Text

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances. January-March 1982
	ML20027E099
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/31/1982
From:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	;
References
	NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V15-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V15-I1, NUDOCS 8211120037
	Download: ML20027E099 (72)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:< ?.. i .. _..., ~. - y......:..-..~.-.-. s -r I ...,._.J.C r b.. P.. ~.L. . ~.,.. ' r i."_ W 4.. .... ~.g ...r.-------r..... .c.,.,--., ,-,-c.. ~. ~. -,. M Wyg.g .g ,n s g e. Vol.15 . p:.u... - a w. . c. s.. 0- .4. e m.. m3 ..,.~. -

ir.

~_f, 9 s-

ks I

~ ? l, v l ' I ( i V^ \\ l l 1 e. I L {' =_ v -e>k ,. la A AL,.k. %. L. L s, .k. L. .. A ALr . ~. .,r... L'S 1 . t. ' '.a ;. * : 4.- fa '- s ~ t. .,~...,.-- @S$> a ,821112003/ H20331~~ F7- *..- ~w w.. - - - . ~ . ~ ..m J- ~' I- .PDR NUREG PDR h. \\> .+ 0750 R ~. " ' - - ..w, n_ eeu.=. .. _.... ~. e . -.-..- -. ~.

t 7.e..._,,...3ty.--..-..~.v~---- ..n. fo ~ :... 7 -n .1... w..__ 1-s . n - /. u. n...... - ~ -. n., ' - c.n !. ..i. e. . O..

n-

.,..-___m.m._.- _._...._._m.2,_- .zm. s --A,.o[.,,. L. ..1;-erg.Q-J s_..cv,,. 4e ......x;- a ef e 3 e t. y- .4.- .,g_ ... x ~; j y

,.+

g,

. 7 " - ~~ }T? 2" .u. ~.a ..:.~ 'iv %.+- -Available from--. y. .m_ .,4.- r ,c,,. .. ;, 3 = ;c w .,s, e m.. u u.:n~.y .. - GPO Sales Program + - - - ^ l - Division of Technical Information and Document Control ' C ..~-..$$ . - J U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ~ I'. .. /,.. n .. Wash.mgton, D. C. 20555 -. t ..u .s. . m + - ~ n..- = n. . +. +.m.m. l _n..._. _e. = 8:.. t ' ' J.h a,2 ::V^'... ' cc : y w \\ ~~= [

v..;

v.w. w.2 s.,... _._ + .. ~. - - - -. -. ~._..,.c.-,

M. au. a..

t National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 .. + s 7- ...~.- Microfiche of single copies are a. available from N RC/GPO Sales Program Washington, D. C. 20555 _- - ~ .~ es.. s.- 1 1 ^ Errors in this Publication May Be Reported to Vicki E. Yanez, Division of ' Technical Information and Document Control, Office of Administration, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555 (301/492 8925) 1 i me + l .sk* adr'

- N.r+".'.

1 N h'.na&6de AC a'.' h.. ._.m. 's [d.

w. 8'd.

I w.-e ee----m- --w mw yw--w----- --.---w-i.-.=- - -- s.w ---w,,- w.mw.-. .<wurw.

w--

.-w

t - - -.... ~ l NUREG4750 Vol.15 Index 1 1 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES i ( January - March 1982 1 i l t

u ~ s 9 Foreword Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and ucensing Appeal Panel (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and ucensing . Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (AU),the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions of Rulemaking are presented in this document. "Ihese digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the issuances. Information elements common to the cases heard and ruled upon are: Case name (owners of facility) Full text reference (volume and pagination) Issuance number issues raised by appellants legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes) Name of facility, Docket number Subject matter ofissues and/or rulings Type of hearing (for construction permit, operating license, etc.) Type ofissuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.). Dese information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as follows: I. Case NameIndex The case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type ofissuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.

2. Digests and Henders

'Ihe headers and digests are presented in issuance number crder as follows: the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal Panel (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and ucensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for i l Rulemaking. The header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility l name, docket number, type of hearing, date ofissuance, and type ofissuance. The digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuance covers l more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically. lii L_

s 3.143:1 Citations Index This index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alphanumerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. These citations are listed as given in the issuances. C'unges in regulations and Statutes may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability of the citation. it is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance. The references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular issuance. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text i reference.

4. Subject Index Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects covered in the issuances. The subject headings are followed by e

phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the a issuances being indexed. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.

5. Facility Index This index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from the issuance. The name is Tollowed by docket number, type of hearing, date, type of issuance, issuance nurroer,and full text reference.

1 iv +....w. w

x t . - - - - ~. - - -. Uw? l ~. pm,;~.,- '.W3 ^-O ' i +,. t w u w.

m%%

.gz 9 A]?.i. Cr Q& 377 .m, -%7 4 gg we..- L.. ,. 2 N g gg gym ~ .+ q ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Y~ Wi MATERIALS LICENSE RENEWAla MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Docket 34e931; LBP-82-24, IS NRC 652 (1982) CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et at G l OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; nada 544 SOL,54441 OL; ~-&- t 3_ LBP-32 IA.15 NRC 43 (1982) Y OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dmckets 50 4440L 50443-OL;. LBP-82-II.15 NRC 348 (1982) s,a 4M OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; nada 544440L,54441 OL; 8 t ( LBP-82-13.15 NRC 527 (1982) - 2 g?g ' OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Dockets 54440CL,54441 OL; LBP-8215. IS NRC 555 (1982)

l. e -

va4 SPECIAL PROCEEDING: MEMORANDUM; Dockets 544440L,54441-OL; LBP-82-9. IS NRC 339 l (1982) ww w COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

C v

Q~ ~ ( OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets rg s. STN-50-454-OLA, STN-54455-OLA: LBP-82 5 IS NRC 209 (1982) g:- f; CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK Q^ ~ OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 54247-OLA: ~J } LBP-821.15 NRC 37 (1982) -_t n. SPECIAL PROCEEDING: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets $4247-SP,54286 SP; 2 m LBP-8212A,15 NRC SIS (1982) SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets $4247-SP. 54286-SP, i 1 LBP 82-128,15 NRC 523 (1982) 1M-i a= SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 54247-SP. 50 286-SP; % N. LBP-82 23.15 NRC 647 (1982) $ M.A CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY e-w'"- OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Docket 50-155 (Spent @ce L; Fuel Puol Amendment); LBP-82 7.15 NRC 290 (1982) %:n OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket $4155-OLA 2 ".' (Spent l'uel Pool Amendment); LBP-32-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) M OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50155 (Spent Feel Pool J.

Amendment); LBP-82-198.15 NRC 627 (1982)

~$T i SPECIAL PROCEEDING; DECISION; Docket 54255-SP; ALAB-670,15 NRC 493 (1982) -ff,n : DUKE POWER COMPANY - W 'n L CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets STN 50 488, STN 50 449 W STN 50-490; ALAB-668,15 NRC 450 (1982) -4 OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Dockets 50 369-OL,50 3700L; ALAB 669. IS NRC 453 (1982) DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. A,* OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets $4413-OL,54414-OL; ASLBP

- - a Docket 81463 01-OL; LBP 82-16. IS NRC 566 (1982)

YE. - FLORIDA POWER & LluHT COMPANY DJ.~f ANTITRUST PROCEEDING: DECISION; Docket 54389A; ALAB-665,15 NRC 22 (1982) ."* ? ~ ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 54389A; LBP-82 21.15 NRC 639 (1982) q? p.. . 7-GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY t, OPER ATING LICENSE RENEWAL; DECISION AND ORDER: Dockets 741308,721 SP; ,M LBP 82-14.15 NRC 530 (1982) - W- " HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; DECISION; Docket 54466 CP; ALAB-47I.15 NRC 508 (1982) _$a,- ff w.

~?.X -

an MMM; .+ x r$'Y f ' a. fVQM.

D !+

i.- I- . W@ - = :- f0 F!f r p<7 s f 3 se f%Q:' py I l

A ...~-%, CASE NAME INDEX G~ ~ HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et at ^ OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-4994L; LBP-82-22,15 NRC 644 (1982) KERR-McGEE CORPORATION I MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER; Docket 40 2061; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 232 (1982) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Dockets 50-322-OL 50 322 CPA; LBP-82-19,15 NRC 601 (1982) MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50 309-OLA; LBP-82-4,15 NRC 199 (1982) METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Docket 50 289;CLI-82-6,15 NRC 407 (1982) SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50-289 (Restart); LBP 82-20,15 NRC 636 (1982) SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Docket 50-289 (P.estart) (Reopened Proceedm8); LBP-82-7A,15 NRC 295 (1982) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ANTITRUST PROCEEDING: ORDER: Docket P-564-A ( Antitrust); CLI-82-5,15 NRC 404 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE; STATEMENT OF THE COMMISSION; Deckets 50w275 01,50 323-OL: CL1-82-1,15 NRC 225 (1982) e POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK !SPECIAL PROCEEDING: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docksas 50-247-SP,30 286-SP; - LBP-82-12A,15 NRC 515 (1982) SPECIAL PROCEEDING: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50 247-SP,50-286,SP; LBP-82-12B,15 NRC 523 (1982) SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50 247 SP, S286 SP, LBP-82 23,15 NRC 647 (1982) PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; ORDER; Docket 50 537 (exemption request under 10 CFR 50.12); CLI 82-4, IS NRC 362 (*W PUBLIC SERVICE COMPAh i ?t' NEW HAMPSHIRE, et at CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; DECISION ON REMAND; Dockets 50-443,50-444; ALAB-667,15 NRC 421 (1982) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et at OPERATING LICENSE; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; Dockets 50 361 OL,50-362-OL: LBP-82-3, 15 NRC 61 (1982) TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; ORDER; Docket 50 537 (exemption request uuder 10 CFR 50.12); CLI-82-4,15 NRC 362 (1982) l OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; DECISION; Dockets 50-259 OL,50-260 OL,50 296 014 l ALAB-664,15 NRC 1 (1982) i TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et at OPERATING LICENSE: ORDER; Dockets 50-445,50 446 (Application for Operatin8 License); LBP-82-17,15 NRC 593 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER: Dockets 50 445,50-446 (Apphcation for Operatin8 License); LBP-8218,15 NRC 598 (1982) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: ORDER; Docket 50 537 (exemption request under 10 CFR 50.I2); CLI-82-4,15 NRC 362 (1982) WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER; Dockets 50 2664LA, 50 301-OLA; LBP 82-2,15 NRC 48 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 5062660LA, 50 301-OLA; LBP-82-5A,15 NRC 216 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50 266 OLA, 50 301 OLA; ALAB-666,15 NRC 277 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Dockets S266 OLA, 50 301-OLA; LBP-82-6,15 NRC 281 (In2) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50 266-OLA, 50 301 OLA; LBP-8210,15 NRC 341 (1982) 2

?. A i I CASE NAME INDEX OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets S2664LA. S301-OLA: LBP-82-12,15 NRC 354 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets S266-OLA, S301-OLA; LDP-82-19A,15 NRC 623 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; M= S266-OLA. S301-OLA: LDP-82-24A,15 NRC 661 (1982) i I ( I l 3 -._.~ m .,.,.__7 __,.,,_,_.-,,,,y. __-_-,..--___p. yr,-

e \\ .o g ~ 2R 9- 'iF -@h swsa? W ~.% .. W e e r, M AC

m..

.in _3,, m 4 D*M;es, .w. Oi n' "

l-

'48 b f** **'"A ^h t

9

/ mt;m, & _ :.s : .ru.,e-

.n

.r.. x-r%, - ~. ' io ' _W.fE* y> Cca S.'.. w a 'K U:W ' . :ggg y s l; eu x e w. n.. 4' brn 'gSSUANCIS OF THE NUCtIAR REGURATORY COMMISSION g.: kw~~ &W m-w-- W, w ~. CLI-g21 i PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER DY PLANT, UNITS I & 2) Docket Nos. 50 275-OL,50 32M)L; OPERATING LICENSE; February --i - 40,1982; STATEMENT OF THE COMMISSION M' A -. The Commission directs the staff to issue a Notice of Violation with regard to certais material 2L ~ false statements made by applicant at a November 3,1931 meeting with staff concerning applicant's pg ' review of a report by its consultant addressing as ongoing seismic reverifacetion program for the plaat. m-4 CLJ-g2-2 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION (WEST CHICAGO RARE EARTH FACILITY), Duchet pp 4 . No. 40 2061; MATERIAIS LICENSE AMENDMENT; February II,1932; ORDER ed rr A The Commission denies petitions requesting a formal adjudicatory hearing on a materials .; M: - license amendment (granted September 23, 1931) permitting licensee to demolish certain buildsass on p; p ' its West Chicago site and receive for teenporary casite storage a small stuantity of thorium are mill ua tailings. %. N +$' d 8. The Commission is required to issue a notice of proposed action, or notice of opportunity for W hearing only with respect to an application for a facility license, an application for a license to receive h,V A 7 radioactive waste for commercial disposal, an application to amend such licenses where signirscant n:;.W hazards considerations are involved, or an application for "any other license or amendment as to which f the Commission determines that sa opportunity for pubhc hearing should be afforded.' 10 CFR .f-1, ,C,~ y 2.105(at C The Commission has no duty mader its regulations to issue a notice of hearing under 10 CFR p, 2.104 unless (I) a hearing is mandated in even an uncontested case by either section IG of the Atomic Energy Act, or 10 CFR Chapter I;(2) it tas issued a notice of proposed action or notice of M,u a1 opportunity for hearing under 10 CFR 2.105 and a party has r==r* to the notice; or (3) the gC Commission determines that the public interest requires a hearing.10 CFR 2.104. W D Section 189a of the Atosnic Energy Act does not require the formal, trial-type hearing specified ..j~ l 'by $554 of the Administrative Procedure Act for every single Commission licensing proceeding. In the WW case of materials licenses, the Commission has the legal latitude to use informal pracedures sufrecient -y to fully apprise it of the concerns of a party chalienging the %==inf action and to provide an MQ, adequate record for determining their vahdity. WL E Even in licensing cases where section Ig9a requires a trial-type hearir.g. a person requesting a hearing must make some threshold showing that a hearing would be -ry to resolve opposing and ,_ M supported factual assertions. L F Constitutional due process is not violated in a snaterials liosase amendment proceeding where ad an opposing party has adequate opportunity to present and support its objections; the factual issues (%- involved are of a technical nature; questions of credibility or veracity are not raised; that party is c.7 represented by emperienced counsel; and additional procedures are unlikely to aid the fact-finding 6.s process or result la a better record for sgency review, but rather would create an increased government x u. burden. 4' G Under NRC regulations, an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a negative declaration ?? i, ' that en EIS will not be prepared, with an environmental impact appraisal supporting that -~'ff.;, determination, need not be prepared if a license amendment is considered by the agency to be _ ' *P - monsubstantive or insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact. In CFR St.5(d)(4). H An agency may authorize an individual, sufFaciently distinct portion of an agency plan without WQ awaiting the completion of a comprehensive environmental impact statement on the plan so long as the ry., environmental treatment under NEPA of the individual portion is adequate and approvsl of the kh ' individual portion does not commit the agency to approval of other portions of the plan. Kleppe v. V-Sierra Club. 427 US. 390, 407 a.16,414 n.26 (1976); see Peshlaksi v. Duncan,476 F. Supp.1247 O.G l 1263 (D.D.C.1979); Conservation Law Foundation v. GSA,427 F. Supp.1369,1374 (D.R.I.1977). 1 4.-U I The potential for an action by a state or local regulatory authority that will affect a facility fN C seeking an NRC license normally is not sufrecient reason for the Commission to stay its licensieg gg Q action pending the outcome of any proceeding to impose additional requirements. See Southern Q'er l California Ednen Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-189,7 AEC P4T* c,Aw 1 gm +n f 5 he wp 5 M T Q m&. ww s>.. " : s. N, t..~. ba% N j I

DIGESTS SBSUANCES OF THE NUC1IAR REGUI.ATORY COMMIMilON 410, 412 (1972). Rather, it is the prerogative of the other.-. _ entity asserting jurisdiction to take whatever measures it deems appropriate to enforce its regulatory authority. See Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nucisar Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741,743 (1977). CLI-82-3 PROTECTION OF UNCLASSIFIED SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION (10 CFR PARTS 2,50,70 AND 73) (45 FR 85459); SPECIAL PROCEEDING: March 2,1982; ORDER A The Commission denies a petition requesting reconsideration of rules issued pursuant to Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act (46 Fed. Rag. 58713 (October 22,1981)), and immediate sospensaan of two of them - one prohibiting the unprotected waana=munications of safeguards information except in emergency situations and the other mandating the use of a GSA approved security container for the storage of such information in areas that do not have protected or controlled access. The Commission ,. rejects petitioners' claim that the new rules will require the parchase of " secure

communication equipment or GSA approved containers and explains how the ruisa requirements can generally be met without the use of such equipment.

CLI-82-4 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, TEFNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT). Docket No. 50-537 (exemption request under 10 CFR 50.12); CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; March 16,1982; ORDER A" The Commission denies the Departscat of Emergy's request for an esemption under 10 CFR 50.12 for authority to conduct site preparation activities for the Chach River Breeder Reactor prior to " the issuance of a construction permit or Limited Work Authorization. CL1-82-5 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (STANISLAU$ NUCLEAR PROJECT, UNIT I). Docket No. P 564-A (Antitrust); ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; March 17,1982; ORDER A The Commission deems a

Notice of Prematarity and Advice of Withdrawal
filed by the applicant in this attitrust proceeding to be a request for permission to withdraw, and refers the matter
' to the Licensing Board for consideration and decision under the Coma

's rule governing withdrawal of license applications (10 CFR 2.107(a)). 8 An application for a construction permit may be submitted in three parts, cae of which shall include any antitrust information required by 10 CFR 50.33a.10 CFR 2.101(a)(5). C The purpose of the Commission's rule providing for early filing of antitrust information is to enable utilities to obtain formal, binding resolution of antitrust issues prior to the need to begin construction. Such information must be considered part of an application; if there is no application, there can be no formal proceeding and no binding adjudication. See Section 105(e). Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,42 USC 2135(c). CLI-82-6 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STAPON, UNIT NO.1) Docket No. 50 239; SPECIAL PROCEEDING: March 30, 1982; MEMORANDIM AND ORDER A The Commission, pursuant to a mandate frorn the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. issues a statement of the reasons for its determination that psy%ical health is not cognizable usier the Atomic Energy Act. 8 The Comeission's authority under the Atomic Emergy Act to protect the public health and safety is limited to the *special hazards of radioactivity." New Hampshire v. AEC,406 F.2d 170, 173-175 (1st Cir. 6969), cert. denied 395 U.S. M2 (1969). It does not extend to protection against psychological stre, which is not a physical risk essociated with radmactivity. C Even if it eld be determined that the Commission has the authority under the Atomic Energy Act to consider psychological heshh, the legislative history makes it clear that the Commission is not required to consider mch issecs, and strong policy considerations argue against tM Cornmission's doing ? 6 i ,,n

s ,e e '. . e~ 3 m ?co m D '4. .K 1, ' ] sa r.a e, n; ~n u,.. - -g g I i a-a a 1 t 1 ;. y- .;.4 R w W' IllGES15 c. ERSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND IJCENSING APPEAL 90ARDS .T7 ~ 3 3-- e.. ,o t ~ - vw ALAB.664 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS I. Af 2 AND 3). Docket Nos. 50-259-OL, 50 260-OL, 50-296-OL; OPERATING LICENSE n.4 1 -AMENDMENT; January 6, IM2; DECISION ~ 6' _ la this proceeding to amend the Browns Ferry operating license to permit ensite storage of 'M low-level radioactive waste for a Tsue-year period, the Appeal soard vacates the t====e Board's ,,. Sctober 2.1981 *- LBP-81-40,14 NRC 828, denying certais petitions for intervention and ~ associated requests for hearing. The Appesi Board reinstates the petitions and requests for hearing, AT and remands the proceeding to the Limaning Board with diraresa=s to rule on the petitions and -A , requests after receipt of the staff's ene'ranmental assessment of the proposed amendosents because it canot yet be determined whether a litigable contention has been raised. M% B' In the instance of a segmented non-federal waste disposal plan, the Comunasson assy confame its h$ scrutiny to the portion of the pian for which approval is sought so long as (1) that portion has E independent utility; and (2) as a sesult, the approval does not unduly cirr-arribe the Ceaunission's ' J'y abihty to withhold approval of seheequent particas of the overall pian at a later stage Duke Power Co. Mr (Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773 - Transportation of Spent Fuel froun Occuse Nacisar u-Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALA8-651.14 NRC 307 (1981). %f C haarsic cost of waste disposal is an element to be comudered in date,niains the isses of w.t independent utility of a segmented portion of an overall waste storage plan. f'a====es Power Co. 'y} ~' .. (Muliand Plaat. Units 1 & 2). ALAB-458,7 NRC 155 (1978). ..- e ' Materials License SNM-1773 - Transportation of Spent Feel from Oconee Nocisar Statasa for -'h','Q) D A licensee which is a federal agency has environmental responsibilities ender NEPA which are aeparate and may be differdt from those of the Commission. Duke Power Co. (Amendment to g, Storage at McGuire Neclear Station). ALAB45e,14 NRC 307,312 (198I). If a petitsomer wishes se ? %., challenge such a licensee's compliance with its separate environmental responsihelities, it must do ao la (g { another forunt. wm f;[i E Substantial delay la providing prospectrve intervenors with materials requested mader the Freedom of Information Act may constitute good cause for the late fihag of contentions presamed em Q the beistedly desclosed information. ALAB-665 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNIT NO. 2), Desket S q% No. 50 389A; ANTITRUST PROCEEDING: January 29,1982; DECISION 1% A The Appeal Board affirms a f ir*aming Board order (LDP-8128,14 'NRC 333 (1981), as ej anodified, LSP-81-41,14 NRC 839 (1981)), denying a late intervention petition in this antitrust y ing on the application for construction permit ror the St Lucie 2 plant, for failere to apania .;p ~ the activities under the license for the plant will have as anticompetitive effect ce petitioner's C B, electric generating facility. > M.: The antitrust review endertaken by the Comeussion la licensing the constructasm of a ancesar Qg - power plant is, by statute, to determine *whether the activities under the licasse would create er , g o. ',y:, S insintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws...." Section 10$c(5) of the Atosnic Eastgy Act of 1954,42 USC,2135c(5). This sneens that the licensed activities must play some active sole is ' creating or snaintaining the anticompetitive siteetion. Put another way, the socisar power plant.aust qp be an actor, an influence, on the anticompetitive scene. ,o - C The Comnussion's writ to enforce the natitrust laws does not run to the electric industry M generally. Neither does it reach all actions by stilities that generate electricity with nuclear-powered ~-,"l , taalitaan. Rather, Congress authoriasd the Commission to conditica nacisar power penet liceussa em antitrust grounds only where secessary to insere that the activities so licensed woeld neither create nor 'p , maintain situations '- 7 with the antitrust laws. Detroit Edison Co. (Earico Foreil Atomic

' Power Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-475,7 NRC 752,756 (1978).

1. D The preservation and encouragement of competition in the electric power indestry through " fair c occess to nuclear power

is the principal miotivating consideration madertying Section 105c of the
N*y Atomic Emergy Act. Detroit Edison Co. (Earico Fermi Atomic Power Plaat, Unit Na 2), ALAB-473, a

7 NRC 752,757 (1978). ( 4 4 d M.NM i m l w i l I i

t -~. DIGESIS MSUANGS OF THE ATOh0C SAITlY AND IJCIISDeG APPEAL BOABDS E The r- 's segulations make clear that an entstrust imeervestaos petities must Aret describe a mitaation i=aa-i=== with the asutrust laws; escond, a description of a situation laconsistent with the antitrust laws - however well pleaded - -- . ~ ' by a ansre paraphrase of the statutory laassage alleging that the situation described therein would be created or maintained by the activities / mader the license, would be danciset; and third, identify the spacinc relief sought and whether, how and the catant to which the roguest fails to be satisfied by the licamme conditicas proposed by the Attorney Gomeral nr. Ces and Electric Ca. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1), ALAB.279,8 NRC 559,574-75 (1975). F The minst critical requirement of as antatrust intervention petition is na==riamatins of how tha activities under the license would auste or maintain as aa'iaa-r sitive situation. I a=iaia=a Power and Light Ces (Waterford Steam Electric Gemarating Station Unit 3), CLI-73 25, 6 ABC 619, 621 (1973). ' ALAB-64 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50 266-OLA, 50-301-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE .

AMENDMENT; February 12,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

The Appeal Board grants intervemar's as in this operating license====d====e proceeding to . shapense with oral argument and to embunit the appeal om brimfa. 3_ A party seeking relief shom?d timely nie a writtaa motion served on a5 partlms la accordnaos with the Comminaine's Rales of Precisas. Such =ashe leaar alia,"shan state with partaaslarity the - yemads and the relief seeght, and ahnB be - ' ' by any affidavits or other evidemos relied on ...* 10 CFR 2.730(b). C c A party which, for samment reason, cosmet attend as oral argument should request that the appeal be submissed en briefs. A~ay each roguest, however, mort be adequately aspportal D rif not requested by a party, oral arguments are asad= lad by an Appent Board whom ame or , score enembers of the Board have q==== of the parties. See 10 CFR 2 763. E ' All parties la Ca== Man,. f are expected to be presset er .y. ' at cral ' argument malsas specificauy excused by the Board. See Camps v. C&P T.a.pw. Co, No. 80 1799, alip opinion at 15, n. 59 (D.C. Cir. Dacomber 31,1981). Such at'=daara is eme of the responsibilities m of parties when they participate in Commassion adjudicatory r.. y ALAB-667 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al (SEABROOK STATION, . UNITS I AND 2), Decket Naa. 50-443, 50 444; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; March 3,1982; DECISION ON REMAND A Upon remand from the r-== in this constructaan permit proceeding, tan %ppeal Board, after receiving additional evidssos on the intervemor's =*4adriary for determussag the appropriate Safe Sheidows Earthquake (SSE) for the plaat and on the staffs===ahadaiapy for correlating vibratory ground =nsian with the Safe Shetdows Earthquake, reaffirms its earlier doesr==ana== an the SSE for the plant and associated maximem vibratory gramad mention; AIAB 422,6 NRC 33, 54-63 (1977), and ALAB 561,10 NRC 410,434 e et esq. (1979). B 10 CFR Part 100. App =di= A, requires that the seismic design of a anclear power facGity take account of the maximum effective vibratory acceleration which might acnn-pany the detersuand Safe Shutdows Earthquake for that facility. Appendix A is concerned noisly with gromed section which might have sa effect on the facGity's safety-reisted structures and pa==*= C Techmacal insees dancussed incInde Seismic design critaria: Safe Sheldows Esrthquake. t of earthquake sine (intensity vs. magniteds), predictaan of earthquake imaammity/ frequency, formulation of seismic response spectrum, maximum vibratory gromed motiss (acceleration). AIAB-668 DUKE POWER COMPANY (PERKINS NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1,2 AND 3), Dacket Nos. STN 50-488, STN $0 489, STN 34400; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; March 24. IM2; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A la r=pa== to a motion filed by the applicaat with both the I enemanaf and Appeal Boards for ~ (I) leave to withdraw without prejudice its applicatica for constructica permite and (2) terminatiam ss a, cot of the still engning prarmadiap on that applicatiam, the Appeal Board defers es the IJosassas Board to pass span the accias la the first lastance, and vocates em the ground of montaeus three partial initial d=d=== in this construct 6am permit proceeding (LDP-78-25. 8 NRC 87 (1978); LBP 78-34,8 NRC 470 (1978); LDP-80 9. II NRC 310 (1980)). B Where a monian for leave to withdraw a liceans applicatine has been filed with both as appeal and a bconsing board, it is for the hoemanas board, if portions of the procesdaag remaia before it, to pass span the =ceia= in the first i==an== S i e = au r-as.

s -o l iDIGNIS MANGS OF THE A10hGC SAFETY AND IJG3WNG APPEAL taruimet .Al.AM69 DUKE POWER COMPANY (WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 I a :., AND 2), Decket Nos. '50 369-OL, 30-37iN)L; OPERATING LICENSE; March 30, 1982; I - DECISION A Acting om na intervemor's appeal from two desamous of the Licensing Beard (LDP-79-13,9 NRC 409 (1979); LBP-8113,13 NRC 652)), which in combination authernand the imaa-of 21 ( l operating linesses for the facility, the Appeal Board affirms those docusans to the eatemt commstaat with its ariaiam The Appeal Board makes addrtaamal lladi=9s to those of the I h==== Board and Medes that the facdity's hydrogen mitigation and control systosa can be operated without w-endangenas the public health and safety during the interim period in which the aprdir==t and the Ta===== continue to emplore the adequacy of the system is place and possible long-termi alternatives. B A Llosaming Board's role in an operating license proceedsag is limited to resolving matters that '~are rehad either by the parties or by the Board esa sposte. AB other mattere that must be coassesrod , prior to the i==== cf the requested operatias license are the respoemibility of the Director =f Pacisar Reactor Regulation alone.10 CFR 2.760s; Cemsohdated Edinos Co. (Indian Pbias, Units I,2 & 3), " ~' ALAB-319,3 NRC 188,190 (1976). C Neither the =saadaede est la the Comumamon's reguations portaimes to hydrogan control (10 "CFR 50.44) nor the assumptions upon which they are based are subject to shalleaps la na adjoihcation . malsas the C==ian== speciracauy authorians it.10 CFR 2 758. n,D la the NRC adjudicatory system, no less than is any other, the directsvis of superior tribemals . ~.must be given effect whether or act the subordinate tribmaal agress with thesi. Cf. South Carolina Electric and Geo Co. (Virgil C Sammer Necisar Station, Unit I) AIAM63, le NRC 1840,1850 (1981). E It is web-estined that, le order to obtain a reopemas of as seulset.ary record, a party must establish, inter aiin, the esisesace of newly dmoovered evulsace having a material beanas upon the proper result in the praa==&a9 Kansas Gas and Electric Cow (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1). ALAB.462,7 NRC 320,328 (1978), and cases cited. F An Appeal Board, like other appausas tribunals, has ao obligation to role en every discrets 4 point edjudicated below, so long as it h able to render a decision om other grounds the 4ectively dispose oT the appent See, s4., Asphart Roortes Manufacturers Association v. ICC, 567 F.2d 994, 8002 (D.C. Cir.1977). See also ra-==s Power Co. (Big Clock Point Nac'est Plant), AIAB-636, 13 NRC 312,329 fa. 32 (1981); Hassace Ughting and Power Co. (Aliens Creek Nacient Generating Station, Unit No.1), ALAM25,13 NRC 13,14 (19st). l -0 A licensing board has an ironcied obligation to esplain its ressens for finding that a witness' l background is landequate to meet the gealirscations of as esport is particadar e-hairat areas. See e.3, Public Service Electric and Gas Cow (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units I and 2). ALAB-429,6 NRC 229,237 (1977); Public Service Cow of New Ha=I=hi o (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2). ALAB 422, 6 NRC 33, 41 (1977), affirsaud, CLI.78-1. 7 NRC 1 (1978), affirmed esb man. New England Coalition on Neclear Power v. NRC,542 F.2d 87 (let Cir.1979). H Where the I hamat Board has not emplaiand its reasons, the Appeal Board may =a==ahmaa l avoid a romand if the path the Woenmas Board fauswed is ruling en a matter is sufficiently discuroible on the record. See Bowman Treasportation, lac. v. Artanens.Best Freight System, lac,419 US. 281,286 (1974). I la the abosace of a en,a=- rule espressly stating the standad for jeJging whether a prospective witsees qualiress as an saport, the maandard incorporated in Federal Rule of Evidemoe 702 may be applied; that rule allows a witness qualirsed by " knowledge, skill, espenemos, training or education

to testify *[i]f scientirsc, earhairal or other apariahv=d knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidonos or to deternuse a fact la issue."

