ML20217N603

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISSUANCES.July- December 1997

ML20217N603
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/30/1998
From:	NRC
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V46-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V46-I2, NUDOCS 9805050382
Download: ML20217N603 (49)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:NUREG-0750 Vol. 46 Index 2 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES July - December 1997. gaREGy Ay-g k ( Nkk+5 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, i I 3\\\\ gsogeg98043o 7 0750 R PDR g'k

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

NUREG-0750 Vol. 46 Index 2 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES July - December 1997 U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Prepared by the Office of the Chief Information Officer 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301 - 415-6844)

1 Foreword Digests and indeses for issuances of the Commission (CU), the Atomic Safety and Ijoensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judges (AIJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking(DPRM) are pasented in this document. These digests and indenes are intended to serve as a pide to the asuances. Information elements common to the cases heard and ruled upon are: Case name (owner (s)of facility) Full test reference (volume and pagination) Issuance number Issues raised by appellants legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes) Name of facility, Docket number Subject matter of issues and/or rulings of hearing (operating hcerne, operating license amendment, etc.) of issuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.) These infonnation elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as follows: 1. Coe Name Index The case name indes is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type of issuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.

2. Headers and Digesta The headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows: the Commission (CU), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative lawJudges (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM)

The header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hearing, date of issuance, and type of issuance. The digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuance covers more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically. 3. IAgal CItatIORa Index This index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alpha-numerical . arrangements of Cases, Replations, Statutes, and Others. These citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in replations and statutes may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance. The references to cases, replations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular issuana. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference, iii 1

i 4. Seldect lades i Subject words and/or phrases, sis @r.d alphabetically, indicate the issues and { } subjects covered in the hsuances. The subject headings are followed by phrases that give j specific information about the subject, as dhaard in the issuances being irviewd These phrases are folM by the issuance number and the full text reference. t 5. Facility Inder 8 j i i This indes consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from the j issuance. The name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date, type of issuance, issuance number, and full text reference. I i i a t i i i iv i i

_I I CASE NAME INDEX AllARON BEN-HAIM, Ph D. ENIORCEMENT ACTION, PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (Denying Rescission and Establishing Schedules); Docket No. IA 97 068 (ASLBP No. 97 73101-EA) (Order Superseding Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Ucensed Activities. Effective immediately); LBP 9715, 46 NRC 60 (1997) ENIORCEMENT ACTION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Staff's Motion for Delay of Proceeding); Docket No. IA 97-068 (ASLBP No. 97-73141.EA) (Order Superseding Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Ucensed Activities (Effective immediately)); LDP-9718. 46 NRC 234 (1997) ATLAS CORPORATION MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No, 40-3453-MLA; CU-97 8, 46 NRC 21 (1997) BARNETT INDUSTRIAL X-RAY, INC ENIORCEMENT ACTION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Dismissing Proceeding); Decket No. 030-30691 CivP (ASLBP No. 97 7'0-02-CivP); LBP-9719, 46 NRC 237 (1997) CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACTION; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 52.206; Docket No. 54213; DD-97-19,46 NRC 91 (1997) FIDRIDA POWER & UGHT COMPANY REQUEST f0R ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 52.206; Docket Nos. 50 250, 54251, 54335, 54389; DD-97 20, 46 NRC % (1997) FRANK 1 CALABRESE JR. REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE; INfTIAL DECISION, Docket No. 55-61425-SP (ASLBP No. 97 725-02-SP); LBP 9716, 46 NRC 66 (1997) HYDRO RESOURCES. INC. MATERIALS LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ufung Hearmg Suspension and Schedule for Filing Arnended Hearing Petitions): Docket No. 40 8%8-ML (ASLBP No. 95-706-01 MU; LBP i 23, 46 NRC 311 (1997) i INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION l MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 448681-MLA (Alternate feed Materialk CU-97 9, 46 NRC 23 (1997) MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying a Hearing); Docket No. 40 8681 MLA (ASLBP No. 97-726-03-MLA) (Re: Ocense Amendment) (Alternate Feed Materini); LDP-9712, 46 NRC 1 (1997) MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motions for Reconsideration. To Reopen the Record); Docket No. 40-8681 MIA (ASLBP No. 97-7264LMLA) (Re: Ucense Amendment) (Alternate feed Material); LBP-97-14, 46 NRC 55 (1997) MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denial of Petition for a Hearing); Docket No. 40-8681 MLA 2 (ASLBP No. 98-733 01-MLA) (Re: Ucenae Amendrrent) (Alternate feed Material); LDP 97-21, 46 NRC 273 (1997) !DUIS!ANA ENEROY SERVICES LP. MATERIALS LICENSE, ORDER; Docket No. 70 3070 ML; CU-97-II, 46 NRC 49 (1997); CLI-9712, 46 NRC 52 (1997) I l

_I I i CASE NAME INDEX MATERIALS LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Financial Quali6 cations); Docket No. 70 3074ML; CLI-97-15,46 NRC 294 0997) MATERIALS LICENSE; MEMORANDUM (Explanation Required by Remand); Docket No. 70.3074 ML (ASLBP No. 91-64142-MI R) (Special Nuclear Material IJcenae); LBP-97-22, 46 NRC 275 (1997) MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 52.206; Docket No. 54309; DD-97-17,46 NRC 13 (1997) NATIONAL INSTTIVrES OF HEALTH REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 61206; Docket No. 030-01786 (License No. 19@296-10); DD-97-22,46 NRC 130 (1997) NORTHEAST UTIUTIES REQUEST IOR ACTION; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206; Docket Nos. 50 245, 50 336, 50-423, 50 213 (1Jcense Nos. DPR-21, DPR-65 NPF-49, DPR 61); DD-97 21, 46 NRC 108 (1997) NORTHERN STATES POWT.R COMPANY INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ternnnating Proceeding); Docket No. 72-18-ISFS! (ASLEP No. 97 72041-ISFSD, LBP-9713, 46 NRC 11 (1997) INDEFENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INS 1 ALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Reconsideration and Terminating Prt xeding); Docket No. 7218-ISFSI (ASLBP No. 97-720 01-!SFSI); LBP 9717,46 NRC 227 (199/) REQUEST FOR AQTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. (2.206; Docket Nos. 54282, 50 306, 72-10 DD-9718, 46 NRC 35 (1997) REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206; Docket No. 72-10; DD 97-24,46 NRC 189 (1997) QUIVIRA MINING COMPANY MATERIAL)5 UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Request for Hearing); Docket No. 40-8905-MLA (ASLBP No. 97-728 04-MLA) (Amendment to Source Material License No. SUA 1473); LBP-9120,46 NRC 257 (1997) RALPH L. TETRICK REACTOR OPERATOR UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 55-20726-SP; CL197-10,46 NRC 26 (1997) SEQUOYAH FUEIS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS ENIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 448027-EA (Decontamination and Decommissioning Funding); CU-9713,46 NRC 195 (1997) SOUTHERN CAulORNIA EDISON COMPANY, er el REQUEST FOR ACrlON; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; Docket Nos. 50 361, 50 362. DD-97-23, 46 NRC 168 (1997) ST, MARY'S MEDICAL CENTER ENIORCEMENT ACTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; 01 Docket No. 3-07-022. CU 97-14, 46 NRC 287 (1997) VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION REQUEST FOR ACTION; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206, Docket No. 54271 (License No. DPR-28); DD-97-25, 46 NRC 243 (1997) REQUEST IOR ACTION, FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; Docket No. 54271 (License No. DPR 28); DD 97-26,46 NRC 313 (1997) YANKEE ATOMIC EIECTRIC COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R.12.206; Docket No. 50w309; DD 9717,46 NRC 13 (1997) 2 1 1 1 l

_.I l l i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CU-97-8 ATLAS CORPORATION (Moab Utah Fucility) Docket No. 40 3453-MLA; MATERIALS U-CENSE AMENDMENT; August 4.1997. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Commission concluded that the Petitioner for intervention had failed to demonstrate stan&ng. De Commission therefore denied his appeal of the Presiding Of6cer's order denymg lus petioon to intervene. B The Commission ordinarily defers to Licensing Board standing deternunations, and sees no legal error or abuse of discretion in the Presiding Officer's refusal to grant stan&ng to a Peutioner to intervene, given his failure to offer more than general responses to the Presiding OfBeer's reasonable and clearly articulated requests for rnore speci6c information about his proxinuty based stan&ng claims. The four opportunities that the Peutioner had to specify his claims were encrely adequate. CU 97 9 INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (White Mesa Uranium Mill), Docket No. 40w8681 MLA (Alternate Feed Material); MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; August 7,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A la response to a letter that included (1) an appeal of a Presiding Officer's decision denying Petinoners standing, (2) moving for reconsideration of the decision, and (3) moving to reopen the record, the Commission instructs the Presiding Officer to pass upon the two motions. The Commission concludes that the Presi&ng Of6cer's greater familiarity with the prior procee&ng and pleadings in this case rendered him better equipped than the Commission to make prompt initial rulings on the ments of the two motions. B The Commission &sapproves of the practice of simultaneously seeking reconsideration of a Presiding Othcer's decision and (thog an appeal of the same ruling, because taking that approach would call for rulings on the same issues at the sans tins from both a trial and appellate forum. C Decause the Presiding Of6cer's greater familianty with the pnor procee&ng and pleadings in this case renders him better equipped than the Commission to make prompt imtial rulings on the ments of the motions for reconsiderauon and reopening of the record, the Commission instructs him to pass upon those motions, notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal. CU-9710 RALPH L TETRICK (Denial of Apphcation for Reactor Operator Ucense), Docket No. 55-20726 SP; REACTOR OPERATOR UCENSE; August 7,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Commission grants the NRC Staff's Petition for Review and reverses the Presiding Officer's decision requinng issuance of a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) license. The Commission disagrees with the Presiding Of6cer's conclusions that the NRC Staff should have anticipated the need to offer evidence and arguments on the issue whether the candidate's SRO examination score should be rounded up to a passing grade of 80%, and clust the Staff's failure to anucipate this need precludes their raising such arguments and evidence on reconsideration. The Commission also disagreed with the Presiding OfAcer's decision to round up the SRO exanunation score, but agreed with lum that the candi< tate had incorrectly answered Question 63 of the examinanon. B Although the Staff could reasonably have anticipated both that he might rule in the SRO can&dare's favor on one of the esam quesnons and that such a ruling would raise his score to either a 79.59 (quesuon j deleted) or 79 80 (question graded in can&date's favor), the Staff need not have further anacipated that the Presi&ng Othcer would then round the revised score upward to the next integer. ) C The version of NUREG 1021 in effect at the tinw the candidate took his exam did not address rounding duretly but did state that a successful aplicant must answer correctly "at least 80 percent" of the questions on the written exanunation, he phrase "at least" on its face suggests strongly that 80% is tle mimmal acceptable score and that roundmg up lower scores is impermissible. i 1 3 l

_l I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D Agency practice is one indicator of how an agency interprets its regulations. Given that de Staff itself set the 80% threshold in the first plam, the Commission is disinclined to disturb its consistently twid view. E The NRC's recent revision of NUREG-1021 to replace the minimum passing grade of"80 percent" with "80 00 percent" does not support an implication that the forner term permitted rounding and therefore needed correction. Rather, the revision was akin both to the clarifying regulatory amendments that the Commission and o$er agencies regularly pronntgate and to the clarifymg legislation that Congress regularly enacts. F The decision whether to round up near-passing scores requires a policy choice. Either option is plausible. Here, in the adjudicatory setting, the Commission declines to set aside the NRC Staff's policy judgment, supported by the language of NUREG-1021, to draw the pass-fait line at 80% minimum, i without roundtog up. When the Presidmg Officer ordered rounding up on the ground that the SRO written ) caaminations are not so precise that tenths of a percent have any meaning and essentially reduced the passing ] score from 80% to 79.5%, he stepped in:o a Staff area of responsibility. 1 CU-97 Il LOUISlANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. (Claibome Enrichment Center), Docket No. 70-3070LML; i MATERIALS LICENSE; September 3,1997; ORDER A he Commission remands to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board one issue for clanfication, before taking action on three pending petitions for review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boar (s Partial Initial Decision, LBP-97 3, 45 NRC 99 (1997), resolving decommissioning funding matters. Tim remanded issue concerns the Boar (s Anding that the NRC Staff's calculations of done impacu from deep-mine disposal of waste to be produced at the Claiborne Enrichment Center was reasonable. CLI-9712 LOUIStANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), Docket No. 70-3070-ML; MATERIALS LICENSE; September 19,1997; ORDER A The Commission denies Citizens Against Nuclear Trash's amtion for reconsideration of CL1 II,46 NRC 49 (1997). In CU-97-II, the Commission remanded for clarification one issue decided by the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board in its decision on waste disposal and decommissioning funding. LBP 97-3,45 NRC 99 (1997). De remanded issue involves the Boar (s 6nding that de NRC Staff's calculations of dose impacts ham deep-mine disposal of waste to be produced at the Claiborne Emichment center is reasonable. CLI-9713 SEQUOYAH FUELS CORPORATION and GENERAL ATOMICS (Gore, Oklahoma Site), Docket No. 40 8027-EA (Decontamination and Decomnussioning Ibnding); ENIORCEMENT ACTION; October 8,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Comnussion affirms de Ucensing Boar (s approval of settlements between the Staff and both General Atomics (GA) and Sequoyah Fuels Corporation (Sf8C). The settlements addressed the two companies' financial responsibility for cleanir,g up the Gore, Oklahoma facility owned and operated by GA's subsidiary, SFC. In approving de setdements, the Commission sets forth in considerable detail the factors it considers when evaluatir,g a settlearnt of an enforcement proceeding. B The Comnussion,like other adjudicatory bodies,looks with favor upon settlements. The Commis-sion considers the facts in the light most favorable to a settlement and is loath to second-guess the parties' (inchuhng Staff's) evaluation of their own interests. On the other hand, the Commission does not simply rubber-stamp all enforcement settlements, but rather looks independently at such settlements to see whether j they meet the public interest. 1 C Section 2.203 of the Commission's rules of practice sets forth de Boar (s function in reviewing settlements in enforcement cases,i.e., that (1) settlenunts are subject to the Boar (s approval;(2) the Board, in considering whether to pprove a seulement, should "accordO due weight to the position of the staff"; j and (3) the Board rnay " order such adjudicanon of the issues as [it) may deem to be required in the pubhc interest to dispose of the proceedmg." D Commission review of Board decisions on legal and policy matters such as the adequacy of a settlement is de now, although the Commission gives respectful attention to the Bour(s views. In conducting its review, the Comnussion uses the "due weight to.. staff" and "public-interest" standards set forth in 10 C.F.R.12.203 and New York Shipbu&fing Corp., I AEC 842 (1%1). Moreover, the Commission temains mindful that the enforcement context of this proceeding necessarily restricts the scope of renzdies that Intervenors may demand to those set out by de NRC Staffin its enforcement order. 4

