ML20206T009
| ML20206T009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/30/1986 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I01, NUREG-0750-V23-I01, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I1, NUREG-750-V23-I1, NUDOCS 8607070473 | |
| Download: ML20206T009 (51) | |
Text
72p=w ; , , %. -
g j .
\J i
NUREG-0750 Vol. 23 Index 1 l
l INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY '
COMMISSION ISSUANCES January - March 1986 gaREGy
+ 0, e ,.
N b h. )
- j %4 .....
o 1
I
, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
i 70 bbOb30 f ;.
0750 R PDR
~
^~_~
a 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 4 hardbound editions for this publication.
Single copies of this publication are available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of 4
Technical Information and Document Control, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301/492-8925) or (301/492-7566?
~
e l
NUREG4750 l i Vol. 23 l Index 1 ,
INDEXES TO I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES ,
~
January - March 1986 U. S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
l l
1
e
/
Foreword 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.
These digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the issuances.
Information elements common to the cases heard and ruled upon are:
Case name (owner (s) of facility) _ _ i Full text reference (volume and paginatiW. ,
Issuance number issues raised by appellants ; i
)
, I.egal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes)
Name of facility, Docket number i Subject matter ofissues and/or rulings Type of hearing (for construction permit, operating license, etc.)
Type ofissuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.).
These information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as follows:
- 1. Case Name Index Re case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by thype of hearing, the type ofissuance, docket number, issuance number, and full text reference.
- 2. Digests and Henders The 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.
The header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility name, docket number, type of hearing, date ofissuance, and type ofissuance.
The digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the
~
issue and any legal references used in resolving thiissue,if a given issuance c'o' vers more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabetically.
9 i
bh
(
__.,_.a_____
- )
- 3. Legal Citations Index Ris. 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. lt 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.
I j 4. Subject ladex l Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the iss'ues' and subjects covered.in the issuances. De subject headings are followed by j phrases that give specific information about the. subject, as discussed in the j issuances being indexed. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and i the full text reference.
- 5. Facility Index This index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from the issuance The name is followed by docket number type ofhearing date typ
. , , , e of I issuance, issuance number,and full text reference.
M
=or- e.
d
! iv 1
y9-,-g, w - -y -w --w. n - - - - ..+y7q-y -- ---.y---- .,.p,mm-- ,.w -q ,,- - , *. , -- --s.-%.yv-
. g.- g-9 rw -
l .
s 1
i
! l I
I 1
l CASE S AME INDEX i 1
ARKANS AS POW ER AND LIGitT COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACTION DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.12.206, Docket No.
50-313. DD-85-19. 23 NRC 33 (1986)
CLE% EL AND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al.
OPER ATING LICEN5E: MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos 50-440-OL,50-441-OL; AL AB-831. 23 NRC 62 (1986)
REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. I 2.206; Docket Nos.
50-440,50-441; DD-86-4,23 NRC 211 (1986)
! COMMON % EALTil EDISON COMPANY j OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50 456-OL,50-457-OL
( ASLSP No. 79-410-03 OL); LPP 86-7. 23 NRC 177 (1986) i OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING i
PROCEEDING. Docket Nos 50-295 OLA, 50 304-OL A ( ASLIW No. 84-500-06 L A), LBP 86-6, 23 NRC 92 I1986)
DUKE POW ER COMPANY, et al.
4 REQUEST FOR ACTION. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. ) 2 206. Docket Nos.
] 50-269. 50-270. 50 287. DD-8519,23 NRC 33 (1986)
FLORID A POWER CORPORATION REQUEST FOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2.206. Docket No.
50-302; DD-8519,23 NRC 33 (1986) 2 GENER AL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPOR ATlON REQUEST FOR ACTION DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. ( 2.206; Docket No.
50-289. DD-8519,23 NRC 33 (1986)
IlOUSTON LIGitTING AND POW ER EUMPANY. et al OPER ATING LICENSE: MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499-OL ( ASL BP No 79-421-07-OL); LBP 86 5,23 NRC 89 (1986)
OPER ATING LICENSE SEVENTil PREliEARING CONFERENCE ORDER; Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL STN 50 499-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-42107-OL); LBP 86-8,23 NRC 182 (1986) j INQUIRY INTO TilREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE D ATA FALSIFICATION j DISCRETION ARY PROCEEDING; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No. LRP; CLI-86-3. 23 NRC 51 (1986)
KE%ETil L. BUKTON
!l SPECl AL PROCEEDING. ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING; Docket No. 55-60575 l ( ASLBP No.86-515 01 SP) (Senior Operator License for Millstone Nuclear Power Ntion, Unit l 3). AL3-86-1,23 NRC 31 (19861 i KERR-McGEE CilEMICAL CORPOR ATION M ATERI ALS LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 40-2061-ML ( ASLBP No.
83-495-01-MlJ. LBP-86-4,23 NRC 75 (19861 LONG ISLAND LIGilTING COMPANY OPER ATING LICENSE: DECISION; Docket No 50-322-OL 3 (Emergency Planning)- ALAB-832,
, 23 NRC 135 (1986) i OPER ATING L! CENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-322 OL 3 (Emergency j Planning). AL AB-827,23 NRC 9 (1986)
I LOUISI AN A POW ER & LIGitT COMP ANY OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER. Docket No. 50-382 0L; CLI-861,23 NRC 1 (1986)
OPERATING LICENSE; NOTICE; Docket No. 50-382-OL; ALAB-829,23 NRC 55 (1986) l i
l
}
e M
\
CASE NAME INDEX METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.
SPECI AL PROCEEDING; ORDER, Docket No. 50-289 (Restart); CLI-86 2. 23 NRC 49 (1986)
NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES,INC.
REQUEST FOR ACTION. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. t 2.206, Docket No.70-143; DD 86-3,23 NRC 191 (19N PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COMPAN)
OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING; Docket No. 50-133-OL A ( ASLBP No. 77 357-07 LA); LBP-86-1,23 NRC 25 (191i61 PHIL ADELPill A ELECTRIC COMPANY OPER ATING LICENJE, FIFTH PARTI AL INITI AL DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL ( ASLBP No 81-46547-OL); LBP 86-3. 23 NRC 69 (1986)
OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-353-OL; AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986), ALAB-830,23 NRC 59 (1986); CLI-86-6,23 NRC 130 (1986)
OPER ATING LICENSE; ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-352 OL,50-353-OL; CLI-86-5,23 NRC 125 (19861 OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT, MEMOR ANDUM AND CRDER CONSOLIDATING PROCEEDINGS AND SETTING WilEDULE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES, Docket Nos 50-352-OLA 1 ( ASLBP No. So-522-02-LA) (Check Valves),50-352-OLA-2 ( ASLBP No.
86-526-04-L A) (Containment Isolanon); LBP-86-6B. 23 NRC 173 (1986)
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON ROBERT L. ANTilONY'S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE; Docket No. 50-352 OLA
( ASLBP No. 86-522-02-LA) (Check Vahe). LBP-86-6A,23 NRC 165 (1986)
REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R l 2.206; Dcw ket No 50-352. DD-861,23 NRC 39 (1986)
REQUEST FOR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. t 2 206 Docket No 50-353; DD-86 5,23 NRC 226 (19866 PRECI5 ION M ATERI ALS CORPOR ATION M ATERIALS LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 30 22063 ( ASLBP No.
85 512-02-ML); LBP 86-2,23 NRC 28 (1986)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT REQUEST FOR ACTION DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2.206, Docket No.
50 312, DD-85-19,23 NRC 33 (1986)
TEY A5 UTILITliS ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
REQUEST FOR ACTION, MEMCIANDUM AND ORDER, Docket No. 50-445; CLI 86-4,23 NRC !!3 (1986)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECIS'ON UNDS.R 10 C F R. ( 2.206; Docket No.
50-483 DD-86-2,23 NRC 97 (1986) 2 am..
]
! DIGESTS j ISSUANCES OF THE NLCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
CLl-86-1 LOUISI AN A POW ER & LIGHT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Umt 3), Docket No. 50-3824)L; OPER ATING LICENSE; January 30, 1986, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The C,mmission demes the remaming aspect of Jomt Intervenors' motion to reopen the record m thn operatirig license proceeding on management character and competence. The Com-mission Onds that Jomt intervenors' motion to reopen, which is based on the pendency of or.p-mg insesugauons of the Office of Investigauons, does not meet the heavy burden required to reopen a closed record B The standards for reopenmg a closed record require consideration of three factors: (1) whether the motion to reorcn n timely. (2) whether the mfoimauon ranes a significant safety for environmentall concern. and (31 whether the mformauon might have led the Licensmg Board to reach a differen: ,esult See, e , Metropohtan Edison Co (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stanon. Umt 1), CLI-85-2,21 NRC 282,311 (1985L C The burden of satisfymg the recremng requirements es a heavy one. See, e g , Kansas Gas and Electnc Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Stanon, Unit U, AL AB-462, 7 NRC 320, 338 (1978) Duke Power Co (Catawba Nuclear Stanon. Umts I and 2), ALAB 357, 4 NRC 619, 620 21 (1976L Bare allegations or the simple submnsion of new cos.tentions are not enough to meet these standards Pacific Gas and Electric Co (Diablo Can>on Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I
] and 21, CLI-81-5.13 NRC 361,363 (1981L l D At a mmimum, the new matenalin support of a monon to reopen must be set foith with
{ a degree of paruculanty in excess of the basa and specificity requirements contamed in 10 j' C F R. 4 2 714(b) for admmible contenuons. It must be tantamount to evidence and possess the l
attnbutes set forth in 10 C F.R. ( 2.743tc) definmg admissible evidence for adjudicatory proceed- ;
ir.gt Specifically, the new cudence supporting the molion must be relevant, matenal and reli- l l
able Pacific Gas and Elecinc Co.1Diablo Canyon Nuclesr Power Plant, Units I and 2),
ALAB-775,19 NRC 1361,1366-67, aTd sub nom San Lun Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC,
); 751 F.2d 1287 (D C. Cir 1984), vacated m part and reh's en banc granted on other grounds,
! 760 F 2d 1320 (1985L Informanon that invesugations are under way by itself does not meet this standard.
