ML20082P552

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISSUANCES.January- June 1983.Pp 1-127

ML20082P552
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1983
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V17-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V17-I2, NUDOCS 8312090060
Download: ML20082P552 (129)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. O NUREG4750 Vol.17 Index 2 f ~' INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES. January - June 1983 i ? U. S. UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r 269006o 3,s 1 t f d / h u.P-e ] g 3 o C ~$ a e _7h R C

Foreword y Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing

• a-i Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative bw Judge (AU),the Directors' Decisions h

(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, operating license, 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 Re case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is folicwed by the type of hearing, the type ofissuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.

i 1

2. Digests and Headers

{ he headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows: the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative bw Judge (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for i Rulemaking. ll Re header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hearing, date ofissuance, and type ofissuance. t ne 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. Fm,;a,j^ k j lii s i i

? i

3. Legal Citations index O

This index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical er alphanumerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. These citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and Statutes c,.,., may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability fQ*>Q' of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance.

i dy

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

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

S. Facility Index This index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from the i issuance. The name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date, type of issuance. issuance number, and full text reference. i f r r f i i I l_ twlN' ' 44 Iv xw-s g $'h

i I O ~ N..:,p@ l @$I/M, MM7 CASE NAME INDEX l ARIZON A PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et at OPER ATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket Nos. STN-50 528-OL, STN 50 529-OL, STN 50-530-OL; ALAB-713,17 NRC 83 (1983) CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-400,50-401 ( ASLBP No. 82-468 01-OL); LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 971 (1983) CINCINNATI G AS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; ORDER; Docket No. 50-358,CLI-83-4,17 NRC 75 (1983) OPER ATING LICENSE; DECISION, Docket No. 50-358, ALAB-727,17 NRC 760 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-358-OL; LBP-8312,17 NRC 466 (19&i) 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) l CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et at OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50 440-OL,50-441-OL (ASUn? No 81-457-04-OL); LBP-83 3,17 NRC 59 (1983); LBP 83-18,17 NRC 501 (1983s 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) OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMLNT; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket Nos. 50-295,50 304; DD-83-4,17 NRC 513 (1983) SUSPENSION OF OPER ATIONS; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket Nos. 50-10,50-237,50 249,50-295,50-304; DD-83-8,17 NRC 1183 (1983) CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK OPERATING LICENSE; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket No. 50-247; DD-83-10,17 NRC 1191 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER; Dorket No. 50-247; CLI-8316,17 NRC 1006 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR DECISION ON ENFORCEMENT ACTION, Docket No. 50-247; CLi-83-II,17 NRC 731 (1983) SPECI AL PROCEEDING; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No 50-247 SP (ASI BP No. 81-466-03-SP). LBP-831,17 NRC 33 (1983); LBP 83 5,17 NRC 134 (1983); LBP-83-29,17 NRC 1117 (1983) CONSOLID ATED X-R AY SERVICE CORPOR ATION, P.O. Box 20195, Dallas, Texas 75220 CIVIL PENALTY; INITIAL DECISION; License No. 42 08456-02 EA $2-45 (ASLBP No. 83-483-01 OT); AL3-83 2,17 NRC 693 (1983) CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-329-OM&OL,50-330-OM&OL ( ASLBP Nos. 78-389-03-OL,80-429-02 SP); LBP 83-28,17 NRC 987 (1983) REM AND, ST ATEMENT OF THE COMMISSION; Docket No. 50-329-CP,50-330-CP, CLI 83-2 17 NRC 69 81983) SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION; DECISION; Docket No 50-155-OLA; ALAB 725,17 NRC 562 (1983) SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206, Docket F;o;$e No. 50-155 DD-83-7,17 NRC 997 (1983); DD-83-9,17 NRC 1181 (1983) t ', e ' SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-155. C, d t' LBP 83-31,17 NRC 1161 (1983) ,2:T!}O kNN i i l i i t .m..

CASE NAME INDEX DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE O OPERATING LICENSE AND SHOW CAUSE; INITIAL DECISIO 50-409-SC (ASLBP Nos. DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al.78-368-05 OL,80-445-01-SC); LBP-83-23,17 NR OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket N CLI 8119,17 NRC 1041 (1983) ( OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos LBP-83-24A. 37 NRC 674 (1983); LBP-8b29A,17 . 50-413 50 414 (ASLBP ' ^ ' h.- GENERAL E! ECTRIC COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; 50 70-OLR/70-754 SNMR (ASLBP No. HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANYSH SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION Nos. 50-498, 50-499; DD-83-5,17 NRC 519 (1983) ocket HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dccket N 50-499-OL (ASLBP No. 79-42107-OL); LBP-83-26,17 NRC 945 (1983) ISOTOPE MEASUREMENTS LABORATORIES,INC.,3304 Comme Illinois 60062 CIVIL PENALTY; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TERMINATING CIV PROCEEDING; License No. JOHN F DOHERTY 12-13568-01 (EA-8142); ALJ-8bl,17 NRC 313 (1983) RULEMAKING; DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING; Docke DPRM-83 2,17 NRC 1193 (1983) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING S Docket No. 50 322-OL (Emergency Planning); LB OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REFERRIN COUNTY'S MOTION TO TERMINATE TO THE APPEA LOW-POWER LICENSE QUESTION TO THE COMMISSION; Dock (Emergency Planning); LBP.8L21,17 NRC 593 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON TOWN SOUTHAMPTON'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO PARTICIPAT Planning); LBP-83-13,17 NRC 469 (1983) MUNICIPALITY PU OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. NRC 741 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER; Docket No. 50-322-OL: CLl-83-17, SECURITY; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING SUFFOLK FOR BOARD RULING WHETHER DOCUMENTS ARE 10 BE T SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION; Docket No. 50 322-OL 2 (ASLBP No. LBP 83-20,17 NRC 580 (1983) 82-478-05-OL); LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE; PARTIAL INITIAL DEC 79-417 06-OL); LBP-83-27,17 NRC 949 (1983) MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY SUSPENSION OF OPERATION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 1 50409 (10 CFR 2.206); DD-83-3,17 NAC 327 (1983) ndhi 2 dN gw I

CASE NAME INDEX s gw METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et at WWW OPERATU G LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50 320; CLI-83-14,17 /% % b NRC 745 (1983) 5% RESTART; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-289 (Design Imues); ALAB-715,17 Mt. NRC 102 (1983) $$f RESTART; MEMORANDUM; Docket No 50-289 (Design Inues); ALAB-724,17 NRC 559 (1983) RESTART; ORDER; Docket No. 50-289-SP; CLI-81-5,17 NRC 331 (1983) SPECI AL PROCEEDINO; DECISION; Docket No. 50 289 (Design Issues); AL AB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) SPECI AL PROCEEDING; cRDER; Deckei No. 50-28,-SP; Coi.83-3, i7 NLC 72 (i,83); CLI-83-7,17 NRC 336 (1983) NUCLEAR PEL SERVICES, INC., and NEW YORK STA1E ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER CONFIRMING TERMINATION OF PROCEEDING: Docket No. 50-201-OLA; LBP-8315,17 NRC 476 (1983) NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC.. Erwin, Tennessee MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT; Docket No. 70143 (SNM License No.124); CLI 83-12,17 NRC 735 (1983) OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS M ANUFACTURING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket No. STN 50-437-ML; ALAB-718,17 NRC 384 (1983) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ANTITRUST; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. P-564-A (ASLBP No. 76 334-07-AN); LBP-83-2,17 NRC 45 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION, Docket Nos. 50 275-OL,50-323-OL; ALAB 728,17 NRC 777 (1983) PHIL'ADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Ol'ERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-353-OL; ALAB-726,17 NRC 755 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FINDING NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN DEL-AWARE'S REQUEST TO ADMIT LATE FILED CONTENTION V-26; Docket Nos. 50-352 OL,50 353-OL; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 681 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE3ECTING TABLE S-3 FUEL-CYCLE CONTENTION; 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. 50-352-OL,50-353-OL; LBP 83-14,17 NRC 473 (1983) t OPERATING LICENSE; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; Docket Nos. 50 352-OL,50-353-OL (ASLBP No. SI-465-07 OL); LBP-83-II,17 NRC 413 (1983) 1 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50 277, 50 278; CLI-83-14,17 NRC 745 (1983) PORTLAND GENER AL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TER.MINATING 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 OPER ATING LICENSE; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; 50-286. DD-8310,17 NRC 1891 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER; Docket No. 50-286; CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006 (1983) i OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR DECISION ON ENFORCEMENT ACTION; Docket No. 50-286; CLI-83 II,17 NRC 731 (1983) SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50 286 SP (ASLBP No. 81-466-03-SP); LBP-83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983); LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983); LBP-83-29,17 NRC 1817 (1983) V*Nkh ie :y:.Q.^r e s. D l 9Ji b i 3 t

CASE NAME INDEX PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMP:; HIRE et al. OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-4434L,50-444-OL; ALAB-731,17 MC 3073 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nt 50-443-OL,50-444-OL M ( ASLBP No. 82 471-02-OL); LPP-83 9,17 NRC 403 (1983); LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490 (1983); LBP-83-20A,17 NRC 556 (1983h LBP-83 32A,17 NRC 1870 (1983) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA, ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,INC-CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Dociet Nos. STN 50-556, STN-50 557; ALAB-723,17 NRC 555 (1983) M WITHDRAW AL OF CON 5TRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION; MEMORANDUM AND f ORDER; Docket Nos. STN 50-556, STN 50 557 (ASLBP No. 76-304-02-CP); LBP 8310,17 NkC 41C (1983) PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50 354, 50 355; CL1-83-14,17 NRC 745 (1983) RESTART; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; Docket Nos. 50-272, 50-311; DD-83 6,17 NRC 713 (1983) Pt%ET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, et al. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-522, 50-523; ALAB 712,17 NRC 81 (1983) ROCKWELL INTERN ATION AL SPECIAL NUCLEAR M ATERIALS LICENSE RENEWAL; ORDER; Docket No. 70 25; CLI-83-15,17 NRC 1001 (1983) i SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & G AS COMPANY, et al. OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket No. 50-3954L; ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1983) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-361 OL,50-362 OL; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50 361-OL,50-362-OL; CL1-83-10,17 NRC 528 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-361-OL,50-362-OL ( ASLBP Docket No. 78-365-01 OL); LBP-84 8C,17 NRC 297 (1983); LBP-83-8D,17 NRC 306 i (1983) TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-259-OL,50-260-OL, 50-2%4L; ALAB-711,17 NRC 30 (1983) TEX AS UTILITIES GENERATING 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), LBP-83-32,17 NRC 1864 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-445,50-446; CLI-83-6,17 NRC 333 (1983); CL1-83 8,17 NRC 339 (1983); CLI-83-9,17 NRC 525 (1983); CLI-8318,17 NRC 1037 (1983) THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, et al. OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket No. 50-341-OL; ALAB-730,17 NRC 1057 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-341 OL; ALAB 709, 17 NRC 17 (1983) THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSTTY 01 CALIFORNIA OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50142-OL: LBP-43-24,17 NRC 666 (1983); LBP-83-25A,17 NRC 927 (1983) UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS RULEM AKING; DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING; Docket No. PRM-50-35; DPRM-83-1,17 NRC 719 (1983) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT M ANAGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50 537 (10 CFR 50.12 Exemption Request); CL1-83-1,17 NRC I (1983) i Y?$ .h 4 h i nm 6 I --.v

CASE NAME INDEX '""l CONSTR11CTION PERMIT EXEMPTION; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-537-CP; ALAB-72),17 NRC 539 (1982) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION; PARTI AL INITIAL DECISION, Docket No. 3 ' 50-537-CP (ASLBP No. 75-291 12); LBP-83 8,17 NRC 158 (1983) WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al. O CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXTENSION; DECISION, Docket No. 50-397{P A; ALAB 722,17 NRC 546 (1983) OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-460-OL ( ASLBP No. 82-479-06-OL); LBP 83-16,17 NRC 479 41983) WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; DECISION; Docket No. 50 266-OLA 2. ALAB-719,17 NRC 387 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-266-OLA,50 3014LA ( ASLBP No. 81464-05 LA); LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) 1 F%!N;5 L:;Gi'; t 5 i I i t i

1 l I e 4 r. ,O y,, d.4 .3 r$. ~0, ? I t aw' f 'S, S s, wen A ef'<g;)a% *. 1m l 3

O ~ Ng: wN, , A: , c.. 8 W; DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CLI-83-1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT M AN AGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Cimch River Breeder Reactor Plant). Docket No. 50-537, (10 CFR 50.12 Exemption Request); CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION; Januay 3,1983, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDE R A The Commission clarifies and affirms its previous findmg (CLI 82-23,16 NRC 412 (1982)) of exigent and other extraordinary circumstances earranting the grant of the Department of Eryergy's request for an exemption pursuant to 10 CF R $50.12 for initiation of site preparation activities in con-nection with the Cimch River facihty. B The availabihty of an exempiion pursuant to 10 CFR 65012 for the initiation of site prepara-tion activities is determined by whether, in totahty of the circumstances in a particular case, exigent circumstances exist, weighed against the adverse environmental impacts associated with the pro-posed activities under the eacmption. C The timely satisfaction of pubhc needs by reducing unanticipated delays in the realization of facihty benefits and the avoidance of costs induced by such unespected delays constitute exigent cir, cumstances supporting the grant of an exemption under 10 CFR 150.12 for the conduct of pre-cortstruction site preparation activities. D in determining whether to grant an exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 150.12 to begin site prepa-ration activities, the Commission will weigh the exigencies of the situation asamst the aswciated aJ-verse environmentalimpacts. Where the environmentalimpacts of the proposed actiuties are insignificant, but the potential adverse consequences of delay may be severe and an exemption will mitigate those effects, it is reasonable to grant the exemptior in spite of uncertamtics as to the exi-gencies of the,t particular situation. CLI-83-2 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), Docket No. 50-329-CP,50-330 CP; REM AND, February 18,1983; STATEMENT OF THE COMMISSION i A The Commission issues a statement in which it (1) explains its reasons for not undertaking sua sponte review of ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982), at d (2) warns parties and their attorneys of j' the risk of serious sanctions occasioned by the making or planning of a dehberate false statement or withholdmg of materialinformation in connection with hcensing matters. CLI-83-3 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Urut 1), Docket No. 50-289-SP; SPECI AL PROCEEDING; February 22,1983; ORDER l A The Commission finds that (1) certain communications between the Commissioners and the ? NRC staff did not constitute en parte communications as alleged by an intervenor; and (2) dernes the intervenor's motion for an evidentiary hearing on she matters involved in the comrnunications. l B Discussions of general health and safety problems and respor:sibilities of the Commission are not en parte.10 CFR 2 780 (d). CLI-83-4 CINCINN ATI GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear l Power Station, Unit No. I), Docket No. 50-358. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 22,1983, ORDER l l' order (CLI-82-20,16 NRC 109) not to permit the Licensing Board to reopen the hearms sua sponte A The Commission denies an intervenor's petition for reconsideration of its July 30,1982 to consider, as Board issues, eight contentions proposed by intervenor in this operstmg license proceeding, but with regard to the Licensing Board's earlier decision denying the intervenor's motion for reopenmg of the record and admission of those contentions to the proceedms, leaves the t intervenor free to seek hcensms board reconsideration or appellate review as prescribe-d by agency O, Nuj w rules. kGd t ._Q M& 7 i i i, 9 l t l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O ~ CLI-83-5 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. I). Docket No. 50 289-SP; RESTART; March 4,1983; ORDER A The Commission denies an intervenor's motion objecting, as assertedly er parte j Qqn communications, to a Commission meeting concerning the seismic quahiication of the TMI I Mv, N. emergency feedwater systems (EFWS), on the basis that seismic quahncation of the EFWS is outside WY the scope of this restart proceedmg. W B Communsations that do not involve any substantive matter at issue in a proceeding are not N ex parte.10 CFR 2.780(a). CLI.83-6 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446; OPERATING LICENSE; March 4,1983; ORDER A To maintain the status quo and to preserve its jurisdiction to consider the merits of tne casc, the Commission grants the NRC staffs request for a stay of the effectiveness of the Appeal Board's February 24,1983 decision (ALAB-714,17 NRC 86) leaving intact a Licensms Board order requir-ing the staff to identify certain individuals referred to in a staff investigation report introduced into evidence by the staff and to produce the signed statement of those individuals. B If, absent a stay pending appeal, the status quo will be irreparably altered, grant of a stay may be justified to preserve the Commission's ab hty to consider,if appropriate, the merits of a case. See Repubhcan State Central Committee v. Ripon Society Inc.,409 U.S.1222 (1972) (Rchnquist, J.,in chambers); Providence Journal v. F.B.I.,595 F.2d 889,890 (1st Cir.1979). CL1-83-7 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Noclear Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-289-SP; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 21,1983; ORDER A The Commission decides to review two issues on emergency preparedness considered by the Appeal Board in ALAB-698,16 NRC 1290 (1982): (I) whether the responsibihty for radiological assessment and making pretective action recommendations can reside in the Emergency Director in the control room during the Grst four hours after declaration of an emergency, and (2) the Appeal Board's ruling requiring the NRC staff prior to restart to modify and compicte,in accord with certain conditions, the NRC's final emergency response plans and provide them to the hcensee and Pennsylvania. The Commission requests briefs from spca6ed parties on the Grst issue. With respect to the record, the Commission decides that the matters involved would be more appropriately ad-dressed as a generic matter in the overall consideration of NRC emergency plans and vacates the ruling. CL1-83-8 TEXAS 1.mLITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445,50 446; OPERATING LICENSE; March 30,1983; l ORDER A To preserve itsjurisdiction over the issue of disclosure of alleged informant identities in ac-cordance with its order in CLI-83-6,17 NRC 333 (1983), the Commission stays the effectiveness of two Licensing Board orders to the eatent those orders might entail an inquiry by the board that could directly or indirectly result in identification of perwns interviewed in the course of an NRC investigation. CLI-83-9 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446; OPERATING LICENSE; April 1,1983; ORDER A The Commission clarifies its March 30,1983 order (CL1-83-8,17 NRC 339) in which it tem-porarily stayed any further Licensing Board proceeding that could directly or indirectly result in itten-tifration of persons interviewed in the course of an NRC investigation, and orders the Licensing Board to initiate hearings as soon as possible on issues that do not involve the identification of alleged informants. CLI-83-10 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generstma Station, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50-361-OL,50-362 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; April 5,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A in answer to two certified questions from the Appeal Board by direction (CLI-82 27,16 NRC 883 (1982)), the Commission defines the scope of emergency planning for medsal services for members of the general public required by 10 CFR {50.47(b)(12). 8 The hh gives great weight to the views of the Federal emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the need for and adequacy of specifs offsite protective emergency planning h

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• $$h_

g e.M measures. See 45 Fed. Reg. 55402,5540b ( Aus.19,1980);In the Matter of Final Rule on Emergen-3; cy Planning,CLI 80-40,12 NRC 636,638,642 (1980). g (g C Emergency response efforts relating to arrangements for medical services to be provided for A4w-members of the pubhc in the event of a nuclear accident should include consideration of (1) those who become iryured and are also contaminated, and (2) those who may be caposed to dangerous levels of radiation. With respect to those individuals who fall within the first category, no additional i medical facilities or capabihties beyond those currently required for onsite personnel and emergency workers are required, facilities with which prior arrangements have been made or which have the capability to treat contaminated irsured indniduals should be identified. Treatment for individuals who fall within the second category need be arranged for only on an as-needed basis. Emergency plans should identify local or regional medical facilities that can provide appropriate treatment for ra-diation caposure, but no prior contractual agreements are necessary and no additional facihties need be constructed. CLI-83-Il CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) and POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point Unit No. 31, Docket Nos. ,i 50-247,50-286; OPERATING LICENSE; May 5,1983, ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES t FOR DECISION ON ENFORCEMEN f ACTION A The Commission,in view of previously identified emergency planning deficiencies at Indian ,. Point, (1) announces its intention to issue an order by June 9,1983 promptly suspending plant cpera-tion unless certain conditions are met by that date; and (2) establishes procedures governing the pre-sentation of views by the hcensees and affected governmental agencies as to =by such action should or should not be taken by the Commission. B Under 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2), the scope of Commission consideration in deciding whether to order plant shutdown or other enforcement action is broader than FEMA's; where FEM A is con-cerned primarily with the significance of deficiencies in emergency planning and preparedness, and the adequacy ofinterim compensating measures, NRC regulations require the Commission to con-sider other factors as well w hen making a decision on the desirability of enforcement action. C in determming whether plant shutdown or other enforcement action is apprceriate under 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2), the Commission must allow licensees an opportunity to demonstrate, among other factors, that emergency preparedness deficiencies are not sigmficant for the plant, that ade-quate interim compensating measures have been taken or that there are other compelling reasons =hy such action should not be taken.10 CFR 50.54(s)(2)(ii). CLI-83-12 NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES,INC., Erwin, Tennessee, Docket No. 70-143 (SNM Liceme No.124); MATERIALS LICENSE AMENDMENTcMay ll,1983; ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT A On joint motion of the parties, the Commission approves the parties' amended settlement agreement in this materials license amendment proceeding, directs the NRC staff to implement the agreement to the e utent ofits authority to do so, and orders the procecdmg held in abeyance. CLI-83-13 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; May 12.1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORMR A On consideration of the referral by the Appeal Panel Chairman of tM Licensing Itoard : April 20,1983 order (LBr-a)-22,17 NRC 608) denying the Suffolk County's mouco to terminate as a matter oflaw this operating license proceeding for lack of a County emergency response plan, the Corrmission rules that the Licensing Board has the authority and the obligation to condder a utility-prepared offsite tmergency response plan submitted in the absence of state and local government-approved plans. B The NRC is obligated to consider a utility-prepared offsite emergency plan submitted in the l absence of state and local government approved plans, and has the ultimate authodty to determine whether such a submission is sufficient to meet the prerequisites for the issuance of an operating license.10 CFR $50.47(c)(1);Section 5, Pub. L No. 97-415,96 Stat. 2067 (1983). 1 i l i k

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O CL1-8314 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, M,q. Units 2 and 3), METROPOLIT AN EDISON COM PANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, W ftcy Unit No. 2), and PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND G AS COMPANY (Hope Creek Generating MM Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-277, 50-278, 50-320, 50-354, 50-355; OPERATING @fMj/M g LICENSE;May 27,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER fh A The Commission decides to hold in abeyance its disposition of a petition seeking review of k the Appeal Board's decision (ALAB-701,16 NRC 1517 (1982)) (concernmg the significance to be accorded uranium fuel cycle radon releases in reactor licensing decisions) untilit completes its gener-ic assessment of the current uranium mill tailmss regulations in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendam A, and any rulemaking which may follow. CLI-83-15 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL (Energy Systems Group Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM 21), Docket No. 70-25; SPECIAL NUCLEAR M ATERIALS LICENSE RENEW AL; June 2,1983; ORDER A The Commission decides that a formal hearing need not be convened on the apphcant's re-quest for renemat of its special nuclear materials license; rather, that any hearing on the apphcation should be an informal one. The Commission further (1) prescribes rules to govern the fihng of hear-ing and intervention requests and the conduct of any informal hearms which may follow; and (2) directs the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to designate one of its mem-bers to serve as tha presidmg ofTicer to rule on any petitions which may be filed and conduct the infor-mal hearing should one be marranted. 1 CLI-83-16 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK Undian Pomt, Unit No. 2) and POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Undian Point, Unit No. 3), Docket Nos. 50-247,286; OPERATING LICENSE; June 10,1983; ORDER A The Commission determines, in hght of adequate compensatory actions taken or planned to be taken promptly to correct certain deficiencies in emergency planning at Indian Point, that shut-down of Units 2 and 3 in accordance with the Commission's May 5,1983 ord:r (CLI-83-11,17 NRC 731) is not marranted. B The regulatory structure estabhshed by the emergency planning rule,10 CFR 50.54(s),is in-tended to be flexible; the Commission is to look at the totality of the circumstances; to allow grace 6 periods, where appropriate, for the correction of deficiencies; to balance a variety of factors even i where grace periods have cspired without the completion of every desirable corrective action; and to recognize that emergency planning is a fluid process, requiring regular updating, testing, and adjustment. It is the Commission's duty to determme when the gravity of outstandmg deficiencies, their persistence, the limitations of interim compensatory measures, and other factors, taken together, counsel the end of grace periods, and the imposition instead of a shutdown. C Neither the law nor the Commission's regulations dictate how many opportunities a licensee s has to bring itselfinto comphance with the Commission's regulatory rules. See Rockland County v. NRC,709 F.2d,760 n.13 (2d Cir., May 27,1983). I CLI 83-17 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shcreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50 322-OL;OPER ATING LICENSE;3une 30,1983, ORDER A In response to a question certified to it by the Licensing Board, the Commission decides that existing uncertainty about whether the NRC's offsite emergency preparedness requirements can be 3 met for full-power operation of the Shoreham plant does not,in and ofitself, bar the grant of a low-power hcense under 10 CFR 150.47(d). The Commission accordmsty holds that if the apphcant can meet all the other requiremems of the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations pertinent to the grant of a low power hcense,it isentitled to that heense here. B 10 CFR 550 47(d) gives the Commission unquahfied authorization to issue a low-power license in the absence of NRC or FEM A approval of an offsite emergency plan so long as other prerequisites, including an adequate state of onsite emergency preparedness, are met The section re-qwires no predictive findmg of reasonable assurance with regard to offsite emergency plannmg prior to low-power operation. i Vnw ~MG y QW 2 w -.q h

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M &$ QYfik sgf CLi-8318 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric .h Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-446; OPERATING LICENSE; June 30, 1983; ej ORDER 'M' ;D 'c A The Commission grants the NRC staffs petition for review of ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) in which the Appeal Board dismissed, on the ground of mootness, the waffs appeal from the Licensms Board's orders requinns staff disclosure of the identity ofindividuals referred to in a staff investigation report which the stalT introduced into evidence m this operstmg hcense proceeding, The Commission defers further consideration of the matters raised in ALAB-714 pending comple-tion ofits on-going generic review ofinformant confidentiality issues. CLI-8319 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. (Catamba Nuclear Station Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-413,50-414,OPER ATING LICENSE; June 30,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A The Commission reviews, sua sponte, the question raised by the Appeal Board's decision ( AL AB-687,16 NRC 460) on the proper criteria for accepting late-filed contentions in a hcensing proceedmg that are based on licensing related documents which were not available early enough to provide a basis for a timely contention. The Commission determmes that: (1) the Appeal Board erred in holdmg that Section 189a. of the 4tomic Energy Act requires a heensing board to treat the good cause factor of 10 CFR 2.714f a)(1) as controllms in ruimg on the admissibihty of a contention that is filed late because it is based solely on information in institutionally unassilable licensing-related documents; (2) it is not inconsistent with pubhc hearing rights for a licensing board to consid-er all five factors contained in Section 2.714falf t) before admitting a late contention based on previously unavailable information; and (3) the institutional unassilability of a hcensing related document does not establish good cause for filing a contention late ifinformation eas available early enough to provide the basis for the timely filing of that contention. B lt is well-established that Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act does not provide an un-quahfied right to a hearing Rather, the Commission is authonzed to esablish reasonable regulations on procedural matters hke the fihng of petitions to intervene and the proffering of contentions, BPI [

v. AEC,502 F.2d 424 (D C. Cir.1974); Eastern Utihties Commission v. AEC,424 F.2d 847 (D C.

Cir.1970). C Section 189a. of the Act is not offended by a procedural rule that simply recognizes that the public's interest in an efficient administrative process is not properly accounted for by a rule of au-s j tomatic admission ofcertam late-filed contentions. Cf. BPI v. AEC, supra-D Where agency procedural requirements simply raise the threshold for admittmg some con-tentions as an incidental effect of regulations designed to prevent unnecessary delay in the heanns k process, such requirements are reasonable Cf. United Mme Workers v. Kleppe,561 F.2d 1258, i 1263 (7th Cir.1977). E The proper test of a regulation is =hether its normal and fair interpretation mill deny persons of their statutory nghts. Amencan Trucking Association v. United States,627 F.2d 1313,131819 (D C.Cir.1980). F An intervenor voluntarily accepts the obhgaJons of participation in an NRC proceedms, including the obligation of uncovering information in publicly asalable documentary material. I G There is a substantial pubhc interest in efficient and eapeditious administratise proceedmgs WSTE-TV, Inc. v. FCC,566 F.2d 333,337 (D.C. Cir.1977). Although this interest is undoubtedly subordmate to the pubhe's interest in health, safety, and the environment,it is an interest w hich the Commission incorporates m the formulation of NRC's procedural rules. Statement of Policy on Con-l duct of Licensing Proceedmss,CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,453 (1981L 1 1 ,.-w. ' bs I wm i II

t h

I i

O ~ _. a~ y t= i 05 Mi:$.t awk a 5 t

• ) ' ",;n. $a

. k..n$... % 5,8 - ? 4 e,a h. w ti.n g k I i r(

I t G l m o.. 3 iT QW*f l %Q DIGESTS ISSUANCFS OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS ALAB-709 THE DETROIT ED!SrW COMPANY, et al. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), Docket No. 50-341-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; January 4,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A The Appeal Board withdraws its previous order (Nov. 12,1982) (unpubhshed) directmg an intervenor to show cause why its appeal of the Licensmg Board's initial decision (LBP-82 96,16 NRC 1408 (1982)) authorizing the issuance of a full-power operating hcense for this facihty is proper, and reinstates the intervenor's appe s!- B Absent a hcensms board order requu.ng the submission of proposed findmgs of fact and con-clusmos of law, an intervenor that does not make such a fihng is free to pursue on appeal all issues it htigated below. C Und:r the Commission's Rules of Practice, the Gims of proposed findmss of fact is optional, unless tSe presidmg ofDcer directs otherwise. The presidmg officer as empowered to take a party's failure to file proposed findmgs, when directed to do so, as a default or to impose other sanctions.10 CFR (2.754. D An appeal board will not ordmarily entertam arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative,Inc. Gusquehanna Steam Electnc Station, Units I and 2), AL AB-693,16 NRC 952,955-56 (1982). See also Pubhc Scr-vice Electric and Gas Company, et al. (Salem Nuclear Generatmg Station, Unit 1), ALAb-650,14 NRC 43,49; Tennessee Valley Authonty (Hartsville Nuclear Plant Un,ts I A,2A, IB, and 2B), ALAB 463,7 NRC 341,348 (1978) E A hcensmg Doard is authorized in most instances to decide only contested issues in an operat-ing license ptoceedmg 10 CFR 42.760s. F Only the petitioner denied leave to interver:e can take an appeal of such an order.10 CFR $2 714af b). G Even when a licensms board order requesting the submission of proposed findmgs has been disregarded, the Commission's Rules of Practice do not mandate a sanction. Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), AL AB-123,6 AEC 331,332-33 (1973). H A licensing board acts withm its thscretion in treating as contested those issues of fact as to which a party opposmg an operating hcense apphcation had introduced afGrmative esidence or en-gaged in substantial cross-exammation. See Northern States Power Company (Praine Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-244, 8 AEC 857,864 (1974), reconsideration denied. ALAB-252,8 AEC 1175, afrd, CLI 75-1, I NRC I (1975) See also Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 a4 2) ALAB-691,16 NRC 897,905-08 (1982). Compare Flonda Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2) AL AB-280,2 NRC 3,4 n.2 (1975). I The failure to file proposed findings is subject to sanctions only in those instances where a Licensing Board has directed such findmss to be filed. That is the extent of the adjudicatory board's i enforcement powers under 10 CFR (2.754. J 10 CFR (2.754 empowers a licensms board to direct the parties to fi;e proposed findmgs. See generally Midland, supra.6 AEC at 333. ALAB-710 SOUTH CAROLIN A ELECTRIC & G AS COMPANY. ei al. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1), Docket No. 50-395-OL;OPER ATING LICENSE; January 13,198k DECISION A The Appeal Board, sua sponte, affirms with comments two Licensmg Board Decisims in this operating hcense proceedms a July 20,1982 partialinitial decision (LBP-82-55.16 NRC 225) con-g% cerning seismic matters and an August 4,1982 supplemental partial initial decision (LBP-82-57,16 NRC 477) resolving all other matters and authonzmg issuance of an operatmg heense subject to cer- .#J tain conditions. v i i Mwe 1 -Weq l i I3 h

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS 9 ~ B Licensing boards have the authority to call witnesses of their own, but the exercise of this dis. cretion must be reasonable and hke other licensing board rulings, is subject to sne!! ate review. A ~ I"I board may take this extraordinary action only after (i) giving the parties to the t,roceeding every fair 7 opportunity to clanfy and supplement their previous testimony, and (ii) showing why it cannot reach +,' an informed decision without independent witnesses. S g '$ 1 C Licensing boards are bound to comply with appeal board directives, whether they agree with ( l them or not. The same is true with respect to Commission revie= of appeal board action and judicial review of agency action. Any other alternative would be unworkable and unacceptably undermine the rights of the parties. AL AB-711 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Umts 1,2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50 259-OL,50-260-OL, 50-296-OL; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Janu, l ary 21,1983. DECISION A The Appeal Board approves a settlement between hcensee, intervention petitioners and the N RC staffin this proceeding on hcensee's application for authorization to store low-level radioactive easte at Browns Ferry, and grants petitioners' motion to withdraw their intervention petitions and re-quests for hearing. ALAB-712 PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, et al. (Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Power Project, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-522,50 523; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 1,1983; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A The Appeal Board dismisses an intervenor's appeal from the Licensing Board's rejection of all or part of certain ofits contentions where other ofits contentions were accepted as litigable. B The Rules of Practice do not permit a person to take an interlocutory appeal from an order entered on his it,tervention petition unless that order has the effect of denyira the petition in its j entirety.10 CFR 2.714a; Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-599,12 NRC I,2 (1980), quoting from Houston LighSng and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-585,11 NRC 469,470, and AL AB-586,1I NRC 472,473 (1980). p ALAB-713 ARIZON A PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units I,2 and 3), Docket Nos. STN 50-528-OL, STN-50-529-OL, STN-50-530-OL; OPERATING N LICENSE; February 15,1983; DECISION A The Appeal Board aflirms the Licensing Board's initial decisior. in this operating license pro-ceeding (LBP 82 Il7A,16 N RC 1964 (1982)) upon completion of sua sponte review of the decision and relevant portions of the underlying record. The Appeal Board finds no error warranting correc-tive action with regard to the Licensing Board's determination in the applicants' favor of the ultimate issue before it: the availability of an adequate supply of condenser cooling water for the Palo Verde facility. B An appeal board will not review the grant or denial of an intervention petition unless an i appeal has been taken under 10 CFR 2.714a. C An appeal board will not give stare decisas effect to licensing board conclusions on legal issues not brought to it by way of an appeal. Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuc car Station, Units I,2, and 3), ALAB-482,7 NRC 979,981 fn. 4 (1978). ALAB 714 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445,50-446; OPER ATING LICENSE; February 24,1983; DECISION A On the ground that there is ao genuine controversy to be decided, the Appeal Board dis-misses the appeal of the NRC staff from a hcensing board direcuve that the stafTreveal the identity of { eight individuals referred to in a staff investigative report it introduced into evidence. On the same ground, the Appeal Board withdraws its prior grant of the staff's petition for directed certification. B The informer's privilege - the Government's privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of violations oflaw to officers charged with enforcement of that law - is applicable in NRC adjudicatory proceedings and is expressly embodied in Commis-sion regulations. C The " case or controversy restriction imposed upon federal courts by Article 111 of the United States Constitution does not govern an appeal board's jurisdiction. Northern States Power Vmc MhNk" 84 qw% y;3 i Nil Q g 1

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS

Ql dh Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB-455,7 NRC 41,54 0978), re-

.Tj d ' manded on other grounds sub nom. Minnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,602 F.2d 412 g h (D.C. Cir.1979). 4 '1 D Appeal boards are disinclined to render advisory opinions absent the most ecmpelling cause to do so. Ibid. See also Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Units I A,2A, IB, and 28), ALAB-467,7 NRC 459,463 (1978). E If a person to whom an NRC adjudicatory board directs an order believes that order is incor-rect the remedy is to appeal, but absent a stay, to comply promptly with the order pendmg appeal. This principle is especially apphcable to orders issued during trial. See Maness v. Meyers,419 U.S. 449,458-59 (1975). ALAB-715 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nudeer Station, Unit No.1) Docket No. 50-289 (Design issues); RESTART; February 28, 1983, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A Ru!ing on an intersenor's request for subpoenas compelling the attendance and testimony of two named NRC stafT members at the Appeal Board's scheduled hearing on emergency core coohng issues in this special restart proceeding, the Appeal Board finds that "execptional circ'umstances" exist warranting the issuance of a subpoena requirms the testimony of that employee of the NRC's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data ( AEOD) with knowledge of the office's views on the subjects ofconcern, but denies the request for the second subpoena for lack of a showing of"exceptionalcircurnstances." B The Commission's rules provide that the Executive Director for Operations generally deter. mines which staff witnesses shall present testimony. An adjudicatory board r:tay nevertheless order ) other NRC personnel to appear "upon a showing of exceptional circumstances, such as a case in i which a particular named NRC empic>ce has direct personal knowledge of a material fact not known to the witnesses made available by the Executive Director for Operations.. " to CFR (2.720(h)(2)(i). See generally, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susouchartna Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-61),12 NRC 317, 323 (1980). C A genuine scientific disagreenent on a central decisional issue is the type of matter that should ordinarily be raised for adversarial exploration and eventual resolution in the adjudicatory context. See Virginia Electric and Power Compny (North Anna Power Station, Ur.its I and 2), CLI-76-22,4 NRC 480,491 (1976), affd sub nom. Virginia Electric and Power Company v. NRC, 571 F.2d 1289 44th Cir.1978); Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), AL AB-691,16 N RC 897,91213 (1982), review declined, CLI 83 2,17 NRC 69 0983). ALAB-716 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Elcstric Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446; OPERATING LICENSE, March 1,1983; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A The Appeal Board denies a motion by the NRC staff for a stay of the effectiveness of ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) pending the films and oisposition of a petition for Commission review of that decision. B The most s:ucial factor to be considered in passing upon a stay application pursuant to 10 CFR 52.788(e) is whether the mosant will be ineparably injured unless a stay is granted. See, e s., Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), CLI 77 27,6 NRC 715, 716 (1977); Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project Nuclear Umt No.1), Al AB-507,8 NRC 551,556 (1978); Long Island Lighting Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), AL AB-481,7 N RC 807,808 (1978). ALAB-717 SOUTHERN CALIFORNI A EDISON COMPANY, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generstmg Station, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50-361 OL,50-362-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; March 4, [ 1983; DE"lSION A The Appeal Board affirms the Licensing Board's decisions authorizing the issuance of full power operating licenses for Units 2 and 3 of the San Onofre facility (LBP-82-3,15 NRC 61; LBP-82-39,15 NRC 1163 (1982)), subject to certain heense conditions that are designed to buttress the facility's emergency preparedness. F'g& .Z B The Commission may entirely eliminate certain issues from operating license consideration h on the ground that they are suited for examination only at the carher construction permit stage. Short of that, the Commission has considerable discretion to provide by rule that only issues that q,y c o'-s y 15 I e i

DIGESTS ISSUANCES ur IHE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 4PPEAL BOARDS O ~ were or could have been raised by a party to the construction permit proceedmg will not be enter. ^ A'Y.. tained at the operating hcense stage except upon such a showing as " changed circumstances" or " newly discovered evidence." Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generstmg I.9 Stauon, Units 2 and 3), ALAB473,15 NRC 688,696 (1982). Commission practice, however, has been to determine the litigabihty ofissues at the operstmg hcense stage with reference to convention-gh al resjudsata and collateral estoppel principles. Id. at 696-97. Mt" C The requirement of authentication or identificahon as a condition precedent to the admissi-N bility of esidence in NRC licensms proceedings is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a fmding that the matter in quesuon is wiut its proponent claims. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). D While the Federal Rules of Evidence are not directly applicable to NRC proceedmss, NRC adjudsatory boards often look to those rules for guidance. See generally Duke Power Co. (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB469,15 NRC 453,475 (1982). E Hearsay evidence is generally admissible in NRC proceedmss. Whether evidence is or is not hearsay is significant only insofar as it bears on the question of its rehability.10 CFR 62.743(c); Duke Power Co. (Cata=ba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-355,4 NRC 397,411-12 (1976). F The final safety analysis report (FSAR) is condiuonally admissable as substanuve evidence, but once portions of the F3AR are put intoocntroversy, applicants must present one or more compe-tent witnesses to defend them. O Technmal analyses offered in evidence must be sponsored by an expert

• ho can,be enamined on the rehability of the factual assertions and soundness of the scienufic opinions found in the documents. Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB-66915 NRC 453,477 (1982). See also Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units l and 2), ALAB-443. 6 NRC 741,754-56 (1977).

H The contents of an ACRS report are not admissible in evidence for the truth of any matter stated therein as to controverted issues, but only for the hmited purpose of estabhshing comphance with statutory requirements. Arkansas Power and Light Co. (Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2), ALAB-94,6 AEC 25,32 (1973). See a!so Consumer Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), i ALAB 123,6 AEC 331,340 (1973). A licensing board may rely upon the conclusions of the ACRS on issues that are not controverted by any pa ty.10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A, {V(f)(1),(2). I Absent a board order requiring the submission of proposed findmss, an intervenor that does not make such a filing is free to pursue on appeal all issues it litigated below. The setting of a schedule for fihng proposed findmss falls short of an emphcit direction and thus does not form the basis for findmg a party in default.10 CFR (2.754, Detroit Edison Co. (Entro Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Uiue 2), ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1933). J Where an intervenor chooses to file proposed (mdangs, the board is entitled to take that fihns as setting forth all of the issues that were contested. K 10 CFR 650.47(b)(10) requires the development of a range of protective actions to protect I the public in the plume exposure pathway emergency plannmg zone. This should include means for protectirig persons whose mobihty may be impaired, e g., the elderly, the handicapped, and school children. L Licensees, States, and local jurisdictions should disseminate, at least annually, information regarding how the pubhc will be notified and what its actions should be in the event of an emergency. The information is to address, among other thmss, the special needs of the handicapped and is to in-drate how to effect protective measures, e s., evacuation routes, relocation centers and sheltering. 1 M Uruise the much smaller plume EPZ where evacuation or sheltering from the plume may be a matter of immediacy, protective action in the 50-mile radius ingestion EPZ need not be as immediate. Moreover, the kinds ofingestion EPZ protective action that would be suggested - such as quarantining or disposing of certain foodstuffs in designated areas - are highly site and accident t i specific: hence, they are less amenable to planning ir, sdvance of an accident than the comparabic + responses of sheltering or evacuation that are appropriate for the plume EPZ. N It is axiomatic that specific training should be regsrad for persons espected to assist in a radi-ological emergency; that it should be tailored to the level of expertise expected in each area of responsibility; and that it should be effective. Consequently a training program should be formulated and instituted for them. j O The finding of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEM A) in regard to whether State and local emergency plans ar. adequate and capable of bems implemented is enutled to a I fg, i N 16 N.Nd i l 9/w .t f kl l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS $i ~q@qf, rebuttable presumption in NRC licensing proceedings.10 CFR {50.47(a)(2). See generally v FEM A/NRC Memorandum of Understanding, 45 Fed. Reg. 22713 (Dec.16,1980). M P Conversations among parties, none of whom is a decissor. maker in the hcensing proceedmg. .hp are not precluded by the Commission's ex parte rule (10 CFR 2.780). Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-680,16 NRC at 144. Q Subject to certain substantive and procedural hmitations, licensing decisions on emergency planning issues need not await the rendition of a final FEM A findmg. R The following technical issues are discussed: Seismic design criteria; Safe shutdown earthquake; Christianitos fault; Maximum magnitude earthquake; Peak ground acceleration; Focal mechanisms; Earthquake motions; Connection between Christianitos Zone of Deformation (CZD) and Offshore; Zone of Deformation (OZD); Connection between CZD and onshore geologic features, Surface wave magnitude; Slip rate / magnitude analysis. ALAB-718 OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS (Manufacturing License for Floating Nuclear Power Plants) Docket No. STN 50-437-ML; MANUFACTURING LICENSE; March 10, 1983; DECISION A The Appeal Board, sua sponte, alTirms the Licensing Board's decision (LBP-82 49,15 NRC t 1658 (1982)), authorizing the issuance of a license, subject to a condition, for the manufacture of eight standardized floating nuclear power plants. i B In a manufacturing hcense proceeding, where particular sites have not yet been identified, the Incus is on issues arising from the standardized plant itself. Consequently, analyses and evidence I will be generic in character. Cor. sideration of site-specific concerns is properly deferred. ALAB-719 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-266-OLA-2; OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 22,1983; DECISION A The Appeal Board affirms the Licensing Board's decision (LBP 82-108,16 NRC 1811 (1982)) dismissing an intervenor from this hcense amendment proceeding for failing to fulfill its hearing obligations and, atteinatively, for failing to put forth at least one acceptable contention as re-quired by 10 CFR {2.714f b). B An appeal board will overturn a licensing board's denial of a request for a schedule change I only on a finding that the board abused its discretion by setting a schedule that deprives a party ofits right to procedural due process. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), AL AB-6%,16 NRC 1245,1260, quoting from Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-459,7 N RC 179,188 (1978). C Dismissal of a party is a serious step that generally should be reserved for the most severe failure 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 Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceedmss, CL1-818,13 NRC 452 (1981), consistent with the practice in the federal courts, requires that a board consider all the circumstances in determining whether a dismissal is warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,370 U.S. 626,634-35, reh's denied,37I U.S. 873 (1962), D A participant in an NRC proceedmg should anticipate having to manipulate its resources, however hmited, to meet its obhgaticns. Wisconsin Electnc Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-666,15 NRC 277,279 (1982); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3) ALAB-566,10 NRC 527,530 (1979). E Issues must be fully briefed in order to be considered on appeal. Pom: Beach, ALAB-696, j 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 initial decision (LBP-82-64,16 3 N RC 5% (1982)) in this show cause proceedmg instituted to consider certain issues pertaining to the appropriate seismic and geological design bases for the General Electnc Test Reacw WF.TFv. B An appeal board's sua sponte affirmance of a licensing board decision does not have stare decisis effect insofar as concerns the questions oflaw addressed in the hcensing board decision. C The following technicalissues are discus ed: Probabihstic analyses of fault occurrence and -,f. 4 73 p 4M. soil displacement; fault deflection g m%., s:2 m, 7 M4 - y? l ? Q /, % ']

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS O ALAB 721 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT M ANAGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant), -ai g Docket No. 50-537 CP; LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZATION, April 8,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER .y A The Appeal Board denies intervenors' request for a stay of the Licensing Board's partialini- ~' D tial decision authorizing the issuance of a hmited work authorization in connection with the construc-hg $ tion of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. LBP 83-8,17 NRC,158 (1983). B An applicant for a construction permit may seek early apprcoal of certain types of site prepa-ration activity, such as the construction of temporary access roads, sewage treatment facihties, or systems, structures or components that will not eventually be involved with accident prevention or mitigation. Thereafter, an applicant may seek early approval for the installation of structural foundations. See 10 itCFR 50.10(e)(1), (2), (3). C 10 CFR 50.10 (c) generally prohibits any person from clearing or excavating a site or other-wise commencing construction of a nuclear power reactor until either a construction permit or a hmited work authorization has been obtained following an adjudicatory hearing. However,10 CFR 550.12(b) provides for the case-by case granting of exemptions from this prohibition if specified criterna are met. D in determining whether a stay should be granted, an appeal board will ordmarily apply the criteria specified in 10 CFR (2.788(e). Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2s, CLI.8127,14 NRC 795 (1981); Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3), ALAB-680,16 NRC 127 (1982). Those criterta are the ones traditionally apphed by the courts. See Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill N uclear Generat-ins Station, Units I and 2), AL AB-437,6 NRC 630,631 (1977), citing Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Federal Power Commission,259 F.2d 921 (D C. Cir.1958), and Washington Metropohtan A rea Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc.,559 F.2d 841 ( D.C. Cir.1977). E in certain situations an appeal board may review a stay request under the criteria embodied in the Commission's "immediate effectiveness" rule,10 CFR 62.764. When doing so, the board will look at two factors in addition to those laid out in 10 CFR {2.788(e): whether effectiveness of the imtial decision will create novel safety or environmental issues in light of the Three Male Island acci-dent or prejudice review of significant safety or environmental issues.10 CFR {2.764 (c)(2)(ii). F in the absence of Commission directions to the contrary, Commission immediate effective-ness review is without prejudice to Appeal Board decisions, mciudmg stay decisions under 10 CFR {2.788. Cf. Duke Power Co. (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB.647,14 NRC 27,29 30 (1981). G General assertations, in conclusionary terms, of alleged harmful effects are insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to a stay. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 505,8 NRC 527,530 (1978); Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units I and 2). I ALAB-395,5 N RC 772,785 (1977). ALAB-722 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al. (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.