I ._l I l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E The Staff's position, while entitled to due weight, is not itself disposieve of whether an enforcement settlement should be approved. F Having "hved" with the case as a litigant, the NRC Staff necessarily knows the record as well as, j and probably better than, the Dourd and de Commission. & Staff has a similarly close famihanty with i the strengths and weaknesses of its own factual and legal contentions. In addition, it is the Staff - not j the Board or the Commission - who has negotiated with the enforcement targets and who consequendy is in the strongest posinon at the agency to assess what those agency targets are withng to concede and how much they are willing to pay. O The Staff has the beat sense of how it should allocate its hnuted enforcement resources, as measured against other prianties, to provide the maximum protection of the public health and safety, and whether the invesunent of further time and money in litignung (as corrwed with settung) a particular case is a responsible use of those scarce resources. H The Commission is wilhng to presume that its Staff acted in the agency's best interest in agreeing to the settlernents. Only if the settlernents' opponents show sons " substantial" public-interest reason to overcone that presumpoon will the Commission undo the setdements. I in examieng a settlenent of an enforcement proceeding, the Comnussion divides its public-interest inquiry into four parts: (1) whether, in view of tim agency's onginal order and tim risks and bene 6ts of further litigation, the settlement result appears unreasonable; (2) whether the terms of the settlenent appear incapable of effective implementadon and enfortement; (3) whether the settlement jeopardizes the public benhh and safety; and (4) wheder the settlement approval proceu deprives interested parties of meaningful participation. J The Commission tends to look more favorably upon settlements that will reduce the amount of money spent on litigation over liability issues and make that money available for cleanup. E in reviewing risks and benc6ts, the Commission considers (1) de hkchhood (or uncertainty) of success at trial, (2) de range of possible recovery and the related risk of uncollectibility of a larger trial judgnent; and (3) the complexity, length, and expeme of conunued htigation. L The test for approval of a settlement is not whetler it grants a particular party everything it theoretically might have won had the case been fully litigated. Such a test would be indistinguishable from a merits judgment based on a judicial Ending of liability and would deprive the remaining parties of all incendve to seule. M Were dw Staff to discern a pauern of improper disbursements, de agency could then require the licensee to obtain Staff's preapproval of all disbursenents in excess of a certain dollar 6gure. If the recipient ofimproper disbursemects were aware of the seulenunt with hcensee, the Staff could seek reimbursement from the recipient. In addinon, any willful violations of the Commission's orders may lead to criminal sanctions. N The Commission is loath to jeopardize a settlement by adding a new requirement of little demonstrable worth. O he adjudicator's function is not to determine whether the resulting array of rights and habihties la the one that will best serve society, but only to con 6tm that du sesulung settlement is within the reachas l of the pubhc imerest P The Commission lacks authority to nulbry private debts. Q ne essence of settlements is compromise and the Comnussion will not judge them on the basis of whether the Staff (or any other party) achieves in a settlement everything it could possibly attain from a fully and successfully htigated proceeding. R The Commission would not accept a settlement of an enforcement adjudicanon where the settlernent I in actuality jeopardized the public health and safety. S The NRC is not required under the AEA to adhere without compromise to the remedial plan of an enforcement order. Such a restriction would effectively preclude seulement because, by prohibiang any meaningful compronuse as to remedy, it would ehminate the element of exchange which is at the heart of settlement of any htigation. T An NRC-licensed facihty's compliance with the Commission's safety rules can be an important indicator that the facility does not jeopardize public heahh and safety. But this does not preclude the Commission, when settling enforcenent controversies, imm agreeing to alternate devices to protect health and safety. l I I 5 l

f i t _I I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMLSSION U Where the Staff in an enforcenrnt seulement does not insist on strict compliance with a particular Commission regulation, it is neither waiving that regulation at issue nor amending it, but is instead nrrely eacrcising discretion to allow an alternative means of meeting die regulation's goals. V A settlement itself has no precedential value. W If a party fails to raise an argument before the Board,it may not do so on appeal. X Intervenors in an coforcement proceeding may only intervene with respect to tratters found to be within the scope of the Stairs enforcement order and may not espand the breadth of the order or proceeding. In other words,intervenors take enforcenent cases as they And them. They may not control how such cases are prosecuted or compromised. Nor muy they simply object to seulement in order to block it Y Although it is useful for intervenors, based on available information, to rin objections b enforcement seulements as ortside the public interest, it would not be sound practice, ci even possible. for the Corranission to place in imervenors' hands the same information and considerations that may have innuenced the NRC Staff to strike a compronuse with SFC and GA. Z tess information is available when a case settles than would be if the case were fully litigated. But this fact oflife does not undercut the viabihty of a settlement. AA Where a grant of discovery into the merits of a settlement would create a second major htigation, such a grant would serve as a major disincentive to engaging in the arduous, yet desirable, task of sculing complea enforcement cases. CLI-97-14 ST, MARY'S MEDICAL CENTER, Of Docket No. 3-97-022; EN}ORCEMENT ACTION; December 11,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A An NRC subpoena is enforceable if (1) it is for a proper purpose authorized by Congress; (2) the information is clearly relevant to that purpose and adequately described; and (3) statutory procedures are followed in the subpoena's issuance. United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964); United Srares v. Construction Products Resend fac., 73 F.3d 464,469-71 (2d Cir.), cerr. denied,117 S. Ct. 294 (1996). D The NRC may begin an investigation "merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurances that it is not." United States v. &non Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632,642 43 (1950). C De NRC's subpoena power is essenually analogous to the broad subpoena powers accorded to s grand jury. Powfl, 379 U.S. at 57; Enon Salt Co., 338 U.S. at 642 43; Oklahoma Press Co. v. Walhng, 327 U.S.186,209 (1946). D The instant subpoenas clearly idenufy the general area of investigauon by atz NRC - the termination of a named individual-but also limit the demarut for document production to two clearly dehned areas; acenrdingly, the subpoenas are not " vague and indefinite." E Petitioners have not alleged that the subpoenas are unduly burdensome, which would require showing timt " compliance would threaten normal operauon of its business." F The subpoenas clearly identify the area of investigation and the scope of document production; the area of inquiry is within the jurisdiction of the NRC; and the subpoenas are not unduly burdensome; j accordingly, the subpoenas will be enforced, i CW-9715 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), Docket No. 70 3070-ML; MATERIALS LICENSE; December 18,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Financial Quali6 cations) A De Commission reverses the Atomic Safety and IJcensing Board's decision on haancial qualifica-tions, LBP-96 25,44 NRC 331 (1996), and Ands Louisiana Energy Services enancially quali6ed to construct I and operate the Claiborne Enrichment Center. The Commission also imposes certain license conditions that require IIS to ful6116nancial commitments it has made in this proceeding. B The starung point in construing an NRC regulation is, of coun,e, ha " language and structure." long j lsland hghtint Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-900,28 NRC 275,288 (1988). C The shorter, more Acaible language of Part 70, as compared to Part 50, allows a less rigid, snore indaviduahzed approach to determine whether an applicant has demonstrated that it is firmacially quah6ed to construct and operate an NRC-licensed facihty. D De regulatory history of the Part 70 and Part 50 regulations on Anancial quah6 cations supports the interpretation that.a Part 70 applicant's 6aancial quali6 cations should be judged on an individuahzed basis and not necessarily pursuant to the same standards and criteria as appear in Part 50. 1 i l l l 1

) __l l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E "The fundamental purpose of the Snancial quah6 cations provision of. section ll82a of the AEA] is the protection of public health and safety and the common defense and accurity." 33 isd. Reg. 9704 (July 4,1%8). P The possibility that underfunding will lead to a health, safety, or a common defense or security risk is extremely unlikely in light of the extensive and detailed technical review applicants such as LES rnust undergo to ensure safe construction and operation. See, e.g., Louisiana Energy Servkes, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), LBP-%7,43 NRC 142 (1996). O 1he heakh and safety risks associated with uranium enrichment by gas centrifuge are less than with operation of nuclear reactors. H NRC inspections and enforcement action go a long way toward ensuring compliance with our requirements. See All ChemksiIsosape Enrkhment, lac. LBP-90 26,32 NRC 30 (1990) (licensing board sustained the Stafs sevocation of construction pernuts of a licensee that had failed to disclose its true 6aancial condition during the original licensing proceeding). 1-h is appropriate for the Cornmission to impose commitments made by an applicant in the course. of a licensing proceeding as license conditions. See, e.g., Carutors of the Unhersity of Afirsaari, CU-95-1, 41 NRC 71,154-58 & n.139 (1995); cf Louisiana Enerty Servkes, LP, (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CL1-%8, 44 NRC 107,109-10 (1996) (requiring LES to amend Emergency Plan and Safety Analysis Report to reRect litigation comnatment). 4 7 )- l l 4 1 i i

_l I f DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LLP-97-12 INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (White Mesa Uranium Mill), Docket No. 40w8681-MLA (ASLBP No. 97-72643-MLA) (Re: Ucense Anendment)(Alternate feed Material); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 23, 1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying a Hearing) A Even after receiving detailed guidance from the Presiding Officer, Petidoners have not filed pleadings that dernonstrate an injury in fact resulting from the proposed license amendnent Dey are, therefore, not enutled to a hearing. B A uranium mill requested a license amendment to receive a different kind of feedstock material without any increase in the amount of radioactive material processed or disposed of. An allegation by some native American neighbors that they have been discrirrunnted against by the license anendment does not demonstrute any improper discrimination against them. LBP 97-13 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (Independent Spent fuel Storage InstaDanon), Docket clo 72-18-ISFSI(ASLDP No. 97-720 01.!SFSI); INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLA-TION; July 30,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Terminating Procee&ng) A The Licensing Board grants the Applicant's motion to withdraw its application and terminare the proceeding. (The Board thereafter on August 7,1997, considered a peution for reconsideration of this Order.) LDP-97-14 INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (White Mesa Uranium Mill), Docket No. 40-8681 MLA (ASLDP No. 97-726-03-MLA) (Re: Ucense Amendment)(Alternate Feed Material); MATERIAL.S LlCENSE AMENDMENT; September 4,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Motions for Reconsideration. To Reopen the Record) A Petitioners' motion for reconsideration is denied because they have not provided any informauon, beyond conjecture, that the tailings of which they complain represent an increased health or safety hazard. Peuuoners sull have rmt net the prerequisite for standing that they show that they are injured by the proposed action. In this amendment case, Petitioners must show that the amendnent may injure t!em or someone IAey are authorized to represent. They have not done that. Hence, the motion for reconsideration is denied for failure to show that the Presiding Of5cer has made a matenal error of law or fact. m The motion to reopen the record also is denied. No additional evidence has been presented for admission into the record and there was no showing that the motion was timely.10 C.F.R. 6 2.734. LBP 9715 AHARON BEN-HAIM. Ph.D (Upper Montclair, New Jersey) Docket No. IA 97-068 (ASLBP No. 97-73101-EA) (Order Supersedmg Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities, Effective immediately); ENK)RCEMENT ACTION; September 25,1997; PREHEARING CONfT.RENCE ORDER (Denying Rescission and Establishing Schedules) A ne Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issues a Memorandum and Order that confirms an oral ruling at a prehearing conference denying, pursuant to 10 C.FA I 2.202(cX2Xi), a request for rescission of an imnediately effecove order iuued by the NRC Staff. B An imnediately effective enforcenent order issued by the NRC Staff may be challenged pursuant to 10 C.FA 0 2.202(cX2Xi). C An inmediately effective order may be challenged as not based on adequate evidence, which the Commission has equated to " probable cause." 9

e i _l I t l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS D The movant challenging an immediately effective Staff enforcement order bears the burden of going forward to demonstrate that the Stafra order is not founded on adequate evidence, but the Staff has the utdmate burden of persuasion on whether the requisite standard has been satished. B Claims of a movant under 10 C.FA I 2.202(c)(2XI) may properly suggest the existence of factual disputes, but they rnay not be sufAcient to demonstrate lack of probable cause for a Staff immediately effective order. LBP-9716 FRANK J. CALABRESE JR- (Denial of Senior Reactor Operator Ucense), Docket No. 55-61425-SP (ASLDP No. 97 725-02-SP); REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE; September 26,1997; INITIAL DECISION A la this informal proceeding concerning a cha!!enge by Itank J. Calabrese Jr. to the NRC StatTs proposed denial of his application for a senior reactor operator (SRO) license, the Presiding Ofscer concludes the Stufra action should be afArmed and the application denied because the applicant did not follow facility procedures regarding rapid depressurization during the simulatur portion of his SRO examination operating test. B When the credibility of various affiants is at the center of the parties' dispute, the presiding of6cer would have to convene an oral presentation session to receive testimony. See 10 C.F.R.12.1235. C Documents bearing the NUREG designadon generally do not establish regulatory sequirements. See, e.g., General Public UsiMes Nuclear Corp. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-97-1,45 NRC 7,25 (1997) (citing cases). D While heedful of the discrenon afforded the Staff in making its reactor operator examination determinations, a presiding of6cer properly can look to NUREG-1021 as an important source in assessing whether the Staff has strayed too far afield ofits stated twin goals of " equitable and consistent" examination administration. G Ralph.L Terrick (Denial of Application for Reactor Operator License), CLI-97-10,46 NRC 26, 3132 (1997) (because agency practice is one indicator of how agency interprets regulations, consistently held Staff view on operator testing policy matter will not be disturbed 1 E Given the " snapshot" nature of the simulator portion of the operanng test process, the quality of an applicant's critical decisionmaking during a crucial test interval, no matter how brief in relation to the rest of the test, was an appropriate yardstick for taking the measure of the applicant's performance. P Although there may well be a difference between the Staff's assessment of the safety signincance of " actual" and " potential" events at a funcuoning facihty,in the simulator portion of the operator test process in which the Staff is assessing whether it should permit an applicant to be placed as a reactor operator at such a facility when his action (or inaction) can cause such an " actual" event. the dishnetion between " potential" and " actual" events is one that has signincantly less resonance, particularly if the consequences of the applicant's activities ultimately can resuk in serious reactor core damage. O The following techni::alissue is discussed: Reactor operator testing. LDP-9717 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (Independent Spent Ibel Storage Installation), Docket No. 7218-ISFSI (ASLBP No. 97-720 01-ISFSI); INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLA. TION, October 15, 1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Reconsideration and Terminating Proceeding) A The Ucensmg Board denies reconsideration of its carher order (LBP-9713,46 NRC 11 (1997)) terminating the proceeding without prejudice. It determines that termination with prejudice, as sougbt by are petitioner for intervention, is inappropriate in the circumstances. B De rule authorizing licensing boards to terminate a proceeding (10 C.F.R. 52.107(a)) prior to issuance of a notice of hearing is ambiguous on its face as to whether a board may impose conditions on such termination. C Termination of a proceeding with prejud ce is not warranted where there has been no demonstradon that there has been substantial prejudice to an opposing party or to ite public interest. That an opposing party muy " linger in uncertainty" about a future applicadon does not constitute such a demonstration. In addition termination with prejudice (1 e., barring future use of a site for a designated purpose) would be inappropriate in the absence of any information that would jusufy precluding the site from such future use. LBP-9718 AHARON BEN HAIM. Ph.D. (Upper Montclair, New Jersey), Docket No. IA 97-068 (ASLBP No. 97-73101 EA)(Order Superseding Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Ucensed Activines (Effeedve Immediately)); LNFORCEMENT ACr10N, October 22,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Staff's j Modon for Delay of Proceeding) t 10 )

i l t _I I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS A The Licensing Board grants the Staff's nedon to delay the proceeding for 120 days, to accommo-date referral of the procee&ng to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution. Because there had been no explanation why a delay of this length was necessary and because of the impact of delay upon Dr. Ben-Haim, who is subject to an imrnediately effective order barring his participation in NRC-licensed activities, the Board required detailed reasons should any further delay be sought, including possible pro-duction at a prehearing conference of a Department of Justice represer.tative for Board quesnoning. LDP-97-19 BARNEIT INDUSTRIAL X-RAY, INC. (Stillwater. Oklahoma). Docket No. 030w30691-CivP (ASLBP No. 97-730 02-CivP); ENFORCEMENT ACTION; October 24, 1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Dismissing Procce&ng) LBP 97-20 QUIVIRA MINING COMPANY (Ambrosia Lake Facility, Grunts, New Mexico), Docket No. 40-8905-MLA (ASLBP No. 97-728-04-MLA) (Amendment to Source Material License No. SUA 1473). MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT: November 4,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Request for Hearing) A The Presiding Ofhcer denies a request for a hearing because the Pentioner lacks standing to participate in the procec&ng. B To become a party in a proceeding governed by 10 C.F.R. Part 2. Subpart I a pentioner is required to set forth (1) its interest in the proceeding -i.e., its standing; (2) how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding; (3)its areas of concern about the licensing activity that is the subject matter of the proceeding; and (4) the timeliness of the petition.10 C.F.R.12.1205(e). C To admit a petitioner to a proceeding governed by 10 C.F.R. Part 2. Subpart L, a Presiding Of6cer must End that the petitioner's speci6cd areas of concern are germane to the subject matter of the proceeding, as well as the timeliness of the petition and that the petitioner has stan&ng.10 C.F.R.12.1205(h). D The standing requirement in NRC's Rules of Practice arises from the hearing authorization in section 189(a)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, providing a beanng "upon the request of any person whose interest may be afecre#' by a procee&ng (emphasis supplied). E The same standing requirements govern Subpart L proceedings as govern formal. Subpart G proceedings. F In determining standing, the Commission looks to "contanporaneous judicial concepts of standing." A contemporary delineation of thone concepts appeared in Bennerr v. Spear. 520 U.S. _,,,,117 S. CL 1154, 1163 (1997), where the Supreme Court observed that constitutional minimum standards of stan&ng are that (1) the plaintiff suffer irhury in fact, both actual or imminent; (2) there is a causal connection between the injury and the conduct in question; and (3) the injury hkely will be redressed by a favorable decision. In a&htion, a " prudential" standing requirement is that the plaintiff's grievance omst arguably fall within the " zone of interests" protected or regulated by the statutory or constitunonal provisions invoked in the suit. O Ibr stanang purposes Nury in fact need not be substantial. Although such injury omst be " actual."

• direct? and " genuine " it need not have s! ready occurred. Potential or imminent injury is suf6cient.

