ML20069F047
| ML20069F047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/31/1981 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-IN-2, NUREG-0750-V14-IN2, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-IN-2, NUREG-750-V14-IN2, NUDOCS 8209270447 | |
| Download: ML20069F047 (119) | |
Text
. -. - _ _. -
NUREG-0750 Vol.14 Index 2 y
j.
~,
c
......t i-o. ',, CP' ny;a;.?fg:: me '
n.
6.,-
H
-. +
'%+,, g..
.,,, :q :
>t;
."'f.
l ? ! $ $ o ~ Q N'{
Qv. G:xg ?R&aau%
.- :)s.,..
. f.. m
, ~,.c c,e' '",p $,''-y M Y
s.
-. s e :.~m g.
ms -
uu
?
^
4 m
.p; y: y.:m n
g:-
. ;i h I t 1.Midhh.,.
?..
..-v
- a. o,.+.,. 'i. y;g u,
a y+
- ' Yh fy.e. m~
~sh.,n[n.
- 4.
u
,'L~';7[e)jt!!?h..a...
g M > 4u=?g j..
..e<
.,4, e, s.w
,; c,.
- e.,. ',s: au.
g I s.
t c
i
. ~. '_$'$ae$ Y 3
9 g
n,
. -~
M'y. 2g#$$:.
xa
.p.c>
- t. hila [
- j.h, y., 1. $.
i g
c v >w.. w w. ::,:.n.
~
sw 4
x..,4 : m. m.
...n
- i. a.
'. 4.,%$ tf. %.
'?%.
,W,...,.. c,; WQ,, d' '&~,h g, <, y',)7.
.4
- Qg;9.p..,,
y
,' ]
b d..p.
',,,jt 2[,f r hI 7
y %j5,.y$m
..s
....2 f,,;~ w)p., e, f. n#,, f., * *.
'.c..
.:m: > ?
i s
m
.n
- 4. ; t
- Q ~m,Y vm.p,..
tv~.
^,.
,gn..;y
,kt_-(g-a( -9
,y z.u: y, 1
4,t _
'., esa "
44
.,,,,,, J; a-x-
..g; y,- 4 ; u,..
(
~
nn
. ~ n.
~
v.~ : -
I
- 9. 4.',.'.8,.
- T6P t
t;9 m.3y..y
..... ; j ~ j _._.
.. wy'+ ~ ! 7 7 n
.g fy
, def >,3.V621
/ t :...,, e.v a.
.~a:.a
~
c.
=.g.gr %c"rh - g y, - g,
- e..g, r
.n g
y,.
ans U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
1 8209270447 811231 PDR NUREG I
0750 R PDR I
y
-.... ~ -
l 9
4 Available from GPO Sales Program l
Division of Technical Information and Document Control l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission Washington, D. C. 20555 and National Technical loformation Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Microfiche of single copies are available from N R0iOPO Sales Program Washington, D. C.10555 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) i
_p.,.
l l
1 t
I NUREG-0750 Vol.14 Index 2
'a 922 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES.
i July-December 1981
~
l i
U. S. NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION i
l
'I i
4
O 7
W.
=
- 5
?. ;-:t.
- 24..
W M u' f
f I
1 l
l l
1 t
9 l
t 4
5 1
l i
b f
f e
e
__ d t
1 f
f i
l h
Foreword we Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing hC Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative law Judge (AU),the Directors' Decisions d.
(DD), and the Denials of Petitions of Rulemaing are presented in this documes,t.
new 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 operatinglicense,etc.)
Type of issuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.).
Rese information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as follows:
- 1. Case NameIndex ne case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hea-ing, the type ofissuance, docket number, issuance number,and full text reference.
the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and ucensing Appeal Panel (ALAB),
(
the Atomic Safety and ucensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative law i
Judge (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking.
he header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hcaring, date ofissuance, and type ofissuance.
He digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuance covers more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically.
&%E iii
l 9
- 3. LegalCitationsIndex i
Ris index is divided into four parts and consists of alpha $:tical or alphanumerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Othus. Dese citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and itatutes may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or appbcability
{
of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuanc :
i The references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are g.merally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular t
issuance. Rese phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text 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 phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the 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 followed by docket number, type of hearing, date, type of issuance issuance number,and full text reference.
i I
1 I
\\
g, c i
l iv I
)
4 e
[T' I
V P.M 4
1w ~ nr
-luy Q
P f
CASE NAME INDEX b
V ALABAMA POWER COMPANY ANTITRUST PROCEEDING: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50-34dA. S364A; CLI 8127.14 NRC 795 (1981) h-BOSTON EDISON COMPANY.et at E
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: ORDER; Docket 50-471 CP; ALAB-656.14 NRC 965 (1981) 7
~
CENTRAL ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE. INC.
V i
ANTITRUST PROCEEDING: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-8126.14 NRC 787 (1981) h CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY et al.
F OPERATING LICENSE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50-440-OL. 50-441-OL: Append to LBP-8124.14 NRC 235 (1981)
OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50-440 01.,50-441 OL; r.
LBP-8135.14 NRC 682 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Dockets 50 440 OL. 50-441-OL:
OPERATING LICENSE: ORDER; Dockets 50-440-OL 50-441-OL: LBP 8157.14 NRC 1037 (1981) b OPERATING LICENSE;SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONCERNING PARTY STATUS. MOTIONS ~.'O DISMISS AND TO STAY.THE
- ,p i
ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS AND THE ADOPTION OF SPECIAL DISCOVERY r-3
(
PROCEDURES; Dockets 50-440 OL. 50 441-OL: LBP-81-24.14 NRC 175 (1981)
Y<
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY m
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets STN y
50-454-OLA. 50-455-OLA; LBP 8130 A.14 NRC 364 (1981) i
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets STN
}$
S454-OLA. 50-455-OLA: LBP-81-52.14 NRC 901 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER; Dnchets 50-254-OLA 50 265-OLA; LBP-8153.14
,fs NRC 912 (1981)
N.
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; Dockets S237-OLA.
Y M249-OLA (Spent Fuel Pool Modification); LBP-8137.14 NRC 708 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50 454 OL,50-455 OL:
ALAB-659,14 NRC 983 (1981)
L l
SHOW CAUSE: DIRECTORS DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Dockets S295. 50 304 (10 CFR i
I 2.206). DD-81-16.14 NRC 781 (1981) b SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket S10; CL1-8125.14 NRC 616 (1981)
L.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK E
SPECIAL PROCEEDING: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50-247, S286; CLI-8123.14 NRC 610 (1981)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; PARTIAL INITI AL DECISION; Dackets S329-CP. 50 330-CP; y
SPECI AL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Docket 50w255-CO; LBP-8126.14 NRC 247 (1981)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING; ORDER; Docket 50155; CLI-8132.14 NRC %2 (1981)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE L,-
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50-409-OL. 50-409-SC i?
(Pronsional Operatin8 License DPR-45). LBP 81-31.14 NRC 375 (1981)
DUKE POWER COMPANY 4
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets S369. 2370; ALAB-647,14 i '
I NRC 27 (1981) l SPECIAL PROCEEDING; DECISION; Docket 70-2623; ALAB-651.14 NRC 307 (1981)
+
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; ORDER; Dockets 50 369. 50 370; CLI-81 15,14 NRC I (1981) s Qe:
- O ky l
I A
k i
i
.f r
LL, <
- ~.
O CASE NAME INDEX ECKERT.SEAMANS.CHERIN & MELLOTT SPECIAL PROCEEDING: DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING; Docket PRM-2-6; DPRM-8 8-2,14 NRC 289 (1981)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket 50 389A (10 CFR 2.206); DD 81-15,14 NRC 589 (1981)
ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50 389A; LDP4119,14 NRC 87 (1981)
ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50 389A; LBP41-28,14 NRC 333 (1981)
ANTITRUST PROCEEDING: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50 389-A; LDP-88-41,14 NRC 839 (1981)
ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50 389 A; LDP-8158, le NRC 1167 (1981)
ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Docket 50489-A; LBP-8144,14 f
NRC 1803 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION: Docket 50 389 OL:ALAB-661,14 NRC lll7 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE: DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2 206; Docket 50 251 (10 CFR 2.206); DD 81-21,14 NRC 1078 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; DECISION; Dockets 50 250 SP,50 251 SP, ALAB-660,14 NRC 987 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50 250 SP,50 251-SP (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operatin8 Licenses to Permit Steam Generator Repsirs); LBP-8130.14 NRC 357 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; ORDER; Dockets 50 250,50 251; CLI41-31,14 NRC 959 (1981)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206: Dockets 50 424, 50 425; DD-81 12,14 NRC 265 (1981)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: SECOND ORDER; Docket 50-466-CP, LBP-8134,14 NRC 637 (1981)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et at OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket STN 50-498 OL, STN 50-499 OL (Operatin8 License); LBP-8154,14 NRC 918 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER; Dockets STN-50-498 OL, STN-50-499 OL: CLI-81-28,14 NRC 933 (1981)
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, et al.
OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50-461-OL: LBP-8141,14 NRC 1735 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE: ORDER; Dockets 50 461 OL,50-462-OL; LBP4156,14 NRC 1035 (1981)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50 322 OL; LBP-8118,14 NRC 71 (1981)
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50 382 OL: LBP4148,14 NRC 877 (1981)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY RESTART PROCEEDING; ORDER: Docket 50 289; CLI-SI 19,14 NRC 304 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Docket 50 289 SP (Restart, Reopened Proceedint); LBP 8150,14 NRC 888 (1981) l SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON NEPA-COMPLIANCE ISSUES; 4
Docket 50-289-SP (Restart, Reopened Proceedin8); LDP-81-60,14 NRC 1724 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING: ORDER: Docket 50 289 (Restart - Manstement issues); ALAB-658,14 NRC 981 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; ORDER: Docket 50 389 (Restart); CLI41-34, le NRC 1097 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; Docket 50 289-SP (Restart); LBP-31-32, 14 NRC 381 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION: Docket 50 289-SP (Restart); LBP-81-59, 14 NRC 1218 (1981)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et st.
OPERATING LICENSE: ORDER; Docket 50 289 (Restart); CLI-81 17,14 NRC 299 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50 320; ALAB-654,14 NRC 632 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING: ORDER; Docket 50 289 (Restart); CLI4120,14 NRC 593 (1981) b.
c,3 2
t f
CASE NAME INDEX Y2 NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING; Docket 50 201, Provisional Operating License Ns. CSF l; CLI-81-29.14 NRC 940 (1981) c NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY
- w SHOW CAUSE; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206: Dockets 50 245,50 286 (10 CFR 2.206); DD 81 17,14 NRC 784 (1981) g NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICFS,INC.
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING; Docket 50 201 Provisional Operating License No. CSF l; CLI-88 29,14 NRC 940 (1981)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket S133 OLA:
LBP-8120,14 NRC 101 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Docket $413MLA:
LBF 8149,14 NRC 885 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Dockets 54275 OL. 50 323 OL: ALAB-653,14 NRC 629 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50-275 OL,54323 OL; CLI-8122.14 NRC 598 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Dockets 50 275 OL,50 323 OL; LBP 8127,14 NRC 325 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Dockets 50 275 OL,50 323 OL (Security Proceeding); ALAB-649,14 NRC 40 (1981) i OPERATING LICENSE: ORDER; Dockets 54275 OL,50 323 OL (Security); CLI-8121.14 NRC 595 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE: ORDER SUSPENDING LICENSE: Docket 50 275 OL; CLI-8130,14 NRC i
950 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; Dockets 50 275-OL,54323-OL (Iow Pouer Test Proceeding); LBP-81-21,14 NRC 107 (1981)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; DECISION; Dockets 50-463 CP,50-464 CP; ALAB-657,14 NRC 967 (1981)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY.et at SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50-277,54278; ALAB-654,14 NRC 632 (1981) i PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY.et at SPECIAL PROCEEDING DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket 50 344 (10 CFR 2.206); DD-8813,14 NRC 275 (1981)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50 247,50 286; CLl4123,14 NRC 610 (1981)
PROJECT MAN AGEMENT CORPORATION SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50 537 (Exemption Request under 10 CFR 50.12); CLI-8135,14 NRC 1100 (1981) i PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Dockets 50 546, 54547 (10 CFR 2.206); DD-81-18,14 NRC 925 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Dockets STN l
54546, STN 50 547 (10 CFR 2.206); DD 81-22,14 NRC 1085 (1981) l PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et at SPECIAL PROCEEDING; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Dockets $4443,50 444 i
i (10 CFR 2.206); DD-8114,14 NRC 279 (1981)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY I
I SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets $4654. 50 355; ALAB-654,14 l
NRC 632 (1981)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMFANY.et al i
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; DECISION; Docket 50 272 OLA; ALAB-650,14 NRC 43 (1981)
PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; DECISION; Docket 50 376; ALAB-662.14 NRC 1925 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50 376; ALAB-648,14 NRC 34 i
(1981) l R
3 I
O CASE NAME INDEX SP[
l SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
~%
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket S312 SP; ALAS 455.14 NRC d" V 'j t
799 (1981) i'OM//dr SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, et al.
OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM, Docket 50 395 OL; ALAS 463.14 NRC 1840 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50 395 OL; LBP-88-47,14 NRC 865 (1988)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE: DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket 50 206 (10 CFR 2.206): DD-81-19,14 NRC 1041 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE: DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket S20( (10 CFR 2.206): DD-81-20,14 NRC 1052 (1981)
SOUTHERN CALIFORidlA EDISON COMPANY.et al.
OPER ATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50 341 OL 50 362 OL; CL1-8133,14 NRC 1091 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE: ORDER: Dockets 50 361 OL 50 3624L; LBP-8136,14 NRC 691 (1981)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY OPERATING LICEi4SE AMENDMENT; PREHEARING CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets S259-OL,50 260OL 50 296-OL; LBP-81-40,14 NRC 828 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket 50-537 (Exemption Request under 10 CFR 50.12); CLI-8135,14 NRC 1100 (1981)
TEX AS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY.et al.
OPI RATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Dockets 50 445 OL,50 446 OL (Application for Operating License); LDP-8122,14 NRC 150 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50-445-OL 50-446 OL l Application for Operating License); LBP 8123,14 NRC 159 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50-445 OL. 50-4s40L; LBP 8151.14 NRC 896 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER; Dockets 50 445,50-446 (Application for Operating License);
LBP-8125,14 NRC 241 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER CONCERNING SUA SPONTE ISSUES, SCHEDULING ORDER. NOTICE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND PREHEARING CONFERENCE; Dockets 50-445-OL. 50-446-OL (Application for Operating License: LBP-8138,14 NRC 767 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; ORDER: Dockets 50 445,50 446; CLI-8124,14 NRC 614 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; ORDER: Dockets 50 445,50-446; CLI-88 36,14 NRC lill (1581)
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OPERATING LICENSE: ORDER RELATIVE TO PARTICIPATION OF DANIEL O. HIRSCH UNDER 10 CFR 2.733; Docket 50142 OL (Proposed Renewal of Facility License); LBP-88 29,14 NRC 353 (1981)
THE TOLEDO ZDISON COMPANY. et al-CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; ORDER; Dockets 50 300 CP,506501 CP; LBP-8133,14 NRC 586 i
(1981)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM; Dockets S500,50 501; ALAB652,14 NRC 627 (1981) i UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SPECIAL PROCEEDING: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Docket 50 537 (Exemption Request Under 10 CFR 50.12); CLI-8135,14 NRC 1100 (1981)
WABASH VALLEY POWER ASSOCIATION CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Dockets 50 546, 50-547 (10 CFR 2.206); DD-81 18,14 NRC 925 (1983)
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.
SPECIAL PRCCEEDING; ORDER; Docket 11000495 Application No. XSNM 1471; CLI-81 18.14 NRC 301 (1981)
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets S26&OLA, 50-301-OLA; LBP-8139.14 NRC 819 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Dockets S266 OLA, S301-OLA: LBP-81-43,14 NRC 848 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Duckets 50 266-OLA,
$4301-OL A; LBP-81-44,14 NRC 850 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockets 50 '6&OLA.
50 301-OLA: LBP 81-45,14 NRC 853 (1981)
N 4
t I
i 9
CASE NAME INDEX OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Dodets 22664LA, SM14LA; LDP 81-44,14 NRC 842 (IMI) 4 -
(
OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; fbrana S2664LA, A., ' ".
r SMl4LA; LDP-81 SS,14 NRC 1017 (IMI)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Dodets S26648.A.
SMI4LA; LBP fl42,14 NRC 1747 (IMI) g 1
t
}
f 4
+
l l
b
-w l
Wi",
e D'
k Lh h
O DIGESTS V
ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k
CLI-8 8 15 DUKE POWER COMPANY (WILLIAM 8. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS I AND 2). Docket Nos. 50 369. 54370; SPECIAL PROCEEDING. June 29.1981; ORDER 5-A Following the issuance of a Licensing Board's decision (LBP-81.ll) authorizing the Director of r
Nuclear Reactor Regulaison to issue a full-power. full-term license for the operation of Units I and 2
- '1 of the McGuire facihty, and upon the corrpletion of it;
- effectiveness rev.ce" of that decision ss it relates to fell power operation of Unit I, the Comminion authorires r%c Director to inue the N full-power. full-term trense for the operation of Unit I. The Commission takes this action without
(
prejudice to its effectiveness review" for Umt 2. the normal appellate review of the Licensing Board's O
decision (as it pertains to both Units I and 2) by the Appeal Board and by the Comminion, and the G
motion to stay the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's decision now before the Appeal Board.
I CL1-8 8 16 STATEMENT OF POLICY: FURTHER COMMISSION GUIDANCE FOR POWER
[
REACTOR OPER ATING LICENSES; SPECIAL PROCEEDING: November 3.1980. ORDER m
A The Comminion (by equally divided vote) denies a requested stay of the Commission's
" Statement of Policy: Further Commission Guidance for Power Operating Licenses." pubhshed in 45
- y Fed. Reg. 41738 (June 20.1980).
CLi 81 17 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPA NY et al. (THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR Q STATION. UNIT I). Dxket No. 50 289 (Restart); OPERATING LICENSE; August 13. 1981; (.y 4
M[ _
ORDER A
The Commiuion revised its July 2.1979 order by catending its provision that Metron>htan Edison Company keep Unit I in cold shutdown condnion until further Commiuon order la GPU g'
Nuclear Corporation. The Commission also revises its August 19.1979 (CLI 79-8) and March 6.1980 4
ICLI-80 5) orders to provide that the Licensing Board consider GPU Nuclear's management b>
competence. rather than Metropohtan Edison's, during the restart proceedings for Unit i The
- d~
Comminion further authorizes the NRC staff to inue an amendment to the operating hcense for Unit h( '
I which will transfer operating a.thority for the unit to GPU Nuclear.
CL1-81 18 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. (EXPORT OF LEU TO THE PHILIPPINES).
7 Docket No. 11000495. Apphcation No. XSNM 1471; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; August 20. 1981; rJ C
{f,'
ORDER A
Tlw Comminion denies petitioners' request for leave to intervene and for a hearing on apphcant's request for authorization to emport special nuclear matenal to the Phihppines, finding that petitioners failed to assert the requisite "affected mierest" or
- injury in-fact
- to entitle them to a r1 f-hearing as a matter of right and that since the Commission has decided in earlier proceedings l
(CLI 80-15. Il NRC 672, and CLl 76-6. 3 NRC 563) not to consider health, safety and
[., s' environmental impacts in evaluating fuel caport apphcations, there is no basis for holding further t
l pubhc proceedings on tM request.
CL181 19 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION.
UNIT NO. IL Docket No. 50 289. RESTART PROCEEDING. August 20.1981; ORDER L-A The Comminion issues an order in this Restart proceeding stating its intention to begin its k
immediate effectiveness review of the Licensing Board's first partial !mtial decision (on management 4
competence) soon after its espected iuuance later in the month, if the Board resolves the management b.
2 competence inues in a manner favorable to the eventual opers; ion of Unit 1. The Comminion requests the views of the parties on the immediate effectiveness of the Board's decision. The Comminion also i
i l
modiGes ia Order of August 9.1979. CL179-8.10 NRC 141 (which provided that the record in the proceedens be certafied by the Licensing Board directly to the Comminion for final decision). to I
w provide that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board be estabbshed to hear initial appeals en e
this proceeding. subject to possible Comminion review in response to petitions for review filed pursuant t(.
i to le CFR 2.786 or on the Comminion's own motion.
. 1 C
['
g **
G' i
Ni~
7 l
h l
I
~.b..
b l
l l
O
!PQ' ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR BECULATORY COMMISSION W8
- F T
j 5
CLI-8120 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et at (THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR 1
gg,
STATION, UNIT I). Docket No. 50 289 (Restart); SPECIAL PROrEEDING; September 17,1981; ORDER 3
A On reconsideratior, of a question on which a four-member Commission had divided equity J
before, the result of which was to exclude consideration of psychological stress contentices from this restart proceeding, a full Commission, by majority vote, decides to adhare to the prmous result.
CLI-St 28 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 4275 OL, 50-323 OL (Security); OPERATING LICENSE: September 17.1981; ORDER A
la response to an intervenor's request for clari&auon on the procedure for seeking review of the Appeal Board's September 9,1981 physical security decia:en (ALAB-653 and ALAB-653 RESTRICTED), the Commission: (1) directs that review of the decision be sought by thifiling of a pet. tion for review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.786; (2) extends the time for filing such petitions; and (3) instructs the parties to follow the filing and service procedures used in the Appeal Board accurity proc.eding.
8 The Commission's normal practice for review of Atomic Safet and Ucensing Appeal Board decisions applies even when an Appeal Board has conducted evidenti y hearings. Pacific Gas and Electric Power Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). ALAB-644,13 NRC 903 (3ene 16,1981); Virginia Electric sad Power Co. (Nord Anna Po er Station Units I and 2),
ALAB-578, il NRC 189 (1980); Northern States Power Co. (Prair : Island Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 343,4 NRC 169 (1976).
CLI-88 22 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COh(PANY (DIABLO CA' 3 YON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. S275 OL, 50 323 0 4 OPERATING LICENSE; September 21,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Pursuant to its immediate Effectiveness review under 10 CFR 2.764(f), the Commission, inter alia,(1) decides that the Licensing Board's July 17.1981 Partial f aitial Decision LBP-81-21,14 NRC 107, authorizing issuance of a fuel-ktding and low-power testing hcense should becon9 effective with respect to Unit I, subject to documentation by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on the basis of findings to be made by !Ga regarding certain matters specified by the Appeal Board in ALAB-653,14 NRC 629;(2) directs the, two contentions excluded by the Licensing Board from the low-power proceeding be included is the full-power proceeding (without prejudece to the Appeal Board review (and later Commission review) to tt4 exclusion of these and otkar contentions in both the low and full-pos er proceedings);(3) denies the requests of the Governor of California and intervenors for a waiver of the immediate Effeuiveness rule for the Licensing Board's decision and certain other requests relating to the procedan for review of that damasa including stay requests; and (4) asks for the current eiews of FEMA regardie3 the adequacy of emergency planning for purposes of haw-power testing at Diablo Canyon.
B That onq party or an interested State may differ sharply with the Licensing Board's resolution of contested issues in an operating license case is rot a *sgrcial circumstasce* that could justify eaiver of the immeJiate effectiveness rule,10 CFR 2.764, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758. This is tocause the immediate effectiveness rule,10 CFR 2.764, itself deals with operating license cases only if they are contested.
C Nothing in Section 274 l, of the Atomic Energy Act grants to an interested State any right to bypass normal appeal and stay review procedures and to bring matters directly before the Commasion prior to license issuance.
CLl-81-23 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (INDIAN POINT, UNff 21 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (INDIAN POINT, UNIT 3); Docket Nos. S247, S286; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; September it,1981 MEMORANDUM AND ORDEP i
A The r.
% clarities its prmous Memorandum and Order, CLI-811,13 NRC I (1981) which inter alia, directed the holding of a hearing to consider certain long-term safety issues relating to Units 2 and 3 of the Indma Point facility, and appoints an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to preside over the proceeding.
CLl-8124 TFXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY. et al. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50445,50-446; SPECIAL PROCEEDING:
September 22,1981; ORDER A
The Commission requesu the Licensing Board to desenbe the particular far' ors that coastituten 3C' the basis for the Board's adoption sua sponte ci certain of a dismissed latervenor's contentions.
B In operating License proceedings, a licensing board any exercise its sua sponte authority to examine matters not put !nto controversy by the parties only if it
- determines that a serious safety.
environmental, or common defense and security matter exists? 10 CFR 2.760s.
i l
a%Mdr4 8
l i
l
. ~..
I i
O W,
ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR BECULATORY COMMISSSON C
in operating license proceedings, a hcensing board's determination to raise a matter sua sponte 5
pursuant to 10 Cf R 2.760s should be set forth in a separase order which makes the requisite findings
. Em and briefly states the reasons for raising the issue.
CLI 8125 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT I). Docket Na 5010; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; September 28, 1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission directs the appointment of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to rule on petiuons for hearings with regard to licensee's proposal to chemically decontaminate Unit I of the Dresden facility, and provides guidance on the conduct of a hearing should the Board decide one is required.
8 Section 189a or the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, provides that the Commission shall conduct a hearing at the roguest of persons whose interest may be affected. Petitioners satisfy the Commission's criteria for setervention if they are found to have standing and come forward with at least one htigable contentice.
C Neither pnar notics enr a prior hearing is required under Section 189s of the Atomic Energy Act, as anwnded, for Con. mission approval of a license amendment in situations where the NRC staff makes a "no significant hazards consideration" finding.
D Each person seeking intervention in a Commission licensing pr-arna must separately establish standing. 30 CFR 2.714.
E latervention in a Comminion licensing proceeding may be granted as a matter of discretion according to specific criteria. Portland General E.'octric Co. et al. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2). CL176-27,4 NRC 610,616 (1976).
F Participation in a Commission licensing proceeding by a person who ir, not a party is at the discretion of the presiding officer and can only take the form of a hmited appearance.10 CFR 2.715.
G Only parues to a Commission licensing proceeding may be consolidated. Petitioners who are not admnted as parties may not be consolidated for the purpcne of participation as a single party.10 CFR 2.715a.
H Neither the Atomic Energy Act, the National Environrnental Policy Act, nor the Commission's regulations require that there be a hearing on an environmental impact statement. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NR(.;,435 US. 319,548 (1978). Pubhc hearings are held on an EIS only if the Comminion finds such hearings are required in the pubhc interest.10 CFR 2.104.
CL1-8126 CENTRAL ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. (VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.1) Docket Na 395A; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; October 16, 1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission denics a petition for reconsaderation of its decision of June 26, 1981 (CLI.81 t4)in which it oeclined to make s "significant changes
- determination under Section 10$c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, thus pecluding statutory antitrust review of applicants in connection with their pending application for an operating hcense for the Virgil C. Sammer facility.
8 A peuuan for a "significant changes
- determination pursuant to Section 105c(J) of the Atomic Energy Act does not requi e decision (and may not be decided) by a formal adjudicatory proceeding governed by the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G.
C Motens to reconsider en order should be associated with regh is for re-evaluation of the order in light of an elaboration upon. or refinement V, arguments prevsously advanced; they are not the occasion for advancing an entirely new thesis. Tennessee Valley Authonty (Hartsville Nuclest Plant, Units I A,2A, IB & 28), ALAB-418,6 NRC I,2 (1977).
l D
Under Secten 10$c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, a second formal antitrust review at the operating hcense stage of a reactor licensing proceeding is the eaception and not the rule.
E Under Section 105c(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, to determine whether "significant changes
- have occurred requiring the matter to be referred to the Attorney General for formal review, the "significant (hanges* determination requires that there be a factual basis for the determination and that the alleged changes be reasonably apparent.
CLl-8127 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY ()OSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS I A N D 2), Docket Nos. 50-348A, 50-364A; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; October 22, 1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission denies petitions by the licensee and an intervenor for review of the Appeal Board's June 30, 1981 decision (ALAB-646) imposing certain remedial antitrust conditions on the t
operating hcenses for the Farley nuclear unita; the Commission also denses the hcensee's motion for a stay of the decisson's effectiveness pending judicial review of the decisaan.
eg - -
9 The four factors to be considered in reviewing a roguest for a stay are set forth in Section 2.788 of the Commission's regulanons,10 CFR 2.788. While no single factor is dispositive, the meat crucial one is whether irreparable injury will be incurred by the movant absent a stay. Pubhc Service y
t' 9
i l
l
i DIGESTS x- ; c =,
ISSUANGS OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A. ' '
'i Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 437,6 NRC 630, d
632 (1977).
A C
The burden of pursuasion on the four factors in 10 CFR 2.788 rests on the moving party.
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 493,8 NRC 253,270 (1978).
4 D
To meet the standard of making a strong showing that it is likely sc, prevail on the merits of its appeal (the first factor under 10 CFR 2.788), the movant must do more than merely estaohsh possible grounds for appeal. Toledo Edison Ca (Davis.Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units I, 2, and 3),
LBP-77-7,5 NRC 452 (1977). In addition, an " overwhelming showing of likelihood of success on the merits" is necessary where the showing on the other three factors is weak. Florida Power and Light Ca (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2), ALAB-404,5 NRC l145,1186-89, and ALAB-415,5 NRC 1435,1437 (1977). Moreover, where an applicant is asking as a preliminary matter for the full relief to which it might be entitled if successful at the conclusion of its appeal, it has a heavy burden to establish a right to it. Toicdo Edison Co. (Dava Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units Na 1).
ALAB-385. 5 NRC 621,626 (1977).
CLI 8128 HOUSTON LIGHTING A POWER COMPANY, et. at (SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNITS I AND 2). Docket Nca. STN-2 498 OL, STN-50 499 OL; OPERATING LICENSE:
November 4,1981; ORDER A
The Commission decides (by 3 2 vote) not to reconsider its eartict 2-2 vote on the question of whether to review sua sponte the Arpeal Board's decision in ALAB-639,13 NRC 469 (1981),
authorizing the withholding by staff from ducovery of the names of confidential informants on the quality assurance program for the plant.
CLI-81-29 NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC. AND NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WESTERN NEW YORK NUCLEAR SERVICE CENTER). Docket Na 54201 Provisional Operating License Na CSF l: OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; November 6,1981; ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING A
Acting on a request by a licensee for (1) postponement of the effectiveness af a license amendment issued by the NRC staff; rend (2) a prior hearing on the amendment, the Commission denies the request but directs the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Panel to establish a Licensing Board (1) to conduct a hearing on the amendment in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart G while the amendment terr.ains effective and (2) to rule on any petitions for leave to intervens in the license amendment proceeding which may be filed.
8 A bare claim of absolute right to a prior hearing on the issuance of license amendment by the NRC staff does not constitute a substantial showing of irreparable injury necessary to satisfy the irreparable injury requirement for a stay under 10 CFR 2.788(c).
C A license amendment may become immediately effective under 10 CFR 2.204 without prior hearing if the public health, safety, or interest requires.
D Latent conditions which may potentially cause harm in the future are a suffscient basis for making a license amendment immediately effective without a prior hearing where the consequences may not be subject to correction in the future. Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (Sheffsid, Illinois Low-Level Radmactive Waste Disposal Site), CLI-79-6, 9 NRC 673 (1979); Consumers Power Company (Midland Planr. Units I and 2), CLI-74 3,7 AEC 10-12 (1973).
CL1-8130 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT I). Docket No. 50 275 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; November 19,1981; ORDER SUSPENDING LICENSE A
Followint the licensee's discovery and reporting (subsequent to the grant of a license to load fuel and conduct low-power testmg at the Diablo facility) of new information indicating, inter sha, that certain structures, systems and components important to the safety of the plant may not be properly designed to withstand the effects of earthquakes, the Commission suspends the license pending completion of certain reverification actions by the licensee. The Commission's order is made immediately effective and provides an opportunity for the licensee to show cause pursuant to 10 CFR e
2.202 and 50.100 why the license should not be suspended pending satisfactory completion of the actions specifad.
CLI-sl 31 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (TURKEY POINT Pt. ANT, UNITS 3 & 4),
Docket Nos. 50 250,50 251; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 25,1981; ORDER A
The Commission denies a person's request for a hearing on an order of the Director of the Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, confirming the licensee's commitment to comply with requirements related to the TMI Acton Plan (NUREG-0737).
gN' ;
B A party seeking a hearing of right on an enforcement order must show that it has an interest adversely affected by the order. Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), CL1-8010,11 NRC 438,439 (1980).
,f 36
)
le
t I
O DIGESIS
. ~ - -
ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGURATORY COMMISSION w
kg.,.
- 41. a C
An intervention petition must, under 10 CFR 2.714(a)(2), (1) " set forth with particularity" certain factoss regardans the petitioner's interest in the proceeding and (2) address the enteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).
w CL1-8132 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (BIG ROCK POINT PLANT), Docket Not 50 155; l
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 25,1981; ORDER A
The Commission denies petitioner's request for a hearing on sa order issued by the Director of the Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Re[ulation, confirming the licensee's -
-- t l
to comply with requirements related to the TMt Action rien (NUREG-0737).
8 In order to be granted a hearing of right on an enforcement order, a party must show that it has an interest adversely affected by the order. Pubhc Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), CLI-80wl0, il NRC 438,439 (1980).
C 10 CFR 2.784(a)(2) requires a petitioner to " set forth with particularity" certaia factors regarding the petitioner's interest in the proceeding, and to address the criteria of 10 CFR 2.714(d).
CLI-8133 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. (SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3), Docket Nos. 50w36l OL,50 362 OL: OPERATING LICENSE; December 8,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission decides that its current resslations do not require consideratibn of the impacts
)
on emergency planning of earthquakes which cause or occur during an accidental radiological relemas, and that the Commiuson will consider on a generic basis whether the regulations should be changed to addren the potential impacts of a severe earthquake on emergency planning. The Licensing Board is directed not to pursue this issn which it had raised sua sponte, in this operating license proceeding.
CLI-8134 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. l) Docket No. 50w389 (Restart); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; December 23, 1981; I
ORDER l
A The Comminion revises its schedule for the receipt of comments on (1) whether the Licensing i
Board's December 14, 1981 decision on hardware / design issues, emergency piar.ains and the separation of Units I and 2 should be made effective immediately and (2) whether the Commin'en should defer its own decision on restart after a Board decision on certain cheating incidents. The Commission withdraws Appeal Board authority to stay proceedings during the pendency of appeals la this case, and advises any party supporting or opposing a stay to so argue in its comments to the Commrssion on the two questions.
CLI 81-35 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT), Docket No. 30wS37 (Exemption Request Under 10 CFR 50.12); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; December 24,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Comminion announces procedures and a schedule for the consMerstion of the merits of the request of the Department of Energy - a co spplicant for a mnstruction permit for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor - for an esemption from 10 CFR 50.10, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, to conduct site t
preparation activities prior to the issuance of a construction permit or hmited work authorization for the plant.
8 Neither the Atomic Energy Act nor NEPA dictates the form of proceedings on requests for esemptions from 10 CFR 50.10 pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.
CLI.8136 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et at (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-444; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; f
December 29,1981; ORDER A
The Commission directs the Licensing Ikard to dismiss certais contemsons of as intervenor I
from the proceeding which the board had retained pursuant to its sua sponte authority under 10 CFR l
2.760s subsequent to the Board's dismissal of the latervenor.
8 A board's inherent power to shape the course of the proceeding. Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants). ALAB-489,8 NRC 194,201-20s (1978), should not be confused with its hmited authority under 10 CFR 2.760s to shape the issues of the proceeding. The letter is not a sutstitute for or means to accomphsh the former.
r C
The apparent need to expedite a licensing proceeding or need to monitor the staff's progrees la identifying and/or evaluating potential safety or environmental issues are not factors which authorue a board to exercise its sua sponte authority under 10 CFR 2.760s.
D The enere acceptance of a contention, which only requires that the contention be set forth with reasonaHe specificity, Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2),
ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1974, does not justify a board's nasaming that a serices esfety.
environmental, or common defense and soarity matter exists or otherwise relieve it of the obligation 4
under 10 CFR 2.760s to affirmatively detern.;ne thst such a matter exists.
y
+
11
w w
I O
'[
I.
L
?.
0 I
t h
t
}
r 1
6 t
s e
f e
<,r
's 4;
I.
h 9
O
+
q l
3 r
w v
.I s,
8
'f; I
..Y h
1
.. s /
p a,
-h r
i.
DIGESTS si.
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND IJCENSING APPEAL BOARDS h
m l
ALAB4a7 DUKE POWER COMPANY (WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS I AND 21. Docket Nos. 50 369, 50-370; OPERATING LICENSE; July 1.1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board denies a motion requesting a stay pendente hte of the Licensing Board's initial (LBP-79-13. 9 NRC 489) and supplemental initial (LBP g! 13,13 NRC 652) decisions autheriring the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulatbn to issue full-term operating licenses for Units I.nd 2 of the McGaire facility upon the Director's making the f:ndin5s required by IO CFR 50.37(a) a on those matters not considered in the adjudicatory proceeding.
4 B
Under new subsection (f)(2) of 10 CFR 2.764, upon its receipt of a licensing board decision
'E.-
authoriring the iuuance of an operating license, the Commission will undertake to determine on its own initiative whether to stay the effectiveness of the decision. That determination is to be based on a s
consideration of the gravity of the substantive issue, the likelihood that it has been resolved incorrectly 5
below. the degree to which correct resolution of the issue would be prejudiced by operation pending review, and other relevant public interest factors. Such Commissen review is without prejudice to Appeal Board or other Ccmmission decisions, including decimons on stay requests filed under 10 CFR
+
2.783.
C Requests for stays of Licensing Board decisions will be judged by a balancing of the four factors specified in 10 CFR 2.788(c).
l ALAB-648 PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY (NORTH COAST NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT I). Docket No. 50 376; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; July 2,1981; 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board denies intervenors' motion to supplement the record.
J5 B
An Appeal Board ordinarily will not entertain an issue raised for the fir: time on appeal; its disinclination to do no will be particularly strong in circumstances where the issue and the factual averments underlying it could have been, but were not, timely put before the Licensing Board.
C 1: is unfair for a party to seek relief from a trial tribunal on one theory and, if unsuccessful.
then to mount an appeal on a discrete theory founded on additional asserted [ acts which, although A
available at the time, had not been given to that tribunal; requests to supplement the record will not be cntertained by an appeal board in and of such an appeal A LA B-649 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER I-PLANT, UNITS I AND 2). Docket Nos 50 275 OL 50 323 OL (Security Proceeding); SPECIAL N
PROCEEDING; July 15,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l
A The Appeal Board denies a motion for an oral bnefing of an alleged incident of sabotage
]
.s occurnns rerently at another facility, which was submitted without explanation of the incident's W
connection with this proceeding or accompanying information except for a copy of a report of the incident taken from a trade journal.
ALAB-650 PUBLIC SERYlCE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY. et at (SALEM NUCLE 4R GENERATING STATION. UNIT I). Docket No. 50-272 OLA (Spent Fuel Pool Espansion);
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 17.1981; DECISION i
A The Appeal Board affirms the Licensing Board's decision (LBP-80-27.12 NRC 435) authoniing the iuuance of an amendment to the facihty's operating license permitting the installation of new storage racks, designed to increase the capacity of Salem's spent fuel pool.
B A party's bnef on appeal must be confined to a consideration if the saceptions p6cviously filed by the party sad should specify. inter alia. the precise portion of the record relied upon in support of the assertson of error.10 CFR 2.762(a).
I C
A party's esceptions which are to specify errors in the decision bebe. rnust relate to matters raised in the party's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; absent a senous substantive 4
+
[
issue. appeal boards will not entertain arguments that a licensing board had no oppoitunity to addreu and that are raised for the first time on appeal. Tennessee Valley Authonty (Hartsville Plant. Laits I A. 2A,18. and 28) ALAB-463. 7 NRC 341,343 (1978).
l
.x, f
- ~4 i
e' 13 e
i
l O
DICESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOABDS t.
9, D
A party's proposed findings and conclusions must be conGnad to the material issues of fact and
" (d law prewnted on the record.10 CFR 2.754(c).
E Bners are necessary not only to give appeal boards sufGeient information to evaluate the basis of objections to the decision below, but also to provide an opponent with a fair opportunity to come to gnpa with the appellant's arguments and attempt to rebut them. The absence of a brief virtually precludes an intclkgent response by appellees, accordmgly, unbriefed exceptions will generally be ressrded as waived. Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Station, Unita i and 2), ALAB-461,7 NRC 313,31$ (1973).
F lt is incumbent upon intervenors who wish to participate in NRC proceedings to structure their participation so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the intervenors' position and contentions.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,435 U.S. S19 SS)
(197st G
Even parties who participate in NRC licensing proceedings pro se have the obligation to familianic themselves with the Commission's Rules of Practice and the proper briefing format.
Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unita I and 2), ALAB-563, 10 NRC 449,450 n.1 (1979).
H NFPA does not require consideration of circumstances that are only " remote and speculative posutnlitics? Natural Rescurces Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton,453 F.2d 327,333 (D C, Cir.1972).
I Generabred assertions to the effect that "more evntence is needed" are not enough to warrant i
reopenir.3 a record.
J NFPA requires e consideration of alternatives only when the proposed action is a " major" one "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment," or " involves unresolved conflicta concernm3 alternative uses of available resources? 42 U.S.C. ll 4332(2)(C),(E).
l K
Frror in a licensing board finding that does not effect or impair the board's ultimate conclusion es harmless and gives no cause for reversal.
L More than the sire and duration of a project must be evaluated when determining whether its (sderal approval constitutes a major action with a significant environmental impact;in order to make that evaluation, the precise federal action involved must be defined. See Aberdeen & Rockfish R.R. v.
SCR AP,422 U.S. 239,322 (1975).
M in a spent fuel pool espansion proposal, the proper focus of the environmental inquiry is the incremental effect on the environment occasioned by the proposed Ikenne amendment. Portland General Elecinc Co. (Trojan Plant). ALAB-53!,9 NRC 263,266 n.6 (1979).
N After fashng to raise and htigate matters properly before the licensing board, a party may not then seek resersal of the board on the ground that the board denied it due process and did not consider y
matters " forcefully presented? Yetmont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natwral Resources Defense Council. Inc.,433 U.S. $19,353 554 (1973).
O Technical issues discused included. Criticality; Borel integrity, corrosion, swelling, Spent fuel puul LOCA, spent fuel osidation.
A L A B-651 DUKE POWER COMPANY (AMENDMENT TO MATERIALS LICENSE SNM.1773 -
TRANSPORTATION OF SPENT FUEL FROM OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION FOR STOR AGE AT MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION), Docket No. 70 2623. SPECIAL PROCEEDING; August 10,1931: DECISION A
Tne Appeal Board reverses the Licensms Board *: initial decision (LBP-so.23,12 NRC 459) l I
and authorises the issuance of an amendment to applicant's materials license, allowing, subject to one condition. the highway transportation of 300 spent fuel assembhes from the applicant's Ocones Nuclear Sistion to the McGuire Nuclear Station for storage.
B NEPA requires the preparation of se environmental impact statement only in connection with major federal actions which can be espected to have a sigmficant impact on the quality of the human environment.
C Where federal approval is sought of a portion of a private plan, developed without federal involvement, an agency may confine 6ts scrutiny under NEPA to the portion of the plan for which approval is sought so long as (1) that portion has independent utility; and (2) as a resuh, the approval does not foreclose the agency from later withholding approval of subsequent portions of the overall plan.
D An environmental impact appraisal must supply " convincing reasons
- why an action with arguably potentially sigmficant environmental impacta does not require a detailed impact statement; the appraisal should (l) reflect that a hard look was taken at the problem; (2) 6dentify the relevant y' C areas of concern; and (3) make a convincing case that the impact is sigmGcant. Maryland. National Capital Park and Planning Comm'n v. UK Puntal Service 437 F.2d 1029,1039-40 (D.C. Cir.1973).
G 4[I h
t ws 14
t I
0 ISSUANGS OF THE ATOhnC SAFETY AND 1JCENSING APPEAL BOACS
- f., y
~
E An environmental impact statement need not clasidet remote and highly speculative 7 g, consequences; neither do they trigger the obligation to pruere a detailed environmental impact statement.
F Neither Section 102(2)(C) nor Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA obligstes the federal agency "to f
search out pcosible alternatives to a coerse which itself will not either harm the environment or bring into serious question the manner in which this country's resources are being expended." Portlend General Electnc Cou (Trojan Nuclear Plant). ALAB 531. 9 NRC 253,266 (1979).
ALAlk652 THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY. et al. (DAVIS BESSE NUCLEAR POWER t
STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3), Docket Nos. 50 500,50 501: SPECIAL PROCEEDING; September 3.1981; MFMORANDUM A
The.ppeal Panel Chairman decides against the need to convene an Appsal Board to examine conditions imposed by the Licensing Board in connection with the withdrawal of a construction permit I
application and termination of this licensing proceeding. and esplaics the reasons for his action.
i Appeal board review will be routinely undertaken of any final disposition of licensing proceeding that either was or had to be founded upon sutstantive determinations of significant safety
?
or environmental issues. Washington Puulic Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2),
ALAB 571.10 NRC 637. 692 (1979).
ALAB.653 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER r
PLANT. UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50 275 OL, 50 323 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; September 9,1981; DECISION A
Based upon its review of the entire record on the physical secuniy plan issued in this operating license proceeoing for the Diablo Canyon facility, the Appeal Bcerd concludes that the applicant's s
security plan, subject to certain conditions and restrictions, conforms to all applicable provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Corr. mission's security regulations. The Board set 4
i out its findings of fact and conclusions of law in a scaled separate opinion (ALAB-653 RESTRICTED) because of the sensitive character of the aumerous details of the facihty security plan which the opinion discusses.
ALAB454 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. (PFACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3). Docket Nos. 50 277. 50 278; METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY. et al. (THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2). Docket No.
3 50 320; PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY (HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, UNITS I AND 2). Docket Nos. 50 654, 50-355; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; September 11,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i
A The Appeal Board orders intervenors la this consolidated proceeding, as condition precedent to a further evidentiary hearing on the environmental effects of redon releases associated with the uranium fuel cycle, to make a preliminary showing that a genuine issue of a material fact exists by the l
documented opinion of one or erere qualified authorities to the effect that the incremental fuel cycle-related redon emissions on the amount found by the Appeal Board in ALAIL640,13 NRC 437, will have a significant environmental effect in terms of human health,
(
f ALAB455 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION), Docket No 50 312 SP; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; October 7,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Upon review, sua sponte, of the record and Licensing Board's decision in this special proceeding (LBP 8112) - which was instituted to determine the adequacy of certain short-term actions and i
long term requirements for continued reactor opesation ordered by the Commission as a result of the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Island - the Appeal Board defers judgment on the Licensing Boar (s decision that approved continued reactor operation and requests submission of further analyses and information by the lacersee and NRC staff.
8 It is the Appeal Boar (s practie. to review sua sponte any final disposition of a licensing proceeding that either was or had e ne founded upon substantive determinations of significant safety of environmental issues. WasM,sion Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2),
1 ALAB-571,10 NRC 637 s2 (1979).
C The Appeal Bor(s standard in conducting a review, sua sponte, is similar to that required in a contested proceePs. The Appeal Board may reject or modify findings of the Licensing Board if, after giving its decmon the probative force it intrinsacally commands, the Appeal Board is convinced that the record compels a different result. Northern States Power Co. (Monticello Plant, Unit U, ALAB 4ll,12 NRC 301,304 (1980).
% ~ '
f D
Licensing boards should not accept in indivulual license proceedings contentions which are (or are about to become) the subject of general rulemaking by the Commina.on. Potomac Electric Power i
Co. (Douglas Point Station, Units I and 2) ALAB 218,8 AEC 79,85 (1974).
..A i
15 f
i
]
1 I
O ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND IJCENSING APPEAL BOARDS Rs i 4
E Technical issues discussed include: Amail;ary Feedwater System Reliability; Anticipatory Reac-tar Trips; Small break LOCA Analyses; High Pressure Injection; Operator Training and Com.
petence; Instrumentation; Hydrogen Control.
ALAB-656 BOSTON EDISON COMP 8.NY, et al. (PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 2), Docket No. 50-471 CP; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; November 16,1981; ORDER A
At the applicants' request, the Appeal Board terminates this proceeding and vacates, on the ground of mootness, the Licensing Board's partial initial decision (LBP 813,13 NRC 103) that conditionally authorized the issuance of a construction permit for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2.
ALAB-657 PHILADELPHfA ELECTRIC COMPANY (FULTON GENERATINO STATION, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50-463 CP, 50-464 CP', CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; November 17, 1981; DECISION A
The Appeal Board vacates a Liccasing Board's unpublished decision dismissing a emnstruction permit application *with prejudice," and remands the matter for action in tenformity with the Appeal Board's opinion.
8 A dismissal "without prejudice
- ordinarily signifies that no merits disposition was made; a dismissal "with prejudice" suggests otherwise. See Jamison v. Miracle Mile Rambier, Inc., 536 F.2d 560,564 (3d Cir.1976); 5 Moore's Federal Practice 141.05[2] at 4175 (2d ed 1981).
C A hcensing board is vested with the power to dismiss an application with prejudice. See 10 CFR 2.107(a),2.721(d).
D A licensing board has substantial leeway in defining the circumstances in which an application may be voluntarily withdraws (10 CFR 32.107(a)); but, as in all other areas, the board may not abuse this discretion by exercising its power in an arbitrary manner. See LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc.,528 F.2d 601,604 (5th Cir.1976); 5 Moore's Federal Practice 141.05[1] at 41-54 (2d ed.1981).
E The terms prescribed by a hcensing board at the time of voluntary withdrawal from a proceeding must bear a rational relationship to the conduct and legal harm at which they are aimed, and the record mut support any findings concerning the conduct and harm in question. See LeCarnpie l,
- v. Mr. Chip, Inc.,528 F.2d 601,604-05 (5th Cir.1976).
F The Commission's early site review regulations do not require that the applicant have a " firm plan
- to construct a nuclear plant at the involved site; rather, they were designed simply to enhance the hcensing process by providing an opportunity to resolve siting issues in advance of any substantial commitment of resources.10 CF R 2.10)(e l),2.600 et seq-; 42 Fed. Reg. 22882 83 (1977). See also Commonwealth Edison Co. ICarroll County Site). ALAB-601,12 NRC 18,26 (1980).
G The parties must be given the opportunity, at oral hearing or by written piesdings, to produce relevant, material, and reliable evidence concerning s!leged abuses of Commission regulations and adjudicatory process; a licensing board should not engage in its own independent and selective search of the record. See LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc.,528 F.2d 601,605 (5th Cir.1976). J also 10 CFR 2.749.
H A dismissal with prejudice requires some showing of harm to either a party or ?he public interest in general. See Fed. R. Civ. P. di (2)(2); LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc.,528 F.2d 601,144 (5th Cir.1976); 5 Moore's Federal Practice 141.05ltl st 4173 (2d ed.1981); Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Station Units 2 and 3), LBP-74-62,8 AEC 324,327 (1975).
I A decision to order a dismissal w;th prejudice raquires careful consideration of the circumstances, giving due regard sc, the legitimate interests of all parties. Sea Selas Corp. of America
- v. Wilshire Oil Co of Teass,57 F.R.D. 3,5-6 (E.D. Pa.1972); 5 Moore's Federal Practice 141.05[1]
at 41-59 (2d ed.1981).
J lt is well settled that the prospect of a second lawsuit (or another application to construct a nuclear plant at the same site) does not provide the requisite quantum of legal harm to warrant dismrssal with prejudice. Jones v. Securities and Eachange Commission,298 U.S. I,19 (1936).
ALAB-658 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (TilREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT I). Docket No. 506289 (Restart Manas-ment lieues); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 5
19,1981; ORDER A
Following a stipulation entered into by the partics and approved by the Special Master and the Licensing Board, the Appeal Board grants the unopposed requests of hcensee and "three inwohed l
l individuals" to withdraw their appeals from the Licensing Board's November 6,1981 unpubliued decision. That decision approved the special maste/s denial of the individuals' requests for confidential treatment of their identities in this inquiry into alleged cheating on NRC esaminations (LBP.8150).
