ML20093B645
| ML20093B645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1984 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V19-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V19-I1, NUDOCS 8410100166 | |
| Download: ML20093B645 (73) | |
Text
j NUREG-0750 Vol.19 Index 1 r7"
+
S G.,'-
1 l2
'. ev y W-W ')
31 % *'
'U-
't r
_ ~~
'r
.n
- 1 e w-s s v e,, e e,
..W
' ~~* TORY' w$ 4.:"s.L.
w ":
?
!$$lidy
?,
- ~
~
'1 w
~
Qif;. i?h'-
2 s:~ r-~ ~ '
~ ~ ~* ~ m -.a :^^';:. b. M w, L
-e & cei-....-
%.., t
.-+_.sl,,h$*
y[..,,
e:
p,,,
S vn_
ek, S
_id 55'*
b'>%,'..
'qi-
,,a*
- "Mw = ****e ve* dirt =M tb T--
,, i 4
sh,
h.
2
)
e-
. PteWe*M e V1 e==-#* Me#' *va* ** *^ We4*."- -*** * " " '
I ed"*8**vW+Mhs*OT ~
g
- -gM W.,,..s.re@e_ :W Qr -
,.-m
%QwwPM*y*n***wt.*6 **** T * '
- w '
- 1
+
t a..,-
.g,,
- ' t. it g en. "-- *g e. *. j ( ><-.,,p1 s,,..:a
. e "
e, es.-
eve ~ce
_~ na 4
trm +.,. *,
- asi
_w.w-*-
.h_ Vf 9'"?'d ? '
Q &-.c &-_W,3 gs3,g~g y @A_
_..i+.+
s crQ ' '. - ^ '
h
,\\
~
Wg y
-+.he f - ;-,.-
^
_ae w,== e sa -ee**w+,s -
s
~. a..
- :. >r
-_n
>. =: s a v*_w,..,.p m - - '~
, L k
'y e
g
>s.-
c..
4
- k. Mi%3Nk,-
- la,
=hE
$ 9 f M e y 33 0 @ ;f W C k'4 Nf M4..-
ie-4 yh-
-py_
J
.,,.4.se.4
..g
^E y,, x 3 h,
- MYWh.,.<. 3'
,..,g
- )- T 7 *
, N$ $ M.
,. w.~ e.w
-..~#...,.
_e,,..
6Ww y 4 Sc*r+ywg 9 y w*p.y 3 yg.c W.,c
+
km ers:n.neuwrm..y-+
f, e y; w 3a
,g v _
3,.
, sem en~w n.
.*v e
s u
,.+
s.
v.
h
- e. ;
r.,;.+-,.m..-:
mv -
-os s
- e.,,,
e
,3, -
.w..
-~.
- ....~ ~ m
..f.-
4 u %. 6 %$ q 3 4 g.-5,, u.yy.w p % ~cw A* b.A e$." T* F/Af54, 4 N,v b NwK *'$4
- M y.
+.4 a 1
ga 0410100166 840930 PDR NUREG 07DO R PDR cl.J
NUREG-0750 Vol.19 Index 1
.l INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY
(
COMMISSION ISSUANCES 4,
t January - March 1984 l
i l
i U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
i i
I i
l
.m
.-w...w--w---..-w-w.weyy.y.9--we,=,
_7.,e. - -,,. -
ey w
,.py.m
c i
Foreword Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CI.I), the Atomic Safety and ucensing Appeal Panel (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and ucensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative law Judge (AU),the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions of Rulemaking are presented in this document.
Dese 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)
Full text reference (volume and pagination)
Issuance number Issues raised by appellants legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes)
Name of facility, Docket number Subject matter ofissues and/or rulings Type of hearing (for construction permit,operatinglicense,etc.)
Type of issuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.).
These information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as follows:
- 1. Case Name Index ne case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type ofissuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.
- 2. Digests and Henders Re headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows:
+
the Commission (CU), the Atomic Safety and ucensing Appeal Panel (ALAB),
the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking.
He header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hearing, date ofissuance, and type ofissuance.
De digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuance covers more than one issue, then sepunte digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabeticany.
ill
+
n-
~ -
6
.M
- 3. Lapl Citations Index his index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alphanumerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. These citations are listed as given in the issuances. Chanys in regulations and Statutes may have occurred to cause chanys in the number or name and/or applicability of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance.
The references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular issuance. nese phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text I
reference.
f
- 4. SubjectIndex Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects covered in the issuances. De subject headings are followed by f
phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the issuances being indexed. Rese phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text teference.
- 5. Facility Index Ris index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from the issuance. De name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date, type of issuance, issuance number, and full text reference.
D" g.
6 4
i i
Iv l
4 e
=
9 I
I Ia.
+ +
r 4
CASE NAME INDEX ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FACILITY LICENSE RENEW AL; ORDER, Docket No. 50170 ( ASLBP No.81-45101 LA);
LBP-84-15A,19 NRC 852 (1984)
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACTION, INTERIM DIREC10R*5 DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2.206.
Docket No 50 29) DD 84-5,19 NRC 542 (1984)
CAROLIN A POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY OPERATfNG LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER Dl5MI551NG PRQCEEDING; Docket No.
50 261-OLA ( ASLBP No. 83-484-03 L A), LBP-84 il,19 NRC 533 (1984)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGifT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLIN A EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos 50-400. 50-401 (ASLBP No 82 46841 OL), LBP-84 7,19 NRC 432 (1984); LBP-8415,19 NRC 837 (1984)
CINCINN ATI G A5 AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et at REQUEST FOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. l 2.206, Docket No j
l 50-358, DD 84-3,19 NRC 480 (1984)
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et al OPERATING LICEN5E, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket Nos 50-440-OL,50-441 OL; s
REQUEST FOR IMMEDI ATE ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. 8 2.206, j
Docket No 50-440; DD-841,19 NRC 471 (1984)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY OPER ATING LICENSE;INITI AL DECISION, Docket Nos. STN 50 4544L, STN 50-455-OL l
( A5LBP No. 79-41144-OL); LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (AND ALL LIGHT WATER REACTORS)
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUEST; DIRECTOR'S DEC15 TON UNDER 10 C.F R.12.206; Docket No. 50 373 DD 84-6,19 NRC 891 (1984) i CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 3
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.
l 5 2.206, Docket Nos. 50 329,50-330; DD 84-2,19 NRC 477 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Cocket Nos. 50 3294M&OL,
)
50-330-OMAOL; ALAB 764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, et at Ol5 MISSAL OF PROCEEDING, REPORT AND ORDER ON SPECIAL PREHEARING l
CONFERENCE HELD PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R.12.751a, Docket No. 50-412 ( ASLBP No.
.~ 'd 83-440-04-OL); LBP-84-6,19 NRC 39) (1984)
- GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION SPECIAL PROCEEDING, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. ( 2 206, Docket No.
50-320; DD-84-4,19 NRC 535 (1984)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY. et al.
OPERATING LICEN5E, PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION, Docket Nos STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499-OL ( ASLBP No. 79 421-07-OL), LBP 8413,19 NRC 659 (1984)
KANSA5 GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
EMERGENCY PLANNING MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No 50-482 I ASLBP No.
81453-03OL), LBP-841,19 NRC 29 (1984) i i
f 4
l l
l l
6
a
_-r t
f e
I' l
CASE NAME INDEX i
t i
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-482 ( ASL8P No.
SI 453 034L); LBP 84-17,19 NRC 878 (1984)
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY l
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER; Docket No. 50-309-OLA (ASLBP No.
80-43742 LA) L8P-84-14,19 NRC 534 (1984)
+
METROPOLITAN EDI5ON COMPANY
' l SPECIAL PROCEEDING, MEMOR ANDUM AND' ORDER; Docket No-50-289-5P; CLI-84-3,19
. NRC 555 (1984)
PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY j
OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-275,50-32J; CLI-84-l,19 NRC 1 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docke' No. 50-275, CLI-84-2,19 NRC 3 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE, DEC!sION, Docket Nos. 50 275,50 323. ALAB-763,19 NRC 751 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE SUSPEN510N REQUEST, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.
{ 2.206; Docket No. 54275; DD-84-8,19 NRC 924 (1984)
PillLADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dacket Nos. 50 352, 50 353, ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 (1984); L8P-8416,19 NRC 857 (1984)
PUBLIC 5ERVICE COMPANY OF NEW l( AMP 5 HIRE, et at OPERATING LICEN5E; DECI510N Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50 4444L; ALAB 758.19 NRC 7 (1984)
I OPERATIFO LICEN5E; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-4434L 50 444-OL; ALAB 762,19 NRC $65 (1984) i PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND G A5 COMPANY, et al.
i Dl5QU ALIFICATION; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No. 50 354-OL; ALAB-759,19 NRC 13 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING; Doches No.
l 50 2724LA; LSP-84-5,19 NRC 391 (1984) l TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. STN 50 519, STN l
50-521. ALAB 760,19 NRC 26 (1984)
TEX A5 UTit rTIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
l OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Dexket Nos. 50-445, 50 446; l
I i
TEX A5 UTILiilES GENERATING COMPANY, et al.
OPER ATING LICEN5E, MEMOR ANDUM, Docket Nos. 50-445,50-446; L8P 84-8,19 NRC 466
~ -/
(1984)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT M AN AGEMEN T CORPOR ATION,
,4, f",
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY l
9',
.'S-50-537-CP; DD-84-3,19 NRC 480 (1984)
(c. ~
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. i 2 206; Docket No.
fe em l
-[P'., ' 4 M, d l-CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMOR ANDUM OF FINDINGS, Docket No. 50-537 CP ( A5L8P No. 75 291+12); LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) l l-M-
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50 537-CP; ALAS-761,19 NRC 487 (1984);
WA5111NGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No.
50-444CPA ( ASLBP No. 83 485 02-CPA); LBP 84-9.19 NRC 497 (1984)
REQUEST FOR SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R.-
7 6 2 206, Docket No. 54397, DD-84 7,19 NRC 899 (1984) l tt 5
v, h '
j
,4 i
- j..
i.
r 8
a j
l
' I i
(
SD ( 7 I
f
t l
l l
l e
i i
I w
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile NUCLLAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CLI-84-1 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275, 50-323; OrERATING LICENSE; January 16, 1984; ORDER A
The Commission denies the intervenors' request for a stay of fuel loading and pre-cnticahty testing at the Diablo Canyon plant CLI-84-2 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit I), Docket No. 50-275; OPERATING LICENSE; January 25, 1944, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Acting on the a. scant's r' quest, the Commission authonzes further pre-cnticahty tests (hot system testing) L <he Diablo Canyon plant on the ground that the tests will provide valua-ble information regardmg plant desgn, construction ac.J operation without gesenting any sigrufi-cant pubhc health and safety concerns.
CLI-84-3 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Three Mile Island Nuclear Statio,, Unit No.
1), Docket No. 50-289-SP; SPECIAL PROCEEJING; March 28, 1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
in response to an Appeal Board memorandum (ALAB-724,17 NRC 559 (198D), con-ce,ning the treatment to be accorded the issues raised in a Board Notification (BN-83 47), the Commission decades that the issue of whether the power-operated rehef valve should be safety-
~
grade, because of the potential for usms it to mitigate the consequences of design basis steam generator tube accidents, has no reasonable nemus to the TM12 accident and is, therefore, out-a side the scope of the proceedmg. The Commission also decides that the information in the Board Notification is not sagruficant enough to warrant reopening the record sua sponte, even if it were within the scope V the pmceeding.
8 The following technical issue is discussed: Uses of power-operated relief valve in de pressundation in the event of a steam generator tube rupture.
l
/
l i
r 3
1
?
e
-c,--,
-,. -=-
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS AL A B-758 PUbLIC !ERYlCE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443-OL, 50-444 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; January 24. 1984; DECISION A
The Appeal Board affirms. on dEerent grounds, the Licensing Board's denial of an un-timely petition for leave to intervene in this operating hcense proceeding.
B lt is the responsibihty of the Director of Nuclear Reactor Reguiation, and not the Licens-i ins Board, to make the Gnding required by 10 C F R. 50.57(a)(1) as a precondition to the is.
l suance of an operating hcense for a nuclear plant. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-226,8 AEC 381,410-Il (19748 ALAB-759 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND G AS COMPANY, et al. (liope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1). Docket No 50-354-OL; Dl5 QUALIFICATION; January 25,1984; MEMO.
RANDUM AND ORDER A
Upon consideration of an order (referred to it by an admamstrative judge) denying an in-tervenor's mot <on that he recuse himself from further service as a member of the Licensmg Board for this operating license proceeding, the Appesi Board rules that the judge must be re-placed on the Licensing Board by another member of the Licensms Panel.
B Licensms Board members are governed by the same disquahfication standards that apply I
to federal judges. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project. Units I & 2),
CLI 82-9,15 NRC 1363,1365 67 (1932L C
An administrative trier of fact is subject to disquahfication if he has a direct, personal, substantial pecumary interest in a result; if he has a " personal bias" against a participant; if he has served in a prosecutive or investigative role with regard to the same facts as are in issue;if he has prejudged factual - as distinguished from legal or pohey - issues; or if he has engaged in conduct which gives the appearance of personal bias or prejudgment of factual issues. Consum-ers Power Co (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-101,6 AEC 60,65 (1973).
D The current statutory foundation for the Commission's disquahreation standards is found m 28 U.S.C.144 and 455.
E The current Section 455(a) of 28 U.S.C. imposes an objective standard for recusal; i e.,
whether a reasonable person knowing all the circumstances would be led to the conclusion that the judge's impartaahty might reasonably be questioned. Houston Lightmg and Power Co. (South Teias Project, Umts I and 2), CLI-82 9,15 NRC 1363,1366, citmg Fredonia Broadcasting Corp v. RCA Corp., 569 F.2d 251, 257 (5th Cir.19't). And, as a g*neral proposition, recusal under this section must rest upon estrajudicial conduct.15 NRC at 1367.
F 28 U.S C. 455(b)(2) requires a judge to disquahfy himself in circumstances where, inter alia, in pnvate practice the judge served as a lawyer "in the matter in controversy." Disquahfica-tion in such circumstances may not be waived. See 28 U.S.C. 45)(e); SCA Services Inc. v.
I Morgan,557 F.2d i10,117 (7th Cir.1977).
G The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply in operating license proceedings. See Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2),
9 ALAB 182,7 AEC 210, modified on other grounds, CLI 74-12,7 AEC 403 (1974).
5 m
- - - - - - - - ~ - - -
l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS ALAB 760 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units IB and 2B).
Duket Nos. STN 50-519 STN 50-521; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; January 27,1984, MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER A
On motion of the apphcant following the cancellation of Units 18 and 2B of its proposed l
four umt (I A,2A, IB and 28) Hartsville Nuclear Plant, the Appeal Board terminates, with re-spect to those two cancelled umts, the hmited junsdiction previously retamed over this construc-tion permit proceedmg involving all four umts.
ALAB 761 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Chnch Riser Breeder Reactor Plant),
Docket No. 50-537-CP; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 29. 1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Actmg on appeals by two intervenors from Licensing Board actions (following termma-tion of the Chnch River project and the Licen.ng Board's dismissal of the intervenors from the f
proceedmg for a construction permit (CP) for the project) that, inter alia, limited the interve-
}
nors' participation in the Limited Work Authonzation (LWA) proceedmg (on remand to consid-I er issues of site redress) to giving hmited appearance statements, the Appeal Board vacates the l
Licensing Board action hmitmg LW A participation and demes the remainder of the appeals.
I B
Under 10 C.F.R. j 50.10(e), an applicant for a construction permit may seek early ap.
Proval of certaist types of site preparation rtisity by requesting issuance of an LW A.
[
. I l
C A heensms board is required to issue an imtial decision in a case involving an application l
for a construction permit even if the prnceedmg is ancontested.10 C.F.R. { 2.104(b)(2) and (3).
l D
Licensing boards have the aathority to regulate the course of a proceedmg and to lirmt l
t an mtersenor's participation to issues m which it is interested.10 C.F.R. 66 2.718, 2.714(e) and I
t (Il E
Parties may not dart in and out of proceedings on their own terms and at their conse-n ence and expect to enjoy the benefits of full participation without responsibaities Consumers Power Co. (Midland P' ant Umts I and 2), AL AB-691,16 NRC 897,907 (1982).
ALAB 762 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Station, Umts 1 and 2), Dockei Nos. 50-443-OL, 50-444-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; March MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 16, 1984; A
Finding the standard for interlocutory review of a licensms board ruhng not met, the Appeal Board demes an intervenor's request for directed certification of the Licensms Board's demal of its motion for dismissal of the operating hcense apphcstion for Umt 2 of the Seabrook facihty sought on the ground that that Unit is only 22 percent completed.
B In the exercise of us directed certification authonty conferred by 10 C.F R. 2.718(i), an i
appeal board will step into a proceeding still pending below only upon a clear and cenvincmp showmg that the hcensms board ruims under attack either (1) threatens the party adversely af-Iected by n mth immediate and senous irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, could not e
be alleviated by a later appeal or (2) affects the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner. Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generstmg Station Umts 2 j
and 3), ALAB 742,18 NRC 380,383 (1983); Public Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-405,5 NRC 1190,1192 (1977).
l}
C The Commission's regulations are devoid of any specific requirement that the reactor reach a particular stage of completion before the films of an operstmg hcense application.
ALAB-763 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Umts 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275, 50-323; OPERATING LICENSE; March 20, 1984 DECISION A
Following the conduct of evidentiary heanngs by the Appeal Board on the adequacy of the apphcant's efforts to venfy the design of the Diablo Canyon facihty, the Appeal Board decides that the actions taken by the apphcant provided adequate confidence that Unit l's structures, systems and components are designed to perform satisfactonly in service and that any significant design deficiencies in that umt resulting from defects in the apphcant'a design quality assurance program have been remedied. The Appeal Board thus concludes that there is ressoru-ble assurance that Unit I can be operated without endangering the health and safety of the pubhc.
4 e e c%-
+*,{
,gy
,p,'
d gvg
,g
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL SOARDS B
The Appeal Board withholds decision with respect to the adequacy of the desgn venfica-tion program for Unit 2.
C In order for the apphcant to prevail on each factualissue,its position must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tennessee Valley Authonty (Itartsvlie Nuclear Plant, Units I A, 2A, IB, and 28), ALAB 46), 7 NRC 341, 360 (1978), reconsideration denied, ALAB 467,7 NRC 459 (1978); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon Umts I and 2),
ALAB 355,4 NRC 397,405 n.19 (1976).
D To determine that an apphcant's ven0 cat.on programs are sufficient to venfy the adequa.
cy of a plant's design, the appheant's efforts must be measured against the same standard as that set forth in the Commission's quality assurance cntena,10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendia 8-w heth-l er the verificatio.i program provides " adequate confidence that a [ safety-related) structure, l
I system or component will perform satisfactonly in servate." If the applicant's verificahon efforts meet this standard, then there will be reasonable assurance with respect to the design of the facility that it can be operated withoi,1 endangering the health and safety of the pubhc.
E The Commission's regulations do not require that all perunent quahiy assurance or quah.
ty control documents be consohdated and integrated mto a single manual or set of manuals.
f
[.
F The following technical issues are discussed: Sarrphng Techniques (statistical and judgmental) and Scope, Instrum.nt Tubing Supports; Contamment Uphftms; Modehng for Seis-i I
mic Analysis (mcludmg the use of soil springs, fiaed-base analysis, response of one buildmg as l
imput into model of another, lumped mass. spring model, finite element models, degrees of l
freedom); Soil Analysis (Seismic Refraction Tests and Cross hole; and Up-hole Testmg Techniques); Seismic Response Spectra; Fire Protection; Jet Impinsement Analysis; Circuit Breakers (nameplate ratmg); Design Dramings and Analyses (conformance with plant as buitt);
Component Coohns Water System IIcat Removal Capacity; Small Bore Piping and Support Design (computer. based analysis and span criteria); Design Error Rate (adequate confidence
- l versus perfection); llosgri Fault; Westinghouse Quahty Assutance Program; Causes of Quahty I
ALAB-764 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midlano Plant, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 Assurance Failures.
<3 329-OM&OL,50-330-OMAOL; OPERATING LICENSE; March 30, 1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board affirms the Licensms Board's refusal to quash subpoenas aimed at em-ployees of a nonparty to this operstmg license proceeding.
8 A nonparty to an operstmg hcense proceedirig may appeal immediately an otherwise in-terlocutory discovery order. Pacific Gas and E!cetnc Co. (Stamslaus Nuclear Project, Umt I),
ALAB 550,9 NRC 683,(16 r.1 (1979).
C A board may issue a subpoena upon a showing of only " general relevance" and "shall 4
not attempt to determine the admissibility of evidence." See 10 C.F.R. { 2.720; see also 10 C.F R. ( 2.740(b)(1).
D That the press enjoys a quahried pnvilege not to reveal its sources in certam circum-s:ances is beyond doubt. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 70910 (1972) (Powell, J.,
concurring); Umted States v. Cuthbertson,630 F.2d 139,147 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449
-h j
U.S.1826 (1981); Silkwood v. Kerr McGee Corp.,563 F.2d 433,436-37 (10ih Cir.1977); Carey
- v. Hume, 492 F.2d 631, 636 (D C. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 417 U.S. 938 (1974); 8aker v. FAF Investment,470 F 2d 778, 783 (2d Cir.1972), cert. demed 411 U.S. 966 (1973).
E Courts tradiuonally have been loath to create a new tesumomal pnvilege or to entend an existmg one, "since such pnvileges obstruct the search for truth." Branzburg v. Hayes, supra, 408 U.S. at 690 n.29. See Herbert v Lando,441 U.S.153,175 (1979).
F All citizens have a " general duty... to providir evidence when necessary to further the system of usuce." Wnght v. Jeep Corp.,547 F. Supp. 871,875 (E.D. Mich.1982). See Branz.
J burg v. Hayes, supra,408 U.S. at 688.
G The quahtied First Amendment pnvilege of the press has been consistently and stnctly limited to those reasonably characterized as part of the med.a. Compare, e g, the foibwmg cases where the privilege has been recosmaed: Umted States v. Cuthbertson, supra; Silkwood v.
7 T%
4 -
~
L f.
i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS 6
I
- j Kerr-McGee Corp., supra; Baker v. FAF Investment, supts; Solargen Electnc Motor Car Corp.
e
- v. American Motor Corp.,506 F. Supp. 546 (N D.N.Y.1981); in re Consumers Union of the Umted States, Inc. (Starks v. Chrysler Corp.),32 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1373 (5 D.N.Y.1981); Apicel-l
!a v. McNeil Laboratories, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 78 (E D N Y.1975); with Wnght v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n,72 F R.D.161 (5 D.N.Y.1976).
H The " scholar's privilege" - an alleged outgrowth of the journalist's First Amendment pn*,s je - is of doubtful validity under modern case law, at least as applied to non-scholars.
See Wnght v. 3eep Corp., supra,547 F. Supp. at 875 76. See also in re Dmnan,661 F.2d 426, 427 31 (5th Cir.1931), cert. denied,457 U.S.1106 (1982).
I Where the courts have recognized a journalist's privilege, they have balanced "the poten.
tial harm to the free flow of information that might result against the asserted need for the requested information." Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co.,633 F.2d 583,5% (1st
']
Cir.1980) (footnote omitted). See Branzburg v. Hayes, supra,408 U.S. at 710; United States v.
Cuthbertson, supra,630 F.2d at 148; Carey v. Hume, supra,492 F.2d at 636-39; Solargen Elec-i inc Motor Car Corp. v. Amencan Motor Corp, supra,506 F. Supp. at 550.