H Potential compentive injury from a new facihty has been recognized as a legitimate basis on which to assert injury in fact. I Although potential competitive injury may stem from operation of a facility and nct technically from its licensing, such a rationalization invokes a distinction without a difference by ignoting the obvious fact that the claimed potential competitive injury could not and would not occur absent the licensing. Such potentialinjury may thus be used to establish injury in fact J Although competitive injury may constitute injury in fact in an NRC licensing proceeding, a party relying for its standing on such injury ruust also demonstrate that it arguably falls within the zone ofinterests protected or regulated by the Atomic Energy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). K The standing of a petitioner asserting a particular type of injury snay be derived from a specific section of a statute pertinent to the litigation rather than from the statute as a whole. L Although economic matters may not be generally comprehended by the Atomic Energy Act or NEPA (unless the economic injury stems directly fmm alleged radiation hazards or other environrnental j impacts of a project), economic injury may be comprehended in htigation under section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act, which was amended in 1983 to include economic considerations concerning the regulation of byproduct noterial. i M Although certain types of alleged economic heury are within the r.one of interests protected under i amended sectiou 84 of the Atomic Energy Act, the legislative history of amended section 84 indicates that j 11 l l l ~l~ l l

I _J l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS the amendment was designed to provide the NRC Staff nere latitude in regulating byproduct material and was not intended to include injury to a competitor caused by the business activities of another competitor. N Ahhough matters such as groundwater contamination, serpage of waste materialinto the substrate, additional racioactive releases, and transportation of large volumes of byproduct waste rnarerial to a site fall within the zone of interests protected by NEPA, the impacts must themselves, in some manner, either economically or physically, have a direct irpact on a petitioner in order for it to use those impacts to establish its standing. O Economic injury resulting directly from the envimamentalimpacts of a project may serve as a basis i for a petitioner's standing under NEPA. Although NEPA does not encompass monetary interests alone, a petitioner is not precluded from asserting cognizable injuries to enviromnental values because his real or obvious interest may be viewed as amactary. P Although similarly situated hcensees must be accorded equal treatment by the NRC, the law does not require consistency of treatment of two parties in different circurnstances. i LBP-97 21 INTERNATIONAL URAN!UM (USA) CORPORATION (White Mesa Uranium Mill) Docket No. 40-8681 MLA-2 (ASLBP No. 98-733 01 MLA)(Re: Ucense Amendment)(Alternate feed Material); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENf; November 7,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denial of Petition for a Hennng) A The Presiding Officer in this Subpart L proceeding held that: "l'etiuoners have failed to demonstrate i grounds for their standing in this case. In particular they have not provided any plausible explanation of how the milling of Cabot Corporation Nuclear Wasic by a licensed null operator would cause Peutioners (or people they are authorized to represent) ' injury in fact.' Consequently, the request for a hearing shall be denied." LBP-97-22 10UISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), Docket No. 70 3070-ML (ASLBP No. 91-641-02-ML R)(Special Nuclear Material License); MATERIALS UCENSE; November 13,1997, MEMORANDUM (Explanacon Required by Remand) A In tlus Memorandum, the Licensing Board provides the additional explanation required by the Commission's rernand order in CLI 97-II,46 NRC 49 (1997) concerning one aspect of an issue decided in the Board's origmal findings on contentions B and J.3 set forth in LBP-97-3,45 NRC 99 (1997). LBP-97-23 HYDRO RESOURCES,INC. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque. NM 87120), Docket No. 40 8968-ML (ASLDP No. 95-706 01-ML); MATERIAIS LICENSE; December 18, 1997; MEMORAN-DUM AND ORDER (Lifbng licaring Suspension and Schedule for Fihng Amended Hearing Petitions) l 12 L ) 1 I l i

_l I l DIGESTS i ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-97 17 M AINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY and YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COM-PANY (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station). Docket No. 50-309, REQUEST POR ACTION; July 30, 1997; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2.206 A The Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation grants in part a petition dated August 19,1996, subnutted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by Patrick M. Sears (Pectioner). The petition requests that the NRC:(!) 6ne Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPCO) and Yankee Atomic f i Electric Company (YAEC)if records regarding use of the computer code RELAP5YA have not been kept in / l accordance with YAEC's computer code quahty assurance procedures, and (2) inspect all users of RELAP =t and 6ne those users not operaung within required computer code ven6 cation procedures. i B Because there is no basis to conclude that the problems ideno6ed with the RELAP5/ MODI vintage ECCS code used by MYAPCO are or may be present in the different RELAP code vintages at other NRC- ~ T licensed plarus, because the two other users of the RELAP5/ MODI vintage code have been inspected or are permanently shut down, and because the NRC will conduct computer code inspecuons of sclected NRC [, licensees and vendors, not limited to users of RELAP, Petitioner's 6rst request is granted in part. By virtue / C of the NRC Staff's previous and current inspecuon and review activities, Peuttoner's second request is J -[ granted in part DD-9718 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant; Prairie Jx Island ladependent Spent f%el Storage lastallation), Docket Nos. 505282, 50-306, 72-10; REQUEST IOR 33 ACTION, August 29,1997; DIRELTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CER.12.206 A The Director of the Of6cc of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a peution 61ed by the Prairie C hiand Indian Conununity pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206. Tbc petition asked that the NRC: (1) 8nd that the Ucensee violated NRC regulations by using an Independent Spent Puel Storage Installation before establishing conditions for safely unloading TN-40 dry storage containers, (2) suspenJ the license until all / signi6 cant issues concerning the unloading process have been resolved, (3) provide the Petitioners with an opportunity to participate fully in reviewing the unloading procedures for the casks, and (4) update the 7 relevant technical speci6ca6cns to incorporate mandatory unloading procedure requirernents for the TN-40 L dry storage containers. DD-9719 CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (Haddarn Neck Plant), Docket No. 50 213. REQUEST POR ACTION; September 3,1997; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. I 2.206 A By leuer dated March 11,1997, Ms. Rosemary Bassilakis submitted a petition on behalf of the Citizens Awareness Network and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (Petitioners) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.206, requesting that the NRC (1) is ue a large civil penalty against the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CY) to ensure its comphance with safety-based radiological conuol routines; (2) modify CY's license for the Haddam Neck facility to prohibit any decommissioning activity at the facihry until a 6-month period passes without any contanunation events occurnng; and (3) place the Haddam Neck facility on the NRC Watch List. B in a Director's Decision dated Septernber 3,1997, the Duector of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j, respectively deferred and denied Peutioners' requests. The Director concluded that it would be premature at this time to rule on Peutioners' 6rst request, as the NRC is currently considering enforcement action with regard to failed radiation program controls at the Haddam Neck facility. Pentioners'second request was denied on the basis of past environmental and exposure reports, as well as the presence of an onsite NRC Senior Resident inspector and cenain measures rnemarialized in a Con 6rmatory Action letter. Similarly, 13 m I

_l l l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS l the Director denied Petitioners' third request, due both to the Haddam Neck facility being permancedy shut I down as wed as other actions taken in responas to idenu6ed deficiencies at the facility. DD 97-20 f1ORIDA POWER & LIGifT COMPANY (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units I aral 2; Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), Docket Nos. 50-250, 50-251, 50-335, 50 389; REQUEST FOR ACTION; September 8,1997, DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 A ne Director of the Offce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has granted in part and denied in part a petition Bled by Thomas L Saporito, Jr., on behalf of himself and the National Litigation Consultants. The Peutioners requested that the NRC take certain actions with regard to Florida Power & Ught Company (FPL), including taking escalated enforcement acuon against FPL and certaiu of its employees, granting j the Petitioners an interview, and taking various other actions. As grounds for their request, the Petitioners I asserted that the NRC's failure to take enforcement action against l'PL on the basis of a Secretary of labor's Sading that FPL violated the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) when it retaliated against Mr. Saporito for raising nuclear safety concerns has resuhed in a " chilling effect" and continued discrimination against other FPL employees, that FPL and its managers are liable for creaung a hostile work environment at FPL's Turkey Point facility and have failed to stop harassment of and discnmination against Mr. Saporito, and that the record in this case shows the direct participation of Mr. Saponto's " chain of command"is the retaliation against Mr. Saponto. With regard to the Petitioners' request for an interview, this has been granted; in all other respects the petition is denied. B An employee may not be discrinunated against by an employer for coming direcdy to the NRC with safety concerns. Nonetheless, an employee may also be required by the employer to bring these same concerns to the employce's management. Whether an employee must bring issues to licemee management is dependent on the facts of each speci6c case. DD 97-21 NORTHEAST UTILITIES (Mdistone Nuclear Power Stanon, Units 1,2,,and 3; Haddam Neck Plant) Docket Nos. 50 245,50 336,50 423,50 213 (Ucense Nos. DPR-21, DPR-65, NPF-49, DPR-61); REQUEST FOR ACION; September 12,1997; PARTIAL DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 A he Director, Orlice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, issues a Partial!>irector's Decision, responding to a variety of requests made in a petidon Bled by the Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIBS), hereinafter referred to as Petitioners. Pedtioners' requests were directed at Northeast Udlines (NU) and speci6cally its operation of its nuclear facilices in Connecticut. Peutioners' requests for relief included immediate suspension or revocation of NU's licenses, continued shutdown of NU facilities, continued listing of NU facilities on the NRC's Watch Ust, limitations on precommissioning or decommissioning of any NU facility, and investigations by the NRC into asserted wrongdoing on the part of NU. 8 The Director deferred Petitioners' requests concerning asserted NU wrongdoing until NRC Staff consideration of this issue is completed. A Final Director's Decision will then be issued. With regard to Petitioners' remaining requests, those requer.s were granted or denied in whole or in part as set forth in the Partial Director's Decision. DD-97-22 NATIONAL INSTITtJTES OF HEALTH (Bethesda, Maryland), Docket No. 0304)l?86 (Ucense No.19-0029610); REQUEST POR ACTION; Septernber 17,1997. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. I 2.206 A The Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards grants in part and denies in part a petition dated October 10,1995, submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Maryann Wenh Ma, M D., Ph.D., and Bill Wenling Zheng. M.D., Ph.D. (Pentioners). The petition requests that NRC suspend or revoke the materials license of the National Institures of Health (NIH) pending resolution of the issues raised by the petition, and that NRC take other appropriate enforcement action, including the imposition of civil penalties against NIH for willful and reckless violations of 10 CfA Part 20. Bmadly stated, the Petitioners assert that, as the direct and proaimate result of NIH's (1) deliberate failure to control and secure radioactive materials in violation of 10 C FA 1120.1801 and 20.1802, (2) failure to maintain an effective bioassay program, and (3) failure to otherwise adhere to the requirements of Part 20, Dr. Ma was contaminnted with phosphorus 32 (P 32), resulting in both her and her unborn fetus receiving intakes of radioactive material sigmftcandy in excess of regulatory limits, additional NIH employees also being internally contaminated with P 32, and failure of NIH to take proper actions to assess accurately the level of Dr. Ma's internal contamination or provide appropriate medical care and followup treatment. 14 1

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS B The Director denies Pensioners' requests for enforcemem action against NIH: for the exposure of I Dr. Ma beyond regulatory hmits. for the exposure of Dr. Ma's fetus, and for the contamination of the water cooler; regarding noti 8 canon to Dr. Ma of her level of contanunation; regarding Dr. Ma's declaration of pregnancy; regarding the conduct of surveys after Dr. Ma's contamination; and for the failure to accurately calculare Dr. Ma's occupational radiation dose. The Director denies these requests, as well as the request to suspend or revoke the NIH license, because Petitioners did not provide suf6cient baaes to warrant such actions. De Director granted in part Petitioners' request for enforcement action against NIH for violations of NRC secunty and control requirements and for violation of NRC requirements related to radiation safety trainingcordering radioactive materials, inventory control of radioactive materials, monitoring, and the issuance, use, and collection of dosimetry. De Director granted Petitioners' request for NRC action to ensure adequate procedures and instructions to exposed persons for sample collecuon as described in this Director's Decision. DD-97 23 SOtJTHERN CAllf0RNIA EDISON COMPANY, er af. (San Onofre Nuclear Oenerating Station, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50 361,50 362; September 19.1997; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 4 h Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a pedtion 61ed pursuant to 10 CF.R. 5 2.206 by Stephen Dwyer on September 22.1996, asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to shut down the San Onofre Nuclear Oenerating Station. Units 2 and 3, pending a complete review of the seismic risk based on new information gathered at the Landers and Northridge earthquakes. I #D-97-24 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (Goodhue Caumy Independent Spnt Puel Storage Facihty), Docket No. 72-10; REQUEST IUR ACTION; September 26,1997; DIRECTOR'S DECISION i UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 A & Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards denies a petition died by Florence Township, Minnesota, on August 26,1996. The Pc'itioner asked that the NRC 6ad that Northern States Power Company (NSP) had violated NRC regulations by not permitting take City, Mmnesota, the opportunity to comment on the emergency plan for a proposed independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) before submitting the plan to the NRC, On tbar basis, Petitioner asked that a civil penalty be imposed. In addition, Pentioner asked that the NRC reject NSP's appheation and require NSP to take certain actions with regard to the ISFS! application. DD-97 25 VERMOBTT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-271 (License No. DPR-28); October 8,1997; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 A By a petition dated December 6,1996, submitted by the Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. (Peutioner or CAN), Petitioner requested evaluation of two enclosed documents relaung to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee facility) operated by the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Licensee). The 6rst document was a CAN memorandum raining a concern with corrrective accons taken by the Licensee in opening the minirnum now valves at the Vermont Yankee facility to provide residual heat removal pump protection. Petitioner raised the concern that an unreviewed safety question may have been intmduced. The second document was a CAN memorandum requesting review of certain licensee event reports (LERs) submitted by the Ucensee. B Petitioner requested that the memoranda be evaluated by the NRC to see if enforcement action was warranted based on the information contained therein ne Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulatlan lasued a Partial Director's Decision on October 8,1997. The Petitioner's request was granted in that the NRC Staff has evaluated those issues raised in the CAN menxranda that have been closed by the Staff and the Staff has found that no further enforcemem achon is warranted. De three LERs that remain open and are still being evaluated by the NRC Staff will be addressed in a Final Director's Decision. DD 97-26 YERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50L271 (License No. DPR-28); REQUEST FOR ACTION; December 29,1997; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.lt $ 2.206 A By a petioon dated December 6,1996, subnutted by the Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. (Petitioner or CAN), Peutioner requested evaluation of two enclosed documents relatng to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee facility) operated by the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Licenseek The $rst document was a CAN memorandum raising a concern with corrective actions taken by the Licensee in opening the minimum Sow valves at the Vermont Yankee facility to provide 15

l l _l I DIGEhTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS residual heat removal pump protection. Tbc second docurnent was a CAN nurnorandum requesting a review g g of certain heennes event reports (LERs) submitted by the Licenace. Petiooner requested that tre rnernuranda i be evaluated by the NRC to see if enforcement action was warranted based on the information contaaned tienin. B The Director of the Of5ce of Nuclear Reactor Reguistion (NRR) issued a Partial Director's Decision on October 8,1997, responding to the majority ofissues raised by Peutioner. However, three 11Rs remained open at that tirne and Petitioner was infurtned that, upon completion of the NRC Stan evaluarion of these reamining LERs. a Final Director's Decision would be issued. On December 29, 1997, the Director of NRR issued the Final Director's Decision. The Petitioner's request was granted in that the NRC Staff has evaluated the three remaining IERs and has concluded that no further enforcement action is warranted. O 16

