ML20128F306

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances for JANUARY-MARCH 1985

ML20128F306
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1985
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V21-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V21-I1, NUDOCS 8507080203
Download: ML20128F306 (59)

Text

.- _ _ __

' '^ '

NUREG-0750 Vol. 21 index 1 INDEXES TO

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES 1

January - March 1985 ps REGug

+ O, 1

n3 mf;s U. S. NUCLEAll REGULATORYi COMMISSlQN58@g - !

8507000jgjOMp n0 -

Available from .

Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 Washington, D.C. 20013-7082 A year's subscription consists of 12 softbound issues, 4 indexes, and 2 hardbound editions for this publication.

Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical information Service, Springfield, VA 22161

&rors in this publication may be reported to Vicki E. Yanez, Division of Technical Information and Document Control, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301/492-8925)

NUREG-0750 Vol. 21 Index 1 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES January - March 1985

• ,H1c' U.53 NUCLEAR $ REGUEATOR.WCOMMTssro ~ "ce: <s; l

l l

l l

l l

Foreword ,

1 Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic

' Safety and Licensing 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, nese digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the issuances.

Information elements common to the cases heard and ruled upon are:

Case name (owner (s) of facility)

Full text reference (volume and pagination)

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

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

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

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

1. Case NameIndex ne case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type ofissuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.

2. Digests and Henders ne headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows:

the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (ALAB),

the Atomic Safety and IJcensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative Law Judge (AU), the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking.

De header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hearing, date ofissuance, and type ofissuance, ne digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuance covers

. more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically.

iii s

i i '

3. @ Citations Index -

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

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

reference.

4. Subject Index Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects covered in the issuances. The subject headings are followed by

- phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the issuances being indexed. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.

5. Facility Index -

'Ihis index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from the ~

issuance The name is followed by docket number type of hearing date type of issuance, issuance number, and full text reference.

5 Y

t i

P i

i a

f.

3 1

n

+.

I I

CASE N AME INDEX y-J.~~

CAROLIN A POW ER & LIGHT COMPAN) and NORTH C \ROLIN \ E WIL RN Mt NICIP \L hX POW ER AGENC) (

OP2R ATING LICENSE; PARTIAL INITI AL DECISION ON EN\lRONMENT \L .7'#

CONTENTIONS. Docket No. 50 400-OL t ASLBP No 82 472-03-OL). L HP it5 5. 21 N RC 410 L 1,'

(1985} 2J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPAN). et 41 OPERATING LICENSE. DECISION. Docket Nov 50-440-OL. 50-441-01.. \L -\H402. 21 NRC 490 419851 COMMON % EALTH EDISON COMPANY ^Jr IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUEST; DIRECTOR'S DECISION L NDER 10 C F R I 2.2tle. Omket  : ';

No. 50-295. DD 85-2,21 NRC 270 (19851 "t' P

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER. Dodet No ,

50-155-OL A (Spent Fuel Pool Modificanons. AL AB 795. 21 NRC I Il9R$1 j OPERATING LICENSE /ENFORCEMEN T; P ARTI AL INITI AL DECISION. Duket Not .?

50-3294)L&OM. 50-330-OL&OM t ASLBP Nos. 78-389-03-OL. 80-429-02-SPt. LBP- Ai-2. 21 [

NRC 24 (1985)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMP ANY /

OPER A TING LICENSE RENEW AL; MEMOR ANDU M AND ORDE R. Deet No 50 N 4 )LR

( ASLBP No. 83-481-01-OLR p; LBP-85-4. 21 N RC 399 il9851 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPOR A TION -

REQU EST FOR ACTION. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. 4 2.200. DAket % -  ;

50-289. 50-320. 50-219; DD-85-l. 21 NRC 263 t 1985)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POW ER COMPANY. et at OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-498-OL. 50-499-OL; ALAB 799. 21 NRC 300 (1985)

OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM; Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL. STN 50-499-OL

( ASLBP No. 79-421-07-OL); LBP-85-8. 21 NRC 516 (1985)

OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL STN 50-499-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-421-07-OL); LBP-85-6. 21 NRC 44711985). LBP-85 9. 21 NRC 524 d i1985) "N KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY. et al.

OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket No. 50-482-OL; ALAB '98. 21 NRC 35' 114858 =-5.?-

KLRR-McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION M ATERIALS LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No 40-206l ML f ASLHP No ,

83-495-01 ML); LBP-85-l. 21 NRC 11 (19854 LBP-85-3,21 NRC 24418485) 7h LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY  !

OPERATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket No. 50-322 OL-4 (Low Powers; ALAB 80). 21 NRC 9 386 (1985) y OPERATING LICENSE. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 ILow w-Power >; CLI 85 l 21 NRC 275 (1985) U LOUISif.NA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ".'.-

OPERATING LICENSE. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No 50-382 OL. AL AB 79'. ,

21 NRC 611985); AL AB-801,21 NRC 479119851. CLI-85-3. 21 NRC 4'l 4 l985# 2 r METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY. et al.

SPECIAL PROCEEDING. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Docket No 50 289-SP 8Rewarit l E'N-CLI-85-2,21 NRC 282 (19851 y k,$

y.

I-m I  ;

% 7 "4 I v ?-

{D 7 s h

{

CASE NA3tE INDEX POATLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO\tP ANY. et al.

OPER ATING LICENSE AMEND \fENT. \tE\ TOR A NDU\t AND ORDER. Dockei No 50-344-OLA; ALAB 796,21 NRC 411915s PUBLIC SER\lCE COtlPA N) OF NEW f t.\\tPSHIRE. et al REQUEST FOR ACTION. DIRECTOR'S DECISION L NDI R lil C F R. 4 2 205. Drsket %

50-443. 50-444. DD 85-3, 21 NRC $33 41945)

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPAN). et at OPERATING LIFENSE. ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING; Docket No 50-354-OL.

LBP-85-6A. 21 NRC 468 (1985)

THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY. ct 41.

REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. ) 2.206; Docket No.

50 341; DD 85-4,21 NRC 546 (1985)

L'NITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT MAN AGEMENT CORPORATION, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GR ANTING APPLICANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PROCEEDING; Docket No. 50-537-CP ( ASLBP No. 75 291 12-cpi; LBP-85 7,21 NRC 507 (1985) 2

N R

dm,

(~

i l

DIGESTS 4 r~*"

IS5UANCES OF THE NLCLEAR REGl~LATORY CO\l%IISSION CL1 g5-1 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Sianon). Docket i No. 50-322-OL-4 flow Power); OPER ATING LICENSE; February 12. 1995; MEMORANDUM

• AND ORDER '

A Upon review of the Licensing Board's October 29. 1984 decision (L8P-84-45, 20 NRC l 1343) grantms Apphcant's request for an exemption from the requirements of to C.F.R. Part

50. Appendia A, General Design Cnienon 17 and authorizing certain low power testmg. the Commission allows that decision to become elTective.

B Ur' der ic regulations at 10 C.F R. t 50.47(d). the Commission may issue a low-power operatmg license to a facihty, notwithstandmg the absence of either NRC or Federal En crgency Management Agency (FEMA) approval of the facihty's offsite emergency plan and without a predictive findmg of reasonable assurance that a full-power hcense will esentually issue, so long as the prerequisites for a low-power hcense are met. Long Island Lightmg Co. (Shoreham Nucle-ar Power Station). CLI-8317,17 NRC 1032,1034 (1983).

C In conducting its review for elTectiveness purposes of a Licensms Board decision at:thoriz-ing an exemption from General Design Cnienon (GDC) 17 (10 C.F R. Part 50. Appendia A),

the Commission will place special weight on equitable considerations. These consioerations m-clude the safety signi6cance of full comphance with GDC 17 at the power lesels m.ohed. the ,

pubhc interest in full comphance. the minnsic value to early discovery of problems dunng low. ,,

power testing, the length and cost of the whole hcensmg p'oceedmg. and the good-f aith elTorts ,

of the appucant to comply fully with GDC 17.

D in considering a request for exemption under 10 C.F.R. t 50.12 the views of a State or local government are not entitled to conclusive weight on the ground that they represent the "pubhc interest." Congress charged the NRC with hcensing and regulating nuclear power safety, and the Commission cannot delegste this responsibihty by treatmg State or local government views on the issues as conclusive.

CLI-85-2 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY. et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.

Umt !), Docket No. 50-289-SP (Restart); SPECIAL PROCEEDING. February 25. 1985; ME110RANDUM AND ORDER A The Commission determines that the Licensmg Board should issue decisions on two issues on which heanngs have been completed. The Commission funher determmes that no fur-ther hearmgs are warranted within the restart proceeding The Commission however, institutes 3 a new proceedirig to consider what action should be taken concerning ndividuals possibly in-volved in falsi6cauon of leak rate data at Umt 2. On another matter msolvmg a condition of re- e start imposed by the Appeal Board that a speci6ed Licensee employee will have no supervisory h responsibihties over the trammg of nonheensed personnel, the Commission orTers the employee the opportumty to request a heanns on whether that condition should be imposed.

8 The traditional standard to determine a motion to reopen a record considers whether- (l) the motion is timely; (2) it addresses significant safety (or environmental) issues, and (31 it might have led to a di!Terent result had the newly protTered matenal been considered initi. illy. <

Pacine Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). ALAB 598 D e Ii NRC 876. 879 (1980). H C When directed by the Commission to address specine mait:rs in a heenseas proceeding. -O the parties have an obhgation to comply with the direcuon. Any clear disregard for the Commis-sion's order will be subject to appropnate sanction.

'; M

}

=k [

3 m,: m k

1 e

DIGESTS 15SUANCES OF THE % t CI. EAR R EGL t.ATOR) CO\l\llSSION D T* ..aditional standard for reoremcg arphes m determimng whether a resord snould *v'

.n ned on the baus of new information The standard does not apply where the ime is wheih.

er the record should be reoivned tycauw: of an m.idequate retord E An> mierested perwn woh the requmte stanJmg may weh to mtersene m a 4 INa hcenung proceedmg Tu est.iDhsh standing, an mdmdual must at a mammum show ill the action being thallenged could cause mjury m idet to thal mdmdud and (23 such infury n

• thin the zone of interests protected by the Atomi6 Energy \et. Sec. e g . Portland General Elettne Co iPebble Spnngs Nuclear Plant. Units I and 2). CLt 7 -27. 6 4 NRC 610 E 1976L F lt is unresobed in the courts whether an indmdual who suffers economic injury as a result of a board's decision to bar him from workmg m a certam job would be within the zone of interests protected by the Atomic Energy Act. See, e s.. Consumers Power Co. 4 Paliwdes Nucle-ar Power Facihtyi. ALAB-670,15 NRC 493. 506 (19827 teoncurnns opmion of Mr. Rosenthalt.

vacated as moot. CLI-8218.16 NRC 50 (1982),

G The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a federal agency from dernv-ing an mdividual of hberty or property mierests without prosidmg that andmdual an opportumty for a heanng. Individuals indirectly affected by gosernment action may not have any heanng nghts. See O' Bannon v. Town Court Nursms Center. 447 U.S. 773 (1980p.

H A person's hberty mterest is emphcated where a person's good name, reputation, honor or miegnty is at stake because of what the government is doms to him or where the govern-ment's action imposed a stigma or other disabshty that forecloses his freedom to take advantage of other employment opporiumties. Board of Regents v. Roth. 408 U.S. 564. 573 (19721 I Merely makmg a discharged employee less attractive for employment is not a depntauon of hberty. See, e g.. Johnson v. Umversity of Pittsburgh. 435 F. Supp 1328 (W.D Pa.1977).

3 To have a property interest in a benefit. a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it, and more than a umlateral espectauon of it. He must. mstead, hase a legiu-mate claim of enuttement to it. Roth. supra. 408 U.S. at 577.

K The goverrment may not prevent an mdmdual from workmg m his chnsen profesdon without prosidmg him notice and an opportumty to request a heanng. see. e s.. Orr s. Trmier.

444 F.2d 129 (6th Cir.l. cert. demed. 408 U S. 943 (1971), although there is no hearms require-tr.ent where the only thing at stake is a specific job with no claim of entitle.nent. See Cafetena and Restaurant Workers Umon v. McElrof. Jo7 U.S. 886 (1961).

L The Energy Reorgamzation Act of 1974 (42 U.S C. 6 5851) and the Commission's regula-nons (10 C.F R. i 50.7) protect employees hom discrimmatson for raisirs health and safety issues.

CLI 85-3 LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Electne Stanon. Uma 3). Docket No. 50-382-OL: OPERATING LICENSE; March l5.1985; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Commnsion authonzes the issuance to the Apphcant of a full-power operatmg bcense for the Waterford Steam Electne Station. Umt 3. At the same time it declines to stay the effecuveness ofits Decision for a 2-week period as requested by Intenenors. Issuance of the De.

casion is without prejudice to the intervenors' motions to reopen that are currently before the Atomic Safety and Licensmg Appeal Board.

B The standard for an operatmg hcensing decision is whether there is reasonable awarance of pubhc health and safet) to allow plant operation, either for the full heensms term or unul additional analysis is completed that would provide addinonal assurance for the full-term license.

4

\

4

,~ n L t:y A

~v M. .

r i

I DIG ESTS M ~

155L ANCES OF THE ATO\ llc s \FET) AND Lit L's%ING iPPL \l. HO \RD5 '

h$) l m{.j.- g

. I A L A B-795 CONSUNtERS POW ER CONIPAN) iBig Rod Point "lano. Dodet No. 50-15 5CL A (Spent Fuel Pool AlodGcation); OPER ATING LICENSE V LEND \ TEST, January 9 1995. ,@d NtENIORANDUNt AND ORDE R -

A Finding no errors that require correctise action. the A ppeal Board a:Tirms on sua sponic review a series of Licensing Board dectsluns :*tM ultimately at. thor: zed a twense amendment per-h] 5$

mitting the clipansion of the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power P ant spent fuel pool i y B An appeal board's aillrmance on sua sponte reuew of J INenung boJrJ s Jeciuon does not sigmfy approval of escrything said and done by the twd neio. Thsm. an appeal board will 9.j %

not give stare decisis effect to Fcenung board conclus;on, on legal mues r:ot brought to it by '4  :=

way of an appeal. Duke Power Co. ICherokee Nuclear Sia ic.n, Umts I. 2. and 31. AL AB-4A2. 7 q NRC 979. 981 n.4 t19788. Such an afGrmance only conno es agreement with the ultimate resolu tion of those issues crucial to the result reached. See Nrtland General Electric Co. < Trojan Nuclear Plantl ALAB 181,7 AEC 207,208 n.4 fl974L b ALAB-7% PORTLAND GENER AL ELECTRIC CONtP sNY, et al. ( Trojan N uclear Planu. j E Docket No. 50-344-OLA; OPERATING LICENSE ANf END\ TENT. January 10. 1985: NIE\tO- y E RANDUNI AND ORDER %T A The Appeal Board in this operating license amardment proceedmg declines to undertake sua sponte resiew of a Licensing Board's deciuon that was nased en the croivsed Gndmgs er' f.wt J

p  ;

and conclusions of law stipulated by the parties and atopied by the Lwenung Board ALAB 797 LOUISIAN A POW ER & LIGHT CONIP A.NY (Waterford Steam Elestrw Station, t mi -

36. Docket No. 50-382-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; January 17 1985. \tENIOR ANDU NI C-AND ORDER A The Appeal Board grants a motion by the NRC staJ for clarincation and/or reconudera-tion of an earher Appeal Board decision, ALAB 792, 20 NRC 1585 (1984), that held that the i Board has junsdiction to rule on intervenors' motion to reopen the record in this operating  !

license proceeding.

B When an appeal board has finally determined some issues in a proceeding and others are still pending before it, the board has jurisdiction over new matters raised by a party if there is a

" reasonable nexus" or "a rational and direct hnk" between the new iss.es and th,se pendmg \ l ..

total identity or commonahty of issues is not required. See, e g., Virgima Electrw and Power Co. F '

(North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Umts I and 21, AL AB.551.

• NRC 704. 707 (19'4i. Fion. da Power and Light Co tSt. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. Umt No 21. ALAB 579.11 NRC 223. 9 2*

226 (1980). ll1 h A party cannot properly import wholly unrelated diwrete mucs into a closed proseedmg .M C

by combining them, in a single motion to reopen. with another issue that is related to a matter pending before an appeal board. In such a case the appeal board could seter the unrelated mate-W rial from the matter over which it had retamed junsdwtion. 4 D Junsdictional disputes in NRC proceedings do not have Constitutional dimenuons , , ., 3 E in determinmg junsdictional deputes in NRC proceeJmgs. an adjudwatory boant m.n Af take into account practical corisiderations, hke etGeiency in the dnpositen of the matter at nand R -

and fairness to the parties. See Philadelphia Eleetne Co (Limend Generaimg Station. I'mts l .M and 2L ALAB 726.17 NRC 755 (1983L W5 a.4, m sw.s

-l .

pA+

( = a.

p M

G. w

. DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOstic SAFETY AND LICEN5ING APPEAL HO %RD5 A L A B-748 K ANS AS G AS 1 ELECTRIC COMP oY, et at twutf Creck Generaung Statmn. Unit

11. Ocuet No M-442-OL; OPER A flNG LICENSE. febru rs 5.145. DLCISION A Fmdmg no error requirmg correme nuon. the Appeal Bwrd allirms on w v mte reuew a Lxensing Board imtul deciuon iLBP 84 26. 20 NRC $311984f1 that authorized ihe n-suance of an operaung hcense for the Wolf Creek facihty ALAB 799 HOUSTON LIGHTING A POW ER COMPANY, et al (South Texas Profest. Umt, I and 2), Docket Nos 50-498-OL, 50-499-OL; OPERATING LICENSE. February 6. 1985.

DECISION A , Because the Licensing Board's substantne determmation in a partial insual deciuon (LBP-8413,19 NRC 659) that the apphcant is hkely to be able to meet the char.icter and competence requirements necessary to obtain an operaung hcense for the South Texas plant is expressly subject to change in hght of forthcommg heanngs, the Appeal Board decimes to reuew that determmauon. It alTirms the Licensing Board's ruhng on the standard to be apphed m measurms character and competence and vanous other ruhngs.

B Generally, appeal boards do not reuew heensing board determinauora that do not consu-

)

tute a final resolution on the ments. See, e s., Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stauon, Umt No.1), ALAB 738,18 NRC 177,190 (19838. l i

, C The Commission's regulatory scheme recognizes that an apphcant is bound to make l errors necessataung correction dunns the course of construction of a nuclear power p! ant. See, I e g.,10 C F.R. { 50.55(e); 10 C.F R. Part 50. Appendix B, y XVI.

D Plainly, whether a plant was properly built bears on whether it can be operated safely.

Construction quahty assurance issues are a frequent component of operatmg hcense proceedmss.

See, e g., Umon Electnc Co. (Callaway Plant, Umt I), ALAB-740,18 NRC 343,345 (1983).

E Neither the Atomic Energy Act nor the Commission's case law provide a complete deri.

niuon of character or competence. Pnor decisions simply idenufy the factors that are pertment to an inquiry into those matters.

F Although no cases are precisely on point. the clear import of prior appeal board decisions is that remedial clTorts are relesant to determinmg whether apphcants should be permitted io obtain or retain licenses.

G Demal of a heense requires a (mding that it is not possible for the ascertamed quahty assurance failmss either to be cured or to be overcome to the extem necessary to reach an in-formed judgment that the facility has been properly constructed. Commonwealth Edison Co. IBy.

ron Nuclear Power Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-770,19 NRC 1163,1869 (1984).