To avoid any residual inconsistency with the terms of the stipulation, the Appeal Board also vacates the memoranda and orders of the Special Master and the Licensing Board.
{s LY s
w I
i M
i
~-
t r
i 1
0 ISSUANCES OF THE 4TOMIC SAFETY AND UCEN5fNG APPEAL BOARDS g
v,
'.~
y.-
ALAB459 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (BYRON NUCLEAR POWER STATION.
UNITS I AND 2). Docket Nos. 54454 OL. 50-455 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; November it.
1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Panel Chairman denies a motion by the applicant requesting (1) reconsadoration of his unpubi shed order toiling the running of the period la which intervonors may His enceptions to a Licensing Board order (LSP 88 52.14 NRC 901 (1981) dismissing them as a party to this proceeding, and (2) an order directing the briefing now, on an expedited baaia, of camptions which the intervonors had provisionally submitted earlier while seeking reconsaderstion by the Licensing Board of its t
dismanal order.
B la is accepted appellate practice for the appeal period to be toiled while the trial tribunal has before it an authoriasd and timely-filed petition fr econsideration of the decessoa or order in question.
e ALAB.660 FLORIDA POWER A LIGHT Ca IPANY (TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNITS NOS. 3 AND 4). Lucket Nos. 50 250 SP. 30 251 SP; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 30.1981; DECISION A
The Appeal Board affirms two orders of the Licensing Board (1) greeting the staft's anotion for summary disposition of intervenor's contentions opposing the licaness's proposal to repair tk steam generators at Turkey Point Nuclear Generating. Units 3 and 4 (LDP.8114.13 NRC 677 (1911); and (2) authorizing the issuance of license amendments to effect the repairs after finding that the impact of a hurricane or tornado on low level waste to be stored at Tarkey Point during the repairs would not endanger the healta and safety of the public (LBP-41 16,13 NRC til5 (1981).
8 A grant of summary disposition le proper where the pleadings and affidavits ce file "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that tbs moving party is entitled to decision as a i
matter of law." 10 CFR 2.749(d). See generally Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna l
Nuclear Power Station. Units I and 2). ALAB-534, il NRC 451. 453 (1980).
C A contention is inadmissible where, taking everything in the contention as true and provable,it nevertheless provules a legally insufficient reason for the proposition sought to be litigated.
D The purpose of the Commission's NEPA inquiry is to determine obsther a proposed action brings about changes in the environmental status quo, and to measure the justification for the proposed action against those changes.
E Where an environmental impact statement is required by NEPA the r-
- is obliged to take a harder look at ahernatives than if the proposed action were inconsequentia'. See Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant). ALAB-531,9 NRC 263. 266 (1979): 40 CFR 1508.9.
F NEPA's rule of reason establishes a continuum where more is espected and required of the agency depending upon the environmental significance of the proposal before it. See pensrally 40 CFR i
1502.2, 1502.14.
G The Commission Joes not have the authority, under NEPA or any other statute, to reject sa applicant's proposal wiely because an alternative might prove less costly financially.
H The Commission's role in assessing financial matters regarding nuclear power plants is limiwi under the Atomic Energy Act to whether the company will be able to build and opersta the plant without compromising safety because of pressing nnancial needs. ra=*=mers Pbwer Cet (Midland Plant. Units I and 2). ALAB-458,7 NRC 155,16243.
1 If under NEPA the Commission finds there are environmentally preferable shernatives to a proposal for constructing and opers ing a nuclear puwer plant, then it must undertake a cost. benefit I
balancing to determine whether s a alternatives should be implemented. Consemers Power Co.
(Midland Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB-458, 7 NRC 115.16243. Noshing in NEPA compels se agency to saft through environmentally inferior alternatives to find a chesper (but dirtier) way of handlms the proposal. Where there are no environmentally preferable alternatives, evaluation of the purely economic aspects of the proposal is left to the business @(ment of the stility coerp the control of State regulatory agencies. Consumers Power to. Midland Plaat. !!nita I and 2).
ALAB 458. 7 NRC 155,16243 (1978).
J Applying NEPA's
- rule of r-seon.* Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc 435 US. 519 (l978). the Commission need not saa:nine solar power and energy conservation in connection with need for power in regard to an already operating power g
plant when the action initiating the NEPA inquiry is of minor environmental consequence, and the principal claimed advantage of the conservation alteristive is an economic one.
K The need for a programmatic environmental impact statement arines when seve al proposals for l
action 'that will have cumulative or synergistic environmental impact span a region are pending concurrently before en agency." Kleppe v. Sierra Club,427 US. 390,410 (1976). It is the impact of i
the resolution not the commonality of the problem that is crucial. Even la that situation, so long as one
~
g action does not commit the agency to approval of other perufing projects. *aa agency could approve one 2
pending project that is fully covered by se impact statement, then take into consuierstion the i
i 17 l
6
~
t I
t e
DIGESTS
~-;o ISSUANCES 0F THE ATOhtlC SAFETY AND I.JCLNSING APPEAL BOARDS I
f.( !$
b I.
environmental effects of that esisting project when preparing the comprehensive statement on the
'r cumulative impact of the remaining proposals." Kleppe v. Sierra Club,427 U.S. at 414 fa. 26.
j L
The purpose of having a " record of decision" is to kok the environmental review process with the agency's decision. The decisions of the Commission's adjudicatory tnbunals on the hcensing pn$osal before them provide the agency " record of ha
- 40 CFR 1505.2; 43 Fed. Reg. 55985-86 (November 29, 1978).
M The purpose of " scoping" is to provide a means for early identification of what are and what are not the important issues deserving of study in an env;ronmental impact statement. 40 CFR 1501.7; 43 Fed. Reg. 55982 (November 29, 1978).
N The Atomic Energy Act requires that the Commission be reasonably assured that wastes can be safely handled and stored as they are generated, and that permanent disposal can be accomplished safely when, from a public health and safety standpoint,it is hkely to become necessary.
O The NEPA environmental review for onsite waste storage should cover the time-perici over which it is foreseeable the wastes will remain on site. See generally Minnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. (1979).
P A Licensing Board decision based on the evidentiary record before it is deemed to modify the "inal environmental statement as prepared by the Commission staff.10 CFR 51.52(b)(3); New England Coalition os. Nuclear Pollution v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,582 F.2d 87,93-94 (1st Cir.1978); Citizens for Safe Power Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,524 F.2d 1292,1294 and fn. 5 (D.C. Cir.1975). However, the absence of discussion of an issue in a Final Environmental Statement (FES) may be no fundamental an omission as to call for its recirculation. Public Service Ca of Oklaborna (Black Foa Station Units I and 2), ALAB.573,10 NRC 775,785-87 (1979).
Q An appeal beard will generally esamine a licensing board's discovery rulings only to entertain a claim that the licensing board abused its discretion. Public Service Ca of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Stat 5n, Units I and 2), ALAB-459,7 NRC 179,188 (1978).
ALAB-661 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (ST, LUCIE PLANT, UNIT NO. 2), Docket No. 50 389 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; December 3,1981; DECISION A
The Appeal Board amtma, Lt for 8ifferent reasons, an unpublished Licensing Board'crder denying two intervention petitions and requests for a " limited antitrust
- hearing filed in this operating license proceeding, and decms final the Board's order dismissing this proceeding.
B Upon agreement of the parties, the issuance of a construction permit need not await the outcome of an antitrust hearing. Louisiana Poect and Light Ca (Waterford Steam Electric Genersting Station, Unit 3), CL173-25,6 AEC 619,62122 (1973).
C Section 10$c of the Atomic Energy Act, as erwnded (42 U.S.C. 2135c), *cstablishes a particularized regime for the cxnsideration and accommodation of possible antitrust concerns arising in crenection with the hcensing of nuclear power plants." Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Teams Project. Unit Nos. I and 2), CLI 77 l),5 NRC 1303,1309 (1977).
D The NRC must hold an antitrust hearing on a construction permit application if the Attorney General so.---
i however, the NRC is authonzad to conduct an antitrust review at the operating licen
- stage only if it finds changes in the licensee's activities that are both *significant* and
" subsequent
- to the previous Attorney General and Commission review (including any NRC antitrust hearing). South Carolina Electnc and Gas Ca (Virgil C Summer Nuclear Station Unit No.1),
CLI-80 28, il NRC 817,823 n. II,824-25 (1930).
C Where a construction permit antitrust proceeding as under way, the antitrust provisions of the Atomic Energy Act effectively preclude the Commission from instituting a second antattest beenng in i
conjunction with an operating license application for the plant.
F There is a strong Commission pohey of holding antitrust hearings separate from those involving health, safety, and environrnental issues. Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marbie Hill Naclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-316,3 NRC 167,170-174 (1976).
G A notice of opportuni6y for hearing necessarily corresponds to the agency's statutory authority over a given matter;it cannot confer or broaden that jurisdiction to matters capressly proscribed by law.
ALAB-662 PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY (NORTH COAST NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT I), Docket No. 50-376; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT December 7,1988; DECISION A
The Appeal Board affirms a Licensing Board decision (46 Fed. Reg.14099 (February 25, 1981)), issued without an.videntiary hearing, allowing the applicant to withdraw its construction permit application and granting its motion requesting termination of the constructen permit 4:
proceeding without prejudice.
8 The Commission has the authority to condition the withdrawal of a license application on such terms as it thinks just.10 CFR 2.107(a).
\\
w t
,? k i
a
O DICESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING APPEAL BOARDS
-, ~
r*
- W _
4 3
C Dismissal of a construction permit application with prejudice is a severe sanction which should be reserved for those unusual situatens which involve substantial piejudge to the opposing party or to
> n the public interest in general. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Fulton Generating Station. Units I and 2).
w.
ALAB-657.14 NRC 967.973 79 (1981).
D Although the National Environmental Felicy Act mandates that the Comminion satisfy itself that the power to be generated by the nuclear facility under consideratson will be needed, that statute does not foreclose the placement of heavy reliance on the judgment of local regulatory bodies which are charged with the duty of insuring that the utilities within their jurisdiction fulfill the legal obligation to meet customer demands. Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power e
Plant. Units I. 2. 3. and 4). ALAB-490. 8 NRC 234,241 (1978); see also Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. 435 US. $19. 550 (1978).
E To trigger an evidentiary hearing on the question of withdrawal of a construction permit application with prejudice, the allegations of substantial prejudice must not only be seious, but also supported by a showing, typically through affidavits or unrebutted pleadings, of suffwicat weight and moment to cause reasonable minds to inquire further.
F The contention requirement of 10 CFR 2.714(b) does not require an evidentiary showing, but only reasonably specifs assertion.s. Whether the assertions can be proved is a merits question that is quite beside the point at the prehminary contention stage of the proceeding. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Unit 1). ALAB-590, il NRC 542, 548 49 (1980).
G Where a licensing board believes the integrity of the adjudicatory process has been compromised, it should have wide scope to satisfy its concerns. Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1. 2. 3. and 4). CLI-7318. 3 NRC 293 (1978).
i I
H The possibility of future litigation with its ennases and uncertainties is a consequence of any i
dismissal without prejudice; it does not provide a basis for departing from the usual role that a dismissal should be without prejudice. Jones v. SEC. 298 US.1.19 ( "6). 5 Moore's Federal Practwe 141.05 [l] at 4172 to 4173 (2d ed.1981).
I An applicant who seeks early site review is not required to own the proposed power plant site.
Potomac Electric Power Co. (Doustas Point Nuclear Generating Station. Units I and 2). ALAB-277 I NRC $39 (1975); New England Power Co. (NEP Units I and 2). LBP-78-9. 7 NRC 271,281-83 (1978). See also 10 CFR 2.10l(a-1) 2.600w2.606. The real test for deciding on early site review is whether or not the applicant, as a practical matter, can produce the information required by regulation and necessary for an effective hearing. Concerned Citizens of Rhode Island v. Nuclear Regulatory Comn'ission. 430 F. Supp. 627. 632 33 (D.R.I.1977).
J Under the Commission's rules, the applicant for a license bears the cost of staff work performed for its benefit.13 CFR 170; see Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 601 F.2d 223 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied. 444 U.S.1102 (1980). This rule opphes whether an appleant carries the process through to fruition or w4hdraws its application at an earlier 6
time. 46 Fed. Reg. 49573 (October 7.1981). petition for review docketed. New England Power Co. v.
i Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No. 81 1839 (1st Cir. Nov. 25.1981).
ALAB-663 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY. et al. (VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT I), Docket No. 50 395 OL: OPERATING LICENSE; December 14 1981; MEMORANDUM A
The Appeal Board issues an esplanatory memorandum on its unpublished order denying a petition for directed certification filed by the NRC staff seeking interlocutory review of a determination by the Licensing Board to invoke the assistance of several independent consultants on certain seismic issues raised in this operating license proceeding.
j B
A licensing board should not call upos independent consultants to supplement an adjudicatory record except in that most estraordinary situction in which it is demonstrated beyond question that a board simply cannot otherwise reach an inforn.ed decision on the issue involved.
i l
C The authority conferred by 10 CFR 2.718(i) to direct the certirmation of questions arising in proceedings before twensing boards is specifically included within the empress delegation to appeal boards of the authority and review functions whsh would otherwise have been caercised and performed by the Commission in. inter alia, proceedmgs on applications for operating licenses under 10 CFR Part 50.10 CFR 2.785(b)(1).
l D
The standard for en appeal board's determination whether to undertake discretionary interlocutory review of a licensing board's proposed course of action is whether that action would affect t
- the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner." Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station. Unit I). AL AB.588, il NRC 533. 536 (1980).
E A heensing board is duty-bound to carry out the instructions of an appeal board so long as those instruction.s are not countermanded by the Con"nission.
s If,,
g h &'
l 19
DIGESTS ISSUANGS OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND IJCENSING APPt.AL BOARDS W W
~
f Licensing boards have not been given the function of possing their own Mment on the g",l.'
soundness or proprwty of rulings and instructions of a reviewing appellate tribunal.
.-(
G The Commission's Rules of Practice,10 CFR Part 2, and the guidance found in Appendia A to those rules, give the staff, as a representative of the pubhc interest, a dominant role in assessing the radelogmal health and safety aspects of facihties involved in a licensing proceeding; adjudsatory boards should give the staff every opportunity to esplain, correct, or supplement its testimony before resorting to outsnic esperts of these own.
e
- k M
,, N
.?
.ssf ',.,.
l l
p m.;,
,2w O
J%
bM' i
w$.
C N
r ~J A'
i Q'
%,G
.,'m]
-y/
h--
Dir. 6( m
_3 %
DIGESTS 3P BSSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LJCENSING BOARDS i
j*N LBP-gl lg LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION.
q% ~
UNIT I). DocLet No. 50 322 OL; OPERATING LICENSE. July 7.1981; MEMORANDUM AND
-iO.
ORDER
-f O A
The Licensing Board rules on the admissibility of a contention submitted by an intervener in i
this operating Irense proceeding. accepting the contention in part and rejecting it in part-
~'q:
B A proponent of a motion does not have the right to reply to an answer to the motion; parties
-A
,M' mho do not seek leave to file a reply are capressly denied the opportunity to do so.10 CFR 62.730ic).
C Contentsons in NRC adjudicatory proceedings are hke federal court complaints; before an)
- J' suggestion that a contention should not be entertained can be acted upon favorably, the proponent of g.- a the contention must be given some chance to be heard in response. Houston Lighting and Power Co.
4' (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Unit 1). ALAB 565.10 CFR 521 (1979).
-< q($'/
LBP-II 19 FLORIDA POWER A LIGHT COMPANY (ST. LUCIE Pt ANT, UNIT NO. 2). Docket No. 50 389A: ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; July 7.1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER O,[g i i
A The Licensing Board in this antitrust proceeding permits the resumption of disco er). )W(j s
estab!ishes a schedule for the submission of briefs on various questions and matters identified b) the Buerd. and schedules two prehearing conferences to consider those questions and matters.
- gM ;
LBP Bi 20 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMP / V.* (HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT
+i%
UNIT NO. 3 - AMENDMENT TO FACILIT Y OPERATING LICENSE). Docket No.
~M.,y S133 OLA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 14.19st; MEMORANDUM AND
?
$py)
ORDER A
Upon consideration of Licensee's motion to withdraw, without prejudice, its apphcation for an ZT i.
amendment to its operating hcense for the facihty designed to allow the Licensee to resume its
.jd operation upon satisfactory completion of certain modifications to the facihty (it has been in shut <foon sj a state since 1976), the Licensing Board defers ruling on the motion and directs Licensee to provide it
+9 with additionalinformation regarding the modifications.
D$
j LBP.4121 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR PLANT.
'f t,;A
+
UNITS I AND 2). Docket Nos. 50 275-OL. 50-323 OL (Low Po cr Test Proceediaal.
W OPERATING LICENSE; July 17.1981; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION W^ 3 A
The Licensing Board issues a partial initial decision (subject to review by the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 2.764) authorizing the issusace of a license for fuel loading and low power testing M, G}
up to 5'3 of rated power at the Diablo Canyon facility. The Board notes for Commission attention that l
issues relating to the security of the plant are still before the Appeal Board and that the partialinitial 3 {J d i
7 decision will not be complete without their resolution.
D SD 8
Full comphance with the Commission's emergency planning standards in NUREG-0634 and bgj Appendis E to 10 CFR Part 50 is not required prior to fuel loading and low-power testing. however.
cmergency planning for fuel loading and low power testing asust be saffsient to confer the same level 4
of pmtection to the pubhc as afforded by full comphance with the regulations at full poect operation.
4(y p
,,s C
Technical sues discussed include: Release of radioactive radon gas from uranium mimns and
'b V; milhng for reactor fuel Quahty assurance; Unresolved generic safety issues; Emergency planmns
( *. O requirements for fuel loading and low-power testing; Risks of low power operation; Radiation esposures
?f^
i j
at the site boundary and low population zone (LPZ); Risk of accidents during testing; Emergency t
planmns tones; Radiological monitoring; County emergency plans; Relief. safety, and block valves C:- _
j LBP si 22 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY. et al. (COMANCHE PEAK STE4M ML,
ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS I AND 2L Docket Nos. 50-445 OL. 50-446 OL (Application for
- s Operating License); OPERATING LICENSE; July 23.1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER p;V y
'rJ _
t A
The Licensing Board grants in part and demes in lert apphcants' motion to strike three I
contentions propounded by an intervenor in this proceeding. denies the intervenors' requests for a I
protective order and oral argumest. and issues instructions to the parties concerning the future conduct
"[ W of discovery.
CQ,Y
- Q
- 1,
!. A ?
fM.
[
s i
2g f%.
l
- h
=gg
%F cp w,
f
~ '
G l
DIGNTS l
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND IJCENSING BOARDS 7
o*
f LBP.gl.23 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et at (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS l AND 2). Docket Nos. 50 445-OL, 50-4460L (Apphcation for
~t 4
O crating License); OPERATING LICENSE; July 24,1931: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER qME A
The Licens ng Board (I) grants an intervenor's motion that it be permitted to withdraw frees the proceeding; (2) demisses as moot all pending motions by or against the intervenor; 4) d signates new lead intervenors for those jointly. sponsored contentions of which the withdrawing intervenir was previously so designated; (4) emplains the basis for its raising of those questions sua sponte (in compliance with the Commission's June 2,19st directions relating to issues raised sua sponte by Licensing and Appeal Boards); and (5) rules on the admissibility of those contentions solely sponsored by the withdrawing intervenor, damissing certain of the contentions and adopting others as Board questions.
B in an oprating license 8 nearing, matters not put into controversy by the parties will be esamined and decided by the presiding officer only where he or she determines that a serious safety, i
environmental, or common defense and s-curity matter exists.10 CFR 2.760(a).
l C
The Commission has directed that when a Licensing Board or an Appe,1 Board raissa an issue sua sponte in an operating license proceedms, it shall issue a separate order making the requiste g
findings, briefly state its reasons for raising the issue, and forward a copy of that order to the Office of i
the General Counsel and to the Commission.
D la an operating license proceeding. the power of the staff alone to decide whether any other matters (beyond those contested issues admitted by the Licensing Board) need to be considered prior to the ensuance of an operating license arises only after the Board has resolved the question of potential sua sponte issues.
LBP.gl.24 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS I & 2) Docket Nos. 54440 OL,50-4410L; OPERATING LICENSE, July 28. 1981: SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONCERNING PARTY STATUS, MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO STAY, THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS, AND THE ADOPTION OF SPECIAL DISCOVERY PROCEDURES A
The Licensing Board issues a special prehearing cxmference order concerning the admission of parties, motions to dismiss and to stay, admissibility of contentions, and the adoption of special discovery procedures.
B The Commission has jurisdiction to license nuclear faalities located within the United States.
The fact that some emergency planning activities required for licensing may take place in Canada does not deprive the Commission of jurisdiction.
C An organintion whose claim to have standing to intervene is based ce residence of members 125 miles from the reactor site is not entitled to standmg as a matter of right.
D When the board has required appiscant and staff to file briefs concerning the admissibility of contentions. intervenor must give reasons or authority for rejecting arguments presented in the required briefs.
E in raling on the admissibility of a contention. licensing boards should not reach the merits and should not require the introduction of underlying evidence, provided that the tesis for the contention la identified with reasonable specifecity.
F The degree of spcificity required of a contentica depends on many factors. One is the nature of the chaftense to its aJmissibility. Another is whether intervenor has provided bassa for a claim for which rehef can be granted.
G The doctrine of collateral estoppel traditionally applies only when the parties la the case were also parties (or their privies) in the previous case. A hmited utension of that doctrine permits
" offensive" collateral estoppel; i.e., the claim by a person not a party to previous litigation that se issue had already been fully htigated against the defendant and that the defendant should be held to the previous decision because he has already had his day in court. Parkland Hasiery Co., Inc. v. lao M.
Shore,439 U.S. 322 (1979). In operating hcense proceedings, estoppel may also be applied defensively, to preclude an intervenor who was not a party from raising issues litigated in the construction permit proceedmg LBP.8125 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et at (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2), Docket Nos. 50-445, 50 446 (Application for Operating License); OPERATING LICENSE; July 30,1931; ORDER A
The Licensing Ikerd issues a discovery order which inter alia strikes certain motions and answers by the parties relating to discovery and directs them to meet and negotiate in good faith on a5 of their pendmg disputes, report to the Board the outcome of their negotiations including a detailed fe' + T descriptson of any remaining disputes amt the bases for their respectrve positions, on as expedited baus.
R j%
u l
I I
O DIGESTS s-ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND 8JCENSING BOARDS
+. -st.rarmr r y h
5 la modern administrative and legal practice, pretrial discovery is liberally granted to enable the parties to ascertain the facts in comples htigation, refine the issues, and prepare adequately for a more
..,b+4 expeditious hearing or trial Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Stanislaus Nuclear Project. Unit 1).
LDP-78 20,7 NRC 1038,1040 (1978).
C Interrogatories must have at least general relevancy, for discovery purponsa, to the matter in controversy in the proceeding.
D Contentions mnstitute the method by which the parties to a licensing pramaAng frame issues under NRC practice, similar to the use of pleadings in their judicial counterparts.
LBP-8126 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (PALISADES NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY),
Docket No. S255-CO; SPECIAL PROCEEDING: July 31. 1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board denies a petition by labor unions for a hearing on an order of the Director of laspection and Enforcement imposing inter alia certain restrictiona on overtime work by licensed operators.
B in enforcement cases, as in licensing cases, the Commission applies judicial conce a of standing r
in determining rights to a hearing under section 189s of the Atomic Energy Act. To have standing one must first allege some injvey that has occurred or will probably result from the action involved. In addition, one must allege an interest arguably within the zone of interests protected by the Act. Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), CLI.80 to, il NRC 438 (1980), Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Unit 1), CLI.80 38,12 NRC $47 (1980);
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear "' ant, Units I and 2), CLI.76-27,4 h IC elo, 613 (1976).
C Economic interest including a labor union's economic interest in maintaining contractually protected employment rights, is not an interest which is within the *eone of interests
- protected by the Atomic Energy Act; such interest cannot serve as a basis to request a hearing as a matter of right.
The Board also denied standing as a matter of discretion.
LBP 8127 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Non. S275 OL, S323 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; August 4,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board rules on contentions asserted Irf oint Intervenors in connection with their J
petition for reopening the full-power licensing proceeding for the plant. The Board admits a antentbn on emergency planning but denies intervenor's other contentions as not meeting the requirements of the Commission's order of April I,1981 (CLI-813) for reopening a record which has bore closed, as not presenting litigable issues, as not presenting an issue which has already been decided, or as too general to be accepted for purposes of htigation.
LBP-8128 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO. 2), Docket No. S389A: ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; August 5,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board denies an untimely petition for 'aave to intervene in this antitrust proceeding upon balancing the factors in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(3); the Board denies the petition also for lack of a nemus between petitioners
- allegations and the proceeding.
B Where a late petition for intervention is involved, the special factors set forth in 10 CFR i
l 2.714(a)(1) must be balanced and applied before the pedtion may be granted. These factors are: (1)
Good cause, if any, for failure to apply on time. (2) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's witness will be protected. (3) The extent te which the petitioner's participation may i
reasonably be espected to assist in developing a sound record. (4) The entent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by esisting parties. ($) The eatent to which the petitioner's participation will broeden the tsames or delay the proceeding.
8 C
A late petition for intervenhon shall not be granted if a remedy for the alleged harm is
(
l available before the Federal Energy Regulating Commission sad petitioner has not shown how that remedy is insufGcient.
D Under 10 CFR 2.714(a)(l), the test for intervention becomes increasingly vigorous as time passes.
E For purposes of interveation in an antitrust proceeding under the Atomic Ener8y Act, a competitor to en applicant for a hcense to construct and operate a nuclear plant normally need only silege the nature of its business and the esistence of a situation inconsistent with the satitrust laws to show *nesus'since a nuclear plant would place it at a competteive disadvantage; such allegations by a j
aan-competitor are not sufncient to show a "nesus* to the hcanse proceeding.
". y \\*
suun 13 i
i i
e
4 i
l e
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAITTY AND IJCENSING BOABDS i
LBP.8129 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UCLA RESEARCH i
REACTOR). Docket No. S142 OL (Proposed Renewal of Facility License); OPERATING
~
LICENSE August 10, 1981; ORDER RELATIVE TO PARTICIPATION OF DANIEL O.
HIRSCH UNDER 10 CFR 2.733 A
The Board grants an intervenor's motion for the qualircation of an empert interrogator under t
8 An expert interrogator under 10 CFR 2.73)(a) need not meet the same standard of expertise as an expert witness. The standard for interrogators under 10 CFR 2.733(a) is that the individual *is t
quahfied by ament;fic training or experience to contribute to the development of an adequate decisional record in the proceeding by the conduct of such ensmination or cross-examination."
LBP-8130 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING. UNITS 3 AND 4), Docket Nos. S2 SSP, S251 SP (Proposed Aenendments to Facility Operating Licenses to Ptrmit Steam Generator Repairs); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; August 12,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board denies an intervenor's application for a stay pursuant to 10 CFR 2.788 of the Board's First Order (LBP 5116) cancelheg further hearings on Isense amendments to permit i
steam generator repeirs.
B In deciding whether to grant a stay of an order, a Licensing Board is governed by the four-factor test of 10 CFR 2.788, which essential!y codifies the judicial principics apphcable to motions for preliminary injunctions.
C No siigle factor among the four to be considered for a stay decision under 10 CFR 2.788 is necessarily dis:msitrve. Rather, the " strength or weakness of the shcwing by the movant on a particular factor influences principally how strong his showing on the other factors must be in order to justify the sought relief." Pubhc Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station. Units I and 2).
ALAB-338,4 NRC 10,14 (1976).
LBP-81 SA COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (BYRON STATION UNITS I AND 2),
Docket Nos. 3454-OLA 50-455-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 18, 1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The intervention board was only attempting to determine whether there was at least one viable contention in order to trigger an evidentiary hearing is an operating license proceeding. It is suffsient for an intervenor at the pleading stage merely to state his reasons (i.e., the basis) for the contentions, and he is not required to plead evidence or to establish that the assertions are well-founded in fact.
B
- Petition" or " intervention
- board does not rule on admissibility of all contentions, but it only determines standing and at least one viable contention in operating license proceedings.
C A petition for intervention is not required to plead evidence or to estabbsh that the assertions are eell4ounded in fact, but at the pleading stage it is sufficient to state the reasons (i.e, the basis) for contentions.
D Applicants are entitled to prompt discovery concerning the bases of contentions, as much information is already available from the FSAR and other documents, which should be supplemented by later information.
E The involvement of a party's lawyers in other litigation or professional businesa does not excuse noncomphance with nor entend deadlines for comphance with decovery requests or other rules of practice.
LBP.8131 DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE (LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR, OPERATING LICENSE AND SHOW CAUSE), Docket Nos. S409-OL. 2409-SC (Provisional Operating Licsene DPR-45); OPERATING LICENSE; August 19, 1981; MEMORANDUM AND i
ORDER l
A The Bond As the consolidation of an operating license proceeding (to convert a provisional operating license to a full-term license) with anoilwr proceeding resuhing from a Commission show cause order.
B Under 10 CFR 2.716, consolidation is permitted if found to be conducive to the proper dispatch I
af the Board's business and to the ends of justice.
LBP-3132 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT I), Docket No. S289-SP (Restart); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; August 27.1981; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION A
in this proceeding to determine whether and the conditions under which Unit I of the facility should be allowed to resume operation, the Licensing Board issues a partial initial decision on the matter of the licensee's management capability to operate the Unit, reserving for later decision issues on plant design and procedures, separation of the facility's two units, and emergency planning. With I
the exception of an issue relating to operator examination over which it is retaining junsdiction, the j
Board finds that the licensee has demonstrated the managerial capability and technical resources to
- h..
t I
i e
?
O DIGESTS ww=gg
[
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC S4FTrif AND UCENSING BOARDS
+-
l s.
. y',
operate Unit I while maintaining Unit 2 la a safe configuratica and carrying out planned g f' demntamination and restoration activities for that Unit; that the licenses has amplied with the 7
Commission's short term recommendations related to management cumpetence specified in NUREG-0578; sad that it has made reasonable progress toward completion of long term recommendations related to management competence speafied in NUREG 0578.
B A Licensing Board's partial initial decision upholding the applicant's selection of a site is s
immediately appeatable notwithstanding the fact that it does not authorize any construction actaity where there would be a long hiatus before further findings. Houston Power and Lighting Company
( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Units I and 2). ALAB-301. 2 NRC 853,854 (1975).
C A partial initial decision favorable to the applicant on the issue of alternate construction sites is immediately appealable notwithstanding the fact that is neither authorizes any construction octaity nor i
contemplates a long hiatus before further findings. Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station.
Units 1. 2 and 3). ALAB-597.11 NRC 870 (1980).
LBP-8133 THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY et al. (DAVIS BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3: TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS). Docket Nos. 50 500-CP.
50 501 CP; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT: August 28.1981; ORDER A
The Licensing Board grants applicant's request to withdraw its application for construction permits for Units 2 and 3 of the Davis Besse facility and orders that appiscant take certain steps to redress the site pursuant to 10 CFR 2.107(e); vacates iu partial initial decisions. LDP 75-75,2 NRC 993 (1975) and LBP 78 29, 8 NRC 284 (1978), which authorized issuance of two limited work authoritations for those units, and terminates the construction permit proceedings for those units.
LBP.8134 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY (ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. UNIT I). Docket No. 50-466-CP; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; September 1.1981; SECOND ORDER
)
A Licensing Board grants neveral motions filed by the Applicant and by the NRC Staff for summary disposition of certain health and safety contentions, denies several other such motions, and grants,in part, a motion of the Staff for the summary disposition of an environmental contention.
B A contention will not be summarily disposed of where the Licensing Board determines that there still esist controverted issues of material fact.
I LBP.8135 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. et al (PERRY NUCLEAR t
POWER PLANT. UNITS I AND 2). Docket Nos. 50 440 0L. 50441-OL: OPERATING LICENSE; September 9.1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Denying ot.jections to its special prehearing conference order, the Licensing Board clarifies this order and orders the appointment of lead intervenors to coasolidate and coordinate the actions c( party intervenors for purposes of the orderly conduct of the proceeding. In addition, the Licensing Board grants the petition of Ashtabula County Commissioners and Ashtabula County Disaster Services Agency for admission as non-party participants under 10 CFR 62.715(c).
8 A change in the need for power. at the operating license stage, must be sufficiently extensive to offset tac environmental and economic costs of construction before it may be raised as a viable contenuon.
C If Applicant bears a burden of proof on an issue and moves for summary disposition.
intervenors will have the burden of going forward to demonstrate that factual issues exist which j
require a hearing. The applicant retains hawever, the ultimate burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of fact with respect to any issue it seeks to escluae from a hearing.
D Where intervenors have filed consolidated briefs they may be treated as a consolidated party; one intervence may be appointed lead intervenor for purposes of mordinating responses to discovery, but discovery requests should be served on each party intervenor. It is not necessary that a contention or contentions be identified to any one of the intervening parties. so long as there is at least one contention admitted per intervenor.
E Non-parties, participating under 10 CFR 62.715(c) need not comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 52.714 that intervenors must either file their contentions in a timely fashion or show cause for r
their late intervention.
l LBP.81 16 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY et al. (SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR I
l GENER ATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3). Docket Nos. 50 361 OL. 50 362-OL: OPERATING LICENSE. September 14.1981; ORDER l
A The Licensing Board refers to the Appeal Board a Licensing Board order raising on the Board's own motion the issue c( possible effects on emergency plans of an earthquake of a magnitude greater s
i than the Safe Shutdown Earthquake at the facihty. In connection with the issue raised. the Licensing l
Board directs the parties to address questions of evacuation time in the event of earthquake damage to highwa s per effect of structural damage to possible shelters from a radioactive plume or radioactive j
particulate debris, and radiation done estimates in the event of delayed evacuation.
ea l
1 I
9 DIGESTS I
1 ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFTTY AND IJCENSING BOARDS B
in a seismically active s.ee a Licensing Board should cassader the possible effects of a very
- *
- h.
la'se earthquake on emergency plans. This consideration could incalve se earthquake exceeding the SSE and causing a release of radiation while damaging evacuation routes.
- '**y*
C Very specific or detailed factual findinas are not a prerequisite to sua sponte review of an isses that is a serious safety matter. The Board need only give its reasons for raising the issue.
D A Licensing Board may raise a safety issue sua sponte when sufreient evidence of a serious safety matter has been presented that reasonable minds enuld inquire further. Very specirse findings i
are not required sia:e they could cause prejudgment problems.
[
E The size of the EPZ has been decided genencally and is inappropriate for site specirse analysis.
F Size of the EPZ is a generic issue, but other aspects of enacreency plans, particularly evacuation routes, are site specirs.
G A finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be takes la the event of a radiological emergency goes beyond a checklist determination whether a plea meets the standards si 10 CFR 550.47(b).
H Referral of the earthquake issue la this case is based spon its possible significant ramifications for other cases.
I Referral directly to the Commission ly the Licensing Board will not be grsated absent a strong reason for bypassing the Appeal Board.
J Technical issues discussed included: Emergency plan; Multiple disasters.
LBP.8137 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (DRESDEN STATION. UNITS 2 AND 3).
Docket Nos. 50 237 OLA. 50 249-OLA (Spen Fuel Pool Modification); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 24.1981; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION A
Acting upon the motion of Applicant the Licensing Board issues a Partial Initial Decisaan modifying the operating license of Dresden Unit 3 to permit the installation of five high-density spent fuel storage racks and the withdrawal of thirteen of the present spent fuel racks. The modification to permit the use of five high<lensity spent fuel pool racks in connection with the required January I.
1982 fuel outage will be less risky and less costly them any of the possible alternative methods available to meet the requirement.
LBP.8138 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY. et al. (COMANCHE l'EAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNITS I AND 2). Docket Nos. 50-445 OL. 50-446 OL (Application for Operating Licensch OPERATING LICENSE: September 25. 1981; ORDER CONCERNING SUA SPONTE ISSUES. SCHEDULING ORDER. NOTICE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND PREHEARING CONFERENCE A
Acting pursuant to ao order of the Commission, the Licensing Board issues as order describing those factors *beyond the mere pendency of staff review" which formed the basis for its determination to adopt eight of a former latervenor's eleven admitted contentions sua sponte, after the voluntary dismissal for financial reasons of the party which had originally pleaded the contentions.
B A Licensing Board should not automatically reject otherwise viable contentions involving significant health and safety consequences folloains the volu tary dismissal for financial reasons of the party which pleaded these issues, unless these contentions may be disposed of on their merits. It would be a dereisten of duty for a Licensing Board to dismiss as accepted contention obsent some threshold level of informational justification, and the Board should retain such issues at least until the Staff adopts some position as to them.
LBP.81 39 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2). Docket Nos. 50 266 0LA. 50-308 OLAt OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 1.1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
la order to help capedite the proceeding, the Board asked a series of qeestions based on a techrJcal report submitted in support of the application for a license amendment. The Board also adopted special procedures to attempt to resolve the case fairly prict to the time Applicant seeks to conduct a demonstration program.
B Under entraordinary circumstances created by the need to decide rapidly whether to authorize Applicant to conduct a tubesleeving demonstration program,it is appropriate for the Board to addnes questions to Applicant even before formal action has beca completed concerning the admission of an Intervenor into a license amendrnent proceeding.
C The Board can authorize a variety of special filings in order to capedits a proceeding sufreciently to permit a decision to be made prior to the date on which Applicant roguests approval to conduct a demonstration program pursuant to its license amendment request.
D Special sensitivity must be shown to latervenor's procedural rights when the cause for haste in a proceeding was a voluntary decision by Applicant concerning both the timing and contest of its request for a license amendment.
r T
'Y<^$
u 4
t I
O I
8SSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING DOARDS E
Board questions designed to elicit information rapidly in order to expedite a luense amendment proceeding, need not be considered sua sponw issues requiring notification of the Corr mission.
F When haste is requi ed, Petitioners can be granted the right to uti!ize discovery even before l
they are admitted as parties.
G Applicant can proceed wiQ a proposed demonstration program requiring a license amendment unless Petitioner /Intervenor can show cause why it would be appropriate not to authorize the demonstration program.
LBP-81-40 TENNESSEE VALL EY AUTHORITY (BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS I, i
2 AND 3). Docket Nos. 54259-OL, 50 260-OL, 54296 0L; OPERATING LICENSE; G.tober 2, 1981; PREHEARING CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Licensing Board denies petitions to intervene in regard to Applicant's request for temporary onsite storage of low-leve' radioactive waste because the petitions fail to raise an acceptable contention.
B The environmental assessment of a proposed Federal action may be confirmed to tLat action together with its unavoidable consequences.
C Contentions which raise matters outside the scope of an application for a license ueufment are inadmissible.
LBP 81-41 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNIT NO. 2L s)ucket No. 50 389 A; ANTITRUST PROCEED'NG; October 2,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Board's Order denying intervention to Parsons & Whittemore, Inc., is affirmed after considering objections and making minor changes in the initial Order.
LDP-8142 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS I & 2) Docket Nos. 50-4440L,50-441-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; October 2,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
An electromagnetic puise (EMP) contention was excluded from the proceeding because 10 CFR l
550.13 prohibits consideration of design features related to attacks on the facility by an enemy of the United States (U.S1 Any explosion causing an EMP that affect. the plant would be considered to be an attack on the facwty by an enemy of the U.S.
B A bner suspension of an admitted contention concerning anticipated transients without scram (ATWS) can no longer h continued when it no longer appears hkely that the Comminion is about to i
issue a proposed rule on the subject.
C Contentions regrrding the effect of an EMP are barred from consideration by 10 CFR 550.13 because such a pulse necessarily constitutes an attack on the facility by an enemy of the U S.
LBP 81-43 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50-266-OLA, 50 301 OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 7,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Board issued a written order establishing the agenda for en on-the-record telephone conference call convened by the Board in order to expedite the proceeding.
l LBP-8144 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (*OINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS I AND 2) Docket Nos. 50-266-OLA 50-301-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDM ENT; October 13,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Board requested further infortnation from the Applicant in ordtr to clarify the record.
B latervenor may be required to show cause why a licenring amendment should 104 be issued to permit Applicant to conduct a demonstration program.
C Under eaceptional circumstances. Board questions may precede discovery by the parties.
LBP-88 45 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS I AND 2) Docket Nos. 50-266-OLA, 50-301-OLA; OPER ATING L' CENSE AMEN DM ENT; October 13,1981; MEMORANDUM AND OkDER A
The Board admitted a single, broad contention based on four admitted contentions. It decided, based on a review of Applicant's filing, that the contentions should be admitted because they provided reasons for doubting the safety of the proposed steam generator tube sleeving program. It then admitted the single broad contention because it concluded that a decision was required within a short time which was insufficient to aJcommodate the usual procedure for deciding whether late-filed contentions should be admitted.
B Whether or not basis for contentions has been established must be decided by considering the contentions in the content of the entire record of the case up to the time that the contentions are filed.
C When an application for a license amendment is itself incompicte, the standard for the l
admission of contentions is lowered because it is easier for peti.ioners to have reasons for bebeving that the application has not demonstrated the safety of the proposed procedures for eNich an amendment is sought.
y D
When quick action is required on a license amendment, it is appropriate to interpret petitioner's l
safety concerns broadly and to admit a single broad contention which will permit wide-ranging f
s M
i I
DIGESTS
[
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAfTTY AND IKENSING DOABDS 19M*'-
g.d i
dacovery within the limited time without the necessity to decide repeated motions for late filing of new tes,.
- e contentions.
%. i.
E A contention may not be admitted unless it is related to the license amendment which is M
requested. Petstioner inay not challenge the safety of activities already permitted under the hcense.
F If a contention states moru than is required for its adminion into the proceeding, its admission I
should be considered in fight of the minimum necessary allegation for adminion into the proceeding.
G Parties are required to set forth the purpose for each discovery request, to ducess differences concerning contentions informally before filing formal objections and to file ducovery progress reports.
LBP.8146 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2), Docket Nos. 50-266-OLA 50-301 OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 15,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
in a hcense amendment proceeding in which expedition was requird in order to make a sinnefy decision, the Board issued an Order cathng a single heering related to a s order to show cause, e i
motion for summary judgment and the beanns of evidence.
B When time preuere causes special dimculties for intervenors, discovery against intervenors may be restncted in order to prevent interference with their preparation for a hearing.
C A Board may authonte specially tailored proceed:ngs in the interest of espedition.
L B P.81 47 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, et al. (VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT I), Docket No. 50 395 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; October 15, 1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board reaffirna its intention of cathng seismology esperts as Board witnesses and orders the NRC Staff to respond to the experts' reports.
i B
The Licensing Board's determination to call its cwa espert witnesses is not sumcient cause for the NRC Staff to impugn the motivation of the Based Chairman where the record of the case does not demonstrate improper rnotnes.
C Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which permits Federal courts to appoint espert witnesses of their own selection, merely codified esisting law under which the inherent power of a trial judge to appoint an espert of his own choosing is virtually unquestioned.
D Scott v. Spanjer Bros. lac.,298 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1962) and Danville Assa. v. Bryant Buckner Assocs., Inc., 333 F.2d 202 (4th Cir.1964) are the pnncips! Federst appellate decisions recognizing the inherent power of a trial court to appoint its own expert. a practice which dates back to cases recorded in the 14th century.
j E
Appellate tribunals have not reversed, or even granted interlocutory review of, decusons by Federal administrative judges to call their own emperts.
s F
NRC Licensms Boards have adopted the practice of calling their own expert witnesses when the circumstances marrant it.
G The Appeal Board has indicated that the decision to call a witness for the Board resta ultimately and solely upon the sound discretion of the enbunal which called the witness. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-382,5 NRC 603,60s (1977).
H in order to call its own espert witness, a Licensing Board need not satisfy a standard requiring that there be an entraordinary situation in which it is demonstrated without questaan that the Board cannot otherwise reach an informed decision.
I if the safety of the plant is not estabhshed in the reconi, the Board must deny the operating hcense it would be improper and contrary to the pubhc interest for a Board to presume that a license must issue and be required to affirmatively seek evidence to support the issuance.
J Matters pertaining to anal management are not alesys apparent to appe!! ate tribuna's.
K Administrative boards cannot voluntanly adopt rules that curtail their own powers in confhet with estabhshed legal standards.
L A pokcy standard for Licensing luards which derogates from the commonly accepted powers of t
a hearing tribunal may confhet with l191 of the Atomic Energy Act, which estabhshed the Licensing Boards as independent tribunals, and the Administratrve Procedure Act, under which they functson.
M Licensing and Appeal Boards lack the power so make pohey. Offshore Power Systems (floating i
Nuriear Power Plants). CLl 79-9,10 NRC 237,261 (1979).
N Where the Appeal Board has not decided the Staffs motion for directed certericatson and has not inued an order on the merits of the Staffs motion,it has not issued a holding estabhshing a new standard that mest be followed by Licensing Boards.
t 7,
- I 3
5 i
l 1
1 I
l
t l
6
.pm ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMH'SAFTTY AND LJCENSING BOARDS
'.; D
-Q<
s~
LBP-si-48 LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3). Docket No. 50-382-OL; OPERATING LICENSE October 20, 1981; M'
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board grants the Applicant's n ation for summary dispositen et one of the Joint j
Intervenors' contentions which related to safety-related concrete, and dismisses the contention.
B lt is the party seeking summary judgement. not the party opposing it. which has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any materist fact, and, where the moving party's evdentiary matter in support of the motion does not establish the absence of a genuine issue, summary judgment must be denied even if no eMentiary mattar is presented. Adickes v. Kress and Co.,393 US.144 (1970).
C If the movent has properly supported its motion for summary disposition,it is incumbent upon the opposition to answer setting forth specirac facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact.
Virgina Ear:tric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Units I and 2), ALAB-584, il i
NRC 451 (1930).
D A party cannot avoid summary disposition on the mere hope that at trial he will be able to discredit movsnt's evidence nor can he be permitted to go to trial on the vague supposition that something may turn up. Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units I and 2). LBP-75-10, I NRC 246 (1975).
E If the issue is demonstrably insubstantial, it should be decided pursuant to summary disposition procedures in order to avoid unneceuary and possibly time cor,. Wg hearings. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Unit f a ". Ad-590, il NRC $42 (1980).
LBP-8149 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 3) Docket No. 50wl33-OLA: OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 20. 1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i
A In a license amendment proceeding, the Licensing Board seeks information from the Staff on whether maintaining the plant in long term cold shutdown pending issuance by the Commission of backfit requirements for older plants presents risk to the health and safety of the public.
LBP.8150 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STAT!ON, UNIT I). Docket No. 50 289-SP (Restart Reopened Proceeding); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; October t
22.1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Special Master issues a Memorandum and Order ruling that there is no right, on behalf of l
the individuals involved in cheating incidents, the Licensee, or the NRC Staff, to prevent the d'aciosers of the identities of these individuals during the hearing process.
B Under Chrysler Corporation v. Brown 441 US. 281,60 led.2d 208. 995 S. Ct.1705 (1979) neither the Privacy Act. 5 US.C. 5552s (1974) nor the Freedom of Information Act. 5 US.C. 5552 (1977) gives a private i-dividual the right to prevent oisclosure of names of individuals where the l
Licensing Board elects to disclose.
C 10 CFR 62.744 requires a ocighing of the need for a proper decision against the interest la pnvacy where information is sligibe for esemption from disclosure under 10 CFR 62.790(a)(7).
D la is within the discretice of the Special Master to hold information confidential if to do so j
would increase the likelihood of a fair and impartial hearing.
LBP-5151 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et at (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS I AND 2). Docket Nos. 50-445 OL, 50-446 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; October 23.1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board is an operating license proceeding declines to defer consideration of contentions relating to financial qualifications. Although the Cummisseon is consdering adopting a new regulation related to financial qualificatiores review, the notice of proposed rulemaking indicates that only when final is the rule to be applied to ongoing proceedings.
B Although a rulemaking concerning review of financtal qualirocations is pending, hearings on contentions concerping financias qualifecations may go forward when the Contentions were prevmusly i
admitted. The intenten of the Commission, shown by the notice of proposed rulemaking, is that proceedings with financial qualifications contentions continue. (46 Fed. Reg. 41786.)
C When a contention is admitted before the issue in contention becomes the subject of a 3eneral rulemaking by the Commission, the Commission's intention, as shown by the notice of proposed
. we.
g rulemaking, determines whether consideration of that contention should be deferred. Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Pmat Nuclear Generating Station. Units I and 2), ALAB-218. 3 AEC 79. 85 3
(1974).
i NU
\\'
=
i
i O
DIGESTS y m.~,,
~
8SSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND IKT,NSING BOARDS L
LDP.st 52 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (BYRON STATION, UNITS l AND 2h Docket Nos. STN $0 454-OLA,50-455-OLA: OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Octolier 27, 1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 4AIC '
A in considering the apphcant's motion for sanctions because of the intervenor's failure or refusal to answer interrogatories, the Board found nothing to excuse or condone the willful failure to provide responsive answers to interrogatories and the intervenor was consequently dismissed as a party.
8 An applicant is svitled to prompt answers to interrogatories inquiring into the factual bases for contentions and evidentian support for them, as intervenors are not permitted to make skeletal contentions and keep the tees for them secret.
C The willful failure o +fusal of an intervening party to answe* interrogatories and its unescused failure to comply with a L wing Board's orders to do so, warrant the imposition of sanctions (10 C M ll2.707,2.718,2.740).
D Where a pariy's derelictions of duty concerning the furnishing of ordered discovery wereyart of a pattern of behaviour rather than isolated incidents, such conduct resulted in the striking of au of its contentions (ll4) and its dismissal as a party (Commission's *Staternent of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedmss"[CL1-st-8,13 NRC 452,454 (1981)]).
LBP.8153 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (QUAD CITIES STATION, UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 54254-OLA, 54265-OLA: OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 27, 1981; ORDER A.
The Licensing Board held a prehearing conference and admitted as parties two petitioning organizations who satisfied the Commission's standing and valid contention requirements in this spent fuel puoi expension proceeding The Board deferred ruling on one disputed contention and rejected two other disputed contentions.
B A Licensing Board has no objection to explore alternatives under NEPA except upon a showing that the action in question will constitute a " major Commission action signincantly affecting the quahiy of the human environment.* This determination should not be made until the NRC Stafra environmental impact assessment is available.
C Apphcant for operating hcense amendments, such as an amendment anthorizing expansion of a spent fuel pool, are not required to prove their financial ability to implement the arnendment.
L BP-8154 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. (SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS l AND 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL, STN $0-499 OL (Operating License);
OPERATING LICENSE; October 30,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board schedules an evidentiary hearing to consider the means by which the Appbcants plan to maintain quality with respect to certain near term safety-related construction activitics, in light of (l) the transition of design-engineering and constructiou-management responsibihties, and possibly construction responsitulities, to a new contractor; and (2) deGciencies in engir.ecring pointed out in an independent consultant's report sponsored by the Applicants. De Board also inquires concerning the means by which the NRC Staff plans to monitor the Applicants' commitments to maintain quality in regard to the specified construction activities. The Boerd further schedules a prehearing conference.
8 The decision whether to approve a plan for construction during the period in which certais design engineering and construction management, and possibly construction, responsibilities are being transferred from one contractor to another is initially within the province of the NRC Staff. But because of the safety significance of the work to be performed, and its clear bearing on ehether, or en what terms, a project should be licensed, and on the resolution of attain.aisting contentions, conside;ation of the adequacy of, and controis to be caercised by, the Applicants and NRC Staff over such work falls well within the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board. Cf.10 CFR 52.717(b).
C When a Licensing Board in an operating license proceeding considers issues which might be deemed to be raised sua sponte by the Board,it should transmit copies of the Order raising such issues to the Commission and General Counsel, in accordance with the Secretary's memorandum of June 30, 1981.
