ML20209G810

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISSUANCES.January- March 1999

ML20209G810
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1999
From:	NRC
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V49-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V49-I1, NUDOCS 9907200019
Download: ML20209G810 (51)

Text

._

NUREG-0750 Vol. 49 Index 1

'~'

lNDEXES TOJ an NUCLEAR:: REGULATORY-

.TCOM. MISSION ISS.UANCES

January - March 1999 Nl Q

9

+

+

o 4

f O

.y g

,n g

m o

...s b

.U S. NUCLEAh REGULATORY COMMISSION

!!!728Sig99063o 0750 R PDR

I e

Available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office RO. Box 37082 Washington, DC 20402-9328 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.

l Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 1

I l

i 1

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. 49 Index 1 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES January - March 1999 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Prepared by the Office of the Chief Information Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301 -415 - 6844) i i

e Foreword Digsm and indems for imuances of the Cornnweion (CLI), tir Atomic Safety and liensing Bonni Panel (IBP), the Administrative Law Judges (AU), tir Duectors' Dedsion (DD)5 and the Decisions on Ittitions for Rulenaking (DPRM) are pesented in this docunent. Mme digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the amuanas.

. Infonnation einnents common to the cases heant and ruled upon are:

Case name (ownes(s) of facility)

Ibtl text reference (volune and pgination)

Imuance number ~

. Imucs raised by appellams

- lept r*e=== (cases, segulations, and statutes)

Name of facility, Docket number Subject natter of issues and/or ruliny Type of hearing (opemting license, operating license amendnent, etc.)

Type of imunnce (memosandum, osder, decision, etc.)

These infomation elemenes are displayed in one or move of five separate formats arranyd as follows:

1.

Case Nnsne ladex.

W wne index is an alphabetical ananyment of the ase nanrs of the asuanms.. h case nant is followed by the tyge of hearing, the type of issuance,

docket nunder,innan number, and full text reference.

' 2.

Headses and Digests

. The headers and digests are pesenled in imuance number order as follows: the Commisen (CLI), the Alonue Safety and ucensing Board Panel (IEP)5 the Adnunstratis !.aw Judges (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Decisions on -

IYtitions for Rulenuking (DPRM).

p l

W header identifies the imuance by issuance number, case nanr, facility name, docket number, type of Iraring, date d issuanx, and type of issuance.

l The digest is a brief nanative of an imue folknved by the resolution of the issue and any lept referenas used in sesolving the issue. If a given imuance covers more than one issue, then seprate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically.

3.

Iagni Cadmaia-ladex -

. This index is divided into four pits and consists of alphabetical or alpha-nunrrical l

anangements of Cases, Regulatio.rs, Statutes, and Otirrs. These citations are listed as given in tie imuances. Changes in segulations and statutes may have oaurred to cause changs in the number or name anfor applicability of the citation. It is therefore important to condder the date of the imuance.

lhe references to cases, segulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by -

phrases that show the application of the citation in' the prticular imuanx.'These

. phrases are followed by the imuanx numler and the full text reference.

iii

G 4.

Subjectladex

. Sutject words and/or phrases, anangd alphatetically, isulicate the imues and subjects covered in the imuances. The sulject heading are followed ty phrases that give specific infonnation about the sutject, as discumed in the imuances being indexed.

These phennes are folked by the imunnce number and the full text refenenx.

5.

Faduty index This index consmes of an alphabetical anangment of facility narnes from the imuana. The name is folkmed by docket nunder, type of hearing, date, type of imuance, imuance number, and full text referena.

1 6 '

1 i

)

iv j

l l

l

~L1

_I I

CASE NAME INDEX AHARON BEN HAIM, Ph.D.

ENIORCEMENT ACTION; INITIAL DECISION (Afhrnung Enforcement Order, with Modi 6 cations);

Docket No. IA 97468 (ASLBP No. 97-73101-EA) (Order Superseding Order Prol.ibiting lavolvement

.S >

in NRC-Ucensed Activities (Effective immediately)); LDP-99-4,49 NRC $$ (1999)

ATLAS CORPORATION REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.FIL 12.206; Docket No. 40 3453 (License No. SUA-917); DD-99-2, 49 NRC 13 (1999)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 2295-IA, 50 3(M-1A; CLI-99 4, 49 NRC 185 (1999) y CONNELTICLTI YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY REQUEST IUR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. 52.206; Docket No. 50L213; O

DD-99-1, 49 NRC 5 (1999)

(

GENERAL PUBLIC UTILTTIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, er at LICENSE TRANSFER. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No. 50L289; LU99-2, 49 NRC 23 7

(1999)

HYDRO RESOURCES, INC.

/

MATERIALS LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 40-8%8-ML; CLI-99-1,49 NRC 1 (1999), CLI-99-3, 49 NRC 25 (19990 CLI-99 7, 49 NRC 230 (1999)

MATERIALS LICENSE; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Waste Disposal lasues); Docket No. 40L8968-

~

ML (ASLBP No. 95-706-01-ML) (Re: Izach Mimag and Milbng Ucense). LBP-99-1, 49 NRC 29 (1999)

MATERIALS LICENSE PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Issues Related to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and Cultural Resources). Docket No. 40L896841L (ASLBP No. 95-706-01-ML) (Re:

leach Mming and Milling Ucense); LDP-99-9, 49 NRC 136 (1999)

MATERIA 13 LICENSE; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Performance-Based Ucensing issues); Docket

=

No 40 8%8-ML (ASLBP No.95-706.01-ML) (Re: leach Manmg and Milhng Usense); LBP-99-10.

49 NRC 145 (1999)

MATERIAIJ LICENSE; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (financial Assurance for Decomrmssioning lasues); Docket No. 40L8968-ML (ASLBP No. ?-706-01-ML) (Re: Leach Mming and Milling Ucense); LDP-99-13,49 NRC 233 (1999)

MATERIALS LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Wons Concerning Radioactive Air Emissions); Docket No. 448968-ML (ASLBP No. 95-706-01-ML) (Re: Leach Mining and Milhng Ucense) LDP-9915,49 NRC 261 (1999)

INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. 6 2.206; Docket Nos 50L315.

50L316 (Ucense Nos. DPR 58, DPR-74); DD-99-3, 49 NRC 161 (1999)

IN7T.RNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; INITIAL DECISION (Denying the Rehef Requested by the State of Utah); Docket No. 40 868I-MLA-4 (ASLBP No. 98-74843-MLA); LBP-99-5, 49 NRC 107 (1999) 1

mT i

_l I

' CASE NAME INDEX f

\\.

MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Distnissing Certain Petitions); Docket Na 4C.8681-MLA 5 (ASLBP Na 99-75842-MLA); LBP-99-8. 49 NRC 131 (1999)

MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDHENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissal of Envirocare);

' Docket Na 448681 MLA 5 (ASLBP No. 99-758-02-MLA); LBP-99-il,49 NRC 153 (1999)

KANSAS GAS A!IO ELECTRIC COMPANY, er st.

LICENSB TRANSFER; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Docket Na 50-482-LT; CLIMS,49 NRC 199 (1999)

NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION, er at LICENSE TRANSFER; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Na 54443; Cll 99-6. 49 NRC 201 (1999) -

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY REQUEST IOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 4 2.206; Docket Nos. 54275,

' 50 323; DD-99-5, 49 NRC 279 (1999)

PRIVATE IE', STORAGE, LLC. -

INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting late-Filed Intervention Peution); Docket Na 72-22 ISFSI (ASLBP Na 97-73242-ISFSI);

LBP 99-3, 49 NRC 40 (1999)'-

i INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALL.ATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -

)

(Approving Notice of Withdrawal and Denying Request to Adopt Contentions as Lae-Filed); Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI (ASLBP Na 97 732-02-ISFSI); LBP-99-6,49 NRC !!4 (1999)

INDEPENDENT SPENT IUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to Amend Security Contenoons); Docket Na 72-22-ISFSI (ASLBP Na 97-732 02-ISFSD; LDP-99-7, 49 NRC 124 (1999)

SHAUN P. O'HERN SPECIAL PROCEEDING; INTR!AL DECISION (License Gransed to Mr. Simun P. O'Hern); Docket Na 55-32442-SP (ASLBP Na 99-75341-SP) (Appeal of Denial of Operator's License); LSP 99-16, 49 NRC 270 (1999)

SHIELDALLDY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION MATERIA 8 41%SE. AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Peution to j

latcver,e). Docket Na 448948.MI.A (ASLBP Na 99-760 03-MLA); LBP-9912. 49 NRC 155 j

(1999)

SPECIAL TESTING LABORATORIES. INC.

ENFORCEMENT ACTION. ORDER; Docket Na 30 34318-EA (ASLBP Na 99-759-01-EA); LBP-99-2, 49 NRC 38 (1999)

TENNESSEE VAllIY AUTHORTTY REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; Docket Na 54259 (License Na DPR-331; DD-99-6,49 NRC 284 (1999)

J UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CIR. 6 2.206; DD 99 7, 49 NRC 299 (1999)

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION REQUEST IOR ACrlON; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDLR 10 CER. 92.206; Docket No. 54271 j

. (License Na DPR 28); DD 99-4,49 NRC 179 (1999)

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY LICliNSE AMENDMENT; PP.EHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (Ruling on Contentions); Docket Na 50 029-LA R (ASLBP Na 99 754-01 LA-R) (License Ternunation Plan); 1.BP-99-14, 49 NRC 238 (1999) 2 i

- 1 l

_l I

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tite NLCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CLI-991 IlYDRO RESOURCES,INC. (2929 Coors Road Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No.

(

40 8968-ML; MATERIALS LICENSE; January 29,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

Exercising its saa sponte supervisory authority over adjudications, the Comnsasion reviews and j

vacanes a scheduhng order issued by the Presiding Ofheer on January 21,1999, and reaffirmed on January 25,1999.

C B

The Comnussion is loath to supervise hhng schedules in matters being handled by licensing boards C

and presi&ng ofh&rs, twt will do so when appropnate.

C The Comnussion discourages extensions of deadlines absent extrenw circumstances, for fear that

]

an accumulauon of seemingly benign deadhne extensmns will in the end substannally delay the outcome z

of the case. See Srarement of Pokey rni Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedsngs. CU-98-12,48 NRC 18,21 (1998).

3 CLt-99-2 GENER AL PUBLIC UT!!JrIES NUC11AR CORPORATION, er at (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1), Ducket No. 54289; LICENSE TRANSTER; february 11, 1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I -

A In this beense transfer application involving the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I, the

~7Q Commission rejects an intervention peudon on the ground that it has failed to satisfy the requirements set 4 y furth in Subpart M for intervenuon.

CU-99-3 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coorn Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket 2-No. 4G 8%8-ML; MATERIALS LICENSE, February 11,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

The Commission reviewed a pehtion from severalIntervenors for interlocutory review of a Presiding Ofticer's Metrorandum and Order denying requests to adjust schedules for vanous snonons in the proceeding and to extend a deadline for written submissions. Tim Conmussion grants the petition insofar as it seeks O

an entension of the subrrussion deadhne and gives the Intervenors ad&uonal time. In al! other respects, the 2

petition is denied and the Comnussion does not alter the balance of the PresHing Officer's cader.

7 B

The Comnussion does not ordnarily review interlocutory orders denymg extensions of time, but may do no in specific cases a un carrene of its general supervisory junsdiction over agency adjudicadons.

C The Presiang Ofheer possenes considerable authonty to adjust general deadhnes and procedures

[

set out in the Conumssion's twies.

/

CLI-99-4 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Zion Nuclear Power Stauon, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-295-LA,5430&LA; LICI;NSE AMENDMENT, March 2,1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 7

A In this hcense anrndnrnt proceeding, the Commissbn considers the appeal of an Atonne Safety i

and Ucensing Board decision, LBP 98 27,48 NRC 271 (1998), that denied a petition for leave to intervene and request for hearing fikd by Mr. Edwin D. Dienethal. The Comnussion affirms the Board's ruling that Mr. Dienethat lacks standing to challenge the hccme amendnwnts.

B The Commission has stressed that licensing accons as a rule do not throw open an opporturuty to engge in a free ranging inquiry into the " character" of the licensee. For martagement " character" to be an appropnate issue for adjudication in a licensing proceeding, these must be some duect and obvious relauonship between the character inues and the hcensing acuan in dwiute.

C la an operating hcense amendment procecang, a petiuoner cannot base his or her standing simply upon a residence or visits near the plant, unless the proposed action quite obviously entails an increased potenual for offsite consequences. It is incumbent upon the pentioner to provide some " plausible chain of causadon," some scenario suggesting how the liceme amendnrnts would result in a disunct new harm or thrrat. A peuuoner cannot seek to obtain standing in a license amendment proceeding simply by 3

l

_l I

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TiiE NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION f

enumerating the proposed license changes and alleging without substandation that the changes willIcad to offsite radiological consequences.

D We do not espect our adjudicatory bonds, unaided by the parues, to sift through the parties' pleadings to uncover and resolve arguments not advanced by litigants themselves. The burden of setting forth a clear and coherent trgument for standing and intervention is on the peutioner. It should not be necessary to speculate about what a pleading is supposed to nean. The pentioner therefoie bears the responsibihty for any Licensing Bord misunderstandmg of his petition.

CU-99-5 KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, er at (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit I),

Docket No. 5(k4h2-LT; UCENSE TRANSf'ER, March 2,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I

A De Commission requests comnents on its proposal to direct its Staff no longer to conduct "signiReant changes" an;itrust reviews in license transfer caws, including the current proceedmg.

CU-99-6 NOIGH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVtCE CORPORATION, et al (Seabrock Station. Umt I),

Docket No 50-443; LICENSE TRANSFER; Mach 5,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

The Commission detues one Peddoner's untimely intervention petition, grants in part a second Petitioner's tinely intervendon petition and traring request, bnuts the scope of the resuldng procee&ng, establishes a fahng schedule, and smposes other procedural regmrements.

B To intervene as of right in a Comminion licensing proceedmg a petitioner must dernonstrate that its " interest may be affected by the proceceng," or in common pulance, it must denumstrate "stan&ng."

See AEA i 189a,42 U S C. 4 223Ha). De Commission's rules require further that a petsuon for intervention raise at least one admissible conternion or issue. The standards for necong these two requirernents in hcenne transfer cams come both from our Subpart M procedural segulations and from judicial cases on stan&ng (to which we look for guidance). The Conunission's requirements for standang and for adnunible issues overlap somewhat.

C To show stan&ng, a peutioner must (1) identfy an interest in the procce&ng by (a) alle;ing a a

concrete and particulanted injury (actual or threatened) that (b)is fairly traceable to, and may be affected by, the challenged action (the grata of an appheadon), and (c) is hkely to be redressed by a favorable decision, and (d) hen arguably within the rone of interests" protected by tir govermng statute (s); (2) specify the facts pertaining to that interest.

D To show admissible issues, a pentioner must (1) set forth the issues (factual and/or legal) that petidoner seeks to raine, (2) demonstrate ' hat those issues fall within the scope of the proceeding, (3) demonstrate that these issues are relevant and man i the hndings necessary to a grant of the license transfer applicadon, (4) show that a genuine dispute esists with the applicant regareng the issues, (5) provide a concise staternent of the alleged facts or capert opinions supporting peduoner's position on such inues, together with references to the sources and documents on which petitioner intends to rely. See 10 C F R. 5 2.1308. See generally YanAre Aunnic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon), CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185,194-% (1998)(standing); Baltunore Gas & Electric Co. (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-98-25,48 NRC 325,345-49 (1998)(adminible contentions).

E A Peutioner who as a co-licensee satishes the standang test when it advances a plausible claim of injury, ic., the potendal that NRC approval of the bcense transfer would put in place a new and nnancially incapable co licemee, thereby increasmg the pedtioner's risk of rasological harm to its property and its nsk of bemg forced to assunw a greater-than espec'ed share of the nuclear facihty's operaung and decomnussioning costs. Indeed, it is hard to conceive of an enury more entitled to claim standing in a bcense transfer case than a co licensee whone costs may rise, and whose property may be put at raeological risk.

I ri a result of an ill-funded license transfer, his kind of situauon jusches stan&ng based on "real-world f

consequences that conceivably could harm peuconers and enutie them to a heanng " Yanter Asomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon). CU 98-21,48 NRC 185,205 (1998).

F Petidoner's allegauons regarding its increased risk, supponed by two detailed af6 davits and other evidentiary eshibits, are sufhciernly concrete and particularued to pass muster for standing-G he threatened injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action (here, the grant of the beense transfer application) becau!c the alleged increase in risk associated with the transferee taking over the transferor's interent could not occur without Commission approval of tie applicanon. Sinularly, the threatened injury can be redresned by a favurable decision because the Comminion's denial of the application would prevent the transfer ofinterest.

l 4

i t

E.

5 l

l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION H

. As the AEA protects not only human health and safety from ra&ologically caused injury but also '

the owners' pmperty imerests in their facility (Gulf 3 ases Urituies Co. (River Bend Station, Unit I), CLI-94-10,40 NRC 43,48 (1994), citing AEA 56103b,161b,42 U.S.C. El2133(b),2201(b)), persons or entities who own (or co.own) an NRC-heensed facihty plainly have an AEA-protected imerest la licensing proceedings bryolving their facihty. ~

l.

Because the Commission itself has stated in a pobey statement that, under " highly unusual situations," it might hold i,,o-owners 6aancially liable for the share of such espenses auributable to a

. defaalting co owner (see "!1nal Policy Staternent on the Resuucturing and Econornic Deregulation of the Electric Utihty imiustry," 62 Fed. Reg. 44,071,44.074,44,077 (Aug.19,1997)),and because the Staae of l

New Hanpahire (in which the subject nuclear facility is located) has appaready imposed similar joint and several liabihty on all of the facihty's co owners (see N.H. Sesam Bill 140, signed by the Governor on June 11,1996), Petitioner presents an admissible issue when it asserts that the transfer would isnpose upon it a heighermed nsk of liabihty for operating and decommissmaing-fund espenses.