E A movani m seekmg to meet the heasy burden required to justify reopening a closed record is not enntled to engage m discovery in ordar to support the motion. Rather, the issue in i cach case is whether the available informanon meets the standards for reopemng Metropohtan Ed' son Co (Three Mile Island Nudear Station Umi 1), CLI-85-7, 21 NRC l104,1106 (1985).
! It is not the du'y of the adjudicatory boards to search for evidence that might fill in gaps in the I moving parly's submmions i
F The Commmion's Policy Statement on Investigations, inspections, and Adjudicatory Pro-
. ceedings, 49 Fed Reg 36,032 (Sept.13,1984). addresses the confhet between the duty to dis-close investiganon or mspection information to the boards and parties and the need to protect that informanon. The prousions of that Pohey Statement come into play only when Staff or O!
hne new mformanon material and relevant to any "nsue in controversy in the proceedmg " Pre-
' viously uncontested nsues raned m a mouon to reopen are not " issues in controversy in a pro-ceedmg" unless and until both the monon to reopen is granted and the contention is admitted.
G Boards hne the authont) to esamine issues not placed in controversy by the parties only where specific facts are brought to the~ attennon indicatmg that there is a senous safety, envi-ronmental, or common defense and security matter See 10 C.F R. ( 2.760e; Texas Utihues 3
s t
,- ~ ,.u, e.m 4-
4 DIGESTS -
ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Generating Co. tComanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units I and 2). CL1-81'-24,14 NRC 614. 615 (1981L The mere pendency of 01 insestigations by themselves does not raise a serious safety matter.
CLl-86-2 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et at (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1). Docket No. 50 289 (Restart); SPECIAL PROCEEDINO; February 6.1986; ORDER A The Commission decides that review of ALAB-826,22 NRC 893 (1981), is unwarranted.
The Commisuon reaches no judgment on whether the Licensms Board statement regardmg INPO's comphance with its own criteria is correct.
CLI-86-3 INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICA-TION, Docket No. LRP; DISCRETIONARY PROCEEDING; February 13, 1986; MEMORAN-DUM AND ORDER A The Commission demes a request to modify the December 18,1985 Notice of Hearing on leak rate falsifications at TMI-2.
CLI-86-4 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et at (Comanche Pcak Steam Electric Sta-tion. Unit 1). Docket No. 50-445; REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 13, 1986: MEMORAN-DUM AND ORDEft A 'Ine Commission demts a motion requesting that Texas Utilities Electric Company, which neglected to request a timely renewal of its Unit I construction permit prior to expiration of the ps emit, be required to apply for a new construction permit. The Commission agrees with the NRC Staff's findmg that the coastruction permit amendment granting entension of the con-struction completion date invohes no significant hazards considerations, and it therefore refuses to stay an entension of that construction permit granted by the NRC Staff, to halt further con-struction or to grant a "preentenuon" heanng. T he Commission refers the request for a hearing on the construction permit extension to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel for ap .
pomtment of a hearmy board, and it refers the request for enforcement action against the Licen-see for constructmn activines after expiration of the construction permit, to the NRC Staff for ap-propriate action.
B Failure to make a timely apphcation for an extension prior to the expiration date of a construction permit does not hne the effect of causms a complete forfeiture of the permit such as to preclude issuance of an exter4 ion and to require an ettsrely new construcuon permit proceedmg.
C The films of a timely request for an extension under 10 C.F R. { 2.109 beeps a construc-tion permit in force.
D An amendment entendmg a construction permit does not necessarily involve a significant hazards consideranon, especially when the amendment does not invohe substantive change. m conuruchon design or methods but merely gives a licensee more time to complete construction.
E The Commission has delegated the responsibility for makmg significant hazards consider-ation findings to the discretion of the NRC Staff. See, e.g.,48 Fed. Reg. 14.864,14,867 ( April 6.1983L F Section 189(aHI) of the Atomsc Energy Act allows the Commission to issue a construc-tion permit amendmem on an immediately efTective basis, without offering a prior hearing. upon a finding that the amendment insolvts no significant harards considerations. 42 U.S.C.
{ 2239f aHI) (1985 SuppJ.
G The scope of the postestension hearing is limited to challer.ges to the licensee's effort to show " good cause" for its entension.
H After espiration of its construction permit, a licensee is not free to continue construction unul told to stop.10 CF.R H 2.109,50.10.
CLI-86 5 PHILADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generaung Station, Units I and 2). Dodet Nos 50-352-OL $0-353-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; March 20,1986; OR DER A The Commission decimes review of ALAB 819, bat provides comments on (a) adjudica-tion of severe accident mitigation measures and (b) emergency planning arrangements for treat-ment of onsite personnel who are radiologically contaminated and traumatically injured B Parties are to file pentions for review within the time hmits prescribed by 10 C.F.R.
( 2.786 b)O L If parues cannot meet that fihng schedule. motions are to be filed seeking an en.
tension of time.
4 '
{
l I
-= w 9 - . + + i.3 .m --,- s ,.gg n+w q . pyw-,.-9wg.-..s p- c,' ..
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C A petition for resiew filed with the Commission shall contain a concise sta'tement why in the petitioner's siew the Appeal Board's decision is erroneous.10 C.F.R. { 2.786(b)(2Hiii).
D The Commission's " Policy Statement on Sescre Reettor Accidents Regardmg Future Designs and Existing Plants," 50 Fed. Reg. 32,138 ( Aug. 8,1985), bars litigation in case-related safety or environmental hearings of accident mitigation measures beyond those found in Com-misnon regulations.
E The reasonableness of emergency plans must be deterrnined in each case in light of the specific facts. In areas where many nearby medical facilities are available to treat onsite personnet who are radiological!y contaminated or traumatically iryured, a prudent course of action under 10 C.F R. { 50 47 would be to select for a backup hospital a facihty reasonably close to the reactor site, but outside of the emergency planning rone.
CLI-864 PHILADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-352-OL, 50-3534L; OPERATING LICENSE; March 20,1986; MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER A The Commission denies jomt intersenors' request to reopen the record and to stay opera-tion of Limenck Unit 1. The Commission Gnds that the "new information" proffered by inter-senors does not meet the criteria required to reopen a closed record. and, that smce no signifi-cant safety issue was raised, there is no basis for a stay. .
B The star dards for reopening a closed record require consideration of three factors: (D ehether the motion to reopen is timely; (2) whether the infor: nation raises a significant safety (or ensironmental) concern; and O) whether the information might have led the Licensing Board to reach a different result. See, e s.. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Stauon, Unit D, CII 85-2,21 NRC 282. 311 (1985).
C In seekmg to reopen a record on contentions not within the scope of issues raise' d pre-viously, parties must address the criteria for determining whether late-filed contentions should be admitted 10 C.F.R. ( 2.714(al(D.
D Summary denial of a motion for stay is appropriate when the criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. l 2.788 hase not been addressed.
E The followmg technical issues are discussed: Flood Protection; Pipehne Rupture.
5
.~,.
, i I
- l l
I l
l \
l l l
! l l
1 j
i 1
I I i
i i
i
- DIGESTS I ISSUANCES OF Tile ATO%11C SATETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS AL AB-827 LONG ISLAND LIGitTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1),
Dotket No 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Plannms); OPERATING LICENSE; January 9,1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A The Appeal Board demes the intersenors' request for leave to file a 20-page brief in addi-tion to the 100-page Jomt bnef aircady filed by them.
B The Commission's regulations impose a 70-page limit on appellate hnefs. A motion requestmg an increase in this page limit for good cause may be made, but such a motio.t must be submitted at least seven days in adsance of the due date for films the bner.10 C.F.R.
4 2.762(e).
C Not eser) error of a heanng board justifies an appellate remedy.
D Apnellate reuem is not mtended to ofter losing parties a forum for simply renewing laims presented to. but rejected by, the Inal inbunal.
E Proceedmss on appeal are intended to focus on sigmficant matters, not esery colorable c' nm of error. See generally Jones s Barnes. 463 U.S 745,752-53 (1983) (the purpose of an ap-3 petite presentauon is to select the most promising issues for review). See also id. at 76) (Bren-nan and Marshall, JJ., dmentmg) (good appellate advocacy demands selectivity among arguments). g AL A B-828 PillLADELi'lil4 ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limenck Generating Station, Umts 1 and I' 2), Docket Nos 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; January 16,1986, MEMO-
) RANDUM AND ORDER
- A The Appeal Board affirms the Licensirg Board's denial of intersenors' request to reopen j the record m this operating license proceedmg B in ruims on a motion to reopen the record, adjudicatory boards consider three factors
(l) whether the motion is timely; (2> mhether it addresses a sigmficant safety or enstronmental issue; and O) whether a different result might,have been reached had the neuly proffered mate-nal been cenudered mitially. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CL1-85-2,21 NRC 282,285 n.3, reconsideration demed. CLI-85-7,21 NRC 1104 (1985).