J Hearsay evulsace is generally admi==ible ic NRC r.. _ Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), AIAB-355. 4 NRC 397. 41112 (1976). Thus, the question of thsther evidsece fans withis an exception to the hearsay rule is beside the point is such pre==h=9= lastead, the ed=i-ibility of evideem in NRC adjudscation is governed by 10 CFR 2.743(c), which provides that "{o]aly relevant, material and reliable evidssos which is not enduly repetitions wiD be admitted." l K Documents ea==aring of each=aral analyses, a-a===== and opiasons on various aspects of the matter of hydrogen generation and control in nacient power reactors are the type of evidence that cans for sponsorship by as saport who can be====ia-t on the reliability of the factual amartsons and amendness of the scientific opiasons foemd la the dar====ta. Cf. Visconsis Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plaat, Unit 2), AIAB-78. 5 AEC 319,332-33 (1972) (citisd Dulcia v. PTC,219 F.2d 742,748 (D.C. Cir.1934), certiorari danind 348 US. 981 (1955)).

9 O

t \\ ,_-__w.e--.m.- .u--a~~-.- g DIGESTS 9- - BEUANCIS OF THE ATOMIC SAFEIY AND IJCDSING APPEAL anam L Reports of the Advisory t'a==nttee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) canaat be adsutsed into evidence for the truth of the metter stated therois becauss ACRS members are scaerally not subsect to esamination as wi'- Arkansas Pewer and Light Co. (Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2), - ALAB-94,6 AEC 25,32 (1973). M A embpoema roguest must establish the *3eneral relevamos of the testaanomy.. eseght" to the insmes involved.10 CFR 2.720(a). . 14 An appeal is a boennias proces&ag can be decided caly se the basis of the 8 =*===f Board . record - act on the basis of easebstantiated references to !. ", purportedly occumas after a. , the record was cloned. If cheaged circumstances or new evidence saints, a party may seek to reopen the record. Cf. ICC v. Jersey City 322 U.S. 503, 514 (1944). Esceptions to a licensing board's decision, taken without sa offer of record support, will be stricken.10 CFR 2.762(a),(e). O Claims of error that are without substance or are inadequntely briefed will not be considered on ' appeal. See Public Servica Electric and Gas Ca (tal*sn Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I). ALAB-650,14 NRC 43,49-50 (1981). 'P Technical issues d =~-d include: Hydrogen generation from a LOCA; bydrosca combustion; hydrogen control; emergency hydrogen control systems; ice ~=d =a - contai====ts; --' t pressure limits; computer codes: MARCH, CLASIX. ' ALAB-670 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (PALISADES NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY), Docket No. 50 255-SP; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 31,1932; DECISION A De Appeal Board reverses a i Er== sing Board's order, LBP-31-26,14 NRC 247 (1981). ~ denying the request of a labor union representing the plant's control room operators for a hearing ca - as NRC enforosmoot order restricting, inter she, overtime work by the operators, and remands the case to the Iir=amat Board for further proceedings. 8 The r-has broad decretaan to provide hearings or permit latervention la cases where the evenues of pubhc participation are not available as a matter of right. Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nacisar Generating Station Units I and 2), CLI-8010, il NRC 438,442 (1986). The Comunissaos has generally empowered its adjudicatory boards with the same decretion to allow intervention in heensing and enforcement caess. C For purposes of ruhag on as appeal from the denias of a hearing petition, all material allegations of the interrenor's petition genera!!y must be aa9aad as true. ALAB.478 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY (ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT !), Docket Na 54466 CP; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; March 31,1982; DECISION A The Appeal Board affirms the licensing Board's denial of a= antimely laterveatk. s tition w (January 12, 1982 memorandum and order (eapublished)), on two independent grounds: (1) the Licensing Board's decision was free of material arrer and (2) the sole issue the petitson raises, that of the applicant's fianacial qualifications, is not cognizable in this constructson permit pr===dier mader 10 CFR 2.104(b)(1)(as amended by 47 Fed. Reg. 13750,13753 (March 31,1982)). B A licensing board must consider the five factors set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(a) in docubag whether to accept a late petition to intervene. C The constitutional requirement for a

case or controversy" under Article Ill does not apply to NRC licensing procee6ngs. 8 der laternational Co, CLI-7M 3 NRC 563,569-70 (1976).

D It is the ability to contribute sound evidence - rather than amerted legal skills - that is of significance in considering a late-fdod petition to intervene mader 10 CFR 2.714(a). ~ I M l n e....- N 9

x 9 .o W l %W . O-p_. ,Q T - ~ _] .~ + -. Y <* ; - w s. ,- ;. y a~ l 4 db -:e + %M -m .n rr.. n.,. ' < gp l 0 ,s a Q ,w p.. k o n~m i < v.

DIGESTS y-f.

"'" ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING BOARDS h$

pj sm

m. a,

.e. u n LBP-821 -CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY (INDIAN POINT STATION, UNIT NO. 2), AINT i,rDecket No. 50-247-OLA: OPERATING. LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 4,1982; i d n rd satimely petition to intervene and toquent for hearies regarding b'd ... Licensee's application to expand the capacity of the spent fuel pool l B A tardy Petitioner to intervene may not show good cause for its estimely fHing by asserting a belief that its concerns would be addressed in another proceeding. N+1 C ' The Federal Register Act (44 USC $1308) prwidea that publication of a notice in the Federal jq ' 4egister shall constitute notice to all persons residing in the United States. 4. LBP 82 I A CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. et al. (PERRY NUCLEAR .Mdf ( POWER PLANT, UNITS I & 2). Docket Nos. 50-440 OL. 50-441 OL; OPERATING LICENSE;

W 97 Jassary 6.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER h

$@M A The Board decides that in the absence of specific contrary daractions from the Comnusuon, a d k sentention should not be dianussed from a prwise snarely because a Comaussion rulema ing . proceeding is pending, Consequently, a conteetion concerning a method to atitigate an anticipated y. <treesient without scram (ATWS) should act be dismissed because of a pending rulemaking on that

a.. 1 general subject. This type of contention is not considered to be subject to a principle assertedly

i61,

--O . establahad with respect to radioactive waste disposal contentions, that such issues are generic and should not be considered is individual prar=adinre ay Contentions need not be dismissed merely becanse there is a pending rulemaking on the same rC) B ssubject unless the Commission has specifically directed that they be diaminamd No such directio .-r d been issued concerning contentions regarding ATWS. y, LBP-82-2 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. "h3' ifNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50 266-OLA. 50-301-OLA: OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 7,1982; SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER 9-1 A The ASLB issues an order which sappisments its earlier order of December 21, 1981 &s (LBP-41-62) 14 NRC 1747 (1981), by adopting a prosectrve order covering the release to the Qd intervenor of allegedly propnetary material that it previous?y found should be relemaad 4y. p B The Board denisa requests for chacovery and an evidentiary hearing concermag allegations that Q the intervenor cannot be trusted to receive th: informatient under protective order. It bataarna the w. 3 W]h esture of the allegations agnimmt the motore of the allegedly proprietary ansterial and coacivdes that: i the discovery and hearing are not warranted. C Other issues raiend in a motion for reconaaleration filed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. 1g.7 - appearing specially in support of the propnetary nature of its sleeving report, are left for dar'=ia= og a _,G subsequent arcanian. The Board also el en evidentiary hearing concerning the allegations that - -i material in the Westinghouse eeeving report is propnetary. It estabishes procedures for the fair and .u ". '; ~~ capeditious conduct of that hearing. j D Pursuant to 10 CFR l2.718, Boards may issue a wide variety of procedural orders that are f5 j seither expressly authorized nor prohibited by the rules. They may permit intervenors to contend that + allegedly proprietary submmaions should be released to the public. They may also authorire discovery _ N' m _J.. or an evidentiary hearing that are not relevant to the contentions but are relevant to an important pending procedural issue, such as the trustworthiness of a party to racerve allegedly proprietary g( material.

p E

However, discovery and hearings not related to contentions are of limited availab;1ity. They may be granted, on nation, if it can be shown that the procedere sought would serve a sufficiently Q, important purpose to justify the ensariated delay and cost. [b 4 F Intervenors who have been admitted as parties may litigate issues connerning the alleged fi$3 proprietary nature of subenitted documents and sney receive, onder protective order, relevant information that has born withheld from the public but is relevant to determining the propnetary p nature of subaussions. g; RL4 aQ +.a EY n Af II ?.St. 4Q l m l 1 1 1

e DIGESIS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND IJCENSING BOARDS ~ G Ducovery that is not related to contentions may be authorized, on motion, under the general authority of the Board; however, it is not authorized explicitly by the rules. The moving party must carry the burden of demonstrating that the information sought is suffriently important to justify the delay in the proceeding. On balance, discovery may not be had concerning a single instance of the alleged untrustworthiness of an intervenor to receive propnetary documents when sl s allegation is of limited seriousness and the information which would be released pursuant to protective order has very limited competitive value. H A party is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a question of the alleged untrustworthiness of an intervenor unless the issues to be tned are sufficiently senous,in light of the material which may be released to the intervuor under protective order, to justify the delay and expense of such a hearing. 1; A party may be permi ed to file a trial plan with the Board, without showing specife aspects tt of is to another party, if the secrecy is shown to be necessary to effective htigation. However, the trial plan will be released to the other party after it is used. Similarly, cv is-examination plans may be required to be filed with the Board for subsequent release to parties. J The Board considered a form of protective order suggested to t by an interested participant and modified and issued that order, attaching it as an appendia. K Under special circumstances, the Board may adopt a protective order governing the release to a party of information contained is an allegedly proprietary affidavit filed in support of the proprietary a mature of another document. LBP 32 3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. (SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENER ATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3) Docket Nos. %361 OL, 50-362-OL: CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; January 11,1982; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION. A in a Partial Initial Decision, the Licensing Board rules that the seismic design basis for Units 2 1 and 3 of the facility provides a reasonabic assursace of safety against earthquake hazards. The Board I also determines that the current state of emergency preparedness is adequate to authorize issuance of a j low-power (5% of pted power) license. B The comprehensive investigatory obligations concerning site seismicity set forth in various provisions of 10 CFR Part 100. Appendix A, apply only to applicants for construction permits. Appimants for operating licenses have an " update" obligation under 10 CFR 50.34(b)(I). This requires them to perform such further investigations as may be necessitated by discovenes of new information following issuance of the construction permit to ensure the safety of the facility. C Evidence that could have been introduced at the contested wnstruction permit proceeding and which was known to the parties and Licensing Board at that time is excluded from the operating hcense proceeding on that basis. .D Exclusion is enforced despite the fact that the party offering the evidence was not a party to the pnar proceeding and the issue to which it relates was not actually litigated and decided. These , departures from traditional elements of common-law res judicata and collateral estoppel are justified on the basis of unique aspects of the Commission's public interest licensing scheme. E' Otherwise admissible evidsace can be eacluded altogether if it lacks any signifmant probative value. F 10 CFR 2.714(b) requires that the bases of contentions be set forth with " reasonable specircity." When a contention is put forwant for the first time late in the proceeding after dismvery is closed, specircity requirements are quite strirgent because discovery is not available aa a means of refining the contention. G A licensing board has discretion to decline to reopen the record if it appears that reopening is usiikely to affect the result. H In the absence of explicit guidance from the Commission, a licensing board should determine upon an application for a low-power license whether the comparative risks involved in low power versus full-power operations are equivalent, considering the nature of the activities involved and the state of emergency preparedness. I, Most appropriate criteria for emergency plans in the low power content is whether the onsite plans meet full power requirements (ignoring any defsiencies relevant only to full power), plus the ability to communicate with offsite authorities. No advance offsite planning is required. J Technical issues discuased include: Safe Shutdown Earthquake: Controlhng Geologic Feature, . Slip Rate Method, Fault Length Method; Strong Ground Motion: Empincal Analysas, Theoretcal Modeling Development of Design Spectrum Saturation of Seisnue Waves, Focus 4ag of Scumic Waves; Risk Analysis of Low-Power Operations. 12 ms,

e \\ t l IMUANCES OFINE ATOMIC SAFETY'AND UCEPGsNG BOARDS l d SP-32-4 MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER STATION), Docket No. 50-309-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 22, 1932; ' n: MEMORANDUM f ND ORDER n A -- - The Lseensing Board denies a petition for leave to intervene filed almost two years after the date of the original notice of opportunity for intervention and over five months after the filing date set l

e s : forth la the _.,

-' notice of opportunity for intervention.< Petitioner's request to make a limitert ' appearance is granted. 45. ta order ao esis admission isse a proceeding a late intervention petitioner must address frve pertiment factors in 10 CFR 52.714(a)(1), and afGreatively demonstrate that on balance, they favor such ada-aa v

,C The Canunissaae's Amles of Practice (10 CFR l2.714) require ht a petition for leave to intervene "shall set forth with parucularity the laterest of the petitacmer in the prar= day and how c ',that inserest may be affected by the reunits of she proceeding.*

D~ Under 10 CFR 82.714(b), an intervention petition must include & bases for each contention ...., set forth with reasonable.speciracity Cooteations must he sufrecisatly detailed and speciGc to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible and that further inquiry is warranted,and se put the other parties on motice as to what they will have so defend against or oppose. ,"f SP-32-5. COMMONWEALTH. EDISON COMPANY (BYRON STATION, UNITS I AND 2),

r
Docket Nos. STN-50 454-OLA, STN-50-455-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 27,1932; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER I

A The Licensing Board denies latervenor's motion for reconsaderation of the Board's order ~ dismissing Intervenor as a party for failure to comply with orders requiring discovery. -5 Discovery in Licensing Board proceedings "shall relate only to those matters in controversy

which have berg identified by the presiding officer.10 CFR 12.740(b)(1). laterrassiories propounded to the NitC Staff by latervenor, & Rockford League of Women Voters (League), were not pending

-and unanswered as of the date of the Board's dismissal of the League as an intervening party for failure to make discovery, where such interrogatories had been filed more than 9 months prior to the N toard's order ruling on the admissibility of the League's revised coetentions, and directing the of formal discovery. n-C The mere filing of a motion for reconsideration does not stay la any way the order to which it is directed, nor render it less than faal. Consequently, the pendency of Applicant's motion for + mhsJ a of the Board's ruling on the admissibility of contentions did not excuse the 1mgue's e failure to respond to Applicant's interrogatories, particularly since a subsequent Board order directing 'the League to furnish the requested discovery promptly also denied Applicant's motion for reconsaderation. D The extensive ramifications of Intervenor's involvement in discovery, hearings, anotaons. - correspondence and disputes is a contemporaneous state proceeding could not be used to esculpate its . persistent defiance of the Board's orders, particularly where its involvement in the state proceeding was never brought to the attention of the Board as a matter affecting the Board's management er scheduling of the lastsat proceeding. E . Casaners allegations of professional and personal problems as escussa for latervenor's failure to ,.. prtwide discovery dad not justify reconsideration of the Board's imposition of sanctions for such failure, n where serb allegations were expressly dealt with in the Board's order compelling discovery. ,, F,.. la light of laterrenor's deliberate and willful refusal to provide the evidentiary bases for its admitted contentions, despite the clear mandates of the Board's orders requiring discovery, the League could not challenge the imposition of the sanction of dismissal by arguing that other NRC cases involved lesser penalties. LBP-32-5A WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT SEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, ' UNITS 1 AND 2), Docket Nos. 50 266-OLA, 50 301-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 23,1932; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Board upheld, after raconsaderation, its previous haa concerning the release to the public of a portion of an allegedly propnetary afndavit that had been submitted in support of the confidentiality of other documents. B The Board rules that it is appropriate for it to address issues concerning b confidentiality of a portion of its record, regardless of whether the issue was raised by a party. Such an action is in response to a " proposal" that a document be treated as proprietary and is not a prohibited sua sponte 3-action of the Board. <C For en afndavit to be enempt from the Board's general authority to rule on proposals concerning the withholding of information from the public, that affidavit must inret the regulatory

sequirement that it have

appropriate markings", When the plaia language of the regulation requires

" appropriate markings", as alleged tradition by which Staff has aar* rad the prtenetary nature of L 13

l 1 6 , 55UANCE5 OF THE NUCUAB BECULATOBY maanmaarw affidavits when only a portion of the alredevits is prepnesary is met reassent to ths estract interpretation of the regulation. -D la addition, the Board rules that legal argument may not appropriately be withbeid front the public merely because it is inserted la as afredsyst, a portion of which may contain some propnoter* I I infonastion. .E The Board clariress its earlier ruung so that it would not be interpreted to sagenst that Westinghouse Corporation had been morauy culpable is eini= der coard==*ianity for an entire amenvit, "enly a portion of which contained proprietary information. It also==anaf - for -ilj i 1astigating W e _ about lack of concurs for the public's right to know. ~ F Affedevits support ag the propnetary setsre of other dae-ts can be withheld from the public only if they have

appropriate saarkings" As entire anidavit may not be withheld bocases a portion is proprietary. The Board may review as laisial Staff detersuastion concanung the prepnetary nature of a document to detensine whether the review has addressed the regulatory criteria for withholding.

O A party may not withhau legal arguments fross the public by lasertag those arguments into as afradavit that contains some proprietary information. H A Board dari=&a= to review a proposal concerning the widhaWimp of a portion of the record from the public is an appropriate esercise of Board methority and is not sebject to the sua sposte lisaitation on Board authority. I Parties should not impuga one another's lategrity without first sebmitting supporting svedence. N Regulations should be interpreted by eassuming the unemaang of the wonis contained la the regulations. Unless there is scene ambiguity la the words, practacun la ' <-; the regulations are not relevant to their correct interpretation. LBP.82-6 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, 1 UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50 266-OLA, 50 301-OLA: OPERATINO LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 2,1932; MEMORANDUM AND CRDER A De Board decides that se intervemor need act specify particular portions of an ausgedly proprietary docement that it wants released to the public, nor need it provide reasons for release of portions to the public, prendaag that it has speciraed with reasonable particularity which==reia== it wants released and has prended its overau reasons for release. De issue arose with respect to the possible release to the public of safety tests which were clai==d to be prepnetary and entitled to be withheld frous the public. a B The Board also dacidad that it has the discretaan to decide coarsdentiality issues regardises of l whether they have been raised by a party, prendaag that it rods the staff deteramation of comradentiality issues to be masatisfactory. C When a Board has reached a determination of a usation in the course of as co-the record bearing, it need not reconsider that determi'aation la response to an untimely =Wian but it assy,la its abscretaan, deide to reconsadst on a showing that it has made se egregious error. D An intervenor's burden in specifying portions of ausgadly poprietary dncumanu for release to the public is analogous to the burden of a person requesting infonnation purneant to the Fra=da= of laformation Act. Generauy, the burden is on the person wishing to withhold infonnation and not on the requester. E The Board may, persuant to the general powers of a presiding officer, decide whether or act portions of the record should be withheld from the public. It is not necessary that an intervonor raise this issue. However, it is not always appropriate for the Board to act when the issue has not been raised. Whether or not it should act depends in part on wbsther it rands the staffs review satisfactory. F The Board's authority to consider substantive issess is tiraited by the sua sposte rule, but the same limitation does not apply to its consaderation of coarsdeariality issues under standards set forth in 10 CFR 12.790. LBP-42-7 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (BIO ROCK POINT PLANT), Docket No. 50-155 (Spent Fuel Prml Amendment); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 5. IM2; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A Summary disposition is denied with respect to a contention that the chain reaction aa===t (Kerr) in a spent fuel pool may exceed standards generany applied by the Comaussion's staff. The g principal error alleged to have been committed by applicant and staff in their calculations was failure to allow for boiling of the feel pool at temperatures of up to 247'F, which may occur at the bottom of the pool, where the water is under pressure becamas of the column of water above it. 5 Technical issues discussed include: Fuel Pool Boiling; Chain Reaction Constant la Spent Feel Pool; Kerr in Spent Fuel Pool. t I4 4 i _- __ _ _ _._.--.._. amm

~0 4 1 ~<~ g i 1 f .] DICESIS MANCES OF THE ATOhGC SAFETY AND IJCENSING BOARDS gLSP-32-7A METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, . UNIT NO I). Docket Now 50-239 (Researt), (Reapened Procatiing); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; February 5,1932; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board denies NRC Staff Motion for Review of Special Master's ruling with - respect to" Staff attitude". 3 Special Master's order laquiring into the NRC Staff's attitude in administering NRC operator Scenes esaminations us not concerned with attitude qua attitude, but with the resources committed and care taken la adauaistering the esaninstions. Such consaderations are relevant to the reopened proceeding concerning cheating on the TM! I operators' license examis.stions. T C laterlocutory review of the Special Master's order was inappropriate is any event under the a esaadards of Public Service Co. of ladiana (Marble Hill, Units I and 2), ALAb405,5 NRC 1890 92 2 (1977). The Staff already had prepared and presented testmaany on NRC Staff attitude, so that say - "immediate and serious irreparable impact

was no longer threatened but a fait accompli; and Staff U ~ ' failed to show ht this : natter had affected the proceeding improperly la a pervasive and unusual inanaer. He issue was either moot or perishingly moot by time of fihng.

LDP-32-g CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (BIG ROCK POINT PLANT). Docket No. 50155 OLA (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 19, 1932; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A. The Board completes acting on As% s:9 Staff saaticais for sumunary disposition of - saatestions. The saast insportant issues so survive these Ma== are: (I) a contention that the expanded spent fuel pool would have a chain reaction consent Kdtthat exceeds 0.95, the level generally permitted by Comuneessoa practice; (2) a contention 'hst the safety of the reactor is compromised by a SAC, low-level bombing practice run that is lla miiles from the plant; (3) some issues relating to a contention that the fuel pool, which is located dthin the containment building, would not be safe during a care <tamage (TMI-2 type) incident in which radiation inhibited entry into the containment for as cateadad period of time;(4) some issues relating to Oe rel; ability of Staff and Applicant analyses of the level of radiation to be emitted from the pool;(5) whether workers would receive radiatica doses that are *as low as reasonably achievabie" (ALARA) while installing the new apeet fuel rocks; and (6) whether there would be sufficient makeup water available following a caskdrop incident or a sesmic incident in which the overhead crane might drop into the pool. 5 Sammary disposition is 3 ranted with respect to contentions that :he expansien of the fuel pot would induce mancceptable routine and accidental relenars of radianctive msterials, that small or unedium-sized leaks is the spent fuel pool would cause environmental hazards, that ther; would be unacceptable corrosaan of the pool and its components, and ht fuel could escape the racks road remais undiscovered for a substantial period of time. Two Board questions, relating to the performance of certain specirmed valves and to the possibility of an Oyster Creek-type incident, also are d smissed. C la addition, the Board rules that certain late-filed affidavits should be received into evidence and it announces he it will convene a sebphase maference for scheduling matters. D The Board d== the conflicting obsectrves which mast be accommodated in deciding a - summary dispositica amtion. ^E The Board reinterprets some contentions to raise issues ht were uncovered through discovery and ht were not strictly within the contestions as initially worded. F The Board found good cause for late filing of three affidavits because the delay in filing did not cause say corresponding delay in the work of the Board and because latervenors had demonstrated their scri==M and their ability to analyze complex issues in a helpful manner. G Technical issues discussed include Chain reaction constant in spent fuel pool, Kerin spent fuel pool, Criticality excursions in spent fiset pool, Zirconium / steam reactions, Radiolysis of steam facilitates reaction with zirconium, Aircraft < rash risk As low as is reasonably achievable, Biological surveys, Corrasson (spent fuel pool) Dose calculations Caskdrop incident (spent fuel pool), Expansion and operation of spent fuel pool, Emissions from spent fuel pool, Spent fuel storage rack installation, Intergranular stress corrosion cracking (spent fuel pool), Spent fuel pool boiling Boiling temperature in spent fuel pool, Occupational radiation dosage to workers engaged in modification to spent fuel pool, Safety of spent fuel pool located inside the containment, Health Physica Program, Radiological and i bianccumulation monituias, Release of radioactive rnateriana in effluents (speet fuel pool), Spent Fuel Pool (availability of snakeup water), Use of redwaste system to reduce redention is spent fuel pnet. e 35 l

? l t alblGESTS eWANCES OF THE AT0htic SAFETY AND 1JGNSING BOARDS 1 l LBP-82-9.> CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. et at (PERRY NUCLEArt POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2). Docket Nos. 50-440-OL 50-441-OL: SPECIAL PROCEEDING; February 19,1982; M EMORANDUM { A The Board announces procedures to make its trip to the General Electric Control Room simulator near Tulsa. Oklahoma, as informative as possibic. It expresses an interest in being informed about the General Electric Nucienet 1000 Control Room, and it explains that its interest in being "" informed relates to the possibility that it may subsequently raise a sua sponte issue concerning control ' ' room reliability. W8, A Board may seek information which will help it to decide whether or not to raise a sua sponte issue. > LSP-42-10 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50-266-OLA. 50 303-OLA: OPERATING LICENSE -. AMENDMENT; February 19,1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A Failure to respond fully and in good faith after the Board orders a response to interropteries may result in adverse findings of fact. However, the Board need not yet decide whether to make adverse findings in this proceeding, in which a special summary disposition procedure was adopted. That procedure places the burden of going forward on summary disposition on the Intervenor. The effect of adopting that prncedure may be to alleviate some of Applicant's ditTsculties if there have been 4 incomplete responses to interrogatories about latervenor's case. B The Board need not act on a motion for a continuance that is'not yet ripe. Should Intervenors ~ subsequently find, nearer to the conclusion of this case, that important information about steam - generator tube repair is being assembled but has not yet been made available, a motion for = . continuance may then be appropriate. C A change in plans concerning whether or not to conduct a full scale sleeving repair project in one of Applicant's units is not a reason to dismiss a portion of the regnested amendment. D Once a Board has required a response to interrogatones, Intervenor may not effectively limit its obligation to comply with the Board's order by using limiting language in its response. E Ahhough failure to comply with a Board order to respond to interrogatories may result in adverse findings of fact, the Board need not decide what adverse findings to adopt until action is necessary. When another procedure has been adopted requiring Intervenors to shuulder the burden of going forward on a union for summary disposition,it may be appropriate to await Intervenor's filing on summary dispcuitica, before deciding whether or not to impose sanctions for failure to respond to interrogatones pursuant to a Board order. Sanctaons caly will be appropriate if failure to respond prejudices Apphcant in the preparation of its case. F The Board required Intervenors to file a Motion Concerning Litigable lunes, by which the burden of going forward on summary disposition was placed on the latervenors. However, Applicant and Staff will have to respond and Intervenors will reply. Thereafter, the standard for summary e-disposition will be the same as required under the rules. G This special procedure was appropriate because time pressures had caused the Board to apply a (as standard for admission of contentens, depriving Applicants of full notice of the contentions in the proceeding, and because Apphcants had already shown substantial grounds for summary disposition of all contentens in the course of a hearing that had already been completed. H Although it is appropriate to admit matentions more freely than ordinary practice permits because of time preuures on a proceeding, the estraordinary freeness in admitting contestions should be terminated when the time pressures are reduced because Applicant has changed its operational pla ns. LBP-82-Il CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 & 2), Docket Nos. 50 440LOL, 50-441-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; February 26,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A A moten to admit two late contentens is denied. One contention relates to the disposal of nuclear waste and the other to the need for magnesiu:n oxide bricks beneath the reactor vessel. B The principal reason for rejecting the nuclear waste contention is that Boards are explicitly barred from considering such a con.ention by the Commission. The reasons for rejecting the magnesium oxide bricks contention are that the appearance of a newspaper article is not sufficient grounds for the late-filing of a contention about matters that have been known for a long time and that intervenors had not demonstrated that they could contribute to this issue because their fihng did not discuss any of the technical problems related to MgO bricks and did not relate the need for th-2 bricks to any specific characteristics of the Perry plant. C The appearance of a newspaper article is not sufficient sounds for the late-filing of a contention about matters that have been anown for a long time. Furthmore, in deciding whether to admit a lete contention, adverse weight may be given to intervenors' failure to show any mastery of relevant 16 t . -,.... ~ m

x 'A .o g

J c

ISBUANCES OF THE ATUhelC SAFETY AND UCEMBING BOARDS technical materials and failure to show the relevance of their contention to the particular characteristics of the plant involved in a hcensing proceeding. -D Boards may not esercise jurisdiction over contentions if those contentions are the subject of a pending rulemaking and the Commission has caplicitly barred Board consideration of the subject of the Contention. iE Technical issues discussed include: Waste disposal; Magnesium oxide bricks; Core catcher. LBP-82-12 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50-266 OLA, 50 301-OLA: OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 26,1982; heEMORANDUM AND ORDER A A Board decision whether or not to withhold from the public a portion of its record pursuant to a proposal that the information be treated as conGdential does not create a sua sponte issue requiring formal notification of the Commission. B Boards have the sothority pursuant to 10 CFR $2.713 to regulate a hearing in a " fair and impartial" manner. They are authorized, pursuant to this authority, to consader whether or not it is appropriate to withlecid a portion of their record from the public pursuant to a proposal that the --. deformation be treated as proprietary. Esercise e( this authority does not give rise no a sua sponte issue . requiring notification of the Commission. C When a Board has already completed action on a procedural matter and no further obligation has been imposed on a party, it is not appropriate to notify the Commission of the initiation of a sua - sponte matter. Such a notirocation would not avoid delay or serve any other purpose of the Commissica's rule that it be notified of the pendency of a sua sponte issue. D Board questions related to admitted contentions do not create sua sponte matters requiring notification of the Coramission. That the Board gives advance notiGcation to a party that related questions may be asked does not convert those questions into sua sponte issues requiring notification of the Commission. LBP-3212ACONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (INDIAN POINT, UNIT NO. 2), POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (INDIAN POINT, UNIT NO. 3), Docket Nos. 50 247 SP. 50 286-SP; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 1,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER e A The Licensing Board grants intervention petitioner's motion to permit petitioner's representatives to observe the emergency planning esercise scheduled for the Indian Point facility, e-B - Where the granting of petitioner's motion would likely reseh in refinement and focusing of contentions relating to emergency planning, the authority of the Licensing Board to entertain the nution was established by the provisaans of 10 CFR 2.718(e) which describes the powers of presiding ofGcers generally, or by the P memorandum and order that constituted the Board and directed it to investigate, inter alia, questions related to emergency plannies. C Given the Licensing Board's mandate from the Commission to investigate emergency planning issues related to the Indian Point facility, and the fact that the emergency planning caercises that were the subject of petitioner's snotion were scheduled to take place within two (2) days, the Ucensing Board was not required to adhere strictly to the provissons of the Rules of Practice governing the timing of discovery when to do no would frustrate the announced purpose of the hearing ad where no party would be seriously disadvantaged by expediting the action. Accordingly, the Licensing Board would entertain petitioner's motion though petitioner had not yet been admitted as a party, no contentions had yet been admitted in the proceeding, and the 34 day period for response to the motion had not elapsed. D Ahhough licensees did ant allege facts suffscient to support the grant to them of a protective order, the floard would not permit an " unbridled inspection

of licensees
plant, and would impose conditions upon petitioner's observation of the emergency planning exercises sufracient to keep the operation free of anything that might constitute interference.