J The principal factors to consider in determining to give recogniuon to the Journalist's pnvilege are whether the requested informauon is relevant and goes to the heart of the matter at j
hand, and whether the party seekmg the information has tned to obtain it from other possible sources. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., supra, 563 F.2d at 438; Baker v. FAF Investment, supra,470 F.2d at 783.
~l K
Boards assume protective orders will be obeyed unless a concrete showing to the contrary is made. One who violates a protective order nsks serious sanction. See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclesr Power Stanon. Umts I and 2), ALAB-735,18 NRC 19,25 (1983).
L Imposition of a protective order can be a pragmatic accommodation of the need for dis.
covery and the protection of the asserted interests of the persons against whom discovery is i
directed.
ALAB-765 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limenck Generating Stanon, Umts I and
- 2) Docket Nos. 50-352, 50 353; OPERATING LICENSE; March 30, 1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board affirms (1) the Licensing Board's asacrtion of junsdicuon over an in-tervenor's contenuons coricernmg the applicant's 10 C.F.R. Part 70 application for a license to re-ceive and store new, umtradiated fuel outdoors at the Limerick site..nd (2) dismissal of the con-
+
r teetions for lack of basis and specificity.
B A Special Nuclear Materials License is required for a person to " receive title to, own, acquire, deliver, receive, possess, use, or transfer special nuclear matenal." 10 C.F.R. i 70.3.
Such authorita' ion is essenhally subsumed within a license to operate a commercial power reactor, issued pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
C If a unlity wants (or needs) to receive and store new fuel before an operaung license is 4
issued, the utility must obtain a Part 70 license.
3 b ~
D Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, licensing boards may " preside in such pro-ceedmst for granting, suspendms, revokmg, or amenoms licenses or authorizauons as the Com.
mission may designate, and to perform such other adjudicatory functions as the Commission deems appropriate." 10 C.F R. I 2.72lta).
E Appeal boards are delegated authonty to perform the Commission's review functions in Part 50 and other licensms proceedmss specdied by the Commission 10 C.F R. l 2.785(a).
F Under 10 C.F R. l 2.721(a), only the Commission can define the scope of a proceeding before a licensms board, or decide that a formal adjudicatory-type proceeding should be i
i.
'C
-'3 -;j instituted.
.,.W.,, i*
G Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S.C. l 2239a, mandaies a hearms for any s
' h.C licensing action where requested by a person "whose interest may be affected." But a formal, 1
"on the record" adjudicatory type hearing under Section 554 of the Admimstrative Procedure Act (APA),5 U.S.C. i 554 - like those conducted by licensing boards - is not required for so-s s.
I called materials licenses. See Kerr.McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Eanhs Facility), CLI-82 2 15 NRC 232,244-62 (1982), aft'd sub nom. City of West Chicago v. NRC,701 F.2d 632 (7th s
i
+ 7
~
,k f9*
J*b 9
"' f, g k@. $
- MQ
~;
~
s.
..a,
..w al ~
I e
DIGESTS ISSUANCE 5 OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL SOARDS
.l-
- Cir.1983). The Commission can delegate authority to achudicate such matters informally to an -
agency official, such as the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
See, e.g., Kerr McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), CLI-32 21,16 NRC 401 (1982).
H Licensin8 boards may assert junsdiction over Part 70 issucs raised in conjunction with an ongoing Part 50 hcensing proceeding. See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear 7 -
Power Plant, Units Nos. I and 2), CLI 76-1, 3 NRC 73,74 (1976). See also, e.g., Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-83 38.18 NRC 61,63 (1983); Cincinnati Gas and Electne Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station). L8P-79-24,10 NRC 226,228-30 (1979).
1 It is not clear what, if any, notice requirements pertain to materials license cases. See Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (Cobalt-60 Storage Facihty), ALAB-682,16 NRC 150,157-59 (1982).
3
. Sectaon 2.714(b) of 10 C.F.R. requires an intervenor in a proceeding to ses'forth the bases for its contention (s) with reasonable specifiaty. Where the laws of physics depnve a pro-f-
Nsed contention of any credible bass, the contention will not be admitted. Compare Houston Lightmg and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1). ALAB-590, il NRC 542 (1980).
K Parties in Commission proceedings have a duty to alert the Boards and all other parties of any significant new information related to the proceeding. See Tennessee Vailey Authonty (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-677,15 NRC 1387,1394 (1982).
i 1
L Under Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC I
1041 (1983), all five factors enumerated in 10 C.F.R. ( 2.714(a)(l) must be considered and bal-anced before an untimely intervention petition may be granted or a late filed contention admitted. This is ao even where a party has succeeded in making a strong showing on the first of those factors (good cause).
i M
The following technical issues are discussed: Criticality Potential nf New Fuel; Handling i
and Storage of New Fuel at the Reactor Sitc; Radiation Hasard from New Fuel
. a:
e--
ts Ik '
- 4
- :
4
/
.h]
,.5-4 3
,)
.(.i *, f tQ t h' f L. % l4
~
f L
1 1.
e r
e O
4 4
i l'
9 J
h t
f.
N
.9 p
t p u d
l 1
1
=
I l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP 84-1 1(ANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit
- 1) Docket No. 50-482 ( ASLBP No. 81-453-03-OL); EMERGENCY PLANNING; January 5, 1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board issues a memorandum and order which, inter alia, grants Interve-nors' motion to add a contention out-of-time.
B As to late-filed contentuns, all five factors in 10 C.F R. { 2.714(a)(l) should be apphed by a Licensing Board, including the Appeal Board's three-past test for good cause.
C While the basis of a contention must be set forth witti reasonab!e specificity, the conten-tion need not allege noncomphance with a regulation and need not specify how that regulation has been violated in the absence of any explanation by, as here, emergency planmns authorities that determmations had been made in compliance with the regulatica.
D 18 is not the fuection of a licensing board to reach the merits of a contention at the time the admissibility of a contention is being considered.
j E
A basis for a contenuon is set lorth with reasonable specificity if the applicants are suffi-7 ciently put on notice so that they will know, at least generally, what they will have to defend agamst or oppose, and if there has been sufficient foundation assigned to warrant further esplora-
]'
tion of the proposed contention.
LBP 84-2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I and
]
2), Docket Nos. STN 50-454-OL. STN 50-455-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-411-04-OL); OPERATING 45
.a LICENSE; January 13,1984; INITIAL DECISION A
When govermns statutes or regulations require a licensing board to make particular Gnd-irigs before granting an applicant's requests. a board may not delegate its obligations to the Staff.
]
Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I & 2), ALAB 298,2
_M NRC 730,737 (1975). The post-hearing approach should be employed only in clear cases - for M
example, where minor procedural deficiencies are involved (Consolidated Edisor' Co. of New t
Z York (Indian Point Station, Umt 2), CLI-74-23, 7 AEC 947,95152 (1974)), but not where the issue involved is a very extensive quahty assurance reinspection program for which the Staff and the applicant have yet to agree on a full set of standards.
r-The remedy most responsive to the circumstances of this case where, though construction
}
B nears completion, the Board finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated that it has met its quably assurance obligations, and the remedy least harsh to the AppUcant, yet still appropriate, is to decide the issue now This permits the parties to test immediately on appeal the quahty of the decision. To reserve jurisdiction and to postpone f:nst decision, in face of the impending completion of construction, would impose umlaterally upon the parties, particularly the Applicant, the Board's own view of the facts, law and appropriate remedy. Unless Applicant could mount a difficult interlocutory appeal from such a determination (to postpone the decision), it would have been denied due process.
C The Board avoided desenbing the reach of the denial of license on quality assurance 3
grounds, as res judicata or collateral estoppel with respect to the quality assurance issues because neither concept, as ordinanly understood, neatly fits the unusual situation to be found in the con-tinuum of a licensing proceeding wnh many aspects. The Board did not forectose future proceed-3 ings on the quality assurance issue and had no junsdiction to do so.
The Board did not agree with the Apphcant that its intentional overesumauon of assumed
]
D traffic times under adverse weather conditions in an emergency and intentional underesumauon PT 2
2 4
_g
,,J.
t i
DIGESTS i
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS J
}
of average genene sheltering values of the struktures in the EPZ are conservative. Therefore the
.j Board required the Apphcant to make realistic estimates of these factors. Any vanance from
)
realistre estimates r4 these factors could lead a decisionmaker away from actions alTording radi-4 ological dose savings.
1 E
The following technical issues are discussed. Quality assurance program Steam genera-tor tube integrity, Flow-induced vibrations. Bubble collapse water hammer, Occupational radia-tion exposure As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), Linear hypothesis about health ef-fects of radiation, Supralinear hypothesis about health effects of radiation, Severe accident analysis, Groundwater contamination, Groundwater velocity, Seismic design, Capability of faults, Strain sage tests, Emergency plans,. Evacuation umes, Average generic sheltering values.
LBP-84-3 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL, 50-441 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; January
- i -
+
20,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board demes intervenor's motion to reopen the record.
B The purpose of reopemns the record is for a party to submit or to develop evidence. A motion not made for that purpose does not provice grounds for reopening the record.
C A licensing board will not conduct its own investigation of quahty assurance allegations without proof that Staff offices are unable to conduct such an mvestigation adequately. Boards are primanly responsible for conducting hearmss and should not readily undertake investigative functions.
D Newspaper allegations of quahty assurance deficiencies, unaccompanied by evidence, or-dinarily are not sufTicient grounds for reopenir:s an evidentiary record. Such articles do not demonstrate the existence of a "significant safety issue" or a " breakdown of the quality assur.
ance program."
LBP 84-4 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT M ANAGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Clir.ch River Breeder Reactor Plant),
Docket No. 50-537 CP (ASLBP No. 75-291-12); CONSTRUCTION PERh,'; January 20, 1984, MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS A
le a Memorandum of Findings the Licensir.g Board concludes that:
(1) the suitabihty of the proposed site for the ClitKh River Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP) for a reactor of the genecal size and type proposed has been reaffirmed, (2) from the evidence of record, the CRBRP can be coristructed and operated in a manner that would have satisfied tle NRC's mandate that the CRBRP achieve a level of safety comparable with that of light water reactor plants. Further, core disruptive accidents need not be included within the spectrum of design basis accidents for the CRBRP;
~'
(3) a comprehensive and detailed quality assurance program was in place and functioning (prior to the termination of the CRBRP program) in accordance with the requirements of Appendis 8 to 10 C.F.R. Part 50; and 3.
(4) environmental and emergency planning matters were appropriately addressed.
LBP-84-5 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Umt I), Docket No. 50 272-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 25, 1984;
, -..g..,
f7 ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING LBP-84-6 DUQUESNE LIGHT COwlPANY, et al. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Umt 2), Dxke No. 50-412 ( ASLBP No. 83-490-04 OL); DISMISS AL OF PROCEEDING; January 27, 1984; REPORT AND ORDER ON SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE HELD PURSUANT TO 10 C.F R. I 2.75ta A
In this Report and Order the Licensing Board cr,ncludes that a hearms is not required and dismisses the proceeding.
B As an independent regulatorv agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not subect to the requirements of Exec. Order No.11,988. Floodplam Management,42 Fed. Reg. 26J91 (1977).
C The Licensmg Board cannot decide the vahdity of actions that are yet to happen. Specula-
~
tion concernmg what the NRC Staff may do in an environmental impact statement that has not been issued does not provide an adequately specific basis for an admissible contention.
e 12 e
w-
. m; 2
g,,
.w.
- a-i--=,
% ('
i,r di ep
,j 6,
- ma j
p 8
E, DIGESTS 1
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS D
in order for an orgamzation to obtain representational standing on the basis of the inter-ests of a member,it must be established that the member has authorized the organization to rep-resent his interests in the proceeding. It is unwarranted for the Licensms Board to infer such au.
e thorization when the affidavit of the member is devoid of any statement that he wants the organ-ization to represent him.
E The filing and acceptance of the petition of the State of Pennsylvania pursuant to 10 C.F.R. l 2.715(c) permits it to participate in the adjudicatory heanns only if one is held. When no petitioner has submitted a htigable contention so as to necessitate the holding of a heanng, the filing and acceptance of the Pennsylvania petition to participate under the provisions of 5 2.715(c) does not trigger a heanns.
F When none of the concerns sought to be litigated by a petitioner for intervention are within the scope of an operating license proceeding, the petitioner has failed to submit an ad.
misable contention, and his peution for intervention will be demed.
LSP-84-7 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Sheaton Harns Nuclear Plant Uruts I and 2), Docket Nos.
50-400, 50-401 (ASLBP No. 32 468 01-OL); OPERATING LICENSE; January 27, 1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensms Board rules on several motions for summary disposition concerning health effects associated with normal operation of a nuclear power riant, grantmg them in part and denyms them in part. The Board found that under the circumstances they would be warranted in calling their own capert witness to the evidentiary heanns in order to ensure substantive consid-i erauon of the issues.
B Because the proponent of a motion for summary disposition has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of matenal fact, it does not necessarily follow that a motion supported by affidavits will automatically prevail over an opposnion not supported by-affidavits. The Board must scrutimze the monon to determine whether the movant's burden has been met.
C An opponent of a summary dispostion motion must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genume issue of fact It would frequently not be sufficient for an opponent to rely on a
quotauons from or citations to published work of researclers who have apparently reached con-clusions at vanance with the movant's affiants Such publis work is typically produced with other objectives in mind and may not focus directly on the precise issue in contention. While a licens-ing board may, in its discretion, consider publications referenced in oppositior to (or in support 00 a motaon for summary disposition to determine whether a movant has met its burden, it is
,),
under no obligation to do so.
4
~
D The Commismon's decision in Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Foa Station. Umts h.
L}
I and 2), CL1-80-31,12 NRC 264 (1980) has the cliect of difTerentiating health effects conten-o i
y ; [i,.'it {i tions from other contentions in the summary disposnion content. An opponent of summary dis-
"~'J
{
position in the health efTects area must have some new (post 1975) and substantial evidence that
.1 casts doubt on the BEIR Report esumates. Furthermore, he must be prepared to present that evi-
+
'2 ?.
dence through quahfied witnesses at the hearing.
E A4udicatory boards should give the Staff every opportumty to explain, correct, or supple-ment its testimony before resorting to outside experts of their own, and must articulate good I
reason to suspect the validity and completeness of the Staff's work. A board must be seisfied that it has no realisue alternatne to call in a board witness, that it simply cannot otherwise reach i
an informed decision on the issue involved.
F The following techmcal issue is discussed: Cancer Risk Estimates.
LBP-84-8 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electne Stanon Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446; OPERATING LICENSE; January 30, 1984; MEMOR ANDUM 6
13
~
1
+
v DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-84-9 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1),
Docket No. 50-460-CPA (ASLBP No.83-485 02-CPA); CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; February 1,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
in a proceedmg to determine whether Applicant has demonstrated " good cause" for the construction completion date in the construction permit to be estcoded, the Licensing Board grants Applicact's and NRC Staf!'s motions for summary disposition in Applicant's favor.
B Where the Applicant has demonstrated valid reasons for delaying construction, the Board will permit the construction completion date to be extended without reaching a jiadament on the advisability of compleung the plant C
The reasonaoleness of the period of the requested construction completion date extension cannot be challenged on grounds of insufGciency.
D A consideration of the health, safety or environmental effects of delaying construction cannot be heard at the construction permit extension proceeding, but must await the operstmg license stage.
LBP-84-10 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Stauon, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446; OPERATING LICENSE; February 8, 1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Based on a review of the history of the case, the Licensing Board concludes that Appli-cant had a fair opportunity to prove its case concerning quahty assurance for design and that there is no reason to correct a previous decision to clarify that the Board's conclusions were based on the record.
B Criterion XVI of Appendix B to Part 50 requires the proinpt identiGcation of design deficiencies, but it does not require that those deficiencies be called "nonconformances." No par-ticulst termmology is mandated.
C Criterion XVI of Appendia B to Part 50 is consonant with 10 C.F.R. { 50.55(e). The former requires a system for promptly identifying deficiencies, including design deficiencies. The latter requires the prompt reportmg to the NRC of serious deficiencies.
D Absent some special procedural consideration, proposed findings of fact may make new arguments about record evidence. Allegedly contrary precedent is not persuasive.
E Motions for reconsideration are for the purpose of pointmg out an error the Board has made. Unless the Board has rehed on an unexpected ground, new factual evidence and new argu-j ments are not relevant in such a motion.
F Applicant is not subject to the same standards for reopening the record as are intervenors. It is neither logical nor proper to close down a multi-billion-dollar nuclear plant be-cauw of a deficiency of proof. However, repeated failures of proof would jeopardize intervenor's right to due process and would require the demal of a license.
G The follo*ms technical issues are discussed: Pipe support stability; U-bolts cinched up around pipes; U-bolts made of SA-36 steel, clamping force; Local pipe stresses from pipe C.;,
supports; U-bolts, overtensionmg; Relationship of ASME Code and AWS Code, pipe supports; Richmond inserts, axial torsson.
[
LBP 84-ll CAROLIN A POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, H
Unit 2), Docket No. 50-261-OLA (ASLBP No. 83-484-03-LA); OPERATING LICENSE o
3 AMENDMENT; February 10,1984; ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING A
The Licensms Board dismisses this proceeding Gndmg that the withdrawal o all remain-r ing contentions by the sole intervenor has eliminated the basis for which the adjudicatory hearms
. e uns ordered.
LBP.84-13 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et at (South Teams Project. Units I and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL. STN $6-499-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-421-07-OL); OPERAT-ING L! CENSE; March 14,1984; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION A
The Licensing Board issues a Partial Initial Decision which resolves various quality 4
assurance / quality control issues raised by the Commission in CLI-80 32,12 NRC 281 (1980),
l
(
together with Intersenors' contennons related to those QA/QC issues. The Board also denies a motion to reopen the record. The Board rules that, subject to possible modification in later n-Is 14 eao 4 j
..v._
c-...
c m
i 6
4 e
L v
J DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS v
phases of the proceeding, there is currently no basis for conclud.ng (1) that the reasonable assur.
ance findmss contemplated by 10 C.F.R. ( $0.57 cannot be made, or (2) that flL&P currently lacks managerial competence or character sufficient to preclude an eventual award of operatmg 5
hcenses for the facility. The Board is requiring a report in Phase II of the proceedmg concerning 3
QA/QC activities performed following the assumption of duties by a new architect.
4 engineer / construction manager and a new construction contractor.
B Character and competence are fundamental requirements for an operating license appleant. They are implicit in, and hence stem from the Atomic Energy Act, specifically Sections 103 and 182a,42 U.S.C. Il 213)(b)(2) and 2232(a),
C There is a marked distinction between the competence and character requirements for an operating hcense applicant. Ahhough the factors which compnse character or competence may 4
overlap, they nevertheless constitute separate id distinct (and cumulative) requirements.
' 1 D
Issues which may bear upon management competence include: (1) whether an apph-4 cant's staff and management have suffrient technmal and managerial expertise and experience (i.e., demonstrated knowledge, judgment, and skill) to construct the plant properly and operate i
it safely, (2) whether an applicant's staff and management are organizationally structured so as y
to permit and encourage the unhindered application of their expertise and emperience, and (3)
?
whether an apptwant's programs and procedures require the application of that espertise and et.
perience and are consistent with goals of the Commission's regulanons and the Atomic Energy Act. That third ;ssue may also be charactenzed as the adequacy of an apphcant's wntien quahty assurance / quality control program (s).
E Character is, among other thmss, a measure of the likehhood that an apphcant will apply
' 3 its technical competence to elTect the Commission's health and safety (or environmental) i standards.
j F
The character of an operating license applicant is compnsed of many traits relevant to Q~s the construction or operation of a nuclear plant. Among those traits are truthfulness and candor, the manner in which the applicant has reacted to construction noncompliances or.
a
- D nonconformances, its assumptson of responsibility for the facility under construction, add the s
' $. ; c ", t a degree to which it attempts to stay informed about the facility.
i.
G In evaluating an applicant's character and competence, all relevant circumstances must
., ~
7-be considered, includmg reformation of character and improvement in competence.
i H
Failure of one or more individuals to demonstrate adequate competence or character y
.,y.,,'
does not per se indicate a lack of organizational competence or character (and vice versa). In
, }j; j
1W.c%
evaluatirig the competence or character of an organization, such factors as the role of particular
+
. +
,- - i - j, l'
~, M,?~'
individuals in the organization, the responsibilities they exercise, the seriousness and frequency
_y' s
)
of any deficiencies attributable to them, and the steps taken by the organization when deficten.
6 1
cies are discovered must be balanced.
. C,]
4
.1.
1he presence or absence of intent, or of knowledge of falsity of a statement,is irrelevant -
I h'
{j3*3 to the technical question of whether or not a matenal false statement has been made. Virginia
. %. g.
N Electr.c and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), CLI-76-22,4 NRC 480, 1y.. ~ W s $.4 C.j 483, 486-87 (1976), aff'd, 571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978). On the other hand, such intent and r
- v. -,, -
.., 7 ; 7 knowledge are pertinent to the effect of false statements on an applicant's character.
s T-0 Q J
The circumstance that a deficiency was properly reported under 10 C.F.R. { 50.55(e) is
~
" : n -,
not relevant to whether the deficiency represented a violation of the quality assurance require-
- E ments of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendin B.
K The quahty assurance critena of 10 C F R. Part 50,' Appendit B particularly Criteria Il
~
and V, apply to construction activities such as surveyms.
t 4 as well as the establishment of a QA program. A failure in implementation may constitute a vio-L The quahty amurance enteria of 10 C.F R. Part 50 Appendix B, control implementation 1 ' /~ ML ', %
s
- ,, 3 1 ax" lation of Appendia B.
A ilP k
M To the entent that surveying represents a construction activity rather than a test,it is not
'* y
- e. s. s
. J governed by to C.F.R Part 50, Appendit 8, Criterion XI (" Test Control).
. ~. _ _ i M. f
(
~,' '
[j N
A motion to reopen a record must be timely and must address significant safety (or environmental) issues. Where the record of a proceeding (or at least of a major phase thereon is s
l s
i 15 4
W g
i r
l i
1
.gss 6-t i
b, l
1 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS closed, the information sought to be included in the record must be material and significant -
i.e., to have at least the potential for altering a result which might otherwise be reached. To meet this standard, the proponent must offer new and sigmficant factual information. The
" timeliness" test is subsidiary to that of matenality or significance.
LBP-84-14 MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), Docket No. 50-309-OLA ( ASLBP No. 80-437-02-LA); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 9,1984; ORDER A
Upon review of an Agreement reached among the parties, the Licensing Board grants in-tervenors' motions to withdraw their contentions and requests for hearing, and authonzes the is-suance of a hcense amendment.
LBPg415 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY sd 'lORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harris F,aclear Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos.
50-400, 50-401 ( ASLBP No.82-468 01-OL); OPF%ATING LICENSE; March 15,1984; M EMO-RANDUM AND ORDER A
On requests for reconsideration, the Lie msms Board rejects certain health effects conten-tions relatmg to estimates of genetic damage anc cancer caused by radiation because a previously 1
expected Board witness had become unavailable and because it appeared that the Intervenors' i
proposed witnesses could not shed any additional h,'ht on the contentions. The Board also rules
}
on several other contentions and procedural questions.
t LBP-g4-15A ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY RESEARCH INSTI'IUTE (TRIGA-Type Research Reactor). Docket No 50-170 (ASLBP No. 81-45101-LA); FACILITY LICENSE RENEWAL; 3
(Cobalt-60 Storage Facihty), Docket No. 30-6931 (ASLBP No. 82-469-01-SP), BYPRODUCTS MATERIAL LICENSE RENEWAL; March 15,1984. OR DER I
A In this Order, the Licensing Boa-d grants the joint motions of Licensee. NRC Staff and Intervenor resolving all remastung issues and dismisses the proceeding.