J Son = times, in response to sim.speci6c circurnstances, utshties prudently set aside more fu mis than l

the NRC requires. W NRC focuses its requirements on the amount of nmney regiured to reduce residual l

radioactivity to levels that pernut release of the property (see 10 Cf.R. 5 50.2). Howev er, releme cao also l'

involve activities other than those falling within the NRC's dehnition of "dec-Mng"- activines such as removal and disposal of spent fuel or of nunradioactive structures and materials beyond what is necessary to reduce residual rmhoacuvity to required levels (see 10 Cf.R. I 70.75(c) s.1). The costs of these activitics can amount to a large fraction of the NRC's required funding ngure. Moreover, decommissioning funding is also subject to regulation by agencies having juris&ction over rates - agencies such as the j~

rederal Energy Regulatory Commission and state Public Utihues Commissions, and these agencies can set l

funding requirernents that are in a&btion to funding requirements set by the NRC (see 10 Cf.R. 5 50.75 a)).

l-

' K A petitioner in an in&vidual adjudication cannot challenge generic decisions made by the Com.

l nussion in rulennaings. See. e p., Massachuscars v. ARC, 924 F.2d 311,330 (D.C. Cir.1991), cert. draird l

502 U.S. 899 -(1991). Anord Curators of #Ae University of Missourt CL1-951,4l NRC 7l,170 7i l

(1995); American Nuclear Corp. (Revision of Orders to Modify Source Matenals Ucenses), CLI-86-23,24 NRC 704,708-10 (1986); PAllade!phia E!ccaric Co. (Peach Bottorn Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),.

ALAB-216,8 AFC 13,21 n.33 (1974); Carchna fineer & Ught Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2k LBP-82-Il9A,16 NRC 2069,2073 (1982). For esample, no one would be free to argue in a license transfer case that site-speci6c con &tions at a particular nuclear power reactor render unusable I

the generic projected costs calculated under our rule's cost formula. In our decommissioning rulemakings, we dehberately decided to avoid a requirement for site-speci8e cost estimmers to show Anancial assurance.

See, e g., Final Rule," General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facihties," 53 red. Reg. 24.018, 24.030 31 (June 27,1988)(&scussing 1988 rule).. Nor could anyone argue that prepayment is not an ac-ceptable means of providing haancial assurance for decomnussiomng. Our rules espressly say that it is.

Subpart M allows participants to

• petition that a Commission rule or regulation be waived"in particular cases upon a showing that because of "special circumstances,,, application of a rule et regulation would not serve the purpose for which it was adopted." See 10 Cf.R.12.1329.

L-here is substantial doubt whether an argument based on a theoretical early shutdown of a facihty is within the scope of a license transfer proceedini There is nothing about the transfer to a new owner that changes the espected hfe span or cost of decommissioning a facility. As a general maner, license transfer procee&ngs are not the appropriate place for considering changes to requirernents appbcable to the facility and all its owners, as opposed to requirements &rected at the proposed transferee. Indeed,if NEP's premise were correct, it would be more appropriate to consider generica'ly whether to impose a change in 2 the decommissioning fun &ng process for all owners of the plant. De Anancial nature of these issues does not necessanly nake them relevant to the f nuncial questions presented in this particular transfer proceeding.

As with technical requirements for operation of the plant, the transferee takes the plant as it esists,inclu&ng the projected costs and associated assumpoons used to estabhsh the amount of decomnussioning fun &ng

' required.

M' The transferor's promise to prepay considerably more than the minimum amount currently pre-

. senbed by the NRC 6nancial assurance formula leaves Petitioner without any plausible decommissioning fun &ng grievance, and (particularly in view of the transferor's minuscule share of the plant) gives the Conurussion no reason to think that the pubhc health and safety nught in any respect be left unprotected.

j L

_l I

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION Prepaynent is in fact the strongest and most rehable of the various decoinminioning funding devices set out in section 50.75(eXI) The Comminion concludes here, as a maner of law, that the transferor's prepay-ment provides sufncient assurance for its share of decommissioning costs and that there exists no genume issue of material fact or law necessitating a hearing on decommissioning funding assurance. See 10 C.F.R.

6 2.1306(bX2Xiv).

N htiuoner's claim that the license transferee will lacit sufhcient 6nancial resources to ful611 its obligations for operating expenses is relevant and material. Indeed, it goes to tir very heart of the quesuon whether Appheants' hoancial quah8 cations are adequate to pass statutory and regulatory muster. When promulgaung Subpart M a few nwnths ago, the Comnussion expiessly recognized that NRC review of license transfer applications " consists largely of assuring that the ultimately bcensed enoty has the capability to sneet 6aancial qunh6 cation and decommissioning funding aspects of NRC segulauons." See 63 Itd. Reg.

at 66,724.

O Our recently issued Subpurt M, hke its counterparts apphcable to other types of Commission proceedings (e.g,10 C.F.R. I 2.714), does not pernut "the fihng of a vague, unparucularized contention,"

unsupponed by affidavit, espert, or docunentary support. Calverr Chfs, 48 NRC at 349. See 10 CF.R.

5 2.1306. Nor does our pracuce permit "nouce pleading." with detaii to be filled in later. Instead, we require parties to come forward at the outset with auf6ciently detailed grievances to allow the adjudicator to conclude that genuine disputes exist junofying a comnutment of adjudicatory resources to residve thent See Yuder Atomic Electric Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) CLI-96-7,43 NRC 235,248 n.7 (1996).

P "Speculanon" of some sort is unavoidable when de issue at stake concerns predictive judgments aMut an applicant's future financial capabihties.

Q Secuon 50.33(fX2) nowhere declares that the proffering of 5-year projectons will, per se, piove adequate in any and all cases. To the contrary, the rule contains a "safery-valve" provision emphcitly reserving the possibility that, in particular circumstances, and on a case-by case basis, additional protections may be necessary. See 10 CF.R. 650.33(fX4)(to ensure adequate funds for safe operation, NRC may require "more detailed or addiconal informanen" if appropnate). htitioner is entitled to argue that &

case calls for addioonal financial qualincanon measures beyond 5-year projections and that the Applicants therefore have not met their burdrn under section 50.33(fX2) to satisfy Commission Anancial quabhcation requirensnis. The burden of proof under secuan 50.33(fX2)is to " demonstrate [that) de applicant possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover estimated nperation costs for the period of the license." In addinon, secuon 50 33(fX2) imposes certain fibng requirenrats on the applicant - that it submit operatmg cost estirnates for the next 5 years and indicate the source of funds to cover these costs.

Transferee's " collateral attack" argument conflates these two portions of section 50.33(fX2) by assuming that the Apphcants have rnet their burden of proof merely by complying with the Rhng requirerrrnts.

Although satisfaction of those requirernents is necessary to the grant of a license transfer apphcation, such sausfaction cannot be deened always afficient to sausfy the Applicants' burden of proof 4 t e NRC be irrevocably bound by Apphcants' own esumates and left without authonry to look t s 3 thent Always in question under section 50.33(fX2)is whether the Appbcants' cost and revenue < mentes are rez.onable.

[

The adequacy of thow esumates is challengeable (as here) by a petition for irrervention under 10 C.F.R.

l 5 2.1306 or by an NRC request for more detaded information, See 10 C.F.R. I 50.3Rf)(4)(the Commission l

"may request an.. enuty., to subnut additional or tuore detailed information respecting its 6nant.lal I

arrangernents and status of funds if (wl consideril h informauon appropnate"). Accord 10 CF.R. Part 50, Appendix C,6 !V, R

If Peutioner cliumed that 5-year cost-and-revenue projecuons are per se inadequate to meet 6nancial I

quahncation requirenznts, such a claim would be precluded as a collateral anack on NRC rules. Rather, Peutioner simply contends that, as NRC rules themselves contemplate, the circumstances of this particular l

transfer call for more detailed or extensive haancial protection. The Commission thus concludes that Peuuoner is not launching an impernussible collateral attack on section 50.33(fx2) but instead raises an admissible issue for a heanng under Subpart M.

S Peutioner cannot insist that Applicants provide the impossible: absolutely certain predictions of futuie economic condsuons. To be sure, safe operation of a nuclear plant requires adequste funding, but the potennal safety impacts of a shortfallin fundmg are not so direct or immediate as the safety impacts of sigruncant tecimical drnciencies. Generally speakmg, then, the level of assurance the Commission Ends it reasonable to require regarding a hcensee's ability to meet 6nancial obligations is less than the exuemely 6

4

l

._ L I

l i

t i

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION high assurance the Commission requires regar&ng the safety of reactor design, construction, and operacon.

De Commission will accept hnancial anurances based on plausible assurnpuons and forecasts, even though l

the possibihty is not insigmhcant that things wdl turn out less favorably than espected. Thus, the mere I

casung of doubt on some aspects of proposed funding plans is not by itself sufficient to defeat a 6nding of reasonable assurance. At tir name time, though, funding plans that rely on assumptions seriously at odds with govenung reuhties will not be deemed acceptable simply because their form matches plans described l

in the reguladons. Relying on afhdavits and various forms of Gnancial data, htitioner asserts that the i

transferee's cost..and-revenue estinunes fail to provide tne seguired assurance because they do not reflect a realisth, oudook for the transferee itself or for the nuclear power industry in New England. As in other cases (e g., GaySsares Utilides Co. (River Bend Station, Unit 1), CLI-94-10,40 NRC 43,51-53 (1994)L the Commission cannot brush aside sud economically based safety concerns without giving the latervenor l

a chance to substantiate its concerns at a heanng, but the Commission notes that Petitioner's argunents i

ultimately will prevail only ifit can demonsuate relevant uncertainties sigmhcantly greater than those that usually cloud business outlooks.

T The Comnussion cannot accede to Ntitioner's seeming view that the transferee inherently cannot meet the Commission's hnancial quahhcadon rules because the transferee's rates are not regulated by a j

star utihties comnussion. This view runs counter to the premise and,:rlying the entire restructuring and economic deregulanon of the electne utihty industry, i.e., that the marketplace will replace cost of-service t

l ratemaking. In the Commission's view, unregulated electricity rates are not incompauble with snamiainir,g sufficient hnancial resources to operate a nuclear power reactor.

U A Petitioner's failure to read carefully the govermng procedural regulations does not constitute good cause for accepung its ime-hied pention i

V Where a Petitioner has offered an entirely new suggenuon for relief. its participation would have I

the effect of broadening this procee&ng.

W A htitioner's interest can adequately be protected or represented by another party where Petiooner's interest as a co-owner of a nuclear facility are, by Petitioner's own description, idenocal to those of a party i

that is also a co owner. In this proceeding, this idenuty of interests is further reflected in the fact that, with the escepuun of the new suggesuon for rehef, Petitioner presents no nerits argumerva not already proffered by the exisung party.

X The Comr.ussion's hearing tribunals have regularly rejected late-hied petitions submitted without good cause for the lateness and without strong countervmbng reasons that overriJe the lack of good cause.

See, e g., Primte Faelr Ssurage, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installaion), LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142,172-75 (1998) (collecung cases).

Y Nuuoner is free to momtor the proceeding and to ble a post-hearing amicar curiae brief at the sarne time the parties to the procee&ng ble their post-heanng subnussions under 10 CF R. 5 2.1322(c).

CLI-99-7 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 40 8%8-ML; MATERIALS LICENSE; March 23.1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

The Conutussion ruiewed a petition from Intervenors for interlocutory review of a Presi&ng l

Ofheer's Memorandum and Order which posed neveral quesbons to the parues related to the technital quahncabons of Hydro Resources. Inc. (HRD The Intervenors seek reversal of the Presiding Officer's order because, in their view, the Premieng Officer has inappropnately provided HRI and the NRC Staff with a second opporturury to address issues that they had failed to address earlier The Commission demes the l

peution because Intervenors have failed to demonstrate that the standards for interlocutory review have been l

met.

B in deternuning whether to grant a peution for interlocutory review, the Commission considers whether tim Presid:ng Ofhcer's action either (1) threatens the party adversely affected with immediate and senous irreparable harm that could not be temesed by a later appeal or (2) affects the basic sancture of t!e proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner.

C The Presi&ng Ofheer has the escretion to seek additional information over and above tha provided by the parues. See 10 CF R. I2.1233(a).

t 7

1 I

t

_J l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF T!!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS 1

_4 LBP-99-1 ilYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101. Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket 3

No. 448%8-ML (ASLBP No. 95-706-01 ML) (Re: leadi Mining and Milhng license); MATERIA!Ji LICENSE; February 3,1999; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Waste Disposal Issues)

A Rehef was denied concerr.ing hquid waste &sposalissues. The Presiding Ofbcer determined that the licensing standard that must be nrt by Apphcant is that there is adequate protection of public heahh and 2

safety and adequate considera6on of environnental issues related to waste disposal, both dunng operations 7

and cleanup. 10 C.F.R.140 32(c) and (d). He concluded that intervenors had incorrectly rehed on 10 V'

Cf.R. I 40 31(h) and on 10 C.F.R. Part 40, Appendia A, which apply to null tailings facilices "at sites formerly anociated with such nulhng"

-~,

B Sec6on 40.31(h) and 10 C F.R. Part 40, Appendia A, apply to mill tashngs facshues at antes

~

fornerly anociated with such nulhng" They do not apply to injecuon nuning for uranium, although Criteria 2 and 5A apply. Cnterion 7 does not apply.

C This Decision includes a detailed desenpuon of an injecuon mining project.

LBP-99-2 SPECIAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC- (Bethel, Connecucut) Docket No. 3434318-EA

/ C (ASLDP No. 99-75941-EA), ENIDRCEMENT ACTION; Itbruary 3,1999; ORDER LBP 99-3 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE. LLC. (Independent Spent Tvel Storage Instalianon), Docket No. 72-i-

22-ISFSI (ASGP No. 97-73242-ISFSD; INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; February 3,1999 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granung Late-Filed Intesvennon Peution)

-; I A

In dus proceeding concerning the apphcation of Private fuel Storage LLC.,(PFS) under 10 Cf.R.

Part 72 to construct and operate an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISI-SD, the Licensing Board C

grants a late 4 led intervention peouon concerning a revised proposal to construct a rail spur that would be I

used to trunr. port spent fuel shipping casks to the Pf;S facihty B

Absent none dernonstrauon that separate consideration is required, a showing regar&ng the 10 C.F.R.12 714(aXI) cnteria would be equally applicable to a laie-61ed intervention petition and any I

concunendy filed contentions.

~

C The first late-hhng factor under seccon 2.714(aX1)- good cause for hhng late -is also the most y

important in the 6ve-factor balance. See LBP-98 7,47 NRC 142,173 (1998).

D Even though there is no federal Regster nouce of an amendrnem upphcanon, the fact the

^

I amendnent was placed m a local public docunent room (LPDR) cseated for a facihty provides an enhanced opporturury for accen to heenung information that should be taken into account in analyzing tie timchness

/

of an intervenoon peuuon. It is reasonable to espect that, from une to time, those in the area of the facihty w ho may have an interest in the proceedmg, would visit the LEDR to check on its status. At the sane time, 7

nonpany status to a procec&ng is a pertinent factor in assessing the frequency of such visits. A nonparty 1

would nut be espected to vuit the LPDR as often as a party given the need to travel to the LPDR in order to see the tiles. With this in nund, one IfDR tnp a month by a nonparty to momtor a proceceng seems reasonable.

E Even w th a hndmg that the hrst, and most important, scetion 2.714(PW1) late 41ing factor - good cause for late-hhng - weighs in a peouoner's favor, the other four factors nest be considered to arnve at an assessnent of the overall balance that accrues.

F Although winrung United States Department of the Intenor Bureau of land Managenent (BLM) permission to uw federal land to construct a rail spur involves a public process dunng wluch there is an opporturuty for parucipaoon in an adnunistrative hearing, there is a sigm6ennt quesuon about the degree to which this alternauve forum might otherwise afford "a fuu heanng," see Derrver Ediron Co. (Ennco Itrmi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 21 ALAB-70h 16 NRC 1760,1767 n 6 (1982), such that the second 9

9

_J l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS section 2.734(aXI) factor - svailabihty of edier means to protect peutioner's imerests - would constitute a substantial negative ingredient in tir overall balance. %%en the NRC is the

• lead agency" that will prepare an environnental impact staternent (EIS) relative to a proposal to use federal land for a rail spur, BLM will act only in a cooperating role, providing comments on NRC's prehnunary. draft, and 6nal EIS, but not preparing its own EIS. Because any National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities relative to the rail spur have been assuned by the NRC,it is problematic whether the issue of NEPA compliance can (or should) be contested as part of any BLM review process, neutralizrog any neganve elenent this factor might bring to the balance. Compare PuNic Service Co. of New Hampskre (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-75-1,7 NRC 1,26-27 (1978)(in NEPA analysis NRC will not rehtigate issues delegatet to the Environrnemal Protection Agency).

G

'Ihe fourth section 2.714(aXI) factor -entent of representation of petitioner's inscrests P dating parties - clearly weighs in favor of a petitioner when no other party has raised a similar issue or even been successful in having a contention deahng with the same general subject matter adnutted in the proceeding.

H When a petiooner iden66es diree of the witnesses it may utihze in the proceedmg and, in the context of the affidavits supporting its petition and contentions, provides an outhne of the tesamony of one of those individuals, dus affords at least sone minimal support for acceptance of its petition under factor sluce - extent to which peutioner's participauon may lead to development of a strong record. See LDP-98-29,48 NRC at 294 h1 1

Any broademns of the proceeding by the entry of new issues is offset to a considerable degree by the fact that admission is unlikely to result is any protracted delay because the case is still in its informal discovery phase, so that section 2.714(a)(1) factor five - broadening de issues or delsying the proceedmg

-is, at worst, a neutral clenunt in the balance.

J

. In the NEPA coment agency consideration of an action that would alrer assertedly pristine public land without a discussion of alternatives seemingly would consutute a sufficiently direct and concrete injury to an intervenor's legitimate interests under NEPA to provide standing to contest LLat action.

K Argument that intervenor has failed to demonstrate a favorable decision likely will redress its injury, p

and so establish its standing, because even if land use application is rejected, BLM could grant a separate

- proposal for the land to some other enury misapplies the redressabibty standard. What intervenor seeks to gain from its challenge is to preclude the danger it perceives the appbcant's proposal poses to the land in question. If, as a result of agency NEPA consideration of the apphcant's proposal in this proceeding.

the proposal is implernented in a way that is not inconsistent with the petitioner's asserted interest in the land, then the imervenor has won all it can expect from this proceeding and its potennal injury has been redressed.

i L

While an af6 davit indicating that an individual had " frequently visited, used, and enjoyed" an area j

and planned to do no " frequently in the future," could have been more speci6c about the number of times the individual traversed and otherwibe used (and plans to use) the land in queshon, adopoon of the term

" frequently" in this context demonstrates that individual's bond with the area is su!Eciently concrete to estabbsh his standmg and, consequently, that of the orgamzation he has authorized to represent his interests.

M Precision negardmg a standing showing that is based on actual physical contact (ic., hiking.

camping, etc ) with the object of the purponed injury is of less concern than for a standing showing based on distance from the object in queshon (i,c., redde "x" miles from the facility). An ongoing presence via physical contact can be adequately conveyed with a general term such as " frequently." General references regar6ng distance, however, will usually be inadequme to establish the requisite concreteness. See Atlas Corp. (Moab Utah Ibcility), LBP-97-9,45 NRC 414,426-27, af 4 CL1-97-8,46 NRC 21 (1997).

