ML20077R358
| ML20077R358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1982 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V16-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V16-I1, NUDOCS 8309200015 | |
| Download: ML20077R358 (104) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NUREG-0750 Vol.16
+
Index 1 3
e
- r t
~
^
y
.e
~
.,'r'
'.,s 9
^
t
' =>
f -
~
r I
l e
s l
s f.
o
~
f' U. 5. NUGLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8309200015 830930 PDR NUREG 0750 R PDR
l t
O Available from NRC/GPO Salas Program Superintendent of Documents Govemment Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 A year's subscription consets of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2 hardbound editions for this publication.
Single copies of this publication are available from Natic,nal Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Microfiche of single copies are available from NRC/GPO Sales Program l
Washington, D.C. 20555 I
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 Comnsiasion, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301/492-8925)
W
NUR EG 0750 Vol.16 index 1 l
~
INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES July - September 1982 l
i U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO E
i
Foreword
^
7 Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and ucensing Appeal Panel (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (AU),the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions of Rulemaking are presented in this document.
Rese digests and indexes are 'ntended to serve as a guide to Ae issuances.
"mJ..
Information elements common to the cases heard and ruled upon are:
l Case name (owners of facility)
Full text reference (volume and pagination)
Issuance number issues raised by appellants legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes)
Name of facility, Docket number Subject matter ofissues and/or rulings Type of hearing (for construction permit, operating license,etc.)
Type of issuance (memorandum, order, decision, c: ).
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 hearing, the type ofissuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.
the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and ucensing Appeal Panel (ALAB),
the Atomic S.6ty and Ucensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for
(
l Rulemaking.
The header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hearing, date of issuance, and type ofissuance.
De 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.
I 4
iii
- 3. LegalCitationsIndex his index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alphanumerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. These citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and Statutes may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance.
he references to cases, replations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular issuance. Dese phrases are followed by the irsuance number and the full text l
reference.
- 4. Subject Index
' ' ~
i Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alpnabetically, indicate the issues l
and subjects covered in the issuances. He subject headings are followed by l
phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the l
issuances being indexed. Dese phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.
- 5. Facility Index l
l Dis 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
i iv
. _Q
O CASE NAME INDEX ARIZON A PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY. et al.
OPERATING UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. STN-54528-OL STN-35294)L.
STN 545 DOL; LBP-82-62.16 NRC 565 (1982)
ARMED 10RCES RADIOBIOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTF BYPRODUCT MATE. RIALS UCENSE RENEWAL; DECISION; Docket No. D6931 (Renewal of Byproduct Matenals license No. 19433003); AIAB482,16 NRC 150(1982)
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY OPERATING UCENSE MODIRCATION, ORDER; Docket No. 54293 (EA 8143); CU-82-16.16 NRC 44 (1982)
CINCINNAT1 GAS & EECTRIC COMPANY. et al.
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Docket No 543544)L; LBP 82-54,16 MtC 210 (1982). LBP 8248,16 NRC 741 (1982)
OPERATING UCENSE; ORDER; Docket No. 54358. CLI-82-20.16 NRC 109 (1982)
CLDTLAND EMCTRIC lu.UMIN ATING COMPANY. et al.
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50 440-OL. 50 4414)L; LBP 82 53.16 NRC l% (1982); LBP 82-53A.16 NRC 208 (1982). LBP-8249.16 NRC 751 (1982); LBP 82 79.16 NRC ii16 (1982) l OPERATING UCENSE ORDEP. Docket Nos. 50-4440L 54448-OL; LBP-8247,16 NRC 79 (1982) i COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 54140LA; LBP-82-52, 16 NRC 383 (1982)
SHOW CAUSE; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket Nos. 54373. 54374; DDw82 9.16 NRC 3% (1982)
(
SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; FINAL INTTIAL DECISION. Docket Nos. 54237-SP 54249-SP; l
LEP-8245.16 NRC 714 (1982)
SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION; DECISION; Docket Nos. 54237. 54249. AIAB495,16 NRC M2 i
(1982)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK SPECIAL PROCEEDING. MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICAT10N. IXcket No. 54247-SP LBP-82-61 NRC 560 (1982t CU-8215.16 NRC 27 (1982). CLI-82-24.16 NRC 865 (1982k CU-82-15.16 (1982)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Docket Nos.
54329-OM&OL. 50-334OM&OL. ALAB484.16 NRC 162 (1982)
MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING UCENSE; PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER. Docket Nos.
54329-OM&OL. 54330.OM&OL; LB78243.16 NRC 571 (1982)
REMAND; DECISION. Docket Nos. 54329-CP. 50 334CP, ALAB491.16 NRC 897 (1982)
SCHEDULING; MEMORANDUM. Docket No $41554)LA; LBP 82 51 A.16 NRC 180 (1982)
SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT;INTTIAL DECISION; DNket No 54155-OLA; LBP-8240.16 NRC 540 (1982) LBP 82-77,16 NRC 1096 (1982) LBP-82 78.16 NRC 1107 (1982) l VACATION OF DEC1SION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 54255 SP. CU-8218.16 NRC 50 (1982)
DA]RYLAND POWER COOPERATTVE OPERATING UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Docket Nos 54409 FTOL. 50 409-SC; LBP-82 58 16 NRC 512 (1982)
I
t CASE NAME INDEX l
1 DUxE POWtR COMPANY CONSTRUCTION PERMTT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUTHORIZING %TTHDRAWAL OF APPUCATION FOR CONSTRUC'.X)N PERMIT WTTHOLTT PRDUDICE, Dortet Nos. STN-2488, i
G STN-2489, STN-54490; LBP-82-81, I6 NRC 1128 (1982)
{
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al.
UMITED WORK AtJTHORIZATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos.50-413, 54 414, AIAB487,16 NRC 460 (1982) g SPECIAL PROCEEDING, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 54413,50-414,l.BP-82-51,16 NRC y
167 (19d2) 9 GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY RULIMAKING; DENIAL OF PETITION POR RULEMAKING; Docket No. PRM-95-1 (10 CFR Part 95);
GENTRAL E1ICTRIC COMPANY OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPUCATION AND DISMISSING PROCEEDING WTTHOUT PRDUDKE; Docket No. 741308 (Apphcanon to Maddy Ikeme No. $NM 1265 so increase Spent Fuel Stora8e Capecay; UlP-8243,16 NPC 1888 (1982) j SHOW CAUSE, LNTIIAL DECISION, Docket No. 5474SC; LBP4244,16 NRC 5% 0982)
KERR-McGEE CORPORATION f'
MATDt1ALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER; Docket No. 442061; CU42-21,16 NRC 401 (1982)
{
LONG ISLAND UGHUNG COMPANY I
OPERATING UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No. 543224L (Emer8ency Planmng);
LEP 82 82,16 NRC 1144 (1982)
OPERATING UCENSE, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50 3224L;12P-82 73,16 NRC 974 I
(1a82)1.BP 32-75,16 NRC 986 (1982) f OPERATING UCENSE; ORDER, Docket No. 543224L; CU42-17,16 NRC 48 (1982)
SECURffY; MEMORANDUM, ORDER AND NOTICE OF SECOND IN CAMERA CONTUtENCE OF 1
COUNSEL; Docket No. 5432242, ASLBP No. 82 478454L; LBP42-80,16 NRC 1121 (1982) t thUISlANA POWER AND UGHT COMPANY OPERATING UCENSE, MEMORANDUM ANC ORDER; Docket No. 543824L; LBP4246,16 NRC 730 (1982)
REMAND; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 54382OL; AIAB490,16 NRC 393 (1982)
MEntOPOI.ITAN EDISON COMPANY RESTART; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 54289-SP; ALAB485,16 NRC 449 (1982)
RESTART; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50 289; LBP-8246,16 NRC 1190 (1982) l RESTART; ORDER; Docket No. S289 CU4212,16 NRC I (1982)
RESTART; PARTIAL L*TTIAL DECISION, Docket No 54289; LEP-E;-56,16 NRC 281 (1982)
METROPOUTAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.
OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; DECISION, Docket No. 50 320 Ott ALAB492,16 NRC 921 (1982)
RESTART; ORDER, Docket No. 54289, CU4213,16 NRC 21 (1982)
NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES,INC and NEW YORK STATT, ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ALTTHORTTY OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No. 542014La; ALAB479, 16 NRC 121 (1982)
OFFSHORE POWT.R SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No. STN 54437-ML; A1AB486,16 NRC 454 0982); AIAB489,16 NRC 887 (1982)
PACIFIC GAS AND E2.ECTRIC COMPANY DECOMMISSIONING, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CHL 2 206, Docket No. 50133; DD-82-7,16 NRC 387 (1982)
OPERATING 1.JCENSE; DECUNATION OF REVIEW; Dockets $42754L,5432101; CU42-12A,16 NRC 7 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket Nos. 54275,54 276; DDwt2-10,16 NRC 1205 (1982)
OPULATING UCENSE, INITIAL DECISION; Docket Nos 542754L $4323-OL; LEP-82 70,16 NRC 756 0 982) 2
CASE NAME INDEX OPERATING UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION. Docket Nos.
L S275-OL. 54323-OL; ALAE 481,16 NRC 146 (1982)
OPERATING UCENSE; MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO NRC STAFTS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE UCENSING BOARD'S INTTIAL DECISION DATED AUGUST 31.1982, Docket Nos. %275-OL, S3234L; LBP-82-85.16 NRC 1187 (1982)
PHYSICAL SECURITY; ORDER; Docket Nos. 50 2754L. 543N)L; CU-82-19.16 NRC 53 (1982)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND UGHT COMPANY and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERA11VE.
OPERATING UCLNSE, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Docket Nos. %387 OL,54388-OL; ALAB-693. (6 NRC 952 (1982) l PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY OPERATING UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Docket Nos. %352,50-353. LBP-8: 1.16 NRC %5 (1982) LBP-82-72,16 NRC %8 (1982)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICATION. Ducket Na. 5428&SP; LBP-8241. f 6 NRC 560 (1982)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No. %286. CU-8215.16 NRC 27 (1982)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; ORDER Docket No. 54286; CL1-82-24,16 NRC 865 (1982) CU-82-25.16 NRC 867 (1982)
PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SHOW CAUSE; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Docket Nos. 54443, 50-444. DD'82-8,16 NRC 394 (1982)
PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. et al.
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket Nos. 544434L. 54444-OL (ASLBP No 82-471-02-OL); LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
PUGET SOUND POWER AND UGHT COMPANY. et al.
CONSTRUCTION PERMTTi MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Do$ket Nos. 54522,54523. ALAB483.16 NRC 160 (1982); LBP-82-74,16 NRC 98 L (1982)
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY et al.
OPERATING UCENSE, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Docket No. 50 395CL; ALAB494,16 NRC 958 (1982). LBP-82-84,16 NRC i183 (1982)
O*ERATING UCENSE PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; Docket No. 54395-OL; LBF-82 55,16 NRC 225 (1982)
OPERATING UCENSE; SUPPL.EMENTAL PARTIAL INTT1AL DECISION. Docket No. 54395-OL; LBP-82 57 16 NRC 477 (1982)
SOU1HERN CAUFORNIA EDISON COMPANY. et af.
OPERATING LICENSE. DECISION Docket Nos $4MIOL. 5362-OL. ALAB-680,16 NRC I?7 (1982)
OPERATING UCENSE, MEMORANDUM AM) ORDER. Docket Nos 54MI-OL 54M2-OL; LBP-8240A,16 NRC 555 (1982)
OPERATING UCENSE. ORDER Docket Nos. 50-MlOL, %%24L; CU-82-14.16 NRC 24 (1982);
CU-82-27,16 NRC 883 (1982)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER; Docket Nos. 54259-OLA. 54260 OLA. 5429&OLA.
CU-82-26.16 NRC 880 (1982)
TEXAS UTIUTIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al.
OPERATING LICENSE. ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION, Docket Nos. 54445. 50-446. LBP-82-87.16 NRC 1195 (1982)
SHOW CAUSE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; Docket Nos. 54445 50 446. LBP-82-59,16 NRC 553 (1982)
UNTIED STATES DEPART rr OF ENERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,1TNNESSEE f
VALLEY AUTHORTTY CONSTRUCTION PERMTT EXEMPTION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No. 54537 (Enempton i
l request under 10 CFR 50.12); CU-82 22.16 NRC 405 (1982), CU-82-23.16 NRC 412 (1982) 3 i
)
1
CASE NAME INDEX i
UMTTED WORK AUTHORIZATION. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Docket No. 54537. ALAB488.16 NRC 471 (1982)
WTALS EDDLIMAN I
OPERATING LICENSE. DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING. thxket No. PRM-2-1I, DPRM-82 2,16 l
NRC 1209 (1982) l W
r A
4 1
l t
l l
DIGESTS F
ISSUANCES OF THE NU"_" :=J ATORY CtWMISSION METROPOUTAN EDsSON COMPANY (Three Mde Island Nuclear Scanon, Una No.1). Docket No.
CU-82-12 16,1982. ORDER D289; RESTART, July The Comnuums demes a request by the Appeal Board for authorny to hear three safety issurs rassed by A
the Board a,as sponse, and decules that the isames will be detti enh by the staff and the Commissme outsule the contest of the adjudsatory proceedag PACfFIC GAS AND EIICTRJC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2),
QJ-82-12A Dcrkets h275-OL,50 323-OL; OPULATING UCENSE, March 18,1982. DECLIN ATION OF REVIEW METROPotRAN EDISON COMPANY, et al (Three Mde Island, Und I), Docket No. 54289 CU-82-l3 16,1982. ORDER RESTART; July The Corumsuon denes a mohan by the trensee askogthe Comrmsuon to decube espedamsly whether A
(1) it intends so prepare a supplearntal envutemental unpact samemsat (SEIS) on psychologral health effect.
associaned wah the operanon of tlus faciley in accordance enh the de-isma in PANT v. N1tC, No. S t.1833 (D C Car., May I4,1982), and if so,(2) no proceed espedamusly wnh as peparaison and csculanon, and (3)to deca that no hearmg would be peruutted on the SEIS. The Commauen determines that n des not as present have a of the court's dectuon require the preparanon c( an SEIS.
enough mformstre to decide whether the et -
SOUTHERN CAUIORNIA EDISON COMPANY (San Onofre Nuclear Generanns Staten Una CU-8214 and 3), Docket Nos. 543614L,543624L;OPERATLNG LICENSE, July lo,1982 ORDER On the basis c( its immedare effecoveness reverw pursuant so 10 CTR 2.7%f), the Comrnissen A
corstudes that resolunon of the issues covered by the Licensing Board's decomms in this operstmg trense prMmf (LBP-82 3,15 NRC 6 t (1982), LBP 82-39,15 NRC ll63 (1982);LBP-82 46,15 NRC l53 t (1982))
does not presers the type of safety problem whrh would regere a further stay of them effecoveness, and dnc that these decisons may go mso effect Tia trense authorued is made subject to the cond ten that for operaton above 5% of rased power to corunue beyond sin months frorn the date of issuance of the full-power hceme, the offsme medwal arrangenents issue retamed by the Laccesing Board a LSP42 39 must be resolved or further opersexe above 5% must bejusnfmed under 10 CTR 50 47(c M 1). The Commisson esplams that as deciso not authorue issuance of the requested full-power imense for Units 2 and 3 of this facday and further that they adl not be issued tetd the staff has bnefJ the Comminamn on other, uncontested issues and the Commason has vosed on whether to authorue the tuenses.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Pout Una 2) and POWER CU-8215 ALTTHORfTY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Infan Pomt. Una l) Docket Nos. 54247,54286, $PECIAL PROCEEDING, July 27,1982 MEMORANDUM ANT) ORDER Upon consideranon of a senes of pleadmgs by trensees concermng the Commissen's plan toconduct a A
descretumary heanng on the posuble suspensson of Umts 2 and 3 of the ladian Pomt fa-itay, the Comfrussen (3)ao appeal by a IKerace from the cd r of the licensmg Board (estabhshed at the directon of t!'e denses Comrmuson to determine, user sha, the issues wwh the forthcoming heanng are to midress) nimitting cenam anservenors to the heanng.(2) a peutaan by a lcensee for duccted certifranon ofits request for stay or darmssalo the proceedmg, and (3) a petinen by the two Isensces for directed certifwauon of them charges that the Bo e==*d or nusappised as junsdzten to adnuumg contensens. The Commissman, anser sha, provides further gudence on the admissaan of contenuons and the formulanon of assues for heanng, and remands the man Board for espedmous reconsiderstma of sts ruhngs on the admus Inhry of da contentons a hght of the addi guidance.
There is modung in 10 CFR 2.714 or the case law interpreung that rule whrh pernuts trensms boards to B
esclude certain groups frorn almenung proceeding because of theu opunons on nuclear power, either generally or
~^
as relased to certain plants, or beca:.:se of ther conduct outs.de the proceedmg 4
5
DIGESTS ISSUANCES Olr THE NUCLEAR REGULATCQY COMMISSION i
f I
C The Commission has an inherent supervisory power over de conduct of as adjudratory proceedings, Y
including the authorny to provide guidance on the admassibihty of contenuons before incensmg boards. See Pubir Service Co. of New Hampshut (Seabrook Stanon. Umts I and 2), CL1-77-8. 5 NRC 503,516 17 (1977), Umted 9
l Stsees Energy Research and Development AJ,
-(Clush River Breeder Reactor Plant), CU-7613,4 NRC 67. 75-76 (1976).
CU-82-16 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Stanon). Docket No. 50-293 (EA-8143);
[
OPERATING UCENSE MODIFICATION, July 30.1982. ORDER l
A The Comrmssen denes a petiten by the Anorney General of Massachusetts for a heanns and innervenuon on an order of the NRC Office ofInspectaon and bnforcement modifymg the operatmg hcense for this facday, ce the ground that the petztmn presents concerns outside the scope of the proceedmg 8
Section 189a of the Ato.nic Energy Act does not provide a norFducteuonary nght to a heanng on all issues arguably relased to an acknowledged enforcement problem without regard to de scge of the enforcement action actually proposed or taken by the Comrmssion. In order to obtain leave to intervene in an NRC proceedmg.
~ ' ' '
a petnioner must demonstrate an interest affected by the trensing acton, as required by 10 CFR 2.714. BPI v.
Atonue Energy Comrmtaion,502 F.2d 424 (D C Cir.1974).
The Comminion may tirmt the issues in enforcement proceedmss to whether the facts as stated in the C
order are true and whether the remedy selected is supponed by those facts Pubhc Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble l
Hdi Nuclear Genermung Stanon. Units I and 21, CU-80wl0, il NRC 438,441-42 (1980).
l CU-8217 LONG ISLAND UGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Pbwer Stanon, Unit !). Docket No.
j 50$3224L; OPERATING UCENSE; July 30,1982; ORCER A
in response to a request by counsel for the applicant, the Commission dire-ts that applicant's and innervenor's counsel be given access to those portaons of the Appeal Board's opinson in the Diablo Canyon operstmg trense (physical secunty) proceedmg (ALAB453)(Restncted) dealmg with the defmaion of the design basis threat and the meerpretaten of de Comnussion's regulanons regarding the appropnale number of armed responders, subject to the pnar deletion of any classified informaten contamed therem and the esecuuon of appropnase non-disclosure amdavits. la response to a further request by intervenor's counsel for access by meervenor's consultants and for access to the enure Diablo Canyon secunty file, the Commissen: (1) refers the request for access by meervenor's consultants to the Licensmg Board with a direction to authorue access only upon a showeg of need, and (2)denes access to the other portons of the opmme and de underlymg record in the absence of a showmg of need for such access.
CU-82-18 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Pahsades Nuclear Power Facihty) Docket No. S255-SP, V ACATION OF DECISION, July 30,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Commissice vacates on grounds of mootness the Appeal Board's and de Licenseg Board's earler j
A decisions ( ALAB470,15 NRC 493(1982);LBP-8126,14 NRC247 (1981))concerning the holdmg of a heanng on a confuinatory order by the Director of the Offre of Inspecten and Enforcement reitnctmg trensed operator overtime work at Pahsades.
i B
Under estabhshed NRC practice, unreviewed judgments are vacated etwn their appellate revww becomes unavailable because of mootness. See, e g., Boston Edison Company (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Stanon.
Umt 2), ALAB456,14 NRC MS (1981); Rochester Gas & Electnc Corp (Siertmg Power Project, Nuclear Uma No.1), ALAB-5%, il NRC 867 (1980).
y CU-8219 PACIflC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Umts I and 2),
Docket Nos. S2754L 50'323-OL: PHYSICAL SECURITY; July 30.1982; ORDER la response to a motion tf *w representanve of an interested state requesung that portions of ALAB453 A
(Restricted) and his pet. tion for review of that decision whrh do not contam protected it.formaten be made l
public, the Commission releases versions of both documents wuh all protected mformation deleted The l
Commission determines that the meamng of "se seral" as used in the design basis threat of 10 CFR 73.l(ajt 1) is safeguards informanon under Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act.
CU-82-20 CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. (Wm. H. Zammer Nuclear Power Staten, Unit No.1), Docket No. 50 358. OPERATING UCENSE; July 30,1982, ORDER i
l A
The Commission directs the Licensmg Board to disnuss censin contentions from this operstmg Ireme proceedmg whrh the Board admined as Board issues pursuant to its sua sponte auttenry under 10 CFR 2.760s B
After the record is closed in an operstmg trense proceedag, where parues proffenng new contennons do not rnect the legd standards for further hearings, that the contenuons raise senous issues is insumcient l
l 1
6 i.
.. 4py.=4 o ~.
- --m
DIGESTS MSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATC2Y COMMISSION gy w m justifrahaa to reopen the setord to consider thern as Board issues when they are being desh ongoing NRC investiganon and staff momtorms KERR-McCEE CORPORATION (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), Docket No. 4 4 2061; CU-32 21 MA1 TRIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 6,1982.OPDER The Comnu non delegases no the Duector of de Ottics of Nuclear Mmenal Safety and Safeguards A
(NMSS), or such NMSS Branch Chief or above as he may designme, the authonry to conduct an i adjudicasary proczeding on peuuoner's consenoons concernag hcensee's apphcanon for an ame CFR Part 40 maserials hcense authoruang it to perform certam work at its now-inactive thorium are milleg facddy. The Comrrussion Wmally sets forth she tierues to the informal proceedmg and the proced which it will be conducted A peutioner is not enutled, under esher the Atomic Energy Act or NRC regulanons, to a form B
trial-type beanns on matenals Irensmg actions. Kerr44cGee Corp. (West Chsago Rare Earths Fac CU-82-2, IS NRC 232 (1982).
UNTTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORAT10N, CU-82-22 TENNESSEE VALLEY ALTfHORITY (Clmch Rsver Breeder Reactor Plant), Docket No. 54537 (Emempo request under 10 CFR 50.12); CONSTRUCT 10N PERMIT EXEMPTION; August 12,1982, ME AND ORDER The Cocumssion considers a pecuan by innervenors fa invesugation into alleganons that Appicants A
anemped to conceal cenain crucial safety informanon from the Commission ir. connection euh the for a bcense for the Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plent. Upon review of the response of the Departmen to the allegatans and to certain quesnons earher posed by the 'WM the response of the NRC Staf questaans separately addressed to it, and the response c( the intervenors, the Commassen allegauons are wahout foundanon. The Conrnassmn, therefore, denes the petiuon fcr invesugauon.
UNTTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, CU.g2 23 TENNESSEE VAUEY AUTHORTTY (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant). Docket No. 54537 (Ex request under 10 CFR 50.12); CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION, August 17,198 AND ORDER The Comrmsamn grants in part and denies in pan the Department of Energy's request for an etemp A
persuant to 10 CFR 50.12 frorn the provisen of 10 CFR 50.10(c) protubiang the comne constnacuan work pnor no obtaming a construcuan pernut er tim.ted Work Authoruauon. The authorues the applwants so comhet non. safety related sne preparauon acuvines in connec%an River facilny but desues the esemption request as it pertains to safery-relased acuvines.
10 CFR 50.10tcLgenerally prohibus any person from cleanns or escavaung a nuclear power reactor s 1
B I
or otherwise comr iencing constructen of a nuclear power reactor untd a constructen pernut o authoruanon has been obtamed following the bokhng of an adjabcatory heanng 10 CFR 50.12(a) provides for the case-by<ane grantmg of esempions from the prohibition o C
50.10(c)if specified cruena are met.
there is no indication in the The Comrru=== may apply 10 CFR 50.12 so a "first of a kind" project.
D regulauons or past practice that enempoons for conduct of site preparauon acuvuses cornmercial hght water nuclear power reactors or that an esempoon can be granted only if a authoruanon under 30 CFR 50.10(eXI) and (2)("LWA l") can also be granted or only if jusufied to electncal energy needs.
1he common-law rules regardmg res padraia do not apply, in a stnct sense, to admuustranse agenews E
l Res judsata need not be apphed by an admmistrative agency where there are overnde F
l anacrests wtuch favor rehtiganon.
When an agency decision involves subs:anual policy issues, an agency's need ror fleubd O
i the need for repose provided by the pnnciple c( res judacata.
A change in extemal cucumstances is na requurd for an agency so exercise its base nsi H
pohey decisson and apply a new poiry to panes so whom an old pohey apphed.
An agency enuss be free to consider changes that occur a the may it perceives the I
etnective circumstances remain unchanged.
l For these so be any rsght to a herring under Secten Ig9s. of the Atonuc Energy Act on t I
J
- ~.,.
esempnon, such a grant omst be pan of a proceedmg for the granting, suspend.ag hcenw or constructen permit under the Atoms Energy Act.
(
7
)
i
DICESTS M5UANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION K
The Anornac Energy Act does not rogues a tresse or s constnetmo permit,or an adjde=aary hearing,ce sine preparanon L;tivases.
L The Ceaumasson is not requaed try NEPA to Rusi formal heanags ce site preparanon acevaies harana*
O NEPA dal not aber the scope of the Commusaan's junediction andre the Atomic Energy Act. Gage v. Unsted Staans Asomic EnaIy tha=an=a,479 F.2d 1214,1220 a 19(D C. Cs'.1972); 39 Fed. Reg. 14506, 14507 (A;ril 24,1979).
M 10 CFR 50.12(a) provides that any exemphon fnun the hcessang requarements of 10CFR Part 50 must be audiansed by law, not *adaaga ife or property or the comumn Jefense and secunty, and be in the pubir interest.
s For an esempaan from 10 CFR 50. I0, the Comrnana== n===las the putdac intvest try weistung the factors set out in 10 CFR 50.12(b).
N As exempoon frein -
reguar-w naast be consassent wah the Asomic Emergy Act, the Natianal Environmental Pohew Act, and ceher appleable law.
O The limmed work authoruanoa procedure andre 10 CFR 50.10(eX1) and (2)("LW A I") and the 10 CFR 50.12(b) esempuan procedure are independent avenues for apphcants no tegin site preparanon in advance of receiving a constructica perma.
P The Nanonal Environmental Pohey Act (NEPA) requires that the Comoussaan prcput an environmental impact stasement only for mapr actens sigmfrantly affecting the envuonment Q
A federal agency may consider separately tander NEPA the different segrrents of a proposed federal actma under certaan cucumstances. Where approval of the segment under consideration will not resuk is any arrever bie or irretnevable comnutments to manng segments of the proposed action, the agency Lay mihess dw activities of that segr'ierd sepwately.
R The pubiic inserest sneenan for granting an esempnon frosa 10 ClR 50.10, under 10 CFR 50.12(b), is a sanngent one: esempoons of this sort are so be grensed spanngly and only in entraordmary _
CU-8M4 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indan Point Uma 2) and POWT.R AUTHORITY OF THE STA11s OF NEW YORK (Indian Pomt, Uma 3), Docket Nos. 50 247,54286, SPECIAL PROCEEDING September 15,1982, ORDER A
Following the resignanon of the Charman of the Licensing Board la this special pr-aAag, the Comnussion pursuant so 10 CFR 2.721(b), by a 3-2 vote, reconsutumes the lacensing Board.
CU-82-25 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Point Omt 2) and POWT.R AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Pnnt, Umt 3), Docket Nos. 50 247,50 286 SPECIAL PROCEEDING; September 17,1982; ORDER A
The Comrmssion responds to several quesnons ceruftd to it by the licensing Board that seek clanfranon of previous guadance pnmded by the Comnussion ce the conduct of clus special paceedag.
CU-82-26 TENNESSEE VA112Y AUTHORITY (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Unas 1,2 and 3), Docket Nos.
54259-OLA,542640LA,542960LA; OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; Sepermber 15, 1982; ORDER A
In view of the Appeal Board's declaration in AIAB-677,15 NRC 1387 (1982), that as previous decisme in AIAB-664 (15 NRC I (1982)) nught have been dafferent had it been timely presented with new informanon concerning licensee's apphcanon to store low-level radioactive waste at Browns Ferry, the Commisson (1) discusses as carher gnet of review of AIAB464;(2) vacanes that decision; and (3) remands the case to the Appeal Board for further proceedings.
B The Commission may dismiss its grant of revre of an Appeal Bonni decision even though the partes have bnefed the issues. See, e.g.,3 anes v. Staae Board of Educanon,307 U.S. 31 (1970).
CU-82-27 SOUTHERN CAIEORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generanns Station.
Unas 2 and 3) Docket Nos. 54361 OL,543624L; OPERATING LICENSE; Sepember 24,1982; ORDER A
The Commission drects the Appeal Board to cerufy to the Commission the question whether the phrase "cordanua=sai injured individuals" as used in 10 CFR 50.47(bX 12) requires appicants for nuclear power plants to provide arrangements for medral services only for armbers of the pubhc who have suffered traumauc injury and are also - --
" with raear==, and if not, as what extent that regulation requires advance and specifs arraegements and --
-- fw medral services for the general pubic, as opposed to the general knowledge that facihties and resources exist and could be used on an ad hoc basis. The Comnussion states that it will not reuew the Appeal Board's decisen ( ALAB-680,16 NRC 127 (1982)), denying intervenor's motion for a stay of the issuance of full-power hcenses and that the license condinon imposed by the Licensing Board concermng medical arrangements for the general public shall remain in effect.12P-82-40.15 NRC 1293 (1982); LBP-82-39, 15 NRC 1163 (1982).
I l
s t
C m.
f'
=
m h-n
--v
d>% O'
- 4..
//
[,[$ ' %
-tO IMAGE EVALUATION Nqt)7vt +
////4 ge(p
^
/
,,t TEST TARGET (MT-3) e p,
+
s
,.o -
i= 5 g "22 b su l'l E!" $$
! l.8 l=m I.25 F,14 l
1.6 4
150mm 4
6"
,gk*'+
/4 s M $ >, ///
+,3 uV4%
v<
<6 ff +hh. w ts
+
dy
l 1
I I
O DIGESTS c'
ISSUANCES OF THE A1DMIC SAFETY AND WCENSING AFFEAL DOARDS A1AB479 NUCLEAR PUEL SERVICES, INC. and NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOTMENT AUTHORTTY (Wesaern New Yrrk Nuclear Service Center). Docket No. 5420lotA; OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; hdy 8,1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board affirms a bcensmg Board order (LBP-82 36,15 NRC 1075 (1982)) denymg an intervenor's rwF for alwaring on an amendment tothe operstmg hcense for a spent fuel reprocessmg and e aste disposal center in hght of special statutory provnions govermng administranon of the center (the amendment had ses condinons for the termaahan of the co hceasee's responafhtzs).
B The Appeal Board wdl allow amrus participshoe in a heanns where the alcard beleves it will assast reachaban of the issues and will not prejuchce the nghts of the partes See, e.g., Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Pomt Nuclear Plant), ALAB436,13 NRC 312, n 2 (198t).
C Under the West VaDey Demonstranon Project Act, Pe. L No.96-368,9* Stat.1347 (1980), the Commission's review of the Department of Energy's (DOE's) demonstranon wa.:e solzhficanon plan at West Valley is hmited to informal, consultanve prm^wes; the Commission cannot therefore captore DOE's a ;.-,. of the waste sohdifwatson project in a fartral evidennary hearmg.
ALAB480 SOUTHERN CALDORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. (San Onohe Nuclear Generating Stanon.
Unsts 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50 3614L 54362OL, OPERATING UCENSE, July 16,1982. DECISION A
The Appeal Board denies intervenors' monon for a stay pendmg a;5 mal of the bcensmg Board's minal decision (LBP-82 39,15 NRC 1163 (1982)) whrh authorued the usuance of a full power operstmg hcense for Unas 2 and 3 of this facdsry.
B The determmanon whether an applicanon for a stay of a hcensmg board decisen should be granted is governed by the cntena in 10 CFR 2.788(c).
C la deciding whether to allow operance of a plant dunng appeUnte review ta se pertment trensmg board decuion, the standard to be appled is whether operanon of the plans over the addiuonal proceedings is consistent with the requirement that there be reasonable assurance that the pubis health and safety not be endangered.
Metropohtan FA=a= Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon, Una No. 2), ALAB-486,8 NRC 9. 46 (1978) Dat standard does not call upre a pany to show that a menous nuclear accident is hkely dunng the pendency of the appeal;it would be enough to show that apparent inadequacies were sufficient to raise the queshon whether plant operaton would present an undue nsk to the pubhc in the event of a serious nuclear accident Southern Califorma Eduon Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generstang Stanon, Units 2 and 3), ALAB473, IS NRC 688,698 (1982).
D Under the Comnussion's emergency plannmg regi,!atms, an applicant for a plant operstmg license has an opportunny to demonstrate so the sausfacten of the Commission that deficences in the emerzency plans for the plant art not sigmficant, that adequate intenm & 9 actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compellmg reasons to permit plant operanon.10 CFR 50 47(cxl).
E In reywwmg a Irensing board decumn in the contest of a monon for a stay pendmg its appeal, the nurmal deference that an appeal board owes to the ener c(facts when revwwmg a decuson on the trents is even more compelhng See Toledo Edwe Co (Davu-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Umts I,2 and 3), A1AB-385,5 NRC 621, 629 (1977).
F An ageal board may disagree with a trensmg board's interpretanon on an issue even if no party presses an appeal on that issue. Vegmia Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stanon, Units I and 2).
AIAB-491,8 NRC 245,247 (1978).
G Where a party has not pursued a contenten before the Licensing Board m the form of proposed redmgs of fact, the Appeal Board will not einertam itfor the first ume on ageal-absent a 'senous sutstantive issue.* "
Pubhc Service Electnc and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Genermung Stauon, Unit I), ALAB450,14 NRC 43,49 (1981).
9
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAM,5 l
H At the operstmg Irense stage, the NRC staff generally has the final word on all safety maners not placed uno controversy by the parties South Caroitna Electnc and Gas Co. (%rgd C. Summer Nucks Stanon. Uma I),
O ALAB-663,14 NRC 1140,1156 n.31 (1981).
l.
I An operaung trense may not issue unless and untd the agency makes the findmgs specified in 10 CFR
$0.57-includag the ultimate findmg that such issuance "will not be mimKal to.. the health and safety of the pubhc," As to those aspects of reactor operauon not considered m an adjudumory proceedmg (if one is k
conducted), n is the staff's duty to msure the custence of an adequate basis for each of the requisne Secten 50.57 j
d ea=* SouthCarohnaElectnc andGasCo (VrgdC. Summer Nucles Staten,Unn 1), ALAB-642,13 l
NRC 881,895-95 (1981), affirmed sub nom. Fanfield Umted Acton v. Nucles Regulatory Commisuon, No.
(
81-2042 (D C. Cir.. Aprd28, 19821 J
J Before a full power operatmg hcense issues for a plant, the Cotamissen must cornplete its unmediate
{
effectiveness review of the pertment trensing board deciuon pursuant to 10 CFR 2.~64(fl(2).
y ALAB481 PACIF1C GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuckar Power Plant, Units I and 2),
1 Docket Nos. 50'275-OL, 50w323-OL; OPERATING LICENSE, July 16, 1982, MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICAT10N TD DIE COMMISSION A
Pnor to conuderaton of a monon by the intervenors to reopen the record m this operstmg lnense proceedmg to hear assertedly new evidence regardmg breakdowns on the quahty assurance'quahty control j
program for the plant, the Appeal Board seeks Commassen guidance (by way of ceruficauon) on whether the Commisuon intended, d its November 19,1981 order (CLI-81 30) suspendmg the Diablo Canyon low-power i
i hcense and estabbslung an independent venficanon progra'n, so depnve the adjudicatory boards ofjunsdiction to
'l conuder quahry assurance and quahty sentrol issues involvmg the plant.
ALAB482 ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITLTE (Cobalt-60 Storage Facdity). Drx ket l
No. 346931 (Renewal of Byproduct Matenals License No 194)8334 03), BYPRODUCT MATERIALS l'
A The Appeal Board reverses a Licensmg Board decison (LBP-82-24,15 NRC 652 (191L2)) that held UCENSE RENEWAL; July 16,1982. DECISION pennoner did not have standing to meervene in this matenals Irense renewal proceedmg. The Appeal Board grants the request to intervene, remands the proceedmg to the I.xensmg Board wah instrucuens to allow the pentener to supplement its peuten m accordance with 10 CFR 2.714tb), and orders the proceedmg be consohdated with snother proceedmg mvolvmg renewal of the operaung hcense for a research reactor of the same hcensee, housed in the same buildmg,if pennoner can present a l'rigable contennen with regard to the matenals hcense. The Appeal Board discusses the statutory requuements for notice m matenals hcensmg cases and recommends that the Commissmn consider tb-issue in a rulemakmg.
f B
An intervenoon peutmner who rendes near a nuclear facthey need not show a causal relauonship between injury to its amerest and the bcensing acten being sought m order to estabhsh standmg. %rgmia Electnc and i
Power Co (N<sth Anna Nuclear Power Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-522,9 NRC 54,57 n.5 (1979).
l C
in a s atenals hcense renewal proceedmg under 10 CFR Part 30 - as in construcuon perma and
}
cperaung hcense proceedmss under 10 CFR Part 50 - prosmury to a large source of radmactive matenal is sufficient to estabbsh the requinte interest for standmg to intervene. Whether a petitzner's stated concern as m fact jusufied must be left for consideraten when the snents of the controversy are reached.
D Official anuce of informaten in another proceedmg is permisuble where the parties to the two proceedags are idenocal, there was an opportumry far rebuttal, and no party as prejudiced by rehance on the informanon. See United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines,327 U.S. 515,527-30 (1945),10 CFR 2.743(i).
ALAB483 FUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, et al. (Skagit'Hanford Nuclear Power Project.
Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 522,54523; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; July 27,1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Actmg under the authonty of 10 CFR 2.787(b), the Appeal Panel Charman disnusses an mierlocutory appeal by meervenors of the Licenung Board's rejectmn of certam of theu contenuons.
B A person may take an interlocutory appeal from an order entered on his or her meerven: ion peuuon only I
where the order has the effect of cienying the peuten in its enturty.10 CFR 2.714a.
ALAB484 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Umts 1 & 2), Dncket Nos. 54329-OMAOL, l
50'334OM&OL;MODIF1 CATION ORDER ANDOPLRATING LICENSE, July 27,1982. MEMORANDUM a
AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board dismisses without prejudice an intervenor's purponed appeal f:om a Licensing Board order, LBP-82-35,15 NRC 1060 (1982), which authorued certam mienrn -
edments to the Midland I
l 10 4.
M I
l j
1
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFITY AND LICENSLNG APPEA1, BOARDS constnzten permas pendmg s,absequent issuance 1 th; Boarfs parual imual decisen. The Appeal Board construes the intervenor's "lmgs as a compiams against staff's compliance wah and implenuntaten of the Ucensmg Boarfs order, rather than the order aself, and leaves the matter to the intervenor ao present to the Ucensmg Board.
\\
B lasues relatmg so complance with and implementaten of a Licensing Board order, rather than the order itself, should be presented to the Ucensing Board in the first instance, rather than to the Appeal Board.
C Although the time limits estabbshed by the Rules of Pracuce wnh regard to appeals from Licensmg Board decisons and orders are notjunsdictonal, Appeal Board pohey is toconstrue them sanctly Nuclear Engmeenng Co. (Sheffwid, Illmois, towhvel Radmacuve Waste Disposal Site), ALAB406,12 NRC 156,160 (1980)
Hence, unumely appeals are not accepted absent a demonstraten of "estraordmary and unanucipated cucumstances." See 10 CFR Part 2 Appendis A, IX(dx3).
ALAB 485 METROPOUTAN EDISON COMPANY (Three Mde Island Nuclear Stauon, Una No.1). Docket No.
54289 SP; RESTART: August 2,1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board suspends untd further nouce Irensee's obhgaten to submit certam informaron req-M as part of the Boar (s sua sponte revww, and clanfws the scope of as appellate Junsdstmn m thisspecial prweb g.
i 8
The fact that the Three Mae Island restart proceedmg is a spcial proceedmg not specifsally addressed by Commission regulanons does not depnve the Appeal Board of as well estabbshed nght to revwo sua sponte an issue that =as contested before the Licensms Board but not raued on appeal. See generally Virgmia Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-491,8 NRC 245,247 (1978), Pubhc Service Electnc and Gas Co. (Salem NuclearGeneraung Staten, Umt ]), ALAB450,14 NRC 43,49 n 611981).
C Authonty to review the enure record of a proceedmg mdependen:ly of the parues' positen is different frorn (1) the power in operatmg trense ag9 icauon proceedmgs to consider senous safety, environnental, and t
common defense and secunty matters not otherwise placed in issue by the parues, and (2) seekmg Comrmssica approval m cases not invcavmg operat: ig trense apphcations before pursums new safety q,aesuons not prevmusly put in controversy or otherwise raised by the partws.
ALAB486 OFTSHORE POWER SYSTT.MS (Manufactunns License for Floating Nuclear Power Plants), Docket No. STN 34437 ML; MANUFACTURING UCENSE, August it,1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board (1) considers the appirabday of the "immediate effecoveness" regulanon (10 CFR 2.764) to the Ucensing Boarfs June 30, 1982 irutial decison (LBP-82-49.15 NRC 1658 (1982)) m this n-3 rea** proceedag and conch. des that it is not obhged t,y the regulaton to conduct such a review m t
manufactunng trense proceedir.gs;(2) announces that in the absence of escepuons to the uuual decison, a has umiettaken sua sporue revww cht; and (3) remnds the parues that the imual decision shall not consutute fmal agency acten untd completme of that review by the Appeal Board and us further order.
B The Commissen's "immediate effectiveness" regulaton,10 CFR 2 764 (1982), as amended,47 Fed.
Reg ?286(January 15,1982), requires in the case of constructon permits, cedam tirmted and muned. ate appeal board and-
- revew - and,in the case of operatag trenses, Comrmsson revww only -of an imtal detisen before it can become effecove.
C Under the C-
's "inanedmee effecoveness" segulanon, an appeal board is not obhged to conduct an unmeisse c"ecoveness review in manufactunng trense proceedmas 0
Thee-nme an appeal board - as opposed io the Comnussen itself - is requued to c,mouct an immediate effeesess revww is wahan 60 days of an imual decison authorums the issuance of a reactor constnzten pernut.10 CFR 2.764(ex2).
E The starting pomt in interpreung a segulauon is the language of the regulaton itself Cf lewts v. Omted States,445 U.S. 55,60(1980). Dependmg on the cucumstances,it may be appropnate to consoder the underlying history of the regulatwon as well. Cf. Tennessee Valley Authonty v. Hd!,437 U S.153,184-85 (1978)
ALAB487 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Stauon, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-413, l
54414, UMITED WORK AUTHORIZATION, August 19,1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board accepts a Licensms Board referral, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.730if), of a number of innerlocutory Ocenseg Board ruimgs condiuonallv admittmg certam contentions m this operaung hcense proceedmg The Appeal Board concludes that a trensmg board has no authonty to admn conditonally, for any r
l season, a contennon that falls short of enreung the specifeny requirements of 10 CFR 2.7144a) The Appeal l
Board provides furor,,-.y,w, c(the govermns Rules of Practre relaung to contentens and leaves to the
~
!icensmg Board the apparauen of that interpretauon to the contentens.
i B
Appeal boards are empowered to dechne the acceptance of trensms board referrals.
O 11
DICESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS C
Regardless of whether presented on "certifrauon" pursuant to 10 CFR 2.718(i) or by referral pursuant to 10 CFR 2.730tf), the quesuon of whether meerkrutory appellate review of an issue should be undenaken rurns on 9
whether a fadure to address that issue would senously harm tne puble interest, resu't in unusual delay or expense, or affect the basic structure of the proceeding an some pervasive or unusual manner. Conseners Power Co.
(Mulland Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB64,13 NRC %,99 (1981).
D Under 10 CFR 2.714, a trensing board is not authorued to adnut condiuonally, for any eason, a contenuon that falls short of nuetmg the specifwity requirements of the Sectaan.
E Neither Secuan 189a of the Asomac Energy Act nor Secuan 2.714 of the Commthion's Rules of Practice
~
pernuts an meervenuon petsuoner to file a vague, unparucularued consenten, followed by a,,cadeavor to flesh it out through discovery against the applzant or the NRC staff. Rather, an intervenuon peurione* has an uunciad obhgation to cammine the pub!rly avadable documentary matenal pertammg to the facht) in quesuon with suffrient care to enable it to uncover any informanon that could serve as a foundauon for a specifs contenten.
Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Genersung Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB 107,i /,EC 188,192, (1973), affirmed Cll-73-12,6 AEC 24 f (1973), affumed ;ub nom. BPI v. AEC,502 F.2d 424 (D C. Car.1974)
F The wordmg of a regulanon generally takes precedence over any contradstory suggesuon in as adnunistrauve history.
G The heanng mandate of Secuan 189a. of the Atormc Energy Act does not confer the automatz nght of meervenhan upon anyone, rather, the Comnussmo may condinon the exercise of that nght upon the rnecting of reasonable procedural requuernents. BPI v. AEC,502 F.2d 424,428 (1974).
H No procedural requurment can lawfully s,pe. ate to preclude from the very outset a heanns under Secten 189a. of the Aronue Energy Act on an issue both witlun the scop of the pecuoner's intewst and germane to the outcome of the proceedmg.
I ibe deiernunaten whether to accept an unumely contenten which was susceptible of fihng wahm the penod presenbed by the Ru!cs of Practice involves a considersuon of all five 10 CFR 2.714(a) factors - and not just the reason (substanual or not as the case may be) why a pecuaner did not meet the deadime.
J la determining *hether to accept an untimely contenuon under 10 CFR 2.71of a), if the contenton could not have been asserted with suffrient specificny dunng the penod presenbed by the Rules of Pracoce due to the non-exisaence or pubbe unavadabihty of relevant documents, that factor snust be dermed controllmg; it is not amenable n hemg overndden by the other 2.714(a) factors such as that relatmg to the broademng of the assues.
ALAB488 UNITED STATTS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHOREY (Cimch River Breeder Reactor Plant). Docket No. 50 537,llMf!T.D WORK AUTHORIZATION, August 25,1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The A; peal board demes a petioon for duected cerufrauen of an unpubbshed Licensmg Board order (August 5,1982) whrh sets forth the scope of and schedule for evidenuary heanngs in the hnused work authonzation proceedmg for tlus facdity.
B A turuted work authoruauan (LWA 1) allows prehmmary construcuan work to be undertaken at the agphcant's nsk, pendmg compleuon of later heanngs covenng radelogical health and safety issues. See 10 CFR
- 50. i0te N I), Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma, et al (Black Foa Staten, Un is I and 2), ALAB-573,10 NRC 775, 778 (1979). Before an LW A-I can be granted, the staff must have issued the fmal envuonmental impact statement relatmg to the consouctaan of the facihty. Moreover, the IJcensing Board must have made all the environrnental fmomgs requued for issuance of a construccon pernut and "determmed that.. there is reasonable assurance that the proposed aste is a sustable locaten for a reactor of the general sue and type proposed from the standpomt of radmiogral health and safety considerstmns." 10 CFR 50.10 tem 2).
C Discretsnary mterlocutory review will be granted ordy spanngly, and then reily when a trensmg board's action either (a) thraatens the party adversely affected with unmediate and senous irreparable harm *tuch could not be remedied by a later appeal, or (b) affects the basse structure of the pr==4ng m a pervasive or unusua3 manner. Pum:Servre Elecinc and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Genermung Staten, Unn 1), ALAB-588,11 NRC
$33,536(ICA Especially a hght of the paucity of construction penst appirsuons,legalissues involvmg the uming of the almassen of evidence at LWA heanngs cannot be considered recurnns issues of great importance to the proper funcuanmg of the trensing process.