LDP 8212B CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (INDIAN POINT, UNIT NO. 2), POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (INDIAN POINT, UNIT NO. 3), Docket Nos. 50 247-SP, 50 286-SP; 5PECIAL PROCEEDING; March 2,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board denies licensees' request for a stay and for certincation to the Commission of the Board's order permitting intervention petitioner's representatives to observe emergency planning exercises at licensees' plant, but grants licensees

request for referral of the order to the Commission l

i ender the decretionary interlocutory appeal provisions of the Rules of Practice. B Where it was unmistakably clear that the adequacy of emergency planning for the Indian Pasat facility was an issue to be fully investigated in the proceeding, and where,in the opinion of the Board, the observations of potential intervenors as to emergency planning exercises scheduled for the next day Wid be useful to the Board in its deliberations, the thaard would deny be====* request for stay and e a 17 ~.. _. _.. ___

a ..(. 1 I l DIGENIS MANCES OF THE ATOh0C SAFETY AND IJCENBING BOARDS i _ sertification to the Commission of its order permitting such shoorvations, since to great the sequest would render the issue moot. .C Where the emergency planning esercises that were the subject of the Boar (s order permitting cheervation by representatives of intervention petitioner were scheduled to take place the nest day, the Board woukt grant licensees

request for referral of the order to the Commission pursuant to the drecretionary interlocutory appis provisions of the Rules of Practice (10 CFR 2.730(f)) because of

. ' the need for a prompt decision. LSP-32-13 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS I & 2), Decket Nos. 50 4440L, 54448-04 OPERATING LICENSE; .. March 2.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER iA The Licensing Board denies intervenor's request for a stay of procaedings, treating the request as a motion for continuance. ~ oS While sa allegation of serious construction defsiencies enight properly be the subject of a discovery request,is does not provide a basis for continaias the prosseding. -C la es the respoembility of the Licensing soard to adjudicate comestions raised by the parties and important safety and environmental issues raised by the Board sua sponte, pursuant to Commission regulations. The Board will not decide whether construction complies with all legal - requirenseets unless that ensue is raiend by an admitted contention or incorporated withis a sua sposte issue. LSP.3214 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (GE MORRIS OPERATION SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY), Docket Nos. 701308, 72-I-SP, OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; March 2,1982 DECISION AND ORDER A The Licensing Bard grants Applicant's W for sumunary deposition of all remaining contentmns. B la order to grant a motion for summary desposition, the record befare the Board must demonstrate clearly that there is no possibility that a htigabic issue of faca esists. Amy doubt as to whether the parties should have been permitted or required to proceed further would have required a denial of the motion. LBP-3215 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et at (PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS I & 2), Docket Nos. 54444 01., 50-441 014 OPERATING LICENSE; March 3,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board rules on intervenor's request to admit additional contentions and to capand the scope c( previously admitted contentions. 8 latervenor's allegation that it learned of as issue through a recently published newspaper article does not const.tute a showing of good cause for the late-fding of a contention where intervenor has not shown that the newspaper article reGects any new research or previously usavailable insights; has not estabhshed any nesas between the issue and the Perry facility; and has not demonstrated any competence to assist the Board sa resolving the issue. C A contention presenting a generic issue is not admissible when intervenor fails to demonstrate . any specific nenus between the issue and the facility that is the subject of the proceed ag. D Pecause recent Commission statements contained is a proposed rule and a proposed policy statement, though tentative, suggest that the requirements for the control of accident-generated hydrogen might be made more strisent in the future, the Licensing Board may consider admissible a contention raising issues related to hydrogen generation, even though a contrary rule, or no rule might ultimately be enacted. To wait for the final rule would risk delay in the issuance of a license. E Intervenor's motion to enlarge a previously admitted contention was eat ripe for et-waa where the contention, as admitted, was suffciently broad to permit discovery of all relevant information, and intervenor would have the opportunity later to present any new material obtained through discovery either in a response to a motion for summary disposition or as the basis for a new contention. LDP.8216 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. (CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 ), Docket IV '. 50-413-OL, 50-414-OL: ASLBP Docket No. st-463-01 OL; OPERATING LICENSE: March 5,1982: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board rules on pending petitions for intervention and contentions filed in support of those petitions. 8 The requirement of the Commission's Rules of Practice that the basis for each contestim be set forth with reasonable specificity facilitates Board determinations whether contentions are litigabic, and helps assure that other parties are sufficiently put on motice that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against. These purposes do not imply that a high standard of specificity for contentions is required at so early a stage of the proceeding as the initial prehearing conference. The principal function of contentions at this juncture is to piace some reasonable limits on discovery, and this snay be accomplished with contentions more bened and general than the revised contentions that 18 i i

y -. -.~.- -..--~~ ~.- ~.- -- 4BSUANC15 OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND IJCENSING BOARDS can be deveisped eher descovery and that will, after the final prehearing conference, structure the m haanns. t C Where, at the tinse of the first prehearing conference, key documents such as the Commission Staffs Safety Evaluation Report, its Environmental Impact Statement, most of the off-site emergency e - piens and portions of the Applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report had not yet been written, the l u argument that intervenors must plead all contentions with reasonable specificity prior to the conference, and that further contentions based on information disclosed in subsequently available si 3 = documents must be subjected to the restrictive standards for admissibility of late-filed contentions, was unreasonable and not required by thee-s Rules of Practice as written or by pn'ar decisions, .D .The Commission's regulations plainly contemplate that the adequacy of off-site emergency plans for counties and muasipalities near the facility that is the subject of the pr== dine can be contested in their specifs details by intervenors.10 CFR 50.47(a). .,E Where the dar==*=ts likely to provide the necessary specifics for the formulation of matentions were act yet availabte, the Board would not disallow proposed contentiam f= lack of specificity but I would admit such contentions conditionally, subject to the requirement that intervenors advancing such . contentions review the relevsat documents promptly after they become available and, within 30 days thereafter, submit revised contentions useating the specircity requirements of the Rules of Practxe, or else abandon the contenticos. F The adequacy of any revised contentions based upon documents filed subsequent to the initial prehearing conference would be judged by the general principles applicable to contentions, including . specificity. However, since the " lateness

of such contentions would be entirely beyond the control of tae sponsoring intervenor, the additional criteria normally applied to late comications under the Rules of Practice would not be applied.

G Because intervenor could not reasonably be required to advance specific contentions about a security a it had never seen, and because it had expressed a formal interest in the plan, the Board could r Applicants to grant intervenor access to the plaa as necessary to a proper decision in the . proceeding. The Board would, however, condition such disclosure order on intervenor's having obtained the services of a qualified security plan empert, and would impose other limitations on access to the plan. Accordingly, the Board would allow intervenor 10 days in which to consider whether it wished to pursue the matter further. LBP-3217 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nca. 50-445,50-446 (Applica. ion for Operating I License); OPERATING LICENSE: March 5,1932; ORDER A The Licensing Barrd denies inte venor's request that it adopt certain of interrenor's contentions as its own, and grants Armlicants' motion for summary disposition of the contentions. B Where intervenor filed neither an answer opposing Applicants' motion for summary disposition of certain content.ons, nor a statenent of material facts as to which it contended that there existed a genuine issue to be heard, and where extensive affidavits and statements filed by the Applicants and the Commission Staff in support of the motion demonstrated that no such issue existed,intervenor's request that the Board adopt such contentiois as its own would be rejected. If a party has established sits entitlement to summary disposition of a contention, it would distort the Commission's regulations to abort this result by permitting an opposing party to withdraw the contentions without prejudice. C Motions for summary disposition under $2.749 of the Commission's Rules of Practice are analogous to motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules cf Civil Procedure and Federal Court decisions intenreting that rule may be relied upon in NRC proceedings. LBP-32-19 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50-445,50 446 (Application for Operating License); OPERATING LICENSE March g,19g2; ORDER

A The Licensing Board denies intervenor's motion for extension of time for discovery.

'B la hght of the Commission's express direction that licensing boards conduct their proceedings at an expeditious pace ansistent with the demands of fairness by setting and adhering to reasonable schedules; and that the special circumstances faced by a participant do not relieve that party of its hearing obligations; intervenor's motion for extension of time for discovery would be rejected where no good cause for that extension had been shown. LBP-3219 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION l UNIT I). Docket Nos. 50-322-OL, 50-322 CPA; OPERATING LICENSE; March 15, 1932; l MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Iir%g Board rules on the admissibility of contentions and confirms establishment of hearing schedule. -3 TMI reinted issues may be litigated is individual proceedings even if they are act included in the NUREG-0737 list of TMI requirements applicable to new operating licenses provuled that the L 39 l h e

1 _7__ s v / ~ DIGESTS ~ ISSUANCIS OF THE ATOMIC SAFEilf AND IJCENSING BOARDS issue to be litigated is not a challenge to the existing regulations. The Commission's Revised Statement of Policy for htigation of TMl issues, CLI-30-42,12 NRC 654 (1930), broadened the range of TMI issues which could be litigated in individual proceedings to include the requirements contained in NUREG4737, whether or not those requirements might have been considered c>denacs to the regulations. The policy statement did not est back the pre-existing right to litigate iuses which do not 7 - challenge the regulations just because those issues are not included in NUREG-07n/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon, Units I and 2), CLI-gl-5,13 NRC 361,363 (1931). ,C The Commission's " Class 9* -L at interim policy statement,45 Fed. Reg. 4010 (June 13,., 1930), requires that a probabilistic m of seeironmental risk of accidents previously not considered within the design basis of nuclear power plants be included in Final Environmental Statements (FES) issued after the June 13, 1930 policy statement. However, this does not bar a contention in proceedings in which the FES issum! before that date alleging that the Applicant and Staff have not applied an adequate methodology, such as a probabilistic analysis, to analyze the . reliability of systems to determine which sequencas of accidents should be ansideied within the design i basis of the plant. I D la the circumstance where a contentinn is a general istuiry into the plant design systers. analysis methodology, with no specification of design exas.ples, it is appropriate to require the intervenor to file and present its direct testimony first,in ekh intervenor may include a maximung d l three design examples to support its allegation d inadequate er.ethudology. The Staff and Applicant - will file their responsive testimony after the cross-examination of intervenor's testimony. If the Board finds that the testimony of the parties, including that on any daign exatrples discussed by intervenor's testimony, raises doubts about the methodoiogy apphed to the (asian c( the plant, this could requirs the Applicant and the Staff to go forward with an expanded system-by-system analysis on the record of the proceeding. E Where a generic insas has a direct bearing on the safe operation d the individual plant and the ability of that plant to meet present regulations, the issue cannot te put aside for resolution after the issuance of the operating license simply because it is the subject of an unmmpleted generic rulemaking proceeding. In the absence of a finding by the Commission that it is acceptable for an individual license to issue whi'e a rulemaking is pending, the board would either have to defer any authorization otherwisc justified in the individual case until a deternsination is reathed in the rulemaking proceeding and then factor that determination in, or be able to conclude that such authorization can be granted in the individual cese in advance of resolution of the issue on a generic basis. As in 'astances involving Unresolved Safety lasues, this latter determination camid be premised on findings that the problem has been resolved for the individual reactor, or that there is reasonable a .nce the problem will be resolved before it has arl verse safety implications for the individual reactor, or that alternative means will be available for assuring that lack of remlution of the problem generically would not pose an undue risk from operaton of the individual reactor. Cf. Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna, Units I and 2), ALAB-491,3 NRC 245 (1973). Gulf States Utilitus Co. (Rher Bend, Units I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,775 (1977). F Although the ATWS issue is pending before the Commission in a rulemaking preceeding, it is permissible to litigate a contention that the measures taken at a facility for the interim period pending completion and implementation of the rulemaking. Iscluoing operational procedures and cperator training, do not provide the level of protection required by the regulations. G A governmental agency, in this instance a County, which has elected to participate as a fall intervenor on specified antentions does not lose its righs to participate as an interestod governmental agency on other issues in the case pursuant to 10 CFR 12.715(c). Project Maassement Corporation (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant). ALAB-354, 4 NRC 333, 392-93 (1976). However, such participation must be in accordance with the responsibilities imposed upon a 12.715(c) participant, includ ng timeliness consistent with the need to prevent unfair surprise to the other parties in the proceedmg. See Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend. Units I and 2), ALAB-444, 6 NRC 760, 763 70 (1977). H There is flexibility in the emergency planning rule,10 CFR 950.47(c)(2), for adjustment of the general approximate 10 and 50 mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) where particular local conditions warrant adjustment. Therefore, contentions that such adjustments must be made due to specified local conditions would be admissible. However, contentions seeking a totally new case by case probabilistic accident risk analysis to determine on as ad hoc basis the zones to be established for the plume exposure pathwsy and ingestion pathway EPZ's are challenges to the rule since they would render meanmgless the general specification in the rule of 10 and 50 mile EPZ's. I A contention would be admissible which alleges that because of the geography cf Long Island, i evacuation planning within an approximate 10 mile EPZ may not be adequate because of the impacts b M L 4 --.~v--w-~ m

x ~.,--.s l .2 m_----__ rDIGESTS

..MISUANCES OF THE AT0h81C SAFETY AND UCENIENG BOARDS of persons outside and to the east of the EPZ choosing to evacuate and having to do so by c rJag

"' W through the EPZ. s 'LSP 8219A W1SCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, ,' UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50-266-OLA, 50-3010LA; OPERATING LICENSE y, AMENDMENT; March 19,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 'A' The Licensing Board affirms its earlier decision that r-a= cf a liberal policy toward tl.e - ' odmission of contenuons was proper once the time pressere that justifasd the policy was relieved by a . change is the appiscant's plans. The ruling permits the intervenor to challenge the policy change by 4"y, ' showing specific prejudice that has resulted from capectations raised by the institution of the hberal W.. _.,.. 3 r . B.. . Though a Board may admit a single broad comiention in the interest of expedition. its liberal policy toward the admission of contentions snay be rescinded when the time pressure justifying it in ,seisewed by a change is applicant's operational plana, lasses already raised moder the liberal pohey at:( .. -act retroactively affected by its rs====i. LBP-82-19B CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (BIG ROCK POINT PLANT). Docket No. 50155 _.. (Spent Fuel Pool Amendment); SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING;. March 19,'1982; i m,.m MEMORANDUM AND ORDER t ,aA- ~The Licensias Board refuses to admit any of 18 late-filed contentions. B

A summary (isposition d=ri=ian that se allegation presents no genuine issue of let may

,,, preclude admission of a subsequent, late-filed contention based on the earne allegation. t.C If an intervenor has special pern-a to fde a contention prior to as catended deadline, it I - must fde the entire contention by that deadline, including the hesis for it. If it fails to meet tkt oblagstion,it must show Bood amuse for late filing. s .-D Because Boards ainy raise important enrety and environmental issues sua sponte they should review even untimely contentions to determine that they do not raise important issues that should be, considered sua sponte. <LBP-82 20 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR ST4 TION, UNIT NO.1), Docket No. 50 289 (Restart); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March W 1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A Pursuant to licensee's motion the Licensing Board clarifies a provision of its Partial Initial Decision cf December 14.1981, relating to the separation of Three Mile Island Units I and 2. 4 LBP-82 21 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNIT NO. 2), Docket i No. 50-389A; ANTITRUST PROCEEDING: March 24,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A la light of a comprehensive settlement agreement among the parties, the Licensing isoard grants the joint motion of applicant and intervenors to dismiss the proceeding. .B Once the Attorney General of the United States has withdrawn frorn the pr===t ne and permission has been granted to the remaining intervenors to withdraw, the Board no longer has s* - juradiction to entertain se antitrust prMing under the provmaons of the Atomic Energy Act. wLBP-82 22 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et at (SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT s -- UNI 15 I AND 2) Docket Nos. STh 50-498-OL,STN 50499-OL; OPERATING LICENSE: March 26,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A.A The Licensing Board denies 'ntervenors' request for disclosure by sworn affidavit of the \\ embstance of any and all en parte communications alleged to have occurred as a result of NRC Commissioners' visits to the site of the South Texas facility. -B latervenors' request for identification of all persons involved in arranging the visits of NRC Commissioners to the site of the South Texas facility, and for sworn affsdavits from each such person, was essentially a request for discovery. As such, it was required to be relevant to some contention or question before the Licensing Board. Because intervenors had act dernaastrated that any es, parte contacts actually took place and had alleged no en parte contacts by the Licensing Boa d itseu. the request was not relevant to the proceeding before the Board and would be denied. 'tBP-82-23 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (INDIAN POINT, UNIT 2), l POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (INDIAN POINT, UNIT 3), Docket Nos. 2247-SP, 50 286-SP; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 29, 1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board denies licensees

motion is the alternative for a stay of the Commission's orders governing the proceeding. for dismissal of the prae==iint or for certification of issues to the Commission.

l B Licensing Boards exercise only those powers which the Commission has given them. Where the Commission's only direction to the Licensing Board in this proceeding was to formulate recommendations on the questions posed in the C 's order, the Commission did act delegate j a to the Boarf the power to issue a stay. 3 l (. 31 l l h f 1 1

I ,..__.1____._.._ O DICESTS G* ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND IJCENSING BOABDS C where nrtually the same arguments as those contained in hea===* motion had prenous i presented to, and rejected by the Commission, a Liosasing Board decision reversing the prior decisio 'i of the Cornmission would make a mockery of the Board's obligation lo follow Communica pre D The Licensing Board's power sa certify issues to the Commission is dancret.oaary and is to be esercised sparingly. Where licennees' motion to certify presented no movel questions of polic 3 procedure, and no other compelling reasons for certificataos, the snotion would be denied. LDP-g2 24 ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (COBALT-60 ST FACILITY), Docket No. 30-6931; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MATERIALS LICENSE RENEWAL; March 31, 1932; A The Licensing Board rules that actions of elementary fairases require consideration of an j antimely petition to intervene and request for hearing where the late filing may have resuhad from i petitioner's reliance ca NRC Staff representataans, but denies the petition for inch of standing. 8 Pursuant to 10 CFR 30.34. by product materials hcemmes are subject to the provisaans of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as well as to all valid rules, regulations sad orders c( the Commission. C By its terms, 32.700 of the Counsnian aa's Rules of Practim does not contemplate that the provisions of $2.114 relating to the timeuness of intervention petitions should apply 10 materials hcenses issued pursmaat to 10 CFR 2.103 and 10 CFR, Part 30. malens the Commission orders tha beanns be held or determines that sa opportmeity for a pubhc hearing should be afforded. D Section 2.103 of the Coma.ission's Rules of Practice prendes that the Duector of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Director of Nachar Materials Safety and Safeguards may issue a license i i I h finds that the apptration complaes with the requirements of the Atoaue Emergy Act and the Commission's regulation and restrscts the right to a hearing so na Apphcaat who has been actified o a denial of the apphcation. Consequently, the asuance of a by-product materials h=as renewal is not a proceeding mader the Atunic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, lig9(a),42 USC 2239(a), and a hearing is not rsquired before the license is rzarwed. E Where petitionar s counsel alles wf tast Comanssace Staff had repressated to her that no action would be taken on lionsee's apphcation Tar temewal of its by-product materials license natil com of pending reactor licensing proceedinp to which petitioner was a party, and such allegations were not densed by Staff, the acuan of Staff could be asserted as sa estoppel on the isses of the timeliness of petitioner's petition for teeve to intervene. F fairness required that its petition to intervene be naanidered even t of the license renewaf to w)sch it pertained. G Ahhough an orgassation may establish standing through its members, it must allege a potential injury which is particularized to it and not one whach is shared is notatantially equal measure by all of a large class sf engena, H Eince the Cotv.t fadlity that was the subject of this petition dad not have the potential for accidensat relesse of fission products, the proximity meses for establishment of standing is nuclear g I reactar proceedings was not apphcable here. Since petiticeer's caly allegation of injury to its members was proximity to she Cobsta facility,it failed to satablish standing and its petition was denied. LBP-g2-24A WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. AMENDMENT; March 31,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 50 266 0LA, 50 301-OLA: O A The Licensing Board denies a motion to reconsader its previous dariaia= not to certify a sua sponte question to the Commission. B The regulations limiting the Scard's authority to raise sua sponte insees resenct its right to consider safety, environmental or defense matters not raised by parties but does not restnct its responsiinlity to oversee the feirness and effaciency of prrraasaps and to raise important procedural questioris on its own motion. C The Commission's direction to Boards to notify it of sua sposte matters dass act create right in private parties. D A Board may raise a procedural question, such as whether a portion of its record should be treated as propnetary or should be released to the public, regardless of whether the fa!I scope of the question has beca raised by a party. I e N 5 --en-,. ._erw I l

) %(a;4 O. . y 5,. 4 [IE i ] ~ f;f ie+s A %: rf- . ;Pt,.. ' 99!%., +M>w ^ NA blY f+ w. DIGESTS .c ,as.. 's ; - . - + DD-821 PETITION REQUESTING *CLOSEDOWN (00 ALL SUSPECT REACTORS * -i,.-. PENDING RESOLUTION OF ALL PRESSURIZED THERM AL. SHOCK NON-CONSERVATISMS; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 31,1982; DIRECTOR 3 DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 o. A The Director d Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petitan ender 60 CFR 2.206 ebich . ~ - regeested that all reactors potentially subject to pressurised thermal shock be shut dows estil all areas d nonconservatism in the analysis of the presserized thermal shock issue are sanotved. n; B Technical issues descessed include the potential role d easmic loads, hydrodynamic loads and . _ ?, tyn vibratory loads in analysis d pressurized thermal shock. .g., t Dy L 'h T. M..U. ' 4.-e ', &9 * ^ wy s s:~ /, &N. ',. ~

i

-*fN'b

.L.

9 -.m s'4 $;(-. .. eg-, W. MM$

4 9

6 ,A* G? ** "W g.. -) .'i p. J s.7.* Pi op.- -e a ea v ,[g,4 k + Ii2 r,;f- ' p e+.fs .u.--

[he

-{f 4 '**? l w a,. \\ , Ak.;,*f. m 1 -A \\ - -. -.. ~...

? = .m._.. .wQ. . O- . s. s M' .o* .s,... >. "D 1?D E. v., v p .Z 12 GAL OTAT10NS INDEX v: y;

r. -

. v. e l Alabama Power Ca (Farley Nuclear Plant). ALAB-182,7 AEC 210,213,217 (1974) FW' application of res judicata and c diateral estoppel doctrines in licensing proceedings; LDP-82 3,15 NRC U-79,81 (1982) Alabama Power ca (Jensph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. Unita I and 2), ALAB-182,7 AEC 210,217 (1974) rehance,in NRC proceedmes, en federal esert M6 interpreting susimary judgment rule: LBP-8217, s 15 NRC 595 (1982) Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units I and 2) ALAB446,13 NRC 1027.1066, 1098 99.1108 (1981) petition for review pending sub nom. Alabama Power Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission No. 817547 (lith Cir., filed June 30. 1988) m emplaining anticompetitive situation in antitrust interventen petition; ALAS 465,15 NRC 30. 32 33 k* (1982) Athed General Nuclear Services, et al. (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), A1AB-328,3 NRC r? - 4-420. 422 (1976) demonstratio by an organization of standing to intervene; LBP-82-4. IS NRC 20$ (1982) satisfaction of

injury in fact
requirement to acquire standing to intervene; LSP-82-4,15 NRC 204 y

(1982) P3 Arkansas Power and Light Co. (Arkansas Nuclear One. Unit 2), ALAB 94,6 AEC 25,32 (1973) 8;. admissibihty c( reports of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; ALAB469,15 NRC 477 (1982) Arkansas Best Freight System v. United States 399 F. Supp.157 (W.D. Ark.1975), afFd sub morn., q* ; '- Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc 425 US. 901 (1976) constitutional right to intervene in antitrust proceedmg claimed; ALAMS, IS NRC 34 (1982) N' Arnold Tours. Inc. v. Camp,408 F.2d 1147 (1st Cir.1969) vacated,397 US. 315 (1970), on remand. 428 hJ-l F.2d 359 (1st Cir.1970), reversed. 400 US. 45 (1970) labor union's sone of interest for purpose of intervention in NRC proceeding; ALAB470,15 NRC 495 tv ' I (1982)

e. ;,

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association v. ICC. 567 F.2d 994,1002 (D.C. Cir.1977) scope of appellate review; ALAB469,15 NRC 467 (1982) 1 i I Association of American Railroads v. United States,195 US. App. D.C. 371,603 F.2d 953 (1979) l application of ejusdem.seneris rule of statutory cuastruction to psychological stress issue; CLi-824,15 l NRC 413 (1982) Associaten of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp. 397 US.150 (1970) Labor unma's sone of interest for purpose ofintervention in NRC proceedmg; A1AB470,15 NRC 495 (1982) sc, Association of National Advertisers. Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission 627 F.2d 1151.1879 (D.C. Chr. 1979), certiorari denied. 447 US. 921 (1980) actification of petitioners and Staff pnar to construction of system for incineration of low-level radmactive wastes: ALAB464,15 NRC 18 (1982) Atlanta Coahtion v. Atlanta Regional Commission 599 F.2d 1333 (5th Cir.1979) segmentation of envirorimental impact statement on radmactive waste disposal plan; ALAB464,15 NRC 7 (1982) m. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (Calvert Chffs Nuclear Plant. Units 1 & 2), LBP 7315,4 AEC 375. 377 y (1973) P termination of antitrust proceedms; LBP-82-21.15 NRC 640 (1982) Banco de Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank,28 F. Supp. 958,973 (S.D.N.Y.1939) aff'd.144 F. 2d 433 (2nd Cir.1940) - ~.. - appropriate form for presenting facts to defeat summary disposition motions: LBP-8217,15 NRC 595 (1982) 4 Basciano v. Herkimer,605 F.2d 605,611 (2d Cir.1978) cert. denied. 442 US. 929 (1979) determining whether evidence should te presented orally or in writing; CLI-42 2,15 NRC 259 (1982) -? ~ g e. km lq nW'k a a.

