 (1998)
- INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION applicabihty of Part 50 nnancial quahscati;ns provisions to Part 72 applicants; CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998) 38
6 SUBJECT INDEX INJURY IN FACT economic compeution as; CL1-98-il, 48 NRC i (1998) for organizadon establishing stan&ng to intervene; CLI 98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998) for stan&ng to intervene, showing necessary to establiAh, LBP-98 20, 48 NRC 87 (1998); LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998) nexus between proposed action and; LDP-98-22,48 NRC 149 (1998) j INTER!hCU10RY RUUNGS capestion of issuance of; CLI-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998)
INTERVENTION.
interest requirement for; LBP 98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998); LBP-98-22,48 NRC 149 (1998) request for additional time; CLI-9819, 48 NRC 132 (1998)
INTERVENTION, DISCRETIONARY generalized expertise or scienunc eminence as substitute for particularized koomledge of issues in dispute; CU-9813, 48 NRC 26 (1998) standard applied to appeals of; CU-98-13,48 NRC 26 (1998)
INTERVENTION, LATE by a state; LDP-9818,48 NRC 78 (1998)
INTERVENTION PETITIONS construction in favor of petitioner; LBP 98-20, 48 NRC 87 (1998) deadhne where notiw of opportunity for hearmg has not been published. UlP-9A-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998) particulanty required of, LBP 98-22, 48 NRC 149 (1998)
JURISDICTION licensing board, to determine whether licenw amendments should be made imme&ately effective; LBP-98 23, 48 NRC 157 (1993)
LICENSE CONDfTIONS stay of; LBP-98-19, 48 NRC 83 (1998)
LICENSEE preclusion from involvement in NRC hcensed acuvines; LBP 98-15, 48 NRC 57 (1998) LBP-98-16, 48 NRC 63 (1998)
LICENSEE EMPLOYEES restrictive employment contracts prohibiting disclosure of safety concerns, DD-98-9,48 NRC 173 (1998)
LICENSING BOARDS authority to adopt issues sua sponte; CU-9815, 48 NRC 45 (1998) authonty to direct Staff in the performance of its safety reviews; LBP-98-21, 43 NRC 137 (1998) authority to grant esterauons of ume; CLI-9815,48 NRC 45 (1998) authonty to raise issues sua sponte; CLI-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998) authority to regulate procee&ngs; CLI-9812, 48 NRC 18 (1998) discreuon in managing proceedings; CL1-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998); CU-98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998);
LEP-98-19, 48 NRC 83 (1998) expc&uon of procee&ngs; CU-9815,48 NRC 45 (1998), CLI 9819, 46 NRC 132 (1998) juns&ction to determine whether license amendments should be rnade immediately effective; LBP 98 23, 48 NRC 157 (1998) multiple, authonty of Chief Administrauve Judge to appoint; CLI 9812, 48 NRC 18 (1998) ruhngs on stan&ng to intervene, deference given to; CU-98-13. 48 NRC 26 (1998)
MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENTS penalty for; LBP-9815,48 NRC 57 (1998); LBP-9816,48 NRC 63 (1998)
MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT PROCEEDING standing to intervene in: CU 98 il 48 NRC 1 (1998)
MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENTS hearing nghts on; LBP 98 21,48 NRC 137 (1998)
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION inharmomous ruhngs raised in; LBP-98-17,46 NRC 69 (199ti) rnatters rained for 6rst time in; LDP-98-17,48 NRC 69 (1998) 39
r SUBJECT INDEX overlooked or misapprehended legal or factual matters raised in; LBP-98-17,48 NRC 69 (1998) pseviously rejected argunarnas raised in; LBP-%I7,48 NRC 69 (1998)
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
[
environmental jusdce considerations under, CU-413,48 NRC 26 (1998) heigability of economic interests under; CU 98-il, 48 NRC I (1998)