D An appeal board wdl be parucularly reluctant to grant a request for duected cerufration wtwre the quesuon for wtuch ceruficatan has been sought involves the schedulmg of heanngs or the unung and adnussibdny of evidence, see Toledo Edison Co. and Cleveland Electnc Blurtunstmg Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Stauon, Uma I) ALAB-314,3 NRC 98,99100 (1976), and *di be incimed to do no only to enterta n a claim that a board abused na discretwn by setung a heanng schedule that depnves a party of ns nght to procedural 12 I
1 J
7 l
1
DIGESTS ISSUANCES Olr THE ATOMIC SA7ETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS thae process. Pubhc Servue Co. of Indana, Inc. (Marble Hdi Nuclear Generanns Stauon, Umts I and 2),
ALAB-459,7 NRC 179, iB8 (1973). See generally Houmon Lighung & Power Co., et al. (South Teams Project, Unas 1 and 2), AIAB437,13 NRC 367. 3S71 (1981)
ALAB489 OFTSHORE POWER SYSTEMS (Manufacturms License for Floanng Nuclear Power Plants) Docket No. STN S437-ML; MANUFACTURING LICENSE September I,1982; hCMORANDUM AND ORDER A
A The Appeal Board grants apphcant's mocon for clarifreaa of as previmas armorandu n and order (ALAB486,16 NRC 454 (1982)) in whsh de Appeal Board (1) concluded that it is not obhged by the "irand=* effecoveness" regutmian (10 CFR 2.764) to conduct such a revue in manufactureg hcense proceedags, and (2) announced that, in the absence of escepuons to the Ucensing Board's imual decum (LBP-82-49,15 NRC 1658 (1982)), it would andenake sua sponte rewww of it. In granong du monon for clarifwauon, the Appeal Board caplams, inter sha, the nature of its sua sponte revue authoriry and its relauonslup to the effecoveness of bcensmg board imtial decisens.
B An immediate effecoveness revww of a hcensmg board decisson is not a subsonne for an appeal board's u lymg record before the decisen is accorded feahty.
ssual sua sponte review of the decanon and its s cr C
Sua sponse revww by an appeal board is a long-standes Comnussion-approved pracace whwh is undertaken in all cases, regardless of ther nature or wheswr excepuons have been fded. See 10 CFR 2.760ta),
2.78ka). This type of revww entends to" *any fmal disposition of a hcensmg proceeding that ei:her was or had to be founded upon substanove deternunanons of sigmficant safety or environrnental issues '" Sacramento Mumcipal Vuhty Disanct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generstmg Stauan), ALAB455,14 NRC 799,803 (1981),
quoting Washmston Pubhc Power Supply System (WFPSS Nuclear Project No. 2) ALAB-571,10 NRC 687, 692 (1979). See also Northern States Pewer Company (MonoceDo Nuclear Genernung Plant Umt I).
ALAB411,12 NRC 301,304 (1980),and cases caed.
D Only the adrmrustraove faalay of a heensmg board's decision is deferred pendag sua sponte sevww by an appeal board; the effecoveness of the decision is not stayed.
E If sua spone review encovers probkms in a hcensms board's decision er the record that may requae correcove acten adverse :o a party's interest, the appeal board's consistelt pracace is to give the pany ample opportumry to address the maner, as apprc9nate. See, e 3-, Rancho Seco, supra,14 NRC at 8034)4,817; I
Monucello, supra,12 NRC at 309-13. Vrgima Electnc and Power Co (North Anna Nuclear Power Stanon, Umu I and 2), ALAB 529,9 NRC 153 (1979); Vugima Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-491,8 NRC 245,24450 (1978).
AIAB490 1DUISIANA POWER AND IJGifT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Electnc Stanon Unit 3), Docket No. S3824)L; REMAND; September 7,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board disnusses wahout prejudace a peauoner's ag9eal frorn a non-final order of the Ucensing Board.
B The test of"finalay" for appeal purposes before the Nuclear Regulatory Comnusame (as in the courts) is essentially a practical one. As a general maner, a Irensing bnerd's acnon is final for appellate purposes where it either disposes of at least a maja segment of the case or termmates a pany's right to participate, rulags whach do nemher are meerlocutory. Toledo Edison Co., et al. (Davi>Besse Nuclear Power Station). AIAB-300,2 NRC
(
752,758 (1975). Where a party has been given an oppormmty to file a new peunon for leave to mrervene, the l
Licensmg Board order that derued the pnor pention is non-fmal and not amreshately appealable.
A1AB491 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Madland Plant, Umts I sed 2), Docket Nos. 2329.CP, 23SCP; REMAND; September 9,1982; DECISION A
The Appeal Board disnusses an intervenor's appeal of the Licensing Board's decision m LBP 8143,14 NRC 1768 (1981), not to impose sancuons agamst the trensee for fadure to discime assenedly sigmficant informaaon in an earher phase of this construccon pernut proceedag. The Appeal Board, however, pursuant to l
sua sponte reyww of the record affirms the Ucensing Board's decisaan not to impone sancnons, but corrects certam of the Board's underlying legal conclusaans.
B Requinns the subrrussion to a trensmg board of proposed fedmgs of fact or a comparable document is not a mere formahty: it e,ives that board the benefs of a party's arguments and pernuts it to resolve them in the first mstance - gma:W in the pany's favor, obvuung laser appeal.
C Unless there is a serious substanove issue as to whwh a genuuw problem has been L,-,.W. an appeal board ordmanly =di not entenam an issue raised for the rust ame on appeal. Tennessee Valley Authonty (Hartrville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A, IB, and 28), ALAB-463. 7 NRC 341,348 (1978). See aho Pubhc i
,m Service Electnc and Gas Co., et al. (Salem Nuclear Generanng Simoon, Unit 1), A1AB450,14 NRC 43,49 (19fil)-
T f
13 l
1 I
I l
l l
l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS 1
l D
A party that fads to submn proposed findmgs as requested by a hcensing board, relying instead on the I
subrmssions of others, assumes the nsk that such rehance nught be misplaced, a must be prepared to hve with the l
<v=~rence that its further appeal nghts ed) be wasved. Cf. Duke Power Co. (Orrokee Nuclear Stanon, Umts 1,2 and 3), A1AB-440,6 NRC 642,644-45 (1977).
argrw E
Akhough pernes not advenely affected by the ulumare outcome of a hcensmg board decision may not appeal that decismo, they inay defend a result in thew favor on any ground presented a the record, includmg one sejected below. Pubis Servue Co. of Oklahoma,et al. (Black Fox Stanon, Umra I and 2), ALAB.573,10 NRC 775, 709 (1979).
F Regardless of whether there is an appeal, it is appeal board gractice to review sua spome any final disposinon of a hcensmg pra~Mmf that either was or had to be founded upon substanove determinauons of sigmfrant safety or envuonmental issues. Sacramento Meucipal Utihty Distnct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generanng Stauon), ALAB455,14 NRC 799,803 (1981); Washmston Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-571,10 NRC 687,692 (1979).
l G
Appeal boards do not ordmardy scmtimze bcensms board rulegs on econcmsc issues, intervenuon sequests, or penrahral maners in the abeem of a properly per;ected appeal. Imuisiana Power and Light Co.
(Waterford Secam Generatmg Stanon, Uma No. 3), AIAB-258,1 NRC 45,48 a 6 (1975), Washmgton Pubhc l
Power Supply System (Nuclear Projects No. I and No. 4), AIAB-265,1 NRC 374,375 n 1 (1975); Boston Edison Co. (Pdgnm rmclear Power Stauon, Umt I), ALAB-231,8 AEC 633434 (1974).
H An appeal board may undertake sua spark review of a hcensmg board decision concerned enh the insegnty of the learing process.
I It is not the appeal board's funcuan in a sua sponte revww of a heensing board decmon to undenake a detailed scrutmy of the enure record. Rather, the ageal board usually addresses only those portms of the licensms board's opunan that it beheves deserve clanfrauon or correction. Further, absence of appeal board comment on a particular bcenseg board statement should not be construed as eitha agreement or disagreement with it.
3 An apphcant or a luensee has an obhgaton in NRC proceedmgs no provide accurate and umely informanon. Pection for Emergency and Remedial Actn, CL1-784,7 NRC 400,418 (1978). See also j
Tennessee Valley Authonty (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unas I,2 and 3), ALAB477,15 NRC 1387 (1982).
The source of slus obhganon is the Atonne Energy Act itself. See Secnon IW,42 U.S C. 2236a.
K liabihty of an apptrant or hcensee for a maenal false statement in violanon of Section IW of the Atomic Energy Act does mas depend on whether the apphcant or lxensee knew of the falsity. Vwgima Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Umts I and 2), CLI.76 22,4 NRC 480(1976), affd sub nom. Virgmas Electric and Power Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory C_
. 371 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978).
L Under Section IW of the Atorruc Energy Act, the test for matenahry is whether the mformanon is l
capable of influenemg the decisionmaker-not whether the decisionmaker would in fact, have rehed on it.
)
Determmanons of masenahty requue careful, w...m, _ judgment' M the content in whrh informauon appears and the stage of the trensmg process evolved. North Anna, sa
,4 NRC at 487,491.
M A "matenal fahe statement" under Secnon 186a of the Atornac Energy Act - --
- omissens as well as affumative statements. North Anna, supra,4 NRC at 489.
N In general,if a party has doubts about whether to disclose mformataan, it should do so, as the ulumate i
decision with regard ts manenabry is for the decisionmaker, not the parues.
0 The mere exisaence of a queshon or discussaan about the possible matenahty of informanon does not l
ase==edy make the informanon masenal.
P Imer.t to deceive is irrelevant in determineg wtether there has been a matenal fahe statement under l
Section IW of e4 Atomic Energy Act; a dekberare effon to nMead the NRC, however, is relevant to the maner of sanctaans, once a matenal false statement has been found.
Q Informanon concermng a licensee's or an apphcant's inent to deceive may call into quesuon its
" character"-a maner the Commassoon is authanzed toconsider under Sechen 182 of the Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S C. 2232a - or its abdity and wdimgness to comply with agency regulanons, as Section 103o,42 U.S.C.
2133b, requues.
I R
The Commission's Rules of Practxe require parties and ther representaoves to conduct themselves with honor, digney, and decormn as they should before a court of law.10 CFR 2.713(a).
g4 1
o J
M 8
1 l
I
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS w-S The Commission generally follows the Amencan Bar Associanon's Code of Professmnal Responsibihry in judging lawyer conduct in NRC proceedings. See, e 3., Northern Indiana Pubir Service Co (Badly Generstag Staton, Norlear-1), ALAB-204,7 AEC 835,838 (1974).
T Canon 7 of the ABA Code of Professoral Responsibihty - whrh exhorts lawyers to represent their cients
- zealously enhm the bounds of the law % and its associated Ethsal Considerstens and Discipimary Rules provide the standards by whrh attorneys should abide in the preparanon of testimony for NRCproceedmgs.
U Injudg ng the propnery of alawyer's participanon in the preparaton of testimony of a witness,the key factor is not who ongmated the words that comprise the tesumony, but whether the witness can truthfully attest that the statement is complete and accurate to the best of his or her knowledge.
V ch===hp and sporting conduct between or among lawyers and parues is not condoned m Nuclear Regulatory Commission proceedmgs.
ALAB492 METROPOUTAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. Ohree Mde Island Nuclear Staten Una No 2),
Docket No. 50L320LOLA;OPF%ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT, Septenber 14,1982. DECISION A
Following the conduct of addumnal evidennary heanngs by the Appeal Board on the probabdity of a heavy aircraft (one weighing more than 200.000 pounds) crashmg mto the TMI-2 plant, the Board fmds the analyses performed by the NRC Staff and the appbcants produced accepuble results tused upon data then at hand (pre.1978 data). As to any future return of the plant to service, the Appeal Board requires an updated analysesof the crash probabthry pnor to as operanon (and at least once every three years thereafter), and ruch protecove action as the analysis might indrate.
B he followmg technmalissues are discussed. Aircraft crash probabihty; Bayesian Theory, Confidence hmits (precision, uncertamty).
ALAB493 PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATWE INC. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Staten. Umts I and 2). Docket Nos 50L 387-OL.
50 388-OL; OPERATING LICENSE, September 28.1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board dismisses an intervenor's appeal from the Lrensmg Board's imtial decisen (LBP 82-30,15 NRC 771 (1982)) authonzmg the issuance of full-power operstmg trenws for Umts I and 2 of this facdity. The Appeal Board notes that the amtial decision does not constitute fmal agency acten untd it completes sua sponte revww of it.
B A party's bnef must (I) specify the precise poruen of the record reiwd upon m support of the aswrten cf errtr.10 CFR 2.762(a), and (2) relate to matters raiwd m the pany's proposed findmgs of fact and conclusions of law. An appeal board edi not ordmanly entertam arguments raised for the first time on appeal, abwns a senous I
substanove issue. Pubhc Service Electne and Gas Co, et al (Salem Nuclear Generemg Station. Unn 1).
A1AB450,14 NRC 43,49(1981). Tennessee Valley Authonry tHartsvdic Nuclear Plant.Umts l A,2A, lB.and 28). ALAB-463,7 NRC 341,348 (1978) See also Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant. Umts I and 2).
A1AB491,16 NRC 897,906-07 (1982).
C An appeal may be dismiswd when a party's bnef contams only conclusory assertmns without sufficwns informaton to dispose of ns arguments mielh ently Pubhc Servre Co of Oklahoma. et al (Blatk Fox Station.
F Umts 1 and 2), AIAB-573,10 NRC 775. 78687(1979) See also Duke Power Co. tCatawba Nuclear Staten.
Units I and 2). ALAB-355,4 NRC 397,413 (1976)
D Pnor so issums an operstmg hcense, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulaten must fmd that l
Conunission regulanons (includmg those implementmg NEPA) have been sausfwd and that the actmtes l
authorued by the hcense can be conducted without endangenng the health and safety of the pubhc. See 10 CFR 50 44d),50 57; Northern StatesPr wer Co (Praine Island NuclearGenerstmg Plant, Units I and 23, ALAB-455, 6
7 NRC 4i,44 (1978), remanded on other grounds sub nom. Mmnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Comnusson.602 F.2d 412 (D C. Car 1979).
E I.ay representanves generally are not held to the same standard for appellate bnefs that is espected of i
l l
lawyers Salem. supra,14 NRC at 50 a 7 Nonetheless. NRC htigants appeanng pro se or through lay representanves are m no way reiwwed by that status of any obhgatmn to famihanze themselses with the Comrrussion's rules. To the contrary, all mdmduals and orgarmatons electmg to become partes to NRC trensmg proceedmgs can fairly be expected toth so obtam access to a copy of the rules and refer to n as the l
l occasen anses fennsylvama Power and Light Co. and Allegheny Electne Cooperanve,Inc (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Stanon, Units I and 2), ALAB 563,10 NRC 449,450 n.1 (1979).
.2 15
4 l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS l
F An innervenor in NRC lzensmg proceedags to a basic obhgaton to"suucture [as] parucipanon so that k is meanmgful, so that is alerts the agency to [asj posinon and comennons." Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power O
Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Councd, Inc.,435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978).
ALAB494 SOUni CAROUN A ELECTRIC di GAS COMPANY, et al. (Vugal C. Summer Nuclear Stauon,l'ait
)
1), Docket No. 543954)L; OPERATING LICENSE, September 28,1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board disnusnes excepnons fded by the appixants so the Licensms Boar (s perua: meal
~
decision in this operaung luense pr~ dy (GP-82-55,16 NkC 225 (1982)). The Appeal Board announces it wdl undertake sua sponte review of that decisson and a later Ixensing Board parnal nuual decisen (LBP.82-57, 16 NRC 447 (1982)), authorums the issuance of an operarmg latense for the plaM, and remmds the parties that menther innial decision shall be deemed to have achieved admmistranve fmahry pendmg the compleuon of that review and further order.
B Excepuons are not maary to defend a decifon in one's favor Only when a party is aggneved by or 7 '
A<<=nified with the action taken below and invokes the Appeal Boar (s Junsdruon to change the resuh need excepuons be fded -or are they permmed Public Service Co. of Indiana,Inc. (Marble Hd! Nuclear Generaung hr==, Uruts I and 2), ALAB459,7 NRC 179,202 (1978), See also Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Stauon, Umts I,2 and 3), AIAB478,7 NRC 772,7*3 (1978); Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), AIAB-282,2 NRC 9,10 n.1 (1975), Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant, Umts I and 2). AIAB-252,8 AEC 1175,1877, affrmed. CU-75-I, I NRC i (1975), Toledo Edma Co.
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Stanon), ALAB-157,6 AEC 858,859 (1973).
ALAB495 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Dresden Stauon, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 54237, 54249; SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION; September 29,1982; DECISION A
On compieuen of as sua sponse review of the Licensms Boar (s two imual decisons in tlus spent fuel pool amdificanon pr==%g (LBP-81-37,14 NRC 708 (1981); LBP-8245,16 NRC 714 (1982))(unde.taken in the absence of any excepuans to either decision), the Appeal Board affirms the Licensmg Board s decisions permitung (1) the modificanon of Umt 3's spent fuel pool, and (2) allowwg the esmght mcnase in spent fuel pool storsge capacay for Umts 2 and 3.
l 16 a
1A i
O
~'
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAIITY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-82-51 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al (Cata=ba Nuclear Stanon, Umts 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 SPECIAL PROCEEDING, July 8,1982. MEMMANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensms Board overrules vanous objections to its Order issued followeg a preheanng conference pursuant to 110 CFR 2.751a Die Board also denes requests for referral of certain issues to the Appeal Board.
B Where an intervenor seeking to challenge an Apphcant's secunty plan does not produce a quahfied eapert to revww the plar: and decimes to submn to a prosecuve order, ns vague contentens must be disnussed for failure to meet conditons that could produce an acceptably specifs contentmn.
LDP-32-5I A CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Pomt Plant). Docket No. 54155-OLA; SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; July 8,1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensmg Board affuins, over objectmns of the NRC Staff, a phaned schedule for the f:hng of fadings of fact and conclusens of law subsequent so an evidentiary heanng Under the schedule, all parues are required to make smiuttaneous fdmgs of findmgs of fact and conclusions of law on each of the contentons and all parues have simultaneous nghts of reply.
B A Board may require phased fmdmgs of fact and conc'usens oflaw subsequent to an evidenuary beanns e order to e spedite the decmon process by pernutung the Board to begm analy Emg the record efficwntly. Under a phased schedule, early fmdmgs may be required pnar to the 30 days allowed for appisants under the procedural regulauons. The Board may also require simukaneous filmg of these phased fmdmgs,in order to expedite the proceedmg and to encourage staff to develop an independent posinon.
L.BP-82 52 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMP ANY (Drewlen Nuclear Power Stauon. Umt No 1),Ducket No.
5414OLA, OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT, July 12.1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Pursuant to a Memorandum and Order of the Commission duectmg its estabhshment (CLI-8125,14 NRC 616 (1981)), the Licensing Board rules that one mdividual and two organizanons have standmg to intervene in this proceedmg concerned with chemmal _'--- -
-rion of Dresden Unn I but, because a fmds that none of the contenoons advanced by Petamners are acceptable under 10CFR 52.714 and CU-81-25,the Board demes the pentons.
B An orgamzauon peutenmg to intervene as a representanve ofits members must demonstrate that it has at least one memtwr with personal standing who has authorued the organization to represent his or act interest.
C Purely acadenuc mierest m a problem is not an interest encompassed by 10 CFR 52.714. In order to sausfy 10 CFR 12 714, an injury in fact must be alleged.
D in order to be adnutted for haganon, a contenten must mform the Board and the pames of the maners sought to be hugsted. Parucularly where substanual techmcal informaten is avatlable indicanng the bases for the apphcant's proposal and the Staff's positen, Peuuoners' consennons must mdraae the specifs respects in which they quarrel with that mformation.
LBP-82-53 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC IL1UMIN ATING COMPANY,et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts 1
& 2), Docket Nos 50-444OL,54441-OL: OPERATING LICENSE, July 12,1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Board adnuts late-filed contentons on psychological soess, the degradaten of electncal winns from radianorsmduced emtn'ttlernent of electncal insulaton, and the rmpropnety of consdenng local economic effects as benefiu for purposes of the Draft Envuonmental Staternent, but requues intervenors so further particularue two of the contentions pnar to heanng B
The Board refuses to admn a late fded contenten that the p ant's closed-cycle coolmg system should be replaced by a radial well system, nwh as has been employed at Grand Gulf Nuclear Staten, in order to reduce the number of fish, fish eggs and larvar destroyed through impmgement and entramment. Vw Board aho refuses to admit a contention that the envuonmental analysis must consider the possible nne of nuclear fuel for nuclear 17
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS O
weapons, should the government subsequently decide to permr' the use of laser isotop separanon techmqurs to accomphsh this purpose.
C in additmn, the Board rules that the decisen in Natural Resources Defense Couned v NRC, Civil Acuan g
s.
No 74-1586 (Aprd 27.1982), which has not been accompamed by a mandate, does not provide grounds for reconsidenng ar earher ruhng escludmg a contennon on the safe disposal and storage of radioactne matenals.
j D
Intervenors may be excused for lateness m fdmg if they keep current with reputable sources of infarmanon such as Science, Science News, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scentist. They need not keep up with all NRC hverature and all technical literature concermng nuclear reactors.
E The Commission s required to consider psychologwal stress in its envuonmemal analysis providmg that there is proof that a nuclear plant wdl cause peopic in the vrmity of the plant to suffer anxieues of such sevenry as
)
to be medrally recognized impairments of psychologwal health.
a F
A coun decision purpurt;ng to stnke down a portion of the Comrmsson's rules on the consideranon of waste disposal issues in NEPA analyses does not invahdate those rules untd the sourt issues as mandate. Pnor to the issuance of a mandate, the rule is vahd and a contention contradicung the rule cannot be admitted I
G A contenoon that fuel stored in a spent fuel pool might subsequently be used to manufacture nuclear 1
weapons is not cogmzable under NEPA because weapons manufacture is not part of the proposed action and would require either federal legislaten or further federal adnumstrauve acton.
H When the Commisson has decsded to implement a rule on the envuonmental quahfranon of electncal equipment but has not yet decided when to male the rule effective, it is appropnate to admit a contenuon on the subject. Provision may be made for apphcant or staff to stay discovery on the contenuon af they wish 4
I The following techmcal issues are discussed: Embnttlement of electncal insulation; envuonmental I
quahfication of electric winng; radiation, effects on polymers; polymer degradation due to radiation.
I psyctwlogical suess, legal standard for NEPA consideraten; impingement of fish mimmum standard for NEPA consideration; entramment of fish, mimmum standard for NEPA consideranon.
I LEP-82-53A CLEVELAND ELECTRIC !!1UMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I
& 2), Docket Nos. 50-440 OL 505441 OL; OPERATING LICENSE, July 19.1982, MEMORANDUM AND I
ORDER f
A The Licensmg Board revises its earher decison (LBP-82-53) and d.snusses a psychologsal stress contention based on a statement of pohey issued by the Comnusson LEP-82-54 CINCINN AT1 G AS & ELECTRIC COMPANY. et al. (Zimmer Nuclear Power Stanon. Umt i ). Docket i
No. 50 358-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; July 15,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Liensmg Board rules that an mtervenor proposmg eight untimely contentens challengmg apphcants' quahty assurance procedures and character and competence to operate a nuclear facihty failed to meet the standards of 10 CFR 2.714. In hght of the senousness of the issues. the Board adopts them sua sponte.
B When unornely contentons are advanced on the eve of an minal decisen which ordinanly would conclude Licensing Board considerauon of an amixauon.the proponent must furmsh substannaljusuficaten for the delay.
C When unumely proposed contenuons raise issues so senous that a decison adverse to the apphcant might tequire demat of an operstmg trense, the Licensmg Board may exercue its authonry under 10 CFR 52.718@ and 2.760s to reopen the record and adnut the contenuons as Board-raised issues.
D It is a clear requurment for representatonal standmg that an orgamzauon seekmg to represent the interesu of its members submit evidence of authoruaten to do so from at least one member with standmg to partripate in the proceedmg.
LSP-82-55 SOlmi CAROLINA ELICTRIC AND GAS COMPANY et al. (Vugit C. Summer Nuclear Stxion.
Umt 1), Docket No. 50 395-OL; OPERATING LICENSE. Julv 20.1982 PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION A
la this Parual inical Decisen the Licensing Board resolves the seistmc issues m controversy in favor of plant safety concludmg that the seismic safety of the Summer Nuclear Plant wdi be assured if the ommung Irense is made subject to two conditens. (1) that seisms rnonitonng be contmued at least untd December 31,1983.
I and that the NRC Staff reevaluate at that time the need for funher momtonng, and (2) that Appixants successfully h
complete within the first year of operauon a confirmatory program to demonstrate to the NRC Staff s sausfacuon that emphcst safety marpms exist for each component necessary for shutdown and contmued heat renmal m the event of the maximum potennal shallow carthquake.
B The followmg technwat issues are discussed: Reservou-mduced seismicity - occurrence aher impoundment, shallow earthquakes and neaesource carthquakes; Ground moten - peak acceleranons.
I i
f is i
s h _ada
. LD
DIGESIS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFITY AND LICENSING BOARDS amphfzaton from bedrock (soil, topographral, soil-pad interacten), response spectra, theoretical r empirzal data Magnitude potental - deep vs. shallow earthquakes, source dimenson, deviatorw satss.
Seisme structural capacity - engmeered structures, equipment and components, natural frequences and reducuan of mouon (unbedment of foundation).
METROPOl.HAN EDISON COMPANY (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stauon, Umt I), Docket No.
LSP-32-56 54285; RESTART; July 27,1982, PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION 1he licensmg Board issues its durd and concludmg parual inical decision whrh resolves Jie s A
restart proceedmg in favor of restarung TMI Umt I subject to certam rec--
- - -. condmons and a monetary penahy.
Techacal issues discussed. unhty's responsibihty to train and emanune carafadates fw NRC operator B
licenses; utihty's responsibihty to cerufy only competent canhdates for NRC operator twenses; s mamtam g and renewmg operator hcenses; the NRC operator hcensmg responutnhtaes; audiu a
operator training and exammaban program, the method of vahdatmg NRC operator heens specific plants; practorms and gradmg NRC operator trensing exammatens; quahty assuran traimns and testing operators; redundant assurance of reactor operator competence; reactor coola reactor coolant pump beanng and seals.
Licensms Board appnmted Special Master pursuant to 10 CFR 2.722(ax2) and specified issu C
heard by Special Master.
licensing Board adops as its own the evidenuary recntd made before Special Master.
D 1he Board, not the Special Master,is autimeued by Nouce of Heanng, regulauons and starute to E
Admmistranve Procedure Act insual decision Special Master's report is advisory ordy. Board must rende decision based on its own understandmg of the rehable, probauve and substanual evidence.
Licensing Board affords weight to Special Master's reponed direcubservations of witness demean F
but where Special Master's conclusms are materially affected by witness demeanor, Licensmg Boar especially careful consideraten to Cher or not other more objecove wi'iess credibiht) standar with Special Master's conclusmns.
Where inferences and factual conclusions depend upon the etnical onentaten and expectatens of the G
fact-fmder, Lxensmg Board rehen upon its collegial Judgment but accepts Special Master's conclusmos as informed advice.
Resuhs of heanns before Special Master and its effect upon the enure proceedmg before the B H
exclusively withm the junstheten of the Board vis-a vis the Junsdicten delegated to the Special Mas IJcensms Board does not endorse Spcul Master's recommendauon that NRC exanunanon I
referred for cnmmal prosecuuon, because enmmal prosecuton has not been shown to relare to Ju granted by Nouce of Heanns.
licen ing Board has nojunsdicten and authonty to direct the NRC Staff to conduct future mvestigano J
into alleged false asatenal statement under ruhng of Carolma Power and Light Company (She I-4), CU.8412, Il NRC 514 (1980)
Akhough not premdmg over a proceedmg nouced as a civd penalty case Licensing Board n K
imposes a monetary penaky on hcensed unhty of $100.000 for neghgent fadure to safeg unhty's operator exammanon process, failure so instal an attitude of respect for the utihty a V
exammations, fadure to assure the quahty of operator traming mstnaction and neghgence m th candidates for NRC operator hcensmg Board 4 unsdicton toimpose monetary penalty flows from autho J
out in Neuce of Heanns to requae long-term measures necessary to provide reasonable assurance Island Uma I can be operated without endangenng the p sinc health and safety Upon issums a partial nunal decison, Licensmg Bonn! retamed junsdicten over a pomon L
maner of that decision because of new informaton on cheat.ng on the NRC operator hcensmg emanunauo NRC investigator's tesumony that operator twensmg emanunaten candidate toki him that anoth M
operator hcensing r naminauon candidate anempted to cheat, partcularfy in hght of un invesugator did tra *nformmg candidate, is unrehable hearsay
-tavee of Lxensee chee'ed are the worst kmd of hearsay (United States v. MandeL591 N
Ruta e
- wt 100 5. Ct.1647,445 U $ %1,64 L Ed 236(1980))and not worthy of F.2d 1347(4th Cw...
- Runm as may be considered, however,in assessmg thoroughness evulenuary weight as to the u. m of savestigatzn and may be purswu.
- # s complete evidenuary record j
19 i
l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSLNG BOARDS O
The Board finds that it is fair to draw an inference unfavorable to a suspected cheater wtwre, as a G
voluntary witness, suspec'ad chester alone has sohanon to mystery surroundmg his acuvines and fails to eaplain his acuvsbes despie oportunity to do so.
P Cemfratmo to the NRC's Operator Licensing Branch that hcensed operator has requahried based upon the known improper assistance of another operator is a fahe material statement under the Atoms Energy Act.
Q Licensing Board fmds that two hcensed operators chested on company-administered hcense quah*icanon exarmnanon but, because operators have not had nouce of charges agamst them or opporturuty to confront evidence because of sequestrabon, no action may be taken against their personal operator hcenses without further proceeding. However, fmdings that the operators cheated are fmdmgs agamst the hcensed unhty.
LBP-32-57 SOUDI CAROLINA EECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, et al. (Vrgd C. Summer Nuclear Stanon.
Urut I). Docket No. 5063954L; OPERAT1NG UCENSE; August 4,1982; SUPPEMENTAL PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION A
la this Supplemental Partial Imtial Decismn the tjcensing Board authorues the issuance of a full-term operating license subject to certain condinens relating to seismac safety, emergency prepared iess and steam generator tube problems. The Board considered issues involving antripated transents without scram (ATWS),
enwrgency r v J..
quality assurance /quahty control, and health effects from the operauon of the facabry and from the uranium fuel cycle.
B The following technxalissues are discussed: Health effects-nsk estimators,Imear moder, and super hnear model LSP-82-58 DA!RYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE (La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor), Docket Nos.
SNFTOL,506SC; OPERAT1NG UCENSE; August 2,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Ijcensing Board grants the rnonons of the NRC Staff and Appbcant for summary disposinon of all envuonmental contenuens and concludes its consideration of other environmental quesuons wluch had annen thirms the course of this full-term operating license proceeding.
B The Commission and Appeal Board have encouraged the use of summary disposinon to resolve conter.: ions where an intervenor has failed to estabhsh that a genuine issue eiusts, C
The Commission's summary disposition procedures have been analogized to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civd Procedure. Decisions ansing under the Federal Rules thus may serve as guidelmes ao incensing boards in applymg the f1
->s summary disposinon procedures n
The burden of poof les upon the movant for summary disposition, who must demonstrate the absence of any issue of matenal fact. If a movant fads to make the requisite showmg, its mouco may be denied even in the absence of any response by the proponent of a contenuon.
E Wlwre a movant for summary disposioon fails no include the requisite " separate, short and concue statement of the matenal facts as to whrh the movmg party contends that there is no genuine issue to be heard,"or where the statement is inadequate, a Board may dismiss the rnation for summary disposanon as procedurally defective or, alternauvely, can dechne to give the statement the effect it would otherwise be accorded F
Comphance with the design objectives set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1, estabhshes that the doses to offsite individuals are as low as reasonably achievable.
G To warrant consideranon of alleged environmental effects of plans operanon at an evidentiary heanng, tr; ore must be shown than that those effects are theoretrally possible.
H Unless a nuclear plant has envuonmental disadvantages in companson to reasonable ahernauves, differences in fmancial costs do not enter into the NEPA process and. hence, mto NRC's cost-benefit balance.
Only after an environmentally supenor ahernauve has been idenufied do econome considerations become relevant.
I Issues concernmg ahernative energy sources in general may no longer be considered in operaung hcense proceedmgs.
J Issues raismg need for power in general may no longer be considered in operaung hcense pmceedings.
Lack of a previous NEPA seview would not be the type of "special cucumstance" ahi to jusufy such consideraten K
In proceedags insututed pnor ao June,1980, senous (L1 ass 9) accidents may be considered only upon a showmg of "special cucumstances "
I 2e E
r
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS IEP-82-59 TEXAS LTITUTIES GENERATTNG COMPANY.et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electne
' ' ~ -
l and 2). Docket Nos. 50445,54446; SHOW CAUSE. August 4.1982; ORDER TO SilOW CAUSE The bcenseg Board orders the NRC Staff to show cause why sancuens should not be impwed for the I
A l
Staff s refusal to obey a Board order so idenufy by name individuals miervwwed in connection with an investigabon and to provide unespurgated copes of signed statements taken fmm them. The invesugatmn concerned allegarens by a former gaahty control inspector that he had been wrongfully discharged Ic.t reportmg defects in construcuan which ne had idenured in the performance of his job and the mvesugauon report had been intmduced as an estubit by the Staft B
A quahried informer's pnvilege custs in NRC pracuce only for informers whohave been given pronuses and pledges of anonymity.
C Informer's privilege must yield mhen, in the context of an ongomg heanng on safety issues. a Board needs the protected informaton to deternune the credibihty of wrtnesses on contested matters.
LBP-8240 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Pomt Plant). Docket No. 50155-OLA; SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; August 6.1982. INTTIAL DECISION This is the first of a senes of minal decisions concemms an anendnent to permd 441 fuel assembles to A
be stored in the spent fuel pool at Big Rock Pomt. compared to a current authoruaten for only 193 assembhes.
This decison directs that certam changes be made in the emergency plannmg pamphlet that is distnbuted withm the Emergency Plannmg Zone for the purpose of informing people about procedures to follow in case of an enrrgency at the nuclear plant. The decison also fmds that there is as yet no ader.date plan to distnbute the pamphlet in puble places or to inform transients, mcludmg large numbers of shers and summer toun appropnate steps to take in an emergency.
B Apphcant must demonstrate that a satisfactory prompt nouricaten system is se place.
C A satisfactory emergency plan must provide an adequate opportumty for both the permanent and transient adult populaten to become aware of apprepnate steps to take in an emergency.
D The requirement that there be an emergency planning pamphlet is an mtnnsz part of the regulatory scheme requinns a proript nonficanon system. Its purpose is to give residents and transents the ir.formaten the need to respond to audible alarm systems and so be sufficiently knomledgeable to understand the importa respondmg.
LBP-8240A SOUTHERN CAuf0RNIA EDISON COMPANY. et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Genernung Staten.
Units 2 and 3). Docket Non 50-361 OL. 50-362-OL; OPERATl" LICENSE; August 6.1982; MEMCAANDUM AND ORDER A
'- The Ucensing Board decides that the unbry of the funher proceedmgut had contemplated 01the need I..:
medical arrangements in the offsite emergency plannmg has been called mio queshon by an Appeal Board ru indicatmg that such arrangements are not necessary. The Board calls for comments from the parues on wheth further proceedmgs may actu ty produce a better record on the quesuon of need for medical services offur.
LBP-8241 CONSOUDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Pomt. Umt No 2) a AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Pomt. Unn No 3). Docket Nos. 50 247 54286SP; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; August 9.1982. MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICATION The Ucensmg Board seeks further Commassen guidance concernmg the Comnussen's July 27.19ft2 A
Memorandum and Order (CU-82-15.16 NRC 27) direcong the Board to reconsider as ru!mgs on comenoons.
B The Ucensmg Board requests Comrmssion guidance as to wheuer it should require that any pmffered tesumony on nsk trear both the consequences and the probabehry of accidents. or whether at may admit testinw on consequences (or probabdity) alone if tesurnony on probabdity (or consequences) is received from some apurce.
C The Ucensing Board requests Comnussion guidance as to whether a should conunue to hear evidence on censin emergency plannmg questions posed by the Comnussion in hght of the decmon of the NRC Regm Admimstrator to require hcensees pursuant to 10 CFR 550 54 to cure signifwant deficiences in their emergerey plans as identified by ate Federal Emergency Management Agency.
LBP-8242 ARIZONA PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY. et al (Pab Verde Nuclear Generstmg Stauon Umts I 2 and 3). Docket Nos STN-545284L.STN-545294L.STN-545340L;OFERATING UCENSE. August 12.
1982; MEMORANDUM ASV ORDER The Ucensing Board issues a Memorandum and Order denying Inrervenor's Pention for durcted A
cerufwation of two evidenuary ruimgs made dunng the operaung hcense proceedmg l
'n J 28 l
i I
l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATONIC SAFETY AND IJCENSING BOARDS B
The availabday of duected cerufracon is an excepten en the Commisson's general rule agamst meerkrutory appeals (10 CFR 2.730(f)) and, as such, is to be resoned to oniv m "excepuonal cucumstances **
9 Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-382,5 NRC 603,606 (1977).
C The D C. Circun's opinion in Nanual Resources Defense Couned v. NRC,685 F.2d 459 (D C. Cir.
1982) does not affect this pr~ne is such a manner as to present a " novel questme of poiry or law" under 10 T
CFR Part 2. Appendia A(VMf)(4).
U5P-3243 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Mdland Plant, Unas I and 2), Docket Nos. 50L329-OM&OL, 50w330-OM&OL; MODlHCATION ORDER AND OPERATING UCENSE, August le, l982. PREHEARD.G CONTIRENCE ORDER A
The Ucensing Board issues a Preheanng Conference Order ruims on comenuans subrmued followmg issuance of the Staffs Safety Eva.ww= Report (SER) and Draft Environmental Statement (DES).
B Where consenuons are fded after 15 days prmt to the special prehearms conference, those contentens are considered as late-fded and may be adrmtted only upn a balancm3 uf all of the five factors hsted in 10 CFR 62.714(aXI). Where " good cause* for fadure to fde on ame (factor i) has not been de*mnstrated, a contenton may soll be accepted, but the buroen ofjusufymg acceptance of a late contention on the basisof the other factors is considerably greater.
C Newfy ansirig informaean has long been recosmzed as providmg " good cause" for acceptance of a late consenuon. Indiana and Mrbigsa Flectric Co. (Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units I and 2), CU-72-75,5 AEC 13,14 (1972); Cincinnau Gas and Electnc Co., et al. (Wdham H. Zuruter Nuclear Stanon), LBP-80w 14.1 I NRC 570,574 (1980), appeal dismissed. ALAB-595, II NRC 860 (1980).
D Where nonumely conr.enuons anse from the Thrte Mae Istard Una 2 accident, or the Commissen's segulatory resprese to that accident, a Ucensing Board must not only balance the factors in 10 CFR 62.714a M I) but also must take into account the Commisson's December 18,1930 Statement of Policy on that subject.
CU 40 42,12 NRC 654.
E The proponent of a tare-fded contenoon should affirmatively address the five factors in 10 CFR 62.714(a)(1) aral demonstrate that, on balance, the contenuon should be adnuned. In considenng that showmg, a Board may take into account the churistance that a pro se mtervenor is involved.
F Insofar as tunehness is concerned, the standards for evaluaung the acceptabdity of late-fded contentons are the same as those for evaluaung the adrmssibihty of an unumely intervenuon pennon -i e., the standards appeanns in 10 CFR 12.714(aWI).
G Dissausfactun with the performance ci another pany (includmg the Staff) upon whom one had been selying cannot serve as an acceptablejusuficauon for an unumely mterventen or for the late fdmg of a contenuon.
H la considenng the ahmssibihty of contenuons, a Ucensing Board cannot resolve factual quesuons gamg to the ments of a contenten. Houston Ughting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Genermung Staten. Una 1).
ALAB-590,1I NRC 542,547 49 (1980).
I It is unreasonable to expect an intervenor to examme reports of incidents at vanous reactors and fde contenuons based on them at a time when it is not known how or whether the lessons of that ancident are acorporated trno the reacts under considerauon.
J When a maner is involved in rulemaking the Comnussion may elect to requue an issue which is part of that rulemaking to be heard as part of that rulemakmg %here it does not impose such a requurment, an issue is not bened frorn beeg wered in adjudicanons bemg conducted at that urne. Furthermore, rulemaking does not preclude htigaton of a cassenuon questnomng an apphcant's comphance with an intens rule in eficct dunng the pendency of the rulemaking proceedmg.
K
" Sunk costs" are not appropnately considered in an operstmg license cost-benefit balance.
L Effecove March 31,1082, the Cannussma elmunated entuely requuements for (mancial quahficatens review for, inter aha, electnc utdanes applyms for operaung hcenses. This amendment is apphcable to ongoing prorcedmgs and requaes distmssal of previously accepted fmancial rth-contenoons.
LBP-8244 GENERAL FI Ff7RIC CO. (Vallecnos Nuclear Center - General Electnc Test Reactor. Operaung bcense No. TR 1), Docket No. 50 70LSC; SHOW CAUSE, August 16,1982; INITIAL DECISION A
In tius Show Cause proceedmg to estabhsh seismic and geologic design bases for the site and todetermme whether the shutdown GE test reactor can wnhstand them, the Ucensing Board majonry issues an uuual decision accepung the design bases proposed by hcensee and NRC Staff, and authorues a restart of the facday as structurally modified. In a separate opmmn, the Board Chairman disagrees with the geologic design basis.
quesuons some of the expert evidence offered at heanng and would authorue a restart of the facihty only with a funher modificanon.
22 f
4..,.
1 I
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tite ATOMIC SAITTY AND IJCENSING BOARDS B
We following technralinsues are discussed. Ground faultmg - evulence of offsets, esumates of surface offset, probatnhty of offset, fault deflecuan; Ground swuon - peak acceleranons, effective peak acceleration, comtuned wnh surface offset, verocal accekrauons. Sauctural capacity - cantilever loading, lack of ^
- imegnty.
~%"~
OP-3245 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 54237-SP.
54244SP; SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMDff; August 17.1982; FINAL INTTIAL DECISION A
The licensing Board's faal imoal decision authorizes the issuance of appropnatelicense amendments to pernut replacement of the current spent fuel ssnrage racks in each of the Dresden Unau 2 and 3 spent fuel poo wah 33 lug!wlensity storage racks. he condiaans and commaments set forth in the partial iruttal decision (L2P-8137,14 NRC 708 (1981)) are carred forward with t!us decision. At present, reracking is the safest and least costly ahernauve for meeting,@,...:. for spent fuel storage.
B The followmg techmcalissues are discussed. Ahernauves to veracking; relevance of unresolved safety issues to the spent fuel pool modifrauon; vahdity of mathe-ed analyses ofloads impened to pool floor durmg posmid rockmg of racks dunng seismic events.
GP-8246 IJOUISIANA POWER AND UGHT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Electnc Stanon, Una 3), Docket No. 54382-OL; OPERATING UCENSE; August 17,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The licensing Bwd reopens the record in www of appiacant's failure to subaut as evidence an uformauonal brochure, whose adequacy was in contenoon B
The pre-emergency pubiic informanon program (10 CFR 550 47(b)(7)) is neither minor nor insigmficant. A proptr prograrn will avoid chaots pubhc response to an emergency and nunimaze risk to the pubic. Southern Cahfornia Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Genersung Station, Umu 2 and 3),
LEP-82-39,15 NRC l163,1203 (1982).
C The form and content ofinformanonal brochures drafted to sausfy the pre <mergency pubhc informanon requaement of NRC regulanons (10 CFR 550 47(b)(7)) are not so clearly estabhshed by regulauons that therewah is a maner of course. See, e.g, Cincaniti Gas & Electnc Company, et al. (Wm. H.
Zammer Nuclear Power Stauon, Unit 1). LEP-82-48,15 N*.C 15s9,1602 (1982); Cocaamers Power Company (Big Rock Poet Plant), LEP-8240,16 NRC 540,545# '982).
D The opinions of apphcant's wunesses that an afoi.nsuonal brochure, nos sutrtuned as evidence, would meet the Comrmssion's emergency planning requirements are not an adequate subantute for Ucensmg Board esammanon of the actual brochure; such secondary sources, even when bolstered by the NRC Staft's and FEMA's assurance of a subsequent review, do not consutute " reasonable assurance" that the pre <mergency pubhc informanon program will be properly spl~awt See Pacifs Gas and Electnc Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). ALAB-580, il NRC 227,228 31 (1980).
E The term " reasonable assurance" requuts more than a mere checkhst compenson against regulasory cnrena Southern Cahfornia Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stanon Umts 2 and 3),
12P-8136,14 NRC 691,699 (1981). The term connotes the canstence of a reasonable plan. Pubhc Service Company of New Hampshue, et al. (Seabrook Stanon. Uruts I and 2), CLJ-78-1,7 NRC I,18 (1978). The reasonableness of a plan cannot be deternuned when the essennal elements of that plan are indetermmate F
The adequacy of the pre <mergency pubhc informanon program is a sigmficant issue that calls for subsective evalusmn, delegauan of this determmanon would be unproper LBP-8247 CLEU AND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Units I
& 2). Ducket As. 544440L,54441-OL; OPERATING LICENSE, August 18.1981. ORDER A
The Ucensmg Board resolves a mouon to compel answers to L=,.v.
4 Appixants are not required to respond to interrogatones concermng the ingesuon pathway emergency plannmg zone whwh is not televan the admined contenoon about the evacuauon EPZ. However, apphcants are required to respond to all quesbons relevant to evacuanon, includmg: (1) the use of resources on-sde that might also be rMM offaite (2) the abihty of responsible indivuluals promptly to recognize emergency condinons, (3) the assignment of adrmmstrative responsibdity for mamtainmg the promga alert and noursauan system. r4) nrteorological and radiation release monrtonng, and (5) the quahficanon and trauung of indivufuals responsible for commurucanrig wah off4ite agencies about emergency condiuons.
B Apphcants must provule a reasonably complete response to L.~. v.n Their answers should not requae the sifhng of matenals to obtain a complete answer but they may desenbe precisely the paroons exurnents that contam the requested mformanon C
Quesuons about apphcant unhty's financial quahricahona for fulfdlms as energency plannmg responsibthues are beyond the scope of an operating incense pr%g.
h,w itt s
23
l DIGESTS IESUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS l
l D
Under a contenaan concernag the possible need for an automauc standby lxluid comrol system, l
O appicant must answer quesuons about the comparabve advantages and disadvantages of that swinemcornpared ta a manual staney laquid ccetrol system.
E Other innerrogatores discussed by the Board concerned vanous aspects of Emergency plannmg (NUREG-0654 cnteria, initiating conditions, administrative responsibihty, financial responsibihty, j
"]
mescorological mon:toring, radiologral moutonng -
- =)
LBP-8243 THE CINCINNAT1 GAS & ElICTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Staten, Una l), Docket No. 50L3584L; OPERA 11NG IJCENSE, August 24,1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Actag on Appbcants' Motion for R-hiaa and Clanfraten of the June 21 Imtsal Decision, LSP-8248,15 NRC 1549 (1982), the t icensing Board. (I)authonzes the issuance of a trense permitung fuel loadmg, low power testing, anc' operanon not in excess of 5% of rated power sutnect to the condinon that the authoruauon will be revoked sho and the Comnusson, on reconsulerauon, reverse its ords: in CL1-82-20,16 NRC 109 (1982), which required the tisnussal of eight safety related contenuons; and (2) denied Appixants' rehef frorn further proceedmgs ordered in the Imtsal Decisme wah respect to emergency evacuauon of schools and subrmssion of FEMA fmdmgs.
B
%here a hcensing board fs als that all maners in contention, other than those relaung to NRC and FEMA review of offsite emergency preparedness, have been resolved either favorably to a,plxant or through the issuance of appropnate lzense cond tons, it may, punuant to 10 CFR 150 47, as amended (47 Fed. Reg 30232 puty 13,1982D, authorue the Direc or of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon to issue a twense authanzmg fuel loadmg and low power operanons not in excestof 5% of rataf power. Authoruanon of the issuance of such a lrense by the Duector, upon tus making all requisie fmdags, may be made even in the absence of a monon bs the apphcant pursuant to 10 CTR 50.57(c) for a lo e power freme.
C Pursuant to 10 CFR 150 47(sM I), the NRC must find, pner to the issuance of a hcense for the full power operanon of a nuclear reactor, that the Mate of onsste and offsde emergency preparedness provules reasonable assurance that adequate geesective mess ses can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. In i
accordance with 10 CFR 150.47(aX2) the Comrmssion is to base its findmg on a revww of the Federal Emergency l
Management Agency's(FEMA's)"fmdags and de,ermmauons as to whether state and local emergency plans are i
=sy= and capable of bems implementad," and on a reyww of the NRC Staff assessment of apphcant's onsite emergency plans.