H A review of the totahty of circumstances is required to permit a reasonable predicuon regarding whether an applicant for an operatmg heense can and will comply with the safety and environmental standards imposed by statute and the Commission's regulanons and procedures.

I Even an applicant's poor past conduct need not automancally foreclose a findmg that it now possesses the requisite high degree of character or competence to obtain an operaung h-cense.

3 That a board reaches conclusions and makes (mdings contrary to those urged by a party

[

~

does not estabhsh bias. Pacific Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umts l & 2), ALAB-644,13 NRC 903,923 (1981).

K A mere demonstranon that a board erred by curtailms cross-exammauon is not sutTicient to warrant appellate tcher The complamms party must demonstrate actual prejudice - i.e., that the ruimg had a substaW. effect on the outcome of the proceedmg. Long Island Lightmg Co.

f (Shoreham Niglear Power Stauon, Umt 1), ALAB-788,20 NRC 1102,1151 (19841.

[ L The authonty of a board to demand cross-exammanon plans is encompassed by the l board's power to control the conduct of heanngs and to take all necessary and proper measures

! to prevent argumentative, repetsuous. or cumulatne cross-exammauon.10 C F R. H 2.718(el.

j 2.757(c). See also Louisiana Power and Light Co. Iwaterford Steam Electnc Stauon, Umt 33 L ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076,1096 (1983). Indeed, such plans are' encouraged by the Commission I as a means of making a hearms more efTicient and expeditious Statement of Pokcy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI 818.13 NRC 452,457 (1981).

. M Bald allegations made on appeal of supposedly erroneous Licensms Board eudennary rui.

l ings may be properly dismissed for inadequate bnefirg. See 10 C.F R. i 2.762(d).

6

DIGESTS ISSlJANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS N It is firmn ewohsheJ that the wore of crew-cuminauon a ordmarily hmited to matters raned m direct te3timon> See w aterford, supra, I? %RC as It* and caws ated O The use of pretiled. wntien tesumony generall> n permitted by the Adminntraine Prme.

dure Act m heciosmg cases and authonfed by the Commission's Rules of Practwe. 5 U S C.

t $56 tdt 10 C.F R. 4 2.743(bt P The use of watness panels is a long-standing pracuce en beensmg heanngs, consnient with Commission policy. See 10 C.F R Part 2, Appendix A, t Wd)(4L Q A party may not raise on appellate review licensmg board practices at did not object to at the heanng stage.

ItI To jusury oserturnmg a heensing board's scheduhng decision, an appeal board must be satisfied that the hcensing board set a schedule that deprnes a party of its nght to procedural due process. Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nucicar Generatmg Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-459, 7 NRC 179,188 (1978), See also Wisconsm Electne Power Co. (Pomi Beach Nuclear Plant, Umt 1), ALAB 719,17 NRC 387,391 (1983).

5 An appellant carnes the burden of presentmg an appeal board with an adequate bnef in the first tristance and bears the nsk of any oversight by the board if it fails to do so. A fasture to bnef issues adequately depnres the appeal board precisely of that assistance whwh the Rules of Pracuce are designed to hate an appellant proude,i.e., to flesh out the bare bones of claims on appeal and to present the board with sufTicient mformation or argument to allow an intelhgent disposinon of the issues. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB 793, 20 NRC 1591,1619 n.133 (1984), quotmg Consumers. Power Co. (Midland Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB-270, i NRC 473,475 (1975), and Umted States v. White, 454 F 2d 435, 4N (7th Cir.1979). See also Wisconsin Electnc Power Co. IPom Beach Nuclear Plant Umt !). ALAB-696,16 NRC 1245,1255 (1982); Pubhc Seruce Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Umts I and 27, ALAB-573,10 NRC 775,786-87 (1979L T The fise-factor test normally used to determine whether to grant a nonumely request for mtervenuon, or to permit the introduction of aidiuonal contenuons by an custmg mtersenor after the films date, should also be apphed to determme whether one intersenor may be allowed to adopt contentions that no longer have a sponsor when the sponsonng mtervenor withdraws from the proceedmg. See 10 C.F.R. is 2.714(a)(l), (b).

U There is no automatic nsht to adjudicatory resoluuon of environmental or safety ques-tions associated with an operaung license apphcation. See Cmemnau Gas and Electnc Co. (Wil-ham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Stauon), ALAB 305, 3 NRC 8. 9 (1976). The Commission's regulations hmit operstmg hcense proceedmgs to " matters m controversy among the parties or matters raised on a hcensing board's own iniuauve sua sponte.10 C.F.R. si 2.104(c),2.760a.

V Where only a single mtervenor is participatmg m an operating license proceeding, its withdrawal serves to brms the proceedmg to an end. Where there is more than one intenenor m a case, the withdrawal of one does not terminate the proceedmg. Under NRC procedure. howev-cr It does sene to remove the withdrawmg party's comennons from htiganon. Project Manage-ment Corp. (Chnch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-354,4 NRC 383,391-92 (1976L W The mere acceptance of contentions at the threshold stage does riot turn them mio cosmzable issues for htigauon mdependent of their sponsoring intenenor. Teus Uuhues Generatmg Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electne Stanon Umts I and 2), CI' 9136,14 NRC lill,111314 (1981). Safety or environmental matters not the subject of contentions or rused by a board sua sponte are left for nonadjudicatory resolution by the NRC staff. Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Umts I,2 & 37. ALAB-319,3 NRC 188,189-90 (1976).

X Under pnnciples announced in Praine Island, an mienenor may ordmanly conduct addi-tiona! cross-examinanon and submit proposed factual and legal findmss on contentions sponsored by others. Northern States Power Co. (Praine Island Nuclear Generaung Plant. Umts I and 21 ALAB-244,8 AEC 857,863,867-66 (1974), aft'd m periment part, CLI-75-1,1 NRC 1 (1975L Y The Commission's regulauons require that, at the outset of 4 case, each mtervenor submit a hst of the contenuons which it seeks to have hugated.10 C.F R. y 2.714tbt Moreover, one may not introduce affirmauve evidence on issues raised by another mtervence's contentions.

Praine Island, supra,8 AEC at 869 n.17.

Z Because contentions can be withdrawn or settled through negotiauon, a non-sponsonng party assumes at least some nsk that the pursuit of its interests may not be wholly within its con-7

DIG ESTS 1550 ANCEN OF Tile ATO\ llc % \FET) \ND 1.lCEN%iNG APPEAL BotRDS irol Cimch Rner, supra. 4 NRC at F12 %:e l>u.o: Power Co 4 herokee Nudcar Suimn. I nm

1. 2 and 3 . \L \B-44al. O NRC o42. e45 8 IC

\\ Paroopation of the NHC tif m a Ikensing prou:cding n noi unumount to paruupimn by a prnate intersenor. Washmgton Pubhc Power Suppl > Spiem (% PPM Nuslear Proicct %

36 ALAB 747.18 NRC 1867 tl983L By analogy, the awilabihi) of suff reuew outs.de the heanng process generall) does not consutute adequate protection of a pnusie Wrtyi rigns when considerms factor two under 10 C F R. t 2.714(4L BB If, in the circumstances of a particular case, there is a sound foundation for allowing one enuty lo replace another, it can be taken mto account m makmg the good cause" determinat.on under 10 C.F R. 4 2.714f at Gulf Sutes Unlines Co. (Rner Bend Sunon. Units I and 2.

ALAB-444. 6 NRC 760,7M 119771 AL AB 8tJG LONG ISLAND LIGitTING COMPANY IShoreham Nuclear Power Suuon. Unit il Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 flow Power); OPERATING LICENSE; February 21. 1985; DECISION A The Appral Board affirms with one esception the conclusions reached m the Licenung Board's October 29. 1984 insual decision that gramed the appheant's request for an esempoon from certain regulatory requirements and authonted low power testmg of the Shoreham facility.

See LBP 84-+5. 20 NRC 1343. The Appea! Board reserses the Licensing Board's concluwon on one matter, remands it to the Board for further proceedmgs, and vacates the exempuon as to cer-tain phases oflow power operauon.

B Under 10 C F.R. ) 50.12(a), the Commission may grant such exemptions from the re-quirements of its regulauons as it dete.mmes are authonzed by law; will not endanger life, prop-erty, or the common defense and secunty; and are otherwise in the pubhc interest.

C The Commission ordmanly does not undertake an immediate etTectiseness reuew in an operating hcense proceeding unless the muual decision authonzes facihiy operauon at greater than fne percent of rated power.10 C F R. t 2.764f fM IL D Unless the Commission otherwise espheitly so directs in its immedute erTectnenen determmation. an appeal board as not to gne an) weight to any sutement reflecung that determs-nauon.10 C F R. t 2.764ts).

E Secuon 2.764tfH2Hn) of 10 C.F.R. allows the parties to a proceedmg to submit to the Commission withm ten days of an insual decision brief comments pointmg out matters which. in their uew, pertam to the immediate etTectneness issues before the Commission.

F The Commission is the ultimate arbiter within this agency of what is meant by the provi-sions of its own regulauons and the language contamed in its own opmions. Nonetheless, absent the availability of a defimuse Commission pronouncement, it often falls to the appeal board to undertake to resolse disputes between parues as to the pr'oper interpretauon and apphcation of a particular Commission regulanon or formal opmion.

O Each applicanon for a heense to operate a nuclear power plant must include a physical secunty plan that addresses how the appbcant intends to comply with Part 73 of the Commis-sion's regulanons pertamms to the protection of the plant. See 10 C.F.R. 44 50.34te).

73.lltill)hl Among other thmgs. Part 73 presenbes sanous requirements for the protecuon of uut equipment.' See 10 C.F R. (( 73 55,73 2ht 11 Under the Commission's regulanon, utal equipment meludes any equipment or miem.

the failure or destruction of which could directly or mdirectly endanger the pubhc hesith and safety by exposure to radution.10 C.F R. i 73.2hL ALAB-801 LOUISIANA POWER & LIGitT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Elecinc Stauon. Unit 3). Docket No. 50-382-OL; OPERATING LICENSE; Ntarch 22. 1985; MEMORANDUSl AND ORDER A Fmding the existmg record inadequate on which to rule on a monon to reopen made by intersenors, the Appeal Board defers ruimg on the monon. With limued excepuon. it sinkes the bnef and alTidauts submitted by the NRC starTin opposinon to the motion and calls for addinon-alInformation from the staff and the applicant.

B lt is each party's job - appheant. mtersenor, and stati alike - to present its respectne posinott in an mtelligible form to the decisionm.iker. An appeal board is neither adsocate nor clerk for any party that appears before it C An appeal board is required to state the reasons or basis for its conclusions. See Ad.

mmntrause Procedure Act. 5 U.S C.1557(ct it cannot properly fuirall this responsibility if the 8

I DIGESTS .

ISSlJ ANCES OF Tite ATO\ llc 5 SFET) AND I.!CE%IW \PPEAL B0 \RD5 raw materul with w hah it must wrk - i e . the pieaJings ac3 oiter matter that make up the record - a growh inadequate D Legal suunsel - ihtough whom a party esprw a. m~imn - rausi Mr a lege s spunubshty for the form and uuably of submn sens made in Mensmg priwedmgs E The NRC stalTs condust and contnbunon must conform to the wme tandards appinaNe to other parties.

I' W here a party trarticularly, where repfcWmed by legal counseli submits a helter skelter collection of matenals. it must use with the consequences. ; e Paci6c Gas and Liestne Co. Ith-ablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 27. AL AB-775.19 NRC 1361.1364 n 221lW4i.

ALAB-802 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUstlN ATING CO\tP\N). et al I Perr) Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 27. Docket Nos. 50-440-OL. 50-4410L; OPERATING LICENSE. Ntarsh 26, 1985. DECISION A The Appeal Board in this operating heense pro 6eeding denies intersenori request to reopen the record to recene further esidence on the issue of quahty awurance. and af6rms the Licensing Board's partial iniual decision (LBP 83-77,18 NRC 1365 # 19838), which found apph-cants' quality assurance program for the Perry Plant adequate.

B Neither the Administrause Procedure Act not the CommnsennN Rules of Prxtac re.

quire an adjudicatory tribunal to ensure that a party appeanng before et n reprewnted by coun-sel Rather. it is the responsibihty of the party itself not merely to decide ahether it unhes to be represented by counsel but, in addition, to take the necessary measures to implement its deo-sion. See generally Nietropohtan Edison Co. (Three Ntile Island Nuclear St.auon. L mt I).

ALAB-772.19 NRC 1893.1246-47 (1984), rev'd in part on other grounds. CLl-85-2. 21 NRC 282 (1985L C There is not a bnght hne separatmg proper and excessne insobement on the part of the inbunal heanng the evidence. A tnal judge must hase great lautude in that regard. especully where certain of the parties are represented by lay persons and the Judge concludes that they are in need of assistance.

D Ntore %n a mere disagreement among staff rr.cmbers is necenar) to compet tesnmony by stalT witnesses not otherwise scheduled to tesufy. Nietropohtan Ednon Co. 4 Three Ninte Island Nuclear Stanon. Umt No.11. ALAB 715.17 NRC 10211983).

E The Commission's Rules of Practice do not prohibit the admimon of hearsay esidence-Duke Power Co. (Wilham B. NicGuire Nuclear Stanoi+, Units I and 27. ALAB-609,15 NRC 453. 477 (1982); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear ! a: on. Umts I and 2). ALAB-355. 4 NRC 397. 411 12 (1976).

F The requirement in 10 C.F.R. Part 50. AppeNi?. B. Cn#enon XVI that quahty assurance deficiencies be idenu6cd and corrected promptly does not c;

• 15at they must all be corrected as quickly as humanly nossible.

G Although ulumately all de6ciencies of potential saiety sigm6cance must be corrected. it is not necessary to recufy all of them at once. flow rapid:y a particular de6eiency need be cured will depend upon such factors as its nature and segm6eante the stage of plant construction. and whether the denciency might shortly be covered up by further construction work 9

s

l I

1 i

l p )

ta ~'

~

J DIGESTS ph ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SA'ETY AND LICENSING BOARDS NN D

"'?

LBP-851 KERR McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION (west Chicago Rare Earths Facihtp.

• Docket No. 40-2061 ML ( ASLBP No. 83-495-01-M L); M ATERIALS LICENSE; January 9 1985; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER  ;

A Licensmg Board rules that, in permittmg document inspection after havmg screened its files to remove pnvileged documents, Apphcant waived its right to subsequently assert attorney- f' chent or work product pnvileges. Licensir g Board also rules that only parties must respond to re-quests for documents and that State agencies which are not parties to a proceedmg need not so ..

respond. However, such State agencies may be subl ect to subpoenas seekmg documents. 'et B in determinmg whether an madvertent disclosure of a pnvileged document operates to waive the pnvilege, Licensmg Board considers the precautions taken to prevent disclosure, the effectiveness of those precautions, whe;her the documents were produced under the compulsion of a ngorous schedule, and the promptness of the disclosmg party's objection on discovenng the disclosure.

C Under 10 C.F.R. i 2.741 only parties must respond to document requests.

D Subpoenas may be issued to State agencies which are not parties to a proceedmg in order to obtain documents.

LBP-85-2 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant Units I and 2), Docket Nos 50- g 329-OL&OM, 50-3304L&OM (ASLBP Nos. 78-389-03-O L, 80-429-02 SPL OPERATING -k LICENSE /EN FORCEM ENT; January 23,1985. PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION A The Licensms Board issues a Partial initial Decision in a consohdated operatmg hcen. *.% ,

se/ enforcement proceedmg mvolvmg a facihty as to which construction has been halted (but as to which the operstmg hcense applicauon has not been withdrawn). The Decision resolves. sub-ject to specified conditions or technical specificauons, vanous technical issues ansms out of the excessive settlement of soils upon which safety structures are founded. The Board also dcmes the Apphcant's motion for reconsideration of an earher order concernmg the procedural steps which the NRC must follow when seeking to impose new seismic critena on a facihty at the operating Ocense stage of review.

B Although the conformance of a structure with applicable safety standards may depend bcth on the adequacy of design of the tructure and on the manner in which the design is imple-mented, the adequacy of design is conceptually different from the sufficiency of design imple-mentaticn and need not necessanly be considered m the same decision.

C The circumstance that construction is in progress (or has esen been completed) cannot ,c

'egally have any effect on a Licensms Board's evaluation of the adequacy of a structure's design.  %;9 However, should problems with a design bems followed be uncovered durms construction, those ^ s problems may be taken into account m assessing the technical adequacy of the design. Cf. Power ,j Reactor Development Co. v. Internauonal Union of Electncal. Radio & Machine Workers. 367 U.S. 396,415 (19611.

D At the operatmg hcense stage of review, an apphcant must provide, and the NRC Staff reviews, " current informauon . . which has been developed smce issuance of the construction ,

permit, relaung to site evaluation factors." including the geologic and seismic matters compre- *[

hended by 10 C F R. Part 100.10 C.F.R.150.34(b)(l). @

E Where the NRC Staff seeks to apply new seismic critena during its operatmg hcense yh review from those apphed at the construction permit stage of review, and where there has been g h.'

a progression in seismological rsview techn ques m the intervenmg penod, the StatT need not '

follow the backfitting procedures set forth in 10 C.F R y 50.109. m M

x cyr

. It iE%p 9.M M

9 b

DIG ESTS 1550ASCE5 OF Tile ATO\ llc 5AFETY AND LICEN5tNG BOARD 5 f \ progresuon m senmoingical reuem teshnwucs may consu:m 'carrent muirmaimn w hish has been daeloped unce nsuanse of the corstrustion Wrmsi ' wem the mea *mg ..t Lil C l R e M 348 bH i t, thus salitrg for a ressaluation at the operatmg i.u%e st..ge of ro,ew witnout need to rewrt to the basklit sundards et 10 C f.R 4 M liN G  % here an operatmg bcense and a show cause proscedmg are bemg s.arried on umultane-ousi) and are consolidated, and where the proteedmgs would unh/c different prmdural rulew the rules goserning the operaung heense proceedmg would apply m sonwudated hearmgs on Jumt inues.

11 Use o'f site-speciGc response spectra to deGne the ubratory ground monon at a wie of the safe shutdown earthqu.ke is consistent with 10 C.F R. Part 100. \ppenda A. 44 IVias.

V(alt 1) and Vl(a).

I The terms "important to safety' and safety-related." when apphed to seismic desgn re-quirements, are used mterchangeably in 10 C.F.R. Part 100. Appendn A.

J An inadequacy m seismological data may warrant requiring, pursuant to 10 C.F R. Part 100. Appendix A. y V(a)II)(iv). that the controllmg earthquake be larger than the maumum earthquake that has occurred historically within the tectonic provmce.

K The followmg techmcal issues are discuwed. Dewatering; DitTerential settlement of structures; Ground acceleration salue resultmg from safe shutdown earthquake; Quaht) anur-ance; Safe shutdown carthquake (sniensity, resulung sibratory ground mononh Seismic desgn crtieria; Seismic shakedown; Site-speciGc response spectra (SSRS); Soil compaction; Soil densay; Soil hquefacuon; Structural design - canulever designs; Structural design - etaluauon of cracks; Tectome provmces; Underground pipmg - corrosion; Underpmnmg of safety structures.

L BP-85-3 KERR McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION (West Chicago Rare Earths Facihty).

Docket No. 40-2061-ML ( ASLBP No. 83-495-01 ML); MATERIALS LICENSE January 23.

