ML20080T404
| ML20080T404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/31/1982 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V16-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V16-I2, NUDOCS 8310200368 | |
| Download: ML20080T404 (191) | |
Text
__
NUREG4750 Vol.16 Index 2 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES July - December 1982 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION x_
i
,S l
t t
k 6
r
\\
1
7 Foreword Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing 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 intended to serve as a guide to the issuances.
Information elements common to the cases heard and ruled upon are:
Case name (owners of facility)
Full text reference (volume and paginatiori)
Issuance number
/
Issues raised by appellants legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes)
Name of facility, Docket number Subject matter ofissues and/or rulings Type of hearing (for construction permit,operatinglicense,etc.)
Type of issuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.).
Rese information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats r
arranged as follows:
- 1. Case Name Index 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 Safety and Ucensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking.
De header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hearing, date ofissuance, and type ofissuance.
he digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuznce covers more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically.
L 1
iii f
t l
l l
- 3. LegalCitationsIndex His index is divided into four parta 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, regulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular issuance. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.
- 4. Subject Index Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects covered in the issuances. The subject headings are followed by phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the issuances being indexed. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.
- 5. Facility Index This index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from the issuance. The name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date,!ype of issuance, issuance number, and full text reference.
iv
CASE N AMEINDEX AR1Z0N A PUBLIC SERVICE COM PANY, et al.
OPER ATING LICENSE.INITI AL DECISION. Docket Nos STN 50 528-OL.STN-50-529-OL, STN 50-530-OL ( ASLBP No.80-447-01 OL); LBP 82-Il7A 16 NRC l964 (1982)
OPER ATING LICEN5E, MEMOR AN DU M AND ORDER. Docket Nos. STN-50-528-OL, STN-50 529 OL.STN 50 530-OL;LBP-82-62,16 NRC 565 (1982).LBP 82-Il78,16 NRC 2024 (1982)
ARM ED FORCES R ADIOBIOLOG Y RESE ARCH INSTITUTE BYPRODUCT M ATERI ALS L! CENSE RENEW AL,0ECISION, Docket No. 30-6931 (Renewal of Byproduct Matenals Lwense No 19-08330-03), ALAB-682,16 NRC 150(1982)
BOSTON EDlSON COM P AN)
)
OPER ATING LICENSE MODIFICATION. ORDER. Docket No 50 293 (EA 8163) CL1-82-16,16 N RC 44 (1982)
CAROLIN A POWER & LIGHTCOMPANY AND NORTH CAROLIN A EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENC)
OPER ATING LICENSE, MEMOR ANDUM A ND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-400-OL.50-401-OL
( ASLBP No. 82-468-014)L), L BP 82 Il9 A,16 N RC 2069 (1982)
CINCINN ATIG AS & E LECTRIC COM P ANY SHOW CAUSE. ORDER TOSHOW CAUSE AND ORDER IMMEDI ATELY SUSPENDING CONSTRUCTION, Docket No 50-358 (E A 82129).CLI-82-33.16 NRC l489 (1982)
CINCINN ATIG AS AND ELECTRICCOMPANY,et al.
I DISQUALIFICATION. ORDER. Docket No 50-358.CLI-82 36.16 NRC1512 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE;MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER Docket No.50 358-OL,LBP-82-54,16 NRC 210 (1982). LBP-82-68.16 N RC 741 (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE, ORDER, Docket No.50-358,CLI-82 20.16 NRC 109 (1982);CLI-82-40,16 N RC 1717 (1982)
CLEVEL AND ELECTRICILLUMIN ATING COMPANY.et al.
OPER ATINGIICENSE; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER.Docke:Nos 50-440-OL,50 441 OL; AL AB-706,16 N RC 1754 (1982), LBP 82-53,16 N RC 196 (1982), LBP-82 53 A,16 NRC 208 (1582);
LBP-82-e9.16 N RC 751 (1982h LBP 82 79.16 N RC lll6 (1982), LBP 82-89.16 NRC l355 (1982);
LBP-82 90,16 NRC 1359(1982).LBP 82 98,16 NRC 1459 (1982); LBP-82102,16 NRC 1597 (1982). LBP-82 104,16 N RC 1626 (1982); LBP-82-110,16 N RC 1895 (1982); LBP 82 Il4,16 NRC 1909(1982),LBP-82 Il7,16 NRC l955(1982);LBP 82 Il9,16NRC2M3(1982)
OPE R ATING LICENSE. ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-440 OL,50-441 OL; LBP-82-67,16 NRC 734 (1982)
COM MONw E ALTH EDISON COMP ANY t
OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT;MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER; Docket No.50-10-OLA; I
LBP-82 52.16 NRC 183 (1982)
I SHOW CAUSE. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10CFR 2.206, Docket Nos. 50-373,50 374; OD-82 9.16 N RC 3% (1982) l SPENT FUEL POOL AM END MENT, FIN AL INITI AL DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-2374P.
(
50 249-SP. LBP-82-65.16 N RC 714 (1982)
SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION. DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-237,50-249. AL AB-695,16 NRC 962 (1982)
CONSOLID ATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YOR K,INC.
ENFORCEMENT ACTION, DECISION,DockeiNo.50 247,CLi-82-38,16NRC1698 (1982)
SCHEDULING, ORDER GR A NTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DIRECT l
STAFF TO RESCH EDULE MEETING; Docket No. 50-247; CLI-82 41,16 NRC 1721 (1982) l l
i
j CASE NAMEINDEX 1
SPECIALPROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM ANDCERTIFICATION;DocketNo.50-247-SP; LBP-82-61,16 NRC 560(1982)
SPECIALPROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;DocketNo.50-247-SP;CLI 82-15,16 NRC27 (1982); LBP 82-105.16 N RC l629 (1982); LBP-82 ll3,!6 NRC 1907 (1982)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; ORDER; Docket No. 50-247;CLI-82 24,16 NRC865 (1982);CLi-82 25,16 N RC 867 ( 1982); CLI-82-28,16 N RC l219 (1982)
SUSPENSION OF OPERATION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket No.
50-247; DD-82-12,16 NRC 1685 (1982)
I CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY i
MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND OR DER; Docket i
Nos.50 329-OM&OL,50-330-OM&OL; ALAB 684,16 NRC 162 (1982)
MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING LICENSE; PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-329-OM&OL,50-330-OM&OL; LBP-824 's 16 NRC 57t (1982) l OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER OF DISMISSAL; Docket No. 50 255-OLA; i
LBP-82-101,16 NRC1594 (1982) j OPER ATING LICENSE AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MODIFICATION ORDER; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-329-0M&OL,50-330 OM&OL ( ASLBP Nos.
I 78-38943-OL,80-429-02 SP); LBP 82-Il8,16 NRC 2034 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MODIFICATION ORDER; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; Docket Nos.50-329 OM&OL,50-330-OMAOL;LBP 82 95,16
)
N RC1401 (1982) i REM AND; DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-329-CP,50 330-CP; ALAB-69),16 NRC 897 (1982)
SCH EDULINO; M EMOR ANDUM; Docket No. 50-155-OLA; LBP-82-51 A,16 N RC 180 (1982)
SPENT FUEL POOL AM ENDM ENT; tNITI A L DECISION; Docket No. 50 155-OL A; LBP-82-60,16 NRC540(1982);LBP-82-77,16NRC1096(1982);LBP 82 78,16 NRCll07(1982);LBP-82-97,16 j
N RC l439(1982)
SPENTFUEL POOL AMENDMENT. MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; Docket No.50-155; t
LBP-82 Ill I6NRC1898(1982)
VACATIONOFDECISION; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;DocketNo.50-255-SP,CLI-82-18,16 NRC50(1982)
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPER ATIVE OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos.50-409-FTOL 50-409-SC; LBP 82 58,16NRC512(1982)
DETROIT EDISON COMP ANY,et al.
t OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket No. 50-341-OL; ALAB-707,16 N RC l760 (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE; INITIAL DECISION; Docket No. 50-341; LBP-82-%,16 N RC l 408 (1982)
I DUKE POWER COMPANY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER AUTHORIZING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WITHOUT PRE 3UDICE; Docket Nos.
STN-50-488,STN 50-489,STN-50-490; LBP 82-81,16 NRCll28 (1982)
DUKE POWER COMPANY,etal.
LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZATION; M EMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414; ALAB-687,16 NRC460 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-413,50-414 ( ASLBP No.
i 81-463 014L); LBP-82 107A,16 N RC I791 (1982); LBP 82 Il6,16 NRC 1937 (1982)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;DocketNos.50-413,50-414;LBP 82 51, i
16 NRC l67 (1982)
GENERAL ATOMICCOMPANY I
RULEM AKING; DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEM AKING; Docket No. PRM 95-l (10CFR Part 95);DPRM-821,16 NRC 861 (1982)
GENERAL ELECTRICCOMPANY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDR AW l
APPLICATION ANDDISMISSING PROCEEDINGWITHOUTPRE3UDICE;DocketNo.701308 (A pplication to Mouify Licertse No. SNM 1265 to increase Spent Fuel Storage Capacity); LBP-82-83, 16 NRC ll81 (1982)
SHOW CAUSE;INiTI A L D ECISION; Docket No. 50 70-SC; LBP-82-64,16 NRC 596 1982) 2
.__m..
9 CASENAMEINDEX HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWERCOMPANY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; ORDER. Docket No 50-466-CP. LBP-82 94,16 NRC 1399 (1982)
HOUSTON LIGHTING ANDPOWERCOMPANY,etal.
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDU M AND ORDER; Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL.STN 50-499-OL: LBP-82-91,16 NRC 1364 (1982)
ILLINOIS POWER COM PANY,et al.
OPERATINGLICENSE: MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;DocketNo 50-461-OL:LBP-82103,16 1
NRC1603(1982)
KER R-McGEE CORPOR ATION M ATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT. ORDER; Docket No.40 2061;CLI-82 21.16 NRC401 (1982)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER CONFIRMING RULING ON SANCTIONS FOR INTERVENORS' REFUS ALTOCOMPLY WITH ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN PREHEARING EX AMIN ATIONS; Docket No. 50-322 0L (Eme 8ency Planmn8h LBP-82 Il5, 16 NRC 1923 '1982)
OPERATING LICENSE;MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER RULING ON LICENSING BOARD AUTHORITY TO DIRECT TH AT INITI AL EX A MIN ATION OF TH E PRE-FILED TESTIMONY BE CONDUCTED BY MEANS OF PREHEARING EX A MIN ATIONS Docket No. 50-322-OL (Emergency Planmns); LBP-82-107,16 N RC 1667 (1982) l OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-322-OL IEmergency PlanninghLBP 82 82.16NRC1144(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-322-OL; LBP-82-73,16 N RC 974 (1982); LBP-82 75. I6 N RC 986 (1982)
OPER A TING LIC ENSE. ORDER. Docket No. 50-3224)L; CLI-82-17,16 N RC 48 (1982)
SECURITY; MEMOR ANDUM, ORDER AND NOTICE OF SECOND IN CAMER A CONFERENCE OFCOUNSEL; Docket No. 50 322-OL 2, ASLBP No. 82-478-05-OL;LBP-82 80.16 NRC l!21 (1982) b LOUISI ANAPOWER ANDLIGHTCOMl ANY OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AN D ORDER. Docket No. 50-382-OL; LBP-82-66,16 NRC 730 (1982); LBP-82 ll2.16 NRC l901 (1982)
OPE R ATING LICENSE; PA RTIAL INITI A L DECISION; Docket No. 50-382-OL; L BP-82-100,16 NRC 1550 (1982)
REM AND; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50 382-OL; ALAB-690,16 N RC 893 (1982)
M ETROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY RESTART. MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; Docket No. 50-289-SP; ALAB-685,16 NRC449(1982);.
CL1-82 31,16 NRC l236 (1982), LBP-82-86,16 N RC 1190(1982)
RESTART; ORDER; Docket No. 50-789-SP.CLI 82 32,16 NRC l243 (1982);CLi 8212,16 NRC l (1982)
RESTA AT; PARTI AL INITI AL DECISION. Docket No. 50-289. LBP-82-56,16 N RC 28I (1982)
METKOPOLIT AN EDISON COM PA NY,et al.
OPER ATING LICENSE AM ENDM ENT; DECISION Docket No. 50-320-OLA; AL AB-692,16 NRC 921 (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket No. 50-320. ALAB-701,16 NRC 1517 (1982)
R EST A RT; D ECISION; Docket No. 50-289 ( Environmentai lssues); AL A B-705,16 N RC I 733 (1982)
RESTART; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;DocketNo. 50-289(Desi8ntssues); ALAB 708,16 NRC 1770(1982)
REST ART; M EMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-289 SP (Management Phase);
ALAB-699,16 NRC l324 (1982)
)
REST ART; ORDER; Docket No. 50-289. CLI-82 13.16 N RC 21 (1982)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING; DECISION; Docket No. 50 289-SP (Emergency Planmn8h ALAB-697,16 r
NRCl265(1982); ALAB-698.16NRCl290(19821 MISSISSIPPI POWER A LIGHT COMPANY, et al.
OPER ATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-416, f0-417; ALA B-704,16 N RC 1725 (1982) l s
1 3
4 i
t i
4
-. _, - -, ~ -
,,..--4 c.,,
-_y--
,e-r y
--,-e---n
i i
CASE NAMEINDEX OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER DENYING STATEOF LOUISI AN A*S PE-TITION FOR INTERVENTION; Docket Nos. 50-416-OL,50-417 OL ( ASLBP No.82-476-04.OL);
I LBP-82-92.16 NRC 1376 (1982)
NUCLEAR FUELSERVICES,INC and NEW YORK STATE ENEliGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;DocketNo.50 201 OLA.
ALAB-679,16 NRC l21 (1982)
OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS M ANUFACTURING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; Docket No.STN 50-437 ML; ALAB-686,16NRC454(1982); ALAB-689,16NRC887(1982).CL182 37,16NRC1691(1982)
PACIFICG AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DECOM MIS $10NING; DIRECTOR'S D ECISION UND ER 10 CFR 2.206. Docket No. 50-133; DD-82 7,16NRC387(1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE; DECLIN ATION OF REVIEW; Dockets 50 275-OL. 50 323-OL;CLI 8212 A, 16 NRC 7 (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE; DIRECTOR'S DECISION U N D ER 10 CFR 2.206. Docket Nos. 50175, 50-276; DD-8210,16 NRC I205 (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE;lNITI AL DECISION; Docke Nos. 50-275-OL 50 323-OL; LBP-32-70,16 N RC 756 (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDU M AND CERTIFICATION TOTH E COMMISSION; Docket Na 50-275 OL,50-323 OL; AL AB481.16 NRC l46 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;DocketNos.50-275 OL.50-323-OL:
CLI 82-39,16 N RC1712(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM !N RESPONSE TO N RCSTAFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S INITI AL DECISION D ATED AUGUST 31, 1982;DocketNos.50 275-OL,50-323-OL;LBP 82 85,I6 NRCIi87(1982)
PHYSICALSECURITY; ORDER;Docke Nos.50-275-OL,50 323 OL;CLI-8219,16NRC5)(1982);
CL1-82-30,16 NRC I234 (1982)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHTCOMPANY and ALLEGHENY ELECTRICCOOPERATIVE, INC.
OPERATING LICENSE; M EMOR ANDU M AND ORDER. Docket Nos. 50-387-OL,50-388-OL; ALAB 702,16 NRC 1530(1982). AL AB-693,16 NRC952 (1982)
PETITION OFSUNFLOWER COALITION RECONSIDERATION OF AMENDED STATE AGREEMENT;MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER; Docket Nos. 50 361 OL,50-362-OL;CLI-82-34.16 NRC l502 (1982)
PHILADELPHI A ELECTRICCOM PANY CONSTRUCTION PERMITSUSPENSION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206. Docket Nos. 50-352. 50-353. DD-82 13,16 N RC 2115 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE. CONFIRM ATORY M EMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-352, 50-353. LBP-82-92 A,16 N RC l 387 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE;MEMOR ANDUM.ANDORDER; Docket Nos.50-352,50 353,LBP-82 71, 16 N RC %5 (1982); LBP-82-72.16 N RC %8 (1982)
PHIL AD E LPHI A ELECTRIC COM P ANY, et al.
OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION, Docket Nos. 50-277. 50-278. A L AB-701,16 N RC 1517 (1982)
POWER AUTHORITY OF TH E STATE OF N EW YORK ENFORCEMENT ACTION; DECISION; Docket No. 50-286;CLI-82 38,16 NRC 1698 (1982)
SCHEDULING; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PA RT MOTION TO DIRECT ST AF F TO R ESCH EDULE M EETING; Docket No. 50-286. CLI-82-41,16 N RC l721 (1982)
SPECIALPROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM ANDCERTIFICATION; Docket No.50 286-SP; LBP-8241,16 NRC 560(1982)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No.50-286-SP;CLI-8215,16 NRC27(1982);LBP-82-105,16NRC1629(1982);LBP-82 Il3,16NRC1907(1982)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING;OR DER; Docket No. 50-286, CLI-82-24.16 N RC 865 (1982); CLI-82-25,16 NRC867 (1982);CLI-82 28,16 N RC 1219 (1982) 4
CASE N AMEINDEX SUSPENSION OF OPER ATION; DIRECTOR S DECISION UN DER 10CFR 2.206; Docket No.
50-286;DD-8212.16 NRC 1685 t 19821 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AM PsHIRE SHOW CAUSE; DIRECTOR'S DECislON UNDER 10CFR 2 206; Docaet Nos. 50-443,50-444; DD-82-8,16 k RC 394 (1982)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE.et al.
OPER ATING LICENSE, M EMOR ANDUM AN D ORDER, Docket Nos. 50-443-O!.50-444-OL I ASLBP No 82-47102-OL);LBP 82 76,16NRC1029(1982);LPP-82106,16 NRC1649(1982)
PUBLICSERVICE ELECTRIC A.NDGASCOMPANY OPE R ATING LICENSE. DECISION, Docket Nos. 50-354,50 355; AL AB 701,16 N RC 1517 (1982)
PUG ET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COM PANY, et al.
CONSTRUCTION PER MIT; DE CISION. Docket Nos. 50-522,50-523, ALAB-700,16 N RC l329 (1982)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER; Docket Nos. 50-522,50 523, ALAB-683,16NRC160(1982);LBP-82 74,16NRC981(1982)
ROCHESTER G AS AND ELECTRICCORPORATION OPER ATING LICENSE; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket No. 50 244 (10 CF R 2.206);DD-82 II,16 NRCl47)(1982)
S ACR A MENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT SPECI AL PROCEEDING;MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-312 SP; ALAB 703,16 NRC 1533 (1982)
SOUTif CAROLIN A ELECTRIC & G ASCOMPANY,et al OPE R ATING LICENSE. M EMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-395-OL; ALAB-694,16 N RC 958 (1982); LBP 82-84,16 N RC !!83 (1982)
OPE R ATING LICENSE; PA RTI A L INITI A L DECISION; Decket No. 50-395-OL; LBP-82-55,16 N RC 225(1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE,5U PPL EM ENTAL PA RTI A L INITI AL DECISION. Docket No. 50-395-OL; LBP 82-57,16 NRC477(1982)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNI A EDISON COMPA NY OPER ATING LICENSE. ORDER; Docke: Nos. 50-361-OL,50-362-OL;CL1-8214,16 NRC 24 (1982)
SOUTH ERN CAllFORNI A EDISON COM PANY,et al.
OPER ATING LICENSE; CORRECTED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Docket Nos. 50 361-OL, 50 362-OL;CLI-82-35,16 N RC 1510 (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket Nos 50-361-OL,50-362-OL; ALAB-680,16 NRC l27 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE;i4EMOR ANDUM ANDORDER; Docket Nos.50-361 OL,50-362 OL; LBP 82 60A.16NRC555 (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE; ORDER, Docket Nos. 50-361 OL,50-362-OL;CLI-82 27,16 N RC 883 (1982)
TENNESSEEVALLEY AUTHORITY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-259-OLA,50 260-OLA, 50-2%-OLA;CLI-82 26,16 NRC880(1982)
TEX AS UTILITIES G EN E R ATING COM P A N Y, et al.
OPER ATING LICENSE; ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Docket Nos. 50-445,50446; LBP-82 87,16 NRC 1195 (1982)
SHOW CAUSE; OR D E R TO SHOW CAUSE; Docket Nos. 50-445 50-446; LBP-82 59,16 NRC 553 (1982)
THE REGENTS OFTHE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNI A OPERATING LICENSERENEWAL; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;DocketNo.50-142-OL; LBP 82 93,16NRCl391(1982);LBP-82-99,16NRCI541(1982)
UNION ELECTRICCOMPANY OPER ATING LICENSE; PA RTIA L INITI A L D ECISION; Docket No. STN 50-483-OL; LBP-82 IO9, 16 NRC 1826 (1982) l l
t f
5 4
7,,
-..-.--,,.c--,.m, - -
r
er
---'--m--
i k
CASE NAME INDEX u
UNITED STATES DEPA RTM ENT OF EN E RG Y, P ROJ ECT M A N AG EM ENT COR POR ATION.
TENNESSEEVALLEY AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION PER MIT EXEM PTION; M EMOR A N DU M AN D ORDER; Docket No. 50-537 (Exemption request under 10CFR 50.12);CLI-82 22.16 NRC 405 (1982);CLI-82 23.16 NRC 412 i
(1982)
LIMITEDWORK AUTHORIZATION; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER. Docket No.50-537; ALAB-688,16 N RC 471 (1982) 7 W ASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM CONSTRUCT!ON PERMIT EXTENSION, ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-397. 50-460;CLI 82-29.16 N RC 1221(1982)
WELLS EDDLEM AN i-OPER ATING LICENSE; DENI AL OF PETITION FOR RULEM AKING; Docket No. PR M 2 ll; 1
DPRM-82-2,16 N RC 1209 (1982)
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COM P ANY I
OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; DECISION; Docket No. 50-266 OLA; AL AB-696.16 NRC I
1245(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; Docket Nos.
50-266-OLA,50-301-OL A; LBP 82 88.16 N RC l335 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT;SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCEORDER.
Docket No. 50-266 OLA-2; LBP-82 108,16 NRC 181 t il982)
I i
i 4
5-r I
6 i
l DIGESTS ISSU ANCES OF THE N UCLE AR R EGULATORY COM MISSION 1
l CLI-8212 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Three M.le Island Nuclear Station, Umt No.1),
l Docket No. 50-289. RESTART; July I6,1982; ORDER A
The Commission demes a request by the Appeal Board for authonty to hear three safety issues raised by the Board sua sponte, and decides that the issues will be dealt with by the staff and the Com-mission outside the conteat of this adjudicatory proceedmg.
CLI-8212 A PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts t I
and 2). Dockets 50-275-OL. 50-323-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE. March l 8,1982. DECLIN ATION OFREVIEW CLI-8213 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY. et al. (Three Mile Island. Umi 1). Docket No.
50-289, R EST A RT. July 16.1982. OR DE R A
The Commission demes a motion by the hcensee askms the Commission to decide expedi-tiously whether (1) it miends to prepare a supplemental environmentalimpact statement (SEIS) on psychological health efrects associated with the operation of this facihty in accordance with the decision m PANE t NRC, No 81 1131 (D C. Cir., May 14,1982), and if so. (2) to proceed expeditiously with its preparation and circulation, and (3) to decide that no hearms would be permitted on the SEIS. The Commission determines that it does not at present have enough information to decide whether the termsof the court's decision require the preparation of an SEIS.
CLI-82-14 SOUTHER N CALIFORNI A EDISON COM P ANY (San Onofre Nuclear Generstmg Stanon.
Umts 2 and 3). Docket Nos. 50 361-OL, 50-362-OL; OPERATING LICENSE. July 16, 1982; ORDER A
On the basis ofits immediate effectiveness review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.764(0, the Commis-soon concludes that resolut.on of the issues covered by the Licensms Board's decisions m this operstmg heense proceedmg (LBP-82 3.15 NRC 61 (1982); LBP-82-39.15 NRC 1163 (1982); LBP 82-46,15 N RC 1531119820 ooes not present the type of safety problem which would require a further stay of their effectiveness, and decides that these decessons may 30 mto effect. The hcense authonzed is made subject to the condition that for operanon above 5% of rated power to contmue beyond sin months from the date ofissuance of the full-pow.. license, the offsite medical arrangements issue retamed by the Licensing Board in LBP-82-39 must be resolved or further operation above 5% must be Jusufied under 10 CFR 50 47(c)(1). The Commission explains that its decision does not authonze issuance of the requested full-power hcense for Umts 2 and 3 of this facihty and further that they will not be issued until the staff has bnefed the Commission on other, uncontested, issues and the Commission has noted on w hether to authorize t he hcenses CLI-8215 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Point. Unit 2) and POW ER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point. Umt 3), Docket Nos 50-247,50 286.SPECI AL PROCEEDING; July 27,1982. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Upon consideration of a senes of pleadmgs by hcensees concermns the Commission's plan to conduct a discretionary hearms on the possible suspension of Units 2 and 3 of the Indian Point facihty, the Commission denies. (1) an appeal by a hcensee from the order of the Licensms Board festabbshed at the direction of the Commission to determine, inter aha, the issues which the forthcomms hearms are to address) admittmg certain mtervenors to the heanng. (2) a petition by a hcensee for directed certificauon ofits request for stay or dismissalof the proceed ng; and (3) a petition by the two hcensees for directed ceruficanon of their charges that the Board eaceeded or misapphed its junsdiction m admittmg contennons. The Commission, inter sha, provides further guidance on the ad-mission of contenuons and the formulauon ofissues for hearing, and remands the matter to the Board for e apediuous reconsiderauon ofits ruhngs on the admissibahty of the contennons in hght of the addi-nonalguidance.
1 7
1 1
- l ow,
__-y--wq.
ww w wygvvy
-w-
.-----wi,w--y-_
1 i
i 1
DIGESTS l
ISSUANCES OF THE N UCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION B
There is nothms in 10 CFR 2.714 or the case law interpretmg that rule which permits hcensing i
boards to exclude certam groups from a hcensing proceeding because of their opinions on nuclear power. either genera'ly or as related to certam plants, or because of their conduct outside the i
proceedmg C
The Commismon has an inherent supervisory power over the conduct of its adjudicatory proceedmss, includmg the authonty to provide guidance on the admissibili.y of contentions before i
licensing boards See Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Ui.its I and 2),
CLI 77-8,5 NRC 503,51617 (1977); United States Energy Res srch and Development Admimstra.
tion (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plani),CLt-76-13.4 NRC 67,75 76 (1976).
CLI-8216 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-293 (EA 8143);OPER ATING LICENSE MODIFICATION; July 30,1982; ORDER A
The Commission demes a petition by the Attorney General of Massachusetts for a hearms and intervention on an order of the N RC Ofnce ofInspecton and Enforcement modifying the operating hcense for this facihty, on the ground that the petition presents concerns outside the scope of the proceeding.
B Section 1894 of'he Atomic Energy Act does not provide a non discretionary right to a heartng on allissues arguably related to an acknowledged enforcement problem without regard to the scope of the enforcement action actually proposed or taken by the Commission. In order to obtam leave to m-I tervene in an NRC proceedms, a petitioner must demonstrate an interest affected by the licensms astion, as required t,y 10 CFR 2.714. SPI v. Atomic Energy Commission. 502 F.2d 424 (D C. Cir.
1974).
C The Commission may hmit the issues in enforeement proceedmss to whether the facts as stated in the order are true and whether the remedy selected is supported by those facts. Pubhc Service Co of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generatmg Station. Umts I and 2), CLi-8010. Il NRC 438, 441 42(1980)-
CLI 8217 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Unit I),
Dacket No. 50-322-OL;OPER ATING LICENSE; July 30,19112. ORDER A
in response to a request by counsel for the apphcant, the Commission directs that apphcant's and mtervenor's counsel be given access to those portions of the Appeal Board's opimon m the Diablo Canyon operatmg hcense (phyncal security) proceedmg ( AL AB453) (Restncied) deshng with the defimison of the design basis threat and the interpretation of the Commission's regulations regardmg the appropriate number of armed responders. subject to the pnor deletion of any clasuGed mforrnation contamed therein and the esecution of appropnate non disclosure afDdavits. In response to a further request by intervenor's counsel for access by mtervenor's consultants and for access to the entire Diablo Canyon secunty Gle. the Commission- (1) refers the request for access by intervenor's con-i sultants to the Licensms Board wath a direction to authonze access only upon a showing of need and 4
(2) demes access to the other portions of the opinion and the underlying record in the absence of a showmg of need for such access.
CLI 8218 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Pahsades Nuclear Power Facihty). Docke? No.
50-255 5P;VACATIONOFDEC1510N. July 30.1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Commission vacates on grounds of moa uss the Appeal Board's and the Licensirig Board's earher decisions ( AL A B470.15 N RC 493 (1982). LBP-81-26, I4 N RC 24711981 H concern-ing the holdmg of a heanns on a conGrmatory order by the Director of the OfEce ofInspection and En-forcement restnctmg hcensed operator overtime work at Pahsades.
B Under estabhshed NRC practice, unreviewed judgments are vacated when their appellate review becomes unavsilable because of mootness See,e s., Boston Edison Company (Pilgnm Nucle-ar Power Station.Umt 2), Al AB456,14 NRC 965 (1981h Rochest:rGas & Electric Corp (Sterhns Power Project. Nuclear Unit two. II, AL A B 596, !I NRC 867 (1980).
CL1-8219 PACIFICG AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY tDiablocanyon Nuclear Power Plant Umts t 4
and 2), Docket Nos. 50 275-OL,50 3234L; PHYSICAL SECURITY; July 30.1982.OR DER e
A In response to a motion f, the representative of an mterested state requestmg that port:ons of AL AB453 ( Restncted) and his petition for reviee of that decision which do not contam protected m-formation be made public, the Commission releases versions of both documents with all pro.ccted m-formation deleted. The Commission determines that the meamns of"several" as used in the design basis threat of 10 CFR 73.l(4)(1) is safeguards mformation under Section 147 of the Atomic Energy A ct.
g 4
f
_ _ -,, -,,. -,-. ~. + _,
~.. --
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TH E N L' CLEAR REG ULATORY COM MISSION t
l CLI-82-20 CINCINN ATl G AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY.et al. (% m. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Stanon. Unit No. II, Docket No. 50 358, OPER ATING LICENSE; July 30.1982, ORDER A
The Commission d.rects the Lwensms Boaid so aisme certam contenuons from this operat-mg heense proceedmg whsch the Board admitted as Board issues pursuant to its sua sponte authonty under 10 CFR 2.760s.
B A fler the record is closed in an operaung Irense proceedmg, where parties proffenns new con-tenuons do not meet the legal standards for further heanngs, that the contenuons raise senous issues is msutTrient jusufication to reopen the record to consider them as Board issues when they are bems dealt esth an the course ofortgoms N RC investigation and staff momtoring.
CLI-82 21 KERR McGEE COR POR ATION (West Chicago Rare Earths Facshty), Docket No 40 2061; M ATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; August 6,1982. ORDER A
The Commission delegates to the Director of the Offre of Nuclear Maienal Safety and Safe-guaids (NMSS), or such N MSS Branch Chief or above as he may designaie, the authonty to conduct an mformal a4udicatory proceedmg on peutsoner's contentions concerning licensee's apphcanon for an amendment to its 10 CFR Part 40 matenals hcense authorizmg it to perform certam work at its non-mactive thonum ore milhng facihty.The Commission addinonally sets forth the parties to the mformal proceeding and the procedures by whsh it mill be conducted B
A petitioner is not enutled, under eether the Atomic Energy Act or NRC regulations, to a formal, tnal-type heanns on matenals hcensms actions. Kerr McGee Corp. (West C!icago Rare Earths Facihty).CLL82-2,15 NRC 232 (1932),
CL1-82 22 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. PROJECT M AN AGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTilORITY (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant),
Docket No 50-537 (Enemption request under 10 CFR 50.12). CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION, Augustl2.1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER i
A The Commission cons 6ders a peutson by intervenors for mvestigauon mio allegahons that Ap-phcants attempted to conceal certam crucial safety information from the Commission in connection math their apphcanon for a hcense for the Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant. Upon review of the re-sponse of the Department of Energy to the allesauons and to certam quesuons earher posed by the Commission, the response of the NRC Staff to quesuons separately addressed to it, and the response of the intervenors, the Commission concludes that the allegations are without foundation. The Commission, therefore, demes the peuuon for investigauon.
CLI 82-23 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT M ANAGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTllORITY tChnch River Breeder Reactor Plant),
Docket No. 50-537 (Enemption request under 10 CFR 50.12); CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION; Augustl7.1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Commission grants m part and denies m part the Department of Energy's request for an exempuon pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 from the provision of 10 CFR 50.10(c) prohibitmg the com-mencement of certam site or construction work pnor to obtainmg a construction permit or Limited Work Authorizatson. The Commission authonzes the apphcants to conduct non-safety related site preparahon activiues in connecuon with the Chnch River facihty but demes the exempuon request as it pertains io safety-related activines.
B 10 CFR 50.10(c) generally prohibits any person from cleanns or excavating a nuclear power reactor site or otherwise commencing construction of a nuclear power reactor unul a construction permit or a hmited work authonzauon has been obtained following the holdmg of an adjudicatory heanng.
C 10 CFR 50.12(a) provides for the case by case granting ofenempuons from the prohibition of 80 CFR 50.10(c) of specified entena are met.
D The Commission may apply 10 CF R 50.12 to 3 "first of a kind" project: th+re is noindzstion I
m the regulations or past practre that enemptions for conduct of site preparation activities are to be confined to typical, commercial hght water nuclear power reactr,rs or that an enemption can be granted only if a hmited work authorization under 10 CFR 50.10(ej(1) and (2) ("LWA l") can also be grant-ed or only ifjustafied in meet electncal energy needs.
E The common-law rules regarding resjudicata do not apply, in a strict sense, to admimstrative agencies F
Resjudesta need not be apphed by an admmistrative agency where there are overnding pubhc pohcy inserests e hzh favor rehugenon.
9
i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE N UCLEAR REGULATORY COM MIS $10N O
When an agency decimon involves substantial pohcy issues, an agency's need for f.enibshly i
outweighs the need for repose provided by the principle of resjudicata.
l H
A change in enternal circumstances is not required for an agerwy to esercise n's basic nght to j
change a pokcy decision and apply a new pohey 10 pernes to e hom an old pohcy apphed.
I An agency must be free to consider changes that occur in the way it perceives the facts, even though objective circumstances remain unchanged.
3 For there to be any nght to a heanns under Secuon 189a. of the Atoms Energy Act on the grant of an esemption, such a grant must be part of a proceedmg for the granting, suspending, revokmg,oramendmg of a heense or constructs..n permit under the Atomic Energy Act.
,I' K
The Atomic Energy Act does not require a license or a construcuon permit, or an adjudicatory heanng, on site preparanon actsvities.
i L
The Commission is not required by NEPA to hold forma! heanngs on sie preparanon acuvi-ties because NEPA did not alter the scope of the Commission's Junsdicuon under the Atomic Energy Act. Gage v. Umted States Atomic Energy Commission,479 F.2d 1214,1220 n.19 ID C, Car.1972);
39 Fed. Reg 14506.14507 ( Apnl 24,1979).
M 10 CFR 50.12(a) provides that any esempuon from the hcensing requirements of 10 CFR Part l
50 must be authonzed by law, not endanger hfe or property or the common defense and security, and be in the pubhc mterest. For an enemphon from 10 CFR 50.10, the Commission considers the public interest by weighms the factors set out in 10 CFR 50.121 b).
N An esemption from Commasseon regulanons must be consastent with the Atomic Energy Act, the Nanonal Environmental Pohcy Act, and other apphcable law.
O The hmited work authonzation procedure under 10 CFR 50.10fe)(1) and (2) ("LW A I")
and the 10 CFR 50.12(b) enempuon procedure are independent avenues for apphcants to begin site preparanon in advance of receivmg a construction permit.
P The Nanonal Environmental Pohey Act (N EP A) requires that the Commission prepare an en-vironmentalimpact statement only for major actions segmficantly affectmg the environment.
Q A federal agency may consider separately under NEPA the different segments of a proposed federal action under certain circumstances. Where approval of the segment under considerauon will not result in any irreversible or irretnewable commitments to remasmns segments of the proposed h
action, the agency may address the activities of that segment separately.
i
' augg The pubhc interest enterion for grantmg an caemption from 10 CFR 5010, under 10 CFR 5012(b),is a strmgent one: exemptionsof this sort are to be granted sparmgly and only in emirnords-nary circumstances.
CLI-82 24 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Umt 2) and POWER AUTHORITY OF Tile STATE OF NEW YORK findian Point, Unit 31 Docket Nos.
50-247,50-286,$PECI AL PROCEEDING. September 15,1982, ORDER i
A Followmg the resignation of the Chairman of the Lwensms Board for this special proceedmg, I
the Commission, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.721Ib), by a 3 2 vote, reconsututes the Licensms Board.
CLI-82-25 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Umt 2) and i
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Umt 3), Docket Nos.
i 50 247,50-286;$PECI AL PROCEE DING, September 17,1982, ORDER I
A The Commission responds to several queshons cerufied to it by the Licensms Board that seek clanfication of previous guidance provided by the Commission on the conduct of this special proceedmg CLI 82 26 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Umts 1,2 and 3),
Docket Nos. 50-259-OLA,50 260-OLA,50-296-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 15,1982. ORDER A
in view of the Appeal Board's declaration m AL A B-677, !$ NRC 1387 (1982), that its previ-ous decision in AL A B-664 (15 NRC1 (1982)) might have been different had at been umely presented with new mformanon concermns hcensee's appbcahon to store low-level radioacuve waste at Browns Ferry, the Commission (1) dismisses its earher grant of review of AL AB-664, (2) vacates that decision; and (3) remands the c&se to the A ppeal Board for further proceedmgs.
B The Commission may dismiss its grant of review of an A ppeal Board decision even though the parties have bnefed the issues, $ee,e s.,3ones v State Board of Educanon. 397 U.S. 31 (1970).
13 l
DIGESTS 1%U ANCl% DF THE NL CLE A R R E GL LATOR) CO%l411% ION CLI B2-27 SOUTHERN CAllFORN1% EDISON COMPANY et al (San Onofre Nuclear Generstmg Station. Units 2 and 3), Dotket Nos 50 361-OL. 50-362-OL, OPER ATING LICEN5E. September 24.1982. OR DE R A
The Commisuon directs the A p[ cal Board to certify to the Commisuon tbe question w he*her the phrase cont 4minated iniured indmduals' as used m 10 CF R 50 471 bH 121 requires arphcants for nuticar pomef plarils to provide arrangements for medical services ont) for members of the pubbc m he hase suff ered traumatic mjury and are also contammated esth radiatir,n. and if not,to whaq eatent that regulanon requeres advarme and specific arrangements and commitments for medical servues for the general publw. as os* posed nu the general knomledge that facehties and resources cust and could be uwd on an ad hoc b4us The Commiss:on simics that it mill not reteen the Appeal Board's desluon i AL AB480.16 N RC 127 (1982H. deny mg mtersenor's motion for a stay of the issuance of full-power twenses and that the hcense condition imposed by the Lnenung Board concermns medical arrange-ments for the general pubhc shall remain in effect LBP 32 40.15 NRC 129) (1982). LBP-8219,15 NRC 1163 (1982)
CLl-82-28 CON 5OLID ATED EDISON COMPANY OF NE%' YORK (Indian Point. Umt 2) and POW E R AUTHORl*Y OF Tile ST ATE OF NL% )ORK tlndian Pomt. Unit 31. Dothet Nos 54247,50-286.5PE Cl AL PROCE EDING. October 1.1982.ORDE R A
T he Commisuon requests the newly reconstituted LKenung Board to estimate when it can provide its recommendations concermns certam long-term safety issues relatmg to Umts 2 and 3 of this t4uhty cas cd for m CL1-81 23.14 5 RC 610 (1981 t CLI 82 29 % A5HINGTON PUBLIC POW E R SUPPLY SYSTLM tw PP55 Nuclear Project Nos 1 & 21 Dwke:Nos 50 397,50-460. CONSTRUCTION PERMli EXTEN5 ION. October 8.1982. ORDER A
in considerms petilmns for hearmss on the Iwensee's requests for etienuon of the construc.
tion completion dates specified m the construction permits for imo umts of this facdity, the Commis-non mterprets secuon 185 of the Atomic Energy Act and 10 CF R 650 55 as hmetmg contentions that can be raned m a construcuan permit eutension proceedmg to those that perta n to the Inenwe's as.
serted reasons for " good ceuw" for the delay or to other reasons shommg that the hcensee does not have such " good cause " In hne with this interpretat#on. the Commissmn. mter aha dismisses all but a smgle jomt contention raised m the pending petsuons asoutude the scope of the proceedmg and refers the remainder of the petitions to the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Lecenung Board Panel for devsnation of a Board to determme w hether the other requirements for a hearirg osithned m 10 CF R 42.714 have been met, and. if so, to condusi an appropnaie proceeding under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G, and 10 CF R Part 50.
B T he focus of any construction permit en tenson proceeding is to be whether good cause e mists for the requested entenuon. Likewise, this " good cause" requirement is the focal point of any consid-eration ofIhe scope of the contenteons that can bc admitted at such a proceedmg C
A construction permit e atenuon proceeding is net for the purpose of engasms m an unbridled inquiry mto the safety and enuronmental aspects of reactor construction and operahon A contenuon cannot be htigated in a construction perrme entenson proceedmg when there is a pending operating hcense praeeding m which the issue can be raised Prior to the operaims hcense proceeding. a conien-tion hasmg nothmg whatsoever to do math the causes of delay or the permit holder's justificauons for en catenson canriot be htigated m a constructien permit proceeding Indiana and Michigan Electnc Company (Domild C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 21. AL AB-129,6 AEC 414 (197Jn Northern Indien4 Pubhc Seruce Company (Bailly Generstmg Stanon. Nuclear H. AL AB-619,12 NRC 558 (1980L D
% here a request for a construction permit entenson has been filed and the operatmg hcense proteedmg for the plant is yet to be held, persons who wish to raise health, safety or environmental concerns may, pursuant to 10 CF R 42 206. petiton the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to in-stalute a show cause proceedmg under 10 CFR 62.202. The request must specify the action sought and set forth the facts that constitute the baus for the request E
The scoce of a construcuan permit entension proceedmg under Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act and 10 CFR 650 55 is hmited to direct challenges that seek to prose that, on balance. delay mas caused by circumstances than do nos consutute " good ct"w "
F The avenue afforded for the enpression of health, safety, and environmental concerns m any pendmg operstmg hcense proceedmg. or in the absence of such a proceedmg. in a petition under 10 CFR 62 202 would be escluute despele Ihe pendency of a construction permit estension request.
II
i
- 1..
1 i
l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE N UCLEAR REGULATORY COM MISSION 4
f G
The determination of the sufficiency of a construction permit holder's reasons for delay will be I
influer!ced by whether they were the sole important reasons for the delay or whether, instead, the i
delay was in actuality due in segmfcant part to other causes such as applicant's dilatory conduct of the j
constructionwork. Cook supra,6 AECat417.
~
CLI-82 30 PACIFIC O AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). Docket Nos.50 275-OL,50-323 OL;5ECURITY; October 8,1932; ORDER i
A The Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 2.913 directs that all classined Nanonal Secunty infor-j manon be espunged from the Appeal Board's secunty plan decision i AL AB-653) in this proceedmg and the record underlying that decision.
B 10 CFR 2.913 requires that where Restncied Data or other Nanonal Security informanon has been introduced into a proceeding, such classiGed informahon shall be espunged from the record at i
the close of the reception of evidence "where sucn espunction would not prejudice the mterests of a l
party or the pubhcinterest" CLI-82 31 METROPOLITAM EDISON COMPANY iThree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1),
Docke:No.50 289-5P. RESTART;Octoberld,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Commission, pursuant to its immediate efTecuveness review of the Licensmg Board's 8
July 27,1982 Partial Imtsal Decmon in this proceedmg, (1) determines that the Licensing Board
'l
!ackedJunsdiction to impose a fine on hcensee for failures with respect to the hcensee's management ofits e nammation process for reactor operator hcenses and refers the matter to the Director, OfGce of j
inspection and Enforcement, for a recommendauon on whether a civil penalty proceeding should be l
insututed asamst hcensee, and (2) adopts a Board recommendation that the NRC investigate a poui-ble matenal false statement by hcensee concernmg the test score of an individualcertified to the N RC for an operator's hcense renewal. The Commission also directs that the A ppeal Board w hich is review-ing the Licensing Board's decision is not to conseder either of these matters m its review.
I B
The NRC's regulations do not contain any provis3on conferrms junsdiction on licensms boards toimpose fmes sua sponte.
C The powers granted to a heensing board by 10 CFR 2.718 "to conduct a fair and imparnal hear-ing accordmg to law, to take appropnate acuon to avoid delay, and to mamtam order" do not melude l
the power toimpose a citil penaity.
i D
to CFR 2.205(a) confers the authonty to insutute a civil penalty proceedmg only upon the NRC's Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Director of Nuclear Matenal Safety and l
Safeguards, and the Director,Ofnce ofinspecuan and Enforcement. A heensing board becomesin-volved in a cml penalty proceeding only if the person charged with a violanon requests a heanns. (See I
10CFR 2.205(0 )
E Under Secuon 234 of the Atomic Energy Act,42 U.5 C. 2282(b), and 10 CFR 2.205 of the Commission's regulations, a puson sutnect to imposition of a cml penalty must Grst be given entien i
j notice of (1) the spectGc statutory, regulatory or heense violauons, (2) the date, facts, and nature of the act or omission with = h ch the person is charged, and (3) the proposed penalty.The person subject to the Gne must then be given an opportunity to show in untmg why the penalty should not be imposed.
CLI-82-32 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stauon, Unit No. H.
Docket No. 50-289-SP; R EST A RT; October 22,1982; OR DER A
The Commission, notmg that whether the hcensee has sausfactonly completed the various resiart requirements wdi be determined by the N RC Staff and the Commission itselfoutside of this ad-Judicatory proceedms, directs the Appeal Board not to concern itself with the current status of hcen.
see's comphance with those requirements.
CLI 82-33 CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (Wilham II. Zimmer Nuclear Power Stanon), Docket No. 50-358 ( EA 82 129); SHOW CA USE; November 12,1982; ORDER TO 5110W CAUSE AND ORDER IMMEDI ATELY SUSPENDING CONSTRUCTION A
The Commission issues an immediately efTective order suspendmg licensee's safety related construction actavities, including rework of previously-edentiGed dencient construction. The Commis-sion also orders hcensee to show cause why such construchon acuvities should not remam suspended until hcensee has taken certam specified acuon toward providing reasonable assurance that future con-struction activines, includmg correction of emistmg deficiencies, will be conducted in accordance with the quahty assurance entena of 10 CF R Part 50, A ppendis B, and other Commission requirements.
DIGESTS ISSU ANCE50F TH E N UCLE A R R EGULATORY COM MISSION CLI 82 34 PETITION OF SUNFLOWER COALITION, RECONSIDER ATION OF AMENDED STATE AGRE EMENT; November 15,1982,MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER A
The Commission denies a petition for reconsideration of its March 30,1982 approval of an amended agreement with the state of Colorado that authorized the State to assume regulatory authori-ly over bypeoduct, sousse and i pecial nuclear matenal en quanhhes less than a critmal mass, includmg uramum mill taihngs.
B Under Sechon 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission may enter mio an agreement with the Governor of any 5 tate that proudes for disconimuance of certam regulatory suthonty of the Commission and ihe assumphon of that authonty by the Agreement State.
C Agreement states are not required under either the Atoms Energy Act or the Uranium Mill Tailmss Radiahon Control Act of 1971 (O MTRC A), to proude their radason control enforcement agencies mith emi penalty suthority D
Sectson 274o of the Atomic Energy Act requires, inter sha, of Agreement States only that there be procedures under state law forJudecial review ofifie State's written determmahon required to be made m inenens actions under Sechon 274 f o)(3)( A)(m); 5cchon 274o does not hmit the source of those judicial procedures to any part Kular State stat utt or other authority.
E The NRC has the authority under Sechon 274;of the Atome Energy Act to termmate or sus-pend an agreement with a State and to reassert its own Irensms authority A* agreement is not, however, to be permanently termmated or revoked for mmor technical failures to comply with Section 274 or for ungle mcidents of 5 tate maction. but only m esceptional circumstances F
The N RC may temporanly suspend all or part of an agreement eith a 5 tate entered mio under Section 274 without notice or hearms where Il) an emergency situahon esists w hgh requires immeds-ate action to protect the pubhc health and safety, and (2) the State has failed to take steps necessary to contam or ehmmate the dangers methm a reasonable time The temporary suspension is to remam m effect only for aslong as the emergency e siists This authonty is to be used only as a last resort.
CLI-32 35 SOUTHERN CAllFORNI A EDISON COMPANY, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Genersung 5tahon, Umis 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50 361-OL,50 362 OL; OPER ATING LICENSE, November 19,1982,00RRECTED MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Commission directs the L cens ng Board to suspend its proceeding concermng the ade-quacy of arrangements by offste response organizations for emergency medical services unhl further Commisuon order, and orders that the hcense conditions imposed by the Board (LBP 82 39,15 N RC ll63(1982) LBP 82-40,15 NRCl293(1982))shallotherwiseremamineffect.
CLI-82 36 CINCINN ATI GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No II, Docket No 50 358, Dl5 QUALIFICATION, November 24, 1982; ORDER A
The Commisuon denies an intervenor's petinon to disquahfy from this proceeding a specified NRC Staff attorney for alk,edly attempting to prevent the compilahon of a complete record in the pro-seeding and exhibitmg a pro-apphcant bias. The Commission finds no grounds m the record for the first allegahon and dismisses it With respect to the second, the Commission determmes that the alle-gation would be appropnately considered by the Execunve Director of Opershons outade the bounds ofIhis e-oceedmg.
B Pehhons whsh raise queshons about the ethms and reputahon of another member of the Bar should only be filed after careful research and dehberst on. Moreover, ahhough ill-feehng under-standably results from any pehtion for disciphnary action, retahation in kmd should not be the routme response.
C The Commission has no mierest m general matters of a'torney disciphne ar.d chooses to focus matead on the means necessary to keep ats adjudicatory proceedmgs orderly and to avoid unnecessary delays. 45 Fed. Reg 35*4(1980).
D While the Commission has inherent supervisory power over all agency personnel ar'd prnceedings, it is not necessarily appropnaic to brms any and all matters to the Commismon in the first mstance. U nder the CTmission's rules (10 CFR 2.713), where a complamt relates directly to a speci-fled attorcey's actions in a proceedmg before a hcensms board, that complaint should be brought to the board in the first mstance if correction is necessary for the integnty of the proceedmss. See 45 Fed.
Reg. 3594.
13
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TH E N UCLE AR R EG ULATORY COM MISSION i
i
'E A perceived bias in the attorney's view ofa proceeding is not a confhet of mterest m any accept-ed legal meaning; it is to be disunguished from the kind ofconniet recogmaed m iaw in w hoch an attor.
4' ney has interegs that compromise his abihty to represent his chent, e s., that he has previously repre-sented another party in the same proceeding, or has financial interests in common with another party, of thehke.
CLI-82 37 OFF5HORE POWER SYSTEMS (Manuf.wturing License for Floating Nuclear Power Plants), Docket No. !TN 50-437 M L; M ANUFACTU RING LICENSF; December 6,1982; M EMO-RANDUM ANDORDER 3
A For reascas different than those set forth by the Appeal Board in ALAB-686,16 NRC 454
'l (1982) and ALAB-689,16 NRC 887 (1982), the Commisuon fmds that the immediate effectiveness 4
t review provisions of 10 CFR 12.764fel do not apply to manufactunns hcenses. For this and other 3
reasons, the Commission holds- (D a licensms board decision authonains the issuance of a manc 1
factunns hcense can become effecuve before it becomes final agency action, and (2) neither the Appeal Board nor the Commission need undertake an immediate effectiveness review of such a 4
decision.
B A heensing board decision on a manufacturms hcense can become effecuve pursuant to 10 CFR (2.764ial pending final A ppeal Board or Commissson review of that decision.
i C
The issuance of a manufactunns hcense does not conclude the construction permit review pro-cess and therefore does not present health and safety usues requmns an immediate effectiveness review under 10 CFR l2.764(el by the Appeal Board or Commesson.
j CL1-82-38 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK,INC. (Indian Pomt.Umt 2) and POWER AUTliORITY OF Tile STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Pomt, Umt 2), Docket Nos.
50 247,50 286; ENFORCEMENT ACTION December 22,1982; DECISION A
In its review pursuant to 10 CFR 50 54(s) of the state ofoffsite emergency preparedness as re-i spects Indian Point Umts I and 2, the Commission determmes that despite the conunued en.stence of certam previously-identified planmns deficiencies, sufficient progress has been made m overcommg these deficiencies and progress will continue to be made so as not to warrant shutdown or any other en-forcement action agamst the Indian Pomt hcensees at the present time.
B Under 10 CFR 50.54(s),if the Commisuon fmds after A pnl I.1981 that the state of prepared-ness with respect to an operatmg nuclear power reactor does not provide reascnable assurance that ade-quate protecuve measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological eme*gency, and if the identified deficiencies are not corrected withm 120 days, then a de*arminanon must be made whether 4
the reactor should oc shut down until the deficiencies are remedied, whether some other enforcement action is appropriate; or whether no enforcement acuon is needed. Under the regulation, the decision on enforcement action is to be guided by a balancmg of factors, including. whether the deficiencies i
are significant for the plant m question, whether adequate mtenm compensaung actions have been or j
=ill be taken promptly; and w hether there are other compelhng reasons for contmued operanon.
CLI-82 39 PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COM PANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units t and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275-OL,50 323 OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; December 23,1982, MEMO-RANDUM ANDORDER i
A The Commrssion answers three cerufied quesuons relating to the Appeal Board's Junsdicuon m this operatmg license proceeding preserned by the relat.onship octween the independent desagn venfication program for the Diablo Canyon facihty and the licensing proceedmg for the plant (see AL AB-681,16 NRC 146 (1982)). In addition, the Commission demes a request by intervenors for a heanns ore apphcant's request for an ettension ofits tow-power hcense.
B W here a monon to reopen a heenung preceeding relates to a prev iously uncontested issue, the
{
movmg party must satnfy both the standards for admitims late filed contenuons i10 CFR 2.714(a))
and the cntena estabhshed by case law for reopemne the record.
C A request for a low power license does not gne nse to a proceedmg separate and apart from a pendmg full-power operatmg heense proceedmg.
I4 4
4
.m m
J A
i DIGESTS 15SL ANCES OF TH E N LCLEAR R EGULATORY COM MISSION i
CLI 82-40 CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Witham H. Zimmer Nuclear i
Power Station, Unit No.1), Docket No. 50 358, OPER ATING LICENSE; December 23,1982, j
ORDER A
The Commisuon denies a request by intervenors m this operatmg hcense proceedmg for the Commiss on to furmsh them, at the Commisson's or apphcants' expense, with the services of a con.
sultant to monitor apphcants' comphance with the Commission's November 12,1982 show-cause order ICLI-82 33,16 NRC 1489) The Commisuon also decides that the procedures to be used in the selection of an mdependent entity to conduct a review of the status of the Zimmer facility pursuant to the show cause order are adequate; it also dechnes to mstitute further procedures for the conduct of the status review.
B The Commission is not empowered io expend its appropriated funds for the purpose of fundmg consultants to imervenors m a hcensmg proceeding. See P.L 97-88. Title V Section 502 (95 Stat.1848 (1981)) and P.L.97-276 Section 10l f st (% 5 tat. ll 35 (1982)).
1
'C The Commisson does not have authonry to require hcense apphcants to fund connitants or to assess fees for that purpose where the service to be performed is for intervenors' benefit and is not one needed here by the Commisson to dischar8e its own hcensing responsibihties. See Mississippi
{
Power & Light Company v. NRC,601 F.2d 223 (5th Cir 1979), cert. denied 444 U S. I102 (1980).See also National Cable Television Association,Inc. v. Umted States,415 U.S. 336 (1978). Federal Power Commission v. New England Power Co.,415 U.S. 345 (1974).
CLi-82-41 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Point Unit 2) and POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Pomt Unit 3), Docket Nos.
50 247,50-286;5CHEDULING December 23,1982; ORDER GR ANTING IN PART AND DENY.
ING IN PART MOTION TO DIRECT ST AFF TO RESCHEDULE M EETING A
The Commisuon demes in part and grants m part miervenor's motion to direct the NRC staff (1) to reschedule and relocate a planned meetmg with its outade consultants and (2) in the future to give notace of such meetmas to intervenors at the same time as to other parties.
B Under 10 CFR 92.102, the NRC staff may meet "with any one party" to a proceedmg. In scheduhng such a meetms,the staff willconsider a variety of factors such as the number, location,and schedules of the key participants as well as resource constramts. The miervenor's opportumty to attend should be one of the factors the staff takes mto account in determmme the location of such 9
meetmss.
C All partres, m the mterest of fairness, should be notified at the same time of the scheduhng of meetmas between the N RC staff and one or more parties to a proceeding.
i I
a 3
J 1
4 F
l t
i 15
[
i n
k
- rw 4~
w m
,e
~w~--m~-------v-<
- < - - - ~--m.+.----
m--s--~--..--w
-w cve.n o w n-e xmn - r m m-
--- -er w-w+ m-m~
-<.e~~-+--esn'.w-wo--
r-e v-m
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING APPEALBOARDS l
ALAB-679 NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES,INC. and NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (Western New Yefk Nuclear Service Center). Docket No.
50-201-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 8,1982 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Aptwal Board afrirms a Licensms Board order (LBP 82 36,15 NRC 1075 (1982)) denying
]
an imervenor's request for a heanns on an amendment to the operstmg license for a spent fuel repro-cessms and waste disposal center m bght of special statutory provisions governmg admmistration of i
the center (the amendment had set conditions for the terminanon of the co-hcensee's I
resporisibehties).
B The Appeal Boara will allow amicus parucipation in a heanns w here the Board beheves it will assist resolution of the issues and will not prejudice the nghts of tne parties. See, e s., Consumers Power Company ( Big Rock Pomt N uclear Plant), A L A B-636,13 N RC 312. n.2 ( 1981 L C
Under the West Valley Demonstration Project Act, Pub L. No. 96 368.94 Stat 1347 41980),
the Commission's review of the Department of Energy's (DOE's) demonstranon waste sohdification plan at West Valley is hmited to informal, consultauve procedures, the Commission cannot therefore euplore DOE's admmistration of the waste sohdification project m a formal evidentiary hearms.
AL A B-680 SOUTHERN CALIFORNI A EDISON COMPANY, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung Stauon, Umts2 and 3), Docket Nos 50 361 OL,50-362-OL,OPER ATING LICENSE, July 16,1982; DECISION A
The Appeal Board demes mtervenors' monon for a stay pendmg appeal of the Licensms Board's initial decision (LBP 82 39,13 NRC 1163 (1982)) which authonzed the issuance of a full power operatmg hcense for U mt22 and 3 of this facihty.
B The determmation whether an apphcation for a stay of a heensms board decision should be granted is governed by the entena m l0 CF R 2.788(e).
C In deciding whether to allow operativn of a plant dunns appellate review of the pertment hcensms board decision, the standard to be apphed is w hether operation of the plarit over the addiuon-al proceedmss is consistent with ;he requirement that there be reasonable assurance that the pubhc health and safety not be endangered Metropohtan Edison Co (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.
Umt No 2), ALAB-486,8 NRC 9,46 (1978L That s:andard does not call upon a party to show that a senous nuclear accident it hkety dunng the pe ndency of the appeal,it would be enough to show that ap-parent inadequacies were sufTicient to raise the quesuon whether plant operauon would present an undue nsk to the pubhc in the event of a senous nuclear accident. Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San I
Onofre Nuclear Generstmg Stauon, Umts 2 and 3) AL AB-673,15 NRC 688,698 (1982).
D Under the Commission's emergency plannmg regulations, an apphcant for a plant operstmg hcense has an opportumty to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that deficiencies in the emergency plans for the plant are not sigmficant, that adequate mtenm compensatmg act ons have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compellms reasons to permit plant operation 10 CFR 50 47(c)(1).
E in reviewmg a heensing board decision in the conteut of a monon for a stay pending its appeal, the normal deference that an spitti board owes to the tner of facts when reviewmg a decision on the ments is even more compelling. See Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse N uclear Power Stanon, Umts I, 2and3) ALAB 385,5 NRC621.629(1977).
F An appeal board may disagree we a hcensms board's interpretauen on an issue even if no party presses an appeal on that issue %rgima Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stanon, Umts I and 2) AL AB-491,8 NRC 245,247 (1978).
l 17
r i
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS G
Where a party has not pursued a contention before the Licensms Board in the form ofproposed findmss of fact, the Appeal Board will not entertain it "for the first time on appeal - absent a ' serious substanthe issue.' " Public Service Elecinc ar.d Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generatms Stauon, Unit 4 ),
AL AB-650,14 N RC 43,49 (1981).
H At the operating license stage, the N RC :tafTsencrally has the final word on all safety matters not placed into controversy by the parties. South Carolina Electnc and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Stauon, Unit I), ALAB-663, I 4 NRC I 140,1156 n.31 (1981).
I A n operstmg license may not issue unless and unul the agency makes the findings specified in 10 CFR 50.57 - includmg the ultimate finding that such issuance "will not be i umicas to.. the health and safety of the pubhe." As to those aspects of reactor operation not considered in an adjudica-tory proceedmg (if one is conducted),it is the stafl's duty to insure the existence of an adequate basis for each of the requisite Sechon 50.57 determmations. South Carohna Elecinc and Gas Co. (Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station, U sit 1) ALAB-642,13 NRC 881,895-96 (1981), affirmed sub nom. Fair-field Umted Action v. N uclear Regulatory Commission, No. 81-2042 (D C.Cir., A pnl 28,1982).
J Before a full power operaung hcense issues for a plant, the Commission must complete its im.
mediate efTechweness teview of the pertinent hcensms boatd decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.764(f)(2).
AL AB-681 PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts t and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275-OL,50-321-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; July 16,1982; MEMOR AN.
DUM ANDCERTIFICATION TOTHECOMMISSION A
Pnor to consideranon of a motion by the intervenors to reopen the record in this operating hcense proceeding to hear assertedly new evidence regardmg breakdowns on the quahty assurance / quality cc,atrol program for the plant, the Appeal Board seeks Commission guidance (by way of certification) on whether the Commission intended. in its November 19,1981 order (CLI-81 30) suspendmg the Diablo Canyon low-power license and estabbshms an independent venfi-I cation program, to depnve the aajudicatory boards of junsdiction to consider quahty assurance and l
quahty control tssues involvmg the plant.
ALAIM82 ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (Cobalt 60 Storage 6
Facility), Docket No. 30-6931 (Renewal of Byproduct Matenals License No. 19-08330-03); BYPRO.
DUCT M ATE RI ALS LICENSE R ENEWA L; July 16,1982; D ECISION A
The Appeal Board reverses a Licensing Board decision (LBP-82 24,15 NRC 652 (1982)) that held petiunner did not have standing to intervene in this matenals license renewal proceeding. The l
A ppeal Board grants the request to intervene, remands the proceedmg to the Licensms Board with in-I struccons to allow the grutioner to supplement its peutica in accordance with 10 CFR 2.714(b), and orders the proceedmg be consohdated with another proceedmg involvmg renewal of the operstmg trense for a research reactor of the same licensee, housed in the same building, if petitioner can pre.
sent a htigable contention with regard to the materials hcense. The Appeal Board discusses the statuto-ry requirements for notice in matenals bcensmg cases and recommends that the Commission consider theissue m a rulemaking.
l 8
An mtervenuon petitioner w ho resides near a nuclear facihty need not show a causal relation-ship between iryury to its interest and the licensms action bems sought in order to establish standing.
Virginta Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB-522,9 N RC 54,57 n.5 (1979).
C in a materials hcense renewal proceeding under 10 CFR Part 30 - as in construcuon permit and operatmg hcense proceedmss under 10 CFR Part 50 - proximity to a large source of radioactive matertal is sufficient to estabhsh the requisite interest for standing to intervene. Whether a petitioner's stated concern is in fact justified must be left for consideration when the ments of the controversy are reached.
D Official nonce ofinformanon in another proceeding is permissible where the parties to the two proceedmss are idenucal, there eas an opportunity for rebuttal, and no party is prejudiced by reliance on the information. See United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines,327 U.S. 515,527-30 (1945); 10 CFR 2.743(i).
ALAB-683 PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, et al. (Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-522, 50-523; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; July 27,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDFR A
Actmg under the authonty of 10 CFR 2.787(b), the Appeal Panel Chairman dismisses an in-terlocutory appeal by intervenors of the Licensing Board's rejection ofcertain of their contentions.
18 1
m.
m _
.._m l
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSATETY ANDLICENSING APPEALBOARDS B
A person may take an interlocutory appeal from an order entered on his or her intervention pe-tition only where the order has the eficci of denying the petition in its entirety.10 CF R 2.714a ALAB-684 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 4 Midland Plant, Umts I & 21, Docket hos 50 329
-OM&OL,50 330-OM&OL; MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING LICENSE; July 27, 1982. MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Appeal Board dismisses without prejudice an mtervenor's purported appeal froffi a Licens-m; Board order, LBP 82 35,15 N RC 1060 (1982), whoch authonzed certam intenm amendments to the Midfand construction permits pendmg subsequent issuance of the Board's p'artialiminal decision.
The Appeal Board construes the intervenor's fihngs as a complamt agamst staf!'scomphance with and emplementation of the Licensms Board's order, rather than the order itself, and leaves the matter to the intervenor to present to the Licensms Board 9
Issues relatmg to comphance with and impkmentation of a Licensing Board order, rather than the order itself. should be presented to the Licenseg Board m the first instance, rather than to the i
Appeat Board.
C Although the time hmits estabhshed by the Rules of Practice with regard to appeals from Licensms Board decissons and orders are not junsdictional, Appeal Board pokey is to construe them stnctly. Nuclear Engmeerms Co.1Sheffield, litmois, Low-Level Radioactive % asie Disposal Site),
AL AB-606,12 N RC 156,160 (1980) Hence, untimely appeals are not accepted absent a demonstra-tion of"estraordmary and unanticipated circumstances "See l0CRF Part 2 Appendis A,1X(dH3).
ILAB-685 METROPOLITAN ED! SON COMPANY (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit No.1),
Docket No 50-289 SP, RESTART August 2,1982 MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER A'
The Appeal Board suspends until further notice hrensee's obhgation to subrnit certain mfor-mation requested as part of the Board's sua sponte review, and clanfics the scope ofits appellatejuns-diction in this special prcetedmg.
8 The fact that the Three Mile Island restart proceedms is a sgecial proceedmg not specifically 4
addressed by Commission regulations does not depnve the Appeal Board ofits well-estabbshed right to reuew sua sponte an assue that was conteseed tefore the Licensms Board but not raised on appeal.
See generally Virgima Electree and Power Co (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2),
ALAB-491,8 NRC 245,247 (1978), Pubhc Seruce Electnc and Gas Co (Salem Nuclear Generauns Stauon Umt l), ALAB-650,14 NRC43,49 n 6 fl981).
C Authonty to review the enure record of a proceedmg independently of the parpes' position is different from i1) the power in operating hcense apphcation proceedmss to consider senous safety, enuronmental, and common defense and secunty matters not otherwise placed in issue by the parties, and (2) seekms Commission approval m cases not involung operstmg hcense appbcations before pursums new safety questions not previously put in controversy or otherwise raised by the parues ALAB-686 OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS IManufactunns License for Floatmg Nuclear Power Plants), Docket No STN 50-437 ML; M ANUFACTURING LICENSE; August it,1982, MEMO-RANDUM ANDORDER A
The Appeal Board (1) considers the apphcabihty of the "immediate effecoveness" regulauon (10 CFR 2.764) to the Licensms Board's June 30,1982 imual decision (LBP-82 49,15 NRC 1658 (1982)) m this manufacturing hcense proceed ng and conch 1es that it is not obhged by the regulauon to conduct such a review m manufacturing beense proceedmas; (2) announces that in the absence of e xceptions to the mitial decision,it has undertaken sua sponte review ofit, and (3) reminds the parties that the amtial decision shall not consutute final agency action until completion of that review by the i
AppealBoard andits further order.
B The Commission's*immediate effectiveness" regulation 10CFR 2.764 fl982),asamended, 47 Fed. Reg 2286 (January 15,1982), requires in the case ofconstruction permits, certam hmited and immediate appeal board and Commission review - and. in the casc of operatms hcenses. Commission teview only - of an smual decision before it can becoae efrective.
C Under the Commission's "immediate effect,veness" regulation. an appeal board is not ob.
liged to conduct an immediate effectiveness reuew in manufactunns hcense proceedmss.
D The only time an appeal board - as opposed to the Commission itself-is required to cond$ict an immediate effecuveness review is withm 60 days of an imtial decision authonaing the issuance of a i
reactorco:strucuon permit.10CFR 2.764(e)(2).
l l
l 89 t
t 1
i I
d
DIGESTS i
ISSUANCE 50FTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING APPEALBOARDS E
The startmg point in interpretmg a regulation is the language of the regulation itself. Cf. Lewis
- v. United States. 445 U.S. 55,60 fl98m. Dependmg on the enraumeces,it may be appropriate to consider the underlying history of the regulation as well. Cf. Tennessee Valley Authonty v. Hill,437 U.S.153.184 85 (1978)
ALAB487 DUKE POWER COMPANL et al. (Catamba Nuclear Station. Umts I and 2). Docket Nos.
50-413,50-414; LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZATION. August 19.1982;MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board accepts a Luensms Board referral, pursuam to 10 CFR 2.730(0, of a number of interlocutory Licensmg Board ruhngs conditionally admitting certain contentnons in this operating hcense proceedmg. The Appeal Board concludes that a hcensms board has no authonty to admit conditionally, for any reason, a contention that falls short of meeting the specincity require-ments of 10 CFR 2.714(a). The Appeal Board provides further interpretation of the governmg Rules of Prsetice relatista to contentions and leaves to the Licensmg Board the apphcation of that mterpreta-toon to the contenuons.
8 A ppeal boards are empowered to dechne tt'e scceptance of hcensms board referrals.
C Regardless of whether presented ors "ceruncanon'* pursuant to 10 CrR 2.718(i) or by referral puisuant to 10 CFR 2.730( 0. the question or = hether interlocutory sppellate review of an issue should be undertaken turns on whether a fadure to address that issue would senously harm the pubhc interest. result in unusualdelay or enpense, or affect the basic structure of the proceeding in some per-vasive or unusual manner. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant. Umts I and 2). ALAB-634,13 NRC% 99(1981).
D Under 10 CFR 2.714 a hcensms board is not authonzed to admit condiuonally, for any reason, a contention that falk short of meetmg the specificity requirements of the Section.
E Neither Sechon 189a. of:.he Atomic Energy Act nor Section 2.714 of the Commission's Rutes of Pracuce permits an intervenuon pennoner to file a vague, unparucularized contention, followed by an endeavor to flesh it out through discovery against the apphcant or the NRC staff. Rather.an imer.
tention petitioner has an ironclad obhgation to examme the pubhcly avadable documentary matenal pertammg to the facihty m quesuon with suMcient care to enable it to uncover any informanon that could serve as a foundanon for a specific contennon. Northerr. States Power Co t Prsine Island Nucle-ar Generaung Plant. Umts I and 2). AL AB.107,6 A EC 188.192 (1973), amrmed CLI-73-12,6 AEC 24111973) amrmed sub nom. BP! v. AEC,502 F.2d 424 (D C. Cir.1974).
F The wordmg of a regulatan generally takes precedence over any contradictory suggesuon in its admmistrative history.
G The heanns manditeofsecuon 189a of the Atomic Energy 4ctdoesnotconfer the automauc right ofintervention upon anyone; rather. the Commission may condinon the esercise of that r ght upon the meetmg of reasonable procedural requirements. BPI v. A EC. 502 F 2d 424.428 (1974).
H No procedural requirement can lawfully operate to preclude from the very outset a hearing under Sechon lHa. of the Atomic Energy Act on an issue both withm the scope of the petitioner's interest and germane to the outcome of the proceedmg.
I The determmat;on =hether to accept an unumely contennon which was susceptible of fihng wither. the penoJ prescnbed by the Rules of Practice msobes a consideration of all Gvc 10 CFR 2.714(a) factors - and not just the reason (substantial or not as the case may be) why a pentioner did not meet the deadhne.
3.
Irt determinmg whether to accept an unt mely coritention under 10 CFR 2.714f al. if the con-tennon could not have been asserted with suMcient specificity dunns the penod presenbed by the Rules of Pracuce due to vie non-existence or pubhc unavadabihty of relesant documents. that factor must be deemed controlhns,it is not amenable to bems overndden by the other 2.714(a) factors such as that relatmg to the broadenmg of the issues.
ALAB488 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. PROJECT M AN AGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Cimch River Breeder Reactor Plant).
Docket No. 50-537; LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZATION; August 25,1982; M EMOR AN DUM ANDORDER A
The Appeal Board demes a petit on for directed cerufication of an unpubhshed Licensing Board order ( A usust 3.1982) = hoch sets forth the scope of and schedule for evidentiary hearmss m the hmited work authonzation proceedmg for this facthty.
20
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING APPE AL BOARDS B
A hmited work authorizatten (LW A l) allows prehmmary construction work to be underta-ken at the apphcant's risk, pendmg complelion of later hearings cov ering radiologgal health and safety issues. See 10 CFR 5010(e)(1), Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Fou Station. Umts I anJ 2). AL AB-573,10 NRC 775,77811979).Before an LW A 1 can De granted, the staff must have issued the final enwronmentahmpact statement relaung to the construction of the facihty. Moreover, the Licenssng Board must have made all the enwronmental Gndings required for issuance of a cort-struction permit and "determmed that.. there is reasonable assurance that the proposed site is a suitable location for a reactor of the general sire and typc proposed from the standpoint of radiological health and safety considerations " 10 CF R 50.10(e)(2 L C
Dncretionary mierlocutory renew will be granted only sparingly, and then only when a hcens.
ing board's action either (a) threatens the party adversely affected mth immediate and serious arre-parable harm whnh could not be remedied by a later appeal, or (bl affects the bauc structure of the proceedmg m a pervasive or unusual manner Pubhc Servue Electric and Gas Co (Salem Nuclear Generatm:5tation. Uma 11, ALAB 588 ll NRC 533,536 tl980) Especially en hsht of the pamiy of construction perrmt apphcations. legal issues mvolvmg the timmg of the admission of endence at LW A hearmgs cannot be conudered recurrms issues of great importance to the proper functiomns of the hcenung process D
A n appeal board will be particularly reluctant to grant a request for directed cerhGcation a here the question for which certificuion has been sought mvolves the scheduhng of hearmgs or the timmg and admiswbihty of eudence, see Toledo Edison Co. and Cleveland Elcem filummating Co (Daws-Besse Nuclear Power Stanon. Umt I). ALAB 314,3 NRC 98,99100 (1976), and will be m-chned to do so omy to entertain a claim that a board abused its dncretson by setting a hearms schedule that deprives a party ofits right to procedural due procns. Pubhc Seruce Co. ofIndiana. Inc I Marble Hill Nuclear Generstmg Station. Umis I and 2), ALAB-459,7 NRC 179.188 (1978). See genera:ly Houston Lightmg & Power Co.. et al. (South Tenas Project Un is I and 21. AL AB437,13 N RC 367, 370 71(198l).
AL AB489 OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS (Manufacturms License for Floatmg Nuclear Power Plants), Docket No. 5TN 50-437 ML. M ANUFACTURI? G LICENSE.5eptember I,1982. M EMO-RANDUM ANDORDER A
The Appeal Board grants apptwant's motion for clarification ofits preuous memorandum and order ( AL AB-686.16 NRC 454 (1982)) m mhich the Apreal Board (l) concludeJ that it is not obhged by the "immediate efTectneness" regulation I 10 CFR 2.764) toconduct such a reuew m manufactur-ma license proceedings, and I 2) announced that, m the absence of e aceptions to the Licensms Board's imtial decision (LBP-82-49,15 NRC 1658 (19821), it would undertake sua sponte renew ofit in grantmg the motion for clarification, the Appeal Board esplams, enter sha, the nature ofits sua sponte renew authority and sts relationship to the efrectiveness of hcensing board imtial decisions.
B An immediate effectiveness renew of a hcensing board decision is not a substitute for an appeal board's usual sua sponte reuem of the decision and its underlymg record before the decision is accorded finahty.
C Sua sponte renew by an appeal board is a long-standing Commission-approved practice which is undertaken m allcases, regardless of their nature or whether eaceptions have been filed See 10 CFR 2360(a),2385(a). This type of renew entends to "'any final disposition of a licensms proceedmg that either was or had to be founded upon substantne determinations of sigmficant safety or environ-mental issues.'" Sacramento Mumcipal Utahty Distnct i Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station).
ALAB455,14 NRC 799. 803 (1981), quotmg Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPP55 Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB 571,10 N RC 687,692 (1979).5ee also Northern States PowerCompa-ny (Monticello Nuclear Generatmg Plant, Umt I), ALAB 6tl,12 NRC 301,304 (1980), and cases cited.
D Only the admmistra.ive finahty of a hcensms boar (s decision is deferred pendmg sua sponte renew by an appeal board, the effectneness of the decision is not stayed.
E If sua sponie rewe= uncovers problems m a hcensms board's decision or the record that may require corrective action adverse to a party's mterest, the appeal boar (s consistent practice is to give the party ample opportumty to address the matter, as appropriate. See, e s., Kancho Seco, supra,14 N RC at 803-04,817; Monticello, supra.12 N RC at 30913; Virgima Elecinc and Power Co. (North i
I 21 i
i
?
I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2) ALAB-529,9 NRC 153 (1979); virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-491,8 NRC 245,249 50 i
(1978).
ALAB-690 LOUISlANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Electnc Station, Uma
- 3) DocketNo.50-382 OL; REMAND; September 7.1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Appeal Board dismisses without prejudice a petitioner's appeal from a non-final order of the Licensing Board.
B The test of " finality" for appeal purposes before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (as in the courts) 3 essentially a practical one. As a general matter, a licensms board's action is final for ap-pellate purposes where it either disposes of at least a major segment of the case or terminates a party's nght to participate; rulings which do neither are interlocutory. Toledo Edison Co., et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-300,2 NRC 752,758 (1975). Where a party has been given an oppor-tunity to Gle a new petition for leave to intervene, the Licensmg Board order that denied the pnor pcti-tion is non-final and not immediately appealable.
ALAB-691 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos.
50 329-CP,50 330-CP; REMAND; September 9,1982; DECISION A
The Appeal Board dismisses an intervenor's appeal of the Licensms Board's decision in LBP-81-63,14 N RC 1768 (1981), nos to impose sanctions against the licensee for failure to disclose as-sertedly significant information in an earlier phase of this construction permit proceeding. The A ppeal Board, however, pursuant to sua sponte review of the record affirms the Licensms Board's decision not to impose sanctions, but correctscertam of the Board's underlying legal conclusions.
B Requiring the submission to a licensing board of proposed firidings of fact or a comparable documentis not a mere formality: it gives that board the benefit of a party's arguments and permits it to resolve them in the Grst instance - poss:Ny in the party's favor, obviasms later appeal.
C Unless there is a serious substantive issue as to which a genuine problem has been demonstrated, an appeal board ordinanly will not entertam an issue raised for the first time on appeal.
Tennessee Valley Authonty (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A, IB, and 28), ALAB-463,7 N RC 341,348 (1978). See also Public Service Electric and Gas Co., et al. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I), A LA B-650,14 NRC 43,49 (1981).
D A party that fails to submit proposed findmss as requested by a licensing board, relying instead on the submissions of others, assumes the risk that such reliance might be misplaced; it must be pre-pared to live with the consequence that its further appeal nghts will be waived. Cf. Duke Power Co.
(Cherokee N uclear Station, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-440,6 N RC 642,644-45 (1977).
E Although parties not adversely alTected by the ultimate outcome of a licensing board decision may not appeal that decision, they may defend a result in their favor on any ground presented in the record, including one rejected below. Pubhc Service Co. ofOklahoma, et al. (Black Fox Station, Uruts l and2). ALAB 573,10 NRC775,789(1979).
F Regardless of whether there is an appeal, it is appeal board practice to review sua sponte any final disposition of a licensms proceeding that either was or had to be founded upon substantive determmations of significant safety or environmentalissues. Sacramento Mumcipal Utility Distnct
( Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), AL AB-655,14 N RC 799,803 t lys 1); Washington Pubhc Power Suppis System (W PPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALA B-571,10 N RC 687,692 (1979).
G Appeal boards do not ordinanly scrutmize licensing board rulings on economic issues, inter-vention requests, or procedural matters in the absence of a properly perfected appeal. Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Generating Station, Unit No,3), ALAB-258,1 NRC 45,48 n.6 (1975); Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (Nuclear Projects No. I and No. 4), ALAB-265,1 l
NRC 374,375 n.I (1975); Boston Edison Co. (Pilsnm Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), AL AB-231,8 A EC 633-634 (1974).
H An appeal board may undertake sua sponte review of a licensms board decision concerned with the integrity of the heanns process.
I It is not the appeal board's function in a sua sponte review of a hcensms board decision to un-dertake a detailed scrutiny of the entire record. Rather, the appeal board usually addresses only those portions of the licensing board's opmion that it beheves deserve clanfication or correction. Further, absence of appeal board comment on a particular hcensing board statement should not be construed as either agreement or disagreement with it.
l 22 l
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING APPEALBOARDS 3
A n apphcant or a Srehsee has an obligation in NRC proceedings to provide accurate and timely information. Peution for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-78-6,7 NRC 400,418 (1978).
See also Tennessee Valley Authonty (Browes Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-677,15 NRC 1387 (1982). The source of this obligation is the Atomic Energy Act itself.See Section 186a,42 U.S C. 2236a.
K Liabihty of an apphcant or hcensee for a matenal false statement in violation ofSection 186a of the Atomic Energy Act does not depend on wl' ether the applicant or licensee knew of the falsity. Virgi-nia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2),CL1-76-22,4 NRC 480 (1976),
all'd sub nom. Virginia Electnc and Power Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978).
L Under Section 186a of the Atomic Energy Act, the tesi for matenahty is whether the informa-tion is capeble ofinfluencing the deciseonmaker - not whether the decisionmaker would,in fact, have relied on it Determmations of materiahty require careful, common-sense judgments of the context in which information appears and the stage of the bcensms processinvolved. North Anna, supra,4 NRC at 487,491.
M A "matenal false statement" under Section 186a of the Atomic Energy Act encompasses omissions as well as affirmative statements. North A nna, supra,4 N RC at 489.
N In general, if a party has doubts about w hether to disclose information,it should do so, as the ultimate decision with regard to materiahty is for the decisionmaker, not the parties.
O The mere existence of a question or discussion about the possible materiality ofinformanon does not necessanly make the information matenal.
P Intent to deceive is irrelevant in determmms whether there has been a material false statement under Section I86a of the Atomic Energy Act; a dehberate c(fort to mislead he NRC, however,is rele-vant to the matter of sanchons, once a matenal false statement has been found.
Q Information concermns a licensee's or an apphcant's intent to deceive may call into question its " character" - a matte the Commission is authonzed to consider under Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S C. 2232s - or its abshty and withngness to comply with agency regulauons, as Sec-non l03b,42 U.S.C. 2133b, requires.
R The Commission's Rules of Practice require parties and their representatives to conduct them-selves with honor, dismty, and decorurri as they should before e court oflaw.10 CFR 2.713(a).
5 The Commisuon generally follows the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Re-sponsbihty injudgmg lawyer sonduct in N RC proceedmss. See, e.g., Northern Indiana Pubhc Service Co. (Bailly Generating Stanon, Nuclear-1), ALAB.204,7 A EC 835,838 (1974).
T Canon 7 of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibihty - which enhorts lawyers to represent their clients " zealously within the bounds of the law" - and its associated Ethical Considerations and Disciplinary Rules provi<te the standards by which attorneys should abide in the preparation of tes-timony for NRC proceedings.
U Injudgmg the propnety of a lawyer's participation in the preparation of testimony of a witness, the key factor is not who criginated the words that compnse the testimony, but whether the witness can truthfully attest that the statement is complete and accurate to the best of his or her knowledge.