2) Docket No. 50-397-CPA; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXTENSION, April 11, 1983; DECISION A

The Appeal Board affirms, but for different reasons, the Licensing Board's denial of an inter-vention petition filed in this construction permit extension proceedmg. B Under the Atomic Energy Act and Commission regulations,if a nuclear power plant is not completed by the latest date specified in a construction permit, the permit expires and all rights there-under are forfei'ed, however, this lapsing of rights is subject to the proviso "[tlhat upon good cause shown the Commission will extend the completion date for a reasonable period of time." 42 U.S C. 12235; 10 CFR {50.55(b). C The test for determining whether a contention is within the scope of a constructon permit extension proceedmg is a two-pronged c..e. First, the construction delays at issue hase to be traces-i ble to the applicant. Second, the delays must be " dilatory."If both prongs are met, the delay as with-out " good cause." CLI-82-29,16 N RC 1221,1231 (1982). D At the pleadmg stage all that is required for a contention to be acceptable for htigation is that it be specific and have a basis. Whe*.c or not the contention is troc is left to 1 Lgation on the merits in the hcensing proceedm: E,uston Lignuns ard Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Umt I). ALAB-590,11 NRC 542 (1980) 5 .dr%T1 h A y,$ h n M$t l h E 1 1 l

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS %] ^ { E " Dilatory conduct"in the sense used by the Commission in defining the test for determining whether a contention is within the scope of a construction permit eatension proceeding means the in- ) tentional delay ofconstruction without a valid purpose. See CLI-82-29, supra,16 N RC at 1231. wg F 10 CFR 12.206 affords all persons the opportunity to raise whatever health, safety, or envi-ronmental concerns the construction or operation of a nuclear power plant may cause them. The Sec-tion 2.206 remedy is taken seriously, is available at all times, and provides the bridge the Commis-sion expects a litigant to use in most instances between the construction permit and operating hcense proceedings. CLI-82-29, supra,16 N RC at l228-29. O The fact that an application for an operating license is uncontested does not mean that an operating license automatically issues. An operating hcrnse may not issue unless and until the N RC staff makes the findings specified in 10 CFR 50.57 - including the ultimate finding that such is-suance will not be inimical to the health and safety of the public. South Carohna Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit I), ALAB-642,13 NRC 881,895-96 (1981), affirmed sub nom. Fairfield United Action v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,679 F.2d 26I (D.C. Cir.1982). H Unless an applicant is responsible for delays in completion ofconstruction and acted in a d la-i tory manner (i.e., intentionally and without a vahd purpose), a contested construction permit enten-1 sion proceeding is not to be undertaken at all. Moreover, even if a properly framed contention leads ^ to such a proceeding and is proven true, the Atomic Energy Act and implementing regulations do not erect an absolute bar to extending the permit. A judgment must still be made as to whether con-tinued construction should nonetheless be allowed. 42 U.S.C.12235; 10 CFR 50.55(b). 3 ALAB 723 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOM A, et al. (Black Fox Station Units I and 2), Docket Nos. STN-50-556, STN-50-557; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; April 14,1983; M EMO-RANDUM ANDORDER A The Appeal Panel Chairman grants the applicants' motion to terminate, on ground of mootness, the Appeal Board's jurisdiction over the single remaining appe!! ate issue in the proceeding, following the applicants' withdrawal of their construction permit application and termi-nation of the oroceedm3 by the Licensing Board. B A licensing board's vacation, upon termination of the proceeding, ofits earlier decision au-thorizing the issuance of a Limited Work Authorization is not necessarily cause for vacation of the Appeal Board's affirmance of the earher Licensing Board deci. ion. The precedential value of an ulti-mate appellate determination on a generic legal issue litigated in a particular proceeding should not hinge upon the presence or absence of wholly extraneous subsequent developments in that proceeding. ALAB-724 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), Docket No. 50 289 (Design Issues); RESTART; April 20,1983; MEMOR ANDUM A The Appeal Board issues a memorandum to a!cri the parties and the Commission to (1) cer-tain safety questions raised by information contained in a Board Notification and two hcense event f reports, which are outside the scope of this adjudicatory proceedmg and are in need of exploration before any restart of the plant; and (2) announce the Board's intention to premise any decision it may reach with regard to design issues on the assumption that those safety questions will be resolved outside the adjudicatory conteut. ALAB-725 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), Docket No. 50155-OLA; SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICAT!ON; April 27,1983; DECISION 'i A The Appeal Board vacates the Licensing Board's order (LBP-82-97,16 NRC 1439 (1982)) j requiring applicant to amend its spent fuel pool modification application and remands to the Licens-ing Board with instructions to make findmgs on the adequacy of the apphcant's criticahty analysis 3 y contingent upon the rehability of a remotely controlled makeup line the apphcant plans to install. B " General design criteria (G DC), as their name implies, are ' intended to provide engineering i goals rather than preci< Msts or methodologies by which reactor saW kan) be fully and satisfactors-ly gauged.' Nader v. NRC,513 F.2d 1045,1052 (1975)...Thrwar. regulatory guides, standard t format and content guides for safety analysis reports Standard Review Plan provisions, and Branch i Technical Positions, hcense apphcants are given guidance as to acceptable methods for implementmg the general criteria. However, applicants are free to select other methods to achieve the same goat." f Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action,CLI-78-6,7 NRC 400,406-07 (1978). q n,.43 f ,3 4 h% dh 5

a. W m.

t I 89 1 1, I I

DIGESTS 5 ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS C Although they are entitled to considerable weight, regulatory guides and the hke do not have the force of regulations. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermon: Yankee Nuclear Power Station),CLI-74-40,8 AEC 809,811 (1974). $[ D Regulatory kuides and the like do not prescribe maximum design objectives and the sole means of obtaining them. In some circumstances,it may well be appropriate to require a higher level of performance or more stringent measures of compliance. In the same vein, consideration of acci-dents other than those postulated in staff guidance may be warranted. See e.g., Florida Power and <u*. Light Co., (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2) ALAB-60),12 NRC 30,45 (1980) (consideration of loss of all AC power). E The following technical issues are discussed: Spent fuel pool loss of coolant; Spent fuel pool criticahty; Neutron mult. plication factor ( Ker); Optimum moderation. ALAB-726 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limenck Generstmg Station, Units I and 2), Docket Not 50-352-OL,50-353-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; May 2,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A On consideration of a referred ruling by the Licensing Board that it lacked jurisdiction to act on a request to reopen the record in this operating license proceeding (LBP 83-25,17 NRC 681), the Appeal Board determines that jurisdiction to rule on the request remains with the Licensing Board and temands the request for disposition on the merits. B Jurisdiction to rule on a motion to reopen filed after exceptions have been taken to an initial decision rests with the Appeal Board rather than the Licensing Board. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-699,16 NRC 1324,1327 (1982). C Until exceptions to an initial decision have been filed, jurisdiction to rule on a motion to reopen lies with the licensing board. D Where no exceptions to an initial decision have been filed withia Ge time allowed and the appeal board has neither completed its sua sponte review nor e stended the time for do.rq so,jurisdic-tion to rule on a motion to reopen lies with the licensing board. E Until exceptions are filed, there is literally no appeal to invoke appeal board jurisdiction (We generally 10 CFR ll2.762(a),2.785) and, necessarily, an appeal board has no familiarity with the case. F An NRC appeal board has broader powers than most appellate bodies. But neither the board's sua sponte review authorsty ner its power, in exceptional circumstances, to take evidence and make its own factual determinations enhances its knowledge of a proceeding before the proceed-ing reaches its docket or operates to give it jurisdiction over an initial decision immediately upott the initialdecision'sissuance. ALAB-727 CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1), Docket No. 50-358; OPERATING LICENSE; May 2,1983, DECISION A The Appeal Board affirms, with certain modifications, the Licensms Board's initial decision (LBP-82-48,15 NRC 1549) withholding authorization of a full-power operating hcense for Zimmer until applicants demonstrate adequate and implementable evacuation plans for schools nearby the plant site in the event of a serious plant emergency. B Under Commission regulations, no operating license for a nuclear power reactor can issue unless the NRC finds that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures both on and off the facility site can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.10 CFR 50 47(a)(1). With regard to the adequacy of offsite emergency measures, the NRC must " base its findmg on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEM A) findings and determi-nations as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented." 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2). C The Commission's regulatory scheme for offsite emergency response plans contemplates the establishment, for planning purposes, of two emergency planning zones-t plume exposure pathway EPZ, a more or less circular area extending approximately ten miles frorn the plant, and an ingestion exposure pathway EPZ, a similarly shaped area with a fifty mile radius The former is concerned prin-cipally with the avoidan:e in the event of a nuclear facility accident of whole body external exposure I and inhalation exposure from passing radioactive plume, while the latteris concerned with avoiding eaposure traceable to contaminated weter or foods. See 10 CFR 50.47 and Part 50, Appendix E. See also " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Prepa-redness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP 1, Rev.1 (November 20 i

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS 9 ~ 1980); and " Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0396/ EPA 520/1784)l6 (December 1978). f%y D The precise area for each type of EPZ is determined on a case-by-caw basis in relation to AN local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as g j demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundanes.10 CFR gM 50.33(g) and Part 50, Appendix E, n.2. %' ' Vy'b E Emergency plans must provide for a variety of protecuve measures including sheltermg, evacuation and the possible use of blocking agents such as potassium iodide - the overall objecuve being the avoidance of as much radiation eaposure as possible. F Under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3, a hcensee must have the capability to notify responsible state and local governmental agencies withm 15 minutes after declarms an emergency. The state and local agencies, in turn, must have the capability to make a public notifica-tion decision promptly on being informed by the licensee of an emergency condition. The design ob-jective of the prompt public notification system calls for compicuon of imtial notification of the public within the plume EPZ within about 15 minutes of the local government omcials' receipt of noufication of an emergency requiring urgent action. G Emergency response plans for a particular nuclear power plant need not be in final form at the time an application is noticed for hearing.10 CFR Part 50 Appendix IV, Section 111 Not any plan, however, no matter how skeletal, will suffice at this stage. The plans submitted mustjnclude a descriphon of their contents "to an extent sumcient to demonstrate that the plans provide reasonable , assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency." 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E, Section Ill (emphasis supphed). Sn also Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stauon, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-717,17 NRC 346,380 fn. 57 (1983). H The Commission's emergency planning requirements do not prescribe specific time hmits governing the esacuation of plume EPZs. The matter of the time within which evacuanon can be ac-complished is seft to be determined on a case-by-case basis upon consideration of all re!cvant condi-tions prevaihng in the specific locality. I An evacuation plan must be concerned with the emciency with which evacuation might be accomplished given the conditions under which it must take place. If the responsible governmental omcials are to make an informed decision respecting what is appropriate protective action in a given radiological emergency, they must have available to them time estimates that are realistic appraisals of the minimum period in which, in light of emisting local conditions, evacuation could be reasonably accomphshed. J The basic goal of emergency planning is achievement of maximum dose savings in a radi-ologicalemergency. K At the operatmg license hearing stage, emergency response plans for a nuclear plant need not necessa-ily be complete in all their details, but they must be at least sumciently developed for the Licensing Board to be able to conclude that the siste of emergency preparedness provides " reasonable assurance that adequate protective meamres can and Wil be taken in the event of a radi-ological emergency." 10 CFR 50.47(a)(I). See also San Onofre, AL AB 717. supra,17 NRC at 380 fa. 57. L 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2) does not require deferment of any hearing on State and local govern-ment emergency response plans to await FEM A's issuance of final findmss on those plans. Rather, what that Section contemplates is a licensing decision based on the best available current information on emergency preparedness. San Onofre, AL AB-717, supra,17 NRC at 379-g0. I ALAB-728 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I sad 2), Docket Nos. 50-275-OL,50-323-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; May 18,1983. DECISION A The Appeal Board (1) amtms the results reached in the Licensmg Board's 3uly 17,1981 par-tialinitial decision (LBP 81-21,14 NRC 107) authorizing issuance of a fuel loadmg and low powcr testing license for Diablo Canyrn, and (2) provides a fuller captanation of its affirmance (unpublished order of December 11,1981) of the Licensing Board's August 4,1981 ruling (LBP-8127,14 NRC 325), denying certam of the intervenors' contenuons in the Diablo Canyon full power operating hcense proceeding. t 4 Fe %g'Op O t 21 iQq h I &,&O\\ oa sy i h

I G DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL B04RDS $[ [' h B Under 10 CFR 50.47fd) of the Commission's emergency planning regulations, for fuelload-h ing and low power testing, it is the apphcant's onsite emergency plan and preparedness that is crucial, not the offsite plans and readiness of the state and county. C Under 10 CFR 50.47(d), NRC review of emergency planning for purposes oflow power test-ing is based solely on an assessment of the apphcant's emergency plan against the pertinent standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E. While this primarily involves a consideration of applicant's capabihty to cope with an emerg:ncy onsite, the statement of considerations accom-pan)ias 10 CFR 50.47(d) makes slear that review of applicant's onsite response mechanism necessarily involves aspects of some olisite elements: communications, notification, assistance agreements, fire protection and medical organization, and the like. 47 Fed. Reg. 30232 Ouly 13, 1982). D Current regulations do not require consideration of the impacts on emergency planning of earthquakes which cause or occur during an accidental radiological release. Until the Commission decides whether its regulations should be changed to address this question, the possible comphcating effects of an earthquake on emergency planning should not be considered in individual hcensing r proceedings. Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generstma, Station, Units 2 and 3), CL1-81-33,14 N RC 1091,1092 (1981). E Under Commission regulations, an agency action may or may not require preparation of an i environmental impact statement, or a negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal, i depending upon the circumstances. See 10 CFR 51.5(b),51.5(c)(1). F An adequate final environmental impact statement for a nuclear facihty necessarily includes the lesser impacts attendant to low power testing of the facihty and removes the need for a separate statement focusing on questions such as the costs and benefits oflow power testing. i G The Commission's June 13,1980 Pohey Statement, " Nuclear Po ver Accident Considera-tions Under the Nat onal Environmental Policy Act of 1969, requires the agency's environmental statements to include treatment of so-called " Class 9" accidents only in those proceedings that were then "at a licensing stage where a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has not yet been f issued." 45 Fed. Reg. 40101,40103. Proceedings on which rn FEIS has already issued are to be reo-pened or expanded to include consideration of " Class 9" accidents only in the presence of"special circumstances." Ibid. H The Commission's pohey statement governing the htigation of TMI-related issues in NRC [ Licensing proceedings,45 Fed. Reg. 41738 Uune 20,1980), and Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses, CL1-80-42,12 NRC 654 (1980), clearly provide that TMl-related issues may be litigated in pending licensmg sceedmss where the time for fihng contentions has ex-pired and the record has closed only if a party satisfies the traditional adjudicatory standards for reopening a record and the standard contained in the Rules of Practice for admittmg late-filed I contentions. } I Although the standard for reopening the record in an NRC proceeding has been variously stated, it requires that (1) the motion be timely, (2) significant new evidence of a safety question f exist, and (3) the new evidence might materially affect the outcome. See, e s., Pacific Gas and Elec-r tric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), AL AB-598,1I NRC 876,879 (1980h Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Umt 1), ALAB-462,7 NRC 320,338 I (1978). J For a late-filed contention to be admitted,10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) requires that the following factors, as apphcable, be considered. (i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time. fii) The availabihty of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected. 7 (iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. e (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existmg parties. (v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceedmg. 5 i Ms. 6 ' 'i s

C[I g

~ y g g! g 22 I f I 6

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS K The Commission may vahdly prescribe threshold requirements for a party seekmg to reopen a proceeding to litigate any issue, whether or not TMl-related. See BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission,502 F 2d 424 (D.C. Cir.1974). .+[ph, L When an apphcant for an operating hcense files a motion for authority to conduct low power y, testing in a proceeding where the evidentiary record is closed but the licensmg board has not yet U issued an initial decision finally disposmg of all comested issues, the board is obhgated to issue a deci- ((*d sion on all outstanding issues (i.e., contentions previously admitted and htigated) relevant to low M$ poner testing before authorizmg such testms. See 10 CFR 50.57(c). Such a monon, however, does w* not automatically pre 2nt an opportunity to file new contentions specifically aimed at low power test-ing or any other phase of the operating lecense application. M Under 10 CFR 2.714, contentions submitted by intervenors and subjects submitted by the representative of an interested state must set forth the basis for each contention or subject with rea-sonable specificity. See Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generatmg Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-107,6 AEC 188,192 (1973),all'd sub nom., BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424 (D C.Cir.1974). N In proceedmgs where the evidentiary record has been closed, the record should not be reo-pened absent a showing, by the moving party, of sigmficant new evidence not included in the record, that materially affects the decision. " Bare allegations or simple submission of nem contentions is not sufficient." Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-815,13 NRC 361,362 63 (1981). O in any challenge to applicant's comphance with NRC regulations. a party must meet the g pleadmg requirements of specificity and basis contamed in 10 CFR 2.714, and,if the time for fihng contentions has espired and the evidentiary record closed, then the party's challenge must also meet the standards for late-filed contentions and reopening tbc record. In the latter situationi, "the parties are required to make the initial case that significant new evidence is available, not merely make claims to that effect."Id. at 363. P Under 10 CFR 2.758(a), no rule or regulation of the Commission is subject to attack in an ad-judicatory proceedmg. Q Under 10 CFR 2.758(b), a party petitionmg for waiver or esception from a Commission regulation must estabhsh, by affidavit, the emistence of special circumstances such that application of 3 the challenged regulation would not serve the purpose for which it was adopted. Under 10 CFR l 2.758(d),if the hcensms board determines that a prima facie showing has been made that apphcation of the rule mill not serve the purposes for which it was adopted, the board shall cerufy to the Commis-sion the question w hether a waiver or enception should be granted. 1 R In a construction permit proceeding, a hcensing board must make a findmg under the Com-mission's regulations that there is a reasonable assurance that the facihty can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the pubhc. See 10 CFR 50.35(a). Moreover, such findmg should en-compass all safety matters, notjust those put in contest by the parties. See 10 CFR Part 2, Appendis i A, Section V(f)(2). A S in a construction permit proceedmg, a hcensing board need not duphcate the s'aff's review i but must nevertheless determine from the record whether the staff review of all uncontested safety issues - has been adequate. Gulf States Utilities Co. tRiver Bend Station, Units I and 2), AL AB-444,6 N RC 760 (1977). T in a construction permit proceeding, the NRC staff has a duty to produce the necessary esi-dence of the adequacy of the review of unresolved generic safety issues. Id. at 775 and n 28. I U In an operating license proceeding, the Commission's regulauons hmit an adjudicatory board's findings to the issues put into contest by the parties. See 10 CFR 2.760s. A board is not re-quired to make (and, under the regulations cannot property make) 1 e ultimate findmg comparable 6 to that required in a construction permit proceedmg f V NRC regulations give an adjudicatory board the discretion to aise on its own monon any serious safety or environmental matter. See 10 CFR 2.785 lb)(2). This discretionary authority l necessarily places on the board the burden of scrutinizing the record of an operstmg hcense proceed-ing in satisfy itself that no such matters exist. See Northern States Power Co (Monucello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1), ALAB.611,12 NRC 301,309 (1980). a r F% Mk..'. @'

1. 4

) NZQf ye J 23 t 3Q W M. W, h

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS ALAB-729 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al- (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Uma No.1), Docket No. 50-289 (Design issues); SPECI AL PROCEEDING; May 26,1983. DECISION A in another ofits appellate decisions in this special proceedmg to determme whether Umt 1 of this facihty should be permitted to resume operation, the Appea! Board deals with the issues of plant Tj design, rnodifications and procedures, and the physical separation of Three Mile Island Units I and

2. The Appeal Board 6nds, with some empress quahfications, that all the systems, structures and compor:enis it examined are sufUciently reliable to permit restart of the Unit. Because, homeser, there are other safety issues that are before the Commission for its separate and esclusive determination, the Appeal Board does not decide the overall question of the operabihty of Umt 1, leaving it to the Commission to decide after it has exammed all systems and considered information within and outside the record in this proceedmg.

B Each applicant for a nuclear power plant construction permit must submit a prehminary safety analysis report as part ofits apphcation. This report must descnbe and discuss the design and operating characteristics of the plar:t,includmg, importantly, an esaluation of the design and perfor-mance of those structures, systems and components intended to ensure that accidents can be pre-vented and that the consequences of accidents can be mitigated. See 10 CFR {50.34tal. C The design of a nuclear power plant must conform to the standards estabhshed in the Com-mission's General Design Cnteria (G DC), which set mmimum requirements for the structures, sys-tems and components importarit to safety at nuclear power plants. D A proper standard for determinmg safety of nuclear power plant operation is whether present systems can assure reasonable protection of the pubhc health and safety. See Citizens for Safe Power

v. NRC,524 F.2d 1291,1297f D C. Cir.1975); Nader v. NRC,513 F.2d 1045,1052-54 (D C. Cir 1975); Petition for Shutdown of Certain Reactors, CLI 73-31,6 AEC 1069,1070-71 (1973); Metro-politan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt No. 2), ALAB-486,8 NRC 9,46 (1978). Absolute certainty or " complete " " entire," or " perfect" safety is not required by the Atomic Energy Act, nor does nuclear safety technology admit of such a standard. What constitutes

" reasonable assurance of adequate protection" is also subject to change, as the state of the nuclear safety art advances. It is for the Commission to meigh the state of that art, the risk of accidents, the record of past performance, the need for further improvement in nuclear safety matters. and other considerations. Nader v. Ray,363 F.Supp. 946,954 ( D D C.1973). E Licensees may take reasonable action that departs from hcense conditions or techmcal spe-cifications in an emergency w hen such action is needed to protect the public health and safety.See 48 Fed. Reg.13966 ( Apr. I,1983). F Structures, systems, and components that are "important to sareiy" are those that " provide reasonable assurance that the facihty can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the pubhc." 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, introduction. *Important to safety"is not the equivalent to but is broader than the term " safety-grade." The latter refers to equipment that meets entremely ngid design criteria so as to produce the highest degree of reliabihty. See, e s., Sacramento Municipal Utahty Districe t Rancho Seco Nuclesr Generatmg Station), AL AB-655,14 NRC 799,808 (1981). G Not all equipment that may play some safety role at a nuclear plant need meet safety-grade { cntena. Under the regulations, all structures, systems and components encompassed by the term l "important to safety,"includmg the " safety-grade" sub-class, are necessary to meet the broad safety goal articulated m the GDC,i c., to provide reasonable assurance that a facihty can be operated with-out undue risk to the health and safety of the pubhc, as required by statute Only " safety-grade" 8 structures, s) stems and components, however, are relied upon to meet cntical safety functions, such as those identified in 10 CFR Part 100 accident prevention, saf, shutdown, and accident conse-quence mitigation. 11 To be considered safety-grade, a system must be able to remam operative after a design seis-mic event and to function in any harsh environment which may be curected at its location after an accident. I The Commission's regulations do not require upgradmg of nonufety systems to safety-grade standards. J Parties mierested in htigatmg unresolved safety issues must do somethmg more than simply offer a checkhst of unresobed issues; they must show that the issues have some specific safety sig-niGcance for the reactor in question and that the appl. cation fcls to resche the matters satisfactonly. .Od%'., Gulf States Utiht'es Co (Riser Bend Station, Units I and 2), AL AB-444. 6 NRC 760,772 73 (1977). ge T y 3 wa/4 ..y4_y { 24 a s 1 f

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS 9 ~ K Adjudicatory boards in construction permit proceedmss must be able to find reasonable assurance that a facility can be operated without undue risk to the pubhc irrespective of what matters ,. f d, may or may not have been properly placed in controversy. Id. at 774. f L In operating hcense proceedings, an appeal board will search the record under its sua sponte ' g[;h authority,10 CFR {2.785f b)(2), to ensure that there are no sigmncant safety issues requiring correc-w tive action. Virgmia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2), MD** M ALAB-491,8 NRC 245,247-48,(1978). See generally Pacific Gas and Elecinc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nk Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-728,17 NRC 777,8%-08 (1983). M As a general rule, hcensing boards should not accept in individual license proceedmgs con-tentions which are f or about to become) the subject of general rulemaking by the Commission. Poto-mac E!cctnc Power Co. (Douglas Pom Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-218,8 AEC 79,85 (1974). As a corollary, certain issues included in an adjudicatory proceeding may be ren-dered inappropriate for resolution in that proceedmg because the Commission has taken generic action during the pendency of the adjudication. See Rancho Seco, supra,14 NRC at 816-17. There may nonetheless be situations in u hich matters subject to generic consideration may also be evaluat-ed on a case-by-case basis where such evaluation is contemplated by, or at least consistent with, the approach adopted in the rulemaking proceedmg. Cleveland Electnc illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), AL AB-675,15 N RC I105,1112 (1982). N Safety systems at nuclear power plants must be designed to perform their intended safety functions despite changes in the surroundmg environment that may result from an accident. O The follommg technical issues are discussed: Small break loss of coolant accident (SBLOCA); Loss of main feedwater transient; Decay heat removal, Emergency Feedwater (EFW) System Rehabihty; EFw System Seismic and Environmental Quahfication, Natural circulation - hquid and two phase; Use of high-point vents as an aid to natural circulation; Use of pressurizer hea-ters to control Reactor Coubnt System Pressure; boiler-condenser process to obtain natural circulation; Feed and Bleed as a method of core coohng; Pressurizer heater circuitry rehability, Po*er Operated Relief Valve (PORV) - quahfications; Low temperature overpressure protection; Safety systems bypass and override by operator; Systems classification and interaction studies; Defi-nitions ofimportance to safety, safety-grade, and safety-related, Upgradmg of safety-related compo-nents to safety grade; Environmental quahfication of safety systems - Generic considerations; De-velopment of a reactor vessel mater level indicator; Inadequate co.

• cooling instrumentation; Cold shutdoen, Steam generator tube break accident - relation to PGKV qualifications; Main Steam Line Rupture Detecuon System; Unresolved genenc safety issues; Descnption of TMI Uma I; Small Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis.

ALAB-730 THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Unit 2), Docket No. 50-34l-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; June 2,1983; DECISION A The Appeal Board affirms the Licensms Board's October 29, 1982 initial decision (LBP-82-96,16 NRC 1408) authorizmg the issuance of a full power operating hcense for Fermi, Unit 2. B Under Commission regulations, no operstmg hcense for a nucicar power reactor can issue unless the NRC finds that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures both on and off the facility site can and mill be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.10 CFR 650.47(a)(1), Cincinnati Gas & Electnc Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-727,17 NRC 760 (1983). With regard to the adequacy of offsite emergency measures, the NRC must base its f.ndmg on a revice of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEM A) imdmgs and determinations as to w hether State and local emergency plans are adequate and whether l there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented.10 CFR {50 47(aH2), Zimmer, supra. C The Commission's regulatory scheme for offsite emergency response plans contemplates the estabbshment, for plannmg purposes, of two emergency planning zones (EPZ): a plume exposure pathway EPZ, a more or less circular area exteadmg approximately ten miles from the plant, and an ingestion pathway EPZ, a similarly shaped area with a fifty mile radius The former is concerned pnn-cipally with the avoidance in the event of a nuclear facihty accident of w hcie body external eaposure I and inhalation exposure from the passmg radioactive plume, w hile the latter is concerned with avoid-ing esposure traceable to contammated mater or foods. Zimmer, supra.17 NRC at 765. r Fmg 4Le h 25 m I h

i DIGESiS ISSUANCE.S OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS o 4> D A party seeking to reopen a proceeding for consideration of a newly recognized contention must satisfy an objective test of good cause. Among other thmgs, the party seekmg to reopen most show that the issue it now seeks to raise could not have been raised earher. Vermom Yankee Nuclear y Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ALAB-138,6 AEC 520,523 0973). In addition, the party must show that the matter it wishes to have considered is U) timely presented, (2) addressed to a significant issue, and (3) susceptible of altenns the result previously reached. See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. tDiablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI-815,13 NRC 361,364-65 0981); Kansas Gas & Electnc Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1), AL AB-462,7 NRC 320,338 4978). E Offsite emergency response plans need not be complete or finally evaluaied by FEM A pnor to conclusion of the adjudicatory process. Hearings may properly be held, and a decision on a full power operatmg hcense reached, at such time as the plans are sufficiently developed to support a con-clusion that the state of emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protec-tive measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Sothern Cahfornia i Edisot' Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-717,17 NRC 346,380 0983); Zimmer, supra,17 NRC at 775. See 47 Fed. Reg. 30232 Uuly 13,1982), petation for review i pendmg sub nom. Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, No. 82-2053 (D C. Cir. filed September 10,1982); 45 Fed. Reg. 82713 (Dec.16,1980). See also 10 CFR (50.47(c)U ).' F Emergency preparedness exercises are not required for a nuclear power plant operatins license decision, but must be completed prior to operatmg above 5% of rated power. 47 Fed. Reg. 30232, supra G An intervenor in a construction permit or operating license proceedmg must have the oppor-tunity to litigate the substantive question whether there is reasonable assurance that adequate protec-teve measures can and will be taken in the evert of a radiological emergency. San Onofre, supra,17 i N RC at ?80 n.57, H A late-filed contention is always admissible where the nonemistence or public unavailability of relevant documents made it impossible for a sufficiently specific contention to have been asserted at an earlier date. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station Units I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,470 0982), rev'd in oart, CLI-83-19,17 NRC 10414 983). j l Under the Commission's present emergency plannmg scheme, emergency evacuation plans must be developed only for the plume EPZ. See 10 CFR 650 47(b)UO), (c)(2),10 CFR Part 50, Ap-pendia E,61 n.2. See generally NUREG-0396,"Plannmg Basis for the Development of State and Local Governmem Radiological Response Plans in Surport of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants" (December 1978), i 3 On appellate review, an appeal board gives a hcensms board's factual findmss the deference i that their probative force intrinsically commands. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Badly i Generating Station, Nuclear I), ALAB-303,2 NRC 858,867 0975). l l K The Commission's emergency planning regulations do not specify the time within which the ( l plume EPZ mast be evacuated in the event of a nuclear emergency. Apphcants must provide only an analysis of the time required to evacuate and for taking other protective actions within the plume EPZ for transient and permanent populations.10 CFR Part 50, Appendia E, llV. See also t NUREG-0654," Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," Rev.1 (November 1980), at 61 and Appen-dia 4. See generally Zimmer, supra.17 NRC at 770-71. AL AB-73I PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50-444-OL; OPE R ATING LICENSE, June 20,1983, MEMOR AN-DUM ANDORDER i A The Appeal Board dismisses an intervenor's appeal of the Licensing Board's dismissal of a contention sponsored by intervenor in this operstmg hcense proceedms, and demes an alternative petition for directed certification. B A heensing board's dismissal of a party's contention that does not otherwise terminate that party's participational nghts is an interlocutory order and is not appealable as a matter of nght until 4 the board below has rendered a decision disposing of at least a major segment of the case. See Toledo Fht Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), AL AB.300,2 NRC 752,758 (1975L C A claim of error based simply on a hcensms board's dismissal of a contention is not enough Q@g 3 -y to shr w that the board's action afTects "the basic structure of the proceedmg in a pervasive or unusual h m 26 l 4

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFE'if AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS S ~ manner" within the meaning of Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generstmg Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-405,5 NRC 1190,1192 (1977) and will not warrant exercise of an .,.h. appeal board's directed certification authority under 10 CFR 2.718(i). See Houston Lightmg & T A W Power Co. (Ahens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-635,13 NRC 309,310-11 w (1981). M' e ALAB-732 LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Elecinc Station, Unit Ib 3), Docket No. 50-382-OL; OPER ATING I * 'ENSE; June 29,1983. DECISION A The Appeal Board afGrms the...censg B=d': November 3,1982 partial initial decision that resolved all but one contestem issue in ais operating license proceedmg for Waterford 3 (LBP-82-100,16 NR C 1550, as modified, LBP-82-112,16 N RC 1901 (1982)). B Exceptiona not fully bricfed are considered waived. Pubhc Service Electric ane Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umt I). ALAB-650,14 N RC 43,49-50 (1981), aff'd sub nom. Township of Lower Alloways Creek v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co.,687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir. 1982). C Licensing boards have a duty not only to resolve contested issues, but to articulate in rea-sonable detail the basis for the course of action chosen. A board must do more than reach conclusions; it must confront the facts. Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station. Units I and 2), AL AB-422,6 NRC 33,41 (1977), aff'd, CLI-781,7 NRC 1 (1978). D Despite the failure of a heensing tard decision to eaplain its basis in reasonable detail, an appeal board need not necessanly reverse it. Instead, the appeal board may make factual findings based on its om n review of the record and decide the case accordmgly. Id. at 4142. E The purpose oflimited appearance statements is to alert the Licensing Board and parties in I areas in which evidence may need to be adduced. Such statements do not constitute evidence and, 1 accordmgly, the Board is not obhgated to discuss them in its decision.10 CFR {2.715(a); toma Elec-tric Light & Power Co. (Duane Arnold Energy Center), AL AB 108,6 AEC 195,1% n.4 (1973). F A licensing board may refuse to accept an expert witness' prefiled written testimony as evi-i dence in a licensing proceeding in the absence of the empert's personal appearance for cross-examination at the hearing See general:y 10 CFR 52.718, Pacific Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2). ALAB-27,4 AEC 652,698 59 (1971). i G In order for expert testimony to be admissible, it need only (1) assist the iner of fact, and (2) be rendered by a properly qualified witness. See Fed R. Ev.d. 702; Duke Power Co. (William B. Mc-4 Guire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-669,15 NRC 453,475 (1982). The fact that a witness is employed by a party, or paid by a party, goes only to the persuasiveness or weight that should be ac-corded the expert's testimony, not to its admissibility. See ; I 3. Moore & H. Bendix, Moore's Feder-al Practice.1702.30ll] (2d ed.1982). H The NRC staff has the obligation to lay all relevant materials before the Licensing Board to enable it adequately to dispose of the issues before it. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian ( Pomt Station, Units I,2 and 3),CLI 77 2,5 NRC 13,15 (1977). See generally Tennessee Valley Au-thority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Umts I,2 and 3), ALAB477,15 NRC 1387 (1982); Aihed-t General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant Separations Facility), ALAB-296,2 NRC 671, 680 (1975). I The ultimate burden of proof in a hcensing proceedmg on the question of =hether a permit or license should be issued is upon the apphcant. But where one of the other parties to the proceeding contends that, for a specific reason the permit or heense should be demed, that party has the burden of going forward with evidence to buttress that corttention. Once the party has introduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the apphcant, which as part ofits overall burden of proof, must provide a sufTicient rebuttal to satisfy the Board that it should reject the contention as a basis for denial of the permit or hcense. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-123,6 AEC 331,345 (1973). J Prior to the issuance of an operating license, the Commission must make a findmg of rea-i sonable assurrisce that adequate protective measures, both offsste and onsite, can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.10 CFR 150 47(a)(1). The Commission bases its overall " reasonable assurance" finding on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determination r>f the adequacy of offsite (state and local) planning, and on the NRC stafT assessment of the adequacy of an apphcant's onsite plan.10 CFR 650.47(a)(2). FMfR ' i h,,i i,,&Gf I i \\ 27 MQ eq j 1 I B i l

~ DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS ~.7 g j K OtTsite emergency preparedness is implemented through the concept of emergency planning s zones (EPZ). The two rones are (i) the plume eaposure pathway EPZ, which is an area with a radius g of about 10 miles from the plant, and (ii) the ingestion pathway EPZ, which is about 50 miles n ', M. radius.10 CFR 650 47(c)(2). See Cincinnata Gas & Electne Co (wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Umt No.1), AL AB-727,17 NRC,760,764-65 (1983). L An intervenor has the rght to make its case defensively by cross-examination of apphcant and stalT witnesses. Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant Umts l A,2A, IB, and 2B). ALAB-463,7 NRC 341,356 (1978). Proper cross-examination can be an especially valuable toni m the deselopment of a full record. Northern States Power Co. (Prairic Island N uclear General-ing Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-244,8 AEC 857,868 (1974), reconsideration demed ALAB 252, 8 AEC i175, affirmed,CLI-751,1 NRC I (1975). M Cross-exammation must be hmited to the scope of the contentiom admitted for htigation and can appropriately be limited to the scope of direct examination. Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San Oncfre Nuclear Generatmg Station, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-473,15 NRC 688,698, affirmed. CLI-82-II,15 NRC 1383 (1982);Praine Island, AL AB-244, supra 8 AEC at 867,869 n.16. In ex-ercismg its discretion to limit what appears to be improper cross-exammation, a hcensms board may insist on some offer of proof or other advance indication of what the cross-exammer hopes to chcit from the witness. Pubhc Service Co of Indiana (Marble Hih Nuclear Generstms Station, Units I and 2), AL AB 461,7 N RC 313,316 (1978); San Onofre, AL AB-673, supra,15 N RC ai 697; Praine Island, ALAB-244, supra,8 AEC at 869. Even if cross-examination is wrcngfy demed, however, such denial does nut constitute prejiidicial error per se. San Onofre, CL1-82 II, supra,15 NRC at 1384. The complaimng party must demonstrate actual prejudice - i c., that the ruimg had a substan-tial effe,t on the outcome of the proceedmg San Onofre, ALAB-673, supra,15 NRC at 697 & n.14. N An applicant's emergency plans must mclude a radiological orientaiion training program for offsate emergency workers, such as civil defense and law enforcement personnel 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E, llV.F. See also NUREG-0654/ FEM A-REP 1,"Cnteria for Preparation and Evaluation I of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," Rev. I (November 1980), at 75 77. O As a general proposition, issues should be dealt with in the hearmgs and not left over for later (and possibly more informal) resolution Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Pomt Station, Unit No. 2), CLI-74-23,7 AEC 947,951 (1974). The " post-heanrig" approach should be employed spanngly and only in clear cases - for example, where mmor prucedural deficiencies are involved. Id. at 951 n.8,952. Accord, Marble Hill, supra,7 NRC at 318, Cleveland Elecinc illu-mmatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-298,2 NRC 730,736-37 (1975); i Washmston Pubhc Power Supply System (Hanford No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-ll3,6 AEC 251,252 (1973). P The findings on emergency planning required prior to heense issuance are predictive m i nature. 47 Fed Reg. 30232,30235 Uuly I3,1982). Q While an emergency plan need not be final at the time of an operating license hearing, it must be sufficiently developed to permit the board to make the reasonable assurance findmg required by 10 CFR {50 47(a)(1). See Zimmer, supra,17 SRC at 770,773; Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stat on, Umt 2 and 3), AL AB-717,17 NRC 346,380 n.57 (1983). i R Unless the Commission has grsoted a waiver, NRC regulations "shall not be subject to 1 attack by way of discovery, proof, argument, or other means in any adjudicatory proceeding involv. ing initial licensing." 10 CFR 12.758. S An apphcant for a nuclear plant operatmg license is not required to submit the implementmg procedures for its emergency plan for consideration in the hcensing hea mg in order for the Commis-sion to make its "reascnable assurance findmg See 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, (V. The focus of the heanrig should be on whether the apphcant's emergency plan itself meets the broadly drafted standards of to CFR 550 47(b). T Emergency preparedness exercises are par of the operationalinspection process and are not required for any initial hcensms decision, although they are required prior to operation above five percent of rated power.10 CFR 650 47(a)(2); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,llV F.I.b. Full-scale ex-ercises are to test as much of the emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory p abhc participaGon.10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E,llV.F.I. Should the actual exercises reveal funda-d4 46(% mental defects rn the errergency plans, a party's recourse is to seek to reopen a concluded heanns or ,, {mW / j.. ,M M rh @ I a i i

DIGESTS. ISSU ANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS, ,'[ file a petition for action pursuant to 10 CFR 12.206, as appropriate. 47 Fed. Reg. at 30233. These W ~[ rules do not preclude pubis observation of and participation in the exercises themselves (to the extent consistent with the rul:s and policies of the Commission and the objectives of the exercise) '[) [w. and in the review and assessment critique meetings held after the e merrise. Ibid. j# k4r N U A licensing board in an operating license proceedmg has an obligation to search the record (especially the Safety Evaluation Report) to determine whether the staff has dealt "a propriately" " ~ ~ with the unresolved generic safety issues, even where they are not contested. Virginia Electne and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Statica, Units I and 2), ALAB 491,8 NRC 245,247-49 (1978). V It is long standmg appeal board practice to review the entirety of heensing board decisions on significant safety and environmental issues, even when they are not raised on appeal. See Offshore Power Systems (Manufacturing License for Floating Nuclear Power Plants). ALAB-689,16 NRC 887,890 (1982). W A licensing board may, under 10 CFR 62.760s, raise and decide, sua sponte, a serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter, should it determine such a senous issue exists. The hmitations imposed by regulation on a board's review of a saatter not in contest (and therefore not subject to the more intense scrutiny afforded by the adversarial process) do not over-ride a board's authority to invoke 10 CFR 62.760a. See North Anna, supra,8 NRC at 248 n.7. The Commission may, howcter, on a sase by case basis reheve the boards of any obligation to pursue un-contested issuet X If a board notifcation is to serve its intended purpose,it must comain an exposition adequate to allow a ready appreciation of (l) the precise nature of the addressed issue and (2) the emicnt to which the issue might have a bearing upon the particular facihty before the board. Virgima Elecinc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-551,9 NRC 704,710 (1979). Y The following technicalissues are discussed: Synergism; Decay heat removal. r A h FM 3A.j i M N '.1 ' r E,$15 , c < m'; 7; < ' s s gC y 29 cr r-i b

O am.r.

• ,s,

,h k i s f a s i i j R,Ta A i's.1, r ? $r: p' ra n,w? ? -} 6 1 i f

O ~ .; / % l h DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS M,I / LBP-83-1 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) and POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Umt No. 3), Docket Nos. 50-247-SP,50-286-SP; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; January 7,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A Applying the guidelmes set forth in the Commission's orders of July 27,1982 (Cll-82-15, 16 NRC 27) and September 17,1982 fCLI-82-25,16 NRC 867), the Licensing Board reconsiders and reformulates the emergency planmng contentions admitted in its April 23,1982 memorandum and order (LBP-82-34,15 N RC 895), and considers new contentions proposed by Intervenors. LBP-83-2 P ACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COMP ANY (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit 1). Docket No. P-564-A ( ASLBP No-76-334-07-AN), ANTITRUST; January 19, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board grants apphcant's motion to withdraw its construction permit apphca-tion without prejudice subject to its compliance with terms and conditions established by the Board for the preservation of discovery documents. B The possibihty that an intervenor may be faced e the future with a refiled apphcation and at-tendant burdens of renewed intervention is no bar to granting a motion to withdraw an apr,ication l for the construction of a nuclear plam, without prejudice. Any harm the intervenor may suffer, recognized as sxh under the law, can be overcome by attaching appropriate compe nsatmg conditions as a requirement for withdrawal. C The decision of the apphcant to withdraw its apphcation for the construcuon of a nuclear plant was a businessjudgment. The law on withdrawal does not require a determination of the sound-ness of the decisinn. What can be required of the Licensing Board is to appropriately condition the order governing the dismissal to overcome legally reco6nized harm arising from allowing the with-drawal without prejudice. LBP 83-3 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I & 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441-OL ( ASLBP No. 81-457-04-OL); OPER AT-ING LICENSE; January 28,1983;MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board denies apphcant's motion to reconsider the Board's decision denying summary disposition of the quality assurance contention. B The regulatory requirement that a separate and distinct 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 i disposition. C Even if th; *espondent fails to file a separate and distmct statement of material facts in re-sponse to a motion for summary disposition, the motion must be demed unless the motion estab-hshes the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. D If a party suffers a harm from incomplete answers to its interrogateries, it may not await a Bo.rd,*ecision on the merits of a motion for summary disposition before calling the harm to the Board's attention. Permitting 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 LBP-83-4 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Umts I & 2), Docket Nos. 50-266-OL A, 50-301-OL A (ASLBP No. 81-464-05-LA); OPER ATING LICENSE AM ENDMENT; February 4,1983; M EMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A This decision concerns the adequacy of eddy current testing to detect potentially serious defects in corroded steam generator tubes that have been repaired by the insertion of a hner or " sleeve." The Licensing Board concludes that limitations on the sensitivity of eddy currene tesims 1 6,_ ci f. D I MYI i nZh i -cy(3 - M i 31 st1 M.l b f;

t e f G ~ I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS IM4,, 4 I I .DA 9 do not affect the abihty to detect serious (laws that are likely to rupture, either under normal opergt- @M[ ing conditions or accident conditions. Consequently, the Board ar=' roves the issuance of a license t amendment to apphcant. j S There is no penalty assessed against a party that failed to comply with the Board's requests, { not reflected in an order, concerning the farmat for filing Findings of Fact. C The regulations do not require the use of a formal, probabilistic risk analysis. { D An initial decision in a case in which summary disposition has been granted is hmited to the l genuine issues of fact that were found to emist E The following technicalissues are discussed. Eddy current testing (steam generator tubes); Eddy current testing (sleeved steam generator tubes); inconel 600, mill annealed and thermally I treated; Steam generator, secondary sue chemistry; Steam generator (pressurized water reactor), ? described; Signal to noise ratio (eddy current testingh Reliability of eddy current testing (anall volume defects); Leak Before Break (steam generator tubes); Burst tests (steam generator tubr.s); Stress corrosion cracking (steam generator tubes); Intergranular attack (stearnegenerator tubes); 1 Tube sleeving (steam generator repair); Sleeving of tubes (steam generator repair); Corrosion I (steam generator tubes); Hydrostatic testing (steam generator tubes); Leak monitoring, continuous ( (steam generator tubes). l LBP-83-5 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Foint, Unit No. 2) and POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Indian Point. Umt No. 3), Docket Nos. 50 247-SP,50-286-SP (ASLBP No. SI-466-03-SP); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; February 7.1983; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A The Licensing Board rules on risponses to its reformulation of emergency planning contendons. LBP-83-6 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), 1 Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-353-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; February 10, 1983; MEMORAN-l DUM AND ORDER REJECTING TABLE S-3 FUEL-CYCLE CONTENTION A On the basis of guidarse provided by the Commission's policy statement on Table S-3 fuel cycle i rpacts,47 Fcd. Reg. 50591 (Nov. 8,1982), the Licensms Board does not admin a late conten-tion a!!cging that the Apphcant's Environmental Report inadequately considers the untertainties as-sociated with the environmental and health impacts of wastes sealed in a permanent repository. The contertion was based on the decision in NRDC v. NRC,685 F.2d 459 (D.C. Car.1982), cert. granted,51 U.S L.W.3419 (Nov 29,1982). B Under the Commission's statement of pulicy on Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts, the Licensing Board is directed not to admit a contention alleging that the uncertainties associated w.th impacts of wastes sealed in a permanent repository are inadequately considered in the Applicant's Ervironmen-tal Report. LBP-83-7 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Pebble Sprit gs Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 50-514-CP,50 515-CP (ASLBP No. 75-281-10-CP); CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 24,1983; M EMOR ANDUM AND ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING LBP-83-8 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT M ANAGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), Docket No,50-537 CP (ASLBP No. 75-29112); CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 28,1983; l PARTIALINITIAL DECISION j A Having considered relevant contested issues and environmental and site suitabihty matters, C the Licensing Board authorizes the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue a hmited work authorization (LWA 1) for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant, subject to certain StafTproposed limitations for the protection of the environment committed to by Apohcants. B Section 50.10(e) of 10 CFR is applicable to this first-of-a-kir4 Chnch River Breeder Reactor i Phnt C The following technical issues are discussed: A. Contested issues - Site suitability, source f term, dose guidehnes and accident considerations; environmental efrects of accidents; eITects of acci-dents on nearby facilities; genetic and somatic effects of accidents' safeguards and security; fuel %gl s /d availability and reprocessins; alternative sites; programmatic objectives and design alternatives. p k I'; B. Uncontested Matters - 18emography; emergency plans; meteorology; hydrology; geology and ) g seismology; tand and water ue impacts; terrestrial and aquatic impacts of operation; and socio-agi-economic considerations. N4 32

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS 9 ~ LBP-83-8A DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al (Catawba Nuclear Station Units I and 2) Docket Nos. ^. _... 50-413, 50 414 ( ASI BP No. 81-463-01 OL); OPERATING LICENSE; February 2,1983; MEMO-RANDUM ANDORDER &/g. s The Licensir,3 Board demes a motion for reconsideration ofits rulings on environmental A M ir9 pact statement contentions. The Board estabhshes a detailed schedule for the remainder of the proceedmg. The schedule is designed to bring the proceeding to a conclusion prior to the Apphcams' anticipated fuel loading date, consistent with the Commission's Statement of Pohey on Conduct of W" Licensms Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452 (1981). The Board noted, however, that it may not be possible to complete the proceeding before fuel loading where, as in this case, the Apphcants have substantially accelerated their fuel loadmg date after the proceedmg is well under way. LBP-83 8B DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-41),50-414 ( ASLBP No. 81463-01 OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; February 25,1983. M EMO-RANDUM ANDORDER A The Board rejects certain contentions relating to transportation of spent fuel, holdmg that the impacts associated with such transportation are governed by Table S-4,10 CFR 51.20(st The table apphed to short-haul shipments of spent fuct from one reactor to another for interim storage,in the absence of a showing that sign Gcant impacts are associated with such transport which are not included in Table S-4. LBP-83-8C SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear.Generatmg Station Units 2 and J), Docket Nos. 50-361-OL, 50-362-OL ( ASLBP No. 77-352-04-OL); OPERATING LICENSE; October 5,1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board sets the offsite medical arrangements question for an evidentiary hearing, specifymg questions to be addressed by the parties. The Licensing Board then certines to the Commission the question whether it should proceed with or suspend the hearing until after the Commission decides certain legal questions bearms on required medical arrangements. LBP-83-8D SOUTHERN CALIFORNI A EDISON COMPANY, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) Decket Nos. 50-3sI-OL,50-362-OL (ASLBP Docket No. 78-365-01 OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; October 29,1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board rules on certain objections to its preheanng order on medical service arrangements. The Board rejects the Apphcants' argument that the hearing should await legal ruimgs by the Commission. LBP-83-9 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50-444-OL ( ASLBP No.82-473-02-OL); OPERATING LICENSE; March 1,1983, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensmg Board grants in part and denies in part Apphcants' motions to compel answers to interrogatones. B The degree to which an answer serves the purposes of discovery - to narrow the issues by determining the real factual disputes, safeguard against surprise at trial, and permit adequate prepara-tion for trial - must be weighed against a claim that the answer is unduly burdensome. j C Where interrogatones address contemions that are not sponsored by the interrogee and that will not be the subject of direct testimony by the interrogee, there is httle benefit derived from com-pelling answers. D An intervenor may not adduce afGrmative evidence on another intervenor's contentions without amending its own contentions to reflect its adoption of those issues. Leave to amend its inter-vention petition will be granted if the Board is satisGed that the intervenor has s! oen good cause for its failure to have raised the issue at an earher pomt and if allowance of the amendment may assist the Board in the proper resolution of the issue without occasioning unwarranted delay. E An interested state inat has elected to heigate issues as a full party under 10 CFR (2.714 is ac-corded the nghts of an "mterested state" under 12 715fc) as to all other issues. F 10 CFR 62.715(c) authorites an "mterested state" to introduce evidence with respect to those issues that it has not taken a position on. However, at the earhest possible date in advance of the hearms, an " interested state" must state with reasonable speciGeity those subject areas, other than its own contentions, in which it intends to participate. I VMm.hr. -E MA y 33 f*Qf %e h*PG l ? t

I DIGEST 5 ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS, b%'*m ?."R Q LBP-8310 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOM A, ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC f COCPER ATIVE, INC., WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPER ATIVE, INC. (Black Fox C( Station, Units I and 2) Docket Nos. STN 50-556, STN 50-557 ( ASLBP No. 76-304-02-CP); WITH-DRAWAL OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION; March 7,1983; MEMORANDUM (g AND ORDER A The Licensing Board's Order grants, without prejudice, but Fubject to conditions, Applicants' motion for termination of proceedmg and withdrawal of apphcation. B Upon consideration of the NRC Staff's assurance that it will continuously monitor the reme-dial actions imposed by two conditions in this Order, pursuant to 10 CFR 62.107, the Board allows the withdrawal of the apphcation, without prejudice, and termmates the proceeding. LBP 83-il PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-352 OL,50-353-OL i ASLBP No. 81-465-07-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; March 8,1983; PARTI AL INITI AL DECISION A The Licensing Board issues a Partial Initial Decision concludmg that noise impacts from eperating a supplementary cooling water system may require nnt.gation. The Board concludes that other alleged environmental impacts of operation of the supplementary coohng water system will not s be significant. B Section 511 fc)(2) of the CIcan Water Act does not preclude NRC from considerms noise im. pacts of the coohng water system on the surroundmg environment. C Even if the cost / benefit balance for a plant is favorable, rneasures may be ordered to mmi-mize particular impacts. Such measures may be ordered without awaiting the ultimate outcome of the cost / benefit balance. D Noists which are out of character with a historic property or which would sigmficantly alter the property's setting may constitute adverse effects which require consideration by federal agencies invotved in the projects causms them. E Comphance with the National Historic Prese:vation Act does not preclude the need to comply with NEPA with regard to impacts on historic and cultural aspects of the environment. i F The following technical issues are discussed: Coohng water intake system; Endangered spc-caes (Shortnose sturgeon);Impmgement and entrainment of fish; Determination of noise impacts. LBP-83-12 CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Wm. IL Zimmer Nucicar Power Station, Unit 1). Docket No. 50-358-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; March 10,1983, MEMORAN-DUM ANDORDER A Licensing Board asserts jurisdiction to rule on the admissibility of five new contentions filed by a non-party to the proceedmg after rendition of the Board's initial decision tut prior to completion of proceedmss before the Board. B Where a licensms board has retained jurisdiction following issuance ofimtial decision to con-duct further proceedmss, it has jurisdiction to consider the admissibihty of new contentions which are not related to any matter previous'y litigated. LBP 83-13 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL (Emergency Planning); OPER ATING LICENSE; March 10,1983, MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON TOWN OF SOUTH AMPTON'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE AS AN INTERESTED MUNICIPALITY PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 12.715(c) A The Board grants the late-filed petition of an interested municipality to participate pursuant to 10 CFR 12.715(c), but concludes that the municipality must "take the proceedmg as it finds it," and limits the scope ofits participation accordmgly. B There is no explicit time requirement regardmg a filing by an interested state or municipahty to participate pursuant to 10 CFR 62.715(c). This section abrogates some of the techmcal require-ments applicable to other types ofintervention and has been construed to avoid limitmg a municipah-ty's access to a proceeding Cmcmnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nucles Station), LBP-80-6, ll N RC l48, ' 49 (1980). C Allowance of a belated intervention by an mterested state or municipahiy pursuant to 10 CFR 12.715(c) need not disrupt estabhshed schedules and procedures m a proceeding. A tardy peti-tioner with no good excuse may be required to take the proceeding as it finds it, for any disadvantage which it may suffer in terms of the opportunity for trial preparation would be entirely of its own r ng&&,, %.J a A ~- w. ~ l, 1 Dk k ) 34 i \\

DIGESTS ISSUANCaS OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS G ~ making. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, U' nits 1 and 2), ALAB-600,12 NRC 3,8 (1980). eW LBP-83-14 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limenck Generating Station, Units I and 2), > M Docket Nos. 50 352 OL,50-353-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; March 10,1983; ORDER DENY-hj[ES@j3 ING FOE MOTION TO RECONSIDER MM A The Licensing Board demes a motion to reconsider an order denying the adinission of some ofintervenor's con:entions because the moti6n was not filed within the five day time period of either i MM 10 CFR (2.751afd) or $2.752(c). In addition, because intervenor is not represented by counsel, the Board considered the substance of the motion to reconsider and found no reason to depart from the previous rulings. B The time periods for motions to reconsider in 10 CFR 52.75Ia(d), or the same time periods in $2.752(c), are applicable to orders which are in the nature of special preheanns or prehearing con-ference orders,even if not so ntled. C To ehminate any doubt on the time periods for motions to reconsider, under its authority to regulate the proceedmg (10 CFR 62.718), the Licensing Board orders that the time periods for mo-tions to reconsider in 10 CFR ll2.751afd) and 2.752(c) are applicable to all orders issued by the Board in this proceeding. The more lenient time period of 10 CFR $2.771 will be applied to partial ini. tial decisions or initial decisions. LBP-8315 NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC., and NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (Western New York Nuclear Service Center), Docket No. 50-201-OLA; OPERATING LIC ME AMENDMENT; March 14,1983; ORDER CONFIRMING TERMIN ATION OF PROCEED 6C A The Licensing Board confirms that by taking no action on a " motion for clarification" ofits decision which disposed of all matters before it, it ef~ectively denied that motion and did not retain i jurisdiction othereise normally 106. B Unless a licensing board ukes action on a motion seeking reconsideration of a decision dis-posing of all matters before it, the board does not reta n jurisdiction normally lost an1 the motion is elfectively denied. C Normally a licensing boacd will not consider motions which seek clanfication of points in its decision disposing of all matters before it when the request for clarification comes from a party who is not adversely affected tw the decision. This is analoitous to the prohibition against appeals by a i party not adversely affected by a result, and similarly eliminates the need to render purely academic decisions. LBP4316 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al. (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. I) Docket No. 50-460-OL (ASLBP No. 82-479-06-OL); OPERATING LICENSE; March 15,1983; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER A The licensing board issues a protective order to permit petitioner organization to disclose to applicant and NRC staff the names of the member or members on whom organizational standmg is based while preventing a public disclosure of the name or rames. B Where the petitioner organization's membership schcitation brochure demonstrates that the organization's sole purpose is to oppose nuclear power in general and the construction and operation of nuclear plants in the northwes' in particular, mere membership by a person wih geographic stand-ing to intervene, without specific representational authority, is sufficient to confer standing. C A petitioner organization cannot amend its petition to satisfy the timeliness requirements for fihng without leave of the board to include an affidavit executed by someone who becarr.e a member after the due date for filing a timely petition. D lt is not necessary for the individual on whom org,nizational standmg is based to be conver-sant with, and able to defend, each and every contentior sised by the organization in pursuing his interest. Litigation strategy and the technical details of In, complex prosecution of a nuclear power intervention are best left to the resources of the organizational petitioner. E Where a demonstration has been made that the rights of association of a member of an inter-venor group in the area have been threatened in the form of a threat of compulsory legal process to defend contentions, the employment situation in the area is dependent on the nuclear industr/, and there is no detnment to applicant's interests by not having the identity of individual members of peti-tioner publicly disclosed, the licensing board will issue a protective order to prevent the pubhc disclo-sure of the names of members of organizational petitioner. V;p#y ~AQ h dh 35 g.hd g g b l l

DIGES S ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS ' W} Q Q LBP-83-17 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIP E, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50-444-OL ( ASLBP No. 82-47102-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; ~ @ Ab March 24,1983; M EMORANDUM AND ORDER fF?.. A The Licensing Board rules on various discovery disputes,includmg claims of attorney work Y< #E product privilege and discovery of non-witness experts. B An interrogatory is proper that inquires about a study, calculation or analysis upon which an answer to a specific interrogatory is cased, particularly where it relates to the interrogee's own contention. Interrogatories that inquire into the basis of a contention serve the dual purposes of nar-rowing the issues and preventing surprise at Inal. C Under 10 CFR 52J40(b)(1) discovery is liberally granted in order to enable the parties to as-certain necessary facts, refine and narrow the issues, and adequately prepare for complex lit!gation. D Discovery of the foundation upon which a contention is based is not only clearly withm the realm of proper discovery, but also is necessary for an applicant's preparation for hearms. E Where an NRC rule of practice is based on a federal rule of ci6il procedure,judicialinterpre-tations of that federal rule will serve as guidance for the interpretation of the analogous NRC rule. F Where a party asserts a privilege in objecting to a discovery request, the burden is upon the objecting party to establish the existence of the privilege. O An objecting party's mere assertion slut the material it is withholding constitutes attorney work product is insufDcient 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 matenal is protected by the attorney work product privilege has the burden of establishing that the materialis p'rotected by 10 CFR 62340(b)(2); i.e., that the material is (1) " documents and tangible things"; (2) prepared in an-ticipation of htigation 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 applied to resolve a discovery dispute even though no analogous rule of practice has'been adopted by the Commission. In determining whether to follow the guidance, the hcensms board will inquire into w hether the situ-ation before it is analogous to the situation the federal rule seeks to govern. J In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26f 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 content of their advice are pnvileged from discovery. Rule 26(b)(4) different ates between experts whom the party expects to call as witnesses and those who have been retained or speciGcally em. ployed 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 narrow the issues and ehminate surprise, but that purpose is not furthered by discovery of non-witness experts. LBP-83-18 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I & 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-44l-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 concerning possib'e degradation ofcertain polymers used as electricalinsulation. B The form in winch a contention is admitted is a decision of the hcensms 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 Applicants for licenses need not complete their full-Gedged environmental quahGcation of electrical equipment until November 30,1983, but they must demonstrate that they can operate safety, without having completed tL required quahncation, before they may be granted an operatmg license. D There is no relevant genuine issue of fact, sufficient to resist a motion for summary disposition, unless intervenor can show a connection between its concerns and the safety of the plant. E It is permissible for an intervenor to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of fact that is ine atricably intertwined wath an admitted contention. Fk F The following technical issues are discussed. Polymer degradation; Radiation dose-rate.

• jy -

efTect on polymers; Environmental quahncation. .x,. W A5 - n.W f,M .

• W.t]

g a k

a DIGESTS ISSUANCLS OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS 6 O LBP 83-19 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (GETR Vallecitos), Docket No. 50-70 OLR/70-754 5NM.*: (ASLBP No. 83-481-01-OLR); OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; April 8,1982, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER s

QM A

The Licensms Board grants one petition to intervene subject to the acceptance of at least one ITM contention, denies five petitions to intervene for railure io respond to Board orders, sets a schedule gk for the films of contentions following applicant's educe regarding its intentions with regard to its sp. l ggh phcation to renew its reactor operating license and its positson with regard to consohdation of this ap-I 'gm }* phcation with the SNM hcense apphcation, and hclds that the rules of practice do not permit it to refer the latter apphcation to N M55 for informal review. B 10 CFR 662.105 and 2.700 require anal formal procedures under Part 2, Subpart G, be adher-ed to following a nouce of proposed acuon issued under 12.105 LBP 83 20 LONG 15 LAND LIGHTING COMPANY Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1). Docket No. 50-322-OL-2 ( ASLBP No. 8M73-05 OL); SECURITY; Apn! II,1983. MEMOR AN-DUM AND ORDER Dl5M1551NO SUFFOLK COUNTY REQUEST FOR BOARD RULING WHETHER DOCUMENTS ARETO BETREATED ASSAFEGUARD5 INFORM ATION A in an operstmg.scense proceedmg *here a separate hce'ising board was estabhsW l to con-duct a hearing on the sole issue of physical secunty and such board approved a " Final 5 unty Settle-ment Agreement" and dismissed the proceedms, such dismissal consututed a final order for appel-late purposes and the lapse of more than three months after such order works a termination of the board'sjunsdiction and such board is without jurisdiction to issue any further ruhng on a request of a party.10 CFR 52.717(a) LBP-83-20A PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Stanon, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443 OL,50-444-OL ( ASLBP No. 82-47102-OL); OPER ATING LfCENSE; Apnl 18,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board grants motions to dismiss a party and its contentions for failure to meet its heating obbsations. B An intervenor has the burden of going forward with respect to its contentions. It must come forwasd with sumcsent eudence to require reasonable minds to inquire further, and it has an obhga-tion to reveal pursuant to a decovery request what that evidence is. This requirement is no; obviated by an intervenor's strategic choice to make its case through cross-e xamination. C in selecting a sanction for failure to meet a hearms obhgation, a Licensing Board must mgh (1) the relative importance of the unmet obhgation; (2) its potential harm to the other parties or to the orderly conduct of the proceedmg; (3) whether its occurrence is an isolated incidcat or part of a pattern of behavior; and (4) the importar.ce of safety or environmental concerns raisnf by the arty, and all of the circumstances. Divnissal of a party is a serious sanction reserved for the most severs failure of a participant to meet its chhrsions. LBP-83-21 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL (Emergency Planning); OPERATING LICENSE; Apnl 20,1983; MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER REFERRING DENI AL OF SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO TER. MIN ATE TO THE APPEAL BOARD AND CERTIFYING LOW-POWER LICENSE QUESTION TOTHE CO!4 MISSION A The 1icensing Board refers to the Appeal Board its denial of a county governmental mterve-nor's motion to terminate the proceeding, which r1ohon was premised on the county's refusal to either aJopt or smplement a radiological emcrgency response plan. The Board also certifies to the Commission (through the Appeal Board) the ques:io.i of whether a low-power hcense should be issued for a nuclear power plant in circumstances ehe:h raise doubts that emergency preparedness re-quirements for full-power operauon can and will be met in the future. B h the atacoce of most compethng circumstances, such as the presence of an emergency situ-atson pvmg nse to a transfest need for almost immediate final determination of a quesuon, a Licens-ing Board simuld be afforded at least a reasonable opportunity to decide a question for which certifs. canonis sought. Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Po=er Station, Unit 1) ALAB 297,2 NRC 721,729 (1975). i I C As in Federal Courts, appe!! ate review of interlocutc<y orders is not faced under Commis-s;on precsice. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plan:, Unas I and 2), ALAB-634,13 NRC 96,99 (1981). With the exception of appeals from certain rulings on pehuons to intervene in accordance I 1 l I rbg <h, ~ 37 mc . M. l t b

DIGESTS 1550ANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS r., h 3 N with 10 CFR 62.714a, there is no right of appeal from any mterlocutory ruhng by a Licenung Board k].% 10 CFR 52.730t D. h D Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.730(0,"lmlhen in the judgment o the presidmg ofDcer prompt deci-r 3% aion es necessary to prevent detriment to the rabhc mterest or uriusual delay or empense, the preuJ-N ".g ing officer may refer the ruhng promptly to the Commisuon. " The Appeal Board has construed

• 'd 12.730(0 as also permittmg referral of a decise u here the decision would "alTest the basic structure of the proceedmg in some pervasive or ensual manner " Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB487,16 NRC 460,464 (1983), quotms Consumers Power Co.

(Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB434,13 NRC 96,99 (1980. Interlocutory review on the bass of a referralis discretionary, however, and the Appeal Board may dechne to accept a Licenung Board referral. Cata= ba, wara.16 N RC at 464. E While 10 CFR 62.730t0 states that a presidmg ofDce may refer a ruhng "to the Commisuon" for interlocutory review, the Appeal Board is authorized to emercise the authority and to perform the I a4udicatory review functions which the Commission otherwise would have etertised ir; W Grst instance.10 CFR {2.785(b)(IL in any event, the Commission may choose to review a Licerums Board rWing either without awaitmg an Appeal Board's action or after the Appeal Board's decision F When a Licensms board determines that special circumstances esist under which the apphca-I tion of a particular regulation would not serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was i I adopted, it should certify such issues to the Commisuon pursuant to 10 CF R 62.7186), and by analo-gy to 10 CFR $2.758(d) and n.7 thereof, even though no party has yet raised the matter. See Com-mission Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensmg Proceedings, CLt.818,13 NRC 452,456 (1980. O Pursuant to 10 CFR 550.47(d) no NRC or FEM A review, Andmss, or determmations con-cerning the state of tdute emergency preparedness or the adequacy of and capabihty to implement State and local ofTute emergency plans are required prior to issuance of an operstmg hcense authoria- ) ing only fuelloading and low power operations (up to 5% of rated power). Based on NRC conclumons l as to the lesser risks attendant to low-power operation, the Commission's reg ulations state that the is-I suance of a fuel-loading / low-power hcense requines only a Gnding that the state of onsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be t? ken in the event ola radiological emergency. I H Under circumstances in which all of the appronimately 10-mile radius plume esposure path-may eme.gency planning zone for a nuclear power plar.1 is contamed within the boundaries of a ungle county, and that county has indicated its intention to neither adopt nor implement an emergency re-sponse plan for une plant, the Licer, sag Board recommends to the Commissior. that no low-pomer ) hcense be issued for that plant, even if the plant would appear to meet all regulatory reqerements for a low powst 8ecense. As the Licensing Board beheses the Commission's low-pc,mer regulations to be based on the inmlicit generic assumption that adequate offute emergency planning mould eventually g esist for such a plant, the Board certi6es to the Commission the question of whether a low-pomer license should issue when there is reason to doubt that adequate offute emergency planmns will ever i e sist. f LBP 83 22 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit II, Docket No. 50-322-OL tEmergency Planmng); OPER ATING LICENSE; Arni 20,1983, MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER DENYING SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO TERMIN ATE THE SHOREH AM OPER ATING LICENSE PROCEEDING A The Licensing Board demes the motion of a county governmentalintervenor to termmate this proceedmg, concludmg that under the Commisuon's regulations and apphcable fer al statutes, an apphcant for an operstms hcense should be permitted the opporiumty to prove that the state of offsate emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protectne measures ) can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, even when a local county government in the plume esposure pathmay emergency plannmg zone dechnet either to prepare or to implement j a radiological emergency response plan. B The criteria described m NUR EG-0654 =cre intended to serve solely as regulatory guidancs, not regulatory requirements. Metrocohtan Ednon Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt No. D ("TMl") ALAB498,16 NRC 1290,1298-99 (1982), afGrmms LBP-8159,14 NRC 1211,1460 Fg@, f r@W i j (1981). C %w T%.;p., I A w( k 3g i i I

9 J \\ DIGESTS 1550ANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS O C in the absence of ooher evidence, adherence to NUREG 0654 may be sufGcient to demons-trate compliance with the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 650 47(bL Homever,"Imlethods and solutions difTerent from those set out in the guides will be acceptable if they provide a basis for the W, Gndmst requisite to the issuance or cont auance of a permit or hcense by the Commission." Id. at eM 1299, quotmg Pacinc Gas and Electric Co (Diablo Canyon NucIcar Pomer Plant Umts I and 2), b d 'M ALAB-644,13 NRC 903,937 (1981L "Comphance with NU'tEG 0654..is thus not required by At the Commission's emergency plannmg regulations." TMI, AL AB-698, l6 N RC at 1299 D Pursuant to 10 CFR 650.3)(g), an apphcant is required to Gle its own onste and state and local governmeni o(Taste emergenty response plans as a condition of operating license issuance. The absence of any such plan would not, hometer, require the demal of an operatmg hcense as a matter of lam, or require that an applicant obtain an enemption from the regulations before a license may be issued. Pursuant to 10 CF R 550.47(c)(l),in the absence of one or more of the plans required to be Gled pursuant to section 50.33(g), an applicant is granted the opportunity to demonstrate "to the sat-isfaction of the Commission that deficiencies in the plans are not sigmGcant for the plant in question, that adequate intenm compensating action have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelhng reasons to permit plant operation." E Pursuant to 10 CFR 650 47(a)(1), the issuance of an operating hcense for a power reactor is conditioned on an NRC determmation that the state of onsite and olisde emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and mill be taken m the event of a radiological emergenry. Section 50 47(sH2) provides that the NRC is to make this overall determination based on a review of FEM A Gndmss and determinations as to wheth'er " state and I local emergency plans" are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented, and on the NRC assessment as to whether the "appicants' onsite emergency plans" are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented. This provision i does not itself require that state and local government oriste radiological response plans be filed by an apphcant; it merely bifurcates initial review of the emergency plans required by section 50.33 f g) between the NRC and FEM A. F in the event that the NRC determines on the basis o(its section 50 47(a) review that therc are denciencies in the status of emergency plannmg based on defects in or the absence of a state or local government ofTute emergency response plan, this does not automatically require the demal of an operating license. Section 50.47(c)(l) provides that in such cases "the apphcant will have an op-portunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commismon that denciencies in the plans are not sigmficant far the plant in question, that adequate interim compennatmg actions have been or mill be taken promptly, or that there are other compelhns reasons to permit plant operation." In the absence of a state or local government plan, the Commission may base this determination on uuhty spon-sored offste plan. G Section 109f a) of the NRC Authonzation Act for fiscal year 1980, Pub. L. No. %-295,94 Stat. 780 (1980), precludes the Commis=on from using any funds authorised by that act to take ac-tions leadmg to the issuance of an operstmg license for a "utshiation facihty" unless the Commission Grst determines that i1) there exists a state or local emergency preparedness plan m'tich provides for respondmg to accidents at the facihty concerned and mhich comphes with the Commismon's guide-Imes for such plans or (2) in the absence of such a plan, that there exists a state, local or utility plan which provides reasonable assuisms that public health and safety is not endangered by operation of i de facihty concerned. The emergency planning regulatior.a promulgated by the Commission pur-suant to that act are " consistent" with that act (45 Fed Reg. 55,402,55,403,55,406-07 (1981)), and are intended to fully implement its provisions. + H Pursuant to 10 CFR 69.103, an open meetmg is not part of the formal or informal record of decimon of the matters d:scussed therein except as otherwise required by law. Statements of viens or empressions of opmion made by Commissioners or NRC employees at open meetmas are not intend-ed to represent final determinations or behefs Such statements may not be pleaded, cited, or rehed upon before the Commission or in any proceeding under part 2 of the NRC regulations (10 CFR Part l

2) except as the Commission may direct.

I Pursuant to section 3(a)(l) of the Admimstrative Procedure Act,5 U.5 C. 4552(a)(1), as implemented by the regulations of the OfGce of the Federal Register, I CFR Part 51, no material may be incorporated into a rule by reference unless the agency empressly intends such a result,1 FM,Vfm 1

1. ~i/ W i

- Qd 39 1

• g Ap

&m;1 vg

DIGESTS. ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS Yah CFR 551.9, requests and receives the approval of the Director of the OMce of Federal Regdter,1 MM CFR ll51.1,51.3, and the Federal Register notice ind6ates such specific approval, I CF R 5519. skN 3 ll is "not necessary" to look beyond the mords of a statute itself shen constructmg the lan-guage of an act which is plain and unambiguous on its face. TVA v. Ell,437 U.S.153,184, n.29

• ' **W' (1978).

K Post hoc statements of Commissioners may not be rehed upon as a basis for interpreting Commission intent at time regulations were promulgated. (Cf. Wemberger v. Rossi,456 U S. 25. 102 5. Ct.1510,71 L. Ed. 715,724 (1982).) (Post enactment statements of a congressiocal commit-tee are not enutled to much weight as evidence of legislative intent at the time the statute was enacted ) L An admmistrative adsudicatory body, no less than a court, has every right to expect that,in g brief or other submission, nothms will be encised from a quoted passage unless its lack of relevance to the question under discussion is beyond substantial dispute. Tennessee Valley Authority friartsville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2 A, IB and 28) ALAB-409,5 N RC 1391,1395 (1977). M The refusal of a local government to adopt or implement a radiological emergency response plan does not, as e matter of las, preclude the issuance of an operating hcense for a nuclear power plant. A state or iocal government's refusal to participate may factually preclude a utihty from demonstrating that adequate emergency planning esists to protect the pubhc health and safety, there-by acting as a de facto veto of the issuance of an operating license. The Commission's rules of practice do not, however, give state and local governments a de jure veto over plant operation. The latter rejected interpretation of the Commission's regulatsoes would permit state and local governments to regulate radiological hazards and would therefore be inconsistent eith fl271 and 274 of the Atomic Energy Actof1954,asamended. N in enacting ((271 and 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 19M Congress intended to reserve to the federal government the eaclusive power to regulate matters of radiological health and safely in i connection with the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant;Cor4ress did not intend to further limit the power of states to regulate activities "other than protection asamst radiatinn hazards" associated with those areas over which the NRC had comp 4cte control. Pacific Legal Foun-dauon v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission,659 F.2d 903,921 (9th Cir 1981), amtmed in Pacific Gas & Electnc Co. v. State Energy Resources Cpaservation and Development Commission,000 U.S. 000, No. 88 1945 ( April 20,1983). O A state or Incal government may not independently develop standards for radiological ernergency resp %e plans. The development of emergency planning standards is a part of the regula-tion of radiological health and safety mhsch is preempted from state and local regulation by federal law. The estabhshment of dual state and federal emergency plannma and preparedness requirements would clearly permit states to regulate matters of radiological health and safety, which is clearly for-bidden by the Atomic Energy Act of1954.as amended. LBP 83-23 DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE (La Crosse Boiling Uter Reactor), Docket Nos. 50-409-FTOL, 50-409-SC ( ASLBP Nos. 78 368-05-OL,80-445 01 SC); OPERATING LICENSE AND $HOW CAUSQ April 21,1983,INITI AL DECISION A The Lics. ing Board resolves the only outstandmg issue in the show-ca;iae proceeding sn-l volving the potential for hquefaction at the La Crosse site and determmes that the Safe Shutdown i Earthquake unitzed by the N"C Staffis appropnate for evaluating that question. B The Commission's currently appbcable standards for determining the geologic and seismic aspects of a site, which appear in 10 CFR Part 100, Appendia A, were proposed in 1971 and adopted late in 1973 and are not applicable to a plant mitially authorized to operate in 1%7. C The quahtative goals and quantitative design objectives included in the Commission's March,1983 prehminary pohcy statement on safety goals for nuclear peer plants are not to be used in the hcensing process or to be htigated in hearings, conformance with regulatory requirements is to ( contmoe to be the esclusive hcensing basis for plants. But where no particular regulauons are apphca-ble in a given subject area,i. is both useful and consistent with the foregoing use limitations to refer i to the performance design objectives in asce tainmg the reasonableness of the methodologies used to evaluate the adequacy of the reactor in that area. D The following technical issue is discussed: Safe-shutdown carthquake. V~3 s . Q4., 1? 9 &km gg

• • • O - Q j

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS G LBP-83-24 THE Rt GENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UCLA Research Reactor). Dncket No. 50 ! A2-OL; OPERATING LICENSE RENIWAL; Apnl 22,1983 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 74 A The Licensms Board grants UCL A's and Stafra motions for summary disposition of Conien-y{f* tson XVill (financia! quahfications), holdmg that the University of Cahfornia is clearly quahfied to W operate and decommission the reactor. UCLA's and Staffs motions for summary disposition of Con-Y tes, tion 11 (class of heense) are denied. The Board refuses as a matter oflaw to accept UCLA's ac-f (g 3 jyj countmg method, in which more than 50% of the costs of the reactor may be charged asamst less than 50% of its use under 10 CFR 650.22. An alternate board member is appointed to assist in determinmg how much the reactor has been used for commercial, as opp esed to academic, purposes. B Section 104 of the Atomic Energy Art, as irrplemented by 10 CTR 650.22, requires that the costs of operating a reactor be apportioned accordmg to its use in order 4 determme whether a Class 103 bcense is required. LBP-83 24A DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al (Catamba Nuclear Stam, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-413,50-414 (ASLBP No. 81463-02-OL); OPERATING LICE NSE; Apnl 27,1983; MEMO. RANDUM ANDORDER A Intersenor Palmeno Alliance asked the Board to take various"rtmedial neasures" designed f to fecihtate their commun: cation with the Apptrants' employees about quahty assurance matters at Catamba. The Board largely demed this request, notmg that there was httle a Board could do as a practical matter about such commumcations. LBP-83-25 PillLADELPill A ELECTRIC COMPANY ILimerick Generstmg Station, Unit's I and 2), Docket Nos 50-352-OL,50-353-OL: OPERATING LICENSE; Apnl 27,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FINDING NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN DEL AWARE'S REQUEST TO ADMIT LATE FILED CONTENTION V 26 A in a 2 to-l decision, the Licensing Be.rd holds that it lacks jurisdiction over a motion to reopen the record mhich was served on the t.me day that a panial imtsal decision was issued. The subject addressed in the motion to reopen the record mas related to issues decided in an appealable partial imtial decisaon and was not related to other issues still pendmg before the Licensing Board. The Licensing Board refers the petition to reopen to the Appeal Board. B When a Licensmg Board's patal initial decision becomes appealable, Junsdiction over issues decided in the partial imtial decision rpay pass to the Appeal Board anthout regard to ahether unrelated issues remam before the Licensms Board. C A motion for reconssderation ei!! be demed ifit neither casts a new hght on information which has previously been presenteJ so the Board nor points out facts before the Board =hich the Board has failed to consider. D A petition to reopen the record is sumciently different from a motion for reconsideration that the Junsdictional rules may differ between the too. E Under NRC regulations, only one 99ard at a time, acting as the presidmg officer, will have jurisdiction over a particular matter. F Because the Appeal Ibard plays a larger role than do the federal Courts of Appealin decidmg issues of facts, the guidance provided by federal court pracuce on the questmn ofjunsdramn oveG motion to reopen the record is mmimal. G Junsdiction over a petition to reopen the record underlying an issued, appeatable partial ini-tial decision hes with the Appeal Board when the motion is unrelated to any matter pen?ms before i the Licensmg Board. This prevents problems of forum shopping and concurrent junsdictM LBP 83-25A Tile REGENTS OF Tlit UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (UCLA Researe: Reactor), i Docket No. 50-142tL; OI Eit ATING LICENSE RENEWAL; May 11,1. MEMU ANDUM AND ORDER d A Lhnsira Board denies Staffs motion for summary disposition ofintervenor's contention concernmg phyncal secunty at the apphcant's facihty after findmg that the materials submitted in support of and so opposition to the motion disclose inconsistencies between the amount of special r..dar material accounted for by apphcant and that reported by Staff m two inspection reports. Staff is directed to physically inventory the material. Licensing Board also rules on certain disputes regard-I inn interpretations of 10 CFR Part 73 and permits the parues to seek reconsideration of those ruimgs. D Scaled plutonium-ber>lhum neutron sources are to be cc.eradered for purpcm s of determin-ing *hether a formula quantity of strategic special nuclear material exists for purposes ofl73.60. Vk;h,@O qAr 41 s k a S v. y y rmra.j i k

DIGESTS ISSUANCFS OF THE A10MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS ( YY C The provisions of 10 CFR Part 73 applicable to non-power reactor heenses hinge the level of tyi physical protection required on the amount of special nuclear matenal actually possmsed, rather t;g than the amount authorized to be possessed. M 10 CFR 673.40(a) requires all non-power reactor heensees to take measures to protect j D i 3 against potential sabotage. / te.- s e LBP 83-26 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, e. at (South Texas Project, Units I and 2), Docket Nos STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499 OL ( ASLBF No. 79-42107 OL); OPERATING LICENSE; May it,1983, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board grants an interested State an entencon of time for discovery on certain l i issuess B An interested State, once admitted to a proceeding, must caserve the procedural require-l ments apphcable to other participants. But the facts and circumstances giving rise to " good cause" l for grantmg an entension of time to an interested State may not be co extensive with those warrant-l ing that action for another party. C A change in administration in a State may be taken into account in determining whether that State has shown "scod cause" for an ertension of time for discovery. LBP 83 27 LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit l 3), Docket No. 50-382 OL (ASLBP No. 79-417-06 OL); OPERATING LICENSE; May 26,1983, PARTIALINITIAL DECISION A The Licensing Board issues its second of awo partial irutial decisions in this operating hcesise l proceedmg for the Waterford Steam Electnc Station. Unit 3. The Licensing Board orders that the i Director of Nuclear Reacter Regulation is authorized to issue to the Apphcant, upon making requi-l site findmas with respect to matters not embraced in this second Partist Initial Decision, and subject to the conditions set forth in the first Partial Initial Decision of November 3,1982, LBP-82100,16 NRC 1550 (as modified by the Board's Memorandum and Order of December 14, 1982, LBP-82-Il2,16 NRC 1901), a hcense authorizing operation of the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3. B A pre-emergency pubhc information brochure must meet the requirements of 10 CFR 150.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendia E, as well as the enteria of NUREG-0654. C The purpose of a pre-emergency pubhc information brochure is infwmational/ educational, and is not intended to motivate individuals either to evacuate or to follow certain procedures. Its most important function is to prepare people to turn en their radio and television straions upon the activation of the sirens in order to fmd out w hat actions they might be asLed to take at that time. D 10 CFR 550.47(a) preciades the Licensing Board from requinns a practice evacuation. E The following technical issue is discussed: Emergency Plans. LBP-83-27A CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND NORTH CAROLIN A EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), Docket ( Nos. 50-400,50-401 ( ASLBP No. 82 468-01-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; May 27,1983; MEMO-RANDUM ANDORDER I A The Licensing Board rules that certain contentions challenging cost savings associated with generation of electricity by nuclear power compared with fossil-fired generation are barred by 10 CFR 51.53(c). The Board also rules that such alleged cost savings may not be claimed as benefits in the NF PA cost / benefit analysis for the Shearon Harris facihty. LBP 83-28 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Units I and 2) Docket Nos. 50 329 -OM&OL, 50-330-OM&OL ( ASLBP Nos. 78 389-03-OL, 80-429-02 SP); MODIFICATION l ORDER AND OPERATING LICENSE;May 3i,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER f The Licensing Board grants in part the Apphcant's motion to require submission of cross-A I examination plans, designation of lead intervenors, and estabhshment of time hmits on cross-( i examination. It ruled that all parues must provide, to the Board alone, cross-examination plans and [ time estimates but that, because of the dMerms interests of the intervenors, a lead intervenor need j not be designated.The Board declines to refer its ruling to the Apreal Board for interlocutory review l B The Commission's Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452 (1981), mentions a number of measures which Boards might adopt to control or hmit the participetion of parties, but it emphatically stresses the discretion of Boards in adopting some or a;l ol' FMN the measuresin question. . )

• a. e =

m. d2 } I }

DIGESTS ISSOANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LKENSING BOARDS G C The NRC Rules of Practice permit the consolidation of intervenors mhich hase "substantially the ume interest." 10 CFR 62.715a. Theyommission's Statement of Pohey on Con-duct of Licensing Proceedmss, CL1-81 8,13 NRC 452,453 (1981), makes it clear thaWesignanon of N' p* "4 lead intervenors is to be consonant with the foregoing provision. n D The Rules of Pracuce cannot legiumately be read as requiring that, once an intersenor is rep-h[,[M 9 resented by counsel, such counsel must be the party's sole representative in the proceedmg E Added htigation expenses which might conceivably result from a Licensing Board's failure yp to adopt certain procedural controls over a heensms proceedmg would not constitute the type of 'S g g " unusual.., eapense" comprehended by the referral critena of 10 CFR {2.7301f). i LBP 33-29 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 (ASLBP No. 81466-03-SP);SPECIAL PROCEEDING; June 8,1983 MEMO-RANDUM ANDORDER A The Licensmg Board denies Licensee's motion for reconsideranon of an order denying ad-mission into evidence of the deposition of the Deputy Director, Ofnce of Emergency Service, Rock-land County, New York. B The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide guidance to Licensing Boards in interpreung the Commisson's Rules of Practice. Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Generstmg Stanon Unit 2), LBP-75 30,1 NRC 579,581 (1975). C F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure 32(a)(2) provides, inter sha, that the deposition of an ofn-cer of a government agency which is a party may be used by an adverse party for any' purpose. To determine the meaning of the term "olTicer "" regard must be had to the intenuon of the statement and the specific matter in refererte to which the term is used." 63 Am. Jur. 2d ll (1972). The term "offwer" is inseparably connected with an office - a public stauon, permanent in character, created by law, whose incidents and duties are cre ed by lam (Metcalf v. Mitchell,269 U.S. 515,520 5 (1926)) - and Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2) contemplates an ofncer who, by desigvtion or position, can speak with authority on behalf of the party being deposed. LBP 83-29A DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. (Catamba Nuclear Stanon, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-413-OL, 50-414-01 ( ASLBP No. 88-463-01-OL); OPERATING LICENSE; June 20,1983, MEMORANDUM ANDORDER 's A The Licensms Board grants certain monons of the Apphcants and Staff for sancuons against the Intervenor Palmetto Athance for failure to respond in discosery. Certa n contentions are dis-missed from tne proceeding altogether; another contention is reduced in scope. Monons for sanc-tions concernmg certain other contentions are denied. LBP-83-30 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stauen, Unit I), Docket No. 50-322-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE, June 22,1983. MEMOR ANDVM AND ORDER RULING ON SUF FOLK COUNTY-5 MOTION TO ADMIT NEW CONTENTION A The Licensing Board grants in part and denies in part Suffolk County's motson to adrr a new contention concerning the emergency decsel generators, mhich was filed after the close of the record on all issues except offsite emergency planning issues. The Board held that the standards both for admitting a late-filed contennon and for reopening the record apply to the proposed contention in the posture of the proceedmg. This is true even where the movant is an interested governmental i enuty with rights arisms under 10 CFR 12.715(c). B A party seeking to add a new contenhon after the close of the record, must satisfy both the f standards for admitting a late-filed contention, set forth m 10 CFR {2.714(a)(1), and the criterie es-tabbshed by case law for reopening the r cord. Pacific Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Un,ts I and 1), CLI-82-39,16 NRC 1715 (1982),6ang Pacific Gas and Electrw Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 815,13 NRC 361,364 (1981), Detroit Edison Co. (Ennco Ferms Atomic Power Plant Unit 2), ALAB 707,16 NRC 17b3 n.3,1764-65, 1766 (1982). C The standards for reopenica the record apply no later than the completion oflitigation of an issue where a party aceks to adduce new evidence for the purgse of supplementing the record on an issue ahich has been htigated. This is so, even ifother unrelated contenbons terr.mn to be hugated in + the hearing. D The criteria for reopening the record apply where a party seeks to place a trvty new subject in contennon (rather than add evidence on a previously litigated contenuon), and the subject matter of F;hg .o .kYF Mwe ,IQff j b

4 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS ypv, D the new comention would fall whhin the completed major segment of the hearing leadmg to a separ-E ate appeatable partial imtial deciseen. In the circumstances of this case, the record on all issues e scept offsite emergency planning has been closed, and a separate appealable partialinitut decision is hems s. prepared on all surh closed issues Theiefore, a new non-cmergency planning radegical health and .N y 'N safety contension must meet the critena for reopemng the record in addition to the cntena apphcable to the admission of Late-fued contentions. I E There is no empress time requirement for a petition to participate as an interested govern-mental entity pursuant to 10 CFR 62.715(c), or an express time requi?cment for a party who would quahfy as an interested governmental ent:ty to file contentions However, the Board may require an interested governmental enuty to specify, in advance of the heanng, the issues on which it desires to participate.10 CFR 62.715(cL Also, the citcumstances of the posture of the proceeding, could inds-cate that a government participant seeking to advance a new issue must satisfy the critena for late-fded contenuons: The circumstance that the record has closed clearly wouM require that the entena for late-filed contentions be met (as well as the criteria for reopenmg the record). Pacinc Gas and i Electric Cr,. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2), CLI-82 39,16 NRC at 1714 i (1982); Pacinc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2). AL AB-728,17 NRC 777 at 801,303-04 (1983); Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Umt 2), Al AB-707,16 NRC at 1763-64 (1982); Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Umts l and 2) AL AB-704,16 NRC l725 (1982) F The reopemns factor of whether the new evidence might materially affect the outcome can be soplied in advance of a partialinitial decision. Howeser, the case with which this factor can be ap-phs, vill vary, in part, dependmg on = hether a decision has issued and also dependmg en the entent to wh n the subject matter of the motion to reopen is related to an issue which has been htigated. To the euk 3 t a motion to reopen is not related to a litigated issue, then the outcome to be judged is not that of a g +rticular issue, but that of the action which may be permitted by the outcome of the hcens-ing proceev ngs. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), l ALAB138. AEC 520,523 (1973) G If the 'irst two reopening factors of timehness and signincance of the issue are resolved in favor of the mi vant, the Board must then proceed to consider whether the issue requires the receipt l of further evit tace for its resolution, ie., whether the issue presents a genuine inable issue in l controversy. In other words, the support for the motion to reopen must be strong enough in hght of any opposing filings either to avoid summary disposition or to demor. strate that the movant cannot now present facts essential to show a snable issue, but that discovery would enable it to do so !A st $23 24. H The additional test of the cnteria for reopening the record addslittle,if anything, of practical import to the apphcation of the factors for a late-Gled contention. This is because the reopenmg fac-tors iJ signiGcance of the issue, and whether the issue presents genuine inabic facts, are inherent'y part of the calculus of factr Sm&g en the admissibihty of a late-filed comenuon. I The factors to be appled in rennenina the record are not necessarily addiuve. It is true that even if timely, a motion to reopen may be denied ifit does not raise an issue of major sigmGcance. However,"a matter may be of such gravity that the motion to reopen should be granted notwith-i standmg that it might have been presented earher." Vermont Yankee, supra AL AB-138, at 523, Ver-mont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-124,6 AEC 358,365 and n.10 (1973). See also Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB 474,7 NRC 746 (1978). LBP 83 31 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Point Plant). Docket No. 50-155, SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; June 24,198k MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l Intervenor's allegation of misrepresentation is dismissed pursuant to a previous decision by I A f the Direttor of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Parties are cautioned not to make serious allegauons without first irv.:aring mio possible esplanations. B Before a party makes a charge of misrepresentation,it snould Grst attempt to obtain an expla-nation for the inconsistency that it suspects is a misrepresentation. I ? % 4. tk eye. b 4 p.% Q 44 i t

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-83-32 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Station, Units I and 2), Docl:et Nos. 50-445, 50-440. OPERATING LICENSE; June 27, 1983; MEMORANDUM ANDORDER ] 't'.[f['; A A State government which has been working closely with county governments on the s ee emergency planrung process cannot gain late admisma for an emergency planning contention be-cause it was " surprised" to learn at a heanns about inao.cquacies in those county plans. However, the M Licensing Board reserved the question of whether it would raise a question sua spocte concerning g the adequacy of the emergency plans if the review conducted by the Federal Emergency Planning Agency =as not pe> formed in sufficient depth. B A State whnh has been working closely with county governments on the emergency planning process cannot gain late admacion for an emergency planning contention because it was " surprised" to learn at a heanns about inacequacies in those county plans. C The Federal Energency Planning Agency's review of emergency plans should establish that the enteria of NUREG-0654 have been satisfied or that alternative means of meeting those entena have been provided. Failure to com*uct such a review, in enough depth to assure conformance of the plans, could cause the Licensms Board to raise the issue sua sponte. LBP-83-32A PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE. et al. (Seabrook Station Units I and 2), Docket Not 50-443-OL,50-444-OL ( ASLBP No. 82-471-02 0L);OPER ATING LICENSE; June 30,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board rules on two mot ons for summary disposition and grantsin part and denies in part these motions. B When a proper showing fw summary disposition has been made by the movant, the party opposing the motion must aver specific facts in rebuttal.10 CFR 52.749(b). Moreover..hese the motant has satisfied his initial burden and has supported his motion by aflidavit, the opposing party must proffer countering evidential material or an affidavit explaining why it is impractical to do so. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) and Advisory Committec Note; See Adickes v. Kress & Co. 398 U.S.144, 160-61 (1970). C Answers to interrogatories can be used to counter evidentiary matenal profftred in suppor' of a motion for summary disposition, but onir if they are made on the basis of personal knowledge, ever facts that would be admissible as eviderve, and are made by a respondent competent to testify to those facts. D NUREG-0654, FEM A-REP-1 (Rev. I): " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radi-ological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (Nov. 19g0) may be given considerable weight in deterrairung what must be included in the evacuation time estimates required by the NRC regulations (10 CFR 550.47. and 10 CFR Part 50, App. E). Evacuation estimates should consider adverse conditions and simultaneous evacuation, but need not include an estimate of notification preparation time. 1 a f F,.w..l*' ,t. 1 4

yww,

+ Nk %id b

O

.& N,, ' * 'g

~. ?aU w k kWh h I j s e b f f i I I e i I e N ['YEh # E4'S f..k M:?lplh, 'C* 1 7;p

....,9.c,;

t $?hy., 1 s k l l

9 ~

s p m

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES %g$ L .L Cf, < - b AL2-83-1 ISOTOPE MEASUREMENTS LABOR ATORIES. INC., 3304 Commercial Avenue, Northbrook, Ilhnois 60062; License No. 1213568-01 (EA 8132), CIVIL PEN ALTY; February 22, 1983 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TERMIN ATING CIVIL PEN ALTY PROCEEDING A in this Memorandum and Order the presiding admiriistrative law judge grants the joint motion of the NRC Staff and Isotope Measurements Laboratories, Inc. flML) to termmate this civil penalty proceedmg The compromise settlement agreement negotiated by the parties is approved as enodified to include the ter:ns of a further commetr ent requested of and recened from IML by the presadmg officer. B Pursuant to 10 CFR (2.203 the compromise of a civil penalty is subject to the approsal of the designated presidmg officer who, under the espress provisions of that section, must accord Jue weight to the posation of the Staff. ALJ-83-2 CONSOLIDATED X RAY SERVICE CORPOR ATION, P.O. Box 20195 Dallas, Tesas 75220, License No. 42-08456-02, EA 82-45 ( ASLBP No. 83 483-01 OT); CIVIL PEN ALTY; April 28,1983,INITI AL DECISION 1 A The Administrative Law Judge reduces the civil penalty imposed against 1scensee from $4,000.00 so $2,500. B A licensee may be assessed a civil penahy for all violations committed by its employees in the conduct oflicensed activity. C A civil penalty may be assessed where no personalinjuries resulted from the violation. I D For purposes of reducmg the amount of a base civil penahy because of "Prompi identifica-t tson and Reporting," the timehness of reportmg a matter tc the N RC is measured from the time the hcensee's management knew or should have known of the violation. 6 E The NRC ' General Statement of Pohey and Procedure for Enforcement Actions " 47 Fed. Reg. 9987,10 CFR Part 2. Appendia C (March 9,1982),is not a regulation but is a pohcy w hoch pro-vides for discretion in the assessment of civil penalties. F in a civil penalty proceeding, the administrative law judge may substitute his judgment for that of the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and is free to mitigate or remit the I assessed penalty.10 CFR 12.205(0. i G The absence of management culpabihty or negligence is not conssdered in the determmation of a base civil penahy pursuant to the NRC " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for Enforte-ment Actions," 47 Fed. Reg. 9987,10 CFR Part 2. Appendia C (March 9,1982), but such fact is relevant and estabhshes that hcensee is entitled to mitigation or reduction of the base cisi! penalty. 2 6 i i Vs.-J;,) 4 i t ,QlM& -7 Sh!i l N sr a ; l \\

O szm ?(&,h., N. -t. I 1 '1 l 1 I I .f j ;_ }^ f

u. g

~

O ~ m ~ " 5E DIGESTS Nd$ ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORY DECISIONS i. 1 DD-83-1 COMMONW EALTH EDISON COMPANY (LaSalle Counis S'ation. Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-373. 50 374. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; Februar) 9,1983. DIRE CTOR'S DECl-SiON UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies petitions Gled by the !!hnois Attorney General, the litanois friends of the Earth and Catuens Agamst Nuclear Power which requeued msti-tution of show cauw proceedings on the basis of alleged construction deGciencies in the LaSalle County Siation The decia:on supplernents an carher deciuor IDD-82-9.16 NRC 396) unh respect to LaSalle Umt 1. DD-83-2 CINCINN ATI G AS & ELECTRIC CO* IPANY (Wit!iam H. Zimmer Nucicar Power hion), Docket No. 50-358. SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTIONS. February 10.1983. DIR EC-TOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.2% A The Director of the OfGce of Inspection and Enforcement grants in part and denies in part a petition Gled by the Miami Valley Power Project which requested suspension of construction of the Zimmer Station. The petnion mas granted in ofar as the Commission's order suspending construc-tion (CLI-82-33,16 NRC 1489) imposed remedies similar to those requested b) the petitioner. l DD-83-3 M AINE Y ANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY tMame tankee Atomic Pomer Sution). Docket No. 50-309. SUSPENSION OF OftK ATION; February 14. 1983. DIRECTOR'S DECl-SiON UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 A The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 br.mght by Safe Power for Mame and its repiesentaines Erul G. Garrett. John B Green.nd John 3erabek, which requested issuance of an order to show cause why Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company should not be ordered to discentinue operation ofits nuclear plant pendmg demonstrat on of ade-i quate fmancial resources to contmue operation and provide for eventual decommissionmg. B By amendmg its regulations to eliminate the need for a fmancial quahGcations review for electric utilities seekmg a license to construct or operate power reactors. the Commission has deter-mineu that no hnk has been demonserated between Gndmg an electnc uiihty apphcant Gnancially quahGed and that apphcant's abihty to construct and operate a nuclear power plam safely. C Unless special circumstances are shown, the Comn.hsion will not engage in a financial qual-incations review. D The Director mill not institute proceedmss in response to a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 to consider an issue the Commission is treatmg generically through rulemaking. DD-83-4 COMMONw EALTH EDISON COMPANY (Zson Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-295,50-304, OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 1,1983. LFRECTOR'S DE-CISION UNDER 10CFR 2.206 A The Director of the OfGce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a request by Pollction and Environmenu.! Problems to take regulatory actions with respect to Zion facihties because present and continums acceptabihty of pressunted thermal hock risk is assured for the Zion facilities. B The following technical issues are discussed Pressunzed thermal shock; High burnup fuel. DD-83 5 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY ISouth Tesas Project. Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-498. 50-499. SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION, March 3,1983. DIR ECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10CFR 2.206 A The Directer of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition una?r 10 CFR 2.206 which requested immediate suspension of construction at the South Tesas Project, based upon certam al-leged design deficiencies in the project.dentified in a report prepared by the Quadres Corporation. FD 9 wr: ;,.:. A QC U eth a 4, sp-w, m.h 3 i

DIGESTS ~ i ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS 9 'A _h 1 The petition also requesied an independent third party review of the project's design, and the estab-lishment of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to hold hearings on the alleged design deficiencies which were identified. ,,g}[ Where an adjudicatory board is presidmg in a proceedmg with jurisdiction to consider a par-B + n v' tscular issue, a party to that proceeding may not choose to avoid that forum by use of 10 CFR 2.206. C In the absence of some special circumstances, an omce director will not interfere with the customary licensing process by mstituting a proceedmg to consider issues properly withm the scope of the operatinglicense review, D lt is beyond the power of an omce director to order an adjudicatory board to consider parucu-far issues. j E The following technicalissue is discussed. Review of Design Deficiencies. l DD-83-6 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND G AS COMPANY iSalem Nuclear Generatmg Station Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-272,50 31I; REST ART; April 29,1983, DIRECTOR'S DE-CISION UNDER 10CFR 2.206 The Director, Omce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, demes a request from the Public Advo-l A cate of the State of New Jersey for issuance of an order to the licensee to show cause why it should -q not be restrained from restarting its Salem facilities until certain actions addressing the cnuses of the reactor circuit trip breaker failures of February 22 and 25.1983, have been taken. 4 DD 83-7 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Point Plant) Docket No. 50-155; SPENT FUEL POOL EXP ANSION; May 3,1983, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulatiort denies a request frem Ms. JoAnn Bier and Ms. A Christa-Maria requesiing that no additional fuel be allowed in the Big Rock spent fuel pool until the l issue of pool thermal / structural adequacy is resolved. DD-83-8 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMP ANY (Dresden Nuclear Power Station; Zion Nuclear Plarn) Docket Nos. 50-10, 50-237, 50-249, 50-295, 50 304 SUSPENSION OF OPEkATIONS; June 8,1983. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 The Director of the Omce ofInspection and Enforcement denies a peution under 10 CFR A 2.206 which requested suspension of operation of the Zion and Dresden plants on the basis of alleged drug and alco: sol abuse by plant employees and improper security practices. The Director denies the peution because the NRC investigation did not substantiate widespread drug or alcohol abuse or other improper practices, and the licensee has initiated sumcient measures to correct identif;cd non-compliance and to prevent the potentially adverse effects of drug or alcohol abuse for safe operation. DD-83-9 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Point Plant), Docket No. 50-155, SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION; June 16,1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 The Director denies a petition under 10 CFR 2.206 to revoke or suspend the operating A license for the Big Rock facility because of alleged misrepresentations by the licensee to a Licensmg Board and improper inservice inspection procedures. DD-83-10 CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2) and POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK tlndian Point Umt 3), Docket Nos. 50-247,50-286 OPERATING LICENSE; June 29, 1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 The Director of the Omcc ofInspection and Enforcement denies a peution submitted under A 10 CFR 2.206 by the Rockland County Legislature requestmg that the Commission immediately sus-pend operation of the Indian Point Station, Units 2 and 3, unul such time as the health, safety and welfare of Rockland County cinzens could be assured. L', 'W.: %[n, HA (y ' ' t % "b h. g a

O ~ ,N M $*b DIGESTS

y ISSUANCES OF DENIALS OF PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING Wraw DPRM43-1 UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, Docket No. PRM 50-35; RULEM AKING; April 12,1983; DENI AL OF PETITION FOR RULEM AKING A

The Commission denies a petition for rulemaking which requested that the Commission amend its emergency planning rules for nuclear power plants so that the results of the offsite emergency preparedness exercise held prior to full-power operation would be htigable in the operat-ing hcense proceedmg The petition is denied because the requested amendment is unnecessary, con-trary to sound admimstrative practice, and would add regulatory delays to the Commission's licens-ing process without a correspondmg increase in pubhc health and safety. 8 The apphcant's emergency plan is skin to the design of the facility. The task of the hcensing board confronted with eme*gency planning issues is to decide whether the plan meets the Commis-sion's regulations and to predict w hether it can be implemented successfully. C The full-scale offsite emergency plan exercise should be held as close in time as possible to commercial operation of the facihty to ensure that the exercise involves those personnel who will ac-tually operate the facility. D It is impractsal to hold the fu!! power operating license proceedmg record open solely for the purpose of heigsting the results of the full-scale offsite exercise, because full-power operation of the completed facility could be delayed for months with no commensurate safety benefit. Deficiencies appearms in the exercise can be corrected without further litigation. E Deficiencies in the full-scale offsne esercise are not suitable subjects for the adjudicatory setting. The function of the licensms board is to determine whether the plan meets the Commission's regulations. However, a heanns could be reconvened upon an appropriate evidentiary showing that some key aspect of the plan turns out to be inadequate or unworkable. F It is not enough to assert, without more, that removal of a hmited subject from the adjudica-tive phase of the igensing process necessartly equals a loss of protection of the public health and safety, or imphes a loss of the pubhc's right to recourse where the factsjustify entraordinary licensing action. G The Commission has the discretion to separate matters which properly belong in the licens-ing phase from those which belong in the post adjudicative operational phase. The record in a heens-ing proceedmg must close at some logical point, and the Commission hasjudicially-recognized dis-cretion to select that pomt on a rational basis. Petitioner did not show that the placing of esercise deficiencies into the post-a4udicative category was without such a basis, and thus cannot prevail on statutory grounds. DPRM-33-2 John F. Doherty, Docket No. PRM 50-24. RULEM AKING; April 6,1983, DENI AL OF PETITION FOR RULEM AKING A The Executive Director for Operations under authority delegated under 10 CFR I.40(o) i denies pe'ition for rulemaking to amend regulation...,,J.. prescribed actions be taken by the Commission in the event of objects fallmg from earth's orbit. B Section 186 of the Atomac Energy Act of 1954 authorizes the Commission, in cases of ex-treme importance to the health and safety of the pubhc, to enter upon and operate a hcensed facihty prior to any of the procedures provided under the Administratne Procedures Act. C Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 authorizes the Commission, in cases of en-treme importance to the health and safety of the pubhe, to enter upon and operate a hcensed facility. D Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 authorizes the Commission to prescribe orders govermng the operations of facihties in order to protect health and to mmimize danger to hfe or property. FMM'1 r 51 -NM 5 - - t %{1iy h, t -~. 9 ,y v- -r- ,,-.,, _ _ ~.- _

i G ~ DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DENIALS OF PETITIONS FOR RULEM AEING W y.,. d,h" E Credible external events, natural or man-induced, are considered withm the framework of

• "#b':

the current NRC bcensing processing in the sitmg and design of power reactors F Mechanisms exist by which the NRC is kept apprised of developmg situations that hase the potential in impact routine operation at power reactors, typical situations have included events such y as the Skylab reentry, the COSMOS 1402 reentry, the Mt. St. Helens eruption, hurricanet etc. The NRC Emergency Plan (NUREG 0723) and implementing Procedures (NUREG 0845) outime the Agency response organization and activities. 1 l V.l &e n *>% ;4, N . 7 [g b * .wm

I Mr v

• LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX k

CASES kh . VA. Adickes v. Kress & Co.,398 U.S.144,160-61 (1970) content of rebuttal to property supported motion for summary Jisposition; LBP-83 32A,17 NRC 1874 (1983) i Ager v. Jane C. Siormont Hospital and TraMii,g School for Nurses,622 F.2d 496 (10th Cir.1980) protection ofidentities of non-witness cuperts; LBP 83-17, ;7 NRC 497 (1983) showing necessary to obtain identities of non-mitnes esperts LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 977 (1983) Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Ptarit, Units I and 2), CLI-8127,14 NRC 795 (1981) cnteria apphed in determining whether a stay should be granted, ALAB-72),17 NRC 543 (1983) Albed-General Nuclear Sersices (Barnmell F uct Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328,3 NRC 420, 42' (1976) particularization of interests for purposes of stantng; LBP 43-19,17 NRC 576 (1983) Albed-General Nuclear Services (Barnmell Nuclear Fuel Plant separations Facihty), ALAB-296 2 NRC 671,680 (1975) safeguard agamst bias in NRC licensing proceedmgs, ALAB-732,17 NRC 1091 (1983) American Trucking Association v. United States,627 F.2d 1313,131819 f D C. Cir.1980) test of reasonableness of a regulation; CLI-8319,17 NRC 1047 (1983) American Trucking Association v. United States,627 F.2d 1313,1320-21 (D C. Cir.1980) Commission authonty to estabhsh reasonable regulations on procedural matters, CLl-83,19,17 NRC 1046 (1983) Arizona /ublic Service Co- (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-713,17 NRC 83,85 (1983) star:: decks efTect of Appeal Board's afGrmance of Licensmg Board decision; ALAB-720,17 NRC 402 (1983) Arkansas Power and Light Co. (Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2). ALAB-94,6 AEC 25,32 (1973) admissibihty of ACRS reports as evidence; ALAB-717,17 NRC 367 (1983) Atlantic Research Corp., ALAB-594, Il NRC 841 (1980) considration of absence of management culpabihty in assessmg civil penalty; AL3-83 2,17 NRC 707 (1983) Atlantic Research Corp., CLI 80-7,11 NRC 413,422 (1980) appropriateness of civil penalty imposed for lost of radiography device; AL3-83-2,17 NRC 699 (1983) Beshear v. Weinzapfel,474 F.2d 127,131 (7th Cir.1973) justiGcation for Board disrussal ofintervenor; ALAB-719,17 NRC 394 (1983) Boston Edison Co. (Pilgnm Nudear Power Station) ALAB-83,5 AEC 354 (1972), affd sub nom. Union of Concerned Scientists v. AEC,499 F.2d 1069 (D C. Cir.1974) admissibihty of ACRS reports as evidence; ALAB-717,17 NRC 367 (1983) Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI 82-IC,16 NRC 44 (1982) reason for holdmg hearms on order confirming commitments made by hcensee; DD-83-6,17 NRC 716 (1983) i Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unia 2), ALAB-632,13 NRC 91,93 n.2 (1981) appealabihty of partial initial decision; LBP-83-II,17 NRC 464 (1983); LBP 83-25,17 NRC 684 (1983); LBP-83-30,17 NRC ll37 (1983) Boston Edison Co. (Pilgnm Nuclear Power 5tation, Umt 2), LBP-75-30,1 NRC 579,581 (1975) l use of federal rules to interpret NRC rules; LBP-83 29,17 NRC 1819 (1983) Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Umt 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) F.d.@.,7*I ( ,f-l I y 4 ---v- ,,,_.-,-,n.- ,--_---.-a.-w ,, - - - --,-w-ww <, -~e --o-v-- - ---w-w-------- ru--v-----

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES" P' BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission,502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Lir.1974) Commission authonty to establish reasonable regulations on procedural matters; CLI.83,19,17 g IG NRC 1045,1051 (1983) M Commission authonty to impose threshold requirements for admissibihty of contentions, d ALAB 719,17 NRC 395 (1983) i ?MM Commission authority to presenbe threshold requirements for party seeking to reopen record, l ALAB-728,17 NRC 800 (1983) BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission,502 F.2d 424,428 (D C. Cir.1974) procedaral requirements accompanying an individual's right to hearms on nuclear power plant issues; ALAB-717,17 NRC 354 (1983) Calvert Chffs Coordmating Committec v. AEC,449 F.2d 1109 (C.D.D.C.1978) I contestabihty of costs and benefits claimed in environmental impact statement; LBP-83 27A,17 NRC 975 (1983) I Camco, Inc. v. Baker Tools, Inc.,45 F.R.D. 384 6.D. Tem 1968) burden for estabhshmg privilege asserted by party objectmg to discovery request; LBP 8317,17 NRC 495 (1983) Carolina Environmental Study Group v. United States,510 F.2d 796,799 (D.C. Cir.1976) guidance followed by NRC Staffin prepanns environmentalimpact statements; ALAB-728,17 NRC 7% (1983) Carohna Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units I,2,3 and 4), CLI-74 9,7 AEC 197,198 (1974); CLI 74-22,7 AEC 939,940 (1974) characterization of circumstances warranting grant of construction permit exemption; CLl-83-1, 17 NRC 2 (1983) Carolina 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 critena for exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12; CLI-83-1,17 NRC 4 (1983) Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power hant, Units I,2,3 and 4), CLI-74-22, l 7 AEC 939,944 (1974) ] need for excepuons or exemptions to regulations; CLI-831,17 NRC 12 (1983) Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units I,2,3 and 4), LBP-78-2,7 NRC 83 (1978) function of a motion to reopen the record; LBP 83-25,17 NRC 687 (1983) Carter Wallace, Inc. v. Gardner,417 F.2d 1086,1096 (4th Cir.1%9), cert. denied sub nom. Carter Wallace, Inc. v. Finch,398 U.S. 938 (1970) need for sponsorship of matenal containmg experts' studies and opinions; ALAB-717,17 NRC 368 (1983) Cerro Wire and Cable Co.,677 F.2d 124,128 29 (D C. Cii.1982) factors apphed in determining whether to reopen the record; LBP 83-30,17 NRC 1842 (1983) Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), LBP-80-6,11 NRC 148, 149 (1980) time requirement for fihng for participation as interested municipahty; LBP-83-13,17 NRC 471 (1983) Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1), ALAB 727,17 NRC 760 (1983) regulatory scheme for emergency plann'ns issues; ALAB 730,17 NRC 1063 (1983) Cincinnati Gas and Electnc Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-727,17 NRC 760,764-65 (1983) description of emergency planning zones; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1094 (1983) Cincinnati Gas and Electnc Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Urut No.1), CLl-82-20,16 NRC 109 (1982), as clanfied, CLI 83-4,17 NRC 75 (1983) litigability of adequacy of emergency feedwater system to remove decay heat; ALAB 732,17 NRC lill (1983) Cities of Statesville, et al. v. AEC,441 F.2d %2 (D.C. Cir. l%9) 10 CFR 2.714(a) factors apphed to determine admissibihty of late-filed contentior.s based on - ".c ;., unavailable documents; CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1046 (1983) i ,&,m a

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Ci:izens for Safe Power v. NRC,524 F.2d 1291,1297 (D C. Cir.1975) basis for Licensing Board assessment of safety of a plant; ALAB-729,17 NRC 828 (1983) Cleveland Electnc illummatmg Co- (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-298,2 NRC 730, 736-37 (1975) hI1I MJ cases appropriate for post hearing resolution of issues; AL AB-732,17 NRC 1103 (1983) N #. Cleveland Electric illuminatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741 (1977) $h justification by intervenor for failure to file separate statement of material facts, LBP-83-3,17 &,M NRC 61 (1983) Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741, 753-54 (1977) standard for assessing penalty for failure to follow procedural regulations; LBP-83 3,17 NRC 62 (1983) Cleveland Electric litummating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741, 754-56 (1977) type of evidence callms for espert sponsorship ALAB-787,17 NRC 367 (1983) Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts 1 and 2), AL AB475,15 NRC 1105, Ill2 (1982) evaluation of matters subject to rulemaking on a case by-case basis; ALAB-729,17 NRC 890 (1983) Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-659,14 NRC 983, 985 (1981) cause for deferral of briefmg of appeal; ALAB-726,17 NRC 759 (1983) Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-659,14 NRC 983, 985 and rt2 (1981) jurisdiction for purpose of reconsideration where Licensms Board hs issued initial decision; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 685 (19s3) Common =calth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-678,15 NRC 1400, 1416 (1982) circumstances in which dismissal of a party is warranted. AL AB-719,17 NRC 392 (1983); LBP-83-20A,17 NRC 590 (1983) Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I sed 2), ALAB-678,15 NRC 1400, e 1416-20 (1982) factors to be considered in selecting an appropriate sanction; LBP-83-29A,17 NRC 1823 (1983) Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear l'ower Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-678,15 NRC 1400, 1418 (1982) circumstance in which sanction for failure to file proposed findmgs of fact is appropriate, ALAB-709,17 NRC 20 (1983) Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units I and 2), DD-80-II, il NRC 496 (1980) preparation of environmental impact appraisal for burnup of fuel assemblies; DD-83-4,17 NRC 514 (1983) Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Pomt. Unit 2), CLI 74-23,7 AEC 947,95152 (1974)) post-hearms resolution ofissues by NRC Staff, AL AB-717,17 NRC 380 (1983); ALAB-732,17 NP.C 1103 (1983); LBP 83-30,17 NRC 1852 (1983) Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point. Units I,2 and 3), CLI-77-2,5 NRC 13,15 (1977) safeguard agamst bias in NRC hcensing proceedmss; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1091 (1983) Consondated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Pomt, Units 2 and 3), CLI-82 38,16 NRC 1698 (1982) matenahty of 10 CFR 50.47(CHI) where a required plan does not esist; LBP-83 22,17 NRC 626 (1983) Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point. Umts 2 and 3), CLI 82 38,16 NRC 1698, 17024)3 (1982) deadhne for correction of emergency plannmg deficiencies; ALAB 717,17 NRC 375 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant), LBP-82-60,16 NRC 540 (1982) extent of desenption of radiation necessary in emergency planning brochure; LBP-83-27,17 NRC %1 (1983) l {a) w y w wy

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES G Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-123,6 AEC 331,332 33 41973) ....~% circumstance in which sanction for failure to file proposed findmss of fact is appropnate; f ALAB-709,17 NRC 23 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-123,6 AEC 331,340 (1973) admissibility of ACRS reports as evidence; ALAB 717,17 NRC 367 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-123,6 AEC 331,345 (1973) 7 burden of proof on synergism issue; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1093 (1983) 3' Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 end 2), ALAB 235,8 AEC 645,646-47 (1974) junsdiction for purpose of reconsideration where Licensing Board has issued initial decision; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 685 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midlano Plant Units I and 2) ALAB-235,8 AEC 645,647 (1974) inherent powers of Licensing Boards; LBP-83 20,17 NRC 584 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-283,2 NRC 11,17 (1975) burden of proof on safety issues; CLi-83-19,17 NRC 1048 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-379,5 NRC 565,568 and n.13 (1977) use of guidance from judicial proceedmss in interpretmg NRC rules and regulations; LBP 8vl7, 17 NRC 497 (1983); LBP-83-25,17 NRC 689 (1983); LBP 83-27A,17 NRC 978 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-395,5 NRC 772,785 (1977)* type of evidence necessary to justify a stay request; ALAB 721,17 NRC 544 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB-438,6 NRC 638 (1977) type of unusual expense contemplated by referral criteria of, LBP 83-28,17 NRC 995 (1983) Consumers Power Co, (Midland Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB-541,9 NRC 436,437-38 (1979) reason for reversal of Licensing Board denial of request for schedule change; ALAB-719,17 NRC 391 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB434,13 NRC %,99 (1981) considerations relevant to Appeal Board determination whether to accept referral of ruling; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 598 (1983) right of appeal from interlocutory ruhng by a Licensing Board; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 597 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-691,16 NRC 897 (1982) obligations of participants in NRC proceedmss; CLI-8319,17 NRC 1048 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB491,16 NRC 897,905-08 (1982) dismissal of appeal where intervenor was ordered to file findmss of fact; ALAB-709,17 NRC 23 (1973) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB491,16 NRC 897,912-13 (1982), review dechned, CLI-83-2,17 NRC 69 (1983). type of matter that should be raised for emploration and resolution in the adjudicatory context; ALAB-115,17 NRC 105 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-5,7 AEC 19,30-32 and in. 27 (1974), reversed sub. nom. Aeschliman v. NRC,547 F.2d 622,628 (D C. Cir.1976), reversed and remanded sub nom. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRC,435 U.S. $19,553-54 (1978) evidence to oc proffered by intervenor in support of its contentions; LBP-83-20A,17 NRC 589 (1983) Costle v. Pacific Legal Foundation,445 U.S.198,34142,343 n.12 (1980) factors apphed in determining whether to reopen the record, LBP-83-30,17 NRC 1142 (1983) County of Suffolk v. Lo s Island Lightmg Co., $54 F. Supp. 339,403-08 (E.D.N.Y.1983) interpretation of,,tomic Energy Act as congressional intent to preempt field of nuclear licensing and regulation; LBP-83 22,17 NRC 638 (1983) Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760,1763 n.3, 1763 4 5, 1766 (1982) standard for reopening the record on new issue; LBP-83-30,17 NRC 11361140 (1983) Detroet Edison Co. (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Urus 2), ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1983) need for intervenor to file proposed findings of fact; ALAB 717,17 NRC 371 (1983) Detroit Edison Co (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-730,17 NRC 1065 n.7 (1983) test for reopening the record in an NRC proceedms; LBP-83-30,17 NRC 1141 (1983) f r F>??@hi,? I s NJNlM W 5'

1. y i

i e

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES O ~ Detroit Edison Co. (Greenmood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-247,8 AEC 936,944-45 (1974); Detroit Edison Co. v. NRC,630 F.2d 450 (6th Cir.1980) _gS**- Commisson authority to impose hcense condiuons to mmimize impacts, even in case of favorable cost benefit halance. LBP 83 II, I? NRC419 (1983) Oj Duke Power Co. (Catamba N,aclear Stanon, Units I se ' 2), AL AB-355,4 NRC 397,402-05 (1976) .N. ' distmetion betmeen NRC Appeal Board and Fea:. I Courts of Appeal, LBP-83 25,17 NRC 689 hhD (1983) gg Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear Station Units I and 2), AL AB-355,4 NRC 397,411 12 (1976) admissibihty of hearsay evidence in NRC proceed:ngs; ALAB-717,17 NRC 366 (1983) Duke Power Co- (Catamba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460 (1982) I means for puttmg forth specific contei. tion on emergency plannmg issues AL AB-730,17 NRC I 1067 (1983) l Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,464 (1983 l considerations relevant to Appeal Board determinauon whether to accept referral of ruimg; l LBP-83-21,17 NRC 598 (1983) l Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Stanon, Units I,2 and 3), ALAR-482,7 NRC 979,930 (1978) Licensing Board conuderahon of motion for clanficahon by party not adsersely afTected by Board decision; LBP-8315,17 NRC 477 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station Units I,2 ar.d 3), ALAB 482,7 NRC 979,981 n 4 (1978) reason Ic! Appeal Board refusal to gise stare derisis effect to Licenung Board conclusons not broi.ght before it by may of appeal; AL AB-713.17 NRC 85 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Oconee Nuclear Station and McGuire Nuclear Station), LBP-79-2,9 NRC 90,98-99 (1979) opposition to order protecting identities of organizanon's members, LBP-8316,17 NRC 482 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Perkms Nuclear Station, Umts I,2 and 3), ALAB-591, il NRC 741,742 n 3 (1980) c(Tect of Licensing Board's retenuon ofissues on its jurisdiction over mot.on to reopen; LBP-83 25,17 NRC 684 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Perkms Nuclear Stanon Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-591,11 NRC 741,742 n.3 (1980); AL AB-597, ll NRC 870,873 74 (1980) right of hearing board to determine its own jurisdiction; LBP 83-12,17 NRC 467 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Perkms Nuclear Station, Units I,2 and 3) AL AB-597,11 NRC 870,871 & n.1 (1980) appeatabihty of partialinitial decision; LBP-83-II,17 NRC 464 (1983); LBP-83-25,17 NRC 684-85 (1983); LBP-83-30,17 NRC 1137 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-647,14 NRC 27, 29-30 (1981) effect of Commission immediate effectiveness review on Appeal Boarci decisions AL AB-721,17 NRC 543 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Wilham B McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-669,15 NRC 453, 463-64 (1982) condition for laugation of hydrogen control contenuons under 10 CFR 100; ALAB 728,17 NRC 805 (1983) Duke Power Co. (WNm B McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), Al.AB-669,15 NRC 453,475 (1982) criteria fc admisuon of espert testimony; AL AB 732,17 NRC 1091 (1983) Duke Power C.. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Stauon, Units I and 21. AL AB-669,15 NRC 453,477 (1982) apphcadhty of Federal Rules of Eudence lo NRC proceedmgs AL AB-717,17 NRC 365 (1983) type of esidence calhng for expert sponsorship; AL AB-717,17 NRC 367 (1983) Easton Unhues Commission v. AEC,424 F.2d 847,852 (D C. Cir.1970) Commission authonty to estabhsh reasonable regulations on procedural matters, CL1-83,19,17 NRC 1045,1052 (1983) . ~m ?,,$ Jd ( \\ . ca ~ - $1 %p$U l %+ Y0 l 4 hk E

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES [s* Q,i l Lf3L S!$k Farmers Reservoir and trngation Co. v McComb,337 U.S 755,764 (1948), rehearms demed,338 ^ y5 U 5. 819 (1948) [,)/ C 4..M defimtion of the term *enigent circumstances"; CLI-83-1, it NRC 3 (1983) &s Fcidman v. Pioneer Petroleum inc.,87 F R D. 86 (W.D. Okla.1980) burden on party seekms discovery of attorney work products; LB? 8317,17 NRC 495 (1983) Fmal Rule on Emergency Plannmg, CLI-80 40,12 NRC 636,638,642 (1910) I weight gives to FLM A views on need for and adequacy of olisite proactive plannmg measures, CLl-83-10,17 NRC 533 (1983) l Flonda Lime & Avocado Growers Inc. v. Paul. 373 U.S.132,14214),147-50 (1963) i bem for determmation of Congressional intent to preempt state and local regulation of a particular subject matter; LBP-83 22,17 NRC 638 (1983) Flonda Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Ur:it No 2), AL AB-280,2 NRC 3,4 n.2 (1975) dismissal of appeal where intervenor was ordered to ike fiMmss of fact; ALAB-709,17 NRC 23 (1973) Flonda Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Pip 31, Umt No. 2), ALAB-420,6 NPf' 8,22 (1977) rationale for applymg late in9ftention criteria to contention-based and institutionally unavsilable documents; CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1046 (1983) Flonda Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Umt No. 2), ALAB-579, Il NRC 223, i 225-26 (1980) Appeal Board jurisdiction to reopen record on matters to which appellate process is complete; LBP 83-25,17 NRC 684 (1983) F?nnda Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Pcwer Plant Umt No. 21, ALAB-603,12 NRC 30 I (1980) basis for conclusion on reliabihty of emergency feedwater system at TMI, ALAB-729,17 NRC 831 (1983) i delimtion of smale failure entenon; ALAB-729,17 NRC 874 (1983) sigmlicance of rehabihty of onsite emerge'scy power and polential for station blackout relative to floating nuclear plants; ALAB-718,17 NRC 386 (1983) Flond.a Power and Light Co. (St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. Umt No. 2), ALAB-603,12 NRC 30,45 4 (198G) need for consideration of accidents other than those postulated in StafT guidance; ALAB-725,17 ) NRC 570 (1983) l Flonda Power and Light Co. (St Lucie Nuclear Power Fim.i, U..i; L 2', CLI.81-12,13 NRC 838, 844 (1981) data base to be used in performing rehabihiy analysis for TMl-AL AB 729, 57 NRC 832 (1983) i Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Pomt Nuclear Generatmg Station, Umts Nos 3 and 4),3 AEC j 173, 174 (1 % 7) need for research reactor to protect against sabotage LBP 83 25A,17 NRC 939 (1983) Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generatms, Umts Nos. 3 and 4), ALAB-660,14 NRC 987,992 (1981) i descnption of role of steam generator in nuclear power plant; LBP-83-4,17 NRC lli (1983) Foman v. Davis. 371 U.S.178,182 (1962) interpretation of the term " dilatory" in content of hcensee's construction delays, ALAB-721,17 NRC 552 (1983) Forward Communications Corp. v. Umted States,608 F.2d 485, 509-10 (Ct. Cl.1979) i need for sponsorship of matenal containmg emperts' studies and opmions, ALAB 717,17 NRC 368 (1983) i Further Guidance for Power Reactor Operatmg Licenses, CLI-80-42,12 NRC 654 (1980) htigabihty of TMI-related issues in hcensms prnceedmss ALAB-728,17 NRC 797 (1983) General Electne Co. (Vallecitos Nuclear Center, General Electric Ten. Reactor), LBP-78 33,8 NRC l l 461, 465-66 (1978) apphcation of judicial interpretations of Federal Rules when there are no analogous NRC rules, t-%N, [*,'; > LBP 83-17,17 NRC 496 (1983) M39 ??h% N \\{ i wnq j $8 i f 1 J i i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES O .= General Electric Co. (Vallectios Nuclear Center, General Electric Test Reactor), LBP 78-33,8 NRC 462 (1978) apphcability of Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(4HB) to NRC proceedings; LBP 83 27A,17 NRC 978 l (1983) I . b, General Electric Co. (Vallecitos Nuclear Center, General Electric Test Reactor) LBP-8244,16 NRC 5%,698 (1982); acq. ALAB-720,17 NRC 397,399 n.) (1983) g apphcability of seismic and geologic siting criteria to plants bcensed to operate at time of i ty - < promulgation; LBP 83-23,17 NRC 658 (1983) l 3Md Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-329,3 NRC 607,610 (1976) r interlocutory appeals of denials ofintervention petitions; AL AB-712,17 NRC 82 (1983) Gulf States Utihties Co. (R,iver Bend Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760 (1977) need for NRC Staff to address decay heat removalin Safety Evaluation Report; ALAB-728,17 l NRC 806 (1983) l Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station Units I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,768 (1977) l procedural requirements to be followed by admitted interested state; LBP-83-26,17 NRC 947 (1983) Gulf States Utahties Co. (River Bend Station Units I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,768-70 (1977) right of interested government agency participating as full party to raise new issues; LBP-83-30, 17 NRC 1839 (1983) Gulf States Utahties Co. (River Bend Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,772-7) (1977) showing necessary by parties wishing to htigate unresolved safety issues; ALAB-729,17 NRC 889 (1983) Gulf States Utihties Co. (River Bend Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,77) (1977) weight given to regulatory guides; ALAE-725,17 NRC 568 (1983) Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station Units I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,775 (1977) type of information on unresolved generic safety issues that should appear in Safety Evaluation Report; ALAE 732,17 NRC 111213 (1983) Gulf States Utahties Co. (River Bend Station, Units I and 2), CLI-76-16,4 NRC 449 (1976) showing ofisigency supporting an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12; CLI-83-1,17 NRC 5 (1983) Hodgson v. Hum >hries 454 F.2d 1279,1282 (10th Cir 1972) 1 l purpose of.heg findmss of fact; ALAB 709,17 NRC 20 (1983) Houston Light 4 and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB 535,9 NRC 377,3",396 (1979) need for specific representational authority for intervention by organizations whose pnmary purpose is opposition to nuclear power; LBP-8316,17 NRC 482-83 (1983) Houston Ligntmg and Fower Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generatmg Station, Unit I), ALAB 535,9 t N RC 377, 399-400 (1979) y identifk.tson of members who reside within geograpNcal zone of interest for purpose of organizational standms; LBP-83-16,17 NRC 481 (19831 Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I), ALAB-585 II NRC 469,470 (1980); ALAB-586,1I NRC 472,473 (1980) interlocutory appeals of denials of intervention petitions; ALAB-712,17 NRC 82 (1983) Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542 (1980) contention requirements at pleadmg stage; ALAB-722,17 NRC 551 (1983) Houston Lightmg and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station Unit 1), ALAB430,13 NRC 84 (1981) { propriety of simultaneously seeking Licensms Board reconsideration and appellate relief. ALAB-714,17 NRC % (1983) Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station, Unit I), ALAB435,13 NRC 309,310-II (1981) [ need to await issuance of instaal decision before presenting issue for appellate consideration; ALAB-731,17 NRC 1075 (1983) i FRdgA i 59 s f L b

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASE 3 ' f l g, Houston Lighting and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB-301,2 NRC 853. 854 (1975) appeatability of partialirattat decision: LBP 83-il,17 NRC 464 (1983); LBP-83 20,17 NRC 583 y 9 ow4 (1983); LBP 83-25,17 NRC 685 (1983); LBP-83 30,17 NRC 113711983) Houston Lightmg and Power Co. (South Temas Project, Units I and 2), Al AB-639,13 NRC 469,473 (1981) derimtion ofinformer's privilege; ALAE; 714,17 NRC 91 (1983) waiver of informer's privilege; CLI-83-18,17 NRC 1039 (1983) l Houston Lightmg and Power Co. (South Tesas Project Umts 1 and 2), LBP-8154,14 NRC 918, i l 922 23 & n 4 (1981) hmitations on Licensms Board's sua sponte authonty; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1812 (1983) in re Fischel,557 F.2d 209 (9th Car.1977) burden for estabinhms pnvilege asserted by party objecting to discovery requcst; LBP-8317,17 NRC 495 (1983) Independent Bankers Aswciation of Georgia v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 516 F.2d 1206,1220 and cases discussed at n.57 thereof (D C. Cir.1975) factors apphed in determining whether to reopen the record, LBP.83 30,17 NRC 1142 (1983) loma Electric Light & Power Co. IDuane Arnold Energy Center) ALAB 108,6 AEC 195,196 n 4 (1973) admissalwhty of hmited appearance statements as evioence; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1087 (1983) 3ones v. Rath Packing Co.,430 U.S. 519,530 31 (l')77) basis for determitteuon of Congressional intent to preempt state and local regulation of a partrular subject matter; LBP 83 22,17 NRC 638 (1983) Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Umt No.1), ALAB-279,1 NRC 559, 576-77 (1975) justification by intervenor for failure to file separate statement of material facts LBP-83-3,17 NRC 61 (1983) Kansas Gas and Electnc Co. (Wolf Creek Generat ng Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-462,7 NRC 320, 338 (1978) justification for reopemns a record; ALAB 728,17 NRC 638 (1983); /. LAB-730,17 NRC 1065 (1983) Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Umt No.1), CLI 76-20,4 NRC 476 (1976) reason for rejection of request for exemption under 10 CFR 50.12; CLI-83-1,17 NRC 5 (1983) Kansas Gas and Elecinc Co. (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station, Unit No.1), CLI-771,5 NRC l 8-9 (1977) Commissior authority to impose license conditions to minimize impacts, even in case of favorable cost-benefit balance; LBP-83-II,17 NRC 419 (1983) Kerr-McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facihty), CLI-82-2,15 NRC 232 (1982), alTd, City of West Chicago v. NRC,701 F.2d 632 (7th Cir.1983) entitlement to formal trial type hearms on materials licensms actions; CLI-83-15,17 NRC 1002 0983) Kerr McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facihty), CLI 82-2,15 NRC 232 (1982); CLI-82 21, 16 NRC 401, i1982) besis for request for referral of SNM heense renewal to NMSS Director for disposition; LBP-83-19,17 NkC 575 (1983) Kung v. Fom Inv. Corp,563 F. 2d 1316,1318 (9th Cir.1977) ) justification for Board dismissal of intervenor; 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 R.R. Co-,370 U.S. 626,633 34 (1962) imerpretation of the term " dilatory' in content of licensee's construction delays; AL AB-721,17 l NRC 552 (198?) ' i t..g u.. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co,370 U.S. 626,634-35, reh's demed. 371 U.S. 873 (1962) ?* circumstances to be considered in determmms whether dismissal of a party is warranted, [j ALAB 719,17 NRC 392 (1983) [Ak& l e] H i 60

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES O ~ Long Island Lightmg Co. Uamesport Nuclear Power Station Units I and 2), ALAB-48),7 NRC 807, 808 (1978) h;"[id

• O[-

most crucial factor considered in passmg on stay apphcaticn; ALAB-716,17 NRC 342 81983) Long Island Lightmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit D, LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1144,1153 l d A,64 (1982) f i 4% burden for establishms rrivilege asserted by party objecting to discovaf request, LBP-83-17,17 l M*f'.gg Jd NRC 495 (1983) l 4*

• s. y Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Generstmg Station, Umt 3), CLI 73-25,6 AEC 619,622 n.3(1973) characterization of circumstances marranting grant of construction permit esemption, CL1-83-1, 17 NRC 2 (1983)

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Mame Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALAB-361,6 AEC 100), 1014 (1973),afrd sub nom. Citizens for Safe Pomer,Inc. v. NRC,524 F.2d 1291 (D C. Cir.1975) apphcation of NEPA rule of reason to need for ensironmental impact statement, ALAB-728,17 NRC 795 (1983) Maness v. Meters,419 U1449,458-59 (1975) remedy for an entity who beheses it is the object of an incorrect ordet. AL AB 714,17 NRC 95 (1983) l Mari and-Nanonal Capita! Park and Planning Commission v. Postal Seruce,487 F.2d 1029,'1036-17 t (D C. Cir.1973) Gndmss weishms m fator of grant of exemption under 10 CFR 5012; CLI.831,17 NRC 5 (1983) Metcalf v. Mitchell,209 U.S. 514 (1926) interpretation of the term "ofrecer"; LBP-83 29.17 NRC 1819 (1983) Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umi No.1), ALAB-698,16 NRC 1290, 1298-99 (1982), affirming i BP-8159,14 NRC 1211,1450 (1981) function of criteria described in NUREG-0654 LBP-83-22,17 NRC 616 (1983) Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Uma No.1), AL AB-699,16 NRC 1324 (1982) Jurisdiction of Licensing Board to consider admissibil.t> of new contentions follommg issuance of partial imtial decision, LBP-83-12,17 NRC 467 (1983) Metropohtan Edison Co (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt No 11 ALAB-699,16 NAC 1324, 1327 n.6 (1982) jurndiction to rule on motion to reopen record Gied on same day as issuance ofimtsal decision; AL AB-726,17 NRC 757 (1983) Licensing Board jurisdiction to entertain a motion to reopen the record sersed prior to its imtial decision; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 683 (1983) Metropohtan Ednon Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt No.1), AL AB-729,17 NRC 814, 894-95 (1983) emergerwy planning matters which are appropriate for Staff resolution; AL AB 732,17 NRC 1105 (1983) Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), CLi-80-16,11 NRC 674, 675 (1980) justification for waiver :410 CFR 50 4J. AL AB-728,17 NRC 805 (1983) Metropnhtan Ednon Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt No.1), LBP-81-59,14 NRC 1211 (1981) materiahiy of 10 CFR 50.47(c)(D mhere a required plan does not exist, LBP 83-22,17 NRC 626 (1983) Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), LBP-82-86,16 NRC 1890, 119) (1982) termination of presidmg o(Twer'sjurndiction LBP-83-25,17 NRC 688 (19831 Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt No. 2), ALAB-474,7 NRC 746 (1978) cause for denial of timely motion to reopen, LBP 83-30,17 NRC 1143 (1983) V.W,Qi'l I, 51 ee 5 ?& J t i 4 .e,m,

• .m

. ~

O O ~ LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES h **5 ? Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stauon, Unit No. 2), AL AB-486,8 NRC 9,21 (1978) meight given to untimeliness of motion to reopen; CLI-83-4,17 NRC 77-78 (1983) Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon, Urtit No. 2), ALAB-4%6,8 NRC 9,46 (1978) basis for Licensmg Board assessment of safety of a plant, ALAB-729,17 NRC 828 (1983) Missinippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stanon, Umts I and 2), AL AB 704,16 NRC 1725 (1982) cnteria to be satisIwJ by interested government partecipant teckmg to recipen the record. LBP 83 30,17 NRC 1140 (1983) Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB 704,16 NRC 1725, 1729 (1982) history and background of Commission's consideration of uranium fuel cycle impacts; LBP-83-6, 17 NRC 154,155 (1983) } Mitchell v. Bass,252 F.2d 513 (8th Cir.1958) maiver of mformer's privilege; CLI-83-18,17 NRC 1039 (1983) Nader v. NRC, $13 F.2d 1045,1052 (1975) intent of General Design Cnteria; AL AB-725,17 NRC 567 (1983) Nader v. NkC,513 F.2d 1045,1052 54 (D.C. Cir.1975) I basis for Licensing Board assessment of safety of a plant. ALAB 729,17 NRC 828 (1983) Nader v. Ray,363 F. Supp 946,954 (D.D.C.1973) basis for Licensing Board assessment of safety of a plant ALAB 729,17 NRC 828 (1983) Nanonal Broadcastmg Co. v. United States,319 U.S.190,223 (1943) authonty of administrative agencies to appty regulanons, CLI.831,17 NRC 11 (1983) Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,581 F.2d 166 (2d Cir.1978)) Commisuon pohey regarding safe disposal of nuclear mastes; LBP-83-6,17 NRC 155 (1983) Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commisseon,685 F.2d 459,477-78, + 486-88,494 (D C. Cir.1982) uranium fuel cycle impacts which can be considered in individual Licensing Proceedmss, LBP 83-6,17 NRC 155 (1983) Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,685 F.2d 459,494 (D C. Cir. 1982), cert. granted,51 U.S L.W. 3419 (November 29.1982) basis for late-filed uranium fuel cycle :liects contention; LBP-83-6,17 NRC 154 (1983) Natural Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,695 F.2d 623 (D C. Cir.1982) i entent of esplansuon needed for invoking 10 CFR 50.12, CLI-831,17 NRC 3 (1983) L Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Pomt Nuclear Station, Uma 2), i NRC 347,352-72 (1975) time for considerms need for power and alternatne energy sources, LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 971 (1983) ) Northern Indiana Pubhc Sersice Co. (Bailly Generstmg Station, Nuclear 1) ALAB 303,2 NRC 858, 867 (1975) Appeal Board deference given to Licensms Boag$ factual findmgs, AL AB-730.17 NRC 1069 (1983) Northern Indiana Pubhc Service Co. (Bailly Generstmg Stanon, Nuclear I), AL AB-619,12 NRC 558, 565 (1980) [ Licensing Board jurisdicuon over parts of stear. generator which apptwant is licensed to operate; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 519 (1983) ( Northern States Power Co. (Monocello Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-10,4 AEC 390, } and AL AB-16,4 AEC 435, aff*d,4 AEC 440 (1970) i apriscabehty ofinformer's priulege in NRC proceedmgs; ALAB 714,17 NRC 91 (1983) Northern States Power Co. (Monucello Nuclear Generaung Plant. Umt 1) AL AB-611,12 NRC 301, 5 303-04 (1980) Appeal Board sua sponte review where no excepuons are filed; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 688 (1983) t Northern States Power Co. (Monucello Nuclear Generstmg Plant, Umt 1), AL AB-6tl,12 NRC 301, } [&;A,

