ML20212J903

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISSUANCES.January- June 1999

ML20212J903
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/30/1999
From:	NRC
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V49-I02, NUDOCS 9910060032
Download: ML20212J903 (85)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:NUREG-0750 Vol. 49 Index 2 INDEXES TO NUCLEARLREGULATORY- 'y . COMMISSION: ISSUANCES January - June 1999 ,c. # ""* %, 9 o o a i %.,+**!*+/ l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 99g oo g g 99o93o o75o R PDR

.f . Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Omce RO. Box 37082 Washington, DC 20402-9328 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication. 1 Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 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) 1

1 4 NUREG-0750 Vol. 49 Index 2 4 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES 1 January - June 1999 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ) Prepared by the Office of the Chief Information Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulaery Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301 - 415-6844) J

[L Foreword Dipsis and indexes for issuances of the Gimmissim (CLI), tic Atomic Safety and Ucrming Board Panel (Il3P), the Administrative Law Judges (AIJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on lYtitions for Rulennking (DPRM) are presented in this document.11xwe digsts and indexes are interxled to serve as a guide to tir nsuances. Infonnation elenents common to the ases leard arul ruled u;xm are: Case name (owrer(s)of facility) Full text refererxx (volone arxl pagination) Issuarxt numter Issues raised by apgrilants Irgal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes) Name of facility, Docket numter Subject natter of issues and/or mling Type of learing (opesating liceme, operating license amendment, etc,) T}pe of issuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.) These infomation elements are displayed in one or nxne of five sepamte formats arranged as follows: 1. Case Name Index 11e case name index is an alphatrtical arrangenent of tir case nanrs of tir issuances. Each case nanz is followed by the type of traring, the type of issuance, dockct numter, issuance numtrr, and full text refererxx. 2. Ileaden and Digests The headers and dipts are presented in issuance numter order as follows: tir Commission (CU), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing 130ard Panel (U3P), tir Administrative law Judges (AIJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Ittitiom for Rulemaking (DPRM). The trader identifies the issuance by issuance numter, case nane, facility name, docket numter, type of traring, date of issuarxr, and type of issuance. 11e digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by tir resolution of the issue and any legal references used in resolving tir issue. If a given issuance cmers nxne than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphatetically. 3. Legal Citations Index This index is divided into four parts and exmsists of alphatetical or alpha-nunwrical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others.11xwe citatiom are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and statutes may have ocrurred to muse changes in tir numter or nant arxl/or applicability of the citation. It is flerefore important to comider the date of tir issuance. 11e references to cases, regulations, statutes, arxl otlers are gerrrally followed by phrases that show tie application of tir citation in the particular issuarxr.11rse phrases are folknved by the issuarxe numler and tir full text refererxr. iii

r: [, m i1 ' 4. Subjat ladex - l Subject 'words and/or phrases, arrangd alphabitically, indica *e the issues and sutjects owered in the imuances.' 'Ihe sutject leading are follows d by phrases that l

give specific information atxmt the subject, as dicused in the issuaru es being indexed.

j ' These phrases are folkmed by the imuance numter and the full text reference. 1 5. Faduty ladex. L 'lhis index consaas of an alphatetical anangement of facility names from the imuana. The name is folkmed by docket numter, type of hearing, date, type of imunna, is:uance numter, and full text reference. j i i 1 i ? I i jy 1i

_l I CASE NAME INDEX l AHARON BEN-HAIM, Ph.D. ENFORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; theket No. IA 9748 CLl-99-14,49 NRC 361 (1999) j ENFORCEMENT ACTION, INTTIAL DEflSION (Affirnung Enforcenent Order, with Modifications); Docket No. IA 9748 (ASLBP No 97-73101-EA) (Onlet Superseding Orde IMibiting involvenent in i NRC-licensed Activiucs (Lffective Imnedsately)); LBP-99-4. 49 NRC 55 (1999) ATLAS CORPORATION REQUEST FOR ACTION, DIRICTOR'S DECISK)N UNDER 10 C.I R. 52.206, Docket No 4 4 3453 (Ucense No. SUA-917); DI)99-2,49 NRC 13 (1999) BOSTON EDISON COMPANY LICENSE TRANSITR, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No. 54291LT CLIW17,49 NRC 372 (1999) COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR, thicket Nos. 4295-LA, 54304-LA; CU 4, 49 NRC 185 (1999) CONNECTICtTT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DirtSION UNIER 10 C FR.12.206, Ducket No. 5G213, DD-941,49 NRC 5 (1999) DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION UCENSE RENEWAL; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket Nos. 54269-LR,54274LR, %287-LR, CLI-99-11,49 NRC 328 (1999) ENTERGY Gulf STATES, INC., and ENITRGY OPLRATIONS, INC. REQUEST FOR ACTION, DIRiCTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C TR. 52 206; Ducket No 54458 (License No NPF 47), DD 99-8, 49 NRC 381 (1999) ENTERGY NUCl. EAR GENERATION COM*ANY LICENSE TRANSilR, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 54291LT, CUWl7,49 NRC 372 (1999) I'IRYTENERGY NUCLEAR OPLRATING COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRLCfOR'S DLftSION UNDLR 10 CI R. I2.206, Ducket No. 54440 (Ucense Na NPF-58); DDW8, 49 NRC 381 (1999) GLNERAL PUBLIC LT11LTTIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, er al. LICENSE TRANSITR, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Docket No. 54289 CLlW2,49 NRC 23 (1999) HYDRO RESOURCES, LNC. MATLRIALS UCENSE; MLMORANDUM AND ORDLR, Docket No. 448968-ML; CLIWl, 49 NRC l (1999), CUW3, 49 NRC 25 (1999), CLlW7, 49 NRC 230 (19W); CLlWB, 49 NRC 3;l (1#)9); CUM 18,49 NRC 411 (1999) MATERIALS LICENSE; PARTIAL INTT!AL DECISION (Waste Disposal Issues); Docket No. 40-8%8-ML (ASLBP Na 95-70M)l.ML) (Re: leach Minmg and Milhng Ucenic). LBPW1. 49 NRC 29 (1999) MATERIALS LICTNSE; PARTIAL INTTIAL DECISION (ksues Related to the Nabonal thstone Preservnuon Act (NHPA) and the Nauve Amoncan Cmaves Proiecoun and Repatnauon Act (NAGPRA) and Cultural Resounxs), Docket No 40 8968ML (ASLBP No 95.70M)l-ML) (Re: leach Mining and Milling Ucense), LBPW9, 49 NRC 136 (1999) 1

r -l l 1 1 i 1 CASE NAME LNDEX MATERIALS UCENSE; PARTIAL INTMAL DOCISK)N (Performance-Based Licensing issues); Dociet Na 4489f4ML (ASLDP Na 95-706 01-ML) (Re: leach Mimng and M lbng Ucense); LBP-9410, 49 NRC 145 (19W) MATERIAIS UCENSE; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Financial Assurance for Deconumanioning lasues), Ducket Na 448968 ML (ASLBP Na 95-706 01-ML)(Rc; Leach Muung and Milhng Ucense); LBP. 9913, 49 NRC 233 (1999) MATERIAIS UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ouestions Concermng Radauacave Air Ennasions); Ducket Na 448968-ML (ASLEP Na 95-70M)l-ML) (Re: leach Mming and Milhng j Ucense); LBP 9915,49 NRC 261 (1999) i MATERIA!S LICENSE; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Technical Quahfication Issues); Ducket Na 40-1 8968-ML (ASLBP No. 95-706-01 ML) (Re: leach Mimng and Milhng License); LBP-9918,49 NRC 415 (19 8) MATERIALS LICINSE; PARTIAL INTR!AL DICISION (Radioacave Air Enussions); Ducket Na 44 8968-i ML (AS12P Na 95-706 01-ML) (Re: leach Mming and Milbng Ucense); LBP-9919,49 NRC 421 (1999) INDIANA MICHIGAN POWIR COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRICOR'S DECISK)N UNDIR 10 C ER. 52.206; Ducket Nos. 54315,' 54316 (Ucense Nos. DPR-58, DPR 74); DD 99-3, 49 NRC 161 (1999) INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORIORATION MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMINr. ORDER, Docket Na 40 8681-MLA 4, CLI-99-13, 49 NRC 359 (19W) MATERIALS IJCINSE AMENDMINT, INT!1AL DECISION (Denying the Rehef Requested by the State of Utah); Ducket Na 40 8681 MLA-4 (ASLBP No 98 7484)3-MLA); L,BP %5, 49 NRC iM (19W) MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDIR (Disnussing Certain Peuuons); Ducket Na 448681 MLA-5 (ASLDP No. E758 02.MLA), LEP-99-8, 49 NRC 131 (1999) MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMFNr; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Danussal of Envirocare); Ducket Na 448681 MLA-5 (ASLRP Na E7584)2-MLA*; LBP Bil,49 NRC 153 (1999) MATERIALS UCENSE AMFWDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dinussal of Enviracare); IArket Na 448681 MIA 6 (ASLBP Na 99-7664X>MLA); LBP 9420,49 NRC 429 (1999) MATLRIA!J UCENSE AMENDMINT, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Disnussal of Kenneth Sleight), IAcket Na 448681 MLA-7 (ASLBP No %76607-MIA); LBP %24,49 NRC 495 l1999) KANSAS GAS AND ELIC1 tlc COMPANY, et at UCENSE TRANSELR; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Docket No 50 482-LT; C1.5-45,49 NRC 199 (IVM); CLI-9919,49 NRC 441 (1999) NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION, er at UCENSE TRANSTER; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket Na 54443-LT, CLI-99-6,49 NRC 208 0999), CU.E16, 49 NRC 370 (19W) PACIFIC GAS AND ELEC'RIC COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACflON, DIR11 TOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C FR 62.206; 1Arket Nos. 54275, 54323; DIA%5,49 NRC 279 (1999) PRIVATE FULL STORAGE, L.LC. j INDEIT.NDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; IAwket Na 72-22-!SFSt. CU 99-10, 49 NRC 318 (1999) INDEPENDINT Sl'!WT IUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granung Laie-Filed Intervenuon Petnian); IArket Na 72-22 IS151 (ASLBP Na 97 732 02-ISI51); 1.BP %3, 49 NRC 40 (1999) INDI#ENDENT $ PINT IUEl. STORAGE INSTALLATION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Aplwovmg Nunce of Withdrawal arul Denymg Request to Adopt Contenuons as ime-Filed), Ducket Na 72 22-ISFSI (ASLBP Na 97 732 02-15150, LDP-99-6,49 NRC 114 (1999) l INDEPENDENT SPENT l'Ull STORAGE INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR (Drnymg Monon to Amend Secunty Contenuons); Ducket No. 72-22 Isist (ASLEP Na 97 7324)2-ISFSI), ISP. 99 7,49 NRC 124 (1999) l 2 l I I I (_ m

_l I CASE NAME LNDEX INDEPENDENT SPENT FUE2, STORAGE INSTALLATION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Monon to Require Rule Waim Request or to Anend Contenuon Utah L); [Arket No. 72-22-!SFSI (ASLEP No. 97-73242-15FSI); LBP-99 21,49 NRC 431 (1999) INDEPENDINT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTAILATION. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Grantang Motion for Sununary Disposition Reganhng Coniention Utah C); Docket No. 72 22-ISFSI (ASLBP No. 97-73242-ISFSI); 1RP-9423, 49 NRC 485 (1999) SHAUN P O'HERN SPECIAL PROCEEDING; INITIAL DECISION (1) cense Oranted to Mr. Shaun P. O'Hern); Docket No. 55-32442-SP (AS1EP No. 99-753-01 SP) (Appeal of Denial of Operator's liceme); ISP-99-16, 49 NHC 770 (1999) SHIELDAU.OY METAL 1URGICAL CORPORATION MMERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dtrket No. 40-8948-MLA; CU-9912,49 NRC 347 (1999) MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ([knying Pennon to Interme); Iksket No. 448948-MLA (ASLBP No. 99-76403-MLA); LBP-99-12, 49 NRC 155 (1999) SPECIAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. ENFORCEMENT ACTION; ORDER; Ducket No. 3434318-EA (ASLBP No. 99-759-01-EA); LBP 99-2, 49 NRC 38 (1999) TENNESSEE VAUIY AUTHORITY REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.FR. 62.206; IXrket No. 54259 (Uceme No. DPR-33); DDL99-6,49 NRC 284 (1999) TRANSNUCLEAR, INC. EXPORT LICf'NSE; ORDER; Iksket No. 11005070 (License Na XSNM-03060); CU-99 9,49 NRC 314 (1999) EXPORT UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 11005070 (Liceme No. XSNM4) Alt 4); CU-9+15. 49 NRC 366 (1999); CU-9420, 49 NRC 469 (1999) UNTTED STATES ARMY CORPS OF INGINEERS REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CIR 12.206; DI199-7,49 NRC 299 ) (1999) 1 VFJtMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION I REQUEST FOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DFCISION UNDER 10 CJ.R.12.206, Docket No. 54271 (limme No. DPR-28); DD99-4,49 NRC 179 (1999) YANKEE ATOMIC ElICTRIC COMPANY LICENSti AMENDMENT, PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (Ruhng on Contendons); Dicket No. 50-029 LA-R (ASLBP No. 99 754-01-LA-R) (lueme Ternunacon Plan); LBP-9914, 49 NRC 238 (1999) UCENSE AMLNDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Mouan for Reconsideranon of Contention 4); Docket No. 54029'LA R (ASLBP No. 99-754-On LA.R) (ljceme Ternunation Plan); LDP-99-17,49 NRC 375 (1999) LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Requesting Rephes to NECNP Response to Ternnnation Motion); Dotket No. 54029lA-R (ASLBP No 99-75001-LA-R) (License Ternunanon Plan); LEP-99-22, 49 NRC 481 (1999) 3 I

._ l I i l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TiiE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CU-99'l ifYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coors Road Sune 10L Altanquerque, NM 87120), Ducket No. 44896tLML; MATERIAlE LICENSE, January 29,1999; MIMORANDUM AND ORDfR A Exerciung rts sua spcare supervisory authonty over adjudications, the Conmasmn revwws and vacates a seteduhng order issued by de Presidmg Omccr on January 21,1999, and reamrned on January 25,1999. B lie Conmsuon is loath to supervise ilhng scledules in numers hemg handled by hcensing boards and presiding omcers, but will do so when appropnate. C The Conassion discourages entennons of deadhnes absent entreme circumstances, for fear that an accunnilauon of axnungly herugn deadline extension will in the end substannally delay or outcone of tir case. See Stasemens 4 ndwy on Conduct of Ahudwarory Pnweedmxs. CLI-93-l2,48 NRC l8,2I (l9981 CU-99 2 GENERAL PUBLIC LTTI11 TIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et al (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stauon, Umt !) Docket No. 54289, LICENSE TRANSFER; February ll,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDIA A In tius hcenne transfer applicauon involvmg tir Three Mile Island Nuclear Stauon, Umt 1, the Conmssion rejects an intervenuon pecuon on de ground that it has failed to sausfy the requirenems set forth in Subpart M for interwntion. CLI-99-3 ffYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coors Road,5uite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120) Docket No. 4489t&ML; MATERIA!E LICENSE, February 11, 1999, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A The Comnvasion reviewed a pennon fmm several Imervenors for imerlucutory review of a Presidmg Officer's Memorandum and Order denying requests to adjust scledules for vanous mouons in de proceedmg ard to calend a deadime for wntten subnussions. The Comnussion grants ste peuuon msofar as it seeks an extension of the subnussion deadhre and gives du interwnors additmnal time in all other respects, the petinon is demed and the Comnussion does not aher the bclance of the Presidmg Omccr's order B The Comnasuon does not ordinarily review imerlocutory orders denying extensions of tine, but may do so in specific cases as an exercise of its general supervisory Junsdicuon over agency adjudicauons. C The Presidmg Omcer possesses conuderabic authority to adjust general deadhnes and procedures set out in the Conmssion's rules CLI-99-4 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Gon Nuclear Power Stanon, Units I and 2L Docket Nos $4295-1A 54hLA; LICENSE AMENDMENT, March 2,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDIR A in ttus license anendment pmceeding, die Conurussion considers the appeal of an Atonus Safety and Licensing flourd dectuon. LBP-98-27,48 NRC 271 (1998), that derued a peuuan for lean to intervene and request for heanng filed by Mr. Edwm D Dienethal. The Conmsman amrns the Board's ruhng that Mr. Dienethal lacks standing to challenge de hcense anendnems. B The Comnussion has stressed that hcensing acuans as a ruie do not throw open an opportumty to engage in a free-ranging mquiry mio the " character" of the licensee. Fur managenrut " character" to be an appropnate issue for adjudicauon in a hcensmg pnxeedmg, there must he sont direct and obvious relauonship between tte character issues and tre hcensmg acuon in dispute C In an operaung beenw anrndurnt proceeding. a peuuoner cannot tme his or her standing simply uptm a residence or vints near tte plant, unless the proposed acuan quite obviously entails an increased potenual Jar olhite consequences. It is irrumbent upon tir petmoner to provnk: none "plaunble chiin of causation," sone scenano suggesung how the heense anendnrms would seauh in a disunct new harm or threat. A peuuorrr cannot seek to obtam standmg in a licenne anendnrnt proceedmg simply by enunrraung the pmposed bcense changes and allegmg without sub6tantiacon that tir changes will lead to offsite radmiogical consequences D M do not capect our adjudicatory boards, unaided by the parties, to sift through the parues' pleadings to uncowr and resolve arguments not advanced by hugants themselves The burden of setung forth a clear and S l

~l l DIGF55 ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAR REGULATOltY COMMISSION coherent argunent for stan&ng and meervennon is on de penuoner It should not be necessary to specuhte about what a pleadmg is supposed to nean. De peuuorer derefore hears em responsibihty for any Licensmg floarti misunderstaneng oflas pennon. CLI-99 5 KANSAS GAS AND El.ECTRIC C(XAPANY, er ut. (Wolf Creek Generating Stahan, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-482.LT; LICENSE TRANSfLR; March 2,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDIJL A he Comnussion requests comnrats on its pmposal to & rect its Staff no longer to conduct "sigmficant changes" antitrust reviews in bcense transfer cases,inclu&ng the cunent pmceeding. CLI-99-6 NORTH ATLAf#lC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION. er af (Seabrook Station, Unit I), Ibcket No 50443, LICENSE TRANSFER,; March 5,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Comnussion denes are fttitioner's untmuly intervenuun pution, grants in part a second Peutioner's timely intervenuon petition and heanng request, hrruts de scope of the resulung pmceedmg. establishes a fihng schedule, and imposes oder procedural requirene.nts. B To intervene as of right in a Conunission hcensmg proceeding, a pennoner must denu natrare that its "inten:st nmy be affected by de proceedmg," or in conmum parlance, at must denumstrate "stan&ng." See AEA i189a,42 U.S C. 6 2239(ak De Conmussion's rules require funher that a peuuun for intenennon raise at kast one adnussible contenuon or issue. The standards for nreung these two requuemems in bcense transfer cases come both from our Subpan M procedural regulations and from ju&cial cases on stan&ng (to wtuch me look for guidancek ne Comnussion's requirenrms for stamhng and for admissible issues overlap sonewhat. C To show stan&ng, a prononor must (1)idenufy an interest in de pmcec&ng by (a) alleging a concrew and paruculanzed injury (actual or threatened) that (b) is fairly traceable to, and may be affected by, the challenged acuan (the grant of an apphcauon), and (c) is hkely to be redressed by a favorabk decision, and (d) hes arguably within the " zone of Amerests" pmtected by the govertung stature (s); (2) specify the facts pertaimns to that interest. D To simw adnnssible issues, a peuuoner nmat (1) set forth oc issues (factual and/or legal) that pet uover seeks to raise, (2) demonstrate that those issues fall within the senpe of the procce&ng, (3) demonstrate that those issues are relevant and natenal to the fin &ngs necessary to a grant of the license transfer appheation (4) show that a gerunne &spute caists with the apphcant regar&ng the issues,(5) provide a concise staienent of the alleged facts or espert opimons suppurung peuuores s position on such issues, togeder with references to the sources and docurrents on which peuuaner intemis to rely. See 10 C.FR. 91130tt See generally knAce Airmuc Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon), M98-21. 48 NRC 185,194 96 (1998) (standing); Rultantne Gas A Electric Ca (Calvert Chlfs Nuckar Puwer Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-98-25,48 NRC 325, 348-49 (1998)(adnnsible contenuuns). E A Peutiorwr wtm is a co hcensee sausfies the standmg test when it advances a plausible chum of injury, i.e. tw potential thit NRC approval of the hcense transfer would put in place a new and financially incapable co-licensee, drieby increasing Om Peuuoner's nsk of ra&ological hann to its pmperty and its nsk of bems forced to assume a greater.than expected share of tir nuclear facabty's operaung and deconutussiamng costs. Indeed. it is hard to conceive of an enuty nvre enutkd to claim stan&ng in a heense transfer case than a colicensee whose costs nuy nae, and wiume property may te put at rasological nsk, as a result of l an illfunded beense transfer. Tius Lind of situauon jusufies starwhng based on "real world consequences that l conceivably could harm peutioners and enutie dem to :':canng." knAre Attumc Elecinc Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauonk CLt-98-21,48 NRC 185,205 (1998) i F Peuunner's alleganons regar&ng its increased nsk, supponed by two detailed affidavits and other evidentiary ethibits, are sufficiently concrete and paruculanzed to pass muster for standmg. 4 G De ducatened injury is fairly tramable to the challenged acuan (here, the grant of de beense transfer i apphcanon) because the alleged increase in nnk associated with the transferee takmg over the transferor's j interest could not occur without Conmussion approval of de appbcation. Similarly, die threatened injury can he redressed by a favorable decisson because er Conmussion's denial of the apphcanon would prevent the transfer of mierest ] i t ( l l ~1 l t 6 a O

l l DIGFSTS ISSUANCES OF UIE NUCLEAR REGULA1 DRY COMMISSION H As the AEA pmtects not only human lealdi and safety from ra&oh>gically caused injury but also de owners' propeny interests in their facility (Gulf 5 tares Unlitics Ca (River Bend Station, Unit I), CLi-94-10,40 NRC 43,48 (1994), citing AEA il103b,161b,42 U.S C. Il 2133(b),2201(b)), persons or enuties who own (or coewn) an NRC-licensed facihty plainly have an AEA-pmtected interest in beensmg prucce&ngs involvmg tirtr facshty. I Because de Conmunion itself has stated in a puhcy statenrnt that, under "lughly unusur.1 situations," h naght hold co owners finatrially hable for de share of such espenses attnbutable to a defaulung coewner (see " Final Pubey Statenrnt ou the Restructunng and Econorme Deregulabon of dr Electnc Utahty industry," 62 Fird. Reg. 44,071, 44.074, 44,077 (Aug.19,1997)). asal because de State of New Hampsture (in wtuch de subject nuclear facihty is located) has apparendy inpued sinular jomt and several hahshty on all of de facility's co-owners (see N.H. Seimac Bdl 140, signed by the Governor on June !!,1998), Peutioner presents an adnuasible issue wten it asseru that the transfer would impose upon it a heightened nsk of liabihty for operating and decommissiomng-fund espenses. J Sunctines, an response to site-specific circunstances, utihties prudently set aside mure funds than ttu NRC requires.1he NRC focuses its requuenems on the anant of money required to reduce residual radioactivity to levels that permit release of the propeny (sre 10 C FR.150.2). However, release can also involw acurities other than those falhng within the NRC's defirution of "decomnuumrung"- acuvines such as removal and 4sposal of spent fuel or of nonra&oactive snuctures and natenah tryond what is necessary to reduce residual radioactivity to recpured levels (see 10 C.F R. I 7075(c) n ly The costs of these acovitms can amount to a large fracuan of de NRC's required fun &ng figure. Moreover, deconmaamning funeng is also subject to regulation by agencies having junsecuan over rates - agencies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Conmssion and state Public Utihues Conunissions, and tirse agencies can set funang requirenents det are in addauon to funding requirenents set by the NRC (see 10 C.F R. I 50 75(a)t K A peuuoner in an in&vidual a4uacauon cannot challenge generic decisions nude by the Conmsnion in rulemakings See, eg., Massachurens u NRC,924 F.2d 311,330 (DC. Cir.1991), cerr. denied, 502 U.S 899 (1991). Acconl, Cumrars of the Universary of Musari, Cl.J 95-1,41 NRC 71,170L71 (1995), Amencun Nuclear Corp. (Revision of Orders to Mo&fy Source Materials Licenses), CLI-86 23, 24 NRC 704,70810 (1986), Philadelphus Electric Ca (Peach Betunn Atonuc Power Stauon, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-216,8 AIC 13,21 n.33 (1974). Camtma A=cr & Light Ca (Straron Harris Nuclear Ptwer Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-82-Il9A,16 NRC 2069, 2073 (1982). Ibr esample, no one would be free to argue in a liceme transfer case that site specific constions at 0 particular nuclear power reactor render unusable tir genenc projected costs calculated under our rule's cost Ormula. In our deca nussuung rulemakings, we dehherstely decided to avoid a reqmrenrnt for site-specific cost esurnates to show fmancial assurance. See, eg., Fmal Rule, j " General Requuertents far Decomnussitmng Nuclear Facihties," 53 Fed Reg 24.018,24,03431 (June 27, 1 1988)(&scussmg 1988 rule). Nor could acyone argue that prepsynent is not an acceptable means of providmg fmancial assurance for deconunissiorung. Our rules expressly say that it is. Subpart M allows pumelpunts to "penuon that a Conmssion rule or regubrion be waived" in parucular cases utmn a showing diat because of 4 "special circunstances.. apphcanon ci a rule or regulanon would not serve de purpose for which it was adopted." See 10 C.FR 121329 L There is substantnl doult whether an arFunent based on a theoreucal early shutdown of a facihty is widun the scope of a hccme transfer pmece&ng. There is nottung about de transfer to a new owner that changes the espected hfe span or cost of decomnussuung a facihty. As a general matter, heeme transfer pmceedings are not tte appropriate place for comidenng changes to reqturenrnts applicable to the fac&ty and all hs owners, as opposed to requirenrnts duccted at the pmposed transferee hulecl if NEP's premise were correct,it would be more appropnate to consider generically wtether to impose a change in the decunmussiomng f mdmg process for all owners of the plant The financial nature of dese issues does not necessanly nuke them relevant to de fmancial qtesuons presented in this parucular transfer proceedmg. As with technical requirenents for operatwn of the plant. the transferee takes the plant as it custs,inclu&ng the projected costs and associated assumpuoa used to estabbah the amount of deconmsatomng fundmg requurd. M The transferor's venuse to prepay considerably more dian the nurumum amount currently prescribed by the NRC fmancial ar.surance formula leaves Feuunner without any plausible deconessiomng londmg gnevance, and (particularly in vvw of de transferor's nunuscule share of the plant) gists the Comnuuion no season to think that the public heahh and safety rmght in any respes;t be left unprotected Prepaynent is in fact the strongest and post teliable of thr. vanous deconmssionmg funang devices set out in section 7

r i l DIGESTS ISSUANCE 5 Olr Tile NUCLEAR REGULA'IDRY (UMMISSION 50.75(cXI). Tim Comnussion concludes here. as a nmuer of law, that sie transferor's pepaynent poviues . sufficient assurance for its share of decommasioning cosas and that there enasta no genuine issue of natenal fact or law necessitating a hearing on decomnussiorang fundmg as, mince. See 10 C FR. 91130tKbX2Xiv) N Pedtioner's claim that the hcense transftsee will lack sumciem Anancial resources to fulfill its obhgations for operatmg empenses is relevant and noterial. Indeed, it goes to the wry heart of the quesuon wheder Applicants' financial quah6 canons are adequate to pass statutory and regulatary naister. When pmmulgsung Subpart M a few numths ago, the Commismon empreuly recognised that NRC revww of license transfer appbcanons " consists largely of assunng that de ulunately bcensed enoty has tir capabihty to pret financial quahfication and deconmassioning fun &ng aspects of NRC regulanons." See 63 fed Reg. at 66,724 O. Our accently issued Subpart M. hke its counterparts apphcable to oder types of Conwnissum proceedmgs (et,10 C.ER. 6 2.714), does not permit "the fihns of a vague, unparuculuized contenuan," unsupported by afndavit, empert, or docunentary support. Cakerr Chys. 48 NRC et 349 See 10 CER. I 2.1306, Nor does our pacuce permit " notice pleadmg," wah details to be fdled in later. lutead, we regiure 1 parties to cour forward at the outset with sufficiently detailed gnevamms to allow the adjuecaur to conclude j that genuine disputes exist jusufying a consatment of adjudicatory resources to resolve dem, See YanAce j Aamuc Dectric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon), CLI-96 7,43 NRC 235,248 n.7 (19961 P " Speculation" of sone sort is unavadable wlen the issue at stake concerns predienve judgnents atuna an applicant's future fmancial capatxhues. Q Section 50.33(fX2) nowhere declares that tir profferms of 5 year pojecuans wdl. per se, prove adequate in any and all cases To the contrary, the rule contams a " safety. valve" provision empbcidy reserving the possihihty that, in particular circunstances, and on a case-by case tesis, a&liuonal protections nmy te necessary, See 10 CFR. 6 50 33(fX4)(to ensure adequate funds for safe operauon, NRC nmy require "more detailed or adhnonal infumation" if appropnatek Pernioner is endtled to argue that rMs case calla for addiuonal Enancial quahricauon naasures tryond 5-year projecuans and that the Apphcants drreiure have not net their burka under section 50.33(fX2) to sausfy Comnsasion (mancial quahficauon requirenents. The j burden of prouf umler section 50.33(fX2)is to "denumstrate [that} the apphcant possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds neccuary to cover estimated operation costs for the penod of de heeme." In ) ad.hdon, section 50 33(fX2)inposes certain fahng regmrenrnts on tte applicant - that it sulwnit operaung cost estimates for the nemt 5 years and indicate the source of funds to cover these costs. Transferee's " collateral attack" argunent conflaies these two pumans of secuan 50.33(fX2) by assurmng that the Apphcants have net timir burden of proof nerely by conplying with the filing requirements. Although sausfacuan of those requuements is nacuary to the grant of a hcenas transfer apphcanon, such sausfaction cannot be deened always sugkient to sausfy the Apphcants' burden of pnof, else the NRC be inevocably tound by Appheants' own estimates and let wahout authonry to kmk triund them. Always in quesuon under secuan 50.33(fx2) is wtreur the Apphcants' cost and revenue estinates sie reasonable. The adequacy of those enumates is challengeable (as here) by a petinan for imervenuon under 10 C.ER. 6 21306 or by an NRC request for nuwe detailed informauon. See 10 C F R. I SO 33(fx4)(tle Conumsnion "may request an.. enuty.. to i subrat addinonal or more detailed informaunn respecung its fmancial arrangenents and status of funds if [wel consider [} this information appropnate"). Acront 10 CER. Part 50, Appensa C, iIV R If Pennoner clamrd that 5. year cost and-revenue pmjecuans are per se inadequate to nret fmancial quahficanon requirenrnts, such a claim would te precluded as a collateral attack on NRC rules. Ratter, Petiboner simply contends that. as NRC rules denuclws contemplaie, tte circunstances of this particular transfer call for nuwe detailed or extensive fmancial potecuan. The Conumssion thus concludes that peuuoner is not launchmg an imperrrussible collateral attack on secuun 50 33(fX2) but matead ranes an adnussible issue for a heanns under Subpart M S Petiuoner cannot insist that Apphcants pmvide the impossible: absolutely cestain predicuans of future economic comhuons. To he sure, safe operation of a nuclear plant requires adequate fumimg, but tte potenual safety impacts of a shortfall in fumimg are nel so direct or minr& ate as de safety miracts of sigruficant techrucal deficiencies. Generally spraking, then, tte lewt of assurance de Cunnusson fmds it reammable to require regardmg a hcenwe's shihty to nurt fmancial obhgabons is less than the estrently high assurance tir Conutussion requires regar&ng the safety of reactor demgn, consnuccon, and cirranon. The Comnussion wdl accept fmancial assurances based on plausible assumpoons and forecasts, even though de pissiinhty is not inugmficant that stungs will tum out less favorably than expected Thus, the mere casung of doubt on sone aspects of proposed fun &ng plans is not by itself sufficient to defeat a fimimg of reasonable assurance. At 8