V Gamesmanship and sporting conduct between or among lawyers and parties is not condoned in Nuclear Regulatory Commission proceedmas.
ALAB-692 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit DECISION 14,1982; i
No. 2) Docket No. 50-320-OLA: OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September A
Following the conduct of additional evidentiary heannes by the Appeal Board on the probabili-g ty of a heavy aircraft (one weighing more than 200,000 pounds) crashing into the TMI-2 plant, the Board finds the analyses performed by the NRC Staff and the applicants produced acceptable results based upon data then at hand (pre-1978 data). As to any future return of the plant to service, the Appeal Board requires an updated analysis of the crash probability prior to its operation (and at least j
once every three years thereafter), and such protective action as the analysis might indicate.
B The following technical issues are discussed: Aircraft crash probability; Bayesian Theory; Confidence hmits (precision, uncertamty).
}
l 23 I
i 4
I y
=.
,,w
,y-
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENS4NG APPEAL BOARDS i
ALAB493 PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos.
50 387-OL,50 388-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; September 28,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board dismisses an intervenor's appeal from the Licensing Board's imhal decisaon (LDP 82 30,15 NRC 771 (1982)) authorizing the issuance of full-power operating hcenses for Units I and 2 of this facility. The Appeal Board notes that the instaal decision does not constitute Gnal agency acuan unut it compieles sua sponte review ofit.
B A party's brief must (l) specify the precise paruon of the record reled upon in support of the assertion of error,10 CFR 2.762(a), and (2) relate to matters raised in the party's proposed findings of fact and conclusions oflaw. An appeal boord will not ordinarily entertain arguments raised for the first time on appeal, absent a senous substantive issue. Public Service Elecinc and Gas Co., et al. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Un.t l). ALAB450,14 NRC 43,49 (1981); Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A, IB, and 28), ALAB-463,7 NRC 341,348 (1978). See also Consumers Power Cod Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB491,16 N RC 397,906-07 (1982).
C An appeal may be dismissed when a party's bref contains only conclusory asserhons without suff cwns information to dispose ofits arguments intelhgently. Puble Service Co. of Oklahoma, et al.
(Black Fox Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB-573,10 N RC 775,786-87 (1979). See also Duke Power Co.
(Catawbe Nuclear Station Unas I and 2), ALAB-355,4 N RC 397,413 (1976).
D Pnor to insums an operaung license, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulanon must find that Commiseson regulations (including those implementing NEPA) have been saus6ed and that the activities authortzed by the hcense can be conducted wuhout endangenns the health and safety of the pubic. See 10 CFR 50.4(d),50 57; Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generaung Plant, Uruts I and 2), ALAB-455,7 NRC 4I,44 (1978), remanded on other grounds sub nom. Min-nesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,602 F.2d 412 (D C.Cir.1979).
E Lay representauves generally are not held to the same standard for appellate bnefs that is ex.
pected oflawyers Salem, supra,14 NRC at 50 n.7. Nonetheless, NRC hugants appeanng pro se or through lay representauves are in no way relieved by that status of any obhganon to famahanze them-selves with the Commission's rules. To the contrary, all individuals and organs 2ations electing to become partws to NRC bcensms proceedmss can fairly be espected both to obtain access to a copy of the rules and refer to it as the occasion arises. Pennsylvan,a Powe and Light Co. and Allegheny Elec-inc Cooperanve, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electne Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-563,10 N RC 449, i
450 n.I (1979).
l F
An intervenor in NRC licensing proceedings has a basic obligauon to ** structure [its) participe-4 uon so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to lits] position and contentions." Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Counci!,Inc.,435 U.S. 519,553 (1978).
ALAB494 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY, et at (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Stauon, Unit 1). Docket No. 50-395 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; September 28,1982; MEMO-RANDUM ANDORDER A
The Appeal Board dismisses excepuons filed by the applwants to the Licensms Board's partial imtsal decision in this operaung license proceeding (LDP-82 55,16 NRC 225 (1982)). The Appeal Board announces it will undertake sua sponte review of that decision and a later Licensmg Board partial initial decision (LBP-82 57,16 N RC 447 (1982)), authonzing the issuance of an operaung twense for the plant, and reminds the partes that neither initial decision shall be deemed to have achieved admin-istrative finahty pendmg the completion of that review and further order.
B Excepuons are not necessary to defend a decision in one's favor. Only where a party is as-gneved by or dassatisfied with the action taken below and invokes the Apesal Board's junsdictson to change the result need enceptions be filed - or are they permitted. Public Service Co. ofindians,Inc.
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generaung Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB-459,7 NRC 179,202 (1978). See also Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Umts I,2 and 3) ALAB-478,7 NRC 772,773 (1978); Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Umts I and *) ALAB 282,2 NRC 9,10 n.1 (1975);
Northern States 'ower Co. (Prsine Island Nuclear Generstang Plant Units 1 and 2), ALAB-252,8 AEC 1875,1877, affirmed, CLI-751,1 NRC 1 (1975); Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear PowerStation), ALAB-157,6 AEC 858,859(1973).
24 i
i s
,w--
r -
n
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING APPEALBOARDS ALAB-695 COMMONV 'ALTH EDISON COMPANY (Dresden Station Umts 2 and 3), Docket Nos.
50-237,50-249, SPENT FUE L POOL M ODIFICATION.Sertember 29,1982. DECISION A
On completion of its sua sponte review of the Licensms Board's two imtial decis ons in this spent fuel pool modification proceedmg (LBP-8137,14 NRC 708 4198D LBP-82-65,16 NRC 714 0982H (undertaken in the absence of any exceptions to either decision), the Appeal Board afGrms the Licensmg Board's dectuons permittmg O ) the modiGcation of Umi 3's spent fuel pool; and (2) al-looms the sought increase m spent fuel pool storage capacity for Umts 2 and 3 A L AB-696 W15 CON 51N ELECTRIC POWER COM F ANY (Pomt Beach Nuclear Plant. Umt I), Docket No 50 266-OLA;OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October !,1982;DEC1510N A
The Appeal Board affirms a Licensms Board order (LBP 81 55,14 NRC 1017 098 H ) author-ums the issuance of a hcense amendment permitting Umt I of this facihty io operate wahout remov-mg from seruce sin degraded tubes that had been repaned by a sleeving techmque. The Appeal Board also discusses the special "show cause" procedure and htigation standard employed by the Licenung Board for expediting the hcense amendment proceedmg and advises that use of similar procedures should be avoided m the future.
B Encepuons noi adequately bnefed are =aived Pubhc Service Elecinc and GasCompany, el al (Salem Nuclear Generstms Station Uns 1), ALAB-650,14 NRC 43,49-50 0981), aff'd sub nom.
Township of Lower Alloways Creek v. Pubhc Seruce Electnc and Gas Co.,687 F 2d 732 (3rd Cir.
1982); Pubhc Seruce Company ofindiana. Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-461,7 NRC 113,315 (1978) Tennessee Vallet Authonty Olartsville Nuclear Plant Umts 1 A,2A,1B and 2Bl. ALAB-367,5 NRC92,104 n 591197M Duke PowerCompany(Catamba Nucle-arStation UmtsI and 2), ALAB-355,4 NRC 397,4I3-14 0976).
C When an mtervenor is represented by counsel, an appeal board has no obhgation to piece together or to restructure vague references in its bnefin order to make mtervenor's arguments for it.
See Salem, supra,14 N RC at $1.
D The test of "finahty" for appeal purposes is essentially a practual one As a general matter, a hcensms board's action is final for appellate purposes w here it either disposes of at least a major ses-ment of the case or termmates a party's right to participate, ruimgs which do neither are interlocutory Toledo Edison Company, et al. (Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station) AL AB-300,2 NRC 752,758 0975).
E The appealabihty of a hcensms board order is determmed by the nature of the order, not the name it bears. Kansas Gas and Elecinc Company and Kansas City Power and Light Company (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generstmg 5tation, Umt No. ]), AL AB-331,3 NRC 771,774 & n 5 0976).
F A dmiss on as a party to a Commission proceeding based, inter sha, on the profferms of at least one acceptable contention does not preclude summary disposition or guarantee a party a hearms on its contentions Houston Lightmg and Power Company i Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Umt 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542,550 0980).
G An appeal board mill not reverse a heensms board's scheduhng ruhngs unless the " board abused its discretion by settmg a hearms schedule that depnves a party ofits right to procedural due process" (footnote omitted) Pubhc Service Company of Indiana,Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generat-mg Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB 459,7 N RC 179,188 0978).
H While a hcensms board should endeavor to conduct a licensing proceeding m a manner that takes account of the special circumstances faced by any participant, the fact that a party may possess fewer resources than others to devote to the proceeding does not reheve that party of its hearms obhgations. Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licenmns Proceedmss, CLI 81-8,13 NRC 452,454 0 981).
I Sua sponte review of a hcensing board's decision by an appeal board is a long-standing Commission-approved practice that in undertaken m ati cases. regardless of theit nature or m hether ez-certions have been filed. Offshore Power Systems (Manufactunns License for Floatmg Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB 689,16 NRC 887,890 0982). See Boston Edison Company iPilgnm Nuclear Powerstation, Unit l), ALAB 23),8 AEC633 0974).
J In conductmg its sua sponte review, an appeal board does not ordinanly examme a heensms board's ruimss on procedural matters See Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-691,16 NRC 897,908 0982); Piisnm, supra,8 AECat 633 34.
a; The procedures set forth in the Rules of Prachce are the only ones that should be used Iabsent e aplicit Commission instructsons in a particular case) in a1y hcensms proceedmg.
i 25 1
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING APPEALBOARDS L
A licensms board is not authorized to admit conditionally, for any reason, a contention that falls short of meeting the requirement of reamnable specincit/ set forth in 13 CFR 62.714. Duke Power Company, et al. (Catamba Nuclear Station. Umts I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,467 (1982).
M The Commission's Rules of Practice do not permit an intervention petitioner to file a vague, unparticularized contention, followed by an endeavor to Desh it out through discovery against the ap-phcant or the N RC stafT. Id. at 468.
N Discovery on the subject matter of a contention in a hcensms prnreeding can be obtamed only after the contention has been admitted to the proceeding Id. at 467 n.12.
O in the interest of enpedition, a motion for summary disposition may be filed at any time in the course of a proceeding.10 CFR 62.749f a). See also 46 Fed. Res. 30328,30330-31 (June 8,1981L If
~
the hcensms board determmes that there are no genume issues of material fact, it may grant summary disposition even before dncovery is otherwise completed :(thq party opposing the motion cannot identify w hat specific information it seeks 10 obtain through further discovery.10 CFR 62.749(cL See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f); Sec. A Each. Comm'n v. Spence A Green Chemeal Co. 612 F 2d 8%. 901 (5th Cir.1980), cert. demed,449 U.S.1082 (1981); Donofrio v. Camp,470 F.2d 428,431 32 (D C.
Cir.1972).
P As a general matter when expedition is necessary, the Commission's Rules of Practice are suf-ficiently Hesible to permit it by orderms such steps as shortemns - even drastically in some circum-stances - the various time hmits for the party's filmgs and hmating the time for, and type of.
discovery. See 10 CFR 92.711. See also Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensms Proceedmss, CLI 81 8.13 NRC 452 (198 t t Steps to enpediie a case are appropriate only upon a party's good cause showms that e mpedition is essential.10 CFR l2.711.
Q A hcensmg board's regulation of a proceedmg pursuant to 10 CFR 12.718 should not encom-pass procedures fundamentally departmg from those set forth in the Rules of Practice. See 10 CFR Part2, Appendia A.
A L AB-697 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Umt No.1), Docket No. 50 289-SP (Emergency Plannms); SPECI AL PROCEEDING; October 22,1982; DECISION A
in the Grst ofits appellate decisions m this special proceeding to determme whether Umt I of this facihty should be permitted to resume operation, the Appeal Board affirms the Licensms Board's disposation of the emergency planning issues raised on appeal by the intervenors pro se from the Licensms Board's second partial imtial decision ILBP-81-59,14 NRC 1211 (1981)), subject to the condition that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvam4's agricultural mformation brochure be distributed to all farmers m the plume eaposure pathway emergency planmng zone prior to restart.
B Under Commission emergency planmns regulations. hcensees must estabhsh procedures for notification of state and local emergency response organizations and must have the capabihty to notify responsible state and local governmental agencies withm fifteen minutes of declaration cf an emergency.10 CFR 50 47(bH5); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.Sec. lv D.3 Provision must also be made for prompt communcations among prmcipal response orgamaations to emergency persrennel.
10CFR 50.47(bH6L C
Commission regulations designate two regions to be used for emergency planning purposes.
The " plume exposure pathway emergency pl.nnmg zone" consists of an area with a radius of approsi-mately 10 miles surroundmg a nuclear power facihty. The " ingestion exposure pathway emergency plannmg zone" is an area with a radius of approumately 50 miles surroundmg the facih,y.10 CFR 50.47(cH2L D
in NRC licensing proceedmss the licensee or apphcant generally bears the ultimate burden of proof.10CFR 2.732.
E Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(bH7) licensees must periodically make information available to members of the pubhc concermns how they will be not:Ded and what their imtsal actiotts should be m an emergency. Provisions must be made for yearly dissemmation of " basic emergency planmns information, such as the methods and times required for pubhc notification and the protective actions planned af 4n accident occurs, general information as to the nature and effects of radiation, and a hsting oflocal broadcast stations that udt be used for dissemmation ofinformation durms an emergency." 10 CFR Part 50, Appendia E.Section IV D.2. These general standards and the guidehnes set out in NUREG-0654, FEM A-Rep-1, Rev. I, " Criteria for Preparaticn and Evaluation of Radiological 26
.. ~-
k DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLiCENSING APPEALBOARDS Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of N uclear Power Plants" (November 1930) provide a reasonable framework for evaluating the sufficiency ofeducational material.
F The Commission's emergency plannmg regulanons do not require any protective measures for hvestock unless they are necessary to proteci the farmers. See 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10), (c)(2).
G The enact size and configuranon of the ingesuon exposure pathway emergency planning zone surroundmg a nuclear plant are determmed "in relation to local emergency response needs and capa-behues as they are affected by such condiuons as demography, topngraphy, land characterisucs, access routes, andJunsdichonal boundanes." 10 CFR 50 47(c)(2L Protective acuens that are appropnate to the locale must be developed for the ingestion e aposure pathway EPZ.10 CFR 50.47i b)(10).
H The followmg techmcal issues are discusse l: Emergency plans; Environmental detecuon of radioacuve iodme following accidental releases of r-toactivity.
ALAB-698 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt No. I), Docket No. 50 289-SP (Emergency Planmr g); SPECI AL PROCEEDING; October 22,1982.
DECISION A
in the second of its appellate decisions considerms emergency planning issues in this special proceedmg to determine whether Umt I of the facihty should be permitted to resume operauon, the Appeal Board affirms the Licensms Board's holdmg m LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211,14551707 (1981) not to require the predistribution of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) to state and local emergency workers, reverses the Licensms Board's holding regardmg the staffmg of the Emergency Operations Facihty ( EOF), and adopts the hcensee's plan on this matter subject to certam condshons.
The Appeal Board also holds that a test of emergency support operations as a condinon of restart is unnecessary, and concludes that the state of the hcensee's onsite and olTsate emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be tAen in the event of an emergency. The Appeal Board further reviews sua sponte the N RC staffs incident response plan and certam guidehnes in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's plan regardmg protective action, and mates various recommendations to the staff and to the Commission based on that review.
B The Commission's emergency planning regulations provide generally that no hcense may be issued unless a findmg is made that the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protecuve measures can and will be taken in the event of a radi-4 ologicalemergency.
C The distribunon of appropnaie dosimeiers to emergency workers in cornunction with other protective measures may serve to comply wMh t!'e requirements of the emergency planrung regula-tions retatmg to the protecuon of emergency workersin a radiological emergency.
D Documents such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) findings and determmauons, NUREG-0654 and FEM A REP-2, somewhat like the staffs Regulatory Guides, do not rise to the level of regulatory requirements. Neither do they constitute the only method of meeting apphcable regulatory requirements. Cf. Fire Protecuon for Operaung Nuclear Power Plants (10 CFR 50 48), CLI-81 il.13 NRC 778,782 n.2 (1981); Gulf States Utihues Company (River Bend Stanon.
Umts I and 2), ALAB-444,6 N RC 760,772-773 (1977).
E in the absence of other evidence, adherence to regulatory guidance may be sufficient to demonstrate comphance with regulatory requirements. Petiuon for Emergency and Remedial Achon, CLI-78-6,7 NRC 400,406-407 41978). General'y speaking, however, such guidance is treated simply as evidence oflegitimate means for complying with regulatory requirements, and the staffis required to demonstrate the vahdity of its guidance if it is called into question dunns the course of htigation.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon), CLI-74-40,8 AEC 309,811 (1974).
F Commission regulations,10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E, require the establish-ment of two separate facihues - one onsite, the other offsste - for the management of accidents.
Licensees must provide for " timely augmentation of response capabitines" and specify "the interfaces among various onsite response activines and offsite support and response activines." 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2). The Emergency Operauon Facihty (EOF) is expressly referred to as the place where hcensees must accommodate state and local emergency response staff.10 CFR 50.47(b)O).
G There is no eapress emergency plannmg regulation governing the location from which protec-uve action recommendations must be made, t
11 The precise means ofimMnN th ; %r*msi#s rurgency planning res 'ctices -
e quire a high degree ofjudgment. The mere fact that a hcensee's approach is somewhat different from
}
27 l
t I'
.~
r--2--
m-
---y-r.
.r.vy-p y 5_-y-y,T't
-r*-"-**"h-'*-"'"T*'-'t
T"
-n~-'P"
'r
--Y'--
-'--7
" - " ' " - ' ' ' ' ' 'T'---f-
i l
t f
t j
DIGESTS 7
ISSUANCFSOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING APPEALBOARDS i
4 1-the staffguidance does not render it impermissible or necessanly inconsistent with the need to provide I'
adequate protection for the public.
I The following technicalissues are discussed: Dosimetry; Thermolummescent dosimeters; Emergency Operations Facilities; Emergency Support Operations; Emergency Response Plans.
ALAB499 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,. Umt i
No.1), Docket No. 50-289-SP (Management Phase); RESTART; October 27,1982; MEMORAN.
DUM ANDORDER A
The Appeal Board accepts the Licensms Board's referral of an intervenor's motion to reopen the management phase of the record in this restart proceeding. The motion was filed after the filing of
+
eaceptions to the Board's initial decision. The Appeal Board decides that junndstion to rule on a motion to reopen Gled at that time rests with it rather than the Licensing Board, but defers ruling on the motion untd it has aclueved greater familiarity with the record.
B A licensing board is implicitly empowered to reopen a proceedmg at least until the issuance of its initial decision, but no later than either the filing of eaceptions or the empiration of tfie penod dunns which the Commission or an appeal board can exercise its right to review the record. See 10 CFR ll2.717(a),2.760(a),2.718Q).
C Junndiction to rule on a monon to reopen Gled after exceptions have been taken rests with the appeal board rather than the licensing board.
D A n appeal board, unlike other spellate tribunals, has the option of reopening the record and re-ceivmg new evidence itself, if necessary, obviasms remand to a Isensing board. See, e s., PaciGc Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 598,11 NRC 878 79 (1980).
E The disposition of a motion to reopen turns on whether (l) it is timely, (2) it addresses a sig-mGcant issue, and (3) a different result might have been reached if the new matenal had been pre-viously considered. Diablo Canyon, supra, I I N RC at 879.
ALAB-700 PUGET SOUND POWER AN D LIGHT COM PANY, et al. (Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Project. Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 522,50-523; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; October 29,1982; DECISION A
The Appeal Board reverses a Licensing Board decision (LBP 82 74,16 NRC 981 (1982)) that held petstioner (an authorized representative of the collective fishing interests of four Columbia River Indian tribes) did not have standing to intervene in this construction permit proceeding and remands the proceedmg to the Licensms Board with instructions to grant the petition subject to its finding of at least one admissible contention proffered by the peutioner.
a B
A licensing board is not obliged to grant an intervenuon petiuon simply buause it is unopposed, the board must still evaluate it for compliance with Commission intervention f
requirements.
C An appeal board will not overturn a licensms board's demal ofintervention without reviewing that dc;ision on the ments, even if the appealis unopposed.
D To obtain standmg to intervene m an NRC licensms proceeding, a petitioner must allege (I) an "iryury in fact" that has occurred or will probably result from the proposed licensing action, and (2) an interest that is withan the " zone ofinterests" protected by the Atomic Energy Act. Portland General Electrs Company, et at (Pebble Sprmss Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 76-27,4 NRC 610, 613-14(1976).
E An organizauon is not precluded from intervening in an N RC licensms proceeding merely be-cause one ofits constituent members has already intervened.
F An organizanon can hoe standing as a representative of its members' interest. Warth v.
Seldin,422 U.S. 490, $11 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton,405 U.S. 727,739 (1972).
G An orgamration specifwally empowered by its members to promote certain of their interests has those members' authonzanon to act as their representative in any proceeding that may afTect those interests. See Hunt v. Washmston Apple Advertising Comrmssion,432 U.S. 333,342-45 (1977);
Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2),
ALAB 536,9 NRC 402,404 n.2 (1979); Houston Lightmg and Power Company ( AllensCreek Nucle-ar Generating Station, Uma l), ALA B-535,9 N RC 377,395-% & n.25 (1979).
28
I DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING APPEALBOARDS ALAB-701 PH!LADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stanon, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50-277,50-278; M ETROPOLIT AN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mde Island Nuclear Stauon, Umt No. 2), Docket No. 50-320; and PUBLIC SERVICE EL ECTRIC AND G AS COMPANY (Hope Creek Generstmg Station Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 354, 50 355. OPERATING LICENSE; November 19,1982; DECISION A
The Appeal Boards for this consolidated proceedmg determine that intervenors have faded to demonstrate a need for a further evidentiary heanns on the question of the effects on human health of the annual fuel cycle radon releases attributable to the operation of the Peach Bottom (Unit 3). Three Mdc Island (Umt 2), and Hope Creek (Umts I and 2) reactors; and conclude on the basis of the exist-ing evidentiary record that the health effects of those annual releases are not sufficiently sigmGcant to Environmental Polecy Act (NEPA) cost benefit balance 3 against operation of these facihues. The Boards terminate their revsew of the mitial decisions m each of the three proceedmg:(LBP 74-42,7 AEC 1022 (1974) (Peach Bottom); LBP 77-70,6 NRC 1185 (1977) (TMi 2); LBP 7815,7 NRC 642 (1978) (Hope Creek)) and affirm esch decision encepi to the estent modified in theit previous review on otherissues.
B The followmg techmcal issues are discussed Health effects of radon releases from nuclear fuel cycle; Emperuse of witnesses Natural release of radon.
ALAB-702 PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPER ATIVE, INC. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Station, Umts 1 and 2), Docket Nos.
50-387-OL, 50 388-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; November 22, 1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A
On sua sponte review of the Licensms Boa 4's inihal decissor. authonzmg the issuance of operstmg hcenses for Umts I and 2 of this facihty (LBP.82 30,15 NRC 771 (1982)),the Appeal Board agrees with the apphcants and N RC staff on the need for amendmg the techmcal specifications for Umt I to include a hmeting condition fot operation that restncts iacr?ases in umdenufied leakage in that Umt's reactor coolant system. Findmg no other errors reqmnns correcuve act7n, the Appeal Board announces the completson ofits sua sponte review.
ALAB-703 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Genersung Station) Docket No. 50-312 SP;SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 23,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
in the course of sua sponte review of the Licensms Board's binal decism (LBP-81 12,13 N RC 557 (1981)) in this special proceedmg - msututed to determine the adequacy ufcertam reemre-ments for conunued operauon ordered by the Commission followmg the March 1979 accident at Three Mae Island - the Appeal Board decides upon considerauon of additional informapon submit.
ted by the bcensee and the NRC staff that, with one excepuon, the matters identified in its October 7, 1981 order ( ALAB-655, ! 4 NRC 799) as calhng for further informauon are now sausfactonly clanfied or resolved. The Appeal Board defers final ruhng in the proceedmg, pendmg considerauon ofinforma-tion yet to be recetved on the remaining matter.
B The followmg technical issues are discussed: Loss-of coolant (LOCA) analysis; Pump suc.
hon hne breaks; Auxhhary feedwater ( AFW) flow; High pressere irvecuon (HPD noazles; Thermal cycles, Pressurizer level indicanon; Loose thermal sleeves.
ALAB-704 MIS $1SSIPPI POWER A LIGHT COMPANY, et al. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stauon, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-416,50-417; OPER ATING LICENSE; December 8,1982; DECISION A
The Appeal Board affirms, subject to the outcome of pendmg judicial proceedmss, the Licens-ins Board's dectsson (LBP-82 92,16 NRC 1376 (1982)) denying a late-filed petition to intervene in this otherwise uncontested operaung hcense proceedmg for failure to meet the late intervennon ente-na orl0CFR 62.714(a).
B Absent a showing of good cause for late fihns, an intervention petitioner must make a
" compelling sizwing" on the other four farors stated in 10 CFR (2.714(a) governing late intervention. South Carohna Electric and Gas Company, et al. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station.
Umt 1) ALAB-642,13 NRC 881,886 (1981), aff'd sub nom. Fairfield Umted Acuon v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,679 F.2d 261 (D.C. Cir.1982). A licensms board's evaluation of those fac-tors will not be disturbed by an appeal board unless the hcensing board has abused its discretion. Id. at 885.
C When an intervention petiuoner addresses the 10 CFR {2.714(a)(iii) cnterion fv late inter-tenoun sequinns a anumms now us participation may reasonaDay te espected to assist in developmg a 29 i
1
i a
l DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING APPEALBOARD9 f'
sound record,it should set out with as much particulanty as posmale the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses, and summanze their proposed testimony. See generally Summer, supra,13 NRC at 894. The Detroit E1: son Company (Greenwood Energy Center, Umts 2 and 3),
l ALAB-476,7 N RC 759,764 41978). Vague assertions regardmg petitsoner's abihty or resources are
{
insumcient.
?
D A Commission policy statement is bindmg on its adjudicatory boards. Northern States Power Company (Prsine Island Nuclear Generaimg Plant, Umts I and 2) ALAB 455,7 N RC 41,51 (19'8).
remanded on other grounds sub nom. Mmnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss on,602 F.2d 412 I
( D.C. Cir.1979).
ALiLB 705 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Siation, Umt No.1), Docket No. 50-289 ( Environmental lssues)?,EST A RT. December lo 1982 DEC1510N A
The Appeal Board amrms the Licensms Board's rejection in its partishmiial decision on envi-ronmental ssues m the TMI l restart proceedmg iLBP 4160,14 N RC 1724),of an miervenor's con-i I
tention callms for an analysis of the environmental effects of so-called " Class 9 accidents." The i
Appeal Board rules that neither NEPA, nor Commission pohcy or instructions appbcable to this proceedmg, requires further analysis of such accidents.
B It ts *cIl-settled that NE PA does not require an evaluation of environmentalimpacts that are
" deemed only remote and speculative possibehises." Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Na-tional Resources Defense Council,435 U.S 519,551 (1978), quotmg NRDC v. Morton,458 F.2d 827.837 33(D C.Cir.1972).
ALAB 706 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Umts 1 and 2), Docket Nos 50-440-OL,50-441 OL; OPER ATING LICENSE, December 15, 1982, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Appeal Board den es apphcants' motion for directed certencation of the Licensmg Board's order (LBP-82-98,16 N RC 1459 (19821) admitting three late.Gled coeuentions of mtervenors in this operstmg hcense proceedmg.
B Appeal board review of an interlocutory hcerains board ruhng via directed certincation is dis-cretionary and granted mfrequently. A party mvoking review by this means must demonstrate that the board's action either (a) threater,a the party adversely affected wit h immediate and serious arreparable harm which could not be remedied by a later appeal, or tb) affects the basic structure of the proceedmg m a pervauve or unusual manner Pubhc service Electnc and Gas Cornpany I5alem Nuclear Generat.
m: 5tation, Umt 1), AL AS-98, ll N RC 533,536 (1980), and cases cited A ruhng thai does no more than admit a contention has a low potential for meetmg that standard. Duke Power Company, et al.
(Cata=be Nuciear Station.Un ts I amt 2), AL AB-687,16 N RC 460,464 (1962).
C The admission by a hcensms board of more late-Gled than timely contentions does not,in and ofitself, affect the basic structure of a hcensms proceeding m a pervasive or unusual manner warrant-ing interlocutory appeal board review. If the late-6 led contentions have been admitted by the board m accordance with 10 CFR 42.714,it cannot be said that the board's ruhnss have affected the case in a pervasive or unusual manner. Rather, the board will have acted m furtherance of the Commisseon s on n rules.
D Neitder the CommisWs Rules of Practice ror the pertment Statement of Consideration puts an absolute or relative hmit on Pie number of contemions that may be admitted to a hcensing proceedmg See 10CFRl2.714tal,tb),43 Fed Reg.17798,17799( Apr.26,1978).
E The fact that apphcants will be unable to regroup ;he time and Gnancial e xpense needed to hin-gate late-Oled contention is a factor that is present when any contention is admitted and thus does not provide the type of unusual delay that earrants mterlocutory appeal board review. Cleveland Electric illummatmg Company, et al IPerry Nuclear Power Pisnt, Umis I ar.d 2), ALAB-675,15 N RC 1105, Il1411982),
AL AB 707 Tif E DETROIT Efil50N COMPANY, et al (Ennco Fermi Atome Power Plant, Umt 21.
Docket No 50 341-OL. OPERATING LICENSE December 21,1982,DEC1510N A
The Appeal Board af0rms a Licensing Board decision ILBP-82-96,16 NRC 1408 (1981))
denyms an intervention petition Gled after the clow of the evidentiary record for Ivlure to meet the cntena governmg late miervention specined in 10 CFR 62 714 tal. The Appeal Board forwards the pe-tition and accornpanyms matenals to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation mth a request that they be treated asa l0 CF R l2.206 petiison.
30 1
l t
(
.~ _
.I 4
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING APPEAL BOARDS B
An appeal board will not overturn a hcenmns board's denial of a late intervention petition under the entena specified in 10 CFR 62 fl4(a) unless the board has abused its direction. South Carohns Electnc and Gas Company, ei al. (virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Umt I). AL AB442,13 NRC 881. 485 (1981), aff*d sub nom. Fairfield Umted Action v. Nuclear Regulatory Commismon, 679 F.2d 26I iD C. Cir.1982).
C A party seekmg to reopen a proceedmg for consideration of a newly recosmred contenuon must satisfy an objective test of good cause. Among other thmgs, the party seeking to reopen must show that the issue it now seeks to raise could not have been raised carher. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ALAB 138. 6 AEC 520,523 (1973). In addsuon the party must show that the matter it wishes to have considered is (1) timely presented. (2) tddressed to a manifcant issue and (3) susceptible of altenng the result previously reached. See Pacif.
oc Gas and Electnc Company (Diabio Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2).CLI-81,5.13 N RC 361,36445 (1981), Kansas Gas and Electne Company and Kansas City Power and Light Campany
( W olf Creek Generstmg Stanon, Umt No.1). ALA B-462,7 N RC 320,338 (1978).
D in the absence of good cause, a petiuoner must make a "compelhng showms" on the other four 10 CFR 62.714f al factors m order tojusury late miervenuon Summer. supra,13 NRC at 836 See j
Mississippi Power & Light Company,et al. (Grand Gulf Nuclear St uon. Umts I and 2), AL AB-704, 16 N RC l725,1730(1982).
E in addresung the factor of the e sient to ohich li can assisi m developing a sound record, a peti-tiener "should set out with as much particulanty as posmble the precise issues it plans to cover. identify its prospecuve witnesses. and summante their proposed tesumony. Vague asserhons regardmg peti-troner's abitat) or resources.. are msuffgient." Grand Gulf, supra 16 NRC at 1730 (citauons,
omitted).
F Until the parues to a proceedmg that oppose a late miervention petition suggest another forum that appears to promise a full hearms on the claims peutsoner seeks to raise, a petitioner need not idenufy and particutante onher remedies as madequate.
G The Commismon's late miervenuon rules are the kmd of reasonable procedural rules it is en-utled to estabhsh for participation in its proceedmss. BPl v. A tomic Energy Commiss on,502 F.2d 424 (D C Cir.1974L See generally Summer, supra H
in every case, a retiuoner that for some reason cannot gain admittance to a construction permit or operatmg hcense heanng, but wishes to raise health, safety, or environmental concerns before the NRC may file a request with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under 10 CFR 62.206 askms the Director to institute a proceedmg to address those concerns. The Director can then either msutute a show cause procecomg if he beheves one is warranted,or issue a wntten statement of reasons esplaming why no regulatory action is necessary. See Washmston Pubhc Power Supply System (W PPSS Nuclear Project Nos I & 2), CLI-82 29.16 NRC 1221.1228 29 (1982). See also Porter County Chapter of the Iraak Walton Lesgue of America. Inc. v. Nuclear Regulaiory Commission.606 F.2d l363.1369 70(D C. Car.1979L ALAB 708 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY. et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear 5tation. Unit No.1) Docket No 50 289 (Design issues); RESTART, December 29,1982. MEMORANDUM
{
ANDORDER A
The Appeal Board orders a hmited reopening of the evideitiary record m this restart proceed-ing and directs the hcensee and the NRC staff to prepare supplemental tesumony on specified issues I'
concermng, inter alia, the capabihty of the " feed and bleed" and Iwo-phase (boiler condenser) natural circulauen processes to remove decay heat from the reactor core in the event of a loss of main feedwa.
i ter or a small-break loss-of-coolant accident at TMi 1.
8 The follooms techmcalissues are discussed: Decay Heat Removal Methods - Feed and Bleed Cochns. Natural Circulanon Coohng with Emergency Feedwater - (Smgle phase and two-phase (boeler condenser) natural circulation flow, Emergency Feedwater System Rehabihty, Reactor Coolant System Vents).
l 1
31
.~
.~
v.--
.-. --- ~ _, -
_ - _ ~
s DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING BOARDS 4
LBP 82 51 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. (Cata=ba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos 50-413,50-414,$PECIAL PROCEEDINO July 8,1982, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board overrules vanous obstions to its Order issued followmg a preheanns conference pursuant to llo CFR 2.751a. The Board also demes requests for referral of certam issues to the AppealBoard, f
)
B Where an intervenor seekmg to challenge an Apphcant's secunty plan does not produce a i
qualified empert to review the plan and declines to submit to a protective order, its vague contentions must be dis mswd for failure to meet conditions that could produce an acceptably specific contention.
s LBP-32 51 A CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Pome Plant), Docket No. 50-155-OLA;
~
SPENTFUELPOOL AMENDMENT, July 8,1982 MEMORANDUM ANDORDER
~
A The Licensir s Board afTirms, over obxcticns of the N RC Staff, a phased schedule for the fihng of findings of fact ar' conclusions oflaw subsequent to an evidentiary heanns Under the schedule, all I
parties are required to make simultaneous filings of findmss of fact and conclusions oflaw on each of
=
the contentions and all parties have simultaneous rights of reply.
B A Board may require phased findmgs of fact and conclusions oflaw subsequent to an evaderii-y ary heanns m order to espedite the decision process by permitting the Board to begin analyzer.g the record elTaoently. Under a phased schedule, early fmdmgs may be required pnot to the 30 days allowed v
for apphcants under the procedural regulations. The Board may also require simu:taneous films of 7
i these phased findmgs, m order to espedite the proceedmg and to encourage staff to develop an inde-l pendent position J
LBP 82 52 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Umt No.1),
E.
Docket No. 50J0-OLA; OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; July 12, 1982, MEMORAN-3 OUM ANDORDER A
Pursuant so a Memorandum and Order of the Commission directing its estabhsament i
(CLl-81 25, I 4 N RC 616 (1981)), the Licensmg Board rules that one individual and two orgamzations have standmg to miervene in this proceeding concerned with chemical decontammation of Dresden Unit I but, because it fmd that none of the contentions advanced by Petitioners are acceptable under
~
10 CFR l2.714 and CLI-81 25, the Board demes the petitions B
An orgamzation petitionmg to mtervene as a representative ofits members must demonstrate e
that it has at least one member with personal standmg who has authorized the orgamzation to represent his or her mterest
/
C Purely academic interest in a problem is not an interest encompassed by 10 CFR 52.714. In
[
order to satisfy 10 CFR 12.714, an iruury m fact m ust be alleged y
D in order to be admitted for heigation, a contention must infcm the Board and the parues of the matters sought to be htigated. Particularly w here substantial techmcal information is available indicat-mg the bases for the appbcant's proposal and the Staffs position, Petitioners' contentions rrust mdi-cate the specific respects in which they quarrel with that information.
LBP 82 53 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power
^
Plant, Umts I & 2), Docket Nos 50-440-OL,50-441 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; July 12, 1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Board admits late-filed contentions on psychological stress, the degradation of electncal wirms from radiation-induced embntilement ofelectricalinsulation, and the impropnety of consider-mg local economic effects as benefits for purposes of the Draft Environmental Statement, but requirs; l
miervenors to further particulanze two of the contentions pnor to heanng.
t 33 i
i
.. -. _. _,. - - _ _ _ _,.,. + _. _. -,,,,,. _ _ -
p,y-.g g yp sg c
ww eg._
g.p_gg
n - -.
~. -
1 l
i DIGESTS ISSU ANCESOF THE ATOMIC 5AFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS The Board refuses to admit a lose-ftled coneemion that the plant'scioemd-cycle coohng sysse should be repieced by a redist well eyeses, such as has been employed at Grand Gulf Nuc
.B l
in order to reduce the number of fish, fish eggs and larves desawyod thro sh 'anpingemen entrainment. The Board also rc..ses to admit a conesation thes the environmental analysis must sider the poemble ues of nuclear Gael for nuclear weapone, should the government sub to permit the use ofleser isotope separatic,a techniques to -r d this pu a
Civil Action No. 74-15sHAprd 27.1932), which has not been 5-f by a mandnes,does not C
provide grounds for reconadering an eerber ruling esclyling e consention on the sa storage of radiongtive eneseneetIntervonors nier he encused forleseness in Ghne if t inforaisuon such as Science, Science News, and the Bulletin of the Atonuc Scienust.They D
heep up with all NRC hieratwe and all technical hierature concernin s
f' providing that these is proof thes a nuclear plant will cause people in the viciruty E
anaseties of such severity as to be mediceHy recognised imp a
eretion of weste dispessa iemues in NEPA analyses does not invahdate these rules unt i
F its mandste. Prior to the issuance of a mandate, the rule is wahd and a contenuon con cannot be aduutted.A contendon that fuel stored in a spent fuel pool maht subsequendy be nuclear weapons is not cogniasbie under NEPA because weapons manufacture is not O
posad action and would regiure enher federel legisleuon or fu i
l electrical equipment but has not yet decided when to make the rule sNective it is ap I
H e contenuon on the suigert. Provaion may be made for apphcant or saaff to stay desco I
l tantionif they wish.
Embntalement of electricalinsulauon; envi-The following technicalissues are discussed:
ronmental quahGcanon of siectnc wiring; redation, e#ects on polymers; polymer degra 1
ent of Gsh, mini-
_ e trees, legal saandard for NEPA conaderation;impinsem mum standard for NEPA consideration; entrainment of Ash, minimum standard for redesion; s_1 s
r LSP-42 53A CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et at (Perry Nuc conaderation.
50-44041.,50 441 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; July 19, 1932; Plant, Unite 1 & 2), Docket Nos.
ME.MORANDUM ANDORDERThe Licenmas Board revisas its earlier decision (
A stresscontenuon bened on a statement ofpohcy issued by the Com 15, 1932; MEMORANDUM AND LSP.g2 5d 1), Docket No. 50-353-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; July Licensing Board rules that an intervenor propoeng eight untimely contentionschellen ORDER phcents' quehty assurance procedures and character A
1 t
When untirnely contenuons are advanced on the eve of an initial decision whrh them suasponte.
would conclude Licensing Board consideration o(an applicataan, the proponent must S
taaljusuficationfor the delay.When untimely proposed contenoons raase imues no sonou phcant might require denial of an operaung hcense, th C
i It is a clear requirement for representational standing that an organization seeki issues i
h the interests ofits members mobmit evidence of authonsenon to do so frorn at leas D
sterxhng to partacipate in the proconding.
I 3d
i i
i 1
i DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMIC 5AFETY ANDLICENSINGBOARDS i
i LBP 82 $$ SOUTH CAROLIN A ELECTRIC AND O AS COMPANY.et al. d%rgd C. Summer Nuclear Stanon. Unit 1). Decket No. $0-393 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; July 20,1982. PARTI AL INI.
TIAL DECISION A
in this Partiallnitial Decision the Licensms Board resolves the setsmic issues in controversy m favor of plant safety concluding that the seismg safety of the Summer Nuclear Fu.nt will be assured if the operatmg hcense is made subject to two conditions (1) that seismic momtonng be continued at least untd December 31.1983, and that the NRC Staff reevaluate at that time the need for further j
monitorms, and (2) that Apphcants successfully complete withm the first year of operation a con-firmatory program to demonstrate to the NRC 5taffs satisfacuon that esphcst safety marsms esist for j
each component necessary for shutdown and contmued heat removalin the event of the mansmum potenualshallow eartnquane.
B The followmg techmcal issues are discussed. Reservoir-mduced seismicity - occurrence after impoundment, shallow earthquakes and near source earthquakes. Ground monon - peak accelerations, amphfication from bedrock (soil, topographical. soil pad interaction), response spectra, theoretral models and empincal data. Magmtude potemial - deep vs. shallow earthquakes.
source dimension. deviatoric stress; Seismic structural capacity - engineered structures, equipment a.nd components. natural frequencies and reduction of monon (embedment of foundation L LBP.82 56 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stauon, Umt 1),
Docket No. $0 239. RESTA RT; July 27.1982; PARTI A L INITI A L DECIslON d
j A
The Lacensms Board issues its third and concluding parhal irutsal decision =hoch resolses the special restart proceedmg in favor of restartmg TMI Uma I subject tocertam recommendauons condi-hons anda monetary penalty 5
Technicalissues discussed utihty's responubihty to tram and enamine candidates for NRC 4
r operator hcenses, utihty's responsibihty to cerury only competent candidates for NRC operator hcenses, standards for maintaitns and renewing operator hcenses. the NRC operator hcensms responsibehues; audiung of utahty's operator traimng and esaminanon prograrr;; the method of vahdaung N RC operator hcense e sammanon for specific plants; proctorms and grading N RC operator hcensing esaminations; quahty assurance apphed to trainmg and testmg operators; redundant assur.
ance of reactor operator competence; reactor coolant chemistry; reactor cociant pump beanns and seals.
C Licensms Board appmnted Special Master pursuant to 10 CFR 2 722(a)(2) and specified i
assues to be heard by Special Master.
D Licensms Board adopts as its own the evidenuary record made before Special Master.
E The Board, not the Special Master is authonted by Notice of Heanng, regulanons and statute to render Admmistrative Procedure Act maust desmon Special Master's report is advisory only.
i Board must render decision based on its own understanding of the rehable, probative and substantial 2
esidence.
F Licensms Board affords weight to special Master's reported direct observations of witness demeanor; but where Special Master's conclusions are matenally affected by witness demeanor, Licensms Board must give especiap careful consideration to w hether or not other more objecuve wit.
y 8
ness eredibihty standards are conaastent with 5pecial Master'sconclusions.
O where inferences and factual conclusions depend upon the ethical onentation and expecta-tions of the fact-finder, Licens ng Board rehes upon its collegialjudgment but accepts 5pecial Master's conclusions asinformed advice.
l 4
H Results of heanns before Special Master and its effect upon the enure proceedmg before the Board are esclusively withm the junndruon of the Board vis-a-vis thejunsdiction delegated to the Spe.
j i
cial Master.
I Licensing Board does not endorse Special Master's recommendation that NRC exammation i
cheaters he referred for cnmmat prosecunon, because cnminal prosecution has not been shown la i
j relate tojunsdiction granted by Notice of Heanns J
Licensing Board has nojunsdiction and authonty to direct the NRC Staff to conduct future in-t vestiganon into alleged false material statement under ruhng of Carohna Power and Light Company j
(Shearon Harns, Units i 4),CLI-8012.11 NRC $14 (1980L i
i 35 I
i i
+
I
.m,.
. - +,..,
.,.._,-...--....-_-_,,,.y
. -.m.-
.......-.._w--.,_.-,-m,
,...-._.,,,.,.--.e.~
,r-,,-,-
,w__.mm__w__-m.-,.m
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS K
Although not presidmg over a proceeding noticed as a cival penalty case, Licensms Board nevertheless imposes a monetary penalty on licensed utihty of $100,000 for neshsent failure to safe-guard the ir. wily oishe uuhty's operator e samination process, failure to instill an attitude of respect for the utility. and NRC-admmistered enammations, failure to assure the quahty of operator trainmg instruction and negligence in the certification ofcandidates for N RC operator hcensing. Board'sjuris-diction to impose monetary penalty Hows from authonty set out in Notice of Hearing to require long-term measures necessary to provide reasonable assurance that Three Mde Island Umt I can be operat-ed without endangering the pubhc health and safety.
L Upon issuing a partial initial decision, Licensing Board retained jurisdiction over a poruon of the subpect matter of that decisson because of new informatson on cheating on the N RC operator licens-ing examination.
M NRC investigator's testimony that operator hcensms enammation candidate told him that another operator heensing exammation candidate attempted to cheat, particularly in hght of uncertain memorws ofinvestigatot and the informmg candidate,is unrehable hearsay.
N Rumors that an employee of Licensee cheated are the worst kmd of hearsay (Umted States v.
Mandel,591 F.2d 1347 (4th Cir.1979); cert. demed,100 S. Ct.1647; 445 U.S. 961; 64 L. Ed. 236 (1980)) and not worthy of evidentiary =cisht as to the truth of the rumors. Rumors may be conadered, however,in assessms thoroughness ofinvestigation and may be pursued in the interest of a complete evidentiary record.
O The Board finds that it is fair to draw an inference unfavorable to a suspected chester where, as a voluntary witness, suspected chester alone has soluuon to mystery surrounding his achwities and fads to e nplain his activines despite opportumsy to do so.
P Ceruficauon to the NRC's Operator Licensms Branch that licensed cperator has requahlied based upon the known improper assistance of another operator is a false matenal statement under the Atomic Energy Act.
Q Licenang Board finds that two hcensed operators cheated on company admimstered hcense quahficauon enaminauon but, because operators have not had nouce ofcharges against them or oppor.
tumty to confront evidence because of sequestranon, no acuon may be taken agamst their personal operator hcenses without further proceedmg. However, findmss that the operators cheated are find-ings against the hcensed unhty.
LBP-82 57 SOUTH CAROLIN A ELECTRIC AN D G AS COMPANY,et al. (Virgd C. Summer Nuclear Stanon Uma l), Docket No. 50-395-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; August 4,1982;SUPPLEMEN-TAL PARTI ALINITI AL DECISION A
la this Supplemental Partial Imtial Decision the Licensmg Board authorues the issuance of a full-term operatmg hcense subject to certain conditions relaims to seismic safety, emergency prepa-redness and steam generator tube problems. The Board considered issues involving anticipated tran-sients withoat scram ( ATWS), emergency preparedness, quahty assurance /ouahty control, and health effects from the operahon of the facdity and from the uranium fuel cycle.
B The fol:owing techmcalissues are discussed-Health effects - risk esumators, hnear model, and superlinear model LBP 82 58 DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE (La Crosse Boihng Water Reactor), Docket Nos.
50-409 FTOL,50-409-SC; OPERATING LICENSE; August 2,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensmg Board grants the motions of the NRC Staff and Applicant for summary disposi-tion of all environmental comentions and concludes sts consideration of other environmental ques-tions which had artsen durms the course of this full-term operaung hcense proceeding.
B The Commission and Appeal Board have encouraged the use of summary disposinon to resolve contentions where an mtervenor has failed to estabhsh that a senume issue cuists.
C The Commission's summary disposition procedures have been analogized to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civd Procedure. Decisions arisms under the Federal Rules thus may serve as guide-lines to licensms boards in applying the Commission's summary disposition procedures.
D The burden of proof hes upon the movant for summary dispossuon, who must demonstrate the absence of any issue of material fact. If a movant fads to make the requisite showing, its motion n'ay be demed even in the absence of any response by tr e proponent ofa contenuon.
36
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS E
Where a movant for summary disposition fails to include the requisite " separate, short and concise statement of the material facts as to which the movmg party contends that there is no genume issue to be heard,"or where the statement is inadequate, a Board may dismiss the motion for summary disposition as procedurally defective or, alternatively, can decime to give the statement the effect it would othernese be accorded F
Comphance with the design objectives set forth in 10 CFR Part 50. Appendia I, estabhshes that the doses to offsate individuals are as low as reasonably achsetable.
O To warrant consideration of alleged environmental effects of plant operation at an evidentiary hearing, more must be shown than that those effects are theoretscally possible.
H Unless a nuclear plant has environmental disadvantages m comparison to reasonable alternatives, differences m financial costs do not enter into the N EPA process and, herxe, into N RC's cost benent balance. Only after an environmentally supenor alternative has been identified do economic considerations become relevant.
1 Issues concernmg alternative energy sources m seneral may no longer be considered in operat-mglicense proceedmss-J lasues ransms need for power m general may no longer be considered in operstmg hcense proceedmss. Lack of a previous N EP A review would not be the ty pe of"special circumstance" needed tojustify such consideration.
K In proceedmss instituted pnor to June,1980, serious (Class 9) accidents may be considered orily upon a showmg of"specialcircumstances."
LBP-82 59 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electne Station Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 445,50-446; SHOW CAUSE; August 4,1982; ORDER TO i
SHOW CAUSE A
The Licensms Board orders the NRC Staff to show cause w hy sanctions should not be imposed for the Staffs refusal to obey a Board order to identify by name individuals interviewed in connection with an investigation and to provide unenpurgated copies of signed statements taken from them. The investigation concerned allegations by a former quahty controlinspector that he had been wrongfully discharged for reportmg defects m construction which he had identified in the performance of hisjob and the invest 8gation report had been miroduced as an e shibit by the Staft B
A quahned mformer's pnvilege exists in NRC practice only for informers who have been given promises and pledges ofanonymity.
C Informer's pnvilege must yield when, in the context of an ongoms hearing on safety issues, a Board needs the protected informanon to determme the credibihty of witnesses on contested matters.
LBP 82-60 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Pomt Plant). Docket No. 50-155 OLA; SPENT FUEL POOL AM ENDM ENT; Ausust 6,1982;INITI AL DECISION A
This is the firsi of a series ofimtial decisions concermns an amendment to permit 441 fuel as-sembbes to be stored in the snent fuel pool a. Big Rock Pomt, compared to a current authorization for only 193 assembhes. TNs decision directs that certam changes be made in the emergency planmns pamphict that is distnbuted withm the Emergency Plannmg Zone for the purpose ofinformms people about procedures to follow in case of an emergency at the nuclear plant. The decision also finds that there is as yet no adequate plan to distnbute the pamphlet in pubhc places or to inform transients, i
includmg large numbers of sksers and summer tourists, of appropriate steps to take in an emergency.
B Apphcant must demonstrate that a satisfactory prompt noufication system is in place.
C A satisfactory emergency plan must provide an adequate opportunity for both the permanent and transient adult population to become aware of appropriate steps to take in an emergency.
D The requirement that there be an emergency planning pamphlet is an intrinsic part of the regulatory scheme requiring a prompt notification system. Its purpose is to give residents and tran-sienta the information they need to respond to audible alarm systems and to be sufficiently knowl-edgeable to understand the importance of respondmg.
LBP-82-60A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 54361 OL,50 362-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; August 6, 1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board decides that the utility of the further proceedings it had contemplated on the need for, medical arrangements in the offsite emergency planning has been ralled into question by an Appeal Board ruling indicating that such arrangements are not necessary. The Board calls for com-
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING BOARDS 1
ments from the parties on whether further proceedings may actually produce a better record on the question of need for medical services offsite.
LBP 82-61 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Pomt, Uma bo. 2) and POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 3) Docket Nos.
50-247-SP, 50-286-SP; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; August 9,1982; MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICATION A
The Licensing Board seeks further Commission guidance concerning the Commission's July 27,1982 Memorandum and Order (CLt-82 15,16 NRC 27) directing the Board to reconsider its rul-ingson contentions.
B The Licensms Board requests Commission guidance as to whether it should require that any proffered tesumony on risk treat both the consequences and the probability of accidents; or whether it j
may admit testimony on consequences (or probability) alone if testimony on probability (or
[
consequences) is recesved from some other source.
C The Licensms Board requests Commission guidance as to whether it shocid contmue to hear evidence on certain emergency planning questions posed by the Commission in light of the decision of the NRC Regional Admmistrator to require licensees pursuant to 10 CFR 550.54 to cure significant deficiencies in their emergency plans as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
LBP-82-62 ARIZON A PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generatina Station, Umts I,2 and 3), Docket Nos. STN-50 528-OL, STN-50-529-OL, STN-50-530 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; August 12,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board issues a Memorandum and Order denying Intervenor's Petition for d rected certificanon of awoevidentiary ruhngs made during the operating hcense proceeding.
8 The availability of directed certification is an exception to the Commission's general rule against interlocutory appeals (10 CFR 2.730m ) and, as such,is to be resorted to only in "e acepticiia!
circumences." Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 382,5 NRC 603.6G 1977).
C se D C. Circuit's opimon in Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC,685 F.2d 459 (D C. Cir.1982) does not affect this proceeding in such a manner as to present a " novel question of policycriaw"under10CFR Part2. Appendia A(V)(f)(4).
LBP 82-63 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-329 OM&OL,50 330-OM&OL; MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING LICENSE; August 14, 1982; PREHEARING CONFERENCEORDER A
The Licensing Board issues a Preheanns Conference Order ruling on contention
- mnitte 5 following issuance of the Staft's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and Draft Environmental Statement l
(DES).
2 B
Where contentions are filed after 15 days prior to the srecial prehearms conference, those con-l tentions are consu$ered as late-filed and may be admitted only upon a balancing of all of the five factors hsted in 10 CFR 12.714f a)(1). Where " good cause" for failure to file on tmm (factor i) has not been demonstrated, a contention may still be accepted, but the burden ofjustifyirs acceptance of a late con-i tention on the basis of thc other factors is considerably greater.
i C
Newly arising information haslong been recognized as providmg " good cause" for acceptance of a late contention. Indiana and Michigan Electric Co. (Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units I and 2), CLI 72 75,5 AEC 13,14 (1972), Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co., et al. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-80-14,1I NRC 570,574 (1980), appeal dismissed, ALAB-595, II NRC $60 (1980).
D Where nontimeiy contentions arise from the Three Mile Island Umt'2 accident, or the Com-mission's regulatory response to that accident, a Licensing Board must not only balance the factors in 10 CFR 12.714Ia)(I) but also must take mto account the Commission's December 18,1980 Statement of Pohey on that subject.CLI-80-42,12 N RC 654.
E The proponent of a late-filed contention should affirmatively address the five factors in 10 CFR 12.714(a)(I) and demonstrate that, on balance, the contention should be admittN1. In consider-ing that showing, a Board may take into account the circumstance that a pro se mtervenor is involved.
F insofar as timehness is concerned, the standards for evaluating the acceptability oflate-filed contentions are the sarne as those for entue irT the admissibility of an untimely intervention petition
- i.e., the standards appearing in 10M ( 91 #a)(l).
38 l
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING BOARDS G
Dissausfacuon with the performance of another party (includmg the StafD upon whom one had been relymg cannot serve as an acceptable justifration for an untimely intervention or for the late fihng of a contention.
H In considenng the admissibihty ofcontemsons, a Licensing Board cannot resolve factual ques-tions goir:s to the ments of a contennon. Houston Lighting and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generatmg Stanon Umi1), AL AB-590,11 NRC 542,547-49 (1980).
I O 4 unreasonable to expect an intervenor to examme reports ofincidents at various reactors and file comentions based on them at a time when it is not known how or whether the lessons of that incident are mcorporated mto the reactor under consideration.
J W nen a matter as involved in rulemaking, the Commismon may elect to require an issue which is part of that rulemaking to be heard as part of that rulemaking. Where it does not impose such a requirement, an issue is not barred from being considered in adjudications ticing conducted at that ume. Furthermore, rulemakmg does not preclude htigation of a contention questioning an applicant's compliance with an intenm rule in effect dunng the pendency of the rulemaking proceedmg.
K
" Sunk costs" are not appropriately considered in an operatms hcense cost-benefit balance.
L Effecuve March 31, 1982, the Commission elimmated enurely requirements for financial quahlicanons review for, inter sha, electric utiliuca applyms for operaung licens es. This amendment is apphcable to ongoing proceedmss and requires dismissal of previously accepted inancial quahfications contentions.
LBP 8244 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. (Vallecitos Nuclear Center - General Electric Test Reactor, Operstmg License No. TR 1) Docket No. 50-70 SC; SHOW CAUSE; August 16,1982, INITIAL DECISION A
in this Show Cause proceedmg to estabhsh seismic and geologic design bases for the ate and to determme whether the shutdown GE test reactor can withstand them, the Licensms Board majonty issues an initial decimon accepting the des gn bases proposed by hcensee and NRC Staff, and author-izes a restart of the facihty as structurally modified. In a separate opmion, the Board Chairman dina-grees with the geologiedeman basis, quesuons some of the expert evidence offered at heanns, and would authonze a restart of the facihty only with a further modification.
B The following technical issues are discussed-Ground faulting - evidence of offsets, esti-mates of surface offset, probabihty of offset, fault deflection; Ground motion - peak accelerations, ef-fective peak acceleration, combmed with surface offset, verucal accelerauons; Structural capacity -
canulever loading, lac k of contammem integnty.
LBP 8245 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Dresden Stauon,tJruts 2 and 3), Docket Nos.
50-237-SP,50-249-SP. SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; August 17, 1982; FINAL INITIAL DECISION A
The Licensing Board's final initial decision authonzes the issuance of appropriate license amendments to permit replacement of the current spent fuel storage racks in each of the Dresdens Units 2 and 3 spent fuel pools with 33 high-density storage racks The cond'tions and commitments set forth in the parual initial decision (LBP 8137,14 NRC 708 (1981)) are carned forward with this decision. At present, reracking as the safest and least costly alternauve for meetmg requirements for spent fuelstorage.
B The following technicalissues are discussed: Alternauves to reracking; relevance of unre-solved safety issues to the spent fuel pool modification; validity of mathemaucal analyses efloads im-parted to pool floor dunns postulated rocking cf racks during seismic events.
LBP 82-66 LOUISIAN A POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Electnc Station, Unit 3), Docket No. 50-382-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; August 17, 1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licenmng Board reopens the record in view of applicant's failure to submit as evidence an i
informational brochure, whose adequacy was in contention.
8 The pre-emergency,pubhc information program (10 CFR 150.47(b)(7)) is neither minor nor inssanificant. A proper program will avoed chaotic public response to an emergency and minimize nsk to the pubhc. Southern Californis Edison Company, et at (San Onofre Nuclear Genersung Station, f
Units 2 and 3), LBP-82 39,15 NRC l!63,1203 (1982).
i 39 i
1
.~
.-. _ ~, _~
~.
H i
e s
DIGESTS ISBUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS C
The form and consent c(informational brochures drafted to sausfy the pre-emergency public informasson requirement of N RC regulations (10 CFR ISO.47(b)(7)) are nos so cteartv estabhshed by regulations that compliance therewith is a matter of course. See, e.g., Cincinnati Gas & Electne Company, et al. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82-48,15 NRC 1549,1602 (1982); Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Plant), LBP-82-60,16 N RC 540,545 46 (1982).
D The opinions of applicant's witnesses that an informational brochure, not submitted as evidence, would meet the Commission's emergency planning requirements are not an adequate sub.
stitute for Licensms Board examination of the actual brochure; such secondary sources, even when f.
bolstered by the NRC Staffs and FEMA's assurance of a subsequent review, do not constitute i
" reasonable assurance" that the pre emergency public information program will be properly l
implemented See Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-500,ll NRC227,228-31 (1980).
E The term " reasonable assurance" requires more than a mere checklist compenson against regulatory criteria. Southern Cahforma Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generstmg i
Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-8136,14 NRC 691,699 (1981) The term connotes the existence of a reasonable plan, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Umts 1 and 2),
i CLI-78 l,7 N RC 1,18 (1978). The reasonableness of a plan cannot be determined when the essential elements of that plan are inesterminate.
F The adequacy of the pre-emergency public information program is a significant issue that calls for subjective evaluation; delesatson of this determmation would be improper.
LBP-82-67 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY. et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I & 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; August 18,1981; ORDER A
The Licensing Board resolves a motion to compel answers to interrogatories. Applicants are 4
not required to respond to interrogatories concermns the irgestion pathway emergency planmns zone, which is not relevant to the admitted contention about the evacuauon LPZ. However, apphcants i
{
are required to respond to all questions televant to evacuation, including: (1) the use of resourceson-site that rnight also be needed off-site, (2) the ability of responsible individuals promptly to recognize emergency conditions. (3) the assignment of admmistrative responsibility for maintainmg the prompt alert and notificanon system. (4) meteorological and radiation release monitonns, and (5) the qualifi-l cation and training of individuals responsible for communicating with off-site agencies about 3
emergency condinons.
j B
Apphcants must provide a reasonably complete response to interrogatones. Their answers should not require the sifting of materials to obtain a complete answer but they may describe precisely the portions ofdocuments that contain the requested information, C
Quesuons about applicant utility's financial quahficanons for fulfilling its emergency planning I
responsibihtees are beyond the scope of an operatmg license proceedmg.
{.
D Under a contennon concerning the possible need for an automatic standby liquid control system, applicant must answer questions about the comparative advantages and disadvantages of that system compared to a manual standby liquid control system.
E Other interrogatories discussed by the Board concerned vanous aspects of emergency planning (NUR FG-0654 critena, ininating conditions, admmistrative responsibility, financial responsibihty, meteorological monitonnt. radiological monitonns. commumcations).
LBP-82-68 THE CINCINN ATI GAS & ELECTRIC COM PANY, et al. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Unit I), Docket No. 50 358-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; August 24,1982; MEMORAN-DUM ANDORDER l
A Acung on Apphcants' Motion for Reconsideration and Clanfication of the June 21 Imtial l'
Decisson, LBP-82-48,15 NRC 1549 (1982), the Licensing Board: (1) authonzes the issuance of a license permittmg fuel loading, low power testing, and operation not in excess of 5% o(rated power subject to the condition that the authorization will be revoked should the Commission, on reconsid: ration, reverse its order in CLI 82 20,16 NRC 109 (1982), which required the dismissal of eight safety-related contentions; and (2) demed Apphcants' relief from further proceedangs ordered in the Initial Decision with respect to emergency evacuation of schools snd submission of FEM A findmss.
40
. m
.m DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS B
Where a licensms board finds that all matters in contention, other than those relating to NRC and F EM A review ofoffsite emergency preparedness, have been resolved either favorably to apphcant or through the issuance of appropriate hcense condettons, it may, pursuant to 10 CFR 450 47, as amended e47 Fed. Res. 30232 (July 13,19821), authonte the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue a license aut hontmg fuel loading and low power opershons not in excess of 5% of rated power.
Authorizahon of the issuance of such a license by the Director, upon his makmg all requisite findings, may be made even in the absence of a motion by the apphcant pursuant to 10 CFR 50 57f c) for a low 1
power hcense.
C Pursuant to 10 CFR t$0 47f alil), the NRC must find, prior to the issuance of a hcense for the full power operation of a nuclear reactor, that the state of onsite and olisite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. lh accordance with 10 CFR t $0 47(a)(2) tne Commission is to base its find-eng on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's iFEM A'st "findmss and determi-nations as to whether state and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of bems implemented, and on a reuew of the N RC Staff assessment ofapphcant's onsite emergency plans.
D Pursuant to 10 CFR 450 47f aH2), a FEM A findmg as to the status of o(Tsite emergency plan-rtmg preparedness will consutute a rebuttable cresumphon on the queshon of the adequacy of such plans Based upnn existmg precedent, it is unclear whether this presumption attaches only to FEM A's final formal findmgs on the state of ofTsete emergency preparedness, or whether such a presumphon may be accorded to prehmmary or mienm FF M A findingt E
As a rebuttable presumpoon dissolves in the face of rehable and probative evidence to the contrary, the practical effect of any rebuttable presumption created by 10 CFR 450.47(a)(2) would be of hetie moment with regards to comested aspects of FEM A's findmgt leavmg a hcensms board free to weigh the testimony of each party on its own merits. See Metropohtan Edison Company iThree Mile Island Nuclear Staison, Umt No.11. LBP-81 59, I 4 N RC 1211, I 465 (198 i).
F A hcensmg board must base its findmss on the status of ofTsite emergency preparedness, pur-suant to 10 CFR 450 47(alt 2), on FEM A's tesumony as to its review of those portions of the state and local plans related to the contentions, as viewed in hght of other testimony adduced at hearms. While a hcer;sms board may rely on testimony based on FEM A's intenm findmss in makms its own findmss, at need not be seusfied with teshmony so prehmmary and conclusory as to fail to meet the same stan-dards e spected of other tesumony m Commission praccedmgs To do so would deprive both the board and parties of any meamngful opportumty to cross-examme FEM A witnesses as to the bases for the Gosernment'sconclusions.
O A hcensms board may not delegate to the NRC Staff, or to FEM A,its obhgation to resolve issues placed nio controversy in an operstmg hcense proceedms, however conscientiously they may pursuc their work. See Cleveland Electne Illummatmg Company, et al. t Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-298,2 NRC 730,736 737 (1975);Pubhc Service Company of Indiana, Inc.
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generstmg Stahon, Umts I and 2), AL A B-461,7 NRC 313,318 (1978); Metro.
pohtan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Uma No.1), LBP-II 59,14 NRC 1231, 1419 (1981), To do so would be a clear violation of secuon 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. as it would render the hearing process a nuthly.
4 H
Where FEM A tesumony based upon its mterim findmss as to the state of offsite emergency planning is so prehmmary and conclusory as to fail to permit meamngful cross-eaammanon of Govern-ment estnesses as to the bases for their conclusions, it is appropnate for a board to permit reopening of the record on offsite emergency planning matters upon a lesser showmg of good cause than that which is ordmanly required to reopen a record. Such a showing shall be based upon particular parts of sne final FEM A findmst and the StalT's final supplement to its Safety Evaluation Report which relate to l
admitted contentions, and shall demonstrate that an opportunity for cross-examination, as distmguished, for e tample, from an opportunity for further wntten comment,is required for a full and i
true disclosure of the facts.
I A monon for reconsiderauon must state specifically the respects in which an initial decision is erroneous. See 10 CFR 62.77I. It will not suffice to atlete that a decision has had an unmtended effect, without specifymg how the board is supposed to haw crred in reachms its findmgs. If reasons now exist justifying a dilTerent result, they must be presenteo m the record, not in the form of an unsworn memorandum oflaw from eounsel w hich is not eudence.
41 1
9
_,,-,.,____~_,.,._,._-_,..,.._.,,,.-,r._,_..~,.,,.
.,-.,m,
- _.,.,, m
6 I
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-32-69 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et at (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50 44l-OL;OPER ATING LICENSE; August 30,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
in this Memorandum and Order the Board rules that it cannot 30 beyond the Commission's y
Statement of Polecy on psychological stress issues (47 Fed. Reg. 31762, July 16,1982) because the Statement had the effect of depnving it of junsdiction over the intervenor's psychological stress l
contention. It also ruled that certification of the issue to the Commission was not proper because inter-
, venor hgd failed to show why interlocutory review was necessary rather than review, in due course, upon appeal B
when a policy statement issued by the Commission orders licensms boards not to consider psychological stress contentions unless they meet specified critena, boards are deprived ofjurisdiction over such issues and are prohibited from inquiring into the procedural regulanty of the policy
'i statement.
C A party may not obtain certification of an issue unless it demonstrates that it will suffer sub-stantial harm ifit is deprived ofinterlocutory review and is compelled to awsit compiction of the licens-ing board's action before it pursues an appeal 1
LBP-82 70 PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear rower Plant, Umts l and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275-OL,50-323 0L; OPERATING LICENSE; August 31,1982; INITIAL DECISION A
In this initial Decision, the Licensing Board authonzes the issuance of a full power operstm3 license for the Diablo Canyon N uclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2, subject to certain conditions speci-fled by the Board and with the caveat that the decision not impmge on the status of the Commission's previously ordered suspension of the plant's low-powerlicense or on the independent design verifica-tion program ordered by the Commission.
8 Pressurizer heaters are not required to be designed and constructed to " safety-gradestan-dards by either Commission requirements or by the standards of 10 CFR Part 100. Appendia A, III.(a).
C Power-operated relief valves, when used to protect a system against low-temperature overpressunzation, must be designed and constructed to " safety-grade standards.
D State and local governments have the responsibility to set emergency plannmg zones around nuclear power plants. The zones may be geographically larger than those specified in the Commis-saon's rules; however, Commission rules govern the test ofadequacy of emergency planning.
E An early warnmg System must be capable of ratifying essentially 100 percent of a population within 5 miles of a nuclear power plant withm 15 minutes. Essentially 100 percent of the population within the entire EPZ must be notified within 45 minutes.
F Formal FEM A findings on the adequacy of offsate emergency planmns are required pnor to license issuance but are not required for the heanns.
LBP 82-7I PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limenck Generstmg Station, Umts I and 21, Dccket Nos. 50 352,50-353, OPERATING LICENSE; September 2,1982; MEMORANDUM AND l
ORDER A
The Licensms Board denies a motion to admit a contention concermns psychological stress l
caused by viewing a coolms tower plume because the Licensms Board is not authorized by the Com-mission to admit such a contention, the contention is without basis, and the motion was not timely.
B As required by the Commission's policy statement of 3uly 22,1982 (47 Fed. Reg. 31762), a Licensing Board is without authonty to admit a contention allegmg that psychological stress will result I
from the operation ofa nuclear plant when no serious nuclear accident has occurred at the sde.
C A contention attegmg that psychological stress will result from operation of a nuclear power plant may not be litigated ifit is without basis even ifis otherwise satisfied the Commission's criteria for admittmg psychologicd stress contentions LBP-82-72 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station Umts I and 2),
l Docket Nos. 50-352,50-353; OPERATING LICENSE;Sep. ember 3.1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board reafTirms its holdmg that a preclusion clause in the Delaware River Basin Compact renders the Licensms Board without junsdation to reassess the impacts of an allocation of water from the Delaware River made by the Delaware River Basin Commission.
I 41
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS B
Pursuant to section 15.l(s)(1) of the Delaware River Basm Compact,the Licensing Board is precluded frorm reassessms the impacts of a decision by the Delaware River Basin Commission, con-curred m by the Federal member of the Commission, allocating water from the Delaware River for the coohng of a nuclear plant.
LBP 82-73 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit I).
Docket No. 50-322-OL: OPERATING LICENSE; September 3,1982, MEMORANDUM AND j
ORDER
'A
- Rultng on the effects of potential confhets ofinterest which the Board had noted because appli-cant's contractor for its probabihstic risk assessmem had also served as a subcontractor for the NRC Staff on certam aspects of the Staffs systems ameraction program, the Licensms Board concludes that in the interest of fundamental fairness to all parties, the Staff should have noted the existence of such potential confhets of mterest on the record, together with a desenption of any steps taken to avoid or mitigate their effects. However, in the cirrumstances of this case, the Board holds that any defects in the fairness of this proceedmg were cured by the Board's discovery and disclosure of this potential con-fhet of mterest, which gave all parties the opportumty for cross-examination on this point, and oy the Staffs obvious lack of rehance on its subcontractor's views in its testimony in this proceeding.
B Parties to Commission proceedmss have the obhgation to disclose all potential conflicts of interest, whether or not a party beheves them to be material and relevant to a hcensmg proceedmg.
Such disclosure permits other ps ties the opportumty to cross examine opposmg witnesses regardmg any bias which may be alleged to enest as a result of a potential confhet ofinterest.
C Fundamental fairness dictates that parties to Commission proceedings disclose all potential conf sts of mterest, whether or not a party believes them to be material and relevant to a hcensms proceedmg While the "matenahty and relevance" of new mformation is required to be considered in determmms whether a party has a duty to discleg such new mformation in an NRC proceedms, Ten-nessee Valley Authonty iBrowns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Umts I,2 and 3), ALAB-677,15 NRC 1387 (1982), Duke Power Co. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-143,6 AEC 623,625 (1973), these stanoards are not appbcable in a situation where there is an issue as to the fundamental fairness of the conduct of parties to a proceedmg Fundamental fairness clearly requines the disclosure of potential confbcts of interest, such that, after opposms parties have had an opportumty for cross-enammatior., the Board may determme the matenaisty of such mformation.
LBP.82-74 PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, et al. (Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Prorct, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-522,50 523, CONSTPUCTION PERMIT; September 3, 198L MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board rules on the disposition of two late-filed petitions to intervene in this proceeding, denying the petition filed by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) for lack of standmg and grantmg the petition filed by the Yakima Indian Nation, subject to the requirement that at least one contention acceptable under 10 CFR (2.714(b) be filed.
B An organization may represent only its own members. Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP 77 II,5 NRC 481,483 (1977).The requirements for standmg, miury in fact and an interest " arguably within the zone of interest" protected by the statute, must be fulfilled by the organization itself through its own membership. Portland Genera)
Electnc Company, et al. (Pebble Sprmss Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI-76-27,4 NRC 610,613 (1976).
i C
An amsmely ('etstion to intervene may be granted ifit is found that a balancing of the five fac-f l
tors set forth in 10 CFR {2.714(a)(1) favorsintervention.Some weight may be attached to the fact that l
the lateness, though not justified, is not extreme and will not delay the proceeding. Duke Power Company (Amendment to Matenals License SNM-1773 - Transportation of Spent Fuel from
)
Oconce N uclear Station for $torasc at McG uire N uclear Station). ALAB-528,9 N RC l46,150 (1979).
D 10 CFR (2.714(b) requires a petitioner for mtervention to file a supplement containing at least i
one admissible contention. Cincmnati Gas and Elecinc Company, et al. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-80 14, l l N RC 570,571 (1980).
Y 1
43 l
t l
,1
-m-s
,e e---
,----%r e
e y.--
p~---
-r
,-ir w
v-ee-----"t--
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING BOARDS LBP-82-75 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
Docket No. 50-322 0L; OPERATING LICENSE; September 7,1982; SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE ORDER A
The Licensing Board issues its Supplemental Prehearing Conference Order ruling on interve-nors'" Phase One Consolidated Emergency Plannmg Contentions," which primanly relates to Appli-cant's onsite emergency planning efforts.
B Pursuant to 10 CFR 12.707, a licensing board is empowered on the failure of a party to comply with a prehearing conference order to "make such orders in regard to the failure as are just." Based upon the Appeal Board's ruhng in Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station.
Units I and 2), ALAB478,13 NRC 1400 (1982) the out-of-hand dismissal ofintervenors' proposed contentions solely for fashng to either further particularize certam contentions or to pursue settlement negotiations is unwarranted. A more appropriate course of acuon in such a case is to simply rule on in-tervenors' proposed contenuons as they now stand, dismissms those which lack adequate bases and specificity.
C Pursuant to 10 CFR {2.714, an intervenor must set forth those matters which it seeks to htigate "with reasonable basis and specificity." This power of the Commission to require that intervenors make such a threshold showing pnor to the admission of a contenuon has been upheld by the Federal Courts.See BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission,502 F.2d 424,428-429 (D C.Cir.1973).
D A contention allegm3 an entste emergency response plan to be inadequate in that it fails to consider certain matters,is required pursuarts to 10 CFR 62.714 to specify the way in which identified portions of the plan are alleged to be inadequate. In advancing such a contention, it is intervenors'obli-gation to assert how the idenulled portions of an emergency plan are rendered inadequate by its failure toconsider such matters.
E Pursuant to 10 CFR {50.47(b)(12), emergency response plans for nuclea power reactors must include arrangements for "contammated iryured" indinduals. As interpreted by the Appeal Board in Southern rahfornia Edison Company, et at (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stauon, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-680,16 NRC 127,137 (1982) "contammated injured"is a distinct category ofinjury, encompasang potential pahents whose traumauc (i.e., physical) iryunes are comphcated by radioac-tive contamination. People who suffer radiauon iryury, without accompanying traumatic mjury, are unhkely to need emergency treatment because the chnical course of radtation iryury unfolds over time and is seldom, if ever, life-threatenmg. Thus, for a senous nuclear accident to result in the hospitaliza-tion oflarge numbers of peopic, not only must an already unhkely accident be severe, but also the i
emergency response to protect the public must be ineffectual But see Southern Cahfornia Edtson Company, et at (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLi 82 27,16 NRC 883 (1982).
LBP-82-76 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE, et at (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50-444-OL ( ASLBP No. 82 47102 OL); OPERATING LICENSE; l
September 13,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER l
A The Licensing Board rules on peutions to intervene and admission of contentions, and l
schedules further proceedings.
LBP-82-77 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Pomt Plant), Docket No. 50-155; SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; September 14,1982; INITIAL DECISION A
In this Imtial Decision, the Licensing Board holds that the apphcant must carry the burden of proof in d4monstrating that the off site enaergency plan has comphed with the Commission's emergency Sanning rules and guidance. It must carry that burden whether or not it is pnmanly re-sponsbie for performmg the functions involved in the plan. Because apphcant did not carry that Durden,it must demonstrate to the Board that the deficiencies in its plan have been remedied, are not l
senous, or are bems remedied through adequate interim compensating acuons. The deficiencies in-clude failures of proof related to the training oflocal officials or school officials, the need for transpor-tauon of persons who lack personal we hicles, the availabihty of a satisfactory method of alertmg school bus dnvers who are noi on duty, that there is adequate transportation for schoolchsidren, that there is an adequate list of invahds being maintained and that there is an adequate method of establishing emergency bus routes.
B Intervenor's contenuon that apphcant had not implemented adequate admmistrative controls
(
to prevent cask drops over the spent fuel pool was dismissed for lack of ment.
44 l
l i
l l
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS C
Apphcant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the off-site emergency plan comphes with Commission rules and guidance. The burden must be carned whether or not apphcant is pnmanly responsible for carrymg out a particular aspect of the plan.
D A Licensing Board prescnbes procedures by which apphcant may remedy deficiencies m its case concernmg the adequacy ofemergency plannmg E
The following technical issues are discussed: Emergency plannmg (estimatmg tramma needs); cmergency plannmg; auministrative controls (cask drops).
LBP-82-78 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY IBig Rock Pomt Plani). Docket No. 50-155; SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; September.15.1982,1NITI AL DECISION A
in this Imtial Decision, the Licensmg Board Gnds that an environmentalimpact assessment, prepared with respect to an amendment to expand the capauty of a spent fuel storage pool, mas adequate. Intervenors did not successfully challenge its negative findmgs concernmg the lack of any sigmGcant environmentalimpacts.
B Additionally, the Board Gnds that the enuronmental impact assessment adequately treated al-ternatives to the spent fuel when it found that the pool modifwatiori " mill not result in any sigmficant change in the commitment of matcr. land and air resources' and when it also found that the use of stainless steel to fabrgate new fuel racks is an "msigmficant' use of that resource. Intersenor also failed to make ari efTective challenge to this Staffs basis for this fmdmg C
An enuronmentalimpact appraisal prepared with respect to the espansion of the capacity of a spent fuel pool need not discuss further the alter natives to an empanuon of the pool if the appraisal has an adequate basis for findmg that the expansion would not cause any unresolved conflicts about alter-natne usesof resources.
D An environmentalimpact statement need not be prepared with rest ect to the espansion of the capacity of a spem fuel poolif the enuronmentalimpact appraisal prepared for the project had an ade-quate baus for concludmg that the expanuon of a spent fuel pool would not cause any s:gmficant envi-ronmentalimpact LBP-82 79 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC lLLUMIN ATING COMPANY. et al (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts 1 & 21. Docket Nos 50 440-OL. 50 441 OL;OPER ATING LICENSE. September 15, 1982.MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licenung Board denies admisuoc of a contenison on dose levels to human be'ngs from routme emissions from the Perry plant because the intervenor failed to shom good cause for late fihng.
Intervenor had argued that the issue could be ra: sed because it had afpeared for the first time in the Draft Enuronmental Staiement for Perry, but mtersenor had no answer for the opposms argument that the same matter had been raised m the Fmal Safety Analy sis Report, issued monthsearher.
B The Board also conudered w het her to raise this issue sua sponte but it concluded that the Com-mission had already conudered the matter in seseral earher proceedmgs and that sua sponte considera-tion was not appropriate.
C Discusuon of an issue m the Draft Environmental Statement does not proude good cause for late filmg of a contention, if the same matenal was mcluded m the Fmal Safety Analysis Report I FS A R) filed by the apphcant.
D If a contention is excluded from a proceedmg because there is no good cause for late fihng. the Board should nesertheless consider whether to declare the issue to be an important safety or environ-mental issue and to raise that issue sua sponte.
LbP-82-80 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Umt 1),
Docket No. 50-322-OL-2 (ASLBP No. 82-478-05-OL); SECURITY; September 16, 1982.
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND NOTICE OF SECOND IN CAMERA CONFERENCE OF COUNSEL A
Upon referral from the Commission, the Licensms Board authonzes the release to two ofin-tervenor's secunty consultants /enperts of two portions of a restncted Appeal Board deciuon (Diablo Canyon, AL AB-653 (1981) (Restnctedil regardmg the definition of design basis threat and interpre-tation of regulations concermng the appropnate number of armed responders.
B Intervenor county government estabhshed requisite need of two of its secunty consultants /esperts for access to two portions of restncted Appeal Board decision regardmg defimtion of design basis threat and number of armed responders, even though those portions also contam mini-mal amount of specific information concernmg secunty plan at another nuclear plant.
45
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTitE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICFNSING BOARDS C
Where C3mmission previously authorized release of two portions of restr cted Appeal Board decision to attorneys for mtervenor county government. the sarae portions of that @cie on will be re.
1 leased to intervenor's consultants / experts who have riled testimony on the areas discussed in the j
Apreal Board decision.
t D
Release of poruons of restncied Appeal Board decision to miervennr's consultants / experts will be conditioned upon their execut on of af6 davits of non-disclosure of the plant physwal secunty informanon contained in ihat decision.
E Secunty plans for nuclear plants are deemed to be commercial or financal inform 4uon pur-suant to 10 CFR 62.790td) and may only be disclosed to counsci and expert witnesses who have a need to k now after apphcanon ofa balancmg of mterests test.
LBP-82 81 DUKE pow ER COMPANY (Perkins Nuclear Stauon Units 1. 2 and 3. Docket Nos.
STN-50-488. ST N-50-489. ST N-50-490. CONST R UCTION PE R MIT; September 20.1982. M EMO-R ANDUM AND ORDER AUTilORIZING WITilDR AW AL OF APPLICATION FOR CON-STRUCTION PERMIT w ITilOUT PR EJU DICE A
The Lwensms Board authonzes the withdrawal without prejudge of the apphcation for con-strucuon permits for the Perkms Nuclear Stauon. denies Intersenors' monon to dismiss the Perkins apphcanon with prejudice. and denies the Intervenors' request for attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
B Licensing Boards under 10 CFR 2.707(al may authonic the withdrawal of an application after the notre of hearms hasissued on such terms asit may prestnbe but any terms presenbed must be related to eny legal harm to parues or t he pubhe that a withdrawal m ould cause.
C Federal rules Inor withdrawal without prejudwe where no party well be harmed thereby The powbihty of another hearmg on the application standing alone does not consutute legal harm, and does not m itself justify a condinonal withdrawal. Fed. R. Civ P. 41 e4H I), (2), LeCompie v. Mr.
Chip. Inc. 578 F 2d 601,604 t $th Cir.1976L D
A Licensmg Board may attach reasonable wnditions on a withdrawal without preludice to pro-tect parties and pubhc from legal harm; or ificgal harm is unascidable, the Licensing Board may order a dismisul msth prejudwe but only to the e ntent necesury to asmd legal harm E
The Applwant would hae the opuon of selectmg renonable condiuons on a withdrawal with-out prejudwe. mcludmg the pay ment of mtervenors' attorneyi fees, or 4 withdrawal with prejudge as to specinc issues. YotTe v. Keller Indus.,Inc. 580 F 2d 126,131, n.1315 th Cir.1978 L F
A dauncuon must be made between the Amencan rule whwh bars an award of attorney's fees to the prevaihng party absent a speci6c statute authonzing payment, as recon 6rmed m Alyeska Pipe-hne Serv. v w nderaew Soc.,421 U.S 240 t 1975), and requirms the reimbursement of attorney's fees as a condiuon of withdrawal of an apphcation without prejudice The lauer is not an award for wmning any thmg, but is to use a party from the espense and etTort of prepanng a defense twice because of the withdrawal without prejudice.
