ML20081C126

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances. January - March 1983

ML20081C126
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/31/1983
From:	NRC
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V17-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V17-I1, NUDOCS 8310310121
Download: ML20081C126 (65)

Text

_.

.1 1

9 NUREG4750

.Yg Vol.17 w.

index 1 4

[

v m, ::ww, p }{,}...s n..M y&. 4," n.L..!, p~.*;_;s },2. '

u ;,. u. m x i n.. a ',:," 4,W ^"

i'..t g'.'3.'[. J.*:'+

m

-~ a

~

s

.. ~

r.

uw^ *.

y,. -

,,..,e s,

1 NA.. INDEXES JOMW~pF L.

- y; y

.-,u...

n -,: ',.. -.Q * ~. 6 f,. Q ' ', y i,

, _'n q,, _.

f< y.

• w, s.

~~

I MNUC.LEARlREGULATORT w..-=.

v UANCESj a.

. c~,

lsS N.,.OMMISSIONj,fm.

,~M 2-Q.,.-

.,.N n;

..m l

w,

p~ w-...

Y, ~..,, i i,

* 4

...,,::g.

t

'S*[z.??

., *, -sl~

.c.

A'N..

a&w.. -' '..

4,7,' 1: *.. *,Y;%

<.o* ("p,... -. - - e,y :

.4 e w' k..'C Sk < ? >,Q%.

. %p t

.x

,y(e~- y. h % x 4M h,;. c

.,p. p. y,g $:p;.;;19832b,s!.M t %,,&:-4;.

v w,

> ; ; ~., 7:

y w-g n.-

e. y

.a wm

.wr

-9

v. '.?.,

&fMe;w s M;fRe "., %: @:

,r>

.c,c : %. g - @, &,

r.

- o

.. ~,

n

... a o n

w ;'N.%.e*T. %f h..I '.m,M. y e.

.~

u.. a =...

.m.

*L"-

s

. w,; a..,. " : d.n' y

y....

L w' w". s ~. [.,."e'.,>

sp p~ G. v

>3.,- -i s

)<

, %:q

. m_ y

.-y-

-r-Qg> r'5 Y ',.h.Nf!?$&;m '.W

,7.';ff. %,Q.,y w((,':'l~,.&

v.pnct.t +r-@t. ' ?

n.,.. e,,c / ' -'

g-

^,r. s._c ar

- n, ~. - m.n,

y ~

REQ

, j, h0**.:)l\\;l rw x s:Nx i

p_

. s

e.. y,,a..n e.. t.-,)

,

n-1;~ ' ' Q

2Y. %:~:G i

...s w,..?H f.A l l,.

.V, Y,,..

. ;... s

-.. " ^

c.

y., w+ n./,,..:n-

s J 4 ;a 4..h...

c i.s.

w-.,

,' l.,..f.'W,.

W.L ~

pr.yy ' -

w 3

%g", y%%%s; 'rt;W"1

\\.*, :*.* e,l< n-

yQq, u-

[rA_ g.a u. 5

. W <.

~

.. s w_

pri y ^..

. < O y @:

p

.:?.% G,.pi ;_<*n ;.z ?

y CV>

9:g

~,_L:=.:F.a.m:

??. l..

.1.

- V-

.$h.f.h.nuh~,z Y

?,

W:;MM M 5p:;~-A-e, W

M%~: e

%. %... %.x. R.#

w 32MgMS; h;5%o:

c Mid$DG

$6N.,

7: M % },k f k.,h y

Of]

a.

n i

.N 9 ;- %.:y 1

.~

r. 6.,:

$ w : e n ;Ogk

..1A.x,#,pr u.n wm. h-a.1

.as

.A

/

d 7 w e_.

/f^'

M 4 i:np 4. 6 c3g;.

e-r~.,...- mc.' ' L.s.. A, a.

.m.n w. m % a!, NJT M g<, y 'w :.y r4. e;:

.m e

mm:... /.. %

rym 4 3

'... ~-

7~.c....

% >,C

. yL * ' ;..

,, } ' a d,7l w2 N <

~.w e.,Z.y M.

%>m ~-

g-

}

+

f p

h 0310310121 830331 j"

PDR NUREG PDR

~'