i l I 1 _J l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULAMRY COMMLSSION the sant tine, though. fumhng plans that rely on assumpdons seriously at odds with govermng realices will not be deened acceptable amply tecause their form matches plans desenbed in de regulanons. Relying on affidavits and various forms of financial data, Peuuoner asserts that the transferce's cost-and revenue estimates fail to provide de reqmred assurance because they do not geflect a reabsuc outlook for the transferee itself or for the nuclear power industry in New fingland. As in other cases (ag., Gu((Ssuses Utilities Co (River Bend Stauon, Umt l), CLI-94-10,40 NRC 43,5153 (1994)), the Coomassion cannot brush.suk such econonucally based safety concems widmet giving de Intervenur a chance to substannare its corcerns at a hearing, but the Comimasion notes diat Petiooner's argunrnts ulumately will prevail only if it can demonstrate relevant uncertantes sigsfacantly gwater than those that usually cloud inisiness outiooks. T W Comnussion cannut accede to f euhoner's seenung view that tie transferee interently cannot pret de Conunission's financial quahfication rules because the transferce's rates are not regulated by a state utihties conunission. This vrw runs counter to the premise underlying de entire restructuring and economic deregulabon of tie electric uuhty indusay,ie.. that the marticiplace will replace cost of-service ratemaking. In de Conumssion's view, unregulated electricity rates are not incompauble with nminuumng sufficient financial resources to operate a nuclear power reactor. U A Petsuoner's failure to read carefully the governing procedural regulations &rs not connutute good cause for accepung its late-filed pection. V Wlere a Peunoner has offered an enurely trw suggesuon for relief, its participauon would have the effect of broadening this procce&ng. W A Pendoner's imerest can adequately te pmtected or represented by anoder party where Ituuancr's interest as a co owner of a nuclear facshty are, by Petionner's own desenpuon, idenucal to those of a pany that is also a co owner In ttus proceeding, Itus idenuty of interests as further refkered in the fact that, with the cacephon of de rrw suggescon for rehef, Peudorer presents no nrnts argunrnas smt aheady proffered by the existing party. X The Conmussion's heanng anbunas haw regularly rejected late 4 led pcunons subnuned witimut good cause for the lateness and without strung countervaihng reasons that ovemde the lack of good cause See, e g., frrmse FacLr Ssomge LLC. Ondependent S ent Puel Storage Installauon), L.BP-98-7,47 NRC 142,172-75 l (1998)(collectmg casesk Y Pentioner is free to muutor the pmcec&ng and to file a post.heanng amuw cunar trief at the same tme ele parues to the procee&ng file their post-tranng submissions umler 10 C.F R.12.1322(c). CLI 99-7 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Cours Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque. NM 87120), Docket No 40-89b8-ML; MATERIALS LICENSE; brch 23,1999 MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A h Comnussion renewed a peuuon frum Imervemrs for interlocutory review of a Presi&ng Officer's Merrurandum and Order which posed several queshons to the pames related to the techmcal qualificauons of Hydro Resources, Inc. (HRI). The Intervemws seek reversal of de Presi&ng Ollicer's order tecause, in drir view, the Presi&ng Officer has inappropnately provided HRI and the NRC Staff with a second opportumty to address sasues diar dry had failed to address carher lhe Comnussion demes the peuuan because Intervenors have failed to demonstrare that the standards for imerlocunwy revww have been net. B in detemumng whether to grant a petiuon for meerlocunwy review, the Comnussmn considers whettrr the Presidmg OfHcer's acuon either (1) threatens tir party adversely affected with imnrdnare and serious irreparable harm that could not te renr&cd by a later appeal or (2) affects the basic structure of tir procee&ng in a pervasiw or unusual manner. C h Presi&ng OfUcer Ims tir &screnon to seek adduonal mformation over and above that provided by the parues. See 10 CT.R I21233(ak Cl199-8 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Cours Road. Sune 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 689f4ML; MATERIALS LICENSE, Apnl 6,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A N Comnusamn demes Intervenors' peuuan for interkrutory review of tie Presidmg Ofncer's Penurandum and Order (Queshons Concermng Radosenve Air Ennssions)(LDP-99-15,49 NRC 261). issued on March 18, 1999. B in deternumng whetter to grant a pennon for interkrutory review, the Comrmssnm considers whetler the Presi&ng Officer's acdon ett!rr (1) threatens de party adversely affected with immedate and senous irreparable harm that could not le renr&cd by a later appeal or (2) affects the basic structure of de procec&ng in a pervasive or unusual manner See 10 C F R. I 2.786(g)(1) and (2). 9

g 3 l J l DIGESTS 1%SUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAnt REGULATURY CX)MMISSION C The Commission's ruks grant the Presidmg Officer &scredan to seek ad&uonalintornation. See 10 C.ER.121233(a) CLI-99-9 TRANSNUCLEAR, INC. (Espurt of 93.3% Enriched Uraniuma Docket No. I100Mr10 (IJcense No. .(SNM43060); EXPORT IJCENSE, Apnl 8.1999 ORDER CLi-9410 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage lastallation), Ducket No. 72-22-ISFS1; INDEPENDINF SPENT IUEL S1DRAGE INSTAL 1ATION, April 15,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDEJL A The Conunission affinns die Boar (s decision LBP-99 3,49 NRC 40 (1999), to grant the late-filed intervention petioon of de Southem Utah Wiklerness Athance (SUWA). In doing so, de Conunissinc upholds the Boar (s findings that SUWA has established its representauonal standmg to intervene and has proffend at least oir litigable contention, in Under secuon 189s of the Aiomic Energy Act, the Comnussion nmst grant a heanng upon tir request of any person "whose insivest nmy be affected by the proceeding." 42 U.S.C.12239(a). Accordingly, NRC ergulations require a pcunon for intervenoon to " set forth widi peruculanty de snierest of the peuuoner in de proceeding, liow that interest may be affected by the results of the procee&ng, and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject natter of the proceeding at to which [the] prononer wishes to intervene." 10 C.ER. 5 2.714(a)(21 in evaluaung whetter a petmorer's asserted interest provides an appropnate basis for imervenuon, de Commission has long looked for guidance to juschd concepts of standing. C Where an orgarusanon asserts a nght to tepresent de iniciests of its nembers, "jusetal concepts of stamhng" seguire a showing that; (l) ha nrmhers would otherwise haw standing to sue in drir own nght; (2) tie interests that the organiunon aceks to protect are gernwne to its purpose; and (3) neider tir claim assened nor de rehef requested requires an in&vidual memler to parucipate in the orgamzation's lawsuit. Longshuidmg NRC practice also requires an organizanon to demonstrate that at least arm of its nemhers has authonzed is to represent the nemher's interests. D To cleternune whether an orgamzauon's indvidual penders have standing, a pentioner must alk ge (1) a parucularized injury (2) that is fairly traceabk to ttm challenged action and (3) is likely to te redressed 1 by a favorable decision, i E 1he Commission has lusturically accorded "substanual deference" to Ibard deiernunahons for or against standmg, cacept where de lloard has clearly misapphed the facts or law. F Intervenors who fail to provide specific inforrnanon regardmg either the geographic prominity or tinung of their visats will only comphcate maners for demselves. In nuny instances, a lack of specificity will he sufficient to reject clama of standing. O NRC regulabosis rajuste that an adnussible comention consist of. (1) a specific statenrnt of the issie to te raised or controverted,(2) a bnef esplanauon of the bases for the contenuon,(3) a concise statenent of l the alleged facts or capert opiruon supportmg the comention on wtuch de peuuoner miends to rely in proving th contendon at any heanng; and (4) sufficient infornmuon lo show that a genume dispute caists on a natenal issue oflaw or fact. See 10 CIR. I 2 714(b)(2). A failure to comply with any of dese requirenents is grounds for disnnssing de comenuon CLI-9411 DUKE ENERGY CORTORATK)N Kkoree Nuclear Stauon, Unita 1,2, and 3), Ducket Nos. 54269-IJt,50-270 LR,54287-LR; LICENSE RENEWAL; Apnl 15.1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Comrnission reviews and affirns an Atonus Safety and Licensmg Board Memorandum and 0 der, LBP 98-33,48 NRC 381 (1998), that detued a petiuon for leave to intervene and request for heanng. The Commission agrees that de Peunoners failed to submit an adnussible contenuon. Il To gam adnussion as a pany, a peutioner for interwnuou must proffer at least one adnussible contenuon for liogauon.10 C.FR. 5 2.714(b). A contention must specify the parucular issue of law or fact tim pcunoner is raising, and contain: (1) a bnef esplanatron of the bases of the contention; and (2) a concise statenrnt of the alleged facts or expert opmion that support de contenuun and upon which the pehuoner will rely in proving the contenuon at de heanng Tie contenuon should refer to those specific docunents ur odier sources of wluch the peutioner is aware and upon which he intends to rely in estabbshmg de validity of the contration. C A contention must show that a genume &spuie exists with de appbcant on a nwienal issue of law or fact. Tie dispute at issue is naterial af its resoluonn would nuke a difference in the outcone of die licensmg procee&ng. 10

l l _l I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D The 1989 revisens to de contendon rule insist upon sons factual basis for an adnutted contendon. The intervenor nest be able to identify sont facts at de tmr it proposes a contenuon to in&cate that a espute exists trtween it and or appbcant on a materialiuue, Muse requutnrnis are intended to preclude a contenuon from being adnuned whese an iniorvenur has no facts to support its posinon and instead contenplates uaing &scovery or cross-exanananon as a fishing expe& don that might produce relwant suppurtmg facts. E To satisfy the Conmussion's contenuon rule, peutioners must do more than test on the nere existence of RAls as a bass fur prir contenuon. RAls generally in&cate nodung nuire than that the Staff requested further informanon and analysis from the turnsee Dr NRC's issuance of RAls does not alone estabbsh deficencies in the apphcauon, or that the NRC Staff will go to find any of de appheant's clanfications, jusu6 canons, or oder responses to be unsausfactory. F W exient to wtuch an RAI nught help support a comennon trant be consdered on a case-by-case basis, but tir Conunission expects that in almost all matances a pecuaner nmst go beyond nerely quoung an RAI to jusufy adnsssion of a comenunn into the pmceceng. O To show a genume &spute with t!r apphcant, peaconers must use the RAI so muka the issue of concern their own. Dus neans dry must develop a fact based argunent that actually and specifically challenges the apphesuon. If an RAI does tething truxe than request funhet informacon, it is not unreasonable to expret a pensioner to prowJe ad&tional mformauan corruharsung the esistence of an actual safety poblerrt H An apphcant's environnrntal report need not contain an analyus of issues idenufied as Category I issues in Appen&x B to Part $1, Subpart A, because the Comnussion already has addressed those issues in a generic fasluon. Category 1 inues include er rs&ological inpacts of spem fuel and high-level waste disposal, helevel waste storage and disposal, numed waste storage and disposal, and onsite spent fuel. The Comnussion's genene deternunanons governmg onsite waste &sposal preclude the pennoners from attempmg to imroduce such wasic issues into an adjuecanon. I h Conumssion has clumen to address high-level masie &sposal generically rather than unnecessanly revisit the sanz waste disposal quesuons, hcense-by license, whco reviewing in&vidual appbcanons. liigh-level waste storage and disposal is a nauonal problem of essennally the sant degree of complexity and ugertamry for every renewal apphcanon and it would not tr useful in have a repeutive reconaderauon of tir maner. J h has long been agency policy that hcensmg tmards should not acces in in&vidual hcense proceedings contendons that are (or are about to beconr) the subject of general rulemakmg by the Canumanion. C119912 S}DELDAL1JDY MCTALLURGICAL CORPORATION (Carnhndge, Olso racihty), Docket No. 44 8948-MLA; MATERIALS LICENSE AMiWDMENT; Apnl 26,1999 MEMORANIXJM AND ORDER A The Conumsman amrms a IJcenung Board order, LBP-99-12, 49 NRC 155 (1999), denying an interwnuon petition and heanng request for failure to denenstrate stan&ng. B h Conunission 6ffers inun Arucle ill courts in that ut do not pernut "nouce pleadings." Nonh Aikmric Larrgy Servke Corp. (seahmok Statmn, Umt I), C1199-6, 49 NRC 201, 219 (1999). Raller, we insist on detailed desenpuuns of the peuuoner's posinons on in ues going to loth stanang and the nrnts. 10 CER. 6 2.1205(c) (petitioner "nnst desenhe in detail" tirse posiuons). (710 CER. Il21211(b) (reqmnng governnental perucipants in Subpart L pmcee&ngs to state their areas of concem "with reasonable specificity"), 2.714(s)(2) (requinng peucorers in Subpart G procee&ngs to set furth their pisioons "with paruculanty"). C "In order to estabbsh the factu,11 pre & cates for Orne vanous clenents (of stan&ng), wtrn Irgal representatmn is pesent, it grnerully is necessary for the mdividual to set furth any factual clamis in a sworn amdavit" tilP 99-12,49 NRC at 158 (emphasis added), cismg Atla.r Corp (Moab, Utah I-acihty), LilP-97-9, 45 NRC 414,427 a 4, ag*d, CLI-97.8,46 NRC 21 (1997). The Comnunion's subpart L procedures governing ds: pacec&ng do not now contain, nor have they ever contained, suct; a requirenrnt. Although our subpart G procedural rules once contained such a requnenent (see 10 C FR. 4 2.714(a) (1977)), we rescinded that pmvimon nuve than 20 years ago. See 43 Itd. Reg 17,798,17,799 ( Apr 26,1978). Ser alm Whington ruhik Aiwer Supply Swrem (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1), LBP 83-59,18 NRC 667,669 (1983). D h Conmussion Ars not interpret tir Presiding Omccr's order as statmg that an amdavit was absolusely required, for indeed it is mit. E Itatwners represemed by counsef are generally held to a higher standard than pm se hugants. See, eg., H.>usrem Lighrms and Amer Co. (A' Isis Creek Nuclear Geirraung Stauon, Unit 1), ALAll-590, il NRC 542,546 (1980h and ciied cases. II l I

_l l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAR REGULA10RY (X)MMLSSION F Secuan 2.1205(c) of our pnxadural regulations requires petiibners seeking a tranns to povide a detailed Gesenprion as to why ttry have stan&ng. Peudorrrs' dual asseruons that two of drir number own land withm a nule of de SMC facility and that their propeny contains ra&oactive slag from the SMC facibly may well be tnse, but de asseruons are cursory at best, do not consutute the requuite detailed descnption, and are unsupported by evidence - affidavit or otherwise - that would help to provide the requisite detail. Nor do petiooners even allege that they are required to do anydung at all with the slag and soil, or state how nmch greater their costs would be compared with de expense of r:turtung the slag and soil to de Cambndge facihty grounds. These omissions render their economic injury argunent woefuliy de6cient. O Because Prtinorers' dual econonuc asseruons do not go to the quesuon whether the pru8ered anendnent should be granted, they fall outside de scope of this procee&ng. H Petitioners to intervene e i required under our rules of practice to provide some form of substanuaung evidence for der fact. sal asserhons regar&ng stan&ng. Pennoners' failure to offer such support for its clamn of non. economic injury (despite deir having been served with a copy of de relevant Environnrntal Repurt) renhed those clairrn dc6cient and absolved the Presi&ng Otfacer of any need to &scuss them in detail. I Because Itunoners never assert that they actually use the geographical areas that tiry claim to be associated with their purported aestheuc, recreauonal, and enviraranental/conservadon interests, they fail to show stat they would te " personally and individually" injured, as required under the Suprene Court's decision in Lwan v Defenders sq Wildhfe, 504 U.S. 555, 560 n l,56162 (l992). See caso Umred Srares v AW Cany., %2 E2d 108,118 (1st Cir.1992)("a plamuff, to secure standmg, nmut show that he or she uses the specalic pmperty in question" (citauou and internal quotauon nurks omiued)) Capare friwe fuel Storuge, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), C01-9813,48 NRC 26,3132 (1998)(sworn affidavits showing regular and frequent visits to a home near the facihty are sufficient to estabhsh stan&ng). J Because Ittiuoners' claim of econonne iryury falls outside de scope of dus poceeding and thus caruux he redressed herem, any evidence they would pesent on redressabibty of econonuc injury is inclevant. K Subpart L procceangs offer no nght to escovery. See to C.ER. I 21231(d). L It is well estabbshed in both federal and Conunissmn case law that redressatnhty is an essennal elenrnt of stan&ng. Sea, e g., YanAce Airmuc Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon), CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998); Georria inrrimre af Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12,42 NRC 111,115 (1995); Kennerr v Spear 520 U.S.154,162,167 (1997). M 11is the Comnussion's general rule that, to estabbsh hulividual stan&ng, persons seeking to intervene must idenufy thenacives. See gencrully limron Ughring and IWer Ca (Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Stauon, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 389-400 (1979).1he general need for such idenufi$atum should le obvious. If the Conutussion does not know wtm the peuuoners are, it is usually diflicult or impossible far the beensee to effecnvely qirsuon, and for us to ulunately detemune, wtether pecuaners as indviduals have " personally" suffered or will suffer a "&sunct and palpable" imrm that consututes injury m fact - a deternunauon required for a fin &ng of stan&ng. Drilums v. ARC, 863 E2d %8,971 (DC. Cir.1988) See generully Atonne Energy Act,6 IB9a,42 U.S C. I 2239(a); 10 C F R. I 2.1205(c)(1), (2) N Although this agency has never gone so far as to adnut an arumynums party into a proceeding, we have repeatedly shown in oder contexts our wdhngness to nuke the necessary acconuruxlations to protect de pnvacy of maviduals who.how us that such protecuon is appopnate - sonedung Cituens have not done. See Internarunud Uranium (USAJ Corp (Wlute Mesa Uranium Mill), LBP-9714,46 NRC 55,57 n,3 (1997)(noting stat fear for the safety of the people whom an organizanon purports to repesent could j jusufy the onussmn of dune people's nanrs from a peuuan opponng the beensmg acuon at issue in an NRC procee&ng), afd, CLI-98-6,47 NRC 116 (1998r, hubktna hwer and Ught Ca (Waterford Steam Electnc Station, Unit 3), ALAB 812, 22 NRC 5,17 n 8 (1985) (usmg pnxecove orders and expigaied copies of affidavits to protect alliants' anonynney); thafic Gas and Dectric Ca (Diablo Canyon Nuckar Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-775,19 NRC 1361,1367 n 18 (1984)("in canrra fihngs and requests for potecove i orders are available in appropnate circumstances to protect the legiunute interests of a party or other person"), afd sub nmn Deulmejian u NRC,751 E2d 1287 (DC Cir.1984A rrh's gnatedand ysa mcared,7601.2d j i320 (DC. Chr t985), Crmmunwn decbinn reafd on orn's sub namn San Lms Ohusw Mmhersfor Ivace v NRC,789 E2d 26 (D.C, Cir ) (en banc), carr. denard, 479 U.S 923 (1986) i CLI 9913 NIERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORAflON (Receipt of Malenal from 1onawanda, New i Yori) Docket No 448681-MLA 4, MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; April 26,1999, ORDI R 12 l

1 i f _lh l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR ltEGULAMRY COMMlHSION A . In this naterials hcense anendnunt proceceng, the Conymssion granis em State of thah's peudon for review of a decision by the Presi&ng Officer, LBP-99 5,49 NRC 107 (1999h upholding a hcense anendnent granted 1o the Iniernational Uranium (USA) Carpiration. - CL199-14. AHARON BEN-HAIM. Ph.D., Duclut No. IA E068; ENFORCEMENT ACI'!ON; April 26,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - A 'the Comndesion domes pouuans for review filed by both the Staff and Dr. Ben Hsim., B 1 To obtam Conunission review. a peononer numt sim*x om exisience of a suhrsuntmlquestion regareng one or emne of the following five consideranons, as set furth in 10 Cf.R. 5 2.786(b)(41 "(i) A 6nding of masenal fact is clearly erroneous or in conflict with a finding as to the sans fact in a efferent procec&ng;(ii) . A necessary legal conclusion is without goverung precedent or is a departwo imm or contrary to estabbshed law; fiii) A substannal and important quescon of law, puhey, or discrecon has been raised, (iv) De conduct ', of the proceedng involved preju&cial procedural errur; or (v) Any oder consideration which de Conunission may deem to be in tle puhhc interest." C nm Comnussion denies the Stafra pWeion for review on the ground that the Staff has not persuaded us that the issues it raises are sufficiendy " substantial" to jusufy our granting a &screnonary seview of the Licensing Daard's order.10 Cf.R.12.786(b)(4). See gesamily Emerkk S. EDaniel(Denial of Appbcation for Reactor Operator Licensek CLI-96 il,44 NRC 229,230 (1996) (denying teactor operator cambdale's petsuon for revww for failure to present substantialissues); Yankee Asanic Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-96-9,44 NRC 112,113 (1996)(drnying intervenors' peution for review fw failure to pesent substantial issuesk D Given that the hoard's ruhng regarding de length of the suspension penod was based in part on Dr. Ben-Haim's demeams at the tranng, de ruhng is subject to deference on appeal. See Messrpohtan Edsson Ca ('Three Mile Island Nuclear Scanon. Unit I), ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193,121g (1984)(where the cre&hihty of evidence turns on the demeams of a witness, an appellace board will give de judgnent of ilw trial board, which saw and heard the testirnony, perucularly great deference), nrv'd in part on other smurals. CL185-2. 21 i NRC 282 (1985k and cited authonty, E Board orders have im precedential effect. See Sequo3ah fuels Corp., CLI-95-2,41 NRC 179,190 - (1995A i CL199-15 TRANSNUCLEAR, INC. (Export of 93 35 Enriched Uranium), Ducket No. 11005070(License No. i XSNM4)3060); EXPORT LICENSE; April 26,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER j A Dw Comnussion has apphed ju&cial stamhng tests to its esptwt hcensing procce&ngs. j B An organization's insutuhonal interest in provieng infwmmuon to the pubhc and the generalized interest of its memberslup in nunmuzing danger from prohfersuon are insufficient to confer standing as a l matter of right under secuan 189a of tte Atonne Energy Act of 1954, as amended. C A discretionary heanns is not warranted where such a heanng would irnpose unnecessary burdens on pamcipants and would not provide tir Comnussmn with addinonal information needed to make its statutory deternunations under em AEA. D 7he Comnussion nuy, in 4 Escretion, erect furtier pubhc proceeengs tf it desenrunes that these procee&ngs, such as a pubhc necung, would te in the pubhc interest ewn though petiuoner has not estabhsted a right to intersene under section IB9a of the AEA. CLi-9416 NORTil ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION, er al. (Seabrook Stanon Uiut 1), Ducket Na 5(k443-LT; LICENSE TRANSfT.R; April 26,1999'.ME"ORANDUM AND ORDER A Because the sole iniervenor has withdrawn its letsdon for intervenuon, Liu Comnussion ternunaies this procceeng. B Under Conmussion case law, the withdrawal of all intervenurs bnngs a heensing proceeding to a i. close. rianda heer and ught Ca (Turkey Point Nuclear Genermung Plant, Units 3 and 4k CLI-91-13,34 l' NRC 185,188 n,I (1991); fuhtic Servka Ca qf Colarmfu (Fort St. Vrain Independent Spent Fuel Storage l-Installabon), arracheJ so Turkey Annt, supm, 34 NRC 190 (1990). 1 CLI-9917 BOSTON EDL50N COMPANY and ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION COMPANY (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Stanon), Docket No. 5(k293.LT, LICENSE TRANSFER, April 26,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDI:R A Because all intervemrs how withdrawn drar peuuans for intervention, the Comnussion ternunaies t dus proceedmg. l 13 I i \\ L

t

• _l.

I DIGESTS i ISSUANCES OF Tite NUCLEAR REGULATURY (X)MMISSION B Under Conmssion case law, the widuirawal of all intrxvenors bnngs a proceeding to a close. Nonh Adansk Energy Service Curp. (Seabrook Stanon. Unit I A CLt-99-16,49 NRC 370 (1999) and cited cases. CLI 99-18 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Cours Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 448968-ML; MATERIALS LICENSE, May 27,1999. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A h Conunission grams Intervenurs' notion for reconsideration of a May 3,1999 Comnussion order which set a page hnut for final pennons for review in the current pinse of the proceeding. The Comnussion dernes Intervenars' genuon for interlocutory review of the Presieng Omccr's Menurandum and Order (Quesuons) issued on Apnl 21,1999. B The Comnussion's plenary supervisory authonty allows it to interpret and custonure its process for individual cases. C in detenmning whether to grant a pennon for interlocuury revww, the Conmssion considers whedur the Ptesidmg Omcer's actmn eider (1) dutaiens the pany adversely affected with immediate and senous irreparable harm that could not be reneded by a later appeal or (2) affects the basic structure of the pruceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner. See 10 C.ER.12.786(g)(1) and (2). D h Commission's rules grant the Presiding Omcer dacnuon to seek addmunal information. See 10 C.ER. I 21233(a). CLI-9919 KANSAS GAS AND E!LCTRIC COMPANY, er uL (Wolf Creek Generating Stauon, Urut 1), Dirket No. 50-482-LT; LICENSE TRANSIIR; June 18, 1999-, MEMORANDUM AND ORIER A On October 27,1998, Kansa= Gas and Electne Conpany (KGE) amt Kansas City Power and Ught Conpany (KCPL) (Appheants) 61ed a license transfer spphcanon seeking Commission approval of a transkt of thetr possession-only interests in the operaung hcense for dw Wolf Creek Generaung Station, Unit 1, to a new company, Westar Energy, Inc. Currently, Wolf Creek is juntly owird and operated by the Appbcanis. each of which owns an undivided 47% interest, and Kansas Elecine Power Cooperauve, Inc. (KEPCo), wiuch owns de senmining 6% interest. The Applicants requent that the Conussion anrnd the operaung license for Wolf Creek by deleting KGE and KCPL as licensees anxl addmg Westar Energy in their place. Pursuant to the Comnission's procedures for license transfer appbcanons, KEffo opposed dw transfer on anuiruu grounds, clainung, that the transfer would haw "senous adverse and anucompeutive effects," would result in "significant changes" ta the compenuve market, and, therefore, warrants an anuirust revew under section 105c of de Atonne Energy Act. B The Conussion concludes that the Atonne Energy Act dies not require or even authorize anutrust reviews of post-opernung hcense transfer applications, and diat auch reviews are inadvisable from a pohey perspecove. Tim Comnussion derefore dismisses KEPCo's pecuan to intervene on anutrust grounds. De Comnussion pernuts Applicants and KEPCo to subnut letners to the Comnussion suggesung de appmpnate disposition of the esinung antitrust bcense condinons due to de planned changes in Wolf Creek ownership and operauon. C After consideration of the argununts presented in tte bnefs, and based on a thorough de ne review of de scope of the Comnussion's anutrust authonty, de Comnussion concludes that the structure, language, and history of tte Atonac Energy Act cut against our prior pracuce of conducung anutrust rev ews of post-operaung hcense transfers D The Conutussion now in fact has concluded, upon a close analys of de Act that its anutrust reviews of postgeraung heense transfer applicapons cannot be squared with the terms or intent of the Act and that we therefore lack authority to conduct them But even if the Conutussion is wrong about that, and it possesses sone general residual authonry to contmue to undertake such anutrust revwws, it is certainly true that the Act nowtere requires ttem, and tte Comnussion ttunks it sensible from a legal and puhey gerspective to no longer conduct them. E The compennvc and regulatory landscape has dramancally changed smce 1970 in favor of those electric unhoes who are de intended heneficianes of the secuon 105 anutrust reviews, especially in connecuan with acquismons of nuclear power facilmes and access to transnussmn services. For dus Comnussion in use its scarce resources needed more to fulfill its pnmary statutory nundate to protect de public health and safety and the common defense and security than tu duplicate other anutrust reviews and audonnes makes no sense and only impedes nanonwide efforts to streamhne and make more efficient de federal gowrnnent. F No NRC regulanon emphettly mandates an anuuust review of post-operanng hcense transfer apphca-tsons. Not ore comma of de Comnission's current regulations need he changed in the wake of a cessation of such reviews, although tocause of the NRC's past tractice of comiucnng such reviews, the Comnussion has 14

__l. I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COAIMISSION decided that clanficahon of its rules is warranted. Thus, while a disnussal of this anutnist pacteding besixi on a new but pernussible interpeta6on of the Commission's authonty wuidd be contrary to past Factice, at would not be contrary to de explicit language of any Comnussion rule. O The Suprene Court has repeatedly ernphasized that the chore between rulenuking and adjudicadon hes prirnarily in the inforned dimmedon of the adrninistrative agency. CL1-9420 TRANSNUCLIAR. INC. (Export of 93.3% Enriched Uranium), Docket No. 11005070 (License No. XSNM4D0h0); LXPORT LICENSE; June 29,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A Dipiornaue noses containing a foreign goveranent's assurance that it will use 11U targets when such targets becorre available, povided that their use does not result in a large percentage incream in tie total cost of operating the pertment reactor, constitute assurances sufficient to satisfy AEA section IMa(2) ht provison requires that the proposed recipent of HEU provide assurances that, whenever an ahernauw wkw reactor target can le used in that reactor, it will use that ahernauve in heu of HEU. B The requuenent under AEA section IM4(3) of an active program for the dewtopurnt of m. i i U target that can be used in tir particular reactor to which the HEU expans are being nude is sausfied wirre the Comnnaion finds that the pnncipals have executed a confidenuahty agreenent to enable the pumpals to forward technical infornunon that would enable a feasibibty study to te conpleted, and have provided information pursuant to that agreerirnt. C Judgnrnts of the Execubve Branch regarding the common defense and secunty of the United Statu in export Scensmg poceedings isrvohe nmiters of its foreign pohey and nauonal secunty experuse, and the NRC rney properly rely on these judgnents. IS l i L

l I DIGESIS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS 2 LBP 99-1 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Cours Road, Sune 101 Albuquerque, NM 87t20), Docket No. 40-8965-ML (ASLBP No. 9570f>01 ML)(Re: Imach Mimag and hLlhng LJcense), MATERIALS LICENSE, O February 3,1999; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Waste Disposal Issues) A Rehef was demed conu:rnmg liqusd waste disposal issues. The Presiding Officer deternuned that tir licensing standard that rnust he net by Apphcant to that there is adequate protecuan of pubhc health and / safety and adequr.se considerauen of environnental issues related to waste disposal, both dunng operanons I and cleanup.10 C.F R. 6 40.32(c) and (d). lie concluded that Intervenors had incorrectly rehed on 10 Cf R. ( p 6 40 31(h) and on 10 CER. Part 40, Appendia A, which apply to null taihngs facilices "at sites formerly [ associated with such nulbng." [ B Secuan 40.3 t(h) and 10 CFR. Part 40, Apgendia A, apply to null taihngs fxihues "at sales fornerly ~ associated with such nuthng." They do not apply to injecuan namng for uramum, although Cruena 2 and 5A apply. Cntenon 7 dues not apply. / C This Decision includes a deuuled descripuon of an injecuan trumng project. LBP 99-2 SPECIAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. (Bettel, Connecucut), Docket No. 3434318-LA / - (ASLBP No 99 75941.EA). ENFORCEMENT ACTION, february 3.1999. ORDER ][ LBP 99-3 PRIVATE IUEL STORAGE, LLC, (Independent Spent Iuct Storage installabon), Docket No. ge 72-22-ISFSI (ASLBP No. 97-732-02 ISf31); INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION, I February 3,1999 MEMORANDUM AND ORDf3t (Granung Late-Filed Intervention Peution) - 3. A In dus proceeding concermng the apphcanon of Private Fuel Storage. LLC.,(PFS) under 10 Cf.R. ~ Part 72 to consiruct and operate an independent spent fuel storage installauon (1sFSI), the Licensing Board grants a late-filed intervenuon pecuan concermng a revised proposal to construct a rail spur that would be used to transport s;ent fuel shippmg casks to er PFS facihty. B Ahnent sone demonstnihon that separate conuderauon is required, a showing regarding or 10 CJ R. I 2.714a)(1) cniena would be equally applicale to a late-filed intervention peution and any concunendy filed 3 corate9uons. C 7he first late-fihng factor under secuan 2.714(aki)- gooci cause for filing late - is also the most t inportam m the five-factor balance. See LE398-7,47 NRC 142,173 (1998) ~ D Even though there is no Federal Register nouce of an anrndnent application. the fact the anrndnrnt i was placed in a 1 ical pubbe docunent room (LPDR) created for a facihty prmides an enhanced opporturuty for 1 access to hcensing infornwuon that should be taken mto account in analyzmg de unchness of an intervenuon /, peupon. It is reasonable to eg-ct that, from one to une, those in the area of tir facihry who nmy have an mierest in the proceedmg, would vaut the IPDR to check on its status At tir sane one, nonparty statua to a 7' proceedmg is a perunent factor in assessms de frequency of such visits. A nonparty would not be expected to visit the LPDR as often as a pany given the need to travel to the LPDR in order to see the files. With dus in nund, one LPDR inp a month by a nonparty to nunutor a procreding seems reawnable. E Even with a find,ng that the first, and rmat impanant, se,;oon 2.714(axi) late-fahng fador - gomi cause fur late fibng - weighs in a peutioner's favor, the oder four factors rnust be considered to amve at an assez,anrnt of the overall balance that accrues. F Although wmmng Umted States Depannent of the Intenor Bureau of land Managenent (BL>d) permissmn to use federal land to construct a rail spur mvolves a pubhc process dunng wtuch there is an opportunity for parucipauon in a adnunistranve hearmg, there is a sigmfvant quesuon about the degree to wtuch this ahernative forum nught otherwie afford a full heanng " see lktrm's Eduon Co (Ennco lerns Atomic Power Plant Unit 2), ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760,1767 n 6 (1982), such that the second sectwn 2 714(aXI) factor - availabil.ty of otler nrans to grotect peuuoner's interests - would consutur a 17 m l

N..... n. 1 l-I DIGESTS ' ISSUANGS OF THE AWMIC SAMTY AND LICENSING BOARDei substantial neganve ingtdient in the overall balance. When du NRC is du " lead agency" that will prepare an ..,m ..- !inpact staaenent (EIS) telasve to a proposal to use federalland for a rail spur, BLM will act only la a cooperaung role, providing comrnents on NRC's prelinunary, draft, and final EIS, tn.t not prepanng its own EIS. Because any National Environnemal Pohey Act (NEPA) responsibilities relauve to de rail spur haw been assumnd by the NRC, it is problematic whether the issue of NEPA comphaar.e can (or should) tu comested as part of any BLM seview process, neutrahang any negative element this factor nught bring to the tut-w Conynie /Miic Service Ca (New Hanyshue (Seawook Station, Units I and 2A CLl-78-8,7 NRC 1,2627 (IMg)(in NEPA analysis NRC will not rehngam issues delegased to the Environnental Protection .. Agency). Gl The fourth section 2.714(a)(1) factor - extent of representanon of pentioner's interests by exisbng panies - clearly weighs in favor of a petieoner when no other puny has raiud a surular issue or even been successful in having a contention deahng with the sans general subject matter adnatted in the proceceng. H When a petitioner idecufica three of de wiumsses it may unhze in the proceeding and,in the context of the affidavits supporting its peution and contendons, provi&,. w cuthne of de tesumony of one of those indviduals, dus affords at least none nuninal support for acceptance of its peution under factor duce - ex:ent to which petitioner's participation nmy lead to developnrnt of a strong record. See LBP 98-29,48 NRC at 294 m.5. Any broadening of the proceedmg by the entry of new issues is offset to a considerable degree by the fact that adnussion is unhkely to resuk in any protracted delay because the case is still in its informal discovery phase, so that section 2.714(a)(1) factor live - broademng de issues or delhymg the pnxee&ng - is, at worst, a neutral elenent in the balance. J . In the NEPA context agency consideranon of an action that would aher assertedly p&une pubhc land without a &acussion of ahernauves seemingly wouki consutute a sufficiently erect and concrew injury to an intervenor's legitunate interests under NEPA to provide stan&ng to contest that action. K Argunent that intervenor has failed to demonstrate a favorable decision likely will redress its injury, and so estahiish its staneng, because even if land use application is rejected. BLM could grant a separaer proposal for de land to some oder enury usapplies the redressabdity standard. What intervenor seeks to gain from its challenge is to preclude the danger it percenes the applicant's progmil poses to the lanJ in question. If, as a sesult of agency NEPA consideradon of the apphcant's proposal in this procee&ng, d.e proposal h implenented in a way that is not inconsistent with the peuuoner's asserted interest in the land, den de inter enor has won all it can expect from this proceeding and its potennal injury has been sedressed. L Wlule an affidavit indicating that an indvidual had " frequently visied, used, and enjoyed" an area

and planned to do so "frequentJy in the future," could have been truxe speciAc about the number of urnes