LBP-84-16 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRaC COMPANY (Limenck Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-3 3-OL: OPERATING LICENSE; March 16,1984; MEMO.
RANDUM AND ORDER A
in a wntien confirmation of an oral ruhng, tige Board, exercising jurisdiction over a pro-posed Pan 70 license, denies a motion to admit contentions, a motion to stay receipt of new fuel at the Limenck site, and a petition to intervene and request for heanns adoressed to the Director of Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards.
B Licensing boards estabhshed to conduct hearings on operating licenses also have jurisdic-tion over issues ansing under apphcations for Part 70 licenses to receive and store unitradiated fuel at the nuclear pc r plant. This junsdiction can be asserted on the grounds of 10 C.F.R.
l 2.717(b), which gra.s the presiding omcer in an operating license proceeding the power to modify "as appropnate.'or the purpose of the proceeding" any Staff order "related to the subject matter of the pendmg proceeding." Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nucicas Station) LBP-79-24.10 NRC 226 (1979). In amtming the Diablo Canyon Licensing Board's as-sertion of junsdiction over a matenals license proceeding, the Commission said, "that hcense is
,y integral to the Diablo Canyon project...Given that Board's familiarity with the Diablo Canyon project, it made good practical sense for it to hear and decide the related issues raised by s
the Part 70 matenals hcense application." Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-76-I,3 NRC 73,74 n.1 (1976).
C Section 2.717(b), which grants the presiding omcer in an operating license proceeding the power to modify "as appropnate for the purpose of the proceedms" any Staff order "related j
to the subject matter of the pending proceeding," does not postpone the board's jurisdiction over the related order until the Staff has actually issued the order. The purpose of Section 2.717(b) j clearly is to permit integration of an operating license proceeding with Staff orders on matters related to that proceedmg. Common sense says that this integration can take place, indeed is often more emcient if it takes place, before the Staffissues an order on a related matter. See Cleveland Electric tiluminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-83-38,18
}
]
NRC 61,63 (19sD.
1 I
16
=
m y
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS D
Though it is unusual for a judicial body to exercise junsdiction where it is not sought by the petitioner, a board's exercise of junsdiction over a petition addre. sed to the Diredor of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards to intervene on a proposed Part 70 license is not an act of Constitutional dimensions, it makes sense for the board to rule on the peution, for it knows the parties and the circumstances of the case. If the board were to decline jurisdiction now and let the petition follow the path the intervenor intended it to, it would. given past pracuce, hkely be the hcensing board delegated the responsibihty of conducung a heanns on the subject of the pention.
E The admissibility of the Intervenors' Part 70 motions, though filed several months after the Applicant filed for a Part 70 license, and years after the start of the operaung hcense hearings, is not to be measured by the criteria for late-filed contentions in 10 C.F.R.
) 2.714(a)(1) and Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stauon, Umts I and 2), CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041 (1933), for the Applicant did not comply with a standmg order in this proceeding to serve all relevant papers on the Board and parties. An intervenor should be expected to foresee that an Apphcant would have to receive unirradiated fuel before low-power testing and that such fuel etW have to be outside at the sate for a firute time, but not that the Apphcant would re-quest t'.at a fuellicense be issued before a low power operating license, or that the fuel might be stored outside for months, or that there would have to be a security plan tailored to such storage because the normal facihty secunty plan would nct be implemented as a prerequisite.
F Despite a standing Board orJer to serve on the Board and part'es papers related to the operaung bcense heanng, the Apphcant did not serve its new fuel heense apphcahon and amend-ments thereto, thus delaying the Intervenors' responses to the apphcation. The delay has enabled the Applicant to argue that the Intervenors' responses were late-filed. Had the Appio cant's argumtat been accepted, the Applicant, by merely delaying the service of relevant information, would in efTect have tightened the standards for admitting contentions. Thus the cir-cumstance here is an exception to the Commission's general behef that manipulauon of the availability of licensing documents (here the device of limited service contrary to expectations) was unhkely to occur. See Catawba, supra,17 NRC at 1047.
G Staff counsel did not learn of the Apphcant's apphcation for a Part 70 license until an amended application was filed months later. Staff counsel then informed the Board and the Inter-venors of the amended application, thus giving the Intervenors their first information about the j
ongmal applicahon, but by then the Apphcant was already in a posiuon to argue that the Interve-
+
i nors' filings in response to the onginal apphcation were late. It may someumes be difficult for l
Staff counsel to be relevantly informed. However, the StafT appears before us in these proceed-ings as one body. Counsel should be informed when its chent is considering a Part 70 application. Indeed, the Staff should assure that the Board and all parties in a nuclear facility proceeding, as well as its own counsel, are given prompt notice that a Part 70 hcense related to the facility is being considered.
H Section 50 91(a)(4), which makes the issuance of an operating license amendment effec.
tive before any required heanns only if no sigmficant hazards considerauons are involved Joes q
not imply that an intervenor's petition for a hearing on a proposed amendment to a new fuel license could, by virtue of its being filed, stay the effectiveness of any Staff issuance of the e
amendment.
I Final orders on monons related to Part 70 heenses to receive and store unirradiated fuel issued during an operating hcense heanns are appealable upon issuance. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 76-1,3 NRC 73,74 (1976). Ap-peals should be directed to the Commission, unless the Commission specifically delegates appel-late junsdiction to the Appeal Board. M at 74 n.l; 10 C.F.R. I 2.785.
J The following technicst issues are discussed: New Fuel Stored Outside - Cnucahty
~
i9 Accidents Cnticahty Momtonng, Non-Cnucality Accidents Secunty Plan.
- s L8P-84-17 KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Wolf Creek Generaung Station, Umt No.1), Docket No. 50-482 (ASLBP No. SI 453-03-OL); OPERATING LICENSE
- March 26, 1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensms Board demes an admittedly untimely petition for leave to intervene filed during the course of a hearing which was beins held to consider the sole controverted issue of 17
r 4
t -
i-e 4
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS emergency planning. After balancing the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1), the Board concluded that the peutson, seeking to raise quality assurance / quality control matters, should not be granted.
B-la order to determine whether an untimely petition for leave to intervene should be allowed, the Board must balance the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(l).
C
- Good cause" for a late filing depends wholly upon the substantiality of the reasons as-l, signed for not having filed at an earlier date. South Carolina Elecinc and Gas Co. (Virgil C.
[:
Summer Nuclear Station, Unit I), ALAB-642,13 NRC 881,887 n.$ (1981).
L D
If the controlling facts relating to the excuse for the untimely filing are not controverted I.
by the petitioner's affidavits, the Board must take them as true. Florida Power & Light Co. (St.
Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-420,6 NRC 8,13 (1977), af!'d, CLI-7812, 7 NRC 939 (1978).
E Petitioners for lease to intervene, as well as intervenors, are required to diligently uncov-
. 1, L
e er and apply all publicly available information. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon. Units 1'
1 I and 2), CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041,1048 (1983); Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), LBP-83-42,18 NRC 112,117, aft'd, ALAB 743,18 NRC 387 (1983).
f' F
If it is the petitioner's position that its newly acquired organizauonal existence was suffi-cient to justify belated intervention, such an explanation for the tardy filing cannot carry the day J
because the necessary consequence would be that parties to the proceeding would never be deter.
mined with certamty untd the final curtain fell. No adjudicatory process could be conducted in an order!y and expeditious manner if subjected to such a handa:ap. Carohna Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1-4) ALAB 526,9 NRC 122,124 (1979).
G Where no good excuse is tendered for the tardy filing, the petitioner's demonstrauon on i
th. four other factors in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) must be particularly strong. Mississippi Power 3
~ & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 704,16 NRC 1725,1730 (1982); Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station Units I,2 and 3), ALAB 431,6 NRC 460, 462 (1977).
4
,j H
The second and fourth factors in 10 C.F R. 6 2.714fa)(1) are of relatively minor impor-g-'
4 tance in the weidhing process. Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2),
-1 ALAB 707,16 NRC 1760,1767 (1982).
11 I
It is the petitioner's ability tu contribute sound evidence - rather than asserted legal u
~1 skills - that is of significance in considering a late filed petition to intervene. Houston Lighting
.-,j and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Stanon, Unit I), ALAB-671,15 NRC 508, l
$13 n.14 (1982).
} 4."... pj J
Even though we are told that four of its co-counsel actively participated in the construc-i
^
s
,4 ; y tion hearings, we cannot conclude that the petitioner's participation could reasonably be expected 2
- c, Q dy to assist in developing a sound record since the issue that it would litigate here bears no resem-N blance to any contested issue that confronted the Licensing Board in the construction permit a
s
.W, h proceeding. Long Island Lightmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), ALAB-74),
^. j-t t.;j - p 18 NRC 387,401 (1983).
v,,
,.'y:
't d
i y
- fg.]
4
- s
- A.
1.
.P 4
5 '.-
E
~
J
. r.
- T 4
18
?
e.
j
+?4 y
=, = =,.
.-a=
,.../ '.L*,.
.,y.
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-84-1 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power 71.ra, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-440; REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION January 9,1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.206 A
The Director of the Omce of Inspechon and Enforcement demes a petition requestmg an independent analysis of a crane accident dunns construction of Perry Unit I, access by the gener-al pubhc to the plant, and imtiation of show-cause proceedings to revoke the construction permit. The Director found that adequate analyses of the accident had been performed and that appropnate corrective actions had been taken.
B The staff wdl not minate immediate action to grant the relief requested m a { 2.206 peti.
tion in the absence of a demonstration that an imminent hazard to public health and safety exists which warrants immediate relief.
C Show-cause proceedings may be mitiated if a substanual health and safety issue is raised, but the Commissaon will not insutute such proceedings to explore the purely economic impacts of licensed activities.
DD-84-2 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant. Units I and 2). Docket Nos.
50-329, 50-330; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; January 12, 1984; SUPPLEMENTAL DIREC-TOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206 A
The Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement grants a portion of a petition granted in part and denied in part on October 6.1983 (DD-83-16,18 NRC 1123).
DD-84-3 CINCINN ATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), Docket No. 50-358; REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 13, 1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. ) 2.206 A
The Director of the Omce of Inspection and Enforcement denies a peution submitted by l
Thomas Devine of the Government Accountabdity Project on behalf of the Miami Valley Power i
Project requesting action with respect to the William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station.
DD-84-4 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION IThree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), Docket No. 50-320; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; February 17, 1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.206 A
The Director of the Omce of N.aclear Reactor Regulanon denies a petition submitted by Marvin Lewis requesung that the Commissicn postpone the lifting of the reactor pressur vessel head at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit 2.
B Based upon the staff's reviews and capenence to date, there does not appear to be an undue nsk to pubhc health and safety from the possible formation af pyrophonc matenals in the pressure vessel.
DD-84-5 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station). Docket No. 50-293; REQUEST FOR ACTION; February 27,1984; INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 A
The Director of the Omce of Inspection and Enforcement grants in part and dentes in part a petition submitted by tu Massachusetts Public Intirest Research Group re msting that the NRC Lake action with respect to the state of emergency plannmg at Pilgnm facility. Among the specific relief requssted was the initiation of the 4-monti penod specified by the Commis-mon's regulanons within which to correct the alleged deficiencies at the Pilgnm facdity and con-oderation by the Commission as to whether the state of emergency preparedness in conjuncuon 19 c
4
'^
.f.
/
r DIGESTS i
ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS 4
j with the alleged poor safety record at the Pilgnm facility warrants immediate shutdown or opera-non of the facility at reduced power, B
The Federal Emergency Management Agency takes the lead in offsite emergency plan-s Cl mag and reviews and assesses State and local emergency plans for adequacy. The NRC assesses
]-
the licensee's site emergency plans for adequacy and makes decisions with regard to the overall state of emergency preparedness.
j C
The Commission's regulations preclude an Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) radius signi-ficantly in excess of 10 miles. An EPZ of about 10 miles is considered large enough to provide a response base which would support activity outside the planning zone should this ever be needed.
D The Commission has adopted an approach to emergency plannmg in which evacuation is only one of several possible responses to an emergency. It is unlike!y that evacuation of the entire plume EPZ would be required in the event of an accident. Pending a final determination regarding the adequacy of evacuation time estimates, it is reasonable to conclude that the public health and safety will be reasonably assured in the interim by continued licensee compliance with Commission requirements regarding emessency planning and other health and safety re-emrements aimed at keepmg the probability of senous accidents very low.
DD-84-6 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (AND ALL LIGitT-WATER REACTORS) i rLaSalle County Station. Units I and 2). Docket No. 50-373; IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUEST; March 16,1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2.206 A
The Director of the OfTice of Nuclear Reactor Resu!ation denies peutions by Edward M.
Gogol allegmg that there are severe errors, defects and loopholes in the integrated leak rate test-l ing (ILRT) methodology now in use. The pentions sought a venery of rehef including requests l
for immediate action such as placmg the LaSalle Unit I of the Commonwealth Edison Company 6
in cold shutdown, ceasirig further construction and hcensmg activities with respect to LaSalle Unit 2 and Byron Unit I and shut *.mg down reactors with insufficient evidence of adequate con-tainment leak rate testing.
B Should a peuuoner pursuant to 10 C.F.R. { 2.206 wish to initiate a rulemaking, the proce, dures set forth in 10 C.F R. { 2.802 should be followed.
C The Director will not institute proceedings.in response to a petition under 10 C.F.R.
j 2.206 to consider an issue the Commission is treating generically through rulemaking.
D The Commission's requirements for inteersted leak rate testing are set out in 10 C.F R.
{ 50.54(o) and Appendix J to 10 C.F.R. Part 50. While the Commission's reqmrements for in.
tegrated leak rate testing continue to provide reasonable assurance that the pubhc health and i
safety is adequately protected, the NRC StalT has under way a review of leak rate tesung require.
ments to see whether modtfications to these requirements are appropriate. The Commission has i
f.T placed leak rate testing for water cooled power reactors on its Regulatory Agenda.
U DD.84-7 WASillNGTON PUBLIC POWER SLPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2).
pP Docket No. 50-397; REQUEST FOR SilOW-CAUSE PROCEEDING; March 19.1984, DIREC.
3-TOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. { 2.206
, R hn.
A The Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement denies a petition of the Coali-tion for Safe Power requesting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission insutute show-cause pro-
,, ; t 4*
ceedings pursuant to In C.F.R. { 2.202 to determine whether the construction permit for the
$ Q, m 4 '_
Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2) should be revoked, a 3-E, stay cf construction imposed, the pending application for an operatn6 license denied, and hear.
'j ings estituted before an Atomic Safety and Licensms Board. The petition alleged as its support-
-I ing bases deficiencies primanly in the construction and management of the WNP-2 facility.
s B
lt would be unreasonable to hmge the grant of an NRC operating license upon a demon-
~,
stration of error-free construction. What is required is a careful considerauon of whether all as-r certained construction errors have been cured and whether the errors indicate that there has been a breakdown in quality assurance procedures of sufficient dimens;on to raise legiumate doubt as to the overall inteenty of the facihty and its safety-related structures and components.
{
Urnon Electric Co. (Callaway Plant. Unit 1). ALAB-740,18 NRC 343. 346 (1983).
1 f
C An order to show cause is appropnate in those instances in which the NRC concludes.
2 ts based upon alleged viclations by the licensee or potennally hazardous conditions or other facts, I}
23 1
.,,,ym.
.-y N
q 4 gA t-
.g-
vgpi.,o
, + -
- s 9
4 J
P W
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS I
^
l that enforcement action should be taken but that a basis could reasonably exist for not taking the enforcement action proposed. See 10 C.F.R. I 2.202(a)(1) and 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendia C.1IV.
9-D Sufficient grounds must be present for the NRC to insutute a show-cause proceedmg.
^
1 The standard to se applied in determining whether to issue a show<ause order is whether sub-j stantial health or safety issues have been raised.
l DD;84-8 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Unit 1), Docket No. 50-275; OPERATING LICENSE SUSPENSION REQUEST; March 26, 1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 A
The Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement denies a petition under 10 C.F.R. l 2.206 Gled by the joint intervenors in the Diablo Canyon operating license proceeding.
-l The joint intervenors contended that the low-power license for Diablo Canyon Unit I should be revoked or at least remain suspended on the basis of the licensee's failure to report a 1977 audit of the quality assurance program of the licensee's prime piping contractor. Although the Director finds that the failure to report the audit constituted a material false statement under the Atomic Energy Act, the Director did not find revocation or suspension of the license to be an appropnate remedy for the reporung failure.
B Section 50.55(e) does not require the reporting of every design or construction deficiency, but requires holders of construction permits to evaluate identified deficiencies and g.
report sigmficant deficiencies as defined by the regulation.
C The licensee is found to have made a material false statemert by not reporting an audit of its prime piping contractor's quality assurance program where quality assurance was an issue s
?
being heard in the operating license proceeding and the audit on its face appeared to contradict the licensee's testimony in the proceedmg.
D The fact that an item is not reportable under 10 C.F.R. ) 50.$$(e) may not obviate reporting under the " full disclosure" standards of section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act.
E Not every violation of Commission requirements mandates the severe sanction of hcense revocation. The choice of sanctions for violations of NRC requirements rests within the sound discretion of the Commission.
2 l
F In view of the minimal sigmficance of the material false statement (i.e.. failure to report) here, and upon consideration of enforcement actions for other material false statements, a Notice of Violation is the most appropriate enforcement action for the failure to report the quali.
ty assurance audit.
g
-f,
, - v-y.
- u k
4 i
i f
. t a,
4 y
f 5
g.
f h
T 4
b 21 5
a E
>n-
+
y
--.u
"+-
% 0'
' 'b WY4
,I #ge A
N '
f[
Wgg.* "[
W]
,,J 9
9 t
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES l
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,398 U.S.144,156-61 (1970)
{
burden on proponent of motion for summary disposition; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 435 (1984)
Alabama Power Co. Ooseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-182,7 AEC 210, modified on other grounds, CL17412,7 AEC 203 (1974) apphcation of resjudicata and collateral estoppel to operaung license proceedings; ALAB-759,19 NRC 25 n.40 (1984)
Apicella v. McNeil Laboratones, Inc.,66 F.R.D. 78,84 (E.D.N.Y.1975) limits on appimation of First Amendment pnvilege of the press; ALAB-764,19 NRC 640 (1984)
Anzona Pubis Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-742,18 NRC 380,383 (1983) showmg necessary to invoke appellate directed certificadon authont,, ALAB 762,19 NRC 568 n.9 (1984)
Armed Forces Radaobiology Research Institute (Cobalt-60 Storage Facihty) ALAB-682,16 NRC 150, 157-59 (1982) (Eilpenn, concurring) regulations and statutes requinns notice of matenals license actions; ALAB-765,19 NRC 652 n.10 (1984)
Atlants Research Corp, ALAB-594,11 NRC 841,856 59 (1980)
NRC enforcement pohey on applicanon of penalties, DD-84 8,19 NRC 933 n.13 (1984)
Atlantic Research Corp., CLI-80-7, II NRC 413,42122,424 (1980) responsibihty of hcensee for reporting knowiedge of information in possession of its contractors; DD-84-8,19 NRC 932 (1984)
Saker v. FAF Investment,470 F.2d 778,783 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied,411 U.S. 966 (1973) sprimab hty of First Amendment pnvilege to orgarutation gathermg confidential informauon about safety problems at nuclear plant; ALAB-764,19 NRC 639,640,641 (1984)
Branzburg v. Hayes,408 U.S. 665,690 n 29 (1972) court stutude toward extenmon of testimonial pnvileges; ALAB-764,19 NRC 639 t19e4)
Branzburg v. Hayes,408 U.S. 665,70910 (1972) (Powell, J., concurnns) apphcability of First Amendment pnulege to organization gathenns confidentialinformauon about safety problems at nuclear plant; ALAB-764,19 NRC 639,641 (1984)
Bruno & Sullman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co.,633 F.2d $83, $96 (1st Cir.1980) factors balanced in recogmuon of journalist's pnvilege; ALAB-764,19 NRC 641 (1984)
Bruno & Stallman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co.,633 F.2d 583, 598 (1st Cir.1980) means for protecung interests found not to be pnvileged; ALAB-764,19 NRC 643 (1984)
Cape May Green, Inc. v. Warren,698 F.2d 179. at 191-93 nuclear power plant utmg in a floodplain; LBP.84-6,19 NRC 404 (1984)
Carey v. Hume,492 F.2d 631,636 (D C. Cir.), cert. dismissed,417 U.S. 918 (1974) 1 applicabilary of First Amendment pnvilege to organization gathenng confidentialinformation about safety problems at m. clear plant; ALAB-764,19 NRC 639 (1984)
Carey v. Hume,492 F.2d 631,636-39 (D.C. Cir.), cert. dismissed,417 U.S. 938 (1974) factors balanced in recosmtien ofjournahst's pnyslege; ALAB-764,19 NRC 641 (1984)
Carohna Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I,2,3, and 4),
ALAB-526,9 NRC 122,124 (1979) newly acquired organizauonal status as cause for late intervenuon; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 887 n.9 (1984) l
(
23 l
i km waa
%b
r
.,s i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Carolma Power and Light Co. (Shewon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units I,2,3, and 4), LBP 79-19, 10 NRC 37,51 (1979), aff'd and modified, ALAB-557, il NRC 18, CLI-8012. Il NRC 514 (1980) factors considered in judging ari applicant's character; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 676 n.25 (1984) i Carohna Power and Light Co. (Shea on Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units I,2,3, and 4), LBP 79-19, i
10 NRC 37,56-94 (1979) 1 issues which bear on an applica: t's character and competence; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 672 nn.13 &
l 1
16 (1984) l Carr v. Fife,156 U.S. 494,498 (18941
(.
need for disqualification of a judre because of prior associanons with parties to a proceeding; I
ALAB-759,19 NRC 24 n.3511984) f Chemicals in Aggregate Shipments - Midland, Mich. to the East,3261.C.C 657,665 (!%5) l characterization of Memorandum of Findings; ALAB-761,19 NRC 494 n.24 (1984) l Cincinnati Gas and Electre Co. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Stauon), LBP 79-24,10 NRC 226, 228-30 (1979)
[
]
Licensms Board authonty to act oo requests to raise Part 70 issues; ALAB 765,19 NRC 652 (1984); LBP-84-16,19 NRC 862 (1984)
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) ALAB 727,17 '
NRC 760,770,773 (1983) post-hearms resoluuon ofissues by NRC Staff; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 21012,252 (1984) l Cincinnati Gas and Electre Co. (William H. Zimmer Nucicar Power Station, Umt I), ALAB-727,17 NRC 760,776 (1983)
I passms of jurisdicuon over proceedmg withholding authorization for an operatmg license; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 279 (1984)
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William II. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82-48,15 N RC 1549 (1982) passms ofjurisdiction over proceedmg withholding authorization for an operating license; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 279 (1984)
Cleveland Electric Illuminatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-298,2 NRC 730, 737 (1975) 7 Licensing Board delegation ofits responsibilities to NRC Staff; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 210 (1984)
Cleveland Electric illuminaung Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741, 752-54 (1977) burden on proponent of motion for summary dispostion; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 435 (1984)
Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Naclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), DD 8317,18 NRC 1289 (1983) classification of material false statements by severity level; DD 84-8,19 NRC 93435 (1984)
Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Ntclear Power Plant Units I and 2), LBP 83-38,18 NRC 64, 63 (1983)
Licensing Board authority to act on requests to rasse Part 70 issues; ALAB-765,19 NRC 652 (1984); LBP-84-16,19 NRC 864 (1986)
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Stauon, Umts I and 2), DD 815,13 NRC 728 (1981), aff'd sub nom. Rockford League of Women Voters v. NRC,679 F.2d 1218 (7th Cir.1982) instituhon of proceedings to consider economic impacts of construction activities or deficiencies; DD-84-1,19 NRC 475 (1984)
~
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Pcwer Station, Umts I and 2), LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) bass of Board findmas; LBP-84-10,19 NB.C 511 n 4 (1984) effect of applicant's corrective actions on e valuanon of its character and competence; LBP-8413, 19 NRC 721 n.46 (1984)
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station Umtt I and 2), ALAB-226,8 AEC 381,410-11 (1974) responsibility for making 50-57(a)(1) findmss as a precondition to operaung hcense issuance; l
ALAB-758,19 NRC la n.18 (1984); ALAB-762,19 NRC 567 (1984) l Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Stauon, Unitr I and 2), LBP-73-35,6 AEC 861,892-93,898-99 I
(1973), modified on other grounds, ALAB-226,8 AEC 381 (1974)
{
factors considered in judging an applicant's character; LBP-8413,19 NRC 676 nn.25 & 26 (1984)
E 4
l 24 i
I t
~
mm.