0750 R

.~

. -... = = = - - ^ -

• .Y N

~~~,.,w,_,.

~~wr-

^ " "

• --m%-

"~**%._m,

~-%s.m

O NUR EG-0750 Vol.17 Index 1 g,4 sf2M c u...

INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES January - March 1983 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Foreword Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Pan'el (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bond Panel (LBP), the Administrative law Judge (ALI), 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 pagination)

Issuance number issues raised by appellants legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes)

Name of facility, Docket number Subject matter ofissues and/or rulings Type of hearing (for construction permit,operatinglicense,etc.)

Type of issuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.).

Rese information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as follows:

1. Case 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.

2. Digests and Headers De headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows:

the Commissl<n (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 issuance covers more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically.

6..

v1 WC:.

i *g4

...m

O

3. Legal Citations Index l

h b

his index is divided into four parts and c$nsists of alphabetical or alphanumerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. These L

6 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.

De references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular issuance. Rese phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.

4. Subject Index Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects covered in the issuances. De subject headings are followed by phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the issuances being indexed. Rese phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.

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

t

[$

4#

iv hs

O

,w O'd[

- 9dc CASE NAME INDEX ARIZON A PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al.

O?ERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket Nos. STN-50-528-OL, STN-50 529 OL, STN-50-530-OL; ALAB-713,17 NRC 83 (1983)

CINCINNATI G AS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2,206 Docket No. 50-358 (10 CFR 2.206): DD 83-2,17 NRC 323 (1983)

CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; ORDER; Docket No. 50-358; CLI 83-4,17 NRC 75 (1983)

OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-358-OL; LBP-83-12,17 NRC 466 (1983)

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et al.

OPERATING LICENSE, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441-OL (ASLBP No. 81-457-04-OL); LBP-83 3,17 NRC 59 (1983); LBP-83-18,17 NRC 501 (1983)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket Nos.

50-373,50-374 (10 CFR 2.206); DD 83-1,17 NRC 319 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket Nos. 50 295,50-304; DD 83-4,17 NRC 513 (1983)

I CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK O

SPECI AL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50 247 SP ( ASLBP No.

(;

81-466-03 SP); LBP 83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983); LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY y

REM AND; STATEMENT OF THE COMMISSION; Docket No. 50-329-CP; CLI-83 2,17 NRC 69 (1983)

/

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al.

W OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-413,50-414 (ASLBP No. 81-463-01-OL); LSP-83-8A,17 NRC 282 (1983); LBP 83-8B,17 NRC 291 (1983) v GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY SHOW CAUSE; DECISION, Docket No. 50-70-SC; ALAB-720,17 NRC 397 (1983) i HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket Nos. 50-498,50-499; DD 83-5,17 NRC 519 (1983)

ISOTOPE MEASUREMENTS LABORATORIES,INC.,3304 Commercial Avenue, Northbrook, Illinois 60062 CIVIL PENALTY; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TERMINATING CIVIL PEN ALTY PROCEEDING; License No. 12-13568-01 (EA 81-32); AL3 83-1,17 NRC 313 (1983)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l

OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON TOWN OF SOUTH AMPTON'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE AS AN INTERESTED MUNICIPALITY PURSUANT TO 10 CFR {2.715(c); Ducket No. 50-322-OL (Emersency 1

Plannin8); LBP-8313,17 NRC 469 (1983) i M AINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY l

SUSPENSION OF OPERATION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket No.

l 50-309 (10 CFR 2.206); DD-83-3,17 NRC 327 (1983)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.

Fc*,<N RESTART; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Docket No. 50-289 tDewsn Issues); ALAB 715,17 NRC 102 (1983)

)

k(.*[1 RESTART; ORDER; Docket No. 50-289-SP, CLt-83 5,17 NRC 331 (1983)

I y@kO 1

.,,f p :j l

I I

CASE NAME INDEX SPECIAL PROCEEDING; ORDER; Docket No. 50-289-SP; CLI-83-3,17 NRC 72 (1983);

j CLI-83-7,17 NRC 336 (1983) i NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES,INC., and NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER CONFlRMING TERMIN ATION OF PROCEEDING; Docket No. 50-201 OLA; LBP-8315,17 NRC 476 (1983)

OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEM 3 G

M ANUFACTURING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket No. STN 50-437-ML; AL AB-718,17 NRC 384 (1983)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 4 ANTITRUST; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. P-564-A ( ASLBP No.

76-334-07-AN); LBP-83-2,17 NRC 45 (1983) pp PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE; MFMORANDUM AND ORDER REJECTING TABLE 5-3 FUEL-CYCLE CONTENTIOM; Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-353 OL; LBP-83-6,17 NRC 153 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER DENYING FOE MOTION TO RECONSIDER; Docket Nos.

J g 50 352-OL,50-353-OL; LBP-8314,17 NRC 47) (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; PARTir.L INITI AL DFCISION, Docket Nos. 50 352-OL, 50-353-OL

( ASLBP No. 81-465-07 0L); LBP 83-II,17 NRC 413 (1983)

PORTLAND GENER AL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMOP.ANDUM AND ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING; Docket Nos. 50-514-CP,50-515-CP ( ASLBP No.75-281 10-CP); LBP 83-7,17 NRC 157 (1983)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK i

SPECIAL PROCEEDING. MEMORANDUM ANO ORDER; Docket No 50-286-SP (ASLBP No.

81466-03-SP); LBP 831,17 NRC 33 (1983); LUP-83 5,17 NRC 134 (1983)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE, et at OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50 444-OL

( ASLBP No. 82-47102 OL); LBP-83-9,17 NRC 403 (1983) LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490 (1983)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOM A, ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC COOPER ATIVE, INC., WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPER ATIVE, INC.

WITHDRAW AL OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION; MEMORANDUM AND i

ORDER; Docket Nos. STN 50-556 STN 50-557 ( ASLBP No. 76-304-02-CP); LBP-83-10,17 NRC 410 (1983)

PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, et al.

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50 522, 50-523.

ALAB-712,17 NRC 81 (1983)

SOUTH CAROLIN A ELECTRIC & G AS COMPANY, et al.

OPER ATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket No. 50-395-OL; ALAB 710,17 NRC 25 (1983) t SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY,et al.

OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-361-OL,50-362-OL; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al.

l OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-361-OL,50-362-OL t

(ASLBP No. 77-352-04-OL); LBP-83-8C,17 NRC 297 (1983); LBP-83-8D 17 NRC 306 (1983)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-259 OL,50-260-OL, l

50-296-OL; ALAB-711,17 NRC 30 (1983) 3 TEXAS UTILITIES GENER ATING COMPANY, et al.

OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-445,50-446; ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446.

ALAB-716,17 NRC 341 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-445,50-446; CLI-83 6,17 NRC 333 (1983);

CLI-83-8,17 NRC 339 (1983)

THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, et al.

OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-341-OL; ALAB 709, 17 NRC 17 (1983) 2 k

B

CASE NAME INDEX h% f?'"

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. PROJECT M AN AGEMENT CORPOR ATION, gyhy;,

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

• ~%

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT. PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION, Docket No. 50-537-CP ( ASLBP No.

r f

1. (MF$;.I6J 75 29112); LBP-83 8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No 50-537 (10 CFR 50.12 Exemption Request); CLI-83-1.17 NRC 1 (1983)

WASiliNGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al.

OPEF \\ TING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-460-OL i ASLBP No.

82 479-06-OL); LBP-8316,17 NRC 479 (1983)

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; DECISION, Docket No. 50-266-OLA 2. ALAB-719.17 NRC 387 (1933)

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos 50-266-OL A,50-301-OLA ( ASLBP No 81464-05 LA); LBP-83 4,17 NRC 10911983) o ep' P

i -f wy 3

.m m

a a

a a

O

..,khlf Id l

Ep'J s[

i"'f. 'f:,4

^^

F (2p;'.j B

l l

l l

l O

l s~<*

f$sh.

Mh w.n DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS510N CLI-83-l UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT M AN AGEMENT CORPOR ATION, TENNCSSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant),

Docket No. 50-537, (10 CFR 50.12 Esemption Request), CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION;3anuary 5,1983. MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A

The Commission clanGes and affirms its previous nndms (CLI-82-23,16 N RC 412 (1982))

of enigent and otha emiraordmary circumstances warrantmg the grant of the Department of Energy's request for an enempuon pursuant to 10 CFR 55012 for initiation of site preparation activities in con-nection with the Chnch River facihty.

B The availabihty of an enemption pursuant to 10 CFR 150.12 for the imtiation of site prepara-tion activities is determined by whether, m totahty of the circumstances in a particular case, e sigent ciNumstances exist, weighed agamst the adverse environmentalimpacts associated with the proposed actsvities under the enemption.

C The timely satisfaction of public needs by reducing unanticipated delays in the realization of j

facihty benefits and the avoidance of costs induced by such unexpected delays constitute e sigent cir-cumstances supporting the grant of an chemption under 10 CFR 65012 for the conduct of pre-construction site preparation activities, D

in determining whether to grant an esemption pursuant to 10 CFR 55012 to begm site prepa-ration activities, the Commission will weigh the enigencies of the utuation asamst the associated ad-verse environmental impacts. Where the environmental impacts of the proposed activities are insigmficant, but the potential adverse consequences of delay may be severe and an enemption will mitigate those effects, it is reasonable to grant the enemptson m spite of uncertamties as to the e megen-ciesof the particular situation.

CLI-83-2 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), Docket No.

50-329-CP,50-330-CP. REM AN D. Fe bruary 18,1983; 5T ATEM ENT OF THE COMMISSION r

A The Commission issues a statement in which it (1) explams its reasons for not undertakmg sua sponte review of AL AB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982), and (2) warns parties and their attorneys of the risk of serious sanctions occasioned by the making or planmns of a dehberate false statement or withhold.

I ing of matenal mformation in connection with hcensing matters.

CLI-83-3 METROPOLIT AN EDISON COM P ANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1),

Docket No. 50-289-SP,5PECI AL PROCEEDING, February 22,1983, ORDER A

The Commission finds that (l) certain commumcations between the Commissioners and the N RC start did not constitute en parte commumcations as alleged by an intervenor. and (2) demes the miervenor's motion for an evidentiary hearing on the matters involved in the comm unications B

Discussions of general heahh and safety problems and responsibihties of the Commisuon are noteaparte 10CFR 2.780(d).

CLI 83-4 CINCINN ATI G AS AND ELECTRIC COMP ANY, et at (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Umt No.1). Docket No. 50-358, CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 22,1983, i

ORDER

]

A The Commisuon denies an intervenor's petition for reconuderation ofits J uly 30,1982 order I

(CLI-82 20,16 NRC 109) not to permit the Iicensmg Board to reopen the hearms sua sponte to consider, as Board issues, eight contentior, proposed by mtervenor m this operanns hcense

)

proceedms, but with regard to the Licensms Board's earher deciuon deny mg the mtervenor's motion for reopenmg of the record and admission of those contentions to the proceedmg, leaves the mierve-nor free to seek I cenung board reconsideration or appellate review as prescnbed by agency rules FMG?

VS w1 S

-% vg i

. %M '

(

Y445'i.

l l

5 n

I f

-..-_-----,-,_,.---..-m._m..-_._--,r

..4.

-.m.m-.--

DIGESTS IS$l'ANCES OF THE NL' CLEAR RIGLLATOltY COMMISSION CLI-83 5 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al iThree Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit No.1). Dotket No 50 289 5P. RLST ART, March 4.1983.ORDE R A

The Commisuon denies an intersenor's motion objecting, as asseriedly es parte communicanons, to a Commisuon meetmg concerning the seismic quahfication of the TMI-l I

O emergency feedwater sy stems IE FWS), on the baus that seismic quahncation of the El WS is outude the scope of this restart proceedmg B

Communications that do not msolve any substantne master at issue m a proceeding are not en parte 10 CFR 2.780(a).

CLI-83-6 TEXA5 UTILITIE5 GENER ATING COMPANY. et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electne A ;#3;,

Station, Umts I and 2). Docket Nos 50 445, 50-446. OPER ATING LICENSE, March 4,1983,

]TV J L

ORDER 6

h*[.

A lo maintam the stata quo and to preserse sisJurisdiction to consider the ments of the case, fMW the Commission grants the NRC staffs request for a stay of the effectneness of the Appeal Board's WW February 24,1983 decesson f AL AB-714,17 NRC 86) leasms miact a Licensing Board order requirms U$'" I the staff to identify certam mdmduals referred to in a staff mvestigation report introduced intorsi.

uu. ofA. aiT.ed =inoduce the signed statement of those mdniduals.

B If. absent a stay pending appeal, the status quo mill be irreparably altered, grant of a stay may be Justined to preserse the Commission's abihty to consder. if appropriate, the merits of a case. See Repubhcan State Central Committee v Ripon Society Inc.,409 U 5 1222 (1972) f Rehnquist,3., m chambers); Prosidence Journal v. F B 1. 595 F 2d 889. 890 f Ist Cir.1979).

CLl-83 7 METROPOLIT AN EDISON COMPANY, et al. f Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Urist I),

{

Docket No. 50-289-5P. 5PECI AL PROCEEDING. March 21,1983. ORDE R A

The Commission decides to resien imo nsues on emergenc> preparedness considered by the f

Apreal Board m AL AB-698.16 NRC 1290 f1982). f I) m hether the responsibihty for radiological as-l sessment and makmg protectne action recommendations can reside m the Emergenc> Director in the control room durmg the Grst four hours after declaration of an emergency, and (2) the A preal Board's j

ruhng requiring the NRC staff prior to restart to modify and complete, m accord with certain condinons, the NRC's final emergency response plans and provide them to the lisensee and 4

t Pennsylsama The Commisuon requests bnefs from specified parties on the Grst issue % iih respect to the record. the Commission decides that the matters msolsed would be more appropnate') addressed as a genenc matter m the oserall conuderation of NRC emergency plans and vacates the ruhng I

CLl-83 8 TEX A5 UTILITIES GENER ATING COMPAN), et al (Comanche Peak Sicam Elecinc l

Station. Umts I and 21 Docket Nos. 50 445, 50-446; OPER ATING LICENSE. March 30, 1983.

j ORDER j

A To preserne itsJunsdiction over the issue of disclosure of alleged mformant idsntities in accor-dance with its order m CLI 83-6,17 NRC 3331198D, the Commisuon stays the efTectiseness of two k

Licensing Board orders to the entent those orders might email an mquiry by the board that could directly or mdirectly result m identification of persons intersiemed in the course of an NRC e

investigation.

?

I i

6

,.m e

A

• y F%~

.U- &l Diyh,

7 :a.

p n

% f?O

} );

]

l O

^ N@ :

.h e...g.

m w

3 fv c 9

+# e A

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS l

ALAB 709 THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, et al (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2),

f Docket No. 50-341 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; January 4,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND i

ORDER A

The A ppeal Board withdramsits previous order (Nov.12,1982) f unpubhshed) directing an in-tervenor to show cause why its appeal of the Licensing Board's imual decision (LBP-82 96,16 N RC 1408 (1982)) authorizing the issuance of a full-power operstmg hcense for this facihty is proper, and i

I reinstates the interv enor 's appeal.

B Absent a hcensing board order requinns the submission of proposed findmss of fact end con-clusions oflaw, an intervenor that does not make such a films is free to pursue on appeal allissues it htigated below.

C Under the Commission's R ules of Pracuce, the films of proposed Andmss of fact is opuonal, unless the presidmg officer directs otherwise The presidmg officer is empo cred to take a party's fail-ure to file proposed findings, when directed to do so, as a default or to impose other sancuons.10 CFR S

12.754.

D An appeal board will not ordmanly entertain arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electnc Cooperause, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB-693,16 NRC 952,955-56 (1982). See also Pubhc Ser-vice Electric and Gas Company, et al. (Salem Nuclear Generatmg 5tauon, Unit I), ALAB-650,14 NRC 43,49; Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant Umts I A,2 A, IB, and 2B),

A L AB-463,7 N RC 34I. 348 (1978).

E A bcensms board is authonzed in most instances to decide only contested issuesin an operat-ing hcense proceedmg 10 CFR 62.760a F

Only the pennoner demed leave to intervene can take an appeal of such an order.10 CFR 62.7)daf b).

G Even when a hcensing board order requestms the submission of proposed findmss has been disregarded, the Commission's Rules of Pracuce do not mandate a sanction. Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant,Unitsl and 2), ALAB 123,6 AEC 331,332 3)(1973).

H A heensing board acts withm its discretion in treatmg as contested those issues of fact as to l

which a party opposms an operatmg license apphcation had introduced affirmative evidence or en-gaged m substantial cross-enamination. See Northern States Poect Company (Praine Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-244,8 AEC 857,864 (1974), reconsideration demed.

AL AB 252,8 AEC 1175, afTd, CLI-75-1,1 NRC I (1975). See also Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant. Umts 1 and 2) ALAB-691,16 NRC 897,905-08 (1982). Compare Flanda Power &

Light Company (St. Lucie Nucieat Power Plant, Unit No. 2), AL AB-280,2 NRC 3,4 n 2 (1975).

I The failure to Ole proposed findmgs is subject to sanctions only in those instances where a Licensing Board has directed such Undmgs to be filed That is the eutent of the adjudicatory board's en-forcement powers under 10 CFR 12.754.

J 10 CFR 52.754 emposers a licensing board to direct the parties to file proposed Gndmss. See generally Midland,supta,6 AECat 333.

AL AB 710 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY, et al (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit !), Docket No. 50-395-OL;OPER ATING LICENSE; January 13,1983; DECISION A

The Appeal Board, sua sponte, affirms with comments two Licensms Board Decisions m this operating hcense proceedms' a July 20,1982 partialimtial decision iLBP-82-55,16 NRC 225) cen-F[p(,,p_

p cerning seismic matters and an August 4,1982 supplemental parualimtial decision (LBP-82 57,16 u

j NRC 477) resolung all other matters and authonzmg issuance of an operatmg hcense subject to cer-tam condiuons h.Wf 7

l I

l-

I o

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINC APPLAL BOARDS B

Licensms boards have the authority to call witnesses of their own, but the enercise of this dis-cretion must be reasonable and hke other hcensms board ruhnss, is subject to appellate reuen A board may take this estraordmary action only after 6) gismg the parties to the pfnceedmg every fair opportumty to cl4rify and supplement their previous testimony, and hi) showing why it cannot reach e

an mformed decision mithout mdependent mitnesses.

C Licensms boards are bound to comply with appeal board directives, whether they agree with them or not. The same is true with respect to Commission revice of appeal board action and judicial review of agency action. Ariy other alternative would be unworkable and unacceptably undermme the righis of the pariies.

,& 7)

AL AB-711 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Umts 1,2 and 3),

My Docket Nos 50 2594L,50 260-OL,50 296-OL;OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 3A 21,1983. DECISION W4M A

The Appeal Board approves a settlement between hcensee, intervention petitioners and the

[g7 NRC staff in this proceedmg on hcensee's apphcation for authoraation to store low-level radioactive 4-maste at Browns Ferry, and grants petitioners' motion to eithdraw their intervennon petitions and re-a quests for hea6ng.

ALAB 712 PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COM PANY, et al. (Skagithlanford Nuclear Power Project, Umts I and 21. Docket Nos.50-522,50-52), CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, February 1,1983, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A

The Appeal Board dismisses an intervenor's appeal from the Licensmg Board's rejection of all or part ofcertam ofits contentions e here other ofits contentions m ere accepted as htigable B

The R ules of Practice do not permit a person to take ari tmerlocutory appeal froni an order en-tered on his intervention petition unless that order has the effect of denying 15e petition in os entireiy.

10 CF R 2.714a; Texas Utilities Generstmg Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Elecir:c Stanon.

l Umts I and 2), AL AB-599,12 N RC I,2 (1980), quotmg from Houston Lightmg and Power Company g

( Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Stanon, Umt 1), ALAB 585, il NRC 469,470, and AL AB-586, 1

11 N RC 472,473 (1980L AL AB-713 ARIZON A PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generatmg Stanon.

Units I,2 and 3), Docket Nos. STN-50-528-OL, STN 50-529-OL, STN-50-530-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE, February 15,1983 DEC1510N A

The Appeal Board affirms the Licensms Board's mitial decision in this operatmg hcense pro-ceedmg (LBP 82 ll7A,16 NRC 1964 81982)) upon completion of sua spome reuem of the decision i

and relevant portions of the underlymg record The Appeal Board finds no error marrantmg correct:ve action with regard to the Licensmg Board's determmation in the sophcants' fasor of the ultimate issue before it: the availabihty ofan adequate supply ofconden%r coohng m ater for the Palo Verde facility.

B A n appeal board will not reuem the grant or demal of an intervention petition unless an appeal i

has been taken under 10 CFR 2.714a.