) ' the in&vidual traversed and otherwise used (and plans to use) the land in quesuon, adoption of de term "frequendy" in dus coment demonstrates that in&viduars bond with the area is sufficiently concrete to estabbsh his standing and, consequently, that of the organization he has authorned to repsesent his imerests. M Precision regar&ng a stan&ng showing that is based on actual physical contact (i.e4 hiking, campmg, 9; etc.) with the object of the purponed injury is of less concem than for a stan&ng showing based on distance i from the object in quesuon (i.e., resier "s" miles from the facihtyk An ongoing presence via physical contact j can be adequately conveyed with a general term such as " frequently." General references regar&ng distance, howewr, will usually be inadequate to estabbsh the requisite concreteness. See Arias Corp. (Moab, Utah ) Facahty), LBP 97-9,45 NRC 414,42627, srfd, CLI-974,46 NRC 21 (19971 l 1.BP-99-4 AHARON BfNHAIA(, PhD. (Upper Moniclair, New Jersey), Docket Na IA 9746& (ASLBP I No. 97-73141.EA) (Order Supersedng Order Prohibinns involvenent in NRC-licensed Activines (Effecuve Inune&ately)); ENFORCEMENT ACTION, Fehruary 8,1999, INITIAL DECISION (AfBrnung Enforcenent Order, with Mo&ficauns) 1 A The Atonne $afety and Licensing Board affirms, with naxhfications, an imrrediately effective Staff enforp 0 order, sustaming most of the substanuve assertions of the order but reducing de proposed suspension / rum NRC4 censed achvities horn 5 p.ars to 3 years and retaimng other arxstlary rehef sought by du Staff, such as reparung requirenwnts for future involwnent in NRC bcensed acovices. .B-Under 10 CIR.130.10, any contractor to a treensee, inclu&ng a suppher or consukant, who knowingly provides to at.y bcensee informanon or other tiungs, nay not engage in dchberam rrasconduct that causes or would have caused, if nut detected, the licensee to be in * 'r4adon of any NRC rule, regulation. order, or beense con & tion. J ? 15 j l l 4

F _l l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile A1DMIC 5AFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS C Debberate nusconduct nuans an intentional act or onussion dat de person knows would cause a licensee to be in violabon of any NRC rule, regulatwn, order, or license conduon. Dehberate is de sane as intentional and does not include careless disregard D NRC regulauons under 10 CJR. Part 35 require a byproduct natenals bcensee to appoint both a Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) and an Authanzed User, each with del'urd dunes and respmsibihtica. An RSC or Authorized User may delegate tir authonty to carry out those duties and responsibilities but not de responsibihty for ensunng that they are camed cut. E A bcenses must apply for and receive a heense anendnrnt tufore it changes R$0s. F NRC regulacons under 10 C FR. Part 35 require diat a byproduct material heensee retain a record of the nrasurenent of each dosage, includng presenbed dosage, of a photoo<nutung rasonuchde pnur to nudical use. Part 35 further requaes a wntten direcove, or emphcit presenpnon, any tine a doec of I-131 exceeding 30 nuerucuries is to te admirustered to a panent, or for any therapeutic adnunistranon of a radopharnunceuncal. These acuviues must be perfarnrd by an Authona d User or designee. O The Enfon:enent Pohey, NUREG 1600, is NRC's pobey for exercuang its authartry to take action to enforce us regulatory requirenrnis. The particular sancuan is deternuned on a case-by case basis and involves discreuon, based on specified fsetors that do not necessanly carry equal weight. Willful violations are of j particular concern. 1 LBP-99-5 INTERNATK)NAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (Receipt of Matenal from Tonawanda, New j York) Ducket No. 40-8681-MLA-4 (ASLBP No.98 748 03-MIA); MATI RIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT, Fetruary 9,1999, IN111AL DECISION (Denying the Rebef Requested by the State of Utah) A 1he Presseng Officer affirned the grant of a heense to Apphcant to receive Ashland 2 matenal from Tonawanda, New York. He rejected de argunent of the State of Utah that "dr Anrndnent des not comply with Conmassion Guidance because the matenal is not bypuduct matenal and must derefore be &sposed of at an appropnate facihty rather than being subject to ' sham disposal.'" Instead, the Presiding Officer reasoned that the matenal beine received by IUSA is are because it "is processed pnnanly for its source natenal I content when the enraction of source natenal is de pnncipal reason for paressmg the ore. Under those c4cumstances, the matenal falls widun the NRC's juns&cnon over the uraraum fuel cycle." j B Under 42 U.S C. 5 2014e(2) de phrase " processed pnmardy for its source paterial consent" should te given its natural nemung. Tim adverb "primanly" eno&fies the verb " processed" 11rrefore, ore is pmcessed pnnurity for its source material content when the extracuan of source material is the pnnerpal season for paressmg the ore. Under those circumstances, the rnaienal falls within the NRC's junsdiction over ] tte uranium fuel cycle, j C The Proposed Posinon and Guidance on the Une of Urarnum Mill Feed Matenal Otter Than Natural Ores,57 Fed. Reg. 20,525,20,533 (1992)("Ahernate Feed Guidance") nakes it clear that if source matenal is entracted from a matenal at a licensed uranium uvil, then de naterial is considered to le " ore," provieng that it does ont contain hazardous wasie and that it is pmcessed so that a useable product, uraniurn, is entracted from it. LDP-994 PRIVATE Fl>EL STORAGE, LLC. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Instalianon), Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI (ASLDP No. 97-732 02-ISFST); INDEPENDUC SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTAILAtlON, February 17, 1999-, MEMORANDUM AND ORDf.R (Approvmg Notice of Wulutrawal and Denying Request to Adope Contenhons as late-Filed) A in this proceeding conceming the apphcanon of Private Fuel Storage, LLC. (PF5), under 10 CTR Part 72 to consuuct and operate an independrnt spent fuel storage instalianon (ISI SI), the Ucensmg Board approves a notsce of withdrawal, with prejudice, subnutted by Intervenors Castle Rock land and livestock, LC, and Skull Valley Company, bd., and dernes de request of Intervenur State of Utah to adopt drir contenbons as late-filed. B With an interwnor's approved *ut from a geoceedmg, those adnuned contentions for which it is the sole sponsor also depart. Accor&ngly., the absence of pr or unely adopuon by anoder intervenor, those coutesnons can be preserved for further consideration only if an intervenor shows that the issues are admissible under the late-fihng standards of 10 CFR. 5 2.714(aKI). See flouska hghtmg & Recr Co, (South Texas Project, Units ! and 2), ALAB-799,21 NRC %0,382-81(1985). C Ahhough the Appeal Board in the Seth Tesas proceeding was concerned that a blareet stneture on the later adoption of a withdrawing party's contennons would comphcase hogauun and seulenent by encouraging "nommal" contenuon co sponsorship at a procce&ng's outset, see ALAB-799,24 NRC at 384, 19

_J l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE A10MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS that consideration is not impbcated when, as is apparent from its pevious late-Gled pleading sceking to adipt all other Intervenors' contenoons, an Intervenor sought early on to in pose those complexities in dss proceedmg and failed to nake the appropnaie argunents Under de cucunstances, no reason exists to provide a second bite at dw apple, especially when the Intervenor's ultimate jusu6 cation is based on no more than dw " trusted oders to vigorously pursue" Ene of argununt sejected in South Temr. See M at 382-83. D A failure to dernonstrate good cause for late.6hng requires dere be a "contrihng showin6" regardmg de other four sate-filing factors. LBP-98 7,47 NRC 142,208 (1998). E late-6hng factors two and four - availabihty r4 other neans to prutect the petiuoner's interesu and extent of representauon of petitioner's interests by other partes - are accaded less weight in the balance than factors three and 6ve - assis'ance in dmioping a sound record and broadenmg the issues / delaying the ] proceeding. See LBP-98 7,47 NRC at 208; see also IEP-98-29,48 NRC 286,294 (1998), l F bre-61ing factar five - broadening the issues /delaymg the proceedmg - clearly does not wrigh l in favor of adrassion when the contenoons oderwise would not be part of the procee&ng treause of thu sponannns intervenor's withdrawal. See South Texas. ALAB 799,21 NRC at 382 (rejectmg argunent apphcant will not te peju&ced if required to litigaw previously admitted contentions of withdrawing intervenor because appbcant already krew those issues would be expkwed). LBP-947 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC. findependent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), Docket No. 72 22-ISFSI ( ASLBP No. 97-73242-ISI51); INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATICN, f February 18,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denymg Mouon to Anend Secunty Contendons) A la this proceedmg concenung de applicason of Private Fuel Storage, L.LC. (PFS). under 10 CER. Part 72 to construct and operate an independent spent fuel storage installauon (ISFSI), the Ucensing Board demes ar, snamenor request to anend comenoons concermng the vahdity of the Apphcant's physical secunty plan (PSP) as de PSP rehes on the local county shenffs office to exercise law enforcenent authonty at the Pf5 ISFS) located on the reservauon of de Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians. D Having teceived a copy of an agreenent concermng the provision of local law enforcenent services for a Nahve Anrrican tnbe's reservation where a proposed ISI51 is to be located, the Intervenor was under an ohhganos, parucularly once the Licensing Board m4cawd de agreenent had sone relevance to du proceceng. to act prompdy to uncover any additional problems with de pact. When there apparendy were no complex scienu6c or techmcal analysis involwd, the nxwe than 2-month period de Intervenor took to inquire was too long for it to claim that good cause existed for its late-Eled request to subnut addiuonal issues. C A failure to demonstrate good cause for laic fihng requires there be a "compelbrgt showing" regar&ng the other four late-Ehng factors. LBP-99-6,49 NRC 114,119 (1999). D bte-Shng tactors two and four - availabihty of other snearn to protect de peutioner's imerests and extent of trpresentation of petitioner's interests by oder parties - are accorded less weight in the balance than facMrs three and fiw - assistance in developmg a sound record and broadening the issues /delayin$ the preedmg. Id. j E With regard to late-6hng factor three - assistance in developmg a soum1 record - when legal issues i are a focal point of a late-6led contenson. Gw need for an extensive showmg regarding witnesses and tesumony ) may be less compelling. See LBP-98 29,48 NRC 286,301 n.18 (1998). F bie41mg factor 6ve - broademng the issues /uelaymg the proceeang - clearly does not supprt an intervenor's request to anend its secunty cuntenuons when huganon regardmg a local law enforcenrut agency's legal obhgauons under an agreenent to provide law enforcenent servam to a Nauve Anencan (nbe is hkely sigruficandy to troaden ami delay the procce&ng by raimng a substantive challenge to the agreenent. as opposed to de essenually procedur 1 challenge to its adoption pratocols that alcady is before the Ucensmg Board, as well as the possitshty of havmg to awast the outcone of legal actions in other ju&cial forunu LBP 99-8 INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (Receipt of Addinonal Matenal inun Tonawanda. New Yorto, Ducket No. 40L8681-MLA-5 (ASLBP No.99-758 02-MLA), MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMF.NT; Ichruary 19,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Disnussing Certain Peuuons) A A heanng was demed to three pubhc Peutioners trcause dry had failed to demonstrate that the proposed action will cause them " injury an fact" D The Presieng Officer esiplains that in our democraue system of government, we rely on elected officials to represent our interests it is only when we suffer a paruculanred injury or " injury in fact" that we may challenge a governnental action in an administrauve procecang. 20 l 1 l

I~ l l 1 l l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARIE LBP 949 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC, (2929 Cours Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. j 408%8-ML (ASIEP No. 95706-01 ML)(Re: leach Mimng and M2!!ing lxense); MATf3tlALS LICENSE; fvteuary 19,1999, PARTIAL INTTIAL DECISION (Issues Related to tie Nanonal Histanc Prescrution Act (NHPA) and the Nati e American Graves Autection and Repatnation Act (NAGPRA) and Cukural Reamrces) A After exanumng tie steps taken by the Staff and Apphcant to comply with NHPA and NAGPRA, de Presiding Officer found dem in conphance with the requirenrnts of those acts. He concluded that Intervemus failed to present regulatory standards and to show how dry had been violated. He also concluded diat it is pernussible to segmers a puject fur NHPA purposes when de poject is planned to le perfurnrd over an creended penod of une. Il When no hutoric puperuca are fourut aAer an agency properly docunents and notices a fimhng that a project will have no effect on hastancal pmpertica, de govermrant agency "is as required to take further steps in du secuan 106 prucess." 36 CFR.18u04(d). In dus regard, it is important that kxal histanc i preservation departnrnts, inciu&ng de New Mexico State Historic Pieservation Dquutrnent ("NMSHPD") f and tim Navajo Nanon Histanc Preservanon Department (WPD"), responded to NRC Staff consuhation requests with leners concurnng with the concluuon of NRJ StJf that there would be "no effect" on adl cuhural resources wtdun the parcela. C NAGPRA appbes only to the disposinon of Nau e Anencan cultural items "emeavated or &acovered - amfedend or #rilxd lands " h des not apply to pnvate'y ownrd lands, ewn af de owner engages in federally bcemed activity. D Intervenurs failed to show a deficiency in 'ne Staff's Cuhural Resources Managenent Pfart Hence. their NEPA claims are widiout nefit. LDP-9410 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Cours Rnad. Sune 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 40 8968 ML(ASLBP No. 9570r>DOML)(Re: leach Mining and Milhng Ikense); MATERIALS LICENSE; Istruary 19,1999. PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Performance Based Ucensms issues) A Rchefis dermed because ina rvenors failed to show that de NRC's licensmg action violated any NRC regulatmy reymrenents. Performance-based hcensing, as reflected in de StafPs accons in issuing a heense to Apphcant, is valid There is no tred for the Commission to approve a segulanon caplienly appioving performance-based licensing B Since ApphcanPs license requires that an anendnrnt be sougla if he subsequently seeks to vary the terms of th.s hccme, which contains nuny druuled condsuona drie u no loss of public heanng nghts. C 1 hat drie is an extensive secord resulung from interacdon between Apphcant and Staff in no way affects de vahery of the bceme D I; is pernvasible to impose beensing con &tions that are contained in a hcense and, in adhuon, to incorporate in ge. hcense by reference runnses made by Apphcant in the course of lengthy &scussions with de Staff. LBP-94 tl INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (Reccept of A&huonal Maienal from Tonawanda, New York), Ducket No. 48681 MLA-5 (ASLhP No 99-75842-MLAt MATf' RIALS LICENSE AMENDMINT; February 19,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Disnussal of Envinrare) A A heanng was demed to a Peutumer that based its stamhng on econonuc comgrutur injunes that are not associated with any envuvmental harm amociated with de pro;njsed beensing acuan i LBP 9412 SHIEIDAILOY METAL.LURGICAL CORPORATK)N (Camtmdge, Oluo Pacihty), Ducket No. 40 8948-MLA (ASLBP No. 99-7604LMLA), MATERIALS LICENSE AMLNDMENT; Itbruary 23. 1999, j MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denymg Peuuan to Intervene) A In tius procee&ng concenung de appbcation of Stueldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (SMC) to anend tlw 10 Cf R. Part 40 heetne fur its Candeulge, Ohio facihty to suttumac 5MC to possess ra&oactive slag, the Presi&ng Officer drmes a peuunn for leave to intervene, fin &ng that de Peuuoners lack stan&ng as of right. B Intervenoon in NRC licenung adjudications, whether formal or informal, generally arises an one of three ways. (1) an indmdual seeks to intervene on has or tre own behalf,(2) an organaration seeks to intervene to represent the interesta of one or name of its rirmhers, or (3) an organusuun seeks to iniervene on its own. C When an iruhvidual seeks to iniervene on tus or her own behalf, that p a crust estabbsh that (t) he nr she will suffer a disunct and palpable injury in fact widun de zone of ink - 'Is arguably protected by de statutes govenung the pmceeding (e g, the Atomic Errrgy Act, the Nauonal Entronnental Puhey Act of 1969); (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the cb!!cnged acuan, and (3) dr injur) u hkely to be redreswd by 21 l i i l l

l _J l 4 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS a favorable decision. See Attar Corp, (Moab, Utah Facihty), I BP 97-9,45 NRC 414,423, afd CU-97 8,46 NRC 21 (1997). t> In order to estabbsh the factual predicates for the vanous standing clenents, wtro legal representation is present, it generally is necessary for the individual to set forth any lattual claims m a sworn affidavit. See id at 427 n4. LBP-9413 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC- (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, AINaquerque, NM 87120), Ducket M i 40 8968-ML (ASLBP M 95-7%01 ML)(Re: 1.cach Mimng and Mlhng Uceme); MATERIALS LICENSE, March 9,1999; PARTIAL INTflAL DECISION (Financial Assurana for Decommissioning issues) A Because Ucensee's la sita leach rnining project is not covered by 10 CER. I 40.36, it is not necessary that it demostrate financial assurana for deconmssiomng as a precon& tion for licensing. Tir bcense is valid under the regulations because Ucensee will not be perrrutted e commence operauons until it has comphed with 10 CER. Pan 40, Appendix A, Criierion 9. B lle Press &ng Officer exanunes 10 CfR. I 40.36 and desenrunes that m ssru leach mimng falls wittun an excepuon to the financial quahfications provisons conuuned m that secuon. C Part 40, Appen&x A. Critenon 10, of 10 CER. cont,uris regulatory requirenents that must be nrt when nuclear wastes are left permanently on site. S nee Uccosce will transport its wastes off site, that provision is not apphcable to it. LBP-9914 YANKEE AIDMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon). Docket & 50029-LA-R (ASLDP No. 9475441-LA-R)(Ucense Tenananon Plan); UCENSE AMENDMENf; March 17,1999; PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (Ruhng on Contentions) A in a proceedmg considenng the adequacy of the Ucense Ternunation Plan (LTP) for de Yankee-Rowe reactor, tir Atonne Safety and Ucensing Board issues a fichearing Conference Order that accepth four of the contentions advanced jointly by two Intervenors, rejects other proffered contenuans, grants de requests for a i hearing of tie two Intervenors, and grants the requent of a couned of regional gowrnnents to parucipate as an interessed governnental enury. The Board also consolidates de two Intervenors for tte purpose of presenung the accepted contenuo a. B in a proceeding concerning the adequacy of an LTP, the scope of admissible contentions in the proceeding is coextenave with dr senpc of the LTP itself, which is governed by the requirements of 10 CIR. 5 50.82. l C in a proceeding concermng the adequ v of an LTP, issues that may be ht.g ed include de adequacy l of the sie survey nrthodology. D Although Conunission rules do - - unoLuc prescnbed doses to average nemters of a entical group, they do not hnut the scenanos in wtuch A aposed in&vidual must be placed. Alternauve exposure scenanos may be appropnate ba*ed on sur-specife A m that affect the hkehhood and extent of potential future exposure. LBP-9415 HYM3 RESOURCES, INC. (2E > Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 448%I'-ML (ASLEP W 95-70f>01-ML) A trach Mimng and Milhng Ucense), MATERIALS LICENSE; March 18,1999; MEMORANDUM AND Olc 4 R (Questions Concerning Radioacave Air Emssions) A The Presiding Officer ruled abet, pc mant to 10 C.FR.140.4. " background rasanon" des nor inchide radianon from saarce, byproduct, or grcial nuclear natenals regulated by the Commission. Accordingly, the Presiding Officer asked the panes to answer quesuons to clanfy wlether Licensee is in compliance wnh 10 C.! R. I 201301, wtuch states "(4 Each bcensee shall conduct operauons so that - (1)Tir total effecuve dose eqmvalent to mdividual nrmten t.,f tir pubbe from tir lianced operation does run j enceed O I rem (l milliuewrt)in a year. exclusive of the due cmunbutionsfrom bar kground owliathm. LBP-9916 SHAUN P. O HERN (Denial of Reactor Operator's Ucense) Docket No.55-32442.SP (ASLBP No 94753 01-SP)(Appeal of Denial of Operator's Ucense); SPECIAL PROCLEDING, March 26,19W (re-served March 30,1999); INITIAL DECISION (Ucense Granted to Mr. Shaun P OHern) i A The Presidmg Officer, working with the aid of his techrucal assistant, reviews in detail de argunrnts of the parues concermng tre correct answer lo exananauon quesuons and detemunes that Mr. Ohern earned a pessing score on tus wntten exarrunauon to ircorre a reactor oterator LBP 9417 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon), Ducket & 54024 LA-R (ASLBP h 99-754-01-LA R)(License Tenninanon Plan); UCENSE AMENDMEbff; Apnl22,1999. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Mouon for Reconuderanon or Contenoon 4) A in a pmceeding concermng de adequacy of the Ucense Terrmnauon Plan (LTP) for the Yankee-Rowe Reactor, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board den es a mobon by the Ucensee for reconsideration of de 22 i

1 1 __l l \\ i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATUMIC SAFETY AND LK'ENSLNG BOARDS admission of one of four contentions admitted by the Board in its Preheanng Conference Order of March 17, 1999 (LBP-99-14,49 NRC 238). The Board clanfies the scope of that contenuon. B Where an LTP includes speci6ed doses, and wirte those doses are advanced to meet a sprcific regulatory enterion, the doses cannot be regarded as a wluntary comnument and de rrrthod of calcubition of those doses in the LTP is subject to chalc age. j LBP-99-18 HYDRO RESOUP.CES, INC. (2929 Cours Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 40 8968-ML (ASLBP No. 95-7%01-ML)(Re: Leach Mining and Kihng limnse), MATERIALS LICENSE; May 11,1999; PARTIAL INTTIAL DECISION (Technical Qualificauon issues) A Dis Partial Initial Decision finds that Aplicant was technically quahfied to conduct its project and that there is no regulatory requirenent that it demonstrate that it is fmancially quahfed to conduct de project. The techmeal quahfication fmdmg was based on a review of the quah6 cations of enployees now crnployed by the company and this was consiered an adequate denumstration that quahfed enployees will be employed by the conpany when econonuc conditions pernut de project to proceed. B Intervenors have raised a serious question concermng whether econonuc con &uons will perust Appheant to proceed with its in situ Icach mining project for the extracuon of uratuum. They argued that, in hght of this uncertainty, licensee coukt not demonstrate that quablied personnel will conduct this project when de time becones ripe.11us argunent was found to be invalid. The Presiding Ofker tuned that the technical quahncstions presented for approval demonstrated the Applicant's capacity to lure techmcally quahfied staff. C Section 40.32 of 10 CER. requires adequate equiparnt and procedures to protect the public but er does ret requue any 6ndings conceming de financial quabficauon of an appbcant for a inense. LBP-9919 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC, (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101,. Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 448968-ML(ASLBP No. 95-706-014tL)(Re: Leach Mining and Milling License); MATERIALS LICENSE; May 13,1999; PARTIAL INTflAL DECISION (Rasoacuve Air Emissions) A ne Presidmg 00icer agreed with Intersennr that rad anon from source natenals on the Apphcant's site ought not to be considered to be part of background radiacon. However, after reviewing intervenors' argurrents concerning ra&auon doses to the puhhe, the Presiding Officer desemuned that Apphcant is sn conphance w th Pan 20 brrutauons on rasanon received by a number of the pubhc fiom sources undct its controt j LBP-9420 INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (Receipt of Material from St. Louis, Ms-souri) Docket No 448681 MLA 6 (ASLBP No. 99 766-06-MLA); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMLNT; May 21,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissal of Envirocare) A Envirocarc's Request for a Heanng was danussed because Envirocare based its claim for standmg on econonuc-compeutor injunes that are not associated with any environnental harrn associated with de proposed licensing action and that are tirrefore not cognizable under de Nauonal Envirorcental Protect on Act or the Atomic Energy Act. Quivera IJamag Co. (Ambrosia Lake Facihty, Grants New Mexico), CL195-11,48 NRC l (1998), andImernafuial Umnium fuSM Corp. (Receipt of Matenal from Tonawanda New Yort) CLI-98-23, 48 NRC 259 (1998). LBP-99-21 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC, Ondependent Spent Fuel Storage Instalianon), Ducket No. 72 22-ISFSI (ASLBP No. 97 732412-ISFSI); INDEPENDENT Stoft FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION. d May 26,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denymg Mouan to Require Rule Waiver Request or to Anrnd Contention Utah L) A in stus pnxre&ng concermng the apphcauon of Private Fuel Storage LLC. (PI5), under 10 C.F R. Part 72 to construct arid operate an independent sient fuel storage instalianon (ISFSI), the Licensing Board denses the request of Intervenor State of Utah to require Appheant Pnvate fuel Storage. LLC, (PIS), to subnut an exenpuon request under 10 C.F.R.12.758(b) or, in de shernauve, pernut the State to anend its geotechmcal contenuon to allow it to contest the PFS caernpuon request in this proceedmg. B Secuan 2.758(b) of 10 C FR. and the waiver /exempoon provisions found m the vanous substantive provisions of the Conunisraon rules. see, e g.,10 Cf.R li 30.11 (Part 30 byproduct material),4al4 (Part 40 source matenal), 5012 (Part 50 production and uubzanon facibues), 7014 (Part 70 special nuclear vetenal); 72.7 (Part 72 ISFSIs), offer ahemative nrthods for scelung waiwrs of or exempoons from Comnuraion rules. See Camtma Amer & Ught Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant), CL1-86 24,24 NRC 760,774 n,5 (1986); see alm Cleveland Electnc Il!anunarmg Co O'erry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), LBP a5-D, 22 NRC 442,445-46 (1985), afd, ALAB-841,24 NRC 64 (1986) Pnor adjud catory ruhngs suggest that section 2.758 need not be invoked unless (1) the exemption request is directly related to a pendmg contennon, 23 L

_l I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATUMIC BAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS see Sheamn Harris. CLI-8(i 24,24 NRC at 774 n.5; or (2) the inrtpretauon or applicanon of a regulauon to specific facts is quesconed Prrry LBP-85-33,22 NRC at 445. C The quesuon of when a new or amended contention must be filed in order to nret the late-6bng stamfards of 10 C.F.R.12.714(a) - and spectScally the criocal criterion concermng " good cause" for laae fihng - calls for a judgment about when the mauer is sumciendy factually concrete and pacedurally ripe to penst the fihng of a contenuon. D Relative to the good cause fin &ng, when dealing with infurnunon supphed to de agency by a hccme appucant, de concept of factual concreteness requires an inquiry into de question of when the nuwing party had access to information sufficient to pernt it to frame an issue statenrnt with reasonable specaficity and basis. And for applicant +upphed infornanon, the concept of pucedural ripeness involves consideranon of wtether, within the context of the agency adnunistranve process that is the subject of an adju& cation (e g., hcense application renew process), the applicant infarrmoon to Wh the nuwing pany had access to frane the conter&on is ;emg put before de agency in a contest that is (a) reasonably hkely to have a naleral inpact on the adranistrauw process (e g., willinfluenu Staff considerahon of the pen &ng bcense apphcatum); and (b)is subject to consideration in the related adjuscatory proceedmg. E On the question of de procedural ripeness of a rule waiver request. by its nature, an exemption roquest is atypcal. The rules promulgaled by the Comnussion reflect a considered judgnrnt about the requirenrnts necessary to protect the pubhc heahh and safety and the environnent. In contrast to a hcense appbcanon that gercrally seeks to demonstrate the requester's comphance with agency requirenrnts, an emernption request attemps t,s show why those regulatory requuenrnts should not be apphed to the requester The laner thus is more problemauc in terms ofits hkely impact on the adnumstrauve process. Indeed, the unceruun nature of an esempoon request (i c., that the request may not be granted) coumels that considerauon of an exenption< elated contenuon should await Staff acuon on the exempnon. Accor&ngly, the unrbncas of a contenuon based on an applicant's exempoon request is rnnte properly judged from the une of Staff acuan on the exemption sader than wtro the exempion request is filed. F The natter of pacedural npeness of a rule waiver request is further influenced by the question of how that request is to be comidered in the adju&catory process. The Conmssion has nude it clear that, in the absence of a contrary Comrnission drecove, exempoon requests fallmg outside the ambit cf secuan 2.758 are not subject to challenge in an adjuscatory proceedtry See Unhed Slases Depurtnent cf Encity (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant), CLI-8135,14 NRC I100. I10M)4 & n.2 (1981). Consequently, to countenance an adjudicatory challenge to de PFS caempoon peuuon, a presiang officer would have to invoke tus or irr ceru6ed queshon or referred ruhng authonty under 10 C.F R. Gl2.718(i). 2,730(f) to deternune whether de Commission wants de pesubng officer to comider em consennon. Otmously, in invoking such authenty, the presiding officer should present de Comnussion with questions that are as concrete as possible. Any concerns about pesiding omcer consideranon of the nrnts of a rule waiver or exemphon wdl be rnosi determinant if. and wten, the Staff acts favorably on the request. l LBP-99 22 YANKEE ATOMIC ELICIRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station). Docket No. 50029 LAR (ASLBP No. 99 754-01 LA-R)(Uceme Termination Plan); LICENSE AMENDMENT; June 14,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Requesung Repbes to NECNP Re ponse to Temunanon Mahon) A in a proceedmg comidenng de adequacy of a Ucense Ternurauon Plan fLTP) for ate Yankee-Rowe reactor, where puttions of the prucce&ng are pen &ng before the Atonne Safety and ucensmg Board as well l as before the Conmssion (m its erwewing capacity), de Ucensing Board deternunes that it shouki addresa in de first instance the Ucensee's nugion (addressed to de Comnuuson, with copacs to the Ucensmg Board) to l withdraw its current LTP and ternunale the pruceeding The Licensing Board also pernuts parues to respond j to an Interwnor's mocon to con &uon ternunahon on the Ucenace's paynent to the Intervenor of certam costs (including attonry's fees) ad kdtillnent of certain tasks (such as respone to outstamiing discovery requests). j B When a proceeding is pendmg both before an Atorme Safety and Ucensing Board and tte Comnussion l (in its renewmg capacity), and wlere the Ucensmg Board has prenously issued a Nouce of Heanng juns&cuon t to consider a Ucensee's mouon to withdraw its appucanon ami ternunate the proceedmg hes in de first irutance with the Ucensing Board,10 Cf R 5 2.107 (Juris& coon to disnuss the pen &ng appeal hes with de Commission-) LBP-99 23 PRIVATE IUll STORAGE, LLC. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installauon) Dtxket No. 72-22-15f 51 (ASLBP No. 97-732412.IsrSI); INDLPENDENT SPENT FULL STORAGE INSTALLATK)N, 24 E

._ l l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATUMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS June 17,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Oranung Mouan for Sununary e, Olon Regarding Contenbun Utah C) i A la tfus procceeog concrening the appLcation of Private Fuel Storage, LLC. (PFS), under 10 C.FR. I Part 72 so construct and operaie an independent spent fuel storage installauon (ISFSI), acung pursuant to 10 ) C.ER. 6 2.749, the Ucensing Board grants summary disposition in favor of PFS in connec6cn with contention Utah C - Failure to Dernonstrate Comphance with the NRC Dose Urnits - en the ground the contendon has become rnoot in light of informahon subsequendy provided in a PFS bcense application anrndarnt. j j B Under 10 C.ER. Il 2.749(a), (d), summary &sposition may be entered with respect to any matter (or all of the natacts)in a proceeding if the snotion, skmg with any appropnare supporung nutenal, shows that there is "no genuine lasue as to any naterial fact and that the moving party is enutled to a decisiori as a naner of law." C ne movant bears the initial burden of naking the tequisite showing that there is no genuine issue as to any matenal fact through the use of a required statenrnt of masenal facts not at issue and any supputmg nuterials (inclu&ng affidavits, escovery responses, and docunents) that accompany its disposiuve rnouon. An opposing party namt counter each adequately supported nuienal fad with iu own statement of rnaienal facts in dispute and supparung matenals, or the movant's facts will be deened adnuurd. See Admaced Afedical Systems. Inc. (One Iadory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), CLI-93-22,38 NRC 98,1024)3 (1993). I D When summary disposanon is being snught based on a contendon's auxaness in hght of revised informanon subnutted by an appheant in response to NRC Staff requests for ad&tional information (RAI), a sumnary &sposiuon monon is not prenature because the informauon was not incorporated into a license apphcanon anrndment until after the esposidve madon was filed. Regdless of the situation pnar to the subnussion of the appbcation anendnrnt, given there is no malenal dispute that the application currently contains the RAI informanon, nothLg precludes the entry of summary disposidon. E When summary disposiuon is being sought based on a contention's nuiotness in hght of rt.ised infornanon subnnued by the apphcant, a challenge to the vah&ty of the revised information ers not support the nouon there is a controversy, factual or otherwise, regardmg the ensung contenuon so that summary dispossuon is inappropnate; instead, this is an argunrnt in favor of a new contenuon. LBP 99 24 INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (Receipt of Material from St. Louis, Mis-acuri), Ducket No. 448681-MLA-7 (ASLBP No. 99 76607-MIA); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT June 25,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissal of Kenneth Sleight) A A peuton for a heanng in a heense atnendnrnt case is disnused because Pennoner failed to particularize how he would be injured by the hcense amendnrnt rather than by Ucensee's continuing operations, wtuch have been already licensed. l I 25