LBP 8155 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2), Docket Nos. 50 266 OLA, 50 301-OLA: OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; November 5,1988; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Board conducted a special show cause proceeding to determine whether it was appropriate te grant to Wisconsin Electric Company a license amendment which would permit it to conduct a demonstration program in ehich it would return its reactor to power with up to sia degraded tubes repaired by *siceving* rather than being removed from service by plugging. Tbs limited license j
amendment was granted becaux the Board found that latervenor, Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, l
had failed to show the existence of an important genuine issue concerning the environmental or safety consequences of the proposed demonstration program.
+
9 N
ai >de t
6
.M I
v e.
b
=
I ISSUANCES 06' THE ATOMIC SAfITY AND IJCENSING BOASDS b.
q-B When summary d'
' tion is requested before discovery is complete, it may be considered by the Board but the standa used sc evaluate the motion must be changed so that summary disposition h!E will be denied either upon a showing of the saistence of a genuine insee of fact or upon a showing that there is good reason for the Board to defer judgment until aher specific discovery requests are made and ansected.
C la a case la which as sapedited decision is requested la order to suit Applicant's operational nesda, special procedural advantages should be granted to the latervenor la order to make it possible for it to act more rapidly. la this proceeding, latervenor ess granted discovery rights even before it l
was admitted as a party and its contentions were interpreted broadly so that it could raise any important safety or environmental issue without need to nie for the admission of a late cuntention. la addition, the Board asked several technical questions la order to assist Intervenor in obtaining possibly useful taformation and to help the Board to satisfy itself that expedition would not cause an improper result.
D Once an appropn' ate protective order is issued so that latervenor ces obtain useful information, the Board can derer ruling on further objections concerning the public's right to know entil after it has considered the merits of the case. If Intervenor chocess not to participate in is camera sessions held to protect arguably propnetary information, it may create problems for itself but these problems cannot affect the Board's ruling on the merits of the case.
E General fears or criticisms of past practices of the nuclear industry or Applicant are not appropn' ate bases for contentions unless there is reason to suspect the specific procedures or asfety related tests used in a proposed demonstration program which requires a license amendment.
LSP 3156 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY.et at (CLINTON POWER STATION, UNITS I AND 2).
Docket Nos. 50 441 OL,50-462 0L; OPERATING LICENSE: November 13,1981; ORDER A
A motion for severance of Unit 2 of the Clinton Power Station from tbs proceedings for Unit i is granted because Unit 2 will not be completed until 1995.
I LBP-8157 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING POWER COMPANY. et at (PERRY I
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS I AND 2). Docket Nos. 50-440-OL, 50-441-OL; j
OPERATING LICENSE; November 30,1981; ORDER Petitioner claimed that 10 CFR 55013 which previously had been interpreted to exclude a r
A contention concerning the effect of electromagnetic pulses, should be waived under 10 CFR 12.758(b).
[
However, the Board found that many nuclear plants are vulnerable to electromagnetic pulses and that I
waiver, which requires specia! circumstances related to the particular proceeding, was not appropriate.
Waiver of a Commission rule is not appropriate for a generic issue. Petitaner must demonstrate B
that there is a special circumstance relatad to the particular proceeding or waiver under 10 CFR 32.758(b) will be denied.
C The proper evenue la which to seek a remedy for a problem which affects nuclear reactors generally is to petition the Commission to prommisste an amendment to its rules under le CFR 52.802. If the issue la sufnciently urgent, the petitioner may request suspension of a licensing proceedint during the pendency of the rulemaking.
j LSP 5158 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (ST. LUCIE PLANT. UNIT NO. 2h Docket l
No. 50-389 A; ANTITRUST PROCEEDINO; December it,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Summary dispcsition on the merits is granted to intervenors in this antitrust action eher the Board Gnds that the use of a nuclear power plant would maintain a situation incornistent with the antitrust laws. The Board accepts findings from two prior cases, including decisaans of a United States Court of Appeals and the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC). Based on these cases, the i
Board finds that applicant conspired with another utility to drride markets and that it esercised monopoly power within its territorial limits.
8 The Board also finds aber reviewing the entire record and concluding that there is no remaining genuine issue of fact, that applicant participated in joint planning, with other major utilitica, l
of generation and transmission, including nuclear generation.
C Because of the lengthy and somewhat disorganized record, the Board establishes an objections i
procedure in which parties wishing to preserve their grounds for appest are required to file objections for resolution by the Board. In addition, procedures are established to expedite the decissoa of the case.
The Board discusses the relatinnship of its decision to remedies which might be granted. It
[
D states that citus withis applicant's territorial boundaries should be entitled to purchase a share of its nuclear power plant. as has already been acamplished in a " settlement
- agreement adopted in this
~
case. However, the Board does not rule on whether the terms of the settlement agreement already provide adequate relief for "inside* cities. In addition, the Board refrains from ruling on whether these "outside* ciues should be permitted to purchase a share in applicant's nuclear power plant or in other l
nuclear power plants it operates.
TM 3s
i f
G DIGESTE IShUANCES OF THE ATOh81C SAFTT1f AND IJCENSING BOARDS
,W Q(.e i
?M E
Utilities located withis sa ares in which a utility has esercised amsopoly power are entitled to
'c, purchase a share la a nuclear power plaat which the utility is planning to operate. la addition, cities
-Q - allegedly outside a stility's area may not be refused the right to purchase firm power when the utility's terntorial hae was developed in part as the result of a conspiracy to divide markets.
F The Commission gives effect to factual findings of federal couns and sister agencies when those findings are part of a final judgment, even when the party aseking estoppel effect was not a party to abe initial litigation. Although the application of collateral estoppel would be denied if a party could have easily joined in the prior litigation, the Commission will apply collateral estoppel even though it is alleged that a party could have joined in, if the prior litigation was a compics antitrust case.
Furthermore, FERC determinations about the applicability of antitrust laws are suffsiently similar to Commission determinations to be entitled to collate al estoppel effect. Even a shift la the burden of persuasion (which did not occur) between FERC and Commissian proceedings does not esclude the application of collateral estoppel when it is apparent that the FERC opinion did not arrive at its antitrust conclusions because c(the burden of ersuasson.
f G
On the other hand, the decision of a rederal district court on a summary judgment motion is not a final judgment entitled to collateral estoppel effect, particularly when the court did not fully esplain the grounds for its opinion and when its decidea was issued after the hearing board had already begun studying the record and had formed factual conclusions which were not adequately addressed in the district court's opinion.
H The Board requires parties to object to the Board's decision la order to preserve grounds for appeal.
I The Board requires that parties citing cases as authority must explain the relevant facts of the cited cases or the Board may disregard the citations. In addition, y arties citing a string of cassa for the same proposition should know that if the first case in the string i, found to be inappicable other cases will not be considered.
J The Board requires parties to file their objections to its decision pursuant to a Board-established schedule or to waive them.
K Partial summary disposition is granted in an antitrust proceeding after the findings of two prior cases were accepted because of the application of collateral estoppel and after the Board found there was no genuine dispute as to an additional material fact.
L The Board simultaneously establishes schedules for t'ae filing of objections, the holding of oral argument and the holding of an evidentiary hearing ce remaining questions of fact. Briers on objections are limited to 40 pages in length, with hmitad permissace for appendices. Parties are authorized to cite material already in the record without ccpying it over.
LBP-s! 59 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (THRf.E MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.1), Docket No. 50 239-SP (Restart); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; December 14, 1931; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (PLANT DESIGN AND PROCEDURES, UNIT SEPARATION, AND EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES)
LBP-st 60 METRCPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT I), Docket No. 50 239-SP (Restart Reopened Proceeding): SPECIAL PROCEEDING; December 15,1931: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON NEPA--COMPLIANCE ISSUES A
The Licensing Board refuses se hold evidentiary hearings on certain contentions relating to the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) and the seed for en Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It also denies a motion to reject the EIA.
B Each action the board takes must be founded upon either empress or -a rily implicit delegation of authority. The board has strong doubts that it has jurisdiction to consider the need for s
and content of an EIS where the Conmmission has shown considerable interest and become directly involved in the proceeding, and where neither the Commission's notice of hearing nor any later Commission document suggests that the board should consider the need for an EIS.
C The parties cannot by agreement confer on the Board subject matter jurisdiction. However, the Board will take junsdction to rule na NEPA issues where 10 CFR 951.52(d) at least arguably authorizes the Board as decide these issues, and where an esercise of jurisdctir,a by the board would uhimately produce the most efficient and orderly disposition of the issues.
D The Board's mandate is not to conduct a plenary review to determine whether the Staff has complied with NEPA and 10 CFR Part SI. but rather to decide any matters in matraversy among the parties.
E Where the only NEPA matters in controversy are legal contentions that there has been a failure to comply with NEPA and 10 CFR Part $1. the Board will rule on the contentions without p" -
further evidentiary hearings, making use of the existing evidentiary record on substantive issues and additional material of which it can take offsial notice.
32
~
i l
i G
'e* m,
8BSUANC13 OF THE ATOMIC SAITTY AND IJCENSING BOARDS
-t F
la determining whether it can hold as a snatter of law that the requirements of NEPA and 10 CFR Part Si have not been met, the Bosrd has not only the EIA but also any relevant wsW supplemental information in the hearing record and in its own partial initial ar-c=
0 Technical issues discussed include; impact of Class 9 accidents; impact of Unit 2 cleanup on Unit I operation; impact of fuel handling acodent; Cumulative done from Unit 2 cleanup and Unit I restart Radioactive waste storage onsite; Radioactive waste disposal offsite; impacts of emergency preparedness requirements on state and local governmenta; impacts of alert notificatica systesa; impacts of evacuation and other protective actions; Construction effecia; Psychological stress; Effluent monitoring; Ground water snonitoring; Protection of ground water.
LBP 8141 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY. et al (CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT I). Docket No. 50 461 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; December 16,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER a
A The latervenor, Prairie Alliance, and the State of Illinces (participating as an " interested state") filed moteons to cornpel answers to unanswered interrogatories served upon the Applicasta, Ilhnas Power Company, et al during first round of ducovery. The motions were greated in part and denied in part. In addition, a stipulation with respect to certain ',ontentions was alloweG and a previously accepted schedule for future discovery was confirmed and entended.
Under 10 CFR 82.714(b) en intervention petition must include the bases for each contention i
B. set forth with reasonable specifwity. Contentions must be suffsciently detailed and speci
~
demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible and that further inquiry is warranted, and to put the other parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against or oppose.
C Where a contention is made up of a general allegation which, standing alone, would not be i
admissible under 10 CFR 92.714(b), plus one or more alleged bases for the contention set forth with i
reasonable specifwity, the matters in controversy raised by each such contention are limited in scope by j
the specific alleged basis or bases set forth in the contention.
D 10 CFR 92.740(b)(1) provides in part that:
l "Partws may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevart to the subject matter involved in the proceeding.., including the caistence, description, nature, j
custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any dismverable snatter?
E The discovery rules as between the parties are to be construed liberstly. In enodern administrative and legal practice discovery is libers!!y granted to enable the parties to ascertain the facts in comples litigation, refine the issues, and prepare adequately for a snare expeditious trial LBP.8142 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT.
UNITS I AND 2), Docket Nos. 50-266 OLA 50-301 OLA: OPERATINO LICENSE AMENDMENT; December 21.1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
This decision responds in part to a claim that the Board lacks the jurisdiction to determine whether filed docurnents claimed to be confdential should be released to the pubhc The Board rules that when a party files a document that it proposes be treated as conGdential because it contains trade secrets, the hearing board must apply the standards set forth in 10 CFR 92.790 to determine whether all or a portion of the document should be kept anGdential. The obligation placed on the Board by the rules is mandatory and dccs not require that any party request the Board to fulfill its obligation.
8 The Board also rules that an afndavit concerning the confdentality of a filed document ordmarily cannot be reviewed by the Board to determine the legitimacy of a claim that the affdavit is 4
conGdential 10 CFR $2.790(b)(1)(ii). Itowever, the Board determines that this enemption from its jurisdction is subject to three threshold limitations: the, allegedly conGdential portions of the affdevit must be " appropriately marked", that tLa certification of coardentiality must have been made in good faith by the afnsat, and that the caemption does not a, y to legal arguments that cannotyroperty be r
included in a conidential afrdavit. The Board then that the silegedly conGdential attdavit filed in this case did not meet any of these threshold requirements and that part of it must be released to the pubic.
t C
10 CFR 92.790(c) delegates to hearing boards the authority and obligation to determine whether proposals of conGdtntishty filed pursuant to 52.790(b) (1) should be granted pursuant to the standards set forth in sub6ections (b)(2) through (c) of that section.
l
}
D 11 is not acceptable practice for a party to impugn the integrity of ano her party without any l
cvidence to support the charges.
l E
Under 10 CFR $2.790, licensing boards must determine whether it is appropriate to grant proposals filed with them concerning the need to sithhold evidence from the pubhc. Ordinarily, when i
t parties submit afndavits supporting claims of confidentiahty, they may claim that the afrdavita are I
confidential and the board will not have the jurisdiction to review the claim; howevtr the conndentiahty of supporting affdavits is eacmpt from board jurindstion only if they are
- appropriately l
marked
- by the afnant in good faith, after a careful review; and the board also retains jurisdction to
}
f 3
o i
33 l
1 i.
i f
9 mcms ISSUANC13 OF THE ATOMIC SAFTTY AND 1JCEN5tNG BOARDS
- =
t' determine whether legal arguments have been improperly inserted into as affularit and claimed to te i
confusentast.
LBP-8143 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (MIDLAND Pt ANT, UNITS 1 AND 2). Doches Nos.
50-329-CP, 50-330-CP; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PROCEEDINO; December 22, 1981; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION A
la a Partial feitial Decision on a construction permit application, the Licensing Board addrennes the remanded issue of misconduct by the parties and their counsel. The Licensing Board Rads that the fell voluntary declosure required of all parties was not practiced but determines that no sanctions are appropriate because the requirements for disclosure in NRC proceedings has not been spooficeDy -
addressed previously and there was no evidence of deliberately enethical behavior. After reopeninp the record to take evidence on the effects of rados emissions from the eranism fuel cycle, the IJcensing Board concludes these effects are not significant in comparison to the effects of natural rados emuseons.
8 Parties and counsel must adhere to the highest standards la disclosing au relevant factual information to the Licensang Board.
C Materal facts i.e, those facts which could conceivably lanuence the Wing Board whether or not they in fact do so, must be affarnatively disclosed to the Licensing Board by a party or ha counsel.
D Counsel cannot justify nondisclosure of information by stating that it is material on which a Licensing Board may not rely or by arguing that such reliance would be majestarand. Only the Board has the function of deciding on what information it win rely, E
Drafts of testimony are not covered by the attorney work product privilega.
F Enternal factors such as the threat or a lawsuit wiu not reiseve a party ofits duties toward the Licensing Board.
G If counsel have any doubts whether they have a duty to dW to the 8 hias Board particular facts, those facts must be dishd.
H Prepared testimow> should be the work of the witness, act of his counsel. The words should be those of the witness shhoush counsel may suggest clarifications or caussacas of toutly irrelevant material.
1 Technical issue discussed includes: Uranium fuel cycle (radon 222).
LBP-814d FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNrr NO. 2). Docket No. 50-389-A; ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; December 30, 1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
On motion of the Applicant the Board modified the procedural schedule it had issued la its December 11.1988 Order (LDP-8! 58).
t
>9 e
s 3d
~~
tw t
i h
G
.c, W'
W-l9r h7 e* p'%"
f n:
n r
O' DIGESTS DIRECTORS' DEE1SIONS h
yy DD.81 12 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (ALVIN W. VOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS l &
- 21. Docket Nos. 50 424. 50-425; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; July 2,1981; DIRECTOR'S D
DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comminion's regulations to require the reopening of the record upon =hich construction permits were iuved in order to assess the need for the power to be produced by the facilities.
[
B An apphcant may demonstrate that there is a need for the power to be produced by a particular facihty by showing (1) that the demand for electrwity within the facihty's service area is e-i increasing. (21 that the facihty may be needed as a substitute for power currently produced by burning
)
short-supply fossil fuels;(3) that the facihty may be needed to meet the reserve margin requirements of puner puols in which the facility is a participant; or (4) that the appicant is capable of selhng
./
power outsede its immediate service area to meet the demand for power in other areas.
7 C
Every forecast of need or demand for power carries an associated uncertainty and, thus the most that can bc required is that the forecast be a reasonable one in light of what is ascertainable at the time it is made.
b D
NEPA does not require - that decisions based on environmental impact statements be reconsidered whenever informatiori developed subsequent to the action becomes available, unless that j g' ;
new informaison would clearly mandate a change in result.
DD-81 13 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al,(TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT). 6 Docket No. 50w344. (to CFR 2.206); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; July 13. 1981; DIRECTORS d
k#
DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 C
A The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 which requesied suspension of operation of the Trosan Plant on the basis of matters related to fire protection and environmental quahficaten of electric equipment.
L DD.81 14 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. (SEABROOK STATION.
s UNITS I AND 2L Ducket Nos. 50-443. 50-444 (10 CFR 2.206); SPECI AL PROCEEDING; July 15.
1981; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 hT A
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 that requested institution of proceedings to suspend or revoke the Seabrook construction permits on the l.'
basis of evacuation considerations at the site.
B Matters bearing on accep.abi!ity of emergency plans for the facility did not indsate b
estraordinary circumstances such that the institution of proceedings was warranted to take up these F-matters before the operating hcense review.
DD-81 15 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNIT NO. 2). Docket No. 50-389A, (10 CFR 2.206); ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; August 7.1981; DIRECTORS L DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 whch I requested institution of enforcement action against the hcensee for its asserted failure to abide by an 4
k-I antitrust condition of its license.
B The Director will not institute a requested proceeding where the petitioner's basis for rehef rests on resolution of an issue that is pending before another agency and that is pecuharly within the h
competence of that agency to decide.
L DD-81 16 COMMON % EALTH EDISON COMPANY (ZION NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS I AND L6 2L Docket Nos. 50-295, 50-304, (10 CFR 2.206); SHOW CAUSE; September 29. 1988;
'O a
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement denies a petition under 10 CFR y ';.
>
- vC,,.
2.206 that requested institution of a proceeding to show cause uhy operation of the Zion Station Units I and 2 should not be suspended pending the hcensce's full compliance with emergency planning
- A requirements pertaining to installation of a prompt notification system.
M
i
.m Gh v /
r&
f 35 1
g V
h l
G DIGESTS DIRECTORS' DECISIONS D
DD-81 17 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWE8L a
STATION, UNITS I AND 2). Docket Nos. 50 245. S286 (10 CFR 2.206); SHOW CAUSh; September 29,1981; DIRECTORS DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The Director of the Omce of Inspection and Enforcement denics a petition under 10 CFR i
2.206 that requested institution of a proceeding to show cause why operation of two units of the 1
Millstone Station should not be suspended or revoked for failure to comply with emergency planning requirements pertaining to installation of a prompt notification system.
DD.81 18 WABASH VALL EY POWER ASSOCIATION AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA (MARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS I & 2), Docket Nos.
S$46. 4547 (10 CFR 2.206); CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; October 13. 1981; DIRECTORS DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The Directw of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 which j
requnted action against a co owner of the Marble Hill project for securing additional financing for its participation in the project in an allegedly improper manner.
I 8
Although decisions of other agencies may be relevant to the adminis'.rstion of the NRC's regulatory program, the Director of NRR wi!! not institute proceedings to determine whether other esencies have carried out their own unique responsibilities.
C in the absence of a transfer of ownership or caercise of certain creditas' rights, the NRC's authorization need not be obtained in connection with financing arrangements a liansee may make with financialinstitutions.
D When a licenair.g proceeding has been concluded and a matter is no longer before a board, a licensee does not have a general duty to inform lyrties to the concluded proceeding of new information or developments regarding matters that were adjudicated in the proceeding.
E A petition under 10 CFR 2.206 must silege facts ihat would indicate further inquiry into a matter raised in the petition is warranted.
DD.8149 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT I). Docket No. 50-206 (10 CFR 2.206); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 16.1981; DIRECTORS DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies petitions submitted by some 1500 California residents who requested suspension or revocation of the San Onofra Unit I license on the tua;is of seismic design deficiencies and emergency plannir.g considerations.
DD-81-20 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. UNIT I) Docket No. 50-206 (10 CFR 2.206); OPERATING LICENSE; November 16.1981; DIRECTOR $ DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denica a petition filed by Ralph Nader which lj requested suspension of operation of San Onofre Unit I pending e " license review" on the basis of I
seismic design and other considerations. The Director found that suspension was not estranted during the conduct of the SEP review of the plant and that operation for a limited period pending plant upgrading would not pose an undue risk to public health and safety.
DD-88 21 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (TURKEY POINT PLANT, UNIT 4L Docket No. S251 (10 CFR 2.206); OPERATING LICENSE; Novensber 5,1981; DIRECTORS DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petiton under 10 CFR 2.206 which requested the Commission (I) to order en immediate shutdown of Turkey Point Plant, Unit 4, to inspect the steam generator tutes, and (2) to consider the suspension of the operating license of Turkey Point Plant, Unit 4, because # ancerns over the safety of the reactor pressure vessel.
DD-8122 PUBLIC SERVICE COHPANY OF INDIANA (MAR 8LE HILL NUf' LEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS I & 2), Docket Nos. STN S546, STN 50 547 (10 CFR 2.206); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; Mnember 30,1981; SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The Director of the Offse of Inspection and Enfacement reevaluates an earlier denial l
(DD-81 10) under 10 CFR 2.2t% to determine whether additional concrete testing should be performed in light of a statistical mos'aling error regarding multiple-stage sampling in the original testing program, la view of the acttal results of the testing program in the context of a single-stage sampling program, the Director decties to initiate an additional program.
.y.
]$ h l
M O
I l
O DIGESTS I
,,j DIRECTORS
- DEGHONS f
t DD 88-23 PETITION CONCERNING FINANCIAL QUALIFICAYlONS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSEES.10 CFR 2.206; SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING; December 4,1981; DIRECTORTs DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206
}
A The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 which requested issuance of orders to show cause to all commercial power plant licensees to require a demonstration of their financial capability to absorb the cos's or on-site property damage resulting from plant accidents.
B As part of an applicant's demonstration of its financial qualifscations for an operating license, the Commission bas not requirsd a specirac demonstration of an ability to absorb the ccats of severe accidests or to obtain abe necessary funds to clean up after en accident.
C Where the Commission has taken steps to generically consider an issue by rulemaking. the Director will generally not institute individual proceedings to modify or suspend licenses in the absence of a compelling reason for such action that cannot await the outcome cf the generic proceeding.
I F
i J
i t
i l
{
h
)
i l
- g. r 37 i
t'
[.~ '
k..
L_
r, c p-N s..
I 4 '.
DIGESTS DENIALS OF PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING
[
t-L r
DPRM II 2 ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT. Docket No. PRM 2-6; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; July 8.1981: DENIAL OF REQtlEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING A
The Commission denies a request for reconsideration of its earher denial of the petition for rulemaking (PRM 2-6) submitted by Eckert, Seamns, Cherin & Mellott. The petitioner, on behalf of the Wesunghouse Electric Corporation, had requested the Commission to amend its regulations to prescribe fixed time periods for the completion of licensing reviews by the Commission's regulatory staff and Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards.
B While the Commission is responsible for and concerned with efficiency in its licensing process and beheves that unnecessary or inappropriate delays should be avoeded whenever possible, of overriding importance is the Commission's statutory responsibihty to ensure that issuance of a license to an applicant wi!I not be inimical to the health and safety of the pubbc and will satisfy the requirements of applicable environmental laws.
(,
i C
The imposition of fised time periods for the completion of lu:ensing reviews would unduly I<
restrict the necessary discreten of the Commission's regulatory staff and hcensing boards.
, '.,p r.
L" i
?,
r t
.i F
9 h
b c
o j
i-i 6
l k;^
p.
a.
I'a
gie
(
h, i
T "* W
\\
h
.g T:3
b, f
f r
LEGAL CTTA110NS INDEX
.jh
,y
-A C.
e e
n 1
A. L Mechting Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States,368 US. 324,329 (1961)
Y partial imnal decision vacated on nuotness grounds; ALAB456,14 NRC 966 (1981) y Abedeen & Rockfish R.R. v. SCRAP,422 UA 289,322 (1975) m defining precise federal action involved in spent fuel pool expansion; ALAB450,14 NRC 66 (1981)
T AJackes v. Kress and Co.,398 UA 144 (1970)
I failure to respond to summary disposition motion; LBP-81-48,14 NRC 883 (1981)
W' Aeschhman v. NRC,547 F.2d 622,632 (D.C. Cir.1976); rev'd and remanded sub nom. Vermont Yankee
{
Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC,435 US. $19 (1978) y
)
misconduct byfarties and counsel; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1771,1773,1776,1789 (1981) f Alabama Power Co. (Alan R. Barton Nuclear Plant, Unita 1-4, and Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unita I and 2), CL17312,2 NRC 373,374 (1975) l, delay in one proceeding taken into ecoount la determining appropriateness of coneohdation of two
)
proceedings; LBP-8131,14 NRC 378 (1981)
Q b-1 Alabama Power Co. (J<neph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Unita I and 2), ALAB446,13 NRC 1027, l1001102 (1981)
/ 9.
balance of antitrust concerns with public interest factors; LBP-8158,14 NRC 1195 (1981)
- %(;i i
Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB446,13 NRC 1027,
?
10351036,1045-1046 (June 30,1981)
?
apphcabihty of antitrust provisions to Commission hcensing proceedings; LBP-81-58,14 NRC 1871 N, z t
(1981)
Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Earley Nuclear Plant Units I and 2), ALAB446,13 NRC 1045 3046 i
(1981) similarity between legal standards of Federal Energy Regulatory Comnussion and NRC; LBP 88 58,14 NRC 1875 (1981)
{
Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unita I and 2), CLI-74-12,7 AEC 203 (1974) yy I
effect of failure to consohdats operaung hcense and show cause procnedings on htigation of safe shutdown d
earthquake issue; LBP-8131,14 NRC 377 (1981)
~ y l
<i Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unita i and 2), ALAB-182,7 AEC 210 (1974)
??
collateral estoppel apphed to issue already litigated at construction permit stage; LBP 8124,14 NRC 198 y
(1981)
M.
l American Bus Ass'a. v. US. 627 F.2d $25 at 529 (D C. Cir.1980)
C non-tunding nature of agency policy statement; CLI-81 16,14 NRC 18 (1981) l 1
Atlanta Coahtion v. Atlanta Regional Commission,599 F.2d 1333 (5th Cir.1979) k s
)
segmentation of EIS, shi at of spent fust assembbes; ALAB451,14 NRC 313 (1981) e Atlantic Aesearch Corp., A B-594, il NRC 841,846 (1910)
_I 4 Commissioner's additional views capressed to avoid imphcations of silence; CLI-81 15,14 NRC 13 (1981) f/
Blake v. United States,323 F.2d 245,247 (8th Cir.1963) 3-test of materishty of a statement; LBP-5143,14 NRC 1789 (1981)
?
Blonder Tongue laboratones, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation,402 US 313 (1971)
M controlling precedent on collsteral estoppel relevant to satitrust proceeding; LBP 88 58,14 NRC II72 r.
i (1981)
Board of Regents v. Roth,408 US. 564,577 (1972) k'
?
legal entitlementa as sources of property interesta; LBP-8126,14 NRC 256-258 (1981)
.j Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Station Umsta 2 sad 3) LDP-7442,8 AEC 324,327 (1975) 9 shoeing necessary for dismissal of apphcation with prejudice; ALAS 457,14 NRC 979 (1981)
BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission,502 F.2d 424,428 29 (D C. Ctr.1974) h,-
right to hearing on withdrawal of construction permit application; ALAB462,14 NRC 1134 (1981) y,.
j Burhnston Indus. v. Esson Corp.,65 FRD. 26,37,42 (D. Md.1974)
X appocation of attorney work product privilege; LDP-8143,14 NRC 1794 (1961) p.
Calvert Chrf Coordinating Comnuttee v. AEC,449 F.2d 1109,1819 (D C. Cir.1971) right of Board to raise issues sua sponte; LBP-81-23,14 hRC 168 (1981)
(2 s
w A n ie w q
M e.
l k.N l
,1.
l l
1 LEGAL CTTA110NS INDE'X CASE 3
=
Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units I,2,3 and 4), LBP 7418,7 AEC 538 (1974) time required to conduct formal hearing on request for esemption from regulations; CLI-41-35,14 NRC 1805 (1981)
Carolina P wer & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units I,2,3 and 4), LBP 78-2,7 NRC 83, 88 (1978) duties of munsel and parties regarding disclosure of information LBP-814),14 NRC 1792 (1981)
Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shenron Harris Nuclear Power Nat, Units I - 4), CLI-79 5,9 NRC 609, 610 (1979) margin of error implicit in need for power forecasts; DD-81 12,14 NRC 273 (?981) ancertainty in need for power predictions; DD-81-!2,14 NRC 269 (1981)
Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Nat Units I,7,3 and 4), CLI-74-9,7 AEC 197 (1974) need for a hearing on request for exemption from regulations; CLI-8135,14 NRC 1104 (1981)
Carolina Power and IJght Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Nat Units 1,2,3 and 4), CLI-78-18,8 NRC 293 (1978) scope of licensing board review; ALAB462,14 NRC 1835 (1981)
Carolina Power and Li hs Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Nat, Units I,2,3, and 4), ALAB-490,8 t
NRC 234,241 (1978)
State regulatory determinations of need for power; ALAB462,14 NRC l133 (1981)
Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Units 14), CLI 8012,11 NRC $14,516 (1980)
Seaff declines proposal that it review and certify all long-term items regarding license conditions; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1419 (1981)
Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Units I,2,3 and 4), ALAB-577,11 NRC 18,30 (1980)
Licensing Board suthority to consider need for and matent of EIS; LBP-8140,14 NRC 17271728 (1981)
Carchna Power and Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Nat Units I,2,3, and 4), CLI-79-5, l
9 NRC 607,609 (1979) j reopening remrd to consider changes in electric power der.nand forecasts; DD-81 I2,14 NRC 272 (1981)
Chrysler Corporation v. Brown,441 US. 281,60 led. 2d 208,99 S.Ct.1705 (1979)
I confidentiahty as a matter of right ander Freedom of Information Act; LBP-8150,14 NRC 891,893 (1981)
Cities of Anaheim, et al., Californis v. Southern California Fh Co., C.D. Cal. No. CV 78-810 MML (May 19,1981) controlhng precedent on collateral estoppel relevant to antitrust pr==har LBP-8158,14 NRC 1872, 1873 (1981)
Citizens for Safe Power Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory e
. 524 F.2d 1291,1294 and (n. 3 (D.C. Cir.
1975) modification of staff. prepared FES by licensing board decision based on evidentiary record, A1AB460, 14 NRC 1014 (1981)
Citizens for Safe Power v. Nuclear Regulatory Comoussion,524 F.2d 1291,1297 (D.C. Cir.1975) assurances required for safe operation of a nuclear facility; LBP-81-59,14 NRC 1248 (1981)
Cleveland Electric illuminating Co., et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Nat Units 1 & 2) LBP 8124,14 NRC 175, 181 184, 189-192, 197 (1981) admissibility of contentions, interpretation of term
- reasonable specificity"; LBP-81-45,14 NRC 856 (1981) standards for judging bases of contentiors in show cause proceedings; LBP-8155,14 NRC 1622 (1981)
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Nat, Units I & 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741, 750 (1977) denial of motion to reopen record on noti for power issue; DD-81 12,14 NRC 271 (1981)
Colher, Shannon, Rill and Scott,8 DOE 180,129 (1981) appropriately marking affidavit for confidentiality; LBP-8142,14 NRC 1764 (1981)
Columbia Packing Co., Inc. v. Derettment of Agriculture,563 F 2d 495,498 (1st Cir.1977) eaceptions to regulations dealing with confidentiality of identities of individuals accused of cheating; LBP-8150,14 NRC 892 (1981)
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Carroll County Site), ALAB401,12 NRC 18,26 (1980) purpose of early site review procedures; ALAB457,14 NRC 976 (1981) ae' Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-185,7 AEC 240 (1974) discovery rules between parties; LBP-8141,14 NRC 1742 (1981)
,9 l
42 l
l l
l I
9 LEGAL CITA110NS INDEX f
CASES er Commonwealth Edison Ca (Zion Station, Units I and 2), AIAS416,12 NRC 419,426 (1980) ocope of decontamination bearing to include proposed hcense amendments; CLl4125,14 NRC 624 yg g
(1988)
Commonweahn FAiaae Co. (Zios Units I and 2), ALAB416,12 NRC 419,421422 (1980) granting of license on basis of commitments by applicant; LBP4159, le NRC I413,14151416,1418 (1981)
Commonwealth Edisco Ca v. Alle-Chalmers Mfg. Ca. 315 P 2d $64 (7th C5r. IM3), cert. dem,375 US.
834,84 S. Ct. 64,11 L Ed. 2d 64 (1963) application of collateral estowel la case of late latervention; L8P-8158,14 NRC 1873 (IMI)
Common =calth Edman Company (Zion Station, Units I and 2) LBP 80 7,18 NRC 245,269,273,279-80, 295 (1980); affirmed ALAMI6,12 NRC 419 (October 2,1980) criticality analyses, compariaos of U-235 content requirements la fuel assemblies at Zion and Dresden; j
LBP-8137,14 NRC 720 (1981)
Concerned About TrWest v. Ramsfeld,555 F.2d 817,825 (D C Cir.1977) ansideration of alternatsves to completed projects; LBP4124,14 NRC 202 (IMI)
Concerned Citizens of Rlrode Island v. Nuclear Regulatory r----'
' _430 F. Sepp. 627,632-33 (D.R.L 1977)
{
ownership of proposed nuclear power plant site by applicant seeking early site review; ALAM62.14 l
NRC l136 (1981)
Connecticut v. Massachusetts,282 US. 660,674 (1931) requirements for showing of irreparable injury, LBP4130,14 NRC 360 (1981)
Consolidated Edison Ca of New York (Indian roist Nuclear Generating Station, Units I,2 & 3),
i ALAB-319,3 NRC 188,190 (1976)
Staff position on solely sponsored contention of voluntarily disnussed intervonor; LBP4113,14 NRC 165-166 (1981)
Consoldated Edison Ca of New York (Indina Point Station, Units I,2 and 3), CLI-77-2,5 NRC 13,15 i
(1977)
NRC staff obliged to lay materials relevant to pending cases before Board; ALAS 449,14 NRC 42 (1981)
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Unit No. 2), CLI-72-29,5 AEC 20 (1972) special circumstances required for admission of pressure vessel cracking costantions; LSP-8124,14 NRC 227 (1981)
Consoldated Edmon Company of New York (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3), CLI-74-28,8 AEC 7, 9 (1974) proveion for making findials of fact and conclusions of law la operating license,-- ' 7-LBP4123, y
14 NRC 162 (1981) sua spoets authority of board regarding earthquake issue; LBP-8136,14 NRC 707 (1981)
Coneohdated Ednan Campsey of New York (Indian Foint. Unit Nos. I,2,3), CLI-754,2 NRC 173,176 (1975) 2.206 procedure not a vehicle for reconsideration of issue previously decided in ramme %,,.
Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Nat), LBP 8N,11 NRC 117,127 (1980) consideration of applicant's financial qualificaticas for spent feel pool sapansion; LBP-81-53,14 NRC 915 (1981)
Consumers Power Ca (Big Rock Point Nuclear Nat). ALAS 436,13 NRC 312,326,328-29 (1981) consideration of alternstrves to steam generator repairs, where EIS is required; AIAS460,14 NRC 1004 (1981)
Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point), ALAS 43613 NRC 330, a.35 (1981) significar.t environmental impact by spent fuel pool expansion, requiring EIS, argued by intervemors, l
LBP st 53,14 NRC 914,915 (1981)
Consumers Power Ca (Midland Plant, Units I & 2), CLI-73-38,6 AEC 1082,1083 (1973) immediate suspensaan of hcrase act effected by issuance cf show cause order; DD4123,14 NRC 3818 i
l (1981) i Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I sad 2) AIAB-458,7 NRC ISS, 165 (1978) considerstaca of energy conserystion as ahernative to proposed steam generstar repairs; AIAS460,14 NRC 1005 (1981)
}
Consumers Power Ca (Midland Nat. Units I and 2), ALAB 235,8 AEC 645,646 (1974) tolling of appeal period while petitiae for reconsderation of darisian is is question; A1AM59,14 NRC j
985 (1981)
Consumers Power Ca (Midland Nat, Units I and 2) ALAB 382,5 NRC 603,606 (1977) standard for granting request for directed certification; ALAS 463,14 NRC 1862 (1981)
Q y,,
i 43 1
1 1
1
i I
G 12 GAL CRAT10NS INDEX CASBS r---s Power Co. (Midland P% deita I and 2), ALAB 382,5 NRC 603,600 (1977) discretionary authority of IMme board to caH its own expert wi'a==== LBP-8147,14 NRC 873 (1983) use of * ', * ^ expert witnesses by NRC adjudicatory boards; ALAB463, le NRC 1855 (1988) e-=-s Power Ca (Midland Plant, Units I add 2), ALAB 458,7 NRC 155.177, fa. 87 (1978) legal principles regarding duty of disclosure; LDP4143,14 NRC 1778,1800 (1981) ra====-s Power Co. (Mulland Plast, Units I and 2), ALAB-458,7 NRC 162-163 (1978) ca===iam authority to reject applicant's proposal in favor of more aaaaamical alternative; ALA3460, 14 NRC 1007 (1981) r==-s Power Ca (Midland Maat, Units I and 2), CL1-74-3,7 AEC 1012 (1973)
Intsat conditions with potential le harm are samcient for laundiate effectiveness of liceans====d===t; CLI-8129, le NRC 943 (1981) cama.m.,s Power Co. (Mid'and Plant, daits I and 2), Praearing Conference Order Raling on Contentions andce ra==aMation of Pr===tia9a (mapublished), slip 9. pp.13-14 (October 24,1980) amanaMation of Courimiana enforcement and Hr==ain9 LBP4b31,14 NRC 377 (1981)
Consumers Power Cat (Midland Unita I and 2), ALAB-4 2,6 NR 892 (1971) function of electric stilities' coordination servicus; LDP-81-58, le NRC I19 i (1981)
Consumers Power Ca (Midland Units I and 2), LDP-75 39,2 NRC 29 (1971) similarity betwesa legal standards of Federal Energy Regulatory ca==iamii e and NRC; LDP4158,14 NRC 1I75 (1981)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland, Units I and 2), AIAB 379,5 NRC 565, Sr 7 (1977) effect accorded to rebuttable preammption armadard; LBP41-59,14 NRC 4463 (1981)
D'Ippolito v. Cities Servs. Ca,39 F.R.D. 610 (S.D.N.Y t.965) application of attorney work proshet priviiste to material dh to third party; LBP4143,14 NRC 1794 (1981)
Dalryland Power Cooperative (Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor), LBP-40 2,11 NRC 44,78 (1980) ased for nuclear power to meet reserve margin requirement of power pool; DD41 I2,14 NRC 268 (1981)
Dairyland Power Cooperative (Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor), LBP-80 26,12 NRC 367,373 (1980) standing to intervene, physical proximity of petitioner to plant; LBP-8126,14 NRC 254 (1981)
Danville Tobacco Association v. Bryant Buckner Associates,Inc.,333 F.2d 202 (4th Cir.1964) laberent power of trial judge to appoint own expert wi'a-LBP41-47,14 NRC 872 (1981)
Detroit Edison Company (Earico Fermi Atomic Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-469,7 NRC 470,471 (1978) replies to answers to motions; LBP-31 18,14 NRC 72-73 (1981)
Duke Power Ca (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station Units I & 2) LDP-7913,9 NRC 489,323-28 (1979) grounds for denial of request for show cause order with respect to construction permit holders; DD4123, 14 NRC 1809 (1981)
Duke Power Ca (Amendment to Materials f la==== SNM-1733-Transportation of Spent Fuel from Ocmase Nuclear Station for Starsae at McGuire Neclear Statica). ALAB451,14 NRC 312-14 (1981)
NEPA consideration Iow-level radioactive waste managemsat plan; LBP-81-40,14 NRC 332-833 (1981)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-355,4 NRC 397,401,406 (1976) prompt disclosure of new information mandstory: LDP4143,14 NRC 1783 (1981)
+
Duke Power Ca (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I nad 2), ALAB 355,4 NRC 397,405 (thah= 29, 1976) explanation of cost / benefit balance for proposed nuclear power plaats: DD-81 *2,14 NRC 268 (1981)
Duka Power Ca (Catawba Station Units I and 2), ALAB-355,4 NRC 397,413 (1976) brief lacking meaningful argument; ALAlk650,14 NRC 50 (1981)
Duka Power Ca (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), AIAB-355,4 NRC 397 at 406, fa. 26 Board must be informed of changing circumstances during adjudication; LBP-81-38,14 NRC 769 (1981)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-359,4 NRC 619,620 (1976) dissatisfied litigmat seeking to reopen record has ddficult burden; DD41 12,14 NRC 271 (1981)
Duke Power Co. (McGuire Nuclear Station Units I and 2), AIAS-143,6 AEC 623,625 (1973) effects of unexplained NRC Staff slippages compared to changing circumstances, new information during adjudication; LBP-8138,14 NRC 769 (1981)
NRC staff obliged to inform licensing red appeal boards of signifxant developments in psoding cases; AIAB449,14 NRC 42 (1981) responsibilities of parties to inform board, other parties of relevant new information; DD41 18,14 NRC 930 (1981)
Duke Power Ca (Ocomes Nuclear Statica and McGuire Nuclear Station) AIAIL651,14 NRC 313 (1981),
w w
rew's. LBP-80-28,12 NRC 459,469-71 (1980) respannibility of cronssi to discloes relevant factual information; LBP4143,14 NRC 1779 (1981) i x
l
I i
O i
12 GAL MAT 10NS INDEX
[
Casts I
c 3p
)
Duke Power Ca (Parkins Nuclear Station, Units I,2 and 3), LBP-78-25,8 NRC 87 (1978), appeal pending y
i~,
- -- tal effects of rados releases frten uranism asiaing and milliar ALAB-654,14 NRC 633
)
Mdanc/5L i
(1981)
Duke Poest Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units I,2 and 3), LDP-78-25,8 NRC 87,90,95100 (1978) support, try evidentiary record, of redom==iania== findines LBP-8143, le NRC 1786-1789 (1981)
Duke Power Ca (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), AIAB-143,6 AEC 623,6254 (1973)
I duty of prompt, amtmative disclosure of new information; LBP-8143, le NRC 1782,1783 (1981)
Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-597, il NRC 370 (1980) prtial initial decision appealable; LDP-8132,14 NRC 584 (1981)
Duke Power Co. (William B. McOsire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CLl41 15. I4 NRC I (3 mas 29, 1981)
Board treatment of hydrogen control matentioma; LDP-81-24,14 NRC 208 (1961)
Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, lac., 397 F. Sepp I146,1172 75 (DS.C 1974) application of attorney work product prtvilege to material d ae8a -d to third party, LBP-3143,14 NRC.
1794 (1981)
Eastern Greyhound Line v. Fosco,310 F.2d 632,634 (6th Cir.1962) requirements for showing of irreparable injury; LBP4130,14 NRC 360 (1981)
}
Ecology Aciion v. US.A.E C.,492 F.2d 998 (2d Cir.1974) statement of policy aDesed harmfal to intervescre, stay denied; CLI-81 16,14 NRC 19 (1981)
Edlow laternational Ca (SNM Export), CLI-7716,5 NRC 1327,1328 (1977) consolidatice of proceedings involving <xurunon issues; LBP41-31, le NRC 377 (1981)
Edlow International Company, CLI 764,3 NRC 563 (1976)
{
bearing as a matter of right, fuel export application pr~~ diar CLI-81 18,14 NRC 303 (1981)
Edlow International CLI 764,3 NRC 563,584,585 (1976) beslth, safety and environmental impacts not ea===d-ed la evaluating fuel export applicatioma; CLI-81 18, 14 NRC 303 (1981) t Environmental Defense Fund v. Froehlke,477 F.2d 1033 (8th Cir.1973) intervenor has burden of making strong shouing to prevail ce merits of appeal of Final Order, LBP-31-30, I
le NRC 359 (1981)
Environmental Defense Fund, lac. v. Frachlke,348 FSeppl. 338,366 (W.D. Ma 1972), aff*d 477 F.2d 1033 (8th Cir.1973) requirements for strong showing, petition for stay of effectivemens of runwd=1 antitrust conditions to j
operating license; CLI-88-27,14 NRC 797 (1981)
Federal Power Commmason v. Conway Corp. 426 US. 271 (1976) l application of Federal Ener8y Regulatory ^
legal standards to NRC antitrust prmam&ar i
LBP-8158,14 NRC 1875 (1981)
Florida Cities v. Florida Power & Light Ca (US.D.C. Southern District of Florida), thaha 13,1981 efTect of antitrust proceeding on; LBP-81-58,14 NRC 1188 (1981)
Florida Power & Light Ca (St.1.mcie Plant, Unit 2) DD4115,13 NRC 589 (Docket Na 50 389 August 7, 1981)
NRC jurindactaan to review d=aah of Rural Electrification Ad=>a awation; DD41-18,14 NRC 927
(
(1981) i Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Plant, Unit Na 2), CLI-78-12,7 NRC 939 (1978) amrmation of late petition to intervese; LBP-8158,14 NRC 1871 (1981) l Florida Power & LJght Co. (St Lucie, Unit 2), ALAB403,12 NRC 30 (1980)
{
factora for determining application of sungle failure criterios; LBP-8159, le NRC 1354,1357-1358 i
(1981) i value of sua sponte review; CLI-81-33,14 NRC 1096 (1981) j Flanda Power & Lieht Ca v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commissaan (5th Cir. Na 80 5259, Nov. 6,1981) j application of collateral estoppel; LBP-8158,14 NRC 3180 (1981)
Flanda Power & Light Co.,37 FPC 544,551552 (1967), reversed 430 F.2d 1377 (5th Cir.1970), reversed, Florida Power & Light Co. v. FPC,404 US. 453 (1972) f application of milateral estoppel; LDP-8158,14 NRC 1181 (1981)
Florida Power & Light Co., O faion Nos. 57 and 57A,32 PUR 4th 313. Dec. 21,1979 f
I application of collateral estoppel; LBP-8158,14 NRC 1872 (1981) florida Power & Light Company, CPPR 144, Amendment Na 3,3.F.(6),Section X, issued May 26,1981 (46 F.R. 31394).
}
2.206 petition alleles failure of antitrust condition of license concern as tranami= = of electricity; DD.81 15, le NRC 590 (1981) i 4
,s i
1
I O
IIGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Florida Power and Light Ca (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-404,5 NRC 1185,118649 importance of showing of success on merits, petition for stay of effectivenene of remedial antitrust conditions to operating license; CLt-8127,14 NRC 797 (1981) stay of Final Order, absent irreparable injury, mormat must make m..;. *.; 3 showins of success en merits; LBP-88 30,14 NRC 359 (1981) florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Units 3 and 4) LBP4114,13 NRC 677 (1951) persone of specificity requirement of aantentions; LBP-8141,14 NRC 1737 (1988)
Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nat, Unit 3), DD 80628,12 NRC 386,388 (1980) requirements imposed because of steam Senerator problems; DD4121,14 NRC 1079,1081 (1981)
Florida Power and Light Ca, Docket Na ER78-19 (orders of December 21,1979 and February 6,1980) application of collateral estoppel; LBP41-58,14 NRC 1872 (1981)
Florida Power and Light Co., Opinion Na 517,37 f?C 544 (1967) application of collateral estoppel; LBP4158,14 NRC 1872 (1981)
Fuentes v. Shevin,407 US. 67,80 (1972) procedural due process rights in overtime restnctions case; LBP4126,14 NRC 255,257 (1981)
Fusati v. Steinberg,419 US. 379,391 (1975) counsel's duty regarding prompt, affirmative disclosure of new information; LDP4143, le NRC 178)
(1981)
GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Ca (S.D.N.Y.) 1981-2 Trade cases W,205 at 73,751 application of collateral catoppel where separate trials were requcated; LBP-8158,14 NRC 1873 (19813 GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Ca.1981 Trade Cas.164.205, at 73,749 (S.D.N.Y. August 3,1981) consideration of finahty of decision in application of collateral estoppel effect; LBP-8158,14 NRC 1889 (1981)
Gage v. AEC,479 F.2d 1214,1214,1222 (D.C. Cir.1973) ownership of proposed nuclear power plant site by applicant seeking early site review; ALAB462,14 NRC 1836 (1981)
Gainsville Utilities Department v. Florida Power & Light Co, 573 F.2d 292 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 US. 966 (1978) apphcstion of collateral estoppel; LBP-81-58,14 NRC 1172 (1981) motion for summary judgment of antitrust issues; LBP4 919,14 NRC 88,90 (1931)
Geders v. United States,425 US. 80,90, n.3 (1976) esponsibilities of counsel and witness regarding prepared written testimony; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1799 (1981)
General Electric Company, CLl41-2,13 NRC 67 (1981) petitioner denied bearing on applications for expor's to Taiwan and South Kores; CLl41 18,14 NRC 302 (1981)
Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Nat, Units I and 2), ALAB-291,2 NRC 404,408-12 (1975) duty of prompt, affirmative disclosure of new information; L8P 8163,14 NRC 1782 (1981)
Georgia Power Company (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Nat Una Nos. I and 2), DD-79-18,10 NRC 617 (1979) attempt to reopen record on need for power issue; DD-81-12,14 NRC 267 (1981)
Georgia Power Company (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Nat Units I and 2) DD-79-4,9 NRC M2 (1979) attempt to reopen record on need for power issue; DD-81 12,14 NRC 267 (1981)
Georgia Power Company (AMn W. Vogtle Nuclear Nat, Units I and 2), DD 79-4,9 NRC 582,584 (1979) reconsider'stion of decisions based on EIS not required by NEPA: DD-81 12,14 NRC 278 (1981)
Georgia Power Compsny (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Nat Units I and 2), DD4013, Il NRC 503 (1980) attempt to reopen record on need for power issue; DD-81 12,14 NRC 267 0981)
Geor8 a Power Company (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Nat, Units I and 2), DD4013, il NRC 503,505 i
(1980) need for power must coincide reasonably with operational date of plant; DD4112,14 NRC 2n (1981)
Georgia Power Company (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Nat. Units I-4), LBP-74 39,7 AEC e95 (1974),
LBP-77 2,5 NRC 261 (1977); affirmed, ALAB-375,5 NRC 423 (1977) need for power found. -..wii., permits issued; DD 81 12,14 NRC 267,269 (1981)
Getmas v. N.LR.B.,450 F.2d 670,674,675 (D.C. Cir.1971) exceprione to regulations dealing with confidentiality of identities of individuals accused of cbeating; LBP4150,14 NRC 892 (1981)
"l Goocales v. United States,286 F.2d lit.121 (ICth Cir.1960), cert. denied 365 US. 878 (1961) test of materiality of a statement; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1781 (1983) i NSDI 46
ww------------
l t
e
{
12 GAL QTA11016 DGIEE l
CABus
,s
-a da y
I
' 4-
~
Oranais v. Ordens,234 UA 385,394 (1988)
Union claims right to bearing madsr Due Process Clases of Constitution; LSP4126,14 NRC 254 (IMI) 1 _,. '._
Oreene County Planning Board v. Federal Powerca===aa= 455 F.2d 412,419 (2nd Cir.1972) right of Bard to rains issues ses spense: LSP-8I 23,14 NRC 168 (1981)
Oresme County Planning Board v. FPC,559 F.2d 1227 (2nd Cir.1976), cert. denied,434 UA 1086 (1978) reopeaang NEPA record; DD41-12 le NRC 271 (IMI)
Osti States Utilities Ca (River Band Station, Units I and 2), CLI-7616,4 NRC 449 (1976) ased for a hearing as regeest for reia= frasi regulations: CLI4135,14 NRC 1105 (IMI)
Ostf States Utilities Co. (River Bond Station, Units I and 2), LBP 7510, 8 NRC 246,248 (1975) avoidance of answering saamary disposition ce more hops of dsscrediting mossat's evidemos at trial; LSP-81-48,14 NRC 843 (1981)
Gulf States Utilities Ca v. Feestal Powere--
418 UA 747 (1973) application of Federal Energy Regulatory ra=====a= le8al standards to NRC antitrust proceeding; LBP-4158,14 NRC II75 (IMI)
Gulf States Utilities Ca v. Federat Powere-
_ Dist. col 1973,93 S.CL 1870,411 US 747,36
+
L.Ed. 635, rehearing denied 93 S.Ct. 2767,412 UA 944,37 L.Ed.2d 405 l
intervretion la antitrust proceedias denied, other means available to protect petitioner's interests; i
LBP-4128,14 NRC 334 (IMI)
Gulf States Utilitiescamp==y (River Band Station, Units I & 2), ALAB 444,6 NRC 740,771 et est.