s IIGAL CITATIONS INDEX CAMS Seidler and Bookmeyer v. Universal Ins. Ca.134 F. 2d 828,831 (2nd Cir.1943) appropnate form far presenting facts to defeat summary disposition motions; LBP42-17,15 NRC $95 (1982) Belcher v. Bessett Furniture,588 F.904 (4th Cir.1978) basis for intervention petitioner's motion to be allowed to cheerve emergency planning esercues qucstioned LBP4212A,15 NRC Sl9 (1982) Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC,503 F.2d 1230,126445 (3d Cir.1974) foresens fors.a: bearings la materials hcensing crass; CLl42 2,15 NRC 247 (1982) Board of Regents v. Roth,408 US. $64, $77 (1972) detennining the saistence of a private interms, cognizable for due process purposes; CL1-82 2,15 NRC 257 (1982) Boston E4 son Ca (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Unit 1) ALAE 456,14 NRC 965.966 (1981) precedential effect of vacated partial initial dessaans; ALA8468,15 NRC 451452 (1982) Bowman Transportation, lat. v. Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc 419 US. 281. 286 (1974) aufraciency of hcensing board's esplanataan of why a witness dessa'l qualify as an espert; ALAB469,15 NRC 474 (1982) SPl v. AEC,502 F.2d 424 (C.A.D.C.1974) conditions on right of an interested party to a bearing; L8P 8216,15 NRC $73 (1982) Cafeteria & Restaurset Workers Union v. McElroy. 367 US. 886,895 (1961) descnption of constitutional due process; CLI-82 2. IS NRC 236 (1982) Cahfano v. Yamasaki,442 US 682. 693,696 (1979) determining the type af hearing required, for due process purposes; CLl42-2,15 NRC 257,260 (1982) Calvert Chrf Coordinating Committee v. AEC,449 F.2d 1809 (C.A D C.1971) enlar8enwat of the scope of consaderation of environnwatalissues; L8P 82-16,15 NRC $74 (l982) Camps v. CAP Telephone Ca, No.80 1799,shp opinaca at 13 m. 59 (D.C. Cir. December 31,1981) responsibilities of parties to attend oral arguments; ALAB466,15 NRC 279 (1982) Carchna Eavironmental Sandy Group v. United States,510 F.2d 796, Sol (D C. Cir.1975) statutory nght to a hasnns as a property or bberty interest; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 257 (1982) Carahna Power and Light Ca (Shenron Htrns Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1-4), ALAB 526,9 NRC 122, 124 (1979) hcensing toord lacks authority to order stay; L8P-82 23,15 NRC 649 (1982) Chrysler v. Brown,448 US. 281,3to 11 (1979) emplanation of why confidentaahty issue is procedural rather than substantive; LBP-82 24A,15 NRC 663 (1982) Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wilhem H. Ziauner Nuclear Station) L8P-8414,11 NRC $70, $74 (1980) particulanration of contentions following issuana of Staff documents; ALAE 464,15 NRC 16 (1982) ) Cincinnati Gas and Electnc Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station), L8P4414, il NRC $70,576 (1980) late intervention petitioner lacking empertise to assist la developing a sound record; LBP42 4, l$ NRC 202 (1982) City of West Chicago v. Kerr McGee Chemical Corp, Na 80 C 3337 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8,1981) enforcement of State and local regulatory authority over facihty seeking an NRC bcense; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 269 (1982) Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Plant) Memorandum and Order of July 28,198 8, slip op., pp. 39-42) reance underlying identificatior of parties in nuclest power hcensing cases; LBP42-3,15 NRC 80 (1982) Cleveland Electric illuminating Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Plant), L8P 81-4214 NRC 842 (1981) ekctromagnetic pulse contention wwwed as attack on regulations; LBP4216,15 NRC 588 (1982) Cleveland Electric litumunating Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umats I and 2), ALA8-443,6 NRC 741, 748 (1977) enforcement of State and local regulatory authority over facility seeking sa NRC license; CLI 82 2,15 NRC 269 (1982) Cleveland Electnc Illuminavns Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), LBP42-1 A,15 NRC 43 (1982) admassion of ATWS contention that is the subject of rulemaking LDP4219,15 NRC 615 (1982) contentson rejected because it is the subject of rulemaking; LBP-82-II,15 NRC 350 (1982) Cleveland v. United States,329 US.14,18,67 5 Ct.13,15,98 L.Ed.12 (1946) apphcation of ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction to psychological stras issue; CLI-824,15 NRC 413 (1982) 26 4. M

l l r ~ LEGAL CTTATIONS INDEX i CASES l CNA Financial Cern v. Donovna, Civ. Na 770008, slip op. at 9 (D.D.C. Oct. 29. IMI) determining when written evidence is appropriate; CL1-82 2,15 NRC 260 (1982) Collar, Shannon, Rill & Scott,8 DOE 180,129 (1981) 3 burden in specifying portions of propnetary document for release to the public; LBP42-6,15 NRC 287 (1982) Commonweahh Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station) LBP-82-30,12 NRC 683 (1980) specificity of contentions where micraat documents are unavailable; LBP-8216,15 NRC 572 (1982) Commonocalth Edison Ca (Quad Cities Stationi, LBP-8153,14 NRC 912 (1981) specificity of contentions where relevant documents are saavailable; LBP-3216,15 NRC 572 (1982) Connecticut Bankers Ass's. v. Bd. of Governors,627 F.2d 245,251 (D.C. Cir.1980) failure to show necessity of formal hearing; CLl42 2,15 NRC 256 (1982) Conservation Law Foundation v. GSA,427 F. Sepp.1369,1374 (D.R.I.1977) issuance of materials license amendment prior ao completion of draft EIS; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 265 (1982) Consoldsted Educa Ca (ladian Point Station Units I.2 and 3), ALAB-436,6 NRC 547,584-85 (1977) determination of maximum vibratory ground snoima; ALAB467,15 NRC 445 (1982) " Consolidated Edison Co. (ladian Point. Uniu 1,2 & 3), ALAB-319,3 NRC ISS, 190 (1976) role of licensing board in operating license pra== ding ALAB-669,15 NRC 457 (1982) Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), LBP-72-16,5 AEC 43,52 (1971) good cause not shown for late filing of core catcher contention; LBP-82-II,15 NRC 350 (1982) Consolidated Eduon Ca of New York (Indian Point. Unit 2) and Power Anthority of the State of New York (Indian Point. Unit 3) CLl41-1,13 NRC I (1981); CLI-8123,14 NC 610 (1981) hcensees argue that commencenemt of adjudkatory proceeding prior to completion of ongoing proceedings to estabish generic standards is denial of due process; LBP-82-23,15 NRC 649 (1982) Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant) ALAB-636,13 NRC 312 (1981) need for EIS for eatensma of spent fuel storage facility license; LBP-82-14,15 NRC 550 (1982) Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Nat), ALAB-636,13 NRC 312,329 fa. 32 (1981) scope of appellate review; ALAB-669,15 NRC 467 (1982) Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Nat), ALAB-636,13 NRC 312,329 31 (1981) remand to produce a better environmental record for operating license amenunent proceeding to allow onsite storage of low level radioactive waste; ALAB-664,15 NRC 12 (1982) Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant), LBP-82-8,15 NRC 299,329,331332 (1982) l means of expanding quality assurance contentions; LBP-82-15,15 NRC 557,564 (1982) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Nat) CLI-74-5,7 AEC 19,31 (1974) modification of res judicata and collateral estoppel doctrines for operating license proceeding; LBP-82-3, 15 NftC 79 (1982) Consumers Power Ca (Midland Nnt, Units I and 2), ALAB-452,6 NRC 892,912-14,918-24,1044, { 1094-95, 1099 (1977) explaining anticompetitive situation in antitrust intervention petition; ALAB465,15 NRC 30,32-33 (1982) Consensers Power Ca (Midland Nat Units I and 2) ALAB-458,7 NRC 155 (1978) bearms of economic cost om utility of waste deposal pian; ALAB-664,15 NRC 10 (1982) Castle v. Pacific Legal foundation,445 US.198 (1980) failure to show secessity of formal hearing; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 256 (1982) Cromwell v. Sac County,94 US. 351,358 (1877) application of res judicata; LBP42 3,15 NRC 81 (1982) Dairyland Power Coop. (La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor). ALAB-618,12 NRC 551,552 (1980) basis of seismic design criteria; ALAB467,15 NRC 423 (1982) Detroit Eduon Ca (Earico Fermi Atomic Power Nat. Unit 2), ALAB-77,5 AEC 315 (1972) scope of sua sponte review oflicensing board decision; ALAB-664,15 NRC 20 (1982) Detroit Edison Ca (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP 79-I,9 NRC 73,85-86 (1979) i f jurisdiction for chalicages to TVA's compliance with envircemental responsibilities; ALAB-664,15 NRC l l 1I (1982) Detroit Eduon Ca (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Unit Na 2), ALAB-470,7 NRC 473,475 (1978) application of mone-of-interest test for intervention; ALAB470,15 NRC $03 (1982) Detroit Edison Co. (Earico Fermi Atomic Power Nat, Unit No. 2), ALAB-475,7 NRC 752,756-57 (1978) purpose and scope of NRC satitrust review; ALAS 465. 85 NRC 28 (1982) Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Uni No. 2) LBP-78-il,7 NRC 381,388 (1978) application of zone-of-interest test for intervention; ALAIMb70,15 NRC 503 (1982) Digital Equipment Corp. v. Parker,487 F. Sepp.1804,18 82 (D. Mass.1980), vacated ca other grounds. 653 F.2d 701 (1st Cir.1981) determining whether evidence should be prueented orally or la writing; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 260 (1982) i e 21 O

,.-_____._.~.d*~' t < IJGAL CITNnONS INDEX CASES Dolein v. FTC,219 FJd 742,748 (D C. Cir.1954), certiorari denied,348 US. 981 (1955) type of evidence calling for empert sponsorship; ALAB469,15 NRC 477 (1982) Duke Power Ca (Amendment to Materials Licenas SNM 1773-Trsasportation of Spent Fuel from Oconee , Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB451,14 NRC 307 (1981) denial of intervention petitions because of utihty of low-level waste storage plan; ALAB464,15 NRC 3 (1982) docussion of plans for handling spent fuel; LBP4216.15 NRC 580 (1982) Duke Power Co (Amendment to Matenals License SNM 1773-Transportatics of Spent Fuel from Oi:ence Nuclear Staten for Storage at McGuire Nuclear StationL ALAS 451,14 NRC 312,313 (1981) segmentation of environmental impact statementa; ALAB464. IS NRC 7,11,14-15 (1982) Duke Power Co. (Cata=be Neclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 355,4 NRC 397,41112 (1976) admissabihty of hearsay evidence in NRC proceedmas; ALAS 469,15 NRC 477 (1982) . Duke Power Co. (Chernkee Nuclear Station, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-440,6 NRC 642,644-45 (1977) protection of tardy St. unar's interests; ALAB-671,15 NRC 514 (1982) rehance on pendens, d another proceeding to escuse untimely intervention; LBP-821,15 NRC 40 (1982) Duke Power Ca (Perkins Nuclear Station. Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-431,6 NRC 460. 462 (1977) strength of pleading where no good escusa esists for tardiness in fihng intervention petition; LDP42-4,15 NRC 201 (1982) Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Statson, Usats I,2 and 3L ALAB415,12 NRC 350,352 (1580) factors o be natafand for montimely intervention; LBP42-4,15 NRC 201 (1982) Duke Power Co. (Perkms Nuclear Station Units 13), ALAB-591,18 NRC 741 (1980) Board juradactson to truet request for disclosure of en parte communications as request for discovery; LBP-82-22,15 NRC 641 (1982) Duquesne Light Co., et al. (Beawr Valley Pomer Station, Unst 1). ALAB-IO9. 6 AEC,244 at n.2 (1973) demonstraten, by se organization, of standing to intervene; LDP 82-4,15 NRC 205 (1982) Edlow laternational Ca ( Agent for the Government of Indon on Apphcatma to Esport Special Nuclear Matenas) CLI 764,3 NRC 563,579 (1976) apphcation of 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) to timely intervention in by-product matenals hcense proceeding; LBP42-24,15 NRC 656 657 (1982) Edlow laternational Co., CLi-764,3 NRC 576 (1976) standma of an organization to inter <ene; LBP 82-24,15 NRC 658 (1982) Egyes v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank,165 F 2d $39 (2nd Ctr.1944) appropnate form for presenting futs to defeat summary deposition motion; LDP42-lf,15 NRC 595 (1982) Eason Company, US A., BFA 0609. Decision and Order of the Department of Energy, shp op., February 18,1981 burden in specifying portions of propnetary document for release to the pubhc; LBP-824.15 NRC 287 e. (1982) florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Station. Unit Na 2), ALAB-420,6 NRC 8,13 (1977) acceptance of snaterial allegations of interventaan petition as true: ALAB470,15 NRC 500 (1982) Florida Power & Light Ca (St. Lucie Plant, Unit Na 2), ALAB461,14 NRC 1137. Il23 22, a.12 (1981) rejection of intervention petition on antitrust exmcerns at operating bcense stage; ALAB-665,15 NRC 24 (1982) Florida Ib=er & Light Ca (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating. Units 3 and 4), ALAB-660,14 NRC 987, 995, 957-998 (l98I) particskrization of contentions following issuance of Staff documents; ALAB464,15 NRC 16 (1982) Flonda Poeer and Light Co. (Turkey Posnt Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4) LBP 8114,13 NRC 677, 687 (1981); affd. ALAB460,14 NRC 987 (1981) party oppusing summary depositen motion must demonstrate taastence of genuine issue; LBP-8217,15 NRC 596 (1982) Gasper v. Lousiana Stadium & Espositen Dutrict. 418 F. Supp. 716,720'2B (D la.1976), affd. 577 F.2d 897 (5th Cst.1978), cert. dessed,439 U.S.1073 (1979) bealth. safety, or environmental concerns as property interests subject to due process protection; CLl42 2, 15 NRC 257 (1982) Georgia Power Co. (Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Na 2h LBP 74-52,8 AEC 107 (1974) terminaten of antitrust proceeding; LBP-82-21,15 NRC 640 (1982) Gerntson v. Yance 488 F. Supp. 267,270 (D. Masa.1980) s increased burden to government of additional due process procedures; CLI42 2,15 NRC 262 (1982) Gladstone, Realtors v. Bellwood. 441 U.S. 91,109 (1979) J acceptance of snatenal allegations of intervention petiten as true; ALAlk670,15 NRC 500 (1982) ) 2s i -.n- ~ ~ - ~ M

? n i ~. ~ 42 GAL GTATIONS DfDEX CASES Goldberg v. Kelly,397 US 254,26243 (1970) determinies the ah of property interest far due prooses perpenes; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 257 (1982) Graham v. National Transportation Safety Board SM F.2d 317,320 (8th Cir.1976) detersiinias whether evidence should be presented orally or in writie6; CLi-42-2,15 NRC 259 (1982) Grima v. Griffin,327 UA 220,236 (1946) appropriate form for presenting facts to defeat sueunary disposition muaans; LDP-82-If,15 NRC 595 (1982) Golf States Uti!ities Ca (River Bend Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-183,7 AEC 222,226 (1974) demonstration of geographic proaimity to acquwe standsag te interivas: LDP42 4. IS NRC 204 (1982) Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units I and 2), /. LAB-444 (1977) 740 at 771 fr-failure to demonstrate aczus between issue and facility that is subject of the pr~=4ar-LBP4215,15 NRC 558 (1982) Gulf States Utihties Ca (River Dem! Station. Units I and 2). ALAB-444,6 N'tC 760,796 (1977) reliance on per.dency of another proceeding to escuse late intervention; LBI 421,15 NRC 39-40 (1982) Gulf States Utahties Co. (River Bend, Unita I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,768 70 (1977) criteria to be entisfied if County agency seeks to litigata new seismic issues; LDP42-19,15 NRC 617 (1982) Gott States Utilition Co. (River Bend. Units I and 2), ALAB 444,6 NRC 760,775 (1977) approaching generic issue involved la rulemaking is a saammer similar to treatment of marssolved safety issue; LBP-8219. IS NRC 613,614 (1982) Hamlia Testing Laborstories, lac. v. U1 Atomic Emergy C 357 F2d 632,638 (6th Cir.1966) precedest for holding adjudicatory hearings la matanals liosase ar-adment cases; CLl42-2 IS NRC 272 (1982) Houston Lighting and Power Ca (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station Unit Na 1), ALAS 425,13 NRC 13,15 (1981) score of appellate review; ALAB-669,15 NRC 467 (1982) Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station Unit I), January 12,1982 (mapublished) at 3-4 general acwspaper article not se aczeptable excuse for late-filed contention; LDP-8215,15 NRC 557 (1982) Houston Lighting and Power Co. (ABens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I) ALAB 590, il NRC w. 542 at 550 (1980) reasons for using summary disposition precedures; LBP-82-8,15 NRC 302 (IM2) ' use of samraary disposition procedure to avoid of time-consuming hearings; LDP-8217,15 NRC 596 (1982) Houston Lighting and Power Ces (ABeas Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I). ALAB 535,9 NRC 377, 390 (1979) standin8 of an organhation to intervene; LBP-82 24,15 NRC 658 (1982) Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Staties, Unit 1), ALAB-582, il NRC 239, 242 (1980) threatened economic injury as basis for standing to intervene; ALAB470,15 NRC 507 (1982) Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Neclear Generating Station, Unit I), ALAB 590, il NRC 542, 546 551 (1980). amount of detail required la setting forth - '-- LBP-82-4,15 NRC 206 (1982) Houston Lighting and Power Ca (Alleas Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I), January 12,1982 (unpublished) at 3-4,54 amendment of hydrogen control ocatantion acceptabic; LBP-82-15,15 NRC 563 (1982) Houston Lighting and Power Ca (South Teams Propect) LBP-79 27,10 NRC 563 (1979), afrd, ALAB-575, il NRC 14 (1980) absence of traditional elements of res judicata and collateral entoppel in hcanning proceedias: LBP42-3, 15 NRC 80 (1982) l Houston Lighting and Power Ca (Smth Teams Units I and 2), ALAB-381,5 NRC 582 (1977) i licrasing board lacks authority to order a stay; LBP 82 23,15 NRC 649 (1982) Humphries v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.,14 F.R.D.177 (N.D. Ohio 1953) intervention petitioner seeks discovery against acaparties; LSP4212A,15 NRC 519 (1982) ICC v. Jersey City 322 US 503, $14 (1944) record basis for deciding se appeal of a licmasing board de== ALAB469,15 NRC 400 481 (1982) Independent Bankers Ass's v. Bd. of Governors, $16 F.2d 1206,121719 (D.C. Cir.1975) int ing the statutory requirement of a hearing; CLI42-2,15 NRC 255 (1982) ladian out Alliance v. Volpe,484 F.2d II (8th Cir.1973) engmentation of environmental impact statsmaat on redsonceive weste plan; ALAB-664,15 NRC 7 (1982) i N 29

^ = 0 .1EGAL CITATIONS INDEX 9 Izaak Walton L4sgue of America v. Marsh,655 F.2d 346,36l (D.C.Cir.1981) health, safety,or environmental comaras as property interesta subject to due process protection; CLI-82 2. 15 NRC 257 (1982) Joy v. Danscis,479 F.2d 1236.1240-41 (4th Car.1973) determining the canstence of property interest for due process purposes; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 257 (1982) Jungewirth v. Jungewirth, l15 Or. 668,672 (1925) limitation on length of application for stay; LBP-82-23,15 NRC 648 (1982) Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station. Unit I), ALAB-462,7 NRC 320,338 (1978) consideration of late intervention petition as motion to reopen record; ALAB-671.15 NRC Sit (1982) Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1). ALAB-279,1 NRC 559,574-76 (1975) NRC pleading requirements for antitrust matters. ALAB-665.15 NRC 29,30 31 (1982) Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1) ALAB-462,7 NRC 320,338 (1978) criteria far reopening an evidentiary record; ALA8469,15 NRC 465 (1982) Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Unit I). ALAB-321,3 NRC 293, 298 (1976), aff'd CL1771,5 NRC i (1977) po cr to inue a stay not delegated to licensing board by Comminion; LBP-82 23,15 NRC 649 (1982) Kansas Gas and Electric Co. et al. (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1), ALAB 327,3 NRC 4^8 (1976) discovery by a person not a party to a proceeding: LBP-82:2,15 NRC 53 (1982) Kansas Gas and Electric Co., et al (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station Unit No.1), ALAB-327,3 NRC 408. 417 (1976) burden of going forward on confidentiahty issue; LBP-82-6,15 NRC 286 (1982) Keller v. Joy,641 F.2d 1044,1053 (2d Cir.) (Tenney, J., concurring), cert. denied,102 S. Ct. 390 (1981) assessment of risk of depriving a party of its interests in due process case. CLI-82-2,15 NRC 259 (1982) Kleppe v. Sierra Club. 427 U.S. 390 (1976) segmentation of environmental impact statement ander NEPA; CLI 82 2,15 NRC 264,265 (1982) Klors v. Broadway Hale Stores,359 US. 207,211 13 (1959) violation of anti-monopoly provnions of Sherman Act; ALAB465,15 NRC 31 (1982) Long Island Lighting Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2). ALAB-292,2 NRC 631, 646-47 (1975) nontimely intervention petition not justised by failure of petitioner to read pubhshed notice; LBP-a2-4,15 NRC 201 (1982) ter.g Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) ALAB 99. 6 AEC 53 (1973) argument opposing disminal of ATWS contention because of proposed rulemaking; LBP-82 I A,15 NRC 45 (1982) Lorain Journas Co, v. United States 342 US.143,154 (1951) violation of anti-monoputy provisions of Sherman Act; ALAB-665,15 NRC 31 (1982) Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Sicam Electric Generating Station, Uma 3). CLI 73-25,6 AEC 619. 622 n.3 (1973) apphcation of esemption option of $50.12. CLI 82-4,15 NRC 380 (1982) Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Generating Station, Unit 3), CLI 73 25,6 AEC 619, 621 (1973) rejection of antitrust intervention petition for failure to explain anticompetitive effects of hcense; ALAB-665,15 NRC 24. 29,31 (1982) Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Generating Station, Unit 3). CLI-73-7,6 AEC

48. 49 (1973)

NRC pleading requirements for antitrust matters ALAB.665.15 NRC 29 (1982) Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3), ALAB-125,6 AEC 371,372 at n 6 (1973) demonstration of geographicd proximity to acquire standing to antervene; LBP 82-4,15 NRC 204 (1982) Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA. Set F.2d 1253 (9th Cir.1977) contrast between licensing and rulemaking proceedings, regarding the type of bearing needed; CLl-82 2. 15 NRC 255 (1982) Marathon Oil v. Environmental Protection Agency,564 F.2d 1253,1262 3 (9th Cir.1977) statutory word.ng required to trigger formal adjudicatory procedures. CLI 82 2,15 NRC 274 (1982) Marine Space Enclosures, Inc. v FMC,420 F.2d 577. 589-90 (D.C. Cir.1969) interpretation of the word 4:aring" as appbed to adjudscatory proceeding; CL1-82-2,15 NRC 254 (1982) 30 mB l i

a .o y ^ IIGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Martiner v. Cahfornia. 444 US. 277,281 (1980) apphcation of due procem provaion of 5th Amendment to adverse effects of governmental action; CLI-82 2.15 NRC 258 (1982) b'arytsad-National Capital Park and Planning Commiasson v. Umtad States Postal Service. 487 F 2d 1029, 1038 (1973) reasons for courts' disfavoring consideration of psychological effects under NEPA; CLI-82 6,15 NRC 417 (1982) Mathews v. Eldndge 424 US. 319,334,344 (1976) desenption of constitutaanal due process: CLI-82 2,15 NRC 256,261 (1982) Mathces v. Eldndse,424 US. 319,344-45,347 (1976) factors considered in determining the need for a trial-rype hearing: CL1-82-2,15 NRC 259-261 (1982) Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Statson. Omt No.1), CLI 80-16. ll NRC 674 (1980) esclusion of hydrogen control contention; LBP 82-15,15 NRC 560 (1982) issuance of license while rulemakmg is pending; LBP-8219. IS NRC 614 (1982) Metropalaan Edrson Co. (Three Mile island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1). CLI 8016, il NRC 674. 675 (1980) c'. contest for consideration of hydrogen control messores; ALAB-669,15 NRC 481 (1982) Metropohtan Ednan Co (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit No.1), CLI 8016,11 NRC 674,675. 676 (1980) emergency systems overridden by operator action: ALAB-6A9,15 NRC 460 (1982) ~ Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Male Island, Umt I), Docket No. 505289 (restart), shp op. at p. 4 (March 12.1981) admanabahty of cnntention that is the subject of rulemaking; LBP-8219.15 NRC 613 (1982) Metropolaan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Unit 1). LBP-79 34.10 NRC 528,832 35 (1979) histoncal treatment of cass 9 accidents; LBP-82-19,15 NRC 607 (1982) Mmnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Comminion,602 F.2d 412,417-418 (D C. Cir.1979) subjects to be covered in NRC environmental asseument of plan for onsite storage of low-level radioactive wastes; ALAB-664.15 NRC 19 (1982) Miniusppe Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Staison, Units I and 2), ALAB 130,6 AEC 423,426 (1973) use ci summary disposition procedures to avoid time-consuming hearings; LBP-8217,15 NRC 596 (1982) Monumental Health Plan, Inc. v. HHS. 510 F. Supp. 244. 249 (D. Md.1981) determining when written evidence is appropriate. CLI-82-2,15 NRC 260 (1982) Morrissey v. Brewer,408 US. 478,481 (1972) procedural actions called for by due process; CLb82-2,15 NRC 256 (1982) Morton v. Ruir.,441 US 199. 232 (1974) defimtion of substantive rule: LBP 82-24A.15 NRC 66),664 (1982) Moser v. Onned States 341 US. 41 at 47,71 S.C 553. 95 L. Ed 729 (1951) action of Staff an estoppel on the issue of timchness of intervention petition; LBP-82 24,15 NRC 658 11982) N.V. Maatschappij Voor ladustricle Waarden v. A O. Smith Corp.,590 F.2d 415,418 (2d Cir.1978) ,hcensing board's refusal to hear opinion evidence on containment strength and hydrogen generation not an abuse of its discretion: ALAB-669,15 NRC 475 (1982) NAACP v. Wilmmston Medical Center, Inc.,453 F. Supp. 330,343 (D. Del 1978) determining whether evidence should be presented orally or in writing; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 259 (1982) Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Costic. 561 F.2d 904. 909 n.27 (1977) petitioner in antitrust proceedmg claims constnutional right to intervene; ALAB-665. IS NRC 34 (1982) Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc v. Morton,458 F.2d 827,838 (D.C. Cir.1972) NRC obhgation to look at environmeMal consequences of onsite storage of low level radioactive wastes; ALAB-664.15 NRC 15 (1982) New England Coahtien on Nuclear Pollution v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 542 f'.2d 87,99 (1st Cir. 1978) subjects to be covered in NRC enviroa'nental assessment of plan for onsite storage of low-level radioactive wastes; ALAB-664.15 NRC 19 (1982) l New Enstand Power and Light Co. (NEP. Units I and 2), LBP-7818,7 NRC 932,933-34 (1978) I, montimely intervention petnion not justified by failure of petitioner to read published notice; LBP-821,15 i NRC 40 (1982). LBP-82-4.15 NRC 201 (1982) l New Hamp6 hire v. Atomic Energy Comminion. 406 F.2d 170,173-175. cert. den;ed. 395 US. 962 (1969) l scope of Commission authonty to protect public health and safety: CLI-82 6.15 NRC 410-412 (1982) Nofelco Realty Corp. v. United States,521 FSupp. 458 (S.D.N.Y.1981) l I interpreting the statutory requirement of a hearing; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 254 (1982) l l l l I 31 j t t _..--... _..~- .n. - ~ - O m.