LDP-99-4 AHARON BEN 41 AIM, Ph.D. (Upper Montclair, New Jersey), Docket No. IA 97 068 (ASLDP No.

97 73101.EA)(Order Superseding Order Prohibsung Involvement in NRC-Ucensed Activities (Effective immediately)). ENFORCEMENT ACTION. February 8,1999; INITIAL DECISION (Affirming Enforce-nwnt Order, with Ma.li6 cations)

A The Atomic Safety and Licenung Bourd af6rms, with modi 6 cations, an immediately effective Staff enforcenent order, sustaimng most of the substanuve assernons of tie order but reducing the proposed suspemian from NRC-licensed activities from 5 years to 3 years and retaining other ancillary rehef sought by the Staff, such as reporung requirenwnts for future involvement in NRC hcensed activities.

B Under 10 CF R. 5 30.10, any contractor to a licensee, including a suppher or consultant, who l

knowingly provides to any licensee infornmuon or other thiugs, may not engage in deliberste misconduct l

to l

t t

E

1

_i l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS I

that causes or would have caused, if not detected, the licensee to be in violation of any NRC rule, regulation, order, or beense con & tion.

C Dehberate nusconduct neans an intentional act or onussion that the person knows would cause a hcenace to be in violadon of any NRC rule, regulanon, order, or Usense condition. Deliberase is the same i

j as intentierrJ and does not include careless disregard D

NRC regulations under 10 CF.R. Part 35 require a byproduct materials licensee to appoint both a Radisuon Safety Officer (RSO) and an Authonzed User, each with deftned dunes and responsibihties. An RSO or Authonzed User may delegale the authority to carry out thane dubes and smaponsibilities but not the responsibihty for ennunng that they are carned out.

E A licensee must apply for and receive a license amendnwnt before it changes RSOs.

F NRC regulauons under 10 Cf.R. Part 35 require that a byproduct matenal hcensee retan a secord of the measurement of each stonage, inclu&ug presenbed dosage of a photon-enutting raeonuclide prior to medical use. Part 35 further requires a wntien ducctive or emphcit prescription, any time a donc of I-131 escce&ng 30 nucrocurks is to be adnuaistered to a patient; or for any therapeutic administradon of a radiopharmaceutical, These acuvines must be performed by an Authorized User or designee.

G

'the Enforcement Puhey, NUREG-1600, is NRC's policy for esercising its authority to take action

- to enforce its regulatory requirenwnts. The parucular sanchon is determined on a case-by. case basis and involves discretion, based on specihed factors that do not necessarily carry equal weight. Willful violations are of particular concern.

LBP 99-5 IPUERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (Receipt of Marrial from Tonawanda, j

New York). Docket No. 40L8681-MLA 4 (ASLDP No.98-748 OlMLA), MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 9,1999; INITIAL DECISION (Denying the Rehef Requested by the State of Utah)

A The Presiding Officer afhrmed the grant of a license to Applicant to receive Ashland 2 matenal from Tonawanda, New York, lie rejected the argument of the State of Utah that the Amendment does not j

comply with Cornmission Guidance because the matenal is not byproduct material and nmst therefore be disposed of at an appmpriaM facihty rather than being subject to ' sham disposal'" instead, tle Presi&ng Othcer reasoned that the material being received by IUSA is are because it "is processed primanly for its source material content when the extraction of sourc9 innterhil is the principal reason for proccasing the ore.

Under those circumstances, the material falls within the NRC's junnection over the uranium fuel cycle."

B Under 42 U.S C. I 20lde(2) the phrase " processed primanly for its source matenal content" should he given its natural meaning. The adverb "pnmarily" mrghhes tlw verb " processed." 'Iherefore, are is processed primarily for its source naterial content when the estracuan of source materialis the pnncipal reason for pmressing the are. Under those circumstances, the material falls within the NRC's juns&ction over the uranium fuel cycle.

C The Proprud Powtion and Guidance on the Une of Uramum Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores,57 Fed. Reg.20,525,20.533 (1992)("Ahernate Fred Guidance") makes it clear that if source material is entracted from a rnaterial at a hcensed uranium mill, then the maierial is considered to be "cre." provi&ng that it does not contain hazardous waste and that it is processed so that a useable product, uranium, is extracted from it.

LBP-99-6 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L LC. (Independent Spen Fuel Storage Installation). Docket No. 72-22-ISFS1 (ASIEP No. 97 732-02 lSFSI). INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION; february 17, 1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Notice of Withdrawal and Denying Request to Adopt Contenuons as late-Filed)

A in this proceeding concenung the application of Private fuel Storage, LLC. (PFS) under 10 C F.R.

Part 72 to construct and operate an andependent spent fuel storage installadon (ISFSI) the Licensing Board approves a nouce of withdrawal, with prejudice, subrmited by inservenors Casde Rock land and Livestock, LC., and Skull Valley Company, bd., and denies the request of latervenor State of Utah to adopt their contentions as late-hied B

With in intervenor's approved esit from a pmceceng, those admined consentions for which it is j

the sole sponsor also depst. Accordingly, in the absence of pnar timely adoption by another intervear, i

those contendons can te presened for further consideration only if an imervenor shows that the issues are admissible under the late-hung standards of 10 C F R.12.714(a)(1). See Housson Ushung & Anwer Co.

(Smih Tesas Project. Units 1 and 2), ALAB-799. 21 NRC 360,382-83 (1984 il l

L L.

l J

l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS C

Ahhough or Appeal Board in the Sow 4 Temt proceeding was concerned that a blanket stneture -

i on the later adoption of a withdrawing party's contentions would complicate litigation and settlement by encouraging " nominal" contention co sponsorship at a proca&ng's outset, see ALAB-799,21 NRC at 384, that consideration is not impheated when, as is appanmt from its previous late-filed plea &ng seeking to adopt all other Intervenors' contentions, an Intervenor sought early on to impose those complexiues in this proceeding and failed to rnake the appropriate arguments. Under the circumstances, no reason exists to provide a second bite at the apple, especially when the Intervenor's ultimate justi6 cation is based on no more th,m the " trusted others to vigorously pursue" hoe of argunent rejected in Sow 4 Tesas. See id. at 382-83.

D A f:ilure to demonstrate good cause for late-Ahng requires there be a "cornpelling showing" regarding the other four late-filing factors. LDP-98-7,47 NRC 142,208 (1998).

E 14te-6hng factors two and four-avaulabihty of other nrans to protect the petitioner's interests and eatent of representation of peudoner's interests by other parues - are accorded less weight in the balana than factors three and Eve - assistance in developing a sound record and broadening the issues / delaying the procce&ng. See LBP-98-7. 47 NRC at 208; see also LBP-98-29,48 NRC 286,248 (1998).

.F late-6hng factor hve - broadening the inues/delaymg the proceeding - clearly does act weigh in favor of adnussion when the contendons otherwise would not be part of the procee&ng because of the sponsoring intervenor's withdrawal. See South Tesus. ALAB-799,21 NRC at 382 (rejecung argument apphcant will not be prejudiced if required to htigate previously adnuued contentions of widedrawing intervenor because appbcant already knew those issues would be explored).

LBP-99-7 PRIVATE TUEL STORAGE, LLC. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage installation) Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI(ASLDP No.97-732 02-ISFSI); INDEPENDENT SPENT IUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION, february 18.1999, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Motion to Amend Secunty Contentions)

A Jn this proceeding concermng the apphcauon of Pnvale Fuel Storage, LLC. (PFS), under 10 C.F.R.

Part 72 to construct and operate an independent spent fuel storage installauon (ISFSI), the Ucensing Board demes an Intervenor request to anend contendons concerrung the vahsty of the Apphcant's physical security plan (PSP) as the PSP rehes on the local county sheriff *s ofhce to esereine law enforcement authority at the PFS ISFSI located on the reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians.

B Having received a copy of an agreenent concerning the provision oflocal law enforcement services for a Nauve Anrrican tribe's rewrvation where a proposed ISf31is to be located, the latervenor was under an obligation, particularly once the liensing Board indicated the agreenent bad some relevance to the proceedmg. to act promptly to uncover any adational problems with the pact. When there apparently were no comples scientinc or techmcal analysis involved, the more than 2-month period the Intervenor took to inquire was too long for it to claim that good cause existed for its late-hied request to submit ad&tional inues.

I C

A failure to demonstrate good cause for late filing requires there be a " compelling showing" regarding the other four late-bling factors. LDP-99-6,49 NRC 114,119 (1999).

D late-hhng factors two and four - availabihty of other means to protect the petiuoner's interests and extent of representation of peutioner's interests by other parues - are accorded len weight in the balance than factors three and five - anistance in developing a sound record and broadening the issues / delaying the proceeding. fd.

E With regard to late-hhng factor three - assistance in developing a sound record - when legal issues are a focal pomt of a late-filed contenuon, the need for an extensive showing regarding witnesses and testinony nusy be less compelhng. See LBP-98-29. 48 NRC 286,301 n.18 (1998).

F Late-hling factor five - broadening the issues / delaying the procee&ng - clearly does not support an intervennr's request to amend its secunty contentions when hdgauon regarding a locallaw enforament agency's legal obhgations under an agreement to provide law enforcement services to a Native Anrrican tribe is hkely sigmlicantly to broaden and delay the proceeding by raising a substantive challenge to the agreement, as opposed to the essenually procedural challenge to its adopuon protocols that already is before die Ucenning Board, as well as the possihihty of having to await the outcome of legal aedons in other ju&cial forums.

LBP-99-8 IN7ERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION (Receipt of Addinonal Matenal frorn Tonawanda, New York). Docket No. 448681-MLA-5 (ASLBP No. 99-758-02-MLA); MATERIALS 12

_J l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 19, 1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissing Certain Petitions)

A A hearing was denied to three pubhc Petitioners because they had failed to Amonstrate that the proposed action will cause them " injury in fact."

B The Presiding Officer explaans that in our democratic sysrem of government, we rely on elected offict.ds to represent our interests. It is ordy when we suffer a particulanzed injury or " injury in fact" that we may challenge a goveranental action in an administrative proceeding.

LBP-99-9 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Coors Road. Smte 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 40 8%8-ML (ASLBP No.95-706 01 ML) (Re: leach Mining and Milbag Ucense); MATERIAM

{

LICENSE; February 19, 1999, PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Issues Related to the Nanonal Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Native Anrrican Graves Protection and Repatrianon Act (NAGPRA) and 3

Cultural Resources)

A After examimag the steps taken by the Staff and Apphcant to comply with NHPA and NAGPRA, the Presidmg Of6cer found them in comphance with the requirements of those acts. He concluded that Intervenors failed to present regulatory standards and to show how they had been violated. He also concluded that it is permissible to segment a project for NHPA purposes when the project is planned to be perforned.

over an extended period of time.

B When no historic properties are found, after an agency properly documents and notices a finding that a project will have no effect oh hintancal pmperues, the government agency "is not required to take further j

steps in the section 106 process." 36 CF.R. 6 800.4(d). In tins regard, it is important that local historic preservanon departnrnts,includmg the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Department ("NMSHPD")

and the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Departmera ("NNHPD"), responded to NRC Staff consultation requests with letters concurring with the conclusion of NRC Staff that there would be "no effect" on all cultural resources within the parcels.

C NAGPRA apphes only to the dssposition of Nauve Anrncan cultural items "cacavated or dir, covered on federal er tribal lands." It ducs not apply to pnvately owned lands, even if the ownct engages in federally bcensed activity.

D Intervenors failed to show a de6ciency in the Staff's Cultural Resources Managernent Plan. Hence, their NEPA claims are without nerit.

LBP 99-10 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120). Docket No. 40 8968-ML (ASLBP No. 95-706-01-ML) (Re: Iwh Mming and Mdhng Ucense); MATERIAM LICENSE; Rbruary 19,1999; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Performance Based Licensing Issues)

A Relief is denied because Intervenors failed to show that the NRC's licensing action violated any NRC regulatory requirements. Performance-based beensing. as reflected in the Staff's actions in issuing a license to Applicant, is vahd. There is no need for the Comnussion to approve a regulation explicitly j

approving performance-based hcensing 11 Since Apphcant's hcene requires that an anendment be sought if he subsequently seeks to vary j

the terms of this licenne, which contains many det;uled condicons, there is no loss of public heanng rights.

C That there is an entensive record resulung from interacuan between Apphcant noJ Staffin no way affects the vahdity of the beenne.

D la is permissible to impose licensing conditions that are contasned in a licenae arkt,in addsuon, to incorporate m the Scense by reference pronuses made by Apphcant in the course of lengthy disem.aions with the St.ff.

LBP-99-il INTERNATIONAL URAN!UM (USA) CORPORATION (Receipt of Additional Material from Tonawanda New York). Docket No. 40-8681-MLA 5 (ASLBP No. 99 758-02-MLA); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 19,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Disnussal of Envirocare)

A A hearing was demed to a Petiuoner that based its standing on econorruc-competitor injunes that are not associated with any environmental harm associated with the proposed bcensing action.

LBP-99-12 SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION (Cambridge, Ohio Fucility), Docket No.

40-8948-MLA (ASGP No. 99-760-03-MLA); MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; February 23, 1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Ptution to Irgervene)

A la this proceedmg concerning the apphcauon of f eidalloy Metallurgical Corporation (SMC) to amend the 10 C.F R. Part 40 license for its Cambridge. Ohio facility to authorize SMC to possess radioachve U

]

a i

l

_l I

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS slag, the Presi&ng Officer demes a petition for leave to intervene,6nding that the Petitioners lack standing as of right B

Intervention in NRC licensing adjudications, whether forrnal or informal, generally anses in one of three ways: (1) an individual seeks to intervene on tus or her own behalf; (2) an organization seeks to intervene to represent the interests of one or more of its members; or (3) an organization seeks to intervene on its own.

C When an in&vidual aceks to intervene on his or her own behalf, that person naist establish that (1) he or she will suffer a distinct and palpable injury in fact within the sone of interests arguably protected by the statutes governing the procee&ng (e.g., the Atomic Energy Act, the National Environnental Policy Act of 1%9); (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is hkely to be redressed by a favorable decision. See Atlas Corp. (Moab, Utah Facility), LBP-97-9,45 NRC 414,423, af'd, CLI-97-8,46 NRC 21 (1997).

D in order to estabhsh the factual predicates for the various stan&ng eternents, when legal repre-sentadon is present, it generally is necessary for tie individual to set forth any factual claims in a sworn affidavit. See il at 427 n.4.

LBP-9913 liYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Cuors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 448%8-ML (ASLDP No.95-706 01-ML) (Re: Imach Mining and Milling Ucense); MATERIAIS LICENSE; Mach 9,1999; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (Financial Assurance for Decomnussioning lasues)

A Because Licenwe's in situ leach nuning project is not covered by 10 CER. 6 40.36, it is not necessary that it demonstrate nnancial assurance for decommisuomng as a precondition for licensing. He i

liceme is valid under the regulations because Ucensee will not be permined to conunence operations until

)

it has complied with 10 CER. Part 40 Appendia A Criterion 9.

B The Presi&ng Officer examines !C C F R. ^6 40.36 and deternunes that in sita leach mimng falls within an exception to the hnancial quahhcauons provisions contamed in that secuon.

C Pan 40 Appendix A. Cnterion 10, of 10 CF.R. contains regulatory requirements that must be met when nuclear wastes are left permanently on site. Since Ucensee will transport its wastes off site, that provision is not apphenble to it.

LBP 9914 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-029-LA-R (ASLBP No. 99-754-01-LAR)(Ucenae Termination Plan); LICENSE AMENDMEfff; March 17,1999; PREHEARING CONITRENCE ORDER (Ruhng on Contentions)

A in a procec&ng considenng the adequacy of the Ucense Tennination Plan (LTP) for the Yankee-Rowe reactor, the Atomic Safety and Lcensing Board issues a Prehearing Conference Order that accepts four of the contentions advanced jointly by two Intervenors, rejects other proffered contenuons, grants the requests for a hearing of the two Intervenors, and grants the request of a council of regional governments

)

to participate as an mterested governnental cuuty. The Board also consolidates the two Intervenors for the purpose of presenung the accepted contenuona.

l B

in a proceeding concerning the adequacy of an LTP, the scope of adnussible contenuons in the j

procee&ng is coextensive with the scope of the LTP itself, which is governed by the requirements of 10 CER. I 50.82.

C in a procec&ng concerning the adequacy of an LTP, issues that may be htigated include the adequacy of the site survey nethodology.

D Although Comnussion rules do contemplate prescribed doses to average rnembers of a entical group, they do not linut the scenarios in which the exposed in&vidual rnust he placed. Ahernative exposure scenarios may be appropriate based on site-specinc factors that affect the hkehhood and extent of potential future exposure.

LBP-99-15 HYDRO RESOURCES, INC. (2929 Cours Road, Suite 101. Albuquerque, NM 87120), Docket No. 448968.ML (ASLDP No. 95-706-01-ML) (Re: leach Mining and Milling License); MATERIALS j

LICENSE; March 18, 1999-, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Questions Concerning Radioacuve Air Emissbos)

A The Presiding Of6cer ruled that, pursuant to 10 CER.140.4: " background radiauon" does nor include radiauon from source, byproduct, or special riuclear materials regulated by the Commissiort Accordingly, the Presi&ng Ottiter asked the parues to answer quesuons to clanfy wlmther Ucensee is in compliance with 10 C.F R.1201301, which states: "(s) Each heensee shall conduct operations so that 14

._ l l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS

-(1) The total effective done equivalent to individual nernbers of tim public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (i nullisievert) in a year, exclusiw of the dme cemtributionsfrom backgromt radiation..

LBP-99-16 SHAUN P. O'HERN (Denial of Reactor Operator's License), Docket No. 55 32442-SP (ASLBP No. 99-75341-SP)(Appeal of Denial of Operator's Ucense); SPECIAL PROGEDING, March 26,1999 (re-served March 30,1999), INITIAL DECISION (Ucense Granted to Mr. Shaun P. O'Hern)

A De Presiding Ofricer, working with the aid of his technical assistant, reviews in detail the argaments of the parties concerning tre correct answer to esanunation questions and determines that Mr. O'Hern earned a passing score on his written esamination to becons a rcactor operator.

I i-1

?