I C

An appeal board mill not give stare decisis efTect to hcensing board conclusions on legal issues

?

not brought to it by may of an appeal. Duke Po cr Co (Cherokee N uclear Station, Umts I,2, and 3 L ALAB-482,7 NRC979,981 fn 4 fl978).

A L A B-714 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Elecine Station, Units I and 2), Dociet Nos. 50-445,50-446, OPE R ATING LICENSE, February 24,1983.

DECISION A

On the ground that there is no genume controversy to be decidec,.ne Appeal Board dismisses the appeal of the NRC staff from a licensms board direcuve that the staff teweal the identity of eight m-dinduals referred to m a staff invesugauve report it introduced into e idence. On the same ground, the Appeal Board withdraw s its poor grant of the staff's pctiuon for direr ted certification.

B The informer's privilege - the Government's privilege to withhold from disclosure !bc I

identity of persons w ho furmsh mformanon of violanons of lam to officers charged with enforcement of thal law - is apphcable m N R C achudicatory proceedmss and is e a pressly embodied m Commission regulanons.

C The " case or controversy" restriction imposed upon federal courts by Article !!! of the Umted i

StatesConstitunon does not sovern an appeat board'sjunsdiction Northern 5tates Pomer Co (Praine l

Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-455,7 NRC 41,54 (1978), remanded on other grounds sub nom. Minnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,602 F 2d 412 eD C. Cir.

l 1979).

l

'A O k,

B

O DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING A* PEAL BOARDS

' &g,R

.%.h D

A ppeal boards are disinchned to render advisory opinions absent the most compelhng cause to do so. Ibid. See also Tennessee Valley A uthonty (Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Units I A,2 A, I B, and a

Y

'I 28), AL AB-467,7 NRC 459,46)(1978).

E If a person to mhom an N RC adjudicatory board directs an oroer bel;tes that order is mcorrect the remedy is to appeal, but absent a stay, to comply promptly with the order pendmg appeal. This prmciple is especially appbcable to orders issued durms inal. See Maness v. Meyers,419 U.S. 449 458-59(1975).

AL AB-715 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1) Docket No. 50-289 (Design !ssues); RESTART; February 28,1983; M EMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A

Ruims on an intervenor's request for subpoenas compellms the attendance and testimo. ; of two named NRC staff members at the Appeal Board's scheduled heanns on emergency core cochng issues in this special testart proceedmg, the Appeal Board finds that " exceptional circumstances" exist warrantmg the issuance of a subpoena requinns the wstimony of that employee of the NRC's Office for Analyses and E=aluation of Operational Data ( AEOD) with knowledge of the office's views on the subjects of concern, but denies the request for the second subpoena for lack of a showing of

" exceptional circumstances."

B The Commission's rules provide that the Executive Director for Operations generally deter-mmes which staff witnesses shall presem testimony. An adjudicatory board may nevertheless order other N R C personnel to appear "upon a show mg of e sceptional circumstances, such as a case m = hica a particular named NRC employee has direct personal knowledge of a material fact not known to the witnesses made available by the Executive Director for Operations. "10CFRl2 720(h)(2)h) See generally, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.

(Susquehanna Steam Electnc Station, Units I and 2), AL AB-613,12 N RC 317,323 (1980).

C A genume scientific disagreement on a central decisional issue is the type of matter that should ordmanly be raised for adversanal exploration and eventual resolution in the adjudicatory content.

See Virgmia Electnc and Power Company (North A,ma Power Station, Units I and 2), CL176-22,4 NRC 480,491 (1976), aft'd sub nom. %rsmia Electnc and Power Company v. NRC,5710 2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978); Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant Units I and 2), AL AB-691,16 NRC 897.912 13 (1982), review decimed.CLI-83 2,17 N RC 69 (1983).

AL AB-716 TEXAS UTILITIES GENER ATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Sicam Elecinc Station, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446. OPERATING LICENSE; March 1,1983, MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER A

The Appeal Board denies a motion by the NRC stafT for a stay of the effectiveness of AL AB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) pending the films and disposition of a petition for Commission review cf that decision.

B The most crucial factor to be considered m passms upon a stay apphcation pursuant to 10 CFR (2.788 fe) is whether the movant will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted See, e 3, Pubhc Service Co. of Ne= Hampshire (Scabrook station, Umts l and 2),CL1-77-27,6 N RC 715,716 (1977),

Rochester Gas and Electnc Corp. (Sierlms Power Project, Nuclear Umt No.1), AL AB 507,8 NRC 551, 556 (1978); Long Island Lighting Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station Umts I and 2),

AL A B-481,7 N RC 807,808 (1978).

AL AB 717 SOUTHERN CALIFORNI A EDISON COMPANL et al (San Onofre Nucicar Generstmg Station, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50 361-OL,50,'62-OL; OPERATING LICENSE, March 4, 1983 DECISION A

The Appeal Board affirms the Licensmg Board's decisions authorizmg the issuance ol iull power operating hcenses for Units 2 and 3 of the San Onofre facihty (LBP-82 3,15 NRC 61; LBP-82-39,15 NRC 1163 (1982)), subject to certam hcense conditions that are designed to buttress the facihty's emergency preparedness.

B The Commission may entirely chmmate certam issues from operatmg hcense consideration on the ground that they are suited for enamination only at the carher construction permit stage Shon of that, the Commission has considerable discretion to provide by rule that only issues that were or FD7([M, could have been raised by a party to the construchon permit proceedmg =ill not be enteriamed at the operatmg hcense stage escept upon such a showing as" changed circumstances" or " newly discoscred evidence." Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generstmg Station, Units 2 and 3),

mv:

D: ;f,%y

%p i

u.1 9

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS AL AB-673,15 NRC 683,696 (1932). Commission practice, homeser, has been to determme the htrgabihty ofissues at the operating hcense stage with reference to conventional resjudicata and colla-teralestoppelprmciples Id.at696 97.

C The requiremenl of a uthentication or identification as a condition precedeni to the admissibih-G ty of evidence in N RC hcensing proceedmss is satisned by evidence sufficient to support a findmg that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Fed R. Evid 901Ia).

D While the Federal Rules of Esidence are not directly appbcable to N RC proceedmss, N RC ad-judecatory boards often look to those rules for guidance. See generally Duke Pomer Co IWilham B McG Are Nuclear station, Urats l and 2), ALAB-669.15 NRC 453,475 (1982 L k PY E

Hearsay evidence is generally admissible m N RC proceedmgs. Whether evidence is or is not hearsay is significant only insofar as it bears on the question of its rehabihty.10 Cf R 12 743f c), Duke i

Power Co (Catamba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), AL AB-355,4 NRC 397,411 12 f l976).

g F

The final safety analysis report (FS AR) is conditionally admissible as substantise esidence.

. g** *;

but once portions of the FS AR are put into controversy, apphcants must present one or more compe.

(

tent mitnesses to defend them.

G Techmcal analyses offered in evidence must be sponsored by an enpert who can be e mammed on the rehabihty of the factual assertions and soundness of the scientific opimons found m the documents. Duke Power Co. (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear Station Um s I and 2), AL AB-66915 N RC 453,477 (1932). See also Cles eland Electrie lliummatmg Co. ( Perry N uclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), AL AB-443,6 N RC 741,754 56 (1977).

H The contents of an ACRS report are not admissible in evidence for the truth of any matter stated therem as to controverted issues, but only for the hmited purpose of estabhshms comphance with statutory requirements. Arkansas Power and Light Co. ( Arkansas Nuclear One Umt 21, ALAB-94,6 AEC 25,32 (1973). See also Consumer Power Co. (Midland Plant Un is I and 2),

ALAB 123,6 AEC 331,340 (1973L A hcensing board may rely upon the conclusions of the ACR$ on issues that are not controverted by any party.10 CFR Part 2. Aprendia A,(Vt IM i),(2).

1 Absent a board order requirms the submission of proposed findmss, an imersenor that does not make such a fihng is free to pursue on appeal allissues it htigated belom. i ne setim6 TIa schedule for fihng proposed findmss falls short of an emphcit direction and thus does not form the hw for find-ing a party ivi default.10 CFR 62 754 Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Piars Umt 2),

ALAB 709,I7NRC l?(1983).

J Where an intervenor chooses to file proposed findmgs, the board is entitled to take that fihng as settmg forth all of the issues that mere contested K

10 CFR 650 47(b)i10) requires the deselopment of a range of protectise actions to protect the pubisc in the plume esposure pathmay emergency plannmg zone. This should mclude means for pro-tectmg persons whose mobihty may be impaired, e g, the elderly, the handicapped, and school children.

L Licensees, States, and local jurisdnisons should dissemmate, at least annually, mformation regardmg hem the pubhc mill be notified and what its actions should be in the esent of an emergency.

The information is to address, among other ihmss, the special needs of the handicapped and is to mde cate how toeffect protective measures, e 3.,e$acuation routes, relocation centers and sheltermg M

Unkke the muc h smaller plume EPZ mhere esacuation or shelterms from the plume may be a matter ofimmediacy, protective action in the 50-mile radius ingestion EPZ need not be as immediate.

Morcoser, the kmds of mgestion EPZ protective action that would be suggested - such as quarantin-i mg or disposirig of certam foodstuffs m designated areas - are highly site and accident specific; hence, they are less amenable to planmns in adsance of an accident than the comparable responses of sheltering or evacuation that are appropriate for the plume EPZ.

N 11is axiomatic that specific trammg should be required for persons empteted to assist in a rr h-ological emergency, that it should be tailored to the level of espertise expected m each ares of responsibihty; and that it should be effectise. Consequently a trammg program should be formubted and mstituted for them.

O The findmg of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEM Al in regard to ahether State and local emergency plans are adequate and capable orbemg implemented is em 'iled to a re butta-ble presumption in NRC hcensms proceedmgs.10 CFR 550 47ta)(2). See genera.ly FEM A/NRC Memorandum of Understanding,45 Fed. Reg 327131Dec.16,1980).

10 F[9YY h%%

%v * !

,.py p,

a B

O DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS l

?

,. e 4

P Conversations among parues, none of whom is a decisionmaker in the hcensmg proceeding, WM are nne precluded by the Commission's ea parte rule (10 CFR 2.780). Southern Cahfornia Edison Co N

(San Orufre Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umts 2 and 3), AL AB-680,16 N RCat l44.

D*4 Q

Subject to certain substantive and procedural hmitations, licensing decisions on emergency -

planning issues ne-d not sesei the rendition of a final FEM A finding R

The following technical issues are discussed. Seismic design critena, Safe shutdown earthquake; Chnstianatos fault; Maximum magmtude earthquake; Peak ground acceleration, Focal mechanisms, Earthquake motions; Connection between Chnstianitos Zone of Deformation (CZD) and OfTshore, Zone of Deformation (OZD); Connection between CZD and onshore geologic Icatures.

Surface wave magmtude; Slip rate / magnitude analysis.

AL AB-718 OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS (Manufacturing License for Floating Nuclear Power Plants), Docket No. STN 50-437-M L; M ANUFACTURING LICENSE; March 10,1983. DECISION A

The Appeal Board, sua sponte, s'Tirms the Licensmg Board's decision (LBP-82-49,15 NRC 1658 (19821), authonnns the issuance of a license, subject to a condition, for the manufacture of eight standardized floatmg nuclear power plants.

B In a manufactunns hcense proceedmg, w here particular sites have not yet been ident Ged, tt'e fot. is on issues ansing from the standardued plant itself. Consequently, analyses and evedence mill be generic in character. Consideration of sate-specific concerns is properly deferred.

ALAB 719 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (Pomt Beach Nuclear Plant Umt 1) Docket No.50-266-OLA 2;OPERATINGLICENSE AMENDMENT; March 22,1983 DECIS10N A

The Appeal Board affirms the Licensmg Board's decision (LBP-82108,16 NRC 1811 (1982))

dismissms an intervenor from this hcense amendment proceedmg fot failms to fulfillits heanns obh-gations and, alternatively, for failms to put forth at least one acceptable contention as required by 10 CFR l2.7141b).

B A n appeal board will overturn a hce nsing board's denial of a request for a sc hedule change only on a findmg that the board abused its discretion by settmg a schedule that depnves a party ofits right to procedural due process. Wisconsin Electric Pomer Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Umt 1),

ALAB-6%,16 NRC 1245,1260, quoting from Public Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating station, Units l and 2), AL AB-459,7 NRC l?9,188 (1978L C

Dismissal of a party is a senous step that generally should be r, scrved for the most severe fad-ure of a participant to meet its obhgation. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-678,15 NRC 1400,1416 (1982). The Commission's Statemem of Pohcy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedmss, CLI-81-8,13 N RC 452 (1981), consistent with the practice in the federal courts. requires that a board consider all the circumstances in determining w hether a dismissal is warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Cc,370 U.S. 626,634-35, reh*

demed,371 U.S. 873 (1962).

D A participant in an N RC proceeding should anticipate havmg to mamputate its resources, how-ever limited, to meet its obhgations. Wisconsin Electnc Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-666,15 NRC 277,279 (1982); Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Peach Bottom Atomi::

Power station, Umts 2 and 3), A L AB-566,10 N RC 527. 530 (1979).

E issues must be fully bnered in order to be considered on appeal. Point Beach, ALAB-696, supra,16 N RC at 1255, and cases cited.

ALAB-720 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (Vallecitos Nuclear Center - General Electric Test Reactor, Operating License No. TR 1) Docket No. 50-70-SC; SHOW CAUSE; March 23,1983; DECISION A

The Appeal Board, sua sponte, affirms the Licensing Board's imtial decision (LBP-82-64,16 N RC 5% (1982)) in this show cause proceeding instituted to consider certain issues pertaining to the appropriate seismic and geological design bases for the Ge neral Electnc Test Reactor (G ETR).

B An appeal board's sua sponte affirmance of a hcensms board decision does not have stare deci-sis cfTect insofar as concerns the questcons oflaw addressed in the hcensms board decision.

C The following techmcal issxs are discussed. Probabihstic analyses of fault occurrence and soit displacement; fault deflection a _

h, 4, @ a v

-s.,

]

E 18

6 O

. ', ~a

1. • N[dh.

4r ' / w 4 9, >

.s.i l

• t+i?]X l

l l

C.Y*e_f;'?qjs

.c

, ::4 *,

ir(d;;; 9 e. o.. <

e O

'W 4,

/

3

.L 1

b

O N: gA D

a&

WANN

-h,Y DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-831 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 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; January 7,1983 MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER 4

Applying the guidehnes set forth in the Commission's orders ofluly 27,1982 (CLI-8215,16 NRC 27) and September 17,1982 (CLI-82 25,16 NRC 867), the Licensing Board reconsiders and reformulates the emergency planning contentions admitted in its April 23,1982 memorandum and order (LBP-82-34,15 N RC 895), and considers nem contentsons proposed by Intervenors.

LBP 83-2 PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Stanislaus Nuclear Project. Unit 1) Docket No. P 564-A ( ASLBP No. 76-334-07-AN); ANTITRUST; January 19, 1983. MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A

The Licensing Board grants applicant's motion to withdraw its construction permit apphcation without prejudice subject to its comphance with terms and conditions estabhshed by the Board for the preservation of discovery documents.

B The possibihty that an intervenor may be faced in the future with a refiled apphcation and at-tendant burdens of renewed intervention is no bar to granting a motion to withdraw an apphcation for the construction of a nuclear plant. without prejudice. Any harm the intervenor may sufTer, recogmred as such under the law, can be overcome by attaching appropriate compensatmg conditions.,a require-ment for withdrawal.

C The decision of the appbcant to withdraw its apphcatan for the construction of a nuclear plant was a businessjudgment. The law on withdrawal does not require a determmation of the soundness of the decision. What can be required of the Licensmg Board is to appropriately condition the order govermns the dismissal to overcome legally recogmred harm arising from allowing the withdrawal without prejudice.

LBP-83-3 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Uniis l & 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441-OL ( ASL BP No. 81-457-04-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; January 28,1983. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A

The Licensms Board denies apphcant's motion to reconsider the Board's decision denying summary disposition of the quahty assurance contention.

B The regulatory requirement that a separate and distmet statement of material facts must be filed by intervenors is mandatory. When such a statement is not filed the Board must accept the facts contained in the separate and distinct statement of material facts filed with the motion for summary disposition.

C Even if the respondent fails to file a separate and distmet statement of material facts in re-sponse to a motion for summary disposition, the motion must be demed unless the motion estabhshes the absence of a senume issue of material fact.

D If a party suffers a harm from incomplete answers to its interrogatories, it may not await a Board decision on the merits of a motion for summary disposition before calhng the harm to the Board's attention. Permitimg a party to assert such a deficiency as a ground for reconsideration of the Board's decision is tantamount to providmg it two opportunities to prevail on the merits.

l LBP-83-4 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (Pomt Beach Nuclear Plant Umts I & 2),

Docket Nos. 50-266-OL A,50-301-OL A (ASLBP No. 81-464-05-LA); OPER ATING Ll CENSE A M ENDMENT; February 4,1983; M EMOR ANDU M AND OR DE R FYi&y A

This decision concerns the adequacy of eddy current testing to detect gutentially serious defects in corroded steam generator tubes that have been repaired by the insertion of a Imer or J d s> *; h

" sleeve." The Licensing Board concludes that hmitations on the sensitmty of eddy current testing do

+ M}

~g VWG 13

i L

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSl%G BO ARDS t'

j not afTect the abihty to detect serious flaws that are hkely to rupture, either under normal operstmg conditions or accident condstions. Consequently, the Board approses the suuance of 4 hcense amend-g

[

ment to apphcant.

B There is no penalty assessed against a p4 sty that failed to comply with the Board's requests. not O

g reflected in an order,concernmg the format for fihng Fmdmss of Fact.

I C

The regulationsdo not require the use of a formal, probabikstic risk analysis l

D An imtial decision in a case in w hich summary daposition has been granted is hmited to the 3

genume issues of fact that were found to e mist.

• L i

E The followmg techmcal issues are dncussed Eddy current tesimg (sicam generator tubed.

4,

)

Eddy current testing isteesed steam generator tubes), inconel 600, mill annealed and thermally 8

treated; Steam generator, secondary side chemistry; Steam generator (prenurued water reastoil.

4 described; Signal to noise ratio (eddy current testmg). Rehabihty of eddy current testmg (small h47 (Gf volume defects); Leak Before Break (steam generator tubes). Burst tests (steam generator tubes).

3 nt tJ Stress corrosion cracking (steam generator tubes). Intergranular attack (steam generator tuks).

I Tube sleevmg (steam sencrator repair); 5teesins of tubes tsicam generator repair).corronon (sicam

{

generator tubes); ilydrostatic testmg (steam generator tubes). Leak momiorms, conimuous (sicem generator tubes) g

)

LBP-83 5 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW %ORK (Indian Pomt. Umt No 2) and

}

POWER AUTIIORITY OF Tile STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Pomt.Umt No 3). Docket Nos l

50-247-SP. 50-286 SP ( ASLBP No. 81-466-03 SP); SPECI AL PROCEEDING. Icbruary 7.1963.

MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER f'

A The Licensing Board rules on responses to its reformulahon of emergency planning contentions.

)

LBP-83-6 PillLADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY Limenth Generatmg Station. Umts I and 26

(

Docket Nos. 50-352-OL 50-353-OL; OPERATING LICENSE. February 10. 1983. MEMORAN.

}

DUM ANDORDER REJECTING TABLE S-3 FUEL CYCLE CONTENTION 1

A On the basis of guidance provided by the Commissson's pohcy statement on Table S 3 fuel cycle impacts. 47 Fed. Reg 50591 (Nov. 8.1982), the Licensms Board does not admit a late conten-tion allegmg that the Apphcant's Ensironmental Report madequately curisiders Ihe uncertaintses awo-ciated with the enuronmental and health impacts of w astes scaled in a permanent repository. The con-temion was based on the decision m N RDC v. NRC. 685 F.2d 459 iD C. Cir.1982) cert granted. 51

{

U.S.L.W. 34191Nov. 29.1982).

B Under the Commission's statement of pohey on Uramum Fuel Cycle Impacts. the Licensms j

Board is directed not to admit a comention allesmg that the ancertainties associated with impacts of wastessealed in a permanent repository are madequately considered m the Apphcant's Enuronmental 4

Report.

L B P-83-7 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. et al. (Pebble Sprmss Nuclear Plant.

Umts t and 2). Docket Nos. 50-514-CP. 50-515-CP ( ASLBP No 75-281 10-CPh CONSTRUCTION

{

PERMIT; February 24.1983.MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING LBP 83-8 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROJECT M AN AGEMENT ORPORATION TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTilORITY (Chnch Rner Breeder Reactor Plant).

Docket No 50-537-CP (ASLBP No.75-291 12); CONSTRUCTION PERMIT. February 28. 1983.

P ARTI AL INITI AL DECISION A

liasing considered relesant contested issues and enuronmental and site suitabihty matters, the Licensmg Board authoraes the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue a hmited work au-thorization (LW A-D for the Chnch Riser Breeder Reactor Plant, subject to certam Staff proposed hmitations for the protection of the enuronment committed to by A pphcants.

B Section 50.10(e) of 10 CFR is appigable to this first-of a.kmd Chnch Rner Breeder Reactor Plant.