s ~ ~. _ - ~. - ~. - - -. - IIGAL CITATIONS INIKX g-North Anna Environmental Coalition v. NRC,533 F.2d 655,658 59 (1976) NRC discretion to interpret scope of its responsibilities concerning pubhc health and safety; CLI-824. IS NRC 415 (1982) Northeast Nuclear Energy Ca (Montague Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2) I NRC 43e (1975) NRC jurisdiction to entertain motion of intervention petitioner to observe emergency planning esercises; LBP 8212A.15 NRC 517 (1982) Northern Indiana Pubhc Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station Nuclear I), ALAB 249,8 AEC 980,987 (1974) luensing board lacks authority to order a stay; LBP-82 23,15 NRC 649 (1982) Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1). ALAB-619,12 NRC 558. 570 (1980) recourse of petitioners regarding inadequate Staff environmental assessment; ALAB464,15 NRC 20 (1982) Northern States Power Ca (Montzello Nuclear Generating Nat, Unit I), ALAB-16,4 AEC 435,439 (footnote 1) (1970) hmitations on Board's sua sponte authority to consider conGdentiality issues; LBP-82-6,15 NRC 284,286 (1982) Northern States Power Co. (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Unit I), ALAB420,12 NRC $7. (1980) Board obhgation to address unresolved safety issues; LBP-82-15.15 NRC 559 (1982) Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generating mnt, Units I and 2), ALAB-455. 7 NRC 41, 44 (1978) NRC obhgation to look at environmental consequences of ensite storage of low-level radioactive wastes; ALAB464. IS NRC 16 (1982) Northern States Power Ca (Prairie Island Plant) ALAB-107,6 AEC 188 (1973), afPd, BPI v. AEC,502 F.2d 424 (C.A.D.C.1974) requirement for fihng contentions before first prehearing conference; LBP-82-16.15 NRC $71 (1982) NRDC v NRC 547 F2ds 633,641 (1978) basis for waste disposal contention; LBP-82-II.15 NRC 350,351 (1982) Nuclear Engineering Co. (SherGeld low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473,7 NRC 737, 745 (1978) burden to demonstrate appropasteness of discretionary intervention; LBP 82-4,15 NRC 206 (1982) Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. CLI 80-27. Il NRC 799,802,809. n.2-4 (1980) Commission position regarding adjudicatory hearings in matenals hcense cases; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 273, 275 (1982) O' Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center,447 US. 773,789 (1980) apphcation of due process provision of 5th Amendment to adverse effects of governmental action; CLI-82-2, I5 NRC 258 (1982) Orvis v. Brickman,95 F. Supp. 605 (D. D.C.1951) appropriate means of opposing summary disposition motions; LBP-82-17.15 NRC 5% (1982) Otter Tail Power Ca v. United States,410 U.S. 366 (1973), affirming. 331 F. Supp. 54 (D. Minn.1971) violation of anti-rnonopol) provisions of Sherman Act; ALAB465,15 NRC 31 (1982) Oiter Tail Power Ca v. United States,410 U.S. 366,368 (1973) definition of "whcchng* power; ALAB-665,15 NRC 26 (1982) Owens v. Hills. 450 F. Supp. 218,223 (N.D.111.1978) determining whether evider.ce should be presented or:Ily or in writing; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 260 (1982) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant). LBP-8121.14 NRC 107 (1981) emergency preparedness to allow for low-power testing; LBP-82-3,15 NRC 185 (1982) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-644,13 NRC 903,913 (1981) purpose of safe shutdown earthquake determination; LBP 82-3.15 NRC 69,123 (1982) Pacific Gas and Electric Ca (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-410,5 NRC 1398,1400 (1977) effect oflack of documentation on fabrication of contentions: LBP-8216,15 NRC 573 (1982) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2). ALAB-598,11 NRC 876, 879 (1980) consideration of late intervention petition as motion to reopen record; ALAB471,15 NRC 511 (1982) Pacific Gas and Electric Ca (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). ALAB400,12 NRC 3, 10 (1980) limitations on Board's sua sponte authority to consider confidentiality issues; LBP.824,15 NRC 284,286 (1982) 32 - - ~ ~ - - = l 1 l 1

v 5, ~ .4 r ~. - L 12 GAL CITATIONS INDEX f*aoS4 Pacir.c Gas and Electric Co. (Diable Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB-644.13 NRC 903,924 fa. 40 (1981) selection of a rar-spectrum for deiermining ground motion representative of a plant's SSE; ALAB467.15 NRC 445 (1982) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Plant). CLI-76-l. 3 NRC 73. 74, note I (1976) estabishment of licensing board's juriedaction LBP-8216. IS NRC 500 (1982) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Planth ALAB444.13 NRC 903. 929-934 (1981) saturauce of paak ground acceleration at SONGS; LBP-82-3.15 NRC 147 (1982) Pacir.c Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon. Units I and 2). CLI 815.13 NRC 361. 363 (1981) .ddssitmhty of contentions on Thil-related issues met betad in NUREG-0737; LBP-82-19.15 NRC 607 (1982) Parklane Hosiery. Inc. v. Shore. 439 U.S. 322. 326 a.5 (1979) apphcation of collateral estoppel doctnee: LBP-82-3.15 NRC 79 (1982) Pence v. Kleppc. 529 F.2d 135.140-42 (9th Cir.1976) determining the existence of property interest for due process purposes; CLI-82 2.15 NRC 257 (1982) Peopic of the State of lilinois v. NRC 598 F.2d 12 (1979) seed to hold hearing before materials license is renewed;1 BP 82 24.15 NRC 657 (1982) reshiakai v. Duncan. 476 F. surp.1247.1260 (D.D.C.1979) issuance of materials hcense amendment prior to completion of draft EIS; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 265 (1982) Philadelphia Electric Co. (Fuhon Generating Station. Units I and 2) ALAB457.14 NRC 967 (1981) determining whether termination of a pmceeding should be with prejudice; ALAS 468.15 NRC 458 (1982) trestrnent of request to withdraw from antitrust proceeding; CLI-82-5.15 NRC 406 (1982) Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Units 2 & 3). ALAB 216,8 AEC 13,20 21 (1974) amount of detail required in setting forth contentions; LEP-82-4,15 NRC 206 (1982) support of interventoon, operating hcense amendment proceedsag to allow ansate storage of low-level radioactive wastes: ALAB-664.14 NRC 16 (1982) standard for granting intervention; LBP-8216.15 NRC 568. 570 (1982) Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Units 2 and 3). ALAB440,13 NRC 487 (1981) effect of vacated partialinitial dects.ons on other decisions; ALAB468.15 NRC 452 (1982) e. Philadelphia Electric Co et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Units 2 and 3). ALAB454,14 NRC 632. 634 (1981) factors determining -i y of holding a hearing on a contention; LBP-82.l?.15 NRC 596 (1982) t Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. FCC,359 F.2d 282,283-284 (D C. Cir.1966) requirements for formal hearings in materials hcense amendment cases; CLI-82 2.15 NRC 252 (1982) Pittsburg Hotels Association. Inc. v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsbur8 202 F. Sepp. 486 (W. D. I Pa.1962), affd. 309 F. 2d 186 (3rd Cir.1962) requirements for defeating summary disposition motions; LDP42-17.15 NRC $95 (1982) Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant. Us.ts I sad 2). CLI-76-27. 4 NRC 610. 613-614, 616 (1976) discretionary intervention by petitioners who do not meet judicial standing test; ALAS 470,15 NRC 494-495. 498-499. 507 (1982h LBP-82-4.15 NRC 206 (1982) l Port'.and General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant). ALAB 534,9 NRC 287. 289-290 at a. 6 (1979) heensing board lacks authority to order stay: LBP 82 23.15 NRC 649 (1982) Portland General Electric Co et al. (Prbble Springs Nuclear Plant. Units I and 2). CLI-76-27,4 NRC l 610. 611 14 (1976) standing concepts to tu applied in determining whether to admit tardy petitioner for interver. tion; LBP-82-4.15 NRC 204 (1982) Portland General Electric Co., et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant) ALAB-496. 8 NRC 308 (1978) demonstration of geographical proximity to acquire standing to intervene; LBP-32-4.15 NRC 204 (1982) Portland General Electree Co., et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant). Order Concerning Requests for Hearing and latervention Petitions (arpubhshed). July 27.1978 demonstration of geographical proximity to acquire standing to intervene; LBP-82-4.15 NRC 204 (1982) Potomac Electric Power Co. (Domstra Point Nuclear Generating Station. Units I and 2). ALAB-218,8 AEC

79. 85 (1974) acceptance of contentions that are the subject of rulemaking: LBP-82-1 A 15 NRC 44 (1982h LBP-82-19 l

15 NRC 61)(1982) l waste disposal contention rejected because it is the subject of rulemaking: LBP 82-II.15 NRC 350 (1982) i i l 4 33 l 1

e t LEGAL CITATsONS INDEX G^ CASES Power Reactor Dreelopment Ca v. Electrical Unen,367 US. 396,417 (1961) effect on safety and environmental reviews of increasing financial comunstments to power reactors; CLl-82-4,15 NRC 372 (1982) Power Reactor Development Corp. v, laternstenal Union of Electreal Workers,367 US. 396,409 (1961) Commission authoney to regulate redeten hazards; CLI-824 IS NRC 480 (1982) Project Management Corporation (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354,4 NRC 383,392 93 (1976) participaten by County as fell intervenor and interested governmental agency; LBP-82-19,15 NRC 617 (1982) Pub ic Service Ca of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Plant Units I and 2) LBP 76-25,3 NRC 847, 854-5 (1976) reliance on pendency of another proceeding to escuse untimely intervention; LBP-821. IS NRC 40 (1982) Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Gensratsag Staten Units I and 2), ALAB-322,3 NRC 328, 330 (1976) demonstration of standing to intervene by an organization; LBP-82-4,15 NRC 205 (1982) Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hal Nuclear Generating Staten, Units I and 2), ALAB-461. 7 NRC 313,315 (March 1,1978) treatment of unbnefed issues as warred. ALAB-664,15 NRC 20 (1982) Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Statica, Units I and 2), ALAB-49),8 NRC 253, 267 48 (1978) ~ jurindsten for challenges to TVA's compliance with environmental responsabilities; ALAB-664,15 NRC 11(1982), Pubhc Servce Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), CLI-80 to,11 NRC 438 (1980) discretenary interventen in cases where avenues of pubhc participation are not available as a matter of right; ALAB-470,15 NRC 499 (1982) Pubic Service Ca of Indiana (Marble Hi!!, Units I and 2), /, LAB-405,5 NRC II90,1892 (1977) basis for discretenary interlocutory review of Special Master's order inquiring into Staff attitude; LBP-82-7A 15 NRC 297 (1982) Public Servce Co. of Indiana, Inc-(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-316,3 NRC 167,170 (1976) hcensing board lacks authonty to order a stay; LBP-82-23,15 NRC 649 (1982) Pubhc Servce Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station), CLI-77-8,5 NRC 503,530 536 (1977) consideraten, at operating 1 cense stage, of increased construction costs in cost / benefit analysis; LBP-8216,15 NRC 584 (1982) Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33,41 -(1977). affirmed, CLI-78 l,7 NRC I (1978). affirmed sob nom New England Coahtion on Nuclear Polluten v. NRC. 582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir.1978) Isensing board's obligation to esplain its reasons for finding that a witness does not qualify as an espert; ALAB-669 IS NRC 474 (l982) Pubis Servce Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLI 78,1,7 NRC I,17 23 (1978) bearing of appleant's bond rating on its financial qualifications; ALAB-671. IS NRC 512 (1982) Pubis Servce Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), LBP 74-36,7 AEC 877,878-79 (1974) rebance, in NRC proceedings, on federal court decisions interpreting summary judgment rule; LBP-82-17, 15 NRC 595 (1982) Puble Servce Ca of Oklahoma (Black Foz Station), ALAB-573, i0 NRC 775,804 (1979) reopening record on basis of offshore earthquake swarm; LBP-82-3,15 NRC 184 (1982) Puble Service Co.of Oklahoma (Black Foa Staten), CL1-80 31,12 NRC 264 (1980) htisation of contentions about long-term health effects of radiation; LBP-82-16,15 NRC 576 (1982) Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Foz Station), CLI-80 8,11 NRC 433 81980) consideration of effects of beyond-design-basia accidents; LBP-8216. IS NRC 576 (1982) i f requirements for admission of *senous accident

contention; LBP-8216,15 NRC $83-584 (1982)

Pubhc Service Ca of Oklahoma (B:ask Foa Station, Units I and 2) ALAB 397,5 NRC 1843,1l45 (1977) admission of a party lacking standing to intervene; LBP 82-4,15 NRC 206 (1982) Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Foa Station, Uni:s I and 2), ALAB-397,5 NRC 1143, i144-45 (1977) standing concepts to be applied in detersnining whether to admit tanly petitener for intervention; LBP-82 4,15 NRC 204 (1982) 34 Y 3 g

r ~\\ AEGAL OTATIONS INDEX .mrc Puble Service Electric & Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units I und 2) ALAB-136,6 AEC g487. 448-89 (1973) demonsarstion, by an organization, of r.anding to intervese; LBP-82 4.15 NRC 205 (1982) Public Service Electric and Gas Co, (Hope Creek Generaties Station. Units I and 2), ALAB-394,5 NRC 7 69 (1977) treatment of unbriefed issues as waived; ALAB464,15 NRC 20 (1982) Pubhc Smice Electric and Gas Co. (Hope Creek Generating Station. Units 1 and 2), ALAB-429,6 NRC 229, 237 (1977) , licensing board obhgation to captain its reasons for finding that a witness does not qualify as an espert;

ALAS 469.15 NRC 474 (1982)

Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station). ALAB-650,14 NRC 43,64-69 (1981) spent fuel caretaking contention rejected as attack on rulemaking; LBP-8216,15 NRC 579 (1982) Pubhc Service Electric and Gas CoJ(Salem Nuclear Generating Station. Unit I), ALAB450,14 NRC 43, 49,50 (1981) criterm for consulerataenaf claims of arrar on appeal; ALAB-669,15 NRC 481 (1982) Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Co., et al. (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-429. 6 NRC 229 (1977) -+- ' genuine asse of fact found concerning safety of plant and expanded spent fuel pool from aircraft crashes; LBP-82-8.15 NRC 330 (1982) Puerto Rice Electre Power Authority (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1). ALAB462.14 NRC 1125 (1981) determining whether termination of a proceeding should be with prejudice; ALAB-668.15 NRC 451 (1982) treatment of request to withdraw from antitrust proceeding; CLI-82 5.15 NRC 405 406 (1982) Radio City Music Hall v. United States.136 F. 2d 715 (2nd Cir.1943) appropriate means of opposing sammary disposition motions; LBP 82-17.15 NRC 596 (1982) RCA Global Commumcations. Inc. v. FCC,559 F.2d 881,886 (2d Cir.1977) requisite form of hearing for materials license amendment case; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 253 (1982) Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co.,415 US. I,18-22 (1974) ". tantiness of counsel in providing information to petitioners as good cause for late intervention; ALAB464, 15 NRC 18 (1982) Sacramento Municipal Utshly District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB455.14 NRC 799 (198l} demal of contentions addressing hydrogen explosion in containment following LOCA; LBP-82 I6,15 hRC 584 (1982) Sacramento Muncipal Utihty District (Rancho Seco), ALAB455,14 NRC 799. 816-17 (1981) admissibility of ATWS contention whwh is the subject of rulemaking; LBP-82-19 IS NRC 613,614 (1982) Santa Fe v. Potashnik. 83 F.R.D. 299 (E.D. La.1979) intervention petitioners seek discovery against nonparties; LBP-8212A,15 NRC 519 (1982) Sea-Land Servme. Inc. v. Federal Mantime Commission,653 F.2d 544 (1981) constitutional right to intervene in antitrust proceeding claimed; ALAB465. IS NRC 34 (1982) l Sea Land Service. Inc. v. FMC,653 F.2d 544. SSI, a.20 (D.C. Cir.1981) determining the type of hearing required; CLI-82-2.15 NRC 254 (1982) Scacoast Ants-Pollution League v. Castle. 572 F.2d 872 (1st Cir.), cert. denied. 439 US. 824 (1978) contrast between licensing and rulemaking proceedings, regarding type of hearing needed; CLI 82-2,15 NRC 255 (1982) Scacoast Anti Pollution League v. Costic. 572 F.2d 872. 876 (1st Cir.1978) state:ory wording required to trigger formal adjudicatory procedures; CLI-82 2.15 NRC 274 (1982) Seigel v. AEC. 400 F.2d 778 (D C. Cir.1978) precedents for adjudicatory hearings in matenals license amendment cases; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 273 (1982) Sholly v. NRC, US App. D C. 651 F.2d 780,11/19/80 cert. granted 5/26/81 appleation of 189(a) of Atomic Energy Act to request for hearing on materials license renewal; l LBP-82-24.15 NRC 657 (1982) Sibbach v. Wilsan & Co.. 1941,14. 62 S.Ct. 422,312 U.S. I.14. 85 led. 479. 485 explanation of why confidentnahty assue is procedural rather than substantive; LBP-s2-24A, I? NRC 663 -(19821 Siegel v. AEC. 400 F.2d 778 (C.A.D.C.1968) electromagnets pulse contention viewed as attack on regulations; LSP-8216,15 NRC 588 (1982) l e l

r t I =. 4ICAL CITATIONS INDEX 9, Siegel v. AEC,400 F.2d 778 (D C. Cir.1968) interpretation of the word " hearing" as applied to rulemaking proceedags; CLI-82-2.15 NRC 253 (1982) Siegel v. AEC. 400 F.2d 778,783 (D.C. Cir.1968) NRC discretion to interpret scope of its responsibilities concerning public health and safety; CLI 82-6, IS NRC 415 (1982) Swgel v. AEC,400 F.2d 778. 785 (D.C. Cir.1978) requirements for formal hearings; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 247 (1982) Sierra Club v. Frachike. 534 F.2d 1289.1297 (8th Cir.1976) segmentation of environmentalimpact statement on radioactive waste disposal plan; ALAB-664,15 NRC 7 (1982) South Carchna Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit I). ALAB Il4. 6 AEC 253 (1973) scope of sua sponte review of licensing board decision: ALAB-664,15 NRC 20 (1982) South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Unit 1). ALAB-642.13 NRC 881, 886. 893-94 (1981), petition for revww pending sub nom. Fairfield United Action v. NRC, No. El 2042 (D.C. Cir.) petitioner's burden on five-factor test for untimely intervention; ALAB-671. IS NRC 511,513 (1982) South Carohna Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Unit I), ALAB-663.14 NRC 1840, 1150 (1981) hcensing board responselnlity so follow directives of superior tribunals; ALAB-669.15 NRC 465 (1982) Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Statmii), LBP-82-3.15 NRC 61. 7173 (1982) fulfilhng specificity requirement for contentions through discovery; LBP-8216,15 NRC 575 (1982) Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3). LBP-73-36,6 AEC 929 (1973) design basis earthquake issue at construction permit stage; LBP-82 3,15 NRC 70 (1982) Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Units 2 and 3), ALAB-189,7 AEC 410,412 (1972) , effect of concurrent State or local proceeding an facihty seeking an NRC license; CLI 82 2.15 NRC 269 (1982) Southern California Edison Co, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1) 2 AEC 366. 376 (1964) capabihty of Cnstianitos Fault LBP-82-3.15 NRC 78 (1982) Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas International Airlines. Inc.,546 F.2d 84 (5th Cir.). urt. denied. 434 U.S. 832 (1977) apphcation of collateral estoppel; LBP-82-3,15 NRC 82 (1982) State of Ilhnois v. NRC, No. 80-1163. July 1.1981, unpublished opinion effect on safety and environmental revwws of increasing financial comnutments to power reactors: CLI-82-4,15 NRC 372 (1982) State of Minnesota v. N.R.C. 602 F.2d 412,419 (C.C.D.C.1979) waste disposal contention rejected because it is the subject of rulemaking; LBP-82 II,15 NRC 350 (1982) Swain v. Brinegar. 542 F.2d 364 (7th Cir.1976) segmentation of environmental impact statement on radioactive waste disposal plan; ALAB-664,15 NRC 7 (1982) Tennessee Vaucy Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant). ALAB-664,15 NRC l (1982) l Board discretion to defer ruling on contentions based on unavailable documents. LBP-8216.15 NRC 572 (1982) Tennessee Valley Authonty (Browns Ferry, Units I and 2). ALAB-341,4 NRC 95 (1976) ignorance of pubhcation of notice as excuse for untimely intervention; LBP-82-1.15 NRC 40 (1982) Tennence Valley Authority (Browns Ferry, Units I and 2). ALAB-341,4 NRC 95,96 (1976) protection of late intervention petitioner's interests; LBP-82 4.15 NRC 202 (1982) Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant Units I A. 2A,18 and 28), ALAB-409,5 NRC 1391, 1393-% (1977), reconsideration denied ALAB-418,6 NRC 1 (1977) responsibehties of counsel to prende information to petitioners; ALAB-664.15 NRC 1718 (1982) Tennessee Valley Authonty (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units l A. 2A, IB and 28) ALAB-463. 7 NRC 341, 370 (1978) treatment of unbnefed issues as waived; ALAM64,15 NRC 20 (1982) 36 -,e_ ... -.. - +. _n.,.

( 3 4-__ AIGALOTA110P6 DGIEX .rsers Tennessee Valley Authority (Phipps Bend Neelear Planti Units I & 2). ALAS-506,8 NRC 533,546 549 h (1978) v. w. v-environmental responsibihties, seder NEPA, of hcenses which is a federal agency; ALAS 464,13 NRC 11 (1982) z Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Noclear Plant. Units I and 2). ALAB-413,5 NRC 1418 (1977) failure of intervention petitioner to dermonstrate standing on basis of membership is an or8anization; LBP 82-4.15 NRC 205 (1982)... s Tennessee Valle, Authority (Watts Bar Nhclear Plant. Units I and 2). ALAB-413. 5 NRC 1448,1422 (1977) .m admission standard applied to intervention petition challenging coararmatory enforcement order; . ALAB470.15 NRC 505 (1982) Teams Utihties Co et at (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Units I & 2.CLl-81 h.14 NRC till. 1814 (1981) caploration of contention at hearing not necessarily suscaratic; LBP-82-17.15 NRC 596 (1982) Texas IJtilities Generating Co et at (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Units I and 2). CLI,8136. 14 NRC lill (1983) .c justification by the Board for exercise ofits sua sponte authority; LBP-8242,15 NRC 55 (1982)_ The Evergreens v. Nunan 141 F.2d 927 (C.A. 2.1944) entension of collateral estoppel effect beyond ultimate facts in 16 sue; LBP-82-3.15 NRC 32 (1982) Toledo Edison Co. (Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station. Units I 2 and 3). ALAB-560. IO NRC 265,29194 (1979) esplaining anticompetitive situation in antitrust intervention petition: ALAB465,15 NRC 30,32-33 (1982) Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Station). ALAB-378. 5 NRC 557 (1977) l absence of traditional elements of res judicata and collateral estoppel in licensing proceeding; LDP-82-3 15 NRC 80 (1982) Transnuclear Inc et al. (Ten Applications for Low-Ennched Uranium Emports to Euration Member Nations). Ca.177-24,6 NRC 525. 531 (1977) demonstratM of petitioner's interest to satisfy requirement for standing to intervene; LBP-82-4.15 NRC 204, 205 31982) Trout Unlimid v. Morton. 509 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir.1974) se8mentatw of environmental impact statement on radioactive waste disposal plan; ALAB464,15 NRC 7 (1982) U.S. Steel Corp v. Train. 556. F.2d 822,833 (7th Cir.1977) statutory wording required to trigger formal adjudicatory procedures; CLI-82-2.15 NRC 274 (1982) US. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co et al., US. Outrict Court. District of Columbia, Case No. 1698 (D.D.C.) 19821 Trade Cases 8 64. 465 (January 12.1982) at 72 elowell Board jurisdiction to review antitrust settlement agreements: LBP-82-21. IS NRC 641 (1982) Umon of Concerned Scientasts v. AEC. 499 F.2d 1069. IC77 (C.A.D.C 1974) revww of significant safety coassderaticas in nuclear power licensing proceedings; LBP-82 3.15 NRC 82 l (1982) l Union of Concerned Scientists v. AEC. 499 F.2d 1069.1081 (D.C. Cir 1974) l statutory right to a hearing as a property or liberty interest; CLI-82 2.15 NRC 257 (1982) i United Church of Christ v. FCC. 425 F.2d 543,546 550 (1969) l modification of res judacata and collateral estoppel doctrines for operating license proceeding. LBP-82-3. IS NRC 79 (1982) United States Energy Research and Development Administration et at (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant). CLi-7613,4 NRC 67. 76-80 (1976) environmental responsibilities, under NEPA oflicensee which is a federal a8ency; ALAB464.15 NRC 11 (1982) United States Energy Research and Development Administration, et al., CLI-76-13. 4 NRC 67. 79,83-84 l 92 (1976) need for demonstration facility: CLI-82-4 IS NRC 375. 399. 401 (1982) United States Lines. Inc. v. FMC. 584 F.2d 519,536 (D C. Cir.1978) apphcation of APA tr'al-type procedures; CLI-82 2.15 NRC 255 (1982) United States v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.,406 US. 742 (1972) interpretation of statutory hearing requirement regarding materials license amendment cases: CLI-82-2.15 NRC 253 (1982) United States v. Brown 536 F.2d 117.121 (6th Cir.1976) ~ apphcation of ejusdem generis rule of statutory construction to psychological stress issue; CLI-824.15 NRC 414 (1982) l 1 5 1 l

p LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX m United States v. Floride East Canat Railesy Co 410 US 224 (1973) interpretation of statutory hasnas requirement reparthag matensis limane amendment cases; CLl 82 2.15 NRC 253 (1982) Unned States v. Independent Bulk Transport. Inc 480 FSupp. 747 (S.D.N.Y.1979) deternuning the type of beanas required. CLI-82 2.15 NRC 254 (1982) l United States v. ITT Rayonier. Inc.,627 F.2d 996 (9th Cir.1980) representation of issues in prior litigation; LDP-82 3.15 NRC 82 (1982) United States v. hfunsingweer 340 US. 36,39 (1950) vacating anal court decision when appeal becomes mont; LBP-82 21.15 NRC 642 (1982) United States v. Stever. 222 US.167,174. 32 S.Ct. 51,53,56 led 145 (1911) application of ejendem generis rule of statutory canstruction to psychological stries issue; CLI-82-6,15 NRC die (1982) i USA v. bry FC Ranch 481 F.2d 985 (1973) action of Staff an estoppel on the issue of timeliness of intervention petition; LBP-82-24. IS NRC 658 (1982) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v NRDC 435 US. $19 (1978) ) besia for contention alleging disposal of radioactive wastes poses serious concerns to intervenors-LBP 82 II,15 NRC 349,351 (1982) ) bearing requirements fur sisterials licenes amendment cases; CLI-82 2.15 NRC 253 (1982) Vermont Ysakee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 435 US 519.at 543,9 S Ct 1197 at 1231,55 L Ed 2d 4601 (1978) minicading representations from Staff constitute good cause for late filing; LDP-82 24.15 NRC 658 l (1982) NRC discreten to interpret acope of its responsibilities concerning pubhc health and safety; CLI-82-6,15 NRC 415 (1982) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pt. wor Corporation (Vernet Yankee Nuclear Power Station). ALAB 56. 4 AEC 930 (1972) argument opposing dismissal of ATWS comientaan because of proposed rulemaking; LBP 82-I A.15 NRC 45 (1982) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Poest Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nacicar Power Station). ALAB-211,7 AEC 982. 984 (1974) no awnpelling reason found for certification; LBP 82 23.15 NRC 650 (1982) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Unita I and 2). ALAB-584.11 NRC 451. 465 (1980) Board obligation to follow Commission precedent; LDP-82 23. IS NRC 650 (1982) j Virginia Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Statsen. Unita I and 2) ALAB 584, il NRC 451, 463 (1980) use of summary disposition procedures to avoid time-consuming hearings; LDP-82 l?.15 NRC 596 (1982) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station Unita I and 2) ALAB-522,9 NRC

54. 56 (l979) demonstration of geographic proaimity to acquire standing to intervene; LBP-82-4. IS NRC 204 (1982)

Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Un ts I and 2). ALAB 584. Il NRC 451 at 453 (1980) ) reasons for use of sammary deposition procedure: LDP-82 8.15 NRC 302 (1982) l Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna P3wer Station. Unita i and 2). ALAB-342,4 NRC 98.105 (1976) acceptance of material allegations of intervention petition as true; ALAB-670.15 NRC 500 (1982) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station. Units I and 2). ALAB-363. 4 NRC 631 (1976), following deferral. ALAB-342,4 NRC 98 (1976) decretionary intervention where petitioner's interest is outside the sone of interesta encompsued by the I Atomic Energy Act; ALAB-670.15 NRC 503 (1982) 1 Virginia Electric ad Power Co. (North Anna P2wer Station. Unita i and 2). CLI 76-22,4 NRC 480. 487 l (1976) j requirement for finding that a statement is a snatenal false statement; CLI-821.15 NRC 226,228 (1982) s Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna. Unita i and 2). ALAB-491. 8 NRC 245 (1978) I approach;ng generic issue involved in rulemaking la a snanner sinular to treatowns of unresolved safety issue; LDP 82-19. IS NRC 613 (1982) issuance of low-power license prior to resolution of all safety issues; LBP-82 3.15 NRC 198 (1982) 3B 4 .e,- -+ ..-w ., w emps ee g g.a-..-..

r ) o ~ ~ LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Virginia Electric and Power Co. (Surry Neclear Power Station, Units I and 2), CL1-80-4, II NBC 405 (l980) Commission authority regarding inadequate Staff environmental suessment; ALAB464,15 NRC 20 (1982) Virginia Electric Power Co. (North Anna, Units I and 2). ALAB-289,2 NRC 395,399 (1975) protection of late intervention petitener's interests; LBP 82-4,15 NRC 202 (1982) Walker Trucking Co.,1 AEC 55 (1958) precedent for holding adjudcatory hearings in materials hcense amendment cases; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 272 (1982) Warth v. Seldia 422 US 490,499 (1975) standing of an organization to intervene; LSP-82 24,15 NRC 658 (1982) Warth v. Seldin,422 US. 490,501 (1975) acceptance of material allegations of intervention petition as true; ALAB470,15 NRC 500 (1982) Washington Puble Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Propct Nos. 3 and 5), CLi-77 II. 5 NRC 719,

72) (1977) appleation of esemptma option of {50.12; CLI-82-4,15 NRC 340 (1982)

Weyerhauser Steamship Co. v. United States,372 US. 597. 600 01. 83 S Ct. 926,10 L.Ed.2d I (1%3) appication of ejusdem genens rule of statutory construction to psycholossal stress issue; CLI 824,15 NRC di) (1982) Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Kashkonong Nuclear Plant), CLI 74-45,8 AEC 928 (1974) requirement for fihng contentions before first prehearing conference; LBP-8216,15 NRC 571 (1982) Wisconsin Electre Power Co. (Poent Beach Nuclear Plani, Unit 2), ALAB-78,5 AEC 319,332 33 (1972) type of evidence calling for capert sponsorship; ALAB-669,15 NRC 477 (1982) Waconsin Electric Power Co. (Poine Beach Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-8210,15 NRC 34!,345-46 (1982) allegations of constructen derwuncies as t#: for motion for continuance; LBP-82-13,15 NRC 528 (1982) Wisconsin Electric Power Co., et al. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2) ALAB-137,6 AEC 491. 513 and 514 (1973) hmitatens on Board's sua sponte authority to consider confidentiahty issues; LBP-824.15 NRC 284 (1982) Wisconsin Electne Poect Co., et al-(Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 2),l BP-73 9,6 AEC 152,155,164 and 167 (1973) hmitations on Board's sua sponte authority to consider confidentiality issues; LBP 824,15 NRC 284 (1982) Wisconsin Pubhc Service Corporaten (Kewaunce Nuclear Power Plant), LBP 78-24. 8 NRC 78 (1978) misleading representations from Staff constitute good cause for late filing; LBP-82 24.15 NRC 658 (1982) t l 1 I i l r I v l 39 l l t l l l i l

s .o I EA^ G,^ M ~ r. tw a ~ n n :? 1: ~Y -;s .e g, 26 kr# p ,y e. c y u ps ~ r LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX C ,.,s. BECUBATIONS b .p..- 10 CFR Chapter I. s- % requirement for hearing on materials license amendment; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 245 (1982) r---~ 10 CFR 2 ~^

~

heensms board not bound by provisions of,'with regard to admission and formulation of contentions; h LBP 8212A. IS NRC518 (1982) p,.,.., requirement for notice of materials hcenset. LBP-82 24,15 NRC 656 (1982) 10 CFR 2.100