1985; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A Licensmg Board rules on petitions for reconsiderauon and clar:Geauon of its Memoran-dum and Order ruims on the admissibility of contenuons (LBP-84-42, 20 NRC 12%s in re-spcase to 5talTs mononi Licensms Board rules that Kerr McGee's contention (which seeks a determmation that its plan for permanently disposing of mill taihngs at its West Chicago is ac.

ceptable) is an acceptable contenuon. that StalTs obligauon to supplement 'the record on NEPA issues springs from the Peopic's contenuon rather than Kerr McGee's, that Staff must circulate a supplemental impact statement to accomphsh this supplementauon. and that the Board will not refer its ruling admittmg Kerr McGee's contenuon to an appeal board for mterlocutory review.

The Board demes the People's motion for reconsideration of its ruimg removmg references to Part 6l from one of their subcontentions on the ground that Part 61 is mapphcable and grants their motion for reconsiderauon of the denial of another subcontenuon which seeks to require StalT to respond to certam comments on the DES.

B Under the Admmistrauve Procedure Act. the Atomic Energy Act. and the Commission's Rules of Pracuce. an apphcanon cannot be demed without staung rear ns for the demal. These reasons must mdicate why the apphcanon does not comply with the statute and regulations under which it is filed. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80. 94; 87 L. Ed. 62b. 036 (14438. Com-monwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Stanon. Unns I and 21. ALAB ??o.19 NRC lle3 (19848; 5 U.S.C. i 555(e); 10 C.F.R. 4 2.1031b).

C where an FES disregards broad areas of environmental impact or fails to apprise the pubhc of the nature of the proposed action and its espected consequences, recirculauon of the statement is necessary.

D Admission of a contention which will require further StalT reuew does not result m unusual delay which jusuGes referral for interlocutory review. Duke Power Co. 8 Catawba Nuclear Stanon. Umts I and 21. AL AB-687.16 NRC 460. 464 (1982), rev'd on other grounds. CLL-8319.17 NRC 1041 (1983).

LBP 85-4 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (GETR Vallecitosi. Docket No. 50 70-OLR (ASLBP No.83-481 Ol-OLRl; OPER ATING LICENSE RENEW AL. Februar) 13. 1985.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A Haung carher concluded that peuuonpr has standmg to participate m this proceedmg.

the beensmg board reuews his contenuons add concludes that Osc should be admitted despite II

DIGESTS -

15WANCES OF THE ATostlC SAFETY AND LICE %ING BO ARD%

the fast that four of the 6sc rJhC maittCrs w hikh ugre the sUhlect o[ Jn earher proceedmg Lon.

cerning this re.wtor.

H The Jatrme of coHateral estoppel rna) not he used m proem huptmn of wm e%ons whi6h rane suniects hugated m a prer prowJmg wnternmg ne same reactor where the men e nor propoundmg the comentions was not m priut) *ith the intenenor m the pnor proseedmg C in order to present rehtigation os matiers htigated in a prior proceeding concern ng the same reactor, the Licensmg Board mvites monons for summary dopwuon whith ret) on tne record of the pnor proceedmg. Intenenor n. in response. to mdatate why that record is made-quate and why further proceedmgs are necessary. The Laensmg Board will olTiaally notice the record in the pnor proceedmg and render a dcasion whether further eudentury hearmgs are necessary.

LBP-85 5 CAROLIN A POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLIN A E ASTE RN MUNICIPAL POW ER AGENCY IShearon Harns N uclear Power Plant). Docket No.

50-400-OL i ASLBP No. 82 472 03 OL); OPERATING LICENSE: February 20. 1985; PA RTI AL INITIAL DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTIONS A The Licensmg Board decides in the Appheants' and StatTs favor three enuronmental issues that h.ed been the subje' c t of an eudentiary hearing. The Board demes a peuuon for waner of the "need for pomer' rule, holdmg that the peuuoner had nor shown that appheatmn of the rule in this case would be inconsistent with its intended purpose.

B The followmg technical issues are discussed. Apprornate Time Penods for Conudenng Health Effects; EITects of Attachment of Radionuchdes to Fly Ash Particles. E(Tects of Coal Par-ticulates Associated with the Fuel Cycle.

L BP-85-6 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY. et 41. (South Texas Project. Units I and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL. STN 50-499-OL t ASLBP No. 79 421-07 Olh OPERAT.

ING LICENSE; February 26. 1985; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensmg Board grants an intersenor's requesa for a heanns on the elTect fif anyl on the lead Apphcant's character and competence of its asserted fadure to notify NRC tmelud-ing the LKensmg Boardt on a umely bJsis of a report by Quadrei Corpnrauon la wasultant) on the engmeerms design actoities of the protect's former architect-engmeer-construstor The Board also demes reconsideration of an earher order whkh. mter aha, dismissed the same mier-venor's attempt to hugate certain substanuve issues denved from the Quadres Report.

B insofar as it relates to reports required to be furmshed by construction permit holders.

the coverage of 10 C.F R. Part 21 is simdar. albeit somewhat narrower. than the coverage of 10 C.F.R. ) 50.55(e). Items reported pursuant to { 50.55(e) need not again be reported to sausfy Part 21.

C' Certam denciencies representing a signi6 cant breakdown in a quahty assurance program are reportable under 10 C.F.R. { 50.55(eHIHi) but not under 10 C.F.R. Part 21.

D Under 10 C.F.R. y 50.55(e), a construcuon permit holder must noufy NRC of certain dedenencies in design or construction. The denciencies speci6ed by 10 C F R. ( 50 55(eHIHo and (ii) apply .to design or construcuon, whereas the deficiencies specified by 10 C F R.

y 50.55(edithiil and hv) are only defiaencies m construcuon, not design.

E DeGaenoes representmg a signineant breakdown m any poruon of the quahty awurance program, withm the meanmg of 10 C.F R. i 50.55(cH IHil may melude de6aencies in Jewgns whwh are not Anal and have not been approved and released for construcuon." withm the meanmg of to C.F.R. i 50.55(eHI) hit F Even though several quahty assurance deficencies may not m themsches be reportable as sigmficant quahty assurance breakdowns, collectnely they may nevertheless be greater inan the sum of their individual parts and be reportable as a sign Ocant quahty assurance breakdown under 10 C.F.R ( 50 55feHI)6L G Operating beense proceedmgs are not NRC's pnmary schicle for ascertaming the cust-ence of, or penalties for, violations of 10 C.F R. ) 50.55f et But such uolanons may be consal-cred m such proceedmss in the context of an appheant's character or competence to complete and/or operate a nuclear plant.

H A failure to adhere to the reportmg requirements of 10 C.F R

• 50 55(et does not per se redect an operatmg heense apphcant's lack of managenal character or competence. particularly where the NRC Stati beheses that the reportmg requiremenis hase been sainded But a part) n 13

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS nevertheless free to attempt to demonstrate that any parucular failure to report was mouvated by deficiencies in character or competence.

l A long hne of Appeal Board decisions has obhgated apptwants to keep hcensing or appeal boards mformed of newly developing informauon bearms on issues pending before such boards.

Duke Power Co. (Wilham 8. McGuire Nuclear Stauon, Units I and 2), ALA8143,6 AEC 623, 625-26 (1973); Georgia Power Co. (Alvm W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units I and 21, ALAB 291, 2 NRC 404,40812 (1975); Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nucicar Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397, 406 n.26 (1976); Tennessee Valley Authonty (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units I, 2 and 3), ALA8 677,15 NRC 1387,1394 (1982); Metropohian Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stauon, Umt 1), ALAB-774,19 NRC 1350,1357 60 (1984). Where there is

" reasonable doubt

• about the matenality ofinformanon,is should be disclosed "for the board to decide its true worth." TMI, supra,19 NRC at 1358.

L8P 85 6A PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, et at (Hope Creek Generaung Station) Docket No. 50-354-OL: OPERATING LICENSE; February 28, 1985; ORDER TER.

MINATING PROCEEDING A In this Order, the Licenang Board grants the parties' Jomt Motion, dismissms all remain-mg contenuons and termmaung the proceeding.

L8P-85-7 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PROJECT M ANAGEMENT COR-PORAT10N TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant),

Docket No. 50-537 CP (ASL8P No. 75-29112-CP); CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; March II, 1985; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FROCEEDING A The Board, impomns certam conditions on redress of the site, grants the Applicants' motion to authorize revocanon of the Limited Work Authonzation and to dismiss this construc-tion permit proceeding without prejudice.

8 Secuon 50.10(c) of 10 C.F.R. generally prohibits an applicant from starung site or con-s7uction work before the apphcant obtains a construcuon permit or a Limited Work Authonza-non. However,10 C.F.R. i 50.12 provides for exempuons from i 50.10(c), upon a consideranon -

and balancmg of several factors, including "lwlhether redress of any adverse environment impact from conduct of the proposed acuvities can reasonably be effected should such redress be necessary."

C The Board, exerctsng its responsibility under 10 C.F.R. ( 2.107(a) to consider whether terms should be prescribed for the withdrawal of an applicauon, predicates its granung of the Ap-plicants' mouon to authonze revocation of their Limited Work Authorizauon and to dismiss the proceeding without prejudice upon the adequacy of the Applicants' mie redress plan, and upon clanficanon of what the responsibiliues of the Apphcants and the Staff are in the event an alter-nate use is found for the ate before redress is complete.

D A condition of the Board's grantirs the Applicants' monon to dismiss this construcuon permit proceedmg is that if an alternate use is found for the construcuon site before redress of the site is complete, the Apphcants, under the StafTs review, will carry out, to the greatest extent possible consstent with the alternate use, the redress plans approved in this Order L8P 85-8 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. (South Texas Project. Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. STN $0-498-OL, STN 50-499-OL ( ASL8P No. 79-42107-OL); OPERAT-ING LICENSE; March 15,1985; M EMOR AN DU M A Responding to the remand by the Appeal Board in ALAB 799,21 NRC 360 (1985), the Licenang Board explams why it does not invoke its authonty under 10 C.F.R. { 2.760s to consid-er sua spprye certain previously dismissed contentions.

8 le % operaung license proceeding, a hcensms board is constramed from reviewmg an issue sua sponte unless a "senous safety, environmental, or common defense and secunty matter exists." 10 C.F.R. { 2.760s (emphasis supphed). The Commission must be advised of a board's intent to consider an issue sua sponte. When so advisng the Commission, a board must provide more than a conclusory statement of the issus's sigmficance.

C The circumstance that a parucular contenuon no longer being pursued has already been admitted to a proceedmg is not in itself sufficient to sausfy the standard for sua sponte review, nor is the incompleteness of Staff review of the issue.

b 14

DIGESTS ISSUA.SCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE.NSING BOARDS I

D A licenung board may take into account the pendancy and likely efGcacy of NRC Stati nonadjudicatory reuew in determemng whether or not to invoac its sua sponte review authority E Emergenc) Planning Zones must currenity cuend "about 10 miles" in radius from a plant 10 C F.R. 44 50 47(bH los, (cH21 and 10 C F R. Part 50. AppenJim E. 41. n.l.

F The last that esacuation of particular indiuduals would require them to begin their juur-ney by heading toward a plant mill not necessanly be fatal to the effectiveness of an emergency plart. The etTectiseness o'any plan will depend upon the particular circumstances in question.

L8P 85-9 HOUSTON LIGHT!NG & POWER COMPANY, et 41. (South Teitas Project. Units I and 2). Docket Nos. STN $0-498-OL, STN $0-499-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-421-07-OL); OPERAT-ING LICENSE, March 29,1985. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board denses an intervenor's late-Gled contertion on soil stability but, as part of its consideration of the lead Applicant's competence, directs a hearing on certain soils questions.

8 Late Gled contentions may be admitted only after balancmg all Gwe of the factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. ( 2.714(a)(1). Factors (ii) and (iv), concerning representation of a party's interest in a contention by other means or parties, are entitled to relausely less weight than the others.

C Factor (ul, involving other means for a party to protect its interest. is limited to the availability of other fora in which the party itself might protect its interest and is not satisGed through nonadjudicatory resolution of issues by license applicants or the NRC StalT (whose pro-grar9s do not focus on the interests of particular parties). Nor is factor (iv), involving representa-tion by other parties, satis 6cd through participation by applicants or the NRC Staff.

D The most signincant of the factors to be balanced with respect to late-Gled contentions, at least in situations where litigation of the contention will not delay the proceeding, is the extent to which the intervenor may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.

15

Qp '

a

• l, m

~

DIG ESTS isst \ Nt f % OF DIR E ClORN' ht t islON5 L

DD-85-1 GENERAL PL BLIC L TILITIES NL CI L AR (ORPOR \ fit )N i f hrcs \lde lumd Nuclear Sunon. L nits I and D. Deet Nos 50-2R 50-Di. and iOuter f reek N uwar Generaung Sunoni. Docket No 50 219. RLQL EST ItlR -\C Tit >N. January 15, l% 5. DIRI ( - .

A TOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. 4 2.206 The Director of the OfTice of Nuclear Reactor Regulauon denies a penann submmed by W -

Joanne Doroshow on behaif of the Three Mile Island Tiert. Inc . and other named Pennoners g ,3 requesung action with respect so the Three Mile Island Nuclear Siauon iT\tle t nits I and 2 and pp the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generaung Sunon. An B W here the Commisuon has before a the Peanoners' alleganons n another proceeding. it 2D is mappropnate to use 10 C.F R. 4 2.206 procedures to minute a show sause proceeding DD 85 2 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ibon Sunon. Umt li. Dmket No 50-295.

Mg I

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUEST. January 23. 1935. DIRf:CTOR'S DECISION 1 NDER 10 C.F R. I 2.2% 5 A The Director of the OITice of Nuclear Reador Regulanon grants m part and demes in kfg part a Petiuon by Edward Gogol alleging madequacies m the conummem integrated leak rate %Q test performed in 1981 at Zion Nuclear Power Suuon. Umt 1. The Pention sought a sarict> of reher mcludmg immediate NRC acuon to de.it with the threat raised by the alleged madequate k 1 j

leak rate test of the Zion Umi i facihty and the compleuon of an adequate and properly super- c 4

sised retesung of the facihty. Peuuoner also requested cories of all documems sollected by either the hcensee or the NRC m the course of the reiest, g;,y i,7g .;

'~

B Discrepancies in the Conumment Integrated Leak Rate Test IClLRTs for the hon /

Nuclear Power Suuon. Unsi i required retesting of the facihi> to demonstrate comphance anh '

10 C F R. Part 50. Appenda J. ,{ '

C lt is not necessary for :he NRC to issue orders in response to a pennon pur aant to lo p .. ,

C F R. 2.206 when the hcensee agrees to take remedul measures umilar to inose requeved 53 l::7 y the pention.

DD-85 3 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE. et al. (Seabrook Sunon. Umts

] 1i 1 and 2). Docket Nos. 50-443. 50-444 REQUEST FOR ACTION. March 18.1985; DIREC-pl l i TOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206 l A The Director of the Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulauon demes a Pennon of the New  ;

England Coahuon on Nuclear Pollunon requesurig that the Nuclear Regulatory Commiwon uke  ;

action to remedy alleged biolauons and deGesencies Js50cMied with construcuon of the Seabrook I facihty. Speci6cally. the Pennon contends that construcuon acuuties are being condusied m uo. Q :0r lauon of the terms of the construcuon permit and the Commission's quahts assurance require- i fS'I ments. speciGcally 10 C.F.R Part 50. Appendn B Based on these alleged siolauons and delicien-cies, the Pennoner seeks immeuute suspenuon 4 construcuon.

((,kgY '

B Orgamzabonal, changes at and Gnancmg of the Seabrook facihty d>J not haw the elfest of remosmg the enuty solet) accountable and responwbie for deugn and construcuon of the facility. Conseguemly. Jesign and construcuon acuuues conunue to be conduued m auordance 4 with the terms of the construcuon permit. M I .,_

C The quahty assurance program at the Seabrook f.sciht). includmg Cntenon I calhng for ~

the program to habe adequate authority and orgamzauonal freedom. sauslies the requirements of y 10 C F R. Part 50. Appendn B. Staf6ng of the Licensee's quahty assurance program with em- j ployees of another company would not be erupproprute of it remamcJ slear that those emplo>ees

• ere ulumately responsable to the LKensee Nor does the Lwensee necewarils compromise it'

[ '

r authonty and orgamzauonal freedom to superuse quaht) anurance by becommg heauly mdebicJ [ .' ..

to its comractors and other creditors gy h; r pT* .-

.oq.

,f A i m-w 4g7-a n'

[

imimi.,

4 DIGESTS ISSUA.NCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD 85-4 THE DETROIT EDISON CONF P AN). et al. IEnrho fermi \ toms Power P:.im. t_ nii 2). Docket No. 50-341. REQUEST FOR ACTION NIarch 20. 1945. DIRE CT( >R's DI. Cision UNDER 10 C.F R. t 2.20e A The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a request tiled b5 the %fe Energy Coaliuon of Michigan whwh requested iniuation of an investigation and formal pr<ncedrng to ensure adequate resolution of certain safety assues pnor to issuance of an operating litenw for Fermi-2.

B The following technical issues are discussed: Emergeno response informanon ustem.

discrepancies between drawings and as-built systems. radmaste systems, fire protection. Ntarit !

' containment design.

O l8 s

1

.J fc1 1

c. A LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASES

,hh

. twt Ala'bama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 182,7 AEC 210, 21216, remanded on other grounds, CLI 74-12,7 AEC 203 (1974) standard for applying collateral estoppel to prevent litigauon of a comention; LBP 85-4, 21 N RC 404 n.7 (1985)

Balismore Electne and Gas Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,103 S. Ct. 2246 (1983) litigabihty of Table S-3 values in individual licensing proceedings; LBP-85-5,21 NRC 429 (1985)

Board of Regents v. Roth,408 U.S. 564,573 (1972) circumstances affecting an individual's liberty interest; CL185-2,21 NRC 316 (1985)

Board of Regents v. Roth,408 U.S. 564,577 (1972) descnpuon of an individual's property mterest for purpose of determinmg entitlement to a hearing; CLI-85 2,21 NRC 317 (1985)

Boston Edison Co. (Pilgnm Nuclear Generstmg Station, Unit 2), ALAB 479,7 NRC 774 (1978) cure fer deficiencies in Final Environmental Statemems; LBP 85-3,21 NRC 252 (1985)

Cafetena and Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy,367 U.S. 386 (1961) employment actions not affecting an individual's property interest; CLI 85-2,21 NRC 317 (1985)

Capers v. Long Island R.R.,429 F. Supp.1359 (S.D N.Y.), aff*d sub nom. Harns v. Long Island R R.,

573 F.2d 1291 (1977) & i employment actions not affecting an mdividual's hberty mterest; CL1-85 2,21 NRC 316 (1985) ..,

Cincmnati Gas and Electne Co. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Stauon), ALAB-305,3 NRC 8,9 (1976) right ofintervenors to adjudicatory resolution of environmental or safety questions; ALAB 799, 21 NRC 382 n.97 (1985)

Cincinnau Gas and Electnc Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Umt 1), CLI 82-20,16 NRC 109 (1982), reconsiderauon denied, CL1-83-4,17 NRC 75 (1983) factors considered by Licensing Board in deciding whether to invoke its sua sponte reuew authonty; LBP-85-8,21 NRC 519 (1985)

City of Rochester v. U.S. Postal Service,541 F.2d 967,972 (2d Cir.1976) need to consider broader implicauons of individual deficiencies; LBP 85-6,21 NRC 460 (1985)

Cleveland Electne liluminaung Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), LBP 8124,14 NRC 175, 199 200 (1981) standard for applying collateral estoppel to prevent hugauon of a contention; LBP 85-4,21 NRC ( ;g 404 n.7 (1985) ep.