15

l I

\\

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD 99-1 CONNECTICLTT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (Haddam Neck Plant), Docket No. 50-213, REQUEST FOR ACTION, January 12,1999. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CER. 6 2.206 A

By a petition dated September !!,1998, subnutted by Rosemary Bassilakis on behalf of the Citizens Awareness Network (Petiuoners), Peutioners requested that (1) the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) immediately revoke or suspend the Connecticut Yankee Atonue Power Company's CYAPCO's) operaung hcense for dw H,aldam Neck Plant (HNP), (2) an informal pubhc heanng on du peduon be f

held in the vicinity of dw site, and 0) the NRC consider requinna CYAPCO to conduct decomnussiomng

/

activities under 10 C.F.R, Part 72. Penuoners alleged that (1) CYAPCO demonstrated incompetence in t

creaung and nuuntaining a safe was k environment and an effecove, well-trained staff,(2) CYAPCO was not 4

conducting its decomarussionmg acovities in accordance with its post-shutdown decomnussioning acuvines report (PSDAR) and, therefore, posed an undue risk to pubhc health; (3) the problems encountered at the

{

plant dunng the summer of 1998 nught not have occurred if the requirenwnts under Part 72 had been applied, and (4) the spent fuel stored on site in the spent fuel pool (SFP) was the prtnary risk to pubhc s

I r.Jth and safety.

/ O D

h Director of the Othee of Nuclear Reactor Regulaucn issued a Director's Decision on January

~-

12, !999, concluding that the petuon contained no informauon of which the NRC was not already aware

,, ~,

and denying Peuconers' requests for revocanon or suspension of the operating license and an informal J2i pubbc heanng. The Licensee's actions have been documented in NRC inspection reports and appropriate 33 enforcernent acuans luive been taken or are being evaluated. The Director granted Peutioners' request to consider applying the requirements of1%t 72 to the Connecucut Yankee plant. The NRC's considerauon of C

the applicabihty of Part 72 was presented in tiw Director's Decision, which found that Part 72 did not apply to the decomminioning actavities under way at the plant. Tb requirements of 10 CER. Part 50 apply to

[

spent fuel storage and decomnunioning at Connecucut Yankee and provide adequate prosecuon of pubhc

/

health and safety.

DD 99-2 ATLAS CORPORATION (370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3050, Denver, CO 80202), Docket No.

7 403453 (Ucense No. SUA-9f ?); REQUEST FOR ACTION, January 20,1999; DIRECTOR'S DECISION 4

UNDER 10 C F R 6 2.206 A

Or, August 2,1988, Atlas Corporation (Atlas) subrrutted an apphcanon for e hcense amendment I

to revise iis site r clamanon plan for urumum null taihngs at its site near Moab, Utah. On Apnl 4.1994, nouce of Receipt of Applicanon a.'d nouce of opportumty for heanng on the upphcanon were pubbshed in the federal Reginer. 59 Itd. Reg. 16,665 (1994). On July 13,1998, the State filed its penuon staung that if the peudon is found to be unumely that it be treated as a 10 CIR. 2.206 peuuon in accordatx:e with 10 C F.R. 6 21205(IX2) The peudun was hied by Denise Chancellor Assistant Attorney General, on behalf g

of dw State. By Memorandum and Order dated August 13, 1998, the ASLB deternuned that Llw peuuon

~

was inescusably late and would be treated as a peduon under secuon 2.206 in accordance with 10 C.F R.

2.1205(lX2). On October 22,1998, nonce of receipt of the peution was pubbshed in the Fedemi Regs.rrer.

63 Itd. Reg.36.667 (1998).

B In its peution the State asserted that if Atlas were to proceed with its reclamahon plan as approved by dw Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it would be in violauon of 10 CER. Part 40, Apperulia A. The 4

peucon was referred to the Director of the Ofhee of Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards. As provided by section 2.206 and discuued in the Federal Krpister notice, approonate acuan was taken on this peution.

The Staff reviewed the specific asseruons made by alw State and concluded that the peuuan should be denied. The basis for the Staff's conclusions are dehuled in this Director's Decasion.

I

~

17

_l I

DIGESTS

' ISSUANCES OF DIRECIDIul' DECISIONS DD.99-3 INDIANA MICil10AN POWER COMPANY (Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant. Units I and 2),

Docket Nos. 50 315, 54316 (Ucense Nos. DPR 58 DPR 74); REQUEST FOR ACTION; february 11, 1999; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. I2.206 A

On October 9,1997, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS or Pentioner) submitted a petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 requesting thus the operating limnae for Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2, be mo&hed, mvoked, or suspended until there is reasona'le assurance that plant systems are in o

conformance with design-and hcensing4ases requirements. The petition from UCS was subm"'ed because of the inspecuan findings from the AE tearn inspecuan performed by the NRC in August-Sepeember 1997.

B in addiuon, the UCS requested a pubhc hearing on this issue be held in the Washington D.C area.

C On January 12,1998, a meeting was held with the UCS and ad&tionallasues were raised by the UCS concerning the D.C Cook Nuclear Plant The UCS summarized these in a January 12,1998 letter to the NRC lbilowing is a summary of the concerns that wese evaluated under the section 2.206 process and included in de Director's Decision on the October 9,1997 UCS pemits (1) ice comleaser issues;(2) 10 CF.R. 5 50.59 process issues; (3) scope of the Ucensee's review of engineesing calculations and the NRC assenment of that review; (4) missing or inaccurate net positive suchoe trad calculanons for safety-related purnps, and (5) accuracy of the Ucensee's kbruary 6,1997 response to the NR'/ request for additional infornanon pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.54(f).

D The NRC granted de petition request concersmg the informal public heanns. On August 19, 1998, an informal pubhc hearing was held with the UCS and the Usenses for the purpose of gathering information and to provide clarihcdion of the inues resed in the petition.

E The Director of the Ofhce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has deternuned that the request to pre r A operauon of de units at D C, Cook unut there is reasonable assurance that sigm6 cant noncompliances a been ideno6cd and corrected so that systems are in conformance with their design-basis and licensing-basis requirenunts has been satished. The regulatory oversight accons being taken by the NRC will provide reasonable assurance that spiems at D C Cook will be in conformance with their design bases and hcensing bases, thus mrenng the request made in tim petition, and chminates the need to snodify, suspend, or revoke the licenses at D C Cook.

DD 99-4 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) Docket No. 50L271 (Ucene No. DPR 28); REQUEST IUR ACTION; February 10, 1999; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFA 6 2.206 A

By Director's Decision dated Rbruary 10,1999, the Director, Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon, has acted on a petition for acuon under 10 C.F R.12.206 received from Michael J. Daley on April 9,1998, concerning the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon (VYNPSL B

The pention sequested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion (NRC)lasue an order requiring that the Ucensee's administranve hmits, which were in effuct at the time and precluded VYNPS from operaung with a torus waier temperature above 80"F or with a servin waier injection semperature grealer than 50*F, shall renmin in force until certain conditions are net. The con &tions listed include a complete reconsmuuan of the becasing tmsis for the nummum torus water temperature, submittal to the NRC of a technical specihcations (TSs) anendment request establishing de correct maximum torus water temperature and compledon of NRC's review of the amendnunt request.

C

' As a basis for the request, the Peuuoner raued concerns about the Ucensee being unable to

' demonstrate on abihty to either jusufy the operational limits for the maximum torus water temperature or

' to maintan operations within emisung adnunistrative hmits (torus water temperature is critical to the proper functioning of the corvainnent). The Peutioner asserwd that since 1994, evems have caused the Ucensee to quesnan VYNPS's nmaimum torus water temperature bmits four tees, lemhng to the self-imposed adrmnistrative hmits previously noted. The Peutioner stated that the NRC inust move from a " wait and see"

- posture to active inenrvent on, with imme& ate imposinon of the order recommended by the Pentioner as a hist step. -

D On May 13,1998, dw Director of de Ofhce of Nuclear Reactor Regulauon conchkied that issuing an imme&ase order imposing the Ucensee's administrative bnuts that were in effect at the eine wa.

unnecessary. Tius aspect of the pention was demed since the Ucensee took appropriate actions to determine the proper knut on torus water temperature, sought a TS amendement to impose the correct torus water temperature, and administradvely implenemed the hmit wlule the NRC seviewed the analysis in support of ele TS anwndment. ne additional con &tions associated with the request have been completed inclueng 18-1 I

_J l

DIGESTS ISSUANCE 5 OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS estabhahing the correct hcensing basis for the snanimurn torus temperature, subraittal of a TS amendment request estabhnhing the correct masimum torus water temperature hmit, and completion of the NRC review of the amendment request. The NRC has concluded that the appmpnaie hmit far masinum torus temperature is 90*F. nuking the limits requested in the pecuan unnecessary. Accordingly, the Staff has addressed the issues raised by the Peutioner and has completed its actsons relating to the pension.

DD-99-5 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECfRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50 275, 50 323; REQUEST FOR ACTION. March 12, 1999; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 A

Dy a peuuan dated November 24,1998, submitted by David imchbaum (Peutioner) on beh.lf of the Union of Canarned Scientists, the Peutinner requested that (!) the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) modify the operating licenses for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant to require the plant's owners to have an independent contractor evahmte the facility's safety culture, (2) the independent contractor monitor the safety culture until the NRC concurs that a safety-conscsous work environment has been estabbshed and nuuntained, und (3) an informal pubhc hearing on the petition be held in the vicanity of the site. The Prutioner alleged that Diablo Canyon's treatnent of a control room operator who has raised safety concerns may be an obstacle to the free and open esprenion of safety issues, thus creaung a Mulhng effect" at Diablo Canyon.

B The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued a Duector's Decision on March 12, 1999, concludmg that the Licensee had already retained Synergy Consulting Services (Synergy) to perform a comprehensive asacssment of the Diablo Canyon safety culture, myj tierefore the intent of the petition had been net. The Ucensee comnutted to performing a followup survey to measure the corrective accon in 2001 and that NRC resources will continue to be applied as appropriate to address work environment concerns.

DD-99-6 TENNESSEE VALLEY ALTTHORITY (Drowns Ferry Nuclear "lant, Unit I) Docket No. 50-259 (Ucense No. DPR 33); REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 29, 1999; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. I 2.206 A

On April 5,1998, Mr. David A. Imchbaum submitted a pennon on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scienusts pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.206. 'the peuuon requested the NRC to (1) revoke the operaung license for Browns ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1;(2) require the Tennessee Valley Authonty (TVA) to subnut either a decommissioning plan or a lay-up plan for Unit I;(3) conduct NRC inspections at Browns Ferry Unit I against the decomnunioning plan or the lay up plan; and (4) hold a heanng in the Washington, DC area. On May 7,1998, notice of receipt of the peution was pubbshed in the FederalRegarrer (63 Fed. Reg. 25,243).

On September 28, 1998, nouce of an afarnal heanng to be Irld on October 26,1998, was pubbshed in the Federal Reginer (63 fed. Reg. 51,626).

D in his peution Mr. Imchbaum anerted that because Unit I f s been on " administrative hold

• since June 1,1985, and has not operated since then, revoking the operath.g hcense and requiring rehcensing if TVA later decides to restart Unit 1 is a better and safer process tien is the current restart process of Impecuan Manual Chapter (IMC) 0350. Mr. lachbaum further apened that a decomnussioning plan woukt provide assurance that the irrmhated fuelis stored safely and that Units 2 and 3 are sufhciently Mdependent of Unit I for safe operation. Additional assert ons were introduced during the informal pubhc heanng. The Staff reviewed the asacruona rnade by Mr. Eochbaum in the peuuon and dunng the hearing, and concluded that accons I,2, and 3 requested in the peuuan should be denied. The bases for the Staffs conclusions are detailed in this Duector's Decision.

DD-99-7 UNfTED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR ACTION, March 26,1999; j

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. I2.206 A

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) subnutted a pention requesting that the NRC assert authority to ensure that the United States Army Corps of Engineers' (the Corps or USACE) handling l

of radioacuve materials in connection with the hirnerly Utilized Sites Remedial Acuon Program (FUSRAP) j.

is esecuted in accordance with a properly issued hceme and all other apphcable requirenrnts.

j B

in sum, Congren hrs given NRC no clear directive to oversee USACE's ongomg effort under the Comprehensive Environwntal Response, Compensation and IJabihty Act (CERCLA) to complete the FUSRAP cleanup project. Indeed, Congress has provided NRC no money and no pernr.nel to undertake un oversight role in addiuon Congren has inade it clear that the Carla is to undertake FUSRAP cleanup pursuant to CERCLA which waives pernut requirements for onsite activines. In these circumstances, the 19 l

1 1

4 1

1

--I-I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECIDRS' DECISIONS

' NRC is Asinchned to read ha sututory suewrity espansively, and to comnut scarce NRC resources.10 establish and snuintain a regulatory program in an area where, undes congassional &reedos, a sister federal

. agency already is at work and bas comanned itself to following approprime safety and environenental standards.

C-Accordingly, the petitica is densed insofa as k requests NRC to irnpose licensing and other regulatory requirements on the Corps for that agency's handt ng of rs6oactive maserial m FUSRAP sites.

Both the pernut waver provision of CERCLA and the ambiguity agarung DOE's role in Le program lead to the conclusion that NRC should not inject laael' talo the FUSRAP progran at this tinie. Absent specilic 6rection from Congress to the contrary, NRC will continue to afrain from segulating the Corps in its cleanup activities at FUSRAP shes.

l t

i l

I l

I' n.

t

's J

i

?

__I I

l l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASFJ American Nuclear Corp. (Revison of Orders to Modify Source Matenals Ucenses), CU-86-23, 24 NRC 704, 708-10 (1986) htigabihty of challenges to generic decisions made in Comnussion rulemakings; CU-99-6,49 NRC J

217 n.8 (1999)

American Puble rower Associurum v. NRC, 990 F.2d 1309,1311 13 (D C. Cir.1993) anutrust review of hceme transfers, need for; CU-99 5,49 NRC 200 (1999)

Atlas Corp. (Mouh, Utah fiscihty) LBP-97-9, 45 NRC 414, 423, ef'd, CLI-97-8, 46 NRC 21 (1997) i pleading requirenents for miervenuon peuuons. LBP 99-12,49 NRC 158 (1999) l Atlas Corp. (Moab, Utah hnhty) LEP-97-9, 45 NRC 414, 426-27, ag'd, CLI-97-8, 46 NRC 21 (1997)

/

concreteness required to descnbe an ongomg physical presence as opposed to geographic prosirrury; LBP-99-3, 49 NRC $2 n.7 (1909)

Babcock and IVdcas Co (Pennsylvama Nuclear Services Operauons, Parks Township, Pennsylvania),

i LDP-94-4, 39 NRC 47, 50 (1994)

/

l autimrizauon by named snember to represent orgamzation's interests; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 133 (1999)

{

Batismore Car & Electric Co. (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CU-98-19,48 NRC

.'4 132, 134 (1998)

-7#

Conumssion jurisdicuon to review interlocutory orders denying estensions of unw; CLI-99-3,49 NRC 26 (1999)

Z-Comoussion sua sponte review authonty over scheduhng orders; CLI-99-1,49 NRC 2 (1999)

Baltunore Cus & Electnc Co (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Umts i aml 2), CU-98-25, 48 NRC 325, 336 a 1 (1998) proscripuon against simultaneous appeals before the Comnussion and the court of appeals; CLI-99-4, J

49 NRC 186 n I (1999)

[

Baltimore Gar & Elecirk Co. (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 21, CU-98-25,48 NRC

{

325, 348-49 (1998) j showing of adnusable contennons. critena for; CU 99-6, 49 NRC 215 (1999)

Carolvia Power & inhr Co. (Sheamn liarris Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), LBP-82-Il9A,16 NRC 2069,2073 (1982) htigabihty of challenges to generic decisions made in Comnussion rulemakings, CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 217 a 8 (1999)

Coszens Awareness Network v Unned States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 59 F.3d 284, 287 (1st Cir.

1995) modificanon of licensee facihues without NRC supervision. circumstances appropnate for; LBP-99-10, 49 NRC 148 (1999); LBP-99-10, 49 NRC 148 (1999)

Carkrns for Sqfe rower v. NRC, 524 F.2d 1291,1294 & n.5 (DC. Cir.1975) heensing board jwiuliction to deternune that a supplemental environnental impact statement is reqmred, LDP 99-14,49 NRC 257 (1999)

Cleveland Electric Illuminarms Co tPerry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CU-93-21, 38 NRC 67, 95 n.10 i

(1993) i standmg requirca more than general interests in the cultural, histancal, and economic resources of a geographic area; LDP-99-8. 49 NRC 134 (1999)

Curators of she Uniwrssry of hfawurf, CU-951,41 NRC 71,132 n,81 (1995) burden of setting forth a clear and coherent argunent for standmg and intervennon; CU-99-4,49 l

NRC 194 (1999) 21 O

)

I 1

l l

l 1.EGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASI3 Curntors of the University of Missouri, CU-95-l,4i NRC 7!,170 71 (1995) htigabihty of challenges to generic decisions made in Comtrussion rulemakings; C1199-6,49 NRC 217 n.8 (1999)

Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico krmi Atonuc Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760,1767 n.6 (1982) consideranon of degree to which other means and other parties can prWet late intervention pentioner's interests; LBP 99-3,49 NRC 48 0999)

Desrait E44um Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-78-37, 8 NRC 575, 583 (1978) authorlzaton by named number to represent organizanon's interests; LBP-99-8, 49 NRC 133 (1999)

Ecology Acsion v. AEC, 492 F.2d 998,1000 02 (2d Cir.1974)

Lansing board jurisdiction to determine that a supplemental environmental impa:t statenrnt is required; LBP-99-14,49 NRC 257 (1999) j Energy feelr Nuclear, Inc., LBP-94-33, 40 NRC 151,153-54 (1994) failure of organizadon to show harm from heense anwndment that to &stinct and apart from that cause by aniual licensing and continued operation of tacility; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 133, 34 (1999) i l'avirocure of Usah, Inc., LBP.92-(t, 35 NRC 167,183 (1992) consideration of discreconary stan&ng when there is no intervenur with stan&ng as of right; LBP-99-12,49 NRC 159 sid 0999) florida Amer a ught Co. (St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Umts I and 2), CLI-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 329-30 0 989) nesus requirenwnt between asserted injury in fact and challenged limnae amendment; CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 188 0999)

Georgia Inshiste of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12,42 NRC 111, 115 0 995) juAcial concepts of standing apphed in NRC proceedings; CL1994,49 NRC 188 (1999)

Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generatmg Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-93-16, 38 NRC 25,32 0993) irdury in fact und zone of interests tests for standing to intervene; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 132 (1999) standad for litiganon of managenent character in license amen &nent procee&ngs; CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 189 (1999)

Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generaung Plant, Units I and 2), CL1-94-15,40 NRC 319 (1994) standard for grant of interlocutory review; CLI-99-7,49 NRC 23! 0999)

Georgio Power Co (Vogile Electric Generating Plant, Umts I and 2), LDP-90 29, 32 NRC 89,92 0990) authorizaton by named number to represent organization's interests; LBP 99 8. 49 NRC 133 (1999)

