ML20088A280

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for JULY- September 1983

ML20088A280
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/30/1983
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V18-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V18-I1, NUDOCS 8404110317
Download: ML20088A280 (85)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ 54,..,.,:., m.g e,,,y,; m r..y,:..c ;p g ?,- ;,._ g 3., ,. g y.e.z;:.=, NUREG-0750 0 r.sy;gc .. g. 7. , s$,, U. y':; M *C,4 . c7' &W i w.~,. YOlc10 a..w% %... %m .s w... ' w s. n; s:,r[ On.> n... .lr 4 g'h *.:lC;a: s .-_,s..,- s ' ^--~% wt ..,. N 'R ;w'qs-La a: a 1 y :.n:j? O a y*3 4 2 ' W., -i i : L.- y' -,../,.. - a .a s.. _ z 4, dex,1 O frW;e..% r . n sy ~~py /, -l. 2--;, m:7_W O.4 f,am# .tu, ,. u'.~ . - e./ n+ . 7;y ~. s. ~,'g;j p - : ;. _,. 4 r y ;,:g.:i'.> ;s?, :} 4 r* e '-- ? )r;,L Q 'f q,y. -y- . p,,g,,,

3 p % f.il

n.?

c;d.L"g&,:ct ;p g:rd s: y 7 .e + L%l t ': '.'n, G; % ' .'. t./ s '.: 'i 2 ~ $ e f 4 I I a i I e e e ( 8 % '~ M.?.i,@5 M 0? M.2Qlt M ' S._.,M & _'* l?,W,,M _ s ~ bd **' w*C' %'#*._) T-- - g ~ f gW.# i-{,' l. it e ^ .w'~,9 4,(?; .,.Jk? f,'gl M 4 4*g* m .; y A " ~ p%wn* Wg" Lr b - f r 5..D r,fty..g: A - .,. p. _j, lf'* 1

9.,. 9

w

.? .e f i ( 4 u n 5(m. . ?)f @nk,N.y;,w/,d?,M.,,, g..,. a, F 4 n.n.e. i A N~ ..?;.4' . g.,;:n a v%w*~.. :3.s4gv ww ip q\\,4; y ,r.cu r a ~n

wn

. _. _. _. m-. 8404110317 830930 PDR NUREG 0519 R PDR

~. van .,w. .. mm.- ~ .. ~...2 m mm .m a.a m,... n p e. y a. y s.4 a. x.,, .. s . g.., - W,.,,,, j ~ :. m % ..rm.- - . _ e, m- ,* *;& 2 W[3 w7 sh ~ s

-h,,.

~.,9 qTD:*". yx; g *l. R K..., o .e u ~a o;s . n. _' 2. e m ' s . mm 5.f f @..o,.x. ; :. e.. m _..m.. e... vym p;m,. m .a,..,.. :,,.:. .,. m ~w.g : g : t p, f.~.,v 7, g %, _,.a. o. ,w. F,; w,..,... y ., m, .m g.... m @;pp.@ @g. s.. 7..= G,- a,9 J. e g-p 3. m.y.e.3., %,~. m, a-7,., . _. w. s vm, N.* 5 .o y ,m .k&.. a.m. -),v .c.s._ gw ra+

• ^**...~.Fh.

i / c.i gg p L m;. mpy;9,[.. gg,,W), 4 h N 4Ke 1 W t -e W p. ,.u y, pgMy&e: .w.c. wg:ang.syu wvve;43;n. ?, v rwyw *e a.J w m%y gf. ;pM My'y owg%m 2 A 1 .h %m.~G @y % y.;.m.,s/m e. w aw" w %n 1s.c.m..w.n. i; A. C x ap$./ g c y. .m ef. @ wa +-3.< i ;w& e.- 2. ?

v. e. t*4x 3..s p ;~.

..f w g %ec~ a p.,p. A' m ~;%* Ava n sc r M%... r ;e ~ /. from M DE:';.$n-a gi.. m.t. y m M%$* h h ~2t h, M[tMhkMf-h[ -[ '41 c. 71 N i N lp% . A N NR W 6;yJ7" Qf.* ^ " Q/GPO Sales Progra49( =m Qy.w': y M%;&m;N y uper niendent of ~ Documents .n.- f A. L. _r.~_ p%cAE&iW6,y wQ.s..Mp.., Govemment Pn. a.ing Office ..m ~-m ~ ~w w nt r r s; SETION"bb Q. 9 : @ %.., " O p k.., p. M s M U 6..I Md2 g 7&Mz f. + +wg.4:( . w fu;f. g yy gg w i 4%w.e,,g.y.u.b3 2 h.t.i.on consist,s, of).2 lor this publica h@M:W M,. u. y ar's s sc. rip .s m~ t gt;w s ~.w [$7:j -t.M= $N sT Indexes / ark w + 3 c+ e - 84dMD, Ne s :*N[h w _ e N.- W. m.$M,, y w 4%. f. M. K .<<s N 4 N$. p -.~

9. n Lo r~

nn.w.ididWfjMShgIe Copies of this publicationgy~ ywjC.,p. T. ,.N N h r icai u%ew.R= ' w .- w.n z h. O.4G..+,J,. g."U" p... a.v..aw s. v.Natio..n.a^l T.e. chn.. u N u w % - v.n.7 % m c.;are ilable from n ~ ~ .-r gfield, s V.A 22.161:~e:x=.y,, %segW* p w~W. w.w. < - m asn e ~ .s n&orm_ation Servme,tSpn-f m r&w@Ai . s m. s,n, m w w - w e.;;w mdpAp m v. c

w r:y p w % m. g g-2 wa.Wh h,

w n ..., M. 4 g., ~ my WM.. ic._rom.h.e.of. single _c..o.p.ies.are %a *W. M.;p AcNq,;.q% M fic. eWWW W' 3- .s w w %pwwww,,a_va.i,lable'.f.r.~om.,.ingtg.D;Cf, ale,s,Pr .n p% pcg M.m ~A u NRC~/G. P.O S ggWash 0555g -.g,. e &w y p m? W.Y* Q & &m a, m @ @ w ev a F w @$fyqgyQ - w ~.,<gemd mr :n mm.wm wwan.ms. map ~mW q f .n u th h f & N N & f & & & ? h h & & $ &m f M,C 7 = ::p v& J9Cfge wsWw.Q c %.p&@,: w@n @W Nw.a4.? 4 4 w ;; M w q u m s g u & 'M $ d W N e % %,d wg M.v: a 4.7i 4,g %. hm. m;+R ? wl@,$w d m. m W$w hQD w cwow?.M.4.- 2 mm m...-q h y. m M.M.2.s, y..~,.%.e e.;s ~. s.;;m:.::%w.x m d.y.phM %gpes 7 -9 w y,m.~y:4 s M e; h W pm. m, n, n ye M.p~: n w._,%

n. n<-.,y,m., m.b M q %,;.s;;. %x rm w

gy s r @g..W:s . n... f.#u 2..o:w~,.~s,.w M,2- .. m. y.n 4.,:,g.; n,,4. g,sj 6..g e.4. j w.. u. m ..,, %.L p,g. . ye. e v.W s ..g o s 5, .c..,.% .#e 4,,, . j p;- w m c y r a; n,... w j n>y - y. m, - n.m. b'e. e d bA.A-s.# 'gfi%a..zf ry",r%..jI54 f.y;',n n......, n. m. -..x'AS..

n*.;r3;.

'.L* b. y'e rh....w L

W ...p xy ~%p.x* ' s p d hq 2 - 4. r M O %,:l&*M.v.,e$+Q'. ? w R M '. J * ' w&v kr.. 7 > s 'A. . ".m t 5 i[ g e G w,, +T' W'e* e,V+Y %'; t.. *w* A : W 4 GP

• L Mm' (".

n,. X.,.Q+W + n. .4 R WnMGM,,o v r.a

L,.y -,.

m n n e y w: ~.,.x. w . w.T. ;. -w ~ -a, r. 6y n p e &. Wy$m m $w%wu.-.y% 4.%,T,Jy'{, [m@#$q@?8E2 n .a MWWMMME*$4wq%e .- 8WN,M$...c M f6dQ8MD h . s. e#ps T mi . ~.,,. s tn m w-g m m-r q m i .jj gg '0 ~~ V * ~4 .M k C.W < ^ &:w:q%.f.:. y :rors.i. a t, yy u i GTe.chnical Inform _alo. t. ion. 'mayu.m. ported to.Vicki E,y~ ~ '" t" S. vN mEr~ _ n. this pu.blica be re - sYa h. w 4 c As #.q y n.a..nd D..ocum,, e Cont l Offi e of Ad.ministre . ? -Q'

WWw%. OU.S.pNu_ clear Regulatory,Comm,n,.t.w.ro!..

.,c.% ~ C. 20556 cs issionTWashingtonj D. d.u M (4WQ.W; l$WW 4;>l ofjig2.ag2syf>W ;WP. h 3 W* gggp&wwhRe w p &n. y*y .n.~.y w sv Itigg

m*aw**. = y..

[

• g v.

x y l m, .f. -, -9 ge*C 6 ) a muee., .a ~ 4- :.$'af((A W . Ma r, W < i M, m'Je. h&y v r I fm.,Q.%.J.

• vF.

$Gy.] ah n u-r

m. * * *.

4 mm f l e

l l NUREG-0750 Vol.18 Index 1 l l I INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES i July - September 1983 t U. S. ' NUCLEAR REGU.LATORY COMMISSION a l I l I e e \\

.~.. - ~ { Forsword ,,e. g s,%,2, Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI),' the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing - i Z Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative law Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions of Rulemaking are presented in this document. e These 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 (owner (s) of facility) j Full text reference (volume and pagination) Issuance number Issues raised by appellants Legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes) j Name of facility, Docket number Subject matter ofissues and/or rulings 1 Type of hearing (for :onstruction permit, operating license, etc.) Type ofissuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.). These information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats i arranged as follows:

1. Case Name Index i

The case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type ofissuance, [ docket number, issuance number,and full text reference. J

2. Digests and Headers 1

j The headers and digests sre presented in issuance number order as follows: the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal P.inel(ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law 3 Judge (ALJ), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for l Rulemaking, i The beader identities the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility-4 name, docket number, type of hearmg, date of isstance, ar.d type ofissuan:c. i The digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolotion of the issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuance ; overs i more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated atphabetically, l . iii t l i ~

.. ~.., . - ~.~_- -.- -..

3. Legal Citations Index s

his index is didded into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alphanumerical arrangement. of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. Rese citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and Statutes ? may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability 3 of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance. De references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular issuance. Rese phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text [ reference. I

4. Subject Index Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects covered in the issuances. The subject headings are followed by phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the

+ j issuances being indexed. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference. 1 l S. Facility Index i Dis index consists of an n!phabetical arrangement of facility names from the issuance. The name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date, type of issuance, issuance number, and full text reference. i i 1 4 i. \\ i I ] t i iv ) 4 p f 1 3 .u...-

CASE NAME INDEX ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et at OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER, Docket Nos. STN 50-529, STN 50 530, AL AB 742,18 NRC 380 (1981) OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDE R; Docket Nos. STN 50 529 OL, STN 50-530-OL ( ASLBP No. 80-447-01-OL); LBP-83 36,18 NRC 45 (1983) CINCINN ATI G AS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-358-OL ( ASLBP No. 76-317-01-OL); LBP 83-58,16 NRC 640 (1983) CLEVEL AND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et al. OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos 50-440-OL,50-441-OL; ALAB-736,18 NRC 165 (1983); LBP-83-38,18 NRC 61 (1983); LBP-83 46,18 NRC 218 (1983); LBP 83-52,18 NRC 256 (1983) COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDLR DENYING INTERVENORS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT TiiE QA/QC RECORD, Docket Nos. STN 50-451-OL, STN 50 455-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-411-04-PE); LBP-83-41,18 NRC 104 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE, MEMORANDUM AND ORDI R DENYING STAY APPLICATION; Docket Nos. STN 50-454-OL, STN 50-455-OL ( ASLHP No. 79 4tl-04-PE); LBP-83-40,18 NRC 93 (1983) OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. STN 50-454-OL, STN 50-455-OL; AL AB 735,18 NRC 19 (1983); LBP 83 51,18 NRC 253 (1983) SPENT FUEL TRANSPORTATION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. j 2.206, Docket Nos. 50-10, 50-237,50-249. DD-83-14,18 NRC 726 (1983) CONSUMLRS POW ER COMPANY 'f0DIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING LICENS12 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket Nos 50-32 TOM &OL,50-330-OMdOL f aSLilP Nos. 78-369-03-OL, 80-429 -02 SP). LRP-33AO,18 NRC 242 (1983); l-,7P 83 53.18 NAC 282 0981) SPENT FLT1 POOL AMENDMEN1; MEHOR ANDUM, Docket N# 50155; LBP 83-44 A,18 NRC 211 (1983) SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMt.NT; MEMOR ANI'UM AND ORDER. Docket No 50-115. LBP-83-62,16 NRC 708 (1993) SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; SUPPLEMENT ARY INITIAL DECISION: Docket No 50-155, LBP-83 44.18 N AC 201 (1033; D URYLAND POR Ett EOCPERATIVL OPFR ATiNG LICENSE, DEL SiON, Docket No. 50-409, ALAB-70,18 NRC 9 (1983) DL KE PCWIE COW sNY, e al OPER CING L!Ci'!E. HL,UOR ANDUM AND ORDIR Dc<ket Nos. 50 413-OL,50-414-OL ( ASLBP No. 8i-4t:3 01-OLF Lt+83-16,18 NFC 421 (1983) GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPOR ATION civil PEN ALTY; STATEMENT OF THE COMMISS!ON; Docket Nos. 50-289, 50 3M, CLI-83-20,18 NRC I (1983) + SPECIAL PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDI R; Docket No. 50-3:0, CLI 83-24,18 NRC 315 (1983) GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, et al. OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM; Docket Nos. 50-458-OL,50-459-OL (AS! BP No. 82-468-01-OL); LBP-83 52A,18 NRC 265 0983) I e l

CASE N AME INDEX llOUSTON LIGitTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-42107-OL), LDP-83-37,18 NRC 52 (1983), LBP-83 49,18 NRC 239 (1983) LONG ISLAND LIGitTING COMPANY EMERGENCY PLANNING. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER DENYlNG PETITION TO INTERVENE OF CITIZENS FOR AN ORDERLY ENERGY POLICY,INC.; Docket No. 50-322-OL-3; LBP-83-42,18 NRC 112 (1983) EMERGENCY PLANNING MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM FEMA; Docket No 50-322-OL 3, LDP-83-61,18 NRC 700 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION. Docket No. 50 322-OL 3 (Emergency Plannms); ALAB-74), 18 NRC 387 (1983) OPERAllNG LICENSE; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; Docket No. 50-322-OL: LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY EMERGENCY PLANNING; INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.200; Docket No. 50-309; DD-83-15,18 NRC 738 (1983) FINANCIAL QUAllFICATIONS; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-309 CLI-83-21,18 NRC 157 (1983) METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. i RESTART; DECISION. Docket No. 50-289-SP; CLl-83-22,18 NRC 299 (1983) RESTART; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-289, CLI-83 25,18 NRC 327 (1983) SPECI AL PROCEEDING, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER. Docket No. 50-289-SP (Managemeni Phase); ALAB-738,18 NRC 177 (1983) NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCll AND DEVELOPMENT AUTiiORITY SPENT FUEL TR ANSPORTATION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. ) 2.206; Docket No. 50 201; DD-83-14,18 NRC 726 (1983) NIAGARA MOllAWK POWER CORPORATION, et al. OPER ATING LICENSE PROCEEDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. $P-413-0L (ASL BP No. 83 484-01-OL); LBP 83-45,18 NRC 21) (1983) PillLADELPlflA ELECTRIC COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE; SFCOND SPFCIAL PREllE ARING CONFERENCE ORDER; Dockel Nos 50 352-OL,50-353-OL, LBP-83 39,18 NRC 67 (1983) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NF% ll AMPSHIRE, et al. OPER ATING tlCENSE, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER, Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,54444-OL; ALAB-734,18 NRC 11 (1981); ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983) SPEC'AL PROCEEDING; Mt'MOR ANDUM AND OFDER, Docket Nos. 50 441-OL,50-444-OL; CLt-83-23,18 FRC 31i 098D SillPMENTS OF lilGli 8 EWL NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WASTE THROUGil AND TO ILLINOIS TR ANSPORT AllrN OF RAD'OACTIVE M ATFRIALS, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. I 2.206;, DD-8 +-12,16 NRC 713 (1991) SOUT11ERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. OPER AllNG LKENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDEP; Docket Nos. 50-3ol OL,50 302-OL (ASLBP No. 78 365-)l OL); LBP-83 4? IP NRC 228 (1983) TEX AS UTILITIES GENER ATING COMPA NY, et al. OPER ATING LICENSE; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2 206; Dc4ket Nx 50-445,50-446, DD-83-ll.18 NRC 293 (1983) OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM; Docket Nos. 50-445,50-446; LBP-83 35,18 NRC 40 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446, LBP-83-33,18 NRC 27 (1983); LBP-F3 34,18 NRC 36 (1983); LBP-83-48,18 NRC 236 (1983); LBP 83-55,18 NRC 415 (1983); LBP 83-60.18 NRC 672 (1983) OPER ATING LICENSE; PROPOSED INITI AL DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-445-OL,50-446-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-430-060); LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) 2 l

CASE NAME INDEX i UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY -4 OPER ATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket No STN 50-483-OL; ALAB 740,18 NRC 343 (1983) ed VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-338-OLA 1,50-339-OLA 1; ALAB-741,18 NRC 371 (1983) WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Dockel No. 50 460-CPA (ASLBP No. 83-485-02 CPA); LBP-83 59,18 NRC 667 (1983) WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-266-OLA,50-301 OLA; -{ ALAB 739, I$ NRC 335 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. l 2.206; Docket Nos. 50-266,50 301; DD 8313,18 NRC 721 (1983) s SPENT FUEL TR ANSPORTATION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206; Docket Nos. 50-266. 50-301; DD 8314,18 NRC 726 (1983) i i I 1 4 i 4 0 i i i o I 3 i i f e lX e l l l e

e %, I I

• • s 2-

\\ l i I ] DIGESTS i i ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I, CLI-83-20 GENER AL PUBLIC UTILITIES (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Units I and 2). Docket Nos 50-289, 50 320. CIVIL PFN ALTY; July 22, 1983; STATEMENT OF THE ] COMMIS$10N } A The Commisuon authorues the NRC staff to issue a Notice of Wolation and Proposed l Imposition of Cml Penalties against the Licensee for its (1) material false seasements concernmg j the quahGcations of an indmdual operator and (2) failure to properly implement its operator re-j trammg program 1 CL1-83 21 MAINE YANKLE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (Mame Yankee Alomic Power Station), Dodet No. 50-309. FIN ANCI AL QU AllFICATIONS, August 2,1983; MEMOR AN. DUM AND ORDER A The Commisuon afGrms the Directcr's denial of a petition seekmg an order to show i cause why the hcensee should not be ordered to discontmue operation of the Mame Yankee facihty for alleged financial incapabihty to operate the plant safely and dispose of spent fuel l stored and to be generated there. The Commission also deodes as a matter of discretion to y detect the staff to revie* whether there are any safety problems at the plant which might stem from Gnancial difGcultiess i B The Commission's concern with Gnancial problems of a grensee is imited tc the reittion s l whd these probler.is may have to the protection of pubhc healit and safety. See Pacific Gas & Electric Co v, State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commisuon. 02) U.S. On0. 75 L. Ed 2d 752. 767 (19AD. ( l C A showmg that a licensee it ulcergoing Gnancial difTiculties does not by itself require that the Commission hall operations c f the hcemee's plant. Alkga'ioas. ho vever, that oefects m salety practices have in fa t occurred or are imminent would fo.m a basis for enforcement action. whether or no. the root cause of the fauh was Gnarnial. D Proceedmgs will not generally te instituted in response to a 10 C F R. i 2 206 petitwr to cons.dcr an issue the Commisuon is trestieg generically throuLh rulerhakmg. E i There is reasonable assuraace that, unt.1 the avadarmi. nf geologic rep-sitories for safe, permanent disposal, spent fuel can be stored safely m sic

• age bashs al reactor siles for up to thirty years beyond the espiration date of operating hcenses. See 48 Fed. Reg. 22.730 (1983).

t F I Under the Nuclear Waste Pohcy Act, utshties are required to contract with the Depart. ment of Energy (DOE) and provide prepayment for waste disposal services they we?l ultimately require. Id. CLI.83 22 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mde Island Nucleir Station, j Umt I). Docket No. 50-289-SP; RESTART; September 8,1983; DECI5lON Upon review of the Appeal Board's decision in ALAB-693.16 NRC 1290 (1982), ad-A dressmg emergency preparedness at IMI-l. the Commission reverses a holdmg of the Appeal r Board relatmg to the placement of responsibihty for makmg protective action recommendations to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and directs that the TMI-I emergency plan provide that the responubihty for radiological assessment and the making of protective action recommenda-tions be transferred from the Emersency Director in the control room to the Emergency Support Director in the Emergency Operations Facihty (EOF) no later than one hour followmg the decla-ration of an emergency. With that change and subject to certain conditions, the Commisseon finds emergency planning for TMI I to be adequate. B NRC emergency planning regulations require hcensees to estabhsh an onsite technical support center (TSC) and a nearby Emergency Operations Facihty (EOF) from which efTective direction can be given during an emergency,10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendia E,6 IV.E.8. 5 l l

~ ~ . m.-~ : _. -r DIGESTS 15SUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O C The responsibility for radiological assessment and the making of protective action recom-mendations is to be transferred from a senior official in the control room to a senior ofncial in the Emergency Operations Facihty no later than one hour followmg the declaration of a Site Area Emergency or General Emergency. CLI-83-23 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW llAMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50-444-OL; SPECIAL PROCEEDING: September 19,19g3; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Commission decides against undertaking sua sponte review of the Appeal Board's de-cision in ALAB-734 denying an intervenor's petition for directed cernfication of a hcensms board dismissal of one of its contentions. The Commission, however, takes the opportumty to reaffirm its statements in Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon, Units I and 2), ^ CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983), that the admissibility of a late. filed contennon must be deter-mined by balancmg all five of the factors in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a). CLI-83-24 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), Docket No. 50-320; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; September 21,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Commission dernes a motion to quash subpoenas issued at the request of the NRC Office of Investigations (OIA) to a number of individuals, directing them to appear and give tes-timony in connection with OIA's investigauon of certain allegations concerning falsification of reactor system leak rate data at TMI-2. The Commission, however, orders that the subpoenas be made returnable in the federal judicial district where each individual resides. B Under section 161(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,42 U.S C. l 2201(c), the Com-mission is authorized to conduct such invesugauons as it may deem necessary or proper to assist it in caercising any authonty provided in the Act and by subpoena to require any person to appear and testify, or to appear and produce documents, or both, at any designated place. C The NRC's authonty to conduct an invesuganon under the Atomic Energy Act does not cease upon referral of a matter to the Department of Jusuce. D The NRC's pursuit of its own civil investigation for civil enforcement purposes will not necessarily hamper the role of the Grand Jury or broaden the Government's opportunities for criminal discovery, because the Grand Jury's subpoena powers are as great as, if not greater than, those of the NRC. See SEC v. Dresser Industnes, Inc.,628 F.2d 1368,1378-79 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. demed,101 S.Ct. 529 (1980), E To carry out its pubhc health and safety mandate the NRC must be able to investigate matters capeditiously, regardless of whether there is a parallel crimmal investigation underway int.o the same matter. See Dresscr, abid. F Where an hRC icvestig. tion is being conducted for a lawfut purpose and the information sought is relevant to the anvestigat'on, to stop such investiganon at the threshold of inquiry be-caus of s parallel Grand Jury invesuganon would render substantially impossiNe the Mency's ef-feetive Jischarge of its dunes of investigation. See Umted States v. McGovern, 87 F.R.D. 582 (198d); United States v. McGovern,87 F.R.D. 584 (1980); United States v. McGovern,87 F.R.D. 390 (1980). G Whi!e ordinarily civil and errminal actions can proceed simultaneously, a court may in its j discretion stay civil proceedmgs, postpone civil ciscovery or impose protective orders or condi-tions when required in the hierests of fistice; for example, where a party under indictment for a serious offense is required to defend a civil or administrative action involving the same matter. See Dresser, supra, 628 F.2d at 1375-76. Otherwise. -(t]he noncnminal proceeding, if not deferred, might undermine the party's Fifth Amendrrent privilege against self-incriminat on, i capand rights of criminal discovery beyond the limits of Federal Rule of Crimmal Procedure 16(b), espose the basis of the defense to the prosecunon in advance of ctiminal trial, or other-wise prejudice the case." Id. at 1376 (footnote omitted). CLI-83-25 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt I), Docket No. 50-289; RESTART; September 21,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Commission denies for failure to meet the requirements for late micrvention the motion of a legal foundation for leave to intervene under 10 C.F.R. ) 2.714 for the avowed pur- ] pose of seeking the disqualification of a Commissioner or, alternauwely, for leave to make a i a 1 ~ .~ ~ l / i l i s.

m. _ = + .;* w. --; i_.. , r.J.r~ ' ' DIG $STS y ISSUANCES OF THE NLCI. EAR ltFGUI.ATORY COMMISSION r ~ ,l p hmited appearance under 10 C F.R. 4 2.715. In view of the Cointrimon's denial of party status to the legal foundauon, the Con mission surnmarily dismisses a sound motion of the foundat on I callms for disquahficahon of the Commissioner from the proteedmg. B A pehuon for leave to intervene which is untimely wd) not be entertained by the Com-( mission unless a balancing of the factors set forth ;e to ClsR. j 2.714(a)(1) supports lats intervention. These factors are: (I) Good cause,if any, for failure to file on time. (2) The availabihty of other means whereby the pennon'a's interest will be protected. (3) The extent to which the peutioner's participanon me reasonably ILc espected to assist in developing a sound record. (4) The entent to which the petitioner's in'aerest will be represented by existmg parties. (5) The estent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or detai the f

• proceedmg.

Nuclear Fuel Services,Inc. (West Wiley ReprocessMs Plant), CLI 75-4,1 NRC 273 (197H..

• C In ruhng on a petition for leave to intervene that is untirnely. the Commission must consider, in addition to the factors set forth m 10 C.F R. I 2.714(a)(1), the followmg factors sei forth in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(d):

(t) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the procwJng. (2) The nature and calent of the petitioner's property, fmancial, or oder icterest in the, proceedmg. (3) The possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceedmg on ine petiuon- } er's interest. j D A petition for leave to intervene must, inter aha, set forth with particularity the interest i of the petinoner in the proceedms, how that interest may be affected by the results of the - proceedmg, including the reasons why pentioner should be permitted to intervene, and the specific aspect of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which peutwner wishes to !#et,ene. 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(2). E The burden to satisfy intervemion requirements is on the petitioner 10 C.F.R. ] 2.732. F Judicial concepts of standing will be apphed in determinmg whether a petitioner haisrfTi-i cient interest m a proceedmg to be entuled to mtervene as a matter of right under section ;89 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Portland General Electnc Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant. Units I and 2), CLI-76-27,4 NRC 610 (1976). G Judicial concepts of standmg require a showing that is) the inction sought in a proceedmg will cause " injury in fact," and (b) the injury is arguably eithin the " zone of mterests" protected i , by the statutes governmg the proceejirig. Ibid. H Assertions of broad public interest in (a) regulatory matters, (b) the administrative process, and (c) the developrnent of economical energy resources do not est.bbsh the particula- ,} rized mierest necessary for rerucipanon by an individual or group in NRC adjudicatory processes. Cf., e.g., Sierra Club v. Morton,405 U.S 727 (1972). d i Economic interest as a ratepayer does not confer standing in NRC heensing proceedings. Pebble Sprmss, supra, at 614. See also. Nortt.c.n States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Parli, Unit I), CLI-80-36,12 NRC 523 (1980) (separate views of Chairmari Ahearne and Commissioner Hendrie). . 7' + J In Commission practice, a " generalized grievance' shared in s'abstanually equal measure by all or a large class of citizens will not result in a distinct and palpable harrn sufficient to sup-port standing. Transnuclear Inc., CLI-77-24,6 NRC 525,531 (1977), cilms Wsh v. Seldin,422 i U.S. 490 at 499 (1975). N K' Where a petitioner does not satisfy the judicial standards Eor standing, intersention could still be allowed as a matter of discretion. A petitioner seeking srch intervention, however, should address the factors set out in Pebble Springs, supra, at 61417. L . Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.715(a), limited appearance statements may be permitted at the discretion of the presiding officer, but the person admitted may not otherwise partkipte in the. proceeding. t ^ s t' / i 7 ,} q. y .3 j f ) J. e we s N^ { J t

• 0 q

c a, , [/

q 3 -($

w, &- Le w i cp. r

L l..