7...
N 9
g e
~
~
e%
- r.,
S-J, LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Unit 2), CLI-74-23,7 AEC 947,95152 & n.8 v._
(1974)
..(.]
post-hearing resolution of issues by NRC Staff LBP-84-2,19 NRC 210-12,252 (1984)
~.'
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point. Umt 2), CLI-83-16,17 NRC 1006 (1983) risk to public health and safety pending determination of adequacy of evacuatson time estimates for Pilgrim facility; DD-84-5,19 NRC 553 (1984)
~
Consolidated Edison Co.,f New Yors (Indian Point. Unit 2), LBP-73-33,6 AEC 751,756 (1973),
.i aff'd, ALAB-188,7 AEC 323,336 (1974) factors conadered in judging an applicant's character; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 676 n.26 (1984) 1 Consolidated Edison Co of New York (Indian Pomt, Umt 3), CLI 74-28,8 AEC 7,8-9 (1974) ap,lication of rule against delegation of Licensing Board responsibihties to NRC Staff to issues
.l raised sua sponte; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 211 (1984)
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Umts I,2 and 3), CLI-75-8,2 NRC 173,176 (1975) l standard applied in determimns whether to issue a show-cause order; DD-84-7,19 NRC 923 n.16
,j j
(1984)
,f Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB-101,6 AEC 60,65 (1973) summary of disqualiGcation standards applicable to Licensing Board members; ALAB-759,19 NRC 20 n.24 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-106,6 AEC 182,184 (1973) relationship between competence and character; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 671. 672,676,687 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 123,6 AEC 331,332-33 (1973) s Licensms Board discretion to make findings and conclusions; LBP-84-l),19 NRC 703 (1984)
,j Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-691,16 NRC 397,907 (1982)
'Q responsibihties of parties regarding partscipation; ALAB 761,19 NRC 493 n.20 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-69),16 NRC 897,914 (1982), review declined, CLI 83-2,17 NRC 69 (1983) responsibilities of parties to inform Board and parties of significant new informatson; ALAB-765, 19 NRC 657 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 74-3,7 AEC 7. !! il974) weight given to truthfulness of an operatmg license applicant; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 674 (1984) l Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-83-2,17 NRC 69,70 (1983) importance of an applicant's truthfulness to character determination; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 675 (1984)
,~"
- Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units I and 2), LBP 83-50,18 NRC 242,247-49 (1983) weight give.n to timeliness of motion to reopen a record, LBP-84-13,19 NRC 716 (1984)
Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. (Starks v. Chrysler Corp.),32 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1373 2
(5 D.N.Y.1981)
.. ~
s
- i 1
Nd, limits on apphcation of First Amendment privilege of the press; ALAB-764,19 NRC 640 (1984)
Darlington v. Studebaker Packard Corp.,261 F.2d 903,906-07 (7th Cir.), cert demed,359 U S. 992 dI t
(1959) i '{:
need for disquahncation of a judge because of prior associations with parties to a proceeding; i
.h ALAB-759,19 NRC 24 n.35 (1984) 4j Detroit Edison Co. (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant Umt 2) ALAB 707,16 NRC 1760,1767 d
(1982)
?g importance given to factors 2 and 4 of to C.F.R. 2.714(a)(l); LBP-84-17,19 NRC 887 n.Il s
(1984)
Detroit Edison Co (Ennco Ferm: Atomic Power Plant Urut 2), ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1983) intervenor not penalized for failure to Gle proposed Gndmss of fact; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 681
, - i
.o
,~
12,4,N d
n.35 (1984)
A
~
penalty for fadure to Gle proposed Gndings on an issue; ALAB-763,19 NRC 577 (1984)
Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Umt 2), LBP-791,9 NRC 73,78 (1979)
~,,
,.,, i satisfaction of interest requirement for intervention through geographical proximity; LBP 84-6, 19 NRC 410 (1984) e e
4 1
7.
4 l
y i
,f' gw-e
,g..pe,a i v.s.
e c g;
-. + -
e.-
+--w
t.,.--
rw +..
,er
-g
i s
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES in re Dmnan,661 F.2d 426,427 31 (Stit Cir.1981), cert denied 457 U.S.1106 (1982) anplicatson of scholar's pnvilege; ALAB-764,19 NRC 640 n.10 (1984)
Duffield v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.,503 F.2d 512, $17 (4th Cir.1974) disquahfication standards applicable to Licensing Board members; ALAB-759,19 NRC 20 n.23 (1983)
I Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-355,4 NRC 397,405 n.19 (1976) burden of proof on applicant; ALAB-763,19 NRC 577 n.22 (1984)
Duke Pcwer Co. (Catamba Nuclear Stanon Umts I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,467-70 (1982),
modined, CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983) huganon of concerns based on unavailable ms;erials; ALAB-758,19 NRC 12 n.19 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon Umts I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,468 (1982) need for particularization of contentions; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 412 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station Umts I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,469 (1982) factors considered in admission of late-filed contentions; LBP-84. I,19 N RC 31 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stauon, Units I and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983) factors consadered in admission of late-filed contentions LBP-84-1,19 NRC 31 (1984) inapphcability oflate-filing critena to late-filed Part 70 contentions; ALAB-765,19 NRC 656 (1984) r
+
Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983) prematunty of contentions; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 406 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1047 (1983) applicabdity oflate films critena to contentions addressms unnoticed application for Part 70 I
hcense; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 866,867 (1984) t Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1048 (1983) responsibihues ofintervenors regarding information-gathenng; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 887 n.8 i
(1984) l Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Stauon, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-745,18 NRC 746 (1983) termination oflimited appellate junsdiction; ALAB-760,19 NRC 27 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Perkms Nuclear Station, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-431,6 NRC 460,462 (1977) weight given to other factors where good cause is not established for late intervention; LBP 8417,19 NRC 887 n.10 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Stanon, Umts I and 2), AI.AB-128,6 AEC 399,407 (1973) factors considered in judging an applicant's character; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 676 nn.25 & 26 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuelear Station Units I and 2), ALAB-143,6 AEC 623, 625 26 (1973) resronsibihty of parties to kiform Boards of relevant new information; DD-84-8,19 NRC 928, 932 (1984)
Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Umt 1), LBP-76-3,3 NRC 44,50-51 (1976) factors considered in judging an apphcant's character; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 676 nn.25 & 26 (1984)
FCC v. WOKO, Inc.,329 U.S. 223 (1946) penalty for material false statement; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 674,676,678 (1o84)
- fi Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Umt No. 2), ALAB-420,6 NRC 8,13 (1977), afrd, CLI-78-12, 7 NRC 939 (1978)
+
standard for determming whether good cause exists for a late filing; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 886 n.7 (1984)
Fredonia Broadcas ing Corp. v. RCA Corp.,569 F.2d 251,257 (5th Cir.1978) subjecuve standard for determining a judge's impartiahty; ALAB 759,19 NRC 22 n.29 (1984)
Gulf States Utihues Co. (River Bend Station. Units I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,773 (1977) cntena for accepung a contention based on a genenc issue; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 418 (1984)
Gulf States Unhties Co. (River Bend Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB 444,6 NRC 760,775 (1977)
Staff responsibiliues concernmg genenc unresolved safety issues; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 53 (1984) s Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.,242 U.S. 539,553 (1917) denmtion of " character" relative to an operating license applicant; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 673 (1984) 26
)
l
,\\,;..
, p,,
y..
---a.
r s
q.
4 4
u N
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES
.w Hamlin Testing Laboratones, Inc.,2 AEC 423,428-29 (1964)
.~
willful misrepresentations as grounds for license denial; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 678 n.31 (1984)
Herbert v. Lando. 441 U.5 153,175 (1979) n i
court attstude toward extension of testimonial pnvileges; ALAB-764,19 NRC 639 (1984)
,s Herbert v. Lando,441 U.S.153,177 (1979) right of applicant to learn nature of questions about quality assurance at its facility; ALAB-764,-
19 NRC 644 41984)
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-535,9 NRC 377, 393 (1979) failure to demonstrate representational standing; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 407 (1984)
+
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-582, il NRC 239,243 n.8 (1980) use of status as a ratepayer to establish interest and standing for purpose of intervention; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 429 (1984)
Houston Lighting and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Umt 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542 (1980) dismissal of contention for lack of credible basis; ALAB-765,19 NRC 654 n.13 (1984)
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-67I,15 NRC 508,513 n.14 (1982) contnbution that is of sigmGcance in considering a late-Gled petition to imervene; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 888 n.12 (1984)
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Umts I and 2), ALAB-672,15 NRC 677, 683-85 & n.r9 (1982), rev'd on other grounds, CLI-82-9,15 NRC 1363 (1982) -
authonty to rule on recusal motions; ALAB-759,19 NRC 21 n.26 (1984)
'L Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project. Units 1 and 2), CLI-82-9,15 NRC 1363,
-l 1365 67 (1982) disquatincation standards applicable to Licensing Board members; ALAB-759,19 NRC 20 n.23, 22 n.29,25 n.42 (1983)
V
-j Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units I and 2), LBP-79-10,9 NRC 439, 443-44 (1979)
' ~ 7]
satisfaction ofinterest requirement for intervention through geographical proximity; LBP-84-6, j-19 NRC 410 (1984) t
.i Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station Umt 1), ALAB-462,7 NRC 320,338 s
(1978)
~
<J cnteria to be satisGed by reopening motions; LBP-84-3,19 NRC 283 n.4 (1984)
, ]N'
~
Kerr-McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility) CLI-82-2,15 NRC 232,244-62 (1982), aff'd sub nom. City of West Chicago v. NRC,701 F.2d 632,639 (7th Cir.1983) i need for a hearirig on Part 70 issues; ALAB-765,19 NRC 651,652 (1984)
Kerr McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), CLI-82 21,16 NRC 401 (1982) delegation of Commission authonty to adjudicate materials license cases; ALAB-765,19 NRC
'-. - -Ui O Leflore Broadcasting Company v. FCC,636 F.2d 454 (D.C. Cir.1980) 651 (19s4) penalty for matenal falan statement; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 674,678 (1984)
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) ALAB-156,6 AEC 831,850 t.
(1973) 4 challenges to NRC assessments of the effects oflow-level radiation; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 438 (1984)
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), ALAB-743,18 NRC 387 (1983) factors considered in admission of late-Gled contentions; LBP-84-1,19 NRC 31 (1984) -
.'e 3 -..c.
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Umt I), ALAB-743,18 NRC 387,401 v
(1933) 4
[,
ggf*/,I[
inability o(late intervention petitioner to contnbute to a sound record; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 888 y#
J e
n.13 (1984) j 6
9" og
,9 27 4.
l G'
i F
T
- e,
+
=+-
P t s
g'
"}
9.
f g.re%'$
M.
- h y -4
) Y,. Eg T
. j
- J yg,W
[%
y -
q
.m,,
7
=
r.
_s LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX i
CASES Long laiand Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon. Unit 1). LBP 83-42,18 NRC 112,117, aff'd, ALAB-743 IS NRC 387 (1983) applicability oflate-filing criteria to intervention and contentions; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 887 n.8 (1384)
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076, 1089, 1090 (1983) evaluation of s witness
- posential contribution on the basis of pnor tesumony, LBP-84-7,19 NRC 439 (1984)
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electre Stauon, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076, 1103 (1983) post heanns vc tficanon of quality assurance issues; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 212 (1984)
Louasiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076, e
d i103-04 (1983) post-hearing resoluuon of emergency pianning issues; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 251 (1984)
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3), ALAB-753,18 NRC 1321, 1324, 1328 (1983) cause for denial of moten to reopen the record where imtial dectsson has issued; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 716 n.43 (1984)
Machin v. Zuckert,316 F.2d 336 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 8% (1%3) means for protecung interests found not to tr.avileged; ALAB 764,19 NRC 643 n.15 (1984)
Mame Yankee Atomac Power Co. (Mame Yankt 4tomic Power Station), DD-83-3,17 NRC 327, 329 (1983)
NRC policy concerning institution of show cause proceedings on issues that are the sutvect of rulemaking; DD 84-6,19 NRC 897 (1984)
Mester v, United States, 70 F. Supp. III,122 (E.D.N.Y.1947) defimnon of" character" relative to an operahng license applicant; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 673
,'j (1984)
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile leiand Nucker Station, Unit 1), ALAB 738,18 NRC 177,195 (1983) w.,
-Vi weight given to Department of Justice conclusions in absence of their tesumony in NRC j
proceedings; LBP 8413,19 NRC 718 (1984) 6 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I), CLI-80-5,11 NRC 408,410 1_
(1980) issues which bear on management competence; LBP-8413,19 NRC o72 (1984)
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1), CL1-83-22,18 NRC 299, 307-09 (1983)
['
need for adherence to NUREG 0654 by applicant; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 252 n.85 (1984)
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile
- island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-486,8 NRC 9. 21 (1978) i.
caua6 for denial of monon to reopen the record where imtial decision has issued; LDP-84-13,19
+ t;
- .' s 2 ;7 J
NRC 716 n.43 (1984)
' " gltX9. b '
Metropolitan Edison Co. t People Against Nuclear Energy,75 L. Ed. 2d 534 (1983)
'4
. 4dQL Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-130,6 AEC 423, litigability of psychologscal stress issues; LSP-54-7,19 NRC 441 (1984)
,s
~
s
]
1 426 (1973)
- l"]
^
\\>..
need to judge merits of a contention at the admissmn stage; LBP-84
- 19 NRC 34 (1984)
Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Stat:on, Units I and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC
.7 1725, 1730 (1982)
_p'
-i 4
weight given to other factors where good cause is not establided for late intervention; LBP-84-17.19 NRC 887 n.10 (1984)
Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), LBP-74-64,8 AEC 339, 2
I aff'd, ALAB-232,8 AEC 635 (1974) 5-
?~
[
{
issues which bear on an appiocant's character and competence; LDP-84-13,19 NRC 672 n.16
+
(1984) 4
+
1 28 I
t -
.g
{
4
.k<
a I.,
I
~
, @ h,' p
&+'g' s
e-.m,.2 9-4*
- 1. _
e
=
~
v s
a 1 <
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES National Auto Brokers v. Gen. Motors Corp.,572 F.2d 953,958 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied,439 U.S.1972 (1979) need for disquahrication of a judge because of prior associations with parties to a proceeding; ALAB 759,19 NRC 24 n.35 (1984)
New Engind Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC,727 F.2d 1827 (D.C. Cir.1984) cause for reoperung a record; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 881 (1984)
New Hampshire v. AEC,406 F.2d 170 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,395 U.S. %2 (1%9) need to consider thermal discharge issues as part of licensing process; ALAB-759,19 NRC 17 n.12 (1984)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2) LBP-83-45,18 NRC 213, 216 (1983) means for establishing the need for a heanng; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 426 (1984)
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB-76,5 AEC 312 (1972) recusal of Licensing Board judge on ground of prior consultant relationship with electric utility; ALAB 759,19 NRC 23 n.30 (1984)
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Badly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB-227,8 AEC 416, 418 (1974) cntena to be satisned by reopening motions; LBP 84-3,19 NRC 283 n.4 (1984)
Northern Indiana Pubts Service Co. (Bailly Generstmg Station, Nuclear 1), CLI 78-7,7 NRC 429, 433-34 (1978), afTd sub nom. Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League, Inc. v. NRC, 606 F.2d 1363 (D C Cir.1979) cause for initiation of show-cause proceedings; DD-84-1,19 NRC 475 (1984)
Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generating Plam Units I and 2), ALAB-244,8 AEC 857,864-70 (1974), reconsideration denied, ALAB-252,8 AEC 1875, alTd, CLI-75-1,1 NRC I(1975) participation by former intervenors on site redress issue; ALAB-761,19 NRC 492 n.l? (1984)
Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-455,7 NRC 41,54 (1978)
I Licensing Board issuance of advisory opinions; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 293 (1984)
Northern States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit I), CLI-83-36,12 NRC 523,527 (1980)
M means for establishing the need for a hearing; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 426 (1984)
~
Pacire Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-334, 3 NRC i
809, 817 20 (1976) conditions which must be met before unirradiated fuel can 30 critical:ALAB 765,19 NRC 6C (1984); LBP-84-16,19 NRC 870 (1984)
Pacifs Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-644,13 NRC 903, %2-65 (1981), petitions for review denied, CLI-8212A,16 NRC 7 (1982) i use of tau filtered spectra; ALAB-763,19 NRC 609 n.195 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Electne Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-644,13 o
NRC 903. 994-95 (1981) e' s
burden on proponent of motion to reopen a record; LBP 8413,19 NRC 716,719 (1984)
Pactre Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 756,18 NRC 1340 !!983) enteria to be satisfied by reopening motions; LBP-84-3,19 NRC 283 n.4 (1984) s Pacifs Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-756,18 NRC 1340,1345 (1983) degree of conforrriance required of designs; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 528 n.59 (1984)
Pacire Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CL1-76-1,3 NRC 73, 74 (1976)
MS;as 3~
Appeal Board authonty ever Part 70 licenses; ALAB-765,19 NRC 650 n.6 (1984)
Pacirs Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), CLI 76-l,3 NRC 73,74 n.1 (1976)
' ~,~
~
Licensms Board junsdiction over Part 70 matters; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 862,863 (1984) 29 1
6 I
p
-e n.-
,-w w
.-e w
t
.n.-..m
~
.c 4
r.-
7 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Pacific Gas and Electne Co. (Diatilo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL1-815,13 NRC 361. 363 (1981) cntena to be satisfied by reopening motions; LBP-84-3,19 NRC 283 n.4 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-82-I,15 NRC 225 (1982) application of Notice of holation as penalty for material false statement; DD-84-8,19 NRC 935 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit I) ALAB-550,9 NRC 683,686 n.1 (1979) interlocutory appeals by nonparties to operating license proceedings; ALAB 764,19 NRC 636 n.1
+
(1984)
Pacific Gas and Electne Co. v. State Energy Resources, Conservauon and Development Commission, E
103 S. Ct.1713 (1983) litigability of waste disposalissues; LBP-844,19 NRC 413 (1984)
Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CL1-784,7 NRC 400,405 06 (1978) enforcement action appropriate for material false statement; DD 84-8,19 NRC 933 (1984)
Pennon for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-784,7 NRC 400,418 (1978) weight given to truthfulness of an operating license apphcant; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 675 (1984) 1 Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-726,17 NRC 755 (1983) passing ofjurtsdiction over proceeding withholding autho ization for an operating license; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 279 (1984)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limenck Generaung Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB-726,17 NRC 755,757 (1983)
Licensing Board exercise ofjurisdiction over peuuon directed to Nucle it Material Safety and Safeguards Director: LBP-84-16,19 NRC 864 (1984)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Stauon, Units ! and 2), LBP-834,17 NRC 153 (1983) litigabihty of waste disposalissues; LBP-844,19 NRC 413 (1984)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216,8 AEC I3, 20-21 (1974) reason for basis-with-specificity requirement for contentions; LBP-84-1,19 NRC 34 (1984)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB 701,16 NRC 1517 (1982) y calculation of cancer risk estimates; L8P-84-15,19 NRC 841 (1984)
C Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-701,16 NRC 1517, 1526 (1982) need to project radiation doses into the far future; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 458 (1884)
Philadelphia Electne Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Sta'. son, Umts 2 and 3), CLI-8314,17 NRC
,L 745 (1983); ALAB-701,16 NRC 1517 (1982);litigability of the health effects of radon gas emissions; LSP-84-6,19 NRC 416 (1984)
D-Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Stanon, Units I and 2), ALAB 218,
' h '*. '
8 AEC 79 (1974)
~'
litigability of contentions that are or are about to become the subject of rulemaking; LBP 844
-- i 19 NRC 417 (1984) 5*
Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) ALAB 354,4 NRC 383,392 (1976) full-party participation by a State; LBP-844,19 NRC 427 (1984)
Pubhc Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-322,3 i
NRC 328,330 (1976)
-{
standing requirements for intervention by an orsamzauon; LBP-844,19 NRC 410 (1984)
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-405,5
.l NRC 1890, !!92 (1977) showing necessary to invoke appellate directed cerufication authonty; ALAB-762,19 NRC 568 n.9 (1984) i
=v-
. ge
-=w 3 g o.v.
goa
=
=
g
.,.Lg
i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Public Sersice Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-749,18 NRC 1195, t 198-99 (1933) good cause for untimeliness of recusal motion; ALAB-759,19 NRC 16 n.5 (1984)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), LBP-82-106,16 NRC 1649, 1656 n.7 (1982) particulanty required of bases for contentions; LBP-841,19 NRC 33 (1984)
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units I and 2), CLI-80-31,12 NRC 264 (1980) precondiuon to heanns on health effects issues which challenge BEIR esumates; LBP-84-15, le NRC 838 (1984)
Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units I and 2), CLI-80-31,12 NRC 264,277 (1980) burden on opponent of summary disposition motion; LBP-84-7,19 NRC a34,436 (1984)
Puerto Rico Elecinc Power Authonty (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit I), ALAB-605,12 NRC 153 (1980) treatment of apphcanon for construcuon extention date when there is a finding of abandonment; LBP 84-9,19 NRC 505 (1984)
Punnett v. Carter,621 F.2d 578,583-86 (3d Cir.1980) challenges to NRC assessments of the effects oflow-level radiation; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 438 (1984)
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Amencan Telephone & Telegraph Co.',593 F.2d 1030,1050 n 67 (D C. Cir.1978), cert. denied,440 U.S. 949 (1979) need for creation of new First Amendment pnvileges; ALAB 764,19 NRC 642 n.12 (1984)
Richards of Rockford, Inc. v. Pacific Gas & Electnc Co., 71 F.R.D. 388,389 & n.2,390 (N.D. Cal 1976) aprheation of scholar's privilege; ALAB-764,19 NRC 640 n.10 (1984)
In re Rodgers,537 F.2d !!% (4th Cir.1976) determinanon of whether construction permit proceedmg and operating hcense proceeding are the same matter for disquahfication purposes; ALAB-759,19 NRC 24 n.34 (1984) standard for recusal of a judge; ALAB-759,19 NRC 25 n.4191984)
Rulemaking Heanng, Acceptance Cntena for Emergency Core Coohng Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors, CLI 73-39,6 AEC 1085,1087 (1973) treatment of steam generator tube ruptures as small-break, loss-of coolant accidents; CLI-84-3, 19 NRC 560 (1984)
Sasmaw Transfer Co. v. United States,275 F. Supp. 585,588 (E D. Mich.1%7)
'l characterization of Memorandum of Findings; ALAB 761,19 NRC 494 n.24 (1984)
SCA Services Inc. v. Morgan,557 F.2d 110,113 (7th Cir.1977)
~*
basis for resohing close cases involving disquahfication; ALAB-759,19 NRC 24 n.36 (1984)
SCA Services Inc. v Morgan,557 F.2d 110,117 (7th Cir.1977) ciriumstances in which disquahfication may not be waived; ALAB 759,19 NRC 23 n.31 (1984)
Schware v. Board of Bar Exammers of New Mexico,353 U.S. 232,239 (1957) 4
.I traits to be considered in determining an operating license applicant's character; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 673 n.20 (1984)
[,.]