D Pursuant to 10 CFR 550.47(aX2), a FEMA findmg as to the stams of offsite emergency planmng A will consutute a rebunable pre unmpoan on the questum of the adequacy of such plans. Based upon 7.y exisung precedent, et is unclear whether this presumiten anaches only to FEMA's rmal formal fuuhngs on the state of offsine emergency preparedness, or el ether such a
--- may be accreded to prelumnary or mienm FEMA (mdags.
E As a reburete presumpuen dissolves a the face of reliable and probauve evidence to the contrary, the precucal effect of any rebunable presumpoon created by 10 CTR 550 47(ax2) would be of httle moment with l
regards to connessed aspects of FEMA's fmdmgs,leavmg a trensmg board free to weigh the tesumany of each party on its own ments. See Metropolitan Eduon Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon, Una Ns.1),
LBP 81-59,14 NRC 1211,1465 (1981).
F A heensms board must base its fmdass on die su,tus of offsite enwrgency preparedness, pursuant so 10 CFR iJ0.47(aX2),on FEMA's tesumony astoits revww of those poruons of the stase and local plans related to the consennons, as viewed in light of other resumony adduced at hearms Whde a trensing board may rely on annamny based on FEMA's interim findmgs in making as own findmgs,it need not be satisfied wuh se umony so grelinunary and conclusory as e fad so meet the ame standards expected of other tesumony in Commission praa Anfe. To do so wondd depnve both the board and pernes of any meamngful opportumry to cross-examme FEMA wimesses as to the bases for the Government's conclusions.
G A hm board may not delegaae to the NRC Staff, or to FEMA, as obbgauan to resolve is. sues placed inao contros sy in an operstmg hcense proceedag, however conscienuously they may pursue their work. See Cleveland Electnc Illuraiannne Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB.298,2 NRC 730,736 737 (1975), Pubhc Servre Company of Indiana,Inc. (Marble Hdl Nuclear Generates Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB461,7 NRC 313,318 (1978), Menopohtan FAnaa Company (Three Mde Island Nuclear Stauan, l
Uen No.1), LSP-8159,14 NRC 1211,1419 (1981). To do no would be a clear vioiauon of section 189 of the Anoms Emergy Act of 1954, as amended, as it would render the hearing process a nulhty.
24 l
W l
4'-
a l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS W"
H Where FEMA tesumony based upon its intenm findmgs as to the state of offsite emergency plannmg is so prehmmary and conclusory as to fail to permit meanmgful cross-exammaton of Government witnesses as to the bases for their conclusions, it is appropnate for a board to permit vopenmg of the record on offsite emergency plannmg maners upon a lesser showmg of good cue than that whch is ordmanly requued to reopen a record A
Such a showeg shallbe based upon particular parts of the fmal FEM A findmgs and the Staff s fmal supplement to its Safety Evaluation Report whrh relate to admitted contenuons, and shall demonstrate that an opponumty for creas enanunanon, as distinguished, for example, from an opportunity for further wrmen comment, is requued for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
I A motion for reconsideraton enust state specifrally the respects in which an imtial decis on iserroneous.
See 10 CFR 12.771. It will not sufface to allege that a decison has had an umntended effect, without specifymg how the board is supposedio have erred in reachmg its findmgs if reasons now exist Jusufymg a different result, they must be presented on ths record, not in the fann of an unsworn memorandum of law from counsel, w not evidence.
LBP-82-69 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et at (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I
& 2), Docket Nos. 544440L, 54441-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE, Au ust 30, 1982;MEMORANDCM AND ORDER la this Memo,andum and Order the Board rules that it cannot go beyond the Commisson's Statement of A
Potry on psychological sness issues (47 Fed. Reg 31762 July 16,1982)because the Statement had the depnving at ofjunsdicuan over the mtervenor's psychclogical sness contenten. It also ruled that cernfic the issue to the Comnussion was not prcyer because intervenor had faded to show why interlocutory revww =as necessay ra'her than review, in due course, upon appeal.
When a policy statement issued by the Comnussion orders hcensmg boards not to consider psycholo B
suess contentens unless they meet specified criiena, boards me depnved ofjunsdicton over such issues and are prohibited from inquinns into the procedural regulanry of the pohey statement.
A party may not obtam certificauon of an issue unless a dernonstrates that it will suffer substanu C
it is depnved of meerlocutory revre and is compelled to await compleuon of the hcensmg board's acten b pursues an agTeal LBP-82 70 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Urats I and 21, Docket Nos 5427AOL,54323-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; August 31,1982, INITIAL DECISION In this ini' sal Decision, the lacensms Board authorues the issuance of a full power operaung hcense for A
the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2, subtect to certam condiuons specified by the Board a with the caveat that the decison not impinge on the status of the Comnussen's prewmusly ordered suspension of the plant's low-power hcense or on the independent design venficauon program ordered by the Comnussio Pressunzer heaters are not requard to be designed and constructed to" safety-grade" standards by either B
Commassion requuements or by the standards of 10 CFR Part 100. Appendia A. III ta)
C Power operated rehef valves, when used to protect a system against low-temperature overpressuruanon must be designed and constructed to " safety grade" standards D
State and local governments have the responsibihty to set emergency plumms zones around nuclea power plants The zones may be geographically larger than those specified m the Comnusson's rules, Commission rules govern the test of adequacy of emergency plannmg.
An early warnmg System must be espable of nnufying essenually 100 percent of a populanon E
nules of a nuclear power plant withm 15 mmutes Easentially 100 percent of the population withm the e must be nouried withm 45 nunutes.
P Formal FEMA findmgs on the adequacy of offsite emergency plannmg are requued pnar to hcense l
issuance but are not requued for the heanng.
l LEP-82 71 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (larnench Genermung Staten Umts I and 2), Docket Nos.
34352,54353, OPERATING LICENSE, September 2.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Licensmg Board denes a monon to adnut a contenten concernmg psychological stress caus A
viewing a coolms tower plume because the Lacensmg Board is not authorued by the Commissen to ad comennon, the contenten is without basis. and the motion was not timely.
As required by the Comnus.we's pohey statement of July 22,1982 (47 Fed. Reg. 31762), a Lace B
Board is without authonty to admit a contenten allegmg that psychological stress wdl result from the op
~*
a nuclear plant when no senous nuclear accident has occurred at the site 1
25
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS I
C A consennon allegmg that psychological stress will resuk fnun operanon of a nuclear power plant may not be litigated if it is without basis even if it otherwise sausfied the Comrmssion's cntena for admittmg O
psychologmal stress comennons.
l LBP-82-72 PHILADEIRHA E!ICTRIC COMPANY (Umenck Generaung Siation Umts I and 2), Docket Nos.
54352,54353, OPERA 11NG UCENSE; Sepiember 3,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Ucensmg Board realTrms its holding that a prechasen clause in the Delamare River Basm Compact tenders the Licensmg Board without junsectan ar, reassess the impacts of an allocauon of water from the e'
Delaware River made by the Delaware Rsver Basm Comrmssion.
8 Piarsuant to section 15. I(s)(1) of the Delaware Rsver Basm Compact, the Licensmg Board is precluded froen reassesses the impacts of a decision by the Delaware River Basm f'
% concunedin by the Federal nenher of the Commission, allocanng waier from the Delaware River for the coolms of a nuclear plant.
LBP-82-73 LONG ISLAND UGHTING COMPANY (Snoreham Nuclear Power Stauon Umt I), Docket No.
50 3224L; OPERATING UCENSE; September 3,1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Ruhng on the effects of posenual conflrts of inwrest whrh the Board had noted because apphcant's contractor for as probabilists nsk assessment had also served as a -A,hhs for the NRC Staff on cenam aspects of the Staffs systems interaction program, the Licensing Board conchades that a the mierest of fundanental farness to all parties, the Staff should h.ve noted the existence of such potennal conf 1sts of mterest on the record, together with a descnpten of any steps taken to avud or nungste their effects. However, m the circumstances of ilus case, the Board holds that any defects in the faimess of this proceedmg were cured by the Board's discovery and disclosure of tlus potennal confhct of eterest, whrh gave all parues the opportumry for crtas<mammanon on this poet, and by the Staffs obvious lack of rehance on as subcontractor's wwws ri its tezumony in clus proceedmg.
B Parnes to Comnussion proceedmgs have the obhganon to disclose all potennal conf 1sts of mterest, whether or not a party beheves them to be matenal and relevant to a lrensmg proceedmg Such discio.ure permits other partes the opportumsy to cross exarmne orposing witnesses regardmg any bias whrh may be alleged to cust as a result of a potennal conf 1st of userest.
C Fundamental fauness d ctates that part es to Comnuss on proceedmgs esclose all poienual confhcts of interest, whether or not a party beheves them to be matenal and relevant to a hcensmg proceedmg. Wlule the "matenality and relevance"of new informarmn is required to be considered a determmmg whether a party has a dury to enclose such ne Waforr.sanon in an NRC proceedag. Tennessee Valley Authonry (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Umu I,2 and 3), ALAB-677,15 NRC 1387 (1982); Duke Power Co (McGuut Nuclear Stauon, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 143,6 AEC 623,625 (1973), these standards are not apphcable in a situation where there is an isw as to the fundamental faimess of the conduct of parues to a proceeding. Fundamental faimess clearly requires the disclosure of potennal conficts of interest, such that, after opposmg parues I. ave had an opportumry for cross-examinat.on, the Board may determine the matenahty of such mformation.
LSP-82 74 PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, et al. (Singn&nford Nuclear Power Project.
Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-522, 50-523; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; September 3,1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board rules on the esposition of two late-filed petitL. o meervene in this proceedmg.
denying the prunon filed by the Columbia River Inter-Tnbal Fish Comnussion (CRITTC) for lack of standmg and granung the pennon filed by the Yakuna Indian Nanon, subject to the requirement that at least one contenuon acceptable under 10 CFR 62.714(b) be fded.
B An organiarma may represent only its own enembers. Long Island Ughung Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stacon, Umt I), LBP 7711,5 NRC 481,483 (1977). The requirements for standmg, injury m fact and an interest " arguably withm the zone of interess' protected by the statute, must be fulfdled by the organinew.= itself through its own membership. Portland General Electnc Company, et al. (Pebble Spnngs Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2), CU-76-27,4 NRC 610,613 (1976).
C An unumely penoon so meervene may be granted ifit is found that a balancmg of the five factors ser forth in 10 CFR 92.714(a)(1) favors intervennon. Some weight may be attached to the fact that the lateness, though not jusufied, is not extrene and will not delay the proceedmg. Duke Power Company (Amendment to Matenals Ucense SNM-1773 ~Transportauon of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Staten), ALAB-528,9 NRC 146,150 (1979).
26 w.
4% h m
..f
~
1
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARDS D
10 CFR 62.714(b) requires a petmoner for intervenoon to file a suppienent contaams at kast one admissible contention. Cincinnati Gas and Electnc Company, et al. (Wdham H. Zimmer Nuclear Stauon).
LBP-8414, ll NRC 570,571 (1980).
LBP-82-75 IJONG ISLAND UGHHKG COMPANY tahoreham Nuclear Power Stanon. Uma 1), Docket No.
7~
54322-OL; OPERATING UCENSE; September 7,1982; SUPPLEMENTAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER A
The Lxensms Board issues its Supplemental Preheanna Conference Order rules on intervenors' " Phase One Consol=t=wi Emergency Plannmg Consenuons " which pnmanly relates to Appisant's ansste emergency i
f plannmg efforts.
B Pursuant to 10 CFR 12.707, a licensms board is empowered on the failure of a party to comply with a i
preheanng conference order to "make such orders in regard to the faalure as are just." Based upon the Appeal Board's ruimg in Commonweakh Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), AIAB478, 15 NRC 1400 (1982) the outef hand dismissal of intervenors' proposed contenuons solely for failmg to either further parucularue certam contennons or to pursue settlement negouauons is unwarranted. A more approgetate course of acuan a such a case is to simply rule on intervenors' proposed contenuons as they now stand, dismissing those whrh lack adequate bases and specificity.
C Pursuant to 10 CFR 82.714, an imervenor umst set forth those maners whrh a seeks to hugate "with reasonable basis and specificuy."This power of the Conmussion to require that intervenors make such a threshold showmg pnar to the adnussion of a contenoon has been upheld by the Federal Courts. See BPI v. Atomac Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424,428-429 (D.C. Cir.1973).
D A contenuon allegmg an enure emergency response plan to be inadequare, in that a fads to consider certain maners, is required possuant to 10 CFR 52.714 to specify the m ay in whrh Jentifed paroons of the plan are alleged to be inadequate. In advancmg such a contennon, it is intervenors' obhganon to assert how the idertrud pornons of an eaiergency plan are rendered inadequate by as fadure to consider such maners.
E Purwant to 10 CFR 550 47(b)(12), emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors must mclude arrangements for"contarmnated injured" mdividuals. As mierpreted by the Appeal Board in Southern Cahforma Edison Cornpsny, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Genernung Station, Umts 2 and 3). AIAB480,16 NRC 127,137 (1982)"contammated injured"is a distinct category of injury, ethAftpassing potersual pauents whose traumauc (i.e., physcal)injunes are compluased by radroacuve ~~~== People who suffer ra niicjury,without accompanying traumatx mjury, are unidely to need emergency treatment because the cimical course of radiauon injury unfolds over ume and is seldom, if ever, hfe-threatening. Dus, for a senous nuclear accident to result in the hospontoanon of im e numbers of people, not only must an aheady unidely accident be severe, but also the
(
emergency response to protect the pabir rnust be ineffectual. But see Southern Cahforma Edison Company, et al.
i (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung Stanon. Units 2 and 3), CU-82-27,16 NRC 883 (1982).
l LBP-82-76 PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Stauon, Units I and 2),
Docket Noa. 54443-OL,544444)L ( ASLBP No. 82-4714)2 OL); OPERATING UCENSE: September 13, 1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensmg Board rules on peutions to meervene and admission of contenuons, and schedules further pr==imgs.
LEP-82-77 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Pome Plant). Docket No. 54155, SPEhi FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; September 14,1982, INTHAL DECISION A
In this Inmal Decision, the Licensmg Board holds that the applicant must carry the burden of proof in demonstraung that the off-sne emergency plan has comphed with the Commission's emergency plannmg rules and guidance. It must carry that burden whether or not n is pnmanly responsible for perforrmng the funcuons evolved in the plan. Because appiscant did noe carry that burden, it must demonstrate to the Board that the deficencies in its plan have been revnedied, are not senous, or are bems remedad through adequaie intenm corrgensating acuces. The derriencies include fadures of proof related to the trammg of local officials e i nool cmcials, the need for transportanon of persons who lack personal vehrles, the availabdity of a satisfactory l
authod of alerting school bus dnvers who are not on duty, that there is adequate transportanon for schoolchddren, that there is an adequate hst of invalads bemg mamtamed and that there is an adequate erethod of estabhshmg emergency bus routes.
B Intervenur's contennon that apphcant had not implemented adequate adnumstrouve connols to prevent cask drops over the spent fuel pool was disnussed for lack of nwn e
N l
l l
l l
DIGESTS J
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCINSING BOARDS i
1 Applicn has the burden of proof to demonstrane that the off-siw emergency plan comphes with j
C Commission rules and gudance.De burden must be carned whether or not apptrant is primarily responsatde for G
carrymg out a perncular aspect of the plan.
D A Licens.ng Board geesenbes prmares by whrh applzant may remedy deficwnces in its case concernmg the adequacy of emergency plannmg.
E De following tec*nical issues are discussed, Emergency plannes (estimatmg trainmg needs);
emergency planning; admmiaive :entrols (cask drops).
LSP-82-78 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Pome Plant). Docket No. 50-155; SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; Sepember 15,1982; INTrlAL DECISION l
in this Ininal Decision, the Ucenseg Board fada that an environmentalimpact assessment prepared A
with respect to an amendment to expand the capacity of a spent fuel storage pool, was adequase Intervenor) not successfully challenge its negative fmdmgs concermng the lack of any sigmfwant environmentalimpacts.
B Addauonally, the Board fmds that the envuonmentalimpact assessment adequately treated skernaoves to the spent fuel when it found that the pool modificanon"will not resuk in any sigmfrant change in the comminnent of =aser, land and au resources" and = hen is also found that the use of stainless steel to fabncare new fuel racks is an "msigmfrant" use of that resource. Intervenor also faded to make an effecteve challenge to this Staff's bas tiua fandmg.
An envuonmental impact appraisal prepared with respect to the expension of the capacity of a spent fuel C
pool need not discuss further the ahernanves to an expansion of the pool if the appraisal has an adeqj fading that the expansaan would not cause any unresolved confists about ahernaove uses of resources An environmentalimpact staternent need not be prepared wah respect to the expansion of the capacity of D
a spent fuel pool if the ewironmental impact appraisal prepared for the project had an adequate bas
/
concludmg that the expanam of a spnt fuel pool would run cause any sigmficant envuta.ruentsi unpact.
CLIVELAND ELECTRIC ll1UMINATING COMPANY et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I IEP-82-79
& 2), Docket Nos. 50440-OL, SO4414L; OPERATING LICENSE, September 15,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Licensing Board denws admission of a contenoon on dose levels to human bemgs from rouune A
emissions from the Perry plant because the meervenor faded to show good cause for late filmg. Intervenor ha argued that the issue could be raised because n had appeared for the fust time in the Draft Eavuon Statement for Perry, but intervenor had no answer for the oposing argument that the same maner had been in the Final Safety Analysis Report, h-f months earher.
De Board also considered whether to raue this issue sua spone but a concluded that the Commtssen had B
already consuered the matter in several earter proceedmgs and that sua sponse considersoon was not approp Ducussion of an issue in the Draft Envuonmental Statement does not provide sond cause for late fdmg of C
a contennon, if the same matenal eas included m the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) filed by the appixan' If a contention is excluded from a proceedmg because there is no good cause for late filmg, the Board should nevertheless consider whether to declare the issue to be an important safety or envuonnental issue a raise that issue sua sponte.
LONG ISLAND UGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon Uns I), Docket No.
LSP-82-80 l
50 322-012 (ASLSP No. 824784)5-OL); SECURITY; September 16,1982, MEMORANDUM, ORDER AND NOTICE OF SECOND IN CAMERA CONFI.RENCE OF COUNSEL Upon referral from the Comnussion, the Licensing Beard authorues the release to two c(ine i
l A
secunty consultants / experts of two portions of a restncted Appeal Bowd derinon {Diablo Cany (1981 RResencted)] regardmg the defimnon oidesign besis threat and a.y.m of regnfamis concaramg t l
appropnate number of armed responders Intervens county governmers estabinned reqmsite need of two of its secunty consultants / experts f B
access to two portions of restncted Appeal Board decision regardmg defmition of design basis threat a of armed responders, even though those pornons alsocontam nummal amount of specific mfonnanon conce secunty plan at another nuclea: plant.
where Commission previously authreued release of two portums M eestncted Appeal Board decison t C
attameys for intervenor commty govemment, the same paruons of that decismn wd! be released consultanu/ experts who have filed estimony on the areas discussed in the Appeal Board decison.
t I
j C m.
l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS D
Release of portens of resencied Appeal Board decision to intervenor's consultantsiempens will be con &uoned upon their czecutaan of afGdavits of non<hsclosure of the plant physral secunty mformanon contamed in that decision.
E Securny plans for nuclear plants are deemed so be commercial or financial infonnanon pursuant to 10 CFR 62.790(d) and may only be disclosed to counsel and expert witnesses who have a need to know after apphcanon of a balancing of inserests test.
LBP-82-81 DUKE POWER COMPANY (Perkms Nuclear Staten, Umts 1,2 and 3. Docket Nos. STN.544%
STN-50-489, STN-50-490, CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; Sept:mber 20, 1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUTHORIZING WITHDRAW ALOF APPLICATlON FOR CONSTRUCTION PERM!T WITHOUT PREJUDICE A
The Licensmg Board authorues the withdrawal without preju&ce of the apphcanon for constructmn permits for the Pertina Nuclear Stataan, demes Intervenors' mouan to dismiss the Perkms apphcaton with preju&ce, and demes the Intervenors' request for anorney's fees and huganon expenses.
B Ucensing Boards under 10 CFR 2.707(a) may authorus the withdrawal of an apptrauon after the notre of heanns has issued on such terms as a may prescnbe, but any terms prescnbed must be related to any legal harm to parues or the pubhc that a wuhdrawal would cause.
C Federal runc. favor wahdrawal wahout preju&ce where no party wdl be harmed thereby. The possibihty of another heanns on the apphcation standmg alone does not consutute legal harm, and does not m itself usufy a J
con &uonal withdrawal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 I(ax !),(2h I.sCompte v. Mr. Clup, Inc.,528 F.2d 601,604 (5th Cir.
1976).
D A bcensag Board may anach reasonable condatens on a withdrawal wahout prejuece to protect parties and pubhc from legal harm; or if legal harm is unavoidable, the Licensmg Board may order a disnussal wah prejudice but only to the extent necessary to avoid legal harm.
E The Applicant would have the opuon of selecung reasonable con & tens on a wahdrawal without prejuece, includmg the payment of etervenors' attorney's fees, or a withdrawal orth prejudre as to spectfic issues Yoffe v. Keller Indus., Inc.,580 F.2d 126,131, n 13 (5th Car.1978).
F A disuncuan naast be made between the Amencan rule stuch bars an award of attorney's fces to the prevadmg party absent a specifs stature authorumg payment, as reconGrmed in Alyeska Pipelme Serv. v.
Wilderness Soc.,421 U.S. 240 (1975), and requinns the reimbursement of anorney's fees as a condican of wahdrawal of an apphcanon wahout preju&ce. The latter is not an award for winrung anything, but is to save a party frorn the expense and effort of prepanng a defense twee because of the withdrawal without prejudice.
G There is nothing about NRC pracuce and regulanons whrh bars the payment of money as a con & ton for withdrawal of an apparanon wahout prejudre.
H An unusual sihiarv= prevads in an NRC procee&ng with respect to a &smissal in that ( I) n as a mandasory Irensmg procee&ng, not a sample adversary huganon, and (2) the &snussalis sought after a heanns and decison on the ments.
I Where an intervenor has last on the ments of an issue, a wdl sufTer no legal harm from a disnussal of an apphcation wahout prejuece, *=** the worst that can beset an micrvenor in that case is that a wdl be afforded an unearned second opportumty to prevad on the issue.
J Inservenors have standag to seek a &snussal with prejudice and aaorney's fees Subsumed a the nght to meervene wah NRC prar**4gs is the nght to enjoy the be=efits of the ensunng hagaten, to preserve any victory fw later use m a renewed hugs.non, or to be saved frorn 'egal harm if the need armes agam to hugare an assue upon which intervenors prevaded.
LBP-82-82 IDNG ISLAND UGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon, Una 1), Docket No.
50w322-OL(Emergency Planmngt OPERATING UCENSE; September 22,1982; MEMORANDUM AND OPDER RULING ON LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY EMERGENCY PLANNING DOCUMENTS A
The I.acensmg Board rules on clauns of anorney<l.ent, work product and execuuve pnvdcges asserted by a governmental meervenor in opposamon so two &acovery requests fmm apptrant for the produccon of certam emergency planmng documents B
Pursuant to 10 CTR 12.741(dL the pany upon shorn a request for the poducuan of documents as served must serve upon the requesung party, wnhan 30 days after servre of the request, a response staung enher that the requested inspection and copymg udl be pernutted, or staung reasons why the requested &scovery is objecuanable. Pursusnt to 10 CFR 92.740tf)(l), an evasive or scouplete answer or response shall be treated as a fadure to answer or respond.
48 2,
DIGESTS t
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFTTY AND IJCENSLNG BOARDS l
9 C
A party opposing a discovery request reed not seek a prosecuve order, pasuant to 10 CFR 92.7401c), so long as be does respond to the request by objectag. In ruimg u;'n a mouon to compel made e accordance with
$2.740(f), however, a board is empowered to make such a prosective order as it would make upon a enouon made pursuant to 52.740(c). A party objecting to the producnon of a documeni on grounds of pnvdege therefore has the
,e obliganon to specify an its response to a document request those same maners whxh it would be requued to set i
forth in anempting to estabhsh " good cause" for the issuarr:e of a prosecave order.
D What consatutes " good cause" fa the issuance of a protecove order depends upon the kind of prosecuve order being sought. In order to show good came for the issuance of a potecove order, pursuant so 10 CFR 82.740tc), to avoid the duclosure of docurnents for which an evidentiary privilege is claimed, a party must specifically designate and desenbe (1)the documents claimed to be pnvileged. (2) the pnvilege bemg asserted and (3) the precise reasons'why the party beheves the pnvdese to apply to such documents E
A party asserung certam documents to be pnvikged from &scovery must bear the burden of prova.g that it is enutled to such protecuan, see in re Fischel,557 F.2d 209 (9th Cr.1977), and this ecludes pleadmg such clauns adequately in its response. Clamis of pnvilege must be specifically asserted with respect to perucular documents, and may not be raised by blanket objecnon that all matters which could fit a partxular docurnent request ce pnvikge. See Unned States v. El Paso Company, No. 81-2484 (Sch Cr. August 13,1932); Umted States v Davis,636 F.2d 1(.28,1044, a 20 (5th Cir.1981). This is because d scovery pnvileges are not absolute, and may or may not apply to a partrular document dependmg upon a vanery of cucumstances F
la is not sufficient for a party asserung certain docurnetits to be pnvileged imm &scovery to await a j
motion to compel from the party seeking discovery pnar to setung forth its assernens of pivilege and idennfymg those maners whxh it claims to be pnvileged. Such a pracace places an unfar burden upon the party seekmg discovery and occasions unnecessary delays Claims of pnvilege are urunely unless asserted m the response to the discovery request.
G Pursuant to 10 CFR 62.740(bMI), parues may generally obtam discovery "regardmg any matter, not i
l pnvileged, whrh is relevant to the subject matter in the proceeding.
" While the only escovery pnvdege codified in the NRC regulations is the work produccon doctnne, the Commisson decision to model $2.740(b) aner Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure imphcaly adopted those pnvileges whxh have been recogmzed by Federal Courts interpretag Rule 26(b).
H While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not themselves directly apphcable to practice before the Commission, ju&cial 6rm;i.. of a Federal Rule can serve as gu dance fa the a h,of a sinular or r
analogous NRC discovery ule. Toledo Edison Company, et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Stanon).
ALAB-300,2 NRC 752,760(1975);Cinemnati Gas & Electnc Company. et al (Wm. H. Zammer Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), LBP.82-47,15 NRC 1538,1542 (1982).
I The purpose of the anomey<hent pnvilege is to encourage full and frank commumcanon between anomeys and their chents and thereby promote broader pubhc mterests a the observance of law and l
adnunistranon ofjusuce. Upjohn Co. v. Umsed States,449 U.S. 383,389 (1981). An attorney's involvement in, or r-.- - ---- of a transaccon does not place a cloak of secrecy around all incidents of such a transacuan. In i
l re Fischel,557 F.2d 209,212 (9th Cr.1977). The anomey-clent pnvilege does not protect &sclosure of the l
underlyi t acts commurucated to the attorney. Upjohn,449 U.S. at 395. A commumcanon from the naomey to f
the chent should be pnvileged only if the chent had a reasonable expectanon in the cunndentiahty of the l
statement,if it was necessary to c6tain mformed legal ad ice and might not have been made absent the pnvilege-l Ohm-Scaly Mattress Manufactunng Company v. Kaplan,9 F.R D. 21,28 (N D. Ill.1980).
(
The fact that a document is authored by in-house counsel, ratier than by an adependent attamey, is not 3
l relevant to a drierrrunahon of whether such a document is pnvileged. In such cases, however, the pnvdege protects only communicauons revealmg confidences of the chent or seekmg legal advste, not matters relatmg solely to the conduct of the chent's busmess O'Bnen v. Board of Educaten of Cry School Distnct of City of New York,86 F R.D. 548,549 (S.D.N.Y.1980); in te Fischel,557 F.2d 209,211 (9th Cr.1977).
K To be pnvdeged fmm escovery by the work product docinne, as to&fied in 10 CFR 12.740(b)(2), a document rnust be both prepared by an anomey, or by a person working at the direcnon of an attorney, and prepared in anocipation of htiganon. "Ordmary work product," =luch does not include the mental impressons.
l conclusions, legal theones or opmmns of the a'rorney or his agents, may be obtamed by an adverse party upon a showmg of " substantial need of the masen.ls an preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtam the substannal equivalent of the matenals by other means " 10 CFR 52.740(bM2) Opmmn work pmduct is not &scoverable, so kmg as the matenal was in fact prepar=d by an anomey or his agent m
,.,s.
~
1 l
1 l
l l
l l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS anticipanon of trtiganon, and not assembled in the ordmary course of business, or pursuant to pub:c requirements unrelased to 'niganon. In re Murphy,560 F.2d 326,334-336 (8th Car.1974 L
Cases decided under Exempion 5 of the Freedom of Informataon Act, whrh relates to inter-agency or inera-agency letters or nwmoranda, may be looked e for guidance in resolving claims of eaccuuve pnvilege in NRC proceedmgs related to discovery. Wlule the discovery rules for ?sims of execuuve yvilege "can only be appled under Exemption 5 by way of rough analogws," FPA v. Mmk. 410 U.S. 73. 86 (1973), the simitanues between these matters are suffrient such that Exempuan 5 cases may be used as guidance, taking a common seme approach whrh recogmzes any differmg equaws presented m FOIA cases. See Mmk,410 U.S. at 91. FOIA cases, for etample, do not consider a party's need for requested documents. NLRB v. Sears,421 U.S.132,149 n.16 (1975). NRC IVIA cases do consider the pubhc interest of such disclosures, however See Consurners Power Company (Pahsades Nuclear Power Facdity). A11801.12 NRC 117.122126 (1980) and cases cited therem.
M A
m.
.u,;e: unervenor does no waive as claims of execuuve privilege by us partripaten as a I;cgant in an NRC proceedmg. C-.
. Power Company (Pahsades Nuclear Power Facdity), AU-801,12 NRC I17,127-128 (1980).
N The privdese against discksure of intragovernment documents containing advisory ey.muns, r-
" and dehberatens is a pan of the broader execuuve pnvilege. Its purpose is to encourage frank discussons within the government regarding the formulaten of poiry and the makmg of decisions. Documents shwlext by executive pnydege remam pnvileged even after the decision to whKh they pertam has been effected, smce such disclosure at any ume could inhibit the free flow or advre. Federal Open Market Comnuttee of the Federal Reserve System v. Mern). 443 U.S. 340,360,(1979).
O The executive privilege is a quahried pnvilege, and does not attach to purely factual commumcanons, or so severable factual portens of commumcations, the disclosure of which would not compromise nuhtary or state secrets. Funhermore, even communracons which fall withm the protecten of the pnvilege may be disclosed upon an appropnate showing of need. An objective balancmg test es used to deternune a pany's need for such documents, weighmg the importsace of the documents to the party seekmg their productwn. and the availabihty elsewhere of the mformanon contamed in the documents, agamst the govemment interest in secrecy. Umted States v. leggett & Platt. Inc. 542 F.2d 655. 658459 (6th Cir.1976), cert. demed,430 U.S 945 (1977).
LBP-82-83 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (General Electne Moms Operaten). Docket No. 70L1308 (Application to Modify License No. SNM.1265 to increase Spent Fuel Storage Capseny). OPERATlNG LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 21, 1982. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPUCAT10N AND DISMISSING PROCEEDING WTIBOLT PREJUDICE REP-82-84 SOUTH CAROUN A ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, et 4 (Vrgd C. Summer Nuclear Staten, Unit I). Docket No. 50 3954L; OPERATING UCENSE; September 24, 1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The licensmg Board denws etervenor's request for a stay of the imual dectsion authanang the issuance of an operstmg trense, and grants intervends further request for leave to reply to NRC Staffs and apphcants' opposruons to unervenWs request to reopen proceedmg.
B la determming whether to grant a stay to reopen the proceedmg after the imual decisen has issued, the licensms Board edi consider the same four factors specifed by 10 CFk 52.7884e) relating to stays pendmg l
l appeal.
I C
If an meervenor cannos present his case, the proper orthod to msutute a proceedmg by which the NRC would conduct its own invesugaton is to requeu action under 10 CFR 52.206. It is not the Luensms Board's functwn to assist in-a prepanng ther cases and scarchmg for their expert witnesses.
IEP-g2-85 PACIFIC GAS AND ElICTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2).
Docket Nos 54275-OL,54323-OL; OPERATING UCENSE; September 27.1982, MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TU NRC STAFS MOTION IOR CLARIFICATION OF THE UCENSING BOARD'S ISTi DECISION DATED AUGUST 31,1982 la response to an NRC Staff monon, the 12censms Board clanfies certam matters pertammg to as Imual A
Decison of August 31,1982.
l.BP-82-86 METROPOUTAN EDISON COMPANY (Three Mde Island Nucleer Statmn, Umt No. I), Docket No.
I
(
30L289, RESTART; September 29.1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensmg Board rules that it is enhout junsdicten to rule on unervenor's mc, m to reopen the reccrd after issuance of the Board's instaal decision on the subject of the mouon.
h 41.
31
DIGESTS L%UANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOADDS Aher the issuance of a trensing board's initial decisen on a parucular issue, exclusive junsdxtaon over B
the issue les with the appeal board Secuon 2.717(a)of the Rules of Practace is reconcilaNe e th 12 7180)in that the idenary of the presiding officer wnh esclusive junsdxton over a pamcular issue changes as the proceedtrg G
moves up the appellate ladder. De pames should not be able to bestow Junsdicuon on a presulmg offwer selectmg the anbunal for the relef sought by a monen.
!.BP 82-87 TEXAS LTil1 TIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Stanon, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 54445, 50446, OPERATING IJCENSE, September 30,1982, ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION A
h Licensing Board durcts the Sta#ioidenufy by name individuals idevitified by letier of the alphabet in an inspection report whrh the Staff introduced in evidence, and to produce unexpurgated copies of signed w
matements taken from those indmduals, if the Staff fails either to comply with or seek appellate revww of tfus s
order, the Licensing Board mdzases it edt impose sanctons upon Staff counsel.
c
^
B Informer's pnvdege apples ordy to those who confidenually volunteer informanon to government offrials charged with enforcing alaw, not to everyone irnerviewed dunng the course of an ensutng mvesuganon.
C A smgle request for confulentiahty cannot be used to stueld an entire invesuganon from scrunny in an adjudacatory setung.
It is improper for the NRC Staff to anempt to dwtate to the lacensmg Board what maners it may or may D
not consider. h Licensmg Board is the sole judge of its mformanonal needs and is not required to act merely as an umpire calims balls and stnkes.
E h lacensms Bosni has the nght and duty to develop a full record for decisemaking in the pubic interest. The independence and mtegnty of hcensms boards is fundamental to dur process.
P Congress has authorued the NRC to provuje heanngs upon the request of any person whose uncrest may be a#ected by the hcensmg proceu and to estabhsh Imyusing boards to conduct such heanngs.
& Rules of Pracuce in Part 2 of 10 CFR are the nwthod by wtuch NRC ensures that all partws are G
primded pr-ahal as well as substanove due process.
Parues and their representanves are expected to conduct themselves before a hcensmg board as Ifwy H
would before a court of law.
A hcensmg board is emponered to impose sancuans for a pany's fadure to obey or seasonably appea I
from its order, even if the behavior is based upon the party's behef that the order is invahd.
32 dqg..e W
1 1
1
l O
a'
~
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-82 7 PACIHC GAS & E1ECTRIC COMPANY (Hurnboldt Bay Power Plant. Una 3), Docket No. S133, DECOMMISSIONING; July 7.1982 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon denes a pecten uru*er 10 CFR 2.206 that requests acten to revoke the opermang trense for the Hurnboldt Bay plant and to -h _-
--- the facihty.
DDwS2-8 PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (Seabrook Nuclear Station, Umts 1 & 2),
Docket Nos. S443, S444; SHOW CAUSE; July 6,1982; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 The Dutctor of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon dernes a peacon under 10 CFR 2.206 that requested A
autmanon of show-cause proceerhngs on the basis of the trensee's alleged lack of fmancial quahfcanon..
la light of the etunmauon of the Commission's financul quahfranon requirements, the Duettor of B
Nuclear Reactor Regulaeon demes a request for irunacon of show<ause proceedmgs in the absence of a connection between alleged fmancal cenaramts and a parucular safety problem.
DD 82 9 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (laSalle Couruy Generstmg Smoon Umts I and 21.
Docket Nos S373, S374, SHOW CAUSE; July 19,1982, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A
1he Duector of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon denes in part petiuons filed under 10 CFR 2.206 by the Blinois Attorney General and the Illmois Fnends of the Earth regarding dersenews in consaveten of LaSalle Una 1. Remaming maners concerning LaSalle Una 2 are under invesagaten.
DD 82-10 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nucicar Power Plant, Umts 1 and 2),
Docket Nos. S275, S276; OPERATING LICENSE; September 22, 1982; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The Duector of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denes a pecten under 10CF1t 2 206 requesung the iswine of an ader to Pacifs Gas & Electnc Co. to show cause why it should not be du d to fde amendments to its pending operstmg license apphcations cencernmg the restructunng by PG&E et the Diablo Canyon Project orgamzabon and management.
n 9
f 9
~
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DENIALS OF PETITIONS 50R RULEMAKL%
DPRM-321 GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY, Docke: No. PRM-95-l (10 CTR Pan 95), RULEMAKING, August 26,1982; DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RUliMAKING The Nuclear Regulatory Comnuuma is hereby denyms a petumn for ndemakmg subnuned by the A
General Asoms Company (GAC) m a tener to the Secretary of the Comnussen dated May 19,1931.1he pennon requested that the Comrrussion amend as regulanon relanng to the classafrauon guidance prtmded by sutHops 112 of Appendas A. "Classafraten Guide for Safeguards infnrmanon " to 10 CFR Part 95 to change the CONTIDENTIAL-Nanonal Secunty informatma (CNSI) classafsanon caiegory to :mclassaried (U) or to delete sub-topic 112 fmen Appendia A.
DPRM-32 2 WELLS EDDLEMAN, Docket No. PRM-2 II; OPERATING LJCENSE; September 30, 1982.
DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING The Commisson denses a pennon stquesung that the Commissaan amend its rules of practxt for A
domesas hmnsing proceedmgs to require a seperam operanns hcense beanng fa each power reactor una as a nuclear power plant sne on the grounds that the requessed amendments are unneceuary, conawy to sound adnurustranve pracuce, and inconsistent wnh caisung law.
B There is no reason to beheve that an amendmem to NRC regulanons to requut an exclusive heanns on each reactor umt will res.,h in or enhance the consideranon of any issues whrh couW not also have been considered and considered equally well in a heanng on two or enore unas.
C There is no reason to beleve that the c'esa of persons who couW be included or escluded from partripatmg in an operaung hcense heanns on two or more reactor usuts constnacted on a muluunn sue wouW be different fmm d4 class of persons who wouW be ecluded or escluded fmm perucipanns in an OL heanngdevoted exclusively to any segle reacta una constructed on the same maluunit sne.
D A separate operaung trense is issued for each reactor urut constructed on e nudouna sne even though a consolutated heanng is held on several reacta uruts. Before an operaung hcense for a reactor und is issued, the Comrmumn must make the requisne fmdmgs and determmanons requared by the regulanons in effect at the ame of hcense issuance.
E Rules of practre pernut the Commsssion to consider two or more apphcanons in the same hcensms revww and to consolwiare two or anore proceedangs for heanng.
F Akhough used afrequendy, the Commassaan's rules of precuc2 also provide procedures for sevenng a proceedmg deahng wah two or snare reactor units and for holdmg a separate operanng hcense heanns on each reactor unn.
The segue ' d amendment would, if adopeed, have the effect of reqmnns a mandaiory OL hearms in G
connecten wnb th6.auance of an OL frv each nuclear power reactor. In dus respect, the requested amendment is contrary to theclear irsent of Congress whrh,in 1%2, amended secten ig9e of the Atonuc Energy Act of 1954 en ehnunare the requirement far mandatory heanngs in OL proceedmgs and to pernut the Commissen, in any case in whrh a beanng was not requested, to issue an OL wahout a heanng.
H The OL heanns is hmned to exammmg substannal changes or condiuons whrh have occurred smce the issuance of the construction perma and issues whrh were deferred for considersoon at the OL stage of the proceedmg-I It is inappopnase to consider the issue of sufficwnt NRC personnel in a trensms proceeding. includmg a beanns on an OL. Issues relanns to Commisson personnel evolve the unernal organtzauon and management of the agency whrh is subrect toCongreumnal authonzaten, and for which the Commission, not a hcense appiscant or an intervenor, has sole responsibday.
J The Commission has amended as regulanons in 10 CFR Pans 2 and 50 to ehrnanate enurely requaements for fmancial quahficanons review and findings for electnc uutnaes that are applymg for constructen pernuts or operatag hcenses for producten or unhzauon facdmes.
+
35
O LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES A. L Meckhng Barge lines, Inc. v. Unned Scares, M8 U.S. 324 (l%I) remandmg of case based on record that no longer rgeesents case's actua* uruanon; CU-82 26,16 NRC 881 (1982)
Alde Investmmt Company v. Unned States,53 F.R.D. 485 (D. Neb.1971) manmal encompassed by attorney work product doctrme; LBP-82-82,16 t'RC 1161,1162 (1982)
Adickes v. Kress and Company,398 U.S.144,157 61970) tarden of proof in summary dispusinon motons, LBP-82-58,16 NRC 519 (1982)
Advuory Comm. Nose to 1970 Amendmenta to Fed. P. Civ. Proc.,48 F.R.D. 459,499 (19'0) adarm of NRC discovery rules from Feders! Rules; LBP-82-82,16 NRC i159 (1982)
Aeschhman v. Nuckar Regulaeory Commission,547 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir.1976) neel to consider envuonmental impacts of nuckar fuel cycle; ALAB491,16 NRC 903 (1982)
Alabama Power Company Ooseph M. Farley Nuclear Pl nt Umts I and 2), AIAB-182,7 AEC 210,216 (1974) limnaoca on matters to be resolved in operstmg license proceedmgs LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1086 (1982)
Alabama Power Company Ooseph M. Farley Nuckar Plant Umts I and 2), AIAB-182,7 AEC 210,217 (1974) analogy bet veen summary dispouuan procedures and Rule 56 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 51A20 0982)
Alabama Power Company Ocacph M. Farley Nuckar Plant. Unns I ard 2), CLI 74-12,7 AEC 203 (1974) apphcation of collateral essoppel, LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1044,1081 (1982)
Akaander v. Hall,64 F R.D.152,155 (D.S C.1974) defisunon of armcus cunae; ALAB479,16 NRC 125 0982)
Allied General Nuclear Servres (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Sarage Staten) AIAB-328,5 NRC 420 (1976) stand ng of peouoner in b.;. ; c.non proceedmg to trugate related waste disposal usue.,1.BP-82-52,16 NRC 191 (198.)
Alled General Nuclear Services, et al. (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328,3 h1C 420, 422 41976) insumciency of interest test alone to confer standmg; LBP-82 74,16 NRC 983 (1982)
Alyeska Pipelme Serv. v. Wilderness Soc.,421 U.S. 240; 44 L.Ed 2d 141; 95 5 O.1612 (1975) basis for award of intervenors' anorney's fees LBP 82-81,16 NRC 1839 0982)
Amerxan Cyananud Company v. M: Ghee. 317 F.2d 295 (5th Cr.1%3) conditons that regere payment of coats and anorney's fees; LBP 82-81,16 NRC 1839 0982)
Associated General Connactors v. Ouer Tad Power Company,611 F.2d 684 (8th Cr.1979) abdity of miervenor groups te represent their members adequately; CU-82-15,16 NRC 32 (1982)
Austracan, (U.S A.) lac. v. M/V 1.emancore, 500 F.2d 237,239-40 (5th Cir.1974) situations giving nse to appealable order; AIAB490,16 NRC 895 0982)
Black v. Sheraron Corp.,371 F.Supp 97 (D D C.1974) burden to demonstrate enntlernent to esecunve pnvdege; LBP.82-82,16 NRC 1165 (1982)
Bosaan Edison Company (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Stanon Umt I), AIAB-231,8 AEC 633 (1974) appellate review of Licensing Board ruimgs on econorme issues, unervenuon requests, or procedural maners, AIAB491,16 NRC 908 (1982) entent of Agpeal Board sua sponte review authonty; ALAB489,16 NRC 890 (1982)
Boston Edison Company, et al (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Station, Omt 2), ALAB-656,14 NRC %5 0981) remandmg of case based on record that no loriger represents case's actual situanon; CU-82-26,16 NRC 8810982) vacanon of unrevsewed judgments because of montness; CU-82-18,16 NRC 51 (1982)
BPI v. Atomic Energy Comrmssen,502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir.1974) unervenuon on enforcement etens CU-8216,16 h7C 45 (1982) 37
~#
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES BPI v. Akume Energy Cornmassen,502 F.2d 424,428429 (D C. Cir.1973) requaement fa threshold showmg of basis and specificity for admissen of contenuon, LBP-82 75,16 NRC 993 G
(1982) o
[
BPI v. Anome Energy Commanion,502 F.2d 428 (D C Cr.1974) l condatons to the right to a beanng; ALAB487,16 NRC 469 (1982)
Burtmgton Industnes v. Eamon Corp.,65 F R D. 26,37 (D Md.1974)
encompassed by aticency<hent pnvilege;12P-42-82.16 NRC i158 (1982) l Calvert Chffs Coordmatmg Committee v. AEC,449 F.2d 1109,1819 (D C. Cr.1971) j Ucenseg Board responsabalay to develop the record; LBP-82-87,16 NRC 1199 (1982)
Carolma Power and Light Company (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant Umts 1,2,3 arst 4), ALAB-577,11 NRC 18,23-24, revened in part of other ground's, CU-80wl2, II NRC 514 (1980) j standard for appeal by umnjured pany; ALAB494,16 NRC 960 (1980)
Carolma Power and Light Company (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant Umts I,2,3 and 4), CU-74-22,7 AEC
~'
939 (1974)
Comrmssaan authonry to allow constructen activines pnar to issuance of consoucten permit, CLI-82-23,16 NRC 421 (1982) l Carolma Power and Light Company (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I,2,3, and 4) LBP 78-2,7 bRC 83 (1978) junsdztaan of I w g Board to reopen the record; LBP-82 54,16 NRC 214 (1982)
[
n Cass v. Unned States 417 U.S. 72 (1974) g detenmams intent of regulanons; CU-82-19,16 NRC 62 (1982)
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. v. Occupatsnal Safety and Health Admmistraten 636 F.2d 464 (D C. Cu.