Guy States Utilities Ca. (River Bend Sianon. Umt 1), Cl194-10, 40 NRC 43, 48 0994) property imerrsu na co-owners' basis for stan&ng to intervene; CLI-99 6,49 NRC 216 0999)

Guy Ssares Urifrucs Co. (River Bend Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 444, 6 NRC 760,768-69 0977) participation of mterested gowrnnental entity on areas of concern that are adnutted as contenuons; LBP-99-14, 49 NRC 258 (1999)

//omson Ughtmg and rowr Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generatmg Stanon Unit 1), ALAB-535,9 NRC 377, 393-94, 396 0 979) authunzaton by naned nrmber to represent orgamzation's interests; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 133 0999) flouston Ughsing and rowr Co. (South Tesas Project, Units I and 2), ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644, 646-47, qf'g. LDP-7910, 9 NRC 439, 447-48 (1979) orgamzational stan&ng to interwne requires showing of injury to orgamzauonal interests and idenuticauon of nember who will suffer injury; LDP-99-8,49 NRC 132-33,135 (1999) llotsron Ughting and Powr Co. (South Tesas Project, Units I and 2), ALAB-799, 21 NRC 360, 382-83 1

0 985)

(

need to address Lue-hling cnteria to adopt withdrawing intervenor's contentions; LBP 99-6, 49 NRC 118 0 999)

//ydro Resources Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), LBP-98 9,47 NRC 261, 272 0 998) requiremenu of Native Anrricans to estabhsh standing to intervene; LDP-99-8,49 NRC 134 0999) f 22

]

2 l

l I

l l

I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Idaho Conserwrion tsugue v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508,1514 (9th Cir.1992) dc6mtion of injury when Congress is the source of the purportedly violated legal obligation; LBP 99-3,49 NRC 51 (1999)

Internarmnal Urunism (USA) Corp. (While Mesa Uranium Mill), CLI-98-6, 47 NRC 116, !!7 (1998) particularization of injury from pmposed amendnrnt required to demonstrate standing to inte veir; LBP-99-8, 49 NRC 133,134 (1999)

International Uruose (USA) Corp. (Receipt of Mate:ial from Tonawanda, New York). CLI 98-23, 48 NRC 259 (1998) stan&ng to intervene on basis of economic-competitor injuries not associated with environnemal harm fmm proposed licensing action; LDP-99 il,49 NRC 153-54 (1999) lasernational Urunium (USA) Corp. (Receipt of Material from Tonawanda, New York), CLI-98-23, 48 NRC 259, 264-65 (1998) economic interests unrelated to radiological harm as basis for stan&ng to intervene; MP-99-12,49 NRC 159 (1999)

Internarmnal Uranium (USAJ Corp. (White Mesa Uramum Mill), LilP-97-14, 46 NRC 55, 56 (1997),

af'd. CLI-98 6, 47 NRC 116,117 (19981 failure of organization to show harm from license amendment that is distinct and apart from that

]

cause by initial hcensing and conunued operson of facihty; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 135 (1999)

Kansas Gas and Electric Ca (Wolf Creck Generaung Station Unit 1), ALAB-279,1 NRC 559,576 (1975) burden of setung forth a clear and coherent argunent for slanthng and intervention; CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 194 (1999)

Magdy Elamir, M D. (Newark, New Jersey), LDP-98-25, 48 NRC 226 (1998) heensee agreement to rehnquish byproduct matenals license; LDP-99 4, 49 NRC 63 n.3,102 (1999)

Massachusertr v. NRC. 924 P.2d 311, 330 (D C. Cir,1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 899 (1991) htigahihty of challengen to generic decisions made in Conunission rulemakings, CLI-99-6,49 NRC 217 n.8 (1999) 1 Metropoluan Edason Ca (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CL1-83 25,18 NRC 327, 332 (1983) injury in fact and zone of interests tests for standmg to intervene; LBP 99-8, 49 NRC 132 (1999)

Metropuluan Edison Cn (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon, Unit I), CLI-83-25,18 NRC 327,333 (1983) particuisizauon of injury from proposed anendnent required to demonstrate standing to intervene; i

LDP-99-8,49 NRC 133 (1999)

New England Coalition v NRC 582 F.2d 87,9194 (1st Cir.1978) hcensing board junsdicuan to deternune that a supplenwntal environnental impact staienent is requued, LlLP-99-44. 49 NRC 257 (1999)

Philadelphia f;lectric Ca (Peach Bottom Atonue Power Stauon, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216,8 AEC 13, 21 n 33 (1974) htigabihty of challenges to generic decisions made in Commission rulemakings; CL1-994,49 NRC i

217 n 8 (1999)

Portland Generaf Electric Ca (Itbble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CL1-76-27,4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976) juecial concepts of standmg applied in NRC proceedings, CLI-99 4, 49 NRC 188 (1999) ronland General Electric Cn rivhble Springs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CU-76-27,4 NRC 610, 614-17 (1976) consideration of discreuonary standing when there is no imervenor with standmg as of right; LBP 99-12, 49 NRC 159 n 4 (1999) trrvare fuel Storage, LLC. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage lastallation), LU98-13, 48 NRC 26, 32 (1998) weight given to licenmag board standmg desemunations; ClJ-99-4, 49 NRC lil9 (1999)

Primte Fucir Storage LLC. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage installation) LBP-98-7,47 NRC 142, 172-75 (1998) admissbihty of late hied peutions absent good cause for late hhng; CL1-996,49 NRC 223 (1999) 4 23 i

l l

I

f

_I I

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASFS PuMic Servke Ca of New Hampshire (Scabrook Stauon, Umts I and 2), CLI-78-1, 7 NRC I, 26 27 (1978) in NEPA analysis rehugation of issues delegated to the Environnental Proiecnon Agency; LBP-99-3, 49 NRC 49 (1999)

PmMic Service Ca of New Hampshke (Seabrook Stadon, Umt I), CLI-9114, 34 NRC 261,266 (1991) injury in fact and zone of interests tesis for standmg to intervene; LBP 99-8,49 NRC 132 (1999)

Ouivira Mining Ca (Ambroma Lake ihcihty, Grants, New Mexico) CLI-98-II,48 NRC 1 (1998) stan&ng in imervene on tmsis of economic-competitor injuries not associmied with environnemal harm from proposed beensing action; LBP 99-il,49 NRC 153-54 0999)

QuMrs Mining Ca (Ambrosia Lake Fucihty, Grants, New Mexico), CLI 98 il, 48 NRC 1, 54 (1998) judicial concepts of stan&ng applied in NRC proceedings; ClJ-99-4, 49 NRC 188 (1999)

Sacramento Municipal Utihty Dhtract (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stauon), CLI-93-3, 37 NRC 135, 143 n.17 (1993) responsibihty for pleading defects in anrnded petioon; CU-99-4, 49 NRC 194 (1999)

Sacramento Municipal Utihty Dhtrict (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CL1-94 2, 39 NRC 91, 93 (1994) standard fur grant of uterlocutory review; CLl-99-7,49 NRC 231 (1999)

Saa bh Obaspo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 781 F 2d 1287,1312 (D C. dr.1984) espansion of term of low power operating beense as nn anrndnunt; LBP-9910, 49 NRC 148 n.5 (1999)

Sequeu4 facts Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-9412, 40 NRC 64, 72 (1994) particularization of injury from proposed anendment required to demonsaate standing to imervene; LBP-99-8, 49 NRC 133,134 (1999)

Sequoyu4 fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma S-,c), CLI-9713, 46 NRC 195, 221 (1997) sewival of case on appeal on basis of new arguments that licensing board had no fair opportumty to consider; CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 194 (1999)

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U S.127, 734-35 (1972) stan&ng requires more than general imerests in the cultural, historical, and economic resources of a geographic area; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 134 (1999)

Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753, 759-60 (8th Cir.1994) considerauon of injury when proponed action is a resource management plan as opposed to a site-specific action; LBP-99-3, 49 NRC St n.5 (1999)

Ssatement of Policy on Camduct of A41udscatory Proceedmgs, CLI 98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998) licensing board authority to set schedules for hearings; LBP-9914,49 NRC 259 (1999)

Smtement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Procerdmgs, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18, 20 (1998)

Commisuon sua spunte review authority over scheduling orders; CLI-99-1, 49 NRC 2 (1999)

Steel Ca v. Citims for a better f.avironment, _ U S. _,118 S, Ct.1003,1016 (1998) particularizauon of injury from propowd anendment requned to demonstrate standmg to intervene; LBP-99-8, 49 NRC 133,134 (1999)

Steel Ca v. Cettzens for a Berner Envuronment, _ U.S.,,,_, i18 S. Ct.1003,1016-17 (1998) ju&cial concepts of standing apphed in NRC procee&ngs; CLi-99-4, 49 NRC 188 0999)

Trunsnuclear lac. (Ten Apphcations f(a Low-Enriched Uranium Exports to EURATOM Member Nations),

CLI-77-24, 6 NRC 525, 531 (1977) parucularizanon of injury from proposed anendnrnt required to demonstrate stan&ng to intervene; LBP-99-8. 49 NRC 133 (1999)

Umetro Mmerals Corp., LBP-94-18, 39 NRC 369 (1994) requirenents of Nauve Americans to establish stanang to intervene; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 134 0999)

Wurth v. Seldm. 422 U.S 490, 501, 508, 5M (1975) particularization of in.lury from proposed amendnunt required to des.ti strate standing to intervene; LDPM8,49 NRC 133,134 (1999)

YanAce Atomac Electric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon), CLI%7,43 NRC 235,248 n.7 0996) pleadmg requirements for contentions; CLi-99-6, 49 NRC 219 (1999)

I I

i u

l l

l l

2

l i

1.ECAL CITATIONS INDEX CAST 3 Yankca Ahunic Dactric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185,195 (1998) ju&cial concepts of stan&ng applied in NRC paccedings; CLI-994,49 NRC 188 (1999)

Yankta Akume Bertric Ca (Yankee Nuclear Ibwer Station), CLI-98 21,48 NRC 185,194-% (1998) showing necessary to estabhsh stan&ng in NRC pacecengs; C11994,49 NRC 215 (1999)

\\

I 1

2s l

l

_l I

LEGAL CITA110NS INDEX REGULATIONS s

10 C.F.R. 2.202(cX2Xi) ruhng upholding imnediate effectiveness of enforcement order; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 59 (1999) 8 10 C F R.1203 vehicle to close a proceeding when conhrmatory order has been entered before order establishing heanns date; LDP-99-2,49 NRC 39 (1999) 10 C.F.R, 2 206 conformance Tf systems watb design-basis and bcensmg-basis requirenents, adequacy of, DD-99-3,49 NRC 1620s (1990) j decornmissiomng plan or lay-up plan for umt on adrtumstrauve hold, request that hcensee be required

/

lo nubnut; DD-99-6, 49 NRC 285-98 (1999)

W furum for htigaunt concerns about dehberate violations of regulations; CLI.994 49 NRC 190,1%

(1999) operanonal knuts on torus water temperature, request for maintenance of. DD-99-4. 49 NRC 18483

/ /

(1999)

(

nafety culture at Diab;o Canyon. request for independent contractor to evaluate; DD-99-5, 49 NRC

=I 28483 (IW9) treatmrnt rn late-nied intervenuon petition as request for action on uranium mill taihngs sne reclamanon I~

plan; DD 99-2,49 NRC 34-22 (1999)

-J work carvironment and staff competence to perform decomnussiumng activines; DD 99-1,49 NRC 6 (1999)

~

10 C.F.R. 2 708(d) opuans for service of hiings; CU-99 6,49 NRC 228 n.15 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 2.713(b) intervention on behalf of unnamed thents, LDP 99-12, 49 NRC 160 n.5 (1999) nouce of appearance reqmrenents for heense transfer proceedings, CU-99-6, 49 NRC 225 (1999) 10 C F.R. 2.714 piemhng requirenruts for contentions, CLI-99-6, 49 N2C 219 (1999) 10 C F.R. 2.714(s)(1) balancing of late-hhng criteria supports intervenuun; LBP-99-3. 49 NRC 44, 45. 49, 54 (1999) need for proposed anendment of contennons to address hw late-hling factors; LBP 99-7, 49 NRC 127, 128, 129 (1999) i need to address late-hhng criteria to adopt withdrawmg intervenor's contennons; LBP-99-6, 49 NRC 117, 118, 123 (1999) standards govermng late-hied intervention peutions; LBP-99-3, 49 NRC 46 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(ax2) parucularity required of intervenunn peutions; CL1-99-4, 49 NRC 188 (1999) 10 CF R. 2.714(b) simissibahry of contention challengmg nonarbitrary reclassihcanon of area from affected to nonaffected; LilP-9914,49 NRC 251 (1999) scope of hugable issues in hceme ternunanon plan proceedmg; LBP-99-14, 49 NRC 241 (1999) 10 C.F R. 2.7I4(bX2Xiii) challenge to adequacy of ALARA analysis in hcense terminauon plan; LDP-99-14, 49 NRC 255 (1999) rejection of contenuon for failure to derramstrutc that a genuine dispute exists; LBP 9914, 49 NRC 255-56 (1999) 27

F i

__I l-LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CEA 2.714(d).-

acope of heigable issues in license ternunation ' plan proceeding; lap-9914, 49 NRC 241 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.714a.

appeal as of richt of denial of standmg; CL1-99-4,49 NRC 186 (1999) appeals of rulings on comentsons; LBP 99-14,49 NRC 260 (1999) board highhghting of questions that snay be presemed to lhe Ccnumssion for seview; LBP-99-14,49 l

NRC 253 (1999) dondhne for appeal of intervention ruling; LBP-99-3, 49 NRC 54 (1999) 10 CIA 2.715(a) limasing board authonty to hear oral limited appearances from mernhers of the public; LBP-9414 49 NRC 240 n.1 (1999) 10 CIA 2.715(c) participation of interessed governmemal entity on areas of concern that urs admitted as contentions; LSP-99-14,49 NRC 258 (1999) participerion of regional planmng board as inserested governnental entity; LBP-9914,49 NRC 239,258 (1999) 10 CIA 2.718.-

hcensing board amhanty to set schedules for hearings; LBP 9914,49 NRC 259 (1999)

.10 C F.R. 2.722(aXI)

' licensing board authoney to appoint special administrative judge to assist in developing an adequate hearing record; LBP-99-4. 49 NRC 59 (1999)

' 10 CfA 2.758 Conunission policy on settlearnt of disputed issues; LBP 9914,49 NRC 259 (1999) '

- htigibility of challenges to regulatory standards; LDP-9914, 49 NRC 246 (1999) 10 CIA 2.700 j

6nahty of initial decision; LBP 99-4. 49 NRC 105 (1999) l 10 CF.R. 2.760(cXI) ard responsibility to consider enure record and not just the conrent of various parties' proposed j

6adings; LBP 99-4, 49 NRC 60 (1999) 10 CIA 2.763 appeals of partial imual decisions; LBP-991, 49 NRC 37 (1999). LBP-99-5, 49 NRC 113 (1999);

LBP-99-9, 49 NRC 144 (1999); LBP-9910, 49 NRC 152 (1999); LBP-99-13, 49 NRC 237 (1999) i 10 Cf.R 2.786 appeals of partial initial decisions; LBP-99-1, 49 NRC 37 (1999); LBP 99-9, 49 NRC 144 (1999);

LBP-99-10,4 NRC 152 (1999); LBP-99 l),49 NRC 237 (1999)

Cumnussion review of innial decisions; LBP-99-4,49 NRC 105 (1999) procedures for review of innial decision; LDP-99 5, 49 NRC 113 (1999) -

10 Cf.R. 2.786(bM2) content of petioons for review; LBP 99-4. 49 NRC 105 (1999) 10 CIA 2.786(bK4)

Comnussion sua spunte review of initial decision; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 105 (1999) 10 CIA 2c7d6(c)

I disposition of petitinns seeking discretionary Commission review that are not acted upon within 30

- days; CLI 99-4. 49 NRC 186 n 1 (1999) 10 CIA 2.786(g)(1) and (2) standard for grant of interlocutory review; CLi-99-7,49 NRC 231 (1999) 10 CIA 2.120l(a)-

interpretanon of anwndnunt such that heensee may nake low-nsk changes in mode of operation without advance approvul; LDP-9910, 49 NRC 147 (1999) 10 CEA 2.1205 1

hearing rights on performunce-based licenhing; LSP-99-10, 49 NRC 147 (1999) interpretauen of anwndment such that licensee may nuke low risk changes in mode of operauon witt out advance approval; thP 99-lo, 49 NRC 147 (1999) i I

l i

28 l

o

bi l

-, \\ -

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 2.120$(h)

' cope c.f bdgable issues relating to nwerials license amendment; LBP-9912, 49 NRC 159 n.3 (1999) j 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(fX2)

. treatraent et h.ne-6ied IFlervention pClition as requeat for action under section 2.206; DD-99-2,49 NRC

- 14 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(m) l.