~ '

amendment to matenals hcense issued by authority of NRC Staff; CLI-82-2.15 NRC 235 (1982) E 10 CFR 2.101(a)(3) [,. submission of antitrust information in construction permit application; CLl-82-5.15 NRC 405 (1982) + 10 CFR 2.102 D-granting of formal hearings on materials license amendme:tts; CLl-82 2.15 NRC 246,248 (1982) ,i NRC jurudstion to entertain intervention petitioner's motion to be allowed to observe emergency planning y esercists: LBP-8212A 15 NRC 517 (1982) d' 10 CFR 2.102(dH3) O: l spphcabihty of, to intervention on by-product materials license renewal; LBP 82 24,15 NRC 656,657 l 11982) $.t 10 CFR 2.103 i r, amendment to materials Isense enued by sethority of NRC Staff; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 235 (1982) d appication of 2.714 pronssons for tamchness of intervention to matenals Isenses issued pursuant to; y. LBP 82-24.15 NRC 657 (1982) p%. 10 CFR 2.104 apphcabihty of, to intervention on by-product materials license renewal. LBP-82-24.15 NRC 657 (1982) g'";' Commission interpretation of the phrase " required by the Act*; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 245 (1982) W. intervenor not afforded a right to formal hearing in matenals Isense amendment case: CLI-82-2,15 NRC 242, 244-246 (1982) +sr Isensees questice hcensing board's jurisdiction to entertain intervention petitioner's motion to observe mi emergency planning exercises; LBP-82-12A,15 NRC 517 (1982) L"l " petition by interested person seeks formal adjudsatory hearing on materials license amendment; CLI-82 2, I$ NRC 234. 241 (1982) 10 CFR 2104(b)(!) consideration of applicant's fmancial qualif.catior.s in a construction permit proceeding; ALAB-671.15 p NRC 510 (1982) f,7 10 CFR 2.105 e apphcatnhty of, to intervention on by-product materials license renewal; LBP-82 24,15 NRC 657 (l982) l Commtssion duties in issuing notice of hearing; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 246 (1982) r. i intervenor not afforded a right to formal hearing in materials hcense amendment case; CLl-82-2.15 NRC P l 242. 244-246 (1982) pemion by interested r:rson socis formal adjudsatory hearing on materiam isense amendment; CLI-82 2, l 15 NRC 234 (1982) $ '~ 10 CFR 2.109s)(4) I. apphcation il 2.714 provisions for timeliness of intervention in materials license renewal, LBP-82-24,15

~

NRC 657 (1982) N occasions (or which Commission issues a notice of opportunity for hearing: CLI-82 2.15 NRC 245 (1982) pn i l 10 CFR 2.105(c) Commission duty to issue notice of i earing; CLI-82 2.15 NRC 246 (1982) 7" r 10 CFR 2.107(s) withdrawal of construction permit application. CLI-82-5,15 NRC 405 (1982) 7 10 CFR 2 202 6.7 applsatmhty of, to intervention on by-product materials hcense renewel; LDP-82 24,15 NRC 657 (1982) p -i- .n-hy 5 Mb .F 4s ,y k -?Qi tch G p l l

L - - - -. ~ - -. - ~ ~.... 9 LE. GAL C1 TAT 10NS INDEX 2EC(ltATIONS 10 CFR 2.205(c) apphcabihty of, to intervention on by-product materials license renewal; LBP-82 24.15 NRC 657 (1982) 10 CFR 2.206 cntique of Staff environmental assessment of radioactive easte storage plan; ALAB-664.15 NRC 18. 20 (1952) determining peutoner's right to intervene on by-product materials Icense rene=al; LBP-82 24.15 NRC 655(1982) furum in ohwh redrafted core catcher contention could be presented; LBP-82-II 15 NRC 352 (1982) petition requesting shutdown of all reactors potentially subject to pressunred thermal shock, denial of. DD-821.15 NRC 667 (1982) 10 CFR 2.206(b) institunon of proceeding for matenals Isense reneoat; LBP-82-24.15 NRC 658 (1982) 10 CFR 2. Subpart G formal heanns requested on materials Isense amendment; CLI-82 2.15 NRC 244 (l982) to CFR 2.700 appleabihty of Subpart G to interventen on by-product materials Isense renceal; LBP-82-24.15 NRC 657 (1982) formal heanns on materials Isense amendment not required by regulations; CLI-82 2.15 NRC 246,256 11982) 10 CFR 2.701 cntena for fihng motions in operating 1 cense proceedings; ALAB466,15 NRC 279 (1982) 10 CFR 2.708 traating of formal heannes on matenals Izense amendments; CLi-82 2.15 NRC 246,248 (1982) 10 C F R 2.711 critena to be met for emiensen of time for discovery; LBP 8218.15 NRC 599 (1982) 10 CFR 2.714 teard designated to determine if hearing requirements for interventma on by-product matenals twense renemal have been met: LBP-82-24.15 NRC 654-655 (1982) demonstration of geographical pronimity to acquire stand:ng to intervene; LBP 82-4.15 NRC 204 (1982) denial of untarnely request for interventen regarding apphcation for spent fuel pool capansion; LBP-821 IS NRC 38-41 (1982) failure of intervention petitioner to caercise due dihgence in appnung himself of proposed amendment; LBP 82-4.15 NRC 201 (1982) intervention in materials lectnse amendment case; CLI-82-2.15 NRC 272 (1982) pleading of late intervenison petition fails to meet particulanty and specificity requirements; LBP-82-4.15 NRC 203. 206,207 (1982) requirements for raising issues of compliance with NRC regulations; LBP 82-19. IS NRC 607 (1982) requirements not met for intervention on materials license renemat. LBP 82 24. IS NRC 659 (1982) standard for granting interventen; LBP-8216.15 NRC 568 (1982) standards required for revised contentions. ALAB-664.15 NRC 12.16 (1982) 10 CFR 2.714(a) factors considered in the grant of discretionary intervention; ALAB-670.15 NRC 499 (1982) taic fihng ofintervenison petition. ALAB-664.15 NRC 18 (1982) petitioner's burden under; ALAB-671.15 NRC 511 (1982) rejecten of untimely intervention petition based on five-factor test; ALAB-671.15 NRC 509,514 (1982) sinngency of specincity requirement for contentions; LBP 82-3.15 NRC 187 (1982) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(ll critena met for late Ghng of hydrogen control contention: LBP-8215.15 NRC 563 (1982) factors to be addressed by late intervention petiten; LBP-82-4. IS NRC 201 (1982) intervenor permitted to raise new issues without regard for the requirements of; LBP-82-19A.15 NRC 624 (1982) justification for filing antitrust intervention petition seven years late; ALAB465.15 NRC 27 28 (1982) requirement for fihng timely intervention petiten; LBP-82 24.15 NRC 656 (1982) termination of latity in admissen of late filed contentions; LBP-8210. IS NRC 346 (1982) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) Board invitation to file late contentions restncted to those involving prevmusly unavailable SER and EIA; LBP 82198.15 NRC 630 (1982) cnteria for judging adequacy of revised contentions; LBP-8216.15 NRC 575 (1982) good cause for late fihng of contenten not given; LBP-82-198.15 NRC 628 (1982) l d2 i A ~~ i l

9 .o - IIGAL QTAT10NS INDEX REGU1ATIONS 10 CFR 2.714(b) applacability of rule before hearing process has been insgered. CLI-82 2.15 NRC 256 (1982) contenten espressing concerns about radmective contaminataan of dnnking water rejected for lack of spec Gcsey; LBP-8216. IS NRC 548 (1982) Ghng contemians bened on documents not yet available; LSP-8216. IS NRC 572. $74 (1982) for admassitehty, contention required to fall within scope set forth an pubished motice; LBP-82-4.15 NRC 206 (1982) erpose and scope of spooficity requirement for contentions; LBP-8216. IS NRC 570. 571 (1982) rejecima of contention for lack of specificity: LBP-82-3. IS NRC 186 (1982) tame for ruhng on interventen petitens; ALAB464. IS NRC 16 (1982) 10 CFR 2.714(d) Gwe-factor test for montimely intervention: LDP-82 4. IS NRC 201,205 (1982) factors consulcred in the grant of discretaanary intervention; ALAS 470.15 NRC 499 (1982) .2 10 CFR 2.714a appeal from rejection of tardy intervention petition; ALAS 471,15 NRC 509 (1982) 10 CFR 2.755 late seterventaos petitioner's request for lianised appearemos statement greeted; LDP-82-4.15 NRC 202 l1982) 10 CFR 2.715(a) protecten of late intervention petitanet's interests; LBP 82-4.15 NRC 202 (1982) 10 CFR 2.785(c) admas on of State of Cahfornia and Cahfornia Public Utihties Commission to seismic hearing; LSP-82 3 15 NRC 7B (1982) petstma of State of South Carolina to intervene granted; LBP 8216.15 NRC 549 (1982) nght of County to pertacepste as fullintervenor sad interested governmental agency; LDP 82-19.15 NRC 617 (1982) 10 CFR 2.718 adamsion of contention that is the subject of rulemaking: LSP-82-15.15 NRC Set (1982) consideratens for allowing late filed contentions; LBP 8216.15 NRC 572 (1982) discovery concerning trustworthiness of intervenors to receive documents under protective order: LSP-82 2 15 NRC 53 (1982) interpreted with $2.760s in determining Board authority to withhold a portion of the record from the public; LBP 8212.15 NRC 355 (1982) hcensees question hcensing board's juradacten to entertain intervention petitioner's anotion to observe emergency planmns esercises: LBP-8212A,15 NRC 587 (1982) sua sponte consaderation of coandentiahty esses; LDP 82-6.15 NRC 288 (1982) 10 CFR 2.718(el hcensing board authority to entertain intervention petitioner's motion to be allowed to observe emergency planning caercises; LDP-8212A.15 NRC 518 (1982) 10 CFR 2.7180) Board authonty to revise order of contentions: LSP-82.l6.15 NRC 592 (1982) denial of heensce's request for certification of order permitting intervention petitioner's repreentatives to observe emergency planning escretses at hcensee's plant; LSP-82-128.15 NRC 526 (1982) licensing board's power to certify issues to Commissaan; LBP 82-23. IS NRC 650 (1982) 10 CFR 2.720(a) denial of subpoena request for lack of evidence; ALAB469.15 NRC 479 (1982) I l seguirement that discovery be relevant to some contentson act snet: LSP-82 22. IS NRC 646 (1982) 10 CFR 2.720th)(2)(i) i cnteria for subpoenaing NRC staff. ALAB-669. IS NRC 478 (1982) 10 CFR 2.730(b) cnieria for filing motions in operating license proceedings; ALAB466.15 NRC 279 (1982) 10 CFR 2.730(f) hcensee's request for referral of order permitting interventen petitioner's representatives to observe emergency planning esercises of heensee's plant granted; LDP 82-12B.15 NRC 526 (1982) 10 CFR 2.733 use of caperts as witnesses sad interrogators; ALAB469.15 NRC 475 (1982) 10 CFR 2.7a0 discovery by a person not a party to a proceeding; LSP 82 2.15 NRC 52 (1982) 10 CFR 2.740(bHI) dacovery considered adequate means for enlarging contention: LBP-8215.15 NRC 564 (1982) anotion filed seeking authonzation for discovery by nonperty; LSP-82 2.15 NRC 53 (1982) 43 m, .%,-,-%em- = - - - i

i o ~ i1EGAL OTAT10NS INDEX G mREGULADONS requirement that decovery be relevant to a contention not anst; LBP-82 22,15 NRC 646 (1982) scope of descovery, LBP-82 5,15 NRC 212 (1982) 10 CFR 2.748 licenses contends that intervention peititaner*a motion to be allowed to observe emergency plamaing esercises is prematare and lacks basas; LBP-8212A, IS NRC 518, 520 (1982) ,10 CFR 2.74)(c). admusitulity of bearsay esidence in NRC proceedings; ALAB-669, IS NRC 477 (1982) 10 CFR 2.144 request for copies of EIS pertaining to demahtion of buildings; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 265 (1982) 10 CFR 2.744(e) i granting intervenors access to security plan; LBP-8216,15 NRC 590 (1982) 10 CFR 2.749 admission of statements of matenal fact: LBP-8214,15 NRC 531532, $35,538,540,541,543,548,558. 552 (1982) analogy between motions for summary disposition and motions for summary judgment; LBP-8217,15 NRC 595 (1982) failure ofintervenor to answer snation for summary disposition: LBP-82-17. IS NRC 594,597 (1982) reasons for ese of summary depositoon procedures; LBP-82-4,15 NRC 302 (1982) responsitulity of summary disposition parties regarding statement of matenal facts; LBP-82-8,15 NRC 302 (1982) see of summary disposition procedures to save time; LBP-8217.15 NRC 596 (1982) 10 Cf R 2.749(a) . ~ statement of material fact filed by applicant; LBP-8217,15 NRC 594 (1982) 10 CFR 2.749(b) responsitnlity of opponent to motion for sammary desposition: LBP-82-8,15 NRC 302 (1982) '10 CFR 2.751a filing of contentions prior to preheanns conference; ALAB-664,15 NRC 16 (1982) purpane of prehearing conference; LBP 8216,15 NRC 568 (1982) request for delay in prehearing conference LBP-82-16,15 NRC 569 (1982) 10 CFR 2.75ta(d) cnteria for filing objecisons to admitted contentions; LBP-82-16,15 NRC 592 (1982) 10 CFR 2.752 fulfsliing specificity requirement for contentions through decovery: LBP 8216,15 NRC 575 (1982) schedule for final preheanns conference; LBP 82-19,15 NRC 619 (1982) 10 CFR 2.752(c) revision of prehearing conference order,insking minor changes in contentions; LBP-82-3,15 NRC 73 (1982) e-10 CFR 2.758 chailenge to regulations governing bydrogen control; ALAB-669,15 NRC 464 (1982) escepuon to ru.s barnas need-for power ccetentions; LBP-8,216,15 NRC 586 (1982) method for intervenors to change ten-mile feature of plurne esposure pathway rule; LBP-8216,15 NRC 582 (1982) 10 CFR 2.759 junediction of Board to review settlement documents in antitrust proceeding; LBP-82 21,15 NRC 641 (1982) 10 CFR 2.760s confidentiahty issues not within the scope of the sua sponte limitation; LBP-8212,15 NRC 333 (1982) limitations on Board's sua sponte authority concerning release of proprietary affxLvit; LBP-82-5A,15 NRC 220 (1982) i role of heensing board in operating license proceeding; ALAB-669,15 NRC 457 (1982) 10 CFR 2.762(a) necessity of reaching specific issue presented on appeal; ALAB-669,15 NRC 485 (1982) requirements for brief supporting excepuons; ALAB-664,15 NRC 20 (1982) 10 CFR 2.762(s),(e) exceptions struck for want of record support; ALAB-669,15 NRC 481 (1982) 10 CFR 2.763 scheduling of oral arguments when not requested by parties to a proceeding; ALAB-666,15 NRC 279 (1982) 10 CFR 2.764 admission of contentions on TMI-related issues; LBP-8219.15 NRC 608 (1982) conduct of immediate effectiveness review; ALAB-669,15 NRC 482 (1982) s 4 .-.e---e w. ,o .e+

1 '\\ r o MGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATif*3 stay of effectiveness of full-power lamase hfted. ALAS 469,15 NRC 458 (1982) 10 CFR 2.764(f)(2) v isseing stay of effectivenes6 of Isli-power license; ALAB469.15 NRC 482-483. 485. 486 (1982) 10 CFR 2.780 intervenor alleges that applicant. Staff, and Com " engaged is en parte communications in violation of; LBP 82 22.15 NRC 645 (1982) 10 CFR 2.785(d) standard for certifying issues to the Comah-LDP-82 23.15 NRC 650 (1982) 10 CFR 2.786 right of intervenor is seek review of Comnussaae h= ALAB469,15 NRC 465 (1982) 10 CFR 2.784 den.at of lecensee's request for certification of order permitting intervention petitioner's representatives to observe emergency planning esercuss at licensee's plaat; LBP-82123.15 NRC 526 (1982) 10 CFR 2.788(b) bautation en length of application 8er stay; LBP-82-23.15 NRC 648 (1982) 10 CFR 2.788(e) critens for issuing stay of effectiveness of full-power license; ALAB469.15 NRC 442 483 (1982) 10 CFR 2.788(f) proper forum for request for stay; LSP-82 23.15 NRC 650 (1982) 10 CFR 2.790 amendment of; LBP 82-6.15 NRC 285 (1982) appropriately marking an afradavit for confidentiality: LBP.82 SA,15 NRC 220 (1982) interpretation in parallel to Freedom of Information Act; LDP-824.15 NRC 287 (1982) protection of security plan; LDP-82-16. IS NRC 589 (1982) review of physical security plans by NRC staff; LSP-8214.15 NRC 539 (e982) 10 CFR 2.790(b) Board authonty to withhold information from the public; LSP 82-12.15 NRC 355 (1982) 10 CFR 2.790(b)(1)(ii) stating basis for withholding proprietary information; LBP 824. IS NRC 285 (1982) withholding of affidavit supporting proprietary esture of other documents; LBP-32 5A.15 NRC 219,223 (1982) 10 CFR 2.790(b)(2) botancing of protective concerns against public's right to know; LDP-82 5A. IS NRC 221. 223 (1982) interpretalian of afredavia requirement for stating basis for withholding propnetary documents; LSP 824. 15 NRC 285 (1982) l 10 CFR 2.790(e) Board authority to rule on proposals of comradentiality; LDP-82-12.15 NRC 355 (1982) 10 CFR 2.802 forum for answering questions con-erning calculations of radioactivity accumulation in rah; LBP-82-8.15 NRC 316 (1982) 1(' CFR 2. App. A. V(f)(4) standard for certifying inues to the Coenmission; LDP-82-23.15 NRC 650 (1982) 10 CFR 2. App. A. Vl(c)(1)(iii) consaderation of applicant's faasacial qualifications in a construction permit proceeding; ALAS 478.15 NRC 510 (1982) 10 CFR 2. App. A. IX(s) changing location of appellate argements because of renancial hardship; ALAS 466.15 NRC 280 (1982) 10 CFR 2. App. 8 admission of contentions on Thel-related issues; LBP-8219.15 NRC 608 (1982) 10 CFR 20 consideration of accidental radioactive releases from apest fuel facility: LBP-82-14.15 NRC $36 (1982) l consaderation of genetic effects from radiataan esposure at spent feel sacrage facility; LSP 8214.15 NRC l 540 (1982! l contention alleges excessive radiation will be enutted through empended spent fuel pool wall; LBP-82-8. IS NRC 318 (1982) contention alleges inadequate control room accusa during and after radiation reicanes in eacess of requirements c(; LDP-82 84. IS NRC 551 (1982) contention alleges that consolidated Safety Analysis Report landetmately descrites risks and consequences of redacectrve releases in excess of regulations; LDP-82-14.15 NRC 532 (1982) l limitations on terminology of; LBP-82-14. IS NRC 551 (1982) .-- + = - - -

a 1 ~..... o II. GAL CTTATIONS INDEX - G~ SECL'8ATIONS maienals twense conditioned for temporary onsne storage of sharine ere miil tailings; CLI 82-2. IS NRC 270 (1982) 10 CFR 201 no spectre basis given for :entenuon asserting that ALARA requirement will not be met. LBP-8 216.15 NRC 585 (1982) 10 CFR 20.1061b) disposal of Isensed matenals by incineration; ALAB-664,15 NRC 18 (1982) 10 CFR 20.302 disposal of hcensed materials by incineration. ALAB464.15 NRC 18 (1982) temporary onsite storage of licensed concentrations of thorium are mill tailings; CLI-82-2.15 NRC 270 (1982) 10 CFR 20 305 seeking NRC approval for incineration c(low-level radr acuve waste; ALAB464.15 NRC 18. 20 (1982) 10 CFR 30 applianon for renemal of by-product matenal' license granted. LBP 82-24.15 NRC 654-655 (1982) s 10 CFR 30.32(f) ribng of apphcatbn to ecastruct inctneration system for low-level radioactive easte; ALAB-664.15 NRC 18 (1982) 10 CFR 30.34 rules, regulations and statutes governing grant of hearing on by product materials twense renewal; LBP 82-24.15 NRC 655 (1982) 10 CFR 30 61 determining petnooner's nght to intervene on by product materials license renenat LBP 82 24.15 NRC 655 (1982) 10 CFR 40 considerations for granting amendments to materials hcenses. CLI-82 2.15 NRC 238 (1982) formal adjudicatory hearing sought on amendment to materials hcense; CLI-82-2.15 NRC 234 (1982) 10 CFR 40.32 consideratens for granting amendments to matenals li6enses. CLI-82 2.15 NRC 239 (1982) 10 CFR 50 construction of system for incineration of low-level radioactive wastes ALAB464.15 NRC 18 (1982) enemphon from requirements of. CLI 82 4.15 NRC 364. 377 (1982) 10 CFR 5010 and limited work authorizations; CLI-82-4,15 NRC 378 (1982) cntena for issuance of a hmited work authorization; CL1-82 4.15 NRC 363 (1982) DOE request for exempuan from, to conduct site preparanon activities for breeder reactor pnar to issuawe of conuruction permit; CLI 82 4.15 NRC 362. 400 (1982) a-i factors conudered in Branting enemption to. CLI-82 4.15 NRC 377. 401 (1982) legislative hstory of. CLI-82-4. IS NRC 376. 378 (1982) purpose of. CLI 82 4.15 NRC 388 (1982) 10 CF R 5010(c). (c) and limned work authorizauons; CLI-82-4. IS NRC 378. 379 (1982) 10 CFR 50.12 alternante to enemption under; CL1-82-4.15 NRC 373 (1982) and hmited work authorizations; CL182 4.15 NRC 377 379 (1982) applicauon of. CLI-82-4. IS NRC 373. 375. 376, 379 381 (1982) changes in, to reflect NEPA: CL182-4.15 NRC 377 (1982) concerns about granting esemption for brceder reactor: CL1-82-4.15 NRC 365 (1982) consideration of effect of delay in construction of breeder reactor on pubhc interest; CLI 82-4.15 NRC 384 390 (1982) , DOE requesi for enemption under, to conduct site preparaten activines for breeder reactor prior to issuance of construction permit; CL1-82-4.15 NRC 362. 364. 372. 398 (1982) eacmpoon for breeder reactor not in pubbe interest; CLl-82-4.15 NRC 374 (1982) justification for requesting esemption under; CL1-82 4.15 NRC 391. 393-395 (1982) legislauwe history of. CLi-82-4.15 NRC 371. 373. 376. 378-379. 388 349 (1982) 10 CFR 50.12(a) >and heated work authorizations; CLI-82 4.15 NRC 378. 379 (1982) i factors considered in grantmg esemptions to construction perm ts. CL1-82-4.15 NRC 377 (1982) legislauve history of. CL182-4.15 NRC 373. 376. 377 379 (1982) y s 1 e

y S. .c ~ IICAL CITATIONS INDEX RF4ULATIONS t 10 CFR 50.12(b) appbcaten et. CLl 83-4. IS NRC 379-381 (1982) factors considered in decedmg whether to permit construction prior to assmance of constructen permit; CL1-8M IS NRC 364. 373. 377. 382-344, 398. 408, 403 (1982) a legniauve history of. CLI-82 4.15 NRC 373. 379 (1982) 10 CFR 5012(b)(4) e conudersoon of costs in granung esempion so construction permit; CL1-82-4. IS NRC 399 (19;2) 10 CFR 5013 electromagnets pulse contenuca viewed as challenge to regulations; LBP 8216. IS NRC 588 (1982). 10 CFR 50 21 application of constitutenal requirement for " case er sentroversy* to NRC proceedings; ALAB478,15 NRC 510 (1982) esceptsons to comuderms apphcant's financial qualificauona is a constructen permit proceedsag. ALAB-678.15 NRC 510(1982) w-j 10 CFR 50.22 eaceptons to considering appisael'a financial quahricauens in construction permit proceeding; ALAB471 15 NRC 510 (1982) 10 CFR 50.3)(f) untimely interwation petitioner alleges that apphcant fails to demonstrate famancial quahrscations pursuant to. ALAB-671.15 NRC 511 (1982) 10 CFR 50 33a suutrust informanon required by; CL1-82 5.15 NRC 405 (1982) 80 CFR 50.34(b)(1) seismic update abhganon imposed om operating license apphcasts; LBP-82 3.15 NRC 73 (1982) 10 CFR 50.34tfHproposed) admanbihty of contentmas on Thil-related issues; LBP 8219.15 NRC 606 (1982) 10 CFR 50 34(fHiHiiHproposed) determmmg whether contenten queshoning reactor operator qualifications is an attack on rules; LBP-82-16.15 NRC 578 (1982) 10 CFR 50 44 beus of standards for hydrogen control. ALAB-669,15 NRC 464 (1982) changes in requirements of. concernmg hydrogen control; LBP 8215.15 NRC 561 (1982) genershon of hydrogen exceed ng design baus of; ALAB-669,15 NRC 463 (1982) reevaluation of standards of. ALAB-669.15 NRC 460-461 (1982) standards for hydrogen control; ALAB-669.15 NRC 460 (1982) maner of apphcotion of standards of. to TMI 1; ALAB-669.15 NRC 464 (1982) 10 Cf R 50 44(d)(1) contenten alleges delay in operation of hydrogen analyrers inappropnate in light of. LBP-82-15.15 NRC 562 (1982) 10 CFR 50 44(d)(2) I amount of hydrogen resultmg from steam-claddmg reaction. ALAB-669,15 NRC 460 (1982) 80 CFR 50 47 emergency planning contentions dismissed as challenge to Commission regulations; LBP-82-19.15 NRC 688 (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(a) NRC review of onsite emergency plans LBP 82-3.15 NRC 195 (1982) specificity requirements for emergency planning contentions where relevant documents are unavailable; LBP 8216.15 NRC 572 (1982) 10 CFR 5047(c)(1)

cscape clause" for comphance with criteria for emergency plans at low power; LBP-82-3.15 NRC 193 (1982) deficiencies in emergency plans found not segmfacant for low-po=ct operations; LBP-32 3.15 NRC 197 8

(1982) 10 CFR 50 47(c)(2) contention asking capansion of plume exposure pathway deemed as attack on rules; LSP 8216. IS NRC 582 (1982) 10 CFR 50.57(a) issuance of lo -po.cr test hcense for SONGS; LBP-82 3.15 NRC 197 (1982) 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3) contenuon alleges that reasonable assurance of safe daposal of radioactive wastas not given; LBP-82 II. IS NRC 349 (1982) e a 41 E t