+ .\\s O 1' + ' ~ ,p (} .4 m c c 6 . / ~y i p s' /,# f ( h,:, p h ~ yl ' ! !, q v,- l,-)' i --,. ng.- N _'; ' J / a... a ' !k'L f f; r[l ff 1+

g . -: e.,a N t l DIGESTS ISSt'ANCES OF Tile ATotitC SMETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD % ) AL A B-733 i DAIRYLAND POW LR COOPER ATIVE (La Crosse Boihng Water Reactor), Docket No. 50-409; OPER ATING LICENSE; July 13, 1983. DECISION A The Apocal Board in this consohdated proceedmg (mvolvmg, inter aba, the conversion of the long-standmg La Crowe provisional hcense to a full-term operating heense) affirms, sua sponte, three Licensmg Board decisons. LBP-817,13 NRC 257 (1981); LBP-82-58,16 NRC 512 (1982), and LBP 83-23.17 NRC 655 (1983) ALAB 734 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW li AMPSillRE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50 444-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; July 19,1983; MEMO-R ANDUM AND ORDER A The Appeat Board demes an amervenor's petition for directed certification of a May ll, 1983 Licensmg Board rutmg gramms summary disposoion agamst one of miervenor's contentions m this operatmg hcense proceedi;g. B Interlocutory appellate reuew of a igensmg teard's ruhng mill not be granted absent a showing that the rulmg (l) is not only legally erroneous but, additionally, "affes*ls) the basic structure of the proceedmg m a pernaute or unusual manner," or O) threatens the petitioner with "immeuiate and senous irreparable impact which. as a practical matter, could not be alle-viated by a later arreal " Pubhc Seruce Co. of Indana (Marble mit Nuclear Generatmg Station, l Umts 1 and 2), AL AB-105,5 NRC 1190, l192 (1977) C An opposition to a directed certification petition should mclude at le.st some discussicn of the petitioner's claim of Licensmg Bond crior_ llow comprehensive the discussion of the j ments need be will depend upon the totahty of the circumstances of the particahr case. Where 1 the Licensing Board has semmanly disposed of a prmcipal contention el a party on a subject hawmg as much potential safety s'gmficance as does quahty assurance, the respondents to the pe-tiaon should treat the mer'ts in reasonable detait D T..e mere f.ct that legal error may ha ec oscurred below does rot jusHIy mterlocutor* ap-pellate ediew m the teeth of the 'or.g-standmg aruculated Commisswn pohey generally disfasor-ing such review. See 10 C I' R. 2.720(f). Ilouston Lighting & Power Co. (Allans C.e+k Nuclear Generatmg Stanon, Umt No. Is, ALAB435, 43 NRC 309,310-11 (198D. ALAB 735 COMMONWE ALTil EDISON COMPANY (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-454-OL, STN 50 455-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; July MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 27,1983 A The Appeal Board dismisses the NRC staff's appeal from, and denies its alternative monon for directed certification of, the Licensing Board's unpubbshed July 1,1983 memoran-g dum and order in which the Board, inter alia, directed the staff to present evidence that the staff j asserts wou1J require it to disclose mformation about confidential mvestigations that could res alt in their compromise i B Alm ist without caception, an appeal board will undertake discreuonary interlocutory review only ahere the ruhng below either (1) thrcatened the party adverstly affected by it with immediate and senous irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, could not be alleviated by a later appeal or (2) affected the basic structure of the proceedmg in a pervasive or ut. usual manner. Pubhc Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble lhli Nuclear Generatmg Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-405,5 NRC i190, i192 (1977). C Questions of fact are not susceptible of resolution on lle basis of nothms more than the generahted representauons of counsel who are unequipped to atlest on the basis of their own per-sonal knowledge to the accuracy of the representations. See, e g., Charles River Park "A" inc. I Department of llouung and Urban Development,519 F.2d 935,939 (D.C Cir.1975). See w I k i e i I j I J. m,+w v---.-e ---.m"--tF'-W=- .-e=--NFr--p

• ---'-.wF w

--wa-w----ew-wr--'v-r---*m--- - '

---

'N----

• '- '- - - -'-- ' --~

P-T-" 'FW*-

\\ JWs"< _7 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY ANI) I.lCENSING APPEAL BOARDS 1 "7 ~ also Cohen v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority,647 F.2d 209,21314. (1st Cir. 1981); Stokes v. United States,652 F.2d I (7th Cir.1981). Cf. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c); 10 C.F.IL i 2.749(b). D in the absence of evidence to support a belief of a risk of breach, a licensing board may assume a protective order will be obeyed Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Unit 1) ALAB-535,9 NRC 377,400 (1979). E The " collateral order doctrine ** in federal practice permits the immediate appeal of orders that " finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated." Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.,337 U.S. 541,546 (1949). ALAB-736 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-4410L; OPERATING LICENSE; August 24,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Appeal Board dismisses, as an impermissible interlocutory appeal, the intervenor's exceptions to the Licensing Board's grant of an NRC stalT motica for summary disposition on one of a number of contentions in the proceeding. B Appeals from licensing board orders that do not eliminate a party to a proceedmg or dis-pose of a major segment of the case - such as a grant of summary disposition - are interlocu-tory and must await the issuance of the initial decision (or partial initial decision). Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Station), ALAB-633,13 NRC 94 (1981); flouston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Uma No.1), ALAB-629,13 NRC 75,77 n.2 (1981); Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station). ALAB.300,2 NRC 752,758 (1975). C The only procedural vehicle by which a party may seek review ofinterlocutory matters is a request for directed certification. The exercise of the appent ooard's discretionary authority to grant directed certification, however, is reserved for those important licensing board ruimss that, absent immediate appellate review, threaten a party with serious irreparable harm or pervasively affect the basic strucinre of the proceeding. See, e g., Cleveland Electric tilummating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-706,16 NRC 1754,1756 (1982). ALAB-737 PUBLIC 5FRVICE COMPANY OF NEW ll AMPSillRE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443-OL, 50-444-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; August 26, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Appeal Board denies petitions for directed certification of a Licensing Board order (LBP-82-32A,17 NRC 1870 (1983)) granting partial summary disposition in apphcant's favor on two contentions dealing with evacuation time estimates. B Under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.718(i) and i 2.785(b), appeal boards have the power to direct the certification of legal issues raised in proceedings pendmg before licensing boards. Enceptional cir-cumstances must be demonstrated, however, before they will enercise that authority. Public Serv-ice Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units I and 2), ALAB-271, I NRC 478,483 (1975). C An appeal board will undertake interlocutory review, in its discretion, where the ruling below either (1) threatens the party adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irrepara-ble impact which, as a practical matter, could not be alleviated by a later appeal or W affects the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner. Public Service Co ofin-diana (Mr Ac Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 405, $ NRC 1890,1192 (1977). D Commission's regulations direct that contentions be filed in advance of a prehearing conference.10 C.F.R. I 2.714(b). E Under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a), good cause may exist for a late-filed contention ifit (1) is wholly dependent upon the content of a particular document; (2) could not therefore be ad-vanced with any degree of specificity in advance of the public availability of that document; and (3) is tendered with the requisite degree of promptness once that document comes into existence = and is accessible for public examination. The contention, however, is emenable to rejection on 4 A. 10 1 1 -\\ i s O 6 * .c4 -.~ ~ 5 u l\\

~ ~ ,p. - DIG ESTS ,e ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS ) J w a*W the strength of a balancing of all five of the late intervention factors set forth in that section. CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041,1045 (1983). F No operating license may be issued unless a finding is made that there is reasonable "7 assurance that adequate protective measures tan and will be taken in ;he esent of a radiological emergency.10 C.F.R. { 50.47(a)(1). G Both notification tirre and preparation time are now considered to be components of evacuat on time estimates under Rev. I of NUREG-0654/ FEM A REP 1, " Criteria for Prepara-tion and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (January 1980), at Appendia 4, Table 2; Section IV.B; and Figure 2; and NUREG/CR-2504, " CLEAR (Calculates Logical Evacuation And Responw); A Generic Trans-portation Network Model for the Calculation of Evacuation Time Estimates" (March 1982). II An argument that future litigation may be required does not satisfy the test for directed certification. See Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units I and 2), ALAB-641,13 NRC 550 (1981); flouston Lighting & Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-635,13 NRC 309,310 (1981). ALAB-738 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I). Docket No. 50-289-SP (Management Phase); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; August 31, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A Upon consideration of the moteor's of several intervenors to reopen the record in the management phase of this proceedms, the Appeal Board grants the motions in pa t (insofar as they deal with certain allegations concerning leak rate data) and remands the matter to the Licensing Board for further hearing. B A motion to reopen a record must satisfy a tripartite test: (1) is the motion timely? (2) Does it address significant safety or environmental issues? (3) Might a different result have been reached had the newly proffered material been considered initially? Pacific Gas and Electric s Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-598,11 NRC 876,879 (1980). See Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-462. 7 NRC 320,338 (1978); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station). ALAB-138,6 AEC 520,523 (1973). C The proponent of a motion to reopen a record bears a heavy burden. Wolf Creek, supra, 7 NRC at 338. D The pendency of a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice does not necessarily preclude other types of inquiry into the same matter by the NRC. See SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc.,628 F.2d 1368 (D.C. Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993 (1980); Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit No. 2), CLI-80-22, il NRC 724, 729 30 (1980). " E A matter may be of such gravity that a motion to reopen may be granted notwithstanding that it might have been presented earlier. Vermont Yankee, supra,6 AEC at 523. F Commission policy recognizes that ongoing NRC investigations and adjudicatory proceed-ings that involve the same subject matter can proceed simultaneously, subject to specified proce-dures to deal with conflicts concerning public disclosure of investigatory information. 48 Fed. Reg. 36,358 (1983) s G The staff's communication of the results of its reviews, through public filings served on all parties and the adjudicatory boards, does not constitute an ex parte communication. II All parties, including the staff, are obliged to bring any significant new information to 4 the boards

• attention. Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-677,15 NRC 1387,1394 (1982).

j I The untimely provision of significant information is an important measure of a licensee's character, particularly if it is found to constitute a material false statement. See Virginia Electric i and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), CLI 76 22,4 NRC 480,488-93 (1976). II [, , \\ 'i e p g e ~ -6 -.m. - k.i _j d

~ .-n., DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS -.. w. i '.. f} ALAB-739 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-266-OLA,50-301-OLA: OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Septem-j,' ? ber 7,1983; DECISION A The Appeal Board affirms the Licensing Board's authonzation of a license amendment that allows the applicant to repair degraded steam generator tubes try sleeving. B The Commission's Rules of Practice governing appellate briefs are not mere niceties, rather, they were drafted to insure that the arguments and positions of all parties would be a spread fully upon the record in order to permit fair rebuttal by those holding opposing views and to facilitate our ultimate evaluation of the competing contentions. Disregard of the Rules frus-trates those salutary purposes and burdens rather than assssts the adjudicator's task. Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-693,16 NRC 952, 955 (1982), quoting Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 270,1 NRC 473,476 (1975). C - At a minimum, briers must identify the particular exceptions addressed and the precise portions of the record relied upon in support of the assertion of error.10 C.F.R. { 2.762(a); Wis-d consin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-6%,16 NRC 1245,1255 (1982); Public Service Electaw and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1), ALAB-650,14 NRC 43,49-50 (1981), affd sub nom. Township of Lower Alloways Creek v. Public Service Electric and Gas Co.,687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir.1982). D in a license amendment proceeding, a licensing board has only limited jurisdiction: it may admit a party's issues for hearing only inscfar as those issues are within the scope of matters outhned in the Commission's notice of hearing on the licensing action. Portland General Electre Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534,9 NRC 287,289 n.6 (1979); Public Service Co. of Indi-ana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-316,3 NRC 167,170-71 (1976). See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-616,12 NRC 419, 426 (1980). E The appeal board's practice is to review, sua sponte, "'any final disposition of a licensing proceeding that either was or had to be founded upon substantive determinations of significant safety or environmental issues.* ** Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-655,14 NRC 799,803 (1981), quoting Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-571,10 NRC 687,692 (1979). F The following technical issues are discussed: Steam generator tube repair by sleeving; Eddy current testing of steam generator tubes; Steam generator tube failure (single and multiple); Leak-before-break phenomenon in steam generator tube cracking. ALAB-740 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), Docket No. STN 50 483-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; September 14, 1983; DECISION A The Appeal Board affirms the Licensing Board's partial initial decision, LBP 82-109,16 NRC 1826 (1982), addressed to quahty assurance and quahty control contentions, in which the Licensing Board found that there had been no general breakdown in quality assurance procedures, that the various identified construction defects had been remedied and that there was reasonable assurance that the Callaway plant could be operated safely. B Neither the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, nor the Commission's implement-ing regulations mandate a demonstration of error-free construction. What they require is simply a linding of reasonable assurance that, as built, the facility can and will be operated without en-dangering the public health and safety. 42 U.S C. (( 2133(d), 2232(a); 10 C.F.R. 150.57(a)(3)(i). See Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union, 367 U.S. 3%, 407 (1961); Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALAB 161,6 AEC 1003,1004 (1973), aff'd sub nom. Citizens for Safe Power, Inc. v. NRC, $24 F.2d 1291 (D.C. Cir.1975). C A brief that merely indicates reliance on previously filed proposed findings, without meaningful argument addressing a licensing board's disposidon of issues, is of little value in ap-pellate review. Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Co t! alem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I), Al AB-650,14 NRC 43,50 (1981), afrd sub nom. Iownship of Lower Alloways Creek v. Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Co.,687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir.1982). 12 l t 4 L 1 l

a DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS E D The use of officially noticeable material is unobjectionable in proper circumstances.10 7'~ C.F.R. { 2.743(i). See, e 3., Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (Cobalt 40 Storage Facility), ALAB482,16 NRC 150,154 n.3 (1982). Interested parties, however "must have an effective chance to respond to crucial facts." Carson Products Co. v. Califano,594 F.2d 453,459 (5th Cir.1979). See also Administrative Procedere Act, f 7(d),5 U.S C. ) 556(e). E American Welding Society (AWS) Code requirements simply constitute conservative guidehnes, with exceptions permitted. F A decisionmaking body must confront the facts and legal arguments presented by the par-ties and articulate the reasons for its conclusions on disputed issues, i e., take "a 'hard look' at the sahent problems." Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33,410977), aff*d, CLI-78-1,7 NRC 1 (1978), afTd sub nom. New En-gland Coahtion on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC,582 F.2d 87 Ust Cir.1978); Greater Boston Tele-vision Corp. v. FCC,444 F.2d 841,851 (D.C. Cir.1970), cert. denied,403 U.S. 923 0971). G A licensing board decision need not refer individuahy to every proposed fmdmg as long as it sufficiently informs a party of the disposition of its contentions. Seabrook, supra,6 NRC at 41. / H The following technical issues are discussed: Quality assurance program for construction; Honeycombing of the reactor building base mat; Soniscopic examination of the base mat; Embedded plates (embeds); Adequacy of welding (manual and machine) of studs to embeds; Weldmg in accordance with applicable codes; SA-358 Piping-American Society of Me-chanical Engineers (ASME) matenal specification for a type of welded stainless steel pipe greater than eight inches in diameter (Weld defect and its repair and testing); SA-312 Pipmg: ASME specification for both seamless and welded stainless steel pipe Ulydrostatic testing, Leak before break, Design hoop stress, ASME Code requirements); Centerline lack of penetration (CLP): longitudinal pipe welding defect (Ultrasonic examination, Effect on pipe strength, Effect of are misalignment); Welding deficiencies in piping subassembhes. ALAB-741 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (North Anna Power Statien, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-338 OLA-1, 50-339-OLA-l; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 15,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Appeal Board denics the applicant's motion for directed certification of an interlocu-tory ruling of the Licensing Board directing exploration of the health and safety aspects of spent fuel transportation at a hcense amendment hearing. The apphcant seeks an amendment to its operating licenses for the North Anna facihty which would authorize it to store there spent fuel from another of its facilities. B Opposition to a directed cert fication petition should include some discussion of the peti-tioner's claim of licensing board error. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-734,18 NRC ll,14 n.4 (1983). C The mere fact that legal error may have occurred in an interlocutory licensing board ruling does not per se justify directed certification. See Seabrook, ALAB-734, supra,18 NRC at 15, citing Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-635,13 NRC 309,310-110981); 10 C.F.R. 2.730(f). D Although generally precludmg interlocutory appeals, Section 2.730(f) of 10 C.F.R. does allow a hcensing board to refer a ruhng to an appeal board. The appeal board need not, however, accept the referral. In deciding whether to do so, the appeal board applies essentially the same test as it utilizes in acting upon directed certification requests filed under Section 2.718(i). See Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,464 0982), vacated in part on other grounds, CLI-83-19,17 NRC 10410983), and cases there cited. E The Commission's 1981 Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,456, does not call for a marked relaxation of the Marble Hill standard: rather, it simply exhorts the licensing boards to put tiefore the appeal board legal or policy ques-tions that, in theirjudgment, are "significant" and require prompt appellate resolution. F The fact that the error of a heensing board may lead to delay and increased expense is not a controllms consideration in favor of interlocutory review. Cleveland Electric tiluminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-675,15 NRC 1105,111314 0982), citing Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), 13 g E i n.

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TiiE ATO\\ llc SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS / ALAB-641,13 NRC 550,552 (1981). See also Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-737,18 NRC 168,176 n.12 (1983). ALAB-742 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. STN 50-529, STN 50 530; OPERATING LICENSE; September 19,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Appeal Board denies intervenor's petition for directed certification of the Licensing Board's ruhngs relating to the adequacy of the environmental impact statements for the Palo Verde facility and stay of those ruimss. B Interlocutory appellate review of licensing board orders is disfavored and will be underta-ken as a discretionary matter only in the most compelhng circumstances.10 C.F.R. 2.730(f); Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB.271,1 NRC 478, 483-86 (1975); Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station. Units I and 2), ALAB-405,5 NRC 1190,1l92 (1977). C An appeal board will exercise its directed certification authority only upon a clear and convincing showing that the licensing board ruhng under attack either; (1) threatens the party adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, could not be alleviated by a later appeal or (2) affects the basic structure of the proceed-ing in a pervasive or unusual matter. Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-405,5 NRC 1890,1192 (1977). D The pohey empressed by the Commission in its 1981 Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452, 456, to the effect that, a board should promptly refer or certify a significant legal or pohey question to the Atomic Safety and Licensms Appeal Board or the Commission, was not intended to bring about a marked relaxation of the Marble Hill standard Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-741,18 NRC 371,375 (1983). ALAB-743 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1). Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning), OPERATING LICENSE; September 29, 1983; DECISION A In this appeal under 10 C.F.R. ( 2.714s from the Licensing Board's memorandum and order (LBP-83-42,18 NRC 112 (1983)) denying a petition for leave to intervene in this operat-ing hcense proceedmg of a petitioner who supports the grant of the license, the Appeal Board af-firms the result below on the ground of the petition's lateness, eschewing ruhng (as did the Licensing Board) on the questions of the petitioner's standing to intervene and its abihty to meet the tests for discretionary intervention. B In passing upon an untimely intervention petition, the Licensing Board is to consider and balance the following five factors-(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time. (ii) The availabihty of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected. (iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties. (v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. 10 C.F.R. l 2.714(a)(1). C Opinions that, in the circumstances of the particular case, are essentially advisory in nature should be reserved (if given at all) for issues of demonstrable recurring importance. See Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Units I A,2A, IB and 25), ALAB-467, 7 NRC 459,463 (1978). D in the absence of good cause for tardiness in seeking intervention. **a petitioner must make a ' compelling showing' on the other four factors (of 10 C.F.R. j 2.714(a)(1)] in order to justify late intervention." Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760,1765 (1982), and cases there cited. 4 In addressing the third lateness factor of 10 C F.R. { 2.714(a)(1) the entent to which the petitioner's participation might reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record - a petitioner should set out with as much particulanty as possible the precise issues it plans to 14 Q 4 d

.I DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BO4RDS t " ^ cover, identify its prospective witnesses, and summarize their proposed testimony." Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2). ALAB 704,16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982). citing South Carohna Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit I). ALAB-462,13 NRC 881,894 (1981), alTd sub nom. Fairfield United Action v. NRC, 679 F.2d 261 (D.C. Cir.1982); Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energ/ Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-476. 7 NRC 759,764 (1978). F The fifth and final factor of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(l) - potential for delay - is also of immense importance in the overall balancing process. See, e s.. Greenwood, ALAB-476, supra, 7 NRC at 761-62; Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Station, Units I and 2). ALAB-289,2 NRC 395,400 (1975). i O A late intervenor may be required to take the proceeding as it finds it. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4,1 NRC 273,276 (1975L i 4 1 e 1 m 4. J { i t i O 15 L 1 I 4 f i i J' ^*

-,s - c,- a, _ l I. 3 1 1 l 1 l DIGESTS I ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO ARDS i i ! BP-83-33 TEXAS UTILITIES GENER ATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446; OPERATING LICENSE; July 6,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board rules that although pipe supports expand when heated by environ-mental conditions that occur in the contamment durmg a loss-of-coolant accident, the stresses that occur within those supports due to thermal stress are not required either by the stafT guid-ance or apphcable code provisions to be considered m designing the supports. Ilomever, mierve-nors are not barred from introducmg evidence that fadure to consider thermal stress would lead to design instabihties that are unacceptable under the Commission's general design criteria. Al-though thermal stress need not be considered, the espansion of a pipe support under loss-of-coolant accident conditions mdl place stress on its end points. These stresses on anchors, con-crete and pipes must be considered during the design of these systems i B Stress that would be placed on supports and pipes by the expansion of pipe supports I under LOCA conditions must be considered in the design of those supports and pipes. Ilomever, under apphcable staff guidance and industry codes, design consideration need not be given to thermal stress that occurs within the pipe supports because the capansion of the support is constramed. Intervenors may, however, introduce evidence that casts doubt on the stabihty ofin-dividual supports as a result of thermal stress not havmg been considered in the design of those supports. l C When the American Society of Mechanical Engineer's (ASME) Code is apphcable to a 1 nuclear plant pursuant to Commission regulations, the Board must interpret the Code to deter-mine its apphcability to the hcensmg proceedmg The general prmciple of the Code that only ASME may mterpret its Code is not bindms on bcensms boards. D lt is appropriata for a licensing board to interpret a Regulatory Guide that apphes an ASME Code section. To the estent that the Guide apphes a Code provision in a setting for j mhich it was not originally intended, interpretation of the Guioe does not constitute a Board in-terpretation of a Code provision. E The following technical issues are discussed. Thermal stress in pipe supports (under LOCA conditions), LOCA (thermal stress in pipe supports), Free-end displacement, Expansion stresses. Self balancmg stress, Design conditions (meaning under the ASME Code), Repetitive i loads Elastic action Shakedown into clastic action. I LBP 83-34 TEXAS UTILITIES GENER ATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446; OPERATING LICENSE; July 6,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i A The Licensing Board holds that a decision of the Secretary of Labor, concerning discharge j of a whistleblower by a major contractor of the epphcant,is bindmg on the apphcant by operation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Accordmgly, facts necessary to the Secretary's decision and relevant to the licensing action are bmdmg on the Licensms Board B There is sufficient identity of interest between apphcant aci a major contractor that an administrative decision by the Secretary of Labor agamst the contractor is bmdmg against the apphcant. LBP-33 35 TEX AS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Flectric Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446; OPERATING LICENSE; July 6,1983; l MEMORANDUM A The Licensing Board responds to a Commission request by stat.ng that it will no longer pursue evidence concerning the identity of individuals who cooperated with a statiinvestigation { l 17 _. ~. _ _. _ - _ - - _ _

- =. L, y '-g Wwn.w. DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS l ,, g. l n T-but that its record is incomplete concerning whether or not apphcant has discouraged the fihng y, of non-conformance or dc6ciency reports. The hoard designates a participalms party, the State 5. of Teams, to play an important role in pursums that hsue. It also asks the Commission's Staff to play a role in insestigating the problem. B Under circumstances where pubhc doubt has been cast on the cincacy of an investigation conducted by the Staff of the Commission, it is appropriate to appoint an interested State as lead intervenor for the purpose of conductmg discovery related to a portion of an admitted comentson i lo which the questioned stalT investigation was addressed. The interested state may also pursue questions concerning weave weldmg and downhill weldmg, questions withm the knowledge of witnesses to which it will be speakmg. LBP 83 36 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) Docket Nos. STN 50-529 OL, STN 50-530-OL ( ASI.BP No. 80-447 01 OL); OPERATING LICENSE; July ll,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board denies motions by West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc. which ask the Board to rule that the NRC Staffs Final Environmental Statement (FES) does not meet the requirements of the National Environmental Pohey Act (NEPA) and that the reopened proceeding on Palo Verde Units 2 and 3 be conimued until a supplemental environ-mental statement is published. r ~ B Defects in an FES can be cured subsequent to its issuance by the receipt of additional evidence. C A licensms board decision based on the evidentiary record before it shall be deemed to modify the FES. D West Valley's request that a supplement to the FES-OL be prepared is beyond the Board's jurisdiction. New England Power Co. (NEP, Umts I and 2), LBP-78-9,7 NRC 271,279 (1978). E At the least, it must be determined that there is significant new information before the need for a supplemental environmental statement can arise. Warm Spring Ta.,k Force v. Gribble, 621 F.2d 1017,1023-36 (9th Cir.1981). A resolution of the sigraficance of the allegedly missms information and its need to be circulated in a supplemental environmental statement must await the outcome of a hearing. LBP-83 37 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. (South Texas Project, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499 0L ( A$LBP No. 79-421-0-OL; OPERAT. ING LICENSE; July 14, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board denies a motion by an intervenor to add a new financial quahfica-tions contention to the proceedmg. The Board also declines to recommend to the Commission, j ' pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.758, that the regulation prohibiting consideration of the financial qual-ifications of regulated utihties be waived for this proceedmg. ) B Financial quahncations to " construct" a facihty is not - and was not prior to the 1982 l amendment to the rule governmg consideration of an apphcant's quahfications - a subject open to consideration at the operating hcense stage of review. C Given a proceeding that was initially noticed in 1978 and for which the Special Prehearms Conference was held early in 1979, any contentions Gled in 1983 would perforce be untimely and could be admitted only upon a balancing of the factors listed in 10 C.F.R. l 2.714(a)(1). D Abihty to contribute to the record is relevant to the admissibihty of late-filed contentions (as distinguished from timely contentions, where the factors in 10 C.F.R. l 2.714(a) are not apphcable). E The sole ground for obtaining an exception or waiver to a Commission regulation is that special circumstances with respect to the subject matter of the particular proceedmg are such that application of the rule or regulation (or provision thereoD would not serve the purposes for i which the rule or regulation was adopted.10 C.F.R.12.758(b). Unusual and compelling circum. ) stances must be shown. F The following technical issue is discussed. Financial Quahlications. 4 e Ig i 4 e O i l N s a >w

' _... 1, w., n DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS ~ LBP-83 38 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL, 50-441-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; July 12, l[ 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board holds that it would have junsdiction to decide issues raised in an operating hcense proceedmg that would control whether or not it was appropriate to issue a hcense to receive unirradiated fuel at the reactor (a Special Nuclear Material License), but that intervenors must first raise an admissible contention that calls into question apphcant's abihty to receive and care for spent fuel safely. It finds that no such issue has been raised, and the filing of an application for a special nuclear material hcense does not give intervenors a fresh oppor-tunity to raise questions that have been available to them sance the Notice of Hearing in this case was issued. Consequently, the Board denies she admission of a contention concerning the Special Nuclear Material License. B A Board in an operating hcense case has jurisdichon over property raised contentions and may enter orders concerning a related special nuclear material hcense application providing that the orders are related to the admitted contentions. However, the fihng of an apphcation for a spe-cial nuclear material hcense does not create an opportunity to file fresh contenhons about matters that have previously been part of the public record. C A late-filed contention concerning issuance of a special nuclear material hcense must meet all the criteria for a late-filed contention, including a showing of good cause for late filing. If the questions raised were already available in the record prior to the fihng of the applicahon for a special nuclear material livense, the fihns of the apphcation does not by itself create good cause for late fihns. D la is sufficient that an environmental impact statement is prepared concerning the grant-ing of an operating hcense; it is not necessary to prepare a separate statement concerning the re. ceipt of unstradiated fuel or of other plant components, on the assumption that receipt of the component will not be followed by completion of the plant. A single environmentalimpact state-ment covering the entire construction and operation of the plant includes within it the compo-nent steps involved in the project. LBP-83 39 PHILADELPHIA El ECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-353-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; July 26,1983; SECOND SPE-CIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER A In a special prehearing conference order, the Licensing Board rules on the admissibility of pending safety contentions, admitting three contentions and excluding nineteen. Before ad-dressing the admissibehty of specific contentions, the Board concludes that safety contentions concerning the probabihstic risk assessment (PRA) done for Limerick would be admissible only if they alleged that the PRA identified a particular design problem for Limerick. The Board leaves open the question of how PRA contentions should be litigated when they relate to the Na-tional Environmental Policy Act,42 U.S.C. l 4332, review of plant operations. B Good cause for the uniimely filing of a content on based on a newly available document may be lost by waiting to see what achon another party will take in re ction to the document. C When a document becomes available, content ons based upon it must be filed promptly to preserve good cause for an untimely contention although the document may be incomplete. D in the context of health and safety (as opposed to environmental) issues, htigst on related to the choice of methodology used to develop the FRA would not be profitable. However,if the PRA indicates a particular design problem with the plant, that may be litigated. E " Postulated accidents" as used in General Design Criterion 64 is a term of art meaning design basis accidents. F A contention which merely recites unrelated adverse findmgs in reports of quality assur-ance inspections and audits performed by the Staff and Applicant is not admissible. LBP-83-40 COMMONWEALTil EDISON COMPANY (Byron Nuclear Power Station Units I and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-454-OL, STN 50-455-OL (ASLBP No. 79-41104 PE); OPERATING LICENSE; July 26,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING STAY APPLICATION A The Licensing Board denies the NRC Staffs apphcation for a stay pending appeal from a part of a Board order directing the parties to present a full evident ary showing and eaplanation 19 e e