NRC STAFF discovery against; CU-412,48 NRC 18 (1998); CU-98-17,48 NRC 123 (1998) idead6 cation of witnesses; CU-El2,48 NRC 18 (1998) safety seviews, authority to direct the performance of; LBP-E21, 48 NRC 137 (1998)
NUCEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
approval of issues raised sua sporwe by licensing boards, requirement for; CU 98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) authority to assume functions of presiding of6cer, CU 98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998)
' authotity to de6ne scope of hs proceedings; CU-415,48 NRC 45 (1998) authority to d rect cerutication of novel legal or policy questions; CU 98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) authority to issue gudance to licensing boards; CU-98-16,48 NRC 119 (1998) authority to set milestones for completion of proceedings; CU 98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) guldsace, nonbin&ng nature of; CU-98-15,48 NRC 45 (1998) refeiral of rulings ce novel issues to; CU-412,48 NRC 18 (1998)
- responsibihty for non-NRC pernuts; CLi-98-16,48 NRC !!9 (1998) supervisory authority over conduct of adjudicatory procee&ngs; CU-98-16, 48 NRC 119 (1998) supervisory audmrity to direct public procee&ngs, CU-415,48 NRC 45 (1998) supervisory authority to grant extensions of time; CLI-98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998) supervisory authonty to take sua apome review of novel issues; CLI-98-18, 48 NRC 129 (1998)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT -
immediate effectiveness determinations; LBP 98-23, 48 NRC 157 (1998) segmentation through separate requests for; CU-98-18,48 NRC 129 (1998)
OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL environmemal review, scope of; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) safety review, scope of; CU-412,48 NRC 18 (1998) f OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL PROCEEDING environmental lasues htigable in; CU-El7,48 NRC I23 (1998).
hmit on scope of; CLI-El2,48 NRC 18 (1998)
- milestones for completion of; CLI-9817,48 NRC 123 (1998) management of; CU-415,48 NRC 45 (1998) scope of; CU-El4,48 NRC 39 (1998); CU-EI7,48 NRC 123 (1998)
PARTf65 -
obligation to adhcre to ame frames speci6ed in 10 C.F.R. Part 2 and scheduhng orders; CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998) obhgation to provide legal and factual support for 6hngs; CLI-95-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998)
PERMITS non-NRC, responsibihty for; CLI-9816,48 NRC i19 (1998).
PHYSICAL SECURITY PLAN adrmanibihty of contention on vah&ty of; LBP-98-17,48 NRC 69 (1998)
PRESIDING OFFICER.
authority to direct Staff in the performance of its safety reviews; LBP-E21, 48 NRC 137 (199X),
Conuoussion authority to assume functions of; CLI-%!2,48 NRC 18 (1998) 6scretion in management of proceedings; LBP-9819,48 NRC 83 (1998)-
.. facilitation of seulements; LBP 98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998)
. PROBMM IDENTIFICATION ICRMS nhng of. as protected acovity; DD 98-8,48 NRC 112 (1998)
PROPRIETARY MATERIAIS treatment of plea &ngs as; LDP 98-19,48 NRC 83 (1998)
. RADIATION SAFETY COMMfTTEE
- 40 L
.gi
i SUBJECT INDEX
. meeting without a quorem; DD 98 7,48 NRC 97 (1998)
RADi*.Mi SAFETY OFFICER
- r. placement without seceiving a license amendment; DD 98-7,48 NRC 97 (1998) stADIATION SAFETY PROGRAM deSciencies, request for action on; DD 98-7,48 NRC 97 (1998)
RADIOli)GICAL CONTAMINATION of licensee employeca, weakness in radiation safety program contributing to, DD 98-7, 48 NRC 97 (1998)
RECIRCULATION SPRAY SYSTEM clinananon of requirement for injection erectly into reactor coolant system following design-basis accident; LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 87 (1998)