Cleveland Electnc illuminaung Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Umts I and 2), LBP-83-75,18 NRC N9 1254 (1983) factors considered by Licensing Board in decidmg whether to invoke its sua sponte review authonty; LBP-45 8,21 NRC 519 (1985)

Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station Umts I and 2), ALAB 770,19 NRC 1163, 1168 69 (1984) -

cause for Staff deferral of determination on apphcanon for permanent onsite storage of mill - 4 tailings; LBP 85-3,21 NRC 250 (1985) DIA Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Stauon, Umts I and 2), ALAB-770,19 NRC 1163, , ,1

1. !,h 1169 (1984) finding required for demal of a hcense; ALAB-799,21 NRC 374 n.36 (1985)

Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station Omts i and 2), ALAB 793,20 NRC 1591, 1619 n.133 (1984) 4 treatment ofinadequately supported bnef; ALAB 799,21 NRC 38l n 88 (1985)

J mf l N,%

8' W

m en.

) [

LEG AL CITATIONS IN DEX C.b ES Commonwealth Edimn Co ILahlte l'ounty Su:.on. L mis I and 28 1)l344-6.19 N R(. WI . W.%

t1984:

general JNoser) of Jmumemauon in ;mwon of hcen-ces.1)D45-2. 21 N RC l'2 i I 'le s' Conne6ticut \lutual Life insuran(e ( o s ShidJs.14 F R 1). 444 e5 D N3.19557 factors con 9dered in descrmining applicability of prnslege to madsertenth distowed desumew LBP-85-1. 21 NRC 18 il985r Consohd.sted Ednon Co of New iork lindun Point Sution. Uma 2). \L W-39'8 4 NRC 115n. Ilot (1977) standard for applymg collaieral estoppel to present htigauon of a contennon. LBP-45-4. 21 NRC 404 n.7 (1985p Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Pomt. Umts 1. 2. and 38. ALAB-319. 3 NRC 188.

I89 90 (1976) resoluuon of safety or environmental issues that are not the subject of contentmns. AL AB 794 21 NRC 383 n.100 (1985)

Consohdated Edison Co. of New York tindian Pomt. Umts 1. 2. and 37. CLI-75-8. 2 NRC 17311975 demat of petition for enforcement proceedmg on nsue already rendmg before the Commswon; DD 85-1,21 NRC 265-66 41985>

Consumers Power Co. IBeg Rosk Poim Plant). ALAB-795. 21 NRC 1 (1985)

Appeal Board pohey on review of unappealed bcensing actions. ALAB-796,21 NRC 5119858 Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant. Units 1 and 2). ALAB-270. I NRC 473. 475 (1975) treatment of inadequately supported bnefs; ALAB-799. 21 NRC 381 n.88 (1935). AL AB-802. 21 NRC 496 n 30 t1985)

Consumers Power Co alidland Plant. Umts I and 21, ALAB 283,2 NRC 11.1718 (1975), clantied.

ALAB-315. 3 NRC 101 (1976) appbcabihts of backlit entena to consohdated operating hcense/ enforcement proceeding.

LBP-85 2. 21 NRC 45 n.10 (19857 Consumers Power Co. 4 Midland Plant. Umts 1 and 2s. \L AB-283,2 NRC 11. 20 t 19'5p relevance of an appheant's remedul mewares to sharaster and competence determinatwns; ALAB 799. 21 NRC 374 t1985#

Consumers Po*er Co. niidland Plant. Umts ! and 25. CLl;74-5. 7 AEC 19. 32 81974 mterpretanon of the term "pnma facie showing. LBP 85 5. 21 NRC 443 n.1611985 Consumers Power Co (Pahsades Nuclear Power Facihty). ALAB-670.15 NRC 493. 506 (1982)

(concurrms opmion of Mr. Rosenthal). vacated as moot. CLI-8218.16 N RC 50 (1982) protection of an sodividual's economic imerests under the Atomic Energy Act; CLI 85-2. 21 NRC 316 (1985)

Control Data Corp. v. IBM Corp.,16 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1233 (D. Minn.1972) factors considered in determming apphcabihty cf pnvilege to inadvertently dnclosed documents.

LBP 851,21 NRC 18 (1985)

Dairyland Power Cooperatne tLa Crosse Boshng Water Reactor #, LBP 83-23.17 NRC 655. aff'd isua spome), ALAB 733,18 NRC 911983) new methodology for determinmg response spectra; LBP-85-2. 21 NRC 50 n il i19857 Detroit Ednon Co IEnnco Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Umt 2). LBP 79-l. 9 NRC 73. 81 (19'98 effectneness of evacuation routes which imtully trasel toward a plam. LBP-85 4. 21 NRC $22 11985)

Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Suuon. Units 1 and 21, ALAB-355. 4 NRC 397. 406 n.26 t 1976) obhgation of apphcants to mform Boards of sigmficant new mformauon LBP-85 6. 2i NRC 461 (1985)

Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Suuon. Units I and 21. ALAB 355. 4 NRC 397. 411 12 419'68 admissibahty of hearsay evidence. ALAB-802. 21 NRC $01 n 67 (19858 Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nudear Stanon. Unns I and 21. ALAB-687,16 NRC 460. 404184821 rev'd in part on other grounds. CLi 8319.17 NRC 1041 (1983) importance of delay cauwd by further Staff reuens of safety nsues. LBP 85 3. 21 NRC 257 n l9 (1985) 20 t

LEGAL CITATIONS IN DEX Casts Duke Power Co 'Ca.aw N Nuslear % tion. If nns ! md 2 t. t L td.1-14, l' NRC in41 a l%3 ractors balanu:d ior aJmissu.n us kue-0kJ wntemmns litP.M5 4. 21 N RC $2n 81@

wu ror adma-o.n nt late Gled wnwm.on na,ed ~n preum Q unauiLNe mNrmuna.

LDP45-3. 21 NRC 413119858 Duke Prawer Co iCherokee Nu6Icar Station. Units 1. 2. and 3r,. ALTB-440. n N RC e42. n44 e 19",

effect of an mtersenor's withdraw.di on huganon of his contennons. \L \B.'99. 21 NRC 38) n.103 t 19857 Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nudear Station. Unus I 2. and 36. AL AB 482. ? NRC 9*9. 941 n.4 419787 stare decisis effect of Licensmg Board decmons that are not appealed. AL AB 795. 21 NRC 2 n.5 110858 Duke Power Co. (Wilham B. McGuire Nus! ear Stanon. Umis i and 2). AL 48-143. 6 TLC e23.

625 26 (1973) obhgation of appheants to mform Boards of sigmficant new enformation; LBP 85-n. 21 NRC 460-61 (1985) reportabihty of engmeenny design de6ciencies. LBP-85-6. 21 NRC 45211985p Duke Power Co. (%1 ham B. \leGuire Nuclear Station, lmis I and 2L ALAB-ch4.15 NRC 453. 4" t1982) admissibility of hearsay eudence; ALAB-802. 21 NRC $01 n 67 t1985#

Duke Power Ca v. Carohna Enuronmental Study Group. 438 U.S. 5911978:

habihty of nudear power plants for damages from accidents; LBP-85-4,21 NRC 402 i1985:

Dunn Chemical Co. v. Sybron Corp.1975-2 Trade Cas. (CCHI 160.561 at 67.463 45 D.N L 19758 factors considered in determining apphcabihty of priulege to inadsertently dislosed documents.

LBP-85-l. 21 NRC 18 (1985)

Duplan Corp. v. Deenns Mdhken. Inc.,397 F. Supp.1846 (D C.S C.19748 waner of attorney chent or work product pnulege through medsertent dislosure of documents LBP-85 l. 21 NRC 16 n.7 (1985#

Flanda Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nudear Power Piant. Unit 21. AL \B-579.11 NRC 223. 22b (1980) nexus between monons to reopen as basis for Appeal Board's junsdicuen. AL AB 79?. 21 NRC 8 (1985)

Flonda Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. Umt 21. LBP-8158.14 NRC 1867 I188-89 (1981) standard for applymg collateral estoppel to present hugauon of a contenuon. LBP 85-4. 21 NRC 404 n.7 (1985)

Fronda Power and Light Co. (Turkey Pomt Nuclear Genersung Station. Umts 3 and 48. AL AB-6e0.

14 NRC 987.1014 (1981) cure for denciencies in Final Enuronmental Staiements. LBP-85 3. 21 NRC 252. 256 t 1985)

Georgia Power Co. ( Alun W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant. Unus 1 and 2). ALAB 291. 2 NRC 404. 40812 (19756 obtigation of appheants to mform Boards of signiGeant new miormanon. LBP-85 6,21 NRC 4nt t1985) reportability of engineenng design dencieneses. LBP-85-6,21 NRC 452 Il985 P Gulf States Uuhties Co. t Rner Bend Stauon. Umts I and 2. ALAB-444,6 NRC 760. 796 t 19?7 good cause for allowmg an mtersenor to adopt a departmg intersenor's contennons. ALAB 799 21 NRC 384 n.108 (1985)

Houston Lighting and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Station. Uma 11. ALAB-671.15 NRC 508. $13 n.13 (1982) means of protecting an mtersenor's interests other than through huganen of contennons.

LBP 85 9,21 NRC 528119851 Houwon Lighung and Power Co. (South Tetas Project. Units 1 and 28, CL1-77-13. 3 NRC 1303.1321 (1977) htigabihty of anutrust issues at the operaung heense stage. LBP-35-4. 21 NRC 404 a1955p 21 e

- - -- - ,_-n

e_ .

}

LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CA5L5 llouston Lighting and Po.er Ca Routh f eus Proiett. l mis I ana 2 s . I HP.'9-2'.10 N RC 56.t. 4 '

il4Ns. af t d. \ tab $'*. ll NRC 14 419Ws standard for ,applung wilatere estoppel to present hhganon ni a wmemion. I tiP-C-4. 21 N R(

404 n ' t 19@

llouston Lighting and Power Co (South feus Pnipect. l mts I and 2P. LBP 8154 14 NRC 418.

922 23 & n 4 a 1981 s msocation of Laensmg BoardN sua sponte powers. \ LAB?99. 21 NRC 385 n t il I19M51 Johnson s. Umieruts of Pittsburgh. 435 F. Supp.1328 iW D. Pa.197h employment Jctions not a!Iecting an indiuduJIN hben) mterest; CLi-85-2. 21 NRC Jin i!985s Kleppe v. Sierra Club. 427 U.S. 390. 40910 (1976)

. need to consider broader impheauons of indsudual deficencies. LBP-85-e. 21 NRC 4rd) (1985)

Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Sianon. Umi 18. ALAB 788,20 NRC 1102.1851 11984) slandard for estabhshing due process uolation by Licensmg Board. ALAB-799. 21 NRC 377 n $4 t1985)

Louiwana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Staiiori. Omt 3p. AL AB 732.17 NRC 1076 1096 t19838 propnety of hmits on scope of cross-esamination. AL AB 799. 21 NRC 377 n d' 41985i standard for establishmg due process uolation by Licenung Boara ALAB-799. 21 NRC 377 n 54 (1985)

Louisiana Power and Light Co (Waterford Sicam Electric Stanon. Umt 38. AL AB-732.17 NRC 1076.

I109-10 (1983) distmcuon between character and competence; ALAB 799. 21 NRC 375 n.41 (19856 Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Sicam Electne Stauon. Umt 3). ALAB 732.17 NRC 1070 1110-12 (1983) cause for invocanon of Licenung Board's sua sponte powers. ALAB 799. 21 NRC 385 n.lli (1985)

Louisiana Power and Light Co. twa terford Steam Eleune %t on. Umt 3s. AL AB ?32.17 NRC 10'e.

t ill-14 (19834 factors considered by Licensing Board in deciding ahether to nsoke us sua sponte reuew authonly; LBP-85.8. 21 NRC 519 t1985)

Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Sicam Electnc Sunon. Umt 3s AL AB-797. 21 NRC 6. 9 (1985) importance of Board consideranon of all areas of quahty assurance performance. LBP 85-6. 21 NRC 462 (1985)

Nfendenhall v. Barber Greene Co. 53 8 F. Supp. 951. 953 n.9. 954 t N.D. Ill 1982) consideration ofintent of disclosmg party m deciding apphcabihty of wasser of pnulege to madsertent disclosure; LBP 85-1. 21 NRC 18 (1985)

Nietropohian Edison Co. (Three Ntile Island Nuclear Sianon. Umt li. ALAB-685.16 NRC 449. 452 n.5(1982) invocanon of Licensmg Board's sua sponte powers. ALAB 799. 21 NRC 385 n.lli e1955#

Nietropohtan Edison Co. (Three Nt.te Island Nuclear Sianon. Umt 17. ALAB-715.17 NRC 102 f 1983#

eause for subpoena of SulIwitnesses not otherwise scheduled to tesufy. ALAB 802. 21 NRC 501 n.66 (1985i Sletropohun Edison Co. (Three Afile Island Nuclear St.tuon. Umt i t. AL AB-738.18 NRC 177.140 (1983)

Appeal Board pokey on reuew ng Licensing Board determmanons not consutuung final resoluuon; ALAB 799,21 NRC 369 n.15 (19859 Nfeiropohtan Ediwn Co. (Three Ntile Island Nuclear Suuon. Uni It. ALAB 772.19 NRC 1193.

1206,1232 t19841 standards for determir mg an apphtant's character and competence. \ LAB 799. 21 NRC 3'O n.18,374 n.38 (1985)

$leiropohtan Edison Co. t Three Ntile Island Nuclear Stauon. Umt I P AL AB 7'2.19 N RC 1193.

1246 47 (19841 rev'd in part on other grounds. CLt-85 2. 21 NRC 282 (19851 responsibihty for prouding counsel for mtersenors. AL AB-802. 21 NRC 498 n 45 819858 22 I

r L

n

- LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX cases Metropohtan I dhon Co.1Thice \lele Island Nuticar $iation. Umt 11 \l.\ll "2.l8NRL ll41 1247-48 119448 res d in part on other grounds ( Ll-45-2. 21 NR( :s2*I w e Board part opatmn in mtenenoc row-eumination. \L \ Bad 2. ?! N R(' 4W n 44 il* i

\lettorolitan I dien Co. i Three \lde Island Nuslear 5taimn. ( n t li. \L \ll "J.19 N RC 13 4o 1357-60 t 19848 obhgation of appheams to inform Boards of ugm6cani new iniormanon. LBP a! e. 21 NRC 461 e1985)

\leiropohtan Ediwn Co 4 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. L nit 11 CLt-84-3.19 NRC 555,5n2-o1 (19847 standard for sua sponte resiew of admitted comemions. LBP 85 8. 21 NRC $19 il945#

Siagara Moh. ink Power Corp. tNine Mile Point Nuclear Station. Unit 2p. I NRC 347. 352 72 41975 scope of casubene6 analnis at constructinn permit stage; LBP 85-5. 21 NRC 44181985 Northern Staics Power Co. (Praine island Nuclear Generaisng Plam Unns I and 28. Al. AB-244. 8 AEC $57. 863,867-68 (1974), alTJ in pertineni part. CLl 75-1. I NRC I i1975 intervenor partiopation on contentions sponsored by others; AL AB 799. 21 NRC 383 n 101 (l985)

O' Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center. 447 U 5. 773 41980>

hearing nghts of indisiduals mdirectly aficcted by government actions. CLI-85 2, 21 N RC 316 n.39 (1985)

Orr v. Trenier,444 F.2d 128 (6th CirJ. cert. demed. 408 U.S. 943 (1971) description of an individual's property interest for purpose of determining entitlement to a heanng. CLI-85-2,21 NRC 317 (1985)

Paci6c Gas and Electne Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plani, Umts I and 21. ALAB 598.11 NRC 876. 879 (1980s requirements for reopemng record on new issues; ALAB-801,21 NRC 481 n 2,t19853. CLl 85 2.

21 NRC 285 n.3 (1985)

Pacific Gas and Electne Co. IDiablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 27. \L AB-o44.13 NRC 903,923 41981i Board Gndings contrary to those urged by a party as eudence of bias. \LTB '99. 21 NRC 3'o n.51 (1985)

Pacdic Gas and Electne Co. IDiablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units t and 28. TL AB-644.13 NRC 903,924 n.40 (1981) de6nition of a response spectrum; LBP-85-2,2l NRC 137 n.59 (1985)

Paci6c Gas and Elecine Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2), ALAB-775.19 NRC 1361,1365-67 (l9843 requirements for reopemns record on new issues; ALAB-801. 21 NRC 481 n.2 (l9851 Paci6c Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2). ALAB-775.19 NRC 1361.1368 n.22 (1984p consequences ofinadequate Statiresponse to mosion to reopen. AL AB-801,21 NRC 484119451 Paci6c Gas and Electne Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 27. CLi 815.13 NRC 36l. 364 (1981i failure of intersenor to demonstrale good came for late Ghng of wils contention. LBP.85 9. 21 NRC $27 (1985)

Paci6c Gas and Electnc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2). CLl 81-6.13 NRC 443 11981) demal of petition for enforcement proceeding on issue already pending before the Commission:

DD-85-1,21 NRC 265 (1985)

Pacific Gas and Electnc Co. IDiablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Uniis I and 21. CLl 82-30.16 NRC 1712,1714-15 (19827 requirements for reoremns record on new issues. AL AB-801. 21 NRC 481 n.2 a l985)

Pacine Gas and Electric Co (Sianislaus Nuclear Protect. Umi II, ALAB 550. 9 NRC 683 l19*9 means of obtaimng documents from nonparties; LBP-85-1. 21 NRC 22 41985 Permian Corp and Occidental Petroleum Corp. v Umted States. 665 F 2d 1214.1219 D C. Cir.1991) waiser of attorney-chent or work product pnulege through inadsertent dislosure of dosuments.

LBP-85-1,21 NRC 16 n 8 (1985) 23 e

LEG AL CITATIONS IN DEX CASLN PhilaJelphu i lettric Co ( Limerd bener.it mg %u..n. l. nii, t .ind 2t \l \lV>. l ' N R( **

il%3e t.ntors conudsred m astermimng Jurduomal dnpules in NRC pr% 2Jmb \L \liN ll NRC 9119858 Philadelphu Electne Co. (Limend Generaung wuon. Unit I and 28. LMP.42-43 \.15 NR( I423.

I 459-ta) ( 1982) standard for apptung collateral estorpet to preseni huganon ut a contemion. LBP45 4. 21 NR(

404 n.7 (1985s Portland General Electne Co. Pebbie Senngs Nuclear Plant. Cmts I and 28. CLl 76-2'. 4 NRC blo H976) showing necessary to estabhsh standing in twensing proceedings. CLl-85-2. 21 NRC 316 (19858 Portland General Electne Co. (Tropn Nucicar Planti. AL Ad 181. 7 AEC 207. 2t>8 n 4 (19'4s scope of approval conferred by appellate sua sponte reuew. \ LAB 795. 21 NRC 3 n 7 41945P Power Reactor Development Co. v. Internanonal Umon of Elecincal. Radio & %Iashine Workers. 367 U.S. 396. 415 t 1%Il effect of the progress of construction on a Board's esaluauon of the adequao of a strustureN design. LBP-85-2. 21 NRC 37 (1985)

Project Management Corp. (Chnch Rner Breeder Reactor Plants. ALAB 354. 4 NRC 383. 39192 (1976) effect of an intervenor's withdrawal on hugauon of his contennons. AL AB 799. 21 NRC 382 n.99. 383 n.103 (1985)

Pubhc Service Co. o(Induna (Marble Hill Nuclear Generaung Stauon. L mts I and 28. TL AB-459. 7 NRC 4 79.188 (1978)

Appeal Board standard for overturmns a Licensing Board's wtreduhng deciuon. AL AB 799. 21 NRC 379 n.75 (1985)

Pubhc Seruce Co. of New Hampere 4Scabrook Sianon. Units I and D. AL AB.%?.15 NRC 421.