(1977) reesco for requiring greater specincity la contentions; LBP41 IS,14 NRC 75 (IMI)
Outf States Utilities Company (River Band Station, Units I and 2), AIAB-444,5 NRC 760 (1977) i guidance for dealing with marssolved pseeric safety issues; LBP4121,14 NRC 116,118119 (1981) i Hamlia Tsating Laboratories, lac,2 AEC 423,428 (1964)
I responsibility cf counsel to diaria=* relevant factual information; LBP-Sl43,14 NRC 1779 (IMI) l Harding v. Carr,19 R I 32,83 A.2d 79 (1951) preclusion of collateral estoppel with shift in burdes of proof; LSP-4158,14 NRC 3177 (IMI) t Hickmaa v. Taylor,329 US 495,51011 (1947) delineatiori of work prodxt prmlege; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1793,1794 (IMI)
Houston IMting & Pmt Company (ADens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2),
ALAB ?JI,2 NRC 853 (1975) partial.sitial decision immediately appealable; LBP-8132,14 NRC 583 (IMI)
Houston Ligeting amt Power Co. (ADeas Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB 535,9 NRC e
377 (1979) denial of intervention for lack of standias; LBP4124,14 NRC 237 (IMI)
Houston Lisbties and Power Ca (ADees Creek Nuclear Osmerating Station, Unit 1), AIAB-590,11 NRC 542, 548-49 (1980) evidentiary showing not required for admission of contentions, AIAS462,14 NRC 1134 (IMI) inadmissibility of aantention asking preparatice of programmatic _
tal impact statesment on steam generator repairs; ALAS 460. I4 NRC 1000 (IMI)
Houston Lighting and Power Ca (ADene Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), AIAB 590, il NRC 542, 550 (1980) eafety-related concrete contention as type of issue to be decided puremant to seasaary '
LSP-8148,14 NRC 883 (1981) l Houston Ughting and Power Ca (Allene Creek Station, Unit I) AIAB.590,11 NRC 542,546 (1980) standards for intervenors participating pro se; A1AS450,14 NRC 50 (lMI)
Houston UgL:ing and Power Ca (South Tsans Project, Unit Nos. I nad 2), CLI 77-13,5 NRC 1303,1309 (1977) regime for = Mas antitrust concerns cosaected with nuclear power plaat licemanas: AIAS461,14 i
NRC 182l (1981)
Houstai Lighting and Power Ca (South Teams Project. Units I and 2), CLI-88 28,14 NRC 933 (November 4,1981)
I curtailment of investigation of safety or environmental issues safavorable to appbcaat; CLI-81-33,14 NRC 1096 (1981)
Houston Lighting and Power Ca. et al (South Texas Project, Unite I & 2), AIAS439,13 NRC 469,474 i
(1981) ased to coarnleatial Laformation: CLI 8I-28,14 NRC 938 (1981)
MW I'
Houston hties and Pwer Company (ADeas Creek Nuclear Generating Seption, Unit 1), A1AB 535,9 NRC 377,393 (1979) f standing to ir ervene, physical pronamity of petitioner to plant; LSP4126,14 NRC 254 (1981)
^
O i
i
t i,
O 12 GAL GTA110NS INDEX CASES Mf"7 h_ 3,
-?.(N 3
Houstee Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Statiot Unit I), AIAB-565,10 NRC 521 (1979)
,J %
1 replies to answers to awla=a LBP41-18,14 NRC 73 (IMI)
'-A Houstco IJahtias and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ustt I), ALAB 590, il NRC 542 (1980) acceptance of costsetion concerning ice buildup at earvice water intake; LBP4123,14 NRC 173 (1981) at pleading stage, lateneaar must state reasons for contentions; LDP 88-33A,14 NRC 369 (1981) limitations ce power cf licensing boards to esclude contaationo; LBP41-24,14 NRC 181-183,191 (1981) litigatice of contentions based ce TMI acxsdent; CLI-81 16,14 NRC 21 (1981) i Houstee Lighting and Power Company, et at (South Texas Project. Units I and 2), LBP 7910,9 NRC 439 (1979),445-449; appeal struck, ALAB 545,9 NRC 634 (1979) residence standare used for latervention la operating license proceedias: LBP-8124 I4 NRC 178 (1981)
Houstee IJahting and Power Company, et al. (South Texas Project Units I and 2), LBP-7947,10 NRC 563 (1979), afrd summarily, ALAB-575, II NRC 14 (1980) parties limitation to collateral estoppel doctrias; LBP4124,14 NRC 199 (1981)
ICCv.J City,322 US. 503,514 (1944)
Supreme predisposed against reopeaans ad-ia=trative record; DD4312,14 NRC 270 (1981)
Illinois v. NRC,591 F.2d 12,14 (7th Cir.1979) bearing to reassess need for not required by law; DD41 12 le NRC 266 (198I)
!!!imais v. Nuclear Regulatory -
'. 59I F.2d 12 (7th Cir,1979) storage of radioactive wastes casite does not convert site to disposal facility; ALAM60,14 NRC 1013 (1981) la re Cesar's Palace Securities Litigation,360 F. Supp. 366,386, fa.19 (SDNY 1973) comparisce of acadisclosures and misleading statements; LDP-8143,14 NRC 1780 (1981)
In re Grand Jury Subposes Dated November 8,1979,622 F.2d 933 (6th Cir.1980) application of attorney work product privilege; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1794 (1981) laCan tookout A!!iance v. Volpe,484 F.2d II (8th Cir.1973) segmentation of EIS, shipment of spent fuel assemblies; AIAB-651, le NRC 313 (1981)
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Jersey City,322 US. 503,514 (1944) application of NEPA rule of reason to considerstion of _.;
tal consequences of proposed steam l
3enerator repairs; ALAB 660,14 NRC 1005 (198I)
Jaffer v. Brown, No.815478 (9th Cir., filed November 4,1981) remedial actionis agafast licensee for failure to most -
- =ts; CLI-88 30,14 NRC 953 (1981)
Jamiaan v. Miracle Mile Rambler,Inc.,536 F.2d 54 564 (3d Cir.1976) dismissal of construcuos permit application with prejudice,limitatices ca applicast's future acuvities.
ALAB-657,14 NRC 973 (1981)
Jones v. Lynn 477 F.2d 885,890 (1st Cir.1973) reconsideration of need for power issue as attempt to reform past d=~-=aking LDP4124,14 NRC 202 (1981)
Jones v. SEC,298 US 1,19 (1936)
)
possibuity ce future litigation as basis for diaminaal of construction permit application with prejudice; j
ALAB462,14 NRC 1135 (1981) prospect of==anad application for construction permit not cause for danaimaal with prejudice; ALAB457, l
14 NRC 979 (1981)
Kasses City Gas and Electric Co., Kansas City Power and Light Cat (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1), CLI-76-20,4 NRC 476 (1976) need for a hearing ce request for exemption from regulations; CLI 81-35,14 NRC 1104 (1981)
Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), AIAB-462,7 NRC 320,334 n. 30 (1978) i costs aa-au rei la determining financial qualiruations of applicants at construction permit stage; 1
DD41-23,14 NRC 1809 (1981)
Kaasas Gas and Electric Ca (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), AIAB-462,7 NRC 320,338 (1978) burdes of party seeking to reopen record; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1497 (1981)
J contribution or propagatios analysis to resolution of gross loss of water question, opent feel pool expansion I
proceeding; ALAB450,14 NRC 63 (1981) l antimely motice to supplement record denied, issue raised for first time os appeal lacks greve public l
health and safety im ' tions; AIA8448,14 NRC 38-39 (1981) ranama Ges and Electric (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit Na 1), AIAB-279,1 NRC 559 (1975) latervenor alleges isshanos of operating license maintains situation ianamaistaat with antitrust laws; LDP4119,14 NRC 92 (1981)
-s latervention petition la antitrust pr===&at must show seras; L3P4128,14 NRC 348,349 (1981) 2&
M a
i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX u
untimely intervention la antitrust prMap situation inconsistent with antitrust laws not shown; LBP-88 28,14 NRC 348 (1981)
Kansas Gas and Electric Ca (Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit No I). ALAB-299,2 NRC 740 (1975) f ar, timely intervention in antitrust procer Ims, situation inconsistent with antitrt et laws not showa; l
LSP41-28,14 NRC 348,350 (1981)
Kansas Gas and Electnc Co., et at (Wolf Creek Neclear Generating Station, Unit I) AIAB-327,3 NRC i
?
408 (1976) jurisdiction of boards concerning confidentiality of fded documents; LBP-8142,14 NRC 17531754, 1754-1757, 1758, 1765 (1981)
Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit Na 1), ALAB-462,7 NRC 320, 327 (1978) forecasts of electricity demand used to demonstrate need for power; DD-88-12,14 NRC 268,269 (1981) i Kansas Gas and Electric Company and Kansas City Power and Ught Company (Wolf Creek Generating i
Station, Unit No IL LBP-75-13,1 NRC 268 at 271 (1975) matimwly intervenu is antitrust proceeding denied, sexus not estamha+ LBP 88 28, I4 NRC 350 1
(1981)
Kelley v. United States,338 F.2d 328 (1st Or.1964) sanctions for majustified refusals or failures to comply with discmery orders; LBP-88 52,14 NRC 908 (1981)
Klein v. Califano,586 F.2d 250,257 (3d. Cir.1978) dormition of property interests is overtune restrictions case; LSP-81-26,14 NRC 257,258 (1981) i Kleppe v. Sierra Cub,427 US. 390 (1976) scope of NEPA review regarding storage of low-level radioactive wastes; LBP41-40,14 NRC 833 (1981) i Kleppe v. Sierra Club,427 US. 390,410 (1976)
)
factor determining need for programmatic environmental impact statement on progxaed steam geacrator i
repairs; ALAB 660,14 NRC 1009 (1981) i 1.mCompte v. Mr. Chip, loc.,528 F.2d 601,604 (5th Cir.1976)
~
dismissal of construction permit application with prejudice deemed abuse of licensing board discretaca.
ALAB-657,14 NRC 974,978,979 (1981)
Img liland Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-99,6 AEC 53 (1973) deferral, to the t'-W of issues that are the subject of rulemaking; LBP-81-51,14 NRC 898 (1981)
Imisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Generating Station, Unit 3), CLI 73-25,6 AEC 619 (1973) intervention petition la antitrust proceeding must show eenus; LBP-81-28,14 NRC 348 (1981)
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Wateric,rd Steam Electric Generating Station Unit 3), CLI 73-25,6 AEC i
619, 621 4 22 (1973) issuance of construction permit pending outcome of antitrust bearing; ALAB461,14 NRC !!20 (1981)
Imisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterfor( Steam Electric Generating Station, Unit 3), CLI-73-25,6 AEC 619,622 a.23 (1973) need for a hearing on request for esemption froan regulations; CLl41-35,14 NRC !!04 (IMI)
Lammus Co. v. t'a==aawealth Oil Refining Cat,297 F.2d 80,87-90 (2d Cir.1961) consideratice of finality of M4= in applicatica of collateral estoppel effect; LBP-8158. I4 NRC 1889 (1981)
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-!61,6 AEC 1003 i
(1973), affirmed 7 AEC 2 (1974), affirmed sub noat Otiseria for Safe Power v. NRC 524 F.2d 1291 (D.C. Cir.1975) intervenors' rights to raise insasa; imposition of requirements beyond agency regulatices; CLI-8816,14
[
NRC 1618 (1981)
Maine Yankee Atoniic Power Company, CLI-74 2,7 AEC 2,4 (1974)
NRC policy for determining adequacy of protection, public beslth and safety; CLI41 16,14 NRC 21 (1981) 1 Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Comun's v. US. Postal Servica 487 F.2d 1029,1039 (D.C.
Cir.1973, Laventhal,1) i function of EIA, shipmsat of spent fuel -_ - - -' ; ALAS 451,14 NRC 317 (1981)
McVeith v. United States,78 US. 259,267 (I870)
I a, - -eg, j
unica claims right to bearing under Due Process Clause of Constitution; LBP-81-26,14 NRC 156 (1981) l Mertens v. Hummel 587 F.2d 862 (7th Or.1978) sanctions for majestified refusals or failures to comply with discovery orders; LSP41 52, le NRC 908 (1981) y'*
l 1
f I
f i
i
i t
i O
IIGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASE 3 Metropolitan Edison Ca (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I), CLI4016, il NRC 674 (1980) g.
accident scenario required for hydrogen bubble contentions; LBP4124,14 NRC 207 (1981) curtailment of investigation of safety or environmental issues unfavorable to applicant; CLl41-33,14 x -
NRC 1096 (1981) waiver of 10 CFR 50.44; CL1-81 15,14 NRC 9 (1981)
Metropolitan Edison Ca (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLl40 39,12 NRC 607 (1980) curtailment of investigation of safety or environmental issues unfavorable to applicant; CLI-81-33,14 NRC 1096 (1981)
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I), CLI41 19,14 NRL 304,305 (August 2G,1981) effectiveness of decision to restart: LBP4150,14 NRC 890 (1981)
Metropolitan Edison Ca (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. I), CLI&l6, il NRC 674 at 675 (1980) remedy for exclusion of contention concerning Seneric safety issue; LBP41-57,14 NRC 1038 (1981)
Metropohtan Edison Ca (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit Na 2), ALAB-486,8 NRC 9,21 (1978) burden of party seeking to reopen record whee motion is untimely; LBP-81-59,14 NRC 1497 (1981)
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit I), LBPel7,11 NRC 893 (1980) intervenor sanctioned for failure to comply with dismvery order; LBP41-32,14 NRC 392 (1981) sanctions for unjustified failures or refusals to comply with discovery orders; LBP-81-22,14 NRC 154
. (1981); LBP-8152,14 NRC 901(1981)
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit I), LBP-804, II NRC 297 (1980) consideration of psychological stress under NEPA: LBP-8132,14 NRC 393 (1981)
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit No.1), CLI-794,10 NRC 141 (1979) basis of NRC concerns about operation of TMI-l: LBP4132,14 NRC 387 (1981)
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit Na 1), CLIMI9,11 NRC 700 (1980) intervenor's request for financial assistance denied; LBP 8132,14 NRC 397 (1981)
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), CLI420, il NRC 705 (1980) financial assistance to intervenors addressing psychological stras issue not provided; LBP41-32,14 NRC 397 (1981)
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), Docket Na 50 289, September 26,1980 motion for reconsideration, hydrogen control issues, denied; CLI-81 15,14 NRC 9 (1981)
Metropolitan Edison Cc:npany (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit No. I) LBP423,12 NRC 227 (1980) provisions of procedural assistance rule extended to parties in restart proceeding; LBP41-32,14 NRC 398 (198l}
Michigan Consolidated Gas Ca v. FTC,283 F.2d 206,226 (D.C. Cir.1960) right of Board to raise issues sua sponte; LBP-8123,14 NRC 168 (1981)
Minnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir.1979) time period covered by NEPA environmental review for ensite storage of low-level radaanctive wastes; ALAB-660,14 NRC 1018 (1981)
Minnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,602 F.2d at 416 fa. 5 (D.C. Cir.1979) intervenor fails to show that impact of steam generator repairs would restrict choios of shernatives at another faci'ity: ALAB-660,14 NRC 1009 (1981)
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory h% 601 F.2d 223 (5th Cir.1979) certaorari denied 444 US. I102 (1980) payment of fees for NRC Staff work perfarnal for applicant; ALAB-662,14 NRC 1837 (1981)
Mississippi Power and light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAE L4.,6 AEC 423,426 (1973) admissibility of contentions; CLI-81-36,14 NRC III4 (1981)
Mississippi Power and Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 130,6 AEC 423, 424 (1973) appropriate functions of petition or intervention board; LBP4130A,14 NRC 367 (1981)
Mississippi Power and Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units I and 2. AIAB-130,6 AEC 423 (1973) j at pleading stage, intervenor not required to present evidena concerning conte.sm; LBP41-30A, le NRC 369 (1981) n, g
e
t h
I G
l 12 GAL QTATIONS INDEX i
CASM
- #..c - -
l y
s,.1 y limitations on power of licensing boards to esclude contentions; LBP4124 le NRC 181,183,185,190,
" k 191 (1981)
Masouri Pacirac RR Ca v. National Milling Ca. 409 F.2d 882 (3rd Cir. IM9)
- - - dd burden of persuasion la motion far sununary disposition of antitrust
- LBP4158,14 NRC 1891 a
(IMI) s
^
Montana v. United States,440 U1147 (1979) argumenta about privity la NRC antitrust prae== hap-LDP4158,14 NRC 1888 (IMI)
National Hockey 1Angue v. Metropolitaa Hockey Club,427 US 639,640 (1976) sanctions for majestaried refusals or failures to cosaply with decovery orden; LBP4152,14 NRC 908 (1988)
National Wildlifa Federation v. Appalachian Regional e--
000 F.2d 000,15 F R.C 1945 (D.C Cir.1981) recnosideration of need for power issue se attempt t-rufans pastd=4=-anaking; LDP48 24,14 NRC 202 (1981)
Natarat Resources Defense CouncG v. NRC,547 F.2d 663 (D.C Cir.1976) need for a hearing on request for esensption frosa regulations; CLl4135,14 NRC 1804 (IMI)
Natural Resources Defasse CouncG v. NRC,647 F.2d 1345 (IMI)
]
decision allowing special nuclear materials emparts to Philippines upheld; CLl41 18,14 NRC 302 (IMI)
Naturst Resources Defensee, man,. Nuclear kegulatory C- -
' 582 F.2d J66 (2d 'Y 1978) 4 assurance of safe storage of radicactive wasten; ALAB460,14 NRC 1011 (IMI)
Natural Resources Defense CouncG, lac. v. Marton,458 F.2d 827,832,837 (D.C Cir.1972) application of NEPA rule of reason to==id-ation of envirnammatal changes frosa proposed steam generator repairs; ALAB460,14 NRC 1004 (IMI)
Natural Resources Defense CouncG, lac. v. Morten,458 F.2d 827,838 (D.C Cir.1972) absence of credible mechanism for gross loss of water frosa spent fbal pool, EIS act requirut; AIA5450,
{
14 NRC 63 (1988)
Natural Resources Defense Camacu v. Morica. 458 F.2d 827,834 36 (D.C Cir.1972) i consideration of alternatives to connisted projecta: LBP-8124,14 NRC 202 (1981)
New England Coantion on Nuclear Pollation v. NRC,582 F.2d 87,93 (1st Cir.1978)
NRC discretias to dande appropriate finnacial geafirications of ha===a DD41-23,14 NRC 1808,1812 3
(1981)
New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC,582 F.2d 87,94 (let Cir.1978) dc.ermination of whether NEPA EIA is required for TMI restart; LBP4140,14 NRC 173I (1981)
New England Coaliten on Nuclear PoGution v. Nuclear ReSulatory e-
' ' 582 F.2d 87,93-94 (1st Cir.1978) modification of staff-prepared FES by licenatag board d=4=laa based om evulentiary renard; AIAS460, i
14 NRC 1014 (1981)
New England Coalition on Nuclear Fountion v. United States Nuclear Regulatory e-
_582 F.2d 87,97-98 (1st Cir.1978) seed for nuclear power to replace saisting fossG fuel-generated power; DD41-12.14 NRC 268 (IMl)
New England Power Ca (NEP Unita I and 2), LBP 78-9,7 NRC 271,28143 (1978) ownership of proposed nuclear power plant site by applicant seeking site review; ALA3462,14 NRC 1836 (1981)
New England Power Ca v. Nuclear Regulatory e
' 1 No. 81 1839 (lat Cir. Nov. 25. IMI) l payment of fees for NRC Staff work for applicant when application la eithdrawn; ALAS 462,14 NRC 1137 (1981) i Niagara Moha=k Power Corporation (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station Unit 2), ALA5 264,1 NRC I
347, 353 (1975) need for meclear power to replace salsting fassil feel-generated power; DD-8812,14 NRC 268 (1981)
Niagara Mohawk Pterer Corporation (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264,8 NRC 347, 352-69 (1975) reopening record to scander changes la electric power demand forecasts; DD41 12,14 NRC 278 (1981)
Northern Indiana Public Service Ca (Bailly Generating Station Nuclear l). ALAB-227,8 AEC 416,418 I
(1974) burden of party seeking to reopea record; LBP4159,14 NRC 1497 (1981)
I untimely motion to se meat record denied; ALAB448, le NRC 38 (IMI)
Northern ladiana Public
' Co. (Bailly Generating Station Nuclear 1), CLI 78-7,7 NRC 429,432-34 l
(1978), affd sub nom. Porter Comaty Chap. of the Isaak Walton Langue, lac. v. NRC,606 F.2d 1343 (D.C. Cir.1979) further inquiry into REA's eatension of flamacial assistance to licenses eat warrested; DEMI 18,14 NRC i
l 930, 931 (1981) s D
.g Si l
i IECAL CITATIONS INDEX t
1
-V~
.{
Northern Indiana Public Servia Ca (Bailly Generating Statka, Nuclear l), CLI-79-ll,10 NRC 733 (1979) reversed sub nom. People of the State of Illinois v. NRC, Na 801163 (D.C. Cir., July I,1981) p..
curtailment of investigation of safety or environmental issues unfavorable to applicaat; CLI-81-33,14 g -~ *Q NRC 1096 (1981)
Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailly Generating Station, Neckar I), CLI-78-7,7 NRC 429, 434 (1978)
?
2.206 procedure not a vehicle for reconsideration of issue previounty decided la Commission proceediass:
Northern States Power Ca (Monticello Nat, Unit I), ALAB 6tl,12 NRC 301,304 (1980)
Appeal Board standard la conducting sua sposte review; ALAB-655,14 NRC 803 (1981)
Northern States Power Ca (Prairis Island Nuclear Generating Nat, Units I sad 2), ALAB 427,6 NRC 212 (1977), and ALAB 343,4 NRC 169 (1976) steam generator degradation and its safety significance; ALAB-660,14 NRC 992 (1981)
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Nat Units I sad 2), ALAB 455,7 NRC 41,46 fa. 4 (1978), remanded on other grounds sub nom. Minnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Commissica.
602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir.1979) consideration of econonuc advantases of proposed alternatives to steam generator ret sirs; ALAB460,14 NRC 100J (1981)
Northern States Power Ca (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Nat, Units I and 2), en al. ALAB-455,7 NRC 41,48 (1978) environmental assessment of unavoidable consequences of five-year casite sacrase of low-level miioactive eastes; LBP-81-40,14 NI(C 833 (1981)
Northern States Power Ca (Prairie Island Nuclear Generation Plant) ALAB-455,7 NRC 41 (1978) significant environmental impact by spent fuel pool capensica, requiring EIS, aramed by latarvonors.
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-284,2 NRC 197 (1975) intervenors ask further analysis, spent fuel osidation ALAB-650,14 NRC 59,63 (1981)
Northern States Power Ca (Prairie Island Nat, Units I and 2) ALAB-455,7 NRC 41,45,44 a.4 (1978',
remanded in part on other grounds, Minnesota v. NRC,602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir.19793 scope of environmental analysis, determining whether spent fuel pool capansion is major federal action; ALAB450,14 NRC 66,68-69 (1981)
Northern States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1). AL AB-492,8 NRC 255 (1978) statement of policy alleged harmful to intervenors, stay dened; CLI-8816,14 NRC 19 (1981)
Northere States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Gen. rating Nat, Units I and 2), ALAB-4?J. 7 NRC 41 (n. 4 at 46 (1978) collateral estoppel applied although new parties have intervened la later proceeding; LBP-8124, t o NRC 200 (1981)
Northern States Power Company (Prairie Island Nuclear Ger4 rating Nat Units I and 2), Ve anoat Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yaakee Nuclear Station), ALAB-455,7 NRC 41,57 (1978) application of as-low as-reasonably-achievable standard to disposal of spent fuel racks; LDP-88 37,14 NRC 743 (1981)
Northern States Power Compsey (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-343,4 NRC 169 (1976)
NRC practice of review of appellata decision, ohysical security; CLI-8121,14 NRC 596 (1V81)
Northern States Power Company, et at (Tyrone Emergy Park, Unit I), LBP-77-37,5 NRC 1298,1301 3
(1977) sanctions for usustified failures or refusals to comply with discovery orders; LBP-8122,14 NRC 154 L
(1981)
Northern States Power Company, et at (Tyrone Energy Park, Uni I). LDP-77-37,5 NRC 1301 (1977) i admission of solely sponsored contentions of voluntarily dismissed intervenor; LBP 81-23,14 NRC 165, 167 (1981) sanaions for uNustified refusals or failures to crenply with discorar) orders; LBP-81-52,14 NRC 908 I
(1981) l NRDC v. Callaway,524 F.2d 79 (2nd Cir.1975)
EIS consideration of future waste dispoest; ALAB-451,14 NRC 316 (1981)
Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc. (Shemeld Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), CLI-79-6,9 l
NRC 673 (1979) latent conditions with potential for harm are sufficient for immediate effectivemass of license amendmeet; y ~ -,
j CLI.8129,14 NRC 542-943 (1981)
W 6
y t
i l
l
l I
i f
+
IZGAL CTTATIONS INDEX CA8E8
[" -\\
p 3 i;: ' ~
Offshore Power Systems (Fleeting Nuclear Power Nats), ALAB-489,8 NRC 194,202,206-07 (1.878) s' NRC Staff delays la issusace of documents, nature of staff and Board respcasibilities noted; LBP41-38, W
14 NRC 769,770 (1981)
Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plaats), ALAB-489,8 NRC 194,207 (1778) procedure for handling staff delays; CLI4136,14 NRC 1913 (1981)
Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Nats). CLI-79 9 IO NRC 257,261 (1979) liccasing boards not empowered to make icy; LBP-88-47,14 NRC 875 (1981)
Offshors Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Plaats. ALAB-449,8 NRC 201204 (1978) inherent poect of Licensing Board to shape course of proceeding; CLI-8136,14 NRC 1913 (1981) i Offshore Power Systems (htsaufacturing License for Floating Nuclear Power No s) LBP 7547,2 NRC 813, 817 (1975) sanctions for unjustified failures or refusals to comply with discovery orders; LBP41-22,14 NRC 154
(
(19917 sanctions for unjastified refusals or failures to comply with dascovery orders; LBP41-52, le NRC 90E (1981) 6 Pacire Gas & Electric Ca (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2), CLI415,13 NRC 36l i
(198t)
I smidance for record on TMI-related isseen; CLI-88 22,14 hRC 609 (Iv41) i Pacific Gas & Electric
- v. FPC,506 F.2d 33,38 (D.C. Cir.1974) i non-binding nature of agency felicy statement: CLI-81 16,14 NRC 18 (1981)
Pacire Gas & Electric Co. v. FPC,506 F.2d at 39 (D.C Cir.1974) binding norm of agency policy statement adversely affecting intervenors: CLI-81 16,14 NRC 18 (1981)
)
Pacific Gas and Electric Ca (Diablo Canyos Nuclear Power Nat, Unit I) CLI 8130,14 NRC 950 (November 19, 1981)
}
delegation of responsibility and control of QA/QC programa; LBP4141,14 NRC 1740 (1983)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Nat, Units I and 2) ALAB-519,9 NRC 42 (1979), ALAB404,12 NRC 149,150151 (1980) authority for licensing board to call its own expert witnesses; LBP4147,14 NRC 873 (1981) use of independent expert witnesses by NRC adjudicatory boards; ALAS 463,14 NRC 1154,1162 (1981)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plaat, Units I and 2), ALAB-504,8 NRC 406, 410-12 (1978) responsibilities of licensing boards to carry out appeal board lartructions; ALAB463, le NRC 185I (198D Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I sad 2) ALAB-644,13 NRC 903 (June 16,1981) expert witnesses on reservoir-induced seismicity appointed by licensing board; LBP41-47,14 NRC 869 i
(1981) l NRC practice for review of appe!!ste h= physical security; CLl4121, le NRC 596 (1981) i Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Dubio Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLl40 24, il NRC 775 (1980); ALAB-410,5 NRC 1398 (1977); ALAB-540, II NRC 227 (1980); ALAB 592,1I NRC 744 l
(1980); and ALAB400,12 NRC 3 (1980) l protection of unclassified safeguards info.mation; LSP-514,, 4 NRC 1741 (1981) t Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power ilsas, Units I and 2), CLI4122,14 NRC j
603 (September 21,1981) t curtailment of investigation of safety or environmental issues unfavorable to applicaat; CL I-81-33,14 NRC 1096 (1981)
Pacir.c Gas and Electric Co. (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit 1) LBP 78-2n,7 NRC IC38,1040 (1978) discovery rules between parties; LBP-5141,14 NRC 1742 (1981) reasons for granting pretrial discovery; LBP41-25, le NRC 243 (1981)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co,apany (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit No.1), AIAB-400,5 NRC 1875, 1877 78 (1977) difference between intervention board and hearing board la NRC proceedinga; LSP4130A,14 NRC 366 4
(1981)
Parklane Hosiery Ca v. Shore 439 US 326, fa.5 (1979) issues precluded by collateral estoppel, LBP-8158,14 NRC lif t (1981)
Parklane Hosiery Ca v. Shore. 439 U.S. 322 (1979) controlling precedent on collateral estoppet relevut to antitrust proceeding; LBP-51-58,14 NRC 1872 (1981)
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shure,439 U1331 (1979) general rule for use of coilstenal estoppel offeenively; LBP41-58,14 NRC 1873,1874 (1981) 6 l
M h
l 53 i
t
s 1
12 GAL CITATIONS INDEX CABEB e
p 4 yJ 6
y Parklane Hosiery Company, Inc. et al, v. Lao M. Shore. 439 US 322, SS L. Ed. 2d 552,99 S C 645 x-(1979)
'Q une of offensive collateral estoppel; LBP-38 24,14 NRC 199 (1981)
Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Sesquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-M3,10 NRC 449,450 a.1 (1979) intervenors obliged to be familiar with Rules of Practice and proper briefing format; ALAM50,14 NRC 50 (1981)
Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. and Allegheny Electric r% perative,Inc. (Sesquehanna Steam Electric Station, Uni s I and 2), ALAB413,12 NRC 317,322,339 (1980) sanctions for unjustified failures or refusals to comply with discovery orders; LBP-4122,14 NRC 854 (1981); LBP-8152, le NRC 908 (1981)
Pennsylvania Power and Light Ca and Allegheny Flectric Cooperative, Inc. (Sesquehanna Stasm Electric Station, baits I and 2), ALAIL613,12 NRC 317,333-35,340(1980) use of interrogstories as a method of discovery; LBP-88-52,14 NRC 903 (1981)
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units I and 2), ALAMI),
12 NRC 317,322 (1980) reasons for granting pretrial discovery; LBP-81-23,14 NRC 243 (1981)
Pennsylvania Power and Light Co.npany (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units I and 2),.9 LAM 13, 12 NRC 331,334 (1980) contentions are method for framing issues under NRC practice: LBP 88 25,14 NRC 243 (1981)
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Sasquehanna Steam Electric Station Unita I and 2), ALAS 413,12 NRC 337 (1980) numerous motions and disputes relating to icterrogatories reflect lack of understanding of discovery, LBP-8122,14 NRC 156 (1981)
Pennsylvania Power and Light Cornpany, Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. Units I and 2) LBP-79-6,9 NRC 29I,302 305 (1979) circumstances not sufficiently changed, need for power contentions not admitted at operating license stage; LBP-8124,14 NRC 203-204 (1981)
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, et at (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2),
ALAB-613,12 NRC 387,337 (1980) escessive number of motions and disputes re! sting to disavery, LDP-3130A,14 NRC 378 (IMI)
People of the State of !!!inois v. NRC,591 F.2d 12 (7th Cir.1979) holding of hearings on 2.206 petition; DD-8122,14 NPC 1089 (1981)
Permian Basin Area Rate Case,34 F.P.C.17,238 (1965) power of judge to appaint own expert witnesses; LBP-81-47,14 NRC 872 (1981)
Permian Basin Area Pate Cases,390 US. 747,773 (1968) most crucial factor for granting stay of effectiveness of remedial actitrust conditions to operating license; CLI-8127,14 NRC 797 (1981) role of irreparsb!c in.iury showing in grant ci stay of F;ual 0 der; LBP 8130,14 NRC 360 0981)
Perry v. Sinderman,408 US. 593,60' (1972) legal entitlement as source of property interes a; L3P-81-26,14 NRC 256 (1981)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Fulton Generatint Sta: ion, Unita I and 2), ALAM57,14 NRC 967, f=.12 (1981) dirmis6sl of construction prmit soplication with prejudim; ALAB462,14 NRC 1832,1134 (1981)
Philadelphia Electric Ca (Peach Bottom Atomic Poect Staiosi, Units 2 arel 3), ALAB-216,8 AEC 13,2 (1974) purpose of specificity requirement of contentions; LDP-ll41,14 NRC 1737 (1988)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottorn Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216,8 AEC 13, 20 21 (1974) admissibility of contentions, interpretation of term " reasonable specificity"; LDP-8145,14 NRC 856 (1981) cnteria for rejection of contention asking for documentation of deviations la design, structures, and components: LBP-8127,14 NRC 332 (1981)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottem Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3), ALAS 480,7 NRC 796 (1978) structuring of redon issue: LBP 8143,14 NRC 1771 (1981)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Statica, Units 2 and 3?, ALAIL480,7 NRC 796, 804-06 (1978) l 7h l
procedure for using radon issues decision in other separate licensing prxeedings, LBP-8143,14 NRC 1786 (1981) 54 4
i
I l
G i
l 12 GAL GTATIOPS INDEX 7"
CAMS
)
-ft g
(
{
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottoes Atonde Power Staties, Unite 2 and 3) ALAB440,13 NRC 487, p h g, :
546-49 (1981); ALAB 454,14 NRC 632 (IMI) t health effects of rados releases; LBP4143,14 NRC 1787 (IMI)
Pinto Trucking Service, Inc. v. Motor Dispatch, lac, IMI I Trade Caa. 964.028 at 76,323 (7th Cir. IMI) artements about privity in NRC antitrust prMa9 L5P41-58,14 NRC 1188 (IMI)
Porter County Chapter of the fraak Wahoe langue v. NRC,606 F.2d IM3, IM9 (D.C. Cir.1979)
Commission eethority to unake preliminary inquiries on userits of 2.206 peutammer's claim; DD41 12,14 NRC 266 (1981)
Commission latitude to determine appropriate amenas of edesimisterias, applyias, and enforcing reguladoma;
}
DD 8123,14 NRC 18tl (IMI)
P*rter Comaty Chapter of the Izaak Walton Langue, lac. v. NRC,606 F.2d IM3, IM7-70 (D.C. Cir.1979) site's selection for esamination does not mandate suspension of construction pendies conspission of 1
analysis; DD 8814,14 NRC 281,285 (1981)
Porter Comaty Chapter v. NRC,606 F.2d IM3 (D.C. Cir.1979) standard of proof required for significant changes determination; CLl48 26,14 NRC 792 (lMI) l Portland General Electric Ca (Poluble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I & 2), CLI-76 27,4 NRC 610,613
(
(1976) standing to intervens, alleged laterest menet fau withis anne of interests pruected by AEA; LDP-88 26, le NRC 250 (1981)
Portland General Electric Co. (Pobble Springs Neclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-76-27,4 NRC 610, i
I 613-14 (1976) decretic,ary hearing as enforossent action _ _--- M CLl4131,14 NRC 960 (IMl); CLI41-32,14 i
NRC 96)(IMI)
{
intervention la operating licamme proceeding by petitlomars outside 50 mile radius of plast; LDP41-24,14 NRC 179 (1981) l Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAS 181,7 AEC 207,209 a.7 (1974) i NRC staff reaparaubility on issues to be a=aadared prior to inneance of operating liosame; L5P-al 23,14 i
NRC 166 (1981)
Portland General Electric Co. (Trojen Nuclear Plant), ALAB 531,9 NRC 263 (1979) consideration of alternatives to transfer of speet feel assemblies; ALA5451,14 NRC 321 (IMI) significant environmental impact by spent feel pool espansion, requiring EIS, argued by intervenere.
LBP-8153,14 NRC 914 (1981)
Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant). Al.AB 531,9 NRC 263,266 (1979) esarch for alternatries to action that is not savironmentauy harmful; ALAB 460,14 NRC l(06 (IMI) fortland General Electric Co. (Treka Neclear Plant), ALAB 531,9 NRC 263,2648 and fa. 6 (1979) consideration of alternatives to steams presrator repairs, where E!S is requi% A'.AM60,14 NRC 10S4 (1981)
Pretland Gena al Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Phant) ALAB-531. 9 NRC 2e3,269 73 (1979) factors used to daterm ne whether to anow treas(er of speu feel assesblism; ALAS 4!I,14 NRC 3:4
~
(1981)
Portland General Electric Ca (1rojaa Plant), ALA%533,9 NRC 263,265 a 6 (1975r e
scope of envimnmental analysia. spost feel pai espsasion; ALAM50,14 NRC 66 (IMI)
Portland General Electric Co (Troian Plant). ALA4531,9 NRC 263,274 275 (1979) reporties and recording of deviations feta es'atdished operating p ocedures f a realetalaias and monitoring water chenintry, opeat twel par.l; ALAR-450,.4 NRC 54 (IMI) j Portland General Electric Co, et at (Pobbie Springs Niclear llaat, Ucits and 21 CLI 76-21,4 NRC j
610. 616 (lis76) discretionary intervention la decontamination hearing; CLI tl 2",14 NRC 623 (1981) factors bearing on the grsating of discretioq intervention. LBP4126,14 NRC 259 (IMI)
Portland General Etsctrical Co., et s'. (Tr:ss a hacient Plant) ALAB-531,9 NRC 263,272,273 (1979) purpose of conditions attached to licenes; L8P-88 59,14 NRC 1413,1415,1418 (IMI)
Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Neclear Generatias Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-218,8 AEC 79, 85 (1974) acceptance. in licensing proceedings, of contentions which are the subject of gameral rulesnaking;
{
LSP-8151,14 NRC 898,899 (1981)
{
admaanibility of hydrogen control contention which is subject of general rulemaking; ALAS 455,14 NRC 816 (1981)
Potomac Electric Power Ca (Dougles Point Nuclear Genersting Station Units I and 2), ALAB-218,8 AEC 9'
[*
84 (1974)
[
resetatory agencies may decide generic isseen by 3seerst rule or on. mas by< ass beeis; LDP4151,14 7
i
^ ",
5
}
NRC $98 (1981) c
, n.
i e
M
i f
G 12 GAL CITATIONS INDEX j
i CA8E8 Potomac Electric Power Ca (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-277,1 NRC 539 (1975) ownership of proposed nuclear power plaat site by applicant seeking early site review; ALAB462,14 NRC 1136 (1981) seitatmlity of site for nuclear power plaat; ALAB462,14 NRC 1829 (1981)
Poulos v. United Staten,387 F.2d 4,6 (10th Cir.1968) definition of maigriality; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1781 (1981)
Power Reactor Development Ca v. laternational Union of Electrical, Radio & Jachine Workers,367 US.
396 (1961) risk of lost investment carried by au construction permit holders; DD-81 14,14 NRC 286 (1981)
Power Reactor Development Co.,1 AEC 128,153 (1959), afrd sub som. Power Reactor Development Ca v.
International Union of Electrical Workers,367 US. 396 (1961) criteria for demonstration of financial capability of applicants: DD 8123,14 NRC 1809 (1981)
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hin Nuclear Generatias Station, Units I & 2), ALAB 530,9 NRC 241 (1979)
Back of jurisdictica, no pending proceeding regarding licensee's fmancial qualifications; DD-81 18,14 NRC 930 (IMI)
Public Service Ca of Indiana (Marble Hill Neclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), CLIM10, il NRC 438 (1980) standing to intervene, ausged lateresta must fan witbis some of laterests protected by AEA; LBP-8126, 14 NRC 250 (1981)
PuWic Service Co. of Indman (Marble Hin Nuclear Generging Station, Uniu I and 2), ALAB-316,3 NRC 167, 170 174 (1976)
Licensing Board Ischs jurisdiction to consider satitrust petitions: ALAB461,14 NRC 19 89 (1981)
Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2) CLlet0, il NRC 438, 442 (1980)
Union claims bearing as a matter of right la overtune restrictions case; LBP-88 26,14 NRC 254,259 (1981)
Public Service Ca of Indians (Merbie Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I med 2), ALAB-405,5 NRC 1190, II92 (1977) reasons for referrals of rulings; LBP-81-36,14 NRC 700 (1981) standard for granting directed certification: ALAS 463,14 NRC 1960,1862 (1981)
Public Service Co. of Indana (Marbie Hin Nuclear Generating Sution, Units I and 2), ALAN 37,6 NRC 630, 632 (1977) most crucial factor for granting stay of effectiveness of timedial antitrust conditions to operatingL=*-
CLI-St 27,14 NRC 797 (1981)
Public Sarvice Ca of Indiana (Marbie Hill Nuclear Genersting Satka Utiirs I and 2), ALAB-431,6 NRC 630, 632, 635 (1977) stay of Final Order, abosat irnparaNe 14ary, morant must o.ake overwhelming showing of success na merits; LBP-8130,14 NRC 359 (1988)
Public Service Co. of ladiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Ossersting Station, Units I and 2), ALAB459,7 NRC 179, I88 (1978) appeal board review of licensing board discovery estings; ALAB460,14 hRC 1015 (l981)
Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Statma, Units I and 2), ALAB-473,8 NRC 253, 270 (1978) burden of persuasion of fear factors considered for stay of effectiveness of remedial antitrusc creditions to operating license; CLI-8127,14 NRC 797 (1981)
Public Service Co. of ladiana (Marbie Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), CLleto,11 NRC 438,439 (1980) bearing as a matter of right on as enforcement order; CLI-8131, le NRC 960 (1988); CLI-dl 32,14 NRC 963 (1981)
Public Service Ca of ladiana (Marble Han Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-461,7 NRC 313,315 (1978) function of briefs; ALAB450,14 NRC 49 (IMI) i Public Service Ca of Indana (Marble Hill Units I and 2), ALAB-461,7 NRC 313,318 (1978) l Staff responsibility la the determination of license conditione; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1419 (1981)
Public Service Ca of ladana et al. (Marble Hiu Nuclear Generating Station. Units I & 2) LBP 7747,6 NRC 1101,181516 (1977), LBP 78-12,7 NRC 573,576-77 (1978), afrd ALAB-493,8 NRC 253 (1978)
,, 9~ yA, coewners found finsaciany qualified prior to issuance of construction peruuts; DD-8818,14 NRC 926, 927 (1981) 4,
-dif aN.
M
4 O
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX e
CASE 3 Public Service Co. of ladiana et at (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units I & 2), LBP-7747,6 NRC Ii17 (1977) construction permit conditioned to prevent REA interference with licensee's safety responsibility and ecchnical judgment; DD-81 IS,14 NRC 929 (1981)
Public Service Co. of Indiana et al. (Marbie Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I & 2), LBP-78-I2,7 NRC 577 (1978) construction permit condition, NRC notification required for REA action on loan contract; DD 81 18,14 NRC 929 (1981)
Public Service Ca of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Statiac, Units I and 2), ALAB-49),8 NRC 253 (1978) contention seeking environmental review of volume reduction and solidification aspects of LLRW management plan outside NRC jurisdiction; LBP-81-40,14 NRC 833 (1981)
PuWie Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I & 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33,79 (1977) criteria for demonstration of naancial capability of applicants: DD 8123,14 NRC 1809 (1981)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I & 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33,90 (July 26, 1977) esplanation of NEPA mandated cost / benefit balance for proposed nuclear power plants; DD 8512,14 NRC 267 (1981)
Public Scevice Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Uniis I & 2), Cf.1-78 l,7 NRC 1,18,20 21 (1978) definition of easonable assertace of financing plan; DD-88 23,14 NRC 1909 (1981)
Public Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units I & 2) CLI 781,7 NRC I,2124 (1978; l
NRC je indiction to review decisions of Rural Electrincation Administratir=: DD-81 18,14 NRC 927 l
(1981)
Public Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabraak Station, Units I & 2) CL, 7 NRC 18 (1978), afrd sub nom. New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC,582 F.2d 8.
d Cir.1978) applicant's financial plan ansidered la light of relevant circumstances; DD 81 18. I4 NRC 928 (1988)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I & 2), DD 79 20,10 NRC 703,706 (1979) licenses free to adjust financial plan to new econonuc conditions; DD-81 IS 14 NRC 928,931 (1981)
+
Put;lic Service Ca of New Hampshire (Scabrook Station Units I & 2); DD 79-20,10 NRC 703,713 (1979) recovery of ting cat. th ough rote-setting; DD-81-23,14 NRC 1809 (1981) i Public Service of New Hamphare (Seabrocit Statam, Uniu I and 2), ALAB-271,1 NRC 478,482-83 (il?$)
denial of pet, tion ior directed certification; ALAB-663,14 NRC 1842 (1981)
Puble Servio= Co of New Hampshirt (Seabrook StatMa, Units I and 2) ALAB 2't, I NRC 478,846 (1973) uandard for 6rsuing request for directed certification; ALA B-663,14 NRC II62 (1981)
Public Service Co. of New Marnpshire (Seattoo6 Statha, Units I and 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33,41 (1977) foustaten not established for safety nadings regarding propasce spent fusi shipments; ALAS 451,14 NRC 322 (1981)
Pt6 tic Sernce Co. of Nc= Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33,80-82 (1977) criteria for twpenirs record becauss of false material statements; LBP-81-63,14 NRC 1783 (1981)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 77 78 (1977) recovery of opersting costs through rate-setting; DD-8123,14 NRC 1809 (1981)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLI 78J
- NRC 1,26-27 (1978) effect of failure to consoledste operating license and shaw cause proceedsass on 1 ma of safe shstdown earthquake issue; LBP-81-31,14 NRC 377 (1981) i Public Service Ca of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. $0-443 and $0 444 f
(November 6,1980 unpublished order) authority for licensing board to cs3 its own expert witnesses; LBP-81-47,14 NRC 873 (1981) use of independent espert witnesses by NRC adjudicatory boards; ALAB-463,14 NRC II53,1862 (1981) 3 directive for proposed rvlemaking on financial quahfications; LBP 8151,14 NRC 897 (IMI)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units I & 2), ALABL423,12 NRC 670,677 78
/
(Dec. 9,1980) construction permit holeer's lavestment notCaeed la determining plant safety at operating liosase stage; DD 81 le,14 NRC 284 (1981)
{..; f,b Y
e S
i e
f i
l l
i J
l G
IICAL CITAT1GNS INDEX CAS85
- ' 7 Pubhc Service Co of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I A 2), CLI 77-8,5 NRC 503,526 (1977) p rejection of proposed site of nuclear power plant to minimize environmental effects; DD 81 12 I4 NRC
, /.4 -
268 (1981)
Public Service Co. of New ifampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I A 2), LBP 77-43,6 NRC 134,137-139 (1977) consideration of alternstrve nuclear power plant sites outside facility's immediate service area; DD 81 12, 14 NRC 268 (1981)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 338,4 NRC 10,14 (1976) no single factor among four considered for stay of Final Order is necessarily dispositive; LDP 88 30,14 NRC 358 (1981)
Pubhc Sernce Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 505,8 NRC 527 (1978) failure by counsel to call attention,o facts of record; LBP-88 63,14 NRC 1784 (1981)
Pubhc Sernce Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 57),10 NRC 775,785-87 (1979) absence of discussion in FES calling for recirculation of FES, ALAB-660,14 NRC 1014 (1981)
Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-573,10 NRC 775,805 (1979) standards for judging exceptions of intervenors represented by counsel; ALAM50,14 NRC 51 (1981)
PuWic Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units I and 2), LDP-78-26,8 NRC 102 (1978) discretionary authority of licensing board to call its own espert witnesses; LBP 81-47,14 NRC 873 (1981)
Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units I and 2), LBP 78 26,8 NRC 102, stay denied, ALAB-505,8 NRC 527 (1978) use of independent espert wunesses by NRC adjudicatory boards; ALAB 63,14 NRC 1153 (1988)
PuWie Sernce Co. of Oklahoma Associated Electric Cooperative (B!ack Fon Station, Units I A 2),
LBP 76 38,4 NRC 435,443 (1976) replies to answers to motions; LDP 81 18,14 NRC 73 (1981)
Pubin: Service Co. of Oklahoma Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., et. al- (Black Fox, Units I and 2),
LBP 7717 (March 9,1977) late petitioners granted intervention; LBP-8124,14 NRC 200 (1981)
Pubhc Service Electric & Gas Co. (Atlantic Nuclear Generating Station Units I and 2) LDP 75-62,2 NRC 702,705-6 (1975) sanctions for unjustified failures or refusals to comply with discovery orders; LBP-81-22,14 NRC 154 (1981); LPD-81-52,14 NRC 908 (1981)
Pubhc Service Electric & Gas Co. (Hope Crsek Generating Staeion, Units I and 2), LBP 78-15,7 NRC 642 (1978) discretimary authority of teenains board to callits own empert wita.ss,s; LBP-s t-47,14 NRC 873 (1981) use of independent empert witnesses Sy NRC ad od catory boards, ALAM43,14 NRC 1954 (1981) f Public Sernce EWtric & Gas Co. (Salem N clear Generating Station, Unds I & 2), DD-8019, ll NRC 625,627 2f (1980) reluctance of Staff to initiate individual adjadiatory proceedings in respones to 2.206 pet:tions; DD-8123, 14 NRC till (1981)
Public Sernce Electric ead Gas Co. (Hope Creek Generatiat Station Unita I and 2), ALAB 518,9 NRC 14, 38 (1979)
EIS crnsiierstion of remxa sad speculative consegunces, spent fuel assemblism; ALAM51,14 NRC 321 (1981)
Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salein Nuclest Generating Sation) ALAB450,14 NRC 43 (1961) significant environmental impact by spent fuel pool expansion, requiring EIS, argood by intervemm; 1 BP-8153,14 NRC 914 (1981) -
l Pu%c Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nucleer Generating Station, Unit I). ALAB 588, il NRC 533, 536 (1980) standard for appeal board determination to undertake discretionary interlocutory review of licensing board's proposed action; ALAB 463,14 NRC 1850 (1983)
Phbhc Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I). ALAB 650, le NRC 43, 65 fa. 33 (July 17,1981) consideration of alternatives a transfer of spent fuel assemblies; ALAB-651,14 NRC 322 (1981)
Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-136,6 AEC 487,489 (1973) argumentation and filing requirernents of intervenor without counsel; LDP-8135,14 NRC 646 (IMI) w rr
.s
~-
standards for intervenors participating pro se; ALAS 450,14 NRC 50 (1981)
O
<w C'"
se l
l l
l
12 CAL CITAVOM WM t
I CASES e
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (North Coast Plant, Unit 1). Docket Na 50 376 CP (February 25, 1
1981), appeal pending withdrasal of application for license, with prejudica; ALAB457,14 NRC 978 (IMl)
Regular Common Carrier Conference v. UA,628 F.2d 248 (D.C. Cir. June 30,1980)
+
freedom of agency to eserche discretion under policy statoniset CLI.St.lf,14 NRC 18 (1981) j Robicy v. United States,279 F.2d 401,404 (9th Cir.1960) test of materiality of a statemeat; LSP-8143,14 NRC 1781 (IM1)
Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project Neclear Unit No.1), ALAB-502,8 NRC 383,384 1
(1978) legal obligation of utilities to meet customer demands relevent to NRC ased for power determination; i
i DD41 12, le NRC 273 (1981)
Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project Unit Na 1), ALAB-596,18 NRC 847,869
}-
(1980) memoranda and orders vacated to avo6d residual ! -
. ALAB458,14 NRC 982 (IMI) 1 partialinitial decision vocated ce mootases grounds; ALAS 456,14 NRC 966 (IMI) i Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Neclear Genersting Statina) ALAS 455,14 NRC 809 (1981) responsibility of counsel to disclose reisvant factual infortnation; LBP4143,14 NRC 1779 (IMI)
Sampaan v. Morrey,415 US 61,90 (1974) l statement of polecy alleged harmful to latervenors, stay denied; CLI41 16, le NRC 19 (IMI)
I Scenic Hedeon Preservation Conference v. Federal Power & -
. 354 F.2d 608,614,620 (2nd Cir.