C % hen a motion to reopen seeks to infect an enurely new issue into the proceeding, a board must consider both the cnteria hr reopenmg the record and the standards for admittmg late Gled contentions, set forth in 10 C F.R. ( 2.714(a)(IL See Pacific Gas and Elearic Co.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Pl.nt, Umts I and 2), CLI-82-39,16 NRC 1712,1714-15 (1982).
D Sntion 2.714(a)(1) sets out the standards for admitting late filed contentions. They
, a re ' fi) Good cause, if any. for failure to file en time; (n) The availabihty of other means whereby the pciationer's interest will be protected (iii) The extem to which the petitioner's par-ticipanon may reasonably be espected to asust m developmg a sound record; (is) The extent to which the pennoner's mierest will be represented by existmg parties; (s) The extent to which I the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceedmg.
- E The Appeal Board has conustently applied to C F R. { 2.714a(b) to appeals fmm orders that hase the effect of completely denying party status to a petitioner. See, e.g., Puget Sound Poser and Light Co (Skagit/flanford Nuclear Power Project Umts I and 2), ALAB 712,17 NRC 81,82 (1983D. The bnefing schedule for appeals from all other types of final orders, how-eser, is that found m 10 C F.R. 4 2 762.
F Parues to adjudicatory proceedmss have an obligation to monitor publicly available docu-j ments with a view toward rassmg issues in a timely fashion. Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear
$tauon. Umtg I and 2), CLI-83-19.17 NRC 104),1048 (1983L This is panicularly so mith re-i i
7 k
i W
i ____6 .w,,-.- ..--w-ww,--- .,-,.--,-e g- - . - - - - -
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATO%IIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS spect to ensironmental impact statem'nts,e which are expressly mtended for pubhc scrutiny and.
if necessar), htigation.
G The most important factor of the three-factor test for reopening the record is whether the monon raises a sigmGcant safety issua H Appeal boards generally do not consider matters raised in the Grst instance on appeal; rather. appeals are decided on the basis of the record developed below. ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681. 720 n.51 (1985); Houston Ligh mg and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Sta-tion. Unit 1 ). ALAB-582.11 NRC 239. 242 (1980); Tennessee Valley Authonty (Hartssille Nuclear Plant, Units 1 A. 2A 18 and 28), AL AB-463. 7 NRC 341,348 (1978).
I issues that a party fails to bner on appeal are considered maned See Pubhc Serske Elec-tric and Gas Co (Salem Nuclear Generating Station. Unit 1). ALAB-650,14 NRC 43, 49-50 (1981). afTd sub nom. Township of Lower Alloways Creek v. Pubhc Service Electric and Ga; Co. 687 F.2d 732 (3J Cir.1982)
J An appeal board mill not o erturn a hcensing board's determmation neighing the Gwe fac-tors speciGed m 10 C F R. ( 2.714(aHI) absent a showmg that the board has abused its discre-tion. Detroit Ednen Co. (Enrrco Fermi Atomic Power Plant Umt 2), AL AB 707,16 NRC 1760. 1763 (1982).
K in a request under 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206. any person may seek the suspension, modification.
or resocation of a heense, or other adpropnate action, for alleged regulatory violanons or poten-tially hazardous conditions. See 10 C.F.R. H 2.206(a),2.202(a).
L A petitson for rehef from the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulat on under 10 C.F.R 4 2.206 mill not always proude adequate other means to protect a petitioner's interest, so as to satnfy the second factor of section 2 714f aHI). Whether alternative protectne mearis are, in fact, availabic depe ids on the issues sought to be raned, the relief requested, and the stage of the proceedmg in some circumstances, this may well require the equnalence of an adjudicator >
hearmg But m other cases, a 10 C.F R. ( 2.206 petition could proude a sufficient vehicle to pro-tect one's interest.
M in considerms the admimbihi) of a late-filed contention, the fifth factor of 10 C F.R.
( 2.714(aHI) requires an adjudicatory board to determme, inter aba, the extent to which the pro-ceedmg - not hcense issuance or plant operation - will be delayed. Fermi.16 NRC at 1766 A L A B-829 LOUISI AN A POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Electne Station. Umt 3). Docket No 50-382-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; February 5,1986; NOTICE A The Appeal Board directs that an order it had entered earher m this proceedmg be pub-hshed m the NRC issuances. That ordcr directed the NRC staff and the Commission's Office of insestigations (Oli to proude the Board with information gathered in certam 01 mvestigations, mhKh had been described m sescral Board notifications as potentially relesant to two motions then pendmg before the Board.
B As a general rule, the NRC staff has a responsibihty to disclose to adjudicatory boards and the panies all information that is potentia!!y relevant and material to a pendmg adjudication.
49 Fed. Reg. 36.032 (19847.
C Ir the esent of a conflict between the board notiGcaton responsibihty and the need to protect msestigatne matenal from premature pubhc disclosure. Commission pohey authorizes ad-judicatory boards to conduct a prehmmary es parte, m camera inspection of the material at issue. Of course, information presented to a board en parte cannot serve as the basis for an adju-dicatory decismn The authonty for decidmg if and when disclosure of the disputed information mill occur is retained by the Commimon. 49 Fed Reg at 36.033-34 A L A B-830 PHILADELPHI A ELFCTRIC COMPANY tLimenck Generatmg Staton, Units I and 21, Docket Nos. ,50-352-OL. 50-353-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; February 7,1986; MEMO-R ANDUM AND ORDER A In this operatmg bcense proceedmg the Appeal Board dismisses intervenor's content'on a deahng with medwal arrangements for the treatmeni of individuals contaminated and injured onsite. per the stipulation of the parties The Board alsn vacales the Licensmg Board decision .
that, despite the stipulation. contamed findmss of fact and conclusions of law on this matter.
8
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TiiE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS B Escept for sigmGcant safety, environmental and secunty issues raised sua sponte pur-suant to 10 C F.R. { 2.7604, the Commission regulations do not authonie boards in operstmg hcense proceedmgs to " decide" matters not in controsersy.
C Once preuously contested issues are no longer in dispute, whether before or after the heanng, the proceedmg should be dismissed Portland General Electne Co. (Trojan Nuclear Planti AL AB-796. 21 NRC 4. 5 (1985).
AL AB-831 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2), Docaet Nos 50-440-OL. 50-441 O! ; OPER ATING LICENSE; February 27,1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Appeal Board denies in part and dismisses m part, without prejudice. an mtervenor's motion to reopen the record for the purpose of permittmg the submission of new contentions B When seeking to reopen an esidentiary record to consider new cudence, a mosant must satisfy a tripartite test- (1) is the motion timely; (2) does it address a significant safety or enu-ronmental issue; and (3) might a different result have been reached had the newly proffered matenal been considered imtialls. Pacine Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2), AL AB-598,11 NRC 876. 879 (1980), cited with approval in Metropohtan Edison Co (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Umt 1), CLI-85-2,21 NRC 282,285 n.3 (1985).
C Each operatins nuclear power plant is required to have a Gre protection plan that satisfies General Design Cnterion 3 m Appendis A to 10 C.F.R. Part 50. See 10 C.F.R. 50.48(a).
D Operating hcense techmcal specincations are meant to be hmited in scope to "those items that are directly related to maintaimns the integnty of the physical barners designed to contain radioactaity." 33 Fed Reg 18.610 (1968).
E The Atomic Energy Act and the regulations which implement it contemplate that techm-cal speciGcations are to be reserve i for those matters as to which the imposition of ngid condi-tions or hmitations upon reactor operation is deemed necessary to obviate the possibihty of an abnormal situation or event giurg nse to an immediate threat to the public health and safety.
Portland General Electnc Co. (Traan Nuclear Plant), AL AB-531. 9 NRC 263,271-74 (19791.
F Mere allegations are not enough to satisfy the standard for reopenin' an evidentiary record. PaciGe Gas and Electne Co (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. 'Jmis I and 2).
CLl-81-5.13 NRC 361. 363 (1981)
G Among the 10 C F R. 2 714fa)(1) factors that determine the acceptabihty of late conten-tions. a particularly important one is the extent to which the participation of the contention's sub-mit er "may reasonably be expected to assist in developmg a sound record."
A L A B-832 LONG ISLAND LIGitTING COMPANY (shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1).
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Plannmg); OPERATING LICENSE; March 26. 1986; DECI5 ION A Deferring action on the apphcant's appeah, the Appeal Board acts on the appeals of the intersenors from two Licensmg Board decisions on emergency planning in this operatmg hcense proceedmg The Appeal Board affirms the decisions m part and remands them in part. It directs the Licensing Board, homeser, not to proceed with the remand unless and until directed to do so by the Commission.
B lt is =cil settled that a party may appeal from a Licensing Board decision only if aghriesed by the ultimaic result - i e., the party mishes that result altered in some material respect. See South Carchna Electnc & Gas Co. (%rgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Umt 1), ALAB-694,16 NRC 95811982) and cases there cited C it is estabhshed that a party prevaihng on the tnal level may defend its favorable result on any ground that is supported by the record. In this connection, it matters not that the precise
. claimts) ofTered as a hasis for affirmance may have been urged upon and rejected by the trial tnbunal Of crucial importance is simply that an adequate record foundation for the claim be present. See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station Umts I and 2).
AL AB 793. 20 NRC 1591.1597 n.3 (1984h Pubhc Scruce Co. of Oklahoma (Black Foz Station.
Units I and 2), AL AB 573.10 NRC 775, 789 (1979), Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Ifill Nuclear Generating Station. Umts 1 and 2), ALAB 459,7 NRC 179,202 (1978); Niagara Mohawk Power Corp (Nme Mde Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264,1 NRC 347,357 (1975) (citmg Ja,Tke v. Dun iam. 352 U.S 280 (1957) and Cahfornia Bankers Assn. v. Schultz.