426-42 (1982) cutem to whNh use of proeabehsue methodology is permnunie unde 'O C F.R. P.irt 100 Appenda A. LBP 85 2. 21 NRC 47,13141985)

Pubhc Seruce Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stanon. Umts I and 21. CLi-77 8. 5 NRC 503. 322.

530-36 (1977) scope of cost / benefit analysis at construction permit stage; LBP 85 5,21 NRC 44142 (1985)

Pubhc Seruce Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stauon. Umts I and 21. CLI 77-8. 5 NRC 503.

524-25 119771 legahly of Staff rehance on informanon generated by Apphcants: LBP-85-3. 2. NRC 256 n.17 (1985)

Pubhc Seruce Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Stat on. Unus I and 21. CLI 781. 7 NRC l. 27 t1978) standard for applying collateral estoppel to present huganon of a contennon. LBP 85-4. 21 NRC 404 n.7 (1985)

Pubhc Serswe Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrnok Stanon. Umis I and 21. CLI-xo-33.12 NRC 295.

298 (1980) entem to which uw of probabiksue methodology is permnuble under 10 C F R. Part luo.

Appenda A; LBP 85 2,21 NRC 47 (1985)

Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Stanon. Umts I and 21. AL AB-505,8 NRC 527. 532 (1978) obhgauon of counsel to advise Boards of segm6 cant new mformauon; LBP 85-6. 21 NRC 461 (1985)

Pubhc Seruce Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fos Station. Umts 1 and 21. AL 4B473 la NRC ?*5. 785-87 (1979) cure for dc6ciencies m Fin.nl Enuronmemal Statemems. LBP 85-3. 26 NRC 252. 2fo 41989 Pubhe Seruce Co. o(Oklahoma (Blad Fog Stanon. Umts I and 26. AL \B-!?3.10 NRC 775. '8h47 (197w treatment of madequately supported brief. AL AB-799. 21 NRC 381 n $$ 11985s 24

LEG AL CITATIONS IN DEX CAMN Puget Sound Power and Light Co. % git Nustear Power Pwnt. t no, I and 2i. \1 \ltM2. la N RC i. 5 i 19'*

fadare of mierseemt so demonstraic good s use for 4aic f.bng < a we s u semis  ! lu i se NRC .s2' * * %5:

Roshester Gn and f lessne Corit IR l knna htar Paer 1%mi, tilla: 14 Niu +

1357 58 11982:

need for further NRC atmn where Lcensee wiumanh taxes remedi.si acnon to eur st a detkiency; DD-85 2. 21 NRC 272 i!485 Scaled Caw. 676 l- 2d 793. *)? ID C. Cir.1952) waner of attorney chent or work pnw1uti pnulcue through inadscrtent dmtowre of Josumems LBP-85-1,21 NRC lb n.7 (1985p SEC v Chenery Corp. 31813.5. 80. 94. 87 L. Ed. 626. 636 41943 p cause for Staff deferra of determmanon on appucanon for permanent onuie storage os mal tailmss; LBP-85-3. 21 NRC 250 t 19858 South Carohna Elecine and Gas Co. Ibrgil C Summer Nuclear Stauon. I'mt i1. AL AB-642.13 NRC 881. 895 (1981) weight given to factors Hz) and ini m the-f actor test for admewson of late-filed contennons.

LBP-85 9. 21 NRC 528 e1985)

Southern Cahfornu Edison Co. ISan Onofre Nuslear Generaung Stauon. L. mn 2 and Ji. \l. \B-24x.

8 AEC 957. 963 (1974p effecuveness of evacuauon routes which smually trascl toward a plant. LBP-85-8. 21 NRC 522 (19851 Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San Onotre Nuclear Generating Suuon. L mis 2 and 38. AL AB-673.

If NRC 688. 695-97 (1982) standard for applying collateral estoppel to prevent htigauon of a comennon LBP 85-4. 21 NRC 404 n 7 (1985s Southern Cahfornu Edison Co (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung Stauon. L'mts 2 and 38 \L \B-*'3 15 NRC 688. 6971 n 14. alTJ. CLI 82 II.15 NRC 1383 19828 Board authonty to curtail crow-cummahon. \L AB 799. 21 NRC 3?? n eva i19e a Southern Cahfornu Edmon Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung Station. L mis 2 and 38 \L \B 'I' 17 NRC 346. 365-68 (1983) estem of Board dependence on matenallack ng formal sponsorship n makmg its rmdmgs.

LBP 85 2. 21 NRC 229 n.106 (1985)

Staiement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensms Proceedings CLi-818.13 NRC 452. 454 t1981s penalty for nonresponsive fihngs and ignonns Commission directnes; CLI-85-2. 21 NRC 28 7 (1985) time allowed for Intervenors' case preparanon; ALAB 802,21 NRC 498 n.44 (1985p Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings. CLt-818.13 NRC 452. 455 (19818 resoluuan of health and safety asucs without htiganon; ALAB-799. 21 NRC 383 n.10411945s Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licens ng Proceedmgs CLI 818.13 NRC 452. 45' 419811 means for Licensmg Boards to espedile proceedings. ALAB ?99. 21 NRC 3?? 157614456 Subpoenas Duces Tecum Fulbnght and Jaworas. %nwn and Etkms. Tesoro Peiroleum Corr . '34 F 2J 1367 iD C. Cir.1984) waner of attorne) chent or work product pnuiege it rough inadsertent Jislosur.*. of Jecm*,

LBP-851,21 NRC 16 n 811985)

Suburban Sew'n Sweep Inc. v. Swiss Bermna. Inc.,91 F R.D 254. 25? IN D !!!.1931#

waner of attorney chent or work product pnulege through inadsertent dmluwre of Ja' ament,.

LBP 851,21 NRC 16 (19356 Tennessee Valley Authonty (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Umts 1. 2 anJ 37. ALAB 6  ? '.15 NRC 1387. 1394 (1982) obbgauon of appheants to soform Boards ot'sigmtkant new mformauon. LBP-45-4, 21 NRC Jai i19858 Tesas Unhues Generaung Co. IComanche Peak Steam Elecine Suuon. Cmh I and 27. ( Lt si 24 14 N RC 614 (19818 scope of Licensmg Board sustificauon to the Commswon of eserene of the BoarJ'e sua

• rome reuew authoniy; LBP 85-8. 21 NRC 519 41995 25

y. -'

?

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX Cas r.s feus Utihties Generarmy Co 1Comanene Peak %e.im 1:les:rw vaimn. t ne I and 2r. CLI-4136 14 NRC 1111. lil3 I4 <!91tle rewiution of safet) or snuronmemat mun :nat are not the sutuca of wmenu r- \L gitJe 21 NRC 383 n itU (1985 standard for sua spome reuen of admitted contentions. LBP 854. 21 NRC 519 iln5e Teus Utihines Generating Co. IComanche Peak Steam Electric hialmn. L me, I and 2s. D114311.14 NRC 293. 295 e1983) general dncoscry of documentation m poweswon of heensees; DD-85-2,21 NRC J') I190 Trane Co. v. Kluttmck. 87 F.R.D. 473 (W D %se.1980) treatment of requests for documents Gled on nonparties. LdP-851,21 NRC 22119il5#

Transamenca Computer Co. t IBNI. 573 F.2d 646. 653 (9th Cir.19788 factors considered in determming apphcabihty of pnulege to inadsertenti) dnclosed documems.

LBP-85-1,21 NRC 1819 (1985)

Underwater Storage, Inc. v. U.S. Rubber Co.,314 F. Supp 546. 549 iD D C.1970s madvertent disclosure of documents as cause for waner of pnulege; LBP 85-1. 21 NRC 17 (1985)

Union Electnc C1 (Callaway Plant, Umi I). AL AB 740.18 NRC 343. 34511983s htigal"hty of tonstruction quahty assurance issues m operating heense proceedmgs. ALAB 799 21 NRC 374 n.35 (1985)

Umon Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Unn 1),. ALAB-740.18 NRC 343. 346 (1983) interpreuntion of the term "promptly" as apphed to the reporting of quahty assurance deGesencies; ALAB 802,21 NRC 503 n.75 (1985)

Umted Broadcasting Co. v. FCC,565 F.2d 699 (D C. Cir.1977), cert. demed. 434 U S.1046 (1978).

afFs Apphcations of United Television Co.,55 F C C.2d 416 (1975) penalty for violation of rules; ALAB 799,21 NRC 374 n.39 (1985)

Umted States v. Cole. 456 F 2d 142,144 4 8th Cir.1972) waiver of attorney-client or work product pnvilege through madscricnt disclosure of documents.

LBP 851,21 NRC 16 n.7 (1985)

Umted States v. Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Co. 15 F.R.D. 461. 464. 465 4 E.D %ch.1954 waiver of attorney chent or work product pnulege through madvertent disclosure of documems.

LBP 85-1,21 NRC 16 n 7.1718 (1985)

United States v. White,454 F.2d 435,439 (7th Cir.1979) treatment ofinadequately supported bnef; ALAB-799. 21 NRC 381 n.88 (19851 Virginia Electnc and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2) ALAB-551. 9 NRC 704 707 (1979) nesus between motions to reopen as basis for Appeal Board's junsdiction; AL AB-797,21 NRC 8 (1985)

Virgmia Electnc and Power Co. INorth Anna Power Station. Umts I and 2). LBP-78-10. 7 NRC 295.

299 fl978) means for determmmg deGciencies reportable under 10 C F R. 50 55(et LBP-85-6. 21 NRC 459 (1985)

W R. Grace v. Pullman Inc.,446 F. Supp 771 (W D. Okla.1976; waiver of disclosure where opposmg party is allowed to reuem documents m respong to discovery request. LBP-85-l. 21 NRC 18 (1985)

Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Profect No 3), ALAB 747,18 NRC 1167 (1983) means of protectmg an intervenor's interests other than through htigation of consentions:

ALAB-799. 21 NRC 384 n.108 (1985); LBP 85 9,21 NRC $23 (1985)

Weil v. Investment / indicators Research & \tanagemem. 647 F 2J 18,24 49th Cir.19317 consideration ofintent of disclosms party m deciding apphcabihty of pnulege to maJsertentti disclosed documents; LBP-85 l,21 NRC 18 (1995)

Wisconsm Electnc Power Co. (Pomt Beach Nuclear Plant. Umt it. ALAB-oso.10 NRC 1245,1255 (1982) treatment ofinadequately supported brief; ALAB 799,21 NRC 381 n 88 t 1985t 26 4

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CA5ES W iwenun t.leetnc Power Co iPoint lleash \ustear P!.ini. l nit I t. Al \ll '19. I' NRC 3X'. 391 f19431

\ppeal B urd stand.ird for meriurning a 1.icenwng Hiurd's whedahng dw ion. \l. \ h '+8 2i NRC J'9 n '$ i194f e 27

-Q k

U" de

'+

LEG AL CIT.\TIONS IN DEX ~

R f G L 1. A l 10 %

10 C F R. 210)(be p prerequisete to demal of apphsanon for permanent onvse uorage of mnt lad.co. LitPaf.). 21 NRC g 250 + 1985 s 10 C F R. 2.104f ci h<*

lima en mues hi.g ible m operating lwenw proceedmgs. \L \B '99. 21 N RC 342 n 97 s 19M 5 s N' 10 C F R. 2.107f at S .

esercise of Board authority 10 prewribe terms for withdr.awal of apphcanon. LBP.85 7. 21 NRC 509 I @

(19851 2 10 C F.R. 2.206 'h, ,

denial of petition for acuon to remedy alleged uolanons and defisiencies in construcuen at  ?

Seabrook. DD-85-3, 21 NRC 533 (19851 demal of petinon for resocanon of hcenw. alleging task os sharaster of htensee. DD-851. 21 NRC N 264 l1985) -v remedy for site redress problems followmg withdrawal of hmited nork authoritauon. LBP 35 7. 21 "-C NRC 514 (1985) 10 C F.R. 2.713t b) representation of parues in NRC proseedings. ALAB 802. 21 NRC 498 n 43 (1985)

FC 10 C.F R. 2.714(al factors weighed for admission of contentions greatly expanded durms particularization. LBP-85 8.

21 NRC 518 (1935:

Mlh O

rejecuon of late liled soils contenuon. LBP-85 9. 21 NRC 529 (19856 b 10 C F.R. 2.714(alf D tactors balanced for adm%on of late-tiled contennons. LBP-45 9. 21 NRC 526 il%5 , y test apphed in dele - tm.ng whether to allow intersenor to adept (ontenoun3 vi another mtersenor 2/'

who has withdrawn. ALAB 799,21 NRC 381 n 93 (1985 *4 10 C.F R. 2.714(a)(2) h, requirements for mtersennon. LBP 85 2. 21 NRC 118 (19858 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) mtervenor partmipation on contenuons sponsored by others. ALAB 799,21 NRC 383 n.102 l1985) test applied in determmms whether to allow mtersenor to adopt contenuons of another mtersenor who has withdrawn: ALAB 799,21 NRC 381 n 94 (1985) ,

10 C.F R. 2.716 application of collateral estoppel to consolidated proceedings. LBP 85-4. 21 NRC 405 n 8 (1985i ,. g 10 C.F R. 2.718(e) ., 4,-f Licensmg Board authority to demand cross-eummanon plans. AL AB ?99. 21 NRC 3'7 n.55 il9457 h;h 10 C F R. 2.71808 reason for denial of directed scrutication requew. AL AB 799. 21 NRC 379 el485e d; i 10 C F R. 2.720 use of subpoenas to obtain documents from nonparties. LBP.85-1. 21 NRC 22 41985 10 C F R. 2.720thH2)lo dyy .' .

admissibthiy of hearsay eudence. ALAB 802. 21 NRC 501 n 67 (19858 Board authority to order appearance of Stati member as a witness. ALAB-802. 21 NRC 500-01 (19856 Y

N 10 C F R. 2.722 M2 dunes of judges serung on Lisensmg Board Panels. LBP-85-5. 21 NRC 413 n 2 s 1985s 10 C F R. 2.730 x>

Commnsion authonty to delegate recmubinty for dnposms of monons to \rpeal Boards. ,(

~

ALAB 797. 21 NRC 9 n 5 a 1985) 10 C F R 2.741 3; requests for documents filed on nonparues. LBP-85 l. 21 NRC 21 e1915e 3

a

'w.,

u y;

29 g D2' c: .

I L.

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 10 C F R. 2.743(b) use of prefiled wntien tesumony in NRC proceedmgs. ALAB-799. 21 NRC 379 n.71 (1985) 10 C.F R. 2.743(d) effect of lengthy objecuons on a proceeding. ALAB-799. 21 NRC 378 n.65 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.749 content of summary disposition motions; L8P-85-4,21 NRC 408 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.757(c) means for Licensmg Boards to expedite proceedinss; ALA8 799,21 NRC 377 n.56 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.758 background of need for power ruic; L8P 85-5,21 NRC 448 (1985) interpretanon of the term "pnma facie" showing; L8P-85-5. 21 NRC 443 n.16 (1985) means for challenging regulanons; L8P.85-4,21 NRC 404 (1985) means for obtainmg waiver from need for power rule; L8P-85-5,21 NRC 440 (1985) showmg necessary for waiver of need for power rule; L8P 85 5,21 NRC 444 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(a) lingabehty of Commission rules m hcensms proceedings; L8P 85 5. 21 NRC 440 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(b) standard for obtaming waiver from need for power rule; LSP 85 5. Il NRC 441 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(c)

Board action where no showmg is made for waiver of need for power rule; LBP 45 5,21 NRC 441 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(d)

Board acuan where showmg is made for waiver of need for power rule; L8P.85 5,28 NRC 444 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.759 resoluuon of health and safety issues without leigation; ALAB-799,21 NRC 383 n.104 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.760s Board authonty to raise issues sua sponte; L8P.85-6,21 NRC 450 (1985) cause for invocanon of Licensing Board's sua sponte powers; ALA8-799,23 NRC 385 (1985) issues to be decided in an operaung hcense amendment proceeding; ALAS-796,28 NRC 5 (1985) limit on environmental matters hogable in operaung hcense proceeding; LSP 45 5,21 NRC 445 (1985) limit on issues lingsbie in operaung license proceedmas; ALAB-799,21 NRC 382 n.97 (1985) standard for sua sponte review ofissues by Licensmg Scards; L8P 85 8,21 NRC 517,519 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.761 dismissal of proceedings when issues are no longer disputed; ALAB-7%,21 NRC 5 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.762(d) treatment ofinadequately bnefed allesauons; ALA8 799,21 NRC 378 n.64 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.762(d)(1) content of appellant's bnefs; ALA8 802,21 NRC 4% n.30 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.762(e) page hmit on bnefs ALAB.799,21 NRC 369 n.14 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.762(g) treatment of bnefs lacking record citauons; ALA8 802,21 NRC 496 n.30 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.764 depth of exammanon of the record for immediate effectiveness reviews; ALAS.800,21 NRC 390 n.9 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.764(f)(1) immediate effecuveness reviews of opersung hcense authonzanons for 5% power or less; ALAS.800,21 NRC 390 n.7 (1985) 10 C.F R. 2.764(f)(2)(ii) right of pernes to submit comments pertaimns to immediate effecuveness issues; ALAB-800,2 8 NRC 390 n.9 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 2.764fs) effect on Appeal Soard of Commission's immediate effecuveness review; ALAB.800. 21 NRC 390 (1985) 30

LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX RI'GL LATIO%

10 CT.R. 2 '854tm ie Commiwon authonn to &hpie res6mNets for Jr-c.ising of monon 'o \epeal Ito.irsts.

\L \B.*9'. 21 N RC 9, ! 81W5 p 10 C F R. 2.*Ne cauw for Commewon reserwl of Appeal Board howon. CLl 85-2 21 NRC 34' iIW5#

10 C F.R. 2 802 means for challenging regulations. LBP-35 4. 21 NRC 404 t 1985 s 10 C F R. 2. Appendia A. % idit4s use of mitness panels in NRC prrxeedings. AL AB-799. 21 NRC 379 n.'2 t 19M5e 10 C F R. 2. Apperpii n C. Til and IV dentuuon of a noncompliance; ALAB 799. 21 NRC 367 n 3 t19856 10 C F.R 2. Appendia C. IVIElOf denmuon of a deseauon. ALAB 799. 21 NRC 367 n.) t1985) 10 C F.R. 20.105 calculauon of radiation dows to the thyroid; LBP 85 5. 21 NRC 428 (1985) 10 C.F R. 20.106 hatard from abnormalleakages m reactor coolant pressure boundary at GE traimng rextor.