Sierra Club v. f, lor'on,405 U.S. 727 (1972) showing necessary to be admitted as a party intervenor; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 428 (1984)
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.,104 5. Ct. 615 (1984) nsk to the pubhc from unirradiated fuct; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 870 (1984)
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.,563 F.2d 433,436-37 (10th Cir.1977) apphcabihiy of First Amendment privilege to organizauon gathenns confidentialinformation, about safety problems at nuclear plant; ALAB 764,19 NRC 639,640 (1984)
Silkwood v. Kerr McGee Corp.,563 F.2d 433,438 (10th Cir.1977) factors balanced in recesmtion ofjournalist's pnvilege; ALAB-764,19 NRC 641 (1984)
Solargen Electne Motor Car Corp. v. American Motor Corp.,506 F. Supp. 546,550 (N.D.N.Y.1981) 1 factors balanced in recognition of journalist's pnvilege; ALAB 764,19 NRC 641 (1984)
.(
i.
31 e
e e.
A
/
i 4
4 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Solargen Electric Motor Car Corp. v. American Motor Corp.,506 F. Supp 546,552 (N D.N.Y.1981) hmits w apphcation of First Amendment pnvilege of the press; ALAB-764,19 NRC 640 (1984) refir64 of deponents to appear; ALAB-764,19 NRC 638 n.5 (1984)
Somer t 2chnson,704 F.2d 1473,1479 n.6 (lith Cir.1983) neee for creauon of new First Amendment privileges; ALAB-764,19 NRC 642 n.12 (1984)
South Caroina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Umt 1), ALAB-633,14 NRC 1140,1l6311981), all'd, ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1983) arcumstances appropnate for Board conducted invesuvatens; LBP 84-3,19 NRC 285 n.Il (1984) i South Carohna Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Stauon, Unit l), ALAB-642,13 NRC 388,887 n.5 (1981) standard for determimns whether good cause exists for a fate fihng; LBP-8417,19 NRC 886 n.6 I
(1984)
I South Carohna Elecinc and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Sanon, Uma l), ALAB-663,14 NRC I
1140, 1156 (1981) limitauons on Board authonty to call its own witnesses; LBP-84 7,19 NRC 442 (1984)
Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung Station. Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-717, 17 NRC 346,380 n.57 (1983) i post-heanns resoluuon ofissues by NRC Staff; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 21012,252 (1984)
Southern California Edison Co. (*an Onofre Nuclear Generaung Stauon, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528 (1983)
Commission guidance concernmg requirements of 10 C.F R. 50.47(b)tl2); LBP-84 2,19 NRC 264 (1984)
Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung Station, Umts 2 and 3), LBP-82 39, 15 NRC 1163,1177-84 (1982), alt *d, ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) expansion of emergency planning zone beyond 10-mile radius; DD 84 5,19 NRC 550 (1984)
Tennessee Valley / uthor ty (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB-677,15 NRC 1387, 1394 (1982) rebuke of hcensee int failure to noufy Board and parues of filing of Part 70 license apphcation; ALAB-765,19 FRC 656 (1984) responsibihty of parties to inform Boards of relevant new information; DD-84-8,19 NRC 928 n.6 (1984) m Tennessee Valley Authonty (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Umts I A,2A,18 a.ed 28), ALAB-463,7 NRC 341, 352 (1978) rnaterial which may be cited in support of arguments in proposed findings of fact; LBP 84-10,19 NRC 517 n.18 (1984)
Tennessee Valley Authori;y (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A,18, and 2B), ALAB-463,7 NRC 341,360 (1978), reconsaderation denied, ALAB-467,7 NRC 459 (19781 burden of proof on applicant; ALAB 763,19 NRC 577 n.22 (1984)
Tennessee Valley Authonty (Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant, Umts 1 and 2), ALAD-752,18 NRC 1318 k
(1983) terminahon oflimited appellate junsdiction; ALAB 760,19 NRC 27 (1984)
Tennessee Valley Authonty (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 23, ALAB-413,5 NRC 1418,1421 n.4 (1977) satisfaction ofinterest requirement for interunuon through geographical proximity; LBP-84-6, 19 NRC 410 (1984)
Texas Utihues Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Umts I and 2), LBP-79-18,9 NRC 728,730 (1979) l satisfaction of interest requirement for intervenuon through geographical proximity; LBP 84-6, 19 NRC 410 (1984) q Texas Utilities Generstmg Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Stauon, Umts I and 2), LBP 83-81, 18 NRC 1410,1414 (1983)
~
l relationship between the reporting of a deficiency and whether the deficiency represented a QA j
violanon; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 704 (1984) 32
-'qM..
m y
W+
gg D
g=
M
\\
1
~
+
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Stauon),4 AEC 571,585 (1971) challenges to NRC assessments of the elTects oflow-level radiation; LBP 84 7,19 NRC 438 (1984)
Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, ALAB-50,4 AEC 849,859 (1972), ard sub nom. Morningside Renewal Council, Inc. v. AEC,842 F.2d 234 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied.
417 U.S. 951 (1974)
Board opinion on witness attemptmg to challenge NRC assessments of the elTects oflow-level radiation in NRC proceedings; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 438 (1984)
Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit I). ALAB-740,18 NRC 343,346 (1983) criteria to be satisned by reopening motions; LBP-14 3,19 NRC 283 n.4 (1984) quality required of construccon to enable grant of an operating license; DD 84-7,19 NRC 906 (1984)
Umon Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit I), ALAB-740,18 NRC 343,349 50 (1983)
I presentation of new arguments in proposed findmss of fact; LBP-84-lo,19 NRC 515,517 (1984)
Union Electnc Co. (Callaway Plant Umt I), ALAB 750,18 NRC 1205 (1983) circumstances appropnate for Board-conducted investigations; LBP-84-3,19 NRC 285 n.lt (1984)
Umted States Department of Energy (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), LBP-83-8,17 NRC 158, 222 (1983) evaluauon of a witness' potennal contnbuuon on the basis of pnor tesumony; LBP 84-7,19 NRC 439 (1984)
Umted States v. Cuthbertson,630 F.2d 139,147 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. Il26 (1981) apphcability cf First Amendment pnvilege to orgamzation gathenns confidentialinformation about safety problems at nuclear plant; ALAB-764,19 NRC 639,640 (1984)
United States v. Cuthbertson,630 P.2d 139,148 (3d Cir.1980), cert. demed,449 U.S.1126 (1981) factors balanced in recognition of journalist's pnvilege; ALAB-764,19 NRC 641 (1984)
United States v. Doe (In re Popkin),460 F.2d 328 (ts: Cir.1972), cert. denied,411 U.S. 909 (1973) application of scholar's privilege; ALAB-764,19 NRC 640 n.10 (1984)
United States v. Doe (in re Falk),332 F. Supp. 938,941 (D. Mass.1971) apphcanon of scholar's pnvilege; ALAB-764,19 NRC 640 n.10 (1934)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ALAB 124,6 AEC 358,360,361-62,366-67 & n.4 (1973) 3 Licensing Board delesauon ofits responsibilities to NRC StalT; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 210,212 (1984)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Stauon), ALAB-138,6 AEC 520, 523 (1973) cntena to be satisned by reopemns motions; LBP-84-3,19 NRC 283 n.4 (1984) weight given to umeliness of mohon to reopen a record; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 716 (1984)
Virgima Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-491,8 NRC 245,248 (1978)
- t enteria for accepting a contenuon based on a genene issue; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 418 (1984) t4 Virgima Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-522,9 i
NRC 54 (1979)
- i M seusfacuon of interest requirement for intervenuon through geographical proximity; LBP-84-6, i
19 NRC 429 (1984)
Virgima Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-536,9 NRC 402,404 (1979) need for organizational intervenuon petiuoner to submit authonzing affidavit; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 407 (1984)
Virginia Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stanon Umts I and 2), CLI 76-22,4 NRC 480 (1976), aff'd,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) dennition of truthfulness relative to an operating license applicant; LBP-8413,19 NRC 674 (1984) 33 9
m e
w
.gne 4
eu, s
3
%j
~
E l
i 4
C r1 4-LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Virgama Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Siren, Units I and 2), CLI-76-22,4 NRC 440,483,486-87 (1976), aff'd,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) relevance of presence or absence of intent to question of whether a material false statemer.1 has been made; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 682-83 (1984)
Virgima Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), CLI 76 22,4 NRC 480,486 (1976), aff'd sub nom. Virginia Electric and Power Co. v. NRC,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) responsibdity oflicensee for reporting knowledge of in%rmation in possession of its contractors; DD-84-8,19 NRC 932 (1984)
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), CLI 76 22,4 NRC 480,486,488,491 (1976), aft'd sub nom. Virgima Electric and Power Co. v. NRC,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978)
'6 omission ofinformation as a materist false statement; DD-84-8,17 NRC 930-32 (1984)
Viramia Electnc and Power Co. fNorth anna Nuclear Power Station, Lnits I and 2), LBP-75-54,2 NRC 498,504-06,523 (1975) '
responsibility of licensee for reporting knowledge of information in possession of its contractors; DD-84-8,19 NRC 932 (1984)
Vissmia Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), LBP-75-54,2 NRC 498,523,532-33 (1975) omission of n/ormation as a failure to inform Boards of relevant information and as a matenal
,j.
Msc statement; DD 84-8,19 NRC 931,932 (1984)
. Virginia Electrs and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 2), LBP 77-68,6
' NRC 1127 1151 (1977) desenbmg an applicant's character; LBP-8413,19 NRC 672,676 (1984)
Virgmia Electne and Power Co. v. NRC,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978)
- penalty for material false statement; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 674 n.23 (1984)
.i Washington Public Power Supply Sy-tem (Hanford No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-ll3,6 AEC 251, 252 (1973)
-i
- Licensing Board delegation ofits responsibilities to NRC Staff; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 210 (1984) e
,e I
Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1), LBP-83-66,18 NRC 780, y
797A3(1983) factors considered ls determining reasonableness of construction extension date; LBP 84-9,19
\\ '.
'j NRC 506 (1984) s Washington Public Pcwer Supply System (WPPSS Nuciear Project No. 2), Al AB-722,17 NRC 546,
$52 (1983)
,4 t.
l(
interpretation of good cause showi.1g necessary for entension of construction completion date; LBP44-9,19 NRC 502 (1984)
Washington PuNic Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747,18 NRL t167
,U '..
-(1983) e t'
factots considered in admission oflate-filed contentions; LBP 84-1,19 NRC 38 (1984)
% ashmstcn Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 4 & 5). DD-82-6,15 NRC e
~,..
+1 %
,[
S 1761,1766 n.9 (1982) i
-3 l
enforcement action appropnate for matenal false stattment; DD-84 8,19 NRC 933 (1984)
Wisconsm Electne Power Co. (Koshkonong Nuclear Plant Umts I and 2), CLI-74-45,8 AEC 928.
930 (1974)
/
delay of a licens.ng proceeding pendmg dispositioet of a case presented to a State authonty; 1
Wisconsin Electnc Power Co. (Pomt Beach Nuclear Plant, Umt 2), CLI-73-4,6 AEC 6,7. II,13,16 t
(1973) post-hearing :esolution ofissues by NRC Staff; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 210, 211 (1984) y 5, p Worth v. Seldm,422 U.S. 490 (1975) 4
.t showing necessary to be admitted as a party intervenor; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 428 (1984)
_9 Wrista v. Jeer Corp.,547 F. Supp. 871,875 (L.D. Mite 1982) duty of citizens to provide evidence; ALAB-764,19 NRC 639 (1984) 0;,
a 34
)
,+'
.]
{'.
p y.
'N'
%g
..A\\
s, z in, je 1
y
.w LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Wnght v. Jeep Corp,547 F. Supp. 878,875 76 (E D. Mich.1982) apphcauon of scholar's privilege; ALAB 764,19 NRC 640 n.10 (1984)
Wnght v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n,72 F R.D.161 (S.D.N.Y.1976) hmits on apphcation of First Amendment privilege of the press; ALAB.764,19 NRC 640 (1984)
{
I i
i i
1 i
I
..t sI e
=
g
,4 4 \\
?
s
..L.'.Y} l N
e
/
g 4
e h
/
35
~t
, ' {
+
s
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX 1
REGl1LATIONS l
5 C.F.R. 737.5(c)(4) test of a judge's impartiality; ALAB-759,19 NRC 24 n.38 (1984) 10 C.F.R.1.11 extent of Board authority concerning operaung hcenses; ALAB-758,19 NRC 10 (1984) 10 C.F.R.1.61 l
authonty for issuance of an operaung hcense; ALAB-758,19 NRC 10 (1984) i 10 C.F.R. 2.104 i
determinauor. of whether an operaung hcense proceeding is a conunuauon of a construcuan permit I
proceeding; ALAB-759,19 NRC 24 n.39 (1984)
'l need to notice Part 70 license apphcauon; ALAB 765,19 NRC 651 n.10 (1984) i 10 C.F.R. 2.104(b)(2) and (3) need for Licensing Board issuance of initial decision for uncontested construction permit proceeding; ALAB 761,19 NRC 489 n.6 (1984) 10 C.F R. 2.104(c)(4) l htigabihty of efTects of disposal costs on an applicant's financial capability to operate a nuclear power t
plant; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 414 (1544) 10 C.F.R. 2.105 l
determmauon of whether an operat ng hcense proceeding is a continuation of a construction permit i
proceeding; ALAB 759,19 NRC 24 n.39 (19841 i
need to nonce Part 70 hcense apphcation; ALAB 765,19 NRC 651 n.10 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.201 applicauon of Notice of Violation as penalty for matenal false statement; DD-84-8,19 NRC 935 (1924) enforces,vnt action taken for procedural deficienc.cs associated with crane accident at Perry Plant; DD-8+ ?,19 NRC 476 (1984) violations requinas correcuve acuon; DD 84-7,19 NRC 904 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.202 request for initiation of show-cause proceeding; DD 84-1,19 NRC 476 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.202(a) denial of pennon to insutute diow-cause proceedings sought on the basis of construction and management deficiencies; DD-84 7,19 NRC 900 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.202(a)(1) circumstances in which an order to show cause is appropriate; DD-84-7,19 NRC 922 (1984) i 10 C.F R. 2.2%
denial of petition for suspension or revocation of heense on bass of material false statement; DD-84-8,19 NRC 925 (1984) denial of peut.on requesting action on issue that is the subject of rulemaking; DD-84-6,19 NRC 892, 897 (1984)
.b denial of petiuon requesting postponement of hfting of reactor pressure vessel head at TMI 2;
.'+)
DD-84-4,19 NRC 535 (1984) 8 demal of request for independent analysis of crane accident at Perry Plant; DD-84-1,19 NRC 472 (1984) remedies available to the pubhc regardina concerns over licensecs' data or evaluauons; DD-84-6,19 NRC 8% (1984)
A.
37 6
ec.
s w4 s
T i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX
-j REGULATIONS 1
i,
}
request for action to remedy emergency response deficiencies at Pilgrim facdity; DD-84-5,19 NRC 542 (1984) i request for management audit because of violation of construction permit condiuon granted; DD-84-2,19 NRC 478 (1984) treatment of letter requesting action as a peution under; DD-84-3,19 NRC 441 n.1 (1984) 4 10 C.F R. 2.206(b) issuance of formal decision on petition for show-cause proceeding; DD-84-7,19 NRC 901 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.704(c) monon for disquahficauon of Licensing Board judge; ALAB-759,19 NRC 15 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.707 acnon taken on failure to file a pleadmg within the presenbed time; LBP-844,19 NRC 428 (1984) l 10 C.F.R. 2.710
' )
late filing of response to motion to resume discovery; LBP 84-7,19 NRC 464 (1984)
[
penalty for violanon of protective orders; ALAB 764,19 NRC 643 n.14 (1984) 10 C.F.K. 2.714 participauon as an interested state followmg withdrawal as a pa.ty; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 295 (1984) satisfacnon of interest requirement for intervention through geographical proximity, LBP-844,19 NRC 410. 411,429 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1) applicability of admission cnteria to late-filed Part 70 contentions; ALAB-765,19 NRC 656,657 (1984) apphcability of late-filing critena to contentions addressing unnoticed application for Part 70 license; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 865,868 (19841 balancing of factors in determining admissibihty oflate-filed emergency planning contennon; LBP 84-l,19 NRC 31 (1984) denial oflate intervenuon petiuon, based on balancing of five factors of; ALAB-758,19 NRC 8 n.I (1984) factors belanced in determining a grant of untimely intervention; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 883 (1984) factors evaluated for re intervenuon by parties; ALAB-761,19 NRC 493 n.21 (1984) 10 C.F.R 2.714(a)(1)0)-(v) applicability of late-filing entena to contennons addressing unnoticed applicauon for T vt 70 license; LBP-8416,19 NRC 866 (1984) 10 C.F R. 2.714(a)(2) showing necessary to be admitted as a party intervenor; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 428 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2 714(b) contenuon requirement for intervention; LBP-844,19 NRC a06,429 (1984) cnteria for qualifying as a party intervenor; LBP 844,19 NRC 395 (1984) dismissal of contenuon alleging inadequacies in secunty plan for new fhel storage; ALAB-765,19 NRC 653 (1984) requirements for admission of contentions; LBP-844,19 NRC 408 (1984) 10 C.F R. 2.714(e) and (f)
Licensing Board authonty to limit participation by intervenors; ALAB-761,19 NRC 492,495 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.715 authonzation for former intervenors to make limited appearance statements regarding site redress issues; ALAB-761,19 NRC 490 (1984) participation as an interested state following withdrawal as a party; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 295 (1984)
}
submission oflimited appearance statement; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 380 (1984)
J 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c) participation by an interested state; LBP 844,19 NRC 394,425,426,427 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.717(a) junsdiction over proceeding withholding authonzation for an operating license; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 279 (1984) 4 t
n
}g a
-m.
^
s e
b Pg*
.W.,
- 4s a
.g*
m,.
4 1
~
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 10 C F.R. 2.717(b)
Licensing Board juris6ction over Part 70 matters; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 362,863 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.718 Board authonty to deny operating license on basis of material false statement; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 677 n.29 (1984)
Licensing Board authority to limit participation by intervenors; ALAB-761,19 NRC 492 n.18 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.718(i) petition for review of denial of motion concerning prematurity of operstmg license application; ALAB-762,19 NRC 568 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.720 showing necessary for Board issuance of a subpoena; ALAB 764,19 NRC 636 n.2 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.720(f) provisions of protective order; ALAB-764,19 NRC 637 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.720(g) enforcement action taken following refusal of deponents to appear; ALAB 76a,19 NRC 638 n.5 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.721 Licensing Board junsdiction over Part 70 issues; ALAB-765,19 NRC 650 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.721(a) jurisdiction of Licensing Boards; ALAB-765,19 NRC 650 (1984) limitations on Board jurisdiction; ALAB 758,19 NRC 11 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.730(f) petdion for review of denial of motion concerning prematurity of operating license application; ALAB-762,19 NRC 568 n.6 (1984)
~
10 C.F.R. 2.740(b)(1) a right of applicant to learn nati. ire of questions about qua ity assurance at its facility; ALAB-764,19 2'-
NRC 644 (1984) showing necessary for Board issuance of a subpoena; ALAB 764,19 NRC 636 n.2 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.74)(c) w provisions of protective order; ALAB 764,19 NRC 637 (1984) evaluation of significance and materiality ofinformation proffered as basis for reopening the record; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 717 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.743(i) omcial notice taken of date of report that was not a part of the record of the proceeding; LBP-84-13, 19 NRC 781 n.49 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.749 cause for dismissal of proceeding contesting application for construction extension date; LBP-84-9,
, s C
19 NRC 507 (1984)
- 6;;
summary disposition of health effects contentions; LBP-84 7,19 NRC 437 (1984)
% 'z. J -
p., l 10 C.F.R. 2.749(b) burden on opponent of summary disposition motion; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 435 (1984)
-m-W
')
10 C.F R. 2.754 t'
penalty for failure to file proposed find'nss on an issue; ALAB 763,19 NRC 577 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.758 petition to waive regulation pertaining to litigation of need-for-power issues; LBP 84-6.19 NRC a
3 %, 402 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(a) litigabiiny of adequacy of new fuel shipping containers; ALAB-765,19 NRC 655 n.15 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(c) admissibility of contention concermns need for power and alternative energy sources; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 403 (1984) 1 39 e
- T-N 5
g SO W $.0 4
F%
1 l
.J LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 2.759 Board authonty to make suggestions for resolution ofissues; LBP-84-15,19 NRC 847 (1984) need for NRC to establish regulations impicmen ing Floodplain Management Order and Guidelines; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 405 (1984) settlement of controversaes outside of adjudicatory hearings; LBP-8414,19 NRC 836 (1984) 10 C.F.R 2.760 passing of jurisdicuon over proceeding withholding authorization for an operating license; LBP-84-2, 19 NRC 279 (1984) 10 CF.R. 2.760(a) extent of Board authority concernmg operating licenses; ALAB-758,19 NRC 10 (1984) 10 C F.R. 2.760s matters which must be addressed in an operaung I; cense proceeding; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 703 (1984) 10 C.F.R 2.762 limitation on number of briefs filed in response to applicant's bnefs; LBP-8413,19 NRC 833 (1984) passing of jurisdiction over proceeding withholding authorization for an operating license; LBP 84-2, 19 NRC 279 (1984) 10 C F.R. 2.762(c) and (f) correction of bnefs; ALAB 764,19 NRC 639 n 6 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.771 passing ofjunsdiction oser proceeding withholding authonzation for an operaung heense; LBP-84-2, 19 NRC 279 (1984) 10 C F R. 2.780 applicability of en parte consideranons to meeting between NRC Regional Adtninistrator and Commission; DD-84-3,19 NRC 484 n.3 (1984) i 10 C.F.R. 2.785 i
appealability of final order on Part 70 license; LBP 8416,19 NRC 876 (1984)
I passing of junsdiction over proceeding withholding authorization for an operating license; LBP-84-2, 1
19 NRC 279 (1984) i 10 C.F.R. 2.785(a)
{
functions performed by Appeal Boards; ALAB-765,19 NRC 650 n.6 (1984)
{
post-heanns resolution ofissues by NRC Staff, LBP 84 2,19 NRC 211 (1984) i 10 CF.R. 2.802 means for changing NRC regulatory requirements; DD-84-6,19 NRC 897 (1984) need for NRC to establish regulations implementing Floodplain Management Order and Guidelines; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 405 (1984) 1 10 C.F.R. 2. Appendix C NRC policy on applicauon of sanctions; DD-84-8,19 NRC 933 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2. Appendix C, IV circumstances in which an order to show cause is appropriate; DD 84-7,19 NRC 922 (1984) 10 C.F R. 2, Appendix C, IV.C(3) cause for imtiation of show cause proceedings; DD-84-1,19 NRC 476 (19841 10 C.F.R. 20 ability of Byron plant design basis to keep radiation levels as low as reasonably achievable; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 52,85,86 (1984) adequacy of modeling of radiation doses from internal emitters; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 448 (1984) quantities of airborne strontium-90 expected to be present in Byron Stanon; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 94 4
(1983) tadtauon hazard from unirradiated, noncnucal fuel; ALAB-765,19 NRC 654 (1984) scope and purpose of guidelines governing radiation doses; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 355 (1984) topics addressed in LBP-84-2,19 NRC 88 (1984) 10 C F.R. 20.l(c) requirements concerning personnel exposure to radiation; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 52,85 n.27,87, A a27 (1984) de e
k 4
v e '
e g
g
r s
1 i-1*
. k. ; 4 s
t..