I 1965) right of Board to raise lesues ses sponte; LSP-8813,14 NRC 168 (IMI)
Scientists' lastitute for Public leformation. Inc. v. Atoenic Easr8y Commission,441 F.2d 1079,1085-63 (D.C. Cir.1973) i EIS preparation, proposed spent feel shipments; ALAS 451,14 NRC 312 (IMI) l Scott v. Spanjer Bros., lac.,298 F.2d 928,930 (2d Cir.1962) circumstances allowing appointment of esport wita====a ALAS 463,14 NRC 1852 t MI)
?
inherent power of trial judge to appoint own sapert wita==aan-LBP 88-47,14 NRC 2,t (Ifil)
Seacoast Anti-Pollution Lasses v. Castle,572 F.2d 872 (let Cir.1978) acquiring empert advice for the evidentiary roowd; LSP-4159,14 NRC 1249 (lMI)
SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau,375 UA 180,186,198-99 (1963) omissione of information sa material false stataeneata; LBP4143,14 NRC 1780 (1981)
Securities and Enchange Commission v. Texas Ostt Selphur Co.,408 F.2d 833,849 (2nd Clr. IM8) omissions of information as material falne statementa: LDP-8143,14 NRC 37PO (IMI)
Seles Corp. of America w Wilshies Oil Co of Yamas,57 F.k.D. 3,54 (E.D. Pa.1972) considerstbs im licensing board's decision to dismiss with prejudice; ALAB457,14 NRC 979 (199I)
Shol!y v. NRC (D C. Cir. Nos. 801691,80 e783, and 80%784, filed Nov. 19,1980) initiation of chemical decoatsmmataan prmr to sa.d of bearing; CLI4125 le NRC 621 (IMI)
Sholly v. NRC, No.801656 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 19,1980) e l
Intervenor alleges that liceness's financial arrnagements coast te's assadment of constrmten perunt t
narice and cpportunity to be heard; DD'81 14, le NRC 927 (198i)
Siegel v. Atomic Energy Comminaios,400 F 2d 77h,780$782 (D.C. Cir.1958) admession of afectromaanstic pelass testenuon barred by; LDP-88-42,14 Nr.C 843,864 OMI) f Sierra Cleb v. Freshike,534 F.2d 1289,1237 (8th Cir.1976) se6 mentation of EIS, shipment of spent feel assemblies; ALAB451,14 NRC 313 (IMI)
South Cardine Council of Milk Producers, lac. v. Newton,340 F.2d 414 (4th Cir.), cert. desind,385 UA t
934 (1966) applicant's possession of snonopoly power act shown: LBP-88-18,14 NRC 1893 (IMI)
South Caroline Electne sad Gas Co. (Virgil C. Esauner Neclear Ststion, Unit No.1), CLI-80 28, il NRC j
817,823 a.Il (IMO) interested parties lavised to request satitrust hearing even if US Attorney General does met as i
recommend. ALAB461,14 NRC l121 (IMI) i South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virsil C. Semimer Nuclear Station Unis No.1), CLI-80 28. Il NRC j
821 and m.6,824,825 (1980) prerequisites for operating license antitrust review; ALAS 461,14 NRC 1822 (IMI) 1 Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (Sea Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 nad 3), Docket Nos.
N~s j
50 341 and 50 342. Tr.180142 (June 26, IMI). Tr. 260246 (3ely 1, IM1), Tr. 4973-74 (July 27, IMI) l ese ofladependent empert witnesses by NRC adjudicatory boards; ALAB463,14 NRC 1855 (IMI)
- s 6
99 i
f.
O a
f O
I2 GAL CITATIONS INDEX CAsBs ge, p *.. : ;;
N',, ';
Southern California Edison Co.,(Saa Onofre Uni I), Steam Generator Repair Program and Restart,
.r Docket Number 50 206 (June 8,1981) acceptability of steam generator repsirs at SONGS; DD4120,14 NRC 1065 (1981)
^
2h Stanley Works v. Haagar Potteries, Inc.,35 F.R.D. 551,554 55 (N.D. Ill 1964) application of attorary work product privilege so material d-Laaad to third party; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1794 (1981)
State of Minnesota v. NRC,602 F.2d 412,416-17 (D.C Cir.1979) criteria for addressing issues in rulemaking; DD4123,14 NRC 1811 (1981)
State of Minnesota v. U.S.N.R.C.,602 F.2d 412 at 416 n.5 (D.C. Cir.1979) consmieration of fatare consequences of casite sacrase of low-level radioactive wastes; LBP-81-40. I4 NRC 833 (1981)
State of New York v. NRC 550 F.2d 745,755 (2nd Cir.1977) showing of actual nature of irreparable injury necessary for grant of stay of Final Order; LBP-8130,14 NRC 360 (1981)
Stia Prods. Inc. v. United Merchants & Mfts., Inc. 47 F.R.D. 334,338 (S.D.N.Y.1969) application of attorney work product privilege to material disclosed to third party; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1794 (1981)
Swain v. Brinegar,542 F.2d 364 (7th Cir,1976) segmentation of E!S, shipment of spent fuel assemblies; ALAB-651,14 NRC 313 (1981)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A, IB & 28), ALAB 418,6 NRC I,2 (1977) criteria for motions for reconsideration: CLI-8126,14 NRC 790 (1981)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A,18 and 28), ALAB-409,5 NRC 1391, 1395-96 (1977) failure bw counsel to call attention to facts of record; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1784 (1981)
Tennessee talley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A, IR and 28), ALAB-463,7 NRC 341, 348 (1978) exceptions raised for first time on appeal; ALAB-650,14 NRC 49,69 (1981) motion to supplement record denied, expropriation issue raised for first time on appeal; ALAB444,14 NRC 37 (1981)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Haruville Plant Units I A,2A,18 and 23), ALAB-367,5 NRC 92,104 a.59
(
(1977) exceptions not fully briefed; ALAS 450,14 NRC 49 (1981)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Plant Units I A,2A,15 and 2B). ALAB-463,7 NRC 370 (1978) brief lacking meaningful argument ALAB450,14 NRC 50, SI (1981)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-413,5 NRC I418,1421, 1422 (1977) interventior: in operating hcense proceedig by petitioners outside 50-mi.'s radius of plant; LBF4124,14 NRC 179 (198?)
Teus Ut,lities Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Ucits I and 2), CLl41-24,14 NRC 614 (1981) factors susporting Board's sua sp,nte adapaan cf dismisent intervenor's contentions; CLl4135,14 NRC 1912 (1981)
Texas Utilities C< neat:na Company, et at (Comanche Peak Steam Elactric Station, Unha 1 and 2).
LBP4122,14 NRC 150.155-57 purposes of and reasonalk hmita;ione on saz=ery; LBP4130A, 24 NRC 370 (1981)
Toldeo Edison Co. (Davis-Benne Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB422,12 NRC 667,669 (1980) motions to terminate proceedits must be made to sti boards retaining juradictice over aspects of a case:
ALAB456,14 NRC 966 (1981)
Toledo Edman Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Units I,2 a'id 3), ALAB 378,5 NRC 5.'7,561 (1977) ~
application of collateral estoppel in NRC antitrust proceedings; LBP4158,14 NRC 1888 (1981) l To?sde Edman Co. (Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. I), ALAB-385,5 NRC 621,626 (1977)
In:rden of proof in petition for stay of effectiveness of remedial antitrust conditions to operating hcense; CLI-8127,14 NRC 797 (1981)
Toledo Edman Co. (Davis-Besse Units I,2, and 3). LBP-77 l,5 NRC 133,253-54 (1977) i burden of persuasion in antitrust proceeding; LBP4158,14 NRC 1876 (1981)
Toledo Ednon Co., et at (Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units I,2 and 3), LBP 77-7,5 NRC 452 (1977) requirements for strong showing, petition for stay of effectiveness of remedial antitrust conditions to operating license; CLl4127,14 NRC 797 (1981)
S-ef 48 i
t 9
I O
)
IIGAL CTTATIONS INDEX Wywa CASE 3
,,[
F* 1. h Toledo Edison Co., et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Units I,2 and 3), LBP-77 7,5 NRC 432, g j-454,(*Td ALAB-385,5 NRC 621,631 (1977) intervenor has burden of making strong showing to prevail on merits of appeal of Final Order; LBP-81-30, 14 NRC 359 (1981)
Transmirra Prods. Corp. v. Monsanto Chemical Co.,26 F.R.D. 572,576 78 (S.D.N.Y.1960) application of attorney work product privilege to material disclosed to third party; LBP 8143,14 NRC 1794 (1981)
Trout Unlimited v. Morton,509 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir.1974) segmentation of EIS, shipment of spent fuel assemblies; ALAB451,14 NRC 313 (1981)
Trout Unlimited v. Morton,509 F.2d 1283 (9th Cir.1974)
EIS consideration of remote and speculative consequences, spent fuel assemblica; ALAB453,14 NRC 321 (1981)
Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. ALAB-50, WASH-1218 320 (May 18,1972) imposition of requirements beyond agency regulations. CLI-81 16,14 NRC 17 (1981)
US. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.,351 US. 377,396 (1956) i nuclear-generated electricity not a separate market; LBP-8158,14 NRC 1892 (1981)
Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Units I & 2), ALAB-572,9 NRC 126 (1979) need to protect identity of confidential informant; CLI 8128,14 NRC 938 (1981)
Union of Concerned Scientists v. Atomic Energy Commission,499 F.2d 1069 (1974)
Union ar8ves Due Process Clause of Constitution entitles it to hearing in overtime restrictions case; LBP-81-26,14 NRC 257 (1988) i United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Adirondack Power & Light Corporation,201 N.YS. 643 (App. Div, 3rd Dept.1923) burden of persuasion in NRC antitrust proceedings; LBP-88 58,14 NRC 1878 (1981)
United States v. Borden,370 US. 460 (1962) ducrimination against outside cities in settlerent of antitrust action; LBP-8158,14 NRC 1892 (1981)
United States v. Gnffith,334 US.100 (1948) applicant's possession of monopoly power not shown; LBP-88 58,14 NRC 1193 (1981)
United States v. Krause,507 F.2d 113.118 (5th Cir.1975) definition of materiality; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1781 (1981)
United States v. Madera,574 F.2d 1320,1322 (5th Cir.1978) definition of materiahty; LBP 8143,14 NRC 1782 (1981)
United States v. McGough,510 F.2d $98,602 (5th Cir.1975) influence of statement on decisien-maker as a rest of mats-iality: L8P-8143,14 NRC 1781 (1981)
United Ststes v. Utah Construction & Minirs Co,384 US. 394 (1966) cc,arollisa prtedent on allateral estoppel relevant to satitsst proceciing; LBP-88 58, le NRC 1872.
1173 (1981 p United States v. Weathers,618 F.2d (63 (10th Cir.1980) appellate criticism of court appointment o' capert * 'ts.ess: ALAB463,14 NP.C 1853 (198 f)
Ve mont Yaukee Nuclear Power Corp (Vermont isakee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-34,4 AFC 539 (1972) deferral, to the Cnemission, of issues that are the subject of rulemaking; LBP-Cl-51,14 NRC 898 (1983
%ermont Yankte Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Ptreer Station). DD-80 20, il NRC 913, 914 (1980) reluctance of Staff to initiate individual adjudscatoey pruccedings le response no 2.206 petitions: Dntl41, 14 NRC 1811 (1981)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Station) AL AB-138,6 AEC 520,53) (1973) respcasibihty of counsel to disclose factualinformation; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1778-1779,180011981)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Concil,4.'S U.S. 319,554 gl978) factual basis for board's sua sponte consideration of earthquake encoeding SSE; L9P 8636,14 NRC 698 (1981)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 435 US. $19 (1978) consideration of alternatives to completed projects: LBP-8124,14 NRC 202 (1981) consideraten of energy conservation as alternative to proposed steam generator repairs; ALAS 460,14 NRC 1005,1008 (1981)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc,435 US. $19,543-44 (1978) right to hearing on withdrawal of construction permit application; ALAB462,14 NRC l134 (1981) t l
l 61 s
t
1 f
~
t LEGAL CTTATIONS INDEX CAS83
{
'*T i
Vermont Yankes Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Camactl, lac,435 US 519,550 1
A.- '
(1978)
J legal obligation of utihties to meet customer demands relevant to NRC need for power determination; DD 8112,14 NRC 273 (1981)
State regulatory determinations cinced for power; ALAB462,14 NRC l133 (1981)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pcwer Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, lac,435 US. 519,333 554 (1978) res* onsibilities of intervenors in NRC proceedings; ALAB-650, la NRC 50,67 (1988)
Verr ent Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC,435 US. Sl9,543 (1978)
Gmminion latitude to determine appropriate means of administering, applying, and enforcing regulations; DD 8123,14 NRC 1811 (1981)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC,435 US. SI9,548 (1978)
AEA, NEPA, regulatory requiren,ents for hearing on EIS for decontamination of primary coolant systems; CLI-8125,14 NRC 625 (1988)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., CLI 74-40,8 AEC 809,812 (1974) postulation of successively more conservative accident assumptions for different regulatory purposes; LBP 8136,14 NRC 697,706 (1981)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation v. NRDC,435 US. 519,354 (1978)
Supreme Court predisposed against reopening administrative record; DD 81-12,14 NRC 270 (1981)
Virginia Electric & Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 522,9 NRC 54,56 (January 26,1979)
Union standmg to intervene, physical proximity of workers; LBP-8126,14 NRC 250,254 (1981)
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I & 2), ALAB-584, il NRC 458, 453 (1980) answer to property supported motion for summary disposition; LBP-8148,14 NRC 883 (1981) issues considered in grant of summsry disposition of contentions involving steam generstar repairs; ALAB460,14 NRC 1003 (1981)
Virginia Electric and Power Ca (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-555,20 NRC 23, 28 (1979) refusal of intervenors to sign protective e der; LBP-8142,14 NRC 1756,1758,1760 (1981)
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 584,11 NRC 451, 457 58 (1980) considersten of alternatives to transfer of spent fuel assemblies: ALA3-651,14 NRC 322 (198 )
Virs nia Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-584, il NRC 454 58 (1980) consideration of alternatives to steam generator repairs, where EIS is required; ALAB460,14 NRC 1004 (1981)
Virgmia Electric and Power Ca (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Uni:. I and 2), Docket Nos.
54338-OL,50 339-OL (March 3,1980, unpublished memor.ndum and order), concurring opinion (Chairman Rosenthal), p. 5 Appeal Basrd request for editiceal esideace. LBP-81-47.14 NRC 86918981)
Virginia Electric and Power Ca (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-324,3 NRC 347, 364 63 (1976) emissmns by liccance as material false statements; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1780 (1981)
Virgima E'ectne and Power Ca (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), CLI 76-22,4 NRC 480, 487 89 (1976) material fa!se statements by licensee; LBP 8143,14 NRC 1779,1800 (1981)
Virginia Electne and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station Units I and 2) LBP 74-49,7 AEC 1183, 1885 (1974) consolidaten of Commisuon enforcement and licensing proceedings; LBP 8131,14 NRC 377 378 (1981)
Virginia Ehetric and Power Ca (North Anna Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-551,9 NRC 704,706 (1979)
NRC staff ottliged to lay materials relevant to pending cases before Board; ALAB449,14 NRC 42 (1981)
Virgina Elecinc and Power Co. (North Anna Station, Units I and 2), ALAP 584, ll NRC 451,462 (1980), petition for review pending sub nom. Potomac Alliance v. NRC (No. 841862.D.C. Cir., filed July 28,1980) boral corrosion considered in spent fuel pool esponsion proceedms; ALAB450,14 NRC 54 (1981)
Virginia Electric and Power Ca (North Anna Station, Units I sad 2), ALAB 584,il NRC 463 465 (1980)
-wa complaint of long-term storage of spent fuel, improper collateral attack on rulemaking; ALAB-650,14 NRC 69 (1981)
'lhf l
62 l
t h
I
f G
12 GAL CITATIONS INDEX 4
-r t
I Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Amma Station, Units I and 2), AIAB-551,9 NRC 704,706 (1979)
N ff obliged to lay materials relevant to pending cases before Board; A1AB-649,14 NRC 42 Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anas Station, Units I and 2), AIAB-534, il NRC 451,462 (1980), petition for review psading sub acas. Potomac Altaamos v. NRC (No. 801862. D.C. Cir., fDed July 28, 1980) boral corrasson -N in spent feel pool enraah pr==whe9 AIAB-650,14 NRC 54 (1981)
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anas Station, Units I and 2), AIAB-584,11 NRC 463-465 (1980) complaint of long-term storage of spent fuel, improper collateral attack ce r=tamaHaf ALAM50,14 NRC 69 (1981)
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Aaan Units I and 2), ALAB-491,8 NRC 245 (1978) guidance for dealing with saremohed generic safety isones; LBP-88 21,14 NRC II6 (IMI) justification of plant operation la presence of marssolved asseric safety iv ;a; LDP4*-59,14 NRC 1391, l<
1392 (1981)
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anan, Units I and 2), ALAF478, il NRC 189,287,218 (1980) granting of license on basis of commitmenta by applicant; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1413,1415 (IMI)
Virginia EJoctric and Power Co. (Serry Nuclear Power Station, Um s I and 2) CLI-80-4, il NRC 405 l
(1980) issuance of EIS for proposed steam generator repairs; ALAB-460, i 4 NRC 994 (1981)
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (Serry Power Station, Units I and 21 DD 79-19,10 NRC 625 (1979),
reverned in prt, CLI40-4, il NRC 405 (1980) environmental impacts of steam generator repairs local rether than casalathe; ALAB-660,14 NRC 1009 i
(198t)
(
Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Naclear Power Station. Units I and 2), AIAB-491,8 NRC 245,247,249 (1978) i Board authority to obtain information on issues raised esa sposte; LBP41-23,14 NRC 168 (1981)
Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Aaan Nuclear Power Station, Unita I and 2), AIAB-522,9 NRC 54 (1979) at pleading stage,latervenor not required to present evidemos concerning contentions; LDP-88 30A,14 i
l NRC 369 (1981) residenca requirements for intervention la operating license proceedings; LDP-8124,14 NRC 179 (1981)
Virginia Electric sad Power Company (North Anna Power Stat %, Units I A 2), ALAB 146,6 AEC 631, 633-34 (1973) recid6 ace requirements for intervention la operating *,crase liroceedings; LDP-8124,14 NRC 179 (1981)
Virginia Electric and Powet Company (Worth Amaa Pbwer Statica, Unita I and 2), AIAB-578, il NRC 189 F1980)
NRC practice for ru riew of appe11ste daisior, phydcal secarity: CLI-8121,14 NRC $96 (1981)
Virginia Electrk Ptreer Co. (North Anne Peclear Power Station, Usits I A 2), LDP-Tf-68,6 NRC 1827, i
1862 (1977), s'rd, ALAS-491,4 NRC 245 (I*78) recovery of oprating costs th*ough rate eet;ias; DD 8123,14 NRC 1809 (1981) i Virginia Petrolezm Jubbers Ass's v. F.P.C.,295 024 921,925 (D.C. Cir.1958) l l
considervtion of puNic interest factor, stay of effectiveens of re.nedial antittsat ccaditions to operating I
license; CLI4 h27,14 NRC 797 (19811 l
foer factors considered to stay effectiveness of Ikaaning bmJ decision; ALAM47, it NRO 3G (1981) l rules governing catsideration of a rtey aho appleable to motions for prshminary injuncticas; LDP 88-30, l
14 NRC 354 (1981)
VirgiLia Petro'eu:n Jobbert Ann. v. Federal Power --W 259 F.2d 921 (D.C Cir.1954) insufficient showing made for stay or gmatponement of immediate effectiveness of licenne amendment, CLI.8129,14 NRC 941 (1981) r Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States,272 U.S. 658,672 (1926) lack of strong showing could cause denial of stay even la : mas of irreparable IQury; LDP-4130,14 NRC 359 (1981)
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours,359 F.2d 841,843-44 (D.C. Cir.
1977)
I rules governing consideration of a stay also applicable to miotions for preliminary iWunctions; LDP4130, 14 NRC 358 (1981) l Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and 5), CLI-77 II,5 NRC 719 (1977) meed for a hearing on request for exemption from regulations; CLI4135,14 NRC 1105 (1981) 63 I
i i
i G
12 GAL CITATIONS INDEX CAS83 ey r -
witQ 3 Washington Public Power System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB.571,10 NRC 687,692 (1979) f l
conditions for appellate review of final disposition oflicensing prMag A1AP 652,14 NRC 628 o Appeal Board's sua sposte review of final disposi' ion of licensing proconding; ALAB455,14 1
NRC 803 (1981)
Washington State Bida. & Constr. Trades Council v. Spellman,518 F. Supp. 928 (P D. Wash.1981),
i appeal docketed, New 813453 (9th Cir. My 27,1981) intiative precluding disposal of low-level radioactive wastes found maconstitutional; ALAB-660,14 NRC 1011 (1981)
Washington Sute Building & Construction Trades Council v. Spellman (E.D. Wash, No. C-81 154 RJM) i ability of licensce to dispose of radioactive wastes; LBP-81-59,14 NRC 1444 (1981)
EIA for disposal and storage of TMI westes; LBP-81-60,14 NRC 1734 (1981)
Weinstock v. United States,231 F.2d 699,701-02 (D.C. Cir.1956) definition of materiality: LBP-8143,14 NRC 1781 (1981)
?
Westinghouse Electric Company, CLI40 30,12 NRC 253 (1980) heanns as a matter of right, fuel export applicataan proceeding; CLI-8118,14 NRC 302-303 (1981)
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, CLI-8015, II NRC 672 (1980) health, safety and environmental impacts not considered in evaluating fuel export applications; CLI-SI-18, 14 NRC 303 (1981)
Wine Hobby U.S.A. v. I.RS.,502 F.2d 133,135 (3d Cir.1974) interpretation of regulations regarding confidentiality V identities of individuals involved in cheating incidents; LBP-8150,14 NRC 892 (1981)
Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach, Unit I), CLI-80 38,12 NRC 547 (1980) standing to intervene, alleged intertet must fall within zone of interests protected by AEA; LBP-8126,14 NRC 250 (1981)
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), AIAB-137,6 AEC 491 (1973) special circumstances required for adnussion of pressure vessel crackla6 contentions; LBP-81-24,14 NRC 227 (1981)
Zdanok v. Glidden,327 F.2d 944,955 (2d Cir.), cert. denied,377 US. 934 (1964) consideration of finality of decisica in application of collateral cetoppel effect; LBP-81-58,14 NRC 1189 (1981)
Zucker v. Sable,72 F.R.D.1,3 (S.D.N.Y.1975) applicaticia of attorney work product privilege; LBP-81-63,14 NRC 1794 (1981) i I
4 4
I g
i 64 i
s I
i
1 l
i I
iM' i
^y 5
-w
.l
-r4 l
i
-~z
..e-gEF:
4 ' *
-at:
1 W
t
$p
.,.,s.a...-
r w
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX
-hf REGt!LAT10NS 10 CFR 2 Y'
Board use of independent consultants to appraise Staff evidence; ALAP 663,14 NRC 1856 (1981)
_3 g i
clarification of Memorandum and Order, long-term safety issues; Boar i dven discretion on admission and On-presentation order of contentions; CLI-81-23,14 NRC 611 (1981)
~ id fihns of petitions for leave to intervene. Iicense amendment hearing: CL'-8123,14 NRC 943 (1981) d6 10 CFR 2.101(a-l)
M dismissal of construction permit application with prejudice compelled by; ALAB-657,14 NRC 970,971 8
(1981)
~,
'I specific information to be included la request for early site review; AIAMS7,14 NRC 974 (1981)
Q 10 CFR 2.101(a 1)(1)(ii)
M information required in request for early site review; AIAH57,14 NRC 975 (1981)
& (..
W-ownership of proposed nuclear power plant site by applicant seeking early site review; ALAB-662,14 g 7, NRC 1836 (1981) w 10 CFR 2.102 m
NRC antitrust review; LBP 81-58,14 NRC 1877 (1981)
M 10 Cf R 2.?O4 N
prcrequ%te for holding public hearings on EIS for demntamination of primary coolant systems; 42 CLI-88 25,14 NRC 625 (1981) fe 10 CFR 2105(e) 1?
NRC Staff responubility ancernind safety matters at operating license staae: ALAB-663.14 NRC l156 W
(1941) gi-10 CFR 2.107 C.i moten to mahdraw apphcation, without prejudice, for operating license amendmcat; LBP 88 20,14 NRC Db 101 (1981) 10 CF7. 2.107(s) h Commission authoruy to cus.dition the withdrawat of construction permit applica: ion; ALAB-662,14 3g NRC Il33 (1981) 74 consunction s'ermit apphcotion withdrawn, conditions imposed on applicant; ALAH52,14 NRC 628
.-f 4 (1981)
Q imposition of rehabihtstive conditions anmry upon withdrewat of constructma permit application; j
[
t
[
ALAB-657. f 4 NRC 970 (1981) 6*5 hcensing board authority to dianuss cunstruction permit application with prejudsce; ALAB-6'7,14 NRC 21 974 (1981)
'It l
site redressing ordercd following withdravel of const.wtion permits; LBP-88 33,14 Nr.C 586 (1981)
-14 10 CFR 2.107(c)
"$1 puhhcstion of withdrawal of construction pers; 1 BP-81-13,14 NRC $88 (1981),
y%
i 10 CFR 2.202 l
Inspectica and Enforcement Director requestue e les:itute show cause proceeding; DD-81 16,14 NRC
{?'
bcenace ordered to show cause why license should not be suspended pen' ding completion of specified
%m?
781 (1981) actions; CLI-81-30,14 NRC 95I (1981) l 10 CFR 2.202(f) y-Q W(i.
immediate suspension of license act effected by issuance of show cause erder; DD 88 23,14 NRC 1881 (1981) order sospending fuel loading, low-power testing license ismediately effatsve; CLI-8130,14 NRC 951 vy
,' g' t l
(1981) 10 CFR 2.203
_a
(
NRC pohey favors negotiation and settlement between Pennsylvania and TMI hue; LBP-5132,14 J
NRC 564 (1981)
,r
',b
,h 4
Ja t
_.Th
}
T l
k ik t
w a
b 7"ff f
I.[
3hL
O LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATMNS h
10 CF3 2.204 enti lement of licenses to prior bearing on immediately effective license amendment; CLI-81-29,14 NRC f 24,945,946 (1981) y '- ',
imn.ediate suspension of license not effected by issuance of show cause order: DD-8123,14 NRC 1811 (1981) 10 CFR 2.206 denial by NRR Director of petition by Ralph Neder for suspension of operations pending license review of seismic design deficiencies; DD-8120,14 NRC 10521077 (1981) denial of petition requesting shutdown to inspect steam generator tubes, suspension of operating license because of reactor pressure vessel concerns; DD-8121,14 NRC 10781084 (1981) denial of petition requesting suspension of operation, deficiencies in fire protection and environmental quahtication of electric equipment; DD 8I 13,14 NRC 275 (1981) denial of petition to suspend or revoke construction permit, derwiencies in emergency plans; DD-81 14,14 NRC 279-287 (1981) holding of hearings on petitions under; DD-8122,14 NRC 1089 (1981) licensee free to adjust financial plan to new economic conditions; DD'81 18,14 NRC 928 (1981)
NRR Director denies petition alleging improper financic! arrangements by Iw=- DD'81 18,14 NRC 926-931 (1981)
NRR Director denies petition requesting enforcement action for licensee's failure to abide antitrust condition of license; DD-81 15,14 NRC 549 (1981)
NRR Director denies petitions of 1500 Californians for suspension of operations; DD-81 19,14 NRC 1041 105I (1981) petition for show cause order to require demonstration of licensees' financial qualifmetions to decontaminate damaged plants, denial of; DD-8123,14 NRC 1807 (1981) petition for show cause proceeding. suspension of operations pending full compliance, emergency planning, denied; DD 81 '6,14 NRC 781783 (1981); DD-81 17,14 NRC 784-786 (1981) petition to reopen record, need for power issue, denied; DD-81-12,14 NRC 265-274 (1981) reevaluation of denial of 2.206 petition to determine whether additional concrete testing should be performed; DD 8122,14 NRC 1085-1089 request granted for EIS on chemical decontamination of Unit 1; CLI 81-25,14 NRC 619-620 (198:)
10 CFR 2.276 time for revise of decision authorizing withholding of informants' names allowed to capire; CL1-88 28,14 NRC 933 (1981) 10 CFR 2 600 dismissal of cor.struction permit application with prtivdice cornpe' led by; ALAB4!7,14 NRC 970,971 (1o81)
Lmitation on i.noking early site review procedures; ALAIL657,14 NRC 975 (1981) 10 CFR 2.600'2 606 ownership of proposed nuclear power plant sita by applicant eeeling earfy site review; AI.Ab462,14 NRC 1916 (1581) 10 CFR 2.60hb)(I) restira of applicant's intent la request for early site rWew; ALAB 457,14 NRC 975 (1981) 10 CFR 2.605 c rcunistances for Commissian dochne of early site review request; Al.AB457,14 NRC 975 (1981) 10 CFR 2, Subpart G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Chairman directed to establish hcessing board to conduct bearings on immed.ately effective hcense amsadmaat; CLI 8129,14 NRC 943 (1981) si nificant changes determination not a formal adjudicatory process governed by rules of practice; 8
CLI-81-26,14 NRC 799 (1981) 10 CFR 2.707 i
l demissal of intervenor for failure to answer interrogatories; LBP-5152,14 NRC 908 (198I) moten to strike contentions, imposition of sanctions for default; LBP-8122,14 NRC 151,154 (1981) 10 CFR ? 711 Board authority to expedite treatment of motions; LBP-8151,14 NRC 899 (1981) deadhne for filing amended petition to latervene; LBP-4124,14 NRC 238 (1981) 10 CFR 2.78)(c) 5-duty concerning affirmative disclosure of facts to NRC licensing boards; LBP-4163,14 NRC 1778 (1981) l d4 i
l
I f
G i
i.
IIGAL CITA110NS INDEX
... m
., h. ' f p-
..s 10 CFR 2.714 h >d
?
admissibility of contentions in operating liccase amendment proceeding; LBP41-24,14 NRC 181 (1981);
LBP41-45,14 NRC 855-856 (1981) admissibility of electromagnetic pulses contention; LDP-81-42,14 NRC 843 (1981) contentions adequately plead bases for allegations of unrcoolved generic safety inseca; LBP4130A,14 NRC 369 (1981) dismissed intervenor's contentions, adopted sua sponte by Board, satisfy threshold pleading requirements, LBP-81-38,14 NRC 778 (1981) factor supporting Boar (s sua sponte adoption of dianussed intervenor's contentions; CLI4136,14 NRC lit)(1981) lack of basis for socioeconomic contentions in reopened TMI restart pr ~Aw LBP-8140,14 NRC 1733 (1981) matters may be put in controversy by the parties to e proceeding; LBP-8125,14 NRC 243 (1981) parties to secontamination bearing required to establish standing separately; CLl4115,14 NRC 623 (1981) requirements for timely filing under; LBP 8135.14 NRC 688 (1981) setting forth interests in petition to intervene. CLI-8129,14 NRC 943 (1981) standing of NRC staff; LBP-8134,14 NRC 658 (1981) l untimely contention relating to onsite storage of low-level radioactive wastem; LBP4140,14 NRC 830, 835 (1981) l 10 CFR 2.784(r)
Board extends time for particularization of contentiors, because of intervenors'inexpenence; LBP4124, 14 NRC 185 (1981) late petition to intervene granted by divided licensing board; AIAB460,14 NRC 994 (1981) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) admission of TMI-related contentions; LBP-88 21, le NRC l12 (1981) filing of TMI related contentions; CLl4122,14 NRC 609 (1981) tate intervention criteria, antitrust proceeding; LBP 81 19,14 NRC 92 (1981)
^
rejection of untimely EIA contentions; LBP-88-60,14 NRC 1730 (1981) reperticularization of contention subject to five-factor test LLP 81 18,14 NRC 82 (1981) special factors appled to late latervention, antitrust proceeding; LBP4128,14 NRC 336 (1981) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(2) labor union requesa bearing on overtime restrPtions; LBP-81-26, la NRC 243-249 (1981) petitioner's intercats not set forth in requet for bearing on enforcement action: CLI4131,14 hRC 960 (1981); CLI-8132,14 NRC 963 (1981) requ',rements for petitiari to irtervene in satitrust proceeding; LBP 8128,14 NRC 335 (1981) requirements for petitions for leave to intervene; L1P 8124,14 NRC 236 (1981) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(3) amendmeat of petition to intervece; LBP41-24,14 NRC 237 (1981) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(i)-(v) factors detamining admission of nontimely petition to intervene, license amendment hearirg; CLI-8129, 4
l 14 NRC 944 (1981)
I 10 CFR 2.714(b) admissibility of NEPA contentions; LBP-8140,14 NRC 1728 (1981) applicant argues need for power contentions at operating license stage lack Imais; LBP4114,14 NRC 202 (1981) basis and specificity requirements not met in contentions oppnsing steam generator repairs; ALAB460,14 NRC 999 (1981) contention on earthquake resistance of proposed spent fuel rocks disallowed for lack of specificity; LDP4153,14 NRC 916 (1981) l contentions stated as broad suesations; LBP4141,14 NRC 1737 (1981) l evidentiary showing not required for admission of contentions; ALAB462,14 NRC 1834 (1981) time constrainu for particularization of contentions, operating license proceeding; LBP-81-24,14 NRC 185 (1981)
TMI-related contentions required to comply with basis and specifacity requirements, LBP41-21,14 NRC e,
112 (1981) t y
4 i
67 s
t 1
f 1
i O
11 GAL CFTA110NS INDEX BECUIAT10NS w '
'5 h -* *.
10 CFR 2.714(d) 4 criteria for intervention, antitrust proceeding; LBP-31-19,14 NRC 92 (1981) h*d criteria not addressed in petition for intervention on enforcement ania= CLI-8131,14 NRC 960 (1981);
CLI-8132,14 NRC 963 (1981) factors considered la rulings on petitions to interuns or requests for heartass; LDP-8124,14 NRC 236 (1981) requirements for petition to intervene la antitrust suceeding; LBP-88 28,14 NRC 335 (1981) 10 CFR 2.714(d)(2) conclusions about cognizable interest of late intervention petitioner, antitrust pr~= wha 9 LBP-31 19, le NRC 95 (1981) 10 CFR 2.714(f) limitation on issees, petitions to laterreme; LDP4124,14,rRC 236 (1981) 10 CFR 2.714e appeal of operating licensing proceeding; ALAB441,14 NRC IIl9 (1981) conditions for appeal of order denying intervention concerning temporary casite sacrase of low-level radioactive wastes; LBP-8140,14 NRC 837 (1981) 10 CFR 2.714a(b) deadline for appeal of order denying petition to intervens; LBP41-24, le NRC 234 (1981) 10 CFR 2.714a(c) appeal of order granting intervention, adeussaan of coateetions, operating license amendment pran==&m9-LBP-8145,14 NRC 861 (1981) deadlines for appeal of order granting petitions to latervene, request for bearing; LBP4124,14 NRC 234 (1981) 10 CFR 2.715 clarification of status of lake County Board of F --
., LBP-8135,14 NRC 687 (1981) nonparty participation la decontamination hearing discretionary; CLI-8125,14 NRC 623 (1981) i request for limited appearance in operating license proceeding; LBP-8138,14 NRC 779 (1981) 10 CFR 2.715(c)
California Energy Commission admitted to licensing proceeding as interested state; ALAB455,14 NRC 802 (1981) interested state supports appeal of licensing board's dismissal, with prejudios, of application for construction permit: ALAB 657,14 NRC 972 (1981) nonparty stat 6s of Ashts'mu County Comnussioners established; LBP48 35,14 NRC 688 (1981) petrips tion by lihnois as an interested state; LBP-8141,14 NRC 1736 (1981) participation by Penasylvania as interested state in TMI Restart case; LBP-88 59,14 NRC 1714 (IMI) prticipation by Cahl'ornia as interested state; LBP-88 20,14 NRC 102 (IMl) rig 9 of municipality representatives to participate is liceming r-
'. ; LBP-8124,14 NRC 236 (1981) timely petition filed by State of Texas for participation as laterested state; LDP-813C,14 NRC 777
- 1981)
I la CFR 2.715e consdidat'un of portacipetire of parties in TM! l restart proceedu.g; LBP4142,14 NRC 396 (1981) consohdation of prties in decontamination hearing; CLI-8125,14 NRC 623 (1981) au prehearind order este,ed to set forth cortestbas; LBP.4140A,14 NRC 364 (1981) 10 CFR 2.715e and 2.716 prehearing conference, briefs sha!! state coordination er consolidation of petitioners' cases; LDP4124,14 NRC 238 (1981)
If, CFR 2.716 cor.solidation of operating license and show cause proceedings; LDP-88 31,14 NRC 377,378 (1981) 10 CFR 2.737(b) duty of prompt, affirmative disclosure of new information; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1782 (1981) licensing board jurisdictice to approve QA plan for tras.sition period construction activities; LSP41-34,14 i
NRC 920 (1981) 10 CFR 2.718 authority of presiding offiar regarding discretaanary confidentiality; LBP4130,14 NRC 894 (1981) i authority of presiding officer to impose sanctices, default of dasoovery: LEP41-22,14 NRC 154 (1981)
Board authority to obtala indispensable informatica ce the record froni experts; LBP41-23,14 NRC 164 (1981) dismissal of latarvenar for failure to answer laterrogatories; LBP4152,14 NRC 908 (1981) filing deadlines, answers to motaans for protective orders; LBP-8122,14 NRC 156 (1981) imposition of sinctions for failure to sepply requested information; LBP4124,14 NRC 225 (IMI)
.m<N yg m -
es
1 l
t G
t 12 GAL CTTA110NS INDEX REGUMT80NS I
objections to interrogatories or document requests; LBP-8130A.14 NRC 372 (1981) preservation of confidentiality claim; LBP-81-62.14 NRC 1766 (1981) r referral of rulings toc
' ' ; by-passing Appeal Board; LBP-8136,14 NRC 701 (1981) 10 CFR 2.718(e) conduct of parties to NRC proceeding regarding decovery; LBP-8122,14 NRC 154 (1981) 10 CFR 2.718(b) conference convened for oral argument ce antitrust sommary judgment issues; LBP-8I 19,14 NRC 91 (1981) 10 CFR 2.718(i) appeal board authority to direct certifration of questions arising in licensing proceedings; ALAB463,14 NRC 1849 (1981) denial of petition for directed certification; ALAB-663,14 NRC 1842 (1981) differentiation between certification and referral; LBP-8136,14 NRC 699 (1981) directed certification on merits of seismic issue; ALAB-663,14 NRC 1166 (1981) order subject to discretionary interlocutory review; LBP-8124,14 NRC 234 (1981) standard for discretionary interlocutory review via directed certification; ALAB463,14 NRC 1862 (1981) 10 CFR 2.718(I) authorization for Order setting residency requirements for interventica; LBP-8124,14 NRC 178 (1981) 10 CFR 2.720(h)(2) testimony by NRC staff not identified as witnesses. AMIM63,14 NRC 1863 (1981) 10 CFR 2.721(a) appraisal of Staff evidence by Licensing Boards; ALAB-663,14 NRC 1856 (1981) 10 CFR 2.721(d) comparison of licensing board's authority to dismiss license applications with coert's duoussal of action at 6
plantiffs request; ALAB-657,14 NRC 974 (1981) 10 CFR 2.722 appointment of Special Master Chairman for reopened restart proceeding dealing with confidentiality; LBP-81-50,14 NRC 889 (1981) authority of Special Master Chairman regarding discretionary confidentiality; LBP-4150,14 NRC 894 (1981) i Board authority to obtain indispensable information ce the record from emprts; LBP-8123,14 NRC 168 (1981) 10 CFR 2.722(a)(2) appointment of Seecial Mastet to preside avet bearing of abesations of cheating cm ens::ss by TMI reactor ope stors; LBP 8159,14 NRC 1708 (1981) 10 CFR 2.730 filing deadlines enswa to wotions for protective orders. LBP-8122.14 NRC 156 (1931)
NRC "vT(beects to Bwd datisica that partialinitial decish need not be rude; LilP 8131,14 NPC 711 91) obje.. ;o interrogatories or docurnent requests; LBP-88-30A 14 NRC 372 (1981) refenu of rulings to C- % by-passing Appeal Board. LBP-8136,14 NRC 701 (1981) resolution of writtes motions witicut service on parties. LBP-81-24.14 NRC 110 (1931) 10 CR 2.730(c) leave to reply to answer to motion. LBP-8122.14 NRC 157 (1981) replies to answers opposing motaona; LBP-8130A.14 NRC 372 (1981) replies er answers to motions; LBP 8114,14 NRC 72 (1981) 10 CFR 2.730(f) differentiation between certification and referral; LBP-8136,14 NRC 699,700 (1981) standard for granting request for directed certification; ALAB-663,14 NRC 1862 (1981) unreasonable delays by NRC Staff, rulings referred to Appeal Board; LBP 8138,14 NRC 770 (1981) i 10 CR 2.730(s) proceeding not stayed by Staff motion for directed certification of Licensing BoarJ's determination to call independent emperts; LBP-81-47,14 NRC 871 (1981) 10 CFR 2.732 burden of proof in antitrust proceeding; LBP-8I-58,14 NRC 1176,1877 (1981) 10 CFR 2.73) intervenor's motion for qualificatico of sapert interrogator granted; LBP-8129,14 NRC 353-356 (1981) 10 CFR 2.733(a) standard c(empertise required of empert interrogator: LBP-8129,14 NRC 355 (1981) t f
10 CFR 2.73)(b) and (c) obligations required of empert interrogators; LBP-81-29.14 NRC 355 (1981)
TM 3
l es i
6
?
l l
l
?
't IIGAL CITATIONS INDEX RECtJLATIONS Q,sfg 4
)*
discovery techniques available to intervenors in spent fuel pool esponsion proceeding; LBP-8153,14 NRC 916 (1981) dismissal of intervenor fa failure,o answer interrogatories; LBP-8152,14 NRC 908 (1981) filing deadlines, answers to motions for grotective orders; LBP-31-21,14 NRC 156 (1981) matters may be put in controversy by the parties in a proceeding; LBP-8125,14 NRC 243 (1981) objections to interrogatorica or document requests; LBP-88 30A,14 NRC 372 (1981) 10 CFR 2.740(b) due date for answers to Applicant's interrogatories; LBP 81-52,14 NRC 903 (1981) objections to interrogatones or document requests; LBP 81-30A,14 NRC 372 (1981) 10 CFR 2.740(b)(1) matters on which discovery may be obtained; LBP-8141,14 NRC 1737,1739 (1981) motion to compel discovery relating to ATWS analyses; LBP-8141,14 NRC 1742 (1981) 10 CFR 2.740(e) standards moverning issuance of a protective order, LBP 8142,14 NRC 1759 (1981) td CFR 2.740(c)(3) continuing nature of interrogatories; LBP-8122,14 P,dC 156 (1981) rule reaffirmed regarding continuing nature of interrogatories; LBP 88-30A,14 NRC 372 (1981) 10 CFR 2.740(f)(I) failure to respond to discovery in absence of motion for protective order; LBP-8141, le NRC 1738 (1981) 10 CFR 2.740 2.742 use of depositions for discovery; LBP-8130A,14 NRC 373 (1981) use of depositions instead of interrogatorica; LBP-8122,14 NRC 157 (1981) 10 CFR 2.740 2.744 commencement of discovery on admitted issues; LBP-4124,14 NRC 230 (1981) 10 CFR 2.740b critena for prepared written testimony; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1800 (1981) filing deadlines, answers to motions for protective orders; LBP-8122,14 NRC 156 (1981) 10 CFR 2.741 filing deadlines, answers to motions for protective onders; LBP 81-22,14 NRC 156 (1981) objections to intenogatones or document requests; LBP-81-30A,14 NP "' 372 (!"l) 10 CFR 2.743(c) criteria for material admitted as ev:dence; LBP4t+9 f,4 NRC 1781 (1981) 10 CFR 2.743(i;{l) findings, relating to aconome riska of nuclear pe 2 tion, adopted by taking official notice; sJP-88 58,14 NRC 1891 (1981) 10 CFR 2.744 talancant test relating to policy of prc,tecting privisy interests of individuals r.amed in NRC reports, LBP-4150,14 NRC 892-893 (1981) delegation of authonty to adjudscatory boards to d termine conndentiality; L3P-8142,14 NRC 1754, 1755 (1981)
I discovery, employment files, reasons for terminatbn of former en ployees; LBP-8141,14 NRC 1740 (1981) 10 CFR 2.744(d) applicability to public release of confidential infarmatios; LBP-8142,14 NRC 1753 (1981) 10 CFR 2.749 consideration of contention of dismissed intervinor; LBP-88-34,14 NRC 65F (1981) contentions admitted, in special prehearins conference, without prejudice to possibility of future summary disposition: LBP-8153,14 NRC 913 (1981) dismissed intervenur's contentions. already subjected to discovery, adopted sua sponte by Board; LBP-41-38,14 NRC 771 (1981) intervenor fails to meet requirements for summary disposition of contention dealing with Applicant's technical qualincations; LBP-8134, la NRC 656 (1981) motion for summary disposition of all contentions involving spent fuel paci espansion partially granted; ALAB450,14 NRC 47 (1981) motion for summary disposition of contention on safety-related concrete constructaan: LBP-81-48,14 NRC 878, 880 (1981) right of NRC Staff to file summary disposition motion challenged; LBP 8134,14 NRC 658 (1981) nght of parties to be given opportunity for hearing concerning dsn'issal of mnstruction permit applacation with prejudece; ALAB457,14 NRC 978 (1981)
( *w 7C
4 9
i IIGAL CTfA'IlONS INDEX mECU1410NS i
showing of availability of resources prior to summary judgment motion; LBP-8124,14 NRC 197 (1981) ensatisfac'ary response to answer to contention on intergranular stress corrosaan and cracking; LBP-81-34, i
14 NRC 642 (1981) i 10 CFR 2.749(a) intervenor advised to notify Board if it wishes to respond to Staff response to
- latching" phenomenon contention; LBP-8134,14 NRC 651 (1981) 10 CFR 2 749(b) motion for summary disposition of antitrust issues properly filed; LBP-81 19,14 NRC 88-89 (1981) 10 CFR 2 749(d) issues considered in grant of summary disposition of contentions involving steam generator repairs; ALAB-660,14 NRC 1003 (1981) standard for determination of summary disposition motion; LBP-8158,14 NRC 1872 (1981) i 10 CFR 2.751 l
subordination of general policy of peblic NRC bearings; LBP-8150,14 NRC 894 (1921) 10 CFfi 2.751a i
convening of prehearing conference, operating license procming; LBP 8124,14 NRC 238 (IMI) matters may be put is controversy by the parties in a proceeding: LBP-81-74,14 NRC 243 (1981) prehearing conference asked for, to limit scope of discovery, to establish discovery schedule; LBP-81 19, 14 NRC 88 (1981) special prehearing conference conducted on admission of intervenor, contentions on spent fuel pool espansion; LBP-85 53,14 NRC 913 (1981) i 10 CFR 2.751a(d)
I deadlines for filing objections to order; LBP-8124,14 NRC 233 (1981) i filing of objections to order granting intervention, admission of contentions, operating license amendment i
proceeding; LBP 81-45,14 NRC 861 (1981) 10 CFR 2 752 final pre-hearing conference scheduled; LBP 8138,14 NRC 776 (1981) 10 CFR 2.754(a) parties not asked to present fiedings m scismic considerations of installation of proposed spent fuel storage racks; LBP 5137,14 NRC 714 (1981) parties to restart proceedmg required to file proponeu findings of fact and conclusions of law; LBP-tI 32, 14 NRC 399 (1981) 10 CFR 2.754(b) odequacy of emergency pianning at TMI to protect livestock; LBP-82-59,14 NRC 1671,1673 (1981) l consequences of failure to propose findings on an issue; LBP 8159,14 NRC 1426 (1981) j default by participent in TM! l restart proceeding; LBP-8132,14 NRC 399 (1981) di fault c' interveaors on emergency planning issues; LBP-5159,14 NRC 1598 (1921) une of radioprotective drugs in an emergency; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1666 (1981) 10 CFR 2 754(c)
[
pacemeters for intervenor's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 1sw; ALAB-650,14 NRC 49 I
(1981) 10 CFR 2.758 l
ottack of Commission rules during adjudicatory procending; LBP-8136,14 NRC 706 (1981)
Cali,'ornia Governor requests waiver of immediate effectiveness rule, low power testing license, citing specia circumstanus; CLI 8122,14 NRC 600 (1981) direct challenga.s to NRC regulations; LBP 8124,14 NRC 227,229 (1981) e ground for petition for waiver of 10 CFR 50.13; LBP-8157,14 NRC 1038-1039 (1981) i imposition of requirements, operating licenses, beyond agency regulations; CL1-81-16,14 NRC 1718 (1981) intervenors' rights to raise issues, policy statement on new operating licenses; CLI 81 16,14 NPC 17-18 (1981) petition to waive $50.44; LBP 81-59,14 NRC 1224 (1981) i 10 CFR 2.758(a) intervenor barred from attacking right of staff to file summary disposition motion; LBP-8134,14 NRC
(
658 (1981) 10 CFP 2.758(b) y' yr l
noncumpliance ofintervenor, petition for waiver or exception to summary disposition rule; LBP-8134,14
~g NRC 658 (1981) petition for waiver of 10 CFR 50.13 excluding electromagnetic pulses contention; LBP-st 57,14 NRC 1038 (1981) 4 NM i l
h 1
i l
f 71 1
i t
h l
i O
l LEGAL CTTA110NS INDEX
.c.