_l l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Admaced Medical Systems, Inc. (One Fuctory Row, Geneva, Ohio 4404I), LBP 94-10, 39 NRC 126 (1994) NRC policy on settlement of contested procee&ngs; LBP-9719,46 NRC 218 (1997) All Chemical Isotope Earichment. Inc., LBP-9426, 32 NRC 30 (1990) enforcement of comphance with financial qualihcations requirenrnts; CLI-97-15, 46 NRC 307 (1997) Armstrong v. Boarnt of School Darectors, 616 F.2d 305, 314 Gth Cir.1980) public-interent standard applied in review of settlements; CL1-97-13, 46 NRC 209 a II (1997) Armstrong v. Board of School Dsrectors, 616 F.2d 305, 315, 316 (7th Cir.1980) NRC authority to comprotnise on enforcement orders; CLI 97-13,46 NRC 219 n.27 (1997) Ash v. Polsce Commusioner of Boston, !! Mans. App. 650, 653, 418 N E.2d 622, 624 (1981) / rounding-up of test scores, CLI-97-10, 46 NRC 32 n.8 (1997) Belforti v. NAC, 725 F.2d 1380,1381 (D.C. Cir.1983) scope of intervenoon og enforcement orders; CLI-9's-13, 46 NRC 206, 222 (1997) Bennett v. Spear, 520 U S'. s 117 S. CL 1154,116061 (1997) / zone-of-interests test for standing to intervene; LBP 97-20, 46 NRC 262-63 (1997) ( Bennen v. Spear, 520 U.S. _,,117 S Ct.1154,1163 (1997) =' ju&cial concepts of standmg applied in NRC informal proceedings; LBP-97 20, 46 NRC 262 (1997) -/ Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. s 117 S. CL 1154,1163-64 (1997) competiuve injury as basis for standing to intervene in materials license amendment proceeding- ~ LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 265, 266 (1997) Bennen v. Spear, 520 U.S. s 117 S. Ct.1154,1166-67 (1997) economic injury as basis for standing to intervene in gnaterials license amendrnent proceeding; I LBP 97 20, 46 NRC 266 (1997) Chemetron Corp. (Dert Avenue, Harvard Avenue, and McGean-Rohco Sites, Newburgh Heights and [ Cuyahoga Heights, Ohio), LDP-94-20, 40 NRC 17,18 (1994) stan&ng to ntervene in informal proceedings; LBP 97-20, 46 NRC 262 a.4 (1997) Cin of Detroit v. Grinnell, 495 F.2d 448, 455 n.2 (1974) best-bargain standard for settlements; CLI-9713, 46 NRC 215 n.18 (1997) City of Detroit v. Grinnell, 495 F.2d 448, 462 (1974) issues not susceptible to review h decisions on settlements; C1197-13,46 NRC 222 n.31 (1997) public-irxerest standard apphed to settlements; CLI-97-13, 46 NRC 209 a.ll (1997) City of Detroit v. Grinnell, 495 P.2d 448, 468 (1974) public-interest standard applied to settlements; CLI 9713, 46 NRC 205 (1997) Clarke v. Securities Industry Associaster 479 U.S. 388, 396 (1987) economic injury without connection to environmental impact as basis far staneng to intervene; LBP-97 20, 46 NRC 270 a 10 (1997) p Clewland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLL86-7, 23 NRC 233, 235 (1986) standard for grant of motion for reconsideranon; LDP-97-14, 46 NRC 59 (1997) Clinton Community llospstal Corp. v. Southern Maryland Medscal Center, 374 F. Supp. 450, 455 56 (D. Md.1974), qf'd, 510 F.2d 1037 (4th Car.), cert. denied 422 U.S.1048 (1975) economic injury without connection to environmental impact as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 270 (1997) \\ 17 l

I l ._I l i l l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l CASES Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, tinits I and 2), AIAB-770,19 NRC 1163, 1168, 1181-82 (1984) jurisdiction to proceed on remanded issue that is pending on appeal; CLI-97-12,46 NRC 53 s.1 (1997) County of Josephine v. Wuir, 539 F. Supp. 696,703-04 (N.D. Cal.1982) standing to intervene on the basis of direct use in a recreational or occupational sense; LDP-97 20, 46 NRC 269 (1997) Curators of the Unnersity of Missoort, CL1-951, el NRC 71,94 (1995) jurisdiction to rule on motions for reconsideration and to teopen; CLI-97-9,46 NRC 24 (1997) Curators of the Uniwesity of Missourt CL195-1,41 NRC 71,154-58 & n.139 (1995) 6aancial corulitions on license for enrichment facility; CLl-9715,46 NRC 308 (1997) Curators of the Uniwestry of Mrsoort LBP-90618, 31 NRC 559, 566 (1990) interpretation of injury-in-fact standard for intervention in snarerials license ameadnwnt prucceding; LBP-97-12,46 NRC 6 n 4 (1997) i Dellums v. NRC 863 F.2d 968, 971 (D.C. Cir.1988) J zone of interests test for stan&ng to intervene; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 263 (1997) Detroir Edison Co. (Ennco fermi Atomic Power Plant. Unit 2), LBP 78-37, 8 NRC $75, 583 (1978) authorization for organizational standmg to intervene; IEP-9714,46 NRC 57 a.2 (1997) Donman v. lone Sreer Inc., 464 U.S. 408 (1984) scope of subpoenas; CLI-97-14,46 NRC 289 (1997) enforcenwns of NRC subpoenas; CLI-9714,46 NRC 292 (1997) Duke l'ouer Co. (ftrkins Nuclear Station, Units I, 2, and 3), LBP-82 81,16 NRC 1128,1135 (1982) possibility of fmure litigation as grounds for termination of proceedmgs with prejudu:e; LBP-9717, 46 NRC 231 (1997) l Ea.erern Testing and laspection. Jac., LBP-96-9, 43 NRC 211, 215-16 (1996) " adequate evidence" standard for immediately effective order; LBP-9715,*46 NRC 63 (1997) EEOC v. Ray Shipbuilding Corp., 668 F.2d 304, 313 Oth Cir.1981) showing necessary to establish that subpoena is excessively burdensome; CL1-97-14, 46 NRC 292 n.2 (1997) EEOC v. Gladiens Refinery Inc., 631 F. Supp. 927 (N.D. Ind.1986) speci6 city of subpoenas; CLI-97-14. a6 NRC 292 (1997) EEOC v. #irrun Walker & Sons, Inc., 768 F.2d 884, 889 (7th Cir.1985) { s best-burgain standard for settlements; CLI 97-13, 46 NRC 215 n,18 (1997) rejection of settlement for failure to provide complete victory for a particular pany; CU-97-13,46 NRC 223 n.34 (1997) EEOC v. Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc., 768 F.2d 884, 892 (7th Cir.1985) rejection of argunwat opposing settleme:st that was raised for Arst time on appeal; CL1-97-13,46 NRC 221 n.30 (1997) EEOC v. QuadGraphics, Inc., 63 F.3d 642, 645 Oth Cir.1995) enforcenwns of NRC subpoenas, standard for; CU-9714,46 NRC 291 (1997) EEOC v. Qua& Graphics, Jac., 63 F.3d 642, 648 Gib Cir.1995) senpe of NRC subpoena power; CLI 9714,46 NRC 291 (1997) i showmg necessary to establish that subpoena is excessively burdensome; CLI 9714,46 NRC 292 n.2 (1997) Energy fuels Nuclear, Inc., LDP-95 20, 42 NRC 197 (1995) ( terminadon af proceedings with prejudice, standard for; LBP-97-17,46 NRC 231 (1997) Envirocare qf Usuh, Inc., LBP 92-8, 35 NRC 167,172 (1992) judicial concepts of stunding apphed in NRC informal proceedings; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 262 (1997) Envirocare of Usuh, Inc., LBP-92-8,35 NRC 167,173 (1992) sone-of interests test for standing to innervene; LBP 97 20, 46 NRC 263 (1997) Envirocare qf Utah, Inc., LBP-92-8. 35 NdC 167,180 81 (1992) economic Injury as basis for standmg to intervene in materials licenne anwndnwen proceeding, LBP-97-20,46 NRC 266 (1997) 18 6 I ~1 l

_I I l l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES First Nation,.I Bank & Trust Co. v. National Credte Union Administration, 988 F.2d 1272,1277 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied 510 U.S. 907 (1993) economic injury without connection to environmental impact as basis for standing to intervene; I LDP-97-20, 46 NRC 270 n.10 (1997) Fiw Star Products, Inc., CLI-93 23, 38 NRC 169,177 n.2 (1993) l statutory authority for protection of workers in nuclear related activities; CU-97-14,46 NRC 290 n.1 1 (1997) { Few Star Products, Inc., CL1-93-23, 38 NRC 169,178 (1993) enforcement of NRC subpoenas, standard for; CU-9714,46 NRC 291 (1997) j Florida Audubon Society v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir.1996) q economic injury without connection to environmental impact as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 270 (1997) Central Atomics v.. NRC, 75 F.3d 536 (9th Cir.1996) re. source allocation factor in approval of settlements; CU-97-13, 46 NRC 208 (1997) General Atomics v. NRC, 75 F.3d $36, 541 (9th Cir.1996) Commission jurisdiction over parent company in enforcement accon; CLI-97-13,46 NRC 210 n.13 (1997) General public Utilities Nuclear Corp. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-971,45 NRC 7, 25 (1997) status of regulatory guides; LBP-9716,46 NRC 86 (1997) Georgia insufrure of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLt-95-10,42 NRC 1, 2 (1995) remand of issue to licensing board for clari6 cation; CU.97 II,46 NRC 51 (1997) Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units I and 2), CU-9316, 38 NRC 25, 32 (1993) { zone-of-interests test for standing to intervence LBP 97-20,46 NRC 263 (1997) Girah v. Jepson, 321 P.2d,153,157 (3d Cir.1975) public-interest standard applied in review of settlements; CU-9713, 46 NRC 209 n.ll (1997) Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153,160 (3d Cir.1975) l issues not susceptible to review in decisions on settlements; CLt-97-13, 46 NRC 222 n.31 (1997) Granada lavesenents, Inc. v. DRt) Corp., 823 F Supp. 448, 453 (N.D. Ohio 1993) l weight given to Staff posinon on settlement agreenent; CU-97-13,46 NRC 208 n.9 (1997) Guy States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Unit 1), CLI-9410, 40 NRC 43, 48-49 (1994) economic injury as basis for standing to intervene in materials license amendnent proceeding; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 266 (1997) Guy States utilities Co. (River Bend Stanon Unit it LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 31, 37-38, ad'd CL1-94-10, 40 NRC 43, 47-48 (1994) imerest in protecting property from radiological hazards suf5cient for standing; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 271 (1997) Hazardous Waste Trearment Council v. Thomas, 885 F.2d 918, 922-23 (D.C. Chr.1989) economic injury withous connection to environmental impact as basis for standing to intervene; LBP 97 20, 46 NRC. O n.10 (1997) Heckler v. Chane.x 470 U.S.1 I (1984) issues not susceptible to, sview in decisions on settlements; CU-9713,46 NRC 222 (1997) llorme Brothers, Inc. v. lorrd, 463 F.2d 1268,1271 (D.C. Cir.1972) " adequate evidence" standard for immediately effective order; 1.BP-97-15,46 NRC 63 (1997) Houston IJghting and Pmr Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I), ALAB-535,9 NRC i 377, 393-94, 3 % (1979) { authorization for organizational standing to intervene; LBP-97-14,46 NRC $7 n.2 (1997) Housson Ushring and Pmr Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Unit 1), ALAB.630,13 NRC 84, 85 (1981) appeal Gled sinultaneously with motion for reconsideration, Comndssion posioon on; CU-97 9, 46 NRC 24 (1997) 19

r b l-- 1 l l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES lIlusston Ughting and Powr Ca (South Texas Project. Units 1 and 2), ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644,646 47 (1979), ggf'd LBP-7910, 9 NRC 439, 447 48 (1979) i authorization for organizational standing to iniervene; LBP-97-14,46 NRC 57 a.2 (1997) , flousson Ughting and Pows Ca (South Teams Project Units I and 2), IJIP-7910, 9 NRC 439,447-48, [ af'd ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644 (1979) l economic impacts as basis for standing to intervene in materials license anendnent proceeding; LBP-97 20,46 NRC 265 (1997) In re Smirh, 926 F.2d 1027,1029 (llth Cir.1991) public health and safety standard for settlements; CLI-97-13,46 NRC 218 a.26 (1997) I isby v. Bay 4, 75 Fld 1191,11% (7th Or.1996) NRC policy on settlenants; CLI 9713, 46 NRC 205 (1997) Isby v. Bayh, 75 F.3d 1891,1199 (7th Or.1996) j' /sby v. Raph, 75 P.3d 1191,1200 (7th Or.1996) . Issues not susceptible to review in decisions on settlements; CL1-97-13, 46 NRC 222 n.31 (1997) test-barssin standard for settlenwnts; CLI-97-13,46 NRC 215 a.18 (1997) stjection of settlement for failure to provide complete victory for a particular party; CLI-97-13,46 NRC 223 a.34 (1997) /ersey Central Power A Ught Ca (Furked River Nuclear Generstmg Station, Unit 1), ALAB-139,6 AEC 535 (1973) economic iqiury coupled to environmental itnpact as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-97 20,46 l NRC 270 71 (1997) 1 Joslyn Mannfeturing Ca v. T.L /ames & Co., 893 F.2d 80, 82 84 (5th Or.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S.1108 (1991) liability of shareholders for corporation's obligations; CLI.97-13, 46 NRC 210 n.12 (1997) Kelley v. Selin, 42 F.3d 1501,1515 (6th Or.1995) forum for addressing dinatisfaction with enforcement action; CL1-97-13,46 NRC 206 (1997) l. Lake Ene Alliana v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 486 F. Supp. 707,112 (W.D. Pau 1980) standing to challenge adequacy of environmental impact statement; LBP-97 20, 46 NRC 269 (1997) Lake Erie Atliance v. United States Arney Corps of Engineers, n86 F. Supp. 707,713 (W.D. Pn 1980? L economic lajury without connection to environmental impact as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-97 20,46 NRC 269 (1997) long Island ughting Ca (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), ALAB-900,28 NRC 275,288 (1988) statutory construction, general rules; CL1-9715,46 NRC 299 (1997) louisiana Energy Services. LP, (Gaiborne Enrichment Center), CLI 96 8,44 NRC 107,109-10 (1996) 6nancial conditions on license for cruichment facihty; CL1-97-15,46 NRC 308 09 (1997) lemisiana Energy Services. LP. (Gaiborne Enrichnent Center), LBP-96 7,43 NRC 142 (1996). Snancial qvslineation review determination, considerations in: CL19715,46 NRC 306 (1997) lomisiana Power & Ught Co. (Waterford Steam Electnc Station, Unit 3), CLI-86-1,23 NRC 1,6 (1986) standard for grant of motion fw reconsideration; LI P 9714, 46 NRC 59 (1997) l Eqian v. Defenders of WildlW 504 U.S. $$5, 560-61 (1992) l Judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC informal proceedings; LBP-97 20,46 NRC 262 (1997) l~ L4 fan v. Defenders of Wildip. 504 U.S. $$$ 573 a.8 (1992) standing to inervene on basis of procedural right unconnected to pluintiff's own concrete harm; i LBP-97-20,46 NRC 269, 270 (1997) j - Marguer v. Uniwrsity of Washingron 32 Wash. App. 302, 309. 648 P.2d 94, 98 (1982) rounding up of test scores; CL1-97-10, 46 NRC 32 a.8 (1997) i Massachusetts School of law at Andover v. United States,118 F.3d 776,782 (D.C. Or.1997) public-interest standard applied in review of settlemerds; CLI-97-13,46 NRC 209 n.ll (1997) j Massachusetts School qf few at Andover v. United States,118 F.3d 176,154-85 (D C. Or.1997) discovery into sneriu of settlenunt; CLI-97-13,46 NRC 223 (1997) i ?. McIntosh v. Borough of Manhanan Community College. 78 A.D.2d 839, 433 N.Y.S.2d 446, 447 (1st Dept. 1980), rd'4 55 N.Y.2d 913. 915, 433 NE.2d 1274,1275, 449 N.Y.S.2d 2tk 27 (1982) l sounding-up of test scores; CLI-9710,46 NRC 32 a.8 (1997) 2e 1 1 I

i l l I l j LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX { CASES 1 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) CL1-83-25,18 NRC 327,332 (1983); CLI-85-2, 21 NRC 282,316 (1985) Judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC informal proceed'.ngs; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 262 (1997) Aferropolitan Ediron Co. v. PANE 460 U.S. 766, 772-79 (1983) spiritual and psychological effects of licensing actions; LBP 97-12,46 NRC 9 (1997) bietropolitan L(fe inrurance Co. v. Ward. 470 U.S. 869 (1985) inapplicability to standing to intervene; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 271 (1997) Newda Land Action Association v. U.S. Forest Service, 8 F.3d 713, 716 (9th Cir.1993) i competidve injury as basis for standing to intervene in materials license amendment proceeding; LBP-97 20,46 NRC 267 (1997) New England Coalitwn on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 V.2d 87,93 (1st Cir.1978) Conunission discretion to deternune what information is relevant to applicant's 6nancial quali6 cations; CLI-9715, 46 NRC 300 (1997) New York Shipbuilding Corp.,1 AEC 842 (1%1) public-interest standard applied to settlements; CLI-9713,46 NRC 205 (1997) Nuclear Enginerring Co. (Shef6 eld Illinois, Low 44 vel Radioactive Waste Disposal Site). ALAB-473,7 NRC 737,743 (1978) economic impacts as basis for standing to intervene in meterials licenne amendment proceeding; LBP-97 20, 46 NRC 265 (1997) Ogshore Powr Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489,8 NRC 194, 222 (1978) consistency in treatment of two parties in different circumstances, requirement for; LBP-97-20,46 NRC 271 (1997) OAlahoma Press Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S.186, 209 (1946) scope of NRC subpoena power; CL!-97-14,46 NRC 291 (1997) Oncology Services Corp., LDP-93-10, 37 NRC 455,460, ef'd, CLI 917, 38 NRC 44 (1993) delay of proceeding to accommodate referral for possible criminal prosecution; LBP 98-18,46 NRC 235 (1997) Overseas Shipholdmg Group, Inc. v. Skinner, 767 F, Supp. 287 (D.D.C.1991) competitive injury as basis for standmg to intervene in materials license amendment proceeding; LBP 97-20, 46 NRC 269 (1997) Pac #te Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-223, 8 AEC j 241 (197,4) economic irdury coupled to environmental impact as basis foe standing to interwne; LBP-97-20,46 ) NRC 271 (1997) PANE v. NRC, 678 F.2d 222, 249 53 (D.C. Cir.1982) spiritual and psychclogical effects of licensing actions; LBP-97-12,46 NRC 9 (1997) Panhandle Producers and Royalty Owners Association v. Economic Regulusory Admint.rrration, 822 F.2d 1105,1108 (DC, Cir.1987) competitive injury as basis for standing to intervene in materials license amendment proceeding; LBP 97 20,46 NRC 265 (1997) i Philadelphia Electric Co. (Fuhon Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-657,14 NRC 967, 979 (1981) possibility of future litigation as grounds for terminadon of proceedmgs with prejudice; LBP-9717, 46 NRC 232 (1997) Phikulelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generutmg Station, Units I and 2), AIAB-726,17 NRC 755,757 (1983); ALAB-823,22 NRC 773 (1985) junsdiction to proceed on remanded issue that is pending on appeal; CL1-9712, 46 NRC 53 n.1 (1997) l Philadelphia Electric Co. (limerick Generating Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-845,24 NRC 220,248 n.29 (1986) rejection of argument opposing settlement that was raised for 6rst time on appeal; CL1-97-13,46 l NRC 221 n.30 (1997) Philadelphia Electric Co. (Feach Bottom Ahmic Power Station, Unit 3), ALAB.532,9 NRC 279,283 (IM9) NRC policy on settlement of contested proceedmgs; LBP 97-19, 46 NRC 238 (1997) 21 l I l