..~..
t i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 10 C.F R. 20.101(a) example of permissible radiation doses to employees; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 87 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 20.10((a) showing necessary in FSAR concerning groundwater contamination by radionuclides; LBP-84-2,19 i
'j 10 C.F.R 20.401 NRC 220,226 (1984) l
't means for rnen aning and extent of radiation dosametric records on Byron employees; LBP 84-2, 19 NRC 95 (1984) l *
]
10 C.F.R. 20, Appendia B application ciradionuchde limits of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 87 (1984)
(,
--l showing necessary in FSAR concerning groundwater contaminauon by radionuclides; LBP-84-2,19 10 C.F.R. 20, Appendix B, Table 11, col. 2 I
NRC 220 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 21 reportatwhty of quality assurance audit; DD 84-8,19 NRC 928,930 n.9 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50 assessment of plant response to design basis accidents; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 346 (1984) means to obtain authorization to receive and store new fuel; ALAB-765,19 NRC 649 n.2 (1984) 10 C.F R. 50.10(e) means for seekmg approval for earfy site preparation; ALAB-761,19 NRC 489 n.1 (1984)
~~
10 C.F.R. 50.10(e)(2) l findings necessary for issuance of Limited Work Authorization; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 293 (1984) l 10 C.F.R. 50.10(e)(2)(ii)
+
suitabihty of proposed Chnch River Breeder Reactor site; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 376 (1984) jf 10 C.F.R. 50.19(a)(4)
+
y,-
elTectiveness of amendments to Part 70 licenses where heanns has been requested; LBP 84-16,19
' Q @;,
NRC 875 (1984)
, b.
" ' 3y,n3 particularity required oflate-filed contentions concerning adequacy of emergency planning zone LBP.84-1,19 NRC 34 (1984) t 10 C.F.R. 50.34
<-_ 3 : '
, j
deadhne for completion of probabihstic nsk assessment for Clinch River Project; LBP-84 4,19 NRC 340 (1984)
,- W need for retention of records concerning safety-related items; DD-84-6,19 NRC 895 (1984)
+
j.
,yj,
adequacy of Byron plant monitoring of employee exposures to radiation; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 51,85
- +
,4, (1984) 3 _ i.;-,
' e,.. ;
10 C.F R. 50.34(a)(7)
^
il" contents of preliminary safety analysis report: LBP-84-2,19 NRC 111 (1984) i
- ?
.s to C.F.R. 50.34(b)
..C s~.'
A "- V content of Final Safety Analyses Report; ALAB-763,19 NRC 587 n.68 (1984)
~
" O' 4 %
10 C.F.R. 50.34(b)(4) adequacy of Staff characterizauon of groundwater system under Byron; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 218-20, 238 (1984)
~
10 C.F.R. 50 35(a)
~-
j findings necessary for issuance of Limited Work Authonzation; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 386 (1984)
~ '
10 C.F.R. 50.36(a) 1J adequacy of Byron plant monitonns of employee exposures to radiatiort; LBP 84 2,19 P!RC 51,85 l
9j (1984) l 10 C.F.R. 50.40
[q limitations on a Board's authonty relevant to findings on an apphcant's character; LBP-84-13,19 s.."g NRC 677 (1984)
+
4
.i i
a 41 4
l 6
D
'g.
,% J.
p.'-h-
e.
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 50.40(b) competence requirement for an operating license applicant; LnP 84-13,19 NRC 671 n.12 (1984) l review of technical and management competence of WPPSS to operate WNP 2; DD-84-7,19 NRC 921 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a) reason for Commission amendment of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 232 (1984) 10 C.F R. 50.47(a)(1) emergency planning findings necessary for issuance of an operating liccase; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 253 (1984) post-hearing verification of quality assurance issues; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 212 (1984)
~
10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(I) (1982) post-hearing resolution of emergency planmns issues; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 251 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b) adequacy of Clinch River preliminary emergency plan; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 373 (1984) limitation on emergency planrung findings; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 252 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b) n.1 need for adherence to NUREG4654 by applicant; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 252 n.85 (1984) 10 C F.R. 50.47(b)(l)
[
adequacy of communications between Byron emergency response organizations; LBP 84-2,19 NRC r
275 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10) analysis o(evacuation time study for Byron; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 253 (i984) means of response to an emergency; DD-84-5,19 NRC 552 (1984) sufliciency of protective actions ofTered by Byron emergency plan; LBP 34-2,19 NRC 267-68 (1984) 10 C.F R. 50.47(b)(12) adequacy of Byron emergency planmns for medical facilities; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 263,267 (1984)
Commission guidance concernms requirements of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 264 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(2) empansion of emergency planning zone beyond 10-mile radius; DD-84-5,19 NRC 549 (1974) 10 C.F.R. 50.54(0 enforcement action taken to improve quality amurance program at WNP-2; DD44-7,19 NRC 902 (1984) responsiveness of WPPSS management to NRC concerns; DD-84-7,19 NRC 919 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.54(o) requirements for integrated leak rate testing; DD-84-6,19 NRC 493 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.54(s)(2)(ii) request for imtiation of 4 month period for correction of emergency response deficiencies at Pilgrim facility; DD-84-5,19 NRC 543 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.55 interpretation of good-cause showing necessary for extension of construction completion date; LBP-84-9,19 NRC 502 (1984) t 10 C.F.R. 50.55(b) showing necesary for extension of construction completion date; LBP-84-9,19 NRC 498,499 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e) failure of applicant to report demsn deficiencies; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 512 (1984) introduction of deficiency reports as evidence, LBP-84-13,19 NRC 800 (1984) need fer improvement in implementation of corrective actions for construction deficiencies at WNP-2; DD-84-7,19 NRC 915 (1984) record of Houston Lighting & Power Company in reportmg deficiencies under, LBP 84-13,19 NRC 747, 757, 766 (1984) relationship between the reporting of a deficiency and whether the deficiency represented a QA violation; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 704,707 (1984) report of deficiencies in standby service water system; DD-84-7,19 NRC 907 (1984) 42 s
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS f
report of surveying error under; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 810 (1984) reportma of breakdowns in quality assurance program; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 132,134 & n.56 (1984) tardy reportin8 of plant problems; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 116 (1984) threshold for reportsng deficiencies; DD-84-8,19 NRC 933 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e)(1) fulfillment of requirement to report signincant denciencies; LBP 84-10,19 NRC 515 (1984) reportabdity of quality assurance audit; DD 84-8,19 NRC 928,930 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e)(2) time limit for reporting deficiencies; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 134 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.55a significance of ASME N-symbol; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 122 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.57 adequacy of applicant's character and competence to operate South Texas Project; LBP-84-13,19 i
NRC 697 (1984) hmitations on a Board's authonty relevant to findings on an applicant's snaracter; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 677 (1984) post-hearms resolution ofissues by NRC Staff; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 210 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(1) authority of Boards to make determinations required under; ALAB-758,19 NRC 11 (1984) i cnteria that applicant's desagn venfication program must meet; ALAB-763,19 NRC 587 n.68 (1984)
Gims of operating license apphcation for unit that is only 22% complete as a violation of; i
ALAB 758,19 NRC 9 (1983)
'l findings required as a precondition to issuance of an operating license; ALAB-762,19 NRC 567 (1984) i requisites for issuance of operstmg license; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 52 (1984) i 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(I) and (2) findings required by; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 702 (1984)
" character" finding necessary for operating license issuance; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 674 n.22 (1984) adequacy of Byron seismic design; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 238-39 (1984) assurances that must be provided prior to issuance of operating licenses; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 71,73, 85, 102 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(3)(i) adequacy of StalTcharactertration of groundwater system under Byron; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 218 20, i
238 (1984)
.s 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(3)(ii) effect of potential for steam generator tube degradation on ability to make required findings of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 51 (1984) 4'.
10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(4) competence requirement for an operating license appheant; LBP-8413,19 NRC 671 n.12 (1984)
- i+
'M adequacy of Staff characterization of groundwater system under Byron; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 218 20,
- ' ^ t 238 (1984)
,}
effect of potential for steam generator tube degradation on ability to make required findings of;
. I LBP-84 2,19 NRC 51 (1984)
~I 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c) assurances that must be provided prior to issuance of operstmg l'.enses; LBP.84-2,19 NRC 102 (1984) i 10 C.F.R. 50.70 denial of request for public access and inspection of steam separator and reactor vessel; DD-84-1,19 NRC 476 (1984)
Jl NRC access to licensee records; DD 84-6,19 NRC 895 (1984) 4.
I t
43 i
i b
d e
v
k LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REG L'LATIO'u%
10 C.F R. 50.71 need for retention of records concerning safety-related items; DD-84-6,19 NRC 895 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.91(a)(4) effecuveness of amendments to Part 70 fuel licenses; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 873-75 (1984) 10 C.ER. 50.92(c) effectiveness of arnendments to Part 70 licenses where heanns has been requested, LBP 8416,19
.NRC 875 (1984) 10 C.F R. 50 Appendix A conformance of WNP-2 with General Desagn Cnteria; DD-84-7,19 NRC 918 (1984) cntena apphed for defense-in-depth design of Clinch River Breeder Reactor; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 300 (1984) exclusion of accidents attnbutable to external and man-made acuens, from Byron analysir, LBP-84 2,19 NRC 107 (1984) 10 C.F R. 50, Appendix A. GDC 2 catent ofinvestigations required to protect agamst seismic events; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 239 (1984) reporung of faults revealed during excavations; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 370 (1984)
,j 10 C ER. 50, Appendix A, GDC 4 analysis for and protection from jet impinsement effects; ALAB-763,19 NRC 602 n.146 (1984) requirements concerning protecuon against water hammer events; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 71,73,81 (1984) requirements for protection of reactor systems; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 52 (1984) 10 C.ER. 50, Appendix A, GDC 14,30,31 and 32 I
requisites for issuance of operating license; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 52 (1984) 10 C.F.R 50 Appendix A GDC 44 safety of Diablo Canyon's component coohng water system; ALAB-763,19 NRC 617 n.249 (1984) 10 C.ER 50, Appendix B abihty of Byron applicant to provide quality assurance services; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 42 (1984) ability or wi!Iingness of Byron applicant to comply with quality assurance requirements; LBP-84-2, 19 NRC 111,213 (1984) adequacy of Byron applicant's descripuon of its operational quality assurance program; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 126 (1984) adequacy of Diablo Canyon's quality assurance program; ALAB-763,19 NRC 616 (1984) adequacy of pipe support design process at Comanche Peak; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 530 (1984) adequacy of quality assurance program for Clinch River; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 323,364-65 (1984) adequacy of South Texas Project's construction QA/QC organizations and procuces; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 699, 700, 703 (1984) allesauons of failures in quality amurance program at WNP 2; DD 84 7,19 NRC 905 (1984) critena against which the suffbency of apphcant's design venfication efforts must be measured; 5
ALAB 763,19 NRC 578,583 (1984) defimtion of "quahty assurance" and " quality control"; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 361 (1984) failure to comply with quahty amurance requirements as basis for reopemns record; ALAB 763,19 NRC 576 (1984) fundamental aspects of NRC regulatory program; LBP-8413,19 NRC 736 (1984) need for compliance with regulations promulgated after design work has been completed;
[
ALAB-763,19 NRC 608 (1984) 1 quality ofimplementation of QA program at South Texas Project; LBP-84-l),19 NRC 764 (1984) 10 C.ER. 50 Appendix B, Introduction level of confidence to be provided by a quality assurance program; ALAB 763,19 NRC 593 n.86 (1984) y fi 10 C.ER 50, Appendia B, !
delegation of quality amurance program to contractors; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 43,128,135 (1984) i responnbihty oflicensee for reporting knowledge of informanon in possesanon of its contractors; DD-84-8,19 NRC 932 (1984) t t
44 1
4 i
- .,k
e i.
=
4 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX mEGULADONS 10 CF R. 50, Appendix B, I-VI, X, XI, XIII, XV, XVI XVIll discussion of regulatory requirements for QA organization; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 112 (1984) 10 C.F.R 50 Appendix B,II harassment of QA Lispectors as violanon of; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 711,712 (1984) scope of quahty assurance plan for surveying; LBP-8413,19 NRC 705,706, til (1984) 10 C F R. 50, Appendia B. Ill conformance of WNP 2 licensee with resign control requ,rements; DD-84-7,19 NRC 906,908 (1984)
{
10 C F R. 50 Appendix 8. III and VI demonstrauon that apphcant's reconciliation of design documents is in conformity with requirements of; ALAB-763,19 NRC 605 n.lti9 (1984) 10 C F.R. 50, Appendix B, !!! and IX harassment of QA inspectors as violation of, LBP-84-13,19 NRC 711,712,826 (1984) inadequate venfication and approval of design changes as violations of, LBP 8413,19 NRC 710, 711, 809, 819, 820, 821 (1984) 10 C.F R. 50 Appendia B. VI culpabihry of management in employee's falsification of construction records; LBP 84-13,19 NRC
-j 714, 829, 830 (1984) j 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix 8 VI and XVil loss of field document relatmg to cadwelds as a violation of; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 708,709,710, 809, 815 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia B, IX and X cadweld documentation deficiencies as violation of; LBP 8413,19 NRC 710,818 (1984) voeds in reactor contamment building walls as violauon of; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 707,809, $13 (1984) 10 CF R. 50, Appendia B, X, XI absence of a survey inspection procedure as a violation of; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 704,706,809,811 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendix B, X, XV and XVI damage to containment membrane seals as a violation of; LBP 8413,19 NRC 709,809,816 (1984) steel reinforcement bars missing from parts of containment structure as a violation of LBP 84-13, 19 NRC 709,809,817 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia B X, XVI, XVII relationship between the reporting of a deficiency and whether the deficiency represented a QA violation; LBP-8413,19 NRC 704 (1984) 10 CF.R. 50, Appendia B, XVI label given to reports of deseen deficiencies; LBP 44-10,19 NRC 5'1, 512 (1984) 10 C F R. 50, Appendin B, XVil failure to document activines affectmg quahty as a violation of, LBP-84-l),19 NRC 727 (1984)
.,,3 need for retenuon of records concernmg safety related items; DD 84-6,19 NRC 895 (1984) i-10 CF.R 50. Appendes B, XVil, XVill violanons of, by Byron contractor; LBP-84 2, I? NRC 195 (1984) 10 CF.R. 50, Appendia E. II 1
- 4 adequacy of Clinch River preliminary emergency plan, LBP 84-4,19 NRC 373 (1984) 10 C F R. 50, Appendia E. IV C & nn. I,4 need for adherence to NUREG4654 by apphcant; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 252 n.85 (1984) 10 CF R. 50, Appendia E,IV.F.I pubhc participanon in emer8ency response exercises; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 42) (1984) 10 CF R. 50, Appendices G and il testmg requirements to determme reactor pressure vessel integrity; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 420 (1984) 10 C.F K. 50, Appendia I e
adequacy of modehng of radiation doses from internal emitteri; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 448,453 (1984) assessment of offsite doses from design basis accidents at Clinch River Breeder Reactor, LBP 84-4, 19 NRC 316 (1984) 45 P
S D
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS individual responses taken into account in evaluating compliance with; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 360 (1984) scope and purpose of guulelines governing radiation domes; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 355 (1984) 10 CF.R. 50, Appendix 1. Il guidelines for a-ng done consequences of accidents at Clinch River, LBP-84-4,19 NRC 354 (1984) 10 CF.R. 50, Appendix J calculation of mean containment temperature; DD-84-6,19 NRC 894 (1984) modification of, concerning integrated leak rate testing; DD-84-6,19 NRC 897 (1984) requirements for integrated leak rate testing; DD-84-6,19 NRC 893 (1984) 10 CF.R. 50, Appendia R need to consider open pipe chase in auxiliary feedwater pumproom as a deviation from fire protection criteria; ALAB-763,19 NRC 602 n.145 (1984) 10 CF.R. 51. Table 5-3 htigalxlity of waste disposal issues; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 413 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 51.20(a) and (d) adequacy of assessment of risk of severe accidents at Byron Station; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 100,101 (1934) 10 C.F.R. 51.21 and 51.23(e)
I demonstration of need for power at the operating license stage; LBP-84-9,19 NRC 504 (1984) 10 CF.R. St.23(e) basis for evaluaung impacts of fuel cycle particulates; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 460 n.2 (1984) 10 CF.R. 31.53 limitations on a Board's authority relevant to findings on an applicant's character, LBP-84-13,19 NRC 677 (1984) 10 CF.R. St.5)(c) challenge to; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 3%,399 (1984) litigabihty of costs of radioactive waste disposal at operating hcense stage; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 413 (1984) 10 CF.R. 70 dismissal of contentions concerning apphcation to receive and store new fuel outside the Limerick facihty; ALAB-765,19 NRC 648 (1984)
Licensing Board junsdiction over hcenses under; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 860 I
10 CF.R. 70.3 means to obtain authorization to receive and store new fuel; ALAB-765,19 NRC 649 n.2 (1984) 10 CF.R. 70.22(i),70.23(a)(ll) need for an emergency plan to be in place to obtain a Part 70 license; ALAB-765,19 NRC 655 (1984) 10 CF.R. 70.24(d) request for exemption from criticality monitoring systems requirement for umrradiated fuel; LBP.8416,19 NRC 874 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 71 1
adequacy of new fuel shipping containers; ALAB-765,19 NRC 655 n.15 (1984) radiation hazard from unitradiated, noncritical fuel; ALAB-765,19 NRC 655 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 72.34 need to notice Part 70 hcense applicauon; ALAB-765,19 NRC 651 n.10 (1984) 10 CF R. 73 exclumon of accidents attributable to esternal and man-made actions, from Byron analysis; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 107 (1984) 10 CF R. 73.55(b) through (h) potential for sabotage by temporary workers at Byron; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 99 (1984) 10 CF.R.100 assessment of offsite doses from deman basis accidents at Clinch River Breeder Reactor LBP-84-4, 19 NRC 316,317 (1984) 46
a.
t'
.}-
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS capabihty of faults in vicinity of Cinch River Project; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 326,370,372,373 (1984) challenge to thyroid dose==nnent for Clinch River Project; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 359,381,384 l
(1984)
- j suidelines to assess Cinch River containment adequacy in the event of a core melt accident; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 353 (1984)
~
most probeble core disruptive accidents for which doses could exceed guidelines of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 356,358 (1984)
+
need for DOE reactors to meet guidelines of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 387 (1984) need to conader capability of TMI to limst doses to ensure compliance with; CLI-84-3,19 NRC 558 n.3 (1984) i obpecove of Reliability Assurance Program for Cinch River Project; LBP-84-4.19 NRC 340 (1984) restriction of primary to-secondary leakage in steam generator to avoid exceeding dose criteria;
--i CLI-84-3,19 NRC 561 (1984)
Q scope and purpose of guidelines governing radiauon doses; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 355 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100.I1 i
specification of dose guidelines for design basis accidents; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 317,346 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100, Appendix A adequacy of seismic design of Byron plant; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 48 (1984) capatulity of faults in vicinity of Cinch River Project; LBP-#4-4,19 NRC 369 (1984) j definition of a capable fault; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 244 (1984) reporting of faults revealed during excavations; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 370 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100, Appendix A,il departure from cnteria established by GDC 2; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 240 (1934) 10 C.F.R.100, Appendix A, Ill(c) and (d) guides for determining structural requirements of a nuclear facility, relative to seismic activity; LBP 84-2,19 NkC 239-40 (1984)
</
10 C.F.R.100, Appendix A. Ill(s)
,;y
,y definition of a capable fault; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 240 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100 Appendix A, IV(a) and (b)
,,i '
'M capability of faults in vicinity of Cinch River Project; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 372 (1984)
(,)
10 C.F.R.100, Appendia A, V(a)(2)
~,
,4
.,, q)3 basis for determining a facility's maximum vibratory ground acceleration; LBP-84-2,19 liRC 240
-.4 (1984)
~
.,,,i-, '1 ^
.Tl- )
44 C.F R. 350
),
]
.g~
4gg desenption of comnuttee reviewing radiological emargency plant; DD-84 5,19 NRC 5 7 e.3 (1954)
,u.9'4 N-
.. I'f} -
)
}'
se
'a gm?*
+
j, 3-y) j
,'s
.~
=
4.
t e
- Is t.-,
vv
.' :=
>r m
a 1 *'4'
- 4.
'l
- s.
, '.,, f v
+ c W
q 47 I
l
l l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Administrative Procedure Act. 554,5 U.S.C. 554 need for a hearing on Part 70 issues; ALAB-765,19 NRC 651 (1984)
Administrative Procedure Act,356,5 U.S.C. 556 means for Commission fulfillment of mandate to conduct adjudicatory proceedings impartially; ALAB-759,19 NRC 20 n.23 (1983) i Atomic Energy Act, as amended January 4,1983,12(a), Pub. L.97-415 effectiveness of amendments to Part 70 fuel licenses; LBP 84-16,19 NRC 873 (1984)
Atomic Energy Act, 103,182a 42 U S.C. 2133(b)(2),2232(a) e character and competence requirements for license issuance; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 669,672 (1984) j Atomic Energy Act,182c,42 U.S.C. 2232c need to nouce Part 70 hcense apphcation; ALAB 765,19 NRC 651 n.10 (1984) i Atomic Energy Act,185,42 U.S C. 2235 I
need to rehugate health, safety and environmental quesuons between construcuon permit authonzanon and operaung bcense stages, LBP-84-9,19 NRC 507 (1984) j showing necessary for extension of construction completion date; LBP-84 9,19 NRC 498. 502
. i i
(1984) 1 Atomic Energy Act,186
-l reportabihty of quality assurance audit DD 84-8,19 NRC 928,930 (1984)
]
Atomic Energy Act,186a. 42 U.S C. 2236(a) penalty for material false statement, LBP-8413,19 NRC 674 n.23 (1984)
Atomic Energy Act,189a,42 U.S.C. 2239(a) determination of whether an operating license proceeding is a continuation of a construction permit proceeding; ALAB-759,19 NRC 24 n.39 (1984) need for a heanns on Part 70 issues; ALAB 765,19 NRC 651 (1984)
Energy Reorsamzauon Act of 1974,88 Stat.1242,42 U.S C. 5801 i
" agency" status of NRC; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 405 (1984)
.i Low Level Waste Policy Act of 1980,42 U.S C. 2021(b) et seq.
state responsibilities concernma radioactive waste disposal LBP 84-6,19 NRC 415 (1984) 4
+
Nanonal Environmental Pokey Act of 1969,42 U.S C. 4321, et seq
?
adequacy of Staff charactenzation of groundwater system under Byron; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 219 l
(1984)
National Environmental Policy Act,102(2)(C) apphcabihty of floodplain management requirements to NRC; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 404 (1984)
Nuclear Waste Pohey Act of 1982,42 U S C.10,101 et seq.
funding for radioactive waste disposal; LBP-844,19 NRC 413 (1984) e h
s 4
n.