_l I DIGFSili ISSUANCES OF DIRECIURS' DECISIONS DI)99-1 CONNFCTICLTT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (Haddam Neck Plan'), Docket No. 50-213, REQUEST FOR ACI1ON, January 12,1999; DIRECIDR'S DECISION UNDLR 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 A By a petWon dated Sepumber 11,1998, subnutted by Rosemary Bassilakis on behalf of the Citizens Awareness Network (Peutioners), Peutioners reqwsted that (1) the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conumssion (NRC) immediasely revoke or suspend the Connecucut Yankee Atomic Power Company's (CYAPCO's) operating license sor the Haddam Neck Plant (HNP), (2) an informat public hearing on de pection be held in the viciruly of the site, and (3) the NRC consider requinng CYAPCO to conduct deconumssioning activiues tmder 10 C.F.R. Part 72. Petitioners alleged that (1) CYAKO demonstrated incompetence in creaung and nuuntaming a safe work environnent and an effecuve, mell-trained staff (2) CYAPCO was not conducuog its decommissiotung activines in accordance with its post shutdown decomnussioning acuvines reptut (PSDAR) and, therefore, posed an undue nsk to puhhc heahh; (3) the problens encountered at the plant dunng the summcr of 1998 might not have occurred if the regiurenrnts under Part 72 had been apphed, and (4) de spent fuel stored on site in the spent fuel pool (SFP) was the pnmary nsk to puhhc health and safety. B The Director of de OfGee of Nuckar Reactor Regulauon issued a IArecur's Decision on January 12, 1999, concludmg that the peuuon contamed no informanon of which the NRC was not already aware and denying Peuuoners' requests for revocanon or suspension of the operaung licenw and an informal pubhc heanng. The Ucensee's actions have been docunrnted in NRC inspecuan reports and appropnaie enforcenrnt actions have been taken or are bemg evaluated. The Director granted Peduoners' request to consider applymg the requirenrnts of Part 72 to the Connecticut Yankee plant. The NRC's consi&rauon of the appE,inhty of Part 72 was presented in the Director's Decieron, which found that Part 72 dat not apply to the decomnussiomag acuvines under way at the plant. The requirenrnts of 10 C.FR. Part 50 apply to spent fuel storage and deconumssiomng at Connecucut Yankee and provide adequate prosecuon of pubbe health and safety. DIF99-2 ATLAS CORPORATION (370 Seventecnch Street, Suite 3050 Denver, CO R0202), Docket No. 443453 (License No. SUA-917); REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 20, 1999 DIRfff0R'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. 5 2.206 A On August 2.1988 Atlas Corporauon (Atlar) subnutted an appbcanon for a license anrndnent to revise its site reclamauon plan for uranium null tailings at its site near Moab, Utah On Apnl 4,1948, notice of Receipt of Appbcation and nouce of opportutury for heanng on the apphcanon were pubhshed in the Trdeml Regirtee 59 Fed Reg 16.665 (1944). On July 13, 1998,the State filed its peonou staung that if the penuon is found to be undncly that it be treated as a 10 C.F R. 2.206 peuuon in accordance with 10 CIR. 6 2.1205(f)(2). The peuuan was fled by Demse Chancelkr, Assistant Anorney General, on Schalf of the State. By Meuvrandum and Order dated August 13, 1998, the ASLB deternuned that the peuuan was meneusably late and would be treated as a penuon under secuan 2 206 in accordance wuh 10 C.FR. 21205(f)(2). On October 22,1998, pouce of receipt of the peuuan was pubbshed in the ledemi Regerier 63 Fed. Reg 56,667 (1998). B in its petiuon de Staie ancried that if Atlas were to proceed with its reclamapon plan an approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it would be in violabon of 10 C.F R Part 40, Appendia A. The pecuan was referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards. As provided by secuan 2.206 and dacussed in the Fedeml Register nonce, appropnate action was taken on this peuuon. The Staff reviewed the specifw asseruons nude by the State and concluded that the peunon should he derved. The basis for the StafPs conclusions are detaikd m tius Duector's Decision. DIF99 3 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY (Donaki C, Cook Nuclear Plant, Umts 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 54315,54316 (Ucense Nos. DPR-58, DPR 74), REQUEST FOR ACTION, February 11, 1999; DIRECTOR'S DIjCISION UNDER 10 C.F R. 4 2.206 27 l

r:; p s _L l i f i. I DIGES'IS ISSUANCES OF DIRECIURS' DECISION 8 A. On October 9,1997, de Union of Concerned Sciennets (UCS or IVotioner) subnuted a pention pursuant to 10 CFR. 52.206 requesting that the operaung license for Donald C Coot Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, he modined, revoked, or suspended unul there is reasonable assurance that plant syster's are in ] conformance with design-and licensing-basese-= The petiuon fmm UCS was subnutted becmue of 1 the inspecnon 6ndmgs from the AE tam inspecuan perfarned by the NRC in August-Sepeember 1997. I B in ad&non, the UCS reqwsted a pubhc hearing on this issue be held in the Washington D.C. area. C On January 12,1998, a meenns was held with de UCS and ackhnonalissues were raised by the UCS concermag the D.C Cook Nuclear Plant. The UCS summarized dwae in a January 12,1998 lener to the NRC Following is a summary of de concerns that were evaluated under the section 2.206 process and included in the Duector's Decision on the October 9,1997 UCS peudon: (1) a:e condemer issues; (2) 10 C.ER. I 50.59 process issues; (3) scope of de Ucensee's review of engmeenng calculations and the NRC azacssnent of that review; (4) missing or inaccurate net posiuve suction head calculations for safety-related pumps; and (5) accuracy of the Ucensee's February 6,1997 response to the NRC request fur ad&tionalinformanon pursuant l to 10 CER. 6 50,54(f). D The NRC granted the peuuon request concermng the informal public tranng. On August 19,1998, an informal public traring was held with the UCS and the Ucense' 'or the purpose of gathering information and to provide clanficarion of de issues raised in the peuuan. E The Drector of the Ofice of Nuclear Reactor Regulition has deternuned that the request to prevent operanon of the uruts at DC Cook until there is reasonable assurance that sigmfacant noncomphances have been idenu6ed and correcied so that systems are in conformance with their design-basis and bcensing-basis requuenents has been satisfied. The regulatory oversight accons being taken by the NRC will provide reasonable assurance that synaems at DC Cook will be in confurnance with their design bases and hcensing bases, thus nueting the request nude in de peuuon, and ehnunales the need to nuxhfy, suspend, or revoke the hcetues at D.C Cook. Di>99-4 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (Vernunit Yankee Nuckar Power Sta. tion), Ducke No. 50L271 (Ucense No. DPR-28); REQUEST FOR AC110N, February 10,1999; DIRECTOR'S DECISION LNDER 10 CER. 5 2.206 A Dy Director's Decision dawd Itbruary 10,1999, the Drector, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has acted on a peuuon fur action urskt 10 CER. 62.206 received from Michael L Daley on Apnl 9,1998, concerning the %nnont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS). B The pennon requested diat the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion (NRC) issue an order requiring that the Ucensee's administrative lirruts, which were in effect at de line and precluded VYNPS from operating with a torus water temperature abow 80*F or with a service water irgecuan terryerature greater than 50"F, shall tensun in force until certam condiuons me net. The con &uons bsted include a coenplete reconstitution of de licensing basis for the maninum torus water temperature, subminal to the NRC of a techrucal specsfications (TSs) amendnunt request estabhshing the correct maninum tonas water temperature, and compleuon of NRC's review of the anendment request 'C. As a basis for the request the Ittationer rained concerns about the Licensee being unable to demonstnite an abahty to either justify the operaconal hmits for the maximum torus water temperature or to maintain operations within exisung admimstrative hauts (turus water temperature is entical to the proper funcuorung of du containment). The Petiooner asserwd that since 1994, events have caused the Ucensee to quespon VYNPS's maumum torus water ternperature hauts fo a 1,nes, lea &ng to de self imposed adnumstrative hnuts previously noted. He Petitioner stated that de NRC must move from a " wait and ace" posture to acuve imervenoon, with immediale irnposinon of the order recommended by the Peutioner as a first step. D Or May 13,1998, the Director of de Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon concluded that issmng an immediam order irnposing the Licensee's administraove limits that were in effect at the time was unnecessary, This aspect of de peuuan was denied since the Ucensee trx4 appropnate actions to deternune de proper haut on torus water temperature, sought a TS arrrndment to impose the conect torus water temperature, and administranvely implernented de Enut while the NRC reviewed the analysis in support of dr TS anendnunt. The addinonal condisons associmed with the request have been completed inclu&ng casubbshing the correct licensing basis for the maninum torus. tempt.rature, suhnuttal of a TS anrndment request establishing the correct maximum torus waer tenperature knut, and completion of the NRC revtew of the amendnrnt request The NRC has concluded that the appropriate Smit for mammum larup temperature is 90"F, malung the hnuts ( 28 l l r

_l I a f DIGFSIS LSSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS requested in the peduon unnecessary. Accordmgly, the Staff has addressed the issues raised by du houoner j and has completed its actions telating to the peution. l DD-99 PAClllC OAS AND 11ECTk!C COMPANY (Dablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2k Docket Nos. 54275,50w323, REQUEST IOR ACTION, March 12,1999; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R (2.206 l A By a peution dated Novemixr 24, 1998, submined by David tochbaum (Peuuoner) on tchalf of the Union of Concerted Scientists, the htiuoner requested that (1) the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connussion (NRC) nuxhfy the operaung licenses for Dablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant to require the plant's owners to have an in& pendent contractor evaluate de facchty's safety culture,(2) the independent conuactor nunutcr tim safety culture unut the NRC concurs that a safety-conscious work envuontne t has been estabbstwd and maintained, and (3) an informal pubhc heanns on the pention be held in the viciety of the site. The Petrdoner alleged that Diablo Canyon's treament of a control room operator who has rained safety concerns may te an obstacle to de free and open capression of safety issues, thus creaung a "chilhng effect" at Diablo Canyon. B 1he Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued a Director's Decision on March 12, 1999, concluding that the Ucensee had already retamed Synergy Consulung Services (Synergy) to perform a conprehensive assessment of the Diablo Canyon safety cuhure, and dierefore the intent of the pestion had been net. Tir becusee conrni ed to perfarnung a followup survey to nrasure the conecuve action in 200l and that NRC resources will continue to be apphed as appropnate to address wcak environment concerns DDL994 TENNESSEE VAL 11Y AITTilORITY (Browns Ferry Nuclear ihat Utut 1), Dtniet No. 54259 (License No DPR-33), REQULST FOR ACTION; March 29,1999, DIRELTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR.12.206 A On Apnl 5,19;8, Mr. David A. Imchhaum subnutted a peution on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists pursuant to 10 C FR. I2.206. The pecuan requested the NRC to (1) revoke the operaung license for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Umt 1; (2) require de Tenneuce Valley Authonty (TVA) to suhrrut either i a decomnussiomng plan or a lay-up plan for Urut I; (3) conduct NRC inspections at Browns Ferry Umt i agamst the decomnussioning plan or the lay-up plan; aml(4) hold a heanng in the Washington, DC area. On May 7,1998, notice of recerpt of the peunon was pubhshed in the Federal Register (63 Fed. Reg. 25.2431 On September 28, 1998, nouce of an informal heanng to be held on October 26,1998,was pubbshed in the Federal Reganer (63 Esd. Reg. 51.626). B In tus pention. Mr. Lochbaum asserted that because Umt i has been on "admirustranvc hold" since June 1,1985, and has not operated since then, revoking the operaung license and requinns rehcensms if TVA later deci&s to testart Unit I is a better and safer process than is the cunent restart process of Inspecton Manual Chapter (IMC) 0350 Mr. Imchhaum further asserted that a deconmussiorung plan would provide assurance that the irradiated fuel is stored safely and that Units 2 and 3 are sumcsently indegendent of Unit i for safe operauon. A&huonal asseruons were introduced dunng the infornal public heanng. Tic Staff reviewed de assertions made by Mr. Imchbaum in the peuuan and during de tranng, and concluded that actions 1,2 and 3 requested in the peuuon should be denied The bases for the Staffs concluwons are detailed in this Drector's Decisiort DD-99-7 UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; REQUEST IOR ACTION. March 26,1999 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDLR 10 C F.R. I2.206 A The Natural Resources Defeme Council (NRDC) subnutted a petioon requestmg that the NRC assert authonty to ensure that de Umted States Army Corps of Engmeers' (the Corp or USACE) handhng of radmacuve natenals in connection with the Furnerly Uulized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) is eaceuted in accordance with a properly issued hcense and all other apphcahic requirements. B in sum, Congress has given NRC no clear direcun to overnec USACE's angtung effort under de Cornprehensive Environnental Response, Compensanon and Liabibty Act (CERCLA) to complete die PJSRAP cleanup project. Indeed Congress has provided NRC no loney and no personnel to undertake an oversight role In addioon, Congress has rnade it clear that the Corps is to undertake FUSRAP cleanup gursuant to CERCLA which waives pernut regturenents for onrite activines. In these circurmtances, the NRC is dminchned to read its statuairy authonty capansively, and to convrnt scarce NRC resources, to estabhsh and namtain a regulatory program in an area where, under congresuonal direction, a misier federal agency aheady is at work and has romnutted itself to followmg appropnate safety ami environnrntal standards. e C Accordingly, the prouan is denied insofar as it requests NRC to impose bcensing and other regulatcry requirenrnts on the Corps for that agency's handhng of radioactive natenal at IUSRAP sites Both de pernut 29 7 l

n.- 'n __l l DIGESP3. ISSUANCES OF DIRECIDIlls' DECISIONS ~ waiver provision of CERCIA and de ambiguity regarding DOE's role in du gxugram lead to the conclusion that NRC shouki not inpct itself into the IUSRAP progreen at dus nine. Abarnt specinc drection from - Conpeas to du conrary, NRC wiu continue to refrain from regulating de Corps in its cleanup activines at FUSRAP sies. " DD'99-8 . INTERGY OUlf STAITS, INC,. and FNfERGY OIERATIONS, ire (Raver Bend Station, Unit I), Ducket No. 50458 (Ucense No, NPF-47); FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Unit 1), Docist No. 50 440 (Uwnne No. NPF-58y, REQUEST ICR AC110N; Apnl 18, 1999; DIRECTOR'S DEiCISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 By letaers dated Sepember 25,1998, and Novernber 9,1998, David A. bchbaum, ar.6ng on behalf A 1 of the Uman of hwned Sciennats (UCS), suhnuned two pennons pwsuant to seccan 2.206 of Utle 10 of ' the Code of hdend Regulakms (10 C.F.R. t 2 206). .B. In the petition of Sepusher 25,1998. UCS requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatwy Commisste (NRC) order the Rner Bend Station (River Hend), operated by Entergy Operations, Inc. (the Ucensee), to be imnediately shut down and its operanng bcense suspended w nuxhned unal the facihty's design and Ecensing

bases were properly updaaed to pertet operanon with failed fuel assemblics or until all failed fuel assembhes were tenuwed from the reactur cae. In N Pection of November 9,1998, UCS filed a suutar request dust i

- the NRC order the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit I (Perry), operated by firstEnergy Nuclear Operanns . Conpany (the Pt:rry Ucensee), to also be imneasicly shut down for the sanz reasons stated fa River Bermi { )L Anached to the two peutions was a copy of a UCS report ennded, "Putential Nuclear Safety Hazard - Reactor ) Operanon with Failed Fuel Claakng," dated Apnl 2,1998. UCS also requesed a hearing in du Wastungton, DC, area to present r=w plant-specine infornstion regarthng the operation of River Bend and Perry, as well - as to &scuss the Apnl 1998 UCS report. C T!,e Directs of de Offs:e of Nuclear Reacts Regulanon issued a Duccts's Decision on April 18, 1999, denying the speafic actions tequested in the Septernher 25,1998, and November 9,1998 petitions. liie i Staff did not agree with the UCS's conenuon that preexisting fuel cladding defects and resultant fuel leakage necessarily violate a plant's licensing basis. The Directur's Decision cited a number of references where the plants' licensing basis coesia: red the effects of, or did not preclude, preexisnng fuel cladding failures. i i i i ) ]. l

1 l i ia ' ( J l I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX I CASES 1 Admnced Medical Systems, Inc. (One Factory Row, Geneva, Ohio 44041), CU-93 22, 38 NRC 98,1024)3 (1993) burden on opponent of sumnary disposition; U5P-99-23, 49 NRC 491 (1999) Alahann Ibwer Ca v NRC 692 F.2d,1362,1368 (lith Cir.1932) weight given to Joint Commtree Report on 1970 anendnrnis to Atomic Energy M; CU-99-19,49 NRC 458 n.!! (1999) American Nuclear Corp. (Revision of Orders to Modify Source Materials Licenses), CU-8623, 24 NRC 7(M. N 708-10 (1986) hogabihty of challenges to genene daisions mai in Commission rulemakmgs; CLI 946,49 NRC 217 y n.8 (1999) i American Public Ibwer Association v NRC 990 F.2d 1309,131112 (DC Cir 1993) O types of hcenses for which Commssion antioust review authonty is tnggered; CLI-9419, 49 NRC 458 / & n.12 (19W) f Americrui Pubhc /bwer Associativa y NRC GO F.2d 1309,131113 (DC. Cir.1993) / antitrust revew of hcense transfers, need for, CU-945, 49 NRC 200 (1999) O Amencan Telephone & Telegraph Ca v FCC 978 F2d 727,733 (D.C. Car,1992) 2 Conmssion authonty to perform sigruficant changes review of post operaung hcense transfers; CLI-9919, 49 NRC 460 (1999) .p-Arisma Public Servke Ca (Palo Verde Nuclear Generaung Stanon Umts 1, 2, and 3), ClJ-9112, 34 NRC I49, 155-56 (1991) disassal of contentions for fashire to comply with pleading requirerrrnts; CLI-9910, 49 NRC 325 (1999) Atchista Topeka & Sansa Fe Rantmey Ca v Wichita Boarti of Trade, el2 U.S. 800, 808 (1973) ~ agency MSonty to change its interpretauon of a statute; ClJ-99-17,49 NRC 4(o (1999) Atlas Corp (Moah, Cts Facihty), LBP 97-9, 45 NRC 414, 423, afd, CU-97-8, 46 NRC 21 (1997) pleadmg reqmrenents Lt.intervenuon petuons; LDP-99-12, 49 NRC 158 (1999) Atlas Corp. (Moab, Utah Facihty) LDP-97 9, 45 NRC 414, 426-77, afd, CLi-97-8, 46 NRC 21 (1997) concreteness required to desenbe an ongna physical presence as opposed to geographic proxinuty; LBP-99-3, 49 NRC 52 tt.7 (1999) Atlas Corp (Moab, Utah Facihty), LBP-97 9, 45 NRC 414, 427 c d afd, C1197 8,46 NRC 21 (1997) aflidavit support for intervennon peutons; CU-99-12,49 NRC 354 h4 (1999) Babcm A and Wilcos Co. (Pennsylvania Nuclear Servicer Operauons Parks Township, h ;nsylvania), LBP 94 4. 39 NRC 47,50 (1994) authoniauon by nanrd nrmber to represent orgamzatmn's mierests; LBP-W-8, 49 NRC 133 (1999) Baltimow Gar & Electric Ca (Calwrt Cbffs Nuclear Power Plant Umts 1 and 2), C1198-15,48 NRC 45, 53 (1998) Commision plenary supervisory autimty to interpret and custonne its process for individual cases, CU-9918, 49 NRC 412 (19W) Baltmmm Gas & Elecinc Ca (Calwrt Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2) CLI-98-19, 48 NRC 132, 134 (1998) Comnussion junwhuuan to revew interlocutory ordens denymg extensions of one; CLl-99-3,49 NRC 26 (1999) Comnussion sua spunte review authonty over schedubng orders; CU-9%1, 49 NRC 2 (1999) 31 l

{ l l l l IIGAL CITKrIONS INDEX CASES Baltimrnr Car & Electric Ca (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant Units I asyl 2), C1198-25,48 NRC 325, 336 al (1998) prosenption against ainadianeous appeals before the Conumanion and the court of appeals; CLI%4, 49 NRC 186 n.1 (1999) Baltimum Cas d Electric Ca (Calveit Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CU-98 25,48 NRC 325, 339-40 (1998), petioon for judicial review pen &ng archanisms for ensuring fair, tinrly, and efficient heanngs on license tenewnis; C11%II,49 NRC 331 n.1 (1999) Bahimurr Gas A Electric Ca (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CU-98-25,48 NRC 325, 348-49 (1998) showing of adnnssible contentions, aueria for; CU-994,49 NRC 215 (1999) Bakunuse Gar A Electric Ca (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Ibwer Plant, Units 1 and 2), CU-98-25,48 NRC 325, 348-50 (1998), acution for judicial review pending admissituhty of contentions in license renewal setting; CU 99 ll, 49 NRC 333 (1999) f Bafrimore Gas & Electric Ca (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), C1198 25, 48 NRC 325, 349 (1998), petioon for judicial review pending implication of Staff Request for Addisonal Infornmuon after docketmg of heense apphcanon; C1199 ll, 49 NRC 336 (1999) Baltimore Gas & Electric Ca (Calvert Chfts Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CU-98 25, 48 NRC 325, 350 (1998), pennon for judicial review pending liogabihty of NRC Staff review promss; CL1-99 il,49 NRC 338 (1999) relanz on Staff Request for Additional Infornmuon as support for conrention; C1199 il,49 NRC 341 (1999) responaituhty of Staff to resolve all safety quesuona tegardless of whether a heanng takes place; CLI-99-!!,49 NRC 339 (1999) Benacts a Spear 520 U.S.154,162,167 (1997) imponance of sedressabihty in establishing standmg to intervene; C119912,49 NRC 357 (1999) BFP u Resolutirm Trust Ca, $11 U.S. 531,537 (1994) construcuan of terms such that a particular term used in one seccon of a statute cannot be implied in anoder section; C159919,49 NRC 454 (1999) Business and Professional /\\rople fur the PuNic interest u AEC 502 F.2d 424,428 (DC. Cir.1974) plea &ng requirements for contentions, CU-9411,49 hRC 338 (1999) Com/ma Awcr & liglit Ca (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), CLI-86 24, 24 NRC 769,774 a.5 (1986) abernadve nerhods for seekmg waivers of or exenytions from Commission rules; LBP-99-21,49 NRC 436 (1999) Carolina Amer & Ugk Ca (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Uruts I and 2), l.BP-82-Il9A,16 NRC 2069, 2M3 (1982) htigabihty of challenges lo generic decisions made in Comnussion rulemakings; CU-99-6,49 NRC 217 n.8 (1999) Carolma Amer and Lgist Co (Shearon llarns Nuclear Power Plant), LBP-85-5, 21 NRC 410 (1985) rationale for toughrning of contenoon rule; CU-99-ll,49 NRC 334 (1999) Cassell u ICC 154 F3d 478 485 (DC. Cir.1998) escrenan of administranve agency to chooac between a41u& canon and rulemakmg to decide new gercral puhey issues; CLl-9419, 49 NRC 467 (1999) CA,wnm fMA., Inc. v Natural Resounes Deirnse Council Inc., 467 U S. 837, 842-43 (1984) agency options wtrn a statute is suscepuble to more than one pernussible interpretation, CU-99-19,49 NRC 460 (1999) Chevns USA,, Inc. v Naturul Resonnes Deferue Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 862 (l984) types nf hcenses for which Convinssion antitrust revrw authonty is tnggered; CLI-9419,49 NRC 458 (1999) Citlteru Amurness Netwod v Uoured Stases Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 59 F.3d 284, 287 (1st Cir. 1995) fro &ficanon of bcensee facibucs withous NRC supervision, circunstances appropnate for; LilP-9410, 49 NRC 148 (1999) 32 ~l l

I i l \\ l I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASFS Citizens for Safe Amr a NRC, 524 F.2d 1291,1294 & n.5 (DC. Cir.1975) licensing board jurisdiction to deternune that a supplemental environnrntal irnpact statenrnt is required; LDP-9914, 49 NRC 257 (1999) Clewland Electric flImminarmg Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umt I), CL193-21, 38 NRC 87,95 n.10 (1993) disnnssal of intervention peauoner for failure to show paniculanzed injury from beenne anrndnrnt; LDP-99 24,49 NRC 496 (1999) interest in an area as basis for individual standmg to intervene; CtJ-9410,49 NRC 324 (1999) stamhng requires nure than general intensts in the cultural, historical, and econenue resources of a geographic area; LBP 99 8,49 NRC 134 (1999) Clewland Electric llimninarmg Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 aml 2), LBP45-33,22 NRC 442, 445-46 (1985) i alternative nrthods for seeking waivers of or esenpuons from Conunission rules; i.BP-99 21,49 NRC 436 (1999) Cmccmed Citizens of hie Island u NRC, 430 F. Supp. 627,634 (D. R.I.1977) Staff authonty to issue Request for Additional Information after dockenng of hcense apphcauon; CLI-99 il,49 NRC 336 (1999) ) Cumiors of the University rf Masouri, C11951, el NRC 71,132 n 81 f1995) i burden of setting forth a clear and coherent argurrent for stanang and intervention; ClJ-99-4,49 NRC 194 (1999) 1 Cumrars of the Uniwesity of Missouri, CLI-95-l,41 NRC 71,170w11 (1995) \\ lingability of challenges to generic decisions made in Comnussion rulemakings; C1J B6,49 NRC 217 n.8 (1999) Dellums u NRC, 863 F.2d 968, 971 (DC Cir.1988) detail required in establishing a pentioner's interest and how it would by affected by a heensing accon; CLI-9412, 49 NRC 358 n.8 (1999) Dermit Edison Ca (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Umt 2), AIAB-707,16 NRC 1760,1767 IL6 (1982) i consideration of & gree to wtiich odwr nrans and other parties can prout late meervention petwioner's interests; 12P-99-3,49 NRC 48 (1999) Dermir Mison Ca (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Umt 21, LBP 78-13,7 NRC 583,587-88 (1978) purpose of antatrust review information required by secuon 50.80(b); CLI-99-19,49 NRC 462 n 15 (1999) Dermir Mison Ca (Enrico IVrmi Atonne Power Plant Uma 2),12P 78-37, 8 NRC 575,583 (1978) authanzaton by naned nrneer to represent organizanon's interests; LSP-99-8,49 NRC 133 (1999) Duke Ibwer Ca (Catawba Nuclear Station Units I and 2), ALAB-355,4 NRC 397,412 (1976) requirenent for intervenor to offer alternauves to proposed action to counter apphcant's alternauves; CLI-9410,49 NRC 326 (1999) Dule Amer Ca (Catawba Nuclear Station, Umts ) and 2), ALAB-813, 22 NRC 59, 86 (1985) hugabilary of issues that are or are about to becone tir subject of gerrne rulemaking; C1199-II, 49 NRC 345 (1999) Duke Amer Ca (Catawba Nuclear Stauon, Umts 1 and 2A CLI43-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983) premaiunry of mouon for sununary disposiuon; LBP 9423,49 NRC 491 (1999) Duke Awr Ca (Catawba Nuclear Stauon, Units I and 2A CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1048 (1983) responsibihues of pro se interwnors; CL199.ll,49 NRC 339 (1999) Duke Awr Ca (Perkins Nuclear Station, Umts I,2, and 3), ALAB-668.15 NRC 450 (1982) authorirv to rule on terms and conditions for terminauan of proceedmg; LBP-9%22,49 NRC 484 (1999) . Ecology Action y AEC, 492 F2d 998,10LXM12 (2d Cir.1974) licensing board jurisdiction to deternune that a supplenental environtrental inpact staienent is reqdred, LBP-99-14, 49 NRC 257 (1999) Emrru A & McDuniel (Denial of Apphcanon for Reactor Operator license), CL1-96-11,44 NRC 229, 230 (1996) demal of reactor operator candidaw's peution for review for failure to present substantial issues, CLI-99-14, 49 NRC 364 n.1 (1999) i 33 I. - l I

l . l 1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Energy Farls #mclear Inc., IEP-94-33, 40 NRC 151,153-54 (1994). dismissal of intervenuno petitioner for failure to show !=ai~t%_i injury from license amendnunt; - IEP-99 24, 49 NRC 496 (1999) failure of or5anization to show harm frorn bcense anendment that is &sdnct ami apart from that caused by iniual licensing and continued operauon of facihty; IEP-99-8, 49 NRC 133,134 (1999) . Envinraie af UaA Inc., LBP-92 8. 35 NRC 167,183 (1992) consideranon of discremonary stan&ng when there is no inwrvenor with stamhng as of right; LBP-99-12, 49 NRC 159 a.4 (1999) Farkkm Originators

• Guild af Amerka u FTC, 311 U.S. 457 (1941)

\\ scope of antitrust aushurity under Federal Trade Conunission Act; CU-9419,49 NRC 448 n.3 (1999) . first City Bank u Nackmal Cmlic Uniem Admin Bount, i11 F.3d 433,442 (6th Cir.1997) agency authonty to change hs inwrpretanon of a statute; CLt-9419,49 NRC 460 (1999) .Fkirida Amer A Ught Ca (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CU-8%21,30 NRC 325, 329-30 ' (1989) l nexus seguirement between assened injury in fact and challenged bcense anrndnrnt; CU-99-4,49 NRC i 188 (1999) Fkirida Amer A Ught Ca (Turkey Point Nuclear Generaung Pimit, Units 3 and 4), CU-9113,34 NRC 185,188 a l (1991). dismissal of proceedmgs treause of withdrawal of sole intervenor; CU 9916,49 NRC 371 (1999) ITC v Biram Shoe Ca, 384 U.S. 316, 322 (1966) scope of Federal Trade Conunismen anuoust enforcenent authonty; CU-99-19,49 NRC 448 n.3,465 ' n.22 (1999) -17C u Cement lastuuse, 333 U.S. 683, 6591 (1948) scope of antcust autho-ity under Federal Trade Commission Act; CU-9419, 49 NRC 448 n.3 (1999) 17C u wrion /$icture Adurrrising Service Ca, 344 U.S. 392, 394 (1953) scope of snutrust authority under Federal Trade Comminion Act; CU-9419,49 NRC 448 n.3 (1999) FIC u Sperry & Huschiton Ca, 405 U.S. 233, 239 (1972). j scope of annoust authority umler Federal Trade Crmunission Act; C11B19,49 NRC 448 n.3 (1999) l .' General American Transport Corp, a ICC, 883 F.2d 1029,1031 (DC, Cit 1989) escretion of adnunistranve agency to choose between adjudication and rulenvaking to decide new general policy issues; Cl199-19,49 NRC 467 (1999) I Grorgia Institure of Techardogy (&orgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia) CU-95-12,42 NRC 111. - 11$ (1995) importante of fedressaluhty in estabhshing stan&ng to intervene; CU-9912,49 NRC 357 (1999) . judicial concepts of stan&ng applied in NRC procee&ngs; CU-944, 49 NRC 188 (1999y, CU 9410, 49 NRC 323 (1999) j Georgia Insanae tf Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CU-95-12,42 NRC lit, 116 (1995) deference given to Board deternunations for or against stan&ng; CU-9910,49 NRC 324 (1999) ^ Georgia Instuuse af Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CU-95-12,42 NRC 111, 117-18 (1995) i plea &ng requuerrents for contenuens, CU-9910,49 NRC 325 (1999) i Georgia Amer Ca (%gtle Ucetric Generaung Plant. Uruts I and 2), CU 9316, 3F NRC 25, 32 (1993) J injury in fact and zone of interests tesis for standmg to intervene; LBP-%8,49 NRC 132 (1999) standard for huganon of management character m license amerxinrni procee&ngs; C11944,49 NRC 189 (1999) Georgia Amer Ca (%gtle Elecuw Generanng Plant. Unns 1 and 2), CU-94-15,40 NRC 319 (1994) standard for grant of interlocutory seview; CW.%7,49 NRC 231 (1999L C11948, 49 NRC 312 (1999); CU-99-18, 49 NRC 413 (1999) Georgia Arwer Ca (%gtle Electnc Genetating Plant, Uruts I and 2), LDP-429, 32 NRC 89,92 (1990) authorizaton by naned mernhet to represent orgamzation's interests; IEP-99-8,49 NRC 133 (1999) Greaser Bostra Televiska Corp. u FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 852 (DC. Cir.1971) I . agency authonty to change its interpretation of a statute; CU-99-19, 49 NRC 460 (1999) l I f-