REcuunON3
- [2
. _g 10 CFR 2.760 M',A effectiveness of partial initial decision, license amendment, to permit instaDation of spent fuel racks;
- A LBP 8137,14 NRC 762 (1981) 10 CFR 2.760(c)
NRC staff objects to Board decision that gartialinitial daciaiaa need not be made; LBP4137,14 NRC 712 (1981) 10 CFR 2.760s board's wa sponte consideration of multiple disasters as a serious safety nutter, LBP4136,14 NRC 697, 707 (1981) factors supporting Board's sua sponte adoption of di====d intervenor's contentions; CLl4136,14 NRC ill2 til3,1814 (1981)
Licensing Board authority to shape issues of prar-adiar CLI4136,14 NRC Ill) (1981) matten may be put in controversy sua sponte by the Board; LBP-3125,14 NRC 243 (1981)
NRC Staff responsibility concerning safety matters at operating lianse stage; ALAB-663,14 NRC II56 (198,)
requircraents for Licensing Board's sua sponte adoption of dismissed latervenor's contentions; CLI41-24, 14 NRC 615 (1981) saa sponte consideration nf contentions and issues la operating license y,--
_-. LBP41-23,14 NRC 161 162, 165-168 (1981) sua specte review of serious safety matter; CLI-8133,14 NRC 1096 (1981) voluntanly dismissed intervenor's contentmas adopted sua sponte by Berd; LBP41-33,14 NRC 768 i
(1981) 10 CFR 2.762 California governor requests clarification of procedure for filing exceptions to phyaical security decision, i
CLI-8121,14 NRC 596 (1981) deadline for filing bnefs supporting exceptims to partial initial darisian on restart of TMl; LBP41-59,14
)
NRC 1712 (1981) effectiven:ss 4 partist initial decision, license amendment, to permit installation of spent fuel racks; j
LBP-8137,14 NRC 762 (1981) partial initial decision involving Thal restart appealabie; LBP 81-32,14 NRC 584 (1981) time limit for objections to initial tecision in operating license case; LBP-81-24,14 NRC 178 (1981) 10 CFR 2.762(a) i dismissed intervenor awves for extension of time in which to fue exceptions; ALAB459,14 NRC 964
)
(1981) interveaar seeks stay of effectiveness, fun-term cperaung brenses, pending disposition of aralh ALAS.647,14 NRC 30 (1981) precise support of each exception required in appellate brief; A1AB-(50,14 NRC 49 (1981) 10 CFR 2.764 California Governor requests waiver of immediate effectiveness r.ls, low-power testing liosame: CLI41-22, 14 NRC 600 (1981) effectiveness of partial initial decision, license an endment, to permit installation of spent fael racks; LBP.8137, I4 NRC 762 (1981) intervenors ask Commission to rule on stay aiotion at canpletion of effect!veness review; CLI4122,14 NRC 601 (1981) 10 CFR 2.764(a) i effectiveness of order issuing license amendment for steam generator tube sleeving; LBP4155,14 NRC i
1033 (1381) 10 CFR 2.764(f) immediate effectiveness review of decision authorizing fuel loading and low-power testing; CLI41-22,14 NRC 599 (1981) 10 CFR 2.764(f)(2) bases of determination to stay effectiveness of decision authorizing issuance of full-power bcenses.
ALAB-647,14 NRC 29-32 (1981) 10 CFR 2.778 toiling of appeal period while petition for reconsideration of decision is in question; AIAB459,14 NRC 985 (1981) 10 CFR 2.785 effectiveness of partial initial decision, license amendment, to permit installation of spent fuel racks; LBP-81-37,14 NRC 7(2 (1981) motion for review of a portion of full-power effectiveness darkian cons,dered impermissible interlocutory review; CLI-81 IS,14 NRC 2 (1981) p.
(
72
?i G
IIGAL QTATIONS INDEX s
C '1
?
BEGULATIONS J
w.,M sa f,? s review of proceeding involving EIS for Unit I decontamination; CLI-8125,14 NRC 625 (1981)
/- '-
^
~ ^j^
10 CFR 2.785(a) l appeal board authority to perform review functions of Commission; ALAB463,14 NRC 1149 (1981) 10 CFR 2.785(s)(2) sppointment of ALAB for praredag involving EIS for decontamination of Unit 1; CL1-81-25,14 NRC 625 (1981) 10 CFR 2.785(b)(1) directed certification of questions arising in hcensang proceedangs; ALAB463,14 NRC 1149 (1981) order subject to discretionary interlocutory review; LBP-81-24,14 NRC 234 (1981) raferral of rulings to Commission; LBP 88 36,14 NRC 701 (1981) 10 CFR 2 785 2.788 deadline for fding caceptions to order issuing license amendment for steam generator tube sleeving; LBP-81-55,14 NRC 1033 (1981)
I 10 CFR 2.786 ALAB established to bear initial appeals la restart proceedings; Commission review may be requested; CLI-8119,14 NRC 304,303 (1981)
California governor requesta clarification of procedure for review of physical security dxision; time for i
filing petition. extended, CLI-81-21,14 NRC 596 (1981) effectiveness of partial initial decision, license amendment, to permit installation of spent fuel racks; LBP-8137,14 NRC 762 (1981) motion for review of a portion of full-power effectiveness decision considered impermissible hterlocutory review; CLI-81 15,14 NRC 2 (1981) 10 CFR 2.786(b)(4)(ii)
I delay la proceedings cause for Commission review; LBP-81-38. I4 NRC 770 (1981) 10 CFR 2.787 designation of Appeal Board.,roceeding involving EIS for Unit I decontamination; CLI-8115,14 NRC 625 (1981) 10 CFR 2.787(b) authonty of Appeal Panel Chairman in deny antion for reconsideration; ALAB-659,14 NRC 986 (1981) anpublished order tolls runnmg of wiod for filing exaptions; ALAB459,14 NRC 984 (1981) t 10 CFR 2.788 consideration of reblic interest factor, stay of effectiveness of remedial antitrust conditions to operating t
license; CLL 81-27,14 NRC 797 (1981) four factors cavidered on request for stay of Final Order; LBP 81-30,14 NRC 358 (1981) interwnor roquats stay of effectiveness of full-power hcense; CLI-81 15,14 NRC I (1981) stav requesta not prejudiced by Commissim sua sponte review; ALAB447,14 NRC 30 (1981) 10 CFR 2.788(s) time constrainu Soverning applications for stay of effectiveness of licensing board decision; ALAB-647,14 NRC 30 (1981) 10 CFR 2.788(e) factors Soverning grant or denial of stay of effectiveness oflicensing board decision: ALAB447,14 NRC t
30 (1981) public interest consuleration of request for stay of Final Order; LBP-8130,14 NRC 358 (1981) 10 CFR 2.790 delegation of authority to adjudicatory boards to determine confidentiality; LBP 5142,14 NRC 1749, 1753-1757, 1760 (1981) discovery, employment files, reasons for termination of former employees; LBP-8841.14 NRC 1740 (1981) questions concerning relevance of alleged sabotage incident to present case generally answerable from materials available to public: ALAB449,14 NRC 41 (1981)
Staff pleads exemptions regarding discovery of identities of individuals accused of cheating-LBP-81-50,14 NRC 891,892 (1981) 10 CFR 2.790(s)(6) and (7) exemptions to public disclosure of NRC documents; LBP-81-50,14 NRC 891892 (1981) 10 CFR 2.790(b)(1) proposal to withhold information; LBP-8142,14 NRC 1754,1755,1764 (1981) 10 CFR 2.790(b)(1)(ii)
Board jurindu tion to review affulavit concerning confidentiality of filed document; LBP-8142,14 NRC v
1749, 1752 1753, 1755, 1756, 1761 (1981) i
}
73 i
i LEGAL CTTATIONS INDEX REGUIA110NS E
10 CFR 2.790(b)(2) through (c) standards used by boards in determining whether to r. lease confidential information; LBP-8142,14 NRC 1755, 1756, 1760 1761, 1765, 1766 (1981) 10 CFR 2.790(e) hearing board authority to rule on confidentiality of Westinghouse sleeving report questioned; LBP-8142, 14 NRC 1749,1755,1756 (1981) 10 CFR 2.802 petition for rulemaking u remedy for exclusion of electromagnetic pulses contention; LBP-81-57,14 NRC 1039 (1981) 10 CFR 2. App. A Board use of independent consultants to appraise Staff evidence; ALAB-663,14 NRC 1856 (1981) 10 CFR 2, App. A, IV(a) discovery not relevant to matters in controversy; LBP-81-61,14 NRC 1741 (1981) 10 CFR 2. App. A, V(f)(1) and (2) duplication of NRC staff review of health and safety matters at construction permit stage; ALAB463,14 NRC 1156 (1981) 10 CFR 2, App. B 2.206 petition for rulemaking, amendment to require fixed time periods for completion of licensing review; DPRM-812,18 NRC 290,293,294 (1981) function of, and repeal of; ALAB447,14 NRC 29 (1981) 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4) confidentiality of appropriately marked trade informatiat; LBP-8142,14 F{RC 1754,1757,1761 (1981) 10 CFR 9.5(a)(6) and (7) esemptions under Freedom of Information Act regarding public disclosere of identities of individuals accused of cheating; LBP-81-50,14 NRC 891892 (1981) 10 CFR 9.12 Board jurisdiction to review af'idavit concerning confidentiality of filed document; LBP-8142,14 NRC 1749, 1753 1755, 1760, 1761 (1981) 10 CFR 19 health physics training program for workers entering spent fuel pool area; LBP-81-37,14 NRC 745 (1981) overtime restrictions, maintenance of safe conditions within nuclear facility; LBP-8126,14 NRC 251-252, 260 (1981) 10 CFR 20 adequacy of monitoring apparatus in containment building to detect hydrogen caplasions; LBP 81-34,14 NRC 649 (1981) consequences of a spill to groundwater of contects of baratul water storage task; LBP-8159,14 NRC I453 (1981) consideration of radioactive releases, from stored steam generator lower assemblics, during hurricane; ALAB-660,14 NRC 994,995,998,1000 (1981) radiation doses associated with shredding and barreling spent fuel racks for disposal; LBP-81-37,14 NRC 743 (1981) radioisotope levels in groundwater levels near TMf; lid-8159,14 NRC 1450 (1981) 10 CFR 20.1 denial of motion to compel dismvery relating to maintenance of radiation exposure levels as-low-as-reasonably achievable; LBP-8141,14 NRC IN2 (1981) 10 CFR 20.l(c) evaluation of radiation exposure relating to spent fuel shipments; ALAB451,14 NRC 323 (1981) 10 CFR 20.302 intervenor argues that application setting for.h proposed disposal procedures for wastes from steam generator repairs should be required; ALAB460,14 NRC 1000 (1981) 10 CFR 20, App. B accidental release of radiation from steam generator repairs,into cooling canals; LBP-8130,14 NRC 361 (1981) estimate of radioactive releases into cooling ennals, from low-level wastes from repairs of one steam generator unit, during hurricane; ALAB460,14 NRC 1002,1012 (1981) levels of radioactivity in Susquehanna River; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1450 (1981) tritium in groundwater near TMI; LBP-81-59,14 NRC 1449 (1981)
.,,s 10 CFR 20. App. B Table 11, Column I
~ <-
capability of TMI-I waste gas system; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1442 6981)
M 3
14 I
l I
t
l I
O LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX eM REGU1M10NS E
4:
E{x:.'6
'* 3
{
10 CFR 20, App. B. Table II, Column 2 s
capabihty of TMI-I liquid radwaste system; LBP-88 59,14 NRC I441 (1981) y 10 CFR 21 QA procedure for compliance, spent fuel racks, not established; LBP-81-37,14 NRC 728 (1981) 10 CFR 30 petitioner cites failure of low-level radioactive waste management plan to fonow regulations; LBP-81-40, 14 NRC 835 836 (1981) 10 CFR 30.22 contention asking submission of long-term costs of low-level radmactive waste disposal challenges re8ulations; LBP-81-40,14 NRC 837 (1981) 10 CFR 30.32(f) scope of environmental review, storage of low-level radioactive wastes; LBP-88-40,14 NRC 435,836 (1981) l 10 CFR 50 appeal board authority to perform review functions of~
"% concerning operating license applicatens; ALAB-663,14 NRC 1849 (1981) extended bourwiaries for state and local evacuation plana; Lisp-81-59,14 NRC 1539 (1981) radioactive releases, from stored steam generator lower assemblies, during hurricane not "as low as reasonably achievable"; ALAB-660,14 NRC 994,995 (1981) i request to conduct non-safety-related site preparation activities prior to construction permit issuance; CLI-8135,14 NRC 1010 (1981) revised requirements for emergency preparedness at power reactor sites; DD-81 14,14 NRC 281 (1981) 10 CFR 50.10 l
request for exemption from, to conduct site preparation activities; CLI-8135,14 NRC 1101 (1981) 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) adequacy of documentation to support request for exemption from $50.1&, CLI-8135,14 NRC 1108 (1981) 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) and (3) construction permit apphcation withdrawn, LWA's vacated; ALAB-652,14 NRC 628 (1981) lin ited work authorizations revoked fwowing withdrawal of construction permits; LBP-8133,14 NRC 587 (1981) 10 CFR 50.12 form of proceedings for considering request for exemption from regulations: CLI-81-35,14 NRC 1802 (1981) request for exemption from 50.10, to conduct site preparation activkies: CLI-8135,14 NitC 1108 (1981) schedule for comments on request for exemption from; CLI-81-35,14 NRC 1I10 (1981) 10 CFR 50.12(a) and (b)(4) public interest considerations for granting exemption frcan 150.10; CLI-8135,14 NRC 1108 (1981) 10 CFR 50.13 admission of electromagnetic pulses contention bar+ed by: LBP-81-42,14 NRC 843-845 (1981) exclusion of electromagnetic pulses contention under, denial of petition for waiver of; LBP 8157,14 NRC 1038-1039 (1981) 10 CFR 50.21(b)(2) or (3) limitation on invoking early site review procedures; ALAB-657,14 NRC 975 (1981) 10 CFR 50.22 hmitation on invoking early site review procedures; ALAB-657,14 NRC 975 (1981) 10 CFR 50.33(f) applicant's financing plan considered in light of relevant circumstances; DD-81-18,14 NRC 928 (1981) coowners found financially qualified prior to issuance of construction permits; DD-81-18,14 NRC 926 (1981) financial abihty of Applicant to complete construction irrelevant at operating hcense stage; LBP-8124,14 NRC 193,195 (1981) standards for determining financial qualifications of applicants end licensees; DD-81-23,14 NRC 1808-1809 (1981) 10 CFR 50.33(g) contention citing noncompliance of emergency response plans sufficient to reopen record of full-power licensing proceedars; LBP-8 8-27,14 NRC 326,332 (1981) 10 CFR 50.34(a) and (b)
+#
emergency preparedness requirements to be met before recemng construction permit or operating license; DD-81 14,14 NRC 281 (1981)
-?
kWh 75
\\,
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS e
10 CFR 50.34 b) t decommissioning plan not required as condition of issuance of operating license; LBP-81-24,14 NRC 214 (1981) f&
questions concerning relevance of alleged sabotage incident to present case generally answerable froma materials available to pubk; ALAB-649,14 NRC 41 (1981) 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(v) responses to discovery of incomplete eme23ency plan; LBP-81-61.14 NRC 1739 (1981) 10 CFR 50.35(a) no unresolved generic safety problems found to prevent operation of proposed Diablo Canyon facility; LBP-81-21,14 NRC 119 (1981) 10 CfR 50.36 catesones of technical specifications to be considered in conditioning a hcense; LBP 8159,14 NRC 1418 (1981)
Licenace's technical qualifications to operate TMI I questioned in restart proceedag; LBP-8132,14 NRC 479 (1951) 10 CFR 50 36(a) questions concerning relevance of alleged sabotage incident to present case generally answerable from materials available to pubhc; ALAB-649,14 NRC 41 (1981) 10 CFR 50.36a(s)(2) contention, noncomphance of meteorological measurement program with Draft Guides, dismissed without prejudice; LBP.81-18,14 NRC 73 (1981) to CF4 50.39 questions concerning relevance of alleged sabotage incident to present case generally answerable from materials available to pubhc; ALAB-649,14 NRC 41 (1981) 10 CFR 50.40 Licensee's technical qualifications to estrate TMI-I questioned in restart proceeding; LBP-8132,14 NRC 479 (1981) 10 CFR $0 40(c) imposition of requirements beyond egency regulations; CLI-8816,14 NRC 17 (1981) 10 CFR 50 44 accident leading to excessive hydrogen generation consideied in effectiveness decision, fulkpower license, Urut I; CLI-8115,14 NRC 2 (1981)
Commission ruims on excessive hydrogen geni ratwn issues; LBP-81-27,14 NRC 327 (1981)
Commission TMI I Order on Hydtcgen Control Rule; CLI 81 15,14 NRC 8-9 (1981) contention, noncomphance, proposed purt-accident hydrogen cont:al management, rejected; LBP-81 18,14 NRC '6 (1981) excessive hydrogen generation, postulated TMI-type accident at McGuire; ALAB447,14 NRC 29 (1981) exempton from inerting requiremot, CLI 41 15,14 N AC 8 (198?)
bydrogen generation standards pnor to TMI; CLI-8115,14 NRC 5 (1981) htigation of hydrogen gas control contrations; LBP 8124,14 NRC 207 (1981) semedy to genenc safety issue; LBP-8157,14 NRC 1039 (1981) suspension of regulation on hydrogen control advocated in separate view; CLI-81-15,14 NRC ll (1981) waiver of; LBP-815?,14 NRC 1224 (1981) 10 CFR 50 46 compliance demonstrated at TMI, additionalloss-of coolant accident analyses specified, LBP-8159,14 NRC 13281335,1338 (1981) determining esistence of inadequate core cooling; LBP 8159,14 NRC 1237 (1981) final safety testmg of emergency core cooling systems; LBP-81-24,14 NRC 215 (1981) justification of Staffs one percent failed fuel essumpton at TMI; LBP 8159,14 NRC 1402 (1981) mitigation of PORV-induced LOCAs; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1280 (1981) 10 CFR 50.46(b)(1) escessive claddmg temperatures during TMI-2 acr.ident; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1328 (1981) 10 CFR 50 46(b)(33 excessive hydrogen generation during TMI-2 accident; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1328 (1981) 10 CFR 50.47 adequacy of proswtive measures during radiological releases; CLI-8133,14 NRC 1096 (1981) comphance, apphcant State and local emergency planning requirements during low-power testing; LBP El 21.14 NRC 119,121123,131 (1981) emergency preparedness requirements to be met before receiving mostruction permit or operating license; e
r; y DD-8114,14 NRC 281 (1981) factoring of effects of earthquakes into emergency plans; LBP-8136,14 NRC 704 (1981)
~
9
>fk' 76
l f
G
}
12 GAL CTTAT10NS INDEX y
mismnoNs
.l 4 l
{'vyf l
,(UMas'"
FEMA findings questicned regarding adequacy of emergency planning for purposes of low-power testing; l
CLI-8122,14 NRC 601,605 (1981) requirements of licensing boards regarding findings reisted to protectne measures during redsological emergencies; LDP41-36,14 NRC (99 (1981) 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2) applicatim of rebuttable presumption standard to adequacy of emergency planning; LBP-88 59,14 NRC a 462,1463,1465,1466 (1981) basis of NRC findings os adequacy of emergency,,,y.s"
. LBP 8159, le NRC 1442 (1981) 10 CFR 50.47(b) complianz by TMI with emergency action level criteria; LDP4159,14 NRC 1702-1703 (1981) failure of Board to compare emergency plan with all 16 standards; CLI41-22,14 NRC 605,607 (1981) seneric emergency plan for evacuation routes not suitable; LBP-8136,14 NRC 699 (1981) standards required of TMI mader su emergency planning rules; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1458 (1981) 4 ese of guidelines for contaminated foodstuffs in emergency planning; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1593 (1981) i 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1) assignment of responsibilities in TMI emergency response organization; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1470 (1981) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10) adoption of guidelines for choice of protectne action during emergency; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1498 (1981)
?
actifying transient popuktions of an emerge,xy; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1527 (1981) protection of public in plume exposure pathway EPZ around TMI; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1555 (1981) range of protective measures in emergency plan; DD41 14,14 NRC 283 (1981) use of guidelines for contaminated foodstuffs in emergency planning; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1593 (1981) i 10 CFR 50.47(I-)(2) adequacy of staffing, TMI emsigency operations facility; LBP-8159,14 NRC I474 (1981) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3) means for early notification of populace withis plume EPZ of an emergency; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1535, 1538 (1981) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(7) discussion of standards governing emergency preparedness public education programs; LBP-8159,14 bisC 1522,1524 (1981) notifying transi.at populations of as emergency L7P-81-59,14 NRC 1527,1528 (1981) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) requirements of emergency operations facility; LBf'-8159,14 NRC 1473 (1951) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) and (9) rules for emergency planning geners!!y non-specifm:; LBP-8136,14 NRC 699 (1981) 10 CFR 50.47(c)fI) assessment of adequacy of emergency plaa.J.ag for low power licenses; CLI-8122,14 NRC 605 (1981) contention citing emergency planning defW,ncies meets criteria for reopening record, full-power licensing proceeding: LBP-8127,14 NRC 126 mil) exemptions from compliance, applicant, S<s,e aw' kal em.rgency plans during low-power testing; LBP-81-21,14 NRC 120,122-123,129 (1981) b flexibility in implementation of new emergacy planning tw 4 LBP-81-53,14 NRC 1459 (1981) separate opinion, low-power license, failure of Board to cony 4y with prescribed procedures for evaluating
(
emersency plan; CLI-8122,14 NRC 605 (1981) l 10 CFR 50 47(c)(2) boundaries of the food ingestion EPZ around a nuclear power 6 (.B+ t1-59,14 NRC 1555 (1981) defining arcel extent of plume exposure pathway EPZ; LBP-81-59, le n si 1579 (1981) definition of plume exposure EPZ of a anclear power plant; LBP4159,14 NRC 1538 (1981) site specific accident analyses, establishing plume exposure pathway EPZ; LBP41-36,14 NRC 698 I
(1981)
TMI compliance with order for 10 mile plume EPZ; LBP 8159,14 NRC 1703 (1981)
+
10 CFR 50.48 issuanos of new fire protection requirements; DD41 13,14 NRC 276 (IMI) 10 CFR 50.54(f) licensee required to submit information ce reactor pressure vessel for review; DD4121,14 NRC 1083
[.
(1981) 10 CFR 50.54(q)
{
standards required of TMI under new emergency planaias rules; LDP4159,14 NRC 1458,1462 (1981) lhh n
i k
i i
t
IIGAL CTTATIONS INDEX M
df's 4,e; 10 CFR 50.54(s)(1)
M I"'
definition of plume esposure EPZ of a nuclear po-er plant; LBP-8159, I4 NRC 1538 (1981) 2
,k protection of the food ingestion pathway around a nuclear power plant; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1555 (1981)
TMI compliance with orSer for 10-mile plume EPZ; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1703 (1981) 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) imolementation of emergency plaa under new rules; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1458-1459 (1981) 10 CFR 50.54(s)(3) basis for NRC determination of adequacy of licensee's emergency preparedeces; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1458, 1462 (1981) 10 CFR 50.55(e)
NRC inspections of placcmest of safety-related concrete; LBP-81-44,14 NRC 882 (19P1) 10 CFR 50.55a contention, structures, systems, components not backfitted is comformance with safety standards, roosat Regulatory Guidea; LBP-81 18, le NRC 76,78,81 (1981) 10 CFR 50.55a(b) application criteria for, at TMl; LBP-81-59,14 NRC 1260,1262 (1981) contention citing defeiencies in reactor vessel level instrumentation system denied; LBP-8127,14 NPC 329 (1981) overnde of safety systems at TMl; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1258,1260 (1981) 10 CFR 357 contention, structures, systems, components not beckfitted in conformance with safety standards, recent Relutatory Guides; LBP-81 18,14 NRC 76 (1981)
Licensee's technical qualifications to operate TMI-I questioned in restart proceeding; LBP-8132,14 NRC 479 (1981)
NRC Staff responsibility concerning safety matters at operating license stage; ALAB-663,14 NRC 1156 (1981) tandem licensing concern; LBP-8124,14 NRC 209 (1981)
,i 10 CFR 50.57(a) requisite findings made to issue full-term operating licenses for McGmre units; ALAB-647,14 NRC 29 (1981) 10 CFR 50.57(a)(1) severance and stay of proceeding for Unit 2 operating license s.aght on ground of incompleteness of facility: LBP 8156,14 NRC 1035 (1981) 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3) relevant conditions to plant operation pending outcome of appeal of dacision au'borizing full-term license; ALAB-647, le NRC 32 (1981) 10 CFR 50.57(a)(4) technical qualifica&ms of personnel to operate nucitar power plant safely; LBP-8125,14 NRC 242 (1981)
Applicant's financial qualifications questioned in Board-adopted contention; LBP-8138,14 NRC 778 (1981) 10 CFR 50.57(c) request for fuel loading and low-power operation; F.8P-8121,14 NRC 110 (1981) 10 CFR 50.59(b) enforcement of licensee's <mmmitments; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1415 (1981) reporting sad recording of deviations from established ope ating procedures for maintaining and monitanns water chemistry, spent fuel pool; ALAB-650,14 NRC 54 (1981) l significance of licensee's commitments involving changes in facility or procedures; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1415 (1981) to CFR 50.71 Licensee's technical qualifications to operate TMI I questioned in restart proceeding; LbP-8I 32,14 NRC 479 (1981) 10 CFR 50.7t(e)
Applicant ordered to include commitments concerning installation of spent fuel rocks in Dresden F3AR when updated; LBP 8137,14 NRC 762 (1981) 10 CFR 50 80 NRC approva! not required for licensee's financial arrangements; DIA.81 18.14 NRC 927-928 (1981)
)
10 CFR 50 81 NRC approval not required for licensee's financial arrangements; DD-8318,14 NRC 928 (1981)
- ~
wr5 M
QV i
1
~
O LT. GAL CITATIONS INDEX pp REGULADONS ey vM?
v i
10 CFR 50.91 W MC public beerth and safety standard satisfied by Boral 95% lenktightness,955 confulence level guaraniae; ALAB450,14 NRC SS (1981) 10 CFR 50.100 licenses ordered to show cause ehy license should not be suspended pending coenpletion of specirmed actions, CLI-8130,14 NRC 951 (1981) 10 CFR 50.109 contention, structures, systems, components not backfitted in conformance with safety standards, recent Regulatory Guides; LBP-81-18,14 NRC 76 (1981) 10 CFR 50.109(a) hcpitson of requirements beyond agency regulations; CLI-81 16,14 NRC 17 (1981) standards la Roard's determination of what is necessary for safe operation of a facihty; LBP 81-59,14 NRC 1247124a (!981) 10 CFR 50, App. A assessment of plant response of design basis events; LBP 88-59,14 NRC 1382 (1981) contention citing noncompliance of classification of relmsf and block valves denied; LBP 8127,14 NRC 327 (1981) i contention, compliance regarding intergranular stress corrosion and cracking not demonstrated; LBP-8134,14 NRC 642 (1981) contention, failure to document method for fuel den.iracation analysis, admitted; LBP-81-18.14 NRC 85 (1981) contention, noncompliance of initial test program, rejected; LBP-81-18,14 NRC $1 (1981) j contention, remote shutdown capability, being reviewed by staff; LBP 81-23,14 NRC 171 (1981) contention, single failure criterion, de power system, being reviewed by staff; LBP-4123,14 NRC 170 (1981) contentio e involving environmental qualification of control systems, TMI action plan, being reviewed by staff; L. '-8123,14 NRC 170 (1981) defense in d6, h policy; LBP 5159,14 NRC 1280 (1981) definition of st, etures, systems and components important to reactor safety; LBP-8159,14 NPC 1342, 1344 (1981) environmertal quanfication of safety related electncal equipment, documents forming requirements for; LBP 8159,14 NRC 1399 (1981) requirements satisfied concernmg control room desiga at TMI l; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1326 (1981) violation concerning on-site power generation alleged; LBP 8124,14 NRC 223 (1981) 10 CFR 50, App. B applicant's quality assurance programs in compliance; LBP 8121,14 NRC 115116 (1931) assurance of safe welding operations; LBP-8134,14 NRC 668 (1981) contention citing nonmmpliance of classification of relief and block valves densed; LBP-8127, le bRC 327 (1981) contention, compliance of construction QA program not documented, ryected; LBP-81 18,14 NRC 54 (1981) contention, conformance of plan to audit QA during construction, rejected; LBP-8818, le NRC 86 (1981) description of QA/QC program: LBP-81-48,14 NRC 850 (1981) documentation of QA/QC functions concerning safety-related concrete; LBP 81-48,14 NRC 881 (1981) licenses ordered to compare its QA procedures and controls with; CLI-8130,14 NRC 955 (1981)
Licensee's technical qualifications to operate TMI I questioned is restart proceeding; LBP 8132,14 NRC 479 (1981) performance of audits of spent fuel rack fabricators for quality assurance program; LBP-8137,14 NRC 725, 730 (198I) proposed QA program for TMI I operations found satisfactory; LBP 8132,14 NRC 427 (1981) quality assurance program, spent fuel storate, meets appiscable regstations; LBP 8137,14 NRC 723 (1981) l types of deficiencies disclosed in sudits; LBP-8137,14 NRC 726 (1981) l roolation, QA procedure for compliance with 10 CFR 21, not established; LBP-81-37,14 NRC 728 (1981) viciations of, regarding seismic design; CLI-8I 30,14 NRC 951 (1981) i i
i 10 CFR 50, App. C C
appiscant's Imancial qualirscations questioned is Board-adopted contention; LBP-8138,14 NRC 778 (1981) applicant's financing plan considered in light of relevant circumstances; DD 81 18,14 NRC 928 (1981)
S y
%;Q l. *
-,p l
79 i
I
i t
O LEGAL CITATIONS INDEI RICULATIONS contention questioning applicant's financial qualification for spent feel pool expansion disallowed, LBP-5153,14 NRC 915 (1981) showing of availability of resources by applicants for operating licenses; LBP-81-24,14 NRC 1983,195, 197 (1981) standards for deternuning financial quahfications of applicants and I-- DD4123,14 NRC 1808, 1809 (1981) 10 CFR 50, App. C, I.A.1 costs considered in determining financial qualifkations of applicants at constraction permit stage; DD 8123,14 NRC 1809 (1981) 10 CFR 50, App. D definition of Class 9 accident la proposed annes to; ALAB450, I4 NRC 48 (1981) postulation of fuel bandling accidents involving 7 X 7 fuel assemblies la spent fuel pools; LBP-3137,14 NRC 747 (1981) 10 CFR 50, App. E (Rev.)
contention citing noncompliance of emergency response plans sofFicient to reopen record of fad-powse licensing proceeding; LBP 8127,14 NRC 326,332 (1981) 19 CFR 50 App. E classification of accidents for emergency planning purposes; LBP4159,14 NRC 1494 (1981) ompliance of applicant, State and loca4 cmergency plans during low-power testing; LDP 8121,14 NRC 119, 121 123 (1981) con evion, noncompliance of meteorological measurement program with Draft Guides, d====t without
,e edice; LBP-81-18,14 NRC 78 (1981) emergency planning contention to track latest vcrsion: LDP-8135,14 NRC 686 (1981) emergency preparedness requirements to be met before receiving constructaan permit or operating timese; DD 81 14,14 NRC 281 (1981) factoring of effects of earthquakes into emergency plans; LBP-8136,14 NRC 704 (1981) freqcency of federal agency participation la emergency exercises at TMl; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1693 (1981) generic emergency plan for evacuation routes not suitable; LDP-8136,14 NRC 699 (1981) interpretation of time period = = y =4 by an emergency, LBP-81-59,14 NRC 1477 (1981) protection of property during an emergenef; LBP 8159,14 NRC 1674 (1981) provision of emergency facihties and equipment; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1474 (1981) responses to discmery of incomplete emergency plan; 1 BP-8141,14 NRC 1739 (1981) six deficiencies in emergency planning described in contention; LBP 8138,14 NRC 777 (1981) standards required of TMI under new emergency planning rules; LBP-8159,14 NRC I458 (1981) upgrading of emergency planning regulations la; DD-81 19,14 NRC 1048 (1981); DD 8120,14 NRC 1359 (1981) t0 CFR 50, App. E, I, fa. 2 defining areal extent of Name exposere patbesy EP2; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1579 (1981) 10 CFR 50, App. E, ILI contention, state and local emergency plans "not workable"; LDP-8124,14 NRC 189 (1981) 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV breadth of TMI's evacuation time estimates; LFP-81-59,14 NRC 1584 (1981) 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV.B i
intent of requirement for emergency plan; DD 81 14,14 NRC 283 (1981) l 10 CFR 50, App. F. IV.D l
meeting design objective of alerting system; DD-81 14,14 NRC 281 (1981) l 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV.D.2 discussion of standards go~erntng emergency preparedness public education programs; LBP-81-59,14 NRC 1522 0981) 10 CFR 50, App. F., IV.D.3.
2.206 petitioner cites failure of Applicant to canply with emergency planning requirements for notifiestion system; DD 81 16,14 NRC 781 (1981) amendment of, tsgard;ng operational date for emergency notification systems; DD-SI 16,14 NRC 782 (1981) dete for implementing 15-minute gnblic notification requirement; LDP-81-59,14 NRC 1458 (1981) means for early notification of the populace within the plume EPZ of an emergency; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1535 (1981)
R2-p 3g warning of state and local governmental agencies is as emergency; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1573 (1981)
W warning transient population, withis 15 nunutra, of an emergency; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1527 (1981) i U3 2
b 98
{
1
{
l i
t
[
MGAL CTTATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CFR 50. App. E. IV.F.2 adequacy of provisions for federal emergency response agency participation in exercises at TMl; LBP41-59,14 NRC 1693 (1981) 10 CFR 50, App. I contention, pnecribed done and release measures not used la Stafra radiation effects analysis, rejected; LBP41 18, le NRC 83 (1981) cost benefit balance of health effects of kw-level, routine radioactive ens==r LDP-8134,14 NRC 6754 80 (1981) estimate of atmospheric radioactive releases, from low-level wastes from repair of one stasm generstar anit, daring burricane; ALAB460,14 NRC 1002 (1981) radiation emissions cor..ention challenges regulation, lacks specificity; LBP4124,14 NRC 209 (1981) site boundary dcmes of accidental release of radiation from steam generator repairs; LBP-81-30,14 NRC 361 (1981) 10 CFR 50, App. I,llLA capability of TMI I liquid radwaste system to meet dose design objectsves; LB7 41-59,14 NRC 1441 (1981) 10 CFR 50, App. I, III.B. ILC capability of TMI-I waste gas system to meet dose design objectives; LBP-88 59,14 NRC I442 (1981) 10 CFR 50, App. I, lit.D capability of TMI l waste systems to meet cost / benefit objectivta; LBP4159,14 NRC 1441,1442
. (1981) 10 CR 50, App. J testing to assure lenktightness of containment; LDP 81-34, l4 NRC 640 (1981) i 10 CFR 50, App. K analysis of LOCAs at TMI, NRC approval of ECCS evaluation undet; LBP41-59,14 NRC 1329,1332 (1981) 6 compliance, final safety testing, ECCS; LBP-41-24,14 NRC 215 (1981) small break criteria to be met by emergency feedwater system at TMI; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1333 (1981) 10 CR 50, App. Q procedures for seeking early review of site suitability issues; ALAB-657,14 NRC 975 (1981) 10 CFR 50, App. R compliance with requirements for remote shutdown panel; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1325 (1981) new fire protection requirements and saemptions frome DD41 13,14 NRC 276 277 (1981) 10 CFR St Board responsibility under NEPA to emplore alternatives to spent fuel pool expansion; LBP-8153, le NRC 914 (1981)
EIS not requM for issuance oflicense amendment to allow lastallation of spent fuel storage racks; LBP4137,14 NRC 759 (1981)
Licensing Board juried ction to consider whether NEPA has been complied with; LBP-8140,14 NRC 1727 (1981)
TMI I restart pr~== hat namn=pliance issues; LDP41-60,14 NRC 1726,1731 (1981) 10 CFR St.5(a) limitation ca invoking early site review procedures in consecuan with utilization facility; AIAB457,14 e
NRC 975 (1981) 10 LFR St.5(s)(ll) requirement for consideration of alternatives to spent fuel pool expansion through EIS; LBP4153,14 NRC 914 (1988) r
(
10 CFR 51.5(b)(2) preparation of EIS or EIA for operating license amendment to allow steam generator tube sleeviag;
{
LBP 81-45,14 NRC 859 (1981) 30 CFR SI.5(c)(1) i eavironmental review of proposed amendment, special audear materials license involving shipment of l
spent fuel assemblies; ALAB451, le NRC 310 (1981) 10 CR 51.7 segative declarath EIS, proposed shipment of spent fuel assemblies; AIAB451,14 NRC 311 (1981) 10 CFR St.7(b)
,~
NEPA requirements for EIA involving transfer of spent fuel assemblies; ALAB451,14 NRC 316,317 (1981)
TMI-I restast, preparation and issuamos of E!A; LBP4140,14 NRC 1726 (1981) st
l t
O LEGAL CITATIONS LNDEX REGUIA110NS y.,
.,i Vi
..,, ?* :
10 CFR 5121,51.23 and $1.26 consideration of CANDU Reactor contention prohibited at operating license stage: LBP-81-24,14 NRC 10 C 51.26 need for power analyzed at construction permit stage; LBP-8124,14 NRC 197 (1981) 10 CFR 51. Table S-3 deletion of radon value from; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1785 (1981) 10 CFR SI 52(b)(3) modification of staff-ptepared FES by licensing board Ma based on evidentiary record; ALAS 460, 14 NRC 1014 (1981) 10 CFR SI,52(c)(1) comparison with Licensing Board jurisdiction to rule on NEPA contention; LBP4I 60,14 NRC 1728 (1981) 10 CFR St.52(d) challeeges to staff EIA, spent fuel pool expansion: ALAB450,14 NRC 67 (1981)
Licensing Board jurisdiction to rule on NEPA contentions; LBP-81-60,14 NRC 1728 (1981) 10 CFR 55 licensing of shift supemsor; LBP4132,14 NRC 577 (1981) 10 CFR 55.II(b) adriisistration of examinataans to reactor operators; LBP-8132,14 NRC 473 (1981) 10 Cl R 55.20 55.23 NRR Director recommends examination of au TMI I licensed personnel; LBP-88-32, le NRC 388,451, 455, 473, 476, 568, 569 (1981) 10 CFR 70 amendment of Special Nuclear Materials Ucenac to allow transportation of three spent fuel assemWies; ALAB451,14 NRC 309 (1981) revised requirements for emergency preparedness at power reactor sites; DD 41 14,14 NRC 281 (1981) 10 CFR 70.31(d) application of safety standards to proposed spent fuel shipments; ALAB451,14 NRC 323 (1981) 10 CFR 71 design of casts for shipment of spent fuel assemblies; ALAS 451,14 NRC 318 (1981) 10 CFR 71.12 packaging requirements, shipment of three spent fuel assemblica; A1AB451,le NRC 309 (1981) 10 CFR 73 design of casks for shipment of spent fuel assemWies; ALAS 451,14 NRC 318 (1981) 10 CFR 73.1 restricted operating license proceeding, applicant's physical security plan found in conformance; ALAB453,14 NRC 630 (1981) 10 CFR 73.37 security requirements for shipment of spent fuel assemblies; ALAB451,14 NRC 319 (1981) 10 CFR 73.40 restricted operating license proceeding, applicant's physical security plan found in aunformance; ALAB-635,14 NRC 630 (1981) 10 CFR 73.45 emergency planning not a licensed activity; LBP-88 24,14 NRC 180 (1981) 10 CFR 73.55 motion to compel discovery of security plan denied; LBP-8141,14 NRC 1741 (1981) rwtricted operating license proceeding, applicant's physical security plan found in conformance; ALAB-635,14 NRC 630 (1981) 10 CFR 100 as a substitute for 10 CFR 50.44 in litigation of hydrogen control issues; CLI-81-15,14 NRC 9 lo,12 (1981) assessment of consequences of design basis events; LBP-81-59,14 NRC 1382 (1981) basis for estimate of unfiltered leakage from containment; LBP-8134, le NRC 640 (1981) calculation of radiation doses from postulated fuel-handling accident; LSP 81-37. I4 NRC 747 (1981) cmhbility of class 9 accidents, LBP-8159,14 NRC 1381 (1981) htigation ef hydrogen gas onstrol contentions; LBP-8124,14 NRC 207 (1981); LBMI 27,14 NRC 327 (1981) i U
t litigation of TMI post-accident hydrogen gas control ander: LBP 8159,14 NRC 1224 (1981) radactrve releases from cracked containment; LBP-81-34,14 NRC 64I (1981)
,k 82
e l
l LEGAL CITA110NS INDEX l
REGUldTIONS s
,$J,,
r Y
+y site found acceptable for construction and operation of pressurized water reacter; ALAB462,14 NRC 1830 (1981) e 10 CFR 100.3(c) contention, population center distance too short la light of TMI accihnt; LBP-8124,14 NRC 228 (1981)
I contention, noncompliance of meteorological measurement program with Draft Guides, dismissed without 5
prejudice; LBP41 18.14 NRC 78 (1981) 10 CFR 100.11 caposure risks during low-power testing: LBP-8121,14 NRC 124,130 (1981) 10 CFR 100.ll(a)(2) contention dealing with offsite radiation relesass from hydrogen combustion denied; LDP4127,14 NRC 327 (1981) 10 CFR 100.ll(s)(3) and 100.ll(b) contention, population cente distance too short in light of TMI accident; LBP41-24,14 NRC 228 (1981) t 10 CFR 100 App. A l
contention criticizing non-conservative seismic desiga spectra and damping factors accepted; LBP41-18, t
14 NRC 80 (1981) implementation of gradations in safety classification of reactor systems; LBP4159,14 NRC 1343 (1981) noncompliance, seismic design classifications, control room habitability, radioactive waste systems, contention rejected; LBP41 18,14 NRC 78 (1981) seismic issue raised in show cause proceeding based on Staffs use of acceleration value at nearby site; LBP.8131,14 NRC 379 (1981) 10 CFR 100 App. A III(c) impacts on emergency rinning of earthquakes occurnag with radiological releases offsite; CLl4133,14 NRC 1091 (1981) origin of the term "safc*y-grade *; LBP41-59,14 NRC 1343,1344 (1981) statulity of spent fuel pool; ALAB450,14 NRC 62 (1981) 10 CFR 100, App. A. VI(a)(1) contention, noncompliance of methods for seismic response analysis, rejected, LDP-81-18,14 NRC 83 (1981) 10 CFR ll0.84(d) consolidation of fuel export applications awaits Executive Branch views on application; CLl41 18,14 NRC 302 (1981) 10 CFR 170 payment of fees for NRC Suff work performed for applicant; ALAB462,14 NRC 1137 (1981) 16 CFR 824i and k intervention in antitrust proceeding denied, other means available to protect petitaoner's laterests; LBP-8113,14 NRC 337 338,351 (1981) 18 CFR 292 2.206 petitioners as qualifying small power production facility; DD41 15,14 NRC 59 (1981)
Il CFR 292.61 2.206 petitioners assert resource recwory plant subject to regulation as public utility; DD-81 15,14 NRC 591 (1981) 18 CFR 292.305(b)(l) intervention in antitrust pr~= dias dependent upon availability of other means to protect petitioner's l
l interests; LBP41-26,14 NRC 337 (1981) 18 CFR 292 Subpart B j
definition of qualifying smaD power production facility; DD41 15,14 NRC $9 (1981) 40 CFR 1501.7 I
intervenor alleges Commission violation, scoping of EIS on proposed steam generator repairs; ALAB460, 14 NRC 1009,1010 (1981) 40 CFR I502.2 l
environrnental significance of action determines catent of consideration of alternatives; ALAB440,14 NRC 1006 (1981) 40 CFR 1502.14 g
[
faaors t ning scope of alternative to be conomiered to steam generator repairs; ALAB-660,14 NRC l
intervenor alleges violation of CEQ regulations govermas consuleration of alternatives; ALAB-660,14 1
NRC 1009 (1981)
~x De f
r l
t S3 i
I i
I
l i
1 I
1 i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGUIATIONS T ~>
?
- CFR 1505 I3-intervenor alleges Commission violation, scoping EIS, preparing record for h-on proposed steam generst.s repairs; ALAB460,14 NRC 1009 (1988) 40 CfR 1505.2 no record of decision cited as deficiency la FES; ALAH60,14 NRC 997 (1981) record of decisica on FPL's steam generster repair proposal found satisfactory: A1AS460,14 NRC 1010 (1981) 40 CFR 1508.9 brief discussion of alternatives sufficient where ao EIS is required; ALAB460,14 NRC 1006 (1981) 40 CFR 1508.22 scopins of EIS as proposed steam generator repairs found satisfactory; AIAB460,14 NRC 1010 (1981) 40 CFR 19 adequacy of monitoring apparatus la containment building to detect bydrogen emp>===r LBP-88 34,14 NRC 649 (1981) 44 CFR 350 FEMA evaluation and approval of state and local emergency pleas; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1441 (1981) 44 CFR 350 7-350.12 issuance of FEMA findings and determinations ce state and local emergency plans; LBP-Slot,14 NRC 1461 (1981) 49 CFR 871-79 shipment of apent fuel assemblum; ALAB451,14 NRC 318 (1981) 49 CFR 173 and 178 propsed packaging of wastc from steam generator repairs; AIAB460,14 NRC 1001 (1981) 4 h
.n C'
E*
uit Sd l
I
?
.V2 O
- R 1
%.4 W5 d T, y
,w
{ >f e
..y;[a. s'1%
{
WA h-L fll IICAL CITATIONS INDEX f
STATUTES 3-f,
Nq kw Administrative Procedure Act 558,5 USC $58(c) f" issuance of license amendment, over imensee's obpectaons, without prior bearing; CLI-81-29,14 NRC 944,
'q'b 945 (1981) m2 2i Administrative Procedure Act 9(b),5 US.C 558(c) immediate suspension of license not effected by issuance of show cause order; DD 8123,14 NRC 1811 W
(1981)
?%
Administrative Procedure Act 5 USC $57(c) 6=
adoption of verbatim findings of fact la TMI-I restart prar==Anr LBP-88 32,14 NRC 399 (1981) 9 Administrative Procedurt Act, as amended,5 USC 551, et saq.
pp adoption of policy standard by licensing board la confhet with; LBP 81-47,14 NRC 875 (1981)
M>
Atoauc Energy Act 10dd,42 USC 2134(d)
^
appimation of safety standards to proposed spent fuel shipments; AIAB-651,14 NRC 322-323 (1981) 4 g
Atomic Energy Act 105(a)
,y conditions for instituting antitrust proceeding; LBP-81-28,14 NRC 349 (1981) 1
-s Atomic Emergy Act 105(c)(2),42 USC 2135(c)(3)(1976)
.jf i
matimely intervention in antitrust praraa&ng situation inconsistent with antitrust laws not shown; 5 f*
LBP-8128,14 NRC 348 (1981)
<1
@ge Atomic Energy Act 184,42 USC 2234 NRC approval not required for hcensee's financial arrangements; DD-81 18,14 NRC 927-928 (1981)
Atomic Energy Act 271,42 USC 2018 S-NRC jurisdiction to review decisions of other agencies; DD 81-18,14 NRC 927 (1981)
Atomic Energy Act 2741.
interested state's right to bearing on enectsveness of low-power test Iw==ar CLI-8122,14 NRC 600 1{
(1981)
.1 Atomic Ener8y Act of 1954 as amended, 182,186 Qh',
ansideration of mailgram as material false statement; LBP-8132,14 NRC 555-556 (1981)
Atomic Energy Act of 1954,105c Commission authority for antitrust action; LBP-8158,14 NRC 1871 (1981) denial of petition for significant changes determination; CLI-8126,14 NRC 788,792 (1981) h,-
regime for considering antitrust concerr, connected with nuclear power plant hcensing; ALAB461,14 d_
NRC 1121 (1981)
MN l
requirement for showing of inconsistency with antitrust laws; LBP-8158,14 NRC 1875,1576 (1981) 5(('!
?
Atomic Energy Act of1954,105c(1),42 US C. 2135c(t) l spplention for construction pernut filed with US. Attorney General for antitrust review; ALAB-661,14 M.
NRC 1119,1121 (1981) y, %
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, IB2a,42 US.C. 2232(a)
^"tg appimation of safety standards to proposed spent fuel shipments; ALAB-651,14 NRC 322-323 (1981) sy; Cummission authority to require information on financial quahfications of apphcants; DD-8123,14 NRC 4 45 1808 (1981) purpose of conditions attached to a license; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1413 (1981)
L.i requirements for conducting a bearing relatang to decontamination of Unit 1: CLI-8125,14 NRC 622 4
(1981)
M Atomic Energy Act of 1954,42 US.C. 202t(k)
A
[W(
State regulatory determinations of need for power; ALAB-662,14 NRC 1833 (1981)
Atomic Energy Act,105c(2) obtaining antitrust review at operating license stage; AIAB-661,14 NRC 1121,1823 (1981)
Q_Q.
}
Atomic Escrgy Act,161b requirements which licensees and applicants must meet relative to environmental quahfication of
- qpp safety-related electrical equipment; LBP 8159,14 NRC 1399 (1981)
'Q*-
f(
1.n
_'%e t
i SS DJ M
j l'y a@
We
O LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STAftTES i.
1 5
o U
Atomic Energy Act,182 Commissen authority to determine what omstitutes safe operation of a facility, LSP-8159,14 NRC 1248 (1981) f Atomic Energy Act.186b,42 US C. 2236(b) immediate suspension of license not effected by issuance of show cause order DD 8123,14 NRC 1815 (1981)
Atomic Energy Act,189,42 USC. 2239 evidentiary bearing on withdrawal of construction pet mit application with prejudire; ALAB462,14 NRC II)4 (1981) petitionera not entitled to bearing as a matter of right in.tel application proceedias; CLI-81 18,14 NRC i
8 302 (1981)
I Atomic Energy Act,191a obtaining expert testimony fce the evidentiary record; LSP-88 59,14 NRC 1149 (1988)
Energy Reorganization Act,201,42 USC 5848 number of Commissioners needed to determine sa action; CLI-8121.14 NRC 597 (1981)
Freedom of Information Act (1977) 5 USC 522 confidentiality, as e matter of right, of identities of individuals involved la cheadag incidents; LBP 8150, 14 NRC 891 (1981) 1.ow Level Radioactive Waste Pol Act of 1980 (Pub. L 96 573,94 Stat 3347. December 23,1980)
Energy Board studies of low-radioactive waste management; LBP-81-40,14 NRC 832 (1988)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 102(2)(C),42 USC 4332(2)(C) necessity of EIS, shipment of spent fuel assemblics; ALAB451.14 NRC 310,315 (1981)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC. 4321 consideration of scope of Commission duties la content of grant of summary disposition; ALAS 460,14 NRC 991 (1981)
EIS not required for issuance of license amendment to allow installation of spent fuel storage racks; LBP-8137,14 NRC 759 (1981)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,102(2)(C) and (E),42 USC 4332(2)(C) and (E) consideration of alternatives to shipment of spent fuel assemblies; ALAB-451,14 NRC 328 (1981)
National Environmental Policy Act. 42 USC. 4328 et seq.
sufficiency of health effects of rados emissions to halt construction; LSP-8143,14 NRC 1786 (1981)
Privacy Act (1974),5 USC 552a right of licensee to declose namco of individuals involved in chesting incidents; LBP-8150,14 NRC 891 (1981)
Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978,210 natimely petition to intervene in antitrust proceeding, other means available to protect petitioner's interests; LBP 88-28,14 NRC 337 (1981)
West Valley Demonstratson Project Act, Pub. L No.96-368 (enacted October I,1980).
public interest in making license amendment immediately effective without prior hearing; CLI-8129,14 NRC 946 (1981) f i
g 29 e
86
wa l
Tl 9
i n-Yb 4
7' '.
$f 5
E i
r r
3
,M.?
1
~
%J IIGAL CITATIONS INDEX
=,
mm 2
IB J. Moore's Federal Practice 60 405[i] pp. 622424 (2d Ed.1974)
I issues precluded by collateral estoppel; LBP-88 58,14 NRC till (1981)
?J~
$ Maore's Federal Practice 541.05[1] at 48 58 (2d ed.1981) 7 damissal of construction permit appbcation with prejudus deemed abuse of hcen.ing boar (a decreten, i4 g
ALAB457,14 NRC 974 (19818 4-5 Moore's Federal Practice 141.0$[1] at 4172 to 4173 (2d ed.1988) possibility of future htigation as basis for damissal of construction permit application with prejup.
'L ALAB-662, le NRC 1835 (1981)
$ Moore's Federal Practice 541.05[1] at 4173 showing necessary for damissal of apphcation with prejudice; ALAIM57,14 NRC 979 (1981)
?
$ Moore's Federal Practice 541.05[2] at 4175 (2d ed.1981)
- a.
damissal of construction permit application with prejudns, limitations on opphcant's future activities, 6
ALAB457,14 NRC 973 (1981)
Ap 6 J. Moore's Federal Practice 956.12 (1976) d burden of persuasion in motion for summary dispositira of antitrust action; LBP 8158,14 NRC l191 yj (1981)
W' i
10 Moore's Federal Practice 401,0! et seq.
3 definition of materiality; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1782 (1988) d Cahfornia Evidence Code $210
- I definition of matenality; LBP-8143,14 NRC 6782 (1981) gs.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24(b)
QJ.- :
denial of late intervention in antitrust proceeding LBP-8158, le NRC 1873 (1981)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule el(s)(2) 7-compenson wah licensing boar (s authority to durniss license apphcations; ALAB457,14 NRC 974,979 l
(1981)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 42(a) c consohdation of proceed 4ngs involving comann issues, LBP-8131,14 NRC 377 (1981)
Q?