416 U.S. 21 (1974)).
9
\
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATO% tlc SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS D Appellate review is not intended to offer losms parties a forum for simply renewing claims presented to, but rejected by, the trial tnbunal. Proceedmss on appeal are mtended to focus on significant matters, not every colorable claim of error. ALAB-827, 23 NRC 9,11 (1986L E The emergency preparedness planning for a nuclear facihty is focused tc, . ru entent on assuring that prompt and effective actions can be taken to protect the pubhc from esposure to released gases or other radioactsve matenal. NUREG-0654 (FEM A-REP l), Rev.1, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (November 1980), at 1012.
F The 10-mile radius figure for the plume EPZ contained in 10 C.F.R. 50.47tc)(2) was cal .
culated in order to remove the need for site-specific calculations. NUREG-03% (EPA 520/I-78-016), " Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiologi-cal Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants" (December 1978), at 15-17,24 and 111-7 through III-8.
G Although the regulations provide that the exact size and configuration of a particular EPZ is to be determmed with reference to site-specific factors, the wholesale enlargement of the Commission-presenbed EPZs by a state cannot preclude a licensmg decision based upon the re-quirements of the NRC regulations. The Commission's regulations " clearly allow leeway for a mile or two in either direction, based on local factors. But (section 50.47) . . clearly precludes a l plume EPZ radius of, say, 20 or more miles." Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 781,20 NRC 819,831 (1984) (quotmg Southern Cahforma Edien Co (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) LBP-82 39,15 NkC 1163,1181 (1982), affd. ALAB-717,17 NRC 346 (1983), affd sub nom. Carstens v.
NRC,742 F.2d 1546 (D.C. Cir.1984), cert. denied,105 S. Ct. 2675 (1985)).
II A party seeking to impose a substantial change in the area of the Commission's pre-ser bed EPZ should seek an exception to the rule pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.758. Diablo Canyon, 20 NRC at 831, I It may be true that evidence need be adduced but a single time on any alleged fact, no matter how many contentions might rest upon the purported existence of that fact. But once that fact is estabhshed, there is no good reawn why it cannot serve more than one purpose - i.e., to buttress multiple claims.
J "The Commmon's emergency planning regulations are premised on the assumption that a serious accident might occur and that evacuation of the EPZ might well be neces-sary. . As a corollary, a possible deficiency in an emergency plan cannot property be disregard-ed because of the low probabihty that action pursuant to tN plan wdl ever be necessary." Phila-delphia Electric Co. (Limerisk Generstmg Station. Units I and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 713 (1985)
K Emergency response planning for nuclear facihties must make provision for the care of persons remosed from the plume EPZ should circumstances necessitate evacuation measures.
L Section !!LIO h of NUREG-0654 provides that a relocation center must be at least five miles, and preferably 10 mdes, beyond the boundaries of the plume EPZ.
M . Licensing boards are vested with broad discretion in the conduct of the proceedmgs before them. Thus, so long as they have a rational foundation, board determinations on such questions as the timeliness of motions are not likely candidates for reversal. I N Neither the law nor the Commission's regulations dWste how many opportunities an ap-phcant has to bnns itself into comphance with the Cornrn *Ws regulatory rules. Conelidated Edien Co. of New York (Indian Point, Unit No. 2), CU d- ,17 NRC 1006,1014 (1983).
le
i I
j DIGESTS
- ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS i
L BP-86-1 P ACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (flumboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3),
Docket No 50-133 OL A ( ASLBP No. 77 357-07-LA); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 14, 1986, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING A The Licensmg Board grants Licenseis motion to withdraw its license amendmem apphca-tion and dismisses the proceedmg.
LBP-86-2 PRECISION M ATERIALS CORPORATION (Mme flill, New Jersey irradiator Facihty).
Docket No. 30-22063 ( ASLBP No. 85-512-02-ML); M ATERI Al.S LICENSE; January 28,1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER LBP-86-3 PHIL ADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMP ANY (Limerick Generating Station. Units I and 2), Docket Nes. 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL ( ASLBP No 81-465-07-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; February 4.1936, FIFTil PARTI AL INITI AL DECISION A in this Partial Initial Decision. the Licensing Board finds that the Licensee's onsite emergency plans demonstrate that adequate presiuons have been made for medaal services for
) contaminated injured indmduals, and concludes that the issue remanded by the Atomic Safety I and Licensing Appeal Board has been resolsed
- LBP-86-4 isERR McGEE CllEMICAL CORPOR ATION (West Chicago Rare Earths Facihty),
Docket No 40-2061 ML ( ASLBP No 83-495-01 ML); M ATERIALS LICENSE; February 10, 1986, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensmg Board grants motions by Kerr-McGee and NRC StalT to dismiss the
{
- People of the State of Ilhnois Contention AG-1 for their failure to comply with carher board dis-cosery ruhngs (LBP 85-38, 22 NRC 604 (1985), and LBP45-46, 22 NRC 830 (1985)). The Board also denies the Pec.ple's motion for an extension of time to comply with their discovery l
j obhgations as the decision to impose the sanction renders that request moot i B in determining whether to impose a sanction, and what that sanction should be, hcensing i boards are guided by NRC regulation 10 C F R. 4 2.707, the Commission's Statement of Pohey l on Conduct of Licensing Proceedmss. CLI-81-8.13 NRC 452 (1981L and NRC cases containing other Boards' ruhngs on requests for sanchons See Commonwealth Edison Co (Byron Nuclear l
Power Station, Units I and 2). AL AB-678,15 NRC 1400 (1982); Pubhc Service Co. of New
!l llampshire (Seabrook Station, Uruts 1 and 2). LBP 83 20A,17 NRC 586 (1983); Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear Station, Units I and 21, LBP 83-29 A.17 NRC 1121 (1983); Northern i States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), LBP 77 37,5 NRC 1298 (1977).
4 C The NRC Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licenung Proceedmgs, CLi-8!-8,13 NRC l 452, 454 (1981) puts participants m NRC proceedmgs on notice that they must meet their e sbligs-
{
tions or sanctions may be imposed in selectmg a proper sanction to impose on partrs who dive-l gard their obbgations s board must enrivder specific factors "the relatne importance of the unmet obligation, its poteiltaal for harm to other parties or the orderly conduct of the proceedmg, whether its occurrence is en isolated incident or a part of a pattern of behavior, the importance of the safety or environmental concerns raned by the party, and all of the circumstances " Id.
D Parties have a responsibihty to respond to discovery to enable other parties to gain an un-derstandmg of the bases of their contentions in order to properly prepare their own cases, and be-cause thorough discosery mmimites the powbihty for surprise at hearms. focusses testimony and crosvexaminatiori, and leads to a fully desetoped record.
E Of the several factors considered in imposms a sanction those addressmg the relative im-portance of the unmet obbgations and potential harm to other parties or to the orderly conduct of the proceedmg may be heavily weighted, as discovery is crucial to the conduct of a fair proceedmg l.
11
)
i 1
I f\
U _ __
l DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS F A party may not dalay in answering interrogatories even if such delay will not affect the timing of the proceedmg in its later stages.
G A Licensing Board may be justified in imposing sanctions on a party for failure to meet discovery obhgations because discovery provides the other parties to the proceeding with factual information undergirdmg the admitted contentions. Pubhc Service Co. of New flampshire (Sea-brook Station Uruts I arid 2), LPP-83-20A,17 NRC 586 0983); Duke Power Co- (Catamba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), l.BP 83-29A,17 NRC I1210983).
H If a party upon whom senctions have been imposed files new or resised contentions out of time, the sanction mili be ct"-zidered in evaluating whether the petitioner sponsoring the con-tenton can be expected to as4st in developirr; tM record. See 10 C F.R. I 2.714(a)(1)(i v);
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuvear Station, Units I and 2), CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983).
LBP-86-5 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. (South Texas Project Units I and 2), Docket Nos STN 50-498 OL STN 50 499 OL (ASLBP No. 79-421-07-OL); OPERAT-ING LICENSE; February 14.1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board grants an intervenor's motion to withdraw one of its contentions.
Since the contention involved a previously unresolsed generic safety issue, the Board exammed the Staffs resolution of that issue and determined that such resolution represemed a plausible method for deshng with the issue.
B A licensms board in an operating hcense proceedmg rnust examme unresolsed generic safety issues, even when they become uncontested, to determire whether the Staffs resolution of the inue is " plausible?
C The followmg technicalissue is discussed: Overpressurization.
LBP 86-6 COMMON % EALTH EDISON COMPANY (Zion Station, Units I and 2), Docket Nos, 50 295 OL A, 50-304-OL A ( ASLBP No 84-500-06-LA); OPERATING LICENSE AMEND-M ENT; February 19.1986 MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING A The Licensmg Board denies petitioner's petition to irittrvene and dismisses the proceedmg. '
LBP-86-6A PillLADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generatmg Station, Unit 1),
Docket No. 50-352-OLA ( ASLBP No. 86-522-02-LA) (Check Valve); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDVENT; March 13. 1986, StEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON ROBERT L ANTHONY'S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE LBP-86-6B PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generstmg Station. Umt U, Docket Nos. 50-352-OLA 1 (ASLBP No.86-522 02 LA) (Check Valves), 50-352-OL A 2 i ASLBi' No. 86-526-04 L A) (Containment isolation); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 14.1986-. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING PROCEEDINGS AND SETTING 5CHEDULE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES LBP 86 7 ' COMMONW E ALTH EDI5ON COMPANY (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-456-OL $0 457-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-410-03-OL); OPERATING LICENSE: March 28,1986. M EMOR ANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensing Board rules on a motion to compel decovery of matters on which attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege are asserted.