_l l f I l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l CASf;S l Port of Astoria, Oregon v. Halet, 595 P.2d 467, 476 (9th Cir.1979) economic injury as basis for standing to intervene in materials license anendment proceeding; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 266 (1997) economic injury without connection to environmental impact as basis for standing to intervene; . LBP-97 20,46 NRC 268 (1997) envimamental impact staternent for materials license amendment, need for; LBP 97-20, 46 NRC 268 (1997) Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976) ju&cial concepts of standing applied in NRC informal pmceedings LDP 97-20,46 NRC 262 (1997) Portland General Electrk Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-627,13 NRC 20,21 a.6 (1981) jurisdiction of presi&ng officer to rule on nxmons for reconsideration and to reopen; CU-97-9,46 NRC (1997) forrland General Electrk Co. (Trojan Nuclear Power Station), CU-9513,42 NRC 125,127 29 (1995) compromise on Anuncial assuram:e for decommissioning; CU-97-13,46 NRC 220 (1997) Public Smke Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units I and 2), CU-8010,11 NRC 438,44442 (1980) scope of remedies that intervenors may demand on enforcenant orders; CU-97-13,46 NRC 206 (1997) Public Servke Co. ofladiana (Marble Eli Nuclear Generating Stanon Units I and 2), CU-8010,11 NRC 438,441-42 (1980) resource allocadon factor in approval of settlements; CLI-9713, 46 NRC 208 n.10 (1997) rub /k Service Co. ofladiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), CL1-8010, il NRC 438,442 (1980) forum for addressing dissatisfaction with enforcement action; CU-9713,46 NRC 206 (1997) Public Service Co. ofindiana (Marble EU Nuclear Generating Station, Umts I and 2), LBP-86-37,24 NRC 719,724 (1986) termination of proceeding where no Notice of Hearing has been issued; LBP-97-13,46 NRC 12 (1997) rubik Servka Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Station Umts 1 and 2), CL1-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 516 (1977), rdT'd sub nom. Massachusetts v. NRC, 924 P.2d 31) (D.C. Cir), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 899 (1991) inherent authority of Commission to decide any matter itself, rather than reman &ng an issue to a board; CU-97-15 46 NRC 303 n.7 (1997) rublic Servka Co. of /- Rampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 2), CL1-84 6,19 NRC 975, 978 (1984) economic injury as sis for standing to intervene in materials license amendment proceeding; LBP-97 20, 46 NRC 266 (1997) Pubik Servke Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CU 90-3, 31 NRC 219,228-29 (1990) inherent authority of Commission to decide any matter itself, rather than femanding an issue to a board, CU 9715, 46 NRC 303 n.7 (1997) fuerto Rico Electric Power Austwrity (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), AIAB-662,14 NRC 1125, 1833 (1981) termination of proceedings with prejudice, standard for; LBP-9717,46 NRC 230 (1997) Puerto Rico Electre Power Authority (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-667. 34 NRC 1125, 1135 (1981) possibility of future litigation as grounds for termination of proceedings with preju&ce; LBP-97-17, 46 NRC 231 (1997) Ralph L Terrick (Denial of Application for Reactor Operator 1) cense), CU-97-5,45 NRC 355, 356 (1997) remand of issue to licensing board for clarification; CU-97 II,46 NRC 51 (1997) Ralph L Terrkt (Denial of Application for Reactor Operator License), CU-9710, 46 NRC 26, 3132 (1997) authority of presiang officer to assess Staff adherence to " equitable and consistent" esamination administration goals; LDP 97-16, 46 NRC 86 (1997) l 22 i t

i __I I i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Randall C Orem D 0, CU 93-14. 37 NRC 423 (1993; public-imerest standard applied to settlements; CLl413, 46 NRC 205 (1997) Randult C Orem D.O., CLI-9314, 37 NRC 423, 429 (1993) test for settlenent approval, CU-97-13,46 NRC 207 a.8 (1997) Realty lacome Trust v. Ederd 564 F.2d 447,452 (D.C. Cir.1977) economic injury without connection to environnwntal impact as basis for standmg to intervene; LBP-97 20, 46 NRC 270 (1997) Reilly v. isvist.1988 WL 49187 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 6,1988) rounding-up of test scores; CU 97-10, 46 NRC 32 n.8 (1997) Rockwell International Corp. (Rocketdyne Division), ALAB-925, 30 NRC 709, 722 n.15 (1989), ag'd. CLI-90 5, 31 NRC 337 (1990) weight given to NRC Staff policy judgments; CU-97-10,46 NRC 32 (1997) Rockwell /nrernational Corp. (Rocketdyne Division), CLI-9 L5, 31 NRC 337, 340 (1990) NRC policy on settlements; CU-97-13,46 NRC 205 (1997) Sacramento Mankipal Utility Dirrrkt (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), Q192-2, 35 NRC 47, 56 (1992) judicial concepts of standing applied in NRC informal proceedings; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 262. 263, 265 (1997) Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nacicar Geaerating Station), CU-92 2, 35 NRC 47, 56-57 (1992) eco:nornic injury as basia for standing to intervene in materials license ameodment proceeding; LBP-97 20, 46 NRC 266, 270 (1997) Saylor v. Undste,x 456 F.2d 8%, 904 (2d Cir.1972) public interest standard applied to settlearnts; CLI-9713, 46 NRC 205 (1997) Schering Corp. v. Fond and Drug Administration, 51 F.3d 390 (3d Cir), cert. denied. I16 S. Ct. 274 (1995) economic injury without connection to environmental impact as basis for standing to intervene; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 270 n.10 (1997) Sequo>ah fuels Corp., CU 93-7, 37 NRC 175,179 (1993) ternunation of proceedings with prejudice, standard for; LDP 97-17, 46 NRC 23d (1997) Sequoyah Fuelr Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 70 (1994) scope of remedies that intervenors may demand on enforcement orders; CU-9713, 46 NRC 206 (1997) Seguoyah Fuels Corp., (Gore, Oklahoma Site). CU-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 70 71 (1994) public-interest standard apphed to seulernents; Cl.19713, 46 NRC 205 (1997) weight given to Staff position on setriement agreement; CLI-9713, 46 NRC 207 a.8 (1997) 3,quoyah fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CU@4-12, 40 NRC 64, 71 (1994) public-interest standard for approval of seulernent agreements, CU-97-13,46 NRC 208 (1997); LBP-9719,46 NRC 238 (1997) Sequoyuh fuels Corp (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI 9516, 42 NRC 221 (1995) discovery into merits of settlenwnt; Cl.19713,46 NRC 222 (1997) Sequoyah fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), LBP-94-17, 39 NRC 359, review declined. CU-94 ll, 40 NRC 55 (1994) Commission jurisdiction over parent company in enforcenrnt action; Cl.19713,46 NRC 210 a 13 (1997) Sequoyah fuels Corp. (UF Production Ibcility), CU-89-19, 24 NRC 508, $1314 (!989) 6 forum for addressing dissatisfaction with enforcernent action; CU-9713, 46 NRC 206 (1997) St. Joseph Radiology Associares. Inc., LBP-92 34. 36 NkC 317 (1992) imerpretatma of "other evidence reiseJ on"; LBP-9715, 46 NRC 63 a.2 (1997) Statement of Policy on Conduct of Dcensmg Proceedings. CU-8l-8, 83 NRC 452. 456 (1981) NRC policy on settlenent of contested proceedings; CLI-9713, 46 NRC 205 (19'r7); LDP-97-19, 46 NRC 238 (1997) Torrist v. 7heson Electric Pouer Co. 8 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied. 512 U.S.1220 (1994) weight given to Staff position on settlemets agreement; CLI.97-13,46 NRC 208 n.9 (1997) 23 7 I

s _l l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES United States Energy Research and Development Administration (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant). CLI-7613, 4 NRC 67, 75-76 (1976) inherent authonty of Commission to decide any matter itself, rather than remanding an issue to a board; CLI-97-15, 46 NRC 303 n.7 (1997) Unned States v. Comley 890 F.2d 539, 541 (1st Cir.1989) enforcement of NRC subpoenas, standard for; C1J-97-14,46 NRC 291 (1997) United States v. Construction Products Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464,469 71 (2d Cir.), cert. denied. '17 S. Ct. 294 (1996) enforcement of NRC subpoenas, standard for; CLI-9714,46 NRC 291 (1997) United States v. Cordom Chemical Co.,113 F.3d 572 (6th Cir.1997) liability of shareholders for corporation's obligations; CLI-97-13, 46 NRC 210 n.12 (1997) United States v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 910 F.2d 24 (1st Cir.1990), cert. Jenied, 498 U.S.1084 (1991) liability of parent compames for their subsidiaries' acts; CLI-97-13, 46 NRC 210 n.13 (1997) United States v. MicrosoA, 56 F.3d 1448,1459 (D C, Cir.1995) { resource allocation factor in approval of settlements; CLI-97-13,46 NRC 208 n.10 (1997) United States v. Microsop, 56 F.3d 1448,1460,1461 a9 (D.C. Cr.1995) best-bargain standard for settlements; CLI-97-13, 46 NRC 215 n.18 (1997) issues not susceptible to review in decisions on settlements; CLI-97-13,46 NRC 222 n.31 (1997) United States v. Microsop. 56 F.3d 1448,1462 (D.C. Cir.1995) weight given to Staff position on settlement agreement; CLI-9713, 46 NRC 208 a.9 (1997) United States v. Marros Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632 (1950) scope of subpoenas; CLI-9714, 46 NRC 289 (1997) United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642 43 (1950) NRC investigations, standard for initiation of; CIJ-97-14,46 NRC 291 (1997) United States v. Oncology Service's Corp., 60 F.3d 1015.1019 (3d Cir.1995) NRC invesugations, standard for imtiation of; CLI-97-14,46 NRC 291 (1997) United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964) enforcement of NRC subpoenas, standard for; C1J-97-14, 46 NRC 291 (1997) UPS Worldwide Forwarding. Inc. v. U.S. Postal Servsce, 66 F.3d 62l, 626 (3d Cit. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct.1261 (1996) compedtive injury as basis for standing to intervene in materials license amendment proceeding; LBP 97 20,46 NRC 265 (1997) Permons Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-93-20, 38 NRC 83, 84-85 (1993) licensing board authority to impose conditions on terminatma of proceeding prior to Notice of licanng: LDP-9717, 46 NRC 230 (1997) j Western Radio Serywns Co. v. Erry, 79 F 3d 8%, 902 03 (9th Cir.1996), cert. denied,117 S. Ct. 80 i (1996) ) economic injury as basis for standmg to intervene in materials license amendment proceeding; 1 LBP-97-20,46 NRC 268 (1997) Wong Yong Sung v. McGrath. 339 U.S. 33,47, modclied. 339 U.S. 908 (1950) weight given to NRC Staff policy judgments; CLI-97-10, 46 NRC 32 n.7 (1997) Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLl-96-6,43 NRC 123,129 (1996) agency practice as indicator of how agency interprets its regulations; CLt-97-10, 46 NRC 31-32 (1997) Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) CLI-96 7,43 NRC 235, 247 n.6 (1996) argument on appeal by prevailing party, scope of. CLI-97-10, 46 NRC 28 n.) (1997) Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Sration), ClJ-96 7,43 NRC 235, 248 (1996) weight given to bcensing board determinations of standing to intervene; CL1-97-8, 46 NRC 22 (1997) 24

_l I l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CER. 2.105 hearing rights on materials licenses; DD-97-24,46 NRC 191 (1997) 10 CER. 2.107(a) authority to grant motion for termination of proceeding; LDP-9713,46 NRC 12 (1997) licensing board authority to ternunate proceedings; LBP-9717,46 NRC 229 (1997) 10 C.F.R. 2.202 i modi $ cation of license to prevent deconunissioning activities; DD-97-19,46 NRC 92 (1997) 10 C.F.R. 2.202(cX2Xi) integre'ation of other evidence relied on"; LBP-9715, 46 NRC 63 n.2 (1997) bcensing board authority to consider recission request; LBP-97-15,46 NRC 62 (1997) 10 C.FA 2.203 board function in reviewing settienrnes in enforcement proceedings; CU-97-13, 46 NRC 205 (1997) pubhe interest standard for approval of settlement agreements; CL1-9713, 46 NRC 207 a.8 (1997); I.RP-9719,46 NRC 238 (1997) weight given to Scaff position on settlement agreement; CLI-97-13, 46 NRC 206, 207 (1907) 10 C.F.R. 2.206 deconumssiomng activities, safety concerns; DD 97-21, 46 NRC 109-29 (1997) forum for addressing dissatisfacuon with enforcement actiin; CL19713,46 NRC 206 (1997) licensee event reports, request for NRC evaluation of corrective actions; DD 97-26,46 NRC 314-19 (1997) material misrepresentations and quahty assurance violations, request for action on; DD-97 21, 46 NRC 109 29 (1997) rninimum-flow valves in heat removal system, adequacy of corrective action on; DD-97 26, 46 NRC 314-19 (1997) opportunity to comment on ernergency plan for proposed independent spent fuel storage installation; DD 97-24, 46 NRC 189-93 (1997) radiological controls during decomminioning, deftciencies in; DD-97-19, 46 NRC 92-95 (1997) recordkeeping on use of computer code quahty assurance procedures, deSciencies in; DD-97-17,46 NRC 14-20 (1997) safety of residual heat ternoval system; DD-97 25, 46 NRC 244-56 (1997) seismic risk in Ught of Landers and Northridge earthquakes; DD 97-23, 46 NRC 168-88 (1997) use of independent spent fuel storage installation before establishing standards for safely unloading dry storage casks; DD-9718, 46 NRC 35-48 (1997) willful and reckless violations of Part 20, request for action for; DD.97 22,46 NRC 131-67 (1997) work environment for raising safety concerns; DD-97 20, 46 NRC 97107 (1997) I 10 C.F.R. Part 2 Subpart G l format for licensing proceedings for enrichment facilities; CLI-97-15, 46 NRC 297 (1997) 10 C.F.R. 2.714a deadline for appeal of rnemorandum and order tenninating proceeding; LBP-9717,46 NRC 233 (1997) review of decision terminating proceeding: LBP-97-13, 46 NRC 12 (1997) 10 C.F.R. 2.721(a) j delegation of Commission authonty to licensing boards, LBP-97-17,46 NRC 230 (1997) 10 C.F.R. 2.734 standard for grant of motion for reconsideration, LBP 97-14, 46 NRC 59 (1997) l l l h 25 i i