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54(b) 1 finality of decision questoned in epplication of collateral estoppel; LBP-88 58,14 NRC 1189 (1981)
?
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 803(8) opinion accepted as relevant evidence pursuant to pubhc records exception to bearsay rule; LBP-88 58,14 NRC 1190 (1981)
Federal Rules of Evidence legal basis for Licensing Boar (s calhas of expert seismic witness; LBP-81-47,14 NRC 872 (1981)
_A Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule M)l,28 UJS C., P L 93-595 (1975) dependence on rebuttable presumption for IIMNs findings on emergency preparedness; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1463,1464,1465,1466 (1981) la Federal Rules of Eviderce,401,28 USCA definition of relevant evidence; L BP-8143,14 NRC 1781,1782 (1981)
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 706 use of board witnesses to pass judgment on NRC staff reviewers; ALAIM63,14 NRC 1152,1853 (1981)
?
Restatement (24) of Judgments,668.1 (Tent. Draft No. I,1973) v preclusion of collateral estoppel with shift in burden of proof; LBP-88-58,14 NRC 1877 (1981) i Tnbe, Amencan Constitutsonal IJw, p. 507 (1978) f defining property interests that ment due process protection; LBP-8126,14 NRC 256 (1981) y Y
L
_g:D hG gj i
',.k*y *,
l' y.
37
- /
I l
l r
3 4
2 r.
~ ~'
q
?
Jh 9
t
)
4 j
frn 2
.s
+
i$
A ". 's y
N-f
- Mhi, vp Y
SUBJELT INDEX
)
p, ABNORM AL TRANSIENT OPERATING GUIDELINES development of program for, at TMl; LBP-88 59,14 NRC 1211 (1981)
M ACCIDENT assessment and done projection for purposes of emergency planning at TMI; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211 j
4 (1981) 5 missile silo, generating electromagnetic pulse, barred from consideration: LBP 81-42,14 NRC (1981) small break, loss of coolaat, at TMI-1; adequacy of natural circulation to remove decay best resulting 4,
from; additional analyses of; LBP-81 A I? NRC 1218 (1981) small break, loss of cooiant, Revww Bowt eequests status report on analyses of potential for; ALAB-655, b
le NRC 799 (1981)
P ACCIDENT, LOSS OF COOLANT
'i integrity of drywell to withstand pressure generated during; vulnerability of Coetrol Rod Drive
)
Mechanism Hydrashc Unit and Traverning in-Core Probe to pool-swell phenomenon during; summary 4>
dsposition of contentions denied; LBP-8814,14 NRC 637 (1981)
T invoMng spent fuel pool; ALAB450,14 NRC 43 (1981)
I ACCIDENTS G
class 9, ansideration of is reopened TMI restart proceeding; LDP-81-60,14 NRC 1724 (1981)
- 7 class 9 specific scenarios, nexus to TMI-2 required of contentions; LBP-8132,14 NRC 381 (1961) desige basis, Staff method of determining which fall into category of; Staff determination of rossaanble assurance of public health and safety regarding; LBP-8159,14 NRC 12tl (1981) i due to increased number of spent fuel assembhes to be stored in spent fuel pool inadequately addressed; y
LBP-8147,14 NRC 708 (1981) aM mitigation c(, by nonsafety systems; LBP 88 59. I4 NRC 1211 (1981)
I postulated, at SONGS, scenarios for; DD-8120,14 NRC 1052 (1981)
ADJUDICATORY BOARDS j
delegated autlkrity of, regarding policymaking; LBP-81-47,14 NRC $65 (1981) delegated authci ty of, to determine confulentiality of filed documents; LBP-8142,14 NRC 1747 (1981) i e
M r
AGENDA A
and rules set for expedited bearing on sleeving of steam generator tubes; LBP-81-46,14 NRC 862 (1981) l for on-the-record telephone conference call, written order establishing; LBP-8143,14 NRC 848 (1981)
+
i AIRCRAFT
.2 radioactive emissions as hazard to guidance systems of; LBP-8134,14 NRC 637 (1981)
T AIRPLAhE CRASH 7
contention alleging incorrect basis for probabilities of, not admissible; LBP-81-24,14 NRC 175 (1981) 8 contention, objectan to exclusion from operating license promeding; LBP-8135,14 NRC 682 (1981) l ALTERNATIVES M
't to spent fuel pool expansion, consideration of under NEPA: LBP-88 53,14 NRC 912 (1981)
T to steam generator repairs, consideretion of financially preferable, environmentally preferabic, applying i'
NEPA rule of reason; ALAB-660,14 NltC 987 (1981)
AMENDMENT
~
Iimited liceese, to allow demonstration of steam generster tube sleeving, show cause proceeding to
]
determine appropriatences of; LBP-81-55,14 NRC 1017 (1981) i of operating license for program for solidifying high-level hquid radmactive wastes, postponensat of 4
immediate effectiveness denied; CLI-8129,14 NRC 940 (1981)
I of operating license to allow sleeving rather than plugging of steam generator tubes; LBP-8139,14 NRC 519 (1981) of operatind hcense to transfer operating authority for Unit I to GPU Nuclear; CLI-81 17,14 NRC 299 (1981) g of Spccial Nuclear Materials License for shipersat of 300 spent fuel assemblies; ALAB451,14 NRC 307
(
(1981) operating license, to albw sleeving of steam generstar tutG agende and rules set for espedited hearing e
on; LBP 81-46, le NRC 642 (1981) l i
h l
}
SUNECT INDEX to operating license to allow spent fuel pool expansion, intervenors and contentions admitted la special r
preheanns conference: LBP-8153,14 NRC 912 (1981) 7 See also Operating License Amendment ANTICIPATED 1RANSIENTS WITHOUT SCRAM (ATWS) e contention, subject of proposed rule, readmitted to discovery; LBP-83-42,14 Ntc (1981) decision reserved, pending issuance of Ied. Reg. nouce, concerning effect of rulemaking on admissibit~ty of issue; LBP-88 35,14 NRC 682 (1981) issues questioned under Board's sua sponte authority: LBP.8123,14 NRC 159 (1981) mitigation of, through installation of automated standby liquid con *rol system, contention accepted, briefs on admissibihty of contention required; LBP-8124,14 NRC 175 (1981) moeion to compel discovery concerning analyse of, granted, LBP-51-61,14 NRC 1735 (1981)
ANTITRUST condition of hcense,2.206 petition asserting failure of licensee denied; DD 81 15,14 NRC 589 (IGI) conditions on operating hcense to remedy, petitions for review of Appeal Board decision denied, CLI-88-27,14 NRC 795 (1981) issuance of construction permit pending outcome of hearing on;jerisdictson ander AEA; ALAB461,14 NRC 1817 (1981)
I order denying intervention affirmed, minor changes r'ade in order after ansideration of objections; LBP 81-41,14 NRC 839 (1981) remedy for situation inconsistent with laws pertaining to; LBP-8158,14 NRC 1l67 (1981) untimely petiten to intervene denied for lack of nenus; LBP 8 8-28,14 NRC 333 (1981) i See also NRC Antitrust Review ANTITRUST PROCEEDING masion to modify schedule for, granted; LBP-8144,14 NRC 1803 (1981) resumption of discovery ordered, schedule for submission of briefs established, two prehearing conferences scheduled; LBP 81 19,14 NRC 87 (1981)
APPEAL of decision approving denial of requests for confidential treatment of identities of individuals accused of cheating on NRC exams, withdrawn; ALAB458,14 NRC 981 (1981)
APPEAL BOARD (S) certification authonty of; standard for undertaking discretionary interlocutory review; A1AB463,14 NRC 1140 (1981) 9 decision on physical security, NRC review of; CLI 8121,14 NRC 595 (1981) effectiveness of decision, regarding Staff motion for directed certification; LBP 81-47,14 NRC 845 i
(1981) not convened to consider conditions imposed by LB for withdrawal of anstruction permit application; i
ALAB-652,14 NRC 627 (1981) referral of earthquake issue to; LBP-II 36,14 NRC 691 (1981) scope and standard of sua sponte review; ALAB453,14 NRC 799 (1981)
APPELLATE PROCEDURE regarding decision upholdmg site selection: LBP-81-32,14 NRC 381 (1981)
APPELLATE REVIEW scope of, of final disposition of licensing proceeding; ALAB-652,14 NRC 627 (1988)
APPLICANT entitlement of, to receive construction permit; ALAB448,14 NAC 34 (1981)
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD authority to stay proceedings dunng pendency.4 appeals withdrawn by Commission; CL1-8134,14 NRC 1097 (1981)
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD appointment of, to rule on petitions regardmg chemical decontamination of Unit I; CLI 81-25,14 NRC 616 (1981) scope of review, espropriation of land issue raised for first time on appeal; ALAB448,14 NRC 34 (1981)
AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM status report requested by review board on hcensee's fulfillment of commitments to enhance reliabihty of; ALAB4M,14 NRC 799 (1981)
See also Emergency Feedwater System BAY ENTRANCE FAULT capabihty of, and effect on restart of BWR; LBP-8120, le NRC 101 (198 8)
BOARD asks additional questions ngarding demonstration program on tube sleeving; LBP 8144,14 NRC 850 (1981) e^m gq a petition for intervention, role concerning contentions in operating license proceedings; f.BP 8130A,14 NRC 364 (1981) y Ak 90
l O
~
SUNECT INDEX g
questions to applicant prior to admission of intervenors to licanas amendment proceeding; LBP-8139,14 NRC 819 (1981)
See also Adjudsatory Boards; Appeal Board (s); Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Licensing Board; Licensing Boards BORAL e
integrity, corrosion, and swc!!ing in spent fuel pool; ALAS 450,14 NRC 43 (1981) i BRIEFS requirements for, and functions of, in spent fuel pool expansion pr~=*1'ar ALAS 450,14 NRC 43 i
(1981)
BUHNE POINT FAULT capability of, and e#ect on restart of BWR; LBP 3120,14 NRC 101 (1981)
CALIFORNIA motion by Governor of, for oral briefing of alleged incident of sabotage at another facility d*=ia+
ALAB449,14 NRC 40 (1981) participation as interested state in operating license amendment proceeding; LBP-88 20,14 NRC 101 i
(1981) request by Governor of, for waiver of immediate effectiveness rule; CLI-88 22,14 NRC 598 (1981) request by Governor of, to clarify procedure for review of Appeal Board decision on physical secanty; i
CLI 8121,14 NRC 595 (1981)
CANADA i
emer8ency planning by, for nuclear power plant in US.; LBP-8124,14 NRC 17; (1981)
CASE CITATIONS
}
in antitrust proceeding, special rules for; LBP-81-58,14 KRC 1867 (1981)
CIRCULATION l
adequacy of, to remove decay best at TMI-I in event of small-break LOCA; LBP-88 59,14 NRC 1211 l
(1981)
CLAMS, ASIATIC i
biofouling of steam generating plants by, contention admitted; LBP-83 24,14 NRC 175 (1981) l CLARIFICATION given of status of participants, and designation oflead intervenors; LBP-3135,14 NRC 682 (1981)
+
CLASSIFICATION of safety and nonsafety systems and corriponenu; of accidents, for emergency planning purposes, LBP 8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981)
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL application of, to Commission proceedings; LBP-8I 58,14 NRC 1167 (1981) defensive application of, to operating license proceeding, need for power issue; LBP-8134,14 NRC 175 (1981)
COMMUNICATIONS during an emergency at TMI, operability and effectiveness of State and local arrangements for; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981)
COMMUNITY DETERIORATION reconsiderstico of decision to exclude contentions on, in TMI I restart pr~=adiar: C11-8120,14 NRC 593 (1981)
COMPUTER CODES motion to stnke contention on construction of, denied; LBP-3122,14 NRC 150 (1981)
(
COMPUTER SYSTEMS at TMI, inadequacies of; LBP-SI-59,14 NRC I211 (1981)
CONCRETE reevaluation of denial of 2 206 petition to octermine ubetber additional testing should be performed; DD-8122,14 NRC 1085 (1981) l safety-related, contention related to QA/QC program summarily dismissed; LBP-81-48,14 NRC 877 j
(1981)
CONFIDENTIALITY j
deferral of Board rulings on objections ter, LBP-81-55,14 NRC 1017 (1981) of identities of individuals accused of cheating on RO exams, appeal of decision approving denial of i
request for, withdrawn; ALAB458,14 NRC 981 (1981) of identities of ind%!uals involved in cheating at TMl; LBP-81-50,14 NRC 888 (1981) l efinformants* names, Commission decides against reconsideration of question of sua sponte review of l
decision authorizing; CLI 81-28,14 NRC 933 (1981) of Westinghouse sleeving report, muttwity of Adjudicatory Board to deternune; LBP 8142,14 NRC 1747 i
(1981)
CONSOLIDATION of operating license pr:ceeding and show cause proceeding; LBP-8I-31,14 NRC 375 (1981) 4 i
1 1
e i
91 I
a i
l l
f NM i
2 Q
't 1*
CONSTITUTION l
spplication of Due Proces Clause of to labor union request for bearing on overtamme reatnctions, i
LBP-81-26 14 NRC 247 (1981) 1 CONSTRUCTION
?,ti.
safety-related activities, transition of, to new contractor, evulentiary hearing scheduled on Appbcsat) plea
)
to maintain qustity: LBP-8154,14 NRC 918 (1981)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (S) apphcstion withdrawa, proceeding terminated without prejudice; ALAB462,14 NRC 1125 (IMI) application, remanded issue of sueconduct by parties and counsel, effects of rados==- addruesd, LBP 8143,14 NRC 1768 (1981) denial of 2.206 petition to suspend or revoke, ce basis of evacuation smusaderations; Dl>41-14,14 NRC 279 (1981) entitlement of applicant to receeve; ALAB448,14 NRC 34 (1981) termination of proceeding, vacation of partial initial d-===
en mootmens grounds, of condational authorizatson for; ALAB456,14 NRC 965 (1981) issuance pending outcome of antitrust hearing; ALAB461,14 NRC til7 (IMI) i request granted for withdrawal of applications for; site redressing ordered; LBP41-33,14 NRC 586 (1981) request to conduct site properation activities prior to issuance of; CLI4135, le NRC 1100 (1981) vacation of Licensing Board's unpublished decision diami=ing application for, with prejudica; ALAB457, 14 NRC 967 (1981)
CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDINGS terminated following withdrawal of permits; LBP-8133,14 NRC $86 (1981)
CONSULTANTS independent, calling of, to supplement record; A1AB463,14 NRC !!40 (1981)
CONTAINMENT contention questioning strength of, lacks specificity: LBP-88-24,14 NRC 175 (1981) ice condenser, origin of; hydrogen bura in; entry into; CLI-81 15,14 NRC I (IMI) isolation signals at TMI, additions to; LBP41-59,14 NRC 1218 (1981) leaktightness of; adequacy of monitoring apparatus la; reliability of emergency samp pump la;====ary disposition of contentions sought; LBP41-34,14 NRC 637 (1981) post accident monitoring of pressure boundary inadequate; Board disposition of contention of valmatarily dismissed intervenor; LBP41-23,14 NRC 159 (1981)
CONTENTIONS admissibility of, in operating license pranadnes; LBP-8130A,14 NRC 364 (1981) concerning financial qualifications, deferral of, because of proposed rulemaking ce the subject; LBP4151, 14 NRC 896 (1981) concerning subject of rulemaking, enemy attack on US. facility, admissiklity of; LSP41-42,14 NRC (1981) considerations affecting the admissibility of,la operating liceans,,--
n degree of specificity of; LBP41-24,14 NRC 175 (1981) deshng with failure to comply with NEPA and Part $1, admi-ibihty of; LBP4140,14 NRC 3724 (1981) deciding ubether lesis bas been established for; standard for admission of, when timme amendment apphcation is incompice; admissibihty when quick action is required; LBP41-45,14 NRC 833 (1981) evidentiary showing for admissibility of; ALAS 462,14 NRC 1125 C981) general fears or criticisms of nuclear industry practices as bases for; LCP41-55,14 NRC 1017 (1981) i hberal basis and specificity of; withdrawal of,in TMI-I restart prana =&a r LBP-8132,14 NRC 381 (1981) made up of general allegations, limitations on scope of; LBP4141,14 NRC 1735 (1981) responses to motions to dismiss; criteria for late admissibihty, specificity: LBP41 18,14 NRC 71 (1981) sponsored by withdrawing intervenor, admissibility of; LBP4123,14 hr.C 159 (1981) sua sponte adoption of. NRC staff delays cited by Board as renace for f SP-st 38,14 NRC 767 (1981)
TMI-related, admisseos of, to low-power bearing; CLI-8122,14 NRf
.(1981) true and provable, but inadmissible; ALAB460, le NRC 987 (1981, CONTROL ROOM design deficiencies to be corrected at TMl; LBP-81-59,14 NRC 12tl (1981) subcontention, post-accident habitability, accepted; LBP-81-18,14 NRC 71 (1981) i CONTROL 3YSTEMS, REACTIVITY excessive reliance on Doppler effect to mitigate effects of transient <sused overpower of systeam cited is summarily dismissed coetemion; LDP4134,14 NRC 637 (1981) d 3#. N n
l l
I
O l
8 SON INDEX f
CORROSION caused I,y collection of stagnant water between steem generator tube and sleeve, contention admitted; t
LBP41-45,14 NRC 853 (1981) general and galvanic la spent fuel storage racks, adequate a-ment not made; LDP-8137,14 NRC 708 (1981)
See also latergranalt.r Stress Corrosson and Cracklas COST-BENEFIT aawaament of health hazards of low-level, routine radioactive emissaans; LBP-8134,14 NRC 637 (1981) t contention cites inadequate considerstico of decommissioning, spent fuel accident, fuel costs and supply,
(
j waste storage costs; LBP4138, le NRC 767 (1981)
CRITICALITY analysis performed on proposed free-standing, high<leasity spent fuel racks; Lb7 8137,14 NRC 708 (1981) l is spent fuci pool; ALAB450,14 NRC 43 (1981)
DECAY HEAT at TMI I during bypothetical small-break LOCA, adequacy of astural circulation to remore; LBP41-59, e NRC 1211 (1981) removal not discussed la SER supplement, contention act admitted; LSP-8127,14 NRC 325 (1981)
DECISION 1
on TMI issues, schedule revised for receipt of comments ce immediate efectiveness of; CLI4134,14 NRC 1097 (1981) partial initial, conditionally authortzing construction permit, vacated ce moosness grounds; ALAB456,14
?
NRC 965 (1981)
Record of, purpose of having; ALAB-660,14 NRC 987 (1981)
DECOMMISSIONING j
addressing plan for, la operating license proceeding; LSP4124,14 NRC 175 (1981)
DECONTAMINATION chemical, of Unit I primary coolant system, appointment of Board and guidance ce conduct of hearing, license antifications; CLI-8125,14 NRC 616 (1981)*
j of damaged plan % denial of 2 206 petstion for show cause order to require demonstration of licensees
- financial qualifications for; DD4123,14 NRC 1803 (1981) 5 of individuals during an emergency situation, adequacy of procedures at TMI far, LSP-8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981) 3 of TMI-2, potential interactice between Unit I and, LDP4159,14 NRC 1211 (1981)
DELAY by NRC Staff in issuance of documents cited by Board as reance for sua sponte adoption of costantices; methods for handling; LBP4134,14 NRC 767 (1981)
I DENSIFICATION l
fuel claddir. failures due to, summary disposition of contention denied; LSP4134,14 NRC 637 (1981)
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA subcontention criticizing non-conservative seismic design spectra and damping factors, accepted; f
LBP41 IS 14 NRC 71 (1981)
DEVIATIONS in design, structures, Lad components, contention asking dummentation denied; LDP-81-27,14 NRC 325 i
(1981)
DIESEL GENERATORS for on-site power generation, contention alleging unrehability not e Anitted; LSP 81-24,14 NRC 175 (1981)
DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT denies 2.206 petition, show cause proceeding asking suspension of operation pending full compliance, emergency planning; DD 8116. I4 NRC 781 (1981)
I-reevaluation or denial of 2.206 petition to determine whether additional concrete testing should be performed; DD4122,14 NRC 1085 (1981) i DISASTERS i
consideration of multiple; LBP4136,14 NRC 631 (1981) l
~
DISCOVERY a6ainst intervences restricted in expedited bearing; LBP-8146,14 NRC 862 (1981) answers to laterrogatories; requests for documents; rules between parties; in absence of motion for preesctive order, failure to respond to; LBP4141. I4 NRC 1735 (1981) i I
appeal board examinatice of heensing board's rulings on; ALAB-660,14 NRC 987 (1981) l W."M Board management of, institution of progress reports; LBP-8135, le NRC 682 (1981) i by petitioners before they are admitted as parties to expedited operating license amendment pr==near LBP-8139,14 NRC 819 (1981) i 93 k
f l
I l
t 1
i SUBJECT INDEX
'4s"'
Commission refusal to permst; CL1-8126,14 NRC 787 (1981) objections to interrogatories; LBP-8124,14 NRC 175 (1981) e obligations of parties in expedited operating license amendment proceeding; LBP-81-45,14 NRC 853 (1981) of confidential informants
- names, Commission decides against reconsideration of question of sua sponte review of decision authorizing withholding of; CLI-8128,14 NRC 933 (1981) order issued to strike certain motions and answers relating to; LBP-81-25, le NRC 241 (1981) purpows of and reasonable limitations upon; LBP-8122,14 NRC 150 (1981) resumption of, ordered in antitrust proceeding; LBP 81 19,14 NRC 87 (1981) rights of appbcants concerning bases of; excuses for noncompliance; entension of deadlines for; LBP 88 30A.14 NRC 364 (1981) sanctions for failure to con ply with Board order for; LBP 8152,14 NRC 901 (1981)
DUE PROCESS labor union claims violation of procedural rights in enforcement case involving overtime restrictions; LBP-8126,14 NRC 247 (1981)
EARLY SITE REVIEW ownership of proposed power plant site by applicant seeking; ALAB-662,14 NRC 1825 (1981) regulations. dismissal of construction permit application with prejudice compelled by; ALAB-657,14 NRC 967 (1981)
EARTHQUAKES ability of Category I structures to withstand, motion to strike contention denied, LBP-81-22,14 NRC 150 (1981)
Board interprets contention dealing with ability of Category I structures to withstand; LBP-8125,14 NRC 241 (1981) causing or occurring during radiological release, consideration of impacts of on emergency planning; CLI 8130,14 NRC 1091 (1981) effect of, on proposed rschs for spent fuel pool expansion, contention disallowed for lack of specircity; LBP 8153,14 NRC 912 (1981) exceeding SSE, emergency planning for; LBP-81-36,14 NRC 691 (1981) reservoir induced, licensing board appoints own expert witness on; LBP-s!-47,14 NRC 865 (1981)
See also Safe Shutdown Earthquake EDDY CURRENT TESTING contention concerned with whether sleeving of steam generator tubes might increase difficulty of; LBP 8145,14 NRC 853 (1981) interference with, by steam generator tube sleeving; LBP 8155,14 NRC 1017 (1981)
ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS plant fails to meet singic fa,luse criterion; Board disposition of contention of voluntarily diamissed intervenor; LBP 81-23,14 NRC 159 (1981) redundant, subcontention, Apphcant's design fails to provide adequate independence, allowed; LBP 81 18, 14 NPC 71 (1981) safety-related, subcontention, noncompliance of criteria with Rev. 2 of Guides, rejected; LBP 81 18,14 NRC 71 (1981) standby, subcontention, noncompliance of diesel generator units with Rev. 2 of Guides, accepted; LBP-8118,14 NRC 71 (1981)
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Class IE, subcontentions dealing with qualifmation of, one rejected, one accepted; LBP-81 18,14 NPC 71 (1981) environmental qualification of,2 206 petition asking suspension of operations for dersiencies in, denied; DD-81-13,14 NRC 275 (1981) safety related, contention dealing with environmental qualifcation denied; LBP Bi 27,14 NRC 325 (1981) safety-related, effects of intense radiation and flooding on, at TMl; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981) safety-related, environmental quahfication of; Board disposition of contention of voluntanly dismissed intervenor; LBP 8123,14 NRC 159 (1981)
ELECTROMAGNETIC PUI.SES from nuclear esplosions, diarsption of control systems by, contention escluded; LBP-81-42,14 NRC (1981) petitioner seeks waiver of 10 CFR 50.13 escluding contention concerning; LBP-8157,14 NRC 1037 (1981)
EMERGENCY CORG COOLING SYSTEM (ECCS) final safety testing contenuon admitted; LBP 8124,14 NRC 175 (1981)
,$ )
u N
l I
1 l
1 I
O i
SUBJECT INDEX r.,.
- 'w L k.
-3 i
at TMI, reliability of, and application of single failure criterios to; system design and its role in plant 3
operatior.; LBP4159,14 NRC 121I (1981)
A, See Also Auxiliary Feedwater System i
EMERGENCY PLANNING adequacy of, for low-power testing; correction of Staff misstatements regarding belicopter assistance for notification; CLI-8122,14 NRC 598 (1981) as licensed activity, NRC jurisdiction; contention alleging state and local plans "not workable" admitted; LBP-8124,14 NRC 175 (1981) st TMI, decisionmaking on and implementation of proeectim actions; compliance with NRC's short-and long-term order items; LBP41-59,14 NRC 1211 (1981) considerations of impacts on, of earthquakes causing or occurring during radioactive releassa; CLl41-33, 14 NRC 1091 (1981) contention admitted, record of full-power licensing procecdins reopened; LBP-81-27,14 NRC 325 (1981) contention describes failure to cxxnply with regulations for; LBP-El 38,14 NRC 767 (1981) contention limited to evacuation; LBP-8135,14 NRC 682 (1981) denial of petitions by 1500 Californians for suspension of operations, based on deficiencies in: DD 81-19, t
14 NRC 1041 (1981) i existing prompt notification syste n described in response to 2.206 petition for show cause proceeding on; DD 8817,14 NRC 784 (1981) lore-power test prar=Ung, development of post-TMI requirements; risks for low-power operation; state and i
adequacy of, at Dtablo Canyon; applicant's emergency preparedness; county plans for; LBP41-21,14 NRC 107 (1981) mocon to compel discovery of granted in part; LBP4141,14 NRC 1735 (1981)
+
i notification system,2.206 petition for show cause proceeding, suspension of operations pending full i
compliance; DD41 16,14 NRC 781 (1981) organization and staffing of emergency response organizations; initial notification of government units; l
public education, warning, and instructions; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981) procedural aspects of the new rules on; LBP-81-59,14 NRC 1211 (1981) revised requirements for; DD-81 14,14 NRC 279 (1981)
EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONES (EPZs) adopted for une around TMI, adequacy of; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981)
EMERGENCY PLANS at TMI, standards for judging the adequacy of; maintenance of preparedness to implement; funding for response to; LBP-88 59,14 NRC 1211 (1981) for earthquake exceeding SSE, evacuation time and methods, shelter from radiation, radiation done estimates, multiple disasters; LBP-8136,14 NRC 691 (1981)
ENFORCEMENT ACTION 2.206 petition asserting failure to abide antitrust condition of license denied; DD 81 15,14 NRC 589 (1981) showing of adversely affected interests required for petitioner to be granted bearing of right on; CLI-8132,14 NRC 962 (1981) standing to intervene in: CLI-88 31,14 NRC 959 (1981)
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS l
scope of, and consideration of alternatives regarding spent fuel pool espansion; AIAB450,14 NRC 43 9
(1981) l under NEPA, scope of, for shipment of spent fuel assemblica; ALAB451,14 NRC 307 (1981)
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS i
of redon releases during uranium fuel cycle, demonstration of; ALAB454,14 NRC 632 (1981)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT not considered in evaluating fact export applications; CLI4148,14 NRC 301 (1981)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL (EIA) 8 adequacy of, for determining need for EIS for restart of TMI 1; LBP4160,14 NRC 1724 (1981) i NEPA requirements for, involving spent fuel shipments; ALAB451,14 NRC 307 (1981) l I
regarding installation of spent fuel storage racks faulted by intervenor; LBP41-37,14 NRC 700 (1981) l ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) for restart of TMI, jurisdiction of Licensing Board to consider need for and content of; LBP4140, le NRC 1724 (1981)
,g for, under NEPA, for highway transportation of 300 spent fuel assemblies; ALAB451,14 NRC 307 I
on chemical decontamination of Unit I, NEPA requirements for bearings on; CLI41-25,14 NRC 616 A
(1981)
~
~
^
gr t
l 95 i
?
l
=
i t
SURIECT INDEX p*rkuf.
purpose of. consideration of alternatives to steam generator repairs; need fw programmatic E!S; purpose v; w6 -
of scoping; ALAB-660,14 NRC 987 (1981)
ENVIRONMENTAL REYlEW y'~ cp scope of, regarding temporary onsite storage of low-level radioactive waste; LBP-81-40,14 NRC 828 A g; (1981)
EVACUATION 2.206 petition by Ralph Nader for suspension of operations gaestions adequacy of; DD-81-20,14 NRC 1052 (1981) denial of 2.206 petition to suspend or revoke construction permit on the basis of deficient plans for; DD 81 14,14 NRC 279 (1981) time and methods, consideration of, for multiple disas*ers; LBP-8136,14 NRC 691 (1988)
EXCEPTIONS denial of applicant's motion for.. '. tion of order tolling the running of period la which dismised intervenors may fde; ALAB459,14 NRC 983 (1981) raised for first time os appeal of spent fuel pool expansion decision; AIAB450,14 NRC 43 (1988)
EXEMPTIONS from regulations, form of proceedings ce requests for; CLI-8135,14 NRC 1100 (1981)
EXPERT INTERROGATOR motion granted for quahfication of, mader 10 CFR 2.733, LDP-8129,14 NRC 353 (1981)
EXPORT of special nuclear materials to Philippines; CLI-81 18,14 NRC 301 (1981)
See also Fuel Esport Application EXPROPRIATION of land, affiants raise spectre of second attempt by applicaat; ALAB448,14 NRC 34 (1981)
FAULTS See Bay Entrance Fault; Bahne Point Fault; Geologic Anomalies; Utde Salmoe Fault FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE specificity espected in pleadings; LBP-81-24,14 NRC 175 (1981)
FEEDWATER TRANSIENTS actions required of licensee to enhance reactor's ability to respond safely to; ALAB455,14 NRC 799 (1981)
FEES payment of, for NRC staff work ce behalf of applicant; ALAB462,14 NRC 1825 (1981)
FERRITE subcontention, control of content in weld metal and f.Iler materials, allowed; LBP 81 18,14 NRC 71 (1981)
FILTERS for radioactive releases from TMl; LBP-8159.14 NRC 1211 (1981)
FINAL ENYlRONMENTAL STATEMENT (FES) modification of; absence of discussion of issue in; ALAB460,14 NRC M7 (1981)
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 2.206 petition requesting action against co owner for securing of, in improper manner, denied; DD-81 18, 14 NRC 925 (1981)
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS impact of on technical decisions examined in TMI-I restart proceeding; LBP-3132,14 NRC 381 (1981) in effecting steem generator repairs, NRC role in assessing; AIAN 84 NRC 987 (1981)
FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS contention alleging Applicant lacks resources to operate plaat admitted la operating license pr~==AaF LBP-8124,14 NRC 175 (1981)
Licensing Board declines to defer consideration of contentions on, because of proposed rulemaking:
LBP-8151,14 NRC 896 (1981) of applicant to effect spent fuel pool expansion, contention daallowed, LBP-81-53,14 NRC 912 (1981) of applicant, dismissed intervenor's contention questions; LBP-8I 38,14 NRC 767 (1981) of hcensees to decontaminate damaged plants, denial of 2.206 petition for show cases order to require demonstration of; DD-81-23,14 NRC 1803 (1981)
FIRE PROTECTION 2.206 petition asking suspension of operations for deficiencies in, denied; exemption requested from asw requirements for; DD-81-13,14 NRC 275 (1981) adequacy of program regarding electric cables, redundant safety systema; Board disposition of costantion 3
or voluntarily dismissed intervenor; LBP-51-23,14 NRC 159 (1981)
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT y' tv y private right of action regarding duciosure of identities of individuals involved la cheating incidents, jg LBP-8150,14 NRC 888 (1981) op:
M l
l
i
?
O su=cr na=x Bm FUEL 4-
}
channel deformations explored in operating license pr~=admg to ps mit installation of new spent feel
=~
storage racks; LDP-88 37,14 NRC 708 (1981) i subcontention, densification analysis, compliance with Guides, accepted, LBP-81 18,14 NRC 71 (1981)
See also Reactor Fuel Rods; Spent Fuel; Spent Fact Pool; Spent Fuel Fool Expansion; Spent Feel Racks; Spent Fuels; Uranium Feel Cycle FUEL EXPORT APPLICATION l
l health, safety and environmental impacts not considered la; CLI-81 18,14 NRC 301 (1981)
FULL CORE DISCHARGE CAPABILITY l
e i
alternatives to proposed installation of spent fuD rocks availalde to Applicant to achieve; LBP-8137, le NRC 708 (1981)
GEOIDGIC ANOMAUES tremors, tunnel fault at site of Perry Ohio, plant: LBP-8124,14 NRC 175 (1981)
GROUNDWATER at TMI, monitoring of; LBP-8159. I4 NRC 1211 (1981) evaluation of impacts of drawdown of, motice to strike contention graatad; LBP-8122,14 NRC 150 (1981)
HEALTH AND SAFETY contentions of dismused intervenor, sua spoets adoption of; LBP-88-38,14 NRC 767 (1981) impacts not considered is evaluating fuel caport applications; CLI-8818,14 NRC 301 (1981) of workers is spent fuel pool areas, adequacy of protection during rock removal and installation questioned; LBP-88 37, le NRC 708 (1981) risks of maintaining nuclear power plant la long-term cold shutdown, licensing board questions Staff ce; LBP-81-49,14 NRC 885 (1981)
HEALTH PHYSICS PROGRAM f
appropriate or8anization and staffing to ensure safe operation of facility examined in TMI-I restart j
proceeding; LBP-8132,14 NRC 38I (1984)
HEARING (S) as a matter of right denied ce rust caport applications: CLI-41 18,14 NRC 301 (1981) i evidentiary, scheduled to tensider applicant's plan to maintain quality of safety-related, transition construction work: LBi 't-54,14 NRC 918 (1981) expedited, concerning sleevinef steam generator tubes, agends and rulsa set for; LBP 81-46,14 NRC 862 (1981) intercated state's right to, under AFA; CLI-81-22,14 NRC 598 (1981) notice of, a8ency's statutory authority regarding; ALAB-661,14 NRC 1817 (1981) on decontamination of primary coolant system AEA, NEPA requirements for; CLI-81-25,14 NRC 616 (1981) on NEPA matters, purpose of; LBP-8160,14 NRC 1724 (1981) on order confirming licensee's commitment to comply with TMl Action Plan, denial of person's request for; CLI-4131,14 NRC 959 (1981) requested on order confirming licensee's commitment to comply with TMI Action Plaa, objecting to licenses relief, modifications for cost-benefit purposes; CLI-81-32,14 NRC 962 (1981)
HEARINGS, OPERATING LICENSE requirements for Board's exercise of sua spoets authority to adopt aamianal intervenor's contentions; CLI-8124,14 NRC 614 (1981) sua sponte adoption of issues in: CLI-8136,1,4 NRC till (1981)
HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION aumber of cycles, limitation on; Board retains jurushetson of this case pending further analyses; ALAB 655,14 NRC 799 (1981)
HYDROGEN contamination of inside of fuel rod, summary disposition of contention denied; LBP-8134,14 NRC 637 j
(1981) i contentions dealing with fuel cladding reaction, combustion, and==ive generation insuffsient to seopen record; LBP 81-27,14 NRC 325 (1981)
/
control systems and license conditions to mitigate excessive generatico; CLI-81-15,14 NRC I (1981) i gas in containment structure questioned ander Board's sua spoets authority; LBP-81-23,14 NRC 159 (1981) i See also Igniter Hydrogen Mitigation System HYDROGEN CONTROL Board treatment of contentions; credible accident scenario required; LDP-8124,14 NRC 175 (1981) 3 contention subject of rulemaking, Review Board refrains from comment ce; ALAB-455,14 NRC 799 i
(1981) subcontention, inadequate post-accident management, rejected; LDP-31 18,14 NRC 71 (1981)
G 97 1
I
i SUBJECT INDEX k
s HYDROGEN CONTROL RULE Commission TMI-I Order on; CLI-81 IS,14 NRC I (1981)
ICE I
buildup at service water intake; Board disposition of contention of voluntarily dismissed intervenor, LBP-8123,14 NRC 159 (1981)
See also Containment IGNITER HYDROGEN MITIGATION SYSTEM installation of, as condition of full-power license; CLI-81 15,14 NRC I (1981)
IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW interested state requests waiver of; CLI-88-22,14 NRC 598 (1981)
INERTING to prevent hydrogen burn; exemption from requirement for CLI-81 15,14 NRC 1 (1981)
INSPECTORS views of, concerning quality of TMI I management; LBP 81-32,14 NRC 381 (1981)
INSTRUMENTATION relating to level indicators for extended pressurizer and reactor vessel water, Review Board asks further-attention to and clarification of; ALAB-655,14 NRC 799 (1981)
INTEGRATED CONTROL SYSTEM at TMI, completma of failure mode and effects analysis of LBP-88-59,14 NRC 1218 (1981)
INTERGRANULAR STRESS CORROSION AND CRACKING of sensitized stainless steel components in LWR, summary disposition of contentions denied; LBP-88 34, le NRC 637 (1981)
INTERROGATORIES unanswered, motion to compel answers to; LBP-8141,14 NRC 1735 (1981)
INTERVENOR(S) dismissal of, for failure to answer interrogatories; Lb? 8152,14 NRC 901 (1981) fairness to,in expedited operating hcense amendment proceeding; LBP-8139,14 NRC 819 (1981) in special espedited proceedings, special procedural advantages granted to; LBP-8155,14 NRC 1017 (1981) responsibilities of, regarding participation in NRC proceedings; ALAIM50,14 NRC 43 (1981) rights of, to raise issues in new operating license proceedings; CLI-81 16,14 NRC 14 (1981) tardy; Applicant, Staff file "last ward" briefs in operating hcense proceeding; coordination of; LBP-81-24, 14 NRC 175 (1981) withdrawal of, because oflitigation costs of operating license proceeding; LBP-8123,14 NRC 159 (1981)
INTERVENTION by labor union in enforcement case involving overtime restrictions; LBP-8126,14 NRC 247 (1981) consolidated, designation of lead intervenors in; LBP-8135,14 NRC 682 (1981) in antitrust proceeding, denial of affirmed, minor changes made in order; LBP 81-41,14 NRC 839 (1981) in enforcement action, showing of interests, particularity criteria for, CLI-81-32,14 NRC %2 (1981) in enforcement action, standing for, criteria ar petition for; CLI-81-31,14 NRC 959 (1981) r in operating license proceeding, residence requirements for. LBP-81-24,14 NRC 175 (1981) late, in antitrust proceeding; cognizaNe interest to support; LBP-8819. I4 NRC 87 (1981) petition in antitrust proceeding dcnied for lack of timeliness and lack of nexus; LBP-81-28,14 NRC 333 (1981) pleading requirements for petitions for; LBP-8141,14 NRC 1735 (1981) request denied concerning authorization to caport special nuclear materials to Philippines; CLI-81-18,14 NRC 301 (1981) standing of petitioners for, factors to be considered in petitions for, scheduling of prehearing conference regarding; amending petitions for, LBP-8124,14 NRC 235 (1981)
JURISDICTION Antitrust, under AEA; ALAB461,14 NRC 1817 (1981)
Board lack of, motion to withdraw application for operating license amendment; LBP-81-20,14 NRC 101 (1981) of Licensing Board to consider need for and content of EIS for restart of TMI; LBP-81-60,14 NRC 1724 (1981) of liansing boards to approve applicant's plan to maintain quality of safety-related construction activities being transferred from on contractor to another, LBP-81-54,14 NRC 918 (1981) of NRC with respect to decisions of other agencies; DD-8118,14 NRC 925 (1981) of petition or intervention boards in operating license proceeding; LBP-81-30A,14 NRC 364 (1981)
JURISDICTION, NRC over emergency planning activities, required for licensing nuclear power plants, which may take place in
.wNj Canada; LBP 8124,14 NRC 175 (1981)
I mQ w ap 98 f
i O
7.7 h
,I A
LABOR UNION
/*-
g standing to intervene in enforcsment case involving overtime restrictions; LDP 88 26,14 NRC 247 (1981) l LEAD STORAGE BA1TERIES
- "' ** *g subcontention, compliance with Guides, rejected; LDP 81 It,14 NRC ?! (1981)
LEAKAGE CONTROL SYSTEM subcontention, design of main steam isolation valve; LBP-41 18,14 NRC 71 (1981) r LICENSE (S) amendment requests, redundant nature of proccedings on; LBP-8155,14 NRC 1017 (1981) for fuel loading and low-power testing effectm for Unit I subject to documentation by NRR Director; CLI-8122,14 NRC 598 (1981) full-power effectiveness decision for Unit I made without prejudics to Unit 2 effectmness review; CLI-81 15,14 NRC i (1981) new operating, requirements in resprese to TMI accident; CLI-81 16,14 NRC 14 (1981) standards for issuing under AEA: LBP 8147.14 NRC 865 (1981)
See also Hearings, Operating License; Operating Licenas LICENSE CONDITION (S) 2.206 petition asserting licensee's failure to abde denied; DD 81 IS,14 NRC 589 (1981) concerning hydrogen control; CLI-88 IS, le NRC I (1981) i NRC authorization for licensee's financial arrangements sa: DD 88-18,14 NRC 925 (1981) relative to management capabihty issues required if TMI I is res'aried; LBP-8132,14 NRC 381 (1981)
LICENSING BOARD (LB) make-up of, in consohdated operating license /show cause proceeding; LBP 8131.14 NRC 375 (1981) requested by Commission to describe beme for sua sponte adoption of dismissed intervenor's contentions; CLI 8124,14 NRC 614 (1981) l LICENSING BOARDS g
authority of, regarding parties' c8sjections to Board decisions; I BP 8 8 $8,14 NRC 1867 (1981) authority of, to hold information confidential; LBP 8150,14 NRC 848 (1981) 1 authority of, to regulate proceedings, CLi-8136,14 NRC lill (1981) calhng of independent consultants by; responsibihties of, to carry out appeal bosci instructaans, to pass judgment on appellate rulings; ALAB-663,14 NRC 1840 (1981) discretion of, to appoint own espert witness, authority to regulate proceedings; role as adversary party; LBP-8F47,14 NitC 865 (1981) dismissal of construction permit application with prejudice; ALAB-657,14 NRC 967 (191t1) dismissal of construction permit apphcation; scope et review of; ALAB-662,14 NRC 1825 (1981) jurisdiction of, to approve applicant's plan to maintain quahty of safety-related construction activities being transferred from one contractor to another; LBP-8154,14 NRC 918 (1981) jurisdiction of, to consider need for and contest of EIS for restart of TMI; LBP 8140,14 NRC 1724 (1981) prerequisites for the raising cf safety issues sua sponte by; consideration of EPZ size as generic issue; LBP 8136,14 NRC 691 (1981)
LICENSING PROCEEDING, TANDEM objection to decision denying rentention on; LBP-81-33,14 NRC 682 (1981)
LICENSING PROCEEDINGS Board espedition of; LBP 8139,14 NkC 819 (1981) l differentiation of district court proceedings from; LBP-8124,14 NRC 175 (1981) evidentiary hearings on, future litigation resulting frorn disnussel of; ALAH62,14 NRC ll25 (1981)
LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZATION partial initial decisions vacated following withdrawal of construction permits; LBP-8133,14 NRC 586 (1981)
LIQUEFACTION necessity of site dewatering system to preclude; LBP-8131. I4 NRC 375 (1981)
LIQUID METAL FAST BREEDER REACTOR eacmption from $50.10 sought to conduct site preparation activities prior to issuance of construction 6ermit for; CLI-81-33,14 NRC 1100 (1981)
LITTLE SALMON FAULT g
capability of, and effect on restart of BWR; LBP-8120,14 NRC 101 (1981)
{
LOW POWER TEST PROCEEDING findings of fact on radon gas release; QA; unresolved generic safety issues; emergency planning; rehef, e
6 safety and block valves, LBP-8121,14 NRC 107 (1981) l MAINTENANCE, SAFETY RELATED deferral of, recodkeeping, proposed budget cut, inadequate and understaffed QA/QC programs, extensive overtime considered in TMI-I restart proceeding; LBP-88 32,14 NRC 388 (1981)
I CA,4 i
f N
l,
I SUNECT INDEX MAJOR FEDERAL ACTION shipment of spent fuel assemblies es; ALAS 411,14 NRC 307 (1981)
P,
MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY
. ~ ~
Commission states latention to begia effectiveness review immediately on partial laitial decision on,is
'.4'*-
restart proceeding; CLI-81 19,14 NRC 304 (1981)
^
considerations in partial initial decision issued la TMI-I restart; LBP-8132,14 NRC 381 (1981)
GPU Nuclear's to be consadcred instead of Metropolitaa Edison's in restart proceeding: CLI-81 17,14 NRC 299 (1981)
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE organization, technical resouras. QA man.gers and technical staff considered la TMI-I restart proceeding; LBP 8132,14 NRC 381 (1981)
MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENTS by munsel and parties to constructica permit application proceeding; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1768 (1981)
MELTDOWN scenarios for, et SONGS; DD-8120,14 NRC 1052 (19til)
METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING subcontention, noncompliance of measurement program, denied without prejudice; LBP-8818,14 NRC 71 (1981)
MISCONDUCT by parties and counsel addressed in remanded constructico permit application proceeding; LBP-5143,14 NRC 1768 (1981)
MONITORING of events in containment building during LDCA, adequacy of apparatus for; LBP-4134,14 NRC 637 (1981) of radioactive efNents at TMI, deficiencies in instruments for, distinguishing between effluents from Unit I and 2, of groundwater: LBP-8159, le NRC 121I (1988)
See also Meteorological Monitoring MONITORS, LOCAL POWER RANGE degradation of, through coolant flow-induced vibration of fuel assemblies; LBP-8134,14 NRC 637 (1981)
MOOTNESS GROUNDS partial init'st decision, anditionally authorizing construction permit, vacated on; ALAB456,14 NRC 965 (1981)
MOTION (S) replies to answers to; to dismiss contentions, responses to: LBP-81 18,14 NRC 71 (1981) to compel answers to unanswered interrogatories; LBP-8148,14 NRC 1735 (1981) to stnks three contentions for default granted in part, denied la part; LBP-81-22,14 NRC 150 (1981)
NFED FOR POWER requirement for raising contention at operating license stage: LBP 8135, le NRC 642 (1981)
State regulatory determinations of; ALAB462,14 NRC I125 (1981)
NEWPORT.INGLEWOOD FAULT capahlity of, relative to Saa Onofre facility; DD-81-20,14 NRC 1052 (1981)
NOTICE of hearing, agency's statutory authority regarding; AIAB461,14 NRC lll7 (1981)
NRC ANTITRUST REVIEW significant changes determination at operating license stage: CLI-SI 26,14 NRC 787 (1981)
NRC STAFF delays is issaance of documents cited by Board as reason for sua sponte adoptice of contentions; LBP 8138,14 NRC 767 (1981) impugns motivation of Board Chairman over board's calling of exput seismology witness; LBP-81-47,14 NRC 865 (1981) response not filed to motion for stay of effectiveness of fun-power licensen: ALAB447,14 NRC 27 (1981) role c(,is assessing radiological health and safety aspects or facihty; ALAB463,14 NRC 1140 (1981)
NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DIRECTOR denial of 2.206 petition requesting shutdown to inspect steam generator tubes, suspension of operating license because of reactor pressure vessel concerns; DD 8121,14 NRC 1078 (1981) denial of petition by Ralph Nader for suspension of operations pending license review of seismic design; DD-81-20,14 NRC 1052 (1981) denial of petitions by 1500 Californians for suspension of operation on benes of seismic design defh emer8cacy planning considerations; DD-8819,14 NRC 1041 (1981) denies 2.206 petition requesting action against cc> owner for alleged improper secunas of additional f
financing; DD-81 18,14 NRC 925 (1981) e, 100
t G
l sumcr aux 4.,
y.4, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC)
'4 adjud catory responsibihties of, concerning efreiency of licensing process; DPRM 812,14 NRC 289 (1981)
- d' -
guidelines for specircity la piesdings; LBP 8124,14 NRC 175 (1981) jurisdiction of, with respect to decisions of other agencies; DD 81 18,14 NRC 925 (1981) procendings, application of collateral estoppel to; LBP-4158,14 NRC 1167 (1981) referral of rulings to; LBP-81-36,14 NRC 691 (1981) responsibilities under NEPA regarding forecasts of need for power, reconsideration of decisions based on EIS; DD-8112,14 NRC 265 (1981) role in assessing financial matters, steam generator repairs; ALAlk660,14 NRC 987 (1981)
See also Junadstion, NRC OBJECTIONS to antitrust decision, special procedure for; LBP-8158,14 NRC 1867 (1981)
OFFSHORE ZONE OF DEFORMATION proximity of, to SONGS site; DD-81-20,14 NRC 1052 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE (S) amended to ;ransfer operating authority for Unit I to GPU Nuclear; CLI-81 17,14 NRC 299 (1981) a amendment to allow sleeving of steam generator tebes, agenda and rules set for expedited hearing on; LBP-81-46,14 NRC 862 (1981) amendment to allow spent fuel pool expansion, consideration of alternatives, applicant's financial qualifications, seismic issue: LBP-8153,14 NRC 912 (1981) amendment, program for solidifying IJgh-level liquid radioactive was'sa, pos'ponement of immediate effectiveness denied; CLI-81-29.14 NRC 940 (1981)
Commissaan review of, request for fixed time periods for completion of, denied; DPRM-812,14 NRC 289 (1981) conditions required for restart of TMI-I; LBP-3159,14 NRC 1218 (1981) for fuel loading, low power testing, suspended because of seismic design errors, effective ima+ately; CLI-81-30,14 NRC 950 (1981) bearing ta consider sua sponte issues related to safety of transition construction activities; LBP-8154, le NRC 918 (1981) modirmation of, following chernical decontamination of primary coolant systems; CLI-81-25,14 NRC 616 (1981) modirmation sought tc, permit installation of high-density spent feel storage racks and withdrawal of some of present racks; LBP-8137,14 NRC 708 (1981) remedial antitrust conditions on, petitions for review of Appeal Board decia;on denied; CLI-8127.14 NRC 795 (1981) review of seismic design, denial of petition by Ralph Nader for suspension of operations pending; DD-81-20,14 NRC 1052 (1981) stage, requirements for significant changes determination, NRC antitrust review; CLI-81-26,14 NRC 787 (1981)
See also llearings. Operating IJcense; Licenses OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT motion to withdraw application, without prejud ce; seismic considerations; LBP 8120,14 NRC 101 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING (S)
Board consideration of sua sponte issues in: LBP-3123,14 NRC 159 (1981) consolidation with show cause proceeding; LBP-81-31,14 NRC 375 (1981) requirements of non-party participants in; LBP-81-35,14 NRC 682 (1981) review of de6ision granting full-power licenses, Units I and 2; ALAB-647,14 NRC 27 (1981)
See also Hearings, Operating License OPERATOR TRAINING and competence, Review Board finds short-term actions required of license adequate for continued j
operation; ALAlk655,14 NRC 799 (1981) commitments of TMI-I licenses towards; LBP-8132,14 NRC 381 (1981)
OVERTIME restrictions, labor anion request for bearing denied; LBP-8126,14 NRC 247 (1981)
PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF settlement agreement with tire-considered in TMI-l restart proceeding; LBP-81-32,14 NRC 381 (1981)
PERSONNEL reasons for termination of, motion to compel discxwcry granted; LBP-8161,14 NRC 1735 (1981) subcontention, inadequacies in qualification and training of, rejected; LBP-51 18,14 NRC 71 (1981)
.4
[
3%~ r i
101
l l
1 I
f SUBJECT INDEX 5,
PHILIPPINES esport of special nuclear materials to; CLI-81 II,14 NRC 301 (1981)
PHYSICAL SECURITY apphcant's plan for, found is unformance with AEA sad agency regulations; ALAIL653,14 NRC 629 (1981) intervenor requesta clarification on procedure for seeking review of decisica on; CLI-8121,14 NRC 595 (1981)
PlPE BREAKS at pipe cracks initiated by water hammer, safety of design to prevent questened; LBP-81-34,14 NRC 637 (1981)
POLICY STATEMENT Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses, requested stay of denied, CLI-81 16,14 NRC 14 (1981)
POOL SWELL PHENOMENON vulneraklity of Control Rod Drive Mechanis.11 Hydrauhc Unit and Traversing In-Core Probe to; LBP-8134,14 NRC 637 (1981)
POTASSIUM IODIDE adequacy of provisions for dtstribution and administration of, during emergency at TMI; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981) contention concerning dtstribution of, to households within 10 miles of picat, admissible; LBP 4124,14 NRC 175 (1981)
POWER EXCURSION contention cites inadequacy of industry standard theory for tra,tsient analyses; LDP-81-34,14 NRC 637 (1981)
P:)WER NEEDS 2.206 petition to reopen record on, mnstruction permits, denied; DD-81 12,14 NRC 265 (1981) allateral estoppel doctrine apphed to contentions on, litigated at construction permit stage; LBP-8124,14 NRC 175 (1981)
PREHEARING CONFERENCE in,ervenors and contentions admitted in operating license amendment proceeding dealing with spent fuel pool espansion; LBP-8153,14 NRC 912 (1988) regard ng petitions for intervention, scheduling of; LBP 8124,14 NRC 235 (1981) special, admission of parties, motions to dismiss and to stay, admissibility of contentions, adoption of special dismvery procedures; LBP-8124,14 NRC 175 (1981)
PRESIDING OFFICER functon of, under Administrative Procedure Act; LBP 81-47,14 NRC 865 (1981)
PRESSURE SEALANT subcontention, deterioration of, accepted, LBP-51 18,14 NRC 71 (1981)
PRESSURE VESSEL contentions concerning cracking, machining defects, not admitted; LBP 81-24,14 NRC 175 (1981) subcontention alleging Applicant's failure to describe behavior ander LOC conditions rejected; LBP-SI 18, 14 NRC 71 (1981) vulnerabihty of, to thermal shock, denial of 2.206 petition requesdng suspension of cperations because of concerns over; DD-8121,14 NRC 1078 (1981) vulnerahlity of, to undetectable cracks, linked to need for notification system in emergency planning; 2.206 petition for show cause proceedms; DD-81 16,14 NRC 781 (1981)
PRESSURIZER HEATERS at TMI, clautfication of as safety grade, annection of, to diesels; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981)
PROOF standard of, for significant changes determination; CLI-8126,14 NRC 787 (1981)
PROOF, BURDEN OF in consideration of stay, pending appeal, of efTectiveness of remedial antitrust conditions to license; CLI-8127,14 NRC 795 (1981)
" JCHOLOGICAL STRESS mntention rejected in reopened TMI-I restart proceeding; LBP-8160,14 NRC 1724 (1981) recunsideration of decision to exclude contentions on la TMI I restart proceedms; CL1-8120,14 NRC 593 (1981)
QUALITY ASSURANCE Board asks Apphcant and Staff to describe program in detait; LBP 81-38,14 NRC 767 (1981) contenten limited to implications arising from stop work order, LBP-8135,14 NRC 682 (1981) contention questions adequacy of assurance that spent fuel tube and rack construction and Boral-10 m
+q loading meet specifications; LBP-8137,14 NRC 708 (1981) h eJ QF.