49 9
g i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS 1972 ABA Code of Judicsal Conduct Canon 3(c) standard for disquahfication of a judge; ALAB-759,19 NRC 24 n.37 (1984)
K. Davis, Admannstranve Law Treause { 7.01 (1958) presentauon of new arguments in proposed fNings of fact; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 515 n.14 (1984)
Webster's Third New Internauonal Dictionary 376 (unabridged ed.1976) dennnion of character relauve to an operating license apphcant; LBP.84-13,19 NRC 673 n.19 (1984)
Websier's Tturd New International Dictionary 463 (unabridged ed.1976) definsuon of" competence" relauve to an operaung license apphcant, LBP-8413,19 NRC 672 n.14 (1984) 8 Wigmore. Evidence i 2285 (J. McNaughton rev.1961) claim of privdese by organizauon gathering confidential informahon. ALAB-764.19 NRC 639 9
(1984) 8 Wigmore, Evalence il 2285,2286 (J. McNaughton rev 1%I) cauw for quashing of subpoenas. ALAB-764,19 NRC 642 (1984) 4 Wright. Mdler & Kane. Federal Pracuce and Procedure, t 2722 (1983) f support necessary in opposing summary disposition motions, LBP-84-7,19 NRC 436 (1984)
- j 4
c$
i I
l I
l' I k
t.
k J
x JI 4
{ _~ {
~
~
.. J g a
".O s
$1 l
l l
m ms
i l
SUBJECT INDEX ACCIDENT (S) at Clinch River, dose consequences of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) core disrupuve, definition of and analysis of, relative to Chnch River Breeder Reactor; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) enticahty and nonenticality, from unirradiated fuel stored outside, nsk of, LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) e degraded core, technical discussion of, LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1944) j design basis, defirution of, and analysis of, relative to Clinch River Breeder Reactor, LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
' l fuel handling, at Clinch River, radioactive releases from; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) protected loss-of-heat-sink, at Clinch River, desenption of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) severe, at Byron Station, environmental costs of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
~
small-break, loss-of coolant, charactenstics of; CLI-84-3,19 NRC 555 (1984) with crane at Perry plant, denial of 2.206 petition requesting independent analysis of; DD-841,19 NRC 471 (1984)
AGREEMENT between parties, termmation ofintervention on basis of; LBP-84-15 A,19 NRC 852 (1984)
ALARA as related to steam generators at Byron Station; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
ALTERNATIVES to nuclear power plants; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
AMENDMENT of new fuellicense, stay of effecoveness of; LBP 84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984)
See also Operating License Amendment APPEAL BOARD jurisdiction of; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984) jurindstion over Part 70 licenses; LBP 84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984)
A PPEAL, INTERLOCUTORY by nonparty to operstmg license proceeding; ALAB-764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
APPLICANT
. i for an operating hcense, managenal character and competence requirements for; LBP-84-13,19
-i NRC 659 (1984) standards for reopemns the record by; LBP-8410,19 NRC 509 (1914)
ASME CODE work at Zimmer, adequacy of means for venfication of; DD 84-3,19 NRC 480 (1984)
AUXILIARY BUILDING l
at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of modeling of soil spnngs for; ALAB 763,19 NRC 171 (1984)
AUXILLARY FEEDWATER PUMPS at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of fire protection for ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM venfication of design of, at Diablo Canyon; ALAB 76),19 NRC 571 (1984)
- t AWS CODE compliance with, at Comanche Peak; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 509 (1984)
BACKFILL at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of soils analyses of; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984) 1 i
a e
53 3
[')
- k. bra
._,..___yw..
-,,.-,f
SUBJECT INDEX 4
l I
l BOARDS See Appeal Board, Licensmg Boards CABLES See Electncal Cables CADWE LDS i
at South Texas Project, loss of documents relating to; LBP-8413,19 NRC 659 (1984) l CANCER l.
and se neuc risk estimates, texcuon of contenuons relating to, LBP 8415,19 NRC 837 (1984) mortality data, mnuences on; LBP-84-l$.19 NRC 837 (1984) radiation-induced, hugability of pain and sufferms aspects of, LBP 84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984) risk from esposure to low levels of radiation, LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
(.,
risk to the pubhc from normal operatson of Clinch River Breeder Reactor LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 i
(1984)
[
See also llealtn Effects l
CERTIFIC4T!ON I.
}
See Directed Certification CilARACTER I
legal standards for determmms; LBP 8413,19 NRC 659 (1984)
}
managertal, of an operaung hcense apphcant, diwussson of, LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984) l CiflN A SYNDROME l
dessnpuon of; LBP 84 4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
COAL paruculate emissions, adequacy of Staff consideranon of environmental impacts of LBP-84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984)
CODE See ASME Code, AWS Code COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL applicahon of,in NRC proceedmss, ALAB 759,19 NRC 13 (1984); LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
COMM ENT, PUBLIC on review of Zimmer implementauon of Courw of Acuc*n, means provided for; DD-84-3,19 NRC 480 (1984)
?
COMMUNICATIONS with Byron emergency response organizations, adequacy of; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
COMPETENCE legal standards for determmmg; LBP 84-l),19 NRC 659 (1984) managerial, of an operating hcense apphcant, diwussion of; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984)
+
COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM at Diablo Canyon, adequa6y of heat removal capacity of. ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
COMPUTERIZATlON of denciency records for construction at Comanche Peak, regulatory compliance of LBP 84-8,19 NRC 466 (1984) i CONCRETE j
i pour <ards, alleganons of faisancation of, at South Tenas Prowct; LBP 8413,19 NRC 659 (1984) 1 l
productson at Byron, alleganons concermns quahty of; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) i structures at WNP 2, allegauons of discrepancies in; DD 84 7,19 NRC 899 (1984)
See also Voads CONFLICT OF INTEREST through applicane's 6nterrelauonships with its vendors and financers, potennal for, LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
CONSTRUCTION compienon date, need to consider health, safety, and evivironmental etTects of; LBP 84-9,19 NRC 497 (1984) deficiency records at Comanche Peak, adequacy of coenputerization ori LBP 84 8,19 NRC 466 (1984)
/
of WNP 2 facihty, allesauons of deficiencies in; DD-84 7,19 NHC 899 (1984)
$4 f
I s
- A
.. w-
~
~ :
I 9 3
_s SUBJECT INDEX quahty assurance programs at South Texas Project, adequacy of; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984) j quality necessary for grant of an operstms license; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (19H)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 3
audet of management performance ordered as a result of violation of; DD-84-2,19 NRC 478 (1984) tend cause for entension of completion date in; LBP-84-9,19 NRC 497 (1984)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PROCEEDINGS j
need for Licensing Board to issue initial decision on uncontested proceedings; ALAB-761,19 NRC
' /,
487 (1984)
CONTAINMENT allegatsons of reber massing from; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984)
Diablo Canyon, potential for uphftme of; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (19%4)
.,i for breeder reactor, desenption of. LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) i South Texas Project, adequacy of membrane seals in; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984)
South Texas Project, eussience of voids in walls of; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984)
CONTAMINATION of groundwater by radionuclides; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
. CONTENTION (S) ehmmation of the bass for heanns through withdrawal of; LBP 84-II,19 NRC 533 (1984) health effects, summary dispostion of; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984) late filed, factors evaluated for admasmon of; LBP 841,19 NRs 29 (1984); LBP-84-17,19 NRC 578 (1984) oppoeng the laws of physics, admesabihty of; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984) prematunty of; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) requirement for intervention; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) specificity required of; LBP-84-1,19 NRC 29 (19841 that are or are about to become the sbject of rulemaking, htigability of; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (19H) untimely, admisabihty of, where good cause is shown for lateness; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984)
CONTRACTORS construction, at Byron plant, quality assurance overught of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (19H)
CONTROL ROOM ventilation and pressurization system, venfecation of desagn of, at Diablo Canyon; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
COOLANT leakage of, from pnmary to secondary system; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
See alm > Component Coohng Water System COOLING SYSTEMS See Component Cooling Water System, Coolant CORRECTIVE ACTIONS j
compliance of WNP-2 with quahty assurance cri.ena for; DD-84 7,19 NRC 899 (1984) j CORROSION
.g See Denting Intergrenular Stress Corramon Cracking, Pittms 5
7 CRITICA LITY
+
j accidents, risk of, from unitradiated fuel stored riutside; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984)
- I potential of new fuel, technical discussion of; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984)
CYANIDE contamination of Byron ute groundwater by; LDP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
DECAY HEAT l
removal at Clinch River, descnption of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
See also Heat Removal DECISION, INITI AL on uncontested constructson permet proceedings, need for Licenang Board issuance of; ALAB-761
.i 19 NRC 487 (1984)
See also Opinions, Orders c
1 r
55 t
(
g g-a Y
Ya+
-4g3 I
{ f.,
g g
t,
4
SUBJECT INDEX DEFICIENCIES in construction and management of WNP 2 facility, allegations of; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984) in des,sn of Diablo Canyon; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
[.
in demsn quality assurance, terminology relative ta; LBP-8410,19 NRC 509 (1984) report abligations for, under section 50.55(e); DC 84-8,19 NRC 924 (1984)
See also Noncompliances, Nonconformances DEFICIENCY REPORTS under 10 C.F R. 50.55(e), relationship of, to qual:ty assurance requirements; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (D84)
DEFINITIONS of rad and rem; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
DELAY of a licensing proceeding pending disposition of a case being presented to a State authonty; LBP 844,19 NRC 393 (1984) i DENTING of steam generator tubes, descripison of, and renedy for; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
DEstGN changes at South Texas Project, adequacy of ver.fication and approval of, LBP 84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984) control critena, conformance of standby service water system at WNP 2 with; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984) defense in-depth, approach to Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project LBP-84 4,19 NRC 288 (1984) drawmss, conformance of DiaMo Canyon as-benit with; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) of Diablo Canyon facihty, adequacy of applicant's efforts to venfy; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984) of nuclear power plants, sundard for determiring adequacy of; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
{
5ee also Seismic Design g
DIESEL FUEL tanke, buried, at Diablo Canyon, adequacy o soils analyses for; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
I r
DIRECTED CERTIFICATION showmg necessary for Appeal Board esercise ofits authonty fct; ALAB-762,19 NRC 565 (1984)
DISCOVERY order, interlocutory appeal of, by nonparty io operating license proceedms; ALAB 764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
Dl5 QUALIFICATION of Licenang Board judge because of pnor consultant relationship with nuclear power plant applicant; ALAB-759,19 NRC 13 (1984) of Licensing Board members, standards st+vermng; ALAB 759,19 NRC 13 (1984) t DOCUMENTS I
quahty assurance / quality control, need for consolidation of, ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
{
I relaims to culwelds at South Texas Project, loss of; LBP-8413,19 NRC 659 (1984) 1 DOSE (5) consequences of accidenta at Clinch Rive LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) distinction between does commitment a,d, LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) from radionuclides, over milhons of years, conaideration of, LBP 84-15,19 NRC 437 (1984) modehns, mathematical, of radionuclides in the environment; LBP 84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984)
}
See also Radia ion Doses EARTilQUAKE 4
See Safe Shutdown Earthquake ECONOMIC IMPACIS os hcensed activities, institution of show cause proceedings to explore; DD 84-1,19 NRC 471 (1984e i
ECONOMICS 4
of safe disposal of radioactive wastes; LBP 84 6,19 NRC 393 (1984) i EFFECTIVENESS
}
of amendment to new fuellicense, s'ay of, LSP 8416,19 NRC 857 (1984) l ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM venfication of demon of, at Diablo Canyon; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984) 54
C 1
-l.
e SUBJECT INDEX
~
t ELECTRICAL CABLES
^;
at WNP-2, correcuon of(iscrepancies in separation and installation of, DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984)
EMERGENCY PLANNING
,y adequacy of, at Beaver Valley; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) at Pilgrim facihty, denial of request for action respecting the state of, DD-84-5,19 NRC 542 (1984) i estimauon of traffac times and average generic sheltering values for purpJoes of; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
Ss Clinch River Project, femmbility of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) issues, treatment given by Licensing Board to, LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) 4 See also Evacuation, Federal Emer8ency Management Agency, Medical Services EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE estenar.n of; DD 84-5,19 NRC 542 (1984) for WoliCreek facility, htigability oflate-filed contention questiomns adequacy of; LBP 84-l,19 i
NRC 29 (1984)
EMERGENCY POWER SUPPLY at DiaNo Canyon, requirements for prosecuon of; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
EMERGENCY RESPONSE ORG ANIZATIONS for Byron plant, adequacy of commumcations between; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
EMISSIONS, R ADIOACTIVE l
from Byron plant, adequacy of moi storing of; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) i See also Radioactive Releases Radon
)
EMPLOYEES
'i tranment, at Byron Station, occupational radiation exposure to; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS of severe accidents at Byron Stauon; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS of extension of construction completion date, need to consider; LBP 84 9,19 NRC 497 (1984)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of coal particulate emismons, adequacy of Staff conaderation of; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984)
EQUIPMENT,5AFETY GRADE htigability of contention concerning interactions between aunihary equipment and; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
EQUIPMENT, SAFETY RELATED mechanical, methods for checking at Diablo Canyon; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
EVACUATlON aberrauonal behavioral aspects during; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) of schoolchildren and their parents, adequacy of Byron plans for; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) time estimates for Pilsnm facility, adequacy of DD 84-5.19 NRC 542 (1984) time study for Byron plant, analyma of; LBP 44-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
EVIDENCE duty of citizens to provide; ALAB 764,19 NRC 633 (1984) g c.
2 EXEMPTION
,? '
from requirement for ent.ality monitonng system; LBP 8416,19 NRC 857 (1984)
EXTENSION of construction compienon date, Sood cause for; LBP-84 9,19 NRC 497 (1984)
FAULT (5) activity in vicimty of Clinch River; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
~
Copper Crees and Whiteosk Mountain, proximity of, to Clinch River Breeder Reactor plant; i
~
proximity of, to Byron mie; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) i See also Sandwich Fault, Seismicity l
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
,l responsabilities of, regarding emergency planning for nuclear power plants; DD-84 5,19 NRC 542 (1984)
I i
t i
s7 i
o iws
>w-,
o 4
( M. Qs ty,
a s s
SUBJECT INDEX FINANCIAL CAP 4BILITIES of apphcants to cover radioactive waste disposal,litigabihty of,in operating license proceedmss; LSP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
FINDINGS necessary for issuance of Limited Work Authorization; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
FINDINGS OF FACT proposed, new arguments in; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 509 (1984)
FIRE PROTECTION for auxihary feedwater pump room at Diablo Canyon, deviation from hcensng cnteria for; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
See also Pyrophonc Materials FISH kills from thermal discharges into SHNPP reservoir, adequacy of consideration of; LBP-84-15,19 NRC 837 (1984)
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT requirements, apphcability of, to NRC; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
FUEL 4
handling accidems at Chnch River, assessment of radioactive releases from; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) handhng building at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of modehng of; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) loadmg at Diablo Canyon, nsk to public from; CLI 84-1,19 NRC I (1984) unirradiated, stored outside, nsk to pubhc from; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984)
See also Diesel Fuel, Spent Fuel FUEL NEW crincahty potenhalof; ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 (1984) handhng and storage of, at the reactor site; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984)
FUNDING to cover costs of disposal of radioactive wastes; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
GENERATOR i
See Steam Generator GEOLOGY of Clinch River setung, analysis of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
GRO'!NDWATER under Byron plant, potential cuntaminatbn of, by radionuclides; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
HEALTH AND SAFETY effects of extension of construction completion date, need to consider; LBP-84-9,19 NRC 497 (1984)
~
HEALTH EFFECTS comentions, summary disposition of, LBP-84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984) issues which challenge BEIR estimates, precondition to heanns on; LBP-84-15,19 NRC 837 (1984) of low-level radiation, challenges to NRC assessments of, LBP-84 7,19 NRC 432 (1984)
See also Cancer HEARING (5) ehmanation of the bams for, through withdrawal of all contentions; LBP-84-il,19 NRC 533 (1984) requirement for matenals licenses; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984)
HEAT REMOVAL capacity of component conhng mater system at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984) systems at Chnch River, descripten of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
See also Decay Heat HOUSEKEEPING at WNP-2, identification and correction of weaknesses in; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984)
INSPECTORS See Quahty Assurance Inspectors INTERGRANULAR STREM CORROSION CR ACKING at Byron Station, means for mitigation of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) 53 s
4 e,
ax p.
4 1
a i i SUBJECT INDEX
_.s s
_a
.}
INTERVENORS 3:
limitauon an participaticn by,in Limited Work Authorization proceedms; ALAB-761,19 NRC 487 (1984) i protection of emergency planning interests of; LBP-84-1,19 NRC 29 (1984) 3 INTERVENTION by an interested state; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) contenuon requirement for; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) late, concernmg prematunty of operstmg license appicauon, dental of; ALAB 758,19 NRC 7 (1984)
~
late, newly acquired organizanonal status as jusufication for; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 878 (1984) late, showing necessary on other factors when good ca,ase is not shown for; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 878 (1984) terminauon of, on basis of agreement between parMes; LBP-8415A,19 NRC 852 (1984) withdrawal of petinon for;IJP 84 5,19 NRC 391 (1984) g 4
INVESTIGATIONS I
conducted by Licensms Boards; LBP-84-3,19 NRC 282 (1984)
JET IMPINGEMENT effects on design and quahlication of safety-related equipment and piping inside Diablo Canyon
.e containment, adequacy of analysis of; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
JURISDICTION of Licensms Boards over Part 70 bcenses; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984); LBP 8416,19 NRC
{
857 (1984) 1 of Licensms Boards over Staff orders; LBP 84-14,19 NRC 857 (1984) j of Licensing Boards relative to opesating licenses; ALAB 758,19 NRC 7 (1984)
JURISDICTION, APPELLATE followmg Commission enforcement order condiuonally suspendmg low-power hcense; ALAB 763, 19 NRC 571 (1984) 8enerally; ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 (1984) over cancelled ur,its, termmation of; ALAB-760,19 NRC 26 (1984) over Part 70 licenses; LBP 84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984)
LICENSES Part 70 Licensing Board jurisdetion over; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984)
Part 70, stay of elTectiveness of amendment of; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984)
See siso Materials License Operaung License (s)
LICENSING BOARD (5) authonty of, to call wanesses; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984) s authonty to limit participation by intervenors; ALAB 761,19 NRC 487 (1984) mvestigatio' of quahty assurance allesauons, cause for; LBP-84-3,19 NRC 282 (1984) n jurisdicuon of, over Part 70 licenses; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) jurisdicten of, over Staff orders; LBP 84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) e, jurisdiction of; ALAB-765,19 NRC 64$ (1984) pr ',/ ;
junsdiction relauve to operating licenses, scope of ALAB-758,19 NRC 7 (1984) members, standards severning disquahfication of. ALAB-759,19 NRC 13 (1984) responsibility for defimns scope and type of proceedings before; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984)
~
LIMITFD WORK AUTHORIZATION findings necessary for issuance of, LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) proceedings, limitations on intervenor participauon in; ALAB-761,19 NRC 487 (1984)
MAINTENANCE preventative, at WNP 2, adequacy of; DD 84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984)
MANAGEMENT audit ordered at Midland as a result of violanon of construction permits; DD 84-2,19 NRC 478 t1984) j of WNP-2 facihty, allegations of deficiencies in; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984)
M ANAGEMENT CAPABILITY
}'
operational record ofIscaver Valley as basis for uncertamt) as to; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
+
. a i
l l
\\
' I t
4
~A'
'm r y+ +.
- g N -- \\ %. k, n's
,g.
s
i i
i e
SUBJECT INDEX M ATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT (5) factors relevant to determining the existence of; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984) fadure to report audit of quahty assurance program as; DD-84-8,19 NRC 924 (1984)
NRC enforcement policy for DD-84-8,19 NRC 924 i1984)
M ATERIALS CONTROL at Byron Station, adequacy of, LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) at WNP 2, discrepancies in; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984)
MATERIAL 5 LICENSE heanns requirements for; ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 (1984) notsce requirement for; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (19844 under Part 70, need for uuhty to obtain; ALAB 761,19 NRC 645 (1984)
M EDICAL SERVICE 5 adequacy of Byron emergency plans concerning; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
MODELING of fuel handlms building at Diablo Canyon, aqequacy of; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) of sod spnnes for Diablo Canyon auxiliary building, aqequacy of; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
MONITORING cnticality, of umrradiated fuel stored outside, exemption from requirement for; LBP-8416,19 NRC 857 (1984) ofleakage of emlant from pnmary to secondary system at Byron Station, means for; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) of radeoactive emissions from Byron plant, adequacy of; L8P 84-2,19 NRC 36 i1984) of radionuthdes near research reactor, agreement concernmg; LBP 84-15A,19 NkC 852 (1984) steam generator tube integnty at Byron Station, means for; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
MOTIONS late-filed, Part 70, admissibdity of; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) i NEED FOR POWER challenge to regulanon governing litigation of; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
NONCOMPLIANCES I
at Byron Stauon, record of; LSP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
{
NONCONFORMANCE5
~
documentation of, at Comanche Peak; LBP 84-10,19 NRC 509 (1984)
See also Deficiencies NOUCE requirement for matenats licenses; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION impostion of, for matenal false statement; DD-84-8,19 NRC 924 (1984)
NRCSTAFF g
delegation of Licenmns Board responsbehties to; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) obligauon to mform Board and parties of Staff acuen; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) orders, Licensms Board junsdiction over; LBP 84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) post-hearing resolution ofissues by; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) propnety of conduct of, in review of matters related to WNP 2 facihty; DD-84-7,19 NRC 499 (1984)
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS conaderation of alternauves to; LSP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DIRECTOR responsbihty of, regardmg findings required as precondiuon to issuance of caperaung license; Al AB-758,19 NRC 7 (1984)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N applicability of floodplain management requirements; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) enforcement policy for matenal falso statements: DD-84-4,19 NRC 924 (1984) rulemaking authonty of DD 84-6,19 NRC 891 (1984)
NUCLEAR 5 TEAM SUPPLY 5YSTEM at Diablo Canyon, venficanon of demsn of, ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
See also Steam Oeneratori eg
- ,,,n 7
,n>
c.
l 1
,L x
=
5 J
SUBJECT INDEX e
I
~
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT authoruing reracking, consolidation, and temporary storage of spent fuel assemblies in cask laydown i
area; LBP 8414,19 NRC 834 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS applicanon cf res judicata and collateral estoppelin; ALAB 759,19 NRC 13 (1984) delay of, pendms disposition of a cese being presented to a State authonty; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) j OPERATING LICENSE (S) applicant, character and competence of, LBP 8413,19 NRC 659 (1554) application, degree of compleuen of reactor required before filing of; ALAB-762,19 NRC 565 l
.(1984) apphcation, dental of unumely peution concerning prernatunty of application for; ALAB 758,19 NRC 7 (1984) construction quahty necessary for grant of; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984) denial of, for failure to meet quality assurance obhgations; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) responsibihty for making findings required as precondition to issuance of, ALAB-758,19 NRC 7 (1984) e OPINIONS advisory, cause for Licenang Board issuance of; LBP-84 4,19 NRC ?$8 (1984)
See also Decision, Orders ORDERS Staff, Licensing Board jurisdicuon over; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) i See also Protective Order, Show-Cause Order l
PEN ALTIES, CIVIL assessed asamst Byron Statiort applicant, amount of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
PETITIONS under 2.206, cause for Staff action on; DD-84-1,19 NRC 471 (1984)
PIPE (S) hanger inspecuon at Byron, adequacy of program for; LBP-84-2.19 NRC 36 (1984) large, at Chach River, features for prevennon of rupture of; LDP-844,19 NRC 218 (1984) support instabdity at Comanche Peak, issues ; hat need to be conadered regarding; LBP-84-10,19 s
NRC 509 (1984)
PIPING small-bore, at Diablo Canyon, deman and analysis of, ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
PIPING SPANS S
computer analyms of, at Diablo Canyon; ALAb-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
PITTINO of steam Senerator tubes, description of, and remedy for; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
PLUM MVER FAULT descripuon of, in relation to Byron site; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
POWER
.?