_l i 1.EGAL CITATIONS INDFJC CASFJ Cuy $sures Utsluies Ca (River Bend Station, Unit !), CU-94-10,40 NRC 43,4748 (1994) deference given to Board deternanadons for or agasnst standang; CLI-99-10, 49 NRC 324 (1999) Guy States [hiluies Ca (Riwr Bend Station Umt ik C1194-10,40 NRC 43,48 (1994) property interesta as coowners' tunis for standmg to Amervene; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 216 (1999) Guy States Utilines Ca (River Bend Station, Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760, 768-69 (1977) participation of interessed governnental entny on areas of concern that are adsmued as contentions; LBP-9414,49 NRC 258 (1999) / tan-4 m FERC, 654 E2d 825, 834 (DC. Cir.1981) agency authunty to change its interpretanne of a statute; CUW19,49 NRC 460 (1999) liccUcr u Cmqpbril 461 U.S. 458, 467 (1983) resoluuan of issues genencally through rulemaking; CU-9411,49 NRC 343 (1999) lloussra Ughting and Awr Ca (Allens Creek Nuclear Cencraung Station, Umt I). ALAB 535, 9 NRC 377, 389-400 (1979) sesponsibility of peutiomng orgamunon to disekne nans and add:ess of at least one number with standmg to intervene so as to afford the oiler heigants the nrans to venfy that standing exists; CL19412,49 NRC 357 n.7 (1999) II<mram Ughtmg and Ibwer Ca (Allena Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Umt 1), ALAB-535,9 NRC 377, 393-94, 3 % (1979) authanaton l'y naned nemhe-to represent orgamntion's interesu: LBP 99-8, 49 NRC 133 (1999) /fousum Ugkmg and /bwer Ca (Allens Cseek Nuclear Genersung Sianon Umt I), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542, 546 (1980) standards of practice for counsel venus pro se inlervenors in NRC proceedmgs, C119412,49 NRC 354 (1999) /knuum Ughting and /bwer Ca (South Tcans Project, Umts I and 2), ALAB 549, 9 NRC 644, 646-47, af's, LBP,79,10, 9 NRC 439, 447 48 (1979) orgamational standmg to anterene sequires showmg of injury to organintumal interests and idenunca-tson of nrmher who will suffer injury; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 132-33,135 (1999) //auska Ughtmg and /bwer Ca (South Texas Project, Umts I and 2), ALAB-799, 21 NRC 360, 382-83 (1985) wed to address late-Abng craccia to adopt withdrawing amervenor's contenuons; LBP-99-6,49 NRC 118 (1999) //ousran Ughtmg and /bwer Ca (South 7enas Pmject. Units i and 2), CU 7713. 5 NRC 1303,1312 (1977) scope of Comnuuion anotrust authorny; CUWl9. 49 NRC 448 (1999) flousnm Ughnns and /bwer Ca (South Texas Project Umts I and 2) LBP 79-10,9 NRC 439,4W'1 (1979) ongoing physical presence in an arca as basis for mdividual stamhng to intervene; CLIW10. 49 NRC 324 n 3 (1999) flunt v %hington Stase Apple Advertismg Cennmusuns, 432 U.S 333, 343 (1971) showing requixd to demonstrate orgamnuonal standmg to intervene; CUW10. 49 NRC 323 (1999) //Wm Resourres, Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Sune 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 261, 272 (1998) requirenrnts of Nauve Anuncans to establish standmg to intervene; LBP-948, 49 NRC 134 (l999) Idaho Coeurrvation league v Mumpm, 956 F2d 1508,1514 (9th Cir.1992) de6 muon of injury when Congress is the source of tle purportedly violated legal obligation, IEP 943, 49 NRC 51 (1999) laternatumal Urunlum (USA) Corp. (Receipt of Additional Malenal from Tonawanda, New York), LDP-99-8, 49 NRC 131,133-34 (19W) dismissal of intervenuon pecuaner fut failure to show particulansed injury from heense ameminent. . LBPW24,49 NRC 49h (1999) internarumal Unmium (USA) Corp. (Receipt of Matenal from Tonawanda, New York), CLI-98 23,48 NRC 259 (1998) associanon of econonuc comgrutor injury wuh environnental harm necessary far grant of standmg to intervene; IEP 94ti, 49 NRC 153-54 (1999t, LBPW20, 49 NRC 430 (1999) 35

_l l LEGAL CITATIONS LNDEX CASES Internarmnal Urunium (UM) Corp. (Receipt of Mataial frorn Toniawanda, New York), CU98-23, 48 NRC 259, 264-65 (1998) economic interests unrelated to radiological harm as basis for staneng to intervene; LDP 99-12,49 NRC 159 (1999) International Uranuun (USA) Corp. (White Mesa Uranium Mill), CLI-98 6,47 NRC 116,117 (1998) particularuanon of injury Imm proposed anendnunt requurd to demonstrate standmg to intervene; LDP-946, 49 NRC 133,134 (1999); LBP-99 24, 49 NRC 4% (1999) Internarismal Umnium (UM) Corp. (White Mesa Uranium Mill), CU-98 6, 47 NRC 116,118 (1998) deference given to Board deternunations for or against stan&ng; CLI-99-10,49 NRC 324 (1999) International Umnium (USA) Corp. (Whiie Mesa Uranium Mul), LBP-7hl4, 46 NRC 55, 56 (1997), af'd CU-98-6, 47 NRC 116,117 (1998) failure of organizaten so show harm from license anendnunt that is asunct and apart imm diat caused by inibal bcensing and conunued operadon of facihty; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 135 (1999), LDP 99-24, 49 NRC 496 (1999) International Uranium (USA) Corp (White Mess Uramum Mill), LBP 9714, 46 NRC 55, 57 n.3 (1997), afd CU-984, 47 NRC 116 (1998) fear for safety of people represented by organization as jusuficauon for omission of those nanes frorn a pecuan opposmg a licensmg action; CU-9412, 49 NRC 357 n.7 (1999) Kansur Gas and Electric Ca (Wolf Creek Generaung Stanon, Unit 1), ALAB-279,1 NRC 559, 576 (1975) burden of setung furth a clear and coherent argunent for staneng and interwntion CLI-99-4,49 NRC 194 (1999) Kelley u Selm, 42 E3d 1501,15tl (6th Cir), cert denied SIS U S. 1159 (1995) resolution of issues genenca!!y through rulemakmg; C1199-il,49 NRC 343 (1999) Killey x Selin, 42 F.3d 1501,1512-14,1519-20 (6th Cir), cert derued, 515 U.S.1859 (1995) htigabihry of waste storage issues in heense rerawal proceedmgs; CL1-99 il,49 NRC 343 (1999) Kerr-AACes Chemical Corp. (West Cliicago Rare Earths Facihry), LBP-89-16, 29 NRC 508, 514 (1989) prernaturity of contenoons based on draft envimnnrntal impact statenent; LBP-99 23,49 NRC 493 n4 (1999) long !slawl Ughtmg Ca (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stauon, Unit 1), CU-84-8,19 NRC !!54 (1984) Commission sanction of heenamg board considerabon of eaernpuon requests, LBP-99-21,49 NRC 438 n 6 (1999) long Island Ughtmg Ca (Sixireham Nuclear Power Stauon, Umt 11. CU924 35 NRC 69,77 (1992) construction of applicauon to transfer license as apphcation foi operaung bcense; C1199-19, 49 NRC 455 (1999) Loumana Awcr and Ught Ca (Waterford Steam Ocetnc Stanon, Umt 3), ALAB-812, 22 NRC 5,17 n.8 (1985) use of protec6ve orders and expurgated copies of affidavits to prutect afliants' anonyrruty, CU.99-12, 49 NRC 358 n 7 (1999) hijan v. Ik/caders of iMidl4/e, 504 U S. 555, 560 itI, 561-62 (1992) showing necessary to estabhsh non<cononuc injury in fact, CU-99-12, 49 NRC 356 (1999) Lujan v Defenders of %\\ldisfe, 504 U.S 555, 563 64 (1992) intenuon to visit an area soneday as basis for standing to intervene; CU-9910, 49 NRC 325 (1999) Afagdy Elanur, MD. (Newark, New Jersey) LBP-98-25, 48 NRC 226 (1998) 4 heensee agreenent to rehnquish byproduct matenals beense; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 63 n 3,102 (1999) Massachusertr u NRC, 924 E2d 311, 330 (DC. Cir 1991), cert. denied 502 U.S. 899 (1991) I bogabihty of challenges to generic decisions male in Comrmasion rulemukings; CG99-6,49 NRC 217 n.8 (1999) Afernestuan Msem Ca (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon, Una 1), ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193,1218 (1984), rev d in pair on ruher gnwnds, CU 85-2, 21 NRC 282 (1985) deference given to judgment of tnal board where creebibly of evidence turns on wuness denranar; 1 C1199-14, 49 NRC 364 p.2 (1999) Afesr<pinan Ms<= Ca (11vec Mile Island Nuclear Stanon Umt 1), CU 8416,11 NRC 674 (1980) request that apphcant be reqtured to frane esempoon appbcation as rule waiver peution. LBP 99-21, 49 NRC 434 (1999) i i i I 36 l ~l l l i

i i l _J l i LEGAL CITNDONS INDEX CASES Mermpulitan Elison Ca (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon, Unit I), CU-83-25,18 NRC 327, 332 (1983) injury in fact and zone of inscrests tuts for standing to intervene; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 132 (1999) Mermpolitan Edison Ca (Tluce Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I), CU-83-25,18 NRC 327,333 (1983) particularizauon of injury from proposed anendnrnt required to derminstrate standing to intervene; LBP 9A8,49 NRC 133 (1999) Motor %hkle Manufacturers Associanon of thiited States, Inc. m State Farm Mutual Autunubile insumnce Ca, 463 US. 29,42 (1983) agency tantude to adapt its rules and puhcies to the denunds of changing circunntances; CLI-99-19,49 NRC 460 (1999) Narumt Resourcs Defense Council e NRC, 647 F.2d 1345,1364 (D.C Cr.1981) NRC rehance on Esecutive Branch judgnents regarding comrnon defeme and secunty rnaners relat:d to exports of higivenriched uranium; CU-99-20,49 NRC 477 (1999) New England Couluion u NRC, 582 F.2d 87,93-94 (1st Cir.1978) hcensing board jurisdienon to determine that a supplenental environnental impact starnent is required, ) LBP 9114, 49 NRC 257 (1999) Niagem Mohawk Amer Corp. (Nine Mile Point !Laclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264, 8 NRC 347,372 (1975) nced for recirculanon of supplenrat to final environnental irnpact statenrnt wiien presidinr officer rnodi5cs informanon; CU-9918, 49 NRC di4 (1999) Nurrh Attantic Energy Servkes Corp. (Scabrook Station, Unit 1), CU-99-6,49 NRC 20l 217 n.8 (lW9) titigability of genenc NRC requirenents or regulanons; CU-99-il,49 NRC 334 (1999) Worth Atlantic Energy Servke Corp. (Seahrook Station, Urut I), CLI-99-6,49 NRC 201, 219 (1999) pleading ietairenrnts for intervention peutions, CU-9912,49 NRC 354 (1999) North Atlanac Energy Servkrs Corp. (Seabmok Stauon, Unit 1), CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201, 219-21 (1999) standard for adtmasion of contenuons; CU 9911, 49 NRC 335, 338 (1999) North Atlann~c Energy Servka Corp. (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CU-99-16,49 NRC 370 (1999) dianussal of proceedings Ircause of withdrawal of sole inservenor; CU-9917,49 Ntr 373 (1999) j Ohia Edison Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Umt 1), CU-92-ll,36 NRC 47,54-59 (1992) i Comnussion authoney to nuxhfy or revoke its own vahdly imposed comhuons; CU 99-19,49 NRC 466 ) n 23 (1999) Micl/ic Gas and Electrk Ca (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-775,19 NRC 1361,1367 n 18 (1984), afd sub nium Drukmejian u NRC, 751 E2d 1287 (DC. Cic 1984), erh's gmated and mis wxated,160 F.2d 1320 (DC Cir.1985), Commission decision reard on urk's sub nmm San Lair Obupo Mothers Jur Mce u NRC,189 F.2d 26 (DC. Chr) (en banc), cert. denied 479 US 923 (1986) availabihty of in canera Shngs and protective orders to protect legitinar interests of a piirty or other person; CLI-99-12, 49 NRC 358 n 7 (1999) fWrmian Rasin Area Rate Caser, 390 US 747,784 (1968) agency lautude to adapt its rules and policies to Ur demands of changing circunstances. CLI-99-19, 49 NRC 460 (1999) Philadelphia Electrk Ca (Unwrick Genermung Station. Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-262,1 NRC 163,19497 (1975) need for recirculation of supplernent to Enal envinmnrntal inipact statenrnt when presiding of5cer modi 6es informauon, CL1-9418, 49 NRC 413 (1999) Philadelphia Electric Ca (Peach Bottom Atorrac Power S: anon, Umis 2 and 3), ALAB-216,8 AIC 13, 20 21 (1974) litigabihty of genenc NRC requuenrres or tegulauons. CLI-99-il,49 NRC 334. 335 (1999) j Philadelphia Electric Ca (Peach Bottom Atanse Power Stanon, Umts 2 and 3), MAB-216,8 AFC 13,21 n.33 (1974) bagability of challenges to generic decisions nude in Comnussion rulenskings; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 217 n.8 (1999) i f 37 t 1 1

_.m _i l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Airrlural Genemt Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLi-7d 27,4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976) judicial concepts of standing apphed in NRC proceedings; CU-99-4,49 NRC 188 (1999); CLI-99-10, 49 NRC 323 (1999) Artised Crneml Electric Ca (Pcbble Springs Nuclear Power Plant, Unirs I and 2), CU-76 27,4 NHC 610, l 614-17 (1976) ' consideration of discrenonary standmg wien these is no intervenor with stanang as of right; LBP-99-12, 49 NRC !$9 n 4 (1999) Nemauc Electric Amr Ca (Douglas Point Nuclear Cenerating Station, Unita 1 and 2), ALAB-218,8 AEC 79, 83 (1974) litigabibty of issues that are or are about to becone tir subier.t of generic rulensking; CU-99-il,49 j NRC 345 (1999) her Reuctor Develqmwns Cs u internastonal U*ilon, 367 U.S 3%, 409 (l%1) weight given to Joint Conuruttee Report on 1970 amendirenta to Ainnue Energy Act; CU 9919,49 j NRC 458 n.it (1999) Firmte fuel Ssomge, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CU-9813, 48 NRC 26, 30w31 liif98) shewing that nrnhers would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right as demonstradon of organizanonal standing, CLI-9410,49 NRC 323 (1999) Primte fuel Sunr ge, LLC lindependent Sperit Fuel Simage Instalianon), CU-9813, 48 NRC 26, 3132 (1998) sworn affidavits sixming regular and frequent visits to a hone near a facihty are sufficient to estabbsh standmg; CU-9912,49 NRC 336 (1999) Primse fuel Stomge, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CU-9813, 48 NRC 26, 32 (1998) weight gian to bcensing board standmg detenanations; CUW4,49 NRC 189 (1999) Pikur fuel Ssomge LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Instalianon), CU-99-10,49 NRC 318 (1999) htigabihty of issues raised by Staff Request for Addiuonal infornation; CUWil,49 NRC 338 (1999) Primse fuel Stomge, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Instalianon), LBP-98 7, 47 NRC 142, gfd, CLI-98-13, 48 NRC 26 (1998) standard for adnussion of contentions; CUWit,49 NRC 335 (1999) Primte Earl Storage, LLC (Independer4 Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142,172-75 (1998) adrinssibihty of late-filed pennons absent good cause for laic fihng; CU-99-6,49 NRC 223 (1999) Pnste fuel Stomge, LLr (Independent Spent Fuel Surage Installation), LBP 98-7,47 NRC 142,179 (1998) htigabihty of issues that are or are shout to became tir subject of genenc rulemaking' CUWil,49 I NRC 345 (1999) Prfwre Fort Siamge LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142,181 (1998) I rehance on Staff Request for Addauonal Infornrauon as suppat for contention CUWit,49 NRC 342 (1999) . Publir hmds Council u Babbit, L54 F.3d 1860,1175 (10th Cir.1998) agency authonty to change its interptetauon of a statute; CUW19, 49 NRC 4rj0 (1999) Public Serme Ca of ColomJu (Fort St Vrain independent Spent Fuel Storage Installauon), anached to Florula Ibwcr and ught Ca (Tunicy Point Nuclear Crnrraung Plant Units 3 and 4L CU-91-13, 34 NRC 185 (1991), at 190 (1990) disnussal of proce: dangs becaue of withdrawal of sole intetvenar; CUW16, 49 NRC 371 (1999) Public Servkr Ca of New HampsAurr (Seabrook Sianon, Uruts I and 2). CU-78-1,7 NRC 1, 26-27 (1978) in NLPA analysis, rehugaban of issues delegated to the Environmental Protecuan Agency; LBPW3, 49 NRC 49 (1999) Public Service Ca of New Hampaire (Scabronk Stanon, Units I and 2), CLI-89 3, 29 NRC 234,241 (1989) specifiesty requued when ciong Staff Request for Addauonal Infornanon in support of contention adnussion, CUWil,49 NRC 337 (1999) l I 38 f l i l.L

l I LEGAL CITATIONS INDFJ CASES Fahtic Service Co. of New Hamps%e (Seabrook Station, Unit I), CLI-9114, 34 NRC 261,266 (1991) injury in fact and zone of interests tests for standing to intervene; LDP-99-8,49 NRC 132 (1999) Quivim Mming Crt (Ambrosia Lake Facility, Grants, New Mesico), CU-98-il, 48 NRC l (1998) association of economic-compentor injury with environmental harm necessary for grant of stanang to inicrvene; LbP-99-20, 49 NRC 430 (1999) standing to intervene on basis of economic competitor injunes not associated with environmenial harm from proposed licensing action; LBP-99.ll,49 NRC 153-54 (1999) Gulvira Maing Co. (Ambrosia take Facihty, Grants, New Meaico), CU-98-il, 48 NRC 1, 54 (1998) judicial concepts of stan&ng appled in NRC pr==%gs; CU-96-4, 49 NRC 188 (1999) standard for determirung whether in&vidual numbers of an organizauan have stamhng; CLt-99-10,49 NRC 323 (1999) R. Mayer of Atlanta. /nc. v. Oty of Atlaner,158 E3d 538,545 (lIch Cir.1998) construction of terms such that a particular term used in one seccan of a statute cannut be imphed in another section; CU-9919,49 NRC 454 (1999) Railway labor Executives

• Arsociarirm u Nathmal Medmrion Baarnt 29 F.3d 655, 671 (DC, Ck 1994) (en bam-)

scope of Commission anutrust review authonty; CUM 19, 49 NRC 454 (1999) Rust u Saltima, 500 U.S.173,186-87 (1991) agency authonty to change its meerpretation of a statute; CUWl9, 49 NRC 460 (1999) Sacrumenta Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Station), CU-93-3, 37 NRC 135,143 tLl7 (1993) responsibihty for plea &ng defects in anended pention; CU-99-4,49 NRC 194 (1999) Sacramento Mumcipal Utdity Distnct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stanon), CU-93 3,37 NRC 135,147 (1993) implication of Staff Request for Adduonal Information after dockrung of license apphcation; CL]-99-il, 49 NRC 336 (1999) Sacrumento Municipal Un' lay District (Rancho S.;co Nuclear Generating Station), CU-94-2. 39 NRC 91, 93 (1994) standard for grant of interlocutory review; CUM 7,49 NRC 231 (1999); CLIM8,49 NRC 312 (1999); CLIM18,49 NkC 413 (1999) San Luis Obsspo Mothers for hace u NRC, 781 F2d 1287,1312 (DC Cir.1984) expansion of term of low-power operaung beense as an aneminent; LBP-99-10,49 NRC 148 n.5 (1999) SEC v. CArnery Corp., 332 U.S.194. 203 (1947) discretion of adnunntrauve agency to choose between adjuecation and rulemaking to & side new gercral puhey issues; CUM 19,49 NRC 467 (1999) SegwonA fuele Corp., CU 95 2, di NRC 179.190 (1995) precedential effect of licensing board decisions beyond inordiste procec&ng in which they were issued, CUWl4,49 NRC 364 (1999) Segwnah furls Corp (Gure Oklahoma Site), CUM 12,40 NRC 64,72 (1994) dismissal of intervenuon pentioner for failure to show panicularized injury from heense enrndnent; LBPW24,49 NRC 4% (1999) parucularizauon of mjury from proposed anrndment required to denumstrate stradmg to intervene; LBPMS, 49 NRC 133,134 (1999) Segwrych furls Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CU-97-13, 46 NRC 195, 221 (1997) hogabihty of attack on Comnussion's waste confidence deternunation; CUMil,49 NRC 344 (1999) revival of case on appeal on basis of new argurrents that licensmg board had no fair oppunurury to consider; CUM 4, 49 NRC 194 (1999) Sirrru Club u Morton, 405 U.S 727,734-35 (1972) &smissal of intervernian pentaoner for failure to show parucularized injury from beeme amendnrnt; LBPM24, 49 NRC 496-97 (1999) suuwhng sequires inure than general interests in the cultural, hastancal, and ecornmuc resources of a s geographic area; LBP-99-8. 49 NRC 134 (1999) i 39 l

__l l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASFS Sierm Club x Roberrma, 28 E3d 753,759-60 (8th Or 1994) w,-nk,mu,, of injury when proposed actmn is a resource tranagenent plan as opposed to a site-s(ccific action; LBP-943,49 NRC 51 n.5 (1999) Sierm Club u Sim& ins Industries. Inc., 847 E2d 1109,1112 n.3 (4ch Cir.1988), cerr. denied 491 U.S. 904 (1989) organizational standing to intervene on basis of affidavit staung that number regularly luked in area; CU-99-10,49 NRC 325 n.4 (l999) Statement of Nity em Cemduct tf Adjudicatewy Pnreedmgs, CU-98-12,48 NRC 18 (1998) bcensmg board authonty to set schedules for trarings; 12P 99-14,49 NRC 259 (1999) nrchanisms for ensunng fair, tinely. and efficient hearings on heense reaewals; CL1-9411,49 NRC 331 n.1 (1999) Statement af Mu:y on Camduct of Adjudin atewy Pnreedings, CU-9812. 48 NRC 18, 20 (1998) Commisamn sua sponte review authority over scheduhng orders; "LI-99-1, 49 NRC 2 (1999) Steel Co. m Citizens for a Becer Envsmnment _ U.S. _, i18 S. Lt.1003,1016 (1998) particulanzation of injury from pmposed anrndnrot n: quired a de nonstrate standmg to intervene; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 133,134 (1999) Steel Co. y Cul: ens for a Bester Embament, _ U.S. _,118 S CL 1003,101617 (1998) judicial concepta of standing apphed in NRC proceedmgs; CU-99-4,49 NRC 188 (1999) standard for deterrrumng whether indmdual nemhfri of an organizauon have standing; CU 9410, 49 NRC 323 (1999) nmes-Pucuyune Publisiung Co. u United Ssares, 345 U.S. 594. 609 (1953) scope of anotrust authonty uruler Federal Trade Comnnssion Act, CU-9919, 49 NRC 448 n.3 (1999) Transnucleac Inc. (Expott of 93.15% Enncied Uranium), CU 941, 39 NRC 1, 4-6 (1994) institutenal interest in providmg informauon and generanzed interest of numbership in nunimizmg danger from prohferanon insufficient to confer stand ag; CU-99-15,49 NRC 367 (1999) Tmnsnuclear lac- (Export of 93 3% Ennched Uranium), CU-98-10, 47 NRC 333, 336 (1998) insututional interest in providing information and generalized interest of numbership in rrurumizing danger from prohfesation insufficient to confer standmg: CLI 99 l5. 49 NRC 367 (1999) Tranrnuclear Inc. (Ten Applicauons for low-Enriched Uranium Exports to EURATOM Member Nations), CL1-77 24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977) particularization of injtery from proposed anendnrnt required to demonstrate standmg to intervene; LBP-99-8, 49 NRC 133 (1999) Umcaco Afmemlr Corp., LBP-94-18. 39 NRC 369 (IW4) sequirenents of Nauve Anrncans to estabbsh standmg to intervene; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 134 (1999) Union <f Concerned Sciennsis s NRC, 920 E2d 50, 5653 (D C. Cir.1990) use of NRC Staff studies as a precorretamt study tool; CU-99.It,49 NRC 338 (1999) Unirm of Carmemed Scients.rs, a NRC. 920 E2d 50, 53 (DC. Cir.1990) liugabihty of generahzed suspicions'. CU-99 II,49 NRC 338 (1999) United Ssares Drpurrmens ## Energy (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant), CU-81-35,14 NRC 1100,1103-04 & L2 (1981) htigabihty of challenges to exempoon requests falling outside the anMt of section 2.758; LBP-99-21,49 NRC 438 (1999) United Stases u AVX Corp., %2 E2d 108,118 (1st Cir.1992) showing necessary to estabbsh non-economic injury in fact; CU 9912,49 NRC 356 (1999) University of the Districs <$ Co!umbia Faculty Assexiariem v DCTRhfAA,163 E3d 616,621 (DC. Cir.1998) scope of Comnussion anutrust review authurny; CU-9919,49 NRC 454 (1999) Erth a Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 508. 509 (1975) paruculanzauon of injury from proposed amendnent required to dernnnstrate standing to intervene; LBP-948. 49 NRC 133,134 (1999); LBP-99-24, 49 NRC 4% (1999) Estungton Pubhc Amer Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1), LBP-83 59,18 NRC 667,669 (1983) affidavit support for inervention peutions; CU-9912, 49 NRC 354 n 4 (1999) Yankee Akmuc Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauonk CU-96-7, 43 NRC 235, 248 (1996) deference given to Board deternanauons for or against standmg; CU 99 !O 49 NRC 324 (1999) 40 t Y l l

l i I l - __ l l l l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX - CASES Yan&re Ahmk Electric Ca (Yankee Nuckar Power Station), CU-96-7,43 NRC 235,248 n.7 (1996) pleading requirerness for comendons; CU-99-6,49 NRC 219 (1999) rationale fur kmghrung of consention rule; CU-99-il,19 NRC 334 (1999) Yankee Aamic Elearic Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Stationk CU-%7,43 NRC 235,24849 (1996) i plea &ng requisernents for comennons; CU-99-10,49 NRC 325 (1999) J Yankee Aemic Electrk Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CU-96-7,43 NRC 235,269 (1996) { need for recirculation of supplenent to final emironmental inyect statenrnt when presiang omcer tequests adnoonal information; CU-9918,49 NRC 414 (1999) Yankee Armk Electrk Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CU-96-9,44 NRC 112,113 (1996) denial of inservenors' pedtion for review for failure to present substantial issues; CU-9914,49 NRC , 364 n.1 (1999) Yankee Ahmk Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CU 98-21, 48 NRC 185,194-% (1998) showing necessary to establish staneng vi _NRC proceedmgs; CU-99 6,49 NRC 215 (1999) Yankee Aamuc Elecinc Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CU-98-21,48 NRC 185,195 (1998) criteria for estabbshing standing to imervene; CU-9912,49 NRC 353 (1999) judicial concepts of stanang applied in NRC proceedings; CU-994,49 NRC 188 (1999); CU-9910 j ' 49 NRC 323 (1999) 1 Yankee Aamic Elecinc Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CU-98-21,48 NRC 185,204-05,211-13 (1998) hugabety of waste storage issues in license renewal proceedings; CU 9911,49 NRC 343 (1999) i i i l i I di ]-

_l I l 1 l LEGAL CirATIONS INDEX i REGULATIONS i 10 C.F.R. 2,101(cXI) purpose of anotrust infornation for operaung hcense appbcations; CU-9419,49 NRC 462-63 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 2.102(a) Staff authority to issue Request for Ad&tional Infornmuon after dockenng of hcense apphcation; ) CU-Bil,49 NRC 336 (1999) 10 C.FA 2.107 authority to rule on ternu and constions for ternunatim of procee&ng; LBP-99-22,49 NRC 483,484 (19M) withdrawal of heense temunacon plan and sernunauon of proceeding LBP-99-22,49 NRC 483 (19W) 10 C.F.R. 2.202(c)(2)(i) ruling uphol&ng inanediate effecuveness of enforcenrnt order; LBP 99-4. 49 NRC 59 (1999) 10 C F.R. 2.203 vehicle for closing a prucce&ng when confstnutory order has txxn entered before order estabbstung heanng date; LBP-99-2, 49 NRC 39 (1999) 10 C.FR. 2.206 confonnance of systens with desigrebasis a:xt hcensing-basis requunnrnts a&xti,,. of; DD99 3, 49 NRC 162 78 (1999) decornnussioning plan or lay-up plan for unit on adnunist'atiw hold, request that bcensee be required to subnut; DR99-6,49 NRC 285-98 (1999) forurn for htigating concenu alxxst deliberste violanons of segulations; CL1-99-4,49 NRC 190,196 (1999) ograconal Smits on torus water lenverature, request for rnaintenance of; Df>99 4. 49 NRC 18483 (1999) safety culture at Diablo Canyon, request for independent contractor to evaluate; DD-99-5, H NRC 280 83 (1999) safety harards of reactor operanon with failed fuel cladding; DR948,49 NRC 382 409 (1999) trearnrnt of late-filed intervention peunon as request for action on uraruum min talangs site reclamation plan; DR942, 49 NRC 14-22 (1999) work environment and staff competence to perform decomnasuotung acuvroes; DD 99-1, 49 NRC 6 (19W) 10 C.FR. 2.70H(d) opuuns for service of filings, CU %6. 49 NRC 228 n.15 (1999) 10 C.FR 2713(b) intervenuon on behalf of unnamed chents; LBP B12, 49 NRC 160 n 5 (1999) nonce-of-appearance requirenrnts for beense transfer proceedings; CU-99-6,49 NRC 225 (1999) 10 C.FR. 2.714 adnunion of new contention clialienging new done analysis, cnteria for; LBP 9423, 49 NRC 493 (19W) pleaang requirenrnts for comennons, CU-99-6. 49 NRC 219 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a) affidavit support for intervenuon pecuons; CU-%l2,49 NRC 354 n.4 (19991 deadbne for fibng new or anended contenuon in order to nret late filing standeds of, LBP 99-21, 49 NRC 437 (19W) 10 C ER. 2.714(al(l) balancing of late tihng cnteria supports grant of interwnuon pennon, CLI-99-10, 49 NRC 320, 321 (19Wr, LBP 99-3, 49 NRC 44, 45, 49. 54 (19N) hogabihty of issues raised by Staff Request for Adduonal Informatinn; CL199 il, 49 NRC 338 (1999 43

g I'd [ c Q lJ l l I i-LEGAL CITATIONS LNDEX mECULATIONS ~ need fa proposed anendnunt of contenuons to address Dve lam fihng factors; LBP 99-7,49 NRC 127, 128. 129 (1999) need to address law-filing enwria to adopt ' withdrawing inwrvenor's contennons; IEP-994,49 NRC 117,- 118, 123 (1999) standards gomning law-filed inwrvennon peouons; LBP-99-3,49 NRC 46 (1999) 910 CIR. 2.714(a)(2) ~ interest requirenant for intervendon in license reurwal procee&ng; CU-%II,49 NRC 333 n.2 (1999)

peruculanty required of inervenson petidons; CU-99-4, 49 NRC 188 (1999) j

, pestioners in Subpart O proceeangs required to set forth their posinons with pardcularity; CU-9912,49 ,. NRC 354 (1999).. " plea &ng requuenents for contendons; CU-99-10, 49 NRC 325 (1999)

1. pleading requirerrents far inervennon peutions; CU-9410,49 NRC 322 (1999) 1

-10 CfR. 2.714(b) - adunasibibty of contendon challenging nonarbitrary reclassificadon of area froin a#ected to nocaffected; LBP-99-14, 49 NRC.251 (1999) ' contenuon requuenwnt for inservendon; CU-99.!!,49 NRC 333 (1999) j pleading requirenants for conendons CLI-99-ll. 49 NRC 332 (1999) j scope of bdgable issues in license ternunason plan proceceng; LBP-nl4,49 NRC 241 (1999) i supporting docunents for contentions; CU-99-II,49 NRC 333 (1999) j - 10 CIR. 2.714(bX2Xiii) challenge to adequacy of ALARA analysis in hcense ternunation plan; ISP-99-14, 49 NRC 255 (1999) hdgatshty of issues raised by Staff Request for Addanonal Informanon; CU-%II,49 NRC 338 (1999) matenahty of lasues franed by contenuon; CU-99 il,49 NRC 333 (1999) prematunty of conentions based on draft erwironnental impact statement; LBP-9423, 49 NRC 493 n4 (1999) - rejection of contention fur faikse to demonstrate that a genuine 6spute exists; LBP 99-14, 49 NRC 255-56 (1999) spectfu:iry required when citing Staff Request for A&bsonal informabon in supprut of contention admission; CU-99 il,49 NRC 33637 (1999) 10 CER. 2.714(d) scope of h6 sable issues in heense terminanno plan proccedng; LBP 99-14. 49 NRC 241 (1999) 10 CER. 2.714a appeal as of right of denial of stan4ng; CU-994,49 NRC 186 (1999) appeal of inerwnnon ruling; CU-99 il, 49 NRC 331 (1999) appeals of ruhngs on contennons; 12P-99-14,49 NRC 260 (1999) teard highhghnng of questions that say be presented to the Comnussson for review; LBP %14, 49 NRC 253 (1999), contention requirement for intervenbon; CU-99-10,49 NRC 320 (1999) - deadline for apgeal of intervention ruhng; LSP-99 3,49 NRC 54 (lW9) 10 CER. 2.715(a) bcensing board authonty to hear oral hnnied appearanas from numbers of the pubhc; LBP-99-14,49 NRC 240 n.1 (1999)'- 10 CER. 2.715(c) participation of interesed governnental enuty on areas of concern that are adnuned as consnuons; LBP-99'14,49 NRC 258 (1999) ' participation of regional council of governnents as interesed governmental enury; LBP-99-17,49 NRC 376 ) (1999); LBP-99-22,49 NRC 482 (1999) j parucipanon of regional planning board an interested governnental enoty; LBP.99-14,49 NRC 239,258 L (1999). 4 19 CIR. 2.718 _ ' bcensing board authonty to set schedules for heanngs; LBP 9914. 49 NRC 259 (1999) 11Q CIR. 2.718(i) board use of certification authonty to deternune whrrher to consider exempdon request; LBP 99 21, 49 NRC 438 (1999) ' l i 44 l 1 ~l l ) 4 I a

__l l LEGAL CITATIONS INDFX REGULATIONS 10 CIR. 2.721 construction of heensee's reference to preskhng officer as refernns to Ik.ensmg board, IEP 99-22,49 NRC 483 (1999) 10 C FR. 2.722(a)(1) licensing board authunty to appoint special adnitustrative judge to assist