Staff insnance of nwerials license anendarut despite pendency of hewing request on amendment; LBP-99-12,49 NRC 158 n 1 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1205(o) appeals of denials of hearing requests; LBP-9912,49 NRC 160 (1999) appeals of orders denying intervention; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 135 (1999)

(

10 Cf.R. 2.121l(b) admission of governmental enuties; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 135 (1999) l 10 Cf.R, 2.1213

. Staff participation as party to nuerials license anendnunt proceeding; IEP-99-12,49 NRC 157 (1999) l 10 Cf R. 2.1233 l

. jomt presentation of imervenors' consentions; LBP-99-13, 49 NRC 234 (1999) l request for relief on source material license unendment; IEP-99 5,49 NRC 108 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1239(a) luigability of challenges to vahdity of regulanons; LBP-99-13,49 NRC 236 (1909) meight given to guidance docunents in licensing proceedings; LBP-99-I,49 NRC 34 (1999s 10 Cf.R. 2.1253 appeals of laitial decisions; LBP-9916, 49 NRC 278 (1999) appeals of partial initial decisions; LBP-99-1, 49 NRC 37 (1999), LBP-99-9, 49 NRC 144 (1999);

l LBP-9910,49 NRC 152 (1999); LBP-90-13. 49 NRC 237 (1999) -

partial decisions as neans to accommoduse ef6cient appellate revew; CLl-99-1,49 NRC 3 (1999) reviewahihty of initial decision; LBP-99 5, 49 NRC 113 (1999)-

l 10 Cf.R. Put 2,' Subpurt M I

rejection of intervenuon peution for failure to satisfy requirenents of; CLI-99-2,49 NRC 24 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1300 er seg i

anutrust challenges to license transfers; CLI-915,49 NRC 199 (1999) hearing requests on h.censee transfer appucations; CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 210 (1999) j 10 Cf.R. 2.1306 admissibihty of operaung espenses issue in license transfer proceeding; CLI-99 6,49 NRC 219 (1999) litigability of challenges to adequacy of licensee's cost and revenue esumates; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 221

-(1999) 1 pleading requirements for comentions; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 219 (1999) l 10 Cf.R 2.1306(bX2Xiv) prepaynent as means for entity that does not quahfy as electric utihty to sausfy NRC Anancial assurance and 6auncial quali.~tcutions requirements; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 218 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1307(b)-

replies to answers opposing intervenuon request; CLI-99-2, 49 NRC 24 n.1 Vl999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1308 admissibihty of operating espenses issue in license transfer prrxeeding; CLI-99 6, 49 NRC 219 (1999) showing of admissible cordentior* cnteria for; Cll-99-6,49 NRC 215 0999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1308(b) good cause requirement for late-tiled peution for intervention in license transfer proceeding; CLI-946, 49 NRC 222 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1308(dX2) deadhne for Ahng motion for hearing consisting of wntten comments; CLI-99-6,49 NitC 225 a.ll (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1309 tine linues on crut a*gunent and rebuttal; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 226 (1999)

I 29 I

- - ~

e l

_I I

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RECULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 2.13(YJ(aX4) deadline for 61ing initial written staternents of position and wntten erect testinony; C1199-6, 49 NRC 225 al2 (1999) deadline for niing questions directed to wnsten rebuttal testirnony; C1199-6,49 NRC 726 al4 (1999) deadline for 61ing responses to & rect testinony, rebuttal testimony, and questions dir.' to written direct testimony; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 225 n.13 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1310(a) time hmits on crut argunwat and rebuttal; CLI-99 6,49 NRC 226 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1310(c) deadline for Bling initial written statements trf position and written & rect testimony; CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 225 al2 (1999) deadune for 6hng questions directed to written rebuttal tesumony; C1199 6,49 NRC 226 ai4 (1999) deadline fur 6hng responses to & rect lestirnony, rebuttal testimony, and questions &rected to written drect a'stimony; CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 225 n.13 (1999) options for service of hhngs; CU 994,49 NRC 228 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1314(a) deadhne for 6bng initial written st tenwnts of posioon and wntten drect lesumony; CU-994, 49 NRC 225 n.12 (1999) deadline for filing motion for hearing comisting of wntten comments; CU-99-6,49 NRC 225 all (1999) deadhne for fihng responses to direct testimony, rebuttal tenumony, and questions &rected to wntten direct testinmny; CU-994,49 NRC 225 n 13 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1314(b) deadline for filing questions directed to wntten rebuttal temuneny; CU-99-6,49 NRC 226 n.14 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1316(bHc)

StafY authority to offer sponsonng witnesses for Safety Evaluanon Report, although it is not a party; CU-99 6, 49 NRC 228 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1320(ak9)

&sposition of redundant, duplicative, unreliable, or irrelevant pleadmgs; CU.99-6. 49 NRC 224 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1321(a) deadline for hhng initial written statements of position and wntien & rect resunmny; CLI-994,49 NRC 225 a12 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1321(b) deadhne for hiing queshons drected to wntten rebuttal testimony; CU-99 6, 49 NRC 226 n 14 (1999) deadhne for 6hng responses to & rect tesunmny, rebuttal testimony, and questions directed to written direct testimony; CLl-994, 49 NRC 225 n 13 (1999) 10 Cf R. 2.1322(axi) deadhne for 6hng imtial wntten statements of posinon and wntten direct testinony; CLI-994,49 NRC 225 a 12 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1322(ax2H3) deadline for 6hng responnes to direct tesunmny, rebuttal tesumony, and quesuons directed to writwa direct testimony; CLI 99-6, 49 NRC 225 n.13 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1322(aX4) deadhne for hhng queshons &rected to written rebuttal testinumy; CU-994, 49 NRC 226 a.14 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2,1322(b) time hrruts on oral argument and rebuttal, CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 226 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 2.1322(c) deadhne for tihng written concludmg statements of position; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 226 (1999) deaduta for wnsten post-hearing statemems of position; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 223 (1999) 10 Cf R. 2.1329 showing necessary for waiver of vules or regulations, CU-99-6, 49 NRC 217 a.8 (1999) 30 l

l L

n jtt t

d

\\

l I

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX '

REClJLATIONS 10 C.F.R. Part 20 -

condderation of esisdng radon levels generased from previous uranium mining in evaluating comphance -

with tequirenents of; LDP-99-15,49 NRC 263 (1999)

- 10 C.F.R. 20.100l(b) protecnon of public from all sources of radia6on esecpt background, including unlicensed sources; LBP-99-15, 49 NRC 262 (1999) -

10 Cf.R. 20.1003 deAnidon of "crincal groug?; LBP-99-14, 49 NRC 246 (1999) de6 ninon of 'badgmund radiation"; LBP-9915,49 NRC 265 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 20.1101 radiation protection program restnctions on offsim teleases; CLl-99-4,49 NRC 195 (19W) 10 Cf.R. 20.110l(s) acope of licensee responsibility for radiation protection program; CLI-99-4,49 NRC 195 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 20.1301 exclusion of background radiation from total effective does equivalent calculations; ISP-9915,49 NitC 265, 267 (1999) radiation protection program restrictiatis on offuie releases; CLI-994, 49 NRC 195 (1999)

- 10 Cf.R. 20.1302 mandatory surveys of both unrestricted and controlled areas' to demonstraw compliance with radiation limits; CLI-99-4,49 NRC 195 (1999) sources of radiation included in total effective dose equivalent; 2P-9915,49 NRC 265 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 20.1302(b) standard of compliance with annual dose linuts, beensee choice tetween paragraphs (l) and (2);

' LBP 9915,49 NRC 268 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 20.1302(bXI) anserpretation as total effective done equivalent to the individual hkely to receive the highest dose from

. the licensed operation; !.SP-99-15, 49 NRC 263 (1999) 10 Cf.R. Part 20, Subpurt E

. purpose of license termination plan to ensure that facihty and site are suitable for release in accordance with criteria for decommissioning; LBP-9914,49 NRC 250 (1999).

10 Cf.R. 20.1401(b).

sites esempted from current regulatory standards; LBP-99-14,49 NRC 247 n.5 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 20.1401(bX3) sites esempted from current regulatory standards; LBP-99-14, 49 NRC 247 n.5 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 20.1402 challenge la adequacy of ALARA analysis in heense termination plan; LBP-99-14, 49 NRC 254 (1999) challenges to site release criterion, htigabibly of; LBP-99-14,49 NRC 245, 247 (1999) sim release criteria that require that total effective dose equivalent to average member of criocal 3

population from residual contamination be less than 15 mrem /yr; LBP-99-14. 49 NRC 246 (1999) i 10 Cf.R. 20.1501 mandatay surveys of both unrestricted and controUed areas to demonstrale comphance with radiation limits, CLI-99-4,49 NRC 195 (1999) j monitoring of personnel to ensure comphance with estabhshed occupational done limits; CLI-99-4,49 j

NRC 195 (1999) s 10 Cf.R. 20.1502' momtoring of personnel to ensure comphance with estabbshed occupational done hndia: CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 195 (1999) l 10 Cf.R. 20.1601, 201602 controlled access to high-radiation areas; CLI 99-4. 49 NRC 195 (1999) i

.50 Cf R. 20.2001, er seg. -

i waste disposal requirenents in radiation protection program; CLl-994. 49 NRC 195 (1999)

, 30 Cf.R. 20.2002 applicability to in situ leach rmnisyl; LDP-99-1,49 NRC 35 (1999) 31 i

1 l

_I I

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 20.2102 records of occupational dones and rahauon survey results required fw radiation protection program; CLI-994,49 NRC 195 (1999) 10 Cf R 20.2103 records of occupauonal doses and radiadon survey results required for radiation protection program; CLI 99-4, 49 NRC 195 (1999) 10 Cf.R. Part 21 reporung of defects with faikd Albt welds at im basket bok!down bar; DD-99 3,49 NRC 171 (1999) 10 Cf.R. Part 30 Enancial assurance for decommissioning, linal rule changes on; DD-99-6, 49 NRC 293 n.19 (1999) 10 CJ R. 30.10 careless dinegard disunguished from deliberate nusconduct, LBP-99-4,49 NRC 77 (1999) contractor performance of Autimnzed User's functions as violauon consututing dehberate nusconduct; LDP-99-4. 49 NRC 65, 83, 85-86, 95% 104 (1999) contractor performance of Radiacon Safety Of6cer's functions as violauon consuturmg deliberate nnsconduct; LDP-99-4, 49 NRC 65, 68, 76, 77, 83,97 98,104 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 30.10(axi) deliberate misconduct by a licensee contructor; LDP-99-4,49 NRC 61,76 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 30.10(c)(1) deliberaie nusconduct by a licensee contractor; LDP-99 4,49 NRC 61,76 (1999) 10 Cf R. 30.10(cM2) dehberate nusconduct by a licensee contractor; LBP 99-4, 49 NRC 61, 76 (1999) 10 Cf R. 35.2 denstion of "authonzed user"; LBP-99 4, 49 NRC 84 (1999) dc6mtion of " diagnostic chnical procedures manual"; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 84 (1999) dehnstion of " prescribed dosage" of radiopharmaceutical, LDP-99 4. 49 NRC 61, 83, 96 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 35.II(a) circu nstances under wluch an individual is pndiibited from perfornung acuvices supervised by an

, muttmneed user; LBP 99-4, 49 NRC 85 (1999) 10 CJR. 3511(a) and (b) deliberate misconduct by contractor in actions that cause heensee to fail to have Autborized User's duties performed by a quah6cd individual, LBP-99-4,49 NRC 83 (1999) licensing requirements for medical use of heensed material; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 61,104 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 35 il(b) secpe of activenes to be performed by an individual supervised by an authonzed user; LDP-994,49 NRC 85 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 35.13 license amendment required for change in Radiation Safety Officer; LBP 99-4. 49 NRC 61, 76,104 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 3513(c) -

heense amendment required for change in Radianon Safety Of6cer; LBP 99-4, 49 NRC 77 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 35 21 dehberate nusconduct by contractor sa acuons that cause licensee to fail to have Radiation Safety Ofhcer's duties performed by a quahned individual, LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 80, 82, 83 (1999) licensee responsibility to appoint a Radiation Safety OffKer; LDP-99 4, 49 NRC 61, 76, 77,104 (1909) 10 Cf A 35.21(a) delegation of responsibihues by Radiation Safety Ofhcer; LDP-99-4, 49 NRC 77 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 35.2t(b) duties of a Radiation Safety Officer; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 77 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 35.25 supervision require-

• fut medical use of heensed material; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 61 (1999) supervisory re pnsibihues of authorized user; LDP-99-4,49 NRC 85 (1999) 32 l

i 1

1 1

_J l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RECULATIONS 10 Cf.R. 35.25(aX2) responsibility of heensee toward individuals supervia.d by aut!xxized user; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 85 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 35 53(a) tecordkeeping requirements on nrasurement of dosages of ru&onuclides prior to medical use; LDP-99-4, 49 NRC 83 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 35.53(c) secordkeeping requirements on nuasurement of dosages of radaonuclides prior to medical use; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 83,86 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 35.53(cX3) deliberate misconduct by contractor in actions that cause licensee to fail to have Authorized User's dunes perforned by a quahhed individual; LBP-99-4,49 NRC 83 (1994) recordkeeping requirenrnts on nuasurement of dosages of radionuclides prior to nedical use; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 61, 83, 95-96,104 (1999) 10 CER. 35 900 quahhcations of Radiation Safety Officer; LDP-99-4, 49 NRC t4 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 35.910, 35 920, 35.930, 35 940, 35.950, or 35.960 certihcation of authonzed uner; LBP-99-4,49 NRC 61 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 40 4 dehniuon of background radiauan; LBP-99-15, 49 NRC 265 (1999) dehmoon of byproduct material relauve so in s tu leach mining; LBP 99-1,49 NRC 33 (1999) wfinition of byproduct wastes produced by in situ leach uranium mining as byproduct matenal; LBP-9913, 49 NRC (1999) 10 Cf.R. 40 31(h) applicahility to sites fornerly associated with injection mining; LBP-99-1,49 NRC 30, 32-33 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 40.32 apphcability to injection nuning bcenne applicants; LDP-991,49 NRC 33 (1999) standard for upproval of a specstic heense; LBP-99-10,49 NRC 151 (1999) 10 CER. 40.32(a) issuance of license for in situ leach nuning without demonstranon of haancial assurance; LBP-9913, 49 NRC 235 (1999) 10 CF R. 40.32(c) imd (d) licensing standard for &sposal of ligwd waste; LBP-99-1, 49 NRC 30, 32 (1999) 10 Cf R. 40.36 exception to financial assurance requirements for decomnussioning fun &ng; LBP 9913, 49 NRC 235 (1999) 10 CER. 4044 interpretation of dehmlion of "amendnent" such that heenwe may make low-risk changes in mode of operanon without advance approval, LBP-99-10, 49 NRC 147 (1999) 10 CSA Part 40, Appendia A apphcabihry to in situ leach nuning operations; LDP 99-13,49 NRC 235 (1999) applicabihty to sites fornerly annociated with injecuan numng; LBP-99-1,49 NRC 30, 32 33 (1999) engineering design of rock apron for uraruum mill taihngs sechtmanon site; DD'99-2,49 NRC 14,16, 17, 21, 22 (1999) 10 Cf R. Part 40, Appendix A Criterion 2 applicability to in situ leach nuning; LDP-991,49 NRC 33 (1999)

' 10 CER. Part 40, Appen&s A. Critenon 5A apphcabihty to in situ leach mining; LDP 99-l, 49 NRC 33 (1999) 10 Cf.M. Purt 40. Appensa A Criterion 6 khniuon of dinposal area relative to in situ leach numng operations; LBP-99-1,49 NRC 34 (1999) dehnition of " reasonable annurance" standard. DD-99-2, 49 NRC 20 (1999) 10 CER. Purt 40, Appendia A Cnterion 7A apphcabihty of nemtonng requirements to in astu leach nuning operauons; LBP 99-1,49 NRC 34 (l999) 33 1

I

)

e s

l I

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CER. Part 40, Appendia A, Criterion 9 bar to commencement of operations pnor to comphance with, LBP-9913,49 NRC 235 (1999) j 10 Cf.R. Part 50 content of a license terrrunadon phm; LDp-94-14,49 NRC 241 (1999) decomnusssoning activities under Part 72 compared; DD-99-1,49 NRC 11 (1999)

Anancial assurance for decommissioning, hnal rule changes on; DD-99-6,49 NRC 293 n.19 (1999) 10 CER. 50.2 basis for tinancial assurance requirements for decornmissioning; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 218 (1999) dehnition of " federal heensee"; DD 9% 49 NRC 293 (1999) nnancial vehicles by which enunca that do not quahfy as electric utihties may satisfy NRC Anancial assurance and honneial quahhcanons requirements; CU-99-6,49 NRC 213 (1999) 10 CER. 50.33(f) scope of heunng on hcense transfer; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 221,224 (1999) 10 CER. 50 33(fX2) financial vehicles by which enuties that do not quahfy as electric utihties rnay satisfy NRC Hnancial assurance and hnancial quahncations requirements; CU-99-6, 49 NRC 213 (1999) showing ruguired to demonstrate beensee's haancial quahfication to meen operadog expemes; CU 99-6, 49 NRC 220-21 (1999) 10 CER. 50.33(fX4)

Comnussion authonty to request an entny to subnut additional or more detailed informadon respectmg its 6nancial arrangenents and status of funds if infonmuion sa considered appropriate; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 221 (1999)

NRC authorny to require rmue & tailed or addnional information, to ensure that adequate fends exist for safe operadon; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 221 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 50 47(c) desctiption of IDCAs; CU 99-4,49 NRC 193 (1999) 10 CER. 50.54(O a&quacy of heennee suponse to request for design-basis information; DR99-3, 49 NRC 175 (1999) information relating to beenice accons un genenc communicauons from NRC to licenace; DD-99-6,49 NRC 291 (1999) 10 Cf.R. 50.59 mmhncarions or temporary alterunons to systems and components required to support uruts in defueled status; DD994,49 NRC 2% (1999) safety evaluation process, idenuhcadon of problems with, DD 99-3, 49 NRC 165,172-73 (1999) 10 C F R. 50 59(aKI) modi 6 canon of licennee facihues without NRC supervision, circumstances appropnate for; LBP-9910, 49 NRC 148 (1999) 10 C F R. 50 65 outstandmg esme regardmg comphance with nuuntenance rule; DD-99-6, 49 NRC 290, 292, 296 (1999) 10 Cf R. 50.73 reporting of ice condenser deficiencies; DD 99-3,49 NRC 173 (1999) 10 CF R. 50 75 Enuncial assurance regarding satinf,iction of decomnuassomng funding obliganon when facility ownership is transferred, CU-99-6, 49 NRC 217 (1999) 10 Cf R. 50 75(a) authority of agencies other than NRC to set additional decomnussiorung fundmg regturements; CLI-99-6.

49 NRC 218 n 9 (1999) 10 CER. 50 75(eMI) 6nancial vehicles by which enunes that do mA quahfy as electric uuhues may sadsfy NRC hnancial assurance and hnuncial quahhcanons reqmrements; CU-99-6, 49 NRC 213, 218 (1999) 10 CER. 50.75(cMIXi) hnancial ansprance regwrements for decomnussiomtc when there is a transfer of ownership rights; CU-994, 49 NRC 2f 1 (1999) i i

l 34 L:

_I I

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 50.75(eXIXia) caternal trusts arrangements used to rneet requirenents for external sinking fund; DD-99-6,49 NRC 294 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 50.75(fXI) teparting sequirenruts for decommissiumng fr.5ing; DD99-6,49 NRC 294 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 50.80 Comndssion approval required for transfer of ownership rights; CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 211 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 50.82 challenges to site survey nethodology employed in heense tenmnation plan, htigabihty of; LDP-9914.