B in accordance with recent NRC decisions, Rule 26(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is apphed to permit discovery of a nontestif>ms espert only upon a showing of excep-tional circumstances.
C The input of counsel to documents required under the regulatory process and otherwiw discoverable cannot immunite these documents from discovery.
LBP 86-8 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. (South Texas Project Umts I and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL STN 50-499-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-42107-OL); OPER AT.
ING LICENSE: March 28,1986. SEVENTH PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER A The Licensms Board issues a Prehearing Conference Order discussing issues for whrch furtt.er hearmgs are sought.
B There is no programmatic requirement under the prousions of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appen.
dix B (setting standards for a quality assurance program for operation) for a program to control the use and/or sale of illegal drugs by plant personnel.
12
'l 4*W'
DIGESTS ISSL'ANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS C % here the Commission has suspended a rulemakmg pendmg the deselopment of stand-ards by industry, and m the abwnce of any statement by the Commissmn that issues insobed in such rulemaking should not be litigated, there is no generic bar to a Licensmg Board's considera-tion of assues which may fall withm that rulemakmg, under standards m effect prior to such rulemaking or under ad hoc " reasonable assurance" criteria where rm programmatic standards c u st.
D The Commission's Rules of Practice require that, for a contention to be litigabic, there rust be " bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity." An anonymous tele-pr. call to a party's representative does not, without more, constitute an acceptable basis.
E U.: 'a' tam mg techmcal issue is discussed Quality assurance program for operation.
13
-e -
(
l DIGESTS ISSL'ANCE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ALJ-86-1 KENNETil L. BURTON. Docket No. 55 60575 ( ASLBP .A 86-515-01 SP) (Senior Operator Licene for Mdistone Nuclear Power Stanon, Unit 3), SPECI AL PROCEEDING, Janu-ary 27.1986. ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING f
J l
i e
l is I
l e e i
e-- ~v_ - . ~ - n.n.,. .v,.___._ _ _
l I
t i
I I
j a
I DIGESTS l
ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-85-19 ARK ANSAS POWER AND LIGIIT COMPANY (Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1),
4 Docket No. 50 313. SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear j- Generating StationL Dodei No. 50-312, FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION (Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generasing Plant) Docket No. 50 302; DUKE POW ER CUMPANY, et at 3 (Oconee Nuclear Station, Umts 1, 2, and 3), Dodet Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287. GENERAL i
PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1),
{ Docket No 50-289 REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 29, 1986. DIRECTOR'S DECISION l UNDER 10 C.F R.12 206 A The Director of the OfGce of Nuclear Reactor Regulatm denies the petition of Mr. John Doherty requestmg institution of proceedings to show cause why the rperating licenses for certain named facihties should not be suspended or revoked until alleged problems associated with oper-ation of control rod dnve mechanisms at the facihties are resolved.
j DD-86-1 PillL ADELPill A ELFCTRIC COMPANY (Limenck Generatmg Station. Unit I ),
q Docket No 50-352, REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 21, 1986. DIRECTOR'S DECISION i
UNDER 10 C F R. 4 2 206
) A The Actmg Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies petitions filed by Robert L.
Anthony and F rank R. Romano which sought revocation of certain exemptions from NRC regu-lations issued by the NRC Staff for operation of Limenck Generating Station, Umt 1. The peti-tioners had not ident4cd any safety or environmental information that would warrant a change in the Staffs prenous conclusions regardmg the exemptions.
B In the absence of an adequate factual basis for a petition or a nenus between the issues i
ramed in the petition and the request fw rehef, ru action need be taken on a petition under 10 l C F.R. l 2 206 Matters which are before the Board in a heensing proceedmg are not the ap-l propnate subject of a 4 2.206 petition.
DD-86-2 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY (Callaway Plant. Unit I), Docket No 50-483, RE-QUEST FOR ACTION, February 10. 1986. DIRE CTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R.
l 2 206 A The Director of the OfDce of Inspection and Enforcement denies a petition filed by Alan 5 Nemes on behalf of the Mmourt Coahtion for the Environment and Kay Drey. The petition requested action mth respect to the Callaway Plant Umi 1, based upon issues concerning the cer-lification and quahfication of quahty assurance inspectors to conduct inspections at the Callamay facihty.
B The grantmg of an NRC operstmg hcense does not hinge upon a demonstration of error, free construction. Rather, what is required is simply a findmg of reasonable assurance that, as bwlt, the facility can arid mill be operated without endangenng the public health and safety.
C Section 2.206ta) requires petitioners to set forth the facts that constitute the basis for I
their request.
D The requirements of Regulatory Guides 18 sc.J 1.58 for quahfication of inspection per-j sonnel are discussed
) E Not every violation compels the suspension or revocation of an operstmg heense. Such action could be appropnate if there has been a persasive breakdown of quality assurance.
F Acceptabikty of the hcensee's quahty assurance program under 10 C F.R. Part 50, Appen-i dis B. is dncussed.
l 17 e
_n__..-.,-_--m - e e e * -- -- - ----w--- ' * ~ * * ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~~ ~~
v '~ ~~ ~
i i
. . . ..- .- - . . - - .~ - - -
. 7 l
4 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-86-3 NUCLE AR FUEL SERVICFS, INC. (Erwin. Tennessee Plant), Docket No. 70143; RE-1 QUEST FOR ACTION March 3,986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R l 2.206 A The Director of the OfE e of Inspection and Enforcernent denies in part a petition filed by the Oil, Chemical and Alceme Workers International Umon requestmg that the Commission investigate certam allegatiors and take other action v.ith regard to Nuclear Fuel Services' Erwin, Tennessee facihty. The reguest rested on the claim that the nonbargainmg unit workers carrymg ,
out limited operations a* the facihty as a result of a strike are neither trained nor quahfied to per- i a for*n the work. thus mosing a threat to pubhc health and safety. The Director determined that t the Staff had already mvestigated the specific allegations raised in the petition and taken appropri-
, aie enforcement acuen, and that the further relief requested in the petition was unwarranted.
B Not esery siolation of the Commission's regulatsons of hcenses compels suspension or tevocation of a license. -
C In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, a violation involsing a failure to per.
form an adequate search, resuhing in the entry of a weapon on the site, is normally classified as
- a Severity Level ill violation and warrants consideration by the NRC of the proposed imposition of a civJ penalty.
DD-86-4 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 21. Docket Nos 50440, $0441; REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 18, 1986; Di'.ECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. I 2.206 A The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies a petition filed by Donald L Schlemmer on behalf of the % estern Reserve Alliance and denies in part a petition filed by Susan Ratt on behalf of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy. The petition filed by the
%estern Reserve Alliance requested that the Commission suspend construction and other activi.
ties at the Perry plant on the grounds that the seismic design of the facihty is inadequate in light of an carthquake which occurred January 31, 1986, and take other actions with regard to the Perry facihty. The petinc.n fhed by Ohio Citirens for Responsible Energy requested that the Com-mission not authorne fuel loadais or issue an operating license for the Perry plant until certam actions have been completed in connection with the earthquake, includmg inspectmg the facility j for damage which may hase resulted. investigatmg the earthquake, and reevaluating local seis-micity. The Director determined that the Staff had already extensisely investigated the earth-
, quake and its effects upon the Perry structure and equipment and is reevalualmg the geology and seismology, and that no adequate basis existed to grant the additional relief requested by the petitioners.
la The Commission has ruled that i 2.206 is not an appropriate avenue for relief where an issue is pendmg or has been considered, or could have been raned before a board in an ongoing l advdication.
. C Under 10 CJ R. Part 100, Appendit A, the design basis for earthquakes must be deter-4 mined through esaluation of the geologie and seismic history of the site and surroundmg region.
The largest earthquakes occurring in the site region must be assessed.
j D lt is not unusual for an earthquake to have high-amphtude, high-frequency peak accelera-tions oflimited duration. These high-frequency peak accelerations are not used in scaling Regula-tory Guide 1.60 design spectra because they are usually of short duration and have litt'e energy and are not representatne of spectral response at the lower, more significant frequencies.
< E Appendis A to 10 C.F.R. Part 100 describes procedures to be followed in determining mhether a fault is capable and whether the nuclear power plant is required to be designed to with-stand the effects of surface faulting.
F Secuan 2.206(a) of 10 CJ.R. requires that a petiuoner " set forth the facts that constitute
! , the basis for the request." Absent such a showing, no acuon need be taken on a request.
G The Dirgetor, upon receipt of a request to initiate an enforcement proceeding, is not re-quired to accord presumptive vahdity to esery assertion of fact by a petitioner. Rather, his role is to make an inquiry appropriate to the facts asserted, and to obtam and assess the information he believes necessary to make that determinanon.
i Is f
I I
h 1 -
, .-.m..~ < , , , - .- -- - - , _ - - - - , _ _ , _ _ _ . -- -. - . -m - , _
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS DD-86 5 PillL A DELPHl 4 ELECTRIC CONIPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2),
Docket No 50-353. REQUEST FOR ACTION. March 21, 1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER la C.F R. s 1206 A The Director. Offwe of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, denies a petition filed pursuant to 10 C F.R. ( 2.206 by Marsin I. Lewis on behalf of himself and Cituen Action in the Northeast requesting the imme:iiate suspension and ultimate revocation of the construction permit for the Limenck Unit 2 facihty The Petiuoners argued that recent findings by an Admimstrative Law Judge of the Pennsylvania Public Utihty Commission demonstrate that Unit 2 is economically unuable, that the cost / benefit ratio required to be evaluated by the NRC under the National En-uronmental Pohey Act is r.ow unfasorable and. consequently, the construction permit should be resoked.