1 _J l i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX / alcULATION5 standard for grant of modon to seopen; LBP-9712,46 NRC 9 (1997) tinwhness of modos to reopen; LBP-9714,46 NRC 59 (1997) 10 CIA 2.759 fiur and reamnabis standard for seidenents; CU-97-13. 46 NRC 215 (1997) NRC policy on setdenznts; CLI-9713, 46 NRC 205 (1997) 10 Cf A 2.760 anality of decision ternunating prococ&ng; LBP.9713,46 NRC 12 (1997); LBP-97-17. 46 NRC 233 (1997) 10 CfA 2.771 content of petitions for reconsideration; LDP-97-12,46 NRC 9 (1997) j 10 Cf12.771(b) standard for grant of motion for reconsideranon, LBP-9714,46 NRC $9 (1997) 10 CfA 2.786 deadline for petitions for review of fruual decision; LBP 97-16,46 NRC 90 (1997) 10 CFA 2.786(bX2)-(3) plen&ng requirenents for peutions for review; LBP 97-16, 46 NRC 90 (1997) 10 Cf.R 2.78t@X2H6) ples&ng requirenents for peouona for review; LBP 9712,46 NRC 9 (1997) 10 CfA Part 2, Subpart I format for licenams procec&ngs for enrichtnent facihties; CLI-9715, 46 NRC 297 (1997) 10 Cf R Part 2. Subpart L l challenge to results of reactor operator license examination; LBP 97-16,46 NRC 68 (1997) motions to reopen informal pmceedings; LDP-97-12,46 NRC 9 n.9 (1997) l standing to intervene in informal proccethngs; LBP 97 20, 46 NRC 262 (1997) l 10 CIA 2J203(c) certi6cate-of-service seguirements for pleadings in informal procee&ngs; CU-97-9,46 NRC 24 n.1 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(d) and (k) tinwhness of intervention petition 6ted after Staff completion tf review of license application; LBP 97-23,46 NRC 312 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(e) amendnent of hearing requests on the basis of new information; LDP 97-23,46 NRC 312 (1997) pleading requuements for intervention in informal procec&ngs; LBP-97 20,46 NRC 261 (1997) 10 CJ R. 2.1205(h) content of amended hearing request; LBP 97 23, 46 NRC 312 (1997) Endings necessary for intervention in informal proceedings; LBP 97 20, 46 NRC 261 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(l)(1)(i) and (ii) criteria to be met by of intervention petition 6ted after Staff completion of review of license application; LDP-97 23,46 NRC 312 (1997) 10 Cf A 2.1205(m) Staff approval of license amendments; LDP-97-20,46 NRC 261 n.2 (1997) 10 CfA 2.1205(n) appeal of denial of Amervention petitions; LBP-97-12, 46 NRC 9 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(o) appeatability of imme&ately effective order; LDP 97-20, 46 NRC 272 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 2.1213 Staff participation in informal proceedings; LBP-97 20, 46 NRC 261 n.2 (1997) 10 Cff 2.1231 completion of hearing Ele by issuxce of Safety Evaluation Report; LBP-97 23,46 NRC 311 (1997) NRC Staff responsibility to subnut hearing Ele concerning its action on senior reactor operator application; LBP-97-16, 46 NRC 69 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 2.123)(a) i l opportunity of apphcant to respond to Staff's wntten presentauon on its action on senior reactor operator license; LBP-97-16. 46 NRC 69, 82 (1997) 26

I. I i l L I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RTGl!LATIONS 10 CER. 2.1235 credibihty of af6 ants la informal proceedings; LBP-9716, 46 NRC 85 (1997) 10 C.F.R. 21237(b) burden in challenging NRC Staff scoring of reactor operator examination; LDP-9716. 46 NRC 68 (1997) 10 CER. 2.1241 fair am! reasonable standard for settlemems; ClJ-97-13,46 NRC 215 (1997) NRC pohey on setdements; CLl-97-13, 46 NRC 205 (1997) 10 CER. 2.1251(a) finality of immediately effective order, LBP-97 20,46 NRC 272 fN7) finahey of initial desion; LBP 97-16,46 NRC 90 (1997) i 10 CER. 2.1253 deadline fur petinons for review of initial decision; LBP-9716,46 NRC 90 (1997) 10 CER.19.ll(c) posting of form desenbing employee rights and protection, bcensee responsibility for; DD-97 20, 46 NRC 106 (1997) 10 CER.19.13 licensee obbgations following radiological exposure events; DD-97-22, 46 NRC 152 (1997) 10 CER.1913(d) notification of contaminated individual about radiation exposure level, requirement for; DD-97-22,46 NRC 162,164 (1997) 10 C.F.R. Part 20 procedures for handhng failed fuel in dry storage casks; DD-97-18,46 NRC 42 (1997) radation control program for decomnussioning, adequacy of; DD 9719, 46 NRC 94 (1997) willful and reckless violations of; DD-97 22, 46 NRC 131,137 (1997) 10 C.F.R.'20.201 radiation surveys after contanunation lucidents; DD-97 22, 46 NRC 148 a.18 (1997) 10 CER. 20.201(b) radiation surveys after conumunation incidents; DD-97-22, 46 NRC 147 (1997) 10 C.F.R. 20.1003 occupational workers as dc6ned by; DD 97-22,46 NRC 159 (1997) 10 CER. 20.1101 ALARA standard apphed to unloading of dry simage casks; DD-97-18,46 NRC 43 (1997) 10 CER. 20.1201 responsibihty for contamination of employees; DD-97 22,46 NRC 166 (1997) i 10 CER. 20.1201(a) i estent of licensee otligation to monitor occupational caposures; DD-97-22,46 NRC (1997) 10 C.F.R. 20.1201(aXIXi) assessment of occupation radiation exposure; DD-97 22,46 NRC 163 (1997) occupational exposure limits for phosphorus-32; DD 97-22,46 NRC 134,159 (1997) 10 CER. 20.1202, 20.1204 assessment of radianon exposure; DD-97-22, 46 NRC 140 (1997) licensee obligations fullowing radiological exposure events; DD-97-22. 46 NRC 152 (1997) 10 C.F.R. 20.1204(a) assesament of internal contamination; DD-97-22,46 NRC 153 (1997) 10 CER. 20.120s declaration of pregnancy and mimanzation of radiation exposure; DD-97-22,46 NRC 164,165 (1997) 10 CER. 20.120B(a) fetal occupational exposure limits; DD-97-22, 46 NRC 165 (1997) 10 C.FJL 20.1301 phosphorus-32 dounges to employces from contaminated water cooler, DD-97-22,46 NRC 135 (1997) responsibility for comamination of employees; DD-97-22,46 NRC 166 (1997) 10 C F R. 20.130l(nXI) phosphorus-32 done hmits for members of the pubhc; DD-97-22,46 NRC 159 (1997) l r 27 l

_I I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGURATIONS 10 CIA 20.1501 assessnwnt of ru&ation exposure; DD-97 22, 46 NRC 140 (1997) licensee obligmuona following radiological exposure events DD-97 2146 NHC 152 (1997) 10 CIA 20.1501(a), (b) radiation surveys after contamination inctdents; DD-97-22, 46 NRC 148 (1997) 10 CEA 201502 assessment of radianon exposure; DD-97 22, 46 NRC 140,141 n.ll (1997) licensee obhgations following rasological exposure events; DD-97-2146 NRC 152 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 201502(a) extent of licensee obligation to monitor occupational exposures; DD 97 22,46 NRC 141 (1997) 10 CfA 20.1801 failure to control and secure radioactive nuuerials; DD-97 2146 NRC 131,136,137,138 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 201802 faihus to control and secure radioactive materials: DD 97 22,46 NRC 131,137,138 (1997) 10 CfA 20.190$(a) radiometive materials exempted from labeling requirements of; DD 97-2146 NRC 138 (1997) 10 CfA 20.2106 applicability where monitoring of occupational exposures is not necessary; DD 97 22,46 NRC 141 (1997) licensee obliganons following radiological exposure events; DD-97-2146 NRC 152 (1997) 10 CIA 20.2106(a) recordkeeping on individual manhoring results; DD-97-2146 NRC 141 (1997) 10 CIA 20.2107, 20.2202 licensee obligations following radiological expostne events; DD-97 2146 NRC 152 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 20.2202(b)(1)(i) licennee obligation to notify NRC of occupational exposures; DD-97-22, 46 NRC (1997) 10 Cf.R. 20.2203 licensee obligauona following radiological exposure events; DD-97-2146 NRC 152 (1997) 10 CfA 20.2203(aX2)(i) reporting requirements for radanon exposure incidents; DD-97 22,46 NRC 164 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 20.2205, 20.2206 licenses obhgations folkwing rmliological exposure events; DD-97 2146 NRC 152 (1997) 10 Cf.R. Part 20, Appendix B annual limit on intake of phosphorus-32; DD 97-2146 NRC 154 (1997) 10 Cf.R. Part 20, Appendix B, notes to Table 1 occupational exposure limits for phosphorus 32; DD 97 2146 h%C 161 (1997) 10 CIA Part 20, Appendix C exemptions from security requirements for ra&oactive materials; DD-97-22,46 NRC 136,138 (1997) 10 Cf.R. Part 30 authority to use byproduct materials in hospital nuclear snedicine program; CLI 9714,46 NRC 288 (1997) 10 Cf A 30.7(a) protection of workers in nuclear related activities from &sennunation; CLI 97-14,46 NRC 290 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 30.7(a)(1) defmition of "&senmination"; CLI 97-14, 46 NRC 290 91 (1997) termination of employee for rainmg safety concerns; CL1-97-14,46 NRC 288 (1997) 10 CJA 35.25,35.32 " implicit authoriry" to act as Raantion Safety Officer; LDP-9715,46 NRC 63 n.3 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 40.14 compromise en financial assurance for decommissioning; CLI-97-13, 46 NRC 220 (1997) 10 Cf A 40.36 compromise on financial assurance for decomnussioning; CLI-97-13,46 NRC 220,221 n.28 (1997) 6nancial assurance for decomnussioning; CLI 97-13, 46 NRC 202 (1997) letter of cre&t for decommissioning; CLI-97-13,46 NRC 217 (1997) 28

l ._ I I j LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX Recutmons 10 Cf.R. Part 40, Appendix A receipt and processing of shernative fuel mawrial, challenge to license amendment allowing; LBP.9712, l 46 NRC 2 (1997) ( 10 Cf.R. Part 50 applicabihty to licensing of enrichnent facilities; CL1-97-15, a6 NRC 296 (1997) procedwes for handhng failsd hast ha dry storage casks; DD 97-18,46 NRC 42 (1997) 10 CfA 50.7 l prosacdon of individuals who raise nuclear safety concerns; DD-97 20,46 NRC 97,99 n.1 (1997) statutory authority for; CLI-9714. 46 NRC 290 n.1 (1997) 10 CfA 50.33(f)(1997) 6aancial informauon seguired in licensing of enrictment facilities; CU-97-15,46 NRC 302 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 50.33(fXI) docunwatanon of Snru:ial quah6 cations; CLI-9715, 46 NRC 299 (1997) 10 CfA 50.33(fXIH4) j Part 70 Enancial quali6 cations contrasted with; C1197-15,46 NRC 299 (1997) l~ 10 Cf.R. 50.33(fX2)-{4) information required in stawnwnt of 6nancial quah6 cations; CLI-97-15,46 NRC 299 (1997) to CIA 50.33(fX3Xi)-(iii)' ( Snancial quali6 cation informauon required from newly forned enuties; CU.97-15,46 NRC 299 300, ' 302 n.5 (1997) - 10 CSA 50.34(nXIXI) earthquake ground modon considerations in sciamic design basis; DD.97-23,46 NRC 169 (1997) l 10 CIA 50 46 ' Imposition of restrictions on applicmion of computer codes to support license applications: DD-9717, 46 NRC 17 (1997) 10 CSA 50.54(f) computer code for analysis of small-tutak loss of4:colant accidems; DD 97-17,46 NRC 14 (1997) l- ., licensee obhgation to inform NRC prior to restart of shutdown unit: DD-97 21,46 NRC til, !!2,116 (1997) [ 10 CfA 50.59 de6nition of unreviewed safety question; DD 97-25,46 NRC 245 (1997) 10 CSA 50.73(bX3) content of Licensee Event Reports; DD-97-25,46 NRC 253-54 (1997) I 10 CSA 50.82 decommissioning activines sepcet and cost estimates t' quired for terndnation of license; DD-97 21,46 l NRC 117 (1997) l 10 Cf.R. 50.82(aXIXI) and (ii) j licensee certi6 cation of innent to cease operations; DD-97 21,46 NRC 117 (1997) 10 Cf R. 50.100 j suspension of license pending resolution of issues regarding safe unloading of dry storage casks; i DD-97 lg, 46 NRC 36, 45 n.1 (1997) [' 10 CIA Part 50, Appendia A. Crierion 2 earthquake ground motion considerations in seismic design basis: DD 97-23, 46 NRC 169 (1997) 10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appendix B spplicability to 6nancial quali6 cations for anrichnent facihues; CLI-9715,46 NRC 300 n.3 (1997) calculations in response to stactor vessel nitrogen inuusion event; DD-97-21,46 NRC 109-10 (1997) compuur code veri 6 cation prouwtures, complumce with; DD9717,46 NRC 16,17 (1997) 10 CIA Part 50, Appendia B, Criterion V Notice of Violation issued for procedural de6ciencies la loading and unloading dry storage casks; DD 97 Ig, 46 NRC 38,47 (1997) 10 CEA Put 50, Appendia B, Criterion XVI l- . variation in response to identined denciencies; DD 97-21,46 NRC 113 (1997) i 10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appendix C 1-information required in statement of 6aancial qualifications; CLI-97-15,46 NRC 300 (1997) 29 l lu i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGl.'LATIONS 10 Cf.R. Part 50, Appendia K modi 6 cation of computer codes to support license applicauons; DD-9717,46 NRC 17 (1997) 10 CfA Part 50, Appendin R, III.0 gap in $re bamer as violauon of. DD-97-26, 46 NRC 316 (1997) 10 Cf R. Part 55 weight given to regulatory guides for examiner standards; LBP-97-16. 46 NRC 86 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 55.4 disuncuan between reactor operator and senior reactor operator; LBP-97-16,46 NRC 68 n.1 (1997) 10 C.FA 55.45(n) qualihcation items for operaung test poruon of senior reactor operator examinanon; LPP-9716, 46 NRC

70. 78 (1997) 10 Cf R. Part 61 dose irnpacts of deep disposal of tails, challenge to Staff analysis of, LBP-97 22, 46 NRC 276. 278, 283 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 70.22(sX8)

I imerpretation of; CL1-97-15,46 NRC 299 (1997) { 10 Cf.R. 70.22(f) n.2 j opplicability of Part 50 to 6nancial quah6 cations requirements for enrichment facibues; C1.J-97-15, 46 ) NRC 300 n.3 (1997) 10 C F.R. 70.23(a)(5) Imancial qualificiation for liceming of enrichment faciliues; CLI 97-15,46 NRC 297, 298 (1997) interpretation of, CL1-97-15,46 NRC 299 (1997) standards and criteria applicable to 6nancial qualificabans of applicant for enrichmrnt facility; CL1-97-15, 46 NRC 302, 303 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 70.23(b) n.3 applicability of Part 50 to licensing of ennchment facility; CLI-97-15,46 NRC 300 n.3 (1997) 10 Cf.R. Purt 72 1 procedures for handling failed fuel in dry storage casks; DD-97-18,46 NRC 42 (1997) { storage system design for iridependent spent fuel storage installation; DD-97-18,46 NRC 37 (1997) 10 CF.R. 72.32(aX14) opporturuty to comment on emergency plan for proposed independent spem fuel storage installation-DD-97-24, 46 NRC 190,192,193 (1997) ) 10 Cf.R. 72.44 1 technical speci6 cations for independent spent fuel storage installations; DD-9718,46 NRC 46 (1997) 10 Cf.R. 72.60 i suspension of licenses for independent spent fuel storage faciliues; DD 9718, 46 NRC 45 (1997) 10 CF R. 72.82(c) preoperational tests required prior to loading of spent fuel into dry storage casks; DD-9718,46 NRC 37 (1997) l 10 Cf R. 72.122 technical speci6 canons for unloading of dry storage casks; DD-97-18, 46 NRC 47 (1997) 10 CF.R. 72.122(1) design of independent spent fuel storage installation for ready retneval of spent fuel, DD-97-18,46 NRC 37 (1997) use of independent spent fuel storage installation before estabhahing standards for safely unloading dry storage cas,ks; DD-97-18, 46 NRC 36, 40-45 (1997) 10 CFA 72.150,72.152 technical speci6 cations for unloading of dry storage casks; DD-97-18,46 NRC 47 (1997) 10 CF.R. Part 100, Appendix A, Ill(c) dc6nicon of safe-shutdown earthquake; DD.97-23,46 NRC 169 n.4 (1997) 10 Cf.R. Part 100, Appendia A, III(d) dc6ainon of operaung-basis carthquake; DD-97-23,46 NRC 187 (1997) 10 Cf.R. Part 100 Appendia A. II!(g) dennition of capable fault; DD 97-23. 46 NRC 170 n.6 (1997) l ?9 ( l l l

r- _.I I i l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS f 10 CFR. Part 100. Appendia A, IV investigations required to determine site suitabihty; DD 97-23,46 NRC 170,188 (1997) 10 C.F.R. Pws 100, Appendia A. V(a) tarthquake ground amtion considerauona in seianse design basis; DD 97-23,46 NRC 169 n.3 (1997)