G There is nothmg about NRC pracuce and regulanons whwh bars the payment of mone) as a condihon for mathdrawal of an apphcanon n ethout prejudwe.
II An unusual situauon prevails in att NRC proceedmg with respect to a dismissal m that iI) it is a mandatory hcensing proceedmg not a simpic adversar) htiganon and (2) the dismisulis sought after a heanng and decision on Ihe ments.
I Where an mtervenor has lost on the ments of an issue, it mill surTer no legal harm from a dis-moul of an apphcanon without prejudice, because the worst that can beset an intersenorin that case is that it will be atTorded an unearned second opportumty to prevail on the issue.
J Intersenors hne standmg to seek a dismisul math prejudge and attorney's fees. Subsumed in the nght to mtersene mith N RC proceedmgs is the nght to enpoy the bene 6ts of the ensurmg huganon; to preserse any Swtory Ivr later use in a renewed htigation. or to be saved from legal harm if the need arnes agam to htigate an issue upon w hwh mter5 eners pres ailed.
LBP 82-82 LONG ISLAND LIGitTING COMPANY IShoreham Nuclear Power Stanon. Unit I).
Docket No 50 322 OL t Emergency Planningt. OPERATING LICENSE. September 22, 1982.
MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON LILCO'S MOTION TOCOMPEL DISCOVERY OF SLFI-OLK COL NTY EMERGENCY PL ANNING DOCUMENTS A
The Licensmg Board rules on claims of attorney-chent, work product and execuuse pnvaleges asserted by a governmental intersenor in opposanon to two dncovery requests from apphcant for the productmn ofcertam emergency planning documents 46
- ~.
4 4
J DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICEN5ING BOARDS B
Pursuant to 10 CFR 12.741(d), the party upon whom a request for the production of docu-ments is served must sers e upon the requestmg party, within 30 days after service of the request. a re-l sponse statmg either that the requested inspection and copying will be permitted, er statmg reasons j
m hy the requested discovery is objectionable. Pursuant to 10 CFR (2.740(f)(1), an evasive or incom-j plete answer or response shall be treated as a fadure to answer or respond.
C A pany opposms a discovery request need not seek a protective order, pursuant to 10 CFR l2.740(c), so long as he does respond to the request by objectms. In ruims upon a motion to compel made m accordance with 12.740(f), however, a board is empowered to make such a protective order as et would make upon a motion made pursuant to {2.740(c). A party objectmg to the production of a i
document on grounds of pnvilege therefore has the obhgation to specify in its response to a document request those same matters which it would be required to set forth m attemptmg to estabhsh " good cause" for the issuance of a protective order.
D What constitutes " good cause'* for the issuance of a protective order depends upon the kmd of protective order being sought In order to show good cause for the issuance of a protective order, pur-suant to 10 CFR (2.740f c), to avoid the disclosure of documents for which an evidentiary pnvilege is claimed, a party must specifically designate and descnbe i D the documents claimed to be pnvileged, (2) the privilege bems asserted and (3) the precise reasons why the party beheves the priWiege to apply to such documents.
E A party assertmg certain documents to be pnvileged from discovery must bear the burden of provmg that it is entitled to such protection, see in re Fischel,557 F.2d 209 (9th Cir.1977), and this in-cludes picading such claims adequately m its response. Claims of pnvilege must be specifically asserted with respect to p>rticular documents, and may not be raised by blanket objection that all matters which could fit a particular document request are pnvilege. See Umted States v. El Paso Company, No.
812484(5thCir. August 13,1982); UmLed States v. Davis,636 F.2d 1028,1044, n.20 (5th Cir.198 D l
This is because discovery pnvileges are not absolute, and may or may not apply to a particula, document,dependmg upon a vanety ofcircumstances.
F It is not sufficient for a party assertmg certain documents to be pnvileged from discovery to await a motion to compel from the party seekmg discovery prior to settmg forth its assertions of privi-lege and identifying those matters which it claims to be pnvileged. Such a practice places an unfair burden upon the party seekmg discovery and occasions unnecessary delays. Claims of pnvilege are un-timely unless asserted in the response to the discovery request.
O Pursuant to 10 CFR (2.740f b)(ll, parties may generally obtain discovery "regardmg any rr.atter, not pnvileged, w hich is reles ant to the subject matter in the proceedmg.
" While the only discovery pnvilege codified in the NRC regulations is the work produ6 tion doctnne, the Commissson decision to model l2.740(b) after R ule 26f b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure imphcitly adopt-ed those pnvileges which have been recognized by FederalCourtsinterpretms Rule 26f b).
j H
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not themselves directly apphcable to practice t
befcre the Commission.Judiciat interpretation of a Federal R ule can serve as guidance for the interpre-tstion o' a similar or analogous NRC discovery rule. Toledo Edison Company, et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), ALAB 300,2 N RC 752,760 (1975),Cinemnati Gas & Electnc Company, et I,
al. (Wm. H. Zimmer N uclear Power Station, Umt I), LBP-82 47,15 N RC 1538,1542 (1982).
I The purpose of the attorney chent pnvilege is to encourage.ull and frank commumcation be-tweca attorneys and their chents and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of i
law and admmistration ofjustice. Upjohn Co. v. United States,449 U.S. 383,3fi9 (198 I L An attorney's involvement in, or recommendation of a transaction does not place a cloak of secrecy around allinci-dents of such a transaction. In re Fischel,557 F.2d 209,212 (9th Cir.1977). The attorney-chent privi-lege does not protect disclosure of the underlying facts commumcated to the attorney. Upjohn,449 U.S. at 395. A commumcation from the attorney to the client should be privileged only if the chent had a reasonable espectation in the confidentiahty of the statement,if at was necessary to obtain informed r
legal advice and might not have been made absent the pnvilege. Ohio-Scaly Mattress Manufacturms Company v. Kaplan,9 F R D. 21,28 (N.D. Ill 1980L i
J The fact that a document is authored by in-house counsel, rather than by an independent l
attorney, is not relevant to a determmation of whether such a document is privileged. In such cases, however, the pnvilege protects only commumcations revealing confidences of the chent or seeking I
l 47 1
a i
3 i
i
- c. -. -... -
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS legal advice, not matters relating solely to the conduct of the chent's bunness. O'Brien v. Board of Education of City School District of City of New Y;:k,8611R.D. 548,5M (S D.N.Y.1980);la re Fischel,557 F.2d 209,21I (9th Cir.1977).
K To be privileged from discovery by the work product doctrine, as codified in 10 CFR
{2.740(b)(2), a document must be both prepared by an attorney, or by a person working at the direc-hon of an attorney, and prepared in anticipation of litigation. " Ordinary work product " which does not include the mental impressions, conclusions, legal theories or opmions of the attorney or his agents, may be obtained by an adverse party upon a showing of " substantial need of the materials in preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equiva-lent of the materials by other means." 10 CFR 52.740(b)(2). Opinion work product is not discoverable, so long as the material was in fact prepared by an attorney or his agent in anucipation of litigation, and not assembled in the ordinary course of busmess, or pursuant to pubhc requirements un-related tolitigauon. In re Murphy,560 F.2d 326,334-336 (8th Cir.1977).
L Cases decided under Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, which relates to inter-agency or intra-agency letters or memoranda, may be looked to for guidance in resolving claims of ex-ecutive pnvilege in N RC proceedings related to discovery. Wlule the discovery rules for claims of ex-ecutive pnvilege "can only be applied under Exempoon 5 by way of rough analogies," EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73,86 (1973), the similanties between these matters are suflicient such that Esemption 5 cases may be used as guidance, taking a common sense approach which recognizes any dilTering equi-nes presented in FOI A cases. See Mink,410 U.S. at 91. FOI A cases, for example, do not consider a party's need for requested documents. NLRB v. Sears,421 U.S.132,149 n.16 (1975).NRC FOIA cases do consider the pubhc interest of such disclosures, however. See Consumers Power Company (Pahsades N uclear Power Facility), ALJ-80-1,12 N RC ll7,122 126 t 1980) and cases cited therein.
M A governmental intervenor does not waive its claims of esecuuve pnvilege by its participetion as a htigant in an NRC proceeding. Consumers Power Company (Palisades Nuclear Power Facility),
ALJ-801,12 NRC ll7,127128 (1980).
N The pnvilege against disclosure ofintrasovernment documents contairung advisory opinions, recommendauons and dehberations is a part of the broader esecutive pnvilege. Its purpose is to en-courage frank discussions within the government regarding the formulation of policy and the making of decisions. Documents shielded by execuuve privilege remain pnvileged even after the decision to which they pertain has been effected, smce such disclosure at any time could inhibit the free flow of advice. Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System v. Merni,443 U.S. 340,360, (1979).
O The executive privilege is a quahfied privilege, and does not attach to purely factual commumcations, or to severable factual portions of commumcations, the disclosure of which would not compromise mihtary or state secrets. Furthermore, even commumcations which fall within the protection of the pnvilege may be disclosed upon an appropnate showing of need. An objective balanc-ing test is used to determine a pany's need for such documents, weighing the importancs of the docu-ments to the party seekms their product on, and the availabihty elsewhere of the information con-tamed in the documents, agamst the government interest in secrecy. United States v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,542 F.2d 655,658-659 (6th Cir.1976), cert. denied,430 U.S. 945 (1977).
LBP-82-83 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (General Electric Morns Operation), Docket No.
70-1308 (Application to Modify License No. SNM 1265 to increase Spent Fuel Storage Capacity);
OPERATING LICENSE AM ENDM ENT; September 21.1982; ORDER GR ANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPLICATION AND DISMISSING PROCEEDING WITHOUT PREJUDICE LBP-82-84 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND G AS COMPANY, et al. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1) Docket No. 50 395-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; September 24,1982; MEMO-RANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensing Board demes intervenor's request for a stay of the initial decision authc.nzing the issuance of an operatmg hcense, and grants intervenor's further request for leave to reply to N RC Staff *s and appiicants' oppostions to intervenor's request to reopen proceeding.
B In determming whether to grant a stay to reopen the proceeding after the initial decision has issued, the Licensing Board will consder the same four factors specified by 10 CFR 12.788(e) relatmg to stays pending appeal.
43
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS C
If an intervenor cannot present his case, the proper method to insutute a proceeding by w hich the NRC would conduct its own invesugetion is to request acuon under 10 CFR 12.206. It is not the Licensms Boyd's funct on to assist intervenors in preparms their cases and searchmg for their empert witnesses.
LDP-82-85 PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (DiabloCanyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 90-275-OL,50 323-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; September 27,1982; MEMO-RANDUM IN RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR CLA RIFICATION OF TH E LICENS-ING BOARD'S INITI AL DECISION D ATED AUGUST 31,1982 A
in response to an NRC Staff motion, the Licensing Board clanfies censin matters pertamma to its initial Decision of Ausust 31,1982.
d LBP-82 86 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Uma No 1),
Docket No. 50 289; RESTART. September 29.1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board rules that it is without junsdichon to rule on intervenor's monon to reopen the record after issuance of the Board's imtial decision on the subject of the motion.
B After the issuance of a hcensirig board's miual decision on a parucular issue. e nclusivesunsdic-hon over the issue hes with the appeal board. Section 2 717(a) of the Rules of Pracuce is reconcilable with {2.718(J) in that the identity of the presiding officer with exclusive junsdicuon over a parucular issue changes as the proceedmg moves up the appe!! ate ladder. The parues should not be able to bestowjunsdiction on a presidmg officer by selecung the tnbunal for the rehef sought by a monon.
LBP-82 87 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electnc i
Statum, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-4-5,50-446; OPER ATING LICENSE; September 30,1982; ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIC N A
The Licensms Board d.rects the 5 aff to identify by name individuals idenufied by letter of the alphabet in an inspechon report which the itaff mtroduced m evidence, and to produce unexpurgated copies of signed statements taken from Ihose mdmduals. If the Staff fails either to comply with or seek appellate review of this order, the Licensing Board indicates it will impose sancuons upon Staff counsel.
B Informer's pnvilege applies only to those w ho confidentially volunteer information to govern-ment officials charged with enforcmg a law, not to everyone interviewed during the course of an ensu-mginvesugation.
C A single request for confidentiahty cannot be used to shield an enure investigauon from scruti-nyin an adjudicatory settmg.
D lt es improper for the NRC Staff to attempt to dictate to the Licensing Board what matters it may or may not consider. The Licensing Board is the solejudge ofits informational needs and is not re-quiced to act merely as an umpire cathng balls and sinkes.
E The Licensms Board has the right and duty to develop a full record for decision-making in the pubhc interest. The independence and inlesrity of hcensms boards is fundaraental to due process.
F Congress has authonzed the N RC to provide heanngs upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the licensing process and to estabhsh hcensms boards to conduct such heanngs.
G The R ules of Pracuce in Part 2 of 10 CFR are the method by which N RC ensures that all parties are provided proceJural as well as substantive due process.
H Parnes and their representatives are espected to conduct themselves before a licensing board as they would tn ' ore a court oflaw.
I A licens is board is empowered to impose sanctions for a party's failure to obey or seasonably appeal from its order, even if the behavior is based upon the party's beheIthat the orcer is invahd.
LBP 82 88 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (Point Beach Nedear Plant, Umts I and 2).
Docket Nos.50-266-OLA,50-301 OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; October l.1982; i
MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board grants summary dispossuon as to all contested issues except whether eddy current testing is sufficiently rehable to detect potennally dangerous through-wall cracks in sleeves inserted within corroded steam generator tubes. nnd a related issue whether the eddy current tests are necessary to assure the safety of the repaired steam generator.
h f
I 49 a
I 3
r h
,_,.,..y-s
--. - ~,
O DIGESTS ISSUt.NCES OFTHE ATOMICSAFF.TY AND LICENSING BOARDS 8
Summary disposition is granted with respect to: (1) several contentions found to be irre'e-want to the sleeving demonstration progren W a contention concernmg the unreliability of tempo-rary workers, and 0) a contentiun concerning the safety of the steam generator during sleeving. These -
latter tuo contentions were dismissed because there was no evidence that they presented genuine issues. The temporary workers contenuon was based on expenence at an entirely different nuclear plant and did not directly question sleeving procedures to be used at Pomt Beach. The loose parts con-tenuon was dismissed because all of the planned work will be done on the pnmary side, so that loose parts cannot be left on the secondary side where they might cause mechanical damage.
C When a hcensms board directs the filing of a motion for htigable issues in order to offset a pro-(edural advantage enjoyed by an intervenior, that motion is governed by the same procedural rules ap-plicable ti a motion for summary disposition, except that the intervenor has the burden of going forward. Intervenor's nghts are not prejudiced because it ernoys ample opportunity to demonstrate the i
esistence of genuine issues of fact, includmg the nght to filc a reply, under this procedure.
D Although the procedural rules require the fding of separate statements of genume issues of fact in response to a motion for summary disposition, there may be no prejudice to the other parties from fadure to follow this precise requirement, under circumstances where intervenor's fihnss specify its allegations and provide authonty for them. Unless the parties are prejudiced by this techmcal deficiency, it is not appropnate to provide a remedy for this lapse.
E trrelevant contentions mast be dismissed in the course of a decision on summary disposition.
In an amendment proceeding concermns repair of steam generator tubes, contenuons concermng the elTect of steam generator tube ruptures (without estabhshms a basis for believmg the ruptures will occur), the possibehty ofimpermissible radianon releases, alleged dangers from pre-e mistmg euploshe plugs, and embntt!ement of the reactor pressure vessel are irrelevant to the sleeving apphcation.
F A letter, purportedly sent on applicant's letterhead stationery by a trusted professional employee, is sufDcient basis for establishms the existence of a genuine issue of fact for the purpose of summary disposition. In the absence of a direct challenge to the authenticity of the letter,intervenor need not establish the admissibthty in evidence of this letter in order to prevail at the summary dispose tion stage.
G An Atomic Safety and Licensmg Board requires the filirig of clearly wntten, logically con-structed findmgs of fact that discuss the proper interpretation of all the testimony in light of applicable law and regulations.
H When a substanuve issue suruves summary disposition, the hearms should not only address the truth of that issue but should euplore its implications for rehef, either in the form of a license conds-uon ordemalof a hcense.
I The following techmcal issues are discussed: Eddy current testing-steam generator; Stress corrosion crackms - steam generator; Intergranular attack - steam generator; Thermal treatment of stainless steel to retard cor osion; Steam generator tube integnty; Steam generator repair, Steam generator - loose parts Steam generator - leak before break.
LBP-82,89 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I & 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441 OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; October 6,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
When apphcant objects to the admission of a late-filed con;ention, intervenors may file a response. This response should not, however, be an excuse for omittmg necessary matenals from the initial rhng of the late-filed contention. If mtervenors raise new issues m their response, the applicant should have an opportumty to respond to those.
B Intervenors should be perrnitted to respond to applicant's objections to their late-filed contenuons. Apphcant may respond to new matenal found in the response.
C When a party introduces new matenal into a filing, opposing parues should have an opportune ty tocomment on the new matenal.
LBP-82-90 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. fPerry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2) Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; October 8,1982, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licer.sms Board admits a late filed contention concerning inadequate consideration of economic consequences of accidents. The contention's basis was found in a recently published study that employed input output analysis to esumate the effects of a possible nuclear accident at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Because this appeared to have been the first time such an analysis had been 50
t DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BO4RDS I
employed, and because the use of the analysis might require amendment of a portion of the Final Envi-ronmental Siatement. it was considered to contribute to good cauw for late fihng B
The use of a new techmque for the economic modelhng of nuclear accidents may furmsh good j
cause for late fihng of a challenge to the treatment of economic costs ofaccidents m the Final Environ-1
- mental $tatement..
1 C
The following technicalissues are discussed: Cosis of nuclear accidents f use ofinput output I
C a nah sis), lnput-output analysis of costs of nuclear accidents.
LBP 82 91 HOUSTON LIGHTING AN D POWER COM PANY, et al. (South Texas Project, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE, October 15, 1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board grants the motion of an intersenor to adopt one of the contentions of another intervenor that has withdrawn from the proceedmg but demes the motion to adopt four other contentions ofIhe departed interwenor. The Board alsodismisses seseral other proposed contentions B
The withdrawal of a party from an operatmg license proceedmg normally serves to remove that party's contentions from the proceedmg (at least msofar as those contentions hate not yet been i
heard).
C
- Contentions filed later than 15 days pnor to the special prehearms conference in an operstmg hcense proceedmg are considered as late-Gled Escept m hmited circumstances.they may be admitted only upon a fasorable balancmg of all of the five factors set forth in 10 CFR 62.714(aH D. Where l
" good cause" for failure to Gle on time 4 factor (iH has not been demonstrated, a contention may still 2.
be accepted, but the burden ofjustify mg acceptance of a late contenuon on the basis ofIhe ogher factors isconsiderably greater.
D.
The " good cause" factors of 10 CFR 62 714(aH D apply equally to the admissibihty of both t.
late-filed macrsention petitions arid late-Gled contentions.
E The required balancmg of the " lateness" factors of 10 CFR 42.714f aH D is not obviated by the circumstance that the proffered contemions are those of a participant that has withdrawn from the proceedmg Gulf States Usihties Company iRiver Bend Stanon. Umts I and 2) ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,795-98(1977).
F Even where the lateness factors of 10 CFR (2.714f aH I) are balanced in favor of admitting a 1
late filed contenuon, a tardy pchuoner with no good excuse for lateness may be required to take the i
proceedir.g asit Gnds it.
G A mourn of a pro se mtervenor to adopt late-filed comennons is not to be held to those stan-dards of clanty and precision to e hoch a lawyer's Ghng might reasonably be e a rected to adhere.
H The withdrawal of one party does not constitute " good cause" for the belated delay of a peti-tioner in seeking to subsutute itself for the withdrawing party, or in seekms to adopt the withdrawing partiscontentions.
LBP-82 92 MISSISSIPPI POWER AND LIGHT COM PANY, et al IGrand Gulf Nuclear Stanon.Umis t l
and 2). Docket Nos. 50-416-OL,50-417 OL ( ASLBP No 82-476-04-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE, October 20,1982. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER DENYING STATE OF LOUISI AN A'S PETI-TION FOR INTE R\\ ENTION A
The Licensmg Board demes an unumely petition to intervene Gled by the State of Louisiana in i
a previously uncontested matter.
B A bcensms board hasjurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 12.717(a) to rule on an untimely pennon to imervene even though the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation already has issued a low power 1
operatmg hcense.
C Where a state seeks to intervene and attain pany status pur=uant to 10 CFR 62.714faHD E
rather than participate as an interested state pursuant to 10 CFR 62.71$fc),its unumely petition toin-
)
tervene will be evaluated under the cnteria for nontimely petitions to intervene set forth in 3
92.714(aH D.
I D
in evaluaims the factors enumerated in 10 CFR 62.714 f a) for late-filed pennons, the Board j
finds that the State of Louisiana failed to estabhsh good cause for its late-fihng, oiTered no showmg of its abihty to make a substantial contnbution to the record, and sought to espand the issues and delay the proceedmg. The Board demes the peution to intervene because the abose factors outweighed the findmg that no other means were available to protect the State's interest and no other party would rep-
[
d resent that mterest.
)
I i
51 1
{
4 4
,-,.,m-.
-,,.~.....-_..-.---~-_,a,
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOF THE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BO.AAS E
Because the D C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion to stay the issuance ofits mandate in N RDC v. N RC,685 F.2d 459 (D C. Cir.1982), fin which it found Table S-3 to be invahd) and sub-sequentfy a petitim for certiorari was filed in the Supreme Court, Table S-3 rema ns m iorce and, pur-e suant to 10 CFR l2.758, this Board is unable to consider challenges to its validity.
LBP 82-92A PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY flimenck Generating Station, Umts I and 2),
Docket Nos. 50-352, 50-35); OPERATING LICENSE; October 20, 1982; CONFIRMATORY MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensing Board denies a motion by an intervenor to postpone a hearms covering limited en vironmental issues related Io the supple mentary coolitig wster system.
B A licensms board in an operating license proceedmg does not in the first instance control the construction schedule. Nor is a decision by that licensing board necessary before construction can com-mence when that constructson is the subject ofa previously issued Final Environment Statement.
C A hcensms board may hold a hearing in advance ofissuance of an environmental impact state.
ment on hmited environmentalissues concerning impacts of operation of an unbuilt part of the plant when such a heanns could facihtate implementation of any measures found necessary to mitigate operational environmental impacts. The licensing board will not address the ultimate cost /beneGt NI-ance at that time.
LBP-82 93 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UCLA Research Reactor).
Docket No. 50-142-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE R EN EW AL; October 22,1982; M EMOR AN DU M ANDORDER A
On consideration ofintervenor's motion to summanly dismiss motions for summary disposi-tion of all contentions, or alternative relief, on the grounds that the motions are a misuse of the sum ma y dtsposition process and a delaying factor under 10 CFR {2.749(a), Licensing Board adopts a bifurcated procedure for consideration cf motior.s for summary disposition. Motion to dismiss mo-tions for summary disposition is demed.
B The provisions of 10 CFR 62.749(a) which authonze a licensing board to summanly dismiss motions for summary disposition Hled shortly before the hearing commences or dunng the heanns if the other parties on the board would be required to divert substantial resources from the hearing in order to respond is not apphcable to such motions Gled in advance of the settmg of a hearing schedule.
C Motions for summary disposition resolve, on the ments, contentions =hich involve no factual disputes. This requires a determination of, first, the facts about which there is no genuine dispute, and second, the legal consequences nowmg from those facts.
D Wheg motions for summary disposition are filed against essentially all contentions, the sum-mary di position process can be managed better by requinrig the parties to imtially address the ques-tion of = %ch facts are not in dispute and to defer their arguments as to the legal consequences flowing from the Je facts.
LBP-82 94 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generatmg Star'on, Unit I), Docket No 50-466-C6 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; October 28,1982; ORDER LBPJ2 95 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Units I and 2) Docket Nos. 50-329
-OM&OL,50-330-OM&OL; OPERATING LICENSE AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MODIFI-CATIONORDER; October 29,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensing Board accepts a portion of a new contention founded upon information in the StafT's recently issued Final Environmental Statement.
B Where the cost-benefit balance appeanns in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) re-flects modifications to the benefit, but not the cost, components of the balance appearms in the Draft Environmental Statement t DES), the entire cost-benefit balance m the FES is considered to be new information for purposes of ruling on contentions assertedly based on new information m the FES.
C There is no requirement that any quantum ofsupportmg data be provided in the FES.
D
" Sunk costs" are not appropnately consideres* in an operstmg hcense cost-benefit balance.
They should not be utihzed with respect to either the cost or the benefit sede of the balance.
LBP-82 96 THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, et al (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Unit 2),
Docket No. 50-341; OPERATING LICENSE; October 29,1982,1NITIA L DECISION A
In this imtial Decision, the Director of N uclear Reactor Regulation is authonzed to issue a full-power operstmg license. The Board found no ment in the intervenor's contentions, which alleged that site secunty was inadequate dunns construction, that quahty assurance was inadequate, that a pnme contractor was improperly replaced, that there were flaws in construction, and that the evacuation 52
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS route was inadequate for residents of a small community near the reactor. The Board denied an un-timely petition by Monroe County, Michigan, to intervene in the proceeding.
B An evacuation route may tie adequate despite the fact that persons using it must trevel toward the reactor for a short destance before trav* ling away from the reactor.
C In judgms an untimely petition under 10 CFR 62.714(a), a petition which lacks good cause for delay, will broeden the issues, and will delay the proceeding, will be denied, despite the fact that no other party will represent the petitioner's asserted interest.
LBP 82 97 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Pomt Plant) Docket No. 50-155; SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; October 29,1982;INITIALDECISION A
The Licensing Board rules that applicant must amend its application to comply with Commis-soon smdance that the neutron multiplication factor (keg) in the proposed expansion ofits spent fuel pool must not under any conditions, includmg entremely low densities of water, esceed 0.95. In tius plant, the spent fuel pool is withm the containment, and the Board required a showing that kegwould not exceed 0.95 even after substantial boil-oKoccurred, as it might during a TMI-2 type incident ac.
companied '>y a loss of cochng in the fuel pool. The Board also requires analysis of a very low weser density environment, characterized as a " mist," in which there appears to be a possibility that supercri-ticahty magnt be achieved. Apphcant's argument that the mest environment should be governed by regulations permitting a k gof 0 98 for dry fuelis rejected by the Board.
e B
Expansion of racks in a p, ant in which the spent fuel poolis withm the containment must meet the requirement that kegnot exceed 0.95 even under conditions of pool boiling or of very low density weer.
C The following techn calissues are discussed: kegective (spent fuei pool); Nei. tron multaph.
cation factor (spent fuel poo0; Spent fuel pool (k g); Temperature (eNect on k gin spent fuel pool);
e e
Void formation (eNect on k gin spent fuel pool); Water densety (eNect on k gin spent fuel pool).
e e
LBP-82 98 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts 1 & 2) Docket Nos. 50-446-OL,50-441-OL: OPERATING LICENSE; October 29,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Board admits three late filed contentions, dealing with risks to control systems from tur-
. bme missiles, the l'eed for in-core thermocouples to indicate the adequacy of core cooling, and the abihty to detect and mitigate steam erosion in valves and piping. One contention, deshng with con-cerns raised by a former General Electric Company engineer about the integrity of the containment, is denied without prejurhce to renling. Contentions about the thermal hydraulac response of the core to a seismic event and about the proper fire-suppression system for the control room are excluded.
B
- The Board rules that good cause for late-fihng may be furnished when the StaNchanges a prior poution on an issue. Although this may not aFect the availallehty of knowledge about the issue,it does anect an intervenor's reasonable decisions about how to manage its resources.
C In this case, the Board estabhshed the special rule that intervenors must file rephes to appli-cant's arguments concerning the admissiblity of late-filed contentions. If an intervenor's required reply does not address sections of the FSAR indicated by the applicant to be dispositive of a late-filed contsntion, the Board will accept apphcant's version of the facts. However, apphcant may not shift the burden ofgoing forward in this manner to the intervenor by refemns to a document that is not availa-ble to the Board.
D The change of a stan position on an issue can contribute to good-cause for late fihns of a con-tention because it aNects intervenor's reasonable management decissoais about where to concentrate
. itsresources.
E The following technical issues are discussed-Contamment design (concerns of Mr. John Humphrey); ENect of seismic events on core thermohydraulics; Fire suppression in the controt roose; In-core ;;,...--.- _.. _ _ Steem eromon - detection and mitigation; Turbine missiles.
LBP-82 99 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UCLA Research Reactor),
l Docket No. 50-142 OL; OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; November I,1982; MEMORAN.
j DUM ANDORDER A
The Licenssas Board rules on a discovety dispute between Intervenor Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) and the NRC Staffconcernmg a disagreernent on the scope of discovery to be permit-I ted on the subject of the professional associations of the authorsofa study on the Argonaut reactor pre-pared by the Battelle Memorial Institute for the N RC Staff. The Board orders a response to only those interrogatones which need to be answered in order to assess the professional credibihty of one of the l
53 I
l h
4 DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS i
consultants. The Board denies as unlikely to lead to admissible evidence CBG's request to order the authors of the study to reply to those questions which seek to probe the consultants' personal f
acquaintances.
B A StafTconsultant's opinion may not be disquahfied on the ground of bias when the views ex-pressed are formed in the course of performing the advisor's proper functions for the agency. Rom-bough v. Federal Aviation Administration,594 F.2d 893,900 (2d Cir.1979);Starr v. Federal Aviation Administration,589 F.2d 307,315 (7th Cir.1978). When the opmion is formed as a result ofwork per-formed for an NRC licensee, however, the possibility of bias cannot be automatically dismissed.
LBP-82-100 LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Umt 3), Docket No. 50-382-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; November 3,1982; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION A
The Licensing Board issues its first of two partial initial decisions on the application for an l
operating license for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3. The Board commends to the Com-mission the Board's discussion of unresolved genenc safety issue A 45, Shutdown Decay Heat Removal B
At the operatmg hcense stage, a licensing board passes only upon contested matters; however, it has the residual power to delve sua sponte into any serious matter which has not been put into issue by a party. Once an operating license board has resolved any contested issues as well as a,ny issues raised sua sponte, the decision as to all other matters which need to be considered pnor to the issuance of the operating license is the responsibihty of the N RC Staff and st alone.
C A licensms board must refrain from scrutinizing the substance of particular explanations in the SER justifying operation of a plant pnor to the resolution of an unresolved generic safety issue. The Board should only look to see thether the genenc issue has been taken into account in a manner that is at least plausible and that, if proven to be of substance, would be adequate tojustify operation. Virgima Electnc and Power Cory.pany (North Anna Nuclear PowerStation, Units I and 2), ALAB-491,8 NRC 245(1978).
D It would bit inappropnate for a licensing board to sciicit evidence to resolve definitively an unresolved genene safety issue assessed by the NRC Staff, when the issue is also being actively pur-i sued by Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Cf. Cincinnati Gas and Electnc Company, et al.
(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Urut No.1), CLI-82-20,16 N RC 109 (1982).
E There is no standard forjudgmg the adequacy ofevacuation routes; nor has a mimmum evacu-ation time been set. However, estimates are required of the amount of time needed to evacuate the entire population withm the plume exposure EPZ over the presently existing roads. Smce such esti-mates form the basis for protective action decisions, the estimates must be reasonably reliabte.
F Emergency plannmg is a continuous process, and a hcensms board's findings are predictive. If plans are su!Ticiently detailed and concrete to provide a licensms board reasonable assurance that they can and will be implemented in the event of an emergency, then implementation of details can proper.
ly be overseen by the NRCStaff.
G 10 CFR Part 50, App. E.,IF.1 requires a penodic full-scale emercise which tests as much of the emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory pubhc participation. This section pre-cludes a licensms board from requinns pubhc evacuation dunns an escrcise.
H Other protective measures, such as sheMnng and admmistration of radioprotective drugs. do not obviate plans for timely evacuation of special populations.
I License conditions that require only a purely objective determination are appropnate for post-heanng ministenai resolution by the N RC Staff, reopemns the record is not warranted.
3 Synergistic effects are exceedingly unhkely to occur at the very low levels of radiation calculat-i l
ed to result from releases of gaseous and hquid efiluents dunns normal plant operation. Further, even l
if synergistic effects did occur, they would be so small as to be climcally undetectable. Therefore, Ap-j plicant and the N RC Staff dad oc' err in fashns to assess synergistic effects. N EPA's requirement that environmental efTects of a proposed agency action be descnbed is subject to a rule of ressun. An agency need not foresee the unforeseeable. Scientists' institute for Pubhc '. formation v. Atomic Energy Commission,481 F.2d 1079,1092 (D C.Cir.1973).
K The environmental statement may be deemed amended pro 'anto to include our findings and conclusions. Allied-General Nuclear Services, et al. (Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant Separations Facihty), ALAB-2%,2 NRC 671 (1975); 10LYR 651.52(b)(3).
54
[
l i
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS L
The following technicet issues are discussed. Consideration of genene safety questions in the safety evaluation report (Shutdown decay heat removal, Seismic quahfication of equipment);
Emergency plans (Evacuation plans, Protective measures - radioprotective drugs (potassium iodide)); Synergism (Low-level radiation releases Multiphcative interaction of low-level radiation and chemicalcarcinogens).
LBP-82-101 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Pahsades Nuclear Power Facility), Docket No.
50-255-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; November 8,1982; ORDER OF DISMISSAL A
The Licensmg Board dismisses the operating igense amendment proceedmg where the sole intervenor defaults in faihng to attend a prehearing conference and faihng to respond to a show cause order.
B in an operating hcense amendment matter, where an intervenor has been admitted as a party and subsequently fails to attend a scheduled preheanns conference or give notice or explanation for such failure and, thereafter, fails to respond to an order to show cause,it w'll be founs' to be in default, dismissed as a party, and its previously admitted contentions will be dismissed.
LBP-82-102 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Units I & 2), Docket Nos. 50440-OL,50 441 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; November 8, 1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board reviews a set ofinterrogatories addressed to the Staticoncernmg the Standby Liquid Control System Contention. The Board finds that certam questions are irrelevant be-cause they relate to Anticipated Transient Without Scram generally, and not to the admitted contention. However, the Board decides that mtervenor is seekms necessary information and phrases its own questions so that information necessary to a complete record can be obtained in an effrient manner, without unduly burdenmg Staff.
B Intervenor may obtam information about other, arguably analogous plants in the course of discovery.
C When the Board's review of ti e intervenor's interrogatones persuades it that there may be substantial gaps in the record resultmt rom these requests, the Board may phrase its own questions to f
fill the gaps.
D The followmg technicalissues a.
' scussed: Standby Liquid Control System; H uman Error; Anticipated Transient without Scram.
LBP 82103 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, et al. (Clinton Power Stanon Unit No. l) Dr,cket No.
50-461 OL; OPER ATING LICENSE, November 10,1982; MEMOR ANDU M AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board admits two supplemental contentions submitted by the Intervenor, and it denies admission of seven contenuons by the Intervenor and two issues proposed for htigation by the State ofIlhnois. The Board also deletes one previously adnutted contention and grants a motion for summary disposition of one contention.
B Commission guidance in TMI l Restart, Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Ucit No.1), CL1-8016,11 NRC 674 (1980) permits the htigation of hydrogen con-trol in individual cases under 10 CFR Part 100 ifit is determined that there is a credible loss of coolant scenano entaihns hydrogen generation, hydrogen combustion, containment breach or leaking, and offsite radiation doses in e acess of the Part 100 guideline values. See Duke Power Company (Wilham B McGuire Nuclear Stauon, Units i and 2), LBP-81 13,13 NRC652 (1981) and ALAB-669,15 NRC 453 (1982); and Cleveland Electnc Illuminating Company, et at (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts 1
& 2), LBP-82 15,15 NRC 555 (1982) and ALAB-675,15 N RC 1105 (1982).
C Contentions related to rmancial quahfration of the Apphcant for a construction permit or an operating trenne for production or utilization faciliues shall not be considered. See 47 Fed. Res.13750 et seq. (March 31,1982) and revised 10 CFR l2.104(p)(1)(iii) and IO CFR l2.104(c)(4).
D The Appeal Board provides guidarace concernird the htigability of genene issues. In Gulf States Utihues Company (River Bend Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,773 (1977) it states-To estabhsh the requisite nexus between the permit or teense application and a MAR item (or Task Action Plan),it must generally appear both (1) that the undertaken or con.
templated project has safety segruficance insofar as the reactor under review is concerned, and (2) that the fashion in which the apphcation deals with the matter in question is unsausfactory, that because of th Isilve tr,cvisierMc9r ** m there has been an ir,-
$5 l
DIGESTS
{
ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING 80ARDS sufficien; assessment of a speciGc type of risk for the reactor, or that the short-term solu-tion offered in the apphcation to a problem under staff study is inadequate. (footrete omitted)
E New paragraph 10 CFR 651.53(c), effecuve March 22,1982, prohibits admission of conten-tions pro (Tered by a party concerning need for power or alternate energy sources for the proposed plant in operating lacense heanngs. Ses 47 Fed. Reg. I2943 (March 26,1982).
F Contentions alleging psychological stress resulung from Commission-licensed activines must meet three critena: 1) the impact must consist of post-traumauc anxietics,2) the impact must be ac-compamed by physical efTecti, and 3) the post traumauc anxieties must have been caused by fears of recurnns catastrophe. See the Commission's stateme'nt of policy issued July 16,1982,47 Fed. Reg.
i 31762 (July 22,1982).
LBP-82104 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I & 2), Ducket Nos. 50 440 0L,50-441-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; November 15, 1982 MEMCRANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensing Board escludes intervenors' late-filed contenuon, based on a Science News arucle, concermns adverse effects on reactor operator performance caused by shift rotauon schedules that failed to account for " circadian rhythms " The Board excludes the contenuon prirnarily because there was substanual pre-existing knowledge that improper shift rotauons might cause fatigue and ad-versely affect operator performance and meervenor failed to show the sigmficance of the allegedly new information about " circadian rhythms."
8 The appearance of an article in a popular science pubhcanon could provide good cause for late films, but the intervenor must demonstrate the essent to which new informauon in the article difTers from previously available information. In addiuon, intervenor's discussion of the article must demonstrate its ability to contnbute to the development of a sound rect /d in the proceedmg.
C The following technical issues are discussed. Shift Rotation - Effect on Personnel Performance; Human Factors (Shift Rotauonh Circadian Rhythm (Effect on Efficiency of Operator Performance).
LBP 82-105 CON 5OLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Umt No. 21 and POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Pomt, Unit No. 3), Docket Nos.
50-247-SP,50-286-SP, SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 15, 1982. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board sets forth its final decision on the contentions to be litigated in this pro-ccedmg (eucept for emergency planmns issues), a schedule, and procedural matters related thereto.
B Licensees are required to show they have taken steps.o provide equivalent or better measures than called forin regulatory guides if they do not, m fact, comply with the speciGc requirements set forthin the su des.
C A Cornmisuon decision that residual radiauon health etTects may be litigated in an individual licensmg proceeding, even for plants which comply with 10 CFR Part 50 Appendia I,is apphcable to this special proceedmg Therefore, the Licensms Board may admit a contenuon concernmg the envi-ronmentalcosts associated enh the routme release ofradianos from the power plants.
LBP 82106 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AM PSHIRE, et al. ISeabrook Station, Umts I and 21 Docket Nos. 50-443 OL,50-444-OL ( ASLBP No. 82-471-02 OL);OPER ATING LICENSE.
November 17,1982; MEMOR AN DUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board denies monons for cernficanon of objections to its Prehearing Confer-ence Orden ru'ings on the admissibihty of contennons. The Licensing Board grants in part and demes in part monona for reconsideration of that order.
B Although smerlocutory appeal is generally prohibited,10 CFR 12.730(f), certificanon is per-mitted w here :t is shown that failure to resolve the issue immediately will cause detnment to the public mterest or unusualdelay orenpense.
C An interlocutory appeal wdl only be accepted where a Licensing Board's ruling either (1) threatened appellant with immediate and senous irreparable impact or (2) affected the basic structure of the proceedmg in a pervassve or unusual manner. Public Service Company ofIndiana, Inc. (Marble Hill N uclear Generaung station, Umts l and 2), A LA B-405,5 N RC 1890, l t 92 (1977).
D Cerurcation is parucularly mappropriate where the subject of the interlocutory appeal is a Licensmg Boa'd's rejechons of contenuor s. Project Management Corporation.Teniessee Valley Au-thorny iClinch River Breeder Reactor Plant, A LAB-326,3 N RC406 (1976).
56
2 i
4 DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING BOARDS E
A Licensms Board may treat an interlocutory appeal as a motion for reconsideration. Pubhc Service Company of Oklahoma, et al. tBlack Fox Stanon, Units I and 2), ALAB-370,5 NRC 131 (1977).
F 10 CFR 12.714 requires a peutioner to ses forth the bases for each contenuon with reasonable speciGcity. This standard requires that a contention be stated with paruculanty ( Alabama Power Co.
Ooseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant,Umtsi and 2) ALAB-183,7 AEC 210,216 (1974)),and that the petitioner state the " reasons" for its concern (Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Stauon, Umt I), ALAB-590,il NRC 542,548 (19801).The standard does not require the Licensing Board to address the ments of a contention when determimns its admissibih-i' Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Sianon, Umts l and 2), ALAB-130,6 AEC423,426 (1973))
ty (id ) and does not require the petsuoner to detail supportmg evidence (Mississippi Power and Light G
In dehneaung the reason (i.e., basis) for a contennon, an intervenor should estabbsh a nexus between the substance of the comention and the statutory and regulatory scope of a Licensms Boaid's concern To do so, an intervenor should allege with partculanty that a part of an apphcant's plant or operation thereof fails to comply with a spec Ged regulanon; or in the case w here there is a " regulatory gap," an intervenor should allege that such a regulatory gap exists and allege with partrularity facts that if proven would warrant concern. Where there is no allegation of non-compliance witn a specified 4
regulauon, a Licensing Board must discern whether a reasonably prudent person would be concerned by the contenuon. Consumers Power Co. IMidland Plant, Umts I and 21 CLI 74 5,7 AEC 19,32 n.27 (1974), rev'd sub nom., Aeschhman v. NRC,547 F.2d 622 (D C. Cir.1976), rev'd sub nom.,
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. N RDC,435 U.S. 519,553-54 (1978).
H Geners safety rssues may be the subject of a contention, but such a contention must establish a nesus between the issue and the license apphcation in particular, the contention must show that 1) the genenc issue has safety sigmficance for the particular reactor and 2) the fashson in w hich the apph-cation deals with the matter is unsatisfactory or the short-term solution offered to the problem under study is inadequate. Gulf States Uuhties Company (River Bend Station Units I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760 (I977).
I A Licensms Board's dechnation to rewnte inadmissible contentions does not constitute error.
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station,Umts l and 2), ALAB 226,8 AEC 381,406 (1974).
J 10 CFR 550 47(a)(2) precludes a Licensms Board from requinns ccmpleted preparedness ex, ercises pnor to a licensing decision; the secuon does not obvinte plannmg requirements.
l LBP-82107 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Umt 1),
Dockes No. 50-322-OL (Emergency Plannms); OPERATING LICENSE; November 19, 1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON LICENSING BOARD AUTHORITY TO DIRECT TH AT INITIAL EXAMINATION OF THE PRE-FILED TESTIMONY BE CONDUCTED BY M E ANS OF PREHEARING EX AMIN ATIONS A
The Licensms Board concludes that it has the authonty under the Admemstrauve Procedure Act, the Atome Energy Act and NRC Regulat ons to direct that the parties to the Shoreham operating hcensmg proceedmg conduct their imual cross-exammation, redirect and recross-exammauon with the respect to Phase 1 (pnmanly onsite) emergency planmns issues by means of prehearing examma-tions in the nature of depositions The Board orders that such exammations be held to expedite this proceedmg and directs that portions of the transcnpts of such exammaisons may be moved into i
evidence. Follow-up quesuons from the Board and parties would then be permitted at formal heanngs before the Board.
9 The Atomic Energy Act does not itself specify the nature of the hearings required to be held pursuant to Section I99(a),42 USC 62239;its reference to "a heanng" neither distinguishes between rulemakmg and adjudication nor states emphcitly whether either must be conducted through formal
.invar ab y 4st ngu s eh dbetween "on the record" proceedings. However,"[the] Commission has.
i ld i i the two, and has provided formal heanngs in licensing cases, as contrasted with informal heannss in rulemaiing proceedmss confined to written submissions and non-record interviews." Siegel v.
Atomic Energy Commission,400 F.2d 778,785 (D C. Cir.1%8); Citizens For a Safe Environment v.
' Atomic EnergyCommission,489 F.2d I018,1021 (3rdCir.1974).
C By virtue of Secuan 181 of the Atomic Energy Act,42 USCl2231."the provisions of the Ad.
ministrative Procedure Act shall apply to all agency acnon taken under this Act." Pursuant to Section 7(c) of the APA,5 USC (556(d), a party to an administrative adjudicatory hearing does not have an unlimited nght to cross examine witnesses, but is instead enutled only "to conduct such crose-emammauon as may be recuired for a full and true disclosure of the facts."
i
$7 4
j
(
1 g
--.y-.
,, m - - - _
r -- - -
4 DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS
}
D Directing that parties to an operating license proceeding conduct their initial cross-examination by means of prehearing enaminations in the nature of deposinons is eot victative of the
+
APA, so long as the procedure employed does not prejudice the rights of any party. Administrative Procedure Act,Section7(c),5 USCl556(d).
E A licensms board has the authority to direct that parties to an operating license proceeding conduct their initial cross-examination by means of prehearing examinations in the nature of i
depontions. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.718, a board has the power to regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of the participants, as well as to take any other action consistent with the APA. See also 10 CFR 12.757,10 CFR Part 2 App. A, IV. In expediting the hearing process unng the case management methods contained in Part 2, a board should ensure that the hearings are fair, and pro-dure a record which leads to high quality decisions and adequately protect the public health and safety and the environment. Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-818,13 NRC 452,453 (1981).
F The fact that a procedure for the conduct ofinitial cross-examination by means of prehearing examinauons in the nature of depositions has not previously been implemented in NRC licenang heanngs does not mean that the procedure is invahd. It is always within the discretion of a court or an administrative agency to relax or modify its procedural rules adopted for the orderly transaction of business before it when in a given case the ends ofjustice require it. Such an emercise of discretion is act reviewable except upon a showmg of substantial prejudse to the complaining party. American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Frei.ht Service,397 U.S. 532,538-539 (1970).
G While use ofinnovative procedures might be appropriate in highly litigated cases involving so-phisucated intervenors represented by a number ofcompetent counsel to empedate those proceedings, the use of the same procedures in a case involving a pro se intervenor unfamiliar with a4udicatory procedures m4ht be fundamentally unfair. Which procedural devices ought to be used in a particular proceedmg is a decision best committed to the sous.d discretion of a hcensms board as a part ofits general duty to regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of the parucipants. See 10 CFR 62.718'e);5 UScl556(c)(7).
LBP 12107A DUK E POW ER COM P ANY, et al. (Cata=ba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos.
50-413,50-414 ( ASLB' No.81-463 01 OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; December I,1982; MEMO-RANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board grants the peutions to intervene ofsix individuals arrf organizations. The Board admits numerous safety and environmental contentions and defers ruling on certain other con-tentions for which necessary documentauon was not yet available. Rulings on proposed secunty plan contenuons are also deferred pending the Board's review of the qualification of the intervenors' experts.
B A Licensms Board has broad discreuon to defer rulings on contentions which may later 11 made more specific on the basis of ip'ormanon not yet available, or to proceed with ruhngs on such contentions without waiung for more information.
C Where a contention is advanced on the basis of new informauon following the orismal dead-hne for films contentions,its proponent has the burden of eaplaining - in appropnate detail and seper-ate from the contention's text - *D.:is new about the contention and why it could not have becn ad-vanced previously.
D A contention concerning a certain accident scenano is barred in an operating hcense proceed-ing by the doctrme of collateral estoppel where the same scenano advanced by the sanie party was found to be not credible in the construcuon permit proceeding.
E As a general rule, a genene issue should be addressed in a rulemaking proceeding, if one is pending or about to commence, and not in an indmdual case. However, ance mmultaneous considera-non of a generic issue in htigauon and rulemaking is not necessanly precluded, unless the Commission mandates that result, the basic cnterion is safety - whether there is a substanual safety reason for lingatmg the issue as the rulemaking progresses.
LBP 82108 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), Docket No. 50 266-OLA 2; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; December 10,1982;SPECIAL PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE ORDER A
The Licensms Board declares intervenor Wisconsin's Environmental Decade to be in default ofits hearing obligations and dismisses its petiuon to intervene. The Board also considers intervener's contentions and finds each to be irrelevant or without basis.
58
)
l DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING EOARDS B
When an in:ervenor failed to appear at a Special Prehearing Conference, the Board apphed fac.
tors found in the Statement of Pohcy on Conduct of Licensms Proceedmss,46 Fed. Reg. 28533 (May 27,1982),in order to determine what sanction wasappropnate.
C A party wishms to attend an alternate engagement instead of a Special Preheanns Conference must estabhsh the importance of that engagement and that it took reasonsole steps to avoid the scheduhng confhet. When a party's monon to reorganize the schedule of a heanng fails because it has not met the enteria for rescheduhng,it may be warned that it nsks default for nonattendance at the scheduled conference. Nonattendance may then properly result in a default.
D in an amendment proceedmg, contentions concernmg the safety of parts of the plant not in-volved in the amendment are not admissible unless the peutsoner first estabhshes that a grant of the amendment eould in some eay worsen these safety concerns.
E Pennoner cited a source that stated that hydrauhc expanmon of a steam generator tube would make it susceptible to stress corrosion crackms.This source was found oot to be an adequate bass for a contenuon because the amendment being sought unhzed a hydrauhc roll rather than hydraulic eapansion. The alleged bows was found to be irrelevant and the contenuon was not admitted.
LBP-82-109 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY (Callaway Plant, Unit 1). Docket No. STN 50-483-OL; OPER ATING LICE NSE; December 13,1982; PA RTI AL INITI AL DECISION A
in a Partial Iruual Decision, the Licensing Board rules that isolated construcuon deficiencies do not show a pattern of a programmatic breakdown in Apphcant's quality assurance program. The Board determines that pendmg a resoluuon of emergency plannmg contenuons and the making of tequisite findmss by the Director of N uclear Regulabon, the Director would be authonzed to issue an operstmg hcense for the Callaway Plant.Urut 1.
B A lack of knowledge that quahty deficiench have been recorded by Apphcant's construction contractor represents a failure in meetmg quahty assurance criteria under Commisson's regulauons in 10CFR Part 50 A;ipendix B.
C Documented remspection results where the objective is to discover the extent of a problem that could affect qual ty is a requirement of the Commissaon'squahty assurance entena.
D Where quality control inspectors provide repor s three months after the reported evem occurred, under circumstances where the informauon conumed in suci reports is similar and only a t
single mspector noted comments thereon, such documents are considered worthless.
E A proof of the adequacy of quahty assurance a.uvines can be ascertained by companns actual performance agamst funcuonalstandards estabbshed m the Apphcant's program.
F The followmg techmcal issues are discussed: Cons"uction Deficiencies - MaterialsIntegri-ty and Safety, Concrete Densty. Weldmg Defects. Substandard Pipmg Radiographic Technique, Code Enforcement.
LBP-82 Il0 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I & 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441-OL; OPERATINO LICENSE; December 13, 1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board dechnes to reconsider its earher decision admittmg a hydrogen control contenuon and reaffirms its carher decision that peuuoners have sufficient bass for the ad nission of thiscontenhon.
B Motions for reconsideration ordinanly must be filed within ten days of a Board decision.
Thereafter the Boas J decision becomes the law of the case, subject to unumely reconsideration only upon demonstration of good cause for late fihng.
LBP-82-Ill CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Pomt Plant). Docket No. 50-155; SPENT FUELPOOL AMENDMENT; December 14,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board rules that it lacks junsdiction to reopen the record on an issue that pends before the Appeal Board,or to permit discovery withrespect to that issue.
B Once an appeal of an issue is taken, the Licenang Board is divested ofjunsdiction over that issue and may not order d scovery concerning whether or not it is appropnate for the record on the issue to be reopened.
LBP-82-Il2 LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Urut
- 3) Docket No. 50-382 0L; OPERATING LICENSE; December 14,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 6
t A
The Licenang Board grants in part and denies in part Apphcant's Motion For Reconsideration y C*arhaa a
$9 i
I r
I i
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS B
License conditions addressms oft-site emergency planning issues need not be met pnor to is-suance ofa fuelloading and low power license.10 CFR (50 47(d),
C Absent a motion filed pursuant to 10 CFR j50.57(c), the issue whether fuel loading and low poweroperation should be suthorized is not before a Licensing Board.
D 10 CFR {50 47 requires a findmg tha: there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken, and adequate protecuve measures include a means for evacualms spe-cial populations. The regulations do not preclude a Licensing Board from requiring letters of agree-ment for the provision ordnvers to evacuate the special populations.
LBP-82 II) CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Pmnt Unit No. 2) and POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Pomt, Unit No. 3), Docket Nos.
50-247 SP, 50 286-SP; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; December 15. 1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board grants the NRC Staff a protective order regardms an interrogatory requestmg the Staff to identify and hst its ten most senous enticisms of the Indian Pom Probabihstic Safety Study.
B Neither 10 CFR (2.741, concenemg the production of documents, nor 10 CFR 12.740, con.
cernmg discovery in general requires the NRC Staff to compile a hst of cnticisms of a document at issue in the proceeding or to formulate a position on those enticisms irrresponse to an mterrogatory. It is sufficient for the Staff to provide to the Intervenor those documents contaming the Staff cnticisms 3
from which the intervenor itself may compile a hst.
LBP-82 Il4 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I & 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441-01,; OPERATING LICENSE; December 22, 1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board demes in part and grants in part the N RC staft's motions for summary dis-position of variouscontentions.
B The Board discusses the standards for summary disposition, accepting principles presented to it both by the apphcant and by an miervenor.
C An affidavit submitted on summary disposition may present an opimon on an ultimate issue of fact, such as whesner the quahty assurance program has been satisfactory However, unless the basis for this conclusion is stated, the Board may not grant summary disposition based on such an opomon.
The Board must make decisions on ultimate issues of fact based on ets ownJudgment and it may not substitutc a staffjudgment for its own.
l D
When an intervenor has demonstrated that there is a genuine issue of fact concernmg senous deficiencies in the management ofa quahty assurance program, in violation of N RC regulations, there is a presumphon that such de6ciencies resulted in safety problems. Apphcant may rebut this presump.
Ison either by showmg that there were no senous management deficiencies or by showing that these deficienciesdad noi cause ssfety problems that will affect plant operanon.
E The followmg techmcalissues are discussed: Asiauc clams, Corbicula nummea, Scram dis-charge volume iMark 111 contammeno, Mark !!! contamment (scram discharge volume). Quahty assurance (control of contractors), LOCA (pipe break in scram discharge volume; Mark !!!
contamment).
LBP 82-Il5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Uma l),
Docket No. 50 322-OL (Emergency Planning); OPER ATING LICENSE, December 22,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONFIRMING RULING ON SANCTIONS FOR INTERVE.
NORS' REFtJSAL TO COMPLY WITH ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN PREHEARING EXAMINATIONS A
The Licensing Board issues an order confirmms its previous oral ruhnss findmg intervenors to be m default of a previous board order, and stating its reasons for concluding dismissal ofintervenors' onsile emergency plannmg contentions to be an appropnate sanchon.
B A hcensms board is not espected to sit idly by when parues refuse to comply with its orders.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 62.718, a lisensms board has the power and the duty to mamtam order, to take ap-propnate action to avoid delay and to regulate the course of the heanns and the conduct of the paracipants. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR (2.707, the refusal of a party to comply with a Board order relatmg to its appearance at a proceedmg constitutes a default for which a hcensms board "may make such orders m regard to the failure as arejust "
l l
I 60 l
l l
- ~, -
_--n, n
i DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS C
A spectrum of sanctions, from mmor to severe, is available to hcensms boards to assist in the m;nagement of proceedmss. In selectmg a sanction, boards should consider the relative impo-tance of the unmet obhgation, its potential for harm to other parties or the orderly conduct of the proceedmg, whether its occurrence is an isolated incident or a part of a pattern of behavior, the importance of he safety or environmental concerns raised by the party, and all of the circumstances. Boards should at-tempt to tailor sanctions to mnigate the harm caused by the fadure of a party to fulfill its obhgations and bring about improved future comphance. Statement of Policy on the Conduct of Licensmg Prweedmss. CLl 81 8,13 N RC 452,454 (198 t h Commonwealth Edison Company Byron Nuclear Power staaon, Umts l and 2), A LA B-678,15 N RC l400,1416-20 (1982).
D A hcensms board is to be accorded the same respect as a court oflaw. See 10 CFR 62.713(a).
E A party may not simply refuse to comply with a board order, even if at beheves the board deci-seoa to ha.c tr.en based upon an erroneousinterpretationof the law. Appropriate sanctions may be im-posed for a rei Jsal to comply with a board order, and a party may not be later heard to complam that its rights acre unjustly abndged after hasms willfully refused to participate further in a matter. Northern i
Indiana Pubhc Service Company (Bailly Generstmg Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB-224,8 AEC 244 (1974 L Except in the most e xtraordmary circumstances, a party must comply eith an order unless and until it is either stayed or overturned on appeal.
F An meervenor's mientional waiver of both its right to cross-etamine and its right to present witnesses with regard to certain contentions amounts to the effective abandonment of those 4
contentions, m that the party has thus refused to prosecu'e w hatever case it might otherwise have been able to make. In the absence of circumstances which would justify a board's esercise ofits sua sponte powers, an intervenor's abandonment ofits contentions precludes the board's htigation of these mat-ters in an operaimg hcense proceedmg, as such issues are nolonger "m controversy" among the parties so as to be htigable See 10CFR 42 760a.
LBP 82 Il6 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ICata=ba Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos.
50-413,50-414 ( ASLBP No. 81-463-01-OL); OPERATING LICENSE; December 22,1982; MEMO-RANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board rules on vanous pendmg motions related todiscovery.
B A claim of privilege from disclosure, such as the attorney-client pnvilege, must be made with particularity, mcludmg clear identification of documents, or parts thereof, and why each identified document is privileged.
C A contention is not subject to dismissal merely because the intervenor fails to respond in dis-covery by supplying its factual basis. The " basis" requirement of 10 CFR {2.714 is a pleadmg require-ment = hach an intervenor can meet and not yet have any supportmg factual basis.
D A party is entitled to direct answers or objections to each interrogatory posed General objec-tions are msufficient. The butden is on ihe objector to show why the question is not proper.
E An intervenor advancmg a truthful claim oflack of knowledge about its contention is entitled
~
to a reasonable opportumty to develop its case on those contentions through discovery agamst the ap-placants and N RC Staff before is can be required to provide responsive answers in discovery.
F Vahd safety contemions do not mvanably invcive alleged ncncomphance with a specific safety Tule. A contention about a matter not covered by a specific rule need only allege that it poses a sigmfi-cant safety problem.
i G
A Licensms Board need not issue a ruhng on a motion for a protective order unless a timely
~
motson to compel is filed. In the absence of a timely motion to compel, the motion for protective order willbe deemed granted.
LBP-82-Il7 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I & 2), Docket Nos. 50 440-OL,50-441-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; December 23.
1982 MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A-The Licensms Board directs the N RC staff to respond to relevant interrogatones propounded by intervenor concernmg hydrogen release, and to answer certain questions propounded by the Board itself.
B When the Staff has done extensive work in an area, such as hydrogen control,it must answer relesant interrogatories Cover:ng that area.
C when the Board's review of the intervenor's interrogainties peisuades it that there may be substaate! rim ir the mo ge repalvg frors th-sc requests, ;he Ibard may phrss6 its c,wn Qi.estions to i
61 1
6 6
...*y
- _ - _. ~ -..
t i
j e.
1 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OFTHE ATOMICSAFETY AN D LICENSING BOARDS
{
fill the gag =t It naed not want until the hearing to ask qttstions. It need not rorify 'he f'ommismon about the questionsif they are related to an admitted contention and therefore are not sua sponte.
D The Board dennes "necessary" as used in 10 CFR (2.720th)(2)(ii). The definition adopted l
rejects the suggestion of the Commission's staff that intervenors cannot obtain discovery if they only
!~
suspect that answers to their questions will be necessary to their case.The Board refused to erect a test that would permit quesuons to be asked only if the intervennt first knew what the answers would be.
E An Atomic Safety and Licensmg Board need not notify the Commission that it is asking ques-tions that are relevant to an admitted contention. Such questions are not sua sponte.
F Interrogatones asked by the non-lawyer representauve of an intervenor should be answered fully,interpretmg the interrogatories reasonably, both in hght of their word ng and the purpose of the intervenor. Litigation is not a game but is a search for meamngful answers.
i LBP 82-Il7A ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Umts I,2 and 3), Docket Nos. STN 50-528 OL, STN-50-529-OL, STN-50 530-OL MSLBP l
No.80-447 01 OL); OPERATING LICENSE; December 30,1982;1NITIAL DECISION A
The Licensing Board issues a Partial Initial Decision authorizing the issuance of an operating i
license for Palo Verde Unit I.The Board finds that: '
- l. There is reasonable assurance that there will be a sufficient supply of effluent from the 91st Avenue and the Tolleson Wastewater Treatment Plants to meet the operational requirements of the three Palo Verde umts.
- 2. There is reasonable assurance that the sources of water available to the Phoenix metropohtan area dunng the first five years of operation of all Palo Verde units and beyond are sufficient that the occurrence of an event tnggenns Section 21 of Agreement No.13904, which could curtail the supply of water to Palo Verde in the event of an emergency, is remote.
- 3. The estimated requirements of eifluent for condensercooling are not understated.
4.
Effluent is not required for the safe shutdown of the Palo Verde units.
i i
B The Commission is not obligated under NEPA to conader allissues which are currently the subsect of htisation in other forums and which one day in the future might have an impact on the amount ofeffluent available to Palo Verde.
i C
Where environmental effects are remote and speculauve, agencies are not precluded from j
proceedmg with a protect tven though all uncertamnes are not emoved.
D Although the Commismon will take cosmzance of activines before other legal tnbunals when facts so warrant, it sigmid not delay the hcenang proceedmg or withhold hcense merely because some other legal tnbunal might conceivably take future action which may later have an impact upon the op-ersuon ora nuclear facihty.
E Environmental acertainues raised by Intervenors in N RC proceedings do not result in a per se demal of the hcense,IAt rather are subject to a rule of reason.
i l
F Under NEPA, cost-benefit balancing is now required, but only if the proposed nucicar plant has environmental disadvantices in comparison to possible alternatives. Consumers Power Company i
(Midland Plants, Umts l and 2) ALAB-458. 7 NRC 155,162 (1978).
l.
G Cost-benefit ---.
.-m has been hmited further by the Commission's recent amendment to 10 CFR Part 51 which precludes alternative energy souice issues from bems considered in operaung license proceedmss.47 Fed Reg I2940 (March 26,1982).
li The followmg technical issues are discussed: Water supply adequacy, Cooling water supply.
LBP 82-Il7B ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et at. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), Docket Nos. STN-50-528-OL, STN-50-529-OL, STN-50-530-OL;
(,
OPERATING LICENSE; December 30,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licenssng Board grants the petiuon of West Valley Agncultural Protection Council,Inc.
(West Valley) to intervene in this licensing proceeding, and reopens the record for Units 2 and 3 for the limited purpose of conadenns West Valley's Contennon III regarding salt depompon.
8 An unumely peuuan to intervene in a proceedmg may be granted ifit is found that a balancmg of the factors set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) favars intervention. -
C The test for meeung the burden of reopening the record is that stated in Pacific Gas and Elec-tric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-598,11 NRC 376,879 i
(1980):
- 1. Isthemotionumely?
- 2. DoesitaddresssismGcantsafety(orenvironmental) issues?
62 1
I i
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOFTHE ATOMICSAFETY ANDLICENSING BOARDS
- 3. Might a different result have been reached had the newly proferred matenal been considered initially?
LBP-82 Il8 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-329
-OM&OL,50-330-OM&OL (ASLBP Nos. 78 389-03 OL,80-429-02 SP); OPER ATING LICENSE AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MODIFICATION ORDER; December 30,1982. MEMORAN-DUM ANDORDER A
The Licensing Board rules on rewntten contentions of an intervenor in the operating license proceedmg.
B In considenna the acceptabihty of a contentiori, a Licensms Board may not determme factual questions somg to the ments of the contention. Houston Lighting and Power Company ( Allens Creek NuclearGenerstmg Station, Unit t), AL AB-590, II N RC 542,547 49 (1980).
C When a matter is involved in ruiemakmg. the Commission may elect to require an issue which is part of that rutemakmg to be heard as part of that rulemakmg. Where it does not impose such a requirement, an issue is not barred from bems considered in adjudications bems conducted at that time.
D Dunns a rulemaking on a particular subject, there shall be no different adjudicatory considers-tion of an issue (absent Commission direction to the contrary) than there would have been in the ab-sence of the rulemakmg.
E The question whether an issue should be dealt with through rulemakmg or adjudication isone of policy for the Commission to make; it is beyond the scope of authonty delegated to Licensmg Boards, Where the Commission has not limited the authonty of Licensing Boards to hear an issue, a Board cannot decime to hear the issue Just because it happens to involve a matter involved m rulemakmg F
% here standards appear in the Standard Review Plan and not in a sp:cific reguistion, they may be modified, upon proper shoems, at the behest ofan apphcant or other party.
G As a result of the Commission's October 29,1982 pokcy statement on fuel cycle matters, Licensms Boards are required to consider the current Table S-3 (10 CFR 651.23(c)) as stillin effect, despite a Court rulms which raised questions concernmg its vahdity. Fuel cycle maiters must be con-sadered only under that Table, and a contention challengmg the Table must be dismissed. A ny decision or hcense authontation relyms on Table S-3 will be subject to the outcome of pendms judicial proceed-ings en this matter.
LBP-82 Il9 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I & 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; December 30, 1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A
The Licensms Board grants summary disposition on three issues relating to the performance of a 30 degree sector steam test, the improper consideration oflocal employment and ts s levets in the environmental impact statement and failure to consider adequately the economie effects of senous nuclear accidents. In dismissms the 30 degree sector steam test contention, the Board also reviews the evidence and decides that it is not appropnate to raise sua sponte the issue of the adequacy of that test.
B The following technical issues are discussed. 30 degree sector steam test; Local economic ef-j fects as a NEPA consideration; Class nme accident; Senous nuclear accident, consideration of economic effects; Test for adequacy of core spray in a BW R.
LBP-82 Il9A CAROLINA POWER A LIGHT COMPANY AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos.
50-400-OL,50-401-OL ( ASLBP No.82-468 01-OL); OPERATING LICENSE; September 2,1982;
}
MEMORANDUM ANDORDER f
1 l
I l
6 i
63 l
1
J DIGESTS ISSU ANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS a
DD-82-7 PACIFIC G AS & ELECTRIC COM PANY (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Umt 3), Docket No.
50133; DECOM MISSIONING, July 7,1982; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UN DER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The D ector of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denses a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 that re-quests action f a revoke the operating hcense for the Humboldt Bay plant and to decommission the facihty.
DD-82-8 PUB.IC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE (Seabrook Nuclear Station, Units 1
& 2) Dc. net Nos. 50-443,50-444;SHOW CAUSE; July 6,1982, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10CFR 2.206 A
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 that I
requested mitiation of show-cause proceedmgs on the basis of the hcensee's alleged lack of Gnancial quahfications.
i B
in hght of the ehmmation of the Commission's financial quahfication requirements, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes a request for amtiation of show-cause proceedmgs in vi the absence of a connection hetween alleged financial constraints and a particular safety problem.
I DD-82-9 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (LaSalle County Generstmg Station Umts I and 21, Docket Nos. 50-373, 50-374 SHOW CAUSE; July 19. 1982; DIRECTOR'S DECISION g
U NDER 10 CFR 2.2%
l-A The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes in part petitions filed under 10 CFR 2.206
[T by the lihnois Attorney General and the Illinois Fnends of the Earth regarding deGciencies in con-g y struction of LaSalle Umt I. Remammg mattere concernmg LaSalle Umt 2 are under mvestigation.
3 [O DD-82-10 PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COM P ANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos.50-275, 50-276. OPER ATING LICENSE; September 22,1982. DIRECTOR'S w
DECISION UNDER IO CFR 2.206 E
O A
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 requestmg the issuance of an order to Pacific Gas & Electnc Co to show cause why it should not be directed to file amendments to its pendmg operstmg hcense apphcations concermns the restructurms by PG&E of the DiabloCanyon Project orgamzation and management.
DD-82-11 ROCHESTER G AS AND ELECTRIC CORPOR A TION (R. E. Gmna Nuclear Power Plant),
Docket No 50 244. OPERATING LICENSE; October 8,1982; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.2%
A Acung on a referral from the Commission of the petitioner's request for review of a partial demal (DD-82-3,15 NRC 1348) ofits cather petition, the Director of Nuctear Reactor Regulation demes the petitioner's request for additional rehef with respect to further operation of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.
B The following technical issues are discussed-Steam generator tube rupture events and repairs DD-8212 CONSOLID ATED EDISON COM PANY (indian Pomt, Umt No.2) and POWER AUTHOR-ITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Pomt. Umt No. 3), Docket Nos. 50-247,50-286; SUS-i PENSION OF OPE R ATION, November 26,1982; DlR ECTOR'S DECISION UN DER 10 CFR 2.206 A
The Director of the OfTice ofinspection and Enforcement demes a petmon filed by the Umon of Concerned Scientists and the New York Pubhc Interest Research Group which requested immedi-ate suspension of operation of Indian Pome Umts 2 and 3 on the basis ofinadequate State and local plannmg and preparedness for radiological emergencies.
B in the absence orcompelhng circumstances requiring such action, heensees are generally per-c..ttd 4 nexth,la acure corrective &cact. fcr emergency plannmg and preparedness deficiencies before the N RC takes enforcement action for such deficiencies.
65 o
.----=-.,-._,--.m.-.w
-..-w----w.-.
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS
- DECISIONS DD-82-I3 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station. Units I and 2),
Docket Nos. 50-352, 50-353; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT SUSPENSION; December 7,1982; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Lf 21206 A
The Acting Director of Nuclear F.eactor Regulation denies a petition filed by Del-Amare which requested suspension or revocation of:he construction permits for the Limerick Station unless the licensee submitted an alternative to the g4anned Supplemental Cooling Water Supply System at Pomt Pleasant, Pennsylvania.
B The scope of the NRC's environmental review of a project may be limited to one segment nf a proyect so long as (1) that portion has independent utility and (2) the approval of that segment does not foreclose sherriatives to the part of the project not being considered.
i C
The Director need not consider issues raised in a 10 CFR 2.206 petition which the petitioner is i
litigating or had an opportunity to raise before a Licensing Board in a pending a4udication or for which the petitioner provides no factual basis for the requested relief.
j D
The Director will not institute proceedings to suspend or revoke construction permits on envi-ronmental matters in the absence of a showing of a major change in m.terial facts.
i E
The NRC stalT may use enytronmental impact statements prepared by other agencies as the bass for its own assessment of the environmental impacts of a proposed section.
I t
i i
I i
e-
-v i
l l
's 66 l
L
]
1 J
i I
DIGESTS ISSUANCESOF DENI ALSOF PETITIONS FOR RL'LEM AKING i
1 J
DPRM-82-1 GENER AL ATOMIC COMP ANY. Docket No PRM 951 (10 CFR Part 95 h RULEM AKING. August 26,lS82. DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEM AKING l
A The Nuclear Regulatory Commimon is hereby denyms a peution for rulemakms submitted by the General Atomic Company iG AC) in a leiter to the Secretary of the Commission dated May 19 1981. The pennon requested that the Commisuun amend its regulation relaung to the clasufsauon guidance provided by sub-topic 112 of Appendia A. "Classi0 cation Guide for Safeguards Informaison." to 10 CFR Part 95 to change the CONFIDENTIAL Nauonal Security Informahon i
(CNSI) classifwauon category so unclassified (U) or to delete sub-topic 112 from Appendia A.
DPRM-82 2 % ELLS EDDLEM AN, Docket No PRM 2 II, OPER ATING LICENSE, September 30, i
4 1982 DENI AL OF PETITION FOR RULEM AKING I
A The Commisuon demes a petit on requesung that the Commission amend its rules of practge for domestic bcenung proceedmgs to require a separate operatmg hcense hearmg for each power reac-tot unit at a nuclear power plant site on the grounds that the requested amendments are unnecessary.
l contrary to sound admmistranve practice, and mconsistent with cuisung las j
B There is no reason to beheve that an amendment te NRC regulauons to require an exclusive j
heanns on ea:h reactor umt will result m or enhance the considerauon of any issues which could not i
also ha ve been considered and conudered equally wellin a heanns on two or more umts I
C There is no reason to beheve that the class of persons who could be mcluded or escluded from paructratmg in an operatmg bcense heanns on two or more reactor umas constructed on a multiumi site would be different from the class of persons w ho would be mcluded or excluded from participalms m an OL hearms devoted eactusively to any smgle reactor umt constructed on the same muluumt site D
A separate operaung hcense is issued for each reactor umt constructed on a muluunit site even i
though a consohdated heanns is held on several reactor umts Before an operatmg license for a reactor umt is issued, the Commission must make the requisste findmgs and determmations required by the regulauons m effect at the ume oflKense issuance.
E Rules of pracuce permit the Commission to conuder too or more apphcations in the same twensms review and to consondate two or more proceedmss for heanng F
Ahhough uwd mfrequently, the Commission's rules of practice also provide procedures for sevenng a proceeding deshng with two er more reactor units and for holdmg a separa.e operaung I
hcense hearms on each reactor unit.
G The requested amendment would,if adopted, have the effect of requirms a mandatory OL hearms m connection with the issuance of an OL for each nuclear power reactor. In this respect, the requested amendment is contrary to the clear mient of Congress which, in 1%2, amended section 1894. of the Atoms Energy Act of 1954 to ehmmate the requirement for mandatory heanngs m OL proceedings and to permit the Commisson, in any case in which a heanns was not requested, to issue an OL without a heanng.
H The OL heanns is hmited to e samming substantuil changes or conditions which have occun ed j
since the issuance of the construction permit and issues which were deferred for considerauon at the OL stage ofIhe proceedir.g.
I It is mappropnate to consider the issue of sufficient NRC personnel in a licensing proceedmg.
4 includmg a heanns on an OL. Issues relatmg to Commission personnel mvolve the internal organiza-tion and management of the agency w hoch is sutnect to Congressonal authorization, and for a hich the Commission, not a hcense apphcant or an mtervenor, has sole responsibihiy.
J The Commission has amended its regulauons in 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 to chminate entirely re-qwe:r.ats for f.nencial quahficanons review and findmss for electnc utihties that are.p,nis.g fx construct on permits or operaung bcenses for production or uuhrauon facihues.
67 l
l l
. - -. - - - - ~ _ - _ -..., -
.. ~ -- - - _ - -
l i
1 6
i J
LEGALCITATIONS INDEX CASES A. L. Mecklms Barge Lines, Inc. v. Umted States,368 U.S. 324 (1961) remandmg of esse based on record that no longer reoresents case's actual situation; CLI-82 26,16 NRC 881 (1982)
Aberdeen & Rockfish RR Company v. SCR AP,422 U.S. 289,319 (1975) procedures needed to make senous accident evaluation for operstmg power reactors; A LAB-705,16 N RC 175)(1982)
Able Investment Company v. Umted States,53 F R.D. 485 (D. Neb.1971) matenal encompassed Dy attorney work product doctrme; LBP-82 82,16 NRC 1161,1162 (1982)
Adickes v. Kressand Company,398 U.S.144,157 (1970) burden of proofin summary disposition motions, LBP-82-58,16 N RC 519 (1982)
Advisory Comm. Note to 1970 Amendments to Fed. R Civ. Proc.,48 F R.D. 459,499 (1970) adaptation of N RC discovery rules from Federal Rules. LBP-82 82,16 NRC 1159 (1982)
/
Aeschhman v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,547 F.2d 622 (D C.Cir.1976) f need to consider environmental tmpacts of nuclear fuel cycle, ALAB-691,16 N RC 903 (1982) 7 Alabama Power Company (Joseph M Farley Nuclear Plant, Umts1 and 2), ALAB 182,7 AEC 210 (1974) rehtigation of serious accident scenanos, LBP-82 107 A,16 N RC I 808 (1982)
[
Alabama PowerCompany (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182,7 AEC210,216 O
e i1974)
~. 7 legalstandard foradmissibihty o(coment,ans LBP 42106,16 NRC 1654 (i982) limitation on matters to be resolved m operatmg hcense proceedmss, LBP 82 76,16 NRC 1086 (1982)
C ~
Alabama PowerCompany (Joseph M. Farley N uclear Plant, Units i and 2). ALAB-182.7 AEC 210,2t?
v (1974)
J analogy between summary disposition procedures and R ule 56 of Federal R ules of Civil Procedure; I
LBP 82 58,16 NRC519-20(1982)
Z Alabema Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2),CL1-7412,7 AEC 203 (1974) appbcation ofcollateral estoppel, L BP-82 76.16 N RC 1044,108 ) (1982)
Alexander v. Hall,64 F.R D.152,155 (D.S C.1974) defamtionof amicuscurise; ALAB-679.16 NRC l25 H982)
Athed General N uclear Scrvges (Barnweli Fuel Receivmg and Storage Station), ALAB 328,5 NRC 420 (1976) standmg of petit.oner in decontamination proceedmg to htigate related waste disposal issues, LBP-82-52,16 NRC 191 (1982) i Albed General N uclear Servwes, et al. (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage station), AL AB-328,3 N RC 420,422 (1976) msufTiciency ofinterest test alone to confer standing; LB P-82-74,16 NRC 983 (1982)
Athed-General N uclear Services, et al. (Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant Separations Facihty). AL AB-2%,2 NRC671 (1975) amendment of environmental statement toinclude Board findmss and conclusions; LBP-82-100,16 NRC I571 (1982)
A!)eska Pipchne Serv. v. Wilderness Soc.,421 U.S. 240; 44 L Ed.2d 141;95 S.Ct.1612 (1975) bas:s for award of mtervenors' attorney's fees; LBP-82-81,16 NRC ll39 (1982)
A mcncan Cyanamid Company v. McG hee,317 F 2d 295 ($th Car. l%3) conditions that require payment of costs and attorney's fees; LBP-82-81,16 NRC 1139 (1982)
Amencan Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service,397 U.S. 532,538-539 (1970) use of ne= procedure for eross-cmamination; LBP-A 7 l'!7, t 6 N Rf' 1 A77 (1997) ua 69
i l
l i
I LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX CASES i
Amencen Fruit Purveyors,Inc.,30 Ad. L 2d 584 (1971) support of Board proposal to require pre heanns esammation ny oral deposinon questions; LDP-82107.16 NRC l675(1982)
Armerican Pubhc Gas Association v. FPC,498 F.2d 718,723 (D C. Cir.1974) limitatica on method of erons-exammation; LBP-82 107.16 NRC 1676 (1982)
Amerwan Textile Mftt inat.. Inc. v. Donovart,452 U.S. 490,494 n.2 (1981) sepera;e participation in a proceeding by an organization and its constituent members; A LA B 700,18 i
NRCl333(1982)
I Arirone Public Service Company, et al (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Umts 1,2 and 3),
ALAB-336,4 NRC3,4 (1976) conaderation ofoffeet of tanes in NEPA cost basis analysis; LBP 82 103,16 NRC 1613 (1982) limitations on benefits to be tonsidered in an operating license cost-benent onlance; L BP 82 95,16 NRCl405(1982)
Arizona Public Service Company.et al (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating stauon, Umts i,2 and 3),
DD-80 22,II NRC919,931(1980) need to reopen license proceedings to consider class 9 accidents; AL AB 705,16 N RC l ?$ 1, (1982)
Arizona Public Service Company, et at (Palo Verde Nuclear Generatmg Station, Umts I,2 and 3),
LDP 76-21.3 NRC662(1976) impact orsalt dnh on flora and fauna near Palo Verde facility; LBP-82 117B,16 NRC 2027 (1982)
Annona v. Cahfornia,373 U.S. 546 (1%3)
Colorado River watersuppsy mandated for Anzona; LBP-82 Il7A.16 NRC l947 (1982)
Associated General Contractors v. Otter Tad Power Company,6 t l F.2d 684 (8th Cir.1979) j abdity ofiniervenor groups to represent their members adequately; CLI 82 15,16 N RC 32 (1982)
Austracan. (U.S.A.) lnc. v. M/V Lemoncore,500 F.2d 237,239-40 (5th Cir.1974) f situations giving rise to appeataNe order; A L A B-690,16 N RC 895 (1982) i Seil v. E 1 DuPont de Nemours & Company, $19 F.2d 715,718 (6th Car.1975) i standard for qualincation of expert witnesses; AL A B-701,16 N RC 1524 (1982) l Black v.Sheraton Corp.,371 F.Supp. 97 (D D C.1974) j burden to demonstrate entitlemens to esecutive pnvdege; LBP 82-82.16 N RC 1165 (1982) i Boa: Transat,Inc. s. Umted states,1970 Federal Carner Cases,682,215 (E.D Mich.1970), afrd,401 U.S.
928(1971) f use orcross-e xammanon in wntten form; L BF 82 107,16 N RC 1675 (1982) a k'
Boston Edison Company (Pdgrim Nuclear Power station, Umt l), ALAB-231,8 AEC 633 (1974) i eatent of Appeal Board sua sponte review authonty; ALA B-689,16 N RC 890 i1982)
Boston EdisonCompany(PilsnmNuclearPowerStation,Unitl), ALAB 231.l AEC633 34(1974) appellate sua sponie review of Licensmg Board decessons; AL A B-6%, lo N RC l262 (1982) i 4
appellate teview of Licensing Board ruhngs on economic issues. imervennon requests. or procedural t
matters; ALAB-691,16NPC908(1982)
Boston Edison Company,et at (Pdgrim Nuclear Generating Station Uma 2), AL AB-656,14 NRC %$
(1981) remandmg ofcase based on record that no longer represents case's actual satuation; CLI 82 26,16 N RC 881 (1982) vacanon of unreviewedjudgments because of mooiness; CLI-82 18,16 N RC 51 (1982)
Boston Edison Company, et at I Pilgnm N uclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP 75-30, I N RC 579 (1975) guidance on rules governmg interrogatones, LBP-82 Il6,16 N RC 1940 (1982)
Boston Edison Company, et at (Pdsnm Nuclear Generatmg Stauon, Umt No. 2), LBP 76-7,3 N RC 156 (1976) sanction for failure of a party to attend prehearms conference; L BP-82-101,16 N R C 15% 81982)
BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission,502 F.2d 424 (D C. Cir.1974)
Commission authonty to estabhsh procedural rules for late intervention; ALA B 707.16 N RC 1767 j
(1982) intervenuon on enforcement actions; CLl-82-16,16 NRC 45 (1982) reasonableness of basis with specificity standard for admissibility ofcontentions; LBP 82 106,16 N RC 1654(1982) 7s
LEGALCITATIONSINDEX CA%F4 BPI v. Atomac Energy Commession,502 F.2d 424. 428 (1974) purpose of baus with specificsty requirement for admission ofcontentions. L BP-82 IO6,16 N RC 1655 (1982)
Briv. Aiomc EnergyCommessen.502F.24424,428 429fD C Car 11745 requiremem forthreshold showit's of basis and specifkity for admisuon of contenteon; L&P 82 75,16 NRC 993 (1982)
BPIv. Atomic Energy Commiswon 502 F.2d 4281D C Cir.1974I conditionslothe nght toa hearms ALAS 487,16 NRC4f 9fl982) urotherhoodof Railroad Trammen t Chicago,M.St.P.& P R R.,380F.24605,608 09 (D C.Cir.per Burger,J.),certaorandemed 389 U.S 928 (1%7)
Jusuficanon for dismissalof mtervenor for faalute to attend preheanns conference LBP-82 l15,16 NRC 1935 (1982)
Burimstonindustnese.LamonCorp.,65 F.R D.26,37(D Md 1974) commumcanonsencompassed by attorney-chent prmlege; LBP-82 82,16 N RC i158 (1982)
Calvert ChiTsCoordmatms Committee v. Ainmic Energy Commission,449 F.2d i109,1119 (D C. Cir.