19
l l
1
)- 1 l
l 4
i i
I 4
1 5
i l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES J
Aniona Pubbe Seruce Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Umts I,2, and 3), AL AB-713, 17 NRC 83 (1983) precedennat effect ofissue resultmg from sua sponte review ofissue not clearly withm the sctre of the proceeding. LBP 86-6,23 NRC 186 n.3 (1986)
Barry s. Barchi. 443 U.S 55 (1979) compliance of postheanny on admimstratne action with due process requirements. CLI-86-4,23 l NRC 122 ll9861 4 Brooks s AFC,476 F.2d 924. 928 (D C. Cir.1973) (per cunam) hearing nghts on construction permit estension. CLi 86 4,23 NRC 121,122 (1986) i Cahforma Bankers Ass'n v. Shultr. 416 U.S 21 (1974) grounds for defense on appe.d of fawrEe result. AL AB-832,23 NRC 141 n 9 (1986)
Carchna Power and Light Co (Shearon llarns Nuclear Power Plant Umts I and 2), LBP-83-27A 17 NRC 971,976 79 (1983}
l showmg necessary for dncosery of faces or opinions of a nontestifying espen. LBP 86 7,23 NRC i 178 n.it (19861 Cmcmnau Gas and Liectne Co (% ilham 11. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. Umt I). AL AB-727,17 i
i NRC 760. 772 (1983) LBP-82-47.15 NRC 1538.1596-98 (1982) l role conflict by bus drners dunng radiological emergency; ALAB-832,23 NRC 154 n 66 (19868 i Cleveland Electric illuminating Co (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2), DD-8514. 22 NRC l 635. 642 n 4 f 1985#
types of rehef contemplated under 10 C F R 2 206. DD-86 4,23 NRC 214 n.1 (1986) l Commonwealth Edmm Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Stanon. Umts I and 2), AL AB-678,15 NRC 1400, 1417 (1982) factors conudered in determmmg w hether to impose sanctions for failure to respond to i discoser3. L BP-86-4, 23 NRC 81 (19861 Commonweahh Ldnon Cr (R 3ron Nuclear Power Stanon. Umts I and 2), AL AB-793,20 NRC 1591, l
- 1597 n.3 (1964)
, grour ds for defense on appeal of favorable result. AL AB-832,23 NRC 141 n 9 (19866 I Consobdated Ednen Co of New iork (Indian Pomt, Umt 2), CL1-8316,17 NRC 1006,1014 (1983) number of opporiumiies for an apphcant to bnng itself into comphance with Commisuon emergency plannmg regulaoons. AL AB-832. 23 NRC 160 n 97 (1986)
Consohdated Ednon Co. of New York findian Pomt. Unit 2), CLt-85 6,21 NRC 1043.1092 (1985) need to conuder additional deugn at ernatnes for mitigation of severe accidents in high-populanon-densit) areas. CLI-86-5, 23 NRC 126 (1986)
Consumers Power Co afidland Plant, Umts I and 2). ALAB-106,4 AEC 182,184 (1973) i scope of ouakty assurance contendons; LDP 86-8. 23 NRC 187 (19R66 Consumers Power Co. Blidland Plant. Units I and 21, AL AB-458,7 NRC 155,162-63 (1978) significance of cost in esaluatmg alternatne energy sources; DD 86-5,23 NRC 231 (1986) l Consomers Power Co R1idland Plant, Umts I and 2t, LBP 82-63,16 NRC 571,585 (1982);
LBP 82-Il8.16 NRC 2034. 2037 39 (1982) litigabihty of drug control issues. LBP-86-6,23 NRC 186 (1986)
Detroit Edivm Co (Ennen Ferme Atomic Power Plant Unit 2), ALAB 707,16 NRC 1760.1763 (1982)
- standard for grant of appeal of licenung board determinatmn on admissibility of contentions.
AL AB-828. 23 NRC 21 n 19 (19861 1
- 21 l I
l 1
i l
i 1 F-1 i
i j
I l
l LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Detroit Edison Co. (Lnnco Ferm Atomic Power Plant. Umt 2) DD-84-il,19 NRC 1108,1110 n 2 (19846 types of relief contemplaied under 10 C F R 2.20e; DD-86-4,23 NRC 214 n.1 (1986)
Duke Power Co. ( Amendment to Matenals License SNM 1773 - Transportation of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station). ALAB 528,9 NRC 146,150 &
n.7 (19791 limited appearance statement as a means of protecting a petitioner's interests, AL AB-828,23 NRC 22 n 25 (1986)
Duke Power Co. ( Amendment to Matenals License SNM 1773 - Transportation of Spent Fuel from Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station). ALAB-651,14 NRC 307,317 (19811 need for ensironmental a sessment of esemptions from regulations. DD-86-1,23 NRC 46 n 9 (19801 Duke Power Co (Catamba Nuclear Station. Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-359,4 NRC 619,620-21 (1976) burden of satisfung reopening requirements; CLI-86-1,23 NRC 5 (1986)
Duke Power Co (Catawba Nuclear Station Units I and 2), CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983) critena for admission of new contentions addressing draft FES, LBP-86-4,23 NRC 87 (1986) test applied to motions to reopen that introduce new issues, AL AB-831,23 NRC 64 n.3 (1986)
Duke Power Co ICatamba Nuclear Station. Umts I and 2). CLi 8319.17 NRC 1041,1048 (1983) responvbihties of parties to momfor publicly available documents- ALAB-828. 23 NRC 18 n 9 (1986)
Duke Power Co ICatamba Nuclear Station. Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-29A 17 NRC 1121. II23 (1983) factors conudered m determimng whether to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discmery, LBP 86-4. 23 NRC 81 (1986)
Duke Power Co (Catawba Nuclear Station. Umts I and 2), LBP 84 37,20 NRC 933,979,988-89 (1984), affd. AL AB-813,22 NRC 59 (1985) adjustments to plume F P/ on the basis of local conditions. AL AB-832, 23 NRC 149 n 40 (1986)
Duke Power Co (Cherokee Nudear Station. Umts I,2, ...d 2 ALAB-437. 7 NRC 70 (1978) motiom to esceed page firmt for appellate bnefs. ALAB-827. 23 NRC 11 n 3 (1986)
Florida Power and Light Co (St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, L mt 2). AL AB-420,6 NRC 8,23 (19778, aff"d. CLl 78-12,7 NRC 939 (1978 means for protecttg a petmoner's amerests. AL AB-828, 23 NRC 21 n 24 (19861 General Electnc Co (Vallecitos Nuclear Center - General Electnc Tesi Reactor). ALAB-720,17 N R C 397, 402 n.7 (1983 p precedential effect of issue resultmg from sua sp<mte reuew of issue not clearly within the scope of the proceeding. L BP-86-6. 23 NRC 186 n 3 (1986)
Genera! Electnc Co a Vallecitos Nuclear Center. General Electric Test Reactor), LBP 78-33. 8 NRC 461. 465-68 (19'8 p showing necessary for dismery of facts er opinions of a nontestifying espert, LBP-86-7,23 NRC 178 n.1 (19A6' Genera! Pubbt Utili' es Nuclear Corp (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Umts I and 2; Oyster Creek Nuclear Ger.catmg Station). CLI-85-4. 21 NRC 561. 563-64 (1985) use of 2.200 petitions to obtain rehef on issues that are the subject of ongoing hcensmg proceedings; DD-86-1. 23 NRC 43 n 6 (1986); DD-86-4,23 NRC 214 (1986)
Georgia Power Co ( Alun w % ostle Nuclear Plant. Umis I and 2), DD 79-4. 9 NRC 582,584-85 (19791 need to reconsider enuronmental decisions when new information becomes available. DD-86 5.