I 1979) l Imuts on agency prerogatives to interpret polwy staternents; LEP-8249,16 NRC 753 (1982)
I Chapman v. Pactfr Tel. & Tel. Company,613 F.2d 193 (9th Cr.1979)
}
NRC Staff duty to obey Licensing Bosni orders, LEP-82-87,16 NRC 1203 (1982) 1 Chelsea Neighbor' mod Ass'as v. U.S. Postal Servre,516 F.2d 378,388 (2d Cr 1975) j consuleranon of psychologral stress issues under NEPA, LEP-82-53,16 NRC 203 (1082)
Cherry v. Brown Frazaer Wlutney,528 F.2d %5 (D C. Cir.1976) persissence of apptrant m seeking decision on the ments of us constructen pernut ar trauon as cause for dismissal with prejudre; LBP-82 81,16 NRC 1136 (1982)
Cincenati Gas and Electne Company, et al. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuckar Power Staten). LBP-8014,11 NRC 570, 571 (1980) contenton requirernent for unervenuon; LBP-82-74,16 NRC 985 (1982)
Carmnau Gas and Ekstnc Company, et al. (Walham H. Zammer Nuclear Power Stauon) LBP-80w14,11 NRC 570, 574 (1980), appeal dismissed, ALAB-595, II NRC 860 (1980) example of good cause for acceptance of late contenton; LBP.8243,16 NRC 577 (1982)
Cincinnau Gas and Electne Company, et al. (Wilham H. Zimr er Nuckar Pom-Staton), LBP-80L24,12 NRC 23I, 237 (1980) l unportance of unervenor's abday to contnbute to the record through late fucJ cc,ntentens standards for adrmtung late-riled TM1 contenuons; LBP-8243,16 NRC 578 (1982)
I Cincanati Gas and Electnc Company, et al. (Wdharn H. Zammer Nuclear Power Stanon. Una l). LBP 8247,15 NRC 15.18,1542 (1982) nie of 6.y.e - = of Federal Rules as guidance for sterpreung smular NRC rules, LBP 82-82,16 NRC !!57 l
(1982)
{
Curuman Gas and Electnc Company, et al. (Wditam H Zammer Nuclear Power Stauon, Urut 1) LEP-8247,15 NRC 1538,154546 (1982) objectons to discovery requests LEF R2-82,16 NRC 1154 (1982)
Cummnati Gas and Electnc Company, et al. (Wdham H. Zimmer Nuclear Poect Staten, Umt 1), LBP-8248,15 NRC 1602 (1982) form and contents of emergency plannmg puble mformanon brochures LBP-8246,16 NRC 732 (1982)
Citizens to Save Spencer County v. EPA,600 F.2d 844,876 (D C. Cr.1979)
{
imuts on agency preroganves to interpret pohcy statements. LEP-8249,16 NRC 753 (1982)
I, 38 w-
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES ClevelarJ Electnc 11tummatmg Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALA 730, 7 4 737 (1975) delegmuon of Licensing Board audenty no NRC Staff, LEP-8248,16 NRC 748 (1982)
Ckveland Electnc Dlummatmg Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2), AIAB44 74l (1977) burdens met in Staff's and apphcants' statements of matenal facts regardmg A7WS comennon, LB NRC 482,483 (1982)
Cleveland Ekctnc Dlummaung Company, et al. (Perry Nuckar Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB4 741, 752 (1977)
Licensms Board responsibilay so develop ifw record, LBP-82-87.16 NRC 1899 (1982)
Cleveland Electnc Dlummaung Company, et al. (Perry Nwlear Powcr Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB-44 741, 753-54 (1977) analogy between summary dispositen procedures and Ruk 56 of Federal Rules of Cml Ni;C 519-20 (1982)
Ckveland Electnc illummaung Company, et al. (Perry Nuckar Power Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB4 l105, 1113-14 (1982) meerlocutory revww so awnd unsual detsy; ALAB487,16 NRC 464 (1982)
Cleveland Elecinc Dlummatmg Company, et al (Perry Nuckar Power Plant. Umts I and 2), LBP-175, 199-200 (1981) rehugaton of issues at operaung hcense state by intervenors not parues to consom perrmt p LBP-8124,16 NRC 1087 (1982)
Cleveland Electnc Blummatmg Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), LB 348, 351-52 (1982) good cause for late filng; LBP-82 53,16 NRC 200 (1982)
Commissoner v. Sunnen, 333 U.5 591, $99400 (1948) encepuon to the rule of res judicata; CU-82-23,16 NRC 420 (1982)
Commonweahh Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB459,14 N a 2 (1981) encepuca to termmaren of Licetning Board junsdsction under 2.718(j), LBP-82 86,16 NR Commonwealth Edison Company (Byrun Nuclear Power Staten, Umts I and 2) ALAB478,15 NR driernunmg sanctons to be irnposed on NRC Staff. LBP-82-59,16 NRC 538 (1982) impossuon of sancuens for party's fadure to comply with preheanng conference ord (1982)
Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuckar Power Lauen. Umts I and 2). ALAB-678,15 NR (1982) appiraten of NEPA " rule of reason" to apphcant's responses to,,u. 3.~, As, LBP-8247,16 FRC 736 (1982)
Commonweahh Edison Company (Zaon Stauon Umts I and 21, ALAB-l%. 7 AEC 457,460 (1974) l adaptaton of NRC discovery ruks frorn Federal Pules; LBP 82-82,16 NRC 1859 (1982) l Conservation Society of Southern Vermont v. Secretary of Transportauon,531 F 2d 637 (2d Cir.197 l
conditens allowmg segrnentation of major federal accons. CLI-82-23.16 h1C 424 (1982)
Consohdated Edison Ccnipany of New Yort Inc. (Indian hat, Umts I,2 and 3), ALAB 304,3 NRC alles.csons of future harm fron, decontammauon of other reactors not a basis for sta (1982)
Consolutated Edison Company of New York,Inc. (Indian Pomt. Umts 1,2 and 3), ALAB-304,3 role of NRC Staff. LBP-82-87,16 NRC 1200 (1982)
Consolutated Edison Company of New York,Inc. (Indian Point. Umts I,2 and 3), ALAB-319,3 N (1976) hmitauen on matters to be resolved m operatag Scense proceedings; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 108 Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Ptxnt Nuclear Plano. ALAB436,13 NRC 312 (1981) need for discussen of ahemauves so spent fuel pool capensson at Big Rock Pomt, LBP-8L (1982) need to consider consmued plant operauon resuhmg frorn grant of hcense amendment, LBP (1982) bI 39 l
l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES C=-
e Power Company (Big Rock Poet Nuclear Plant) ALAB436,13 NRC 312. nose 2 (1981)
G when ammus partripanon is aDowed. A1AB479,16 NRC 126 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Big Rak Poma Nuclear Plant), LBP-8240,16 NRC 540,54546 (1982) form and consents of emergency plann5g pubhc informanon tirochures, LDP-8246,16 NRC 732 (1982)
Consumers Pt wer Company (Mdand Plant. Unas I and 2), ALAB-235,8 AEA. 445 (1974) excepnan 46 termmauon of Licens.,3 Board jurudxtum under 2 7180); LBPC to,16 NRC 1191 (1982)
Consurves Power Compary (Mdand Plant. Umts I and 2), ALAB-235,8 AEC 645, el6 (1974) ume for fdag objecuans to nonfmal decisions; L3P-82 72,16 NRC 971 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Mdand Plant, Unas I and 2), ALAB-270, l NRC 473,476 (1975) fadure of intervenor to suppret its anaernons on appeal, ALAB493.16 NRC 955 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant Unas I and 2) ALAB 282,2 NRC 9,10 a.l (1975) neceststy for fihng excepions; ALAB494,16 NRC 95940 (1982)
I Consumers Power Company (MnNd Plant Unns I and 2), ALAB-315,3 NRC 101 (1976) f encephon to nde placmg beden of proof on proponent of show cause order; LRP 8244.16 NRC 655 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Mdand Plant Unds I and 2). ALAB-382,5 NRC 603 (1977) propnery of callms independent esperts as Board wanesses; LAP-82-55,16 NRC 277 (1982) j C-e Power Company (Mdand Plant. Umts 1 and 2). ALAB-382,5 NRC 603,606 (1977) m
- ; in wtuch duccted certirmanon is warranted, LEP-8242,16 NRC 567 (1982) l Consumers Power Company (Mdand Plant. Umts I and 2), ALAB 382,5 NRC 603,608 (1977) i discrenon of Licensmg Board to ese irviepsadent esperts as wunesses; LEP-82 55,16 NRC 270 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Mdand Ptar,1, Umts I and 2), ALAB-458,7 NRC ISS. 161 43 (1978) consideranon of fmancial costs in NEPA conthnefit balance; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 526 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Mdand Plant, Un is I and 2), ALAB434,13 NRC %,99 (1981) apperJ board audiorny to dechne Lacensmg Board referrals; ALAB487,16 NRC 464 (1982)
Consumers Power Cornpany (Mdand Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB4M,15 NRC 1101 (1982) jwudruon of Operaung License Board to conuder suffriency of qualwy assurance at Seabrook; LDP-82 76,16 l
NRC 1069 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Mdand Plant, Umts I and 2) # AB474,15 NRC 1101,110243 (1982) l lunnauon on maners to be resolved in operstag license proceedmg;; LSP-82-76,16 NRC 1086 (1982) l C-.
- Power Company (Mdand Plant, Umts I and 2), A1AB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) censure of counsel for blanket asseruans of pnvdege; LSP-82-82,16 NRC 1854 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Mdand Plant Unns I and 2), ALAB491.16 NRC 897,90607 (1982) standard for considerauon of issues raised for first time on appeal; ALAB493,16 NRC 956 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (%dland Plant, Umts I and 2), LAP 78-27,8 NRC 275 (1978) pracuces and armbership pohcies of inservenor groups; CLI-8215,16 NRC 32-33 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Mdand Plant, Umts No. I and 2), ALAB-33,4 AEC 701 (1971) j disclosure of matenal protected by execuuve pnvdege, LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1163 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Pahsades Nuclear Power Facddy), AL1841 (Snuth.1),12 NRC 117,127128 l19ho) weaver of clauns of caecuuve pnvilege by perucipanon as a laisant;12P-82 82,16 NRC 1864 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Pahsades Nuclear Power Facdity) AL1841.12 NRC 117,121-26 (1980) l appbcanon of Esempuan 5 of Freedom of informauon Act to intragovernmental Communsanons; lap-8242,16 NRC l163 (1982)
Consumers Power Compeay (Pahsades Nuclear Power Facihty). LEP 79 20,10 NRC 108,113 (1979) satisfacuan of interest test for standmg; LEP-82 74,16 NRC 983 (1982)
Crest Auso Sughes,Inc. v. Ero Manufactunns Company,360 F.2d 896,899 (7th Cir.1966) favoralminy a wwwmg sumnary disposanon monon; LSP-82 58,16 NRC 519 (1982)
Danyland Power Cooperanve (La Crosse Bodmg Water Reutor), LSP-842,11 NRC 44 (1980) need for study of ahernauves to spent fuel pool espansion; L2P-82-78,16 NRC l108 (1982)
Daryland Power Cooperauve (La Crosse Boding Water Reactor), LBP-842, il NRC 44,47 (1980), affumed (in perunent pan), ALAB417.12 NRC 430 (1980) transferral of osernung authonry; LEP-82-58,16 NRC 515 (1982s l
Daryland Power Cooperauve (la Crosse Boding Water Reactor), LBP-842, II NRC 44,73-77 (1980)
,-,y,a.i-,, of the term "avadable resources"; LBP-82 78,16 NRC 1812 (1942)
S l
l l
r m
% %4 w
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Detroit Edison Cccipany (Ennco Fermi Aiormc Power Plant, Una 2). ALAB470,7 NRC 473. 475 (1978) parte =nership of factiny as starmhng to intervene, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1032 (1982)
Duke Power Company ( Amendment to Masenals bcenu SNM-1773 - Trsasponmon of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Stauon for Sacesse at McGuire Nuclear Stauon). ALAB 528,9 NRC 146,150 (1979) weight given to unumelmess of interventen peuten, when laseness is not estmne, LBP-82 74.16 NRC 9 DiAe Fswer Company (Cata=be Nuclear 5 anon. Unas I and 2), ALAl,355,4 NRC 397,41)(1976) disposanon of 1
,, w: tmefs. ALAB493,16 NRC 956 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Cherokee Nuclear Sianon Units I,2 and 3), ALAB,440,6 NRC f42. 64445 (1977) conuquences of etervente's failure to file proposed fmdangs of fact ALAB-691.16 MtC 907 (1982)
Back of juntarration for unumely mee vention,IAP-8243,16 NRC 586 (1982)
Duke Pc=er Company (Cherokee Nuclear Statow Unas 1. 2 and 3). ALAB 478. 7 NRC 772,773 (1978) necesswy for $1mg esceptions. ALAB494,16 NRC 959 (1982)
Duke Power Corr;nny (Perbt2 Nuclear Staten, Usuis I. 2 and 3), AIAB-597, il NRC 870 (1980) sub)ect maner Junsdnton of Lacenseg Board, LBP-82-86,16 NRC 1191 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Perbns Nuclear Staton, Une I,2 and 3), ALAB-597, il NRC $70. 874 a 8 (1980) tune fcr fahng ab ectens to nonfmal decisnes, LDP 82-72,16 NRC 978 (1982) l Duke Power Company (Perbns Nuclear Staten. Uans I,2 and 3), ALAB415,12 NRC 350,452 (1980) sho=mg requsmi of pro w traervenor for admisamn of ! ate filed comenton, LEP-8243.16 NRC 578 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Perbns Nuclear Station, Unns I,2, and 3), LBP 78 25,8 NRC 87,100 (1978)
Appeal Board concunence with conclusaon of; ALAB450,14 NRC 909 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Wilham B. M<name Nwlear Station, Umts I and 2), AIAB 143,6 AEC 623,625 (1973) apphcation of relevance and marenahry s:andards, LBP-82 73,16 NRC 978 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Wilham B. McGuut Nuclear Staten. Une I and 21. ALAB469,15 NRC 453 (1982) acope of hydrogen control issue considered, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1065 (1982)
Duke Power Company v. Carolma Environmental Sandy Group,438 U S $9,74 (1978) prosmuty so radmastive source as basis for standmg to antervene. ALAB482,16 NRC 154 (1982)
Duke Power Company, et al. (Catamba Nuclear Stat:an Unas I and 2) AIAS487,16 NRC 460 (1982) adnussituhty of contentons based on unavailable documents, LBP 82 75,16 NRC 1008,1009,1017 (1982),
IEP-82 76,16 NRC 1044,1055,1068,1075,1079,1080,1094 (1982)
Duke Power Company, et al. (Catamba Nuclear Stanon Units I and 2) ALAB487,16 NRC 460 (1982) densal of consentens addressms offuse eme.gency plannmg issues LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1030 (1982)
Duke Pe=er Company, et al (Cata=be Nuclear Stanon Umts I and 2), ALAB487,16 NRC 460,465 (1982) agreal toard reluctarre to certify quesuons involves scheduhng; ALAB488,16 NRC 475 (1982)
Duke Power Company, et al (Cata=be Nuclear Stanon, Units I and 2), AIAB487.16 NRC 460,4.7 (1982) contravention of heanng nghts. LBP 82-87,16 NRC 1200 (1982)
Duke Power Company, et al (Cata=be Nuclear Staton, Unns I and 2), LBP-8216,15 NRC 566,57172 and n 6 (1982),IAP 82-50,15 NRC 1746 (1982) enciunstances mapprornate for applyng five-facsor test to late-filed contentmns; LEP-8243,16 NRC 577 (1 Easen v. Carhale & Jacquehn,417 U.S.156.173-175 (1974) loss of nght to heanns through lack of notre, ALAB482,16 NRC 158 (1982)
Energy Rewrves Group, Inc. v. Department of Ene sy,89 F.2d 1082,1096 (T E C.A.1978)
Imuts on agency prerogmoves to interpret polwy statements, LSP-8249,16 NRC 753 (1982)
DA v. Mmk 416 U S. 73. 8687 and n 34 (1973) opptration of Enemgenn 5 of F*eedom of Infonnaten Act to intrsgovernmental communratons, LBP NRC l163 (1982)
Feders! Open Market Comnuttee of the Feders! Rewrve System v. Merni,443 U S 340,360 (1979) lengtit of time documents shselded by esecunve pnvilege remaan pnvileged. LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1164 Fisher v. Unned States,425 U.S. 391,40345 (1976) purpose of attorney <hent pnvile8e;IEP 32 22,16 NRC 1157 (1982)
F3anda Power & bght Company (Turkey Poun, Unas 3 and 4) 4 Aff 9,12-83 (1967) standards for safeguardmg special nuclear matenals. CLJ-8219,16 NRC 76 (1982)
Flanda Power and bght Company Gurkey Poma, Units 3 and 4),4 AEC 9,1112, affirmed sub nom. Sacrel v-AEC,400 F 2d 778. 781-84 (D C. Cr 1968) l geovidmg design feanses for paracularued threats of sabotage CU-82-19,16 NRC 73 (1982) i l
~
41 l
l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Friet>1ay of Pw!rto Rxo,Inc. v. Canas. 92 F R D 384 (D P R.1981) specificwy requued of notaan for recowderstum LBP42 ea,16 NRC 749 (1982)
FTC v. Tesaco,355 F 2d 867,881 (D C. Cw.1977), cert. demed. 431 U S. 974 (1977) reheanns dened,434 G
U S. 88)(1977) at 893-94 appixsuon of res judxata wtra agency decison involves substantaal polsy issues CLI 82-23.16 NRC 420 (1982)
Gage v. Unsied Staats Anomac Energy C-
-. 479 F 241214,1220 a 19 (D C. Cir.1972) need for heanns on construccon acoviues uunated pnar to constructmn pernus issuatus.CLI-82 23.16 NRC 421 pJP7 ~
(1982)
Gwdon v. Unned States,418 F.2d 858,875 (5th Cir ), cert dened 404 U.S. 82811971) scope of mformer's pnvdege; LBP-82 87,16 NRC 1198 (1982)
G:eene County Plannmg Board v. FTC,455 F 2d 412,419 (2nd Car.1972) bcenseg Board responsibility to develop the record, LBP-82 87,16 NRC 1199 (1982)
Gulf States Oulars Company (River Bend Stanon. Umts I and 2), ALAB-183,7 AEC 222,228 (1974) f "-
advantage of use of summary disposanon rule; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 519 (1982)
Gulf States Utaliues Company (River Bend Staten, Umts I and 2) ALAB 358. 4 NRC 558 (1976) effect of change in intervenmg organuanon's reprewntaton of memlership; LBP 82-54,16 NRC 215 (1982)
Gulf States Unlitars Company (River Bend Staton, Units I and 2). ALAB444. 6 NRC 760 (1977)
Board responsibshry to cons der unresolved genens safety isrues na spent fuel pimi modificaten proceedmg; 118-8245,16 NRC 723 (1982) obligauons of mierested state adrmtted as full party; LBP 82J6,16 NRC 1079 (1982) place for revwn of unresolved safety issues; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 104311982)
Gulf Staics Uulitrs Company (River Bend Staton, Umts I and 2), ALAB444,6 NRC 760,77173 (1977) fadure of r.auon blackout contentum to sausfy nraus reqmrement, LBP-8243,16 NRC 591 (1982)
Harnson v. Northern Trust Company,317 U.5 476,479 (1943) deternuams intent of regulanons, CL!-82-19.16 NRC 62 (1982)
Heahh Research Group v. Kennedy,52 F R D. 21 (D D C,1979) intervennon by a group having sponsors rather than numbers. CLI-8215,16 NRC 31,32 (1982)
Hrkman v. Taylor,329 U.S. 495 (1947) matenal encompassed by lawyer wort product. ALAB491,16 NRC 917 (1982)
Hickman v. Taylor,329 U S. 495,508 (1947) adaptatma of NRC discovery rules from Federal Rules; LBP-82 82.16 NRC 1159 (1982)
Holday Queen Land Corp v. Baker,489 F.2d 1031,1032 (5th Cw.1974) basis for depadng frorn rule of disnussal of appixatons widious prejudice, LBP42-81,16 NRC 1135 (1982)
Houston bghtmg and Power Company (A!Iens Creek Nuclear Generaung Stauon) ALAB435,13 NRC 309,310 (1981) standards for granung discretmnary interlocutory renew; LBP-8242,16 NRC 568 (1982)
Houston bghtmg and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Genersung Staten. Umt 1), ALAB-535,9 NRC 377 (1979) failure of orgamzaten to comply with requuenents for standmg. LBP-82-52,16 NRC 185 (1982) reprewruatonal requirement for organuanon seeking standing to meervene, LBP-82-54,16 NRC 2f6 (1982)
Houston Ughtmg and Pbwer Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Staten. Umt 1). ALAB-547,9 NRC 63 (1979) appeal board policy concernmg enforcement ume Imuts on appeals frorn Ucensing Board proceedmss, 16 NRC 165 (1982)
Houston Lightmg and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Staten. Umt I) ALAB $65,10 NRC 521 (1979) responw by meervenor so applicants' arguments opposmg muuan to reopen record, LBP 82 54.16 NR responses of miervenors to apphcant. Staff, and Board questions, LBP-8243,16 NRC 576 (1982)
Houston Ughtmg and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Genermung Staten. Omt 1), ALAB 590,11 NR 542, 546 (1980) consideration of totally deficent bnef prepared by layman. ALAB-693,16 NRC 957 (1982)
Houston bghung and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Staten. Umt 1). ALAB-590, il NRC 542,54A(1980) showmg required of pro w mtervenor for admisson of late-filed contenton, LEP-8243,16 NRC 57:(1982) 42 a
F
%a h
I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX sW
- Hausson uskog and Power Courremy (Allens Creek Nuclear Genermung Scanon, Una 1), A1AB-590, il NRC 542, 547-49 (1980) resoluuan of factual quescons in considenng admissibihty of conwabons; LBP-8243,16 NRC 581. 583,587,588 (1982)
Housson Ughteg and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Genernung Stanon, Una 1) A1AB-590, il NRC 542, 550L51 (194))
encouragement of noe of summary disposman procedures LBP 82-58,16 NRC 519 (1982)
He= Ughtmg and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Genermung Stanon Una 1), ALAB471,15 NRC 508 (1982) standards for evaluaung new contenuons; LBP-8243,16 NRC 576 (1982)
Houston Ughtmg and Power Cortpany (South Tetas Pro)ect, Umts I and 2), LSP-8154,14 NRC 918,922-23 &
a 4 (1981)
- allowing invocanon of Appeal Board's sua sponte authonty; A1AB485,16 NRC 452 (1982)
Houston Lightmg and Power Company, et al. (South Teams Project Umts I and 2), ALAS 408,12 NRC 168,170 (1980) usandards for ganting discreuonary interlocutory review; LBP-8242,16 NRC 568 (1982)
Housson Ughams and Power Company, et al. (South Teaan Project, Unns I and 2), ALAB437,13 NRC 367. 370 (1981) standards for granung ducretionary interlocutory reyww; LBP-8242,16 NRC 568 (1982)
Houston U$ tang and Power Company, et al. (South Texas Project Unas I and 2), ALAB437,13 NRC 367, 370w71(1981) appeal bowd reluctance to cerufy questions involving schedulmg; AIAB488,16 NRC 475 (1982)
Hcussion Ustums and Power Company, et al. (South Tenas Project Unas I and 2), ALAB439,13 NRC 469,471, 473 74,475 a.20,476,477,478 a.26 (19811 ywidmg of informer's pnvdege; LBP-82 59,16 NRC 537-38 (1982)
Houston Ughtmg and Power Cesapany, et al. (South Texas Propct, Umts 1 and 2), ALAB439,13 NRC 469,483 a 6 (1981) enwns of infonner's pnvilege; LBP-82-87,16 NRC 1202 (1982)
Houston Ughung and Power Company, et al- (South Tenas Project. Umts I and 2), CU-80'32,12 NRC 281 (1980) dental of operstag hcense because of management incompetence; LBP-82-54,16 NRC 221,223 (1982)
Pouston Ughtmg and Power Company, et al (South Texas Project Units I and 2), LBP 79'27,10 NRC 563 l
l (1979), affumed summardy A1AB-575, Ii NRC 14 (1980) applicanon of collateral essoppel so rehtiganon of sounsm impact contenuon LBP 82-76,16 NRC 1081 (1982)
I Hunt v. Washmston Staie Apple Adverusing Commisson,432 U.S. 333 (1977) abdity of intervenor groups to reprewns ther members adequately; CLI-8215,16 NRC 32 (1982)
Illmois Power Company (Cimeon Power Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB 340,4 NRC 27,48 (1976) considerauon of fmancial costs in NTPA cost-benefit balance;1JlP-82-58,16 NRC 526 (1982)
Dluuns Power Company, et al- (Cimson Power Staten. Umts I and 2), LBP-61-56,14 h1C 1035 (1981) severance of consohdated paceedags; DPRM-82-2,16 NRC 1215 (1982)
[
la re Fischel,557 F.2d 209 (9th Cir.1977) burden of proof for claun of esecuuve pnvdege; LBP-82-82,16 NRC !!53 (1982) la re Fischel. 557 F.24 209,211,212 (9th Cu 1977) communicatens encornpassed by anomey<hent pnvilege; LBP-82 82,16 NRC 1158 (1982) is is Grand Jury Subpoena Dated November 8.1979,622 F.2d 933,934 a 1 (6th Cir.1980) essent of anorney wort product pivilege; A1AB450,14 NRC 917 (1982)
In se Murphy,560 F.2d 326,334,336 n.20 (8th Cr.1977) clanficanon of anomey work product doctnne; LBP 82-82,16 NRC 1160,1161 (1982) la re Scaled Case,676 F.2d 793, at 806-807 specificay requued of claims of esecuuve pnvdege; LBP-82-82,16 NRC II53 (1982) la re Walsh,623 F.2d. 489,494 (7th Cir ), cen. demed sub nom. Walsh v. Umied States 449 U.S. 994 (1980)
--- encompassed by anomey<hent pnvilege; LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1859 (1982) l l
1 l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES In&ana and Mstugan EJectnc Company (Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unas I and 2), CU-72-75,5 AEC 13,14 (19'2) 9 example of good cause for acceptance of law conunnon,12P4243,16 NRC 577 (1982)
Internanonal Harvesser Company v. fu m' Safety and Heakh Revww Conumssace,628 F.2d 982,986 (7th Cr.1980) appleauon of res pahcata by an adrmanstranve agency; CU42-23,16 NRC 420 (1982) loma Electnc Ught & Power Company (Duane Arnold Energy Center), A1AB 108,6 AEC 195 (1973) appeal board polacy concermng enforcernent tune lumes on appeals froma wa ar Board pr%rs, ALAB 684, 16 NRC 165 (1982)
Jack Water, lec. v. Koretron Company, Inc.,54 F.R.D. 44,46 (N D. Cat 1971)
=---- enconipassed by anorney<here pnydege,12P4242,16 NRC 1858 (1982)
Jeney Central Power and Ught Company (Oyster Creek Nuclear Genernung Stauon), ALAB412,12 NRC 314 (1980) entent of Appeal Board sua spone revww authonry; A1AB489,16 NRC 890 (1982) hcan11a Apache inbe of In&ans v. Morton,47 F.2d 1275,1280 (9th Cr. l973) acoge of informauon concerning envuonmental impact of a project to tw obtamed tufore project imuauen, LBP-8242,16 NRC 569 (1982) 3ones v. SEC,298 U.S.1,19 (1935) bans for departmg from rule of disnussal of appiranons without prejuece; LEP42 81,16 NRC 1135 (1982) 3 anes v. State Board of Educat.on,397 U.S. 31 (1970) disnussal of grant of reyww when parues have already bnefed the issues; CU-82-26,16 NRC 881 (1982)
Jowph v. U.S. Civd Servsce Commtumn,554 F.2d 1140,1853 n.24 (D C. Cr.1977) lumts on agency preruganves to imerpret polacy statenwnts; 12P4249,16 NRC 753 (1982)
Kansas Gas and Elecinc Company and Kansas Cny Po er and Light Compr.ny (Wolf Creek Genersung Stanon.
Umt I), ALAB-327,3 NRC 408,41Ml? (1976) standards for showmg goral cause for a protective ceder; LBP-8242,16 hRC 1853 (1982)
Kansas Gas and Electne Company and Kansas City Power and Ught Company fWolf Creek Generstmg Stauon, Umt 1), AIAB-462. 7 NRC 320,338 (1978) adnuu:bary of contenuon; LB'42-53,16 NRC 199 (1982) tarden of proponent of mouon to reopen record, LBP 82 84. IS NRC 1185 (1982)
Kent Corp. v. NLRB, 530 F.2d 612 (5th Cir ), cert. demed,429 U.S. 920 (1976) matenal encompaned by anomey work product doctnne; LEP4242,16 NRC 1161,1862 (1982)
Kert-McGee Corp. (West Chacago Rare Earth Facday), CU 82 2,15 NRC 232,244-46 (1982),peuuan for review pending sub nom. Cwy of West Clucago v. Nuclear Regulatory Conumsuon, No. 82-1573 (7th Car., fUed Apnl 8,1982) requirements for giving notre of matenals license actons. ALAB482,16 NRC 157(1982)
Kerr-McGee Corp. (West Clucago Rare Earth Facday), CU 82-2,15 HRC 232,24742 (1982), penuon for revww pen &ng sub som. Cay of West Chrago v. Nuclear Regulatory C-
= No. 821575 (7th Cir., filed Apnl 8, 1982) type of neanng required $w matenals lxensing acten; A1AB482,16 NRC 155,157 59 (1982)
Kleppe v. Sacrra Club,427 U.S. 390 (1976) conanons allowing segmentauon of major federal acuans; CU42-23,16 NRC 424 (1982)
Kleppe v. Serra Club 427 U.S. 390,403 et seq. (June 28, 1976)
NEPA consuleranon of use of spent fuel for nuclear weapons, lap-82-53,16 NRC 199 (1982) tacey v. Lumber Mutual Fue lasurance Company,554 F.2d 1204 (1st Cir.1977) specificay requued of monon for reconsideranon; LEP-8248,16 NRC 749 (1982) 12 Compte v. Mr. Chip, Inc.,528 F.2d 601,6034)5 J5th Car.1976)
I.icensing Board discrenon to prescnbe terms for withdramal of corestrucuen penst applicanon, LEP 8241,16 NRC 1134,1139 (1982)
Lewis v. Umted States,445 U.S. 55,60 (1980) 6,r -- of unme& ate effectiveness regulaton, A1AB486.16 NRC 456 (1982) long Islanrt Lightmg Comnany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Staraon), ALAB-39,4 AEC 727 (1971)
Board escreuen to conduct heanngs outsade 10Lnule EPZ; CU 82-15,16 NRC 37 (1982)
Lord sland Ughtmg Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stauon, Urut I), LBP 77 II,5 NRC 481,483 (1977)
I regvesentation, by an orgamzauon. of in&viduals other than as own members; LBP.82-74,16 NRC 984 (1982) 44 g
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES w
Img Island Lgtums Company (Neans Nuclear Power f4abon, Uns* I). LBP 8219.15 NRC 601 (1982) lack c( basis for hogaton of system's interacten conenuan LBP 82-76,16 NRC 1034 (1982)
Leinsiana Power and Lght Linpany (Waterford Swam Generatmg Staten. Una No. 3), ALAB 258. I NRC 45.
48 a 6 (1975) appellate revwe of Ucensms Board ruhngs on ecnnomic issues, interventmn requests. or procedural mances.
=
ALAB491.16 NRC 908 (1982) enerne of Appeal Board sua spome revww authnrwy; ALAB489,16 NRC 890 (1982)
Iman v. Unned Aucraft Corp.,26 F.R D.12.18 (D C. Del 1960) hatniny of piamuff for defendant's automey's fees; LBP-82-81.16 NRC 1142 (1982)
Mame Yankee Atorruc Power Company (Mame Yankee Atonuc Power Staten. ALAB-161,6 AEC 1003 (1973) lack of regulasary requurment for pmbatnhste nsk assessment. LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1033,1050 (1982)
Manhanan General Equipment Cornpany v. Comnussoner of Internal nevenue. 297 U.S 129.134-35 (1936) preclusion of hearmg on germane issues through unlawful procedural requirements. AIAB487,16 NRC 469 (1982)
Marun v. Easton Pubhshes Company,85 F R D 312,315 (E D. Pa 1980) afphcaton of NEPA
- rule of season" to apptrant's responses to meerrogatorws; LBP-8247.16 NRC 736 (1982)
Wryland-Nanonal CapitaJ Park and Planmas Comnussen v, Postal Servre. 487 F 2d 1029.1036 37 (D C. Cs 1973) evaluaten of envsunmental impact of sne preparanon acevars in content of sonmg, CU-82 23,16 NRC 427 (1982)
Manoeu v. N LR B.,414 F.2d 477,479 (6th Cir.1969) apptrauon of res pahcata when agency decision involves substantrJ polwy issues, CLI 82 23.16 NRC 420 (1982)
Mesopohtan Edison Company (Three Mde Island Nuclear Staten. Una 1), CLl#16. Il NRC 674 (1980) kneerpretsuon of pohey statement regarding hydrogen issue in, LDP-82-76,16 NRC 1064 (1982) need for credible hydrogen generauen scenano for adnussen of contenton, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1040,1050,10r>2 (1982)
Menopohtan Edison Company (Three Mde Island Nuclear Stauon, Unit I). CU 8416. Il NRC 674. 675 (1980) proper response to genetw challenges to regulates. CU-8219.16 NRC 74 (1982)
Metropohtan Edison Company (Three Mde Island Nuclear Stauon Unit No.1), CLI 82-12,16 NRC I (1982) appellate considersuon of uncemessed safety issues an cases other than cycat.ag hcense apphcatens. ALAB485, 16 NRC 452 (1982)
Metropohtan Edison Company (Three Mde Island Nuclear Staten. Una No I), Ls, al-59,14 NRC 1211,1419 l
(1981) l deleganon of L enseg Board authoney so NRC Staff. LBP-8248,16 NRC 748 (1982)
Mesopohtan Edison Company (Three Mde Island Nuclear Stauan Una No.1), LBP-8159.14 NRC 1211,1465 (1981) practual effect of rebuttable prewmpoon wah regard to conussed FT.MA (mdmgs. LBP-8248,16 NRC 746 (1982)
Meucpohtan Edison Company (Three Mde Island Nuclear Staten, Una No. 2), AIAB486. 8 NRC 9,46 (1976) standard apphed in decidag whether to allow plant operauen dunns appellaie reyww; ALAB480,16 NRC 130 (1982)
Mecopohtan Edison Company (Three Mde Island Nuclear Stanon Una No. 2). CUM 13. Il NRC 519,33132 (1980) posennal of escluded radiaten dose contenoon as sua sponte issue, LBP-82-79,16 NRC 1819 (1982)
Melugan Consohdated Gas Company v. f?C,283 F 2d 204,226 (D C Cu 1960) bcensmg Board responsibddy to develop the record. LEP 82 87,16 NRC 1899 (1982)
Menesota v. NRC. 602 F.2d 412 (D C Cr.1979) objection to reyecten of waste conradence contention, LEP-82 51,16 NRC 172 (1982)
Mississippi Power and ught Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stamn. Units I and 2) ALAB-130,6 AEC 423,426 (1973) rejecten of transnussen hnts contenton, LEP 82-76,16 WC 1085 (1982)
Mississippi Power am! Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stauon, Unas I and 2), ALAB-130. 6 AEC 423, l
l 424-25 (1973) encouragemes of use o summary disposamn procedures, LEP-82-58.16 NRC 519 (1982) f EY Moog Industnes v. FTC. 355 U 5. 411 (1958) acte of pro 6eedmgs on enforcement actons, CU-82-16. I6 NRC 46 (1982) 45 4
a w
f LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company,339 U.S. 306,314 (1950)
Lins of nght to heanng through lack of nouce; AIAB482,16 NRC 158 (1982)
G Comnuumn revww of Appeal Board decison on operatmg trense amendment improvidently granted, CL1-8 Mwel v. Batumme Cwy Cnmmal Court,407 U.S. 355 (1972) 16 NRC 881 (1982)
Natural Resources Defense Councd v. Nuclem Regulatory Conumumn,685 F 2d 459 (D C. Cr.1982) adnuuibdity of wante disposal comenton, LBP-82 53,16 NRC 205 (1982) considerston of law-fihl contenten on envuunmental effects of nuclear fuel cycle fadure of etervenor's conernoon no present 'wovel quesuon of potry or law"; LBP.8242,16 NRC 569 (1982)
Natural Resources Defense Couned v. Nuclear Regulaimy Conumumn,685 F.2d 459,467 (D C. Cr.1982) invahdaten of Table S-3 Rule; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1076 (1982)
Natural Resources Defense Councd, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory C-
-. 685 F.2d 459 (D C. Cr 1982) use of decumn as basis for lane fded ra&atmo donc comenten LBP-82-79,16 NRC Ill7 (1982)
New England Patnots Football Club, Inc. v. Umversny of Colorado. 592 F.2d Il96 (1st Cr.1979) estmcten between amrus cunae and tra&twnal party ALAB479,16 NRC 126 (1982)
New England Power Company, et al. (NEP, Umts I and 2), LEP-78-9. 7 NRC 278,279 (1978) revww and amendment c' Staff EIS, LBP-82 78,16 NRC 1811 (1982)
New Yort Staae Energy Research and Development Agency v. Nuclear Fuel Servrcs, Inc., CTV-8118E (W.D N.Y. Oct. 16, 1981),rev'd, No. 817736 (2d Cr Dec. 8,1981) responsibehty im wane &sposal facahty, AIAB479,16 NRC 124 (1982)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporsuon (Nme Mde 1%nt Nuclear Staten. Unit 2), ALAB 264, l NRC 347 (1975) r6e apptrable to cases involvmg changes in need for power forecasts LBP-82-81,16 MtC ll381198 Nagara Mohawk Power Corporaton (Nme Mile Pomt Nuclear Statam, Umt 2), AIAB 264, i NRC (1975) etvnt of Agyeal Board sua spone revww authonry; ALAB489,16 NRC 890(1982)
NULB v. Sears,421 U S.132,149, n.16 (1975) equites to be considered as civu &acovery cases which are not coemalered m ICIA cases 1163 (1982)
North Alabama Espress, Inc. v. Umsed States,585 F.2d 783,789 (5th Cir.1978) loss of nght to heanng duough lack of nonce; ALAB482,16 MtC 158 (1982)
Nethern in&ana Pubir Servre Coivany (Badly Generstmg Staten, Nuclear Is, AIAB-204,7 AEC 835,838 (1974) code for Judgma lawyer conduct in NRC proceedmgs; AIAB491,16 NRC 916 (1982)
Nordern In&ana Pubhc Serv'ce Company (Badly Generatmg Staten Nuclear-1), CU 79-il,10 NRC 733, (1979), remanded on other grounds, State of Ilhnois v. NRC,661 F.2d 253 (D C. Cir.1981) amendment of constructon permits; DI)82-1207 Northern States Power Company (Montrello Nuclear Genermung Plant, Una 1), AIAB-10,4 AEC 390,3 seferral to Appral Board of ruimg compelhng &nclosure of mformants' alenuues. LBP 82-8 Northern Staws Power Company (Monucello Nuclear Genernung Plant, Und I), AIAB-613,12 Mtc 301, 30 309 (1980)
A;9eal Board authonty to reton Juns&cten over radon issue. AIAB 691,16 NRC 909 (1982)
Northern States Power Company (Monocello Nuclear Generaung Plant Und I) ALAB411,12 NRC 301,30 309.I3(192) estem of Appeal Board sua sponte sevww authonty; ALAB-689,16 NRC 89r>91 (1982)
Nonhern States Power Company (Prarw hiand Nuclear Generatmg Plant, Uns I and 21. ALAB-107,6 (1973), affirmed ClJ 73-12,6 AEC 241 (1973), affirmed sub nom. BPI v. AEC,502 F.2d 424 (D uming of escovery on comentens, ALAB487,16 NRC 467 (1982)
Northern States Power Company (Prare Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant, Units I and 2), AIAB-24 862 (1974) considersuon of fmancial costs in NEPA cost-benern balance LBP-32-58,16 NRC 526 (if,82)
Northern States Power Company (Prare Island Nuclear Generates Plaid, Unds I and 2), AIAB-24 864, reconsiderauon demed. ALAB-252,8 AEC 1875 (1974), aff d.CU-75-I,1 NRC I (1975)
- - - ; of meervends fadure to fde proposed redmgs of fact, ALAB491,16 MtC 906 (1982) 46 G
'h-r:
u
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASLS Northern States Power Company (Prarw Island Nuclear Genersung Plant Unns I and 2), AIAB-252,8 AEC 1875,1877,affemed, CLI-75-1,1 NRC I (1975) neceuary for fdmg escepuons; ALAB494,16 NRC 96018982)
Nunhern $tates Power Company (Praru Island Nuclear Genersung Plani, Units I and 2), ALAB-288,2 NRC 390, 393 (1975) eMect of change in unervenor's residence LBP-82-54,16 NRC 216 (1982)
Northern Suses Power Corr-pany (Prarw Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant. Umts I and 2). ALAB455,7 NRC 41, 44 (197 0, remanded on other grounds sub norn Mmnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Comminion,602 F.2d 412 (D C. Cir.1979) redmgs on NEPA compliance to tw made by Dutctor pnor to issuance of operstmg trense, ALAB493,16 NRC 956 (1982)
Northern States Power Company (Prarw Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant, Unns I and 2), ALAB455,7 NRC 41, 48 (1978) showmg required to warrant considersten of alleged adverse environmental effects of plant opersuon LBP 82 58, 16 NRC 526 (1982)
Northern Staies Power Company (Prsaw Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant. Unns I and 21. CLI 73-12,6 AEC 241, 242 (1973),afrd sub nom BPI v. AEC,502 F.2d 424 (D C. Cr.1974 encouragement of use of summary disposanon procedures. I BP-82-58,16 NRC 519 (1982)
Northern States Power Company, et al. (Tyrone Energy Park, Umt 1), ALAB464,7 NRC 372, 374, n 4 (19786 Lxensms Board junsdruon to consider anoton to reopen record received after Lrensms Board's final decision, LBP-82-86,16 NRC 1891 (1982)
Nothouru v. Ross,104 Misc.2d 898 (N Y. Sup. Ct.1980), affd 445 N Y.S 2d 222 (N Y. App Div.1981) lack of junsdcten to addreu mouves of legislator m enactmg starute; LBP-82-72,16 NRC 970 t1981)
Nuclear Engmeenns Company, Inc. (Sheffield, Ilhnois Low-level Radmacuve Waste Disposal Site), AI.AB&6, 12 NRC 156,159-60 (1980s acceptance of untunely ageals ALAB-684.16 NRC 165 (1982)
Nuclear Entmeereg Cornpany, Inc. (Sheffwid. Illmois, low-Level Radmactive Waue Disposa! Sne). ALAB-606, 12 NRC IM,160 (1980) test of "fmalay"la appeal purposes. ALABM,16 NRC 894 (1972)
Nuclear Fuel Services. Inc. and New York State Atonne and Space Development Authonry (West Valley Reproceuing Planti, CLI-75-4,1 NRC 273 t1975)
I factors e's.\\iated m accepteg untimely contennons; ALAB-687,16 NRC 470 (1982) l Nuclear Fuel Servres, Inc. and New York State Atorruc and Space Development Autherny (West Valley Reproceums Plant), CU-75-4, I NRC 273,275 (1975) acceptance of late contenton where "gomf cause" factor has not been demonstrated LBP-8243,16 NRC 577 (1982)
O'Bnen v. Board of Education of Cay School Distnct of Cay of New York,86 F R D. 548,549 (5 D N Y.1980 relevance of document's author to document's status as privileged, LBP.82-82.16 NRC 1858 (1982) l Offshore Power Systems (Flostmg Nxlear Power Plants), ALAB.517,9 NRC 8.1(1979) 1 standards for gree 4 discreuonary interlocutory revww; LBP-82-62,16 NRC 568 (1982)
Offshore Power Sysier..Manufactunns License for Floatmg Nuclear Plants). ALAB-689,16 NRC 887,89491 (1982) fealny of imbal decision ALAB-693,16 NRC 954 (1982) sua spnnte revww of Lacensmg Board deciuons. ALAB-694.16 NRC 9rd)(1980)
Ohm Scaly Mattress Manufa6tunns Company v. Kaplan. 90 F R D 21,28 (N D.111 1980p i
communsanons encompassed by artorney<lient pnvilege, LBP 82-82,16 NRC 1157,1859 (19821 I
Pacifs Gas and Electnc Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2). ALAB410,5 NRC 1398.
1401 42 (1977) test to be appled to request for release of protecied mformaton LBP-82-80,16 NRC 1124 (1982)
Pacific Gas and Electnc Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Umts I and 2). ALAB-410,5 NRC 1394 1405 (1977) burden for demonstraung credenuals of a witness. LBP.82-51,16 NRC 176 (1982) l w.,.