LBP 85-4. 21 NRC 403 (1985) 10 C F.R. 21 engineering design de6ciencies reportable under; LBP-85-6. 21 NRC 451-52 e 1985#

10 C.F R. 40. Appendia A Staff evaluauon of alternautes to onsite disposal of mill taihnss. LBP 85 3. 21 NRC 246 t19856 10 C.F.R. 50 need for physical secunty plan for substitute AC electne power system. ALAB-800. 21 NRC 395

. (1985) 10 C F R. 50.7 protection of employees from discnmmanon for raiung health and safet) rwues; CLl 85 2. 2! NRC 327(1985) 10 C.F R. 50.!Of c) exemptions from; LBP-85 7. 21 NRC 509 f1985) 10 C.F.R. 50.12(a) effect of grant of exempuon under, on need for physical security plan. AL AB 800,21 NRC 396 (1985) mterpretauon of the phrase "otherwise m the pubhc mierest". ALAB 800. 21 NRC 389. 391 il985p scope of"pubhc mierest" Andmg for grant of exempuon from regulations. CLI 851,21 NRC 278 n 2 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 50.12(b}(2) factors considered m deciding on grant of exemption from 10 C.F R. 5010f ep; LBP 85 7. 21 NRC 509 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 50.34(41 (c)(Ip htigability ofinnum releases from GE traimng rextor: LBP 85 4. 21 NRC 402 41945i 10 C F R 50 341bHit site evaluauon fators which must be metuded in Fmal Safety Analym Report. LBP-it5 2. 21 NRC

41. 45 (1985) 10 C.F R. 50.34tc) necessity for physical secunty plan with operatmg hcense apphcanon; ALAB-800,21 NRC 392 n.15 (1985) .

10 C F R. 50.36at ti htigabihty of triuum releases from GE tramms reactor; LBP-8! 4. 21 NRC 40311985 10 CJ.R. 50 47(b)(10p tc)I2) size of emergenc> planmng zones; LBP-85 8,21 NRC 522 dl985p 10 C F R. 50 47f dl 6ndmss prerequmte to authoritauon for tom power inense. CLi 851,21 NRC 278 e 145s scope of Commission immediate effecuseness reviews- ALAB.800, 21 NRC 341 n 11 (1985 31

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL LATIO%

Hi C F R. 5i154 tat dfett of sharges in km t lwnership \greemem netween utoives on respe%mhis !..r Jwc1 mI wnstrustmn et WNrn.+. DlLx5-J. 21 N R( < 1ei i t ag 5 :

10 C i R 50 554ee admewbilits et late-6ied somenton based on rCron unJer. LHP U 4. 21 NRL 52h-2

• s l4x 4 elTest of apptwanti failure to report 6ndings of comractor reuem of engineermy deugn ainsuo LBP-85 6. 21 NRC 450 t19858 stems reportable under; LBP.85 6. 21 NRC 45152,454. 45811985 laugability of Staffs deosionmaking process unh repect to reportability of appiscanti Lomrastor report. LBP-85 5. 21 NRC 466189851 methodology uwd to evaluate de6cienacs as representause of defect in applwant 5 sompetence.

LBP-85-e. 21 NRC 460 t19851 reportabshty of differential soil willement beneath borated water uorage tanks. LHP-55 2. 21 NRC

99. 182 (19858 reportabehty of lack of records for as-built deugns for electrwal and instrurremaison sstems.

DD 85-4. 21 NRC 551 (19856 reportabihty of the iak of conformance of an item to manufacturer s Crnerion. LBP 85-9. 21 NRC

$28c19851 requirement for treatment of construcuon errors in nuclear power pianis. AL AB 799. 21 NRC 373 (1985) 10 C.F.R. 50.55feH 1) desenption of deficency reporung requirements. LBP 85 6. ?! NRC 453119856 10 C.F R. 50.55(eH ilm standards for evaluating reportabihty of defwienaes; LBP-85-0,21 NRC 454-30 f19858 to C F R. 50 $$'etOHi). (n) or ims reportabehty of Gndmys m comrutor reuew of engmeering desgn xuuues. LBP-854. 21 NRC 4!0. 452 n 2. 453 54. 457,460 t1985) 10 C.F R. 50 55terI2) and (31 deadhne for reporung de6aenoes to NRC- LBP 85+. 21 NRC 453. 462 i1985s 10 C.F R. 50.55aidH21 cntena for assening pipmg stresses resulung from soils witiement; LBP 85-2. 21 N RC 199 41985e 10 C.F.R. 50 57 issuance of low-power lwense esen though uncertainty esists about full-power Iwense ever bei.ig issued. CLI-851,21 NRC 279 (1985) 10 C.F R. 50.57(aH3)W stability of soils beneath South Texas Project. LBP-85-9. 21 NRC 525 n i 11985) 10 C.F.R. 50.91 need for a hearms prior to issuance of a twense amendment. AL AB 796. 21 NRC 4119858 10 C.F.R. 50 92 responsibihty for issuance of heense mendments. ALAB-796. 21 NRC 411985p 10 C F R. 50109 appheabihty of new seismw entena at operaung INense reuew slage. LBP-85 2. 21 NRC 44, 45-4a t1981) 10 C.F R. 50. Appendis A apphcabihty of. to traimns reactor. LBP.85 4,21 NRC 402. 404 (1985#

10 C.F R. 50. Appenda A. GDC 2 evaluanon of potential for soil hauefaction assouated with SSE ground monons; LBP 85 2. 21 NRC 72 (1985#

seismic and geologic criteria for nuclear power plant design; LBP 85 2. 21 NRC 4111415 10 C.F.R. 50. Appenda A. GDC 3 adequacy of Ferme Gre proiccuon system. 00-85 4. 21 NRC !!o 11985) 10 C F R. 50. Appenda A. ODC 14 hatard from abnormalledages m reactor coolant preuure tvundary at GE traming reastor; LBP 85-4. 21 NRC 40'

• 19851 32

LEG A L CITATIONS INDEX R EGL LATIOW 10 C.F.R.50 \ptvnda L GDC l' limit on ewmption from. CLI-45-l. 21 NRC 2*6. 2" 280M1 f lux 4 wi, pe qsl g4Cmption f rom requiremenit of. \L \H4i8o.2! \RC Js4tjai446 lo C l R. 50 \ppenan H delegation of quahiy .awarance responubehties by a;'emant. DD 85-3. 21 \RC 542 e W15 denial of 2 206 pennon alleging qu hty awur.irNe unlanons at Seabrook. DD-45-3. 21 NRC 534.

539,544119858 reason for requirement for quahiy awurante program for nudear poner plants. AL \H402. 21 NRC 492 n.5 41985#

10 C F R. 50, Appendit B. Imrodutuon scope of the term "quahiy assurance, ALAB-802. 21 NRC 492 n.! 189858 10 C.F R. 50. Appendn B. II. .WI scope of quairy assurance programs. ALAB-802. 21 NRC 493 nn 6 8 81985s 10 C F.R. 50. Appenda B. X\l interpretauon of the term *promptly~ .as apphed to the reporting of quahty assurance denciencies.

ALAB-802,21 NRC 502 n.70 (1985s reportabihty of quahty assurance breakdowns. AL AB 799. 21 NRC 374 n 34 r1984 10 C.F.R. 50. Appendis C. Il C.

calculanon of radiation doses to the thyroid. LBP-85 5,21 NRC 42811985p l-) C.F R. 50, Appendis E. I, n.1 sue of emergency planmng zones. LBP 85-8. 21 NRC 52211985)

IC C.F.R. 50. Appenden I accuracy of calculanons of radionuchde deposit on rates for South Tesas Project; LBP 85-8. 21 NRC 521 (1985) calculattn of doses associated with attachment of noble gases to My ash particles. LBP-35 5. 21 NRC 416 l19851 comparison of radianon doses calculated on an annuahzed basis and those calculated mer the hfe of the plant; LBP 85 5,21 NRC 42! t19851 10 C.F.R. 50. Appendia 1. f t.B calculation of doses associated with attachment of noble sases to Oy ash partwies. LBP-85-5. 21 NRC 425 (19856 10 C.F R. 50. Appendis I.11 C calculation of radiauon doses to lymph nodes. LBP 85 5. 21 NRC 427 (19851 10 C.F.R. 50. Appendix 3 remedy for discrepancies m containment leak rate testing; DD-85 2. 2l NRC 27172 (1985 10 C.F.R. S t. Table S 3. n.1 heigabihty of health effects attributable to S-3 salues in individual heensing proceedmss; LBP.85 5.

21 NRC 429 (1985) 10 C.F R. 51.45(be and (c) and 51 N) legahey of StalT rehance on mformanon generated by \rpfwants. LBP 85 3. 21 NRC 256 n l? t19858 10 C.F.R. SI.53(c) kugabihty of need for power contennons in operaung imense proceedmgs. LBP.85 5,21 NRC 440 419851 10 C.F R. 61 apphcabihty of, to plan for permanent onsHe dispowl of mill sachngs. LBP.85 3, 21 NRC 259-8)

(6985) 10 C.F.R. 73 apphcabihty of physical securny requiremems to substitute AC electne power system. AL AB-800, 21 NRC 389. 392. 395. 396 (19851 esemption from requirements of. ALAB 800. 21 NRC 396 E19858 10 C.F R. 73 libi(I His content of physical secunty plans; \ LAB 800. 21 NRC 392 n 16 (19851 10 C F R. 73 2h>

denmuon of % ital equipmem ; ALAB 80it 21 NRC 392 n.18. 394 n 30 819856

~

10 C.F R 73.55 prosecuon of mal equipment; ALAB 800,21 NRC 392 n 171198!i 33 L

e LEG A L CITATIONS INDEX REGL't.AI!O W inCFR li>0 lin so li wmp.it.Nin d vie -pe.dk rec.n,e specir. appian w n lo ( F R Pait it% \ppenda \.

LBr M5 2 21 NRC 46,122 81945, 10 C l R. lint \ppendn \

.sprhubilii) of. Io trainmg reactor; LBP-X5-4. 21 NRC 402. 404 I1945s calculation of Jeugn baus carthquake prior to promulganon of. LUP.C 2. 21 NRC it il941#

compatibilii> of viewpeurie response spaira approach wiin. LBP 3! 2. 21 NRC 46,50.127 e lef t delimnon of senmotectome prosmcc. LBP-85 2,21 NRC 54 n.le 41989 determinanon of tectome prounce for Nfidland Plant wte. LBP 85-2. 21.N AC 53. 58.127.130.133 09858 catent to whwh use of prcbabilists methodology is permnuble under; LBP 812. 21 NRC 47 (19x5e interpretation of the terms "important to safetf' and " safety-related" as apphed to wnmic deugn requirements. LBP 85-2. 21 ARC 52 n.12.195 n 94 09851 legalissues raised by applicant's use of site specific response spectra. LBP-85 2. 21 NRC 43 l1945:

quahticauon of Central Stable Region as a tectome prounce. LBP-85 2. 21 NRC $9 (19856 seistmc and geologic criteria for nuclear power plant deugn; LBP-85 2,21 NRC 41 f19456 site euluauon factors to be meluded in Fmal Safeiy Euluanon Report; LBP 85-2. 21 NRC 45 09ais Staticoncerns about design basis earthquake accep*ed before promulgation of. LBP-85 2, 21 NRC 123 (19851 10 C F R.100. Appendit A.11 cornpa'ibihty of site spec.0c response spectra approach with 10 C F.R. Part 100. Appendn A.

LBP 85 2,21 NRC 46 (1985) 10 C F R.100. Appenda A. Ill(c) use of construction permet 5tage design basis earthquake as safe shutdown carthquake. LBP 85 2,21 NRC 42 n 7 (1985) 10 C F R.100. Appendin A.111f di acceptability of proposJd operating baus earthquake at \ledianJ. LBP-85-2. 21 NRC 53 414858 to C F R.100. Appendas A. I!!til explanation of response spectrum; LBP 85-2,21 NRC 48.137 n.59 (19857 10 C F.R.100. Appenda A.1% (a)(ll.14)

. evaluauon of potenual for soil hquefaction associated eith SSE ground monons. LBP 85 2,21 NRC

72. 147 119851 10 C.F R.100. Appendix A. Vial apphcabihty of site specifk response spectra methodology; LBP 85 2. 21 NRC 50 (1985) factors taker. .nto acemnt m deteneumns response spectra; LBP 85-2. 21 NRC 48.131 n.54 (1985) 10 C F R.100. Appendia A. V(4)O) procedure for dc0ning vibratory grourd monon. LBP 85 2,21 NRC 50 (1985) 10 C F R.100. Appendit A. Vial (!)h) conservatism apphed to earthquakes awociated with tectome prounces LBP 85 2,21 NRC 00 t1925s 10 C F R.100. Appenda A. % (41(1860 melusion of accelerograms m construcuen of ute speci6c response spatra. LBP 85 2. 21 N RC 13?

(1985) 10 C.F R.100. Appenda A. Vta)filhvi reason for conservatne application of procedures for determimng safe shutdown carthquake.

LBP-85 2. 21 NRC 60 (1985) scope of response spectra; LBP-85 2,21 NRC 48. 50,140 0985) 10 C.F.R.100. Aprenda A. Vfd)(1) evaluanon of potennal for soil hquefaction anooated main 55E ground monons. LBP 85 2. 21 NRC

72. 147 81985) 10 C F R.100. Arpendn A. VUal procedure for de6mng ubratory ground monon. LBP 85 2. 26 NRC 47. 50 f1995l 10 C F R.100. Appendit \. Vlf altli j evaluanon of poterinal for soil hquefaction asweiated with SSE ground monons: LBP-85 2. 21 NRC 72 (198!i r

34 ,

-A mi

~

t ,

w LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX air STATUTES

[YIJ$.,,[;

• s 3 H+

?

Administrative Procedure Act,5 U.S.C. 554 558 ~: PCJ violation ofintervenor's due process nghts through alleged procedural errors and bias. ALAB-799, 21 NRC 376 n.46 (1985)

Administrauve Procedure Act,5 U.S.C. 555(b) responsibility for ensunng that a party is represented by counset; ALAB 802,21 NRC 498 (1985)

Administrative Procedure Act,5 U.S.C. $$$(e) cause for Statideferral of determination on apphcation for permanent onsite sterage of mill taihngs; LBP 85 3,21 NRC 250 (1985)

" ,, ff Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. 556(d) f use of prefiled wnsten testimony in NRC proceedings. ALAB-799,21 NRC 379 n.70 (1985)

Administrative Procedure Act,5 U.S.C. 557(c) '

responsbihty ofinbunal to state reasons or basis for conclusions. ALAS 801,21 NRC 483 (1985)

Atomic Energy Act,105 htigabihty of antitrust issues at the operating hcense stage; L8P 85-4,21 NRC 404 (1985)

Atomic Energy Act,183 effect of changes in Jomt Ownership Agreement between utilines on responsabihty for design and construction of Seabrook; 00 85-3,21 NRC 536 (1985)

Atomic Energy Act,186 effect of hcensee's failes to file contractor reports in a timely fashion; CLI 85 2,21 NRC 340 .. J -

(1985) '

• (

Atomic Energy Act,189a i right of an individual to a heanns when government action affects his employment; CLI 8!-2,21 NRC JIS, 316 (1985)

Energy Reorganizauon Act of 1974,42 U.S.C. 5851 Protecuan of employees from discnminanon for raising health and safety issues; CLI 85 2,21 NRC 327 (1985)

?,fsh u; ;

+

l

~

eWe] i W

n;e .

7 l

)$ $ fN'.'

t,y.1%

wy .% ~.

N.h f

. DAj' i

i t

i l

1 l

I I

I l

w

&,.e,. e??

' , :,r,

\

6

~.a LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX e-OillER5 ' . ' ri

.,q..q,

.u*

n . W, -

U S Cons. . mend V. Due Process Clause e 1. .g27 ...

right of an indindual to a hearing when gobernment a6160n alfe6ts his employ ment. CLl 55 2. 21 i r*Y NRC Ji$ t19858 p. Q-(4i.

• - ~ "

W ebster's New Collegiate Dictionary 94l ll977 Ed )

interpretation of the term "promptly" Jn applicJ to the reporting of qual t> assurance detisienoes.

AL AB-802,2' NRC 10) n ?4 a 1985) ,.

8 Wigmore. Eudents <g 2323 2327 t sicNaughien 1961  ; 6./.

maner of attorneMlient or work p*oduct priulege through inadbertent Jiwlosare of dwuments. < "+ :8 LBP.851,21 SRC 16 (1985)

I W u lQ c.:.

e 4

h. ' ' _

'g Mf D M, W

. e. .:

eI o

.-w a . .Q. C h > ; ',

. ; y, 4rs.,

e g

12if,

,'*'~

'r 4 tr, . ..

$TSC.?*

q e -

P ^'

1 -,

.r.

g ,] *gY5

'o:35" G,r p :. *kt

> < y * ;-

P' .

r L,, ,

LL

...Q .-

SUBJECT INDEX T M.d

- e.% - i

'% l F

ACCIDENT ,

.)

at TMI 2. factors leading to loss of feedwater durms; CL1-85 2,21 NRC 282 (1985) at TMI 2, interpretation of pressure spike during. CLI 85 2. 21 NRC 282 (1985)

ADJUDICATORY BOARDS basis for finding of bias by. ALAB 799,21 NRC 360 (1985) factors considered in determinmg lurisdiction of; ALAB 797,21 NRC 6 (1985)

A FFID AVITS NRC Staff, treatment of deficiencies in; ALAB 801. 21 NRC 479 (19851

'l A!R POLLUTION

.tandard reference for evaluauon of health effects of; LBP 85-5. 21 NRC 410 (1985)

AMENDMENT See Operating License Amendment APPEAL penalty for failure to adequately bner allegauoris made on; ALAB 799,21 NRC 360 (1985) scope ofissues that can be raised on. ALAB 799,21 NRC 360 (1985)

APPEAL BOARD f authonty to sever unrelated matenal from motion to reopen; ALAB 797. 21 NRC 6 (l985) er junsdiction over motion to reopest a record where a similar monon is pending; AL AB 797. 21 NRC N I" 6 (1985) .

requirement for stalmg reasons or basis for conclusions by; ALAB 801,21 N RC 479 (1985)  %

review of Licensms Board determinauons in partial s'niual decision, policy regardmg, AL AB-799,21 3( ,

NRC 360 (1985) sua sponte review, scope of approval conferred by; ALAB 795,21 NRC 1 (1985)

APPLICANT (S) admissibility of contentions filed by; LBP 85 3,21 NRC 244 (1935) effect of remedial efforts by, on character and competence determinauons. ALAB-799,21 NRC 360 (1985) operaung license, failure to adhere to reporting requirements of 10 CIR. 50 55(c) as evidence of lack of managenal character and competence of, LBP 85 6,21 NRC 447 (1985)

ATOMIC ENERGY ACT zone ofinterests protected by; CLI.85 2,21 NRC 282 (1985)

AUXILIARY BUILDING at Midland site, desenpuon of remedial measures for sons settlement beneath. LBP 85 2,21 NRC , j*

24 (1985) 'i- . 4.

BACKFITTING "" ! ,.

of seismic design at operaung license stage on basis of new cntena; LBP 85 2,21 NRC 24 (;985)

BASEMAT cracking at Waterford, descripuon of, and remedy for, CLI-85.1,21 NRC 471 (1985)

BIAS by adjudicatory boards, basis for finding of; ALAB-799,21 NRC 360 (1985)  :

See also Prejudice w/

BIOACCUMULATION :C./M of radionuclides in aquaus organisms, adequacy of Statitreatment of, in construction FES,  ;%

LBP 85 8,21 NRC 516 (1985)

BOARDS See Adjudicatory Boards, Appeal Board, Licensing Board 4 M =

eg 39

[

v

.4 I

SU BJ ECT INDEX BORAfLD % ATLR STOR AGE TANK 5 si \ledland. adequacy of remeen for mit'eremul ek witiemcm Nne.un L HP e.2 21 \ R( 24 a1%5s hRitf 5

.ontem of. TL \H A02. 21 NRC 4*l # 1445 #

taking record utations treatment of. AL AB ?99,21 NRC 360 ein5t NRC 5taff, treatment of denaenues m. LL AB-801,21 NRC 4?9 41984:

CHARACTER and competence of apphcants, effect of remedul etTorts by appkants on determinat.uns of.