102
G L
SUBJECT INDEX contention, program causing unsafe construction, admitted; LBP-81-24,14 NRC 175 (1981) for safety-related concrete construction dsrcnbed in support of summary disposition motaan; LBP 81-48, 14 NRC 877 (1981) motion to compel discovery concerning personnel granted, LBP-8141,14 NRC 1735 (1981) of safety-related construction activities being transferred from one contractor to another, Board poses questions, schedules evidentiary hearing on; LBP-8154,14 NRC 918 (1981) of seismic design, serious weakness found in applicant's program for; CLI-8130,14 NRC 950 (1981) operating program questioned under Board s sua sponte authority; LBP-5123,14 NRC 159 (1981) program during construction, subcontentions, conformance with Guides, rejected; LBP-8818,14 NRC Ti (1981) program implementation for design and construction considered in low-power test proceeding; LBP-8121, 14 NRC 107 (1981)
RADIATION adequacy of spent fuel equipment for monitoring of questioned; LBP-si 37,14 NRC 708 (1981) esposure levels maintained as low-as-reasonat.ly achievable, denial of motion to compel discovery concerning; LBP-8141,14 NRC 1735 (19111) espusure of workers to, during proposed sleeving of steam generator tubes, contention admitted; 4
LBP-81-45,14 NRC 853 (541) shelter from, and dose estimat.iuring hypothesized multiple disasters; LBP-8146,14 NRC 691 (1981) use of mobile teams for monnoring; desirability of installing offsite remote readout monitws for; adequacy of Licensee's capsbi!ity fx analysis of offsite doses of; adequacy of Licemee's Environmental Monitoring Program for; LBP-81-59 I4 NRC 1218 (1981)
RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS i
at TMI, deficiencies in instruments for monitoring; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981)
RA0lOACTIVE EMISS!ONS l
as hr.rard to aircraft guidance systems; health effects of routine, low-level; summary disposition of contentions sought; LBP-8134,14 NRC 637 (1981) caused by or occurnns during carthquakes, consideration of impacts of on emerency planning; CL1-8133, 14 NRC 1091 (1981) contention described, effects on public ather than at eactusion boundary: LBP 8138,14 NRC 767 (1981) from TMI, modification of filtration systems for; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981) low-level adequacy of assessment of, motion to compel discovery on, granted; LBP-8141,14 NRC 1735 (1981)
RADIOACTIVE WASTE appropriate staffing of program caamined in TMI-I restart proceeding; LBP-8132,14 NRC 381 (1981) high-level inquid, pos'ponement of immediate effectiveness or openting license amendment for program for solidifying; CLI-8129,14 NRC 940 (1981) low level, petition to intervene regarding applicant's request for temporary onsite storage of, denied; LhP-81-40,14 NRC 828 (1981) treatment system for spent fuel pools, adequacy of questioned; LBP-81-37,14 NRC 708 (1981)
RADON emissions from uranium fuel cycle, effects found not significant; LBP-8143,14 NRC 1768 (1981) environmental effects of releases associated with uranium fuel cycle, requirement for demonstration of genuine issue of material fact; ALAB454,14 NRC 632 (1981) releases f>om uranium mining and milling for reactor fuel, consid ration of la low-power test proceeding; 8
LBP-8121,14 NRC 107 (1981)
I l
REACTOR anticipatory trip, safety-grade Review Board requests information on status of installation of; ALAB455, l
14 NRC 799 (1981) summarv disposition of contention, applicant's inab:hty to effect cold shutdown in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, denied; t
LBP-5134,14 NRC 637 (1981) systems, safety classification of; maintenance of subcriticality of TMI 2; LBP 81-59,14 NRC 1211 (1981) vessel level instrumentation system, contention describing deficiencies demed; LBP-8127,14 NP.C 325 (1981)
I vessel, e ster level indication in; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981)
I l
J See also Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reaciar REACTOR COMPONENTS l
i effects of flow-induced vibrations on jet pumps, spargers, fuel pins, core instrumentation, and fuel rods; l
LBP-5134,14 NRC 637 (1981)
FEACTOR CCOLANT subcontention. maintenance of water purity, accepted; LBP-81 18,14 NRC 71 (1981) f_,"%s REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEMS Justice Department invest gition of Irak rate test data for TMI-2; LBP-8132,14 NRC 381 (1981) i
- j sk t
i 103 1
I I
l l
l
SUBJELT INDEX M (
safety of relief, safety and block valves, low-power testing; LBP-8121,14 NRC 107 (1981)
REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEMS, PRIMARY appointment of Board, guidance on conduct of bearing regarding decon; amination of; CLI-8115,14 NBC a
616 (1981) h* g,.,g asymmetnc blowdown loads, Board disposition of contention of voluntarily disnussed latervenor, LBP-8123,14 NRC 159 (1981)
REACTOR CORE detecten of inadequate cooling c(, LBP-8159,14 NRC 12t l (1981) effects of nonsafety-related systems on; LBP 88 59,14 NRC 1218 (1981) inadequate post-accident monitoring systems; Board disposition of cos,tention of volustanly dismissed intervenor; LBP-8123,14 NRC IS9 (1981) lateral support of, insufrecient to withstand combined lateral seismic and blowdown forces, LBP-8814, le NRC 637 (1981)
REACTOR FUEL RODS sammary dispositiaa sought for contentions on hydrogen contamination ofimeide c(; effects of riow induced vibration on; deficiencies in drive system; unreliatnhty if pattern control system; reacthity insertion from dropped; ejection accident; LBP-8134,14 NRC 637 (1981)
REACTOR VESSEL fracture toughness properties of; Board disposition of conteotice of voluntarily disnussed interveacr.
RECONSIDERATION Commission denies petition for, concerning its declins of decision te mak significaat changes determination; CLI-81-26,14 NRC 787 (1981) of order tollms the running of period in which dismissed intervenarb may fde exceptsons, denial of applicant's motion for; ALAB459,14 NRC 983 (1981) of question of sua sponte review of decision authorizing conidentiality sfinforman's' asmes, Nami====
decides against; CLI-81-28,14 NRC 933 (1981)
RECORD 2 206 petition to reopen, construction permits, to ram need for power, denied, DD-8812,14 NRC 263 (1988) motion to aspplement denied, expropriation issue raised for first time os appeal; ALAB444,14 NRC 34 (1981) of Decision, purpose of having; ALAB-660,14 NRC 987 (1981) on storage racks in spent fuel pool, revising, striking, or modifying evidence ce; LBP 88 37,14 NRC 703 (1981) reopening, full power licensing pra"*Ag, emergency planning caten'me edmitted; LBP 1127, le NRC 325 (1981)
REGULATIONS form of proceedmss on requests for exemptions from; CLI-88 35,14 NRC 1100 (1981) interpretation of, regarding confidentiahty of identitia, of individuals involved 3 cheating incidents; LBP-8150,14 NRC 888 (1981) interpretations of 2.760s and 50.47(a); LBP-8136, le NRC 691 (1981) to address impacts of severe earthquakes ca emergency planning; CL1-8133,14 NRC 1091 (1981)
See also Rules & Regulations REGULATORY GUIDES apphcabihty of, compliance with; bringing newly issued guides into play; LBP-8818,14 NRC 78 (19 31)
)
RESTART PROCEEDING i
Comminion intenten to begin immediate effectiveness review partial initial decision ce snanageaient competence; ALAB estabhabed to bear initial appeals; CLl41 19,14 NRC 304 (1981) consideration of GPU Nuclear's management capability instead of Metropolitan FA,#s to operate Unit I; CLI-81 17,14 NRC 299 (198 I) partial initial decision issued on ciansgement tapability to oprate Unit I; LBP-88 32,14 NRC 381 (1981) reopening of, on confidentiahty issue; LBP-8150,14 NRC 888 (1981)
TMI-1, reconsideration of decision to exclude psychological stress contenticas CLI-8120,14 NRC $93 l
(1981) f Unit 1. TMI, modifications is plant design and procedures, potential interaction betwees Units I and 2; LBP-8159,14 NRC 121I (1981)
REVIEW I
Licensing Board, scope of; ALArr662,14 NRC 1825 (1981) of Appeal Board decision imposing remedial antitrust owhtions on operating liensa denied; CLI-8127, 14 NRC 795 (1981)
~
[]
led I
t e
O I
SUBJECT INDEX I
g'.4 e
of physical security d-h intervenor requests clarificatice ce procedure for aadiar CLI-SI-21,14 I
NRC 595 (1981)
}
sua spoets, by licensing board, prerequisites to raising safety issues; LBP-8136,14 NRC 691 (1988) sua sponte, deferring judgment on licensing board decisica approv'as con 6amed reactor operation; p?
ALAB 455,14 NRC 799 (1981) see sponte, of 6ecision authorizing confidentiality of leformants' names, Comnussace decides estinst reconsideration of question of; CL18128,14 NRC v33 (1981)
See also AppsHate Review; Early Site Review; Eav:ronmental Review;Immediate Effectiveness Ravice;
?
NRC Antitrust Review l
REVIEW, EFFTCTIVENESS ce partial initial decision ce management competerra to begin immodately; CLI-81 19,14 NRC 304 f
(1981) l RULEMAKINO j
na rersedy Pr exclusion of electromagnetic pulses ocatention; LR 8157,14 NRC 1037 (1981) denial of request for reconsidetstion of petition fer, fiznd time pcriuds for complethe of hcensi.N review; i
[
ce the subject of faaacial qualifications, deferral of coatentions bewasse of; LBP-81 St,14 NrC 896 (1981)
RULES & REGULATIONS escluding electromagnetic pulses contentius, ws!ver sought; LBP-St 57,14 NRC 1017 (1988)
RULES OF PRACTICE admissibility of contentions dealing with failure to comply with NEPA and Part 51; LBP-81-60,14 NRC 1724 (i981) admissibihty of ctatentions regarding license amendment to allow easite siwage of low-level radioactive waste; LBP-8140,14 NRC 828 (1981) admissibility of contentions which are or are ebout to become subjects of rulemaking; ALAB-655,14 NPC 799 (1981) samissibility of contentions, license amendment proceeding concerned with simving steam generator tubes; LBP-81-45,14 NRC 853 (1981) answers to interrogatories; sanctions against is:ervenors; LBP-8152,14 NRC 901 (1981)
I Board questions regarding demonstrataos program ce sleeving of steam generator tubca; LBP-81-44,14 NRC 850 (1981) board's diactstion to callits own expert witness; LBP-81-47,14 NRC 865 (1981) briefs, exceptions, rmdings of fact, responsibilites of parties, recpening of preadings harmicas error,in spent fuel pool expansion proceeding; ALAH50,14 NRC 43 (1981) certification authority of appeal boards; standard for discretionary interlocutory appeal, ALAB-663,14 NRC 1840 (1981) changed circumstances in need for power contention; burdens of proof and persuasion is summary dispositbn; designation of lead intervenors; non-party participatba; LBP-8135,14 NRC 682 (1981) claim of absolute nght to prior hearing ca issuance of license amesdarat not grounds for stay; CLI 8129,14 NRC 940 (1981) consideration for granting a stay of order; LBP-8130,14 NRC 357 (1981) consoleda' ion of operating license proceeding and show cause proceedms; LBP-8131,14 NRC 375 (1981) deferral of contentions which are the subject of propossd rulemaking; LBP 81-51,14 NRC 896 (1981) enctusion of electromagnetic pulse contention, brief suspension of ATWS contention; LBP-8142,14 NRC (1981)
! actors considered, burden of proof. stay of effectivenses, of rem!ial astitrust conditions to license, pend.nl appeal, CLI-4127,14 NRC 795 (1981) factors determining grant of summary disposition; inadmissiede contention, appeal bcard examination of licensing teerd's decovery decision; ALAIL660,14 NPC 987 (1981) i factors governing yant of stay requests; ALAB-647,14 NRC 27 (721) laggnmg integrity of a party;jurisdictice of boards concerning conf,dentiality of filed documents; i
proposals to witahold information; confidentialsty of documents and affdavita; LEP-8162,14 NRC 1747 (!981)
I la an expedited proceeding, board geestions, disc etion of presiding cfficer, fairacas, sua sponte issues, discovery, show cause order; LBP 8139,14 NRC 819 f1981) i institution of show cause proceedings ce a subject generally conniered an issue by rulemaking; DD-88 23, 14 NRC 1803 (1981) jurisdiction of boards, admissiblity of contentiota, discovery; LBP-31-30A,14 NRC 364 (1981) l motice for reconsiderstaca, significent che ses detercunstaan, NRC antitrust review; CL1-8126,14 NRC
+y t
787 (1981)
NRC review of Appeal Board decision ce physical a:svrity; CLI-8121, le NRC 595 (1981) h t
g; j
195 i
I I
l
e SUBJECT INDEX
.c operating license proceeding, special prebecring conference order, jurisdiction, standing, admissibility of pleading requirements for intervention pet tions, scope of contentions, answe:s ta interrogatories, discovery contentions, collater-! catoppel; LBP-SI-24,14 NRC 175 (1981) 4,
" i 41 betecen parties; LBP 81-61,14 NRC i135 (1981)
Jg procedure for appeal of decision upholding site selection; LBP 81-32,14 NRC 381 (1981) purpose of early site review regulations; nght of parties to hearing on alleged abuses of regulations; hcensing board search of record; ALAB-657,14 NRC 967 (1981) reconsideration petitions; ALAB-659,14 NRC 983 (1981) referral of ruhngs to appeal board or Commission; LBP-8136,14 NRC 691 (1981) rephes to answers to motions, responses to motions to dismiss contentions; LBP-81-18,14 NRC 71 (1981)
- responsibilities of parties and counsel regarding disclosure of relevant factual information; work product doctrine; prepared written testirnony; LBP-81-63,14 NRC 1768 (1981) responubihties of parties. 2.206 petition regarding license (s financial arrangemees; DD'8118,14 NRC 925 (1981) restricted discovery against intervenors. discretion of presiding offwer in capedited hearing; LBP-81-46,14 NRC 862 (1981) role of pretrial discovery, interrogatories, and matentions; LBP-81-25,14 NRC 241 (1981) separation of antitrust from health, safety, and environmental hearings; notice of hearing; ALAB-661,14 NRC lil7 (1981) show cause proceeding, acceptabihty of emergency plans for evacuation; DD 81-14,14 NRC 279 (1981) showing that enforcement action adversely affects intervention petitioner's interests, criteria for interventen petition; CLI-8132,14 NRC 962 (1981) special rules for case citations, special objections procedure, application of collateral estoppel, summary disposition motion, scheduling, in antitrust proceeding; LBP 8158,14 NRC 1867 (1981) standard of capertise required for empert interrogator; LBP-8129,14 NRC 353 (1981) standing of labor union to intervene in enfora vient case involving overtime restrictions; LBP 8126,14 NRC 247 (1981) standing to intervene in enforcement actions, criteria for intervention petition; CLI-81-31,14 NRC 959 t1981) standing to intervene, discretionary intervention, participation, consolidation of parties, in decontamination beanng: CLI-8125,14 NRC 616 (1981) summary disposition of contention on safety-related co > crete; LBP-81-48,14 NRC 877 (1981) summary disposition of health and safety and environmertal contentions; LBP-8134,14 NRC 617 (1981) summary disposition, special expedited proceedings, confidentiality; admissibihty of mntention,in show cause proceeding involving steam generator tube sleeving; LBP-8155,14 NRC 1017 (1981) untimely petition for intervention in antitrust proceeding denied; LBP 8128,14 NRC 333 (1981) waiver of Comminion rule escluding electromagnetic pulses contention; LBP-8157,14 NRC 1037 (1981) waiver of immediate effectiveness rule; CLI-8122,14 NRC 598 (1981) withdrawal of construction permit apphcation, admissibihty of contentions, early site review, payment of fees; ALAB-662,14 NRC 1125 (1981)
SABOTAGE motion by Governor of Cahfornia for oral briefing of alleged incident of, at another facility denied; ALAB-649,14 NRC 40 (1981) of spent fu-l shipments considered in EIA: ALAB-651,14 NRC 307 (1981) radiological, appbcant's physical security plan adequate to meet design basis threat of; ALAB-653,14 NRC 629 (1981)
SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE (SSE) emergency plans for earthquake exceeding; LBP-8136,14 NRC 691 (1981) plant capabihty, Board disposition of contention of voluntanly dismissed intervenor; LBP-81-23,14 NRC 159 (1981)
SAFETY clanfication of Memorandum and Order conce-ning long term issues; CLI-8123,14 NRC 610 (1981) classification of reactor systems; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981) generic inues of station blackout, ATWS, reactor vessel material toughness, quahrication of Class IE safety-related equipment considered in low power test proceeding; LBP-8121,14 NRC 107 (1981) problems at SONGS, serious. 2.206 petition by Ralph Nader for suspension of operations cites; DD-8120, 14 NRC 1052 (1981) quahfied individuals to provide review of and operational advice examined in TMI-I restart proceeding; LBP-81-32,14 NRC 381 (1981)
See also Health and Safety; Maintenance, Safety-Related yer*q SAFETY SYSTEMS at TMI, bypass and override of, monitoring and verifying status of; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981)
IM t
I i
i SUNECT INDEX
- ; --.y l
g SANCTIONS i
for failure to adequately answer discovery requests; LBP-8122,14 NRC 150 (1981)
~
l imposition of, because of intervenor's failure to answer interrogatories; LBP 8152,14 NRC 901 (1981)
SCHEDULE (S) b-
~
established simultaneously for filing of objections, holding of oral argument, and holding of an evidentiary hearing; LBP 8I 58 14 NRC 1867 (1981) procedural, motion to modify treated as motion for extension of time; LBP-81-64,14 NRC 1803 (1981) revised for receipt of comments on immediate effectiveness of decision on TMI issues; CLI-8134,14 NRC 1097 (1981)
SECURITY PLAN denial of motion to compel discovery of; LBP 8161,14 NRC 1735 (1981)
SECURITY PROCEEDING motion by California Governor for oral briefmg of alleged incident of sabotage at another facility denied, ALAB-649,14 NRC 40 (1981)
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS concerning installation of new free-standing storage racks in spent fuel pool; LBP-8137,14 NRC 708 (1981) in conschdated operating license /show cause proceeding; LBP-8131,14 NRC 375 (1981) of BWR iacated in active earthquake zone; LDP 8120,14 NRC 101 (1981)
SEISMIC DESIGN denial of petition by Ralph Nader for suspension of operation pending license review of; DD-81-20,14 NRC 1052 (1981) i i
denial of petitens by 1500 Californians for suspension of operations, derwiencica in; DD-8819,14 NRC tool (1981) t errors in equipment and piping in containment annulus, fuel loading, low power test license suspended for; l
CLI 88-30,14 NRC 950 (1981)
SENSITIZED STAINLESS STEEL subcontention, noncompliance, applicants' control of use of, rejected; right to reparticularize contention denied LBf'-8118,14 NRC 78 (1981) 4 summary disp sition sout s of contentions dealing with inter 5ranular stress corrosion and cracking of h
components made of; LBP-8134,14 NRC 637 (1981)
SEVERANCE of Unit 2 from Unit I proceedings, motion granted for, LBP-88-56,14 NRC 1035 (1981)
SHIFT Rf ANNING requirements at TMI l examined in restart pra-ding; LBP 8132,14 NRC 381 (1981)
SHOW CAUSE ORDER to require den orstration of licensees' financial qualifications to decontaminate damaged planta, denial of 2.206 petition for; DD 8123.14 NRC 1803 (1981)
SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING (S) consolidation with operating license proceeding; LBP-88 31,14 NRC 375 (1981) descr pten of, and standards for; LBP 8155, le NRC 1017 (1981) suspension of operation pending full compliance, emergency planning,2.206 petition denied, DD-8 816, le NRC 781 (1981) to determine appropriateness of license amendment to aDow demonstration of steam generator tube sleeving; LBP-81-55,14 NRC 1017 (1981)
SHUTDOWN cold, long-term, licensing board questions Staff on public health and safety risks of maintaining plant in; i
I remote capability for; Board disposition of contention of voluntarily dismissed intervenor; LBP-8123,14 NRC 159 (1981) to inspect steam generator tubes. denial of 2 206 petition regeesting; DD-8121,14 NRC 1078 (1981)
See also Safe Shutdown Earthquake SHUTDOWN COLD contention cites applicant's it. ability to effect in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />; LBP-8134,14 NRC 637 (1981)
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DETERMINATION precluding statutory antitrust review, Commission denies reconsideration of decline of decision: CLI-8126, le NRC 787 (1981)
SITE redress.ng ordered following withdrawal of construction permits; LBP 81-33,14 NRC 586 (1981)
F-l See also Early Site Review SITE DEWATERING SYSTEM necessity of, to preclude hquefaction; LBP-8131,14 NRC 375 (1981) x r,
i 15 Y 107
1 SUBJELT INDEX 6
SOClOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS NEPA evaluation of, in reopened TMI restart proceeding; LBP-8140,14 NRC 1724 (1981)
SPECIAL MASTER CHAIRMAN l
appointed to conduct reopened restart proceeding dealing with confidentiality; LBP-88 50,14 NRC 888 (1981)
SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAIJ!i emport to Philippines, petitiener's request to intervene and for hearing denied; CLI-81 18,14 NRC 301 (1981) license amended, highway transportation of 300 spent fuel assemblies allowed; ALAS 451,14 NRC 307 (1981) physical security plan for,in conformance with AEA and agency regulations; ALAB453,14 NRC 629 (1981)
SPENT FUEL Special Nuclear Materials license amended to allow highway transportation of 300 assemblica; packaging requirements for, ALAB451,14 NRC 307 (1981)
SPENT FUEL POOL contention concerning boileer rejected; LBP-81-24,14 NRC 175 (1981) modification to permit installation of five Ngh density storage racks and withdrawal of some of present ones; LBP II 37,14 NRC 708 (1981) motion denied for summary disposition of contention citing inadequate consideration of design basis accident involving; LBP-81-34,14 NRC 637 (1981) subcontention allegmg design deficiencies admitted; LBP-81 II,14 NRC 71 (1981)
SPENT FUEL POOL EXPANSION intervenors file contentions on consideration of alternatives to, financial qualifications of applicant and seismic issue at special prehearing conference on: LBP-81-53,14 NRC 912 (1981) license amendment permitting installation of new storage racks affirmed; ALAB450,14 NRC 43 (1981)
SPENT FUEL RACKS free-standmg structures, operating license modification sought to install five; LBP-88 37,14 NRC 708 (1981)
SPENT FUELS control of heavy loads scar; Board disposition of contention of voluntarily dismissed intervenor:
LB*-SI 23,14 NRC 159 (1981) disp 4ition of, in shutdown facility located in active carthquake zone; LBP-8120,14 NRC 101 (1981) osidation of,in expanded pool; ALAB450,14 NRC 43 (1981) stored, inadequate protection of, during unattended operation of spent fuel pool, contention summarity dismissed; LBP 8134,14 NRC 637 (1981)
STANDING residence requirements for intervention in operating license proceeding; LBP 8124,14 NRC 175 (1981) to intervene ehere proposed activity involves lesser threat to public than normal reactor licensing case; LBP-81-40,14 NRC 828 (1981) to intervene in enforcement actions; CLI-8131,14 NRC 959 (1981)
STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION ciectromagnetic pulse contention, protectim of nuclear facilities against enemy attack: LBP-81-42.14 N RC (1981)
STAY Commission withdraws Appeal Board authority to: CLI 8134,14 NRC 1097 (1981) of Board Order cancelling further hearings on license amendments to permit generator repairs denied; LBP-5130,14 NRC 357 (1981) of effectiveness of full-term operatins licenses for Units I and 2 denied; AIAB447,14 NRC 27 (1981) of effectiveness of remedial antitrust conditions to license pending appeal, factors considered, burden of proof; CLI-8127,14 NRC 795 (1981) of immediate effectiveness of license amendment, solidification program for high-level liquid radioactive wastes, denied; CLI-81-29,14 NRC 940 (1981) of proceedings for Unit 2 granted; LBP 8156,14 NRC 1035 (1981) of Statement of Policy, Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Lacenses, denied; CLl-81 16,14 NRC 14 (1981)
STEAM GENERATOR TUBES agenda and rules set for expedited hearing on operating license amendment to a!!ow sleeving of; LBP 88 46,14 NRC 862 (1981) amendment to permit sleeving, contentions admitted covering corrosion, eddy current testing, radiological exposure of workers and weld integnty; LBP 81-45,14 NRC 453 (1981) applicant seeks operating license amendment to allow sleeving rather than plugging of; LPP-8139,14 49, N
NRC $19 (1981) e C
s 3
Q'y, t
188 i
i 6
9
i i
O
_,m_
- ,.~---~g l
'g
denial of 2.206 petitiae requesting shutdown to inspect: DD4121,14 NRC 1078 (1981)
{'
depimaged, sleenas of; LDP-8155,14 NRC 1017 (1981) permission sought to conduct program demonstrating sleeving of, additional Board questions ca; LBP-8144,14 NRC 850 (1981)
- j.
g, g..
show cause proceeding to determine appropriatseems of limitad limnee amendment to allow demonstration i
of slesving of; LDP41-55,14 NRC 1017 (1981) sleeved, circumferential roptere of, corrmaive savironment la aneutus of, interference with oddy current I
testing, Inw-quality work on; LBP 81-55,14 NRC 1017 (1981)
STEAM GENERATOR (S) dismissal of contentions, authorization of licsase amendments to effect repairs ca; description of fanction of in nuclear power plant; ALAB460,14 NRC 987 (1981) intervenor*: application for stay of Final Order cancelling farther bearings ce license amendments to permit repairs denied; LBP4130,14 NRC 357 (1981)
+
secondary side water chemistry program; Buard disposition of centention of voluntarily A=M intervonor; LDP-81-23,14 NRC 159 (1981)
SUA SPONTE ISSUES Board adoptan of,is operating liosase beanass: CLI-8136,14 NRC till (1981)
Board consideration of is operating license proceedias: LDP41-23,14 NRC 159 (1981) requirements for Licensing Board's adoption of; CLI-8124,14 NRC 614 (1981) status of Board questions as, in expedited operating license procw* ng; LBP4139,14 NRC 819 (1981) f
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION before discovery is complete; LBP-8I-35,14 NRC 1017 (1981) burden of showing absence of geauine issue of material fact; answers to Ations for; avoidance of; LBP-8148,14 NRC 577 (1981) burdens of proof and persuasion for. LBP41-35,14 NRC 682 (1981) i factors determining grant of; ALAB-660,14 NRC 937 (1981)
I partial, grant of, is antitrust proceeding; LBP-41-58,14 NRC !!67 (1981)
SUSPENSION OF OPERATIONS t
i 2.206 petition based on fire protection matters and agrironmental qualification of ciectncal equipment; DD 8813,14 NRC 275 (1981) because of reactor pressure vuesel conceras, denial of 2.206 petition requesting; DD4121,14 NRC 1078 (1981) for seissuc design deficiencies, emergency planning considerations, NRR Director denies petitions by 1500 Californians for; DD 81 19,14 NRC 1041 (1981) pending full compliance, emer8ency pisaning,2.206 petition far show cause pr-Ame denied; DD41 16, 14 NRC 781 (1981) pending license review of seismic design, denial of petition by Ralph Neder for. DIMI 20,14 NRC 1052 (1981)
SYSTEMS INTERACTION contention dealing with lateraction of safety sad ace-safety-related systems denied; LSP-4127,14 NRC 325 (1981) eafety/nonsafety, at TMI, studies, propcsed fladings, qualifications of staff witness concermaag; LBP 8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981)
TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS of applicant to construct anclear plant quesdanad latervonor*a request for e==ary disposition of contention denied; LBP-8134. I4 NRC 637 (1981) of personnel to operate nuclear power plant safely; Board interpretation of contention; LSP41-25,14 i
NRC 241 (1981)
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALLS
'i ce the record, written order establishes asends for, LBP-88 43,14 NRC 848 (1981)
TERMINATION l
cf proceeding, vacation of partial initial decision, ce mootness grounds, of conditional authorization of construction permit; ALAH56,14 NRC 965 (1981)
TESTIMONY drafts of, coverase of by attorney work product privilege, prepared written, wording of; LBP-41-63,14 f
NRC 1768 (1981)
TESTINO low-power, risks of at Diablo Canyon; LBP-81-21,14 NRC 107 (1981)
See also Eddy Currect Testing THREE MILE ISLAND (TMI)
[
consideration of need for EIS for restart of Unit 1; LDP41-60,14 NRC 1724 (1981) development of post-accident emergency planning requirements at Diablo Canyne; LBP-4121,14 NRC t
107 (1981) i p PP 309 t
t i
O I
SUBJECT INDEX r
effect of accident on spe% fK pool; ALAB450,14 NRC 43 (1981) 7 effect of Unit 2 accident t Unit I operation; LBP-8132,14 NRC 381 (1981) eacessive hydrogen generation and burn at Unit 2; CLI-81 15,14 NRC i (1981) modification to plant design and procedures required for restart of Unit I, potential interaction between 6
Units 1 and 2; LBP-8159,14 NRC 1218 (1981) requirements for new operating licenses in response to accident at; CLI-81 16,14 NRC 14 (1981) restart proceeding, reconsideration of decision to eaciude psychological str 2, community deterioration contentions; CLI-81-20,14 NRC 593 (1981) contention, nonconformance of apphcant with regulatory guides resulting from accident; LBP-81 18,14 NRC 71 (1981)
TMI ACTION P' AN denial of person's request for bearing on order confirming licensee's = --
'=2 to comply with; CLI-8131,14 NRC 959 (1981) reg'>est for hearing on order confirming licensee's commitment to comply with, objecting to licenses relief, modifications for ccat benefit purposes; CLI-81-32,14 NRC 962 (1981)
TRAINING organization; operator accelerated retraining program; of non-licensed personnel; independeas review of hcensee's programs; adequacy of, considered in TMI-I restart prar=tiag; LBP-81-37,14 NRC 381 (1981)
See also Operator Training TRAINING PROGRAMS denial of motion to compel discovery on; LBP-81-61,14 NRC 1735 (1981)
TRANSPORTATION of spent fuel racks and tubes, contention questions adequacy of inspection to detect damages resulting from; LBP-8137,14 NRC 708 (1981)
TURBINES subcontention, orientation of, and protection against low-trajectory miniles, accepted; LBP-81 18,14 NRC 71 (1981)
URANIUM FUEL CYCLE demonstration of environmental effects of radon releases during; AIAB-654,14 NRC 632 (1981) effects of radon emissicas from; LBP-81-63,14 NRC 17618 (1981) environmental effects considered in low-power test proceeding; LBP-8121,14 NRC 107 (1981)
URAN!UM MINING AND MILLING for reactor fuel, radon gas releases from; LBP-81-21,14 NRC 107 (1981)
VALVES power-operated relief, safety grade classification of, appropriate qualification testing of; LBP 8159,14 NRC 1211 (1981) relief and block, inadequate qualifmation of, contention denied; LBP-81-27,14 NRC 325 (1981) relief, safety and block, consideration of in low-power test proceeding; LBP-88 21,14 NRC 107 (1981)
VIBRATION flow-induced, summary disposition of contentions dealing with effects on reactor aamponents denied; LBP-8134,14 NRC 637 (1981)
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL intervenor's motion granted; matentions raised sua sponte by Board; LBP-41-23,14 NRC 159 (1981)
WASTE disposal and store 8e at TMI, separation of Unit I from Unit 2, evaluation of,in EIA; LBP 81-60,14 NRC 1724 (l#81) disposal problems of nuclear power plants; ALAB-651,14 NRC 307 (1981) bandling ctpabilities at TMI, assurance of safety of; LBP 8159,14 NRC !211 (1981) reasonable assurance of safe disposal of; empe of review for onsite storage of; ALAB-660,14 NRC 987 (1981)
See also Radioactive Waste WATER HAMMER contention questions safety of design to prevent pipe break accidents at pipe cracks initiated by; LBP 81-34,14 NRC 637 (1981)
WELDING of piping, safety of, welder qualifications ques.soned in antention; LBP-8134,14 NRC 637 (1981)
WELDS of sleeve to steam generator tube, contentier questions integrity of; LBP-41-45,14 NRC 853 (1981)
WITNESSES cAPert, seismology, licensing board's discretion to appoint its own; LBP-81-47,14 NRC 865 (1981) 7 g
staff, qualification of, concerning safety /nonsafety systems interactions; LBP-8I 59. I4 NRC 1218 (1981) ff I
i+ k, i
~ -
1 IIS i
1 h
1
y.
I
.,m
{
z-4, if zw y FACIlJI'If INDEX 5
t
~ -
l
.s ALLENS CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Unit I: Docket 50 466-CP O
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; September I,1981; SECOND ORDER: LBP-88-34,14 NRC 637 (1981)
ALVIN W. VOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT, Units 1 & 2: Dockets 50 424,50-425 j
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; July 2,198I; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2 206; c.
DD41-12,14 NRC 265 (1981)
BIG ROCK POINT PLANT; Docket 50-155 M.
}
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 25,1981; ORDER; CLl4132,14 NRC 962 (1981)
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I,2 and 3; Dockets 50 2594L,54264OL,542964L
)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 2,1981; PREHEARING CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LSP41-40,14 NRC 828 (1981) t i
BYRON NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units I and 2: Dockets 50-454 OL,50 455 OL OPERATING LICENSE November 19,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB459,14 NRC
-s i
983 (1981)
BYRON STATION, Units I and 2; Dockets STN 34454-OLA,50-4554LA
'h- -
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Au8ust 19,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; g
LBP-81-34A,14 NRC 364 (1981) r OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 27,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER;
[e LBP-8152,14 NRC 901 (1981)
CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT; Docket $4537 (Exemption Request Under 10 CFR -1 50.I2) h.,4.
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; December 24,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI4135,14 NRC 1100 (1981)
CLINTON POWER STATION, Unit I; Docket 50 461 OL
.F OPERATING LICENSE; December 16,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LSP-31-61,14 NRC 1735 (1981)
CLINTON POWER STATION, Units I and 2: Dockets 50-4614L,54462-OL OPERATING LICENSE: November 13,1981; ORDER; LBP-8156,14 NRC 1035 (1981)
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Units I and 2; Dockets 50-445,54446 SPECIAL PROCEEDING; September 22,1981; ORDER; CLI41-24.14 NRC 6141981)
- t SPECIAL PROCEEDING; December 29,1981; ORDER
- CL1-81-36,14 NRC till (1981)
T
/
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Units I and 2; Dockets 504454L,544464L
?'
OPERATING LICENSE; October 23,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-81-51,14 NRC 896 (1981)
'y
}
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Units I and 2; Dockets 544454L,54446 OL (Applicatica for Operating Iineman) t OPERATING LICENSE; July 23,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-St 22,14 NRC 150 (1981)
(' '
OPERATING LICENSE; July 24,198t; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LSP41-23,14 NRC 159 (1981) f OPERATING LICENSE; July 30,1981; ORDER; LBP4125,14 NRC 241 (198I) 9 i
OPERATING LICENSE; September 25,1981; ORDER CONCERNING SUA SPONTE ISSUES, SCHECULING ORDER, NOTICE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING and PREHEARING
,t CONFERENCE; LBP-8I-38,14 NRC 767 (1981)
?
DAVIS.BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units 2 and 3: Termination of Proceediata; Dockets i~
$0 500 CP,54501-CP 1,
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; August 28,1981; ORDER; LSP41-33,14 NRC 586 (1981) 7,1 DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units 2 and 3; Dockets $4500,54501 54, SPECIAL PROCEEDING; September 3,1981; MEMORANDUM; ALAB452,14 NRC 627 (1981) 3 DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I and 2; Dockets 50 2754L,50 3234L (im Power n
Test Proceeding)
S OPERATING LICENSE; July 17,1981; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LBP4121,14 NRC 107 N.
(1981)
--3 hs y
v
!!k i
4.,
D 1._.
i
_. _ ~
G FAC11EIY INDEX gr**"4 h[)
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Unit 1: Docket 54275 OL
- F Pf t OPERATING LICENSE; November it,1988; ORDER SUSPENDING LICENSE; CLI-8130,14 4
"}t NRC 950 (1981)
?-
5 k.s.._?
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Uniu I and 2; Dockets 54275 OL,54323 OL 4
(Security Proceeding)
OPERATING LICENSE; July 15,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB449,14 NRC 40 g
(1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; September 9,1981; DECISION; ALAB453,14 NRC 429 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; Sepember 17,1981; ORDER; CLI-8121,14 NRC 595 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; Sepsmber 28,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-8122,14 NRC
{,
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units I and 2: Dockeu 54275 01,54323 OL 598 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; Angest 4,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LDP sl.27,14 NRC 325 (1981)
DRESDEN NUCL EC POWER STATION, Unit 1; Docket 54!0 SPECIAL PROLEEDING;Septer.3ber 28,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER;CLI-88 25,14 NRC 616 (1983)
DRESDEN STATION, Units 2 and 3; Dockets $4237-OLA,542494LA (Speat Feel Pool Modification)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 24,1981; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LBP 84 37,14 NRC 700 (1981)
FULTON GENERATING STATION, Units I and 2; Dockets $4463 CP,54464 CP CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; November 17,1981; DECISION; ALAS 457,14 NRC 967 (1961)
HOPE CREEK OENERATING STATION, Ura I and 2; Dockets $4654,54355 SPECIAL PROCEEDINO; September il,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; AIAb454,14 NRC 632 (1981)
HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT Unit No. 3 Amendment to Facility Operating Licenne; Docket 54133-OLA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 14,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:
LBP-8120,14 NRC 101 (1981)
HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT, Unit No. 3; Docket 54133-OLA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 20,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:
INDIAN POINT, Unit 2; Dockets $4247,54286 SPECIAL PROCEEDINO; September 18,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-81-23,14 NRC 610 (198I)
INDIAN POINT, Unit 3; Dockets 50 247, 5 4 286 SPECIAL PROCEEDINO; September 18,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER;CLI-St 23,14 NRC 610 (1981)
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I and 2; Dockets 543tt A 54M4A ANTITRUST PROCEEDINO; Octrber 22,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-81-27,14 NRC 795 (1981)
LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR; Dockets $4409-OL,54409-SC (Pnmasonal Operating License DPR-45)
OPERATING LICENSE; August 19,198t; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 8131,14 NRC 375 (198!)
l MAR BLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Units I A 2: Dockets 54546,54547 (10 CFR 2.206)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; October 13,1981; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 25)6; DD41 18,14 NRC 925 (1981)
M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING S1 ATION, Units 1 & 2; Dockets STN 34546 STN 54547,10 CFR 2.206 SPECIAL PROCEEDINO; November 30,1981; SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 DD-8122,14 NRC 1085 (1981)
MIDLAND PLANT, Units I sad 2; Dockets $4329 CP,54334CP CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; December 22,1981; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LSP 8143,14 NRC 1768 (1981)
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units I and 2; Dachsts 54245,54286 (10 CFR 2.206)
SHOW CAUSE; September 29,1981; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD 8817,14 NRC 784 (1981)
NORTH COAST NUCLEAR PLANT, Unit I; Docket 54376 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; December 7,1981; DECISION; ALAB462,14 NRC l125 (1961) s "r
SPECIAL PROCEEDINO; July 2,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; A1AS444,14 NRC 54 (1981) h n gi r
II2 i
?
(
I
(
FACIIJTY INDEX
'A OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, Traasportation of spent feel freen, for storage at Md} sire Nedsar Station; Docket 70 2623 AMENDMENT TO MATERIALS LICENSE SNM 1773; Aegnet 10, IMl; DECISION; AIAS451, t
14 NRC 307 (1981) l PALISADES NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY; Docks; 2155.CO
[
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; July 31.1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LSP4126,14 NRC 247 (1981) f PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, Units 2 and 3; Dockets #4277 S278 SPECIAL PROCEEDING; September II, IMl; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. AIA5454.14 NRC 632 (1981)
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PIANT, Units I & 2: Dockets 5044001. 50 441-OL OPERATING LICENSE April 9,1941; MEMORANCUM AND ORDER; APW to LSP41-24,14 t
NRC 235 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE: July 28,1981: SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONCERNING PARTY STATUS MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO STAY, THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS, AND THE ADOPTION OF
{
SPECIAL DISCOVERY PROCEDURES; LBP41-24,14 NRC 175 (IMI)
OPERATING LICENSE; September 9,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LSP41-35.14 NRC j
682 (1981) g OPERATING LICENSE; October 2,198I; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LSP41-42,14 NRC 842 (1981)
OPERATING LICENEE: Noveenbar 30, IMl; ORDER; LSP4157.14 NRC 1037 (IMI)
PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Umst 2; Docket 50 471 CP CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; Noven ber 16,1981; ORDER; AIAB456,14 NRC 965 (1981) i POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I and 2; M ea 50 26M)LA,543014f A 1
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMLNT; October I, IMl; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; i
LBP-8139, le NRC 819 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDHENT; hh== 7, IMl; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 13.1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-88-44,14 NRC 850 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE ADMENDMENT; October 13,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Cctober 15,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP4146,14 NRC 842 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; hovember 5,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-41-55,14 NRC 1017 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; December 21, IMI; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LSP-8142,14 NRC 1747 (IMI)
I QUAD CITIES STATION, Units I and 2; Ma*= 54254 OLA. 5426541A OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October 27, IMl; ORI,ER; LBP41-53,14 NRC 912 (1981)
RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION; Docket 50-312 SP SPECIAL PROCEEDING; October 7,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAS 455,14 NRC f
799 (1981)
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. Unit I; Docket 54272 OLA (Spont Feel Peel Espansion)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 17,1981; DECISION; ALAS 450,14 NRC 43 (1981)
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Unit I; Docket 50 206 (10 CFR 2.206) l OPERATING LICENSE: November 16. IMl; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 1.206; l
i DD41 19,14 NRC 104l (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE: November 16,1981; DIRECTORS DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD4120,14 NRC 1052 (1981) i SAN ONOFRE N1' CLEAR GENERATING STATION, Unita 2 and 3; Dockets 54341 OL,54362 OL
(
OPERATING LICENSE: September 14,1981. ORDER: LBP4136,14 NRC 691 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; December 8. IMl; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-88-33.14 NRU l
1091 (IMI)
SEABROOK STATION, Units I nad 2; Dockets 54443,50444 (10 CFR 2 206)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING: July 15.1981; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD4l le,14 NRC 279 (IMI)
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit I; Docket 54322 OL CM OPEkATING LICENSE; July 7,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LSP-8I 18,14 NRC 71 3
(1983) 113 l
i l
l
FACIIIIY INDEX
- ( ~
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, Units I and 2; Docket STN 50 498 OL, STN 34499 OL (Operating License) fri OPERATING LICENSE; October 30,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LDP4154, le NRC s
-~2 918 (1981)
.[
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, Units I sad 2; Dockets STN 54498 OL, STN-50 499 OL e-v-
OPERATING LICENSE; November 4,1981; ORDER; CLI-8128,14 NRC 933 (1981)
~gy ST, LUCIE PLANT, Unit 2; Docket 54389A ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; July 7,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LBP4119,14 NRC 87 (1981)
ANTITRUST PROCEEDING: August 5,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LDP4128,14 NRC 333 (1981)
ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; August 7,1981; DIRECTO.iS DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2 206; DD4115,14 NRC 589 (1981)
ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; October 2,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LDP4148,14 NRC 839 (1981)
ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; December 11,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP43 58,14 NRC I167 (1981)
ANTITRUST PROCEEDING; December 30,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LDP4144,14 NRC 1803 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; Demmber 3,1981; DECISION; ALAIM61,14 NRC 1187 (1981)
SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING; December 4,1931; DIRECTORS DECISION UNDER 10 CR 2.206; LBP4164,14 NRC 1803 (1981)
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit I, Docket 50 289-SP (Restart)
SFECIAL PROCEEDING; August 27,1981; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LBP-BI 32,14 NRC 381 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; December 14,1981; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LBP41-59,14 NRC 1211 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDINC; December 23,1981; ORDER; CLI4148,14 NRC 1097 (1981)
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit 1: Docket 54289 (Restan)
OPERATING LICENSE; August 13,1981; ORDER; CLI-8817,14 NRC 299 (1981)
RESTART PROCEEDING; August 20,1981; ORDER; CLI41 19.14 NRC 304 (1941)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; September 17,1981; ORDER; CLI41-20,14 NRC 593 (1988)
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit I; Docket 50 289,(Restart - Management issucs)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 19,1981; ORDER; ALAB458,14 NRC 941 (1981)
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit I; Docket $4289 SP,(Restart),(Reopened Proceedmg)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; October 22,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-5150,14 NRC 888 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; Deamber IS,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON NEPA-COMPLIANCE ISSUES; LBP 8140,14 NRC 1724 (1981)
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit No. 2; Docket 54320 SPECIAL PROCEEDING; September II,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: AIAlk454,14 NRC 632 (1981)
TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT; Docket 50 344 (10 CFR 2.206)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; July 13,1981; DIRECTORS DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD 8113,14 NRC 275 (1981)
TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING Units 3 and 4; Dockets 542 SSP,54251 SP (Proposed Amendments to Facility Opersting Licenses to Permit Steam Generstar Repairs)
SPFCIAL PROCEEDING; August 12,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP4130,14 NRC 357 (1981)
TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING, Units 3 and 4; Dockets 54250 SP,34231 SP SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 30,1981; DECISION; ALAB460,14 NRC 987 (1981)
TURKEY POINT PLANT, Unit 4; Docket 54251,10 CFR 2.206 OPERATING LICENSE; November 5,1981; DIRECTORS DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD 8121,14 NRC 1078 (1981)
TURKEY POINT PLANT, Units 3 & 4; Dockets 54250,54251 SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 25,1981; ORDER; CLl41-3I,14 NRC 959 (1981)
UCLA RESEARCH REACTOR; Docket $4142 OL (Proposed Renewsl of Facility License)
OPERATING LICENSE; August 10, 1986: ORDER RELATIVE TO PARTICIPATION OF DANIEL O. HIRSCH UNDER 10 CFR 2.733; LBP-8129,14 NRC 333 (1981)
VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, Unit 1; Docket 54395-OL OPERATING LICENSE; October 15,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP41-47,14 NRC 865 (1981)
OPERATING LICENSE; December 14,1981; MEMORANDUM; ALAB463,14 NRC 1840 (1981) r s
A
.1e
$NN 314 1
l l
i 1
i FACIIIIY INDEX i
~ ~ ~ r*
VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, Unit 1: Docket 50 395A ANTITRUST PROCEEDINO; October 16,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-8126,14 o
P-NRC 787 (1981) i WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Unit 3; Docket 543824L OPERATING LICENSE; October 20,1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-81-44, le NRC 877 (1981)
MJ WESTERN NEW YORK NUCLEAR SERYlCE CENTER; Docket 54201, Pronssonal Operating Ucenes No. CSF l CPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; No ember 6,1981; ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING: CLI-8129,14 NRC 940 (1981)
WILLIAM 8. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, Transportation of Spent Fust froen Oconee Nuclear Station for Storate at: Docket 742623 AMENDMENT TO MATERIALS LICENSE SNM-1773; August 10,1981; DECISION; AMB-651, i
i l4 NRC 307 (1981)
WILLIAM B. MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, Units I and 2; Dockets $4369. 54370 i
OPERATING LICENSE; July I 1981; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; AMB447,14 NRC 27 (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; June 29,1981; ORDER: CLI-81 15,14 NRC l (1981)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 3,1980; ORDER; CLI-81 16, le NRC 14 (1981)
ZION NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I and 2; Dockets $4295,54304 (10 CFR 2.206)
SHOW CAUSE; September 29,1981; DIRECTORS DECISION UNDER to CFR 2.206; DD-8816,14 NRC 781 (1981) l i
a Y
- 1*;
- l i
uM:
ggs
l 9
~
- s b~.
i,.
Aa rd hjo 078877 1 ANA2 ADM DIV OF TIUC REG GPhCATICNSMGTBR LA 212 hASHIAGTON DC 20555 I
l I
r l
I Eh a
s 9
-_