C The followmg techmcal issues are discussed A. Contested Issues - Site suitabihty, source

{

p term, dose guidehnes and accident considerations, enuronmental effectsof accidents, effects of acci-I denis on nearby facihties; genets and somatic effects of accide nts'safeg uards and secunty; fuel as4ila-l bihty and reprocessirig; alternative sites; programmatic objectives and design alternatises B. Uncon-tested Matters - Demograph), emergency plans; meteorology; hydrology, get. logy and seismology.

j land and water use impacts, terrestrial and aquatic impacts of operation, and socio-economs considerations 14 h

ra r

V 4

ns,t.-

N Q [.,,,

I

[.%4 ','

~

h

e o,et 1 ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETV AND LICENSING BOARDS g

e.,-

$% y.

LBP-83 8A DUKE POW ER COMPAN, et al. (Catamba Nuclear Station Units I and 2), Docket Nos.

i 50-413,50-414 ( ASLBP No. 814633)l-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; February 2,1983 MEMO-4 R ANDUM ANDORDER 7

c A

The Licensms Board denies a motion for reconsideration ofits ruhngs on environmental,

impact statement contentiens. The Board estabhshes a detailed whedule for the remainder of the proceedmg The schedJie h designed to brms the proceed.ng to a conclusion pnor to the Apphcants' anticipated fuel loading da.c. consistent with the Commission's Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensms Proceedmss. CL1-81 f.13 N RC 452 (1981L The Board noted, homeser, that it may not be possible to complete the proceevil g before fuel loadmg e here as in this case, the Apphcanis have sub-stantially accelerated thct.'nelloaJms date after the proceedmg es mell under wsy.

LBP-83-8B DUKE Pow ER COMPANY, et al. (Catamb. Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos 50-413,50-414 ( ASLBP No.11-403-01 OL); OPER ATING LICENSE, February 25,1983. M E MO-RANDUM ANDORDER A

The Board rejects certain contentions relatmg to transportation of spent fuel, holdmg that the impacts associated with such transportation are governed by Table S-4,10 CFR 51.20f g) T he table ar-phed to short-haut shipments of spent fuel from one reactor to another for mienm storage,in the ab-sence of a shommg that sigmficant impacts are associated with such transport w h ch are not mcluded m Table S-4.

LBP-83-8C SOUTHERN CALIFORNI A EDISON COMPANY, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generaimg Station, Um's 2 and 3), Docket Nos 50-361-OL,50-362-OL ( ASLBP No 77-352-04-OL);OPER AT.

ING LICENSROctober5,1982;MEMOR ANDUM ANDORDER A

The Licensms Board sets the offsite medical arrangements question for an evidentiary hearms, specifyr$3 questions to be addiessed by the parties. The Licensms Board then certifies to the Commission the ruestior, whether it should proceed with of suspend the hesiing until after tht Com-mission decides cer'. sin legal questions bearms on required medical arrangements.

LBP-83-8D SOUTHERN CAlliORNI A EDISON COMPANY, et al. tSan Onofre Nuclear Generstmg Station Umts 2 and S. Docket Nos. 50-361-OL,50 362-OL ( ASLBP Docket N178-365-01-OLL OPER ATING LICENSE.;Octooer 29,1982; M EMOR ANDU M AN D ORDER A

The Licensens Imrd rules on certam objections to its prehearms order on medical scrtice arrangements. The Board rejects the Apphcants' argument that the hearmg should amait legal ruhngs by the Commission.

LBP 83-9 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AM PSHIRE, et al. (Seat rook Station, Umts 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443-Oi,50-444-OL ( ASL BP No. 82-471-02-OL); OPI R ATING LICENSE; Marchl.1983;MEMORANDLW AND ORDER A

The Licensing Board gran's in part and demes in part Apphcants' motions to compel answers tointerrogatories.

B The degree to which an answer serves the purposes of discovery - to narrow the issues by determining the real factual disputes, Meguart against surprise at Inal, and permit adequate prepara-tion for tnal - must be weighed agamst a claim that the answer is unduly burdensome.

C Where interrogatones address cos tentions that are not sponsored by the interrogee and that will not be the subject of direct testimony a the interrogee, there is httle benefit denved from cc m-pe'ims answers.

D A n intervenor may not adduce affirmatise evidence on another intervenor's contentsons w th-out amendmg its own contentions to itflect its adoption of those issues. Leave to amend its mtersen-t:On petition mill be gramed if the Board is satisfied that the miervenor has show n good cause for it, fail.

i.re to have raised the issue at an earher point and if allomance of the amendment may assist the Board m the proper resolution of the issue without occasioning unwarreted delay.

E An interested state that has elected to htigate issue s as a full party under 10 CFR 62.714 is ac-corded the rights o' an " interested state" under 62.715(c) a s to all other issues.

F 10 CFR 62.715(cl authonzes an

• interested state

• to introduce evidence mith respeci to those issues that it has not taken a position on. Homeser, at the earhest possible date in advance of the hearmg, an " interested state" must state with reason 6ble specificity those subject areas, other than its ow n contentions,in a hich it intends to participate.

F"%;y w:..

J

.n

@g'w, ?.?-

+4W.;

q.

15

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-83-10 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOM A.

ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC COOPER ATIVE, INC., WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (Black Fox Station, Unsts I and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-556 STN 50-557 ( ASLBP No.76-30442 CP);WITH.

l DRAWAL OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION; March 7,1983, MEMORANDUM 9

AND ORDER A

The Licensing Board's Order grants, without prejudice, but subject to conditions, Apphcants' motion for termir,ation of proceedmg and withdrawal of apphcation.

B Upon consideration of the NRC Staffs assurance that it will contmuously monitor the reme-dial actions imposed by two conditions in this Order, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.107, the Board allows

,g.,g the withdrawal of the application, without prejudice, and termmates the proceedmg.

Vfg LBP 83-ll PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

Wfg Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-353-OL ( ASLBP No.81-465 07-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; March fZsg Cy 8,1983. PARTI AL INITI AL DECISION "M,y O A

The Licensms Board issues a Partial Initial Decision concludmg that noise impacts from operating a supplementary cooling water system may require mitigation. The Board concludes that other alleged environmentalimpacts of operation of the supplementary coohng water system will not be sigmficant.

B Section 5 t lic)(2) of the Clean Water Act does not preclude NRC from considering noise im-pacts of the coohng water system on the surroundmg environmenl.

C Even if the cost / benefit balance for a plant ie.vorable, measures may be ordered to mmimize particular impacts. Such measures may be ordered without awaiting the ultimate outcome of the cost / benefit balance.

D Noises which are out of character with a historic property or which would sigmficantly alter the property's setting may constitute adverse efTects uhich require consideration by federal agencies in-volwedin the projectscausing them.

E Comphance with the National Historic Preservation Act does not preclude the need to comply with N EP A with regard to impacts on historic and cultural aspects of the environment.

F The following technical issues are discussed. Coohng water intake system, Endangered spe-cies (Shortnose sturgeon),lmpmgement and entrainment of fish. Determmation of noise impacts LBP-83-12 CINCINN ATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Wm H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit I) Docket No. 50-358-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; March 10,1983 MEMORAN-DUM ANDORDER A

Licensms Board asserts jurisdiction to rule on the admissibility of five nee contentions filed by a non-party to the proceeding after rendition of the Board's initial decision but pnor to completion of proceedmss before the Board.

B Where a licensing board has retained jurisdiction following issuance ofimtial decision to con-duct further proceedmgs,it hasjunsdiction to consider the admissibihty of new contentions which are not related to any matter previously litigated.

LBP-83-13 LONG ISL AND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Umt 1),

Docket No. 50-322 0L (Emergency Planning); OPER ATING LICENSE; March 10,1983. MEMO-R ANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON TOWN OF SOUTH AMPTON'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE AS AN INTERESTED MUNICIPALITY PURSU ANT TO 10 CFR l2.715(c)

A The Board grants the late-filed petition of an interested mumcipahty to participate pursuant to 10 CFR (2.715(c), but concludes that the mumcipahty must "take the proceeding as it finds it," and hmits the scope ofits participation accordingly.

B There is no emphcit time requirement regardmg a films by an interested state or municipahty to participate pursuant to 10 CFR 62.715(c).This section abrogates some of the techmcal requirements applicable to other types ofintervention and has been construed to avoid limiting a municipahty's access to a proceedmg Cincinnati Gas and Electric co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclesr Station), L BP 80-6, 11 NRC 148,149(1980).

C Allowance of a belated intervention by an interested state or municipality pursuant to 10 CFR (2.715(c) need not disrupt estabhshed schedules and procedures in a proceedmg. A tardy petitioner with no good eacuse may be required to take the proceeding as it finds it, for any disadvantage w hich it may suffer in terms of the opportumty for trial preparation would be entirely ofits ow n making. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon N uclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-600,12 NRC 3,8 (1980).

l 16

, qf, kj ~:)9 w;

.m m q W'W 1

WM. Q ?>

. 9 l

e N

I, l

g k

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS

. s -.,

ghp LBP-83-14 PHILADELPHI A ELECTRIC COMPANY ELimenck Generstms Station Units I and 2),

fgj Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-353 OL;OPER ATING LICENSE; March 10,1983, ORDER DEN YING FOE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

(]' cyg The Licensmg Board denies a motion to reconsider an order denying the admission of some of A

intervenor's contentions because the motion was not Gled within the five day time penod of either 10 CFR 62.751a(di or 62.752(c). In addition, because intersenor is not represenied by counsel, the Board considered the substance of the motion to reconsider and found no reason to depart from the previous ruimgs.

B The time penods for motions to reconsider in 10 CFR (2.751af d), or the same time penods m 62.752(c), are apphcable to orders which are in the nature of special preheanns or prehearms confer-ence orders,evenif not so titled.

C To ehminate any doubt on the time periods for motions to reconsider, under its authonty to regulate the proceedmg i10 CF R 62.7 l 8), the Licensms Board orders that the time penods for motions to reconsider in 10 CFR ll2.751a(d) and 2.752fc) are apphcable to all orders issued by the Board m this proceedmg. The more lenient time penod of 10 CFR 62.771 mill be apphed to partial mitial deci-sions orirutialdecisions.

LBP-d3-15 NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES,INC., and NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (Western Nee York Nuclear Service Center), Docket No.

50-201-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 14.1983. ORDER CONFIRMING TERMIN ATION OF PROCEEDING A

The Licensing Board conGrms that by takins no action on a " motion for clanfication" ofits de-cision a hich disposed of all matters before it,it eITectively denied that motion and dig not tetainjuns-diction otherwise normally lost.

B Unless a heensms board takes action on a motion seeking reconsideration of a dension dispos.

ing of all matters before it, the board does not retain junsdiction normally lost and the motion is efTec-Lively denied.

C Normally a hcensms board mill not consider motions which seek clanfication of pomis in its decision disposms of a!I matters before it when the request for clarification comes from a party who is not adversely a'fected by the decision This is analogous to the prohibition against appeals by a party not adversely affected by a result, and similarly chmmates the need to render purely academic decisso,is.

LBP-83-16 W ASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM,et al (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.

1). Docket No. 50-460-OL ( ASLBP No.82 479-06-OL);OPER ATING LICENSE, March 15.1983, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A

The licensms board issues a protective order to permit pctitioner organization to disclose to ap-phcant and N RC staff the names of the member or members on w hom orgamzational standmg is based while preventing a pubhc disclosure of the name or names B

Where the petitioner orgamzation's membership sohcitation brochure demonstrates that the organization's sole purpose is to oppose nuclear power m g*.neral and the construction and operation of nuclear plantsin the northwest in particular, mere memberWp by a person with geographic standmg to intervene, mithout specifie representational authonty. is sufInnt to confer standmg.

C A petitioner organization cannot amend its petition to sausfy the timchness requirements for films without leave of the board to include an affidavit executed by someone who became a member after the due date for filing a timely petition.

D lt is not necessary for the mdividual on w hom orgamzananal standmg is based to be cons ersant with, and able to defend, each and every contention raised by the organization in pursuing his interest.

Litigation strategy and the technical details of the comple x prosecution of a nuclear power miervention are best left to the resources of the orgamrational petitioner.

E Where a demonstration has been made that the nghts of association of a member of an interse-nor group m the area have been threatened m the form of a threat of compulsory legal process to defend contentions, the employment situation in the area is dependent on the nuclear mdustry, and there is no detnment to apphcant's interests by not hasing the identity ofindmdual members of peti-noner pubhcly disclosed. the bcensing board mill issue a protectwe order to rm *nt the pubhc disclo-sure of the names of members of organizational petitioner.

. V

4. V. 2 mw,1 w

id

-l 17

DIGESTS ISSUANCES CF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-83-17 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50-444-OL ( ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL), OPER ATING LICENSE, March 24,1983, M EMOR ANDUM AND ORDER O

A The Licensmg Board rules on vanous discovery disputes, includ'ng claims of attorney work product pnvilege and discovery of non-witness e mperts.

B An interrogatory is proper that inquires about a study, calculation or analysis upon which an answer to a specific interrogatory is based, particularly where it relates to the interrogee's own contention. Interrogatones that inquire imo the basas of a contenteon serve the dual purposes of nar-

*Q rowing the issues and preventmg surpnse at trial.

C Under 10 CFR 12.740(b)fil discovery is hberally granted in order to enable the parties to as-

~

certain necessary facts, refine and narrow the issues, and adequately prepare for compic n heigation.

D Discovery of the fou'ndation upon which a contention is based is not only clearly with n the realm of proper discovery, but also is necessary for an applicant's preparation for heanns i^q w'W E

Where an N RC rule of practice is based on a federal rule of civil procedure.judiciat interpseta-w tions of that federal rule will serve as guidance for the interpretation of the analogous N RC rule F

Where a party asserts a privilege in objecting to a discovery request, the burden is upon the ob-jecting party to establish the e mistence of the privilege.

G An objecting party's mere assenion that the matenalit is withholdmg constitutes attorney work product is insufficient to meet its burden of estabhshing the existence of attorney work product privilege.

H A party objecting to a discovery request on the grounds that the matenalis protected by the at-torney work product pnvilege has the burden of estabhshmg that the matenalis protected by 10 CFR 12.740(b)(2);i e., that the matenal is (1) " documents and tangible thmss"; (2) prepared m anticipa-tion oflitigation or for trial, and (3) by or for another party or for that party's representative.

I The guidance provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be apphed to resolve a dis-covery dispute even though no analogous rule of practice has been adopted by the Commission. In determining whether to follow the guidance, the licensing board will mquire into w hether the situation before it is analogous to the situation the federal rule seeks to 3overn.

J In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4), the identity of non-witness ex-perts who have been retained or specifically employed by the party in preparation for trial and the con-tent of their advice are pnvileged from discovery. Rule 26(b)(4) differentiates between experts whom the party e spects to call as witnesses and those w ho have been retained or specifically employed by the party in preparation for trial. As the Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules explain, discovery of expert witnesses is necessary, particularly in a complex case, to narrom the issues and ehminate surprise, but that purpose is not furthered by discovery of non-witness eaperts.

LBP-83-18 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; March 30,1983; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A

The licensing board grants in part and denies in part applicant's motion for summary disposi-tion of a contention concernms possible degradation of certam polymers used as electncalinsulation.

B The form in which a contention is admitted is a decision of the hcensing board and becomes part of the law of the case. Other materials from the record may be used to interpret the admitted con-tention but not to challenge its admissibility. A challenge to a board order may be made in a motion for reconsideration, which generally must be filed promptly; but challenges may not contmue to be filed throughout the proceedmg.

C Apphcants for licenses need not complete their full-fledged environmental quahfication of electrical equipment until November 30,1983, but they must demonstrate that they can operate safely, without having completed the required quahfication, before they may be granted an operstmg license.

D There is no relevant genuine issue of fact, sufficient to resist a motion for summary disposition, unless intervenor can show a cennection between its concerns and Ihe safety of the plant.

E li is permissible for an intervenor to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of fact that is inextricably intertwined with an admitted contention.

F The following technical issues are discussed: Poiymer degradation; Radiation dose-rate, efTect on polymers; Environmental quahfication 18 VJ&m, n m

< fy -

'#m r

IA

(

g R

I

O m

Q

_ W; fr

~$

~

I

?<$

Pn..

DIGESTS isSL' ANCES OF THE ADMINISTR ATin E LA% JL DGES AU-83-1 ISOTOPE ME ASUREMENTS L ABOR ATORIES, INC. 3304 Commercial Asenue.

Northbrook. Illinois 60062. License No. 121356841 iE A 8132), CIVIL PEN ALTY, Feoruar> 22.

1983, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER TERMIN ATING CIVIL PEN ALTY PROCLEDING A

in that Memorandum and Order the presiding administraisse iam judge grants the joint motion of the NRC Staff and isotope Measurements Laboratories. Inc. (IML) to terminate this cisit penali>

proceeding The compromise settlement agreement negotiated by the partiesis appros ed as modGed to include the terms of a further commiiment requested of and received from IML by the prewding ofGcer.

B Pursuant to 10 CFR 62 203 tf a compromise of a casil penalty is subject to the approsal of the designated presiding ofGcer who, under the empress provisions of that section, must accord due weight ioIhe posauon ofIhe Staff.

l l

!' ?.'s.

A.ff!"[

• x es.

• fr yl1* h-h':

19

.~.

l O

u

.. M2 '

T.7-vt I

I l

l i

U'i fd?N'$

$df n

Dg,d1 t$?y;;,

1 v

!_ '.,~,

o30

i O

-P h

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-831 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COM PANY f LaSalle County Station, Umts I and 2) Docket Nos. 50 373, 50-374, CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 9,1983 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A

The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies petitions Gled by the Ilknois Attorney General, the lilmois Friends of the Earth and Citizens Agamst Nuclear Power which requested mstitu-tion of show cause proceedings on the basis of alleged construction deGciencies in the LaSalle County Station. The decision supplements an carher decision f DD-82-9.16 N RC 396) with respect to La Sahe Unit 1.

D D-83-2 CINCINN ATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (Wilham H. Zimme' Nuclear Power Station) Docket No. 50-358, SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTIONS, February 10,1983, DIR EC.

TOR *5 DECISION UNDER 10CFR 2 206 A

The Director of the OfTice ofInspection and Enforcement granis in pari and denies m part a pe-tition filed by the Miami Valley Power Project which requested suspension of constsuction of the Zimmer Station. The petition was gra nted insofar as the Commission's order suspe ndmg construction (CLI 82 33,16 NRC I489) imposed remedies similar to those requested by the petitioner.

DD-83 3 M AINE Y ANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (Mame Yankee Atomic Power Ststion),

Docket No. 50-309 SUSPENSION OF OPER ATION, February 14,1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 l

A The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 brought by j

i Safe Po*er for Maine and its representatives Emil G. Garrett, John B Green and John Jerabek, w hich requested issuance of an orPr to show cause u hy Mame Yankee Atomic Power Company should not be ordered to discontinue operation ofits nuclear plant pendmg demonstration of adequate financial resources to contmue operation and provide for event ual decommissiomng.

B By amendmg its regulations to ehmmate the need for a Gnancial quahlications reviem for elec-tric utshties seekm3 a Inense to construct or operate power reactors, the Commission has determmed that no hnk has been demonstrated between findmg an elecinc utihty appbcant Gnancially quahfied and that apphcant's abihty to construct and operate a nuclear power plant safely.

C Unless special circumstances are show n, the Commission will not enga;c en a financial quahfi-cations reviem.

D The Director mill not institute proceedmss in response to a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 to consider an issue the Commis%on es treatmg generically through rulemaking DD-83-4 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Zion Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2) Docket Nos 50-295,50 304,OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT, March I,1983. DIRECTOR'S DE-CISION UNDER 10Cf R 2.206 A

The Director W the Office of N uclear Reactor Regulation denies a request by Pollution and En-uronmemal Problems to take regulatory actions with respect to Zion facihties because presen. and continumg acceptabihty ofpressunted thermal shock risk is assured for the Zion facihties B