AL AB 799,21 NRC 360 t1985p Inenset. defects of as basis for resocation of hecnse. DD 851,21 NRC o) I19158

.managenal failure to adhere to reporting requarements of 10 C F.R. 50.55 es as eudence of 1.nk ot.

LBP 85-6. 21 NRC 447 (1985)

CllEATING post-accident, on reactor operator esams at TMI. CLi 85 2,21 NRC 28211985)

CITATIONS to the record, treatment of bnefs lackmg; AL AB 799. 21 NRC 360 t1985i COAL particulates associated with fuel c)cte, estimation of health e Tetts from. LBP 85 5. 21 NRC 410 t1985)

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL use of, to present titiganon of contentions. LBP-85-4. 21 NRC 399 (19851 COMPETENCE managenal, failure to adhere to reportmg requirements of 10 C F.R. 50 55f e) as eudence of lack of.

LBP 85 6. 21 NRC 447 (1985) of apphcants, etTect of remedial efforts by appkants on determination of. AL AB ?99. 21 NRC 360 (1985)

COMPUTER 5) STEMS at I ermi. demal of request for insest:g.auon of mconsistencies m; DD-85 4. 21 % 4C Sa il985:

CONDLITS at Midland Plant, design adequacy of. LBP-85-2,21 NRC 24 (19857 CONSTRUCTION deficiencies, regulanons govermng reporung of. LBP-85-6,21 NRC 447 (1985) quahty assurance at Waterford, extent of breakdown in: CL185-3,21 NRC 471 (1985) quality assurance, htigabihty of m operatmg hcense proceedmss. ALAB 799. 21 NRC 360 t1985) quahty required for nuclear power plant hcensmg. ALAB-799,21 NRC 360 (1985)

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT cntena for grant of request for withdrawal of apphcation for; LBP 85 7. 21 NRC 507 (19857 effects of Seabrook organizational changes on actistues authonzed under*. DD 85 3. 21 NRC 533 (1985)

CONSTRUCTION SITE prousion for modification of redress of; LBP 85 7,21 NRC 507 (1985)

CONTAINMENT hasemat at Waterford, crackmg of. CLi 85 3,21 NRC 471 (19838 GE Mark 1. adequacy of design of; DD 85-4,21 NRC 54611985) leak rate tes;.ng at hon Stauon remedy for discrepancies in; DD-85-2. 21 NRC 270 (1985e pressure, mterpretation of sudden mcrease in; CLI 85 2. 21 NRC 282 (1985)

CONTENTION (5) adoption of, by another mienenor, when sponsonng mienenor has withdramn; AL AB 799. 21 NRC 36011985) cha!!cngmg regulations. treatmem of; LBP-85-4. 21 NRC 399 (19856 effect of acceptance of on their htigabiht) independent of their sponsonng mienenor; AL \B '99.

21 NRC 36011985) espanded dunns paruculanzauon standard for admission of. LB.R85 8. 21 NRC Sie t19858 Gled by apphcant, admissibihty of; LBP45-3. 2i NRC 244 (1985) nonumely submission of contenuons. LBP-85 9. 21 NKC 424 419850 requirement for mienennon. ALAB 799,21 NRC 360 (19851 de

SUBJ ECT INDEX sponsored by others. naht of intersenor to crou-cuaminatiori on. 4L AB 799. 21 N RC M0 e 19s5:

uw of collateral estoppet to present litig.iuon of. LBP-85 4,21 NRC 399 t l985) whwh mill regnre further 5t.itT reuen. need to refer ruhng on admimbihty of. LBP 85 3. 21 NRC 244 s1935#

COOLANT See Reactor Coolant COOLING POND dikes at Midland site. slope stability of, LBP-85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985) for South Texas Project. asailability of make up water for; LBP 85 8,21 NRC 516 (19857 CORROSION

.of underground pipmg susceptibihty of, LBP 85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

COUNSEL responsibihties of counset for form and quahty of submissions, ALAB-801,21 NRC 479 (19857 responsibihty for ensunns that a party is represented by; ALAB 802,21 NRC 490 (1985)

CROSS-EX AMIN ATION Board authonty to demand plans for; ALAB-799,21 NRC 360 (1985) intersenors', propnety of Licensing Board's actise role in: ALAB-802,21 NRC 490 (1985) hmitations on scope of; ALAB 799,21 NRC 360 (1985) nght of intervenor to, on contentions sponsored by others; AL AB-799,2 8 NRC 360 (1985)

DECISION (S)

Licensing Board scheduhng, Appeal Board standard for overturning; AL AB-799,21 NRC 360 (1985) operating hcense, standard for; CLI-85 3,21 NRC 471 (1985) partial initial, appella;c review pohey regarding determinations in; ALAB 799,21 N RC 360 (19851 partial amtial, scope of design issues considered in; LBP-85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

DEFICIENCIES in NRC Staff submissions, Appeal Board treatment of; ALAB-801,21 NRC 47; (1985) quahty assurance, regulations govermns reports of, LBP-85-6,21 NRC 447 (1985) quahty assurance, requirements for resolution of. ALAB-802,21 NRC 490 (19851 three element test for reportabihty of, LBP-85-6,21 NRC 447 (1985)

DEFINITIONS of character and competence; ALAB 799,21 NRC 360 (1985)

DESIGN as-built, of electncal and instrumentation systems at Fermi, demal of request for investigation of lack of records for; DD 85-4,21 NRC 546 (1985) deficiencies, regulauons govertung reporting of; LBP 85-6,21 NRC 447 (1985) issues considered m partial imual decisions, scope of; LBP-85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985) of GE Mark I boiling water reactor and contamment, adequacy of DD-85 4,21 NRC 546 (1985) structural, cantilever designs in: LBP-85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985) structural, evaluation of cracks in; LBP-85-2, 21 NRC 24 (1985)

DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE basis for, at Midland site; LBP-85-2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

DEWATERING at Midland site to prevent soil hquefaction; LBP 85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

DIESEL FUEL TANKS at Midland Plant, adequacy of design of, with respect to potential for liquefaction and stabihty of soils under; LBP-85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

DIESEL GENERATOR buildmg at Midland, structural adequacy of, in view of soils settlement problems; LBP-85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

DIKES cooling pond, at Midland site, slope stabihty of. LBP 85-2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

DISCLOSURE inadvertent, of pnvileged documents, as waiver of pnvilege, LBP 85-1,21 NRC 11 (1985p DISCOVERY of pnvileged matter; LBP 85-1,21 NRC 18 (1985)

DISCRIMINATION agamst employees for raisms health and safety issues. CLi 85 2,21 NRC 282 (19851 41

SUBJ ECT INDEX DOCDf E NT(Si rrmleged. inadscrtens dmlo ure of n waner of pnulege; LitP451,21 NRC ll Ilm e requests respone to. L BPJ5-1. 21 NRC 11 s IW!:

Da 6E hi enh.iianon. from iritiated water, ukulanon of. LDP e5 5,21 NRC 410 81943 radiological. from radioriushde att.schment to 0) nh parti 6tes. LBP 85 5. 21 NRC 410 t 1945s radiologN.il, to ly mph nodes. ukulauon of. LBP-85-5. 21 NRC 410 t 19851 radsologicaf, su crops food saasn pathwa), calculation of; LBP 85 5,21 NRC 410 t19451 DCE PROCESS interests affected when an indmdual is deprised of employment; CLI 84-2. 21 N RC 282 e 1985 6 EARTHQUAKE

'See Deusn Baws Eanhquake, Safe Shutdown Earthquake EFFECTIVENESS of full-power heense. demat of request for stay of. CLI 85 3,21 NRC 474 (10851 ELECTRICAL DUCT BANKS at Midland Plant. design adequacy of; LBP-85-2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS at Fermi, denul o(request for insesuganon of luk of records for as built designs for; DD 85-4. 21 NRC 546 (1985)

EMERGENCY EXERCISES for Wolf Creek, adequacy of; ALAB 798,21 NRC 357 (1985)

EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONES size of; LBP-85-8. 21 NRC 516 (1985)

EMERGENCY PLANS sn which evacuation route smually heads toward a plant, validity of; LBP 85-8. 21 NRC 516 f1985)

State and local, for Wolf Creek adequacy of; AL AB 798. 21 NRC 357 f1985)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT cause for recirculauon of. LBP 85-3,21 NRC 244 (1985)

See also Fmal Enwonmental Statement ENVIRON M ENTAL ISSUES estent of right to adjudicatory resoluuon of m operatmg hcense proceedings; ALAB 799. 21 NRC 360 (1985) .

EVACUATION which imtially heads toward a plant, effecuveness of plan for; LBP-85-8. 21 NRC 516 (1985)

EVIDENCE '

hearsay, admissibility of; ALAB-802,21 NRC 490 (1985)

EXEMPTION (S) from 10 CER. 50.10(c) on basis of apphcant's abihty to redress site. LBP 85-7. 21 NRC 507 (19851 from regulauons, considerauons m conducting immediate etTecuseness review of decision authonnng; CLI 851,21 NRC 175 i1985) from regulations, standard for grant of. LBP 85-4,21 NRC 39911985) under y 5012f a). standard for grant of; LBP-85-4. 21 NRC 399 41985)

FEEDWATER less of, dunns TMl 2 accident, factors that led up to CLl-85 2,21 NRC 282 t1985)

FEEDWATER 150LATION YALVE PITS at Midland sa:e, descripuon of remedial measures for soils utilement tieneath; LBP 85 2. 21 NRC 24 (1985)

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT means for cunns defbencies in; LBP-85-3,21 NRC 244 (1985)

FIN ANCIAL CONSIDER ATIONS impact of. on TMl techmcal decisions; CLI-85 2. 21 NRC 282 f19851 FIRE PROTECTION guidelmes safe shutdown system reamred to ensure compliance with; DD 85-4. 21 NRC 546119858 FLY ASl1 particles, radiological doses from radionuchde attachment to. LBP-85-5. 21 NRC 41011985)

FOOD Cil AIN '

pathway, calculation of radiological doses via; LBP-85 5,21 NRC 410 (19858 42

r SU BJ ECT IN DEX FUEL See Diesel f uel T. inks FLEL CYCLE healt h effects of coal partsulates w o.ucJ *eth. LBP-85-5,21 NRC 410 ilNa GENERATOR See Diesel Generator GROUND MOTION vibratory. use of site-specific responw spectra to Je6ne. LBP 85 2. 21 NRC 24 419831 GROUND W ATER appheabihty of State standards for. to mill taihnss disposal plan. LBP-853. 21 NRC 244 (1945i HEALTH EFFECTS

• from radiation esposure appropriate time periods for calculating. LBP 85-5. 21 NRC 410 t 1945:

of air pollution, standard reference for evaluation of; LBP-85-5. 21 NRC 410 (19851 of coal particulates associated with fuel cycle, estimation of. LBP-85-5. 21 NRC 41011985 #

HEARING (S) consolidated operating heense/show cause, procedural rules apphcable r.o. LBP 85 2, 21 NRC 24 (1985) need for, prior to issuance o(operating leeense amendment; ALAB-M6,21 NRC 4 81995i need for, where individual is deprned of employment. CLI 85-2,21 NRC 282 (1985)

- right to, of hcensed operator whose employment responsibihties have been restricted. CLI 85-2. 21 NRC 282 (1985) waner of nght to, through denial of heense amendment apphcation; LBP 85 3. 21 NRC 244 (1985s IMPORTANT TO SAFETY interpretation of, as apphed to seismic design requirements; LBP-85-2, 21 N RC 24 (1985s INSTRUMENTATlON SYSTEMS at Fermi, denial of request for investigation of lack of records for as-built designs for. DD 85-4, 21 NRC 546 (1985)

INSURANCE coverage for nuclear power plant accidents. Icgahty of hmitations on; LBP-85-4. 21 NRC 344 t1945s INTERPRETATION of "important to safety" and " safety related" as apphed to seismic design reuuirements. LBP-85 2.

21 NRC 24 (1985) of regulations; LBP 85-4,21 NRC 399 (1985) of the phrase "otherwise in the pubhc interest" contained in 10 C.F.R. 50.12(as; L8P 85-4,21 NRC 399 (1985) of the term "promptly" as at relates to identifyirig and correcting awahty assurance de6ciencies.

ALAB-802,21 NRC 490 (1985)

INTERVENOR etTect of withdrawal of, on proceedings; ALAB 799. 21 NRC 360 (19858 right of, to cross-examination on contentions sponsored by others. AL AB 799. 21 NRC 360 t1985)

INTERVENTION contention requirement for; ALAB 799. 21 NRC 360 (1985)

JURISDICTION *A Appeal Board. nesus between pending motion to reopen and nd h" tion as b.asas for; ALAB '97.

21 NRC 6 (1985) of Licensing Board to revoke hmited work authorization; LBP 85 7. 21 NRC 507 (19851 LEAK RATE testing at Zion Station. remedy for discrepancies in; DD-85-2,21 NRC 270 (1985 6 testing practices at TMI. falsi6 cation of; CL1-85 2, 21 NRC 282 t 19858 LIABILITY of nuclear power plants for accidents, hmits on. LBP-85-4. 21 NRC 399 Il9858 LIBERTY deprnation of, through employment restrictions; CLI 85-2. 21 NRC 282 (19831 LICENSEE character. defects of, as basis for revocation of license; DD-851,21 NRC 263 419851 43

SUBJECT INDEX LICENSING BOARD authonty to demand plans for crou-esarnination. AL AB ?99. 21 NRC M i tM5s discreuon m managmg proceedmss. ALAB-802,21 NRC 4% (19858 Jurisdiction of, to resolte hmited work authoritation. LBP 85 7. 21 NRC 50' ilM5 propriety of active role Dy. in intersenors' cross-exammation. AL AB s02,21 NRC 4W ii%5s review ofissues sua sponte. constramts on. LBP-85 8. 21 NRC 516 (1985)

LICENSING PROCEEDINGS Board discreuon in management of. ALAB-802,21 NRC 490 (1985) good cause for reopening; ALA8 799. 21 NRC 360 (1985)

NRC Staff participation in. ALAB 799. 21 NRC 360 41985) responsibilines of parties to comply w th Commission direction to address specific matters m:

. CLI 85 2. 21 NRC 282 (1985) use of witness panels m; ALAB 799. '

• H.C 360 (1985)

See also Operating License Proceedmg i LIQUEFACTION at Midland site, potennal for and means for dealms with; L8P 85-2. 28 NRC 24 (19856 LYMPH NODES calculation of radiological dose resulting from transfer of particles from lung to. LBP 85 5. 21 NRC 410 (1985)

MAINTENANCE at Oyster Creek, adequacy of procedures for; DD 85-I. 21 NRC 263 (1985)

M ATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT in TMI licensee's response to nonce of violauon; CLI 85-2,21 NRC 282 (1985)

MATERIALITY ofinformation, pened of ume normally permissible to evaluate; L8P-85-6. 21 NRC 447 (1985)

MILL TAILINGS disposal, segmentation of plan for; LBP-85-3. 21 NRC 244 (1985)

MODELS See Seismic Models MONITORING of Seismic Category 1 pipmg at Midland Plant, description of program for; LBP-85-2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

MOTION to reopen. s.ppellate jurindecuon over; ALA8 797. 21 NRC 6 (1985)

NEED FOR POWER rule, demal of peuuon for waiver of; L8P 35 5. 21 NRC 410 (1985)

NOTICE oficial, of record of pnor proceedmg to prevent relitiganon ofissues; LBP-85-4. 21 NRC 399 (1985)

NOTICE OF VIOLATION .

material false statement in TMI licensee's response to; CLI 85-2. 21 NRC 282 (1985)

' NRC PROCEEDINGS factors considered in determming junsdicuonal disputes in; ALAB 797. 21 NRC 6 (1985)

See also Licensms Proceedings. Operating License Proceedans. Show Cause Proceeding NRC STAFF matters left for post-heanns resoluuon by; ALAB 798. 21 NRC 357 (1985) perucipation in licensms proceedmss; ALA8 799. 21 NRC 360 (1985) standards applicable to submissions by: ALAB-801,21 NRC 479 (1985) wih,ess, cause for sutpoena of; ALAB-802,21 NRC 490 (1985)

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

, . limits on liability of, for accidents; LBP 85-4,21 NRC 399 (1985)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION considerations in conductmg immediate effecuveness review of decision authonang esemption from regulations; CLI-851,21 NRC 175 (1985)

OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT issuance of. without pnor heanng; ALAB-796. 21 NRC 4 (1985) 44 d

. - _ . . , o ne m -

-___y-. ,.T, ,. ,

y . -- , - , . - --,-w-- --w

-- ~. - - . . -- _ . - - _.n . - - .

SUBJECT INDEX OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING (S) automauc right to adjudicatory resolution of environmental or ufety issues in. ALAB-799,21 NRC 300 t19858 suues for considerauon in; LBP 85-6,21 NRC 447 !!9856 lauganon of construcuon quality assurance in: AL AB-799,21 NRC 360119857 terminanon of, on basis of settlement agreement; L8P-85-6A,21 NRC 468 (1985)

See also Luensing Proceedings OPERATING LICENSE (S) cntena for physical secunty plans for: L8P-85 4,21 NRC 399 (1985) decision, standard for, CLi-85-3,21 NRC 471 (1985) finding required for demal of. ALAB-799,21 NRC 360 (19851 full-power for Waterford, demal of request for stay of effecuveness of, CLI 85 3,21 NRC 471 (1985) low power, findings prerequisite to issuance of; CLI 85-1. 21 NRC 175 (1985) review, applicauon of new seismic cntena dunng; LBP 85-2,21 NRC 24 (1985) review, procedures for applying safe shutdown earthquake in: L8P-85-2,21 NRC 24 (l985)

PHYSICAL SECURITY PLANS requirements for protecuon of viial equipment in; LSP 85 4, 21 NRC 399 (1985)

P!P!NG underground, at Midland site, techmcal adequacy of, in view of excessive settlement of; L8P 85-2, 21 NRC 24 (1985)

POLLUTION See Air Polluuon POWER ernergency, dunns low-power operating, authonzauon of shernate system for. CLI 851. 21 NRC 175 (1985)

See ciso Need for Power PREJUDICE demonstrauon of, through curtailment of cross-examination; ALAB-799,21 NRC 360 (1985)

See also Bias PRESSURE SPIKE during TMI 2 accident, interpretauon of; CLI-85 2,21 NRC 282 (1985) -

PRIVILEGE attorney-client or work product, inadvertent disclosure of pnvileged documents as waiver of; L8P 851,21 NRC 11 (1985)

QUALITY ASSURANCE construction, allesauons of breakdown in, at Waterford; CLI-85-3,21 NRC 471 (1985) deficiencies, regulations govermns reports of; L8P-85 6,21 NRC 447 (1985) deficiencies, requirements for resolution of; ALA8 802,21 NRC 490 (1985) effect on, of Seabrook applicant's indebtedness to its contractors; DD-85 3,21 NRC 533 (1985) finding required for demat of an operating license; ALAB 799,21 NRC 360 (1985) of construction,litigability of, in operating hcense proceedings; ALA8-799,2 NRC 360 (1985)

RADIATION

. appropnate time penods for calculating health effects from exposure to; L8P 85 5,21 NRC 410 (1985)

RADIONUCLIDE(S) attachment to fly ash parucles, radiological doses from; L8P 85 5,21 NRC 410 (1985) bioaccumulation of,in aquatic organisms, adequacy of Staff treatment of,in censtruction FES; L8P 85 8,21 NRC $16 (1985) deposition rates, liogabdity of adequacy of calculanons of LBP 85-8,21 NRC 516 (1985)

RADWASTE SYSTEMS at Fermi, need for addinonal tests to senfy adequacy of; DD-85-4,21 NRC 546 (145)

REACTOR boiling water, efficacy of tesung at 5% of rated power; CLI 85-1,21 NRC 17$ (1985) boiling water, GE Mark I, adequacy of design of; DD-85-4,21 NRC 546 (1985) traimns, applicability of Appendices A to 10 Cf.R Parts 50 and 100 to; LSP 85-4,21 NRC 399 (1985) 45 f

I l.

l

SUBJ ECT IN DEX .