• ) C.FA Part 191 Subparts D and E cunaiderauuns in grant of materials license arnendment; LDP-97-12. 46 NRC 2 (1997) 1 i

31 l l I

] _I I l i I I IIGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES i l Administrathe Procedure At.t. 5(b) public-interest standard apphed in review of settlements; CLI-9713, 46 NRC 207 n.8 (1997) Atomic Energy Act, lle(2), 42 U S C 5 2014(eX2) dcAnicon of byproduct matenal; CU-97-13,46 NRC 221 a.28 (1997) seceipt of matenals bcense to permit disposal of byproduct material from outside generators, LBP-97 20, 46 NRC 260, 263, 264, 265, 267 (1997) Atomic Energy Act, lis, 42 U.S C. 5 2014(s) definition of "perwn" in contest of subpoena; CU-97-14, 46 NRC 290 (1997) j Atomic Energy Act 53, 42 U.S C. (2073 restriccons on licensing of enrichnent facilities; CU-9715,46 NRC 297 (1997) Atomic Energy Act. 63, 42 U.S C 5 2093 i restrictions on licensmg of enrichment facihties; CU-9715,46 NRC 297 (1997) Atomic Energy Act, 84 econonuc injury as basis for standing to intervene in materials license anendment proceeding, IEP-97 20, 46 NRC 266, 267 (1997) I Atomic Energy Act,161c, 42 U.S.C.12201(c) NRC authority to investigate; CLI-9714, 46 NRC 289-90 (1997) Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S C 5 2201(s) compromise on 6nancial assurance for decomndsnioning; CEl-9713, 46 NRC 221 n.28 (1997) Atomic Energy Act,182a 42 U.S C 5 2232(a) Commission authority to review applicants' fmancial quali6 cations; CU-9715, 46 NRC 300 (1997) licensee obligation to mform NRC prior to restart of shutdown unit; DD-97-21,46 NRC 111 (1997) purpose of hnancial quahtications provision; CLI-97-15, 46 NRC 303 (1997) Atomic Energy Act,189(a)(1), 42 U.S C.12239(a)(1) heanng rights on materials license anendments; LBP-97 20, 46 NRC 262 (1097) Atomic Energy Act,193, 42 U.S.C.12243 restricuons on heensing of enrichment facilities; CU-97-15,46 NRC 297 (1997) Atomic Energy Act,193(b),42 U.S.C 12243(b) hearing requirements for licensing of enrichment facihues; CU-9715,46 NRC 297 (1997) Atomic Energy Act, 223, 42 U.S.C 12273 penalty for willful violation of Commission orders; CU-97-13,46 NRC 213 n.16 (1997) Comprehensive Environmental Respome, Compensation and uability Act. 42 U.S.C. Il9601-9675 nnancial liability for decommissioning; CLI-9713, 46 NRC 217 (1997) Energy Reorganizauon Act, 211, 42 U.5,C. 5 5851 ternunation of emplope for raismg safety concerns; CU-9714,46 NRC 288 (1997) Energy Reorganization Act,211,42 U.S.C 55851(aXI) protection of workers in nuclear related acuvines, guidelines for; CLI-97-14, 46 NRC 290 (1997) Energy Reorganization Act, 211, 42 U.S.C.15851(a)(2XA) dehmtion of " employer"; CLI-9714, 46 NRC 290 (1997) 1994 Mmn. laws ch. 641, arts.1,6 (codvied at Minn. Stat. Illl6C77 80 (1996) authonzation to state spent euel at independent spent fuel storage installanon; DD-97-24, 46 NRC 190 (1997) 33

__I I I l l t LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Solar, Wind, Wasta, and Geotheral hmer Production incenoves Act of 1990 Pub. L No. 101 575* 5 5(e).104 Stat 2834 sestricuons no bcensms of ewichnent facihues; CLI-9715,46 NRC 297 (1997) U.S. Consututma, amend. Y and XIV mne-of-intercels test fur standing to intervene; LEP-97-20, 46 NRC 262, 271 (1997) O l l 34 l

_.I I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS Comtwt Eduion of the 04ord Enghsh Dictionary Vol. I, huar I., p.160, col. 2 (Oxford liniv. Press 1979) dehnition of "at least"; CU-9710, 46 NRC 31 n 4 (1997) 136 Cong Rec. Hi!922. H11924 (Oct. 23,1990) (comnents of Representative Miller) henkh and safety nsks frotu enrichnunt faciliucs; CLI-97-15,46 NRC 296 97 (1997) 136 Cong. Rec. 517660, $17661 (Oct. 27,1990) (conenents of Senator J. Bennen Johnston) simph6 canon of licensing process for enrichnent facilities; CU-9715,46 NRC 2% (1997) lacensing and Regulation of Nuclear Reactors: Heanags Before the Joint Committer on Atomic Energy, 90th Cong.,1st Sess. 347, pt. I, Appendix 12 (1967) principles of Anancial analysis applied to hcense applications, CU-97-15, 46 NRC 301 (1997) Licensing Uranium Enrichment Plants: Ovenight Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Energy and the Environment of the Hanse Comn en Interior & Insular Mairs,101st Cong., 2d Sess 13.129 (1991) distinction between nuclear reactors and enrichment facilities in degree of ruk; CL1-9715,46 NRC 306 n.1,8 (1997J Webster's Third New International Dictwnary (G &C. Merriam Co.1976) at 1287 dc6 ninon of "at least"; CLI-9710, 46 NRC 31 (1997) J 35

_I I SUBJECT INDEX ACCIDENTS, IOSS OF-COOLANT anmil-break, recordkeeping on analysis of; DD-97-17, 46 NRC 13 (1997) ADJUDICATORY BOARDS rule in reviewing settlements in enforcement cases; CU-9713, 46 NRC 195 (1997) role of, CU-9710,46 NRC 26 (1997) AMENDMENT of hearing requests based on new information in Safety Evaluation Report or Final Environmental Impact Statement; LDP-97-23,46 NRC 311 (1997) APPEALS argunruts by prevailing party, scope of; CU-9710, 46 NRC 26 (1997) neuon for reconsideration filed simultaneously with; CU-97 9,46 NRC 23 (1997) j raising issues for Ant time on; CLI-97-13, 46 NRC 195 (1997) See also Review. Appellate ASSESSMENT of internal contamination; DD-97-22, 46 NRC 130 (1997) ATOMIC ENEROY ACT licensing standards; LDP-97-20, 46 NRC 257 (1997) NRC health and safety responsibitines under; CLI-97-13,46 NRC 195 (1997) BOARDS See Adjudicatory Boards; Licensing Boards CERTIFICATE OP SERYlCE sequirements for informal proceedings; CLI-97-9, 46 NRC 23 (1997) CIVIL PENALTY reduction of; LBP 9719,46 NRC 237 (1997) COMPL7FER CODE RELAP5YA, recordkeeping on use of; DD-97-17, 46 NRC 13 (1997) CONDirIONS on termination of proceedings; LDP-97-17,46 NRC 227 (1997) CONTAINMElff air redrculation fans service-water piping; DD 97-21, 46 NRC 108 (1997) isolation valves, design-related issues; DD-97 21,46 NRC 108 (1997) CONTAMINATION ernergency response to; DD 97-22, 46 NRC 130 (1997) internal, assessnent of; DD-97 22, 46 NRC 130 (1997) medical care to reduce effects of, DD 97-22,46 NRC 130 (1997) radiation surveys following incidents DD-97-22. 46 NRC 130 (1997) COOLING SYSTEMS See Emergency Core Cooling Systems C05fS of deep burial of tails; LBP 97 22, 46 NRC 275 (1997) COTTER CONCENTRATES radmactivity of, LBP-97-14, 46 NRC $5 (1997) i l l 37 ] I i )

r l l I t _l l I l SUBJECT INDEX CREDIBILTTY of witnesses; LBP-97-16, 46 NRC 66 (1997) CRIMINAL PROSECUTION delay of proceeding to accommoduts referral for; LBP-9718,46 NRC 234 (1997) DEBTS, PRIVATE Commission authority to nullify; CLI-97-13,46 NRC 195 (1997) DECOMMISSIONING activities report and cost enumates required for lermination of heense; DD-97-21,46 NRC 108 (1997) radiation control program for; DD-97-19, 46 NRC 91 (1997) l DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING { for deep mine disposal of triuranium octuoalde; CL1-97-II, 46 NRC 49 (1997) DECOMMISSIONING PUNDING PLAN deep burial of tails; LDP 97 22, 46 NRC 275 (1997) DELAY OF PROCEEDING to accommodate referral for possible criminal prosecution; LBP-97-18,46 NRC 234 (1997) DIESEL GENERATOR ROOMS pmtection from tornadoes; DD-97 25,46 NRC 243 (1997) DIESEL GENERATORS common-cause failure mechanisms; DD-97-25,46 NRC 243 (1997) DISCOVERY into nerits of settlernent; CLI-9713,46 NRC 195 (1997) DOSE calculation for deep-mine disposal of waste; CLI-97-II, 46 NRC 49 (1997) impacts of deep disposal of tails, challenge to Staff analysis of; LBP-97-22,46 NRC 275 (1997) DOSIMETRY for phosphorus-33; DD-97 22, 46 NRC 130 (1997) DRY STORAGE CASKS retrieval of failed fuel from; DD 9718,46 NRC 35 (1997) unloading of; DD-9718,46 NRC 35 (1997) EARTHQUAKE MOTION regulatory requirements associated with; DD 97-23,46 NRC 168 (1997) EARTHQUAKES Landers and Northridge, risk to SONGS in light of; DD 97 23,46 NRC 168 (1997) ECONOMIC INJURY environmental impact linkage necessary to estabbsh standing to intervene in materials license amendment proceeding; LBP 97-20, 46 NRC 257 (1997) EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS closed systems outside containment; DD 97 25,46 NRC 243 (1997) small-break, loss of-coolant accidents; DD 97-17, 46 NRC 13 (1997) EMERGENCY PLANS for proposed independent spent fuel storage installation, opportunity to comment on; DD-97 24, 46 NRC 189 (l997) EMERGENCY RESPONSE to contaminanon incident; DD 97-22, 46 NRC 130 (1997) EMPLDYEES See Licensee Employees ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT protected acovity under; DD 97 20, 46 NRC % (1997) ENIORCEMENT of compliance with Anancial quali6 cation requirements; CLI-97-15,46 NRC 294,1997) of subpoenas; CLI-9714,46 NRC 287 (1997) process; DD97-25,46 NRC 243 (1997) ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS immediately effectim orders; LBP-9715,46 NRC 60 (1997) l l 38 ( l t i l

_I l SUBJECT INDEX pmhibiting individual from NRC-licensed activiues; LBP 9715,46 NRC 60 (1997) ENIORCEMENT ORDERS comprnnna in rernedial plan of CL1-9713,46 NRC 195 (1997) ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS scope of participation in; CL1-9713,46 NRC 195 (1997) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPALTS linkage between economic injury and; LBP-97 20,46 NRC 257 (1997) ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE applicability to matarials beems arnendment proceeding; LDP 9712,46 NRC 1 (1997) EXAMINATION sirnulator portion of senior reactor operator license; LBP-9716,46 NRC 66 (1997) weight given to NRC Staff pohey on administration of; LBP-9716, 46 NRC 66 (1997) EXPOSURE See Radiation 4aposure FAULT capable, denniuon of; DD-97-23,46 NRC 168 (1997) FINAL ENVIRONMENfAL IMPALT STATEMENT amendment of bearing requests based on new information in; LBP-97-23,46 NRC 311 (1997) FINANCIAL QUAlJFICATIONS conditions imposed on mutedals license; CL1-97-15, 46 NRC 294 (1997) individual basis for judgment of; CLI 9715,46 NRC 294 (1997) purpose of statutory provision; CLI-9715, 46 NRC 294 (1997) FIRE DARRIER on cable tray suppnrt, gap in; DD-97-25, 46 NRC 243 (1997); DD 97 26,46 NRC 313 (1997) FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM gap in fire barrier installed on cable tray support; DD-97 26, 46 NRC 313 (1997) FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS foam suppression system de6ciency; DD 97-25,46 NRC 243 (1997) OAS CENTRIFUGE henhh and safety risks associated with uranium enrichment by; CL1-9715,46 NRC 294 (1997) GROUNDWATER contamination from deep-mine disposal of tnuranium octaoaide; CLJ-97-II,46 NRC 49 (1997) HEALTH AND SAFETY risks associated with uranium ennchment by gas centnfuge: CLI-9715,46 NRC 294 (1997) HEARING REQUluTS amendrnent of, based on new information in Safety Evaluauon Report or Final Environrrental impact Statement; LBP-97 23,46 NRC 311 (1997) HIGH-PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM design-related issues; DD 97 21, 46 NRC 108 (1997) INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALIATION at away-from-reactor site, withdrawal of license application for; LBP-9713,46 NRC ll (1997) opportumty to comment on emergency plan for; DD-97 24,46 NRC 189 (1997) unloading of dry storage casks; DD-9718,46 NRC 35 (1997) INFORMAL PROCEEDINGS certificate of-service seguirements; CLI-97-9, 46 NRC 23 (1997) credibility of affiants; LBP 9716, 46 NRC 66 (1997) intervention in; LDP 97-20, 46 NRC 257 (1997) INJURY IN FACT competieve, standmg to intervene in informal proceeding on busin of; LBP-97-20,46 NRC 257 (1997) standard for intervention in materials license amendment proceeding; LBP-97-12,46 NRC 1 (1997); LDP 9714,46 NRC 55 (1997) INTERPRETATION general rules; CL1-9715,46 NRC 294 (1997) of regulations, agency practice in; CL19710,46 NRC 26 (1997) 39

1 l I I SUBJECT INDEX INTERVEFCION ) appeals of denials of; CU-97-9, 46 NRC 23 (1997) ) in informal procee&ngs; LDP-97 20,46 NRC 257 (1997) j INTERVENTION PE'llTIONS anumdment of; LDP 97 21,46 NRC 273 (1997) INVENTORY COfGROL of radioacdve rnaterials, DD-97 22, 46 NRC 00 (1997) ) ISOLATION VALVES containment purge, leaking in eacess of technical specificanon requirements; DD-97 25,46 NRC 243 (1997) i JURISDICTION ovsr motion for reconsideration of intervenoon denial, CL197-9,4 ;rRC 23 (1997) to proceed on remanded issue that is peneng on appeal; CU-9712,46 NRC 52 (1997) UCENSE CONDITIONS appropriateness of; CU 9715, 46 NRC 294 (1997) Anancial commitments imposed on materials license; CU-97-15,46 NRC 294 (1997) UCENSEE EMP!DYEES hostile work environment; DD-97-20, 46 NRC 96 (1997) managernent handling of concerns of; DD-97-21,46 NRC 108 (1997) i protected activities; DD-97 20, 46 NRC % (1997) UCENSEE EVENT REPORTS as basis for request for action; DD-97-25,46 NRC 243 (1997); DD-97-26, 46 NRC 313 (1997) LICENSEES handling of employee concerns; DD-97 21,46 NRC 108 (1997) UCENSING DOARDS authority to consider recission request; LBP 9715,46 NRC 60 (1997) authority to grant mocon to terminate procce&ng; LBP 97-13,46 NRC 11 (1997) authority to ternunnte proceedings; LDP-97-17,46 NRC 227 (1997) jurisdiction over motions for reconsideration; CU-97-9, 46 NRC 23 (1997) jwindiction to proceed on renumded issue that is peneng on appeal; CLI 9712,46 NRC 52 (1997) review of NRC Staff actions; CLI 9710,46 NRC 26 (1997) i weight given to standing determinations; CLI-97-8,46 NRC 21 (1997) i LOW PRESSURE COOLA!G INJEC110N SYSTEM programmatic concerns about; DD-97-26, 46 NRC 313 (1997) MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT for receipt and procendng of alternative fuel material; LDP-9712,46 NRC 1 (1997) j MATERIALS UCENSB AMENDMEfG PROCEEDING standing to intervene in; LBP 9712,46 NRC 1 (1997); LBP 97-14,46 NRC 55 (1997); LDP-97-20,46 NRC 257 (1997) i MATERIALS LICENSES Enancial commitments imposed as con &tions on; CLI-9715,46 NRC 294 (1997) willful and reckless violations of Part 20, request for acuan for; DD 97 22,46 NRC 130 (1997) MEDlCAL CARE to reduce effects of radiological contamination; DD 97 22,46 NRC 130 (1997) MIL 11NO nuclear waste, failure to show injury in fact from; LBP-97-21,46 N',2 273 (1997) MISREPRESENTATIONS material, request for shutdown pendmg ovestigauan of; DD-97 21,46 NRC 108 (1997) MONTTORS See Radiation Monitors MOTION TO REOPEN jurisdiction over; CU-97-9,46 NRC 23 (1997) MOTOR-OPERATED YALVES shutdown cooling suction, hmit switches on; DD-97-25,46 NRC 243 (1997) i 40 1 1 I l l