• developing an adetpate heanng record, LEP 99 4, 49 NRC 59 (IPM) 10 CIR. 2.730(c) parues invited to comnrnt on terms and constions for ternananon of proceeding; 1 EPM 22,49 NRC 484 (1999) 10 Cf R.1730(f) board use of referred ruling authonty to determine whether to consider exengion request; LEPM21,49 NRC 438 (1999) 10 CIR. 2.749 standard far grant of summary disposioon; LEP-%23,49 NRC 487 (1999) 10 C FR. 2.749(s) matters appropriaie fur sununary disposiuon; LBPM23,49 NRC 491 (1999) 10 Cf R. 2.749(d) showing necessary for grant of summary disposition mouon, IEPM23,49 NRC 491 (19W) 10 CJR. 2.758 Comnussion puhey on seulenrnt of disputed issues, LEPM14, 49 NRC 259 (19N) hogabihty of challenges to regulatory standards; LEP-99-14,49 NRC 246 (19W) showing necessary for waiver of rules, CLIMil 49 NRC 344 (IW9) 10 CJR.1758(b) request that apphcant be nxpired to franz esenpuan appheauon as rule waiver peutson; LBP 99-21, 49 NRC 434,435-36,439 (lW9) 10 Cf R.1758(d) cerblicauon of rule waiver peutions to the Conunission LBP 99-21,49 NRC 435 (1999) 10 CFR. 2.760 finahty of initial deosion; LDP-99-4, 49 NRC 105 (19W) 10 C FR. 2.760(c)(1) tmard responsituhty to consider enure secord and not just the content of various parues' propmed findings; 1EPW4. 49 NRC 60 (1999) 10 CER. 2.763 appeals of partial imtial decisions; IEPMI,49 NRC 37 (1999); IEP45,49 NRC 113 (1999),

LBPM9, 49 NRC 144 (1999); LEP-9910,49 NRC 152 (19W); LBP-9913,49 NRC 237 (1999) 10 CfR. 2.7ti6 appeals of parual inical &cisions; LEPM1,49 NRC 37 (l9N), LBPNV, 49 NRC 144 (1999); LBPMIO,49 NRC 152 (19W); LEP-9913,49 NRC 237 (1999) Conunission review of imtial decisions; LEP 99-4, 49 NRC 105 (19W) procedures for review of imual decision, LDP45. 49 NRC 113 (1999) 10 C FR. 2.71WbX2) content of peutions for review; LBP-99-4,49 NRC 105 (19W) page hnuts on peutmns for review, CLIMIB,49 NRC 412 (lW9) 10 C FR. 2.786tbX4) Comnsasma sua sprmic review of imual decision; LEPM4,49 NRC 105 (19W) grant of peuuon for review of presiding officer's decision to uphold beense anendnrnt; CLIM13,49 . NRC 359 (19N) showing necessary to obtain Comnsssion review; ClJW14. 49 NRC 163-64 (19W) 10 C F R.1786(b)(4Xiii), (iv), and (v) allegauons of error in teard conclusion about suspension penod, CljW14, 49 NRC 364 (19W) 10 C FR 2.786(c) disposioon of peuuons seeking 6screnonary Comnussion revrw that are not acied upon widiin 30 days, CLl-99-4, 49 NRC 186 n 1 (1999) 45 i 1

3 L, ) .. _. F i i LEGAL CITATIONS LNDEX i asc01ATIONS ~10 CIR. 2.786(g)(1) and (2), standwd for grant of innerlocutory teview; CLI-99-7,49 NRC 231 (1999), CU-99-18. 49 NRC 413 (1999) 10 CIR. 2.1107 < hearing rights on spent fuel pool expansion; Cll-99 il,49 NRC 344 a.4 (1999) 10 CIA 2.1201(a) 1 lassrpretation of anendment such that licensee nuy make low-risk changes in rnode of operation without advance approval; LBPW10,49 NRC 147 (1999) - 10 CfA 2.1205 hearing rights on performanz-based licensing; UlP-9910,49 NRC N7 (1999) . interpretanon of amendnunt such that hcensee nmy make km-risk changes in mode of operacon wnhout advance approval; LBP410,49 NRC 147 (1999). .10 CER. 2.1205(e) pleading requirenrots for intervendon pennons; CUW12,49 NRC 354 (199n) - 10 CIR. 2.1205(c)(l), (2) detail required in establishing a petinoner's interest and how it wouk! be affected by a licensing action, CUW12,49 NRC 358 n.8 (1999) j 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(h) i scope of litigable issues relating to rnsterials license anendnent; LBP-99-12,49 NRC 159 n.3 (1999) 10 CIA 2.135(IX2) j treatnent of late-filed intervention pention as request for action under section 2.206; ID99149 NRC 14 . (1999) 10 CIA 2.1205(m) Staff issuance of materials hcense anendment despite pendency of heanng request on amendnrnt; LBPM12,49 NRC 158 a.1 (1999) 10 CIR. 2,1205(o) appeal of denial of hearing requests; LBP 99-12, 49 NRC 160 (1999) j appeal of denial of intervention request; CLI-9912, 49 NRC 351 (lW9y, LBP-99-8. 49 NRC 135 (1999) j 10 CIA 2.1211(b) - admission of goveranental enuties; LBP-99 8, 49 NRC 135 (1999) . governmental panicipmus in Subpart L promedings required to state their areas of concern with reasonable specificity; CLIW12,49 NRC 354 (1999) 10 CJR. 2.1213 i Staff participa6on as party to materials hcense anendnunt proceeding; LBP-99-12,49 NRC 157 (1999) 10 CTA 2.1231(d) discovery rights in informal proceedings; CLl412,49 NRC 357 (1999) 10 CIA 2.1233 Joint presentation of intervenors' contentions. LBPM13. 49 NRC 234 (l999) .. request for relief on source natenal hcense anendnunt; LBPMS, 49 NRC 108 (1999) technical and financial qualifications for leach mining and milhng; LBPMIS. 49 NRC 416 (1999) 10 CIA 2.1233(a) authonty of presiang ofncer to question parties; CLl#8,49 NRC 313 (1999)-- 10 CJR. 2.1239(a). litigabibry of challenges to vahery of regulanons; LBP-9913,49 NRC 236 (1999) weight given to guidance docununts in heensing proceedings; LBP 99-1,49 NRC 34 (1999) 10 CIA 2.1253 appeals of initial decisions; LBP-99-16, 49 NRC 278 (1999) i appeals of partal irunal decisions; LBPMI, 49 NRC 37 (1999y, LBPW9, 49 NRC 144 (1999X LBPM;J,49 NRC 152 (1999); LBP413,49 NRC 237 (1999) grant of pention for seview of presiding officer's decision to uphold hcense anendnrnt; CLIWl3,49 NRC 359 (1999) partial decisions as nuans to accommodate efficient appellate review; CLIM1,49 NRC 3 (1999) . reviewatuhty of initial decision; LBP45,49 NRC !!3 (1999) e O l 1

_I I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATM)NS 10 CIR. Part 2, Subpart M construchon of apphcation to transfer hcense as applicauon for operaung license; CLIW19. 49 NRC 455 (1999) rejection of intervenuon pention ftr failure to sausfy reqmrenents of; CUW2,49 NRC 24 (1999) 10 CIR. 2.13rio er seg antitrust challenges to hcense transfers; CLIW5,49 NRC 199 (1999) hearing requests on hcense transfer appbcations; CUW6, 49 NRC 210 (1999) oppositun to hoense transfer on anutrust grounds; CUWl9, 49 NRC 443 (19M) 10 CfR 2.1306 admissibihty of uperaung expenses issue in hcense transfer proceeding; QJ-99-6,49 NRC 219 (1999) htigatubty of challenges to adequacy of heensee's cost and revenue estirnaics; CUW6,49 NRC 221 (1999) pleading requirenrnts far contentions; CU-994 49 NRC 219 (1999 10 C.FR. 2.1306(b)(2Xiv) prepaynent as.neans for cauty that does not quahfy an electric uuhry to sausfy NRC nuancial assurance and Gnancial quahncanons reqturenents; ClJW6,49 NRC 218 (19W) 10 C FR. 2.13(U(b) rephes to answers opposag intervenuon sequest; ClJW2. 49 NRC 24 p I (1999) 10 CIR. 2.1308 adnussibihty of opersung expenses issue in bcense transfer pruccedmg; CLI-994 49 NRC 219 (1999) showing of adminible contentions, cntena for; CUW6, 49 NRC 215 (IW9) 10 CF.R. 2.1306(b) good cause requirenent for late-Eled peution for intervennon in heense transfer prturedmg; CU 99 6, 49 NRC 222 (1999) 10 CfR. 2 008(dK2) deadhne for 6hng namon for Iraring consisung of wntien comnrnts, CLI 946,49 NRC 225 n.lt (19W) 10 CfR. 2.1309 tine huuta on oral argunent and rebuttal, CLI-99-6,49 NRC 226 (1999) 10 CfR. 21309(a)(4) deadline for 6hng iruual wnnen statenents of position and wntien durct tesunwny; CUW6, 49 NRC 225 n 12 (1999) deadhne for fihng quesuons direcied to wrinen rebuttal testinony; CLl 994 49 NRC 226 a 14 (1999) deadhne fut fang responses to duect tehunmny, rebuttal testinnmy, and quesuons drected to wntten durct tesuneny; CLI-994 49 NRC 225 n13 (1999) 10 CIR. 2.1310(a) tine knuts on oral arrernt and rebuttal, CLIW6,49 NRC 226 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 2.010(c) deadhne fur fihng iniual wntten statenrnts of pimuun and wnnen duees tesunmny; CUW6, 49 NRC 225 a 12 (1999) deadime for fihng questions direcied to wnnen rebuttal temunumy; CUW6, 49 NRC 226 n 14 (19W) deadbne (cr fihng responses to duect tesoneny, rebuttal tesunumy, and quesuuns directed to wntten direct teaunumy; CUW6, 49 NRC 225 n 13 (1999) opuons for rervice of 6bngs; CLIW6. 49 NRC 228 (19W) 10 CIR. 21314(a) deadline for fihng iniual wntien statenrnts of posman and wnuen duect tesunumy; CUW6,49 NRC 225 n 12 (IW9) deadbne for 6hng nucon for heanng consinung of wnnen conunents; CLIW6. 49 NRC 225 n 11 (19W) deadhne for fihng respomes to duect tenunwny rebuttal teaunumy, and questions directed to wnnen direct lesunur'y; CLIW6, 49 NRC 225 n 13 (1999) 10 Cf R. 21314(b) deadhne for fihng quesuons duccted to wnuen rebuttal testirnuny; CU 096,49 NRC 226 n 14 (i999) 10 C F R. 2.1316(bMe) Staff authonry to offer sponsonng witnesses (tw Safety Lvaluauon Repon. aldumgh at is nnt a party; CLIW6, 49 NRC 228 (1999) 6 47 7 I it..

_J l LEGAL CITATIONS LNDEX REGULATIONS .0 CIR. 2.1320(ax9) dispossuon of n:dundant, duplicauve, unreliable, or inelevant pleadngs; CLI-996,49 NRC 224 (1999) 10 CER,2.1321(a) &adhue for fihng imtial wnnen statenrots of posinon and wnsten direct tesunamy; CLI-99 6,49 NRC 225 n.12 (IW9) 10 CJR. 2.1321(b) deadhne fur Bling queacons duccted to wnnen rebuttal testmumy; CLJ-99-6, 49 NRC 226 n 14 (1999) deadline fur Bling responses to direct teaumony, rebuttal testinmny, and quescons directed to wntten direct ersunumy; CtJ-99-6, 49 NRC 225 a 13 (1999) to -Cf.R. 2.1322(4)(1) deadhne for 61ing inkial wrinen statenrnts of posinon and wnnen duect tesumony; CLI 996,49 NRC 225 a.12 (1999) 10 CIR. 21322t'aX2)-(3) devlhne for 6hng responses to erect teshneny, rehuual tesunmny, and quesuuns erected to wnuen direct testinony; CLt-%6, 49 NRC 225 n 13 (1999) 10 CfR 2.13224a)(4) deadhne far Ehng quesuons directed to wnnen rebunal testmmmy; Cl199 6,49 NRC 226 n 14 (1999) 10 CfR. 2.1322(b) une hnuts on oral argununt aral rebuttal, CLJ-99-6,49 NRC 226 (1999) 10 CfIL 2.l322(c) &adhne for filing wnuen conclueng statenrnts of posinon; C1199-6, 49 NRC 226 (19W) deadhne hr wnuen post-heanng statenrnts of pimition; C1199-6,49 NRC 223 (1999) 10 CfR. 2.1329 showing necessary for waiwr of rules or regulanons, CLI-99 6,49 NRC 217 n B (1999) 10 CTR. Part 20 consideration of eminung radon levels generatei Imm previous urannun nuning in evaluaung comphance with mquirenrnts of; LBP.9915, 49 NRC 263 (1999) eactusion of Ames from rackm 222 and radiun>226 in evaluating comphance of leach nuning and milhng operations with; LBP-9919, 49 NI C 422, 423 (1999) fraction of due imm leaking fuel in puhhc dose limits; 1099-8, 49 NRC 396, 399, 407 (1999) 10 CfR. 20.100l(b) protectmn of public from all smutes of rasation except inckground, inclusng unhcensed sources; LBP 9915, 49 NRC 262 (1999t, LBP 99-19, 49 NRC 422 (1999) 10 CfR. 20.1003 apphcabihry of ALARA requirenrnt to total effectiw dose equivaknt rekase values for hise decomnussnm-ing managenent plan; LBP-99-17,49 NRC 3711 n.8 (1999) dc6mtum of "cntacal group"; LDP-Wl4, 49 NRC 246 (1999) de6niuon of 'hackground radiation"; LDP-MIS, 49 NRO 265 (1999); LSP-9919, 49 NRC 425, 427 (1999) defmiuon of " source natenal" and " byproduct matenaP' LDP-%19,49 NRC 425 ne (190) 10 C.f:R. 201101 rasation pmtection program resencuons on offsite releases; CtJ-99-4. 49 NRC 195 (1999) 10 CIR 20.ll01(a) scope of hccrser resgxmsibility for rasauon pmtecuon program, CLI 994. 49 NRC 195 (1999) 10 CER 201301 dc6nition of background radiauon based on staienent of considerauons; LBP-9919,49 NRC 427 (1999) doses included m total effecove dose equivalent for teach nurung operations; LBP-9919,49 NRC 426 (1999) eactusmn of background rasation imm total effecow done equivalent calculauons; LDP-99-15,49 NRC 265, 267 (1999) reliauon protecuan pmgram testncuons on offsate releases, CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 195 (1999) 10 CfR. 201301(aK1) dose bnuts for individaal nemhers of tir puhhc fmm leach nunmg operauona, ISP 9419, 49 NRC 425, 427 (1909) da ~l I

i l b i ) _l l l l i i I.EGAL CITATIONS INDEX ) REGUI.ATIONS 10 CIR. 201302 doses included in the total effccuve dose egiuvalent for leach nuning operanons, IEP-9919,49 NRC 426 { (1999) mandatory surveys of both unreatncied and controlled areas to denumstrate conphance wnh raaauon knuts; CtJ-99-4,49 NRC 195 (1999) sources of rmhation ireluded in total effecove &me equivalent; ISP 99-15, 49 NRC 265 (1999) 10 CfR. 20.l302(b) standard of comphance with annual &me knuts, licensee choice between paragraphs (1) and (2); LBP-99-15, 49 NRC 268 (1999) 10 C.ER. 20.1302(bX1) interpretation as kxal effecove dose equivalent to the inevidual hkely to receive tir luglest done from hansed operation; LBP-B15, 49 NRC 263 (1999); IEP-9919,49 NRC 423 (1999) l 10 C f R 20.1302(bX2Xi) j utihzation of worst-case scenano to calculaie hmit that as tuned on average annual esposures, ISP-9419, I 49 NRC 426 (1999) 10 Cf.R. Part 20, Subpart E purpose of hcense ternunauon plan tu ensure that facahty and sue are suitable for tricaw in accordam.c with critena for decomnussiurung' LEP 9914, 49 NRC 250 (1999) ) 10 CLR 20.1401(b) 4 sites exempted from current regulatory standards; ISP.M14,49 NRC 247 n 5 (1999) f 10 CIR. 20.1401(bX2) apphcabihty of total effecove &ne equwalent release values to site decomnussiorung unnagenent plan, ISP.9917,49 NRC 377 (1999) i 10 CTR. 20.l40ltbX3) sites exempted from currrnt regulakwy standards; LEP 99-14,49 NRC 247 n.5 (1999) to C EP. 20.1402 applicabihty of ALARA requuenent to total effecove &me equ valent release values for site decommissiun-ing managenent plan; ISP-9917, 49 NRC 378, 379 (1999) apphcatuhty of total effective &me equivalent release values to heense ternunation plan; LEP-9417,49 NRC 377 (1999) challenge to adequacy of ALARA analysis in heense terminsuon plan; LEP 99-14,49 NRC 254 (19W) challenges to site release entenon, liugaluhty of; LSP-9914,49 NRC 245, 247 (1999) ) situ release enteria that requae that total effective (kese equivalent to average nender of cnucal populauon i fnnn residual contanunauon te less than 15 neemfyr; ISP-9414, 49 NRC 246 (1999) ) 10 CIR. 201501 nundatory surveys of both unrestncted and controlled areas to demonstrate compliance wah ra& anon ) knuts. C11994,49 NRC 195 (1999) nunutorms of persomel to ensure comphance wuh estabinhed occupauonal donc Imuis; CLI-99-4,49 NRC 195 (1999) 1 10 C.ER. 201502 nunutcrmg of persomri to ensure conyhance with estabhshed occupauunal done hmns, Ct199-4. 49 NRC 195 (1999) 10 CIR. 201601,201602 controlled access to high-radiauon areas, Ct1994, 49 NRC 195 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 202001, er srg wasie disposal requirenents in radunon pnwecuen pmgram, Ct199-4, 49 NRC 195 (1999) 10 CIR. 20.2002 apphcatahry to in sua leach muung; LEP-991,49 NRC 35 (19W) 10 CI R. 20.2102 records of occupannnat doses and radation survey remhs reqmred fur rasation protecuan pmgram; CLi-994, 49 NRC 195 (1999) 10 CIR. 20.2103 records of occupanovul dones and ra&ation survey resuhs reginnd for r.&ation prosecuan program. ) C11994. 49 NRC 195 (1999). l l 49 l 1 l

l _e l 1 l LEGAL CITATIONS INDFJ REGULATIONS 10 Cf R. Part 20, Artenda B, Table 2 utilization of worst-case scenano to calculate hmit that is based on average annual exposures; LDP-99-19, 49 NRC 426 (1999) 10 C.ER. Part 28 reporting of defects with failed Gilet welds at ice basket holddown Imr; DD-%3,49 NRC 171 (1999) 10 CfR. Part 30 financial assurance fur deconmussioning, final rule changes on; fDE6. 49 NRC 293 n.19 (1999) 10 CIR. 30.10 careless disregard disungushed from deliberale misconduct; LBP 99 4, 49 NRC 77 (1999) contractor perfurrrance of Authoriad User's funcuans as violanon consetuung deliberate msconduct; LBP 99-4, 49 NRC 65, 83, 85-86, 95% 104 (1999) contractor perfarnance of Radauon Safety Officer's fimctions as violauon consutuung debberate nus. conduct; LBP 99 4, 49 NRC 65, 68, 76, 77, 83, 97-98, IN (1999) penalty for debberate nasconduct, CLI 9914,49 NRC 363 (1999) 10 CER. 3010laXI), (cyl), (c)(2) deliberate nasconduct by a bcensee conuactor; LBP-99 4,49 NRC 61,76 (19W) 1 10 CER. 30.81 I alternauve nettuxis for neckmg waivers of or exempuuns hum Conurussion rules; LBP 99-21,49 NRC 416 j (1999) 1 10 Cf R. 35.2 de6nition of "Authoriad User"; LBP-99-4,49 NRC 84 (1999) dc6ruuan of " diagnostic chnical procedures nunual"; LBP 99 4. 49 NRC 84 (1999) definition of " prescribed dosage" of ra&opharmaceuucal. LBP.n4, 49 NRC 61, 83, % (1999) 10 CIR. 35 ll(a) 3 circurnstances under which an individual is prohibited from performng acovines supervised by an i Authartzed User; LDP-%4,49 NRC 85 (1999) 10 CER. 35 ll(s) and (b) dehberate nusconduct by contractor in actions that cause hcensee to fail to haw Auduinted User's dunes performed by a quahfied in&vidual, LBP-99 4,49 NRC 83 (1999) licensmg requirenrnts for nescal une of licensed naterial, LBP-99-4,49 NRC 61,104 (19M) 10 CIR. 35 ll(b) scope of actnitics to be performed by an individual supervised by an Authorind Uuer; LilP.h4,49 NRC 85 (1999) 10 CIR. 3513 heense anrndnrnt required for change in Radauon Safety Officer; LBP-994,49 NRC 61,76, IN (19W) 10 CIR. 3513(c) hcense anendnuni required for change in Rasauon Safety Otricer; LBP-%4. 49 NRC 77 (1999) 10 CER. 3121 dehberate nuswnduct by contractor in accons that cause hcensee to fail to have Radiauan Safety Oflimr's duties perfarned by a quahfied m&vidual; LBP-994, 49 NRC 80, 82, 83 (1999) hcensee responsibibry to appoint a Raaauon Safety Ofracer, LBP 994,49 NRC 61,76,77,104 (1999) 10 CIR. 35.21(a) delegauon of teslxmsitnhties by Radiation Safety Officer; LDP-994,49 NRC 77 (lW9) 10 C f.R. 35.21(b) duties of a Radianon Safety Officer, LBP-99-4,49 NRC 77 (1999) 10 CIR. 35.25 supervision requuenents for nrdical une of hcensed material; LBP-994. 49 NRC 61 (1999) supervisory responsibahties of Authonad User; LilP 994,49 NRC 85 (1999) 10 C FR. 35.25(ax2) responsibihty of hcensee toward itubviduals supervised by Autixmad User; LDP-99-4. 49 NRC ILS (1999) 10 C FR. 35.53(a) reewdkeeping requirements on nuasurenent of dosages of ra&onuchdes pnur to nedical use; LBP 9W4. 49 NRC 83 (1999) 50

L j {' i j i l l 4 i l LEGAL CITATIONS INDFJ REGULATIONS i 10 CER. 35 5)(c) i recordkeeping requirenrnts on nrasurenrnt of dosages of raeonuchden trior to nrdical use; ISP-99-4,49 NRC 63, 86 (1999) 10 CER. 35.53(c)(3) i delibente nusconduct by contractor in actions that cause hwiu to fail to have Authorued User's duuce s performed by a quah6ed individual; LEP-99-4,49 NRC 83 (1999) recordkeeping requitenents on nrasurenrra of dosages of radianuchdes pnar to nudical use; LEP-W4,49 NRC 61, 83, 95-96,104 (1999) 10 CIR 35900 quah6 cations of Radiation Safety OHicer; ISP-99-4,49 NRC 68 (1999) 10 CER. 35.910, 35.920, 35.930, 35.940, 35.950, 35.960 ceru6 canon of Authorized User; 1EP-99-4, 49 NRC 610999) l 10 C.IR. Part 40 ] source murenal hcense anendnent to a&l offsite slag / soil to caisting slag lule; CLI-%l2, 49 NRC 351 (1999) 10 CIIL 40.4 de6:ution of background radiation; LBP-9915,49 NRC 265 (1999) definiuon of byproduct material relauve to in situ leach numng; LBP 991,49 NRC 33 (1999) dc6 nit on of bypnxtuct wastes produced by sa situ leach urumum rmning as byproduct nmienal. LEP-9913,49 NRC (1999) 10 CIR. 40.14 ahernative nethods for seeking waivers of or caenspuans from Comnusson rulea; LBP-W21,49 NRC 436 (1999) 10 CJR. 40.31(h) applicabihty to sites furnerly associated with injection nurung; LEP-WI,49 NRC 30, 32 33 (1999) 10 CIR, 40.32 applicabihty to injecuan nuning license apphcants; LBP 941,49 NRC 33 (1999) financial quah6 canons for leach rmmng and nulbng Ecense; LBP-99-18,49 NRC 418 (1999) standard fur approval of a specific heense; LBP-99-10,49 NRC 151 (19W) 10 CIR 40.32(a) issuance of hcense for in situ leach namng without denenstrauon of Snancial assurance; ISP-99-13, 49 NRC 235 (19N) 10 CJR. 40.32(c) and (d) hcensing standard for disposal of bquid wasic; LBP-99-1, 49 NRC 30, 32 (1999) 10 CIR. 40.36 exception 10 financial assurance requirenrnis for decomnussiorung fun &ng; LBP-99-13,49 NRC 235 (l999) 10 Cf R 4044 interpretation of defimuon of "anendnrnt" such that bcensee may make kwnsk changes in mode of operauon witimut advance approval. LBP %10, 49 NitC 147 (1999) 10 CIR. Part 40, Appendia A apphcability to in situ leach numng operanons; LBP-9913,49 NRC 235 (1999) appbcabihty to sites formerly associated with injecuan numng; LBP-%I,49 NRC 30, 32 33 (1999) engineering design of rock apron for uramum mill taihngs rectanmuun site; DR99-2,49 NRC 14,16,17, 21, 22 (1999) 10 C FR. Part 40. Appensa A, Cruena 2, 5A apphcabihty to in situ leach numng; LBP 99-1,49 NRC 33 (1999) 10 CIR. Part 40, Appen&x A, Cntenon 6 defimtion of disposal area relauwe to in situ leach numng operanons; LBP-99-1,49 NRC 34 (1999) de6muun of " reasonable assurance" standard, Di>%2,49 NRC 20 (1999) 10 C F R. Part 40, Appendia A. Cntenon 7A apphcainhry of nemtonng requirenrnts to in snu leach namng otrranons; Li P-991,49 NRC 34 (IWM) 10 CTR. Part 40, Apgrn&a A, Cntenon 9 bar to connnrncenrnt of olerations pnar to comphance with; LDP %13, 49 NRC 235 (1999) 51 I l l 1 l

E l r l l 1 _I. I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C f.R. Part 50 content of a heense ternunauan plan; LBP414,49 NRC 241 (1999) contrast tetween exempuun provisions for power reactors and mdependent :)ent fuel storage installations; LBP-99-21,49 NRC 437 a4 (lW9) decomimasioning acevities under Part 72 compared; IX1991,49 NRC 11 (1999) financial assurance for decosanussiorung, 6nal rule changes on; DD99-6, 49 NRC 293 n.19 (1999) ) radioactive releases from leaking fuel, DD99-8, 49 NRC 399 (1999) IO C FR. 50.2 basis for financial assurance reqmrenents for decorruussiorung; CU-99-6,49 NRC 218 (1999) defimtion of " federal hcensee"; DD-99-6,49 NRC 293 (1999) financial velucles by which encues that do not quahfy as elecinc utihues anny satisfy NRC 6pancial assurance and financial qualificanons requirenema, CLIW6,49 NRC 213 (IPM) 10 CIR 50.12 alternauve nuduxis for seeking waivers of or exempuons from Comnussion rules; LDPM21,49 NRC 436 (IPM) 10 CIR. 50.12(a)(2) contrast tetween exempuun provisions for power reactors and indepen&nt spent fuel storage installations; I LDPW21,49 NRC 437 n.4 (1999) 10 C FR 50 33(f) scope of heanng on hcense transfer; CLIW6,49 NRC 221, 224 (1999) 10 CFR. 50.33(0(2) fmancial vehicles by wtach enuues that do not quahfy as electric unhties nmy sausfy NRC 6nancial assurance and financial quahficauons requirenrnts; CU46,49 NRC 213 (1999) showing required to demonstrate beensee's financaal quah6 canons to nrer operaung expenses; CUW6,49 NRC 22D21 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 50.33(f)(4) Commission authonty to request an enury to subnut addauonal or smue detailed enfurnation respecung us financial arrangenents and status of funds if infornution is considered appropnate; CU 99-6,49 NRC 221 (1999) Conmussion authonty to requue nxue deuuled or addiuonal infomation, to ensure that adequate funds exist for safe operauon, CUM 6,49 NRC 221 (1999) to Cf R. 50,33a imerpretauon of antiuust revrw requirenrnts of; CUM 19, 49 NRC 46l (1999) 10 CT R. 50 34a AIARA requirenrnt for releases of radioacovity in plant effhrnts; DDW8. 49 NRC 38546 (1999) exposure of plant workers L lugher cimlant scovny from feel leakage as a violation of ALARA prmciple; DD99 8, 49 NRC 39497 (19W) fuel integnty dunng normal operauon, DDW8,49 NRC 388 (1999) 10 C F R 5036 fuel miegnty dunng normal operauon; DDM8,49 NRC 388 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 50.36a AIARA requirenent fur releases of rmhuacovity in phmt effluents; DD99 8, 49 NRC 385 86, 396 97 (19W) 80 CT R. 30 46 ernergency core coohng system design requirenrnts to prevent thernal hnuts frtmi tring exceeded, DD99-8,49 NRC 395 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 50 47(c) descnption of LOCAs, CUW4,49 NRC 193 (1999) 10 C FR. 50 54(f) adequacy of licensee response to request for design-basis infornmuon; DD99-3, 49 NRC 175 (19N) mfornmuon relaung to licensee acuans on genenc consnurucauons from NRC to hccmce; DD99-6,49 NRC 291 (1999) 10 CER. 5059 fuel integnty during normal operauon, DDW8, 49 NRC 388 (1999) 52

7 1 ) l l } j l ( LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX 1 REGUL.ATIONS I i nahfications or temporary alserations to systems and congenents regiured to support units in defueled j status; DD99'6, 49 NRC 296 (1999) { operation with fuel cladding leakage as unappmted change to licensing basis; DW99-8. 49 NRC 383, 392-93 (1999) safety evaluation process, idenuncanon of proNems with; DD99-3, 49 NRC 165,172-73 (1999) 10 CJR. 5059(aXI) nuhfication of licemee facibties w,thout NRC supervision, circumstances appropnate for; LBP-99-10,49 NRC 148 (1999) 10 C FR. 50.59(aX2) operation with fuel cladding leakage as unresolved safety question: Da%8, 49 NRC (1999) 10 CIR. 50.65 outstandmg issue regardmg comphance with maintenance rule; DD99-6, 49 NRC 290, 292, 296 (1999) 10 CIR. $0.7) fuel iniegnty during normal operanon, DS99-8,49 NRC 388 (1999) operation with leaking fuel as a violation of; DD99 8,49 NRC 384, 393 (1999) 10 Cf R. 50.73 mporting of ice condenaer dendencra; DRW3, 49 NRC 171 (1999) 10 Cf R. 50.75 financial assurance regarding satisfactum of deconunissionmg funding obliganon when facibty ownership ts transferred; ClJ-99-6, 49 NRC 217 (1999) 10 C1R. 50.75(a) authonty of agencies other than NRC to set addauonal scomnnsioning funding reqmrenrnts; C1JM6, 49 NRC 218 n9 (1999) 10 CIR. 50.75(eXI) financial vehicles by which enuues that do not quahfy as elecinc unbues may satisfy NRC financial assurance and financial qualifications requirenrnia, CIJ 99-6,49 NRC 213, 218 (1999) i 10 CIR. 5075(eX1Xi) financial assurance requirements for decomnusmorung when there is a transfer of ownership nghts; C1J-99-6, 49 NRC 211 (1999) 10 C FR. 50.75(eX1Xii) easernal Insst arrangements used to pret re%unenunts for external smking fund; DD99-6,49 NRC 294 (1999) 10 CFA 5075(fXI) repurung requirenents for decomnussionmg fundmg; Db99-6,49 NRC 294 (1999) 10 C1R. 50.80 Comnussion approval required for transfer of ownenlup nghts; CL1-99-6, 49 NRC 211 (1999); CLIM17, 49 NRC 373 (1999) Comnussion approval required for transfer of license; CLIMl9, 49 NRt'. 443 (1999) interpretation of anutrust revrw requirenrnts of, ClJM19,49 NRC 461 (1999) 10 Cf R. 50 80(b) purpose of anutrust review infurnmuun requued by; CLIM10,49 NRC 462 (1999) 10 CFR. 50.82 challenges to nrthodology far calculauun of presenhed dunes far hccme ternunauon plan; LBP 9917,49 NRC 37477 (1999) challenges to sne survey rnettakdo2y employed in hcense ternunnuon plan, litigabshty of; LBP-99-14,49 NRC 259 (1999) content of a heense ternunauon plan, LBP-9914, 49 NRC 241 (1999) inclusion of strategy for nrasurenent of subsurface radianon m license ternunauon plan; LBPM14,49 NRC 249 (1999) 10 CfR 5082(ux1) sausfacuon of nsumenance rule deliciences by censfymg that operaur - wed permanently; D&99-6, 49 NRC 293 (1999) 53 l 5 L.