1978)
Licensms Board responsibihey to develop the record, LBP-82 87,16 N R C 1199 (1982)
Calvert CliffsCoordmatm8 Committee,Inc v. Atomic Energy Commisuon.449 F.2d il09, lil4,ll28 (D C.Cir.1971) evaluanon ofenvironmental costsof nuctur power plant construchon; L BP 82-92 A,16 N RC l388 (1982)
Carchna Environmental 5tudy Group v Umted States. 510 F 2d 796 (D C. Car.1976) challenges to regulatory suidance on class 9 accident an4Iysis, A LA B 705,16 NRC l ?36 (1982)
Carohna Enuronmental5tudy Group v. Unned states. 510 F 2d 7%,801 (D C. Cer.1975) standard for objective agency decisionmakms in N EP A cases. LBP 32 99,16 N R C 1547 (1982)
Carolma Power and Light Company (5hearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant.Umts I,2,3 and 4), ALAB-577, ll NRCll,23 24, reversed m partofolherground's CLI-80-12.ll NRC514(1980) standard for appeal by umnjured party; A L A B494.16 N RC 960 ( 1980)
Carohna Power and Light Company (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant. Units I,2,3 and 4),CLI-74 22,7 AEC939(1974)
Comtmssaan aut honey to allow construcuon actmtees pnor to issuance ofconstruchon permit, CLI 82 23.16NRC42141982)
Carohna Power and Light Company (5hearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I,2,3.and 4), LBP 78 2,7 N RC 83 (1978)
Junediction of Lscensms Board to reopen the record. LBP 82 54,16 N RC 214 (1982)
Carohna Po.er and L ight Company and North Carohna Eastern M unicipal Power Agency (5hearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant, Umts 12nd 2), LBP 82.I19 A,16 NRC 2069,2075 (1942) admissibehty of track record cordennon quesuonms managerial and techmcal competence ofspplicant',
LBP-82107 A,16 NRC l?95 (1982, Cass v Umled States,417 U.S. 72 (1974) determimns mient of regulanons, CL1-82 19,16 N RC 62 (1982)
Chamber ofCommerce of the U.S. A. v. Occupauonal $afety and Health Admsmstranon,636 F.2d 464 (D C. Car.1979) hmits on egency prerosauves to interpret pokey statements; LDP-82-69, t 6 N RC 753 (1982)
Chapman v. Pacific Tel. A Tel Company,613 F.2d 193 (91hCir.1979)
N RC $tafTduty to obey Licensing Board orders, LBP-82 87,16 N RC l 203 (1982)
Chelsea Neighborhood Ass'ns v. U.S. Postal $ervice,516 F 2d 378,388 (2d Ctr.1975) consederanon of psychological stress issues under N E P A; LBP-82-53,16 N RC 203 ( 1982)
Cherry v Brown Frazier Wh,:ney,528 F.2d965 (D C Cir.1976) perusstence of apphcant in seeking decision on the ments ofits construction permit apphcation as cause for dismissal with prejudre; LBP-82 81, I 6 N RC i 136 ( 1982)
CmeinnatiGasand Electrc Company,et al. (Wilham H Zimmer Nuclear Power stauon, Umt I),
CLI-82 20,16 NRC109(1982) 1 receipt ofevidence on StafTjusuficanon for use ofdecay heat removal system; LBre82 100,16 NRC 6
1559(1982) j 78 i
i I
O
LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX CASES CmcmnstiGasand ElectrcCompany,eiat (Wdham H.Zimmer Nuclear Power 5 ation) LBP-79 22,10 N RC 213 (1979) apphcationof 2.714(a)latenessfactorstostatementsofissuesoffered by a5 tate,LBP 82103,16 NRC r,
1615(1982)
Cinunnati Gas and Electru Company, et at (William H. Zimmer N uclear Power Station), L BP 80 14, II N RC 570,57 t (1980) coritenison requirement forintervention; LBP 82 74,16 NRC 955 (1982)
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, et at iWilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power 5 ation), L BP.80-14, II NRC 570,574 (1980),appealdismissed. ALAB-595, II NRC 860(1980) e sample of good cause for acceptance oflate contentson; LBP-82-63, I 6 N RC 577 (1982)
Cinemnati Gas and Electnc Company, et at (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), LBP 80-14, II NRC570,575 (1980) showmg necessary on other factors when good cause for late intervention is not shown; LBP 82 1178, 16 NRC2026(1982)
Cinemnatt Gasand Electnc Company,et at (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power $tanon),LBP 80 24, t 2 NRC 231,237(1980) importance ofiniervenor's abihty to contribute to the record through late filed contenuons significance oflate-filed content.'on's abihty to contnbute to the record, LBP 82 91,16 N RC 1368 (1982) standards for admitung late-filed f Mi contentions; L BP-8243,16 N RC 578 (1982)
Cincinnati Gas an4 Electnc Company. et al (Wi ham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Sinuon), L BP 81 2 l3 t
NRC 36,40 41 (1981) factorsconsidered by Licensing Board before grantmg summary disposinon motion; LBP 82-Il4,16 NRCl912(1982)
Cincmnat Gas and Electrx Company, et al. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power 5tauon, Unit 1),
LBP-82-47,15 N RC 1538,154711982) use orinterpretations of Federal Rules as guidance for interpreting simdar N RC rules; LBP-82-82,16 N RC ll57(1982)
Cincinnau Gas and Electric Company, et at (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Stauon, Unit 1).
LBP-82 47,15 N RC 1538,1545-46 (1982) objecuens todiscovery requests; LBP-82 87,16 NRC i154 (1982) situanons dunne preheanns esaminanonscalhng for protective order, LBP-82 107,16 N RC 1681 (1982)
Cmcmnati Gas and Electnc Company, et al. (Wdham II. Zimmer N uclear Power Station, Unit 1).
LBP-82-48,15 N RC1602 (1982) foem and contents ofemergency planning pubhc mformation brochures LBP 8246,16 N RC 732 (1982)
Cincinnati Gas and Electnc Company, et al. ( William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
LBP 82-54,16NRC210(1982),rev'd.onothergrounds,CLI 82 20,16NRC109(1982) standards for reopemng a record on new issues; LB P-82 I l78.16 NRC 2032 (1982)
Ciuzens for a 54fe Environment v. Acomic Energy Commission,489 F.2d 1018,1021 (3d Cir.1974) def' ahonofhcensing proceeding;LBP 82-10*,16 NRC1674(1982) m Citizens to Save Spencer County v. EPA,600 F.2d 844. 876 (D C.Cir.1979) hmits on agency prerogatives to interpret pohey statements; LBP-82-69,16 N RC 753 (1982)
Cleveland Electne Illummaung Company, e: al. (Perry N uclear Power Plant), LBP 81 24, I4 N RC 175,184 (1981) use of special prehearms conference to determine a Jmissibihty of contentions; LBP 82 108,16 N RC 1814(1982)
Cieveland Electric illummating Company, et at (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALA B-298,2 N RC 730,736-737 (1975) delegation of Licensmg Board authonty to N RC 5taff, LBP-82 68,16 NRC 748 (1982)
Cieveland Electric illummating Company,e at (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741 (1977) burdens met in 5tafrs and applicants'sta$nts of matenal facts regardir2 ATWS contention; LBP 82-17,16NRC482.45)(1982)
I 8
72
LEG /.L CITATIONSINDEX C AS F.S Cleveland Electnc illummating Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB-443,6 N RC 741,748 (1977)
Commission cosmzance of activines before other tnbunals LBP 82 ll 7 A,16 N RC 1991 (1982)
Cleveland Elecinc illummaung Company, et al. (Perry N uclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741,752 tl977)
Licensmg Board responsibehty to develop the record, LBP-82 87,l6 N RC 1199 (1982)
Cieveland Electnc Illummating Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-443,6 N RC 741,753-54 (1977) analesy between summary dispossuon procedures and Rute $6 of Federal Rutes of Civil Procedure; LBP-82 58,16NRC119-20(1982) standard apphed m admitung issues to anal. LBP 82-88, I 6 N RC 1340 (1982)
Cieveland Elecinc lilummane.g Company, ea al. (Petry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741,755 (1977) circumstancenn m hich summary dispositson monon is appropnate LBP 82-II4, I 6 N RC 1912 (1982)
Cieveland Eluenc illummating Company, et al. ( Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 21, ALA B-675,15 NRCil05(1982) admiss#bility of hydrogen control contenuons, LBP-82 103,16 N RC 1610 (1982) circumstances warrantma interlocutory Appedcard review via derected ccrtification; ALAB 706,16 N RC I756 (1982)
Cleveland Electnc illummatmg Compsny, et al. (Perry N uclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB 675,15 NRCII05,Ill3-14(1982) mterlocutory review to avoid unusualdelay; AL AB-687,16 NRC 464 (1982)
Cleveland Electnc Illummatmg Company, et al. (Perry N uclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), LBP 81 24, le N RC l?5 (1981) st l81 184 cntena for admissib6ty of contentions; LBP-82 108,16 NRC l 821 (1982)
Cleveland Electnc tilummatmg Co.hpany,et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), LBP 8I 24,I4 NRC175,199 200(1981) rehtigat on ofissues at operating beensc stage by intervenors not parties to construction permit proceeding LBP-81-24,16NRC1087(1982)
Cleveland Electne Illummatmg Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2), LBP-81 24,14 N RC l?5,209(1981) retention of BoardJunsdiction over unresolved safety issues. LBP-82 119A 16 N RC 2 t il 12 (1982)
Cleveland Electnc illummatmg Company, et al. (Perry N uclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), LBP 82 1 A,15 NRC 43 (1982) consideration of generic safety issues m operstmg hcense proceedmss; LBP 82 103,16 N RC 1619 (1982)
Licensms Board authonty to dechne to hear an issue because it is the subsect of a rulemaking; LBP 82118,16 NRC2038(1982)
Cleveland Elecinc tilummating Company,et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,Umts I and 2) LBP-82-1I,15 N RC 348,35152 (1982) ood cause for late filing; LBP-82 53,16 N RC 200 (1982)
Commissionerv Sunnen,333 U.S.591.599-600(1948) escephon to the rule of resjudicata; CLI 82 23,16 NRC 420 (1982)
Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron N uclear Power Stauon, Units I and 2), AL AB-659, I4 N RC 983, 985, n.2 (1981) e aceptson to termination of Licensms Boardjunsdictiesi under 2.71I G); LBP-82-86,16 NRC 1191 (1982)
Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron N uclear Power stauon, Units l and 2), ALA B-678,15 N RC l400 (1982) consideration ofintervenor's status as a petitioner rather than a party m applying sanction for nonappearance; LBP 82 108,16 N RC l 816 (1982) determming sanctions to be imposed on N RC Staff; LBP-82 59, I 6 NRC 538 (1982) guidanceonrules overmnsinterrogatones;LBP-82116,16NRC1940(1982) imposition of sancuons for party's failure to comply with preheanns conference order, LBP-82 75,16 NRC989-90(1982) l l'
73 f
4 LEGALCITATIONS INDEX CASES e
1 l
Comrnonwealth Edison Company (Byron N uclear Power Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB478,15 NRC 1400, 14 % 20(1982) test for determinmg appropnate sanctions fx default; LBP 82 Il5,16 N RC 1929 (1982)
Commonwealth Edison Comruny (Byron Nuclear Power Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB478,15 N RC 1421 n.39 (1982) apphcation of N EPA " rule of reason" to apphcant's responses to interrogatones; LB?-8247, I 6 N R C 736 (1982)
Commonwealtii Edison Company (Dresden N uclest Power Stauon, Unit t), CLI-81 25,14 N RC 616, 622 23 (1981) effectof pendency of Board proceedings on N RC StafTs authonty to issue immediately efrective 4
amendment toconstruction permit; CL1-82-29,16 N RC I 231 (1982) m,m-....
Commonwealth Edison Company (Dresalen Nuclear Power Station Umts 2 and 3), ALAB495,16 NRC
% 2(1982)
Apreal Board task on a sua sponte review; AL AB-698, I 6 N RC 1323 (1982)
Commonwealth Edison Company (Zion Station Umts I and 2) ALAB-l%,7 AEC457,460 (1974) adaptauon of N RC discovery rules from Federalliules; LBP-82 82,16 NRC i tS9 (1982)
Commonwealth Edisca Company (Zion Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-226,8 AEC 381,406 (1974) intervenorobpectiontoBoardrefusaltorewriteitscontention;LBP 82-106,16NRC1660(1982)
Conservation Societr of $outhern vermont v. Secretary ofTransportation. 531 F.2d 637 (2d Cir.1976) conditions allowmg segmer.tation of major federal actions; CLI 82 23,16 NRC 424 (1982)
Consolidated Edison Company of New York,Inc. (Indian Pomt Umt 2),CLI-81 1,13 N RC 1,5 n.4 (1981) basis for considenns nsk oroperaung TMI l: ALAB-705,16 NRC 740,748,753 (1982) (1982)
Consolidated Edison Company of Ne= York. Inc. (Indian Pomt, Unit 2), CLI-81 23,14 N RC 610 ( 1981) basis forconsidenna risk ofoperaungTM1 l; ALAB 705,16 NRC 1740 (1982)
I, Consohdated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Indian Point, Unit 2), CLI-81 23,14 N RC 610,612 (1981) applicahon of new policy spproach on TMI issues; A L AB 795,16 N RC 1740,1747 (1982)
Consohdated Edison Company of New York Inc. (Indian Point, Units l and 2) and Power A uthonty of the State of New York (Indian Point, Umt 3). DD-80-5, II N RC 351 (1980) ability of N R C $tafTto discharse its responsibility to consider 2.206 ceuuons, CLI-82 29,16 N RC l229 (1982) use of 2.206 procedures to protect late intervention peutioner's interests; a LA B-707,16 N RC 1768 (1982)
Consolidated Edison Company of New York,Inc. (Indian Point, Units I,2 and 3), ALA B-304,3 N RC 1 (1976) allesauons of future harm from decontammauon of other reactors not a basis for standing; LBP-82 52, 16 NRC185 (1982)
Consohdated Edison Company of New York,Inc. (Indian Point, Umts I,2 and 3), ALA B-304,3 N RC I,6 (1976) roleofNRC$taff;LBP-82 87,16 NRCl200(1982)
Consohdated Edison Company of New York,Inc. (Indian Pomt, Units t.2 and 3). ALAB-319,3 N RC 188 (1976)
N RC Staff responsibihty for health and safety findings; LBP 82 100,16 N RC 1556 (1982)
Consolidated Edison Company of New York,Inc. (Indian Point, Umts I,2 and 3), ALAB-319,3 N RC 188, 190 (1976) limitation on maiters to be resolved in operating license proceedings; LBP.82 76,16 NRC 1086 (1982)
Consohdated Edison Company of New York Inc. (Indian Point, Umts 1 3), CLI-75-8,2 N RC 173,177 (1975) showing required for teopemns a record; DD 82 13,16 N RC 2127 (1982) use of 2.206 procedures as a vehscle for reconsidersuon of previously decided issues; DD-82-13,16 NRC 2119 (1982)
Consumers Powcr Company (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB436,13 N RC 312 (1981) need for discussion of alternatives to spent fuel pool eupansion at Big Rock Point, LBP-82 78,16 NRC 1109,Illi (1982) 74
i LEGALCITATIONSINDEX s
CASES need to consider continued plant operation resultmg from grant of hcense amendment; LBP-82 52,16 NRC194(1982)
Consumers Power Company (Big Roc k Point N uclear Plant). A L AB-636,13 NRC 312, note 2 (1981)
- hen amicus participation issn wed, AL AB-679,16 N RC 126 (1982) o Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Plant), L BP-8240,16 N RC 540,545-46 (1982) form and contents of emergency plannmg pubhc information brochures. LBP.82-66,16 N RC 732 (1982)
J Consumers PowerCompany ( Midland Plant, Umts I and 2) AL AB-33,4 AEC708 (1971) disclosure of matenal protected by enecutive rnvilege. LBP 82-82,16 N RC ll63 (1982) i 5
Consumers Power Company (Midland Piant.Umts I and 2), ALAB40,5 AEC 261 (1972) preclusion of consideration of fuel cycle conterations. LBP-82 l ! 8,16 N RC 2038 (1982) d Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-235,8 AEC 645 (1974) enception tolermmation of Licensmg Boardlunsdiction under 2.718Q); LBP 82-86,16 N RC 1191 (1982)
Consumers PowerCompany (Midland Plant, Umts I and M. AL AB-235,8 A EC 645,646 (1974) time for nhns objections to nonfinal decisions; L BP 82 72.16 N RC 97) ( 1982)
Consumers Power Company iMdiand Plant, Umts I and 2), AL AB-270 I NRC 473,476 (1975) a failurc of mtervenor to suppori sts assertionson appeal; AL AB-69) 16 N RC 955 (1982)
Consumers Power Company ( Midland Plant, Umis I and 2 >, A L AB-282. 2 N RC 9,10 n.I (1975) necessity for filmg enceptions. AL AB-694.16 N RC 959 6' f l982) u Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB 315,3 NRC 101 (1976) enception to rule placing burden of proof on proponent of show cause order; LBP-82-64,16 N RC 655 (1982) 4 potentet Pe delay in Commission-ordered remedy for construction deficiencies at Zimmer; CLI-82-33,16 NRC 1501 (1982)
Consumers PowerCompany (Midland Plant. Umts I and 2), AL AB 352,5 NRC 603 (1977) propnety orcallms mdependent c aperts as Board mitnesses; LBP-82-55,16 N RC 277 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB-382,5 NRC 603,606 (1977) circumstaves m w hich directed certification is marranted, LBP-82-62,16 N RC 567 ( 1982)
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Umts l and 2), AL AB 382,5 NRC 60),608 (1977) discreticn of Licensing Boaru to use inderendent e a perts as mitnesses; LBP-82-55,16 N RC 270 (1982)
Consumers Po*ercompany (Midland Plant, Urtits l ard 2), ALAB-395,5 NRC 772,779 (1977) time for evaluatmg environmental costs of nuclear poner plant construction; LBP 82-92 A,16 N RC 1388(1982)
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Umts l and 2) ALAB-458,7 NRC I55.1614)(1978) consideration of financsal costs m N EPA cost-benefit balance; LBP-82 58,16 N RC 526 (1982);
LBP-82 Il7A,16 NRCl99)(1982)
Consumers Power Company ( Midland Plant. L'mts l and 2) ALAB434,13 N RC %,99 (1981) appeal board authority todechne Licensing Board referrals ALAB-687,16 NRC464 (1982)
Consumers PowerCompany (Midland Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB474,15 NRC 1101 (1982) consideration ofsunk costs at operatmg license stage;I PP-82 119 A,16 N RC 2088 (1982) junsdiction ofOperstm8 License Board to consider suliwency ofquahty assurance at Seabrook; l
LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1069 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-674,15 NRC i101,1102-03 (1982) hmitation on matters to be resolved in operatmg hcense proceedmss; LBP-82 76,16 N RC IC86 ($42) proper ferum for resolution of supplemental coolmg eater system issues; D D-82-13,16 N RC 2127 (1982) 8 Con *umers Power Company (Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) censure ofcounsel for blanket essertions of privilege; LBP 82 82,16 N RC I 154 (1982)
Consumers Power Company ( Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), AL A B491,16 N RC 897,906 07 (1982) standard for consideration ofissues raised for firsi tame on appeal; ALAB-693,16 N RC 956 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant,Umts I and 21, ALAB491,16 NRC 897,908 (1982) scope of appellate sua sponie review; AL AB4%,16 N RC l 262 (1982)
+
75 i
i 4
yw-4
-~-- --------w
>-g.
.r,
+ - -,. -.
w-----,
--v-.
-p
-m7
,.-g
--..-y-
-y wu9-~-
m e-~e--. -
9m.
=.
~ _.. -...,-
i I
r l
J i
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX i
CASES Consumers Power Company ( Midland Plant, Units I and 2), CL1-73-38,6 A EC 1082,1043 (1973)
+
+
use ofless drastic measur es to tesolve construction deficiencies at Zimmer; CLI-82-33.16 N RC 1500 t
(1982)
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Umts l and 2),CLl 74 5,7 A EC I9,32 n.27 (1974),rev'd sub i
nom. Aeschliman v. N RC,547 F.2d 622 f D C.Cir.1976), rew'd sub nom. Vermom Yankee N uclear Power Corp. v. Natural Renources Defense Counsel,435 U.S. 519,553-54 (1978) admissebAty arcontenticas not allering noncomphance with a specified regulation; LBP-82 106.16 NRC 1655 (1982)
Consumers Power Company (Midl.nd Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-78 27,8 N RC 275 (1978) practicesandmembershippolectesofintervenorgroups;CLI-82-15,16NRC32 33(1982)
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), LBP-82-63,16 N RC 571,577,586 (1982)
.,, m m.wm r. -+
i apphcabihtyofgoodcausefactortoadmissibihtyoflate filedpetitionsforinterventionandlate-f: led contentions, LBP-82 91,16 NRC 1357,1368 (1982) 4 Consumers Power Company ( Pahs4 des Nuclear Power Facdity), A L3 80-1,12 N RC I 17,121 26 ( 1980) apphcation of Exemption 5 of Freedom ofinformation Aci tointragovernmental Commumcations, j
LBP-82-82,16 NRC ll63 (1982) 1 Consumers Power Company ( P4hsades Nuclear Power Facdity) A L3 80 1,12 N RC i 17,127-28 ( 1980)
I waiver ofclaims ofesecutive privilege by participation as a htigant; L BP-82 82,16 N RC l l64 f l982)
Consi:.wers Power Company (Pahsades N uclear Power Facility), LBP 79 20,10 N RC 108, Ii3 (1979) s satisfaction ofinierest test forstanding; LBP 82-74,16 NRC 983 (1982)
Crest Auto Supphes,Inc. v. Ero Manufacturms Company,360 F 2d 896,899 (7th Cir.1%6) favorabshty in viewmg summary disposition motion; LBP-82 58,16 N RC 519 (1982) i Crete Carrier Corp. v. Umted States.577 F 2d 49; 50 48th Cir.1978) l use ofsross examin tion in written form; LBP-82 107,16 N RC l675 (1982) l Dairyland Power Cooperative (La Crosse Boehns Water Reactor) DD-80-9, il N RC 392 (1980) j abihty of NRC Staff todischarge its responsabihty toconsider 2.206 petitions; CLI-82-29,16 N RC l229 i
(1982)
Dairyland Power Cooperative iLa Crosse Boehng Water Reactor) DD-80 9, t ! N RC 392 (1980) uswi 2.206 procedures to protect late smervention petitioner'sinterests; AL A B-707,16 N RC l 768 (1982) i Dairyland PowerCooperative (LaCresse Boiling Water Reactor), LBP-80-2 ll NRC 44 (1980) l need for study ofalternatives to spe it fuel pool empansion; LBP-82-78.16 N RC 1108 ( 1982)
Dairyland Power Cooperative (La Crosse Boehng Wster Reactor), LBP 80-2,1 I N RC 44,47 (1980),
a(71rmed (in pertinent part) ALA B-687,12 N RC 430 (1980) transferratofoperatmgauthonty;LBP 82 58,16 NRC515(1982)
Dairylaad Power Cooperative t La Crosse Bothng Water Reactor), LBP 80-2, I l N RC 44,73-77 (1980) interpretation orthe term avadable resources; LBP-82 78,16 NRC ll l2 (1982)
Dairyland Power Cooperative (La Crosse Boehng Water Reactor), LBP-81 7,13 N RC 257,264-65 ( 1981) potential for delay in Commission-ordered remedy for construction deficiencies at Zimmer; CLi-82 33,16 NRC 1501 (1982)
Detroit Edison Company iEnrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), AL AB-470,7 NRC 473,475 (1978) part-ownershipof facility as standing to imervene, LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1032 (1982)
Detroit Edison Company iG reenwood Energy Cenier, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-476,7 N RC 759,762 (1978) general prmciple concermns delay ofproceeding by late intervention; LBP-82 92,16 N RC 138411982)
Detroit Edison Company (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), A LA B-476,7 N RC 759,764 (1978) standard for late interverit,n petitioner's showins of ability to contribute to a scund record; ALAB-704,16 NRC l?30(1982)
Donofrio v. Camp,470 F.2d 428,431 32 (D C. Cir.1972)
L Board authority to grant summary disposition before discovery is completed; A L A B-6%,16 N RC I~
1263(1982)
Duke PowerCompany ( Amendment to Materials License SNM 1773 - Transportation o(Spem f uel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), AL AB-528,9 N RC 146,150 ( t 979) weight given to untimehness ofintervention petition, when fateness is not entreme; LBP-82-74,16 N RC 985 (1982) 7.
b 4
.I
LEGALCITATIONS INDEX CASLs Duke Power Company ( Amendment to Materials License $N M 1773 - Transportauon of Spent Fuel from Oconee N uclear Siation for Storase at McG uire N uclear Stauon), A L A B451, I 4 N RC 307,313 (1981) segmentauonofenvironmentaireview;DD-82 l),16 NRC211911982)
Duke PowerCompany (Catawba NuclearStauon,Umts I and 2), AL AB 355,4 NRC 397,402-05 (1976)
A ppeal Board deference to Licensmg Boardsudgment en close cases, A LA B 698,16 N RC l 320 (1982)
Duke PowerCompany ICatawba Nuclear Station, Units l and 2). ALAB 355,4 N RC 397,413 (1976) dispostionofunsupport dbriefs; ALAB-693,16NRC956(1982)
Duke Power Company (Cata=ba Nuclearitation, U'iits I and 2), AL AB 355,4 NRC 397,41314 (1976) maiverofmadequately briefed enceptio'is, AL AB-696,16 N RC l255 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Cata=ba N uclear Stanon, U mts I and 2), AL AB487,16 N RC 460 (1982) admissibihty ofcontentions based on unnailable mformanon; LBP 82 75,16 NRC 1008,1009,1017 (1982), L BP-82 76,16 N RC 1044,1055,1068,1075,1079,1080,1094 (1982); LBP-82 91,16 N RC 1367 (1982);LBP 82106,16 NRC 1658 (1982) apphcation of speuficity requiremens to contennons based on unavailable docume nts; LBP 82 Il9 A.
16 N RC 2071 (1982) condinona admisson of consennons not meeting the specificity requirement; LBP-82 98,16 N RC r
1464(1982) demal of contentions addresung olisite emergency planmns issues, L BP-d2 76,16 N RC 1030 ( 1982) fihng ofcontenhons based on SER and DES, LBP-82-103,16 N RC 1606 (1982)
Duke Power Company tCatawba Nuclear Stauon, Umts I and 2), AL AB487,16 NRC 460.465 (1982) appeal board reluctance to certify quesuons mvolving scheduhng; ALA B488,16 N RC 475 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Cata=ba Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB487,16 NRC 460,467 (1982) contravenuon of hearmg nghts; LBP-82 87,16 N RC l200 (1982)
Duke PowerCompany (Catawba Nuclear Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB487,16 NRC 460,467 n.12,468 (1982)
Board adherence to R ules of Practice for umely resolution of Commismon proceedings; AL AB4%,16 NRC l263 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Catam ba N uclear Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB487,16 N RC 460,467-70 (1982) time for raisms contenuens based on FES; LBP-82 92A,16 N RC 1389 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Catam ba N uclear Stanon, Umts l and 2), ALAS 487,16 NRC 460,468 n.14 (1982) consideration orcost-benefit balance in FES as new informanon, LBP-52-95, I 6 NRC 1403 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Cata=ba Nuclear Stauon, Umts I and 2), LBP 74-5,7 AEC 82,93 (1974) reheiganon ofissues heard at construction permit stage; LBP-82 107 A,16 N RC I 799 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Cata= ba N uclear Station, Umts 1 and 2), LBP-75-34,1 N RC 626,642 46 (1975) hmitauon on consdering study bolt scenano for serion accident; LBP-82 107 A,16 N RC 1808 (1982)
Duke Power Company ICata=ba N uclear Stauon, Un:ts I and 2), LBP-82 16,15 N RC 566,571 72 and n 6 (1982); LRP-82-50,15 N RC l746 (1982) circumstances mappropriate for applyins five-factor test to late-filed contenuons; LBP-8243,16 NRC 4
577(1982)
Duke Power Company (Catamba Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), LBP-82 16,15 NttC 566,583 (1982) showmg required for admission of contention not alleging noncomphance with a specified regulat on; LBP-82-106,16 NRC 1655 (1982)
Duke Pomer Company (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Umts l.2 and 3), ALA B 440,6 N RC 642,644-45 (1977) l 1
consequences of mtervenor's failure to file proposed findings of fact; AL AB-691,16 N RC 907 (1982)
{
good cause standards applied to e sisting intervenor seeking to adopt withdrawms intervenor's contentions;LBP 82 91,16NRCl369(1982)
I lac k ofjustification for untimely intervention; LBP-8243,16 NRC 586 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Cherokee Nuclear Stauon, Umts I,2 and 3), ALAB 440,6 N RC 643,644 (1977) f claim of misp' aced reliance on another party to represent an intervenor's interests as cause for late intervenuon, LBP-82-Il78,16 N RC 2027 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Cherokee N uclear Station, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-478,7 N RC 772,773 (1978) necessity for films esceptions; AL AB494,16 N RC 959 (1982) i Duke Power Company t.)conee N uclear Stanon, Units l.2 and 3), DD-794,9 NRC 661462 (1979) showing necessary in 2 206 peutions; DD-82-13,16 N RC 2121 (1982) t 4
77
+
LEGALCITATIONSINDEX CASES l
Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear 5tation, Units I,2 and 3) ALAB-431,6 NRC 460,462 (1977) showing necessary on other factors when good cause for late intervention is not shown; LBP-82-I l 78, 16 NRC 2026 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units !,2 and 3), ALAB-591, ll NRC 741,742 n.3 (1980)
Appeal Board declination todecidejurisdictionalissues; A LAB 499,16 NRC l326 (1982)
Licensing Board autho-ity to reopen a proceeding, AL AB499,16 NRC 1327 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Perkins Nucleat Station, Umts I,2 and 3), ALAB-597, II NRC 870 (1980) subject matterjurisdiction of Licensing Board; LBP-82 86,16 NRC 1891 (1982)
Duke PowerCompany (Perkins NuclearStation, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-597,11 NRC 870,873 74 (1980)
A ppeal Board declination to decidejurisdictionalissues; ALAB499,16 NRC l326 (1982)
._,,.- w :.- w Duke PowerCompany (Perkms Nuclear Station, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-597, I I NRC 870,874 n.8 (1980) time for filing objections to nonfinal decisions LBP-82-72,16 N RC 971 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units i,2 and), ALAB415,12 NRC 350,352 (1980) adoption ofwithdrawing intervenor's contentions by another party; LBP-82 91,16 NRC 1368 (1982) i showmg required of pro se intervenor for admission oflate-filed contention; LBP-8243,16 N RC 578 (1982) a Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units I,2, and 3), LBP 78-25,8 NRC 47,100 (1978)
Appeal Board concurrence with conclusion of; ALAB450,14 NRC 909 (1982) health eiTects ofradon emissions from mining and milling ofuracium; ALAB 701,156 NRC 1519 (l982)
Duke Power Company (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-143,6 AEC 623,625 (1973) application of relevance and materiality standards; LBP-82 73,16 N RC 978 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 669,15 NRC 453 (1982) admissibihty of hydrogen control contentions; LBP-82-103,16 N RC 1610 (1982) scope of hydrogen controlissue considered; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1065 (1982)
Duke PowerCompany (William B McGuire NuclearStation, Units I and 2), AL AB409,15 NRC453,475 (1982) standard for quahfication of eapert witnesses; ALA B-701,16 NRC ! $24 (1982)
Duke Power Company (Wilham B. McG uire Nuclear $tation, Units l and 2). CLI-81-15,14 N RC I,5 (1981) considerationofhydrogencontrolissuesin manufacturinglicenseproceedings;CLI-82 37,16NRC i
1695(1982)
Duke Power Company (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), LBP 73-7,6 AEC 92,106 108 (1973) rejection of stud bolt scenano for senous accident; LBP-82-107 A,16 NRC 1808 (1982)
Duke Power Company (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), LBP-79-13,9 N RC 489 (1979) litiganon orhydrogen gas contrni contentions; LBP-82-103,16 N RC 1609 (1982)
Duke Power Company (William B. McG uire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), LBP 81 13,13 NRC 652,674 (1981) reopening operating heense proceeding to consider bydrogen control contention; LBP 82-103,16 NRC1610(1982)
Duke Power Company v. Carolina Environmental Study Group,438 U.S. 59,74 (1978) proximity to radioactive source as basis for standing to intervene; A LAB-682,16 N RC 154 (1982)
Easton Uuhties Commission v. AEC,424 F.2d 847,852 (D C. Cir.1970)
/
withdrawal ofone party as good ca use for anotherintervenor's belated adoption of the withdra wing party's contentions; L BP 82-91,16 N RC 1369 (1982)
Eisen'v. Carhsle & 3acquelin,417 U.S.156,173-175 (1974) loss of nght to heanns through iack of notice; A L A B-682,16 N RC 158 (1982)
Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Department of Energy,89 F.2d 1082,1096 (T.E.C.A.1978) hmits on agency prerogatives to interpret policy statements; LBP-8249,16 N RC 753 (1982)
Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps of Engineersof the United States Army,470 F.2d 289,296 (8th Cir.
1972) standard for objective as:ncy decisionmaking in N EPA cases; LBP-82 99,16 N RC 1547 (1982) 78
1 I
i LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX CASES Environmental Defense Fund v. Hoffman,566 F.2d l060,1067 (8th Cir.1977) need to consider fuel cycle contnhution to radon already in the environment; ALAB 701,16 N RC 1527(1982)
Environmentai Defense Fund,Inc. v. Hoffman,566 F.2d 1060,107 I (8th Cir.1977) procedures needed to make serious accident evaluation for operting power reactors; A L A B-705,16 NRC1753 (1982)
EPA v. M mk.410 U 5. 73,86-87 and n.34 (1973) application of Exemption 5 of Freedom ofInformation Act to intrasovernmental communications, LBP 82 82,16NRCll63(1982)
Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System v. Merni,443 U.S. 340,360 (1979) lensth of time documents shielded by eacc Jtive pnvilege remam privileged; LBP.82 82, I6 N RC I164 (1982)
Federal Po ver Commission v. Anzona Edison Company,194 F.2d 679,683-86 (9th Cir.1952) justification fordismissalof mertenor for failure toattend prehearing conference; LBP 82 Il5,16 NRC 1935 (1982)
Federal Power Commission v. New England Power Company,415 U.S. 345 (1974)
NRCauthority torequire utihty-applicants to pay fees forintervenors' consultants,CL182 40,16 NRCl719(1982)
Final Rule on Emergency Planning.CLI-80-40,12 N RC 636,638 (1980)
Commission rehance on NUREG4654 for implementmg emergency regulations; AL AB498,16 NRCl299(1982)
Fire Protecucn for Operatmg Nuclear Power Plants (10 CFR 50:48),CLI-8I lI,13 NRC 778,782 n.2 (1981) methods for meeting regulatory requirements for emergency plannms; AL AB 698,I6 NRC I299 (1982)
Fisher v. United States 425 U.S 391,403-05 (1976) purpose of atic aiey chent pnvilege; LBP.82-82,16 N RC 1857 (1982)
Flonda Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Plant, Umt No. 2). ALA3461.14 NRC lll7, ll23 n 15 (1981) scca of Licensmg Boardjunsdiction to consider anutrust issues. LBP-82 119 A 16 N RC 2097 (1982)
Flonda Power & Light Company (Turkey Point, U mts 3 and 4),4 A EC 9, ll 12. affirmed sub nom.Siegel v.
AEC,400 F.2d 778,781 84 ( D.C. Cir.1%8) providmg desisit teatures for paruculanzed threats of sabotage; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 73 (1982) c Flonda Power & Light Company (Turkey Pomt,Umts3 and 4),4 AEC 9,12-13 (1967) standards for safeguardmg special nuclear matenals; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 76 (1982s Flonda Power & Light Company (Turkey Pomt, U mts 3 and 4), A LA B460,14 N RC 987 (1981) functionmg of steam sencrators in nuclear power plants; A LA B4%,16 NRC l 250 (1982)
Frito-Layof Puerto Rico,Inc.v.Canas.92 F.R D.384 (D P.R.1981) specificity required of motion for reconsideranon; L SP-8248,16 N RC 749 (1982)
FTC v.Tesaco.555 F.2d 867,881 (D C.Cir 1977), cert.demed,431 U.S 974 (1977) reheanns denied,434 U.S.883(1977)at893 94 apphcation of resjudicata ehen agency decision involves substantial policy issues; CLI-82 23,16 N RC 420(1982)
FTC v.Tesaco Inc.377 U.S. 33,42-44 (1964) i Commission authonty to determme means for decidmg a parucular issue; LBP-82 I t t,16 N RC 2038 (1982)
Gage v Umted States Atomic Energy Commission,479 F.2d l214.1220 n.19 (D C. Cir.1972) l need for heanns on construcuon activiues inihated pnor to construcuon permit issuance; CLI-82 23.
16 NRC 421 (1982) f Georgia Power Company ( Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), DD-79-4,9 N RC 582 (1979) appropriateness of suspendmg construction permi's for nuclear facihties based on alleged changed circumstances; DD-82-l),16 N RC 2126 (1912) r Goldberg v. Keity 397 U1254,269 (1970) tailormg of heanns procedures to competency of a party's legai representatives; LBP-82-107,16 N RC 1679(1982) l i
I 79 l
t I
i
s LEGALCITATIONSINDEX CASES Gordon v. United States,438 F.2d 858,875 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 404 U.S. 828 (1971) scope ofinformer's privilege; LBP 82-87,16 N RC i 198 (1992)
Greene County Plannmg Board v. FPC,455 F.2d 412,419 (2nd Cir.1972)
Lscensing Board responsibility to develop the record; LBP-82-87,16 NRC 1199 (1982)
GulfStates Unlines Company (River Bend Station, Units l and 2), ALAB 183.7 A EC 222,228 (1974) advantage of use ofsummary disposition rule; LBP 32 58,16 N RC 519 (1982)
GulfStates UtilitiesCompany (River Bend Station Units I and 2), ALAB-358,4 NRC558 (1976) efrectofchangeininterveningorganization'srepresentationofmembership;LBP 82 54,16NRC215 (1982)
G ulf States Utilines Company (River Bend Station, Units l and 2), ALA B-444,6 NRC 760 (1977)
Board responsitality to consider unresolved senenc safety issucs in spent iael pool modification proceeding; LPB-8245,16 NRC 723 (1982) y m,.m condinonal admisason ofcontentions not meeung the specificity requirement; LBP-82-98,16 NRC 1464 (1982) obhgations ofinterested state admitted as full party ; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1079 (1982) place for review of unresolved safety issues; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1043 (1982)
GulfStates Uuhties Company (River Bend Station, Ur.ns I and 2), ALAB-444,6 N RC 760,768 (1977) apphcation of 2.714(a) lateness of factors to statements ofissues offered by a 5 tate; LBP 82 103,16 NRC1615(1982)
GulfStates Unliues Company (River Bend Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB-444,6 N RC 760,771 73 (1977) failure of station blackout contention to satisfy nesus requirement; LBP-82-63,16 N RC 591 (1982)
Gulf State: Utilinescompany (River Bend Stanon, Umts l and 2), AL AB-444,6 N RC 760,772-73 (1977) methods for meeting regulatory requirements for emergency planning; A LAB 498,16 N RC 1299 (1982)
G ulf$tates Uutines company (River Bend Station, Umts t and 2) ALAB-444 6 N RC 760,773 (1977) requirement for litigation ofgeneric safety issues; LBP-82-106,16 N RC 1657 (1982) vslidity ofa contenuon based on a generic issue; LBP 82 103,16 N RC 1608 (1982)
G ulf States Utiliues Company ( River Bend $tation, Umts l and 2) ALAB-444,6 N RC 760,795-98 (1977) factorsconsideredingoodcausedeterminationforadmissionoflate filedcontentions;LBP-82 91,16 NRCl367,1369 (1982)
Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units l and 2), AL AB-444,6 NRC 760,7%-98 (1977) ddferences hetween participation as an interested state and as a full party; LPP-82-92,16 N RC 1381, 1382 (1982)
Hanly v. Kleindienst,471 F.2d 823,834 (2d Cir.1972) procedures needed to make serious accident evaluation for operating power reactors; A LA B-705,16 NRC1753 (1982)
Harri=>n v. Northerc Trust Company,317 U.S. 476,479 (1943) determining intent of regulauons; CLI 82 19,16 N RC 62 ( 1982)
Health Research Group v. Kennedy,82 F.R.D. 21 (D.D.C.1979) intervention by a group having sponsors rather than members; CLI-82-15,16 N RC 31,32 (1982)
Hickman v. Taylor,329 U.S. 495 (1947) matenal encompassed by iswyer work product; ALAB-691,16 NRC 917 (1982)
Hickman v. Taylor,329 U.S. 495. 508 (1947) adaptauon of NRC discovery rules from Federal Rules; LBP-82-82.16 NRC ll59 (1982)
H oliday Queen Land Corp. v. Baker,489 F.2d 1031,1032 (5th Cir.1974) basis for departmg from rule ofdismissal ofapplicanons without prejudice; LBP-82-81,16 N RC 1135 (1982)
Houston Lighting and Power Company ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station), ALA B-635,13 N RC 309,310(1981) standards for grantmg discretionary interlocutory review; LBP-82-62,16 NRC 568 (1982)
Houston Lighung and Power Company ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I), ALAB 535.9 NRC377(1979) failure oforganization to comply with requirements for standms; LBP-82-52,16 NRC 185 (1982) representauonal requirement for organization seeking standme to intervene; LBP-82-54,16 NRC 216 (1982) 80
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Houston Lightmg and Power Company ( AllensCreek N6 clear Generating Station, Umt 1), AL AB 535.9 NRC377,395-96 & n.25 (1979) authority of an organization to represent its members. for purposc of standmg tn intervene; ALAB 700,16 N RC 1334 (1982)
Houston Lightmg and PowerCompany ( AllensCreek NuclearGenerating Station, Umt l), ALAB-547,9 NRC638 (1979) appeal board pohey concernmg enforcement time hmits on appeals from Licensing Board proceedings; AL AB484,16 N RC 165 (1982)
Houston Lighting and Power Company ( AllensCreek NuclearGenerating Station, Umt 1), ALAB-565,10 NRC521(1979) response by imervenor to apphcants' arguments oppowns motion to reopen record; L BP-82 54,16 NRC 21)(1982) responses ofintervenors to apphcant, Staff and Board questions; LBP-82-63,16 N RC 576 (1982)
Houston Lightmgand PowerCompany I AllensCreek NuclearGenerstmg Station Unit 1) ALAB 565,10 N RC 521.525 (1979) i response: to motions concermns late-filed contentions; LBP 82-89, I 6 N RC 1356 ( 1982)
Houston Lightmg and Power Company ( AllensCreek NuclearGeneratmg Stanon Umt l), ALAB-590,11 N RC 542 (1920) admission of
- regulatory gap" contentions; LBP-82 106.16 N RC 1656 (1982) consideration of a contention's merits in determining its admissibility; LBP-82 106.16 N RC 1654 (1982) consideration of factual evidence in rialing on admissibihty ofcontentions. LBP 82-103,16 N RC 1607 (1982) e sclusion ofcontention through undercuttmg ofe spert mitness's credibihty; LBP-82 98,16 N RC l 466 (1982) use ofsummary disposition procedures; LBP 82119 A.16 NRC207t (1982)
Houston Lightmg and Power Company ( Allens Creek N uclear Generatmg Station, Umt 1), ALAB-590, Il N RC 542,546 (1980) consideration of mtervenor's pro se sistus m balancmg oflateness factors; LBP-82-91,16 N RC i 368 (1982) consideration of totally deficient brief prepared by layman, ALA B-693,16 N RC 957 (19821 showing required ofpro se mtervenor for admasuon oflate filed contentum; LBP 82-63,16 N RC 578 (1982)
Houston Lighting and Power Company ( Allens Creck Nuclear Generatmg Station, Unit l), ALA B-590, I l N RC 542.547-49 (1980) j consideration of a contention's merits ai the admission stage LBP-82-I l 8,16 N RC 2037 (1982) j tesolution of factual questionsin considerms admissibihty ofcontentions LBP-82 63, I6 N RC 581 583,587,588(1982)
Houston Lightmg and Power Company ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generstms Stanon, Unit I), AL A B 590, I I NRC542.549(1980) evaluation oflate intervention petitioner's abihty to contribute to a sound record; LBP-82-Il78,16 N RC 2029(1982)
Houston Lightmg and PowerCompany ( AllensCreek Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umt I), ALAB 590, il N RC 542,550 fl980) rights cc..ferred on a party by its admission to a proceedms; ALAB-6%,16 N RC 1258,1263 (1982)
Houston Lightmg and Power Company ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Uma 1) ALAB-590,11 j
a j
NRC 542,550-51 (1980) j encouragement of use of summary disposition procedures; LBP-82-58,16 N RC 519 (1982) use of summary disposition to avoid unnecessary hearmas; LBP-82 Il4,16 N RC 19I I (1982) i Houston Lightms and Power Company ( Aliens Creek N uclear Generating Station, Unit 1), AL AB 590, il i
NRC542,551(1980) time for estabhshmg factual support for contentions; LBP-82-l 16.16 N RC 1945 (1982) 1 1
81 I
4 i
...m-
.-m,_.
-,.__,.. _ ~
- _ _, -_.__... ~ -.
a s
LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX CASES
)
Houston Lighting and Power Company ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Umt l), ALA B471,15 l
)
NRC 508 (1982) admissibility ofcontentions dealing with need for power and ahernatives to nuclear power plants; i
LBP-82103,16 Ntc 1607 (1932) j t
standards for evaluating new contentions; LBP 8243,16 N RC 576 (1982)
Houston Lighting and Power Co*npeny I Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Umt 1), ALA B471,15 NRC 508,509 (1982) application of five factor test to abandoned contentions being adopted by another intervenor; I
LSP 82-91,16 NRC l367(1982) j Houston Lightmg and Power Company (Allens Creek NuclearGeneratmgStation Unit I), ALAB471,15
-4 NRC508,511(1982)
, m.m -
interpretation of delay factor for evaluating late intervention petitions; ALA B-707,16 N RC 1766 (1982)
Houston Lighting and Power Company (South Teans Project, Units i and 2), LBP-81 54,14 N RC 918, I
922-23 & n 4 (1981) circumstances allowing invocation of Appeal Board's sua sponte authority; AL A B485,16 N RC 452 (1982)
Houston Lighting and Power Company, et at (South Te sas Project, Umts I and 2), AL A B-381,5 N RC 582, 590-91(1977)
{
termsnation of Licenwns Board'sjurisdiction in each proceeding; AL A B499,16 N RC 1326 (1982)
Houston Lighting and Power Company, et al. (South Texas Project, Units I and 2), ALA B 608,12 N RC l
168,170(1980) standards for granting discretionary interlocutory review; LBP-8242,16 N RC 568 (1982)
Houston Lightmg and Power Company, et al. (South Tenas Project, Units I and 2), ALAB437,13 N RC g
367,370(1981) standards for granting discrenonary interlocutory review; LBP 8242,16 N RC 568 (1982) i Houston Lighting and Pvwer Company, et al (South Texas Project Umts I and 2), ALA B437,13 N RC 367,370-71 (198l) appeal board reluctance to certify questions involvmg scheduling; AL AE488,16 N RC 475 (1982)
Houston Lightmg and Power Company, et al. (South Temas Project, Umts I and 2), A LAB 439.13 N RC 469,471,473 74,475 n.20,476.477,478 n.26 (1981)
{
yiciding ofinformer's pnvilege; LBP-82-59,16 N RC $37-38 (1982)
Houston Lighung and Power Company, et al. (South TeTas Project Umts I and 2), ALAB439,13 NR C l
469,483 n 6 (1981) eatent ofinformer's pnvilege; LBP 82 87,16 NRC 1202 (1982)
Houston Lighting and Power Company, et al. (South Tenas Project, Umts I and 2), CLI-77 13,5 N RC 1303, 1305(1977) junsdiction of L;eensing Board after issuance oflow-power heense; LBP-82 92, t 6 N RC 1379 (1982)
Houston Lightmg and Power Company, et al. (South Texas Project Units I and 2), CLI-80-32,12 N RC 28 I (1980) deniai ofoperating licena because of management incompetence; LBP-82-54,16 N RC 221,223 (1982)
Houston Lighung and Power Company et al. (South Texas Project, Umts l and 2), LBP-79 27.10 N RC 563 l
(1979), affirmed summarily, ALAB-575 II NRC l4 (1980) i apphcation ofcollateral estoppel to relitigation of tounsm tmpact contention; LBP-82-76,16 N RC l
1081(1982)
Huntv. Washington Apple AdvertismsCommission,432 U S.333,342-45 (1977) i authonty of an orgamzation to represent its members, for purpose of standing to intervene; ALAB-700,16 NRC l334 (1982)
H unt v. Washmston State Apple Advertising Commission,432 U.S. 333 (1977) ability orintervenor groups to represent their members adeqt:stely; CLI-82 15,16 NRC 32 (1982)
Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station, Umts I and 2), ALA B-340,4 N RC 27,46 (1976) limitations on benefits to be considered in an operaung license cost-benefit balance; LBP-82-95,16 t
NRC l405 (1982) 82 i
I i
LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX CASES Ilhnois Power Company (Cimson Power Station, Units I and 2), ALA B-340,4 N RC 27,48 (1976) circumstances requiring cost-benent balancmg for proposed nuclear plant; LBP-82 117 A,16 N RC 199)(1982) considerstion of financial costs in NEP A cost-benent balance; LBP-82-58,16 N RC 526 (1982) llimois Power Company (Chnton Power Station, Urnts I and 2), ALAB 340,4 N RC 27,49 (1976) consideration of efiect of Lases m N EPA cost basis analysis; LBP-82 103,16 N RC 1613 (1982)
Ilhnois Power Company, et at (Clinton Power S;ation, Units I and 2), LBP-81-56,14 N RC 1035 (1981) severance ofconsohdated proceedmss; DPRM 82 2,16 N RC 1215 (1982)
In re Fischel,557 F.2d 209 (9th Cir.1977) burden of proof for claim of e necutive pnvilege; LBP 82-82,16 N RC l l53 (1982)
In re Fischel 557 F.2d 209,211,212 (9th Cir.1977) commumcations encompassed by attorney-client privilege; LBP 82 82,16 NRC 1858 (1982)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated November 8,1979,622 F.2d 933,934 n.1 (6th Car.1980) extent of attorney work product privilege; ALAB450,14 NRC917 (1982)
In te M urphy,560 F.2d 326,334,336 n.20 (8th Cir.1977) clanncation of attorney work product doctrine; LBP 82-82,16 NRC ll60,ll61 (1982)
In re Scaled Case,676 F.2d 793, at 806 807 specincity required of claims of e necutne privilege; LBP-82-82,16 N RC i l 5) (1982)
In re Walsh,623 F.2d. 489,494 (7th Cir ), cert. demed sub nom. Walsh v, Umted States,449 U.S. 994 (1980) commumcationsencompassedbyattorney client pnvilege;LBP-82 82,16NRCll59(1982)
Indiana and Michigan Electric Company ( Donald C. Cook N uclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-129,6 AEC 414,417,420(1973) scope of construction permit proceedms, CLI-82-29,16 N RC 1226,1227,1230 (1982)
Indiana and Michigan Elec;nc ramnany Gonald C. Cook Nuclear Plant,Umts I and 2),CLI 72 75, $ AEC 13,14 (1972) example ofgood cause for acceptance oflate contention; LBP 8243,16 N RC 577 (1982)
International Harvester Company v. 0ccupational Safety and Health Review Commission,628 F.2d 982, 986(7th Cir.1980) apphcation of resjudicata by an admmistrative agency; CLI-82 23,16 N RC 420 (1982)
Iowa Electnc Light & Power Company (Duane Arnold Energy Center) AL AB-108,6 AEC 195 (1973) appeal board pohey concerrung enforcement time hmits on appeals from Licensing Board proceedmss; AL AB484,16 NRC 165 (1982)
Jack Winter,Inc. v. Koratron Company,Inc.,54 F AD. 44,46 (N.D. Cal.1971) commumcations encompassed by attorney-chent pnvilege; LBP-82-82,16 N RC 1158 (1982)
Jersey Central Power and Light Company (Oyster Creek N uclear Generstmg Station), ALAB412,12 N RC 314 (1980) eatent of Appeal Board sua sponte teview authonty; ALA B489,16 N RC 890 (1982)
Jacantia A pache Tnbe ofindians v. Morton,47 F.2d 1275,1280 (9th Cir.1973) scope ofinformation concerning environmentalimpact of a project to be obtained before project initiation; LBP-8242,16 N RC 569 (1982)
+
Jones v.SEC,298 U.S l.19(1936) -
basis for departing from rule ofdismissal of applications without prejudice; LBP-82-81,16 N RC 1135 (1982)
Jones v. State Board of Education,397 U.S. 31 (1970) dismissal of grant of review when parties have already briefed the issues; CLI-82 26,16 N RC 881 (1982)
Joseph v. U.S. Civil Service Commission,554 F.2d 1140,1153 n.24 (D C. Cir.1977) limits on agency prerogatives to interpret policy statements; LBP-8249,16 NRC 753 (1982) i Kansas Gas and Electnc Company and Kansas City Power and Light Company (Wolf Creet Generating Station,Umtl) ALAB-462,7NRC320,338(1978) admissibility of contemion; LBP-82-53,16 N RC 199 (1982) burden of proponent ormotion to reopen record; LBP 82-84,16 N RC ll 85 (1982) responsibihty ofintervenor requestmg that record be reopened; LBP 82-%,16 N RC 1436 (1982) showing necessary to reopen a proceeding; ALAB-707,16 NRC 1765 (1982) standards for reopening the record; LBP-82-1178,16 N RC 203 I (198M i
i o
I 83
s LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX CASES Kansas Gas and Electric Company and Kansas city Power and light Company (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Stat on, Unit 1), ALAB 327,3 N RC 408,416 417 (1976) i standards for showmg good cause for a protective order; LBP 82-82,16 NRC 1153 (1982)
Kansas Gas and Electnc Company and Kansas City Power and Light Company (Wolf Creek N uclear Generating station, Unit No.1), ALAB-331,3 N RC 771,774 & n.5 (1976) factor determining appealability of an order; A LAS4%,16 N RC 1256-57 (1932)
Kent Corp. v. NLRB,530 F.2d 612 (5th Cir.), cart. oenied 429 U.S 920 (1976) matenal encompassed by atiorney work product doctrine; L BP 82-82,16 NRC 1161, i162 (1982)
Kerr-McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earth Facility), CLI-82-2,15 N RC 232,244-46 (1982), petition for teview pending sub nom. City of We. t Chicago v. Nuclear Regu'atory Commission, No: 82 1575 (7th Cir filed Apnl8,I982) requirements for giving notice of materials license actions; A LAB 482,16 N RC 157 (1982)
Kerr McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earth Facility), CLI-82-2,15 N RC 232,24742 (1982), petition for review pendmg sub nom. City of West Chicago v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 82 1575 (7th Cir., filed Apnl 8,1982) type of heanns required for materials licensing action; A L AB4(2,16 N RC 155,157 59 ( l 982)
Kleppe v. Sierra Club,427 U.S. 390 (1976) conditions allowing sesmentation of major federal actions; CLI 82-21, I 6 N RC 424 (1982)
Kleppe v. Sierra Club,427 U.S 390,403 et seq. (3une 28,1976)
N EP A consideration of use of spent fuel for nuclear weapons:LBP-82-53,16 NRC 199(1982)
Lacey v. Lumber M utual Fire insurance Company,554 P 2d I204 ( t st Cir.1977) specificity required of motion for reconsideration; LBP-8248,16 N RC 749 (1982)
LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc. 528 F.2d 601,60345 (5th Cir.1976)
Licensing Board discretion to presenbe terms for withdrawal of construction permit apphcation; LBP-82-81.16 N RC ll34.1139(1982)
Lewis v. Umted States,445 U.S 55.60 (1980) interpretation ofimmediate effectiveness regulation, ALAB486,16 NRC456 (1982)
Life of the Land v. Bnnegar,485 F.2d 460 (9th Cir.1973), cert. demed 416 U.S. %I (1974) need for consideration of alternatives to nuclear power plants; LBP-82-117 A,16 N RC 1992 (1982)
'Long Island Lighting Company Gamesport Nucleat Power Sratson, Units I and 2), ALA B-292,2 N RC 631.
648 (1975) lack of availabihty ofother means to protect late mtervention petitioner'smterests; ALAB 707,16 NRC 1767(1982) gLons istand lightmg Companv (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), A L A B-39. 4 A EC 727 (1971)
Board discretion to conduct heanngs outside 10-mile EPZe CLI-82 15,16 N RC 37 (1982)
Lons istand LightmgCompany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,Umt l), ALAB-12.4 AEC 413 (1970) biasof Licensing Board member throusc professional associations; LBP-82-99,16 N RC l 547 (1982)
Lons istand lightmg Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Umt i). AL A B-99,6 A EC 53 (1973) preclusion ofconsideration of fuelcycle contentions; LBP 82-Il8.16 NRC 2038 (1982)
Long Island Lightmg Company (Shoreham N uclear Power Station, Uma 1), LBP 77 11,5 N RC 481,483 (1977) representation, by an organization. ofindividuals other than its own members; LBP-82 74,16 NRC 984(1982)
Long Island Lightmg Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Umt 1), LBP-82 19,15 NRC 601 (1982))
lack of basis for litigation of system's interaction contention; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1034 (1982)
Long Island RR Company v. Umted States,318 F Supp. 490,499 (E D.N.Y.1970) 498 F 2d at 723 limitation on merhod of cross-e nammation; LBP 82 107,16 N RC l 676 (1982)
Louisiana Power and light Company (waterford Steam Generstmg Station, Umt No. 3) A L AB-255,1 NRC45,48 n.6 (1975) appellate review of Licensmg Board rulings on ect,aomic issues, mtervention requests, or procedural matters, AL AB491,16 NRC 908 (1332) eutent of Apreal Board sua sponte review authority; ALAB489,16 N RC 890 (1982) 84
i l
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Louisiana Power and Light Company (w aterford Steam Generating Station, Umt No. 3 ), AL AB490,16 N RC 893 (1982) appealabihty of Licensms Board order authonzing beense amendment; ALAB496,16 NRC 1256 (1982)
Immer Allow sys Creek v. Pubhc Seruce Electnc and Gas Company,687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir.1982) automatic mvocwon of EIS process; AL AB 705,16 NRC 1746 (1982)
Lunn v. Umted Aircraft Corp.,26 F R D.12,18 (D C. Del 1960) habihiy of plamtiff for defendant's attorney's fees; LBP 82-81,16 N RC l l42 (1982)
Mnne Yankee Atomic PowerCompany (Mame Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALAB-161,6 AEC1003 (1973) lack of regulatory requirement for probabihstic nsk assessment; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1033,1050 (1952)
Mame Ya%ee Atomic PowerCompany (Mame Yankee Atomic PowerStatton), ALAB-161,6 AEC 1003, 1010(1973) burden of apphcant regardms safety issues, LBP-82-106,16 NRC 1654 55 (1982)
ManhattanGeneralEquipmentCompany v.CommissionerofiniernalResenue,297 U.S.129,134 35 (1936) preclusion of heanns on germane issues through unlaw ful procedural requirements. AL A B487,16 NRC 469 (1982)
Martm v. Easton Pubhshmg Company,85 F.R.D 312.315 (E D Pa.1980) apphcation of N EP A "rulc of reason" to spphcant's responses te mterrogatones. LBP 82 67,16 N RC 736(1982)
M aryland-Natio.ul Capital Park and Plannmg Commission v. Postal Service,487 F.2d 1029,1036-37 ( D C.
Cir.1973) evaluation of environmentalimpact of site prepaintion actmties in context of zoning; CL1-82 23,16 N RC427 (1982)
Mav veil v. NLRB,414 F.2d 477. 479 (6th Cir.1969) apphcation of resjudicata m hen agency decision tnvolves substantial pohcy issues; CLI 82 23.16 N RC 420(1982)
McKennav Seston,104 U.S. App.D C 50,259F.2d780 Commission discretion in administerms its piocedur31 rules; LB P 82107,16 N RC 1678 f 1982)
M*tro Ed v. PANE 51 U.S L.W.3339 (U.S. Nov.2.1982)(No. 812399) need for supple mental EIS on psychological stress issues retaied to restart ofTM1 1. ALAB-705,16 NRC1737(1982)
M etropohtan Edison Comreny (Three Mile lsland Nuclear Statior*, U nit No.1), ALAB485,16 NRC 449, 451 52(1982)
A ppeal Board task on a sua sponte revsew; AL A B-698,16 N RC 132' (1982)
M etrc,,sohtan Edison Company (Three M ile Island N uclear Station, Unit No.1), CLI-80-16, II NRC 674 (1930) interpretation of pohey statement regardmg hydrogen issue in; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1064 (1982) need for credible hydrogen generation scenano for admission ofcontention; LBP 82 76,16 N RC 1040,1050,1062(1982)
Metropohtan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit No.1), CLI-80-16, II N RC 674, 675(1980) proper response to genenc challenges to regulations; CLI-82-19,16 NRC 74 (1982) ent-naforhtigatinghydrogencontrolissuesinindividuallicensingproceedmas;LBP 42107A,16 NRC 1808 (1982) htigation of genenc issues that are the subject ofonsoms rulemaking,in individuallicensms proceedings; LBP-82 107 A.16 N RC 1809 (1982) hfigation of hydrogen gas control contentions; LBP-82 103,16 N RC 1609 (1982) showing required for admission ofcontention not alleging noncompliance with a specified regulation; LBP-82106,16 NRC 1655 (1982) l 1
I I
as
^ ~ - - - -
LEG ALCITATIONSINDEX CASES Metropohtan Edison Company (Three Mile istand N uclear Stenon,U nit No. II,CLI 82 12.14 N RC I (1982) appellate consideration of uncontested safety issues in cases other than operaung hcense apphcanons AL AB485.16 NRC 45)(1982)
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon, Umt No.1), LBP-8017.1 I N RC 393 (19P' ancer irulesgovermnginterrogatones;LBP 82-Il6,16 NRC l940(1982)
' tan Ediso1 Company (Three Mile istand Nuclear Station,Un4 No l), LBP-81 59.14 N RC l 2 t l, M e-41981) les delegation o(Licensing Board authonty to N RC Staff; LBP 8248,16 NRC 748 ( 8982)
Metropohtan EdisonCompany (Three Mite istand Nuclear Station, Umt No.1) LBP 84 59,14 N RC l2 1465(1981) pracical effect of rebuttable presumption with regard to contested FEM A findings. LBP-8248,16 NRC 746(1982)
Metropohtan Edisc ncompany, et al (Three Mile Island N uclear Station, Umt No.11. ALAB499,1 1324(1982)
Licensmg Board jurisdiction to reopen record on issue pendms before Appeal Board.LBP 82 li t.1 NRC 1899 (1992)
Metropohtan Edison Company.et al. (Three MileIsland Nuclear Stauon Umt No. 2), ALAB 384.5 612,615(1977) showms necessary on other fectors ehen good cause forlate mterventionis not shown; LBP 82-16 NRC 2026(1982)
Metropolitan Edison Comcahy.et al. (Thrce Mile Island N ucleat Stanon.Umt No. 2) AL A B48 9.46(1978) standard apphed in decadmg ehether to stlow plant operation durmg appellate review; ALAB-68 NRC l30 (1982)
Metropohten Edison Company.ei al (Thrce Mile Island Nuclear Stanon Und Ne 2),CLI-80 13, II 519,531 32(1960) potenttal of e acluded radiahon dose contention as sua sponte ;ssue; LBP-82-79,16 NR C Michigan Consolidated Gas Company v FPC.283 F.2d 204,226 (D C. Cir.1960)
Licensms Bcard responscihty todevelopthe record LBP-82-87,16 NRC 1199 (1982)
M mnenota v. NRC,602 F.2d 412 (D C.Cir.19791 objechon tore.iectionof=aste conlidenceconcent on; LBP-82 51.16 NRC 172 (1982) hiississippiPo.cr & LightCompany (GrandGulf Nuclear Stanon,Umtsl and 2), ALAB 704,16 NRC 172$(1982) authorizauon for hcense subject to outcome of fuel cycle litisation; LBP 82 1 I 8,16 N RC 2046 Mississippe Power & Lis%t Company iGrand Gulf N uclear *euon. Umts I and 2), A L A B-704,16 a 125,1730(1932) showing r.ecessary to jusufy late intervenhon en the absence of good cause; ALAB 707,16 1766(1912)
Mississippi Powe* A light Company v. N RC.60l F.2d 22)(5th Cir.1979). cert. denico.444 U.S it02 (1980)
N RC authority to require uuhty apphcants to pay fees for meerunors' consultanty.CLI-82-40, le NRC1718(1982)
Mississippi Power and light Company (G rand G ulf Nuclear Station,Umts t and 2). A LAB-1 (1973) considerauon of factual evidence in ruling on admissibihty orcontenoons; LBP-82 103,16 NR (1982)
'~*
-a Missessippi Power and LightCornpany tGrandGulf NuclearStation,Umts l and 2), ALAB 130,6 A 423.424-25(l973) encourager 1ent of use of summary disposinon procedures; LBP-82 58,16 N RC 519 41982)
Mississippi Power and LightCompany iGrandGulf Nuclear Station.Umts I and 2), AL AB 130.6 423,426(1973) evidence required to support a contention in pleadmg stage; LBP-82 Il9 A,16 N RC 2071 11982) emplanation of basis requirement for admission ofcontentions; LBP-82 Il6,16 N RC l943 (
86
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASES texction of transmission hnescontention; LBP 82-76, I6 NRC 1085 (1982) supporting evidence required for admissibihey of a contentson; LBP 82 106,16 N RC l 654 (1982)
Moog Industnes v. FTC,355 U.S. 4 I I (1958 )
scope of proceedings on enforcement actions, CLI-82 16,16 N RC 46 (1982)
M ullane v. Central llanover Bank and Trust Company,339 U.S. 306,314 ( 1950) loss of nght to hearing through iac k of nouce, A L A B482,16 N RC l 58 (1982)
M urel v. Balumore City Cnmmal Court,407 U.S. 355 (1972) i Coramassson reviee of Appeal Board decision on operstmg hcente amendment irrprovidently 6 tarted, CLl-82 26,16 N RC 881 (1982)
M utual Fund investors tnc. v. Putnam Management Company,553 F.2d 620,624 (9th Car.1977) definiuon of material fact; LBP-42 114,16 N RC 191 I (1982)
National Cable Te8evrsion Associrdion. Inc. v. United States 415 U.S. 336 (1978)
N RC authority to recire utihty-appbcants to pay feen for intervenors* consultants CLI-82-40,16 NRC l718-19(1982)
Nanonal W ddhfe Federanon,et al. v Cotter Corp,et al.,646 P.2d 393 (1981)
Judicial review ofi eamum hccrsms decisions; CLl-82-34,16 N RC 1506 (1982)
Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc. v. Morton,458 F.2d 287,837 838 (D C. Cir.1972) need forconsideration of alternauves to nuclear power plants, LBP 82 Il7A 16 N RC 1992 (1982)
Natural Resources Defense Couned. Inc, v. N uclear Re8ulatory Commission,547 F.2d 633 (D C. Car.
I 1976), rev'd sub nom. Vermont Y ankee N uclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 435 U S.519,548-49(1978) tevisions to5 3 rule, ALAB 704,16 NRC 1728 (1982) challengestofuelcyclerule,LBP 82 Itt 16NRC2045(1982) effectof5 3 ule;LBP 82-Il9A 16NRC208411982) fadure of mtervenor's contention to present ' novel quesuon of pohey ot taw"; LBP-8242,16 N RC 569(1982) tehance on Table s-3 to evaluate environmental effects of uranium fuel cycle, LBP 82 107 A,16 N RC 1806(1982) use of decision as basis for late-filed radiauon dose contention; LBP 82 79,16 N RC 1117 (1982)
Natural Renources Defensc Councd, Inc. v. N ucleat Regulatory Commission. 685 F.2d 449 (D C. Cir.
1982), cert granted, $l U.S LW. 3419 (Nov. 29,1982) (No.82-545,1982 Term) e sclusion of nuclear fuel cycle contentions from hcensms proceedmas A L AB-704,16 N RC 1727 (1982)
Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc. v. E : lear h t8ulatory Commission,685 F.2d 459,467 (D C. Cir.
1982) invahdation ofTable S 3 R ule; LZ *,2-76,16 NRC 107e (1982)
Natural Renources Defense Council,Inc. v. Nucleat Resutstory Commission Civil Acuon No. 741586
( Aprd 27,1982) admissibdity of waste disposai contention; LBP.82 53,16 N RC 205 (1982)
New England Patnots Football Club,Inc. v. University of colorado. 592 F.2d il% (1 st Cir.1979) distmcuon between amicus curiae and traditional party; AL AB479,16 N RC l 26 (1982)
New England Power Company, et al. (N EP, Units I and 2), LBP,73 9,7 N RC 171,279 (1973) review and amendment of 5taff EIS; LBP-82-?1,16 NRC llll (1982)
New York State Energy Research and Development Agency v. N uclear FuelSerices,Inc.,CIV-81 18E i
(W.D.N.Y. Oct.16, l 981), rev'd, No. 81 7736 (2d Cir., Dec. 8.1981) responsibility for maste disposal facihty; AL A B-679.16 N RC l 24 (1932)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporaaon (Nme Mile Point NuclearStauon, Umt 2), Al AB 264,1 NRC 347, J5249(1975) rule applicable to cases involvir8 changes in need for power forecasts; L8P-82 81,16 N RC I138 (1982)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (N me Mde Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264,1 NRC 347, 373 n.91 (1975) estent of Appeal Board sua sponte review authonty; ALA B489,16 NRC 390 (1982)
NLRB v. Bell Acrospace company 416 U.S. 267,293 (1974)
Ccm e seo-odetermme means fc tavis8 a per%8ar kse-UIP.81.Ilt 16 NRC 2018 (1982) e i
i r-
- 3 3,. - -.. - -,-c-
i LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX CASES NLRB v. Grace Company,184 F.2d l26,129 Commismon discretion in administering its procedural rules; LBP-82 107,16 N RC 1618 (1982) i NLRB v. MonsantochemicalCompany,205 F 2d 763,764 Commission discretion in admmistenns its procedural rules; LSP 82 107,16 N RC 1678 (1982)
NL A B v. Sears,421 U.5,132,149, n.16 (1975) equities to be considered in civil discovery cases ahich are not considered in FOR A cases; LBP 32 82, 16 N RC ll6)(1982)
NLR B v. Umon Nacional De Trabajadores,6I I F.2d 926,928 n.l (1:: Cir.1979) respect to be accorded a Licensms Board, LBP 82 Ils,16 NRC 1931 (1982)
North Alabama Empress,Inc.v. United 5 stes.585 F.2d 783,789(SthCir.1978) a
, w.<m.r
~
m l
loss of nght to hearing through lack of notice; A LAB-682,16 N RC 158 (1982)
Northern tndiana Pubhc 5ervicecompany (Badly Generating station, Nuclear l). ALAB-204,7 AEC 835, 838(1974) code forjudging lawyer conduct in N RC proceedmss; AL AB491,16 N RC 916 81982)
Northern indiana Pubhc 5ervice Company (Badly Generatmg 5tation, Nuclear 1) ALAB-224,8 AEC 244 (1974) tailorms choice ofsanctions to mitigate harm caused by defalting party; LSP-82 Ils,16 N RC 1934 (1982)
Northern indiana Pubhc 5ervice Company t Bally Generating station, N uclear 1), ALAB 419,42 N RC 558 I
(1980) use of 2.206 procedures to protectlate intervention peutioner'sinterests; ALAB 707,16 N RC 1768 (1982)
Northern indiana Pubhc 5ervice Company ( Bailly Generstmg 5tauon, N uclear 1), A LAB-619,1 ? N RC 554 (1980) at 565 scope of hcense amendment proceeding; LBP 82 108,16 N RC 1818 (1982)
Northern!ndiana PubhcserviceCompany(BadlyGeneratingstation Nuclear 1), ALAB419,12 NRC 558,573 n.18 (1980) consideration ofsite suitabihty issues in construchon permit extension proceeding;CLI-82 29,16 N RCl226.1227(1982) i
}
Northern Indiana Pubhc Service Company (Bailly Generating Stauon, Nuctear 1),CI l 79-1l,10 N RC 733, 737 (1979), remanded on other grounds,5 tate ofillmois v. N RC,661 F.2d 25) ( D C. Cir.1981) i smendmentofconstructionpermits;DD 821207 Northern 5tates PowerCompany (Moaucello Nuclear Generstmg Plant,Urut l), AL AB 10,4 AEC J90, 399 (1970) referralto AppealBcardofrulir.gcompelhngdiiclosure ofinformants'idenuues;LBP 82-87,16 NRC 1202 M82)
Northern 5tates Power Compny (Monucello Nuclear Generstmg Plant, Uma 1), AL AB411,12 N RC 301, 304,309(1980)
A ppeal Board authority to retainjurisdicuon over radon issue; AL AB491,16 NRC 909 (1982)
Northern 5tates Power Company (Monticello Nuclear Generatmg Plant, Unit t ), AL A B411,12 N RC 301, 304,309-13(1980) eatent of A ppeal Board sua sponte review authonty; ALAB489,16 N RC 390 91 (1982)
Northern states t'ower Company (Prairie lsland Nuclear Generating Plant, Units l and 2), AL AB-107,6 A EC 188 (1973), amtmedCLI 7312,6 AEC 241 (1973), amtmed sub nom. BPI v. AEC,502 F.2d 424 (D C. Cir.1974) timmgofdiscosery econtemens ALAB-687,16 NRC467(1982)
Northern States Power Company i Prairre Island Nuclear Generatmg Plant Units I and 2), ALA B-244,3 AEC 857,862 (1974) consideration of financial costs in NEPA cost-benefit balance; LBP-82-58,16 N RC 526 (1982) extent of N RC;r9ulatory authonty overapphcant's busmessjudgments; LBP-82 Il7A 16 NRC 1994 (1982)
Northern States Power Company (Praine Island Nucleas Generating Plant, Units I and 2), ALA B-244,8 AEC857,864,reconsiderationdecied, ALAB-252,8 AECI175(1974), aft'd CL1-75 l,1NRC1(1975) consequences ofintervenor's fadure to file proposed findmss of fact; A LAB 491,16 N RC 906 (1982) gg
i l
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES i
Northern $tates PowerConfany (Praine lstand NuclearGenerstmg Plant,Umts l and 2), ALAB 252,8 AECal?5,Il77,amrmed,CLl 75 l.l NRCI(1975) nocessty for fihng enceptions, AL A B494,16 N RC 960 (1982)
Nonhern $istes Power Company f Praine lstand Nuclear Generstmg Plant, Umts l and 2), ALAB-288. 2 NRC 390,393 (1975) efTectofchangeinintervenor'srendence LBP 82 54,16NRC216(1982)
Northern States Power Company (Prsine Island Nucicar Generatmg Plant Unsts I and 2), ALAB-343,4 NRC169(1976) functiomr;of steam sencrators m nuckar power piants; ALAB496,16 NRC I250 f1982)
Nonhern states Power Company ( Praine lstand N aclear Generstmg Plant, Umts l and 2), AL AB-455,7 NRC41 (1978) demal oflicense on bass of envatorimental uncertaintie: rasned by intervenors in NRC proceedmas, LBP-82 Il7A,16 NRCit92(19823 Nonhern States Power Company ( Preine Island Nuclear Generatmg Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB 455,7 N RC 41,44 (1978), remanded on other grounds sub nom. M mnesota v N uclear Regulatory Commismon,602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Car.1979) findmss on NEPA compliance IW made by Director pnor to issuance of operating license, AL AB493,16 NRC 956 (1982)
Nonhern 5tates Power Company ( Praine lstand N uclear Generstmg Plant Umts l and 2), ALAB-49,7 N RC41,48 (1978) shommg required to warrant consaderation of alleged adverse environmental efTects of plant operaiion; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 526 (1982)
Northern $tates Power Company I Praine lsland N uclear Generstmg Plant, Umts l and 2), AL AB-455,7 N RC 41,51 (1978), remanded on other grounds sub nom. M mnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Commismon,602 F.2d 412 (D C. Cir.1979) bindma nature ofCommismon pohey staiement; AL A B-704,16 N RC 1732 (1982) l Northern States Power Company ( Praine Island N uclear Generatmg Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI 73 12,6 1
A EC 241,242 (197.11.affd sub nom. BPI v. A EC,502 F.2d 424 ( D C. Cir.1974) encouragement of use of summary dispomuon procedures, LBP 82 58,16 NRC 511(1982)
Northern states Power Co.npany et al. (Tyrone Energy Park,Umt 1), ALAB-464,7 N RC 372,374 n 4 (1978)
A ppeat board declinauon to decide junsdsctional issues, A L AB-699,16 NRC l 326 (1982)
Licenens Boardpnsdecuon toconsider monon to reopen record received after Licensing Board's final decision;LBP-82 86,16NRCl191(1982)
Nothdurft v. Ross,104 Misc.2d 898 (N.Y Sup Ct.1980), afrd 445 N.Y.5.2d 222 (N.Y. App. Div.1981) lack ofprindertion to address motives oflegislator in enacung statute; LBP 82 72,16 N RC 970 (1981 )
NRDC v. Morton,458 F.2d 327,835,837 38 (D C. Cir.1972) conaderation of remote and speculauve environmental elTects in licensms a faciMy; LBP 82 117 A,16 N RC 1992 (1982); LBP 82-119A,16 N RC 2085 (1982)
N RDC v. Morton,458 F.2d 827,837-38 (D C. Cir.1972)
- l need to evaluate environmentalirepect of remote and speculauwe possbilines; AL AB-705,16 NRC 1744 (1982)
NRDC v. NRC,58I F.2d 16612d Cir.1978) need for suspension ofiscensing proceedmss pending outcome of waste confidence proceedms; ALAB 704,16 NRC1738 (1982)
N RDC v. N RC,685 F.2d 459 (D C. Car. I982) conaderation ofchstientes ioTable s 3 &n operating licenne proceedmss; LBP 82-92,16 ERC l377, 1385(1982) dispossuon of monon romans Table 5 3 issues; LBP-82 100,16 NRC 1556 (1982) treatment of 5-3 table;LBP-82-Il9A,16 NRC 2000 9I (1982)
Nuclear Engineenng Company,Inc. (Sheffield lilinois, Low-Level Radioacuve Waste Dispoenl 5ite).
ALAS 406,12 NRC156,15940(1980) acceptance of unur.nely appeals; ALAB-684,14 NRC 165 (1982)
P 89 I
e I
l I
i i
l j
LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX i
CASES l
I l
Nucteer Engmeenng Company,IncJ$hefriend. Ill nois, Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposaisite),
e j
ALAB406.12 NRC 156,160(1980) test of"finehty" for appeal purposes; ALA B490,16 NRC 894 (1972)
Nuclear Fuel services,Inc. and New York state A tomic and 5pece Development Authori:y (West Valley Reprocesems Plant),CLI 75-4,1 NRC 273,275 (1975) factorsevaluatedin accepting unumelycontenhons; ALAB-687,16 NRC470(1982);LBP-82 Il78, 16 NRC2026(1982)
Nuclear Fuel services. Inc. and New York state Atomic and spece Development Authonty (West Valley Reprocessing Plant),CLI 75-4,1 NRC273,275,276 (1975) acceptarse oflate contention where " good cause" factor has not been demonstrated. LBP-8243,16 w
-.w w.m.-
e s.
,,i N RC 177 (1982); LBP-82-tl,16 N RC 136748 (1982)
Nuclear Regulatory Commiseeon (Licensees A uthonzed to Possess.,5pecialNucieer Materials),
4 CLI 77 3,5 NRC 16,20(1977) use ofless drasuc measures to resolve construction deficiencies at Zimmer; CLI-82-33,16 N RC 1500 (1982)
O'Bnen v. Board of Educatior,ef City Schoot Distnct of City of New York,86 F R.D 544,549 (S D.N.Y.
1930)
L retevence of document's author to document's status as pnvileged. LBP-82-82,16 N RC i 158 (1982)
Office of Communcahon of Umted Ch2rch ofChnst v. FCC,359 F.2d 994,1005 06 (D C. Cir.1966) showing required for admission ofcontention not alleging noncomphance with a specified regulation; LBP 82106,16 NRC 1655 (1982)
Offshore Power Systems (Flosimg Nuclear Power Plants) ALAB-449,8 NRC 194,209 (1978) special circumstances allowing for discuneson of Class 9 accidents; ALAB 705.16 N RC 174811982) oft 9iore Power Systems (Floatmg Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489,8 N RC 194,210 n 52 (1978) e guidance followed by N RC $taff and adjudicatory boards on class 9 accident analysis; ALAB-705,16 NRC1736(1982)
Offshore Power Sywms (Floating Nuc: car Power Plants). ALAB-489,8 NRC 194.21011,214-18 (1978) class 9 accident analysis in mdividualcases. AL A B 705,16 N RC l 746 (1982)
Offshore Power Systems (Floatmg Nuclear Power Plants) ALAB-517,9 NRC 8.11 (1979) standards for granting discre:ionary interlocutory review; LBP 82-62.16 N RC 568 (1982)
Offstore Power Systeme (Floatmg N uclear Power Plants) CL1-79 9,10 N RC 257 (1979) special circumstances allowms for discussion of Class 9 accioents, AL A B 705,16 N RC l ?48 (1982)
Offshore Power 5ystems(Flosung Nuclear Power Plants).CLI 79 9,10 NRC 257,258 59 (1979) ongm and mesmns of Class 9 accident concept; ALAB-705, I 6 N RC I 735 (1982)
Offshore Power $ystems(Manufactunng License for Fic.aung Nuclear Power Planisi, ALAB489,16 NRC 887.890-91 & n 4 fl982) finahiy ofiminaldecision. ALAS 493,16 NRC 954 (1982M ALAB499.16 NRC 1326 (1982)
OffshorePowerSystems(ManufactunnsLicenseforFlosungNucicarPowerPlants), ALAB489,16NRC 887,890-91(1982) sua sponte review of Licensang Board decisions; AL AB494,16 NRC 960 (1980); A LA B496,16 N RC 1262(1982)
Ohio $ealy Mattress Manufactunns Compsny v. Kaptan,90 F R D. 21,28 (N D. Ill 1980) commumcanons encompassed by attorney chent pnvilege; LBP-82 32,16 NRC 1157,1159 f1982) l Pacific Gas & Electnc Company (Stamslaus Nuclear Project, Umt No.1), LBP-77 45,6 N RC 159,163 t
(1977) showing necessary by party opposing summary dispostion motion; LBP-82 Il4,16 N RC 1912 (1982)
Pacific Gasand Electric Company (DiabloCanyon Nuclear Power Plant Umt Il CLI-81 30, t4 NRC 950, 956-57(1981) i procedure for obtaming public views on entity chosen to conduct review at Zimmer;CLI-82-40,16 NRCl719(1982)
Pacific Gas and Electnc Company ( Diablo Canyon Nucicer Pawer Plant, Umts ) and 2), A LAB-410,5 N RC 1398,1401 02(1977) test to be spphed to request for release of protected informanon; LBP-82 80,16 N RC il 24 (1982) 93 l
J
LEGALCITATIONSINDEX CASES Pacific Gasand Elecinc Company iDubio Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), AL AB-410,5 N RC 1398,I405(1977$
burden for demonstrating credentials of a witness, L BP-82 51,16 N RC 176 (1982)
Pacific Gas and Electrw Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2) AL AB 504,8 N RC 406,410(1978) circumstances in e hich dsrected cernficanon is warranted. LBP-82 62,16 NRC 567 (1982)
Pacerc Gas and Electrw Company t Diablo Canyon N uclear Power Plant, Umts l and 2), AL AB-580, ll NRC227 tl980) assurance of proper implementauon of emergency plan, LBP-8246.16 h RC 732 f l 982)
Pacirr Gas and Electrx Company I Dubio Canyon Nucleat Powee Plant, Umts I and 2), A L AB-583,1 I NRC447,448 (1980) clasm of mssplaced reliance on another party to represent an entervenor's mterests as cause for late intervention,LBP 82-Il7B.16NRC2027(1982)
Pacific Gas and ElecInc Company iDiabio Canyon N uclear Power Plant, Umas I and 2), A L A B 592, I I N RC 746(198p) guidelmes for release of secunty rlans to intervenors; LBP 82-80.16 N RC l l 24 (1982) suidehnes for release of secunty plans to miervenors; L BP-82-80,16 N RC I 12411982)
Pac fic Gasand Elecinc Company f Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts t and 2). ALAB-598. Il N RC 876 (1980)
)
assumptionofjunsdcuonoverseismsissuesby AprealBoard LBP-82 86.16NRCi192(1982)
Pmric Gas and Electnc Company ( Dubio Canyon N uclear Power Plant, Units I and 21. A L A B-598, II J
N RC 876,878-79 (1980) jurisdruon to rule on a monon to reopen; AL A B-699,16 h RC l 327 (1982)
)
Pacers Gasand Eiectnc Company f Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plam, Umis l and 2), AL AB-598,Il NRC 876,879 f 1980) standardsforreopemnsthe record,LBP 82 Il78,16NRC2031(1982)
Pacific Gas and Electnc Company I Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,Umts I and 2), AL A B-644,13 NRC9031198 H i
basis for determimns honzontal ground acceteranon at G E tesi reactor site; L BP 8244,16 N RC 680 l
i1982) propnety ofcallms mdependent e spertsas Board witnesses, LBP-82 55,16 N RC 277 (1982) i
{-
Pacirs G4 sand Electre Company ( Diabio Canyon N uclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), A L A B-644,13 i
NRC903,937 tl98 0 I
demonstration of vahdity of regulatory guvance; A L A B498,16 N RC l 299 (1982) j Pacirr Gas and Elecinc Company i Dublo Canyon N ucicar Power Plant. Umts I and 2), AL A B444,13 N RC 903.996(198 D Appeal Board task on a sua sponte review; AL AB 698,16 NRC 1323 (1982)
Facirc Gasand Electnc Company (DubioCanyon Nuclear Power Plant Umis I and 2), CLl 84 5,13 N RC 36111981)
{
stdridards to be seus[ied by pdrty moving to reopen a record;CLI-82 39,16 NRC 1715 (1982)
Pacific Gas and Electru Company ( Diablo Canyon N uclear Power Plant Umts I and 2), CLI-81 5,13 N RC 361,362(1980 need for separate heanns on low-power and full-pomcr Isenses; CLI-82-39,16 N RC 1715 (l982)
Pacirr Gas and Electnc Company i Diabio Canyon N uclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CLl-8 l 5,13 N RC 361,362434198 0 responsibihty ofiniervenor requesting that record be reopened LBP-82 96,16 NRC 1436 (1982)
Pacirx Gas and Electric Company ( Diablo Canyon N uclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CLl-81 5,13 N RC 361,364 45 (1988*
showing nec asary to reopen a proceedmg. A L A B-707,16 N RC 1765 (1982)
Pacers Gas and Electne Company (Diablo Canyon N uclear Power Plant, O mis I and 2), CLI 8 I 4,13 N RC 44318980 proper forum for resolunon of supplemental coohng water system essues; DD 82-I3,16 N RC 2127 (1982)
.vt.nnstliT of 4ediatory boardsiade.:nnh.c anassi;j for saioiuacendent er.ye.; AL AB-705, 16 NRC l747(1982) 91 1
-ye 9
9,
.-+-1 ep, - -s
.w y--g--y-C--
ww-.e.es-g-pee-
.=
-w-pyw.g.
.-d, ei-
.+m-gy 99.ce,ier---e_
-_mm. = -
-'qt-'"---
w e,---p%ry e
y a
-wy--
l LEG ALCITATIONSINDEX
.I CASES i
Pacific Gaw and Electnc Cornpeny (Diabio Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2), CLI-82 1,15 N RC 225(1982) type of withheld information consututms matenal false statement; A L A B491.16 N RC 91) (1982)
Pacinc Gas and Elecinc Company ( DiabloCanyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI 82 19.16 NRC 53 (1982)
^
6 pubhcationofrestricteddocument.LBP 82 80.86 NRCll23(1982) t Pacific Gas and Electnc Comoany ( Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), LBP 78-19,7 N RC 989,1026(1978) l synergisuc e(Tects of routine radioactive releases from Waterford plant; LBP-82-100,16 N RC l 571 (1982)
Pacinc Gas and Electric Company (Diabio Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), LBP 81-27. I4 N RC325,331 (1981)
- - ete-- -
i lac k of specificity of systemn interaction contention; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1034 (1982)
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Station, Units I and 21. ALAB 69),
i 16 N RC952 (1982) consequence ofintervenor's failure so bnefencepuons; ALAS 4%,16 NRC 1255 (1982)
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electrw Cooperanve,Inc. (Susquehanna Sicam f
Electric Stanon Umts I and 2), AL AB-563,10 NRC 449,450 n.1 (1979) i standard for appellate bnefs of pro se intervenors; A L AB-693,16 N RC 956 (1956)
PennsyIvama Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electnc Cooperauve,Inc. (Susquehanna SIeam Electnc Stauon, Umts l and 2), ALAB 593, ll N RC 761,762 (1980) standards for grantmg discretionary interlocutory review; LBP 8242,16 N RC 568 (1982)
Pennsylvania Powerand Light Company and Allegheny Electnc Cooperauve Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Stauon, Umts t and 2), AL A B413,12 N RC 317 (1980) guidanre on rules governmg interrogatones. LBP 82 Il6,16 N RC I940 (1982)
Pennsylvama Power and light Company and Allegheny Elecinc Cooperaine,lnc. (Susquehanna $ team Electnc Station, Umts l and 2). A L A B413,12 N RC 317,323 (1980) limitsuons on discovery agamst N RC Stali; LBP-82 99,16 N RC 1544 (1982)
-l Pennsylvama Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electnc Cooperauve. Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electrw Station, Umts l and 2), AL A B413,12 N RC 317,340 (1980) fadure of contennon's proponent to respond to summary disposinon motion; LBP 82 58,16 N RC 520 (1982) intervenor's responsibehty to provide basis for contested issue; AL A B-697,16 N RC I 27141982)
Pennsylvama Power and light Company and Allegheny Electnc Cooperanse,Inc. (Susquehanna $ team Electnc Stanon, Umts I and 2), AL A B-641,13 NRC 550,551 (1981) standards for grantmg discrenonary interlocutory review; LBP-824.2,16 N RC 568 (1982)
Pennsylvama Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electrw Cooperauve,Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Stanon, Umts l and 2), LBP-794. 9 N RC 291. 297 98 (1979) standmg of peutioners m hcense apphcation proceeding to litig ;te issues related to distant uramum mmes; LBP-82-52,16 N RC 192 (1982)
Pennsylvama Power and Light Company and Allegheny Elecu.c Cooperauve,Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Stauon, Umts I and 21, LBP 81 8. I 3 N RC 335,337 (1981), directed certificanon demed.
AL AB441,13 NRC 550(1981) favorabihty in viewmg summary daposanon trotion; LBP-82 58,16 N RC 519 (1982)
People Against Nuclear Energy v Nuclear Regulatory Commission,678 E2d 222 (D C.Cir.1982) consideration of efTects of psychological stress on emergency communicatioes/noufication personnel; i
LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1013 (IC82) mierpretanon or; L BP-8249,16 N RC 752 (1982) husanon orpsyc hological stress contenuons; LBP-82 53,16 N RC 202 (19921 preparahon of supplemental EIS on psychological health efTects of operation of TMI, CL1 82-13,16 N RC 21 (1982) withdraw al of psychological striss cor.:ention; L BP 82 103,16 N RC 1611 (1982) 92
LEGALCITATIONSINDEX CASES People Agasest Nuclear Ener8y v. Nuclear Regulaiory Commission,678 F.2d 222 (D C.Cir.), cert. stanted sub nom Metro. Ed. v. People Against Nuclear Energy,5 l U.S L.W. 3339 (U.S. Nov. 2.1982) charactertrauonofr.eighbonngpopulationsforpurposeofconsidenngclass9 accidents; ALAB-705, 16 N RC l750(1982)
People A8ainst Nuclear Energy v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,618 F.2d 222,231 n 14,245-4) (D.C.
C f.1982) need for further environmental analysis pnor to restart of TMI 1; A L A B-705,16 N RC 1737,1744 (1982)
People Agamst Nuclear Energy v. Nuclear Resulatory Commission,678 F.24 222,233 34 (D.C.Cir.1982) petiuon for cert. filed 51 U.S.L.W. 3006 (U.S. July 1,1982) submission orpsychologgal stresscontenuon based on; LBP 82-71.16 NRC 966 (1982)
Permsan Basin Area Rate Cases. 29 FPC 588 (1963) cross-enamination of witnesses by deposinon; L BP 82 107,16 NRC 1676 (1982)
Petinon for Emergency and Remedial Action CLI 784,7 NRC400,406 07 (1978) demonstrauon ofcomphance with regulatory tequirements; ALA B498.16 N RC l299 (1982)
Pention for Emergency and Remedial Acuon,CLI-78-6,7 NRC 400,418 (1978) applicant / licensee obhgation to provide accurate and timely informahon in N RC proceeding; AL AB491,16 NRC 910(1982)
Pennon for Emergency and Remedial Acuon,CLl-80 21, II NRC 707 (1980) failure of spplicant to comply with regulations on environmental quahfication of electrical equipment; LBP-82 Il9A,16NRC2091(1982)
Peuuon for Emersency and Remedial Achon, CLI-80 21, il NRC 707 (1980) admission of contentions on equipment quahricauon tesimg, LBP-8243 I6 N RC 585 (1982) lessons of f Mi not incorporated, LBP 82-76.16 N RC 1048 (1982)
Peuuon for Emergency and Remedial Action CLt 80-21,II NRC 707,711 (1980) requirementsforenvironmentalquahficationofsafety relatedelectncatequipment LBP 82-106,16 NRC 1657 (1982)
Peution of Sunflower Coalition, CLl-81 13,13 N RC 847 (1981) failure of Colorado radiation control program to comply with U MTRCA; CLI-82 34,16 N RC 1507 (1982)
PetinonofSunflowerCoahuon,CL1-88 l),13 NRC847,858(1981) adequacy of means to enforce Colorado uramum mill tanhnss regulations; CLI 82 34,16 N RC 1506 (1982)
Philadelphia Electnc Company (Fulton Genetsung station, Umts l and 2) ALA B457,14 N RC %7,973, 974 79(1981) guidehnes for determimns whether withdrawal of construchon permit apphcation should be with or without prejudice; LBP 82-81,16 N RC 1131, i134 (1982)
Philadelphia Electre Company (Limenck Generstms Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALA B 262. I N RC 163, 205 06(1975) elimmanon ofisense condition; LBP 82 Il 7 A,16 N RC l994 (1982)
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generatmg Station. Units 1 and 2), LBP-74-44,7 AEC 1098 (1974) consideration of environmental disadvantages in cost-benefit balancing; LBP-82 l l ? A.16 N RC l994 (1982)
Phildelphia Elecinc Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power stauon, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216,8 AEC l3 (1974) i rejection of transmission hnes contention; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1085 (1982)
Philadelphia Electnc Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stanon Umts2 and 3), ALAB-216,8 AEC 13,20(1974) condinons for admission of safety contenuons; LBP 82 106,16 NRC 1655 (1982) purpose of basis with specificity requirement for admission ofcontenuons, LBP 82 106,16 NRC 1655 (1982) purpose of specificity requirement for admissibahty of contenuons; L BP-82 119 A,16 N RC 2070 (1982)
}
93 i
--.n_.
l a
s l
LEGALCITATIONS INDEX
}
CASES t
l Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), AL A B-216,8 AEC 13,20 21(1974) ressction ofcontentions attacking statutory requirements; LBP 82 76,16 NRC 1035 (1982)
Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Umts 2 and 3), ALA B-6a0,13 N RC i
487(1981) appellate resiew ofrecord in; ALAB-691,16 N RC 909 (1982) assessment of health enects of radon emissions dunns the fuel cycle; LBP 82-I l9 A,16 N RC 2099 (1982) standing of petitioners in license application proceedmg to litigate issues related to distant uranium mines,LBP-82 02,16NRC192(1982) 4 -. w, w.- e -
Ph:ladelphia Electnc Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-640,13 N RC I
447,547(1981) synergisuc e#ects of routine radioactive releases from Waterford plant; LBP.32-100,16 NRC 1871 (1982)
Philadelphia Electnc Company ( Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Umts 2 and 3) ALA B-640,13 N RC 447,4 % (1981) i consideration of health effects of radon decay products. LBP 8: il9A,16 NRC 2005 (1982) l Philadelphia Elecinc Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stanon, Units 2 and 3) ALAB-480,7 N RC 7 % (1978) assessment of health eNects of radon emissions during the fuel cycle; LBP 82-l 19 A,16 N RC 2099 (1982)
Pickus v. United States Board of Parole W7 F.2d i 107 (D.C. Cir.1974) limits on agency prerogatives to interpret policy statements; LBP 82-69,16 N RC 753 (1982) j Poller v. Columbia Broadcasung System, lac.,364 U.S. 464,473 (l%2) t favorability in siewms summary disposition monon; LBP-82-58,16 N RC 519 (1982) t Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 606 F.2d 1363,1369-70 (D C. Cir.1979) 4 use of 2.206 procedures to protect late intervenuon peutioner'sinterests; ALAB-707,16 N RC 1768 e
(1982)
Porter County Chapterof the Izaak Walton League v. AEC,533 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir.), cert. demed,429 U.S.
l 858(1976) challenges to regulatory guidance on class 9 accident analysis; A L AB-705,16 N RC 1736 (1982)
Portland General Electnc Company, et at ( Pebble spnngs Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI 76-27,4 N RC 610(1976) discrenonary intervention by petitioners without a valid contention; LBP-82-52,16 N RC 194 (1982)
Pontand General Electnc Company, e al. (Pebble $pnnas N uclear Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI-76-27,4 NRC 610,613-14 (1976) cntena for standing to intervene in construction permit proceeding; ALAB-700,16 N RC 1333 (1982) establishinginterest under the Atomic Energy Act for standmg tointervene; ALAS-682,16 N RC 155 (1982)
Portland General Electnc Company,et al. (Pebble Spnnss Nuclear Plant, Units l and 2) CLI 76-27,4 NRC 610,613-14(1976) intervenuon as a matter ofright; LBP-82 74,16 N RC 983 (1982)
Portland General Electnc Company, et al. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2),CLI-76-27,4 N RC 610,616(1976) nght to discretionary heanns on enforcement acuen; CLI-82 16,16 N RC 46 (1982)
Portland General Electnc Company, et al. (Pebble Spnngs Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI-76-27,4 NRC 610,617(1976) importance ofintervenor's ability to contribute to record through late-filed contention; LBP 82-63,16 NRC577(1982) significance oflate filed contenuon's ability to contnbute to the record; LBP-82-91,16 N RC l 368 (1982)
Portland General Elecinc Company, et at (Trojan Nuclear Plant), AL AB-531,9 N RC 263,266 (1979) interpretation of the term "available resources"; LBP 82 78,16 NRC 11II 12 (1982) 1 8
94 i
I
LEGALCITATIONSINDEX CASES Potomac Albance v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.682 F.2d 1030 (D C. Cir.1982) need for.uspension of hcensing proceedmas pendmg outcome of waste con 6dence proceeding; ALAB 704,16NRCl?31(1982)
Potomac Electnc Power Company (Douglas Pomt Nuclear Generstmg Station). AL A B-218. 8 A EC 79 (1974) hugabihty of ATWS contenuons. LBP-82 118,16 N RC2037 (1982)
Potomac Elecinc Power Company (Dousias Pome NuclearGenerstmg Station, Umts I and 2) ALAB-218, 8 AEC79.85(19746 acceptance ofcontenhons that are the subject of rulemakms; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1036 (1982) e ntcnt orconsideranon of ATWS issues; LBP-82 119 A.16 h R C 2107 (1982)
Power A uthonty of the State of New York (Greene County Nuclear Power Plant), L BP-79-8.9 N RC 339, 340 (1976) factors considered by Licensing Board before grantmg summary disposinon motion; L BP 82-1 I4,16 NRC 1912 (1982)
Power Reactor Development Corp. v. Electncal Umon. 367 U.S. 396,404 (196 h apphcant's enutlement to a heense on showmg ofcomphance with rules. LBP 82 116,16 N RC 1944 (1982)
Project Management Corporauon (Cimch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-326,3 NRC 406 (1976) ceruficapon on the basis of Licensing Board rejection of contenuons, LBP-82 106,16 N RC 1653 (1982)
Project Management Corporshon (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant). ALAB-354,4 N RC383. 384 (1976) showing necessary on other factors w hen good cause for late intervention is not shown; LGP-82 1178, 16 N RC2026(1982)
Pubhc Ser wh:e Company ofIndiana,Inc. (Marble Hill N uclear Generatmg Station Units 1 and 2),
ALAB 339.4 NRC20,48 (1976) circumstancesrequinnscost benefit balancingforproposednuclearplant;LBP-82 Il7A 16NRC 199)(1982)
Pubhc Service Company ofindiana Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Stanon, U nits I and 2),
ALAB-405. 5 NRCil90,1191 (1977) appeal board authority todecime Licensing Board referrals; A LA B487,16 N RC 464 (1982)
Public Scruce Company orindiana. Inc. ( Marble Hill N uclear Generstmg Station, Umts I and 2),
ALAB-405,5 NRC 1190,1192 fl977) circumstances in which an Appeal Board wili take interlocutory review; LBP-82 106,16 NRC 1653 (1982) standar Is for grantms discretionary mterlocutory review; LBP-82-62.16 N RC 568 (1982)
Pubhc Service Company ofindiana Inc. f Marble Hill N uclear Generstmg Station Umts l and 2),
ALAB-459,7 NRC l79.188 (1978) appeal board reluctance to certify quesuons involving scheduhng; ALAB-688.16 N RC 475 (1982) reversalof Lkensms Board'sscheduhng ruhnss; ALAB-696,16 NRC 1260 (1982)
^
Pubhc Service Company ofindiana. Inc. ( Marble Hill Nuclear Genersung Station, Umts I and 2),
ALAB-459.7 N RC l79.202 (1978) necessity for filing encephons; ALAB-694,16 NRC 959 (1982) l Public Service company ofindiana,Inc. (Marble Hill N uclear Generating Station. Umts ) and 2),
j ALAB-461,7 NRC313.315 (1978) waiver of madequately bnefed enceptsons; A L A B-696,16 NRC l 255 (1982)
I Pubhc Sernce Company ofindiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generstms Stauon, Units I and 2),
i ALAB-461,7 NRC213.318 (1978)
I deleganon of Licensme toard authority to NRCStaff,1, BP 82-68,16 NRC 748 (1982)
{
Pubhc Seruce Company ofindiana,Inc. ( Marble Hill Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umts I and 2),
CL1-8010,ll NRC 438 (1980) use of N RC resources for pubhc heannss; LBP-82 54,16 N R C 215 (1982)
Pubhc Seruce Company ofindiana, Inc. 4 Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2),
Cl.I 80-10. II N RC 4)lt. 439 (t o8n) cnteria for admission ofinterested state as full party; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1079 (1982) 95 1
i I
1
4 LEGALCITATIONSINDEX CASES Public Service company ofindiana,Inc. (Marbie Hill N uclear Generating Station, Units l and 2),
CLI-80-10,Il NRC438,44N t980)
' showing necessary in 2.206 pctitions; DD 82 13,16 NRC 2121 (1982)
PuNic Service Company ofindiana, Inc. (M arbic Hill Nuclear Generstms Station, Units l and 2),
CLI-80-10, I I N RC 438, at 441 42 ( 1980) scope of proceedings on enforcement actions; CLI 82 16,16 N RC 45 (1982)
'ublic Service Company ofIndiana,Inc., and Wabash Valley Power Association,Inc. ( Marble Hill N uclear GenerstmgStation,Unitsland2) DD-79-10,10NRCatl29(1979) appropriateness of suspending construction permits for n uclear facilities based on sileged changed circumstances; DD 82 13,16 N RC 2126 (1982)
Pubhc Service Company of tndiana. Inc., and Wabash Valley Power Association,Inc. (Marble Hdi N uclear w~,
Genersung Station, U mts l and 2), D D-79-17,10 N RC 613,614-615 (1979) showmg necessary in 2.206 peutions; D D-82 13,16 N RC 2121 (1982)
Pubhc Service Company of New Hampshire, et al (Seabrook Station, Umts l and 2) A LAB-273,1 N RC 478.482(1975) rehef for intervenors followmg denial ofcert ficauon orcontenuons; LBP-82-51, I 6 N RC I 71 (l 982)
Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et at (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), ALA B-271,1 N RC 478,482-83(1975) petiuon for directed certification uf unpublished order; AL A B-688,16 N RC 473 ( 1982)
Pubhc Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station Umts I and 2), AL A B-349,4 N RC 235,27t (1976) construction halted because ofmvalidity ofcost-benefit analysis; L BP 82 76,16 N RC 1076 ( 1982)
Pubhc Service Company of New Hampshire, et al (Seabrook Stanon, Umts ! and 2), A LA B-422,6 N RC 33,41(1977) burden of e aplanation of Board ruhnss; LBP-82-60 A,16 N RC 557 ( 1982)
Pubhc Service Company of New Hampshire, et aL (Seabrook Stanon, Units l and 2), A LA B-471,7 N RC 477,479 (1978) consideranonoflocateconormcetTecisincost-benefitanalysis;LBP 82 53,16 NRC204(1982)
Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et at (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), A LA B-667,15 N RC 421(1982) propnety of calling independent e aperts as Board witnesses; LBP-82-55,16 N RC 277 ( 1982)
Pubhc Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Stanon, Umts I and 2), CLI-76-87,4 N RC 451,462(1976) role of N RC StafT. LBP-82-87,16 N RC 1200 ( 1982)
Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et at (Seabrooit Station, Units I and 2), CLI-77-8,5 N RC 503, 516-17(1977)
Commission authority to provide guidance on admissibility ofcontenuons before Licensing Boards; CLI-82-15,16 N RC 34 (1982)
Pubhc Service Compsny of New Hampshire, et aL (Seabrook Stauon, U mts l and 2).CLI-77 8,5 N RC 503, 534 (1977) consideranon of" sunk costs"in operatins I; cense cost-benefia balance; LBP 82-63,16 N RC 587 (1982) considerauon of sunk costs m,.n operatms license cost-benefit balance; LBP-82 95,16 N RC 1404 (1982) factornig of environmental effects ofeffluem pH into N EP A cost-benefit analysis. LBP-82-107 A,16 NRC 1799(1982)
Pubhc Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seatirook Stanon, U mts l and 2),CLl-78-l,7 N RC l.18 (1978) interpretauon of the term " reasonable assurance; LBP-82-66,16 N RC 732 (1082)
Pubhc Service Company of New Hampshire, et al- (Seabrook Stanon, Unns l and 2), CLI-78-1,7 N RC I. 24 (1978)
Licensmg Board avoidance of pomtless htigation; LBP-82-72,16 N RC 970 (1982)
Pubhc service company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Stanon, Units l and 2),CLI-78-14,7 N R C 952,958 at In. 5 (1978)
Commission cognizance of acuvities before other tribunals; LBP-82 117 A,16 N RC 1991 (1982) 96 l
[
LEG AL CITATIONSINDEX CASES Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et at iseabrook Station, Units l are 2), CLI-78-14,7 N RC 952,959-60(1978) time forevaluatmgenvironmentalcostsof nuc' ear power plantconstruction;LBP 82 92A 16 NRC 1388 (1982)
Publis Servre company of New Hampshire, et at (Seabrook Station, Umts l and 2), LBP-74-36,7 A EC P77,878-79 (1974) use of Federat Runesin applicanon of 10 CFR 2.749; LBP-82 58,16 N RC 519 (1982)
Publs Serswe Company of New Hampshire,et al. (Seabrnok Stauon, Umts I and 2) LBP 76-26,3 NRC 857,88l 82(1976) apphcanon of collateral estoppet to rehtigation of tounsm impact contemion; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1081(1982)
Public Service Company ofOklahoma, et al (Black Foi Station, Umts I and 2), ALA B 370,5 N RC 131 (1977) treatment ofinterlocutory appeal as motion for reconsideration; LBP-82 106,16 NRC 1653 (1982)
Pubhc Servse Company ofOklahoma, et al(Black Fox Stanon Umts I and 2), ALAB-573,10 NRC 775, 778 (1979) activitiesallowed under hmited work authontation, ALAB-688,16 NRC 473 (1982)
Pubhc Service Company of Oklahoma, ei at ( Black Foz Stanon, Units I and 2), ALA B 573,10 N RC 775, 779(1979) content forconsidenns accidentsin DES analysis; LBP-82-107A 16 NRC 1798 (1982)
Pubhc Servwe Company of Oklahoma, et al. (Black Fox Station,Umts 1 and 2), ALAB 573,10 NRC 775, 787(1979) dispossuon of unsupported bnefs; A LA B-693,16 N RC 956 (1982)
Pubhc Service Company ofoklahoma, et al. (Black Fos stauon, Units l and 2) ALAB 573,10 N RC 775, 789(1979s grounds for defenw of Licensms Board decision; A L A B-650,14 N RC 908 (1982)
Pubhc Service Company ofOklahoma, et at (Black Fox Stauon, Umts I and 2), AL AB-573,10 NRC 775, 804(1979) admissibehty ofcontenuon; LBP 82 53,16 NRC199(1982)
Pubhc Service Company ofOklahoma, et al. ( Black Fox Station Units I and 2), CLI-80-8,11 NRC 433, 434-35 (198t0) e acepuonal cases earranting consideranon ofclass 9 accidents; ALAB-705, I 6 N RC 1736 (1982)
Pubhc Service Company of Oklahoma, et at (Black Fox Stauon, Umts I and 2), CLI-80-31,12 N RC 264 (1980) estimation of nsks from radmuon resutung from normal nuclear power plant operation; LBP-82 57,16 NRC501(1982) htigabihty of residuat radiauon bealth effecis in individual proceedings; LBP-82-105,16 NRC 1641 (1912)
Pubhc Service company of 0klahoma. ct al lBlack Fos station, Umts l and 2), CLI-81 31,12 NRC 264 (1980) admissibihty ofcontention assertmg need to include health effects m N EP A cost-benefit analysis; LBP-82-Il9A,16 NRC2076(1982)
Public Service Company of Oklahoma, et at (Black Fox Stanon, Umts I and 21, LBP-78-26,8 P'RC 102 (1978) use of U.S. Army Corpa of Engineers witnesses as Board-appointed experts; LBP-82-55,16 N RC 277 (1982)
Public Servce Company ofOklahoma, et al. ( Black Fox Station Umts I and h. LBP-78-26,8 N RC 102,120 f
(1978) affd ALAB-573,10 NRC 775 (1979)
I test for considenna environmental uncertainnes in hcensms proceeding; LBP-82 117 A,16 N RC 1992 (1982)
Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Company, et al. (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units I and 2),
f LBP 7815,7NRC642,674ff.(1978)affd. ALAB-518,9NRCl4(1979)
Commission guidance sought on Licensms Board treatment of testimony on nsks; LBP-82 61,16 I
- NRC563(1982) t i
J
~,,
y
--,-m..
I i
I i
i f
LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX CASES PuNic Service Electric and Gas Company, et at (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I), ALAB-588,11 NRC 533,536(1980) circumstances werranting interlocutory Appeal Board review via directed certificstion; ALAB-706,16 N RC 1756(1982) standard to be met by request for directed certification; ALAB488,16 NRC 474 (1982)
I staratards for granting discretionary interlocutory review; LBP-8242,16 N RC 568 (1982)
Pubhc Service Electnc and Gas Company, et al. (Salem N uclear Generatins Station, Unit I), ALAB450, I4 NRC 43,49(1981)
Board stantbrd forconsidering issuet raised for the first time on appeal; ALAB480,16 N RC 143 (1982) standard for considenna issues raised for first time on appeal; AL AB450. la NRC 907 (1981) m-c.... 4 Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Company,et at (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I), ALAB450,14 I
NRC43.49 n.6(1981) appeal board right to review any issues contested before a Licensing Board; Al AB 685,16 N RC 452 (1982)
PuNic Service Elecinc and Gas Company, et at (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1). ALAB-650,14 N RC 43,49,50 n.7 (1981) contents of bnefs on appeal; AL A B493, I 6 N RC 956 ( 1982)
Public Service Electnc and Gas Company.et aL ISalem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit t) ALAB450,14 NRC 43,6849 (1981) htigabihty of waste confidence contentions; LBP-82-51,16 NRC 172 (lH2)
Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Company, et at (Salem Nuclear Generstmg Station, Unit 1), ALAB450, I4 NRC 43,69 (1981) prectusion oflitigation of waste disposal issues; LBP 82 Il9A,16 N RC 2102 (1982) t I
Pubhc Service Electnc and Gas Company, et at (Salem Nuclear Generating Station. Umt I), ALAB450, I4 l
N RC 43,49-51 (1981), af!"d sub nom. Township of Lower Alloways Creek v. Public Service Electric and GasCompany,687 F 2d 732 (3rd Cir.1982) waiver ofinadequately bnered exceptions; ALAB496,16 NRC 1255 (1982) l Pubhc Service Elecinc and Gas companc, et aL (Salem Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umts l and 2),
ALAB-136,6 AEC 487,489(1973) j consideration ofintervenor's pro se status in balancing oflateness factors; LBP-82-91,16 N RC 1368 (1982) g consideration of totally delicient bnef prepared by layman; ALAB493,16 N RC 957 (1982) i showing required of pro se intervenor for admission oflate-filed contention; LBP-8243,16 NRC 578 (1982)
Puerto Rico Electnc Power Authority (North Coast Nuclear Ptant, Unit l). ALAB462,14 NP.C il25,Il35 n 11,1136-37(1981) l guidehnes for determining whetter withdrawal ofconstruction permit apphcation should be with or without prejudice; LBP-82-81,16 N RC 1831,1134, i 138 (1982)
Puget Sound Power and Light Company, et al. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), AL AB-552, 10 NRCI,9(1979) reliance on erroneousinformation as cause for late intervention; LBP-82 Il7B,16 N RC 2029 (1982)
Puget Sound Power and Light Company, et al. (Skagit N uci ar Power Project, Umts I and 2), ALAB-559, t
10 N RC 162,172 73 (1979), vacated as moot CLI-80-34,12 NRC 407 (1980) claim of misplaced reliance on another party to represe nt an intervenor's interests as caisse for late intervention;LBP 82 Il78,16NRC2027(1982)
Puget Sound Power and Light Company, et at (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Umts I and 2), ALA3-572, 10 NRC693,694(1979) standards for granting discretionar: interlocutory review; LBP 8242,16 N RC 568 (1982)
Randolph v. Col'ectramatic,Inc 590 F 2J 844,848 (10th Cir.1979) standard f uahfication ofexpert witnesses; ALAB-701,16 N RC 1524 (1982)
Rivera v. Pati *- 24 F.Supp.136 (N. Dis. Calif., July 9,1981) hmits on agency prerogatives to interpret pohey statements;1 BP-8249,16 N RC 753 (1982) 98
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASES RKO General, Inc. v. Federal Commumcanons Commission,670 F.2d 215,229 i D C. Cir.1981), cert.
demed,102 S Ct.1974,2931 (1982) conduct empectedof attorneysin NRC proceedmgs ALB A 650,14 NRC 919 (1982)
Rochester Gas and Electnc Corporation (R. E. O mna N uclear Powet Plant), DO-82 3,15 N RC 1348 (1982) remedy for petitioner proffenns issues unrelated to hcense amendment; LBP-82 108,16 N RC 1820 t 1982)
RochesterGas and Electnc Corporsuon,et al. (Sterhns Power Project Nuclear Umt No.1), AL AB-596,11 N RC 867 (1980) remandmg ofcase based on record that no longer represents case's actual situauon; CLI-82 26,16 NRC 881 (1982) vacanon ofunreviewedjudgments because of mootness, CLI 82 18,16 N RC 51 (1982)
Rombough v. Federal Aviauon Admemstration,594 F.2d 893,900 (2d Cir.1979) standard for determmms bias on part of N RC Staficonsultant, LBP-82-99,16 N RC 1548 (1982)
Roviaro v. Umted States. 353 0.S. 53,60-61 (1957) yieldmg ormformer's pnvilege; LBP 82 59.16 N RC 538 (1982)
Sacramento M unicipal Unhty Distnct ( Rancho Seco N uclear Generaung Station) AL A B-655,14 N RC 799,803(198I) scope of sua sponte revs = of fmal dispositson of Licensing Board decisen; A L A B-691,16 N RC 908 (1982) sua sponte revie= of unopposed decision to authonze manufactunns hcense for nuclear power reactors; ALAB-686,16NRC455(1982)
Sacramento M unicipal Unhiy Distnct ( Rancho Seco N uclear Generstmg Stauon), AL AB-655,14 N RC 799,803-04,817(1981) nature ofcases subrect to sua spnte revsew by Appeal Board AL AB-689,16 NRC 890-91 (1982)
Sacramento M umcipal Uuhty Distnct ( Rancho Seco N uclear Generatmg Staunn), AL AB-655,14 N RC 799,816(1981) acceptance ofcontenuons that are the subject of rulemakmg. LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1036 (1982) hugation of genenc issues that are the subject of ongomp rulemaking, in individual hcensmg proceedmss; LBP-82-107 A,16 N RC 1809 ( 1982)
Sacramento M umcipal Utihty Distnct ( Rancho Seco N uclear Generaung Station), ALAB-703,16 N RC i533(1982) use of hot les vents to temove steam dunns small-braak LOC As, A L A B-708,16 N R C 1780 (1982)
Scemc H udson Preservstion Conference v. Federal Power Commission,354 F 2d 608,620 (2d Cir.1%5) appropriatenen of Board quesuonson admitted comentions; LBP-82 Il7.16 N RC l961 (1982)
Licensms Board responsibihty to develop the record, LBP-82-87,16 N RC 1199 (1982)
Scienusts'insutute for Pubhc Information v. Atomic Energy Commissicea,481 F.2d 1079,1092 (D C. Car.
1973) standard for determming environmental effects of a proposed agency acuon; LBP-82-100,16 N RC 1571(1982);LBP 82 Il9A 16NRC2085(1982)
SCM Corp v.Xeros Corp,70 F R.D. 508 (D. Conn ), mierlocutory appealdismissed 534 F.2d 1031 (2d Cir.1976) commumcanonsencompassed by attorney-chent privilege; LBP-82 82,16 NRC i158 (1982)
Sec. & Each. Comm'n v. Spence & Green Chemical Company,612 F.2d 8%,901 (5th Cir.1980), cert.
denied,449 U.S.1082 (1981)
Board authonty to grant summary disposinon before discovery is completed; A L AB-696,16 N RC 1263(1982)
Sedco lnternanonal v. Cory,81 -2007. 81 2056 (8th Cir. A ugust 2,1982) purpose of attorney chent pnvilege; LBP-82 82,16 N RC I159 (1982)
Sholly v. N uclear Regulatory Commission,651 F.2d 780 ( D C. Cir.1980) (per cunam), cert. granted 451 U.S.1016 (1981) need for separate hearms onlow-power and full-power hcenses. CLI 82 39,16 N RC 1715 (1982)
Sholly v. N uclear Regulatory Commission 651 F.2d 780 (D C.Cir ), cert. granted,451 U.S.1016 (1981) preclusion of procedural modificauons that would foreclose a party's contenuons; CLI-82-23,16 N RC t
422(1982) l l
1 i
I 99 i
I e
LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX CASES 1
Sholly v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,65 I F.2d 780,787 n.20 (D.C. Gr.1980), rehearing en b.m demed,651 F.2d 792, cert. granted,101 S. Ct. 3004 (1981) loss of right to hearing through lack of notice; ALA B482,16 NRC 158 (1982)
Siegel v. Atomic Energy Commission,400 F.2d 778,784 (D.C. Cir.1968) examples ofcommon defense and secunty standards; CLI-82-19,16 N RC 76 (1982)
Siegel v. Atomic Energy Commission,400 F.2d 778,785 (D C.Cir.1%8) definition oflicensing proceeding; LBP 82 107, I 6 NRC 1674 (1982)
Sierra Qub v. Frochike,534 F.2d l28918th Cir.1976) condinons allowing segmentauon of mer federal actions; CLI-82 23,16 NRC 424 (1982)
Sierra cub v. Morton,405 U.S. 727 (1972)
,,.e,-~.-
standing of petitioner in decontamination proceeding to litigate related waste disposal issues; LBP-82-52,16 NRC 191 (1982)
Sierra Cub v. Morton,405 U.S. 727,739 (1972) demonstration ofan organization's standing as a representative ofits members' interest; ALAB-700, 16 NRC1334 (1982)
Sierra cub v. Morton 405 U.S. 727,939,940 (1972) s6tisfaction ofinterest test for standing; LBP 82 74,16 N RC 933 (1982)
Smith w. FTC,403 F.Supp.1100,1015, n.45 (D. Del 1975) guidelines for resolvms claims of ezecutive privilege in N RC proceedings related to discovery; LBP-82-82,16 NRCll64 (1982)
South Carolina Electnc and Gas Company (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Stauon, Unit !), A LAB-642.13 NRC 881,895-% (1981), affirmed sub nom. FairGeld Umted Acuon y. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No.
81 2042 (D C. Cir., Aprd 28,1982) responsabihty of N RC Staffon uncontested safety issues; ALAB480,16 N RC l43 (1982)
South Carolina E!cetric and Gas Company, et al (Virgit C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit t ), ALAB442, 13 NRC 88 t (1981) weight given to availabdity of other means to protect tardy intervenor's interests' LBP-82-92, t 6 NRC 1383(1982)
South Carolina Electric and Gas company, et aL (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Umt !), AL AB442, 13 NRC 881,844,887 (1981) standards for admitting late-Gled TMI contenuons; LBP-82-63,16 NRC 578 (1982)
South Carohna Electric and Gas Company, ei at (virgd C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit I). ALAB442, 13 NRC 88 I,885 (1981), afrd sub nom. Fairfield U nited Action v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,679 F.2d 26I (D C. Cir.1982) cruse for overturmns Licensing Board decision rejecting late intervention petsuon; ALAB-707,16 NRC 1764 (1982)
South Carohna Electnc and Gas Cornpany, et at (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Stanon, Unit 1), AL AB442, 13 N RC 881,885,886,894,895 (1981), affd sub nom. Fairfield United Acuon v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.679 F.2d 261 (D C.Cir.1982) showm. necessary tojusufy intervention petition Gled four years tate; ALAB-704,16 N RC 1730 (1v82)
South Carchna Elecinc and Gas Company. et al (Virsd C. Summer Nuclear Stanon, Umt l), ALAB442, 13NRC88! 887n.4(1981) good cause standards apphed to e xisting intervenor seeking to adopt withdrawing intervenor's contentions; LBP-82-91,16 N RC l369 (1982)
South Carohna Electnc and Gas company, et al (Virgi! C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit t), ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881,895 (1981) weights given to factors used to evaluate admissibdi'y oflate-Gled contentions; LBP42 91,16 NRC i
l 1367(1982)
South Carohna Electric and Gas Company, et at (Virgd C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit I), ALAB463, i
14 NRC ll40,ll56 n.31 (1981) i responsibihty of N RC Staff on uncontested safety issues; ALA B480,16 N RC I43 (1982) l South Carolina Electnc and Gas Company, et at (Virgd C. Summer Nuu ear Stauon, Unit I), LBP-81 11,13 NRC420,423 (1981) 100 I
l t
S 1
I i.
t LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASES clasm of masplaced reliance on another party to represenl an intervends interests as cause for late
}
intervention;LBP 82 Il78.16 N RC 2027 (1982)
Southern Cahforma Edison Company (San Onofre N uclear Generatmg Station, Umts 2 ano 3). A L A B-171.
7 AEC 37,39 (1974)
Commission cosmtance ofacts wines before other tnbunals; LBP 82 1 I ?A,16 N RC 1991 (1982)
Southern C4hfornaa Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear (.nenerating Stauon. U rats 2 and 3 L ALAB-268,8 NRCJ83,399(19751 5taffinterference mith lice ismg Board's performance s4stsdunes; LBP-82-87,16 NRC l200 (1982) i Southern Cahfornia Edison Company, et al. I San Onofre N uclear Generaung Station. Umts 2 and 31 A L A B-673,15 N R C 688. 698 shommg required for stay of Licensms Board decision pendmg appeal. AL AB-680,16 NRC 130 (19821 4
Southern Cabforma Edison Company. et at iSan Onofre N u6 lear Generatmg Stanon, Umts 2 and 3),
AL AB480,16 NRC l27 (1982) guidance impsementmg Commission's emergency plannmg requerements. 4 L A B-707,16 N RC l ?63 (1982)
Southern Cahforma Edison Company. et al. I San Onofre N uclear Generatmg Stauon, U mts 2 and 3).
AL AB-680.16 N RC 127, I 35 39 (1982) viabihty of medwal seruces contenuon m hght ofdecision m; LBP-82-75.16 N RC 997-99 (1982)
Southern Cahforma Edison Company, et al (San Oriofre N uclear Generatmg Station. Units 2 and 3),
L BP-81 36.14 N RC 691.699 (1981) reamremem for reasonable auurance deiermmation. LBP 82-66,16 NRC 732 (1982)
Southern Cahforma Edison company, et al Isan Onofre N udear Generating Sianon. U mts 2 and 3),
LBP-82-3,15 N RC 61 (1982) propnety orcallms mdependent espertsas Board witnesses, LBP 82-55,16 NRC 277 (1982)
Southern California Edmon Company, ei al, f San Onofre Nuclear Generatmg 5tauon, U mis 2 and 3).
LBP-82-3,15 N RC 61. 78-82 (1982) rehugation o'senous accident scenanos; L BP 82 107 A.16 N RC 1808 ( 1982)
Sout hern Cahforma Edison Company, et al. 4 San Onofre N uclear Generatmg 5tauon. Units 2 and 3).
LBP-82-39.15 NRC l2O3 (1982) significance of pre-emergency pubhc mformation program; LBP-82-66.16 N RC 732 (1982) southern Cahform4 Edison Company.et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generstmg Station. Umts 2 and 3),
j LBP-82 39,85 NRCl212 n 33(1982) enutiement ofmienm F EM A findmg to re buttable presumption, LBP-82-68,16 N RC 746 (1982)
Starr v. Federal Aviauon Admimstranon,589 F.2d 307,315 (7th Cir.1978) standard for determining bias on part of N RC StafTconsultant, L BP-82 99,16 N RC 1548 (1982)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v Department of Transportanon.680 F.2d 206,229 (D C. Cir.1982) need for a Board to state reasons for altering consistent mierpretauons of a statute; LBP 82-107.16 N RC l679 (1982>
State of Alaska v. Andrus 580 F 2d 465.473 (D C. Cir.19781 vacatedin part, sub nom., Western Oiland 1
Gas Associauonv. Alaska,439U.S 922(1978) consideranon of remote and speculative enuronmemal efrects m heensms a facihty; LBP-82 137 A,16 NRC 1992 (1982) scope ofinformauon concermns environmentalimpact of a project to be obtained before project ininauon; LBP-8242,16 N RC 56911982)
Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensmg Proceedmas.CLI 81-8,13 N RC 452 (19811 steps for espeditmg a proceedmg; AL A B496,16 N RC 3263 (1982)
Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensmg Proceedings. CLl-81 8,13 N RC 452. 45) (19811 use of Board powers to focus a proceedms; LBP 82 107,16 N RC 1677,1680 (1982)
Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensmg Proceedmss. CLI-81-8,13 N RC 452,454 (1981) apphca. ion of sancuons; LBP-82-I l6.16 N RC 1940.1947 (1982) power of Licensing Board to ampose sanctions on defaulting party; LBP-82 115,16 N RC 1928 (1982) relev ance ofa party's resosirces to its hearms obbsanons. AL AB496,16 N RC l 261 (1982)
Statemem of Pokcy on Conduct of Licensms Proceedmss, CLI-81 8,13 N RC 452. 456 (1981) woes.h t.mstr e uunpun psycnveogicalstresscontentions; LuP 82 53. 86 N KC20)(1982) 101 g
t
~,,r._
_. _ ~ _.
.,,,,m
,,. ~, _,
_.m,.
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES i
Licensing Boardjunsdiction for referral of ruling conditionally admitting nonspecific contentions.
Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensms Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13 N RC 452,456 57 (198!)
certification ofquestion to Commission to avoid licensms delays; AL AB481,16 N RC 149 (1982)
Statement of Polig on Conduct of Licensmg Proceedings CLI-81-8,13 N RC 452,457 (1981) hmitations on summary disposition monons; LBP 82-93,16 N RC 1394 (1982) use of summary d.sposition to avoid unnecessary hearin8s; LBP-82-114,16 N RC 19 I I (1982)
Staterrient of Pohey: Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses CLI 80-42,12 NRC 654(1980) excenion to prohibition against collateral attack on Comrmssion rules; LBP 82-106,16 N RC 1657 (1982)
.w.-w
,~ -
Stewart v Smith,673 F.2d 485 (D C.Cir.. October l.1981)
{
limits on agency prerogatives to imerpre policy statements; LBP-8249,16 N RC 753 (1982)
Sun OilCompany v. FPC,256 F.2d 23)
~
Commission discretion in admimsteri.ig its procedural rules; LBP-82 107,16 N RC 1678 ( 1982)
Swift and Company v. United States,308 F.2d 849,851 (7th Cir.1 %2) tailoring of hearing procedures to competency of a party's legal representatives LBP-82-107,16 N RC 4
1679(1982)
Taggart v. Weinseller's inc.,397 U.S. 223 (1970)
Commissaan review of A ppeal Board decision on operatmg hcense amendment ireprovidently granted-,
CLI-82 26,16 NRC881(1982)
Ten Applications for Low Ennched Uramum Exports to EUR ATOM Member Nations,CLI-77-24,6 N RC 525,531(1977) standmg to intervene as member of general pubhc subject to harm from accident at nuclear facility; LBP-82 76,16 NRC1032(1982)
Tennessee Valley Authonty (Browns Ferry N uclear Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-76-10,3 N RC 209 at 216 (1976) use of references in support orcontentions; LBP-82-52.16 N RC 189 (1982) g Tennessee valley Authonty (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Umts t,2 and 3), ALAB477,15 NRC l387 i
I I
(1982) l applicant /hcensee obligation to provaSe accurate and ti6nely information in N RC proceeding; ALAB491,16 N RC e10(1982) applicationofrelevanceand materiahty standards;LBP 82 73,16 NRC978 (1982) l Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant,Unas t A,2A,lB 2B), ALAB-367,5 NRC 92, 102-03(1977) circumstances requirms cost benefit balancmg for proposed nuclear plant; LBP 82-Il7A,16 N RC 1993(1982) consideration of financial costsin N E P A cost-benefit balance; LBP-82 58,16 NRC 526 ( 1982)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville N uclear Plant, Units l A. 2A, l B. 2B) A LAB-367,5 N RC 92, 102 05(1977) inadequacy ofdiscussion of alternatives in operating license FES, LBP-82 58,16 N RC 526 (1982)
Tennessee Vaticy Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Umts I A 2A, I B,28), ALAB-367,5 NRC 92,104 n.59(1977) waiver ofinadequately briefed enceptions; AL AB496, ' 4 NRC l 255 (1982)
Tennessee Valley Au,hority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Umts I A,2 A,1B,2B). ALAB-463,7 NRC 341,348 (1978) standard for consideration ofissues raised for first time on apmal; A L A B493.16 N RC 956 (1982) standard for considering issues raised for first time on appeal AL AB-691,16 N RC 907 (1982)
Tennessee Valley Authonty f Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Umtsl A 2A,lB 2B) ALAB-463,7 NRC341, 355 56(1978) circumstances favonns disclosure of confidentiat information;LBP-82-59,16 N R C 538 (1982)
Tennessee Valley Authonty t Hartsville Nuclear Plant,Umts l A 2A,lB,and 28) ALAB-463,7 N RC 341, 352(1978) findings based on material not introduced into evidenee; LBP-82 100,16 N RC 1574 (1982) 102
LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX CASES Tennessee Valley A uthonty v. Ell,437 U.S.153, I 84 185 (1978) appbcabihty of appeal board immediate efTectiveness teview in manufactunns license cases; ALAB-686,16 NRC 457 (1982)
Tenas Utihties Generatmg Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, U Ats I and 2).
Staff responsbehty regarding preparation of EIS; LBP-82 78.16 NRC ll10 (1982)
Tenas UtahtiesGeneratmg Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2).
ALAB-599,12 NRC l.2 (1980) circumstances appropnate for interlocutory appeals; ALAB 68),16 N RC 161 (1982)
' Tenas Utihtses Generatmg Company, ei al. (Comanche Peak Steam Ekctric Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-8136,14 NRC llll (1981) dispos. son of an intervenor's contentions upon its u ithdrawal as a party; LBP 92-91,16 N RC l 366 (1982)
Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-157,6 AEC 858,859 (1973) necessaty for fihne eaceptions; ALAB-694,16 N RC 960 (1982)
Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station). AL A B-300,2 NRC 752,758 (1975) test of"finahty" for appeat purposes; A L AB-690,16 N RC 894 ( 1972) test of finahty of appeal purposes; ALAB-6%,16 N RC l 256 (1982)
Toledo Edison Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear PowerStation), ALAB-300,2 NRC 752,760 (1975) apphcation of Federal R ules of Civil Procedure to NRC proceedmgs; LBP-82-82,16 N RC i l 57 (1982) use of federal Rulesin interpretmg M RC discovery rules. LBP-82-82.16 N RC l!6) (1982)
Tolede Edison Company (Davis-Besse N uclear Power Station, Unit I), AL AB-314,3 N RC 98,99-100 (1976) appeal board reluctance tocertify questions mvolving scheduhng, ALAB-688,16 N RC 475 (1982)
Tokdo EdisonCompany f Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, Umt t). ALAB 314.3 NRC 99 (1976) circumstances in = hich directed certifica' ion is =artanted; LBP-82 62,16 N RC 567 (1982)
Toledo Edisoncompany (Davis-Besse Nuclear Powerstation, Umts i,2 and 3) ALAB 385,5 NRC 621, 629(1977) appellate standard in reviewmg Licensing Board decimon in conteat of stay pendmg appeal.
ALAB-680,le NRC 133 (1982)
Trout Unhmited v. Morton,509 F.2d 1276,1283 (9th Cir.1974) need to consider full cycle contnbution to radon already in the enwironment; ALA B-701,16 NRC 1527 (1982)
Trustees orColumbia Universty in the City of New York, ALA B-50.4 A EC 849 (1972) potential of eacluded radiation dose contention as sua sponte issue; LBP-82-79,16 N RC !! 19 (1982)
Turner v. FCC,514 F.2d 1354 (D C. Cir.1975) basis for award ofinterrenors' attorney's fees; LBP-82-81,16 N RC I 139 (1982)
L'nion Electnc Company (Cahaway Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB 527,9 NRC 126,128-39 (1979) circumstances allowing Licensing Board to overnde informer's pnvilege; LBP-82-87,16 N RC 1200 (1982)
Union of Concerned Scientists v. A EC,499 F.2d 1069,1090 (D.C. Cir.1974) amount of hydrogen generation to be taken in account into containment design; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1064(1982)
Umted Mine Workers v. Kleppe,56 i F.2d 1258,1263 (7th Cir.1977) preclusion of hearing on germane issues through unlawfut procedural requirements; AL AB-687,16 NRC 469(1982)
Umied Mine Warkers v. Roneco,314 F.2d 186,188 (10th Cir.1%3)
'~
~
favorabihty in wiewing summary disposition motion; LBP 82 58,16 N RC 519 (1982)
Umted States Department of Energy, Project Management Corporation,Tennesaae Valley Authonty (C! inch River Breeder Reactor Plant), CLI-82-22,16 N RC 405 (1982)
Commismon dismissal of cover-up charge agamst N RC attorney; CLI-82-36,16 NRC 1515 (1982)
Umted States Energy Research and Development Admmistration (Clinch River Breeder R cactor Plant),
CLI-76-13,4 NRC 67 (1976) historyofl0CFR $0.12;CLI-82 23,16NRC437(1982) f 133 I
v
--.7.
LEGALCITATIONSINDEX CASES 4
Umted States Energy Research and Develop:nent Admirustration (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant),
CLI-76-13,4 N RC 67,75-76 (1976)
Commismon authority to provide guidar.cc on admissibility ofcontentions before Licensing Boards; CLI-82-15,16 NRC34 (1982)
Umted States Steel Corp. v. Train,1556 F.2d 822,837 (1977)]
disposmor ofunsupported briefs; ALAB-693,16 NRC 956 (1982)
United States Sugar Corp. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R.,1% F.2d 1015,1016 (5th Cir.1952) situations giving rise to appealable order; AL A B-690,16 N RC 895 (1982)
United states v. American Trucking Ass'n.,310 U.S. 534,544 (1940) determining intent of resulations; CLI-82-19,16 N RC 62 (1982)
United states v. Barnett,376 U.S. 681,737 739 (1964) (Goldbers, J.. dissentms) distinction between amicus curiae and traditional v. arty; AL AB-679,16 N RC 126 (1982)
United States v. Berrigan,482 F.2d 171,181 (3rd Cir.1973) purpose behind e xecutive pnvilege; LBP-82 82,16 N RC ll64 (1982)
Umted States v. Bonm,3oseph A Company,144 U.S.1,4 (1892) authentacio of recorded notes; LBP-82 72,16 N RC 970 (1981)
United States v. Brown,478 F.2d 1038,1041 (7th Cir.1973) discovery of attorney's opinion work product; LBP-82-82,16 N RC I160 (1982)
Umted States v. Culbert. 435 U.S. 371 (1978) determimng intent of regulations; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 62 ( 1982)
Umted States v. Davis,636 F.2d 1028,1044 n.20 (5th Cir.1981) specificity required ofclaims of esecutive pnvitese; LBP 82-82,16 N RC I153, i154 (1982)
Umted States v. Dickinson,465 F.2d 4%,509 5 II (5th Cir.1972) respect to be accorded a Licensing Board; LBP 82-115,16 N RC 1931 (1982)
United States v. El Paso Company, No. 81 2484 (5th Cir. August 13,1982) specificity required ofclaims ofenecutive privilege; LBP 82-82.16 N RC ll 53,1158,1161 (1982) t'nited States v. El Paso Company, No. 81 2484 (9th Cir. August 13,1982) extent of protecuon ofattorney-client pnvilege: LBP-82-82,16 N RC ll 58 (1982)
Umted States v. Gates,35 F R.D. 524 (D.Colo.1964) materia encompassed by attorney work product doctnne; LBP-82-82,16 N RC llil (1982) t United States v. Leggett & Platt,Inc.,542 F.2d 655,658-oS9 (6th Cir.1976) cert. denied,430 U.S. 945 l
(1977) disclosure ofdocuments protected by esecutive privilege; LBP 82-82,16 N RC 1164 (1982)
Umted States v. M unsmswear, Inc. 340 U.S. 36 (1950) remandine ofcase based on record that no longer represents case's actual situauon; CLI 82-26,16 NRC 881 (1982) i Umted States v. M unsingwear, inc.,340 0.S. 36 (1950) l vacation of unreviewedjudgments because of mootness; CLI-82 18,16 N RC 51 (1982) l United States v. Nixon,418 U.S. 683,705-7I I (1974) intrasovernmenaldoct mentsencompassed by emecuuve pnvilege; LBP 82 82, I6 NRC I164 (1982)
Umted States v. Oliver,570 F.2d 397,401 (Ist Cir.1978) scope ofinformer's pnvitese; LBP-82-87,16 NRC I198 (1982)
Umted States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines. 327 U.S. 515,527-530 (1945)
I critena for omcial nouce ofinformanon in separate proceedings; ALA B-682, ! 6 N RC 154 (1982)
Umted States v. Ramirez,608 F.2d 1261,1268 n.12 (9th Cir.1979) t commumcations encompassed by attorney client pnvilege; LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1158 (1982)
Umted States v. Storer Brondcasting Company,35 I U.S.192,202 (1955)
Commission authonty to determine means for deciding a parucular issue; LBP-82-118,16 NRC 2038 (1982)
UnitedStatesv. Taylor 333 F.2d633,639-40(5thCir.1964) jusuficauon for dismissal ofintervenor for failure to attend preheanns conference; LBP-82 115,16 NRC 1935 (1982)
United States v. United Mine Workers,330 U.S. 258,291-94 (1947)
NkC Staff duty to obey Licensing Board orders; LBP-82-87,16 N RC l203 (1982) 1 I
t l
184 l
I I
L
..-. -.. ~
_. ~_. _~
3 1
i LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX CASES United $tates v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation,89 F.Supp. 357,358-359 ( D. Mass.1950) essentiat elements of attorney-chent privilege; L BP-82-82,16 N RC l l 57-58 (1982)
United States v. Weathers,6 I 8 F.2d 663 (10th Cir.1980) approval ofcourt for appomting its own expert witr,ess; LBP-82 55,16 N RC 277 (1982)
Uppnn Company v. Umted States,449 U.S. 383,389 (1981) purpose of attorney chent privilege; LBP-8242, I 6 N RC 1 a 57-59 41982)
Up)ohn Company v. Umted States,449 U.S.383,397-398 (1981) i attorney's memalirnpressons and opmions at attorney work product doctrme-1 BP.82-82,16 N RC 1160(1982)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerCorp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) AL AB-56,4 AEC930
. (1972)
' preclusion ofconsideranon of fuelcycle contentoons; LBP 82 Il8,16 N AC 2038 (' *82)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station). ALAB-73,5 AEC 297, 298(1972)
Appeal Board authonty to revico ruhng regarding admission of class 9 acciden; contentions; AL AR-705,16 NRC I743 (1982)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerCorp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station). AL AB 124,6 AEC 358, 362(1973) authority of Board to pose questions in response to miervenor's motion to compel answers from apphcant; LBP 82102,16 NRC 1598 (1982)
}
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont *'ankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB 138,6 AEC 520 523(1973)
I showmg necessary in movms rapers to reopen the record; LBF 82 84.16 N RC 1185 (1982) standards for reopening the record; LBP-82 I l 7B.16 N RC 2031 (1982) test for good cause for reopening a record, AL AB 707.16 N RC 17e5 (1982)
Vermont iankee Nuclear PowerCorp. (Vermont Yankee %chr Power Station), ALAB-141,6 AEC 576, 583-58511973) difference betweenconceptsofeffectiveness and finahty; ALA B-689.16 NRC 891 (1982)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear PowerCorp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), AL AB-179. 7 A EC 159, 163-64(1974) precluseon of consideration of fuel cycle contentions; LBP-82 I l 8,16 N RC 2038 ( 1982)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), AL AB 179,7 AEC l59, j
177(1974) f consideration ofeffect of tases m N EPA cost basis analysis; LBP42 103,16 N RC 1613 (1982)
~
hmitations on benefits to be considered m an operatmg hcense cosa-benefit balance; LBP-82-95, ! 6 NRC l405 (1982)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station),CLI-74-40,8 AEC 809, til(1974) j' demonstration oi validity of regulatory suadance; AL AB 698,16 N RC l 299 (1982)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Naiusal Resources Defense Council,Inc. 435 U.S. 519 (1978)
I issues esplored m considenns conduct of hcensee. A L AB-691,16 N RC 904 (1982) need for consideration of aiternatives to nuclear power plants; LBP-82 Il7A,16 N RC 1992 (1982)
Vermont Yankee N uclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 435 U.S. $ 19,539 (1978) content ofenvironmertalimpact statement for mapr federal actions; LBP 82-76,16 N RC 1076 (1982)
Vermont Yankee N aclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Couned,Inc.,435 U.S. 519. 551 (1978) j need to evaluate envirorancatalimpact ofremote and speculative possibthlies. AL AB 705,16 NR n
j 1744(1982)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc-,435 U.S. 519,553 (1978) obhgations of tntervenous in N RC proceedmss; A L A B-693,16 NRC 957 (1982)
I a
105 l
?-
4 4
3 4
I t
a
-y
_+_,4r-~
..,m.,~,,.=..--,
,,-._-.~-_-_,,.,_,,.,y.-..,_..,-rm
.-m i
LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX CASES Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Councd Inc. 435 U.S. 519,557 58 t
(1978) responsibihty forjudgment to use nuclear energy as a source ofpower, LBP 82-87,16 N RC 1200 (1982) j Virginia Electnc and Power Company (North Anna N uclear Power Stanon, Umis i and 2), A LAB-289.2 N RC395,398 (1975) showing necessary on other factors when good cause for late intervention is not shown; LBP-82 Il 78, 16 NRC 2026 (1982)
Virgima Electnc and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALA B 324,3 NRC347,358-63 (1976) 4 omissions as matenal false statements; AL A B-650,14 N RC 911,914 (1982)
Virgmia Electric and PowerCompany (North Anna Nuclear PowerStation, Units l and 2), ALAB-491,8 NRC245(1978) 3 basis of contention on issue not covered by a specific rule; LBP-82 116,16 N RC 1946 ( 1982) vahdity of a contenuon based on a generic issue,in an operatmg hcense proceedmg. LBP 82-103,16 NRC 1608 (1982)
Virginia Electnc and Power Company (North Aana Nuclear Power Stanon. Units I and 2). AL AB-491,8 NRC 245.247(1978) appeal board disagreement with Licensms Board interpretation of an issue; ALA B-680,16 N RC 135 (1982) appeal board right to review any issues contested before a Licensms Board. A LA B-685,16 N RC 452 (1982)
Virgima Electre and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear PowerStanon. Umts I and 2), ALAB-491,8 N RC 245,249 n.7 (1978) 5tafTresponsibihiy to identify unresolved safety issues LBP-82 100,16 N RC 1557,1559 (1982)
Virgima Elecincand Power Company f North Anna Nuclear Power Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-491,8 N RC245,249-50(1978) estent of Appeal Board sua sponte review authonty; ALA B-689.16 NRC 890 91 (1982)
Virgima Electnc and PowerCompany (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-522. 9 N RC 54,56. 57 n.5 (1979) establishment ofcausahty for standing to intervene m materials hcense renewal proceeding.
ALAB-682.16 N RC 153 55 (1982)
Virgmia Elecinc and PowerCompany (North Anna Nuclear Power Station,Umts l and 2), ALAB 529,9 N RC 153 (1979)
Appeal Board practice when sua sponte review uncovers problems m Licensmg Board decision; ALAB 689,16 NRC 891 (1982) k Virgima Elecenc and PowerCompany iNorth Anna Nuclear Power Stanon. Umts I and 2), AL AB 536,9 N RC 402,404 n.2 (19791 authonty of an organizauon to represent its members, for purpose of standmg to intervene; AL AB 700.16 NRC 1334 (1982)
Virgmea Electne and PowerCompany (North Anna Nuclear Power Stanon, Umts l and 2), ALAB-584. li N RC 451,458 (1980) interpretauonof the term available resources";LBP 82 78.16 NRC ill2 (1982)
Virgmia Electnc and PowerCompany (North Anna Nuclear Power Stauon. Umts I and 2). ALAB-584.11 N RC 451,465 (1980) preclusion ofcontentions by pendency of waste confidence rulemakms LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2081 (1982)
Virsmia Electnc and PowerCompany (North Anna Nuclear Power Stauon. Umts I and 2).CLI 74-16,7 AEC 31),314 (1974)
Commission pohey regarding wit hholdmg ofinformation. LBP-82-59.16 N RC 538 (1982)
Virgmia Elecinc and Power Company i North Anna N uclear Power Station. Umts I and 2), CLI-74-17,7 AEC 313 (1974) disclosure of matenal protected by esecuuve pnvilege; LBP-82 82.16 N RC ll63 (198D apphcation of Euemption 5 of Freedom ofinformanon Act io mtragovernmentalCommumcanons; LBP-82-82,16 S RC il63 f l982) 106
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Virgima Electric and Power Company (North Anna N uclear Power Station, Units I and 2), CLI-76-22,4 N RC 480,486 (1976), afTd sub nom. Virgmia Electric and Power Company v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,57I F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978 )
habihty of apphcant/hcensee for matenal false statement; AL AB-691,16 NRC 910 (1982)
Virgama Electricand Power Company (North Anna Nuclear PowerStation.Umts I and 2),CLI-76 22,4 N RC 480,487-88,49I (1976), affd sub nom. Virgima Electnc and Power Company v. N uclear Regulatory Commission.571 F.2d l289 (4th Cir.1978) test for matenahty of a statement, AL A B 650,14 N T,C 910,912,914,915 (1981)
Virgmia Elecinc and Power Company ( Nonh Anna Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2), CLI 76-22,4 NRC480,49l 92, n.11 (1976), affirmed sub nom.,Viramia Electncand Power Company v Nuclear Regulatory Commission,57 t F.2d l 289 (4th Cir.1978) senousness of biascharge against N RC Staff attorney; CLl-82-36,16 N RC 1512 (1982)
Virgmia Electnc Power Company (Surry Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2), CLI-80-4,11 N RC 405 (1980) abihty of NRC Staff to discharge its responsibihty to consider 2.206 petiuons, CLI-82-29,16 N RC 1229 (1982) use of 2.206 procedures to protect late intervention petitioner's interests; A L AB-707,16 N RC l 768 (1982) factors to be considered by Licensing Board in ruimg on a motion for stay; LBP-82-84,16 N RC 1184 (1982)
Virginia Petroleam Jobbers Assoc. v. FPC. 259 F.2d 921,925 (D C. Cir.1958) factors to be cons 4dered by Licensmg Board in ruling on a monon for stay; LBP-82-84,16 NRC 1184 (1982)
Walker v. Cny of Birmmgham,388 U.S. 307 (1%7) respect to be accort.ed a Licensing Board, LBP-82-Il 5,16 N RC 1931 (1982)
Walker v. Hutchmson,352 U.S. I12, i15 (19561 loss of nght to hearms through lack of nouce; A LAB-682,16 N RC 158 (1982)
Warth v. Seldm,422 U.S. 490 (1975) satisfactumof n,eresttestforstandms;LBP-82 74,16NRC983(1982)
Warth v. Seldin,422 U.S. 490,511 (1975) demonstration of an orgamzation's standmg as a representative ofits members' interest; AL AB-700, 16 N RC l334 (1982)
Washington Pubhc PowerSupply System (Hanford No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant). ALAB-Il3,6 AEC251 (1973) entent of Appeal Board sua sponte review authonty; ALAB-689,16 NRC 890 (1982)
Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (N uclear Projects Nos. l and 4), ALAB-265,1 N RC 374,375 n.1 (1975) appellate review of Licensing Board ruhnss on economic issues, intervention requests. or procedural matters ALAB-650,14NRC908(1982)
Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Power Project Nos. 3 and 5), CLI-77 II,5 NRC 719(1977)
Commission practice for grant of enemption from 50.10; CLI-82-23,16 N*.C 426 (1982)
Washmston Public Power Supp'y System (W PPSS Nuclear Project No. 2). ALA B-571,10 N RC 687.692 (1979) scope of sua sponte review offinal disposit on of Licensing Board decision; ALAB-691,16 NRC 908 (1982) sua sponte review by Appeal Board of final disposition oflicensmg proceeding; ALAB-689,16 NRC 890,(1982)
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), LBP-79-7,9 N RC 330 (1979) failure ofintervenors to meet interesi requirements for intervention,CLI-82-29.16 N RC 1223 (1982)
Washmston Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. I and 2), CLI-82-29,16 NRC 1221, i
1228-29 (1982) l use of 2.206 procedure to protect late intervenuon petitioner's interesta; ALAB-707,16 NRC 1768 (1982) l 197 h
--y w
LEGALCITATIONSINDEX CASES Washington v. Confederated Tnbes of the Colville ladian Reservation,447 U.S.134,149 50 (1980) i situations giving nse toappealable order; ALAB490,16 N RC 895 (1942)
Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Ass'n,443 U.S A58,662-66 (19791 threatstoanadromousfish; ALAB-700,16NRC1332(1982)
WATCH v. Harris,603 F.2d 310 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Waterburg Urban Renewal Agency v.
WATCH,444 U.S.995 (1979) need for supplementalenvironmentai review; AL A B-705,16 NRC l 753 f l982)
Winconsin Electric Power Company ( Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-74-45,8 A EC 928 (1974) use ofdraft EIS as basis forlate-filed contention; LBP-82 79,16 N RC lll8 (1982)
Wisconsin Electric PowerCompany (Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Ur.us I and 2) CLI 7445,8 AEC 928, 930(1978)
Commissioncognizanceofactivniesbefore othertnbunals;LBP-82 ll7A 16 NRCl991(1982)
WisconsinElectricPowerCompany(PointBeach Nuc!earPlant Unit 2), ALAB-31,4 AEC689,690-91 (1971) timins ofdiscovery on contentions; A L A B 687,16 N RC 467 (1982)
Wisconsin Electnc PowerCompany (Point Beach Nuclear Plant Umt 2), A LAB 78,5 AEC 319,322 (1972)
Appeal Board authonty to review ruling regarding admission ofcfass 9 accideni contentions.
ALAB-705,16 N RC l743 (1982)
Wiscot' sin Electric PowerCompany (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Um: 21, ALAB-85, $ AEC 375 (1972) difference between conceptso(etTectivenessand finality; ALAB-689,16 NRC891 (1982)
Wisconsin Electnc Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Umt 2) ALAB 86,5 AEC 376,377 (1972)
Licensms Board authonty to reopen a proceedmg. AL A B-699,16 N RC IJ27 f 1982)
Wisconsin Electric Power Company ( Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), A L A B-666,15 N RC 277 (1982) determinmg whether mtervenor's failure to appeal is isolated event, for purpose ofapplying sanctions; LBP-82108,16 N RC 1815 (1982)
Wnght v. Hartford Accident a indemmty Company,580 F 2d 809,810 (5th Cir 1978) failure of party to submit requested proposed findmgs of fact. AL A B491, t 6 N RC 907 (1982)
Yoffe v. Keller indus.. Inc. 580 F.2d ! 26.129 30,131 n.13 f 5th Cir.1978). petition for rehearmg demed, 582 F.2d 982,983 (1978) standards for dismissal of applications =ithout prejudice; L BP-82 81,16 N RC 1134 I 1982) i i
awe
...t ev i
ies f
4 LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX REGl'LATIONS 7 CFR 47.16(f) use ofdepositions for cross-examination, LBP 82 107,16 N RC 1676 ( 1982) 10 CFR I consohdauon of proceedings, DPRM-82 2,16 NRC 1214 (1982) 10 CFR I.3 emergency response time of NRC Region l offices AL A B-698,16 N RC l 306 (1982) 10 CFR I.730(e) right of Staff to request wntten opinion from Board, LBP 82 110.16 N RC 1897 (1982) 10 CI~R 2 cnteria to be addressed by motions to reopen, CLI-82 39,16 NRC 1714 (1982) demal of peuuon for amendment of, to require operatmg hcense hearmas for each reactor; DPR M -82 2, 16 NRC l214 (1982)
/
fihng deadime for response toStaff monon for protective order; LBP-82 Il3,16 NRC 1908 (1982) d 10 CFR 2,Subpart B J
Board recommendauon for proceeding to modify or suspend reactor operators' hcenses; LBP-82-56,16 e
l NRC 309,383 (1982) j (
10CFR 2 4te) l O
eaceptions to requirement for pubhc bearings on N RC proceedings, L BP 82 107,16 N RC 1680 ( 1982) t 10CFR 2.4(n)
[
example orcontested proceeding withm t he meaning of, LBP-82-55.16 N RC 228 (1982), LBP-82-57,16 N RC 480 (1982) v g l'
10 CFR 2.102 J
locations of meetmss between N RC Staff and its consultants; CLI-82-41,16 N R C 1722 (1982) 10 CFR 2.104 d
huga bihty ofcontenuon concernmg financial quahlications of small om ners; LBP-82-119 A,16 NR C 2099 J
(1982) 10 CFR 2.104(a) standarJ for dacrebonary hearms on matenals hcense amendment; CLI-82-21,16 N RC 402 (1982) 10 CFR 2.104(c)
NRC Staff responsibihty for health and safety findings; LBP-82-100,16 NRC 1556 (1982) 10CFR 2.104(cH4) 7 deleuon of financial quahfications contention, LBP-82 103,16 N R C l 605 (1982) scope orcontenuons to be heard by a Licensing Board; LBP-82 103,16 N RC 1619 (1982) 10CFR 2105 Licensms Boardjunsdiction after issuance oflow-power hcense; LBP-82 92,16 N RC 1380 (1982) preclusion of consideration of alternauves and need for power issues m operatmg hcense proccedings; LBP-82103,16 NRC 1606 (1982)
' ~
10 CFR 2105(a)(6) standard for discrenonary heanns on matenals hcense amendment; CLI-82-21,16 N RC 402 (1982) 10 CFR 2.107(a) terms for withdrawalafconstruction permit apphcation afterissuance of Notice of Haanng, LBPJ2 81, 16 N RC !!31,1134 (1982) r 10 CFR 2.109 contmaauon of heensee operation dunns processing of hcense renewal requests; A LA B-682,16 NRC 159 (1982) continums validity ofconstruction permit pending ruims on e atension request; C' l '2-29, !6 ??P ? *P men il%2)
I 109 l
l 1
~ - _ -.
4 i
I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX 4
REGULATIONS effectiveness of hcense pending ruling on request for renewal; CLI-82 39,16 N RC 1715 (1982) 10CFR 2.202 sufHciency of show cause proceedmg to evaluate intervenors' concerns over site suitabihty issues; CLI-82-29,16 NRC l227 29(1982) suspension oflow-powerlicense; AL AB-681,16 NRC l47 (1982); LBP-82 70.16 NRC 762 f t982) 10CFR 2.202(o form oflicensee's answer to show cause order; CLI-82 33,16 N RC 1499 (1982) i 10 CFR 2.205 procedural requirements to be followed prior to imposition of csvd penalties; CLI-82-31,16 N RC I 238 i
i1982) 10CFR 2.205(a) authonty toinstitute civil penalty proceeding;CLI-82 31,16 NRC 1238 (1982) i 10 CFR 2.205(f) l Licensing Boardinvolvement in civil penalty proceedings;CLI-82 31.16 N RC l238 (1982) 10 CFR 2.206 I
alternative toairing site suitability issue in construction permit eutension proceedms,CLl 82 29,16 NRC 1227-29(1982) asustance for intervenor whocannot present hisomn case; LBP 82 84,16 NRC I 18611982) avoidance of action under; L BP 82 1178,16 N RC 2030 (1982) challenges to emergerwy planning; CLI-82-15,16 N RC 37 (1982) denial of pention for review ofdecisen relating to safe operation of Ginna plant; LBP-82 99,16 N RC 1
1473 (1982) demal of petition requesting amendment ofoperating hcense apphcation concerning management restructuring; DD-82-10,16 N RC 1205 (1982) denial of petition requesting imtiation of show cause procceding on basis of hcensee's financial quahfications;DD 82-8,16 NRC394(1982) denial of petition requestmg suspension of operations on basis ofinadequacies in emergency plannmg; DD-82-12.16 NRC 1685 (1982) demal of petauon p= eking suspension ofconstruction permit pending submission of alternative to supplemental coohng water supply system; DD-82 13,16 N RC 2115 (1982) denialof petinon to decommission Humboldt Bay Power Plant; DD-82 7,16 NRC 387(1982) forum for seeking more strmsent enforcement actions; CLI-82 16,16 N RC 46-47 (1982) means for protect on oflate intervention peutioner's interests. A LA B-707,16 N RC 1767,1768 (1982) parnal demat orpetinon regarding construchon deficiencies at LaSalle; D D-82-9,16 N RC 396 (1982) remedy for petinoner profTerms issues unrelated to hcense amendment; LBP 82-108,16 N RC 1820 j
(1982) 10CFR 2.500 apptwability ofimmediate effectiveness review to manufactunng licenses; A LA B-68U 6 N RC 456 l
(1982) i 10 CFR 2.503 l
disunction between constriaction permits and manufacturing hcenses: ALA B486,16 N RC 456 (1982) l l
10 CFR 2.564 1
apphcabihty ofimmediate effecuveness review to manufacturing hcenses; ALAB486,16 NRC 456 (1982) efTecuveness of manufacturing heense decisions relative to finality; CLI 82-37,16 N RC 1692 ( 1982) 10 CFR 2.700 conduct ofspecial proceedings; ALAB-685,16 N RC 451 (1982) 10CFR 2.701(b)
..s m..
documents required to be served on other parties; LBP-82 Il9 A 16 N RC 2112 (1982) l 10 CFR 2.707 i
Board authonty to impose sancuons for noncomphance with its orders; LBP-82-75,16 N RC 990 (1982) dismissal of proceedmg for falure ofintervenor to attend; LBP 82 101.16 N RC 1595 ( 1982) l f
refusal of a party to comply wit h Board order; LBP-82-15,16 N RC 1928 (1982) j support for Licensing Board dismissal efinterverior w ho refused to parucipate m preheanng conference; LBP-82-Il5.16 NRC l935 (1982) j-i lie Y
l l
t
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS IOCFR 2.70h b) reason for requinns a Board to consider all circumstances pnor to selection of a sanction; LBP-82-115,16 NRC l929(1982) l 10CFR 2.708 rejection of handantien contention; LBP-82-I l 9 A,16 N RC 2103 t 1982) 10CFR 2.710 time hmit for mouons to compel, LBP-82-116,16 N RC 1953,1%2 (1982) 10CFR 2.211 measures for e mpeditmg a proceeding AL AB-696,16 N RC l263 f l982) 10CFR 2.712(a) use ofinformal oral notincahon to insger ume for seeking appeal; ALA B-690,16 N RC 895 (1982) i 10 CFR 2.712(d)(3)
Licensms Boardjurisdiction toconsider motion to reopen record mailed before Licensing Board final decision. LBP 82-86,16 NRC 1191 (1982) 10CFR 2.713 forum for complaints relating to an attorney's actions; CLI-82-35,16 N RC l 51) (1982) 10CFR 2.713(a) conduct of parues to N RC proceedings AL A B-691,16 N RC 936 ( 1982) respect to be accorded a Licensms Board, L BP-82. I15,16 N RC 1930 (1982) 10CFR 2.713(c)
Lscensing Board authonty to censi: e parues to a proceeoing, LBP-82-87,16 N RC 1201 (1982) 10CFR 2.714 admisseon ofcontenuon subject te further specificity; LBP 82 75,16 NRC 1004 (1982) admission ofQA contennon citi s deficiencies in FS AR as basis; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1073 ( 1982) amendment of, AL AB-687,16 bRC 466 (1982) appeal of final order; LBP-82-108,16 N RC 1825 ( 19J2) apphcation of additional requirements for admission ofcontenuons, CLI-82-15,16 N RC 34,41 (1982) basis with speciGcity standard for contentions; LBP-82 106,16 N RC 1654 (1982) demonstrauon of tood cause for late fihng; L BP-82 53,16 NRC 201 (1982) denial ofintervention for lack ofstanding; AL AB-682.16 N R C 15) (1982) denial, without prejudece. of beyond-design-basss accident contenuon; LBP-82-103,16 NR C 160$ (1982) e aclusion of groups as intervenors beca use of their opmions on n uclear power; CLI-82 15,16 N RC 3 I (1982) explanation of basis requirement; LBP-82 116,16 NRC 1943 (1982) failure ofcontention allegms adverse effects associated with recreational opporturuties to meet specificity requirements. LBP-82 103,16 N RC 1613 (1982) failurc of contentmns addressms decontammation problems to meet specificity requirements; LBP 82-52,16 NRC 188 (1982) failure of contenuons admitted condiuonally subject to specification to later meet specificity requirement; LBP 82-107A,16 NRC 1794 (1982) failure of emersency planmns contention to meet specificity requirement; LBP-82 75,16 N RC 993 (1982) failure ofintervenors to meet interest requirements for intervenuon; CLI-82 29,16 N RC 1223 (1982) good cause for failure to file emergency planning contentions on time; LBP-82-%,16 N RC I430 (1982) intervenuon on enforcement actions; CLI 82-16,16 N RC 45 (1982)
.. _en ~ -. -
lack of basis of transmission hnes contention; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1085 (1982) litigabihty ofcontentson chargmg management with responsabihty for construction delays; CLl-82 29,16 N RC l231 (1982) purpose of basis =ith specificity requirement; LBP-82 52, ! 6 N RC 193 (1982); LBP-82 106,16 N RC 1655 (1982) quality assurance contennon seen as empedition seeking information; LBP-82-76,16 NRC IO42 (1982) restrictionson Board authonty; LBP 32-69, I6 NRC 752 (1982) spec Rity required of contention concerning quahficauon of safety-related equipment; LBP-82-76,16 Nid1038(1982) timms ofdiscovery oncontentions; ALAB-687, !$ NRO468 (DM weak showing for acceptance of tardy contenuons; LBP-82-54,16 NRC 213 (1982)
I i
I11
+
w
-.-,_7
-7.
-r
,.,,m
uk
}
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS j
i 10 CFR 2.714(a) admission or quehty assurance contention favored by five-factor test; LBP-8243, I6 NRC 5g4 (1982) applicability to late filed contentions based on previously unavailable documents; ALAB447,16 N RC 4 3, 4 9(1982) application oflateness factors to statements ofissues offered by a State: LBP-82-103,16 N RC 1615 (1982) balancing of five factors fa vors limited admission of risk assessment contention; LBF-8243,16 N RC 592 (1982) balancmgoffivefactorsweighsagainstlateintervention;LBP-82 92,16NRC1377(1982*
clarificationofrequirementsforlate-filing,amendms,espending,anddeletingcomenticss ALAB487, 16 NRC 47,470(1982) conditional admission ofcontenuons; LBP 82 107 A,16 N RC 1793 (1982) consederationofpetitioner'sstatusassovernmentalentityinbalancingtestforlate' ervention; LBP-82 92,16 NRC 1384(1982) criteria forjudging late petitions to intervene; LBP-82 M.16 NRC 1429 (198D dismissal of intervenor for failure to cure deficiencies in standing; LBP-32-76,16 N RC 1032 (1982) establishment of four-factor test for selection of sanctions, comparable to test for late imervention; I
LBP-82115,16 NRC 1929(1982) fa;1ureofintervenortosatisfycriteriaforlateintervention; ALAB 707,16NRC1764(1982) five-factor test forlate intervenuon; ALAB-704,16 NRC I726-27 (1982); LBP-82 54,16 NRC 213 (1982) importance of third and Gft?t factors to the granting oflate mtervention; ALAB-704,16 N RC 1730 (1982) mterests encompassed by; LBP-82-52,16 N RC 185 t 1982) means unavailable to protect late mierven: ion petiuoner'sinterests; L8P-82 92,16 N RC 1382-83 f 1982) reviem by N RC Staff as alternauve toliogation; LBP-82 %,16 NRC l433 (1982) satisfaction of residency requirements for standing to intervene; LBP-82 52,16 N RC 186 (1982) standards for admitting late intervenor; LBP-8243,16 N RC 586 (1982) standards to be satisfied by party moving to ecopen a record.CLI-82-39,16 N RC 1715 (1982)
State argument in favor of unumely intervenurn; LBP-82 92,16 N RC 1379 (1982) ume for films supplements to contenuons; A L A B487,16 N RC 469 (1982) weight given to late-filed contenuon's potential for delay of proceeding; LBP-82-98,16 N RC 145,1468
?
(1982) 10CFR 2.714(a)(1) i admission requirements to be met by refiled contenuon; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1038 (1982) adoption of withdrawing intervenor's contentions by another party; LBP-82-91,16 N RC l368 (1982) amendment of peution to intervene; A L AB490,16 NRC 395 (1982) applicability of flve-factor test to late-filed contentions based on previously unavadable documents; LBP-82-107A,16NRCl793(1982);LBP-82 Il9A 16NRC207t(1982) apphcability of five-factor tess to radiation monitoring contennons; LBP 82 Il9A,16 N RC 2076 (1982) apphcability c(good cause factor to admissibility oflate-filed peutions for intervention and late-filed contentions; LBP 82 91,16 NRC 1367 (1982) applicauon offive-factor test to abandoned contennons bems adopted by another intervenor; LBP 82 91, 16 NRC 1367 (1982) balancingoffactorsweighsagainstnontimelyintervention;LBP 82-92,16NRC1378(1982) balancing of five-factor test favors admission of cost-benefit contentions; LBP 82-63,16 N RC 588,589 (1982) challenge to ECCS performance seen as unumely contention; LBP 82 Il8,16 N RC 2041 (1982) critena governing late filed bydrogen control contentions, LBP-82 103,16 NRC 1610 (1982) good cause not shown for late fihns of radiation dose contention, LBP 82 79,16 N RC lil9 (1982) interpretation of basis with specificity regteitement; A LA B 706,16 N RC 1757 (1982) late filing criteria not met for shift rotation contenuon; LBP-82-104,16 NRC 1627 (1982) late fihng factors met; LBP-82-98,16 N RC 1463, I 468 (1982)
Licensing Board interpretation of; LBP 82-63,16 N RC 577 (1982) opposinon to late-filed contenhons based on SER and DES; LBP-82 103,16 N RC 1606 (1982) participation by a Sta:c; ALA9490,16 N RC 894 (1982)
I12 l
t
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS party status sought by State of Louisiana; LBP-82-92, I6 N RC 1378,1381 (1982) standards for aJmitting late intervenor: LBP-82-63,16 N RC (586) standards for evaluatmg new contennons; LBP-82-63,16 N RC 576 (1982) 10CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i) standard espected of pro se interwenors m showing snod cause for late filing of conte..nons; LBP-82 90, 16 NRC l362 (1982) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(ii) inadequate means to protect late intervenuon peutioner's interests; LBP 82 90,16 N RC 1362 (1982) 10CFR 2.714(a)(1)(iii) late intervention peutioner found competent to assist in developmg a sound record; LBP-82 90,16 N RC 1362(1982) 10 CFR 2.714fa)(1)(iv) pctitioner's interest in late-Gled contenuon not represented by other parties; LBP 82-90,16 N RC 1362 (1982) 10CFR 2.714(a)(1)(v) standard found not to favor admission of late-filed contention; LBP 82 90,16 N RC 1362 (1982) weight given to eatent that late contention will delay proceedmg l
10CFR 2.714(a)(3) admission oflate-Gled, clarined contention; LBP 82-5 I,16 N RC 175 (1982) authorization for submission of second amended peauon to mtervene; LBP 82 52,16 N RC 184 (1982) standards for admittmg late intervenor; LBP-82-63,16 NRC (586) 10CFR 2.714(a),(b) limit on number ofcontention to be admitted A L AB-706.16 NRC 1757 (1982) 10 CFR 2.714(b) admission oflate-filed contennons based on previously unavailable documents, A LAB 487,16 N RC 467 (1982) circumstances for admittmg a late contention; LBP-82 119 A 16 N RC 21 t l (1982) conditional admission ofnonspec Ge contentions; A LAB-687,16 N RC 46),465-66 (1982) contention requirement forintervenuon; ALA B487,16 NRC464 (1982); LBP 82-74,16 NRC 985 (1982) exclusion ofcontentions for lack of basis; LBP-82 53,16 N RC 198 (1982) mconsistency betweer. Statement ofConsideration and; AL AB-687,16 NRC 464 (1982) interprenation of basis with specincity requirement; A LAB-706, t 6 N RC 1757 (1982)
Licensms Board instructed to allow intervention pehuoner to supplement its petition; AL AB-682,16 NRC 156 (1982)
Licensms Board interpretation of, LBP-82-63,16 N RC 577 (1982) speciGc basis for turbme missile contennon estabhshed; LBP-82-98,16 NRC I 461 (1982) specificity met on ATWS contenuon; LBP-82 103,16 NRC 1618 (1982) specificity required of radioactive releases comention; LBP-8241,16 N RC 175 (1982) standards for evaluating new contenuons; LBP-82-63,16 NRC 576 (1982) 10CFR 2.714(c) justification for untimely response to contentions; LBP-8243,16 N RC 575 (1982) 10CFR 2.714(d) weight given to five-factor test for intervention when interest is strong; LBP-82-74,16 NRC 984 (1982) 10CFR 2.714(f) standing of petitioner in decontamination proceedmg to htigate related waste disposalissues; LBP-82-52, um~.&
i 16 NRC191 (1982) 10CFR 2.714s appeal of ruhngs admitting intervenors; CLI-82-15,16 N RC 30 (1982) appealabihty of Licensing Board'sorder; ALAB-696,16 NRC 1255 (1982) apphcation offinahty rule; ALAB-690,16 NRC 895 (1982) circumstances appropriate for interlocutory appeals; AL A B-683,16 NRC 161 (1982) rejection of argument for oismissal of appeal; AL AB-690,16 NRC 395 (1982) use ofinformal oral notification to trigger time for seeking appeal; AL AB490,16 N RC 895 (1982) i 113 p.
I I
s I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10CFR 2 714a(c) standard for pemitting appeals oforders granting interventiott, ALAB-687,16 N RC 464 (!?82?
7 l
10 CFR 2.715(c)
I admission ofA torney GeneralofState of New Mexiconsinterestedstate agency;LBP 82 Il7A 16 NRC 1 % 3,1998(1982) admission oflo:al government entity as full party; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1092 ( 1982)
. participation by a State; AL AB-690,16 N RC 894 (1982) participation by Commonweatth of M assachusetes as full party; LBP 82-76, I 6 N RC 1079 (1982) partripation by South Carolina as interested state; LBP-82-55,16 N RC 229 (1982) participation by State of Louisiana as full party rather than asinterested state; LBP-82-92,16 N RC 1378, 1381(1982) 10CFR 2.715(d) i definition of amicus cunae; A LA B-679,16 N RC l 25 (1982) 10 CFR 2.715a requirementofconsolidatedparties;CLI-82 25,16NRC868(1982) 10CFR 2.716 Commission au.honty toconsolidate two or more proceedings; DPRM 82-2,16 NRC 1215 (1982) censolidation of hearing pctitions;CLI-82 29,16 NRC 1223 (1982) critena for consohdating matenals ticense renewal and operating license proceedmss; ALAB-682,16 N RC 155 (1982) 10CFR 2.717(a)
Licensms Boardjunsdstion after issuance oflow-power license; L3P 82-92,16 N RC 1380 (1982)
I termination of a ticensing Board'sjurisdiction; ALA B499.16 N RC l326 (1982) termmation ofji.risdiction of presidms officer; LBP 82 86,16 N RC l191, Il93 (1982) 10CFR 2.717(b)
Licensing Board junsdiction to consider hearing request on operatmg hcense amendment that it is not authorized to review; ALAB-679,16 NRC l25 (1982) 10 CFR 2.718 alterat on of Boa d authonty ofconduct heannss; LBP 82-69,16 NRC 753 (1982)
Board responsibihty for fairness; LBP-82-73,16 N RC 979 (1982) case managemer powersof a Board; LBP-82-107,16 NRC 1679 (1982) i l
imposition ofeivil penalties; CLI 82 31,16 N RC 1238 (1982)
Licensms Board authonty to impose sanctions for a default, LBP-82-115,16 N RC 1928 (1982) procedures encompassmg a Licensmg Board's regulation of a proceedmg, ALAB 696,16 N RC l 263 (1982) result of permitt:1g inters enors to decline to follow order they disagree with; LBP-82-I l 5,16 N RC 1931 (1982) 10CFR 2.718(d) t Board authonty to direci parties on the means to conduct initial examinations; LBP-82-107,16 N RC 1677 i
(1982) measures whoch riay be takeray a Board to focus and eapedite a hearms; LBP 82-107,16 N RC 1677 (1982) i 10CFR 2.718(e)
Board discretion to conduct heanags outside 10 mile EPZ, CLI-82 15,16 N RC 37 (1982) measures which may be taken by a Board to focus and expedite a hearms; LBP-82-107,16 N RC 1677 (1982) 10CFR 2 718(i) denial of pctitson for directed certification of two evidentiary ruhngs made dunng cperating hcense proceedmss; LBP-82 62,16 N RC 566 (1982)
Licensms Board a uthonty to certify questions to the Commission; LBP-82-02,16 N RC 567 (1982) petition for directed certhation of unpubhshed order; ALAB488,16 N RC 473 (1982) request for Comrnission review of Licensing Board order denying motion for stay or dismissal of evidentiary preceeding; CLI-82 15,16 N RC 3) ( 1982).
114
r LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 80CFR 2.118(j) authonty of Licensing Board to reopen the record,CLI-82-20,16 NRC I14 (1982), LBP 82 54,16 NRC 214 (1982); ALAB-699,16 NRC l326 (1982) termination ofjunsdiction of presidmg officer; LBP-82-86,16 N RC i l91, I l93 ( 1982) 10CFR 2.718(m) jurisdiction of Licensmg Board toimpose finessua sponte;CLf-82 31.16 NRC l238 i!9821 10CFR 2.720(f)
Licensmg Board authonty tocondition its ruhnss. LBP-82 81,16 N RC l l40 !!982)
!GCFR 2.720(h)(2)(n)
~
circumstances in which interrogatones may be addressed to N RC Staff. LBP-82-99,16 NRC 1547 (1982) necessity for Staff acsponse to hydrogen generation anterrogatones; LBP 82 Il7,16 NRC 1957 (1982) need for formal motion to require Staff to answer mterrosaiones. LBP 82-l 16,16 N RC 1952 ( 1982) /
10CFR 2 721(b) reconstitution of Licensing Board.CLI 82 24.16 N RC 866 (1982) 10 CFR 2.722(a)l2) appointment of Special Master;LBP 82 56,16 NRC 288 (1982) 10CFR 2.722(a)(3) weightgiventoreportofSrecialMaster;LBP 82 56,16 NRC288(1982) 10CFR 2.730 right of movant to reply to answers m NRC proceedings. LBP-82-72, l6 N RC 971 (1981) submission of formal motions.LBP-82 Il9 A.16 NRC 2089 (19827 10CFR 2.730(c) justification for untimely response tocontenuons; LBP 82-63,16 NRC 575 (1982) procedure for replymg to responses to motions, AL AB-700,16 N RC 1332 (1982) j 10CFR 2.730(e) notificationof absent parues of oralruimps, AL AB-690,16 NRC 895 (19828 10CFR 2.730f f) appeatability of Licensing Board'sorder; AL AB-6%,16 NRC 1255 i1982) appellate standard for acceptance of Licensng Board referrals; AL A B-687,16 N RC 464 f l982) prohibiuon against mierlocutory appeal, LBP-82 106,16 NRC 1652 (1982) referral of ruimss conditionally admitting nonspecific contentions, ALAB-687,16 N RC 463 (1982) 4 10CFR 2.730fg) stay of Board decision dismissmg intervenor; LBP 82 Il 5,15 N RC 1935 (1982) 10 CFR 2.732 burden ofproof for assurance of adequacy ofemergency plans. LBP 82-77,16 N RC IO99 (1982) burden of proof for demonstratmg rehabihty ofre. gency radiocommumcanonslinks; ALAB 697,16 NRC 1271 (1982) burden ofproofin show cause order; LBP-82-64,16 N RC 655 (1982) relevancy of availability of evacuahon dnvers to contenuon addressms adequacy ofprocedures for evacuating special populanons.LBP-82 Il2.16 NRC 1904 (1982) 10 CFR 2.740 requirement for N RC Staff to compde hst ofcnucisms of document at issue in a proccedmg; LBP 82-113, I
16 NRC 1907 (1982) umms of discovery on contenuons; ALAB-687,16 N RC 467 (1982) 10CFR 2.740f a)(l) beginmns of discovery on admitted contenuons; LBP-82 116,16 NRC 1945 (1982) 10 CF R 2,740(b)(lI esclusion of financial qualificationsissues from operaung hcense proceedmss; LBP-82-67,16 N RC 738 (1982) matters on e hash discovery may be obtamed; LBP 82-82,16 N RC I156 (1982)
I 10CFR 2.740(b)(2) matenals encompassea by work produci doctrine; LBP-82-82,16 N F C ll59, l l62 (1982) matters =) ch tre pnvileged from discovery;LBP-82-82,16 N RC i157(1982) i l
10 CFR 2.740f 9 claimsof pnvilegeimproperly raised.LBP-82-82,16 NRC i152 (1982) e 115 4
n 1
t i
..--e I
i e,v-
.e
. =.,
n,
,,.-ev,,.m,.
.--e,a-n,.
g,
--w
..,..., ~, -,,
,wy.-._
6 3
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGlJLATIONS 10CFR 2.740(c)(6) standards for showing good cause for a protective order; LBP-82-82,16 N RC I153 (1982) 10CFR 2.740(0 bases for motions to compel; LBP 82-I l6,16 N RC I950 (1982) motion for order compelling government intervenor to produce emergency planning documents; LBP 82-82,16NRC1149(1982) need for intervenor to seek protective order when responding negatively to discovery request; LBP 82-82, 16 N RC ll51, Il52 (1982) 10 CFR 2.740(f)(l) timelinessof motion tocompel; LBP 82-82,16 NRC I151 (1982) 10 CFR 2.740(p) time hmat for motions to compel; LBP-82 116,16 N RC 1953,1962 (1982) 10CFR 2.740b(b) form ofobjections; LBP-82 Il6,16 N RC 1944 (1982) need for Staff response to hydrogen generation interrogatories; LBP 82 I l7,16 N RC l958 (1982) 10CFR 2.741 requirement for N RC Staff to compile list ofcnticisms of document at issue in a proceeding; LBP-82-I t ),
16 NRC 1907 (1982) 10 CFR 2.741(d) responsestomarionstocompel;LBP 82 82,16 NRC1851,i152(1982) 10CFR 2.743(a) requirement for method ofconducting cross examination; LBP 82-107,16 N RC 1677 (1982) 10CFR 2.743(b) evidentiary use ofenamination by deposition; LBP-82-107,16 N RC 1671-72,1675 (1982) i 10 CFR 2.743(gl admission of Staff EIA as evidence; LBP-82 78,16 N RC ll10 (1982) 10 CFR 2.743(i) cnteria for official notice ofinformation in separate proceedings, AI.AB-682,16 N RC 154 (1982) 10Cf 4 2.744 executive privilege forintrasovernmenta! communications; LBP 82-82.16 N RC ll62 (1982) limitanons on discovery asamst N RC Staff, LBP-82-99,16 N RC 1544 (1982) necessity for Staffresponse to hydrogen generation interrogatories; LBP-82 Il 7,16 N RC 1957 (1982) 10CFR 2.744(e) cntena for release of secunty plans to intervenors; LBP.82-80,16 NRC i 125 (1982) restnctions on dasclosure of safeg uards information; LBP 82-51,16 N RC l 77 ( 1982) 10CFR 2.749 burdens met in Staff's and applicants' statements of matenal facts regarding ATWS contention; LBP 82 57,16 NRC482,483 (1982) conformance ofintervenor's response with; LBP-82-57,16 N RC 481 (1982) demai of summary disposition motions occurnns shortly before a hearing; LBP 82-93,16 NRC 1393 (1982) filins time for summary disposition motions; LBP-82-Il 6,16 N RC 1945 (1982) relation 1 hip between Motion for Litigable issues and summary disposition motion; LBP-82-88,16 N RC I
I339 (1982) i requirements for filing senuine issues of fact; LBP 82-88,16 N RC l340 (1982) requirements met by applicants
- motion for summary disposition; LBP 82-57,16 N RC 484 (1982)
Staffsatisfaction of the requirements of; LBP-82 57,16 NRC 483 (1982) summary disposition of unconditionally admitted contentions; AL AB-687,16 N RC 464 (1982) use of affidavits in answers to summary disposition monons; LBP-82-88,16 N RC 1345 (1982) i 10CFR 2.749(a)
(
admission of matenal facts set fort 5 by summary disposition movant; LBP-82-114,16 N RC 1912 (1982) standard for demonstrating genuine issue of material fact; A LAB-696.16 NRC 1258 (1982) submissson of statement of material facts with summary disposition motion; LBP-82 58.16 N RC 520 (1982) time forfihng summary disposition motions; ALAB-696 16 NRC l263 (1982) e 116 i
l 1
5
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS use of summary disposition procedures before heanns has been scheduled. LBP-82-93,16 N RC 1394 (1982) 10CFR 2.749(a),(b) content of affidavit replying to summary disposition motions; ALAB 6%,16 NRC l 259 (1982) 10 CFR 2.749(b) burden of party opposms summary disposition motion; LBP-82-Il4,16 NRC 1912 (1982) hmitations on response to new materialin filing in support of summary disposition motion; LBP-82-Il4, 16 NRC l916(1982) 10CFR 2.749(c)
Board authonty to grant summary disposition before discovery is completed. ALAB 6%,16 NRC 1263 (1982) standard for demonstrating genuine issue of material fact; ALA B-6%,16 NRC 1258 59 (1982) 10CFR 2.749(d) showing required for grant of summary disposition; LBP-82 114,16 NRC 1911 (1982) standards for summary disposition; LBP-82-58,16 N RC 519 (1982) 10CFR 2.751 e aceptions to requirement for pubhc heanngson N RC proceedings; LBP-82-107,16 N RC 1680 (1982) 10CFR 2.751a failure ofintervenor to meet Ghns time for objections; LBP 82 72,16 N RC 97 t (1981) lack of specbGcity of contention not grounds for rejection; LBP-82-51,16 N RC 169 (1982) 10 CFR 2.751a(d)
Board author.ty to simplify and consolidate contentions; LBP-82-88,16 N RC 1340 (1982) denial ofcertifsation ohmergency plannmg contentions; LBP-82-5 l,16 NRC I 74 (1982) objections to order authorinns discovery; LBP 82-I l9 A,16 N RC 2113 (1982) 10CFR 2.752(a)(1)
Boa'd autho 'ty 1o simphfy and clarify issues; LBP-82-88,16 N RC 1340 (1982) 10 CFR 2.754 Board authonty to vary scheduhns procedures; LBP-82 51 A,16 NRC 181 (1982)
Licensing Board treatment ofcontention rtet supported by proposed Gndings; ALAB-697,16 N RC 1280 (1982) 10CFR 2.754(a) alteration ofregulatory schedule for filing findingsof fect;LBP 82 51 A,16 NRC 18t (1982) 10CFR 2.754(c) reason for requirement to cite to the record and to identify purpose of eshibits; LBP-82-109,16 NRC 1832 (1982) 10CFR 2.756 measures wluch may be taken by a Board to focus and espedite a hearing; LBP-82-107,16 N RC 1677 (1982) 10 CFR 2.757(c) measures which may be taken by a Board to focus and espedite a hearing; LBP 82 107,16 N RC 1677 (1982) 10CFR 2.758 admission of contentions challenging Commission regulations; CLI-82 15,16 N RC 35 (1982)
Commission authonty to determine apphcability of; CLI-82 15,16 N RC 34 (1982) consideratson ofchallenges totable S-3;LBP 82-92,16 NRC 1377,1385 (1982) e xample of special ci'cumstances necessary for considerir3 need-for-power issues in operating license I
a -,.we.e proceedings;LBP-82 58,16 NRC528 (1982) interpretationof"specialcircumstances";LBP-82 58,16NRC532(1932) petition to exception to numerical hmitation on size of design basis threat; CLI-82-19,16 N RC 71 (1982) procedural requirements for petitions for waiver of a rule; LBP-82 Il9A,16 N RC 2073,2080 (1982) rejection ofcoratention advocating stricter-than-regulatory requirements; LBP-82-106,16 NRC 1656 (1982) showing necessary for considenns need for power and alternative energy source issues at operating license stageforreview;LBP-82 95,16NRC1404(1982) q 8
4
$$7 i
y m-my
+
---=,-v uw ggy -, 4 mr m.
,, y -
q-ay
-y
-m-3
--,<v
,,y--
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGlJLATIONS 10CFR 2.758(a) challenges to regulations; CL1-82-19,16 NRC 71 (1982) claim orgreater-than-zero radioactive rcleases as encessive; LBP 82 58,16 N RC 522,523 (1982) 10 CFR 2 758(b) exceptions to regulations; CLI-82 19,16 NRC 7 t (1982)
Back of showing for certificauon of emergency planning contentions; LBP 8M I,16 N RC 174 (1982) unsupported petinons for enceptions to regulanon; CLI 82 19,16 N RC 72 (1982) 10CFR 2.758(c) challenges to regulations; CLI-82 19,16 NRC 71 (1982) 10CFR 2.758(d) denial of ceruncauon of emer8ency pianmns contenuons; LBP42-5 I,16 N KC 174 (1982) treatment ofenceptions to regulations ehere grounds are shown;CLI-82-19,16 N RC 71 (1982) 10 CFR 2.760(a) application to manufactunnslicerise proceedings; AL AB489,16 NRC 889 (1982) certincation of record of specik, proceeding to the Commission, AL AB485,16 N RC 451 (1982) discretion of Board to take up important safety issues; LBP-8240,16 N RC 547 (1982) finality of a Licensing Board's initial decision in a licensing proceeding; ALAB499,16 N RC 1326 (1982) nature ofcases subsect to sua sponte review by Appeal Board; ALAB489,16 N RC 890-91 (1982) 10CFR 2.760(b) evidentiary use of deposinons for enammation; LBP-82-107,16 NRC 1672 (1982) 10CFR 2. App. A,V Board authonty to direct parties en the means to conduct initial enammations; LBP 82 107,16 N RC 1677 (1982) 10CFR 2.760s authonty of Licensing Board to reopen the record; CLI-82 20,16 N RC 114 (1982); LBP-82-54,16 N RC 214(1982)
Commission revice of Licensms Board decisions to emercise sua sponte authonty; CLI 82-20,16 N RC 115(1982) dermition of sua sponte issue; LBP-82-117,16 N RC 1%2 (1982) f.ndmss to be made pnor to issuance of operating hcense; LBP-82 109,16 N RC 1885 (1982) hmitation on matters to be resolved in operatmg hcense proceedings; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1086 (1982) limitations on Licensms Boardjunsdicuon in ruling on contentions; LBP 82-96,16 N RC 1436 (1982) matters to be htigated in an operstmg hcense proceedms; LBP-82 Il 5,16 N RC 1933 (1982)
N RC StafTresponsibihty for health and safety nndings; LBP-82-100,16 N RC 155611982) responsibihues of presidmg omcers m imual decision in contested proceeding; DPRM-82 2,16 N RC 1216(1982) sua sconte adoption by Licensms Board ofcontentions advanced by intervenor; CLI 82-20, ! N F i I S (1982) sua sponte adoption oflate-Gled, eactuded contenuon; LBP-82-79,16 N RC 1119 (1982) sua sponte adopuon of quality assurance and management competence contentions. CLI-82-20,16 N RC 109(1982) 10 CFR 2.761a preclusion ofevidentiary hearings on hmited work authonzauon request; ALAB488,16 N RC 473,474 (1982) 10 CFR 2.762 application of Gnahty rule; ALAB4W,16 NRC 895 (1982) requirementsfor films appellate bnefs; LBP 82 78,16 N RC 1115 (1982) 10CFR 2.762(a) appealofrejection of contennon; ALAB-683,16 NRC I6t (1982) appealabihty of Licensing Board'sorder; A L AB-696,16 N RC l 255 (1982) contents of bnefs on appeal; AL AB-693.16 N RC 95641982) rejection of argument fordismissal ofappeal; A L AB490,16 N RC 895 (1982) use c informal oral nouGcanon to tngger time for seeking appeal; ALAB-690,16 N RC 895 (1982) r 10 CFR 2.762(a),(c), and (d) failure of appeal to conform to the res:irements of; ALAB484,16 N RC 166 (1982) 118 l
T LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS
- 10 CFR 2.762(a),(O consequence ofintervenor's failute to bnef e ncepuons; AL AS4%,16 N RC l 255 (1982) 10CFR 2.762(O failure of appeal toconform to the requirements of, ALAB484,16 N RC 166 (1982) 10 CFR 2.764 amendment of; ALA%686,16 NRC 457,458 (1982)
Appeal Board obhgation toconduct immediate effecoveness review in manufacturing hcense proceedings; ALAB489,16 NRC 889,891 (1982) 10CFR 2.744 (1982) apphcabihty ofimmediate efTectiveness review to manufacturing hcense case, AL AB486, t 6 NRC 456, 457 (1982); CLI-82-37,16 N RC 1692 (1982) 10CFR 2.764(a) effectiveness of Board's authonaauon ofluense amendment, AL AB4%,16 N RC 1249 (1982) 10 CFR 2.764(e) appicabihty to manufacturma lsenses; CLI-82-37,16 N RC 1692 (1982) 10 CFR 2.764(e)(1)(ii),0)(iii) (1982) amendment of ALAB486,16 N RC 457,458 (1982) 10CFR 2.764(e)(2) immediate efTecover.tss reviews by appeal board; ALA B486,16 NRC 456 (1982) 10CFR 2.764(0 appicabihty of, to order converting provisional operating hcense to full term; LBP-82 58, I 6 N RC 532 (1982) i derwiencies in emergency offsite medcal arrangements for pubhc not a deterrent to full-power operauon 6
of San Onofre; CLI-82-14,16 NRC 25 (1982)
I efTecuveness of full-power hcenses for San Onofre; CLI-82 27,16 NRC 884 (1982) efTecuveness origense amendment pendms Commission review; LBP-82 f0A,16 N RC 556 (1982) 10 CFR 2.764(D (1982) results of Commission immediate effectiveness review; AL AB-693.16 NRC 954 (1982) 10CFR 2.764(0(2)
Commission and $taff responsibihties before full-power license issues; ALAB480,16 N RC l44 (1982) l 10CFR 2.767(d)
I measures ehach may be taken by a Board to focus and expedite a heanns, LBP-82-107,16 N RC 1677 (1982) 10CFR 2.770(a) appeal board authonty to review entire record sua sponte; AL AB485,16 NRC 451 (1982) 10CFR 2.771 specificity required of motion for reconsideration; LBP-8248,16 N RC 749 (1982) time for fihng objections to nonfmal decisions; LBP 32-72,16 NRC 971 t 1981) time hmit for fihng mobons for reconsiderahon; LBP-82-Il0,16 NRC 1896 (1982) 10 CFR 2.780 conversations among parues in a licensing proceeding; ALAB480,16 NRC 144 (1982) 10 CFR 2.785 Commismon delegation of responsibihties to Appeal Board ALAB-099,16 NRC 1326 (1982) emercise of Commission teview functions with respect to ensuing proceedmss on eatension of constructioncompletiondates;CLI-82 29,16NRCl231(1982) 10 CFR 2.785(a) i m.-c.,
n ~,
appeal board authonty to review entire record sua sponte; AL AB485,16 NRC 451 (1982)
' nature ofcases subject to sua sponte review by Appeal Board; AL AB489,16 NRC 890 91 (1982) 10CFR2.785(b)(1) petition for directed certification of unpublished order; AL AB-688,16 NRC473 (1982) 10CFR 2.785(b)(2) g authonty for appeal board to hear safety issues it has raised sua sponte;CLI-82 12,16 NRC 3 (1982) distinction between appeHate review of record and sua sponte authority; ALAB485.16 N RC 452 (1982) l i
10CFR 2.7e5(d) cerufsation of quesuons to Commismon concerning a4udicatory board's iurisdiction to consider quality assurance issues; As AB-081, a6 NRC I44 (Iv8D 119 l
1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 4
,i certification ofquestions to Commission regarding reopening record on Q A/QC issues; LBP-82-70,16 i
NRC 763 (1982) 10CFR 2.786(b) reasons for Commisuon review of appeal board decision;CLI-82 I 2A.16 NRC l 8 (1982) 10CFR 2.786(b)(5) i dechnation ofreview by Commission j
10 CFR 2.787(b) authority of Appeal Panel Chairman; A L A 8483,16 N RC 161 (1982) 10CFR 2.788 stay of Board decision dismiseng interwenor, LBP 82 115,15 N RC 1935 (1982) 10CFR 2.788(e) factorsdetermining stay ofeffectivenessof a permit; ALAS 486,16 N RC456 (1982) factors to be consadered by Licensing Board in ruhng on a motion for stay; LBP-82 84,16 N RC 1184 (1982) 10 CFR 2.788(e)(2) i apphcation of"arreparable iryury"cntenon to manufactunns license case; A L A 8486.16 N RC 458 (1982) satisfaction ofcn'etion,in manufactunns license case A L A B489,16 N RC 891 (1982) i 10 CFR 2.790 classification of security plans as commerciat or rinanciat information L8P-82 80.16 N RC ll24 (1982) executive pnvilege forintragovernmentalcommunications; LBP 82 82,16 N RC ll62 (1982) 10CFR 2.790(b)(6) reason for resolution of propnetary disputes after the ments are resolved, AL AB4%,16 N RC i t61 (1982) 10 CFR 2.790(d) release of sensitive information to intervenors m N RC proceedings; L8P-82-80,16 N RC i l 24, l l25 (1982) 10CFR 2.800-2.809 pubhcation of petition for rulemaltmg for comment; DPR M 82-2,16 N RC l 215 (1982) 10CFR 2.802 l
ehsibdty to petition for rule:.akms; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 74 (1982) raisms general health and safaty concerns; LBP-82-52,16 N RC 185 41982) 10CFR 2.913 e punctson ofclasufied matenal from the record of a proceedmg, CLI-82-30,16 NRC I 235 (1982) 10CFR 2. App. A t.
procedures encompasung a Licensing Board's regulation ofa proceeding, ALAB4%,16 N RC l 263 (1982) 10CFR 2. App. A V(fir 4) 3 standards for deternunmg e hether directed certification is appropriate; LBP-8242,16 N RC 56647 (1982) 10CFR 2, App. A. Vill (b)
N RC Staff responsbehty for health and safety findings; L8P-82 100,16 N RC 1556 ( 1982) 10CFR 2. App. A.Villib)(1) conducting operatmg license proceedmg while substantial amounts of construction remain to be done; LBP-82 Il9A,16NRC2111(1982)
IOCFR 2, App. A. Vill (b)(3) health effects of transmission hnes; LBP 12 76.16NRC1085(Is82) 10CFR 2. App. A,1Xtd)(3) acceptance ofuntimely appeals; ALAB484,16 N RC 165 (1982) 10CFR 2. App.C defimtion ormaterial false statement; AL A B-691,16 N RC 911,915 (1982) 10CFR 9 basis for Staffclaim of privilege; LBP-82-87,16 N RC 1202 ( 1982) 120 1
s LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10CFR 9.103 request for Commission review of Board order ruhng on contentions to be litigated; CLI-82 15,16 N RC 33(1982) source orguidance on Commission's intent; CLl 82 25.16 N RC 877 (1982) 10 CFR l9 retahatsrin against Q A/QC personnelin violation of, L BP-82-54,16 N RC 220 (1982) 10 CFR 20 StafT position on nsks to indmduals from radiation doses, LBP-82 57, I 6 N RC 501 f 1982) summary disposition of contention allegmg off-gas ernissaons fait to comply wath radiation protection standardsof;LBP-82-58.16 NRC522 24(1982) 10 CFR 20.1 rejection ofcontention assertmg equipment repairs will cau t failure to meet emposure requirements of; LBP-82-51,16 N RC 173 (1982) 10CFR 20.ltc) detection ofloose parts, LBP 82 76,16 N RC 1066 (1982) showmg necessary to estabhsh conformance with as-low-as-reasonably achievable requirement for radioactive;LBP-82 58,16NRC522(1982) 10 CFR 21.2
- bases for Staffclaim of prmlege; LBP 82-87,16 N RC 1202 (1982) 10 CFR 30 consohdation of matenals hcense and operatmg hcense proceedings; A LAB-682, !6 N RC 15 I 52 ( 1982) 10 CFR 40 appropnate forum for considerms uranium milhng methods and impacts; LBP-82 119 A,16 N RC 2100 (1982) 10 CFR 40 bcense amendment sought for water collection and retentam system at inactive thonum ore mill, CLI-82-21,16 NRC 402 (1982) t 10CFR 50 amendment of, to impose additionallicensing reauirements, ALAB-686,16 N RC 457 (1982) consohdation ormatenals ticense and operating hcense proceedings, A L AB482,16 N RC 152 (1982) detection ofloose parts LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1066 (1982) interaction beiween safety and non-safety systems at Seabrook; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1082 (1982)
I performance of pre-construction permit, safety-related actmties; CLl-82-23,16 NRC 417 (1982) preclusion ofconsideration of alternatives and need for power in operstmg heense proceedings, LBP-82103,16 NRC 1606 (1982) 3 TMI comphance with reactor operator requahfication program; LBP-82 56,16 N RC 349 (1982) 10CFR 50.10 exemption from, grantedin part for esperimentalreactor;CLI 82 23,16 NRC 415 (1982) grant of partial exemption from, for breeder reactor project ALAB488,16 N RC 473 (1982) pubhc interest considerationsin granting etemptson from; CLI-82 23,16 NRC 422,425 (1982) 10 CFR 50.10(b)(2) distmetion between construction iermits and manufactunns hcenses; ALAB486,16 NRC 456 (1982) 10CFR 50.10(c) hmitations on construction activities pnor to issuance of LW A or construction permit; CLI-82-23,16 NRC416,418 (1982) a vit a ed under limited work authorization; ALAB488,16 NRC 473 (1982)
' " ~ " " "
~ ~
10CFR 50.10(e)(2) requirements for grant oflimited work authorization; ALAB488,16 NRC 473 (1982) 10CFR 50.10(e)(3)(i)-(ii) foreclosure ofconsideratson of site suitability issues through grant ofe temption 1o 50.10; CLI-82-23,16 NRC 423 (1982) 10 CFR 50.llib) apphcation of hcensing provisions of Atomic Energy Act to Department of Energy; ALAB479,16 N RC 125(1982) 4 821 i
i
_~_m v
y..
,,,,._,y
.cg.
9mwc.
_.p-e;,
-g.
y
.y
.q.,
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGllLATIONS 10CFR 50.12 l
apphcationof,tofirst-of-a-kindproject;CLI-82 23 I6NRC419(1982) history of; CL1-82-23,16 NRC 446 (1982) pubhc interest factors favonns grant of esemption under; CLI-82 23,16 NRC 439 (1982) 10CFR 50.12(a) discussion ofenteria for granting ememptics from 50.10; CLI-82 23,16 NRC 418,419,422 (1982) 10CFR 50.12(b)
Commission interpretation of; CLI-82 23,16 NRC 423 (1982) discussion ofcriteria to be mea for granting ofenemption from 50.10(c); CLI-82 23,16 N RC 416,418-19, i
422,423,426(1982)
}
10CFR 50.12(b)(!)
environmentalimpacts considered in allowing pre construction permit site preparation activities; CLI-82-23,16 NRC 426,437 (1982) 10 CFR 50.12(b)(2) redressability of pre-construction permit site activities; CLI-82-23,16 N RC 427 (1982) 10CFR 50.12(b)(3) foreclosure ofconsideration of alternatives through initiation of site preparation activities; CLI 82-23,16 NRC 428 (1982) 10 CFR 50.12(b)(4) effects ofdelay in initiating breeder reactor project; CLI-82-23,16 NRC 429,438 (1982) 10CFR 50.13 confhet ofcontention with; LBP-82 I l9 A,16 N RC 2099 (1982) consideration of heavy military weapons attacks on spent fuel shipments; LBP-82 119 A,16 N RC 2094 (1982) design basis threat asamst which commercial power reactors are required to be protected; LBP-82 l!9 A, 16 NRC2098 (1982)
NEP A consideration of effects of terronsm; LBP-82-119 A,16 N RC 2096 (1982) providing design features for particularized threats ofsabotage; CLI-82 19,16 NRC 73 (1982) rejection of electromagnetic pulse contention ss challenge to; LBP-82-51,16 N RC 174 ( 1982) 10CFR 50 20(e) assessment of health effects ofTable s-3 releases; LBP 82 I l9A,16 N RC 2090-91 (1982) 10CFR 50.31 consohdation of proceedmss; DPRM 82 2,16 N RC l214 (1982) 10 CFR 50.33f f) contention alleges inadequacy of sum allotted for decommissioning; LBr'-82-!7,16 N RC 48 t (1982) dismissal of previc,usly accepted Gnancial quahfications contention; LBP-82-103,16 NRC 1618 (1982) preclusson of Gnancial quahfications considerations in operating license proceedings; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1045,108I(1982) 10CFR 50.33(f)(I) htigabilityoffinancialqualancationsissues;LBP-82-l!9A 16NRC2079(1982) 10CFR 50.33(g) compliance of Diablo Canyon onsite State and local emergency response plans and preparedness; LBP-82 70,16NRC763(1982) comphance of Diabio Canyon's emergency plans with;I BP-82-70,16 N RC 760,798 799,855 (1982) denciencies in boundaries for EPZs at Seabrooit; LBP 82 76,16 N RC 1077 (1982) f failure of apphcant to submit emergency response plans of State and local governments; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1077 (1982) responsibihty for preparation ofradiologicai response plan;LBP 82 82,16 NRC ll62 (1982) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(3)(i) inapplicabihty to test reactors; LBP-82-64,16 NRC 698 (1982) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(7) amendment ofconstruction permits; DD-82-1207 10 CFR 50.34(b) adequacy of Clinton facility management and technical qualifications; L3P-82 103,16 N RC 1623 (1982) adequacy of Clinton management and technical quahncations; LBP-82 103,16 N RC 1614 (1982) 122
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10CFR 50.34(b)(6)(i) and (ii) information to be submitted in FS AR on management structure and organization; DD-82 1207 10CFR 50.34(b)(6)(ii) deficiencies in FS A R, on quahty assurance for operations; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1073 (1982) 10CFR 50.34(b)(6)(v) failure of Seabrook emergency plan to address requirements of; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1074 (1982) 10CFR 50.34(c) cniens for protection of nuclear reactors;CLI-82 19,16 N RC 62 (1982) 10CFR 50.34(0 consideration orTMiissues for manufactunnghcenses;CLI-82 37,16 NRC f 697 (1982) 10CFR 50.34a showing necessary to estabhsh conformance with as-low-as-reasonably achievable requirement for radioactive releases; LBP-82-58,16 N RC 522 (1982) 10CFR 50 36 detection ofloose parts; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1066 (1982) 10CFR 50.36a showms necessary to es;ablish conformance with as-low-as reasonably achievable requirement for radioactive;LBP-82 58,16NRC522(1982) 10 CFR 50 40 apphcabahty to proceedmg involvmg steam generater tube repair through sleevms, LBP 82-88,16 NRC 1341(1982) consideration of hauid pathway accident impacts, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1037 (1982) 10CFR 50 40(b)t1982) elimmation of financial quahfications issues from operatmg hcense proceedings; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1081 (1982) 10CFR 5040(d) findmss on N EPA comphance, to be made by Director pnor to issuance of operating license; ALAB-693, 16 NRC956 (1982) 10CFR 50 44 adequacy of Seabrook design to withstand eacessive hydrogen generation; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 103 admissibihty of accident scenano cententims concernmg hydrogen control; LBP-82-107 A.16 N RC l809 4
(1982) amount of hydrogen generation to be taken in accountin containment design; LBP 82-76,16 N RC 1064 (1982) di(Terences between hydrogen control requirements and hydrogen release assumptions for purpose of environmental quahfication, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1049 (1982) hydrogen production at TM1, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1063 (1982) removal of noncondensible gases; AL AB-708,16 N RC 1779 (1982) revision of, for Mark I,II, and ill boihng water reactors, LBP-82 103,16 NRC 1609 (1982)
Staff response to hydrogen generation interrogatories; LBP-82 Il7,16 N RC l959 (1982) 10CFR 50 46 acceptabihty of Clinton emergency core cooling spiem; LBP-82 103,16 NRC 1624 25 (1982) demonstration of adequacy of boiler-condenser mode of circulation to prevent regulatory hmits from i
l bems e nceeded, ALAB-708,16 NRC 1785 (1982) necessity for risk assessment; LBP 82-76,16 N RC 1033 (1982) smallest breaks in coohng system to be analyzed for purposes of venfying regulatory compliance, ALAB-708,16 NRC1783 (1982) 10CFR 50.47 adequacy of emergency command decision structure at Waterford plant; LBP-82 100,16 N RC 1579 l
l I
(1982) adequacy of Waterford emergency plans; LBP-82 100,16 N RC 1592 (1982) appropnateness of ewacuation ss protective sction; LBP-82-96,16 NRC l427 (1982) assurance of adequacy of protective measures to be taken in radiological emergency; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 761 (1982) -
task rewirements for structure of an emergency response organization; ALA B-698.16 N RC 1303 (1982) 4 conformance of Summer facihty's emergency mformation brochure with; LBP-82 57,16 N RC 49tH lvan I
i i,
123 8
- ~. _.
LEG AL CITATIONS IN DEX REGULATIONS dmsion ofresponsbelity foremergency planmng; LBP-82 77,16 NRC 1099 (1982) emergency plannmg standards for evacuation os persons witho4 vehicles; LBP 82 77,16 NRC 1100 (1982) emergency tesport.; plans for radiation-iryured in the general pubhc; ALAB-680,16 N RC 135 (1982) enforcement of requirements of, LBP-82-70,16 N RC 802 (1982) fadure of Seabrook emersency plan to address requirements of; LBP 82-76, ! 6 N RC 1074 (1982) guidance forimplementing emergency plannmg requirements; ALAB-707,16 NRC l163 (1982) location of emergency pubhc alerting system necessity for FEM A findmsson State emergency plan; LBP-82 85.16 NRC ll88 (1982)
N RC 5taff-required emergency preparedness findmss as means or protecting petitioner's interests; LBP 82-96,16 NRC 1430 (1982) operating hcense conditioned on resolution of emergency preparedness matters under; CLI-8ble,16 NRC 25 (1982) prooforadequacy ofoffsate emergency plans; LBP 82119 A,16 NRC 210l (1982) responsibehty for onste radiation monitones durms radiological emergency; LBP-82 70,16 N RC 827 (1982) responsibil:ty for preparation of radiologicai response plan; LBP-82 82,16 N RC l l62 (1982) standard of Board review ofemergency plannms; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 802 (1982) status required of emergency plans in order for full-power operation to be authorized; LBP-82 100,16 NRC 156)(1982) use of NUREG 0654 as meansofcon9lyms with standardsin; ALAB-698,16 NRC l298 (1982) 10CFR 50 47(a) bass for determination that emergency plans are ndequate; LBP-82-100,16 N RC 1574 (1982)
FEM A review ofemergency plannmg pamphlet in hcense amendment proceeding; LBP 82-60,16 N RC
$47 (1982) requirement for staffissuance ofsupplemens ta Safety Evaluation Report; LBP-82-68,16 N RC 749 (1982) sufficiency ofplans for evacuation warnmg system at Waterford plant; LBP 82 100,16 N RC 1563 (1982) 10 CF R 50 47(a) and Ib) protective action contention limited to onste measures, LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1046 (1982) 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1) emergency plannms findmss required pnor to issuance offull-power license; LBP 82-68.16 N RC 745 (1922)
N RCemer8ency preparedness findmss required for issuance ofoperstms hcense; LBP-82-57, i 6 dRC 484 (1982) requirement for agreement for evacuation vehicles and dnvers; LBP 82 112,16 N RC 1903 (1982) 10CFR 50 47(a)(1),(a)(2) andib) failure of emergency plan to take local conditions into account; LBP-82 75,16 N RC 991 (1982) 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2) admuibihty of shift supervisor trainmg contention; LBP-82 106,16 N RC 1661 (1982) basis for N RC findmss on adequacy of ofTsite emergency plans; LBP-82 Il2,16 N RC 1903,1905 (1982) basis of Commission findmss that emersency plans are adequate; LBP.82-68, ! 6 N RC 745-46 (1982) bass of NRC findmas on adequacy of olisite emergency plans; LBP-82-57,16 N RC 485 (1982) 10CFR 50.47(b) adequacy ofSummer facility's emergency response plannms; LBP-82 57,16 NR C 495 (1982) admission of contention contestmg comphance ofiodme monitors with; LBP-82-75,16 N RC 1010 (1942) failure of applicant to meet standards of; LS P 82-57,16 N RC 509 (1982)
FEM A review ofemergency plannmg pamphletinlicense amendment proceedms; LBP 82 60,16 NRC
$47 (1982) reistion of emergency preparedness deficiencies. noted by FEM A at indian Point, to regulatory
(
requirements,CLI-82 38,16NRC1707(1982) requirement for specific indentification or radiation momtors; LBP-82 75,16 NRC 1010 (1982) requirements for compliance with emergency plannmg standards ofNU REG-0654/ FEM A-REP-1; CLI-82 38,16NRC1700(1982) 124 u
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX R EGlJLATIOM t
sausfachon of requirements for radiolossal emergency response traimng L BP 82 57, l6 N RC 495 (1982) standards for emergency preparedness addressed by N U R EG-0644 cntena, D D 82 12,16 N RC 1687 (1982) 10CFR 50 474 b)(!)
servrancetha DiabloCanyon meetsplanmng standardof.LBP 82 70,16 NRC 763,768.799(1982) inadequacy of plan for assigning emergency commungauons and notifwation responsbehty. LBP 82 75, 16 NRC l027(1982) inadequate dehneauon of responsibihues of onmie emergency personnel LBP 82 75,16 NRC 1024 l
(1982) lack of assurance of assistance from offsite agencies dunns radiclogical emergency; LBP 82 75.16 N RC 1023(1982) 10 CFR 50 47(bHI),42) and ())
lack of mcorporation ef federal resporde capabihtes m $horeham's emergency plans, LBP-82 75,16 N RC 1022 (19821 10Cf R 50 47tbH2) adequacy andcontmusty of staffing at $cabrook;LBP 82 76,16 N RC 1046 (1982) madequacy of 5horeham'saccident assessment and momtonns abihues, LBP 82 75,16 N RC 1025 (1982) madequate delmcanonof responsbehues of onnte emergency personnel, LBP 82 75,16 N RC 1024 (1982) interfacing between onsite and offsite emergency response orgaruanons. AL A B498.16 N RC l304 (1982) lack of assurance of asustance from offute agencies durms tadiologicalemergency LBP 82 75,16 NRC l
1023(1982)
]
lack of mcorporanon of federal response capabihues m Shoreham's emergency plans. LBP-82 75.16 N RC 1022 (1982)
J requirement for specific mdenutication of radianon momsors. LBP-82 75,16 N RC 1010 (1982) d 10CFR 50 47(b)(3) j adequacy of DeabloCrnyon'semergency response supportandresources.LBP 82 70,16 NRC773,808, 810(1982) inadequate delmeauon of responsbehues ofonsite emergency personnel, LBP.82 75,16 N RC 1024 4
(1982) lack of apurance ofassistance from offsite agencies dunns radiological emergency, LBP 82 75,16 N RC 102) (1982) lackofincorporanonoffederstresponsecapabihuesm5hortham'semergency plans LHn82 75,16 NRC 102211982) hcensee accommodauons for State and local emergency respom. 2 tait, A L A B-698.16 N R C 1304 (1982)
(
10Cf R 50 47(bH4) adequacy of DiabloCanyon'se:nergency claswicanon system, LBP 82 70.16 N RC 772,810 811 (1982) adequacy of specificity of contention deshng with emergergy acuan levels, LBP-82 105,16 N RC 1631 (1982) classifwsuon ofemergencies. AL A B497.16 N RC l 270 (1982) madequacies cited m emergency classifwauon and action scheme at Seabrook; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1045 (1982) inadequacy of 5horeham intenm safety para neterdisplay system; LBP 82 75,16 N RC 1028 (1982) madequacy of 5horeham's accident assessment and momtonng abihues; LBP-82 75,16 N RC 1025 (1982)
+
regulatory bases ofemergency clasmricanon contenuon; LBP-82 l06,16 N RC 1660 (1982) requirement for specific identification of radiation morutors, LBP 82 75,16 N RC 1010 (1982) 10CFR 50.471b)(5) adequary of DiabloCanyon'semergency pubhc altenns sysiem; L8P 82 70.16 N RC 775,811,816 (1982) adequacy of San Onofre emergency public notirication system;CL1-82 14,16 N RC 25 (1982) adequacy of waierford evacuauon warnms system; LBP-82-100.16 N B C 1576 (1982) burden of demonstraung e tissence of sausfactory prompt nourication system for plume es posure patheay EPZ populace; L BP-8240,16 N RC 550 (19s2) relevancy of spphcant's pubhc information emergency plannms pamphlet; LBP-82-60,16 N RC 542 (1982) 4 l
12s i
4
,-r
,s
-<ev-
---.-n
.-n-w,v.--
.,- + e nn -,
--n,,nn-
-r,
,-n,u-
I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS requirements for licensee notiGcanon of State and local emergency response orgamrations; A L A R497, 86 NRC l269 (19823 scope of regulations for altenne plume esposure pathway EPZ populace of radiological emergency; a
LBP-82 57,16NkC495(l982) size and conGguranon ofplume esposure emergency planmne rone; A LA S480.16 N RC l32 (1982) l.
10CFR 50.47(b)($) and (6) adequacy ofShoreham prompa nouGcation system; LBP-82 75,I6 NRC 1021 (1982) i 10CFR 50 47(bH6) adequacy oiofTsate communicassons sysrm a Diablo canyon te cope with radiological emergency; LBP-82-70,16 N RC 776,816,820 (190) i l
adequacy of Shoreham prompt nouGcate system; LBP 82-75,16 N RC 1021 (1982) i requirements for commumcanons among emergency response orgamzations; A L A B497,16 N RC l 270 (1982) 10CFR 50 47(b)(7) adequacy of DiabioCanyon public not Gcanon program-LBP-32 70,16 NRC 780,820 (1982) inadequacy of plan for assegmns emergency commumcanons and nouGcanon responsibehty; LBP-82 75, 16 NRC 1027(1981) lack ofdissemananon ofemergency plannmg informauon to pubhe; L BP 82 76,16 N RC 1046 (1982) i licensee responsibshty for informms public of actions lo take dunng a radiological emergency;
. ALAB497.16 NRCl272 73(1982) i sausfaction of requirement for nouGcanon and educanon of public on o hit action they should take in I
radiologicalemergency;LBP-82 57,16NRC490(1982) una vailabth ty of emergency planning brochure; L BP-82 100,16 N RC 1555,157) (1982) 10CF R 50.47(b)t 8) adequacy of DiabloCanyon equipment for implementmg emergency plans; LBP 82 70.16 NRC 782,825, 828 (1982) adminsson o(contenuon contesung comphance ofiodme monitors eith; LBP-82 75,16 N RC 1010 (1982) in6dequacy ofShoreham interim safety parameter display system; LBP 82 75,16 N RC 1028 (1982) c innd2q acy ofShoreham'saccident assessment and momtonns abehues. LBP-82-75,16 N RC 1025 (1982) i Ma<eervate deliccahon ofresponsibihues ofonsite emergency personnel; LBP-82 75,16 N RC 1024 i
(1981) l lack ofassurance of assmance from o(Tsite agencics dunns radiological emergency; LBP-82-75,16 N RC 1023(1982) nonconformance of Shoreham plan and procedures for operanon of Emergency Operanons Facility; LBP 82-75,16 NRC 1025 (1982?
requirement for specific idenuficaton of radiation momtors; LBP-82-75,16 N RC 1010 (1982) 10CFR 50.47(b)(8),(9) requirement for availabihty of equipment for monitonng radiological enposures to emergency workers; AL AB-698,16 N RC l294(1982) 10CFR $0.47(bH9) capabahty for assessing and momtonns radioactive releases at Diablo Canyon; LBP-82-70,16 NRC 785, 828,833(1982) inadequacyofaccidentanddoseassessment models;LBP 82 75,16 NRC1028(1982) inadequacy ofShoreham mienm safety parameterdisplay system; LBP 82 75,16 NRC 1028 (1982) inadequacy ofShoreham's accident assessment and monitorms abili"es; LBP 82 75,16 N RC 1025 (1982) requirement for speciGc idenuGcanon ofradiation momtors, LBP 82 75,16 NRC 1010 (1982) types of radiological hazards, A LAB-680.16 N RC l39 (1982) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10) adequacy of Shoreham plans for implementauon of protective actions dunns radiological emergency; LBP 82-75,16 N RC 1023 (1982) adeqt:2cy of Waterford procedares for evacuation of special persons during radiological emergency; LBP.82100,16 N RC 1583 (1982) desenpuon of plume esposure emergency plannms zone; A LA B-698,16 NRC l294 (1982) protectis e actions to be taken dunns a radiological emergency; ALA B497,16 N RC 1275,1280 (1982) rehabihty of evacuauon time esumates at Diablo Canyon; LBP 82 70,16 NRC 786,833,836 (1982) 126
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 10 CFR 50 47(b)(ll) adequacy of means for controllms radsologwal e aposures of emergency workers at Diebio Canyon; LBP 82 70,16NRC786,836(1982) failure of apphcant to meet traming requirements for emergency response personnel;LDP-82 75,16 NRC 1024(1982) iach of means to controi radiolossal e sposures to emergency workers, LBF-82 75,16 N RC 1025 (1982) standards for co9trolhng radiolossal esposure to emergency workers, ALAB498,16 N RC l 294 (1982) 10CFR 50 47(b)(12) adecuacy of medical and public health support dunns radeologgal emergency at Diablo Canyon; LDP 8210,16 N RC 787,837 (1982)
A ppeal Board and Licensing Board differences ic interpretation;CLI-82 27,16 N RC 384 (1982) cernicaten of questions on interpre tauon of. CLI-82 35,16 N P c 1510 1 I (1982) inadequacies in Sr.oveham's emergency plans for medica. and public health support; LBP-82 75,16 NRC 1022(1982) interpretation of"contammated iryured individuals"; ALAS 400,16 N RC l35,136 (1982) interpretatenof"contammatediryuredind.viduals";LBP-82 75,16 NRC997(1982) lack of assurance of assistance Itom offsite agtncies dunns radiologral emergency; LBP-82 75,16 NRC 1023(1982) obbeation of hcensee to make emergency medical services arrangements; LBP 8240A,16 N RC 556 (1982) 10CFR 50 471b)(13) adequacy of plans for recovery ard reentry operation at Diablo Cmyon, LBP 82 70,16 N RC 788,839 (1982) adequacy of recovery and reentry plans for Cata=be facihty; LBP-82 107 A,16 N RC I 805 (1982) failure ofiniervenor to revise recovery and reentry contention; LBP 82 75, ;6 N R C 1016 (1982) 10CFR 50.47(b)(14) adequacr of Diablo canyon's plans for emergency a nercises and dalls. LBP-82 70,16 N RC 790. 848 (1982) need for public participauon in evacumuon dnlis; LBP 82 100,16 NRC 1582 (1982) 10CFR 50.47(b)(15) adequacy o(radiolossal emersency respo.ue traming at Diablo Canyon; LBP 82 70, I 6 NRC 792,845 (1982) educ.uon of public officials on problems of rediation,iposa e; LBP-82 77,16 NRC 1098 (1982) failure of appicant to meet traimns requirements of emote :y restense personal; LDP-82 75,16 NRC 1024(1982)
Back of assurance of assistance from offsite agencies dunns radiologral emersency; LBP-82 75,16 N RC 1023 (1982) lack of nnans to controi radiologxal emposures te emergency workers; LBP-82 75,16 N RC 1025 (1982) 10CFR 50 47(b)(16) adequacy of planning for review and distnbution of emergency plans at Diablo Canyon; L BP.82 70,16 NRC 792,847,849(1982) 10CFR 50 47(c) rejecuon ohuniention attacking size requirement for plume exposure pathway EPZ;L8P-82 Il9A,16 I
NRC 2082 (1982) 10CFR 50.47(c)(I) alternauve means of noufying public of an emergency; AL AB480. I 6 NRC 132 (1982) compensations for emergency plaaning deraciencies; AL AB480,16 NRC l42 (1982) cntena for determining merits of emergency planning issue; ALAB480,16 NRC 131 (1982) distnbuuon of emergency planning pamphlet to transients; LBP 8240, I 6 N RC 552 (1982) factorsto be conwiered by Licensing Boardsin allowing full power operataan prior to resolution of emergency planning issues; ALAB480,16 N RC 136,138 (1982) immediate effectiveness review ordecision to issue conditioned full power operating license;CLI 82 14, 16 NRC 25 (1982) intervenors challenge Licensing Board'sconclusions concerning radiation assessment capabiliues oflocal junsdictions;# 1 aM3,1CC C' ?O r190 t
$27 4
i
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX P EGULATIONS means for appbcants to meet local emergency preparedness requirements; LBP-82 I l9 A,16 N RC 2101 (1982) signancance ordeficiencies in err.ergency plan; LBP 82 57.16 NRC 486-87 (1982) sigmfrar.:eofderweenc:esin5ummerfachty emergencyptans;LBP f2 57,16 NRC509(1982) 10 CFR 50 47(c)(2) adjustment of emergency planning tone to correct deficiency; LBP 82-57,16 N RC 486 87 (1982) challengesto;CLI-82 36,16NRC36(1982) defrienues m boundanes for emergency planning aones at Seabrook; LBP 82 76,16 NRC 1077 (1982) determinanon of EPZs; LBP 82196,16 NRC 1661 (1982) dafferente between Cahfornia EPZsand federally defined EPZs; LBP-82 70,16 N RC 764-66,801,802 (1982) e a tent of tesumony to be allowed on emergency plainms beyond 10-mile plume e aposure EPZ; CLI 82 25,16NRC$72(1982) factors determming size and conGsuration of plume exposure EPZ, AL AB-680,16 N RC l32 (1982);
ALAB498.16 NRCl294(1982) factors used to determme size and confsuranon ofingesnon emergency plannmg aone; ALA B497,16 NRCl280(1982) protective actions to be taken in agrcultural areas dunns a radiological emergency; A LA B-697,16 N RC 1275(1982) regions to be used for emergency plannmg purposes; A L A B-697,16 N RC 1270 (1982) rejection of contenuon attackins size requirement for plume esposure pathway EPZ; LBP-82 119 A,16 N RC 2084 (1982) sigmficance ofdenciencies in emergency plan; LBP 82 57,16 N RC 486-87 (1982) 10CFR 50.47(d) sausfaction ofconditions pnor to issuance ofoperaung license; L BP-82 Il 2,16 N RC 1902 (1982) venfication of adequacy of siren system toalert pubhc of radiological emersency; L BP 82 100,16 N RC 1578 (1982) 10 CFR 50 54(s)(1),(2) i l
future ofSeabrook emergergy plan to address requirementsof; LBP 82 74,16 N RC 1074 (1982) 10 CFR 50 54(D l
means for providing assurance that Zimmer has been constructed in conformance with its construcuon permit; CLI 82 33,16 NRC1500 (1982) 10CFR 50.54(p) hcensee's responsibihues pnor to implementma safeguarcis contmgency clan, CLt-82 19,16 N RC 79,80 (1982) 10 CFR 50.54(g) relevancy of appbcant's pubhc informauon emergency pl.nnmg pampitlet; LBP-82-60,16 N RC 542 (1982) requirementsforcompliance with emergency planmng standardsof NUREG 0654/ FEM A REP 1; CLl-82 38,16NRC1700(1982) 10 CFR 50.54f s)
Commission fmdings in revic= ofemergency preparedness with respect to Indian Pomt;CLI-82 38,16 NRC 1699(1982) 10CFR 50.54(s)(2)(ii) deadhne for correcuon o(emersency plannm3 deficiencies at Indian Point;CLI 82 25,16 N RC 869 (1982) distnbution ofemergency planning pamphlet to transients; LBP 82-60,16 N RC 552 (1982) division ofresponsibihty for emergency planmng; LBP-82-77,16 NRC 1099 (1982) enforcement acuon required for emergency preparedness denciennes; CLI-82 38,16 N RC 1703,1709 (1982) formal noufication of penod withm v hic'. emergency planmng deficiencies must be remedied, DD-8212,16 NRC1686 (1982) penod for correction ofemergency planning deficiencies in operstma nuclear power plants; ALA B480, 16NRCl31(1982) 128
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX REGCLATIONS relegancy of applicant's pubuc information emergency plannms pamphlet. LBP 82-60,16 NRC 542 (19827 time hmit on correction of emergency planmns denciencies; LBP 82-61,16 N RC 563 (1982) 10CFR 50 54(*)
showing of Onancial resources necessary to decontammate nuclear plant followmg serious accident; LBP-82 Il9A.16 NRC2101(1982) 10CFR$055 test for admissibehty ofcontentions in construction permit e ntensios proceedmg. CLI-82 29,16 N RC 1228(1982) 10CF R 50 55(bl dernomtration of good cause for enteasson of construction completion date. CLI-82 29,16 N RC l 224, 1233(1982) e ntc nuon of construcl m permit completion dates.CLi 82-29.16 N RC l 225 (l ;82) scope of a construction permit estension proceede s.CLI-82-29,16 NRC l226 (1982) r 10CF R 50 $$le) failure of arphcant to notify N RC of manual embed dencie ncies; L BP42 109.16 N RC 1842 4) (1982) reportmg of Zimmer construction deGciencies to N RC;CLl-82 3),16 N RC 1491,1492 (1982) 10CFR 50 55a apphcabahty to proceeding mvolung steam generator tube repair through sleevmg LBP 82-88,16 NRC 1341(1982) comphance of 5eabrook safety-related equipmer.t'. LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1037 (1982) rehabihty of 5eabrook safety related equipment m accident environment. LBP 82-76.16 NRC 1082 (1982) 10 CFR 50.55a(b)f ?)(ml,(dl and ts) apphcabihty to proceedmg involvmg steam generator tune repair through sleetmg. LBP.82-88,16 NRC 1341 (1982) 10CF R $0.57 Ondmss. on NE PA comphance, to be made by Director prior to issuance ofoperatmg hcense. AL AB-693, 16 N RC 956 (19826 N RC 5taff duty to make health and safety nndmss L BP-82-92.16 NRC l38)(1982) responsibihty for mak mg 6ndings on uncodested issues priot to operstms hcense issuance. L BP-82 109, 16 NRC 1885 (1982) 10CFR 50 57(a)(3) bas:s for contentionson issues nat covered by s specinc rule, LBP-82 Il6,16 N RC 1946 (1982) 10 CFR 50 57(s)Ol and (6) test for basis with specificity ruuirement for contentions, LBP-82 106,16 N RC 1654 (1982) 10 CFR 50 57(a)(3)hl mabihtyofLicensmg Boe*dtomakenndingsonissuesincontention LBP-82 Il8,16NRC20$0 55 (2982) need for administrstne controls to prevent cuk drop; LBP-82 77,16 NRC 1104 (1982) 10CFR 50 57(a)(6r mabihty of Licensms Board so make nndings on issues in contention. LBP 82 118,16 N RC 2050-55 (1982) 10CFR 50.57(c) consderation of authorization for fuelloadmg and low power operation in full-power proceeding; LBP-82112,16 NRC 1903 (1982) means of raismg question oflow-power operation, LBP 82-68,16 N RC 741 (1982) 10CFR 50.58(s) referral ofapphcations for construction permit and operatmg hcense amendments to ACRS for review; LBEc82 64.16 NRC602(1982) 10 CFR 50.59 application for amendment to ellow sleeving of steam generstor tubes, A LA B-696,16 NRC 1250 (1982) 10CF R 50.59(a) f right of a hcensee to make changes m a facihty without prior Commission approval; A L AB-6%,16 N RC n.9 a e,2t 129
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) need for Commission approvsi prior to secondary ade work on stesm genera or repairs; L p P 82-88,16 N AC l349 (1982) 10 CFR 50.109 l
backfittins of facilities; LBP 82-64,16 N RC 69811982) 10Cl R 50, App. A admission o(consention on protection of Seabrook safety systems from turbine missiles; LBP 82 76,16 N RC 1067(1982) apphcation to test reactor; LBP-82-64,16 N RC 653,697 99 (1982) compliance of $eabrook safety rtted equipment; LBP 82 75,16 NRC 1037 (1982) considerationofc! ass 9accidentcuntentions;L4P 82-Il9A 16 NRC2096(1982) deficiencies in FS A R, on qual.;y assurance for operations; LF 82 76,16NRC1073(1982) inadequacy orintenm safety parameter display system; LBP 82 75,16 NRC 1028 (1982) i modification of ATW$ standards; LBP-82 Il 8,16 N RC 2039 (1982) necessity of analysis of systems interaction to assess abihty of system's design; L BP-82 76,16 N RC 1034 (I?82) 4 reliabihty ofSeabrook safety-related equipment in accident environment; LBP 82 76,16 NRC 1082 (1982) satisfacten of single-failure enterion by emergency feed *ater sysiem; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1059 (1982) standard for meetmg Commission regulations concerning angle failure assumption; A L A B-708,16 N RC l777,iMS(1982) use of single failure approach in nuclear plant design, LBP-82 119 A,16 N RC 2090 (1982) 10CFR 50, App. A.GDC2 appbcabikty to test reactor; L BP-82-64,16 N RC 646 (1982) consideration ofdesign basis event m connection with seismic event for test reactor; L BP-82 64,16 N RC 697(1982) standa,d for determming most severe hurricane at a nucicar romer r: actor site; L BP-82-91,16 N RC 1372 (1982) 10CFR 50, App. A,GDC4 environmental quahficationscontention scen aschallenge to regulanons; LBP-82 76,16 h RC 1048 (1982) 10CFR 50, App. A.GDC 13 comphance of Seabrook instrumentation 10CFR 50, App. A.GDC 14 apphcabihty to proceedmg mvolvmg sicam generator tube repair through sleeving; LBP-82 88,16 EC 1341(1982) 10CFR 50, App. A.GDCl4,15.31,32 cornphance ofin-service msrection of steam generator tubes. LBP 82 76,16 N RC 1067 (1982) comphance of applicants mith requiremenis for mspection of steam generator tubes; L B P-82 106,16 N RC 1659(1982) 10CFR 50, App. A.GDC 19,20,22,29 adequacy orconsideratmn of adverw sysiems mieraction at Cimron plant LBP-82 103,16 N RC 1612 (1982) 10CFR 50, App. A GDC 19-22 adequacy of Seabrook design to minimae operator error at Seabrook, L BP-82 76,16 N RC 1040 f 1982) 10CFR 50, App. A,GDC62 requirements for fuel storage and handhng. LBP 82 97,16 NRC I44311982:
10CFR 50, App. A.GDC63,64 adequacy of monito-ng of routme releases of tadioactmty frora Seakrook; L BP-82-76,16 N RC 1040 (1982) 10CFR 50 A; 5. A,IV E.5 7 inadequacies m Shoreham's emergency plans for meJical and pubhc he alth support; LBP 82 75,16 N RC 1022(1982) 10 CFR 50, App. B adequacy of Chnton facihty management and technical quahfications; LBP-82 103,16 N RC 16 t 4,1623 (1982) 130 l
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX REGl;LATIONS alterationof weld radiograph asa s olation of regulations.L3P-82 I l8,16 NRC2046 (1982) e comphance of 5eabrook's method for seismic quahfication of electreal equipment, L BP 82-76,16 N RC 1068(1982) deficiencies m embedded plate cited as quahty assurance infractions, LBP-82 109.16 N RC 1830 31 (1982)
I deficienciesin regulaOnson =hwh$s; brook QA program is based LBP 82-76,16 N RC 1069 (1982) e sient of quahty assurance progrsms required by; LBP 82 56,16 N RC 380 (1982) noncomphance of Zimmer facihty =ithquahty assurance criteria of.CLI-82 33,16 NRC 14** I496 fl982);LBP 82-54.16NRC217(1982) purpose and scope orquahey assurance programs; LBP-82 Il 8,16 NRC2057 (1982) quality controf of hcensed opersto? traming, LBP-82 56,16 NRC 300 (1982) enotation of requirenwnt for nonconformance report, LBP-82 54,16 N RC 220 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. B.ll requirementsof adequacy ofeuahty assurance program; LBP 82 Il4,16 NRC l914 (1982) 10CFR 50, App B, lit use ofembedded plaies as a quahey assurance failure; LBP 82 109,16 N RC 1842 (1982) 100FR 50, App B.IllandXI comphance of>esorook safety-related equipment.LBP 82 76,16 NRC 10?7 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App..B, Vil contention challenges quahty assurance for vendor purchases; L BP-82 54,16 N RC 218 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. 8, Vlli contenten cites failure of apphcant to mamtam material traceabihty as required by; L BP 82-54,16 N RC 218(1982) 10 CF R 50, App. B.T nonconformance of Fermiquahiy anurance program with, LBP 82 96,16 NRC 1411, t 417 (1982) 10CFR 50 App B.XVI apphcant's lack of knowledge ofcoraractor's inspection data as senous quahty assurance failure; LBP-82109,16 N RC 1842 (1982) failure of apphcant to identify and correct construction derciencies LBP-82-54,16 N RC 219 (1982) 10CFR 50, App. B, XVII compliance of Fermi quahty assurance records with; LDP-82 96,16 N RC 14ll il982) i 10LrR 50, Avo.C 1
dismissal of previously acupied rmancial quahricationscontention; LBP-82 103,16 NRC l618 (1982) 10CFR 50, App. D nocioeconoms issues consiJered at construcuon permst stage, LBP 82 103,16 N RC 1612 (1982) special circumstances necessary for consideranon of class 9 accidents m environmentai review; 9
9 LBP 82 58,16NRC529(1982) 10CFR 50 App. E adequacy of 5ummer facihty onsite emergency plan, LBP 82 57,16 NRC 485 (1982) assurance of adequacy of protective measures to be taken in radiological emergency; LBP-82-70,16 NRC Mi bass t3quirements for structure of an emergency response organization; ALAB-698,16 N RC l303 t l982) comphince of Diablo Canyon's emersency p!sns with; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 760,798 799,855 (1982) failure of Seabrook emergency plan to address requirements of, LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1074 (1982) guidance implementmg emergency plannmg requirements; ALAB-737,16 NRC 1763 (1982) 4 inadequacy of 5horeham's accident assessment and momtorms abihties, LBP-82 75,16 N RC 1021 (1982) lack of means tocontrot radiological e mposures to emergency workers; LBP-82-75,16 N RC 1025 (1982)
{
l protective action contenuon hmited io onsite measures, LBP 82-76,16 N RC 1046 (1982) rejection ofcontention attackms size requirement for plume exposure pethway EPZ;LBP 82 II+A,16 NRC 2084 (1982) relevancy ofcpphcant's public inform 3 tion emergc.cy plannmg pamphlet; LBP-82-60,16 N Rr' 542 (1982) i requirement for emergency plan pnor to operation of a facility; LBP-83 103.16 NRC 1621 (1982) i j
standard of Board revie= of emergency planning; LBP 82 70,16 N RC 802 (1982) venficapon of adequacy of siren system to alert pubhc of radiological emergency; LBP 82 100,16 NRC i
1578(1982) i 1
4 r
g e-.g.
.,v,,_.,_,_.
,_-.3.,,,
.,.m-.-o_,_~--
m, m_
m
_-..,_.7.-,-,
_,-y,,
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REG 11LATIONS 10CFR 50, App.E,fn.2
/
consideraten of beyond-desegn-basis accidents in establishing EPZs; LBP 82 106,16 NRC 166I (1982) effect of population density on size and configurauon of plume esposure pathway EPZ; CLI-82 15,16 NRC 36(1982) 10CFR 50, App.E,IV requirements for evacuation ume estimates and road conditions; LBP-82 100, I 6 N RC 1574 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. E,IV. A adequacy of Diabio Canyon's emergency classification sprem; LEP-82-70,16 N RC 772,810-811 (1982) adequacy of Diabio Canyon's emersency response support and resources; LBP-82 70,16 N RC 771,808, 810(1982) adequacy of emergency command decision structure at Waterford plant; LBP-82 100, t 6 N RC 1581 (1982) lack of assurance of assimce from offste agencies dunng radiological emerge ncy; LBP 82 75.16 N RC 1023(1982) 10CFR $0, App. E,IV.A and C inadequate delineation of responsibiliues of onsite eme: gency personnel; LBP82-75,16 NRC 1024 (1982) 10CFR 50, App. E.IV.A.7 lack ofincorporanon of federai response capabihtes in Shoreham's emergency plans; LBP 82-75,16 N RC 1022(1982) 10CFR 50, App. E,IV.B adequacy of Shore ham plans for implementation of protective actions dunns radiological emergency; LBP-82 75,16NRC1023(1982) 10CFR 50, App. E,IV.B 8 nonconformance ofShoreham plan and procedures for operauon of Emergency Operanons Facility; LBP-82 75,16 N RC 1025 (1982) 10CFR 50, App. E,IV C classificanon ofemergencies; ALAB497,16 NRC l270 (1982) 10CFR 50, App. E,lV.D.2 adequacy of Shoreham prompt noufication system; L BP-82-75,16 N RC 1021 (1982) types ofemergency planning informanon to be dissemiaased to the public; ALA B497,16 NRC l272-73 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. E,IV.D.3 adequacy ofSan Onofre emergency pubhc nonfication system;CLI 8214,16 NRC 25 (1982) adequacy of Waterford evacuauon warmng system; LBP 82-100,16 N RC l 577 (1982) l capabiliues required of hcensee for notifying State and loc al government agencies of an emergency; ALAB-697,16 N RC 1270 (1982) necessity ofcompliance with f EM A findings; AL AB498,16 N RC l299 (1982) i objective of areawide alert signal for noufying pubhc durms radiologicalemergency; ALAB480,16 N RC l
134 (1982) size and configuranon ofplume exposure emergency planning tone; A LA3-680,16 N RC l32 (1982) ume hmit on correcuon ofdeficiencies in requirements of, L BP-8241,16 N RC 563 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. E,lV.E adequacy of means for controlhng radiological enposures of emergency workers at Diablo Canyon; LBP-82-70,16 N RC 836 (1982) 10CFR 50, App. E,lV E.1 requirement for availabihty of equipment for momtonns radiological e aposures to emergency workers; ALAB499,16 N RC l294 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. E,IV.E.2 and 8 inadequacy ofintenm safety parameter display system; LBP-82-75,16 N RC 1028 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. E,IV.F education of pubhc ofTicials on problems of tadiauon esposure; LBP-82 77,16 N RC 1099 (1982) failure of applicant to meet traming requirements foremergency response personnel; LBP 82 75,16 NRC 1024(1982) need for pubhc participation in evacuation dnlis; LBP-82-100,16 N RC 1582 (1982) i 132
_ _ _ = =
= _ _ - -
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10CFR 50, App E.IV F.I amount of public participation required m evacuauon drills; LBP-82 100,16 NRC 1565 (1982) pubhc parucipation in emergency planmns e mercises; LBP 82-70,16 N RC 843 (1982)
I 10CF R 50, App. E,IVE.I.b status required of emergency plans m order for full-power operauon to be authonred; L BP-82 100,16 i
NRC 1563 (1982) 10CFR 50 App G t
comphance of Seabrook safety-related equipment; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1037 (1982) 10CFR 50 App G and H comphanceofend-of-lifevalueforweldment,LBP 82-63,16NRC588(1982) 10 CF R 50, A pp. I I
basis for calculahons of radioactive dose from Waterford plant efiluents; LBP 82 100,16 N RC 1569 (1982) conformance of ta Crosse Plant oft sasemissionswith, LBP-82 58,16 NRC 521-22 (1982) i hugabehiy of residual radiation health elTects m inddvidual proceedings; LBP 82 105,16 N RC 1641 (1982) 10CFR 50, App. I.Secuonl C hmitations on radiciodine release contenhons; LBP-82 I l 9 4,16 N RC 2095 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. K j
acceptabihty of Cimton emergency core coohns system; L BP-82-103,16 NRC 1624 25 (1982) challenges toemergency core coohng system evaluation model, AL AB 708,16 NRC 1782 (1982) comphance of Seabrook safety-related equipment, LBP-82 76.16 N RC 1037 (1982) 10CFR 50, App M Comrrisraon authonty to hcense offsite manufacture of nuclear power reauors, ALAB-686,16 NRC 455 (1982) disuncuon between construchon permits and manufacturing hcenses; AL A B-686,16 N RC 456 (1982) 10 CFR 50, App. M, para. I efTectiveness of manufacturing hcense decisions relative to finahty;CLI-82-37,16 N RC 1692 (1982) 10CFR 50, App. N simultaneous reuew of safety-related parameters for duphcate plants; LBP-82 109.16 N RC 1829 (1982) 10CFR 51 l
amendment of; DPRM 82-2,16 NRC l216 (1982); LBP-82 58.16 NRC 527 (1982) d, hmitauonsoncost-benefitcompansons.LBP 82-II7A,16 NRC1903(1982) necessity for environmentalimpact statement for spent fuel pool modification, LBP-82 65,16 N RC 727 (1982) 10CFR $1. Table S-3 error in radon release values; ALA B-701,16 N RC 1519 (1982) 10CFR 51.5 automaticinsocanon of EIS process; ALAB 705.16 NRC1746 (1982) 10 CFR $1.5fd)(4) preparanon of environmentalimpact statement for construcuon estension not required;CLI 82 29,16 N RC 1224 (1982) i 10CFR SI.7 automanc invocation of EIS process; A L AB 705,16 N RC I746 (1982) 10CFR 51.7(b) l' content of EIA; ALAB-705,16 N RC 1737 (1982) l 10 CFR $l.20(a) j accuracy of assessment of risks posed by operateon ofThree Mile Islacid, Umt I; AL A B-705,16 NRC 1734 i
(1982) 10 CFR 51.20(a),(d) failure of apphcant to assess nsk of class 9 accidents at Seabrook, LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1035 (1982) 10CFR 51.20(d) accuracy of annessment of risks posed by operation orThree Mile lsland, Unit 1; AL AB-705,16 N RC l734 (i982, a
of health efTects ofTable S-3 release 5:L BP-82119A,16 NRC 2001,7099 0092) cociticanon of h-3 rule; ALAB-704,16 NRC I728 (1982)
J i
133 t
5 i
t i
I I
i e
.v-.v-,_
.,,,,y.,..--.a.- -,,..,
,p,n
,,y n-p,_--.-,__._
,4 n._.,.,
,.y,,_r.,.-__..,,_, ce
~
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS data besa to be used ia evaluating environmental enects of uranium fuel cycle; LBP-82-100,16 N RC 1556 (1982) quantifwation 'of fuel cycle emissions; L BP-82 119 A,16 N RC 2086 (1982) 10CFR 51.20(g)(1) applicauon ofTable S 4 to transportanon of spent fuel to and storage at Cata=be facility; LBP 82 51,16 NRC 171 (1982) 10CFR 51.21 assessment of health enects ofTable S 3 releases; LBP.82-119A,16 NRC 2091,2099 (1982) considerauonofeffecuofradoninapplicant'senvironmentalreport;LBP 82 Il9A,16NRC2084(1982) i consideration ofliquid pathway accident impacts; LBP.82 76,16 NRC 1037 (1982) preciumonofneedforpowerissues;LBP 82 Il9A 16 NRC2092(1982) i 10CFR 51.2 ifs)(2)(v) e applicauon ofTable S-4 to transportation of sper:t fuel to and storage at Catawba facihty; LBP-82 51,16 NRCl?t (1982)
I 10 CFR 51.23(c) assessment of health eEccts ofTable S-3 releases, LBP-82 119 A,16 N RC 2091,2099 (1982) challenges to Commismon's fuel cycle rule; LBP 82 118,16 NRC 2038,2045 (1982) codifration ofS 3 rule; ALAB-704,16 NRC 1728 (1982) consderauon of McGuire risks in Catawbe risk analyss, LBP-82 107A,16 N RC 1802-03 (1982) 10 CFR 51.23,ttI consideration ofimpact orradon in Staff environmental impact statement; LBP-82 119 A 16 N RC 2084 (1982) 10 CFR $1.52 Licensing Board authonty toconsider need forand content of an EIS; ALAB 705,16 NRC 1738 (1982) test for basis with specificity requirement for contentions, LBP 82 106,16 N RC 1654 (1982)
=
10CFR 51.52(a) evidenuary hearings on issi.es pnor to issuance of final environmentalimpact statements; AL A B-688,16 i
NRC 474 (1982) 10CFR 51.52(b)(l) introducuon of S taff EI A into evidence; LB P-82 78,16 N RC l l l l (1982) 10CFR $1.52(b)(3) amendment of environmental statement to include Board findings and conclumons; LBP-82-100, ! 6 NRC 1571 (1982) modification ofoperating hcense FES, regardmg energy alternauve, ordered; LBP-82 58,16 N RC 531 (1982) 10CFR 51.53 consideranon of need for power and alternauve energy source issues in operstmg license proceedings; LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2080,2085,2099 (1982) litigationofneed-for-powerissues;LBP 82-63,16NRC589(1982) 10CFR 51.53(c) conaderation,in operating license proceedms. of alternative enersy sources; LBP-82 58,16 NRC 527 (1982) dismissalofneed-for powercontentiononbasisof;LBP 82 58,16NRC528(1982) htigabihty of need for power contenuon; LBP 82 107A,16 N RC 1801 (1982) 10CFR 54.57(a)(3)(i)
NRC requirements for the conduct of alt license activities; LBP 82-97,16 N RC l443 (1982) 10CFR $$
admasmon ofcontennon challengms t.perator q".alificauons; LBP-82-51,16 NRC l70 (1982)
Staff's implementauon of, LBP-82 56,16 N RC 169 (1982)
TMI compliance with reactor operator requahficanon program; LBP 82 56,16 N RC 349 (1982) 10 CFR 55.10 TMI hcer.see's program for certification ofcompetency ofoperstor candidates; LBP-82-56,16 N RC 365 (1982) 10 CFR 55.10(a)(6) reasons for cernficauon ofreactor operators; LBP 82-56,16 N RC 353 (1982) redundancy required in trainmg and testing reactor operators; LBP-82-56,16 N RC 364 (1982) 134
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CFR 55.20 Licenung Boardjunedguon over scope of reactor operator e nams. LBP 82 56.16 N R C 372 f l982)
N RC 5taff role in audiung opi rator traimes and tesung, LBP 82 56.16 N RC 364 (1982) 10CFR 55.20-55.23 gradins of ste speciGe rcactor operator enams. LBP 82 56.16 N R C 372 (1982) 10CFR 55.33 matenal false statement m connection with receruncation of reactoroperstor; LBP 82 56.16 NRC 348 (1982)
T MI licensee's program for certiGcation of competency of operator candidates; LBP-82 56,16 N RC 365 (1982) 10CFR $5.3)(4) redundancy required m traimns and testmg reactor operators. L BP42 56,16 NRC 364 (1982) 10CFR 55 40 Boardrecommendationforproceedmgtomodifyorsuspend re toroperators'bcenses LBP-82 56,16 NRC309(1982)
Licenung Bos?djunsdiction over revocauon of reactor operatos license; LBP-82 56,1% N RC 309 (1982)
Licensing Board recommendation for proceedmg to consder penalues agamst reactor operators, LBP 82 56,le NRC383 f1982) 10CFR $5. App. A matenal falu statement in connection with recertification of reactor operator; L BP 82 56,16 N RC 348 (1982) redundancy required in traimns and resung reactor operalors, LBP-82 56,16 N RC 364 (1982) 10CFR $5, App. Ati)
N RC 59ff role in auditing operator trainmg and tesung. LBP-82 56,16 N RC 364 (1982) 10CFR 71 and 73 e sclumon cJportion of contention concernms transportanon of erradiated fuel auembhes. L BP-82-51,16 N RC 172 r1982) 10CFR 73 purpose of.CLI 8219.16 NRC 72 41952) 10CFR 73 ItaH 1) adequacy of power ructor wcunty force trainmg based on Regulatory G uides.CLl-82 19,16 N RC $6 41982) adeqacy of tram ng of Diablo Canyon secunty force;CLI 8219,16 N RC 106 4982) denmuon ordemsn basss threat c(radiological sabotage; CL1 82 19.16 N RC 59 (1982) description of demsn basis insder threat; CLl 82 19,16 N RC 102 (1982) design basis threat asamst which commercial power reactors are required to be protected. LBP 82-119 A, 16 N RC 2098 (1982) efUcacy of provimons for traimng secunty forces at nuclear power plants.CLI-82 19,16 N RC 84 (1982) mterpretation of numencal size of e aternal assualt force charactenzed m desisn basis threat as "seweral";
CLI-8219,16 NRC 54 (1982) hmatauons on design basis threat. CLI-82 19,16 N RC 74 (1982) proper response to generic challenoe: to; CLi 82 19,16 N RC 74 0982) threat to nuclear reactors from terronst groups; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 73 (1982) 10CFR 73.1Ia)(D and(2) compenson of e aternal attack components applicable to commercial power reactors and fuel cycle facihtees,CLi 8219,16 NRC 62 (1982) 10CFR 73.2(h) and fi) deGnition of vital area and equipment; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 96 ( 1982) 10CFR 73.2(a) secunty measures for building intrusion into isolation zone; CL1-82 19,16 NRC 97 ( 1982) 10CFR 73.2(p) i deGnihon of radiological sabotage; CLi-82 19,16 N RC 58 (1982) 10CFR 73.2(y) deGnition of power reactor fuel as special nuclear material; CLI-82-19,16 N RC 59 (1982) i f
f 3
135
~
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 10 CFR 73.20 characterization of sze of attack force; CLl 82 19,16 N RC 68 (1982) 10 CFR 73.21 l
deletion of safeguardsinformation;CLI-82-19,16 N RC 61 (1982) i 10 CFn 73.21(b)(2) secrecy requirement for secunty plans; LBP-82 Il9 A,16 N RC 2094 (1982) 10 CFR 73.21(c)(vi) access to restncted documents; CLI-82 17,16 N RC 49 (1982) cnteria for grantmg access to secunty plan; LBP-82-80,16 N RC ll 23, ll 25 (1982) 10CFR 73.37 traimns oflocal police and fire personnel as tegards spent fuel shipments; LBP-82 Il9 A,16 N RC 2101 (1982) treatment of contentions postulating conventional weapons attack on spent fuel shipments; LBP-82 Il9A,16NRC2094(1982) 10CFR 73 40 (1974) cntena for protection of nuclear reactors CLI 8219,16 NRC 62 (1982) 10CFR 73.40fc) licensee's responsibihtees pnor to implementing safeguards contmgency plan; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 79,80 (1982) 10 CFR 73.40(d) licensee's responsibihties after prepanns safeguards contarigency plan; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 79 (1982) 10CFR 73 46(hM2) liaison between secunty forces of fuei reprocessing facihties and locallaw enforcement authonties; CLI-8219,16 NRC 91 (1982) 10 CFR 73.50f s)(2) difference in levels of coordination with local law enforcement agencies between fuel storage facilities and power reactors,CLI 82-19,16 N RC 91 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55 implementation of applicant's safeguards contingency plan; CLI-82 19,16 NRC 79 (1982) size of adversary force against
- hoch safeguards performance is evaluated.CLI-82 19,16 N RC 68 (1982) 10CFR 73.55(a) meetmg high-assurance objective of; CLI 82-19, ! 6 N RC 86 (1982) objectives of reactor secunty system; CLI-82-19,16 N RC 59 (1982) protection of wital equipment; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 96 (1982) satisfaction of general performance objecuves of. CLI-82 19,16 N RC'101 (1982) standards for safeguardms special nuclear matenals,CLI-82 19,16 N RC 76 (1982) substitution of secunty measures in heu of regulatory requirements, CLI 82-19,16 N RC 97 (1982) i sufficieney of DiabloCanyon'ssafeguardssystem;CLI P210,16 NRC 98 (1982) i use of secunty measures other than those required by Commission regulations; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 60 l
(1982) 10 CFR 73.55(b)(1) employment of contract guard force in physical secunty organization,CLI 82 19,16 N RC 82 (1982) bcensee's responsibihty to estabhsh a physical secunty organizat on; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 81 (1982) 10CFR 73.55(b)(2) and (3) management critena for licensee's physical security orgamzation; CLI-82-19,16 N RC 81,83 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(b)(4) implementation ofguard training at Diablo Canyon; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 86 (1982) implementation of security force tramms;CLI-82 19,16 N RC 87 (1982) traming requirements for members of ficensee's physical security orgamzation; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 81, l
83(1982) 10 CFR 73.55(b)-(h) number of armed responders required to counter design basis threat of radiological sabotage; CLI-82-19 16 NRC 104 (1982) secunty measures beyond requirements of; CLI-82-19,16 N RC 59 (1982) 10CFR 73.55(c)(ll and(2) l protection of vital equipment; CLI 82 19, ! 6 NRC 96 (1982)
IJ6 i
t I
i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10CFR 73.55fc)(3) security measures for building intrusion into isolation zone; CLI-82 19,16 NRC 97 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(c)(4) inspecuon of protected areas; CLI-82 19,16 NRC 94 (1982) 10CFR 73.55(c)(!)
illummation of protected areas, CLl-82 19,16 N RC 94 (1982) 10CFR 73.55(d) detectson function of access requirements of CLI-82 19,16 N RC 94 (1982) 10 CF R 73.55(d)(1)-(4) control of access into protected areas; CLI-82 19,16 NRC 94 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(d)(1)-(6) e sceptions to controlled access to prcrected areas;CLI-82 19,16 NRC 98 (1982) 10CFR 73.55fd)(2)-(6) function of bedgms and escort requirements of; CLI-82 19,16 NRC 94 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(d)(7) control of access into vital areas, CLI 82 19,16 N RC 94 ( 1982) 10 CFR 73.55(d)(8) acceis to secunty containment; CLl-82 19,16 N RC 94 (1982) 10CFR 73.55(e)(ll-(3) descnpsion of detecuan aids in reactor security systems; CL1 82-19,16 N RC 93 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(0 mamtenance ofcommunications between secunty forces and alarm stations; ClJ-82 19,16 N RC 88 (1982) 10CFR 73 55(0(ll-(4) testmg and maintenance of secunty commumcations system; CLI-82-19,16 N RC 88 (1982) 10CFR 73.55fs)(3) testing and mamtenance of secunty communications system; CLI 82 19,16 N RC 88 (1982) 10 CFR 73.55(h) oals of safeguards contingency plan; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 78 (1982) size of force respondmg to eaternal assuant on nuclear power plant; CLI 82 19,16 N RC 67 (1982) 10CFR 73.55(h)(1) cntena for safeguardscontingency plan; CLI-82 19,16 NRC 64,'l982) 10 CFR 73.55t h)(2) and (4) safeguards contingency plans for hanson hetween hcensee's security force and locallaw enforcement authonties; CL1-82 19,16 N RC 89 (1982) 10CFR 73.55(h)(3) authoney to determine number of armed responders to design besis threat to power reactor, CLI-82 19,16 N RC 105 (1982) factors determimns size of secunty force at nuclear power plants, CLI-82 19,16 N RC 103 (1982) 10CFR 73.55(h)(6) purpose of observation ofisolation zones and protected areas; CLI-82 19,16 NRC 94 (1982) 10CFR73 App.B training requirements for member: of heensee's physical security orga nization; CLI-82 19, I 6 N RC 81, 83(1982) 10CFR 73, App B.II.D training requirements for security forces for power reactors not covered by Regu: story Guides; CLI 8219,16 NRC55 (1982)
~~
10CFR 73, App. B,V equipment to be used by Diablo Canyon security force; CLI-82-19,16 NRC 56 (1982) 10 CFR 73, App.C cnteria for safeguards contingency plans; CLI-82 19, 86 N RC 64 (1982)
Dia bio Canyon's comphance with secunty communications requirements of; CLI-82-19,16 N RC 89 (1982) goals of safeguards contingency plan; CLI-82 19, ! 6 N RC 78 (1982) 10CFR 73, App.C,15 conta.ts c.fuf:6ards contingency plen; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 79 (1982) 137 D
v k--
v
...,.- r
^+- - -
-r---
g
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS i
l 10 CFR 73, App.C,l.a l
critens for safeguards conungency plans; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 64 (1982) 10CFR 73. App.C,3b safeguards contingency plans for liaison between lice nsee's security force and local law enforcement authonties;CLI 8219,16 NRC 89 (1982) 10CFR95, App. A,sub-topicil2 denial of pronon f er rulemaking to amend Class.fication G uide for Safes uards informahon 10CFR 100 adequacy ofinvestigations regarding 1.andslides near GE test reactor site; LBP-82-64,16 N RC 63 I (1982) adequacy ofSeabrook design to withstand excessive hydrogen generanon; LBP 82 76,16 N RC 1039 i
amount of hydrogen generation to be taken into account in containment design; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1064 (1982) bases for establishing e nclusion srea and low populahon aone; LBP-82-I l9 A.16 N RC 2106 (1982) capabehty of Verona Fault, LBP 82-64,16 NRC 600 (1982) components required to be safety grade; LBP-82-70,16 N RC 794,850 (1982) hugauonofhydrogencontrolcontentions,LBP 82-103,16 NRC1609(1982) litigation of hydrogen controlissues under; LBP 82 76.16 N RC 1065 (1982) radiological consequences of postulated design bass events at G E test reactor, LBP-82-64,16 N RC 646 (1982) reevaluation of offsite doses from primary to secondary coolant leakage; DD-82-1 I,16 N RC 1482,1985 (1982) showing required for hydrogen senerauon contention; LBP 82-76,16 NRC 1064 (1982) 10CFR 100, App. A adopuon of; LBP-82-64,16 N RC 698 (1982) apphcation to test reactors; LP P-82-64.16 N RC 65) (1982) determinauon of safe shutJown earthquake at Diabio Canyon facility; CLl-82-12 A,16 N RC 10 ( 1982) 10CFR 100, App. A,111(a) quahfication of pressunter heaters and block and power-operated rehef valves as safety-grade; LBP-82 70,16 NRC76t (1982) 10CFR 100, App. A.III(c) need to quahfy pressunser heaters as safety grade; LBP 82 70,16 N RC 793 *?,850 (1982) quahficauon of rehefantt block walves as safety srade; LBP-82 70,16 N RC 797,853 (1982) 10CFR 100. App. A.Via) failure of stauon blackout contenuon to satisfy neaus requirement; LBP 82-63,16 N RC 59I (1982) 10CFR 100 App. A.V(a)(1)(in) locahzauon ofl886 Charleston earthquake relauve to Summer facility; LBP 82 55,16 N RC 23 t (1982) 10CFR 100, App. A.VI adequacy of testing and inspecuon ofembedded plates to determine their resistance to earthquakes; LBP-82-109,16 NRC I890 (1982) 10CFR 100, App. A VI(b)(3) reason for not requinns test facility structure to withstand full postulated design basis; LBP-82-64,16 NRC684(1982) 10CFR 100. App. B deficiencies in FS AR, en quality assurance for operations; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1073 (1982) 10CFR100.10(c)(l) inapplicabihty to test reactors; LBP-82-64,16 NRC 698 (1982) 10 CFR 100.1I amount of hydrogen generation to be taken in account in containment design; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1064 (1982) cnten. for determimns vital areas; CLt-82 19,16 N RC 97 (1982) purpose afoffsite radiological doses set forth in; CLI-82-19,16 NRC 58 (1982) standards for radioacuve releases from acts of sabotage, CLI 82-19,16 NRC 76 (1982) 10CFR I10.70(a),(c) means for providmg nouce ofexport license apohcations; ALA3-682,16 N RC 158 (1982) 10 CFR l10.70(b) means for providmg nouce of eaport licenet applications; ALAB-682,16 NRC 158 (1982) 13g
1 l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10CFR il0 82 means for providing notice ofesport license applications ALAB482,16 NR C 158 41982) 10CFR 370 bases for amard ofintervenors' attorney's fees. LBP 82-81,16 NRC ll 39 ( 1982) 10CFR 305.76-5 limitson agency prerogatives to interpret policy statements. LBP 82-69,16 NRC 75)(1982) 40CFR 81.350 consideration of radiation emassoons from nuclear power plant in deseloping air quality standards for coal-fired power plant.LBP-32 58,16 NRC 526 (1982) 40 CFR 1502.6.1507.2 (1981) consideration of psycholossal stress issues under N EP A. LBP-82 53,16 N RC 203 (1982) di CFR 20 conOnt ofinterest by an entity working for both the NPC and a licensee, LBP 82 99,16 N RC 1548 (1982) 44 CFR 20-1.5410 and 20-1.5404 l(O confhet ofinierest consideration in N RC's review ofits contracts, L BP-82 73,16 N RC 977 ( 1982) t 4
..,_...y..:.
F t
t I
f 139 8
4 i
i
1 I
1
.I l
6 LEG AL CITATIONSINDEX STATUTES I
Admmistrative Procedure Act,5 U.S C 551(9) defimtian of hcensms; ALAB 705;16 NRC 1748 (1982)
I Admmistrative Procedure Act,5 U S C.553(b)( A) bmdma nature of pohey statements LBP 82-69,16 N RC 75) (1982)
AdmmistrativeProcedure Act 5U.S C 553(e)and555(e) pubhcation of reution for rulemaking for comment; DPRM 82 2,16 NRC l216 (1982)
Admimstrative Procedure Act,5 U.S C. 556 and 557 nght of miervenors to reopen record on quahty assurance i* sues AL AB-681,16 N RC I 48 (1982)
Admamstrative Procedure Act,5 U.S C 556(c)
Board authonty to direct parties on means to conduct mitial esaminations, LBP 82-107,16 N RC 1677 (1982)
I Admmistrative Procedure Act. 5 U S C. 556(c)(7) i discretion of Licensms Board to re,ulate the course of a heanng, LBP 82-107,16 N RC 1679 (1982)
]
Admmistrative Procedure Act.5 U.S C. 556(d) burden of proor m show cause order; LBP 82-64,16 N RC 655 (1982)
.dmmistrative Procedure Act,5(a),5 U.S C. 544(a) circumstances requirms formal adjudicatory hearmg, LBP-82 107,16 N RC 1674 (1982)
Admimstrahve Procedure Act,7(c) 5 U.S C.556(d)
)
hmitation on cross-e aammation of a nitness by s party to an admmistrative adjudicatory heanng; i
LBP-82107,16 NRC l674 (1982)
Admimstrative Procedure Act,9(b),5 U.S C. 558 7
contmuation of hcensec operation dunns processmg of hcense renewsl requests, ALAB-682,16 N RC 159 (1982) i cntena for immediately e(Tective suspension of construction activities,CLI-82 33,16 N RC 1500 (1982) l Atomic Energy Act,103,42 U.S C. 2133
)
cammission authonty to hcense o(Tsite manufacture of nuclear power reactors, AL AB-686,16 NRC 455 1
(1982) i issuance ofconstruct:en permit for a utshzation facikty; DC 8213, ? 6 NRC 2128 (1982) suspension of sofety-related construction activities at Zimmer; CLI-82-33,16 N RC 1497 (1982)
Atomic Energy Act,103b,42 U.S C.2133b l
cause forconsideration of arphcant's/hcensee'scharacter; ALAB-650,14 NRC 915 (1982) j Atomic Energy Act,104c reason for definms G E reactor as testmg icactor, L BP 62-64,16 N RC 698 (1982)
Atomic Energy Act 104(d),42 U.S C.2134(d)(1980) test for basis eith specificity requirement for admission ofcontentions, LBP-82 106,16 N RC 1654 (1982)
Atomic Energy Act,Il(e)(2),42 U.S C.2014(c) defimtion of uramum mill taihngs, CLI-82 34,16 NRC 1504 (1982)
^ ~ ~ " ' ' -
')
use of NRC appropriations for implementmg UMTRCA;CLI 82 34,16 NRC 1505 (1982)
I Atomic Ene gy Act,147 l
interpretation of"several" as used m design basis threat; CLI-82-19,16 N RC 54 (1982)
AtomicEnergy Act,161 consohdationofproceedmssforpowerteactorumts DPRM 82-2,16 NRC1215(1982)
Atomic Energy Act,161i i
suspension ofiafety-related construction activities at Zimmer; CLI-82-33,16 N RC l 497 (1982) i
\\
I i
l 4
141 l
i l
l i
l LEGALCITATIONSINDEX i
STATUTES AtomsEnergy Act,170A,42U.S.C 2210 sib) cor.niet ofinterest by entity woi king for both the NRC and a hcensee; LBP 82 99,16 N RC 1548 (1982) ondhe-recorJdisclosureofpe.entialconnictsofinterest;LBP 82-73,16NRC978(1982)
Atomic Energy Act,181,42 U.S.C.2231 apphcation ofprovimons of Administrative Procedure 4ct to N RC proceedings; LBP 82 107,16 N RC 1674(1982) ourden of proofin show cause order, LBP-8244,16 N RC 655 (1982) circumstancesfavoringdisclosureofconfidenhalinformauon;LBP 82 59,16NRC538(1982) deleganon ofauthonty to rule on requests for hearing on seismic demsn issues; LBP 8244,16 N RC 601 I
(1982)
Atomic Energy Act, I82,42 U 5.C. 2232 suspenson o(safety related construchon activities at Zimmer, CLI-82 33,16 N RC 1497 (1982)
A tomic Energy Act,182a,42 U.S.C. 2232a cause for considerauon of applicant's/twensee's character, ALA B-650,14 N RC 915 (1982)
Aicmz Energy Act.182(b),42 U.S C.2232(b) j ACRS review of restart ofG E training reactor, LBP 8244,16 N RC 602 (1982) i Atoms Energy Act,185,42 U.S.C.2235 eatenmon of construcuan permit compietion dates; CLI-82-29,16 NRC 1225,1232 (1982) scope ofliusable issues in construction permit e atenmon proceedms; CLI 82 29,16 N RC 1228,1229 (1982) test for admissbihty ofcontentions in construchon permit catension proceeding; CLI-82 29,16 N RC 1228 (1982)
Atomic Energy Act 186.42 U.S.C.2236 i
suspension ofsafety related construchon activines at Zimmer, CLI-82-33,16 N RC 1497 (1982) j Atomic Energy Act,186a,42 U.S.C. 2236a apphcant/lgensee obl ganon to provide accurate and timely informauon in NRC proceeding; ALA B450, i
14 NRC 980 (1982)
Atomic Energy Act,189,42 U.S.C.2239 heanns requirement for contested issues in operating icense proceeding; LBP-8248,16 N RC 748 (1982) persons who may request heannss, LBP-82 87,16 NRC 1201 (1982) naht ofintervenors to reopen record on quahty assurance issues; ALAB481,16 N RC l48 (1982)
AtomicEnergy Act.189a 42U.S C.2239(a) adjudmahon ofevidentiary disputes in public heatings; LBP-82 107,16 N RC 1671 (1982) condit.ons to the nght to a heanng; ALAB487.16 N RC 469 (1982) coritravenuon of heanns nshts; ALA B487,16 N RC 467 (1982); LBP-82-87,16 N RC 1200 (1982) efTectiveness oflicense pending ruling on request for renewal; CLI-82 39,16 N RC 1715 (1982) need for heanns on request for etempuon from regulauons; CLI-82 23,16 NRC 421,422,435,445 (1982) need for heanns on safety-related activines; CLI-82-23,16 N RC 429,430 (1982) nondiscretionary right to hearing on enforcement action; CLI-82 16.16 N RC 45 (19821 pointofinterventionprocess;LBP-82 81,16 NRC1137(1982) propnety of Board proposal to conduct pre-heanns esaminations by deposition; LBP-82-107,16 N RC I671(1982) relevancy ofcontentions to construction perma extension eroceedms; CLI-82-29,16 N RC 1230 (1982) uming ofdiscovery oncontentions; ALAB487,16 NRC468 (1982) type of hearing required for matenals licensms action; ALAB482,16 NRC 155,157 59 (1982)
Atomic Energy Act,191,42 U.S C.224I appointment of Board members from pnvate hfe; LBP 82 99,16 NRC 1547 (1982) purpose and compompon of Licensing Boards; LBP-82-87,16 N KC I 201 (1982)
Atomic Energy Act,191a jurisdiction of Licensing Boards; LBP-8249,16 NRC 752 (1982)
Atomic Energy Act.234,42 U.S.C.2282(b) procedural requirements to be followed pnor 'o impomuon ofcivil penalties;CL1-82-31,16 N RC 1238 (1982) 142
i LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX STATtJTES Asamic Energy Act.274(o)(3)( A)(sii),42 U.S C.2021(c)(3) requirements under State law forjudicial review of uranium licensms decisions; CLI 82 34,16 N RC 1507 (1982)
Atoms Energy Act,274b Commission authonty to enter into agreements =ith States concermns regulatson of special nuclear materials;CLI-82 34,16 NRC 1503 (1982)
AtomicEnergy Act,274) authonty of N RC to suspend or termmate sn agreement with a state;CLI-82 34,16 N RC 1508 (1982)
AtomicEnergy Act 2740 inadequacies in Colorado Radiation ControI Programi CLI-82 34.16 NRC 1506 t 1982)
AtomsEnergy Act,925 tat.3037,42 U.5 C.202)(2) sinngency of State standards for reg ulation of mili tadmss; CLI-82 34.16 NRC l504 (1982)
Clayton Act,4,15 U.5 C.15 bas s for award ofintervenors' attorney's fee; LBP-82-81,16 NRC 1839 (1982)
Colcs Rev. Stat.1973,21 1 !!3 (Supp.1981) nght ofjudicial review of source materiallmens.ag accisions. CLt-82-34,16 N RC 1507 (1912)
Colo. Rev. Stat.1973,24-4102(1) entent of agency action;CLI 82-34,16 N RC l507 (1982)
Colo. Rev. Stat.1973,24-4-106 judicial review of uramum isensms decisions; CLl 82 34,16 NRC 1507 (1982)
Colorado Admimstrative Procedure Act.24 4-101 etseq..Colo. Rev.5 tat.1973 standmg of plaintiffs to brms private action to enforce Colorado Radiation Control Act;CLl 82 34,16 NRC l507 (1982)
Colorado Admmistrative Procedure Act,Colo.Rev StaL 25-Il 103(5),25 II l% 25 it-10M3) 5 tate enforcement of uramum licensms decisions; CL1 82 34,16 N RC 1506 (1982)
Colorado Rule and Regulations Pertamme to Radiation Control. 3.22 2 State enforcement of uranium heensms decisions; CLI-82-34,16 N RC 1506 0982) i Colorado Rulesand Regulations Pertammg to RadiationControl.3.9 9.3.4.
appeals of State uramum heensms actions; CLI-82 14 16 N RC 1507 (1982)
Contmums Approprianons Resolution for FY 1983, Pue. L.97 276,101(3,% Siat. I135 (Oc ober 2,1982) 1 hmitations on N RC expenditures for implementmg U MTRCA; CLI-82-24,16 N RC 1504 (1982)
Delaware River BannCompact,15.l(s)(1), Pub. L No. 87 328,75 Stat 688 (l%1) preclusion of Licensing Board;urisdruon over impacts of water allocation; LBP-82-72,16 N RC %9
=
(1982) preclusion of N RC authority to consider aspects of water a% cation decisions; DD 82 13,16 N RC 2120 (1982)
Energy Reorsamzation Act ofl974,210 identification of unresolved safety issues to be addressed in spent fuel pool modification proceedms; LBP 82-65.16NRC717(1982)
FederalWaterPolluuonControl Act,401,404 f
environmentalassessment of Point Pleasant Diversion project DD 8213,16 NRC 2125,2133 (1982)
Federat Water Pollution Control Act,404,86 Stat. 816. Pub. L.95-500 construction of water intake structure at Pomt Pleasant; DD-82-13,16 N RC 2125 (1982)
NI Executive Law 20,et seq. (McKinney) 1 responsability for preparation of radiologicai resportse plan; LBP-82 82.16 N RC ll62 (1982)
NauonalEnvironmentalPohcy Actof1%9(NEPA),102(2)(E),42 U.S C 4332(2)(E)
~ ~
comphance of EI A for Bis Rock Point spent fuel poolempansion; LBP-82 78,16 N RC l108,lll2 13 (1982)
Nanonal Environmental Pohey Act of I %9 (NEP A). 42 U.S.C. 4321 i
preparation of EI A on plan for sohdification of high-level radioactive wastes; ALAB-679,16 N RC l23 i
(1982) reasonfor,and historyof Commission'sconsideranonofenvironmentalimpactofnuclearfuelcycle, ALAB-704,16 NRC l728 (1982) i National Eavironmental Policy Act of 1%9 (NEPA),42 U.S.C. 4321 et seg.
j hmitauons on matters to be resolved m operating hcense proceedmas; LBP 32 76,16 N RC 1087 (1982)
I I
143 I,
i
,-,r..,-
7.
,,,_,,.,, _,,,y
-.- ~...
_. - - ~
_ -, ~ -
'l j
LEGALCITATIONSINDEX STATUTES necessaty for enwironmentalimpact statement for spent fuel pool modification; LBP 82-65,16 N RC 727 (1982) s l
timing forlitigation ofconten:ensinvolving; ALAB 688.16 NRC473 (1982) i National Environmental Pohey Act ofl%9 (NEPA). 42 U.5 C 4332 N EPA consederaten of use of spent fuel for nuclear weapons; LBP-82 53,16 N RC 199 (1982)
National Environmeatal Pohey Act of1%9 (N EPA).42 U.S C. 4332(C) content ofenvironnte ntalimpact statement for major federst actiont LBP-82-76.16 NRC 107611982)
OmnibusBudge:Reconcittacon Aetof1981. Pub.L.No 97-35 national polsy favoring enpediteous ecmpletion of breeder reactor; CLI-82 23.16 NRC 429,430 (1982)
Pub.L.97-276.10lig) %5 tat.ll35(1982)
)
use of N RC funds to pey fees for consultants to interwenors; CLI-82-40,16 N RC 1718 (1982)
Pub. L.97 88.Titte V,502.95 5 tat. ll48 (1981) use of NRC funds to pay fees forconsultants to intervenors; CLI 12 40.16 NRC 1718 (1982) f Rivers and Harbors Act of I 899.10. 33 U.S.C. 403 construction of waterintake structure at Point Pleasant; DD-82+13.16 N RC 2125 (1982)
Uranium MillTai!*ss Aadiation Conard Act. Pub. L.95-604.204te)(1) 5taie procedures governins uranium hcensing aetmis CLi l7 14.16 N RC l504 (1982) strangency of5 are standards for regulation of mill tailings,oLt.82 34,16 NRC 1504 (1982)
Uranium MillTaihnss Radiation Control Act. Pub L.95-604. 204(e)(2) and t h).as amended by Pub. L
%-106 t 93 5 tat. 800) Section 22 (1979) l Jurisdction over mili tashnss. CLl-82-34.16 NRC 1504 (1982)
% est Valley Dsmonstration Project Act. 2f c) reviem of plan for solidification of high-levet radioactive mastes. A L A B-679.16 N RC l 23 ( 1982)
West Valley Demonstration Project Act, Pub. L. No. %-368. 94 Stat.1347 (1980) purpose ct. A L A B-679.16 N RC l23 ( 1982) i 4
I i
i e
i l
/
144 i
f
I I
i
'e?
i i
l l
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS Asimo=,'Pubhc Participation an the Adoption ofinierpretive Rules and Pohc) Statements,' 75 Mich. L.
Rev 521(1976) hmitson agency prerogatives to mterpret pokcy statements LBP-82-69, I 6 N RC 753 (1982) 3 K. Dasis, Admmistrative Law Treatise 17.13 at 319-20 (2d Ed 1980) alteration of Board authonty to conduct heanngs, LBP-82-69,16 N RC 753 (1982) 4J. Moore'sFederalPractice126 68(2ded 1982) good cauw for issuance of protectiv e orders, LBP 82-82.16 N RC i153 (1982) i 4 A Moore's F ederal Practice 133 25(ll ai 33 129-130 (2d ed 1981) apphcation of N EPA ' rule of reason' to apphcanf a responses to mierrosaiones. L bP-82-67,16 N R C 7Jo I
(1982)
I S M oore's Federai Pracuce 141 05lIl ai 41 58 l
Luensing Board discretion to prescribe terms for wit hdrawal of construct:on permit apphcation, X
LBP-82-81,16 N RC l l 34 (1982)
N l
S Moore'sfederalPractice14105111st4172to41-7)(2ded 1981) 7 basis for departmg from rule of dismissal of arphcations withoul prejudice, L BP-82-81,16 N RC 1135 (19821 5 Moore's Federal Practice 14105121.at 7t J5 (2d ed 1981)
O as dental of motions for withdrawal mit hout prejudice, L BP-82-81,16 N RC 1135 t 1982)
~ t 5 Moore's Federal Practice 14106, at 41 83,41 861081 1083 ( 2d ed 1975) demal of motsons for withdrawal mithout prejudice, LBP-82 81,16 NRC 1135 (1982) b O 6 A 3. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice 159 09[5] i2d ed 1979) e A ppeal board junsdiction to rule on a motion to reopen filed after e nceptions have been taten, J
AL AB-699,16 NRC 132711982)
I
$ 3. Wigmore, E vidence 12290 l Mcnaughten rev.1961) d I
serposeof attorney-chent pnvilege. LBP 82 82,16 NRC i157 (1982)
J 8 3 Wigmore, Evidence 62992,at 554 (McNau8hten rev 1961)
(
essentiat elements of attorney-chent pnvilege-LbP 82-82.16 NRC il 57 (1982) 9 % nghi and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure. Cml 42364 (1971) demalof motions for withdrawal without prejudice, LBP 82-81,16 N RC ll35, l l42 (1982)
Federal R ules of Civil Procedure, R ule 26(b) i apphcationto NRCproceed.ngs LBP-82 82,16NRCll57(1982) p Ftderal R ules of Cmi Procedure R ule 26 t b) (3) w 3 adaptauonof NRCdiscovery rulesfrom,LBP 82 82,16 NRC 1159 (1982) clanficahon of quahfied work product doctnne Federal R ules of Cmi Procedure, R ule 41(a)(!),(2) circumstances favorms dismissal of apphcations without prejudice, LBP-82-81,16 N RC 1134 (1982)
I Federal Rules of Cml Procedure, R ulc 56 analogy between summary disposanon procedures and, LBP-82-58,16 N R C 519 (1982)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56(c), (e) standard for opposms motion for summary disposihon, AL AB-696,16 NRC 1258 (1982)
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(0 l
Board authonty to grant summary disposshon motion before discovery is completed AL A B-696,16 N RC I
126)(1982)
I use of affidavits to defer action on summary disposinon motions A L A B-696,16 N RC 1258 (1982) l i
I f
145 i
-ws---
v----me..e..e-w-- --
.m -
m
1 I
i l
LEGAL CITATIONSINDEX i
OTHERS Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 standard for quahfication o(eaper witnesses; ALAB 701, I 6 NRC 1524 (1982) l'oderal Rulosof Evidence, Rule 706 comphance oflicenans board with,in appointing itsown enpert witness; LBP 82 55,16 NRC277 (1982) l Gothorn, Pubiw Partwipetion in Admmistrative Proceedings,81 Y ALE LJ. 359,376 77 (1972) admiembihty ofcontentions not lleging noncompliance with a vecified regulauon; LDP 32 106,16 N RC 1655(1982) i M. Frankel.The Search for Truth-An Umpireal View,123 U.Pa LRo.1031,1037 (1975) valuc of formellegal)rocedures in reviewing technicalissues; CLl42 20,16 N RC II 5 (1982)
Manual for Admmistrauwe Law Judges (revised ed.1982) defirution of a compie a case; LBP 82 107, I 6 N RC 1678 (1982)
Rules of Aprellate Procedure, R ule 41( b)
Licensmg Board authority to conader sontentoons challenging NRC R ules ot Regulanons; LBP-82-92.16 NRC 1385 (1982) 1 Shapiro "The Chows of R ulemaking or Adjudication in the Development o( Admmistrauwe Polwy," 78 Harv. L Rev.921.947 950(1965) i limits on agency prerogatives to mierpret pohey statements LBP 82-69,16 N RC 753 (1982)
U.S. Department oflustwe, Attorney General's Manualon the Admmistrative Procedure Act,at 41 (1947) circumstances requinns formal adjudicatory hearms; L BP-82-107,16 N RC l 674 ( 1982)
Wnght and Miller, Federal Practwe and Procedure: Civill2024, at 198 (1970) documents prepared in contemplation oflitiganon as attorney work product; LBP 82-82,16 N RC l l 61 (1982) l 4
i t
i a
,-d k
I t
146
P I
f i
i l
I t
I r
I t
I I
SUBJECT INDEX l
i MCIDENits) assessment erd monitorms at DiabloCanyon, capabihties for; LBP 12 70,16 NRC 756 (1982) beyond design basis at Shearon Harns, failure of apphcant to assess, LBP 82 119 A,16 N RC 2%9 (1982) class 9. assessment of nsk of, at Seahtoon, LBP 82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) class 9, entena for admtuiam ofconwntions on. LB P-82 Il9 A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) class 9, need for analysis oi snvironmentaleffecis of. AL AB 705.16 NRC l733 (1982) j class 9, showing required for consideration of, m operstmg bcense proceedmss. LBP 82 56,16 N RC 512 (1982) consequences snd probabihties, scope of testimony on; CLI-82 25,16 N RC 867 (1982) core-disruptive,5taff rosition on classificateon of.CLI 82 22,;6 NRC 405 (1982) good cause for late fihng of challenge to treatmentof econorric costs of, LBP-82-90,16 N RC 1359 (1982) greater than-des'gn-basis, adequacy of $ummer facthry tmergency planslo cope with, LBP-82 57,16 j
N RC 477 (1982)
I loss-of-coolant, analysis for Rancho Seco, technmaldiscussiort of. AL AB 703.16 N RC 1533 (1982)
I senous. consideration of economg effectsof LBP-82119,16 hRC 206)(1982) senous, credib.hty of and scenanos for, at Cata= be facihty; LBP.82 107A,16 N RC 1 di (1982)
Imall break. loss-of-coolant. processes for de_ay heat removal m case of, AL AB 708,16 N RC l770 (1982)
ADJUDIC ATORY BOARDS tnndmg nature of NRC paiscy statements on; AL AB 704,16 N RC 1725 (1982) junsdiction c.f, to reopen record on quality assurance issues, A L AB-681,16 N RC 146 (1982) i AIRCRAFT crash hazard analysis at $hearon Harns. need for; LBP-82119A 16 NRC 2069 (1982) crash probabihty at Three Mile Island, AL Als-692,16 N RC 921 (1982) harardanalysisa Shearon Harris,needfc LBP-82119A,I6NRC2069(1982)
ALERTING of pubhc dunng radiologicalemergency, through stren system. LBP-82 57,16 NRC 477 (1982) j of pubbe near Diablo Canyon of radiological emergency. methods and procedures for; LB P-82 70,16 l
N RC 756 (1982) the pubhc of radiological emergenry, rejection ofcontentions allegms madequacies m tone system for, l
l LBP-82 75,16 NRC986(1982) k See stso Notifwation ALTERN ATIVE ENERGY SOURCES considerationof,m operatmg hcense proceedman LBP 82 58,16 NRC Si'-(1982),LBP 82103,16 NRC 1603 (1982),LBP 82 !!7 A,16 N RC 1964 (1982) l ALTE RN ATIVES I
to rerackms m spent fuel pool, technical discussion of, LBP 82 65,16 NRC 714 (1982) to spent fue: pool espansion, need for discussion of, m EI A; LB P-824 d.16 N RC 1116 (1982)
AMENDMENT of agreement eith 5 tate of Colorado concernmg resulation of nuclear matenals denial of petition for reconsiderationor CLI 82 34,16 NRC 1502(1982) j of Fmal Environmental Statement to include Board findings and conclusions; L BP 82 100,16 N RC 1550 j
(1982) of R ules of Practice to reqv e operstmg hcense heanngs for each nuclear power reactor, denialof petition for l'PRM-82 2,16 NRC1209(1982) of Susau r anna techn rsi specifications to restnct ieskage in reactor coolant system; AL AB-702,16 N RC 1530 (1982)
.c.natubb;se,w,au.hetiz;ris mork a,;nacJvc e. nan.cre ar.i:1.CLI 82 21.16 NRC 431 (l'82) i l
147 i
e i
l l
L i
i i
i i
e
_w,,m, ww,,v.,e,----mww-we
SUBJECT INDEX AMKU3 CURIAE perticipationinappellatchearings; ALAB479.16NRCl21(19821 ANTICIPATED T RAN5f ENT8 WIT HOUT SC2 A M at Seabronk. reduction of risk of.through interim measures; LDP-82 76,16 N RC 1029 (198 4
hugabihty ofcomenuonson; LSP 82118,16 NRC 2034(1982);LBP 821194,I6 NRC 2 precursoreventscalhngforactsvahonofstandbyhquideontrolsystematPerry Board-phr on;LBP-82102.16 NRC l$97 (19821 scopeofinterrogatoneson.LBP-8247 ItNRC73461982) summary disp LBP 82 57,16NRC477(1982)
APPEAL BOAP.D authon;y to doctme Licensms Board tefertals; AL AB487.16 NRC 460 (1982) decision Commissiondismissalorgrancofreviewof;CLI-82 26.16NRC880(1982) du ected not to concern itself with eurrent status of hcensee's comphance wnh restart requirem CLI-82-32,16 NRC l243(1982) directed to certtfy quesuons on interpretauon of 10 CFR $0 474 b)ll2) to the Comm disagreement with Licensing Board interpretauon of emerlency planning issue, A 16 NRC 88)(1982) obhgauon to conduct immediate effecuveness review in manufactunt g hcense p 127 (1982) 16 NRC 454 (1982) pohcy concernmg c(orcement of time hmets for fihng escepuons. ALAB 684,16 N portions of the record addressed in sua sponte review by; reversal of Licensmg Board's scheduhng of heannss; ALA B4%,16 NRC 1243 (1982) review of Licensms Board decman concerned with integrity of heanns process, A review of Licensmg Board rulmss on economic issues, intervenuon requests, or proced 897 (1982) scope of, ALAB491.16 NRC 897 (1982) scope of sua sponte review by; AL AB4%.16 NRC 124$ (1982) sta ALAB-680,16 NRC l27 (1982) sua sponte review authonty, nature of, and relanonship to effectiveness of Licensing ALAB489.16 N RC 887 (1982)
See alsoCert ficauon APPE AL PANELCH AIRM AN suthenty of, to summanly dismiss mterlocutory appeal AL ABC2.16 NRC 160 (1982)
APPEAL &)
acceptance of; LBP 82106.16 NRC 1649 (1982)by bcensees of orde and 3 denied.CLI 82 l$.16 NRC 27 (1982) construed as complamt agamst Staff comphance with and implementation of Board 16 NRC 162 (1982) interlocutory, burden on party invokmg, ALAB 706,16 NRC 1754 (1982) interlocutory, circumstances appropnate for; AL AB-68).16 NRC 160 (1982) interlocutory,esception to Commission's rule agamst, LEP 8242,16 NRC $65 (1982)
C 1754 interlocutory, factors providmg unusual delay m proceeJang marrantms; AL AB-7%.1 interlocutory,involvmg the scheduhng o(heanngs or timme of admission of evide (1982)
NRC471(1982) standard for considerms contenuon raised for first ume on ALAB480,16 N RC 127 (19 treatment ofissues raised for first time on. ALAB 691.16 N RC 597 (1982)
Sec also Bnefs. Finahty APPLICANT considerauon of character of; ALAB-691. I6 NRC 897 (198'.)
hability of, for matenal false statement, AL AB491,16 NRC 97 (1982) 148
,+
4 i
j SUB.IECT INDEX f
i i
ATO%flC $AFETY AND LICEN5lNO BOARD 4
reconsutuhon of.CLl *2-24,16 N RC 865 (1982) sua sponte authority of.CLt.82 20,16 NRC 109 41982) t See r. iso Licenams Boardis)
ATTORNEY'5 FEE.5 intervenors'. payment af, ascondition of withdrawal of cons:ructsoa permit application; LBP 82 81,16 N RC ll28 (1982)
AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM a: TMI l. sua spon.a issues taised on rehabihty of sparsers m. CLI-82 12.16 N RC l (1982) i flom, delay in. loss of-coolant accident analysis of. ALAB-70),16 N RC 1533 (1982) l See alw Emergency f eed=ater Syseem B AY E51 AN TH EORY use of, for calculauon of aircraft crash probabihty at Three Mile Island. ALA B-692,16 N RC 921 (1982)
BIAS 4'
by NRC Staff attorney, demal of entervenor's pennon allegmg. CLl 82 36,16 N RC 1512 (1982)
See also Disquahricauon BIOACCUMULATION j
acceptance of contention allesing inadequate treatment of. LBP t 19 4.16 N R C 2069 ( 1982)
BRIEFS for appeals. contents of. AL AB-69),16 NRC 952 (1982)
^
for esteptions. standards for, AL AB 6%,16 N RC 1245 (1982)
BURDEN OF PROOF for demonstratmg comphance of offute etttergency plans. LBP 82-77,16 N RC 1096 (1982) for summary disposinon monons. LDP 82 58,16 N RC 512 (1982) in NRC bcensing proceedmss, AL A B-697,16 NRC 1265 ( 4982)
BYPRODUCT M ATERI ALS LICENSE rene=al proceedmg. standmg to intervene m AL AB-682.16 NRC 150 (1982)
See aho Materials License j
CALIFORNIA companion of shp rates of faults m. LBP-82 64.16 NRC 5% (1982)
CANCER resulung from radiation from normal nuclear power plant operation, risk of, LBP-82 57. M N RC 477 41982) i CAVEAT decision on full-power operatmg license issued with. LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982)
CERTIFICATION of Appeal Board quespons concernmg Junsdicuon of adjudicatory boards to reopen record on quahty assuranceissues; ALAB-681.16 NRC l46(1982) ofcontenuons to Commisuon or Appeal Board, burden not met for; LBP-82 51,16 N RC 167 (1982) d of queshons a4:ng claririsation of scope of tesumony on emergency planning inues.CLI 82 25.16 NRC 867 (1982) standard for obtaming. LBP 32-69,16 NRC 75 I (1982) where subsect ofinierlocutory appealis rejecuon of contenuons; LBP-82 106.16 N RC 1649 (1982)
See also Directed Ceruficauon CHEMICAL RELEASES from shearon itarns. consideraur ofenvironmemal impact of, L BP-82 I l9 A.16 N RC 2069 (1982)
CHLORINE use of, to clean condenser coohng system at Seabrook; LBP 82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) j CIRCULATION natural processes, to remove decay heat from reactor core, reopening of record for testimony on; AL AB-708,16 NRC 1770 (1982)
I natural,in Big Rock Pomt spent fuel pool, potemial for blockage of. LBP-82 97,16 NRC 1439 (1982)
CLAMS. A51 ATic t
burden of clarificanon and specific 2y ofcontenuon on. LBP-82-S t.16 N RC 167 (1982) j fouhng of safety-related coohns systems at Perry plant by; LBP-32 ll4.16 N RC 1909 (1982) i CLARIFICATION l
b) Licer.aing Son;d cf FEM A f ndings oa, and s:andard operatmg procedures of, emergency plans; a
4 LSP-82-85.16 NRC il87 (1982) i 149 4
9
~'
s
\\
~
i SUBJECTINDEX CLASSIFIED INFORMATION espunction of, from N RC security proceedmg and underlyira record;CLl-82 30,16 NRC 1234 (1982)
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL j
apphcanon of, to NRC proceedings; CLI 82 23' 16 N RC 412 (19th 1
applicanon of, to rehtisanon of environmentalissues, L8P-82 76,16 N RC 1029 (1982)
)
contenuon herred by; L8P-82 107A,16 NRC 1791 (1982)
COMMUNICATIONS emergency, at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of; L8P 82,70,16 NRC 756 (1982) with outside agencies during radiological emergency, apphcant required to respond to interrogatones on; L8P 8247,16 NRC 734 (1982)
CONCRETE density at Callaway plant, denciencies in; L8P-82 109,16 N RC 1826 (1982)
CONFLICT OFINTEREST potential, responsibehty ofpart es to disclose; LBP 82 73,16 NRC 974 (1982)
CONSOLIDATION of hearings on power reactor units; DPRM-82-2,16 N RC 1209 (1982) of matenals hcense renewai and operaung hcense proceedings, AL A8482,16 NRC 150 (1982)
CONSTRUCTION acuvines pnot to issuance ofconstruction permit or LWA, limitations on; CLI 82 23,16 NRC 412 (1982) allegahons of specinc nams in, at Fermi plant; L8P 82 96,16 NRC 1408 (1982) at La Salle plant, partial denial of 2 206 petsuon regardmg de6ciencies in; DD-82 9,16 NRC 3% (1982) at Zimmer, issuance ofimmediately effective order suspending; CLI-82 33,16 N RC 1449 (1982) costs, considerauon of,in operaung license proceeding LBP 82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982).
deficiencies in matenals and safety, concrete densety, weldmg, piping, radiographic techniques, and code enforcement at Callaway Plant, technical discuasion of, LBP-82 109,16 N RC 1826 (1982) quality assurance / quality control program at Midland, madequacies m. LBP 82 Il8,16 NRC 2034 (1982) schedule, jurisdiction of Licensing Board in operating license proceeding over; LBP 82 92A,16 NRC 1387 (1982)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT apphcanon, withdrawal without prejudice; L8P 82 81,16 NRC i128 (1982) eatension, scope of proceedmg on; CLI 82 29,16 NRC 1221 (1982) good cause for eatension of completion date of; CLI-82 29,16 NRC 1221 (1982)
CONTAINMENT admission ofcontenuon calling for ultrasonic analysis of; LBP 82 Il9A 16 NRC 2069 (1982) concerns of former lead systems engineer for containment at Perry facihty; LBP-82 98,16 NRC 1459, 16 NRC 1459 (1982)
GE test reactor, mtegnty of; LBP 8244,16 NRC 596 (1982) integrity, rejecuon of contention alleging compromise of; LBP-82-63,16 N RC 571 (19812)
CONTAMINATION of hquid pathway during nuclear accident, rejection ofcontention allegmg inadequase analysis of; L8P-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (!982)
CONTENTION (5) about matters not cosered by a specific rule; LBP-82 Il6,16 NRC 1937 (1982) admission of, pending effecoveness of Commission rule; LBP 82 53,16 NRC 1% (1982) barred by collateral estoppel; L8P-82107A,16 NRC 1791 (1982) based on new information, burden on proponent of L8P-82-107A,16 NRC 1791 (1982) based on unavailable documents, procedures for considenng; LBP-82 Il9 A,16 N RC 2069 (1982) basis with specincity reqwrement for; LBP-82-106,16 N RC 1649 (1982) change of Staff position on en issue as good cause for late Ghes of, LBP 82 98,16 NRC 1459,16 NRC 1459 (1982) concerning safety parts of plant not involved in amenommt, admissibihty of; LBP 82 108,16 NRC 1811 (1982) conditionaladmission of; ALAS 496,16 NRC l245 (1982) consideration of tnents of,in determining admissibility; LBP-82-Il8,16 NRC 2034 (1982) deferral of ruhnss on; L8P-82-107A,16 NRC 1791 (1982) 154
SUBJECT INDEX descovery on subsect matter of; ALAB-696,16 NRC 1245 (1982) fadure or refusal to prosecute LBP 82 Il$.16 NRC 1923 (1982) good cause for acceptance oflate-Gled; LDP 8243,16 NRC 57I (1982) handwritten, admissbihty of; LBP-82 119 A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) interpretation of bass requirement for; LBP 82 Ile,16 NRC 1937 (1982) intervenors eacused for lateness in Ghns of; LDP-82 53,16 N RC 196 (1982) late-Gled, acceptance of, where factor (i) has not been satisfied; LBP-8243,16 N RC 578 (1982) late Gled, admismon of, LDP 82 91,16 NRC 1364 (1982) late filed, affect on structure of hcensing proceedin6 of ALAB 706,16 NRC 1754 (1982) late Gled, on quaht) assuN Ace and management Competence, adopted sua sponte by Licenmng Board, LBP 82 54,16 NRC21o(1982) late-Gled, responses to object.ons to; LSP 82 89, le NRC 1355 (1982) late-slied, special rule on rephes concerning; LDP-82 98,16 N RC 1459,16 N RC 1459 (1982)
Licenung Board dechnanoa to reente; LDP 82106,16 NRC 1649 (1982) new, on quahty assurance and management competence,insufGcient just:Gcation to reopen record to hear,CLI-82 20,16 NRC 109 (1982) nonspecinc admissbihtyof. ALAB487,16 NRC460(1982s of party who has withdraen from operating hcense proceeding, disposate of; LBP-82 91,16 N RC 1364 (1982) rassed for Grst time on appeal, standard for considenng; AL AB440, !$ NRC 127 (1982) reasons for requinns specircity of, LBP 82-52,16 NRC 183 (19th requirements for intervention; ALAB496,16 NRC 1245 (1981) resolution of factualquesuonsin considenns admissbihty of, LBP 32 61,la NRC 571 (1982) summary dispontion of, ALAB496,16 NRC 1245 (1982) threshold showing of bass and speciGeity for admismon of LBP 8215,16 NRC C46 (1982) unumely, anmns from TMI-2 accident, standards for admismon of, LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) unumely, standard for adnusuon of. ALAB-687,16 NRC 460 (1982)
See also Cert Gcation CONTROL ROOM deman at Shearon Harns, human engineenne discrepancies in; LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) design, adequacy of, to minimize operator error at Seabrook; LBP 82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982)
Gre suppresson systems at Perry, need for evaluauon of, LBPA2 98,16 NRC 1459,16 NRC 1459 (1982)
CONTROL SYSTEMS automauc standby kquid, scope ofinterrogatones on LBP 8247,16 NRC 734 (1982)
See also Chlonne, Emergency Core Crohng System, Standby Liquid Control Systems COOLING POND performance, admismon ofcontention qu.suoning basis for data on; LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982)
COOLIN0 5YSTEMS at Perry plant, fouhng of, by Asiatic clams, LBP-82114,16 NRC 1909 (1982)
See sino supplemental Cooling water systems COOLING TOWER blowJown, admission of contenuon questioning environmental effects of; LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982)
CORROSION of steam generator tubes at TMI l; CLI-82 12,16 N RC I (1982)
I COST BENEFIT ANALYS15 admismon of contennon alleging low fuel cost estimates in; LBP 82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) in Shearon Harns environmental report, revision of, to renect new need for power rule; LDP-82 Il9A.
16 NRC 2069 (1982)
COST-BENEFIT BALANCE contenuon, denial of, because of cor,tinued validity of Table 5-3; LDP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) contentions burden not met for certincation of; LBP 82 51,16 NRC 167 (1982) e in Final Environmental Statement, as new information; LBP-82 %,16 NRC 1408 (1982) hmitauons on,in hcenans proceedings; LBP 82117A,16 NRC 1964 (1982) operating heense, conaderation of sunk costs in; LDP 42 96,16 N RC I408 (1982)
I t niet N EPA, rslevann of Anancial costs to; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 512 (1982)
I
{
l 851 I,
m
%yy y
m
--9:,--
w
-,-,y--
w
4 SUBJECTINDEX l
1 COSTS of nuclear accidents, input-output analyeis of; LBP 82-90,16 NRC 1359 (1982)
COUNSEL conduct of, before a Laensms Board; LBP 82-81,16 NRC 1895 (1982)
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION of N RC enamination cheaters; LBP 82-56,16 NRC 281 (1982)
CRITICALITY analysis of spent fuel racks under boilms pool condinons at Big Rock Pomt plant; LBP 82-97,16 NRC 1439 (1982)
See also Supercritirahty CROSS-EXAMINATION by means ofpreheanns examinanons in the nature ddepositions; LBP 82107, I6 NRC 1667 (1982)
DECAY HEAT adequacy of Seabrook's capacity for removal of; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) removal methods, rs9pemns of record to hear tesumony on; ALAB-708,16 N RC 1770 (1982) removal, cnteria for admission orcontenuon on; LBP 82106,16 NRC f ue (1982)
DECISION concernmg holding of heanns on order retricting licensed operator overtime, vacation of; CL1-82 18, 16 NRC 50 (1982)
Licensms Board. grounds for da,ense of; AL AB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982)
DECOMMISSIONING cost estimates for $hesron Harns, accuracy of, LBP 82 Il9 A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) of Humboldt Bay Plant, denial of 2.2% petition requesting; DD-82-7,16 NRC 387 (1982) of Seabrook Plant, negauve impacts of; LBP 82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
DECON TAMINATION consideratins ofimpacts of, under N EPA:LBP 82 52,16 NRC 183 (1982) in event ofradiologicai emergency at Summer facihty, avadabihty of facihues for; LBP-82 57,16 N RC 477 (1982) requirement for financial tesources for; LBP-82 Il9A,1( N R C 2069 (1982)
DEFAULT sppropnate sancuons for; LBP-82 Il5,16 NRC 1923 (1982)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NRC authonty to review demenstrauon waste sohdificahon plan of; AL AB-679,16 NRC 121 (1982)
DESIGN adequacy and construction quahty, admission of contention seeking inJependent assessment of; LBP-82-63,16 NRC 571 (1982) objecuves of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, compliance with; LBP-8248,16 NRC 512 (1982)
See also Control Room, Seismic Design DESIGN BASIS seismic and geologic, of G E test reactor, technical discussion of, LBP-82-64,16 NRC 5% (1982)
DESIGN BASIS EVENT at GE test reactor, postulated accident following; LBP 82-64, If, NRC 596 (1982)
DESIGN BASIS THREAT at Diablo Canyon, release of restncted documents dealing with definition of; CLI-82 17,16 N RC 48 (1982) of radiological sabotage at Diablo Canyon, physical secunty plan for countenng; CLI-82 19,16 N RC 53 (1982)
DETECTION SYSTEMS leakage, admission of contenuon allegms inadequate testma of, LBP 82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) loost ;iarts, esquirement for; LBP 82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982)
DIESEL GENERATORS at Midland plant, rejeaion of contention questioning reliability of; LBP-82 l!8,16 NRC 2034 (lH2) reliability of, at Seabrook; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
DIRECTED CERTIFICATION of hcensee's request for stay or dismissal of evidentiary proceeding (,n possible suspension of Units 2 and 3 demed;CLI-8215,16 NRC 27 (1982) of question involvmg scheduling of hearmga or timing of admission of evidence, denial of request for; ALAB-688,16 NRC 471 (1982) 3 152
SUBJECT INDEX of questions adttessmg licensing Boar (s refusal to admit evidence on effluent contract lau sun, denial of, LBP-82-62,16 NRC 565 (1982)
See also Certificanon DISCOVERY asamst NRC Staff, scope of; LBP-22 II),16 NRC 1907 (19li2); LBP-82-Il7,16 NRC 1955 (1982) mandatory, suspension of; LBP-82-51,16 N RC 167 (1982) obhgations of parties objectmg to; LBP-82-82,16 NRC !!44 (1982) 1 on nuclear power plant security plans; LBP 82-80,16 NRC 1121 (1982) on subject matter of a contention m a licensmg proceedmg; ALAB-6%,16 NRC 1245 (1982) scope of, concerning professional associations of authors of a reactor study; LBP-82 99,16 NRC 154I (1982) i
'o obtam mformation about other plants; L BP-82 102,16 N RC 1597 (1982J lee alsc Pnvilege DISQUALIFICATION of Staficonsitant's opinion on ground of bias; LBP-82 99,16 NRC 1541 (1982)
DOCUMENTATION of Scabrook devianons from current regulatory practice, requirement for; L BP-82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982)
DOCUMENTS applicant-and Staff-generated, denial of mtervenor's request for copics of, LBP-82 51,16 N RC 167 (1982) intrasovernmental, pnvilege agamst discovery of, LBP-82 82,16 NRC 1144 (1982) t responses to requests for production of, LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1144 (1982)
See also Restncted Documents, Service of Documents DOSIMETERS j
thermolummescent, emergency plans for distnbution of, to emergency workers; AL AB-698,16 NRC 1290 (1982)
DR AFT ENVIRONMENT AL STATEMENT apphcation oflateness factors to new and revised contentions based on preuously unavailable.
LBP-82107 A,16 NRC 1791 (1982) as basis for late-filed radiation dose contention; LBP-82-79,16 NRC 1116 (1982)
DU E PROCESS admmistrative, for IKensed operators caught cheatmg on esams, LBP-82-56,16 N RC 281 (1982)
N RC methods for ensuring, LBP-82 87,16 N RC I195 (1982)
See also Restricted Documents, Service of Documents EARTHQU AK E(5)
Charleston, locatuation of, relative to Summer facihty; LBP-82 55,16 NRC 225 (1982) design basis for G E test reactor, determmanon of, LBP-82-64,16 N RC 5% (1982) maumum magmtude, danger to nuclear plant structures at Summer site from; LBP 82-55,16 NRC 225 (1982) shallow and near-source, potenual for, at Summer site, LBP-82-55,16 N RC 225 (1982) use of Brune Model to calculate maximum magmtude and peak acceleration of LBP-82 55,16 NRC 225 (1982)
See also Fault (s), Ground faulting, Ground Motion Seismicity ECONOMICS of decommissioning Humboldt Bay facihty; DD-82-7,16 NRC 387 (1982)
EDDY CURRENT TESTING of sleeved steam generator tubes; LBP-82-88,16 NRC 1335 (1982) of deem generator tubes at Pomt Beach, difliculues with; LBP-82-108,16 NRC 181I (1982)
See aho Testmg EFFECTIVENESS of full-power operating license not stayed pendmg resoluuon of offsite medical arrangements i= sue; CLI-8214,16 NRC 24 (1982) of manufacturms hcense pendmg review ofimtial decision,(LI-82-37,16 N RC 1691 (1982) e See also Regulations Review EFFLUENT contract lawsuit, denial of directed cervication of Licensir.a !La:(s ;uht.& sr. L Jmis.4144, of evidence on; LBP-82-62,16 NRC 565 (1982) 153 i
l N
k 4'
g i.
?
9
-"it 9
7 P-w
-- Yuc-1
-ap-e e-T w--
F 4F 1P' M'.r P
- "+-"'-'. - " '
9e'
- n-T'--*
if'"'"""
'f'-"'-
T'**r" W
-C""'
SUBJECT INDEX ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT j
at Shearon Harns, comphance with NRC regulapons for environmental qualancation of; i BP P? 11*A,
16 NRC 2069 (1982) i seismic quahncanon of; LBP 82-106,16 N RC 1649 (1982)
I See also Tra.smission Lines ELECTRICAL SYSTEM at Midland plant, hmitation on contention questioning adequacy of, to fire protection; LBP 82 Il8,16 i
NRC 2034 (1982)
ELECTRICA L WIRING environmental quahGcanon of; LBP-82-53,16 NRC 196 (1982)
ELECTROM AGNETIC PULSF contention considered challenga to regulations; LBP 82 51,16 NRC 167 (1982)
EMBRITTLEMENT admission of previously rejected contention on; LBP-82 51,16 NRC 167 (1982) of electncalinsulauon; LBP 82 53,16 NRC 1% (1982)
EMERG ENCY CLASSIFICAT!ON SYSTEM at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982) 1.tsation ofcontentions on, pnor to fuelloadms; LBP 82 75,16 NRC 986 (1982)
EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM at Catawba, reaffirmation of rejection ofcontent on concermns postulated malfuncuoning of; LBP-82-51,16 NRC 167 (1982) at Perry plant, testmg of; LBP-82-Il9,16 NRC 2063 (1982)
See also Coolms Systems EMERGENCY EXERCISES and dnlis, adequacy of Diablo Canyon's plans for; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982) pubhc participauon in; LBP-82 100,16 NRC 1550 (1982)
EMERGENCY FEEDWATER SYSTEM need to be smgle-failure proof LBP-82106,16 NRC 1649 (1982) satisfacuon of single-failure entenon by; LBP 82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
See also Auiuhary Feedwater Systems EMERGENCY OPERATIONS FACILITY requirements for establishment of; ALAB-698,16 NRC 1290 (1982) scope of apphcant's response to interrogatones on; LBP 82-67,16 NRC 734 (1982)
EM ERGENCY PLANNING brochures, form and content of, LBF-82-66,16 NRC 730 (1982) by San Onofre to provide medical assistarice for tadiation-injured in the general pubhc; ALAB480,16 NRC 127 (1982) cernfication of Board questions askms clarificahon of scope of testimony on; CLI 82-25,16 NRC 867 (1982) circumstances appropnate for reopening the record on; LBP 82-68,16 NRC 741 (1982) condinons, need to address pnor to issuance oflow-power heense; LBP-82 Il2,16 N RC 1901 (1982) contention subparts addressed as separate contentions; LBP-82-106,16 NRC 1649 (1982) contentions, denial of, as premature; LBP 82 76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) denial of cer;sficauon of rejected contenuons on; LBP-82-51,16 NP.C 167 (1982) evacuauon routes going toward the reactor, adequacy of, LE P-82-96 16 NRC I408 (1982)
Andmss necessary for issuance oflow-power hcense; LBP-82 68,16 NRC 743 f1982) for medical servT for contaminated injured individuals; LBP-82-75,16 N RC 986 (1982) for protective aGas to be taken in Shoreham Plant ticmity, admission of contention questiomng adequacyof; LBP 82 75,16 NRC986 (l?82) geographical regions designated to be used for; AL AB-697,16 NRC 1265 (1982) guidance issued by FEMA; ALAB-698,16 NRC 1290 (1982) issues, post-heanns resoluuon of, LBP-82-100,16 N RC I550 (1982) offsite, reqmrement for FEM A findmgs on adequacy of; LBP-82-70,16 N RC 756 (1982) pamphlet for Big Rock Point Plant, attnbutes, content, purposes, and adequacy of; LBP-82-60,16 NRC 540 (1982) pamphlet for Big Rock Pome Plant, order for changes in and distnbunon of; LBP 82 60,16 NRC 540 (1982) 154
SUBJECT INDEX procedures and canabihues for hcensee to nonfy emergency response organizations of an emergency; AL AB-697.16 N RC l265 (1982) protective measures for hvestock; AL AB-697,16 NRC 1265 (1982) pubhc education requirements for; AL AB497,16 NRC 1265 (1982) regulatrons, means ofimplementmg. AL AB498,16 NRC 1290 (1982) ume pened in whrh hcensees must correct deficiencies in; DD-82 12,16 N RC 1685 (1982)
See also Evacuauon -
EMERG ENCY PL ANNING ZONE (S) around nuclear power plants, responsibility for setims. LBP-82 70,16 N RC 756 (1982) at Summer facihty, shape of; LBP-82 57,16 NRC 477 (1982) description of. AL AB497,16 NRC 1265 (1982) ingesuon exposure pathway, determmation of size and conGguration of. ALAB497,16 NRC I265 (1982)
See also Zones EMERGENCY PLANS admission of contenuon relating to federal assistance for implementauon of; LBP 82-75,16 NRC 986 (19821 at Diablo Canyon, assignment of responsibehues for; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982) at Diabio Canyon.onsite emergency orsanizauon for it:tplerrentms. LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982)
Board clanGcanon of FEM A Gndings on. and standard operating procedures uncer; LBP 82 85.16 NRC l187 (1982) content of, regardmg onsite and o6ste preparedness, distribution of dosameters to emergency workers, Emergeruy Operanons Facihty, and protective measures. ALAB 698.16 N RC 1290 (1982) enforcement action for derwiencies,n,CLl 82 38.16 NRC 1698 (1982) esumaung tramma needs for purpose of. LBP 82-77,16 NRC 1096 (1982) for evacuating special populations, adequacy of assurance of; LBP 82112,16 N RC 1901 (1932) for farmers m vicir.-ty of Three Mile Island, adequacy of; AL AB-697,16 NRC 1265 (1982) for nonf ms tranuents of steps to take during radiological emergency; LBP-8240,16 NRC 540 (1982) i for offsite medwal arrangements for public, twense condmoned on resoluuon of.CLI-82-14.16 N RC 24 (1982) implementation of, LBP-82-100, I6 NRC 1550 (1982) issuance of operaung hcense pnor to resolunon of denciencies m; AL AB480.16 N RC l 27 (1982) offsne, burden of proof for demonstraung comphance of, LBP-82-77,16 NRC 1096 (1982) procedures for correcting deGciencies in; LBP 82-77,16 NRC 1096 (1982) purpose of rabhc informauon program under; LBP 82-66,16 NRC 730 (1982) rebuttable presumpuon on question of adequacy of, LSP 8248,16 NRC 741 (1982) review and distnbution of, at Diablo Canyon, assignment of responsibihty for; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982) standards for evacuation routes and times. LBP-82 100,16 N RC 1550 (1982) to cope with greater-than-design basis accident at Summer facehty, adequacy of; LBP-82-57,16 N RC 477 (1982)
See also ClariGcanon EMERGENCY PREPARf DNESS at Indian Pomt,4Jequacef.M.1-82 38.16 N RC 1693 G 982) basis of Licensing Boar "a Gndmss on; LBP 8248,16 NRC 741 (1982) onsite and offsite, fmdings necessary regardmg state of. AL AB498.16 NRC 1290 (1982)
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of equipment and facihties for implementmg r4 support and resources for;
~
LBP-82-70,16 NRC 756 (1982) of NRC Staff for TMf. adequacy of. ALAB498,16 NRC 1290 (1982)
ENDANGERED SPECIES impact ofconstrucuan of Shearon Harrfs facahty dh; LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982)
ENFORCEMENT ACTION for deGciencies in emergency plans at Indian Point, need for; CLI-82 38,16 N RC I698 (1982) for ernergency plannmg deGciencies: DD-82-12,16 N RC 1685 ( 1982) scope of proceedmss on. CLI-82 16.16 N RC 44 (1982) f ENVIRONMENTAL AN AL'.'5!0 considerahon of synergistic effects o radiation in; LBP-82 100,16 N RC 1550 (1982) r 155 j
i t
I k,
. -.. - -, -- a
.,e k
- m..
m.
I f
j SUBJECT INDEX ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT of health efTects of mditary use of plutonium derived from spent fuel, need for; LBP 82-119A,16 NRC 2069 (1982)
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS l
of plant operatica, showing required for consideration of, at evidentiary hearing; LBP 82-58,16 NRC 1
512 (1982) remose and speculative, N RC need to consider, before proceeding with a project; LBP-82-Il7A,15 N RC l964 (1982)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL adequacy of, with respect to spent fuel pool expansion at Big Rock Point Plant; LBP-82-79,16 NRC 1116 (1982)
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENT improper conaideration oflocal employment and tax levels in; LBP-82 Il9,16 N RC 2063 (1982) preparation of, for pre-construction permit activities; CLI 82 23,16 NRC 412 (1982) scheduling of heanns on limited environmental issues prior to issuance of, LBP-82-92A,16 NRC 1387 (1982) prepared by other agencies, N RC Staff use of; DD-82 13,16 N RC 2115 (1982) supplemental, on psychological health effects of operation of TMI, denial of licensee's motion asking j
about preperation of;CLI 82-13,16 NRC 21 (1982)
See also Draft Environmental Statement, Final Environmental Statemer,
ENVIRONMENTALISSUES application of collateral estoppel to relitigation of; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) before other tribunals, consideration of,in operating license Noceedmss; LBP-82-117A,16 N RC 1964 (1982) scheduling of heanns on, pnor to issuance if EIS; LBP 82-92A,16 NRC 1387 (1982)
ENVIRONMENTALQUALIFICATION ofemergency feedwater pumphouse HVAC, admission of contentson asserting need for; LBP 82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) of safety-related equipment, lack of specificity of contention on; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) suspension oflicensee's obligation to answer Boar 1 question on; ALA B-685,16 N RC 449 (1982)
See also Qualification ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT applicant's, need to cont _ar psychological stress issues in; LBP-82-119A,16 N RC 2069 (1982) consideration of health effects of radon in; LBP-82 Il9A,16 N RC 2069 (1982) required by NEPA, segmentation of; DD-82-13,16 NRC 2115 (1982)
ENVIRONM ENTAL REVIEW scope of, under NEPA; ALAB-705,16 NRC 1733 (1982)
EVACUATION dunns radiological emergency at Summer facility, defects in transportation plannmg for; LBP 82 57,16 NRC 477 (1982) of persons without vehicles, mvalids, and schoolchildren dunns radiological emergency at Big Rock Point Plant, adequacy of plans for; LBP-82 77,16 N RC 1096 (1982) of special populations dunns radiological emergency, need for plans for; LBP 82 100,16 NRC 1550 (1982) routes soms toward the reactor, adequacy of; LBP-82-96,16 NRC 1408 (1982) routes, standard forjudgms adequacy of. LBP-82-100,16 NRC 1550 (1982) time estimates at Diablo Canyon, reliability of; LBP-82-70,16 N RC 756 (1982)
EVIDENCE drawmg.ptfavorable inferences from, LBP-82 56,16 NRC 281 (1982) hearsay, in TMI cheating proceeding, Licensing Board treatment of; LBP-82-56,16 N RC 281 (1982) -
on accident nsk Licensms Board request for Commission guidance on treatment of; LBP-82-61,16 NRC 560 (1982) on effluent contract lawsuit, denial of directed certification of Licensms Board's ruling on inadmissibility of, LBP-82-62,16 N RC 565 (1982)
See also Appeals 156
4 SUBJECT INDEX EXAMINATIONS NRC reactor operator licensing, s.te-specific salidauon of, and proctonns and gradmg of; LBP-82 56,16 NRC 281 (1982)
EXCEPTIONS Appeal Board pohey concernmg enforcement of time hmits for films; AL AB-684,16 NRC 162 (1982) necessity of Ghng; ALAB-694,16 NRC 958 (1982) standards for bnefs for; ALAB-6%,16 NRC 1245 (1982)
EXEMPTIONS from 10 CFR 50.10(c) for Grst-of a-kmd project CLI-82-23,16 NRC 412 (1982)
See nho Heanngts)
FAULT (S)
Calaveras, charactenstics of, relative to GE test reactor; LBP 8244,16 NRC 5% ('982) deflecthn, technical discussions of; LBP-82-64,16 NRC 596 (1982)
Hosgri, changes in seisms design bases of Diablo Canyon due to proximity of, LBP-82-12 A,16 NRC 7 (1982) in Cahfornia, charactenstes of, relative to G E test reactor; LBP 8244,16 N RC 5% (1982) in vicimty of G E test reactor, activity of. LBP-82-64,16 N RC 5% (1982)
San Fernando, seismicity of, relative to G E test reactor; LBP-8244,16 N RO 596 (1982)
Verona, charactenstics of, relative to G E test reactor; LBP-8244,16 N RC 5% (1982)
Wateree Creek, near Summer facihty, seismicity of, L BP-82-55,16 N RC 225 (1982)
See also Ground Faultmg FEDER AL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE apphcannn of, to N RC proceedmss; LBP-82-82,16 N RC 1144 (19825 FIN AL ENVIRON MENTAL STATEMENT f
amendment of, to include Board Gndmss and conclusions. LBP-82 100,16 N RC 1550 (1982) cost-benefit balance in, as new information LBP 82 96,16 NRC 1408 (1982)
FINALITY test of, for appeal purposes; ALAB490,16 NRC 893 (1982); ALAB4%,16 NRC 1245 (1982)
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE to participants in lxensms proceedings, demal of request for; CLI 82-40,16 N RC 1717 (1982) a See also Fundmg FIN ANCIAL QU ALIFICATIONS amendment of regulations to preclude consideration of, LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) denial of 2.206 pctition requestmg mitaation of show-cause proceedmg on basis of hcensee's lack of, DD-82-8,16 NRC 394 (1982) issues, ehmination of, from NRC proceedmss; DPRM 82-2,16 NRC 1209 (1982) htigabihty of,in operating heense proceedings; LBP-8243,16 N RC $71 (1982); LBP-R2 103,16 N RC 1603 (1982) of apphcant for fulfillms emergency planning responsibilities, consideration of. LBP-8247,16 NRC 734 (1982) of applicants, ehmmation ofconsideration of; LBP 82 37,16 NRC 477 (1982) of small power companies, htigabihty ofcontention on; LBP-82-51,16 NRC 167 (1982); LBP-82 119A, 16 NRC 2069 (1982)
FINDINGS OF F ACT content of; LBP-82-88,16 NRC 1335 (1982) proposed, consequences of failure to Gle; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) proposed, segmGcance of reemrement to Gle; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) simultaneous, denial of Staff motion to recons
-r schedulms for; LBP 82 51 A,16 NRC 180 (1982)
FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM i
admission of contenten hsting inadequacies in, at Seabrook; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) '
at Shearon Harns, adequacy of; LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982)
FISH minunum standard for NEPA consideration ofimpinsement and entrainment of; LBP-82 53,16 NRC 1 % (1982)
FUNDING orintervenors, Board authonty to approve; LBP-82-Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) see also Firanciat assistance 857 i
+
i
I i
I SUBJECTINDEX GROUND FAULTING technical discussions of evulence, probability and estimates of offwts and deflection relevant to; LBP-82-64,16 NRC 596 (1982)
GROUND MOTION l
at Summer facility, calculation of; LBP 82-55,16 NRC 225 (1982) combined with surface o'Tset, teclutical discussion; LBP-82-64,16 N RC 5% (1982) technical discussione of peak and verical acceleration; LBP-82-64,16 N RC 5% (i982)
HEALTH efTects ofccenbined elihcots from coal and nuclear power t< ants; LBP 82 58,16 NRC 512 (1982) effects of radiation releases accompanying normal operation, admission ofcontention on; LBP-82-Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) effects of radiation releases from uranium fuel cycle, denial of summary disposition c: contention alleging underestimation of; LBP 82 57,16 N RC 477 (1981) efTects of radiation, litigabihty of contentions on; LBP-82 105,16 NRC 1629 (1982) effects of radon, need to consider,in environmental report; LBP 82-119A 16 NRC 2069 (1982) effects of radon releases from nuclear fuel cycle, failure ofintervenors to demonstrate need for further heanngson; ALAS-701,16 NRC1517(1982) psychological,i residents of TMI area, preparation of supplemental EIS on; C11-82-13,16 NRC 21 (1982) i See also Psychological Stress, Hypothyroidism HEARING (S) amicus partkipation in; ALAB-679,16 NRC l21 (1982) obligations of parties with limited resources; AL AB-6%,16 N R C l245 (1982) on grant of exemption, nght to, under Atomic Energy Act; CL1-82-23,16 NRC 412 (1982) on issues related to enforcement action; CLI-82 16,16 N RC 44 (1982) on power reactor units, consolidation of; DPR M-82-2,16 N RC 1209 (1982) o i site preparation activities, requirement for, under Atomic Energy Act; CL1-82-23,16 NRC 412 (1982) persons who may request; LBP-82-87.16 NRC 1195 (1982) nght to, under Atomic Energy Act; ALAB-687,16 NRC 460(1982) to be held pursuant to 189(as of Atomic Energy Act, nature of; LBP 82107,16 NRC 1667 (1982) type required for mr3enals license amendment, CLI 82-21,16 NRC 401 (1982)
See ' w Appeal Board, Appeal (s), Consolidation HF.s PRES $URE INJECTION NOZZLES at Rancho Seco,cfTectof thermalstresson; ALAE 703,16 NRC 1533 (1982)
See also Nozzle Cracking HUM AN ENG'NEERING location of multi-point recorder as Qw in; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) l HURRICANES adequacy of South Texas Project design to withstand, LBP-82 91,16 NRC 1364 (1982)
HYDRILLA VERTIClLLATA efTects of, on Shearon Harns reservoir; LBP-82 119A,16 NRC 2069 (1982)
HYDROG EN CONTROL
~
at Perry facihty, discovery against NRC Staff concerning; LBP-82-Il7,16 NRC 1955 (19821 contentions, specificity required for admissibility of; LBP,82103,16 NRC 1603 (1982); LBP-82-Ilo,16 NRC 1895 (1982); LBP-82-119A,16 N RC 2069 (1982) l systems at Seabrook, rejection ofcontention questioning adequacy of, LBP 82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) l HYPOTHYROIDISM neonatal, after TMI-2 accident; ALAB-697,16 NRC 1265 (1982)
INFORMANTS NRC Staff refusal to name; LBP-82-59,16 N RC 523 (1982)
INFORMATlON materiality of AL AB491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
INFORMER'S PRIVILEGE application of and yielding of,in NRC practice; LBP-82 59,16 NRC 533 (1982); LBP 82 87 16 NRC 1895 (1982) 154 1
SUBJECT INDEX INSTRUMi>'TATION at Seabrook, regulatory comphance of; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
INTERUTED STATE obligauons of, as a full party to a proceedmg; LBP 82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
INTERROGATORIE5 asked by non-lawyer representauve of an interrenor, interpretauon of; LBP-82 Il7,16 N RC 1955 (1982) form and specircity of objections to; LBP 82 Il6,16 NRC 1937 (1982) scope of apphcant's response to; LBP-8247,16 NRC 734 (1982)
INTERST ATE COMPACT preclusion of Lnensms Boardjurisdicuon by; LBP-82-72,16 N RC %8 (1982)
INTERVENOR(5)
Gnancial assmance to; CLI-82-40,16 NRC 1717 (1982) fundms, Board authenty to provide; LBP 82 Il9A,16 N RC 2069 (1982) in NRC proceedmss, structure ofparticipauon of. ALAB-693,16 NRC 952 (1982) pro se, showmg required of, for admission orlate-Gied contentions; LBP-8243,16 N RC 571 (1982) pro se, standard for briefs of. AL AB-693,16 NRC 952 (1982) unreasonable espectauons of, LBP 8243,16 NRC 57111982) vices, purposes, and conduct of, outside of N RC proceedmas; CLI-82-I S,16 N RC 27 (1982) who cannot present their own cases, assistance for; LBP 82-84,16 N RC l183 (1982)
INTERVENTION by an organsaanon, requsrements for; LBP-82 74,16 N RC 981 (1982) by groups opposmg nuclear power; CLI 82 15.16 N RC 27 (1982) by interested state, criteria for; LBP-82J6,16 N RC 1029 ( 1982) contenuon requirement for; ALAB-687,16 NRC460 (1982); LBP 82 74,16 NRC 981 (1982) diacrenonary, by pennoners without a vahd contention; LBP-82 52,16 NRC 183 (1982) in materials hcense proceedings, estabhshing interest for; ALAB482,16 NRC 150 (1982) late, discussion ofstandards for; LBP-82 II 78,16 NRC 2024 (1982) late, reason for reversal of Licensing Board s denial oflate intervention petition; ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760 (l982) nonumely,jusufication for; LBP-82-74,16 N RC 981 (1982) peuuons, unopposed, Licensing Board obhganon to grant; LBP-82 88,16 NRC 1335 (1982) peutions, untimely, showing necessary absent good cause; ALAB-704,16 N RC 1725 (1982) requirements for; AL AB4%,16 NRC 1245 (1982) standards for evalualms admissibihty of untimely petsuon for; LBP 8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) untimely, apphcauon of good cause factors of 2.714(a)(1) to: LBP 82-91,16 N RC 1364 (1982) unumely, by a State; LBP 82-92,16 NRC 1376 (1982)
INVESTIGATION of concealment of safety information, demat of miervenors' pennon for; CLI-82-22,16 N RC 405 (1982)
IODINE monitors,in-plant, admission ofcontenuon allesmg insufficiency of; LBP-82 75,16 N RC 986 (1982) radioactive, environmental detecuon of, followmg accidental releases of radioactivity; AL AB497,16 NRC 1265 (1982) 3URISDiCTION def* pated to Special Master; LBP-82-56,16 S RC 281 (1982) of ac;udicatory boards to reopen record on quahty assurance iss"es at Diablo Canyon; ALA B481,16 NRC 146 (1982) of Licensing Boad in operating license proceedmg over construction schedule; LBP-82 92A,16 NRC 1387(1982) of Licensing Board over psychological stress contentions, followmg issuance of policy statement; LBP-8249,16 NRC 751 (1982) of Licensms Board to hear evidence on Commission-posed emer8ency plannmg questions; LBP-8241, 16 NRC 560 (1982) ofLicensing Board to impose monetary penalty, LBP-82 56.16 NRC 281 (1982) l of Licensms Board to order NRC Staff to invesugate alleged false material statement; LBP-82 56,16 NRC 281 (1982) 159 8
i e
ya p
n,.,
g-a,,-
.,.,y_
_.m-
__q y
,~.m,
SUBJECT INDEX of Licensing Board to rue== impacts of water allocations from Delaware River for cooling a nuclear plant; LBP-82-72,16 NRC 968 (1982) of Licensing Board to reopen a proceedin6; ALAB499,16 NRC 1324 (19s2) j.