I~ _l l i I t SUBJECT INDFJ NTTROGEN INTRUSION EVINT calculaticas in response to; DD 97 21,46 NRC 108 (1997) NRC INSPECTIONS and compliance with Anuncial quali6 cation requirements; CLI-97-15, 46 NRC 294 (1997) NRC POLICY en settlement of conterad proceedings; CU 97-13, 46 NRC 195 (1997); LBP-97-19, 46 NRC 237 (1997) NRC PROCEEDINGS appellate review of, CU-97-8,46 NRC 21 (1997) NRC STAFF donc calculation for deep-mine disposal of waste; CU-97-II,46 NRC 49 (1997) licensmg board review of acdons of; CL1-9710,46 NRC 26 (1997) policy on administradon of examinanons, weight given to: LBP-97-16,46 NRC 66 (1997) weight given to 6ndings of; CU 97-13, 46 NRC 195 (1997) NRC WATCH LIST characterisitics of plants on; DD-97 21,46 NRC 108 (1997) standard for placing a licensee on; DD-9719, 46 NRC 91 (1997) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION authority to investigate; CU-97-14, 46 NRC 287 (1997) authority to nuthfy private debts; CLI-97-13, 46 NRC 195 (1997) enforcement of subpoenas; CU-97-14, 46 NRC 287 (1997) health and safety responsibihties under Atomic Energy Act; CU-97-13, 46 NRC 195 (1997) obligation to grant petition for review; CU-9712,46 NRC 52 (1997) OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKE dennidon of; DD-97-23, 46 NRC 168 (1997) OPPORTUhTTY TO COMMENT on emergency plan for proposed independent spent fuel storage installation' DD-97 24,46 NRC 189 (1997) ORAL RULING at prehearing conference, order con 6rming; LDP-97-15, 46 NRC 60 (1997) ORDERS immediately effective, challenges to; LBP 97-15,46 NRC 60 (1997) OVERPRESSURfZATION relief for isolated piping; DD-97 25,46 NRC 243 (1907); DD-97-26, 46 NRC 313 (1997) pH VALUE in dose estimate for deep burial of tails; LBP 97-22,46 NRC 275 (1997) PHOSPHORUS-32 security and inventory control requirements for; DD 97 22,46 NRC 130 (1997) P! PING conuunment air recirculation fans service-water; DD-97-21,46 NRC 108 (1997) isolated, overpressurizadon relief for; DD-97-25, 46 NRC 243 (1997); DD 97-26, 46 NRC 313 (1997) PRECEDENTIAL VALUE l of settlements; CU-97-13, 46 NRC 195 (1997) PREONANCY declaration of, and minimization of radiation exposure; DD-97-22, 46 NRC 130 (1997) radiadon exposure during; DD 97-22,46 NRC 130 (1997) PSYCHOLOGICAL EITEcr5 si injury in fact for purpose of standing to intervene; LBP 97-12,46 NRC 1 (1997) PUBLIC INTEREST standard in review of settlemem agreements; CLI-9713,46 NRC 195 (1997) QUALITY ASSURANCE recordkeeping on use of computer code related to; DD-97-17,46 NRC 13 (1997) variation in response to identi5ed de8ciencies; DD 97-21,46 NRC 108 (1997) i l 41 l l [

I I l } SUBJECT INDFJ RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM for decomrmasiorung activities, de6ciencies in; DD-9719, 46 NRC 91 (1997) RADIATION EXPOSURE assessment of; DD 97-22, 46 NRC 130 (1997) { dunns pregnancy; DD-97-22, 46 NRC 130 (1997) RADIATION MON! TOR funedonal testing dc6ciency treated as noncited violation; DD-#126,46 NRC 313 (1997) f functional tesong, surveillance procedure inadequacies: DD-97 25, 46 NRC 243 (1997) operahnlity for venting of dry storage casks; DD-9718,46 NRC 35 (1997) RADIATION SAITTTY training requirements for handhng of phosphorus-33; DD 97-22,46 NRC 130 (1997) RADIATION SAFETY OFTICER " implicit authoriry" to act as; LBP 9715,46 NRC 60 (1997) RADIATION SURVEYS after contaminanon incioents; DD-97-22, 46 NRC 130 (1997) RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS procurement of, DD-97-22, 46 NRC 130 (1997) RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS CONTROL violations of NRC requirements for; DD 97 22, 46 NRC 110 (1997) RADIOACTIVE WASTE from enrichment process, disposal of; LBP-97-22, 46 NRC 275 (1997) RADIOACTIVTTY of Cotter Concentrates; LBP-97-14,46 NRC 55 (1997) REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE esaminer guidelines; LBP 97-16, 46 NRC 66 (1997) REACTOR PROTECTION SYSTEM breaker ternunation; DD-97-25, 46 NRC 243 (1997) REANOR VESSEL nitrogen intrusion event; DD-97 21, 46 NRC 108 (1997) RECONSIDERATION appeal 6 led simultaneously with motion for; CLI-97 9,46 NRC 23 (1997) denial of motion for failure to provide informauon beyond conjectme; LBP-97-14,46 NRC 55 (1997) jurisdicuan to rule on motion for CLI-97-9. 46 NRC 23 (1997) of issue remanded for clari6 cation, motion for. C1197-12,46 NRC $2 (1997) RECORDKEEPINO individual radiological monitoring results; DD-97-22,46 NRC 130 (1997) on use of computer code quality assurance procedures, DD-9717,46 NRC 13 (1997) REDOX POTEVTIAL value in dose esumate for deep burial of tails; LBP 97 22, 46 NRC 275 (1997) REGULATIONS agency practice in interpretation of; CLI-97-10,46 NRC 26 (1997) interpretation of 10 C F.R 2.203; CLI-97-13, 46 NRC 195 (1997) waiver of; CLI-9713,46 NRC 195 (1997) REGULATORY GUIDES regulatory status of; LBP 9716,46 NRC 66 (1997) scoring of reactor operator examinations; CLI-9710,46 NRC 26 (1997) l REMAND for clari6 cation of issue; CLI-97-11,46 NRC 49 (1997); CLI-97-12,46 NTC 52 (1997) REOPENING A RECORD I evidentiary standard for, LBP 97-14, 46 NRC 55 (1997) See also Motion tu Reopen RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM opening of minimum flow valves; DD 97 26, 46 NRC 313 (1997) I service water, programmatic concerns about; DD 97-26,46 NRC 313 (1997) l I 42 l l l

r _.I I I I J SUBJECT INDEX i i ( vulnerabihry of ndnimurn Gow valves to single failure; DD 97-25,46 NRC 243 (1997) RETARDATION VALUE ) in dose estimate for deep bunal of tails; LDP-97-22,46 NRC 275 (1997) { REVIEW of settlenwnts in enforcement cases; CLJ 9713. 46 NRC 195 (1997) REVIEW, APPELLATE circurnstances appropriate for grant of; ClJ-9712, 46 NRC 52 (1997) of licensing board standing deterndnations; CLI-97-8,46 NRC 21 (1997) of settlement agreements, public interest standard, CL19713,46 NRC 195 (1997) See alma Appeals RISK-BENEITT REVilM j of settlement agreenwnts; CLI-9713,46 NRC 195 (1997) RISKS health and safety, associated with uranium enrichnent by gas centrifuge; CLI-9715, 46 NRC 294 (1997) i RULES OF PRACl' ICE appeals of intervention denials: CLI 97-9,46 NRC 23 (1997) burden of going forward and of persuasion, LDP-9715,46 NRC 60 (1997) immediately effective orders, challenges to; LBP 97-15, 46 NRC 60 (1997) intervention in informal proceedings; LBP-97-20,46 NRC 257 (1997) settlement of contested proceedings; CLI-9713,46 NRC 195 (1997) 1 termination of proceedings with prejudice; LBP-9717,46 NRC 227 (1997) witness credibihty; LBP-9716,46 NRC 66 (1997) SAILSHUlt)OWN EARTHQUAKE dcAnition of, DD-97-23,46 NRC 168 (1997) SAFETY EVALAJATION REPORT amendment of hearing requests based on new information in; LDP 97-23,46 NRC 311 (1997) SECURTlY of licensed material; DD 97 22, 46 NRC 130 (1997) SEISMIC DESIGN BASIS earthquake ground motion considerations in; DD 97 23,46 NRC 168 (1997) SEISMIC RISK to SONGS in light of Landers and Northridge earthquakes; DD-97-23,46 NRC 168 (1997) SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR IJCENSE j examination score, rounding up of; CLI-97-10, 46 NRC 26 (1997) scope of inquiry; CLI-9710,46 NRC 26 (1997) sinailator examination; LBP-9716, 46 NRC 66 (1997) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS discovery into rnerita of; CLI 97-13, 46 NRC 195 (1997) licensing board review and approval of; LBP-9719, 46 NRC 237 (1997) NRC policy on; CLI-9713,46 NRC 195 (1997), LBP-9719, 46 NRC 237 (1997) precedenual value of. CLI-97-13,46 NRC 195 (1997) test for approval of; CLJ-9713, 46 NRC 195 (1997) SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS Cotter Concentrate, composition of; LDPA7-12, 46 NRC 1 (1997) SPENT FUEL STORAGE See Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation SPIRTTUAL EFFECTS as mjury in fact for purpose of standing to intervene; LBP 97-12, 46 NRC 1 (1997) STANDING TO INTERVENE in license amendment proceeding, injury-in-fact showing necessary for grant of; LDP-9714, 46 NRC 55 (1997) i in materials license amendment proceeding, injury in fact as basis for; LDP-97-12, 46 NRC 1 (1997); LBP-97-20,46 NRC 257 (1997) l 43 1 l

I ._ l l l SUBJECT INDEX judicial concepts apphed im NRC proceedings; LBP 97-20,46 NRC 257 (1997) organizational, authortantions for; LBP 97-14. 46 NRC 55 (1997) weight given to licensing board determinations on; C1,197 8, 46 NRC 21 (1997) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION general rules; CLI-97-15,46 NRC 294 (1997) STE AM BUILDUP during introduction of spent fuel pool water to dry storage cask during unloading; DD-9718,46 NRC 35 (1997) SUBPOENAS-NRC enforcement of; CLI-97-14,46 NRC 287 (1997) SURVEYS See Radiation Surveys TEC11NICAL SPECIFICATIONS for unloading of dry storage casks; DD-9718,46 NRC 35 (1997) TERMINATION OF LICENSE decomnussioning acuvmes report and cost estimates required for; DD-97-21,46 NRC 108 (1997) TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINO authonty to grant; LBP-97-13,46 NRC 11 (1997) cornhtions on; LBP-9713, 46 NRC 11 (1997) on license application for independent spent fuel storage installation at away-from-reactor site; LBP-97-13,46 NRC 11 (1997) with prejudice: LDP 97-17,46 NRC 227 (1997) TORNADOES protection of diesel generator rooms from; DD 97-25, 46 NRC 243 (1997) TRAININO radiation safety, requirements for handling of phosphonts 33; DD 97 22. 46 NRC 130 (1997) TRIURAN!UM OCTAOXIDE done calculation for deep-mine disposal of; CL1-97-!!,46 NRC 49 (1997) U.S. CONSTTTUTION equal treatment under; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 257 (1997) URANIUM ENRICllMENT by gas centrifuge, health and safety risks associated with; CLI-97-15,46 NRC 294 (1997) VALVES containment isolation, design-relateJ issues; DD-97 21,46 NRC 108 (1997) minimum flow, in residual heat removal system, vulnerability to single failure; DD-97-25,46 NPC 243 (1997) minimum flow, to provide residual heat renmval pump protection, adequacy of corrective action in opening; DD-97-26,46 NRC 313 (1997) i See also isolation Valves; Motor Operated Valves VENTINO of radioactive gases from dry storage cask; D0-97-18,46 NRC 35 (1997) VIOLATIONS severity levels of; DD 97 25, 46 NRC 243 (1997) WAIVFR of rules or regulations; CLJ-97-13,46 NRC 195 (1997) WASTE DISPOSAL deep-nune, costs for; LBP-97-22, 46 NRC 275 (1997) deep-mine, dose calculation for; CLI-97 II,46 NRC 49 (1997) WHISTLEBLDWERS harassment and intinudation for raising nuclear safety concerns; DD 97 2C,46 NRC % (1997) WTTHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION for license for independent spent fuel storage installation at away-from-reactor site; LBP-97-13, 46 NRC 11 (1997) i l 44 l 1 l l

l l l SUBJECT LNDEX wrrNESSES credabahty of; LBP-9716. 46 NRC 66 (1997) ZONE OF INTERESTS for intervendon in materials beense arnendnrnt proceeding; LBP-97-20, 46 NRC 2$7 (1997) 4 45 l i

_l I f FACILITY INDEX AMBROSIA LAKE FACILITY, Grants, New Mexico; Docket No. 448905 MLA MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; November 4,1997, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Request for Hearing); LBP-97 20, 46 NRC 257 (1997) CLA! BORNE ENRICHMENT CENTER; Docket No. 70 3074ML MATERIA 13 LICENSE; September 3,1997; ORDER; CLI-97-II,46 NRC 49 (1997) MATERIAIS LICENSE; September 19, 1997; ORDER; G 1-9712, 46 NRC 52 (1997) MATERIALS LICENSE; November 13, 1997; MEMORANDUM (Explanation Required by Remand); LBP 97 22,46 NRC 275 (1997) MATERIALE LICENSU; December 18, 1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Resolving Financial Qualificuiona), CLI-97-15, 46 NRC 294 (1997) GOODilUE COUNTY INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE FAGLITY; Docket No. 72-10 REQUEST FOR ACTION; September 26, 1997, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. ( 6 2.206; DD-97 24, 46 NRC 189 (1997) HADDAM NECK PLANT; Docket No. 50 213 / REQUEST FOR ACTION; September 3,1997; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206; DD 9719, 46 NRC 91 (1997) [ REQUEST FOR ACTION; September 12, 1907; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206; DD 97-21, 46 NRC 108 (1997) C MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWE!! !TTATION; Docket No. 50-309 REQUEST FOR ACTION. July 30, 1997; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206; ~ DD-97-17,46 NRC 13 (1997) MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units 1,2, and 3; Docket Nos. 54 245, 50-336, 50-423 REQUEST FOR ACTION, September 12, 1997; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206; DD 97 21, 46 NRC 108 (1997) MOAB, LTTAH FACILTTY; Docket No. 40 3453 MLA MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 4,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CL1-97 8,46 NRC 21 (1997) PRAIRIE ISLAND INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION, Docket No. 72-10 N REQUEST IOR ACTION; August 29, 1997; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 52.206; DD-97-18, 46 NRC 35 (1997) PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, Docket Ncs. 50-282, 54 306 REQUEST FOR ACTION; August 29, 1997; DIRECTOR'S DEGSION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206; DD 9718, 46 NRC 35 (1997) SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 54 361, 50 362 REQUEST FOR ACTION; September 19, 1997, DIRECTOR'S DEGSION UNDER 10 CF.R. 52.206; DD697-23,46 NRC 168 (1997) ST. LUGE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 54250, 54251 REQUEST FOR ACTION; September 8,1997; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. 62.206; DD-97-20, 46 NRC 96 (1997) TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, Umts 3 and 4 Docket Nos 54 335, 50 389 REQUEST FOR ACTION; September 8,1997 DIRECTOR'S DEGSION UNDER 10 CF.R.12.206; DD-97 20, 46 NRC 96 (1997) 47

_I l FACILITY INDEX VEEMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION; Docket No. 50-271 REQUEST POR ACTION; October 8,1997; PARTIAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 12.206, DD-97-25, 46 NRC 243 (1997) REQUEST FOR ACflON; December 29, 1997; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 12.206; DD 97 26, 46 NRC 313 (1997) WHrrE MESA URAN!UM MILL; Docket No. 448681 MLA MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 23. 1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying a Hearing); LBP-9712,46 NRC 1 (1997) MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 7.1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CL1-97-9,46 NRC 23 (1997) MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 4,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Modons for Reconsideration, To Reopen the Record); LBP 97-14,46 NRC 55 (1997) WHrrE MESA URANIUM MILL; Docket No. 448681-MIA-2 MATERIA 13 LICENSE AMENDME!G; November 7,1997; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denial of Petidon for a Heanng); LBP-97-21,46 NRC 273 (1997) .}}