? ~ i x c i s t LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RECtJLATIONS .~ ) l 10 CFR 50 57(e) consideration of adequacy of emergency preparedness for low-power nesting; LBP-82-3,15 NRC 185 s (1982) i 10 CFR 50.60(b)(3) (proposed) requirement for nutigattag ATWS; LBP-82 I A.15 NRC 45 (1982) 10 CFR 50.91 permit needed for construction of low-level radioactive waste incineration system; ALAB-664,15 NRC 18 (1982) 10 CFR So, App. A admission of restated contention on ATWS; LBP 8219,15 NRC 615 (1982) contention alleges failure of plant to sneet requirements regarding correction of ATWS problem: LBP-8219.15 NRC 612 (1982) contentions allege that plant design does not assure protection from accident sequences as required by; LBP-82-19. IS NRC 610 (1982) effect of proposed ATWS rulemaking on; LBP 82 I A,15 NRC 45 (1982) hydrogen distribution and control, during LOCA,in ice-condenser containment: ALAB-669,15 NRC 461 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. B eententions question the classification and qualifcation of safety equipment according to the standards of; LBP-82-19,15 NRC 606 (1982) 10 CFR 50 App. E emergency planning contentions dismissed as challenge to Commission regulations; LBP-82-19,15 NRC 618 (1982) evaluation of onsite emergency preparedness for low-power coerstions; LBP 82-3,15 NRC 194 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV adequacy of ernergency pian for scent fuel storage facility to address provisions of; LBP-8214,15 NRC 549 (1982) 10 CFR 50, Anp. G compliance of Catawba pressere vessel with fracture toughness requirements of; LBP-8216,15 NRC 588 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. I estimated normal radiation doses from spent fuel facility; LBP-8214,15 NRC 534 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. I,11 and IV contention alle8es increased hazards frorn radioactive releases from espanded spent fuel pool; LBP-82 8, 15 NRC 312,317 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. K rejection of contentions questioning adequacy of emergency core cooling system; LBP-82-16,15 NRC 585 (1982) 10 CFR 51 construction of system for incineration of low-level radioactive wastes; ALAB-664,15 NRC 18 (1982) 10 CFR 51.2 nature of Staff assessment of radioactive waste disposal plan; ALAB-664, f 3 NRC 4 (1982) to CFR St.5(b) issuance of EIA on estension of spent fuel storage facility; LBP-82-14,15 NRC 550 (1982) to CFR SI.5(d)(4) no environmental impact statement required prior to issuance of materials license amendment; CLI-82 2, 15 NRC 263,265 (1982) 10 CFR 51.20(g)(1) spent fuel contention disallowed because it avoids application of the values of Table S-4 of, LBP-82-16,15 NRC 578 (1982) 10 CFR 51.5)(c) need-for-power contention barred from proceeding; LBP-82-16,15 NRC 586 (1982) 10 CFR 55.11 views of parties asked on whether contentions questioning reactor operator qualifcations constitute impermissible attack on rules; LBP-82-16,15 NRC 578 (1982) 10 CFR 55 24 vices of parties asked on whether contention questioning reactor operator qualifications constitute impermissible attack on rules; LBP-82-16,15 NRC 578 (1982) 10 CFR 70.22(a) enntention alleges inadequate assurance that applicant is financially capable nf meeting costs of decontaminating and decommissioning spent fuel storage facility; LBP-8214,15 NRC 542 (1982) 48 4 ,y

t .. - ~ LEGAL CITA110NS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CFR 71.35(a)(4) analysis of coolant to determine if contamination from damaged spent fuelis within hmits of; LBP 8214, 15 NRC 553 (1982) 10 CFR 72 <-adequacy of design of spent feel storage facility to eithstand natural phenomena; LBP-8214.15 NRC 537 (1982) content of operator training and certification program for spent fuel storage facihty submitted under; ' LBP-8214.15 NRC 553 (1982) contention alleges inadequacy of technical specifications to consider handhng of damaged spent fuel; , LBP-82-14.15 NRC 553 (1982).. exceptions to requirements for protection of facility from natural phenomena; LBP 8214,15 NRC 536 (1982) failure to set forth scanine issue of insterial fact relative to accident analysis requirements; LBP-82-14.15 i NRC 535 (1982) inclusion of sabotage report in SAR for spent fuel storage facility; LBP-3214.15 NRC 538 (1982) . requirements for considering specific accidents in CSAR; LBP-8214.15 NRC 533 (1982) requirements for issuance oflicense to store spent fuel; LBP-8214,15 NRC 542 (1982) 10 CFR 72.14(c)(3) description of contents of application for spent fuel storage facility license: LBP 8214,15 NRC 542,543 (1982) 10 CFR 7215(a) reports to be included in hcense apphcation for spent fuel storage facihty; LBP-82-14,15 NRC 533 (1982) 10 CFR 72.15(a)(13) descriptions to be incinded in Safety Analysis Report on spent fuel storage facility; LBP-82-14,15 NRC ~ 533 (1982) 10 CFR 72.15(a)(15) requirements for describing security measures for physical protection of spent fuel storage facility; i LBP-8214.15 NRC 539 (1982) 10 CFR 72.16 receipt of damaged spent fuel at storage facihty; LBP-8214,15 NRC 553 (1982) 10 CFR 72.18 financial requirements for dacommissioning spent fuel storage facility; LBP 82-14,15 NRC 542-544 (1982) 10 CFR 72.18(b) adequacy of plan for decommissiomng spent feel sawage facdity, to protect pubhc health and safety; i I LBP 8214.15 NRC 547 (1982) I adjustments for inflation in applicani's estimate for decommissioning spent fuel storage facility; j' 10 CFR 72.19 LBP 8214,15 NRC 545 (1982) adequacy of emergency plan for spent fuel storage facility to satisfy requirements; LBP-82-14.15 NRC 549 (1982) 10 CFR 72.33 receipt of damaged spent fuel at storage facility; LBP-82-14.15 NRC 553 (1982) 10 CFR 72.35(c) consideration of radation caposure from fuel disassembly, dry storage, or compaction activities at spent fuel storage facihty; LBP-8214,15 NRC 540 (1982) 10 CFR 72.67 consideration of combined radiologicalimpacts of spent fuel facility and nearby nuclear power plant; LBP-8214,15 NRC 534 (1982) 10 CFR 72.68 consideration of unenpected accidental radiation doses from spent fuel storage facilities; LBP-82-14,15 NRC 536. 551 (1982) 10 CFR 72.68(b) calculation of whole-body radiation dose in the event of tornado missile penetrating fuel basin structure; LBP-8214. IS NRC 536 (1982) 10 CFR 72.72(e) consideration of combined radiological impacts of spent fuel facility and nearby nuclear power plant; LBP 82-14,15 NRC 534,535 (1982) $= i. l

i m.~. ; e 1 1 LEGAL CITA110NS INDEX RECL'1ATIONS. I m-10 CFR 72.72(j) . contention alleges inadequate coot,al room access dunna and after radation relems LRP 8214.15 NRC 551 (1982) j 10 CFR 72. Subpart H physical secanty plans for spent fuel storage facility found in conformance with; LBP-82-14.15 NRC 539 I 11982) ~,. 2 l 10 CFR 72.Subpart 1 1 I contention cites inadequacy of operator training and certification program for spent fact storage facihty; LBP 3214. IS NRC 552 (1982) 10 CFR 72.92 submission of operator training and certification program for spent fuel storage facility, LSP 8214.15 NRC 552 (1982) 80 CFR 72 68 consideration of tornado causing reduced water level at spent fuel storage facility and subsequent - radmactive releases in encess of hmits of. LBP-8214. IS NRC 537 (1982) 10 CFR 73 contenten alleges failure of Physical Security Plan for spent fuel storage facihty to met:1 sequirements of; i LBP-8214. IS NRC 538 (1982) 10 CFR 73.28 withholding of Apphcant's security plan from intervenors; LBP 82-16. IS NRC 57s (1982) 10 CFR 100 enatnhtv of containment to withstand pressures from hydrogen generation ud combusavi. resulting in radsaten releases in excess of. ALAB-669,15 NRC 463 (1982) htigatie of hydrogen gas control under; ALAB469.15 NRC 464 (1982) 10 CFR ltell(a)(1) indmdat dune at exclusion area boundary from accidental release of radioactivity from Dresden facahty; LBP 6214.15 NRC 535 (1982) 10 CFR 103. App. A ) conmiency of Staffs method for correlating vibratory ground motion wuh requirements of; Al AB-667 15 NRC 442,444-445,447 (1982) estabbshment of design criteria for SONGS; LBP-82-3.15 NRC 69. 71 (19s2) evaluatma of capabihty of Cristianitos Fault LBP-82 3.15 NRC 101 (1982) intervenor questions hcensing board's apphcaten of seismic and geologic siting criteria; ALAB-667,15 NRC 423 (1982) J intervenor's method for calculating SSE and vibratory ground motion in confhet with requirements of; ALAB-667,15 NRC 424-426 10 CFR 100. App. A.11 seismic investigative obligations imposed on apphcants; LBP-82 3 IS NRC 74 (1982) 10 CFR 100. App. A. til(c) V(a). Vl(s) descriptma of the concept of safe shutdown earthquake; ALAB467. IS NRC 423 (1982) 10 CFR 100. App. A. Ill(d) l SSE determination at SONGS; LBP 82-3.15 NRC 123 (1982) i 10 CFR 100. App. A. fil(g) { test for capabahty of a fault; LBP-82 3 IS NRC 156 (1982) 1 10 CF R 100. App. A. Vl(a) interpretation of requirements of. for determining vibratory ground nmion; ALAB-667. IS NRC 443 4 (1982) 18 CFR 292 1 nghts granted to small pi er produce s; ALAB-665.15 NRC 26 (1982) 40 CFR 190 estimated normal radiaten doses from spent fuel facihty not in excess o(regulations; LBP 82-14,15 NRC 534 (1982) l i l l se 1 A

\\ . - - :. L _.; ~. .. ra. i t ~ X W.: e ii'D u % - 1., Ti ses-m nun w noc m >, w.~ w w ~ +. ~ - - ~

s. o r.-

m a a w, e

s. -

x,u e' ' MGAL CITATIONS INDEX o STATUTES o Administrative Procedure Act. 5. 5 USC 1554 applicability of formal hearing procedures to materials license amendment case: CLI-82-2,15 NRC 234, 346-257 (1982)-.... Administrative Procedure Act, ?(a) and 8(a) apphcability to materials license amendment cases; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 247,250,251,273 (1982) Administrative Procedere Act $55(e) institution of proceeding for materials license renewal; LDP-82-24. IS NRC 658 (1982) Atomic Energy Act of 1946,12 review of legaistive history to determine meaning of the term "basith and safety *; CLI-824,15 NRC diI(1982) Atomic Emersy Act of 1954,11,42 USC 620l4(r) authority to license use of thorium; definition of sourte material; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 235 (1982) Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended,103b. and 16ti.,42 USC 2133(b) and 220)(i) limitations on duties of NRC Director of laspection and Enforcement to protect public health and safety; y ALAB-670. IS NRC 507 (1982) Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as arnended.105(c),42 USC 2135(c) purpose of Commasion rule for early filing of antitrust information; CLI-82-5,15 NRC 405 (1982) Atomic Energy Act of 1954,105c(1),42 USC 2135c(1) referral of construction permit application to US. Attorney General for antitrust review; ALAB-665,15 NRC 25 (1982) Atomic Energy Act of 1954.105c(2). 42 USC 2135c(2). - rejection of intervention petition on antitrust conceras at operating license stage where constructaan permit antitrust review is in progress; ALAB-655.15 NRC 24 (1982) Atomic Energy Act of 1954,105c(5),42 USC 2135c(5) af dismissal of antitrust proceeding; LBP-82-21,15 NRC 640 (1982) V rejection of antitrust intervention petition for failure to captain anticompetitive effects of activities mader 4-license; ALAB-665,15 NRC 24,28,32,34 (1982) g Atomic Energy Act of 1954 es amended,147 adoption of rules governing protections for safeguards information: CLI-82-3,15 NRC 359 (1982) +- Atomme Energy Act of 1954,181. 42 USC 12231 ) 3 appiscability of Administrative Procedure Act to request for formal haaring on materials license amendment; CLI-82-2. IS NRC 247 (1982) 'N Atomic Energy Act,182 criteria for determining if a statement is a material false statement; CLI-82-1,15 NRC 228 (1982) g Atomic Energy Act,186(a),42 USC 12236 j sppbcant cited for making material false statements; CLI-82-1,15 NRC 225 (1982) interpretation of, to determine petitioner's right to intervene on by-product materials licasse renewal; e,t LBP 82 24,15 NRC 655 (1982) k Atomic Energy Act,187,42 USC 2237 H interpretataca of to determias petitioner's right to intervene in by-product materials license renewal praredng; LBP 82 24,15 NRC 655 (1982) l Atomic Emergy Act of 1954 as amended,189(a). 42 USC 62239(a) 1 allowing for broader public participation in NRC licensing proceedings; ALAB-670, IS NRC 498 (1982) } board designated to determine if hearing requirements for intervention on by-product materials license -e J have been met: LBP-82-24,15 NRC 654 (1982) Commission interpretation of hearing requirement as applied to materials license amendment; CLI-42 2, l. 15 NRC 247 256,272 274 (1982) constitutional process due to intervenor requesting hearing on materials liosase ah ; CL1-82-2,15 t NRC 256 257 (1982) 51. ' L 6 L ,y_ v

l ?. h sw - ~ -.... LL. L. 1 LEGAL CITA110NS INDEX .3 4 STATUTES

w. J i

formal adjudmatory hearing on materals license amendment sought; CLI-82-2.15 NRC 234-235,245-247 (1982) interpretation of. to determine petitioner's right to intervene in by-product materials license renewal: LBP 82-24. IS NRC 655,659 (1982) legahty of apphcant's and staffs position on specificity required for emergency planning contentions; LBP 82-16,15 NRC 573 (1982) Atomic Energy Act of 1954,42 USC 2018

i..

.s. ( description of Commission's regulatory control; CLI-824. IS NRC 412 (1982) ' Atomic Energy Act of 1954,42 USC 2021(b) intent of the words

health and safety"; CLI-824,15 NRC 412 (1982)

Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 USC 202t(d) intent of the words

health and safety"; CLl-82-6,15 NRC 409 (1982)

Atomic Energy Act,191. 42 USC 52241 apphcabihty of formal hearing procedures to materials license amendment case; CLI-82 2.15 NRC 250, 273 (1982) Atomic Energy Act,42 USC 2239 ^ appicant cited for making material false statements; CLI-821.15 NRC 225 (1982) reasons for allowing late fihng of emergency planning contentions; LBP-8216,15 NRC 573 (1982) ~ Clayton Act.15 USC 5.(b) m& Board authority to determine whether entitrust settlement agreement is in public interces; LSP-82-21.15 NRC 641 (1982) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 20 USC 887e.(b)(3) taking psychological factors into account; CLt-824,15 NRC 414 (1982) Federal water Pollution (;catrol Act Amendments of 1972,33 USC (1344 i APA 9554 hearings not requ. red; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 255 (1982) Federal Water Pollution Centra Act. 33 USC 11251, et seq. interpreting statutory lang6 age:CLI-824.15 NRC 410 (1982) Fire Reuarch and Safety Act of 1968,15 USC 278(f)(2). (f)(2)(E), and (f)(2)(G) taking psychologmal factors into account; CLI 824.15 NRC 414 (1982) Low-Level Radioacti t Waste Pohcy Act of 1980, P.L 96 573,95 Stat. 3347 (December 22.1980) construction and operation of low-level waste disposal facilities; ALAB464,15 NRC 4 (1982) National Environmental Pohey Act of 1969. 42 U',C 4332 contention states that NRC is obhged to issue EIS for catension of license for spent fuel storage facility; LBP-82-14,15 NRC 549 (1982) National Environmental Policy Act. 42 USC 54321. et seq. interpreams statutory language; CLI-824,15 NRC 410 (1982) National Environmental Pohey Act,102 scope of considerat on of environmental questions; LBP-8216,15 NRC 574 (1982) National Environmental Pohey Act,102(c) reawns for courts' disfavoring consideration of psychological effects; CLI-424,15 NRC 417 (1982) Noise Control Act 42 USC 4913(1)(A) taking psychologmal factors into account; CLI 824.15 NRC 4I4 (1982) Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,29 USC 651(b)(5) taking psychological factors into account; CLl 824.15 NRC 414 (1982) Pubhc Utahties Regulatory Pohcies Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-617. 92 Stat. 3117.16 USC 824a-3 rights of small power producers; ALAB-665,15 NRC 26 (1982) Rehabahtation Act Amendments of 1974. 29 USC 70l(5) taking psychological factors into account; CLI 824.15 NRC 414 (1982) Sherman Act.15 USC 1. 2 violation of anti-monopoly provisions of; ALAB465.15 NRC 31 (1982) Sherman Act,2.15 USC 2 pleading, claiming use of monopoly power to injure potential competitor by refusal to wheel power, sufficient; ALAB-665. IS NRC 30 (1982) Shippmg Act of 1916.15,46 USC 814 appimation of Administrative Procedures Act anal-type procedures CLI 82-2,15 NRC 255 (1982) constitutiona! righ to intervene in antitrust proceeding claimed; ALAB465,15 NRC 34 (1982) . L.:~.i i s~ ~ 52 ~ t \\

g. .g-g ..j.,.<... .. -. -. ~ - } c gg. W,,- s a >;g. 1 1 r t w: .y 4. IIGAL GTATIONS INDEX y i p Charles Alan Wright. Federal Couns,1963 at 225, fa 20 explanation of why confidentiahty issue is procedural rather than substantive; LBP-82-24A,15 NRC 663 gy (1982) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24(a)(2) e- [f~ satisfaction of practicalimpairnet of interest standard; ALAB-665.15 NRC 34 (1982) s Federal Rules of Civil Procedurs, Rule 56 w. analogy bet =cen motions for summary judgment and motions for summary disposition; LBP-82-17,15 7 ~ NRC 595 (1982) .y f Federal Ra'es of Evidence. Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules,28 US C.A., fol. Rule 702 determining whether a situation warrants espert testirnony; ALAB-669,15 NRC 475 (1982) M*- Federal Russ of Evalence Rule 803(8) .s.% n, admissibility of government agency or consultant reports as hearsay evalence; ALA8-669,15 NRC 476, b 477 (1982) N K. Davis, Administrative Law Text $4.07, at 106-07 (3d ed.1972) compliance with statutor:ly mandated hearings; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 253 (1982) I 6 Moore's Federal Practice 56.15(13) M-opposing summary disposition motions; L8P,8217.15 NRC 596 (1982) Restatement (2nd) of Judgments $85(d) (Tent. Draft No. 2,1975) C*E h'-2 representation of issues in priw litigation; L8P-82-3,15 NRC 82 (1982) y. 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction 147.17, at 103 (4th ed.1973) W application of ejusdem generis rule to interpretation of the term *heshh and safety"in the Atomic Emergy Act; CLI-82-6,15 NRC 413 (1982) .jp - A' ? wv * ,>;= nw e" s.. '< j w 1

u; p

c 4 __ ?.h s - -c hp. y-

tw c..

ii M(. % -. h-(.51. p+ - jDUn 4 p., Y %+ M. 's

%f s' g '~-+(_

Q-ET',1, ,w. AW N kh.

5 i .o -_s g=> 0* xg-w. Y-; u \\ W-t r WM b n Wh 4,, AM tb x?4 m: te SUBJECT INDEX gg 6 .~. g.. -X-? ACCIDENT (S) -4 at spent fuel storage facility, contention alleging inadequate description of, in consolidated Safety Analysis OQ Report, summarily dismissed. LBP-82-14. IS NRC 530 (1982) y4 beyond design basis. conditional admission of contention alleging appicant's failure to adequately address: M4 LBP-8216.15 NRC 566 (1982) M class 9. assessment of environmental ruk of; admissibility of contentions; LBP-8219. IS NRC 601 (1982) "~ class 9, conditional admission of contention seeking consideration of economic costs of; LBP-8216,15 W NRC 566 (1982) 7-class 9. spent fuel pool capansion increasing severity of; loss of feedwater, effect on appleant's ability to dN safely maintain expanded spent fuct pool; LBP-82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) $M ADJUDICATORY BOARDS A delegated authority of, regarding issuance of procedural orders; LBP-82-2.15 NRC 48 (1982) 7W' AFFIDAVIT (S) ff. supporting proprietary nature of other documents, decision upheld concerning release to public of; Tg i " LBP-82-5A.15 NRC 216 (1982) L-AIRCRATT g' crash from SAC simulated bombing run, increased release of radioactivity from expanded fuel pool in p' L event of. LBP-82-8.15 NRC 299 (1982) My'" AM EN DM ENT(S) to operating Icense to permit onsite storage of low-level radioactive waste, decision denying intervention o-petitions, hearing requests. vacated; ALAB-664,15 NRC I (1982) [@. ANTICIPATED TRANSIENTS WITHOUT SCRAM ( ATWS) admissibility of contentions on; LBP 8219.15 NRC 601 (1982) disrpissal sought of contention involving mitigation of, because of pending rulemaking; LBP 82-I A,15 g,, Aw NRC 43 (1982) rejection of contention seeking to raise issues on, in individuallicensing proceeding; LBP 8216,15 NRC Q,i E,- 566 (1982) u. ANTITRUST 5P-revien under Atomic Energy Act, scope of; ALAB-665,15 NRC 22 (1982) %C ANTITRUST PROCEEDING iQ T denial of late sntervention in; ALAB-665. 35 NRC 22 (1982) SC, filing by appleans in, deemed to be request for withdramal and is referred to licensing board for M? consideration and decision; CLI-82 5. IS NRC 404 (1982) %O hcensing board grants joint motion of appleant and intervenors in: LBP 82 21. IS NRC 639 (1982) Q3 APPEAL BOARD (S) scope of review by; ALAB-669, IS NRC 453 (1982) gy vA APPEAL (S) -W discretionary interlocutory. lecensee's request for referral of order to the Commission under the Rules of As3 Practice provisions for, granted; LBP-82128,15 NRC 523 (1982) @Q.. BIOACCUMULATION of radioactivity in fish as a result of expansion of spent fuel pool; LBP-82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) $d BOARD (S) ZEZf jurisdiction of. pending rulemaking; LBP 82-II.15 NRC 348 (1982) See also Adjudicatory Boards; Appeal Board (s); Licensing Board (s) 3/J BY PRODUCT MATERIALS LICENSES A - rules apphcable to; requirement of hearing for renewal of. LBP-82-24.15 NRC 652 (1982) %@W See also Materials License Il CAllFORNI A -s t% southern. historic seismicity of; LBP-82-3,15 NRC 61 (1982) CERTIFICATION N M. to the Commission of Board order permitting intervention petitioner's representatives to observe emergenc} planning exercises at hcensee's plant, denial of request for; LBP-82128. IS NRC 523 (1982) %}[' 1 G O: 4 h %g - $Am. 55 -gA e

f..*h W*A

4 .d f a. SUBJECT INDEX CHAIN REACTION CONSTANT in spent fuel pool n'ay exceed standards, dental of summary disposition of contention alleging that; L8P-82-7,15 NRC 290 (1982) in spent fuel pool, miscalculation of; LBP-82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) CLAMS, ASIATIC effect of safestation of. on performance of cooling tower system, conditional admission of conteetion on; L8P 8216.15 NRC 566 (1982) COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL in operating license proceeding, departure from traditional elements of; L8P-82-3,15 NRC el (1982) COMPUTER CODES technical discussions of MARCH and CLASIX; ALAIM69. IS NRC 453 (1982) CONCRETE in spent fuel pool, resistance of, to toiling water; L8P 82-8.15 NRC 299 (1982), CONFIDENTIALITY of a portson of a record; L8P-82-5A. IS NRC 216 (1982) eof steam geacrator e beslesving report, standing of intervenors to litigate issue of; L8P-82-2,15 NRC 48 m (1982) CONSTRUCTION allegations of serious defaciencies in, used as basis of motion for ocatinuance; L8P 8213,15 NRC 527 (1982) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ',, ~ application, denial of late intervention petition in antitrust proceeding on; ALAIM65,15 NRC 22 (1982) deferral of motion to withdraw, without prejudice; ALAB-668,15 NRC 450 (1982) denial of DOE request for esemption under 10 CFR 50.12 for authority to conduct site preparation activities for breeder reactor prior to issuance of; CL182-4,15 NRC 362 (1982) including antitrust information in application for; CLl 82-5,15 NRC 404 (1982) CONTAIN M ENT(S) for boiling water reactor, summary disposition sought on contentions concerning: closure of isolation valves so; cffect of boiling on component.of; sprays, reliability of motorgerated valves for; aircraft crash into; LBP-82 8.15 NRC 299 (1982) ice condenser, hydrogen mitigation and control in; pressure limita of; ALAB-669,15 NRC 453 (1982) CONTENTION (S) e-broad, admission of,in the interest of expedition; L8P-8219A.15 NRC 623 (1982) concerning ATWS nutigation, dismissal because of pendaag rulemaking on; LBP 82-1 A.15 NRC 43 (1982) good cause for late filing of; L8P-82198. IS NRC 627 (1982) late, on disposal of nuclear wastes, and need for magnesium oxide bricks beneath reactor vessel, denial of motion to admit; L8P-82 II 15 NRC 348 (1982) purpose of specificity requirements, standard of specificity for, at initial prehearing conference; admissibihty of, where documents are not yet available; revised principles for judging adequacy of; L8P-8216.15 NRC 566 (1982) showing good cause for late filing of; demonstrating nesus between issue and facility that is subject of proceeding; previously admitted, amendment of; L8P-82-15.15 NRC 555 (1982) termination of las standards for admitting; L8P 82-10,15 NRC 341 (1982) untimely, licensing board review of, to determine if they should be raised sua sponte; L8P 82-198,15 NRC 627 (1982) CONTINUANCE allegations of senous construction deficiencies as basis for motion for; L8P-8213.15 NRC 527 (1982) CONTROL ROOM simulator, Board plans trips to, prior to raising sua sponte issue concerning reliability of; LBP 82-9,15 NRC 339 (1982) CONTROL ROOM OPERATOR (S) reversal of licensing boerd's order denying labor union's request for hearing on NRC enforcement order restricting overtime by; ALAB-670, IS NRC 493 (1982) CONTROL SYSTEMS contention citing need for redundancy inadmissible because oflate filing; L8P-8215,15 NRC 555 (I#82) COST /8ENEFIT ANALYSIS environmental, rejection of contention seeking injection of increased construction costs into; L8P-8216.15 NRC 566 (1982) DECISION (S) partial initial. Board clarification of provisbn of, relating to separation of TMl Units I and 2; L8P-82-20. 15 NRC 636 (1982) partial innial, vacsied on mooiness graronis; ALAIM68. IS NRC 450 (1982) 4 56 1 e

o 4 ^' O. SUBJECT INDEX DECOMMISSIONING AND DECONTAMINATION .ef spent fuel storage facility, summary disposition of contention questioning applicant's financial capability for: LBP-8214.15 NRC 530 (1982) DEMOLITION of buildings, denial of petition requesting formal adjudicatory hearing on materials license amendment l permitting; CLI-82-2.15 NRC 232 (1982) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) denial of request by, for exemption under 10 CFR 50.12 for authority to conduct site preparation for breeder reactor prior to issuana of construction permit; CLI-82-4.15 NRC 362 (1982) DISCOVERY by intervention petitioners: LBP-82-12B, IS NRC $23 (1982) not related to contentions, authorization of; LBP-82-2.15 NRC 48 (1982) scope of and sanctions for failure to comply with; LBP-82-5.15 NRC 209 (1982) j timing of; LBP-82-12A, IS NRC $15 (1982) treatmcot of miervenor's request fw disclosure of en parte communications as request for, LBP 82-22. IS NRC 644 (1982) i DUE PROCESS J in materials license amendment proceeding, violation of; CLI-82 2.15 NRC 232 (1982) i EARTHQUAKES hcensing board rules that seismic design basis for SONGS prondes reasonable assurance of safety against: LBP-82-3.15 NRC 61 (1982) See also Safe Shutdown Earthquake i, ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE contention seeking to litigate possible effects of, disallowed; LBP-82-16,15 NRC 566 (1982) EMERGENCY PLANNING eletermining size of EPZ. admissibility of contentions on; LBP-82-19,15 NRC 601 (1982) exercises at licensee's plant, denial of request lor stay and certification of Board order permitting intervention petitioner's representaties to observs; LBP-82128.15 NRC 523 (1982) hcensing board grants intervention petitioner's rnotion to be permitted to observe exercise for; LBP-82-12A 15 NRC 515 (1982) EMERGENCY PLAN (S) i comparative risk analysis; standard for low-power license; LBP-82-3,15 NRC 61 (1982) conditional admission of contention questioning adequacy of; LBP-82-16,15 NRC 566 (1982) for spent fuel storage facility, summary disposition of contention alleging inadequacies in; LBP-82-14,15 f ~ NRC 530 (1982) EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS at SONGS found adequate for issuance oflow-power license; LBP-82-3,15 NRC 61 (1982) ENERGY burden on economy of capitalintensive forms of; LBP-82-16 IS NRC 566 (1982) See also Department of Energy ENFORCEMENT ORDER restncting overtime by control room operators, reversal of licensing board's order denying request by labor union for hearing on; ALAB-670,15 NRC 493 (1982) ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS scope of. for segmented non-federal waste disposal plen; ALAB-664,15 NRC 1 (1982) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for spent fuel storage facihty, summary disposition of contention stating NRC's obligation to issue: LBP-82-14,15 NRC 530 (1982) l programmatic, segmentation of, under NEPA. for materials license amendment; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 232 l (1982) l ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT sppbcant's, rejection of contention asserting deficiencies in: LBP-82-16,15 NRC 566 (1982) EVIDENCE. hearsay. standard for admissibility of,in NRC proceeding; ALAB-669,15 NRC 453 (1982) in reopened proceeding on cheating on TML-l operator's hcense exams, relevance of staff attitude as; t LBP-82 7A.15 NRC 295 (1982) >cn Cristianitos Fault, exclusion of, from operating license proceeding: LBP-82-3,15 NRC el (1982) sponsorship of, by an expert; admissibility of Reports of Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; ALAB-669.15 NRC 453 (1982) EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS treatment of intervenor's request for disclosure of, as request for d' cavery; LDP-32-22,15 NRC 644 a (1982) 4 l l I