Pacifs Gas and Electnc Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2), AIAB-504,8 NRC 406 410 (1978) cucumstances in whuh directed certifuanon is mananied. LBP-82-62,16 NRC 567 (1982) r l
I i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASf3 Pacirac Gas and Electnc Company (Nblo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). ALAB 580, il NRC 227 9
(1980) assurance of proper unplementauon of enwrgency plan; LBP-8246.16 NRC 732 (1982)
Pacirse Gas and Electnc Company (Nbio Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2). ALAB-592, il NRC 746
-' I (1980) guidelmes for release of secunty plans so intervenors; LBP-8240.16 NRC 1824 (1982) guidelmes fa release of securwy plans so intervenors; LBP-82-90,16 NRC ll24 (1982)
Pacire Gas and Electnc Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unas I and 2), ALAB-598, il NRC 876 (1980) assumpton of junsdzten over setsnuc issues by Appeal Board. LBP-82-86.16 NRC 1192 (194 Pacific Gas and Electne Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2), ALAB444,13 NRC 903 (1983) basis for deternunmg heruantal ground acceleration at GE test reactor sde; LBP 82-64,16 h?C 680 (1982) propnety of calhng mdependent experts as Board wanesses, LBP-82-55,16 NRC 277 (1982)
Pactre Gas and Elecinc Company (Nblo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI 82-1,15 NRC 225 (1982) type of withheld information consututmg matenal false statement, ALAB491.16 NRC 913 (1982)
Pacific Gas and Electne Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), C118219,16 NRC 53 (1982) pubiraten of restncied document; LBP-82-80,16 NRC 1823 (1982)
Pactre Gas and Electnc Company (Nblo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2) LBP-8127,14 NRC 325, 331 (1981) lack of specirmny of systems interaction contenton; LBP-82-76. h6 NRC 1034 (1982)
Pennsylvama Power and bght Company and Alleglway Electnc Cooperanve, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electne Stanost. Umts I and 2), ALAB-563,10 NRC 449. 450 a 1 (1979) standard for appellate bnefs of pro se intervenors; ALAB493.16 NRC 956 (1956)
Pennsylvama Power and 14ht Company and Allegheny Electnc Cooperative. Inc. (Susquehanna Sicam Electnc Staten, Units I and 21. ALAB-593, II NRC 761,762 (1980) standards for granung discretenary interlocutory revww; LBP-8242,16 NRC 568 (1982)
Pennsylvama Power and bght Company and Allegheny Electne Cooperative. Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB413,12 NRC 317,340 (1980) failure of contenton's proponent to respond to summary disposnios monon; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 520 (1982)
Pennsylvama Power and bgtd Company and Allegheny Electnc Cooperative. Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electne Staten. Units I and 2). ALAB+41.13 NRC 550,551 (1981) standards for grantmg discretenary interkrutory revww; LBP-82-62,16 NRC 568 (1982)
Pennsylvama Power and Lght Company and Allegheny Electnc Cooperanve, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Staten. Units I and 2). IEP-794,9 NRC 291,297-98 (1979; standmg of pentsoners in imense apphcaten proceedmg to hogate issues related to distant uranmm mmes; LEP-82-52,16 NRC 192 (1982)
Pennsylvama Power and bght Company and Allegheny Electnc Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Staten. Umts I and 2). LBP-81-8.13 NRC 335,337 (1981), directed certirration demed, ALAB441,13 NRC 550 (1981) favorabihty in vweing summary disposinon monon, LBP-82-58,16 NRC 519 (1982)
People Agamst Nuclear Energy v. Nuclear Regulatory Commisson,678 F.2d 222 (D C. Cr.1982) considersuon of effects of psychologral stress on emergency commumcatwnumericaten personnel, LBP-82 75,16 NRC 101131982) meerpretation f; LBP 82 69,16 NRC 752 (1982) htigsten of paycl.3 logical stress contentens; LBP-82-53.16 NRC 202 (1982) preparanen of supplemental EIS on psychologral health effects of operaten of TMt.CLt.82-13,16 NRC 2 (1982)
Pegne Against Nuclear Energy v. Nuclear Regulatory Comnussen,678 F.2d 222. 233-34 (D C. Cir.1982) peuten for cett. filed,51 U.S L.W. 3006 (U.S. 3uly I,1982) subnussion of psychological stress contenten based on; LBP-82 71,16 NRC 966 (1982; l
I g
s,w 4-S s
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Peuuan for Earrgency and Remedal Acuan, CU-784,7 NRC 400,418 (1978) apphcant,incensee obhganon no provide accurnee and omely informauon in NRC proceedag. AIAS491,16 NRC 910 (1982)
Pecuan for Emergency ar.d Reme&al Acuan, CU-8421.11 NRC 707 (1980) adnussiut M contenuons on equipment quahricanon ersung; LBP-8243,16 NRC 585 (1982)
Peunan for Emergency and Reme&al Acuan, CLl-8421, il NRC 707 (1980) lessons of TMl not incorporated LBP42 76,16 NRC 1068 (1982)
Philadelphia Electnc Crvnpany (Fuhan Genernung Stanon, Unas I and 2), ALAB457,14 NRC %7,973,974 79
)
(1981) l guidelmes for determming whether withdrawal of consoucuan penmt application should be with or wahout l
pr jud ce LBP-82 88,16 NRC 1831,1834 (1982)
Plundelphu Electnc Company, et al. (Peach Bonom Anorruc Po cr Stanon Ugns 2 and 3), A1AB 216,8 AEC 13 (1974) rejecten of transnussion hnes comenton, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1085 (1982)
Phdadelphia Electnc Company, et al. (Peach Bonom Atonne Power Stauon, Umts 2 and 3), A1AB 216,8 AEC 13, 24 21 (1974) rejectum of contenuons anacking stannery requuements; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1035 (1982)
Plutadelphia Electnc Company, et al. (Peach Bonom Anotruc Power Stanon. Unas 2 and 3), A1AB440,13 NRC 487 (1981) appellate revwo of record in. ALAB491,16 NRC 909 (1982) standmg of pectoners in license apphcanon proceedmg to hogate issues related so estant uransum ames; LBP42 52,16 NRC 192 (1982)
Pickus v. United States Board of Parole,507 F.2d 1807 (D C, Cir 1974) hmsts on agency prerogauves so interpret pohey statenrnts, LAP-8249,16 NRC 753 (1982)
Poller v. Columtna Broadcastmg System, Inc-, 368 U.S. 464, 47) (1%2) favorabdity in ww ang summary dispossuon mouon, LBP-82-58,16 NPC 519 (1982)
Ponland General Electnc Company, et al. (Pe%ie Spnngs Nuclear Plant Umts I and 2), CU-76-27,4 NRC 610 (1976) escreuonary inaerventen by pennoners without a vahd consenoon, LBP-82-52,16 NRC 194 (1982)
Ponland General Electnc Company, et al. (Pebble Spnngs Nuclear Plant Unns I and 2), CU-7627,4 NRC 610, 613 14 (1976) establistung interest under the Atarme Encigy Act for stan&ng to intervene; A1AS482,16 NRC 155 (1982) l intervenson as a matter of nght, LBP 82 74,16 NRC 983 (1982)
Ptetland Ge eral Electne Company, et al. (Pebble Synnss Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2), CU-7627,4 NRC 610, i
616 (1976) nght to escretmary leanns on enforcement action; CU-82-16,16 NRC 46 (1982)
Portland General Ekctnc Company, et al. (Pebble Spnngs Nuclear P' ant. Unas I and 2), CU-7627,4 NRC 610, 617 (1976) importance of intervenor's abdwy e conenbute to record through late-rded contenoon; L3P-8243,16 N l
(1982)
Portland General Electnc Company, et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531,9 NRC 263,266 (1979) meergeetaten of de term "avadable resources"; LBP-82 78,16 NRC 1111-12 (1982) l Potomac Electnc Power Company (Douglas Por.I Stauon, Unas I and 2), ALAB-218,8 AEC 79,85 (1974) acceptance of comennons that are the subject of ndemahng, LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1036 (1982)
Pubhc Service Compey of In&ana, Inc. (Marble Hal Nuclear Genernung Stacon, Units I and 2), ALAB-405,5 NRC 1190,1191 (1977) appeal board autheruy to decime Licensing Board referrals; AIAB487,16 NRC 464 (1982)
Pubhc Service Company of In&ana, Inc. (Marble Hdi Nuclear Gearratmg Stauon, Unas I and 2), AIAB-405,5 NRC i190, i192 (1977).
standards for granung escrenonary interlocutory reyww; LBP-8242,16 NRC 568 (1982)
Pubhc Service Company of la&ana, Inc. (Marble Hdt Nuclear Genernung Statum, Umts I and 2), A1AB-459,7 NRC 179,188 (1978) appeal board reluctance to cefufy questions involvmg schedulmg, AIAB488,16 NRC 475 (1982) e 1
l 1
1
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES 1
Pubir Servre Company of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hal Nuclear Generstmg Stauon. Un ts I and 2), ALAB-459,7 i
NRC 179, 202 (1978) 9 necessity fa fdag escepuous ALAB494,16 NRC 959 (1982)
Pubir Servre Company of Indiana. Inc. (Marble Hdt Nuclear Genermung Stauon, Umts I and 2). ALAB461. 7 NRC 313,318 (1978) delegataan of Lacensmg Board authwiry to NRC Staff, LBP-82-68,16 NRC 748 (1982) l Pubir Semce Company of Indiana, Inc (Marble Hdt Nuclear Generstag Stauon, Units I and 2). CLI-8410. Il NRC 438 (1980) use of NRC resources for pubir hearings.1.3P-82-54,16 NRC 215 (1982) g Puble Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hdi Nuclear Generstag Sunon, Units I and 2), CLI-8410, il NRC 438. 439 (1980) crnens fm adnussion of interested state as full party; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1079 (1982)
Puble Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hal Nuclear Genermung Statm. Umu I and 2), CLI-8410.11 NRC 438, at 441-42 (1980) scope of proceedmgs on enforcement actions, CLI 82-16,16 NRC 45 (1982)
Public Servre Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Stauon, Umu I and 2), ALAB-271,1 NRC 478,482 l
(1975) relief im intervenors following denial of certifraim of contenuens, LBP-82-51,16 NRC 171 (1982)
Pubhc Service Company of New Hampshire, et al (Scabrook Stanon Umts I and 2). ALAB-271,1 NRC 478, 482-83 (1975) pronon fw directed certifranon of unpubinhed order, AIAB488,16 NRC 473 (1982) t Pubir Servre Company of New Har,ipshire, es s1 (Seabrook Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB-349,4 NRC 235,271 l
(1976) constructm haked because of invahdity of cost benefit analysis, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1076 (1982)
Pubir Servre Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB422,6 NRC 33,41 (1977) burden of emplananon of Board ruhngs; LSP-8240A,16 NRC 557 (1982)
Pubiac Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Stauon, Umts I and 2). ALAB-471,7 NRC 477,479 (1978) considerauon of kwal econome effects in cost-benefit analysis. LBP-82-53,16 NPC 204 (1982)
Public Servre Company of New Hampshue, et al. (Seabrook Stauon, Umts I and 2). ALAB-66",15 NRC 421 (1982) i proonery of calhng mdependent emperts as Board witnesses; LBP-82-55.16 NRC 277 (1982)
Pubir Servre Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Staten Umu I and 2), CLi-7617,4 NRC 451,462 (1976) role of NRC Staff OP-82-87.16 NRC 1200 (1982)
Puble Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Staten. Umts I and 2), CL1-77-8. 5 NRC 503, 516 17 (1977)
Comnussire authonry to provide guidance on admissibihty of contenuons tw.se bcensmg Boards; CU 8215,16 NRC 34 (1982)
Pubir Servre Company of New Hampshire,et al (Seabrook Station, Unns I and 2), CLI-77 8,5 NRC 503,534 (1977; considen,uon of " sunk costs' in operstmg hcense cost-benerd balance, LBP-8243,16 NRC 587 (1982)
Puble Servre Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Stauen, Umts I and D, CLI-78-1,7 NRC 1.18 (1978) l
_,y,-,
of the term " reasonable assurance"; LBP-8246,16 NRC 732 (1982)
Pubir Servre Company of New Hampshire, et al (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLI-78-1,7 NRC I,24 1
(1978) liensms Board avoidance of pomtless liuganon, LBP-82 72,16 NRC 970 (1982)
Pubhc Service Company of New Hampshut, et al. (Seabrook Stanon. Units I and 2), LBP-74-36,7 AEC 877, 878-79 (1974) use of Federal Rules m apptrauon of 10 CTR 2.1 9, LBP-82-58,16 NRC 519 (1982) 50 l
i l
7 v.
l
.. Inh _
1 J
H l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES e_
Puble Semce Company of New Hampshue, et al. (Seabrook Stauon, Units I and 2), LBP-76 26,3 NRC 857, 88l-82 (1976) apphcation of collateral estoppel to vehugation of sounsm impact contenuon; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1081 (1982)
Pubic Service Company of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Foa Station. Units I and 2). ALAB-573,10 NRC 775,778 (1979) acuvines allowed under Imuted work authorustaan; A1AB488,16 NRC 473 (1982)
Pubir Semce Company of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Foz Stanon. Umts i and 2). ALA&S73,10 NRC 775. 787 (1979) disposason of unsupported bnefs; ALAB493,16 NRC 956 (1982)
Puble Semce Company of Oklahoma, et al (Black Foa Stanon Units I and 2), ALAB-573.10 NRC 775,789 (1979) grounds for defense of Licensmg Board decisie, ALAB450,14 NRC 908 (1982)
Puble Semce Ccmpany of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Fon Stauon, Unns ; and 2) ALAB-573,10 NRC 775. 804 (1979) admissibdny of contenuon; LBP-82-53,16 NRC 199 (1982)
Pubic Servxe Company t4 Oklahoma, et al. (Black Foz Stanon, Uans I and 2), CLI 80w31.12 NRC 264 (1980) esumanon of nska from rahation resulung from normal nuckar power plant operauon; LBP-82-57,16 NRC 501 (1982)
Pubhc Service Company of Oklahana, et al. (Black Foz Stauon. Umts I and 2) LBP 78-26,8 NRC 102 (1978:
use of U.S. Army Corps of Engmeers witnesses as Board-appomted emperts, LBP-82-55,16 NRC 277 (1982)
Pubis Semce Electnc and Gas Company, et al. (Hope Creek Genermung Stanon, Units I and 2). LBP-78-15,7 NRC 642,674 ft (1978) aff d. ALAB-518. 9 NRC 14 (1979)
Commission gedance sought on Lacensmg Board treatment of tesumony on nsks; LBP-8241 16 NRC 563 (198 Puble Servre Elecinc and Gas Cornpany, et al (Salem Nucicar Generates Stauon, Una 1), ALAB-588. Il NRC 533, 536 (1980) standard to be met by request for duected certifranon, ALAB488.16 NRC 474 (1982) standards fw grantmg discretionary interlocutory revww, LBP-82-62,16 NRC 568 (1982)
Pubtw Sernce Electnc and Gas Cornpany, et al. (Salem Nuclear Genermung Staten Umt 1). ALAB450.14 NRC 43, 49 (1981)
Board standard for consad-nng issues raned for the first ume on appeal, ALAB4J10,16 NRC 143 (1982)
Pubic Servre Electnc and Gas Company, et al. (Salem Nuclear Generstmg Station, Una l), ALAB450,14 NRC 43, 49 (1981) standard for considenng issues raised for first ume on appeal ALAB450,14 NRC 907 (1981)
Pubhc Semce Electnc and Gas Company, et al (Salem Nuckar Genernung Stauon. Und I). AIAB450,14 NRC 43,49 n 6 (1981) appeal board nght to renew any issues contested before a IJcensing Board, ALAB485,16 NRC ~52 (1982)
Puble Service Electnc and Gas Company, et al. (Sakm Nuclear Generstmg Stanon, Una 1), ALAB450. I4 NRC
- 43. 49, 50 n.7 (1981)
[
contents of bnefs on appeal ALAB493,16 NRC 956 (1982)
Pubts Semce Electne and Gas Company, et al. (Sakn Nuclear Generaung Staten, Una 1). ALAB450,14 NRC 43, 68 49 (1981) hogabihty of waste confidence contenuons. LBP 82-51,16 NRC 172 (1982)
Pubis Servxe Electnc and Gas Company, et al. (Salem Nuclear Generaung Suuon, Umts I and 21. ALAB-136,6 AEC 487,489 (1973) considerauon of totally defurnt bnef prepared by layman; ALAB493.16 NRC 957 (1982)
[
Puble Semce Electnc and Gas Company, et al. (Salen Nuclear Generstmg Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-136,6 l
AEC 487,489 (1973) l showing requred of pro se meervenor for admmon of late-filed contenoon; LBP-8243,16 NRC 578 t1982)
Puerto Rico Electnc Power Authonry (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Una 1), ALAB462,14 NRC I!!5,1135 a I1.
1136-37 (1981) l gmdelmes for determinmg whether wahdrawal of construction perma apphcanon shouki be wuh or withou e-pre)udice, LEP 82-81,16 NRC 18 31.1134,1838 (1982) l l
,as 51 l
1 I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES O
Puget Sound Power and Light Company, et al. (Skags Nuclear Power Project Unns I and 2), ALAB-372,10 NRC 693, 694 (1979) standards for grantag discrenonary meerlocutory reven; L9P-8242,16 NRC 568 (1982)
Rivera v. Pauno, $24 F.Supp.136 (N. Dis. Cahf., July 9,1981) imuts on agency preroganves to meerpret pohey statenwnts, L3P 8249,16 NRC 753 (1982)
RKO General, Inc. v. Federal Communicatens Comnusson,670 F.2d 215,229 (D C. Cr 1981), cen. demed, 102 S Q.1974, 2931 (1982) conduct espected of anorneys in NRC proceedags, ALBA 450,14 NRC 919 (1982)
Rochester Gas and Electnc Corporauon (Sterlmg Power Project. Nuclear Unit No.1), ALAB 5%.11 NRC 867
'~
(1980) vacauon of unrevreed judgments because of mootness; ClJ-8218,16 NRC 51 (1982)
Rochesacr Gas and Electnc Corporauon, et al. (Sierhng Power Project, Nuclear Unn No.1), ALAB 5%, i n NRC 867 (1980) remandmg of case based on record that no longer represents case's actaal snuaten; C1182-26,16 NRC 881 (1982)
Roviaro v. Umted States,333 U.S. 53,6'161 (1957) ywidmg of informer's prmlege; LBP-82-59,16 NRC 538 (1982)
Sacramento Municipal Uuhty Distnct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stauon) ALAB455,14 NRC 799,803 (1981) scope of sua sponte revww of fmal disposition of Licensmg Board decison; ALAB491,16 NRC 908 (1982)
Sacramento Mumcipal Vuhty Distnct (Rancho Seco Naclear Generaung Stauon). ALAB455,14 NRC 799,803 (1981) sua sponte review of unopposed decision to authorue manufactunng hcense fos nuclear power reactors; ALAB-686, 16 NRC 455 (1982)
Sacramento Mumetpal Utdify Distnct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Stauon), ALAB453,14 NRC 799, 803-04, 817 (1981) nature of csses subject to sua sponte revww by Appeal Board. ALAB489, f 6 NRC 890LQl (j98y)
Sacramento Municipal Utdiry Distnet (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generstmg Staten), ALAB455,14 NRC 799,816 (1981) acceptance of contentions that are the subject of rulemaking. LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1036 (1982)
Sceme Hudson Preservaten Conference v. FPC,354 F.2d 608,629 (2nd Cir.1%5) ljcensmg Board responsibdtry to develop the record; LBP-82-87,16 NRC 1199 (1982)
SCM Corp. v. Xeros Corp.,70 F.R.D. 508 (D. Conn.), interlocutory appeal disnussed,534 F 2d 1031 (2d Cir.
1976) commumcanons encompassed by anorney<lient pnvilege; LBP 82-82,16 NRC 1158 (1982)
Sedco Internatenal v. Cory, Nos. 81-2007,81-2056 (8th Cir Augost 2,1982) purpose of attorney clent pnvilege; LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1159 (1982)
Sholly v. Nuclear Reg. latory Commission,651 F 2d 780 (D C. Or ), cen. granted,451 U S.1016 (1981) precluson of procedural nmdificatons that would foreclose a pany's contentons; CLI.82-23,16 NRC 422 (1982)
Sholly v. Nuclear Regulatory Comnussmn,65s F.2d 780,787 n 20 (D C. Cir.1980), reheanng en banc demed, 651 F.2d 792, cert. granted,101 S. O. 3004 (1981) loss of nght to heanns through lack of nouce; ALAB482,16 NRC 158 (1982)
Siegel v. Atomac Energy Comnussion 400 F.2d 778,784 (D C, Cir.1968) examples of common defense and secunty standards; CLI 82-19,16 NRC 76 (1982)
Serra Club v Frochike,534 F.2d 1289 (8th Cr.1976) condauons allowmg segmentauon of major federal actons; CLi-82 23,16 NRC 424 (1982)
Sierra Club v. Morton,405 U.S. 727 (1972) standmg of peunoner m decontamination proceedmg to hugate related masse disposal issues, LBP-82-52,16 NRC 191 (1982)
Serra Club v. Morton,405 U.S. 727,939,940 (1972) satisfactkm of interest test for standmg; LBP-82 74,16 NRC 983 (1982)
Smith v. FTC,403 F.Supp.1000,1015, n 45 (D. Del.1975) guidelmes for resolving claims of caecuuve pnvilege m NRC proceedmgs related ta discovery; LBP-82-82,16 NPC
]
1164 (1982) i 52
~
i
+
B
LFGAL CITATIONS INDEX G
CASES E
South Carcima Elecinc and Gas Company (Vrgd C. Summer Nuclear Stanon Unit 11. ALAB442,13 NRC 881, 895- % (1981),affrmed sub norn. Farrieki United Acuan v. Nuclear Regulatory Comnuss.on, No. 81-2042 (D C. Cir-, Apnl28, 1982) sesponsabdity of NRC Staff on errontested safety issues; ALAB-680,16 NRC 143 (1982)
South Carolma Electnc and Gas Company (Virgd C. Summer Nuclear Staten, Unit I), ALAB463,14 NRC 1840, 1156 n.31 (1981) responubdity of NRC Staff on uncontested safety issues; ALAB480,16 NRC 143 (1982)
South Carchna Elecinc and Gas Company, et al. (Vegd C. Summer Nuclear Staten, Unit II. ALAB 642,13 NRC 881, 884, 887 (1981) standards for admstung late-fded TMI contenoons: LBP 82-63,16 NRC 578 (1982)
South Carolma Electnc and Gas Company, et al. (Vrgd C. Summer Nuckar Statmn, Umt I). ALAB-642,13 NRC 881, 887-91, 895 (19tI) weight given to factors apphed to Ednussen of late-filed contenuons Southern Cahforna Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Nuckar Generstmg Stauon Units 2 and 3), ALAB480,16 NRC 127,135 39 (1982) viabihty of medical services contenuon in light of decisen in; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 997-99 (1982)
Southern Cahforma Edison Company, et an. (San Onofre Nuclear Generstmg Stauon, Units 2 and 3) LBP-82 39.15 NRC 1212, n.33 (1982) enutlement of interun FEMA fmding to rebuttable presumpuon; LBP-8248,16 NRC 746 (1982)
Southern Cahfanua Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Genercmg Stanon. Units 2 and 3), ALAB 268. I NRC 383,399 (1975)
Staff interference wuh Licensing Board's performance of its dutes; LBP.82-87,16 NRC 1200 (1982)
Southern C.hforma Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generstmg Stanon, Umts 2 and 31, ALAB-673, 15 NRC 688,698 showmg requued for stay of Licensms Board decision pending appeal, ALAB480,16 NRC 130 (1982)
Southern Cahforma Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung Stanon, Units 2 and 3), LDP-8136.
14 NRC 691,699 (1981) requirement for reasonable assurance determmaten; L2P-8246,16 NRC 732 (1982)
Southern Cahforna Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Genernung Stanon. Units 2 and 31, LBP-82-3 NRC 61 (1982) propnety of callms independent capats as Board witnesses; LBP-82-55,16 NRC 277 (1982)
Southern Cahfornia Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generatmg Stauon, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-39, 15 NRC 1203 (1982) sigmficance of pre-emergency pubhc informaton program; LBP-82 66,16 NRC 732 (1982)
State of Alaska v. Andrus,580 F.2d 465,473 (D C. Car ), vacated, in pan, sub nom Wessern Od and Gas Associatwn v. Alaska,439 U.S. 922 (1978) scope of mformanon concernmg environmental impact of a project to be obtamed before project miuanon.
LBP-8242,16 NRC 569 (1982)
Statement of Pohcy on Conduct of Licenung Proceedags, CU-81-8,13 NRC 452,456 (19811 basis for timely rulmgs on psychologkal stress contentons; LBP-82 53,16 NRC 203 (1982)
Licensmg Board Junsdicten for referral of rulms condiuonally adnutung nonspecific contentons; ALAB48 NRC 465 (1982)
Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceedags, CU-81-8,13 NRC 452,456 57 (1981) ceruficanon of questen to Comnussion to avoid beenung delays; ALAB-681,16 NRC 149 (1982)
Stewart v. Sn ich,673 F.2d 485 (D C. Cr, October I,1981) hmits on agency giresogatnes to mterpret pohey statements; GP-8249,16 NRC 753 (1982)
Taggan v. Wemmeller's Inc., 397 U.S. 223 (1970)
Commission review of Appeal Board decision on operaung bcense amendment iro. providently granted; 16 NRC 881 (1982)
Ten Applicanons for Low-Ennched Uranium Emports to EURATOM Member Natons. CLI-77-24,6 N (1977) standmg to mtervene as enember of general pubhc subjet to harm from accident at nuclear facih NRC 1032 (1982)
)
~j N
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Tennessee Valky Ashonry (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), IEP 7610,3 htC 209 at 216 (1516) ase of references in support of contentens; L3P 42-52,16 NRC 189 (1982)
G Tennessee Valky Autherny (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Uans I,2 and 3), ALAB477,15 NRC 1387 (1982) apphcanvir-ensee obligance e provuk accurate and timely infonnanon in NRC proceedag; ALAB491,16 NRC 910 (1982)
Tennessee Valley Aulhanry (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units I,2 and 3), AIAB477,15 NRC 1387 (1982) appirehnn O( gg]gygnCg gnd 33lgn3}gy g(andards; LSP 82 73,16 NRC 978 (1982)
Tennessee Vapey Authonry (Hartsvilk Nuclear Plant, Unrts I A,2A, IB,28), ALAB-367,5 NRC 92,10243 (1977)
Exmsaderanon of fmancial costs in NEPA cost-benefn balance; LSP-82 58,16 NRC 526 (1982)
Tennessee Valky /,uthorny (Hartsvdle Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A, IB,28), ALAB-367,5 NRC 92,10245 (1977) madequacy of discussion of shernatives in operanns hcense FES, LSP-82-58,16 NRC 526 (1982)
-~
Tennessee Valky Authorny (Hartsvilk Nuckar Plant Unsts I A,2A, IB,28), ALAB 463. 7 NRC 34I,344 (1978)
--e-of issues raised for fust time on appeal, AIAB491,16 NRC 907 (1982); AIA3493,16 standard for1 NRC 956 (1982)
Tennessee Valky Ashonry (Hartsville Nuckar Plant. Uans I A,2A, IB,28), ALAB 463. 7 NRC 341,355 56 (1978) cucumstances favanng disclosure of confuknaal informacon; LSP-8249,16 NRC 538 (1982)
Tennessee Valky Ashorny v Hdi,437 U.S.153,184185 (1978) appucabday of appeal teard imnda effecoveness revww in manufactunns hcense cases; ALAB486, 457 (1982)
Texas Utdines Generanns Company, et al. (Comanche peak Sam Dectnc Stauon, Unas I and 2), AIAB-260,1 NRC 51,55 (1975)
Staff responsibihty regarding preparation of EIS, LBP 82-78,16 NRC 1110 (1982)
Texas Unhoes Generaung Company, et al. (Comanche peak Steam Dectnc Stauan, Umts I and 2), AIAB-599,12 NRC 1,2 (1980)
-- = appropnate for interlocmory appeals; AIAE483,16 NRC 161 (1982) c=
Toledo Edison Company (Dawn Besse Nuclear Power Stauon), AIAB-157,6 AEC 858,859 (1973) necessay for fdsng excepuons. ALAB494,16 NRC 960(1982)
Toledo Edason Company (Davi>Besse Nuclear Power Station.Un'ts I,2 and 3), ALAB-385,5 NRC 621,629 (1977) asiellate standard in reviewmg Licensmg Board dession in contest of stay pendmg appeal; ALAB4 133 (1982)
Toledo Edison Company and Cleveland Electnc Illummaung Company (Deva Besse Nuckar Power States Unit I), ALAB-314,3 NRC 98,99100 (1976) appeal board reluctance no cernfy quesnons involving scheduling; AIA3488,16 NRC 475 (1982)
Toledo Edison Company and the Cleveland Electne Illununanng Company (Davis-Beue Nuclear Power Staten.
Und l), ALAB-314,3 NRC at 99 (1976) circurnstances in wtuch directed ceruficanon is warranted, LEP-8242,16 NRC 567 (1982)
Toledo Edison Company, et al. (Dava-Besse Nuckar Power Stauon), ALAB-300,2 NRC 752,758 (1975) test of "fmahty" for appeal purposes; AIAB490,16 NRC 894 (1972)
Toledo Edison Company, et al (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Stauon), ALAB-300,2 NRC 752,760 (1975) applicanon of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to NRC proceedings; LBP-82-82, I6 NRC I157 (1982 use of Federal Rules in inserpreting MRC discovery rules; LBP-82-82,16 NRC IIt'3 (1982)
Trustees of Columbia University in the Cny of New Yort, ALAB-50,4 AEC 649 (1972) potenual of excluded radiauon done contenuun as sua sponte issue; LEP-42-79,16 NRC Ii19 (1982)
Turner v. ICC,514 F.2d 1354 (D C Cir.1975) basis for award of interventes' anorney's fees; LSP-82-81,16 NRC 1139 (1982)
Union Electnc Company (Callaway Plant Unns I and 2), ALAB-527,9 NRC 126,128-39 (1779) cucumstances allowing Licensing Board to ovemde informer's pnvdege; LBP-82-87,16 NPC 1200 (1982)
Unen of Cmcerned Scienosts v. AEC,499 F 2d 1069,1090 (D C, Car.1974) amount of hydrogen generation to be taken in account into conuunment design, L.BP-82-76,16 NRC Umted Mme Workers of Amenca. Dist 22 v. Roncco,314 F.2d 186,188 (10th Cir.1%3) i favorabihty in viewmg summary dispositen mouon, LBP-82-58,16 NRC 519 ',982)
M i
w-I w
' 41 k
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Unned Mme Workers v. Kleppe, %I F.2d 1258,1263 (7th Cr.1977) peclusum of heanns on germane issues througti unlawful procedural requuements: ALAB 687,16 NRC 469 (19 United Staies Energy Research and Development A4..
.;.s (Cl nch River Breeder Rcactor Plant), CLI-7&l3, 4 NRC 67,75-76 (1976)
Commassen autherny to provide guadance on adnussibdity of contentons before Licenstr.g Boards CLI-82-15,16 NRC 34 (1982)
Unned States Energy Research and Development Admuustrauon, et al. (Chnch River Bruder Reactor Plant).
CU-7613,4 NRC 67 (1976) bassory of 10 CFR 50.12; CU 82 23,16 NRC 437 (1982)
United States Saeel Corp v. Tram,1556 F.2d 822,837 (1977)]
disposamn of unsuppated bnefs. ALAB493,16 NRC 9% (1982)
Umted States Sugar Corp. v. Atlante Coast Lme R R., l% F.2d 1015,1016 (5th Cr.1952) satuanons givag nse to appealable order; ALAB400,16 NRC 895 (1982)
Unned States v. Amencan Truclung Ass *n.,310 U S. 534,544 (1940) determanmg intent of regulauons, CU-8219,16 NRC 62 (1982)
Unned Stases v. Barnen 376 U.S. 681,737 739 (1964)(Goldberg,3., dissenung) distmetaan between amacus cunse and tranhuonal pany; ALAB479,16 NRC 126 (1982)
Unned States v. Berngan,482 F.2d 171,181 (3rd Cir.1973) purpose behind esecuuve pnvilege; LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1164 (1982)
United States v. Bothn, Josepi & Company,144 U 3.1,4 (1892) authenucay of recorded noses; LBP 82-72,16 NRC 970 (1981)
Unned Stases v. Brown,478 F.2d 1038,1041 (7th Cir.1973) discovery of aucuney's opinaan work product,IEP-82-82,16 Mtc lib 0 (1982) lb,ned States v. Culben 435 U.S. 371 (1978) determmmg insent of regulauons; CU 82-19,16 NRC 62 (1982)
Unned Staies v. Davis 636 F.2d 1028,1044 n.20 (Sch Cr.1981) specificay requurd of claams of execuuve pnydege; LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1853,1154 (1982)
Unned tates v. El Paso Company, No. 81-2484 (5th Ca. August 13, 1982) essent of protectaan of anorney-clunt pnvdege, LBP-82 82,16 NRC ll5s (1982) specifway required of claims of esecuuve pnvdese, LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1853,1158,1161 (1982)
Unned States v. Gaies 35 F.R D. 524 (D. Colo.1964) masenal ~~a--d by anomey work product doctnne LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1861 (1982)
Umted States v. leggen & Platt. Inc.,542 F 2d 655,658-659 (6th Ca.1976) cen. dened,430 U.S. 945 (1977) disclosure of documents protected by execuuve pnvdege, LBP-82 82,16 NRC 1864 (1982)
Unned St:ses v. Munsingwear. Inc,340 U.S. 36 t1950) remanding of case based on record that no longer represents case's actual situatsen, CU-82-26,16 NRC 8 vacauan of unreviewed judgmentswm of motuness. CU-82-18,16 NRC 51 (1982)
Umied States v. Nixon,418 U.S. 683,705-711 (1974) c~
. ntal documents encompassed by eaccuuve pnvdege, LBP 82-82,16 NRC l164 (1982) i,,as Unned States v. Ohver,570 F.2d 397,401 (1st Cu.1978) acope of informer's pnvilege, LBP-82 87,16 NRC 1898 (1982) l Unned Staics v Pierce Amo Freight lanes 327 U.S. 515,527-530 (1945) cntene for ofncial nauce of mformaton in separate proceedmgs; Al.AS482,16 NRC 154 (1982) i Umsed Stases v, Ranurez,608 F 2d 1261,1268 n 12 (9th Cu.1979)
-- ; encompnM by ariorrey<hent pnydege; LBP-82-82,16 NRC l158 (1982)
Unned States v. Unned Mme Workers,330 U.S 258,29194 (1947)
NRC Staff duty to obey tacensm8 Board orders; LBP-82 87,16 NRC 1203 (1082)
Unned States v. Umted Shoe Machmery Corporaten,39 F.Supp. 357,358-359 (D Mass.1950) essenhal elements of snorney<hent pnvdege; LEP-82-82,16 NRC 1857 58 (1982)
Upsted States v. Weath-rs,618 F.2d 66)(10th Cir.1980)
- .pproval of coun for appmnung as own empert wuness, LEP-82-55,16 NRC 277 (1982)
UpP m Company v. Unned States,449 U.S. 383,389 (1981) d purpme 4 anomey-chent pnvdese, LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1157 59 (1982)
Upjohn Company v. Umsed States,449 U.S. 383,397 398 (1981) anomey's memal unpressons and opunons at anorney work prodi doctnne; LBP-82-82,16 MtC 1l60 (1982
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Vermord Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Staten). ALAB-138,6 AEC 520,523 (1973) showmg necessary in rnow.ng papers to neopen the record. LBP-82 84.16 NRC 1l85 t1982)
O showeg necessary in movmg papers so reopen the record LBP-82-84,16 NRC l185 (1982)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pmwer Corp (Vermon Yankee Nalear Power Staten), ALAB.141,6 AEC 576. 583 585 (1973) difference between concepts of eficcuveness and finahty; ALAB489,16 NRC 891 (1982)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v Nanral Resources Defense Councd,4'S U S. 519. 539 (1978n content of envuonrnental impact statement for major federal actens; LBP-82 76.16 NRC 1076 (1982)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp v. Natural Resources Defense Councd. Inc. 435 U.S. $19 (1978) issues caplored in considerms conduct of hcensee; A1AB-691.16 NRC 904 (1982)
Vermors Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Councd. Inc.,435 U S. 519,553 (1978)
~
obhganons of intervenous m NRC proceedmss. ALAB493.16 NRC 957 (1982)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Couned. Inc.,435 U.S 519,557-58 (1978) responsibdity for judgment to use nuclear energy as a source of power, LBP-82-87,16 NRC 1200 (1982)
Vrguna Electnc and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Staten. Umts I and 2), ALAB 324,3 NRC 347. 358 43 (1976) ormssions as matenal false statements; ALAB450.14 NRC 911,914 (1982)
Virgna Electnc and Power Company (Nor'h Anna Nuclear Power Statmn. Umts I and 2), ALAB-491. 8 NRC 242, 247 (1976) appeal board disagreement wrth bcensing Board interpretation of an assue; ALAB 680,16 NRC 135 (1982) appeal board nght to reyww any issues contested before a Lacensing Board. ALAB485,16 NRC 452 (1982)
Vrgima Electnc and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Staten. Umts I and 2), ALAB-491,8 NRC 245, 249-50 (1978) eatent of Appeal Board sua sponse review authonty; ALAB489,16 NRC 890L91 (1982)
Vrgna E3ectnc and Power Company (North Anna Nucicar Power Staten. Umts I and 2), AI.AB-522,9 NRC 54 56, $7 a 5 (1979) estabhshment of causahty for standmg to intervene in matenals hcense renewal proceedmg; ALAB-682.16 NRC 153-55 (1982)
Vegmia Electnc and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Staten Umts I and 2). ALAB 529. 9 NRC 153 (1979)
Appeal Board pract ce when sua sponte revww uncovers problems in Licensmg Board decision; ALAB489.16 NRC 891 (1982)
Vrginia Electnc and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power S.aton. Umts I and 2). ALAB 584,11 NRC 451, 458 (1980) interpretaten of the term "available resources"; LBP-82 78,16 NP.C 1812 (1982)
Vrgna Elecinc and Power Company (Nonh Anna Nuclear Power Staten, Unit., I and 2). C1J-74-17,7 AEC 313 (1974) disclosure of matenal protected by esecutive pnvdege; LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1163 (1982)
Vrgna Electnc and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Staten. Umts I and 2). C1J 74-18,7 AEC 313 (1974) apphcaten of Esempuan 5 of Freedom of Informaton Act to intra.-,....;A Communnatens. LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1163 (1982)
Vrgima Electnc and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Strima. Umts I and 2) CLI-76 22,4 NRC 480 486 (1976),afPd sub nom. Veguus Electnc and Power Company v. Nuclear Regulatory Comnussen,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cr.1978) liabidy of apphcant/hcensee for matenal false statement; ALAB491.16 NRC 910 (1982)
Vrguus Electne and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Staten. Umts I and 2), CLI-76-22,4 NRC 480, 487-88. 491 (1976). afPd sub nom. Virgvua Electnc and Power Company v. Nuclear Regulatory Commassen, 571 F. 2d 1289 (4th Cr.1978) sest for matenahty of a statement; ALAB-650,14 NRC 910,912,914. 915 (1981)
Vrguna Electnc and Power Company (North Anna Stauon, Units I and 2). CLI-7416. 7 AEC 313, 314 (1974)
Comnussion pohcy regardmg wrthholdmg of mformauon. LBP-82-59,16 NRC 538 (1982)
Vrgna Petroleum bbbers Assoc. v. FK,259 F.2d 921,925 (D C Cr 1958) factors to be camsidered by Ucensing Board in ruhng on a monon for stay; LBP-82-84,16 NRC I184 (1982) 56 m
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Walker v. Huichinson,352 U.S.112, i15 (1956 loss of nght to heanns through lack of notze; ALAB482,16 NRC 158 (1982)
Warth v. Selden,422 U.S. 490 (1975) satisfaccon of mterest test fa standmg, LBP-82 74,16 NRC 983 (1982)
Washmston Pubix Power Supply System (Hanford No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-113,6 AEC 251 (1973) enwnt of Appeal Board sua sponte revww authonry; ALAB489,16 NRC 890 (19h2)
Washmaton Pubic Power Supply System (Nuclear Projects No. I and No,4), ALAB-265,1 NRC 374,375 n 1 (1975) apsultate revww of Lxenseg Board ndmgs on economs assues, interventen requests or procedural maners.
l A1 AB450.14 NRC 908 (1982)
Washmgton Pubir Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Power Project Nos. 3 and 5), CLI-77-11,5 NRC 719 (1977)
Commission practxe for grant of exempoon from 5010. CLI-62-23,16 NRC 426 (1982)
Washmgton Pubts Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No 2). ALAB-571,10 NRC 687. 692 t1979) scope of sua sponte revww of fmal disposition of Luensmg Board decision. ALAB-689.16 NRC 890 (1982).
ALAB491,16 NRC 908 (1982)
Washmgton v Confederated Tnbes of the Colvdle Indian Reservaten 447 U.S.134,149-50 (1980s situanons givmg nse to appealable order; ALAB490,16 NRC 895 (1982)
Wisconse Electnc Power Company (Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CL1-74-45, 8 AEC 928 (1974) use of draft EIS as basis for late-filed contenton, LBP.82-79,16 NRC ll18 (1982)
Wiscomm Electnc Power Company (Pome Beach Nuclear P*, ant. Umt 2), ALAB-31,4 AEC 689. 690L91 (1971) tammg of discovery on contrnoons; ALAB-687,16 NRC 467 (1982)
Wnconsm Electnc Power Company (Pomi Beach Nuclear Plant Umt 2), A1AB-85,5 AEC 375 (1972) l difference between concepts of effecuveness and fmahty; ALAB489.16 NTC 891 (1982)
Wnght v. Hartford Acculent & Indemmty Company. 580 F.2d 809,810 (5th Cir 1978) failure of pany to submit requested proposed findmgs of fact. ALAB491.16 NRC 907 (1982:
Yoffe v. Keller Indus.. Inc.,580 F.2d 126.129 30.131 n.13 (5th Cir.1978). peuuon for rehear.ng denwd. 582 F.2d 982. 983 (1978) standards for disnussal of apptratons without prejudice; LBP-82-81,16 NRC 1134 (1982) l l
1 l
I E
s O
n l
l l
O P
LEGAL CTTATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CFR I conschdauon of pr%gs, DPRM-82-2,16 NRC 1214 (1982) 10 CFR 2 demat of pennon fw anendment of, to require operaung trense trarmgs for each reactor; DPRM-82-2,16 NRC 121481982) 10 CFR 2. Subpart B Board neommendauon for proceedmg to umdify or suspend reactor operstars' trenses; LBP 82 56,16 NkC 3@,
383 (1982) 10 CFR 2.104(a) and 2.105(ax6) standard for discnuonary tranns on matenals trense amendnunt; CLI-82-21,16 NRC 402 (1982) 10 CFR 2107(a) terms for wahdrawal of constnutmn permit appleauon der issuance of Nouce of Heanng; LBP-82-81,16 NRC 1131. 1134 (1982) 10 CFR 2.109 conunuanon of licensee operaten dunns processing of hcense renewal request.; AIAB482,16 NRC 159 (1982) 10 CFR 2.202 suspension of low-power trense; AIAB481,16 NRC 147 (1982k LBP-82-70,16 NRC 762 (1982) 10 CFR 2.206 assistance for micrvenor who cannot present lus own case; LBP-82-84,16 NRC 1186 (1982) challenges to emergency plannmg Cl182-15,16 NRC 37 (1982) denial of pennon reqirsang amendment of operstmg trense apptranon concermng managernent restructunng; DD 82 IO,16 NRC 1205 (1982) denial of pecuan requesung imuanon of show<ause proceedmg on basis of licensee's financial quahfratens; DD 82-8,16 NRC 394 (1982) denial of penuon to decommassen Humboldt Bay Power Plant; DD-82-7,16 NRC 387(1982) forum for seekmg more sinngent enforcement accons; CLI-82-16,16 NRC 46-47 (1982) perual denial of peutmo regardmg construc' ion defrences at 14alle DD 82-9,16 NRC 3% (1982) 10 CTR 2 An) example of contesned proceedmg wuhm the rneanmg of LBP-82-55,16 NRC 228 (1982); LBP-82-57,16 NRC 480 (1982) 10 CFR 2.500 apptrabthry of immedw cf fecoveness revrw to manufactunng trenses, AIAB-686,16 NRC 456 (1982) 10 CFR 2.503 disancton between constructum pernuts and manufactunng hcenses; ALAB486,16 NRC 456 (1982) 10 CFR 2.504 appirabthty of unmediate effecoveness review to manufactunng trenses; ALAB486,16 NRC 456 (1982) 10 CFR 2.700 conduct of special proceedmgs; ALAB485,16 NRC 451 (1982) 10 CFR 2.707 Board authonty to impose sanctons fa noncomphance wah as orders LBP-80 75,16 NRC 990 (1982) 10 CFR 2.712(a) use of mformal oral notifrauon to tngger time for seeking appeal, ALAB490,16 NRC 895 (1982) 10 LTR 2.712(dW3) 1.acensmg Board junsdcton to consider miten to reopen record maded before Lxensmg Board fmal decison, LBP-82-86,16 NRC 1191 (1982)
M_
n 4
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL*LAT10NS l
a 10 CFR 2.713ta) conduct of parties to NRC pnreedmgs. ALAB491,16 NRC 916 (1982) 9 10 CFR 2.713tc)
Lkensms Board auttority to censure parues to a proceed.ng; LBP-82-87,16 NRC 1201 (1982) 10 CFR 2 714 l
adnuumn of contenuun subject to funher spect6 cay; LBP 82-75,16 NRC 1004 (1982) s
~W
)
admrunon of QA contenton cismg defriencws in F5A*. as basis. LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1073 (1982) amendment of. ALAB487,16 NRC 466 (1982) apphcanon of additonal requirements for admission of contennons. CLI-82-15.16 NRC 34,41 (1982) demonstration of good cause for late filmg, LBP-82-53.15 NRC 201 (1982) denial of intervention for lack of standms; ALAB-682,16 NRC 153 (1982) j exclusion of groups as intervenors because of their opmions on nuclear power; CLI-82-15.16 NRC 31 (1982) fadure of contentmas addreums decontammauan problems to meet specincny requirernents. LBP-82-52.16 NRC 188 (1982) fadure of ernergency plannmg contennon to rneet spectricity requirement. LBP-82-75,16 NRC 993 (1982) meervention on enforcenwat actons CLI-8216.16 NRC 45 (1982 lack of basis of transnussion Imes contention. L.BP-82-76,16 NRC 1085 (1982) quahry assurance contenten seen as expedinon seeking information. LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1042 (1982) reason fa specincity tequirement, LBP-82-52.16 NRC 193 (1982) i restnctons on Board autherny; LBP-82-69,16 NRC 752 (1982)
{
specificay required of contentmn concermng qual:Gcaten of safety related equipment, LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1038 l
(1982) tammg of discovery on conter.nons; ALAB-687,16 NRC 468 (1982) f weak shommg for acceptance of tardy contenuons. LBP 82 54.16 NRC 213 (1982) 10 CFR 2 7144a) adnunion of quahty assurance contenten favored by Ove-factor test. LBP 8243,16 NRC 584 (1982) apphcabihty to late-Died contentens based on prewmusly unavadable docurnents. ALAB-687,16 NRC 463,469 l
(1982) balancmg of Gwe factors favors imuted admissen of nsk assessment contennon; LBP-8243,16 NRC 592 (1982) clanficauan of requirernents for late-Ghng, amendmg. expanding, and deleting contentions; ALAB487,16 NRC 467, 470 (1982) distruual of miervenor for failure to cure deficiencies m standmg; LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1032 (1982) five-factor test for mtervenuon; LBP-82-54.16 NRC 213 (1982) mierests encompassed by; LBP-82-52.16 NRC 185 (1982) satisfacuon of residency remurements for standmg to intervene. LBP-82-52.16 NRC 186 (1982) l standards for adnutung late mtervenor; LBP-8243.16 NRC 586 (1982)
)
urne for nimg supplements to contentens; ALAB487,16 NRC 469 (1982) i 10 CFR 2.714 tax 1)
I admissen requirements to be rnet by refded contenton; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1038 (1982) amendment of peuten to meervene, AL AB440.16 NRC 895 (1982) balancmg of Eve factors for meerventu s, GP-82-74.16 NRC 984 (i982) balancmg of Gwe-factor test favors admission of cost-benefit contentons; LBP 8243.16 NRC 588. 589 (1982) good cause not shoen for late fihng of whation dme contenton. LBP-82-79,16 NRC 1119 (1982) lxensmg Board interpretaten of. LBP-8243.16 NRC 577 (1982) parucipaten by a State; ALAB-690,16 NRC 894 (1982) standards for adtrutung late meervenor. LBP-8243.16 NRC (586) standards for evaluatmg een contentons, LBP-8243.16 NRC 576 (1982) 10 CFR 2.714(allb adnusson of las Jed, clanfied contenton; LBP 82-SI,16 NRC 175 (1982) authoruaimn for wtwruumn of second amended petinon to intervene, LBP-82-52.16 NRC 184 t1982) g standards for adrmtung late mtervenor; LBP-8243,16 NRC (586) l 10 CFR 2 7144b) adnussion of late-fded contenuons based on previously unavadable documents. ALAB-687.16 NRC 467 (1982) g conditznal admisson of nonspecific contentons; ALAB-687.16 NRC 463. 46546 (1982) l
)
3 m
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGl'LATIONS sy-w -
contenten requutment for interventon; ALAB487,16 NRC 464 (1982). LBP-82-74,16 NRC 985 (1982) esclusion of corttentwns 'ar lack of basis; LBP-82 53,16 NRC 198 (1982) inconsistency between Statement of Considerauon and. ALAB-687.16 NRC 464 (1982)
Irenseg board mstructed to allow intervenuon pennoner to supplement as petiton; ALAB 682.16 NRC 156 (1982)
Ucensms Board interpretaten ef, l.BP-8243.16 NRC 577 (1982) specifray requued of radioacuve releases ctmtenten. LBP-82-St.16 NRC 175 (1982) standards fa evaluatmg new contennons; LBP-8243.16 NRC 576 (1982) 10 CFR 2.7I4(c) jusufwaton for unumely response to contentens; l 4P-8243,16 NRC 575 (1982) 10 CFR 2.714(d) weight given to five-factor test for interventen wtrs meerest is strong LBP 82 74.16 NRC 984 (1982) 10 CFR 2.714(f) standmg of petitamer a decontammaton proceedmg to heigate related waste disposal issues; LBP-82 52.16 NRC 191 (1982) 10 CFR 2.714a appeal of rulmgs admittmg intervenors; CLI-82-15.16 NRC 30 (1982) appixaten of fmalary rule. ALAB490,16 NEC 895 (1932) cucumstances appropnate fa interlocutory appeals. ALAB 683.16 NRC 161 (fv82) rejecten of argument for disnussal of appeal. ALAB-690.16 NRC 895 (1982) use of informal oral naufwauon to engger urne for necking appeal; ALAB-690.16 NRC 895 (1982) 10 CFR 2.714a#c) standard for permsmng appeals of orders grantmg micrventen. ALAB487,16 NRC 464 (1982) adminuon of local government enury as full party; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1092 (1982) panicipaten by a State. ALAB490,16 NRC 894 (1982) panr: paten by Commonwealth of Massachusens as full pany; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1079 (1982) panxtpanon by South Carolma as mierested state LBP-82-55,16 NRC 229 (1982) 10 CFR 2.715sd) definamn of amicus cunae; ALAB479.16 NRC 125 (1982) 10 CFR 2.715a I
requirement of consolwfated panns. CLI-82-25.16 NRC 868 (1982) l 10 CFR 2.716 Commisson authonty to consohdate two or more proceedmgs; DPRM-82-2.16 NRC 1215 (1982) cntena for conschdaung matenals hcense renewal and operaung hcense prtreedmgs. ALAB-682.16 NRC 155 (1982) 10 CFR 2.717(a) termmation of junsdwton of presidmg offwer. LBP 82-86.16 NRC 1191.1893 (1982) 10 CFR 2.717(b) licensing board junsdicton to consider heanng request on operstmg twense amendment that a is not authonzed to tesww; ALAB479.16 NRC 125 (1982) 10 CFR 2.718 sherstm2 of Board authonty of conduct heanngs; LBP-8249.16 NRC 753 (1982) 10 CFR 2.718 Board responsibihty fw fairness. LBP-82-73,16 NRC 979 (1982) 10 CFR 2.718 e)
Board dactenon to conduct heanngs outside 14 mile EPZ. CL! 82-15.16 NRC 37 (1982) 10 CFR 2 718ti) demal of petitmn for directed cemficaten of two evidenhary ruhngs made dunng operatmg license proceedings.