49 NRC 259 (190) content of a license terminacon plan; LDPM14, 49 NRC 241 (1999) inclusion of strategy for measurenrra of subsurface radiation in license ternunanon ptin; LBP-99-14,49 NRC 249 (1999) 10 C.F R. 50.82(aXI) saustaction of maintenance rule dehciencies by cerufying that operanons have ceased permanently; DD-99 6, 49 NRC 293 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 50.82(aX2) effect of dockenng of ceruficanon of permanent cessation ci operations and renovnl of fuel; DD.99-1, 49 NRC 6 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 50 82(aX9Xii) challenge to adequacy of site renraados plan; LBP.99-14,49 NRC 253 (1999) i 10 C.F.R. 30 82(aX9XiiXA) definidon of " characterization'*; LBP-99-14, 49 NRC 242 a 4 (1999)

\\

to C.F.R. 50.82(aX9XiiXD) inclusion of strategy for measurenent of sub. surface radialian in license termination plan, LBP-99-14. 49 NRC 249 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 50 82(aXIIXii) lidgabihty of background radiation determinanon methods en license ternunation plan prome&ng; LBPM14,49 NRC 243 (1999) purpose of license termination plan to ensure that facility and site are suitable for release in accordance with criteria for decommissionmg; LBPM14, 49 NRC 250 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 50.91(aX4) authoney of licensing hoard to cirect 'licenwe to conduct no acovity " furthering" the license ternination plan; 1 RPM 14, 49 NRC 258 (1999) 10 C.F.R. Purt 50. Append s C, IIV Comnission uudeonty to request an enuty to subnut additional or more detailed informanon respecting its financial arrangenents and status of funds if informanon is considered appropnate; CLIM6,49 NRC 221 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 51.20(a) licensing board junsdiction to determine that a supplenental environmental impact staternent is required.

LBPM14,49 NRC 257 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 5145 adequacy of applicant's analysis of required water permits, hdgabihry of, LBP-99-6,49 NRC 122 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 51.53 l

supplenent to environnental report as part of license ternunadon plan; LBP-99-14, 49 NRC 241 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 55 4i f

buis for wnuen esanunation of operators, LDP-99-16, 49 NRC 275 (1999) l 10 C.F.R. 55 41(b) j teaung of reactor operators on technical sperit canons; LBPMI6,49 NRC 276 (1999) 10 C,F R. 55.43(bX2) s i

testing of reactor operator at lewl of senior reactor operator; LBP-9916,49 NRC 275-76 (1999) 10 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendia B Cntenon XVI vanauen in appropriate responw to an idenuhed dehciency; DD-99-3,49 NRC 168 (1999) 35

r J

J 1.EGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. Part 61 Imension of radioactive slag as a violation of, LDP-99-12,49 NRC 157 (1999) 10 C.F.R. 70.75(c) n.1 ocuvines involved in reducing vudual rasostinity to levels that perrnit release of property; CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 218 n 9 (1999) 10 C.FA Part 72 construction of rail spur for transport of spent fuel shipping casks to independent spent fuel storage insta!!atien: LDP-99 3, 49 NRC 44 (1999) decoinctissiomng activities uruler; DD-991,49 NRC 6 (1999) 10 CER 72.2 scope of decommissioning acuvities under; DD-99-1, 49 NRC ll (1999) 10 C.F.R. 72.40 subjects excluded from consideranon in licerne ternunation plan procee&ng; LBP-99-14,49 NRC 241 (1999) -

10 C.F R. 72.210 subjects excluded from considerauon in license ternunation plan proceedmg; LDP-99-14,49 NRC 241 (1999) 10 C.F R. 73.5)(dK6) secenty plan docunentauon of haison with local law enforcenent to pernut unely response to unauttmrized penetruunn acuuues need for; LDP-99-7,49 NRC 127 (1999) 10 C.F R. Part 73, Appendia C, 5 3 d l

security plan hsung of available local law enforcenent agencies and descripuon of response capabihties and cruena and communications capabihties; LBP 99 7,49 NRC 127 (1999) l 36 C.F.R. 800 3(c) appropriateness of phased approach to comphance with regard to cultural resources; LDP-99-9, 49 NRC 139 n.2.142 (1999) authorizauon of nondestructive plamiing activiues pnor to completion of NI(PA section tub process; LBP 99-9, 49 NRC 139,140 (1999) 36 C.F.R. 800 4(d) requirenrnt of governnent to take further steps in section 106 process when no historic progerties are found; LDP-99-9. 49 NRC 140,141 a 7,142 (1999) 36 C.F.R. 800.5(b) reqiurenant of governnent to take further steps in section 106 process after Anding of no effect; LDP-99 9, 49 NRC 140,141 n 7 (1999) 36 C.F R 800 5(eN4) fmdmg necessary tu emer into nrnorandum of agreenent between consulung partes; LDP 99-9, 49 NRC fil n.7 (1999) 40 C.F.R. Part 192 dcAnition of " reasonable aaurance" standard, DD-99 2, 49 NRC 20 (1999) 43 C.F.R.10 4(b) apphcabihty to madvertent discovenes of cuhural items on pnvately owned lands LDP 99-9, 49 NitC j

143 n.15 (1999)

J l

36 7

I 1

i i

_I I

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATVIT.S Atonuc Energy Act, lle(2) focus on nuclear fuel cycle; LDP-99 5, 49 NRC 109 (1999)

Atorrac Energy Act, 42 U S C. 5 2014e(2) dehmtion of byproduct material LDP-99-5,49 NRC 109 (1999)

Atomic Energy Act, (103b, 42 U.S C,12133(b) property interests as co-owners' basis fur stan&ng to intervene; al-99-6, 49 NRC 216 (1999)

Atonne Energy Act,105c, 42 U.S C 6 2135(c) anutrust review of heense transfers, CU 99-5, 49 NRC 199, 200 (1999)

Atonne Energy Act, il61b, 42 U,5 C 5 2201(b)

/

property interests as co-owners' basis for standing to intervene, CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 216 (1999)

Atonne Energy Act,182a 7

)

informauon relaung to heennee accons on genenc communications from NRC to bcennee; DDL99-6,49 m

NRC 291 (1999)

/

Atomic Energy Act, ( 184, 42 U.S C 5 2234

{#

Commission approval sequired for transfer of ownership rights; C1199-6, 49 NRC 210, 211 (1999) r, -

8 Atomic Energy Act,189a, 42 U.S C. 6 2239(a) hearing rights on bcense amendnunts; CU-99-4, 49 NRC 188 (1999) hearing rights on performance based beensing LDP 99-10, 49 NRC 147 (1999) 2 interest requirenent for intervention in NRC procce&ngs; CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 214 (1999)

. - 7 Clean Water Act,404 miequacy of apphcant's analysis of required water pernuts, bugahihty of; LEP-9)-6, 49 NRC 122 I

(1999)

Comprehensive Envimnmental Respone, Compemanon, and lashihty Act of 1980, 42 U.S C 18 9601-%57

~

i possession of radioactm slag as a viol,ajan of, LDP 90-12,49 NRC 157 (1999)

Energy Pohey Act of 1992,16 U.S C 6 824j k forum for addressing anticompeutive issues; CU 99-5, 49 NRC 200 (1999) hderal land Puhey and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S C 161701-1784 designation of wilderness areas; LBP-99-3,49 NRC 44 (1999)

N.ii. Senate Bdl 140 habihty of co-owners for espenwa attributable to :: defaulung co owner; CU-99-6. 49 NRC 216 (1999)

Nanonal Environmental Pohcy Act of 1%9, 42 U.S C 55 4321 er sc9 licensing standard for &sposal of hquid waste; LBP 991, 49,NRC 30 (1999)

National Environnental Policy Act of 1%9,42 U S C 16 4321 er ar9 adequacy of hnal environmentalimpact statenrnt for in situ leach nuning operanons; LI.lP-94I,49 NRC 35-37 (1999)

National Estanc Preservation Act,106 appropriateness of phased approach to compliance with ryard to cultural resources; LEP-9F9, 49 NRC 138 (1999)

Native Anrrican Graves Protecuon and Repatrianon Act, 23 U.S C,13(X)l(5) apphcabihty to privately owned lands, WIP-99-9,49 NRC 143 (1999)

Urumum Md! Taihngs Ra&ation und Control Act of 1978, 2(b)(2),42 U.S C 6 7901 purpone of; LDP-99-5, 49 NRC 109 (1999)

Wilderness Act of 1964,16 U.S C 661131 1136 designation of wilderness areas; LBP-99-3. 49 NRC 44 (1999) 5 37

f' l

_.I l

w LEGAL CITATIONS IN )EX STATUTES Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S C f il3)(c) wilderness dehned as land that is proiccted and nanaged so as lo presern its natural condiuons; LBP-99 3,49 NRC 51 (1999) 1 l

i l

l i

I l

38 1

1

_I I

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTIIERS 1

l Urunium Mal Tadings Radiatwn Cemtrol Act of 1978: llearmgs on 11R.19695 llR.12229, llR 12935 ilR.12333,11R.13049, and 11R.13650 Before she Subcomn on Energy ami Power of the flouse Comm. on Interstate and foreign C<munerre, 95th Cong. 343-44 (1978) (staterirnt of Joseph N.

Hendne, Chairnum of Nuclear Regulatory Conunission) de6niuon of byprmiuct nuscrial; LDP-#5, 49 NRC !!0 (1999)

Wehster's Third New International Dictwnary 909 (unabr.1976) dehrution of " frequent"; LDP 99-3, 49 NRC $2 (1999)

/

/

/biz

~C I

Z

~

E m

._ l I

SUBJECT INisEX AD)UDICATORY PROCEEDINGS challenges to generic decisions made by Commission in rulemakings; CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999)

ADMINISTRATIVE HOLD request that licensee be required to subnut decommissioning plan or lay-up plan for unit on; DD-99-6, 49 NRC 284 (1999)

AITIDAVITS requirenrnt for factual representauons to estahhnh standing to antervene; LBP-99-12,49 NRC 155 (1999)

AMENDMENT interpretation of dehnition such that hcenre may make low-risk changes in mode of operanon without advance approval, LBP 99-lo, 49 NRC 145 (1999)

AMICUS CURIAE nght of petitioner denied inservennon to hie bnef, CLl-99-6. 4" NRC.W (1999)

{

ANTITRUST

/

Staff sigmhcant changes review of liceme transfer; CLI-99-5, 49 NRC 199 (1999)

APPEALS revival of case on basis of new arguments that licensing board had no fair opportunity to consider;

. 2 CLI-994. 49 NRC 185 (1999)

=

simultaneous, before the Commission and the court of appeals, prosenpuon against, CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185 (1999) 7 ATOMIC ENERGY ACF effect of Comprehensive Environnwntal Respome, Compensation and Wabibly Act on authonues, funcuous, and responsihahues of other agencies under; DD-99 7, 49 NRC 299 (1999)

ALTillORIZED USER delegation of respomibiliues to others, swpe of, LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 55 (1999) renponsibihty of byproduct matenals beenwe to appoint; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 55 (1999)

BURDEN OF PROOF for demomtrating financial quuhncatiom, CLI-994. 49 NRC 201 (1999)

DYPRODUCI MATERIALS alternate feed guidance; LBP-99-5, 49 NRC 107 (1999) dehniuon of bypmduct wastes produced by in situ leacts uranium mimng as; LBP-99-13, 49 NRC 233 (1999) de6aition of ore; LDP-99 5, 49 NRC 107 (1999) l BYPRODUCT MATERIALS LICENSEE recordkeeping requirenents on dmuges; LBP-99 4,49 NRC 55 (1999) responsibihty to appoint a radiauon safety ofhcer and an authorized user; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 55 (1999)

CIVIL PENALTIES NRC Staff dnereuon in assessment of, DD-99-3. 49 NRC 161 (1999)

COMMISSION Juriulicoon to revaw interkscutory orders denying essensions of une; CLI-99-3,49 NKC 25 (1999) sua sponte review of scheduhng orders; CLI-99-1,49 NRC 1 (1999) 4 l

i I

di

_i I

SUlUECT INDEX COMPRDIENSIVE ENVIRONMEPTIAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND LIABluTY ACT effect on authonties, functions, and responsibihties of other agencies undet Atomic Energy Act:

DD-99-7,49 NRC 299 (1999)

CONFIRMATORY ACTION LE' ITER adequacy of heensee response to request fo elesign-basis information; DD-99-3, 49 NRC 161 (1999)

CONFIRMATORY ORDER entered before order establishing hearing dme, vehicle for terminating proceeding in case of; LBP-99-2, 49 NRC 38 (1999)

CONTAINMENT importance of torus water temperature; DD-99-4,49 NRC 179 (1999)

COfGAINMEP(T SPRAY SYSTEMS degradation of; DD-99-3, 49 NRC 161 (1999) i CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS ice condenser de6ciencies involving; DD 99-3, 49 NRC 161 (1999)

CONTElGIONS notice pleading. Comnussion policy on; CLI-99 6,49 NRC 201 (1999) of withdrawing intervenur, adoption by another party; LBP-99-6, 49 NRC 114 (1999) piemling reqmrements for; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 201 (1999) requirement for intervention in heense transfer proceeding; CLi-994, 49 NRC 201 (1999) scope of Jitigable issues in licenne transfer proceedings; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 201 (1999) col #ENTIONS. LATE-FILED amended contentions treated as; LDP-99-7,49 NRC 124 (1999) assistance in sound record developarnt; LBP 99-6, 49 NRC 114 (1999) assistance in sound record developnent, showing where legal issues are a focal point; LBP 99-7,49 NRC 124 (1999) criteria to be satished in adoption of withdrawing party's contentions: LBP-99-6, 49 NRC 114 (1999) delay of proceeding; LBP-99-6, 49 NRC 114 (1999) good cause for; LBP-99-6,49 NRC 114 (1999); LBP-99 7, #) NRC 124 (1999) other means and other parties to protect intervenors' interests; LBP-99-6, 49 NRC !!4 (1999);

LDP 99-7,49 NRC 124 (1999) showing on other factors when good cause is lacking; lllP-99-6, 49 NRC !!4 (1999); LBP-99-7,49 NRC 124 (1999)

CULTURAL RESOURCES Staff management plan; LDP 99-9,49 NRC 136 (1999)

DEADLINES fihng, Commission puhey on esternion of; CLI-99-1,49 NRC 1 (1999)

DECOMMISSIONING condut of activities in accord with post-shutdown decommissioning activities report; DD-99-1,49 NRC 5 (1999) safety of work environnent and staff competence to perform activities for; DD-99-1,49 NRC 5 (1999) under Part 72 versus Part 50 DD 99-1, 49 NRC 5 (1999)

DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING esternal trusts arrangements used to rneet requirenrnts for esternal sinking fund; DD 99-6, 49 NRC 284 I

(1999)

Enancial assur,mce, as precondition to licensing of in situ leach nuning project; LI!P-99-13, 49 NRC 233 (1999) htigabihty in hcense transfer proceedings; CLi-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) l nhabihty of prepaynents; CL1-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) seporting requirenents for; DD 99-6, 49 NRC 284 (1999)

DECOMMISSIONING PLAN for unit on adnumntrative hold, request that beensee he required to submit; DD-99-6,49 NRC 284

[

(1999)

DECONTAMINATION reactor coolant system; DDL99-1,49 NRC 5 (1999) 42

]

._l l

SUBJECT INDEX DEf7NSE IN DEITH esplanation of. concept DD-99 3, 49 NRC 161 (1999)

DEFICIENCIES variation in appropriate response to; DD 99-3,49 NRC 161 (1999) j DEFINITION of " federal hcemee"; DD 99-6, 49 NRC 284 (1999) of " reasonable assurance" standard; DD-99-2, 49 NRC 13 (1999)

DESIGN CONTROL PROGRAMS adequacy at D.C, Cook; DD-99 3,49 NRC 161 (1999)

DOSAGES recordkeeping responsibitines of byproduct materials licensees; LBP-99-4,49 NRC 55 (1999)

DOSE total effecove dose equivalent to members of the public from background radiation; LDP-99-15,49 NRC 261 0 999) prescribed, to average members of a critical group; LBP-9914,49 NRC 238 (1999)

ECONOMIC INTERESTS t.nt associated with environnental harm from proposed hcensing accon, standing to intervene on basis of, LBP-99-il,29 NRC 153 (1999)

EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM fuel cladding bamer dehenernes involving; DD-99-3. 49 NRC 161 (1999)

ENFORCEMENT ACllONS sancuons against beensee contractor for dehberate misconduct; LBP 99-4,49 NRC 55 0999)

ENGINEERING cat 4'ULATIONS identihcation of concerns at D C. Cook; DD-99-3, 49 NRC 161 (1999)

EXAMINATIONS See Reactor Operator Esanunations EXEMITION from NRC bcensmg because of federal pernut waiver for onsiie removal or remedial actions, DD-99-7, 49 NRC 299 (1999)

EXTENSION OF TIME Commission jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders denying; CLI-99 3, 49 NRC 25 0999)

Conunission policy on; CLI-99-1, 49 NRC I 0999)

FINAL ENVIRONMLNTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for in situ lea,:h nusung operation, adequacy ofi LDP-99-1,49 NRC 29 0999)

FINANCIAL ASSURANCE for decommissioning as precondition to licensing of in situ leach nuning project LBP 9%I3, 49 NRC 233 0 999)

FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS adequacy of 5 year co6t-and-revenue projecuona to estabhsh; CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) bitrden of proof for denenstrating; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 2010999) hugability in hcense transfer proceedings; CU-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999)

ICRMERLY UTILIZED SfrES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers handhng of rmheactive matenals in connecuan with; DD-99-7,49 NRC 299 0 999)

IVEL CLADDING barrier denciencies at D C. Cook; DD-99 3, 49 NRC 161 (1999)

GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS

. fmm NRC to licensee, on nuclear reactor issues, informanon relaung to bcensee actions on; DD-99-6, 49 NRC 284 0999)

HEARING RIGHTS on hcense amendments; CLI-99-4. 49 NRC 185 0999) on perfarnumce-baned bcensing; LDP-99-10,49 NRC 145 (1999)

HYDROGEN IGNITION SYSTEM degradation o ; DD 99-3,49 NRC 1610999) r 43 i

i l

_l i

SUBJECT INDEX ICE CONDENSER problems in configuration and testing of; DD 99-3,49 NRC 161 (1999)

IN SITU IIACH MINING

' 6nancial assurance for decomrnissiorung as precondition lo beensing: LBP-99-13,49 NRC 233 (1999)

IN SITU URANIUM SOLUTION MINING tegulations applicable to sites furnerly associated with; LBP-99-1,49 NRC 29 (1999)

INJECTION MINING regulations appbcable to sites formerly associated with; LBP-991,49 NRC 29 (1999)

INJURY IN FACT uction that would alter pristine pubhc land without &acussion of alternatives as; LBP-99 3,49 NRC 40 (1999) traceabihty to challenged action; CU-99-6,49 NRC 201 (1999)

INTERESTED GOVERNMENTAL ENTTTY council of regional governments participating as; LBP 99-14,49 NRC 238 (1999)

INTERPRETATION of " processed primarily for its source anaterial content"; LBP 99-5,49 NRC 107 (1999)

INTERVENORS withdrawal of; LBP-99-6,49 NRC !!4 (1999)

INTERVENTION ways for seeking; LDP-99-12,49 NRC 155 (1999)