\\ s SUBJECT INDEX EXEMPTION (S) ,inder 10 CFR 50.12 ao allow site preparation for breeder reactor prior to issuance of construction permit, denial of request by DOE for; CLI-82-4,15 NRC 362 (1982) - EXTENSION OF TIME for discovery on contention alleging apphcant's failure to adhere to QA/QC required provisions, denial of intervenor's motion for; LBP-8218,15 NRC 598 (1982) in fihng contentions, propriety of Board discusuons on; LBP-82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) FAULT (S) Cristianitos, esclusion of evidence on,in operating license proceeding; LBP-82-3,15 NRC el (1982) FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS of applicant, appeal board affirms hcensing board's denial of untimely petition for intervention based rui; ALAB-671,15 NRC 508 (1982) of apphcant to decommission and decontaminate spent fuel storage facility, summary disposition of contention questioning; LBP-8214,15 NRC 530 (1982) of small owners to bperate plant safety, conditional admission of contention questioning; LBP 8216,15 NRC 566 (1982) CROUND MOTION strong at SONGS site, technical discusuon of empirical analysis, theoretical modeling, development of design spectrum, saturation and focusing of seismic waves; LBP-82-3,15 NkC 61 (1982) vibratory, appeal board receives additional information on method for determining, and renflirms earlier detet.aination; ALAB-667,15 NRC 42I (l982) HEARING (S) evidentiary, on trustworthiness ofintervenor, entitlement of party to; LBP-82 2,15 NRC 48 (1982) for renewal of by-product materials licenses, requirement for; LBP 82-24,15 NRC 652 (1982) formal adjudicatory, on materials license amendme.g to permit demohtion of buildings and temporary onsite storage of thorium are mill tailings, denial of petition requesting; CLI 82 2,15 NRC 232 (1982) on NRC enforcement order restricting overtime by control room operators, reversal of licensing board's order denying request by labor union for; ALAB-670,15 NRC 493 (1982) regarding apphcation for spent fuci pool capension, denial of request for; LBP-82-1,15 NRC 37 (1982) HUMAN FACTORS and efficiency of operation, interaction of, conditional admission of contention dealing with; LBP-8216, 15 NRC 566 (1982) HYDROGEN generation from a LOCA; combustion; control; emergency control systems for, ALAB 669,15 NRC 453 (1982) HYDROGEN GENERATION contenten, admissibility of; LBP-82-15. IS NRC 555 (1982) escessive, rejection of contentions dealing with; LBP 82-16,15 NRC $66 (1982) INTEGRITY of other parties,inpugning: LBP 82 5A,15 NRC 216 (1982) INTERGRANULAR STRESS CORROSION CRACKING of stainless Sier' components in new spent fuel pool storage racks; LBP-82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) INTERROGATORIES failure of Stervenor se respond to: LBP-8210,15 NRC 341 (1982) INTERVENORS standing of, to litigate confidentiality issues; LBP 82-2,15 NRC 48 (1982) INTERVENTION appeal board affirms licensing board's denial of untimely petition for, based on apphcant's financial quahficatens; ALAB-678,15 NRC 508 (1982) by go.crnmental agency; LBP-82-19,15 NRC 601 (1982) denial oflate petition for, becas.e of lack of particularity and specificity; LBP-82-4,15 NRC 199 (1982) denial of untimely petition for, and request for bearing regarding applicataan for spent fuel pool espansion; LBP-821,15 NRC 37 (1982) estoppel ce the issue of timeliness of petiten for; petiuanet's reliance ao its detriment on Staft's representation; LBP 82-24,15 NRC 652 (1982) in cases where avenues of public participation are not availabic as a matter of right: ALAB-670,15 NRC 493 (1982) late, good cause for,in operating license amendment proceeding: ALAB-664,15 NRC I (1982) late, in antitrust proceeding, denial of; ALAB-665,15 NRC 22 (1982) petamner's motion to be permitted to observe emergency planning enerose granted; LBP-82-12A,15 NRC 515 (1982) SS 4

m s - O. SUBJECT IMDEX ^D JURISDICTION for challenge of licensee's compliance with esperate environmental., ander NEPA: ALAB464,15 NRC i (1982) of Boards pending rulemaking; LBP-82 II,'15 NRC 548 (1982) ~ ~- of hcensing board to entertain motion by intervention petitaener to cherve emergency planning exercusa. 6 .I LBP-8212A.15 NRC 515 (1982) of heensing board to issue a stay; LBP 82-23.15 NRC 647 (1982) LADOR UNION w a m ~ -- reversal of licensing board's order denying request by, for hearing on NRC enforcement order restricting overtime by control room operators; ALAB470,15 NRC 493 (1982) LICENSING BOARD (S) authority of, to issue e stay. and to certify lesees to the C-- - ~ i-. LBP-82 23,15 NRC 647 (1982) jurisdiction of, to entertain antitrust proceeding when parties have withdrawn; LBP 82-21. IS NRC 639 (1982) -. jurisdiction of, to entertain motion by intervention petitioner to observe emergency planning esercises, LBP-8212A IS NRC 515 (1982) limitations on sua sponte authority of; LBP-824,15 NRC 281 (1982); LDP 82-24A,15 NRC 661 (1982) responsabihty of. 40 docule whether construction complies with all legal requiranients; LBP-8213,15 NRC 527 (1982) ~ role of,in operating hcense proceeding; responsibility of to follow directnes of seperior tribunals; obbsation of, to explain its reasons for findmg that a witsees is inadequately qualified as se espert; ALA5469. IS NRC 453 (1982) sua sponte authority of. to adopt untirsely cententions: LBP42-198, IS NRC 627 (t982) MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENTS by applicant in regard to report on seismic reverincation program, Staff directed to issue Notice of - Veolation concerning; CLi-821. IS NRC 225 (1982) MATERIALS LICENSE amendment to peruut demolition of buildings and temporary casite storage of thorium are mill f aiNape denial of petition requesting formal adjudicatory hearing on; CLI-82 2,15 NRC 232 (1982) See also By-Product Materials Licenses MONITORS water level, in spent fuel pool, reliability of; radiation, impact of espansion of spent fuel pool ca; LBP 82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) MOTION (S) for withdrawal of hcense apphcstion filed with both appeal and liccasing hoards; ALAB468,15 NRC 450 (1982) to compel intervenor to respond to interrogatories; LBP 82-10,15 NRC 54l (1982) to reconsider previous deih not to certify sua sponte question to 8'- 4: L3P-82-24A.15 NRC 661 (1982) NEED FOR POWER contention barred from pra-wting; LBP-82-16.15 NRC 566 (1982) NOTICE of proposed ac' ion or opportunity for hearing, r"" duties regarding lesmance of; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 232 (1982) NOTICE OF VIOLATION concerning material false statements by applicant in regard to report on esismic reverification program. Staff airccted to issue; CLI-821,15 NRC 225 (1982) NRC STAFF ' motion for review of Special Master's rulir2s with respect to Staff attitude denied; LBP 82-7A,15 NRC 295 (1982) NUCLEAP. REGULATORY COMMISSION authority to protect public health and safety, limitations on; CLI-824,15 NRC 407 (1982) duties concerning notice of croposed action or opportunity for hearing; cavironmental responsibilities for license amendments; cffect of concurrent State or local proceedmg on prooseding of; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 232 (1982) effect on of granting 150.11 exemption for breeder reactor:CLI-82-4,15 NRC 362 (1982) licensing proceedings, application of constitutional requirement for " case or controversy" to: ALAB471, 15 NRC 508 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE (S) amendment proceeding,intervenw's snotion to dispense with oral argument end subsmit appeal ce briefs granted; ALAB466,15 NRC 277 (1982) amendment to permit ensite storage of low-level radioactive waste, decision denying intervention petitions, hearing requests, vacated; ALAB 664,15 NRC I (1982) 99 ~~ w~e-a-w.,__,, e

a ,o s A hearing, litigation of TMI-related issues fa; LBP-82-19. IS NRC 601 (1982) oblisauan so update site seissucity investigations sor; LSP42 3, IS NRC.el (1982) proceeding, licensing board's role in: ALAB-669,15 NRC 453 (1982) OPERATOR TRAININO at spent fuel storage facility, emmunary P= ef centention allegieg imedequacy of program for; LBP-82-14.15 NRC 530 (1982) ORAL ARGUMENT intervenor's emotion so depense with,is aparating license amendment prmany granted; ALAB-666,15 " NRC 277 (1932) OVERTIME ~S' by centrol room operators, reversal of licensing board's order denying labor union's request for hearing enforceanent enSer restricting; ALAB470,15 NRC 493 (1982) Pt(YSICAL SECURITY PIAN for spent fuel storage facility, sammary disposition of contention ausging inadequate assessment of embotage risins la; LBP42-14. IS NRC 530 (1982) - See also Security Plans . ~ *

W5 PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK

'M'

t

- ~ - -e A=~ of prowini votes of sesumic,tydrodynamic, and vibratory leads is analysis ef; DD 821 15 NRC 667 (IR 2) PROPRIETARY DOCUMENTS .s t-rulesse of portions of, to the public; LSP424,15 NRC 281 (1982) + PROPRIETARY INFORM ATION es steam senerator tube sleering, order supplemented by adopting protective order to cover release to intervenor of; LBP42 2. IS NRC 44 (1982) PROTECTIVE ORDER imposing conditions on intervention petrimoner's cheervation of emergency planning exercises; LBP42-15 NRC 515 (1982) to cover release to intervenor of propnetary s sterial on steam generator tube sleeving; LBP42-2 IS NRC 48 (1982) PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS act cognirable under Atomic Energy Act, Cammission issues statement of reasons for determination that; CLi-82-6,15 NRC 407 (1982) QUALITY ASSURANCE castention, sneans for expanding; LBP42-15,15 NRC 555 (1982) denial of intervemor's motion for extension of time for discovery on contention dealing with; LBP-8218,15 NRC 598 (1982) RADIATION admission of contention questioning long-term health effects of; occupational caposures not as low as reasonably achievable, rejection of contention alleging; LBP-8216. IS NRC 566 (1982) gamma, sufficiency of shielding against; increase is amount of, resulting from spent fact pool expension: LBP-82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) underestimation of effects of, om bealth of personnel at spent fuel storage facility, summary disposition of contention alleging; LBP-82-14. IS NRC 530 (1982) RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS from empended spent fuel pool, bazards of discharges from; LBP 82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) RADIOACTIVE WASTE (5) denial of late contention on dasnosal of; LBP-82 II,15 NRC 348 (1982) new-nevel, d~a denying intervention petitions, bearing requests, regarding operating license amendment Io permit onsite storage of; ALAB464,15 NRC I (1982) . l REACTOR CORE cooling, inadequate, rejection of contention alleging absence ofinstrumentation to detect; LBP-82-16,15 . NRC 566 (1982) l REACTOR OPERATORS - and shift supervisors, conditional admission of contention questioning qualifications of; LBP-82-16,15 i NRC 566 (1982) l l REACTOR VESSEL ( denial of late contention on need for magnesium oxide bricks beneath; LBP42 II.15 NRC 142 (1982) j l REACTOR (S) i breeder, denial of DOE request for esaseption seder 10 CFR 50.12 for authority to cs Auct site preparation activities pnar to issuance of construction permit for; CLl42-4,15 NRC 562 (1982) posestsally subject to pressurized thermal abeck, denial or 2.206 petition requesting abatdown of all; DD42-1. IS NPO 667 (1982) h k. H O y ,,___r__

x .o ~~

m m e

.-s o w s -.,,. -s- , n. ~ -,e-RECONSIDERATION + h' esffect of pendency of applicaat's motion for, on intervenor's response ao interrogatories; LBP 82 5,15 NRC 209 (1982) < of determinaten,in sesponse to untimely motion; LBP-82-6,15 NRC 281 (1982) of rules governing protections for safeguards information,haial of petition requesting; CLI-82-3,15 NRC 359 (1982) RECORD creation of a sua sponte issue by withholding a portion R from the public; L8P-82-12,15 NRC 354 (1982) drscretionary authority of licensing board to reopen; LBP-82-3,15 NRC 61 (1982) evidentiary, prerequisites for reopening; ALAB-669,15 NRC 453 (1982) treatment of a portion of, as proprietary: LBP-82-24A,15 NRC 668 (1982) l REGULATIONS _ ;c., l daterpretation of 10 CFR 100, App. A: ALAB-667.15 NRC 421 (1982) interpretation of; LBP-82-5A,15 NRC 216 (1982) See also Rules RES JUDICATA -in operating license proceeding, departure from traditional elements of; LBP-82 3,15 NRC 61 (1982) REVIEW appellate, basis for decision in; ALAB-669,15 NRC 453 (1982) by appeal board, scope of; ALAB-669,15 NRC 453 (1982) of Special Master's ruling with respect to Staff attitude, denial of NRC Staff motion for; LBP-82 7A,15 NRC 295 (1982) RULEMAKING admissibility of contentions that are the subject of; LBP-82-19,15 NRC 601 (1982) pending. on ATWS issue, dismissal of contention sought because of; LBP-82-I A,15 NRC 43 (1982) RULES apphcable to by product materials license renewal: LBP 82-24,15 NRC 652 (1982) governing protections for safeguards information, denial of petition requesting reconsideration of; CLI-82 3,15 NRC 359 (1982) See also Regulations RULES OF PRACTICE admission of broad contentions in the interest of expedition; LBP-82-19A,15 NRC 623 (1982) Board reinterprets contentions, discusses confiscting objectives to be accommodated in deciding summary - disposition rnation, and finds good cause for late filing of affidavits; LBP-82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) burden of going forward where contention is a general inquiry into plant design systems analysis methodology; LBP 42-l',15 NRC 601 (1982) s-challenge to regulations perdning to hydrogen control; prerequisite for reopening an evidentiary record; criteria for a subpoena request; basis for deciding an appeal; criteria for considering claims of error on appeal; ALAB 669,15 NRC 453 (1982) Commission duties concerning notice of proposed action or opportunity for hearing; constitutional due process in materials license amendment proceeding; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 232 (1982) confidential documents, sua sponte issues, integnty of other parties, interpretation of regulations; LBP-82-5A,15 NRC 216 (1982) creation of sua sponte issues by withholding a portion of the record from the public; LBP-82-12,15 NRC 354 (1982) criteria for motions for oral argument: ALAB-666,15 NRC 277 (1982) departures from traditional elements of res judicata and collateral estoppel, exclusion of evidence, admissibility of contentions, reopening the record; LBP-82-3,15 NRC 61 (1982) determining whether a portion of the record should be treated * - ictary: LBP-82 24A,15 NRC 661 (1982) discovery by intervention petitioners; request for discretionary interlocutory appeal granted; LBP-82128, 15 NRC 523 (1982) discretionary interlocutory review of Special Master's order inquiring into Staff attitude, LBP-82 7A,15 NRC 295 (1982) dmmissal of contentions regarding ATWS because of pending rulemaking on; LBP-82-I A,15 NRC 43 0 982) estoppel on the issue of timchness of intervention petition; standing to intervene; LBP 82-24,15 NRC 652 (1982) extension of time for discovery; LBP-82-18,15 NRC 598 (1982) entensions of time; responsitnhty of licensing board concerning compliance of construction with legal requirements; LBP-8213,15 NRC 527 (1982) factors considered for admission of untimely intervention petitions; ALAB-671,15 NRC 508 (1982) 98 61 4

t 1 o good cause for late intervention; ALAB464,15 NRC I (1982) good cause for late rded contentions; jurudicuan of Boards pending reismakag; LDP-82-II,15 NRC 348 (1982) inadmissability of a late-f6 led contention because of summary deposiion of prior contention based en name allesations: LDP42-195.15 NRC 627 (1982) including antitrust information in construction permit application; reason for early 61ing of antitrust information; CL1-82 5,15 NRC 404 (1982) intervention by governmental agency; LDP-8219.15 NRC 601 (1982) intervention in cases where avenues of public rticipation are not availabic as a matter of right; acceptance of intervenor's material allegations; ALAS 470.15 NRC 493 (1982) e-- -

Lgr42 23,15 NRC 647 (1982) licensing board's power to certify issues to the motion to compel, snation concerning htigable issue, las standard for admitting contention: LBP42-10,15 NRC 341 (1982) motions for withdrawal of license application filed with both appeal and licensing boards; ALAS 468,15 NRC 450 (1982) preliminary investigation of possible sea sponte issue: LDP42-9.15 NRC 339 (1982) reconsaderation in response to untimely niotion; release of portions of proprietary docuaients to the public; limitations on Board's sua sponte authority; LBP424.15 NRC 281 (1982) requirement of speciracity for contentions; emergency planning contentions; admissibility of contention LBP42-16,15 NRC 566 (1982)

. requirements of intervention petitions in antitrust proceedsag: ALAS 465,15 NRC 22 (1982) scope of discovery; effect of pendency of applicant's motion for reconsideration on responses to interrogatories; sanctions for failure to comply with discovery: LBP-82-5,15 NRC 209 (1982) showing good cause for late-filed contentions; desnaastration of naans; amendment of entention; LBP-82-15,15 NRC 555 (1982) summary dispcnition of contentions; board adoption of contentions; LBP-8217,15 NRC 593 (1982) summary disposition of contentions where no htigable issue of fact exists; LDP 8214,15 NRC 530 ( timeliness of, and pleading requirements for intervention petitaans; LBP-82-4,15 NRC 199 (1982) timing of discovery; protective order imposing conditions on intervention petitioner during observati emergency planning esercises; LBP4212A,15 NRC SIS (1982) treatment of intervenor's request for disclosure of en parte communications as request for discovery: LBP-82 22,15 NRC 644 (1982) trustworthiness of intervenor to receive documents under protective order; apacial procedure for confidential trial plan; protective order governing release of proprietary data; LBP42-2. IS NRC 44 (1982) untimely intervention petition regarding application for spent fuel pool espansion; LDP-82-3,15 NRC 3 (1982) t SABOTAGE summary disposition of contention alleging inadequate risks of, to spent fuel storage facility; LBP-82 15 NRC $30 (1982) SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE appeal board receives additional information on method for determining, and reaffirms earlier determination; ALAB467,15 NRC 421 (1982) technical discussion of controlling geologic feature, slip rate and fault length methods at SONGS site; LBP 82 3,15 NRC 61 (1982) SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION denial of petition requesting reconsideration of rules prohibiting unprotected telecommunications mandating use of GSA-spproved security container for.CLI-82-3.15 NRC 359 (1982) SAFETY of construction and operation of Catawba plant, conditional ad-~ of comisariam questioning; LBP4216. IS NRC 566 (1982) of workers installing new spent fuel storage racks quesuoned; LBP-824. IS NRC 299 (1982) power reactor, effect of a 150.12 exemption for breeder reactor on; CLI42-4 IS NRC 362 (1982) SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l consolidated, contention alleging inadequate descriptions of particular accidents at spent fuel storage facility summarily dismissed; LBP4214,15 NRC 530 (1982) SANCTIONS for failure of intervenor to respond to applicant's interrogatorisa; LBP42-5,15 NRC 209 (1982) SECURITY CONTAINER w-ation of rules mandating use of; CLl42 3,15 NRC GSA-approved, denial of petition requesting r 359 (1982) 4 62 l 4 .-.me - +

n I SUBJECT INDEX i j SECURITY PLAN (S) requirements and conditions for admission of contention alleging ' "- of; LBP-8216.15 NRC 566 (1982) See also Physical Security Plan SERSMIC DESIGN appeal board receives additional information on criteria fcr determining SSE, earthquake siae, frequency, intensity and maximum vibratory ground motion, and formulation of seismic response spectrum; ' ALAB467,15 NRC 421 (1982) basis at SONGS found safe assinst earthquake hazards; LSP-82-3,15 NRC 61 (1982) SEISMIC REVERIFICATION PROGRAM Staff directed to issac Notice of Violation concerning material false statements by applicant is regard to report on; CLl-82 I.15 NRC 225 (1982) SITE location and major geologic feste es of SONGS; LBP-82-3,15 NRC 6l (1982) SITE PREPARATION for breeder reactor prior to issuance of construction permit, damiat of DOE request for exemption ander 10 CFR 50.12 to conduct; CLI-82-4,15 NRC 362 (1982) SPENT FUEL canditional ade of contentions dealing with expansaan of storage pool for," cascade

plan for storias, and transportation of; LBP-3216,15 NRC 566 (1982) damaged, summary dispcaition of contention alleging noncompliance of applicant regarding receipt, handling and storage of; LBP-82-14,15 NRC 530 (1982)

SPENT FUEL POOL denial of summary disposition of contention alleging miscalculation of chain reaction constant in; LBP-82-7 IS NRC 290 (1982) e SPENT FUEL POOL EXPANSION denial of untimely petition for intervention and request for henring regarding application for, LBP-821, 15 NRC 37 (1982) summary disposition sought for contentions dealing with criticality calculations, circonium/ steam reactions, aircraft crash risk, radioactive releases, corrosion, caskdrop incident: safety of workers installing racks for, LBP-82-8. IS NRC 299 (1982) STANDING proximity nenus for establishment of, not applicable to by-product 'naterials license renewal; LBP-82-24, 15 NRC 652 (1982) STAY denial of licensee's motion for because of lack of jurisdiction; LBP-82-23,15 NRC 647 (1982) of Board order permitting intervention petitioner's representatives to observe emergency planning exercises at licensee's plant, demal of request for. LBP-8212B,15 NRC 523 (1982) of proceeding, intervenor's motion for, treated as motion for continuance; LBP-8213, IS NRC 527 (1982) STEAM GENERATOR TUBES sleeving of, adoption of protective order to cover release to intervenor of propnetary material on; g LBP-82-2,15 NRC 48 (1982) f SUA SPONTE ISSUE (S) Bosrd review of proposal concerning withholding of portion of the record from the public not subject to i limitation as; LBP-82 5A,15 NRC 216 (1982) I creation of, by withholding of a portion of the record from the public; LBP-32-12,15 NRC 354 (1982) limits on licensing board's authonty to raise; LBP-82 24A,15 NRC 661 (1982) on control room reliability, preliminary investigation prios to raising; LBP-82-9 IS NRC 339 (1982) SUBPOENAS criteria for request for; ALAB-669,15 NRC 453 (1982)

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION answering motions for; analogy between summary judgment and; LBP 8217. IS NRC 593 (1982) of contention that chain reaction constant in spent fuel pool may encmed standards, denied; LBP-82-7,15 [ NRC 290 (1982) { of contentions in spent fuel pool amendment proceeding sought; LBP-82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) s of contentions opposing extension of existing hcense to store spent fuel granted; LBP-8214,15 NRC 530 (1982) of prior contention, inadmissibility of late-filed contention based on same allegations because of; LBP 82-198,15 NRC 627 (1982) SYSTEMS INTERACTIONS rejection of contention alluding to problems of, for lack of means; LBP-8216,15 NRC 566 (1982) V U 1

e O~ l TELECOMMUNICATIONS mapresected, of safeguards information, denial of petition requestang reconsadarauen of rules prohibiting; CLI-82 3,15 NRC 359 (1982) THORIUM mill tailings, decial of petition for formal adjudicatory bearing on materials license amendment pensitting samparary onsite storage af; CLI-82-2,15 NRC 232 (1982) THREE MILE ISLAND conditional admission of contention charging applicant with failure to develop procedures in r=pn== to accident at LBP-8216,15 NRC 566 (1982). desenption of Unit 2 accident at; ALAB-669,15 NRC 453 (1982) lessons learned, compliance with regulatson resulting from, in capansion of spent fact pool; LBP-82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) ~ htigation of issues related to, in operating license hearing: LDP-8219.15 NRC 601 (1982) separatson of units I and 2 of, clanrication of pronsaan of partial initial da~wrelating to; LBP-82-20, 15 NRC 636 (1982) '" VALVES ' comainment isolation, closure of; saator-operated, for containment sprays; to mitiente apest feel pool seculent, rehatnhty of; LBP-82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) - WATER 'for drinking, rejectien of contention empressing concerns about radioactive contamination of; LBP-8216, 15 NRC 566 (1982) WITHDRAWAL n"6 '- of license application. applicant's " Notice of Prematarity and Advice of Withdrawal

d====8 to be, CLI-82 5,15 NRC 404 (1982)

WITNESS expert, standard for judgies qualification as; ALAB-669,15 NRC 453 (1982) , = ' - ZlRCALOY 7-cladding, reaction of steam with; LBP-82-8,15 NRC 299 (1982) n .c. r., pa, a P

- ,, S P I#- F 6

o- ,t : p c; i w.- .,- i 3- " gt L h 4 e / 6 (#W + gDE pg % 1

gy 9

3 O{' a b', Nb, ta a P . ) r, - % e p, wcs r. 4 e 6 i' s I E.A. e h j, g ,s ? N

x 1 .o a _~_ 7% s ) n-y -G, 3 h3 ) \\ My pr } y.

n s

't w ? ye FACI 1JTY INDEX w3} ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. Unit 1: Docket 50-466-CP CONSTRLCTION PERMIT; March 31.1982; DECISION: ALAB-671.15 NRC 508 (1982) BIG ROCK POINT PLANT; Docket 50155 (Spent Foci Pool Amendment) -P OPERATING LICENSE: March 19.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-198.15 NRC - 'y 627 (1982) y OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 5.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP-82-7.15 NRC 290 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 19.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82 8. I5 NRC 299 (1982) BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT. Units I. 2 and 3; Dockets 50 259-OL 542640L 54296-OL OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT: January 6.1982; DECISION; ALAB-664.15 NRC I (1982) BYRON STATION. Ur.its I and 2: Dockets STN 50-454-OLA.STN 50-455-OLA t OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 27.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDFR; C LBP-82-5.15 NRC 209 (1982) C CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. Units I and 2; Dockets 54413 OL 54414 OL; ASLBP Docket W 81463-0IOL T* OPERATING LICENSE; March 5.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-16,15 NRC $66 2 b (1982)

Tk CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT; Docket 54537 (caemption regnest under 10 CFR

__= h j 50.82) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; March 16.1982; ORDER; CLI-82 4.15 NRC 362 (1982) I * ~, COBALT-60 STORAGE FACILITY; Docket 346931 % h

~

MATERIALS LICENSE RENEWAL; March 31.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-24 - ; 7 15 NRC 652 (1982) airPM COM ANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. Units I and 2; Dockets 50445. 54446 f7_ (Aopication for Operatin8 License) WP OPERATING LICENSE; March $.1982; ORDER; LBP-82-17.15 NRC 593 (1982) @f OPERATING LICENSE; March 8.1982; ORDER: LBP 8218.15 NRC 598 (1982)

S DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. Units 1 & 2: Dockets 54275-OL 50 323-OL

-c. OPERATING LICENSE; February 10.1982; STATEMENT OF THE COMMISSION:CLI-821.15 r NRC 225 (1982) "Fa GE MORRIS OPERATION SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY; Dockets 741308. 72-I-SP UA; 4 OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; March 2.1982; DECISION AND ORDER; LBP-82-14.15 W NRC 530 (1982) INDI AN POINT STATION, Unit No 2; Docket 54247-OLA ? e-lp OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 4.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-321,15 NRC 37 (1982) iU INDIAN POINT. Unit 2; Dockets $4247 SP 54286-SP SPECIAL PROCEEDING: March I.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LBP-82-12A,15 NRC jf; $15 (1982) g. SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 2.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LBP-82128.15 NRC g 523 (1982) g", SPECIAL PROCEEDING: March 29.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LBP-32-23.15 NRC 647 (1982)

j,;

[ INDIAN POINT. Unit Na 3; Dockets $4247.SP. 54286-SP V' l SPECIAL PROCEEDING: March I 1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LBP-82-12A.15 NRC g "., 515 (1982) g SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 2.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:LBP-82128. IS NRC yw 523 (1982) M SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 29.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-23. IS NRC 647 (1982) V \\ h t m r2 a f.s %Y B w

Q ? e~ FAClllTY INDEX M AINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER STATION: Docket 50 309-OLA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT: January 22,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LBP 82-4,15 NRC 199 (1982) PALISADES NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY; Docket 50-255-SP j I SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 31,1982; DECISION; ALAB-670,15 NRC 493 (1982) PERKINS NUCLEAR STATION, Units I,2 and 3; Dockets STN 50-488, STN 50-489 STN 50 490 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; March 24,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-668,15 NRC 450 (1982) PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. Units I & 2: Dockets 50-4440L 50-441-OL OPERATING LICENSE January 6,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LBP-82 l A,15 NRC 43 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE; February 26,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-II,15 NRC 348 (1982) ~ OPERATING LICENSE; March 2.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ObER; LDP-82-13,15 NRC 527 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE: March 3,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-15,15 NRC 555 (1982) SPECI AL PROCEEDING; February 19,1982; MEMORANDUM, LBP 82 9,15 NRC 339 (1982) POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I and 2; Dockets 50-266-OLA 50-301 OLA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 7,1982; SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER; LBP-82 2, 15 NRC 48 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 28,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 82-5A,15 NRC 216 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 2,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LBP-82-6,15 NRC 281 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 12.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-666,15 NRC 277 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 19,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LBP-8210,15 NRC 341 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 26,1982; MEMORANDUM ANC. ORDER; LBP 8212,15 NRC 354 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 19,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-8219A 15 NRC 623 (1982) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 31,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LBP-82-24A,15 NRC 661 (1982) SPECIAL PROCEEDING: March 31,1982; DIRECTORS DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD-821,15 NRC 667 (1982) SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Units 2 and 3; Dockets 50 361-CP,50 362-CP OPERATING LICENSE: January 11,1982; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LBP-82-3,15 NRC 61 (1982) SEABROOK STATION, Units I and 2; Dockets $4443,50-444 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; March 3,1982; DECISION ON REM AND; ALAB 667,15 NRC 421 (1982) SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit I; Dockets 50-322 OL $0 322-CPA OPER ATING LICENSE: March 15,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 82-19,15 NRC 601 (1982) SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, Units I and 2; Dockets STN 50 498-OL, STN 50-4994)L OPERATING LICENSE; March 26,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-22,15 NRC 644 (1982) ST. LUCIE PLANT, Unit No. 2; Docket 50-389A ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; January 29,1982; DECISION; ALAB-665,15 NRC 22 (1982) ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; March 24,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LBP-82 21,15 NRC 639 (1982) STANISLAUS NUCLEAR PROJECT, Unit 1; Docket P 564-A (Antitrust) ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; March 17,1982; ORDER; CL1-82-5,15 NRC 404 (1982) THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAE, STATION, Unit No. I: Docket 50 289 (Restart) SPECI AL PROCEEDING: March 23,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LDP-82-20,15 NRC 636 (1982) SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 30,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-82-6,15 NRC 407 (1982) SPECI AL PROCEEDING; February 5,1982: MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER: LBP-82-7A IS NRC 295 (1982) l i I 1 u l l l

N O.

FACILITY INDEX WEST CHICAGO RARE EARTH FACILITY: Docket 40 2061 MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; February II,1981. ORDER: CLI-82 2.15 NRC 232 (1982) WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION Units I and 2: Dockets 50 3694L,50-3700L OPERATING LICENSE; March 30,1982; DECISION, ALAIM69,15 NRC 453 (1982) I. e i I I l P l e 9 67 i 1 l d __,._____-.__.-.---,,-.--...___m,.-.__m.. _,,.e .-_._--b-,.--,-,c y s.e,._--

?. s n, 7.~~ --

r.. n. -.

- W . N _. U l...- % I. -. m _ =.. ~ .e ...aw. 4 a. e._ m t s -. -.~, n,,n.-,--,--..~.-._.,. .~, .= --1 ~c.- s. O >,e .. ~-. ~ n g- ,_._..m__.____.-..-.. _n___m J ""Q ; h Sr.,' )[ 7 AW oj ANA PULLCy W TLDC 2fjkhGC C4 710N3 g 7 ENW7g Og ..a# 4 40555 e % 4'# [.i. A v 4 ap+ we Ommesw ees .w. w s h wr

== goy.=.+ -.e=..padegge e - ww. .p*gan-. age 4.e ee n a a'.+e esai, w g.-* .-=

@MM*.-=.p.p.a e

e-f Syk5. F myW 4 kin'h MD wmy.u. y w @,e go g a v p.h/Aub % eMe""L"._"'" ' ^^^ '\\/ _WM i i - ' ' a asnF'- +E b".M-es$m. - h, ee.,...A ,o.- ,,w. - -an'..~.n.. .~ .a e,w-. vse-a .r.., L ( . - -p, f.... ag..- u =w w

w I

n 4 l i . I. l -o -= - .. ~ -,. -. p. s e. .a a.,arae b-em. ea5 l + .i 3 1 . p y ', y 4 ye evqf " 9..gs* ru-...... 4g m9% Q- ~ en - h. .a-d'. p

a.

+ k 6 3 3 4 y_,.. ,,a,, .n.~ n. s l 1 -wn-.-r--am ,a.,__-ca_,-n,_. -,=._-w-.-- -}}

ML20027E099

Text

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search