LBP-8242,16 NRC 566 (1982)
Licensmg Board authonty to certify questmns to the Commisson. LBP-82-62.16 NRC 567 (1982) petiten for duccted certifraten of unpubbshed order; ALAB488.16 NRC 473 (1982) request fw Comnusison review of luensmg board order denymg monon for stay or dnmissal of evidenuary p.'
pmceedms; CLI-8215.16 NRC 33 (1982) 61
l LEGAL CITATIONS LNDEX REGL*LATIONS i
O amhorny of trenseg toard to reopen the reconi, CLJ-82 20,16 NRC 114 (1982)
Board authorwy to reopen alw record, LSP-82-54,16 NRC 214 (!982) terminauon of panadwoon of presiding offuer, LBP-82-86,16 NRC 8191,1893 (1982) 10 CFR 2 720(f)
Licensmg Board authorny to condican its ruhngs; LAP-82-81,16 NRC 1140 (1982) l
- v l
10 CFR 2.721(b) reconsunzion of ticenseg Board, CU-82-24,16 NRC 866 (1982) l 10 CFR 2.722(aX2) appananent of Special Masaer, lap-82 56,16 NkC 288 (1982) 10 CFR 2.722(a)(3) weight given so repon of Special Masser; lap-82-%,16 NRC 288 (1982) 10 CFR 2.730 nght of enovant to reply to answers in NRC proceedings; LEP-82-72, I6 NRC 971 (1981) 10 CFR 2.730lc) jusurranon for unumely response to comennons; LEP-8243,16 NRC 575 (1982) 10 CFR 2.730 e) mairrataan of absent panes of oral ruimgs; A1AB490,16 NRC 395 (1982) 10 CFR 2.730iO an=Ilate etandard fa acceptance of Irensms toard referrals; ALAD487,16 NRC 464 (1982) referral of ruimgs condanonally adnutung nonspecifs comenbons; ALAB487,16 NRC 463 0982) 10 CFR 2.732 burden of proof fa asserarse of adequacy of earrgency plans; LAP-82-77,16 NRC 1099 (1982) burden of proof in show cause order, LSP-8244,16 NRC 655 (1982) l 10 CFR 2.740 anung of discovery on contenbons; ALAB487,16 NRC 467 (1982) l 10 CFR 2.740tbN1) esclusion of rmancial quahfranons issues froen operatmg Irense proceedmgs, LEP-8247,16 NRC 738 (1982) maners na whrh ducovery may be ottamed. LEP-82-82,16 hRC 1856 (1982) 10 CFR 2.740lbM2) anasenals encorrpanat by work product doctnne; LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1159,1862 (1982) maners whxh are ymdeged frown discovery; LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1157 (1982) 10 CFR 2.740tc) clauns of prmlege improperty raued. LBP-82 82,16 NRC 1852 (1982) 10 CFR 2.740icM6) stendards for showmg good cause fa a prosecuve order LBP-82-82,16 MtC 1853 (1982) 10 CFR 2.740(O monon for order compellms government intervepw so produce energency wung documents, LEP-82-82, IJ NRC I149 (1982) need for intervenor to seek protecove order when responding neganvely to discovery request; LBP-82-82,16 NBC 1151, 1152 (1982) 10 CFR 2.740(fx1) umelmess of mouan to compel; 12P-82-82,16 NRC 1151 (1982) 10 CFR 2.741(d) responses to mouans to compel; iSP-82-82,16 NRC 1151, i152 (1982) 10 CFR 2.74)(3) smhrussion of Staff E2A as evidence; LBP-82 78,16 NRC 1110 0982) 10 CFR 2.743(i) cntena fw offerial nonce of informanon in separare proceedmgs, ALAB482,16 NRC 154 (1982) 10 CFR 2.744 execuove pnvdege for W,~
ental-
---. LSP-82 82,16 NRC 1862 (1982) 10 CFR 2.744(e) cntena fa release of secunry plans to interv:nors; L2P-82 80,16 NRC !!:S (1982) resenctons on disclosure of safeguards mformanon; LBP 82 51,16 NRC 177 (1982) 62
,m i
l
~
- 1
.fg E !
l i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS
'b 10 CFR 2.749 tardens : net in Stafra and applicants' matenwnts of masenal facts regardmg ATWS comenton; LBP-82-57,16 NRC 482,443 (1982) conformance of intervenor's response enh, LBP-42 57,16 WC 481 (1982) requwementa net by appluants' motion for summary dispos'em; LBP 82-57,16 NRC 484 (1982)
Staff satisfaction of the nquirenents of lap-82 57,16 NRC 48)(1982) summary dispussuon of uncaidamnally admined contenuons ALAB487,16 NRC 464 (1982) 10 CFR 2.749(a) submission of masement of nutenal facts with summary disposamn moeura; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 520 (1982) 10 CFR 2.749td) standards fm summary disposamon; lap-82-58,16 NRC 519 (1982) 10 CFR 2.75ta fadure of inservenor to meet f!!mg tmw fa obpecnons LBP-82 72,16 NRC 971 (1981) lack of specirsay of coemennon not grounds fa rejecnon, LBP-82-St,16 NRC 169 (1982) 10 CFR 2.75Ia(d) demal of certirraten of emergency plannmg contentens, LBP-82-51,16 NRC 174 (1982) 10 CFR 2,754 Board authorny to vary scheduleg procedures; LBP-82 SI A,16 NRC 181 (1982) 10 CFR 2.754(s) alteMmn of regulsiory schedule for fahng Imdmgs of fact; LBP 82-51 A,16 NRC 181 (1982) 10 CFR 2.758 minussion of consentons challenging Commissen regulatons, CU-8215,16 NRC 35 (1982)
Commisson authorny to determme apptrabilay cif, CU-8215,16 NRC 54 ('98!2) esample of specut cucurrstances necessary foc considenng need-for-power issues in operaung license proceedmgs; lap-82 58,16 NRC 528 (1982)
I inserpetaten of "special m,
-s"; LBP-82 58,16 NRC 532 (1982) l petiten to escepton to numencal lunnaten on sue of design basis threat; CLI-82-19,16 NRC 71 (1982) 10 CFR 2.7584a) challenges to regulauons; CU-8219,16 NRC 71 (1982) claim of grealer-than-zero radmacove releases as escessive; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 522,523 (1982) 10 CFR 2.7584b) f excepuons to regulatens, CU-82-19,16 NRC 78 (1982) j Back of showing for cernficanon of enwrgency plannmg contentons. LBP-82-SI,16 NRC 174 (1982)
,, -W pecuans fm escepoons to regulanon, CU-8219.16 NRC 72 (1982) 10 CFR 2.758(c) challenges to regulations, CU-8219,16 NRC 71 (198b 10 CFR 2.758(d) demal of cerufraten of emergency plannmg ce. atmos; LBP-82-51,16 NRC 174 (1982)
(
treatment of escepuons to regulatons where grounds are shoen; CU-82-19,16 NRC 71 (1982)
I 10 CFR 2.760La) appication to manufactunng hcense pmceedmgs; ALAB489,16 NRC 889 (1982)
(
cernfranon of record of special proceeding to the Comnussen; ALAB-685,16 NRC 451 (i9152)
I discretion of Board to take up impanar t safety issues; LBP-82-60,16 NRC 547 (1982) 10 CFR 2 760sa) l nature of cases subject to sua sponte revww by Appeal Board, ALAB-689,16 NRC 890L91 (1982)
I 10 CFR 2.760s l
authonty of Icensing board to reopen the record, CU-82 20,16 NRC 114 (1982)
Board authonty to reopen the record, LBP 82-54,16 NRC 214 (1982)
Commission revww of Irensms board decisions to esernse sua sponte authoney; CU-82-20,16 NRC 115 (1982)
Imutatmn on maners to be resolved in operates Irense proceedmgs, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1086 (1982) responsibihres of presidmg offsers in indial decisme a contested pmceeding. DPRM-82-2,16 NRC 1216 (1982 sua sponte adorten by hcenses board of contentons advanced by meervenor; CU-82-20,16 NRC 115 (1982) sua sponte adoptma of laae filed, escluded contemmn; LBP 82-79,16 NRC II19 (1982) sua sponse adopuen of qualwy assurance and management competence coruennons; CU-82-20,16 NRC 109 63
LEGAL CITATIONS LNDEX REGL'LATIONS G
precluuan of evidennary lwanngs on Imuted wort authoruanon request; ALAB488,16 NRC 473,474 (1982) 10 CFR 2.761a 10 CfR 2 762 applwation of fmalwy rule, ALAB490,16 NRC 895 (1982) 10 CFR 2.762 requerrnents for fdmg appellate bnefs; LEP 82 78,16 NRC 1115 (1982) 10 CFR 2.762(a) appeal of rejecten of contention; ALAB483,16 NRC 161 (1982) cornents of bnefs or, appeal, ALAB49),16 NRC 956 (1982) rejecten of argument for dismissal of appeal; ALAB490,16 NRC 895 (1982) use of informal oral notifwation to engger ame fw seeking appeal. AIAB-690,16 NRC 895 (1982) 10 CFR 2.762(a), (c), and (d) failure of appeal to conform to the requwernents of; ALAB-684,16 NRC I66 ti982) 10 CFR 2.762(O failure of appeal to conform to the requirerrcnts of; ALAB484,16 NRC 166 (1982) 10 CFR 2.764 amendrnent of. ALAB486,16 NRC 457, dit (1982)
Appeal Board obhgation to conduct unmediate effecovenest revww in n.anufactur ng hcense proceedmgs, ALAB489,16 NRC 889,891 (1982) 10 CFR 2.764 (1982) applKabihty of immediate effectiveness revw= to manufactunng hcense case ALAB-686,16 NRC 456,457 (1982 10 CFR 2.764(ex I)f u), (3xni)(1982) amend nent of ALAB486,16 NRC 457,458 (1982) 10 CFR 2.7%eX2) immediate effectiveness revwws by appeal board, ALAB-686,16 NRC 456 (1982) 10 CTR 2.7%O appbcabdity of, to order convertmg provisional operstmg trense to full te m; LEP-82-58,16 NRC 532 (1982) deficiences in emergency offute medzal arrangements fa puble not a deterrent to full-power operanon of San Onofre; CLI-82-14.16 NRC 25 (1982) effectiveness of full-power imenses for Sa.e Onofre; CLI-82-27,16 NRC 884 (1982) effectiveness of trense amendment pendmg Comnumon revw=; LBP-82-60A,16 NRC 556 (1982) 10 CFR 2.7%0 (1982) resuhs of Cornmtsson immediate effscuveness reyww; ALAB493,16 NRC 954 (1982) 10 CIR 2.7%fx2)
Commisson and Staff responsibdities before full-power hcense issues; ALAB480,16 NRC 144 (1982) 10 CFR 2.770 sal appeal board authonry to revww entre record sua sponte; ALAB485,16 NRC 451 (1982) 10 CFR 2.771 specifsity required of monon for reconsulernoon LBP-8248,16 NRC 749 (1982) time for films objections to nonfmal decisons, LBP-82 72,16 NRC 971 (1981) 10 CFR 2 780 conversauons among partes in a hcensmg proceedmg; ALAB480,16 NRC 144 (1982) 10CFR 2.785<a) appeal board authority to revww entut record sua sponie, AIAB485,16 NRC 451 (1982) nature of cases subject to sua sponte revww by Appeal Board ALAB 689,16 NRC 8691 (1982) 10 CFR 2.785(b)(1) petumn for directed certificauon of unpublished order, AIAB488,16 NRC 473 (1982) f 10 CTR 2.785(b)(21 authonty for appeal board to hear safety issues it has raised sua sponte; CLI-82-12,16 NRC 3 (1982) distincton between appeUnie revww of record and sua sponte authonty, ALAB-685,16 NRC 452 (1982) 10 CFR 2 785(d) certifraten of questens to Commission concemms adjudicarmy board's junsdroon to consuler quahty assuranc issues. ALAB481,16 NRC 148 (1982) certifration of questens to Commissen regardmg reopenmg record on QNQC assues. LBP-82-70,16 N (1982)
N e
1 k
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CFR 2.786(b) reasons for Comr=== review of appeal toned decuson; CU-82-12A,16 NRC 18 (1982) 10 CFR 2.786(bx5) declinser m of revww by e 10 CFR 2.787(b) authorwy of Appeal Panel Omuman; AIAB483,16 NRC 161 (1982) 10 CFR 2.788(e) factors determming stay of effecoveness of a permit; AIAB486, I6 NRC 456 (1982) fadors to be considered by licenssng Board in ruhns on a monon for stay; L3P4244,16 NRC 1184 (1982) f 10 CFR 2.788(eX2) appleauon of "iruparable mjury" critanon to manufacaring bcense case; ALAB-686,16 NRC 458 (1982) satisfacnon of cntenon, in manufactinns ! cense case; ALAB489,16 NRC 891 (1982) 10 CFR 2.790 clasurraten of secunty plans as commercial or rmancial informauan; LBP-82-80,16 NRC I124 (1982) esacuuve pnydere fa M-
,,~.- : ' ~
"& LSP-82-82,16 NRC I16211982) 10 CFR 2.79(Xd) release of sensstive informanon to intervenors in NRC pr==Angs, LBP4240 I6 NRC 1124.1825 (1982)
I 10 CFR 2.8042.809 publzauon of peouon for rulemaking for comment; DPRM 82-2,16 NRC 1215 (1982) 10 CFR 2.802 ehgibday to peuuan for rulemahng; CU-82-19,16 NRC 74 (1982) i raismg general health and safety concerns; LSP42 52,16 NRC 185 (1982) 10CFR 2, App. A.V(fM4) standards for deternuning whether drected cerufsaton is appropnare; lap-8242.16 NRC 566 67 (1982) 10 CFR 2. App. A. Vill (b)(3) heahh effects of transmissen hnes; LSP-82-76,16 NRC 1085 (1982) 10 CFR 2. App. A,IX(dX3) acceptance of unumely appeals, ALAB484,16 NRC 165 (1982) 10 CFR 2. App. C defuution of matenal false statement. ALAB491 I6 NRC 911. 915 (1982) 10 CFR 9 basis for Staff claun of pnvilege; LSP4247,16 NRC 1202 (1982) 10 CFR 9103 request for Comnussaan revww of Board order ruims on consenuons to be hngsted,CU-82-15,16 NRC 33 (1902) source of guadance on Commission's meent; CU42 25,16 NRC 877 (1982) 10 CFR 19 retahauon agamst QA/QC gersonnel in violanon of, LSP-82-54,16 NRC 220 (1982) 10 CFR 20 Staff position on nats to individuals from radiauon domes; LBP42-57,16 NRC 501 (1982) summary disposinon of contenuon alleging off-gas enussaans fail to comply with radiauon amseccon standards of, LBP-82 58,16 NRC 522 24 (1982) 10 CFR 20 I rejecton of contenoon asserung equipment repurs edi cause fadure to meet esposure requuements of. LBP-82-SI, 16 NRC 173 (1982) 10 CFR 20.l(c) detection of loose parts; LBP42 76,16 NRC 1066 (1982) showrig necessary to establish conformance with as-low as-reasonably achevable requwement for radaoacave; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 522 (1982) 10 CFR 21.2 basis for Staff claun of pnvdege; LBP-8247.16 NRC 1202 (1982) 10 CFR 30 conschdauan of masenals hcense and opernung hcense pracedogs; ALAB482,16 NRC 151-52 (1982) l
,.g.~.
tacense amendment sought for water colleccan and retenuon system at inactve thanum are null, CLI-82 21.16 NRC 402 (1982) g
LEGAL CITATIONS LNDEX ILEGL't.ATIONS 10 CFR 50 amendment of, to impose addnional trensmg requuements; AIAB486,16 NRC 457 (1982) 9 consohdaten of masenals Irense and operaung trense prw.cedings; ALAB-682,16 NRC 152 (1982) detecten of loose parts LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1066 (1982) anaeracten between sarety and non-safety systems at Seabrook; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1082 (1982) performance of pre <onstnrtion perma, safety-relued activnes, C1J-82-23,16 NRC 417 (1982)
B(I comphance enh reactor operarm requahficaron program; LBP-82-56,16 NRC 349 (1982) 10 CFR 5010 exempton frnrn, granted in part for expenmemal reactor; C1J-82-23,16 NRC 415 (1982) grant of partial esempime from, fa breeder reactor project, ALAB488,16 NRC 473 (1982) pubhc interest ~h= in grantmg eternpton from; C1J-82 23,16 NRC 422,425 (1982) 10 CFR 50.10tbx2)
-m 6 tmeten between consouction permus and manufactunng hcenses; ALAB486,16 NRC 456 (1982) 10 CFR 50.10(c) hmnanons a constnutnan actmtws pnar to issuance of LWA or construction permn; CLI-82 23,16 NRC 416,418 (1982) 10 CFR 50.10IeXI) actmtes allowed under lumted work authoruauon, ALAB488,16 NRC 473 (1982) 10 CFR 50.10 lex 2) requuements for grant of hmited work authenzatmn; A1AB488,16 NRC 473 (1982) 10 CFR 50.10 tex 3xiHu) foreclosure of consulerauon of site sonabday issues through grant of exempuon so 50.10. CLI-82-23,16 NRC 423 (1982) 10 CFR 50 ll(b) apphcanon of Irensmg provisions of Atorme Energy Act to Department of Energy; ALAB479,16 NRC 125 (1982) 10 CFR 50.12 apptrauon of, so firster-a-kand prosect, C1J-82-23,16 NRC 419 (1982) lussory of. C1J-82-23,16 NRC 446 (1982) pubhc unerest factors favanns grant of enempton under; C1J-82 23,16 NRC 439 (1982) 10 CFR 50.12(a) discussion of entena for granung exempuan frnm 50.10; CU-82-23,16 NRC 415,419,422 (1982) 10 CFR 50.I2(b)
Comrmssion interpretation of; C1J-82 23,16 NRC 423 (1982) discusson of cruena to be rnet for granung of enempton from 50.10ic); C1J-82 23,16 NRC 416,418-19,422, 423, 426 (1982) 10 CFR 50.12(bxl}
envuonmental unpacts considered in allowmg pre-consuucten perma sne preparanon actmars; CLI-82-23,16 NRC 426,437 (1982) 10 CFR 50.12(bM2) redressabday of pre <onstructen pernut sne acevnes; C1J-82-23,16 NRC 427 (1982) 10 CFR 50.12(bx3) foreclosure of considersten of shernauves through ininanon of site preparation acavnes; C1J-82-23,16 NkC 428 (1982) 10 CFR 50.12(b)f 4) effects of delay in imuaung breeder reactor project; CU-82-23,16 NRC 429,438 (1982) 10 CFR 50.13 provuhng design features for particularued threats of sabotage; C1J-8219,16 NRC 73 (1982) rejectare of electromagnets pulse contennon as challenge to; LBP-82 51,16 NRC 174 (1982) l
(
66
$w..
l-y d ', h w
l
{
l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGl'LATIONS 10 CFR 50 31 consohdauon of proceedmgs; DPRM-82-2,16 NRC 1214 (1982) 10 CFR 50.33(f) contenton alleges irai~ rey of sum alloned for e -
-mg; LBP 82-57. f 6 NRC 481 (1982) preclusen of fmancial quahfrations consideranons in operaung trense proceedmgs; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1045,
~
1081 (1982) 10 CFR 50 33(g) comphance of Diablo Canyon ensne State and local emergency respone plans and preparedness, LBP-82-70.16 NRC 76s (1982) comphance of Diablo Canyon's emergency plans with; LBP-82 70, it hRC 760,798 799,855 (1982) deficences in trundanes for EPZa at Seabrook; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1077 (1982) fadure of apphcant to submit emergency response plans of State and local governments. LBP-82 76,16 NRC 107 (1982) responsibihty for preparauon of radiologral response plan; LEP-82-82,16 NRC II62 (1982) 10 CFR 50.%a)(3xi) inapptrabihty to test reactors; LBP-82-64,16 NRC 698 (1982) 10 CFR 50 Wax 7) amendment of conuruction permns; D}8L1207 10 CFR 50 Mbw6Xi) and (ii) informanon to be subnuned ia FSAR on management structure and organuaton; DD821207 10 CFR 50.3Mbx6xii) derswnces in F5AR, on quahry assurance fa operauons; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 107) (1982) 10 CFR 50.34(by6xv) laiture of Seabrook emergency plan to address requirements of; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1074 (1982) 10 CFR 50.Mc) cntena for protecten of nuclear reactors, CLI-82-19,16 NRC 62 (1982) 10 CFR 50.34a showing necessary to estabhsh conformance with as-low-as-reasonably achevable requirement for radioacave releases, LEP-82-58,15 NRC $22 (19821 10 C4 50.36 detection of loose parts; LBP-8.'-76,16 NRC 1066 (1982) 10 CFR 50 36a showing necessary to estsbhsh conformance with as-low as-reasonably achevable requrement for radioacuve; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 522 (1982) 10 CFR SO 40 considerauon of liquid pathway accident impacts; LBP-82 76.16 NRC 1037 (1982)
'O CFR 50 401bW1982) l chmmaten of fmancial quahfranons issues from operaung Irense proceedmgs,1EP-82 76.16 NRC 1081 (1982) l 10 CFR 50.40td) rmdmgs on NEPA comphance, to be made by Director pnor so issuance of operaung hcense; ALAB4 956 (1982) 10 CFR 50 44 adequacy of Seabrook design to withstand escessive hydroger. generston;1EP-82-76,16 NRC 1039 amount of hydrogen genersuon so be taken m account m containment deugn; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1064 (19 d.fferences between hydrogen control requirements and hydrogen release assumptons for purpose of environm quahfraten. LEP-82-76,16 NRC 1049 (1982) hydrogen producten at TMI. LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1063 (1982) 10 CFR 50 46 necessity for nsk assessment; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1033 (1982) 10 CFR 50.47 assuraroc of adequacy of protecove measures to be taken m radiologwal emergency; LBP-82-70,16 NRC (1982) l conformance of Summer facdity's emergency mformanon brochure with. LBP-82-57.16 NRC 490 (1982) divisen of responsibihty for emergency P annmg. LBP-82 77,16 NRC 1099 (1982) l 1
E.i WE 67
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS enwrgency planning standards for evacuanon of persons without vehicles. LBP-82-77.16 NRC 1100 (1982)
S emergency response plans for radiauon-injured in the general pubhe; ALAB-680,16 NRC 135 (1982) enforcement of requirements of. LBP-82-70.16 NRC 802 (1982) fadure of Seabrook emergency pian to a&lress requuements of. LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1074 (1982 4
locanon ti emergency pubis alerung synaem
)
necessity fw FEMA rindings on State emergency plan. LBP-82-85.16 NRC 1188 (1982) operating license condiuoned on resolunon of emergency preparedness matters under; CLI-8214.16 NRC 25
)
(1982) responsibdity for onsite radiation momtonng during radiological emergency; LBP-82-70.16 NRC 827 (1982) responsibihty for preparauon of radiologral response plan, LBP-82-82,16 NRC ll62 (1982) standard of Board review of emergency plannmg; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 802 (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(a)
FEMA review of emergency planning pamphlet in Irense amendment proceeding; LBP-82-60,16 NRC 547 (1982) requirement for Staff issuance of supplement to Safety Evaluauon Report. LBP-82-68.16 NRC 749 (1982) 10 CFR 50.47(a) and (b) protecove actmo contention l mned to onsne measures; LBP-82 76.16 NRC 1046 (1982) i 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1) emergency planning findings required pnar to issuance of full-power hce.ne, LBP-82-68,16 NRC 745 (1982)
NRC enwrgency preparedness findmgs required for issuarre of operaung bcense. LBP-82-57.16 NRC 484 (1982) 10 CFR $0 47(ax t). (aX2) and (b) fadure of emergency plan to Lake local condnions into account; LBP-82-75.16 NRC 991 (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(aX2) basis of Commission findmgs that emergency plans are adequate; LBP-8248.16 NRC 745-46 (1982) basis of NRC imdmgs on adequacy of offsite emergency plans, LBP-82-57,16 NRC 485 (1982) 10 CFR 50.47tb) adequacy of Summer facihty's enwrgency response plannms; LBP-82 57,16 NRC 495 (1982) admission of contenuon contestmg comphance of iodine momtors with. LBP-82-75.16 NRC 1010 (1932) fadure of appixant to meet standards of; LBP-82-57.16 NRC 509 (1982)
FEMA revww of emergency plannmg pamphlet in hcense amendrnent proceedmg. LBP-8240,16 NRC 547 (1982) requirement for soecific indenufwanon or radiation monnors; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1010 (1982) sausfacnon of requirements for radiological emergency response traimng; LBP-82 57,16 NRC 495 (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(bMI) assurance that Diablo Canyon rnects planmng standard of; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 763. 768. 799 (1982) inadequacy of plan for assignmg enwrgency communications and nauficanon responsibihty: LBP-82 79,16 NRC 1027 (1982) inadequate dehneauon of responsibihties of onsne emergency personnel, L BP-82-75,16 NRC 1024 ( 982) lack of assurance of assistance from offsite agencies dunng raaological e ergency; LBP-82 75.16 NRC 1023 (1982) 30 CFR 50.47(bW 1), (2).ad (3) lack of incorporanon of federal response capabdnes in Shweham's emergency plans. LBP-82 75.16 NRC 1022 (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(b)(2) adequacy and conunuity of staffing at Seabrook; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1(46 (1982) inadequacy of Shoreham's accident assessment and rronitanng abihues, LBP-82-75.16 NRC 1025 (1982) inadequate dehneation of responsitshues of onsite emergency personnel; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1024 (1982) lack of assurance of assistance from offsite agencies dunns radiological emergency; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1023 (1982) lack of incorporanon of federal response capabdnies in Shoreham's emergency plans. LBP-82 75,14 NRC 1022 (1982) requirement for specific mdenuficanon of radianon monnors; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1010 (1982) 10 CFR 50.47(bM3) adequacy of Diablo Canyon's ernergency response support and resources. LBP-82 70.16 NRC 771. 808. 810 (1982) inadequate delineauon of responsibdines of onsite emergency personnel. LBP-82-75.16 NRC 1024 (1982) e
LEGAL CITATIONS LNDEX REGLUTIONS lack of assurance of assistance from offsite agencies dunns radiologral emergency; LBP-82 75,16 NRC 1023 (1982) lack of mcorporaten of federal response capabihues in Shoreham's emergency plans. LBP-82 75.16 NRC 1022 (1982) 10 CFR 50.4/(bx4) adequacy of Diablo Canyon's emekgency classifwation system. LBP-82-70,16 NRC 772. 810-811 (1982) inadequacies cited in emergency classifwaton and acnon scherne at Seabrook; LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1045 (198 anadequacy of Shoreham atenm safety parameter d splay system; LBP-82-75.16 NRC 1028 (1982) anadequacy of Shoreham's acciderit assessment and momsorms abihues; LBP 82-75,16 NRC 1025 (1982) requirement for specific adentificaten of ra&auon momtors; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1010 (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(bx5) adequacy of Diablo Canyon's emergency pubisc ahenng system; LBP-82-70,16 NRC 775. 811. 816 (1982) adequacy of San Onofre emergency pubhc nonficanon system. CL1-8214.16 NRC 25 (1982) burden of demonstraung existencs of satisfactory promps notificauan system for plume exposure pathway EPZ populace; LBP-82-60,16 NRC 550 (1982) relevancy of applwant's pubhc irhmaton emergency planning pamphlet; LBP-82-60,16 NRC 542 (1982) scope of regulanons for ahenng plume exposure pathway EPZ populace of radelogical emergency; LBP-NRC 495 (1982) size and configuraten of plurr:: capesure emergency plannmg zone; ALAB-680,16 NRC 132 (1982) 10 CFR Su 47(bx5) and (6) adequacy of Shoreham prompt noufsauon system; LBP-82 75,16 NRC 1021 (1982) 10 CFR 50.47(bx6) adequacy of offsine commumcatons system at Diablo Canyon to cope with ra&ologwal emergency. LBP-82-7 NRC 776. 816, 820 (1982) adequacy of Shoreham prompt nouisaten system; LBP 82-75,16 NRC 1021 (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(bx7) adequacy of Diablo Canyon pubhc nauficaten program; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 780,820 (1982) inadequacy of plan for assigmng emergency communwauons and notificauon responsibihty; LBP-82-75,16 1027(1982) lack of disserronaten of emergency plannmg informata to pubhc; LBP-82 76,16 NRC KW6 (1982) satisfacton of requirement for nonficanon and educaten of pubhc on what acten they should take m ra&ological emergency; LBP-82-57.16 NRC 495 (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(bx8) adequacy of Diablo Canyon equipment for implementmg emergerry plans; LBP-82-70.16 NRC 782. 825,82 (1982) adrmssion of contennon contesung comphance of iodine rnomtors with; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1010 (1982) inadequacy of Shoreham intene safety parameter display system. LBP-82 75.16 NRC 1028 (1982) madequacy of Shoreham's accident assessment and rnomsonng abihues. LBP 82-75.16 NRC 1025 (1982) inadequate dehneauen of responsibihues of onsite emergency personnel. LBP-82 75,16 NRC 1024 (1982) lack of assurance of assistance from offsite agences duntg r,lmiogral emergency; LBP-82 75.16 NRC 1023 (1982) nonconformance of Shoreham plan and procedures for operaten of Emergency Operatens Facihty; LBP-82-75.16 NRC 1025 (1982) requirement for specific idenuficauon of ra&ation momtors; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1010 (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(bx9) capabihty for assessing and rnomtonng ra&oacuve releaws at Diablo Canyon. LBP-82-7R 16 NRC 783, (1982) f madequacy of accident and dose assessment models; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1028 (1982) l inadequacy of Shoreham intenm safety parameter display system. LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1028 (1982) inadequacy of Shoreham's accident assessment and momtonng abihtws; LBP 82-75.16 NRC 1025 (1982) requirement for specific idenuficaten of ra&aton momtors; LBP-82-75.16 NRC 1010 (1982) types of ra&ological hazards; ALAB-680,16 NRC 139 (1982)
)
l l
LEGAL C:TATIONS INDEX REGL'LA110NS to CFR 50.47(bN10)
=&yey of Shoreham plans for Pe= of prosecuve actions durwg radmiogral emergency; LJIP-82 75, G
16 NRC 1023 (1982) rehabitary of evacuanon tmw esumans at Diablo Canyon, LBP 82 70,16 NRC 786,833,8% (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(bx!l) adequacy of means for controlleg radiological caposures of emergency workers at Diablo Canyon; LBP-82-70,16 y*
NRC 786,8% (1982) fadure of applzant to areat traanmg requirenwnts for emergency response pmannel; LBP 82-75,16 NRC 1024 (1982) lack of rneans to control radelogral esposures to emergency workers, LSP-82 75,16 NRC 1025 (1982)
-A 10 CFR 50 47(bgl2) t y of medral and pubis heakh support durms radiologral emergency at Diablo Canyon LBP-82-70,16
=&
' - _ ~ '
NRC 787,837 (1982)
Agyeal Board and Licensing Board differences in -..,. -, CLJ-82-27,16 NRC 884 (1982) unlequacus in Shoreham's emergency plans for medral and pubis heahh support; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1022 (1982) interpretauon of -
' injured individuals"; ALAP 660,16 NRC 135, IM (1982) meerpretanon of "contammated injured individuals"; LBP-82 75,16 NRC 997 (1982) lack of assurance of assistance frorn offsne agences dureg radiological emergency, lap-82 75,16 NRC 1023 (1982) obhgatson of trensee to make emergency medral semces arrangements; L2P-8240A.16 NRC 556 (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(bW13) adequacy of plans for recovery and reentry operaten at Diablo Canyon; LBP-82-70,16 NRC 788,839 (1982) fadure of intervenor so revise recovery and reentry con;ennon; LBP 82 75,16 NRC 1016 (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(bx14) adequacy of Diablo Canyon's plans for emergency esercises and drdis, LBP-82-70,16 NRC 790,841 (1982) 10 CFR 50.47(bx15) adequacy of radmkwical energency response trammg at Diablo Canyon; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 792,845 (1982) educanon of pubir officials on problems of radianmu esposure; LBP-82 77,16 NRC 1098 (1982) fadure of apptrant eu rneet trammg requuemems of ernergency response pmanal; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1024 (1982) lack of assurance of assistance from offsne agences dunns radaologral emergency; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1023 (1982) lack of means to connel radmiogral esposures so ernergency workm; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1025 (1982) 10 CFR 50.47(bM16) adequacy of planmns for revww and dastnbuten of emergency plans at Diablo Canyon; LBP-82-70,16 NRC 792, 847, 849 (1912) 10 CFR 50 47(cWI) ahernauve sneans of naufyms pubir of an emergency; ALAB480,16 NRC 132 (1982) compensauons for energency plannmg derriencies; ALAB480.16 NRC 142 (1982) cntena for determmmg ments of ererrgency planning issue; ALAB-680,16 NRC 131 (i982) distnbution of emergency plannmg pamphlet to transients; LEP-8240,16 NRC 552 (1982) factors so be considered by Irensms boards in allowing full-power tverauon pnar to resoluuan of emergency planning issues; ALAB480,16 NRC IM,138 (1982) immediate effecoveness revww of decisaan to assue condatoned full-pcmer operaung trense; CLJ-82-14,16 NRC 25 (1982) intervenors challenge licensms board's conclusions ccncermns radiauan assessment capabdites of local jurmhcuans; ALAB-680,16 NRC 140 (1982) sigmfrance of deficencies in emergency plan; LBP-82-57,16 NRC 48&87 (1982) signaricance of ders ences in Summer facdify emergency plans, LBP-82-57,16 NRC 509 (1982) 10 CFR 50 47(cx2) adjustment of emergency plannmg rane to conect deficiency; LBP-82-57,16 NRC 48487 (1982) challenges so; CLI-82-36,16 NRC 36 (1982) deficences in boundanes for emergency plannmg zones at Scatenok; LBP 82-76,16 NRC 1077 (1982) 70
.?
Ii
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LAMONS O
difference between Cahforma EPZa and federal;y dermed EPZs; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 764-66 BOI,802 (1982) entent of eeuimony to be allowed on emergency planmns beyond 10Lmde plunw esposure EPZ, CLi-82 25,16 NRC 872 (1982) sigmfrance of defwences m emergency plan, LBP-82-57,16 NRC 486-87 (1982) sue and configuration of plume esposure emergency plannmr zone; ALAB480,16 NRC 132 (1982) 10 CFR 50 %axI),(2) failure of Seabmok emergency plan to address requirements of LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1074 (1982) 10 CFR 50.%p) lwensee's responsibihtes pnar to implementmg sinfeguards contagency plan, CLI-82-19,16 NRC 79,80 (1982 10 CFR 50.544q) relevancy of applwant's puble informanon emergency plannmg pamphlet LEP-82 60,16 NRC 542 (1982) 10 CFR 50.54(sN2Nsi) deadlue for correcten of emergency plannmg derwencies at Indian Pomt, CU-82 25,16 NRC 869 (1982) distnbuten of emergency plannmg pamphlet to transents; LBP-82 60. I6 NRC 552 (1982) division of responsibihty for emergency plannmg LBP-82 77,16 NRC 1979 (1982) pened for correcuan of ernergency planmng defuenews in operatmg nuclear power plants; ALAB480, 131 (1982) relevancy of applwant's pubic informaten emergency plannmg pamphlet; LBP-82-60, !6 NRC 542 (1982) ame hmst on correcten of onergency plarnmg defacencies LBP-82-61,16 NRC 563 (1982) 10 CFR 50.55a compliance of Seabrook safety-related equipment; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1037 (1982) rehabihty of Seabrook safety-relaico equipment in accident environment; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1082 (1982) 10 CFR 50 57 findmgs, on NEPA comphance, to be made by Dirntor pnot to assuance of operaung hcense, ALAS 49),16 956 (1982) 10 CFR 50.57(ax3xil need for administrauve controls to prevent cask drop,1BP 82-77,16 NRC 1104 (1982) 10 ClR 50 57(c) encans of ransmg question of low-power operaton, LBP-8248,16 NRC 741 (1982) 10 CFR 50.584a) referral of appleatens for constneten pernut and operaung twense amendments to ACRS for revw=; LBP-8244 16 NRC 602 (1982) 10 CFR 50.109 backfiums of faciliues. LBP 8244,16 NRC 698 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. A adnussen of consenten on protecton of Seabrook safety systems from turtune nussdes; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 106 (1982) apphcanon to test reactor; LBP-8244,16 NRC 653,697 99 (1982) comphance of Seabrook safety-related equipment LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1037 (1982) derwienews in FS AR, on quahty assurance for opersimns, LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1073 (19821 inadequacy of miene safety parameter display system LBP-82 75,16 NRC 1028 (1982) necessity of analysn of systems interacten to assess abihty of system's design, LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1034 (
rehabihty of Seat e, i safety-related equipment in accident environmer:t, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1082 (1982) sausfaction of sm railure entenon by emergency feedwater system; LEP-82-76,16 NRC 1059 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. A. (nierma 2 apphcabihty to test reactor, LBP-8244,16 NRC 646 (1982) consideraton of design basis eseni m connecton with seisme event for test reactor: LEP-8244,16 NRC 697 (1982) 10 CFR 50. Apr. A. GDC 4 environmental quahficatens comentmn seen as challenge to regulauons LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1048 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. A. GDC 13 comphance of Scabrook mst umentaton 10 CFR 50, App A GDC 14,15,31,32 comphance of m-service mspecten of swam generator tubes; LBP-82-76. 36 NRC 1067 (1982)
==mup**,,
1 l
71 t
h __h
\\
4 O
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULA110NS 10 CFR 50 App. A. GDC 19-22 adequacy of Seabrook design to mmimize operator enor at Seabrook; LBP 82-76,16 NRC 1040 (1982) 10 CFR 50. App A GDC 63,64 adequacy of momtonns of routme releases of raaioactmty from Seabrook; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1040 (1982) j 10 CFR 50, App A,IV.E.5-7 inadequacies in Shoreham's emergency plans for medcal and puble health support; LBP-82 75,16 NRC 1022 (1982) 10 CFR 50. App. B extent of quahty assurance programs required by; LBP-82-56,16 NRC 380 (1982) comphance of Seabrnok's method for seistruc quahfraten of electrKal equipment, LBP-82-76 16 NRC 1068 (1982) deficencies in regularens on whsh Seabrook QA program is based. LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1069 (1982) quahty control of Irensed operator trammg, LBP-82-56,16 NRC 300 (1982) sufficiency of quahty assurance controls at Zimmer facihty challenged, LBP-82-54,16 NRC 217 (1982) violanon of requuement for nonconformance report; GP-82 54,16 NRC 220 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App B, Cntenon VII contention challenges quahty assurance for vendor purchases; LBP 82-54,16 NRC 218 (1982) 10 CFR 50 App B, Cntenon VIII contenten cites failure of apphcant to mamtam rnaienal traceabihty as required by; OP-82-54,16 NRC 218 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App B Cnienon XVI fadure of appbcant to identify and conect constructen defrienews; LBP-82 54,16 NRC 219 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. B. III and XI comphance of Seabrook safety-related equipment; LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1037 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. D special circumstances necessary for consideration of class 9 accidents in environmental revwe; LBP-82 58.16 NRC 529 (1982) 10 CFR 50 App E adequacy of Summer facihty onsite emergency plan; LBP-82-57,16 NRC 485 (1982) assurance of adequacy of protective encasures to be taken m radiological emergency; LBP-82-70,16 NRC 761 comphance of Diablo Canyon's emergency plans with, LBP-82-70,16 NRC 760. 798 799,855 (1982) failure of Seabronk emergency plan to adJress rer,uirements of; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1074 (1982) madequacy of Shoreham's acc. dent assessment and momeonns abihtes, LBP-82-75.16 NRC 1025 (1982) lack of rneans to control radiological esposures to ernergency workers. LBP-82-75.16 NRC 1025 t1982) protective acten comention hmned to onsite measures; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1046 (1982) relevancy of appbcant's pubic informahon emergency plannmg pamptilet, LBP-82 60,16 NRC 542 (1982) standard of Board revww of energency plannmg. LBP-82 70,16 NRC 802 (1982) 10 CFR 50 App. E. D.2 adequacy of Shoreham prompt nonfication syssem; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1021 (1982) 10 CFR 50. App E. F.I pubhc participanon in emergency planning esercises; LBP-82-70,16 NRC 843 (1982) 10 CFR 50 App. E. Item A lack of assurance of assistance from offsra agenews dunng radiologral emergency; LBP-82-75.16 NRC 1023 (1942) 10 CFR 50, App E. Item B adequacy of Shoreham plans for implementauon of prosecuve actens dunng radiokyKal emergency. LBP-82 75 16 NRC 1023 (1982) 10 CFR So, App. E. Item F fadure of apphcant to sneet traming requirements for emergency response personnel. LBP 82-75,16 NRC 1024 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App E, item IV A.7 l
lack of incorporaten of federal response capabihtes in Shoreham's emergency plans; LBP-82-75.16 NRC (022 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. E, Jtem IV.B 8 N '-
nonconformance of Shoreham plan and procedures for operstmn of Emergency Operatens Facihty; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1025 (1982) 4 di 4 y
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS S
10 CFR 50. App. E, Items A and C inadequate delmestion of responsibehties of onsne emergency personnel, LBP-82 75.16 NRC 1024 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. E, items IV.E.2 and 8 inadequacy of intene safety parameter display system. LBP-82-75.16 NRC 1028 (198h 10 CFR 50. App. E. IV.A adequey of Diablo Canyon's emergency classificaten system, LBP-82 70.16 WC 772. 810L811 (1982) 10 CFR 50. App. E, IV D.3 adequary of San Onofre emergency pubis notification system; CLI-82-14.16 NRC 25 (1982) obpective of areawide alert signal for notifying pubhc dunns radiologral emerge $cy; ALAB-680.16 NRC 134 (1982) size and configuration of plume exposure emergency planning zone; ALAB-680, li NRC 132 (1982) time hmat on correcten of deficencies in requirements of. LBP-82-6f,16 NRC 563 (1982) 10 CFR 50 App. E,IV.E adequacy of rneans for controlhng radiological exposures of emergency workers at Didio Canyon. LBP-82 70.16 NRC 836 (1982) 10 CFR 50. App. E, IV.F education of pubis officials on problems of radiation esposure. LB7-62 77,16 NRC 1099 (1982) 10 CFR 50. App. E note 2 effect of population density on size and configuration of plume esposure pathway EPZ.CLI-8715.16 NRC 36 (1982) 10 CFR 50. App. G comphance of Seabrook safety-related equipment. LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1037 (1982 10 CTR 50 App. G and H comphance of end-of-hfe value for weldment LBP-8243.16 NRC 588 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. I conformance of La Crosse Plant off-gas emissmns with; LBP 82-58.16 NRC 52122 (1982) 50 CFR 50. App. K comphance of Seabrook safety-related equipment; LBP 82-76.16 NRC 1037 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. M Commission authenty to Igeme offsite manufacture of nuclear power tractors. ALAB-686.16 NRC 455 (1982) distinction between constructen permits and manufactunng BKenses. ALAB-686.16 NRC 456 (1982) 10 CFR Si amendment of, DPRM-82 2,16 NRC 1216 (1982). LBP-82-58,16 NRC 527 (1982) necessu e for envuonmental impact statement for spent fuel pool modification; LPP-82-65.16 NRC 727 (1982) 10 CFR S t.20(a), (d) fadure of appluant to assess nsk of class 9 accidents at Seabrook.LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1035 (1982) 10 CFR St.20rgxI) l a'pphcaten o' T 6 S-' 'a "'"P"" '*" a' 'r*""" 'a 'ad 8' c'
6' ^'); -8 2 5 ' N"c '
" (1982)'
10 CFR 51.21 consideration of liquid patpway accident impacts. LBP 82-76.16 NRC 1037 (1982) j 10 CFR St.21(g(2h) "
apphcaten of Table S-4 to transponaten of spent fuel to and storage at Catawba facthey; LBP-82 51.16 NRC
'~"
(1982)'
10 CFR 51.52(a) evidentiary heanngs on issues pnor to assuance of final environmental impact statements. ALAB488.16 NRC (1982) l 10 CFR 5152(bul) introduction of Staff EIA mio evidence; LBP-82-78.16 NRC 1111 (1982) 10 CFR $l.52(bW3) modificaten of operating twense FES. regarding energy alternative ordered. LBP-82-58.16 NRC 531 1982) j 10 CFR 51.53 i
htigation of need-for-power issues. LBP 82-63.16 NRC 589 (1982) 73 t
h
_k e4 1
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGM.ATIONS O
10 CFR St.53(c) consideration, in operarms !rense proceedmg. of alternauve energy sources. LbP-82-58,16 NRC 527 (1982) dismissal of need-for-power comention on basis of, LBP-82-58.16 NRC 528 (1982) 10 CFR 55 admission of contentson challengmg operator quahGcanons; LBP-82-51,16 NRC 170 (1982)
Staffs implenuntauon of, LBP-82-56,16 NRC 369 (1982)
TMI comphance with reactor operator requahfration program; LBP-82-56.16 NRC 349 (1982) 10 CFR 5510 TMI Irensee's program for cem6 canon of competency of operator candidates. LBP 82-56,16 NRC 365 (1982) 10 CFR 55.10(ax6) reasons for certifrapon of reactor operators, LBP-82-56,16 NRC 353 (1982) redundancy required in trainmg and lestag reactor operators. LBP 82 56.16 NRC 364 (1982:
10 CFR 55 20 trensing board junsdiction over scope of reactor operator enams; LBP-82-56,16 NRC 372 (1982)
NRC Staff role in audaung operator trammg and gestmg. LBP-82-56,16 NRC 364 (1982) 10 CFR 55 20L55.23 gradmg of site-specinc reactor operator enams. LBP-82-56,16 NRC 372 (1982) 10 CFR 55.33 matenal false statement in connecten with recem6 canon of reactor operator: LBP-82 56 16 NRC 348 (198h TMI frensee's program for cem6 cation of cornpetency of operator candidates, LBP-82-56.16 NRC 365 (1982) 10 CFR 55.33(4) redundancy required in traming and testing reactor operators LBP-82-56.16 NRC 364 (1982)
Board recommendauon for proceeding to rnodify or suspend reactor operators' trenws. LBP-82-56,16 NRC 309 (1982)
Irensmg boarJ unsdicton over revocanon of reactor operator's hcense. LBP-82-56.16 NRC 309 (198L lacensms board es vnrnendanon for proceedmg to conssder penalues agamst reactor operators. LBP-82-56.16 NRC 383 (1982) 10 CFR 55, App. A rnarenal fahe statement is, unection with recemGcation of reactor operator LBP-82-56.16 NRC 348 (1982 redundancy required in tram
NRC Staff role in audrung operata *. sing and testmg; LBP-82-56.16 NRC 364 (1982) 10 CFR 78 and 73 exclusion of poruon of contenuon conca.3g transportation of wradiated fuel assembhes; LBP-82-51,16 NRC 172 (1982) 10 CFR 73 purpose of; CLI-8219.16 NRC 72 (1982) 10 CFR 73.liaNI) adequacy of power reactor secunty force trainmg based on Regulatory Guides; CLI-82-19,16 NRC 86 (1982) adequacy of trammg of Diablo Canyon secunty force; CLI-82-19.16 NRC 106 (1982) de6 ninon of design basis threat of radiological sabotage; CLI-8219,16 NRC 59 (1982) desenption of design basis insider threat; CLi-82-19,16 NRC 102 (1982) eincacy of provisions for tranems secunty forces at nuclear power plants. CLI-8219.16 NRC 84 (1982) meerpretanon of numencal size of caternal usualt force charactenzed in design basis threat as **several"; CLI-8219, 16 NRC 54 (1982) hmitanons on design basis threat; CLI-82-19.16 NRC 74 (1982) proper response to genenc challenges so; CU-82-19,16 NRC 74 (1982) threat to nuclear reactors from terronst groups; CLI-82-19,16 NRC 73 (1982) 10 CFR 73.Itait t) and (2) companson of enternal attack components apphcable to commercial power reactors and fuel cycle facihues.