RE \CTOR COOLANT preuure Niundar) at GE TR Wilecism. leak s in. LBP-85 4! 21 NRC 399 81945p

-RE ACTOR OPLR TTOR5 at T\ll. adequao p(trammg program for; CLl45-2. 21 NRC 28211945#

RECONSIDLR ATION -

of ruimg adnutung apphcanfs contennon, dental of motion for: LBP 85-3. 21 NRC 244 81985:

RECORDISS .

for as-built designs for electncal and esistrumentauon systems, denul of request for msestigation of lad of. DD-85-4. 21 NRC 546 (1985p -

in restart proceedmg. change in tesumony during lawsuit as basis for reopenms; CLI-85 2. 21 NRC 282 (19856 .

' standards for reopenms; CLI 85 2,21 NRC 282 (1985)

. REGULATIONS

. considerauons in conducung immediate elTectneness review of decision authonzing exempuon from; CL1-851,21 NRC 175 (1985) cnteria for grant of exempuons from; LBP 85-4. 21 NRC 399 (1985); LBP-85 7,21 NRC 507 (1985#

gosernmg reports of quahty assurance deficiencies; LBP-85-6. 21 NRC 447 (1985) mterpretation of; LBP 854,21 NRC 39911985) plant construction standards embodied in; ALAB-799,21 NRC 360 (1985) specifying seismic and geologic cntena for nuclear power plant design; LBP-85-2,21 NRC 24 (1985) treatment of contennons challengms; LBP 85-4,21 NRC 399 (1985)

See also Rules, Rules of Pracuce REPORTABILITY of deficiencies, three-element test for. LBP-85-6,21 NRC 447 (1985)

REPORTS of qual.iy assurance deficiencies, regulanons govermng; LBP 85 6. 21 NRC 447 (1985)

RESPONSE SPECTRA site specific. use of, to derme ubratory ground monon; LBP 85-2,21 NRC 24 (19851 RESTART of TMI-1, restnction of heensed operator's responsibihues as a condinon of; CLi-85-2. 21 NRC 282 (19851 REVIEW appellate sua sponte, circumstances inappropnate for. ALAB-796 21 NRC 4 (1985) appellate sua sponte, scope of approval conferred by; ALAB-795. 21 NRC I (1985) appellate, of Licensmg Board determmauons in parnal mitial decisions; ALAB-799,21 NRC 360 (1985)-

immediate effectiveness, effect of, on appeal board; LBP-85 4,21 NRC 399 (1985) immediate effectiveness, of decision authon2mg exemption from regulanons, considerations m conducung; CLI-85-1,21 NRC 175 (1985) immediate etTectiveness, of operaung beense decisions; LBP-85-4,21 NRC 399 (L985) ofissues sua sponte by Licensms Boards, constraints on; LBP 85-8. 21 NRC 516 (1985) operatmg heense, apphcauon of new seismic criteria during; LBP-85 2,21 NRC 2411985) operating license, procedures for applymt safe shutdown earthquake in; LSP-85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

RULES penalty for violation of. ALAB 799,21 NRC 360 (19851 procedural, applicable to cortsohdated operaung heense/show cause heannss; LBP-85-2. 21 NRC 24 (1985) standards and procedures governing waiver of; LBP 85 5,21 NRC 410 (1985)

See also Regulauons RULES OF PRACTICE admissibihty of hearsay eudence; ALAB-802. 21 NRC 490 (1985) appellate reuew of cross-etammanon ruhngs; AL AB-799,21 NRC 360 (1985) apphcation of new seismic criteria dunng operaung heense reuew; LBP 85 2. 21 NRC 24 (19856 cause for subpoena of NRC Stati witnesses; ALAB-802. 21 NRC 490 (19851 comments from parues on immediate etTectneness review; LBP 854,21 NRC 399 (19858 46 eF**"****%

SUBJ ECT IN DEX Commisuon pohey on immedute et7ectnenew reuewof operaung hcenw .seen.ons LhPaL5 4. 21 NRC 394 (198.4 contention requirement for mtersennun; AL AB?94. 21 NRC 3Miil9%5:

economic mJury as means of emdhshing standmg to mtersene. t Ll 62. 21 NRC 242 Iwf e effect of acceptance of contentions on their hogaNhty mJependent of their enwrmg mtenenor.

ALAB 799,21 NRC 360 (19856 effect ofimmedute etiectiseness resiew on Appeal Board. LBP45 4. 21 NRC 394 81980 effect on proceedmss of withdrawal of mtersenor; AL AB 799. 21 NRC Jul al9 if, inadsertent dnclosure of pnuleged documents as waner of prnilege; LSP 551,21 NRC 11 a1945 mitution of show cause proceedmg on basis of allegations before the Commnsion en another proceeding; DD-85-1,21 NRC 263 (1985) limitauons on scope of cross-esamiruuon; AL AB 799. 21 NRC 360 (19856 need for Appeal Board to state reasons or basis for its conclusions. ALAB 801,21 N RC 479 t 19858 need to state reasons for denial of Igense amendment apphcation. LBP 85 3. 21 NRC 244 t 19856 nonumely submission of contenuons; LBP 85-9. 21.NRC 524 i1985) official notKe of record of pnor proceedmg to prevent rehtigation of issues, LBP 85-4. 21 NRC 399 (1985) penalty for failure to adequately bnef allegauons made on appeal AL AB 799. 21 NRC 360119856 procedural rules apphcable to consohdated operatmg beense/show cauw heanngs. LBP 85 2. 21

. NRC 24 (1985) referral of ruling on asimissibehty of contenuon which will require further StatT reuew; LBP-85-3,21 NRC 244 (1985) replacement of withdrawmg miervenor as good cause for reopenmg a procecdmg. ALAB-799. 21 NRC 360 (1985) responses to document requests; LBP 851. 21 NRC II (1985) responsstahties of counsel for form and quahty of submiswons; ALAB 801,21 NRC 479 419857 responsibihties of parties to comply with Commission direction to address specific matters m a +

licensms proceeding; CLI-85-2. 21 NRC 282 (1985) responsibehues of parties to inform Boards of newly developing mformauon. LBP 85-0,21 NRC 447 (1985) responsibihty for ensunns that a party is represented by counsel; AL AB-802,21 NRC 490 (19856 responsibihty of party to present its posation in mielhgible form to the decisionmaker; ALAB401, 21 NRC 479 (1985) right ofintervenor to cross-exammauon on contenhons sponsored by others; ALAB 799. 21 NRC 360 (1985) scope of design issues considered in partial initial decisions; LBP-85-2,21 N RC 24 (1985) scope ofissues that can be raised on appeal; ALAB-799,21 NRC 360 (1985) showing necessary to estabhsh standing to intervene; CLI-85-2. 21 NRC 282 (1985) standard for overturmns a Licensmg Board's scheduhng decision; AL AB-799, 2l NRC 360 (1985) standards applicable to submissions by NRC Staff; ALAB-801. 21 NRC 479 (1985) standards for reopenmg a record; CLI 85 2,21 NRC 282 (19857 test to determme whether one mtervenor may adopt contenuor.s sponsored by another mtersenor who has withdrawn; ALAB-799,21 NRC 360 f1985) use of collateral estoppel doctrine to present hbgation of contentions- LBP-85 4. 21 NRC 399 t 1985s use of prefiled untien tesumony m NRC proceedmgs; ALAB-799. 21 NRC 300 t 1985 6 use of summary disposioon to present rehugation of issues; LBP 85-4. 21 NRC 399 (1985) weight given to factors (u) and (iv) in evaluating admissibihty of unumely contenuons; LBP-85-9 21 NRC 524 (1985)

RULING referral of, on admissibility of contenuon which will require further Staff reuew; LBP 85 3,21 NRC 244 (1985)

SAFE SHUTDOWN system required to ensure comphance with fire protection guidelmes; DD-85 4. 21 NRC 546 (1985s SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE larger than maximum earthquake that has occurred historically wnhm the tectonic provmec; LBP-85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985) procedures for applying, in operatmg bcense review; LBP 85 2,21 N RC 24 (19851 47 g

r-SUBJECT INDEX _

SAFETY- <

See important to Safety. Safety Related SAFETY ISSUES.

entent of nght to ad;uecatory resoluuon of, m operaung beenw proteedmgs AL \B-% 21 NRC 360 (1985) '

SAFETY RELATED interpretapon of, as apphed to seismic design requirements: LBP 85 2,21 NRC 24 I19851 SCHEDULE

- set by a Licensms Board, standard for appellate review of AL AB 799,2;' NRC 360 (1985)

SECURITY PLANS See Physical Secunty Plans SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC CRITERIA

'apphcable at operstmg hcense stage, scope of; LBP-85-2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

- for nuclear power plant demsn, regulations specifying; LBP-85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

SEISMIC 155UES rehtigability of, at opersung license stage; LBP-85-4,21 NRC 399 (1985)

SE!SMIC MODELS to perform seismic evalumuon of Midland structures, desenption of; LBP-85-2,21 NRC 24 (1985p SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE at Midland ste, adequacy of soils compaction beneath;. LBP-85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985p SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT terminauon of operaung license proceeding on basis of; LBP-85-6A,21 NRC 468 (1985)

SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING effect to be given to,in operating hcense proceeding; LBP 85-4,21 NRC 399 (1985) initiation of, on bens of allegations before the Commission in another proceeding; DD-85-1,21 NRC 263 (1985)

SITE Clinch River, imposinon of condiuons on teoress of; LBP-85-7, 21 NRC 507 (1985)

See also Construcuon Site SOIL . .

liquefactios, at Midland u;e, potential for and means for deahng with; LBP-85 2. 28 N RC 24 (1985) under South Texas Project, stabihty of; LBP 85 9,21 NRC 524 (1985)

SOIL SPRING CONSTANTS for Midland site, dernation of LBP 85 2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

STANDING

to intervene, economic injury as means of estabhshing; CLI-85-2,21 NRC 282 (1985) to intervene, showmg necessary to establish; CL1-85 2,21 NRC 282 (1985)

- STARE DECISIS effect of Licenang Board conclusions on legalissues not brought before Appeal Board by way of appeal; ALAB-795,21 NRC 1 (1985)

STAY of effectiveness of full-power license, denial of request for; CL1-85-3,21 NRC 471 (1985)

SUBPOENA (5) of NRC StatY witness, cause for; ALAB-802,21 NRC 490 (1985) to nonparty State agencies, issuance of; LBP-851,2l NRC II (1985)

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION use of, to prevent rehusanon of issues; LBP-85-4, 21 NRC 399 (1985)

TECTONIC PROVINCE . .

determmation of, for Midland Plant; LBP 85-2,21 NRC 24 (1985)

TERMINATION of operating hcense proceeding on basis of settlement agreement; LBP-85-6A 21 NRC 468 (1985#

TEST three-element, for reportability of deficiencies; LBP-85-6,21 NRC 447 (1985)

TESTIMONY change in, during lawsuit, as basis for reopenmg record in restart proceedmg; CLI-85-2, 21 NRC 282 (1985) -

prefiled, wntien, use of, in NRC proceedings: ALAB-799,21 NRC 360 (1985) es j .. , L l

1.

L i

b

SUBJ ECT IN DEX TESTING contamment leak rate. at Zion Station. remed) for durepanoes m. DD-35-2. 21 NRC 2*o ilM5s leak rate. at T\ll. falsMcation of. CLl45 2. 21 NRC 232 41%51 TiiORIU NI mill taihngs dayvul. wgmenunon of plan ur. LBP45.L 21 NRC 244 s i 45s fili ROID calculation of radiological dose to. LBP 85 5. 21 NRt 410 a 1985#

TR AINING erregulanties at TMI pnor to accident: CLI 85-2. 21 NRC 282 (1985) of 0) ster Creek operators, adequacy of; DD-85-l 21 NRC 263 (1985#

program for hcensed operators at TMI. adequacy of. CLI-85 2,21 NRC 232 t1985)

TRITIUM releases to Vallecitos Creek from trammg reactor, admission of contention concernmg; LBP-85-4 21 NRC 399 (1985)

VIOLATION (S) of 10 C F.R. 50 55(et, consideration of, in operating license proceedings; LBP-85-6. 21 NRC 447 (1985) of rules, penalty for. ALAB 799. 21 NRC 360 t1985)

See aim Deficiencies, Notice of Violation VITAL EQUIPMENT requirements for protection of, in physical secunty plans; LBP 85-4,21 NRC 399 (1985#

WAlVER of need for power rule, denial of petition for; LBP-85 5,21 NRC 410 (19858 of nght to heanns through denial of hcense amendment apphcation; LBP 85 3,21 NRC 244 (1995) of rules, standards and procedures governing; LBP-85 5,21 NRC 410 (1985)

WASTE See Radmaste Systems WATER make-up, for mam coohng reservoir for South Texas Project. availabihty of; LBP-85-8. 21 N RC 510 (1985) intiated, calculation of mhalauon doses from; LBP 85-5,21 N RC 410 t 1985p See also Feedwater, Ground Water WITHDRAW AL of construction permit application, enteria for grant of request for; LBP-85-7,21 N RC 507 (1985 6 of mtervenor, effect of, on proceedmas; ALAB 799,21 NRC 360 (1985)

WITNESS NRC Staff, cause for subpocu of; ALAB-802,21 NRC 490 (1985) panels, use of, in licensing proceedings; ALAB 799,21 NRC 360 (1985)

ZON ES See Emergency Planmns Zones 49 s

1 i

l 1

l l

th

.u u )

FACILITY INDEX Nd81

' 3; e M S; m

BIG ROCK POINT PLANT. Dodei No 50-155-OLA ISpent Fuct Pool Mod &auons OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDM ENT. January 9.1985. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER. s ALAB 795. 21 NRC 1 (1985)

CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT Dodet No 50 537-CP ( ASLBP No 75-291 12-CPI CONSTRUCTION PERMIT; March II.1985. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GR ANTING APPLICANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PROCEEDING. LBP 85-7. 21 NRC 50711985)

ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POW ER PLANT. Una 2; Dodei No 50-341 REQUEST FOR ACTION. March 20.1985. UlRECTOR'S DECISION LNDER in C F R 4 2.206. DD-85-4. 21 NRC 546 (1985 GETR VALLECITOS Docket No. 50-70-OLR ( ASLBP No. 83-481-01-OL R )

OPERATING LICENSE RENEW AL February 13. 1985. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-85 4,21 NRC 399 (1985)

HOPE CREEK GENER ATING STATION; Dodet No. 50-354-OL OPER ATING LICENSE; February 28.1985. ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING.

LBP-85-6A. 21 NRC 468 (1985)

MIDLAND PLANT, Unas I and 2. Dodei Nos. 50-329-OL&OM. 50-330-OL&GM i ASLBP Nos y 78 389-03-OL. 80-429-02 SP) 3 OPERATING LICLNSE/ ENFORCEMENT. January 23,1985. P \RTIAL INITI AL DECISION. 5 :f" LBP 85 2. 21 NRC 24 (19851

0) STER CREEK NUCLL AR GENERATING STATION; Donet No. 50-219

' 1 REQUEST FOR ACTION. January 15.1985, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.

4 2.206; DD-851,21 NRC 263 (1985p

'4 y

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Unris I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-440-OL. 50-441-OL OPERATING LICENSE; March 26.1985. DECISION. ALAB-802,21 NRC 490 41985)

SEABROOK STATION Unas I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-443. 50-444 REQUEST FOR ACTION. March 18. 1985. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 4 2.206; DD-85 3. 21 NRC 533 (1985 SHEARON H ARRIS NUCLEAR POW ER F' '.NT; Dodet No. 50-400-OL i ASLBP No.

82 472-03 OL) .

OPERA TING LICENSE; February 20.1985. PARTIAL INITI AL DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONTENTIONS. LBP 85-5,21 NRC 410 41985)

SHOREH AM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Una 1: Dodet No 50-322-OL-4 # Low Powerp OPER ATING LICENSE Feeruary 12.1985. MEMOR ANDLM AND ORDER; CLl 851. 21 +N +

NRC 275 (19857 OPERATING LICENSE. February 21. 1985; DECISION. ALAB 800,21 NRC 386 (19851 SOUTH TEX AS PROJECT Unas I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-498-OL 50-499-OL OPERATING LICENSE; February 6.1985; DECISION. ALAB-799. 21 NRC 360 (1985)

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, Unas I and 2. Dodet Nos. STN 50-498-OL STN 50-499-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-42107-OL)

OPERATING LICENSE. Feoruary 26. 1985; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER. LBP 85-6. 21 pj NRC 447 (1985) g -

OPERATING LICENSE; March 15. 1985. MEMOR A5 OUM. LBP-85-8. 21 NRC 516 (1985) > e.m OPER ATING LICENSE; March 29.1985. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-85 9. 21 [I@

1. ~~2 NRC 524 (1985#

THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION. Una 1. Dodet No 50-289-SP IRestarts N SPECIAL PROCEEDING February 25.1985. MEMORANDUM AN D ORDER. CLI 85-2. 21 NRC 282 (1985) 3 M-'

l.h ;

y3wy Q!h'i 51 l

Mm V.C@,.

lb f

FACILITY INDEX TilREF \flLE ISLAND M CLI \R ST \ TlON, Uma I and 2. Deet % 50 259. 50.120 R1 QL LST FOR -\CilON. january I'.19x5. DIREC TOR's Dt Clsis tN 1 NDI li 1o ( l R.

t 2.20o.00-851. 21 NRC :o) d 1945 s TROJ \\ NL1LL \R PL \NT. Deet Na 50 .144-OL \

OPER \ TING LICLNSL AMENDMEN T. Jancr> 10.1985. \ll\ LOR \NDl \1 \NI) ORill R; ALAB-7%. 21 NRC 4 819857 W ATERFORD STEA\1 ELECTRIC ST ATION. Umt 3. Deet No 50-3824)L OPER ATING LICEN5E. January 17.1985. MEMOR ANDUM OD ORDER. AL \B N'. 21 NRC 6 (19857 OPERATING LICENSE; March 15. 1985; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; CLI 85 3. 21 NRC 471 (19857 OPER ATING LICENSE, March 22. 1985; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-801. 21 NRC 479 (1985)

WEST CillCAGO RARE EARTilS FACILITY; Docket No. 40 2061-ML i ASLBP No. 83-495-01-M L)

MATERIALS LICENSE; January 9.1985; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-85-1. 21 NRC 11 (1985)

M ATERIALS LICENSE; January 23.1985; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. LBP 85-3. 21 NRC 244 (1985)

WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION. Unit I; Docket No. 50-482-OL OPERATING LICENSE; February 5.1985; DECISION. AL AB-798. 21 NRC 357 (19858 ZION STATION. Umt 1; Docket No. 50-295 iMMEDIATE ACTION REQUEST: January 23.1985; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. I 2.206; DD-85 2,21 NRC 270 t1985) 52