l1 l' L dp l LFEAL CTfATIONS INDEX RFEULATIONS 10 CIR. 50.82(aX2) effect of docketing of cert:6 cation of pernment cessance of operacons and removal of fuel; Di>nt,49 ' NRC 6 (1999) 10 Cf R. 50 82(ax9Xii)-- challenge to *y=y of sie senediation plan; LBPWl4,49 NRC 253 (1999) 30 CIR. 282(aX9XiiXA) ~ defininon of "characarization"; LDP-99-14,49 NRC 242 a 4 (1999) 10 CIR, 50 82(ax9XiiXD) ~ inclusion of stramgy fut nrassenent of subsurface radiation la hcense krnunanon plan; LBP-99-14,49 ' NRC 249 (1999) 10 CIR. 50.52(sXi!Xii) . heigalmhty of background radianon deternunanon nuduxis in heense tenninadon plan proceeding; LBP 9914,49 NRC 243 (1999) purpose of hcense ternanation plan to ensure that facauty and aim are suitable for release in accordance with crieria for decommissioning; LBP 9914,49 NRC 2.H)(1999) 10 CER. 50.90 ) anendnunt of operaung license to reflect transfer of hcense; CLIWl7,49 NRC 373 (1999); CLIW19, 49 NRC 40 f1999) j i j 10 C F.R. 291(aX4) j authority of beensing board to ducet hcensee to conduct to acuvity "furtiering" de license ternunauon plan; 1EP 9914,49 NRC 258 (1999) 10 CIR. Part 50, Appends A de6aition of anocipated operauonal occurrences; DDW8,49 NRC 388 (1999) ] capectations for fuel cladding performance; D(199 8,49 NRC 400 (1999) l 10 CIR. Part 50 Appendix A, ODC 10, 12, 17, 20, 25, 26, 33, 34 i i consuleration of leaking fuel rods in specified acceptable fuct design knuts; DD 99-8, 49 NRC 387-88 (1999) I 10 CIR Part 50, Appemha C, llV j Conum.nion authonty to request an entity to subnut ad&tional or more detailed infunnation respecting its i financial arrangenents and status of funds if information is consulered appropriate; CLIW6,49 NRC } '221 (1999) 10 CIR. Part 50, Appensa 1 i consideisson of lealung fuel rods in necting ALARA requirenrnts; DD 99 8. 49 NRC 386 87, 391, 3% ) (1999) fuel inacgrity during normal operation; D1199-8, 49 NRC 388 (1999) j 10 CIR Part 50, Appen&x L j interpretauon of anutrust revew requirenrnus; CLIWl9,49 NRC 461 (1999) I 10 CIR Part 51, subpart A, Appendia B. Table B l hugabshty of ortsie storage of spent fuel in content of license renewal' CilWil,49 NRC 344 (1999) IO Cf R. St.20(a) l .- licensms board junnecuan to desernune that a supplenental environnental impact statenrnt is reqmred. LBPWid,49 NRC 237 (IPM) i 10 CTR. 5123(a) laugabihty of environnental report's failure to address availabihty of high-level waste storage sites. ' CLI-991t,49 NRC 344 (19'M) husabihty of onsier storage of spent fuel in content of hcense senewal, CLI-99-il,49 NRC 344 (IPM) 10 CFR $143 i l adequacy of applicant's analysis of required water pernuts, htigatuhty of LBP-99-6,49 NRC 122 (1999) l 10 CFR. 51.53. f . 10 Cf.R. $1.53(cx2) supplenunt to envirnnnental report as part of hcense ternunauon plan; LBP-9914,49 NRC 241 (1999) l l analysas of Caiegory I issues in site specific envinmnental report for hceme rerewals, CLl-99-il,49 NRC ' 344 (1999) I i 54 l I l L

l _I I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS htigabihty of environarntal report's failure to address availabihty of high level waste storage sites, CLI-99-II,49 NRC 344 (1999) 10 CIR. 51.53(c)(3Xi) analysis of Category I issues in site-specdic envirotmental report for liceme renewals; CtJ.99.II, 49 NRC 343 (1999) 10 C.FR, St.53(cX3)(iiXM) anendnunt to categanze impacts of transporting lugh-level waste; CLI-99-il,49 NRC 345 (1999) inclumon of transportation impacts of waste disposal in environmental report for heense renewst; C1199-!!, j 49 NRC 345 (1999) 1 10 CER. 51.92 need for tecirculation of suppleurat to final environnental inpact staienent when presidmg officer requests additional inforrrannon; C119918, 49 NRC 414 (1999) 10 CIR.1%rt 54 defimtion of heensing basis for fuel integnty; DS9'A8,49 NRC 389 (lWN) ) 10 CIR. 55.41 basis for wnnen exanunation of operators; LBP-nl6,49 NRC 275 (1999) 10 CER. 55 41(b) testing of scactor operators on technical specifications; LDP-9916. 49 NRC 276 (1999) 10 CFR. 55 43(b)(2) teaung of reactor operattr at level of senior reacaw operatur; IEPMl6, 49 NRC 275-76 (1999) 10 CIR. Part 60, Appendia B, Cntenon XVI varianon in appropnate response to an idenufied deficiency; DD943,49 NRC 168 (1999) 10 CI;R. Part 61 addauon of offsite slag /sual to existmg slag pile; C119942,49 NRC 352 (1999) possession of radioactive slag as a vmlahon uf, IEP-n12, 49 NRC 157 (l'8N) 10 CTR. 70.14 ahernauve nrthods for seekmg waivers of or exempoons from Convrassion rules; LBP-9421,49 NRC 436 (1999) 10 C l'R. 70.75(c) n I acuvines involved in reducmg residual radioacuvity to levels that pernut release of property; C1199-6, 49 NRC 218 n9 (19W) 10 CER. Part 72 construction of rad spur for transport of sient fuel shipping casks to in& pen &nt spent fuel storage installation; LBP-W3,49 NRC 44 (1999) decomnussionmg activines under; DD-99-1, 49 NRC 6 (1999) done consequences of loss-of-confmenrnt accident at m& pendent spent fuel storage installation, adequacy of evaluation of, LBP-99-23, 49 NRC 487 (1999) 4 exemptioh from seismic cntena for in&}rudent spent fuel storage installation; LDPM21,49 NRC 4U-34 (1999) heanng nghts on in& pendent spent fuel storage imtallations; CLlWil,49 NRC 344 n 4 (1999) 10 CIR. 72.2 hugabihty of mjuest far exempoon from seisnuc design c itena for m& pen &nt spent fuel m mstallation, IEPM21,49 NRC 439 (1999) scope of deconumsuorung acuvines under; Dt199-1,49 NRC 11 (1999) 10 C.LR. 72.7 alternauve nethmis for seekmg waivers of or exemphons from Comnussion rules, LEP.w 21, 49 NRC 436, 437 n 4 (19N) calculanon of safe 4hutdown earthquake using pmbahibsuc seisnuc hazard analyus along w'A rem @ratmns of nsk involved, IEP 99-21, 49 NRC 434 (1999) 40 CIR. 72.24(m) affidavit support for confurnance of appheam's dose analynn with Staff guidance and agny requircinents; LHPM23. 49 NRC 492 (1999) pathways connkred m denvmg total effecove done eqwvalent calculanon for indepen&nt spent fuel storage installauon; IEPW23, 49 NRC 488 09N) I 55 l l E

_I I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGUIATIONS 10 CfR. 72.40 subjects cacluded from consideration in hcense termmanon plan proceeding; ISP-%I4,49 NRC 241 (1999) 10 CFR. 72.102(fXI) scismic critena applicable to italependent spent fuel storage installauon; 1EP-9421,49 NRC 434 (1999) 10 CIR. 72.10f@) affidavit suppwt for confornance of applicant's dose analysis with Staff guidance and agency requirenents; LEP 99-23,49 NRC 492 (1999) total offective dose equivalent calculation for independent spent fuel suwage installation; LBP-99 23,49 NRC 487 (1999) 10 CFR. 72.210 subjects escluded from consideration in license termination plan pocceding; LBP-%14, 49 NRC 241 (IW9) 10 Cf.R. 73.51(dX6) secunty plan docunentation of liaison with heal law enforcer:ent to pernal unely respome to unauthorued panetration schvit.es, need for; IEP-47, 49 NRC 127 (1999) 10 CFR Part 73, Appendia C, 5 3.d secunty plan haung of available local law enforcenrnt agencies and desenpuon of resp nie capabilitra and critens and commumcauons capabihties, LEP-%7,49 NRC 127 (1999) 10 CfR. Part 100 fuel claddmg as part of defenein-depth approach to plant safety; DD%8, 49 NRC 384 (1999) bnuts on reactor coolant system acuvity; DD99-8, 49 NRC 385, 391, 398, 401, 408 (19W) 10 CIR. Part ino, Appendia A lingabihty of rce;.rst for esengxion from sciamic der,ign critens for independent spent fuel storage installauan, ISP 99 21, 49 NRC 4U (1999) seismic cruena apphcable to independent spent fuel storage installauon; ISP-99-21,49 NRC 434 (1999) 10 C F R. Part 100, Appendia A, till(c) derimtion of safe shutdown or design-basis carthqinke; ISP 99 21,49 NRC 434 (1999) 10 CIR. Part 110, Subptrts H and I discretionary heanns on caport hcense considered umecessary burden on parecipants, CLJ.99-15, 49 NRC 368 (1999) 10 CIR 11042(aXB) common defense and secunty concerns about use of high-enriched canmm in vesearch or test reacwrs; CL1-99-20, 49 NRC 476 (1999) 10 Cf R. I10.42(aK9) restncuons on exports of lugh<nnched uranium fuel and targets. CLI-E20, 49 NRC 472 (1999) 10 Cl'R. Il042(aW9Xii) use of a fuel or target in a nuclear rencarch tw test reector, circumstances appropnate for; CLI-99-20,49 NRC 473 n 6 (1999) to Cf R. I,L0 45(a) common defense and securny concernt about use of high-enncied uranium in research or test tractors, CLIW20, 49 NRC 476 (1999) 10 CFR I10.52 ( NRC enforcement authonty on capon hcenses, CLI 99-20. 49 NRC 478 (IF9) 10 CJR.110.83 response to reply to answet, nght of appbcant to file; CLJ-99-9,49 NRC 314 n.1 (1999) 10 Cf R. I80.84 discretionary hearms on export heense unwarranted because it would pose unnecessary burden on parucipanta; CLi-99-20, 49 NRC 47) (1999) 10 C f:R. l'M se' vice of subiassions addressing quesuona set out by Comnussmn CLI 90 9, 49 NRC 314 (1999) r 36 CJR. Hm3(c) appropnaleness of phased approach to comphance with regard to cuhural resources, LliP-99-9. 4,9 NRC 1.49 n.2,142 (1999) 56 i 1

m.- i r gj" l.,, ' -w ' , _;f l ( l~ l l. LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS aushorisse6a of nondeseructiw planning 'acties pnar to congdetion of NHPA section 106 process; - LDP 99 9,49 NRC 139,140 0999) ' 36 C.ER. 8004(d) l-mpunnent of goversnust to take further seeps in section 106 process when no histanc properoes are . found; LDP 99-9, 49 NRC 140,141 n 7,142 (1999) - 36 C.ER. 800.5(b) tequerenant of goveranent to take twther steps in section 106 process afer fin &ng of no effect; LAP-949,49 NRC 140,141 n.7_(1999) 36 C.ER. 800.5(eji41. l fineng necessary to enter huo nuoytandum of t!greenent betwen consulting parties; LBP-99-9,49 NRC 144 n.7 (1999) 40 C.ER. Part 192 defirntion of " reasonable assurance" standard,1D942,49 NRC 20 (1999) l 43 C.ER,10.4(b)- appbcahihty to inadvenent Ascowres of cultural herns on privately owned lands, ISP-99 9,49 NRC 143 n.15 (1999) l' l-l i i i 57 l -

_.I I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX f;TATtTIES Atonic Energy Act, lle(2) ) focus on nuchar fuel cycle; LBPW5, 49 NRC 109 (1999) Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S.C, 6 2014e(2) dehnition of bygmfuct nuuenal; LBPMS,49 NRC 109 (19W) Atornic Energy Act,57c(2) conmum defense and secunty concerns about use of lugh-ennched urmum in research or test recurs; CU-99-20,49 NRC 476 (1999) Atonic Energy Act,103 appbcabihty of Comnussion anutrust review auttmnty over 44 year genod of heense. CL19919,49 NRC 452 n.7 (1999) Atonne Energy Act,103a hnuts on heenses to winch anutrust revwws apply; CLlW19,49 NRC 448 (1999) Atonne Energy Act,103b, 42 U.S C,12133(b) propeny interestt as coowrrrs' baso for unnding to intervene; CUM 6, 49 NRC 216 (1999) Atonne IJwrgy Act,14Lb " practical value" finding for issuance of nuclear power plant hccmes; CLIW19,49 NRC 457 n.9 (1999) Atanic Energy Act,105, 42 U.S C, 9 2135 Comnussion authonty to deternune wtzther acuvines under a heense would create or rnanntam a situauon inconsistent with anutrust laws CLl419, 49 NRC 447, 448-50 (1999) progressive nature of Commissmn role; CUM 19. 49 NRC 447,448-50 (1999) Atonne Energy Act.105a Federal Energy Regulatory Conutussion authonty to enforce conphance by NRC bcensee with anutrust laws; CUM 19, 49 NRC 465 (1999) scope of Commission anutrust enforcenunt authority; CUM 19,49 NRC 450,453 (1999) Akutuc Energy Act,105b Conmission responsibibty to transmit construccon or opersung beense appbcanons to tie Attonry General for advice on anutrust findmgs to le made by the Conuniss.on, CllW19s 49 NRC 450,453 (1999) lederal Imrgy Regulatory Comnumc.n 1uthanty to enforce conphance by NRC hcensee with anutrust laws. CLIMl9, 49 NRC 465 (1999) Aromic Energy Act.105c, 42 U S C, 6 2135(c) anutruu revew of Scense transfers. CUM 5, 49 NRC 199, 2(1) (IPM) anutrue revew of post-operaung-heense transfer applicatioris; CUM 19, 49 NRC 450, 456, 458 (1999) sigruficant changes in conpetiuve rnarket as basis for anutrust revew of beense transfer. CLIMl9. 40 NRC 443,444,454-55 (1999) Atonne Energy Act,105c(1) Conmussion resiumsibahty to report anucomgrouve pracoces of its hcensees to the Auorney General, CLIW19, 49 NRC 450, 453 (19N) Attniac Encrgy Act,105c(2) tyes of Steemes o which anunust revsew apphes; CLIMl9, 49 NRC 410. 45),413-54. 455 (1999) Atrmc Energy Act, IU5c(5) scope of Comnussion anuirust revww; CU419. 49 NRC 450 (19N) Atonne tarrgy Act,105c(6) scope of Comnussmn renrdies for anucum;rnsve acovines of its bcensas; CLI 99-19,49 NRC 45451 (1999) 59 l

_.J l ) LEGAL CITNrlONS INDEX STATUIT,5 Atansc hiergy Act,134,42 U.SC 52160d j conphance of proposed exports with Schuner Anundnrnt; CUW20, 49 NRC 472 (1999) Atonuc Energy Act,134a(2), b(3)(B) dipionatic notes containing foreign government's assurance that it will use keennched uranium tart:ts wtra tiry becone available sausfies tequirenrot of; CU-99 20. 49 NRC 474 (1999) Atonne Energy Act,16th,42 U.SC 62201(b) property interests as co owners' basis for standing to intersene; CU-99-6, 49 NRC "16 (1999) Atonne Energy Act,182a infornation relating to hcensce actions on generic communicauons from NRC to hcemce; D119%, 49 NRC 291 (1999) I Atomic Energy Act,184. 42 U.S.C 12234 Comnussion approval required for transfer of ownership rights; CU-994,49 NRC 210, 211 (1999); CU-9916,49 NRC 371 (1999); Cf19917,49 NRC 372 73 (1999) Atonne Energy Act,185 nature of Convasuon heensing prowsa; CU-9919,49 NRC 451 n.5 (1999) Atoruic Energy Act, lii6 NRC enforcement authenty on export hccmes; CUW20,49 NRC 478 (1999) ) Alonne Energy Act,189a, 42 U.S.C. 6 2239(a) deuul required in establishing a pentioner's interest and how it wouki Ir affected by a licensmg acuan; CU-9912,49 NRC 358 n.8 (1999) hesnng rights on hcenae anrndnents; CU-994,49 NRC 188 (1999) heanns nghts on performance-based hcensing; LBP-99-10,49 NRC 147 (1999) institutional interest in provieng informanon and gerrrahzed interest.of numberslup in nunimizmg danPer from proliferuuon insuf5cient to confer standing under; CLlWl$,49 NRC 367 (1999) interest requirenrnt for imervention in NRC proceedings; CI199-6,49 NRC 214 (1999), CL199-10,49 NRC 322 (1999) stanang to intervene in export licenung procee&ng; Cl199-20, 49 NRC 470 71 (1999) l Arunsc Energy Act,272 applicabihty of itderal Power Act to nuckar facihties, CLl419,49 NRC 464 (1999) Clayton Act, 7A,15 U.S.C. Il8a redundancy of NRC anutrust review role; CL199-19,49 NRC 465 (1999) Chan Water Act 444 adequacy of apphcant's analysis of tequired water pernuts, htigatuhty of; LBP 99-6, 49 NRC 122 (1999) Comprehensive Environnental Response, Congensanon, and Laabibry Act of 19H0, 42 U S C. Il96019657 adation of offsate slag / soil to exisung slag pile; CLI-99-12,49 NRC 352 (19W) possession of radioacow slag as a violation of; LBP 99'l2, 49 NRC 157 (1999) Energy Puhey Act of 1992, Pub, L No. 102-486,106 Stat. 2776 (1992) testncuans on exports of high<nnched uraruum fuel and targets; CLIW20. 49 NRC 472 (1999) Energy Iblicy Act of 1992,16 U.SC 1824j-k furum for addressmg anucompeutive issues; CLI-99-5,49 NRC 200 (1999) Rderal Land Pokey and Managenrnt Act of 1976, 43 U S.C. il 1701 1784 & signauon of wilderness areas; LBP 99-3,49 NRC 44 (19991 pr uccuan of wikkrness character of roadless arcus under jurisaction of Bureau of land Managenent-CU-9910, 49 NRC 321 (1999) Ftderal Power Act, 211 and 212,16 U.S.C. Il824j and 824k appheability to nuckar faciliues; C1199-19, 49 NRC 464 (19W) lederal Trade Comnussion Act, 5 scope of antitrust authonty under, CLIW19,49 NRC 448 n.3 (1999) Han-Scret-Rathno Anutrust Improvenumts Act of 1976, Pub. L 94-435, 90 ' Stat.1383 (1976) NRC rohr in reviewing acquinuons of nuckar power facihues by new owners, CLIWl9,49 NRC (1999) Nil Senate Bill 140 habihty of co-owirra for expenses attnhutable to a defaulung co owner; CUW6, 49 NRC 216 (1999) t .0 t l l l l l k

~r.-. sum.m 1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDFJ STATtTTES National Environmental Pobey Act of 1969, 42 U.Sc 184321 et seg. - ^J

• y=cy of Anni environnental impact semenent for in situ leach naning opersoons; LBP-99-1,49 NRC

- 35 37 (1999) becesing standad for disposal of liquid waste; LBP 99-1, 49 NRC 30 (1999) National Historic Preservaton Act,106. ' appropnaneness of phased apprcach to cornphance with regard to cultural resources; IEP-W9,49 NRC 138 (1999) ' .. Native Anuncan Graves Protection and Repowiamon Act,25 U.SC.13001(5) appl =%y to pnvately owned lands; LBP-99 9. 4a NRC 143 (1999) Uranium Mill Tainnes P=Amaan and Consol Act of 1/18,2(b)(2),42 U.S.C.17901 purpose of; LBP-945,49 NRC 109 (1999) Wildemens Act of 19b4,16 U.S C. Ill31(c) wilderness denned as land that is protected and snanaged so as to preserve its natural condioons; LBP-943,49 NRC 51 (1999) Wilderness Act of 1964,16 U.S C. 4511311836 designataos of wildeness areas; LEP-99-3,49 NRC 44 (1999) protection of wilderness character of readiens areas under junsdicoon of Bureau of land Managenent; ' CLI 9910, 49 NRC 321 (1999) L-i i i i l e i I i i I I i j i i 61 'l 1

_l I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX ortlERs 116 Cong. Rec. H9449 (daily ed Sept 30, 1970) pros and cons of peheensing anutrust review; CU-%I9, 49 NRC 458 (1999) Cotter, Nuclear Licensing: Innovanon Through Evolution in Adnumstrauve Hearings, 34 Adnun. L Rev. 497, 505, 508 (1982) rauonale for toughemng of contenson rule; CU-99-il, 49 NRC 334 (1999) IIR. Rep. No. 97-177, at 151 (1981) rationale for toughemng of contention rule; CU 9411, 49 NRC 334 0999) Preli<rnsing Antisentt Review of Natlear 1%v Planss: lleavings Before the Jmnt C<mun on Atomw Energy, pt.1,91st Cong. (1969h pt 2,91st Cong. (1970) pros and cons of prehcensing anuirust renew; CU-9019, 49 NRC 457 (1999) Report by the joint Conuruttee on Alunue Energy: Anrndmg the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Anended, to Ehnunate the Requuenent for a Finding of Pracucal W1ue, to Provide for Prehcensmg Anutrust Renew of Production and Uubzauon Facihties, and t) Elfectuate Certain Oiler I%rposes iYrtuning to Nuclear Facihues, H R. Reps. No. 91 1470, 91-1247, at 8 (1970A trpnnted in 3 U.S C.CAN. 4981 (1970) { purpose of antitrust provisions of Atomic Energy Act ClJ-99-19, 49 NRC 447 (1999) Urumum Kfdl Tadings Radsation Contml Act of 1978 Ilearmgs on ilk ll69tl llK 12229,11R 12938, llK 12535, llK 13049, and IIK 13650 Befour the Sulwoman on Energy and Itrwer of the lionse Cmim. on Interstare and lineign Cmunerre, 95th Cong. 343-44 (1978) (statenwnt of Joseph N. Hendne, Chaimum of Nuclear Regulatory Conniussion) defimtion of byproduct rnaienal, LBPMS,49 NRC !!0 (19W) Mhster's Third New Insernational Dwtwnary 909 (unabr 1976) de6nition of " frequent"; LEP-99-3. 49 NRC 52 (1999) O I

.J I ,) SUBJECT INDEX ) l 1 ADJUDICATORY PROCFIDINGS g challenges to generic decisions nude by Conmussion in rulenskmgs; CU-66, 49 NRC 201 (19;9) considersuon of issues involved in rulenuking; CU-9919,49 NRC 441 (1999) ADMINISTRATIVE HOLD request that licensee be sequired to subnut deconmussioning plan or lay-up plan for umt on, DD994. 49 NRC 284 (1999) AITIDAVITS requirenrnt for factual representauons to esiahhsh standmg to mtervene; CU-99-12,49 NRC 347 (1999); 1AP-BI2,49 NRC 155 (1999) ALARA applicabihty to total effecove dose equivalent relemae values for site decomnussionmg nanagenunt plan-, LBP-%17,49 NRC 375 (1999) exposure of plant workers to higher coolant acuvny from fuel leakage as a violation of; DD948,49 NRC 381 (1999) / AMENDMENT interpretation of defmsuon such that beensee may nuke low nsk changes in nxxle of operation wulmut ~ advance approval, LDP-WID, 49 NRC 145 (19W) [ AMICUS CURIAE O right of peuunner detued imervenuon to file bnef, CLI-99-6,49 NRC 201 (1999) [' ANTICIPATED OIT. RATIONAL OCCURRENCLS f. dehmeion of, DDM8, 49 NRC 381 (1999) ANTfTRUST Staff sigmncant changes review of heense transfer; CUW5, 49 NRC 199 (1999) AP(TITRUST REVIEW of post operaung hcense transfer apphcauons CUW19,49 NRC 441 (1999) APPEALS revival of case on basis of trw argunrnts that hcensmg board had no fair opp <rtumty to consider; CUM 4,49 NRC lit 5 (19W) simultaneous, tefore the Comnussion and the court of appeals, prosenpuon against, CU-944, 49 NRC 185 (1999) APPLICA. TS V techrucal and fmancial quah6 cations for leach numng and nulling hcense; LBP-99-18,49 NRC 415 (19%) ATOMIC ENERGY ACT comnen defeme and secunty concerns in export beenses for lagh-enncled uramum CLIM20,49 NRC 469 (1999) I effect of Comprehensive Envnonnental Response, Compensation and Liability Act on authonnes, funcuens, and responsihibties cf nther agencies under; IA99-7. 49 NRC 299 (1999) NRC antitrust review authonty, scope of, CLl 99-19, 49 NRC 441 (1999) restrieuona on expurt hcenses for high-ennched uranium; CLI 99-20, 49 NRC 469 (1999) ATTORNEY'S IT.CS tatervenor's, paynrnt by licensee as condiuon for irrnunatmn of proceeding; LBP-99-22, 49 NRC 481 (1999) I e I 1 I m I J l i l

_I I SUBJECT INDEX ALTillORIZED USER sicleganon of responsibilities to others, scope of; LDP 99 4, 49 NRC 55 (1999) responsibdity of byproduct rnatenals licrnsee to appoint; LBP 99-4,49 NRC $5 (1999) BOILINGWATER REACTORS pre &ctors of fuel danuge; DD99-8,49 NRC 381 (1999) BRIEIS, APPELLATE schedule and linutauons on; CU-99-13,49 NRC 359 (1999) BURDEN OF PERSUASION on proponent of summary disposioon; lllP 99 23, 49 NRC 485 (1999) BURDEN OP PROOP for denenstraung fmancial quahdcanons; CU-994,49 NRC 201 (1999) on opponent of summary &sposiunn; LBP-99-23,49 NRC 485 (1999) BYPRODUCT MATERIALS alternate feed guidam:e; LBP-945,49 NRC 107 (1999) definition of bypoduct wastes produced by in situ leach uranium nuning as; LBp n13,49 NRC 233 (1999) definibon of ore; LBP-99-5. 49 NRC 107 (19M) BYPRODUCT MATERIALS UCENSEE record:ceping requirenrnts on dosages; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 55 (1999) responsibility to appos'il a raeauon safety officer and an authurized user; LBP-944,49 NRC 55 (19M) CANADA exports of 'high-enriched uranium to, CUW9,49 NRC 314 (1999), C119420,49 NRC 469 (1999) CIVIL PENALTIES NRC Staff discretton in assessnert ol; DD-99 3,49 NRC 161 (1999) COMMISSION authonty to nuxhfy or revoke its own validly imposed conditions; CU-99-19,49 NRC 441 (1999) authonty under Uranium Mill Taahngs and Radiauon Control Act; DD99-7. 49 id0 299 (1999) discretion to direct furtter nubhc pacecengs; CUMIS, 49 NRC 366 (1999', jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders denymg extensions of tmr; CU-99-3,49 NRC 25 (1999) plenary supervisory authonty to interpret and custanuze its process for in&vidual cases; CUWl8,49 NRC 414 (1999) scope of anutrust review authonty; CUh19, 49 NRC 441 (1999) sua spunte review of scheduhng tyders; CU 941,49 NRC i (1999) COMMON DITENSE AND SirURITY n: hance on judgarnts of Execuuve Bra'ich regarang capons of highamnched uranium, CU-99-20,49 NRC 469 (1999) COMPRF11ENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPLNSATION AND UABluTY ACT effect on authonties, funct ons, and resptmssbihues of other agencies unter Atonuc Energy Act; D(L%7, 49 NRC 299 (1999) CONDirlONS on ternunauon of hcense ternunauon plan proceedings; LDP 9422,49 NRC 481 (19N) CONFIDENT 1ALrrY neans to protect affiants' anonynuty, CLi-9412, 49 NRC 347 (1999) CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER adequay of bcensee response to request for design-basis infornmuun; DD99 3,49 NRC jfd (1999) CONFIRMATORY ORDLR emered before order estabbstung hearmg date, vehicle for tenninaung pruccedmg in case of. LBPW2,49 NRC 38 (1999) CONTAINMENT importance of turus water ternperature; DD99-4. 49 NRC 179 (1999) CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEMS degradassor, of, Di>99 3, 49 NRC 161 (19N) CONTAINMINT SYSTEMS ) ice condenser deficiencies involving; DD99-3, 49 NRC 161 (19N) J J l i I

e - k _l l SUBJECT INDEX CONTENTIONS based on daft environmental impact statenent, prenatunty of, ISP-99 23, 49 NRC 485 (1999) factual basis for; CU-99-ll, 49 NRC 326 (1999) hugabihty of challenges to nrduxiology for calculation of presenbed doses far bcense ternunacon plan; LBP-9917,49 NRC 375 (1999) nunce plemiing Conmassion pubcy on; CU-996,49 NRC 201 (19W) of withdrawing intervenor, adopuon by another party, LDP-994,49 NRC 114 (19W) picaang requirenrnts for. CU-994,49 NRC 201 (1999f; CU M10,49 NRC 318 (1999); CU-9411,49 NRC 328 (1999); CU-99-12,49 NRC 347 (1999) acquinment for imervention in heense transfer pacee&ng; CU-99-6,49 NRC 201 (1999) acope of litigable issues in license transfer proceedmgs; CU 99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) shtyving of nateriahty of issues of law or fact for adnussion of CU-99-il,49 NRC 328 (1999) Staff Request for Additional Infonnation as basis for; CU-99-il,49 NRC 328 (1999) CONIIlff!ONS, IATE-I1 LED anended contentions treated as, l.DP 99-7, 49 NRC 124 (1999) amistance in sound record &velopnent; LBP 99-6,49 NRC 114 (1999) assistance in soum! record developnent, showing where legal issues are a focal point. LBP-99-7, 49 NRC 124 (1999) cntena to be sansfied in adopuan of withdrawing pany's contentions; LBP-994,49 NRC 114 (19W) delay of pmcee&ng; LEP-994,49 NRC 114 (1999) factual concretrness and procedural rtperras consulerahons in &ternumng good came for; 1.BP-n21, 49 NRC 431 (1999) good c4use fur. LBP-99-6, 49 NRC 114 (1999); LDP-99-7, 49 NRC 124 !!999) other neans and other parues to protect imervenors' interests; LDP 994, 49 NRC l14 (1999); LBP-99-7, 49 NRC 124 (1999) showing on oder factors when good cause is lacking; LDP-994, 49 NHC 114 (1999), LEP-99 7,49 NRC 124 (1999) COUNSEL standards of prachee; CU-99-12, 49 NRC 341 (19W) CRiflCAL HEAT FLUX prediction of fuel darnage with, DD99-8. 49 NRC 381 (1999) CULTURAL R13OURCES Staff snanagenent plan; LBP 99-9, 49 NRC 1% (1999) DEADUNES fihng, Conmussion puhey on exension of, CLI-99-1, 49 NRC 1 (19M) DECOMMISSIONING conduct of acuvines in accord with posi. shutdown deconunistiomng scavitica report; Dunt,49 NRC 5 (1999) safety of work envuonnent ami staff competence to perform actmtics for; DR991,49 NRC 5 (1999) under Part 72 versus Part 50; DD99-1,49 NRC 5 (IW9) DECOMMIS510NING FUNDING external trust arrangenrnts used to nases requirenems for enternal smkmg fund; DD994,49 NRC 284 (0999) financial amurance, as preconstion to licensing of in situ leach numng project; lEP-99-13,49 NRC 233 (1999) litigabihty in hcerwe transfer procee&ngs; CLl-994, 49 NRC 201 (1999) schabihty of prepaynents; CU-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) reporting requirenrnts for; DD994, 49 NRC 284 (1999) DirOMMISSIONING PLAN for unit on adnumsuanve hold, request that licensee he required to submit, DD946,49 NRC 284 (19W) DECONTAMINATION reactor coulant system: DD-99-1,49 NRC 5 (IW9) DETENSE IN DEFIH caplanauon of concept. DR99 3,49 NRC 161 (1999) 67 i

o s l' 7 -{ ? N SUBJFCT INDEX < fuel clad &ng as a component of, DD998,49 NRC 381 (1999) l . DEMCIENCIES, ~ variation in approprese esponse to; DD99-3,49 NRC 161 (1999) DEFINITION of " federal licensee"; DD99 6,49 NRC 284 (1999) of "seamaahia answance" standard; DD 99 2,49 NRC 13 (1999)- DEPARTURE MtOM NUCLEATE BOILING pediction of fuel damage with; DS99-8,49 NRC 3810999) DESIGN BASIS operation with failed fuel cladding as unapprowd change to; DD99-8,49 NRC 3810999) - DESIGN COPfTitOL PROGRAMS adequacy at DC. Cook; DD99-3,49 NRC 161 (1999) - DIRIETED CERTIFICATION - of tule waiver sequest; LBP-9421,49 NRC 431 (1999) j DISMISSAL OP PROCEEDING because of withdrawal of sole interwnor, C119916,49 NRC 370 (1999); C119917,49 NRC 372 (1999) DOSAGES - recordkeeping seaponsibehties of byproduct nunenals beensees; 12P-99-4. 49 NRC 55 (1999) DOSE-consequences of loss +f connnement accident at independent spent fuel storage instalianon, adequacy of evaluation of; LBP-99 23,49 NRC 485 (1999) preacnbed, to average numbers of a enucal group; I.BP 99-14,49 NRC 238 (1999) prescnhed for hcense terminanon plan, heigabihty of chahnges to nethodology fur cakadation of; LBP-99-17,49 NRC 375 (1999) total effectiw dose equivalent for leach nuning operations, sources of radiation considered in; LBP 9919, 49 NRC 421 (1999) total effectiw done equivalent to rnernhers of the pubhc from background radiation; LBP-99-15,49 NRC ' 261 (1999). . FCONOMIC INJURY associanon with environmental hann necessary for grant of stan&ng to intervene; LBP-9418,29 NRC 153 . (1999); LDP-99 20,49 NRC 429 (1999) redresuhility standwd for estabhshing standmg based on; C1199-12,49 NRC 347 (1999) EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM . fuel cladding bemer denciencica involving; DS99-3, 49 NRC 161 (1999) ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS sanctions against hcensee contractor for dchherale nasconduct; LBP-994,49 NRC 44 (1999) l ENGINEERING CAlfULETIONS ] idenunca6cn of concerns at DC, Cook; DS99-1,49 NRC 161 (1999p ENVIRONMENTAL REPOKT for license senewal, analysis of Category I issues in; CL199-il,49 NRC 323 0999) EVIDENCE credibihty based on witness denranur; CLI-9414,49 NRC 3610999) i in support of contendons, duty to provide; CLI-99-12,49 NRC 347 (1999) EXAMINATIONS ) See Reactor Operatur Exanunanons EXEMITION ) from NRC bcensing because of federal pernut waver for onsde renuwal or renr&al actions; DD99 7,49 I NRC 299 (IPN) EXPORT LICENSE PROCEEDING stan&ng to intervene ini C119915,49 NRC 366 (1999) EXPOKl3 higtsnnched uranium to Canada; C1199-9. 49 NRC 314 0999) EXTENSION OP TIME - Conumsnian juns&chon to review interlocutory orders denying; C11943,49 NRC 25 0999) i N I 7{ l i i i.i

SUBJECT INDFJ Commission poucy on; CU-991,49 NRC 1 (1999) ICERAL TRADE COMMISSION ALT scope of antitrust authonty under; CU 99-19,49 NRC 441 (1999) FINAL ENVIRONMLTfrAL IMPALT STATEMENT for in situ kach nuning operation, adequacy of, ISPMI,49 NRC 29 (1999) f1NANCIAL ASSURANCE for decommissioning as precondition to htensing of in situ leach naning project; LBP 9913,49 NRC 233 (1999) FINANCIAL QUAUFICATIONS adequacy of 5-year cost-and-revenue projections to estabbsh; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 201 (1999) burden of proof for demonstrating; CLI-946,49 NRC 201 (19N) lingabibly in bcense transfer proceedmgs; CL1-99-6,49 NRC 201 (1999) of applicant for leach nuning and milbng hceme; UIP-99-18,49 NRC 415 (1999) IDRMERLY trTILT/ID SITl3 REMEDIAL ALTION PROGRAM i U.S. Army Corps of Engmeers bandhng of radioactive rnaterials in connechon with; DD947, 49 NRC 299 (1999) FUEL CLADDING barner deficiencies at DC, Cook; 0099-3,49 NRC 161 (1999) failed, reactor eteranon with; DD99 8,49 NRC 381 (1999) GENLRIC COMMUNICATIONS from NRC to beensee, on nuclear reactor issues, infurrration relaung to hcence actions on; DDM6, 49 NRC 284 (19N) GENERIC ISSUES htigability in heense renewal proceedmgs, C1199-il,49 NRC 328 (1999) HEARING RIGiftS on Scense ancruhrents, CU-99 4,49 NRC 185 (19N) on performance-bsard hcensmg; LBP-99-lo, 49 NRC 145 (19W) HEARINGS discreuonary, considered unnecessary burden on participants; CU-99-15,49 NRC 366 (1999) HIGH-ENRICifED URANIUM caports to Canada; CLl 99-9, 49 NRC 314 (1999) sestnetions on exports of; CL199-20, 49 NRC 469 (1999) HYDROGEN IGNfT10N SYSTEM degradauon of; DD 943, 49 NRC 161 (1999) ICE CONDENSER problems in configuration and testing of, DD 99-3,49 NRC 161 (1999) IN SITU LIACH MINING financial assurance for deconvinssio ung as preconduon to licensing, LDP-99-13,49 NRC 233 (1999) IN SITU URANIUM SOLLTr!ON MINING regulations oppheable to sites forvirriy associated with; LBPM1,49 NRC 29 (19W) INDLPLNDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION request for exempuun from scirmic design crittna for; LBP 99-21,49 NRC 431 (1999) total effective dose equivalent calculauon for; LBP 99-23, 49 NRC 485 (1999) INJELTION MINING regulanons apphcable to snes fornerly associated with, LBP 99-1, 49 NRC 29 (IPN) INJURY IN FACT actinn that would alter pnsune pubhc land withour discussion of shernatives as; LBP-99-3,49 NRC 40 (1999) traceabihty to challenged action; CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (19W based on geograpluc pronmury or uming of visits, standard for estabhalung; CLI 99-10, 49 NRC 318 (1999); CLI-99-12,49 NRC 347 (19N) INTERISTED OOVERNMENTAL ENTITY council of regional gowrnnema parucipaung es, LBP-99-14,49 NRC 238 (1999) l ~ 69 t.