CLI-82-19.16 NRC 62 (1982) 10 CFR 73 2(h) and (i) dc0mton of vital area and equipment, CLI-8219,16 NRC % (1982) 74 3
4 L' % iA l
L
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX BEGULATIONS 10 CFR 73 2(k) secway measures for buddmg intrusen nuo isolation sone; CU-8219,16 NRC 97 (1982) 10 CFR 73.2(p) definamn of radelogical sabotage; CU-82-19,16 NRC 58 (1982) 10 CFR 73.2(y) definiten of power reactor fuel as special nuclear a:asenal CU-82-19,16 NRC 59 (1982) 10 CFR 73.20 characteruanon of sus of anack force; CU-82-19,16 NRC 68 (1982) 10 CFR 73.21 deleton of safeguards mfamton, CU-82-19,16 NRC 61 (1982) 10 CFR 73 21(cMvi) access so restncted documenti; CU-8217,16 NRC 49 (1982) cntena for grantmg access u secunty plan; LBP-82-80,16 NRC 1823, l125 (1982) 10 CFR 73 40 0974) cnirna for prosecuan of nuclear reactors; CU-8219,16 NRC 62 (1982) 10 CFR 73.40(c)
Irensee's responsibdanes pnor to implernenung safeguards conungency plan, CU-82-19,16 NRC 79,80 (1982) 10 CFR 73 40(d) trensee's responsibdrues after prepar',tg safeguards contingency plan; CU-8219,16 NRC 79 (1982) 10 CFR 73.46(hx2) hanson between secunty forces of fuel reprocessir3 acdiues and locallaw enforcement authonues CU-82-19,16 f
NRC 91 (1922) 10 CFR 73.50:3W2) difference in levels of coordmaten with local law enforcement agencies between fuel storage facilaues and power reactors, CU-8219,16 NRC 91 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55 unplementation of amirant's safeguards conungency plan; CU-8219,16 NRC 79 (1982) size of adversary force against whsh safeguards performance is evaluated; CU-82-19,16 NRC 68 (1982) 10 CFR 73 55(a) meetmg high-assurarre objecove of CU-8219,16 NRC 86 (1982) objectives of reactor secunty system; CU-8219,16 NRC 59 (1982) protecten of vaal equipment; CU-8219,16 NRC % (1982) sausfacuan of general performance objectives of; CU-82-19,16 NRC 101 (1982) standards for safeguardmg special nuclear matenals; CU-8219,16 NRC 76 (1982) subantunon of securny encasures in heu of regulatory requaements; CU-82-19,16 NRC 97 (1982) suffriency of Diablo Canyon's safeguards system; CU-82-19,16 NRC 98 (1982) use of secunty measures other than those requued by Comrrussen regulations,CU-82-19,16 NRC 60 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(b):1) employrnent of contract guard force in physical secunty organaanon; CU-82-19,16 NRC 82 (1982) hcensee's responsibday to establish a physral secunty ceganizauon; CU-82-19,16 NRC 81 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(bx2) and (3) management entena for luensee's physical secway organaanon; CU-82-19,16 NRC 81,83 (1982) 10 CFR 73 55(b)(4) implernentauon of guard trauung as Diablo Canyon, CU-8219,16 NRC 86 (1982) i nplernentaten of secunty force traimag; CU-82-19.16 NRC 87 09821 trainmg requwements for members of Irensee's physical secunty organizaten, CU-8219,16 NRC 81,83 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(bKh) number of armed responders requued to counter design basis threat of radiological sabotage; CU-82-19,16 NRC 104 (1982) secunty measures beyond reqmrements of, CU-82-19,16 NRC 59 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(c NI) and (2) protecten of vital eqmprnent; CU-8219,16 NRC % (1982) 10 CFR 73 55(cN3) secunty inessures for building intrusion into isolaten zone; CU-8219.16 NRC 97 (1982) 75 A.
l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGRATIONS 10 CFR 73 55(cH4)
G snspectm of protected areas, CU-8219,16 NRC 94 (1982) 10 CFR 73 55(cx5) illummation of protected areas; CU-8219,16 NRC 94 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(d) detectmn funcien of access requireme:its of; CU-8219,16 NRC 94 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55tditiH4) control of access mio protected areas; CU-82-19,16 NRC 94 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(dWlH6)
- c. repimns to controlled access to protected areas; CU-8219,16 NRC 98 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(dN2Hf) -
function of badgmg ano escort requirements of, CU-82-19,16 NRC 94 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(dW7) control of access mio vital areas; CU-8219,16 NRC 94 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(dx8) access to secunty contamment; CU-8219,16 NRC 94 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55:ex1H3) descnpton of detecten aids in reactor secunty systems; CU 82-19,16 NRC 93 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55sf) rnamtenance of commumcatens between secunty forces and alarm statens; CU-8219,16 NRC 88 (1982) 10 CFR 73 55(fM1H4) testmg and mamtenance of secunty commumcatens system, CU-8219,16 NRC 88 (1982) 10 CFR 73 55(gx3) testmg and mamtenance of secunty commumcatens system; CU-82-19,16 NRC 88 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(h) goals of safeguards contmgency plan; CU-8219,16 NRC 78 (1982) size of force respondmg to caternal assualt on nuclear power plant, CU-8219,16 NRC 67 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(hM1) cntena for safeguards contmgency plan; CU-82-19,16 NRC 64 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(hW2) and (4) safeguards contmgency plans for haison between hcensee's secunty force and local law enforcernent authonties, CU-82-19,16 NRC 89 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55<hN3) authonty to determine number of armed responders to design basis threat to power reactor; CU-82-19,16 NRC 105 (1982) factors deternunmg size of securuy force at nuclear power plants; CU-82-19,15 N1C 103 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(hx6) purpose of observation of isolaton zones and protected ar=as CU-82-19,16 NRC 94 (1982) 10 CFR 73, App. B trainmg requuements for members of hcensee's physical secunty orgamzaten; CU-82-19,16 NRC 81,83 (1982) 10 CFR 73. App. B,11 D tramdg equirements for secunty forces for power reactors not covered by Regulatory Guides, CU-82-19,16 NRC 85 (19t2 #
10 CFR 73 App. B. V equipment to be used by Diablo Canyon secunty force, CU-8219,16 NRC 86 (1982) 10 CFR 73, App C cntena for safe ' cds contmgency plans, CU-8219,16 NRC 64 (1982)
Diablo Canyon n wmphance wnh secunty commumcatens requurments of CU-8219.16 NRC 89 (1982) j goals of safeguards contmgency plan, CU-82-19,16 NRC 78 (1982) 10 CFR 73, App C,15 coments of safeguards conemeency plan; CU-82-19,16 N7C 79 (1982) 10 CFR 73, App C, V safeguards cons,ency plans for hanson bes-an hcensee's secunty force and locallaw enforcerntna authonties.
CU-82.,,16 NRC 89 (1982) 76 l
A.-
l
/
\\
l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CFR 73. App C. Secten I.a cntena for safeguards contmgency plans; CLI-8219,16 NRC 64 (1982) 10 CFR 95. App. A sub-tops 112 demal of petiuon for rulemaking to amend Clasuficanon Guide for Safeguards infamanon 10 CFR 100 adequacy of investiganons regardmg landslides near GE test reactor site; LBP-8244.16 NRC 631 t 1982)
=
adequacy of Seabrook deugn to withstand excessive hydrogen generaton. LBP 82 76,16 NRC 1039 amount of hydrogen genersten to be taken into account in containment deugn; LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1064 (1982) capabihty of Verona Fault. LBP-8244,16 NRC 600 (1982) components required to be safety grade; LBP-82-70,16 NRC 794,850 (1982) hugaten on hydrogen control issues under; LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1065 (1982) radiologral consequences of posrulated design baus events at GE test reactor; LBP-82-64.16 NRC 646 (1982) showmg required for hydrogen generanon contenton. LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1064 (1982) 10 CFR 100, App A adopnon of. LBP-8244,16 NRC 698 (1982) apphcanon to test reactors LBP-8244,16 NRC 653 (1982:
10 CFR 100 App. A desenmnaten of safe shutdown earthquake at Diablo Canyon facihty; CLI-8212A.16 NRC 1011982) 10 CFR 100. App. A,Ill(c) need to quahfy pressurizer heaters as safety grade; LBP-82 70.16 NRC 79L95. 850 t1942:
quahficanon of rehef and block valves as safety grade; LBP-82 70.16 NRC 797. 853 (1982) 10 CFR 600. App. A. Ill tal qualificanon of pressunzer heaters and block and powervrated rehef valves as safety-grade, LBP-82-70.16 NRC 761 (1982) 10 CFR 100. App A. V(a) fadure of stanon blackout contennon to satisfy nenus requirement. LBP-8243.16 NRC 591 (1982:
10 CFR 100. App A. Vtal(IWui) localizaten of 1886 Charleston earthquake relanve to Summer facihty; LBP-82-55.16 NRC 231 (1982) 10 CFR 100. App. A VI(bx3) reason for not requinns test facihty structure to withstand full postulated deugn baus. LBP-82 64.16 NRC 684 (1982) 10 CFR 100. App. B derwiencies in FSAR, on quahty assurance for operanons. LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1073 (1982) 10 CFR 10010(cx!)
inapplsabilny so test reactors; LBP-8244,16 NRC 698 (1982) 10 CFR 100.11 arnount of hydrogen generanon to be taken in account in contamment deugn, LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1064 (1982) cntena for deternunmg vital areas, CLI-82-19,16 NRC 97 (1982) purpose of offsete radiologwal doses set fonh m; CLI 82-19.16 NRC 58 (1982) stani'wds for radmacave releases from acts of sabotage. CLI-82-19.16 NRC 76 (1982) 10 CFR I10 70sa). (c) means for provedmg notice of expon Irense apphcatens, ALAB-682,16 NRC 158 (1982) 10 CFR I10 701b) mer.ns for providmg notice of expon trense apphcanons; ALAB482.16 NRC 158 (1982) 10 CFR I10 82 means for provedmg notre of emport beense apphcatons. ALAB482,16 NRC 158 (1982) 10 CFR 170 basis for award of intervenors' attorney's fees; LBP-82-81,16 NRC 18 39 (19821 10 CFR 305.76-5 hmits on agency preroganves to interpret pohcy statements. LBP-8249,16 NRC 753 (19821
+m r
e i W 77 l
l l
t
LEGAL CITATIONS LNDEX asct'tarloNs 10 CFR 50 App. E. IV.A 9
adequacy of thablo Car. yon's energency response support and resources; IEP-82 70.16 NRC 771. 808,810 (1962) 40 CFR 81.350 consideration of radiaton enussens from nuclear power plant in developing air quahty studard' for coal-fred pw plant; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 526 (1982) 40 CFR 1502.6,1507.2 (1981) considerrion of psychologwal suess issues under NEPA; LBP-82 53,16 NRC 203 41982) 44 CFR 2415410 and 201.5404-!(f) conftst of interest consideraton in NRC's review of its contracts. LBP-82 73,16 NRC 977 (1982) i l
l 1
l 7s i
l l
l
O LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATtTES Administration Pmcedure Act. 5 U.S C. 553 (b)( A) bindmg nature of polry statements LBP-8249.16 NRC 753 (1982)
Admuustranve Pmcedure Act. 5 U S C. 553te) and 555(e) pubirasmn of penten for rulemakmg fa comment. DPRM-82-2.16 NRC 1216 (1982)
Admimstrat we Pnxedure Act. 5 U.S C. 556 and 557 n8 t of intervenors to reopen recon! on quahty assurance issues; ALAB481,16 NRC 148 (1982) h Admmistrative Procedure Act. 556(d). 5 U S C. 556(di burtien of proof a show cause order. LBP-8244.16 NRC 655 (1982)
Admmistranve Procedure Act. 91b). 5 U.S C. 558 cornnuanon of Irensee operanon dunng processmg of trense venewal requests; ALAB-682,16 NRC 159 (1982)
Atoms Energy Act,103,42 U.S C. 2133 Carnmisson auttery to Irense offsite manufacture of nuclear power reactors. ALAB486,16 NRC 455 (1982)
Asomw Energy Act,103b. 42 U.S C. 2133b cause for consm5eraten of applwant'sirenwe's character. ALAB450.14 NRC 915 (1982)
Atoms Energy Act,104c reason for definmg GF reactnr as testmg reactor: GP-8244.16 NRC 698 (1982)
Atomm Energy Act.147 interpretaten of "severar' as used in design basis threat. CL1-82-19,16 NRC 5411982)
Atomw Energy Act.161 consolutaten of proceedmgs for poner eeactor umts. DPRM-82-2.16 NRC 1215 (1982)
Atomw Energy Act.170A,42 U.S C.12210 erb) orvthe-record disclosure of potennal conf 1sts of interest. LBP-82-73.16 NRC 978 (1982)
Atome Energy Act,181. 42 U.S C. 2231 burden of proof in show cause order. LBP-8244.16 NRC 655 (1982) cucumstances favenng disclosure of confidential miormation. LBP-82-59.16 NRC 538 (1982) delegaton el authonry to rule on requests for heanng on seisme deugn issues. LBP-8244.16 NRC 601 (1982)
Atonue Energy Act,186a. 42 U.S C. 2236a apptrant/trensee obhgatwn to provide accurate and umely informaton m NRC pmceedmg. ALAB450,14 NRC 910 (1982) cause for consideraten of appixaniYlcensee's character. ALAB450.14 leRC 915 (1982)
Atorme Energy Act.1824b). 42 U S C. 2232ib)
ACRS revew of restan of GE tramms reactor. LBP-8244.16 NRC 602 (1982)
Atomw Energy Act,189. 42 U S C. 2239 heanng requirement for contested issues in operstmg trense proceedmg. LBP-82-A8.16 NRC 748 (1982) penons who may request hernnss; LBP-82-87.16 NRC 1201 (19826 ng)r. of mtervenors to reopen record on quahty assurance issues; ALAb-681.16 NRC 148 (1982)
Atoms Energy Act,189a. 42 U S C. 2239(a) conditons to the nght to a heanng. ALAB-687.16 NRC 469 (1982) contravenson of heanng nghts. ALAB-687.16 NRC 467 (1982). LBP-82-87.16 NRC 1200 (1982) need for heanng on request for esempton from regulatons. CL1-82-23.16 NRC 421,422. 435. 443 (19826 need for heanns on safety-related activites. CLI-82-23.16 NRC 429. 430 (1982) nondiscretionary nght to heanns on enforcement acton. CLI-8216.16 NRC 45 (1982) pmnt of mierventon pmcess; LBP-82-8t. f 6 NRC f l37 (19d2) ummg of discovery on sententons. ALAB 687.16 NRC 468 (1982) type of heanns required for maienals Irensing acton ALAB-682,16 NRC 155.157-59 (19821 r
85 n
e
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX stall'TE.S Aiornic Energy Act,191a junsdetwo of Licensing Bosnis; LEP-8249.16 NRC 752 (19826 G
Akunic Energy Act,191. 42 U.S C.1224I purpose and compoution of Licensmg Boards, LBP 82-87,16 NRC 5201 (1982)
Clayton Act. 4,15 U.S C.15 I
basis for award of intervenors' attomey's fee; LBP 82-81.16 NRC 1139 (1982)
E Natonal Environmencal Poiry Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S C. 4328. et seg h
Delaware River Basin Compe-t.15 HsMI). Pub. L. No. 87 328,75 Stai t88 (1%I) preclusen of Licensing Board junsdicuan over impacts of water allocanon. LBP 82-72,16 NRC 969 (1982)
Energy Reorgamzauon Act of 1974. 210 i
identifwahon of unresolved safety assues to be addressed in spent fuel pool modicanon proceeding. /LBP-8243, 86 NRC 717 0982) l N Y. Eaccwive Law 1920, et seq (McKmneyl g
f responutmhty for preparanon of radiologral response plan; LBP-82-82,16 NRC i162 0982) hmitauons on maners so be resolved in operaung hcense proceedings; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1087 0982) necesuty Gn environmental empact statement for spent fuel pool modifraron. LBP-82-65,16 NRC 727 0982) preparanon of EIA on plan for sohdificaten of high-level radative wastes. ALAB479,16 NRC 123 0982) timing for hugation of suntenhons involving; ALAB488.16 NRC 473 0982)
I Nauonal Environmental Poiry Act of 1969 (NEPA) 42 U.S C 4332 NEPA consideraten of use of sterW fuel for nuclear weapons LBP-82 53,16 NRC 199 0982)
National Eovironmental Pohey Act cf 1969 (NEPA),42 U S.C. 4332(C) consens of environmental impact statement for major federal actens,- LBP-82 76.16 NRC 1076 09821 t
Nauonal Environmental Poiry Act of 1969 (NEPA),102(2xE),42 U.S C.14332(2x E)
I comphance of EIA for Big Rock Pcnnt spent fuel pool expansion; LBP-82-78.16 NRC 1108,1112-13 09821 Omnkus Budget Reconcehaten Act of 1981 Pub L. No. 97 35 national poley favoring expeditmus completon of breeder reactor; CLI-82-23.16 NRC 429. 430 0982)
West Valley Demonstraten Project Act. Pub L. No. 94368.94 Stat.1347 0980) f purpose of. ALAB-679,16 NRC 123 0982)
West Val)ey Demonstraten Project Act,2tc) review of plan for sohdirraten of high-level radmacuve wastes. ALAB479,16 NRC 123 0982) l I
I t
L i
80 E
I e
9 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX ortmas Asinww,"Puble Parucipaten in the Adopuon of Interpreuve Rules and Pohey Statements." 75 Meh L Rev. 521 (1976) hmits on agency prerogauves to interpret pohcy staternents LBP-82-69.16 NRC 753 (1982) 3 K Davis, Adrmmstrauwe law Treause 17.13 at 319-20(2d Ed 1980) alteraton of Board authonty to conduct heanngs; LBP 82-69,16 NRC 753 (1982)
M. Frankel. The Search for Truth: An lmpireal Vrw 1231.LPa L Rev. 1031, 1037 (1975) value of formal legal procedures in reviewmg technmal issues; CLI-82-20,16 NRC 315 (1982) 4 3 Moore's Federal Practre 126 68 (2d ed.1982) good cause for issuance of protective orders; LBP-82-82.16 NRC 1153 (1982) 4A Moore's Federal Pracuce 133 25(1) at 33-129-130 (2d ed.1981) applKation of NEPA " rule of reason" to applKant's responses to mterrogatones, LBP-82-67,16 NRC 736 (198 5 Moore's Federal Pracuce 141.05[1] at 41-58 lacensing Board discretwn to presenbe terms for withdrawal of construction permit appication; LBP-82-81,16 NRC 1134 (1982) 5 Moore's Federal Practre 141.0511] at 4172 to 4173 (2d ed 1981) basis for departmg frorn rule of dismissal of applications without prejudwe; LBP-82-81,16 NRC 1135 (1982) 5 Moore's Federal Practice.141.05[2), at 71-75 (2d ed.1981) demal of motons for withdrawal without prejudre; LBP-82-81,16 NRC 1135 (1982) 5 Moore's Federal Pracuce 141.00. at 41-83,41-861081 1083 (2d ed.1975) conditons that require payment of costs or anorney's fees; LBP-82-81.16 NRC 1139-40 (1982)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 261b) appleaton to NRC proceedmgs; LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1157 (1982)
Federal Rules of Cml Procedure, Rule 26cbx3) adaptaimn of NRC discovery rules from;12P-82-82.16 NRC 1159 (1982) clanfication of quahried work pmduct doctnne Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 41(aN1), (2) circumstances favonng dismissal of appicauons without prejudice; LBP-82-81,16 NRC 1134 (1982)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 analogy between summary disposnmn procedures and. LBP-82-58,16 NRC 519 (1982)
Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 706 comphance of hcensing board with, m appomemg its own expert witness; LBP-82-55.16 NRC 277 (1982)
Shapiro "The Choice of Rulemaking or Adjudicaten in the Development of Admimstrative Pohey," 78 Harv. L.
Rev. 921,947 950 (1965) hmits on agency prerogauves to meerpret policy statements LBP-8249.16 NRC 753 (1982:
8 3. Wigmore. Evidence 12290 (Mcnaughten rev.1%I) purpme of attamey-cliem pnvilege, LBP-82-82,16 NRC M7 (1982) 8 3. Wigmore. Evidence 12992, at 554 (Mcnaughten rev 1%I) essennal eternents of anorney<hent pnvilege; LBP-82-82.16 NRC ll57 (1982)
Civil 82024. at 198 (1970)
Wnght and Miller, Federal Pracuce and Procedure-documents prepared m contemplaten of htigaton as attorney work product. LBP 82-82,16 NRC 1161 (198p 9 Wnght and Miller. Federal Pracuce and Procedure-. Civil 12364 (1971) demal of monoris for w.thdrawal without prejudge; LBP-82-81,16 NRC 18 35.1842 (1982) 81
l w
O SUBJECT INDEX ACCIDENT (S) assessmem and monnorms at Diablo Canyon, capainlites for; LBP-82-70.16 NRC 756 (1982) class 9. assessment of nsk of, at Seabrook; LEP42 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) class 9, showmg regered for consideranon of,in operatmg trense proceedings. LBP-82-58.16 NRC 512 (1982)
-arpm and probalnlines, scope of testimony on; CLI-82-25.16 NRC 867 (1982) core-disrup6ve. Stan posanon on classificaten of. CU-82 22.16 NRC 405 (1982) greater-than<lesign-basis. Wm of Summer facday emergency plans so cope with LBP 82-57,16 NRC (1982)
ADJUDICATORY BOARDS junsdsnon of, to rec 9en record on qualay assurance issues; ALAB-681.16 NRC la6 (1982)
AIRCRAFT CRASH probatniay of at Three Mile Island. AIAB492.16 NitC 921 (1982)
ALERTING of public dunns radiological emergency. through stren system; LBP-82 57.16 NRC 477 (1982) of pubhc near Diablo Canyon of radelogical emergency, nethods and procedures for. LBP-82 70.16 NRC 756 (1982) the pubic of radiological emergency rejecton of comentens allegmg inadequacws in tone system inr: LBP-16 NRC 986 (1982)
ALTERNATIVE E"ERGY SOURCES consideraten of, in operstmg trense proceedings; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 512 (1982)
ALTERNATIVES to reracking an spent fuel pool, technical discussion of. LBP-8245.16 NRC 714 (1982) to spent fuel pool expansma. need for discussen of, in EIA; LBP-82-79,16 NRC 1116 (1982)
AMENDMENT of Rules of Practre to require operstmg trense heanngs for each nuclear power reactor, demal of petiton for; DPRM-82-2.16 NRC 1209 (1982) to matenals Irense, authormng work as macuve thonum cre mall. CLI-82 21.16 NRC 401 (1982)
AMICUS CURIAE partwrparon m appellase heanngs; ALAB479.16 NRC 121 (1982)
ANTICIPATED TRANSIENTS WITHOUT SCRAM at Seabrook. reduction of nsk of through intenm fncasures; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) scope of ineenognacnes on; LSP-8247,16 NRC 734 (1982) summary dispositer 4 contenten assertmg madequate asswance of small probability of occurrence of. LEP 16 NRC 477 (19 APPEAL BOARD authonty to decime Licer. sing Board referrals; ALAB487.16 NRC 460 (1982) decision. Comnussion dismissal of grans of review of. CU-82-26.16 NRC 880 (1982) duccsed to certify questions on irgerpretaton of 10 CFR 50 47(bM12) so the Comnuumn. CLi-82-27.16 NRC 883 (1982) disagreement with lacensmg Board interpretaten of emergency plannmg issue. ALAB480,16 NRC 127 (198
(
obligsten to conduct immediate effectiveness review in manufactunng hcense proceedmg; ALAB486.16 NRC t
(1982) pobey concemms enforcement of time limits for films esceptons: ALAB-684,16 NRC 162 (1982) portens of the record acktressed a sua sponte reyww by; ALAB491.16 NRC 897 (1982) request for authonty so hear sua sponte safety issues, denial of. CLI-82-12.16 NRC 1 (1982)
U
SUBJECT INDEX l
i revww of Lacensmg Board decisen concerned with integnty of heanns pmcess. ALAB 691.16 NRC 897 (1982) revwe of Licenseg Board ruhngs on economic issues. mterventen requests, or procedural matters, scope of.
ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
G standard m reviewing Licensing Board decison m contest of moton for stay prndmg appeal, ALAB-680,16 NRC 127 (1982) sua spome review authonty, nature of, and relanonship to effecnveness of Lacensmg Board decisions. ALAB-689, 16 NRC 887 (1982)
+
See also Certificaten i
APPEAL PANEL CHAIRMAN authonty of, to summanly dismiss interlocutory appeal ALAB483.16 NRC 160 (1982)
APPEAIJS) by hcensees of order admrttmg meervenors to discretionary heanng on possible suspensen of Units 2 and 3 demed.
CU-82-15.16 NRC 27 (1982) construed as complaint against Staff comphance with and implementaten of Board order; ALAB-684.16 NRC 162 (1982) meerlocutory, citrumstances appropnats for; ALAB-683,16 NRC 160 (1982) interlocutory. excepton to Commisson's rule agamst; LBP-82-62.16 NRC 565 (1982) mierlocutory, envolving the schedalmg of heanngs or ummg of admissmn of evidence; ALAB488.16 NRC 471 (1982) standard for considenng contenten raised for first time on. ALAB-680.16 NRC 127 (1982) treatment of issues raised for first time on. ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982)
I See also Bnefs, Finahty APPLICANT considiraten of character of. Al AB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982) l habihty of, for matenal false statement. ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982)
I obhgation of m NRC proceedmg. to provide nmely and accurate mformaten; ALAB-691.16 NRC 897 (1982) l ATOMIC SAETY AND LICENSING BOARD
}
reconsnrution of. CLI-82-24,16 NRC 865 (1982)
{
sua sponte authonty of, CU-82-20.16 NRC 109 (1982)
See also Licensing Boardts)
ATTORNEY'S FEES i
imervenors' payment of. as conditmn of withdrawal of constructen permit apphcaton. LBP-82-81,16 NRC I!28
{
(1982) i AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEMS at TMI-I. sua sponte issues raised on rehabihty of spargers m. CU-82-12.16 NRC 1 (1982)
BAYESIAN THEORY use of, for calculaten of aircraft crash probabihty at Dirte Mile Island. ALAB-692.16 NRC 921 (1982)
BRIEFS for apocals contents of; ALAB 693.16 NRC 952 (1982) l BURDEN OF PROOF l
for demonstratmg comphance of offsite emergency plans. LBP-82-77,16 NRC 1096 (1982) for summary dispositen rnations. LBP-82-58.16 NRC 512 (1982) i BYPRODUCT MATERIAL.S UCENSE tenewal proceedmg. standmg to intervene m. ALAB482.16 NRC 150 (1982)
See also Matenals License CAUFORNIA l
companson of shp rates of faults in; LBP 82-64,16 NRC 5% (1982)
CANCER j
resuhmg from radiarmn from normal nuclear power plant operaten. nsk of, LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982)
CAVEAT dectson on full-power operanns hcense issued with. LBP-82-70,16 NRC 756 I1982)
CERTIFICATION I
of Appeal Board quesnons concerning junsdiction of adjudicatory boards to reopen record on quahty assurance j
t issues. ALAB481.16 NRC 146 (1982) l cf contentens to Commissmn or Appeal Board, burden not met for. LBP-82-51.16 NRC 167 (1982) i i
84 I
l I
u -an da w
SUBJECT INDEX of quesuons asking clanfrauon of scope of testimony on emergency plannmg issues; CLI-82-25.16 (1982) standard im obtairmg. LBP-8249.16 NRC 751 (1982)
See aho Directed Certincanon CHLORINE asse of. to clean condenser coohng system at Seabrook; LBP-82 76.16 NRC 1029 (1982)
CLAMS. ASIATIC burden of clanfration and specircny of contenton on; LBP 82-SI.16 NRC 167 (1982)
CLARIFICATION by Licensmg Board of FEMA findmgs on, and standard opratmg procedures of, emergency plan NRC 1187 (1982)
COLLATERAL ESTOPPLL apphcanon of, to NRC proceedmgs; CLi-82-23.16 NRC 412 (1982) applKaton of, to rehtigation of env;ronmental issue.; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
COMMUNICATIONS emergency, at Diablo Canyon adequacy of, LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982) with outside agences dunns radiological emergency, apphcant required to respond to mterrogatones on.
LBP-8247,16 NRC 734 (1982)
CONF 1.lCT OF INTEREST potential, responsibdity of panes to dnclose; LBP-82 73.16 NRC 974 (1982)
CONSOLIDATION of heaangs on power reactor umts; DPRM-82-2.16 NRC 1209 (1982) of matenals hcense renewal and operatirg hcense proceedmgs; ALAB-682,16 NRC 150(1982)
CONSTRUCTION activases pnor to issuance of construction permn or LWA. hmitauons on. CLi-82-23.16 NRC 412 (
at La Salle Plant, partial denial of 2.206 petinon regardmg deGcencies m. DD-82-9.16 NRC J% (1982)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT applKanon, withdrawal without prejudice; LBP-82-81,16 NRC 1128 (1982)
CONTAINMENT GE test reactor. insegnty of. LBP-82-64.16 NRC 5% (1982) insegnty, rejecuan of contention allegmg compromise of. LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982)
CONTAMINATION of hquid pattiway dunng nuc! ear accident. rejection of contenton allegmg inadequate ansfysis o NRC 1029 (1982)
CONTENTION (S) admission of. pendmg effectiveness of Commissen rule; LBP-82-53,16 NRC 190 (1982) good cause for acceptance of late-filed. LBP-82 63.16 NRC 571 (1982) miervenors excused for lateness in fahng of. LBP-82-53.16 NRC 1% (1982) late-Gled, acceptance of, where factor (i) has not been sausfwd. LBP-8243.16 NRC 571 (1982) late-Gled, on quahty assurance and managernent competence, adopted sua sponte by Licensing 16 NRC 210 (1982) new. on quahry assurance and management competence, msufGcient justincahon to reopen record CU-82 20.16 NRC 109 (1982) l nonspecinc. admisibihty of. Al AB-687.16 NRC 460 (1982) nontirrely, ansmg from TM1-2 accident, stancards for admisson of. LBP 82-63.16 NRC 571 (1982 raned for Grst time on appal, standard for considenng. ALAB480.16 NRC f 27 (1982s reasons for requinns specincny of; LBP-82-52.16 NRC 183 (1982) resolution of factual questens in considenng admissibihty of, LBP-8243,16 t RC 571 P #821 threshold showing of basis and spenGeny for almission of. LBP-82 75.16 NRC 986 (1982 unumely, standard for admissen of. ALAB-687.16 NRC 460 (1982)
See also CertiGcation CONTROL ROOM design adequacy of. to mmimue opersior error at Seabrook. LBP-22-76.16 NRC 1029 (1982p CONTROL SYSTEMS automatic standby hquid, scope of interrerstones on. LBP-8247.16 NRC 734 (1982)
See also Chionne. Emergency Core Cochng Syuem
1 i
SUBJECT INDEX l
COOLING POND perfwmance and foggmg ars! icing, admissen of contennon quesuonmg basis for data on; LBP-82-63,16 NRC 571 (1982)
O CORROSION of steam generator tubes at TMI-1; CU-82-12,16 NRC I (1982)
COST-BENEFIT BALANCE contennon, denial of, because of contmued validay of Table S 3, LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) contennons, burden not met for certificanon of; LBP-82-51,16 NRC 167 (1982) under NEPA, relevance of rmancial costs to; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 512 (1982) s COUNSE;.
conduct of, tiefwe a Lacensing Board; UlP-82-87,16 NRC 1895 (1982)
CRIMINAL PROSECUT10N of NRC exammauon cheasers; LBP-82-56,16 NRC 281 (1982)
DECAY HEAT
^
adequacy of Seabrook's capacity for removal of. LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
DECIslON concernmg holding of heanns on orden restnctmg hcensed operata overtime, vacaron of CLI-82-18,16 NRC 50 (1982)
Licensing Board, grounds for defense of, ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
DECOMMISSIONING of Humboldt Bay Plant, denial of 2.206 peuten requestmg; DD-82 7,16 NRC 387 (1982) of Seabrook Plant, negative impacts of, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
DECONTAMINATION consideration of impacts of, under NEPA; LBP-82-52,16 NRC 183 (1982) in event of radelogical evnergency at Summer facdity, avadabihty of facahines for, LBP-82-37,16 NRC 477 (1982)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NRC suthonty to review demonstranon waste sohd.fication plan of. ALAB479,16 NRC 121 (1982)
DESIGN adequacy and constructen quahty, adnussen of conssnton seeking mdependent assessment of, LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) objectives of 10 CFR Part 50. Appendia I, compinance wun; LBP 82-58,16 NRC 512 (1982)
See also Control Room, Seismic Design DESIGN BASIS seismic and geologic, of GE test reacts, sechnical discussen of, LBP-82-64,16 NRC 5% (1982)
DESIGN BAS 15 EVENT at GE test reactor, postulated accident followmg; LBP-8244,16 NRC 5% (1982)
DESIGN BASIS THREAT at Diablo Canyon, release of restncted documents dealms with derminon of, CU-8217,16 NRC 48 (1982) of radiological sabotage at Diablo Canyon, physwat secunty plan for countenng; CU-8219.16 NRC 53 (1982)
DETECTION SYSTEMS loose parts, requuement for, LBP 82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) leakage, admission of contenuon alleging inadequate aesung of LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
DIESEL GENERATORS reliabihty of, at Seabrook; LBP 82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
DIRECTED CERTIFICATION of heensee's request for stay or dismissa! of evidentiary proceedmg on possible suspenson of Units 2 and 3 dened.
CU-82-15,16 NRC 27 (1982) of queston involvmg schedulmg of heanngs or ummg of edimsson of evidence denial of request for. ALAB488.
16 NRC 471 (1982) of questons addressmg Licensing Board's refusal to admit evidence on effluent contract lawsuit, demal of.
LBP-8242,16 NRC 565 (1982)
See also Certirrauon DISCOVERY mandatory, suspensen of, LBP-82 51,16 NRC 167 (1982) obhgatons of parties objectmg to; LBP-82-82.16 NRC 1144 (1982)
M
,A
?
m-
. anek
SUBJECT INDEX on nuclear power plant securuy plans, LSP-82-80,16 NRC 1821 (1982)
See also Pnvdese DOCUMENTATION of Seabrook deviauons from current regulatory practre, requuement for, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
DOCUMENTS apptrant-and Staff-generated, der.ial of innervenor's request for copies of; L3P-82-51,16 NRC 167 (1982) intragovernmentz', pnvilege agamst discovery of; LBP 82-82,16 NRC l144 (1982) responses to requests for productm of; LBP-82-82,16 NRC lied (1982)
DUE PROCESS adruimstrauve, for trensed oper Mars caught cheatmg on esams; LBP-82-56,16 NRC 281 (1982)
NRC methods fw ensuring; LBP 82-87,16 NRC i195 (1982)
See also Restncied Documents. Service of Documents EARTHQUAKE (S)
Charleston, locahzation of, relative to Summer tacihty; LBP 82-55,16 NRC 225 (1982) design basis for GE nest reactor, deternunahon of, LBP-82-64,16 NRC 5% (1982) maximum magmtude, danger to nuclear plant it'uctures at Summer sue from; LS?-82 55.16 NRC 225 (1982) shallow and near-source, potennal for, at Summer site; LBP 82-55,16 NRC 225 (1982) use of Brune Model to calculate manmum magmtude and peak acceleranon of; LSP-82-55,16 h1C 225 (1982) l See also Fault (s)
ECONOMICS of decommisssoning Humboldt Bay facuity; DD 82 7,16 NRC 387 (1982)
EFTECTIVENESS of full-power operaung hcense not stayed pendmg resolution of offsite enedral arrangements issue; CU-82-14,16 NRC 24 (1982)
See also Regulations Review ESTLUENT contract lawsuit, demal of duected cerurmanon of Licensmg Board's ruims on inadmissibday of evidence on.
LEP-8242,16 NRC 565 (1982)
ELECTRICAL W1 RING envuonmental quahrration of, LSP-82 53,16 NRC 1% (1982)
ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE contenuon considered challenge to regulauons: I, P-82-51,. PC 167 (1982)
EMBRITTLEMENT l
admission of previously rejected contenuon on; LBP-82 SI,16 NRC 167 (1982) l of electncal msulauen, LBP-82-53,16 NRC 1% (1982) l EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM l
at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of LBP-82-70,16 NRC 756 (1982)
Imganon of contentions on, pnar to fue! loadms; UIP-82-75,16 NRC 986 (1982)
EMERGENCY CORE COOLLNG SYSTEM st Catawba, reafirmanon of rejection of contenuon concermng postulated s.16 seg of, LEP-82 SI,16 NRC 167 (1982)
See also Coolms Systems EMERGENCY EXERCISES and dnlls. adequacy of Diablo Canyon's plans for, LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982)
EMERGENCY FEEDWATER SYSTEM saus!actm of single-failure entenon by; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS FACluTY scope of aghcant's response so 6.,w on; LBP-8247,16 NRC 734 (1982)
EMERGENCY PLANNLNG brochures, form and content of, LBP 8246,16 NRC 730 (1982) by San Onofre to provide snedral assistance for rad==-mjured in the general pubix; ALAB-680,16 (1982) cerursanon of Board quesuons aslung clanrzation of scope of testunony on CU-82 25,16 NRC 867 (1982) cucumstances apropnate for reopenmg the record on LEP 8248,16 NRC 74I (1982) contenuans, dernal of, as premature; LEP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) denial of cerureauon of rejected contenuons on; LBP-82-51,16 NRC 167 (1982) l l
nUm,a. k s7 l
l
SUBJECT INDEX Tmdags necessary for issuance of low-power hcensa. LBP-82-68.16 NRC 741 (1982) for medral services for contanunated injured mdmduals. LBP 82-75.16 NRC 986 (1982) for protective actions to be taken in Shoreham Plant vicinity, admisuon of contenten questonmg adequacy of.
9 LBP 82 75,16 NRC 986 ('.982) offuse, requirement for FEMA Gndings on adeo4acy of; LBP 82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982 pamphH for Big Rock Pomt Plant, attnbutes. contem, purposes, and adequacy of, order for changes m and distnbutta of; LBP-8240. I6 NRC 540 (1982)
~W See also Evacuation s
EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE (S) around nuclear power plants, responubihty for setting. LBP-82 70.16 NRC 756 (1982) at Summer facihty, shape of. LBP-82-57.16 i4RC 477 (1982)
EMERGENCY PLANS admisson of consenten relatmg to federal asustance for implementation of. LBP-82 75.16 NRC 986 (1982) at Diablo Canyon, asugnment of responubshties for. onute emergency organuaton for implementmg. LBP-82-70.
16 NRC 756 (1982)
Board clanficaron of FEMA findmgs on, and standard operating procedures under; LBP-82-85.16 NRC 1187 (1982) estunating trammy needs for purpose of. LBP-82-77,16 NRC 1096 (1982) for notifying tranuests of steps to take dunng radiological emergency, LBP-82-60,16 NRC S40 (1982) for offute medical arrangements for pubhe, hcense conditoned on resoluton of. CLI-82-14.16 NRC 24 (1982) issuance of operating hcense pnor to resolution of defriencies m. ALAB-680.16 NRC 127 (1982) offute, burden of proof for demonstratmg compliance of. LBP-82-77.16 NRC 1096 (1982) grocedures for correctmg deficiencies m. LBP-82-77.16 NRC 1096 (1982) purpose of public mformaton program under; LBP-82-66.16 NRC 730 (1982) rebuttable presumpuon on queu,on of adequacy of. LBP-82 68.16 NRC 741 (1982) review and distnbution of, at Diablo Canyon, assignment of responubihty for; LBP-82-70.16 NRC 756 (1982) to cope with greater-than-deugn-basis acciden' at Summer facihty. adequacy of. LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982)
See also Clanricaron EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS basis of Licensmg Board's findmgs on. LBP-82-68.16 NRC 741 (1982)
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS at Diablo Canyon. adequacy o(equipment and facihties for implementmg support and resources for. LBP-82 70, 16 NRC 756 (1982)
ENIURCEMENT ACTIONS scope of proceedmgs on, CLi-8216.16 NRC 44 (1982)
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS of plant operaten, showing requucJ for consideraton of, at evidennary heanng. LBP-82 58,16 NRC 512 (1982 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL adequacy of with respect to spent fuel pool espansen at Big Rock Pome Plant. LBP-82 79,16 NRC 1116 (1982)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT draft, as basis for late-filed radiaten dose contenton; LBP-82-79,16 NRC 1116 (1982) preparaaon of. for pre-constructen pernut activities. CL1-82-23,16 NRC 412 (1982) supplemental, on psychological health effects of operation of TMI. denial of hcensee's motion askmg about preparation of. CLl-8213.16 NRC 21 (1982)
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES apphcaten of collateral estoppel to rehtigsten of, LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1029 (1982)
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATlON of emergency feedwater pumphouse HVAC, admission of contenten suertmg need for. LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1029 (1982) of safery related,npment, lack of specificity of contentma on. LBP-82 76.16 NRC 1029 (1912) suspe'ison of inenwe's obhgation tu answer Board questen on. ALAB-695.16 NRC 449 (1922)
EVACUATION dunng radiological ernergerny at Summer facihty, defects m transportatmn plannmg for; LBP-82 57.16 NRC 477 (1942) 9 s
m.
a.L k
SUBJECT INDEX of persons without vehicles invahds, and schoolchildren dunng radiological emergency at Big Rock Pomt Plant,
~~
adequacy of plans for; LBP-82 77,16 NRC 1096 (1982) time estimates at Diablo Canyon rehabahty of; LBP-82 70.16 NRC 756 (1982)
EVIDENCE drawing unfavorat>le inferences from; LBP-82 56.16 NRC 281 (1982) hearsay, m TMI cheatmg proceedmg. Licensmg Board treatment of. LBP-82-56.16 NRC 281 (1982) on accident nsk. I wensmg Board request for Comr.ussion guence on treatment of. LBP-82-61,16 NRC 560 (1982) on effluent contract lawsuit. <'emal of directed ceruncanon of Licensing Board's ruimg on madmissibihty of; LBP-82-62,16 NRC 565 t1982)
See also Appeals EXAMINATIONS NRC reactor operator hcensmg. site-spec fic validation of and proctonng and gradmg of. LBP-82-56,16 NRC 281 (1982)
EXCEPTIONS Appeal Board pohcy concerning enforcement of ume hmrt6 for fihng. ALAB484.16 NRC 162 (1982) necessity of fihng. ALAB-694,16 NRC 958 (1982)
EXEMPTIONS from 10 CFR 5010(c) for firsida-kmd project. CLI-82-23.16 NRC 412 (1982)
See also Heanngtsi FAULT (S)
Calaveras, charactensucs of, relative to GE test wactor; LBP-82-64.16 NRC 5% (1982; deflectm. techmcal discussions of. LBP-82-64.16 NRC 5% (1982)
Hongri, changes in seismic design bases of Diablo Canyon dee to proximity of; LBP-8212A.16 NRC 7 (1982) in Cahforma. charactenascs of relanve to GE test reactor. LBP-82-64.16 NRC 596 (1982) m vicmity of GE test reactor, activity of. LBP-82 64.16 NRC 596 (1982)
San Fernando, seismicity of. relative to GE test reactor; LBP-82-68.16 NRC 5% (1982)
Verona, chars.ner. vs of, relanve to GE test reactor; LBP-82-64.16 NRC 596 (1982)
Wateree Creek, near Summer facihty. seismicity of. LBP-82-55,16 NRC 225 (1982)
See also Ground Faultmg FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE apphcate of, to NRC proceedmgs. LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1844 (1982)
FINALITY test of. for appeal purposes. ALAB-690.16 NRC 893 (1982)
RNANCIAL QUAllRCATIONS amendment of regulanons to preclude consideration of. LBP-82 76.16 NRC 1029 (1982) demat of 2 206 petinon requestmg imnation of show-cause proceedmg on basis of hcensee's lack of. DD-82-8.16 NRC 394 (1982) issues, ehmmation of from NRC proceedmgs. DPRM-82 2.16 NRC 1209 (1982)
[
I hogabihty of. m operaung hcense proceedings. LBP-82-63.16 NRC 571 (1982) of apphcant for fulfillmg emergency plannmg responsituhues. consideranon of. LBP-82-67,16 NRC 734 t1982:
of apphcants. chmmation of consideraten of. LBP-82-57.16 NRC 477 t1982 of small unhty owners distrussal of contenuons on. LBP-82-51.16 NRC 167 (1982)
RNDINGS OF FACT pivposed. consequences of failure to file. ALAB491.16 NRC 897 (1982) propmed, sigmrwance of requirement to file; ALAB491.16 NRC 897 (1982p i
simultaneous. demal of Staff nwuon to reconsider scheduhng for. LBP-62-SI A.16 NRC 180 (19826 I
RRE PROTECTION SYSTT.M admission of contenuon hstmg madequacies in. as Seabrook. LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1029 (1982)
RSH minimum standard for NEPA consideranon of impmgement and entramment of. LBP-82-53,16 NRC 19e i1982)
GROUND FAULTING techmcal discusses of evidence, probabihty and esumates of offsets, and deflecton relevant so. LBP-82-64.16 NRC 596 (1982) l GROUND MOTION
' ' " ~
l st Summer facahty. calculanon of. LBP-82 55.16 NRC 225 (1982) b 89 1
SUBJECT INDEX combmed wah surface offset, tecimcal discussen; LBP4244,16 NRC 596 (1982s technmal discussens of peak and vertical accelernuan; LBP-8244,16 NRC 596 (1982)
HEALTH O
effects of comtuned effluents from coal and nuclear power plants; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 512 (19t2) effects of radiaten releases, uranium fuel cycle, denial of summary disposamon of consenten allegm3 underesumanon of; LBP42 57,16 NRC 477 (1982) psychologwal, of sesadents of TMI area, preparauon of supplemental EIS an; CU-8213,16 NRC 21 (1982)
HEARING (S) ammus partwipation m, ALAB479,16 NRC 121 (1982) on grant of esemoten, right to, under Atomic Energy Act; CU-82 23,16 NRC 412 (1982) on issues related to enforcement acuan; CLI-8216,16 NRC 44 (1982) on power reactor units, consolidaten of; DPRM-82-2,16 NRC 1209 (199?)
on sne preparaten acuvanes, requirement for, under Atoms Energy Act; CU42-23,16 NRC 412 (1982) persons who may request LBP-82 87,16 NRC 1195 (1982) a nght to, under Atomic Energy Act; ALAB487,16 NRC 460(1982) type reqmred for matenals trease amendment; CU-82 21.16 NRC 401 (1982)
See also Appeal Board, Appeahs. Consohdaten HUMAN ENGINEERING locauan of multi-point recorder as flaw in; UIP42-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
HYDROGEN CONTROL SYSTEMS at Seabrook, rejecten of contenton quesuonmg adequacy of. LEP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
INFORMANTS NRC Staff refusal to name, LBP-82-59,16 NRC 533 (1982)
INFORMATION matenahty of, ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
INFORMER'S PRIVILEGE appimation of and yieldmg of, in NRC practice; LBP-82 59,16 NRC 533 (1982) appixaten of, en NRC proceedmgs; LBP4247,16 NRC 1195 (1982)
INSTRUMENTATION at Seabrook, regulatory comphance of; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
INTERESTED STATE obhgatens of, as a full party to a proceeding, LBP 82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
INTFRROGATORIES scope of appluant's response to; LBP-8247,16 NRC 734 (1982)
INTERSTATE COMPACT precluson of Lxensing BoarJ junsdruon by; LBP-82-72,16 NRC 968 (1982)
INTERVENORS in NRC proceedmgs, senacture of parucipauon of, ALAB493,16 NRC 952 (1982) pro se, showing required of, for adnusson of late-filed contenuons; LBP-82-0 '6 NRC 571 (1982) pro se, standard for bnefs of. ALAB4' 3,16 NRC 952 (1982) unreasonable espectatens of; LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) views, purposes, and conduct of, outside of NRC proceedmgs; CU42-15,16 NRC 27 (1982) who cannot present ther own cases, assistance for; LBP-82-84,16 NRC 1183 (1982)
INTERVENTION by an organizaten, reqmrements for; LBP-82 74,16 NRC 981 (1982) by groups ogosmg tiuclear power; CU-8215,16 NRC 27 (1982) by mterested state, cntens for; UlP-82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) contention requuement for; ALAB-687,16 NRC 460 (1982); LBP-82-74,16 NRC 981 (1982) discretenary, by petinoners without a vahd comention; LBP 82 52,16 NRC 183 (1982) in matenals Irense proceedings, establishmg interest for; ALAB482,16 NRC 150 (1982) nonumely, jusuficaten for; LBP-F2-74,16 NRC 981 (1982) l standards for evaluaung adrrussibihty of unumely petamn for; LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) 1 INVESTIGATION of concealment of safety informanon, demat of intervenors' peuten for; CU-82-22,16 NRC 405 (1982)
M s,-o-3 v
w E
SUBJECT INDEX
'W
- IODlNT, none,rs, in-plant, adrnassion of comenton allegmg insuffrrncy c(, LEP-82-75,16 NRC 986 (1982)
JURISDICTION delegated to Special Master, LBP-82-%,16 NRC 281 (1982) of adjudacatory boards to reopen record on quality assurance inues at Diablo Canyon, ALAB481,16 (1982) 7
of Licenung Board over psychologral stress contentens, follommg issuance of pohey statement. LBP NRC 751 (1982) of Licensing Board to hear evidence on Commisson-posed emergexy plannmg questons, LBP-824 (1982) of Licenung Board to impose rnonetary penalty; LEP 82 %,16 NRC 281 (1982) of Lacenung Board so order NRC Staff to investigate a!!cged false matenal statement. LBP-82 56,16 (1982) of L=ensing Board to reassess impacts of water allocatens from Delamare River for coolmg a nuclear pl LBP 82-72,16 NRC 968 (1982) of L=ensing Board to rule on rnoten to reopen the record. LBP-82-86,16 NRC 1190 (1982) over inues relaung to comphance with and implementatmn of Board ordert ALAB484,16 NRC 162 (19 over TMI cheahng decisma retamed by Licensmg Board, LBP-82-56,16 NRC 281 (1982)
UABlUTY of apptrant or Irensee for matenal false stasement; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
UCENSE amended to permit rerackmg in spent fuel pool. LBP-8245,16 NRC 714 (1982)
See also Byproduct Matenals License, Manufactu-m. License. Maiena!s Lacense UCENSEE conuderaten of character of ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) habihty of, for matenal false statenwnt, ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) obhgaten of,in NRC proceedmg, to provide timely and accurate mformaten; ALAB491,16 NRC UCENSING BOARDIS) appointment of Special Master by; LBP-82-56,16 NRC 281 (1982) authonry regardmg witMrawal of construction permit apphcation, LBP-82-88, !6 NRC 1828 (1982) authonry so impose sanctions on NRC Staff. LBP-82-87,16 NRC 1195 (1982) authonty, deleganon of, to NRC Staff, LBP-8248.16 NRC 741 (1982) discreton in managmg poceedmgs, impositen of sancuans, LBP-82-75.16 NRC 986 (1982) junsdzten in adnussion o( contenuons; CU-8215,16 NRC 27 (1982) panadicten of, to order NRC Staff to mvesugate alleged fahe matenal statement. LBP-82 prisdruon of, to refer NRC etarrunsten cheaters for cnnunal prosecuten. LBP 82-%,16 NRC junsduten over psychologral sness contenuons, followmg isuaance of pohey statement; (1982) junsdzten to hear evidence on Comrruuion-posed emergency planning questens, LBP junidacten to impose monetary pensky, LBP-82-%,16 NRC 281 (1982) junsdetmn to reaness impacts of water allocanon covered by interstate compact. LBP junsdwton to rule on mouon to reopen the recud. LBP-82-86,16 NRC 1890 (1982) knutauons on provedmg asustance to intervenors. LBP-82-8 16 NRC 1183 (1982) responubihty to develcp a full record. LBP-82-87,16 NRC 1195 (1982)
See also Atome Safety and Licensmg Board, Decision UMfTED WORK AL7DIORlZATIONS required determmauons for grantmg of. ALAB488,16 NRC 47I (1982)
MAINTENANCE performed dunns plant operauon, hmits on type of LBP-8243,16 NRC 573 (1982)
MANAGEMENT CAPABlUTY at Zammer, dismissal of sua sponte contentens on. CU-82-20.16 NRC 109 t1982)
MAN AGEMENT COMPE1ENCE to operate Zamnwr facility, sua sponte adopton of unumely contentens challengmg, LBP-82 (1982)
- ~
MANUFACTURING UCENSE proceedmg, regulatory obhgauon so conduct immediate effecuveness rewarw of. ALAB v
91
SUBJECT INDEX MATERIAL FAL.SE STATEMENT (S) certificaten of hcensed operats who has requahfied through improper assistance as. LBP-82-56.16 NRC 281 i
(1982) habihty of appixant a twenwe for. ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982)
)
G NRC ! di mvestigaton of. LEP-82-56,16 NRC 281 (1982) onusskes as ALAB-691.16 NRC 897 (1982) j I
relevance of mient to deceive through. ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982) iest for. ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 t1982)
MATER 1All LICENSE amendment au:honzing work at mactive thonum ore mill, authonsasen of heanns us, CLI-82-21.16 NRC @l (1982)
See also Byproduct Matenals License. Notice MEDICAL SERVICES arrangements for contammated injured mdmduals, emergency plannmg requirements for. LBP-82-75.16 NRC 986 (1982) for "contammated injured indmduals ' interpretaten of. CLI 82 27.16 NRC 883 (1982) for treatmg contammated injured moividuals dunng radiologwal emergency at Diablo Canyon. anurance of.