21 NRC 230 (1986) llouston Lighting and Power Co ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Uma 1), ALAB-582,11 NRC 239,242 (1980) baus for appellate deemom. ALAB-828. 23 NRC 20 n 17 (1986) llouston Lighting and Power Co Nuih Tesas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 799. 21 NRC 360. 384 n 108 (1985)
NRC Staff resiew as means of protecling a party's interests. AL AB-828,23 NRC 22 n.25 (1986) 22
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Jaffke v. Dunham. 352 U.S. 280 (1957) grounds for defense on appeal of favorable result; ALAB-832,23 NRC 141 n.9 (1986) 3ones s. Barne*,463 U.S. 745. 752 53 (1983) focus of claims on appeal, AL AB-832,23 NRC 143 n.12 (1986)
Jones t Barnes. 463 U.S. 745,752 53 (1983) purpose of appellate presentations. AL AB-827,23 NRC 11 n 6 (1986)
Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generatmg Station, Umi 11, AL AB-462,7 NRC 320,338 (19781 burden of satisfying reopenmg requirements; CLI-86-1,23 NRC 5 (1986)
Kert McGee Chemical Corp I%est Chicago Rare Earths Facihty), LBP-85-38,22 NRC 604,60910 (1985) shommg necessary for dncosery of facts or opm*ons of a nontestifying expert; LBP-86-7,23 NRC 178 n I (19861 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Umt 1). ALAB-824,22 NRC 776,781 (1985) need to include fire protection plans in technical specifications; ALAB-831,23 NRC 66 n 11 (1986)
Long Island Lightmg Co (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Umt 1), AL AB-527,23 NRC 9,11 n 6 (1986) focus of claims on appeal; AL AB-832,23 NRC 143 n 12 (1986)
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electne Station, Umt 3), AL AB 732,17 NRC 1076, 1110 13 (19831 resolution of oserprewuniation problem LBP-86-5. 23 NRC 90 (1986)
Mass Communicators, Inc s. FCC,266 F 2d 681,683-85 (D C. Cir.1959), cert. demed, 361 U S 828 (1959p consequence of fadute to apply for estension of construction completion date in construction permit CLl-86-4. 23 NRC I19 (1986l Mathems t Lidridge,424 U.S 319 (19768 compliance of postheanng on admimstrative action with due process requirements; CLI-86-4,23 NRC 122 (1986)
Metropohten Ednon Co (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1). Cl1-85-2,21 NRC 282,285 n 3 (19851 three-factor test for recremng a record ALAB-831,23 NRC 64, n 3 (1986)
Metropohtan Ediwn Co. (Three Mde htand Nuclear Station. Umt 1), CLI 85-2,21 NRC 282,285 n.3. 311 reconsiderauon denM. CLI-85 7,21 NRC 1104 (1985) three-factor test appleed to motions to reopen. AL AB-528. 23 NRC 17 n.3 (1986), CLi 86-1,23 NRC 5 (1986); CLI-86-6. 23 NRC 133 (19861 Metropolnan Edison Co (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Umt 1), CLI-85-7,21 NRC 1804.1106 (19851 discovery to support rnotions to reopen. CL1-861,23 NRC 7 (1986)
MG TV Broadcasting Co. v. FCC. 408 F.2d 1257,1261 (D C. Cir.1968) consequence of failure to apply for estension of construction construchon permit. CLl-86-4,23 NRC 119 20 (1956l Mismsippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. Units I and 2), AL AB-704,16 NRC 1725, 1730 11982) means for protecting a pehtioner's interests. AL AB-82M 23 NRC 22 n 28 (1986)
Neagara Mohamh Power Corp (Nme Mile Point Nuclear Station Umt 2), ALAB-264, I NRC 347, 357 (1975) grounds for defense on appeal of fasorable result AL AB-832,23 NRC I41 n.9 (1986)
Northern Indiana Pubhc Sersice Co. (Badly Generatmg Station Nuclear D, CLI-78 7. 7 NRC 429, 432 33 (19786 role of Director of NRR relesant to requests for enforcement proceedings; DD-86-4,23 NRC 222 (19861 23
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Northern States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1). LBP-77-37,5 NRC 1298, I301 (1977) factors considered in determinmg whether to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery; LBP-86-4. 23 NRC 81 (1986)
Nuclear Fuel Services. Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4. I NRC 273,276 (1975) means for protecting a petitionerN interests; ALAB-828,23 NRC 22 n 25 (1986)
Pacinc Gas and Electne Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2). ALAB-598,11 NRC 876. 879 (19801 three-factor test for reopening a record; AL AB-831. 23 NRC 64, n.3 (1986)
Pacinc Gas and Electne Co. (Diablo Caryon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2). ALAB-775,19 NRC 1361,1366-67, aff'd sub nom. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC 75? F.2d 1287 (D C. Cir.1984#, sacated in part and reh*g en banc granted on other grounds,760 F.2d 1320 (1985) particulanty required of material supporting motions to reopen; CL' 86-I. 23 NRC 5-6 (1986)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2) ALAB 781,20 NRC 819,831 (1984) enlargement of plume EPZ beyond regulatory requirements; ALAB-832,23 NRC 148 n 35 (19861 Pacinc Gas and Elec nc Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2). CLI-815,13 NRC 361. 363 (1981) support needed for motions to reopen; ALAB-831,23 NRC 67 n.15 (1986); CLI 861,23 NRC 5 fl9R6)
Pacinc Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). CL181-6.13 NRC 443, 444 (1981) use of 2.206 petitions to obtain relief on issues that are the subject of ongoing licensing proceedmss. DD-86 l. 23 NRC 43 n 6 (1986); DD-86-4,23 NRC 214 (1986)
PaciGc Gas and Electne Co. IDiablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2). CLI 82 39,16 NRC 1712.1714-15 (1982) test for motions to reoren that raise new issues; ALAB-828,23 NRC 17 n.4 (1986); CLI-86 l, 23 NRC 6 n.3 (1986:
Pennsyhania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna steam Electric station. Units I and 2) LBP-79-6 >
NRC 291. 311 (1979) resolution of oserpressuniation problem; LBP-86 5. 23 NRC 90 (1986)
Petit on for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLl 78-6,7 NRC 400. 40$-06 (1978) vmlations not requinns suspension or resocation of hcense; DD 86-3,23 NRC 1% (1986)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limenck Generstmg station Units I and 2). ALAB-726.17 NRC 755,758 (1983) decisions on jurisdictmnal questions in absence of Commisuon guidance; ALAB-a28. 23 NRC 18 n.5(1986)
Philadelphia Electr c Co, (Limenck Generating Station, linits I and 2), ALAB-806,21 NRC 1183 II90-92 (190) negouation among parties as means of protecting a petitioner's interests; ALAB-828. 23 NRC 22 nn 25 & 28 (1986)
Philadelphia Electnc Co (Limenck Gmcrating station, Units I and 2). ALAB-819,22 NRC 681. 713 (1985), review decimed. CLI 86-5,23 NRC 125 (1986) weight gisen to low-probabih'y hospital esacuation en determming adequacy of emergency plan'.
AL AB-832. 23 NRC 156 nJ8 (1986)
Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Limerick Generating station, Units I and 2), ALAB-819,22 NRC 681. 720 n51(1985) baus for sppellate decnion$. ALAB-828,23 NRC 20 n.17 (19861 Philadelphia Electne Co (lamenck Generatmg Station. Units I and 2). DD 82-13,16 NRC 2il5, 2121 (1982) need to consider routine releases due la regulatory exemptions; DD 86 l 23 NRC 43 n.5 (1986) showmg necessary to imt ate enforcement proceedmss; DD-86-4,23 NRC 222 (1986)
Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Limerick Gener. sing Station. Umts I and 2) DD 85 il,22 NRC 149,154 (1925#
showing necessary to mitiale enforcement preseedmss. DD 86-4. 23 NRC 222 (1986) 24 i
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Phdadciphw Electric Co (Limenck Generanng Station. Units I and 2), DD-8511,22 NRC 149.161
& nn 7 & 8 (1985) concern raned b) isolated quahty assurance deficiencies. DD-86-2, 23 NRC llo (1986)
Phdadelrhia Electnc Co. (Limenck Generaung Stanon, Umts I and 21. LBP-85-14. 21 NRC 1219.
1236 (1985) adjustmems to plume EPZ on the baus of local conditions; AL AB-832,23 NRC 149 n 40 (1986)
Portland General Electnc Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), AL AB-531,9 NRC 263,27174 (19791 scope of techmcal specificanons. AL AB-831. 23 NRC 66 n 8 (1986)
Portland General Electnc Co (Trojan Nuclear Plant), AL AB-796,21 NRC 4. 5 (1985) hcenung board authoney to decide issues not placed in controsersy; AL AB-830,23 NRC 60 (1986)
Pubhc Scruce Co. of Induna tMarble tidl Nuclear Generating Stanon, Units I and 2), AL AB-459. 7 i I
NRC 179. 202 (1978) grounds for defense on appeal of fasorable result. AL AB-832. 23 NRC 141 n 9 (1986)
Pubhc Seruce Co. of Indiana (4f arble tidl Nuclear Generaung Stanon. Units I and 2). CLI-80-10.11 N RC 438. 443 (1980) basis requirement for enforcement proceedmg requests, DD-86-4,23 NRC 222 (19866 Pubhc Sersice Co. of Indiana (Ntarble tidi Nuclear Generatmg Station, Uruts I and 2), DD 79-17,10 S RC 613. 621 119791 need to reconuder enuronmental decisions when new informauon becomes available; DD-86 5.
23 NRC 230 (1986)
Pubac Seruce Co of New flampshire (Seabrook Stanon. Units I and 2), LBP 83-17,17 NRC 490, 497 (1983) shommg necewar) for discoser) of facts or opin ons of a nontestifymg expert; LBP 86-7. 23 NRC 178 n I (1986)
Pubhc Seruce Co of New llampshire (Seabrook Stanon. Units I and 21. LBP-83 20A.17 NRC 586.
590 (19831 factors conudered in determimng whether to impow sanctions for fadute to respond to discoscry. LBP-86 4,23 NRC 81 (1986)
Pubbe 5eruce Co of Oklahoma (Black Fos Stanon. Units I and 2), ALAB-573,10 NRC 775. 789 (1979i grounds for defense on appeal of fasorable result; AL AB-832. 23 NRC 141 n 9 (1986)
Pubbc Seruce Liectne and Gas Co (Salem Nuclear Generating Stauon. Umt 1). AL AB 650,14 NRC
- 41. 49-50 (1981). afTd sub nnm. Township of Lower Alloways Creek s. Pubhc Sersice Liectne and Gas Co. 687 F 2d 732 (3d Cir 1982) result of fadure to bnef iwues on appeal ALAB 828. 23 NRC 20 n 18 (1986)
Puget Sound Power and Light Co (Skagit/lf anford Nuclear Power Project, Umts I and 2),
AL AB-712,17 NRC 81. 82 (1983) deadhnes for bnefmg appeals frorn deciuons denymg party status to a petitioner. AL AB-828,23 NRC 18 n 6 (1986)
Sacramento Nf umcipal Utihty Dainct (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generaung Station). LBP 79-33,10 NRC 821. 824 (19796 htigabibt> of mues bemg addrewed in ongoms rulemding. LBP-86-6. 23 NRC 186 (1986)
San Lun Ohnpo 4tothers for Peace s NilC,751 F 2d 1287 (D C. Cir 1984), sacated in part and reh's granted in part. 76n F 2d 1320 (D C. Cir.1985) hearmy nghts on construcuon permii entension. CL1-86-4,23 NRC 123 (1986)
San i uis 05npo \lothers for Pexe s. NRC. 751 F 2d 1287.1314 (D C. Cir.1984), sacated in part on other grounds. 760 F 2J 1320 (D C Cir.1985) circumstances appropnare for Commasson imtiaison of heanngs. DD-86-3,23 NRC 198 (19866 San Luis Obnpo Ntothers for Peace v NRC. 751 F 2d 1287.1316-18 (D C. Cir 1984), sacated in part and reh's en banc granted on other grounds,760 F.2d 1320 (1985)
Ihree-factor lest apphed to monons to reopen. AL AB 828. 23 NRC 17 n 3 (1986); AL %B-831, 23 NRC 64. n 3 (1986) 15
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX cases Sholly s NRC. 651 F.2d 780 (D C. Cir.), reh's en banc denied. 651 F 2d 792 (1980), cert. granted.