I _i l SUBJECT INDFJ 1 INI'IRPRITATION of *poussed Finarily for its source malenal content"; LBP-99-5,49 NRC 107 (1999) INTERVENORS pro se, responsibihties of, CU-99-ll,49 NRC 328 (1999) pro se, standards of Factice; CLl412, 49 NRC 347 (1999) j withdrawal of; ULP 994, 49 NRC 114 (1999) INTERVENTION ways for seeking; LEPN12,49 NRC 15$ (1999) INT!RVINT10N PETITIONER i burden of setung forth a cical and cuherent argunent, CLIM4, 49 NRC 185 (1999) INnavrxnON PETmONS j affidavit support for factual claims in; CUW12,49 NRC 347 (1999) j purucularity required of CU-99-4,49 NRC 185 (1999) pleading nxtunenrnts for; CLLBIO,49 NRC 318 (1999); LEPM3, 49 NRC 40 (1999), LSP 9912, 49 NRC 155 (1999) rejecuan for failure to sausfy Part 1 Subpart M requirenrata; CU-99-2,49 NRC 23 (1999) (nrcliness when there is no Fedeml Argirser notice of apphcation; LDPM3,49 NRC 40 (1999) INilRVENTION PETmONS, LATE-FILED ase.istance in sound n curd developnrnt; LBP-99-3, 49 NRC 40 (1999) cnters to te addressed by, WIP 99 3,49 NRC 40 (1999) good cause for lateness; CL1994, 49 NRC 201 (1999); ISP 99-3. 49 NRC 40 (19N) j oder neans and other parties to protect peunoner's interests, LBP-99 3, 49 NRC 40 (1999) protection of co owners' interests by anoder co owner; CU 99-6. 49 NRC 201 (19N) treatnrat as request for acuan under section 2206, DD 99-2,49 NRC 13 (1999) weight given to potennal for broadening of issues or delay of pacceding; ISPM3,49 NRC 40 (19N) JURISDICTION j to consider request for lernunanon of poceedmg; LDPM22,49 NRC 481 (1999) LAY-UP PLAN for unit un adnarustrauw huld, request that bcensee be requued to submit; DL1W4,49 NRC 284 (19W) IIACH MINING AND MILLING radiacon sources uwd in calculation of total effecove chme equivalent, LBP-9fA19,49 NRC 421 (19M) techrucal and financial quahfications of hcenne appbcant; UlPMIS,49 NRC 415 (19W) UABILITY cowawners', fur espenses attnhutable to a defaulung co owner; CL199-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) ) UCI'NSE AMENDMENT PROCEEDINGS managenent character and congetence hugated in; CLl W4, 49 NRC 185 (1999) stan&ng to intervene in; CLI-994, 49 NRC 185 (IW9) LICENSE AMENDMENTS heanng nghts on, CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185 (1999) tinclurns of interwnunn pection when there is no Frdemi Regurer nouce; LBPM3,49 NkC 40 (1999) LICENSE CONDTIIONS incorporanon by reference pionnies rnade by apphcant in the course of discussions with Staff, LBPW10, 49 NRC 145 (1999) UCENSE RENEWAL PROCIIDINGS hugahihty of genenc issues in; CU-99-il,49 NRC 328 (19W) LICENSE REN!!WALS nachantsrra for ensuring fair, unely, and efficient heanngs c,n, CU99-11,49 NRC 328 (1999) LICENSE TLRMINATION PLAN challenges to tirthixkdogy fur calculauon of pescribed dines for; thPM17,49 NRC 375 (1999) consent of, LBP 99-14,49 NRC 238 (1999) acoge of Jiugable issues LEPW14,49 NRC 238 (19N) withdrawal, effect on other genthng puruons of de proceedmg; LDPW22,49 NRC 481 (19N) LK:1NSE TRANSIT.R APPLICATIONS anhuust revrw requnenents; CUWl9,49 NRC 441 (1999) 70

_l-I SUBJECT INDEX Conumssion approval of; CU 9416, 49 NRC 370 (1999); CLI pl7,49 NRC 372 (1999) Staff sigmficant changes antitrust review, Comnussion request for conunents on; CLIW5,49 NRC IW (1999) standards for anterwnuon on; CUW2,49 NRC 23 (1999) UCENSE TRANSTER PROCEEDINGS decunumssioning fundiog and financial quahfications issues litigable in; CU-994,49 NRC 201 (1999) scope of htigable issues; CLIW6,49 NRC 201 (1999) standmg of caucensee bened on property interest, CU49-6,49 NRC 201 (1999) UCENSIT.S federal, defamtion of; DD99-6,49 NRC 284 (1999) LICENSI3 types for which Conucission antitrust review authonty is triggered, CU-9919,49 NRC 441 (1999) UCENSING prformance-based, heanng nghts on; LBP-9910,49 NRC 145 (1999) LK'ENSING BASIS for fuel integrity, NRC Staff gu dance exunents; Dt199 8, 49 NRC 381 (1999) UCENSING BOARDS authoney to question partes; CU-947,49 NRC 230 (1999) dcference ginn to judgnent of Inal board wtere credibiinty of emienov turns on witness denranor; CU-9914, 49 NRC 361 (19M) scope of seview of decisions of, CLl 9914,49 NRC 361 (1999) weight given on appeal to standmg dciensnanons of; CU 9910,49 NRC 318 (19W) WXIVIANf pregnant, Jrfimuun as source nmtenal, LIIP-9913,49 NRC 233 (19W) pregnant, radun releases from, LBP-9415, 49 NRC 261 (1999) toCAL PUBLIC D(X'UMLNf ROOMS access to hcensmg information an, adequacy of, ISP-99-3, 49 NRC 40 (IPM) 1DW-ENRICllED URANIUM development of shernauve targets; CLIW9,49 NRC 314 (1999) MAINTENANCE RULE outr,tanding issue regardmg comphance with; DI1994, 49 NRC 284 (1999) MANAGEMENT CHARACTER AND COMPLTINCE standard for bugauon in hcense anendment pmceedmgs; C1199-4,49 NRC 185 (i4M) MATERIAIS LICENSE AMENDMIRf PROCEEDINGS scope of bugeble issues; CLI-9%I2,49 NRC 347 (1999) MATERIA!3 UCENSE AMENDMINTS authonaabon to pissess radioneuve slag: LBP 99-12,49 NRC 155 (1999) d:snussal of tranng request for failure to denumstruie paruculanard mjury, UtP-99-24, 49 NRC 495 (19W) pernutung hcensee to operate a waste dmposal facihty, CL1W13, 49 NRC 359 (1999) Staff issuance despite pendency of hearmg request on anendnrnt, LBP-99-12,49 NRC 155 (1999) MATERIALS LK'ENSE'S reflection of estensive record resultmg from mteracuon between Appbcant and Staff on vahdity of, LinP-9910,49 NRC 145 (19W) standard for hcenung bymd waste daposal. LDP-99-1,49 NRC 29 (1999) MINING See Injecuon Mimng; in Situ Uramum Solution Minmg ML% CON (RJCT - dchirrate, by hcensee contractor, LBP 99-4, 49 NRC $5 (19W) MOLXBDENUM 99 US producuan capabibty for CU-99-9,49 NRC 314 (IPM) MOO 1 NESS of contenuon as ground for summary duposioon; LDPW23,49 NRC 485 (1999) 78 l

I'. _l l i SUBJECT INDEX i NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT action that would aher pnstine public land without ascussum of shcrnauves as injury in fact under; LBP-99 3,49 NRC 40 (1999) comideranon of injury when proposed action is a resource managenent plan as olposed to a site-sircific action; LBP 99 3, 49 NRC 40 (19954 cultural resources management plan; LDPM9,49 NRC 136 (1999) NAT10NAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT requirenrnt of goveranrat to take further steps in secuan 106 proceu after fin 4ng of no effect, LBP 99-9,49 NRC 336 (1999) segmentation of project for purpose of; LBP-99 9,49 NRC 136 (1999) NA71VE AMERICAN GRAVES PROITLTION AND REPATRIATION ACT appbcahilary to pnvancly owned land, LBP-949,49 NRC 136 !!999) NATIVE AMERICANS standmg to intervene in NRC proceedings; LBPM8,49 NRC 131 (19W) NET POStT!VE SUCTION HEAD problerps with calculations; DLk99-3. 49 NRC 161 (1999) NOTICE OF APIT.ARANCE to establish inevidual standing to intervene, CLIM12, 49 NRC 347 (1999) NRC staff &acretion in assessnrnt of civd penalues; DD99 3,49 NRC 161 (1999) respunsibihty to resolve all safety quesuons regardless of whether a trarmg takes place; CLl411, 49 l NRC 328 (1999) sigtuficant changes anutrust reviews in heense transfer cases, need fw; CLI-99L5,49 NRC 199 (1999) NUCLIAR REOULATORY COMMISSION oversight of radioactin rnaterials bandimg in corurenon with Icrmerly Utihred Sites Renzdial Action Program; Da99 7, 49 NRC 299 (19W) ORDERS interlocutory, Comnussion jurisdiction to review; CUM 3,49 NRC 25 (1999) licensing board, precedenual effect of, CLI-99L14, 49 NRC 36l (19M) ORE de5nmon of; LBP-99-5,49 NRC 107 (19W) definition of undergromul luxbes depleted by solution extraction processes; LDP413,49 NRC 233 (1999) PARTIAL INTTIAL DECISIONS enpeduon of appellate review through; CU 99-1,49 NRC 1 (1999) PRECEDENTIAL EITECT of licensmg board orders, CLI-9014,49 NRC 361 (1999) PRESIDING OfTICER authonty to adjust general deadhnes; CLI W-3,49 NRC 25 (1999) i authority to quesuon parues; CL1-99-7, 49 NRC 230 (1999), CLI 99-8, 49 NRC 311 (lu), CLI-99-18, j 49 NRC All (1999) ] PRI3SURIZLfkWATER REACTORS i pre &ctors of fuel damage; DD-994, 49 NRC 381 (1999) PROPERTY INfLRI3T stan4ng to intervene on basis of, CU 99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) PUBLIC MEETINGS Conunission dscretion to hold, CU 99-15, 49 NRC 366 (1999) RADIATION background, airtxrne emissions from soun:e matenal as; LDP-99-19, 49 NRC 421 (19W) background, exclusion of ermaions from source, byproduct, or special nuclear natenals from; LBPW15, 49 NRC 261 (1999) unhcensed.ources, pnAcetion of nenders of tte pubhc from' LBPM19, 49 NRC 421 (19N) RADIATION EXPOSURl3 alictnative scenanos for average numbers of a enocal group, LBPM14,49 NRC 238 (1999) 72 I l L.

Aw A i

,,,,]

.l 1

SUBJECT INDEX of lant workers to lugher cooisnt activity from fuel ledage as a violanon of ALARA pnnciple; DD 99 8, P

49 NRC 381 (1999). RADIATION PROT 1ECIlON PROGRAM i. scope of licensee responibility for; CIJ99-4,49 NRC 185 (1999) RADIATION SAFETY OFFICER. deleganon of responsihilides to others. scope of, LBP-99-4,49 NRC 55 (1999) responsihihty of byproduct materints beensee to appoint; LBP 99-4,49 NRC 55 (1999) RADIOACTIVE FMISSIONS air, from in situ leach nuning; LBP 9415, 49 NRC '268 (1999) RADIOACrlVE MATERIALS U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers handling of in connecion with Furnarly Unlized Sies Renedial Action Program; DD947, 49 NRC 299 (1999) RADIOACTIVE RELEASES - liquid spill into Connecticut Riwr from wage test tank; D4941,49 NRC 5 (1999) RADIOACTIVE SLAG ) authonzacon to possess; i.aP-99-12,49 NRC 155 (1999) i RAIX)N enussions from in situ leach mining; LBP-9915, 49 NRC 261 (1999) 1 REACIDR COOLANT activity from fuel ledage as a violauon of ALARA pnnciple; DD-99-8, 49 NRC 381 (1999) REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM decontamination soluuan spdl; DD99-1,49 NRC 5 (1999) _ [.. REACIOR OPERATION j with failed fuel cladding; D499-B, 49 NRC 381 (1999) ' REACTOR OPERATOR EXAMINATIONS sconng c(' LBP-9916. 49 NRC 270 (1999) ' validity of quesnons; LBP 9916/49 NRC 270 (1999) REACTORS MAPLE, conversion to IEU targets; CLl 99 9, 49 NRC 314 (1999) - NRU, shutdown of; CLI 99 9,49 NRC 314 (1999) REASONABLE ASSURANCE defininon of standard, DD99-2, 49 NRC 13 (1999) RECONSIDERATION of order setdng page lirnit on peduons for review, grant of muuon for; CL1-99-18, 49 NRC 411 (1999) RECORDKEEPING - on dosages, responsibihties of byproduct matenals licensees, LBP-99-4,49 NRC 55 (1999) REFERRAL OF RUllNG on rule waiwr request; LBP-99-21,49 NRC 431 (1999) REOULATIONS applicable to sites formerly associated with injection nimng; LBP-99-l 49 NRC 29 (1999) collateral attack on; CL199 6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) control of radioachve malenal; LBP-99 4. 49 NRC 55 (1999) 1merpretnuan of 10 C.FR. Part 40, Appendia A. Cs. tenon 10; LBP-99-13, 49 NRC 233 (1999) . interpretation of 10 CER. 40.36; LBP 0413,49 NRC 233 (1999). prescribed doses to average nemhers of a entical group; LBP 9914,49 NRC 238 (1999) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS for status of deconmussiomng funding; DS99-6,49 NRC 284 (1999) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION as basis for contention; CLI-%II,49 NRC 328 (1999) inphcanon of issuance after dockenng of hame applicauon; CLI-99-il,49 NRC 328 (1999) summary disposition of contention based on; LDP-99-23, 49 NRC 485 (1999) RESEARCH REACTORS conunnn defense and secunty concerns about use of high ennched uranium in; CL1-9420,49 NRC 469 (1999). i -13 h1 n 8

T.~ _. I I 1 SUBJECT INDEX REVIEW d scretionary, disposition of pentions that are not acted upon widun 30 days; CU-%4,49 NRC 185 (1999) discretionary, substannahty of issues; CLi-99-14, 49 NRC 361 (1999) interlocuhry, standard for grant of, CU-99 7, 49 NRC 230 (1999); CLI-99-8, 49 NRC 311 (1999); CLI-9918,49 NRC 411 (1999) of presiang officer's decision to uphold bcense anendnent, grant of peution for; CUW13, 49 NRC 359 (1999) page Unnes on peutions for; CLIW18,49 NRC 411 (1999) showing necessary fur grant of petinon for; CLi 9914,49 NRC 361 (1999) sua sponte, of scheduhng orders; CUWI, 49 NRC 1 (1999) RULEMAKING challenges to generic decisions nude by Cornnussion in; C1199-6,49 NRC 201 (1999) consideranon, in adjudicatory heanngs, of issues imolwd in; CU-99-19, 49 NRC 441 (1999) litigabihty of generic issues that are or are about to becone the subject of; C119411,49 NRC 328 (1999) RULES AND REGULATIONS waiver of; LBP-99-21, 49 NRC 431 (1999) RULES OF PRACTICE aflidavit support for intervention peuuons; CLlW12, 49 NRC M7 (19W) anueus cunae bnefs; CU-996, 49 NRC 201 (1999) anonynwus partics; CLIW12,49 NRC 347 (1999) burden of proof for denenstraung financial qualificatims, CUW6,49 NRC 201 (19W) collateral attack on regulations; Ct199 6, 49 NRC "01 (1999) Conunission deference to board deternnnations on stan&ng; Ct19910,49 NRC 314 (1999) Cornnussion plenary supervisory authonty to interpret and custonnze its process for individual cases; C119918,49 NRC 411 (1999) contenuon adrnissibibty; Ct199-10,49 NRC 318 (1999) contenuon requirenrnt for interwnuon in bcense transfer pacceding; CLI 99-6,49 NRC 20l (1999) disnnssal of proceeding because of withdrawal of sole irtervenor; CL1-99-16,49 NRC 370 (19W); CUWl7,49 NRC 372 (1999) good cause for delay in filing contentions; LBP-99-7, 49 NRC 124 (1999), LBP-99-21, 49 NRC 431 (1999) good cause for ununtly intervennon petioons; CLIW6,49 NRC 201 (19%); LBPW3,49 NRC 40 (1999) injury in fact and gone of interests tests for stan&ng to intervene; LBP-99 8,49 NRC 131 (1999) interlocutory review standard, CLIW7,49 NRC 230 (1999); CLIW8, 49 NRC 311 (1999); CLIWl8. 49 NRC 411 (19N) intervenuon in NRC hcensing adjuscanon, ways for seeking; LBPW12,49 NRC 155 (1999) judicial concepts of stan&ng applied in NRC proceedings; C1199-10,49 NRC 318 (1999) htigability of genene issues in hcense renewal poccedings; CUWil, 49 NRC 328 0999) nouce of appearance to estabhsh individual stan&ng; CUW12,49 NRC 347 (1999) nouce plea &ngs in NRC proceedings, C1199-12,49 NRC 347 (1999) l pentions for review, showing necessary for grant of, CLIW14,49 NRC 361 (1999) plea &ng reqwrenents for contenuons; CUW6. 49 NRC 201 (1999); CUWil,49 NRC 328 (1999); CLIW12,49 NRC 347 (19W) plea &ng requirernents for intervention leuuons; CU 99-10, 49 NRC 31b (1999); LBPW3, 49 NRC 40 (1999); LBPW12,49 NRC 155 (1999) precedential effect of hcensing board decisions; CU 99-14. 49 NRC 361 (19W) scope of htigable issues in rnatenals hcense snrndnrnt pecce&ngs; CLIW12,49 NRC 347 (1999) scope of hugable issues on heense ternunauon plan, LBP-9914, 49 NRC 238 (1999) standard of practice for counsel versus po se intervenors, CU-9912,49 NRC 347 (1999) standing to intervene in heense anrndnent pruccedings; CI199-4,49 NRC 185 (1999) stan&ng to intervene in hcense transfer procceang; CLI-9%, 49 NRC 201 (1999) 74 1 l )

r _l l l i SUHJECT INDFJ standmg to intervene in NEPA context; LDP 99 3,49 NRC 40 (1999) sua spunte teview of scheduhng orders; CLI-991,49 NRC i (1999) summary dispommon, standard for grant of, LBP 99-23,49 NRC 485 (1999) temunation of proceeding; LBP.99-22,49 NRC 481 (1999) J time knuts for filing; CLI-99-3,49 NRC 25 (1999) i tinchness of Interwntion petipons; LBP-99-3,49 NRC 40 (1999) waiver of rules or regulations; LBP 99 21,49 NRC 431 (1999) i withdrawal of intervenor; LEP.994, 49 NRC 114 (1999) SAFETY defense-in-depth approach; D[>99 8, 49 NRC 381 (1999) SAFETY ANALYSFS consideration of preexisung fuel cladding failures in; Di>948,49 NRC 381 (1999) SAIITY ClfJURE at Diablo C ayon, request for independent contractor to evaluate; Di>99-5, 49 NRC 279 (1999) SANCTIONS reduction of suspension from NRC-licensed activities; LBP-99-4,49 NRC 55 (1999) SCHEDULES /SCHIDUtJNO act by beensing teards and presiding officers, Conmssion sua sponte review of CtJ-99-1. 49 NRC 1 (1999) SCHUMER AMENDMENT cornpliance of pmposed high-ennched uraruum exports with; CLI-99 20, 49 NRC 469 (1999) SEGMENTATION of project for purpose of National Historic Preservation Act; IEP.99-9,49 NRC 136 (1999) SEISMIC DESIGN of independent spent fuel storage mstallation, reqirst for enenpuon from; LBP-99-21,49 NRC 431 (1999) SETTI,EMENf ternunauon of proceeding when confirmatory order has tren entered twfore order estabbshmg trarmg date; LBP 942, 49 NRC 38 (1999) SrTE SURVEY METHODOli)OY litigshility in license ternunanon plan proceedmg, LDP.9914,49 NRC 238 (1999) SOURCE MATERIALS definition of pregnant lisiviant and yellowcake as; LBP-nl3,49 NRC 233 (1999) SPENT FUEL shipping casks, rail spur construcuon to transpon; LDP 99-3,49 NRC 40 (1999) SPENT l'UEL POOL demineralizer relennon elenent and fiber failure; DIFWl,49 NRC 5 (1999) STANDING TO INTERVINE acuan that would alter pnstine public land without discussion of alternatives as injury in fact under NEPA: LDPW3,49 NRC 40 (1999) affidavit suppxt for factual claims of; CLIW12, 49 NRC 347 (1999); LBP-99-12, 49 NRC 155 (1999) based on economic conpeuuon not associated with environnental harm. LBPW20,49 NRC 479 (1999) Commission deference to board detemunauona on, CLl-99-10,49 NRC 318 (1999) concreteness tequired to desenbe an ongoing physical (wesence as oppned to geograpluc proxinty; LBP-99 3, 49 NRC 40 (1999) discretionary, consideration wlen there is no mtcrvenor with standmg as of nght; LBPWl?. 49 NRC 155 (19M) factual representation of petsuorer's use of land that is sulyct of propacd anendnrnt; LBPW3,49 NRC 40 (1999) geographic proxinuty as basis in beense anendnrnt proceedmg; CL1-99 4,49 NRC 185 (1999) in hcense transfer proceeding, CLI-946, 49 NRC 201 (1999) in naterials hcense amendnunt proceeding, denenstrauon of paruculanzed injury from anendnent requirei for; LBPW24, 49 NRC 495 (1999) injury in fact and zone of interests tests for; LEP-99-8. 49 NRC 131 (1999) injury m fact based ou geographic prominuty or unung of visits; C1JW10,49 NRC 318 (1999) 75

._ I I SUBJECT INDEX institutional interest in providing inf<rmation and generahzed intrest of nrntership in miniminns danger - from prohferatico as basis in caport bcensing proceeding; CLI 99-15, 49 NRC 366 (1999) judicial concepts apphed in hcense anendnunt paccedings; CU-99-4,49 NRC 185 (1999) hulicial concepts applied in NRC poceedmgs; CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999); CLI-%10, 49 NRC 318 (1999) nemus tequirenrnt between asserted injury in fact and challenged license anendnent; C1199-4, 49 NRC 185 (1999) on basis of econonde competitor injurra not associated with environnental harm from poposed bcensing action; LBP-9911,49 NRC 153 (1999) organizauonal, showing of injury to organizauonal interests and idenufication of nrnder who mill suffer injury; LBP 948, 49 NRC 131 (1999) property interest as basis for; CLI 99-6,49 NRC 201 (19W) redressabihty standard; 1RP 99-3, 49 NRC 40 (19N) representational, standard for grant of; CLI-99-10,49 NRC 318 (1999) showing raxessary in license transfer proceeding; Cl1996,49 NRC 201 (1999) weight given to licensing board &ternunations on; CL1-99-4, 49 NRC 183 (1999) STATUf0RY CONSTRUCTION agency authority to change its interpetation of a statute; CL1-9419,49 NRC 441 (1999) agency options wtra a statute is susceptible to rnare than one permissible interpretauon; CLI 99-19,49 NRC 44l (1999) parucular term used in one section of a statute cannot te implied in another section; CLI 9419,49 NRC 441 (1999)

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION l burdens on poponents and opponents of; LDP-9423, 49 NRC 485 (1999) i j on nxx*rss ground; LBP-9423,49 NRC 485 (1999) standard for grant of; IJIP-99-23 49 NRC 485 (1999) SUSPENSK)N fmm NRC-heenned activities, reduction from 5 to 3 years; LBP-99 4,49 NRC 55 (1999) TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS 1 of applicant for leach naning and trulhng bcense; LBP-9918,49 NRC 415 (1999) ) TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS testing of reactor operators on; LBP-9916, 49 NRC 270 (1999) ] TERMINATION OF PROCEEDING cffect on other pending portons of the paceeding; LBP 99-22, 49 NRC 481 (19W) vehicle when confirmatory order has been entered before order establishing heanng date; LBP-99 2, 49 NRC 38 (1999) TDRUS WATER TEMPERATURE operational 'hmits on; Dl199-4, 49 NRC 179 (19WJ TRANSPORT OF RADKlACf!VE MATERIA!3 rad spur construcuan to transport spent fuel shipping cask; LBP 943,49 NRC 40 (19W) i U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS radianctive rpaterials handhng in connecuon wuh innrrly Utihred Sites Renedial Action Program. DI)99 7,49 NRC 299 (1999) . UNUSUAL EVENT failure of hcensee to declare liquid spill as; Dl199-1,49 NRC 5 (1999) URANIUM See liighEnricted Uramum; in Situ Uranium Soluuon Mining; LwEnncied Uranium URANIUM MILL TAILINGS AND RADIATION CONTROL ACI' NRC authonty under; DD-99 7, 49 NRC 299 (1999) URANIUM MILL TAILINGS DISPOSAL sile rectanation plan; DD-99-2,49 NRC 13 (1999) stability of rock apron design; DI)99-2,49 NRC 13 (1999) l URANIUM MILLING definition of; LBP-99-13, 49 NRC 233 (1999) i 76 r I

gc_ L (' SUBJECT INDEX VALyrs - inadequase configurason consol as Sewrity level IV violadon; Di>991,49 NRC 5 (1999) VIOLATIONS Sewrity Level IV, for fadure of licensee to declare hqind spil as unusual event; DD 901,49 NRC 5 (1999) WAIVER - federal pernst, for onsiw renovel or nrnedal actions caeniption frorn NRC Ecensing because of; DIA99-7, 49 NRC 299 (1999) of rules or regulations, c' - - approprise for involung: LBP-99-21, 49 NRC 431 (1999) WASTE DISPOSAL - analysis of Cawgory 1 issues in envuonmental report for Scense renewal; CLI-94tl,49 NRC 328 (19W) hquid, ucensing standard; LBP 99-1, 49 NRC 29 (1999) WILDERNESS dennition of; LBP-99-3,49 NRC 40 (19W) WrrHDRAWAL OF INTERVFR)R dianussal of proceceng because of, CL1-9416,49 NRC 370 (19W); CU 9917,49 NRC 372 (19W) WirNESSES denzanor, deference given to judgnent of trial board where cresbihty of evidence turns on; CL1-9914. 49 NRC 361 (1999) YELLDWCAKE de6aition as source insterial; LEP-9913,49 NRC 23.1 (1999) i l l' I

_.l FACILITY INDEX BROWNS FERRY NUCIIAR PLANT, Unit I; Docket No. 54259 REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 29, IW9, DIRECTOR'S Dir!SION UNDER 10 CIR. 6 2.206, DD99-6,49 NRC 284 (1999) DIABID CANYON NUCLEAR POWLR PLANT, Umts I and 2. Daket Nos. 54275, 54323 REQUEST f0R ACTION; March 12, 1999 DIRifTOR'S DI. CISION UNDER 10 CER. 52.206; DD99-5, 49 NRC 279 (1999) DONAID C, COOK NUCliAR Pl>BT, Umts 1 and 2; thket Nos. 54315, 54316 RLQUEST FOR ACTION, February 11, 1999, DIRifrOR'S Dir!SION UNDI R 10 CFR. 5 2.206, DD99-3,49 NRC 161 (1999) HADDAM NICK PLANT, Daket No. 54213 REQUEST 10R ACTION, January 12, 1999 DIRirTOR'S DiriSION UNDLR 10 C.FR. 62.206, f DD99-1,49 NRC 5 (1999) e OCONEE NUCLIAR STATION, Umts I, 2, and 3 Docket Nos. 54269 LR, 54274LR, 54287-LR ' O. t.lCENSE RENEWAL; Aprd 15, 1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, C1JWil,49 NRC 328 [,,, (1999) a PERRY NUCLEAR POWLR ltANT, Unit 1; Ducket No. 50 440 REOIJEST IOR ACTION, Apnl 18, 1999, DIRFLTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. (2 206, DD948,49 NRC 381 (1999) PILGRIM NUCLIAR POWER STATION, Ducket No. $293.LT 3 1KENSE TRANSTER; Apnl 26, 1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDIR; CLI-99-17, 49 NRC 372 m (1999) R!YER BEND STArlON, Umt 1; Duket No. 54458 REQUEST FOR ACTION, Apnl 18, 1999 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CER.12.206; f DD99 8, 49 NRC 381 (19W) SEABROOK STATION, Unit 1; iksket No. 54443 LICENSE TRANSIT.R. March 5,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLIW6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) 1XENSE TRANSFER, Apnl 26, 1999, Mt.MORANDUM AND ORDER, CLIMl6, 49 NRC 370 11999) THREE MIII ISLAND NUC11AR STALK)N Umt 1; Dxket No 54289 IKENSE TRANSIER; February 11, 1999; MIAiORANDUM AND ORDER; C1.199 2,49 NRC 23 (1999) VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Dxket No 54271 REQUEST IOR ACTION, Fetruary 10, 1999 DIRECTOR'S DECISION CNDER 10 C F R. 6 2.206, DD99 4, 49 NRC 179 (1999) WOLF JRFIK GENERATING STATION, Unit I; thcket No. 54482-LT LICENSE TRANSIER; March 2,1999 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLIMS,49 NRC 199 (1999) L.lCENSE TRANSFER; June 18,1999, MIA10RANDUM AND ORDER, CtJW19, 49 NRC 441 (1999) YANKLE NUC11AR POWER STATION, Ducket No 54029-LA-R IKENSE AMENDMENT, March 17, 1999; PREHEARING CONTERENCE ORDER (Ruhng on Consenuons). LBPM14, 49 NRC 238 (1999) 79 s

p;, V. t a. t j- -,, _3 ne i ft l j. t.< i FACILITY INDECe i ' LICENSE AMl21DMINr; April 22. 1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Moton for Reconsubramon of Conemtson 4); LBP 9917,49 NRC 375 (19W) LICDf5E AMENDMINT; June 14,1999; Miaf0RANDUM AND ORDER (Requesting Rephes to l J NiiCNP Raspuese to Ternynanon Monos); LBP 99-22,49 NRC 481 (1999). - ZION NUCILAR POWER $TA110N. Uniu 1 and 2; Zaon Nuclear Power Station. Uniu I and 2 LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 2,1999; MD40RANDUM AND ORDER; CLl-99-4. 49 NRC !R$ (1999) p I i i 80 l I 't i

999 1 R E B M ETP 1 ES e SECN AUSS I NO e I 5 S 5 S I 5 M9 0 b M9 P T 2 9 O X N 1 1 E C E 2 M C YN A E D RU I G OJ N A T-A N A 1 A LY M UR 1 GA N EU RN O IG R A 6 TE A J 8 OAR E 4IMU N L 4CRN O C 5OO 7T U 1 FREG N 5CNO6N O 5 RIP I T 5N-NH S 0 VSFS E 2SIPWA X 1UDT2W b E D' N I E. 2 0x 5e 7 d 0 n i G 9 E4 R Ulo NV i}}