See Emergency Power Supply, Need for Power Nuclear Power Plants PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK
' W at Beaver Valley, admissibility of contention concerning probability of; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
PRIVILEGE (S)
Court attitudes toward, generally; ALAB-764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
First Amendment, factors balanced in determimns to give recogniuon to; ALAB 764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
Scholar's, vahdity of, in modern case law; ALAB-764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
',,.s_
e, PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT
'e
" ^
iQ apphcanon of, to severe accident analysis for Byron plant; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) f 5
PROOF, BURDEN OF
,o C.'
on applicant; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) to
,);.
a '
4
."1' g
(
n i
I d.
t j
g*
k g
.h, h
(
k#
g
.J5'h, hf%
,i ( g3 { T g'h,
$g AbWg@
4 4 h T
3 - p M..g, g -
r
,s i
e t.
4 SUBJECT INDEX PROTECTIVE ORDER Board assumptson of obedsence to; ALAB-764,19 NRC 633 (1984) cause for imposition of; ALA8-764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
'l PYROPHORIC MATERIALS in reactor pressure vessel head at TMI 2, risk to public from; DD-84-4,19 NRC 535 (1984)
QUALIFICATIONS of enganeenng, quahty assurance and craft personnel at WNP 2, evaluation of; DD-84-7,19 NRC ~
899 (1984)
QUALITY ASSURANCE at Byron, abihty and willmaness of Apphcant to maintain program for; L8P-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1934) construction, at South Texas Project, adequacy of, L8P 84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984) contentions, dental of unumely petition seeking litigation of, in emergency planning proceeding; L8P-84-17,19 NRC 878 (1984) i deficiencies, newspaper allegations of, as grounds for reopening the record, LBI' 84-3,19 NRC 282 (1984) i documents, need for consolidation of, into a manual; ALA8 763,19 NRC 571 (1984) for dessen, regulations applicable to; L8P-8410,19 NRC 509 (1984) for deugn, terminology relative to deficiencies in: L8P 8410,19 NRC 509 (1984) of design verificahon program for Diablo Canyon, adequacy of; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984) i:
e overs'sht of construction contractors at Byron; L8P-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984l l
program at WNP 2 facihty, adecuacy of; DD-84-7,19 NRC 399 (1984) j program for Chnch River Breeder Reactor, adequacy of; L8P 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) program for desagn of Diablo Canyon,6dentification of causes of failures in. ALA8 763,19 NRC 571 (1984) program, failure to report audal of, as material false statement; DD.84-8,19 NRC 924 (1984) requirements apucable to surveyms; L8P-8413,19 NRC 659 (1984) requirements, relationship of, to deficiency reports under 10 C.F.R. 50 $$(e); LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984)
QUALITY ASSURANCE INSPECTORS at South Texas Project, horassment of; L8P 84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984)
RAD I
dermition of; L8P 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
RADIATION i
as low as reasonably achievable, regulation of industnal espos,are to, L8P-84-2,19 NRC 36 (19841 effects of, on livmg systems; L8P-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) esposure, sources of activity leading to; L8P-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) r I
hazard from new fuel; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984)
RADIATION DOSES
{
cumulative, to residents of Beaver Valley area, adequacy of assessment of, LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
-l due to normat operation of Cimch River Breeder Reactor, average annual; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) 1'1
.i See also Doses
- ;d
((
RADIATION, LOW LEVEL
' T, e a. j cancer risk from exposure to; L8P 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
]
challenges to NRC assessments of health effects of; L8P 84 7,19 NRC 432 (1984)
RADIOACTIVE RELEASES dunns an emergency, capabihty of Pilsnm hcensee to estimate: DD 84-5,19 NRC $42 (19845 resultmg from fuel handhng accidents at Clinch River; L8P 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
See also Eminuons R ADIOACTIVE WASTES fundmg to cover costs of disposal of; L8P 844,19 NRC 393 (1984)
Iow level, from Beaver Valley, provision for isolauon of, LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) i,,
e 4
62
(
w I
l e
L
- 7 w
,n
-. 1 i
- 9y
- u 1
4
-)
M' '
SUBJECT INDEX s
3 RADIONUCLIDES considerauon of doses from, over millions of years, LBP-8415,19 NRC 837 (1984) contaminsuon of groundwater by; LBP44-2,19 NRC M (1984) monitoring of, near research reactor, agreement concerning; LBP44-15A,19 NRC 852 (1984)
+
s gas emissions, lausabihty of health effects of; LBP44-6,19 NRC 39) (1984)
REACTOR pressunzed water, at Byron Stauon, desenpuon of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC M (1984) scram systems at Byron, adequacy of; LBP-84-2.19 NRC M (1984)
REACf0R CORE meltdown, annessment of consequences of contamination of Byron groundwater system by; LBP44-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL head at TMI-2, denial of request for postponement of hftme of; DD44-4,19 NRC 535 (1984)
REACTOR SliUTDOWN SYSTEMS at Clinch River, desenption of; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
RECONSIDERATION I
new ar8uments in monons for; LBP 84-lo,19 NRC 509 (1984) d RECORD (S) cntena for reopenmg. LBP44-13,19 NRC 659 (l984) deficiency, for construction at Comanche Peak, regulair..f compliance of, LBP44-8,19 NRC 466 (1984) newspaper allegauons of quahiy assurance deficiencies as grounds for reopening; LBP-84-3,19 NRC 282 (1984) l qualsty assurance, at WNP-2, problems with generauon of; DD44-7,19 NRC 899 (1984) reopemns by apphcant, standards for; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 509 (1984)
REGULATIONS af phcable to quahty assurance for design; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 509 (1984)
REM definition ofi LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
,.,,-.,. I REPORTS See Deficiency Reports RES JUDICATA apphcanon of, in NRC proceedmss; ALAB 759.19 NRC 13 (1984); LBP44-2,19 NRC M (1984) 5 4
RESTART PROCEEDING for TMI-l, scope of, CLi-84-3,19 NRC 555 (1984) 4 RfCllMOND INSERTS tesung of, at Comanche Peak; LBP44-10,19 NRC 509 (1984)
RISK
, p estimates, cancer and senetic, rejecuan of contentions relating to: LBP44-15,19 NRC 837 (1984)
<+
of cancer fatahues and geneuc defects from normal operation of Chnch River Breeder Reactor;
.4 c3j LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) es a
- 4 of cancer from espusure to low levels of radiauon; LBP44 2,19 NRC 36 (1984); LBP-84 7,19 p
NRC 432 (1984)
, +, '
See also Probabihsuc Ris* Assessment a
~ g'i RULEMAKING s
imustion of; DD444.19 NRC 891 (1984) 2
~,
Q instituhon of show-cause proceedmg to consider issue that is the subject of, DD 844,19 NRC 891 (1984)
RULES OF PR ACTICE 3
1; '
admissibehty of contennons opposms the laws of physics; ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 (1984) i l
,?,
, '., ' A [s -
t admissibehty o(laie filed Part 70 motions; LBP44-16,19 NRC 857 (l984)
-W,,
" ?
J".
M
,1, appealability of final orders on monons related to Part 70 hcennes; LBP44-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) y,3,
ij spplicanon of res judicata and collateral estoppel in hcensing proceedmss; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36
.1 i ',
- ',*Q (1984) 4 1
g
'\\
t 63 4<
,[-
m r
s v
I I
6 A *
~'f*
r
)s
- b et p ', %
,ys
&a eLw 4y -
SUBJECT INDEX assumption that protective orders will be obeyed ALA8 764,19 NRC 633 (1984) burden of proof on applicant; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) burden on proponent and opponent of mouon for summary disposition; L8P-84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984) cause for impostion of protective order; ALA8-764,19 NRC 633 (1984) cause for Staff schon en 2.206 peutions; DD-841,19 NRC 471 (1984) circumstances in which an order to show cause is appropnate; DD 84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984) j considerat,on, in response to 2.206 peution, of issue that is the suNect of rulemaking; DD-84-6,19 NRC 891 (1984) cntena for reopenmg a record; L8P 84-3,19 NRC 282 (1984); L8P-84 l),19 NRC 659 (1984) factors evaluated for admission oflate-Gled contentions; LBP 841,19 NRC 29 (1984); LBP-8417, 19 NRC 878 (1984) mitsstion of show cause proceedmss; DD-84-l,19 NRC 471 (1984) interlocutory appeal by nonparty to operating hcense proceedms; ALA8-764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
,I junsdiction of Appeal Boards; ALA8 765,19 NRC 645 (1984) i Junsdicuon of Licenang Boards over Part 70 hcenses; ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 (1984) l Licensms Board investigauon of quahty assurance alleganons; L8P 84-3,19 NRC 282 (1984) 8 new arguments in monons for reconsideranon. LBP 84-10,19 NRC 509 (1984) new ar8vments in proposed findmss of fact; L8P-8410,19 NRC 509 (1984) 6 newly acquired organizauonal status as jusuficauon for belated intervenuon; LBP 84-17,19 NRC
}
878 (1984)
I responsibehties of pernes concermes service of papers; L8P 84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) responsabihues of parues concerning ogmficant new mformauon; ALA8 765,19 NRC 645 (1984) responsibehues of pariies, ALA8 761,19 NRC 487 (1994)
I responsibility for definmg scope and type of a proceedmg before a Licensms Board; ALA8-765,19 NRC 645 (1984) showmg necessary for Appeal Board to esercise its directed certificauon authonty; ALAB 762,19 NRC 565 (1984) showmg necessary for Board issuance of a subpoena; ALA8 764,19 NRC 633 (1984) 1 showmg necessary on oter factors when Sood cause is not shown for late intervention; L8P 84-17, 19 NRC 578 (1984) i specificity required of contenuons, L8P 84-1,19 NRC 29 (1984) standards for applicant to bapen the record-LBP-84-to,19 NRC 509 (1984) stay of effectiveness of sinendment of new fuellicense; L8P-8416,19 NRC 857 (1943 summary dispossuon of health effects contentions; L8P-84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984) untimely submission of contentions where good cause is shown. ALAB-765,19 NRC 64) < '984)
SAFE 5HUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE is concurrent with core compaction reactivity insertson at Clinch River, analysis of; L8P 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) i
$AFETY at Clinch River, pnncipal design features ofimportance to, L8P 84 4,19 NRC 288 (1984) t
'J.
commitment of Byron apphcant to; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
S See also Health and Safety SANDWICH FAULT a-
~ ~ !
descrimson of,in relanon to Byron sate; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
]
SECURITY PLAN for protection of unirradiated fuel stored outside, need for; L8P 84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) i 5EISMIC DE5tGN l
of Byron plant, adequacy of; L8P 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
I standard apphed to Diablo Canyon, adequacy of; CLI 84 2,19 NRC 3 (1984)
SEISMICITY of Chnch River site, analysis of; L8P-84 a.19 NRC 288 (19'4) t See also Fault (s) i 5HOW CAUSE ORDER j
sppropnate circumstance for; DD.84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984) 64 6
l
{
~
}
s 9
i
--e
., m a
I SUBJECT INDEX g
-0 SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDINGS instituhon of, to consuier issue that is the subject of rulemaking; DD 84-6,19 NRC 891 (1984) 4 instituhon of, to emptore economic impacts of licensed acuvines; DD-84-1,19 NRC 471 (1984)
SilVTDOWN See Reactor Shutdown Systems, Safe Shutdown Earthquake.
$1TE preparauon activines, means for seekmg early approval of; ALAB 761,19 NRC 487 (1984) a redress, participation in proceedmg on, ALAB-761,19 NRC 487 (1984)
SITE SUITABILITY SOURCE TERM cakulation of, for Cimch River; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
SOIL SPRINGS for Diablo Canyon musihary building, adequacy of modehng of ALAB-763,19 NRC 578 (1984)
SOILS ANALYSES for buned diesel fuel tanks at Diablo Canyon, agequacy of, ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
$ PENT FUEL cask laydown area, temporary storage of spent fuel assembhes,m LBP 8414,19 NRC 834 (1984)
SPENT FUEL POOL EXPANSION through pin storage; LBP-84-14,19 NRC 434 (1984)
STANDBY SERVICE WATER SYSTEM at WNP-2, conformance of, with design control cnteria; DD 841,19 NRC 899 (1984)
$*ANDA representational, cntena for obtaming, LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
STARTUP organization at WNP 2, adequacy of quahficanons of, DD-84 7,19 NRC $99 (1984)
STAY of effectiveness of amendment of new fuellicense; LBP-4416,19 NRC 857 (1984) of fuelloadmg and pre cnucahty tesung at Diablo Canyon; CLI 84-l,19 NRC I (1984)
STEAM GENERATOR TUBEts) at Byron Station, degradauon of LBP 84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) damage from foreign objects left in generator shell, LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) rupture, uses of power-operated rehef valve in depressurization in the event of, CLI 84-3,19 NRC 555 (1984) wall thmmns, descnpuon of, and remedy for; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 3611984)
$ TEAM GENERATOR 5 at Byron Stauon, ALAR A as related to; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) d d/
description of; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) restnction of pnmary-to-secondary leakage in; CLI 84-3,19 NRC 555 (1984)
See also Nuclear Steam Supply System s
- +C
- l..
STEEL REINFORCEMENT BARS Ji
' ' ' t, missms from South Teaas comainment, alleganons of; LDP-84-l3,19 NRC 659 (1984)
.J STRAIN GAGE 5
- r",)/[ F -;,
<'x apphcation of, to predictmg fault monon; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
.I SUBPOENA l
showing necessary for Board issuance of; ALAB 764.19 NRC 633 (1984)
$UMMARY DISPOSITION
.s burden on proponent and opponent of motion for; LBP 84 7,19 NRC 432 (1984) departure from general pnnciple oflaw on; LBP-84 8 5,19 NRC 837 (1984) of heshh effects contennons, LBP 84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984)
SURVEYING
?}
quahty assurance requirements apphcable to; LBP 84 l), l9 NRC 659 (1984)
/'
TERMINATION
.r a
of intervenuon, on basis of agreement between parties; LBP 44-15 A,19 NRC 852 (1984)
'f of previously retamed, hmited appellate jurisdicuon over cancelled umts, ALAB 760,19 NRC 26
+
,{
(1984)
+,
TUT to determine strength of concrete, destnpuon of LBP 84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
. I,,(,
l, 3
l' e
,I j-k.
5
'o Ve
'.,.<')
E ' k-Q I(. p v i r>tfe
) w v..,,9 ' g.
.\\)E d
4
.j
)-
s
. (_
e
?'
(
SUBJECT INDEX e'
t b
TE. STING
, hot system, at Diablo Canyon, authorization for and descripuon of, CLI-84-2.19 NRC 3 (1984) intestated leek rate, at LaSalle, allegations of defects in. DD 844,19 NRC 891 (1884) precnticalit>l st Diablo CanyotA nsk to public from; CLI-84-1,19 NRC I (1984). CLi-84-2,19 NRC 3 4984)
+
e 4
' ~
preopers'.isdal, at Byron Stanon, to prevent bubble collapes water hammer; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 a
(1984) 43
I preoperational, at WNP 2, adequacy of procedures for; DD 84 7.19 NRC 599 (1984)
THERM AL DISCHARGES from nuclear power plants, need to consider effects of; ALABJ59,19 NRC 13 (1984)
+
y l-into SHNPP rewrvoir, adequacy of consideranon of fish kills from; LBP 84-15,19 NRC 837 (l984)
'~
W UPLIFTING of containment at Diablo Canyon, potential for; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
VALVE powei operated rel ef, need for safety-grade classificanon of, CLI 84-3,19 NRC 555 (1984) i i
VERIFICATION of ASME Code work at Zimmer, adequacy of means fer, DD-84-3,19 NRC 480 (1984)
,r.
seismic and nonseismic programs at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of; ALAB-763.19 NRC 571 (1984)
VIOLATION of Mdand construction permits, audit of management performance ordered as a result of, DD-84 2,19 NRC 478 (1984)
See also Nouce of VioI*aon VOIDS in the South Texas Project teactur centainment budding, LDP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984)
WAIVER of regulation govermns langaison of need-for-pomer iswe denial of request for. LBP-844,19 NRC
- 39) (1984)
WAs1E DISPOSAL radioactive, economics o(; LBP 844,19 NRC 393 (1984)
WASTE STORAGE permanent. for high-level, radioachve, avadabdity of, LBP 844.19 NRC 393 (19843 WASTES See Radioactive Wastes WATER v
See Groundwater. Standby Service Water System WATER HAMMER bubble collapse, in preheat steam generators at Byron Stauon, potenual for; LBP 841 79 NRC 36
~N (1984) s 8
WEATilER adverse, adequacy of Byron plans for evacuate durmg, LBP 84 2.19 NRC 36 (1984)
+
_f.
-,t
- 1 adverse, esumation of evacuanon traffic times dunng; LBP-84-2.19 NRC 36 (1984) c 4
-N
' ~,
j WELD (S) li
-+
inspections at Byron, adequacy of documentauon of; LBP 84-2.19 NRC 36 (1984)
C 'i; .
}
repair of, at Comanche Peak, by cappms; LBP 84-t0.19 NRC 509 (1984) g
- 1.
See also Cadwelds WITilDRAWAL of conternons, elimination of the basis for hearing through; LBP 84 il,19 NRC 533 (1984)
WITNESSES Licensing Board authonty to call; L&P 84 7,19 NRC 432 (1984)
ZONE Sandwich Fauti, prosimuy of, to Byron site; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
See also Emergency Planmns Zone a~
b s
J s.
}
- a
~
FACILITY INDEX BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, Unit 2; Docket No. 50-412 ( ASL3P No. 83-490-04-OL)
DiaMISSAL OF PROCEEDING, January 27,1984, REPORT AND ORDER ON SPECIAL PREllEARING CONFERENCE IIELD PURSU ANT TO 10 C.F.R. 5 2.751a, LBP 84-5,19 NRC 393 (1934)
BYRON NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Umts I and 2; Docket Nos. STN $0-454-OL, STN 50-4554L ( ASLBP No. 79 411044L)
OPER ATING LICENSE; January 13,1984, INITIAL DECISION; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
CLINCil RIVEk BREEDER REACTOR PLANT; Docket No. 50-537-CP (ASLBP No.75-291 12)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; Jaruary 20,1984, MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS, LBP 84-4, 19 NRC 288 (!?84)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 29,1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-761, l
19 NRC 487 (1984)
COBALT-60 STORAGE FACILITY; Docket No 30-6931 ( ASLBP No. 82 469-01 SP)
BYPRODUCT MATERIALS LICENSE RENEWAL; March 15,1984 ORDER; LBP-8415A,19 4
i NRC 852 (1984)
I COM ANCllE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Unrts I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446 OPER A TING LICEN5E, Jan,,,.ry 30,1984 MEMORANDUM, LBP 84 8,19 NRC 466 (1984)
OPERATING LILENSE: Fe%.ry 8,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 8410,19 NRC 509 (1984)
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Unit I; Docket No. 50-275 OPERATING LICENSE SUSPENSION REQUEST; March 26,1984; DIRECTOR'S DECislON UNDER 10 C F R. 5 2.206, DD-84-8,19 NRC 924 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; January 25,1984 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI 84-2,19
~-
NRC 3 (1984)
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units 1 and 2; Dc-ket Not 50-275, 50-323 OPERATING LICENSE; January 16,1984, ORDER; CLI 84-1,19 NRC I (1984)
OPER ATING LICENSE; March 20,1984; DEC1510N, ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
'1; il B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, Uma 2; Docket No 50-261-OLA ( ASLBP Mo.
9i 83-484-03-LA)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 10,1984; ORDER Di$ MISSING PROCEEDING; LBP.8a-ll,19 NRC 533 (1984)
II ARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANT, Units 18 and 28; Docket Not STN 50 519, STN 50-521 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; January 27, 1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALA4760, 19 NRC 26 (1984) i IIOPE CREEK GENER ATING STATION, Unit 1: Docket No. 50-354 OL i
D15QU ALIFICATION; January 25,1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-759,19
~'
NRC 13 (1984)
LASALLE COUNTY STATION, Units I and 2; Docket No. 50-373
- ( Q" IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUEST; March 16,1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 K
C.F R. 6 2.206; DD-84-6,19 N'.C 891 (1984)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, Units I and 2; Dockes Nos 50-352-OL,50-353-OL OPERATING LICENSE; March 16, 1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 8416,19 NRC 857 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; March 30,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984)
-)
,d qq 9
' b l
41 F:
-]
i.bh
'.d i N YD4 v,
- . j-6 l
i k
f 2
FACILITY INDEX MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER STATION; Docket No. 50 309-OLA (ASLfiP No.80-437 02 LA)
OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 9,1984 ORDER; LBP-84-14,19 NRC 834 L
(1984)
MIDLAND PLANT, Unas I and 2; Docket Nos 50 329, 50 330 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; January 12,1984, SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2.206, DD 84-2,19 NRC 478 (1984)
OPERATING LIC ENSE; March 30,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDEk; ALAB-764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Umt I, Docket No. 50 440 REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION; January 9.1984. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. ) 2.206 DD 84 l,19 NRC 478 (1984)
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Umts I and 2. Docket Nos. 50 440 OL,50-441-OL OPER ATING LICENSE; January 20,1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; L8P 84-3,19 d
NRC 282 (1984) 6
}
P!LGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION; Docket No. 50 293
)
REQUEST FOR ACTION, February 27,1984, INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 h.
C F R. ) 2.206; DD-84-5,19 NkC 542 (1984) r SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Uma I; Docket No. 50-2724LA
(
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 2>,1984, ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING, LBP 84-5,19 NRC 39t (1984)
SEABROOK STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50-444-OL OPERATING LICENSE; January 24,1984; DEC1510N; Al.AB 758,19 NRC 7 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; March 16, 1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 762,19 NRC 565 (1984)
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT, Umts I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-400,50-401 ( ASLBP No.
82 468 01 OL)
OPERATING LICENSE; January 27,1984 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, L8P 84 7,19 NRC 43? (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; March 15,1984 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-84 l5,19 NRC 837 (1984)
SOUTH 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; March 14,1984; PARTIAL INITIAL DEC1510N; L8P-84-l),19 NRC N
659 (1984)
THREE MILE 15'.AND NUCLEAR STATION, Uma I; Decket No. 50-289 SP c
SPECI A L PROCEEDING; March 28,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-84-3,19 NRC 555 (1984) t THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR ST% TION, Umt 2; Docket No. 50-320 SPECIAL PROCEEDINO; February 17, 1984, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 1 d
ij
} 2.206; DD 84-4,19 NRC 535 (1984)
"3 TRIG A TYPE RESEARCH REACTOR; Docket No. 50170 (A5LBP No. 81451-01 LA) 1
' S*.,
t FACILITY LICENSE RENEWAL; March 15,1984 ORDER; LBP 8415A,19 NRC 852 (1984)
-i n.;;,1 WILLIAM H. ZIMMER NUC1 EAR POWER STATION, Uma I; Docket No. 50-358 REQUEST FOR ACTION, January 13, 1984, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R.
.i i 2.206; DD-84 3,19 P'RC 480 (1984) s WCLF CREEK CENER ATING STATION, Uma I; Docket No. 50-482 (ASL8P No. 81453-03-OL)
-c-
'i EMERGENCY PLANNING; January 5,1984. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; L8P 84-1,19 NRC 29 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; March 26,1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-4417,19 NRC 878 (1984)
? :j WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.1; Docket No. 50-460-CPA ( ASLBP No. 83 485 02 CPA)
- /
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; February 1,1984; MEMORANDUM AND s.
1 >'
ORDER; L8P 84 9,19 NRC 497 (1984)
N E
9 3
9 9
9 e
J
_,h__
__m___ _ _ _ _ _... - _. _. -
FACILITY INDEX
% PP55 NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2; Docket No. 50 $97 REQUEST FOR SHOW-CAUSE PROCEEDING. March 19.1984. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CER. { 2.206; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (19841 s
., i t
f 9
I i
i f
f l
l h
9 69 t
O L
- - - - - - _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __