ML20100J454
| ML20100J454 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/30/1984 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V19-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V19-I2, NUDOCS 8412100351 | |
| Download: ML20100J454 (115) | |
Text
_ _.. _
- -., u ;. _
n aw w,, ~ - _.:.
s
+
=w s
.u w
p
. ~e,y,.
.- :, o. ;. r s.,w.w :.3.n..
.,e
% e,,s.;;y;.g,
- n u w$@,.C,.NUREG-0750 i
e n-s<
e y./
- wq.
m, : s, ;n%m e g*g t g;'< :
. ~:, :
rm..
- yo; jg Ts w /f 1*t,'..f p.,9<*Le % 4l7,%;u:s;.Y 3 d:n f
,,-a,
. l(}bQX $,, e +. -- %
~
._ ; +1 '= %,. n e~.+,.
...,u
+
.n:
+. '-Ay n
> g %,1 a st' e.,,w
- p.g 3e A w.v& % +
vm q;g -> 4. : e
_. ; N A.._ ?
s 1,
,i.,
,, e,: - <,
o lJi
,3.,f'g y.,.h
, g N g; s
- l.t j r;.a4 r
< % ?:
7 bf $ 5 Q,%.Q.; f Til*' Q $- Q Q & Q hyQ yfy ( Qt3,q R,.ty.
r 1
}
,*y m,_L f
- s. w
.,,. +
,y,ap.
o n.n,= g.. "g 7
" g?<,y w..,
n
- g
,.-a. -
~
$,,$NQ%LE RsREG Lt T I?ff8d w.wu amm w*
2@n e w,M S
- 1SSUAFACES AGO '
9
,., %. ~_MiaW i
.a 9no k,%{,:,\\
' H:W: q-QW
.g.,
u r
ga,
-#.m ftypf( b;%q,J,--
d;g$t ',.cg
%.e;d-N4.V d bg; h: '
r:
, 9..g;f!
.u
.;,% ; u g n., --
ya
_M QWilin.
PM,-.j nG2M;,4
' f j ^ j dn%V,2ff j ' '
p;ws?-
f yd
-C M W'
% 7 # c e3 A..5 r.em-
% v e h$kMh E
h h N k h-n ~
- 1.,,%m.m;NGDk"v.
nf 5
h yY$@%n 4
-u d.e
.% m a
9 Wch m
syr.. w,,
tva.W,m:
sh, a'f'w.a: Aj w;w. y.,
pe (g e.y n,,='
f.
y w+
p s y p%
p WF**.. A. p.
gS' pfG H,,9 e s
-4W t
- @*> [LL % i + h 1 FG WpW.T[
id%
n kj:ite@::,%@weW.
/ 'T A
f m: ;
. YH. l }&, %s,-Q ? + N gy.w,,; =
ll e
&, A. -U ' 4. ~ %n
_. ~.
+
w u.,*uw
.~-....m,,
q? g. es y.
s M
- L1 n L v
W7 P
+
i;t. '
-L
.i
.n Y
- y 3,, i.j.
,. - 9.i W 7l g 4 j 31;p g g-4 i
S S
,r
- f.. g *.
s(
, F w,,s
.u s n.,. e,,,,
n,y-,',.
g *. y,,
t
- {
e,y; i
Q'WWk'D 5QQ%p$g$.,Q,2,'. )*hn..W f*If },% Wi?4&K, EW@Y[$%M
- f..
,gg,.kg L - g!;ns:Q:n,W:p u..
&,;.R,QW y".sw;q~ 7.,; ~.p&;m e{a;
.a n w%w:,~,yM-x,s"myg:qp 3 A
aca n
,e g
,y. 5,fpM, rw.
v-:, ra,.
.2
/s.w.5: y&.;.pm g q v., n+*i-jt* s;:%.y 6: up,vp...m ; g 1 r w ~<;,Q, :., @a, r m
, y., GW> p.,g*:
r 7
m.,
,g L, n.m
- s. ne;- n,y y.
p/g,e n,a,,
.,.u...<.w
~.
s
,O.
~,
-.; : p n..:.. ;,,.,;. x ; ;);; R., C. y u Y, &,h~. y ; % m Q p..
r. ' % %. U:;,
rk:
-..n. w x!s x v, a,
+.a y
e %. L;~g m
y >..5,'
- M.: g;ll n h t ' y z.+ - G G s(.g Q. ) a,
m.
r i-
,r-
.r',
y 21
. J.
.ts'
. ' Q a::* f 9,, p '.h 4 s v.
".,s.. > 't ; ff, 6
....j,
,nxp M.':-r n v.
wp
=t.
~s,
. y -)
t
~ s s
r
,,s --i..
_1 s
q y),g.,' n-a 4
3e=
,, ;. v in c (,.
., ffy dm.w.n W v g g p h,3 g ;
y.
1.
4,
- m s..-;.,'+..._,
.., 3 -- e
,)
,.,6,
'5 v > rs, 9
a y
%.. ~.> p p,g a,. 23.
, - 6.7.,. c,.
t-
+
7 x
o.
r
~
+v
. 7 ;x.
,s.
4, ; -..., <, j i-y; q..,,
w 3.p.,r. w,,. q..
?. ; (
_ m_
w 1-1 u
_i.. _ y,;,,,,,,,,,,,, mm,,,.;_
L m
0412100351 843330 PDR NUREQ 0700 R PDR
Aveliable from NRC/GPO Sales Program Superintendent of Documents l
Govemment Printmg Office Washington, D.C. 20402 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound lesues, 4 indeses, and 2 her6ound edicons for this publicaten.
Sengle copies of this publication are available from National Technical
)
Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Microfiche of single copies are available from NRC/GPO Sales Program Washington, D.C. 20666 l
i Errors in this publication may be reported to Vicki E. Yaner, Division of Technical Information and Document Control, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiraion, Washington, D.C. 20666 (301/482-8025) i
i NUREG-0750 Vol.19 Index 2 i
I INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY l
COMMISSION ISSUANCES I
l January - June 1984 I
l i
1
Foreword Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and IJcensing Appeal Panel (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (AU),the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions of Rulemaking are presented in this document.
These digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the issuances.
Information elements common to the cases heard and ruled upon are:
Case name(owner (s)of facility)
Full text reference (volume and pagination) lasuance 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,operstinglicense,etc.)
i Type of issuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.).
i These information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as follows:
- 1. Case NameIndes The case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type ofissuance, i
}
docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.
i
- 2. Diesses and Henders 1he headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows:
~
the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and IJcensing Appeal Panel (ALAB),
[
the Atomic Safety and IJcensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law l
Judge (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking.-
i The header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hearing, date ofissuance, and type ofissuance.
The 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 giwn issuance covers i
more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically.
i I
III i-l t
I
[
C
__ ____j
I
- 3. Legal Citations Index f
his index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alphanumerical arrangements of Cases, Regulaticns, Statutes, and Others. Rese citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulations and Statutes
}
may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or appikability of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance.
he references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular
)
issuance. Rese phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.
- 4. Subject index g
Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects covered in the issuances. De subject headings are followed by phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the 4
issuances being indexed. Rese phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.
- 5. Facility index Dis 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.
3 i
4 IV
)
f w-
c i
CASE N AME INDEX ARMED FORCES R ADIOBIOLOGY RESE ARCH INSTITUTE FACILITY LICENSE RENEW AL; ORDER; Docket No. 50170 ( A5LBP No. $l 45!41-LA),
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACTION, INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECI510N UNDER 10 C F R. I 2.206, Docket No. 50 293, DD 84 5,19 NRC 542 (1984)
CAROLINA POWEa & LIGHT COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT, ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING, Docket No.
50 261 OLA ( A5LBP No. 83 484-01 L A), LBP 84 il,19 NRC 533 (1984)
CAROLIN A POWER & LIGilT COMPANY and NORTil CAROLIN A EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY OPERATING LICEN5E, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket Nos. 50-400, 50-401 ( A5LBP No.82-468 010Lh LBP 84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984); LBP 84-15,19 NRC 837 (1984)
CINCINN ATl 0 A5 AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
REQUEST FOR ACTION, DIRECTOR's DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. ( 2.206, Docket No.
50158, DD-84-3,19 NRC 480 (1984)
CLLYLLAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMP 4NY, et al.
OPER ATING LICENSE, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER, Docket' Nos. 50-4404L,50-441 OL; LDP 84-),19 NRC 282 (1984)
REQUEST FOR IMMEDI ATE ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. l 2 206 Docket No 50 440 DD-841,19 NRC 471 (1984)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE, INITIAL DECislON, Docket Nos. STN $0-4544L,5TN YL4554L
( A5LBP No. 79 4ti 044Lh LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
OPERATING LICEN5E MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER. Docket Nos. STN 50-454, STN 50-455, ALAB 770,19 NRC 116109:4)
COMMONWEALTil EDI5ON COMPANY ( AND ALL LIGHT W ATER REACTOR 5)
IMMEDI ATE ACTION REQUEST, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. I 2 206, Docket No 50-37), DD-84-6,19 NRC $98 (1984)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTOR's DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.
( 2.206 Docket Nos 50 329,50.))0, DD-84 2.19 NRC 478 (1984)
MODIFICATlON ORDER AND OPER ATING LICENSE-MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Docket Nos. 50-329 OM&OL,50-330-OM&OL ( A5LBP Nos. 7818943-OL,80 42942 SP).
OPERATING LICEN5E, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER. Docket Nos 50-329 OM&OL, 50-330-OM&OL; AL AB 764,19 NRC 63) (19841 DUKE POW ER COMPANY, et al.
OPERATING LICEN5E HEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER, Docket Nos. 50 41),50-414 ( A5LBP No 81463 06-OL). ALAB 768,19 NRC 988 (1984); LBP 84-21,19 NRC 1304 (19841 OPERATING LICLNSE; PARil AL INITI AL DECI5 ION, Docket Nos. 50-41),50-414 ( ASLBP No. SI 46346-Oth LBP 84 24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMP ANY, ei al OPERATING LICENSE, RFPORT AND ORDFR ON SPECIAL PREllEARING CONIERENCE HELD PUR5UANT TO 10 C F R. l 2 75ta, Docket No 50 412 ( ASLBP No.81-490 04-OL),
LDP 84 4,19 NRC 39) (1984)
I
f t
r l
CASE NAME INDEX GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATOON REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECislON UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206; Doctet Net 50-320 DD-N-4,19 NRC $35 (1984)-
REQUEST FOR ACTION; INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECislON UNDER 10 C.F.R 12.206.
Docket No. 50 209; DD#12.19 NRC 1120 (1984)
HOU5 TON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY. et el OPERATING LICENSE: PARTIAL INITIAL DECislON; Decket Nos. STN $0 890 OL. STN
$0-4e9 OL (ASLBP No. 79 421-074L); LDP-0413,19 NRC 639 (1984)
KANSA1 G AS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al EMERGENCY PLANNING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. $0402 (ASLBP No.
01453 03 OLL LBP 04-1.19 NRC 29 (1994)
OPERATINO LICLNSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Doctet No. $0402 (A$LDP No.
01453 03 Oth LDP#17.19 NRC $70 (1984)
LONG 15 LAND LIGHTING COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICATION TO THE COMMIS$10N; Do6ket No. $0-322 OL. ALAB-769.19 NRC 995 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER. Docket No $0-322-OL 4 (Low Power); CLI-84-0,19 NRC ll$4 (19H)
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Doctet No. 30 322 0L;CLl#9,19 NRC 1323 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; DECislON; Docte No. 50-322 OL (En.ortenry Plann6at); ALAB 77),
19 NRC 1333 (1984)
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; ORDER; Docket No. $0 3094)LA (ASLBP No 00437 02 LAh LDPeld,19 NRC 034 (1984)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et el SPECIAL PRCCEEDING; DECISION; Docket No. $0 209 SP (Manaessneat Pensah ALAB 772..
19 NRC 119) (1964); ALAB 774,19 NRC 1350 (1904)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Doctet No. SS 200-0P; CLle).19.,
MAC $$$ (1984h ALAB 706.19 NRC 901 (1984)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; ORDER; Docket No. 50 209 5P; CLl#7.19 NRC ll51 (1984)
MI55155tPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY.et al. -
OPF RATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Doctet No.
$0 416-OLA (ASLBP No. 0449740L); LDP423.19 NRC 1412 (1904) l OPERATINO LICEN9E AMENDMENT; SECOND ORDER POLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE; Decket No. $0-4164)LA (ASLDP No. 94 497 04 OLh LDP 04-19.19 NRC i
1076 (1984)
OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPON51BLE ENERGY, M ARVIN 1. lewis. M APLETON INTERVENORS ELECTROM AGNETIC PULSE; DENIAL OF PETITIONS FOR RULEMARINO; Dortet Mos.
l PRM $0 32. $0 32A, $0 328. DPRM 84 I.19 NRC IS99 (1904)
PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY EMERGENCY PLANNINO; ORDER; Doctet Nos. $0 27$,30 323, CLI 044,19 NRC 937 (1984) l OPERATING LICENSE; DECletON; Doctet Not 30w273. $0 323. ALAB-763,19 NRC $71 (1904h ALAB 776,19 NRC 1373 (1904) ~
OPERATINO LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Destet No. 50 275; CLI-84 2,19 NRC 3 (19Hh CLIMS.19 NRC 9$3 (1904h ALAB 77$ 19 NRC 1361 (1904)
OPERATINO LICENSE; ORDER; Doctet Nos. 50-273. 50 323 CLl#1,19 NRC 1 (1984h 1
l ALAB 773A.19 NRC 1371 (198J) i.
OPERATING LICENSE SUSPENSION R'" QUEST; DIRECTOR'$ DP. CISION UNDER 10 C F.R.
I 2106. Doctet No. $0 275. DD-N-0.19 NRC 924 (1904)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY IMMEDI ATE ACTION REQUEST; DIRECTOR'S DEClelON UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.206, Destes Nos $0 352. $0 333. D0#13.19 NRC 1137 (19843 OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Dettet Nos. 30 3$2. 30 )$3.
J.
ALAB 76$.19 NRC 643 (1984h LDP 0416.19 NRC $$7 (1994)
~
l f
f-b 3
)
a
--a
s.
I f
i
\\
")
e CASE NAME INDEX k
OPERATING LICENSE;SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERFNCE ORDER; Docket Nos.
50 352-OL. 50-3534L: LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1020 (1984)
POWER AUTilORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK IMMEDiaTE ACTION REQUEST; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.206; Docket No. 50 333 DD-8414,19 NRC 1307 (1984)
PUBLIC SERV!CE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXTENSION; ORDER; Docket No. 50 444; CLI-84 6,19 NRC 975
,(1984)
, ' OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50-444,OL; ALAB 758,19 NRC 7 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-443 OL,50 444-OL; ALAB-762,19 NRC 565 (1984)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & G AS COMPANY, et at DI5 QUALIFICATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-354 OL; ALAB 759,19 NRC 13 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT % DER DISMisslNG PROCEEDING; Docket No.
50 272 OLA; LBP 84-5,19 NRC 2C.984)
SHIPMENTS OF HIGH LEVEL NUCL POWER PLANT WASTE SPENT FUEL SHIPMENTS; DIREC)OR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206; DD 84-9,19 NRC 1087 (1984)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos STN 50-519, STN 50 521; ALAB 760,19 NRC 26 (1984)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et at OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-445,50 446; LBP-8410,19 NRC 509 (1984); LBP-84-25,19 NRC 1589 (1984)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY. et al.
OPERATING LICENSE: MER)R ANDUM, Docket Nos. 50-445,50-446; LBP 84-8,19 NRC 466 (1984)
- f THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY ti EMERGENCY PLANNING; DIRECTOR'S DECislON UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.206; Docket No.
I 50-341; DD-84 il,19 NPC 1108 (1984)
(
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA FACILITY LICENSE RENEWAL; MEMORANDUM A;4D ORDER; Docket No. 50-142 OL; CLI.8410.19 NRC 1330 (1984); LBP-84 22,19 NRC 1383 (1984)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT M AN AGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; Docket No.
50 537-CP; DD-84-3.19 NRC 480 (1984)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50 537 CP;
' ALAB 76),19 NRC 487 (1984)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS; Docket No. 50-537-CP (ASLBP
/
No.75-291 12); LBP-84-4.19 NRC 288 (1984)
., VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION
' REQUEST FOR SHOW CAUSE ORDER; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206; V
Docket No. 50-271; DD-8410,19 NRC 1094 (1984)
WMIIINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM CCNSTRUCTION PrRMIT AMENDMENT; DECISION; Docket No. 50-460-CPA; ALAB 771,19
- )
NRC 7183 (1984) -
CONSTR!'CT?ON PERMIT AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No.
50-460-CPA ( ASLBP No. 83 485 02-CPA); LBP-84 9.19 NRC 497 (1984)
REQUEST F01 SHOW-CAUSE PROCEEDING; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R.
I 2.200 Docket No. 50-397; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POW ER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al.
OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket No. 50-508-OL; ALAB-767,19 NRC 984 (1984)
O?YRATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50'508 OL (ASLBP No.
83-486-01-OW LBP-8417A 19 NRC 1011 (1984) 3,.
N$
3
. 4 t i ~-
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NCCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CLI 84 l PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2$, Docket Nos. 50-275, 50-323; OPERATING LICENSE; January 16, 1984; ORDER j
A The Commission denies the intersenors' request for a stay of fuel loading and pre-cnticality testing at the Diablo Canyon plant.
CLI-84-2 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Umt 11. Docket No. 50-275; OPER ATING LICEN5E; January 25, 1984 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Ac,4 on the applicant's request, the Commission authontes further pre-criticahty tests (hot system testing) at the Diablo Canyon plant on the ground that the tests will provide valua-ble information regardmg plant esign, construction and operation without presenting any signifi-cant f,ubhc health and safety concerns.
CLI-84-3 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.
D, Docket No. 50-289-SP, SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 28, 1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
in response to an Appeal Board memorandum (ALAB-724,17 NRC 559 (1983)), con-cerning the treatment to be accorded the issues raised in a Board Notification (BN-83-47), the Commission decides that the issue of whether the power-operated rehef valve should be safety-grade, because of the potential for using it to mitigate the consequences of design basis steam generator tube accidents, has no reasonable nesus to the TMI 2 accident and is, therefore, out-t side the scope of the proceeding. The Commission also decides that the information in the Board Nohrication is not signifiant enough to warrant reopening the record sua sponte, even if it were within the scope of the proceeding.
B The following iechnical issue is discussed: Uses of power-operated rehef valve in de-pressurization in the event of a steam generator tube rupture.
CLI-84-4 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275, 50-323; EMERGENCY PLANNING; April 3,1984; ORDER A
The Commission requests the views of the parties on a senes of specific questions relating to the need to consider the complicating effects of earthquakes on emergency plannmg for the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant because of its location in an area of relatively high seismicity.
Additionally, the Commission determines that consideration of the issue is unnecessary with re-spect to low power operation because it pertains primanly to offsite emergency planmrig require-l ments which are not essential to low power licensing decisions.
B Current regulations do not require the consideration of the impacts on emergency plan-ning of earthquakes which cause or occur dunns an ccidental sadiological release. Southern Cab-fornia Edison Co (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Umts 2 and 3), CLi-88-33,14 NRC 1091, 1091 92 (1981).
CLI-84-5 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275-OL,50-323-OL: OPERATING LICENSE; Apnl 13, 1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Commission reinstates the low-power heense for Unit I of the Diablo Canyon facihty that authorizes the hcensee to conduct tests at up to 5% of rated power, following the successful completion of programs established to verify the design of the plant, and the NRC staff's determination that there are no outstanding safety considerations warranting a delay in low-power operation. Intervenors' request for a stay of heense reinstatement is demed by the Commission.
5 ms
4 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION B
Speculation about a nuclear accident does not, as a matter of law, constitute the imminent, irreparable injury required for staying a licensms decision. New York v. NRC,550 F.2d 745,756-57 (2d Cir.1977); %rginia Sunshine Alhance v. Hendrie,477 F, Supp. 68,70 (D.D.C.1979).
.t CLI-84-6 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ll AMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Station. Un;t 2), Docket No. 50 444; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXTENSION; March 29,1964; ORDER A
The Commission denies a request of the Connecticut Dtvision of Consumer Counsel to intervene in the construction permit extension proceedmg for Unit 2 of the Seabrook facihty on the ground that the proffered contentions of the petitioner fall outside the scope of the proceeding.
8 An intervention petitioner in an NRC hcensing proceeding must have an interest that g
will be affected and proffer specific contentions within the scope of the proceedmg.10 C.F.R.
l
} 2.714; BPI v. AEC,502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir.19741; see generally, Bellotti v NRC,725 F.2d i
1380 (D C. Cir.1983).
C The zone ofimerests which must be affected to gne a peutioner standing to intervene in an NRC bcensms proceedmg does not include general economic considerations. See, e s., Detroit Edison Co. (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-470,7 NRC 473 (19781.
D The contention of a proposed intervenor in an NRC licensing proceedmg must relate-l directly to the subject of the proceeding and not to immatenal or generic problems.
[
E Under Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act and 10 C.F R. l 50.55, the scope of a con-struction pernut extension proceedmg is hmited to direct challenges to the permit holder's assert-f ed reasons that show " good cause" justification for the delay. Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos.1 & 2), CLI-82-29,16 NRC 1228,1229 (1982). To be ad-missible in such a proceeding, a contention must either challenge the permit holder's reason for delay or show that other reasons, not constituting good cause, are the pnncipal basis for the delay. Id. at 1230.
si F
The two-pronged test for determining whether a contention is within the scope of a con-struction permit entension proceeding is: The construction delays at issue have to be traceable -
to the permit holder and they must be dilatory. If both prongs are met, the delay is without good cause. Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-722,17 NRC 546,551 (1983).
CLi-84-7 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-289 SP; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; May 4,1984, ORDER -
l A
In this special proceeding pertaining to the restart of Three Mile Island, Unit I, the Com-i mission denies an intervenor's motion requesting that the Commission mandate completion f
prior to restart of certain previously ordered long term actions that supplement a set of short-term actions required to provide assurance that the facility can be operated without endangering the health and safety of the public. The Commission, however, reviews sua sponte the in,ensee's '
~
schedule for completion of the long-term actions and finds it reasonable. It rules that the long-term actions need not be completed prior to start-up but notes that they must be completed as promptly as possible.
CLI-84-8 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Unit I),
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 (Low Power); OPERATING LICENSE; May 16,1984; ORDER A
The Commission determines that General Design Criterion 17,'10 C.F.R. Part 50, Ap.
pendia A, pertaining to the availability of onsite and offsite electric power systems for nuclear power plants. is applicable to low power operation under 10 C.F.R. l 50.57(c), and vacanes a Licensing Board's order to the extent it is contrary. The Commission provides guidance for the ccaduct cf a hearing in the event cf the applicant's s3 mission of a modified application seekmg an esemption under 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a) from regulatory requirements for a low-power license.
including General Design Cntenon 17.
B Absent special circumstances, the Commission is reluctant to assume the functions of an i
existing licensing board of compiling and analyzmg a factual record and making an initial determination based on the record. Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and M CLI-7711. 5 NRC 719, '?? (1977).
C The use of exemption authority,mder 10 C.F.R. 6 50.12 is extraordinary and is bas-d upon a findmg of esceptional circumstances, considenns the equities of the situation.
/'
6 1
i
nd DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CLI-84-9 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1).
Docket No. 50-322-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; June 5,1984; MEMORANDUM ASD ORDER A
The Commisanon responds to a ceruficahon to it by the Appeal Board of too issues con-cerning (1) the relative scope of the terms *smportant to safety" and ' safety-related" for the purpose of evaluating the acceptability of quahty assurance programs estabhshed under 10 C.F.R.
Part 50; and (2) the conditions under which NEPA would require the Commission to prepare a separate environmental impact statement (Els) for low-power operation. The Commission de-clities to reach any final decision on the first, finding that it would be more suitably addressed by rulemaking. It answers the second by ruhng that where an Els for full-power operation has been prepared and adpadicated, the pendency of an adjudication on the emergency plannmg issue mate-rial to full-power operation does not form a basis for an addinonal NEPA obhgation to prepare a separate environmental evaluation of a proposal to issue a low-power operating hcense to that plant where that issue does not constitute a significant changed circumstance.
B in the usual case. NEPA does not require any separate environmentat analysis of a
, proposal to issue a low-power operating heense. Pacific Gas and Electrx Co. (Diablo Can>on Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB 728,17 NRC 777,793-95 (1983),af!"d CLi-83-32.
18 NRC 1309 (1983). It is well-established NEPA law that separate environmental statements are not required for such intermediate, implementing steps where an environmental impact state-ment has been prepared for the entire proposed action and there have been no significant changed circumstances. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Andrus. 619 F.2d 1368.1377 (1980) (and cases cited therein).
CLI-84-10 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVER$1TY OF CALIFORNIA (UCLA Research Reactor).
Docket No. 50142 OL; FACILITY LICENSE RENEWAL; June 8.1984; ORDER A
The Commission declines to grant a staff request to ininate a rulemaking proceedmg -
which would propose to amend 10 C.F.R. } 73.40(a) by adopting the staft's mterpretation of that section and thereby modify efTectively the Licensing Board's rishng that the section requires the licensee in this facility hcense renewal proceedmg to take some measures to protect the facihty from potential sabotage.
i l
w P
e r.,
--r4
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS ALAB-758 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE, 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 different grounds, the Licensms Board's denial of an un-timely petition for lease to intervene in this operating hcense proceeding.
B lt is the responsibihty of the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and not the Licens-r ing Board. to make the finding required by 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(1) as a precondition to the is-suance of an operating hcense for a nuclear plant. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB 226,8 AEC 381,41011 (1974).
4 ALAB-759 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND G AS COMPANY, et al. (Hope Creek Generating i
Station, Unit II, Docket No. 50-354-OL; DISQUALIFICATION; January 25,1984; MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER 7
i A
Upon consideration of an order (referred to it by an administrative judge) denying an in-tervenor's motion that he recuse himself from further service as a member of the Licensing Board for this operating hcense proceedms, the Appeal Board rules that the Judge must be re-placed on the Licensing Board by another member of the Licensing Panet.
B Licensing Board members are governed by the same disqualification standards that apply J
to federal judges. Houston Lighting and Poser Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2),
CLI-82-9,15 NRC 1363,1365-67 (1982).
C An administrative trier of fact is subject to disquahrication if he has a direct, personal, suostantial pecumary interest in a result; if he has a " personal bias" agamst a participant; if he he wrved in a crowcunve,a nvemeative soie win renard so sne same facts as are m issue, d ha has presdged factual - as disliriguished frorr legal or pohey - issues, or if he has engaged in conduct mhich 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).
L' The current statutory foundation for the Commission's disquahrication standards is found in 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 impartiahty might reasonably be questioned. Houston Lightmg and Power Co. (South a
Temas Project, Units I and 2), CLI-82 9,15 NRC 1363,1366, citing Fredonia Broadcasting Corp. v. RCA Corp.,569 F.2d 251, 257 (5th Cir.1978). And, as a general proposition, recusal e
under this section must rest upon entrajud.cial conduct.15 NRC at 1367.
F 28 U.S C. 455(b)(2) requires a judge to disquahry himself in circumstances where, inter alia, in prisate practice the judge served as a lawyer "in the matter in controvers)." Disqualifica-tion in such circumstances may not be waived See 28 U.S C. 455(c). SCA Services Inc. v.
Morgan,557 F.2d 110,117 (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),
ALAB-182. 7 AEC 210, modified on other grounds, CL1-74-12,7 AEC 203 (1974).
ALAB-760 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Hartsville Nuclear Plant. Units IB and 2B).
Docket Nos. STN 50-519 STN 50-521; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; January 27,1984; MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER A
On motion of the apphcant followmg the cancellation of Uruts IB and 2B of its proposed four-un t (I A, 2A, IB and 28) Hartsville Nuclear Plant, the Appeal Board terminates, with re-l 9
.{
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOABDS i
spect to those two cancelled units, the hmited jurisdiction previously retained over this construc-tion permit proceeding involving all four units.
ALAB 761 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT M AN AGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant).
Docket No. 50-537-CP; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 29, 1984; MEMORANDUM, AND ORDER A
Acung on appeals by two intervenors from Licenang Board actions (following termina.
tion of the Chnch River project and the Licensing Board's dismissal of the intervenors from the proceeding for a construction permit (CP) for the project) that, inter aha, limited the interve-nors' partrapanon in the Limited Work Authorization (LWA) proceeding (on remand to consd-er issues of site redress) to giving limited appearance statements, the Appeal Board vacates the Licenang Board action hmiting LWA participation and denies the remainder of the appeals.
B Under,10 C.F.R. i 50.10(e), an apphcant for a construction permit may seek early ap-proval of certam types of site preparation activity by requesting issuance of an LWA.
f, C
A hcensing board is required to issue an initial decimon in a case involving an apphcation for a construcuon permit even if the proceeding is uncontested.10 C.F.R. i 2.104(b)(2) and (3).
D Licensing boards have the authority to regulate the course of a proceeding and to hmit an intervenor's parucipation to issues in wluch it is interested.10 C.F.R. il 2.718,2.784(e) and (f).
E Parues may not dart in and out of proceedmss on their own terms and at their conve.
nience and expect to erdoy the benefits of full participation without responalMlities. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-691,16 NRC 897,907 (19821.
ALAB-762 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMP5 HIRE, et at (Seabrook Station Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443-OL, 50-444 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; March 16, 1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Findmg the standard for interlocutory review of a licenung board ruhng not met, the Appeal Board denies an intervenor's request for directed certification of the Licensing Board's denial of its motion for dismissal of the operahns license applicanon for Unit 2 of the Seabrook facihty sought on the ground that that Unit is only 22 percent completed.
B in the exercise of its directed certificahon authority conferred by 10 C.F.R. 2.718(i), an appeal board will step into a proceeding still pendmq below only upon a clear and convincing showing that the hcensms board ruhng under attact either (1) threatens the party adversely af-fected by it with immediate and serious irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, could not be alleviated by a later appeal or (2) affects the besc structure of the proceeding in a pervasive l
or unusual manner. Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) ALAB.742,18 NRC 380,383 (1983); Public Service Co. ofIndaana (Marble Hill Nuclear d
Generating Stanon, Unita I and 2), ALAB-405,5 NRC 1890,1192 (1977).
C The Commission's regulations are devoid of any specific requirement that the reactor g' '
reach a particular stage of completien before the filing of an operaung hcense apphcation.
g; ALAB 763 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 275, 50 323; OPERATING LICENSE; March 20, 1984; DECISION A
Following the conduct of evidenhary hearings by the Appeal Board on the adequacy of the applicant's efforts to verify the design of the Diablo Canyon facility, the Appeal Board decides that the actions taken by the applicant provided adequate confidence that Unit l's structures, systems and components are designed to perform satisfactorily in service and that any significant design deficiencies in that unit resultmg from defects in the apphcant's design quality assurance program have been remedied. The Appeal Board thus concludes that there is reasons-ble assurarn that Unit I can be operated without endangering the health and safety of the
.pubbc.
B The Appeal Board withholds decision with respect to the adequacy of the design venfica-tion program for Unit 2.
C in order for the applicant to prevail on each factualissue, its poution must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant.
l Units I A, 2A, IB, and 2B), ALAB-463, 7 NRC 341, 360 (1978), reconsideration denied, 10 I
{V r; -
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFET) AND LICENSING APPEAL, DOARDS ALAB-467,7 NRC 459 (1978); Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear Stauon, Umts I and 2),
ALAB-355. 4 NRC 397,405 n.19 (1976).
D' To determine that an apphcant's venfcation programs are sufricient to verify the adequa-cy of a plant's design, the apphcant's efforts must be measured agamst the same standard as that set forth in the Commission's quahiy assurance critena,10 C.F R. Part 50, Appendia B: wheth-er the venfication program provides " adequate confidence that a [ safety-related] structure, system or component wdl perform satisfactonly in seruce." If the apphcant's venfication efforts meet this standard, then there will be reasonable assurance with respect to the design of the -
facihty that it can be operated without endangerms the health and safety of the pubhc.
E The Commission's regulations do not require ' hat all pertinent quality assurance or quali-ty control documents be consohdaled and integrated into a single manual or set of manuals.
F The following technical issues are discussed. Sampling Techniques (statistical and judgmental) and Scope; instrument Tubmg Supports, Containment Upliftmg: Modeling for Seis-mic Analysis (mcludmg the use of sod sprmss, fised-base analysis, response of one budd ng as =
imput into model of another, lumped mass-spring model, fimte element models, degrees of freedom); Soil Analysis (Seismic Refraction Tests and Cross-hole; and Up hste Tesiing Techniques); seismic Response Spectra; Fire Protection; Jet Impinsement Analysis; Circuit.
Breakers (nameplate rating); Design Drawings and Analyses (conformance with plant as budt);
Component Coolms Water System Heat Removal Capacity; Small Bore Piping and Surport Design (computer based analysis and span cntenal; Design Error Rate (adequate confidence 6
versus perfection); Hosgri Fault; Westinghouse Quahty Assurance Program; Causes of Quahiy Assurance Failures.
ALAB-764 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant Umts t and 2), Docket Nos. 50-329-OM&OL,50-330-OMAOL; OPERATING LICENSE; March 30, i984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
. The Appeal Board affirms the Licensing Board's refusal to quash subpoenas aimed at em.
P oyees of a nonparty to this operstmg hcense p'oceedmg.
l 8
A nonparty to an operstmg hcense proceeding may appeal immediately an otherwise in-terlocutory discovery order. Pacific Gas and Electne Co. (Stamslaus Nuclear Project. Umt II, ALAB 550,9 NRC 683,6R6 n.1 (1979L C
A board may issue a subpoena upon a showing of only " general relesance" and "shall not attempt to determine the admissibihty of evidence." See 10 C.F.R. ( 2.720; see also 10 C.F.R. t 2.740(bHIL D
That she press enjoys a qeabried pnvilege not to reveal its sources in certain circum-g stances is beyond doubt. Braniburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 709-10 (1972) (Pomell, 3.,
concurnns); Oruted States v. Cuthbertson,630 F.2d 139,147 (3d Cir.1980), cert demed, 449 I
U.S.1126 (1981); Silkwood v. Kerr McGee Corp.,563 F.2d 433,436-37 (10th Ctr.1977); Carey
- v. Hume 492 F.2d 631,636 (D.C. Cir.). cert. dismissed,417 U.S. 938 (1974); Baker v. FAF Insestment,470 F.2d 778. 783 (2d Cir.1972). cert. demed. 41I U.S. 966 (1973).
E Courts tradinonally have been loath to create a new tesumonial pnvilege or to estend an existing one, "smce such privdeses obstruct the search for truth Branaburg 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 provide evidence when necessary to further the system of justice." Wright v. Jeep Corp., 547 F. Supp. 871,875 (E.D. Mich.1982L See Brans-burg v. Hayes, supra, a08 U.S. at 688.
G The qualified First Amendment priulege of the press has been consistently and strictly hmited to those reasonably charactenzed as part of the media. Compare, e s., the followmg case-where the privilege has been recognized: Umted States v. Cuthbertson, supra; Silkwood v.
r-Kerr-McGee Corp., supra; Baker v. FAF Investment, supra; So argen Electne Motor Car Corp
- v. Amencan Motor Corp.,506 F. Supp. 546 (N.D.N.Y.198D;In re Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. (Starks v. Chrysler Corp). 32 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1373 (5 D.N.Y.1981); Apicel.
la v. McNeil laboratones. Inc.,66 F.R.D. 78 (E D.N.Y.1975); with Wnght v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n,72 F.R.D.161 ($ D.N.Y.19107.
C H
The " scholar's privilege" - an alieged outgrowth of the journahst's First Amendment privilege - is of doubtful validity under modern case law, at least as apphed to non-scholarsc il
~
e
l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS See Wnght v. Jeep Corp., supra, 547 F. Supp. at 875-76. See also in re Dinnan,661 F.2d 426, 427-31 (5th Cir.1981), cert. demed 457 U.S.1106 (1982).
I Where the courts have recognized a journahst's pnvilege, they have balanced "the poten-tial harm to the free flow of informanon 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-tric Motor Car Corp. v. American Motor Corp., supra,506 F. Supp. at 550.
3 The principal factors to consider in determining to give recosmtion to the journahst's pnvilege are whether the requested information is relevant and goes to the heart of the matter at hand, and whether the party seeking 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.
K Boards assume protective orders will be obeyed unless a concrete showing to the contrary is made. One who violates a protestive order risks serious sanction. See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-735,18 NRC 19,25 (1983s.
L Imposinon of a protective order can be a pragmauc accommodation of the need for dis-l covery and the protection of the asserted interests of the persons against whom discovery is directed.
ALAB-765 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generaung Stauon, Units I and i
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 assenion of jurisdsction over an in-servenor's contentions concerning the apphcant's 10 C.F.R. Part 70 application for a license to re-ceive and store new, unirradiated fuel outdoors at the Limerick site, and (2) dismissal of the con-tentions for lack of basis and specificity.
8 A Special Nuclear Materials License is required for a person to " receive title to, own, acquire, deliver, receive, possess, use, or transfer special nuclear material." 10 C.F.R. t 70.3.
Such authorization is essentially subsumed within a license to operate a commercial power reaGor, issued pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
C If a utihty wants (or needs) to receive and store new fuel before an operating hcense is issued, the utility must obtain a Part 70 heense.
D Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, hcensing boards may " preside in such pro-ceedings for granting, suspending, revoking, or amending hcenses or authorizauens as the Com-mission may designate, and to perform such other adjudicatory functions as the Commission deems appropnate." 10 C.F.R. ( 2.721(a).
E Appeal boards are delegated authonty to perform the Commisssun's review funcuons in g
Pan 50 and other hcensing proceedings specified by the Commission.10 C.F.R. I 2.785(a).
F Under 10 C.F.R. ( 2.721(a), only the Commission can define the scope of a proceeding before a hcensing board, or decide that a formal adjudicatory-type proceeding should be insututed.
G Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S C, i 2239a, mandates a hearms for any licensing action where requested by a person "whose interest may be affected." But a formal, "on the record adludicatory type hearing under Section 554 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),5 U.S C. ) 554 - like those conducted by hcensms boards - is not required for so-called materials licenses. See Kerr-McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility) CLI-82 2, 15 NRC 232,244-62 (1982). afi'd sub nom. City cf West Clucaso v. NRC,701 F.2d 632 (7th Cir.1983). The Commission can delegate authonty to adfudicate such matters informally to an agency official, such as the Director of the Ofrace of Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards.
See, e.g., Kerr McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), CLi-82 21,16 NRC 401 (1982).
H Licensing boards may assert jurisdiction over Part 70 issues raised in conjunction with an ongoms Part 50 heensms proceedmg. See Pacific Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear
- Power Plant, Units Nos. I and 2), CLI 76-1,3 NRC 73,74 (1976). See also, e s., Cleveland e
Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I & 2), LBP-83 38,18 NRC 61,63 k
12
- I 3_
a-4_ d A_
-}
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOABDS (1983); Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP 79 24,10 NRC 226,228-30 (1979L s
I.
It is not clear what, if any, notice requirements pertain to materials beense cases. See Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (Cobalt-60 Storage Facihty), ALAB-682,16 -
NRC 150,157-59 (1982).
J Section 2.714(b) of 10 C.F.R. requires en intervenor in a proceeding to set forth the bases for its contention (s) with reasonable specificity. Wher: the laws of physics deprive a pro.
posed contention of any credibie besas, the contenuon will not be admitted. Compere Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1), ALAB-590, il NRC 542 (1980)..
K Parnes in Commission proceedings have a duty to alert the Boards and all other pernes of any significant new information related to the proceeding. See Tennessee Valley Authority
_ (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units I,2 and 3), ALAB 677,15 NRC 1387,1394 (1982).
L-Under Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station Units I and 2h CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983), all five factors enumerated in 10 C.F.R. ( 2.714(a)(l) must be considered and bal-anced before an unumely intervention petition may be granted or a late-filed contenuon admitted. This is so even where a party has succeeded in making a strong showing on Ll'e first of those factors (good cause).
M The following technical issues are dracussed: Criucahty Potential of New Fuel; Handling -
and Storage of New Fuel at the Reactor Site; Radeauon Hazard from New Feet 4
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.
/
ALAB-766 Unit I). Docket No. 50-289-SP (Emergency Planning); RESTART; April 2,1984; MEMORAN-t DUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board dechnes, for lack of jurisdiction, to reconsider ALAB-697, its decision -
in this special restart proceeding affirmmg the Licensms Board's finding that certain emergency plans for the nuclear reactor are adequate.
.. Under settled principles of finality of aclpudicatory action, once an appeal board has finally B
determined a discrete issue in a proceeding, its jurisdiction is terminosed with respect to that issue, absent a remand order. Virginia Elecmc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power :
Station Units I and 21 ALAB-551,9 NRC 704,708-09 (1979); Pubhc Service Co. of New -
Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 21, ALAB-513,8 NRC 694,695 (19753 C~
When the Commission declines to review an appeal board decision, a final agency determination has been made resulting in the termination of appeal board jurisdiction. Seabrook, supra,8 NRC at 695.
D Appeal Board jurisdicuon over previously determined issues is not necessarily preserved by the pendency before it of other issues in a proceedmg North Anna, supra,9 NRC at 708 '
Seabrook, supra,8 NRC at 695-96.
i ALAB-767 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et at (WPPSS Nuclear Prosect No. 3) Docket No. 50-508-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; April 10,1984, DECISION A
The Appeal Board affirms the Licensing Board determinanon made on remand that an.
untimely peuuoner for intervenuon in this operating hcense proceeding has made en adequase showing under 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1) that it "may reasonably be espected to assist in developing a sound record," in support of the Licensing Board's previous grant oflate intervention.
B A late petitioner can establish that its participation nemy reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record by (1) identifying specifically at least one witness it intends to present; and (2) providing sufficient detail respecting that witness
- propoemd tesumony to permit the Board to reach a reasoned conclusion on the hkely worth of that testimony on one or more of its contentions. Washmston Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3).-
ALAB-747,18 NRC 1167,1881 (1983).
ALAB-768 - DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. (Catawks Nuclear Station Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-413,50-414; OPERATING LICENSE; April 17,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A-The Appeal Board dismisses a referral by the Licertsing Board of a ruling rejectmo por-tions of an untimely contention advanced by intervencrs in this operating hcense proceeding The Appeal Board finds that the Licensing Board ruhng can await appeal from that Board's final -
decision without causing truly exceptional delay or empense, and that Appeal Board involvement.
in the proceeding at this time is not compelled by any public inserest..
13 t
..m.
im._ _ _ _ _ ____________;_______. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _
~
3
+
L i
{
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS B
All nuclear power facihties are required to have an onsste electric power system to permit the functioning of structures, systems, and components important to safety in the event that the facility's offsite electnc power system is moperative.10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 17. -
C Interlocutory review of hcensms board action on specific contennons, whether in admit.
ting or rejecting them,is generally disfavored. See Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, e -
Units I and 2), ALAB-687.16 NRC 460, 465 (1982), rev'd in part on other grounds, CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983)-
D An intervenor aggrieved by threshold hcensing board action on one ofits content.ons customarily must await the board's initial decision before seekmg,ippeal board review. On appeal from an initial decision under 10 C.F.R. 2.762(a), an intervenor can assert that a licensms board ruhng on the admissibihty of a contention was erroneous. See, e.g., Texas Utihties Generstmg Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB 599,12 NRC 1, 2 n.1 (1980), and cases cited.
E In the absence of a potennal of truly excepuonal delay or expense, the nsk that a hcens-ing board's interlocutory ruhng may eventually be found to have been erroneous, and that be-A cause of the error further proceedmss may have to be held,is one which must be assumed by that board and the parties to the proceeding. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zson Stauon, Umts I
,g and 2), ALAB-Il6,6 AEC 258,259 (1973).. '
ALAB 769 LONG ISLAND LIGitTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Umt II, Docket No. 50-322 0L; OPERATING L) CENSE; April 23,1984; MEMORANDUM AND CER.
e TIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION t
A The Appeal Board certifies to the Commission questions concerning the terms "important to safety" and " safety-related'* as used in the Commission's quahty assurance regulations, and another question concernmg the need for additional environmental evaluation under the Nanonal Environmemal Pohey Act prior to the issuance of a hcense for low-power op- -
eration of the Shoreham plant. '
B The General Design Cnteria (GDC) establish minimum standards for those structures, systems and components considered important to safety, i e., those that " provide reasonable -
i assurance that the facihty can be operated without undue nsk to the health and safety of the pubhc." 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, Introduction..
C Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 dehneates the quahty assurance requirements for the design, construction and operation of various structures, systems and components of a nuclear power reactor. These quality assurance requirements apply to all acuvines affectmg the safety-
- related functior:r of these structures, systems and components.10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix B, Introduction.
D Licensang boards have descretion to admit late-filed contentions and appeal boards are not readily disposed to overturn such board determinations. See Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747,18 NRC 1167,1871 (1983).
ALAB-770 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-454, STN 50-455; OPERATING LICENSE; May 7,1934, MEMORAN.
DUM AND ORDER A
Retaining junsdiction over the proceeding and the apphcant's appeal from the Licensing :
Board's initial decision, LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984), denying an operating hcense for Byron, the Appeal Board remands the record in this operating hcense proceeding to the Licensing Board -
for further evidentiary heanns on the issue of quahay assurance and the rendenns of a supple-mental initial decision which is to include: (1) its findings based upon the additional evidence adduced; and (2) any necessary changes in the ultimate findings and conclusions reached earher by the Board as a result of that additional evidence.
\\
B An appeal board acting upon an appeal from a hcensing board decision may remand the :
' record to the board for further hearing while retaining jurisdiction over the proceedmg. In such circumstances, there is no necessity for a party to file a new notice of appeal after completion of further proceedings by the hcensing board. See generally Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB,305 U.S.
- 'v 364,373 (1939); Local Rule 13(d) of the Court of Appeals for the Distnct of Columbia Circuit; a
Quincy Cable TV, tr.c. v. Federal Communications Comnussion, 730 F.2d 1549 (D.C. Cir.1984).
Id 4
4 m.-..
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS C
So long as legitimate uncensinty remains respecting whether a nuclear faci?ity has been properly built, a licensing board is obhged to withhold authonzation for an operstms license.
D Under Commission regulations, owners of a nuclear power facihty are responmNe for es-tablishms and carrying out an effective quality assurance program. See Cntenon I of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
E The Commission has long held that as a general propontion issues should be dealt with in the hearings and not left for later (possibi A>re informal) resoluuon. The post-heanns ap-proach should be employed spanngly and only.i. clear cases - for example, where minor pro-cedural deficiencies exist. Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electnc Stanon.
Unit 3), ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076,1803 (1983), citing Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), CLI 74-23,7 AEC 947,951 & n 8,952 (1974). See also Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Umts I and 2),
ALAB-461,7 NRC 313,318 (1978).
F The followmg technical issue is discussed. Quahty Assurance.
ALAB-771 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.1),
Docket No. 50-460-CPA; CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; May. 15, 1984 DECISION A
The Appeal Boa 3 affirms the Licensing Board's decision, LBP 84-9,19 NRC 497 g
(1984), granting sutaramry disposition to the apphcant on the single admitted contention challens-ing the good cause for obtaining a construction permit extension.
B Under Commission regulauons, if construction of a nuclear power plant is not complete by she latest date specified in the construction permit, the permit expires and all rights thereun-der are forfeited.10 C.F.R. i 50.55(b); Atomic Energy Act oi !?$4,i 185,42 U.S.C. l 2235.
C "Upon good cause shown, the Commission will extend tha completion date for a reasona-ble period cf ume." 10 C.F.R. t 50.55(b).
D A timely filed appheshon for extenmon of an existing construction permit automatically extends the permit until the extension apphcation is determined.10 CE.R. I 2.109.
E Hearings are mandated for applications for initial construction permits and, therefore, such apphcations may not be disposed of summarily, even if uncontested. See section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S.C.12239,10 C.F.R. li 2.749(d), 2.104(b)(2), (3). Permit amend-ment cases, however, are not subject to the mandatory hearing requirement and summary dispo-sition limitahon. See Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project, Nos.1
& 2), CL1-82-29,16 NRC 122I,1231 (1982) (hesnns on extension request to be held only if petmoner can satisfy requirements of 10 Cf.R. 5 2.714); Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-291,2 NRC 404,407 n.5 (1975). Cf. Long Island Lighting '
Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82-41,15 NRC 1295 (1982).
F Summary dispomuon of a contention may be granted based on pleadings alone, or plead-ings accompanied by affidavits or other documentary information, where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that warrants a hearing.
G To be admissiNe, a contention in a construction permit extension case must either chal-lenge the applicant's reasons for delay or seek to show that other reasons, not consututing good cause, are the pnncipal basis for delay. CLl-82-29, supra,16 N RC at 1230.
H Permit extension proceedings are not intended to permit penodic relitigation of health, safety, or environmental questions between the time a e ~ 6 permit is granted and the time the facihty is authonzed to operate. Id. at 1228.
I A two-pronged test for octermining whether a contention is within the scope of a permit extension proceedmg is- (1) the construction delays at issue have to be traceable to the apphcant and (2) the delays must be " dilatory," i.e., the intentional delay of construction without a valid purpose. Washmston Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB 722, 17 NRC 546,551, !$2 (1983), cited with approvalin Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 2), CLI-84-6,19 NRC 975,978 (1984).
J Intentional delay of construction by a construction permit holder for financial reasons constitutes a valid busmess purpose and is not dilatory for tne purpose of determining a conten-tion within the scope of a permit extension proceeding. Similarly, questions about the need for power, cost of completion and financial consequences are not adasable contentions. CLI-84-6, supra,19 NRC at 978-79 A n.2.
T 15
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS K
lt is not the mission of the adjudicatory boards to superintend utihty management when it makes busmess judgments. Detroit Edison Co. (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No.
2), ALAB-475,7 NRC 752,757 58 (1978).
L Under 10 C.F.R. ( 50.55(b) of the Commission's regulanons, the completion date speci-fied in a construction permit may be extended for a reasonable period of time. The purpose behind this " reasonable period of time" requirement is to ensure that the applicant does not select a completion date that frustrates the NRC's regulatory oversight. Selecuon of a date that
. permits examinanon of a new extension request in a timely fashion is consistent with 10 C.F.R.
! 50.55.
ALAB-772 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Istartd Nuclear Station.
Unit I), Docket No. 50-2f9.SP (Management Phase); SPECIAL PROCEEDING: May 24, 1984; DECISION A
Acting on the appeals of three intervenor groups from the Licensing Board decisions concluding that the beensee has demonstrated its managerial capabihty and technical resources to operate Unit I of the Three Mile Island reactor in a safe manner, the Appeal Board remands the proceeding to the Licensing Board for further heanns on, inter alia, the adequacy of hcen-see's training program. In addition, the Appeal Board grants an intersenor group's monon to reopen the record for a hearing on allegations of improper leak rate practres at TMI-l.
B Panies in NRC a4udicatory proceedmss have an obligation to apprise the boards of sig-nificant new informanon. See Duke Power Co. (W lham B. McGuire Nuclear Stanon, Units 1 &
i 2), ALAB-143,6 AEC 623,625 26 (1973).
C Under the Atomic Energy Act, hcensees are required to comply with Commission re-quirements for the protection of the pubhc health and safety. See secuon 103b of the Atoms Energy Act. 42 U.S.C. ( 2133b.
D Under the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission is authorized to consider a hcensee's character or integnty in deciding whether to contmue or revoke its operating licente. See secuon 182a of the Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S.C. ( 2232a; Houston Lightmg and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-32.12 NRC 281,291 (1980). See also Consumers Power.
Co. (Midland Plant, Umts I and 21. CL1-83-2.17 NRC 69, 70 (1983); id., ALAB-106,6 AEC 182, 184 (1973).
E A hcensee of a nuclear power plant Itas a great responsibehty to the pubhc, one that is in.
creased by the Commission's heavy dependence on the hcensee for accurate and umely mforma-tion about the facihty and its operation. Hamhn Testing Laboratones Inc. v AEC,357 F.2d 632,638 (6th Cir.1966); Petition for Emergency and Remedial Acuon, CLl-78-6,7 NRC 400, 418-19 (1978).
F The value of tesumony by a witness at NRC proceedmss is not undermined merely by
. the fact that the witness is a hired consultant of a Irensee. See Louisiana Power and Light Co.
(Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076,1091 (1983).
G Parties who fail to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions oflaw on a matter may.
be deemed to be in default and to have waived any further right to pursue the issue.10 C.F.R.
l 2.754. See Detroit Edison Co. (Ennco Fermi Atoms Power Plant Umt 2), ALAB-709,17 NRC 17,23 (1983).
H Where credibihty of evidence turns on the demeanor of a witness, the appeal board gives the judgment of the trial board which saw and heard the tesumor.y parucularly great deference.
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB 355,4 NRC 397,404 (1976).
I Demeanor evidence is of little value where other testimony, documentary evidence, and common sense suggest a contrary result. See Millar v. FCC,707 F.2d 1530,1539 40 (D C. Cir.
1983); Local 44), IBEW v. NLRB, $10 F.2d 1274,1276 (D.C. Cir.1975).
J Ethics and technical proficiency are both legitimate areas of inquiry in the consideration of a licensee's overall management competence.
K An active role in reviewing and auditing hcensee training programs and exammations is contemplated for the NRC staff under Commission regulations See generally 10 C.F R.
ll 55.10(a)(6), 55.33(a)(4). See also 10 C.F.R. Part 55 Appendix A; NUREG-0660 (May 1980), Task I.A.2; Res. Guide 1.8, " Personnel Quahlication and Traming,* 2d proposed rev. 2 (1980),il 2.2.2, 2.2.7.
le
-A.
d
?b2
e m
7, s
W o.
t
,,1
?
DIGESTS i ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 5 '
l.
- The promulgation of more stringent regulations, applicable to all heensees, supersedes
> less stringent requirements imposed by a hcensing board in a parucular proceed ng M
A hcenens board may alter the usual order of presentshon of evidence and require an in.
tervenor that would normally follow a hcenaec to proceed with its case first. This course of -
action is appropnetc where, for example, the intervenct her fasted to comply with disco;ery re-quests and orders. See Northern 5 stes Power Co. (Minnesota) (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1),
LBP-77-37,5 NRC 1298,1300-01 (1977), cited with approvalin Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), ALAB.613,12 NRC 317,338 (1980);
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and 2),
ALAB-459, 7 NRC 175,188 (1978); 10 C.F.R. I 2.73I; 10 C.F.R. Part 2. Appendis A, i V(d)(4); 5 U.S.C. i 556. The burden of proof on licensee, however, remains unchanged in -
these circumstances. See Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant,' Units 1 & 2), ALAB-315,3 -
NRC 101,105 (1976).
N Where an intervenor raises a particular contention challenging a licensee's ability to oper-ate a nuclear power plant in a safe manner, the intervegor necessanly assumes the burden of
- going forward with the evidence to support that contention. See Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-123,6 AEC 331,345 (1973).
10 When a party is permitted to enter a case late,it is espected to take the case as it finds it. It follows that when a party that has participated in a case all along simply changes representa.
~ ~
tives in midstream, knowledge of the matters already heard and received into evidence is imput-l ed to it. -
P The NRC's Rules of Practice permit non-attorneys to appear and represent their organiza-lions in agency proceedings. See 10 C.F.R. l 2.713(b), Compare 49 C.F.R. ll 1103.2,1103.3 g
(Interstate Commerce Commission); 2d Cir. ) 46(d); 3d Cir. R. 9; Fed. Cir. R. 7(a).
Q Ahhough the NRC agudicatory boards do not hold lay representatives to as high a stand--
anl as they do lawyers, all representatives have a responsbehty to comply with and be bound by.
- the name age.ay procedures as all other parties, even where a party is hampered by limited -
resources. Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensmg Proceed nes CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,.
454 (1981). See, e g., Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric station.
Units I and 2), ALAB-69),16 NRC 952,956-57 (1982).
R An adjudicatory board should call upon independent experts to assist the board itself only in the most entraordinary circumstances - i.e., when a board simply cannot otherwise reach an informed drinkin on the imue involved. South Carchne Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Unit II, ALAB-663,14 NRC 1140,1146 (1981).
. ' Technical specifications for a nuclear facility are part of the operating hcense for the facility and are legally binding. See Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant),
ALAB 531,9 NRC 263,272 73 (1979).
l T
in order to prevail on a motion to reopen the record, the proponent of the motion must 1
show that the monon is timely, that it addresses a significant issue, and 1%at it may alter the outcome. Pacific Gas 'and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2),
ALAB-598,11 NRC 876,879 (1980).
t,,
.U Documents such as a Congressonal report on an accident generally must be pronered in a timely manner and sponsored by a witness in order to be admitted into evidence. See Duke i
Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-669,15 NRC 453,477 (1982).
r V
in a special proceeding, where the Commission has specifled the issues for hearing, a licensing board is obhged to resolve all such issues, even in the absence of active participauort by intervenors.
W NRC adjudicatory boards lack the authonty to direct the star in the performance of its duties. See Carchna Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Umts I,-2,3.-
and 4), CLI.80-12,11 NRC 514,516 (1930).
X in the proper circumstances, an a4udicatory board is empowered to call and esamine wit-nesses of whom the board is aware and who are hkely to have (factual) Information necessary for the proper resolution of the issues before it. See generally 10 C.F.R. l 2.718. Compare Summer, supra,14 NRC at 1152 57.
4 a
37 h'!
f,
,e l
I
^
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS Y
Because the independence of adjudicatory boards is essential to preserve the integrity of the hearms process, the board m an operating license adjudication is not bound by a decision of the Director of Inspection and Enforcement in an enforcement action. South Texas, supra,12 NRC at 289.
Z Replacmg corporate managers can result in a change in overall corporate philosophy and management.
AA Under appropriations legislation for the NRC for Gscal years 1980 and 1981, the Commis-sion is precluded from providmg financial assistance to intervenors. See Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-625,13 NRC 13, 14 15 (1981).
BB The following technical issues are discussed: Trainir.g and testing of hcensed and non-licensed personnel; StafGng and work hours; Ma.ntenance (deferral, record keeping, priorities, overtime); Corporate Organization (command and administrative structure, Gnanci.1/ technical relatmnship).
ALAB-773 LONG !$ LAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Umt 1),
Docket No. 50-322 OL (Emergency Planning); OPERATING LICENSE; June 13, 1984; DECISION A
Upon appeal of a Licensing Board order requiring that the Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency (FEMA) release to an intervenor in this operating license proceeding certain agency documents concerrung FEM A's emergency preparedness determinations for the facihty, the Appeal Board reverses, determining that the documents are privileged under the esecutive or dehberative process privilege and the intervenor has not made a showing of need sufDcient to override the privilege.
B Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.740(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations, parties may gener-ally obtain discovery regarding any matter, not prmleged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding.
C Under Commission regulations, no full-power operating hcense for a nuclear power reac-tor can issue unless the NRC finds that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures both cn and off the facihty site can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.10 C.F.R. ) 50.47(a)(1).
D With regard to the adequacy of offsite emergency measures, the NRC must base its Gnd-ings on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEM A) Andmss and determe-nations as to whether state and local emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reasona-ble assurance they can be implemented.10 C.F.R. i 50.47(a)(2).
E Under a Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the Commission and FEh4A in 1980. FEMA has the responsibility for reviewing emergency plans and agrees to provide the NRC with Endings and determinations on the current status of einergency preparedness around particular plant sites for use in NRC licensing proceedings. 45 Fed. Reg. 82,713 (1980).
F In connection with applications for operating hcenses, the NRC reviews FEMA Gndmss ar/ deter ninations on the status of emergency planning around a plant and then makes its own decisions, h regard to the overall state of emergency preparedness.
G The executive (or deliberative process) privilege protects from public disclosure govern-mental documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and pohcies are formulated. Carl Zeiss Stiftung
- v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss, Jena,40 F.R D. 318 (D.D C 1966), affd, 384 F.2d 979 (D C. Cir.), cert.
denied, 389 U.S. 952 (1967). See also NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck A Co.,421 U.S.132,150 (1975); United States v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,542 F.2d 655,658-59 (6th Cir.1976), cert.
denied,430 U.S. 945 (1977).
H The executive privilege may be invoked in NRC proceedings Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), CLI-7416,7 AEC 313 (1974); Consum-r ers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Uruts No. I A 2), ALAB-33,4 AEC 701 (1971).
I The executive privilege is quahfied and can be overcome by an appropriate showmg of need. A balancmg test is apphed to determme whether a htigant's demonstrated need for a docu-ment outweighs the asserted interest in confidentiahty. Carl Zeiss Stiftung, supra,40 F.R.D. at 327.
la i
77e 5
l 3:
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS J
The gosernment agency bears the burden of demonstrauns that the execuuse privilege is properly invoked, but the party seeking the withheld information has the burden of showing that there is an overridir:g need for its release. Smith v. FTC,403 F. Supp.1000,1016 (D. Del.
1975); United States v. AT&T,86 F.R.D. 603,610 (D.D.C.1979).
K The executive pnvilege is not limited to policymaking, but may attach to the deliberative process that precedes most decisions of government agencies. Russell v. Dep't. of the Air Force, 682 F.2d 1045,1047 (D C. Cir.1982).
L The executive privilege does not protect purely factual material unless it is inextricably.
intertwined with privileged communicanons, or the disclosure of the factual material would reveal the agency's decisionmaking process. Sterling Drug Inc. v. Harris,488 F. Supp.1019, 102 8 (S.D.N.Y.1980); Russell, supra,682 F.2d at 1048.
M The execuuve privilege protects both intra-agency and inter-agency documents and may even extend to outside consultants to an agency. Lead Industries Ass'n v. OSHA,610 F.2d 70, 83 (2d Cir 1979, cians Souae v. David,448 F.2d 1067, IC78 n.44 (D C. Cir.1971); Wu v. Na-tional Enhwment for Humanities,460 F.2J 1030,1032 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied,410 U.S.
926 (1973). Cf. National Small Shipments Traffic Conference, Inc. v. ICC, 725 F.2d 1442,1449 (D.C. Cir.1984) ("!blecause... consultants operate as the functional equivalent of regular staff, they consutute agency ensiders").
ALAB-774 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-289-SP (Management Phase); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; June 19, 1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Appeal Board denies the motion of an intervenor to reopen the record in the 6'
management phase of this special proceeding. It finds that the information on which the motion is predicated is insufficient to warrant reopening under the well-established, three-part test for reopening a closed record.
B The filing of a docunient in NRC licensing proceedings is deemed to be complete as of the time of deposit of the document in the mail or with a telegraph company.10 C.F.R.
C The three-part test for reopemns a closed record considers whe'her (l) the monon is timely, (2) it addresses significant safety (or environmental) issues, and (3) a different resuli might have been reached had the newly profrered maternal been considered dually. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAS-598,11 NRC 876, 879 (1980).
D Under section 186a of the Atomic Energy Act, any hcense may be revoked for, among other things, any material false statement in the apphcation or any statement of fact required under section 182 of the Act. 42 U.S.C.12236a. Tlus provimon of the statute can be violated by omission as well as by an affirmative statement. Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Stanon, Units I and 2), CLI 76-22,4 NRC 480,489 (1976), aff'd sub nom. Virginia Elec-tric and Power Co. v. NRC,57I F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978).
E A4udicatory boards hase long required parties in proceedir.gs before them to inform the boards and other parties of any new information that is "relegant and material to the matters bems adjudicated. Duke Power Co. (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear Stauon, Units 1 & 21 ALAB-143,6 AEC 623,625 (1973). See also Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Umts I,2 and 3), ALtB.677,15 NRC 1387,1394 (1982).
F The term "maienal" in " material false statement
- mear,s material in the traditional evi-dentiary sense - i.e., whether it is " capable of influencing a decisionmaker, not whether the statement would, in fact, have been rehed on." North Anna, supra 4 NRC at 487.
G In case a heensee or an applicant has a reasonable doubt concerning the materiality ofin -
formation in relation to its Board Notificanon obhgation or dunes under section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act, supra, the information should be disclosed for the board to decide its true worth. McGuire, supra 6 AEC at 625 n.15; Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-691,16 NRC 897,914 (1982), review dechned, CLI-83-2,17 NRC 69 (1983).
H Before submitting information as a Board Notification or under section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act, supra, an applicant or a hcensee generally is entitled to a reasonable period of time for internal corporate review of the documents under consideration. An obvious excep-tion exists for reports and the hke that could have an immedsate effect on matters currently 19 3
m.
2
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS being pursued at hearing, or that disclose possible serious safety or environmental problems requiring immediate attention. An apphcant or a licensee is obhged to report the latter to the NRC staff without delay, pursuant to myriad regulatory requirements. See e s.,10 C.F.R.
1 50.72.
I Deliberate planning by a licensee or an applicant to make a material false statement, even where not carried to fruition, would be evidence of had character. See Midland, CLI-83 2, supra,17 NRC at 70. A party, however, has a right to assert a reasonable position in opposition to any claimed obligation. -
ALAB-775 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diabto Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50 275 OL,50-323-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; June 28, 1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Determining that the standards to reopen the record have not been satisfied, the Appeal Board denies the motions of joint intervenors to reopen the record in this operating license pro-ceedmg on the issues of design quality assurance, construction quahty assurance, and the appli-cant's character and competence to operate the Diablo Canyon facihty.
the B
The proponent of a motion to reopen a closed record must satisfy a three-part test:
motion must be timely, addressed to a sigmficant safety or environmental issue, and estabhsh that a different result would have been reached imtially had the maternal submitted in support of the motion been considered. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2) ALAB 756,18 NRC 1340,1344 (1983L See also Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138,6 AEC 520,523 (1973);
Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant. Umts I and 2), ALAB-291,2 NRC 404, 409 (1975); Northern Ia bna Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear l),
ALAB-227,8 AEC 416,418 (1974).
C For a reopening motion to be timely presented, the movant must show that the issue sought to be raised could not have been raised earher. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ALAB 138,6 AEC 520,523 (1973), See Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760,1764-65 (1982).
D In order for new evidence of asserted (design or construction > quahty assurance deficien-cacs to raise a sigmficant safety issue for the purpose of reopening a record, the evidence must es-tabibh that uncorrected errors endanger safe plant operation, or that there has been a breakdown of the quahty assurance program sufDcient to raise legitimate doubt as to the plant's canabihty of -
being operated safety. Diablo Canyon, ALAB-756, supra,18 NRC at 1345c E
At a minimum, the new material in support of a monon to reopen must be set forth with a degree of particularity in excess of the basis and specificity requirements contained in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) for admissible contentions F-To satisfy the requirement that new evidence must be capable of affecting a previous decision, the proponent of a motion to reopen must submit evidence that is relevant, material, and rehable in support of the motion. Embodied in this requirement is the notion that evidence presented in affidavit form must be given by competent individuals with knowledge of the facts or by experts in the disciplines appropriate to the issues raised.
O Because the competence (or even the existence) of unidentified individuals is impossible to determine, statements of anonymous persons - so-called anonymous affidavits - cannot be considered as evidence to support a motion to reopen a closed record.
ALAB-775A PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275-OL,50-323-OL; OPERATING LICENSE: August 8,1984, ORDER ALAB-776 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275 OL,50-323-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; June 29, 1984 DECISION Upon the appeals of the apphcant and the NRC staff, the Appeal Board vacates the condi-A tion on the Licensing Board's authorization of a full power operating heense for the Diablo Canyon facihty that the staff first must obtain the " final" findmss of the Federal Eniersency Managemer$t Agency (FEMA) on the adequacy of state offsite emergency response plans. The Appeal Board rules that the interim findmss on the adequacy of the state plan presented by a 26
E r
- DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS
_.3 FEMA espert witness at the hearing fully satisfy the requirements of the Commission's regulationt 8-The Commision's regulations do not require the staff to obtam from FEM A " final" find-ings of the adequacy of state offsite response plans before a fusi power operating hcense can -
issue. See Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. ISan Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and' 3), ALAB-787.17 NRC 34,380 (1983): Cincinneti Gas & Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. Unit No.1), ALAS-727.17 NRC 760,775 (1983h Detroit Edison Co.
(Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2J, ALAB-730,17 NRC 1057,1066 (1983). Rather, prehminary FEMA reviews and inserim findings presensed by FEMA witnesses al licenang hear-ings are sufficient as long as such information permits the Licensms Board to conclude that off-site emergency preparedness provides reasonabic assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1). See San Onofre supra,17 NRC at 38 n.57; Zimmer, supra,17 NRC at 775 n.20.
C With respect to the adequacy of offsite emergency capabilities, the NRC must base its findmg on a review of FEM A findmgs and determmations as to whether state and local emergen-cy plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented.
10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(2). In any Commission heensing proceeding, a FEM A findmg constitutes a rebuttable presumpuon of adequacy and abihty to implement. Id.
. I s
I
/
.R F
e I
< i, e
w 2
i.:
(
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-84-1 KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et at (Wolf Creek Generating Stauon, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-482 (ASLBP No. SI-453-03 OL); EMERGENCY PLANNING, January 5, 1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board issues a memorandum and order which, inter sha, grants Interve-nors' motion to add a contention out of-time.
B As to late-filed contenuons, all five factors in 10 C.F.R. l 2.714(a)(1) should be apphed by a Licensing Board, including the Appeal Board's three-part test for good cause.
C Wlule the basis of a contenuon must be set forth with reasonable specificity, the conten-tion need not allege noncompliance with a regulation and need not specify how that regulation has been violated in the absence of any captanation by, as here, emergency planning authorities that determinations had been made in comphance with the regulauon.
D It is not the function of a hcensirg board to reach the merits of a contention at the time the admissibihty of a contenuon is being considered.
E A basis for a contention is set forth with reasonable specificity if the apphcants are sufTi-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 foundauon assigned to warrant further emptora-tion of the proposed contention.
LBP-84-2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Byron Nuclear Power Stauon, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-454-OL, STN 50-455-OL (ASLBP No. 79-41104-OL), OPER ATING LICENSE; January 13,1984, INITIAL DECISION A
When govsrmns statutes or regulauons require a licensms board to make particular find-ings before granung an apphcant's requests, a board may not delegate its obhgauons to the Staff.
CIcveland Electric In.uninating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I & 2), ALAB 298,2 NRC 730,737 (1975)- The post-heanns approach should be employed only in clear cases - for casmple, where minor procedural deficiencies are involved (Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Station, Unit 2), CLI 74-23,7 AEC 947,95152 (1974)), but not where the issue involved is a very catensive quality assurance reinspection program for which the Staff and the applicant have yet to agree on a full set of standards.
B The remedy most responsive to the circumstances of this case where, though construction nears completion, the Board finds that the Apphcant has not demonstrated that it has met its quality assurance obligations, and the remedy least harsh to the Apphcant, yet still appropnate, 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 final decision, in face of the impending completion of construction, would impose unilaterally upon the parties, particularly the Apphcant, 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 describing the reach of the denial of hcense on quahty assurance grounds, as res judicata or collateral estoppel with respect to the quahty assurance issues because neither concept, as ord nanly understood, neatly fits the unusual situauon to be found in the con-tinuum of a hcensing proceeding with many aspects. The Board did not foreclose future proceed-ings on the quality assurance issue and had no jurisdiction to do so.
D The Board did not agree with the Apphcant that its intenuonal overestimation of assumed trafTic times under adverse weather condiuons in an emergency and intenhonal underesumation of average generic sheltering values of the structures in the EPZ are conservanve. Therefore the Board required the Apphcant to make realistic esumates of these factors. Any sariance from 13
r-__
l I
DIGESTS '
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING EOARDS reahstic estimates of these factors could lead a decisionmaker away from actions affordmg radi-ological dose saungs.
E The following technical issues are discussed: Quahty assurance program, Steam genera-tor tube integrny, 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 Stram page tests, Emergency pians, Evacuation times, Average generic sheltering values.
LBP-84-3 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50 441-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; January 20,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i
A The Licensmg Board denies intervenor's motion to reopen the recorJ.
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 provide grounds for reopening the record.
C A hcensing board will not conduct its own investigation of quahty assurance allegations without proof that Staff omces are unable to conduct such an mvestigation adequately. Boeids are primarily responsible for conducting hearmss and should not readily undertake investigative functions.
D Newspaper allegations of quality assurance deficiencies, unaccompanied by evidence, or-d narily are not sufficient grounds for reopening an evidentiary record, Such articles do not demonstrate the existence of a "significant safety assue" or a " breakdown of the quabty assur-Y ance program."
LBP 84-4 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT M ANAGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant),
Docket No. 50-537 CP ( ASLBP No. 75 29112); CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; January 20, 1984; s
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS A
In a Memorandum of Findings the Licensing Board concludes that:
(1) the suitabihty of the proposed site for the Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP) for a reactor of the general size and type proposed has been reaffirmed; (2# from the esidence of record, the CRBRP can be constructed and operated in a manner that wouk have satisfied the NRC's mandate that the CRBRP achieve a level of safety comparabl.s enh that of light wa:er reactor g+isets Further. core disruptive accidents need not be included wnhm the spectrum of demsn bas mM Tw tM CR*RP; j
(3) a comprehensive and detailed quality assurance program was in place and functioning l
(prior to the termmation of the CRBRP program) m accordance with the requirements of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50; and (4) environmental and emergency planmns matters were appropriateV addressed.
LBP 84 5 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMP ANY (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Umt 1) Docket No. 50 272-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 25,1984,
, ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING LBP.84-6 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, et al. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2), Docket No. 50-412 ( ASLBP No. 83 490-04-OL); OPERATING LICENSE; January 27, 1984; REPORT AND ORDER ON SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE HELD PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. l 2.751a.
A In this Report and Order the Licensing Board concludes that a hearing is not required and dismisses the proceedmg.
8 As an independent regulatory agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not subject f
to the requirements of Exec. Order No.11,988. Floodplain Management 42 Fed. Reg. 26,591 (1977),
C The Licensing 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.
D in order for an organtrauon to obtain representational standmg on the basis of the inter-ests of a member, a must be estabbshed that the member has authonted the organization to rep-f resent his interests m the proceedmg. It is unwarranted for the Licenang Board to infer such au-24
s
' w
?
e DIGESTS
~ ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS thorization when the afDdavit 'of the member is devoid of any statement that he wants the or.
gamzation to represent him. -
E.
The filing and acceptance of the petition of the State of Pennsylsania pursuant to 10 C.F.R. t 2.71$(c) permits it to parucipate in the adjudicatory heanns only if one is held. % hen no petitioner has submitted a htigable contention so as to necesmtale the holding of a hearing, the films and acceptance of the Pennsylvania petition to participate under the provisions of -
t 2.715(c) does not trigger a hearing.
F
. When none of the concerns sought to be hhgated by a petitioner for mtervention are -
. within the scope of an operating license proceedmg. the petitioner has failed to submit'an ad-missible contention, and his petition for intervention will be denied. -
+
LBP-84-7 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant. Units I and 2), Docket Nos.
50-400, 50-401 (A5LBP No. 82-468-01-OL); OPERATING LICENSE; January 17.'1984 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board rules on sescral mononi for summary disposstion concernmg health effects associated with normal operation of a nuclear power plant, granung them in part and denying them in part. The Board found that under the circumstances they would be warranted in calhng their own expert witness to the vadentiary heanns m order to ensure substantae consid-eration of the issues.
i B
Because the proponent of a motion for summary disposition has the burden"of demonstratmg the absence of a genume issue of matenal fact, it does not necessanly follow that a motion supported by afHdavits will automatically prevail over an opposihon not supponed by aindavits. The Board must scrutinize the motion to determme whether the mosant's burden has
. been met.
C _
An opponent of a summary disposition motion must set forth specific facts showing that -
there is a genume issue of fact. It would frequently not be sufGcient for an opponent to rely on.
quotations from or citations to published work of researchers who have apparently reached con.
clusions at variance with the movant's affiants. Such public work is typically produced with other objectives in mind and may not focus drectly on the precise issue in contention. Whde a 1 cens-ing board may, in. its discrenon, consider publications referenced in opposanon to (or m support of) a mohon for summary disposinon to determine whether a movant has met its burden, it is under no obhgahon to do so.
D.
The Commision's decision in Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Siauon, Umts
. I and 2) CLI-30-31,12 NRC 264 (1900) has the effect of differentishng health effects conten-tions from other contentions in the summary dispossuon content _ An opponent of summary dis-
- position in the health effects area must have some new (post 1975) and substamtal evidence that casts doubt on the BEIR Report esumates. Furthermore, he must be prepared to present that esi-dence through quehfeed witnesses at the hearing.
E Adjudicatory boards should give the Staff every opportunity to explain, correct or supple-ment its tesumony before resorting to outside esperts of their own, and must aruculate good
[
~ reason to suspect the vahdity and completeness of the Staffs work. A board must be satis 6ed that it has no teatratic ahernative lo call in a board witness, that it empty cannot otherwise reach an informed decisson on the issue involved.
- 1 l'
F The following technscal issue is discussed. - Cancer Risk Eshmetes.
LBP-84-8 _ TEXA5 UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electne -
Statior, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445. 50-446; OPERATING LICENSE; January 30.-
1984; MEMORANDUM.
LBP-84-9 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPP55 Nuclear Project No.1).
Docket No. 50-460-CPA (ASLBP N o. 83-485-02 CPAh CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; February 1,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER,
- A in a proceeding to deterame whether Applicant has demonstrated " good cause" for the y construction completion date in the construction permit to be entended, the Licensms Board -
grants Applicant's and NRC Staffs mohons for summary disposhion in Apphcant's fasor. '
B Where the Applicant has demonstrated wahd reasons for delaymg construchon, the Board will permit the construction complehon date to be extended without reaching a judgment on the advisabihty of completing the plant.
/
1 n
- m. m
. m.m
. - 2 um
.m A
.m m
m
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC $AFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS C
The reasonableness of the period of the requested construction compleuen' date estension cannot be challenged on grounds of insufficiency.
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 operating heense stage.
LDP-84-10 TEXA5 UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Elecuic Station, Units I and 21. 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 opportumty to prove its case concerning quahty assurance for demsn and that there is no reason to correct a previous decision to clanfy that the Board's conclusions were based on the record.
B Critenon XVI of Appendia B to Part 50 requires the prompt identification of design deficiencies. but it does not require that those deficiencies be called "nonconformances." No par-ticular termmology is mandated.
C Criterion XVI of Appendia 5 to Part 50 is consonant with 10 C.F.R. i 50.55(e). The former requires a system for promptly identifying deficiencies includ ng design deficienc6es. The latter requires the prompt reportmg to the NRC of senous deficiencies.
D Absent some special procedural consideration, proposed findings of fact may make new arguments about record evidence. Allegedly contrary precedent is not persuamve.
E Motions for reconsideration are for the purpose of poinung out en error the Board has made. Unless the Board has relied on an unexpected ground, new factual evidence and new argo-ments are not relevant in such a mouon.
F Appkcant is not subject to the same standards for reopening the record as are intersenors. It is neither logical nor proper to close down a muhi billion-dollar nuclear plant be-cause of a deficiency of proof. However, repeated failures of proof would jeopardue meervenor's right to dise process and would require the demal of a hcense.
O The followmg technicalissues are discussed; Pipe support stabihty; U-bolts cinched up around pipes; U-bolts made of 5A 36 steel, clamping force; Local pipe stresses from pipe supports; U bolts, overtensioning; Renauonship of ASME Code and AWS Code, pipe supports.
Richmond Inserts, asial torsion.
LBP-84-il CAROLIN A POWER & LIGitT COMPANY (H B. Robmson Steam Electnc Plant. Unit 2). Docket No. 50-261-OLA (ASLBP No.83-484 03-LA); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 10,1984. ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING A
The Licensing Board dismisses this proceedmg finding that the withdrawal of all remain.
ing contentions by the sole intervenor has eliminated the bass for which the adpadicatory heering -
was ordered.
LBP 8413 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY. et al. (South Texas Presset. Umts I and 27, Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL, STN $0-499-OL (A5LBP No. 79 428-07-OL); OPERAT-ING LICENSE; March 14,1984, PARTIAL INITIAL DECI5lON A
The Licensing Board issues a Partial Initial Decision which resolves various quality assurance /quahty control issues raised by the Comnussion in CLI40 32,12 NRC 281 (1980),
together with Intervenors' contentions related to thcee Q4/QC issues. The Board also demes a motion to reopen the record. The Board rules that, subject to possible modification in later phases of the proceeding. there is currently no basis for concludmg (1) that the reasonable assur-ance findings contemplated by 10 C.F R.150.57 cannot be made, or (2) that HL&P currently lacks managenal competence or character sufficient to preclude an eventual award of operaung hcenses for the facihty. The Board is requiring a report in Phase II of the proceedmg concerning architect-QA/QC acuvities performed fel! ewing the assumption of duties by a new engineer / construction manager and a new construction contractor, B
Character and competence are fundamental requirements for an operating license apphcant. They are impkit in, and hence stem from the Atomic Energy Act, specifically Sections 103 and 182a,42 U.S.C. ll 2133(b)(2) and 2232(a).
C There ss a marked distmetion between the competence and character requirements for en operating hcense applicant. Ahhoegh the factors which comprise character or aompetence may overlap, they neverthelena constitute separate and distinct (and cumulative) requirements.
24
7 n
L b
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS D
Issues which may bear upon management competence include: (1) whether an apph--
cant's staff and management have suffwient techmcal and managenal expertsse and expenence -
(i.e., demonstrated knowledge, judgment, and skill) to construct the plant properly and operate it safety, (2) whether an apphcant's staff and management are organizationally structured so as to permit and encourage the unhindered apphcation of their capertise and esperience, and (3) whether an apphcant's programs and procedures require the apphcation of that espertise and es, penence and are consistent with goals of the Commission's regulations and the Atomic Energy Act. That third issue may also be characterized as the adequacy of an apphcant's written quahty assurnce/quahty control program (s).
E Character is, among other thmss, a measure of the hkchhood that an apphcant odl apply its techmcal competence to effect the Commission's health and safety (or environmental) standards.
F The character of an operating hcense opphcant is comprised of many traits relevant to the construction or operation of a nuclear plant. Among those traits are truthfulness and candor, the manner in which the apphcant has reacted to construction noncomphances or nonconformances, its assumption of responsibehty for the facihty under construction, and the degree to which it attempts to stay informed about the facihty.
G In evaluating an apphcant's character and competence, all relevant circumstances must be considered, includmg reformation of characier and improvement in competence..
H Failure of one or more individuals to demonstrate adequate competence or character does not per se indicate a lack of organizational competence or character (and vice versa). In evaluating the competence or character of an orgamzation, such factors as the role of particular indmduals in the orgamration, the responsabilities they exercise, the senousness and frequency of any deficiencies attributaNe to them, and the steps taken by the orgamzation when deficien-cies are discowsred must be balanced.
I The presence cc absence of intent, or of knowledge of falsity of a statement, is irrelevant to the techmcal queshon of whether or not a matenal fahe statement has been made. %rginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station Units I and 2), CLI 76-22,4 NRC 480,-
483,486-87 (1976), aff'd, $71 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978). On the other hand, such intent and knowledge are pertment to the effect of false statements on an applicant's character.
J The circumstance that a deficiera y was properly reported under 10 C F R.150.55(e) is not relevant to whether the deficiency represented a violation of the quakty assurance require-ments of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendia 8.
K The quahty assurance entena of 10 C.F.R Part 50 Appendia B, particularly Cntena !!
and V, apply to construction activines such as surveymg.
L The quahry assurance entena of 10 C F,R. Part 50, Appendia B, control implementation as well as the estabhshment of a QA program. A failure in implementauon may constitute a vio-
+
lanon of Appendia B.
M To the entent that surseymg represents a sonstrucuan actnity rather than a test,it is not governed oy 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendis B, Cntenon XI PTest Control")..
N A motion to reopen a record must be timely and must address significant safety (or environmental) issues. Where the record of a proceedmg (or at least of a major phan thereoD is closed, the mformation sought to lie included in the record must be matenal and significant -
I ie., to have at least the potential for altering a result which might otherwhe be reached To meet this standard, the proponent must offer new and significant factual information. The
- 'timehness" test is subsidiary to that of matenahty or segmficance.
~
LBP 8414 MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (Mame Yankee Atomic Power Station). Docket No. 50-309-OLA ( ASLDP 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' monons to withdraw their contentions and requests for hearing, and authorizes the is-suance of a hcense amendment.
LBP.34-15 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harns Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2), Docket Nos.
27 i
l' 1
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS s
50-400, 50 401 ( ASLBP No. 82-468-01-OL); OPERATING LICENSE; March 15,1984; MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER
.A On requests for reconsiderauon, the Licensing Board rejects certain heahh effects conten-nons relating to estimates of genets damage and cancer caused by ra&ation because a previously espected Board witness had become unavailable and because it appeared that the Intervenors' proposed witnesses could not shed any additional light on the contenuons. The Board also rules on several other contentions and proccdural questions.
LBP 84-15A ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (TRIGA Type Research Reactor), Docket No. 50-170 (ASLBP No. 8145101 LA); FACILITY LICENSE RENEWAL; (Cobalt-60 Storage Facihty), Docket No. 30-6931 (ASLBP No. 42-469-01-SP), BYPRODUCTS MATERIAL LICENSE RENEWAL; March 15,1984, ORDER A
In this Order, the Licensing Board grants the joint motions of Licensee NRC Staff and Intervenor resolvmg all remaimns issues and dismisses the proceeding.
LBP 84-16 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Livnerick Generating Stanon, Units I and 21, Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-353-OL; OPERATING LICENSE, March 16,1984. MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER A
in a written confirmation of an oral ruhng, the Board, caercismg jurisdiction over a pro-posed Part 70 bcense, demes a mouon to admit contenuons, a motion to stay receipt of new fuel at the Limenck site, and a peution to intervene and request for hearing addressed to the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
Licensms boards estabhshed to conduct heanngs on operating hcenses also ha\\e jurisdg-B tion over issues ansing under apphcations for Part 70 bcenses to receive and store unirra&ated fuel at the nuclear power plant. This juris&ction can be asserted on the grounds of 10 C.f1R.
) 2.717(b), which grants the presi&ng officer in art operaung hcense proceedmg the power to modify "as appropriate for the purpose of the proceedms" any Staff order "related to the subject matter of the pendmg proceedmg." Cmemnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Stanon), LBP-79-24,10 NRC 226 (1979).In affirming the Diablo Canyon Licensmg Board's as-sertion of juns&ction over a matenals hcense proceedmr., the Commission said, "that license is in'egral to the Diablo Canyon project....Civen that Board's famiharity with the Diablo Canyon project, it made good practical sense for it to hear and decide the related issues raised by the Part 70 matenals heense apphcanon." Pacific Gas and Elecinc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CL1761,3 NRC 73,74 nl (1976).
C Section 2.717(b), which grants the presidmg officer in an operating hcense proceedmg the power to mo&fy "as appropriate for the purpose of the proceedms any Staff order "related to the subject matter of the pending proceedms," 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(bl clearly is to permit integration of an operaung hcense proceedmg with Staff orders on matters related to that proceeding _ Common sense says that this integranon can take place, indeed is often more efficient if it takes place, before the Staff issues an order on a related matter See Cleveland Electnc liluminatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), LBP-83-38,18 NRC 61,63 (19831 D
Though it is unusual for a judicial body to esercise junsdicuan where it is not sought by the petiuoner, a board's exercise cf junsdiction over a petition addressed to the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards to imervene on a proposed Part 70 hcense is not an act of Constitutional dimensions. It makes sense for the board to rule on the petiuon, for it knows the parties and the circumstances of the case. If the board were to decline juns&ction now and let the petiuon follow the path the intervenor intended it to, it would, given past practice, likely be the hcensmg board delegated the responsibility of conductmg a hearing on the subject of the pennon.
E The admissibihty of the Intervenors' Part 70 monons, though filed several months after the Appheant filed for a Part 70 hcense, and years afhtr the start of the operating license hearings, is not to be measured by the critena-for late filed contentions in 10 C.F.R.
{ 2.714(a)(ll and Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon, Umts I and 2), CLI 8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983), for the Apphcant did not comply with a standmg order in this proceedmg to serve all relevant papers on the Board and pernes. An intervenor should be espected to foresee that an Apphcant would have to receive unirradiated fuel before now power tesung and that such G
2s
(
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS fuel would have to be outside at the site for a fimte time, but not that the Apphcant would re-quest that a fuel hcense be issued before a low-power operating hcense, 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 facility security plan would not be implemented as a prerequisite.
F Despite a standmg Board order to serve on the Board and parties papers related to the operating hcense hearing, the Apphcant did not serve its new fuelleense apphcanon and amend-ments thereto, thus delaying the Intervenors' responses to the application. The delay has enabled the Applicant to argue that the Intervenors' responses were late-filed. Had the Apph-cant's argument been accepted, the Apphcant, by merely delaying the sersice of relevant information, would in effect have tightened the standards for admitting contenuons. Thus the cir-cumstance here is an exception to the Commission's general behef that marapulanon of the availabihty of heensing documents (here the device of limited service contrary to expectauons) was unlikely to occur. See Catawba, supra,17 NRC at 1047.
G Staff counsel did not learn of the Appbcant's apphcation for a Part 70 heense until an amended apphcation was filed months later. Staff counsel then informed the Board and the Inter.
venors of the amended apphcotion, thus giving the intersenors their first information about the crismal apphcauon, but by then the Apphcant was already in a posinon to argue that the Interse-nors' filmss in response to the onginal apphcahon were late. It may somenmes be difficult for Staff counsel to be relevantly informed. However, the Staff appears before us in these proceed-ings as one body. Counsel should be informed when its chent is considerms a Part 70 t
application. Indeed, the Staff should assure that the Board and all parues in a nuclear facihty proceedms, as well as its own counsel, are given prompt notice that a Part 70 heense related to the facihty is bems considered.
H Section 50.91(a)(4), which makes the issuance of an operating license amendment effec-tive before any required hearing only if no signifkant hazards considerahons are involved, does 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 amendment.
I Fmal orders on monons related to Part 70 heenses to receive and store umrradiated fuel issued during an operatmg hcense hearms are appealable upon assuance. 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 jurisdiction to the Appeal Board. Id. at 74 n.1; 10 C.F R. I 2.785.
3 The following technical issues are discussed. New Fuel Stored Outside - Crincahty Accidents, Criticahty Momtoring, Non-Cnucahty Accidents Secunty Plan.
LBP-8417 KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Wolf Creek Genersung Station, Uma No.1), Docket No. 50 482 (ASLBP No. SI-453-03-OL); OPERATING LICENSE: March 26, 1984; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensms Board demes an admitted (v untimely peution for leave to intersene filed durms the course of a hearing which was being held to consider the sole controserted issue of emergency planning. After balancing the factors set forth in 10 C.F R. I 2.714(a)(1), the Board -
concluded that the peuuon, seeking to raise quahty assurance /quahty control matters, should not be granted.
B in order to determine whether an untimely peution for leave to intervene should be allowed, the Board must balance the five factots set forth in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(I).
C
- Good cause" for a late fihng depends wholly upon the substantiahty of the reasons as-signed for not having filed at an earher date. South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Uma 1), ALAB.642,13 NRC 881,887 n.$ (1981).
D If the controlling facts relating to the excuse f.,r the untimely fihng are not controverted by the petinoner's affidavits, the Board must take them as true. Florida Power & Light Co. (St.
Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Uma No. 2), ALAB-420,6 NRC 8,13 (1977), afTd, CLI-78 12, 7 NRC 939 (1978).
E Petiuoners for leave to intervene, as well as intervenors, are required to diligently uncov-er and apply all pubhcly available information. Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon Units I and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1048 (1983); Long Island Lighung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I), LBP-83-42,18 NRC 112,117, afTd, ALAB-743,18 NRC 387 (1983).
29
i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS F
If it is the petitioner's position that its newly acquired orgamrahonal existence was sufn-cient tojusufy belated intervenhon, such an esplanauon for the tardy Ghng cannot carry the day because the necessary consequerke would be that parues to the proceedmg would never be deter-mmed with certamty unut the Gnal curtain fell No adjudicatory process could be conducted in
. an orderly and expedinous manner if subjected to such a handicap. Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant, Umts 1-4), ALAB-526,9 NRC 122,124 (1979L G
Where no good excuse is tendered for the tardy Gling, the petitioner's demonstration on the four other factors in 10 Cf.R. ) 2.714(a)(ll must be particularly strong. hiississippi Power
& Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Umts I and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725,1730 (1982) Duke Power Co. (Perkms Nuclear Stapon, Umts I,2 and 3),' ALAB 431,6 NRC 460, 462 (1977).
H The second and fourth factors in 10 C.F R. ( 2.714(a)(!) are of relatnely nunor impor-tance in the weighms process. Detroit Edison Co. 'Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2),
ALAB 707,16 NRC 1760,1767 (1982L i
It is the peuuoner's abihty to contnbute sound evidence - rather than asserted legal skills - that is of sigmGcance in considering a late-6ted petiuon to intervene. Houston Lightmg and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generatmg Stauon, Uma l), ALAB 671,15 NRC 508,
$13 n.14 (1982).
3 Even though we are told that four of its co-counsel actively participated in the construc.
non hearmss, we cannot conclude that the pennoner's participahon could reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record since the issue that it would hugate here bears no resem-blance to any contested issue that confronted the Licensing Board in the construcuon permit proceedmg. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stauon, Umt 1), ALAB-743, 18 NRC 387,401 (1983).
LBP-8417A WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al. (WPP55 Nuclear Project No. 3), Docket No. 50 508 OL ( ASLBP No.83-486.01-OL); OPERATING LICENSE; Aprd 19, 1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
A petitior,er whose late-Gled petiuon to intervene'has met the requirements of 10 C F.R.
{ 2.714(a)(l) need not meet any further qualiGcations to have its admitted contentions htigated.
it is not to be treated differently than a peutioner whose pennon to intervene was timely 0;cd.
LBP-84-18 PHILADELPHI A ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Siauon, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-353-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; Aprd 20, 1984, SPECIAL '
PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER A
To admit contennons on undeveloped portions of emergency plans is to risk unnecessary hogation. But to deny the contentions is to unfairly ignore the insufGcient development of those portions. Fairness and efficiency seem to dictate that rdings on such contennons be deferred.
The pnncipal aims in such deferrals are to encourage negotiation, to avoid unnecessary ht gauon, and to make necessary htigauon as focused as possible. Cf. Cincinnati Gas and Electnc Co. (Wm. H Zimmer Nuclear Stauon, Uma 1), ALAB-727,17 NRC 760,772-74,776 (1983)
B Though a board's findinss on emergency planning are necessarily predicuve, nothms
" dictates" that a board make its findmgs on emergency plannmg before the plans are adopted by county and local organizauons. Section $0.47(a)(2) of 10 C F.R. says, in part, "in any hcensms proceeding, a FEM A finding will constitute a rebuttable presumpt on ou questions of adequacy and implementation capabihty." Since under the procedures of some States, plans are not subm~t-ted to FEMA for formal review untd after they've becq adopted, the quoted passage imphes there might be proceedings in which a board. making its Ondmss after FEM A's, would be making its Endmss after the plans were adopted.
C The contents of implementing proceduresi being highly detailed and related more to emergency preparedness than to the soundness of the emergency plans, are not to be htigated.
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electnc Stanon, Uma 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983). But Waterford does not say that everything planners might choose to relegate to implementing procedures is thereby beyond htigation, but only items at the level of the mmiste-nal detad appropnate to such documents.
D Neither the Commission's regulations nor the guidance in NUREG 0654 requre that radioprotective drugs be distributed to the general pubhc. See, e s., Union Electric Co..
(Callaway Plant, Uma 1), ALAB 754,18 NRC 1333,1334 (1983). FEMA guidance leaves to the -
l.
30
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS States the responsibihty of deciding whether to distribute potassium iodide (KD at all, even to emergency workers. Id. at 1335. But hcensms boards may rule on, and have ruled on the reason-ableness of States' decisions not to administer KI to the general pubhc. See id. at 1335, and the case it afGrrs, LBP-83-71,18 NRC 1105,1809 n.13 (1933). Several hcensms boards hase com-peled full records on the costs and the benents of distnbuting K1 to the general pubhc. See, e g, Callaway, LBP-83-71,18 NRC 1105. The reasons behind State pohcies agamst distributmg Kl to the public are now quite familiar to hcensing boards, and their ruhnes are uniform: "lSitate pohcies against., distribution (to the general pubhc] have not been found contrary to require.
ments for providing adequate protective measures for emergency planning purposes" Callaway, ALAB 754,18 NRC at 1335. quoting LBP-83-71, is NRC at !!09. There is no pomt m compil-ing yet another record on this well-settled issue.
E Litigshon of the generalissue of human response to rad.auon danger, with tesumony by experts 61 stead of workers with specific responsibihties under the plans, would be a pointless battle between experts, the Intervenors' abstractly and mconclusively argums that humans are less willing to face radiation dangers than they are other sorts of dangers, and the Apphcant's en-perts abstractly and inconclusively arguing the contrary. However, with contenuons which focus on the responses of speciGc groups of people with specific responsibihues under the emergency plans, there is more than mere speculation on whKh to rest a findmg about the degree to whKh such personnel can be relied on in a radiological emergency. Even more important,it woWd be possible to de.ermme how crincal the functions these personnel will be trained to perform are to the implementation of the plans. Indeed, one possible efficient and probative approach for the htigauon of such specific contentions would be an examination of the sensitivity of the effect on the success of the plans of less-than-full participauon by the specific named groups, and/or any provisions in the plans to compensate for varying degrees of non-participauon by those groups F
The emergency plans include much that aims to give adequate nouGcation and instrucuon to the transient populanon in the plume exposurc emergency planning zone (EPZ). Nonetheless, in the event of an emergency, some members of this population might not hear the sirens, or know what they meant, or have radios, or be famihar with the roads in the plume EPZ. Thus, these persons might have to depend more on their own resources in Gnding out what to do than permanent residents of the plume EPZ would have 30. Yet, the plans cannot reasonably be en-pected to provide more for this population than they stready do. If everyone were left to figure out for himself what to do after the sirens sounded, and picked up later if he didn't figure it out, there would be, in effect, no emergency plans at all. On the other hand, the plans cannot be re-quired to be specinc to every individual, or again, there would be no acceptable plans at all.
Whet NUREG-0654 calls "a best effort" will sometimes have to do. See, e s., NUREG4654, Appendix 3, Section C.4 d.
G The phrase, " transient population " which Section IV.D.2 of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendia E, uses to denne the group for which there is to be some special means of notification, does not refet only to people who take up temporary residence in the plume EPZ, as the use of the same phrase in NUREG 0654,Section II.G.2 shows. There, many of the devices suggested as means to notify the " transient population" would apply M temporary residents and temporary non.
residents shke.
H The following technical issues are discussed: Communicanons System; Dedicated Tele-phone Switch; Order of Telephone NouGcations; Listing in Emergency Plans of Names and Numbers of Offsite Management; Instalianon and Tesung of Sirer.s; Effecuseness of Route-Alerting; Route-Alerung Sector Maps; Notificanon of Transient Populanon in Plume Exposure Emergency Planning Zone; Adjustments in Size of Plume Exposure Emergency Planning Zone; Evacuation Time Estimates; Effect of Traffic Congeshon Outside Plume Exposure Emergency Planning Zone on Evacuation Mobilization of Nanonal Guard; Human Response to Radianon Danger, Letters of Agreement; Self-Asading and Permanent Record Dosimeters for Emergency Workers; Livestock Farmers as Emergency Workers; School Personnel as Emergency Workers, Potassium lodide for the General Pubhc; 5peciahred Plans for Special Facihties.
31
(
a
?-
"t e
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC 5AFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-8419' MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMP ANY. et al. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Urut
'l li, ' Docket No. 50-416 OLA - ( ASLSP No. 84 497-04-OL); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; April 23, 1984; SECOND ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE A'.
In an operaung hcense amendment proceedans, the Licennang Board admits an intervenor and two ofits contenhona relaans to the suspension of techmcal specincehons to perform censin
,7 tasks.
B Under Secuon 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, where the Commission determines that a
' heense amendment involves no memGcant hazards consideration, the amendment may be issued and made immediately effecuve in advance of any required hraring.-
C Where an amendment is issued and made immediately effecuve under a determinanon -
of no signiGcant hazards consideration, a urnely fded contention will not be considered moot,'
even if the contested action has been completed.
LBP-34-20 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Uruts 1 and 2). Docket Nos. 50-329-OM&OL,50 330-OM&OL (ASLBP Nos. 78 389-03 OL,80-429-02-5P); MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING LICENSE; May 7.1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A.
The Licensing Board admits two of three proposed contenoons based upon allegations made in complaint Gled by a third party in a civillawsuit agaanse the Apphcant...
B.
The Licensing Board dachnes to utihre its general authority to shape the course of a proceeding.10 C.F.R. I 2.718(e) as foundation to accept a proposed late-filed comennon or to.
consider what is in essence a tnotson to reopen the record, in the face of emphcil Commission standards governing those atuations.
C The specincity and bass requirements for a proposed contention, 30 C.F.R.- { 2.714(b),
are satisGed where the contention is based upon allesauons in a sworn complaint Gled in a judi-cial action (notwithstanding that the alleganons are comested). and the applicable passages there.
in are speciGcally 6denursed. Further bass is found in several documents, although they may be subject to muluple interpretations.
D in balancing the Gve factors considered in determining the admissibehty of late Gled.
contenhons,10 C.F.R. j 2.714(a), a hcenens board must consider all Gwe factors but need not gne the same weight to each factor; where a proponent demonstrates " good cah4" for late fding. the showmg required on the other factors is diminished.
E.
Where proposed new consentions were proffered pnor to close of the record in the ses-ment of the proceeding in which the matters were hugated, but the ruhng upun the contenuons
' takes place subsequent to the record's closing, the choice of govermns standards is based upon -
the status of the record at the time the proposed contenhons were Grst offered. whether the :
contention was hmely proffered, and whether it presents important informauon regarding a sig.
. nincant issue.
LBP-84-21 DUKE POWER COMPANY. et at (Catawba Nuclear Stauon, Umts I and 2). Docket.
Nos. 50-413,50-414 (ASLSP No. SI 463 06 OL); OPERATING LICENSE; May 30, 1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
The Licensing Board grants Applicants' unopposed motion to authonse fuelloading and certain precraticahty testing prior to a Board decisaon on safety and environmental ensues. The Board finds that it is not required to decide the ments of any of the issues pendens before it as a
. precondition to favorable action on the mohon and that the proposed activities will not pose as.y danger to the public..
LBP 34 22 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVER$1TY OF CALIFORNIA (UCLA Research Reactori.
L.
Docket No. 50142 OL; FACILITY LICENSE RENEWAL; June 5,'1984, MEMORANDUM.
AND ORDER A
Licensing Board dechnes to enter sancuens against counsel or pursue remedies against his chent for material misrepresentation on the grounds that the misrepresentation was made against a background of confusion, was not intended to deceive, and dsd not benent counsel's.
I chent. The Licensing Board holds that another party lacks stana..; = muest a heanns on sanc.
hons for lack of a direct palpable injury to it caused by counsel's misrepresentahon and may not
~
I.
pursue remedies against counsel's client in the absence of a contenhon.
B Intent to decene is relevant to the question of whether sanctione shouH be entered.
against counsel on account of a matenal nuorepresentahon.
y
}
32
- =
E' l
l l
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS C
A party la a proceeding who has not suffered a direct, palpable injury as a result of coun-sel's misrepresentauon lacks standing to request a heanns on the quesuon of sancuons.
D
- Parties and their counsel must adhere to the highest standards of disclosms all relevant -
and matenal factual mformation to the Licenang Board.
E In htigation involving highly compien technology, many decirions regardmg materiahty ofinformation can only be made jointly by a party and its counse!.
F Counsel's obhgations to disclose all relevant and material factual information to the Licenang Board under the Atomi6 Energy Act are not substantially different from those laid out by the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In discharsms his obhgations, counsel may venfy the accuracy of factual informatson with his chent or venfy the accuracy of the factual in-formation himself.
G The test of materiality is whether the informanon is capable of influencing the decisionmaker, not whether the decimonmaker would, in fact, have rehed on it. Determinations of materiahty require careful, commonsense judgments of the context in which the information appears and the stage of the hcensng proceedmg involved.
LBP-84-23 MISSISSIPPI POWER A LIGIIT COMPANY, et al. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Un.t 1). Docket N o.
50-416-OLA (ASLBP N o.
34 497-04-OLh OPERATING LICENSE -
AMENDMENT; June 21,1934, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER g
In an operating hcense amendment proceedms, the Licensing Board denies Licensees
- A motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for cert Gcanon to the Appeal Board, of an j
order admitting Intervenor contentions-B Where the party has raised no new issues nor cited new information, it has oRered no
)
bass for the Board to reconsider its Srder.
C Legislative history supports the determination that hearings on hcense amendments be held, if properly requested, even after irreversible actions have been taken upon a Gndmg of no sigmficant hazards consideranon.
D The grant of a request for cerufgation is an exception to the general rule asamst inter-locutory appeals and is to be resorted to only in "encepuonal circumstances." Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-382,5 NRC 603,606 (1977).
E Interlocutory review as undertaken only where the ruims below either (1) threatens the party adversely affected with immediate and serious irrevocable impact which. as a practical matter, could not be alleviated by a later appeal; or (2) affects the banc structure of the proceed-ing in a pervasive or unusual manner. Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generatmg Stanon, Umts ! and 21. ALAB-405,5 NRC 1190,1192 (1977).
F The erroneous admission of a contention, where a hearing may be required in any event,.
does not affect the banc structure of the proceeding in a pervamve or unusual manner, or cause an irreparable impact which cannot be alleviated by a later appeal, so as to permit mterlocutory review.
LbP-84 24 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon. Units I and 21. Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 (ASLBP No. 81-463-06-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; June 22. 1984, PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION A
This operaung hcense proceedmg was contested with respect to a broad quahty assurance contention, two relatively narrow technical contentions, and numerous emergency planning contentions. The Licensing Board decides the quahty assurance contention (with certain reservations) and the techmcal contention concermng embnttlement of the reactor pressure vessel in the Apphcants' favor. The other techmcal contention, concerning meteorology and acci-dent analyses, is decided against the Staff and the Applicants and in favor of the intervenors.
Notwithstanding the findmss adverse to the Staff and Applicants, the Board Gnds that, subject to the resoluuon of certam unresolved assues over which it retams jurisdiction, the reasonable assur-ances requisite to authorizatson of a low-power operating hcense are present. Accordmsty, this Partial Initial Decision authorizes the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue such a hcer'se, on condition that the unresolved issues are first resolved in favor of the Apphcants. A separate Licensmg Board will decide the emergency planmng contentions at a later date.
B Licensing boards are authonzed to estabhsh reasonable time hmits for the examinahon ~
of witncises, includmg cross-exammanon, under 10 C.F.R. (( 2.718(c) and 2.757(c), the Com-l
+
33 i
i k
O l,k e
l J >
l f
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS f
mission's Statement c( Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLi-818,13 NRC 452 (1981) and relevant judicial docesons.
C Under 10 C.F.R. I 2.740(b)(1) discovery is available after a contention is admitted and it may be terminated a reasonable time thereaner. Litigants are not entitled to further discovery
{
as a matter of right with respect to infortnation relevant to a consention which first surfaces long i
aner discovery on that contention has been terminated.
LBP-84-25 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445, 50-446; OPERATING LICENSE; June 29,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A
Pursuant to a stipulation that authorizes a grant of summary deposition unless a hearms J
is necessary for the Board to reach a reasoned decision, the Board grants summary disposition of et nine issues, including Rve issues discussed by the Board in a previous decision B
Summary disposition may be granted with respect to issues esp?icitly left open by the -
Board in a memorandum and order. The previous decision of the Board provides the framework for consideration of the motion.
C The parties may provide the Board with greater authority to grant sum nary disposition g
through a saapulation. For saample, the Board may be authorized to siant summary disposition whenever it deci1ce that it can reach a reasoned decision without conducting a hearing. That r
standard permits the Board to grant summary disposition in some circumstances in which it would otherwege he requered to find that there is a genuine issue of fact requinns trial.
D The followise techascal issues are descussed. Applicabdity of AWS Code to ASME Pipe Supports; ASME Code - Simultaneous Effect of AWS Code Provisions; Preheat; Weave Welding; Downhile Weiding; Cap Weldias.
.A 9+
t I
t i
e i
I o
f 9
)
I
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-84-1 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY. et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Unit I). Docket No. 50-440; REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION; January 9,1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. ( 2.206 A
The Director of the Omce of Inspection and Enforcement denies a petition requestmg an independent analpis of a crane accident durmg construction of Perry Urut 1. access by the gener.
al pubhc to the plant, and initiation of show cause proceedmgs to revoke the construction permit. The Director found that adequate analyses of the accident had been performed and that appropriate correctise actions had been taken.
B The staff will not initiate immediate action to grant the relief requcsted in a 6 2.206 peti-tion in the absence of a demonstration that an imminent hazard to public health and safety exists which warrants immediate rehef.
C
$how-cau;e proceedmss may be initiated if a substantial health and safety' issue is raised, but the Commission will not institute such proceedings to esplore the purely economic impacts
~
of bcensed 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. I 2.206 A
The Director of the Omce of Inspection and Enforcement grants a portion of a petition granted in part and demed in part on October 6,1983 (DD-8316.18 NRC 1123).
DD-84-3 CINCINN ATI G AS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1). Docket No. 50-358; REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 13, 1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.2%
A The Director of the Omet v Inspection and Enforcement denies a petition submitted by Thomas Devine of the Government Accountability Project on behalf of the Miami Valley Power Project requestmg action with respect to the Wilhan H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station.
D D-84-4 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 21. Docket No. 50-320. REQUEST FOR ACTION, February 17. 1984, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206 A
The Director of the Omce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition submined by Marvin Lewis requestmg that the Commission postpone the hftmg of the reactor pressure vessel head at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit 2.
B Based upon the staff's resiews and experience to date, there does not appear to be an undue risk to pubhc health and safety from the possible formation of pyrophoric materials 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.1 2.206 A
The Director of the Omce of Inspection snd Enforcement grants in part and denies in part a petition submitted by the Massachusetts Pubhc Interest Research Group requesting that the NRC take action with respect to the state of emergency plannmg at Pilgnm facility. Among the specific rehef requested was the initiation of the 4-month period specified by the Commis-sion's regulations withm which to correct the alleged deficiencies at the Pilgnm facihty and con-sideration by the Commission as to whether the state of emergency preparedness in coryunction w:th the a!!eged poor safety record at the Pi!gnm facihty *nerants immediate shutdown or opere-tion of the facihty at reduced power.
35
t f
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS
- DECISIONS k
8 The Federal Emergency Management Agency takes the lead in offsite emergency plan-ning and reviews and assesses State and local emergency plans for adequacy. The NRC assesses the hcensee's site emergency plans for adequacy and makes decisions with regard to the overall state of emergency preparedness.
C The Commission's regulauons preclude an Emergency Planmns Zone (EP2) radius signi-ficantly in excess of 10 milet An EPZ of about 10 miles is considered large enough to provide a response base which would support activity outande the planning zone should this ever be needed.
D The Commission has adopted an approach to emergency planning in which evacuanon is only one of several possible responses to an emergency. It is unhkely that evacuation of the entire plume EPZ would be required in the event of an accident. Pending a final determination regarding the adequacy of evacuauon ume estimates, it is reasonable to conclude that the pubhc health and safety will be ress)nably assured in the interim by continued hcensee compliance
-i with Commission requirements regarding emergency planning and other health and safety re-quirements aimed at keeping the probabihty of senous accidents very low.
DD-84-6 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (AND ALL LIGHT. WATER REACTORS) l (LaSalle County Station, Units I and 2), Docket No. 50-373; IVMEDIATE ACTION REQUEST; March 16,1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.FA i 2.206 -
A The Director of the Omce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies peutions by Edward M.
Gogol allegmg that there are severe errors, defects and loopholes in the integrated leak rate test-ing (ILRT) methodology now in use. The petinons sought a variety of relief including requests for immediate acuon such as placing the LaSalle Unit I of the Commonwealth Edison Company in cold shutdown ceasing further construction and licensing acuvities with respect to LaSalle Unit 2 and Byron Unit I and shutung down reactors with insumcient evidence of adequate con.
tainment leak rate testing.
B Should a peutioner pursuant to 10 C.F.R. l 2.206 wish to initiate a rulemaking, the proce.
dures set forth in 10 C.F.R. l 2.802 should be followed.
C The Director will not institute proceedings in response to a petition under 10 C.F.R.
l 2.206 to consider an issue the Commission is treating generica!!y through rulemaking.
D The Commission's requirements for integrated leak rate tesung are set out in 10 C.F.R.
i 50.54(o) and Appendia 3 to 10 C.F.R. Part 50. While the Commission's requirements for in-tegrated leak rate testing conunue to provide reasonable assurance that the pubhc health and safety is adequately protected, the NRC Staff has under way a review ofleak rate testmg require-ments to see whether modificauons to these requirements are appropriate. The Commission has placed leak rate testing for water cooled power reactors on its Regulatory Agenda.
i DD-84-7 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS Nuclear Project No 2),
g Docket No. 50 397; REQUEST FOR SHOW-CAUSE PROCEEDING; March 19,1984; DIREC.
y TOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 A
The Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforce.nent denies a petition of the Coali-tion for Safe Power requesting that the Nucicar Regulatory Commission insutute show-cause pro-ceedings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. l 2.202 to determine whether the construction permit for the -
1I Washington Pubhc Power Sopply System Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2) should be revoked, a stay of construcuon imposed, the pending apphcation for an operaung license demed, and hear-ings instituted before an Atomic Safety and Licensms Board. The petiuon alleged as its support-ing bases deficiencies primarily in the construction and management of the WNP-2 facahty.
B lt would be unreasonable to hinge the grant of an NRC operating hcense upon a demon.
stration of error-free construction. What is required is a careful considerauon of wheiber all as.
certained construction enors have been cured and whether the errors indicate that there has been a breakdown in quality assurance proce4ures of sufficient dimension to raise legitimate doubt as to the overall integrity of the facihty and its safety related structures and components.
Uruon Elecinc Co. (Callaway Plant, Unit I) ALAB '40,18 NRC 343,346 (1983).
C An order to show cause is appropriate in he instances in which the NRC concludes, based upon alleged violations by the licensee or potentially hazardous conditvins or other facts, that enforcement action should be taken but that a basis could reasonably exist for not taking i
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS the enforcement action proposed. See 10 C.F.R. l 2.202(a)(1) and 10 C F.R. Part 2. Appendix C,6 IV.
D Suffi:ient grounds must be present for the NRC to institute a show-cause proceedmg.
The standard to be apphed in determinmg whether to issue a show-cause order is whether sub-stantial health or safety issues have been raised.
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 filed by the joint intervenors in the Diab 60 Canyon operstmg hcense proceedmg.
The joint intervenors contended that the low-power hcense for Diablo Canyon Unit i should be revoked or at least remain suspended on the basis of the hcensee's failure to report a 1977 audit of the quahty assurance program of the licensee's prime piping contractor. Although the Director fmds that the failure to report the audit constituted a matenal false statement under the Atumic 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 report significant deficiencies as defined by the regulation.
C The hcensee is found to have made a material fatw statement by not reporting an audit l
of its prime piping contractor's quahty assurance program where quahty assurance was an issue being heard in the operating hcense proceeding and the audit on its face appeared to contradict the hcensee's testimony in the proceeding.
D The fact that an item is not reportable under 10 C.F.R. i 50.55fe) 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.
F in view of the mmamat significance of the matenal false statement b 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.
DD-84-9 SHIPMENTS OF HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WASTE; SPENT FUEL SHIPMENTS; Apnl 13,1934, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206 A
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards denies a request from the Sierra Club that the NRC halt all dry cask shipments of spent fuel in certain model casks until appropriate analyses are performed of an incident involving possible oxidation of spent fuel shipped to Battelle Columbus Laboratories.
DD-84-10 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) Docket No. 50-271; REQUEST FOR SHOW-CAUSE ORDER; April 16. 1984 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206
-A The Director uf the Offica of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R.12.206 from the Vermont Fuhhc Interest Research Group and the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance requesting issuance of an order to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear i
Power Corporation to show cause why its license should not be suspended pending resolution of certain issues related to intergranular stress corrosion cracking of reactor piping at the Vermont Yankee facihty.
DD 84-il THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Unit 2i, Docket No. 50-341; EMERGENCY PLANNING; April 20, 1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. l 2.206 -
A The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation concludes that the concerns raised by Monroe County, Michigan, as supplemented by information submitted by Joan Mumaw and Michael Barrett ead by John Mmocit on behalf of Citizens for Employment and Energy, regarding the County's expertise and resources to carry out its responsibehtnes under the emergency plan for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 have been satisfactonly re-37 r
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DEC1510NS I
solved ane adequately addressed in the emergency plaris for the facility, and that no further action is required to resolse the Coi.r.ty's concerns.
B The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEM A) takes the lead in offsite emergen-cy planmns and reviews, assesses State and local emergency plans for adequacy and makes deci-sions with regard to the overall state of emergency preparedness.
l C
11 is the experience of FEM A and the NRC in esalualms well over 100 full-scale emergency preparedness exercises at nuclear power plants that volunteer emergericy workers mill-ingly participate in and respond to simulated radiological emergencies as they do to actual emer.
gencies involving toxic and hazardous materials.
D NRC regulations and guidance emphasue declaring an emergency based on plant conds-tions before there is a release of radioactive material. NRC regulations also melude a design ob-jective for offsite authontics to hase the capability to promptly alert and notify the pubhc follom-ing the occurrence of an emergency requirms offsite protectise measures.
DD-84-12 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Three Mile bland Nuclear Station. Uma 1) Dmket No. 50-289; REQUEST FOR ACTION; April 27, 1984; INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. } 2.206 A
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes in part a petmon dated January 20, 1984, filed by Ellyn R. Weiss and Robert D. Pallard on beha'f of the Uruon of Con-cerned Scientists requesting that the Commission contmue the suspension of the Three Mde island Nuclear Station, Umt I operating hcense until alleged deficiencies in the plant's Emergen-g cy Feedwater System are rectified.
DD-84-13 PHILADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limenck Generating Station, Umts 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-352, 50-353, IMMEDIATE ACFION REQUEST; Apnl 25,1984. DIREC-TOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. i 2.206 A
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes a Petition fUed by Del-Amare Unlimited, et al., which requested revocation, suspension or modification of the construction per-mits for the Limerick Station based on (I) alleged inadequacies in the NRC staffs draft environ-
}
mental statement related to operation of the Limenck Station, (2) alleged changed circumstances regarding the supply of supplemental coohng water for the facihty and (3) that certain physical impacts of construction of the Point Pleasant Diversion Project have been allegedly overlooked.
B The Director will not consider issues raised in a Petition pursuant to 10 C.F R.12.206 which are clearly a matter for consideration in the operating license proceeding currently in progress.
C Section 2 206 should riot be used by a party to a hcensmg proceeding to request relief on a matter within the junsdiction of the presidmg officer in that proceeding.
D Suspension, modification or revocation of permits or heenses may be appropnate based upon substantially changed circumstances. NEPA does not reqmre that a decision based upon en-vironmental impact statements be reconsidered whenever information developed subsequent to the action becomes available, unless the new information will clearly mandate a change in the nesult.
DD-84-14 POWER AUTHORITY OF T lE STATE OF NEW YORK (James A. FiuPatnck Nuclear Power Plant), Docket No. 50-333; IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUEST; May 3,1984, DIREC.
e TOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206 A
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demes a petition submitted by h
Ellyn R. Weiss and Robert D. Pollard on behalf of the Umon of Concerned Scientists requestmg that operation of the James A. FitrPatrick Nuclear Power Plant be suspended pending the determmation of the adequacy of the pipe supports at the facihty to withstano normal operatmg loads and seismic events.
B ine otdisation to make a Part 21 report to the NRC does not anse unal it is determined that a defect within the meanmg of Part 21 exists.
n b
f
DIGESTS ISSUANCE OF DENI AL OF PETITIONS FOR RULEM AKING DPRM-84-1 OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, MARVIN I. LEWIS, MAPLETON INTERVENORS. Docket Nos. PRM 50-32,50-32A,50-328. El.ECTROMAGNETIC PULSE; June 22,1984; DENIAL OF PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING A
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission denies three petitions for rulemaking requesung that the Commission amend its rules of practice to require applicants for construction permits and operating licenses for nuclear power plants to provide for design features to protect against the effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The petitions are denied because the requested 1
amendments are unnecessary for the protection of public health and safety, are contrary to sound administratne practice, and are inconsistent with the established national policy that the protection of the United States against hostile enemy acts is the responsibility of the nauon's de-fense estabhshment.
B Based upon results of studies done by the NRC and for the NRC (Sandia National Laboratory Report, NUREG/CR-3069,"Interacuon of Electromagnetic Pulse with Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Systems") there is no reason to beheve that an EMP would prevent any commercial nuclear power plant from achieving a safe shutdown condition. In addition, the rationale behind the issuance of 10 C.F.R.150.13, which was upheld in the U.S. Court of Appeals, was that Congress did atd intend to implement legislanon that would require nuclear power plants to be capable of warding off the effects of hostile enemy acts. This rationale has been reevaluated in light of the peuuons and at this time the Commission finds no informauoa to support a change in pohey.
39
m t
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Adickes v. S.11. Kress & Co.,398 U.S.144,156-61 (1970)
=
burden on proponent of monon for summary disposition LBP-84-7,19 NRC 435 (1984)
Alabama Power Co (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182,7 AEC 210,216, rev'd on other grounds, CLI-7412,7 AEC 203 (1974) apphcanon of res judsata and collateral estoppel to operstmg hcense proceedmss; ALAB-759,19 NRC 25 n.40 (1984n preclusion of considering a contention's ment in considering its admissibility; LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1292 (1984)
I Apicella v. McNed Laboratones, Inc. 66 F R.D. 78,84 (E D.N.Y.1975) hmits on appbcanon of First Amendment priulege of the press; ALAB 764,19 NRC 640 (1984) t Arizona Pubhc Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generauns Stauon, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-742,18 NRC 380,383 (1983) showing necessary to invoke appellate directed certincation authonty; ALAB-762,19 NRC 568 n.9 (1984)
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Insutute (Cchalt-60 Storage Facehty), ALAB-682,16 NRC 150.
157-59 (1982) (Eilpenn, concurnns) regulations and statutes requinns notice of materials hcense actions; ALAB-765,19 NRC 652 n 10 (1984)
Atlantic Research Corp., ALAB 594, il NRC 841,856-59 (1980)
NRC enforcement pokcy on apphcation of penalues, DD-84-8,19 NRC 933 n.13 (1984) o Atlanne Research Corp, CLI-80-7,1I NRC 413,42122,424 (1980) responsibihty of lwensee for reporung knowledge of information in possession of its contractors; DD 84-8,19 NRC 932 (1984)
Baker v. FAF Insestment. 470 F 2d 778,783 (2d Cir.1972), cert. demed,411 U.S. 966 (1973) appbcabihty of First Amendment pnvilege to orgamzauon gathenng conndenual mformauon about safety problems at nucIcar plant; ALAB 764,19 NRC 639,640,641 (1984)
Bellotu v. NRC,725 F.2d 1380 (D C. Cir.1983) showing necessary for intervenuon in construcuon permit extension proceedmss; CLI-84-6,19 NRC 978 (1984)
BPI v. AEC,502 F.2d 424 (D C. Cir.1974l showing necessary for mtervention in construction permit entension proceedings; CLl 84-6,19 NRC 978 (1984)
Braniburg v. Ilayes,408 U.S. 665,690 n.29 (1972) court attitude toward extension of testimonial pnvileges ALAB 764,19 NRC 639 (1984)
Braniburg v. Ilayes,408 U.S 665,709-10 (1972) (Powell,3., concurnns) apphcabihty of First Amendment pnvilege to organization gathenns con 6dential mformauon about safety problems at nuclear plant; ALAB-764,19 NRC 639,641 (1984)
Bruno & Stdiman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co.,633 F.2d 583,596 (1st Cir.1980) factors balanced in recogmtion of journahst's pnvilege; AL AB 764,19 NRC 641 (1984)
Bruno & Sullman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co.,633 F.2d 583,598 (1st Cir.1980) means for protectmg mterests 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 sitmg in a floodplam; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 404 (1984)
Carey v. Ilume,492 F.2d 631. 636 (D C. Cir.), cert. dismissed,417 U.S. 938 (1974) apphcabihty of First Amendment privilege to organizauon gathenns conndentialinformation
=
about safety problems at nuclear plant; ALAB-764,19 NRC 639 (1984)
_ r el
%,G-
'..N(4, ',
7,.i.' T h 1. ; P ',. C ' '. fg b..) 99,g.lj, * :, r - 4
,C
, ',.4 DJ 7,p.,..i
.Wi +. j,. ; 4 -h '
- I 4. // I A W-i t
e 4*." -- ' i
.h LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Carey v. Hume,492 F.2d 631,636-39 (D C. Cir.). cert. dismissed. 417 U.S. 938 (1974) factors balanced in recosmtion ofjournahst's pnvilege; ALAB-764,19 NRC 641 (1984)
Carl Zeiss Suftung v V.E.B Carl Zeiss. 3ena. 40 F.R D. 318,324 (D.D.C.1966), af!'d,384 F.2d 979 (D C. Cir.), cert. denied. 389 U.S. 952 (1967) government documents protected by executive privilege; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1339 n.15.1341.
n.24 (1984)
Carl Zeiss Surtung v. V.E.B. Carl Zetss. Jena 40 F.R D. 318,327,328-29 (D.D.C.1966), afTd,384 F.2d 979 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied,389 U.S. 952 (1967) showing necessary to overccme execuuve privilege; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1341 n.26.1343 n.44 (1984)
Carohna Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant. Units I,2,3. and 4),
ALAB-526,9 NRC 122,124 (1979) newly acquired organizauonal status as cause for late intervention; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 887 n.9 (1984)
Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant. Uruts I. 2. 3, and 4) CLI-8012.
Il NRC 514. 516 (1980)
Licensing Board authonty to call nonexpert witnesses; ALA3-772.19 NRC 1263 (1984)
Carohna Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Units I,2,3, and 4), LBP 7919, 10 NRC 37, $1. 56-94 (1979), af!'d and modified ALAB-557, II NRC 18; CLI-80-12,11 NRC 514 (1980) factors considered in judgms an apphcant's character; LBP-8413.19 NRC 672 nn.13 & 16,676 n.25 (1984)
Carr v. Fife,156 U.S. 494. 498 (1894) need for disquahlication of a judge because of pnot associations with parues to a proceedms; j
ALAB-759.19 NRC 24 n.35 (1984) 1 Chemicals in Aggregate Shipments - Midland, Mich. to the East. 3261.C.C. 657,665 (l%5) characterization of Memorandum of Fmdings; ALAB-761,19 NRC 494 n.24 (1984)
Cmcmnati Gas and Electnc Co. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), LBP 79-24,10 NRC 226, 228-30 11979)
Licensms Board authority to act on requests to raise Part 70 issues; ALAB 765.19 NRC 652 (1984); LBP 8416,19 NRC 862 (1984)
Cincmnati Gas and Electnc Co. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) ALAB 727,17 NRC 760,770. 773 (1983) post-hearms resoluuon ofissues by NRC StafT, LBP-84-2,19 NRC 252 (1984) l Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Stauon. Unit 1), ALAB-727,17 NRC 760,772 74. 776 (1983) deferral of ruhng on emergency plannmg contenuons; LBP 84-18.19 NRC 1043.1044 (1984)
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1). ALAB-727,17 NRC 760. 775 & n 20 (1983) need to await final FEM A findmss on adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness before issuance of full-power hcense. ALAB-776,19 NRC 1378,1379 n.23 (1984)
Cmcinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Staten. Unit 1). ALAB-727,17 NRC 760,776 (1983), LBP 82-48,15 NRC 1549 (1982) passms of jurisdiction over proceedmg withholdmg authorization for an operating hcense; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 279 (1984)
Cleveland Electnc illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2). ALAB 298,2 NRC 730, 737 (1975)
Licensms Board delesauon ofits responsibahties to NRC Staff, LBP 84-2,19 NRC 210 (1984)
Cleveland Elecinc Illuminaung Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units i and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741, 747 48 (1977) effect of admittmg a contenuon based on uncertamnes of a lawsuit; LBP 84 20,19 NRC 1302 (1984)
Cleveland Elecinc Illummatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-443,6 NRC 741, 752-54 (1977) burden on proponent of monon for summary disposition; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 435 (1984) 42 l
EF LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Cleveland Electne Illummatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB-675,15 NRC 1105 (1982) erroneous admission of contention as basis for interlocutory appeal; LBP-84-23,19 NRC 1417 (1984)
Cleveland Electnc illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 21, DD 83-17,18 NRC 1289 (1983) classification of matenal false statements by sever ty level; DD-84-8,19 NRC 93435 (1984)
Cleveland Elecinc illuminatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I ad 2), LBP-83-38,18 NRC 61, 63 (1983)
. Licensing Board authonty to act on requests to raise Part 70 issues; ALAB 765,19 NRC 652 (1984); LBP 8416,19 NRC 864 (1984)
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), DD 815,13 NRC 728 (198D, affd sub nom. Rockford League of Women Voters v NRC,679 F.2d 1218 (7th Cir.1982) institution of proceedmgs to consider economic impacts of construction actmtses or deficiencies:
DD-84-1,19 NRC 475 (l984)
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Umts I and 21. LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) basis of Board findings; LBP-8410,19 NRC 511 n.4 (1984) l elTect of apphcant's corrective actions on evaluation of its character and competence; LBP-8413, 19 NRC 721 n.46 (1984)
Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-ll6,6 AEC 258,259 (1973) i Appeal Board pohey concerning review of Licensmg Board interlocutory ruhngs on contentions; ALAB-768,19 NRC 992 n.14 (1984)
Commonwealth Edison Co- (Zion Stanon. Umts I and 2), ALAB-226,8 AEC 381,41011 (1974) responsibihty for makmg 10 C F R. i 50.57(a)(D findings as a precondition to operating hcense issuance; ALAB-758,19 NRC 11 n.18 (1984); ALAB-762,19 NRC $67 (1984)
Commonweahh Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units I and 2), LBP 73-35,6 AEC $61,892 93,898-99 (1973), modified on other grounds, ALAB 226,8 AEC 381 (1974) factors considered in judging an apphcant's character; LBP 8413,19 NRC 676 nn.25 & 26 (1984)
Consolidated Edison Co of New York (Indian Pomt Station, Umt 2), CLI-74 23,7 AEC 947,951 (1974)
Commission pohey on post hearms resolution of issues; ALAB-770,19 NRC 1875 n.45 (1984)
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Pomt Umt 21.CLI-74-23,7 AEC 947,95152 & n.8 (1974) post-heanns resoluuon ofissues by NRC $taff. LBP-84-2,19 NRC 210-12,252 (1984)
Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point. Uma 2), CLI 8316. If NRC 1006 (1983) risk to pubhc health and safety pendmg determinahon of adequacy of evacuahon time estimates j
for Pilgnm facility; DD 84-5.19 NRC 553 (1984)
Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Pomt. Umt 2), LBP 73-33,6 AEC 751,756 (1973),
affd, ALAB-188,7 AEC 323,336 (1974) factors considered m judgms an apphcant's character; LBP 8413,19 NRC 676 n.26 (196 t)
Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Pomt, Unit 21. LBP-83-68,18 NRC Sll,938-39 (1983) l route alerting as a backup to siren systems, LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1072 (1984)
Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Pomt, Unit J), CLI 74-28,8 AEC 7,8-9 (1974) apphcanon of rule asamst delegation of Licensms Board responsitslities to NRC Staff to issues raised sua sponte; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 211 (1984)
Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Umts I,2 and 3), CLI-75-8,2 NRC 173,176 t1975) standard apphed in determamns whether to issue a show-cause order, DD 84-7,19 NRC 923 n.16 (1984)
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Units 1,2 and 3), CLI-75-8,2 NRC 173,177 (1975) standards for considerms requests under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 DD 8413,19 NRC 1144 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Madiand Plant, Umts I and 21, ALAB-3.1,4 AEC 701 (1971) invoking executive pnvilege m NRC proceedmss; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1341 n.25 (1984) 43 I
s LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-101,6 AEC 60,65 (1973) summary of disquahfication 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) factors considered in evalualms a heensee's character, ALAB-772,19 NRC 1207 (1984) relationship between competence and character; LBP-84-l),19 NRC 671,672,676,687 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-123,6 AEC 331,332-33 (1973)
Licensing Board discretion to make findmgs and conclusions; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 703 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-123,6 AEC 331,345 (1973) burden of going forward with evidence to support a contention; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1245 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB-315,3 NRC 101,105 (1976) burden on hcensee in restart proceedms; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1245 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 379,5 NRC 565,569 (1977) quahfications required of expert witnesses; ALAB-772,19 NRC 12tl (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-382,5 NRC 603,606 (1977) circumstances appropriate for grant of cert:6 cation request; LBP-84-23,19 NRC I416 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-458,7 NRC 155,172 n 64 (1978) responsibehues of parties and counsel to disclose material factual mformation to Licensing Boards; LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1401 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 21 ALAB491,16 NRC 897,907 (1982) responsibihties of parties regardmg participation; ALAB 761,19 NRC 493 n.20 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-691,16 NRC 897,910,919 (1982) duty of counsel with respect to factual representations to Licensing Boards; LBP-84 22,19 NRC 1401, 1404 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB491,16 NRC 897,91015 (1982) relevance ofintent to deceive with material false statement; LDP 84-22,19 NRC B387,1403, 1408, 1409 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), AL AB-691,16 NRC 897,91213,914 (1982),
review dechned, CLI-83-2,17 NRC 69 (1983) scope of Board Not fication obhganon of hcensees; ALAB 774,19 NRC 1358 & n 6 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Madiand Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-691,16 NRC 897,914 (1982), review declined, CLI-83-2,17 NRC 69 (1983) responsibihhes of perhes to inform Board and parties of significant new mformauon; ALAB-765, 19 NRC 657 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units I and 2), ALAB-69),16 NRC 897,91819 (1982),
review declined, CLI-83-2,17 NRC 69 (1983) apphcability of sequestration order to preparation of heensee's counsel for cross-examinahon of a Staff witness; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1276 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 74-3,7 AEC 7,11 (1974) weight given to truthfulness of an operstmg license apphcant; LBP-8413,19 NRC 674 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 83-2,17 NRC 69,70 (1983) duty of counsel with respect to factual representations to Licensmg Boards; LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1401, 1404 (1984) evidence of bad character of a heensee; ALAB 774,19 NRC 1359 (1984) factors considered in evaluating a heensee's character; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1207 (1984) importance of an apphcant's truthfulness to character determmation; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 615 (1984)-
satisfaction of reopening standard requiring presentation of "significant new information;
Consumers Power Co. (Mediand Plant, Units I and 21, LBP 754,1 NRC 227,229, aft"d, ALAB 283, 2 NRC 11 (1975), clarified ALAB-315,3 NRC 101 (1976) showmg necessary to support a contention's admission; LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1293 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant Units I and 27, LBP 8143,14 NRC 1768,1777-85,17891800 (1981) responsibileties of parties and counsel to disclose material factual informahon to Licensing Boards; LBP-84 22,19 NRC 1388,1402,1403,1405 (1984) 44 i
T-LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant. Umts I and 2), LBP-8243,16 NRC 571,576 (1982) denninon of a late-Gled contenuon, LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1290 n.5 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-8243,16 NRC 571,576-78 (1982) standards apphed in determming admissibihty of late-filed contentions; LBP-84 20,19 NRC 1291-92 (1984)
Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units I and 2), LBP 83 50,18 NRC 242,247-49 (1983) weight given to timehness of motion to reopen a record, LBP-84-13,19 NRC 716 (1984)
Consumers Umon of the United States, Inc. (Starks v. Chrysler Corp.),32 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 137)
(S.D.N.Y.1981) hmits on applicanon of First Amendment privilege of the press: ALAB 764,19 NRC 640 (1984)
Darhnston v. Studebaker-Packard Corp.,261 F.2d 903,906-07 (7th Cir.), cert. demed,359 U.S. 992 (1959) need for desqualification of a judge because of prior associations with perues to a proceeding; ALAB 759,19 NRC 24 n 35 (1984)
Detroit Edison Co. (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Umt 2), ALAB-470,7 NRC 473 (1978) zone ofinterests which give a petiuoner standmg to intervene in construcuon permit extensson proceedings; CLI-844,19 NRC 978 (1984)
Detroit Edtson Co. (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Umt 2), ALAB-475,7 NRC 752,757 58 (1978) role of Licensmg Boards relative to unhty management; ALAB-771,19 NRC 1191 n 27 (1984)
Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760,176445 (1982) sausfacuon of timeliness requirement for monon to reopen a record, ALAB-775,19 NRC 1366 n.15 (1984)
Detroit Edison Co. (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707,16 NRC 1760,1767 (1982) importance given to factors 2 and 4 of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1); LBP-84-17,19 NRC 847 n.Il (1984)
Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-709,17 NRC 17 (1983) intervenor not penalized for fadure to file proposed findmss of fact; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 681 n.35 (1984)
Detroit Edison Co. (Ennco Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2), ALAB 709,17 NRC 17,23 (1983) penalty for failure of mtervenors to file proposed Gndmss of fact; ALAB-763,19 NRC 577 (1984); ALAB 772,19 NRC 1213 n.18 (1984)
Detroit Edison Co. (Entro Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP 79-1,9 NRC 73,78 (1979) satisfacuon of interest requirement for intervenuon through geographical proaimity; LBP-84-6, 19 NRC 410 (1984)
In re D:nnan,661 F.2d 426,427 31 (5th Cir.1981), cert. demed,457 U.S.1106 (1982) i application of scholar's privilege; ALAB-764,19 NRC 640 n.10 (1984)
Duffield v. Charleston Area Medical Center,Inc.,503 F.2d $12,517 (4th Cir.1974) disquahfL.ation standards apphcable to Licensmg Board members; ALAB 759,19 NRC 20 n.23 (1983)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-355,4 NRC 397 (1976) responsibehues of parties and counsel to disclose material factualinformation to Licensms Boards; LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1401 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-355,4 NRC 397,404 (1976) weight given to Special Master's observations of witness demeanor; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1218 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Un'ts 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 Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station Units I and 2), ALAB-355,4 NRC 397,406 n.26 (1976) scope of Board Nouncation obhgation of hcensees ALAB 774,19 NRC 1358 n.6 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB487,16 NRC 460,467 70 (1982),
modined, CLl4319,17 NRC 1041 (1983) htigauon of concerns based on unavailable matenals. ALAB-758,19 NRC 12 n.19 (1984) 45
c
- C LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,468 (1982) need for particularizauon of contentions; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 412 (1984)
Duke Power Co- (Catamba Nuclear Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460,469 (1982) factors considered m admission of late-filed contennons; LBP-841,19 NRC 31 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon, Umts I and 2), CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983) factors considered in admismon oflate-Gled contenuons; LBP 84 l,19 NRC 31 (1984) inappheabihty of late-films entena to late-filed Part 70 contennons; ALAB-765,19 NRC 656 (1984) prematunty of comentions; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 406 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear $tauon, Umts I and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1045,1048, 1050 (1983) factors balanced for admismon oflate-filed emer8ency planning contennons; LBP-8418.19 NRC 1026, 1027 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon, Umts I and 2), CLI 8319,17 NRC 1041,1046 (1983) standards apphed in determimns admissibihty of late-Gled contentions; LBP 84-20,19 NRC 1291 92 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nucicar Stanon. Umts I and 2). CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1047 (1983) applicabihty of late-fihns entena to comenuons addresens unnonced apphcanon for Part 70 license; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 866,867 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear Sianon. Umts I and 2s, CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041,104n (1983) responsibilines ofintervenors regarding information-gathenng; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 887 n 8 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear Stanon, Umts I and 2), CLI 83-19,17 NRC 104),1049 (1983) acope of late-filed contentions on emergency planmng; LBP 84-18,19 NRC 1027 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nudear 5tauon, Umts I,2 and 3), ALAB 745,18 NRC 746 (1983) termination oflimited appellate jurisdiction; ALAB 760,19 NRC 27 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Umis I,2 and 3), DD-79-6,9 NRC 661,661-62 (1979) bass requirement for peuuons under 10 C.f.r.12.206; DD-8413,19 NRC 1844 n.I) (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Perkms Nuclear Station, Umts I,2 and 3). ALAB-431,6 NRC 460,462 (1977) weight given to other factors where good cause is not estabhshed for late intervenuon; LBP 84 lf,19 NRC 887 n.10 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Umts i and 2), ALAB-128,6 AEC 399,407 (1973) factors considered in judgms an apphcant's character; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 676 nn.25 & 26 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Umta I and 2), ALAB.143,6 AEC 623. 625 A n.15 (1973) responsbahties of parues to inform Boards of relevant information; ALAB 774,19 NRC 1357 58 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear $tauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB 143,6 AEC 623, 625 26 (1973) fulfillment of pernes' responsibihties to appnse Boards of sigmficaat new mformauon; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1206 (1984); DD-84-8,19 NRC 928,932 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB-143,6 AEC 623,626 (1973) responsibdities of pernes and counsel to dandose material factualinformation to Licensing Boards, LBP 84 22,19 NRC 140102 (1984)
Duke Power Co. (Wilham B. McGuire Nuclear Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB 669,15 NRC 413,477 (1982) requirements for admismon of documents such as congressional reports as evidence; ALAB-772, 19 NRC 1260 (1984)
Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Umt I), ALAB 109,6 AEC 243,244 45 (1973) preclusion of considenns a contenuon's ment in considenns its admissibihty; LBP 84-20,19 NRC 1292 (19846 Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Pomer Stanon Unit I), LBP 76-3,3 NRC 44. 50-51 (1976) factors considered in judgmg an apphcant's character; LBP-8413,19 NRC 676 nn.25 & 26 (1984) 46
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES in re Echles,430 F.2d 347,349 50 (7th Cir.1970) i right ofintervenor to hearms on question of imposition of sanctions against its adversary, LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1389 (1984)
Environmental Defense Fund,Inc. v. Andrus,619 F.2d 1368,1377 (1980) need for preparation of separate environmentalimpact statement for low power operatior4 CLI-84-9,19 NRC 1326,1329 (1984)
FCC v. WOKO, Inc.,329 U.S. 223 (1946) penalty for material false statement; LBP 8413,19 NRC 674,676,678 (1984)
In re Fisher,179 F.2d 361 (7th Cir.1950), cri. denied sub nom. Kerner v. Fisher,340 U.S. 825,71
- 5. Ct. 59,95 L. Ed. 606 (1950) right of intervenor to heanns on quesuon of imposition of annetions against its ads ersary; LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1389 (1984)
Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2), ALAB-420,6 N AC 8,22 (1977) weights given to factors apphed to determine admissibihty of late-filed contentons; LBP 84-20, 19 NRC 1292 (1984)
Florida Power and Light Co. (5t Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. 2), ALAB-420,6 NRC 8,13 (1977), afrd, CLI-7812,7 NRC 939 (1978) standard for deternunmg whether good cause exists for a late fihng, LBP-84-17,19 NRC 846 n.7 (1984)
Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB,305 U.S. 364,373 (1939) basis for remand of record to Licenang Board for further haannss, AL AB-770,19 NRC 1168 n.11(1984)
Fredoma Broadcasung Corp. v. RCA Corp.,569 F.2d 251,257 (5th Cir.1778) subjective standard for determining a judge's impartiality; ALAB-79,19 NRC 22 n 29 (1984)
Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 291,2 NRC 404,407 n.5 (1975) hearing requirement for construction permit amendment proceecings; ALAB 771,19 NRC 1188 n.14 (1984)
Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units I and 21. ALAB 291,2 NRC 404,409 (1975) test for reopening a record; ALAB-775,19 NRC 1365-66 (1984)
Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 anJ 2), DD-79-4,9 NRC 582 (1979) basis for suspenmon, modificanon or revocauon of constrxtion permits, DD 84-13,19 NRC 1144 n.16 (1984)
Georgia Power Co. (Alvm W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), DD-79-4,9 NRC 582,584-85 (l979) need for reconaderation of decisions based upon envsonmentalimpact statements, in hsht of I
new information; DD-84-13,19 NRC 1l44 a.lf (1984)
Gutt States Utihties Co. (River Bend Station Units I ar.d 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,773 (1977) criteria for accepung a contention based on a gent.ric issue; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 418 (1984)
Gulf States Unhties Co. (River Bend Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-444,6 NRC 760,775 (1977)
Staff responmbilines concerning genene unresolved safety issues; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 53 (1984)
Hall v. Geiger 3ones Co.,242 U.S. 539,553 (1917) definition of " character" relative to an operat.ns heense applicant; LBP-4413,19 NRC 673 (1984)
Hamhn Testmg Laboratones, Inc. v AEC,357 F.2d 632,638 (6th Cir.1964) responsibehues of nuclear power plant hcer. sees; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1208 (1984)
Hamhn Testing Laborsiones,Inc.,2 AEC 423,428-29 (1964) willful misrepresentations as grounds for hcense denial, LBP 8413,19 NRC 678 n.31 (19841 Herbert v. Lando. 441 U.S.153,175 (1979) court attitude toward extenmon of test.monial privilotes; ALAB 764,19 NRC 639 (1984)
Herbert v. Lando,441 U.S.153,177 (1979) right of apphcant to learn nature of quesuons about quahty assurance at its facihty, ALAB 764, 19 NRC 644 (1964) 41
(
.~)'
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Houston Lighung and Power Co- (Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station) ALAB-535,9 NRC 377, 393 (1979) failure to demonstrate representauonal standms; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 407 (1984)
Houston Lighting and Power Co- (Allens Creek Nuclear Generatms Station Umt 1), ALAB 544,9 NRC 630,631 (1979) need for parties so respond to motion for reconsideration; ALAB 766,19 NRC 983 n 6 (1984)
Houston Lightmg and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Stauon, Umt 1), ALAB-582,11 NRC 239,243 n.8 (1980) use of status as a ratepayer to estabhsh interest and standmg for purpose of intervenuon; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 429 (1984)
Houston Lighung and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Stanon, Umt I), ALAB-590, il NRC 542 (1980) considerauon of the ment of contenuons in monons to reopen the record; LBP-84 20,19 NRC 1299 n.15 (1984) dismissal of contention for lack of credible basis ALAB-765,19 NRC 654 a.13 (19848 preclusion of consdenng a contenuon's ment in comiderms its admissitnhty; LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1292 (1984)
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Station. Unit 1) AL AB-625,13 NRC 13,1415 (1981) prectumon of financial assistance to intervenors; ALAB-772,19 NRC I273 (1984)
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Stauon, Umt 1), ALAB-671,15 NRC 508, $13 n.14 (1982) contnbution that is of mgmficance in considenng a late-filed petinon to intervene; LBP 84-17,19 NRC 888 n 12 (1984)
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project. Units I and 2), ALAB-672,15 NRC 677 683 85 & n 19 (1982), rev'd on other grounds, CLl 82 9,15 NRC 1363 (1982) authonty to rule on recusal monons; ALAB 759,19 NRC 21 n.26 (1984)
Houston Lighung and Power Co. (South Texas Pronct. Umts I and 2), CL1-80 32.12 NRC 281,289 (1980) effect of enforcement actions on hcensms acuons; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1264 (1984)
Houston Lightmg and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Umts I and 2), CLi-80 32,12 NRC 281,291 (1980) factors considered in etaluatmg a heensee's character; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1207 (1984)
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units I and 2), CLI-80-32,12 NRC 281,291 -
n 4 (1980); LBP-8413,19 NRC 674 75 (1984) definiuon of the term
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project. Umis I and 2), CLI-82 9,15 NRC 1363.
1365-67 (1982) disquahfication standards apphcable to Licensmg Board members ALAB 759,19 NRC 20 n.23, 22 n 29,25 n.42 (1983)
Houston Lishung and Power Co. (South Temas Project.Umts 1 and 2), LBP 7910,9 NRC 439, 443-44 (1979) satisfacuon of interest requirement for intervenuon through geographical proximity; LBP 84-6, 19 NRC 410 (1984)
Houston Lighung and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Umts I and 2) LBP 8413,19 NRC 659, 674 75 (1983) satisfacuon of reopening standard requiring presentatma of"significant new information";
Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project. Umts 1 and 2), LBP 8413,19 NRC 659,716 n 43 (1983) effect of Board's ruhng on contenuons followmg close of record, LBP 84 20,19 NRC 1291 n.7 (1984)
Interstate Commerce Commismon v. Jersey City,322 U.5 503, $1415 (1944) remand of proceeding to Licensing Board for further heanngs on training issue; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1237 n.58 (1984) 45
i LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX :
CASES ITT World Commumcations v. FCC. 099 F.2d 1219.1236-37 (D C. Cir.1983) rev'd on other arounds. 52 U.S.L.W 4507 8U.5 April 30,1984) scope of esecutive pnvilege; ALAB-773.19 NRC 1342 (1984)
Kansas Gas and Elecinc Co. (Wolf Creek Generaung Stanon. Umt 1). ALAB-462,7 NRC 320,338 (1978) cntena to be seusfied by reopening monons; LBP-84-3.19 NRC 283 n 4 (1984)
Kerr McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facility), CLI 82-2,15 NRC 232,244-62 (1982), afTd sub nom. City of West Chicago v. NRC,701 F.2d 632,639 (7th Cir.1983) need for a heanns on Part 70 issues; ALAB 765,19 NRC 651. 652 (1984)
Kerr McGee Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths Facihty).CLI-82 21.16 NRC 401 (1982) delegation of Commission authority to adjudicate materials hcense cases; ALAB 765.19 NRC 651 (1984)
Lead Industnes Ass'n v. OSilA. 610 F.2d 70,83 (2d Cir.1979) apphcability of esecuuve pnvilege to documents producted for government by consultams.
ALAB-773,19 NRC 1346 n.57 (1984) -
A Leflore Broadcasung Company v. FCC. 636 F.2d 454 (D C Cir.1980)
' penalty for matenal false statement. LBP 84-13.19 NRC 674. 678 (1984)
Local 441, IBEW v. NLRB,510 F.2d 1274,1276 (D.C. Cir.1975) e need for a Licensang Board to provide basis for its disagreement with a Special Master's demeanor endence; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1218 (1984)
Long Island Lightmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Sianon, Umt 1), ALAB-156,6 AEC 831,850 (1973) challenges to NRC assessments of the effects oflow level radiauon; LBP 84 7,19 NRC 438 (1984)
Long Island Lighung Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stat on. Umt 1) ALAB 743,18 NRC 387 (1983) factors considered in admission of late-filed contentions; LBP-84-I.19 NRC 31 (1984)
Long Island Lightmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Staten. Umt I), ALAB-743,18 NRC 387,401 (1983) inabihty oflate miervenuon petitioner to contnbute to a sound record. LBP-84-17.19 NRC 888 n.13 (1984)
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon. Umt I). ALAB 769,19 NRC 995 (1984) interpretation the the term " safety-related"i ALAB 772,19 NRC 1249 n.77 (1984)
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon, Umt 17, LBP-82-48.15 NRC 1295 (19821 heanns requirement for construchon permit amendment proceedmss, ALAB-778,19 NRC 1188 n.14 (1984)
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Ncclear Power Stauon.Umt 1) LBP 83-42,18 NRC 112,117, affd, ALAB-743.18 NRC 387 (1983) applicability oflate-fihng cnteria to intervenhon and comenuons; LBP-84-17.19 NRC 887 n.8 (1984)
Louisia Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electnc Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076 (1983) need for inclusion ofletters of agreement in emergency plans; LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1045 (19841 Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Sicam Electric Stanon, Umt 3). ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076, 1089, 1090 (1983) esa!uanon of a witness' potennal contnbuuon on the basis of prior tesumony; LBP 84 7,19 NRC 439 (1984)
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electne Stanon, Unit 3), AL AB 732,17 NRC 1076, 1091 (1983) salue of endence given by a paid consultant; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1218 (1984)
Loumana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Elecinc Stanon, Umt 3), ALAB-732.17 NRC 1076, i103 (1983)
Commission pohcy on post heanns resoluuon of issues, ALAB 770,19 NRC 1875 n 45 (1984) post-heanns verificahon of quahty assurance issues; LBP 84-2.19 NRC 212 (1984) 49 m -
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electnc Stauon, Umt 3), ALAB-7J2,17 NRC 1076, 1103 4 5 (1983) post-hearing resolution of emergency planning issues; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 25) (1984);
LDP-8418,19 NRC 1071 (1984)
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electne Stauon, Uma 3), ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076, 1804 (1983) extent of completion required of emer8ency plans prior to plant operation; LBP 0418,19 NBC 1028 (1984)
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric $tation, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076, 1106 07 (1983) ht gabihty of contents of implemenung procedures for emergency plans; LDP 84-18,19 NRC i
1039, 1040 (1984)
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electne Stauon, Unit 3), ALAB-753,18 NRC 1321, 1324, 1328 (1983) cause for denial of motion to reopen the record where iniual decision 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% (1963) apphcanon of executive pnvilege; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1342 n.31 (1984) means for protecting interests found not to be privileged, ALAB 764,19 NRC 643 n.15 (1984)
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALAB-I66,6 AEC 1848, 1150 n.7 (1973)
{
need for parties to respond to motion for reconsideranon; ALAB-766.19 NRC 983 n.6 (1984)
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), DD-83 3,17 NRC 327, 329 (1983)
NRC pohey concerrung institution of show<ause proceedmss on issues that are the subject of rulematmg; DD-84-6,19 NRC 397 (1984)
MCI Communicanons Corp. v. AT&T,85 F.R.D. 28 (N.D. III.1979), ard,708 F.2d 1081,1170 73 (7th Cir.1983)
Licensing Board authority to set time limits on enaminsuon of witnesses; LDP-84-24,19 NRC 1428 (1984)
Mester v. United States,70 F. Supp. li8,122 (E.D.N.Y.1947) definiuon of " character" relative to an operating bcense apphcant; LBP 8413,19 NRC 67)
(1984)
Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon, Unit I), ALAB-698,16 NRC 1290, 1294, 1299 1301 (1982) need to provide dommeters to emergency workers; LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1036,1037 (1984)
Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear $tation, Unit I), ALAB-715,17 NRC 102 (1983) finding necessary for disclosure of matenals covered by execuuve privilege; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1343 n.43 (1984)
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stauon, Unit 1) ALAB 729,17 NRC 314 (1983) interpretation of the terms "important to safety" and " safety related" pendmg rulemaking; CLI 84-9,19 NRC 1325 (1984)
Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon, Unit I), Al AB 729,17 NRC 814, 873 77 (1983) scope of the term "important to safety"; ALAB-769,19 NRC 1003 n.24,1005 n.29 (1984)
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) ALAB-738 IS NRC 177,195 (1983) weight given to Department of Jusuce conclusions in absence of their testimony in NRC proceedings; LDP 8413,19 NRC 718 (1984)
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I), CLI-80-5,11 NRC 408,410 (1980) issues which bear on management competence; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 672 (1984)
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon, Uma 1), CL1-83-22,18 NRC 299, 307 4 9 (1983) need for adherence to NUREO-0654 by apphcant; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 252 n 85 (1984)
Se
C<
L LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES c
Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile island Nuclear Station Unit I), LBP-81-59,14 NRC 1211, 1663-70 (1981), decision on appeal, ALAB-697,16 NRC 1265 (19827 reasons for State pohey against distributing potassium iodide to the general pubhc; LBP 8418,19 NRC 1033 (1984)
Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-486,8 NRC 9,21 (1978) cause for denial of motion to reopen the record where initial decision has issued; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 716 n.43 (1984)
Metropohtan Edison Co. v. People Agams: Nuclear Energy,75 L Ed. 2d $34 (1983) htigability of psychological stress issues; LBP 84-7,19 NRC 441 (1984)
Millar v. FCC,707 F.2d 1520,1539-40 (D.C. Cir.1983) weight given to demeanor evidence where other testimony or evidence is available, ALAB-772, 19 NRC 1218 (1984)
Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear station Units I and 2), ALAB-130,6 AEC 423, 426 (1973) need to judge merits of a contention at the admission stage; LBP 84-l,19 NRC 34 (19841 Missusippi Power A Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982) conditional admission of contentions; ALAB 768,19 NRC 991 n.7 (1984) l ways in which petitioner may satrsfy late intervention requirements; LBP-8417A,19 NRC 1013 (1984) weight given to other factors where good cause is not established for late intervention; LBP 8417,19 NRC 887 n.10 (1984)
Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), LBP-74-64,8 AEC 339, 4
aff'd, ALAB-232,8 AEC 635 (1974) 6mes whkh beat on an applicant's character and competence; LSP-84-13,19 NRC 672 n 16 (1984)
National Auto Brokers v. Gen. Motors Corp.,572 F 2d 953,958 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied,439 U.S.1972 (1979) need for disquahfication of a judge because of prior associations with parties to a proceedmg; ALAB 759,19 NRC 24 n.35 (1984)
National Small Shipments Trame Conference, Inc. v. ICC,725 F.2d 1442,1449 (D.C. Cir.1984) apphcabihty of eaccutive privilege to documents produced for government by consultants; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1346 n 57 (1984)
Natural Resources Defense Couned Inc. v. Morton,458 F 2d 827,834 (D.C. Cir.1972) atmospheric dispersion conditions factored into estimates of environmental consequences of severe accidents; LBP 84 24,19 NRC 1580 (1984)
New England Coahtion on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC,727 F.2d 1827 (D.C. Cir.1984) cause for reopening a record; LBP 8417,19 NRC 881 (1984) consideration of financial quahfications issues at operating hcer.se stage; ALAB 770,19 NRC 1182 n.73 (1984)
New Hampshire v. AEC,406 F.2d 170 (1st Cir.). cert. denied,395 U S. 962 (l%9) need to consider thermal discharge issues as part of hcensing process; ALAB 759,19 NRC 17 n.12 (1984)
New York v. NRC,550 F.2d 745,756-57 (2d Cir.1977) speculation about nuclear accident as cause for stay of hcensms decision; CL184-5,19 NRC 964 (1984) fiiagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nme Mile Pomt Nuclear Station, Unit 2) LBP 83-45,18 NRC 213, 216 (1983) means for estabhshms the need for a hearing; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 426 (1984)
NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,421 U.S.132,150 (1975) government documents protected by dehberative process privilege; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1341 n 24 (1984)
Northern Indiana Pubhc Service Co. (Bailly Generstmg Station, Nuclear I), ALAB 76,5 AEC 312 (1972) recusal of Licensms Board judge on ground of prior consultant relationship with electric utshty; ALAB-759,19 NRC 23 n.30 (1934)
Si
w t-LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX
-CASE 5 Northern Indiana Public Service Co- (Badly Generating Station, Nuclear l), ALAB-227,8 AEC 416, 418 (1974) cnteria to be satisGed by reopemns motions; LBP-84-3,19 NRC 283 n.4 (1984) test for reopening a rectad; ALAB-775.19 NRC 1366 (1984)
Northern Indiana Public Service Co (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), CLI 78-7,7 NRC 429, 433 34 (1978), afl*d sub nom. Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Wahon League,Inc. v. NRC,.
606 F.2d 1363 (D.C. Cir.1979) cause for initiation of show-cause proceedings; DD 84-l,19 NRC 475 (1984)
Northern States Pceer Co. (blinnesota) (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1). LBP 7137, $ NRC 1298, 1300-01 (1977)
Board discretion in managmg proceedings; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1245 (1984)
Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB 244,8 AEC 857,864-70 (1974), reconsideration denied, ALAB-252,8 AEC 1175, affd, 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, Umts I and 2), ALAB-455,7 NRC 41,54 (1978)
Licensing Board issuance of advisory opimons; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 293 (1984)
Northern States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), CLI-80-36,12 NRC 523, $27 (1980) means for establishing the need for a heanns; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 426 (1984)
Nuclear Engineenns Co. (Shemeld, I!!inois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site) CLI 801, 11 NRC I,5 (1980) need for valid reason to support motion for reconsideration; LDP 84 23,19 NRC 1414 (1984) i Nuclear Fuel Services. Inc. (Wes, Valley Reprocesang Plant), CLI-75-4,1 NRC 273,275 (1975) s'iowing necessary on other four factors where good cause is shown for late Gling of contentions; LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1292 (1984)
Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489,8 NRC 194,20108 (1978) use of Board authonty to regulate proceedmss as means of admitting late-Gled contentions; LDP 84-20,19 NRC 1289 (1984)
Pacinc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-334,3 NRC 809, 817-20 (1976) conditions which must be met before unitradiated fuel can 30 cntical: ALAB 765,19 NRC 653 (1984); LBP-84-16,19 NRC 870 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I a9d 2), ALAB-598, ll NRC 876,879 (1980) satisfaction of criteria for reopening a record, ALAB 772,19 NRC 1234 n.50,1260 (1984);
ALAB-774,19 NRC 1355 (1984)
Pacinc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-644,13 NRC 903,937 (1981) means for complying with regulatory standards for emergency planning; LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1027 (1984)
Pacine Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 644,13 NRC 903,962-65 (1981), petitions for review denied, CLI 82-12A,16 NRC 7 (1982) use of tau-GHerod spectra; ALAB-763,19 NRC 609 n.195 (1984)
Pacinc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-644,13 NRC 903,994-95 (198!)
burden on proponent of motion to reopen a record; LBP-8413,19 NRC 716,719 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Elecinc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB 728,17 NRC 777,793-95 (1983), afrd, CLI 83 32,18 NRC 1309 (1983) need for preparation of separate environmental impact statemeit for low power operation; ALAB 769,19 NRC 1000 n.37 (1984); CLI-84 9,19 NRC 1326 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB.756,18 NRC 1340 (1983) criteria to be satisGed by reopening motions; LDP-84 3,19 NRC 283 n.4 (1984)
$1
~
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Pacific Gas and Electr. t Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 756,18 NRC 1340,1345 (1983) degree of conformance aquired of plant designs; LBP-8410,19 NRC 528 n.59 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2) ALAB-763,19 NRC 571,620-21 (1934) distinction between the terms "important to safety" and " safety-related"; ALAB 769,19 NRC 1005 n.31 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Electne Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-76-1,3 NRC 73, 74 (1976)
Appeal Board authority over Pan 70 heenses; ALAB 765,19 NRC 650 n 6 (1984)
Paceric Gas and Electrw Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 21 CL1-76-1,3 NRC 73,74 n.1 (1976)
Licensing Board junsdiction over Part 70 matters; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 862,863 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Elecinc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLl415,13 NRC
- 361, 363 (1981) criteria to be satisfied by reopening motions; LBP-84 3,19 NRC 283 n 4 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-814,13 NRC 443 (1981) remedy for petitioner denied intervention in construction permit entension proceedmg. CLI 844, 19 NRC 979 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2) CLI-814,13 NRC 443, 444 (1981) issues inappropriate for consideration under 10 C.F.R. 2.206; DD44-13,19 NRC 1840 n.3 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Elecinc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 814,13 NRC 443, 446 (198 0 initiation of new enforcement proceecings to consider issues already litigated; DD4412,19 NRC 1830 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear' Power Plant Units I and 2), CLI 82-1,15 NRC 225 (1982) apphcation of Notice of Violation as penalty for matenal false statement; DD 84-8,19 NRC 935 (1984) acope of Board Notification obligation oflicensees; ALAB 774,19 NRC 1358 n.6 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Electnc Co. (Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit D ALAB-550,9 NRC 68),686 n l (1979) interlocutory appeals by nonparties to operstmg license proceedmss, ALAB 764,19 NRC 636 n.1 (1984)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources, Conservation and Development Commission, 103 5. Ct.1713 (1983) htigabihty of waste disposal issues; LBP 844,19 NRC 413 (1984)
Pennsyt ania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units I snd 2), ALAS 413, 12 NRC 317,338 (1980)
Board descretion in managing proceedings; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1245 (1984)
Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna 5 team Electric Station Units I and 2), ALAS 49),
16 NRC 952,956-57 (1982) responsibshties of pro se representatives in NRC proceedmss; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1247 (1984)
Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-78-6,7 NRC 400,405 06 (1978) enforcement action appropriate for matenal false statement; DD 84-8,19 NRC 933 (1984)
Petition for Emer8ency and Remedial Action, CLI 784,7 NRC 400,418 (1978) weight given to truthfulness of an operating hcense oppheant; LBP-8413,19 NRC 67) (1984)
Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLl 784,7 NRC 400,41819 (1978) responsibihties of nuclear power plant hcensees; AL AB 772,19 NRC 1208 (1984)
Pt.iladelphia Electric Co. (Limenck Generstmg Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 726,17 NRC 735 (1983) paming ofjunsdiction over proceeding withholdmg authorustion for an operating hcense, LBP44-2.19 NRC 279 (1984)
$3
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Limerwk Genereung 5tauon, Umts I and 28, ALAB 726,17 NRC 7$5,757 (1983)
Licensms Board exercise of junshcuan over peution directed to Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards Director; LDP-84-16,19 NRC 864 (1984)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limench Generstms Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB 765,89 NRC 645, 656 57 (1984) f LDP 84 22,
, responsibility of apphcants to inform Boards and perties rif relevant new m ormauon; 19 NRC 1402 (1984)
Philadelphia Electnc Co. (L6mench Generating $tauon, Umts I and 21, LBP 834,17 NRC 153 (19838 hugabihty of waste disposalissues; LDP-844,19 NRC 413 (19841 Philadelphia Electric Co- (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stauon, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB 216,8 AEC 13, 20 21 (1974) reason for bass with-specincoy requiremene for contennons, LBP 841,19 NRC 34 (1984)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stauon, Umts 2 and 31, AL AB 480,7 NRC 7 % (1978)
Board treatment of genene assues ALAB 768,19 NRC 993 n.15 (1984)
Philadelphia Electnc Co 6 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stauon, Umts 2 and 31, ALAB-701, le NRC 1517 (1982) calculauon of cancer nsk esumates, LBP 84-15,19 NRC 848 (1984)
PMadelphia Electnc Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-701,16 NRC 1517, 1526 (1982) need to protect radeauon doses 6nto the far future; LBP 84 7,19 NRC 458 (1984)
Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stanon, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB 701,16 NRC 8517. 8327 28 (8982) effect of inadequate Staff assessment of environmentalimpacts of design bass accidents in FES.
LDP 84 24,19 NRC 1584 (1984)
Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stanon, Umts 2 and 36. ALAB 701,16 NRC 1517 (1982h CLI 8314,17 NRC 745 (19837 hugability of the health effects of radon gas emissions, LDP 844,19 NRC die (19847 Playboy Enterprises,Inc. v. Dep's of Justice,677 F.2d 931,936 (D C Cir 1982) cnteria for determamns whether metenalis factual or dehberative for purpose of applying.
esecutive pnvilese ALAB 77),19 NRC 1342 nn.34,36 (1984)
Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant) AL AB 531,9 NRC 263,272 73 (1979 bmdmg nature of techmcal spectications incorporated mio operatens (Kense; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1257 n 89 (1984)
Potorr.ac Electne Power Co- (Douglas Pomt Nuclear Genersung stauon, Umis I and 21. ALAB 218, 8 AEC 79 (1974) lansabihty of contenhons that are or are about to become the subject of rulemakms; LDP-844.
19 NRC 417 (1984)
Project Management Corp. (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plants, AL AB-354,4 NRC 38),392 (1976r full-party perucipaten by a Staisi LDP-844,19 NRC 427 (1984)
Pubhc service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Genersons Sianon. Umts I and 21, ALAB 322,3 NRC 328 (1976) standing of orgamistion to intervene in response to pouce of opportunity for heanns on operating hcense amendment; LDP 8419,19 NRC 1078 (19846 Pubhc Service Co of Indians (Marble Hill Nuclear Genersung 5tauon, Umts I and 27, ALAB 322. J NRC 328,330 (1976) standmg requirements for intervenuon by an orgsmasuon, LBP 844,19 NRC 410 (19841 Pubhe Service Co of Indiana (Marble Hill Nucleat Generaung 5tauon, Umts i and 27, AL AB-405,3 NRC 1190,1l92 (1977) basis for Licensing Board referral of ruhns rejectms pornone of late nied contenuon; ALAB 768.
19 NRC 992 (1984) circumstances appropriate for discrenonary mterlocutory review, LBP 84 23,19 NRC 1416 (1994P showing necessary to invoke oppellate directed teruficanon authonty; AL AB 762,19 NRC 568 n 9 (1984)
$4
r i
y E
\\
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Pubhc Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hrli Nuclear Generating 5tation, Umts I and 2), ALAB-459,7 NRC 179, ISS (1978)
Board descretson in management of proceedings; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1246 (19H)
Pubhc Service Co. ofIndiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Genersung Station Umts I and 2), ALAB-461. 7 NRC 313,318 (1978)
Comnusson pohey on post heanns resoluuon oflaeues; ALAB-770,19 NRC ll?$ n 4$ (1984)
Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generaung Stanon. Units I and 2), CLI-8010, il NRC 438, 443 (1980) bass requirement for pennons under 10 C.F.R. I 2.206, DD-8413,19 NRC 1844 al) (1984)
Public Servsce Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Genersung 5tauon, Units I and 2), DD 7910,10 NRC 129,131 (1979) standards for canadenns requests under 10 C.F.R.12.206, DD 84-13,19 NRC 1144 al$ (1984)
E Pubhc Service Co of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Genereur g 5 anon, Units I and 2) DD-7917,10 NRC 613,61415 (le79) bass requirement for peuucas under 10 C.F.R. I 2.206; DD 84 l),19 NRC 1944 al) (1984)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stauen, Umt 2), CLl 84-6,19 NRC 973 (1984) criteria to be followed by L6censms Boards in enemimns construcuan permit extension requests, ALAB-771,19 NRC 1199 ala (1984)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-271,1 NRC 478, 482 83 (1975) circumstances appropriate for descretionary appellate review; ALAB-770,19 NRC 1870 a19 (1984)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stauon, Umta 1 and 2). ALAB-271,1 NRC 678,486 (1975) circumstances apprornate for grant of certarication request; LBP H 23,19 NRC 1416 (19H)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook 5tauon, Umts I and 2) ALAB-313,8 NRC 694, 695 % (1978) terminanon of appellate junsdicuon; ALAB 766,19 NRC 983 (1984)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Umts I and 2) ALAB 737,18 NRC 168, 178 (1983) circumstances appropnate for descretionary 6nterlocutory rev6ew; LDP 84-23,19 NRC 1416 (1984)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampehare (Seabrook Stanon Units I and 2), ALAB 749,18 NRC l193, 1898 99 (1983)
Sood cause for unumehness of recusal monon, ALAB 7$9,19 NRC 16 n$ (1984)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook station. Umts I and 2), CLI 77-8,5 NRC $03 (1977) need for stay of low-power operation pending decision on emergency planmns esaue; CLI-84-4, 19 NRC 939 (1984)
Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Umts I and 2), LBP 82106, le NRC 1649, 1656 a7 (19821 paruculaney required of bases for consentions; LDP 841,19 NRC 33 (1984)
Pubhc Service Co of Oklahoma (Black Fox 5tauon, Units I and 21. ALAB 50$ 8 NRC $27, $32 nI6 (1978) misrepresentauon by apphcant's counsel: LBP 84-22,19 NRC 1402 (1984)
Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Foz 5tauon, Units I and 2), ALAB $73,10 NRC 773,779 (1979) atmospheric disperson condinons factored into esumates of environmemal conseguences of severe accidents; LDP 84-24,19 NRC 1$80 (1984)
Pubhc service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station Units I and 23.CLI 80-31,12 NRC 264 (1980) precondinon to heanns on health effects issues which challense BEIR esumates; LBP-8415,19 NRC 838 (1984)
Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma ('
a Foz 5: anon Umts I and 2), CL1-80 31,12 NRC 264,277 (1980) burden on opponent of summary daspomuon monon; LBP-H 7,19 NRC 434,434 (19H) 59
- 4 I
t e
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Pubhc 5erswe Electric and Gas Co. (llope Creek Generatmg 5tauon, Units I and 2), ALAB 518,9 NRC 14,38-39 0979) '
atmosphenc disperson conditions factored imo estimates of environmental consequences of severe accidents; LBP 84 24,19 NRC 1580 0984)
Puerto Rico Electne Power Authonty (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Umt 1), ALAB-605,12 NRC 153 0980) treatrnent of apphcation for construction estension date when there is a findmg of abandonment; LBP-84 9,19 NRC 505 0984)
Punnett v. Larter,621 F 2d $78,583 86 (3d Cir.1980) challenges to NRC assessments of the effects of low level radianon; LBP-84.7,19 NRC 438 (19841 Qumcy Cable TV, Inc. v. Federal Commumcanons Commission, 730 F.2d 1549 (D C. Cir.1984) junsdicuon over operating hcense proceedmss in which record has been remanded to Licenung Board for further hearms, ALAB-770,19 NRC ll68 n 12 U984)
Renegotisuon Board v. Grumr..an Aircraft Engineenns Corp.,421 U 5.168,184 0975) scope o dehberauve pnvilege; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1341 n 30,1342 nn.31,38 0984)
Reporters C emmittee for Freedom of the Press v. Amencan Telephone & Telegraph Co.,593 F.2d 1030,10'J n.67 (D C. Car.1978), cers. denied,440 U.S. 949 0979) need 'or creation of new First Amendment pnvileles, AL AB 764.19 NRC 642 n.12 U984)
Richards f Rockford,Inc. v. Pacific Gas & Electnc Co.,71 F.R.D. 388,389 & n.2,390 (N.D. Cal.
1976) apphcadun of scholar's pnvilege; ALAB 764,19 NRC 640 n.10 0984)
Rockford League of Women Voters v. NRC,679 F.2d 1218,1222 (7th Cir.1982) iniustion of new enforcement proceedmss to consider issues already hugated. DD 8412,19 NRC 1830 (1984)
In re Rodgers,537 F 2d 11% (4th Cir.1976) determination of whether construction permit proceedmg and operstmg hcense proceedmg are the same matter for disquahrication purposes; ALAB-759,19 NRC 24 n.34 U984) standard for recusal of a judge; ALAB-759,19 NRC 25 n.41919848 Rulemakms lleanns, Acceptance Cniena for Er,sergency Core Coohns $1 stems for Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors,CLI-73 39,6 AEC 1085,1087 0973) treatment of steam generator tube ruptures as small break, loss-of-coolant sucidents; CLI.84 3, 19 NRC 560 0984)
Russell v. Dep's of the Air Force,682 F.2d 1045,1047,1048 (D.C. Cir.1982) scope of debberative pnvilege; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1341 n 30,1342 nn 33,40 09848 Sagma Transfer Co. v. Umted Siates,275 F. Supp. 585,588 (E.D. Mich.1967) characterirauon of Memorandum of Fmdmss; ALAB 761,19 NRC 494 n.24 0904)
Sase Our Sycamore v. M ARTA,576 F 2d $73,576 (5th Cir.1978) need for preparauon of separate environmemalimpact statement for low power operanon; CLl.84 9,19 NRC 1329 t1984) 5CA 5ersices Inc. v. Morgan,557 F.2d 110, II) (7th Cir.1977) basis for resolvmg close cases mvolvmg disquahficapon. ALAB 759,19 NRC 24 n.36 0984)
SCA Services Inc. v. Morgan,557 F.2d 110,117 (7th Cir.1977) circumaances in whwh dngaahrKauon may not be waived, ALAB 759,19 NRC 23 n 310984)
Schware v. Board of Bar Esammers of New Mesico. 353 U.S 232,239 0957) traits to be conadered m determamns an operating hcense apphcant's character; LBP.8413,19 NRC 673 n 20 t1984)
Sholly v. NRC,657 F.2d 780 (D C. Cir 1980), reh's demed. 651 F.2d 792 0980), vacated,103 5. Ct.
1870,75 L Ed. 2d 423 0983) hugabihty of one-ume suspenmon of techmcal specificauons, LDP 8419,19 NRC 1083 0984) need for a heanns on an operaung hcense amendment; LBP 84 23,19 NRC 141314 0984)
Seegel v. AEC,400 F.2d 778 (D C. Cir.1968) responsibility for nauonal defense in contest of need for dewsn protecuan of nuclear power plants asamst electromagnene pulsen. DPRM.841,19 NRC 1604 0984)
Sierra Club v. Monon,405 U S. 727 0972) showmg necessary to be admitted as a party iniervenor; LDP 84-6,19 NRC 428 (1984)
$4
I']
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.,104 5. Ct. 615 (1984) nsk to the pubhc from umrradiated fuel; LBP-8416,19 NRC 870 (1984)
Silkwood v. Kerr McGee Corp.,563 F.2d 433,436-37 (10th Cir.1977) apphcabihty of First Amendment privilege to orgamaauon gatherms confidenual information about safety problems at nuclear plant; ALAB-764,19 NRC 639,640 (1934)
Silieood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.,563 F.2d 43),438 (10th Chr.1977) '
factors balanced in recosmtion of journahst's pnvilege; ALAB 764,19 NRC 648 (1984)
Smith v. FTC,403 F, Supp.1000,1016 (D. Del.1975) burden on gosernment agency mvolung esecuuve privilege; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1341 n 27 (1984)
Solargen Electnc Motor Car Corp. v. American Motor Corp.,506 F. Supp. 54,550 (N D.N11981) factors belanced in recogmuon ofJournahst's pnvilege; ALAB 764,19 NRC 641 (1984)
Solargen Electric Motor Car Corp. v. Amencan Motor Corp.,506 F. Supp. 54,552 (N D.N11981) hmits on apphcanon of Firsi Amendment pnvilege of the press; ALAB-764,19 NRC 640 (1984) refusal of deponents to appear; ALAB-764,19 NRC 638 n.5 (1984)
Somer v. Johnson, 704 F.2d 1473,1479 n 6 (lith Cir.1983) need for creation of new Farst Amendment pnvileges; ALAB-764,19 NP.C 642 n.12 (1984)
Soucie v. David,448 F.2d 1067,1078 n.44 (D.C. Cir.1971) apphcabihty of esecutne prnilege to documents producted for government by consultants, AL AB 773,19 NRC 134 n.57 (1984)
South Carohna Electnc and Gas Co (%rsd C. Summer Nuclear Station, Umt 1), ALAB-63),14 NRC l140, !!63 (1981), affd, ALAB-710,17 NRC 25 (1983) circumstances appropnate for Board-conducted investiganons; LBP-84 3,19 NRC 285 n.Il (1984)
South Carohna Electric and Gas Co. (Virgd C. Summer Nuclear Stauon, Umt l), ALAB-642,13 NRC 881,887 n.5 (1981) standard for determimng whether good cause exists for a late fihng; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 886 n.6 (1984)
South Carchna Electric and Gas Co. (%rsd C Summer Nuclear Stanon, Unit l), ALAB-663,14 NRC 1840, 1146, 1152 57 (1981)
Licensms Board authonty to callits o n witnesses; AL AB 772,19 NRC 1247,1263 n.95 (1984);
Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Genersuns Station, Umts 2 and 3), AL AB-171, i AEC 37,39 (1974) effect of admitung a contenuon based on uncertamt es of a lawsuit; LBP-84 20,19 NRC 1302 (1984)-
Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung 5tauon, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB-717, 17 NRC 34,365-68 (1983) sismficance of FEMA findings for purpose of applying execuuve pnvilege ALAB 773,19 NRC 134 n.52 (1984)
Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung Stanon, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB 717, 17 NRC 34,378,380 &n 57 (1983) basis for NRC hcensms decisions on emergency preparedness; ALAB-776,19 NRC 1378,1379 n 23,1381 n.30 (1984) '
Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generatmg Stauon, Umts 2 and 31, ALAB 717, 17 NRC 34,378-79 (19831 posinon of FEM A in NRC bcensms proceedmss; ALAB 773,19 NRC 134 n.55 (1984)
Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Genersung Stanon Umts 2 and 3), ALAB 717, 17 NRC 34,380 n.57 (1983) post-hearms resolution ofissues by NRC Staff. LBP-84 2,19 NRC 21012,252 (1984)
Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generstmg 5 anon, Umis 2 and 31 CLI.8133, 14 NRC 1091,1091-92 (1981) need to consider impacts of earthquakes on emergency plannms-CL1-84 4,19 NRC 938 (1984)
Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generatmg $tauon, Umts 2 and 3), CLI-8310, 17 NRC 528 (1983)
Commission guidance concermns requirements of 10 C.F R. i 50.47(b)(12); LBP *4-2,19 NRC 264 (1984) -
57 s
W-
--L-
n s
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stanon, Umts 2 and 3), LBP-82 39, 15 NRC 1163,1877-84 (1982), aFd, ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983) expansion of emergency planning zone beyond 10-mile radius; DD44-5,19 NRC 550 (1984)
Southern Pacine Terminal Co. v. ICC,219 U.S. 498,515 (1911) htigabihty of one time suspension of technical specifications; LSP4419,19 NRC 1083 (1984)
Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licenang Proceedings, CLI-814,13 NRC 452 (1981)
Board authority to require intervenor to proceed with its case first, ALAB 772,19 NRC 1246 n.72 (1984)
Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceedmes, CLl-814,13 NRC 452,453 (1981)
Board authonty to hmat discovery in order to expedite hearing, LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1432 (1984)
Statement of Pohcy on Conduct of Licenoms Proceedmes, CLI-81-8,13 NRC 452,454 (1981) impossuon of sanctions against counsel for matenal misrepresentauon; LSP44-22,19 NRC 1409 (1984)
Licensing Board authority to set time limits on examination of witnesses; LBP44-24,19 NRC 1428 (1984) responsibilities of pro se representatives in NRC proceedings; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1247 (1984)
Sterhng Drug Inc. v Harns,488 F. Supp.1019,1024 (S.D.N.Y.1980) apphcanon of execuuve privilege to purely factual material; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1342 n.32 (1984)
Tennessee Valley Authonty (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Uruts I,2 and 3) ALAB477,15 NRC 1387 (1982) responsibihties of parties and counsel to disclose material factual information to Licensing Boards; LDP-84-22,19 NRC 1401,1404,1405 (1984)
Tennessee Valley Authonty (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units I,2 and 3) ALAB477,15 NRC 1387, 1394 (1982) rebuke of licensee for failure to noufy Board and parties of Gimg of Part 70 hcense apphcanon; -
ALAB-765,19 NRC 656 (1984) responsibiliues of parties to inform Boards of relevant information; ALAB 774,19 NRC 1358 (1984); DD 844,19 NRC 928 a 6 (1984)
Tennessee Valley Authonty (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units l A,2A,18 and 28), ALAB 409,5 NRC 1391 (1977) misrepresentauon by apphcant's counsel; LBP44 22,19 NRC 1402 (1984)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant Units l A 2A,IB and 28), ALAB-46),7 NRC 341, 352 (1978) matenal which may be cited in support of argurnents in proposed Gndings of fact; LBP44 lo,19 NRC 517 n.18 (1984)
Tennessee Valley Authonty (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units I A,2A, IB, and 25) ALAB-46),7 NRC 341,360 (1978), reconsideration denied, ALAB-467,7 NRC 459 (1978) burden of proof on apphcant; ALAB 763,19 NRC 577 n 22 (1984)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Plupps Bend Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB-7$2.18 NRC 1318 (1983) termmahon of hmited appellate junsdiction; ALAB 760,19 NRC 27 (1984)
Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Umts I sad 2), ALAB-45),5 NRC 1418.1421 n.4 (1977) satisfacuan of interest requirement for intervention through geographical proximity; LBP444, 19 NRC 410 (1984)
Texas Uuhues Generstme Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Stauon, Units i and 2), ALAB 599.
12 NRC 1,2 n.1 (1980) remedy for intervenor disastinned with ruhng on admissibihty of contentions; ALAB 768,19 NRC 992 n.13 (1984)
Texas Utilaues Generstmg Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric 5tation, Umts I and 2), LDP 79-18,9 NRC 728,730 (1979) sausfachon of interest requirement for intervenuon through geographical prostmity; LDP44-6, 19 NRC 410 (1984) ry
$8
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Tenas Uuhues Generalmat Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electne Station Umts I and 2), LBP-83-81.
18 NRC 1410,1414 (1983) relationship between the reportmg of a denciency and ehether the deficiency represented a QA violanon; LBP-8413,19 NRC 704 (1984)
Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse N.iclear Power 5tauon).4 AEC $71, $85 (1978) challenges to NRC assessments of the effects of low-level radeauon; LDP-84.7,19 NRC 438 (19846 Trout Unhmited v. Morton. 509 F.2d 1276,1283 (9th Cir.1974) atmosphenc dispersion condinons factored into esumates of environmental consequences of severe accidents, LBP 84-24,19 NRC 1580 (1984)
Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. ALAB 50,4 AEC 849,859 (1972), aff'd sub nom. Mormngude Renemal Councd,Inc. v AEC,842 F 2d 234 (2d Cir.1973), cert. demed, 417 U 5. 951 (1974)
Board opimon on o sness attempting to challenge NRC asussments of the effects oflow lesel radiauon in NRC proceedings, LBP 84J,19 NRC 438 (1984)
Umon Electnc Co (Callaway Plans, Umt I). ALAB 740,18 NRC 34)(1983) alleganon of Board error m assessment of quahty assurance evidence. AL AB-770,19 NRC 1174 n 42 (1984)
Umon Electnc Cn. (Callaway Plant, Umt I). ALAB 740,18 NRC 343 (1983), reconsideranon demed, ALAB 750,18 NRC I205 (1983), as modined. ALAB-750A,18 NRC 1218 (1983) focus of concerns in operstmg hcense proceedmss; ALAB-769,19 NRC 996 n.1 (1984)
Union Electric Co. (Callam-iy Plant, Umt I), ALAB-740,18 NRC 34),346 (1983) cntena to be seusned by reopenmg monons. LDP 84-3.19 NRC 243 n 4 (1984) effect of quahiy assurance deficiencies on hcense authonrauon LDP 84 24,19 NRC 1433-34 (1984) quahiy required of construction to enable grant of an operstmg hcense, DD-84 7,19 NRC 906 n4(19841 Unron Electne Co- (Callamay Plant, Umt 1), ALAB 740,18 NRC 343,349 50 (19831 presentauon of new arguments m proposed findmgs of fact; LDP-8410,19 NRC $l$, $17 (1984)
Umon Electnc Co, (Causway Plant. Umt 17. ALAB 740,18 NRC 343,366 (19831 Board acuon to encourage reportmg of safety violations or deficiencies at Catsuba. LBP 84 24 19 NRC 1429 (19848 Umon Elecine Co (Callaway Plant, Unit 1). ALAB 750,18 NRC 1205 (1983) circumst.nces appropnate for Board-conducted mvesuganons; LBP-84 3.19 NRC 283 a 11 (19841 Umon Electric Co. (Callamar Plant, Umt I). ALAB 754,18 NRC 1333,1334,1133 (1983) need to distribute radioprotectne drugs to the general pubhe or to emergency workers, LBP 8418 19 NRC 1033 (1984)
Umon Electne Co. (Callaway Plant. Uma 1), LDP-81-71.18 NRC 1105,1809 (1983)
Licensms Board authonty concermns rulings on reasonableness of distnbutmg radioprotectne drugs; LBP 8418.19 NRC 103) (19848 Umon of Concerned Scienusts v. NRC,735 F.2d 1437 (D.C Cir 19841 need for final FEM A Andmge on adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness before hcense authorization; ALAB-776,19 NRC 1380 n.23 (1984)
United States Department of Energy (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Planti, CL1-82 22, le NRC 405 f1982) propnety of licensee in temporanty withholding management reports from NRC Staff.
ALAB 774,19 NRC 1359 (19448 Umted States Department of Ener8y (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant), CLI.831.17 NRC 1,4-6 (1983) basis for grant of esemphon from regulatory requirements. CL184 8,19 NRC 1856 n.) (1984)
Umted States Department of Energy (Cimch River Breeder Reactor Plant). LDP 818,17 NRC 158, 222 (1983) evaluanon of a witness' potential contnbuuon on the bass of pnor testimony, LDP-84-7,19 NRC 439 (1984) i t.
F LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES e
Unsied States v. ATAT,86 F R.D. 603,610 (D D C.1979) burden on party seeking matenal covered by execuuve pnvilege; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1341 n.28 (19H)
United Sietes v. Cuthbertson,630 F.2d 139,147 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S.1126 (1981) apphcabihty of First Amendment pnvilege to orseniunon saihering conndenualinformation about safety problema et nuclear plant; ALAB 7H,19 NRC 639 H0 (1984)
United States v. Cuthbertson,630 F.2d 139,148 (3d Cir.1980), cert. dened,449 U.S.1826 (IMI) factors benenced in recognition of journehst's pnvilege; ALAB-7H 19 NRC HI (IM4)
United States v. Doe (In re Popkin),440 F.2d 328 (1st Cir.1972), cert. demed 411 U.S. 909 (1973) apphcanon of scholar's pnvdege; ALAB-7H,19 NRC H0 nJO (1984)
United States v. Dee (In re Feik),332 F. Supp 938,941 (D. Mass.1971) appliceuon of scholar's privilege; AL AB 7H,19 NRC H0 n.10 (19H)
Unned States v. Inserstate Commerce Commiseson,396 U.S. 491, $25 (1970) hmitation on htisation ofissuesi LDP44 20,19 NRC 1302 (1984)
United States v. Lessein & Plett, Inc.,342 F.2d 6$3,638-59 (6th Cir.1976), cert. demed,430 U.S.
943 (1977) government documents protected by dehberative process pnvilese; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1341 a.24,1345 n.49 (19H)
Unned States v. Meneseo,710 F.2d 24 (2nd Cir.1983) interpretation of counsel's failure to review document contaimns malerial misrepresentauen; LDP44-22,19 NRC 1407 (1984)
United States v. Ninon,418 U.S. 683 (1974) showing necessary to overcome esecuuve privilege, ALAB 773,19 NRC 1343 n.44 (IM4)
United States v. Weber A%ren Corp., $2 U.5 L.w. 4351,4332 (U.S. March 20,1984) apphcanon of enscouve privilege; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1342 n.31 (1984)
Vermon: Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nucleet Power Stanon), ALAB-124,6 AEC 338,360,36162,3H47 & n 4 (1973)
Licensens Board deleganon of its reopensbehties to NRC $te#, LDP44 2,19 NRC 210,212 (19H)
Vermone Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon), ALAB 138,6 AEC
$20, $23 (1973) cntena to be nationed by reopemns motions; LDP44 3,19 NRC 283 n 4 (1964) entisfaction of timehness requirement for motion to reopen a record, ALAB 775,19 NRC 1366 n.I$ (1984) test for reopening a record, ALAB 775,19 NRC 136$ (1984)
- ettht given to amehness of mouon to reopen a record, LDP 84-13,19 NRC 716 (1984)
Vermont Yankee Piuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station). ALAB 138,6 AEC
$20, $23 24 (1973) consideranon of the ment of contentions in motions to reopen the record, LSP44 20,19 NRC 1299 n.13 (19H)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power $ianon), ALAB 138,6 AEC
$20, $33 (1973) responsibehues of perues and counsel to disclose factual new informenon to Boards; LDP44 22, 19 NRC 1406 (19H)
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc.,435 U 5. $19 $$4 (1978) showing necesesry to support a contention's admiseeon, LDP44 20,19 NRC 1293 (1984)
Vereinia Electric and Power Co. (North Anne Nuclear Power Stat on, Umts I and 27 ALAB 491,8 NRC 245 (19781 Ste# means for addressing unresolved safety 6ssues, LDP44 24,19 NRC l$88 n.51 (IM4)
Virgime E,actnc and Power Co. (North Anne Nuclear Power 5 tenon, Umts I and 2), ALAB491,8 NRC 245,248 (1978) criteria for ecceptmg a contemson based on e 8enene tsaue, LBP444,19 NRC 418 (1984)
H I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Virsima Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stanon, Umts I and 2). AL AB-322,9 NRC $4 (1979) nausfaction of interest requirement for mtervenuon through geographwal proximity; LDP-84 6, 19 NRC 429 (1984) standing of organizanon to intervene in response to nonce of opportumty for hearms on operstma license amendment; LBP-8419,19 NRC 1078 (1984)
Mrgania Electrw and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stanon, Units I and 2), ALAB $36,9 NRC 402,404 (1979) need for organinsuonal intervenuon peutioner to submit authonning alMasit, LBP 84-6,19 NRC 407 (1984)
Wrginia Electrw and Power Co (North Anna Nuclear Power $tauon, Umts I and 2). AL AB 551,9 NRC 704,700 09 (1979) sermination of appellate junsdicuen; ALAB 766,19 NRC 983 (1984)
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power sianon. Units I and 2), CLl-1416,7 AEC 313 (1974) invokins execuuve privilege in NRC proceedmss, ALAB 773.19 NRC 1341 n.25,1343 n 43 (1964) s
%rs ma Electne and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Umte I and 2), CLI 76 22,4 NRC 400 (1976), ard,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) definition of truthfulness relauwe to an operstmg license applicant LBP-8413,19 NRC 674 (1984)
%rsmie Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power stauon, Umts I and 2), CL176-22,4 NRC 480,443,486-87 (1976), ard,511 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) relevance of presence or absence ofintent to question of whether a material false statement has been made' LBP-8413,19 NRC 682 83 (1984)
Wr8mia Electrw and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stauen. Umts I and 2), CLi 76-22,4 NRC 480,486 (1976), ard sub nom. %rsima Electr$c and Power Co. v. NRC,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir 1978) responsibility of hcensee for reporting knowledge of informanon in possession of its contractors, DD-84-8,19 NRC 932 (1984)
%rsinia Electne and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stauon, Units I and 2), CLl 76 22. 4 NRC 440,486,448,491 (1976P, ard sub nom. %rsmia Electric and Power Co. v. NRC,571 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) omission ofinformation as a material false statement; DD 84-8,19 NRC 930-32 (1964)
%rsmis Electrw and Power Co. (Nonh Anna Nuclear Power Stanon Unos I and 2), CLI 76 22. 4 NRC 480,487 (1976), ard sub som. Wrsmia Electrw and Power Co. v. NRC. 371 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1978) definition of"matenal" as relevant to instenal false statemem. # TAB 774,19 NRC 1338 (1984)
%rt6nas Electrw and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Pvoer Staten. Umts I and 2) CLI 76 22,4 NRC 400,489 (1976), aTd sub nom. %rgsma Electtw and Power Co. v. NRC, $71 F.2d 1289 (4ih Cir.1978) revocauon of liceme for matenal false statement, Al AB 774,19 NRC 1357 (l984)
%rsinia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power $taten, Umts I and 21, LBP,75-54,2 NRC 498 (1975), ard 6n part, modified 6n part, and rev'd in part. AL AB 324,3 NRC 347 (1976), afd in part and rev'd in pen, CLI.76 22,4 NRC 480 (1976), ard sub nom. V6rsmia Liecirw and Power Co. v. NRC. 371 F.2d 1289 (4tti Cir.1978) imposinon of sencuens for fadure of parties to disclose material facts to Boards LBP-84 22,19 NRC 1401 (1984)
%rsima Electrw and Powet Co. (Nor*h Anna Nuclear Power Stanon, Umts I and 2) LBP 1.5-$4,2 NRC 498, $0446, $23 (1973) responmbility of licensee for reporting knowledge of information in possession of its contractors, DD-84-8,19 NRC 932 (1984)
%rsmia Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stenon, Umts I and 21, LBP 75 54,2 NRC 498, $23, $32 33 (1975) omission of information as a failure to inform Boards of relevant informanon and as a matenal false statement DD.84 8,19 NRC 911,932 (1984) el
, ~ _ - _ -.-
. _ _ - _ =. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
4
.. q
}.
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX s cases Virgmaa Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Stauon. Omts 1 and 21. LBP 77-68. 6 NRC 1127.1151 119'7s dessnbing an apphcant's character; LBP 8413.19 NRC 672. 676 (1984#
Virgima Electnc and Power Co. s. NRC. 371 F.2d 1289 teth Cir.19788 penalty for material false statement. LBP 8413.19 NRC 674 n 23 (19847 Versinia Sunshme Athance v. Hendne. 477 F. Supp. 68. 70 (D.D C.19798 '
speculauon about nuclear accident as cause for stay of hcensms decision; CLI-84-5.19 NRC 964 11984)
Es parte W411.107 U.S. 263. 2 5. Ct. 569. 27 L. Ed. $52 418828 nght of intersenor to heanns on question of imposition of sanctions against its adsersarn LBP 84-22.19 NRC 138911984)
Washmston Pubhc Pu*er Supply System iHanford No. 2 Nuclear Power Planti. AL AB 1f). 6 AEC 251, 252 41973)
Licensms Board delegation ofits responsibihties to NRC 5taff. LBP-84-2.19 NRC 210 t19841 Washington Pubhc Power Supply System tw PP55 Nuclear Project No 18. LBP-83-66.18 NRC 780.
797 98 (1983) factors considered in determimns reasonableness of construction estenuon date. LBP-84-9.19 NRC $06 (19841 l
Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPP55 Nuclear Proget No. 2). ALAB-722.17 NRC $46 (1983) cntena to be followed b) Licenung Boards m esamimns construchon permit estension requests.
AL AB-771,19 NRC 1189 n.16 (198tp Washmgton Pubhc Power Supply System (% PP55 Nuclear Proget No. 27. ALAB-722.17 NRC 546.
,t
$$1. $$2 n 6. 353 (1983) test for determamns whether a contemion is within the scope of a construction permit estenwon proceedms. CLI 844,19 NRC 978. 979 n.211984i Washmston Pubhc Pomer Supply System (WPP55 Nuclear Project No. 21. ALAB 722.17 NRC $46.
$52 t1983) interpretation of good cause showmg necessary for estennon of constructen compleuon date; LBP 84 9.19 NRC $02 (1984p Washmston Pubbc Power Supply System (% PP55 Nuclear Project No. 31. ALAB 747,18 NRC l167 (19831 factors considered in admission of late filed contennons. LBP 841.19 NRC 31 (1984 Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPS$ Nuclear Project No. 38. ALAB 747.18 NRC 1l67, 1878 (1983) appellate pohcy towards overturnmg Licensms Board determmaison to admit late filed contenuons. AL AB 769.19 NRC 1000 n.13 (1984l l
Washmston Pubhc Power Supply System (WPP55 Nuclear Prosect Nos. I A 27. CLI-82 29.16 NRC 1221. 1228 (1982) focus of construcuon permit estension case; AL AB 771.19 NRC 1889 n.17119846 Washmston Pubhc Pomer supply $3 stem 1% PP55 Nuclear Project Nos.1 & 21.CLI-82 29.16 NRC 1221.1228.1229 31 t19827 scope of contenuons htsgable in construction permit estensson proceedmss. ALAB 771.19 NRC 1886 n 4.1188 n.14 (1984); CLl 844.19 NRC 978 (1984 Washmston Pubhc Power Supply System 1% PP55 Nuclear Project Nos 3 & $p. CLt.77.ll $ NRC 719. 722 (1977) role of the Commisason in operaung hcense proceedmss; CLi 84-8.19 NRC 115! n 2 4l984s Washmston Pubhc Power Supply System (% PP55 Nuclear Project Nos. 4 & St. DD-824.13 NRC 1761.1766 n.9 (1982) enforcement acuon appropnaie for matenal false statemenr DD-84-8.19 NRC 933 (1984 Weinstein v. Bradford.423 U.S.147,149 tl975p htigabihty of one time suspension of techmcal specificanons. LDP-84-19.19 NRC 1083 (19848 Wisconsm Electnc Power Co. IKoshkonong Nuclear Plant. Umts I and li. CLi 74 45,8 AEC 928.
930 (19741 delay of a hcensms proceeding pendmg dispostion of a case presenied to a State authorith LBP 84-6,19 NRC 40118984) 62 i
r o
r
"\\
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point teach Nuclear Plant. Unit 21. CLI-73-4,6 AEC 6. 7. II.13.16 (1973; post-hearing rear,lution ofissues by NRC Staff. LBP-84 2.19 NRC 210. 218 (1984)
Wisconsen Public Servre Corp. (Kewsunee Nuclear Power Plant). LSP-78 24,8 NRC 78. 83 (19787 showing necessary on other four factors where good cause is shown for late filing of contentions.
LSP-84-20.19 NRC 1292 (1984)
Worth v. 5ddin. 422 U.S. 490 (1975) showing necessary to be admitted as a party intervenor. LSP 84-6.19 NRC 428 (1984)
Wright v. Jeep Corp.,547 F. Supp. 871. 875 (E.D. Mich.1982)
I duty of citizens to provide evidence; ALAB 764,19 NRC 639 (1984)
Wnght v. Jeep Corp.,547 F. Supp. 871. 875 76 (LD. Mch.1982) application of scholar's pnvilege; ALAt-764,19 NRC 640 n.10 (1984)
Wright v. Patrolmen's tenevolent Ass'n. 72 F.R.D.161 (5 D.NN.1976) hrruts on application of First Amendment pnvilege of the press; ALAB 764,19 NRC 640 (1984) 3 Wu v. National Endowment for Humanities. 460 F.2d 1030.1032 (Sih Cir.1972), cert. denied. 410
/
1' U.S. 926 (1973) applicabihty of esecutive privilege to documents produced for governrnent by consultants; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1346 n.57 (1984) j A
s f
(
s
.I ln 1
i)
. e 63
1 LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 5 C F R. 737.5fcH4 test of a judge's impartiality, ALAB 759,19 NRC 24 n 38 (1984) 10 C.F.R. I, Subpart il estent of Statements required from commenters on proposed rulemakms, DPRM 841,19 NRC 1605 (1984) 10 C F.R.1.1I extent of Board authority concerning operaims licenws; AL AB-758,19 NRC 10 (1984) 10 C F R I 61 authority for issuance of an operating igense; ALAB-758,19 NRC 10 (1984) 10 C.F R. 2.104 determmation of whether an operatmg license proceedmg is a contmuauon of a construction permal proceeding. AL AB 759,19 NRC 24 n 39 (1984) need to nonce Part 70 license applicanon; ALAB-765,19 NRC 651 n.10 (1984) 10 C F.R. 2.104(bH2) and (3) applicability of summary dispostiton to construcuon permit amendment proceedings, ALAB-771,19 NRC 1188 n 12 (1984) need for Lnensing Board issuance of smual deciuon for uncontested construcuon permit proceeding AL AB 761,19 NRC 489 n 6 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.104(c)(4) laugability of effects of d@osal costs on an applicant's financial capability to operate a nuclear power plant; LBP 84-6.19 NRC 414 (1984) 10 C.F.R 2.105 determmation of whether an operating inense prrneedmg is a contmuation of a construcuon permit proceedms, ALAB 759,19 NRC 24 n.39 (19841 need to nouce Part 70 license applicanon, ALAB-765,19 NRC 651 n.10 (1984) to C F R. 2105(aH4Hi) need for a hearms on operaung IKense amendment; LBP-84-23,19 NRC 1414 (1984) la C F R. 2.109 effect of applicauon for entension of construcuon compleuon date on eusiing permit; ALAB-771, 19 NRC I186 n.3 (1984) effectneness of cusimg construcuan permits pendmg disposinon of entension request, CLI-84-6,19 NRC 977 (1984) 10 C F R 2 201 appigaison of Noiwe of %olation as penalty for material false statement; DD-84-8,19 NRC 935 (1984) enforcement acuon taken for procedural oe.,.ncies assocuted with crane accident at Perry Plant.
DD 84 l,19 NRC 476 (19848 violauons requirms corrective acuon, DD 84 7,19 NRC 904 (1984) 10 C.F R. 2 202 request foi ininanon of shom-cause prcscedms, DD-84-1,19 NRC 476 (1984) 10 C.F R. 2.202(a) denial of pennon to insutute show cause proceedmss sought on the bass of construchon and management derwiencies DD-84-7,19 NRC 900 (1984) 10 C F R. 2 202(aHI) circumstances m whnh an order to show cause is appropriate, DD-84 7,19 NRC 922 (1984) 65
k I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 1
1 1
10 C F R. 2 206 demal of peution for suspension or resocanon of heense on basis of material false statement; DD-84 8.19 NRC 925 (1984) demal of peution requestmg action on issue that is the subject of rulemakmg DD 84-6.19 NRC 892. 897 (19848 demal of petiuon requesung postpor.ement oflifting of reactor pressure vessel had at TMI-2; DD 84 4.19 NRC $35 (19848 demal of request for independent analyms of crane accident at Ferry Plant DD 844.19 NRC 472 (19848 demal of request for resocanon suspension or modification of construcuon permits for timersk facihty; DD 84-13.19 NRC i134 (1984) i demal of request for suspension of hcense pendmg resoluuon of intergranular stress corr % on crackmg issues. DD 8410.19 NRC 1094 (1984) demal of request for suspennon of operations pending determinsuon of adequacy c'I pipe wpports at FiuPatnck DD-8414.19 NRC 1307 (1984) denial of request to halt all dry cask shipments of spent fuel. DD 84-9.19 NRC 1047 f!?84) l forum for obtamms rehef on centenuons demed admismon; LBP-84-20.19 NRC 1301 (1944) issues mappropnate for considerauon under; DD-8413.19 NRC 1839 (1984) f remedies asailable to the public regardmg concerns ove. hcensecs' data or esaluations. DD-84-6.19 NRC 896 (19841 remedy for peuhoner demed miersenuon in construcuon permit estension proceedms, CLt 84-6.19 l
NRC 979 (19848 request for acuon to remedy emergency response deficiencies at Pilgnm facility; DD 84 5.19 NRC 542 I1984) request for management audit because of violation of construction permit condiuon granted;.
DD 84 2.19 NRC 478 (19841 treatment of emergency plannma concerns under. DD 84-il,19 NRC 1109 (1984) treatment ofletter requesung action as a peution under; DD-84-3.19 NRC 481 n.1 (1984) 10 C F.R. 2.206(a) basis requirement for peutions under. DD-8413.19 NRC !!43 n.13 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.206(b) issuance of formal decision on peution for shoe <suse proceedmg; DD-84 7.19 NRC 908 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.701(c) l ume of complehon of fihng documents in NRC heenens proceedings; ALAB-774.19 NRC 3353 n.1 g'
(1984i f
10 C F.R. 2.704(ca monon for disquahrication of Licensms Board judge; ALAB-759.19 NRC 15 (1984) procedure for replacmg Licenens Boards; CLI-84-3.19 NRC !!61 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.707 acuon taken on failure to file a pleadma within the presenbed time; LBP-84-6.19 NRC 423 (1984) 10 C F R. 2.710 late fahng of response to motion to resume discovery; LBP 84 7.19 NRC 464 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.713 need for sanctions agamst counsel for material misrepresentation; LBP 84 22.19 NRC 1385,1386.
1290 (1984) pena!ty for violation of protecuve orders; AL AB-764,19 NRC 643 n.14 (1984)
I 10 C.F.R. 2.713(b) non attorney representation m NRC proceedmss; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1247 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.714 hearms requirement for construcuon permit amendment proceedmas; ALAB-771.19 NRC 1888 n 14 (19848 lingabihty of contenhons addressing changes in techmcal specificauons; LBP-8419.19 NRC 1078 41984) means for intervenor to address question of sancuens against hcensee. LBP 84-22.19 NRC 1390 (1984)
[
parucipauon as an interested state following withdrawal as a party; LBP 84 4.19 NRC 295 (1984) 66 w.
9 i
I l
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX R EG L't.ATIONS rema for petitioner dened intenention in construction permit estension proceed ng; CLI-84-6,19 NL. 979 (1984) satisfaction of basis and specincity requirements for admission of contenison barj on changes in techmcal specifications; LBP-84-19,19 NRC 1084,1085 (1984) satisfaction ofinterest requirement for intenention through geographical prosimity; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 410,411,429 (1984) scope of contentions hingable in construction permit eatension proceedmss; AL AB-771,19 NRC 1187 (19841 showing necessary for intenention in construction permit estension proceedmgs; CLl-84-6,19 NRC 978 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a) factors apphed in determimns whether to admit late Gled diesel generator contentions; ALAB-768, 19 NRC 993 (1984) failure of quahty assurance contentions to meet late Ghng criteria of, ALAB-769,19 NRC 997 (1984) standards apphed in determming admissibehty of contentions. LBP 84-20,19 NRC 1290,1291 (1984) status of contention proffered before close of the record, LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1290 (1984) i0 C.F R. 2.714(a)(1) abihty of untimely petitioner for intenention to contribute to a sound record; ALAB 767,19 NilC 985 n 2 (1984) apphcabihty of admission criteria to late-f; led Part 70 contentions. ALAB-765,19 NRC 656,657 3
(1984) applicabahty of late-f6hns cnteria to contentions addressms unnoticed apphcation for Part 70 hcense; LBP 8416,19 NRC 865,868 (1984) apphcation of five factor test for admisuon oflaie-filed contention. LBP-84 24,19 NRC 1586 n.50 (1984) balancing of factors m determining admissibihty of late filed emergency planning contention; LBP-84-1,19 NRC 31 (1984); LBP 8418,19 NRC 10.19 (1984) demal oflate interver son petition, bawd on balancing of five factors of; ALAB-758.19 NRO 8 nl (1984) factors balanced in determmms a grant of untimely mtenention; LBP 8417,19 NRC 883 (19841 factors evaluated for re-intenention by parties. ALAB-761,19 NRC 493 n21 (1984) need ice five-factor test to be apphed to each contention submitted by late interventioner petshoner; LBP 8417A,19 NRC 1014,1015,1016 (1984!
need to apply five-factor test to amended petition to miervene; LBP-8419,19 NRC 1079 (1984).-
wetsht gnen to availabihty of documents in ruhng on late-Gled contentions; LBP 8418,19 NRC 1026, 1027 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(aH I)(i)-(v) apphcabihty oflate Chng critena to contennons addressing unncuced apphcation for Part 70 license; LBP 8416,19 NRC 866 (1984) 10 C.F R. 2.784(a)(IHiii) ways in which late interven..on petitioner may sausly requirements of LBP-84-17A 19 NRC 101),
1015 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(2) showmg necessary to be admitted as a party intenenor; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 428 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) contention requirement for meervention. LBP-84-6,19 NRC 406,429 (1984); LBP-84-17A,19 -
NRC 1017 (1984) cnteria for quahfyms as a party intervenor; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 395 (1984) denmuon of a late-Gled contention; LBP-84 20,19 NRC 1290 n.5 (1984) dismissal of contention alleging inadequacies in security plan for new fuel storage; ALAB 765,19 NRC 653 (19841 failure of petition to support its contennon, LBP-84 la 19 NRC 1081 (1984) failure of quality assurance contenhons to meet specincity requirements of; ALAB 769,19 NRC 997 (1984)
L 67 t.
V m
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS requirements for admission of contenuons; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 408 (1984); LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1292. 1294 (19841 specificity required of monons to reopen a record, ALAB-775,19 NRC 1366 (1984) specificity requirement for contentions; LBP44-18,19 NRC 1028 (1984) 10 C F.R. 2.714(e) and (O Licensing Board authority to limit participation by intervenors; ALAB-761,19 NRC 492,495 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.71da hmitation on apWs permitted under; LBP44-li,19 NRC 1075 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.7I5 authorization for former intervenors to make hmited appearance statements regardmg site redress issues; ALAB 761,19 NRC 490 (1984) parucipation as an interested state following withdrawal as a party; LBP-84-4.19 NRC 295 (1984) submission of tiraited appearance statement; LBP44-4,19 NRC 380 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c) participation by an interested state; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 394. 425,426,427 (1984) 10 C,F.R. 2.717(a) jurisdiction over proceedmg withholdmg authorization for an operaung license; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 279 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.717(b)
Licensing Board jurisdiction over Part 70 matters; LBP-8416,19 NRC 862. 863 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.718 Board authority to deny operating heense on basis of material fate statement; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 677 n.29 (19J)
Licensms Board authority to call nonexpert witnesses; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1263 (1984)
Licensing Board authority to hmit participation by intervenors ALAB-761,19 NRC 492 n.18 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.718(e)
Licensing Board authority to set time hmits on examinauon of witnesses; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1428 (1984) use of Board authority to regulate proceedings as means of admitting late-filed contenuons; LBP 84-20,19 NRC 1289 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.718(i) circumstances appropriate for discreuonary appellate review; ALAB-770,19 NRC 1870 n.19 (1984) denial of request for certification of question of whether hmitation should be placed on scope of intervenor's participation; LBP-84-17a,19 NRC 1017 (1984) petition for review of denial of motion corwernirig prematurity of operatmg hceme application.
ALAB-762,19 NRC 568 (1984) procedures for changing Licensing Board interpretation of to C.F.R. ( 73.40(a); CLl44-10,19 NRC 1331 (1984) request for certification of order admitting contentions in operating hcense amendment proceeding; LBP 84-23,19 NRC 1414,1416 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.720 showmg necessary for Board issuance of a subpoena; ALAB-764,19 NRC 636 n.2 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.720(D 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-764,19 NRC 638 n.5 (1984) 10 0.F.R. 2.72i Licensing Board jurisdiction over Part 70 issues, ALAB-765,19 NRC 650 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.72)(a) jurisdicuon of Licensms Boards; ALAB-765,19 NRC 650 (1984) hmitations on Board jurisdiction; ALAB-758,19 NRC 11 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.722 Licensmg Board authonty to appoint Specul Master to hear evidence; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1204 (1984) es s
h.
I~
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 10C.F.R 2.730(f) basis for Licensing Board referral of ruling rejecting portions oflate-filed contenuon; ALAB-768,19 NRC 992 (1984) denial of request for referral of ruling admitting late-Gled contenuons; LBP-8417A,19 NRC 1017 (1984) dismissal of referral of ruhng rejecting poruons of unumely contenuon; ALAB-768,19 NRC 990 (1984) petiuon for review of denial of mouon concerning prematunty of operstmg heense apphcahon, ALAB-762,19 NRC 568 n.6 (1984) procedures for changing Licensing Board interpretation of 10 C F.R. 6 73.40(a); CLI-8410,19 NRC 1331 (1984) request for certi6 cation of e-der admitting contentions in operating hcense amendment proceeding; LBP-84-23,19 NRC 1414,1416 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.731 Board discrenon in management of proceedmss; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1246 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.740(b)(1) matters about which parties may obtain discovery; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1336 (1984) matters which sie subject to discovery; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1431 (1984) naht of apphcant to learn nature of queshons about quahty assurance at its facility; ALAB 764,19 NRC 644 (19841 showing necessary for Board issuance of a subpoena; ALAB-764,19 NRC 636 n.2 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.740(c) anonymous affidavits as evidentiary support for motion to reopen a record ALAB-775,19 NRC 1367 n.)8 (1984) provisions of protective order; ALAB-764,19 NRC 637 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.74)(c) evaluation of significance and matenahty of information proffered as basis for reopening the record; LBP-8413,19 NRC 717 (1984) satisfaction of requirement that evidence supportmg reopening motion be capable of affecting a previous decision; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1366 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.74)(i) ofLcial 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) scope of ofncial notice rule; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 14% n.18 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.749 cause for dismissal of proceedmg contesting application for construction extension date, BP-84-9, 19 NRC 507 (1984) circumstances appropriate for summary disposinon; LBP-8417A,19 NRC 1015 (1984).
summary disposition of health effects contentions; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 437 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.749(b)
. burden on opponent of summary disposition motion; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 435 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.749(d) applicability of summary disposition to contentions raised in construchon permit extension proceedms; ALAB 771,19 NRC 1188,1189 & nn.14,15 (1984) grant of summary disposition through a stipulanon; LBP-84-25,19 NRC 1591 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.754 penalty for failure ofintervenors to Gle proposed findings of fact; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1713 n.18 (1984) penalty for failure to Gle proposed findmss on an issue; ALAB-763.19 NRC 577 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.754(b) dismissal of contenuon for failure to file proposed findings; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1423 n.1 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.757(c)(c)
Licensing Board authority to set time limits on examinanon of witnesses; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1428 (1984) 69
g LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 10 C.F.R 2.758 ground for petition for waiver or exception to regulaisons; LBP 8419,19 NRC 1080 (1984) need to consider impacts of earthquakes on emergency plannmg on a sile specinc basis, CL184-4, 19 NRC 938 (19841 petition to masse regulation pertammg to htigation of need-for-power issues. LBP-84-6,19 NRC 3 %, 402 (1984) treatment of contention on need for expansson of the emergency plannmg zone; LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1066,1067,1070 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(a) litigabihty of adequacy of new fuel shippmg contamers; ALAB-765,19 NRC 655 n.15 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(c)
' admissibihty of contention concerning need for power anJ alternatine energy sources; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 403 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(e) means for changing standards for admissability of contentions; LBP-84-17A.19 NRC 1018 (1984) 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 estabbsh regulations implementmg Floodplam Management Order and Guidelmes.
LBP-84-6,19 NRC 405 (1984) settlement of controsersies outside of adjudicatory hearmas LBP-84-14,19 NRC 836 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.760 apphcab.hty of summary disposition to contentions raised in construction permit extension proceedms; ALAB-771,19 NRC I188, i189 (1984) passing ofjunsdiction oser proceeding withholdmg authonzation for an operating hcense; LBP 84-2, 19 NRC 279 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.760(a) extent of Board authority concernmg operating hccoses; ALAB-758,19 NRC 10 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.760s beanns of Commission disapprosal of Board exercise of sua sponte authonty on admissibihty of late-filed contention on same subject matter; LBP 84-24,19 NRC 1586 n.50 (1984)
Board authorny to reformulate contentions. ALAB-769.19 NRC 1000 n.13 (19841 dismissal of contention for failure to file proposed findmss, LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1423 n.1 (1984) issues litigable in operating hcense proceedings; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1583 (1984) matters which must be addressed in an operstmg hcense proceedms; LBP 8413,19 NRC 703 (1984) necessity of Board pursuit ofissues as distinguished from Board's raising ofissues sua sponte.
ALAB 772,19 NRC 1263 n.94 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.762 limitation on number of bnefs filed in response to applicam's bners; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 833 (1984) passms of junsdiction oser proceedmg withholdmg authonzst;on for an operating heense; LBP-84-2, 19 NRC 279 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.762(a) remedy for intervenor dissatisfied with ruling on admissibihty of contentions; ALAB-768,19 NRC 992 (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 passms ofjunsdiction over proceedmg withholdmg authonzation for an operating license; LBP-84-2, 19 NRC 279 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.780 apphcability of en parte considerations to meetmg between NRC Regional Admmistrator and -
Commission; DD-84-3,19 NRC 484 n.3 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.785 appealabihty of final order on Part 70 bcense; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 876 (1984) passms ofjunsdiction over proceedmg withholding authorization for an operating license; LBP-84-2, ~
19 NRC 279 (1984) 7s
a LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX R EGL'L ATIONS 10 C.F.R. 2.78$(a) functions performed by Appeal Boards; ALAB 765,19 NRC 650 n.6 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.785(d) cert Gcation of questions to the Commission concerning deGnitions of the terms "important to safety" and " safety-related"; ALAB-769,19 NRC 1010 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.786(a) post-hearing resolution ofissues by NRC Staff, LBP-84-2.19 N AC 211 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2.788 appealability of partial initial decision; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1587 (19841 10 C.F.R. 2.802 raeans for changing NRC regulatory requirements; DD 84-6,19 NRC 897 (1984 need for NRC to estabbsh reguistsons implementing Floodplain Management Order and Guidelines; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 40$ (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2, Appendix A, V(d)(4)
Board discretion in management of proceedings; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1246 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2, Appendia C NRC policy on application of sanctions; DD 84-8,19 NRC 933 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2, Appendia C, til evaluation of signincance of quahty assurance violations; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1498 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2 Appendas C IV circumstances in which an order 'o show cause is apprepte; DD-84-7,19 NRC 922 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2 Appendia C, IV.A violations for which Notices of Violation are not issued; LDP-84-24,19 NRC 1498 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 2, Appendiz C, IV.C(3) cause for initiation of show-cause proceedings; DD-841,19 NRC 476 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 20 abihty of Byron plant dengn basis to keep redsstion levels as low as reasonably achievable; LBP-84-2,19 NRC $2,85,86 (1984) adequacy of Fermi plant mechamsms for detecting unusual releases of radiation; DD-84-il,19 NRC 1124 (1984) adequacy of modehns of radiation doses from internal emitters: LBP-84 7,19 NRC 448 (1984) quantities of airborne strorrium-90 expected to be present in Byron Sta. ion, LBP-84-2,19 NRC 94 (1983) radiation hazard from umrradiated, noncritical fuel. ALAB-765,19 NRC 654 (1984) scope and purpose of guidehnes governing radiation doses; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 35$ (19841 topics addressed in; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 88 (1984) l 10 C.F.R. 20 l(c) requirements concerning personnel eaposure to radiation; LBP-84-2,19 NRC $2,85 n.27,87, &
n.27 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 20.101(a) example of permissible radiation doses to employees; LBP-84-2,19 NRC $7 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 20.106f a) showing necessary in FSAR concerning groundwater contamination by radionuchdes; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 220,226 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 20.401 means for maintaining and entent of radiation dosimetric records on Byron employees; LDP 84-2.
19 NRC 95 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 20. Appendix B application of radionuclide hmus of; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 87 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 20, Appendix B. Table 11, col. 2 showing necessary in FSAR concerning groundwater contamination by radionuclides; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 220 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 21 discussion of the terms " safety-related" and "important to safety" relative to quahty assurance programs; ALAB-769,19 NRC 1002,1003 (1984) 71 t
e v
'I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS reportabihty of erroneous pipe suppc calculations under; DD 8414,19 NRC 1310,1311,131819 (1984) reportabihty of quahty assurance audit. DD 84-8,19 NRC 928,930 n.9 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 21.1 obhgation of contractor to report noncomphances; DD 84-14,19 NRC 1319 (19841 10 C.F.R. 21.3(a)(1) and (3)
. definition of the term " basic component"; ALAB 769,19 NRC 1002 nn.16 & 17 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 21.21(a) responsibihties of heensees for reporting and correcting defects DD-84-14,19 NRC 1319 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 21.21(b) obligation of contractor to report noncomphances; DD-8414,19 NRC 1319 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50 assessment of plant response to design basis accidents; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 346 (1984) certification of question concerning scope of terms "important to safety" and " safety-related";
CLl-84-9,19 NRC 1324 (1984) means to obtain authorization to receive and store new fuel, Al AB-765,19 NRC 649 n.2 (1984) need to submit design details or cost information associated with proposed amendments to; DPRM.84-1,19 NRC 1603 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.7 disemination against employee for reporting deficiencies to NRC as a violation of, LBP-84-24,19 NRs 1518 n.27 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.10(e) means for seeking approval for early site preparation; ALAB-761,19 NRC 489 n.1 (19841 10 C.F.R. 50.10(e)(2) findings necessary for issuance of Limited Work Authorization; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 293 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.10(e)(2)(ii) suitability of proposed Chnch River Breeder Reactor site; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 376 (1984) 10 C.F.R 50.12 need for estabhshment of a new Licensing Board to hear exemption request; CLI-84-8,19 NRC 1160 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.12(a) conduct of heanngs on esemption from regulatory requirements for low-power operation; CLI-84-8, 19 NRC 1155 (1984) 10 C F.R. 50.I3 denial of petition for amendment of, to require design protection against electromagnetic pulses; DPRM-84-1,19 NRC 1600,1601,1604,1605 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.19(a)(4) l cficctiveness of amendrnents to Part 70 licenses where heanns has been rer,u rsted, LBP-84-16,19 NRC 875 (1994) 10 C.F.R. 50.33(g) particulanty required oflate-filed contentions concerning adequacy of eme.gency planning tone; LBP-84-1,19 NRC 34 (1984) i 10 C.F.R. 50.34 I
deadhne for completion of probabilistic risk assessment for Chnch River Project, LBP-84-4,19 NRC 340 (1984) need for retention of records concerning safety-related stems; DD-84 4,19 NRC 895 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.34(a) adequacy of Byron plant rnonitoring of employee exposures to radiation; LBP-84-2,19 NRC SI,85 (1984) 10 C.F R. 50 34(a)(7) contents of preliminary safety analyms report; LBP-84-2,19 NR( lll (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.34(b) content of Final Safety Analysis Report; ALAB-763,19 NRC 587 n 68 (1984) 10 C.F.R 50.34(b)(4) adequacy of Staff charactenzation of groundwater system under Byron; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 218-20, 238 (1984) 72 n
y i.
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX REGl'LATIOSS 10 C.F.R. 50.35(a) findmss necessary for issuance of Limited Work Authorization; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 386 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.36(a) adequacy of Byron plant monittwing of employee exposures to radianon; LBP 84-2, la NRC St. 85 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.40 hmitations on a Board's authonty relevant to findings on an apphcant's clwracter; LBP-8413,19 NRC 677 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.40(b) competence requirement for an operating hcense apphcant; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 671 n.12 (1984) review of tesnmcal and management competence of WPPSS to operate WNP-2; DD-84 7,19 NRC 921 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.46(b)(!)
effect of alteration of techmca' specifications for High Pressure Core Spray on peak cladding temperature; LBP 8419,19 NRC 1080,1081,1083 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47 adequacy of reuew cnteria for emergency plans; CLI-84-4,19 NRC 947 n.2 (1984) -
adverse condiuons wiuch tr;u be factored into emergency plans; CLI-84-4,19 NRC 943 (1984)
Nncy planning; LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1027 (1984) discussion of standards for ce means for complyms with regulatory standards for emergency planning; LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1027 (19848 need to await final FEM A findmss on adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness before issuance of full-power hcense; ALAB-776,19 NRC 1377 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a) reason for Commission amendment of, LBP 84-2,19 NRC 252 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(1)
Board conclusions necessary for issuance of operaung license; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1346 n.54 (1984) discussion of standards for emergency planning; LBP-8418,19 NRC IC27 (1984) emergency plannmg findings necessary for issuance of an operatmg license; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 2 (1984) emergency preparedness findmss necessary for issuance of full-powe* operating hcense; ALAB 19 NRC 1337 n.1 (1984) findmss necessary for issuance of full-power operating hcense; ALAB-776,19 NRC 1378 n.17,137 n.23 (1984)
Licensms Board authonty concermns rulings on reawnableness of distnbunns radioprotective drugs, LBP 84-18,19 NRC 1033 (1984) need for inclusion of letters of agreement in emergency plans; LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1044,1045 (1984) post-heanns venfication of quahty assurance issues; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 212 (1984)
.0 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(l) (1982) post-hearms resolution of emergency planning issues; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 251 (1984) 10 C.F.R 50.47(a)(l) and (2) adequacy of Limerick protective measures in hght of emissions in emergency plans; LBP 8418,19 NRC 105152 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(a)(2) basis for NRC findings on adequacy of offsite emergency planmng; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1337 n.2 (1984); ALAB-776,19 NRC 1378 n.18,1379 n.23 (1984) need to await Gnal FEM A findmss on adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness before issuance of full power hcense; ALAB-776,19 NRC 1378 (1984) requirements for emergency preparedness exercises; LBP-8418,19 NRC 1028 (1984) s:gmficance of FEMA findings on emergency preparedness; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1346 n.53 (198 timing of Board findmgs on adequacy of emergency plans, LBP 84-F8,19 NRC 1043 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b) adequacy of Chnch River pr:hminary emergency plan; LBP-84 4,19 NRC 373 (1984) hmitation on emergency planning findmas: LBP-84-2,19 NRC 252 (1984) 73
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 10 C F.R. 50 47(b) n.1 need for adherence to NUREG-0654 by applicant; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 252 n.85 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(1) absence of assu'ance of funding for training of emergency personnel as failure to meet requirement of; LBP 84-18,19 NRC 1049 (1984) adequacy of communications between Byron emergency response organizations; LBP 84-2.19 NRC 275 (1984) adequacy of Limerick emergency plans concernmg assignment of responabihties; LBP-8418,19 NRC 1041 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10) adequacy ofIlyron emergency plannmg for meJacal facihties; LBP-84 2.19 NRC 263,267 (1984) analysis of evacuatson time study for Byron; LBP.94-2,19 NRC 253 (1984)
Commission guidance concerning requirements of, LBP-84-2,19 NRC 264 (1984) means of response to an emergency. DD-84-5,19 NRC 552 (1984) sumciency of protective actions offered by Byron emergency plan; LBP-84-2.19 NRC 267-68 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(14) extent of detasi on exercises and drills required in emergency plans; LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1062 (1984) need for Board findings to be made on emergency plans prior to their formal adoption; LBP-8418.
19 NRC 1042 (1984) requirements for emergency preparedness exercises; LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1028 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(15) absence of assurance of funding for training of emergency personnel as failure to meet requirement of; LBP-8418.19 NRC 1049 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(2) expansion of emergency planning zone beyond 10-mile radius; DD-84-5,19 NRC 549 (1984) treatment of contenuon on need for expension of the emergency planning zone; LBP-84-IS,19 NRC 1066,1067.1069,1070 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(d) authorization for low-power operation when full-power operation may not be authorized; CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1327 (1984) emergency planmns findings necessary for low-power opershon; AL AB 769,19 NRC 1007 (1984) emergency preparedness necessary for issuance oflow-power heense; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1337 n.1 (1984) need to consider impacts of earthquakes on emergency planning for purpose oflow power operation; CLI-84 4,19 NRC 938 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.49(b) distinction between the terms "important to safety'* and " safety-related"; ALAB-769,19 NRC 1002 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.52(b)(3) modification of Fmal Environmental Statement by Board's findmss and conclusions; LBP-84 24,19 NRC 1585 n.49 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.54(f) enforcement action taken to improve quality asst: ance program at WNP-2; DD-84-7,19 NRC 902 (1984) letter response to immediate action request; DD 8414,19 NRC 1308 (1984) hcensee response to 2.206 petitions; DD-8412,19 NRC l129 (1984) responsaveness of WPPSS management so NRC concerns; DD-84-7,19 NitC 919 (1984) 10 C.F.R 50.54(m)(2)(i) and (iii) stamns requirements for heensed operators for nuclear power plants; ALAB-172,19 NRC I242, 1244 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.54(o) requirements for integrated leak rate testing; DD-84-6.19 NRC 393 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.54(s)(2)(ii) reauest for initiation of 4-month period for correction of emergency response deficiencies at Pilgrim facitaty; DD-84-5,19 NRC 543 (1984) 74
I LEG AL CITATION 5 INDEX RI.GL'LATIONS 10 CF.R. 50.54(t) provision for review of evacuanon time esumates; CLI-84-4,19 NRC 942 (1984) 10 CF.R. 50.55 interpretauon of good-cause showing necessary for extension of construction compleuon date; LBP-84 9,19 NRC 502 (1984) scope of construction permit entension proceedmss; CLI 84-6,19 NRC 978 (1984) 10 CF.R. 50.55(b) good cause for estension of construcuon permit; CLI-84-6,19 NRC 977 (19841 penalty for fadure to complete construction of nuclear power plant by latest date specified m permit; ALAB-771,19 NRC 1886 n.1 (1984) scope of contennons litigable in construction permit extension proceedmss. ALAB 771,19 NRC 1886, 1190 (1984) showing necessary for estension of construction completum date; ALAB-771,19 NRC 1886 n.2.
1187,1191,1l92 (1984); LBP-84-9,19 NRC 498,499 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e) failure of applicant to report design deficiencies, LBP-84-10,19 NRC 512 (1984) '
introduction of deficiency reports as evidence; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 800 (1984)
(
need for improvement in implementation of corrective acuons for construction deficiencies at WNP-2; DD 84 7,19 NRC 915 (1984) record of Houston Lightmg & 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 reprewnted a QA violanon; LBP 84-l),19 NRC 704,707 (1984) report of deficiencies in standby service water system; DD-84-7,19 NRC 907 (1984) report of surveying error under; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 810 (1984) reportma of breakd' owns in quahty assurance program; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 132,134 & n.56 (1984) tardy reporties of plant problems; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 116 (1984) threshold for reporting deficiencies: DD 84 8,19 NRC 933 (1984) 10 CF.R. 50.55(e)(1) fulfillme'nt of requirement to report significant deficiencies; LBP 8410.19 NRC 515 (19848 reportabihty of quahty assurance audit, DD-84-8.19 NRC 928,930 (1984) 10 CF R. 50.55(el(2) ume hmit for reporung deficiences. LBP-84-2,19 NRC 134 (1984) 10 C.F R 50.55a downhill welding as a wolation of codes which apply to water-cocied nuclear power facihues-LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1488 n.15 (1984) significance of ASME N-symbol; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 122 (1984) 10 CF.R. $0.57 adequacy of applicant's character and competence to operate South Texas Project; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 697 (1984) limitations on a Board's authonty relevant to findings on an apphcant's character; LBP 8A l),19 NRC 677 (1984) post-hearms resoluuon ofissues by NRC Staff; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 210 (1984) 10 CF.R. 50.57(a) findmst necessary pnot to asstunce of license to load fuel and conduct precnucahty tesung; LBP-84-21,19 NRC 1306 (1984) 10 CF.R, 50.57fa)(1) authonty of Boards to make determmations required under; Af.AB 758,19 NRC 11 (1984) critena that apphcant's design venficauon program must meet, ALAB 763,19 NRC 587 n.68 (1984) films of operatin8 hcense application for unit that is only 22% complete as a violation of; ALAB-758,19 NRC 9 (' *)
findmss required as a precono,non to issuance of an operating license; AL AB 762,19 NRC 567 -
(1984) requisites for issuance of operstmg hcense; LBP-84 2,19 NRC $2 (1988) 10 CF.R. 50 57(a)(1) and (2) -
findings required by; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 702 (1984) 75 W -
s LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(3) adequacy of Byron seismic design; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 238-39 (1984)
~
assurances that must be provided pnor to issuance of operating heenses; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 71,73, 85, 102 (1984)
" character" finding necessary for operating license issuance; LBP 8413,19 NRC 674 n.22 (1984) effect, on reasonable assurance determinations, of retaliation against employee for raising safety concerns; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1518 n.27 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(3)(i) adequacy of Staff characterization of groundwater system under Byroni LBP-84 2,19 NRC 218 20, 238 (1984) 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) 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(4) competence requiren ent for an oaerating license applicant; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 678 a 12 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.57(a)(6) adequacy of Staff characterization of groundwater system under Byron; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 218-20, 238 (1984) efTect of potential for steam generator tube degradation on abihty to make required findings of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 51 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c) apphcability of General Design Cntenon 17 to low-power operation; CLi-84-8,19 NRC 1155,1860 (1984) assurances that must be provided prior to issuance of operating hcenses; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 102 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.58(b) need for a heanns on operating heense amendment; LBP-84-19,19 NRC 1084 (1984); LBP-84-23, 19 NRC 1414 (1984) 10 C.F.R.' 50.59 heensee responsibilities where a normal loads evaluation would impact technical specifications; DD-84-14,19 NRC 1316 n 11 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.70 denial of request for pubhc access and inspection of steam seperator and reactor vessel; DD-84-1,19 NRC 476 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.70(a)
NRC access to hcensee records; DD-84-6,19 NRC 395 (1954) 10 C.F.R. 50.7I need for retention of records concerning safety-related items; DD-84-6,19 NRC 895 (1984J 10 C.F.R. 50.72 distincuon between the terms "important to safety" and " safety-related"; ALAB-769,19 NRC 1003 (1984) licensee inforr'ation which must be reported to NRC without delay; ALAB 774,19 NRC 1359 n.8 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.73 distinction between the terms "important to safety" and " safety-related"; ALAB-769,19 NRC 1003 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50 91(a)(4) e(Tectiveness of amendments.o Part 70 fuellicenses; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 873 75 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.92(c) effectiveness of amendments to Part 70 heenses where heanns has been requested; LBP 84-16,19 NRC 875 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50.;00 right of intervenor to a hearms on quest on ofimposition of sartettons against licensee for material misrepresentation; LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1386,1390,1391 (1984) 76 t
w
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX R EGL'LATIONS 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A conformance of WNP-2 with General Design Criteria; DD-84-7,19 NRC 918 (1984) cnteria applied for defense-in-depth design of Chnch River Breeder Reactor; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 300 (1984) discussion of the terms " safety-related" and "important to safety"; ALAB-769,19 NRC 997 n 4 (1984) exclusaon of accidents attributable to external and man-made actions, from Byron analysis; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 107 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendix A Introduction structures, systems, and components considered important to safety; ALAB-769,19 NRC 999 n.9 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC 1,14,30,31 adequacy ofinspectiot uf reactor pipmg welds at Vermoni Yankee; DD-8410,19 NRC 1103 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A. GDC 2 extent ofinvestigations required to protect against seismic events; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 239 (1984) reporting of faults revealed during excavations; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 370 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A. GDC 4 analysis for and protection from jet impmgement effects; ALAB-763,19 NRC 602 n.146 (1984) dental of petition for amendment of, to require design protection agamst electromagnetic pulses, DPRM-84 I,19 NRC is ? (1984) requirements concerning pro;ectsn asamst water hammer events; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 71,73, $1 (1984) requirements for protection of reactor systems; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 52 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC I3 denial of petition for ame7dment of, to require design protection against electromagnetic pulses; DPRM-84-1,19 NRC I600 (1984) 10 C F.R. 50, Appendix A, GDC 14,30,31 and 32 requisites for issuance of operating hcense; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 52 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A. GDC 17 nuclear power plant desip, requirements for onsste electnc power yst=s; ALAB-768,19 NRC 990 n.2 (1984) 10 C.F.R 50, Appenths A, GDC 44 safety of Diablo Canyon's component conting water system; ALAB-763.19 NRC 617 n.249 (19841 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B abihty or willingness of Byron apphcant to comply with quahty assurance requirements; LBP-84-2, 19 NRC 42,111,213 (1984) adequacy of Byron apphcant's descriptiop ofits operational quality assurance program; LBP 84-2,19 N RC 126 (1984) adequacy of Diablo Canyon's quahty a,surance program; ALAB-763,19 NRC 616 (1984) adequacy of pipe support lesign process at Comanche Peak; LBP 8410,19 NRC 530 (1984) adequacy of quality assuraxe program for Clinch River; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 323,364-65 (1984) adequacy of South Texas Pt Sect's construction QA/QC orgamzauons and practices; LBP-84-l),19 NRC 699,700,703 (19%
allegations of failures sai quality assurance program at WNP-2; DD-84 7,19 NRC 905 (1994) basis for denial of operstmg license; ALAB-770,19 NRC 1165 (1984) criteria asamst which the sumciency of appleant's design venfication efforts must be measured; ALAB-763,19 NRC 578,543 (1984) definition of "quahty assurance" and "quahty control *;. LBP 84-4,19 NRC 361 (1984) deviation from wntten procedure as a violation of; LBP 84-24,19 NRC 1439 (1984) discussion of the terms " safety-related" and "important to safety" telative to quahty assurance programs; ALAB-769,19 NRC 997,999 (1984) elTect, on reasonable assurance determinations, of retahation against employee for raising safety concerns; LBP-84 24,19 NRC 1518 n.27 (1984) failure to comply with quality assurance requirements as basis for reopenmg record; ALAB-763,19 -
NRC 576 (1984) funder.1 ental aspects of NRC regulatory program; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 736 (1984) 77 i
~.
(
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX -
REGL LATIONS means Inr apphcants to anure quahiy of nuclear power piants, LBP 84-24.19 NRC 1433.1498 (1984) need for comphance uith regulauons promulgated after design work has been completed.
ALAB 763.19 NRC 608 (1984)
QA procedures for assurms comphance with; LBP-84 24.19 NRC 1480 (1984) quahty ofimplementauon of QA program at South Tetas Project; LBP 8413,19 NRC 764 (1984) 10 C F R. 50, Appendia B. Introducuon apphcanon of quahty anurance requirements; ALAB 769,19 NRC 1000 n,Il (19846 lesel of confidence to be provided by a quahiy assurance program; ALAB 763.19 NRC $93 n 86 (1984)-
10 C F R. 50. Appendit B. I delegation of quahty assurance program to contractors; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 43,128,135 (1984) harassment of meldmg mspectors as a violauon of; LBP 84 24,19 NRC 1531 (1984) quahiy assurance responsibihues of nuclear power plant owners, ALAB 770,19 NRC 1870 n.21 (1984' tesponsibihty of hcensee for reporting knowledge of informanon m possession ofits contractors.
DD 84 8.19 NRC 932 (1984l tsolations of, at Cata*ba. LBP 84-24,19 NRC 14991500 (1984) 10 C.F R. 50. Appendis B. I VI, X, XI, Xill, XV, XVI XVIII discussion of regulatory requirements for QA organsaauon. LBP 84-2.19 NRC 112 (1984) 10 C F.R. 50, Appendit B,11 harassment cf QA inspectors as siolauon of. LBP-8413,19 NRC 711. 712 (19843 -
issuance of Nouce of Violanon for deficiencies in trainmg of quahty assurance inspectors at Byron Station; ALAB 770.19 NRC 1172 n 30 (19841 scope of quality assurance plan for surveyms; LBP 8413.19 NRC 705,706. Sin (1984) violations of, at Catamba; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1500 (1984) 10 C.F R. 50 Appendia B.111 conformance of WNP-2 hcensee with design corwrol requirements, DD-84 7.19 NRC 906,908 61984) 10 C F.R. 50, Appendit B.111 and VI demonstration that appbcant's reconcihauon of design documents is in conformity with requirements of; ALAB 763,19 NRC 605 n.169 (1984) 10 C F.R. 50. Appendit B. !!! and IX harassment of QA mspectors as violanon of. LPP 8413,19 NRC 711,732. 826 (1984) madequate senficanon and approsal of design changes as siolanons of; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 710,
. 711, 809, 819, 820, 821 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50. Appendes B. IV quahty assurance deficiencies m document control at Byron Station; ALAB 770,19 NRC 1872 n.31 (19848 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendia B. Y adequacy of quahficanons of melders at Cata ba. LBP 84-24,19 NRC 1502 (1984) lesel of seventy of violations of; LBP-84 24,19 NRC 1499 (1984) 10 C F.R. 50. Appendia B, VI culpabihty of management in employee's falsificauon of construction records; LBP 841).19 NRC,
714, 829, 830 (19841 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia B. VI and XVil loss of field document relaung to cadwelds as a violation of; LBP-8413.19 NRC 708,709,710, 809, 815 (1984) 10 C.F.R 50. Appendit B. Vill violanons of, at Catamba; LBP-84 24,19 NRC 1501 (19841 -
10 C F.R. 50, Appendia 8,IX
- siolanons of, at Catamba LBP 84-24,19 NRC 1501-02 (19841 10 C F R. 50, Appendia B. IX and X cadueld documentauon deficiencies as violation of. LBP-8413.19 NRC 710,818 (1984) voids m reactor contamment buildmg malls as violation of, LBP 84-13,19 NRC 707,809, $13 (1984) -
78 1
s m
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C.F.R. 50, Appenda B, X adequacy of inspection of reactor pipir's welds at Vermont Yankee; DD-84-10,19 NRC 1103 (1984) violations ef, at Catawba; LBP-84 24,19 NRC 1502 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, X, XI absence of a survey inspectaon procedure as a violation of; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 704,706,809,81I (1984) 10 C F.R. 50, Appendix B, X, XV and XVI damage to containment membrane seats as a violation of; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 709,809,816 (1984) sacel reinforcement bars missing from parts of containment structure as a violation of. LBP-8413, 19 NRC 709,309,817 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, X, XVI, XVil relationship between the reporting of a deficiency and whether the deficiency represented a QA violation; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 704 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50 Appenda B XV circumvention of applicants' means for complying with; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1502 (1904) primary quality assurance procedure used at Catawba by quality control inspectors; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1481 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50,.* ppendix B, XVI label given to reports of design deficiencies; LBP-84-10,19 NRC S tI,512 (1984) violanons of, at Catawba; L8P-84-24,19 NRC 1503 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, XVil applicability of, to trial welding by craft; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1562 (1984) failure to document activities affecting quahty as a violation of; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 727 (1984) need for retenuon of records concerning safety-related items; DD-84-6,19 NRC 895 (1984) violations of, concernmg maintenance of records of inspection results; LBP-84-24,19 N RC 1503 (1984) 10 C F.R. 50, Appendix B, XVII, XVill violanons of, by Byron contractor; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 195 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix E adverse conditions which must be factored into emergency plans; CLl44-4,19 NRC 943 (1984) discussion of standards for emergency planning; LSP-84-18,19 NRC 1027 (1984) provision for review of evacuation time estimates; CL1-84-4,19 NRC 942 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix E. Il adequacy of Clinch River preliminary emergency plan; LBP-844,19 NRC 373 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia E, IV.C classification of severity of radiological emergencies; DD44-II,19 NRC 1120 n.Il (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix E,IV.C & nn.1,4 need for adherence to NUREG-0654 by applicant; LSP-84 2,19 NRC 212 n.85 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Aprendix E, IV.D.2 limits on emergency planning for notification of transient populanons dunng a radiological emergency; LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1034,1035 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia E,IV.D.3 timing for declaration of an emergency; DD 44-11,19 NRC 1120,1825 (1984) 10 C.F.R 50 Appendia E, IV F.1 public participauon in emergency response exercises; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 423 (1984) -
10 C.F.R. 50, Appendices G and H testing requirements to determine reactor pressure vesselintegnty; LBP444,19 NRC 420 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50 Appendix I adequacy of Fermi plant mechanisms for detecting unusual releases of radiation; DD-84-11,19 NRC l124 (1984) adequacy of modeling of radiation doses from internal emitters; LBP44-7,19 NRC 448,453 (1984) assessment of offsite doses from design basis accidents at Clinch River Breeder Reactor; LBP-84 4, 19 NRC 316 (1984) individual responses taken into account in evaluating compliance with; LBP44-4,19 NRC 360 (1984) scope and purpose of guidelines governing radiation doses; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 355 (1984) 79
7.-
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendis I,II -
guidehnes for assessing dose consequences of accidents at Cimch River; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 354 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia J calculation of mean containment temperature; DD-84-6,19 NRC 894 (1984) requirements for integrated leak rate testing; DD-844,19 NRC 893,897 (1984) 10 C.F R. 50, Appendia K effect of alteration of technical specifications for High Pressure Core Spray on peak cladding temperature; LBP-8419,19 NRC 1083 (1984) failure criterion used in evaluating safety of a facihty; LBP 8419,19 NRC 1082 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia R need to consider open pipe chase in auxiliary feedwater pumproom as a deviation from fire protecuon cnteria; ALAB-763,19 NRC 602 n.145 (1984) 10 CE.R. 51. Table S-3 htigabihty of waste disposal issues; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 413 (1984) 10 Cf.R. 51.20(a) and (d) adequacy of assessment of risk of severe accidents at Byron Station; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 100,101 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 51.20(b) and 51.25 need for preparation of separate environmental impact statement for low-power operation; CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1326 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 51.21 and St.23(e) demonstration of need for power at the operating hcense stage; LBP-84-9,19 NRC 504 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 51.23(c) effect of inadequate Staff assessment of environmental irapacts of design basis accidents in FES; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1584 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 51.23(e) basis for evaluating impacts of fuel cycle particulates; LBP 84-7,19 NRC 460 n.2 (1984) 10 C.F R. 51.24(cH4) and 51.26(c) and (d) furum for considenns sufficiency of the draft environmental statement; DD-84-13,19 NRC 1839 (1984) 10 C F R. 51.25 need for preparation of separate environmental impact statement for low-power operation; CLI-84 9, 19 NRC 1326 (1984) 10 C.F.R. $l.53 hmitations on a Board's authority relerant to findings on an applicant's character; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 677 (1984) 10 C.F.R. St.53(c) challenge to; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 3%,399 (1984) litigability of costs of radioactive waste disposal at operating license stage; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 413 (1984n 10 C.F.R. 55.10(a)(6) role of NRC Staffin hcensee's training programs; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1238 (1984) t 10 C.F.R. 55.25 appiradihty of, to low-power operations; CLI 84-5,19 NRC 972 (1984) 10 C.F.R 55.25(b) expenence required of reactor operator candidates; CLI-84 5,19 NRC %l n.$ (1984) 10 C.F.R. 55.33 falsification of operator heensing requahfication as matenal false statement; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1230 n.44 (1984) 10 C F.R. 55.33(a)(4) role of NRC Staffin hcensee's tramms programs, ALAB-772,19 NRC 1238 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 55, Appendia A falsification of operator heensing requahlication as material false statement; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1230 n.44 (1984) role of NRC Staffin hcensee's traimns programs; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1238 (1984) -
88 i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 10 C.F.R. 70 dismissal of contentions concerning apphcaten to recene and store new fuel outside the Limerick facility; ALAB-765,19 NRC 648 (1984)
Licensna Board jurisdiction over heenses under; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 860 10 C.F.R. 70.3 means to obtain authorization to receive and store new fuel; ALAB 765,19 NRC 649 n.2 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 70.22(i),70.23(at(ll) need for an emergency plan to be in place to obtain a Part 70 hcense; ALAB-765,19 NRC 655 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 70.24(d) request for exemption from criticahty monitorms systems requirement for unirradiated fuel, LBP 84-16,19 NRC 874 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 71 adequacy of new fuel shippmg containers. ALAB-765,19 NRC 655 n.15 (1984) design standards for spent fuel casks; DD-84-9,19 NRC 1090,1091 (1984) extent of NRC oversght of packagmg designs for transport of radioactne materials; DD-84-9.19 NRC 1088 (1984) radiation hazard from unirradiated, noncrincal fuel; ALAB-765,19 NRC 655 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 71.31 extent of NRC oversght of packaging deugns for transport of radioacuve materials; DD-84-9,19.
NRC 1088 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 71.51(a) standards for Type B packaging for shipment of radioacuve materials; DD.84-9,19 NRC 1088 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 71.71 standards for Type B packagmg for shipment of radioacuve materials, DD-84 9,19 NRC 1088 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 71.73 standards for Type B packasms for shipment of radioactne matenals DD-84-9,19 NRC 1088 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 71.101 quahty assurance standards apphcable to packaging of radioactive materials for transport; DD 84-9, 19 NRC 1088 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 72.34 need to nouce Part 70 hcense application; ALAB-765,19 NRC 651 n.10 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 73 excluson of accidents attributable to external and man-made actions, from Byron analysis; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 107 (1984> -
10 C.F.R. 73.40(a) denial of Staff request to initiate rulemaking to amend, CLI 8410,19 NRC 1331 (1984) improper Staffinterpretanon of; LBP 84-22,19 NRC 1388 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 73.40(a)-(d) applicabihty of, to research reactors; LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1397,1398,1409 (19841 10 C.F.R. 73.55 need for nuclear power plants to protect against nuclear explosons; DPRM 84-1,19 NRC 1604 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 73.55(b) through (h) potential for sabotage by temporary workers at Byron; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 99 (1984) 10 C.F.R. 73.60 need for research reactors to protect against sabotage; LBP-84 22,19 NRC 1388,1397,1398 (1984) -
10 C.F.R. 73.67 bass for research reactor's security plan; LBP 84-22,19 NRC 1395-1400 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100 assessment of offsite doses from dessn basis accidents at Clinch River Breeder Reactor; LBP-84-4, -
19 NRC 316. 317 (1984) capebshty of faults in vicimty of Clinch River Project; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 326,370,372,373 (1984) 88
-w-e e
l
(
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX -
REGI)LATIONS challenge to thyroid dose assessment for Clinch River Project; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 359,381,384 (1984) definition of the term " safety-related7 ALAB 769,19 NRC 1001, l004 (1984) guidehnes to assess Chnch River containment adequacy in the event of a core melt accidenti LSP-84-4,19 NRC 353 (1984) most probable core disruptive accidents for whach coses could exceed guidehnes of, LBP-844,19 NRC 356,358 (1984) need for DOE reactors to meet guidehnes of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 387 (1984) need to consider capabihty of TMI to limit doses to ensure compliance with; CLI-84-3,19 NRC 358 n.3(1984) objective of Relialnhty Assurance Program for Clinch River Project; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 340 (19841 restriction of pnmary-to secondary leakage in steam generator to avoid exceeding dose cnteria; CLI 84-3,19 NRC 561 (1984) scope and purpose of guidelines governing radiation doses; LBP-844,19 NRC 355 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100.I1 specification of done guidehnes for design bass accidents; LBP 844,19 NRC 317,346 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100. Appendix A adequacy of seismic design of Byron plant; LSP-84-2,19 NRC 48 (1984) capability of faults in vicinity of Chnch River Project; LSP 844,19 NRC 369 (1984) defimtion of a capable fault; LBP-84-2, l's NRC 244 (1984) discussion of the terms " safety-related" and "important to safety relative to quahty assurance programs; ALAB-769,19 NRC 997,1000 (1984) reporting of faults revealed during excavations; LSP-84-4,19 NRC 370 (19841 10 C.F.R.100. Appendix A,il departure from criteria estabirahed by GDC 2; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 240 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100, Appendix A,Ill(c) design requirements for safe shuidown earthquake; ALAB 769,19 NRC 999 n.10 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100, Appendes A,Ill(c) and (d) guides for determining structural requirements of a nuclear facihty, relative to seismic activity; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 239-40 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100. Appendix A,lil(g) definxtion of a capable fault; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 240 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100. Appendix A,IV(a) and (b) capability of faults in vicinity of Clinch River Froject; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 372 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100 Appendix A.V(a)(2) basis for determining a facility's maximum vibratory ground acceleration; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 240 (1984) 10 C.F.R.100. Appendix A, Yl(a)(1) -
defimtion of" safety-related**; ALAB-769,19 NRC 1000 n.12 (1984) 40 C.F.R.1506.2 and 1506.3 need to avoid duplication of efforts in environmental assessments, DD-84-13,19 NRC 1848 (1984) 44 C.F.R. 350 description of committee reviewing radiological emergency plans; DD-84-5,19 NRC 547 n.3 (1984) extent of FEM A review of emergency plans; ALAB-776,19 NRC 1377 (1984) 44 C.F.R. 350.6(b) means for FEM A review of emergency plans; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1338 n.9 (1984) 44 C.F.R. 350.10 (1983) opportumty for comment on exercise of emergency plans; LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1062 (1984) composition of FEM A Regional Assistance Committees for review of emergency plans; ALAB-773, 19 NRC 1338 n.10 (1984) 49 C.F.R. I103.2,1103.3 non attorney representation in NRC proceedings; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1247 (1984) 82 i
I
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Admmistrative Procedure Act,552,5 U.S C. 552 request for FEM A documents under; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1343 (1984)
Admimstrative Procedure Act,554,5 U.S C. 554 need for a hearms on Part 70 issues; AL AB 765,19 NRC 651 (1984)
Admiristratne Procedure Act,556,5 U.S C. 556 means for Commission fulfillment of mandate to conduct adju6catory proceedmgs imparually; ALAB 759,19 NRC 20 n.23 (1983)
Atomic Energy Act,103,42 U.S C. 2133(b)(2) character and competence requirements for hcense issuance; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 669,672 (19848 Atomic Energy Act,103b,42 U.S C. 2133b responsibihties of hcensees, ALAB 772,19 NRC 1206 (1984) 1 Atomic Energy Act,182a,42 U.S.C. 2232(a)
Board authority to consider a hcensee's character as part ofits management competence-.
ALAB 772,19 NRC 1207 & n.8 (1984) character and competence requirements for hcense issuance; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 669,672 (1984)
Atomic Energy Act,182c,42 U.S.C. 2232(c) need to notice Part 70 hcense apphcation; ALAB 765,19 NRC 651 n.10 (1984)
Atomic Energy Act,185,42 U.S C. 2235 basis for catension of construction compleuon date; ALAB-771,19 NRC 1191 (1984) need to reistigate health, saf-;ty and environmental quesuons between construction permit authorization and operaung heense stages; LBP-84 9,19 NRC 507 (1984) penalty for failure f
- complete construction of nuclear power plant by latest date specified in permit; ALAB-771,19 NRC 1186 n 1 (19843 scope of construction permit entension proceedings AL AB 771,19 NRC 1186 (1984), CLl 84-6,19 NRC 978 (19841 showmg necessary for entension of construcuan compleuon date; LBP-84 9,19 NRC 498,502 (1984)
Atomic Energy Act,186,42 U.S C. 2236 false certification of reactor operator as material false statement, ALAB-772,19 NRC 1230 (1984) material false statement as violahon of; AL AB 772,19 NRC 1265-66 (1984) nondisclosure of report on hcensee management as matenal false statement; ALAB-774,19 NRC 1354 (1984) reportabihty of quahty assurance audit; DD-84-8,19 NRC 928,930 (1984)
Atomic Energy Act,186a,42 U.S C 2236tal imposinon of sanctions for misrepresentations by counsel; LBP-84 22,19 NRC 1404 (1984) penalty for material false statement; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 674 n.23 (1984) revocanon of hcer.se for matenal false statement; ALAB-774,19 NRC 1357 (19848 Atomic Ener8y Act,189 hearing requirement for construcuon permit amendment proceedmss, ALAB-771,19 NRC 1888 (1984)
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,189a,42 U.S C. 2239(a) admission of contentions m operatmg hcense amendment proceedmg, LBP-84 23,19 NRC 1413, 1414 (1984) determinanon of whether an operatmg hcense proceeding is a contmustion of a construc ion permit proceedms; ALAB-759,19 NRC 24 n.39 (1984) need for a hearms on Part 70 issues; ALAB-765,19 NRC 651 (1984) 83
\\
..m'%w
..;, i
..; ^ ~:
. w ' ' u, '. - '.x,
, ' ^-*.
.y a,..,.
,e.
'1 n '. x ' '
l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES l
Atomic Energy Act,189a(l),42 U.S.C. 2239(a'(I) requirement to hold emergency preparedness exercises prior to heense authorization as contravention of hearing rights; ALAB-776,19 NRC 1380 n.23 (1984)
Atomic Energy Act,189a(2)(A),42 U.S.C. 2239(a)(2)(A) effectiveness of operating license amendenent pending completion of required hearing; LBP-8419, 19 NRC 1084 (1984); LBP-84-23,19 NRC 1414 (1984)
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,189b,42 U.S C. 2239(b) right of licensee to reconsideration of order admitting contentions on irreversible license l
amendment action; LBP-84-23,19 NRC 1416 (1984)
Atomic Energy Act, as amended January 4,1983,12(a), Pub. L.97-415 effectiveness of amendments to Part 70 fuel hcenses; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 873 (1984)
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,210 discrimination agamst employee fo reporting deficiencies to NRC as a violation of; LBP.84-24,19 NRC 15l& n.27 (1984)
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,88 Stat.1242,42 U.S C. 5801
" agency" status of NRC; LBP-844,19 NRC 405 (1984)
Freedom of Information Act (FotA), $ U.S.C. 552 scope of deliberative privilege; ALAB-773,19 NPC 1341 n 30 (1984) j Low Level Waste Pohey Act of 1980,42 U.S.C. 2021(b) et ceq.
state responsilmhties concerning radioactive waste disposal; LBP-844,19 NRC 415 (1984)
National Environmental Pohcy Act of 1%9,42 U.S.C. 4321, et seg.
adequacy of Staff characterization of groundwater system under Byron; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 219 (1994)
National Environmental Pohey Act,102(2)(C),42 U 5 C. 4332(2)(C) apphcability of floocplain management requirements to NRC; LBP-844,19 NRC 404 (1984) need for preparation of separate environmentalimpact statement for low-power operation; CLI.84-9, 19 NRC 1326 (1984P NRC Authorization Act,12. Pub. L.97-415 effectiveness of opera;ing hcense amendments; LBP-84-19,19 NRC 1084 (1984)
Nuclear Waste Pohcy Act of 1982,42 Ulc.10,101 et seg.
l funding for radioactive waste disposal; LBP-844,19 NRC 413 (1984)
Nuclear Waste Pohcy Act of 1982,306,42 U.S C.10.226 role of NRC Staff in hcensee's trainmg programs; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1238 (1984)
F I
e i
i u
e r
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS 1972 ABA Code of 3udicial Conduct Canon 3(c) standard for disquahfication of a judge; ALAB-759,19 NRC 24 n.37 (1984)
ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility EC 2-32 (1980) (now ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Role 1.16(d)(1983))
Board action on loss of counsel by intervenors; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1246-47 (1984)
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(a)(1) responsibilities of counselin making representations; LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1406 (1984)
ABA Model Rules of Profesmonal Conduct, Rule 3.3(b) obligations of counsel who exercise only a supervisory role over pleadings; LBP 84-22,19 NRC 1408 (1984) 2d Cir. } 46(d); 3d Cir. R. 9 non-attorney representation in NRC proceedmss; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1247 (1984)
Conf. Rep. to H.R. Rep. No. 884,97th Cong.,2d Sesa. 37-38, repnnted in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. &
Ad. News 360),3607 08 need for a hearing on irreversible license amendment actions; LBP-84-23,19 NRC 1415 (1984)
K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise { 7.01 (1958) presentation of new argurnents in proposed findings of fact; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 515 n.14 (1984)
District of Columbia Circuit, local Rule 13(d) need for parties to file new notice of appeal followias decision on remand; ALAB 770,19 NRC 1168 n.14 (1984)
Exec. Order No. 12.127, 44 Fed.Res. 19,367 (1979) agency status of Federal Emergency Management Agency; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1337 an.3,4 (1984)
Exec. Order No. 12,241, 45 Fed. Reg. 64.879 (1980) responsibihties of FEMA; ALAB-773,19 NPC I)38 n.5 (1984)
Fed. Cir. R. 7(a) non-attorney representation in NRC proceedings; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1247 (1,84)
Hearings Before the Joint Comm. on Atomic Energy on S. 3323 and H R. 8862, to Amend the Atomic Ener8y Act of 1946,83d Cong.,2d Sess.1131 (1954)
Commission authority to consider a hcensee's character; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1207 n.10 (1984)
Joint Comm. on Atomic Energy A Proposed Act to Amend the Atonnic Energy Act of 1946,83d Cong. 2d Sess. (1954)
Commission authonty to consider a licensee's character; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1207 n.10 (1984)
- 5. Rep. No. II),97th Cong. 2d Sess.14, repnnted in 1982 U.S. Code Cons. A Ad. News 3592,3598 I
need for a hearing on irreversible license amendment actions; LBP-84-23,19 NRC 1415 (1984)
The Ongmal Roset's Thesaurus il 929,933 (1962) definitions of character and mtegnty as apphed to a licensee; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1207 n.9 (1984)
Webster's Third New International Dictionary 376 (unabridged ed.1976) defin: tion of character relative to an operating hcense apphcant; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 673 n.19 l
l (1984) l Webster's Third New International Dictionary 376,1174 (unabridged ed.1971) definitions of character and integrity as applied to a heensee; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1207 n.9 (1984)
Webster's Third New International Dictionary 463 funabndsed ed.1976) definition of" competence" relative to an operating license apphcant; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 672 n.14 (1984) l 1
t 85
t i
i
+
kI LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHERS 8 Wigmore, Evidence { 2285 U. McNaughton rev.1961) claim of priulege by organization gathering confidentialinformation; Al AB.764.19 NRC 639.
(1984) 8 Wigmore Evidence (( 2285, 2286 U. McNaughton rev. I%It cause for quashing of subpoenas; ALAB-764,19 NRC 642 (1984) 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure; Civd i 1224 (1%9) stature afforded "informaten and belief" pleadings; LBP-84-20.19 NRC 1297 (1984)
Wnght. Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure. ) 2722 (1983) support necessary in opposing summary dispositen motions; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 436 (1984) '
I J
i as l
i
p_- _ _-_-- _ ---_ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _
SUBJECT INDEX ACCIDENT (S) at Clinch River, dose consequences of. LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) core disruptne, definsuon of and analysis of, retalive to Chnch River Breeder Reactor; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) criticality and noncrincahty, from unirradiated fuel stored outside, risk of, LBP-8416,19 NRC 857 (1984) degraded core, techmeal discussion of, LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) design basis, definsuon of, and analysis of, relative to Chnch River Breeder Reactor; LBP-84 4,19 NRC 288 (1984) fuel handhng, at Chnch River, radioactne releases from; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) nuclear, speculauon about, as cause for stayms hcensing decision, CLI-84 5,19 NRC 953 (1984) protected loss-of-heat-sink. at Chnch River, description of, LBP 84-4.19 NRC 288 (1984) reports as evidence, admissibihty of. ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984) scenarios to esaluate impacts of transportation of spent fuel, need for resnalysis of, DD-84-9,19 NRC 1087 (1984) severe, at Byron Stauon, environmental costs of, LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) severe, need for evaluauon of, in corgunction with adverse weather; LBP 84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) small-break, loss-of coolant, characterisucs of CLI-84-3,19 NRC 555 (1984)
TMI-2, management response to; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984) with crane at Perry plant, demat of 2.206 petiuon requestmg independent analysis of. DD-841,19 NRC 471 (1984)
ADJUDICATORY BOARDS authority of, to direct NRC Staff m performance ofits duties; ALAB-772.19 NRC 119) (1984) role of, relauve to unhty management; SAB-771,19 NRC 1883 (1984)
ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDINGS financial assistance to intervenors in; ALAB-772,19 NRC 119) (1984)
AFFIDAVITS anonymous, as evidence supporting motion to reopen the record ALAB-775,19 NRC 1361 (1984) l AGREEMENT between parties, termmation ofintervenuon on basis of, LBP-84-15A,19 NRC 852 (1984)
See also Letters of Agreement ALARA as related to steam generators at Byron Stauon; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
See also Radiation Doses ALTERNATIVES to nuclear power plants LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
See also Coal AMENDMENT (S) of new fuel hcense, stay of effectivenen of LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) of rules of practice to require nu; tear power plants to protect agamst electromagneuc pulses, denial of pention for; DPRM-84-1,19 NRC 1599 (1984) operaung hcense, effectneness of, m advance of hearms: LBP-84-19,19 NRC 1076 (1984) to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, need for submission of design details or cost informauon with proposed, DPRM 84-1,19 NRC 1599 (1984)
See also Operaung License Amendment (s) 87 a
l l
i SUBJECT INDEX 4
AMICUS CURIAE partiopation by electnc utihty group as. ALAB 769,19 NRC 995 (1984)
APPL AL BOARD d,smissal of referral of ruimg rejectmg portions of untimely contention; ALAB.768.19 NRC 988 (1984) junsdicuon following final determmanon on a discrete issue; ALAB-766.19 NRC 981 (1984) junsdwuon of. ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984) junsdiction oser Part 70 licenses. LBP-84-16.19 NRC 857 (1984) junsdicuon to remand a record to a Licensmg Board for further heanng; AL AB-770.19 NRC 1163 (1984) pohey concerning late-filed contentions admitted by Licensmg Boards. ALAB 769,19 NRC 995 (1984)
APPEAL (S)
{
after further hearings on remanded record. need for party to file nouce of; ALAB-770,19 NRC 1163 (19841 APPEAL (S t. INTERLOCUTORY f
by nonparty to operstmg heense proceedms; AL AB-764.19 NRC 63) (1984) arcumstances appropnate for. LBP 84 23.19 NRC 1412 (1984),
t of Licenur.g Board dismissal of portions of untimely contenuon; ALAB-768.19 NRC 988 (1984)
I APPLICANT for an operstmg heense, managerial character and competence requirements for. LBP-8413.19 NRC 659 (19848 standards for reopenmg the record by; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 509 (1984)
See also Licensee (sj ASME CODE '
simultaneous effect of AWS Code provisions with; LBP-84 25.19 NRC 1589 (1984)
{
work at Zimmer, adequacy of means for venficanon of. DD 84-3.19 NRC 480 (1984 AUXILIARY BUILDING I
at Dublo Canton. adequacy of modehns of soil springs for; ALAB-76.519 NRC 571 (1984)
AUXILI ARY FEEDWATER PUMPS at Diablo Canton, adequacy of fire protechon for. ALAB 763.19 NRC 571 (19841 AUXILIARY FEED % ATER SYSTEM senfication of dewsn of, at Diablo Canyon. ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) l See also Emergency Feedwater System AWSCODE j
spphcability of, to ASME pipe supports; LBP-84-25.19 NRC 1589 (1984) f comphance with, at Comanche Peak; LBP-8410.19 NRC 509 (1984)
BACKFILL y
at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of soils analyses of; ALAB-76).19 NRC 571 (1984)
BOARD NOTIFICATION nght of apphcant or hcensee to review documents before submitting; ALAB-774.19 NRC 1350 (1984)
BOARDS See Adjudicatory Boards, Appeal Board. Licensms Board (si CABLES See Electncal Cables CADWELDS at South Tesas Project, loss of documents relating to. LBP 8413.19 NRC 659 (1984)
CAllFORNIA -
heensees' need to consider effects of earthquakes in their emerlency plannmg; CLI-84 4.19 NRC 937 (1984)
CANCER anjgenenc tak esumates, rejecuon of comenuons relaung to; LBP 8415.19 NRC 837 (1984) mortahty data, influences on. LBP-84-85.19 NRC 837 (1984 radiauon-induced, hogabihty of pam and suffenna aspects of. LBP-84-7.19 NRC 432 (1984) nsk from exposure to low level, ef radiation; LBP-84-2.19 NRC 36 (1984)
Sg I
.-_-___..,___.__.__.____-__L_
SUBJECT IN DEX risk to the pubhc from normal operation of Chnch Rner Breeder Reactor. LBP-84 4.19 NRC 288 (1984) -
See also Health Effects CERTIFICATION grant of a request for; LBP-84-23.19 NRC 1412 (1934) of quahty assurance mspectors at Byron plant, adequacy of; ALAB-770.19 NRC 1163 (1984) of question of whether hmitation should be placed on scope of late-filed contemions, denial of request for; LBP-84-17A.19 NRC 1011 (1984i See also Directed Certification CHARACTER and competence of apphcant to overate Diablo Canyon facihty, den.al of motion to reopen record on issue of; ALAB-775.19 NRC 1361 (1984) -
bad. of hcensee, evidence of. ALAB-7/4.19 NRC 1350 (1984) legal standards for determmms; LBP-8413.19 NRC 659 (1984) lwensee, relevance of corporate philosophy and management to; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1893 (19843 managerial, of an operatms hcense apphcant, discussion of. LBP-84-13.19 NRC 659 (1984I of hcensee. Commission authonty to consider; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1193 (1984)
CHEATING on reactor operator exams at TMI. mvestigation of; ALAB-772.19 NRC 1193 (1984)
CHIN A SYNDROME description of. LBP-84-4.19 NRC 288 (1984)
CLASSlFICATION of safety-related structures, systems and components for purpose of quahty assurance program; ALAB-769.19 NRC 995 (1984)
COAL partrulate emissons adequacy of Staff conuderation of environmentalimpacts of. LBP 84 7.19 NRC 432 (1984)
CODE See ASME Code. A%S Code COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL apphcation of, m NRC proceedings; ALAB-759,19 NRC 13 (1984); LBP-84 2, 49 NRC 36 (1984)
See also Em Parte Communxations COMMENT. PUBLIC on review of Zimmer implementation of Course of Action, means provided for; DD 84-3.19 NRC 480 (1984)
COMMUNICATlONS durms a radiologwal ernersency, use of siren system, telephone notifications and route alerting as ;
means of. LBP 8418.18 NRC 1020 (1984) with Byron emergency respnnie organisations, adequacy of. LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
COMPETENCE legal standards for determmms LBP-8413.19 NRC 659 (1984) management, areas of mquiry m the consideration of. ALAB-772.19 NRC 1893 (1984) managenal, c f an operstmg Irense appirant, discusson of; LBP-84-13.19 NRC 659 (19841 COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of heat rtmoval capacity of. ALAB 763.19 NRC $71 (1984)
COMPUTERIZATION of deficiency records for canstruction at Comanche Peak, regulatory comphance of; LBP-84-8.19 NRC 466 (1984)
CONCRETE allegations of honeycombmg in, at Catamba; LBP 84-24.19 NRC 1418 (1984) pour-cards, allegations of falsdication of, at South Texas Pro 3ect; LBP-84-13.19 NRC 659 (1984) production at Byron, allegations concernmg quahty of; LBP-84-2.19 NRC 36 (1984p structures at WNP 2. allegations of discrepancies in. DD 84-7.19 NRC 899 (1984)
See also Voids CONFLICT OF INTEREST through apphcant's mterrelationships with its vendors and financers, potential for; LBP-84-6.19 - ' -
NRC 393 (1984)
B9
4 SUBJECT INDEX CONSTRUCTION completion date, need to consider health, safety. and environmental effects of, LBP-84 9.19 NRC -
497 (1984) corner cutung at Catamba. allegations of; LBP-84-24.19 NRC 1418 (1984) deficiencies and Company pressure to approve faulty workmanship at Catawba, allegations of.
LBP 84-24.19 NRC 1418 (1984) deficiency records at Comanche Peak, adequacy of computerizauon of; LBP-84-8.19 NRC 466 (1984) of nuclear power plants, penalty for failure to meet date for completion of; ALAB-77I.19 NRC 1183 11984) of Pomt Pleasant Diversion Project, alleged impacts related to; DD-84-13.19 NRC 1137 (1984) of WNP 2 facihty, alleganons of deficiencies in; DD-84-7.19 NRC 899 (1984) quahty assurance issues, densal of monon to reopen record on; ALAB-775.19 NRC 1361 (1984) quahty assurance programs at South Texas Project, adequacy of; LBP-8413.19 NRC 659 (1984) quahty necessary for grant of an operating hcense; DD 84-7.19 NRC 899 (1984)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT audit of management performance ordered as a result of violanon of. DD-84 2.19 NRC 478 (1984) circumstances appropriate for suspension. revocation, or modificauon of. DD-84-13,19 NRC 1837 (1984) good cause fer entension of completion date in; LBP 84 9.19 NRC 497 (1984)
See also Limited Work Authortzauon CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXTENSION apphcation. effect of, on exisung construction permit; ALAB-771,19 NRC 1883 (1984) proceedmas scope of. ALAB-171.19 NRC 1883 (1984); CL184-6.19 NRC 97$ (1984) summary disposition of contention challenging good cause for oblaming; ALAB-771,19 NRC !!83 (1984:
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PROCEEDING 5 need for Licensms Board to issue initial decision on uncontested proceedings. ALAB 761,19 NRC 487 (1984)
CONSULTANTS salue of testimony by; ALAB 772.19 NRC 1193 (1984)
CONTAINMENT allegations of reber missms from; LBP 8413.19 NRC 659 (1984)
Diablo Canyon, potential for uphfting of; ALAB-763.19 NRC 571 (1984) for breeder reactor, descripuon of, LBP-84 4.19 NRC 288 (1984)
South Texas Project, adequacy of membrane seals in; LBP 84-13.19 NRC 659 (1984)
South Texas Project, existence of voids in walls of. LBP 84-13.19 NRC 659 (19847 spray system, effect of out-of-round pipmg on safety of; LBF-84-24.19 NRC 1418 (1984)
CONT AMIN ATION of groundwater by radionuchdes; LBP-84-2.19 NRC 36 (1984)
See also Decontammation CONTENTION (5) admissible in construction permit extension proceedmss, scope of. ALAB-778.19 NRC 1883 (1984) basis for granting summary disposinon of. ALAB-711.19 NRC 1883 (1984) burden of going forward on; ALAB 772.19 NRC 1193 (1984) challengms good cause for obtamms construcuon permit eatension, summary disposinon of; ALAB 77I.19 NRC 118) (1984) deferred ruhngs on admissibihty of. LBP-84-18.18 NRC 1020 (1984) dismissal of. for failure of party to file proposed f.ndings on; LBP 84 24.19 NRC 1418 (1984) chmmanon of the basis for hearing through withdrawal of; LBP 84 II 19 NRC 533 (1984) erroneous admission of, as basis for interlocutory review; LBP-84-23.19 N RC 1412 (1984) filed before close of record but ruled on after close of record, standards govermns treatment of; LBP-84-20.19 NRC 1285 (1984) health efTects, summary disposnion of. LBP 84-7.19 NRC 432 (1984) interlocutory appeal of dismissal of poruons of; ALAB 768.19 NRC 988 (1984) late-filed, admitted by Licensing Boards, Appeal Board pohcy concernmg; ALAB-769,19 NRC 995 (1984) 98
O SUBJECT INDEX late-Gled factors balanced in determming admissibihty of; LBP-841,19 NRC 29 (1984);
LBP 84-17,19 NRC 878 (1984); LBP-84 20.19 NRC 1285 (1984) late-Gled, need for further quahGcation following admission of. LBP-84-17 A.19 NRC 1011 (19841 late fileJ treatment of, as motion to reopen secord; LBP-84 20,19 NRC 1285 (19841 hmitations on discovery relesant to; LBP-84 24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) opposing the laws of physics, admissibihty of; ALAB-765,'19 NRC 645 (1984) pre naturity of; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) propriety of Board reformulation of. ALAB 769,19 NRC 995 (1984) relating to suspension of technical speciGcations, admission of, in operatmg beense amendment proceedmg; LBP-84-19,19 NRC 1076 (1984) requirement for intervention; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) satisfaction of basis and specificity requiremems for; LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1285 (198a) scope of, for construction permit extension proceedmss; CLI-84-6,19 NRC 975 (19841 specificity required of, LBP-84-1,19 NRC 29 (19841 that are or are about to become the subject of rulemaking, litigabihty of; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) untimely, admissibihty of, where good cause is shown for lateness; ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 (1984)
CONTRACTORS construction, at B>ron plant, quahty assurance oversight of, LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984:
CONTROL ROOM st Catawba, rain damage to; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) ventilation and pressunzation system, serafication of design of, at Diablo Can>on-ALAB-43,19 NRC 571 (1984)
COOLANT i
leakage of, from pnmary to secondary system. LBP 84-2.19 NRC 36 (19847 COOLING SYSTEMS See Component Coohng Water $) stem, CoWant COOLING WATER supplemental, for Limerick facihty, allegations of changed circumstances regarding supply of; DD-84-13,19 NRC 1837 (1984)
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS comphance of WNP-2 with quahty assurance cniena for; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984)
CORROSION See Denimg,Intergranular Stress Corrosion Crackmg. Pittmg COUNSEL sanctions agamst, for material misrepresentation; LBP-84 22,19 NRC 1383 (1984 CRITICALITY accidents, nsk of, from unitradiated fuel stored outside; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) potential of new fuel, technical discussion of; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984)
CYANIDE contammation of Byron site groundwater by; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
DECAY HEAT removal at Chnch River, descnption of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
See also Heat Removal DECISION heensing. speculation about nucicar accident as cause for stay of;CL184-5,19 NRC 953 (1984) releasms FEM A documents, resersal of ALAB 773,19 NRC 1333 (1984)
DECISION, INITIAL effectiveness and review of; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) on uncontested construct:on permit proceedings. need for Licensms Board issuance of. ALAB-761,
'19 NRC 487 (1984)
See also Opmions Orders DECONTAMINATION in the event of radiological emergency at Fermi plant. adequacy of County stafGng for; DD 84-II.
19 NRC 1108 (1984)
DEFAULT for failure to Glc findings of fact; AL 48-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984) 91
t I
t I
E SUBJECT INDEX r
- I DEFICIENCIES in construction and management of WNP-2 facility, allegations of; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984) in construction at Catawba, alleganons of LBP-44e24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) in design of Diablo Canyon; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) in design quahty assurance, terminology relative to; LBP 84-10,19 SRC 509 (1984) quahty assurance, scope of evidence of, required to reopen a record; ALAB 775,19 NRC 1361 (1984) report obligations for, under secuan 50.55(e); DD-84-8,19 NRC 924 (1984)
See also Noncompliances Nonconformances DEFICIENCY REPORTS
,s under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.55(e), relationship of, to quahty assurance requirements; LBP-84-l),19 NRC
'"^
659 (1984)
DFFINITION($)
of "matenal' as used in matenal false statement; ALAB-774,19 NRC 1350 (1984) of" knowingly" as apphed to the making of false staten.ents; LBP 84-20,19 NRC 1285 (1984) of" safety-related" and *(mportant to safety" and " engineered safety features"; ALAB-769,19 NRC 995 (1984) of character and integrity; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193 (1984) of rad and rem; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
DELAY of a heensmg proceedmg pending disposition of a case bems presented to a State authority; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984J of construction, good cause for, relevant to obtaining an entensma of construction completion date; ALAB-771,19 NRC 1183 (1984)
DENTING of steam generator tubes, desenption of, and remedy for; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
~4
- 1 DESIGN d( S changes at South Texas Project, adequacy of venfication and approval of; LBP-8413,19 NRC 659
=#
(1984) control cntena, conformance of standby service water system at WNP-2 with; DD-84-7,19 NRC.
- 9 (1984) critena for onsite electnc oower systems m nuclear power plants; ALAB-768,19 NRC 988 (1984) defense-m-depth, approach to Chnch River Breeder Reactor Project; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) drawings, conformance of Diablo Canyon as-built with; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) of Diablo Canyon facihty, adequacy of apphearts efforts to venfy; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) of nuclear power plants, general enteria for; ALAB-769,19 NRC 995 (1984) 2 b
cf nuclear power plants, standard for determining adequacy of; ALAB-763,19 NA 571 (1984)
// '
quahty assurance issues. demal of motion to reopen record on; ALAB 775,19 NRC 1361 (1984) specincations for pipe supports for FitzPatruk, loadmg conditions and allowable stress limits apphcable to; DD-8414,19 NRC 1307 (1984) -
See also Se smic Design DIESEL FUEL tanks, buned, at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of soils analyses for; ALA8-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
DIESEL GENERATORS at Catawba, adequacy of design of. ALAB-768,19 NRC 988 (1984) at Catawba, damage to, from flooding; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
DIRECTED CERTIFICAT10N showing necessary for Appeal Board exercise et its authonty for; ALAB-762,19 7IRC 565 (1984)
DISCOVERY order, interlocutory appeal of, by nonparty to operstmg hcense proceedmg; ALAB-764,19 NRC 633 (1984).
relevant to a contention, hmitations on; LBP 84 24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
DISQUALIFICATION of Licensms Board judge because of prior consultant relationship with eclear power plant apphcant; ALAB 759,19 NRC 13 (1984) cf Licensing Board members, standards govermng; ALAB 759,19 NRC 13 (1984)
Ns 13 92 Y
k
l
=
l l
SUBJECT INDEX I'
DOCUMENT CONTROL at Byron plant, inadequacies in; ALAB-770,19 NRC 1863 (1984)
DOCUMENTS completion of fihng of,in NRC heensing proceedmas; ALAB-774,19 NRC 1350 (1984) quahty assurance /quahty control, need for consolidation of, ALAB-763,19 NRC $75 (1984) relatmg to cadwelds at South Texas Project, loss of; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984) standard for sdmission of, as evidence; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984)
DOSE (5) consequences of accidents at Cimch River; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) distinction between dose commitment and; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) from radionuchdes, over milhons of years, consideration of LBP-84-15,19 NRC 837 (1984) modelms, mathematscal, of radionuclides in the environment; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984)
See also Radiation Doses DOSIMETERS self-readmg and permanent record, for emergency workers, need for; LBP-84-18,18 NRC 1020 (1984)
EARTHQUAKE (S) need to consider impact of, on emergency plannms, CLI 84-4,19 NRC 937 (1984) preparedness, function of FEMA relative to; CLI-84-4,19 NRC 93? (1984k stresses, use of appropriate Code regarding; DD-8414,19 NRC l P (1984)
See also Safe Shutdown Earthquake ECONOMIC IMPACTS of hcensed activities, institution of show-cause proceedings to explore; DD-84-1,19 NRC 471 (1984).
ECONOMICS of safe disposal of radioactive wastes LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
EFFECTIVENESS of amendinent to new fuel hcense, stay of; LSP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) of operating hcense amendment in advance of heanng; LBP-8419,19 NRC 1076 (1984)
ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Scrificatum of design of, at Diablo Canyon; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS onsite and offsite need for availabihty of, for low-power operatorin of nuclear pour plants; CLI-84-8,19 NRC I154 (1984) onsite, for nuclear power plants, general criteria for; ALAB 768,19 NRC 988 (1984)
See also Emergency Power Supply ELECTRICAL CADLES adequacy of protection of, at Catawba; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) at WNP-2, correction of discrepancies in separation and installation of, DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (19841 ELECTROM AGNETIC PULSES denial of petition to amend rules to require nuclear power plants to protect against; DPRM 84-1,19 NRC 1599 (1984)
EMBRITTLEMENT I
of reactor pressure vessel at Catawba, potential for; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
EMERGENCY j
timing on declaration of; DD-84-II,19 NRC 1108 (1984)
EMERGENCY FEEDWATER 5YSTEM at TMI-I, demal of 2.206 petition for suspension of opersims hcense pendmg rectification of alleged deficiencies in; DD-84-12,19 NRC 1128 (1984)
See also Availiary Feedwater System EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTERS designation t.f. in Limerick emergency plan; LBP-84-18.18 NRC 1020 (19847 EMERGENCY PLANNING adequacy of, at Beaver Valley; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) at Pilgrim facihty, denial of request for action respectirig the state of, DD-84-5,19 NRC 542 (1984)~
basis for co@eration of natural hazards sn; CLI-84-4,19 NRC 937 (1984) 93 t
1
~
SUBJECT INDEX esumation of traffic times and average generic shelterms values for purposes of, LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
Federal Emer ency Management Agency role in. DD-84-II,19 NRC 1108 (1984)
. for Chnch River Project, feasihhty of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) issues, treatment snen by Licensing Board to; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) need for final FEM A findmss on adequacy of, before issu.nce of full-power heense; ALAB-776,19 NRC 1373 (1984) need to consider impact of earthquakes on; CLI-84 4,19 NRC 937 (1984)
See alsa Evacumuon, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Medical Services EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE charactenstics of. CLI-84 4,19 NRC 937 (1984) extension of; DD 84-5,19 NRC 542 (1984) for Wolf Creek facihty, htigabihty of late-filed contention questiones adequacy of, LBP-84-1,19 NRC 29 (1984) plume exposure pathway, a4ustments in size of, LBP-84-18,18 NRC 1020 (1984) plume exposure pathway, nottGcation of transient population in; LBP-84-18,18 NRC 1020 (1984)
EMERGENCY PLANS admissibihty of contennons on undeveloped portions of; LbP-8418,18 NRC 1020 (1984) adopuon of, by local organizations; LBP-84-18,18 NRC 1020 (1984) basis for NRC findmss on adequacy of; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1333 (1984) contents of implementmg procedures of LBP-8418,18 NRC 1020 (1984) for Fermi plant, capabihty of County to carry out; DD 84 II,19 NRC 1108 (1984) hstmg of names and numbers of offsate management in; LBP-84-18,18 NRC 1020 (1984) -
htigabihty of the availabihty of resources to implement; LBP-84-18,18 NRC 1020 (1984) need for inclusion of letters of agreement in: LBP-8418,18 NRC 1020 (1984) need to ccnduct esercises and dnlis to test efficacy of, LBP-8418,18 NRC 1020 (1984) -
provision for protecuon of school students and staff in; LBP-8418,18 NRC 1020 (1984)
EMERGLNCY POWER SUPPLY at Diab'o Canyon, requirements for protection of ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
' findmss necessary for issuance of full-power operaung hcense; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1333 (1984)
- offsite, basis for NRC findmss on adequacy of. ALAB 776.19 NRC 1373 (1984)
EMERGENCY RESPONSE ORGANIZATIONS for Byron plant, adequacy of communications between; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) for Limerick, adequacy of stalling of LBP-8418,18 NRC 1020 (1984)
EMERGENCY WORKERS for Fermi plant, withnsness to parucipate in and respond to radiological emergencies; DD 84 II,19 NRC I108 (19114)
EMISSIONS. R ADIOACTIVE from Byron plant, adequacy of momtorms of, LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
See also Radioactive Releases. Radon EMPLOYEES transient, at Byron Stanon, occupauonal radiauon esposure to; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS effect of, on hcensing actions. ALAB-772,19 NRC i193 (1984)
ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES interpretation of ALAB 769.19 NRC 995 (1984)
ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS of severe accidents at Byron Station; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS of catension of construcuon compicuon date, need to consider; LBP-84-9,19 NRC 497 (1984) of low power operation, need for assessment of. ALAB-769,19 NRC 995 (1984)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (S) need for reconsideration of decisions based on,in hght of new information; DD 8413,19 NRC 1837 (1984) separate, for low-power operauon, need for preparation of, CLI-84 9,19 NRC 1323 (1984)
See also Final Environmental Statement 94
I SUBJECT INDEX ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS of coal paruculate emissions, adequacy of Staff consideration of, LBP-84 7,19 NRC 432 (1984) of transportation of radioactive materials, NRC studies of; DD-84-9,19 NRC 1087 (1984)
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES authorizauon for fuel loadmg and precrincality tesung prior to decision on; LBP-84-21,19 NRC 1304 (1984)
EQUIPMENT, SAFETY GRADE htigability of contention concerning interactions between ausahary 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)
EVACUATION aberrational behavioral aspects durms; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) of Fermi area people without transportanon, capabihty of County organisation for; DD 84-il,19 -
NRC 1108 (1984) of schoolchildren and their parents, adequacy of Byron plans for; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) time estimates for Limerick plume EPZ, adequacy of; LBP-84-18,18 NRC 1020 (1984) time esumates for Pilgrim facihty, adequacy of; DD-84-5,19 NRC 542 (19847 time estimates, consideration of site-specific adverse condinons in; CLI 84-4,19 NRC 937 (1984) time study for Byron plant, analysis of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
EVIDENCE admissibahty of accident reports as; ALAB-772,19 NRC 119) (1984) determinative effect of, for purpose of reopenmg record, ALAB-775,19 NRC 1361 (1984) duty of citizens to provide; ALAB-764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
Licensing Board authority to alter the order of presentation of, ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193 (1984) of quality assurance deficiencies required to reopen a record; ALAB 775,19 NRC 1361 (1984) witness demeanor as basis for creditnlity of; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984)
EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS Staff proposal for amendment of regulations as; CLI-84-10,19 NRC 1330 (19841 EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE governmental documents protected by; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1333 (1984)
EXEMPTION from regulations, basis for; CLI 84-8,19 NRC 1154 (1984) from regulatory requirements for low-power license, Commission gusdance on conduct of hearms on; CLi-84 8,19 NRC I154 (1984) from requirement for criticahty monitoring system; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984)
EXTENSION of construcuon completion date, good cause for; ALAB-771,19 NRC 1183 (1984); LBP-84-9,19 NRC 497 (1934)
FALSE STATEMENTS definition of " knowingly" as apphed to the makms of, LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1285 (1984)
See also Material False Statements FAULT (S) activity in vicinity of Clinch River; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
Copper Creek and Whiteoak Mountam, proximity of, to Chnch River Breeder Reactor plant; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1980 proximity of, to Byron site; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
See also Earthquake (s). Hongri Fault, Plum River Fault, Sandwich Fault, Seismicity FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY final findmss on adequacy of emergency preparedness, need for, before issuance of full-power license; ALAB-776,19 NRC 1373 (1984) function of, relative to earthquake preparedness; CLI-84 4,19 NRC 937 (1984) responsibihties of, rc 3ardmg emergency planning for nuclear power plants; AL AB 773,19 NRC 1333 (1984); DD-84-5,19 NRC 542 (1984); DD-84-II.19 NRC 1108 (1984)
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT modification of, by Board's findmss and conclusions; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) 95
r i
SUBJECT INDEX FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE to intervenors in NRC proceedings, preclusion of; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193 (1984)
FIN ANCI AL CAPABILITIES of apphearts to cover radioactive waste disposal, htigability of, in operstmg beense proceedmss; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
FINDINGS necessary for issuance of Limited Work Authorization; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
FINDINGS OF FACT effect of failure to file; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984) penalty for failure ofintervenor to file; LBP-84 24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) proposed, new arguments in; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 509 (1984)
FIRE PROTECTION for auxiliary feedwater pump room at Diablo Canyon, deviation from heensing criteria for; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
See also Pyrophoric Materials FISH kills from thermal discharges into SHNPP reservoir, adequacy of consideration of; LBP-84-15,19 NRC 837 (1984)
FLOODING of diesel generator rooms at Catawba, damage from; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT requirements, apphcability of, to NRC; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
FUEL handhng accidents at Clinch River, assessment of radioactise releases from; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) handling buildmg at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of modelms of; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) loadmg at Diablo Canyon, risk to public from; CLt-84-1,19 NRC I (1984) loadar.,,, authorization for, prior to decision on merits of pendms issues; LBP-84 21,19 NRC 1304 (1984) oxidation phenomenon and its impact on transportauon of spent fuet, technical discussion of; DD-84-9,19 NRC 1087 (1984) unirradiated, stored outside, risk to public from; LBP-8416,19 NRC 857 (1984)
See also Dier;l Fuel, Spent Fuel FUEL,NEW criticahty potential of. ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 (1984) handling 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)
GENERATORS See Diesel Generators, Steam Generators GEOLOGY' of Clinch River setting, analysis of LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
GROUNDWATER under Byron plant, potential contamination of, by radionuchdes; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
HARASSMENT of weldmg inspectors at Catawba; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
HEALTH AND SAFETY effects of catension of construction completion date, need to consider: LBP-84 9,19 NRC 497 (1984)
HEALTH EFFECTS contentions, summary disposition of; LBP-84 7,19 NRC 432 (1984) issues which challenge BEIR estimates, precondition to heanns on; LBP-8415,19 NRC 837 (1984) of low level radiation, challenges to NRC asacssments of LBP 84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984)
See also Cancer HEARING (5) effectiveness of heense amendment in advance of; LBP-8419,19 NRC 1076 (1984) elimination of the basis for, through withdrawal of all contentions; LBP-84-II,19 NRC 533 (1984) 96
SUBJECT INDEX on apphcant's request for exemption from regulatory requirements for a low-power license, Commission guidance on conduct of; CLI-84-8,19 NRC 1854 (1984) on operating trense amendment, nght to; LBP-84-19,19 NRC 1076 (1984); LBP 84-23,19 NRC 1412 (1984) on sancuons, standing to request; LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1383 (1981) requirement for raaterials licenses; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984) -
HEAT REMOVAL capacity of componest coating water system at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984) syste.ns at Clincti Rivar, desenption of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
See also Decay Heat HIGH PRESSURE CORE SPRAY SYSTEM amendment of operstmg license to redefme technical specifrauons for operabihty range for; LBP-8419,19 NRC 1076 (1984)
HONEYCOMBING of concrete at Catawba, anegations of, LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
HOSGRI FAULT characterization of, relauve to Diablo Canyon facihty; CLI-84-5,19 NRC 953 (1984)
HOUSEKEEPING
- at WNP-2, idenuficauon and correcuon of weaknesses in; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984)
INFORMATION materiality of, for purpose of disclosure to a Board, ALAB-774,19 NRC 1350 (1984)
INSPECTORS See Quality Assurance inspectors INTERGRANULAR STRESS CORROSION CRACKING at Byron Stanon, means for mitigation of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) of reactor piping at Vermont Yankee facihty, catent of; DD-84-10,19 NRC 1094 (1984)
INTERPRETATION of the terms "important to safety" and " safety-related"; CLI-84-9,19 NRC 1323 (1984)
See also Definition (s)
INTERVENOR($)
admiss#on of, in operatmg trense amendment proceeding; LBP-84-19,19 NRC 1076 (1984) in NRC proceedmss. preclusion of fmancial assistance to; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984) hmitation on participation by,in Limited Work Authortzation proceedmg; ALAB-761,19 NRC 487 (1984) protechon of emergency planning interests of, LBP 84-1,19 NRC 29 (1984)
INTERVENTION by an interested state; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) -
contenuon requirement for; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) late, concerning prematunty of operating hcense application, denial of ALAB-758,19 NRC 7 (1984) late, newly acquired orgamzauonal status as justificanon for; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 878 (1984) late, showing necessary on other factors when good cause is not shown for; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 878 (1984) termmanon of, on basis of agreement between pernes; LBP-84-15 A,19 NRC 852 (1984) unumely, abihty of peutioner for, to assist in developing a sound record; ALAB-767,19 NRC 984 (1984) wi-hdrawal of petition for; LBP-84-5,19 NRC 391 (1984) petitions, pleading requirements for; CLI-844,19 NRC 975 (1984)
INVESTIGATIONS conducted by Licensing Boards; LBP-84-3,19 NRC 282 (1984)
JET IMPINGEMENT effects on design and quahreation of safety related equipment and pipmg inside Diablo Canyon -
containment, adequacy of analysis of; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
JURISDICTION, LICENSING BOARD over Part 70 hcenses; ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 (1984); LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) over Staff orders; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) relative to operating teenses; ALAB-758,19 NRC 7 (1984) 97
SUBJECT INDEX JURISDICTION, APPELLATE following Commission enforcement order condnionally suspe ndmg low-power imense; ALAB 763, 19 NRC 571 (1984) followmg final determmation on a discrete issue; ALAB-766 19 NRC 981 (1994) generally; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984) over cancelled umts, termination of; ALAB-760,19 NRC 26 (1984) over Part 70 hcenses, LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) to remand a record to a Licensms Board for further hearing. ALAB 770,19 NRC !!63 (1984)
LAMINATIONS in steel plate at Catamba, desenpiton of and effect on welding; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
LEAK RATE DATA falsafication of, at TMI-l, monon to reopen record on basis of; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1893 (1984)
LETTERS OF AGREEMENT need for inclusion of, in emergency plans; LBP-84-18,18 NRC 1020 (1984)
LICENSEE (S) consideration of character of, in decidmg status of operstmg hcense; AL AB-772,19 NRC !!93 (1984) duty of, to protect the public health and safety; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984) evidence of bad character of; ALAB-774,19 NRC 1350 (1984) management competence of, areas of inquiry in the consideration of ALAB 772,19 NRC 1193 (1984) tramms programs, role of NRC Staff m; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984)
See also Apphcant LICENSES Part 70. Licensms Board junsdiction over; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984)
Part 70, stay of effecuveness of amendment of; LBP 84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984)
See also Materials License. Operaung License (s)
LICENSING BOARD (S) authonty to alter the order of presentation of evidence; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193 (1984) authority to call nonexpert witnesses; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193 (1984) authority to call witnesses; LBP-84 7,19 NRC 432 (1984) authority to establish time hmits for examinatiot of witnesses; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) authonty to limit parucipation by intervenors; ALAB 761,19 NRC 487 (1984) authority to shape proceedmss, use of, to accept late filed contenuon; LSP-84-20,19 NRC 1285 (1984) delegation ofissues by, for post-heanns resolunon; ALAB-770,19 NRC 1163 (1984) discretion in callms of independent expert witnesses; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1l93 (1984) investiganon of quality assurance allegations, cause for; LBP-84-3,19 NRC 282 (1984) jurisdiction of; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984) jurisdiction over Part 70 hcenses; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) jur sdicuon over Staff orders; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) junsdiction relative to operating trenses, scope of; ALAB-758,19 NRC 7 (1984) members, standards goverrung disquahfication of; ALAB-759,19 NRC 13 (1984) requirements, confhct between regulations and; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984) responsibiliues for resolution ofissues in special proceedings; ALAB-772,19 NRC !!93 (1984) responsibihues of parties and counsel to disclose informanon to; LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1383 (1984) responsabihty for definmg scope and type of proceedmss before; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984) responsabihty of, relevant to findings authorizing openting hcenses; ALAB-770,19 NRC Il63 (1984)
LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZATION lindmss necessary for issuance of, LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) proceedings, limitations on intervenor participation in; ALAB-761,19 NRC 487 (1984)
MAIN STEAM LINE RUPTURE DETECTION SYSTEM purpose of; DD-8412,19 NRC 1128 (1984)
MAINTENANCE preventative, at WNP-2, adequacy of, DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984) program at TMI-1, adequacy of, ALAB 772,19 NRC 1893 (1984) 98
SUBJECT INDEX MANAGEMENT attitude, misrepresentation of test data as a facet of; LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1285 (1984) audit ordered at Midland as a result of violation of construction permits; DD-84-2,19 NRC 478 (1984) of WNP-2 facihty, allegations of denciencies in. DD-84 7,19 NRC 899 (1984)
See also Floodplain Management M ANAGEMENT CAPABILITY operational record of Beaver Valley as basis for uncertainty as to; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT (S) '
as evidence of bad character of hcensee; ALAB-774,19 NRC 1350 (1984) dennition of the term " material"in; ALAB-774,19 NRC 1350 (1984) factors relevant to determining the existence of, LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984) failure to report audit of quehty assurance program as; DD-84 8,19 NRC 924 (1984) in operating hcense apphcation, revocanon of hcense for; ALAB 774,19 NRC 1350 (1984)
NRC enforcement pokcy for; DD-84-8,19 NRC 924 (1984) regarding design and construction quahty assurance denciencies at Diablo Canyon, investigation of allegations of; CLI 84-5,19 NRC 953 (1984) test for materiahty of; LBP 84-22,19 NRC 1383 (1984)
See also False Statements, Misrepresentation M ATERIALS CONTROL at Byron Station, adequacy of LBP-84-2.19 NRC 36 (1984) at WNP 2, diacrepancies in; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984)
MATERIALS LICENSE hearing requirements for; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984) notice requirement for; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984) under Part 70, need for utihty to obtain; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984)
MEDICAL SERVICES adequacy of Byron emergency plans concerning; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
METEOROLOGY adverse, evaluation of severe accidents in coruunction with; LBP-84 24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
See also Weather MISREPRESENTATION material, sanctions against counsel for, LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1383 (1984) of soils data, admission of late-filed contentions based on; LBP 84-20,19 NRC 1285 (1984)
MODELING of f,iet handhng build ng at Diablo Canyon, adequacy of, ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) of sod springs for Diablo Canyon ausihary building, adequacy of, ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
MONITORING criticahty, of unstradiated fuel stored outside, exemption from requirement for; LBP 84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) ofleakage of coolant from primary to secondary system at Byron Station, means for; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) of radioactive emissions from Byron plant, adequacy of; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) -
of radionuchdes near research reactor, agreement concerning; LBP 84-15A,19 NRC 352 (1984) steam generator tube integrity at Byron Station, means for; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) systems at Fermi plant to detect radiological releases, adequacy of, DD-84-II,19 NRC 1108 (1984)
See also Main Steam Line Rupture Detection System MOTION ($)
for reconsideration, need for parties to respond to; ALAB-766,19 NRC 983 (1984) late-nied, Part 70, admesaibihty of; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) to reopen a record, showing necessary to prevail on; ALAB 772,19 NRC 119) (1984) to reopen, specincity required of material supporting; ALAB 775,19 NRC 1361 (1984)
MOUNT ST. HELENS need to consider eruption of, in nuclear power plant emergency plans; CLl 84-4,19 NRC 937 (19841 NATURAL HAZARDS basis for consideration of,in emer8ency planmng; CLI-84-4,19 NRC 937 (1984) 99
. SUBJECT INDEX NEED FOR POWER challenge to regulahon goverrung htigation of LBP-844,19 NRC 393 (1984)
NONCOMPLIANCES at Byron Stauon, record of LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
NONCONFORMANCES documentation of, at Comanche Peak; LBP-84-10,19 NRC $09 (1984)
See also Deficiencies NOTICE of appeal, need for party to file after further heanngs on remanded record, ALAB-770,19 NRC 1163 (1984) requirement for matenals hcenses; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION for improper spent fuel cask handling procedures, issuance of; DD-84-9,19 NRC 1087 (1984) impomuon of, for matenal false statement; DD-84-8,19 NRC 924 (1984)
NOTIFICATION of the public of a radiological emergency through route alertms; LBP44-18,18 NRC 1020 (1984) of transient populauons of a radiologral emergency; LBP-84-18,18 NRC 1020 (1984)
See also Board Notincation NRC PROCEEDINGS compleuon of films of :locuments m; ALAB-774,19 NRC 1350 (1984) nonattorney representauon in; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193 (1984)
See also Adjudicatory Proceedmss, Construction Permit Proceedings, Operating License Amendment Proceedms, Operating License Proceeding NRC STAFF a.athonty of NRC adjudicatory boards over; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1193 (1984) delegation of Licenmng Scard responabahties to; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) interplay between obhgations of, and its participation as a party to an adjudicanon; CLI-84-10,19 NRC 1330 (1984) obhgation to inform Board and parties of Staff action; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) orders, Licensing Board junidiction over; LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984) -
post-heanns resoluuon of issues 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 399 (1984) request to initiate rulemakms to amend 10 C.F.R. 73.40(a), denial of; CLI-8410,19 NRC 1330 (1984) role in hcensee training programs; ALAB-772,19 NRC II93 (1984)
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (S) consderanon of alternauves to; LBP-844,19 NRC 393 (1984) design, general cntena for onsite electnc power systems; ALAB-768,19 NRC 988 (1984) eutension of construction compleuon date for; ALAB-771,19 NRC 1883 (1984) general critena for demsn of; ALAB-769,19 NRC 995 (1984) need for protection of, against electromagnetic pulse; DPRM-84-1,19 NRC 1599 (1984) owners, responsbihty of, to estabhsh and carry out quahty assurance program; ALAB-770,19 NRC 1163 (1984)
NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DIRECTOR '
responsbihty of, regardmg findmss required as precondinon to issuance of operaung hcense; ALAB-758,19 NRC 7 (1984)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION apphcabihty of floodplain management requirements to; LBP-844,19 NRC 393 (1984) authonty to conader a hcensee's character or inteenty; ALAB 772,19 NRC 5193 (1984) enforcement pohey for material false statements; DD-84-8,19 NRC 924 (1984) role of, m operstmg hcense proceedmss, CLI-84-8,19 NRC 1854 (1984) rulemakms authonty of, DD-844,19 NRC 891 (1984)
See also NRC StafT NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM at Diablo Canyon, venfacahon of deman of, ALAB-763,19 NRC 578 (1984)
See also Steam Generators 188
+
\\
SUBJECT INDEX OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT PROCEEDING admission of intervenor in; LBP-8419,19 NRC 1076 (19841 OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENTts) authorizing reracking, consohdation, and temporary storage of spent fuei assembhes in cask laydown area; LBP-84-14,19 NRC 334 (1984) right to hearing on; LBP-84-23,19 NRC 1412 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS apphcation of resjudicata and collateral estoppelin: ALAB-759,19 NRC 13 (1984) delay of, pendmg disposinon of a case bems presented to a State authonty; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) role of the Commission ia; CLI-84-8,19 NRC 1854 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE (5) applicant, character and competence of; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984) apphcanon, degree of completion of reactor required before fihng of ALAB 762,19 NRC 565 (1984) apphcation, denial of untimely petinon concerning prematurity of apphcation for; ALAB-758,19 NRC 7 (1984) at TMI-1, demat of 2.2% penuon for continuauen of suspension of, DD-8412,19 NRC 1128 (1984) condinon, seismic, for Diablo Canyon facility; CLI-84-5,19 NRC 953 (1984) construction quality necessary for grant of, DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984) demal of, for failure to meet quality assurance obligations; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
[
for Diablo Canyon, events leadmg to suspension and reinstatement of; CLI 84-5,19 NRC 953 (1984) full-power, emergency preparedness Andings necessary for issuance of; ALAB 773,19 NRC 1333 (1984) full-power, need for fmal FEM A Gndmss on adequacy of emergency preparedness before issuance of. ALAB-776,19 NRC 1373 (1984) low-power Commismon guidance on conduct of heanns on exempuon from regulatory requirements for; CLI-84-8,19 NRC 1154 (1984) responsibihty for making Gndmss required as precondshon to issuance of, ALAB-758,19 NRC 7 (1984) responsibihty of Licensms Boards retesant to Gndmss authorizmg; ALAB 770,19 NRC 1863 (1984) revocanon of, for material false statement in apphcation for; ALAB-774,19 NRC 1350 (1984) s atus of technical specincations in; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1893 (1984) suspension, demat of show cause request for DD-8410,19 NRC 1094 (1984)
OPER ATION, LOW-POWER need for assessment of environmental effects of; ALAB 769,19 NRC 995 (1984) need for availabihty of onsite and offsste electnc power systems for; CLl-84-8,19 NRC 1854 (1984) need for preparation of separate environmental impact statement for; CLI-84 9,19 NRC 1323 (1984) need to consider impact of earthquakes on emergency plannmg pnor to; CLI-84-4,19 NRC 937 (1984)
OPINIONS advisory, cause for trensing Board issuance of, LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
See also Decision Orders ORDERS 5
Staff, Licensms Board junsdiction over; LBP 84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984)
See also Protecuve Order, Show-Cause Order OVERTIME in performing mamtenance at TMI, safety of, ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984)
PENALTIES civil, assessed esamst Byron Stanon apphcant, amount of; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) for failure to file proposed findmss on a comennon; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
See also Sanctions PETITIONS under 2.206, cause for Staff acnon on; DD-841,19 NRC 471 (1984) 191
(
w-
+
SUBJECT INDEX PIPE SUPPORTS apphcabihty of AWS Code to: LBP 84-25,19 NRC l.889 (1984) at FsuPatruk, abihty of, to withstand normal operating loads; DD-84-14,19 NRC 1307 (1984)
PIPE (5) hanger inspection at B>ron, adequey of program for; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) -
. large, at Cimch Rner, features fer presention of rupture of; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
' out of-round, effect of, on contanment spray system; LBP 84-24,19 NRC 1418 (19841 support instabihty at Comanche Peak, issues that need to be considered regarding; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 509 (1984p -
PIPING reactor, at Vermont Yankee facihry, mtergranular stress corrosson crackmg of; DD-8410,19 NRC 1094 (1984)
. small-bore, at Diablo Can>on, design and analysis of; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984).
PIPING SPANS computer.nalysis of, at Diablo Canyon; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (19846 PITTING of steam generator tubes, descripuon of, and remedy for; LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
PLUM RIVER FAULT descripuon of, in relauon to B>ron sate; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) i POPULATIONS transient, noufication of, durms radiological emergency; LBP-8418.18 NRC 1020 (1984)
POTA551UM IODIDE availabihty of, durms radiological emergency at Fermi plant; DD-84-il,19 NRC 1108 (1984) distribuuon of, to the pubhc; LBP-84-18,18 NRC 1020 (1984)
POWER See Emergency Power Supply Need for Power Nuclear Power Plants PRESSURIZED TilERM AL SHOCK at Beaver Valley, admissibihty of contention concernmg probability of. LBP.e4-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) means for minganon of, at Catamba; LBP 84-24,19 'NRC 1418 (1984)
PRI\\ ILEGE(5)
Court attitudes toward, generally; ALAB 764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
First Amendment, factors balanced in determmmg to gne recognition to; A'.AB 764 19 NRC 633 (1984)
Scholar'*, sahdity of, m modern case law; ALAB-764,19 NRC 633 (198 4)
See also Execuine Prnalege PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT apphcanon of, to sesere accident analysis for Byron plant; LBP 84-2,19 NRL 36 (1984) considerauon of earthquakes m; CLI-84-4,19 NRC 937 (1984)
?
PROOF, BURDEN OF on apphcant, ALAB 763,19 NRC 57118984)
PROTECTIVE ORDER Board assumphon of obedience to; ALAB 764,19 NRC 633 (1984) cause for imposinon of. ALAB-764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
PiROPHORIC M ATERIALS in reactor pressure sessel head at TMI-2, nsk to public from; DD 84-4,19 NRC 535 (1984)
QUALIFICATION (5) i of enginectmg, quahty assurance and craft personnel at WNP 2, evaluanon of; DD-84-7,19 NRC i
899 (1984) of quahty assurance inspectors at Byron plant, adequacy of, ALAB-770,19 NRC 1163 (1984) of safety-related structures, systems and componems for purpose of quahty assurance program; ALAB 769,19 NRC 995 (1984) seismic, of emergency feedwater system at TMI-l, adequacy of; DD-84-12,19 NRC Il28 (1984)
QUALITY ASSURANCE apphcanon of regulatory requirements for; ALAB-769,19 NRC 995 (1984) at Byron, abihty and milhngness of Apphcant to mamtain program for; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) at Diablo Canyon facihty, adequacy of; CLf-84 5,19 NRC 953 (1984) 102 l
l i
k
SUBJECT INDEX construction, at South Texas Project, adequacy of-LBP 84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984) contentions, denial of untimely peution seekmg hugation of,in emergency planning proceedms; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 878 41984) deficiencies, newspaper allegauons of, as grounds for reopening the record, LBP 84-3,19 NRC 282 -
(1984) determination of the scope of the terms "important to safety" and " safety-related" for purpose of evaluating acceptability of programs for, CLl-84-9,19 NRC 1323 (1984) documents, need for conschdauon of, into a manual; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) for design and construcuon of Diablo Canyon, denial of monon to reopen record on; ALAB-775,19 NRC 1361 (1984) for design, regulations apphcable to-LBP-84-10,19 NRC $09 (1984) for design, termmology relative to deficiencies in; LBP-84-lo,19 NRC $09 (1984) of design venfication program for Diablo Canyon, adequacy of; ALAB 763,19 NRC 571 (1984) oversight of construcuon contractors at Byron; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) procedures for assuring regulatory comphance at Calamba; LDP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) program at WNP-2 facility, adequacy of, DD-84-7.19 NRC 899 (1984) program for Cimch River Breeder Reactor, adequacy of; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (l%4) program for design of Diablo Canyon,idenuficanon of causes of falures in; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984) i program, failure to report audit of, as matenal false statement; DD-84-8,19 NRC 924 (1984) requirements apphcable to surseyms; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984) requirements, relauonship of, to deficiency reports under 10 C F.R. 50 $5(e); LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984)
[
responsibihties of nuclear poner plant owners regardms; ALAB-770,19 NRC 1163 (1984)
QUALITY ASSURANCEINSPECTORS at South Tens Project. harassment of LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1184)
RAD defininon of, LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
RADIATION as low as reasonably achievable, regul.iion of mdustnal suposure to; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) effects of, on htmg systems; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (19841 esposure, sources of activity leadmg to; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) hantd from new fuel; ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 t1984) htigabihty of human response et LBP-8418.18 NRC 1020 (1984)
RADIATION DOSES cumulative, to residents of Beaver Valley arsa, adequacy of assessment of LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) due to normal operation of Cimch River Breedct Reactor, average annual; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
See also ALARA Dose (s)
R A DI AT10N, LOW-LEVLL cancer risk from esposure to; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) challenges to NRC assessments of health effects of, LBP-84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984) i RADIOACTIVE RELEASES.
dunns an emergency, capabihty of higrim hcensee to estimate; DD-84-5,19 NRC $42 (1984) resultmg from fuel handlms accidents at Chnch River; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984>.
See also Emissions RADIOACTIVE WASTI'S fundmg to cover costs of disposal of; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (19841 low-lesel, from Beaver Valley, provision for isolation of LBP-84 6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
RADIOGRAPilY of welds at Catawba, adequacy of, LBP 84-24.19 NRC 1418 (1984)
RADIONUCLIDES consideranon of doses from, oser milhons of years; LBP 84 l$,19 NRC 837 (1984) contammanon of groundmaler by; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) monitonns of, near research reactor, agreement concermng; LBP 84-15A.19 NRC 832 (1984' 183
1 SUBJECT INDEX RADON gas emissions, hugabihty of health effects of; LBP-84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984)
REACTOR pipmg at Vermont Yankee facihty,intergranular stress corrosion cracking of; DD-84-lo,19 NRC 1094 (1984) pressurized water, at Byron Station, descripuon of, LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) research, need for protechon of, assinst sabotage; CL184-10,19 NRC 1330 (1984); LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1383 (1984) scram systems at Byron, adequacy of; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
REACTOR CORE meltdown, assessment of consequences of contammahon of Byron groundwater system by; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
REACTOR OPERATOR (S) experience at Diablo Canyon facihty, adequacy of; CLI-84-5,19 NRC 953 (1984) traming ef, at TMI, ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193 (1984)
REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL embnttlement at Catawba, potentui for; LBP 84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) head at TMI-2, denial of request for postponement of hf*ing of, DD-84 4,19 NRC 535 (1984)
REACTOR SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS at Chnch Rner, desenpuon of; LBP 84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
RECONSIDERATION need for basis for motion for; LBP 84-23,19 NRC 1412 (1984) need for parues to respond to monon for; ALAB-766,19 NRC 981 (1984) new arguments in motions for; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 509 (1984) of decisions based on environmental impact statements in hght of new informanon, need for.
DD-84-13,19 NRC 1137 (1984) of ruhng admitting late-f,Hd contentions, denial of motion for; LBP-84-17A 19 NRC 10ll (1984)
RECORD (S) cnteria for reopening; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984) dc6ciency, for construchon at Comanche Peak, regulatory comphance of; LBP 84-8,19 NRC 466 (1984) mamienance, at TMI, accuracy and completeness of; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1193 (1984) newspaper allegations of quahty assurance deficiencies as grounds for reopening; LBP 84-3,19 NRC 282 (1984) quahty assurance, at WNP 2, problems with generauon of; DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984) remand of, to Licensing Board for further hearing; ALAB-770,19 NRC 1863 (1984) reopening by apphcant, standards for; LBP 8410,19 NRC 509 (1984) showing necessary to reopen; ALAB-772,19 NRC i193 (1984) standard for estabiishms a late intervention petiuoner's abihty to andst in developms; ALAB-767, 19 NRC 984 (1984) test for reopenms; ALAB 774,19 NRC 1350 (1984); ALAB-775,19 NRC 1361 (1984) timchness showing necessary for reopenms; ALAB-775,19 NRC 1361 (1984) treatment of late-Gled contennons as monon to recpen; LBP-84 20,19 NRC 1285 (1984) ways in which mtersenhon petitioner can assist in developms; LBP-84-17A,19 NRC 1011 (1984)
RECOVERY AND REENTRY of Fermi plant in event of radiological emersency, adequacy of County funds and esperuse for; DD-84-il,19 NRC 1808 (1984)
REFERRAL OF RULING admitting late-filed contentions, denial of monon for, LBP 8417A,19 NRC 1011 (1984) rejecting poruons of unumely contention, Appeal Board dismesaal of. ALAB-709,19 NRC 948 (1984)
REGULATIONS amendment of; CLI-84-10,19 NRC 1330 (1984) apphcable to quahty assurance for design; LBP-84-10,19 NRC 509 (19847 basis for exempuons from; CLI-84-8.19 NRC 1854 (1984) conniet between Licensmg Board requirements and; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1893 (1984) led
(
_~
l i
SUBJECT INDEX emergency planning, requirements for review of comphcating effects of natural hazards on; CLI-84-4,19 NRC 937 (1984)
See also Rules of Practice REM defimuon of; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
REMAND of proceedmg to Licenung Board for further hearing on hcensee's training program; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984) of record by Appeal Board to Licenang Board for further hearms; ALAB 770,19 NRC 1163 (1984)
REPORTS See Deficiency Reports REPRESENTATION effect on a proceedmg of change in; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1l93 (1984) nonettorney, in NRC proceedmss; AL AB-772,19 NRC !!93 (1984)
RES 3UDICATA apphcation of,in NRC proceedmss; ALAB 759,19 NRC 13 (1984); LBP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
RESTART of TMI-1, background on; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193 (1984) of TMI 1, need for compleaon of long-term actons pnot to: CLI 84-7,19 NRC 185I (1984) proceedmg for TMI 1, scope of, CLI-84-3, l9 NRC 555 (1984)
RETALIATION l
against weldmg inspectors at Catawba for bringms concerns to NAC, alleganons of; LDP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
REVIEW interlocutory, erroneous admisson of contention as basis for; LBP-84-23,19 N RC 1412 (1984) safety, of Diablo Canyon facility, scope of; CLI-84 5,19 NRC 953 (1984) sua sponte, by the Commisanon of TMI-l schedule for completion of tong term actions; CLI-84 7, 19 NRC 1151 (1984)
RICHMOND INSERT 5 testing of, at Comanche Peak; LBP 84-10,19 NRC 509 (1984)
RISK estimates, cancer and genenc, rejection of contennons relaung to; LBP 8415,19 NRC 837 (1984) of cancer fatalities and genetic defects from normal operanon of Clinch River Breeder Reactor; LBP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984) of cancer from expc,sure to low levels of radianon; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984); LDP 84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984) of radiological effects from transport of spent fuel DD-84 9,19 NRC 1087 (1984)
See also Probabilistic Risit Assessment ROUTE ALERTING as a means of noufying the pubhc of a radiological emergency; LBP 8418,18 NRC 1020 (1984)
RULEMAKING initiation of; DD 84-6,19 NRC 891 (1984) insutution of show cause proceedmg to consider issue that is the subject of, DD 84-6,19 NRC 891 (1984) to address the scope of the terms "important to safety" and " safety-related"; CLI-84-9,19 NRC 1323 (19841 to amend 10 C.F.R 73.40(a), denial of NRC Staff request to iniunte; CLI-8410,19 NRC 1330 (1984) to require nuclear power plants to protect against the effects of electromagnetic pulse, demal of request for. DPRM 841,19 NRC 1599 (1984)
RULES OF PRACTICE admissibihty of con'entions opposms the laws of physics; ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 (1984) admissibihty oflate filed Part 70 motiaar, LBP-8416,19 NRC 857 (1984)
Appeal Board pohey concernmg late filed contennons adnutted by Licensing Boards; ALAB 769,19 NRC 995 (1984) appealabihty of final orders on motions related to Part 70 licenses; LBP-8416,19 NRC 357 (1984) 106 1
SUBJECT INDEX apphcation of res judicata and collateral estoppel in hcensing proceedmss; LBP-84-2.19 NRC 36 (19'4s assumption that protective orders will be obe>cd. ALAB 764.19 NRC 633 (19841 basis for granting summary disposition of contenuons; ALAB-771,19 NRC 1183 (1984) burden of going forward on contentions; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1l93 (19841 burden of proof on apphcant; ALAB-763.19 NRC 571 (19846 burden on parties when executive privilege is invoked, ALAB-773.19 NRC 1333 (19847 burden on proponent and opponent of motion for summary disposinon; LBP-84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984) cause for imposition of protecuve order; ALAB-764,19 NRC (33 (1984) cause for Staff acnon on 2.206 petitions; DD-841.19 NRC 471 (1984) circumstances appropriate for suspension, modification or revocanon of construction permits; DD-8413,19 NRC II37 (1984) circumstances in which an order to show cause is appropriate; DD 84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984) circumstances in which interlocutory resiew is undertaken. LBP-84 23.19 NRC 1412 (19841 circumstances in which request for certification is granted. LBP-84 23,19 NRC 1412 (1984) compleuon of fihng of documents m NRC licensmg proceedings; AL AB 774,19 NRC 1350 (1984) consideration. in response to 2.206 petition, ofissue that is the sub ect of rulemal mg. DD 84-6,19 J
NRC 891 (1984) criteria for reopenmg a record; LBP 84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984) deferred ruhngs on admissibihty of contentions; LBP-84-18.18 NRC 1020 (19848 determmmg maternahty ofinformation for purpose of disclosure to a Board; ALAB-774,19 NRC 1350 (19847 effect of failure to file Gndmgs of fact; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193 (1984) effect on a proceedmg of change in representation. ALAB-772,19 NRC 1l93 (1984) evidentiary meight given to anonymous afGdnits; ALAB 775.19 NRC 1361 (1984) factors balanced in determimns admissibihty oflate-Gled contennons; LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1285 (1984) factors evaluated fot admissson oflate-Gled contenhons; LBP-84-l.19 NRC 29 (1984); LBP-8417, 19 NRC 878 (1984) general pohey toward mierlocutory appeals; ALAB-768,19 NRC 988 (1984) governmg standards where contenuons were filed before close of record, but ruhng toe. place after cime of record, LBP-84-20.19 NRC 1285 (1984) governmental documents protected b;' execuuve pnvilege; ALAB 773.19 NRC 1333 (1984) grant of summary disposinon through stipulations: LBP 84-25.19 NRC 1589 (19848 grounds for reopenmg a record; LBP 84-3.19 NRC 28211984) imt anon of show-cause proceedmss; DD-84-1.19 NRC 471 (1984) interlocutory appeal by nonparty to operating hcense proceedmg; ALAB-764,19 NRC 633 (1984) issues mappropriate for consideration under 2.206; DD-8413.19 NRC 1137 (1984) issues on which summary disposinon may be granted. LBP-84-25.19 NRC 1589 (1984) jomt responsibility of party and its counsel to make decisions regardmg materiahty of information; LBP 84 22,19 NRC 1383 (1984) jurisdiction of Appeal Boards; ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984) jurisdiction of Licensing Boards over Part 70 hcenses, ALAB-765,19 NRC 645 (1984) late intervenuon pentioner's abihty to assist in developing a sound record, ALAB-767,19 NRC 984 (1984)
Licensms Board investiganon cf quahty assurarke alleganons. LBP-84-3,19 NRC 282 (1984) limitauons of discovery relevant to a contentia LBP-84-24.19 NRC 1418 (19848 matters on which discovery may be obtamed; ALAS 773.19 NRC 1333 (19846 need for accepted late-filed contentions to meet further quahlicanons; LBP 8417A.19 NRC 1011 (1984) need for basis for motion for reconsideration; LBP 84 23.19 NRC 1412 (19841 new arguments in monons for reconsideration; LBP 84-10.19 NRC 509 (19848 new arguments in proposed Gndmss of fact. LBP-84 IO.19 NRC 509 t1984) newly acquired organizational status asjustificauon for belated miervention; LBP-84-17,19 NRC 878 (1984) nonattorney representauon in NRC proceedmgs. ALAB 772,19 NRC 1893 (1984) 104 i
ll
r-m i +
I SUBJECT INDEX pleading requirements for intersention petitions; CLI-84-6,19 NRC 975 (1984) -
reopenmg of proceedmas: LBP-84-20.19 NRC 1285 (1984) responsibehues of pernes and counsel to disclose informanon to Boards; LBP 84 22,19 NRC 1383 (19841 responmbihtees of perues concerning service of papers; LBP 8416,19 NRC 857 (1984p
~responsibilmes of pernes concernmg segmficant new informanon. ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 (1984) responsbehues of perues to apprise Boards of significant new mformanon; ALAB 772.19 NRC 1l93 4
(1984); ALAB-774,19 NRC 1350 (1984) responsabihties of parties; ALAB-761,19 NRC 487 (1984) responsibihty for derming scope and type of a proceedmg before a Licensms Board. ALAB 765.'19
- NRC 645 (1984) nght of apphcant or heensee to review documents before submitting Board Notification; ALAB 774, 19 NRC 1350 (1984) right to hearing on operating license amendment; LBP 84-19.19 NRC 1076 (19848.
sa. ctions asamst counsel for matenal misrepresentauon; LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1383 (19847 satisfacuon of bens and specificity requirements for contentions; LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1285 (1984) satisfaction of requirement that new evidence must be capable of sffectmg a previous dechion for '
purpose of reopenmg record, ALAB-775,19 NRC 1361 (19846 scope of evidence of quahty assurance deficiencies required to reopen a record; ALAB.775,19 NRC.
1361 (1984) showing necessary for Appeal Board to exercise its directed cernficauon authortt); ALAB-762,'19 showing necessary for Board issuance of a subpoena; ALAB-764,19 NRC 633 (19847 NRC 565 (1984) showing necesesty on other factors when good cause is not shown for late intervenuoni LBP-84-17 i
19 NRC 878 (1984) showmg necessary to presail on motion to reopen the record; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1193 (19841 specificity required of contentions; LSP-84 I.19 NRC 29 (1984) specificity required of material supporting motion to reopen record; ALAB 775,19 NRC 1361
. q
-I (1984) speculation about a nuclear accident as cause for stayms a hcensms decision; CLI-84 5.19 NRC 953 (1984) standards for applicant to reopen the record; LBP-8410,19 NRC 509 f19841 standards to which nonattorney representauves are held, ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 #19847
+
standing to imervene in NRC licenans proceedmes; CLI 84-6,19 NRC 97$ (19845 standing to request a heanns on sancuons; LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1383 (1984p '
stay of effecuveness of amendment of new fuel heense; LSP-8416.19 NRC 857 (19848
)
1 summary dispomuon of health effects contentions LBP-84-7.19 NRC 432 (1984) -
test for determining apphcabihty of esecuuve privilege; ALAB-773,19 NRC 1333 (19847 three-part test for reopening a closed record. ALAB 774,19 NRC 1350 (19841; ALAB-775,19 NRC 1361 (1984) ume limits on enammation of witnesses; LBP 84 24,19 NRC 1418 (19843 -
timehness showing necessary for reopemng a record, ALAB-775,19 NRC 136l 119846 untimely subnusson of contentions where good cause is shown; ALAB 765,19 NRC 645 (19847 SABOTAGE need for research reactor to protect against; CLI-8410,19 NRC 1330 (1984f; LBP-84 22.19 NRC -
1383 (1984)
$AFE $HUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE concurrent with core compecuen reactivity insertion ai Cimch River, analysis of. LSP 84 4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
$AFETY at Chnch River, principal design features of importance to; LDP 84 4,19 NRC 288 (19848 er,mmitment of Byron apohcant to; LDP-84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) important to, and safety-reisted, interpretation of ALAB 769.19 NRC 995 (19847 important to, and safety related, scope of. CLI-84 9, l9 NRC 1323 (1984) review of Diablo Canyon facihty, scope of; CLi 84-5.19 NRC 953 (19848 See also Engmeered Safety Features Health and Safety 107 b'---an-a.-..a m__,,,
SUBJECT INDEX SAFETY ISSUES authorization for fuel loading and precriucahty testing prior to decision on; LBP-84-21,19 NRC 1304 (1984)
SANCTIONS against counsel for material misrepresentation; LBP-84-22,19 NRC 1383 (1984) standing to request a hearing on; LBP-84 22,19 NRC 1383 (1984)
See also Penalues SANDWICH FAULT descriphon of,in relation to Byron site; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
SCHEDULE for completion oflong-term actions ordered for TMI 1, sua sponte review of, by the Commission; CLI-84-7,19 NRC 1851 (1984)
SECURITY PLAN for protection of unirradiated fuel stored outside, need for, LBP-84-16,19 NRC 857 (1984)
SEISMIC DESIGN adequacy of standards for; CLI-84-5,19 NRC 953 (1984) of Byron plant, adequacy of; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) standard appded to Diablo Canyon, adequacy of; CLI-84-2,19 NRC 3 (1984)
SEISMICITY of Clinch River ste, analysis of; LDP-84-4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
See also Earthquake (s), Fault (s)
SHOW-CAUSE ORDER appropriate circumstance for, DD-84-7,19 NRC 899 (1984) for hcense suspension, denial of request for; DD-84-10,19 NRC 1094 (1984)
SHOW-CAUSE PROCEEDINGS instituuon of, to consder issue that is the subject of rulemaking; DD-84-6,19 NRC 891 (1984) insutuuon of, to explore economic impacts of heensed activines; DD-84 I,19 NRC 471 (1984, SHUTDOWN See Reactor Shutdown Systems, Safe Shutdown Earthquake SIREN SYSTEM for notificauon of Limerick area residents during radiological emer8ency, adequacy of; LDP44-18, 18 NRC 1020 (1984)
SITE preparation activities, means for seeking early approval of, ALAB-765,19 NRC 487 (1984) redress, participanon in proceeding on; ALAB-761,19 NRC 487 (1984)
SITE SUITABILITY SOURCE TERM calculauon of, for Chnch River; LBP-84 4,19 NRC 288 (1984)
SOIL SPRINGS for Diablo Canyon auxiliary building, adequacy of modehng of; ALAB-763,19 NRC $71 (1984)
SOILS ANALYSES '
for buried diesel fuel tanks at Diablo Canyon, agequacy of; ALAB-763,19 NRC $71 (1984)
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Licensing Board responsibihues for resolution ofissues in; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984)
SPENT FUEL cask laydown area, temporary storage of spent fuel assembhes in; LBP4414,19 NRC $34 (1984) shipments, dry cask, denial of request for haft in; DD-84-9,19 NRC 1087 (1984)
SPENT FUEL POOL EXPANSION through pin storage; LBP-84-14,19 NRC $34 (1984)
STANDBY $ERVICE WATER SYSTEM at WNP 2, conformance of, with design control criteria; DD 84-7,19 NRC $99 (1984)
STANDING of organization to intervene in operating license amendment proceeding; LDP 84-19,19 NRC 1076 (1984) representauonal, criteria for obtaining; LBP 84-6,19 NRC 393 (1984) to request a hearing on sanctions; LBP 84 22,19 NRC 1383 (1984) rone of interests which must be affected to confer; CLI 84-6,19 NRC 97$ (1984) 108 i
I SUBJECT INDEX STARTUP organizanon at WNP 2, adequacy of quahrications of; DD-84 7.19 NRC 399 (19H)
STAY of effectiveness of amendment of new fuel hcense; LSP-8416.19 NRC 857 (1984) of fuel loading and precnticahty tesung at Diablo Canyon; CLI 84-1.19 NRC I (1934) of hcensms decision, speculation about nuclear accident as cause for; CLI 84-5,19 NRC 953 (1984) of low-power operation pending decision on genenc emergency planning issue, need for; CLI-84-4, 19 NRC 937 (1984)
STEAM GENERATOR TUBE (5) at Byron Station, degradation of; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) damage from foreign objects left in generator shell; LBP-H 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) rupture, uses of power-operated relief valve in depressurization in the event of; CLI-84 3,19 NRC 555 (1984) wall thinning, description of, and remedy for; LSP-84-2.19 NRC 36 (1984)
STEAM GENERATOR (S) at Byron Stanon, ALARA as related to; LBP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) descripuon of; LBP-84-2.19 NRC 36 (1984) restnction of primary-to-secondary lear in; CL144-3,19 NRC 555 (1984) j See also Main Steam Lme Rupture Den ion Syssem; Nuclear Steam Supply System STEEL REINFORCEMENT BARS missms from South Teaas containment, allegations of; LBP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (19s4)
STRAIN GAGES application of, to predicting fault mouon; LBP 84-2.19 NRC 36 (1984)
SUBPOENA showing necessary for Board issuance of; ALAB-764,19 NRC 633 (1984)
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION -
burden on proponent and opponent of motion for; LSP-84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984) departure from Seneral pnnciple of law on; LBF-84-15,19 NRC 837 (1984) grant of, through a stipulation; LBP 84 25,19 NRC 1589 (1984) of comention challenging good cause for obtainmg tonstrucuan permit extension; ALAB 771,19 NRC 1183 (1984) of contentions, basis for granung; ALAB UI.19 NRC 1883 (1984) of health effects contentions; LBP-84 7.19 NRC 432 (1984)
SURVEYING quahty assurance requirements applicable to; LSP-84-13,19 NRC 659 (1984)
SUSPENSION of construction permits, circumstances appropriate for; DD-8413,19 NRC 1137 (1984)
I of operations, denial of show cause request for; DD-8410,19 NRC 1994 (1984) of operations, pending determination of adequacy of pipe supports at FitzPatrick, denial of 2.206 request for; DD-84-14.19 NRC 1307 (1984) of technical specifications to permit testing; LDP-84-23,19 NRC 1412 (1984) of techmcal specifications, admission of contentions relaung to, in operating hcense amendment proceeding; LBP-84-19,19 NRC 1076 (1984) j of TMI-I operating license, denial of petition for continuation of, DD-N-12,19 NRC 1828 (19H)
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATlONS in operating licenses, status of, ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (19H) suspension of, admissien of contenuons relating to; LBP 84-19,19 NRC 1076 (1984) suspension of, to permit testing; LBP-84-23,19 NRC 1412 (1984)
TEMPERATURE reference nil-ductdity, to determme failure potential of reactor vessel TERMINATION adequacy of calculation of; LDP-H 24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) ofintervention, on basis of agreement between parties; LBP-H-15A,19 NRC 852 (1984) of previously retained, limited appellate jurischetson over cancelled units; At 45-760,19 NRC 26 (1984)
TEST to determine strength of concrete, description of; LBP-H 2,19 NRC 36 (19H) i 109 6
I
i SUBJECT INDEX TESTIMONY by comultants, value of, ALAB-772.19 NRC 1893 (19841 empert, quahfications of mitness giving; ALAB-767.19 NRC 98411984)
TESTING ADS Tnp system surveillance, suspension of technical specifications for; LBP-8419.19 NRC 1076 41984) hot system, at Diablo Canyon, authontation for and description of. CLl-84-2.19 NRC 3 (1984) integrated leak rate, at LaSalle, allegations of defects in; DD-844.19 NRC 891 (1984) precnticahty, at Diablo Canyon. risk to pubhc from; Cll-84 l.19 NRC I (1984); CLI-84-2.19 NRC 3 (1984) precniscahty, authonration for, pnor to decision on merits of pendmg issues; LBP-84 21.19 NRC 1304 (19841 preoperational, at Byron Station, to prevent bubble collapse mater hammer; LBP-84 2.19 NRC 36 (1984) preoperational, at WNP 2 adequacy of procedures for; DD 84 7.19 NRC 899 (1984)
TilERMAL Dl5CllARGES from nuclear power plants, need to consider effects of. ALAB 759,19 NRC 13 (1984)
~
into SilNPP reservoir, adequacy of consideration of fish lulls from. LBP 8415.19 NRC 837 (19841 TR AINING erregulanties at TMI. demat of motion to reopen record on basis of allegations of. ALAB-774.19 NRC 1350 (1984) of beenwd and nonhcensed reactor c,perators at TMI. program for; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193 (1984) of quahty assurance inspectors at Byron plant, adequacy of; ALAB-770,19 NRC 1863 (1984) role of SRC 5tatiin heensee programs for; ALAB 772.19 NRC 119) (1984) -
TRANSPORTATION of radioactne materials. NRC studies of ensironmentalimpacts of. DD 84 9,19 NRC 1087 (1984)
I;PLIFTING.
of comainment at Diablo Canyon, potential for; ALAB 763,19 NRC $71 (19841 VALVE power-operated relief, need for safety grade classification of; CL1-84-3.19 NRC 555 (1984)
VERif ICATION of ASME Code work at lammer, adequacy of means for; DD 84-3.19 NRC 480 (1984) '
seismic and nonwismic programs at DiaNo Canyon adequacy of. ALAB 763.19 NRC $71 (1984)
VIOLATION of Midland construction permits. audit of management performance ordered as a result of.
DD-84-2.19 NRC 478 (19841 See also Notice of Violation VOIDS in the South Texas Protect reactor containment buildms; LDP-8413,19 NRC 659 (1984)
WAIVER of regulation govermns htigation of need-for power issue, demal of request for; LBP-844,19 NRC 393 (1984)
W ASTE DISPOSAL radioactive. economics of. LBP 844.19 NRC 393 (1984)
WASTE STORAGE permanent, for high-level. radioactive, availabihty of. LBP 844.19 NRC 393 (1984)
WASTE 5 See Radioactive Wastes WATER See Component Coolms Water System. Coohng Water, Groundwater, Standby Service Water
' System WATER ll AMMER bubble collapw. in preheat steam generators at Byron Station, potentist for; LBP 84-2.19 NRC 36 (19341 118 m
m.m
r SUBJECT INDEX WEATHER, ADVERSE adequacy of Byron plans for evacuation durms; LBP-84-2.19 NRC 36 (1984) estimat on of evacuation trafTac times during; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984) need to consider, in emergency plans; CLI-84-4,19 N RC 937 (1984)
WELD (S) allegations of defects in, at Catawba; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984) cracks in, at Vermont Yankee facihty; DD-84-10,19 NRC 1094 (1984) inspections at Byron, adequacy of documentation of; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984) quenching, improper, at Catambe, allegations of. LBP 84-24.19 NRC 1418 (1984) repair of, at Comanche Peak, by capping; LBP 8410,19 NRC 509 (1984)
See also Cadmelds WELDING in presence of faminations; LBP-84-24.19 NRC 1418 (1984) weave, downhill, and cap, appropriateness of apphcants' procedures for; LBP-84-25,19 NRC 1$89 (1984)
WELDING INSPECTORS at Catambe, harassment of; LBP-84-24,19 NRC 1418 (19841 effect of pay reductions of, on construction quahty at Catamba. LBP 84-24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
WITHDRAWAL of contentions, ehmination of the t, asis for heanns through; LBP-84 il,19 NRC $33 (1984)
WITNESS (ES)
'l demeanor as basis for credibihty of evidence; ALAB-772,19 NRC 1893 (1984)
~
expert, Licensms Board discretion in calhng; ALAB-772.19 NRC 1893 (1984)
Licensing Board authority to call, LBP-84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984) nonespert, Licensing Board authonty to caH; ALAB 772,19 NRC 119) (1984) time limits on exammation of, LBP-84 24.19 NRC 1418 (1984) value of hired consultants as, ALAB 772,19 NRC 1893 (1984)
ZONE Sandwich Fault proximity of, to Byron site; LBP 84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
See also Emergency Planning Zone lit I
l l
l
i l
l FACILITY INDEX BEAVER VALLEY POWE R STATION, Urut 2; Docket No. 50-412 (ASLBP No. 83-490-04-OL)
OPERATING LICENSE; January 27,1984; REPORT AND ORDER ON SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE HELD PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. { 2 751a; LBP-84-6,19 i
NRC 393 (1984)
BYRON NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. STN 50-454, STN 50-455 i
l OPERATING LICENSE; January 13,1984, INITIAL DECISION; LBP 84 2,19 NRC 36 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; May 7,1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 770,19 NRC i163 (1984)
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 OPERATING LICENSE; April 17,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: ALAB-768,19 NRC 988 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; May 30,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 84-21,19 NRC I
1304 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; June 22,1984, PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LBP 84 24,19 NRC 1418 (1984)
CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT; Docket No. 50 537-CP CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; January 20,1984; MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS; LBP 84-4, 19 NRC 288 (1984)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; February 29,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 761, l
19 NRC 487 (1984) l COBALT-60 STORAGE FACILITY; Docket No. 30-6931 (ASLBP No. 82 469-01 SP)
BYPRODUCT M ATERIALS LICENSE RENEWAL; March 15,1984, ORDER; LBP-8415 A,19 NRC 852 (1984)
COM ANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-445,50-446 OPERATING LICENSE; January 30,1984, MEMORANDund; LBP 84-8,19 NRC 466 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; February 8,1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 84-10,19 NRC 509 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; June 29,1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-84-25,19 NRC 1589 (1984)
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Unit 1; Docket No. 50 275 OPERATING LICENSE; January 25,1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-84-2,19 NRC 3 (1984)
REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 26, 1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.
{ 2.206; DD-84-8,19 NRC 924 (1984)
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Umts I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 275,50-323 EMERGENCY PLANNING; April 3,1984; ORDER; CLI-84-4,19 NRC 937 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; January 16,1984; ORDER; CLI 841,19 NRC I (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; March 20,1984; DECISION; ALAB-763,19 NRC 571 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; April 13,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-84-5,19 NRC 953 (19841 OPERATING LICENSE; June 28,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 775,19 NRC 1361 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; June 29,1984, DECISION; ALAB 776,19 NRC 1373 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; August 8,1984. ORDER, ALAB-775A,19 NRC 1371 (1984)
ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT, Umt 2; Docket No. 50-341 EMERGENCY PLANNING; Apnl 20, 1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ~~
{ 2.206; DD-84-II,19 NRC 1108 (1984) 113 l
l FACILITY INDEX GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50-416-OLA (ASLBP No. 84-497-04-OL)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Aptd 23,1984; SECOND ORDER FOLLOWING l
PREHEARING CONFERENCE; LBP-84-19,19 NRC 1076 (1984) l OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; June 21,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-84-23,19 NRC 1412 (1984)
}LB. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, Unit 2; Docket No 50-261-OLA (ASLBP No.
83-484-03-L A) '
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 10,1984 ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING; LBP-84-II,19 NRC 533 (1984)
H ARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANT, Unns 18 and 28; Docket Nos. STN 50-519. STN $0 521 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; January 27,1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: ALAB-760, 19 NRC 26 (1984)
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-354-OL DISQUALIFICATION; January 25,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-759,19 NRC 13 (1984)
JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; Docket No. 50-333 IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUEST; May 8,1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C_F.R.
I 2.206; DD-84-14,19 NRC 1307 (1984)
LASALLE COUNTY STATION, Unns I and 2; Docket No. 50-373 IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUEST; March 16,1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206; DD-84-6,19 NRC 891 (1984)
LIMERICK GENFRATING STATION. Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 352,50-353 IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUEST; Aprd 25,1984 DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206; DD-8413,19 NRC 1837 (1984)
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 (19841 OPERATING LICENSE; April 20,1984; SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER; LBP-84-18,19 NRC 1020 (1984)
M AINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER STATION; Docket No. 50-309-OLA (ASLBP No.80-437 02-LA)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 9,1984. ORDER; LBP-84-14,19 NRC 834 (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. ( 2.206; DD 84-2,19 NRC 478 (1984) j OPERATING LICENSE; Manh 30,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-764,19 l
NRC 633 (1984)
MODIFICATION ORDER AND OPERATING LICENSE; May 7,1984 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-84-20,19 NRC 1285 (1984)
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Unit 1: Docket No. 50-440 REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION; January 9,1984. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R l 2.206; DD-841,19 NRC 471 (1984)
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Unas I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 440-OL,50-441 OL OPERATING LICENSE; January 20,1984 MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-84 3,19 NRC 282 (1984)
PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION; Docket No. 50 293 l
REQUEST FOR ACTION; February 27,1984; INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206. DD-84-5,19 NRC 542 (1984) i SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, Unit 1: Docket No. 50 272-OL A OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT: January 25,1984, ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING; LBP 84 5,19 NRC 391 (1984)
SEABROOK STATION, Units I and 2. Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50 444-OL OPERATING LICENSE; January 24,1984. DECISION; AL AB-758,19 NRC 7 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; March I6,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-762,19 NRC 565 (1984) 114 s
rn s
FACILITY INDEX SEABROOK STATION, Una 2; Docket No. 50-444 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXTENSION; March 29,1984; ORDER, CLI-84-6,19 NRC 975 (1984) 5HEARON H ARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-400,50-401 ( ASLBP No.
82 464 0I-OL)
OPERATING LICENSE, January 27,1984. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 84-7,19 NRC 432 (1984)
OPER ATING LICENSE; March 15,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 84-15,19 NRC 837 (1984) 5HOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit le Docket No. 50-322-OL OPERATING LICENSE; Apnf 23,1984; MEMORANDUM AND CERTIFICATION TO THE COMMI55 TON, ALAB-769,19 NRC 995 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; May 16,1984, ORDER: CLI-84-8,19 NRC 1154 (1984)
OPER ATING LICENSE; June 5,1984; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER, CLI-84-9,19 NRC -
1323 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; June 13,1984. DECISION. ALAB-773,19 NRC 1333 (1984)
SOUTH TEX As PROJECT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-42107 OL)
OPER ATING LICENSE; March 14,1984. PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LBP-84 I3,19 NRC 659 (1984) i THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit 1; Docket No 50-289 REQUEST FOR ACTION; Apnl 27,1984. INTERIM DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206; DD-84-12,19 NRC 1828 (1984)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; March 28,1984; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER, CLi-84-3,19 NRC 555 (1984)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; April 2,1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 766,19 NRC 988 (1984)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING, May 4,1984. ORDER; CLi 84-7,19 NRC 1851 (1984)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; May 24, 1984; DECISION; ALAB 772,19 NRC 1893 (1984)
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; June 19,1984, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-774,19 -
NRC 1350 (1984) '
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit 2. Dcsket No. 50 320 SPECIAL PROCEEDING; February 17, 1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.
( 2.206. DD 84-4.19 NRC 535 (1984)
TRIG A TYPE RESEARCH REACTOR. Docket No. 50170 ( ASLBP No. 8145101 LA)
FACILITY LICENSE RENEWAL; March 15,1984; ORDER; LBP 84-15A,19 NRC 852 (1984)
UCLA RESEARCH REACTOR; Docket No. 50142-OL FACILITY LICENSE RENEWAL; June 5.1984 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 84 22, 19 NRC 1383 (1984)
FACILITY LICENSE RENEWAL; June 8,1984; ORDER; CLI 84-10,19 NRC 1130 (1984)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION; Docket No. 50 271 REQUEST FOR SHOW-CAUSE ORDER; Aprd 16,1984, DIRECTOR's DECislON UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206; DD 8410,19 NRC 1094 (19848 WILLIAM H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. Unit 1: Docket No. 50 358 REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 13, 1984; DIRECTOR'S DECIslON UNDER 10 C.F R.
( 2.206; DD 84-3,19 NRC 480 (1984)
WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION. Unit 1; Docket No 50-482 ( ASLBP No. 81453-03 OL)
EMERGENCY PLANNING; January 5,1984. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-841,19 NRC 29 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; March 26,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LDP 8417,19 NRC 878 (1984)
WPP55 NUCLEAR PROJECT No.1; Docket No. 50-460-CPA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; February 1,1984, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: LBP 84 9,19 NRC 497 (1984)
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; May 15,1984. DECISION, ALAB-771,19 NRC 1883 (1984) a 115 k.
FACILITY INDEX WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT No. 2; Docket No. 50-397 REQUEST FOR SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDINO; March 19.1984; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206, DD 84 7,19 NRC 899 (1984)
WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT No. 3; Docket No. 50-500-OL OPERATING LICENSE; April 10,1984; DECISION; ALAB-767,19 NRC 984 (1984)
OPERATING LICENSE; April 19,1984; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LSP-84-17A,19 NRC 1011 (1984) 1 I
116
.