The follommg tec hmcal issues are discussed Pressunred thermal shock,llig h burnup fuel DD-83-5 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND PO% ER COMPANY (South Tenas Project. Umts I and 2),

Docket Nos. 50-498,50-499, SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION, March 3,1983. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10CFR 2.206 A

The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 which requested immediate suspension of construct!on at the South Tenas Project, based upon certam al-F& kJ...?

leged design deGciencies in the project ident Ged in a report prepared by the Quadres Corp, ration.

v.:

The petition also requested an independent third-party reuem of the project's design, and the estab-O4 hshment of an Atormc Safety and Licensmg Board to hold hearingson the alleged design deGeiencies m hich were ident Ged.

4 T,Od 21

...-m

i I'

DIGESTS 8

ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS j

B W here an adjudkatory board is presiding in a proceeding with Jurisdn tion to conuder a particu-tar issue, a party to that proceeding may not choose to avoid that forum by use of 10 Cf R 2 206.

l C

in the absence of some special circumstances, an ofTre director mill not interfere with the cus-l tomary licensing process by instituting a proceeding to consider issues properly within the scope of the G

operatinglicense review.

[

11is beyond the power of an office director to order an adjudicatory board to conuder partgular D

3 t

issues.

E The following technmal issue is discussed. Review of Design Deficiencies i

• Y :' '

};p[y.+[

l

. qy r

i.

')

l k?

I, s

e f,

I i

1 I

l l

1 i

I t

i

(

l i

i i

i 22 i

FrizG.:'

k*

i f 2', E

}

.,r r

gi if,t*gs :

,k',-7

.i g,

,\\

~-

fy-i R

~ _ -

1 9

n sah%l$

G LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASES i

Ager v. Jane C. Stormont Hospital and Training School for Nurses,622 F.2d 4% (10th Cir.1980) protection ofidentities of non-witness emperts; LBP-8317,17 NRC 497 (1983)

Arizona Pubhc Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generstmg Station Units I,2 and 3), ALAb-713,17 NRC 83,85 (1983) stare decisis effect of Appeal Board's aftirmance of Licensms Board decimon; ALAB-720,17 NRC 402 (1983)

Arkansas Power and Light Co. (Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2), ALAB-94,6 AEC 25,32 (1973) admissibility of ACRS reports as evidence; ALAB-7I7,17 NRC 367 (1983)

Beshear v. Wemzapfel 474 F.2d 127,131 (7th Cir.1973) justification for Board dismissal ofintervenor; ALAB-719,17 NRC 394 (1983)

Boston Edison Co. (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Stati m), ALAB-83,5 AEC 354 (1972), afrd sub nom.

Umon of Concerned Scientists v. AEC,499 F.2d 1069 (D C. Cir.1974) admissibility of ACRS reports as evidence; A* ' 6-717,17 NRC 367 (1983)

Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), ALAB-632,13 NRC 91,93 n.2 (1981) appealabihty of partial initial decision; LBP 83 il,17 NRC 464 (1983)

Boston Edison Co. (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Station Unit 2), LBP 75 30,1 NRC 579,582 (1975) discovery of the foundation on which a contention is based, LBP-8317,17 NRC 494 (1983)

BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission,502 F.2d 424 (D C. Cir.1974) authonty of Comnussion to impose threshold requirements for admissibility of contentions, AL AB 719,17 NRC 395 (1983)

BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission,502 F.2d 424,428 (D C. Cir.1974) procedural requirements accompanying an mdividual's nght to hearing on nuclear power plant issues, AL AB 717,17 NRC 354 (1983)

Camco, Inc. v. Baker Tools Inc.,45 F.R.D. 384 (S D. Tem 1968) burden for estabhshmg pnvilege asserted by party objectmg to discovery request LBP-83-17,17 NRC 495 (1983)

Carohna Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant Units 1,2,3 and 4), t it 74 9. 7 AEC 197,198 (1974) charactenzation of circur:v.tances warranting grant of construction permit exemption; t LI-831, j

17 NRC 2 (1983)

Carohna Power ana Light Co (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Umts I,2,3 and 4), Cl17.-22 7 AEC 939,940 (1974) characterization of circumstances warrantmg grant of construction permit enemption, CLi-GI, 17 NRC 2 (1983)

Carohna Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units I,2,3 and 4), CLI 74-22, 7 AEC 939,941 & n.4,944 (1974) showing necessary to satisfy Commission's entena for exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 5012; CLI-831,17 NRC 4 (1983)

Carohna Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant Units I,2,3 and 4), CLI-74-22, 7 AEC 939,944 (1974) need for exceptions or enemptions to regulations; CLI-831,17 NRC 12 (1983)

Carter Wallace, Inc. v. Gardner,417 F.2d 1086,1096 (4th Cir.1%9), cert. demed sub nom.

Carter Wallace. Inc. v. Finch 398 U.S. 938 (1970)

F.';p3 need for sponsorship of matenal containing experts' studies and opimons; ALAB 717,17 NRC 368 (1983)

y-W

,c M Nb 23

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Cmcmnati Gas and Elecinc Co (Wilham H Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-80-6, il NRC 148,149 (1980) time requirement for Ghng for participation as interested municipahty, LbP-8313,17 NRC 471 G

(1983)

Cleveland Electric illummatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), AL AB-4a),6 NRC 74I (1977) justiGcation by intersenor for failure to Gle separate statement of material facts, LBP-83-3,17 NRC 61 (1983)

& gg.,.

Cleveland Electnc illummating Co (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), AL AB-443,6 NRC W t,p"p 741,753-$4 (1977)

H -

standard for assessms penalty for failure to follom procedural regulations, LBP-83 3,17 NRC 62 1

@4Qc

• Cleseland Electnc litummatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Pomer Plant, Umis I and 2p, AL AB-443,6 NRC (1983) b '. v' 741, 754 56 (1977) type of evidence calhng for empert sponsorship, AL AB-717,17 NRC 367 (1983)

Commonwealth Edison Co (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-678,15 NRC 1400, 1416 (1982) circumstances m which dismissal of a party is marranted. AL AB-719,17 NRC 392 (1983)

Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power 5tation Umts I sa ' 2), AL AB-678,15 NRC 1400, 1418 (1982) circumstance in which sanction for failure to Gle proposed Ondmss of fact is appropriate, ALAB 709,17 NRC 20 (1983)

Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units I and 2), DD 80 II, il NRC496 (19801 preparation of enuror, mental impact appraisal for burn 6p of fuel assembhes. DD-83 4,17 NRC 514 (1983)

Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Station Umt 1),7 AEC 947,951-952 (1974))

post-heanns resolution of issues by NRC StafE AL AB-717, l' NRC 380 (1983)

Consohdated Edison Co of New York (Indian Pomt, Umts 2 and 3), CLL82 38,16 NRC 1693, 1702-03 (1982) deadhne for correction of emergency plarmms denciencies AtAB * ^ 17 NRC 375 (1983)

Consumers Power Co (Midland Plant Units I and 2), AL AB-123, f AEC 331,332-33 (1973) circumstance in which sanction for failure J die proposed Gndi 0,i fact is appropnate.

AL AB-709,17 NRC 23 (1983)

Consumers Power Co (Midland Flam, Units 1 and 2), AL AB-123, e AEC 331,340 (1973) admissibihty of ACRS reports as evidence AL AB 717,17 NRC 367 (1953)

Consumers Power Co. (Midlano Plant, Units I and 2), AL AB-379,5 NRC 565,588 n 13 t1977) apphcation of federal rules a id pracoce4 to NRC proceedmgs, LBP 83-17,17 NRC 497 (1983)

Consumers Power Co. (Midland, Plant, Umts 1 and 2), AL AB-541,9 NRC 436,437 36 (1979) reason for resersal of Licensing Board denial of request for shedule change, AL AB-719,17 NRC 391 (1983)

Consumers Power Co (Midland Plant, Umts 1 and 2), AL AB 691,16 NRC 897,905-08 (19826 dismissal of appeal where intersenor was ordered to Ole Gndings of fact, AL AB-709,17 NRC 23 (1973)

Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Umts I and 2), AL AB-691,16 NRC 897,912-13 (1982),

l review dechned, CLI-83-2,17 NRC 69 (19831 t>pe of matter that should be raised for emploration and resolution in the adjudicatory contest.

ALAB 715,17 NRC 105 (1983)

Detroit Edison Co. (Ennco Fei'ii Atomic Power Plant Umt 2), ALAB 709,17 NRC 17 (1983) need for intersenor to Gle proposed Gndmgs of fact AL AB-717,17 NRC 371 (1983)

Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Eners) Center Umts 2 and 3), AL AB-247,8 AEC 936,944-45 (1974)

Commission authonty to impose hcense conditions to mmimize impacis, cien m case of favorable cosi-bene 6s balance LBP-83 II,17 NRC 419 (1983)

Detroit Edison Co v. NRC,630 F 2d 450 (6th Car 1980)

Commission authonty to impose hcense conditions to mmimite imracts, esen in case of I

favorable cost-bencGt balance LBP-83 il,17 NRC 419 E19831 l

i j

24 Fq'q:

Q)4J Rgy i

r by a

B

O LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES

/!. <

g&

+4 Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB 355,4 NRC 397,41112 (1976) h*,g(,q '

c admissibihty of hearsay evidence in NRC prcceedmss, AL AB-717,17 NRC 366 (19831 Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Umts I,2 and 3), ALAB-482,7 NRC 979,980 (1978)

Licensing Board consideration of motion for clanGcation by party not adversely alTected by Board

decision; LBP 8315,17 NRC 477 (1983)

Duke Power Co (Cherokee Nuclear Station Umts I,2 and 3), ALAB-482,7 NRC 979,981 n.4 (1978) reason for Appeal Board refusal to give stare decisis efTect to Licensing Board conclusions not brought before it by way of appeal; ALAB-71),17 NRC 85 (1983)

Duke Power Co. (Oconee Nuclear Station and McGuire Nuclear Station), LBP 79-2,9 NRC 90,98-99 f1979) opposition to order protectmg identities of orgamration's members; LBP-8316,17 NRC 482 (1983)

Duke Power Co. (Perkms Nuclear Station, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-591,11 NRC 741,742 n.3 (1980); ALAB 597,11 NRC 870,873 74 (1980) nght of hearing board to determme its own junsdiction LBP-8312,17 NRC 467 (1983)

Duke Power Co. (Perkms Nuclear Station, Umis I,2 and 3), ALAB-597. Il NRC 870 (1980) appealabihty of partialinitial decision; LBP-83-ll,17 NRC 464 (1983)

Duke Power Co. (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-669,15 NRC 453,477 (1982) applicabshty cf Federal Rules of Evidence to NRC proceedmgs; ALAB-717,17 NRC 365 (1983) type of evidence callms for empert sponsorship; AL AB 717,17 NRC 367 (1983)

Farmers Reservar and Irngation Co. v McComt,337 U.S. 755,764 (1948), rehestms demed 338 U.S. 839 41948) definition of the term " exigent circumstances"; CLI 83-1,17 NRC 3 (1983)

Feldman v. Pioneer Petroleum inc.,87 F.R.D. 86 (W D. Okla.1980) burden on party seeking discovery of attorney work products, LBP 83-17,17 NRC 495 (1983)

Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2), AL AB-280,2 NRC 3,4 n.2 (1975) dismissal of appeal where intervenor was ordered to Gle Gndings of fact; ALAB-709.17 NRC 23 (1973)

Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Umt No. 2), ALAB-603,12 NRC 30 (1980) significance of rehabihty of onsite emergency power and potential for station blackout relatne to floatmg nuclear plants. ALAB 718,17 NRC 386 (1983)

Flonda Power & Light Co. (Turkey Pomt Nuclear Generstms, Umis Nos 3 and 4), AL AB-660.14 NRC 987,992 (1981) descnption of role of steam generator in nuclear power plant; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 111 (1983)

Forward Communications Corp. v. Umted States,608 F.2d 485,50910 (Ct. Cl 19791 need for sponsorship of matenal contammg emperts' studies and opimons, AL AB-717,17 NRC 368 (1983)

General Electnc Co. (Vallecitos Nuclear Center, General Electric Test Reactor), LBP 78-33,8 NRC 461, 465-66 (1978) apphcation of judicial interpretations of Federal Rules when there are no analogous NRC rules.

LBP-8317,17 NRC 496 (1983)

Gulf States Utihties Co (River Ec.-d Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-329,3 NRC 607,610 (1976) mterlocutory appeals of demals ofimerventioa relations. ALAB-712,17 NRC 82 (1983)

Gulf States Utihties Co. (Rher Bend Lation, 'Init. I and 2), CLI 76-16,4 NRC 449 (1976) showmg of cuigency suppenmg an exemption under 10 CFR 5012 CLI-83 I,17 NRC 5 (1983)

Hodgson v. Humphnes,454 F.2d 1279,1282 (10th Cir.1972) purpose of fihng Gndmss of fact; AL AB 709,17 NRC 20 (1983)

Houston Lightmg and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station Umi II. AL AB 535,9 NRC 377,393,3% (1979)

-g' need for speciGc representational authonty for mtersention by orgamratinns whose pnmary

.h g G' purpose is opposition to nuclear power; LbP-83-16,17 NRC 482-83 (1983)

(g 'f h

k gn 25

LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Houston Lightmg and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umt 1), ALAB $35,9 NRC 377,399-400 (1979) identification of members who reside withm geographical zone of mterest for purpose of G

orgamzational standms; LBP 8316,17 NRC 481 (1983)

Houston Lightmg and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station, Unit 1), AL AB-585,11 NRC 469,470 (1980); ALAB 586, II NRC 472,473 (1980) interlocutory appeals of demals of intervention petitions, AL AB-712,17 NRC 82 (1983)

Houston Lightmg and Power Co ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umt 1), AL AB 630,13

*?

NRC 84 (1981) o propriety of simultaneously seekmg Licensmg Board reconsideration and appellate rehef, ALAB-714,17 NRC %(1983)

N Houston Lighiing and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generatmg Station Umts I and 2),

,, h ALAB-301,2 NRC 853 (1975) 3 appealability of partial imtial decision; LBP 83-ll,17 NRC 464 (1983)

Houston Lighrms and Power Co. (South Tenas Project Units I and 2), AL AB-639,13 NRC 469,473 (1981) defimtion ofinformer's privilege; ALAB 714,17 NRC 91 (1983) in re Fischel,557 F 2d 20919th Cir.1977) burden for establishing privilege asserted by party objecting to d.scovery request, LBP-8317,17 NRC 495 (1983)

Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generatirig Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-279,1 NRC 359, 576 77 (1975) justification by intersenor for failure to file separate statement of material facts, LBP-83-3,17 NRC 61 (1983)

Kansas Gas and Electric Co (Wolf Creek Generstmg Station, Umt No I), CLI 76 20. 4 NRC 476 (1976) reason for rejection of request for enemption under 10 CFR 5012. CLI-831,17 NRC 5 (1983)

Kansas Gas and Electric Co (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generatmg Station Un. No 1), CL1771. 5 NRC 1, 8 9 (1977)

Commission authority to impose license conditions to mimmize impacts, esen in caw of favorable cost-benefit balance; LBP-83 il,17 NRC 419 (1983)

Kung v. Fom Inv. Corp.,563 F. 2d 13I6,131819th Cir.1977) justification for Board dismmal ofintersenor; ALAB 719,17 NRC 394 (1983)

Le Compte v. Mr. Chips,Inc.,528 F.2d 601 (1976) test for voluntary dismissal without prejudice; LBP 83 2,17 NRC 50 (1983)

Link v. Wabash Rastroad Co.,370 U.S. 626,634 35, reh's denied,371 U.S. 873 (1962) circumstances to be considered in determmms whether dismissal of a party is warranted, ALAB 719,17 NRC 392 (1983)

Long Island Lightmg Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB-481,7 NRC 807, 808 (1978) most crucial factor considered in passing on stay application. AL AB 716,17 NRC 342 (1983)

Long Island Lightmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Umt 1), LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1144,1153 (1982) burden for estabhshmg privilege asserted by party objectmg to discovery request, LBP 83-17,17 NRC 495 (1983)

Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Generatmg Station, Umt 3), CLI 73-25,6 AEC 619,622 n 3 (1973) characterization of circumstances warrantmg grant of construction permit exemption; CLI-831, 17 NRC 2 (1983)

Maness v. Meyers,419 U.S. 449,458-59 (1975) remedy for an entity who beheves it is the object of an incorrect order; ALAB 714,17 NRC 95 (1983)

Maryland-National Capital Park and Plannmg Commission v. Postal Service,487 F 2d 1029,1036 37 (D.C. Car.1973) findmss weighms in favor of grarit of exemption under 10 CFR 50.12; CLI-83-1,17 NRC 5 (1983) i 26 F4e,o[v.4 h,

f h [I

_..l

- M.T; g

&; - ; i J

N

O LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES y s4 y

'V Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt No.1), ALAB-699,16 NRC 1324 (1982) 1 9

junsdiction of Licensing Board to consider admissibihty of new contentions follooms issuance of

partial imtial decision. LBP-83-12,17 NRC 467 (1983)

Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Uma No. 2), ALAB-486,8 NRC 9,21 (1978) weight given to untimehness of motion to reogn, CLI 83-4,17 NRC 77-78 (1983)

Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), AL AB-704,16 NRC 1725, 1729 (1982) history and background of Commission's consideration of uranium fuel cycle inipacts, LBP-83-6, 17 NRC 154,155 (1983)

National Broadcasting Co. v. Umied States,319 U.S.190,225 (1943) authority of administrative agencies to apply regulations, CLI-83-1,17 NRC 11 (1983)

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,581 F 2d 166 (2d Cir.1978))

Commission pokcy regarding safe disposal of nuclear wastes, LBP-83-6,17 NRC 155 (1983)

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,685 F.2d 459,477 74, 486-88,494 (D C. Cir.1982) uranium fuel cycle impacts which can be considered in individual Licensms Proceedmgs; LBP-83-6,17 NRC 155 (1983)

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,685 F.2d 459,494 (D.C. Cir.

1982), cert. granted, $1 U.S L.W. 3419 (November 29, 1982) basis for late-filed uranium fuel cycle effects contention; LBP-83-6,17 NRC 154 (1983)

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,695 F.2d 623 (D C. Cir.1982) extent of explanation needed for invoking 10 CFR 5012; CLI-83-1,17 NRC 3 (1983)

Northern Indiana Pubhc Service Co. (Bailly Generstmg Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB-619,12 NRC 558, 565 (1980)

Licensmg Board junsdiction over parts of sicam generator which apphcant is hcensed to operate; LBP-83-4,17 N,RC 119 (1983)

Northern States Power Co. (Monticello Nuclear Generstmg Plant, Uma 1), AL AB-10,4 AEC 390, and ALAB 36,4 AEC 435, affd,4 AEC 440 (1970) apphcabihty ofinformer's privilege in NRC proceedings. ALAB-714,17 NRC 91 (1983)

Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-244,8 AEC 857,864 (1974), reconsideration denied. ALAB 252,8 AEC I175, aTd, CLI-751,1 NRC 1 (1975)

Licensing Board discretion to treat issues of fact as contested. ALAB-709,17 NRC 23 (1973)

Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generatmg Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-244,8 AEC 857,869 n.17 (1974), reconsideration denied, ALAB-252,8 AEC 1175, aflirmed,1 NRC I (1975) testimony by a party on contentions other than its own; LBP-83-9,17 NRC 407 (1983)

Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-455,7 NRC 41,46 n.4 (1978) need to factor environmental costs of shipment of spent fuel a second time, LBP 83-8B,17 NRC 294 (1983)

Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-455,7 i

l NRC 41,54 (1978), remanded on other grounds sub nom. Mmnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,602 F.2d 412 (D C. Cir.1979) apphcation of " case or centroversy" restrictions to NRC jurisdiction; ALAB-714,17 NRC 93 (1983)

Northern States Power Co- (Praine Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant Units I and 2), CLI 751,1 NRC 1 (1975) responses to interrogatories addressing contentions sponsored by other parties; LBP-83-9,17 NRC 405 (1983)

Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessms Plant), CLI 75-4,1 NRC 273,276 (1975) hmitation on participation by late-fihng interested municipahty; LBP-8313,17 NRC 472 (1983)

--W;.,

n 4WM

$ M3

1. .%e 27

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB 334,3 NRC 809 0 976) justancation by intervenor for failure to Gle separate statement of matenal facts, LBP-83 3,17 G

NRC 614983)

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2), AL A B-519,9 NRC 42 (1979) showing necessary for subpoena of NRC Staff witness, ALAB-715,17 NHC 104-05 (1983)

Pacinc Gas and Elecinc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Umts I and 21, AL AB-600,12 NRC 3,8 0980) hmitation on partmipauon by late fihng interested municipahty; LBP 83-13,17 NRC 470 0983)

Pacinc Gas and Electne Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-644,13 I

NRC 903,930-310981) definihon of surface wave magnitude; ALAB 717,17 NRC 3610983)

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI 816,13 NRG y

443, 446 (1981) use of 2.206 procedures to avoid proper forum; DD-83 5,17 NRC 523 0983)

Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. v. State Energy Resources,489 F.Supp. 699 (1980) constriunonahty of Cahforma nuclear laws, LBP-83 2,17 NRC 47 4983)

Pacinc Legal Foundation v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission,659 F.2d 903 098D constitutionahty of Cahfornia nuclear bws, LBP-83 2,17 NRC 48 0983)

Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Stanon Umts I and 21, AL AB-613, 12 NRC 317,323 0980) showmg necessary for subpoena of NRC Staff witness, ALAB 715,17 NRC 1044)5 0983)

Pennsylvama Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317,334 0980) fundamental purposes of discovery; LBP-83-9,17 NRC 405 0983)

Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Elecinc Station Units I and 2), AL AB-693, 16 NRC 952,955-56 & n 6 0982) exceptions to Board Gndmgs, ALAB 709,17 NRC 20 0983)

Permian Basin Area Rate Cases,390 U.S. 747,784-87 0968) need for excephons or exemptions to regulations; CLI-83-1,17 NRC 12 (1983)

Perrin v. United States,444 U.S. 37,42-45 0979) defimuon of the term "emigent circumstances"; CLI-831,17 NRC 3 0983)

Petiuon Concerning Financial Quahncations of Nuclear Power Plant Licensees, DD-s p23,14 NRC 1807, 1810-11 0 98 0 institution of proceedings on issues that are the subject of rulemaking, DD-83-3,17 NRC 329 0983)

Philadelphia E!ectric Co. (Fulton Generating Stanon, Units I and 2), ALAB-657,14 NRC 967 098D fihngs required of parues regardmg apphcant's monon to withdraw; LBP 83 2,17 NRC 49 0983)

Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Statior., Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-566,10 NRC 527, 530 0 979) responsibihty of participant in NRC proceeding to manipulate its resources to meet its obhgations; ALAB-719,17 NRC 394 0983)

Portland General Electnc Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB 531,9 NRC 263 0979) requirement for analysis of need for transshipment of spent fuel; LBP-83-88,17 NRC 293 0983)

Preservauon Coalition, Inc. v. Pierce,667 F.2d 851,858-59 (9th Cir.1982) comphance with NEPA not precluded by compliance with National Historic Preservation Act; LBP-83-ll,17 NRC 435 0983)

Project Management Corp. (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354,4 NRC 383 0976) summary of extensive prehearing acuvities; LBP-83-8.17 NRC 163 0983)

Project Managemem Corp. (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant). ALAB-354,4 NRC 383,392-93 0976) right of interested state to pursue issues which it did not elect to hugate as a iusa isasty; LuP-83-9,17 NRC 407 (1983) i 28 V,y*J s

T 1.

1%ea w

g&

r A

-a l

6 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES M

t.

Project Managernent Corp. (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant), LBP 76-31,4 NRC 153 (1976),

affd ALAB-354,4 NRC 383 (1976)

)

basis for denial of mterested mumcipahty's petition to intervene; LBP-83 8,17 NRC 163 (1983)

a.

Providence Journal v. F.B l.,595 F.2d 889 (1st Cir,1979) justification for grant of stay pendmg appeal, CLI-83-6,17 NRC 334 (1983)

Pubhc Service Co. of I-diana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generstmg Station, Units I and 2), AL AB-316,3 NRC 167,171 (1976)

Licensmg Board jurisdiction over parts of steam generator which applicant is hcenses to operate, LBP 83-4,17 NRC 519 (1983)

Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-374,5 NRC 417,421 (1977) apphcation of federal rules and practices to NRC proceedmss LBP-83-17,17 NRC 497 (1983)

Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB 459,7 NRC 179,188 (1978) reason for reversal of Licensms Board demat of request for schedule change; ALAB-719,17 NRC 391 (1983)

Pubhc Service Co of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB-459,7 NRC 179,202 (1978) rationale for Board refusal to consider reque:t of party at adversely affected by its decision, LBP-83-15,17 NRC 477 (1983)

Pubhc Service Co of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generatmg Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB-461,7 NRC 3!3,315 (1978) appellate disposition of unbriefed issues, ALAB 719,17 NRC 395 (1983)

Pubhc Service Co of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umts I and 2), DD-79-10,10 NRC 129,130 n 2 (1979) power of otTice director to order adjudicatory board to consider particular issues. DD 83-5,17 NRC 523 (1983)

Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generatmg Station Umts I and 21 DD-79-21,10 NRC 717. 720 (1979) circumstances warranting an ofGce director's consideration of issues withm the scope of operatmg hcense review; DD-83-5,17 NRC 523 (1983)

Pubhc Sersice Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-271,1 NRC 478, 482-83 (1975) fihngs made by Staff due to uncertainty of appeatability of order; ALAB 714,17 NRC 88 (1983)

Pubbc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 21 AL AB-422,6 NRC 33, 82-84 (1977), affd sub nom. Pubhc Service Co v. NRC,582 F.2d 77 (1st Cir.1978)

Commission authority to impose hcense conditions to mimmare impacts, esen en case of favorable cost-beneGt balance; LBP 83-ll,17 NRC 419 (1983)

Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Umts I and 2), CLI 77 27,6 NRC 715,716 (1977) most crucial factor considered in passms on stay apphcation, AL AB 716,17 NRC 342 (19831 Pubbc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Umts I and 2), CLl-781,7 NRC l. 25. 26,

27. affd sub nom New Enfand Coahtion on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC,582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir 1978)

Licensing Board jurisdiction to consider noise impacts of supplementary coohng water system, LBP 83 ll,17 NRC 419 (1983)

Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Co. (5tlem Nuclear Generatmg Station, Umt I), ALAB-650,14 NRC 43, 49 (1981) exceptions to Board Gndings AL AB 709,17 NRC 20 (1983)

Pubhc service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Stat.on, Umts I and 21 DD-80-19, ll NRC 625,627 28 (1980) institutien of proceedmgs on issues that are the subject of rulemaking, DD 83-3,17 NRC 329 (1983)

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (North Coast Nuclear Plant Umt 1). ALAB-662,14 NRC 1125 Fvy%'

2 (J (1981) m fihngs required of parties regardmg applicant's motion to withdraw, LBP-83-2,17 NRC 49 (19836 y

wu

e.

29 kL

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Rekeweg v. Federal MutualInsurance Co.,27 F.R.D 431 (N D. Ind 1961) burden for establishmg pnvilege asscrted by party objectmg to discovery request, LBP-8317,17 NRC 495 (1983)

Repubhcan State Central Committee v. Ripon Society Inc.,409 U S.1222 (1972) (Rchnquist,3, m G

chambers) justincation for grant of rtay pending appeal, CLI-83 6,17 NRC 334 (1983)

Rochester Gas and Electnc Corp. (Sterlms Power Project, Nuclear Umt No.1), AL AB-502,8 NPC 383,393 n.21 (1978)

Licensing Board consideration of motion for clanGcation by party nos adversely alTected b) Bo.rd

. g,N

,y q

decision; LBP-83-15,17 NRC 477 (1983)

N N)

Rochester Gas and Elecinc Corp (Sierlms Power Project, Nuclear Umt No 1), AL AB-507,8 NRC p

$51, 556 (1978) most crucial factor considered in passing on stay appWstion. ALAB 716,17 NRC 342 (1983)

$'",Mk" Roviaro v. Umted States 353 U.S 53,59 (1957) n deGmtion of informer's pnvilege; AL AB.714,17 NRC 91 (1983)

Southern Califorma Edison Co. (San Oncfre Nuclear Generatmg Station, Umts 2 and 3), AL AB-308, 3 NRC 20,28 n 9 (1976) conuderation of radiation doses to public from transshipment of spent fuels LBP 83 8B,17 NRC 295 (1983)

Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensms Proceedmss, CLI-818,13 NRC 452 (1981) factors to be considered in selecting a sanction. AL AB-719,17 NRC 392 (1983)

Statement of Pohcy on Conduct of Licensms Proceedmgs, CLI 818,13 NRC 452,453 (1981) aspects of scheduling governed by; LBP 83-84,17 NRC 286 (1983)

Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licenung Proceedmgs CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,455 (1981) fundamental purposes of discovery; LBP 83 9,17 NRC 405 (198n Tennessee Valley Authonty (llattsville NucIcar Plant, Umts I A,2 A, IB, and 2B) AL AB-463,7 _

NRC 341,348 (1978) consideration of argumec.ts raised for G:st time on appeal. AL AB-709,17 NRC 22 (1983)

Tennessee Valley Authonty (flartsville Nuclear Plants Un is I A,2A, IB, and 2BI, AL AB-467, 7 NRC 459,463 (1978)

Appeal Board dismctmatior to render advisory opmions, AL AB 714,17 NRC 93 (1983)

Tennessee Valley Authority (Wilom Creek Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2), AL AB-515,8 NRC 702, 715 (1978)

Licensmg Board junsdiction to consider noise impacts of supplementary coolmg water s)siem.

LBP-8311,17 NRC 419 (1983)

Tesas Utihties Generaimg Co. (Comanche Peak Srcam Electoc Station Umts I and 2), AL AB-599, 12 NRC 1,2 (1980) inter:ocutory appeals of demals of miervennon petiuons; AL AB-712,17 NRC 82 (1983)

Toledo Edison Co (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-157,6 AEC 85811973)

Licensmg Board considera: ion of motion for clanficauon by party not adversely alTected by Board decision; LBP 8315,17 NRC 477 (1983)

Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-300,2 NRC 752,7tio (1975) use of analogous Federal Rules m interpreting NRC rules; LBP-83-17,17 NRC 495 (1983)

Union Electnc Co (Callamay Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-527,9 NRC 126,134 (1979) reason for informer's pnvilege in NRC proceedmgs. ALAB 714,17 NRC 92 (1983)

Umted States Department of Energy (Cimch River Breeder Reactor Plani), CLI 82-4,15 NRC 362 (1982) economic benefits of granimg exemption under 10 CFR 5012, CLI-83-1,17 NRC 15 (1983)

Umted States Energy Research and Development Admmistration (Cimch River Breeder Reactor Plant) CLI-76-13,4 NRC 67 (1976) summary of extensive prehearms activities; LBP-83 8,17 NRC 163 (1983)

Umted States Energy Research and Developmem Admimstration (Cimch Rner Breeder Reactor Plant), CL176-13,4 NRC 67,92 (1976) principles for revieu and consideration of alternatives to Cimch River site; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 224 (19836 30

.em m: &

r

_. c f.$lf&.-

E,

, g.

j N

Vw W

1 A-i &

h I

4 i

i T

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX f

CASES

)

United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corp.,406 U.S. 742, 755 (1972) need for exceptions to or enemptions from regulations; CLi-83-1,17 NRC 12 (1983)

United States v. Fruchauf,365 U.S.146,157, reh's demed,365 U.S. 875 (1961) i i

reason for Appeal Board disinchnation to render advisory opimons ALAB-714,17 NRC 94 (1983)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), DD 80 20,11 NRC 913, 914 (1980) institution of proceedmss on issues that are the subject of rulemaking, DD 83-3,17 NRC 329 (1983)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC,435 U.S. 519,553 54 (1978)

[

sanctions for failure of party to file required findmss of fact. ALAB-709,17 NRC 23 (1983)

Virginia Electrw and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), CLI 76-22,4 NRC 480, j

491 (1976), aff'd sub nom. Virgmia Electne and Power Co. v. NRC,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) type of matter that should be raised for emploration and resolution in the adjudicatory content.

P AL AB-715,17 ? T.C 105 (1983)

WAIT Radio v. FCC,418 F.2d 1153,1159 (D C. Cir.19t9' need for exceptions to or esemptions from regulations CLI-83-l,17 NRC 12 (1983)

Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and 5), CLI-7711,5 NRC e

~u 719 (1977) reason for rejection of request for exemption under 10 CFR 5012; CLI-831,17 NRC 5 (1983)

Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nucicar Project Nos 3 and 5), CLI-77-II,5 NRC I

719, 72) (1977) characterization of circumstances warranting grant of construction permit exemption; CLI-83-1, 17 NRC 2 (1983)

Wisconsm Electnc Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-78,5 AEC 319 (1972) admissibihty of ACRS reports as evidence; ALAB-717,17 NRC 367 (1983) s Zavala Santiago v. Gonzaler Rivera,553 F.2d 710,71213 (1st Cir.1977) justification for Board dismissal of intersenor; ALAB-719,17 NRC 394 (1983) l 31 i.

l

• Wh

• y W #K

_'N'W

"_j TW

'#M DP N *'"

'M"-

n

~ a.

t,-

F

'Pj(;.

~

p.,'

~., z V

B e

{

l l

l l

}

.. t P

1 s,4

. d, 3 ~, ~]

.i:

,%[g;,'

O

<j 3

i l

J k

O

$f

[f;*:q; g% y

%Yi-LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGUI ATIONS 10 CFR 2.4(p) definition of NRC personnel for discovery purposes; ALAB-715,17 NRC 105 (1983) 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5) status of antitrust submission as part of construction permit apphcation; LBP 83 2,17 NRC 48 (1983) 10 CFR 2.102 admissibahty of ACRS reports as evidence; ALAB-717,17 NRC 367 (1983) 10 CFR 2.107 monstonng of remedial actions imposed by order granting withdrawal of construction permit apphcation; LBP-83-10,17 NRC 412 (1983) 10 CFR 2.107(a) jurisdiction over issues after notice of hearing has been issued LBP 83-2,17 NRC 48 49 (1983) request for withdrawal of construction permit apphcation without prejudice granted, LBP-83-7,17 NRC 157 (1983) 10 CFR 2.203 l

authority for approval of compromise of civil penalty; AL3-83-1,17 NRC 314 (1983) 10 CFR 2.205 issuance of Notice of Violation for receipt of radioactive matenals from unauthorized suppher; ALJ-83-1,17 NRC 313 (1983) 10 CFR 2.206 i

l denial of petition for suspension of construction on basis of alleged design deficiencies; DD 83 5,17 NRC 519 (1983) denial of petition requestmg regulatory action because of risk to Zion facihty from pressurized thermal shocit; DD-83-4,17 NRC 513 (1983) denial of petition requesting suspension of operatic,ns pendmg fina.icial qualifications review; DD-83-3,17 NRC 328 (1983) denial of peutions for show cause proceedmgs based on alleged construction deficiencies; DD-83-1, 17 NRC 319 (1983) petition requestmg suspension of construction at Zimmer Station granted in part DC 93-2,17 NRC 323 (1983) 10 CFR 2.206(c)(1) context in which em parte rule does not apply; CLI-83-4,17 NRC 79 (1983) 10 CFR 2.707 sanctions for failure to file timely responses, LBP-83-6,17 NRC 154 (1983) 10 CFR 2.710 factors considered in ume penod for fihng motions for reconsideration; LBP-83-14,17 NRC 475 f

(1983) 10 CFR 2.713(c)

I Licensing Board authority to impose sanctions on NRC Staff counsel; ALAB-714,17 NRC 91,99 (1983) 10 CFR 2.714 deadhnes for responses to new contentions filed after issuance of partial initial derision; LBP 8312, 17 NRC 463 (1983)

FN.,h$

nght of a party to offer direct testimony on contentions other than its own; LBP-83 9,17 NRC 406 p

.Up Q (1983) imph.h l

v. e 0;Np;9f 33 l

l

O L

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 10 CFR 2.7144a) denial of petition to micrvene by interested municipahty; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 162 (1983) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) justiGcation for untimely contentions based of Stafrs draft environmental impact statement; LBP 83 8 A,17 NRC 284 (1983) persons who may file a petition to intervene; LBP-8316,17 NRC 483 (1983)hme req 7

(1983) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(3) and (b) amendment of petition to intervene without consent of presiding officer; LBP-83-16,17 483 (1983) dismissal of petition to intervene in operating bcense amendment proceeding for failure to proffer 10 CFR 2.714(b) one good contention, ALAB-719,17 NRC 389 (1983) failure of contention to meet specificity requirement; ALAB-719,17 NRC 394 (1983) appellate review of Licensing Board disposition ofintervention petition; ALAB-713,17 NRC 84 10 CFR 2.714a interlocutory appeals of denials of intervention peutions, ALAB-712,17 NRC 82 (1983)

(1983) right of one intervenor to appeal the denial of another intervenor's contenuon ALAB-709,17 NRC 10 CFR 2.714 afb) 22 (1983) 10 CFR 2.715(c) hmitation on participation by late-filing interested municipahty; LBP-83-470 (19831 participation by withdrawmg party as " interested mumcipahty"; LBP-83-8 17 NRC 407 (1983) 7 time requirement for filing for participation as interested municipahty; LBP-83-13,17 NRC 4 1 (1983) jun2 diction of Licens.ng Board to consider admissibility of new contentions following issuance of 30 CFR 2 717(a) partial initial decision; LBP-8312,17 NRC 467 (1983)

Licensing Board authority to set time penods for fihng motior* to reconsider; LBP-83-14,17 NRC 10 CFR 2.718 474 (1983) sanctions for failure to file hmely responses, LBP 83-6,17 NRC 154 (1983) filmgs made by Staff due to uncertainty of appealabihty of order; ALAB-714,17 NRC 88 (1983) 10 CFR 2.718(i) 10 CFR 2.720th)(2)U) definition of NRC personnel for discovery purposes; ALAB-715,17 NRC 105 (1983) showmg necessary for subpoena of NRC Staff witness; ALAB 715,17 NRC 104 (1983)

I 10CFR 2.721(1982)

Licensmg Board jurisdiction over operational impacts of supplementary coolmg water system at Point Pleasant; LBP-83-il,17 NRC 439 (1983) 10 CFR 2.740(bHI) reason for hberal grantmg of discovery under; LBP 83-17,17 NRC 494 (1983) 983) material which falls within realm of attorney work product doctrme; LBP 10 CFR 2.740f b)(2)

(1983) 17 NRC protecuon agamst disclosure of content of advice from non witness consultant, LBP 8317, 490 (1983) 10 CFR 2.740(c) reasons for issuance of protective orders, LBP 83-9,17 NRC 405 (19831

{

10 CFR 2.740-2.744 rules govermos discovery in NRC proceedings; LBP-83-9,17 NRC 405 (1983)

I

'.)y 4

34 IL

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 5

10 CFR 2.743(c) n

'I evidence admissible in NRC proceedmgs; ALAB-717,17 NRC 366 (1983) 10 CFR 2.743(g) (1%2) admission of Final Safety Analysis Report into evidence; 7. LAB-717,17 NRC 368 (1983) y 10 CFR 2.744(d) apphcabihty ofinformer's privilege in NRC proceedings. ALAB-714,17 NRC 91 (1983) 10 CFR 2.749(a) interpretation of wording requiring fihng of separate statement of matenal facts; LBP-83-3,17 NRC 61 (1983) 10 CFR 2.751s time period applicable to requests for reconsideration of order in the nature of special preheanns conference order; LBP 8314,17 NRC 474 (1983) 10 CFR 2.751af a)(1), (2) purpose of special prehearing conference; ALAB 719,17 NRC 392 (1983) 10 CFR 2.751afd) authorization for responses to requests for reconsideration of ruhngs, LBP 83-8 A,17 NRC 283 (1983) particularization required of objections to rulings on contentions LBP-83 8 A,17 NRC 263 (1983) time periods for fihng motions to reconsider Board orders; LBP-8314,17 NRC 474 (1983) 10 CFR 2.754 companson with federal rule governing fihng of proposed findmss of fact ALAB-709,17 NRC 21 (1983) distinction between permissise and mandatory fihngs of findmgs of fact; ALAB 709,17 NRC 22 (1983) necessity of fihng proposed findings of fact; ALAB-717,17 NRC 371 (1983) 10 CFR 2.758 petition for waiver of Table S-4, LBP-83-8B,17 NRC 294 (1983) 10 CFR 2.760a Licensing Board autbonty to pursue uncontested safety issues; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 122 (1983) restnctions on issues to be considered by operating hcense boards; ALAB 709,17 NRC 22 (1983) 10 CFR 2.762(a) appeals ofimtial decisions, ALAB-712,17 NRC 82 (1983) fihngs made by Staff due to uncertainty of appealability of order, ALAB-714,17 NRC 88 (1983) 10 CFR 2.771 time period for fihng m3tions to reconsider imtial decisions; L3P-8314,17 NRC 475 (1983) 10 CFR 2.780 preclusion of conversations among parties; AL AB-717,17 NRC 378 (1983) sufficiency of petition for enforcement action to invoke provisions of. CLI-83-4.17 NRC 76 (1983) 10 CFR 2.780(a) scope of communications considered to be es parte; CLI-83-5,17 NRC 331 (1983) 10 CFR 2.780(d) examples of genenc discussions which are not considered es parte; CLI-83 3,17 NRC 72 (1983) 10 CFR 2.786fa) standard for Commission sua sponte review of Appeal Board decision, CLI-83-2,17 NRC 70 (1982); CLI-83-6,17 NRC 334 (1983) 10 CFR 2.786(b)

Staffintention to file petition for review of appettate decision with Commission, CLI-83-6,17 NRC 334 (1983) 10 CFR 2.788 motion for stay of effectiveness pendmg Commission review; AL AB 716,17 NRC 342 (1982) 10 CFR 2.7886a) request for stay of effectiveness of decision pendmg further appeal; CLI-83-6,17 NRC 334 (1983) 10 CFR 2.788(e)

FxW%

factors warranting grant of stay pendmg appeal, CLI 83 6,17 NRC 334 (1983) i most crucial factor considered in passing on stay apphcation; ALAB 716,17 NRC 342 (1983)

,,,S[_

f:,..

.m 35 l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RF.Gl;LATIONS 10 CFR 2.790(a)(7) apphcabihty ofinformer's pnvilege in NRC proceedmgs; ALAB-714,17 NRC 91 (1983) 10 CFR 2, App. A,IV(c)

O model for rules of practice; ALAB-709,17 NRC 20 (1983) 10 CFR 2, App. A. V(O(l), (2)

Licensms Board rehance on ACRS conclusions; ALAB 717,17 NRC 361 (1983) 10 CFR 20 denvation of dose guidehne values for organs ofimportance to plutonium exposure for Cimch River

/.w a project; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 1% (1933) di 10 CFR 21.2 d

apphcabihty ofinformer's pnvilege in NRC proceedings; ALAB-714,17 NRC 91 (1983) 10 CFR 32.72 imposition of civil penalty for receipt of radioactive matenals from unauthorized supplier; AU 83-1, 17 NRC 314-16 (1983) scope of coverage over radioactive materials; AU 83-1,17 NRC 315 (1983) 10 CFR 35.14 temporary authority to receive radiopharmaceuticals, AU-83-1,17 NRC 316 (1983) 10 CFR 35.41 method for venGcation of authonty of suppher of radioactive materials; AU-83-1,17 NRC 316 (1983) 10 CFR 50.10(c) pre construction permit activities not precluded by; CLI-831,17 NRC 6 (1983) 10 CFR 50.10(e) applicabihty oflimited work authonzation procedures to first-of-a-kmd reactors; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 254 (1983)

Licensing Board authority to conduct separate heanngs and issue partial decision on issues related to hmited work authonzation; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 161 (1983) precedential weight of case decided pnor to promulgation of regulation estabhshing procedure for limited work authonzation; CL1-831,17 NRC 4 (1983) rulemaking history of; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 254-55 (1983) 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) basis for issuing exemption under 10 CFR 50.12; CLI-831,17 NRC 5 (1983) 10 CFR 50.10(e)(2) types of findings and determinations to be made by a Board in considenng a limited mork authorization; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 167 (1983) 10 CFR 50.12 clarification of NRC's findings of extraordmary circumstances warranting grant of exemption pursuant to: CLI-83-1,17 NRC 2 (1983) 10 CFR 50.33(0(1) chmination of need for financial qualifications review for electnc utihties; DD-83-3,17 NRC 328 (1983) 10 CFR 50.33(g) responsibility for developmg emergency plan for ingestion emergency planning zone; ALAB-717,17 NRC 377 (1983) 10 CFR 50.33a justification by apphcant for withdramal from antitrust proceeding; LBP 83-2,17 NRC 48 (1983) 10 CFR 50.33a(b) option of applicant on timing of submission of portion of construction permit application deshng with construction of facihty; LBP-83 2,17 NRC 52 (1983) 10 CFR 50.34(b) admissibihty of Final Safety Analysis Report as evidence in operating bcense proceedms; ALAB-717,17 NRC 365 (1983) 10 CFR 50.34(b)(1)-(8) information and analyses required of Final Safety Analysis Report; ALAS 717,17 NRC 365 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1) basis for hcensi's dectsions on emergency preparedness; ALAB-717,17 NRC 380 (1983) 36 Vh.%-:

5S'k.

t g,"*4 p)q ;*

W.Y i

I;;7,

O LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS st #.. r 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2) emitlement of FLM A findings to rebuttable presumption; ALAB-717,17 NRC 378 fl983) requirement for emergency preparedness exercises; ALAB 717,17 NRC 380 (1983)

'5#

review of FEM A findings and determinations on emergency plans; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 141 (1983) 10 CFR 50 47(b) comphance ofIndian Point emergency planning with standards of LBP-83-1,17 NRC 35 (1983) determmation of principal response organizations responsible for detailed emergency planning requirements ALAB 717,17 NRC-377 (1983) failure of Indian Pomt emergency plannmg to meet standards of. LBP-83 5,17 NRC 135-36 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) adequacy ofinterim compensating actions to allesiate temporary gap m San Onofre siren coverage, AL AB-717.17 NRC 369 (1983) adequacy of means for notifying boaters in San Onofre emergency planning zone of radiological emergency; ALAB-717,17 NRC 376 (1983) 10 CFR 50 478 bH5) and (6) history of hcenze performance for notifying NRC of incidents at plant as basis for contention.

LBP-83-5,17 NRC 139 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(bH9) acceptance of contention questioning adequacy of methods for monitormg meteorological conditions durmg radiologica! cmcrgency; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 139 (1983) requirements for radiation monitoring and assessment capabihties m plume emergency plannmg zone; ALAB-717,17 NRC 370 (1983) 10 CFR 50 47(b)(10) adequacy of emergency planmng for protective actions for San Onofre special populations, ALAB 717,17 NRC 373 (1983) 10 CFR 50 47(b)(12) circumstances under which medical arrangements would be unnecessary; LBP-83-8D,17 NRC 304 (1983) waste of Commission resources through differing mterpretations of. LBP-83-8C,17 N;;C 298 (1983) 10 CFR 50 47(c)(1) adequacy ofinterim compensating actions for temporary gap in San Onofre siren coverage; ALAB-717,17 NRC 369 (1983) extent of deficiency of San Onofre radiation assessment and momtorms capabihties for plume emergency plannmg zone, ALAB-717,17 NRC 371 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) circumstances under which medical arrangements would be unnecessary; LBP-83-8D,17 NRC 304 (1983) size and configuration of San Onofre plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone; AL AB-717,17 NRC 377 (1983) 10 CFR 50 49 description of environmental quahficateon of electrical equipment. LBP-8318.17 NRC 506 (1983) 10 CFR 50.49(e)(4) and (5) testing of polymer insulation in electrical cables for effects of radiation; LBP-83-18,17 NRC 506 (1983) 10 CFR 50 49f f)(3) requirements for testing of electrical equipment; LBP-8318,17 NRC 506 (1983) 10 CFR 50 49(g) deadhne for completion of equipment quahfication studies, LBP-83-188,17 NRC 507 (1983) 10 CFR 50 49fi) appbcabihty of environmental quahfication regulations to Perry plant, LBP-83-18,17 NRC 506 (1983) 10 CFR 50 54(f)

FDN.

response required to Demand for Information DD-83 2,17 NRC 324 (1953) 10 CFR 50 57(a)

d adherence of Comanche Peak construction practices with, AL AB 714,17 NRC 88 (1983) wws qu e

.%- $r* ej]

g

.,1 37

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CFR 50, App A applicabihty of, to test reactors; ALAB 720,17 NRC 399 (1983) 6 10 CFR 50, App. A, GDC 14 adequacy of eddy current testing; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 114 (1943) 10 CFR 50, App. B adherence of Comanche Peak construction practices with, ALAB 714,17 NRC 88 (1983) surveillance and maintenance of electrical equipment, LBP 83-18,17 NRC 511 (1983)

't

'y, 10 CFR 50 App. B. I responsibihty for estabhshment and execution of quality assurance program; DD-83 2,17 NRC 326

..g' (1983) 10 CFR 50. App. E compliance ofIndian Pomt emergency plannmg with standards of; LBP-831,17 NRC 35 (1983);-

e

.+

LBP-83-5,17 NRC 136 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App E,IV.D.3 adequacy of interim compensating actions for temporary gap in San Onofre siren coverage, ALAB-717,17 NRC 369 (1983) 10 CFR 50. App. E. IV.F traming required for persons expected to assist in radiological emergency; ALAB-717,17 NRC 376 (1983) 10 CFR 51.20 inclusion of environmental cost of shipping Oconee and McGuire spent fuel to Catawba in Table S 4; LBP-83-88,17 NRC 293 (1983) 10 CFR 51.20(e) contention alleging mere reproduction of Tatile S-3 is inadequate discussion of uramum fuel cycle impacts, LBP-83 6,17 NRC 154 (1983) description of uranium fuel cycle releases table (S-3); LBP 83-6,17 NRC 154 (1983) 10 CFR 51.23(c) description of uranium fuel cycle releases table (S-3), LBP-83-6,17 NRC 154 (1983) 10 CFR 51.52(b) and (c) types of findings and determinations to be made by a Board in considering a limited work authorization; LBv-e3-8,17 NRC 166 (1983) 10 CFR 70 and 73 basis for intervenors' uncertamties concerning DOE's comphance with its safeguards commitments.

LBP-83-8,17 NRC 161 (1983) 10 CFR 73.lf a) basis for Stali's judgment of characteristics of potential adversaries toward nuclear activities.

LBP-83-8,17 NRC 2)$ (1983) extent of Staff analysis of Chnch River safeguards system; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 181 (1983) 10 CFR 73.2(p) analysis of potential sabotage scenarios for Clench River project; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 178 (1983) 10 CFR 100 acceptabihty of design basis accident dose guidehnes for Cimch River project, LBP-83-8,17 NRC 170 (1983) appbcation of EPA requirements to denvation of dose guidehne values, LBP 83 8,17 NRC 196 (1983) calculation of doses for Cimch River site suitabihty source term; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 185 (1983) commitment of Chnch River appbcant concerning environmental release standards for fuel cycle facilities, LBP-83-8,17 NRC 222 (1983) definition of C. nch River low population zone; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 229,242 (1983) derivauon of dose guidelme values for organs of importance to plutomum exposure for Chnci River project; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 196 (1983) description of exclusion area for Cimch River project; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 229,242 (1983) evaluation of effectiveness of Clinch River engmeered safety features with respect to meeting exposure guidehnes of, LBP-83-8,17 NRC 194,243 (1983) 38 nd.9 h;w$:v r

[Mk

~N~'

B

O LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS

, ;c.;f U

c

'is, g M.

a '

exclusion of core disruptive accidenes from design basis considerations; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 193 fik,*

(1983)

'?p EU use of nonstochastic hmit in deriving dose guidelines for Chnch River; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 195 "L

(1983) 10 CFR 100.11 relevance of Clinch River meteorology to its site suitability; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 244 (1983) 10 CFR 100.llfa) use of nonstochastic limit in deriving dose guidelines for Chnch River; LBP-83 8,17 NRC 195 (1983) 10 CFR 100 Ilfa), n l.

adequacy of analyses of core disruptive accidents and their consequences at Cimch River, LBP-83-8, 17 NRC 168,171 (1983) 10 CFR 100, App. A capabihty of faults near Clinch River site; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 245 (1983) determination of safe shutdown earthquake for Chnch River Breeder Reactor site; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 246 f1983) state of knowledge of earthquake mechanisms; ALAB-717,17 NRC 363 !1983) 10 CFR 100, App. A, Illfc) definition of safe shutdown earthquake; ALAB-717,17 NRC 351 (1983) 10 CFR 100 App. A,Ill(g) capabihty of Cristianitos Zone of Deformation; ALAB-717,17 NRC 358 (1983) definition of capable fault; ALAB-717,17 NRC 357 (1983) 36 CFR 800.3(b) noises which constitute adverse effects on National Historic Register sites; LBP-83 il,17 NRC 459 (1983) 50 CFR 17.11 (1981) impact of Point Pleasant intake on shortnose sturgeon, LBP-83 il,17 NRC 450 (1983) l l

l

[

l 39 l

l 1

1 1

1 1

I 1

1

O w$;

~

kb' set';

w: c.

I t

O O

J 4

?

k LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Atomic Energy Act,182 response required to Demand for Information; DD-83-2,17 NRC 324 (1983)

Atomic Energy Act,182b,42 U.S.C. 2232(b) admissibility of ACRS reports as evidence, ALAB-717,17 NRC 367 (1983)

Atomic Energy Act,186,42 U.S.C. 2236 basis for Appeal Board determination that sanctions are unwarranted for omission of material information; CLt-83-2,17 NRC 69 (1983)

Atomic Energy Act,189,42 U.S C. 2239 limits of post hearing resolution of issues by NRC Staff; ALAB-717,17 NRC 380 (1983)

Atomic Energy Act,189(a),42 U.S C. 2239(a) interests affected by construction and operation of nuclear power plants ALAB 717,17 NRC 354 (1983) i Atomic Energy Act,191,42 U.S C. 2241 (1976)

Licensing Board junsdiction over operational impacts of supplementary coohng water system at x

Point Pleasant; LBP-83-ll,17 NRC 439 (1983) g Atomic Energy Act,234,42 U.S C. 2282 y

issuance of Notice of Violation for receipt of radioactive materials from unauthorized supplier; AL3-83-1,17 NRC 313 (1983) m pumshable behavior relatmg to matenal false statements under; CLt-83-2,17 NRC 70 (1983) h p-Clean Water Act,101,33 U.S C.1252

- a objectives of, LBP-83-!I,17 NRC 419 (1983)

) y r

Clean Water Act,316(b)

H r

adequacy of Clinch River heat dissipation system for minimizing environmental impacts; LBP 83 8, C

t 17 NRC 250 (1983) a Clean Water Act,404,33 U.S C.1344 (1976 & Supp.)

issuance of dredge and fill permit to municipal water authority by Corps of Engmeers; LBP-83-il, j

17 NRC 418 (1983) a Clean Water Act,511(c)(2),33 U.S C.1371 (1976 & Supp.)

preclusion of NRC consideration of matters considered by Corps of Engineers in issuing its permits.

l LBP-83-il,17 NRC 418-19 (1983)

Endangered Species Act, as amended,16 U.S C.1531-43 (1976 & Supp.)

impact of Point Pleasant intake on shortnose sturgeon, LBP-83-II,17 NRC 427,450 (1983)

Energy Reorganization Act of 19'i4. 202(1)

NRC authority oser breeder reactor. LBP 83-8.17 NRC 254 (1983)

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,206,42 U.S C. 5846 scope ofinformer's pnvilege; ALAB-714,17 NRC 92 (1983)

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,210,42 U.S C. 5851 reason for informer's privilege in NRC proceedmgs, ALAB-714,17 NRC 92 (1983)

Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S C. 552 justification for grant of stay pending appeal; CLt-83-6,17 NRC 334 (1983)

National Environmental Policy Act,42 U.S C. 4332 et see (1976)

Commission authonty to impose license conditions to mmimize impacts, even in case of favorab;c cost-benefit balance; LBP-83-II,17 NRC 419 (1983)

National Environmental Pohey Act,102,42 U.S C. 4332 (1976)

Fdm.

impacts of Point Pleasant intake requiring mitiganon measures for comphance unh, LBP-83-il,17

/

NRC 463 (1983) fg$n i

O "' ;

W,y; j 4I i

I f

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATL'TES Licensing Board jurisdiction over operational impacts of supplementary cooling water system at Point Pleasant; LBP-8311,17 NRC 439 (1983)

National Environmental Policy Act,102(A), (C) and (D)

G compliance of Clinch River Breeder Reactor project as to environmental matters related to limited worlt authorization; LBP-83 8,17 NRC 167 (1983)

National Historic Presersation Act,16 U.S C. 470-470(n) (1976 & Supp )

f impact of Point Picasant intake on proposed historic district; LBP-83-ll,17 NRC 434 (1983)

[

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,302, Pub. L. No.97-425, % Stat. 2201 J;

, p?

Commission action regarding radioactive waste disposal; DD-83,17 NRC 329 (1983)

)

);

.f j

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub. L. No. 97-35 government policy regarding expeditious completion of Chnch River Breeder Reactor project.

f

.*M

^

j LBP-83-8,17 NRC 163 (1983)

Ek

{

Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act (Cal. Pub. Resources -

}

Code,25,000 et seq )

(

prohibition on construction of new nuclear power plants; LBP-83-2,17 NRC 47 (1983) k, 4

I i

I I

i a

r I

it I

42 g

i V3+:

LW m;. %;)

.$fh o

m,9, y i

s k

O W

s: '

i m.

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and (3) guidance for interpreting analogous NRC rules; LBP-8317,17 NRC 494 (1983)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) material which falls within realm of attorney work product doctrine; LBP-8317,17 NRC 495 (1983)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) objection to discovery ofidentity of non witness expert; LBP 83-17,17 NRC 496 (1983)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) comparison of Commission regulation for voluntary dismissal with; LBP-83-2,17 NRC 49 (1983)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) circumstances to be considered in determining whether dismissal of a party is warranted; AL AB 719,17 NRC 392 (1983)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) responsibihty for making findings of fact; ALAB-709,17 NRC 20 (1983)

Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) need for sponsorship of material containing experts's:udies and opmions; ALAB-717,17 NRC 368 (1983)

Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) authentification requirement for admissibihty of evidence; ALAB-717,17 NRC 365 (1983) 4 Moore's Federal Practice 26.02111-12] (1982) fundamental purposes of discoscry; LBP-83 9,17 NRC 405 (1983) 4A Moore's Federal Practice 130.571141 authorization for recording of deposition testimony; LBP-83-8A,17 bRC 289 (1983) 5 Moore's Federal Practice 41.05(2) at 4172 test for voluntary dismissal without prejudice; LBP-83 2,17 NRC 50 (1983) 5 Moore's Federal Practice. 41.05l1] at 41-53 and 4154 payment of intervenor's attorney fees as condition of voluntary dismissal; LBP 83-2,17 NRC 53 (1983) 5A Moore's Federal Practice, 152.06 (2d ed.1981 purpose of fahng findings of fact; ALAB-709,17 NRC 20 (1983)

Random House Dictionary of the Enghsh Language, Uruibndged Edition,499 C 3 (1966) definition of the term ** exigent circumstances"; CLI-8.l-l 17 NRC 3 (1983) 17 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc., 1101 1102 (October 12, 1981) government pohey regardmg expeditious completion of Chnch River Breeder Reactor project; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 163 (1983) national pokcy concernmg completion of Chnch River breeder reactor plant; CLI-83-1,17 NRC 12 (1983) 8 Wnght and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure. Cavil 2016,n 68 at 126 (19701 burden for estabhshing privilege asserted by party objectmg to discosery request; LBP-83-17,17 NRC 495 (1983) 8 Wnght and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 2021, at 194 use of work product concept as shield against discovery; LSP-83-17,17 NRC 495 (1983) 9 Wnght and Miller Federal Practice and Procedure, 2574-81 (1971) purpose of filing findmss of fact; ALAB-709,17 NRC 20 (1983)

F>9.%;,:.y3

,,f.'

f.

&r.,

43

a f

9 B8i3!

D l

t

r@

I i

9 I

P i

l IL 1

D f,

VOtep't >,,

.7,;. n.:]

e

?%7 ':)

4;.<;gw$;,

4.f e, >

q.;.

r

_ 'y,_ *

/ F* * * '+ ]

6. p Nh c

.. Lq?.W SUBJECT INDEX i

ACCIDENT (S) analyses, mechanistic and nonmechanistic approaches to; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) at Chnch River, conditions in reactor core conducive to; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983; design basis. consideration of core disruptive as, for purpose of site suitabihty analysis, LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) i effects on Y-12 and other facihties near Chnch River breeder reactor; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) nuclear power plant, need to promote pubhc awareness of, LBP 83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) scenanos for Indian Point, adequacy of consideration of LBP-83 5,17 NRC 134 (1983)

ALCOHOL and drug use at nuclear facilities, safety consequences of. ALAB 710,17 NRC 25 (1983)

ALERTING the pubhc of radiological emergency, adequacy of San Onofre siren system for, ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

ALT ERN ATIVE SITES to Cimch River Project site, pnnciples observed in considering; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

See also Site Suitabihty I

ALTERNATIVES to Clinch River breeder reactor design, suggestions by imervenors for; LBP-83 8,17 NRC 158 I

(1983) 2 AMENDMENT

/

of petitions to intervene to satisfy timehness requirements; LBP-83-16,17 NRC 479 (1983)

[

APPEAL BOARD affirmance of Licensmg Board decision, stare decisas effect of. AL AB 720,17 NRC 397 (1983) directives, Licensmg Board responsibihty to comply with; ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1983) junsdiction, apphcabihty of" case or controversy" restncuon to; ALAB 714,17 NRC 86 (1983) y renderms of advisory opiruons by; AL AB 714,17 NRC 86 (1983) scope of review by, ofintervention petruons; ALAB-713.17 NRC 83 (1983) standard of review for Licensing Board conclusions not brought to it by may of appeal. ALAB-713, 17 NRC 83 (1983)

APPEAL (S) interlocutory, from order entered on mtervention petiuon; ALAB-712,17 NRC 81 (1983) of denial of mtervention, standmg for; AL AB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982)

BRIEFS appellate, scope of, ALAB 709,17 NRC 17 (1982)

BYPRODUCT M ATERI ALS penalty for receipt of, from unauthonzed suppher; ALJ 831,17 NRC 31) (1983)

CIVIL PEN ALTY approval of compromise of AL3-831,17 NRC 313 (1983)

CLARIFICATION effect of Licensmg Board inaction on motion for; LBP-8315,17 NRC 476 (1983)

COMMUNICATIONS, EX PARTE among parties in hcensing proceedmgs, preclusion of. ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

Commission meetmg concernmg seismic quahrication of emergency feedwater system as; CLI-83-5, 17 NRC 331 (1983) discussion between NRC Staff and Commissioners as; CLI 83 3,17 NRC 72 (1983)

F1*gd CONFIDENTIALITY

l of names of Mviduals who mform about safety discrepancies; ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983)

C

;s w et hNp.$

ps q 4$

i

I 4

)

I t

SUBJECT INDEX i

CONSTRUCTION i,

at Zimmer,2.206 petition for suspension of, grar;ted in part, denied in part, DD-83-2,17 NRC 323 (1983) deficiencies at LaSalle, denial of 2.206 petition alleging DD-83-1,17 NRC 319 (1983)

G CONSTRUCTION PERMIT application, withdrawal without prejudice, subject to conditions; LBP 83-2,17 NRC 45 (1983);

j LBP-8310,17 NRC 410 (1983) for Pebble Sprmgs, withdrawal, without prejudice, of applications for; LBP 83 7,17 NRC 157 (1983)

Qf g initiation of site preparation acuvitie.s pnor to issuance of, CLI-83-1,17 NRC 1 (1983) i9 CONTAINMENT f 1.*

t design of Chnch River breeder fesctor, adequacy of, to reduce offsite doses LBP-83 8,17 NRC 158 er@% N (1983) f t

factors to assess radiological impacts of Chnch River breeder reactor fuel cycle facihties, adequacy C1-44 of; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) t CONTENTIONS emergency planning, guidehnes for determining admissibility of, LBP 831,17 NRC 33 (1983) g COOLING SYSTEMS e

supplementary, mitigation of noise impacts from; LBP-83-il,17 NRC 413 (1983)

DEG R ADATION of poiymers used for electrical insulation, technical discussion of, LBP-8318,17 NRC 501 (1983)

DEPOSITIONS alternatives to stenographic means of taking, LBP-83-8A,17 NRC 282 (1983)

DESIGN of Clinch River Breeder reactor, need to consider alternatives to, LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

DESIGN BASIS j

for GE test reactor, reassessment of, in hght of discovery of Verona Fault; ALAB-720,17 NRC 397 (1983) i See also Accident (s)

}

DISCOVERY l

disputes, guidance from judicial proceedings for resolution of; LBP 83-17,17 NRC 490 (1983) documents, preservation of, as condition for construction permit apphcation withdrawal without i

prejudice; LBP-83-2,17 NRC 45 (1983) informal, cooperative approaches to; LBP-83-8 A,17 NRC 282 (1983) j of identities of non-witness experts; LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490 (1983)

[

of the foundation upon which a contention is based, LBP-8317,17 NRC 490 (1983) reason for liberal granting of, LBP-8317,17 NRC 490 (1983)

DISMISSAL of a party for failure to fulfillits hearing obhgations; ALAB-719,17 NRC 387 (1983)

See also Sanctions DOCUMENTS discovery, preservation of, as condiuon for construction permit apphcation withdrawal without prejudece; LBP-83 2,17 NRC 45 (1983)

DOSE guidehne values, description of, and apphcation of, to limited work authorization for Chnch River i

breeder reactor; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

See also Radiation DRUG i

and alcohol use at nuclear faciht.es, safety consequences of ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1983) i EARTHQUAKE

{

Charleston (1886),locahzation of, to Summer facihty; ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1983)

(

maximum magnitude for San Onofre, determination of; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

See also Faultis) l EDDY CURRENT TESTING l

for defects in sleeved steam generator tubes, rehabihty of, LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) i ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT need for environmental quahficauon of, LBP-83-18,17 NRC 501 (1983)

P 44 Fm l

u_

nu8 d

r

!&y fx.

B

O SUBJECT INDEX oID.7 N.T EMERGENCY f

ig2.Q at Indian Pomt, hcensee dependab0ity to notify authonties of; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983)

QM-feasibihty of offsite procedures at Indian Pomt for deahng with; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983)

. j $. $

EMERGENCY DIRECTOR responsibilities of, during first four hours after declaration of emergency; CLI-83-7,17 NRC 336 (1983)

EMERGENCY FEEDW ATER SYSTEM at Three Mile Island, seismic ouahfication of CLI-83-5,17 NRC 331 (1983)

EMERGENCY PLANNING contentions, Board ruhng on responses to reformulation ofi LBP-83-5,17 NRC I34 (1983) contentions, guidelines for determin.ng admissibihty of, LBP-83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983) effect of FEMA (indings on licensing decision on; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) for Indian Point, conformance of, with regulatory standards; LBP-831,17 NRC 33 (1983)

EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE plume exposure pathway at Indian Pomt, need for expansion of, LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) plume exposure pathway, for Indian Point, admission of contention citing need for expansion of, LBP-8)-1,17 NRC 33 (1983) protective actions to be taken in; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

EMERGENCY PLANS content of, regardmg protective actions for special populations; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) for alertmg Indian Point area deaf, bhnd, young, or non-Enghsh-speakms persons, adequacy of, LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) for Indian Point, adequacy of protection actions in. LBP-831,17 NRC 33 (1983) for Indian Point, rehabihty of assumptions for pubhc and employee responses m; LBP-83 5,17 NRC 134 (1983)

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS at Indian Point, need for demonstration of, LBP-83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983) denial of contentions questionmg means for demonstratms; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983)

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS for TMI, requirement for NRC Staff modification and completion of CLI-83-7,17 NRC 336 (1983)

ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES defimtion of, and performance standards for; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS of severe accidents at Clinch River relevant to limited work authorization; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

ENVIRONM ENTAL IMPACT of Clinch River project on land and water use, and surroundmg commumties; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) of radioactive wastes sealed in permanent repository, need to consider; LBP 83-6,17 NRC 153 (1983) of transportation of spent fuel between Catawba and Oconee facihties, need to consider; LBP-83-8B, 17 NRC 291 (1983)

EVACUATION adequacy of road system in Indian Pomt vicinity for; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) of children and special persons from Indian Pomt area dunns radiological emergency, adequacy of plan for; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) of children and special persons, adequacy of Indian Point emergency plans for, LBP-831,17 NRC 33 (1983) times at Indian Point, reliabihty of estimates for; LBP 83-l,17 NRC 33 (1983), LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983)

EVIDENCE admissibehty of ACRS report as, ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) admissibihty of final safety analysis report as; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) hearsay, standard for admissibility of; AL AB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

.s p) in NRC heensmg proceedmss, condition for admissibihty of ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

= f[G +

a3J introduction of, by an interested state; LBP-83-9,17 NRC 403 (1983) x requirement for expert sponsorship of, ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) t g 1

m 47 I

SUBJECT INDEX EXEMPTION from regulations for early site preparations for Clinch River breeder reactor; CLI-831,17 NRC 1 (1983)

O FAULT (S)

Cnstianitos, litigatioa of capability of; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) near San Onofre facility, adequacy ofinvestigation of, ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

Verona, capability of with regard to GE test reactor; ALAB-720,17 NRC 397 (1983)

'A.. s.

FIN ANCI AL QUALIFICATIONS of nuclear power plant licensees, need to consider; DD-83-3,17 NRC 327 (1983)

)4 [8 h N

FINDINGS OF FACT h, hf effect of failure to file; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982) necessity for filing; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

Qigg penalty for failure to comply with Board request concerning format of LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 W'

~

(1983)

FUEL high burnup, use of, at Zion facility; DD-83-4,17 NRC 513 (1983)

See also Spens Fuel, Uranium Fuel Cycle HEALTH effects associated with nuclear fuel cycle, consideration of, in individual licensing proceedings.

LBP-83-6,17 NRC 153 (1983) effects, genetic and somatic, from operation of Clinch River breeder reactor, adequacy of evaluation of LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

HEARINGS achudicatory, type of matter to be raised for adversarial exploration and eventual resolution in; ALAB-715,17 NRC 102 (1983) standard for appellate review of Licensing Board's scheduling of; ALAB-719,17 NRC 387 (1983)

HISTORIC DISTRICT noise and maintenance impacts of Point Pleasant intake on; LBP-83-ll,17 NRC 413 (1983)

INFORMANTS identities, Commission junsdiction over issue of disclosure of; CLI-83-8,17 NRC 339 (1983)

See also Confidentiality INFORMER'S PRIVILEGE applicability of, to NRC proceedings; Al AB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983)

INTERPRETATIONS of terms m regulations, sources used fer; CLI-831,17 NRC 1 (1983)

INTERROGATORIES addressing contentions not sponsored by interrogee, need for answers to; LBP-83-9,17 NRC 403 (1983) remedy for party suffering harm from incomplete answers to; LBP-83 3,16 NRC 59 (1983)

INTERVENORS organizational, disclosure of names of individual members of; LBP-83-16,17 NRC 479 (1983) participation by, with regard to another intervenor's contentions; LPP-83 9,17 NRC 403 (1983) pro se, satisfaction of specificity requirement for contenuons by; LBP-83 5,17 NRC 134 (1983)

INTERVENTION by organizations whose sole purpose is opposition to nuclear power; LBP-8316,17 NRC 479 (1983) late, by an interested state or municipality; LBP-83-13,17 NRC 469 (1983) standing to appeal denial of; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982)

JURISDICTION Appeal Board, applicability of" case or controversy" restriction to; ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) of Licensing Board over new contentions following issuance ofinitial decision, LBP-8312,17 NRC 466 (1983) of Licensing Board over site-specific aspects of medi,:al arrangements question; LBP-83 8C,17 NRC 2t '1983) over asue of disclosure of alleged informant identities; CLI-83-8,17 NRC 339 (1983)

LICENSING BOARDIS) authority regarding time periods for motions to reconsider; LBP-83-14,17 NRC 473 (1983) authority to call witnesses ofits own; AL AB 710,17 NRC 25 (1983)

A d,

[.)

)

,a. :

el. '

P

%7

~s % g

O SUBJECT INDEX hIdb authority to condition withdrawal of construction permit application; LBP-83 2,17 NRC 45 (1983) decision, stare decisis elTect of AppealBoard's sua sponte afGrmance of; ALAB-720,17 NRC 397 (1983)

' % k.

determmation of contested issues; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) discretion in management of proceedings; ALAB-719,17 NRC 387 (1983) discretion in treating issues as contested; ALAB 709,17 NRC 17 (1982) issues which may be decided by; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982) jurisdiction over new contentions following issuance ofinitial decision; LBP-8312,17 NRC 466 (1983) jucisdiction over site-specific aspects of medical arrangements question; LBP 33-8C,17 NRC 297 (1983) responsibility to comply uth Appeal Board directives; ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1983) use of sua sponte authonty; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983)

LICENSING PROCEEDINGS condition for admissibility of evidence in; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

See also Operating License Proceedmss LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZATION applicability of, to first-of-a-kind projects; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

MANUFACTURING LICENSE proceeding, focus ofissues in; ALAB-718,17 NRC 384 (1983)

MEDICAL SERVICES arrangements for San Onofre area, need for evidence concerning availability of; LBP-83-8D,17 NRC 306 (1983) arrangements requirement, certification of question concerning interpretation of, LBP 83-8C,17 NRC 297 (1983)

MONITORING radiation, capabilities of San Onofre local jurisdictions duririg radiological emergency, need to upgrade prior to full-power operation; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

MOTION (S) for clanfication, effect of Licensing Board inaction on; LBP-83-15,17 NRC 476 (1983) to reconsider, time applicable to; LBP-83-14,17 NRC 473 (1983)

NO!SE impacts from supplementary cooling water system, requirement for mitigation of; LBP 83 ll,17 NRC 413 (1983)

NOTIFICATION of Indm Point authorities of radiological emergency, admission of contention challenging licensee's ability for; LBP 83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983) of public of actions to take during radiological emergency, content of emergency plans regarding; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

See also Alerting NRC STAFF witnesses, circumstances warranting subpoena of; ALAB-715,17 NRC 102 (1983)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION authority to consider noise impacts of cooling water system on surrounding environment; LBP-83-II,17 NRC 413 (1983) jurisdiction over issue of disclosure of alleged informant identities; CLl-83-8,17 NRC 339 (1983) proceedings, application of Federal Rules of Evidence to; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

OBJECTIONS to adverse rulmas on contentions, form for; LBP-83 8A,17 NRC 282 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS climinaten ofissues from; ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983) policy for completion of, prior to completion of construction; LBP-83-8A,17 NRC 282 (1983) scope ofissues to be decided in; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982)

See also Licensing Proceedings A[ %

OPINIONS k&

advisory, Appeal Board reluctance to render; ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) hi n&q e bf9}

WM 49

SUBJECT INDEX ORDERS Licensms Board, challenges to; LBP-8318,17 NRC 501 (1983)

See also Protective Orders; Show Cause Order G

PENALTY for failure to comply with Board request concerning format of findmgs of fact; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983)

See also Civil Penalty

• / ~

• PLUTONIUM k

containment factor used to assess radiological impacts of Clinch River breeder reactor fuel cycle facilities, adequacy of; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

,[.

PRE 3UDICE to intervenors from foreclosure of htigation on capability of Cristianitos fauh; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

PRESIDING OFFICER approval of compromise of civil penalty by; AL3 831,17 NRC 313 (1983) authority of, to impose sanctions for intervenor's failure to file findings of fact; ALAB 709,17 NRC 17 (1982)

PRESSURIZED THERM AL SHOCK denial of request for regulatory action at Zion facihty because of risk of, DD 83-4,17 NRC 513 (1983)

PRIVILEGE asserted in objectmg to discovery request, burden for estabhshing; LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490 (1983) attorney work product, estabhshment of, LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490 (1983)

PROBABILISTIC ANALYSES of fault occurrence and soil displacement at Vallecitos site for GE test reactor; ALAB-720,17 NRC 397 (1983)

PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT regulatory requirements for use of, LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983)

PROTECTIVE ORDERS to prevent disclosure of names of members of organizational petitioner for intervention; LBP-83-16, 17 NRC 479 (1983)

QUALIFICATION environmental, of electrical equipment, need for; LBP 83-18,17 NRC 501 (1983) seismic, of emergency Icedwater system at Three Mile Island, CLI 83-5,17 NRC 331 (198J)

RADIATION dose rate, effect of, on polymers, LBP-83-18,17 NRC 501 (1983) doses to people at various facilities near Chnch River breeder reactor, calculation of LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 41983) exposure for pubhc, need to estabhsh manimum acceptable level prior to emergency plannmg; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) monitoring capabilities of San Onofre localjurisdictions durmg radiological emergency, need to upgrade prior to full-power operation; ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

RADIOACTIVE WASTES high-level, from Chnch River breeder reactor, plans for handling and storage of; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) low-level, storage at Browns Ferry, approval of settlement between hcensee, intervention petitioners, and NRC Staff concerning; AL AB-711,17 NRC 30 (1983) scaled in permanent repository, consideration ofimpacts of, LBP 83-6,17 NRC 153 (1983)

REACTOR CORE conditions conducive to accidents; LBP 83 8,17 NRC 158 (1983) l REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION entitlement of FEM A findmgs to, in NRC proceedmgs, ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

RECONSIDERATION harm from incomplete answers as basis for; LBP-83 3,16 NRC 59 (1983) of order not to permit reopenmg of heanns sua sponte, denial of petition for; CLI-83-4,17 NRC 75 l

(1983)

I 50 FY@&r>;g d 4

mns y ed c gi

N'

p;

O SUBJECT INDEX Yh of ruhngs on environmental impact coctentions, denial of motion for; LBP-83-8A,17 N' C 282 (1983) time apphcable to motions for; LBP-8314,17 NRC 473 (1983)

K,,

RECREATION impacts of Point Pleasant intake on; LBP-83 ll,17 NRC 413 (1983)

REGULATIONS exemptions from, for early site preparations; CLI-831,17 NRC 1 (1983) sources used for interpretations of terms in; CLi-83-1,17 NRC 1 (1983)

REPROCESSING of spent fuels from Clinch River breeder reactor, plans for; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

RETAllATION discriminatory, against employees who inform about safety discrepancies; ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983)

REVIEW of manufacturing hcense proceedmg scope of; ALAB-718,17 NRC 384 (1983) sua sponte, Commission Statement explaining reasons for not undertaking; CLI-83 2,17 NRC 69 (1983)

REVIEW, APPELLATE of Licensing Board's schedulmg of hearings, standard of; ALAB-719,17 NRC 387 (1983) scope of, regarding grant or denial of intervention petitions; ALAB 713,17 NRC 83 (1983)

RISK of pressurized thermal shock, denial of request for regulatory action at Zion facihty because of; DD-83 4,17 NRC 513 (1983) to San Onofre facihty from accidents, need for probabihty analysis of, LBP-83-8D,17 NRC 306 (1983)

RULES OF FRACTICE admissibihty of ACRS report as evidence; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) admissibihty of final safety analysis report as evidence; ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983) apphcabihty of " case or controversy" restriction to Appeal Board jurisdiction; ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) applicabihty ofinformer's privilege to NRC proceedmgs ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) apphcation of Federal Rules of Evidence to NRC proceedings. ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983) appropriateness of show cause proceedings to consider design deficiencies; DD-83-5,17 NRC 519 (1983) authority of Licensmg Board to order findings of fact; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982) avoidance of appropriate forum by use of 2.206 procedures; DD-83 5,17 NRC 519 (1983) burden for establishmg privilege esserted in objecting to discovery request; LBP 8317,17 NRC 490 (1983) challenges to Board orders; LBP-83-18,17 NRC 501 (1983) circumstances warranting subpoena of Staff witnesses; ALAB-715,17 NRC 102 (1983) communications between Commissioners and NRC Staff which are not ex parte; CLI-83-3,17 NRC 72 (1983) condition for admissibility of evidence in NRC hcensing proceedmss; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) effect of failure to file findings of fact; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982); ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983) effect of summary disposition; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) en parte communications; CLI-83-5,17 NRC 331 (1983) extent of answers to interrogatories; LBP-83-9,17 NRC 403 (1983) guidance from judicial proceedings for resolving NRC discovery disputes; LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490 (1983) harm from incomplete answers to interrogatones as basis for reconsideration; LBP-83-3,16 NRC 59 (1983)

F*V%(.

harm to intervenors from dismissal of proceedmas, LBP-83-2,17 NRC 45 (1983) w,,. _

institution of show cause proceedings on issues that are the subject of rulemaking. DD-83-3,17

.p,(; W NRC 327 (1083) interlocutory appeal from order entered on intervention petition; ALAB-712,17 NRC 8141983) c,a i"

51

SUBJECT INDEX

$ Q SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING (S) for alleged construction deficiencies at LaSalle, denial of petition for; DD 83-I,17 NRC 319 (1983)

N/g on issues that are the subject of ruleraakms; DD-83-3,17 NRC 327 (1983)

y-h to consider design deficiencies, appropriateness of; DD-83-5,17 NRC 519 (1983)

SITE PREPARATION ly:/

early, exemption from regulations for; CLI-83-1,17 NRC 1 (1983)

^ C N-analysis, consideration of core disruptive accidents as design basis for purpose of. LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) of Clinch River Breeder reactor project, discussion of; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) source term, definition of, LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

See also Alternative Sites SPENT FUEL (S) from Clinch River breeder reactor, plans for reprocessing of, LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) transportation, apphcation of Table S4 to; LBP-83-8B,17 NRC 291 (1983)

STATEMENT of the Commission explaining reasons for not undertaking sua sponte review and warning of sanctions for withholdmg of information; CLI-83-2,17 NRC 69 (1983)

STAY of effectiveness of Licensing Board orders as means for maintaming Commission jurisdiction over issue of disclosure of informant identities; CLI 83-8,17 NRC 339 (1983) pendmg appeal, justification for grant of; CLi-83-6,17 NRC 333 (1983) pendmg apper? most crucial factor to be considered in ruims on; ALAB-716,17 NRC 341 (1983)

STEAM GENER ATOR testing program for Cimch River Breeder Reactor, adequacy of; LBP-83 8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

STEAM GENERATOR TUBES descnption of process for sfeeving. LDP-834,17 NRC 109 (1983) sleeved, description and rehabihty of eddy currens testmg to detect defects in; LBP-834,17 NRC 109 (1983) sleeved, safety factors in; LBP-834,17 NRC 109 (1983)

STURGEON shortnose, impact of Point Pleasant intake on; LBP 83 il,17 NRC 413 (1983)

SUBPOENA of NRC Staff witnesses, circumstances marrantmg, ALAB-715,17 NRC 102 (1983)

SUMM ARY DISPOSITION demonstration of genuine issue of material fact for purpose of resisting motion for, LBP 83-18,17 NRC 501 (1983) regulatory requirement for separate and distinct statement of material facts, LBP 33-3,16 NRC 59 (1983)

SUSPENSION of construction at Zimmer and imposition of remedies,2.206 petition for, granted m part, denied in part; DD-83-2,17 NRC 323 (1983)

TECHNETIUM penalty for receipt of, from unauthorized supplier; ALJ-83-1,17 NRC 313 (1983)

TESTING program for steam generators for Clinch River project, adequacy of LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

See also Eddy Current Testmg THEFT of special nuclear materials from Cimch River breeder reactor, need for consideration of, LBP-83 8.

17 NRC 158 (1983)

TR AINING required for persons assistmg in a radiological emergency; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

TRANSPORTATION of Chnch River fresh and spent fuels, plans for; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) of spent fuel, apphcation of Table S-4 to. LBP-83 8B,17 NRC 291 (1983)

URANIUM FUEL CYCLE consideration ofimpacts of; LBP-83-6,17 NRC 153 (1983) lMdb O'

m

. wM m'

$3

[,

l SUBJECT INDEX c:

.s WATER j

gs%

for condenser cooling, adequacy of Palo Verde supply of; ALAB-713,17 NRC 83 (1983)

J if.,

See also Cooling Systems "g:-

WITHDRAWAL g

if a of construction permit application without prejudice, conditionmg of; LBP-83-2,17 NRC 45 (1983);

',,hT!

LBP-83-10,17 NRC 410 (1983)

WITNESSES circumstances warranting subpoena of; ALAB-715,17 NRC 102 (1983)

Licensing Board authonty to call its own, ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1983) i y

O WJ E

en W*

FACILITY INDEX BLACK FOX STATION, Units 1 and 2; Docket Nos. STN 50-556, STN 50-557 (ASLBP No.

76-304-02-CP)

WITHDRAWAL OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION; March 7,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-8310,17 NRC 410 (1983)

BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I,2 and 3; Docket Nos. 50-259-OL,50-260-OL, 50-2%-OL OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 21,1983; DECISION. ALAB-711,17 NRC 30 (1983)

CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-413,50-414 (ASLBP No.

81463-01-OL)

OPERATING LICENSE; February 2,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 83-8A,17 NRC 282 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; February 25,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83 8B,17 NRC 291 (1983)

CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT; Docket No. 50-537-CP (ASLBP No. 75-291-12)

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 28,1983; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983)

CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT; Docket No. 50-537 (10 CFR 50.12 Exemption Request)

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION; January 5,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, CL1-83-1,17 NRC 1 (1983)

COM ANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Units I and 2, Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446 OPERATING LICENSE; February 24,1983; DECISION; ALAB-714,17 NRO 86 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; March 1,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-716,17 NRC 341 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; March 4,1983; ORDER; CLI-83-6,17 NRC 333 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; March 30,1983; ORDER; CLI 83-8,17 NRC 339 (1983)

ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT, Unit 2; Docket No. 50-341-OL OPERATING LICENSE; January 4,1983. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 709,17 NRC 17 (1983)

FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; Docket No STN 50-437-ML MANUFACTURING LICENSE; March 10,1983; DECISION, ALAB-718,17 NRC 384 (1983)

INDIAN POINT, Unit No. 2; Docket No. 50-247-SP ( ASLBP No. 81-466-03-SP)

SPECIAL PROCEEDING; January 7,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 831,17 NRC 33 (1983)

SPECIAL PROCEEDING; February 7,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-5,17 j

NRC 134 (1983)

INDI AN POINT, Unit No. 3; Docket No. 50-286-SP SPECIAL PROCEEDING (ASLBP No.81-466 03-SP); 3:nuary 7,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983)

SPECIAL PROCEEDING; February 7,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-5,17 hRC 134 (1983) l LASALLE COUNTY STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-373,50-374 (10 CFR 2 206)

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 9,1983. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 DD 83-1,17 NRC 319 (1983)

Z r

pe

%Id 55

~... -,

e FACILITY INDEX B

LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-3524L,50-353-OL ( ASLBP e

No. SI 465 07 OL)

OPERATING LICENSE; February 10,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REJECTING TABLE S 3 FUEL-CYCLE CONTENTION; LBP-83-6,17 NRC 153 (1983)

L OPERATING LICENSE; March 8,1983; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LBP-83-11,17 NRC

41) (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; March 10,1983; ORDER DENYING FOE MOTION TO RECONSIDER; LBP-8314,17 NRC 473 (1983)

M AINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER STATION; Docket No. 50-309 (IO CFR 2.206)

SUSPENSION OF OPERATION; February 14,1983, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD 83-3,17 NRC 327 (1983)

MIDLAND PLANT, Units 1 and 2; Docket No. 50-329-CP REM AND, February 18,1983, STATEMENT OF THE COMMISSION, CLl-83-2,17 NRC 69 (1983)

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; February 15,1983; DECISION; ALAB-713,17 NRC 83 (1983)

PEBBLE SPRINGS NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-514-CP,50-515-CP (ASLBP No. 75-281-10-CP)

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 24,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING; LBP 83 7,17 NRC !$7 (1983)

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units 1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441 OL (ASLBP No.

81457 04-OL)

OPERATING LICENSE; January 28,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83 3,17 NRC 59 (1983)

OPER ATING LICENSE; March 30,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-18,17 NRC 501 (1983)

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-266-OLA-2 OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 22,1983; DECISION; ALAB-719,17 NRC 387 (1983)

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, Units 1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-266 OLA,50 301-OLA (ASLBP No. 81464-05-L A)

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 4,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983)

SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 50 361-OL, 77-352-04 OL) 50-362-OL ( ASLPP No.

OPERATING LICENSE; October 5,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-8C,17 NRC 297 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; October 29,1982, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 83 8D,17 NRC 306 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; March 4,1983; DECISION; ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983)

SEABROOK STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50-444 OL ( ASLBP No.

82-47102 OL)

OPERATING LICENSE; March 1,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-9,17 NRC 403 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; March 24,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-8317,17 NRC 490 (1983)

SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-322-OL (Ernergency Plannmg)

OPERATING LICENSE; March 10,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON TOWN OF SOUTH AMPTON'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO P ARTICIP ATE AS AN INTERESTED MUNICIPALITY PURSU ANT TO 10 CFR (2.715(c); LBP 83 l),17 NRC 469 (1983) 50-522, 50-523 SK AGIT/H ANFORD NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos.

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February I,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Al> 3 77, I,[N,

17 NRC 81 (1983) m 56 hs

FACILITY INDEX SOUTH TEX AS PROJECT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-498, 50-499

" "# 2 SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION. March 3,1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD-83-5,17 NRC 519 (1983)

STANISLAUS NUCLEAR PROJECT. Unit I; Docket No. P-564-A ( ASLSP No 76-334 AN)

ANTITRUST, January 19,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 83 2,17 NRC 45 (1983)

THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit No. I; Docket No. 50 289 RESTART; February 28,1983 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 715,17 NRC 102 (1983)

RESTART; March 4,1983; ORDER; CLI-83-5,17 NRC 331 (1983)

SPECIAL PROCEEDING, February 22,1983 ORDER; CLI-83-3,17 NRC 72 (1983)

SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 21,1983. ORDER; CLI-83-7,17 NRC 336 (1983)

VALLECITOS NUCLEAR CENTER - GENERAL ELECTRIC TEST REACTOR, OPER ATING LICENSE No. TR 1; Docket No. 50-70-SC SHOW CAUSE; March 23,1983; DECISION; ALAB-720,17 NRC 397 (1983)

VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-395 OL OPERATING LICENSE; January 13,1983; DECISION. ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1983)

WESTERN NEW YORK NUCLEAR SERVICE CENTER; Docket No. 50 201-OLA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 14,1983; ORDER CONFIRMING TERMIN ATION OF PROCEEDING; LBP 8315,17 NRC 476 (1983)

WILLIAM H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit No. I; Docket No. 50 358 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 22,1983 ORDER; CLI-83-4,17 NRC 75 (1983)

OPERATING LICENSE; March 10,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-12,17 NRC 466 (1983)

SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION; February 10,1983, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD-83-2 17 NRC 323 (1983)

WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT No.1; Docket No. 50-460-OL ( ASLBP No. 82-479-06-OL)

OPERATING LICENSE; March 15,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-16,17 NRC 479 (1983)

ZION NUCLEAR PLANT, Units 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 50-295, 50-304 OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 1,1983, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD 83-4,17 NRC 513 (1983) l l

l l

l

~

FYW!j h

hi 57 u h'g#

i I

1 l

i i

1