• 309 (1980) hurden placed on a Board by its discretionary authority to raise issues in operating hcense l

M_ J: " " U i proceedmss; ALAB-728,17 NRC 807 (1983) k { un h i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES G Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant. Umts I and 2), ALAB 107,6 W!id);l AEC 188.192 (1973),aff'd sub nom., BPI v. AEC,502 F.2d 424 (D C. Cir.1974) ((*V specincity requirements for conter,t. ens and for subjects submitted by representauses of kf mierested states. AL AB-728. I? NRC 802 (1983) .WK Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant. Units I and 2) AL AB-244. 8 MydS. AEC 857,864 (1974), reconsideration demed. ALAB-252,8 AEC 1875, af!"d CL1-751. I NRC I e Ce J (1975) Licensing Board discrenon ta 'reat issues of fact as contested. ALAB-709,17 NRC 23 (1973) Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generating Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB-244. 8 AEC 857,867. 868. 869 n.16 (1974) hmitauen on scope of cross-caammauon. ALAB-732,17 NRC 1096 (1983) Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generatmg Plant, Umts I and 2). ALAB 244,8 AEC 857,869 n.17 (1974), reconsideration denied, ALAB-252,8 AEC 1175, afGrmed.1 NRC 1 (1975) testimony by a pony on contentions other than its omn. LBP-83 9.17 NRC 407 (1983) Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant Units I and 2), AL AB-455,7 NRC 41,46 n.4 (1978) need to factor environmental costs of shipment of spent fuel a second time LBP-83-8B I,7 NRC 294 (1983) Northem States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generatmg Plant. Umts I and 2). ALAB-453 7 NPC 41,54 (1978), remanded on other grounds sub nom. Minnesota v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm won. 602 F.2d 412 (D C. Cir.1979) art canon of" case or controversy" restnchons to NRC jurisdicuon. ALAB-714. "? NRC 93 h Ii983) Nmthern States Power Co. (Praine island Nuclear Generstmg Plant. Umts I and 2). ALAB-455. 7 NRC 41,55 (1978), remanded on other grounds, sub nom. State of Mmnesota v. NRC. 602 !.2d 412 (D C. Ctr.197h I effect on appellate jurisdiction of vacatmg imtial decision authorizmg issuance of construr".on permit; AL AB-723,17 NRC 557 (1983) i' Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generaung Plant. Umts I and 2), CLI-75 l. I NRC I (1975) responses to interrogatones addressmg contenuons sponsored by other parties; LBP 83-9.17 NRC 405 (1983) Northern States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Umt 1), LBP 77-37,5 NRC 1298,1300-01 (1977) burden on miersenor to proude basis for contenhon; LBP-83-20A 17 NRC 590 (1983) Northern States Power Co. v. State of Mmnesota. 447 F.2d 1143.1146-52 (8th Cir.1971), afl'd. mem. 405 U.S.1035 (1972) I l basas for preclusion of dual federal and state regulation; LBP 83 22.17 NRC 638 (1983) Nuclear Fuel Scruces. Inc. (West Valley Reprocessms Plani), CLI-75-4. I hRC 273,276 (1975) hmitauon on participanon by late-Gims interested mumcipahty; LBP-83-13.17 NRC 472 (1983) i Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limitmg Conditions for Operatm to Meet the Critenon i "As Low As Pracucable" for Radioacuse Matenal m Light Water-Cooled Lclear Reactor Ernuents. CLI-75-5. I N'tC 277,298-300 (1975) 4 doses to be considered in estabhshms nsk associated with operation of Waterford. ALAB 732,17 NRC 1085 (1983) { Othhore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants). CLI 79 9.10 NRC 257,258 (1979) tegulatory history respecting class 9 accidents; ALAB-728,17 NRC 795 (1983) Offshore Power Systems (Manufactunns License for Floanns Nuclear Power Plants). ALAB-689,16 NRC 887. 890-91 & n 4 (1982) i ? discussion of Appeal Board sua sponte review; AL AB-726.17 NRC 758 (1983); ALAB-732,17 NRC till (1983) Pacine Gas and Flectne Lo. (Diablo Car yon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2). ALAB-27,4 AEC 652, 658-59 (I? % Board refusal to accept prented written testunony as evidence, ALAB-732,17 NRC 1088 (19:13) FaWy b Mh WW. 63

• y A g j

4 w-

e i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX i CASES ( f& g% Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-334,3 NRC e'Q w 809 (1976) , d?).W justancation by intervenor for failure to Glc separate statement of matenal facts; LBP 83-3,17 NRC 61 (1983) Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-519,9 NRC 42 (1979) showing necessary for subpoena of NRC Staff witness, ALAB-715,17 NRC 104-05 (1983) Paciis Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-598, il NRC 876 (1980) function of a motion to reopen the record; LBP 83 25,17 NRC 687 (1983) Pacinc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Pomer Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-598,11 NRC 876,879 (1980) signiGcance of a Board's famihanty with a case in ruhng on motion to reopen record ALAB 726, 17 NRC 758 (1983) standard for reopening record in NRC proceedings; ALAB-728,17 NRC 800 (1983) Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-600,12 NRC 3,8 (1980) hmitation on participation by late-Ghng interested municipahty; LBP 83 l),17 NRC 470 (1983) Pacinc Gas and Elecinc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-644,13 NRC 903,930-31 (1981) dennation of surface nave magnitude; ALAB-717,17 NRC 361 (1983) Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. (Drablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), AL AB-644,13 NRC 903,937 (1981; acceptabihty of methods and solutions different from those in regulatory guias; LBP 83 22,17 NRC 616 (1983) function of regulatory guides ALAB-729,17 NRC 876 (1983) Pacinc Gas and Flectnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 n.99 (1983) dilTiculties in formulatmg arguments for or against proposed water level indicator, ALAB-729,17 NRC 891 (1983) Pacific Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-728,17 NRC 777,801,803-04 (1983) right of interested government agency participating as full party to raise new issues; LBP-83-30, 17 NRC 1839 (1983) Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-728.17 NRC 777,806 08 (1983) reason for appellate sua sponte review of record. ALAB-729,17 NRC 889 (1983) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-728,17 NRC 777,807 (1983) waiver ofissue through failure to bnefit; ALAB-732,17 NRC till (1983) Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI 815,13 NRC 361, 364-65 (1981) justiGcation for reopening a record, ALAB-730,17 NRC 1065 (1983); LBP 83-30,17 NRC 1836 (1983); LBP-83 30,17 NRC 1836 (1983) Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Ptar:t, Umts I and 2), CLI-81-6,13 NRC 443, 446 (1981) use of 2.206 procedures to avoid proper forum; DD-83-5,17 NRC 523 (1983) l Pacific Gas and Electric Co IDiablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 21, CI l-8122,14 NRC 598 (1981); LBP-8121,14 NRC 107 (1981) materiahty of 10 CFR 50 47(c)(1) where a required plan does not esist; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 626 (1983) Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-82 39,16 NRC 1715 (1982) M[N standard for reopenmg the record on new issue; LBP-83-30,17 NRC 1136 (1983) M m-Ng l Yb f i, ~ i

\\ r G LEGAL CITATIONSr INDEX CASES

4. j y,'

Pacifs Gas and Ehctric Co. v. State Energy Resources,489 F.Supp. 699 (1980); Pacific Legal M' h,h Foundation v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission,659 F.2d 903 (1981) g h;y constitutionality of Cahfornia r,uclear laws; LBP-83-2,17 NRC 48 (1983) , yy Pacife Legal Foundation v. State Encrgy Resources Conservation and Development Commission,659 F.2d 903 (9th Cir.1981), cert. demed. 000 U.S 000,102 S. Ct. 2959, aCrmed in Pacific Gas and Electre Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission,000 U.S. 000, No 81-1945 ( Apnl 20,1983) interpretation of Atomic Energy Act as congressionalintent to preempt field of nuclear hcensms and regalation, LBP 83-22,17 NRC 638 (1983) Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam E!cetric Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317,323 (1980). showing r cessary for subpoena of NRC Staff witness; ALAB-715,17 NRC 104-05 (1983) Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-61), 12 NRC 317,3?,4 (1980) fundamental purposes of discovery; LBP-83-9,17 NRC 435 (1983) Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Station, Units J and 2), AL AB413, 12 NRC 317,338,340 (1980) burden on intervenor with respect to its own contentions; LBP-83-20A,17 NRC 589 (1983) i Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electnc Station, Units I and 2), ALAB+?A 16 NRC 952,955-56 & ti.6 (l982) excepuons to Board findings; ALAB-709,17 NkC 20 (1983) Pennsylvama v. Nelsnn,350 U.S. 497,501504 (1956) basis for preclusion of dual federal and state regulation; LBP-83 22.17 NRC 638 (1983) Pennzoil Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,645 F.2d 360,383 (5th Car ), cert. demed, 454 U.S.1142 (1981) standards for interpretmg regulations; LBP 83-22,17 NRC 642 (1983) Permian Basm Area Rate Cases 390 U.S. 747,784-87 (1%8) need for excepdons or exemptions to regulations; CL1-83-1,17 NRC 12 (1983) P. m v. Umted States,444 U.S. E,42-45 (1979) defmition of the term "existat circumstances, CL183-1,17 NRC 3 (1983) Petition Concerning Fmancial Qualifwations of Nuclear Power Plant Lxensees, DD-81-23,14 NRC 1807, 1810 11 (1981) instituhon of proceedmss on assues that are the subject of rulemaking; DD-83 3,17 NRC 329 (1983) Peution fos Emergency and Remedial Acuon, CLI-78-6,7 NRC 400,406-07 (1978) function of general design entena; ALAB-725,17 NRC 567 (1983); ALAB 728,17 NRC 511 (1983) Pettuon for Shutdown of Certain Reactors, CLI-73-31,6 AEC 1069,1070-71 (1973) basis for Licensing Board amessment of saiety of a plant; ALAB 729,17 NRC 828 (1983) Petinons for Emergency and Remedial Acteon, CLI-784,7 NRC 400 (1978); CLI 80-21,11 NRC 707 (1980) Crmmission respor'se to pennon seekins environmental quahricanon of electrical components at all ruclear power plants; ALAB-729,17 NRC 892 (1983) Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Fulton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-657,14 NRC %7 (1981) filmss required of parties regarding apphcant's motion to withdraw, LBP-83 2,17 NRC 49 (1983) Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stanon, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB 566,10 NRC 527, 530 (1979) ) responsibihty of participant in NRC proceedmg to manipulate its resources to meet its i obligations; ALAB 719,17 NRC 394 (1983) Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-701,16 NRC 1517, 1524-25 (1982) quahficanons of expert witness in appraisal of radiation health nsks; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1092 (1983) F-l.aa.;. . yy 7 3 r 1 i l t

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES

• l Polk County v. Dodson,454 U.S. 312,323 n.14 (1981) l interpretation of the term " dilatory" in contcal of licensee's construction delays; ALAB-721,17 NRC 552 (1983)

Porter County Chapter of the Isaak Walton League v. AEC,533 F.2d 1011,1014 (7th Cir.), cert. J denied 429 U.S. 858 (1976) sw 4 guidance fcile=ed by NRC Staffin preparms environmentalimpacy statements; ALAB 728,17 NRC 7% (1983) Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB 531,9 NRC 263 (1979) requirement for analysis of need for transshipment of spent fuel LBP-83 8B,17 NRC 293 (1983) Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generatmg Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79,85 (1974) htigabihty of contentions that are the subject of rulemaking; ALAB-729,17 NRC 889 (1983) Preservation Coahtion, Inc. v. Pierce,667 F.2d 851,858 59 (9tt: Cir.1982) compliance with NEPA not precluded by compliance with National Historic Preservation Act; LBP 83-II,17 NRC 435 (1983) Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant). ALAB 354,4 NRC 383 (1976) summary of entensne prehearing activities; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 163 (1983) Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354,4 NRC 383,392 93 (1976) right of interested state to pursue issues which it did not elect to htigate as a full party; i LBP 83-9,17 NRC 407 (1983) rights of interected governmental agency participating as ful! party; LBP-83-30,17 NRC 1139 (1983) Project Management Corp. (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant), LBP 76-31,4 NRC 153 (1976), alTd, ALAB-354,4 NRC 383 (1976) basis for denial ofinterested :nunicipahiy's petmon to intervene; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 163 (1983) Providence Journal v. F.B.I.,595 F.2d 489 (1st Cir.1979) justification for grant of stay pendmg appeal; CLI-83-6,17 NRC 334 (1983) Pubhc Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Statsor,, Units I and 2), ALAB-316,3 NRC 167,171 (1976) Licensing Board jurisdiction over parts of steam generator which apphcant is hcensed to operate; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 119 (1983) Pubhc Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generstmg Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-374,5 NRC 417,421 (1977) application of federal rules and practices to NRC proceedings; LBP 8317,17 NRC 497 (1983); LBP-83 27A,17 NRC 978 (1983) Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-405,5 NRC 1190,1192 (1977) cause for denial of summary disposition motion; ALAB 731,17 NRC 1075 (1983) } Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-437,6 NRC 630,631,632 (1977) criterit apphed in determining whether a stay should be granted, ALAB-721,17 NRC 543 (1983) Pubhc Service Co. ofIndana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-459,7 NRC 179,188 (1978) t reason for reversal of Licensing Board denial of request for schedule change; ALAB-719,17 NRC 391 (1983) t Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Me*ble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-459,7 NRC 179,202 (1978) i rationale for Board refusal to consider request of party not adversely afTected by its decision; LBP-83-15,17 NRC 477 (1983) ( Pubhc Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units I and 2), ALAB-461,7 NRC 313,315 (1978) appe!! ate disposition of unbriefed issues; ALAB-719,17 NRC 395 (1983) Public Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-461,7 NRC 313,316 (1978) discretion of Licensing Board to hmit cross-examination; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1096 (1983) p s}3 -w kN, . 'h f i l I i.

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX O CASES. Puble Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hdi Nuclear Generating Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB-530,9 fh, NRC 261 (1979) issues which may be lef) for post-hearing resolution by the Staff, LILP-83 30 17 NRC 1l52 (1983, wM N Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hdi Nuclear Generating Station, Umts I and 2), DD 7910,10 NRC 129,130 n.2 (1979) gf4 fj p power of office director to order aajudgatory board to consider perticular issues, DD-83-5,17 NRC 523 (1983) Public Serswe Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umts I and 2), DD 79 21,10 NRC 717,720 (1979) circumstances warranting an ofFce directes's consideration ofissues within the scope of operating license review; DD-83-5,17 NRC 523 1983) Pubic Service Co. of New Hampshire iSeabrook Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB-271,1 NRC 478, 482 83 (1973) l fihngs made by Sta(T due to uncertamty of appealabihty of order; ALAB-714,17 NRC 88 (1983)! { Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB-422,6 NRC 33,41 (1977), ard, CLI 78 l,7 NRC I (1978) { need for Licensing Board to detail bases for its actions; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1087 (1983) Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB-422,6 NRC 33,42 (1977) error in Licensing Board's reasoning as grounds for reversal; ALAB 728,17 NRC 802 (19831 Pubhc Servce Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), AL AB-422,6 NRC 33, ( 82-84 (1977),aTd sub nom. Pubhc Service Co. v. NRC,582 F.2d 77 (1st Cir. l978) Commission authority to impose license conditions to mmimac impacts, even in case of i favorabic cost-benefit balance; LBP-83 ll,17 NRC 419 (198D Public Service Co. of New H:mp:hsre (Seabrook Station Umts I and 2), ALAB-513,8 NRC 694 ( 695 % (1978) f Appeal Board jurisdiction to reopen record on matters to which appellate process is complete; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 684 (1983) Pubhc Servre Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), CLI-77-8,5 NRC 503,522 (1977) i time for considering need for power and stiernative energy sources; LBP-83 27A,17 NRC 971 h ( (1983) Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Station Umts I and 2), CLI 77 25,6 NRC 535 ) { (1977) } standards applied to participation by an interested state; LBP-83-26,17 NRC 947 (1983) Pubhc Seruce Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), CLl 77-27,6 NRC 715,716 (1977) } most critical elemest in determinmg whether to grant a stay; ALAB 716,17 NRC 342 (1983); j ALAB-721,17 NRC 543 (1983) j Pubhc Servre Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLI 78-1,7 NRC l. 25,26 27, aTd sub nom. New England Coahtion on Nuclear Po: s Iution v. NRC,582 F.2d 87 (Ist Cir.1978) Licensing Board jurisdiction to consider noise impacts of supplementary coohng water system; t i LBP 83 il,17 NRC 419 (1983) l g Public Servre Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), LBP-8317,17 NRC 490 (1983) 4 apphcabihty of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to NRC proceedmss, LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 977 (1983) l { Pubic Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-505,8 NRC 527,530 { (1978) f j type of evidence necessary to justify a stay request; AL AB-721,17 NRC 544 (1983) ) i Public Servre Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generstmg Station Umt I), ALAB-650 I4 NRC } 43,49-50 (l980, aTd sob nom. Township of Lower Alloways Creek v. Pubhc Scruce Electnc & l Gas Co.,687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir.1982) disposition of enceptions not fully bnefed ALAB-709,17 NRC 20 (1983); ALAB 732,17 NRC 1083 (1983) i V*NkM... NM ,q I %W f f

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX O CASES W ~ r' Pubhc Service Electne and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umts I and 2), DD-8019,11 NRC 625,627 28 (1980) institution of proceedings on issues that are the subject of rulemakms; DD-83 3,17 NRC 329 p, (1983) a ,M Puerto Rico Electne Power Authority (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Umt 1), ALAB-662,14 NRC 1125 (1981) fihngs required of parties regarding applicant's motion to withdraw; LBP-83-2,17 NRC 4911983) Pugei Sound Power and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), CL1-80-34,12 NRC 407 (1980) effect on other portions of a decision of granting of motion to termmate appellate jurisdiction; ALAB-72),17 NRC 558 (1983) Radiation Technology, Inc., AL AB 567,10 NRC 533,5 >6, (1979) role of admimstrative law judge in cml pen % proceedmg; AL3-83-2.17 NRC 705 (1983) Rekeweg v. Federal Mutual Insurance Co, 2 7 F R D. 431 (N.D. Ind.1961) burden for estabhshing pnvilege asserted by party objectmg to discovery request; LBP 83-17,17 NRC 495 (1983) Repubhcan State Central Committee v. Ripon Society Inc.,409 U.S.1222 (1972) (Relpquist, J., m chambers) justincation for grant of stay pendmg appeal, CLI-834,17 NRC 334 (1983) Rochester Gas and Electnc Corp (Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit No.1), ALAB 502,8 NRC 383,393 n.21 (1978) Licensing Board consideration of mot.an for 6tanGcation by party not adversely affected by Board decision; LBP-8315,17 NRC 477 (1983) Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. (Sterhns Power Project, Nuclear Umi No.1), ALAB 507,8 NRC 551, 556 (1978) most crucial factor considered in passing on stay application; ALAB 716,17 NRC 342 (1983) Rochester Gas and Electnc Corp. (Sterhng Power Project, Nuclear Unit No.1), ALAB-596, il NRC 867 (1980) cause for vacation of partial initial decision authonzing issuance of construction permit, ALAB-723,17 NRC 556 (1983) Rockland County v. NRC,709 F.2d 760, n 13 (2d Cir.1983) number of opportunities for hcensee to brms itselfinto comphance with emergency planning i rules; CLI-8316,17 NRC 1014 (1983) Roviaro v. United States,353 U.S. 53,59 (1957) deGnition ofinformer's pnvilege; AL AB-714,17 NRC 91 (1983) Roviaro v. United States,353 U.S. 53,6041 (1957) waiver ofinformer's privilege; CLI 83-18,17 NRC 1039 (1983) Sacramento Mumcipal Utahiy Distnct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station) ALAB455,14 l NRC 799,803 (1981) Appeal Board sua sponte review where no eaceptions are Gled, LBP-83 25,17 NRC 687-88 (1983) Sacramento Municipal Utihty Distnct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB455,14 i i NRC 799,808 (1931) l deGnition of the term " safety-grade"; ALAB-729,17 NRC 874 (1983) Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery,318 U.S. 80,88 (1942) error in Licensms Board's reasoning as grounds for reversal, ALAB-728,17 NRC 802 (1983) Sholly v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 651 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir.1980), sacated and remanded,51 } U.S L W. 3610 (U.S. Feb. 22,1983) { contmuation of apphcant's construction permit authonty pendmg disposition of extension request; ALAB-722,17 NRC 549 (1983) South Carohna Electric & Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Umt 1), AL AB-694,16 NRC 958,961 & n.9 (1982), ALAB-710,17 NRC 25,26 n.3 (1983) jurisdiction to rule on motion to reopen where no exceptions have been filed and Appeal Board has not completed sua sponte review; ALAB-726,17 NRC 758 (1983) 68

i LEGAL CITATIONS 4NDEX CASES South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nucleas Station, Urut I), AL AB442,13 N1(C 881,895-96 (1981), amrmed sub nom. Fairfield United Action v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 679 F.2d 261 (D C. Cir.1982) Mg. k findmgs necessary for issuance of operating hcenw; ALAB-722,17 NRC 553 (1983) Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofrt Nuclear Generatmg Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-248, p 8 AEC 957,962-63 (1974) workability of plan for public evacuation in direction of nuclear reactor; ALAB-730,17 NRC 1072 (1983) Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 2), ALAB-308, 3 NRC 20,28 n.9 (1976) consideration of radiation doses to public from transshipment of spent fuels; LBP-83 8B,17 NRC 295 (1983) Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB473, 15 NRC 688,698, amrmed, CLI-82 II,15 NRC 1383 (1982) hmr. don on score of cross-examination; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1096 (1983) Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB480, 16 NRC 127 (1982) criteria apphed in determining whether a stay should be granted, ALAB-721,17 NRC 543 (1983) Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 33, ALAfe480, 16 NRC 127,13132 (1982) delay of notification of pubhc during radiological emergency; ALAB-727,17 NRC 771 (1983) Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-717, 17 NRC 346,36548 (1983) Board reluctance to rely on Staff testimony concerning consultant's report on heat removal capability of boiler condenser mode; ALAB-729,17 NRC. 845 (1983) Southern California Edison Co. (San Oncfre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-717, 17 NRC 346,380 (1983) basis for hcensmg decisions on emergency preparedness; ALAB-730,17 NRC 1066 (1983) Southern Cahfornia Edisr a Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-717, 17 NRC 346,380 n. 57 (1983) degree of development required of emergency plan prior to issuance of operstmg hcense; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1104 (1983) form of emergency response plans at time operating license application is noticed for hearing; ALAB-727,17 NRC 770 (1983) Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-81-33, 14 NRC 1091 (1981) need to consider the complicating efTects of an earthquake on emergency planning; ALAB-728, 17 NRC 792 (1983) Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Umts 2 and 3), CLt-8214, 16 NRC 24 (1982); ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983); ALAB480,16 NRC 127 (1982); LBP-82-39, 15 NRC 1863 (1982); L BP-82-3,15 NRC 61 (1982) materiahty of 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1) where a required plan does not exist; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 626 (1983) i Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLi-82-27, i 16 NRC 883 (1982) Commission authonty to review a decision; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 613 (1983) Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, i 17 NRC 528,535 (1983) i Commission interpretation of 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(12); ALAB-728,17 NRC 792 (1983) Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Uniu 2 and 3), LBP-82-46, 15 NRC 1531,1535-36 (1982) issues which may be left for post hearing resolution by the 5:aff; LBP-83-30,17 NRC 1152 (1983) Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedmss, CL1-81-8,13 NRC 452 (1981) factors to be considered in selecting a sanction ALAB-719,17 NRC 392 (1983) Fe,m{l justification for request that parties file cross examination plans with the Board, LBP-83-28,17 i M: NRC 989 (1983) 'j l l 69

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES u:+r J sarction for failure to comply with Boa'd order compelling answers to interrogatories, 1 301 LBP-83-20A,17 NRC Sf 8,590 (1983) f 5 f' Statement of Pohey en Cer. duct of Licensing Proceedingt. CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,453 (1981) aspects of schedulms geverned by; LM-83-SA,17 NRC 2S6 (1983) u Statement of Polsy on Conduct of Licensms Proceedings, CLl-81-3,13 NRC 452,454 (1981) effect c/ personal obhgations or lack of resources on party's hearing obligations; CL1-8319,17 NRC 1048 (1983) guidace on imposition of sanctions for party's failure to comply with discovery order; LBP-83 29A,17 NRC ll22 (1983) Statement of Policy on Condet of Licensing Proceedmss, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,455 (1981) fundamental purposes of discovery; LBP 83 9,17 NRC 405 (1983) l Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedmss, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 4f 2,456 (1981) certification of polty question concerning issuance of low-power license in hght of County's refusal to partsipate in offsite emergency planning; LBP 83 21,17 NRC 597 (1983) merit of referring cost savings contention to the Appeal Board; LBP-83 27A,17 NRC 976 (1983) Tennessee Valley Authonty (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB477,15 NRC 1387 (1982) safeguard against taas in NRC leensing proceedmas; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1091 (1983) Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A,18 and 28), ALAB-409,5 NRC 1391, 1395 (1977) responsibihties of counsel concerning gouted material in its briefs; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 633 (1983) Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A,18 and 2B) ALAB-418,6 NRC 1, 2 (1977) scope of motions for reconsideration; LBP 83-25,17 NRC 686 (1973) Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A, IB, and 28), ALAB-463,7 NRC 345,348 (1978) consideration of arguments raised for first time on appeal; ALAB-709,17 NRC 22 (1983) Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant Units I A,2A, IB, and 2B). ALAB-463,7 f*RC 341,356 (1978) intervenor's right to cross examination; ALAB 732,17 NRC 1096 (1983) Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Units I A,2A, IB, and 2B), ALAB-467,7 NRC 459,463 (1978) Appeal Board disinclination to render advisory opinions; ALAB-714,17 NRC 93 (1983) Tennessee Valley Authosity (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-515,8 NRC 702, 715 (1978) Licensing Board jurisdiction to consider noise impLets of supplementary coohng water systttm; LBP-83-II,17 NRC 419 (1983) Texas Utilities Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-599, 12 NRC I,2 (1980) interlocutory appeals of denials of intervention petitions; ALAB-712,17 NRC 82 (1983) Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-157,6 AEC 858 (1973) Licensmg Board consideration of motion for clarification by party not adversely alTected by Board decision; LBP-83-15,17 NRC 477 (1983) ( Toledo Edison Co. (Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-300,2 NRC 752,758 (1975) appeatability of order terminatmg a party's right to participate; LBP-83-20A,17 NRC 591 (1983) appealabihty of partialirutsal dreision; ALAd-73I,17 NRC 1074 (1983); LBP 83-20,17 NRC 583 (1983); LBP-83 25,17 NRC 685 (1983); LBP-83-30,17 NRC 1837 (1983) Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Iower Station), ALAB-300,2 NRC 752,760 (1975) use of analogous Federal Rules in interpretmg NRC yGes; LBP-8317,17 NRC 495 (1983) Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Umt I). ALAB-297,2 NRC 727,729 (1975) reason for affordmg Licensing Bwd an opportunity to decide a question for wNch certification is l sought; LBP-33-21,17 NRC 5% (1983) F%y y,- 6 VIO WLQM .Wh F h, ~.. o 7s f i

y i ? LEGAL CITAJIONS INDEX O CASES Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units I,2 and 3) ' C @p (1977) , ALAB-430,6 NRC 457

n denial of attempt to enlarge the record on appeal through Siing of suppleme g "'fl.

CLI 8314,17 NRC 747 (1983) .aa avit; Trustets of Columbia Unhersity,4 AEC 349,353 (1970) TVA v. Hill,437 U.S.153,184, n.29 (1978)need for research reactor to prote ..5 '"- construction oflanguage of an act; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 629 (1983) I Union Electnc Co. (Callaway Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 527 9 NRC 126 1 reason for informer's pnvilege in NRC proceedmss. ALAB-714,17 NRC 92 (1983 United Mme Workers v. Kleppe,56l F.2d 1258,1263 (7th Cir 1977) prcedural requirements which are reasonable; CLI-8319,17 NRC 1047 (1983) Umsed States Department of Energy (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) (1982) RC 362 United States Energy Research and Development Administr Plant), CLI 76-13,4 NRC 67 (1976) eeder Reactor summary of extensne prehearing activities, LBP 83 8,17 NRC 163 (1983) United States Energy Research and Development Admmistration (Cimch River if i Plant), CLI-7613,4 NRC 67,92 (1976) reeder Reactor principles for review and consideratioe of alternatives to Clinch River site; LB i 224 (1983) , NRC 4 United States v Ar.egleny-Lud!um Steel Corp.,406 U.S. 742,755 (1972) United States v. Benford,457 F Supp 589 (E.D. Mich.1978)need for e waiver ofinformer's pnvilege; CLI-83-18,17 NRC 1039 (1983) Unned States v. Fruchauf,365 U.S.146,157, reh's demed,365 U S 875 (1961) } reason for Appeal Board dismctmation to render advisory opmions; AL AB 714 '1983) Umted States v. Lanonoff,43I U.S. 864,872-873 (1977) I United States v. Munsmswear,340 U.S. 36,39-41 (1950) standards for in effect on appellate jurisdiction of vacating imtial decision authorizmg issua permit; AL AB-723, !? NRC 557 (1983) c on Vermons Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. IVermont Yankee Nuclear Power St ti g 358,365 and n.10 (1973) a on), 4 LAB-124,6 AEC Venont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nucle 3 5M,523 (1973) on), ALAB-138,6 AEC I application of reopening factor of new matenal's effect on outcome of a licensm LBP-83-30,17 NRC II4I (1983) action; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear P 809, 811 (1974) f ower Station), CLI-74-40,8 AEC Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear g 809, 813 (1974) wer Station), CLI-74-40,8 AEC Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nucle 913, 914 (1980) a ion), DD 80-20,11 NRC institution of proceedings on issues that are the subject of rulem ki i j (1983) a ng, DD 83-3,17 NRC 329 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC,435 U.S 519 553 54 (1978) I sanction, for failure of party to file required findmss of fact, ALAB-709 17 NRC V.q-t ): x, Rl. t

QM N

$ 3 MN 71 {

O LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES ' 79.&4 { su Virgima Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nucitar Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-146,6 AEC 631,634 (1973) estabhshment of standing through proximity; CL1-83-15,17 NRC 1005 (1983) l Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-491,8 NRC 245 (1978) basis for Licensing Board assessment of safety of a plant; ALAB-729,17 NRC 828 (1983) Board responsibdity to review the record for unresolved safety issues; ALAB 732,17 NRC !!!0 (1983) need for NRC Staff to address decay heat removalin Safety Evaluauon Report; ALAB-728,17 NRC 806 (1983) Virgmia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stanon, Unsts 1 and 2), ALAB-491,8 NRC 245,247-48 (1976) reason for appellate sua sponte review of record, ALAB-729,17 NRC 889 (1983) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-551,9 NRC 704,707 (1979) basis for Appeal Board jurisdiction to entertain new rr.aiters after final de:.sion has b'een made; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 684 (1983) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-551,9 NRC 704,710 (1979) criteria for Board notifications; ALAB 732,17 f:RC 1814 (1983) Virginia Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), CLI-76-22,4 NRC 480, 491 (1976), af!'d sub nom. Virgmia Electric and Poact Co. v. NRC,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) type of matter that should be raised for explorsuon and resoluuon in the adjudicatory content; ALAB-715,17 NRC 105 (1983) Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Federal Power Commission,259 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir.1958) criteria apphed in determining whether a stay r#ould be granted, ALAB-721,17 NRC 543 (19831 WAIT Radio v. FCC,418 F.2d 1153,1159 (D.C. Cir.1%9) need for exceptior.2 to or exemptions from regulations; CL1-83-1,17 NRC 12 (1983) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Comm'n v Holiday Tours Inc.,559 F.2d 84I (D.C. Cir.1977) criteria applied in determining whether a stay should be granted; ALAB-721,17 NRC 543 (1983) Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (Hanford No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant) ALAB-II),6 AEC 251, 252 (1973) cases appropriate for post-hearing resolution ofissues; ALAB-732,17 NRC 11C3 (1983) Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-571,10 NRC 687, 699 (1979) Appeal Board sua sponte review where no exceptions are filed, LBP 83 25,17 NRC 687 (1983) Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Froject Nos. 3 and 5), CL177-II,5 NRC 719 (1977) reason for rejection of request for exemption under 10 CFR 50.12; CLi-831,17 NRC 5 (1983) Washington Pubhc Power Suppiy System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and 5), CL1-77-II,5 NRC 719, 72) (1977) characterization of circumstances warranting grant of construction pt.rmit exempuon; CLI-831, 17 NRC 2 (1983) Weinberger v. Rossi,456 U.S. 25,102 S. Ct.1510,71 L.Ed. 715,724 (1982) reliance on post hoc statements in interpreting Commission regulatsns, LBP-83-22,17 NRC 633 (1983) West Chicago v. NRC,701 F.2d 632 (7th Cir.1983) appropriateness of use of military functions caemption; CLI-83-12,17 NRC 736 (1983) Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Piant, Unit 1), ALAB-719,17 NRC 387,392 (1983) situation appropriate for dismissal of a party; LBP-83-20A,17 NRC 590 (1983) Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach buclear Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-78,5 AEC 319 (1972) admissibahty of ACRS reports as evidence; ALAB-717,17 NRC 367 (1983) W%f D ~> w[ } %;". [ 72 l ? i L

i 6 G LEG AL CITATIONS 1NDEX CASES A. ,f Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-36,5 AEC 376,377-78 (l972) , jy;J:g, effect of Licensing Board's retention of issues on its jurisdiction over motion to reopen; ,Ggff; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 684 (1983)

3. vfw.

WSTE.TV, Inc. v. FCC, 566 F.2d 333, 337 (D.C. Cir.1977) consideration of public interest in NRC procedural rules; CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1048 (1983) X-Ray Engineering Co., CLi-60-11,1 AEC 553 (1960) appropriateness of civil penalty imposed for loss of radiography device; ALJ-83-2,17 NRC 699 (1983) Zavala Santiago v. Gonzalez Rivera,553 F.2d 7IO,712-13 (1st Cir.1977) justification for Board dismissal of intervenor; ALAB-719,17 NRC 394 (1983) 4 a a g-.,x, I= f '! c,Wt?:

t. 4 -

' **aa l i i l l + i I i l l l

) i + e n" M 5 _aee .3 r s S I; i r i i t i 4 i -;u;(N N ,h.,!;3tl: i e M, y .x,o,. 4., r Y

I F f-

n..

s .i*[4 c :65 SW1 get yyi LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX C's N REGULATIONS 10 CFR 2 classification of violation involving loss of radiography device; AU 83-2,17 NRC 698 (1983) 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 penrat application; LBP-83-2,17 NRC 48 (1983) [ 10 CFR 2.102 admissibility of ACRS reports as evidence; ALAB 717,17 NRC 367 (1983) 10 CFR 2.104 j issuance of notice of hearing on special nuclear materials license renewal; LBP-8319,17 NRC 575 (1983) ) 10 CFR 2.IO4(a) lack of good cause for Board to grant discretionary heanns on materials teensing action; CLI-83-15, 17 NRC iOO2 (1983) 10 CFR 2.104(c) i necessity of hearing on special nuclear materals imense renewal; LBP-83-19,17 NRC 575 (1983) 10 CFR 2.105 issuance of notice of hearing on special nuclear materials liceme renewal; LBP-83-19,17 NRC 575 (1983) i 10 CFR 2.105(a) 4 appi;cability of, to special nuclear materials teense renewal proceeding. LBP-83-19,17 NRC 575 (1983) 10 CFR 2.105(a)(6) lack of good cause for Board to grant discretionary hearing on materials licensms action, CLI 83-15, i 17 NRC 1002 (1983) 10 CFR 2.107 monitonng of remedial actions imposed by order granting withdrawal of construction permit y application; LBP-83-10,17 NRC 412 (1983)' f 10 CFR 2.107(a) jurisdiction over issues after notice of hearing has been issued; LBP-83-2,17 NRC 48-49 (19837 withdrawal of construction permit application without prejudice; LBP 83-7,17 NRC 157 (1983) i l 10 CFR 2.109 i continuation of applicant's construction permit authority pending disposition of extensson request; j ALAB-722,17 NRC 549 (1983) I 10 CFR 2.200-2.206 i forum for enforcement action for emergency planning derriencies; CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1009 (1983) ( 10 CFR 2.201 l action taken on Security LevelIV violations; DD-83-8,17 NRC 1185 (1983) ~ [ 10 CFR 2.202 i NRC Staff authority to issue show cause order for emergency p:anning deficiencies; CLI-83-16,17 j NRC 1009 (1983) 10 CFR 2.203 authority for approval of compromise of civil penalty; ALJ-831,17 NRC 314 (1983) i 10 CFR 2.205 F.;m.l.,f-y issuance of Notre of Violation for receipt of radioactive materials from unauthorized supplier; l 27 ALJ-83-1,17 NRC 313 (1983) h#@$, d i. a. ,bYh'x .s a ypa ) 75 g 4

l l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS l l aws k Y k*, 10 CFR 2.20$(d) and (e) g'u burden of proof in civil peney proceedmg; ALJ-83-2,17 NRC 706 (1983) y;.tf. 10 CFR 2.205(0 procedures for assessing civil penalty for loss of radiography s' mce; AL3-83-2,17 NRC 693 (1983) responsibility for final determmations in civil penalty proceedmb, AL3-83-2,17 NRC 706 (1983) 10 CFR 2.206 denial of County petition requesting suspension of operations at Indian Pomt untd health, safety and welfare of Rockla id County citizens can be assured; DD-8310,17 NRC 1191 (1983) denial of petition for show cause order to restrain Scensee from restarting facility prior to resolution of reactor circuit-trip breaker failures issue; DD-83-6,17 NRC 713 (1983) denial of petition for suspension of construction on basis of alleged design deficieneses; DD-83 5,17 NRC 519 (1983) denial of petition requesting regulatory action because of nsk to Zion facihty from pressurized thermal shock; DD-83-4,17 NRC 513 (1983) denial of petition requesting revocation or suspension of operating license because of alleged misrepresentations by licensee; DD-83-9,17 NRC 1187 (1983) denial of petition requesting suspension of operauons on basis of alleged drug and alcohol abuse; DD-83-8,17 NRC 1183 (1983) 6 denial of petition requestmg suspension of operations pendmg fmancial qualiGcations review; DD-83 3,17 NRC 328 (1983) denial of petitions for show cause proceedings based on alleged construction deficiencies; DD-831, 17 NRC 319 (1983) denial of request that no additional fuel be stored in spent fuel pool pending resolution of thermal / structural adequacy issue; DD-83-7,17 NRC 997 (1983) exoneration of applicsnt of mhepresentation charge; LBP-83-31,17 NRC i162 (1983) forum for addressing defects revealed by emergency exercises; ALAB 732,17 NRC 1108 (1983) forum for expressing concerns about instrumentation installed at TMI, ALAB-729,17 NRC 891 (1983) forum for seeking hearing regarding NRC Staff report on a specific plant; ALAB-729,17 NRC 892 (1983) means for general public to request show cause orders; CLI 83-16,17 NRC 1009 (1983) petition requesting suspension of construction at Zimmer Station granted in part; DD-83-2,17 NRC 323 (1983) procedural history of emergency planning concerns at Indian Point; CLI.83 '.o,17 MRC 1015,1017 (1983) l treatment of petition to reopen record, citing incompleteness of emergency plan, as reo.ucs: under; f ALAB-730,17 NRC 1063,1065 (1983) l 10 CFR 2.206(c)(1) l context in which ex parte rule does not apply; CLI-83-4,17 NRC 79 (1983) 10 CFR 2.707 failure of party to comply with Board discovery order;I BP-83 29A,17 NRC 1822 (1983) sanctions for failure to file timely responses; LBP-83-t,17 NRC 154 (1983) 10 CFR 2.710 l extension of time for discovery by interested state; LBP-83-26,17 NRC 948 (1983) l factors considered in time period for filing motions for reconsideration; LBP-83-14,17 NRC 475 (1983) l 10 CFR 2.711 f Board authority to set schedule for amendment of petitions to intervene and contentions. LBP-83-19,17 NRC 578 (1983) l 10 CFR 2 711(a) I means to modify time limits for discovery; LBP-83-26,17 NRC 947 (1983) I 10 CFR 2.711(b) request that all parties submit estimates of time for cross-examination. LBP 83-28,17 NRC 989 (1983) 'SK,h. service oflate-filed contention through mail; ALAB-726,17 NRC 756 (1983) 10 CFR 2.712(d)(3) c. p j&gQ :n % :u ___' a i ?Q

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX l REGULATIONS &.fp gW 10 CFR 2.713(c) -{g{I D Licensing Board authority to impose sanctions on NRC Staff counsel; ALAB-714,17 NRC 91,99 h (1983) 6-0144 10 CFR 2.714 deadtmes for responses to new contentions filed after muaare of partial initial decision; LBP-8312, 17 NRC 468 (19838 right of a party to ofter direct testimony on contentions other than its own, LBP-83-9,17 NRC 406 (1983) time limits for amendment of petitions to intenene; LBP-83-19,17 NRC 578 (1983) 'O CFR 2 714(s) automatic satisfaction of criteria of, for late-filed contention, CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1043 (1983) Jemal of petition to intervene by interested municipality; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 162 (1983) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) criteria for admission of TM1-related contentions; ALAB-123,17 NRC 799 (1983) denial of late petition for intervention by interested state; LBP-83-32,17 NRC 1165 (1983) effect of application of all five factors of; CLt-83-19,17 NRC 1047 (1983) factors considered in admission of late-filed contentions; ALAB-728,17 NRC 800 (1983) justification for untimely cc.ntentions based of Staff's draft environmentalimpact statement; LBP-83-8A,17 NRC 284 (198N need for interested government agencies to satisfy standards for admittmg nontimely contentions, LBP-83 30,17 NRC 1839 (1983) persons who may file a petition to intervene; LBP 8316,17 NRC 483 (1983) staridard for reopening the record on new issue; LBP-83-30,17 NRC 1136 (1983) time requirement for films for participation as interested municipality; LBP-83-13,17 NRC 471 (1983) unlawful preclusion of hearing rights by rejection of contention for failms to satisfy one or more factors of, CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1044 (1983) weight given to good cause factor in ruling on admiss:bility of contention based on unavailable licensing related documents; CLI-83-18,17 NRC 1045 (1983) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i) weight to be given to good cause factor in determining admissibility oflate-filed contentions; CLI 83-19,17 NRC 1043,1044 (1983) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(v) s;gnificance of delay factor in determining whether to reopen the proceedmg LBP-83-30,1146 (1983) 10 CFR 2.714(a)(3) amendment of petition to intervene without consent of presidmg ofTicer; LBP-8316,17 NRC 481, 483 (1983) 10 CFR 2.714(b) amendment of petition to intervene without consent of presidmg officer; LBP-8316,17 NRC 481,

48) (1983)

Board deletion of first sentence of emergency planning contention for lack of specificity; AL AB 730, 17 NRC 1061 (1983) desdime for filing contentions; CLl-83-19,17 NRC 1048 (1983) dismissal of petition to intervene in operating lacense amendment proceedmg for failure to proffer one good contention; AL AB-719,17 NRC 389 (1983) failure of contention to meet specificity requirement; ALAB 719,17 NRC 394 (1983) i scope of contentions litigable in construction permit extension proceeding, ALAB-722,17 NRC 550 I (1983) 10 CFR 2.714(d) precedents governing standmg to intervene in materials licensms proceedms, CLI-8315,17 NRC 1003, 1004 (1983) 10 CFR 2.714a appellate review of Licensms Board disposition ofintervention petition, ALAB-713,17 NRC 84 j, %. MQ (1983) -., 87 yn 8 M' ^'** d,Q i 77 i

s k l 1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX G REGULATIONS I i ,.j interlocutory appeals of denials ofintervenuon petitions; ALAB-712,17 NRC 82 (1983) 1 <Aq right of appeal from interlocutory ruling by a Licensing Board; LBP-33-21,17 NRC 597 (1983) { %QNf( 10 CFR 2.714alb) ,,[l,(4 6 ; right of one intervenor to appeal the denial of another intervenor's contemion; ALAB-709,17 NRC b. 1* 22 (1983) OMb } 10 CFR 2.715(a) ^'di 8 failure of Licensing Board to address hmited appearance statements, ALAB 732,17 NRC 1087 (1983) j 10 CFR 2.715(c) circumstances constituting good cause for extension of time for discovery by interested state; LBP-83 26,17 NRC 947 (1983) limitation on participation by late-filing interested municipality; LBP-83-470 (1983) + need for interested government agencies to satisfy standards for admitting nontimely contentions. [ LBP 83 30,17 NRC 1839 (1983) i participation by withdrawing party as " interested municipality"; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 162 (1983) right of interested state to pursue issues which it did not elect to litigate as a full party; LBP-83-9, [ 17 NRC 407 (1983) { specificity required of re;*esentative ofinterested state regarding extent of participation; ALAB-728, I-17 NRC 785 (1983) time requirement for flims for participation as interested municipality; LBP-8313,17 NRC 471 (1983) 10 CFR 2.715a f consolidation nfintervenors; LBP 83-29A,17 NRC 1130 (1983) situations appropriate for consolidation ofintervenors; LBP-83 28,17 NRC 993 (1983) i 10 CFR 2.717(a) commencement and termination ofjurisdiction of a presidmg officer; LBP-83-20,17 NRC 582,583 i (1983) jurisdiction of Licensing Board to consider admissibility of new contentions following issuance of partial imtial decision; LBP-83-12,17 NRC 467 (1983) y termination of presidmg officer's jurisdiction; LBP-83 25,17 NRC 688 (1983) I 10 CFR 2.718 Board authonty to order interested state to select one entity to represent its interests; LBP 83-22,17 NRC 615 (1983) Board refusal to accept prefiled written testimony as evidence; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1088 (1983) f Licensms Board authority to set time periods for filing motions to reconsider; LBP-83-14,17 NRC 474 (1983) i t sanctions for failure to file timely responses; LBP-83-6,17 NRC 154 (1983) 10 CFR 2.718(a) ( Applicant directed not to reveal the names of employee informants to other employees; LBP-83-24A,17 NRC 677 (1983) 10 CFR 2.718(e) request that all parties submit estimates of time for cross-casmination; LBP-83-28,17 NRC 989 (1983) } 10 CFR 2.718(i) t certification of policy question concerning issuance of low-power license in light of County's refusal to participate in offsete emergency planning. LBP-83 21,17 NRC 597 (1983) distincticn between certification and referral, LBP-83-28,17 NRC 989 (1983) filings made by 5taff due to uncertainty of appealability of order; ALAB-714,17 NRC 88 (1983) I need to involte directed certificatson authority; ALAB-731,17 NRC 1075 (1983) 10 CFR 2.7180) r Licensmg Board jurisdiction to entertain a motion to reopen the record served prior to its imtial decision; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 683 (1983) treatment of request for late filed contention and motion to reopen the record, ALAB-726,17 NRC H 757 (1983) tj."15 w L-( p 2L ( wp 3 7, ll F: r k 4) a a l'