~ e ~ DIG ESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY ANas LICENSING BOARDS j g j of certain investigations and subsequent reinspections related to the quahty assurance program of j one of Applicant's contractors. 8 The criteria for determining whether to grant a stay pendmg appeal have been codified in { 2.788(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice (10 C.F.R. { 2.788(e)). C lt is appropriate for a party seeking a stay pendmg appeal of a hcensmg board order to pe-tition the licensing board first. Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-404,5 NRC 18 85, II86 n.2 (1977), flowever,it is also appropriate for a hcensing board to place relatively little weight on the first criteria for determimng a stay pending appeal, i.e., whether the moving party has a strong showing that it is hkely te prevail on the merits of the appeal D in considerms whether the NRC Staff will be irreparably iruured by an order to produce relevant documents even though germane to a pending inspection or investigation, the hcensing board cannot determine the apphcabihty of the ** investigatory record" enemption to the NRC codification of the Freedom of Information Act,10 C.F.R. { 2.79Na)(7), without at least a dis-cussion of the various protections afforded by { 2.744 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (10 C.F.R. { 2.744). E The Staff may not unilaterally and summarily declare that the " investigatory records" en-emption (10 C.F.R. 2.790(a)(7)) apphes to information in its possession. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.744(c) this determination must be made by the presiding officer after examination of the information. F Although { 2.744 by its terms refers only to the production of NRC documents, it also sets the framework for providmg protection for NRC Staff testimony where disclosure would have the potential to threaten the public health and safety. G With respect to safeguards information, the Commission has dechned to permit any pre-sumption that a party who has demonstrated standing in a proceedmg cannot be trusted with sensitive information. Il If there are persons who might be givy to sensitive information who are not trustworthy, that fact can be made known exclusively for the hcensms board's consideration in fashionmg suitable protection under the various means available to the board. The fact that per-sons employed by Apphcant or its contractors cannot be trusted to receive information on a qual-ity assurance issue is itself relevant to the issue and must be provided to the board. I Where the NRC Staff has failed to show that the provisions of 10 C.F.R l 2.744(c) do not provide sufDcient protection for the information ordered to be disclosed by the board, it has failed to demonstrate the potential for irreparable injury that would justify the grantmg of its ap-Thcation for a stay of the board's order pendmg appeal. J If, with respect to an uncompleted inspection and investigation, an explanation of the nature of the allegation and a description of the evidence so far gathered can put a matter to rest or indicate a need for further inquiry, the hcensing board has the responubihty to inquire timely into the significance and relevance of the pendmg inquiries to the issues in the proceedmg. LBP-83-41 COMMONWEALTil EDISON COMPANY (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-454-OL, STN 50-455-OL (ASLBP No. 79-41104-PE); OPER ATING LICENSE; July 28, 1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER DENYING INTERVENORS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT Tile QA/QC RECORD A The Licensmg Board demes Intervenors' motion to reopen the record for the purpose of receiving certain inspection reports. B A rnotion to reopen the record must be timely, must demonstrate that significant new evidence of a safety question exists and that the new evidence might materially affect the out-come of the proceedmg. C Where Intervenors do not seek a general reopenmg of the evidentiary record, but only to supplement the record with certam inspection reports, it is readily posuble to settle the matter by considering the factual responses of the Apphcant and Staff to determine if the sigmficant safety problem actually existed and, if so, whether it has been resolved. D Because each motion to reopen the record must be evaluated on its merits, and because the Apphcant's burden of proof and the Staff's oversight responsibihties give strong leverage to 20 e 4

~, m e o DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS r intervenors, the board will examme carefully the Intervenors' pleadmgs for detail of factual anal-ysis as one of the factors in determming how seriously the matter is viewed by Intervenors. E The following technical issue is discussed. Integrated llot Functional Testmg 4 LBP-83-42 LONG ISLAND LIGilTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Umt I). Docket No. 50-322-OL-3; EMERGENCY PLANNING; July 28, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION TO INTERVENE OF CITIZENS FOR AN ORDERLY ENERGY POLICY,INC. ) A The Licensms Board denies a petition to intervene in the separate eme.p y planning i hearing in this proceedmg by a petitioner supporting Appbcant's offsite emergency plan and favoring issuance of an operating license to Applicant. The Board finds that the petition was nontimely, and that a balancing of factors pursuant to 10 C.F R. ( 2.714(a)(1) requires that it be denied. ) B When a new licensmg board is established to conduct a separate hearing m an ongoms i operating hcense proceedms, the establishment of such a new Board does not constitute a new Notice of flearing; the timchness of petitions to intervene will be evaluated in light of the initial notice of hearms. I C Where a hcensms board finds that a nomimely petition to intervene is inencusably late, that it would sigmficantly delay the proceedmg if admitted, that the petitioner has made no show. ing ofits abihty to make a substantial contribution to the record, and aat the petitioner's interest is adequately represented by another party to the proceeding, the petitio,. will be denied notwith-standmg the fact that there are no other means available to protect petitioner's interest.10 , C.F.R i 2.714(a)(1). LBP-83-43 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445-OL, 50-446-OL ( ASLBP No. 79 430-060); OPERATING LICENSE; July 29,1983; PROPOSED INITIAL DECISION A A party that does not file required findmgs is in default on the related issues. The Board q i may enemine those issues to determme whether they should be raised by it sua sponte; i otherwise, the issues are excluded from the case. i B Rather than issuing an imtial decision in its finished form, a Board may choose to obtain comments from parties on a " proposed" decision before it makes its final choice. This is partic-ularly appropriate when two of the Board's members were recently appomted and the record was comple s. C The following technical issues are discussed; Quahty assurance; Quality assurance, number of inspectors; Quahty assurance, operational; Non-conformance reports, number of; Emergency planning; Rock overbreak; Dental concrete; Limestone (susceptibility to fracture during blasting); Settlement crack, concrete; Concrete settlement crack; Morale, low; Water stops, improper tacking; Polar crane, saps in rails; Discouragement of non<onformance reports, liarassment, quahty assurance inspectors; Surface preparation, near white blast; Maximum roughness, steel substrate; Paint, force-cunns with smoking heaters; Welding; Welding, heat j numbers only on structural members; Welding, weave-beading; Weldmg, downhill; Weldmg, heating of weld rods; Weidms, plus welding inspection; Welding, control of welding rods; Torque Scal; Quahty assurance, interpretation of Torque Seal by inspectors; Traceabihty of materials; Torque values, procedures; Quenching melds; Flange bolt up joints, inspection delayed; Piping, wall thickness; Piping, cold springing; llydrogen control; Recombiners, electrical; ATWS, Salem Unit I analogy; Boron injection tank, deletion of; Departure from nucleate boshng ratio (DNBR); Boron crystals. 4 l LBP 83 44 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Point Plant). Docket No. 50-15$; s SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; August 1,1983; SUPPLEMENTARY INITIAL DECISION A The Licensing Board determmes that applicant has comphed with the Board's earher ini. tial decision (LBP-82 77,16 NRC 1096 (1982)) concernmg emergency planning. The Board also i decides that it is not necessary to conduct a hearing before making this determiviation. B Apphcant satisfied the Board that it had demonstrated sufficient compliance with the ap-plicable emergency plannmg requirements of the Commission for the purpose of a proceeding concerning a hcense amendment to expand a spent fuel pool. I. Il i I [ , so d l [

i QiM &~ a DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS C A hearing is not required to determine whether applecant has comphed with a Board order if the written submissions fail to raise any serious denciencies that the Board might remedy. Considering the circumstances, a hearing is very unkkely to be producuve and need not be held. D The following technical issues are discussed: Radiological training. Transportation of people without access to personal vehicles, Evacuation for schoolchildren, Compilation of a hst ofinvahds. LBP 33-44A CCNSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Point Plant). Docket No. 50-155, SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; August 15,1983; MEMORANDUM ( Addendum to Sup-picmentary Initial Decision) LBP 83-45 NIAG ARA MOllAWK POWER CORPOR ATION, et al. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2), Docket No. 50-410-OL (ASLBP No. 83-484-03-OL); OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING; August 4,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board rules that no hearms is required in this operating hcense proceeding. B The mere filing by a state of a petition to participate in an operating license apphcation pursuant to 10 C.F.R. l 2.715(c) as an interested state is not cause for ordering a hearing. The application can receive a thorough agency review, outside of the hearing process, absent indsca-tions of significant controverted matters or serious safety or environmental issues. C No hearms is required on an operating hcense apphcation without a request for a hearing made in accordance with section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 C.F.R. I 2.714. LBP-83 46 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2) Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; August 9, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board holds that intervenors did not raise any genuine issue of fact con-cerning the adequacy of the interim program, adopted by the applicant and required by the staff, for inspectmg and maintaining turbines to prevent the generation of missiles. Consequently, sum-mary disposition of the turbine missile issue is granted. The fact that General Electric Company is conducting a study that could alter this conclusion is not grounds for granting a continuance. B Summary disposition must be granted unless a party demonstrates the esistence of a genuine issue of fact by settmg forth "speciGc facts such as would be admissible in evidence." Smce an article, not accompanied by a supporting affidavit, would not be admissible in evidence. the article cannot be the ground for establishing the esistence of a genuine issue of fact. C. Summary disposition may not be denied on speculation that an ongoing study might pro- ' duce results helpful to the party opposing summary disposition. Nor can a continuance be granted when, after a sufficient period of discovery, a party seeks additional time to obtain an espert witness. D The following technical issues are discussed: Turbine missiles (inspection and maintenance); Ultrasonic tests, turbines; Turbine missiles, risks; Overspeed protection system, turbines; General Electric nuclear turbines. LBP 83-47 SOUTilERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generat-ins Station, Units 2 and 3) Docket Nos. 50-361-OL,50-362 OL (ASLBP No. 78-365-01 OL); OPERATING LICENSE; August 12,1983; MEMOkANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensmg Board grants the Applicants' motion to supplement the record, holding that they had met their burden of demonstrating a reasonable assurance that medical services ar. rangements had been made for the offsite public in the event of a Ferious accidCnt-B The Commission has interpreted 10 C.F.R. ) 50.47(b)(12) on a generic basis to require only that esisting medical facihties be identified with respect to risks of radiation injury to the offsite public. Boards are not to go beyond hsts of esisting facihties to determine whether those facilities are adequate to cope with various accidents in the site specific setting. LBP-83-48 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2) Docket Nos. 50 445, 50-446; OPERATINf3 LICENSE; Augus.15, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board holds that it is not appropriate to supplement the record of an ongn-ing proceeding with unsohcited filings. Parties have an obhgation to assist the Board by present. 12 O .*a M . ge, e + j

-. ~

l - W.ww.. DIGESTS ISSUANCF.S OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICF.NSING BOARDS mg evidence in a controlled, organized fashion and should await an appropriate opportumty to submit evidence rather than submitems documents in dribs and drabs. B Parties should present evidence an a controlled, orgamred fasheon and the Board will not grant attempts to supplement the record on pendmg issues by making filmss in drabs and drabs. LBP-83 49 HOUSTON LIGitTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. (South Tenas Project. Units I and 2) Docket Nos. STN $0-498-OL. STN 50-499-OL (ASLBP No. 79-421-07 OL); OPERAT-ING LICENSE; August 16, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensms Board denies a motion by an intervenor for reconsideration of LBP 83-37, a which dechned to admit a Gnancial quahfications contention or to recommend to the Commission 4 (pursuant to 10 C.F.R. l 2.758) that the rule prohibitmg consideration of Snancial quahfications contentions be waived. l B To make a prima facie showing under 10 C.F.R. ( 2.758 that a regulation should be waived, a stronger showing than would be required to introduce a new contention must be made. Evidence would have to be presented demonstratmg that the facihty under review is so different from other projects that the rule would not serve the purposes for which it was adopted. LBP-83 50 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-329-OMAOL,50 330-OMAOL (ASLBP Nos. 78 389-03-OL,80-4294)2-SP); MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING LICENSE; August 17,1983 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board denies a motion by an intervenor to reopen the record, on the i grounds that the facts asserted to justify reopening do not fall within the scope of an admitted contention and,in addition, are not of sufDcient safety sigmficance to warrant a reopening of the record. B Where the entire record of a proceeding is not closed and an initial decision has not been issued, a party seeksng to reopen the record on issues the adjudication of which have been completed must demonstrate that the matter et wishes to have presented is (l) temely presented, and (2) addressed to a significant issue. The timehness inquery is subsidiary to the sismficance of the material to be considered. Where an initial decision has been assued, a party must additional-ly demonstrate that the matter is susceptible of alterms the result previously reached. C A party moving to reopen a record must offer sigmficant new evidence and not merely I " bare allegations" or new contentions. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear l Power Plant, Units I and 2) CLl-88 5,13 NRC 361,362 63 (1981). LDP-83 51 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Byron Nuclear Power Sistion, Units I and 1 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-454 OL, STN 50-455-OL (ASLBP No. 79-411-04 PE); OPERATING j LICENSE, August 17,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J A The Licensing Board reports on its in camera receipt of information concerning pending investigations ard inspections. B Pursuant to IO C.F.R. ( 2.744(c) and the Commission August 5,1983 Statement of Policy - Inva%nons and Adjudnatory Proceedmss,48 Fed. Reg. 36,358, the Licensing Board n'*" ;oreve exclusively in camera information from the Ofnce of Inspection and Enforcement and the Ofnce of Investigations concerning pending inspections and investigations. C Although 10 C.F R. ( 2.744(c) refers only to NRC documents which may be presented for the presadmg officer's esclusive in camera inspection for relevancy and exemption under 10 C.F.R. l 2.790, the Commission's August 5,1983 Statement of Pohcy, Investigations and Adju-dicatory Proceedmss,48 Fed. Reg. 36,358, authorizes the presiding ofEccr also to inspect non-documentary information in camera and exclusive of other parties. LBP 83 52 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; August 18, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board reopens its record on quahty assurance on its own motion, in order to receive written fihngs concerning a document that was filed by an intervenor and that appar. j ently indicates serious problems not covered in prior testimony. Intervenor's motion to reopen the record is denied because the failure to introduce this evidence into the record at an earlier time was due to intervenor's failure to pursue its discovery rights in a timely fashion. B When the entire record has not been closed, the record on a single issue may be re-opened on a showing that the motion to reopen is timely and raises an issue of substance. 1 1 23

44, W DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE NSING BOARDS i s. ~ However, a mohon is not timely if it is based on mformation that should have been discovered [. ' ,y, prior to an evidentiary hearmg. C When an intervenor bemss important informahon to hght, the Board must inquire further s ~ in order to have a complete record even if the informahon should have been filed at an earher time. This action is parucularly appropriate when the new informahon casts new hght on earher testimony LBP-83-52A GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY. et al. (River Bend Station, Umts I and 2), I Docket Nos. 50 458-OL, 50-459 OL (ASLBP No. 82 468 Ol OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; August 26,1983; MEMORANDUM A in this memorandum the Licensing Board rules on the admissibehty of contentions in this operaung hcense proceedmg and estabbshes procedures for further proceedmss. I B The Commission ehmmated the review of financial cuahlications from power plant hcens-irs hearings in part because it could not Gnd any reason to consider, in a vacuum, the general abihty of unhues to finance the construction of new genershon facihhes Only when jomed with the issue of adequate protection of the pubhc health and safety does this issue become pertsnent. C Contentions attacking the Commission's regulanons are prohibeted unless the pehuoner j can make a prima facie showing of "special circumstances" such that applying the regulahon in f the specific case would not serve the purposes for which it was adopted.10 C.F R. ( 2.758 (1983). D The mere allegation of financial problems, three unrelated inspechon reports, and an openly requested devianon from standards do not conshtute a safety problem so as to permit a Andmg of "spe;ial circumstances" as required by 10 C F R. i 2.758 for the waiver of the prohibi-tion of 10 C.F.R.150 40(b) barring the review of Gnancial quahfications in hcenssng hearmes. { E Where intervenors have not idenufied a single chemical or effluent of any kind that 7 might interact with some unspecified level or quantity of iomams radiahon, contenhons allegmg that emissions may cause health hazards either alone or in combmation with industrial efDuents already present in the area's air and water are too vague and lackmg in specincity to permit l meanmsful htigation. 1 F The Geubility in the 10 mile EPZ regulatory requirement does not contemplate including j so remote a chain of speculative circumstances as that posited by intervenors in a contention allegms that inmates of a prison located it miles from the plant might e fect a mass, armed r escape and disrupt the orderly implementation of the emergency plan. LBP8353 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Unds I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-329 OMAOL, 50 330-OMAOL (A5LBP Nos. 78 389-03-OL, so 429-02-SP). MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPFRATING LICENSE; August 31,1933, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A' The Licensing Board grants one mohon to quash subpoenas, denies another motion to quash subpoenas and enters a protective order to govern the enforcement of the subpoenas. B An attorney's representation, that all communications between the attorney and the party were for the purpose of receiving legal advice, is sufficient for an assertion of anorney-chent prmiege. I C A party's need for discovery outweight any risk of harm from the potential release ofin-formation when the NRC Staff has indicated that no ongoing invesugation will be jeopardized. [ mhen all idenuties and idenhfymg informauon are escluded from discovery; and when all other information is discussed under the aegis of a protective order. 4 D Even where a First Amendment or common law privilege is found aprlicable to a party 1 (or nonparty) resishng discovery, that privilege is not absolute. A licensms board must balance the value of the information snusht to be obtained with the harm caused by revealms the informahon. r t LBP 83 55 TEXA5 UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electrie I Station Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 445, 50 446; OPERATING LICENSE, September I, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A Intervenor's motion to reopen the record on a portion of a contention, after Gndmss had been required to be filed on that portion, is demed as unnmely. The Board further decides that it will not reopen the record itself, in the interest of compshng a complete record, because enter. l l c 24 i i 4 e i i .i y 7 -* ._m4r_ e_ --w-. p .-p_

. %,,dr8"" DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 2DS venor had not persuaded it that the material raises a serious safety matter that would not other-wise be considered. B in a separate matter, a monon to stnke non-record material is denied because the Board may ignore materials that are not in the record and nothms is g;ined by striking those materials. C When findings have been required concerning an aspect of an admitted contention, a monon to reopen may be granted only if it is timely and raises an issue of substance. The Board may take up late matters itself, but it must first be persuaded that they are essential to the determinanon of an important safety issue. D Unexpected events in the course of a hearing do not provide grounds for late-fihng docu-ments two months after the close of the hearing. E Estra-record materials need not be struck from the Board's files, as the Board may merely ignore those materials in reaching its decision. LBP-83-56 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-413-OL, 50-414 OL (ASLBP No. SI-463-01-OL); OPERATING LICENSE: September 6,1983, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board denies motions for summary disposit on of a contention relatmg to safe operanon of the spent fuel pool at the Catawba facihty. The Board grants a related motion concerning the environmental effects of the spent fuel poot The Board denies a motion for sanc. tions based merely upon one party's impermissibly narrow readmg of a contenuon. LBP-83-57 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; September 21, 1983; PARTI AL INITIAL DECISION A The Licensing Board issues a Partial Initial Decision decidmg all issues be' ore it, except the emergency diesel generator contentions on which htigation was deferred at the request of all parues. (Offsite emergency planning issues are pendmg for htigation before a separate hcensing s board.) The Board decides all issues in Applicant's favor, with the excephon of poruons of two issues involving Mark Il containment loads due to RllR discharge mode operauon and the test-ing and inspection program for undetected check valve failure. However, the Board finds that the pendency of those two issues, over which jurisdicuan has been retained, woulJ not prevent issuance of a low power (up to 5%) operating license, if and when the pending diesel issues are resolved in LILCO's favor. B The decision (in Section V) includes several condiuons involving the implementation of the recent rule governmg environmental quah6 cation of electrical equipment (10 C.F.R. ) 50.49), and the agreement by LILCO to the NRC Staff's definition and apphcation of the terms "important to safety" and " safety-related" insofar as safety classification and quahfication of plant structures, systems and components are concerned. The Board also recommends that the Commission consider: whether the ECCS Appendia K factors should be updated for the current BWR 8 m 8 fuel array; and whether the Staff should provide detailed guidance for the identification of "important to safety" equipment required fos environmental quahfication by 10 C.F.R. i 50 49(b)(2). The Chairman of the Board also recommends that the Commission consid-er whether present and projected progress and management by the Staff of Unresolved Safety issue A 17 (Systems interaction) is proper. C The Board also demes, on the basis of the Commission's previous ruhng in this case, Sur. folk County's motion that a low power license could not be issued unicss a revised NEPA cost-benefit analysis was performed to consider the circumstance of denial of a full-power license due to inadequate offsite emergency preparedness. (See Section IV.) D The following technical 6ssues are discussed. Water Hammer, ECCS Core Spray, Passive Mechanical Valve Failure, Anticipated Transients Without Scrats, Seismic Design, Mark II Containment, Safety Rehef Valve Tests and Challenges, Post Accident Monitorms. Environmen-tal Quahfication, Systems Interaction and Safety Clanification Qi.alify Assurance and Ouahty Control. 25 .~ 4 O ~ c J-h Y ______________________________-_____________-__________:_________________________________-_____._____b

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS -9 ' n LBP 83-58 CINCINNATI G AS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Wilham II. Zimmer Nuclear ,P \\' Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-358-OL ( ASLBP No. 76-317-01-OL); OPERATING j / *+ ,y. 15,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LICENSE; September Intervenor petitioned for reconsideration of the Licensms Board's ruling in LBP-83-54, A 16 NRC 210 (1982) that it had failed to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F R. { 2.7I4(a) to have eight late-filed contentions admitted in this proceeding. Alternatively, Intervenor letitioned to have those contentions admitted on the basis of new informanon which furnished "dood c for their late fihng. After Intervenor abandoned the petition for reconsideration, the Licensing Board again denied the admission of the eight contentions, holdmg that new infoemation which was outside the scope of the contentions ruled on in LBP.82-54 had not been presented and that the Sve criteria of 10 C.F R. ) 2.714(a) balanced against admission of the contentions. Intervenors must diligently uncover and apply all available information to the prompt B formulation of contentions, Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 104I (1983). Where intervenor does-not show good cause for the nontimely submission of C contentions, it must make a compelling showing on the other four criteria of 10 C F.R. s ) 2.714(a). Mississippi Power A Light Co (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725 (1982). D Despite the fact that nontimely contenhons raise matters which have not previously been htigated, the requirements for reopening records must be satisfied in addition to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. l 2.714(a). Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-82 39,16 NRC 1712,1714-15 (1982). LBP-83-59 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al. (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1), Docket No. 50-460-CPA (ASLBP No. 83-485-02 CPA); CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; September 21,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Upon uncontested motion of intervenor orgamzation and without balancing the five fac-A tors of 10 C.F.R. l 2.714(a)(1), the Licensing Board accepts the withdrawal of affidavit of the only authorizing member with standing, accepts the authorizing afridavit of a new member with standmg. and affirms the continuation of the proceedmg. B The representation in the petition that the interests of the organization are predicated on the interests of members with standmg but not the identities of those members, is a material part of the petition. C A change in the identines of the authorizing members of an organuation is not a material change that requires an amendment of the petition to which the five-factor test of 10 C.F.R. , ) 2.714(a)(1) would be applicabic. D Once an organizational petition to intervene is granted, it is Presumed that the class of authorizing members with standing contmues to esist. LBP 83-60 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445, 50 446; OPERATING LICENSE; September 23, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER in this decision the Licensing Board resolves objections that the Board had invited from A the parties to help it to resolve correctly the issues covered in its Proposed initial Decision of July 29,1983 (LBP-33-43,18 NRC 122). The Board dismisses the emergency planning conten-tion but estabhshes a procedure that will permit it to decide whether the emergency plans are so incomp6 cts that the Board will declare their adequacy to be a sua sponte issue. B Although several of applicant's objections are sustained, causing fewer adverse findings to remain, the Board makes the following findmgs adverse to the applicant-. (1) a supervisor, who called a meeting about " nit picking" by quality assurance inspectors, was willing to have quahty assurance inspectors do a less thorough job of reporting deficiencies; (2) quality assurance inspectors were harassed by the paint craft; (3) a quality assurance inspector, who apparently was too careful for management's liking, was dismissed from his job on a pretent; (4) the availabihty of a recent prosedural change does not rebut tesumony that apphcant's quakty assurance proce-dures for verifying "near white blast" were inadequate durms an estended period of time; (5) sufficient reasons have not been provided to demonstrate the adequacy of protective coatings on Westinghouse equipment; (6) appikant apparently had inadequate knowledge of code authoriza-26 9 Y g h I 9 e

m 9 ~ DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS + e- ^ 1-M tion for the use of plug welds and consequently did not institute a hold point that would have been required for adequate inspection of such welds; (7) apphcant has not adequately { u demonstrated that improper downhill welds are not a problem at Comanche Peak; (8) applicant ~ 5, < has not adequately demonstrated that it has kept incidents of uncontrolled weld rods to an accept-able number; (9) there was an incident in which a quality assurance inspector, Mr. Atchison, was pressured into approving a report agamst his own best judgment; and (10) the apphcant's i Final Safety Analysis Report should have been amended to reflect accurately the rock overbreak problem that occurred and failure to correct the report constitutes a material false statement. C A Board may declare a default for failure to file required findmss. This default does not, however, prohibit the Board from inquiring into the defaulted matters if necessary to compile a complete record on a contention that is still part of the case. Nor does the default prohibit the Board from eliciting help from the defaulting intervenor in pursuing the Board's continums concerns. D When the Board finds review of the emergency plan by the Federal Emergency Manage. ment Agency to be cursory, it may estabhsh a procedure by which it may determine whether or not to raise this anatter sua sponte. / E Applicant must provide a reasoned response to allegations of an individual who had an opportunity to observe conditions to which he objects, even if the witness has had previous con. victions for violent crimes. F When a Board has invited objections to a proposed decision, parties must make specific objections or waive their rights to continue to pursue the issues involved. O The following technical issues are discussed: Quahty assurance; Emergency plannms; Protective coatings; Intimidation of quality assurance inspectors; flarassment of quahty assurance inspectors; Protected activity - discharge on a present; Firing quahiy assurance inspector on a pretext; Maximum roughness of protective coatings; Adhesion testing of protective coatmss; Smoke on protective coatings; Weave welding; Plus welds; Plus welds (inspection of); Downhill welding; Weld rod controle Hitti bolt inspection; Fillet weld, gap; Water quenching of welds, aus-tenatic stainless steel; Rock overbreak; Blast damage to foundation rock; Rock damage in foundation; Dental concrete; Concrete as part of a foundation; Radiation, cracks in reactor shield wall. LBP-834l LONO ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I). Docket No. 50-322 OL.3; EMERGENCY PLANNING; September 27, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM FEMA A The Licensing Board denies a motion to compel production of a certain FEM A employee for deposition regarding the FEM A review of an emergency plan. B Pursuant to interagency Memorandum of Understanding, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is acting as consultant to NRC in emergency planning matters; its employees are thus entitled to limitations on discovery afforded NRC consultants by 10 C.F.R. (( 2.720(h)(2)(i) and 2.4(p). Where party requesting production for deposition of a cer. tain FEMA employee fails to show "enceptional circumstances, request is denied. C The role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in emergency plan review is that of " consultant" to NRC: FEM A submits its expert advice concerning emergency plans to NRC, which evaluates that advice in coryunction with a!! other evidence of record. (Interagency Mernorandum of Understanding 45 Fed. Reg at 32,714 (19801). LBP4342 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Big Rock Point Plant), Docket No. 50155; SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; September 30,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Board denies intervenor's motion to reopen the record based on new information it had obtained about the appropriate standards to be apphed in determining whether apphcant has complied with the NRC Staff's criticality requirements (neutron multiplication factor requirements) for a spent fuel pool The Board holds that the alleged difference in standards is moot. Since apphcant is now required to show that the water in its spent fuel pool will not rise 4 above 150*F, the manimum temperature at which the integrity of the concrete pool can be assured, it is no longer necessary for applicant to show that the neutron multiplication factor (k y) would not exceed 0 95 at temperatures higher than the 150*F. et 27

• Q e

[

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATO% llc SAFETY AND 1.ICF.NSING BOARDS B The Licensing Board has jurisdiction over issues remanded to it by the Appeal Board even if the decision orderms the remand has been appealed to the Commission. C When applicant must show that the water in its fuel pool will not rise above 150*F in order to retain the integrity of the pool concrete, that maumum temperature value establishes the maximum temperature at which applicant must show that the neutron multiplication factor (k,n) in its fuel pool must not rise above 0.95. D The following technical issue is discussed Neutron muliiplication factor (k n). e J 28 e 4,* 4 .e O

i ,, p.w 4 I

• r i

I i 4 I l i i WG ESTS 155t ANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECl% IONS DD-83-Il TEX AS UTILITIES GENER ATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 445, 50-446; OPER ATING LICENSE; August 19, 3 1983. DIRE CTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. 4 2 20e A The Director of the Omce of Inspecuon and Enforcement demes a pennon pursuant to 1 10 C F.R. 4 2.206 which requested that the hcensees produce certam deugn documents or, in the alternaute, show cause why they should not be found in violanon of NRC regulations if the i documents are not en their possemon. l B A retinon is not properly brought under 10 C F.R. 4 2.206 which requests the Director i to grant rehef which is withm the power of the presidmg omcer in an NRC adjudicatory proceed-ing to grant l C NRC regulanons do not require licensees to mamtam all quahiy assurance documentation pertammg to facihty design withm their immediate possession Licensees may delegate the estab-j hshment and esecuhon of its quahty assurance pregram to comractors and other agents but the j bcensee retains responubihty for the quahty assurance prograrn l DD 83-12 SillPMENTS OF lilGil LEVEL NUCLEAR POWER PL ANT W ASTE TilROUGil AND TO ILLINOIS; TR ANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERI ALS, September 13, 1983, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R l 2.2% A The Director of the Omce of Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards denies a request from Edward Gogol to postpone all shipments of high level waste through and to llhnois and to hold a senet of pubhc hearmgs on the radioactive waste shipmems. B The transportanon of radioactive materials, includmg the transport of irradialed reactor fuel, is governed by a comprehenuve set of regulanons estabhshed by both the NRC and the j. Department of Transroriation. DD-8313 %ISCON51N ELECTRIC POW ER COMPANY (Pomt Beach Nuclear Plant. Units I and j 2), Docket Nos. 50-266, 50-301; OPERATING LICENSE, September 23, 1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. ( 2.206 A The Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement demes a petition submitted by l W sconsin's Environmental Decade requestmg issuance of an order to the Wisconsm Electric i Power Company to show cause why the operstmg hcense for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant should not be modified, suspended, or revoked due to serious deteriorshon of operator perfor. + J mance at the facehty. j DD-83-14 COMMONWEALTil EDISON COMPANY, NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RE. SE ARCil AND DEVELOPMENT AUTilORITY, and WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (Shipment of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel from West Valley, N.Y.) Docket Nos. 5010, 50-237, 50 249, 50-201, 50 266, 50 301; SPENT FUEL TRANSPORTATION, September 30, 1983, DIRf CTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. ( 2.206 A The Direcint of the Omce of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards demes petitions by Marvin Resnikoff, on behalf of the Sierra Club, and the State of Ohio, through ses Attorney General, requestmg that, among other actions, the Commission stay the transport of irradiated nuclear fuel from the western New York Nuclear Service Center in West Valley, New York to the Pomt Beach and Dresden power reactor sites. The decision also forms the basis for the un. pubbshed October 28,1983 demal of the petition of Fred Millar, on behalf of the Environmental Pohey institute B Author ty of NRO hcensees to dehver spent fuel to a carner for transport is provided by 10 C F.R. t 71.72, which provides a general hcense to any hcensee of the Commission to trans-port or deliver to a carner for transport certam radioachve malenal, includmg irradiated reactor fuelin packages for which a Certificate of Comphance has been assued by the NRC, 29 l l

l .,,O DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Di*;ECTORS' DECISIONS C C.F.R. (( 30.34 and 70.41, authorize possession of 1 y Act and 10 ~', as may be produced by the operation of their facshties, including the recei t ecial nuclear mater.at special nuclear material orismated at their facihtees. p of byproduct and D To the estent that the petitioners' concern as to the routes selected spent fuel arises from questions of highway safety, that concern is with nsport of the Department of Transportation. [ is ictson of the E the human environment such that preparation of an env i quality of F tion of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Questions of physical s mpact statement is required. G i. proper functiomns of fuel handling equipment and spen covered the ties of malfunction and a fuel drop accident. The Commission's r , includmg the possibili-perrmt bcensees to change procedures described in the safety evaluation regulations involves a change in the technical specifications of the lic eport unless the change question. The actions involved in the receipt of spent fuel and the p tense or on port away frorn a reactor. Smce these actions, potential o ential accidents and ue or trans-evaluated, there is no need for a new safety evaluation to address the receip onsequences have been reacter site. spent fuel at the DD8315 Station), Docket No. 50-309. EMERGENCY PLANNINO; omic Power DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206 30 1983, INTERIM A and defers in part, a petition submitted by David Sant s in part Power and others requesting that the Commission take action to ensure cor o ensible Maine planning deficiencies identified by the Federal Emergency Management A rectson of emergency petitioners had requested that the NRC institute procee sency and evaluate the o t ese matters, the Maine Yankee Atomic Po*er Station. ntinue operation of the B offsite emergency preparedness for nuclear power plan ng the status of routes that may be used in taking protective measu equacy of evacuation C untion is only one of several possible responses to an emergency n which evac. f 30 + e e

t l n u.w., [ I l s l j t l i l l 1 i I LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX l CASES l Alabama Pomer Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. Umts 1 and 2), ALAB 182,7 AEC 210,212 (1974) cnteria for apphcanon of collateral estoppel to administratne proceedmps; LBP 83 33,18 NRC 38 (1983) Albed4}cneral Ni clear Serseces (Barnmell Fuel Recenmg and Storage Station), ALAB-328,3 NRC 420 (1976) precedent concermns seems of miersenors in NRC proceedmgs. ALAB 743,18 NRC 411 n.24 (1983) l Arkansas Power and Light Co ( Arkansas Nuclear One Umt 2), Al.AB-94,6 AEC 25,32 (1973) j reliarwe on ACRS reports as support for findings on health and safety aspects oflicensing l proceedmss. LBP-83 57,18 NRC 518 (1983) I Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (Cobati-60 Storage Facility), ALAB-682,16 NRC 150, i 154 n 3 (1982) circums.ances appropnate for use of ofEcially noticeable matenal; ALAB-740 18 NRC 350 n.21 I (1983) Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (Cobalt-60 Storage Facihty), ALAB-682,16 NRC 150, 155 (1982) treatment, on appeal. of nsues not necessary to a decision; ALAB 743,18 NRC 411 n.22 (1983) Boston Edson Co. (Pilsnm Nutlear Generstmg Sianon, Umt 2), ALAB 238,8 AFC 656 (1974) affirmation of a LKenung Board's demal of a late-filed retinon to miersene ALAB-743 18 NRC 414 (1983) l l Boston Edison Co. (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Station, Umt 2), AL AB-632,13 NRC 91,93 n 2 (1981) appeatabihty of parnalimtial deciuon: LBP-83-57,18 NRC 638 (1983) Cahforma v. Watt. 683 F 2d 1253,1268 (9th Cir.1982) factors determemng need to supplement Fmal Environmental Statemenn LBP-83-36,18 NRC 49 (1983) l Calvert Chffs Coordmatmg Committee v. AEC, 449 F 2d 1109 Ill),1123 (D C. Cir.1971) need to reesaluate cost-benefit balance for issuance oflow power hcense; LBP 83 57,18 NRC 630 (1983) { Carolma Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Umts 1,2,3, and 4), ALAB-526,9 NRC 122 (1979) j affirmanon of a Licensms Board's demal of a late filed petition to intervene, AL AB 743, tu NRC J 413 (1983) l Carolma Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Umts 1,2,3, and 4), CLI-80-12 11 NRC 514. 516 87 (1980) j junsdiction to rule on petinon for reconsideration follommg nsuance ofinitial deciuon LBP-83 58, 18 NRC 644 (1983) Carson Produas Co. v. Cahfano. 594 F.2d 453,459 (5th Cir.1979) respomes to officially nonceable matenal, ALAB-740,18 NRC 350 (1983) Charles Rner Park "A" inc. v. Department of Housms and Urban Development,519 F 2d 935,939 (D C. Cir.1975) resoluuon of factual usues on baus of representahons of counses; ALAB-735,18 NRC 25 (1983) Chelsca Neighborhood Ass'n v. U 5 Postal Service,516 F 2d 378,387 89 (2d Cir.1975) l need to reesaluate cost benefit bala we for nsuance oflow power hcense, LBP-83 57,18 NRC 630 (19831 l 31

= I ~,...-. LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX p.~ i CAsth I 1 l Oncinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wilham II. Zimmer Nuclear $tatio ",.. _r .t. types of appeals that are interlocutory, and their disposition; ALAB 736 18 NRC 166 (1 + Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wilham II. Zimmer Nuclear Stahon), LDP 79-24,10 4 (1979) 'f Licensms Board jurisdiction to stay effectsveness of Special Nuclear Materials Lic 18 NRC 63 (1983) a Cincmnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wilham H Zimmer Nuclear Stahon, Umt 1), LBP-1549, 1578 79 (1982)) f post-hearms resolution ofissues by the Staff; L BP 83 57,18 NRC $19 (1983) Ourens for $afe Power v. NRC, $24 F.2d 1291,1294 A n.5 (D C Car 1973) [ modification of Final Environmental Statement; LBP-63 36,18 NRC 48 (1983) 4 i Citaena for Safe Power v. NRC, $24 F 2d 1291,1297 (D.C Or.1975) f standard for judgms adequacy of a testing program, LBP-83-57,18 NRC $23 (1983) Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry NucIcar Power Plant Umts I and 2), ALABf' l' 1105, 11I3 14 (1982) factors in favor ofinterlocutory review; ALAB 741,18 NRC 376 (1981) ). l Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB i' 1754, 1756 (1982) l' procedural vehicle for seeking review ofinterlocutory matters; ALAB-736,18 NRC 166 n.1 (1 Cleveland Electne liluminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALA 165 (1983) { impermisuble appeals from interlocutory orders; ALAB 742,18 NRC 383 n.$ (1983) i Cleveland Liectne liluminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), LBP 175, 192 95 (1981) consideranon of financial quahficahons of an apphcant at operatmg hcense stage; LB NRC 54 (1983) Cleveland Electric illummatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), LBP 256 (1983) Cohen v BeneficialIndustrial Loan Corp.,337 U.S. $41, $46 (1949) conte j 'i description of collateral order doctrme; ALAB 733, la NRC 26 (1983) Cohen v Massachusetts Bay Transportahon Authority,647 F.2d 209,21314 (lat Cir.1981 Columbia Basin Land Protection Ass'n v. Schlesinger,641 F.2 j i need to reevaluate cost benefit balance for issuance oflow power hcense; LDP 83 57,1 (1983) Commciiwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Stanon. Units I and 2), ALAB-73 (1983) L denial of motion for directed certification; ALAB 742,18 NRC 383 n.$ (1983) Commonweahh Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-7 25 (1983) effectiveness of protecove orders to prevent disclosure of informahon that is t invesugations; LBP-83 53,18 NRC 288 (1983) Commonweahh Edison Co. (Zion Stanon, Units I and 2) Conservation Law Foundation v. Watt, $60 F. Supp. $61, $69 71 (P. Mass.198 Docket Nos. 83-1258 and 83-1265 (1st Cir., argued June 6,1983)) need to reevaluate cost benefit balance for issuance oflow-power hcense; LBP 83-$7,1 3 (1983) Conschdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Unit 2), ALAB 177,7 AEC l$3 (1974 disclosure of sensitive informahon under protective order; L Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Umi 2), CLI 74 23,7 AEC 947 951 j Commission pohey concerning post hearms resolution ofissues; LBP-83.$7,18 NRC 4 t i 32 I l o i . m.

~. i g 7,,.. %s 2%4..a.., LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES a Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Pomt. Uma 2), CLI 74 23,7 AEC 947,95152 (1974) Board authonty to resolve contested issues that are the object of ongoms conGrmatory analysis at the close of the record; LBP 83-57, is NRC 519 (1983) Corsobdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Pomt, Umts 2 and 3), CLI 8316,17 NRC 1006 (1983) justancation for continuing operation of a plant pending FEM A determination on state of emergency i preparedness; DD-8315,18 NRC 742 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB-725,17 NRC 562,567-68 (1983) standard of proof required at the triallevel; LBP 83-55,18 NRC 418 n.8 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units I and 2), ALAB 123,6 AEC 331,333 (1973) continu*d Board consideration ofissues on which intervenor has defaulted, LBP 83-60,18 NRC 676 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Uruts I and 2), ALAB 123,6 AEC 331,333 334 (1973) outcome of a party's failure to file proposed Endings; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 679-80 & n.18 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-270,8 NRC 47),476 (1975) responsabihties of partses concerning appellate briefs; ALAB 739,18 NRC 338 n.4 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (M41and Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-283,2 NRC ll,17 (1975) 4 burden of proof on safety issues; LBP 83 58,18 NRC 658 (1983) i Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB458,7 NRC 155,162-63 A n.25 (1978) scope of benents weighed agamst costs under NEPA; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 631 n 80 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2) LBP-82-63,16 NRC 571,577 (1982) timehness of financial quatincations contention; LBP 83 37,18 NRC 55 (1983) Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-83-50,17 NRC 242,248 (1983). content of motions to reopen the record; LBP 83 55,18 NRC 417 n 4 (1983) legal standards for reopenmg the record when entire record has not been closed; LBP 83 52,18 NRC 257 n 2 (1983) Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Uma 2), ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760 (1982) affirmation of a Licensing Board's denial of a late-filed petition to intervene; ALAB 743,18 NRC

41) (1983)

Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB 707,16 NRC 1760,1765 (1982) showing necessary, in absence of good cause, on other four factors in order to justify late t intervention; ALAB-743,18 NRC 395 (1983) Detroit Edison Co. (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-709,17 NRC 17,21 (1983) consequence ofintervenor's failure ta file proposed nndmss, LBP-83 43,18 NRC 13u (1983); LBP 83 57,18 NRC 511 n.18 (1983) Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Uma 2), ALAB 730,17 NRC 1057,1065 A n.7 (1983) criteria for reopenmg the record, LBP 83 50,18 NRC 246 (1983) Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Unit 2), LBP 82 96,16 NRC 1408, '422 (1982), af!'d, ALAB-730,17 NRC 1057 (1983) scope of htigable emergency planmns issues; ALAB-737,18 NRC 174 n.9 (1983) Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB476,7 NRC 759 (1978) afGrmation of Licensing Board's grant of late Gled petition to intervene; ALAB-743,18 NRC 414 (1983) Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Ener8y Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB476,7 NRC 759,761-62 (1978) importance of potential for delay of proceedme in balancing of factors for late intervention; ALAB-743,18 NRC 402 (1983) Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy Center, tinits 2 and 3) ALAB 476,7 NRC 759,762 (1978) importance of potential for delay of proceeding in balancing of factors for late intervention, ALAB-743,18 NRC 408 n.Il (1983); LDP 8142,18 NRC 120 (1983) Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-476,7 NRC 759,764 (1978) showing necessary on late intervention petitioner's ability to contribute to a sound record, ALAB 743,18 NRC 400 (1983) 4 i 33 l i

i L . ;. 7 - -M8vmnm., _ LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX i CASES - m Duke Power Co. (Amendment to Materials License SNM l??3 - Tranwortation of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), AL AB 651,14 NRC 307 (1981) A 3' receipt and storage of spent fuel at a facihty other than the one at which et was generated, ALAB-741,18 NRC 377 (1983) Duke Power Ca (Catamba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460 (1982), rev'd in part, CLI 8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983) consideration of recent events in establishing good cause for late intervention; ALAB-743,18 NitC 408 al2 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB487,16 NRC 460,464 (1982) test apphed by Appeal Bosed m determimrs =hether to accept Licensing Board referral of ruhng; ALAB-741,18 NRC 375 n 6 (1983) Duke Power Ca (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB487,16 NRC 460,469 (1982) three-part test for admisson of untimely contentions; ALAB 734.18 NRC 16,17 (1983) time " mat fM Gling contentions; ALAB-737,18 NRC 172 n.4 (19831 Duke Power Ca (Catamba 7'<! car Station, Units I and 2), ALAB487.16 NRC 460,469-70 (1982) good cause for late fihng of contentions based on previously unavailable information; LBP 33-39,18 NRC 69 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), CLI 8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983) factors foi determining admissibihty of late Gled comenisons; CLI-83 23,18 NRC 312,313 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041,1043 44,1045, 1047 (1983) criteria for accepting late-filed contentions based on previously unavailable, hcensing-related documents; LBP-83-42,18 NRC 115 (1983) Duke Power Ca (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041,1045 A n 4, 1047, 1049 (1983) factors balanced to establish good cause for late fihng of contention bawd on previously unavailable information; LBP-83 39. It NRC 69 (1983) Duke Power Ca (Catamba Nuclear Station. Units I and 21. CLI-8319,17 NRC 104),1048 49 (1983) apphcation of good cause criterion to contentions filed after record has closed; LBP-83-$8,18 NRC 657 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-440,6 NRC 642 (1977) amtmation of a Licensing Board's denial of a late Gled petition to inicevene; ALAB 743,18 NRC 413 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Umts I,2 and 3), ALAB 440,6 NRt. 642,644 45 (1977) loss of good cause for late fihns of contention through rehance on another party's actions; LBP-83-39,18 NRC 70 (1983) Duke Power Ca (Perk:ns Nuclear Station, Units 1,2 and 3), ALAB 431,6 NRC 460 (1977) amtmation of a Licensing Board's denial of a late-filed petition to intervene; ALAB 74),18 NRC 413 (1983) Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-591, il NRC 741,742 (1980) Licensing Board power to rule on the scope of its jurisdiction; LBP-83 58,18 NRC 6% (1983) Duke Power Ca (Perkins Nuclear Station, Umts 1,2 and 3), ALAB 597, il NRC 870 (1980) appeatabihty of partial imtial decision; LDP-33 57,18 NRC 638 (1983) Duke Power Ca (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units I,2 and 3), ALAO 597, il NRC 870,873 (1980) Licensing Board authority to proceed where it determines it has jurishetion; LDP 83 58,18 NRC 646 (1983) Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Umt 2), ALAB 208,7 AEC 959 (1974) amtmation of a Licensing Board's denial of a late-filed petition to intervene; ALAB-74),18 NRC 414 (1983) Ecology Actit n v. AEC,492 F.2d 998,1000-02 (2nd Cir.1974) curms defects in a Final Environmental Statement; LBP 33 36,18 NRC 47,48 (1983) Essex County Preservation Ass'n v. Campbell, $36 F.2d 956,960-6l Elst Cir.1976) need to reevaluate cost benefit balance for issuance of low-power hcenw; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 630 (1983) 34 O t t 6

.,,,,,;., 4 g.O b.".. e.- LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CAM 5 i e Federal Power Commission v. Biope Natural Gas Co,320 U.S 591,603 (1944) duty of State regulatory bodies to estabhsh raies covermt costs engendered by nuclear facility j hcenses; LBP 83-37,18 NRC 58 0983) Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Plant, Umt 2), AL AB-404,5 NRC 1885, lite n.2 0977) hkehhood of party seekmg stay pending appeal of prevailms on the merits; LDP 33-40,18 NRC 97 0983) Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2), ALAB 420,6 NRC 8 0977), aff'd, CLI 7812, 7 NRC 939 (1978) afntmation of Licensing Board's grant of late filed pention to miervene; ALAB 743,18 N AC 414 0983) Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-579, il NRC 22),225 (1980) i Licensing Board jurisdiction to decide monon to reopen record where initial decision has been issued, LBP-83-58,18 NRC 643 0983) i Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2), LBP 8158,14 NRC 1167 0980 eriteria for apphcation of collateral estoppel to admmistrative proceedings; LBP 83 33,18 NRC 38 0983) Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generstmg Station, Units 3 and 4), ALAB-660, i 14 NRC 987,101314 0980 curms defects in a Final Environmental Statement, LBP 83 36,18 NRC 47,48 0983) Gray v. Board of Higher Education City of New York,92 F.R D. 87 (5 D N.Y.1981) balancmg called for by First Amendment or common law privilege in determining whether to release informanon under protechve order; LBP-83 53,18 NRC 288 n.3 0983) Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC,444 F.2d 841,851 (D C, Cir.1970), cert. densed,403 U.S. 923 097D Licensms Board responsibihues in resolving issues, ALAB 740,18 NRC 367 n.103 0983) Gulf States Unhues Co. (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 358,4 NRC 558 0976) i dismissal ofintervenor following change of residence to area not in prosimity to reactur; LBP-83 59,18 NRC 670 n.3 0983) Gulf States Unhues Co. (Rever Bend Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,772 0977) flesibehty in determimes acceptable way to comply with regulations; LBP 83 57,18 NRC SC7 0983) Gulf States Unhues Co. (River Bend Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 444,6 NRC 760,774 0917) findmg necessary for issuance of an oper= ting hcense for a nuclear power plant; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 464 (1983) { Culf $tates Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units I ar.d 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,774,775 (1977) 1 operanon of a nuclear power plant pendmg resolution of generic unresolved safety issues; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 472 0983) Het ston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Stauon, Cnit 1). ALAB 535,9 NRC 377,389-400 0979) need to idenufy members of organization petinoning for intervention; LBP 83 59,18 NRC 669 i U983) llouston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1). ALAB 535,9 N RC 377, 400 (1979) basis for disclosure ofinformation under a protective orster; ALAB-735,18 NRC 25 (1983) effectiveness of protettive orders to prevent disclosure ofinformation that is the subject of ongoing invesus;* ions; LBP 83-53,18 NRC 288 0983) 4 Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Stanon Unit D. ALAB429,13 NRC 75 0981) i light in which confheting affidavits and record must be viewed when response to summary disposinon motion is received LBP 83-46,18 NRC 223 (1983) j liouston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station, Unit U, ALAB429,13 NRC 75,77 n.2 (1981) i tyr t of appeals that are interlocutory, and their dispmetion, ALAB 736,18 NRC 166 0983) liousran Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station, Unit I), ALAB-635,13 NRC 309,310 0981) potenhal for future htigation as cause for directed cerufkaten; ALAB 737,18 NRC 176 n.12 0983) i 35 e %e .e.. e kI 4

., a d," h LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES p,,+ _,,n3-Houston Lightmg and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station, Unit I). ALAB435,13 + L NRC 309,310-11 (1981) Licensing Board error as jushfication for directed certification; ALAB-741,18 NRC 374 n.4 (1983) occurrence of iegal error as justification for interlocutory appellaie review; ALAB 734,18 NRC 15 (1983) proper forum for addressms adequacy of Staffs environmental analysis; ALAB-742,18 NRC 385 n.12 (1983) llouston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generaims Station, Unit 1). ALAB471,15 NRC 508 (1982) amtmahon of a Licensing Board's denial of a late-filed petition to intervene; ALAB 743,18 NRC 413 (1983) Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I), ALAS 471,15 NRC 508, SI) n.14 (1982) determmative factor when considerms late intervenhon petitions; ALAB-743,18 NRC 412 n.29 i (1983) Itouston Lightmg and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-301,2 NRC 353 (1975) appealability of partialinitial decision; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 638 (1983) flouston Lighting and Power Co. (South Temas Proget. Units I and 2), ALAB439,13 NRC 469,472, 477 (majonty),484 85 (dissent) (1981) basis for disclosure of information under a protective order; ALAB 735,18 NRC 25 (1983); LBP-83-53,18 NRC 288 (1983) llouston Lightmg and Power Co. (South Teams Project, Umts I and 2), CLI 80-32,12 NRC 281 (1980) htigabihty of contention queshoning character and competence of apphcant to operate a nuclear power plant; LBP 83 58,18 NRC 649 (1983) llouston Lightmg and Power Co. (south Texas Proxes, Umts I and 2), LBP 75-71,2 NRC 894, 914 16 (1975), afTd, ALAB-306,3 NRC 14 (1976) timms and scope of consideration of applicant's financial qualifications; LBP-83 37,18 NRC 54-55 (1983) Ilknois v. NRC,591 F.2d 12 (7th Cir.1979) proceedmg or hearing or intervenhon rights triggered by request for action under 10 C.F.R.1206; DD 8314,18 NRC 728 n.1 (1983) lowa Electric Light and Power Co. (Duane Arnold Energy Center), ALAB 108,6 AEC 195 (1973) amtmation of a Licensms Board's denial of a late filed petition to intervene; ALAB 74),18 NRC 414 (1981) Kansas Gas and Electric Co (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit I), ALAB-462,7 NRC 320,338 (1978) burden on proponent of motion to reopen, ALAB 738,18 NRC 180 (1983); LBP-83 50,18 NRC 247 (1983) criteria that a motion to reopen must satisfy; ALAB 738,18 NRC 180 (1983); LBP 83 41,18 NRC 108 (1983) Konias, Inc., Village of Uyak v. Andrus, 580 F.2d 601 (D C. Cir.), cert. denied,493 U.S.1052 (1978) application ofjudicial standards to administrative proceedings; ALAB-743,18 NRC 412 n.25 (1983) Long Island Lighting Co. Osmesport Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 292,2 NRC 631 (1975) amtmation of a Licensing Board's denial of a late filed petition to intervene; ALAB 743,18 NRC 414 (1983) precedent concernin!t views ofintervenors in NRC proceedmst, ALAB-743,18 NRC All n.24 (1983) Long Island Lighting Co. ($horeham Nuclear Power Station, Umt 1), LBP-83 30,17 NRC 1832, ll4) (1983) standards applicable to reopening records; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 66) (1983) Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric 5tahon, Unit 3), ALAB-220,8 AEC 93 (1974) types of appeals that are interlocutory, and their disposihon; ALAB 736,18 NRC 166 n.1 (1983) 36 O 6 y ~ y s e ~ 'l

~ ~ ' ] LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX. CASES .e Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford sum Electric Stat;on, Un,# 3), ALh_ B 732,17 NRC 1076, 1104 (1983) ^ emergency planning finding accesuary prior to issuance of operaus bcense; LM43-60fla NRC 678 n.16 (1983) Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford steam Electric Station, Urit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076, 1110-1) (1983) entent of Licensing Ifoard scrutiny of uncontested generic unresolven safet) issues; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 465 (1983) Maine Yankee Atenic Power Co. (Maine Yecace Atomic Power Station), AIAB 161,6 AEC 1003, 1004 (1973), aff'd sub nom. Citizens for Safe Power,Inc. v. NRC,524 F.2d 129t ID.C Cir-1975) degree of quality expected in congrucraon of rmelcar power plants; ALAB440,14 NRC 316 n.1 (1983) Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station),.klAB-161,6 AEC 1003, 1014 (1973), aTd sub nont. Citisens for Safe Power, Inc. v. NRC. 524 F.2d I291,1301 (D C. Cir.1975) need for supplemental environmental impact statement prior to issuance of low-power hcense. LBP 83-57,18 NRC 627,628 (1981) 6 Maine Yankee Atomic Powes Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power 5tation), ALAli-166,6 AEC ll*8,' 1850 n,7 (1973) responses to motions for reconsideration; LBP-83-49,18 NRC 240 n.1 (1981) Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (MaMe Yankee Atomic Power Statwn), CLl-83 21,18 NRC 157, 160, 162 (1983) discussion oflink between pubhc health and safety concerns and apphcant's financial qualdications. LBP-83 52A,18 NRC 27172 (1983) Metropuhtan Edison Co. (Three Mac Island Nuclear 5tation, Umt I), ALAB-698,16 NRC 1290, 1298-99 (1982), flesibdity in detefraimns acceptable way to comply with regulations; LBP 83 57,18 NRC 507 (1961) Metropolitan Edison Lo. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt I), ALAB 694,16 NXC 1290, 1323 (1982), rev'd. CLI 83 22,18 NRC 299 (1983) treatment ofissues r.ot necessary to a decesson on appeal; ALAL-743,18 NRC 411 n.22 (li83) ' Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile island Nuclear Station, Uma 1), ALAB-699,16 NRC 1324 < (1982) jurisdiction to rule on petition for reconsideration following issuance of imtial decision; LBP 83-58, 18 NRC 643-44 (19811 Metropohtan LJinon Co. 4 7hree M.le Island Nuclear Station, Unis 1), ALAil 729,17 N RC 814, 827 28 (1983) standard for judging adequacy of a resung program; LBP 43-57,18 NRC 523 (1983) Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mda Island NucIcar Stanon Uma l), ALAB 721, a f NRC 814,873 et seg. (1983) definition of"important to safety"; LBP-8157,18 NRC 556 (1983) Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Uma l), ALAB 729,17 NRC Sl4, 885 88 (1983) post-hearing resolution of issues by the Staff; LDP 83 57,18 NRC Sl9,5:0 a 21 (1983) Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mda Island Nuclear Station Unit 1), CLI 80-It,11 NRC 674,675 (1980) forum to consider question of additio. wit safety factors te deal with derrade d core conditions; LBP 83-88 (1983s Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit I), CLI 83 22, I( NRC 299,309 i (1983) test of adequacy of an emergency plan; LBP 8340,18 NRC 678 n.16 (1983) . l Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Uma l), CLI-83 25,18 NRC J29,232 (19831 consideration of recent events in estabhshing good cause for late entervention; ALAB 741,18 NRC. 408 n 12 (1983) r 37 4 e t g ,p e e

..., n I EGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Metropohtan Edison Co. Uhree Mde Island Nuclear Stanon, Uma 2), ALAB-486,8 NRC 9,21 (1978) burden on proponent of motion to reopen the record, LDP-83 50,18 NRC 247,248 (1983) Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), CLI 80 22, ll NRC 724 (1980) i NRC authority to conduct invesugation while Grand Jury investigation is under way; CL1-83 24,18 i NRC 319,3?0 (1983) i Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear station, Units I and 2), ALAB 704,16 NRC 1725 (1982) amtmation of a Licensins Board's denial of a late Gled pehuon to intervene; ALAB 74),18 NRC 413 (1983) showmg necessary on other criteria for acceptance oflate-filed contenuons where good cause has not been shown; LE* 83 58,18 NRC 663 (1983) Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982) importance of petitioner's abshty to contribute to sound record, in evaluating late intervenuon petition; ALAB 743,18 NRC 399 (1983); LBP 83-42,18 NRC 119 (1983) Nader v. NRC,513 F.2d 1045,1052 54 (D C. Cir.1975) safety standards apphed in determming efficacy of eddy current testmg to detect flaws m sleeved steam generator tubes; ALAB 739,18 NRC 340 (1983) Neder v. Ray,363 F. Surp. 946,'954 (D.D.C 1973) safety standards apphed in determining efficacy of eddy current testmg to detect flaws in sletved steam generator tubes; ALAB-739,18 NRC 340 (1983) New England Coahtion v. NRC,582 F.2d 87. 93 94 (1st Cir.1978) modificanon of Final Environmental Statement, LBP 83-36,18 NRC 48 (1983) New England Power Co. (NEP, Units I and 2), LBP-78-9,7 NRC 271,279 (1978) Licensms Board jurisdicuan to supplement Final Environmental Statement; LBP-83-36,18 NRC 48 49 (1983) New York State Energy Research and Development Authority v. Nuclear Fuel services, Inc.,561 F. Supp. 954 (W.D.N.Y 1983) duty of euhties to remove fuel from storage facihty at demand of owner; DD 83-14,18 NRC 730 n.3(1983) NLRB v. Interstate Dress Carriers,610 F.2d 99 (3d Cir.1979) propriety of parallel civil and criminal proceedmss; CLI 83 24, it NRC 322 (1983) Northern States Power Co. (Monucello Nuclear Generating Plant. Unit I), CLI 72-31,5 AEC 25,26 (1972) ground for waiver of rule barring consideranon of financial quahfication4 contention; LBP-83 37,18 NRC 57 (1983) Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 244,8 { AEC 857,864 (1974) continued Board consideration on issues on which intervenor has defaulted; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 676 (1983) Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generstmg Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB-252,8 ALC 1875 (1975), aff'd, CLI 75-1,1 NRC I (1975) appealabihty of decision in which contenuons were raised as Board issues; LBP.83 58,18 NRC 647 (1983) Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 343. 4 NRC 169,171 (1976) l status of studies of muluple sicam generator tube failures; ALAB 739,18 NRC 340 n.8 (1983) Northern States Power Co- (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit I), CLI-80 36,12 NRC 523 (1980) interests which do not confer standmg for purposes ofintervention; CLI 83-25,18 NRC 332 n 4 (1983) Northern States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), CLI-80 36,12 NRC 523,527 (1980) filing of petition by interested state as cause for a hearing; LDP 83 45, it NRC 216 (1983) Nuclear Ensmeering Co. (Shemeld, Ilhnois Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site) ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737 (1978) intervention by party supportmg hcense applicahon; ALAB 743,18 NRC 390 n 4 (1983) t i 3 I e O ( l y s e D

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Nuclear Fuel Services,Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4,1 NRC 273 (1975) factors balanced in ruling on late intervention; CLI-83-25,18 NRC 331 (1983) reversal of Licensing Board denial oflate-filed petiteun to intervene; ALAB 743,18 NRC 414 (1983) Wtur Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI 75-4,1 NRC 273 (1975) weight given to a petitioner's failure to estabhsh good cause for late intervention; ALAB 743,18 NRC 413 n.30 (1983) Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI 75-4. I NRC 273,275,276 (1975); ALAB-263,1 NRC 208 220-21 (1975) frequency of reversals of Licensing Board denials oflate intervention; ALAB-743,18 NRC 396 n.36 (1983) Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (Western New York Nuclear Service Centst), ALAB479,16 NRC 121, 126 (1982) limitations on NRC's review of West Valley Demonstration Project; DD-8314,18 NRC 732 (1983) Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants). AL AB-489,8 NRC 194,199-208 (1978) relationship between NRC Staff and Licensing Boards; LBP 83-40,18 NRC 97,102 (1983) Offshore Power Systems (Floatmg Nxicar Power Plants). AL AB-489,8 NRC 194,206-07 (1978) Licensing Board jurisdiction to supplement Final Environmental Statement; LBP-83-36,14 NRC 48-49 (1983) Pacifs Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 223,8 AEC 241 (1974) alTirmation of Licensing Board's grant oflate-filed petition to intervene; ALAB-74),18 NRC 414 (1983) Pacifs Gas and Electric Co- (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 592, il NRC 744,746 (1980) basis for disclosure ofinformation under a protective order; ALAR-735,18 NRC 25 (1983l. LBP-83-53,18 NRC 288 (1983) Pacifs Gas and Electric Co (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 598,11 NRC 876 (1980) use of new information as basis for reopening a record; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 477 (1983) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-598,11 NRC 876,879 (1980) burden to be satisfied for acceptance of motion to reopen the record; ALAB 738,18 NRC 180,186, 197 (1983); LBP-83-50,18 NRC 247 (1983) Pacific Gas and Electric Co- (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB400,12 NRC 3 (1980) basis for disclosure ofinformation under a protective order; ALAB 735,18 NRC 25 (1983), LBP-83-53,18 NRC 288 (1983) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-728,17 i NRC 777,793-95 & n.46 (1983) need for supplemental environmental impact statement prior to issuance of low power license; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 624-27 (1983) Pacific Gas and Elec*ric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-728.17 NRC 777,793-95 (1983) consideration of adequacy of StafT review of operating license application in operating license proceeding; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 565 n 29 (1983) Pacine Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-728,17 NRC 777,800 n.66 (1983) standards for reopening a record; LBP-83-41,18 NRC 108 (1983) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 728,17 NRC 777,806-07 (1983). estent of Licensing Board scrutiny of uncontested generic unresolved safety issues; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 465 (1983) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-728,17 NRC 777,807 (1983) basis for findmg validity of a contention; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 576 n.33 (1983) 39 O I I v e

e LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Pacinc Gas and Elecinc Co (Diablo Canyon Natear Power Plant. Umts I and 2), CLI 761,3 NRC 73 (1976) Licensing Board junsdiction to stay efTectiveness of Special Nucicar Materials License, LBP-83 38, 18 NRC 63 (1983) PaciGc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canvon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-80 24, il NRC 775 (1980); ALAB-410,5 NRC 1398 (1977); ALAB-580, il NRC 227 (1980); ALAB-592, 11 NRC 744 (1980) ALAB-600,12 NRC 3 (1983) balance between measures used to protect sensitive information and rights of parties in adjudicatory proceedings; LBP-83 40,18 NRC 99 (1983) PaciGc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2), CLI 81-5,13 NRC 361, 362 (1981) nght to evidentiary heanns on new contentions by virtue of request for low-power license. LBP-83-57,18 NRC 632 (1983) standards for reopening evidentiary hearings, LBP-83 41,18 NRC 108 (1983) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI-815,13 NRC 361, 362-63 (1981) showing necessary for waiver of Gnancial qual:Scations rule;1BP 83-49,18 NRC 240 (1983) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umis I and 2), CLt-815,13 NRC 361, 362 64 (1981) cnteria for reoremns the record LBP-83 50,18 NRC 246,247,251 (1983) PaciGc Gas and Flectric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nucicar Power Plant, Umis I and 2), CLI-815,13 NRC 361, 363 (1981) litigability of contention asserting need for measures beyond NUREG-0737 requirements; LBP-83-39.18 NRC 86 (1983) Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Phnt, Units I and 2), CLi-816,13 NRC 443 (1981). improper use of 2.2% petitions; DD-83 II, IS NRC 295 (198D Pacific Gas and Electric Co- (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2), CLI-82-39,16 NRC 1712,171415 (1982) cnteria for reopening the record, LBP 83-50,18 NRC 246 (1983); LBP-83 58,18 NRC 663 (1983) Pacinc Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2) LBP-8121,14 NRC 107,113,118 (1981) operation of a nuclear power plant pending resolution of genene unresolved safety issues. LBP-83-57,18 NRC 472 (1983) PaciGc Gas and Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Dev. Comm'n,000 U.S. 000,75 L. Ed. 2d 752,767 (1983) NRC authority concerning Gnancial qualifications of licensees CLI-83-21, la NRC 159 n.3 (1983) Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric 5tation, Units I and 2), AL AB-641, 13 NRC 550 (1981) potential for future litigation as cause for directed certiGcation, AL AB-737,18 NRC 176 n.12 (1983) Pennsylvania Power and Light Co- (Susquehanna Steam Electne Station, Un;ts 1 and 2), ALAB-641, 13 NRC 550,552 (1981) delay and expense caused by Licensing Board error as cause for interlocutory review, ALAB-741,18 NRC 378 n.ll (1983) Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Sicam Electric Siation, Units I and 2), ALAB-693, 16 NRC 952,955 (1982) responsibilities of parties concerning appellate briefs; ALAB-739,18 NRC 338 n.4 (1983) Pennsylvania Power and Light Co- (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), LBP-81-8,13 NRC 335 (1981) light in which conGicting affidavits and record must be viewed when response to summary disposition motion is received; LBP 83-46,18 NRC 223 (1983) Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-80-21,11 NRC 707 (1980) requirements and guidance for environmental qualification of electne equipment important to safety; LBP-83-57, !8 NRC 536 (1983) 40 e e.. e

,g-- e -- - + -.:- + h. i ~ .m. s .,w,- LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Philadelphia Electnc Co (Limerick Generauns Stanon, Units I and 2), ALAB-262,1 NRC 16), 195-97 (1975) cunns defects in a Final Environmental Statement; LBP 83 36,18 NRC 47,48 (1983) Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Genersung Station, Units I and 2) ALAB 726,17 NRC 755 (1983) jurisdiction to rule on petition for reconsideration following issuance ofinitial decision; LBP-83 58, 18 NRC 644 (1983) Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-76-27,4 NRC 610 (1976) concepts used to determine a petitioner's standing to intervene; LBP 83-45,18 NRC 215 (1983) test for standing apphed by the Commission; ALAB 743,18 NRC 418 n.23 (1983) Portland General Elecinc Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-76-27,4 NRC 610, 613 (1976) application of judicial standards to admimstrative proceedmss; ALAB 743,18 NRC 412 nn.25,26 (1983) Portland General Electnc Co. (Pebble Spnnss Nuclear Plant Units I and 2), CLl 76-27,4 NRC 610, 614 (1976) concepts apphed in determimr.: an intervenuon pennoner's interests; CLI-83-25,18 NRC 332 A n 4 (1983) Ponland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nucicar Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-76-27,4 NRC 610, 614 17 (1976) dncrenonary intervention where petit oner does not satisfy standing requirements; CLI-83 25,18 NPC 333 (1983) nght of laie intervenuon pensioner to discretionary micrvention; ALAB-743,18 NRC 390 (1983) Portland Geceral Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant). ALAB 534,9 NRC 287,289 n.4 (1979) ne:d to reevaluate cost-benefit balance for assuance oflow-power license; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 629 n.76 (1983) Portland General Ekctnc Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534,9 NRC 287,289 n.6 (1979) y Licensing Board jurisdicuon in license amendment proceeding; ALAB-739,18 NRC 339 (1983) Potomac Alhance v. NRC,682 F.2d 1030,1036-37 (D C. Cir 1982) test of whe*her uncertain circumstances should be considered under NEPA; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 628-29 (1983) Power Reactor Development Corp. v. Ir ternanonal Union,367 U.S. 396,407 (1%1) degree of quahty expected in construcuon of nuclear power plants; ALAB-740,18 NRC 346 n.1 (1983) Project Management Corp. (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354,4 NRC 383 (1976) amtmation of a Licensing Board's denial of a late filed petition to intervene; a LAB-743,18 NRC 413 (1983) Public Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Ildt Nuclear Generating Station Units I and 2), ALAB-316,3 NRC 167,170-71 (1976) Licensmg Board jurisdiction in license amendment proceedms; ALAB-739,18 NRC 339 (1983) Public Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station. Units I and 2), ALAB 339,4 NRC 20 (1976) i affirmation of Licensing Board's grant of late-filed peuuon to intervene; ALAB-743,18 NRC 414 (1983) Public Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Gencrating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-405,5 NRC 1890,1892 (1977) circumstances app opriate for directed cerufication of legal issues raised in pending Licensing Board proceedings; ALAB-737,18 NRC 178 (1983) criteria for grant of directed certification; ALAB 734,18 NRC 14 (1983); ALAB 735,18 NRC 23, e 25 (1983); ALAB-741,18 NRC 375 (1983); ALAB-742,18 NRC 383 n.8 (1983) Publie Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station. Units I and 2), ALAB-461. 7 NRC 313,318 (1978) Board authority to resolve contested issues that are the object of ongoing confirmatory analysis at the close of the record; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 519 (1983) 48 .h se 4

LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASf3 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 271, I NRC 478,483 (1975) circumstances appropriate for directed certification of legal issues raised in pending Licensing Board proceedings; ALAB-737,18 NRC 178 (1983) Pubhc Service Co. of New llampshire (Seabrook Station Units I and 2), ALAB-271 I NRC 478, 483-86 (1975) circumstances appropriate for discretionary interlocutory appellate review; ALAB 742,18 NRC 383 n.7 (1983) Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units I and 2), ALAB-271,1 NRC 478,485 (1975) Licensing Board jurisdiction concerning transportation of spent fuel between facilities; ALAB 741, 18 NRC 377 n.8 (1983) Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I ar'd 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33,41 (1977), aff'd, CLI-78-1,7 NRC 1 (1978), aff'd sub nom. New England Coahtion on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC,582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir.1978) responsibihties of Boards to address intervenors' arguments; ALAB-740,18 NRC 366-67 on.102, 104 (1983) Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33,64 n.34 (1977) standards for reopening evidentiary hearings; LBP-83-41,18 NRC 108 (1983) Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-422,6 NRC 33, 77-78 (1977) duty of State regulatory bodies to establish rates covering costs engendered by nuclear facihty bcenses; LBP-83-37,18 NRC 58 (1983) Pubhc Service Co. of New flampshire (Seabrook Station Units I and 2), ALAB-513,8 NRC 694,695 (1978) Licensing Board jurisdiction to decide motion to reopen record where initial decision has been issued; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 643 (1983) Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-731,17 NRC 1073 (1983); ALAB-734,18 NRC 11 (1983) denial of motion for directed certification; ALAB 742,18 NRC 383 n.5 (1983) Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 734,18 NRC ll,14 n.4 (1983) content of oppositions to directed certification petitions; ALAB-741, IS NRC 374 n.3 (1983) Pubfic Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2) ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983) denial of motion for directed certification; ALAB-742, I8 NRC 383 n.5 (1983) Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-737,18 NRC 168, 176 n.12 (1983) delay and expense caused by Licensing Board error as cause for interlocutory review; ALAB 741,18 NRC 378 n.lt (1983) Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) CLI-78 l,7 NRC 1,14 (1978) duty of State regulatory bodies to establish rates covering costs engendered by nuclear facihty hcenses; LBP-83-37,18 NRC 58 (1983) Pubhc Service Co. of New llampshire (Scabrook Station, Units I and 2), CLI 781,7 NRC 19 (1978) q NRC means for assuring that utihties needing funds will not skimp on regulatory comphance; LBP-83-37,18 NRC 59 (1983) Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Umts I and 2), LBP-74 36,7 AEC 877,879 (1974) light in which confheting affidavits and record must be viewed when response to summary disposition motion is received; LBP-83-46,18 NRC 223 (1983) Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-397,5 NRC 1143,1148 (1977), reconsideration denied, ALAB-402,5 NRC 1882 (1977) cause for grant of discretionary intervention; ALAB-743,18 NRC 405 n.4 (1983) 42 a u. -w .g .w.. s K

,; ~..,... -n_, LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Umis I and 2), ALAB 573,10 NRC 775,804 (1979) standards for reopening evidentiary hearings; LBP 83 41,18 NRC 108 (1983) Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I), ALAB-650,14 NRC 43,49 50, alTd sub nom. Township of Lower Alloways Creek v. Public Service Electric and Gas Co.,687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir.1982) content of appellate briefs; ALAB-739. IS NRC 338 n.4 (1983); ALAB-740,18 NRC 348 n.7 (1983) Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit I) LBP-8u-27,12 NRC 435,453 (1980), afTd, ALAB-650,14 NRC 43 (1981), afrd, Township of Lower Alloways Creek v. Public Service Electric and Gas Co.,687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir.19828 resolution ofissues raised sua sponte by a Licensing Board; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 647 (1983) Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Umts 1 and 2), ALAll 559,10 NRC 162 (1979), vacated as tr.oot, CLI-80-34,12 NRC 407 (1980) affirmation of a Licensing Board's denial of a late-filed petition to intervene; ALAB-743,18 NRC 413 (1983) Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), ALAB-559,10 NRC 162,170 (1979) means for protecting interests of intervenor proffering contentions after close of record; LBP-83-58, I8 NRC 660 (1983) Richards of Rockford, Inc. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.,71 F.R.D. 388 (N.D. Cal.1976) balancing called for by First Amendment or common law privilege in determining whether to release information under protecuve order; LBP-83-53,18 NRC 288 n.3 (1983) Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-655,14 NRC 799,803 (1981) scope of sua sponte appellate review; ALAB-739,18 NRC 341 (1983) SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc.,628 F.2d 1368,1375,1377,1380 (D.C. Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied,449 U.S. 993 (1980) legality of NRC investigation paralleling Justice Department investigation; ALAB-738,18 NRC 188 n.14,191 (1983) SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc.,628 F.2d 1368,1375-80,1383-87 (D.C. Cir.1980) (en banc), cert. denied,101 S. Ct. 529 (1980) NRC authority to investigate matters following their referral to the Justice Department; CLI 83-24, 18 NRC 320-23 (1983) Sierra Club v. Morton,405 U.S. 727 (1972) ' interests which do not confer standing for purposes ofintervention; CLI-83 25,18 NRC 332 (1983) South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Stanon, Unit 1), ALAB-642,13 NRC 881 (1981) reversal of Licensing Board's grant oflate-filed petition to intervene; ALAB 743,18 NRC 414 (1983) weight given to availability of other means to protect a petitioner's interests; LBP-83-42,18 NRC 118 (1983) South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642,13 NRC 881,894 (1981), alTd sub nom. Fairfield United Action v. NRC,679 F.2d 261 (D.C. Cir.1982) showing necessary on late intervention petitioner's ability to contribute to a sound record, ALAB-743,18 NRC 399-400 (1983) Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-67), 15 NRC 688,695-96 (1982) establishment of privity between an applicant and one ofits major contractors; LBP-83-34,18 NRC 38 n.3 (1983) - Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-717, 17 NRC 346,367-68 (1983) reason that ACRS reports may not be relied upon in support of health and safety findings; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 518 (19831 1 Southern California Edison Co. (San Onorte Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-717, 17 NRC 346,371-72 (1983) consequence ofintervenor's failure to file proposed findings; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 130 (1983) 43 9 g .e - - a . 'N ~

--.;s g jpr &

• W ^

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generstmg Station. Units 2 and 3), CLI 83 to, 17 NRC 528 (1983) extent of medical services to be planned for during a radiological emergency; LBP-83-39,18 NRC 80 (1983) Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generatmg Station Umts 2 and 3), LHP-82-39 15 NRC 3163,1I77-82 (1982) basis for local variations in EPZ radius; LBP-83-52 A,18 NRC 277 (1983) Southern Methodist Univ. Ass'n v. Wynne & Jaffe,599 F.2d 707. 711 12 (5th Cir.1979) apphcabihty of collateral order doctrine to Board order for NRC Staff to disclose informaison on confidentialinvestigation; ALAB-735,18 NRC 26 (1983) Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceedmgs, CLI-81-8.13 NRC 452 (1981) Board responsibihty to satisfy itself that late-filed motions for reconsideration are supported by good cause; LBP 83 58,18 NRC 644 (1983) showing necessary for denial of summary disposition; LBP 83-46, IS NRC 223 (1983) Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceedmss, CLI-818,13 NRC 452,454 (1981) pohcy on sanctions against parties for taking a legal position a Board thinks is wrong; LBP 83-56,18 NRC 433 (1983) Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceedmgs, CLI-818,13 NRC 452,455 (1981) consohdation of contentions and intervenors; LBP 83 52A,18 NRC 273 (1983) Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensmg Proceedirigs, CLI-818,13 NRC 452. 456 (1981) NRC pohey concerning directed cernfication; ALAB-741,18 NRC 374 (1983); ALAB 742,18 NRC 384 n.10 (1983) Statement of Policy: Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operstmg Licene. CLI-80-42,12 NRC 654 (1980) admission of contention questioning adequacy of schedule for implementmg modification of automatic depressurization system logic; LBP-83-39.18 NRC 85 (1983) i Stokes v United States,652 F.2d I (7th Cir.1981) resolution of factualissues on basis of representations of counsel; ALAB-735,18 NRC 25 (1983) Telephone Workers Union of New Jersey, Local 827 v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. 584 F.2d 31 (1978) privity between an apphcant and one ofits major contractors; LBP-83 33,18 NRC 38 (1983) Ten Apphcations for Low-Ennched Uranium Exports to EURATOM Member Nations, CLI-77 24. 6 J NRC 525. 529 (1977) precedent concerning views ofintervenors in NRC proceedmss; ALAB-743,18 NRC 411 n.24 l (1983) Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Units I and 2). ALAB-341,4 NRC 95 (1976) affirmation of a Licensing Board's denial of a late-filed petition to intervene; ALAB 743,18 NRC 413 (1983) Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1. 2 and 3). ALAB-677,15 NRC 1387. 1394 (1982) Staff responsibility to bring new information to the attention of the Board; ALAB-738,18 NRC 197 (1983) Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plants, Units I A 2A, IB and 2B). ALAB 467,7 NRC 459,463 (1978) circumstances appropriate for issuance of advisory opinions; ALAB-743,18 NRC 390 n.4 (1983) Toledo Edison Co (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station). ALAB-300,2 NRC 752,758 (1975) appealability of order terminating Intervenor's right to participate in proceeding; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 665 (1983) types of appeals that are interlocutory, and their disposition; ALAB-736 18 NRC 166 (1983) Transnuclear Inr.. CLI 77-24. 6 NRC 525,531 (1977) - injury to a party, which is sufficient to confer stanJing; CLI 83-25.18 NRC 333 (1983) Union of Concerned Scientists v. AEC,499 F.2d 1069,1083 84 & n.35 (D C. Cir.1974) need for supplemental environmental impact statement pr or to issuance of low-power hcen c; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 627 29 (1983) 44 F eM ..m J W r n

n. l ~ -m L.! LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC,7t l F.2d 370,376. 377 (D C Cir.1983) n* // impact of court Gnding ofinvalid portions of Gnal environmental quahfication rule; LBP 83 57,18 NRC 537 (1983) United Airhnes, Inc. v. Evans,431 U.S. 553,558 (1977) interpretation of" continuous violation"; CLl-83-20,18 NRC 7 (1983) in re United States,565 F.2d 19, 21 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied sub nom. Bell v. Sociahst Workers Party,436 U.S. %2 (1978) apphcabihty of collateral order doctrine to Board order for NRC Staff to disclose information on confidennat intestigation; ALAB-735,18 NRC 26 (1983) United States v. Davis 533 F.2d 928,928 (5th Cir.1976). material false statements as continuous violations; CLI-83 20,18 NRC 7,8 (1983) United States v. Kordel,397 U.S.1 Il 12 (1970) right of NRC to brief Justice Department on information m its possession; CLI-83-24,18 NRC 320 n.8,323 (1983) United States v. LaSalle National Bank,437 U.S. 298,316 (1978) NRC authority to conduct investigation while Grand Jury investigation is under way; CLI-83-24,18 NRC 319, 322 (1983) United States v. IAGovern 87 F.R.D. 582 (1980); 87 F.R D. 584,588 (1980)- 87 F.R.D. 590,591, 593 (1980) NRC authority to conduct inveshgation while Grand Jury investigation is under way; CLI-83-24,18 NRC 322 n.Il (1983) United States v. WlYN Radio inc.,614 F.2d 495,497 (5th Cir.1980) interpretation of"contmuous violation"; CLI-83-20,18 NRC 6 (1983) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB 124. 6 AEC 358, 365 (1973) evaluatmg potential of late-Gled contentions for delaying the proceedmg; LBP 83 58,18 NRC 662 (1983) interpretation of "sigmncant issue"; LBP-83-50,18 NRC 247 (1983) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ALAB-138,6 AEC 520, 523 (19731 criteria that a motion to reopen must satisfy; ALAB-738,18 NRC 180 (1983); LBP-83-41,18 NRC 108, 109 (1983) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB 138,6 AEC 520,523 n_12 (1973) extent of burden for reopening the record of a proceeding not yet closed; LBP-83-50,18 NRC 248 (1983) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB 138,6 AEC 520, 523-24 (1973) material taken into account by Licensing Board in ruling on motion to reopen the record; LBP-83-50,18 NRC 247,249 (1983) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-179,7 AEC 159,174 n.17 (1974) flexibility in determining acceptable way to comply with regulations; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 507 (1983) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 289,2 NRC 395 (1975) affirmation of a Licensing Board's denial of a late-filed petition to miervene; ALAB-743,18 NRC 414 (1983) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 289,2 NRC 395,398 (1975) weight given to a petitioner's failure to establish good cause Inr late intervention; ALAB 743,18 NRC 413 n.30 (1983) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Pcwcr Station. Units I and 2), ALAB 289,2 NRC 395,400 (1975) importance of potential for delay of proceeding in balancing of factors for late intervention; ALAB-743, I8 NRC 402-03 (1983) 45 - We% = ..e e. e C e

4 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES

• ?s Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-342,4 NRC 98 (1976) affirmation of Licensing Board's grant oflate-filed petition to intervene; ALAB-743,18 NRC 414 (1983)

Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-363,4 NRC 631 (1976) right of late intervention petitioner to discretionary intervention; ALAB-743,18 NRC 390 (1983) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-491. 8 NRC 245,248 (1978) finding necessary for issuance of an operating license for a nuclear power plant: LBP-83-57,18 NRC 464 (1983) operation of a nuclear power plant pendmg resolution of generic unresolved safety issues; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 472 (1983) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-551,9 NRC 704,706 (1979) Licensing Board jurisdiction to decide motion to reopen record where initial decision has been issued; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 643 (1983) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-676,15 NRC 1117.1118 n.2,1I19 20,1830 (1982) definition of a missile; LBP-83-46,18 NRC 219 n.1 (1983) Virgima Electric and Power Co_ (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-741,18 NRC 371 (1983) denial of motion for directed certification; ALAB-742,18 NRC 383 n.5 (1983) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI 76-22,4 NRC 480 (19761 omissions as material false statements; CLI-83 20,18 NRC 3 (1983) Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station Units I and 2), CLI-76-22,4 NRC 480,488 93 (1976) untimely provision of significant information by licensee as a material false statement; AL AB-738, 18 NRC 198 (1983) Virginia Electric and Power Co. v. NRC,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) interpretation of material false statement; CLI 83-20,18 NRC 8 n.3 (1983) Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission,259 F.2d 921,925 (D.C. Cir. 1958) i criteria determining whether to grant stay pending appeal; LBP-83-40,18 NRC 96 (1983) 4 Warm Spring Task Force v. Gribble,621 F.2d 1017,1023 36 (9th Cir 1981) factors determining need to supplement Final Environmental Statement; LBP-83 36,18 NRC 49 (1983) d Warth v. Seldin,422 U.S. 490,499 (1975) injury to a party, which is sufficient to confer standing; CLI 83-25,18 NRC 333 (1983) Warth w Seldin,422 U.S. 490,500 (1975) rationale for standmg test applied by courts; ALAB-743,18 NRC 412 n.27 (1983) a Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-571,10 NRC 687, 692 (1979) scope of sua sponte appellate review; ALAB-739,18 NRC 341 (1983) Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-86,5 AEC 376 (1972) content of motions to reopen the record; LBP 83-55,18 NRC 417 n.4 (1983) criteria for reopening the record where record of entire proceeding has not been closed; LBP-83-50, 18 NRC 248 (1983); LBP-83-52,18 NRC 257 n.2 (1983) factors considered in evaluating timehness of a motion to reopen the record; LBP-83-50,18 NRC 249 n.4 (1983) Wright v. Jeep Corp.,547 F. Supp. 871 (E.D. Mich.1982) balancing called for by First Amendment or common law privilege in determining whether to release information under protective order; LBP-83-53,18 NRC 288 n.3 (1983) 46 I M + y F l L _.

o. 3.- -.- . ~_. .w-i l l l I \\ l l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX 'I RFG UL ATIONS 10 C.F.R. 2 status of FEMA in NRC heensmg proceedmgs, LBP-83-61,18 NRC 702 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.4(p) status of FEM A employees as NRC personnel; LBP 83-61,18 NRC 703,70+ (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.201 correcuan of deficienues asserted in Notice of Violation; DD-8313,18 NRC 722 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.206 f affirmation of denial of petition for show cause order, allegmg poor Gnancial condition of licensee; CLI-83 21,18 NRC 158 (1983) Commission referral of petition to suspend construction for consideration under; LBP 83-58,18 NRC 642 (1983) denial of petition for stay of transport of irradiated nuclear fuel; DD-83-14.18 NRC 728 (1983) denial of petition requestmg issuance of show cause order relative to suspension, mr,d:Gcation, or revocation of operating hcense for deterioration m operator performance; DD 83-13,18 NRC 721 (1983) denial of petition requesting that hcensees produce design documents; DD-83 II,18 NRC 294 (1983) denial of petition to postpone all shipments of high-level maste through and to Ilhnois; DD-83-12 18 NRC 713 (1983) forum for considcration of construchon-related matters at operating heense stage; LBP-83 37,18 NRC 55 (1983) means for protectmg interests of intervenor prolTermg contentions after close of record; LBP-83-58, 18 NRC 660,663 (1983) petition requesting action to ensure correction of emergency planning deficiencies granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part; DD-83-15,18 NRC 739 (19831 propriety of request for show cause proceedmp concerning production of documents: DD-83-II,18 NRC 295 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.714 denial of petition to intervene for purpose of seeking disquahlication of Commissioner; CLI 83 25, 18 NRC 330 (1983) 10 C F.R. 2.714 (1983) satisfaction of contention.equirement for intervention; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 268 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a) i application of criteria to motion to reopen the record; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 649,657 (1983) I evaluation of lateness factors weighs against late intervention by petitioner supportmg grant of I facihty operating license; ALAB-743,18 NRC 394 (1983) factors considered in evaluating admissibility of late filed contentions based on institutionally unavailable hcensmg-related documents; ALAB-737,18 NRC 172 n.4 (1983); CLI-83-23,18 NRC 312 (1983) factors to be balanced for late intervention; ALAB-734,18 NRC 17 (1983) justification for late interventson by petstioner supporting grant of facihty operstmg license; ALAB-743,18 NRC 392 (1983) Licensmg Board discretion in ruhng on late intervention; ALAB-743,18 NRC 396 n.36 (1983) reasons for raising contentions as Board issues; LBP 83-58,18 NRC 664 (1983) survey of orders passing on late intervention petitions over ll-year period; ALAB 743,18 NRC 395 (1983) r l I a 47

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX R EGlj LATIONS i 10 C F.R. 2.714(a)(3) amount of time allowed for fihng petitions to intervene; LBP-83-42,18 NRC 116 (1983) criteria for reopening the record; LBP-83-50,18 NRC 246 (1983) r factors balanced in favor of admission of financial quahfications contention on timchness grounds; LBP-83 37,18 NRC 56 (1983) factors balanced in passing on late intervention petition; ALAB-743,18 NRC 390 n.3 (1983); CLI-83 25,18 NRC 331 (1983); LBP-81-42,18 NRC 11517 (1983) factors controlhng admission oflate filed contentiri s not met; LBP-83 38,18 NRC 63 (1983) need to amend intervention petition for change in ioentities of authorizing members of an a organization; LBP-d-59,18 NRC 668 (1983) standard for acceptance of previously withdrawn, late-filed intervention petition; LBP 83-45,18 l NRC 214 (1983) weight given to availability of other means to protect a petitioner's interests; LBP-83-42,18 NRC 118 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(I)(i) good cause demonstrated for late fihns of financial quahfications comention; LBP-83 37,18 NRC 55 (1983) weight given to good cause factor in determining admissibility of late-filed contentions; CLI 83-23. 18 NRC 313 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 7.714(a)(2) content ofintervention petition; CL1-83-25,18 NRC 331 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(3) factors balanced in decision to amend intervention petition; LBP-83-59,18 NRC 668 (1983) 10 C.F.R 2.714(b) Appeal Board acceptance of Licen;ing Board referral of ruhns on admissibility of contentions; i ALAB-741,18 NRC 375 (1983) time hmit for fihng contentions; ALAB-737,18 NRC 172 n.4 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) (1983) admissibility of contentions address.ng long-term effects of low-level ionizing radiation; I LBP-33-52A,18 NRC 274 (1983) scope of esents which might disrupt implementation of an emergency plan; LBP-83-$2A,18 NRC 279 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(d) criteria for reopening the record; LBP-83-50,18 NRC 246 (1983) factors to be considered in ruhny on miervention petitions; CLI-83-25,18 NRC 331 n.) (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.714a i appeal of order denying intervention petition of group favoring licensing of nuclear power facihty; i ALAB-743,18 NRC 389 (1983) appealability of order ruhng on admissibility of contentions; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 281 (1983) interlocutory appeals which are permitted; ALAB-741,18 NRC 375 n 6 (1983); ALAB-742,18 NRC 383 n.6 (1983) remedy for groups or individuals deprived of an opportunity to participate in Commission proceedings; ALAB-743,18 NRC 404 n.1 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.715 denial of petition to make limited appearance statement concerning disqualification of a Commissioner; CLI-83-25,18 NRC 330 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.715 (1981) participation by State of Louisiana as a party and as an interested state; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 267 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.715(a) acceptance of briefs supporting motion to reopen record; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 648 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c) t filing of petition by interested state as cause for a hearing participation by interested municipality in motion to reopen record; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 648 (1983) i I j 2 4 I .7 4 y v

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX 4 R EGl:L A TIO% 8 10 C.F.R. 2.715(d) ~ means for a party to contribute to the record other than as an intervenor; ALAB-74),18 NRC 402 n.48 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.715a (1983) Licensing Board authonty to consolidate and reword contentions; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 276 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.717(a) length of time a presidmg ofTicer has jurisdction over a proceeding; LBP-83 58,18 NRC 644,645 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.718(i) Appeal Board authonty to direct certsfication oflegal issues; ALAB-737,18 NRC 171 (1983) proscription against interlocutory appeals; ALAB-741,18 NRC 375 (1983) shommg necessary for grant of directed certification; ALAB.742,18 NRC 383 (1983) test apphed by Appeal Board in determining whether to accept Licensing Board referral of ruhng; ALAB 741,18 NRC 375 n.6 (1983) time hmit on motions seeking discretionary directed certification; ALAB-741,18 NRC 373 n.2 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.718(j) authonty to adopt untimely contentions as Board issues; LBP-83 58,18 NRC 642 (1983) Licensmg Board jurisdiction over motion to reopen the record on criticahty issue: LBP-83-62,18 NRC 709 (1983) ~ 10 C.F.R. 2.720(h)(2)(i) course of action for party which beheves there are deficiencies in StafT testimony; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 527 (1983) protection afforded to FEM A employees from discovery; LBP 83-61,18 NRC 701-05 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.721(b) replacement of member of Licensing Board panet; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 468 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.730(c) rephes to another party's ansact to a raation; LBP-83-36,18 NRC 47,50 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.730(0 Commission policy concernmg mterlocutory appe!! ate review; ALAB-737,18 NRC 174 (1983) Licensing Board authority to refer its ruhngs to Appeal Boards; ALAB-741,18 NRC 375 n.6 (1983) occurrence oflegal error as justification for interlocutory appellate review; ALAB-734,18 NRC 15 (1983); ALAB-742,18 NRC 383 n.6 (1983) i proscription against interlocutory appeals; ALAB-741,18 NRC 375 (1983) i 10 C.F.R. 2.732 burden to satisfy intervention requirements; CLI-83 25,18 NRC 331 (1983) i0 C.F.R. 2.740 definition of"NRC personnel"; LBP 83-61,18 NRC 706 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.740(0 jurisdiction over motions to compel discovery; DD-83-lI, !8 NRC 295 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.743(i) circumstances appropriate for use of olTicially noticeable material; ALAB-740,18 NRC 350 n.21 (1983) opportunity of narties to disagree with portion of check vai es issue left open by Board; LBP-83-57, I8 NRC 495 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.744 scope of protection provided to NRC Staff testimony; LBP 83-40,18 NRC 99,100 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.744(c) authority for in camera inspection of non-documentary information; LBP-83-51,18 NRC 254 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.744(e) NRC Staff provision ofinformation on confidential investigations in advance of hearing; ALAB-735, 18 NRC 23 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.749 comparison between summary disposition and requirement that intervenor file motion for htigable issue; ALAB-739,18 NRC 337 n.2 (1983) i 49 A .w., ~ e yy- -e

~ g - w @%,,.:. . as s o g ... - ;. 2 i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX R EGl)LATIONS 10 C.F.R. 2.749(b) content of afGdavits supporting mouon for summary disposition; ALAB-735,18 NRC 24 (1983) effect given to unsupported denialin answer to summary disposition motion; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 430 (1983) standard for determining genuine issue of material fact; LBP-83-46,18 NRC 222 & n.17 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.754(b) consequence ofintervenor's failure to Glc proposed Gndings on emergency planning contenhon; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 149 (1983) default on contention for failure to submit Gndings; LBP-83-57,18 NRC SIl n.18 (1983) 4 10 C.F.R. 2.758 consideration of validity of a final rule in a licensing prnceeding; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 543 (1983) denial of request for waiver of Gnancial qualincations rule; LBP-83-49,18 NRC 240 (1983) exception to requirement for medical services arrangements; LBP-83-47,18 NRC 232 (1983) forum for contention seeking mitigation measures beyond regulatory requirements; LBP 83 39,18 NRC 87 (1983) requirements for waiver of rule barring financial qualincations contention not met; LBP 83 37,18 NRC 54, 56 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.758 (1983) showing necessary for waiver of regulations; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 270,271-72 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(a) factors considered in determining adequacy of substitute ofTsite emergency plan; ALAB-743,18 NRC 401 n.47 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(b) ground for waiver of rule barring cor. sideration of financial qualifications contention; LBP 83-37.18 NRC 57 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(d) denial of request to certify financial qualifications contention to Commission; LBP-83-37,18 NRC 54 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.760 Board authonty to raise defaulted issues; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 124,125 (1983) status of Memorand am and Order as interlocutory order; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 675 n.2 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.760(a) finality of Licensing Board decw 1 when it has been appealed; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 644,645 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.760s authority to adopt untimely contentions as Board issues; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 642 (1983) extent of Licensing Board scrutiny of uncontested generic unresolved safety issues; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 465 (1983) reasons for raising contentions as Board issues; LBP-83 58,18 NRC 664 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.762 failure ofintervenor's brief to meet requirements of; ALAB-740,18 NRC 347 n.7 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.762(a) content of appellate briefs; ALAB-739,18 NRC 338 n 4 (1983) jurisdiction to rule on admission of contentions Gled prior to Gnal agency action; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 646 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.770(a) authority for sua sponte appellate review of Licensing Board decisions; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 644 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.771(b) compliance of motion for reconsideration of contentions filed prior to Gnal agency acnon; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 647 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.772 extension of time f,,r Commission review of Director's Decision; CLI-83-21,18 NRC 158 n.1 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.785 4 jurisdiction to rule on admission of contentions Gled prior to final agency action; LBP 83 58,18 NRC 646 (1983) 7 50

.-~~ ne.~ _- -. - I.EGAL CITATIONS INDEX RI G t:1.ATIO% 10 C.F R. 2 785(b) Appeal Board authority to direct certiGcation of legal issues; ALAB-737,18 NRC 171 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.786(a) Gnality of a decision following appellate review; LBP 83 58,18 NRC 645 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.788(e) criteria determining whether to grani stay pendmg appeal; LBP-83 40,18 NRC % (19831 10 C.F.R. 2.790(a)(7) justification requised for invesugatory records esemption under; LBP-83-40,18 NRC 99 (1983) NRC Staff provision of information on confidential investigations in advance of hearing; ALAB-735, 18 NRC 22 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2.802 forum for addressing adequacy of regulations governir.g transportation of radioactive materials; DD-8312,18 NRC 720 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2. Appendia A, lic)(l) intervention on issues separated from construction permit or operatmg hcense proceedmgs; LBP 83-42,18 NRC !!6 (1983) status of a licensing proceedmg when separate Boards are estabhshed to consider issues; ALAB-743, 18 NRC 397 n.38 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2, Appendia A, IVid) status of FEMA employees as NRC personnel; LBP-83-61,18 NRC 703 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2. Appendix A. V(f)(I), (2) reliance upon conclusions of ACRS on uncontroverted issues; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 518 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2. Appendia A, Vtg)(1) participation by a party when it has not Gled findings; LBP 83-60,18 NRC 677 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2. Appendix A, Vill (b) reasons for raising contentions as Board issues; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 665 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2. Appendia C definition of LevelIV violations; LBP-83-41,18 NRC 108 (1983) level of violations at Shoreham; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 610 (1983) NRC system of defining violations of Appendix B to Part 50, LBP-83 57,18 NRC 605 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 2, Appendix C (1982) level of severity assigned to violations involving operator performance; DD-83-13,18 NRC 722 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 8.4 NRC authonty concerning financial quahfications of licensces; CLI-83-21,18 NRC 159 n.3 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 20 (1983) standards governing sources of radiation and allowable emissions; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 274 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 20.2 (1983) consideration of hazards from radioactive emissions that are withm mandatory limits; LBP-83-52A, 18 NRC 274 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 30.I2 4 NRC authority over Energy Department's prime contractor; DD-83-14,18 NRC 732 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50 financing of spent fuel disposition; CLI-83-21,18 NRC 161 (1983) interpretation of single failure criterion; LBP-33-57,18 NRC 482 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.33(f) (1982) consideration of financial quahlications of an applicant at operating license stage; LBP-83 37,18 NRC 54 (1983); LBP 83-49,18 NRC 240 (1983) s. 10 C.F.R. 50.33(s) effect of TMI-2 accident on emergency response plans; ALAB 743,18 NRC 391 (1983) ] 10 C.F.R. 50.34 contents of Preliminary ar.d Final Safety Analysis Reports LBP 83-43,18 NRC 125 (1983) a 10 C.F.R. 50.34(a) allegations of" patterns" of" breakdowns" in quality assurance at Shoreham; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 580 (1983) s 51 .w,8-b=- eM g -,* * ' e .-e- ~ a g e W 4 4 e y

^ 9 m 3pm - LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGLt.ATIO% 9 l0 C.F.R. 50.34(b) inclusion of Final Safety Analysis Report m operating license apphcation; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 565 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.34(b)(61(ii) scope of Final Safety Analysis Report; ALAB-734,18 NRC 1315 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.40(b) (1983) exception on prohibition of consideration of apphcant's Gnancial quahGcations; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 270,272 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.46 valuhty of Shoreham's emergency core coohrig system calculations; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 473 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.47 efIcci of apphcant's credibihty on its abihty to implement a substitute emergency plan; ALAB 743, i 18 NRC 406 (1983) J. effect of TMI-2 accident on emergency response plans; ALAB-743,18 NRC 391 (1983) status of FEM A in NRC bcensmg proceedmss; LBP-83 61,18 NRC 702 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.47 (1982) schedule for issuance of offsite emergency plan for River Bend facihty; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 268 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.47 (1983) entent of emergency plannmg zone around a nuclear facility; LBP-83 52A,18 NRC 277 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1) emergency planning Gndmgs necessary prior to issuance of operating license; ALAB-737,18 NRC 172 (1983); LBP-83-60, I8 NRC 678 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1) (1983) purpose of emergency plans; LBP 83 52A,18 NRC 277 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(2) FEMA responsibilities concerning emergency preparedness and evacuation routes; DD-83-15,18 I NRC 741 (1983) status of FEMA in NRC heensmg proceedings; LBP-83-61,18 NRC 702 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10) I possible responses to an emergency; DD-83-15,18 NRC 742 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) demonstration of assurance of adequacy of offsite medical services arrangements; LBP-83-47,18 NRC 229,234 35 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(d) status of Shoreham emergency planning issues remaining in controversy; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 623 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.49 agmg requirements applicable to Shoreham electrical equipment; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 542 4) (1983) challenge to regulation governmg environmental quahfication of electrical equipment; LBP-83-39, 18 NRC 77 (1983) impact of court Gnding of invalid portions of Gnal environmental quahfication rule; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 537 (1983) requirements and Suidance for environmental quahfication of electric equipment important to safety; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 536 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.49(b)(1) denmtion of safety-related structures, systems, and components; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 558 (1983) N. 10 C.F.R. 50.49(b)(2) compliance of Shoreham with environmental quahfication and aging requirements for electrical equipment; LBP-83-57,'l8 NRC 544 45 (1983) esclusion of nonsafety-related electrical equipment from environmental quahfication; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 538-40 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.49(b)(3) status of qualification of post-accident monitorms equipment at Shoreham; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 540 (1983) s-1 52 L em "

• e 9T - *

[' ', i". [' LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX ^ ~ RFGOLATIO% 10 C.F.R. 50.49(b)(3) and (d)(1) + -'s interpretation of" postulated accidents"; LBP-83 39.18 NRC 86 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.49(c) equipment excluded from environmental quahfication rule; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 537 (1983) e 10 C.F R. 50.49(i) justification for equipment not demonstrated to be fully environmentally qualified; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 537,540,541 (1983) 10 C.F.R 50.49(k) requirements and guidance for environmental quahfication of electrs equipment important to safety; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 536 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.54(s)(2)(ii) action taken by NRC to correct emergency preparedness deficiencies; DD-83-15,18 NRC 740 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e) construction problems to be reported by applicant to NRC; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 127 (1983) mitigation of material false statement by filing of report under; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 695-% (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.55a basis for in-service inspection and testing of valves; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 488 (1983) requirements for classification and quahfication of systems important to safety; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 560 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50 55a(s) factor determining which edition of ASME Code is applicable to testmg of valves; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 490 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a) -~ findmg necessary for issuance of an operating license for a nuclear power plant; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 464 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(3) s justification for requirms remedial or compensatory actions for sac-specifs problems-LBP-83-39,18 NRC 71 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(3)(i) degree of quahty expected in construction of nuclear power plants; ALAB-740,18 NRC 346 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.59 licensee authonty to change procedures regarding receipt of spent fuel; DD-83-14,18 NRC 736 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.100 failure to address rock overbreak problem in Final Safety Analysis Report as a material false staiement; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 695 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50.109(a) justification for requh.ng remedial or compensatory actions for site-specifs problems; LBP 83-39,18 NRC 71 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendices A and B applicant's failure to have quality assurance documents in its possession as violation of; DD 83-II, I8 NRC 2% (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia A adequacy of Mark 11 contamment design to accommodate combined loads from transients and LOCA events; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 523 (1983) considt. ration of occupational doses associated with handling and storage of spent fuel at Catawba;- LBP-83-56,18 NRC 441 (1983) denr.ation of"important to safety"; LBP-83-57. IR NRC 555, $56 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia A, introduction dermition of single failure enterion; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 480-82 (1983) jastification for requinns remedial or compensatory actions for site-specific problems; LBP-83-39,18 NRC 71 (1983) 10 C.F.R 50, Appendix A Defimtions and Explanations definition of single failure enterion; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 480 (1983) 53' O g e 4

LEGAL CITATIONS INI3EX s.%.2 ' -n RIGULATIO% 10 C.f~.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC I allegations of" patterns" of " breakdowns"in quahty assurance at Shoreham; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 580-81 (1983) requirements for classincation and quahfication of systems important to safety; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 560 (1983) requirements of applicants for nuclear power piant hceuses, LBP-83-43,18 NRC 125 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC I,31,46 adequacy of Shoreham safety-related pipmg to meet requirements of, LBP-83-57,18 NRC 469 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC 2 adequacy of design response spectrum and damping factors for Shoreham; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 504 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC 4,16,50, 51 and 52 adequacy of Shoreham's Mark 11 contamment to meet regulatory requirements; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 511(1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC 5 separation of spent fuel storage facihties for multi-unit reactors; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 437 (1983) 10 C.F.R 50, Appendix A GDC 20 adequacy of Shoreham plant to meet requirements relatmg to anticipated transients without scram; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 499 & n.15 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC23,34,35,37, and 40 possibihty of fadure of valves in Shoreham safety-related systems; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 476 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 56, Appendix A, GDC 32 scope of inspection of sleeved steam generator tube; ALAB-739,18 NRC 341 n.9 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC 56 violation of steam hne penetrating primary containment at Shoreham; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 608 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B adequacy and quality assurance of design verification program at Shoreham; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 524 (1983) adherence of Comanche Peak apphcants to quahty assurance /quahiy control requirements of, LBP-83-43,18 NRC 125 (1983) appbcation to nonsafety-related items; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 615 (1983) capabihty of Byron Station apphcant for complying with requirements of; LBP-83-41,18 NRC 110 (1983) compliance of Callaway Plant with quahty assurance criteria of; ALAB-740,18 NRC 347 n.6 (1983) concerns with housekeepmg conditions at Shoreham; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 598 (1983) definition of " safety-related"; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 556 (1983) degree of quality assurance required for safety systems; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 578 (1983) mapr concern raised from review of Inspection and Enforcement program at Shoreham; LBP-83 57, I8 NRC 604 (1983) modification of, for graded quahty assurance program; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 560 (1983) need for management study to review management controls within quality assurance organization; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 148 (1983) quahty assurance requirements concerning use of statistical sampling methodology; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 620 (1983) rehability of safety-related valves at Shoreham; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 483 (1983) requirements for classification and qualification of systems important to safety; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 561 (1983) scope of Final Safety Analysis Report; ALAB-734,18 NRC 13 (1983) status of quality assurance program for operational phase of Shoreham; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 583 (1983) responsibility for establishing and executing a quahty assurance program; LBP-33-60,18 NRC 687 (1983) 54

'W ' w N%+. 4 IIGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULAllON% ,4 10 C.F R. 50, Appendix B, introduction ~ interchangeabihty of the terms "quahty assurance" and " quality control"; ALAB-740,18 NRC 346 n.3(1983) ^. 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, i responsibihty for estabhshment and execut.on of quahty swurance program; DD-83.II,18 NRC 296 (1983); LBP-83-60,18 NRC 687 n.57 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B. I through XVI!! allegations of" patterns" of" breakdowns" in quahiy assurance at Shoreham; LBP 83-57,18 NRC $80-81 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, Il classification of violation concerning abanment of pipe support struts at Shoreham; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 609 (1983) scope of description required for quahty assurance procedures, ALAB-734,18 NRC 1511983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B,111 classification of violation concerning need for means to manually imtiate protective actions at system level at Shoreham; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 605 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, !!!, XI adequacy of Shoreham's testing to estabhsh hydrodynamic loads from a LOCA; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 511(1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B Y classification of violation concerning fire hazards and cleanhness procedures at Shorsham; LBP-83-57. IS NRC 609 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B. V Vi updating of manuals for activities affecting quality; LBP 83 57,18 NRC 599 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, IX apphcabihty of welding code requirements; ALAB 740,18 NRC 355 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50. Appendia B, XI LevelIV violation at Byron Station; LBP-83-41,18 NRC 105 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, Xill compliance of Shoreham with requirements for storage of equipment and materials during construction; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 595,596 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, XV adequacy of applicant's quahty assurances procedures for deahng with nonconformances; ALAB-740,18 NRC 358 n.63 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendix B, XVI , problems with cable separation at Shoreham; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 600 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, XVI and XVll! legibihty required of power plant drawings; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 583 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, XVII need for a,aplicant to maintain possession of design dncuments; DD-83-il,18 NRC 296-97 (1983) 10 C.F R. 50, Aprendix B, XVill quahty assurance requirements concerning use of statistwat umphng methodology; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 620 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix E compnance, of Comanche Peak facility with emergency planmng requirements of; LBP 83-43.18 NRC 149 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia E, IV.E.8 time in which Emergency Operations Facihty must become fully functional following declaration of site emergency; CLI-83-22,18 NRC 307 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix ! adequacy of design of Catawba spent fuel storage facihty to control effluent releases; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 436 (1983) method for calculatmg total body dose from fuel assembhen 5 years out-of-core and stored in Catawba spent fuel pool; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 4371898.11 55 I e I I I 1 I ~. ~ + r

--= .... ~...-. f p j m' a s s%yNmW.o ;...:,.;,,. I s ~ir, ,%.J.~<xw'. 4 _m M e t....; ,a h* h t-I g ? i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGLLATIONS j j 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia K vahdety of $horeham's emergency core cochns system calculations; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 473 (1983) i ~ 10 C.F.R. 50 Aprendia R, II.L.5 amount of time sufficient to mitigate failure of coohng trams m spent fuel pool. LBP-83 56,18 1 - NRC 425 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 51.5(b)(3) and (c)(1) need for supplemental environmental impact statement prior to issuance of low-power hcent; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 624,625 n.73 (1983) l-10 C.F.R. 51.20 calculation of releases from transportation and disposal of low-level wastes; LBP-83 56,18 NRC 440 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 51.52(b)(3) modification of Fmal Environmental Statement; LBP 83 36,18 NRC 48 (1983) 10 C.F.R 55.33 requirements for renewal of reactor operator license; CLI-83 20,18 NRC 4 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 70.11 NRC authority over Energy Department's prime contractor; DD-8314,18 NRC 732 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 70.24 consideration of occupational doses associated with handims and storage of spent fuel at Catawba; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 441 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 71 adequacy of regulatory requirements with respect to safety of radioactive material transport.ation, DD-83-12,18 NRC 716 (1983); DD-8314,18 NRC 734 (1983) authonty over shipments of hcensed materials; DD-83-12,18 NRC 715 n.2 (1983) ' l requirements to be met when transporting radioactive materials; DD-83-12,18 NRC 714 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 71, Subparts D through'Il conditions that spent fuel casks are designed to withstand; DD-8314,18 NRC 733 n.7 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 71, Subparts G and 11 { entent of quahiy assurance program overseen by NRC staff for packaging oflicensed matenals. DD-83-12,18 NRC 716 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 71.5 authority over shipments oflicensed materials; DD-83-12,18 NRC 715 n.2 (1983) - 10 C.F.R. 71.12, as amended requirement necessary to obtain authority to deliver spent fuel to a carrier for transport; DD-8314 6 18 NRC 732 (1983) i 10 C.F.R. 71.31 5 authority for review and approval of design of packaging of spent fuel; DD-83-12,18 NRC 716 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 71.51(a) } packaging for transport of spent fuel; DD-83-12,18 NRC 716 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 71.73 durability of casks for transport of spent fuel; DD-83-12,18 NRC 716 (1983) 10 C.F.R. 71.73(c)(1) 4 tests to which spent fuel tasks are subjected; DD-83-12,18 NRC 718 (1983) l 10 C.F.R. 71.101 j authority for review and approval of quality assurance program for packaging of spent fuel, DD-83-12,18 NRC 716 (1983) i 10 C.F R. 73 i physical security of shipments of radioactive materials; DD-8312,18 NRC 714 (1983) - variations in preferred routes for shipments of radioactive materials; DD-83-14,18 NRC 73 4 n 6 j (1983) q 10 C.F.R. 73.37 authority for approval of routes of spent fuel shipments; DD-8314,18 NRC 730 (1983) . finding regarding physical security of transport route of stradiated fuel being shipped from % cst Valley, N.Y.; DD-83-14,18 NRC 733 (1983). i ,.l,: i;- ? f $6 1 I J ( 1 8 9 re t f + +

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX -l R EG UI.ATIONS 4 10 C.F.R.100 -. ~. deGmtion of " safety related"; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 556 n.27 (1983) determination of design basis accidents for Shoreham; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 566 (1983) 10 C.F.R.100.10 justincation for requirms remedial or compensatory actions for site-spesific problems;. LBP-83-39,18 NRC 71 (1983) 10 C.F.R.100, Appendia A adequacy of design response spectrum and damping factors for Shoreham; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 504, 509, 510 (1983) dennation of" safety-related"; LBP 83 57,18 NRC 556,559 (1983) es.ent of Staff review of Shoreham plant systems design; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 566-67 (1983) requirements for class Gcation and quahncation of systems important to safety: LBP-83 57,18 NRC 561 (1983) 10 C.F.R.100, Appendix A, I scope of safety functions designated as safety-related LBP-83-57,18 NRC 557 (1983) 10 C.F.R.100. Appendix A,Ill scope of safety functions designated as safety related; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 557 (1983) 10 C.F.R.100, Appendia A VI(a)(1) basis for deseloping design response spectrum for a nuclear power plant; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 506 (1983) 10 C.F.R.140.91, Appendia A insurance on shipments of spent fuel; DD-83-14,18 NRC 735 (1983) 40 C.F.R.1502.9(c) factors determining need to surplement Fmal Environmental Statement; LBP-83 36,18 NRC 49 (1983) 49 C.F.R.170 through 189 requirements to be met when transporting radioactive materials; DD-83-12,18 NRC 714 (1983) 49 C.F.R.173.389(b) definition of a "large quantity" of radioactive material; DD-8314,18 NRC 733 n.6 (1983) routing of radioactive shipments; DD 83-12,18 NRC 715 (1983) 49 C.F.R.177.825 routmg and driver trainmg requirements for radioactive shipments; DD-83-12,18 NRC 715 (1983); DD-83-14,18 NRC 733 n 6 (1983) variations in preferred routes for shipments of radioactive materials; DD-8314,18 NRC 733 n.6 (1983) 57 s

l ~ I -,u. ~.. -l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX ST ATIJTES .s Admmistranve Procedure Act,7(d),5 U.S C. 556(e) responses to oflicially noticeable matenal; ALAB-740,18 NRC 350 (t1831 Atomic Energy Act,103,42 U.S C. 2133 (1976) requirements of applicants for nuclear power plant licenses; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 125 (1983) Atomic Energy Act,147 balance between measures used to protect sensitive mformation and rights of parties in adjudicatory proceedmgs; LBP 83-40,18 NRC 99 (1983) i e Atomic Energy Act,161(c) 42 U.S C. 2201(c) NRC authonty to conduct investigation while Grand Jury investigation is under way; CLI-83 24,18 NRC 319 (1983) Atomic Energy Act,182(a),42115 C. 2232(a) standard forjudgmg adequacy of a testmg program LDP-83-57,18 NPC 523 (1983) Atomic Energy Act,186 i conditions appropnate for Commission revocation of a heense; CLI-83-21,18 NRC 160 n.4 (1983) scope of matenal false staiements, CLI-83-20,18 NRC 6 n.1 (1983) l Atomic Energy Act,189 concepts applied in determining an intervention petitioner's interests; CLI-83 25,18 NRC 332 (1983) public interest considerations in requiring Staff divulgence of sensitive information; LBP 83-40,18 N RC 101 (1983) Atomic Energy Act, 1894. 42 U.S C. 2239(a) I Commission attitude toward tardy petitioners; ALAB-743,18 NRC 396 n.37 (1983) expansion of spent fuel pool without formal construction permit amendment; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 428 (1983) i need for a heanns to obiam an operating hcense; LBP 83-45,18 NRC 215 (1983) standard for granting a hearing; LBP-83-42,18 NRC 114 (1983) j weight given to good cause factor in determining admissibihty of late-filed contentions; CLI-83 23, q 18 NRC 313 (1983) Atomic Energy Act,192(b)(1),42 U.S.C. 2242(b)(1) and (2) i environmental findmgs necessary for issuance of temporary operating license; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 632 (1983) Atomic Energy Act,234 i imposition of penalties for rnsterial false statements: CLI-83-20,18 NRC 3, 5-6 (1983) Atomic Energy Act 42 U.S C. 2011 et seq. failure of Appeal Board to rule on question ofintervention petitioner's interest for purpose of standing; ALAB 743,18 NRC 390 (1983) Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S C. 2133(d),2232(a) degree of quahty expected m construction of nuclear power plants; ALAB-740,18 NRC 346 (1983) Atomic Energy Act 42 U.S C. 2271 nght of NRC to brief Justice Department on information in its possession; CLI-83-24,18 NRC 320 n.8 (1983) Communications Act,47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1) { interpretation of"continumg violation"; CLI-83 20, is NRC 6 (1983) Hazardous Materials Transportation Act HIMTA),49 U.S.C.1801 12 authonty over routmg of radioactive shipments; DD-8312,18 NRC 715 (1983); DD-83-14,18 4 NRC 733 n.6 (1983) I l l 59 i l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES National Environmental Policy Act,42 U.S C. 4332 Licensing Boardjurisdiction over transshipments of spens fuel. ALAB-741,18 NRC 378 (1983) 1982-83 NRC Authorization Act,11. Pub. L. No. 97-415 environmental findmgs necessary for issuance of temporary operating license; LBP 83 57,18 NRC 631 (1983) Nuclear Policy Act of 1982,302(a)(5)(b), Pub. L. No.97-425,96 Stat. 2201, 2258 responsibility for coping with radscactive wsstes prior to 1998. ALAB 741, I8 NRC 377 (1983) Nus A tr Waste Policy Act of 1982. 42 U.S.C.10.101 sederal fundin8 for disposal of spent fuel. CLI-83-21,18 NRC 161 (1983) 4 60 e

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX Olit F RS Fed. R. Cav. P. $6(e) content of affidmis supportmg motion for summary disposition; ALAB 735,18 NRC 24 (1983) 1975 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 2259-62 insurance on shipments of spent fuel; DD-83-14,18 NRC 735 n.10 (1983) l l l l l 61 1 9 %,6 9 e

SUBJECT INDEX ACCIDENT (S) consideration of esternalinitiators of,in Limerick probahihstic risk assessment; LBP-83 39,18 NRC 67 (1983) core mett, estimation of probabihty of, at Limerick facibiy; LBP-83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) loss of coolant, major suppression pool loads occurring during; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) loss of coolant, need for consideration of stress on pipe supports durms; LBP-83 33,18 NRC 27 (1983) postulated, definition of; LBP-83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) sequences at Shoreham, determination of which should be considered within design basis; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) severe, in Catawba spent fuel storage facihty, potential for; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS apphcation of collateral estoppel to, LBP-83-34,18 NRC 36 (1983) AMENDMENT of Final Environmental Statement LBP-83-36,18 NRC 45 (1983) of intervention petitions for change in identities of authorising members of an organiistion; LBP-83 59,18 NRC 667 (1983) ANTICIPATED TR ANSIENTS WITHOUT SCRAM l at Comanche Peak, status of procedures for dealing with; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) l at Shoreham, adequacy of means to mitigate; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) l APPEAL BOARD (S) advisory opinions by; ALAB-743,18 NRC 387 (1983) authonty to direct certification of legal issues raised in pendmg Licensing Board proceedings; ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983) scope of sua sponte review by; AL AB-739,18 NRC 335 (1983) APPEAL (S) I criteria for determining whether to grant stay pendms; LBP-83-40,18 NRC 93 (1983) interlocutory, legal error asjustification for; ALAB 734,18 NRC !! (1983) interlocutory, of Licensing Board ruling, showmg necesury for; ALAB-734,18 NRC 11 (1983); ALAB-735,18 NRC 19 (1983) interlocutory, potential of Licensing Board error for empenw and delay as cause for; ALAB-741,18 NRC 371 (1983) ASME CODE Licensing Board mterpretation c,f, LBP 83-33,18 NRC 27 (1983) AUTOM ATIC DEPRESSURIZATION SYSTEM logic for Limereck facihty, modification of, LBP-83 39,18 NRC 67 (1983) BORON injection tank at Comanche Peak, reasons for chmmation of, LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) BRIEFS appellate, responsibilities of parties concerning content of, ALAB-739,18 NRC 335 (1983); AL AB-740, I8 NRC 343 (1983) CANCER consideration of risk of,in Limerick probabihstic risk auewment; LBP-83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) CASK DROP into Catawba spent fuel pool, possibihty of, LBP-83 56,18 NRC 421 (1983) CHEMICAL EFFLUENTS in Mississippi River, synergism between radioactive emimons and, LBP 83-52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) 63 e =0 '1 w,,,

+. l SUBJECT INDEX i CIVIL PEN ALTIES proposed, for material false statements and improper implementation of operator retrammg g program; CLI-83-20,18 NRC i 11983) 7-CLASSIFICATION of systems important to safety at Shoreham; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL apphcation of decision by Secretary of Labor to heensing action by operation of, LBP-83-34,18 NRC 36 (1983) COLLATERAL ORDER DOCTRINE apphcation of, to disclosure order; ALAB-735,18 NRC 19 (1983) CONCRETE basemat for Comanche Peak containment, cracks in; LBP-83 43,18 NRC 122 (1983) dental, use of, at Comanche Peak; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) CONFIDENTIALITY of matters related to ongoms investigations by NRC Staff; ALAB-735,18 NRC 19 (1983) CONSOLIDATION of proceedmss to convert operating heense from provision to full-term and show cause order cnneerning hquefaction potential; ALAB-733,18 NRC 9 (1983) CONSTRUCTION errors, vulnerabihty of Linierick facility to; LBP-83 39,18 NRC 67 (1983) quahty required by Atomic Energy Act, degree of, ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 (1983) CONTAINMENT based on previously unavailable, licensing-related documents, late films of; LBP 83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) Comanche Peak, cracks in concrete basemat of,1 BP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) cracks caused by remedial soils settlement actions, denial of motion to reopen record on; LBP-83 50,18 NRC 242 (1983) late-filed, based on institutionally unavailable hcensing-related documents, tests for admission of; ALAB-734,18 NRC 11 (1983) late-filed, factors balanced in determining admissibility of, CLI-83-23,18 NRC 311 (1983) late-filed, good cause for; ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983) late-filed, on special nuclear materials bcense raised in operating hcense proceedmg admissibihty of; LBP-83-38,18 NRC 61 (1983) loss of good cause for untimely filing of; LBP-83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) Mark 11 at Shoreham, abihty of, to withstand simultaneous LOCA and transient event loads; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) nontimely submission of; LBP-83-37,18 NRC 52 (1983) riontimely, showing necessary, in absence of good cause, on other four criteria for admission of, LBP-83-58, I8 NRC 640 (1983) reasons for raising as Board issues under sua sponte authority; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 640 (1983) submitted after close of the record, criteria to be satisfied for admission of, LBP 83-58,18 NRC 640 (1983) time limit for filing; ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983) COOLING SYSTEMS of Catawba spent fuel pool, adequacy of; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) See also Reactor Coolant Systems COUNSEL resolution of factualissues on basis of representations of. ALAB-735,18 NRC 19 (1983) CRITICALITY of expanded spent fuel pool at Catawba, potential for; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) requirements for Big Rock Point spent fuel pool, comphance with, LBP-83-62,18 NRC 708 (1983) CROSS-EXAMINATION Board authority to expedite; LBP-83-55,18 NRC 415 (1983) DAMPING value used at Shoreham, consistency of, with Regulatory Guides; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) 64 ~. e M m, ~ e- +

p ~~ ~ SUlWECT INDEX DECISION (S) initial, in " proposed" form, circumstances appropriate for issuance of, LBP 83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) pertaining to grant or denial oflaie intervention, list of; ALAB-743,18 NRC 387 (1983) proposed, responsibilities of prues to make specific objechons to; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) a DEFAULT for failure to file required findmss; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983); LBP 83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) DEFINITIONS of "important to safety,"" safety related" and " safety grade"; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) of "NRC personnel"; LBP-83-61,18 NRC 700 (1983) of breakdown in quahty assurance; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) of systems interaction; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY contracts for waste disposal services with; CLI 83-21,18 NRC-157 (1983) DEPARTMENT OF TR ANSPORTATION regulations governing transport of radioactne waste; DD-8312,18 NRC 733 (1983) DESIGN oflinear-type supports, interpretation of ASM E Code pertaining to; 3.BP-83-33,18 NRC 27 (1983) See also Seismic Design DESIGN BASIS at Shoreham, determination of wh;ch accident sequences should be considered withm; LBP-83 57, 18 NRC 445 (1983) DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM basis of, for Shoreham; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) DIRECTED CERTIFICATION criteria for grant of; ALAB-734 IB NRC 11 (1983); AL AB 735,18 NRC 19 (1983) justification for; ALAB-741,18 NRC 371 (1983) NRC pohcy concerning; ALAB-742,18 NRC 380 (1983) oflegal issues raised in pending Licensing Board proceedmgs; ALAB 737,18 NRC 168 (1983) petitions, responsibilities of parties in opposing; ALAB-741,18 NRC 371 (1983) showing necessary for; ALAB-742,18 NRC 380 (1983) treatment of merits of claim of Licensms Board error; ALAB-734,18 NRC 11 (1983) DISCOVERY against FEMA; LBP-83-61,18 NRC 700 (1983) Licensing Board appointment ofInterested State as lead intervenor to conduct; LBP-83 35,18 NRC 40 (19831 ofinformation under protective order; LBP-83-53,18 NRC 282 (1983) DISMISSAL of proceedings, cause for; LBP 83-45,18 NRC 213 (1983) DISPLACEM ENT, FREE-END Licensing Board interpretation of; LBP-83 33,18 NRC 27 (1983) s DISQUALIFICATION of Commissioner, denial of petition of non-party legal foundation for; CLI-83-25,18 NRC 327 (1983) DOCUMENTATION for protective coating quality assurance at Comanche Peak, allegations of deficiencies in; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) EDDY CURRENT TESTING adequacy of, to detect corrosion of sleeved steam generator tubes; ALAB-739,18 NRC 335 (1983) ELECTRICAL CABLES separation of Class IE and non-Class IE, at Shoreham, adequacy of; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT at Shoreham, status of environmental qualification of; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) consideration of aging of, at Limerick facility; LBP 83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) environmental quahfication of; LBP 83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) EMBEDDED PLATES at Callaway Plant, adequacy of weldmg of studs to; ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 (1983) 65 e+ k, g ge n-e#,. -,' M e.e.. *- a s

r

• - jjpp-a -Q --

SUHJECT INDEX EMBRITTLEMENT of pressure vessel at Point Beach, potential for; DD 83-13,18 NRC 721 (1983) t FMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM at Shoreham, ability of, to meet regulatory requirements regarding core spray distribution and countercurrent flow; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) EMEP.GENCY DIRECTOR at TMI 1, responsibilities of; CLI-83 22,18 NRC 299 (1983) EMERGENCY OPERATIONS FACILITY deadline for transfer of functions to, during radiological emergency at TMI-l; CLI-83-22,18 NRC 299 (1983) EMERGENCY PLANNING at Comanche Peak, status of; LBP-83-43.18 NRC 122 (1983) Board procedure for remedying deficiencies in FEM A review of; LBP-83 60,18 NRC 672 (1983) compenents of evacuation time estimates; ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983) deficiencies at Maine Yankee plant, correction of, DD-83-15,18 NRC 738 (1983) for medical services arrangements, scope of; LBP-83-47,18 NRC 228 (1983) for purpose of spent fuel pool espansion, satisfaction of; LBP-83-44,18 NRC 201 (1983) issues, need to resolve, prior to issuance of low-power license; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) responsibility for radiological assessment and making potective action recommendations at TMI-1; CLI 83-22,18 NRC 299 (1983) EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE radius, variations in; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) EMERGENCY PLANS responsibilities of FEM A for review of; LBP-83-61,18 NRC 700 (1983); DD 83-15,18 NRC 738 (1983) EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS criteria for issuance of operating heenses; ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983) ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS of operation of Catawba as a storage facility for spent fuel from other Duke facihties, clarification of Staff analysis of; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for special nuclear materials license, necessity for preparation of; LBP-83-38,18 NRC 61 (1983) for transport of spent fuel, need for; DD-8314,18 NRC 726 (1983) See also Final Environmental Statement supplemental, need for, prior to issuance of low-power license; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) ENVIRONMENT AL QU ALIFICATION of safety-related equipment at Shoreham, adequacy of; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) EVACUATION of Angola Prison during radiological emergency at River Bend Station, plans for; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) of persons without vehicles, schoolchildren, and invalids from Big Rock Point vicinity during radiological emergency, adequacy of plans for; LBP-83 44,18 NRC 201 (1983) plans for Maine Yankee plant, adequacy of; DD-83-15,18 NRC 738 (1983) radius for Limerick facility, incorporation of, into probabilistic risk assessment; LBP-83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) time estimates, components of; ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983) EVIDENCE credibility of witness giving; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) w. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS NRC Staffs communication, through public fihngs, of results ofits reviews as; ALAB-738,18 NRC 177 (1983) EXEMPTION investigatory records, application of, to NRC documents; LBP-8'-40,18 NRC 93 (1983) See also Waiver FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY responsibihties of for review of emergency plans; DD-83-15,18 NRC 738 (1983) status of,in NRC licensing proceedings; LBP-83-61,18 NRC 700 (1983) 66 l l ? s.- r

F ' 1 7JL-SUBJECT INDEX ._.y, ~ FIN AL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT curing defects in; LBP-83-36,18 NRC 45 (1983) FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT admissibihty of late-filed contention relating to adequacy of, CLI-83 23,18 NRC 311 (1983) content of, concernmg operatioral quality assersexe program for replacement parts and tcpair work; ALAB-734,18 NRC ll (158D FIN ANCI AL QUALIFICATIONS consideration of, at operatins license stage of review; LBP-83-31,18 NRC 52 (IS83) denial of motion for reco.uderation of ruling denying admission of centention on; LBP 83 49,18 NRC 239 (1983) of apphcants, considerstion of, in licensing proceedings; LBP 83 52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) of Licensee, eatent of Commsion concerns with; CLI 83 21,18 NRCsl57 (1983) FINDINGS safety, required for operation of a necar power plant; ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 (190) FINDINGS OF FACT default for not filing; LBP-83 43,18 NRC IU (1983); LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) FUEL handling at Catawba, safety of procedures for; ISP-83-56.13 NRC 421 (1983) See t. iso Spent Fuel \\ uniriadiated, quahfications of applicant to receive; LUP-83-38,18 NRC 6) (1983) { FUEL POOL liner at Comanche Peak, liquid penetrant testing of; LBP-83-60,18 fi2C 672 (1983) i HARASSMENT . i of quahey assurance inspectors at Comanche Peak; LBP-83 d3,18 NRC 122 (1983) j HEARING (S), adjudicatory, resolution of factual issues in, on liasis of sepresentations of court,et ALAB 735,18 NRC 19 (1983) on comphance with Board craer, naed for; LBP 83-44,18 NRC 201 (1983) on operstmg hcense applicaarms, caue fr*, LBP-83-45,18 NFC 213 (1983) HONEYCOMBING { of reactor building foundation at Callaway Flant, soniscosw eaam' nation for; ALAB-740,18 NRC i 343 (1983) HOUSEKEEP:NG at Shoreham, violations related to: LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983), HYDROGEN GENERATION in Corrunche Peak containment, adequacy of means for dealir's with; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) ILLINOIS denial of motion to postpone shipments of Ngt-levei radioactive waste through and to; DD-83-12, 18 NRC 713 (1983) INFORMATION concerning pending investigations and inspections, in camera receipt of; LDb83 51,18 NRC 25) (1983) INSPECTIONS pendmg. in camera production ofinformatioh od; LBP-83 51,18 NRC 253 (198h INTERESTED ST ATE 1 Licensing Board appointment of, as lead mtervenor; LBP-83-35,18 NRC 40 (1983) P INTERPRETATION i of" free-end displacement"; LBP-83 33,18 NRC 27 (1983) of" thermal stress"; LBP-83-33,18 NRC 27 (1983) of ASME Code by Licensing Board; LBP-83-33,18 NRC 27 (1983)' ~ of General Design Criterion 64; LBP-83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) INTERVENTION ,T denial of untimely petition for, where other ruaans to protect petitinner's m: crests do not ewt; LBP-83-42,18 NRC 11211983) discretionary, factors considered in grant of, CLl 83 23, is.NRC 327 (1983) x J 67 + y 9 p 1 ,c ; s s

• s f

i:. l '* 1 l

e i

m 4. m j t [ j. t i' . L.

^ ^ -_~ SUHJECT INDEX late, extent to which petitioner should address 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(l)(m) in picading its caw for; r ALAB-743,18 NRC 387 (1983) late,in support of a utihty application under adjudication; ALAB 743,18 NRC 387 (1983) late, hst of decisions pertammg to grant or denial of; ALAB-743,18 NRC 387 (1983) petitions, emendment of, for change in identities of authorizing members of an organuation; i LBP-83 59,18 NRC 667 (1983) petitions, content of; CLI-83 25,18 NRC 327 (1983) petitions, pleading requirements for; LBP-83-59,18 NRC 667 (1983) requirements, burden to satisfy; CLI 83-25,18 NRC 327 (1983) showing necessary in absence of good cause for tardmess in seeking; ALAB-743,18 NRC 387 (1983) untimely peC-ions, factors considered in passing on; ALAB 743,18 NRC 387 (1983) untimely, for purpose of disquahrying Commissioner, denial of petition for; CLI-83 25,18 NRC 327 I (1983) f INVESTIGATIONS NRC, paralleling Justice Department investigations, authority to conduct; CLI-83-24,18 NRC JIS (1983) ongoing, disclosure of detailed information about allegations that are the subject of; ALAB 735,18 NRC 19 (1983) pendmg. in camera production of information on; LBP-83-51,18 NRC 253 (1983) JURISDICTION of Licensing Board in license amendment proceedings; ALAB 739,18 NRC 335 (1983) of Licensing Board over issues remanded to it by the Appeal Board when remand decision has been appealed to Commission; LBP 83-62,18 NRC 708 (1983) of Licensing Board over motion to reopen the record after issuance of imtial decision; LBP 83-58, 18 NRC 640 (1983) of Licensing Board to decide issues, raised in operating hcense proceeding, relevant to special nuclear materials hcense; LBP-83-38,18 NRC 61 (1983) of Licensing Board to order preparation of supplement to Final Environmental Statement; LBP 83-36,18 NRC 45 (1983) over passive mechanical valve failure and Marit 11 containment issues at Shoreham, Licensing Board retention of, LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) LEAK RATE DATA at TMI-2, investigation of falsincation of; CLI-83 24,18 NRC 315 (1983) falsified, at TMI 2, motion to reopen record on basis of; ALAB-738,18 NRC 177 (1983) LICENSING BOARD interpretation of ASME Codes; LBP-83-33,18 NRC 27 (1983) jurisdiction in heense amendment proceedings; ALAB-739,18 NRC 335 (1983) 4 jurisdiction over issues remanded to it by the Appeal Board when remand decision has been appealed to Commission; LBP 83-62,18 NRC 708 (1983) jurisdiction over motion to reopen the record after issuance of initial decision; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 640 (1983) jurisdiction to decide issues, raised in operstmg license proceedmg, relevant to special nuclear 4 1 materials license; LBP-83 38,18 NRC 61 (1983) jurisdiction to order preparation of supplement to Final Environmental Statement; LBP-83-36,18 NRC 45 (1983) means used in resolution ofissues; ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 (1983) obligation of, to complete the record; LBP 83-52,18 NRC 256 (1983) power of, to rule on scope of its own jurisdiction; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 640 (1983) responsibilities of, to inquire into pendmg investigation by NRC Staff LBP-83 40,18 NRC 93 (1983) s panel member, replacement of, after close of the record; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) LICENSING PROCEEDINGS consideration of applicant's fmancial qualifications in; LBP-83 52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) effect of generic rulemaking on; CLI-83 21,18 NRC 157 (1983) See also Operstmg License Amendment Proceeding, Operating License Proceedmg status of FEM A in; LBP-83-61,18 NRC 700 (1983) 68 4 J i l l I l w c

~ J 7.up ~ SUBJECT INDEX 7 LIMESTONE susceptibehty to fracture durms blasting LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) LIMITED APPEARANCE for purpose of Ghng disquahfication mohon; CLI-83 25,18 NRC 327 (1983) LIQUEFACTION + potential at La Crosse site; ALAB-733,18 NRC 9 (1983) M AN AGEMENT CAPABILITY to operate Zimmer, denial of motion to reopen the record on issue of; LBP-83 58,18 NRC 640 (1983) M ATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT (S) concerning qualifications of individual operator, proposed cml penaltie: for; CLI-83-20,18 NRC I (1983) untimely provision of significant new information by licensee as; ALAB-738,18 NRC 177 (1983) MEDICAL SERVICES } arrangements for radiation-injured members of gene.al pubhc, scope of requirements for; LBP-83-47,18 NRC 228 (1983) availability of, to treat people exposed to radiation as a result of an accident at Limerick; \\ LBP-83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) MISSILES I inspechon and maintenance of turbines to prevent generation of; LBP 83-46,18 NRC 2M (1983) MISSISSIPPI RIVER potential for synergism between radioscove emissions and chemical effluents in; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) MONITORING s post-accident radiation, adequacy of, at Limerick facility; LBP 83 39,18 NRC 67 (1983) post-accident, at Shoreham, sufficiency of schedule for comphance and designation of instrumentation for; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (19fi3) MORALE. low worker, allegations of poor construchon practices at Comanche Peak because of; LBP-83-43,18 < NRC 122 (1983) ' MOTION (S) disposition oflate-filed responses to; LBP-83-36,18 NRC 45 0983) to reopen a record, test for; ALAB-738,18 NRC 177 (1983) to reopen where findings have been required concernmg an aspect of an admitted contention, standard for granting; LBP-83-55,18 NRC 415 0983) to strike extra-record materials from a Board's files, need for; LBP-83-55,18 NRC 415 (1983) NEUTRON MULTIPLICATION FACTOR techmcal discussion of; LB ?-83-62,18 NRC 708 0983) NONCONFORMANCE RE',' ORTS at Comanche Peak, discouragement of, LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 0983) NOTICE OF VIOLATION for material false statements and improper implementation of operator retraining program; CLI-83 20,18 NRC 10983) NRC STAFF irQury to, through order to produce documents relating to pending investigation; LBP 83-40,18 NRC 93 0983) ',i responsibihty to present evidence about allegations that are the subject of ongoing confidential i investigations; ALAB 735,18 NRC 19 0983) review of FSAR,litigability of adequacy of; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 0983) NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS applicabihty of Ame ean Welding Society Code requirements to design of; ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 0983) degree of quality required in construction of; ALAB 740,18 NRC 343 098D NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .s ; authority to conduct civil investigation paralleling Grand Jury investigation; CLI-83-24,18 NRC 315 0983) -y 2 . L F d g 4. - ( = l$ 5 9-L. - i k y y . Y e e.- l' b m [ i_ j I. g- -a f. J "+- t

-m g,

y + .~m 4 61; Ed? ,, 9, :

I-.,

-r

f _ ;,;, g g - % --. SU: JECT INDEX authority to impose civil penalties on licensee for improper implementation of voluntary program-CLI 83-20,18 NRC 1 (1983) authority to investigate matter that is the subject of a pendmg Justice Department investigation; ALAB-738,18 NRC 177 (1983) documents, application ofinvestigatory records exemption to; LBP 83-40,18 NRC 93 (1983) pohcy concernmg directed certification and referral of rulings, ALAB-742,18 NRC 380 (1983) policy concerning simultaneous investigatory and adjudscatory proceedmss on the same subject matter; ALAB-738,18 NRC 177 (1983) policy regarding directed certification and referral of rulings; ALAB-741,18 NRC 371 (1983) regulations governing transport of radioactive waste; DD 83-12,18 NRC 713 (1983) OBJECTIONS to a proposed decision, responsibilities of a party to make; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) OLD RIVER CONTROL STRUCTURE effect of failure of, ca River Bend facility; LBP-83 52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT PROCEEDING jurisdiction of Licensing Board in; ALAB-739,18 NRC 335 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS consideration of financial qualifications in; LBP-83-37,18 NRC $2 (1983) Licensing Board jurisdiction to decide issues relevant to special nuclear materials hcense raised in; LBP-83-38,18 NRC 61 (1983) ongMng, establishment of new Licensing Board to conduct separate hearing in; LBP-83-42,18 NRC 112 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE (S) 1' aftirmation of decision converting provisional to full-term; ALAB-733,18 NRC 9 (1983) cause for ordering a hearing on application for; LBP-83-45,18 NRC 213 (1983) conditions for Shoreham; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) emergency preparedness criteria for issuance of; ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983) findmss necessary prior to issuance of; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) low-power, need to resolve emergency planning issues prior to issuance of,' LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) OPERATOR ACCELERATED RETRAINING PROGRAM imposition of penalties for failure to implement; CLI-83-20,18 NRC 1 (1983) OPERATOR TRAINING at Shoreham to mitigate conscquences of an ATWS, adequacy of; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) OPINIONS advisory, by Appeal Boards; ALAB-743,18 NRC 387 (1983) PALNT force-curing of, with smoking heaters at Comanche Peak facility; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) PIPING analysis at Shoreham, extent of LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) at Comanche Peak, allegations of cold-springing of and minimum wall thickness violations in; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) s SA-312, hydrostatic testing, leak-before-break phenomenon, design hoop stress, and ASME Code requirements for; ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 (1983) SA 358, defects in welds on, and their repair and testing; ALAB-740, I8 NRC 343 (1983) POLAR CRANE allegations of gaps in, at Comanche Peak; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983); LBP 83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) POWER, OFFSITE estimation of outage time in loss of, for Limerick facility; LBP 83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) PRESSURE VESSEL failure, consideration of, in Limerick probabilistic risk assessment; LBP-83 39,18 NRC 67 (1983) PRISON near River Bend Station, plans for evacuation of, during radiological emergency; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) PRIVILEGE attorney-client, assertion of; LBP-83-53,18 NRC 282 (1983) 70 k y ' e* en.( ON - *

..,%.. i ' SUHJECT INDEX PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT for Limerick facihty, scope of, LBP 83-39,18 NRC 61 (1983) litigabihty of choice of methodology used to develop; LBP-83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) PROTECTIVE COATINGS at Comanche Peak, allegations of deficiencies in quahty assurance prograrn for; LBP-83-43,18 NRC s 122 (1983); LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) PROTECTIVE ORDER discovery of information under; LBP-83-53,18 NRC 282 (1983) Licensing Board assumption of obedience to; ALAB-735,18 NRC 19 (1983) QUALIFICATION (S) of individual reactor operator, imposition of civil penalties for material false statements concerning; CLI 83-20,18 NRC 1 (1983) of systems important to safety at Shoreham; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) See alsn Environmental Quahlication,1 inancial Quahfications QUALITY ASSURANCE adequacy of Staff inspection and enforcement program to verify Shoreham's implementation of program for; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) t at Comanche Peak during construction, adequacy of; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) at Perry plant, reopening of the record on; LBP-83-52,18 NRC 256 (1983) at Zimmer, denial of monon to reopen the record on issues of; LBP-83-58,18 NRC 640 (1983) criteria, adequacy of review and physicalinspection to verify Shoreham's compliance with; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) documentation pertaining to facihty design, need for hcensee maintenance of; DD 83-II,18 NRC 293 (1983) improper, at Limerick facihty, rejection of contention alleging pattern of; LBP-83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) program at Seabrook, admissibihty of late-filed contention on adequacy of FSAR relating to; CLI-83-23,18 NRC 311 (1983) program at Shoreham for design and installation of structures, systems, and components, adequacy of; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) program description for the operation of Shoreham, adequacy of; LBP 83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) program for replacement parts and repair work, content of FSAR concerning; ALAB-734,18 NRC ll(1983) reports at Comanche Peak,irvesugation of alleged discouragement of; LBP-83-35,18 NRC 40 (1983) QUALITY ASSURANCEINSPECTORS at Comanche Peak, harassment of; LBP 83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983); LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) RADIATION airborne, engineering safeguards to compensate for Class 9 accident release of; LBP-83 39,18 NRC 67 (1983) monitoring, post-accident, at Limerick facihty, adequscy of; LBP-83 39,18 NRC 67 (1983) R ADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS potential for synergism between chemical effluents in Mississippi River and; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) RADIOACTIVE RELEASES routine, from espanded Catawba spent fuel storage facihty, potential for; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) RADIOACTIVE WASTE high-level, denial of motion to postpone shipments of, through and to Illinois; DD-8312,18 NRC 713 (1983) provisions for safe disposal of; CLI-83-21,18 NRC 157 (1983) REACTOR building foundation, honeycombing of; ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 (1983) See also Pressure Vessel shield wall at Comanche Peak, potential for radiation from cracks in; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) 71 9 e 4 ew ~ ~.

SUHJECT INDEX REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM

• i~"

. '~". at TMI 2, falsification ofleak rate data for; ALAB 738,18 NRC 177 (1983) leak rate test data at TMl 2, investigation of falsification of; CLI-83-24,18 NRC 315 (1983) . v. r i, ' REACTOR OPERATOR (S) at Pom Beach, denciencies in performance of; DD-83-13,18 NRC 721 (1983) imposition of civil penaltics for material false statements concerning qualifications of; CLI-83-20,18 NRC I (1983) See also Operator Accelerated Retraining Program, Operator Training RECORD criteria for reopenmg and supplementation of, LBP 83-41,18 NRC 104 (1983) den at of motion to reopen, on criticality of spent fuel pool; LBP-83-62,18 NRC 708 (1983) exceptions to standards for tecpemng; LBP-83 55,18 NRC 415 (1983) Licensing Board jurisdiction over motion to reopen, after issuance of initial decision; LBP-83 58,18 NRC 640 (1983) obligation of Licensing Board to complete; LBP-83-52,18 NRC 256 (1983) of ongoing proceedms, supplementation of, LBP-83-48,18 NRC 236 (1983) i reopening of, when initial decision has not been issued; LBP-83-50,18 NRC 242 (1983) showmg necessary for reopening; LBP 83-52,18 NRC 256 (1983) test for reopening; ALAB 738,18 NRC 177 (1983); LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983); LBP-83 58, 18 NRC 640 (1983) REFERRAL OF RULINGS NRC pohey concerning; ALAB-742,18 NRC 380 (1983) to Appeal Boards, Licensing Board practice regarding; ALAB-741,18 NRC 378 (1983) REGULATIONS grounds for obtaining exception or waiver to; LBP-83-37,18 NRC 52 (1983) interpretation of General Design Criterion 64; LBP 83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) showing necessary for waiver of, LBP-83-49,18 NRC 239 (1983); LBP 83 52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) REGULATORY GUIDES applying an ASME Code section, Licensing Board interpretation of, LBP 83-33,18 NRC 27 (1983) RESTART of TMI-1, procedural history relevant to emergency preparedness for; CLI-83 22,18 NRC 299 (1983) RETALIATION against QA/QC personnel at Zimmer; LBP-83-58, la NRC 640 (1983) against quality assurance inspectors at Comanche Peak; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) for whistleblowir.g, effects of, on Callaway Plant employees; ALAB 740,18 NRC 343 (1983) REVIEW appellate, sua sponte, scope of. ALAB-739,18 NRC 335 (1983) discretionary interlocutory, circumstances appropriate for; ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983) interlocutory, circumstances appropriate for; ALAB-742,18 NRC 380 (1983) of emergency planning by FE!I A, Board procedures for remedying deficiencies in; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) of emergency plans, role of FEM A in; LBP-83-61,18 NRC 700 (1983) of FSAR by Staff, htigability of adequacy of, LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) ofinterlocutory matters, procedural vehicle for seeking; ALAB-736,18 NRC 165 (1983) RISK of turbine missiles at Perry plant; LBP-83-46,18 NRC 218 (1983) ROCK OVERBREAK extent of, at Comanche Peak facility; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983); LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) RULEMAKING generic, effect of, on individual proceeding; CLI 83-21,18 NRC 157 (1983) RULES OF PRACTICE admissibility of contentions; LBP-83-52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) amendment of Final Environmental Statement; LBP-83-36,18 NRC 45 (1983) amendment ofintervention petitions for change in identities of authorizing members of an organization; LBP-83-59,18 NRC 667 (1983) 72 O <wp N: e e 3 n

SUrJECT INDEX Appeal Board authority to direct certification of legal issues raised in pending Licensing Board proceedings; ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983) appe!!stc discretion regarding Licensing Board rulings referred to it; ALAB-741,18 NRC 371 (1983) appointment ofInterested State as lead intervenor; LBP-83-35,18 NRC 40 (1983) assertion of attorney-client privilege; LBP-83-53,18 NRC 282 (1983) assuming protective orders will be obeyed; ALAB-735,18 NRC 19 (1983) burden of proponent of motion to reopen a record; ALAB-738,18 NRC 177 (1983) burden to satisfy intervention requirements; CLI-83-25,18 NRC 327 (1983) cause for denial of summary disposition; LBP-83-46,18 NRC 218 (1983) circumstances appropriate for discretionary interlocutory review; ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983); ALAB-742,18 NRC 38J (1983) concepts applied in determining an intervention petitioner's interests; CLI-83-25,18 NRC 327 (1983) content of appellate briefs; ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 (1983) content ofintervention petitions; CLI-83-25,18 NRC 327 (*983) content of opposition to directed certification petition; ALAB-734,18 NRC 11 (1983) criteria for determining whether to grant stay gnding appeal; LBP-83-40,18 NRC 93 (1983) default for failure to file required findings; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983); LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) denial of nontimely petitions to intervene where other means to protect petitioner's interests do not exist; LBP-83-42,18 NRC 112 (1983) discovery against FEMA; LBP-83-61,18 NRC 700 (1983) discovery ofinformation under protective order; LBP-83-53,18 NRC 282 (1983) dismissal of proceedings; LBP-83-45,18 NRC 213 (1983) effect of generic rulemaking on individual poceeding; CLI 83-21,18 NRC 157 (1983) environmental impact statement for special nuclear materials hcense; LBP-83-38,18 NRC 61 (1983) extent to which petitioner should address 10 C F.R. 2 714(a)(1)(iii) in pleadmg its case for late intervention; ALAB-743,18 NRC 387 (1983) factors balanced for admission of untimely intervention petition; ALAB-743,18 NRC 387 (1983); CLI-83 25,18 NRC 327 (1983) factors considered in grant of discretionary intervention; CLI-83-25,18 NRC 327 (1983) filing of petition by interested state to participate in operating hcense application as cause for order-ing a hearing; LBP-83-45,18 NRC 213 (1983) good cause for late filing of contentions; ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983); LBP-83 39,18 NRC 67 (1983) issuance of proposed initial decision; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) jurisdiction over special nuclear materials license in operating license proceeding; LBP-83-38,18 NRC 61 (1983) justification for directed certification; ALAB 741,18 NRC 371 (1983) late-filing of contentions based on previously unavailable, licensing-related documents; LBP-83-39, 18 NRC 67 (1983) limited appearance statements; CLI-83-25,18 NRC 327 (1983) need for hearing on compliance with Board order; LBP-83-44,18 NRC 201 (1983) need to strike extra-record materials from a Board's files; LBP 83-55,18 NRC 415 (1983) nontimely submission of contentions; LBP-83-37,18 NRC 52 (1983); LBP-83 58,18 NRC 640 (1983) petitions not properly brought under 10 C.F.R. 2.206; DD-83-II,18 NRC 293 (1983) pleading requirements for intervention petitions; LBP-83-59,18 NRC 667 (1983) potential for future litigation as argument for directed certification; ALAB-737,18 NRC 168 (1983) potential of Licensing Board error for expense and delay as cause for interlocutory review; ALAB-741,18 NRC 371 (1983) procedural vehicle for seeking review ofinterlocutory matters; ALAB-736,18 NRC 165 (1983) production of NRC records and documents; LBP-83-40,18 NRC 93 (1983); LBP-83-51,18 NRC 253 (1983) reopening of proceedings when entire record has not closed and initial decision has not been issued; LBP 83 50,18 NRC 242 (1983) reopening the record; LBP-83-41,18 NRC 104 (1983) 73 9 -Q / / p ,h r ~

r O SU3 JECT INDEX replies to another party's answer to a monon; LBP-83 36,18 NRC 45 (1983) ~ responsibilities of parues concernmg appellate briefs; ALAB-739,18 NRC 335 (1983) responsibilities of parues in opposing directed certificahon petinon; ALAB-741,18 NRC 371 (1983) ~, y responsibilities of parties to bring significant new informanon to the Board's attention; ALAB-738, 18 NRC 177 (1983) responsibilities of parties to make specinc objections to a proposed decision; LBP-83 60,18 hRC 672 (1983) showing necessary for interlocutory appellate review of Licensing Board rulings; ALAB-734,18 NRC 11 (1983); ALAB 735,18 NRC 19 (198D showirig necessary for reopening the record; LBP-83-52,18 NRC 256 (1983) showing r.ecessary for waiver of Commission regulations; LBP 83-49,18 NRC 239 (1983) showing necessary for waiver of financial qualifications regulations, LBP43 52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) showing necessary in absence of good cause for tardmess in seekmg intervention; ALAB 743,18 NRC 387 (1983) standard for granting a monon to reopen when findings have been required concerning an aspect of an admitted contention; LBP 83-55,18 NRC 415 (1983) standmg of an organizauon to intervene where identity of authorizing member changes; LBP-83-59, 18 NRC 667 (1983) supplementation of the record of ongoing proceedmg with unsolsited filings; LBP-83-48,18 NRC 236 (1983) test for reopening of proceedmgs; ALAB-738,18 NRC 177 (1983) time limit for films contentions; ALAB 737,18 NRC 168 (1983) types of appeals which are mterlocutory; ALAB-736,18 NRC 165 (1983) use of ofGcially noticeable material; ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 (1983) waiver of Commission regulanons governing financial qualificahons review; LBP 83 37,18 NRC 52 (1983) weight given to 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1)(v) in balancing process for late intervention; ALAB-743,18 NRC 387 (1983) SAFEGUARDS engineering, to compensate for Class 9 accident release of airborne radiation from Limerick facilvy, adequacy of; LBP-83-39,18 NRC 67 (1983) for transport of spent fuel,junsdiction over; DD-83-I4,18 NRC 726 (1983) SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION trustworthiness of parties to NRC proceedings with; LBP 83-40,18 NRC 93 (1983) SAFETY findings required for operation of a nuclear power plant; ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 (1983) See also Final Safety Analysis Report SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT for transport of spent fuel, need for; DD-83-14,18 NRC 726 (1983) See also Final Safety Evaluation Report SAFETY ISSUES uncontested generic unresolved, degree of Board scrutiny of; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) unresolved, water hammer as; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) at Shoreham, application of proper systematic methodology to analyze reliability of; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) at Shoreham, classification and qualification of; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) SANCTIONS against party for taking legal position a Board thinks is wrong, impropriety of; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) SEISMIC DESIGN at Shoreham, adequacy of; LBP-83-57,18 NRC +45 (1983) SINGLE FAILURE CRITERION application of, to Shoreham; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) SOILS SETTLEMENT containment cracks caused by; LBP 83 50,18 NRC 242 (1983) 74 r e y b v 4

~ , m' SUBJECT INDEX SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS LICENSE Licensing Board jurisdiction to decide issues, raised in operating hcense proceedms, relevant to; i LBP 83 38,18 NRC 61 (1983) necessity for preparation of environmentalimpact statement for; LBP-83-38,18 NRC 61 (1983) SPENT FUEL ~ '. jurisdiction over physical security for transport of; DD-8314,18 NRC 726 (1983) legal authority for transportauon of; DD-83-14,18 NRC 726 (1983) provisions for and financing of safe disposal of; CLI-83-21,18 NRC 157 (1983) routing of transport of; DD-8314,18 NRC 726 (1983) testing, and quahty assurance of casks for transport and storage of; DD-83-12,18 NRC 713 (1983) transportation between Surry and North Anna facilities, Licensing Board authority to consider; ALAB-741,18 NRC 371 (1983) SPENT FUEL POOL at Catawba, possibility of cask drop into; LBP 83 56, IS NRC 421 (1983) at Catawta, potential for criticahty in; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) at Catawba, potential for increased routine radsoacuse releases from; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) at Catawba, potential for severe accident in; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) compliance of Big Rock Po;nt plant with criticahty requirements for; LBP-83-62,18 NRC 708 (1983) coolms system at Catawba, adequacy of; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) SPENT FUEL POOL EXPANSION at Big Rock Point, satisfaction of emergency planning requirements for; LBP 83-44,18 NRC 201 (1983) need for formal construction permit amendment for; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) SPR AY SYSTEMS for dry well and suppression chamber, at Shoreham, measurement of now rates to monitor operation of; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) STANDBY LIQUID CONTROL SYSTEMS adequacy of Shoreham control room instruments to momsor now of; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) STANDING of an organization to intervene where identity of authorirms member changes; LBP-83 59,18 NRC - 667 (1983) to intervene, showmg required to estabhsh; CLI 83-25,18 NRC 327 (1983) STAY of civil proceedmss parallelms criminal proceedmss, circumstances appropriate for; CLI 83-24,18 NRC 315 (1983) pending appeal, criteria for determining whether to grant; LBP-33-40,18 NRC 93 (1983) STEAM GENERATOR TUBE cracking, leak-before-break phenomenon in; ALAB 739,18 NRC 335 (1983) degradation at Point Beach, potential for; DD 8313,18 NRC 721 (1983) failure, single and multiple; ALAB-739, IS NRC 335 (1983) repair at Point Beach by sleeving; ALAB-739,18 NRC 335 (1983) SUA SPONTE ISSUES reasons for Board adoption of contentions as; LBP 83-58,18 NRC 640 (1983) uncontested generic unresolved safety issues raised as; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) SUBPOENA (S) - of persons to testify or appear and produce documents concernmg falsification ofleak rate test data et TMI-2, denial of motion to quash; CLI-83 24,18 NRC 315 (1983) return of, in District where individual resides; CLI 83-24,18 NRC 315 (1983)

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION - cause for denial of; LBP 83-46,18 NRC 218 (1983) a of contention addressing potential for criticality of Catawba spent fuel pool, denial of motion for; LBP-83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) of contention addressing potential for increased routme radioactive releases from expanded spent fuel pool, grant of motics for; LBP 83 56,18 NRC 421 (1983) of contention addressing potential for severe accident in Catawba spent fuel storage facihty, grant of motion for, LBP 83 56,18 NRC 421 (1983) l 75 9 .G h. L.. ._m ]

" ^ ~ ^ SUBJECT INDEX of centention postulaims cask drop accident at Catamba, grant of monon for; LBP-83 56,18 NRC ,' I of contention questioning adequacy of Catawba spent fuel pool cooling systems, denial of motion 421 (1983) for; LBP 83 56.18 NRCel21 (1983) of contention questioning safety of procedures for handhng fuel at Calamba, grant of motion for; LBP-83 56,18 NRC 421 (1983) SYNERGISM between chemical emuents in Mississippi River and radioactive emissions, adequacy of assessment of; LBP-83 52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) SYSTEMS INTERACTION adequacy of analysis of, at Shoreham; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) inclusion of, in accident sequences postulated for design basis of Shoreham; LBP 83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) TESTING hydrostatic, of SA-312 piping at Callaway Plant; ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 (1983) integrated hot functional, at Byron station, technical discussion of, LBP-83-41,18 NRC 104 (1983) of passive mechanical valves at Shoreham; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) program, experimental design, of Mark Il containment structure at Shoreham, adequacy of; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) See also Eddy Current Testing soniscopic, for honeycombing of Callaway reactor building foundation; ALAB 740,18 NRC 343 (1983) steam bypass, at Shoreham, to determine leakage rate between wetwell and drywell, adequacy of, LBP 83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) ultrasonic, of turbines; LBP-83 46,18 NRC 218 (1983) THERM AL STRESS within pipe supports under LOCA conditions, need for consideration of; LBP 83-33,18 NRC 27 (1983) TRAINING radiological, of Big Rock Point area local and school ofrecials, adequacy of; LBP 83 44,18 NRC 201 (1983) See also Operator Accelerated Retraining Program, Operator Trainin8 TRANSPORTATION of high-level radioactive waste through and to Illinois, denial of motion to postpone; DD-8312,18 NRC 713 (1983) of spent fuel, legal authority for; DD-8314,18 NRC 726 (1983) TURBINES . General Electric nuclear, safety of; LBP-83 46,18 NRC 218 (1983) inspection and maintenance of, to prevent missiles; LBP-83 46,18 NRC 218 (1983) VALVES passive mechanical, at Shoreham, possibihty of failure of; LDP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) safety relief, at Shoreham, tests of, and reduction of challenges to; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) safety relief, examination of set-point drift relative to; LBP 83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) VIOLATION continuing, interpretation of CLI 83-20,18 NRC 1 (1983) See also Notice of Violation WAIVER of Commission regalatior.s governing financial qualifications review; LBP 83-37,18 NRC 52 (1963) of Commission regulations, showing necessary for; LBP-83 49,18 NRC 239 (1983) See also Exemption WATER stops at Comanche Peak, description of and allegations of improper installation of; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) WATER HAMMER at Shoreham, prevention and mitigation of; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) I 76 a l f

.- ~ -,, t 3-~.g n ~ y - -. SUBJECT INDEX ~ WELD (S) plus, repair of, at Comanche Peak; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) 0-rod control at Comanche Peak, adequacy of; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) i WELDING at Comanche Peak, allegations of improper practices in; LBP 83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983) at Shoreham, violation of; LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445 (1983) deficiences at Comanche Peak; LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) deficiencies in piping subassembhes at Callaway Plant; ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 (1983) 4 of studs to embedded plates at Callamay Plant, adequacy of. ALAB-740,18 NRC 343 (1983) meave and downhill, at Comanche Peak, investigation of LBP 83-35,18 NRC 40 (1983) WITNESS with criminal record, weight given to testimony by; LBP-83-43,18 NRC 122 (1983); LBP-83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) 1 j i i 4 l r 77 i .r se e l A ,s .w.. l '/ i l i i

FACll.ITY INDEX BIG ROCK POINT PLANT; Docket No. 50-155 SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; August 1,1983. SUPPLEMENTARY INITIAL DECISION. LBP-83 44,18 NRC 201 (1983) SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; August 15,1983. M EMOR AN DU M. L BP-83-44 A,18 NRC 211 (19836 SPENT FUEL POOL AMENDMENT; September 30,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; i LBP 83-62.18 NRC 708 (1983) BYRON NUCLEAR pow E R STATION, Unas I and 2. Docket Nos STN 50-454-OL STN 50-455-OL ( ASLBP No. 79 411-04-PEI OPER ATING LICENSE. July 26.1983, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER DENYING STAY APPLICATION, LBP 83-40.18 NRC 93 (1983) OPER ATING LICENSE. July 27,1983. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ALAB-735,18 NRC 19 (1983) OPER ATING LICENSE. July 28.1983. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING INTERVENORS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT Tile QA/QC RECORD, LDP 83 41,18 NRC 104 (19838 OPERATING LICENSE; Au8ust 17,1983 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP 81-51,18 NRC 253 (1983) CALLAWAY PLANT, Una I; Docket No. STN 50-483-OL OPERATING LICENSE: September 14,1983. DECISION; AL AB 740, la NRC 343 (1983) CATA% BA NUCLE AR STATION Unas I and 2. Docket Nos. 50-413-OL,50-414-OL ( ASLBP No. f 81 -463-03 -OL) 1 OPER ATI.NG LICENSE; September 6.1983. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP 83-56,18 NRC 421 (1983) COM ANCilE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Unas I and 2; Dotket Nos 50-445. 50-446 OPER ATING LICENSE. July 6.1983. MEMOR ANDUM; LDP-83-35.18 NRC 40 (1983) OPEkATING LICENSE. July 6.1983 MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDE.R. LDP-83-33,18 NRC 17 (1983); LBP-83 34.18 NRC 36 (1983) OPER ATING LICENSE; August 15. 1983, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83 48,18 NRC 236 (19831 OPER ATING LICENSE; August 19.1983. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. 4 2.206; DD-83-il,18 NRC 293 (l983) OPERATING LICENSE; September 1.1983. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83 55,18 NRC 415 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; September 23. 1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 83-60,18 NRC 672 (1983) COM ANCllE PF AK STE AM ELECTRIC STATION. Unns I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-445-OL. 50-446-OL ( ASL BP No 79-430-060) OPER ATING LICENSE; July 29.1983. PROPOSED INITI AL DECISION; LBP-83 43,18 NRC 122 G983) LA CROSSE BOILING W ATE R REACTOR; Docket No. 50-409 OPER ATING LICENSE; July 13. 1983; DECISION; AL AB-733,18 NRC 9 (1983) LIMERICK GENER ATING STATION. Unas I and 2; Docket Not 50 352-OL,50-353-OL OPERATING LICENSE; July 26.1983 SECONI) SPECI AL PREllEARING CONFERENCE ORDER. LBP-83-39.18 NRC 67 (1983) 79 e e 1 .u

W - FACILITY INDEX M AINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER STATION; Docket No. 50-309 EMERGENCY PLANNING; September 30,1983; INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.i 2.206; DD-8315,18 NRC 738 (1983) FINANCIAL QUA LIFICATIONS; August 2,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI 83-21,18 h RC 157 (1983) MIDLAND PLANT, Urits I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-329-OM&OL,50-330-OM&OL (ASLBP Nos. 78 38943 OL,80-429-02-SP) MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING LICENSE; August 17,1983; MEMOR ANDUM j AND ORDER. LBP-83-50,18 NRC 242 (1983) MODIFICATION OADER AND OPERATING LICENSE; August 31,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83 53,18 NRC 282 (1983) NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, Unit 2; Docket No. 50-410-OL (ASLBP No. 83-484-03 OL) OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING; August 4,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-45,18 NRC 213 (1983) NORTH ANN A POWER STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-338 OLA 1,50-339-OLA 1 OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 15,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-741,18 NRC 371 (1983) PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. STN 50-529 STN 50-530 OPERATING LICENSE; September 19,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-742,18 NRC 380 (1983) PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. STN $0-529 OL, STN 50-530-OL (ASLBP No.80-447 01-OL) OPERATING LICENSE; July 11,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-33 36,18 NRC 45 (1983) PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441-OL OPERATING LICENSE; July 12,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 83 38,18 NRC 61 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; August 9,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-46,18 NRC 218 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; August 18, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-52,18 NRC 256 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; August 24,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-736,18 NRC 165 (1983) POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 266,50-301 OPERATING LICENSE; September 23,1983; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. i 2.206; DD-83-13,18 NRC 721 (1983) POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-266-OLA,50-301 OLA OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; September 7,1983; DECISION; ALAB 739,18 NRC 335 (1983) RIVER BEND STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nes. 50-458-OL,50-459 OL (ASLBP No. 82 468-01-OL) OPERATING LICENSE; August 26,1983; MEMORANDUM; LBP 83 52A,18 NRC 265 (1983) { SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Units 2 and 3; Docket Nos. 50 361 OL, 50-362-OL ( ASLBP No. 78-365-01 OL) OPERATING LICENSE; August 12, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, LBP-83-47,18 NRC 228 (1983) SEABROOK STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 443-OL,50-444-OL OPERATING LICENSE; July 19,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 734,18 NRC 11 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; August 26,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 737,18 NRC 168 (1983) SPECIAL PROCEEDINO; September 19,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-83 23, 18 NRC 311 (1983) Se

~~ ] FACILITY INDEX SilOREll AM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50-322-OL OPERATING LICENSE; September 21,1983 PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LBP-83 57,18 NRC 445 (1983) Sl10RElf AM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 EMERGENCY PLANNING; July 28,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PETITION TO INTERVENE OF CITIZENS FOR AN ORDERLY ENERGY POLICY,INC.; LBP 83-42,18 NRC 112 (1983) EMERGENCY PLANNING; September 27,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM FEMA; LBP 83 61,18 NRC 700 (1983) I EMERGENCY PLANNING; September 29,1983; DECISION; ALAB-743,18 NRC 387 (1983) l SOUTil TEX AS PROJECT, Units I and 2: Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499-OL (ASLBP No. 79-421-07-OL OPERATING LICENSE; July 14,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 83-37,18 NRC l 52 (1983) OPERATING LICENSE; August 16, 1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-49,18 NRC 239 (1983) TilREE MILE ISLAND NUCLE AR STATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50-289 SP RESTART; September 8,1983; DFCISION; CL183 22,18 NRC 299 (1983) RESTART; September 21,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; CL183-25,18 NRC 327 (1983) SPECIAL PROCLEDING; August 31,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 738,18 NRC 177 (1983) TilREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit 2; Docket No. 50-320 SPECIAL PROCEEDING; September 21,1983; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-83 24, 18 NRC 31$ (1983) TliREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-289,50-320 CIVIL PENALTY; July 22,1983; STATEMENT OF TIIE COMMIS$10N; CLI-83-20,18 NRC 1 (1983) WILLIAM II. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit 1: Docket No. 50-358-OL (ASLBP No. 76 317-01-OL) OPERATING LICENSE; September 15,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 83 58,18 NRC 640 (1983) WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. I; Docket No. 50-460-CPA ( ASLBP No. 83-485-02 CPA) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; September 21,1983; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-83-59, IB NRC 667 (1983) s 81 I ~.. M sw ee g Y w _}}