LBP-82 70.16 NRC 756 (1982) m event of radiologral emergency al Summer facihty, availabihty of facshries for. LBP-82-57.16 NRC 477 (1982) need for further heigation on adequacy of offute emergency plans for. LBP-82-tiOA.16 NRC 555 e1982)
MISSiti.S reactor coolant pump flywheel as potential source of. LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
See also Turbme Misules MON!TORING and aswumg radxN. cal emergerries, ability of offsite junsdatens of San Onofre for. ALAB 680.16 NRC 127 (1982) meteorologwal, and dose projections. applicant required to respond to meerrogatones on ernergency plannmg for.
LBP-82-67,16 NRC 734 (1982) of routme releases of radmactmty from Seatwook, adequacy of. LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1029 (1982) of site seismicity, heense condiuoned for contmuco. Ltw-82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982) radiological environmental, at La Crosw facihty methodology and adequacy of. LBP-82-58.16 NRC 512 (1982 seismic, at Summer facility, as a hcena condaten. LBr -82 55.16 NRC 225 (1982) a See also lodme MONTICEL1O RESERVOIR seismic history of, followmg impoundment of. LBP-82-55.16 NRC 225 (1982)
MOOTNESS vaca:.on of unreviewed judgments because of. CLl-82-18.16 NRC 50 (1982)
NEED FUR POWER consideratens m operatmg hcense proceedmgs. Justification for raismg. LBP-82 58,16 NRC 512 (1982)
NOTICE of mformaton m separate proceedmgs, entena for providmg. ALAB-682.16 NRC 150 (1982) of matenais hcense actions. recommendaten for rulemakmg on, ALAB482.16 NRC 150 (1982:
NOTIFICATION of pubhc of radiologwa: emergency at San Onofre ALAB480.16 NRC 127 (1982) of the pubhc of a radskigical emergency at Summer facihty. sufficiency of plan for. LBP-82-57.16 NRC 477 (1982) program to inform pubhc of steps to take dunng radiological emergency, status of at Dublo Canyon. LBP-82-70.
16 NRC 756 (1982)
NOZZLE CRACKING m high pressure myection system at TMI-1. sua sponie issue raised on. CLI-82-12.16 NRC 1 (1982)
NRC STAf7 deleganon of Licensing Board authonty to. LBP-82-68,16 NRC 741 (1982) ordered to spww cause why sanctens should not be imposed for its refusal to name mfonnants. LBP 82-59.16 NRC 533 (1982) overught of construction activities at Midland Plant, ALAB-684,16 NRC 162 (1982) 92 W
,L e
s 4w A
l
SUBJECT INDEX responubihty concerning uncontested safety issues; ALAB480,16 NRC 127 (1982) responsibahty of, regardung comphance wr.h NEPA; ALAB493. I6 NRC 952 (1982) responubihty to comply with Licensmg Board orders. LEP-82-87,16 NRC 4195 (1982) role in adjudicatory process; LBP-8244,16 hRC 506 (1982)
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE contenuon considered impermisuble challenge to Table S-3, LBP 82-63.16 NRC 571 (1982)
See also Uramum Fuel Cycle NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION authoney to provide guidance on adnusubthry of contennons before Licensmg Boards; CLI-82-15.16 NRC 27 (1982) authonty to require threshold showmg of basis and specificity for adrmssion of contenuon; LBP il2 75,16 NRC 986 (1982) authonry to review DOE's demonstranon waste sohdificanon plan, ALAB-679.16 NRC 121 (1982) dismissal of grant of review of Appeal Board deciuon; CLJ-82-26, I6 NRC 880 (1982) personnel, considenng sufficiency of, in opecasmg hcense proceeding. DPRM-82 2.16 NRC 1209 (1982)
See also Federal Rules of Civil Procedure NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS apphcation of res judicata/ collateral estoppel to, CLI-82 23,16 NRC 412 (1982) conduct of parties to ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) obhgauon of apphcant or hcensee to provide timely and accurate information in; ALAB491.16 NRC 897 819821 standard for judgmg lawyer conduct in. ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982) standard for preparation of. ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
NUCLEAR %EAPONS considerauons of contentions on use of spent fuel to manufacture, LBP-82-53.16 NRC 1% (1982)
OPERATING HISTORY of Humboldt Bay facihty; Da82-7.16 NRC 387 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE amendment for spent fuct reprocessing and waste disposal center, demal of miervenor's request for heanng on.
ALAB479,16 NRC 123 (1982) at Summer facihty subject to sea,mc monitonng and design confirmation cond;nons, LBP-82-55,16 NRC 225 (1982) cost-benefit balance, consideration of " sunk costs m; LBP 8243.16 NRC 578 t 182:
I l
full-term authorued subject to condinons relaimg to seismic safety, ernergeno preparedness, and steam generator tube problems; LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982) heanngs, hmatation on issues to be esammed m; DPRM-82-2,16 NRC 1209 (1982) heanngs, requirement for FEMA findmgs on adequacy of offsite emergency planmng; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982) procedures, responsib hty of NRC Staff regardmg comphance with NEPA and AEA, ALAB-693.16 NRC 952 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE, FULL POWER authoruation of, in spite of pendency of low-power suspenuon and independent desarn venficanon program.
LBP-82-70,16 NRC 756 (1982) contmuanon of, beyond 6 rroths, conditioned on resolution of offsite medical arrangements issue. CLf-82-14.16 NRC 24 (1982) emergency plannmg findmgs necessary for issu=: ice of. LBP-8248.16 NRC 741 (1982) suspension of, pendmg appellate review; ALAB-680,16 NRC 127 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE. LOW-POWER procsdures for authoruauon of issuance of. LBP-82-68,16 NRC 741 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS cure in defect in fairness of, through discovery and disclosure on potential confhet of interest. LBP 82-73,16 NRC 974 (1982) jnurication to reopen; CLI-82 20,16 NRC 109 (1982) hmitauons on matters to be rewived in. LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) hugabihty of fmancial quahficanons in. LBP 8243.16 NRC 571 (1982)
See also Accident (s). Ahernauve Energy Sources. Record 93
I 1
SUBJECT LNDEX OPERATOR TRAINING and enammation, utilny's responsibilny for; LBP 82 56,16 NRC 281 (1982)
PENALTY G
monetary, Licensms Board junsdction to impose; LBP-82-56,16 NRC 281 (1982)
PHYSICAL SECURITY PLAN (S) for Diablo Canyon, publicanon of, with protected mismanon deleted, CLI-8219,16 NRC 53 (1982) for Diablo Canyon, release so intervenor's counsel of portions of, CU-8217,16 NRC 48 (1982)
(
POLICY STATEMENTS l
en psychological stress contenuons, effect of, on Board's junsdetion over LBP-8249,16 NRC 751 (1982)
POPULATION DENSITY around shutdown facilny, NRC Staff consideration of, DD-82 7,16 NRC 387 (1982) i at Indan Point, consideration of, CLt-82 25,16 NRC 867 (1982)
PRESIDING OFFICER over mfonnal matenals Irense amendment heanng, representauves and responsibihtes of, CU-82-21,16 NRC 401 (1982)
PRESSURIZER HEATERS safety standards for quahficanon of, LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982)
PRIVILEGE attorney-clent, purpose and scope of LBP-82-82,16 NRC !!44 (1982) esecutive, in NRC proceedmgs, related to dncovery guidance in resolvmg claims of, LBP 82-82,16 NRC 1144 (1982) so avoid oiscovery, tiurden on party asserting: LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1144 (1982)
See also informer's Pnvilege, Work Product Doctnne PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT rejection of contenoon assertmg necessity for; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
PROTECTIVE ORDERS to avoid disclosure of documents, good cause for issuance of;1.BP-82-82,16 NRC !!44 (1982)
PSYCHOI.OGICAL STRESS caused by wwwmg coolmg tower plume, rejection of contention concernmg; LBP 82-71,16 NRC %5 (1982) contennons, effect of polry statement on htiganon of, LBP-82-69,16 NRC 75l (1982) context for considenng contenuons on; LBP-82-71,16 NRC %S (1982) legal standard for NEPA consideranon of, LBP-82-53,16 NRC 1% (1982) reversal of decision accepung contenuon on; LBP-82-53A,16 NRC 208 (1982)
QUALIFICATION of power operated rehef valves and pressuruer heaters, safety standards for. LBP-82-70,16 NRC 756 (1982)
QUAUFICATION TTSTING of equipment, adussion of contenuon questionmg apptrant's comphance with intens requirement for, LBP-82-63, 16 NRC 571 (1982) i See also Tesung l
QUAUTY ASSURANCE i
at Diablo Canyon, junsdruon of Boards to reopen record on, ALAB-681,16 NRC 146 (1982) i at Zimmer, dismissa' of sua sponte contennons on, CU-82-20,16 NRC 109 (1982) at Zammer, sua sporne adopuon of unumely contenuons challenging, LBP-82-54,16 NRC 210 (1982) contenuon seen as an expedinon seekmg informanon; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) for operauon at Seabrook, admission of contennons on; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) of design of Seabrook, hoganon of, in operatmg :. cense proceedms; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) of heatmg, venulatmg and air condinoning system, adnussion of contentr,ns beanns on; LBP-8243,16 NPC 571 (1982) at Summer Plant, history and acceptabihry of, LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982)
PADIAT10N ffects on polymers; LBP-82-53,16 NRC 1% (1982)
, um normal nuchar power plant operation, estimanc'i of health effects of LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982)
R., il ATION HAZARDS w viacy of Big Rock Pomi Plant's emergency plannmg pamphlet with regard to; LBP-82-60,16 NRC 540 (1982)
H
't*M**
i E'
\\
I
SUBJECT WDE%
I RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION of crops and hvestock dunns radelogical ettergency,Ianse condaioned ly requirenwt tw plade potect consumers from; LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477 (M S2; RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS off-gas, at La Crosse Plant, surnmyy disposanon of comentions allegms excessive; LBP-82 58,16 NRC 512 (1982) routme, calculataan c(done levels to humans from; LB? 82-79,14 NRC 1116 (1982) l RADtOACTIVE RELEASES dental of sum. nary dmpesinon of contennon allegmg underestimanon ci health effects of; LBP 82-57,16 NRC 47 (1982) from shutdown plant into Hurnboldt Bay, sigmfrance of; DD-82 7,16 NRC 387 (1982) no Lake W) lie from Catasba, specirray reqmred of consentums on. LLP-82 51,16 NAC 167 (1982) l RADIOACTIVE WASTE disposal and spent fuel reprocessing center, denial of inservenor's request for twanns on; AIAB479,15 NRC 121 (1982) high-level, responsibilay for disposal t' ; D0'82 7,16 NRC 387 (19'2) low level, matenal aherstma of appfwation no store; CLI-82-26,16 NRC 880 (1982)
See also Waste, Waste Disposal 2EACTOR demonstratam liquid rnetal fast tarder, protect history of, CU-82 23,16 NRC 412 (1982) -
GE nest, desenption of, LBP A244,16 NRC 5% (1982)
REACTOR COOLAVT SYSTT.MS at Vallecitos Nuclear Center, operstma of, following scram /shudmn; LBP-8244,16 NRC 5% 09t2) contammaton of, at TMI-l; C1182-12,16 NRC I (1982)
REACTOR OPERATOR (S) qualifrations, adnussion of contention cha.nenging: 1BP-82-51, M NRC !67 (1982) utday's responsibihty for training, esammaion, and certs anon of; LBP-82-56,16 NRC 281 (1982)
REBUTTABLE PRESUMITION on quesuon of adequacy of emergency piar,s, FEMA fmdings on staan of offue emergency preparedness as; LBP-8248,16 NRC 741 (1982)
RECONSIDERATION specificity required of moren for; LBP 2248,16 NRC 741 (l182)
RECORD in operating trense proceedmss, justifrasion for reopenmg of; CU 82 'O.16 MC 109 (1982) on emergency plannmg reopemns after fmal FEMA redmss filed, LBf.8244,16 NRC 741 (1982) on quahty assurance issues at Diablo Canyon. sunidsten of hosrds so fgen; ALAB481,16 NRC 146 (1982) reopening of, in view of Applrant's failure to satret ernergenty pannmg mformational brochure as evidence, LEP-8246,16 NRC 730 (19825 reopenmg, on the basis of untunely contenuons; LEP 82-54,16 NRC 210 a1982)
See also Appeal Board l
REENTRY AND RECOVERY l
post-accident, adequacy of Diablo Car ron pter,s for, LBP-82-70, a6 %RC 7% 1982)
REGULATIONS difference in Appe Board and Licensing Board interpretatens of; CU-42 27,16 NRC 883 (1982) esemptons from, for first-of-a4ind pro,tets; CU-82-D,16 NRC 412 (1982) immediate effecoveness, r,Aatu'a of, so manufactunns Wense pnreedmg; ALAB486,16 NRC 454 (1982) i interpretaten of; A1AB486,16 NRC d54t1982% ALAB487,16 NRC 460(1982)
I pre-constnacten permit /hmned work au.honzaten acovitses allowed by; CU-82 23,16 NRC 412 (1982)
RES JUDICATA apphcaten c(, to NRC proceedings; C1J-82 23,16 NRC 412 (1982)
RESTRICTED DOCUMENTS on physical secunty plans, pubtrauon of, with pmtected mform.mm de'eted. C11-82-19,16 NRC 53 (1982)
REVIEW discrenonary imerlocutory, failure of intervenor's petinon to rw-t struf ards for; 1368242,16 NRC 565 (1952) unmediate effecoveness, of decHon authorizmg issuance of full power kense; ALAB480,16 NRC 127 (f9th immediate effecoveness, of a:anufacturi93 rense proceedm3; ALAB486, f6 NRC 454 (1982) t of Appeal Board decison on bases of seisme design at Diablo Canyon dedined. CU-8212A,16 NRC 7 0982)
.h.. -.
l l
l i
SUBJECT INDEX of Appeal Board decison. Commrumn dnminal of grant of; CLI-82 26,16 NRC 880 (1982) of Licensmg Board decisen m content of moton for stay pendmg appeal, standard of. ALAB480,16 NRC 127 (1982)
O sua sponte, of fmal dispositen of hcensing proceedmg, score of; ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982) sua sponte, of Licensmg Board imual decisons; ALAB-689,16 NRC 887 (1982)
REVIEW, APPELLATE of Lscensmg Board decision concermng meegnty of heanng process, ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) of Lacensmg Board ruimgs on economic issues, interventen requests, or procedural matters, scope of, ALAB-691, 16 NRC 897 (1982) poruons of the record addres.ed dunrg; AIAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) of special proceedmss, scge of. ALAB485,16 NRC 449 (1982)
RISK assessment in DES, of permanent dewagenng on groundwater relatonships; LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) estimators used m calculatmg health effects from radiaten resultmg from normal nuclear power plar.t operahon, LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982)
Lcensing Board request for Commisson guidance on treatment of testimony on. LBP-8241,16 NRC 560 (1982) sessmac, to GE test reactor; LBP-82-64.16 NRC 5% (1982)
See also Accident (s). Anucipated Transients Without Scram, Cancer Probabihstic Rak Assessment l
RULEMAKING considerauon of issues that are the subject of, LBP-82-53,16 NRC 1% (1982t LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) to amend Classificanon Guide for Safeguards Information, denial of peuten for; DPRM-82-1,16 NRC 861 (1982)
RULES OF PRACTICE admimstraove fairness relauve to confhct of mterest; LBP-82-73.16 NRC 974 (1982) adnussibihty of late-filed contentwns; L3P-82-53,16 NRC 1% (1982L LBP-82-54.16 NRC 210 (1982) admission of untimely contentens where factor (i) has not been sausfied, LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) analogy between Comnussen's summary dapositon procedures and Federal Rules of Civd Pnxedure. LBP-82-58, l
16 NRC 512 (1782)
Appeal Board acceptance of Lacensing Board referrals; ALAB487,16 NRC 460 (1982) appellate procedure for filmg of esceptons, ALAB-6W,16 NRC 958 (1982) appellate standard for undertakmg interlocutory review; ALAB487,16 NRC 460 (1982) apphcaten of eformer's pnvdege to NRC practre; LBP-82 59,16 NRC 533 (1982), LBP 82-87,16 NRC 1895 (1982) auertion of clauns of privdege to avoid discovery; LBP-82-82.16 NRC 1844 (1982) burden of proof for demonstratmg comphance of offsite emergency pian; LBP-82-77,16 NRC 1096 (I%2) burden of proof for summary dispositen motens, LBP-82-58.16 hRC 512 (1982) burden of proof on adequacy of apphcant's emergency planrung pubis informaten twochure, LBP-82-66,16 NRC 730 (1982) burden of proof to demonstrate existence of sausfactory pubhc nouGcaten system; LBP 8240,16 NRC 540 (1982) cause for dnmissal of summary disposioon motons. LBP-82-58.16 NRC 512 (1982) certificaton of issues; LBP-82-69,16 NRC 751 (1982) challenges to secunty plans; LBP-82-51,16 NRC 167 (1982) circumstances appropnate for interlocutory appeals: ALAB-683,16 NRC 160 (1982) conditmnal adnussaan of nonspecific contentons; ALAB487,16 NRC 460 (1982) conduct of counsel; LSP-82-87,16 NRC 1895 (1982) conduct of pernes to NRC proceedmgs. ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) consequences of fadure to file proposed findings; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) consideranon of apphcant's fmancial quahricatens m operaung hcense proceedmg; LBP-8247,16 NRC 734 (1982) consideranon of issues involved in rulemakmg; LBP-8243.16 NRC 571 (1982) connohdatma of heanngs on power reactor units; DPRM-82-2,16 NRC 1209 (1982) contenten requirement for intervenuon, IEP-82-74,16 NRC 981 (1982) contenuon requirements for intervenuon, ALAB487,16 NRC 460 (1982) t
(
contents of bnefs for appeals; ALAB493,16 NRC 952 (1982) cntena for acceptance of unumely contenuorts. ALAB-687,16 NRC 460 (1982) cntens for determmmg whether to grant stay pendmg appeal. ALAB480,16 NRC 127 (1982) deternunaten of whether a document is pnvileged LSP-32 82,16 NRC 1144 (19825 discussion of issue in dran EIS as good cause for fdmg contenuon late; LBP-82 79,16 NRC 1116 (1982) 1
%.m
=
W
SUBJECT INDEX effect of Statement of Pohey on Board jusdzten; LBP-82-69,16 NRC 751 (1982) establishing interest for standmg to intervene a matenals hceme proceedmgs, ALAB482,16 NRC 150 (1982) excepuen to Commissen's rule agamst meerlocweary appeal; LSP-8242,16 NRC 565 (1982) fulfillment of standms, injwy in fact, and interests eequurments by an organizaton, LBP-82 74,16 NRC 981 (1982) good cease for acceptance of late-filed comennons, LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) grounds for defeme of Licensmg Board decision; ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982) guidance in resolvmg claims of esecuuve pnvilege related to discovery; LBP-82 82 I6 NRC 1844 (1982) immediate effectiveness review of decisen autlurtzmg issuance of full-power license, ALAB480,16 NRC I27 (1982) immediate effectivecess revww of erunufactunns trense proceeding; ALAB-686,16 NRC 454 (1982) interests encompassed by 10 CFR 2.714, LBP-82 52,16 NRC 183 (1982) imerlocutory appeals envolvmg the schedslmg of heanngs or timmg of admissma of entence; ALAB488,16 NR 473 (1982) interpretaten of the term " reasonable assurance"; LBP-8246,16 NRC 730 (1982) interventen by groups opposmg nuclear power; CLI-8215,16 NRC 27 (1982) junsdictmn of Boards over issues relaung to compi.ance with and unplementauon of Board orders; ALAB NRC 162 (1982) jusurranon for nonumely intervention, LBP-82-74,16 NRC 981 (1982) method by which NRC ensures due procen, LBP-82-87,16 NRC l195 (1982) need for discussen of shernatives m EIA with respect to spent fuel pool espansen,IEP 82 79,16 NRC 18 36 (1982) objecuans to discovery requests; LBP-82 82,16 NRC l144 (1982) obhgatons of intervenors in NRC licensmg proceedmss; ALAB493,16 NRC 952 (1982) official notre of informaton in separate proceedmss; ALAB482,16 NRC 150 (1982) panicipaten of amicus cunae in heannss; ALAB-679, le NRC 121 (1982) post-heanns resoluten of emergency plannmg inues; LBP-8246,16 NRC 73011982) preparanon of envuonmental impact statement for spent fuel pool espansson; LBP-82-79,16 NR procedures for correctag deficwncies in emergency plans; LBP-82 77,16 NRC 1096 (1982) selease of portions of secunty plans for nuclear plants; LBP-82-80,16 NRC 1121 (1982) reopenmg the record, LEP 82-54,16 NRC 210 (1982) sesolution of factual questons in considenng adrmssibilny of contennons LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) responses to requests for producten of documents; LBP-82-82,16 NRC i144 (1982) responsibihty of panes to disclose potennal conthcts of enterest; LBP-82-73,16 NRC 974 (1982) scheduhng Imdmgs of fact and conclusens of law; LBP-82-SI A,16 NRC 180 (1982) scope of apphcant's response to imerrogatones; LBP-8247.16 NRC 734 (1982) scope of sua sponte review of final disposnmn of hcensmg pmceedms; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 4198 showmg required of pro se intervenor for admiumn of late-filed contennocs, LBP-8243.16 NRC 571 significance of requurment to file proposed findmg of fact; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) specificay required of monon for reconsideraten, LBP-8248,16 NRC 741 (1982) standard foe bnefs of pro se intervennrs; ALAB493,16 NRC 952 (1982) standard for dncreuenary sneerlocutory review; LBP-8242,16 NRC 565 (1982) standard for judgmg lawyer conduct in, ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) standards for admisuon of nonurnely contennons ansms from TMI-2 accident; LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (198 standards for evaluaung admissioihty of untimely petumn for meervenien; LBP 8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) standing of an orgamzaten to intervene as representative of its members; LBP-82-52,16 NRC 183 (19 stay to reopen proceedmg; LBP 82-84.16 NRC 1183 (1982) sua sponte adopton of escluded conacntmns; LBP-82,79,16 NRC 1816 (1982) sest cPfmaldy" for appeal purposes; ALAB 690,16 NRC 893 (1982) threshold showmg of basis and specifray for admissen of contenton, LBP-82 75,16 NRC 986 (1982) l time limits for films enceptons; ALA3-684,16 NRC 162 (1982) l treatment of issues raised for first time on appeal; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) unreasonable expectatens of meervenors, LBP-82-63,16 NRC 571 (1982)
I use of Federel Rules of Cml Procedure to imerpret NRC rules, LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1844 (1982) use of prosective orders to avoid duclosure of documents, LBP-82-82,16 NRC lied (1982) m 4,..
SUBJECT INDEX vaatum of unreve=ed judgments because of mmeness. CLI.82-18.16 NRC 50 (1992) valulwy of Commessen rules. LBP 82 53.16 NRC 196 (1982)
RUMORS evulentwy weight of. LBP-82 56.16 NRC 281119821 O
SABOTAGE radmiogwal, amerpretatum of "several" as uwd in 10 Cf1t 73 I (a Nli to deuntw drugn baus threat of. CLI 8219 16 NRC 53 (19821 SAFFGUARDS INR)RM ATION
.c. %
demal of petiten for rulemakm3 to amend classifratum guule for. DPRM 821.16 NRC 561 (1982) meerpretation of "several" as used in design basis threat as. CLI-82-19.16 NRC 53 t1982:
SAFETY at GE test reactor, structures, systems, and compments amontant to. LBP-8244.16 NRC 5% t 194h informaton, demal of meervenors' petition for mvestigarmn of cornealment of. CLI82-22.16 NRC 40511982) of Humholdt Bay facihty durms shutdown. DD-82 7.16 NRC 3s7 (1982:
SAFETY ISSUES uncontested. NRC Staff respasibihty regarding fmdangs on. ALAB-680.16 NRC 127 t19821 unresolved. relevance of, to spent fuel puoi trushiwatum. LBP 8245.16 NRC 714 (1982)
SAFETY STANDARDS fut quahrication of equipment. LBP 82 70.16 NRC 756 (1982)
SANCTIONS for failure of party to comply enh preheanng conference order. LBP 82 75,16 NRC 946 t1982:
for NRC Staff refusal to obey Lacensmg Board order; LBP.82-87.16 NRC 1l95 t1982) impouture of, on NRC Staff. for refusal to name mformams. LBP-82-59.16 NRC 53.5 (19821 SCHEDL'LE phawd. for findmgt of fact and cornlumms of law. denial of Staff motum to reconuder. LBP-82 51 A.16 NRC 180 (1982)
SECURITY mulcar power plant, qualificatums of empert m. LBP-82-St.16 NRC 167 (1982)
SECURITY PLANS for Shoreham, release of pwtio:ss to mtervenors. LBP-82-80,16 NRC 1121 (19N2s antervernw's respmut;ihters m challengmg. LBP-82 51.16 NRC 167 (1982)
See also Dm-overy Physwas Secunty Planisp SEGMENTATION of maior federal actions, under NEPA; CLI 82-23.16 NRC 412 t19826 SEISMIC DESIGN of Diablo Canyon dechnar on of revice of Appeal Board Drusum on baws of. LBP-82-12A.16 NRC 7 (19821 of Humholdt Bay Plant, adequacy of. DD 82-7.16 NRC 3M7 q1982)
See also Tau Effect SEISMICITY m area of GC test reactor; LBP-8244,16 NRC 5% 19982) rewrvoir-mduced. Irenw conditumed for contmued rrumnonns of. LBP-82-57,16 NRC 47711982 rewrvow-induced. uccurrence of. afier imp =ndment. LBP 82-55.16 NRC 22511982 See alw Fault (s)
SERVICE OS DOCUMENTS tejectum of applwent's ob ection to. LBP-82-SI.16 NRC 167 (1982p t
SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING regardmg constructmn deficiencies at La Salle, denial of 2 206 petnum requestmg. DD-R2-9.16 NRC 396 (1982) to consider licenwe's alleged luk of (manc.al quahfratums. denial of 2 206 peinum requestmg. DD-82-8.16 NRC 394 (1982)
SHUTDowH cokt. at Seabnx4, adequacy of provisums for achevmg.1 BP 82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982:
SOUT11 CAROLIN A rewrvow-induced seismway in. LBP-82-55.16 NRC 225 t1982 SPECIAL MASTER authonty of, adopium of report of, results of heanns before, we'T ' 5"en to reputed direct obwrvatums of unness h
demeanor by. weight given to repwt of, LBP-82-56.16 NRC 281 t 19821 98
)
am II
SUBJECT INDEX
$ PENT FUEL reprizesrng and wanee disptmal center, denial of inwrvenor's regarst fw heanng on nprratmg hcenw anwn kw; ALAB479.16 NRC 128 (1982) storage capacity, withdrawal of appkatum to meresse. Lf P-62-83, la NRC (181 (1982i eransportanon an* aurage condamns. reaffireratum of rejectum of. LBP82-51,16 NRC 167 41983 uw of, to manww amicar weapons, consulerance of conannons on LBP 82 $3. to NRC 196 (19a2)
SPLNT FVEL Cash adequacy of adnunastrative conuols a handimg. LBP-82 77.16 NRC 109611982)
SPENT FUEL POOL affuinanon of decision permems mudafranon of. ALAB48$.16 NRC 962 (1982) anwndrnent of hcense to perms terathms m; LBP-8245,16 NRC 714 (1982) amendment to increase number of fuel asumt hes to be stored in. LBP t24),16 NRC $40 (1982) floor, beds impaned to, dunng neisnus evems. LBP 82-65.16 NRC 714 (1982) aanbfuanon, adequacy of envirunrnental impact appraisal on. LBP 82-79,16 NRC li t6 (1982)
See also Ahernauves STANDING of an orgamzatum, reprewntaramal requnment fw. LBP-82-$4,16 NRC 210 (1982) of meerverug in decontammatum proceedmg to Inignie maste disposal mues, LBP 82-52,16 NRC 183 (1942) of organizauons reprewntmg members reudes near a nuclear faulity; LBP 82-52,16 NRC 183 (1982) to intervene by organiaauon, requirements for, LBP-82 74.16 NRC 981119821 to intervene in matenals hcenu poseedmgs. ALAB-682.16 NRC 150 t1982)
STATION BLACKOLT as a deugn baus event. LBP-82-63.16 NRC 578 (1982:
STAY pendmg appeal of deciuon authonzmg issuance of full-power hcenw. demat of numon for. AL 127 (1982) to reopen pnxeedmg. factors conudered in determmmg whether to grant. LBP-82 84,16 NRC ll83 (1 STEAM GENERATOR n'BES at TMI 1. sua sponte issue ranied on corrosion of. CLI 8212,16 NRC I (1982) inadequacy of m-service inspection of. LBP 82-76.16 NRC 1029 (1982)
STEAM GENERATOR 5 at SeabnxA. reustance of, to degradanon. LBP-82 76, 86 NRC 1029 (1982)
SUA SPONTE ISSUES Commmon dismissal of QA and management competence contenuons adopted by Lxensmg Board as l
16 NRC 109 41982) denial of Appeal Boani request to hear-CLI-8212,16 NRC l (1982) raismg escluded contention as; LBP-82-79,16 NRC 1116 (1982) scope of appellate revww of ALAB 685,16 NRC 449 (1982)
See also Revww
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION analogy between Federal Rules of Cml Prwedure and. LBP-82 58,16 NRC $12 (lvit )
cauw for dismissal of nunne for. LBP 82-58.16 NRC 512 (1982)
See also Burden of Pnxif SUSPENSION of ine-we's obhgatum to anseer Board questum un environmental quahfnanon. ALAB 683.16 NRC 4 of low-power hcenw, authunamuon of full power hcenw m spm of pendency of. LBP-82 70,16 SYNERGISM between airtsene effluents from coal and nuclear power plants. LBP-82 38.16 NRC $12 (1982)
SYSTEMS IN11R ACTION contentum, miervenors plead lack of tethmcal quahficatums in objectum to rejectum of. LBP 82-31 t1982) need to perform comprehenuve analyus of, as Sc brook. LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
TAU EFTICT uw of, m wismic drugn of nuclear power plants. LBP-82 82A,16 NRC 7 41982)
TESTIMONY cenifwatum of Board questens askmg clanficatum of scoge of. CU 82 25.16 NRC 867 (1982) 99
I I
l SUBJECT INDEX l
tn NRC gnuceedmgs standard for preparanon of. ALAB491,16 NRC 597 (1982)
See also Acc&nt(s)
TESTING of protactwa systems ard actuauon devres, admissma of contenuon on; LSP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
G See also Qualirranon Tenung THORIUM ore null, mactive, Isense amendment sought to establish water collection and retenuon system at; C1J-82-21,16 NRC 401 (1982) l THREE MILE ISLAND 1
3 preparatme of supplemental E15 on psycholossal health of residents in area of.CLI-8213,16 NRC 21 (1982) g g' ;.
probabday of aircraft trash at. ALAB-692,16 NRC 928 (1982)
)
5
(
TRAINING j
needs for emergency pla'ining, esumateg. LBP 82 77,16 NRC 1096 (1982) j l
of emergency response penannel, admission of contenton cumg inadequacies in plans for LBP 82-75.16 NRC 986 (1982) i of operanons personnel at Seabrook, consention adnutted enh hmnatens on categones of personnel, LBP-82 75,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
)
radiological emergency response, at Diablo Canyon. adequacy of LBP-32-70,16 NRC 756 (1982)
TRANSMIS$10N LINTS from Seabrook, aesthenc and health and safety effects of LSP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
)
TRANSPORTATION j
dunns evacumuon because of radiologral emergency at Summer facdity, defects in plannmg for. LBP-82 57.16 NRC 477 (1982) i TURBINE MISSILES pmtecten of Seabras safety systems frorn; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
See also Mmiles i
URANIUM FLTL CYCLE demal of summary dispossuon of contenten allegmg underesumanon of health effects of. LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477 j
(1982) i See also Nuclear Fuel Cycle VALVES power +perated relef. safety standards for quahrwaton of, LBP-82 70.16 NRC 756 (1982)
)
WASTE
{
generated by decantanunauen. considersten of. LBP-82-52.16 NRC 183 (1982)
See also Radioacuve Wasie j
WA51T DISPOSAL j
considernamn of, in NEPA analyses; LBP-82 53,16 NRC l% (1982) i solut, radmacuve, produced dunns normal operatons at Seabrook, means no control LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
%I1DS reactor vessel, adnussion of contenuon assertmg need for ultrasome tesung of. LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
%1THDRAWAL l
of constructmo perma appixaten, condicons on, LBP-82-81,16 NRC 1828 (1982)
WITNESSES empert, in nuclear power plant secunty, demonstrauan of credenuals of. LBP-82-51.16 NRC 167 (1982) proceJural contest of Licensmg Board's cailms of indepercient empens as; LBP-82-55,16 NRC 225 (1982)
WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE docrments pnvileged from discovery by; LBP-87-82,16 NRC 1144 (1982) l l
l l
100 l
A m.M.
r I
l l
l v.
%-g
9 i '
FACILITY INDEX BIG ROCK POINT PLANT; Docket No SISS SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; September 14,1982;INmAL DECISION,12P-82-77,16 NRC 1096 (1982)
SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; September 15,1982;INmAL DECISION, LBP-82-78,16 NRC 1107 (1982)
BIG ROCK POINT PLANT; Docket No. 54155-OLA SCHEDULING, July 4,1982 MEMORANDUM, LBP-82-51 A,16 NRC 180 (1982)
SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; August 6,1982,INmAL DECISION, LBP-8240,16 NRC 540 (1982)
BROWNS FERRY NUCLIAR PLANT, Umts I,2 and 3. Docket Nos. 50 2594LA,5426401A,50-2940LA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT, September 15,1982, ORDER, C1182-26,16 NRC 880 (1982)
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, Umts I and 2 Docket Nos. 54413,54414 UMITED WORK AUINORIZATION, August 19,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB487,16 NRC 460 (1982)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; July 8,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-51,16 NRC 167 (1982)
CUNCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT; Docket No. 54537 UMITED WORK AUTHORIZATION, August 25,1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB488,16 NRC 471 (1982)
CUNCH RIVER B.tEEDER REACTOR PLANT; Docket No. 54537 (Exemption request under 10 CFR 5012)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION, August 12,1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CU-82-22,16 NRC 405 (1982)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION, August 17,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, CU-82-23,16 NRC 412 (1i82)
COB ALT 40 STORAGE FACluTY; Docket No. 346931 (Renewal of Byproduct Matenals License No.
19 08330-03)
BYPRODUCT MA1T. RIALS UCENSE RENEWAL; July 16,1982. DECISION, ALAB482,16 NRC 150 (1982)
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELICTRIC STATION, Umts I and 2, Docket Nos. 54445 54446 OPERATING LICENSE, September 30,1982. ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION; LBP-82-87,16 NRC 1195(1982)
SHOW CAUSE, August 4,1982; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; LBP-82-59,16 NRC 553 (1982)
DIAELO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Umts I and 2; Docket Nos. 54275,54276 OPERATING l.JCENSE, September 22,1982-DIRECTOR *$ DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206, Di>8210,16 NRC 1205 (1982)
DIABLD CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Umts I and 2; Docht Nos. 54275 OL SS323-CL CPERATING LICENSE. March 18,1982, DECLIN ATION OF REVIEW, CLI-82-12A,16 NRC 7 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; July 16,1982; MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFIC ATION TO THE COMMISSION, ALAB481.16 NRC 146 (1982)
OPERATING UCENSE, August 31,1982; INITIAL DECISION; LBP-82-70,16 NRC 75611982)
OPERATING LICENSE, September 27,1982; MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO NRC STAFTS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S INmAL DECISION DATED AUGUST 31, 1982, LBP-82-85,16 NRC 1187 (1982)
PHYSICAL SECURITY; July 30,1982. ORDER; CLI-82-19,16 NRC 53 (1982)
DRESDEN NUCLIAR POWER STATION, Umt No l; Ducket No 5414OLA OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; July 12,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-52.16 NRC 183 (1982)
DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Umts 2 and 3. Docket Nos. 50 237, 54 249 SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICA110N, September 29,1982. DECISION, ALAB495,16 NRC %2 (1982) 101
FACILITY INDEX h
DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION. Unas 2 and 3); DurLes Nc= %237 SP. S249-SP l
SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT. August 17.1982. FIN AL INIT1 AL DECISION. LBP-82-65.16 NRC 714 9
(1982)
FLOATING NUClJ.AR POWER PLANTS Dncket No STN 50 437-ML M ANUFACTURING LICENSE; August II 1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. ALAB486,16 NRC 454 (1982)
MANUFACTURING UCENSE; September I.1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. ALAB-689.16 NRC 887 (1982)
GENERAL EMCTRIC MORRIS OPERATION: Docket No 701308 (Apphcation to Maddy Lxenw No.
(
SNM-1265 to increaw Spent Fuel Storage Capacny OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT Sepember 21.1982. ORDER CRANTING MOTION TO %TTilDRAW 1l APPUCATION AND DISMISSING PROCEEDING %TINOUT PREJUDICE. LBP 82-83,16 NRC list (1982)
,j HUMBOLDT BAY POWEJt PLAW. Umt 3. Docket No %l33 i
DECOMMISSIONING; July 7.1982. DIRECI'OR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2 206. DDL82-7.16 NRC 387 i
(1982)
INDIAN POINT, Und 2. Docket No 54247 3
SPECIAL PROCEEDING July 27.1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. CU-82-15.16 NRC 27 (1982)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING. Sepember 15.1982. ORDER. CU-82-24.16 NRC 865 (1982)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING. Sepember 17.1982. ORDER. CU 82-25.16 NRC 867 (1982)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; August 9.1982. MEMOR ANDUM AND CERTIFICATION. LBP-8241.16 NRC 560 I
(1982)
[
INDIAN POINT. Umt 3. Docket No 2286
)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING July 27.1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. CU 82-15.16 NRC 27 (1982) 1 SPECIAL PROCE.EDING. August 9.1982. MEMORANDUM AND CERTlHCATION. LBP-82-61,16 NRC 560
)
(1982) 1 SPECIAL PROCEEDING. Sepember15.1982. ORDER. CU-82 24.16 NRC 865 (1982) 3 SPECIAL PROCEEDING. Sepember 17.1982. ORDER. CU-82 25.16 NRC 867 (1982) i IA CROSSE BOILING WATER REAETOR Docket Nos S409-FTOL 50-404 SC
{
OPERATING UCENSE. August 2.1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP.82-58.16 NRC 512 (1982)
LASALLE COUNTY GENERA'llNG STATION, Units I and 2; Ducket Nm 54373. S3^.4 SHOW CAUSE. July 19. 1982; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2 206. DD-82 9.16 NRC 396 (1982)
UMERICK GENERATING STATION, UNITS I and 2; Ducket Nos S352. S353 OPERATING 2.lCENSE; Sepember 2.1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP-82-71,16 NRC %5 (1982) y OPERATING UCENSE. Sepember 3.1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP-82-72.16 NRC 968 (1982) e l
MIDIAND PLANT, Umts I and 2. Docket Nos. 54329-CP S3DCP REMAND. Sepember 9.1982. DECISION. ALAB491.16 NRC 897 (1982)
MIDLAND PLANT, Umts I and 2. Dncket Nos 54329-OM&OL 54330 OMS AL a
MODIHCATION ORDER AND OPERATING UCENSE. July 27. 1982,*
MORANDUM AND ORDER.
ALAB484.16 NRC 162 (1982) l MODlHCATION ORDER AND OPERATING UCENSE. Aupst 14.1982; PREHEARING CONFERENCE l
ORDER. LBP-82-63.16 NRC 571 (1982) y PAUSADES NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY; Docket No. 54255-SP VACATION OF DECISION. tuly 30.1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI 8218.16 NRC 50 (1982)
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. Umts 1. 2 and 3. Docket Nos STN-54528-OL,
(
STN-9529-OL, STN 545340L
}
OPERATING UCENSE. August 12.1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-8242,16 NRC 565 (1982)
PERKINS NUCLEAR STATION. Umts 1. 2 and 3. Docket Nos STN-50-488. STN-54489. STN-50-490 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; Sepember 20.1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AUTHORIZING
%TTHDRAWAL 08 APPUCATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
)
PERRY NUCMAR POWER PLANT, Umts I & 2; Docket Nos. 40 4440L 504484)L OPERATING UCENSE. Ju?y 12. 1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP-82-53,16 NRC 1% (1982) f OPERATING UCENSE. July 19. 1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP-82-53A.16 NRC 208 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE. August 18.1981. ORDER. LBP-8247.16 NRC 734 (1982)
Ii 102
)
1 l
A
-mmm-i
FACILITY INDEX OPERATING UCEN5E; August 30.1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER, LEP-8249,16 NRC 751 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE, Sepember 15.1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP 82-79,16 NRC ll16 (1982)
PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION. Dcanet No. S293 (EA-8143)
OPERATING UCENSE MODIFICATIOM; July 30,1982. ORDER. CU-8216,16 NRC 44 (1982)
$AN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Unts 2 and 3 Dtzket N i S3614L S362OL OPERATING UCENSE; July 16,1982. DECislON, ALAB-680,16 NRC 127 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; bly 16.1982. ORDER. CUC h 16 NRC 24 (1982)
OPERATING UCENSE; August 6,1982; MEMORANLON AND ORDER. LBP-8240A,16 NRC 555 (1982)
OPERATING UCENSE. Sepember 24.1982, ORDER, CU-82-27,16 NRC 883 (19821 SEABROOK NUCEEAR STATION, Umts I and 2; Dtzket Non S443,50 444 SHOW CAUSE. July 6.1982. DIREGOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2 206; DD-82-8,16 NRC 394 (1982)
SEABROOK NUCLEAR STATION, Umts I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 443-OL, S444 OL ( ASLBP No.
82-47142OL)
OPERATING UCENSE. September 13.1982. MEh)ORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP-82-76.16 NRC 1029 (1982)
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR PO%T.R STATION, Unn I, Dxket No 50 322-OL OPULATING UCENSE, July 30,1982, ORDER; CU-82-17,16 NRC 48 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE. September 3,1982, MEMORWDUM AND ORDER LBP-82 73,16 NRC 974 (1982)
OPERATING UCENSE. September 7.1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP-82-75,16 NRC 986 (1982)
SHOREHAM NUCEEAR POWER STATION, Und I; Doe.u No. 50 322OL (Emergency Planmn8)
OPULATING UCENSE September 22,1982. M'.NORANDUM AND ORDER LBP82-82,16 NRC 1144 (1982)
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Umt I;Dtxket No. S322-OL-2 (AS:EP No. 52-47845-OL)
SECURITY; Sepember 16,1982 MEMORANDUM, ORDER AND NOTICE Or 5ECOND IN CAMERA CONFERENCE OF COUNSEL; LB" 82-80.16 NRC 1121 (1982)
SKAGTTcHANFORD NUC1. EAR POWER PROJECT, Unas I and 2. Docket Non S522. S523 CONSTRUCrlON PERMIT; July 27,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB-683,16 NRC 160 (1982)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; September 3.1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP-82 74,16 NRC 981 (1982)
SUSQUEHANNA STEAM EECTRIC STAT 10N. Umts I and 2); Dtxket Non S3870L, S3884L OPERATING UCENSE, Sepiember 28,1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ALAB-693,16 NRC 952 (1982) 1MREE MIE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Umt No 1; Dixket No. 50'289 RESTART; July 16,1982; ORDER. CU-8212,16 NRC I (1982)
RESTART; July 16,1982; ORDER, CU-82-13,16 NRC 21 (1982)
RESTART; July 27.1982, PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION, LBP-82-56.16 NRC 281 (1982) l RESTART; September 29.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP-8246,16 NRC 1190 (1982)
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCEAR STATION, Umt No I; Docket No. S289-SP RESTART, August 2,1982; MEMORAN?UM AND ORDER; ALAB-685.16 NRC 449 (1982)
THREE MIE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION Una No. 2. Docket No. S320LOLA OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; September 14,1982. DECISION, ALAB-692,16 NRC 921 (1982)
VALLECFTOS NUCEAR CENTER - GENERAL ELECTRIC TEST REACTOR, Ducket No. 50-70-SC SHOW CAUSE, August 16,1982. INTTIAL DECISION. LBP-82-64,16 NRC 5% t1982) f' VIRGIL C SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION. Und I; Dixket No. S395-OL OPEAATING UCENSE, July 20,1982; PAR f1AL INITIAL DECISION, LBP 82-55,16 NRC 225 (19821 OPERATING UCENSE, August 4,1982, SUPPEMENTAL PAR 11AL INITIAL DECISION, LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE, September 24,1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP-82-84,16 NRC 1183 (1982)
OPERATING UCENSE, September 28.1982, HEMORANDLM AND ORDER. ALAB494,16 NRC 958 (1982)
WATERFORD STEAM EECTRIC STATION. Una 3. Daket No. 50 382OL OPERAT1NG UCENSE, August 17,1982, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER *. LBP-82-66,16 NRC 730 (1982)
REMAND. Sepember 7.1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB440,16 NRC 893 (1982)
WEST CHICAGO RARE EARTHS FACILITY; Docket No 40 2061 MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT. August 6.1982. ORDER, CU-82 21.16 NRC 401 t1982p WESTERN NEW YORK NUCLEAR SERVICE CENTER Ducket No M20lOLA OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; July 8,1982. ME.MORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-679.16 NRC 121 (1982) l l
M l
l I
+
9 FACILITY INDEX 4
WM H. IIMMER NUC1 EAR POWEP. STATION. Unn 1; tbcket ho. M 3584L OPERATING IKEN!E; My 15. 1962, MEMORANDUM AND ORDfJit, L3' 82-34,16 NRC 210 09ft2)
OPERATING 1XINSE, M/ 30,1982 OEDut; CU-82-20,16 NRC 109 0982)
OPERA 11NO 1JCEF5E, August 24.1982, MEMORANDUM ANO ORDER; LBP 3248,16 WRO 748 0982) i i
IM i
1 l
l
~
120555078877 1 1ANIA21XP a
US hRC ADM-CIV 0F TIDC POLICY & PUB MGT ER-PCR NUREG h-SC1 WASHINGTON DC 20555 e
i
\\
s l
9 1
P i
h i
bd
_ _ _,____, __,_ __,_ _