G LEGAL CITATIONS 5NDEX REGULATIONS kWAd M4W; 10 CFR 2.720(h)(2)(i) jk;t;;,yQg tW definition of NRC personnel for discovery purposes; ALAB-715,17 NRC M5 (1983) showing necessary for sut,poena of NRC Staff titness; ALAB-715,17 h IC 104 (1%3) YM*g S 10 CFR 2.721 (1982) o '5 *W Licensing Board jurisdiction over operational impacts of supplementary cooling water system at Point Pleasant; LBP-8311,17 NRC 439 (1983) 10 CFR 2.722(A)(3) appointment of and weight given to report by Alternate Board Member; LBP-33 24,17 NRC 671 (1983) 10 CFR 2.730(f) distinction between certification and referral; LBP-83-28,17 NRC 989 (1983) referral of rusing on motion to terminate to Appeal Board; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 5% (1983) right of m; teal from interlocutory ruling by a Licensing Board; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 597 (1983) type of unusual expense contemplated by referral criteria of, LBP-83-28,17 NRC 995 (1983) 10 CFR 2.732 burden of proof on motions; LBP-83 29,17 NRC lil9 (1983) 10 CFR 2.740(b)(1) need for disclosure of identities of non-witness experts; LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 978 (1983) reason for liberal granting of discovery under; LBP-8317,17 NRC 494 (1983) 10 CFR 2.740(b)(2) material which falls within realm of attorney work product doctrine; LBP 83-17,17 NRC 495 (1983) materials constituting trial preparation materials for purposes of discovery; LBP-8317,17 NRC 493 (1983) protection against disclosure of content of advice from non-witness consultant; LBP-83-17,17 NRC 496 (1983) 10 CFR 2.740(c) reasons for issuance of protective orders; LBP-83-9,17 NRC 405 (1983) 10 CFR 2.740(c)(3) responsibility of intervenor to promptly supplement its interrogatory responses; LBP-83-29A,17 i NRC 1125 (1983) 10 CFR 2.740-2.744 rules governing discovery in NRC proceedings; LBP 83-9,17 NRC 405 (1983) 10 CFR 2.740b(b) need to respond to interrogatones under oath; LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 982 (1983) 10 CFR 2.743(c) evidence admissible in NRC proceedings; ALAB-717,17 NRC 366 (1983) 10 CFR 2.743(g) (1%2) admission of Final Safety Analysts Report into evidence; ALAB-717,17 NRC 368 (1983) 10 CFR 2.744(d) l applicability ofinformer's privilege in NRC proceedings; ALAB-714,17 NRC 91 (1983) 10 CFR 2.749 analogy between r% tion for termination of proceeding and summary disposition motion; CLI 8' 17 NRC 742 (1983) 10 CFR 2.749(a) deadline for filings opposing answers supporting motions for summary disposition; LBP-83-32A,17 NRC I172 (1983) interpretation of wording requiring filing of separate statement of material facts; LBP-83-3,17 NRC 61 (1983) i 10 CFR 2.749(b) content of rebuttal to properly supported motion for summary disposition; LBP-83-32A,17 NRC t 1174 (1983) 10 CFR 2.749(c) factors apphed in determining whether to reopen the record, LBP-83-30,17 NRC 1843 (1983) Fhfh1 } 10 CFR 2.749(d) .,l 2 disputes requiring rulings made as to their existence; LBP-83-24,17 NRC 667 (1983) TN@ Am 5 AS l k

l 9 I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX R EGULATIONS 10 CFR 2.751a g $If time penod apphcable to requests for reconsideration of order in the nature of special prehearing WM, conference order; LBP-8314,17 N:iC 474 (1983) 7*4, /d 10 CFR 2.751a(a)(1), (2) purpose of special prehearing conference; ALAB-719,17 NRC 392 (1983) 10 CFR 2.751a(d) authoriaation for responses to requests for r _ 'd--9n of rulings; LBP-83-8A,17 NRC 283 (1983) particularization required of obgetions to rulings on contentions; LBP-83 8A,17 NRC 283 (1983) time penWs for filing motions to reconsider Board orders; LBP-8314,17 NRC 474 (1983) 10 CFR 2.754 comparison with federal rule governing filing of proposed findings of fact; ALAB-709,17 NRC 21 (1983) distinction between permissive and mandatory filings of findings of fact; ALAB-709,17 NRC 22 (1983) necessity of filing proposed findings of fact; ALAB-717,17 NRC 371 (1983) 10 CFR 2.757(c) request that all parties submit estimates of time for cross-examination; LBP-83-28,17 NRC 989 (1983) 10 CFR 2.758 authority to revice regulations; LBP.83-19,17 NRC 576 (1983) justification for waiver of 10 CFR 50 44; ALAB-728,17 NRC 805 (1983) petition for waiver of Table S-4; LBP-83-8B,17 NRC 294 (1983) propriety of certifying question concermns applicaten of specific terms of a regulation; LBP-83-21, 17 NRC 603 (1983) rejection of intervenors' complamt about nonfinahty of implementmg procedures for emergency plans; ALAB-732,17 NRC I10708 (1983) reopening the record on safety concerns not addressed in NUREG-0730; ALAB-728,17 NRC 804 i (1983) showing necessary for waiver of regulations; LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 974 (1983) I 10 CFR 2.758(a), (b) procedural mechanism for waiver from or exception to regulations, ALAB-728,17 NRC 804 (1983) 10 CFR 2.758(b) showing to be made by party seeking exception from rule; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 601 (1983) 10 CFR 2.758(d) referral of Licensing Board ruling to Appeal Board; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 598 (1983) l 10 CFR 2.758(d) & n.7 certification of pohey question concerning issuance oflow power license in light of County's refusal to participate in offsite emergency plannmg; LBP 83-21,17 NRC 597 (1983) 10 CFR 2.760(a) j time limit on Appeal Board sua sponte review; ALAB-726,17 NRC 758 (1983) 10 CFR 2.760(c)(4) j test for determining appealabihty of a decision; LBP-83-20,17 NRC 58) (1983) 10 CFR 2.700: Licensing Board authonty to pursue uncontested safety issues; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 122 (1983) limitations on Licensing Board's sua sponte authonty; ALAB-732,17 NRC lil2 (1983) restrictions on issues to be considered by operating license boards. ALAB-709,17 NRC 22 (1983); ALAB-727,17 NRC 768 (1983) l scope of Board findmss in operating hcense proceedings; ALAB-728,17 NRC 807 (1983) i 10 CFR 2.762 test for determining appealabihty of a decision; LBP-83-20,17 NRC 583 (1983) 10 CFR 2.762(a) appeals ofinitial decisions; ALAB-712,17 NRC 82 (1983) f fihngs made try Staff due to uncertamty of appeatabihty of order; ALAB-714,17 NRC 88 (19f 3) _ ' %IM. ' junsdiction to rule on motion to reopen record prior to fihns of exceptions; ALAB-726,17 NRC 758 (1983) w;s a b Nf*h t s'm. p! s Oh, s-a o i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS .<*s. time hmit for filing eaceptions to order terminating a party's right to participata; LBP-83-20A,17 l ' f NRC 591 (1983) l 10 CFR 2.764 situation appropriate for appellate review of stay request; ALAB-721,17 NRC 543 (1983) m test for determining appealabihty of a decision; LBP-83-20,17 NRC 583 (1983) 10 CFR 2.764(b) Commission effectiveness review of Licensing Board decision authoriz.as resumption of operations; I ALAB 724,17 NRC 561 (1983) 10 CFR 2.764(e)(2)(ii) factors apphed in determining appropnateness of appellate revie'w of stay request; ALAB-721,17 NRC 543 (1983) 10 CFR 2.764(f) application of, to Staff decisions; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 601 (1983) effectiveness of Board decisions resolving contested issues in favor of issuance of full-power operating licenses for San Onofre; CLI-83-10,17 NRC 531 (1983) 10 CFR 2.764(g) effect of Commission immediate effectiveness review on Appeal Board decisions; ALAB-721,17 NRC 543 (1983) 10 CFR 2.770 time hmit on jurisdiction for purpose of reconsideration where Licensing Board has issued initial decision; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 685 (1983) 10 CFR 2.771 time period for filing motions to reconsider initial decisions; LBP-83-14,17 NRC 475 (19831 10 CFR 2.771(a) (1982) time hmat on jurisdiction for purpose of reconsideration where Licensing Board has issued initial decision; LPP-83-25,17 NRC 685 (1983) 10 CFR 2.780 preclusion of conversations among parties; AL 4B 717,17 NRC 378 (1983) sufficiency of patinon 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 en parte; CLI-83-5,17 NRC 331 (1983) 10 CFR 2.780(d) examples of generic discussions which are not considered ex parte; CLI-83-3,17 NRC 72 (1983) 10 CFR 2.780(f) referral of ruhng for interlocutory nview; CLI-83-13,17 NRC 742 (1983) 10 CFR 2.785 jurisdiction to rule on motion to reopen record prior to filing of exceptions; ALAB-726,17 NRC 758 (1983) time limit on jurisdiction for purpose of reconsideration where Licensing Board has issued initial decision; LBP 83-25,17 NRC 685 (1983) 10 CFR 2.785(b)(l) Appeal Board authority to perform achudicatory review functions of the Commission; LBP-83-21,17 t NRC 597 (1983) referral of ruling for interlocutory re /iew; CLI-8313,17 NRC 742 (1983) referral of ruling on motion to terminate to Appeal Board; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 5% (1983) 10 CFR 2.785(b)(2) Appeal Board authority to explore issues sua sponte; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1812 (1983) j discretion of Board to raise safety or environmental issues in operating hcense proceeding; ALAB-728,17 NRC 807 (1983) reason for appellate sua sponte review of record; ALAB-729,17 NRC 889 (1983) { i 10 CFR 2.785(d) Commission authority to review a decision; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 613 (1983) 10 CFR 2.786 F:g%' time limit on jurisdiction for purpose of reconsiderauon where Licensing Board has issued initial t q 1 d. decision; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 685 (1983) .Nm/@6.m i MY dE-p 81 t t

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 1 petition for Commission review of Board order requiring Staff d CLI-8318,17 NRC 1038 (1983) isclosure of its interviewees; 10 CFR 2.786fa) +Q % $@C standard for Commission sua sponte review of Appeal Board decision (1982); CLi-83-6,17 NRC 334 (1983) .17 NRC 70 { 10 CFR 2.786(b) W[. @N[" Staffimention to file petition for review of appellate decision ,* "M 334 (1983) 10 CFR 2.786(b)(2) with Commission. CLI-83 6,17 NRC specificity required of petition for review of decision; CLl-83-14 17 NRC 7 10 CFR 2.787(b) 4 (1983) authority of Appeal Panel Chairman to terminate appellate jurisd (1983) iction; ALAB-723,17 NRC $$8 jurisdiction for purpose of reconsideration where Licensing Bo rd h LBP-83-25.17 NRC 685 (1983) as issued initial decision. a 10 CFR 2.788 motion for stay of effectiveness pendmg Commission review; ALAB 71 10 CFR 2.788(a) C 342 (1982) 10 CFR 2.788(e) request for stay of effectiveness of decision pending further app eal; CLI 83-6,17 NRC 334 (1983) l criteria apphed in determining whether a stay should be granted; ALAB 7 factors warranting grant of stay pending appeal, CLI-83 6 17 NRC 33 - ,17 NRC 543 (1983) most crucial factor considered in passmg on stay apphcation ALAB 7 4 11983) 10 CFR 2.790fa)(7) - 66,17 NRC 342 (1983) appbcabshly ofinformer's privilege in NRC proceed ngs; ALAB 714 10 CFR 2.802 ,17 NRC 91 (1983) '( 10 CFR 2 App. A,1(c)(l) procedure for revisms Commission rules; LBP-8319 17 NRC i 83) 10 CFR 2. App. A, IV(c) Commission sanction of separate hearings and finahr j ons, LBP-83-20,17 NRC 582 (1983) } 10 CFR 2, App. A, Vib)(4)model for rules of practice ALAB-709,17 NRC 20 (1983) 10 CFR 2, App. A. VfDil), (2) purpose of limited appearance statements; ALAB- { 19831 10 CFR 2, App A V(O(2)Licensms Board rehance on ACRS conclusions; AL l 67 (1983) scope of findings to be made by adjudicatory board in constructi 17 NRC 806 (1983) 10 CFR 2. App. A. Vill on permit proceedmgs. Al AB-728, d scope ofissues considered in operating heense hearms; ALAB 727 17 N 10 CFR 2. App. C RC 768 (1983) pohcy on imposation of civil penalties; AL3-83-2 17 NRC 695 (1983) 10 CFR 9.103 means for addmg transcripts of Commission meetings and statements t CLi-83-16,17 NRC 1010 (1983) rehance, in NRC proceedings, on statements made in NRC o o the administratne record, (1983) 10 CFR 20 pen meetmgs; LBP-83 22,17 NRC 630 derivation of dose gui6elme values for organs ofimport project; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 196 (1983) ance to plutonium esposure for Chnch River 10 CFR 21.2 appbcabihty ofinformer's privilege in NRC proceedmss ALAB 714 17 10 CFR 32.72 -, NRC 91 (1983) imposition of civil penalty for receipt of radawactive materials f 17 NRC 314-16 (1983 scope of coverage over ra)dioactne materials, AL3 831 17 NRC 31 FW 1983) o p 4Af&g

Nu.

O 82 de %q i t

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS ' A h 10 CFR 34.2(b) / ~.g& kb.,4i definition of radiographer; ALJ-83-2,17 NRC 701 (1983) 10 CFR 34.23 loss of radiography device as violation of ALJ-83 2,17 NRC 693 (1983) physical security required for radiography devices; ALJ-83 2,17 NRC 696-97 (1983) 10 CFR 35.14 temporary authonty to receive radiopharmaceuticals; AL3-831,17 NRC 316 (1983) i 10 CFR 35.4I method for verification of authonty of suppher of radioactive matenais, ALJ 83-1,17 NRC 316 (1983) 10 CFR 40, App. A issues to be addressed in Commission's reassessment of mill taihngs regulaticns, CLI-8314,17 NRC 748 (1983) 10 CFR 50 !ack of witness famiharity with, LBP-83-27,17 NRC 959 (1983) method used to demonstrate comphance for small break loss of coolant accidents; ALAB-728,17 NRC 809 (1983) 10 CFR 50.10(c) I pre-construction permit activities not precluded by; CLI 83-1,17 NRC 6 (1983) prohibitions on site preparation actisities prior to issuance of construction permit; ALAB-721,17 NRC 542 (1983) 10 CFR 50.10(c) applicabihty of hmited work authorization procedures to fii.i-of-a kind reactors; LBP-83 8,17 NRC 254 (1983) Licensing Board authority to conduct separate heanngs and issue partial decision on issues related to limited work authorization; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 161 (1983) precedential weight of case decided prior to promulgation of regulaten estabhshing procedure for hmited work authorization; CLI-83-1,17 NRC 4 (1983) rulemaking history af; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 254 55 (1983) t 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) basis for issuing exemption under 10 CFR 50.12; CLI-83 I,17 NRC 5 (1983) i 10 CFR 5010(e)(1), (2) site preparation activities permitted prior to approval of construction permit application; ALAB 721, 17 NRC 542 (1983) l 10 CFR 50.10(e)(2) types of findings and determinations to be made by a Board in considering a limited work f authorization; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 167 (1983) 10 CFR 50.10(c)(3) pre-construction permit activities permitted by LWA 2; ALAB-721,17 NRC 542 (1983) 10 CFR 50.12 clanfication of NRC's findmss of extraordmary circumstances warranting grant of exemption pursuant to; CLl-83-1,17 NRC 2 (1983) good cause for requestmg rehef from NRC regulations; DD-83 7,17 NRC 999 (1983) 10 CFR 50.12(b) exemptions from prohibitions on pre-construction permit site preparation actmties; ALAB-721,17 NRC 542 (1983) 10 CFR 50.21,50.22 determination of type of hcense required for research reactor; LBP-83-24,17 NRC 668,670-71 (1983) 10 CFR 50.33(O means for state or localjunsdictions to restnct nuclear power plant operatv>ns; CLI-8316,17 NRC 1010 (1983) Fif f 10 CFR 50.33(f)(1) ) [ ehmination of need for financial quabfications review for electric utihtees; DD-83-3,17 NRC 328 ^ c3 M /,. - (1983)

1. m.

hfh

• s=1f; i

'q i 83 i k =.. -

m i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX O REGl;LATIONS 10 CFR 50.33(g) basis for Board decision that issuance of oper 'a' basis for determmms precise area for each type of emergency pl 765 (1983) anning zone; ALAB-727,17 NRC interpretation of the meaning of, LBP-83-22.17 NRC 61719 (1983 7- { responsibility for devefoping emergency plan for ingestion emerge i NRC 377 (1983) l 10 CFR 50.33a ncy planning zone; ALAB-717,17 i 10 CFR 50.33 afb) justification by applicant for withdrawal from antitru t s proceeding; LBP-83 2,17 NRC 48 (1983) option of applicant on timing of submission of portion of construct with construction of facility; LBP-83-2,17 NRC 52 (1983) ermit application dealing 10 CFR 50.34(a) 10 CFR 50.J4(a)(3)(i) content of preliminary safety analysis report; ALA 83) 10 CFR 50.34(b) intent of General Design Cnteria; ALAB-725 17 NRC 567 ( 1983) admissibility of Final Safety Analysis Report as evidence in operatin ALAB-717,17 NRC 365 (1983) g license proceeding; 10 CFR 50.34fb)(ll-(8) content of Final Safety Analysis Report; ALAB-729 10 CFR 50.34(g)(3)Information and analyses required of Final Safety Anal port; ALAB-717,17 NRC 365 (1983) 10 CFR 50.35fa) weight given to regulatory guides; ALAB-725,17 NRC 568 findmg to be made by Licensing Board in construction permit p 0983) 10 CFR 50.44fd)(2) roceeding; ALAB-728,17.NRC 806 failure ofintervenors to seek waiver from hydrogen control rule; AL ,l 10 CFR 50.46 - 28,17 NRC 805 0983) compliance of Babcock & Wilcox emergency core cooling system evalus NRC 842 4983) son model, ALAB-729,17 content of Safety Analysis Report concerning conformance of emerge f ALAB-729,17 NRC 920 (1983) core cooling system; sufficiency of analysis of small break loss of coolant accidents at Di t l NRC 809 4983) I 10 CFR 50.47 a > o Canyon; ALAB 723,17 concept central to development of olisite emergency response plans; lack of witness familiarity with; LBP-83 27,17 NRC 959 (1983) ,17 NRC 764 0983) petition for amendment of, to allow litigation of re relationship ofcriteria described in NUREGs to; LBP-83-22 17 NRC I 8) underlying assumption of; CLI-83-10,17 NRC 533 (1983) 983) 10 CFR 50.47(a) emergency planning findmss necessary for issuance of operating i 0983) NRC 1008 interpretation of the meaning of, LBP-83 22,17 NRC 61719 0983) l need to conduct practice evacuation; LBP-83-27,17 NRC 959 0983) ? 10 CFR 50 47(a)U) basis for licensms decisions on emergency preparedness; ALAB 717 1 emergency planning findmss necessary for issuance of operating li NRC 330 0983) (1983); ALAB-730,17 NRC 1094,1103 0983) cense; ALAB-727,17 NRC 764 emergency planning measures to be taken prior to issuance of ope NRC 1063 0983) AB-730,17 Oa.nW-D t h $

$ Q

@Qi, M m 1 4i

t> 0 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS db h inabshty of Board to make reasonable assurance finding relative to emergency preparedness for full p power hcense; ALAB-727,17 NRC 769 (1983) ghy,ny interpretation of the meaning of, LBP-83-22,17 NRC 618 (1983) 84 need to consider confhets of interest arising from family and financial relationships in emergency command structure issue; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1099 (1983) representation necessary from heensee for reasonable assurance findmg on emergency preparedness; ALAB-727,17 NRC 773 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2) basis for Comrnasion's reasonable assurance findings on state of emergency preparedness; ALAB-727,17 NRC 764 (1983); ALAB-730,17 NRC 1064 (1983); ALAB 732,17 NRC 1094 (1983) entitlement of RM a. findings to rebuttable presumption; ALAB-717,17 NRC 378 (1983) interpretation of the meaning of; LBP-83 22,17 NRC 618 (1983) need for emergency pianning exercises for purpose of making initial decision; ALAB-717,17 NRC 380 (1983); ALAB-732,17 NRC 1804 (1983) need to await final FEM A findings on emergency preparedness before disposition of school' evacuation matter; AL AB-727,17 NRC 774 (1983) review of FEMA findmgs and determinations on emergency plans; LBP-83-5,17 NR,C 141 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(b) compliance ofIndian Point emergency plannmg with standards of; LBP-83-1,17 NRC 35 (1983) determination of pnncipal response organizations responsible for detailed emergency planning requirements ALAB-717,17 NRC 377 (1983) failure ofIndian Point emergency planning to meet standards of; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 135-36 (1983) focus of Board's reasonable assurance findings on emergency planning issues; Al AB-732,17 NRC i107 (1983) means for demonstration of comp!ir e eith; LBP-33-22,17 NRC 616,619 (1983) necessity for compliance with emergency planning standards prior to low-power testing; ALAB-728, 17 NRC 788,789 (1983) regulatory requirements for emergency planning; ALAB 732,17 NRC 1094 (1983) sigmficant emergency planning deficiencies found at Indian Point by FEMA; CLI 8316,17 NRC 1017 (1983) standards for appellate assessment of applicant's emergency plan: ALAB-728,17 NRC 790 (1983) i 10 CFR 50.47(b)(1), (2) chief considerations that demonstrate fitness of applicant's emergency plan for low-power operation; ALAB-728,17 NRC 791 (1983) 10 CFR 50 47(b)(3) means for appficant to obtain assistance from offsite emergency personnel and agencies; ALAB-728, 17 NRC 791 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(4) notification of governments and agencies according to classification system for accidents; 'ALAB 728,17 NRC 791 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) adequacy ofinterim compensating actions to alleviate temnorary gap in San Onofre siren coverage; ALAB-717,17 NRC 369 (1983) adequacy of means for notifying boaters in San Onofre emergency planning zone of radiological emergency; AL AB-717,17 NRC 376 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5), (6) history of hcensee performance for notifying NRC of incidents at plant as basis for contention; f LBP-83-5,17 NRC 139 (1983) means for communications between Diablo Canyon and offsite agencies during radiological emergency; ALAB-728,17 NRC 791 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(7) adequacy of Waterford emergency planning brochure; LBP-83-27,17 NRC 964, %9 (1983) notification of the pubhc of actions to take during radiological emergency; LBP 83-27,17 NRC 954 ik

awNQ,

( ird " l i t ( 85 I 1 f e i

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS .b: m resolution of issue concerning adequacy of emergency planning brochure; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1083 (1983) I ,9 y 2 10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) Diablo Canyon provisions for emergency control centers; ALAB-728,17 NRC 791 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9) acceptance of contention questioning adequacy of methods for monitoring meteorological conditions during radiological emergency; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 139 (1983) Diablo Canyon means for monitoririg and assessment of radiological releases durins radiological emergency; ALAB-728,17 NRC 791 (1983) newirements for radiation monitoring and assessment capabihties in plume emergency planning tone; ALAB-717,17 NRC 370 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(9), (16) Diablo Canyon provision for post-accident recovery organization; ALAB-728,17 NRC 792 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10) adcas.cy of emergency planning for protective actions for San Oncfre special populations. ALAB-717,17 NRC 373 (1983) area e be cwcred by emergency evacuation plans; ALAB-730,17 NRC 1069 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10), (11) provisions for equipment for Diablo Canyon personnel remaining onsite during radiological emergency; ALAB-728,17 NRC 792 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) circumstances under which medical arrangements would be unnecessary; LBP-83-8D,17 NRC 304 (1983) Diablo Canyon provisions for treating contaminated iruured individuals during radiological emergency; ALAB-728.17 NRC 792 (1983) i interpretation of scope of emergency planning for medical services for general public; CLI-83-10,17 t NRC 529-38 (1983) waste of Commission resources through difTering interpretations of; LBP-83-8C,17 NRC 298 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(b)(15) Diablo Canyon provisions for training emergency workers; ALAB-728,17 NRC 792 (1983) 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1) adequacy of interim compensating acthns for temporary gap in San Onofre siren coverage; ALAB-717,17 NRC 369 (1983) [ analysis of Board decision that agency can consider utility offsite emergency plan; CLI-83-13,17 NRC 742 (1983) basis for Board decision that issuance of operating license is not dependent upon existence of County emergency response plan; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 615 (1983) degree of completion of ofTsate emergency response plans necessary for issuance of operaung hcense; ALAB-730,17 NRC 1066 (1983) i extent of deficiency of San Onofre radiation assessment and morutoring capabihties for plume emergency planning zone; ALAB-717,17 NRC 371 (1983) interpretation of the word "should" as applied to availabihty of emergency plans. DPRM-83-1,17 NRC 726 (1983) materiality of exceptions to,in circumstance of County refusal to adopt emergency response plan; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 618 (1983) significance of defect in emergency planning for medical services for general pubhc; CLI-83-10.17 NRC 531 (1983) 5 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) area to be covered by emergency evacuation plans; ALAB 730,17 NRC 1069 (1983) circumstances under which medical arrangements would be unnecessary; LBP-83-8D,17 NRC 304 (1983) description of emergency planning zones; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1094 (1983) size and configuration of San Onofre plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone; ALAB-717,17 NRC 377 (1983) m y.,., y. fy -.- i 7 O P Ikhkh i u ~ - - - _ _ _ _ _

O LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS W '.Rf ( j,% 344 5 10 CFR 50.47(d) m% f - ability of appbcant to quahfy for low-power hcense in absence of County emergency plan; NDW LBP-83-21,17 NRC (1983) basis for appellate review of Diablo Canyon's compliance with emergency planning regulations for purpose oflow-power testing; ALAB-728,17 NRC 790 (1983) offsite emergency planning findings necessary for low-power hcense; LBP-83 21,17 NRC 597 (1983) part of emergency plan and preparedness necessary for low-power testing; ALAB-728,17 NRC 789 (1983); CLI-83-17,17 NRC 1033,1034 (1983) 10 CFR 50.49 definition of the term " safety related"; ALAB 729,17 NRC 874 (1983) description of environmental quahfication of electrical equipment; LBP-83-18,17 NRC 506 (1983) 10 CF R 50.49fe)(4) and (5) testing of polymer insulation in electrical cables for effects of radiation; LBP 83-18,17 NRC 506 (1983) 10 CFR 50.49(0(3) requirements for testing of electrical equipment; LBP-8318,17 NRC 506 (1983) 10 CFR 50.49(g) deadline for completion of equipment qualification studies; LBP-83-188,17 NRC 507 (1983) deadline for demonstration of environmental quahrication of equipment; ALAB-729,17 NRC 893 (1983) 10 CFR 50.49(i) applicability of environmental quahfication regulations to Perry plant; LBP 83-18,17 NRC 506 (1983) i l i CFR 50.54(0 NRC Staff request that hcensee respond to concerns over effects of boihng on spent fuel pool; DD-83-7,17 NRC 998 (1983) response required to Demand for information; DD 83 2,17 NRC 324 (1983) 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) deadhne for implementation of emergency plans by plants already licensed to operate; CLI-83-16, 17 NRC 1008 (1983) time period for correction of emergency planning deficiencies; LBP 83 22,17 NRC 626 (1983) 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2)(ii) actions to be taken at Indian Point in view of emergency planning deficiencies; CLI-8316,17 NRC + 1021 (1983) basis for decision not to take action against Indian Point for emergency planning deficiencies; CLi-83-il,17 NRC 731 (1983) 1 opportunity for licensee to demonstrate that emergency planning deficiencies are not sigmficant for j indian Point; CLi 83 II,17 NRC 731 (1983) type of enforcement action to be taken for noncomphance with emergency planning regulations; i I CLi-8316,17 NRC 1008 (1983) 30 CFR 50.54(s)(3) basis for NRC determination of whether to take enforcement action for emergency planmng i deficiencies; CL1-83-16,17 NRC 1009 (1983) 10 CFR 50.54(t) standards for annual reviews of emergency plans; CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1009 (1983) 10 CFR 50.55(b) focus of, ALAB-722,17 NRC 553 (1983) good cause for extension of completion date specified in construction permit; ALAB-722,17 NRC i 548 (1983) 10 CFR 50.55a(h) adequacy of safety systems bypass and uverride at TMI, ALAB-729,17 NRC 866 (1983) apphcation of IEEE standard 279 to TMI-1; AL AB 729,17 NRC 867 (1983) -e--p;q criteria for environmental quehfication of safety systems; ALAB 729,17 NRC 891 (1983) jM lEEE standards incorporated into; ALAB-728,17 NRC 808 (1983) / yfg# q KM 10 CFR 50 57 6 t findings necessary for issuance of operstmg license; ALAB 722,17 NRC 553 (1983) Of% 87 i f h k

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS U s t! 1 g 10 CFR 50.57(a) yg /4 adherence of Comanche Peak construction practices with; ALAB-714,17 NRC 88 (1983) 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3) I litigabihty of assertion of regulatory gap; LBP-83 29A,17 NRC 1128 (1983) 10 CFR 50.57(c) I ability of applicant to qualify for low-power license in absence of County emergency plan; LBP-83-21,17 NRC (1983) rnotions for authority to conduct low-power testmg; ALAB-728,17 NRC 800,803 (1983) uncertainty about applicant's abihty to conform to emergency planning rules not a bar to low-power license; CLI-8317,17 NRC 1033 (1983) 10 CFR 50.59 content of safety review ofinservice inspection; DD-83-9,17 NRC 1189 (1983) 10 CFR 50.109 application of Cornmission backfitting authority to La Crosse facility; LBP 83-23,17 NI,tc 658 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. A applicabihty of, to test reactors; ALAB 720,17 NRC 399 (1983) desenption and functon of pneral design criteria; ALAB-729,17 NRC 824 (1983) reliabihty of boiler-condenser mode of decay heat removal; ALAB-729,17 NRC 846 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. A Definitions and Explanations definition of single failure criterion; ALAB-729,17 NRC 920 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. A, GDC 1 criteria for design of nuclear power plants, ALAB-729,17 NRC 872 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. A, GDC 1,4 criteria for environmental qualification of safety systems; ALAB-729,17 NRC $91 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. A.GDC 13,20 applicability of IEEE standard to instrumentation and control system; ALAB-728,17 NRC 808 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. A, GDC 14 adequacy of eddy current testing; L3P-83-4,17 NRC 114 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. A, GDC 17 I adequacy of TMI design regarding isolation of nonsafety-grade equipment frora emergency power supply; ALAB-729,17 NRC 859 (1983) conformance of TMI electric power system with; ALAB 729,17 NRC 914 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. A, GDC 35 i i definition of single failure criterion; ALAB-729,17 NRC 920 (1983) I sufficiency of analysis of small break loss of coolant accidents at Diablo Canyon; ALAB-728,17 NRC 809 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. A. VI need for assuraption of loss of significant amount of pool coolant in spent fuel pool cnticahty analysis; ALAB-725,17 NRC 567 (1983) 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-8318,17 NRC 511 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. B,I responsibility for establishrr.cnt and execution of quality assurance program; DD-83 2,17 NRC 326 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. B,111 l I criteria for environmental quahfication of safety systems; ALAB-729,17 NRC 891 (1983) i 10 CFR 50, App. E l adequacy of Waterford emergency planning brochure; LBP-83-27,17 NRC 964,969 (1983) FNi compliance ofIndian Point emergency planning with standards of, LBP 83-1,17 NRC 35 (1983); y ~ ['/ LBP-83-5,17 NRC 136 (1983) 9 l concept central to development of offsite emergency response plans; ALAB-727,17 NRC 764 (1983) emergency plans required to be in place by April 1,1981; CLI-8316,17 NRC 1008 (1983) g.~ ; A g Yh.e y%/a J, f

O ~ LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX mEGULATIONS ~ _a (! regulatory requirements for emergency planning; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1094 (1983) gJ standards for appellate assessment of applicant's emergency plan; ALAB-728,17 NRC 790 (1983) ,4i, task of Licensing Board confronted with contested emergency stanning and preparedness issues; DPRM-83-1,17 NRC 723 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E, n.1 function of cnteria described in NUREG-0654; L5P-83-22,17 NRC 616 (1983), 10 CFR 50, App. E, n.2 basis for determinin6 precise area for each type of emergency planmns zone; ALAB-727,17 NRC 765 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E, n.4 weight given to NUREGs in determining what must be included in evacuation time estimate; LBP-83-32A,17 NRC 1177 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E. D.3 time estimates to be included in evacuation plans; LBP-83-32A,17 NRC 1177 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E I n.2 area to be covered by emergency evacua6on plans; ALAB-730,17 NRC 1069 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E, III form of emergency response plans at time operating license application is noticed for hearirg; ALAB-727,17 NRC 670 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV time in which plume EPZ must be evacuated during nuclear emergency; ALAB-710,17 NRC 1069 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E. IV.A.I.,2 chief considerations that demonstrate fitness of applicant's emergency plan for low-power operation; ALAB-728,17 NRC 791 (1983) l 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV.A.3. 7 l means for applicant to obtain assistance from offsite emergency personnel and agencies; ALAB 728, 17 NRC 791 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV.B Diablo Canyon means for monitoring and assessment of radiological releases during radiological emergency; ALAB-728,17 NRC 791 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV.C notification of governments and agencies accordies to classification system for accidents; ALAB 728,17 NRC 791 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV.D., E.9 means for communications between Diablo Canyon and offsite agencies during radiological emergency; ALAB-728,17 NRC 791 (1983) 10 CFR 50, Av. E, IV.D.2 need to classify emergencies in emergency planning brochure; LBP-83-27,17 NRC 960 (1983) periodic dissemination of information to the public desceibing steps to be taken during radiological emergency; LBP-83-27,17 NRC 954,966 (1983) 10 CFR 50 App. E,IV.D.3 adequacy ofinterim compensating actions for temporary gap in San Onofre siren coverage; ALAB-717,17 NRC 369 (1983) design ob.iective of prompt pubhc notification in case of radiological emergency; ALAB-727,17 NRC 768 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E,IV.E scope of emergency medical services to tw provided for contaminated irdur14 individuals; CLI-83-10,17 NRC 531,535 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV.E.1.,2 provisions for cauipment for Diablo Canyon personnel remaining onsite during radiological emergency; ALAB-728,17 NRC 792 (1983) F'. 10 CFR 50, a pp. E, IV.E.3.-7 % m. Diablo Canyon provisions for treating contaminated irQured individuals during radiological emergency; ALAB-724,17 NRC 792 (1983) M6'e,; n(&5* wq 89 i f k I

9 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS U .i 5 N($ Q 10 CFR 50. App. E,IV.E 8 2 -[A-T Diablo Canyon provisons for emergency control centers; ALAB-728,17 NRC 791 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV.F Diablo Canyon provisions for training emergency workers; ALAB-728.17 NRC 792 (1983) training program to be included in emergency plans; ALAB-717,17 NRC 376 (1983); ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1099 (1983) 10 CFR 50. App. E,IV.F.1 purpose of full-scale emergency exercises; ALAB 732,17 NRC 1108 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV.F.I.b when emergency preparedness exercises are re uired, ALAB 732,17 NRC 1108 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E, IV.O, H Diablo Canyon provision for post accident recovery organization; ALAB-728,17 NRC 792 (1983) 10 CFR 50, App. E, V emergency plan implementing procedures which must be submitted 180 days prior t,o scheduled issuance of operating hcense; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1107 (1983) t 10 CFR 50, App. I calculations to determine synergistic effect of radioactive emissions from Wat,erford plant; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1084,1085 (1983) I 10 CFR 50 App. K content of Safety Analysis Report concerning conformance of emergency core coolms system; ALAB-729,17 NRC 920 (1983) litigability ofissues concerning Babcock & Wilcon emergency core cooling system evaluation model; ALAB-729,17 NRC 842,843 (1983) i, relation of heat generation rate to amount of cooling water now necessary to mitigate small break i loss of coolant accident; ALAB-729,17 NRC 924 (1983) ,r 10 CFR 50, App. K.1.D.I J definition of single failure criterion; ALAB-729,17 NRC 920 (1983) i 10 CFR Si ? assignment of values of Table S-3 of; CLI-83-14,17 NRC 746 (1983) l ( 10 CFR 51.1,513, $1.9 l incorporation of materialinto a rule by reference; LBP-83 22,17 NRC 616 (1983) l 10 CFR 51.5(b)(3) and (c)(1) [ { relevance of final EIS for full-power operation of nuclear power plant; ALAB-728,17 NRC 794 (1983) 2 10 CFR 51.20 I inclusion of environmental cost of shipping Oconee and McGuire spent fuel to Catamba in Table I S-4; LBP-83-88,17 NRC 293 (1983) i 10 CFR 51.20(c) contention alles ing mere reproduction of Table S-3 is inadegeste discussion of uranium 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) ( j 10 CFR 51.23 reexamination of need for power and alternative energy source issues in environmental impact statements prepared at operating heense stage; LBP-83 27A,17 NRC 974 (1983) f 10 CFR 51.23(c) { descripten of uranium fue. tycle releases table (S-3); LBP-83-6,17 NRC 154 (1983) 10 CFR $l.23(c),51.26(a) ( htirabihty of comparative cost issues at operating hcense stage; LBP-83 274,17 NRC 975 (1983) r 10 CFR 51.26(ds i contestabihty oicosts and benefits claimed in environmental impact statement; LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 975 (1983) 3 10 CFR 51.33(c) assignment of values of Table S 3; CLI-8314,17 f 3RC 746 (1983)

if'-

N Th 10 CFR 51.52(b) D h contestabihty of costs and benefits claimed in environmentalimpact statement; LBP 83-27A,17 g. j NRC 975 (1983) .-w.m ~ hh k ) 90 I. I t f

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGl]LATIONS G hs. ' MP Q 10 CFR 51.52(b) and (c) pp types of fmdings and determinations to be made by a Board in considering a limited work , gp, authorization; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 166 (1983) o 2n 10 CFR 51.53(c) amendment of rules governing litigation of environmental issues; LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 972,973 (1983) consideration of coal as alternate energy source; LBP-83-27A,'l7 NRC 974 (1923) 10 CFR 70 and 73 basis for intervenors' uncertaintes.oncerning DOE's compliance with its safeguards commitments; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 181 (1983) 10 CFR 73.l(a) basis for Staffs judgment of characteristics of potential adversaries toward nuclear activities; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 215 (1983) extent of Staff analysis of Clinch River safeguards system; LBP-83-3,17 NRC 181 (1983) requirements for physical protection system for facilities where special nuclear materials are used; LBP-83-25A,17 NRC 929 (1983) 10 CFR 73.2(p) analysis of potential sabotage scenarios for Clinch River project; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 178 (1983) i 10 CFR 73.2(x) kinds of material described as special nuclear matenal of modern strate 9 significance; LBP-83-25A,17 NRC 929 (1983) 10 CFR 73.2(aa) definition of strategic special nuclest material; LBP-83-25A,17 NRf,929 (1983) e 10 CFR 73.40(a) ) need for research reactor to protect against sabotage; LBP-83 25A,17 NRC 938,939 (1983) i 10 CFR 73.60 i apphcability of, to UCLA research reactor; LBP-83-25A,17 NRC 928,931-32,935 36 (1983) j applicability to two-curie Pu-239 neutron source; LBP-33-25A,17 NRC 936 (1983) protection standards applicable to non-power reactor licensees possessing a formula quantity of } strategic special nuclear material; I BP-83-15A,17 NRC 929 (1983) t 10 CFR 73.67 t applicability of, to research reactor; LBP-83-25A,17 NRC 931,936 (1983) i protection standards for U-235 and plutonium; LBP-33-25A,17 NRC 929 (1983) i 10 CFR 73.67(a), (b), (c), and Id) protection standards applicable to non-power reactor licensees possessing a formula quantity of I strategic special nuclear material; LBP-83-25A,17 NRC 929,930,936 (1983) 10 CFR 73.67(b)(1)(ii) exemption of twwurie Pu-Be neutron source under; LBP-83-25A,17 NRC 931,936,937 (1983) 10 CFR 100 I acceptability ofdesign basis accident dose guidelines for Clinch River project; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 170 (1983) ? application of EPA requiremen's to derivation of dose guideline values; LBP-83-1,17 NRC 196 i (1983) Culation of doses for Clinch River site suitability source term; LBP-83-3,17 NRC 185 (1983) commitment of Clinch River applicant concerning environmental release standards for fuel cycle facilities; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 222 (1983) definition of Clinch River low population zone; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 229,242 (1583) definitica of the term " functional"in context of design of structures, systems and components; 2 ALAB-729,17 NRC 875 (1983) derivation of dose guideline values for organs of importance to plutonium exposure for Clinch River prom; LBP-83 8,17 NRC 1% (1983) descripion of exclusion area for Clinch River project; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 229,242 (1983) evaluation eleffectheness of Clinch River engineered sr.fety features with respect to meeting I g,% *; exposure guidelines of; LBP-33-3,17 NRC 194,243 (1983) rdtws exclusion of core disruptive accidents from design bass considerations; LBP-33-8,17 NRC 193 I2 (1983) e ;in i kh i 91 l \\' I i

l l l l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS %.'G y ;,

• 4 y

htigation of hydrogen control contentions under; ALAB 728,17 NRC 805 (1983) structures, systems, and components rehed upon to meet critical safety functions; ALAB-729,17 M@ W y ,g NRC 875 (1983) use of nonstochastic limit in deriving dose guidehnes for Clinch River; LBP-83 8,17 NRC 195 (1983) 10 CFR 100.11 relevance of Clinch River meteorology to its site suitability; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 244 (1983) 10 CFR 100.ll(a) use of nonstochastic limit in deriving done guidehnes for Chnch River; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 195 (1983) e 10 CFR 100.ll(a), n.l. adequacy of analyses of core disruptive accidents and their consequences at Clinch River; LBP-83-8, 17 NRC 168,171 (1983) 10 CFR 100. App. A capability of faults near Clinch River site; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 245 (1983) determination of safe shutdown earthquake for Cisnch River Breeder Reactor site; LBP-83-8,17 e NRC 246 (1983) i!!us; ration of range of safety requirements contemplated by General Design Criterion 1; ALA8-729,17 NRC 874 (1983) sandards for determining geologic and seismic aspects of a site; LBP-83-23,17 NRC 658,659 (1983) state of knowledge of earthquake mechanisms; ALAB-717,17 NRC 363 (1983) 10 CFR 100, App. A,Illic) definition of safe shutdown earthquake; ALAB-717,17 NRC 351 (1983) 10 CFR 100 App. A,Ill(g) capabihty of CrEannos Tone 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 Nat:onal Historic Register stes; LBP-83-II,17 NRC 459 (1983) 44 CFR 350 process leading to FEMA findmss on state of emergency preparedness of nuclear power plant; ALAB-727,17 NRC 769 (1983) 50 CFR 17.11 (1981) impact of Point Pleasant intake on shortnose sturgeon; LBP-83-II,17 NRC 450 (1983? V*f* 4.+y e[d Mj i i vn.- ,t ( k 92 i i

a ? O ~ Vg% M' Ql.sh . b'N d b LEGAL CITATIONS IFDEX STATUTES Administrative Procedure Act,3(a)(1),5 U.S C 552(a)(It incorporation of matenalinto a rule by reference LBP 83-22,17 NRC 616 (1983) Admimstrative Procedure Act 94b),5 U.S C. 558(c) contmuation of apphcant's construction permit authority pendmg dispoution of entension request; AL AB 722,17 NRC 549 (1983) Atomic Energy Act, lifaal definition of special nuclear matenal, LBP-83-25 A,17 NRC 929 (1983) Atomic Energy Act, 103,104 determmation of type of license required for research reactor; LBP-83-24,17 NRC 668-70 (1983) Atomic Energy Act,104fc) apphcation of 10 CFR 73 40 to university research reactors; LBP-83 25 A,17 NRC 941 f1983) Atomic Energy Act,16tp,189a,42 U.S C. 220lp. and 2239a. companson of ICC and NRC intervention entena; CLI-8319,17 NRC 1046 (1983) Atomic Energy Act,182 response required to Demand for Information; DD-83-2,17 NRC 324 i1983) Atomic Energy Act,182b 42 U.S C 2232(b) admissibihty of ACRS reports as evidence; ALAB-717,17 NRC 367 (1983) Atomic Energy Act,185,42 U.S C. 2235 good cause for entenwon of completion date specified in construction permit AL AB-722,17 NRC 548 (1983) Atomic Energy Act,186,42 U.S C. 2236 basis lor Appeal Board determination that sanctions are unmarranted for omission of matenal mformation; CLI-83-2,17 NRC 6911983) Atomic Energy Act,189,42 U S C. 2239 hmits of post-heanns resolutio' ofiswes by NRC Staff, ALAB-717,17 NRC 380 (1983) need to amant final FEM A findings on emerger<y preparedness before disposition of school evacuation matter, ALAB-727,17 NRC 774 (1983) procedural and substantive hmits to defernns emergency plannmg issues until after close of evidentiar) heanng; ALAB.730,17 NRC 1067 81983) Atomic Energy Act,189(a),42 U S C. 2239(a) interests affected by construction and operation of nuclear power plants, AL AB-717,17 NRC 354 (1983) Atomic Energy Act,189a untamful preclusaon of heanng nghts by re#ction of contenticfi for failms to satisfy one or more factors of 10 CFR 2.714(alfl#; CLI 8319,17 NRC 1044,1047 (1983) weight to be given to good cause factor in determming adm:ssibihty of late-filed contentions. CL1-8319,17 NRC 1043-45 fl983) Atomic Energy Act,191,42 U S C. 2241 (1976) Licensms Board unsdiction over operational impacts of supplementary cooling water system at J Point Pleasant; LSP-83-II,17 NRC 439 (1983) Atomic Energy Act,192,42 U.S C. 2242 i comphance required for temporary operstmg hcense, CLI 8317,17 NRC 1014 (1983) F{p*,j[%y j Atomic Energy Act,234,42 U.S C. 2282 p,L.- assessment of civil penahics for loss of radiography device, ALJ-83-2,17 NRC 693 (1983) I i issuance of Notice d Yantation for receipt o, radioactive matenals from unauthorized suppher; Q hg ALJ431,17 NRC 313 (1983) l Punishable behavior relatmg to matenal false statements onder, CLI-83-2,17 NRC 70 t1983) wnj I 93 I t i i l

O ~ LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES A $$s. k. o M.m Atomic Energy Act,271,274,42 U.S C 2018,2021 U o G l definition of powers of and limitetions on state and federal governmenial regulatory authonty; fg/h Lhu LBP 83-22,17 NRC 639 (1983) Clean Water Act 101,33 U.S C.1252 objectives of; LBP-83-il,17 NRC 419 (1983) Clean Water Act. 316(b) adequacy of Clinch River heat dissipation system for minimizing environmentalimpacts; LBP 83 8, 17 NRC 250 (1983) Clean Water Act. 404,33 U.S.C.1344 (1976 & Supp.) issuarwe of dredge and fill permit to municipal water authonty try Corps of Engineers; LBP 83-ll, 17 NRC 418 (1983) Clean Water Act,511fc)(2),33 U.S C.1371 (1976 & Supp.) preclusion of NRC consideration of matters considered by Corps of Engineers in issuing its permits; LBP-83 ll,17 NRC 418-19 (1983) Endangered Species Act, as amended,16 U.S C.1531-43 (1976 & Supp.) l impact of Pomt Pleasant intake on shortnose sturgeon; LBP-83-ll,17 NRC 427,450 (1983) Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,202(1) NRC authonty over breeder reactor; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 254 (1983) Energy Reorganizatson Act of 1974,206,42 U 5 C. 5846 scope of informer's pnvilege; ALAB 714,17 NRC 92, (1983) i h Energy Reorsamzation Act of 1974,210,42 U.S.C. 5851 l reason for informer's privilege in NRC proceedmas; ALAB-714,17 NRC 92 (1983) Freedom of Information Act,5 U.S.C. 552 justification for grant of stay pendmg appeal; CL1-83-6,17 NRC 334 (1983) Interstate Commerce Act,10321(a),10328(b),49 U.S C.A.10321(a) sad 10328(b) (1979) compenson of ICC and NRC intervention enteria; CLI-8319,17 NRC 1046 (1983) National Environmental Pohcy Act,102,42 U.S C. 4332 (1976) Commission authonty to impose hcense conditions to minimize impacts, even in case of favorable cost-benefit balance; LBP-83-il,17 NRC 419 (1983) impacts of Point Pleasant intake requiring mitigation measures for compliance with; LBP-83 II,17 NRC 463 (1983) Licensing Board junsdiction over operational impacts of supplementary coolms water system at Point Pleasant; LBP 83-II,17 NRC 439 (1983) National Environmental Pohey Act,102( A), (C) and (D) compitanct af Chnch River Breeder Reactor project as to environmental matters related to hmited work authonzation; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 167 (1983) National Historic Preservauon Act,16 U.5 C. 470-470(n) (1976 & Supp.) impact of Point Pleasant intake on proposed histonc distnet; LBP 83-ll,17 NRC 434 (1983) NRC Appropnations Authorization Act for fiscal year 1960,108, Pub. L 96-295 means for determin.ng sufficiency ofintenm measures for compensating for emergency planmng deficiencies; CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1009 (1983) NRC Authorization Act of 1980,109. Pub. L No. 96-295,94 Stat. 780,783 (1980) basis for Board decisien that issuance of operating hcense is not dependent upon esistence of County emergency response plan; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 615 (1983) NRC Authonzation Act of 1982-83,5, Pub. L No. 97-415,96 Stat. 2067 (1983) analysis of Board decision that agency can consider utihty offsate emergency plan; CLI-801),17 NRC 742-43 (1983) basis for Board decision that issuance of operating hcense is not dependent upon existence of County emerge <..cy response plan; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 615 (1783) NRC Authorization Act of 1982-83,11. Pub. L No. 97-415 apphcability of, to issuance of low-power heense in absence oflocal offsite emergency plan; LBP 83-21,17 NRC 603 (1933) NRC Authonzation Act,109. Pub. L No. 96-295,94 Stat. 780,783 785 (19*,0) s.fg;