INTERVENTION PETITIONER burden of setung furth a clear and coherent argunent; CU 99-4,49 NRC 185 (1999)

INTERVENTION PETTTIONS particularity required of; CLl-99-4, 49 NRC 185 (1999) pleading requ renants for; LBP-99-3, 49 NRC 40 (1999); LDP-9912,49 NRC 155 (1999) rejection for failure to satisfy Part 2, Subpart M requirernents; CLI-99-2,49 NRC 23 (1999) tinchness when there is no federal Register nuties of application; LBP 99-3, 49 NRC 40 (1999)

INTERVENilON PETITIONS, LATE-FllID assistance in sound record development; LBP-99-3,49 NRC 40 (1999) criteria to be addressed by; LDP-99-3,49 NRC 40 (1999) good cause for lateness; CU-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999); LBP 99-3,49 NRC 40 (1999) other means and other parties to protect peuuener's interests; LBP-99 3, 49 NRC 40 (1999) protecuan of co-owners interests by another co owner; CU-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) treaunent as request for action under section 1206; DD-99-2,49 NRC 13 (1999) weight given to potential for broadening of issues or delay of proceeding; LBP-99-3,49 NRC 40 (l999)

LAY UP PLAN for unit on adnunistrative hold, request that hcers.ee be required to subnut; DD'99-6,49 NRC 284 (1999)

LIABILTTY J

co owners', for expenses attributable to a defaulting co-owser; CLi-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999)

UCENSB AMENDMENT PROCEEDINGS management character hnd competence bugated in; CLI-99 4, 49 NRC 185 (1999) stan&ng to intervene in; C1199-4, 49 NRC 185 (1999)

LICENSE AMENDMENTS hearing rights on; CLl*9-4,49 NRC 185 (1999) tirnehness of intervention petioon when there is no federal Argester notice; LBP-99 3. 49 NRC 40 (1999)

LICENSE CONDITIONS incorporation by reference pronuses made by apphcant in the course of discussions with Staff; LBP-9910, 49 NRC 145 (1499)

LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN content of; LDP-9914, 49 NRC 238 (1999) scope of htigable issues; LBP 99-14, 49 NRC 238 (1999) l 44 j

i

e-e

_l l

SUBJECT INDEX LICENSE TRANSFER Staff sigtuhcant changes anutrust revsew, Commission request for conunents on: CU-99-5, 49 NRC 199 (1999)

LICENSE TRANSl'ER APPLICATIONS standards for intervention on; CLI-99-2,49 NRC 23 (1999)

UCENSE TRANSFER PROCEEDINGS decommissioning funding and hnancial quahhcabons issues htigable in; CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) scope of htigable issues; CLI-99-6,49 NRC 201 (1999) standing of co-hcensee band on property interest; CLIM6, 49 NRC 201 (1999)

UCENSEES federal, dcAnition of, DD-99-6, 49 NRC 284 (1999)

UCENSING performance tawd, hearmg nghts on; LBP-9910, 49 NRC 145 (1999)

LICENSING BOARDS authonty to question parties; CUM 7,49 NRC 230 (1999)

LIXIVIANT pregnant, denniuou as source material; LBPM13. 49 NRC 233 (1999) pregnant, radon releases from; LBPMIS,49 NRC 261 (1999) 1 (DCAL PUBUC DOCUME!*rr ROOMS access to licensing information in, adequacy of, LBP-99-3. 49 NRC 40 (1999) 1 MA!NTENANCE RULE i

outstan&ng issue regarding complumce with; DD-99 6,49 NRC 284 (1999)

MANAGEMEN1' CilARACTER AND COMPETENCE standard for hogadon in heense amendnrnt procee&ngs; CU 99-4, 49 NRC 185 (1999)

- MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT authorization to ponens r.nlioachve slag; LBP-99-12,49 NRC 155 (1999) hearing request hied to preserve petitioner's right to participate on Staff luuance despik pendency of heanng request on anrndment; LBPM12, 49 NRC 155 (1999)

MATERIAUi UCENSES re6ecuan of extensive record resulting from interucuoa between Applicant and Staff on validity of.

LDP-99-10, 49 NRC 145 (1999) standard.for hcensing ligmd waste disposal; LBPMI, 49 NRC 29 (1999)

MINING See Injection Mining; la Situ Uranium Solunon Mmang; LDP-99-l. 49 NRC 29 (1999)

MISCONDUCT deliberate, by hcensee contractor; UIP-99-4, 49 NRC 55 (1999)

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT action that would aher pnstine pubhc land without discussion of shernauves as injury in fact under; LDP43,49 NRC 40 (1999) consideration of injury when proposed action is a resource rnanagenent plan as opposed to a sile specinc acuan; LDPM3,49 NRC 40 (1999) cultural resources rnanagenunt plan; LBPM9. 49 NRC 136 (1999)

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT regturement of governnent to take forther steps in sechon 106 proceu after findmg of no effect; LDP49,49 NRC 136 (1999) segmentation of project for purpose of, LDPM9,49 NRC 136 (1999)

NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECrlON AND REPATRIATION ACT applicabihty to pnvately owned land, LBP-99-9, 49 NRC 136 (1999)

NATIVE AMERICANS stamhng to intervene in NRC proceedings; LDP-99-8, 49 NRC 131 (1999)

NET POSITIVE SUCr!ON HEAD problems with calculatsons; DD-99-3, 49 NRC 161 (1999)

NRC STAIT discretion in nuessment of civil penulues; DD-99-3,49 NRC 161 (1999)

{

45 1

l l

l

i l

__l l'

]

l J

I 1

SUBJECT INDEX signi6 cant changes antitrust review in license transfer cases; CLI-99-5, 49 NRC 199 (1999)

NUCIE.AR REGULATORY COMMISSION authority under Uranium Mill Talings and Ralimoon Control Act; DDu99'7,49 NRC 299 (1999) oversight of radioactive materials handhng in connection with Fornaly Utihad Sites Renedial Acuan Program; DD-99-7, 49 NRC 299 (1999)

ORDERS interlocutory, Commission jurisdiction to review CLI-99 3,49 NRC 25 (1999)

ORE dc6nition of; LDP-99-5,49 NRC 107 (1999) de6nition of underground bodies depleted by solution estraction procenes; LBP-99-13,49 NRC 233 (1999)

PARTIAL INITIAL DECISIONS expedstion of appellate review through; Cl199-1, 49 NRC 1 (1999)

PRESIDING OFFICER authonty to adjust general deadhnes; CLI-99-3,49 NRC 25 (1999) authority to question parties; CtJ-99 7, 49 NRC 230 (1999)

PROPERTY INTEREST standing to intervene on basis of. CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999)

RADIATION background, esclusion of emissions from source, byproduct, or special nuclear matenals from, LBP-99-15, 49 NRC 261 (1999)

RADIATION EXPOSURES alternative scenarios for average members of a enucal group; LBP 99-14, 49 NRC 238 (1999)

RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM scope of licensee responsibihty for; CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185 (1999)

RADIATION $AFETY OITICER delegation of responsibihties to others, scope of; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 55 (1999) responsibihty of byproduct matenals licensee to appoint; LBP 99-4, 49 NRC 55 (1999)

RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS air, from in situ leach mining; LBP-99-15,49 NRC 261 (1999)

RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers handhng of in connection with Isrmerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action j

Program; DD 99-7,49 NRC 299 (1999)

RADIOACTIVE RELEASES liquid spill into Conneencut River from waste test tank; DD 99-1,49 NRC 5 (19W)

RADIOACTIVE SLAG authorization to possess; LDP-9912,49 NRC 155 (1999)

RADON emissions from in situ leach nuning; LDP-99-15,49 NRC 261 (1999)

REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM decontamination solution spill; DD-99-1,49 NRC 5 (1999)

REACTOR OPERATOR EXAMINATIONS sconng of; LBP 9916,49 NRC 270 (1999) validity of questions; LBP-99-16, 49 NRC 270 '(1999)

REASONAPLE ASSURANCE dennition of standard; DD 99-2,49 NRC 13 (1999)

RECORDKEEPING on dosages, tesponsibihties of byproduct matenals licensees; LDP 994, 49 NRC 55 (1999)

REGULATIONS applicable to sites formerly associated with injecuon numng; LBP-99-1, 49 NRC 29 (1999) collateral attack on; CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) control of radioactive material; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 55 (1999) interpretation of 10 C.F.R. Part 40. Appendas A, Criterion 10. LBP-99-13, 49 NRC 233 (1999) interpretation of to C.F.R. 40 36; LBP-99-13,49 NRC 233 (1999) 46 i

I l

}

_l I

SUBJECT INDEX prescribed doacs to average members of a entical group; LBP 99-14,49 NRC 238 (1999)

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS for status of decommissioning funding; DD-99-6,49 NRC 284 (1999)

REVIEW discretionary, disposition of peutions that are not acted upon within 30 days; CLI-99-4,49 NRC 185 (1999)

REVIEW, INTERLDCLfrORY standard for grant of; CLI-99 7. 49 NRC 230 (1999)

REVIEW, SUA SPONTE of scheduhng orders; CLI-941, 49 NRC 1 (1999)

RULEMAKINGS challenges to generic decisions made by Commi sion in; CU-99-6,49 NRC 201 (1999)

RULIS OF PRACTICE amicus curiae bri fs; CU-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) burden of proof for denenstraung haancial quahhcanons; CLI-N 4,49 NRC 201 (1999) rollateral attack on argulanons; CU-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) contenuon requirement for intervention in hcense transfer procee&ng; CU-99-6,49 NRC 201 (1999) good cause for late hhng of contenuons; LBP 99-7, 49 NRC 124 (1999) good cause for untinely intervention peudons; CU-994,49 NRC 201 (1999); LDP-99-3,49 NRC 40 (1999) injury in fact and none of interests tests for stan&ng to intervene; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 131 (1999) interlocutory review standard, CLI-99-7. 49 NRC 230 (1999) intervention in NRC liccasing adjudication, ways for seeking; LBP-99-12,49 NRC 155 (1999) pleading requirenrnts for contentions; CU-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) piemhng requirenents for intervention peutions; LDP 99 3,49 NRC 40 (1999), WIP-99-12,49 NRC 155 (1999) scope of htigable issues on license ternunation plan; LBP-9914,49 NRC 238 (1999) sum &ng to intervene in hcense amendment procee&ngs, CU-99-4,49 NRC 185 (1999) stan&ng to intervene in license transfer procec&ng; CU-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) stan&ng to intervene in NEPA contest; LBP-99-3 49 NRC 40 (1999) sua sponte review of scheduling orders; CU-99-1,49 NRC I (1999) time bouts for hiing; CU-99-3, 49 NRC 25 (1999) timehrras of intervenuon pencions; LBP 99-3, 49 NRC 40 (1999) withdrawal of intervenor; LBP 99-6, 49 NRC l14 (1999)

SAFETY CULTURE at Diablo Canyon, request for independent contractor to evaluate; DD-99-5, 49 NRC 279 (1999)

SANCrlONS reduction of suspension from NRC-licensed activities; LBP-99-4,49 NRC 55 (1999)

SCHEDULES /SCHEDI,' LING set by licensmg boards and presi&ng officers, Commission sua sponte revrw of, CU-99-1,49 NRC 1 (1999)

SEGMENTATION of project for purpose of Nanonal Hisionc Preservauon Act; LBP-99-9. 49 NRC 136 (1999)

SETTLEMENT sertrunauon of proceedmg when conhrmatory order has been entered before order establishing hermg date; LDP-99-2, 49 NRC 38 (197)

SITE SURVEY METHODOLDGY hogabihty in hcense ternunation plan proceeding; LBP 99-14,49 NRC 238 (1999)

SOURCE MATERIALS definipun of pregnant lisiviant and ye flowcake as; LBP-99-13, 49 NRC 233 (1999)

SPENT FUEL shipping casks, rail spur construction to transport; LBP-99 3, 49 NRC 40 (1999)

SPENT FUEL POOL demineralizer retention element and hiter failure; DD-991,49 NRC 5 (1999) 41 1

I

o-

-l I

i SUHJEC.T INDEX STANDING TO INTERVENE action that would aher prisune public land without &scussaan of alternatives as injury in fact under NEPA; LBP-99 3, 49 NRC 40 (1999) af6 davit requirement for factual representations; LBP-99-12, 49 NRC 155 (1999) concreteness required to drwibe an ongo ng g

'el presence as opposed to geographic prominuty; LBP-99-3, 49 NRC 40 (1999)

&acretionary, consideration when there is no intervena mith stan&ng as of right; LBP 9912,49 NRC 155 (1999) factual representation of peutioner's use of land that is subject of proposed amendment; LBP-99-3,49 NRC 40 (1999) geographic proximity as basis in license anrndment procerxhng; CLI-99-4,49 NRC 185 (1999) in hcense transfer proceeding; CLI 99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) injury in fact and zone of interests tesu for; LBP-99-8,49 NRC 131 (1999) judicial concepts apphed in heense anendmen, procec&ngs; CR99-4, 49 NRC 185 (1999) ju&cial concep:2 applied in NRC proceedings; CU-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) nexus requirement between asserted injury in fact art challenged beense anendment; CLI-99-4,49 NRC 185 (1999) on basis of economic-competitor injunes not associated with environmental harm from proposed licensing action; LDP-99 ll, 49 NRC 153 (1999) organizauonal, showing of injury to organizational interests and identi6eacon of nrmher who will suffer injury; LDP-99-8. 49 NRC 131 (1999) property interest as basis for; CU-99-(, 49 NRC 201 (1999) redressabihty standard LDP-99-3, 49 NRC 40 (1999) showing necessary in license transfer proceeding; CU-99-6, 49 NRC 201 (1999) weight gim to hcensing board determinations on; CU-99-4, 49 NRC 185 (1999)

SUSPENSION from NRC-Ecensed acuvines, reduction from 5 to 3 years; LBP-99-4, 49 NRC 55 (1999)

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS tesung of reactor operators on; LBP 99-16, 49 NRC 270 (1999)

TERMINATION OF PROCEEDING vehicle when conhrmatory order has been entered before order estabbshing heanng date; LBP 99-2, 49 NRC 38 (1999)

TORUS WATER TEMPERATURE operahonal linues on; DD-99-4,49 NRC 179 (1999)

TRANSPORT OF RADIOALTIVE MATERIALS rail spur construction lo transport spent fuel shipping cask; LBP-99-3, 49 NRC 40 (1999)

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS radaoacove materials handhng in connection with Ibrmerly Utilized Sites Reme&al Action Program; DD-99 7, 49 NRC 299 (1999)

UNUSUAL EVENT failure of heensee to declare liquid spill as-DD-99-1, 49 NRC $ (1999)

URAN!UM See in Sito Uranium Soluuan Mining; LBP-991, 49 NRC 29 (1999)

URANIUM MILL TAILINGS AND RADIATION CONTROL ACT NRC authority under; DD-99-7,49 NRC 299 (1999)

URANIUM MILL TAILINGS DISPOSAL site reclamation plan; DD-99-2, 49 NRC 13 (1999) stability of rock aprun design; DD'99-2,49 NRC 13 (1999)

URAN!UM MILLING de6nition of, LDP-9913, 49 NRC 233 (1999)

VALVES inadequate conhguruuon control as Seventy level IV violation, DDL99-1,49 NRC $ (1999) 48

_l 1

- SUBJECT INDFJ VIOLATIONS Severity level IV, for failure of Ecenace to decise hquid spill as unusual event; DD-99-1,49 NRC 5 (1999)

WAIVER federal permit, for onsite renmval or vernedial actions, esempoon from NRC licensing because of, DD 99-7, 49 NRC 299 (1999)

WASTE DISPOSAL liquid, Ecensing standard; LBP-99-l. 49 NRC 29 (1999)

WILDERNESS dehnition of; LBP-99-3, 49 NRC 40 (1999)

YE11DWCAKE dehnition as source material; LBP-99-13. 49 NRC 233 (1999) e 49

(

1 l

i l

i

_l I

I FACILITY INDEX BROWNS TERRY NUCLEAR PIANT, Umt 1; Docket No. 50 259 REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 29, 1999; DIRFLTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206; DD-994, 49 NRC 284 (1999)

DIABlD CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 275, 54 323 REQUEST FOR ACTION, Msch 12, 1999; DIRECTORT DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206; j

DD-945, 49 NRC 279 (1999) 1 DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT, Umts I and 2; Docket Nos. 54315, 54316 I

REQUEST FOR ACTION, Februsy 11, 1999 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R.12.206, I

DD-99 3, 49 NRC 161 (1999)

HADDAM NECK PLANT; Docket No. 54213 REQUEST FOR ACTION, January 12, 1999; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R.12.206, f

DDL99-1, 49 NRC 5 (1999)

SEABROOK STATION, Umt 1; Docket No. 50-443 LICENSE TRANSIT.R; Mach 5,1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; C1.I-994,49 NRC 201

/_

(1999)

THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50-289

[

i LICENSE TRANSIIR; February 11, 1999; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-99-2. 49 NRC 23 l

(1999)

O VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION; Docket No. 50-271 REQUEST FOR ACI'lON, February 10, 1999, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206;

[

DD-99-4, 49 NRC 179 (1999)

WOL.F CREEK GENERATING STATION, Umt 1; Docket No. 50-482-LT UCENSE TRANSTER, March 2,1999. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-99-5,49 NRC,199 (1999)

YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION; Docket No. 50-029-1A-R UCENSE AMENDMENT; Mach 17, 1999; PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER (Ruhng on Contenuons); LBP-99-14, 49 NRC 238 (1999)

ZION NUCLE.AR POWER STATION, Umts i and 2; Zwn Nuclu Power Stauon, Umts 1 and 2 LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 2,1999. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-99-4,49 NRC 185 l

(1999) 1 l

i j

i i

9 51

Y D

a

... 3. w.

- r.. :.

~.

.... _._r j

&2 C

• m"

.e g I

-i.o cteN M M

,o i

l i

2O E

.. : v: '.

m s

M

. ev:

.,.--f,,,

.z

_,. + ; 4 ; < ;.9.. Z. q',., 5. L *. a.

I M

,~ :

H O

. -. +., v.

-. 1..

~-

z 1 1ANIA21XP 120555154486 O

hR TION MANAGEMENT g

y>

O V-T P S-P OR-NUREG z*

2WFN-6E7 DC 20555 WASHINGTON Q

ma 4 '

'< C

~

I{

EH s

3 0 s

8 m2H O

IO ao

,e eE I

gE is i

mo 1

z M

.,. w.

lfD l 5,'k].; > ':; z,_,, _; i A

y

.r,

.- 4 ? '

r z

l a

m M

i e_

i CZ d

m 4

a 8

d

/

!