RECONSIDERATION OP RULINO on contention admissibility; LDP-98-17,48 NRC 69 (1998)
RECORDS impmper destruction of; LBP-98-15,48 NRC 57 (1998); LDP-98-16, 48 NRC 63 (1998)
REFERRAL OF RULINGS on novel issues; ClJ-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998)
REGULATIONS non-NRC, enforcement action for violations of, CLI-9816, 48 NP.C 119 (1998)
REVIEW discretionary interlocutory, for estension of time; CLI-98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998) interlocutory, standard for grunt of; LBP-98-19,48 NRC 83 (1998) sua sponte, of novel issues, Comnussion authority to take; CLi-98-18,48 NRC 129 (1998)
RULEMAKING litigabihty of issues involved in; CLl-9815, 48 NRC 45 (1998)
RULES OF PRACTICE admtnistranvc fairness in espedited procee&ng; C1J-98-15,48 NRC 45 (1998) admissibihty of contentions; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 45 (1998); CLI 98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998) areas of concern in Subpart L procee&ngs; LBP-98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998)
Commission authority to oversee agency's own administrative procee&ngs; CLJ-98-15, 48 NRC di (1998)
Commission discretion to direct public procee&ngs; CL1-98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998) discretionary interlocutory review; CLI 98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998) estension of tirne for hhng contentions; CLI-98-19,48 NRC 132 (1998) injury-in-fact requirenrnt for stanang 10 intervene; LDP 98-20,48 NRC 87 (1996) intervention petition, construcuan in favor of petitioner; LDP-98 20, 48 NRC 87 (1998) judicial concepts of stan&ng appl %d in NRC procee&ngs; LDP-98-20, 48 NRC 87 (1998) late Ahng of request for Subpart L hearmg; LBP-9818, 48 NRC 78 (1998) mocons for reconsideration; LDP-98-I7,48 NRC 69 (1998) operating beense renewal procecangs, scope of; ClJ-9814, 48 NRC 39 (1998), CLI 98-17, 48 NRC 123 (1998) stan&ng to intervene in materuds hceme amendment proceedmg; CLI-91t-il, 48 NRC 1 (1998) stan&ng to intervene, badicial concepts applied in NRC procecangs; CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998);
LBP-9422, 48 NRC 149 (1998) s:ay of license condition; LBP-98-19,48 NRC 83 (1998) sua sponse adoption of issues by liansing bourds; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 45 (1998)
SAFir!Y EVALUATION REPORT
[.
commencement of evidenuary hearing prior to issuance of; CLI-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998) discovery aga!nst Staff prior to issuance of; CL1-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998); CLI-98-17,48 NRC 123
' (1998)
SAFETY REVIEW authority to direct Staff in performance of; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998)
L for operatin-heense renewal, hnut on; CLI 98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998)
SCHEDULES / SCHEDULING 41
l SUBJECT INDEX Commission authority to set milestones for completion 6f proceedmgs; CL1-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998) expedition of operating license renewal procee&ng; CLI-9815,48 NRC 45 (1998) extensions of tine; CLI-98-15,48 NRC 45 (1998) fairness in espedition of; CLI-98-17,48 NRC 123 (1998) licensing board authority to expe&te procee&ngs; CU-98-19, 48 NRC 132 (1998) licensing board authority to set; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) milestones for completion of operating license renewal procce&ng; CLI-98 It 48 NRC 39 (1998);
CU-98-17,48 NRC 123 (1998) obligations of partses to adhere to: C1198-12,48 NRC 18 (1998)
SEGMENTATION of licensing actions, prohibition where consequences are greater when actions are viewed as a whole; LBP-98-23,48 NRC 157 (1998) through separate amendment requests; CU-98-18,48 NRC 129 (1998)
- SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS by expedied means, deadine for receipt of; CU-9812, 48 NRC 18 (1998); CU-9814,48 NRC 39 (1998); CU 98-17,43 NRC 123 (1998)
SETflIMENT AGREEMENTS NRC policy on facihtating; LDP 98 21, 48 NRC 137 (1998) precluding byproduct material licensee from involvement in NRC licensrd activities; LDP 98-15, 48 NRC 57 (1998); LBP-98-16,48 NRC 63 (1998)
SIGNIFICANT H4ZARDS CONSIDERATION licensing board junsdiction to determine whether hcense amendments should be nuule imme,4ately effectne; LBP-98-23, 48 NRC 157 (1998)
SITE SELECTION discrimination in: CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998)
STANDING TO INTERVENE Commission deference to licenung teard ruhngs on; CLI-98-13,48 NRC 26 (1998) geographic prominuty as basis for; W3P-98 23, 48 NRC 157 (1998) germaneness test for interest sought to be protected, LDP-98-22,48 NRC 149 (1998) in matenals license amendment procee&ng; CLI-98-II,48 NRC 1 (1998) injury-in-fact requirement for; CLI-98-il 48 NRC I (1998); LBP 98-22, 48 NRC 149 (1998) irreducible constitudonal nunimum requirements foe; LDP-98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998) 4 judicial concepts apphed in NRC proceedings; CU-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998); LDP 98-20,48 NRC 87 (1998) LBP-98-21,48 NRC 137 (1998); LDP-98-22,48 NRC 149 (1998) on basis of standing in prior Ecense amendment procee&ng; LBP-98 22,48 NRC 149 (1998) organizational, representanon of mernbers; LBP-98-20,48 NRC 87 (1998) presumpuve, on basis of geographic prominuty; LBP-98-22,48 NRC 149 (1998) proof necessary at threshold stage; LDP-98-23,48 NRC 157 (1998) representational, germaneness test of interest that organization seeks to represent; CL1-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998) represeetational, member stan&ng and authorizauon requirenents LBP-98 22, 48 NRC 149 (1998) representational, showing necessary to establish, C1198-13,48 NRC 26 (1998) standard for states; !.BP-98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998) anne-of-interests requirenent; CLI-98 il, 48 NRC 1 (1998); LBP 98-20, 48 NRC 87 (1998); LDP-98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998); LDP 93-22,48 NRC 149 (1998)
STATES
' standing to iniervetg standard for; LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998) untimely intervention in materials license amendment procec&ng; LBP-98-18,48 NRC 78 (1998)
STAY of license con & tion; LBP-98-19,48 NRC 63 (1998) timchness of request for; LBP 98-19, 48 NRC 83 (1998)
STEAM GENERATOR TUBES risk of failure; LBP-98 23,48 NRC 157 (1998)
SUA SPONTE ISSUES 42 i
u.. a,,.
,...-,., -. ~ ~..,.
. +. - -
.-.n...-
.,---....~. -. ~,..
.,n-
. -.. - -. ~..... - - -... -
1 I
[. '.-
[
i*
3..
i
~
l l
1
?
l
}
6 SUBJECT INDEX l
l l
licensing board authonty to adopt; CLI 98-15,48 NRC 45 (1998) '
l I
licensing board authority to raine; CLI-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998) l
- SUBPAltr L HEARING:
i late-6ied restucat for, LDP 98-18,48 NRC 78 0998)
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION.
in operasing licenne renewal proceedicg, standard for grant of; CLI-9814,48 NRC 39 (1998);
. CLI-9817,48 NRC 123 (1998) i standard for une of; CLI-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) '
i f
- SUMP PUMP SUBSYSTEM 1
in Engineered Safety Ibannes building, bcease amendment sought for; LBP-98-22,48 NRC 149 (1998).
WHISTLEBli)WERS l
ineesterence with or prohibition of ernployee", from reparung safety concerns; DD-98-8,48 NRC 112
)
'(1998).
nondisclosure claunes in ernployment contracts' DD-98 9,48 NRC 173 (1998)
- I WITNESSES s
. NRC Staff, idenutication of; CLI-9812,48 NRC 18 (1998)
ZONE OF INTERESTS y.