of Licensing Board to reopen record on issue pending before Appeal Board; L BP-82-III,16 NRC 1898 (1982) of Licensing Board to rule on motion to reopen the record; LBP-82 86,16 NRC 1190 (1982) of Licensing Board to rule on untimely petition to intervene even though low-power license has been issues; LBP-82-92,16 NRC 1376 (1982) of Licensing Boards to impose civil penalties, sus sponte; CLI-82-31,16 NitC 1236 (1982) over issues relating to compliance with and implementation of Board orders; ALAB484,16 NRC 162 (1982) over TMI cheating decision retained by Licensing Board; LBP-82-56,16 NRC 281 (1982) to rule on a motion to reopen filed after exceptions have been taken; ALAB-699,16 NRC 1324 (1982)
LIABILITY of applicant or licensee for material false sistement; ALA B491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
LICENSE amendment to permit reracking in spent fuel pool; LBP 8245,16 N RC 714 (1982)
See also Byproduct Materials License Manufacturing License, Materials License. Operating License LICENSEE consideration of character of; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) liability of, for material false statement; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) obligation of in NRC proceeding, to provide timely and accurate information; ALAS 491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
LICENSING BOARD (S) appointment of $pecial Master by; LBP 82-56,16 NRC 28! (1982) authonty of, to regulate proceedings; ALAB-6%,16 NRC 1245 (1962); LBP-82 Il5,16 NRC 1923 (1982) authonty regardmg withdrawal orconstruction permit application; LBP 82-81,16 NRC I!28 t 1982) authority to impose sanctions on N RC Staff; LBP-82 87,16 NRC 1l95 (1982) authority to phrase questions to fill gaps m intervenor's interrogatones; LBP-82-102,16 N RC 1597 (1982) authonty, delegation of, to NRC Staff; LBP-8248,16 N RC 74 l (1982) discretion in managing proceedings, imposition of sanctions; LBP-82-75,16 N RC 986 (1982) discretion in managing proceedings; LBP-82.t07,16 NRC 1667 (1982) discretion to defer ruhnss on contentior.s; LBP-82-107A.16 N RC 1791 (1982) entent of scrutiny of SER explanatiens justifying operation of a plant; LBP-82-100,16 N RC 1550 (1982) i judgment, substitution of Staffjudgment for; LBP-82-Il4,16 N RC 1909 (1982) junsdiction in admission ofcontentions; CLI-82-15,16 N RC 27 (1982) junsdiction to impose civil penalties, su sponte; CLI 82-31,16 NRC 1236 (1982) a jurisdiction to order NRC Staff to investisate alleged false material statement; LBP-82 56,16 NRC 281 (1982) juriadiction to refer NRC enamination cheaters for enminal prosecution; LBP-82 56,16 NRC 281 J
(1982) junsdiction over psychological stress contentions followmg issuance of policy statement; LBP 8249,16 l
NRC 751 (1982) jurisdiction to hear evidence on Commission-posed emergency planmns questions; LBP-8241,16 N RC 560 (1982) junsdiction to impose monetary penalty; LBP-82-56,16 N RC 281 (1982) junsdiction to reassess impacts of water allocation covered by interstate compact; LBP-82-72,16 N RC
% 8(1982) jurisdiction to reopen a proceeding; ALAB499,16 NRC 1324 (1982) junediction to reopen record on issue pending before Appeal Board, LBP-82-Ill,16 NRC 1898 (1982) junsdiction ic rule on motion to reopen the record; LBP-82 86,16 NRC 1190 (1982) junsdiction to rule on untimely petition to intervene even though low-power heense has been issued; LBP-82 92,16 NRC 1376 (1982) limitations on providing assistance to intervenors; LBP 82-84,16 NRC 1183 (1982) 168
SUBJECT INDEX need to notify Commission that it is asking questions relevant to admitted contentions; LBP-82-Il7,16 NRC 1955 (1982) respect to be accorded to; LBP-82 115,16 NRC 1923 (1982) responsibility to develop a full record; LBP-82 87,16 NRC 1l95 (1982) review ofintervention petition, scope of; LBP 82-88,16 NRC 1335 (1982) sua sponte authority to esamine uncontested issues; LBP-82 100,16 N RC 1550 (1982)
See also Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Decision LICENSING PROCEEDINGS motion to reopen, related to previously uncontested issue; CLI-82-39,16 N RC 1712 (1982) procedi'res to be used in; AL AB-6%,16 NRC 1245 (1982) reopenmg of, for considerauon of newly recognized contention; ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760 (1982)
See also Operstmg License Proceedings LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZATIONS required determmations for granung of, AL AB488,16 NRC 471 (1982)
MAINTENANCE performed during plant operation, limits on type of; LBP-82-63,16 N RC 571 (1982)
M AN AGEMENT CAPABILITY admission of" track record" contention questioning; LBP-82-107A,16 NRC 1791 (1982) at Shearon Harris, admission of contenuon quesuoning adequacy of; LBP 82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) at Zimmer, dismissal of sua sponte contenuons on; CLI-82-20,16 NRC 109 (1982) to operate Zimmer facihty, sua sponte adoption of untimely contentions challenging; LBP 82 54,16 NRC 210 (1912) use of safety record at other plants to assess; LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982)
M ANUFACTURING LICENSE effectiveness pendmg review ofinsual decision; CLI-82 37,16 NRC 1691 (1982) proceedine, regulatory obhgauon to conduct immediate effectiveness review of. ALAB486,16 NRC 454 (1112)
M ATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT (S) certificanon oflicensed operator who has requalified through improper assistance as; LBP-82 56,16 NRC 281 (1982) concerning certification oflicensed reactor operstor CLI-82-31,16 NRC 1236 (1982) hability of apphcant orlicensee for; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
NRC Staffinvestigation of, LBP-82 56,16 NRC 281 (1982) omissions as; ALA3491,16 hRC 897 (1982) relevance ofintent to deceive through. ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) test for; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
M ATERIALS LICENSE amendment authoruing work at inactive thorium ore mill, authonzation of hearms on; CLI-82 21,16 NRC 401 (1982)
See also Byproduct Matenals License. Notice MEDICAL SERVICES arrangements for contaminated irsured individuals, emergency plannmg requirements for LBP 82 75, 16 NRC 986 (1982) arrangements, suspension of operating license proceedmg concerning adequacy of; CL1-82-35,16 NRC 1510 (1982) for " contaminated iryured individuals," e erpretation of; CLI-82-27,16 N RC 883 (1982) for treaung contaminated iryured individu is during radiological emergency at Diablo Canyon, assurance in event of radiological emergency at Sumn.er facility, availabihty of facilities for, LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982) need for further litigation on adeqt:acy of offsi e emergency plans for, LBP-8240A,16 NILC 555 (1982)
MISSILES reactor coolant pump flywheel as potential source of; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982)
See also Turbme Missiles 161 i
SUBJECT INDEX 3
h MONITORING and assesans s ' _
2 emergencies, ability of offsite jurisdictions of San Onofre for; ALAB-680,16 NRC 127 (1982) meteorological, and does prosactions, apphcant required to respond to interrogatones on emertency plannmg for; LBP-82-67,16 NRC 734 (1982) of routine releases cf radioactivity from Seabrook, adequacy of; LBP 82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) of site seismicity, license conditioned for continued LBP-82-57,16 N RC 477 (1982) redsstion with thermoluminescent dosameters; LBP-82-Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (19C radioactivity, use of voie thyroids for ALAB497,16 NRC 1265 (1982) radiological environmental, at La Crosse facility, methodology and adequacy of; LBP 82-58,16 NRC 512 (1982) radiological, at fiaed sample points on or near Shearon Hams site, adequacy of; LBP-82-Il9A,16 N RC 2069 (1982) seismic, at Summer facility, as a license condition; LBP-82 55,16 NRC 225 (1982) system for radionuchdes at Shearon Harris, adecuacy of; LBP 82-Il9A,16 N RC 2069 (1982)
See also Accident (s), lodine MONITORS pressurized ionization, at discharge points, need for; LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982)
MONTICELLO RESERVOIR se,stnic history of, following impoundment of; LBP-82 55,16 NRC 225 (1982)
MOOTNESS vacation of unreviewed judgments because of, CLI-82 18,16 NRC 50 (1982)
MORTALffY infant, after TMI-2 accident; ALAB497,16 NRC 1265 (1982)
MOTION for lingsbie issues, procedural rules governing; LBP 82-88,16 NRC 1335 (1982) to reopen. twetors controihng disposioon of; ALAB-699,16 NRC 1324 (1982)
NEED FOIL POWER considerations in operatmg license proceedmss,justificaten for raisms; LBP-82 58,16 N RC 512 (1982) issues,litigability of,in operating license proceedmss; LBP 82103,16 NRC 1603 (1982);
LBP-82-Il9A 16 NRC2069 (1982) rule, preclusion ofconsideration of salability of plant output by; LBP-82 119A,16 NRC 2069 (1982)
NElJTRON MULTIPLICATION FACTOR in spent fuel pool, hmst on; LBP 82-97,16 N RC I439 (1982)
NOTICE ofinformation m separate proceedmss, criteria for providing; AL AB482,16 NRC 150 (1982) af materials license actions, recommendation for rulemakms on; ALAB482,16 NRC 150 (1982)
NOTIFICATION of emergency response organizations of an emergerKy, procedures and capabihties for; ALAB497,16 NRC l265 (1982) of pubhc of radiological emergency at San Onofre; ALAB-680,16 NRC 12711962) of the public of a radiological emergency at Summer facility, su(Ficieno of plan for; LBP-82-57,16 NRC -
477 (1982) program to inform pubhc of steps to take durms radiological emergency, status of, at Diablo Canyon; LBP-82-70,16 NRC 756 (1982)
NOZZLE CRACKING in high pressure irnection system at TMI-1, sua sponte issue raised on; CLI 82 12,16 N RC I (1982)
/
See also High Pressure Injection Nozzles NRC STAFF attorney, denial cf petition for disquahfication of; CLI-82 36,16 N RC 1512 (1982) delegation of Licensms Board authonty to; LBP-8248,16 NRC 741 (1982) directed to respond to relevant interrogatonesconcermns hydrogen release; LBP 82-Il7,16 NRC 1955 (1982) meetings with parties, scheduhns and location of; CLI-82-41,16 NRC 1721 (1982) need to compile enticisms of a document at issue in a proceeding; LBP-82 II),16 NRC 1907 (1982) crdered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for its refasal to name informants; LBP-82-59,16 NRC 533 (1982) 162
i 1
i l
SUBJECT INDEX owrsight ofconstruction activiues at Midland Plant; ALAB-684,16 NRC 162 (1982) responsabihty concernmg uncontested safety issues; ALAB480,16 NRC 127 (1982) responsibility of, regardmg comphance with NEPA; ALAB-693,16 NRC 952 (1982) responsibdity to comply with Licensing Board orders; LBP-82-87,16 NRC 1895 (1982) role in adjudicatory process; LBP-82-64.16 N RC 596 (1982)
NIICLEAR FUEL CYCLE appbcanon of Table S-3 to matters pertainmg to; LBP 82 Il8,16 NRC 2034 (1982) contention considered impermissible challenge to Table S-3, LBP 82-63,16 NRC 571 (1982) health effects of radon releases from; ALAB 701,16 NRC 1517 (1982) s alues ofTable S-3, vahdity of; LBP,-82-92,16 N RC 1376 (1982)
See also Uramum FuelCycle NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION agreement with State of Colorado concerning regulation of nuclear matenals, denial of peutson for reconsiderano-.of; CLI 82-34,16 NRC 1502 (1982) authonty to provide guidance on admissibihty of contennons before Licensing Boards; CLI-82-15,16 NRC 27 (1982) authonty to require threshold showing of basis and specificity for admission of contenuon; LBP-82 75, 16 NRC 986 (1982) authonty to review DOE's demonstration waste sohdification plan; ALAB479,16 NRC 121 (1982) authonty to terminate or suspend agreements with States; CLI-82-34,16 N RC 1502 (1982) dismissal of grant of review of A ppeal Board decision; CL1-82-26,16 NRC 880 (1982) personnel, considering sufficiency of, in operstmg license proceedms; DPRM-82-2,16 N RC 1209 (1982) policy statements, bindmg nature of, on adjud.;atory boards; ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725 (1982) rulemakms authonty of; ALAB 707,16 NRC 1760 (1982)
See also Federal R ules of Civil Procedure NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS apphcanon of res judicata/ collateral estoppel to: CLI 82-23,16 NRC 412 (1982) conduct of parties to; ALAB-69),16 NRC 897 (1982) obhgatson of appheant or hcensee to provide timely and accurate mformation in; ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982) standard forjudgmg lawyer conduct in; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) standard for preparation of, ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
NUCLEAR WEAPONS considerauo'ns ofcontentions on use of spent fuel to manufacture; LBP-82 53,16 NRC 1% (1982)
OBJECTIONS to late-filed contenuons, responses te; LBP 82-89,16 NRC 1355 (1982)
OPERATING HISTORY of Humboldt Bay facihty; DD-82 7,16 NRC 387 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE amendment for spent fuel reprocessing and waste disposal center, denial ofintervenor's request for hearing on; ALAB479,16 NRC 121 (1982) amendment proceeding, discussion of show cause procedure and litigation standard used to expedite; ALAB4%,16 NRC 1245 (1982) amendment to allow operauon with sleeved steam generator tubes, aftirmation of order authorizms; ALAB4%,16 NRC 1245 (1982) et Summer facahty subject to seismic monitonns and design confirmation conditions; LBP-82 55,16 NRC 225 (1982) condinons, post-heanns resolution of, by NRC Staff; LBP 82-100,16 NRC 1550 (1982) cost benefit balance, consideration of sunk costs in; LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982); LBP 82-%,16 NRC 1408 (1982) full-term, authonzed subject to conditions relating to seismic safety, emergency preparedness, and steam generator tube problems; LBP 82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982) hearings, hmitation on issues to be examined in: DPRM-82-2,16 N RC 1209 (1982) heannss, requirement for FEM A findings on adequacy of offsite emergency planning; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982) l procedures, responsibility of NRC Sistf renardms comphance with NEPA and AEA; ALAB493,16 NRC 952 (1982)
{
i l
j m
t i
i i
=
-r---
,--w
-y--->
we-m--
~
)
SUBJECT INDEX OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT PROCEEDING scope of; LBP 82108,16 N RC l8 t l (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE PROCEEDING (S) commencement of, when construction is only five percent complete; LBP-82 I!9 A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) concerning adequacy ofemergency medical services arrangements, suspension of, CLI-82 35,16 N RC 1510 (1982)
- consideration of environmentalissues before other tribunals in; LBP 82117A,16 N RC 1964 (1982) cure in defect in fairness of, through discovery and disclosure on potential conflict ofinterest, LBP-82 73,16 NRC 974 (1982) issues for consideranon in; LBP 82 91,16 NRC 1364 (1982); LBP-82-100,16 NRC 1550 (1982) jusufication to reopen;CLl-82 20,16 NRC 109 (1982) timitations on matters to be resolved in: LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) htigability of financial quahficauonsin; LBP-82 63,16 NRC 571 (1982) low-power and full-power, separstion of, CLI-82 39,16 NRC 1712 (1982)
See also Accident (s). Alternative Energy Sources, Licensing Proceeding Record OPERATING LICENSE FULL-POWER authorization of,in spite of pendency oflow power suspension and independent design verification program; LBP-82 70,16 N RC 756 (1982) conunuation of, beyond 6 months, condinoned on resoluuon of offsate medical arrangements issue; CLI 82-14,16 NRC 24 (1982) emergency planning findings necessary for issuance of, LBP-82-68,16 NRC 741 (1982) suspension of, pending appettate review; ALAB-680,16 NRC 127 (1982)
- OPERATING LICENSE, LOW POWER need to meet conditions ac.hessing emergency planning issues prior to issuance of; LBP 82-l12,16 N RC 1901 (1982) procedures for authorization ofissuance of, LBP-82-68,16 N RC 741 ( l982)
OPER ATOR TRAINING and examination, utshty s responsibility for; LBP 82 56,16 NRC 281 (1982)
CRDER sanctions for refusal to comply with; LBP-u 15,16 NRC 1923 (1982)
PENALTY civiljurisdicuon of Licensing Boards to impose, sua sponte; CL182 31,16 NRC 1236 (1982) mw.etary, Licensing Board jurisdiction to impose; LBP-82-56,16 N RC 281 (1982)
PHYSICAL SECU RITY at Fermi site during construchon, rejecuon of contention allesing inadequacies in; LBP-82 96,16 N RC I408 (1982)
PfliSICALSECURITY PLAN (S) for Diablo Canyon, publication of, with protected informanon deleted; CLI 19,16 N RC 53 (1982) for Diablo Canyon, release to intervenor's counsel of portions of; CLI-82 17,16 N RC 48 (1982)
POLICY STATEM ENTS NRC.tiinding nature of,on adjudicatory boards; ALAB 704,16 NRC 1725 (1982) on psychological stress contennons, efrect of, on Board's jurisdiction over; LBP 82-69,16 N RC 751 (1982)
POLYETilYLENE insulauon for safety-related cable, use of. at Shearon Harris; LBP 82 Il9 A,16 NRC 2069 (1982)
POPULATION DENSITY around shutdown facility, NRC Staff consideranon of DD 82-7,16 NRC 387 (1982) at Indian Point, consideration of,CLI 82 25,16 NRC 867 (1982)
PRESIDENG Of flCER over informal materials beense amendment hearing, repr-sentatives and responsibiliues of. CLI-82-21, 16 NRC 401 (1982)
PRESSURIZER ff EATERS safety standards for quahficanon of, LBP-82 70,16 N RC 756 (1982) 164
SUBJECT INDEX PRIMILEGE attorney chent, purpose and scope of, LBP-82 82,16 N RC 1144 (1982) eaccutive, in NRC proceedmss, related to discovery guidance in resolvmg claims of, LBP-82 82,16 NRC I144 (1982) to avo::t discovery, burden on party asserting; LBP-82-82,16 N RC 1144 (1982)
See also Informer's Pnvilege, work Product Doctnne PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT rejection orcontention assertmg necessity for; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
PROTECTIVE ORDER automauc grant of; LBP-82 116,16 N P C 1937 (1982) to avoid disclosure of documents, good cause for issua< ice of, LBP-82-82,16 N RC 1144 (1982)
PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS caused by viewmg coohng tower plume, rejection ofcontention concernmg. LBP42 71,16 NRC 965 (1982) consideration of, as an environmental cost; LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) consideranons in appbcant's environmental report, need for; LBP-82-119A,16 N RC 2069 (1982) contentions, effect of pohey statement on htiganon of, LBP 82-69,16 NRC 751 (1982) content for considering contentions on; LBP-82-71,16 N RC 9.5 (1982) from Commission-hcensed activitses, criteria to be met by contenuons allegms; LBP-82 101,16 N RC 1603 (1982) legal standard for NEPA consideration of; LBP-82-53,16 NRC !% (1982) reversal ofdecision accepting contenuon on; LBP-82 53A.16 NRC 208 (1982)
QUALIFICATION environmental, of electncal equipment, denial orcontention on; LBP 82 106,16 N RC 1649 (1982) methods for safety related equipment at Midland, adequacy of; LBP 82-Il8,16 NRC 2034 (1982) of pomer-operated rehef valves and pressunzer heaters, safety standards for; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982) seismic, of Waterford equipment,jusufication for mtenm operauon pendmg resolution of LBP-82-100, 16 NRC 1550 (1982)
See also Environmental Quahficanon QUALIFICATION TESTING of twipment, admission of contention questiomng applicant's compliance with intenm requirement for; LBP-82-63,16 NRC 571 (1982)
See also Testmg QUALITY ASSURANCE at Diabk. Canyon, jurisdiction of Boards to reopen record on; ALAB-681,16 NRC 146 (1982) at Fermi plant, rejection ofcontention allegms inadequacies in: LBP-82-96 16 N RC 1408 (1982) at Summer Plant, history and acceptabihty of; LBP 82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982) at Zimmer, dismissalof sua sponte contenuons on; CLI-82 20,16 NRC 109 (1982) at Zimmer, sua sponte adoption of untimely contenuons challenging; LBP-82-54,16 NRC 210 (1982) construction contractor's lack of knowledge of deficiencies as failure to meet regulatory requirements for; LBP-82109,16 NRC I826 (1982) contention seen as an espedition seeking information; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) deficiencies at in construction at Perry plant; LBP-82-Il4,16 NRC 1909 (1982) for operation at Seabrook, admission ofcontentions on; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) of design of Seabrook, litiganon of, in operaung license proceeding; LBP-82 76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) of heating, sentilaung and air conditioning system, admission ofcnntenuons bearing on; LBP-82-63,16 NRC 571 (1982) program at Midland, inadequacies in; LBP-82-Il8,16 NRC 2034 (1982) proofof adequacy of; LBP-82-109,16 N RC 1826 (1982) requirement for records of; LBP-82 109,16 NRC 1826 (1962) suspension of construction at Zimmer because of breakdown in CLi-82-33,16 NRC 1489 (1982)
RADIATION collecting and shanns information about eaposure ofrescue personnel to; LBP-82-Il 9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) consideration of synergisuc effects of, m environmental analysis; LBP-82-100,16 NRC 1550 (1982) effects on polymers, LBP-82-53,16 N RC 196 (1982) t i
165 i
1
SUBJECT INDEX e
j from normal nuclear power plant operation, esdmation of health effects of; LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982) health efTects contentions, admissibility of,in individual licensing proceedings; Lar 82-105, I 6 NRC 1629 (1982) menitoring with thermoluminescent dosimeters, adequacy of; LBP-82-Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982)
RADIATION HA2ARDS adequacy of Big Rock Point Plant's emergency planning pamphlet with regard to; LBP-82 60,16 NRC
$40 (1982)
RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION of crops and livestock during radiological emergency, hcense conditioned by requirement for pian to protect consumers from; LBP 82 57,16 NRC 477 (1982)
RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS i
off gas, at La Crosse plant, summary disposition ofcontentions alleging excessive; LBP-82-58,16 NRC 512 (1982) routine, calculation ofdose levels to humans from; LBP 82 79,16 NRC t il6 (1982)
RADIOACTIVE RELEASES denial of summary disposition ofcontention alleging underestimation of health effects of; LBP 82 57, 16 NRC477(1982) from shutdown plant into Humboldt Bay, significance of; DD-82-7,16 NRC 387 (1982) routine, admission ofcontention questioning health effects of; LBP-82 Il9A,16 N RC 2069 (1982) to Lake Wylie from Catawba, specificity required ofcontentions on; LBP-82 51,16 NRC 167 (1982)
R ADIOACTIVE WASTE disposal and spent fuel reprocessms center, denial ofintervenor's request for hearing on; ALAB-679,16 NRC 121 (1982) high-level, responsibility for disposal of; DD-82 7,16 NRC 387 (1982) low-level, material siteration of application to store; CLI-82-26,16 N RC 880 (1982)
See also Waste, Waste Disposal RADIOACTIVITY environmental detection of radioactive iodine following accidental releases of; ALAB-697,16 NRC 1265 (1982)
RADIOIODINE releases from Shearon Hams, underestimation of; LBP 82 Il9 A,16 NRC 2069 (1982)
RADON health effects, need to consider, in environmental report; LBP-82 119 A,16 N RC 2069 (1985 natural release of; ALAB-701,16 NRC 1517 (1982)
REACTOR at Perry plant, safety of, from pipe break in scram discharge volume; LBP-82-Il4,16 NRC 1909 (1982) demonstration liquid metal fast breeder, project history of; CLI-82-2J,16 N RC 412 (1982)
G E test, description of; LBP-82-64,16 NRC 596 (1982)
REACTOR COOLANT pump flywheel integrity, denial ofcontention on; LBP-82-106,16 NRC 1649 (1982)
REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEMS at Susquehanna, limitation on operation to restrict unidentified leakage in; ALA B-702,16 NRC 1530 (1982) at Vallecitos Nuclear Center, operation of, following scram / shutdown; LBP-82 64,16 N RC 5% (1982) contamination of, at TMI-l; CLI-82-12,16 N RC 1 (1982)
REACTOR CORE thermohydraulics, seismic evaluation of, at Perry facility; LBP-82 98,16 NRC I459,16 N RC 1459 (1982)
REACTOR OPER ATOR(S) quahfications, admission of contention challenging; LBP-82-51,16 N RC 167 (1982) utility's responsibility for traming, examination, and certification of; LBP-82-56,16 NRC 281 (1982) performance, adverse effects of shift rotation on; LBP-82 104,16 NRC 1626 (1982)
REACTOR VESSEL at Shearon Hams, resistance of, to fast fracture; LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) fabrication and potential embrittlement and pressurized thernal shock at Midland, admission of contention on; LBP-82 Il8,16 NRC 2034 (1982) 166
SUBJECT INDEX REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION on question of adequacy ofemergency plans, FEM A findings on status of offsite emergency preparedness as; LBP-8248,16 NRC 741 (1982) where intervenor demonstraas serious deficiencies in management of quahty assurance program; LBP-82-Il4,16 NRC 1909 (1982)
RECONSIDERATION fihng time for motions for; LBP-82-110,16 NRC 1895 (1982) of approval of amended agreement with State of Colorado concerning regulation of nuclear matenals, denial of petition for;CLI-82 34,16 NRC 1502 (1982) specificity required of mopon for; LBP-8248,16 N RC 741 (1982) treatment ofimerlocutory appeal as monon for; LBP-82-106,16 NRC 1649 (1982)
RECORD in operaung hcense proceedmss,justificanon for reopening of; CLI-82-20,16 N RC 109 (1982) on emergency plannms, reopenmg after final FEM A fi%ngs filed, LBP-8248,16 NRC 741 (1982) on quahty assurance issues at Diablo Canyon,hnsdicuon of Boards to reopen; ALAB481,16 NRC 146 (1982) reopening of,in view of Applicant's failure to submit emergency planning informationa biochure as evidenee; LBP-8246,16 NRC 730 (1982) reopenms, on the basis of unumely contennons; LBP-82 54,16 NRC 210 (1982) test for meeting burden of reopening; LBP-82 Il78,16 NRC 2024 (1982)
Seealso AppealBoard REENTRY AND RECOVERY post-accident, adequacy of Diablo Canyon plans for; LBP-82-70,16 NRC 756 (1982)
REGULATIONS challenges to; LBP-82-Il8,16 NRC 2034 (1982) difference in Appeal Board and Licensing Board interpretauons of; CLI-82 27,16 NRC 883 (1982) esemphons from, for first-of a-kmd projects; CLI-82 23,16 NRC 412 (1982) immediate effecuveness, application of, to manufactunns license proceeding; ALAB486,16 NRC 454 (1982) interpretanon of10 CFR 50.47(a)(2); LBP-32-106,16 NRC 1649 (1982) interpretabon of ALAB486,16 NRC 454 (1982); ALAB487,16 NRC 460 (1982) pre construcuon permit /hmited work authonzauon actmties allowed by;CLI-82 23,16 NRC 412 (1982)
REGULATORY GUIDES demonstration of comphance with regulatory requirements by adherence to; ALAB498,16 NRC 1290 (1982) requirements for comphance with; LBP-82 105,16 NRC 1629 (1982)
RES JUDICATA apphcation of, to NRC proceedmss; CLI-82-23,16 N RC 412 (1982)
RESTART Appeal Board directed not to concern itself with current status oflicensee's compliance with; CLI-82 32, 16 NRC 1243 (1982)
RESTRICTED DOCUMENTS on physical secunty plans, pubhcanon of, with protected information deleted; CLI-82-19,16 NRC 53 (1982)
See also Documents REVIEW discretionary interlocutory, failure ofintervenor's petition to meet standards for; LBP-8242,16 N RC 565 (1982) immed. ate effectiveness, ofdecision authonzing issuance of full power hceme; ALAB480,16 NRC 127 (1982) immediate effectiveness, of manufacturing license proceeding; ALAB486,16 NRC 454 (1982) of Appeal Board decision on bases of seismic design at Diablo Canyon dechned; CLI-82 12A,16 NRC 7 (1982) of A ppeal Board decision, Commission dismissal of grant of; CLI-82 26,16 NRC 880 (1982) of Licensms Board decision in context of motion for stay pending appeal, standard of; ALAB480,16 NRC 127 (1982) l 167 4
--p
,,w
.,m
i SUBJECT INDEX i
sua sponte, by Appeal Board, scope of; ALAB4%,16 NRC 1245 (1982) sua sponte, of final disposition oflicensing proceeding, score of; ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982) sua sponte, of Licensms Board irutsal decisions; ALAB-689,16 NRC 887 (1982)
See also Environmental Review REVIEW, APPELLATE of Licensing Board decision concerning integrity of hearing process; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) of Licensms Board denial ofintervention petition, scope of; LBP-82-88,16 NRC 1335 (1982) of Licensing Board rulings on economic issues, intervention requests, or procedural matters, scope of; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) of Licensing Board scheduling rulings, standard of; ALAB4% I6 NRC 1245 (1982) of special proceedings, scope of; ALAB485,16 NRC 449 (1982) portions of the record addressed dunng; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
RISK assessment in DES, of permanent dewatering on groundwater relationships; LBP-8243,16 N RC 571 (1982) estimators used in calculating health effects from radiation resulting from normal nuclear power plant operation; LBP-82 57,16 NRC 477 (1982)
Licensing Board request for Commission guidance on treatment of testimony on; LBP-8241,16 NRC 560 (1982) seismic, to GE test reactor; LBP 8244,16 NRC 5% (1982)
See also Accident (s), Anticipated Transients Without Scram, Cancer, Probabilistic Risk Assessment RULEMAKING adjudicatory consideration of tssues involved in; LBP 82 53,16 NRC 196 (1982); LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982); LBP-82-118,16 N RC 2034 (1982) authonty of Nuclear Regulatory Commission; AL AB-707,16 NRC 1760 (1982) to amend Classificaticn Guide for Safeguards Information, demal of petition for; DPR M-82 1,16 N RC 861 (1982)
RULES OF PRACTICE acceptance ofinterlocutory appeals; LBP-82106,16 NRC 1649 (1982) adequacy of excuse for intervenor's nonattendance at special prehearms conference; LB P 82-ISS,16 NRC 1811 (1982) adjudicatory consideration o(issues involved in rulemakms; LBP-82-Il8,16 NRC 2034 (1982) administrative fairness relative to confhet ofinterest; LBP-82 73,16 NRC 974 (1982) admissibility of contentions concernmg safety parts of plant not involved in amendment; LBP-82 108, 16 NRC 181I (1982) admissibility ofcontentions on genenc safety issues. LBP-82-lC6,16 NRC 1649 (1982) admissibility oflate-Gled contentions; LBP-82-53,16 NRC 1% (1982); LBP 82-54,16 NRC 210 (1982); LBP-82-91,16 NRC 1364 (1982) admissibility of radiation health effects contentions in individuallicensng proceedmss; LBP 82-105,16 l
NRC 1629 (1982) j admission of untimely contentions where factor (i) has not been satisfied LBP-8243, le NRC 571 (1982) amendment of Final Environmental Statement to include Board findmss and conclusions; L9P-82 100, 16 NRC 1550 (1982) analogy between Commission's summary disposition procedures and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; LBP-82 58,16 NRC 512 (1982)
Appeal Board acceptance of Licensarig Board referrals; ALAB487,16 NRC 460 (1982) appealability of a Licensms Board order; AL AB-696,16 NRC 1245 (1982) appellate procedure for filing of exceptions; ALAB494,16 NRC 958 (1982) appellate standard for undertaking interlocutory review; ALAB-687,16 NRC 460 f1982) application ofinformer's pnvilege to NRC practice; LBP-82-59,16 NRC $3211982); LBP-82-87,16 N RC 1195 (1982) assertion ofclaims c,(pnvilege to avoid discovery; LBP-82-82,16 N RC 1 I44 (1982) authorization of an organization to act as its members' representative in an N RC proceeding; LBP-82-88,16 NRC 1335 (1982) automauc grant of protective order; LBP-82-116,16 N RC 1937 (1982) 168
r SUBJECT INDEX balancing of lateness factors for admission of withdrawing intervenor's contentions; LBP-82-91,16 NRC 1364 (1982) basis for estabhshms e mistence of genuine issue of fact for purpose of summary disposition; LBP-82-88, 16 NRC 1335 (1982) basis with specincity requirement for contentions; LBP-82 106,16 NRC 1649 (1982)
Board interpretation of"necessary" as related to discovery; LBP-82 117,16 N RC 1955 (1982)
Board queshons interpreung intervenor's mient; LBP-82 102,18 NRC 1597 (1982)
Board questions to fill saps m intervenor's interrogatories; LBP-82-117,16 N RC l955 (1982) bnelins of enceptions; AL AB-6%,16 NRC l245 t1982) burden of prr,of for demonstratmg comphance o'offsite emergency plan; LBP-82-77,16 N RC 1096 (1982) burden of proof for summary desposition motions; LBP-82-58,16 N RC 512 (1982) burden of proof en NRC hcensms proceedmas; ALAB-697,16 N RC 1265 (1982) burden of proof on adequacy of apphcart's emergency planmng pubhc information brochure; LBP 82-66,16 NRC 730 (1982) burden of proof to demonstrate esistence of satisfactory pubhc nonfication system; LBP 8240,16 NRC 540 (1982) burden on late imervention petitioner to demonstrate inadequacy of other remedies; ALAB-707,16 N RC 1760 f1982) buroen on party mvokmg mterlocutory appeal via directed certificahon; ALAB 706,16 NRC 1754 81982) burden on proponent of contention based on new informauon; LBP-82-107A,16 NRC 1791 (1982) cause for dismissal of summary disposition monons, LBP 82-58,16 N RC 512 (1982) certincation ofissues, LBP-82-69,16 NRC 751 (1982) challenges to Commission regulauons; LBP-82-1 I8,16 N RC 2034 (1982) challenges to security plans; LBP-82 51,16 N RC 167 (1982) change ofStaff possuon on an issue as good cause for late Ghng orcontennon; LBP-82 98,16 NRC 1459, 16 NRC l459 (1982) circumstances appropnaie for interlocutory appeals; ALAB483,16 N RC 160 (1982) condinonal admission of nonspecific contentions; ALAB487,16 N RC 460 (1982); AL AB-693,16 NRC 1245 (1982) conduct of counsel; LBP-82-87,16 N RC 1195 (1982) conA.ct of parues to N RC proceedmgs; ALAB-691.16 N RC 897 (1982) ctvsequences of failure to file proposed findmss; AL AB491,16 NRC 897 (1982)
~
consideration of appbcant's financial quahfications in operstmg hcense proceeding; LBP-82-67,16 NRC 734 (1982) consideration ofissues involved in rulemaking; LBP-8243,16 N RC 571 (1982) consideration of ments of a contenuon in determmms its admisssbihty; LBP-82 118,16 N RC 2034 (1982) consohdauon of heanngs on power reactor umts; DPRM 82 2,16 NRC 1209 (1982) content of findings of fact; LBP-82 88,16 NRC 1335 (1982) contention barred by collateral estoppel; LDP 82 107A,16 NRC 1791 (1982) contention requirements for interventsn; ALAB487,16 NRC 460 (1982); ALAB4%,16 NRC 1245 (1982); LBP-82-74,16 NRC 981 (1982) contents of briefs for appeals; ALAB493,16 N RC 952 (1982) criteria for acceptance of untimely contentions; AL AB-687,16 NRC 460 (1982) criteria for determining whether to grant stay pending appeal; ALAB480,16 N RC 127 (1982) cross-e mammation by means of prehearing enaminahons in the nature ofdepositions; LBP-82 107,16 NRC 1667 (1982) deferral of ruhnss on contenhons; LBP-82 107A 16 NRC 1791 (1982) determination of whether a document is privileged; LBP-82-82,16 N RC 1844 (1982) discovery against NRC Staff, LBP-82 Il3,16 NRC 1907 (1982); LBP-82 l!7,16 NRC 1955 (1982) discovery on subject matter of a contemion in a licensing proceeding; ALAB4%,16 NRC 1245 (1982) discovery to obtain information about other plants; LBP-82-102,16 NRC 1597 (1982) discussion ofissue in draft EIS as good cause for filing contention late; LBP-82-79,16 N RC 1116 (1982) dismissal ofirrelevant contenuons in cc,urse of decision on summary disposition; LBP-82 88,16 N RC 1335 (1982) 4 169
~._
.~
_ _. _ -- _ ~.
f f
I SUBJECT INDEX disquehfication of a speciGed attorney; CLI 82 36,16 NRC 1582 (1982) disqualification o(StaKconsultant's opinion on ground of bias; LBP-82-99,16 N RC 1541 (1982) i efect of Statement of Policy on Board junsdiction; LBP-8249,16 NRC 751 (1982) estalWishing interest for standing to intervene in materials license proceedmss, ALA B-682,16 NRC 150 (1982) eaception to Commission's rule against interlocutory appeal; LBP-8242,16 N RC 565 (1982)
I espunction ofclasse6ed information from a proceeding; CLI 82-30,16 N RC 1234 (1982) factors providmg unusual delay warrantmg interlocutory appeal board review; ALAB-706,16 NRC 1754 (1982) filing time for motions for reconsideration; LBP-82 110,16 N RC 1895 (1982) financial assistance to perucipants in licensing proceedings; CLI-8240,16 N RC 1717 (1982) form and specificity of obpections to interrogatories; LBP 82116,16 NRC 1937 (1982) fulfillment ofstanding, insury in fact, and interests requirements by im organization; LBP-82-74,16 NRC 931 (1982) function of summary disposition monons; LBP-82-93,16 NRC I 391 (1982) good cause for acceptance oflate-Hied contentions; LBP-8243,16 N RC 571 (1982) good cause for late filing of challenge to treatment of economic costs of accidents; LBP-82-9116 NRC 1359 (1982) good cause for late filing ofcontention; LBP-82-104,16 N RC 1626 (1982) grot ads for defense of Licensms Board decision; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) guidance in resolving claims ofexecutive pnvilege related to discovery; LBP-82-82,16 N RC 1144 (198P heanns obligations of parties having limited resources; ALAB496,16 NRC 1245 (1982) immediate e#ecuveness review ofdecision authorizing issuance of full-power license; ALAB480,16 NRC l27 (1982) immediate e#ectiveness review of manufacturing license proceeding; ALAB-686,16 N RC 454 (1982) interests encompassed by 10 CFR 2.714; LBP-82 52,16 NRC 183 (1982) interlocutory appeals involving the scheduling of hearings or timing of admission of evidence; ALAB488,16 NRC471 (1982) interpretauon of basis requirement for contentions; LBP-82-Il6,16 NRC 1937 (1982) interpretauon of the term " reasonable assurance'; LBP 8246,16 NRC 730 (1982) intervenuon by a State; LBP-82-92,16 N RC 1376 (1982) intervention by groups opposing nuclear power; CLI-82 15,16 N RC 27 (1982) introducuan of new matenalinto a filing; LBP-82-89,16 NRC 1355 (1982) junsdiction of Boards over issues relatmg to compliance with and implementation of Board orders; ALAB484,16 NRC 162 (1982) justificanon for nontimely intervention; LBP-82-74,16 N RC 981 (1982) limitations on 2.206 petitions: DD-82-13,16 NRC 2115 (1982) litigabihty of hydrogen control, financial qualifications, need for power, alternative energy source, psychological stress issues; LBP-82 103,16 NRC 1603 (1982) litigation of genenc issues in individual licensing proceedineg t RP-82-107 a,16 NRC 1791 (1982) management of proceedmgs where summary disposition monons are filed agamst most contentions; LBP-82-93,16 NRC 1391 (1982) method by which NRC ensures due process; LBP-82-87,16 NRC I195 (1982) mot on to dismiss summary disposition motions; LBP-82-93,16 N RC 1391 (1982) need for discussion of alter *iatives in EIA with respect to spent fuel poolexpansion; LBP-82 79,16 NRC 11I6 (1982) objections to discovery requests; LBP-82-82,16 N RC 1144 (1982) obligations ofintervenors in NRC licensing proceedmss; ALAB-693,16 NRC 952 (1982) official notice ofinformation in separate proceedmss; ALA B482,16 NRC 150 (1982)
~
participation of amicus curiae in henness; ALAB479,16 NRC 121 (1982) particulanty necessary for claims of privilege from disclosure; LBP-82 Il6,16 NRC 1937 (1982) post-hearing resolution of emergency planning issues; LBP-8246,16 NRC 730 (1982); LBP-82100,16 NRC 1550 (1982) preparation of environmentalimpact statement for spent fuel pool expansion; LBP-82 79,16 N RC 1116 (1982) pnnciples anecurig appropnate sanctions for default; LBP-82-108,16 N RC 1811 (1982)
't 178
I SUBJECT INDEX ;
procedural rules governmg motion for htigabLt issues; LBP-82-88,16 N RC 1335 (1982) procedures for correcting deficiencies in emergency plans; LBP-82 77,16 NR C 1096 (1982) procedures to be used in licensing proceedmss; ALAB-696 16 NRC 1245 (1982) provisions for expeditmg proceedmgs; ALAB496, l6 NRC 1245 (1982) reason for instituting show cause proceedmgs; DD-82 13,16 N RC 2115 (1982) reason for reversalof Licensms Board's denial oflate intervention petition; ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760 (1982) rejection of untimely petitions to intervene even though petitioner's interests will not be repre sented; LBP-82 %,16 NRC 140a 11982) release of pornons of secunty plans for nuclear plants; LBP-82-80,16 N RC 1121 (1982) remedy for parties' failure to provide separate hsting for genuine issues of fact; LBP-82-88,16 NRC 1335 (4982) remedy for petitioner unable to gam admittance to construction pc.mit or operstmg hcense pro:eeding; AL AB-707,16 NRC I760 (1982) reopening of proceedings; ALAB499,16 NRC 1324 (1982); CLI-82 39,16 NRC 1712 (19fG) reopenmg the record; LBP-82-54,16 NRC210 (1982) resolution of factual questions in considering admissibihty orcontentions; LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) responses to objecuens to late-Sied contentions; LBP-82-89,16 NRC 1355 (1982) responses to requests for production of documents; LBP-82 82,16 NRC l144 (1982) responsibihty of parties to disclose potential connicts ofinterest; LBP-82-73,16 N RC 974 (19821 result ofiniervenor's refusal or failure to prosecute contentions; LBP 82-135, !f N RC 1923 (19.12) right of Grst discovery by intervenors; LBP-82 Il6,16 NRC 1937 (1982) nght to hearing on contentsons; ALAB4%,16 NRC 1245 (1982) sanct ons for refusal to comply with Board order; LBP 82-115,16 NRC 1923 (1982) scheduhns and location of 5taff meetings with parties, CLI-82-41,16 N RC 1721 (1982) scheduling Gndmss of fact and conclusions oflaw; LBP 82dl A,16 NRC 180 (1982) scheduims of heanns on 'ermted environmental issues pnor to issuance of EIS; LBP-82-92A,16 N RC 1387 (1982) scope of appellate review of Licensing Board denial ofintervention petition; LBP-82 88,16 NRC 1335 (1982) scope of applicant's response to interrogatones; LBP-8247,16 N RC 734 (1982) scope of sua sponte review ot' Anal disposition ofhcensms proceeding; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) showing necessary tojustify la;e intervention; ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760 (1982) showing required of pro se intervenor, for admission oflate-Gled contentions; LBP-8243,16 N RC 571 (1982) significance of requirement to file proposed nnding of fact; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) special rule on rephes concerning late contenuons; LBP-82 98,16 N RC 1459,16 NRC 1459 (1982) specificity required of motion for reconsideration; LBP-8248,16 NRC 741 (1982) uandard for briefs of pro se intervenors; AL AB4h.16 NRC 952 (1982) standard for discretionary interlocutory review; L5P-8242,16 NRC 565 (1982) standard forjudging lawyer conduct in; ALAB491,16 NRC 897 (1982) standard for mobon of pro se intervenor to adopt late filed contentions; LBP-82 91,16 NRC 1364 (1982) standards for admission ornonumely contentions arising from TMI-2 accident; LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) standards for evaluating admissibility of untimely petition for intervenuon; LBP 8243,16 N RC 571 (1982) standards for summary disposition; LBP-82-114,16 NRC 1909 (1982) stanains of an organization to intervene as representative of its memberr, LBP-82 52,16 NRC 183 (1982); LBP-82 88,16 NRC I335 (1982) stay to reopen proceeding; LBP-82 84,16 NRC 1183 (1982) wa sponte adoption of excluded contentions; LBP-82-79,16 NRC 1116 (1982) test for meetmg burden of reopening the record; LBP-82 Il79,16 NRC 20:4 (1982) t test of" finality" for appeal purposes; ALAB490,16 NRC 893 (1982); ALAb-6%,16 NRC 1245 (1982) threshold showing of basis and specif%ty for admission of contenuon; LBP-82 75,16 NRC 986 (1982)
Q%; f;s fi'mg:r r Ary d.4w.uu.i monons; ALAB49v, ao isRC I245 (19Als 171
(
f
--w
.m-y w
c-..,
SUBJECT INDEX time limits for filing exceptions; ALAS 484,16 NRC 162 (1982) treatment oficterlocutory appeal as motion for reconsideration; LBP 82-106,16 N RC 1649 (1982) treatment ofissues raised for first ume on appeal; ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982) treatment ofissues surviving summary disposition; LBP 8248,16 NRC 133M1982) unreasonable expectations ofintervenors; LBP-8243,16 NRC 571 (1982) unumely intervention petitions; ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725 (1982) use of Federal R unes of Civil Procedure to interpret NRC rules; LBP 82-82,16 N RC 1844 (1982) use of protective orders to avoid disclosure of documents; LBP-82-82,16 N RC 1144 (1982) vacation of unreviewed judgments because of mootness; CL1-82-18,16 N RC 50 (1982) validity of Commission rules; LBP-82-53,16 N RC 196 (1982) weight given to untimely intervention petition's ability to assist in developing a sound record; ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725 (1982); ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760 (1982)
RUMORS evidentiary weight of; LBP-82-56,16 NRC 28I (1982)
SABOTAGE clam and barnacle scenario for; LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) radioloscal, interpretation of"several" as used in 10 CFR 73.1 (a)(1) to desenbe design basis threat of; CLI-8219,16 NRC 53 (1982)
SAFEGUARDS INFORM ATION denial of peunon for rulemaking to amend classification guide for; DPRM-82-1,16 N RC 861 (1982) interpretauon of"severar' as used in design basis threat as; CLI 82-19,16 N P C 53 (1982)
SAFETY analysis, single-failure, at Shearon Harns, adequacy of; LBP-82-!!9A,16 N RC 2069 (1982) informanon, denial o(intervenors' petsuon for investiganon o(concealment of; CLI-82 22,16 N RC 405 (1982) ofG E test reactor, structures, systems, and cwaponents important to; LBP-8244,16 N RC 596 1982) of H umboldt Bay facility dunns shutdown: DD-82-7,16 N RC 387 (1982)
SAFETY ANALYSIS scope of, for Shearon Harns facility; LBP-82-Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982)
SAFETY EV ALUATION REPORT consideration of shutdown decay heat removal and seisms quahrgation of equipment m; LBP-82 100, 16 NRC 1550 (1982)
SAFETYISSUES Commission request for Licensms Board estimate of ume for providing its recommendauons on; CLI-82-28,16 NRC 1219 (1982) genenc, standard for admissibility ofcontention on; LBP-82-106,16 N RC 1649 (1982)
Encontested, NRC Staff responsibility regarding findmss on; ALAB480,16 N RC 127 (1982) uncontested, sua sponte authority of Licensms Boards to enamine unresolved, relevance of, to spent fuel pool modificauon; LBP-8245,16 NRC 714 (1982)
SAFETYSTANDARDS for qualificauon of equipment; LBP-82-70,16 N RC 756 (1982)
SANCTIONS available to Licensms Boards to assist in management of proceedings; LBP 82 ll5,16 N RC 1923 (1982) for failure of party to comply with prehearing conference order; LBP 82-75,16 N RC 986 (1982) for intervenor's failure to appear at special prehearing conference; LBP 82 108,16 NRC 1811 (1982) for N RC Staff refusal to obey Licensms Board order: LBP-82-87,16 N RC 1195 (1982) imposiuun of, on NRC Staff, for refusal to name informants, LBP 82-59,16 N RC 531 (1982)
SCHEDULE for discovery, sammary disposition monons, answers and Board rulings, direct tesumony, and heannss; LBP-82-88,16 NRC 1335 (1982) for heannss, Appeal Board reversal of Licensmg Board's rulings on; ALAS 496,16 NRC 1245 (1982) phased, for findings of fact and conclusions oflaw denial of Staff motion to reconsider; LBP-82 51 A,16 NRC 180 (1982)
SECURITY nuclear power plant, quahrsauons of eapert in; LBP-82 51,16 N RC 167 (1982)
SECURITY PLAN expert, need ofintervenors to obtain services of, for tesumony on contenuons; LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) 172
)
l
.1
I SUBJECT INDEX for Shoreham, release of poruons to intervenors; LBP-82-80,16 N RC 1121 (1982) intervenor's responsibihties in challengms; LBP-82 51,16 N RC 167 (1982)
See also Directed Certification, Discovery, Physical Security Plan (s)
SEGMENTATION of major federalactions,vger NEPA;CLI-82 23,16 NRC 412 (1982)
SEISMIC ANALYSIS of core thermohydraulics at Perry facihty, adequacy of; LBP-82-98,16 NRC 1459,16 NRC 1459 (1982)
SEISMIC DESIGN of Diablo Canyon, decimation of review of Appeal Board Decision on bases of; LBP-82 12 A,16 N RC 7 (1982) of Humboldt Bay Plant, adequacy of; DD-82 7,16 NRC 387 (19827 See alsoTau Effect SEISMICITY in area of GE t;st reactor: L BP-82-64,16 N RC 596 (1982) reservoir-induced, license conditioned for contmued monitoring of; LBP-82 57,16 NRC 477 (1982) reservoir induced, occurrence of, afterimpoundment. LBP 82 55,16 NRC 225 (1982)
See also Earthquakes, Faultis) Ground Faultms, Ground Motion SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS between apphcant and Staff during review process, need for; LBP-82119A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) rejection of apphcant's objection to; LBP 82-51,16 NRC 167 (1982)
SHIFT ROTATION consideration of adverse effects on reactor operator perfor' ance caused by; LBP-82-104, le NRC 1626 m
(1982)
SHOW CAUSE procedure and htigation standard used to espedite operating license amendment proceedmg; ALAB-6%,16 NRC 1245 (1982)
SHOW CAUSE ORDE R concernmg suspension of all construction at Zimmer facihty; CLI-82 33,16 N RC 1489 (1982)
SilOW CAUSE PROCEEDING as a remedy for petitioner unable to gain admittance to construction permit or operating license proceedms, ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760 (1982) institution of, to suspend or revoke construction permits on environmental matters; DD-82-13,16 N RC 2115 (1982) regarding ronstruction deficiencies at La Salle, denial of 2.206 petiuon requesting; DD-82-9,16 N RC 3 % (1982) to consider heensee's alleged lack of financial quahfications, denial of 2.206 petition requesting; DD-82 8,16 NRC 394 (1982) to contest eatension ofconstruction completion date, forum for; CLI-82 29,16 NRC 1221 (1982)
StIUTDOWN cold, at Seabroek, adequacy of provisions for achieving; LBP-82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982)
SHUTDOWN DECAY llEAT REMOVAL system for Waterford plant, adequacy of; LBP-82 100,16 N RC 1550 (1982)
See also Decay Heat SOUTH CA ROLIN A reservoir-induced seismicity in; LBP.82-55,16 NRC 225 (1982)
SPECIAL M ASTER authority of, adoption of report of, results of hearing before, weight given to reported direct observauons of witness demeanor by, weight given to report of; LBP-82 56,16 NRC 281 (1982)
' ~ " ~
SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS NRC agreement with State of Colorado transfernns regulatory autnority for; CLI 82 34,16 NRC 1502 (1982)
SPENT FUEL reprocessing and waste disposal center, denial ofintervenor's request for hearing on operating bcense 3
amendment for; ALAB-679,16 NRC 121 (1982) shipments, deferral of contention postulatmg terrorist attacks on; LBP 82 Il9A 16 NRC 2069 (1982) storage and transportanon, consideranon of environmentalimpacts of LBP-82-Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) i 173*
0 V
~
I 4
I SUBJECTINDEX storage capacity, withdrawal of application to increase; LBP-82 83.16 NRC 1181 (1982) transportation and stwage conditions reamrmation of rejection of; LBP-82-51.16 WRC 167 (1982) j j
use of. to manufacture nuclear weapons, consideration of contentions on; LBP-82 53.16 N RC 1%
t (1982) f f
SPENT FUEL CASKS i
adequacy of admimstrative controls on handhng; LBP-82-77,16 N RC 1096 (1982) 4 SPENT FUEL POOL affirmation of decision permitting modification of; ALAB-685.16 NRC %2 (1982) amendment oflicense to permit reracking in; LBP-8245.16 N RC 714 (1982)
[
amendment to increase number of fuel assem blies to be stored in; LBP-8240.16 NRC 540 (1982) eapension, hmit on neutron muluplication factor where poolis withm contamment; LBP-82-97,16 NRC 1439 (1982) l lloor, loads imparted to, during seismic events. LBP 8245,16 NRC 714 (1982) modification, adequacy of environmental impact appraisal on; LBP 82-79.16 N RC I 116 (1982)
See also Alternatives SPENT FUEL R ACKS at Big Roci Pomt plant, possibihiy of distortion of; LBP-82-97.16 NRC 143? (1982) t i
STANDBY LIQUID CONTROLSYSTEM automated. Ferry facility need for; LBP-82-102, If NRC 1597 (1982)
STANDING of an orgamzation and one ofits constituent members to miervene in same proceeding; LBP-82-88,16 N RC l335 (1982)
'of an organization, representational requirement fou LBP-82 54.16 NRC 210 (1982); LBP 81-74.16 N RC 988 (1982) ofintervenor in deccntamination proceedmg to heigate waste disposalissues; LBP-82-52.16 N RC 183 (1982) of organizations representmg members residmg near a nuclear facihty; LBP-82-52.16 N RC 183 (1982) to intervene in matenals hcense proceedmss; ALAB482,16 NRC 150 (1982)
STATION BLACKOUT a
f as a design basis event; LBP-8243.16 NRC 571 (1982) at Midland plant, admission of contention postulating scenanos for; LBP-82 Il8 16 NRC 2034 (1982)
STAY pendmg appeal of decision authonzing issuance of full-pewer license, demal of motion for; ALAD430 16 NRC 127 (1982) l to reopen proceedmg. factors considered in determimns whether to grant; LBP 82-84,16 N RC !!83 (1982)
STEAM EROSION
(
of components at Perry plant, mitigation of; LBP-82 98,16 NRC 1459.16 N RC 1459 (1982) l STEAM GENERATOR TUBES
(
at TMI l. sua sponte issue raised on corrosion of; CLI-82 i2.16 NRC 1 (1982)
I failure under LOCA condations and under normal operation conditions; LBP 82-108.16 NRC 1811 (1982) inadequacy ofin-service mspection of; LBP-82-76,16 NRC 1029 (1982); LBP 82106.16 NRC 1649 (1982) reliabihty of sleevmg process for.LBP-82-88,16 NRC 1335 (1982) safety of e spansion jomt in corroded area of; LBP-82-88,16 N RC 1335 (1982) siceved. affirmation oforder authonzing operatmg hcense amendment to allow operation with; ALAB4%.16 N RC 1245 (1982) stress corrusion cracking of; LBP 82 108,16 NRC 18]I (1982)
STEAM G ENER ATOR(S) at Pomt Beach, water chemistry treatment of. LBP 82108,16 NRC 1811 (19821 at Seabrook. resistance of, to degradation; LBP-82-76.16 N RC 1029 (1982) at Shearon harns. adequacy of desi8n of; LBP-82 119 A.16 N RC 2069 (1982) loose parts from repair of; LBP 82-88,16 N RC 1335 (1982) tube rupture events and repairs technical discussion of; DD-8211.16 NRC 1473 (1982)
SU A SPONTE ISSUES Commission dismissal of QA and management competence contentions adopted by Licensms Board as; CLI-82-20.16 NRC 109 (1982) 174
I l
SUBJECT INDEX denial of Appeal Board request to hear;CLI 82-12,16 NRC 1 (1982) ransms excluded contention as; LBP-82 79,16 NRC 1116 (1982) scope of appellate review of. ALAB-685,16 NRC 449 (1982)
See also Review SUMM ARY DISPOSITION analogy between Fedeial Rules of Civil Procedure and, LBP-82-58,16 NRC 512 (1982) desis for estabhshms esistence of genuine issue of fact for purpose of, LBP 82-88,16 N RC 1335 (1982) cause for dismissal of motion for; LBP-82 58,16 NRC 512 (1982) motsons, Licensing Board authortty to summarily dismi as, LBP-82 93,16 NRC 139) (1982) standards for; LBP-82 Ild,16 NRC 1909 (1982) time for films motions for; ALAB-6%,16 N RC I245 (1982) treatment ofissues surviving; LBP-82 88,16 NRC 1323 (1982)
See also Burden of Proof SUPERCRITICALITY nexus between new information on, and apphcant's criticahty safety analysis at Shearon Harns; LBP-82-Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) of spent fue' pool at very low water densities, putential at Big Rock Pomt plar:t for LDP-82-97, ItMRC I439 (1982)
See alsoCriticality SUPPLEMJT M. COOLING WATER SYSTEM at Limerick Station, consideration of alterna tives to; DD-82 13,16 N RC 2115 (1982)
See also Coohng System SUSPENSION oflicensee's obhgation to answer Board question on environmental quahrication; AL AB-685,16 NRC 449 (1982) oflow-power license, authonzation of full-power hcense in spite of pendency of, LBP 82-70,16 N RC 756 (1982)
SYNERGISM 1
between airborne effluents from coal and nuclear power plants, LBP-82-58,16 NRC 512 (!982)
SYSTEMS INTER ACTION at Midland Plant, ad misson of contention raising concerns with; LBP-82-Il8,16 N RC 2034 (1982) contention, mterveners plead lack of technical quahfications in objection to rejection of, LBP-82-51,16 NRC 167 (1982) need to perform comprehensive analysis of, at Seabrook; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) picadmg requirement for comention on; L BP-82 106,16 N RC 1649 (1982)
TAU EFFECT use of,in seismic design of nuclear power plants: LBP-82-12A,16 NRC 7 (1982)
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS for Susquehanna, amendment of, to restnct leakage in reactor coolant system; AL AB 702,16 NRC 1530 (1982)
- TEMPERATURE effect on neutron multiphcation factor in spent fuel rcol; LBP-82-97,16 N RC 1439 (1982)
TERMINATION of proceedms, grant of motion for; LBP-82 94,16 NRC 1399 (1982)
TERRORISM consideration of threat of, to Shearon Harns facihty;1 BP-82-Il9A 16 NRC 2069 (1982)
TESTIMONY certification of Board questions askms clanrication of scope of; CLI-82-25,16 NRC 867 (1982) in NRC proceedings, standard for preparation of, ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982)
See also Accident (s) i TESTING j
of protection systems and actuation devices, admission of contention on; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982) 1 See also Eddy Current Testing, Quahrication Testing THERMOCOUPLES m-core, at Perr9 plaat, conformance of, with Regulatory Guides; LBP-82-98,16 NRC 1459,16 NRC 11!9 (!282)
+
1 175 s
f M
w 1--
y w
y-y-.w p.--mg
..g y
ay-9y
,9, yuw97.-.,,.
,-.-m
,,-n
.-~,m
n.
SUBJECT INDEX THORIUM ore mill, inactive, license amendment sought to establish water collection and retention system at; CLI-82-21,16 NRC 401 (1982)
THREE MILEISLAND infant mortality and neonatsi hypothyroidism followmg Unit 2 accident; ALAB-697,16 NRC 1264 (1982) preparauon of supplemental El$ on psychological health of residents in area of; CLI-82 13,16 N RC 21 (1982) probability of aircraft crash at; ALAB-6G,16 NRC 921 (1982)
TRAINING needs for emergency planning, estimating; LBP-82-77,16 N RC 1096 (1982) ofemergency response personnel, admission of contention citing madequacies in plans for LBP 82-75,
!6 NRC 986 (1982) of operations personnel at Seabrook, contention admitted with limitations on catesones of personnel; LBP-82-75,16 NRC 1029 (1982) radio.,sgical emergency response, at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of, LBP 82 76, I6 NRC 756 (1982)
See also Operator Training TRANSMISSION LINES from Seabrook, aesthetic and health and safety effects of; LBP-82-76,16 N RC 1029 (1982)
TRANSPORTA'lON dunns evacuauon because of radiological emergency at Summer facihty, defects in plannmg for; LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477 (1982)
TUR BINE MISSILES potennal for, at Perry facihty; LBP-82-98,16 NRC 1459,16 N RC I459 (1982) protechon of Seabrock ufety systems from; LBP-82 76.16 NRC 1029 (1982)
See also Missiles URANIUM FUEL CYCLE denial of summary disponsuon ofcontenuon allegms underesumauon of health effects of; LBP-82 57, 16 NRC 477 (1982)
See also Nuclear Fuel Cycle VALVES power-operated rehef, safety standards for quahfication of; LBP-82 70,16 NRC 756 (1982)
VOID FORM ATION effect on neutron multiphcation factor in spent fuel pool; LBP-82-97,16 NRC 1439 (1982)
WASTE ~
senerated by decontaminanon, consideration of, LBP-82-52,16 N RC 183 (1982)
See also Radioachve Waste W ASTE DISPOSAL consideration of,in NEPA analyses; LBP 82-53,16 NRC 196 (1982) litigabihty ofissues on, pendmg compienon of waste confidence proceeding; LBP-82-Il9 A,16 N RC 2069(1982) low-level, for Shearon Harns facility, need for specific provision for; LBP-82 119A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) solid, radioactive, produced dunns normal operauons at Seabrook, means to contro ; LBP 82-76,16 NRC1029(1982)
WATER borated, possibility of stud bolt failure due to corrosive effect of; LBP 82 Il9A,16 NRC 2069 (1982) supply for Palo Verde reactor units, adecia.cy of, LBP-82-Il7A,16 NRC 1964 (1982) supply for Shearon Harns plant, adequacy of; LBP-52-Il9A 16 NRC 2069 (1982)
WATER DENSITY effect on neutron multiplicauon factor in spent fuel pool; LBP-82-97,16 N RC 1439 (1982)
WELDING defects at Callaway plant, deficiencies in; LBP-82 109,16 N RC 1826 (1982)
WELDS reactor vessel, admission of contenuon asserting need for ultrasonic testing of LBP 82 76,16 NRC 1029 (1982) 176
r SUBJECT INDEX WILDLIFE H ABITATS environmentalimpact of Shearon Harris facility on L BP 82-Il9A,16 P'RC 2069 (1982)
WITHDRAWAL of construction permit apphcation, conditions on; LBP-82 81,16 N RC !!28 (1982)
WITNESSES demonstration of expertise oi. AL A B 701,16 N RC 1517 (1982) espert, in nuclear power plant wcurity, demonstration of credentials of. LBP-82 51,16 N RC 167 (1982) proceduralcontent of Licensing Board's calhng ofindependent esperts as, LBP-82 55,16 N RC 225 (1982)
WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE documents privsleged from discovery by, LBP 82-82.16 NRC 1144 (1982)
ZONES low populaison. basis for establishing; LBP-82 119 A 16 NRC 2069 (1981)
See aim Emergency Planmns Zones b
177 i
i t
I FACILITY INDEX A LLENS CREEK NUCLEA R GENER ATING STA TION. Unit i; Docke: No. 50-466-CP CONSTRUCTION PERMil;Octocer28,1982 ORDER,LBP 82 94,16NRC1399(1982)
BIG ROCK POINT PL ANT; Docket No. 50-155 SPENTFUEL POOL AMENDMENT;Septemberl4,1982,1NITIAL DECISION LBP 82 77,16 NRC 1096 (1982)
)
SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; September 15,1982, INITIAL DECISION; LBP-82-78,16 NRC 1107 (1982)
SPENT FUEL POOL AM ENDMENT; October 29,1982; FdITIAL DECISION; LBP-82-97,16 NkC 1439(1982)
SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; December l4,1982. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82 Ill,16 NRC1898(1982) l BIG ROCK POINT PLANT Docket No.50-155-OLA l
1 SCHEDI' TING, July 8,1982. MEMOR ANDUM. LBP 82-51 A,16 NRC 180 (1982)
SPENT FUi.iPOCL AMENDMENT; Ausust 6.1982.INITI AL DECISION,LBP 82-60,16 NRC 540(1982)
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLA NT, Units !,2 and), Docket Nos. 50 259-OL A,50 260-OLA, 50 296-OLA OPERATINGLICENSE AMENDMENT; September 15,1982; ORDER,CLI-82 26,16 NRC880 (1982)
CALL AW AY PLANT, Unit t; Docket No. STN 50 483-OL OPER ATING LICENSE December 13,1982; P ARTI AL INITI AL DECISION; LBP-82-109,16 N RC I826 (1982)
CA TA WBA N UCLE A R STATION, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-413,50-414 LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZATION. August 19,1982, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; A L AB-687,16 N R C 460 (19826 I
1 SPECI AL PROCEEDING.Joly 8,1982, M EMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-51,16 N RC 167 (19821 CATA % B A NUCL E A R STA TlON, Units I and 2. Docket Nos. 50-413,50-414 i A.5LBP No.
81-463-01-OL)
OPER ATING LICENSE, December l.1982; M EMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-107A 16 NRC 1791 (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE. December 22,1982, M EMOR ANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-82-Il6,16 l
N RC 1937(1982) l CLINCH RIVER BREEDER RE ACTOR PL ANT; Docket No. 50-537 1
LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZ ATION. August 25,1982, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; i
CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT; Docket No. 50-537 (Enemption request under 10CFR 50 12)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION; Augur:12,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; CLI 82-22,I6 ; ;RC 405 (1982)
CONSTRUCTION PERMITEXEMPTION August 17,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; CLI-82 23,16 N RC 412 (1982)
CLINTON POWER STATION, Unit No. l; Docket No. 50-461-OL OPER ATING LICENSE; November 10,1982, M EMOR AN DUM AND ORDER; LBP-81-1('),16 I
NRC1603 (1982)
COB A LT-60 STOR AG E FACILITY; Docket No. 30-6931 ( Renewal of Byproduct Materials License No.
19-08330-03)
BYPRODUCT M ATE RI A L S i lCENSE P.ENEW AL; July 16,1982; DECISION; AL AB-682,16 NRC 15011982)
I 179 e
l I
a
t FACILITY INDEX I
}
COM ANCHE PE AK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Umts l and 2; Docket Nos.50-445,50-446 OPER ATING LICENSE; September 30,1982; ORDER DENYING RECONSIDER ATION; LBP-82-87,16 N RC 1195 (1982) r SHOWCAUSE; August 4,1982; ORDER TOSHOW CAUSE;LSP-82 59,16NRC 553 tl982) i DIABLOCANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLA N7,Umts l and 2; Docket Nos. 50-275,50 276 OPER ATING LICENSE; September 22,1982; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10CFR 2.206; DD-82-10,16 N RC 1205 t1982)
DI ABLOCANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units l and 2; Docket Nos. 50-275-OL 50-323-OL OPER ATING LICENSE; March l 8,1982; DECLIN A TION OF REV!EW; CLI-82-12A.16 N RC 7 (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE;3uly 16,1982; M EMOR ANDUM AND CERTIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION; ALAB-681,16 NRC 146 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; Ausust 31,1982;INITI AL DECISION; LBP-82-70,16 N RC 756 (1982)
OP E R ATING LICENSE; September 27,1982; M EMOR AN DU M IN R ESPONSE TO N RC STAFF'S MOTION FOR CL ARIFICATION OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S INITIAL DECISION DATED AUGUST 31,1982;LBP-82-85,16NRC1187(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; December 23,1982;MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER;CLI-82 39,16 NRC1712(1982)
PH YSICA L SECURITY;3uly 30,1982; ORDER;CLi-82-19,16 N RC 53 (1982)
SECURITY; October 8,1982, OR D ER; CLI-82-30,16 N RC l 234 ( 1982)
DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Umt No. !; Docket No. 5010-OLA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT;3aly12.1932; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; LBP 82 52,16NRC183 (1982) t DRESD EN NUCLEAR POW ER STATION, Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 50-237,50 249 SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION; September 29,1982; D ECISION; ALA B-695,16 N RC 962 l
(1982)
DRESDEN NUCLE AR POWER STATION.Umts2and3. Docket Nos. 50 237 SP,50-249 SP SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; August 17,1982 FIN ALINITIAL DECISION;LBP 82-65, 16 NRC 714 fl982)
EN RICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT, Umi 2; Docket No. 50441 OPER ATING LICENSE; October 29,1982; INITIAL DECISION, LBP-82-96.16 N RC 1408 (1982)
EN RICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT, Umt 2; Docket No. 50-341-OL OPER ATING LICENSE; December 21,1982; DECISION; ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760 (1982)
FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Docket No STN 50-437-ML M ANUFACTURING LICENSh; August il.1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; ALAB-686, 16 NRC 454 fl982)
MANUFACTURING LICENSE; September t,1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; AL AB-689,16 NRC 887 (1982)
MANUFACTURING LICENSE; December 6,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;CLI-82 37, 16 NRC 1691 (1982)
GENER AL ELECTRIC MORRIS OPERATION; Docket No. 70-1308 ( Apphcation to Moddy License No-SNM 1265 toincreaseSpem FuelSioraseCapacity)
OPER ATING LICLNSE AMENDMENT; September 21,1982; ORDER GR ANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPLICATION AND DISMISSING PROCEEDING WITHOUT PREJUDICE; LBP-82-83,16 NRC 1181 (1982)
G R A N D GULF NUCLEA R 3TATION, Umts I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-416,50-417 OPER ATING LICENSE; December 8,1982; DECIS!ON; ALAB-704,16 NPC l725 (1982)
GRAND GULF NUri EAR STATION,Umts t and 2; Docket Nos. 50-416-OL,50-417-OL ( ASLBP No.
82-476-04-OL)
OPERATING LICENSE; October 20,1982; M EMOR ANDUM AND ORDER DENYING STA TE OF LOUISIANNS PETS flON FOR INTERVENTION; LBr-82-92,16 NRC 1376 (1982)
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION. Umts l and 2; Docket Nos. 50 354,50-355 OPER ATING LICENSE; Novem ber 19,1982; DECISION, ALA B-701,16 N RC 1517 (1982)
HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT, Umt 3; Docket No. 50-133 DECOMMISSIONING; July 7,1982; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10CFR 2.206:DD-82 7, 16 NRC 387 (1982)
INDIAN POINT, Unit 2 Docket No.50 247 EN FORCEM ENT ACTION; December 22,1982; DECISION; CLI-82-38,16 N RC 1698 (1982) 180
l FACILITYINDEX 4
X NDI AN POINT, Unu 2; Docket No. 50-247 SCHEDULING; December 23,1982; ORDER G RANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO RESCHEDU LE M EETING; CLI-82-41,16 NRC 1721 (1982)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING; July 27,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;CLI-82-15,16 NRC 27 (1982)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING; September l5,1982; ORDER;CLI-82 2 : 16 NRC 865 (1982)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING; September 17,1982; ORDER; CLI-8245,16 NRC 867 (1982)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING; October I,1982; ORDER; CLI-82-28,16 NRC 1219 (1982)
SUSPENSION OF OPER ATION, November 26,1982; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206;DD-8212,16 NRC l685 (1982)
INDI AN POINT, Unit 2; Docket No. 50-247-SP SPECIAL PROCEEDING. August 9,I982; MEMORANDUM ANDCERTIFICATION; LBP-8241,16 NRC 560(1982)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING; November 15,1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER;LBP-82 105,16 NRC 1629(1982)
$PECIAL PROCEEDING;Decemberl5,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP-82-IlJ,16 NRC1907(1982)
IN DI AN POINT, Umt 3; Docket No. 50-286 ENFORCEM ENT ACTION; December 22,1982. DECISION; CLI-82-38,16 N RC 1698 (1982)
SCHEDULING. December 23,1982; ORDER G RANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DIR ECT ST AFF TO R ESCH EDULE M EETING;CLI-82-41,16 N RC 1721 (1982)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; July 27,1982;MEMORA NDUM ANDORDER;CLI-8215,16 NRC27 (1982)
SPECIALPROCEEDING;Septemberl5,1982 ORDER;CLI-82-24,16NRC865(1982)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING, September 17,1982; OR DER; CLI-82-25,16 NRC 867 (1982)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING; October l.1982; ORDER;CLI 82 28,16 NRC l219 (1982)
SUSPENSION OF OPER ATION; November 26,1982; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206;DD-8212.16 NRC 1685 (1982)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING, August 9,1982;MEVORANDUM ANDCERTIFICATION; LBP-8241,16 N RC 560(1982)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; November 15,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP-82-105,16 NRC 1629(1982)
SPECl4LPROCEEDING;Decemberl5,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP-82 II3,16 NRC 1907 (1982)
LA CROSSE BOILING WATER R EACTOR; Docket Nos. 50-409-FTOL,50-409-SC OPERATING LICENSE; August 2,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP-82 58,16NRC 512(1982)
LAS A LLE COUNTY G EN!R ATTNG STATION, Units l and 2. Docket Nos. 50-373,50 374 SHOW CAUSE, July 19,1982; DIRECTOR'S D ECISION UND ER 10 CFR 2.206; DD-82-9,16 N RC 3 % (1982)
LIM ERICK GEN ER ATING ST ATION. Units l and 2; Docket Nos. 50-352,50-353 CONSTRUCTION PER MIT SUSPENSION; December 7,1982; DIRECTOR'S DEC!SION UNDER 10 CF R 2.206; DD-82 12,16 N RC 2115 (1982) i LIM E RICK G EN ER ATING ST ATION, UNITS l and 2; Docket Nos. 50-352,50-353 OPER ATING LICENSE; September 2,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER;L8P-82-71.16 NRC 965 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; September).1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP 42-72,1f NRC%8 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; October 20,1982; CONFIRM ATORY MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-92A,16 NRC l387(1982)
MIDLAND PLANT, Umts l and 2; Docket Nos. 50-329-CP,50-330-CP i
REM AN D; September 9.1982; DECISION; AL AB-691.16 N RC 897 (1982)
MIDLAND PLANT, Umts l and 2; Docket Nos. 50 329 OM&OL,50-330-OM&OL -
MODIFICATION ORDER ANDOPER ATING LICENSE; July 27,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB484,16NRC162(1982)
MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPER ATING LICENSE; August le,1982; PREHEARING CON FERENCE ORDER; LBP-8243,16 N RC 571 (1982) l 188 t
i
p,'
FACILITY INDEX OPERATING LICENSE AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MODIFICATION ORDE R; October 29, 1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER LBP-82 95,16NRCl40llt982)
MIDLAND PLANT,Umts l and2 Docket Nos. 50-3294M AOL. 50-330-OMAOL ( A5LBP Nos.
5 v
78-389J)3 OL,80-429-CJ-SP)
OPERATING LICENSE AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MODIFICATION ORDER; December 30,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP 82 ll8,16 NRC2034(1982)
}
Fall 5ADES NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY; Docket No. 50-2554LA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDM ENT; November 8,1982,OADER OF Dl5MI55 AL; LBP 82101.16 NRC1594(1982)
PALIS ADES NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY; Docket No. 50-255 5P VACATION OF DEC1510N;3uly 30,1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER;CLI-8218,16 N RC 50(1982)
P ALO VERDE NUCLE A R G EN E P. ATING ST ATION, Units I,2 and 3; Doc ket Nos. 5TN 50-5284L, STN 50-529-OL.STN 50-5304L OPERATINGLICENSE; August 12,1982. MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP 82-62,16NRC 565(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; December 30,1982. MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP 82 Il78,16 4
NRC 2024 (199?)
PALOVERDE NUCLEAR GENER ATING STA TION.Umts l. 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 5TN 50-528-OL, STN 50-529-OL,5TN 50-5300L ( ASLBP No.30-447-Ol OL)
CPER ATING LICENSE; December 30,1982;tNITI AL DEC1510N; LBP 82 Il7 A,i6 N RC l964 (1982)
PE ACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWERSTATION.Umts2 and) Docket Nos. 50-277,50 278 OPER ATING LICENSE; November 19,1982. DECi$lON; ALAB-701,16 N RC 1517 (1982)
PERKIN5 NUCLEAR 5TATION,Umts t.2and) DocketNos.5TN 50-488,STN-50-489,STN 50-490 CONSTRUCTION PER MIT; $epte mber 20,1982; M EMOR AN DU M A N D OR D ER AUTHORIZING WITHDR AW ALOF APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WITHOUTPRE3UDICE:LBP-82 81,16NRCi128(1982)
PER RY NUCL E A R POWE R PLANT. Umts l & 2; Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50 441-OL OPERATINGLICENSE;3utyl2.1982;MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER,LBP 82 53,16NRC3%
(1982)
~
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. Umts I & 2; Docket Nos. 50-440-OL. 50-441 OL OPERATING LICENSE;3uly19,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP 82 53A,16NRC 20811982)
OPER ATING LICENSE; Ausust l8,1981; ORDER;LBP-82 67,16 NRC 734 (1942)
OPERATING LICEN5E. Au8ust30,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP 82-69,16%RC h
751(l*82)
OPERATING LICENSE;5eptember15,1982 MEMORANDUM ANDORDER,LBP 82 79,16 h RC ll!6 (1982)
Oir ERATING LICENSE;O:tober6,1982.MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER;LBP 82fil9,16 NRC 1355(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; October 8,1982;MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER.LBP 82-90,16 SRC 1359(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; October 29,1982,MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDF.R LBP-82A8,16 NRC 1454(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE;Noverober 8,1982 MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP-82402.16 NRC 1597 (1982)
OPERATING LICEN3E; November 15,1982;MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER;LBP-82-104.16 N RC 1626 (1982)
OPERATINGLICENSE; December 13,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP-82-Il0 to N RC l895 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE;Decemberl5.1982. MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; ALAB 706.16 N RC 1754 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE;Decemtwr22,1982 MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP-82 Il4,16 N RC 1909 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; December 23,1982. MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP 82-Il7,16 N RC 1955 (1982) 182
FACILITY INDEX OPER ATING LICENSE; December 30,1982. MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP 82 Il9,16 N RC 2063 (1982)
PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION; Docket No. 50-293 t EA 81-63)
OPERATING LICENSE MODIFICATION, July 30,1982; ORDER,CL18216,16 NRC 44 (t982)
POINT BE ACH NUCLE A R PLANT, Umt i; Docket No. 50-266-OLA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT,0ciober l.1982,DECl510N, ALAB-696,16 NRCl245 (1982)
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, Umt i; Docket No. 50-266-OL A 2 OPER ATING LICENSE AM ENDMENT; December l0.1982; 5PECI AL PREHE ARING CONFERENCE ORDEft;LDP 82108,16 NRC l811 t1982)
POINT BE ACH NUCLEAR PL ANT, Umts I and 2, Docket Nos 50 266-OLA,50-301-OLA OPERATINGLICENSE AMENDHENT;Octoberl.1982,MEMORANDOM ANDORDER; LBP 82-88,16 NRC 1335 (1982)
R. E. GIN N A NUCLEA R POWER PL A NT; Docket No 50 244 (10CFR 2.206)
OPE R A FING LICENSE; October 8,1982; DIRECTOR 4 DECISION UN D ER 10 CFR 2.206; DD 82-II,16NRCl473(1982)
RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENER ATING STATION; Docket No. 50 312 SP SPECIALPROCEEDING; November 23,1982, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; AI AB-703,16 NRC153)(1982)
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENER ATING STATION, Umts 2 and 3. Docket Nos. 50 361 OL,50162 0L OPERATING LICENSE; July 16,1982; DECISION; ALAB 680,16 NRC 127 (1962)
SA N ONOFRE NUCLEA R GEN ERATING STATION, Umts 2 and ); Docket Nos. 50-361-OL,50-3624L OPER ATING LICENSE, July 16,1982; ORDER; CLI-82 14,16 N RC 24 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; Ahsust 6,1982;MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER;LBP 82 60A.16 NRC 555(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE;5eptember 24,1982, ORDER;CLI-82 27,16 NRC 883 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE, November 19,1982;CORRECTEDMEMORANDUM ANDORDER; CLI-82 35,16NRC1510(1982)
SEABROOK NUCLEA R 5TATION, Umts t and 2, Docket Nos. 50-443,50-444 SHOWCAUSE; July 6,1982;DlRECTOR'S DEC15 TON UNDER 10CFR 2.206 DD-82 8.16NRC 394(1982)
SEABROOK NUCLEAR 5TATION, Umts l and 2. Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50-444-OL ( ASLBP No.
82 471-C2 OL)
OPERATING LICEN5E;5eptember13,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDEA;LBP-82 76,16 NRC1029(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; November i7,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82106,16 NRC 16490982)
$HEARON H ARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT,Umts l and 2;Docke: Nos. 50-400-OL,50401 OL (ASLBPNo.82-468 01 OLV OPERATING LICENSE;5eptember22,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP-82 Il9A,16 NRC2069(1982)
JHOREH AM NUCLEAR POWER STATION. Unit t; Docket No. 50 322 OL OPERATING LICENSE; July 30,1982; ORDER;CLI 8217,16 NRC 48 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE;5eptember),1982; MEM 3RANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-82-73,16 NRC974(1982)
{
OPERATING LICENSE;5eptember 7,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER;LBP 82 75,16 I
NRC986(1982)
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWERSTATION UnitI;Docke:No.50 322 OL(EmergencyPlanmns)
OPERATING LICENSE;5cptember22,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP 82-82,16 i
NRCll44(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; November 19,1982; M EMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON LICEN51NG BOARD AUTHORITY TO DIRECTTH ATINITIAL EX AMIN ATION OF THE PRE-FILED TESTIMONY BF CONDUCTED BY M EANS OF PREHEARING EXAMIN ATION5; LBP-82-107,16 N RC l667 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; December 22,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONFIRMING RULING ON SANCTIONS FOR INTERVENORS* REFUSAL TO COM PLY WITH ORDER TO PARTICIPATE!N PREHEARING F.XAMIN ATIONS LBP-82 Il5.16NRCI923(1982) 6 l
I 183
FACILITY INDEX SHOREH AM NUCLEAR POWER 5TATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50 322 OL 2 (A5LBP No.
82-47845-OL)
SECU RITY; 5eptember 16,1982; M EMOR A N DU M, OR D E R A N D NOTICE OF 5 ECON D IN CAMERACONFERENCEOFCOUNSEL;LBP 82 80,16 NRC1121(1982)
SK AGIT/H ANFORD NUCLEA R POWER PROJECT, Umts l and 2, Docket Nos. 50-522,50 523 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT;2uly 27,1982. MEMORANDUM ANDORDER, ALAB483.16 NRC I60(1982)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT;5eptember3,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP-82 74,16 NP.C981 (1982)
CON 5TRUCTION PERMIT; October 29,1982; DECISION, AL AB-700,16 N RC 1329 (1912)
SOUTH TEX AS PROJECT Umts I and 2, Docket Nos STN 50-4980L,5TN 50-4990L OPERATINO LICENSE;Octoberl5,IS?2; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP-82-91.16NRC 4
1364(1982)
SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRICSTATION,Umts t and 2);6 xket Nos.50 387-OL,50-388 OL OPER ATING LICENSE.5eptember28,1982; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER; ALAB-69) 16 NRC 952 (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE. November 22,1982. MEMORANDUM AND 5 't; AL AB 702.16 NRC 1530(1982)
THR EE MILE 15 LAND NUCLEAR 5TATION. Umt No. l; Docket No. 50-289 RESTART, July 16,1982, ORDER;CLI-4212.16hRCi t1982);CLI-82 83. 4 RC 21 (1982)
RESTART; July 27,1982,PARTIALINEIAL DEC15 ION LBP-82 56,16N.C28t (1982)
RESTART;5eptember29.1982;MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER;I.BP 82 86,16NRC1190(1982)
TH R EE M" E l5 LAND NUCLEAR STAtlON, Umt No.1; Docket No. 50459 (Design issues)
REST ART; December 29,1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; AL AB-70s,16 NRC l770 (1982)
THREE MILE I5 LAND NUCLEAR 5TATION Umt No. I; Docket No.50 289(Environmentailssues)
RESTART; December 10,1982;DEC1510N; ALAB 705,16 NRCl733(1982)
THREE MILEISLAND NUCLEAR 5TATION,Umt No. l Docke:No.50 289-5P RESTART; Au8ust 2,1982,MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB485.16 NRC449 (1982)
RESTART;Octoberl4,1982, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER CL1-82 31,16NRCl236(1982)
RESTART; October 22,1982, ORDER.CLI-82 32,16 NRC l24)(1982)
THREE MILE l5 LAND NUCLEAR 5T ATION.Umt No. l; Docket No. 50 289-SP IEmerRencv Plannms)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING.O-tober 22,1982; DECISION, AL AB-697.16 N RC l265 (1982);
ALAB498,16 NRC l290 (1982)
THREE MILF t5 LAND NUCLEAR 5TATION Umt No. I; Docket No. 50 289-SP IMana8ement Phase)
RESTAR COctober27,1982;MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER, ALAB-699,16 NRCl324(1982)
TilREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION Umt No. 2; Docket No. 50 320 OPER ATING LICENSE; November 19,1982 DECISION; ALAB-701,16 NRC 1517 (1982)
THREE MR F. lf L A ND NUCLEAR 5TATION, Umt No 2. Docket No. 50-320-OL A OPERA flNG LICENSE AMENDMNT;5eptemberl4,1982;DEC15 TON; ALAB492.16NRC92t (1982)
UCLA RESEARCH REACTOR. Docket No. 50-142 OL OPER ATING LICENSE RENEW AL; October 22,1982; MEMORANDUM AN D ORDER; LBP-82-93.16 N RC IMI (1982)
OPER ATING LICEN5E RENEW AL; November l.1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LB P-82-99,16 N RU l 541 (1982)
VALL ECITDS NUCLE A R CENTE R - G E N E R AL ELECTRIC TEST R EACTOR. Docket No. 50-70-SC SHOW CAUSE, August 16,1981,1NITI AL DECI510N; LBP-82-64,16 NRC 5% (1982)
VIRGIL C,50MvER NUCLEAR 5TATiON Umt I; Pocket No. 50-395 CL OPERATING LICENSE; July 20,1982; P ARTIA! INITI AL DECISION; LBP 82 55,16 NRC 225 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE; Ausnst4,1982;5UPIT EMENTAL PAhtlALINITIAL DECISION, LBP-82 57,16 NRC477(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE;5eptember24,1982 MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP-82 84,16 NRC l!83 (1982)
OPERATING LICENSE;5eptember 28,1982; MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER; ALAS 494,16 N RC 958 (1982) 184 8
i I
FACILITY INDEX WATERf ORD 5 TEAM ELECTRIC $T ATION.Umt). Docket No. 50 382 OL OPERATING LICEN5E. Au8ust l7.1982,MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER.LBP 82 66.16 SRC 710 (1982)
W ATE R FOR D STE AM ELECTRIC 5T ATION, Um: 3. Docket No. 50-3824L OPERATING LICENSE; November).1982 PARTIALINITIAL DEC1510N.LBP 82-100.16 NRC 1550(1982)
OPERATING LICENSE;Decemberld 1982.MEMOR ANDUM ANDO". A.LBP 82 ll2.16 N RC 1901 (1982)
REM AN9. September 7.1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-690. i6 NRC 89? (1982)
WESTCHICAGO R ARE E ARTH5 FACILITY, Docket No 40 206!
M ATE RI ALS L! CENSE AMENDMENT; Au8ust 6.1982. ORDER.CL182-21.16 NRC401 (1982)
% ESTERN NEW )ORK NUCLEAR 5ERVICE CENTER. Docket No. 50 201-OLA OPER ATINGLICEN5E AMENDMENT July 8.1982 MEMORANDUM ANDORDER.
A L AB-679,16 N RC 12111982)
%ILLIAM H ZIMMEa NUCLEAR POW ER STATION.Unn No.1; Docket No. 50-358 D150U Allf ICATION; November 24,1932.OR DER. CLI 82 36.16 N R C 1512 f l982)
OPERATING LICENSE; July 30.1982; ORDER.CLl-82 20.16 NRC 109 (1982)
OPER ATING LICENSE. December 23.1982.OADER.CLI 82-40.16 N RC 1717 (1982)
WILLI AM H.ZIMMER NUCLE AR POWER 5TATION; Docket No 50-358 (E A 82129)
SHOW CAUSE; November 12.1982 ORDE R TO 5HOW CAUSE A N D ORDER IM MEDI ATELY SU5PENDING CONSTRUCTION.CL1-82 33.16 NRC 1489 (1982)
WILLIAM H ZIMMFR NCCLE AR POWER 5T ATION.Umt i; Docket No 50 358-OL OPERATING LICEN5E;Julyl5.1982. MEMORANDUM ANDORDER;LBP 82 54.16NRC210 (1982)
OPERATING LICEN5E. Au8ust24.1982.MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER.LBP-82-68,16NRC 741(1982)
% PP55 NUCLE A R PROJECT Nos.1 & 2 Dotket Nos. 50-397,50-460 CONSTRUCTION PERMITEXTEN5!ON. October 8.1982; ORDER;CLI-82 29,16 NRCl221 (1982) s i
185 1
I t
i i
i
- -