1. Q$.

use of NRC funds to take actions leading to issuance of operat:ng heense for utilizatson fac.hty; LBP-83 22,17 NRC 628 (1983) g; y m. y ,Shk 94

G LEGAL CITATIONS I DEX STATUTES % ) '.e, - ;l 'k b f Nuclear Waste Pohey Act of 1982,101,116,42 U S C 10101,10136 p 'A y i descripuon of state parucipaten in waste repository sitins decisions; LBP-83 22,17 NRC 642 (1983) 2',. q-p,., Nucicar Waste Pohey Act of 1982,302, Pub. L. No. 97-425 % Stat. 2201 f Commimon acuon regarding radioactive easte disposal; DD-8J,17 NRC 329 (1983) 4 Omnibus Budget Reconcihaten Act of 1981 Pub. L No. 97 35 government pohcy regardans expediuous completion of Chnch River Breeder Reactor proect. LBP-83 8,17 NRC 163 (1983) Pubiac Law 96 367,502 prohibiuon on compensation ofintervenors in NRC proceedings; LBP-8319,17 NRC 578 (1983) Warren-Alquist State Energy Rew:es Conservaten and Development Act (Cat Pub. Resources Code,25,000 et seg ) prohituuon on constructen of new nuclear power plants; LBP 83 2,17 NRC 47 (1983) 1 1 l t 5 s e e 1 I s 0 I I k o ' *?ff.s " f,Mri

kdib,

'y' 3

: ,, % ]

95 I

O Ril t 96 I h

yYy :.-f Uf*1 .'$ p % pJf< %p-y "'D L LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS 63 Am. Jur. 2d I (1972 ed) interpretation of the term "ofrxer"; LBP-83-29,17 NRC 1819 (1983) Black's Law Desionarv 411 (5th ed.1979) interpretation of the term "dalatory"in content oflicen*ee's wihei dela>s; ALAB-721,17 NRC 5!2 (1983) Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) application of federal practice in determining jurisdction over motion to reopen; LBP-83-25,17 HRC 688 (1983) Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(I) and (3) i guidance for interpretmg analogous NRC rules; LBP 83-17,17 NRC 494 (1983) l Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) l material which falls within realm of attorney work product doctrine; LBP-83-17,17 NRC 495 (1983) Fed. R. Civ. P. 2C-(b)(4) l objection to discovery ofidentity of non-witness expert; LBP-83-li,17 NRC 496 (1983) l Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B) l need to disflose idzatities of persons who assu c.i.e preparation of intervenor's answers to j interrogatones; LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 977-78 (1983) l Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2) ) admissibility of deportion of offser of government agency as evidence; LBP-83-29,17 NRC li tt (1983) Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3) appicability of, to admmion of depostion of unavailable witness as evidena; LBP-83-29,17 NRC 1819 (1983) Fed. R. Civ. P difs)(2) comparison <tCommission regulation for voluntary dismissal with; LBP-83-2,17 NRC 49 (1983) Fed. R. Civ. P. 41&) circumstances to be considered in determining whether dismis:al of a party is warranted; AL AB-719,17 NRC 392 (1983) Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) responsability for making findmss of fact; AL AB-709,17 NRC 20 (1983) Fed. F-. Civ. P. 56(e) content of rebuttal to properly suppo.ted motion for summary dispostion; LBP-83 32A,17 NRC 1874 (1981) Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) factois apphed in determining whether to scopen the record. LBP-83-30,17 NRC 1143 (1983) Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 apphcation of federal practxe in determining junsdiction over motion to scopen; LBP-8125,17 NRC 688 (1983) Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) apphcation of federal practre i*. determining junsdiction over motion to reopen; LBP-83 25,17 NRC 688 (1983) Fed. R. Evid 30lfd)(2) relevance of deponent's authonty to represent a party to whether the statement of that deponent is F$$@n e vicarious admissson; LEP-83-2A,17 NRC 1819 (1983) Fed. R. Evid. 702 M b '~, critena for admission of expert testimony; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1091 (1983) MS w i 97 i

I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS k \\ y ' A. { 1 Fed. R. Evid. 203(6) iN [o -- need for sponsorship of material containing esperts' studies and opinions; ALAB-717,17 NRC 368 l t1983) l Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) authentication requirement for admissibility of evidence; ALAB-717,17 NRC 365 (1983) 4 Moore's Federal Pracice *26 02!!]-12) (1982) fundamental purposes of discoscry; LBP43-9,17 NRC 405 (1983) l 4A Moore's Federal Practice 130.57[14) authornation for recording of deposition testimony; LBP-83-8A,17 NRC 289 (1983) 4 A Moore's Federal Practre 32.04 at 32 23 (1981 ed) relevance of deponent's authority to represent a party to whether the statement of that deponent A a vicarious admission; LBP 83-2A,17 NRC 1819 (1983) 5 MooreT Federal Practice MI.05(2) at 4172 test for voluntary dismissal without prejudice; LBP-83 2,17 NRC 50 (1983) 5 Moore's Federal Practice, Mt.05ll] at 4153 and 4154 payment ofintervenor's a:torney fees as condition of voluntary dismissal; LBP-83-2,17 NRC 53 (1983) SA Moore's Federal Practice,152.06 (2d ed.1981 purpose of fihng findings of fact: AL AB.709,17 NRC 20 (1983) 6 Moore's Federal Practre,15615l3] at Su86,487 (2d ed.195b summary disposation of contention cddressmg evacus Ma bha. ice phenc.meaa, LBP-83-32A,17 NRC 117) i1983) 7 Moore's Federal Practice 160.2314) Cd ed.1979) apph:stion of federal practice in determinmg junsdiction over motion to reopen; LBP 83 25,17 NRC 688 (1983) 11 Moore's Federal Practice 1702.30111 (2d ed.1982) weight given to compensation of an expert witness in determming salue of testimony; ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1091 (1983) Random House Dctionary of the Enghsh Language, Unabmaed Edition,499 C. 3 (1966) defimtion of the term "exi8ent circumstances"; CLI 83-1,17 NRC 3 (1983) 17 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc., 110142 (October 12, 1981) government policy risarding espeditious completion of Clinch River Breeder Ftactor project. CLI-83-1,17 NRC 12 (1983); LBP-83-8,17 NRC 163 (1983) 8 Wright and Miller, Federal Practre and Procedure: Civil 2016, n 68 at 126 (1970) burden for estabhshing privilege asserted by party objecung to discovery request; LBP-8317,17 NRC 495 (1983) 8 Wright and Miller Federal Practice and Procedure 2023, at 194 use of work product concept as shield against discovery, LbP-83-17,17 NRC 495 (1983) 9 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure,2574-81 (1971) 1 purpose of filing findings of fact; ALAB-709,17 NRC 20 (1983) rp. ,a XW'Cj

Y[g*g 7.,, #'

,5Q h 98

i O Mj % ' 44 l. i

• f w.'h..

T c' W SUBJECT INDEX ^ ACCIDENT (S) analyses, mechanistic and nonmecitanisuc approa h at Chnch River, condiuons in reactor core conducive tc es to; LBP 83 8,17 1 class 9, circumstances requinns con 9deranon of AL B o; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) design basis, consaderanon of core disrupuve as f NRO i38 (1983) A -728,17 NRC 777 (1983) cITects on Y-12 and othet facihties near Chnch Ri, or purpose of ste suitab nuclear power plant, need to promote pubhc awarenver breeder re AD3UDICATORY k.OARDSscenanos for Indian Pomt, adequacy of considerati ess of, LBP-83 5,17 NRC 134 f1983) ) l discreuen of, to raise sua sponte issues in ope o ; BP 83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) (1983) in construchon permit proceedmas safe rating hcense proccu@ngs, ALAB-728 17 NRC 777 t See also Appeal Board, Boards; Jurisdicuon Liscope of renew g; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983)7 NRC 814 (1983) AD30!MCATORY PROCEEDINGS censna Board (s) use of safety goals fr See also Hearmg(s), om Commisuon pohcy statement in; LBP-83-23 17 N Commission Proceedings; Operating License ProConstruction Permit P (1983) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE e ceeding(s)..Ww Cause Proceed.ng(s)oceedmas; Nu { authority of, to mitigate civil penal:y; AL)-83-2 17 NRC 6 i ALCOHOL { 93 (1983) abuse at Dresden and Zion plants, denial of 2 206 DD-83-8,17 NRC 1883 (1983) and drug t.se at nuclear facibues, safety conseque petiuon for suspensson [ ALERTING pubhc of radiological emergency, adequacy of San Onces of. Al AB-710,17 (1983) See also Notification, Siren Alert System nofre siren systen for, ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 ALTERNA TIVE ENERGY SOURCES ALTERNATlVE SITESlitigabehty of, at operating hcense stage; LBP 83 27A 17 See also $ste Suitatnhtyto Chnch River project ste, principles obse - - NRC 01 (1983) ALTERNATIVES rved in consaderm8; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) to Chnch River breeder reactor design s (1983) AMENDMENT , uggesnons by intervenors for; LBP-83-3,17 NRC 158 4 of petiuons to interverse to sausfy timeliness reouiremof 10 3 LDP-83-19,17 NRC $73 (1983) 19 (1983) of settlement agreement concernmg inventory under ents, LBP 83-16,17 NRC 4 NRC 735 (1983) ! APPEAL BOARD special nuclear matenals fxense; CLl-8312 17 sffirmance of Licensms Board decision, stare decisis eff authority to perform aQudacatory renew functions of th Cect of. ALAB-720,1 I (1983) Fghfhb e decisions, effect of Commission immediate ff ommissson; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 593 WY e ecuvecess review on; ALAB-728,17 NRC 539 (1983 \\ ) \\ fN y 9e -J i t i

6 9 SUBJECT INDEX ,.,J U deference to Licensms Board findings; ALAB 730,17 NRC 1057 (1983) l directives Licensms Board responsibility to comply with, ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1983) l t @8 t4./* jurisdction over issue in vacated construction p6rmit proceedms, termination of, ALAB-723,17 j p l j bf. NRC $55 (1983)

• W49l jurisdiction over motion to reopen the record; LBP 83-25,17 NRC 681 (1983)

I jurisdiction, apphcabihty ofcass of controversy ' restriction to; ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) I tendering of advisory opinions by; ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) review ofintervention petitions, scope of, ALAB-713,17 NRC 83 (1983) acope of sua sponte review by; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) i i standard of review for Licensms Board conclusions not brought to it by way of appeaf, AL AB 713, 17 NRC 83 (1983) r I sua sponte review of operating hcense proceedmss, scope of, ALAB 729,17 NRC 814 (1983) See also Adjudicatory Boards APPEAL (S) interlocutory, from Licensing Board ruimss, Commissaa practice regardms;,LBP-83-21,17 NRC $9) (1983) interlocutory, from order entered on intervention petition; ALAB-712,17 NRC 81 (1%83) of denial ofintervention, standmg for; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982) of Licensing Board's dismissal of intervenor's contention, showing necessary for; ALAB-731,17 NRC 1073 (1983) APPLICANTS burden of proof of, in NRC proceedmgs; LBP-83-20A,17 NRC 586 (1983) BOARD NOTIFICATION content of; ALAB-732, D NRC 1076 (1983) BOARDS jurindenon of, to rule on motion to reopen after exceptions have been filed; ALAB-726,17 NRC 755 (1983) See also Adjudicatory Boards, Appeal Bowd, Licensing Board (s) BRIEFS appellate, scots of; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982) BURDEN OF PROOF for demonstrating entitlement to a stay; ALAB-721,17 NRC 539 (1983) in licensms proceedmss; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) of apphcants in NRC proceedmgs; LBP 83-20A,17 NRC 586 (1983) BYPRODUCT M ATERIALS penalty for receipt of, from unauthorized suppher; ALJ 83 I,17 NRC 313 (1983) CERTIFICATION of questions to Commission concerning adequacy of emergency prepstedness at Shoreham for full power operation; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 593 (1983) CIRCULATION liquid natural, as means for decay heat removal at TMI; ALAB 729,17 NkC 814 (1983) I CIVIL PEN ALTY approval of cosrStomise of; ALJ-83-1,17 NRC 313 (1983) for loss of radiographic exposure device, factors considered in assessms; ALJ-83 2,17 NRC 693 (1983) See also Penalty CLARIFICAT10N effect of Licensing Board inaction on motion for; LBP-83-IS,17 NRC 476 (1943) of order staying any further Licensms Board proceedmg that could result n identificatbn of alleged informants; CLI-83-9,17 NRC 525 (1983) CLASSIFICATION of safety systems; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) COMMUNICATIONS between employers and employs.es about pendmg hcensing proceedmss, LBP-83-24 A,17 NRC 6i4 F-Q[J,?; (1983) W between intervenor and apphcants' employees on quahty assurance matters, denial of request for e-gg < remedial measures to facihtate; LBP-83-24 A,17 NRC 674 (19837 p 44 k f .yq 100 t

e SUBJECT INDbX ~ ^ 3 -j ),l between onsite and offsite emergency response groups, need for installation of, prior to full-po*er h. y operations; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) %M between presidmg ofGcer and persons making hmited appearance statements, conduct of, gWW ' CL!-83 IS,17 NRC 1001 (1983) N en parte, among parties in hcensing proceedings, preclusion of, ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) h/h en parte, Commission meeting concerning seismic quahncation of emergency feedwater system as, CLl-83 5,17 NRC 331 (1983) en parte, discussion between NRC Staff and Commissioners as; CLi-83-3,17 NRC 72 (1983) CONFIDENTIALITY of names ofindividuals who inform about safety discrepancies; ALAB-714,17 NR('sa fl983) See also informants; Informer's Privilege; Privilege; Protectne Orders CONSOLIDATION of hcense renewal proceedings; LBP-8319,17 NRC 573 (1983) of parties and designatio. c~ Mad intervenors, circumstances appropriate for; LBP 83 28,17 NRC 987 (1983) CONSTRUCTION at Zimmer,2.206 petitwn for suspension of, granted in part, demed in part; DD-83-2,17 NRC 323 (1983) deficiencies at LaSalle, denial of 2.206 petition alleging; DD-831,17 NRC 319 (1983) determining responsibihty for delays in; ALAB-722,17 NRC 546 (1983) extension of time for completion of; ALAB 722,17 NRC 546 (1983) statutory / regulatory, kses for; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 608 (1983) CONSTRUCTION PLRMIT application withdrawal without prejudice; LBP-83-IO,17 NRC 410 (1983) apphcat;on, submission of prehminary safety analysis report as part of ALAE-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) appbcation, withdrawal without prejudice, subject to conditions; L BP43 2,17 NRC 45 (1983) demonstration of good cause for extension of construction completion date in; ALAB-722,17 NRC 546 (1983) for Black Fox facihty, effect on appellate jurisdiction of withdrawal of apphcation for; ALAB-723,17 NRC 555 (1983) for Pebble Springs, withdrawal, without prejudice, of apphcation far; LBP-83-7,17 NRC 157 (1983) initiation of saie preparation activities prior to issuance of; CLI-SLI,17 NRC 1 (1983) See also Limited Work Authorization CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXTENSION proceedms, test for determining whether contention is withm scope of ALAB-722,17 NRC 546 (1983) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PROCEEDINGS safety findmgs to be made by a@udicatory boards in; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) scope of Licensing Board review of safety issues in; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) See also Adjudicatory Proceedmss CONTAINMENT design of Clinch River breeder reactor, adequacy of, to reduce offsete doses; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) factors to assess radiological impacts of Clinch River breeder reactor fuel cycle facihties, adequacy of; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) system for pressurized water reactor, description of. ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) CONTENTIONS basis with specificity requirement for; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) concerning cost savings resulting from operation of a facihty, htigabihty of, LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 971 (1983) emergency planning, guidelines for determining admissibihty of; LBP-83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983) emergency planning, opportunity to litigate; ALAB-730,17 NRC 1057 (1983) environmental, timmg for fihng of; CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983) fled after close of the record, standards for admitting; LSP 83-30,17 NRC 1832 (1983) Fu.3 i,, late-filed, based on previonsh unavailable documents, admissibihty of, ALAB-730,17 NRC 1057 C#A (1983) . K;N, ' r mo N Q h,. yr% .g= 101 4 J

SUBJECT INDEX W-l$, late-filed, based on previously unavailable licensing-related documents, proper cre.eria for accepting, if CLI-83-19,17 NRC 104l (1983) )"% late-filed, of interested governmental entity, standards apphed to admission of, LBP 83 30,17 NRC 1132 (1983) )w nontimely, factors to be considered for admission of; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) on emergency pisns, early fihng of. CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983) safety-related, ptncipal darument ror fort 3ulation of, CLl 8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983) that are the subject of rulemakms, admissibihty of AL AB 729,17 NRC 814 (1983) sithin scope of construction permis extension proceeding, test for determinmg; ALAB-722,17 NRC 546 (1983) CONTROL SYSTEMS for precurized eaw reactor, description of, ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) COOLING SYSTEMS secondary, for prewarized mater reactor, dewription of. ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) supplementary, mitigation of nche impacts from; LBP 83 ll,17 NRC 413 (1983) See also Emergency Core Cooling System; Reactor Coolant Systems CORROSION of power operated rehef valves at TMI 1; ALAB 724,17 NRC 559 (1983 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS inclusion of cost savings from lower operating costs of nuclear plant compared to alternative energy source in; LBP 83-27A,17 NRC 971 (1983) ? COUNSEL responsibilities of, concerning quoted matter in submissions; LBP.83-22,17 NRC 608 (1983) CRITICALITY calculations for Big Rock Point spent fuel pool, technical d,scussion of ALAB-725,17 NRC 562 (1983) CROSS EXAMIN ATION Licensing Board discretion to impose limitations on; ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) requirement for submission of plans for, and estabbshment of time limits on; LBP 83-28,17 NRC 987 (1983) right ofintervenm to; ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) DECAY HEAT REMOVAL r st TMI, adequacy of means for; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) at Waterford, adequacy of method for; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) system for pressurized wates roctor, description of, ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) DECISION (S) Appeal Board, effect of Commission immediate effettivenes. revice on; AL3 IL721,17 NRC 539 (1983) of presiding officer in materials license renewal proceedmg, form and basis of; CLI-83-15,17 NRC 1001 (1983) { See also Opmions; Orders DEGRADATION of polymers used for electrical insulation, techmcal discussion of, LBP 83-18,17 NRC 501 (1983) DEPOSITION (S) I alternatives to stenographic means of taking; LBP-83-8A,17 NRC 282 (1983) of officer of government ageacy, admissibihty of, LBP 83 29,17 NRC IWt (1983) DESIGN isues to be litigated in TMI Restart proceeding, hmitation on; ALAB-724,17 NRC 559 (1983) i of Chnch River Breeder reactor, need to consider ahernatives to; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) of nuclear power plants, standards for; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) DESIGN BASIS for GE test reactor, reassessment of,in hgte of discovery of Verona Fault; ALAB-720,17 NRC 397 (1983) See also Accident (s) F.[eU DISCOVERY by interested state, good cause for entension of time for; LBP-83-26,17 NRC 945 (1983) Dh '[' disputes, guidance from judicial proceedmss for resoluiion of, LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490 (1983) o* :s

4y, kMk1 ww

'** k h f i le2 i )i 1 + i

~ SUBJECT INDEX '%~#' .$ k documents, preservation of, as condition for constructivt permit application withdrawal without prejudee; LBP-83 2,17 NRC 45 (1983) informal, cooperative approaches to; LBP 83-8 A,17 NRC 282 (1983) fD ofidentities of non witness emperts; LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490 (1983) 'MN of the foundation upon which a contention is based; LBP-8317,17 NRC 490 (1983) reason for liberal grantmg of; LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490 (1983) See also Intestogatories DISMISSAL of a party for future to fulfill its hearing obhgations; ALAB-719,17 NRC 387 (1983); LBP-83-20A, 17 NRC 586 (1983) See also Sanctions DOCUMENTS discove.y. preservation of, as condition for construction permit apphcation withdrawal without prejudre; LBP 83 2,17 NRC 45 (1983) DOSE guidelme values, description of, and tpphcation of, to limited work authorization for Ctinch River breeder reactor; LBP-83 8,17 NRC 158 (1983) See also Radiation Doses DRUG stase at Dresden and Zion plants, demi of 2.206 petition for suspension of operations'.*or; DD-83-8,17 NRC 1183 (1983) I and htohol use at nuclear facilities, s6.ety consequances of; ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1963) causeg or occurring di.; ring radiological release, ret d for consideration of impacts on emergency { planning of. ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) a, Charleston (1886), localization of, to Summer facility; ALAB 710,17 NRC 25 (1983) maximum magnitude for San Onofre, determination of, ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) See also Fault (s); LiqueSction; Safe Shutdown Earthquake; Seismic & Geologic Criteria t EDDY CURRENT TESTiNU for defects in sleeved stea n generator tubes, reliabihty of; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) ELECTRIC POWT.R onsite ar.d offsite systems for pressurized water reactor, description of ALAB-729,17 NRC Sie (1983) ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT need for environmental quahfication of, LBP-8318,17 NRC 501 (1983) EMERGENCY at Indian Point, hcensee dependabihty to notify authorities of. LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) feasibihty of offsste procedures at Indian Point for deahng with, LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) measures to be taken by Nuclear Regulatory Commiss.on in response to credible external events; DPRM-83 2,17 NRC 1194 (1983) need for compliance with license conditions during; ALAB 729,17 NRC 814 (1983) EMERGENCY CORE L.')0 LING SYSTEM for pressurized water reactor, description of, ALAB 729,17 NRC 814 (1983) i See also Cooling Systems EMERGENCY DIRECTOR responsibihties of, durms first four hours after declaration of emergency; CLI 83-7,17 NJiC 336 (1983) EMERGENCY FEEDWATER SYSTEM at TMI, rehability of, for decay heat removal; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) i at TMI, seismic quahfication of; CLI-83-5,17 NRC 331 (1983) EMERGENCY PLANNING a$breviated discussion of regulatory scheme for; ALAB-730,11 NRC 1057 (1983) -I concerns at Indian Point, review of procedural history of treatment of; CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006 (1983) contention, lack of good cause for late filing of, LBP-83 32,17 NRC I164 (1983) F7,,d, g contentions, Board ruims on responses to reformulation of, LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) contentions, guidehnes for deteuninmg admissibihty of. LBP-83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983) a f. contentions, opporturuty to htigate; ALAB-730,17 NRC 1057 (1983) g 6* = k,?q 1 l s-183 l } I i

SUBJECT INDEX f 6* effect of FEMA lindings on hcensng decision on; ALAI $.717,17 NRC 346 (1983) W exercises, timing for completion of, ALAB-730,17 NRC 1057 (1983) federal preemption of, LBP-83 22,17 NRC 608 (1983) S@h for Indian Point, conforman:e of, with regulatory standards; LBP-83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983) for medical services for general public, Commission definition of scope of, CLI-83-10,17 NRC 528

• L-(1983) issues raised sua sponte by Licensma Board, cause for; LBP-83 32,17 NRC 1164 (1983) issues, task of Licensms Board concerning; DPRM-83-2,17 NRC 719 (1983) necessary pnor to low-power testina: ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) necessity for adherence to NUREG-0654 to demonstrate compliance with resulatory requirements for; LBP-83 22,17 NRC 608 (1983) need for consideration ofimpacts of earthquakes on; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) need for FEMA views on, for licensing decision; ALAB 727,17 NRC 760 (1983) offsite, necessary for low ~==er operations; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 593 (1983) regulatory scheme for; ALAP-727,17 NRC 760 (1983)

EMERGENCY PLANNING 20NE(S) description of and requirements for. ALAB-730,17 NRC 1057 (1983); ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) for Zammer Station, description and purpose of; ALAB 727,17 NRC 760 (1983) plume exposure pathway at Indian Point, need for expansion of; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) plume esposure pathway within one county which refuses to adopt emergency response plan; LBP-83 21,17 NRC 593 (1983) Nume expostre pathway, for Indian Point, admission of contemion citing need for expansion of, LBP-831,17 NRC 33 (1983) plume exposure pathway, requirements for time hmits for evacuation of; ALAB-727,17 NRC 760 (1983) protective actions to be taken in; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) EMERGENCY PLAN ($) Commission respormbilities regarding enforcement action for deficiencies in; CLI 83-16,17 NRC 1006 (1983) mient of, regardmg protective actions for special populations; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) cmtent of, regardmg protective measures, notificatien, and evacuation; ALAB-727,17 NRC 760 (1983) enforcement action for deficiencies in; CLl-83-ll,17 NRC 731 (1983) exercises, initial offsite, timing of; DPRM-83-2,17 NRC 719 (1983) findings necessary prior to issuance of operating license; ALAB-727,17 NRC 760 (1983); ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) for alerting Indian Point area deaf, blind, young, or non-English-speaking persons, adequacy of, LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) for Indian Point, adequacy of protection actions in; LBP-83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983) for Indian Point, reliabihty of assumptions for public and errp!oyee responses in; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) for Seabroom Station, adequacy of onsite and offsite protective measures of; LBP-83-32A,17 NRC 1170 (1983) inclusion of training program for offsite emergency workers in; ALAB-732,17 NRC IC76 (1983) need for applicant to submit imp 4menting procedures for. ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) offsite, Commission authorizatma to issue low power hcense in absence cf NRC or FEM A approval of, CLI-83-17,17 NRC 1032 (1983) offsits, early filing of contentions on; CLI-83-19,17 NRC 10al (1983) offsite, right to htigate adequacy of; DPRM-83-2,17 NRC 719 (1983) requirements to be met for, and rurpose of, pre-emergency public information brochure; LBP-83 27,17 NRC 949 (1983) result of FEM A failure to conduct inder th eview of; LBP 83-32,17 NRC 1164 (1983) state and local, showmg necessary by appi, cant in the absence of, LBP 83-22,17 NRC 608 (19831 Fid.g i substitution of utihty plan for state or local government plan; CLI-8313,17 NRC 741 (1973) ' < " "N sufrecency of content of, prior to conclusion of adjudicatory process, ALAB 730,17 NRC 1057 k ,$ g (1983) ho 1 1 I %CD i i 184 I t i

SUBJECT INDbX 3 g.,; weight given to FEMA views on adequacy of; CLI-83-10,17 NRC 528 (1983) yM See also Evacuation l~ 4 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS g,, at Indian Point, need for demonstration of, LBP-831,17 NRC 33 f1983) i A4'k g denial of contentions questioning means for oemonstratms; LBP-83-3,17 NRC 134 (1983) l N / determinations necessary prior to issuance of operating hcense; LBP-f3-22,17 NRC 608 (1983) l exercise, offsite, htigabihty of, DPRM-83 2,17 NRC 719 (1983) l exercises, effect on hcensing decision of; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) l Endings necessary prior to issuance of full-power operating heense; ALAB-730,17 NRC 1057 (1983) offsate, means for implementation of. ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) programs, requirements for licensee revicw of; CLI-8316,17 NRC 1006-(1983) EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS for TMI, requireraent for NRC Staff modification and completion of; CLI-83-7.17 NKC 336 (1983) form of, at time an application is noticed for nearing; ALAB-727,17 NRC 760 (1983) refusal of Coumy to adopt; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 593 (1983) ENFORCEMENT pohey concerning loss of radiographic esposure device; ALJ-83-2,17 NRC 693 (1983) ENFORCEMENT ACTION for deficiencies in emergency plans, Commissu fienibihty in ordering; CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006 (1983) for emergency planning deficiencies, order establishing procedures for decision on; CLI-83-il,17 NRC 731 (1983) ENGINEERED SAFEGUARDS for pressurized water reactor, description of, ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES definition of, and performance standards for; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) for mitigation ofloss of coolant from Big Ralt Point spent fuel pool; ALAB-723,17 NRC $62 (1983) ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS of radon releases associated with uranium fuel cycle, termination of appellate jurisdiction over issue of; ALAB-723,17 NRC 555 (1983) of severe accidents at Clinch River relevant to limited work authorization; LBP.83-8,17 rdRC 158 (1983) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of Chnch River project on tsad and water use, and surrounding communities; LBP-83-3,17 NRC 158 (1983) of radioactive wastes sealed in pennanent repository, asced to sonsider; LBP-83-6,17 NRC 153 (1983) of transportation of spent fuel between Catawba and Oconee frihties, need to consider; LBP-83-8B, 17 NRC 791 (1983) ENVIRCNMDdTAL IMPACT STATEMENT at operating license stage, consideration of need for power and alte n.tive (nergy sources in; LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 971 (1983) for low-power testing, need for; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW type of, and circtmstances appropriate for; ALAB-728,17 ARC 777 (1983) EVACUATION adequecy of road system in Indian Point vicinity for; LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) during radiological emergency, area covered by and time requirements for; ALAB-730,17 NRC 1057 (1983) need for means to implement, prior to issuance of full-power lice ne; At AB 732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) of cMdren and special persons from Indian Point area during radiological emergency, adequacy of plan for; LBP-83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983); LBP-83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) of plume etiersency planning tone, requirements for time hmits for; ALAB-727,17 NRC 760 't., 0983) k[h

e n

$i i 1B5 i i t

G ~ SUBJECT INDEX s4

W y plans for schools near Zimmer Station, need to demonstrate adequacy of, prior to issuance of

-*[ full-power operating hcense; ALAB-727,17 NRC 760 (1983) practice, requirement for; LBP 83-27,17 NRC 949 (1983) p.g time estimates, determining what must be included in; LBP 83 32A,17 NRC 1870 (1983) f(g, times at inJian Point, reliabihty of estimates for; LBP 83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) times for Indian Point, admission of contention challenging rehabihty of, LBP43-1,17 NRC 33 (1983) EVIDENCE admissibihty of ACRS report as, ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) admissibihty of deposition of olTecer of government agency as, LBP 83 29,17 NRC til7 (1983) admissibihty of expert testimony as, ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) admissibility of final safety analysis report as, ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) hearsay, standard for admissibility of ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) in NRC bcensing proceedings, condition for admissibihty of. ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983) introduction of, by an interested state; LBP 83-9,17 NRC 403 (1983) Licensing Board refusal to accept testimony of empert witness as; ALAB-732,17 NRC,1076 (1983) requirement for empert sponsorship of; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) to be suophed by intervenor in heensing proceeding, extent of; LBP-83 20A,17 NRC 586 (1983) EXCEPTIONS not fully briefed, disposition of, ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) to rules or regulations, showing necessary for; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) See also Objections EXEMPTION from regulations for early site preparation of Chnch River Breeder Reactor Project ALAB-721,17 NRC 539 (1983); CLI-83-1,17 NRC 1 (1983) See also Waiver EXTENSION OF TIME for completion of construction, demonstration of good cause for; ALAB 722,17 NRC 546 (1983) for discovery by interested state, good cause for grant of; LBP 83-26,17 NRC 945 (1983) FAIRNESS administrative, in balancing compeeng pubhc interests, CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983) FAULT (S) Cristianitos, htigation of capability of, ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983) near San Onofre facility, adequacy ofinvestigation of; ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983) Verona, capabihty of with regard ta GE test reactor; ALAB-720,17 NRC 397 (1983) See also Earthquake (s) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY views on need for and adequacy of protective emergency planning measures, weight gisen to; CLI-83-10,17 NRC 528 (1983) f FEDER AL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I application of, to NRC prueedings, where no ana!ogous NRC rule exists; LBP-83-27 A,17 NRC i 971 (1983) apphcation of, to NRC proceedings; LBP 83-29,17 NRC 1117 (1983) 1 FEES attorney's, for intervenors, lack of Board authority to order compensation for; LBP-83-19,17 NRC 573 (1983) FINALITY for appeal pumoses, test of; LBP-83-20,17 NRC 580 (1983) FIN ANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS of nuclear power plant heensees, need to consider; DD-83-3,17 NRC 327 (1983) of UCLA to operate research reactor; LBP 83-24,17 NRC 666 (1983) FINDINGS OF FACT elTect of failure to file; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982) FN.N,o t necessity for fihng; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) l penalty for failure to comply with Board request concerning format of, LBP.83 4,17 NRC 109 pag q (1983) }:l ) nAMLTb I \\ 106 i ?i i i ? I

SUBJECT IND"EX t FUEL / w 4 g.( . gg high burnup, use of, at Zion facihty, DD-83-4,17 NRC 513 (1943) %n g hc also Spent Fuel FUEL CYCLE l p i and materials operations vioistion, loss of Mogophic exposure device as; ALJ 83-2,17 NRC 693 l .c[a (1983) l See also Uranium Fuel Cycle FUNDS Commission, use of, to take actions leading to the issuance of an operating license; LBP-83 22,17 NRC 608 (1983) GENERATORS diesel, emergency, admissibihty of contention questioning reliability of LBP 83 30,17 NRC 1132 (1983) See also Steam Generators GOOD CAUSE factor in 10 CFR 2.714(a), weight given in determining admissibihty of late-filed contention based on previously unavailable hcensing documents; CLI-83-19,17 NRC 104l (1983) HEALTH EFFECTS associated with nuclear fuel cycle, consideration of, in individual hcensing proceedings; LBP 83-6, 17 NRC 153 (1983) genetic and somatic, from operation of Clinch River breeder reactor, adequacy of evaluation of; r LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) of radon releases from uranium fuel cycle; CLI-83-14,17 NRC 745 (1983) HEARING (S) acudicatory, type of matter to be raised for adversarial captoration and eventual resolution in; ALAB 715,17 NRC 102 (1983) 3 t customary practice concerning location of; LBP-8319,17 NRC 573 (1983) on request for special nuclear materials hcense renewal, standards for; CLI-83-15,17 NRC 1001 i (1983) standard for appellate review of Licensing Board's scheduhng of, ALAB-719,17 NRC 387 (1983) [ See alto Adjudicatory Proceedings; Construction Permit Proceedings; Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proceedings; Operating License Proceeding (s) e HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS ? for pressurized water reactor, description of; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) HISTORIC DISTRICT f noise and maintenance impacts of Point Pleasant intake on, LBP-83-il,17 NRC 413 (1983) IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW of stay request, situations appropriate for; ALAB-721,17 NRC 539 (1983) 4 INFORMANTS l clanfication of Commission order staying any further Licensing Board proceeding that could result in identification of, CLI-83-9,17 NRC 525 (1983) i Commission jurisdiction over issue of disclosure of identities of; CLI-83-8,17 NRC 339 (1983) review granted of dismissal of appeal from Licensing Board orders requiring disclosure of identities of. CLI-83-18,17 NRC 1037 (1983) = i See also Confidentiahty INFORMER'S PRIVILEGE applicabihty of, to NRC proceedings; ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) i INTERPRETATION } of regulations, test for fairness of, CLl 83-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983) i of terms in regulations, sources used for; CLI-83 l,17 NRC 1 (1983) I of the term " adequate interim compensatory action; CLI-8316,17 NRC 1006 (1983) of the term " officer" in content of government agency; LBP-83-29,17NRC til7 (1983) of the terms "important to safety" and " safety-grade"; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) See also Construction INTERROGATORIES i addressing contentions not sponsored by interrogee, need for answers to; LBP 83 9,17 NRC 403 I p[=J/tj (1983) j i wu . y MQ: ' 7 " 4.I d g gg7 i t, k I m_

O SUBJECT INDEX

-- 9 need to disclose identities of persons assisting in preparation of answers so; LBP 83-27A,17 NRC

, +e 971 (1983) <3 remedy for party suffering harm from incomplete answers to; LBP-83-3,17 NRC 59 (1983) responses to, under oath, L3P-83-27A,17 NRC 971 (1983) d[4[84 v sanctions for failure to comply with order compelling anroers to; LBP-83-20A,17 NRC 586 (1983) See also Discovery INTERVENORS orgamzational, disclosure of names ofindividual members of; LAP-8316,17 NRC 479 (1983) participation by, with regard to another interveoor's contentions; LBP-33 9,17 NRC 403 (1983) pro se, satisfaction of specificity requirement for contentens by; LBP-83-$,17 NRC 134 (1983) pro se, special consideration of, by Licensing Board; LBP-83-20A,17 NRC 586 (1983) representation of, in NRC proceedmss; LBP-83-28,17 NRC 98? (1983) riaht 9, to cross-examine apphcant and Staff witnesses; ALAB-732,17 NRC 107e (1983) right to applicant's employees to cooperate with; LBP-83 24A,17 NRC 674 (1983) INTERVENTION by organizations whose sole purpose is opposition to nuclear power; LBP 83-16,17 NRC 479 (1983) late, by an interes'ed state or municipality; LBP-8313,17 NRC 469 (1983) petition. pleading requirement for; ALAB-722,17 NRC 546 (1983) standing to appeal denial of; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982) 3URISDICTION Appea! Board, applicability of case or controversy ** restriction to; ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) of Appeal "oard over issue in vaca'td construction permit proceedms, tern.ination of; ALAB-723, 17 NRC 555 (1983) of Licensing Board over new cantentions following issuance of initial decision; LBP-8312,17 NRC 466 (1983) of Licensias Board over site-spLeific aspects of medical arrangements question; LBP-83-8C,17 NRC 297 (1983) of hcensms board to rule on requests of a party following approval of Final Security Settlement Agreement and dismissal of proceeding; LBP-83-20,17 NRC 580 (1983) of presidmg officer, commencement and termination of; LBP-83 20,17 NRC 580 (1983) over issue of disclosure of alleged i tformant identities, Commission means for; CLI-83-3,17 NRC 339 (1983) over motion to reopen record served on day ofissuance of partial initi2 decision; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 681 (1983) to rule on a motion to reopen afte: eaceptions have been taken; ALAB-726,17 NRC 755 (1983) LIABILITY of radiographer for loss of equipment; ALJ-83-2,17 NRC 693 (1983) LICENSE Class 103, factors for determining need for; LBP-83-24,17 NRC 666 (1983) See also Manufacturing License, Oper ting License LICENSE CONDITIONS need for compliance with, during emergencies, ALAB 729,17 NRC 814 (1983) LICENSING BOARD (S) authority regarding time periods for motions to reconsider; LBP-8314,17 NRC 473 (1983) authority to call witnesses ofits own; ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1983) authority to condition withdrawal of construction permit apphcation; LBP-83 2,17 NRC 45 (1983) authonty to consider utility prepared offsite emergency response plan in absence of state or local i government plan; CLI-8313,17 NRC 741 (1983) authority to impose sanctions for intervenor s failure to respond in discovery, LBP-83-29A,17 NRC 1121 (1983) decision, stare decisis effect of Appeal Board's sua sponte affirmance of ALAB-720,17 NRC 397 (1983) decision, test for appealability of, LBP-83 20,17 NRC 580 (1983) determination of contested issues; ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983) l discretion in management of proceedings; ALAB-719,17 NR C 387 (1983) l sscretion in treating issues as contested, ALAB 709,17 NRC 17 (1982) -;/9b, W b $n, w& ig I 9.m y l l le8 t I l

l SUBJECT INDEX dncretion to adopt measures to contral or hmit participation of parties, LBP-83-28,17 NPC 987 (1983) failure to follow Commission pohey on expeditious conduct of licensms proceedmss; CLI-83-9,17 y.- NRC 525 (1983) issues which may he decided by; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982) Q$1, jurisdiction over motion to reopen record served on day issuance of partial initial decision; E N'r*

• f LBP-83 25,17 NRC 681 (1983)

I jurisdiction over new contentiona following issuance ofinitial decision; LBP-8312,17 NRC 466 (1983) jurisdiction over site-specific aspects of medical arrangements question, LBP-83-8C 17 NRC 297 (1983) jurisdiction to rule on requests of a party following approval of Final Security Settlement Agreement and d:smissal of proceeding; LBP-83-20,17 NRC 580 (1983) obhgation to deal with unresolved safety issues; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) obhgation to discuss hmited appearance statements in its decision; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) post-heanns resolution ofissues by; ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) responsbihty of, to detail bases for its course of action in resolving contested issues; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) responsibihty to comply with Appeal Board directives; ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1983) review of safety issues in construction permit proceedmg, scope of; ALAB 728,17 NPC 777 (1983) scope of sua sponte review by; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) task of, concerning emergency plannmg issues. DPRM-83-2,17 NRC 719 (1983) use of sua sponte authority; LBP 83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) See also Adjudicatory Boards; Boards LICENSING PROCEEDINGS burden of proof in; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1075 (1983) condition for admissibihty of evidence in; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) consideration of credible external events in; DPRM-83 2,17 NRC 1194 (1983) discretion of Boards to adopt measurss to control or limit participation of parties in; LBP-83-28,17 NRC 987 (1983) expeditious conduct of. CLI 83 9,17 NRC 525 (1983) See also Adjudicatory Proccedings; Operating License Proceedmg(s) LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENTS purpose of. ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZATION applicability of, to first-of-a-kind projects, LBP 83 8,17 NRC 158 41983) scope of pre-construction activities allowed under; ALAB 721,17 NRC 539 (1983) LIQUEFACTION at La Crosse ste, potential for; LBP-83-23,17 NRC 655 (1483) See also Earthquake (s); Safe Shutdown Earthquake M ANUF 4CTUR!NG LICENSE proceedug, focus ofissues in; ALAB-718,17 NRC 384 (1983) MEDICAL SERVICES arrangenknts for San Onofre area, need for evidence concerning availabihty of, LBP-83 8D,17 NRC 306 (1983) arrangemer ts requirement, certification of question concerning interpretation of LBF-83-8C,17 NRC 297 (1983) for generr3 pubhc, Commission definition of scope of emergency planning for; CLI-8310,17 NRC 528 (1983) MISREPRESENTATION by licensee concerning inservice inspection of reactor vessel, denial of 2.206 petition for suspension of operating license because of; DD-83-9,17 NRC 1187 (1983) undue charactenzation of appbcant's conduct as; LBP-83 31 MONITORING radiation, capabilities of San Onofre tocaljurisdictions during radiological emergency; ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983) m 6 M,&Oh i 3 y> 8n 4 t i

SUBJECT INDEX r v ta %%4 MOTION ($) WM for clanrication, effect of Licensing Board inaction on; LBP-8315,17 NRC 476 (1983) Y to reconsider, time apphcable to; LBP 83-14,17 NRC 473 (1983) ,c 7,c NEED FOR POWER 4,w htigabihty of, in operating hcense proceedmss; LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 971 (1983) NOISE impacts from supplementary cooling water system, requirement for mingston of, L EP-83 il,17 NRC 413 (1983) NOTICE of hearing on special nuclear materials trense renewal, requirement for; LBP 8319,17 NRC 573 (1983) of rights of appisants' employees, NRC requirements for posting of; LBP 83 24 A,17 NRC 674 (1983) NOTIFICATION of Indian Point authorities of radiologscal emergency, admission of contention challenging licensee's atmhty for; LBP-83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983) of pubhc of actions to take during radiolossal emergency, content of emergency plans fegarding, i ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) of state and local governmental agencies of radiological emergency, emergency planning requirements for; ALAB-727,17 NRC 760 (1983) See also Alerting; Board Notirication NRC STAFF authority to determine whether documents contain safeguards informauon; LBPf83-20,17 NRC 580 (1983) delegauon of decisional authority Po; ALAB 729,17 NRC 814 (1983) [ resporu.behties for findangs on safety issues concerning uncontested operating trenses, ALAB-722, 17 NRC 546 (1983) l responsibehues of, concerning quoted matter in its submissions; L3P-83-27A 17 NRC 971 (1983) responsibihty concernmg adequacy of review of unresolved generic safety issues in construction permit hearings; ALAB-728,17 NRC T17 (s983) witnesses, circumstances warrantirig subpoena o( ALAB-715,17 NRC 102 (1983) r NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (S) general critena for design of; ALAB 729,17 NRC 314 (1983) pressurized water, description of structures, systems aw2 components of; ALAB-729, I? NRC 814 (1983) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l authority to consider noise impacts of cooling water system on surrounding environment; LBP 83 il,17 NRC 413 (1983) authority to enter upon and operate a trensed facility; D7M 83-2,17 NRC 1894 (1983) authority to establish regulations on procedural matters; CL1-83-19,17 NRC 104I (1983) authonty to presenbe requirements for a party seeking to reopen a proceeding; ALAB-728,17 NRC e l 777 (1983) l emergency plan for response to credible esternal events such as satelhte reentry, volcame eruptions, hurncanes; DPRM-83-2,17 NRC 1894 (1983). jurisdaction over issue of disclosure of alleged informant idenuties, means for; CLI-83-8,17 NRC 339 (1983) proceedings, application of Federal Rules of Evidence to; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) proceedings, standard for reopening the record in; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) ? responsbilities regarding enforcement actions f1r derriencies in emergency plans; CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006 (1983) review of emergency planning for purposes oflow-power tesung, basts for, ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 i (1983) See also NRC Staff NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N PROCEEDINGS ,e appication of Federal Rules of Civil Procedre to; LBP-83 29,17 NRC 1117 (1983) k MT.'c :, burden of proofin; LBP-83-20A,17 NEC 586 (1983) p "iK See also Adjudsatory Prowedmss ~ d $j 118 a I {

SUBJECT INDEX OBJECTIONS to adverse rulings on contentions, form of; LBP 83-8A,17 NRC 282 (1983) See also Exceptions T.'#9g, OPERATING LICENSI emergency plan findings necessary prior to issuance of; ALAB-727,17 NRC 760 (1983); ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) issuance of,in the absence of state or local emergency response plan; LBP-33-22,17 NRC 608 i (1983) low-power, effect of County's refusal to adopt emergency response plan on issuance of LBP-83-21, 17 NRC 593 (1983) low-power, issuance of, in absence of NRC or FEMA approval of offsite emergency plans; CLI-83-17,17 NRC 1032 (1983) NRC emergency preparedness findmss necessary prior to issuance of; ALAB 730,17 NRC 1057 (1983) uncontested, NRC Staff responsibilities for findings on safety issues concerning, ALAB-722,17 NRC 546 (1983) use of Comrnissaon funds to take actions leadmg to the issuance of, LBP 83-22,17 NRC 608 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING (S) apphcation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to; LBP-83 27A,17 NRC 971 (1983) denial of governmental intervenor's motion for termination of, LBP-83 22,17 NRC 608 (19,83) effect of motion to conduct low power testing; ALAB 728,17 NRC 777 (1983) elimination ofissues from; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) factors governing scope of; LBP-83-19,17 NRC 573 (1983) policy for completion of, prior to completion of construction; LBP 83-8A,17 NRC 282 (1983) record, close of, relative to o(Tsate emergency planning exercise; DPRh83-2,17 NRC 719 (1983) scope of acudicatory board review of, ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) [ scope ofissues to be considered in; ALAB 709,17 NRC 17 (1982); ALAB 728,17 NRC 777 (1983) See rho Adjudicatory Proceedings; Licensing Proceedings OPERCIONS l low-power, findmss or determinations on state of offsite emergency preparedness necessary prior to, l LBP-83 21,17 NRC 59)(1983) [ See also Suspension of Operations ? OPINIONS advisory, Appeal Board reluctance to render; ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) See also Decisions ORDERS Licensing Board, challenges to; LBP-8318,17 NRC 501 (1983) See also Protective Orders; Show Cause Orders i PENAL'Y i, for failure to comply with Board equest concerning format of findings of fact; LBP 83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) k' See also Civil Penalty PLUTONIUM I beryllium neutron sources, consideration of, for purpose of determining existence of forrauta quantity of strategic special nuclear maieval; LBP-83 25A,17 NRC 927 (1983) ? containment factor used to assess radiological impacts of Clinch River breeder reactor fuel cycle j farihties, adequacy of, LBP-83 8,17 NRC 158 (1983) POLICY I standards to be used in enforcement cases, ALJ-83 2,17 NRC 69) (1983) PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT of app:llate determination, basis for; ALAB-723,17 NRC 555 (1983) ITEJUDICE to intervenors from foreclosure oflitigation on capabihty of Cristianitos fault, ALAB-717,17 NRC ( 346 (1983) j PRESIDING OFFICER g apprcval of compromise of civil penalty by; ALJ-831,17 NRC 313 (1983) l V'L s J y y[ f. u.a k & w.. f XMM } l i l v&w [ i

SUBJECT INDEX p.W i 7 d authority of, to impose sanctions for intervenor's failure to file findmss of fact, ALAB 709,17 NRC

p[

17 (1982) j commencement and termination of jurisdiction of; LBP-83-20,17 NRC 580 (1983) l p.$. 4%f, PRESSURIZED THERM AL SHOCK s "- M denial of request for regulatory action at Zion facility because of risk of DD 83-4,17 NRC 513 (1983) PRESSURIZER HEATER circuitry, function and adequacy of, at TMl; ALAB 729,17 NRC $14 (1983) PRIVILEGE asserted in objecting to discovery request, burden for estabhshing; LBP 8317,17 NRC 490 (l'>$3) attorney work poduct, establishment of, LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490 (1983) See also informer's Privilege PROEABILtSTIC 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) PROTECTION of special nuclear matenals, requirements for; LBP-83 25 A,17 NRC 927 (1983) See also Reactor Protection System; Safeguards PROTECTIVE ORDERS to prevent disclosure of names of members of organizational petitioner for intervention; LBP-8316, 17 NRC 479 (1983) See also Confidentiahty PUBLIC INTERESTS competing, admimstrative fairness in balancing; CLI 8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983) QUALIFICATION environmental, of electrical equipment, need for; LEP-8318,17 NRC 501 (1983) of equipment, safety standards for; ALAB 729,17 NRC 814 (1983) seismic, of emergency feedwater system at Three Miie Island, CLI-83 5,17 NRC 331 (1983) QUALITY ASSURANCE denial of intervenor's reouest for remedial measures to facihtate communications with appbcants' employees on matters of LBP-83-24A,17 NRC 674 (1983) RADIATION dose rate, effect of, on polymers; LBP 83-18,17 NRC 501 (1983) exposure for public, need to estabhsh maaimam acceptable level prior to emergency planning; LBP 83-5,17 NRC 134 (1983) l momtoring capabilities of San Onofu d Wrmis ens durms radiological emergency, need to upgrade prior to full-power operauon; ALa; 17 NRC 346 (1983) RADIATION DOSES from routme emissions from Waterford plant, calculation of; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) to people at various facihties near Chn6h River breeder reactor, calculation of, LBP 83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) See alus Dose RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS synergism between heavy industry chemical pollutants in Mississippi River and, ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) R ADIOACTIVE W ASTE high-level, from Clinch River breeder reactor, plans for handhng and storage of, LBP-83-8,17 NRC h 158 (1983) f low-level, storage at Browns Ferry, approval of settlement between hcensee, intervention peWners, and NRC Staff concerning; ALAB-711,17 NRC 30 (1983) i sealed m permanent repository, consideration ofimpacts of; LBP-83-6,17 NRC 153 (1983) l RADIOGRAPHER . 'ds liability of, for loss of equipment; AL3-83-2,17 NRC 69) (1983) ?- RADIOGRAPHIC EXPOSURE DEVICES [h h"j secunty requirements for; ALJ-83 2,17 NRC 693 (M83) 12 M-; 4&fthf

7..J.[3 /1 g

n2 a

l SUBJECT INDEX l l l RADON { releases associated with uranium fuel cycle, termination of appellate jurisdiction over issue of $,;J g -y+M environmental effects of, AL AB 723,17 NRC 555 (1983) (

• ', )4J releases from uranium fuel cycle, significance to be accorded in individual reactor licensang gg decisions; CLI-8314,17 NRC 745 (1983)

,43 REACTOR @ fn circuit-trip breaker failures, need for Salem facility to address causes of, prior to restart; DD-83 6, 17 NRC 713 (1983) demonstration liquid metal fast breeder, at Clinch River, description of adjudicatory activities concerning; ALAB-721,17 NRC 539 (1983) embrittlement at Catawba, consolidation of contentions on; LBP-83 29A 17 NRC 1821 (1983) pressurized water, description of operation of, ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) research, financial qualifications of licensee to operate; LBP-33-24,17 NRC 666 (1983) REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEMS for pressurized water reactor, description of; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) See also Coolms Systems; Emergency Core Coolms System REACTOR CORE conditions onducive to accidents; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) for pressurized water reactor, description of, ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) REACTOR OPERATORS 2: Catawba, sufficiency of level of experience of, LBP-83 29A,17 NRC 1821 (1983) REACTOR PROTECTION SYSTEMS for pressurized water reactor, description of, ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) REACTOR VESSEL inservice inspection, allegations of misrepresentations by licensee of DD 83-9,17 NRC 1187 (1983) RE8UTTABLE PRESUMPTION entit!cment of FEM A findmss to, in NRC proceedmss; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) RECONSIDERATION criteria for considerms mo, ion. for; LBP-83-25,17 NRC tal (1983) harm f om incomplete answers as bas 5 for; LBP 83-3,17 NRC 59 (1983) of order denying admission into evAnce of deposition of officer of severnment agency, denial of petinon for; LBP 83-29,17 NRC lil7 (1983) of order not to permit reopening of hearms sua sponte, denial of petition for; CLI-83-4,17 NRC 75 (1983) of rulings on environmental impact contentions, denial of motion for; LBP-83-8A,17 NRC 282 (1983) tirne applicable to motions for; LBP-83-I4,17 NRC 473 (1983) RECORD full-power operating hcense, offsite emergency plan esercise and close of, DPRM 83 2,17 NRC 719 (1983) reopening of, on TMI-related issues; ALAB 728,17 NRC 777 (1983) reopenmg of, where a party seeks to place a new subject in contention; LBP-83 30,17 NRC 1832 (1983) RECREATION impacts of Point Pleasant intake on; LPP-83 II,17 NRC 413 (1983) REFERRAL OF RULING to Appeal Board, type of unusual expense which might affect; LBP-83-28,17 NRC 981 (1983) to the Commission, situations appropriate br; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 593 (1983) REGULATIONfS) application of LEP-83 21,17 NRC 593 (1983) basis for interpretmg Commission intent of, LBP 83 22,17 NRC 608 (1983) challenges to,in licensing proceedings; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) concernirig emergency preparedness emers..scs, denial of petition to amend, DPRM 83-2,17 NRC 719 (1983) exemptions from, for early site preparation of Chnch River Breeder Reactor Project; ALAB-721,17 NRC 539 (1983); CLI-83-1,17 NRC 1 (1983) Vkib QM, ghA i1 MBN 1 II3 i I. 1

SUBJECT INDEX %t s. v d of radiological health end safety matters, federal preemption of state and local LBP-83-22,17 NRC .5 q* " 608 (1983) .gg }( ,3 requests for rehef from; DD-83 7,17 NRC 997 (1983) sources used for interpretations of terms in; CLl 83-1,17 NRC 1 (1983) { test of normal and fair interpretations of; CLi 8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983) , w, w to require presenbed actions to be taken in event of objects fallms from earth's orbit, denial of pehuon for rulemaking to amend, DPRM-83-2,17 NRC 1194 (1983) REGULATORY GUIDES i apphcation er, ALAB-725,17 NRC $62 (1983) REPROCESSIN(3 of spent fuels from Clinch River breeder reactor, plans for; LBP 83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) l RESTART of Salem facility, need to address causes of reactor circuit-tnp bre.ker failures pnor to. DD-83-6,17 NRC 713 (1983) proceeding for TMI-1,linutauon of design and procedures issues in; ALAB-724,17 NRC 559 (1983) i RETAllATION discr: minatory, against employees who inform about safety discrepancies, ALAB-714,17,NRC 86 (1983) g REVIEW Commission, of emergency planning for purposes of lowtower testing, basis for; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) of Appeal Board decision concerts,ng sigt.ificance to be accorded uraniu'n fuel cycle radon releases in reactor heensing decisions, deferral of; CLI-8314,17 NRC 745 (1983) of dismissal of appeal by NRC Staff from Licensing Board orders requiring disclosure ofinformants' identines granted; CLI-8318,17 NRC 1037 (1983) o{ manufacturing hcense proceeding, scope of. ALAB 718,17 NRC 384 (1983) of stay request under critena ofimmediate effectiveness rule; Al.AB-721,17 NRC 539 (1983) sua sponte, by Appeal Board, scope of; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983); ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) sua sponte, by Licensms Board, scope of ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) sua sponte, Commission Statement explaining reasons for not undenaking; CLI-83 2,17 NRC 69 (1983) See also Environmental Review; Immediate Effectiveness Review REVIEW, APPELLATE of Licensing Board's schedulng of hearings, standard of; ALAB-719,17 NRC 387 (1983) i scope of, regardmg grant or denial of intervention peutions; ALAB-71),17 NRC 83 (1983) scope of, where Licensing Board fails to explam teses for its decision; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 [ (1993) RISK assessment, based on Safety Goals. for operstmg nuclear power plants, need for Big Rock Pomt plant to meet; DD-83-7,17 NRC 997 (1983) of pressurized thermal shock, denial of request for regulatory action at Zaon facihty because of; i DD-83-4,17 NRC 513 (1983) to San Onofre facihty from accidenta need for probabahty analysis of, Lt>P-83-8D,17 NRC 306 I (1983) See also Probabilistic Rivs Assessment RULES AND REGULATIGb5 l incorporation, by reference, of matenab into; LBP-83 22,17 NRC 608 (1943) htigabihty ofissues challengmg validity of; ALAB 728,17 NRC 777 (1983) opportunities for hcense to bring itself into compluace with; CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006 (1983) showing necessary for waiver from; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) l l See also Statutes ) RULES OF PRACTICE administrative fairness in balancing of competing public interest; CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983) Fg%g)p,( ,g admissibihty of ACRS report as evidence; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) admissibility of contentions that are the subject of rulemaking; ALAB-729,17 NRC 8!4 (1983) m %'; y , MW e.w - g i 114 t t I i

SUBJECT INDEX G admisssbility of depositions of ofDcer of government agency as eviden (1983) ce; LBP-83-29,17 NRC 1117 Appeal Board deference to Licensing Board findmgs; A M t' i % 4' 346 (1983) appeatabihty of Licensms Board's d smissal ofintervenor's conteation A -}}j4 (1983) -, NRC 1057 (1983) ,fA ,17 NRC 1073 k,J{['L apphcabshty of " case or controversy" restriction to Appeal Board junsd cti 86 (1983) 4 C on; ALAB 714,17 NRC apphcabihty ofinformer's pnvilege to NRC proceedings; ALAB 714 17 NR j application of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to NRC proceedmss LBP 83 C 86 (1983) l (1913) - -29,17 NRC 1117 appropriateness of show cause proceedmgs to consider NRC 346 (1983) (1983) ncies; DD 83-5,17 NRC 519 authority of Licensing Board to order findmss of fact; ALAB-709 17 NRC 7 avoidance of appropnate forum by use of 2.206 procedures; DD 83 5 17 1 (1982) basis with specificity requirement for contentions; ALAB 728 17 NRC 7 19 (1983) burden for demonstratmg entitlement to a stay; ALAB-72) 77 (1983) burden for estabhshmg privilege asserted in objectmg to discove,17 NRC 539 (19831 (1983) ry request; LBP 83-17,17 NRC 490 certification ofissues to the Commission; LBP 83 21,17 -.,17 NRC ll64 (1983) thallenges to Board orders; LBP4318,17 NRC 501 (1983) challenges to Commission regulations; ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) circumstatices appropriate for consohdation of parties and designatson ofl LBP43 78,17 NRC 987 (1983) l ead intervenors; commencement and termination of jurisdiction of a pr ? 983) (1983) - 20,17 NRC 580 communications between Commissioners and NRC Staff which ar 72 (1983) s parte; CL1-83-3,17 NRC cond: tion for admissibihty of evidence in NRC licensing proceedm (19 m I as; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 enteria for constdering motions for reconsideration, LB e 83) criteria used in determining whether to grant stay pending appeal; ALAB 721 83) cross-examination by intervenors; AL A B-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) ,17 NRC 539 (1983) determmmg class oflicense for a facihty; LBP-83-24 17 NRC 66 difference between pernion to reopen record and motion for re 681 (1983) 6 (1983) consideration, LBP 83 25,17 NRC disposition of exceptions not fully briefed. ALAB 732 17 NRC 1076 (19 effect of failure to file findings V fact; ALAB 709,17 NRC 17 (19821; ALA (1983) 83) NRC 34t dect of summary disposition; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) en parte communications; CLi-83 5 17 NRC 331 (1983)et. Net n NRC $19 (1983) estent of answers to imerrogatones; BP 33-9,17 NRC 403 (1983) good cause for grantmg estension of time to an intereste [ 945 (1983) 2g,17 NRC 777 (1983) g scovery; LBP-83-26,17 NRC guidance from judicial proceedmss for resolving NRC dnc s t (1983) u es; LBP-8317,17 NRC 490 guidance from judicial proceedmss on question ofjurisdiction over mot NRC 681 (1983) ion to reopen; LBP 83-25,17 harm from incomplete answers to interrogatones as basis for recon d (1983) si eration; LBP-83-3,17 NRC 59 ll & $ ) p?gg,Q( gd nv Qg$"y Mh 115 Ma ) f i k

SUBJECT INDEX harm to intervenois frca dismissal of proceedings, LBP-83 2,17 NRC 45 (1983) 'W D institution of show cause proceedmst on issues that are the subject of rulemating. DD-83-3.17 M NRC 327 (1983) interlocutory appeals from order entered on intervention petition. AL AB 712,17 NRC 81 (1983) introduction of evidence by an interested state. LBP-83-9,17 NRC 403 (1983) l I jurishtion of boards; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 681 (1983) junsdiction to rule on a motion to reopen after enceptions have been saken. AL AB 726,17 NRC 755 (1983) justification for grant of a stay pendmg appeal; CL1-83-6.17 NRC 333 (1983) late participation by interested state or municipahty; LBP-33-13,17 NRC 469 (1983) hberal granting of discovery; LBP 8317,17 NRC 490 (1983) i Licensmg Board jurisdiction following issuance of imtial decision; LBP 8312,17 NRC 466 (1983) l hmitations on cross-esamina9on; ALAB 732.17 NRC 1076 (1983) i htigabihty ofissues challengmg vahdity of rules or.egulations; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) misrepresentation alkgations; LBP-83-31 most crucial factor to be considered in ruhng on stay pendmg appeal. ALAB-716,17 NRC 341 l (1983) participation by an interested state or local government as a full party; LBP-83-9.17 NRC 403 l (1983) participation by an intervenor with regard to another intervenor's contentions. LBP-83-9,17 NRC 403 (1983) l penalty for failure to comply with Board request concermng format of findings of fact; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) I pleadmg requirement for intervention petition; AL AB-722.17 NRC 546 (1983) pleading requirements necessary for challenges to apphcant's comphance with NRC regulations; ALAB 728,17 NRC 777 (1983) preclusion of conversations among parties in hcensing proceedmgs; ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983) purpose of hmited appearance statements, ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) reconsideration of(;nal Licensing Board decisions; LBP-8315.17 NRC 476 (1983) referral of rulmgs to Appeal Board. LBP 83 28.17 NRC 987 (1983) remedy for party who beheves adjudicatory board order is mcorrect; AL AB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) reopening of record on TMI-related issues; ALAB-728.17 NRC 777 (1983) reopenmg the record where a party seeks to place a new subject in contention. LBP 83-30,17 NRC I132 (1983) representation of parties, LBP-83 28,17 NRC 987 (1983) requirements for use of probabihstic risk asmsment; LBP 83-4.17 NRC 109 (1983) responsibilities of counsel concero is quoted matter in submissions; LBP 83-22,17 NRC 608 (1983) responsibihties of individual or' at om organintional standmg is based; LBP-8316.17 NRC 479 (1983) responsibihties of parties tr 'ulf!I hearing obligations; ALAB 719,17 NRC 387 (1983) responsibihties of parties i. th respect to their contentions; LBP 83-20A,17 NRC 586 (1983) responsibihty of parties ccncermng uncoverms of information in pubhcly available documents. CLl-83-19.17 NRC 1041 (1983) l review of stay request under criteria ofimmediate effectiveness rule; ALAB-721,17 NRC 539 (1983) right of appeal from interlocutor) rulmg by a Licensing Board. LBP-83-21,17 NRC 593 (1983) sanctions for failure to meet hearing obhgation; LBP-83-20A,17 NRC 586 (1983) l scope of appellate briefsiALAB 709,17 NRC 17 (1982) acope of operating hcense review; DD-83 5,17 NRC 519 (1983) showing necessary by parties interested in litigation unresolved safety issues; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) I showing necessary for discovery ofidentities of non witness emperts; LBP-83-27A.17 NRC 971 (1983) i showing necessary for reopening of proceedings; ALAB-728.17 NRC 777 (1983) F.'4Y-h situations appropriate for referral of ruhngs to the Commission; LBP 83 21,17 NRC 593 (1983) [jd.dq situations appropriate for show cause proceedmss; ALAB-722.17 NRC 546 (1983) . N #r9 standard for appellate briefs; AL AB-719.17 NRC 387 (1983) ..h_$,A5 . ce % i 116 i s

SUBJECT int 1EX G standards for reopemns the record, LBP-83 30,17 NRC l132 (1983) standmg to appeal derual ofinicrvention; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982) 44M standmg to intervene of orgamaation whose sole purpose is opposition to n aclear power; LBP 8316 i J I L +1 c 17 NRC 479 (1983) N$ test to be satisfied for reopening of proceedings; AL AB 730,17 NRC 105! (1983) q, time apphcable to motions to reconsider; LBP-83-14,17 NI:C 47) Il983) i 34y time requirement for participation as an interested governrrewei entity; LBP-83 30,17 NRC 1132 (1983) timing for apphcation of standards for reopening the record, LBP-83 30,17 NRC 1832 (1983) ultimate burden of proofin licensing proceeding, ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076 (1983), use of answers to interrogatories to counter matenal supportmg motion for summary disposition; l LBP-83-32A,17 NRC 1170 (1983) i use of Federal Rules for interpretation of Commission ru!cs; LBP 8317,17 NRC 490 (1983) RULINGS untimelmess, on contentions based on previously unavailable documents, basis for; LBP-83-S A,17 NRC 282 (1983) SABOTAGE of Chnch River breeder reactor, analysis of scenanos for; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) requirement for non-power reactor hcenses to protect agamst; LBP-83-25A,17 NRC 927 4983) SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTilQUAKE for hauefaction purposes at La Crosse site, determination of, LBP-83 23,17 NRC 655 (1983) SAFEGUARDS for Chnch River project, odequacy M analyth cf environmental efTects and costs of providing; LBP43 8,17 NRC 158 (1983) See also Engineered Safeguards Protection SAFEGU ARDS INFORM ATIOM [ documents concerning liais.: for security matters between a utshty and offsite LLEA personnei es; t LBP 83 20,17 NRC 580 (1983) SAFETY 3 contentions, pnncipal document for formulation of; CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983) factory in sleeved steam generator tubes; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) goals for nuclear pemer plants, use of,in adjudicatory proceedings: LBP-83-23,17 NRC 655 (1983) of nuclear power plants, standard for determining; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) questions outside appellate jurisdiction Appeal Board treatment of ALAB-724,17 NRC 559 (1983) i standards for equipment auahfication; AL AB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) systems bypass and overnde at TMI, adequacy of, for restart, ALAB 729,17 NRC C4 (1983) } See also Engineered Safety Features l SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT I prehmmary, submission of, as part of construction permit apphcation; ALAB 729,17 NRC 614 (1983) SAFETY ISSUES l unresolved, Licensing Board obhgation to deal with, ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) S AFETY ISSUES unresolved, showing necessary by parties imerested in litigatmg ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) SANCTIONS against intervenor for failure to file findings of fact; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982) for dehberate false statements or withholdmg of information, Comma.sion Statement warmns of. e CLI-83-2,17 NRC H (1983) for failure to meet heanns obhgasses, factors considered in imposmg; LBP-83 20A,17 NRC 586 (1983) i for intervenor's failure to respond in discovery; LBP-83-29A,17 NRC 1121 (1983) } guidance on imposition of, LBP 83-29A,17 NRC 1121 (1983) See also Distr.issal SCHEDULE OF PROCEEDINGS standard for appe!! ate review of Licensing Board's order for; AL AB 719,17 NRC 387 (1983) SECURITY Fff'n deficiencies at Zion and Dresden plants, investigation of; DD-83-8,17 NRC 1113 (1983) y '- j \\ % SQ u f MA % r 117 rU % i

O SUBJECT INDEX ,a t for Clinch River project, adequacy of analysis of environmental effects and costs of providing; LBP 83-3,17 NRC 158 (1983) H SECURITY PLAN factor considered in making 10 CFR 73.60 determination for; LBP 83-25A,17 NRC 927 (1983) Wgi'i SEISMIC & GEOLOGIC CRITERI A _o. of a site, apphcable standards for determining; LBP 83 23,17 NRC 655 (1983) See also Earthquake (s); Fault (s). Liquefaction. Safe Shutdown Earthedake SETTLEMENT agreement to strengthen material control and accounting and phys; cal security requirements under special nuclear materials hcense; CL1-83-12,17 NRC 735 (1983) between licensee, intervention petitioners, and NRC Staff concerning low level radioactive waste storage at Browns /cr:1, appro=al of; ALAB-711,17 NRC 30 G983) SHAD American, impact of Pmnt Pleasant intake on; LBP-83-il,17 AC 413 (1983) SHIELDING during feed and bleed cooling at TMI 8, area of concern for; CLI-83-3,17 NRC 72 (1983) SHOW CAUSE ORDER Appeal Board withdrawal of; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1982) ,,. training hcensee from restarting its Salem facihty prior to addressing causes of reactor circuit-trip s & ceaker failures, denial of request for; DD 83-6,17 NRC 713 (1983) SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING (S) for alleged construction deficiencies at LaSalle, denial of petition for; DD-83 I,17 NRC 319 (1983) on issues that are the subject of rulemaking; DDM-3,17 NRC 327 (1983) situation appropriate for; ALAB 722,17 NRC 546 (1983) to consider design deficiencies, appropriateness of, DD-83 5,17 NRC 519 (1983) i See also Adjudicatory Proceedings i SHUTDOWN of Indian Poant power plants, circumstances leading to Commission consideration of, CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006 (1983) scope of Commission consideration in deciding whether to order; CLI-83 II,17 NRC 731 (1983) See also Safe Shutdown Earthquake SIREN ALERT SYSTEM at Waterford, need for completion of, prior to full-power operation; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 i (1983) i See aire Alerting SITE appleable standards for determirung seismic and geologic criteria for; LBP-83 23,17 NRC 655 i (1983) SITE PREP ARATION early, esenption from regulatione for; CLl-831,17 NRC 1 (1983) early, for GM, River Breeder Rzactor Project, esemption from regulations for; ALAB-721,17 i NRC 539 (1983) SITE SUITABILITY anlysis, consideration of core disruptive accidents as design basis for purpose of; LBP-83-8,17 a 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) f See also Alternative Sites SPACE measures for mitigation of danger from objects falling from; DPRM-83-2,17 N AC 1194 (1983) SPECI AL NUCLEAR M ATERIALS ^ definition of, LBP-33-25A,17 NPf 927 (198?) strategic, sources considered for purpose of determining esistence of formula quantity of; LBP-83 25A,17 NRC 927 (1983) See also Byproduct Material; Plutonium; Technetium 3 , e - p@$. .1 i lls i i

SUBJECT INDEX ytfA-SPECIAL NUCLEAR M ATERI ALS LICENSE amendment of settlement agreement to grengthen material control and accountmg and physacal M2d W* j security requirements; CLI 8312,17 NRC 735 (1983) renewal proceeding, factors governing scope of, LBP 83-19,17 NRC 573 (1983) a WQ[& renewal, need for formal heanns on; CLI-8315,17 NRC 1001 (1983) renewal, requirement for Notice of flearing on; LBP 8319,17 NRC $73 (1983) ,M A'N, SPENT FUELfS) from Cimch River breeder reactor, plans for reprocessing of, LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) storage at Catawba, need for specificity of contention addressing hem!th and safety consequences of. LBP 83-29A,17 NRC l'21 (1983) transportation, application of Table S-4 to; LBP-83-8B,17 NRC 291 (la93) SPENT FUEL POOL at Big Rock Pomt, ah,ucy of criticality calculations for; AL AB-725,17 NRC 562 (1983) at Big Rock Pomt, denial of 2.206 request that no additional fuel storage be allowed pendmg resolution of thermal / structural adequacy issue; DD-83 7,17 NRC 997 (1983) loss of coolant scenario for; AL AB 725,17 NRC 562 (1983) STANDING to intervene in matenals license renewal proceedmg, precedents govereng; CLI-83-15,17 fiRC i 1001 (1983) to intervene in special nuclear materials license renewal proceedms; LBP-83-19,17 NRC 573 (1983) STATEMENT of the Commission emplaining reasons for not undertaking sua sponte review and warriin6 of sanctions for withholding ofinformation; CLI-83-2,17 NRC 69 (1983) STATUTES constructing the language of, L.BNt) 22,17 NRC 608 (1983) eeight pen to pnst-enactment sia!cinents of congressional committees when determmms intent of, LBP-8i-22,17 NRC 608 (1983) i STAY burden for demonstratmg entitlement to; AL AB-721,17 NRC 539 (1983) of decision authorizing issuance of hmited work authonzation for Cimch River Breeder Reactor project, denial ofintervenors' request for; ALAB-721,17 NRC $39 (1983) of efTectiveness of Licensing Board orders as means for maintairiing Commission junsdiction over issue of disclosure of informant identities, CLI-83-8,17 NRC 339 (1983) of further Licensing Board proceedmgs that could result m identification of alleged informants, clanfication of, CLI-83-9,17 NRC 525 (1983) pendmg appeal, critena used in determining utsether to grant; ALAB-721,17 NRC 539 (1983) pending appeal,jumiest;on for grant of CL183-6,17 NRC 333 (1983) pe-dmg appeal, most crucial fator to be considered in ruims on; AL AB-716,17 NRC 341 (1983) STEAM GENER ATOR testing program for Clinch River Breeder Reactor, adequacy of, LBP-83-1,17 NRC 158 fIM3) STEAM GENER ATOR TUBES description of process for sleeving; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) sleeved descnption and reliability of eddy current testmg to detect defects m. LBP43-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) siceved, safety factors in; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) STURGEON shortnose, impact of Point Pleasant intake on, LBP-83-II,17 NRC 413 (19831 SU A SPONTE ISSUES in operating beense proceedmss, discretion of adjudicatory boards to raise; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 i (1983) I raised by Licensing Board on emergency planning, cause fer; LBP-It) 32,17 NRC 1164 (1983) SUBPOENA of NRC Staff witnesses, circumstances marranting ALAB 715,17 NRC 102 (1983) SUMM ARY DISPOSITION bifurcation of respuses te motions for; LBP 83-24,17 NRC 666 (1983) F demonstrat on of g?nuine issue of material fact for purpose of resisting motion for, LBP-8318,17 i NRC 501 (1983) p, ,f d 'L 1 4l,: a YYh ,9% m

~ G ~ SUBJECT INDEX aji

• motions, content of rebuttals to; LBP 83 32 A,17 NRC 1870 (1983)

'~,y regulatory requirement for separate and distmct statement of material facts, LBP 83 3,17 NRC 59 IL M (1983) T $ ' o /) use of artswers to interrogatones to counter material supportmg, LBP-83-32A,17 NRC 1170 (1983) 4 SUSPENSION of construction at Ismmer and imposition of remedies,2 206 petition for, granted m part, denied in part; DD 83 2,17 NRC 323 (1983) SUSPENSION OF OPERATIONS at Zion and Dresden rats on basis of alleged drug and alcohol abuse and irnproper secunty practices, denial of 2.206 petn.on for; DD-81-8,17 NRC lit) (1983) ofIndian Pomt fadties, pendmg assurance of health, safety, and welfare of Rockland County citizens, deasal of 2.206 petition for; DD 8310,17 NRC l191 (1983) SYNERGISM between radioactive effluents and heavy industry che:mcal pollutants in Mississippi Rner SYSTEMS INTER ACTION at TMI, need for study of; ALAB 729,17 NRC 814 (1983) TECHNETIUM penalty for receipt of, from unauthorized suppher; ALJ-83-1,17 NRC 313 (1983) TERMIN ATION x of Appeal board junsdiction over issue in constsucten permit proceeding, an mootness ground, AL A3-723, I) NRC 555 (1983) of operating hcense proceedmg, denial of governmentalintervenor's motion for. LEP 83-22,17 NRC 608 (1983) TESTIMONY expert, admissibihty of; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) expert, payment for; ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076 (1983)

• f expert witness, Licensms Board refusal to accept, as evidence o

See also Evidence TESTING low-power, effect of trMon to conduct; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) low-power, emerg:Ny plannmg necessary prior to; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) low-power, need Re evironmental impact statement for; ALAB 728,17 NRC 777 (1983) of emer8ency usesel genciators at Shoreham, adequacy of, LBP-83-30,17 NRC 1132 (1983) program for steam generators for Chrkh River project, adequacy of, LBP 83 8,17 NRC 158 (1983) See also Eddy Current Testing THEFT of special nuclear materials from Chnch River breeder reactor; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) THREE MILE ISLAND description of plant operation at; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983) dennption of principal structures, systems, and components that make up Unit I at; ALAB 729,17 bRC 814 (1983) TRAINING of offsite emergency workers, need for; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (198.11 required for persons assistmg in a radiological emergency; ALAB 717,17 NRC 346 (1983) TRANSPORTATION cf Cimch River fresh aM spent fuels, plans for; LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158 (1983) of spent fuel, application of Table S-4 to; LBP 83-8D,17 NRC 291 (1983) violation, loss of radiographic exposure device as; ALJ-83-2,17 NRC 693 (1983) URANIUM FUEL CYCLE consideration of impacts of; LBP-83-6,17 NRC 153 (1983) radon r:le.ases, significance to be accorded in reactor hcensin: decisions, CLI-83-14,17 NRC 745 (1983) See also Fuel Cycle URANIUM MILL TAILINGS Fi,,. degree of control to be exercised over; CLI-8314,17 NRC 745 (1983) ry m. n /Md SY/.ph: ~ .m e 120 i t - ' ~ -

SUBJECT INDEX VALVES power operated relief, at TMI, importance to safety of; ALAB-729,17 NRC 814 (1983)

t. g power-operated reuer, at TMI-8, corrosion of; ALAB-724,17 NRC 559 (1983)

VIOLATION ' ' l,9 fuel cycle and materials operations, loss of radiographe exposure device as; AL3 83-2,17 NRC 693 (1983) .;4

• WAlVER f

Mikeh from Commission regulations, sNwmg necessary for; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) See also Exemption l WATER for condenser cooling, adequacy of Palo Verde supply of, ALAB-713,17 NRC 33 (1983) i also Cooling Systems Wfa rfDR AWAL of construction permit application without prejudre, condinoning of; LBP 83 2,17 NRC 45 (1983) of construction permit apphcatum without preMee; LBP-83-10,17 NRC 410 (1983) WITNESSES circumstances warranung subpoena of; ALAB 715,17 NRC 102 (1983) expert, Licensing Board refusal to accept testimony of; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 !!983) expert, need for disclosure ofidentity of; LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 971 (1983) expert. proprie'y of payment of; ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) Licensing Board authority to callits own; ALAB 710,17 NRC 25 (1983) i h i i f I \\ 4 FMM[h M'?18j c %.2f.wq '11 l e p.

G ~ [.. T[ .:.n l l l f 1 i i i l i ) t Fvi2,sg;-[I t $ dk$t' i ys$y'1. i ,7. yip 7.-.g j /.

O ~ .t. ;l , N I' $4 Mf,f J FACILITY INDEX BIG ROCK POINT PLANT; Docket No. 50155 SPENT FULL POOL MODIFICATION; April 27,1983; DECISION; ALAB 725,17 NRC 562 (1983) SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION; May 3,1983 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD-83 7,17 NRC 997 (1983) SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION; June 16,1983, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD 83-9,17 NRC 1187 (1983) SPENT FUEL POOL MODIFICATION; June 24,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83 31,17 NRC 1861 (1983) BLACK FOX STATION, Units 1 and 2; Docket Nos. STN 50-556, STN 50-557 (ASLBP No. 76-304-02-CP) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; April 14,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-723,17 NRC 555 (1983) l WITl{DRAWAL 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, 50-2964L [- OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 21,1983; DECISION, ALAB-7ll,17 NRC 30 (1983) CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, Units I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413, 5(L414 OPERATING LICENSE; June 30,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983) i CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION,Ifr ts I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-413,50-414 (ASLBP No. 81-46341 OL) t OPERAilNG LICENSE; Febeoary 2,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-8 A,17 l l NRC 282 (1983) j OPERATING LICENSE; February 25,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-8B,17 NRC 291 (1983) I OPERATING LICENSE; Apnl 27,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-24 A,17 } NRC 674 (1983) i OPERATING LICENSE; June 20,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83 29A,17 i NRC ll21 (1983) CLINCil RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT; Docket No. 50-537 (10 CFR 5012 Exemption Request) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION; January 5,1983, EtEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-831,17 NRC I (1983) CLINCil RIVER BREEDER RE ACTOR PLANT; Docket No. 50 537-CP CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXEMPTION, April 8,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Al AB-721,17 NRC 539 (1982) CLINCll 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 i NRC 158 (1983) COM ANCliE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos SGA 45,50-446 OPERATING LICENSE; February 24 1983, DECISION; ALAB-714,17 NRC 86 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; March 1,1983; MEMOR ANDUM 4ND ORDER; ALAB 716,17 N RC 3414983) OPERATING LICENSE; March 4. f 983; ORDER; CLI 83 6,17 NRC 333 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE March 30.1983; ORDER; CLI-83 8,17 NRC 339 (1983) ,_,.1 x y, I23 ...w ? g 1

~ - - -.. ~.. _.. ~ G FACILITY INDEX OPERATING LICENSE; April 1,1983; ORDER; CLI 83-9,17 NRC 525 (1983) ,f d OPERATING LICENSE: June 27,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83 32,17 NRC g ^'d ;

7; 1164 (1983)

(N OPERATING UCENSE; June 30,1983; ORDER; CL1-8318,17 NRC 1037 (1983) DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWT.R Pi ANT, Ur its I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 275-OL,50-3234L OPERATING LICENSE; May it,1983; DECISION; ALAB-728,17 NRC 777 (1983) DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STAllON; Zion Nuclear Plant; Docket Nos. 50 10, 50-237, 50-249, 50-295, 50-304 SUSPENSION OF OPERATIONS; June 8,1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD-83-8,17 NRC 1883 f.983) ENERGY SYSTEMS GROUP SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERI ALS LICENSE No. SNM-21; Docket l No. 70 25 SPECIAL NUCLEAR M ATERIALS LICENSE RENEWAt; June 2,1983; ORDER; CLI-83-15, l 17 NRC 1001 (1983) ENRICO F1RMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT, Unit 2; Docket No. 50 3414L OPERATING LICENSE; January 4,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; June 2,1983; DECISION; ALAB-730,17 NRC 1057 (1983) FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; Docket No. STN 50-437 ML M ANUFACTURING LICENSE; March 10,1983; DECISION; ALAB 718,17 NRC 384 (1983) HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 5-354, 50-355 OPERATING LICENSE; May 27,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI 8314,17 NRC 745 (1983) INDIAN POINT, Ued No. 2; Docket No. 50-247 OPERATING LJCENSE; May 5,1983; ORDEP ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR DECISION ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIOS; CL1-83-il,17 NRC 731 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; June 10,1983; ORDER; CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; fane 29,1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD-83-10,17 NRC 1191 (1983) INDIAN POINT, Unit No. 2; Docket No. 50 247-SP (ASLBP No. SI-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 NRC 134 (1983) SPECIAL PROCEEDING; June 8,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; L8P 83-29,17 NRC 1117 (1983) INDIAN POINT, Unit No. 3; Docket No. 50-286 OPERATING LICENSE; May 5,1983; ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR DECISION ON ENFORCEMENT ACTIOh, CLI-83-II,17 NRC 731 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; June 10,1983; ORDER; CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006 (1983) OPERATING LtCENSE; June 29,1483; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD-83-10,17 NRC 1891 (1983) INDI\\N POINT, Unit Na 3; Docket No. 50-286-SP (ASLBP No. 81-%6-03-SP) SPECIAL PROCEEDING; January 4,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-1,17 NRC 33 (1983) SPECIAL PROCEEDING; February 7,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-5,17 ) NRC 134 (1983) SPECIAL PROCEEDING; June 8,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-29,17 NRC f 1117 (1983) LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR; Docket hos. 50-409 FTOL,50-409-SC ( ASLBP Nos. 78-368-05-OL, 80-445-01-!C) j OPERATING LICENSE AND SHOW CAUSE; April 21.1983; INITIAL DECISION; e LBP-83-23,17 NRC 655 (1983) . den LASALLE COUNTY STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos.50-373,50-374 (10 CFR 2.206) N CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 9,1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR y1 - 2.206; DD-83-1,17 NRC 319 (1983) n, k-124 ? 1 .c b,

FACILITY INDEX LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, Units I and 2; Dockes Nos. 50-3524L, 50-353-OL OPERATING LICENSE; February 10,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REJECTING , h(('h TABLE S-3 FUEL-CYCLE CONTENTION; LBP-834,17 NRC 153 (1983) d OPERATING LICENSE; March 10,1983; ORDER DENYING FOE MOTION TO l 4 RECONSIDER; LBP-33-14,17 Nf C 473 (1983) l g@ OPER ATING LICENSE; April 27,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FINDING NO qs A;j3 JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN DEL-AWARE 3 REQUEST TO ADMIT LATE FILED l CONTENTION V 26; LBP-83-25,17 NRC 681 (1983) l OPERATING LICENSE; May 2,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-726,17 NRC 755 (1983) LIMERICK GENERATING STAT 3ON, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-353-OL (ASLBP No. Ei-+o5-07-OL) OPERATING LICENSE; March 8,1983; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LBP-83 il,17 NRC 413 (1983) M AINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER STATION; Docket No. 50 309 (10 CFR 2.206) SUSPENSION OF OPERATION; February 14, '983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD-83 3,17 NRC 327 (1983) MIDLAND PL ANT, Units I and 2; Docket No. 50-329-CP,50-330-CP REM AND; February 18,1983; STATEMENT OF THE COMMIS$10N; CLI-83-2,17 NRC 69 (1983) MIDI.AND PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Not 50-329-OM&OL,50-330-OM&OL (ASLBP Nos. 78 389-03-OL,80-429-02-SP) MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING LICENSE; May 31,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDLR; LBP-83-28,17 NRC 987 (1983) PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Units 1,2 and 3; Docke* Nos. STN 50-528-OL, STN-50 529 OL, STN-50-530 0L OPERATING LICENSE; February 15,1983; DECISION; ALAB-713,17 NRC 83 (1983) PE ACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 50-277,50-278 OPERATING LICENSE; May 27,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-83-14,17 NRC i 745 (1983) PEBBLE SPRINGS NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. M-514-CP,50-515-CP (ASLBP No. 75-281-lG CP) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 24,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ( TERMIN ATiNG PROCEEDING; LBP 83-7,17 NRC 157 (1983) i PERRY NUCLEAR POWER FLANT, Units 1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50 441-OL OPERATING LICENSE; March 30,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-It,17 NRC 50) (1983) PERRY NUCLEAR POW ER PLANT, Units 1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-4404L,50-441-OL (ASLBP No. l 81-457 04-OL) OPERATING LICENSE; January 28,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-3,17 NRC 59 (1983) POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLAN T, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-266-OLA 2 OPER ATING 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. 81-464-05-LA) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 4,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-4,17 NRC 109 (1983) SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Umts I and 2: Docket Nos. 50 272, 50-311 RtSTART; April 29,1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD-83-6,17 NRC 713 (1983) SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 50-368 OL, 50-362-OL OPERATING LICENSE; March 4,1983; DECISION; ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; Apnl 5,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-8310,17 NRC 528 (1983) MG. ?;h 3 "ll)tf' } Nf 125 xw i

h N \\ O FACILITY INDEX ,4 SAN ONOFRE NUCL EAR GENERATING STATION, Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 50-361 OL, 50-362-OL (ASLBP Docket No. 78-365-01-OL) g OPERATING LICENSE; October 5,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-23-8C,17 3. NRC 297 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; October 29,1982; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-33-8D,17 NRC 306 (1983) SEABROOK STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50-444-OL OPERATING LICENSE; June 20,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-731,17 NRC 1073 (1983) SEABROOK STATION, t! nits I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50-444-OL (ASLBP No. P 82-47102-OL) k OPERATINO LICDtiE; March 1,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-9,17 NRC 4 403 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; March 24,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-17,17 NRC 490 (1983) 7 OPERATING L CENSE; Apnl 18,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 83-20A,17 NRC 556 (1983) .I OPERATING LICENSE; June 30,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-83 32A,17 j NRC 1870 (1983) SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-400, 50-401 l (ASLBP No. 82-468-01-OL) 4 OPERATING LICENSE; May 27.1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-27A,17 NRC 971 (1983) 5140REHAM NUCLEAR l'DWER STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-322-OL OPERATING LICEN5r., Apnl 20,1983. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING SUFFOLK COUNTY'S VOTION TO TEEHINATE THE SHOREH AM OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING; LBP-83-22,17 NRC 608 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; May 12,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-83-13,17 NRC 741 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; June 22,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO ADMIT NEW CONTENTION, LBP-83-30,17 NRC 1132 0 983) OPERATING LICENSE; June 30.1983; ORDER; CLI-SM7,17 NRC 1032 (1983) SHOREH AM NUCLEAP, POWER STATION, Unit 1; Dockei ko. 50-322-OL (Emergency Planning) OPERATiWG LICENSE; April 20,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REFERRING DENIAL OF SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO TERM'NATE TO THE APPEAL BOARD AND CERTIFYING LOW-POWER LICENSE QUESTION TO THE COMMI.>SION; LBP-83-21,17 NRC 593 (1983) OTERATING LICENSE; March 10,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON 2 TOWN OF SOUTH AMPTON'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE AS AN INTERESTED MUNICIPALITY PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 62.715(c); LBP-83-13,17 NRC 469 (1983) SHOREHAM NULLEAR POWER STATION, Unit I; Do6ket No. 50-322-OL-2 (ASLBP No. 82-478-05-OL) SECURIT), April 11,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING SUFFOLK COUNTY REQUEST FOR BOARD RULING WhiETHER DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE TREATED AS SAFEGUARDS INFORM ATION; LEP 83-20,17 NRC 580 (1983) SK AGIT/HANFORD NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT, Units I and 2, Docket Nos. 50-522, 50-523 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 1,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; AL AB 712, 17 NRC 81 (1983) SOUTH TEX AS PROJECT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-498, 50-499 F6[A SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION; March 3,1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD-83-5,17 NRC 519 (1983) SOUTH TEX AS PROJECT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499-OL (ASLBP D No. 79-42I 07 OL) ~;g ; OPERATING LICENSE; May 18,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 83-26,17 NRC f 'f.. 945 (1983) { 126

FACILITY INDEX e STAN!SLAUS NUCLE AR PROJECT, Unit 1: Docket No. P-564-A (ASLBP No.76-334-07 AN) 2R ANTITRUST; 3anuary 19,198?, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LBP-83-2,17 NRC 45 .g yph (1983) .g>yQ, THREE MILE ISLAND NLTCLEAR STATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50-289-SP K SPECIAL PROCEEDING; February 22,1983; ORDER; CLI-83-3,17 NRC 72 (1983) g i SPECIAL PROCEEDING: March 21,1983; ORDER; CLl-83-7,17 NRC 336 (1983) .g., } THREE MILE ISLAND hUCLEAR STATION, Unit No. I; Docket No. 50-289 (Design Issues) RESTART; February 28,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-715,17 NRC 102 i (1983) RESTART; April 20,1983; MEMORANDbM; ALAB-724,17 NRC 559 (1983) SPECIAL ?ROCEEDING; May 26,1983; DECISION; ALABJ79,17 NRC 814 (1983) THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit No.1; Docket No. 50-289-5P J RESTART; March 4,1983; ORDER; CLI 83 5,17 NRC 331 (1983) l THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit No. 2; Docket No. 50-320 OPERATING LICENSE; May 27,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-83-14,17 NRC 745 (1983) UCLA RESEARCH REACTOR; Docket No. 50-142 0L OPERATlhG LICFmE RENEWAL; April 22,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER-l LilP-83-24,17 NRC 666 i1983) l OPERATING LICENSE RENEWAL; May ll,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; I LBP-83 25A,17 NRC 927 (1983) V ALLECITOS NUCLEAR CENTER - GENERAL ELECTRIC TEST REACTOR; Docket No. 50 70-OLRn0-754-SNMR ( ASLBP No. 83-48141-OLR) + OPERATING LICENSE RENiWAL; April E,1982; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; l t LBP-83-19,17 NRC 573 (1983) VALLLCITOS NUCLEAR CENTER - GENERAL ELECTRIC TEST REACTOR, OPERATING I LICENSF No. TR-1; Docket No. 50 70-SC SHOW CAUSE; March 23,1983; DECISION; ALAB 720,17 NRC 397 (1983) l VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50-395-OL i OPERATING LICENSE; January 13,1983; DECISION; ALAB-719,17 NRC 25 (1983) WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Unit 3; Docket No. 50-382 0L I OPERATING LICENSE; June 29,1983; DECISION; ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) l WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Unit 3; Docket No. 30-382 OL (ASLBP No. 79-41746-OL) i OPERATING LICENSE; May 26,1983; PART! AL INITIAL DECISION; LBP-83-27,17 NRC 949 (1983) WESTERN NEW YORK NUCLEAR SERVICE CENTER; Docket No. 50-2014LA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 14, i983; ORDER CONFIRMING TERMINATION OF PROCEEDING; LBP 83-15,17 NRC 476 (1983) WILLlxM H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION; Docket No. 50-358 (10 CFR 2.206) SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTIONS; February 10,1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2 206; DD-83-2,17 NRC 323 (1983) WILLIAM H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER S(ATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-358-OL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 22,1983; ORDER: CLI-83-4,17 NRC 75 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; March 10,198L MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-12,17 NRC 466 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; May 2,1983; DECISION; ALAB 727,17 NRC 760 (1983) WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT No.1; Docket No. 50-460-OL (ASLBP No. 82-479 06-OL) OPERATING LICENSE; M+rch 15,1983 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-16,17 NRC 479 (1983) WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT No. 2, Docket No. 50 397-CPA CONSTRUCT ON PERMIT EXTENSION; April 11,1983; DECISION; ALAB-722,17 NRC 546 (1983) ZION NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-295, 50 304 OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March I,1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206; DD-83-4,17 NRC 513 (1983) VMM ..n. s.um t )j i .}}