test for standing to intervene; CLI 98-il, 48 NRC i (1998)
)
i l
d I
l 4
/
I L
43 I
l, t-I r
.'\\
\\
.$(
' l lL 1
i
-m e,
m y
3
_.I I
i 1
i I
j FACILITY INDEX I
AMBROSIA LAKE FACILITY, Grants, New Mexico; Docket No. 40-8905-MIA
)
MATERIAUi UCENSE AMENDMENT; July 17, 1998 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CU-98-II, 48 NRC I (1998)
BRAIDWOOD ',AICLEAR POWER STATION. Units I and 2; Docket Nos. STN 50 456, STN 50-457 REQUEST IOR ACTION; August 31, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; DD-98-8. 48 NRC 112 (1998)
BYRON NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. STN 54454. STN 54455 i
REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 31, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206:
DD-98-8. 48 NRC 112 (1998)
CALVERT cults NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 54317-LR, 54318-LR OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; August 19, 1998, ORDER REFERRING PETTTION TOR INTERVENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING TO ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 3
BOARD PANEL; CU 98-14, 48 NRC 39 (1998)
OPERAT!NG UCENSE RENEWAL; August 26,1998: *MORANDUM AND ORDER; CU-98-15, 48 NRC 45 (1998)
OPERATING UCENSE RENEWAL; September 17, 1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; 4
CU-9819,48 NRC 132 (1998)
DRESDEN NUCLEAR FOWER STATION, Umts 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 50 237, 54 249 REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 31, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206:
DD-98-8,48 NRC 112 (19914)
LASALLE COUNTY STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 54373, 54374 REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 31, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDLR 10 C.F.R.12.206; 2
DD-98-8, 48 NRC 112 (1998)
MILLSTONE NUCl.IAR POWER STATION, Urut 3; Docket No. 50-423-LA OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; August 25, 1998: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Standing Issue); LBP-98-20, 48 NRC 87 (1998)
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; September 2,1998; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Standing lasue); LBP 98-22, 48 NRC 149 (1998)
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION. Units I, 2, and 3; Docker Nos. 5 4 269, 5 4 270, 50'287
{
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; Sepember 15,1998 (re-served Septemi v 16, 1998);
ORDER REFERRING PETITION FOR INTERVENTION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING TO l
ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARD PANEL; CL1-98-17,48 NRC 123 (1998)
QUAD CITIES NUCLIAR POWER STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 54254, 54 265 REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 31, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DFCISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; DD-98-8, 48 NRC 112 0998)
SEABROOK STATION. Unit I; Docket No. 50-443-LA OPERATING UCD4SE AMENDMENT; September 3,1998 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Petinons to Intervene); LBP-98-23,48 NRC 157 (1998)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 17, 1998; ORDER; CLI-98-18, 48 NRC 129 (1998)
ZION NUC11AR POWER STATION, Uruts I and 2, Docket Nos. 50-295, 54 304 REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 31, 1998; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206;
]
DD 98-8, 48 NRC I?2 (1998) 45 4
4
l
~
.. _. 3 :q.
-.n
~
.~ ~ ~
~-
.. r - = -
.:.~-:--
. =. ~ -
. ',' < = :=.;L
=
J
= -
- ~i.-- -
.v;-
7
-- ;,~ -
~.,= _.. =.
. u.
.y_
. y v -; e
,- e n
4 4
/
T.
NUREG-0750 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES DECEMBER 1998 Vol. 48, index 1 JULY - SEPTEMBER 1998
.p
~
e-
" "*"".%.; J' ID
,,__ ~ -.
in
=
0 f.
b 7^
w kJ
'e At W
O 2
<1
<2 2
e 41 I
l' m
5 O
- wo
- Y b-LJ CL C 4 W -
CMED 2 e U tr 2 O 50 0 0 l F W w a u.crue LD L)7 C T 2 tD E wa a w 40 2 a a 1 I o 3 c% u) rutown h et e D C_F ptg
~, -.'
m_
4' 5
4 4
.im-
-=.
m.
m m
.m--
m
I
(
i t
.1, :
y,.c,..,
,, -a.g e
+,
t
?,
t i
i r paper
/
r
+.
Federal Recycling Program i
- l
-