451 U.S.1016 (1981 >, sacated and remanded,459 U.S.1194 vacated and remanded to the NRC as moot,706 F 2d 1229 (D C Cir 1983) heanng nghts on construcimn permit extension; CLI-86-4,23 NRC 123 (1986)
So.th Carohna Electnc and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Unit I). AL AB-694,16 NRC 958 (1982) parties who may appeal heensms tcard deciuon , ALAB-832,23 NRC 141 n 8 (1986)
Southern Cahfornia Ednon Co (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Umt D, CLI-85-10,21 NRC 1569, 15'5 (1985) circumstances apprornate for Commnuon imtiation of hearings, DD-86-3. 23 NRC 198 (19861 Southern California Ednon Co (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Statmn. Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528. 533 (1983), tes'd in part on other grounds. GUARD v. NRC,753 F 2d 1144 (D C.
Cir.1985) meight given to low probabihty hospital evacuation in determming ad2quacy of emergency plan.
AL AB-832,23 NRC 156 n.78 (1986)
Southern Cahforma Ednon Co (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Units 2 and 3), LBP 82 39, 15 NRC 116).1177 (1982), affd. AL AB.717.17 NRC 346 (1983), aff d sub norn Carstens v.
NRC,742 F.2d 1546 (D C Cir 1984), cert. demed.105 5 Ct. 2675 (19856 need for plume EPZ mith 20-mile radius on bass of site-specific study; AL AB-832. 23 NRC 146 (1986)
Statement of Pokey on Conduct of Licensmg Proceedings. CLI-8I-8,13 NRC 452 (198D factors to be conudered in imposms sanctions. LBP-86-4, 23 NRC 79 (1986l Tennewee Valley Authonty (llartsville Nuclear Plant. Umts I A. 2 A. IB. ano 2B). AL AB-463. 7 NRC 341. 348 (1978t basn for appellate deciuons. AL AB-828. 23 NRC 20 n 17 (1986)
Tetas Utihines Generating Co (Comanche Peak Steam Ele 6tne Station. Umts I and 2). CL18I-24,14 NRC 614,615 (1981) neope of appellate sua sponte authonty. CLI 86 l 23 NRC 7 (1986)
Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. v. NRC,771 F 2d 720. 732 (Id Cir.1985), petition for cert. filed sub nom. Aamodt
- NRC. 54 U $ L % 3463 (U S. Dec 18.1985) (No. 851095) three-factor test for reoremns a record. AL AB-828. 23 NRC 17 n.3 (1986), AL AB-831,23 NRC 64 n.3 (1986)
Umon Electnc Co (Callamay PLnt, Umt D, AL AB-740.18 NRC 343,346 (1983) constructmn quahiy required for grant of operating hcense. DD-86-2,23 NRC 101 (1986)
Virgima flectnc and Power Lo. (Nonh Anna Power Station. Umts I and 2), AL AB 342,4 NRC 98.
107 (19'6) meight gnen to abihty of late filed content on's sponsor to coninbute to a mund record.
LBP-86-4. 23 NRC 87 (1986)
Virgima Electnc and Power Co (North Anna Power Statmn. Umts I and 2). AL AB-491. 8 NRC 245.
248 49 n 7 (19785 re olution of oserprenuniation problem: LBP 86 5. 23 NRC 90 (1986)
Virgsma Electric and Power Co (North Anna Power Sialmn. Unes 1 and 2), ALAB-584.11 NRC 45I. 457 (1980) need for enuronrnental awewment of enemptions from regulations; DD-861,23 NRC 46 n 4 (1986 Virgima Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n s FPC. 259 F 2d 921. 925 (D C. Cir.19586 standaris for grant of a sia) of immediate efTectneness of constructmn permit entenwn; CL186-4. 23 NRC I22 (19861
% ashmston 4teiropohtan Area Tranut Commissmn v. Hohday Tours, Inc , $59 F 2d 841 (D C. Cir.
19??)
standards for grant of a stay ofimmediate effectiveness of construction permit entensmn.
CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 122 (19861 Washmyton Pubhc Power Supply Sniem (% PP% Nudear Project No. 2), DD-84 7,19 NRC 899, 905-06 (1984i NRC action for quaht) anurarne volatmns. DD-86-2,23 NRC 106 (1986) 26 l
l 1
l
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASE 5
%ashington Pubhc Power Supply System (%'PPSS Nuclear Proxct No. 3), AL AB-747,18 NRC 1167 I167-68, i175 76 (1983) adequxy of 2 206 petitions to protect a petitioner's interesis: ALAB-828,23 NRC 22 n.25 (19861 Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Proget Nos. I and 2), CLI-82 29,16 NRC 1221, 1229 (1982) hmitation on scope of construction permit entension proceeding; CLI 86-4,23 NRC 121 (1986)
%isconsin Electnc Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2), DD-83-13,18 NRC 721.
722 (1983)
NRC action for quahty assurance siolations; DD-86 2,23 NRC 106 (1986)
%isconsin Gas Co. v FLRC. 758 F.2d 669,674 (D C. Cir.1985) meight gnen to irreparaNe harm in determining stay requests; CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 123 (1986) 27 l
\
s l
I i
i i i I
i
- I LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX R EGCLATIONS l 10 C F R. 2 circumstances appropnate for Commisuon mitiation of heannss
- DD-86-3,23 NRC 198 (1986) l 10 C F R. 2109 I
falure to request cons:ruction permit extension, CLi-86-4,23 NRC 115, i19,120 n.5 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2.202(al
- types of reherasailable under 2.206 pennons. AL AB-828,23 NRC 21 n 22 (1986) l 10 C F R. 2 206 denial of retinon alleging seismic design deficenoes. DD-86-4,23 NRC 213 (1986) demal of petruon alleging that workforce carrying out operanons dunng strike is untrained and unquahfied. DD-86 3. 23 NRC 192 (1986) demal of pennon seding action because of alleged problems with control rod dnve mechamsms; j DD-85-19. 23 NRC 34 (1986)
- demal of petition seekmg resocation of esemptions from NRC regulanons. DD-86-l. 23 NRC 40 (19R6) ;
denial of request for action relesant to quahficanon and certification of quahty assurance inspectors, i DD-86-2. 23 NRC 98 (1986) demal of request for ution that alleges economic unuabihty of Limerick Unit 2 facihty; DD-86-5, l 23 NRC 226 (1986) means for protecting a petmoner's mterests. ALAB 828,23 NRC 21 (19866 1 request for assessment of penalty for unauthonted conuruction actisines after cupiration of construcuon permn. C11-86 4. 23 NRC 120.123 t 1986) l
, t> pes of rehef toniemplated unJer; DD 86-4. 23 NRC 214 (1956) i
) 10 C F R. 2 20 Mal j support required for 2 206 pennons. DD 86-2. 23 NRC 1010986) i j types of rehef asailable under 2 206 peupons, AL AB-828. 23 NRC 21 n 22 (1986) i
- 10 C F R . 2 70' i
factors considered m determemng whether to impor a sanction; LBP-86-4. 23 NRC 80 (1986) 10 C F R 2.708 treatment ofiatersenteon petinons that fail lo meet regulatory requiremeru for form. LBP-86-6A, l 23 NRC 167 n 3 (1941 i 10 C F.R. 2 712
, failure of parties to comrly v 'n scruce requirements of, LBP 86-6B 23 NRC 175 n.1 (19866 l 10 C F R 2 7141a6 l
basis requirement for contenunns. LBP-86-6. 23 NRC 189 (1986) 10 C F R 2.714f4)(16 cntena to be addrewed by monons to reopen it.ai mtroduce new issues. AL AB-828,23 NRC 17, 20,23 (19868 AL AB-831,23 NRC 64 n 3 (1986); CL1-86-1,23 NRC 6 n 3 (1986); CLI-86-6,23 1 NRC 133 a 1 (1986) .
factors to be addrewed by iniervenuon reunons. L BP-86-64,23 NRC 167 n.2 (1986l importance of participanon by late filed contennon's submitter in developing a sound record.
l AL AB-831. 2 NRC 67 n 15 t19861 J
means for proleums a petinoner's mierests; Al AB 828,23 NRC 21 (1986)
I 10 C F R. 2 714(alfIlb-si cntena for admewon of new contennons addresung draft T ES. LBP 86-4. 23 NRC 87 (1986)
(
1 i
1 l
l i
21
?\ 4 -
U .
_ _ _ - - . _ _ . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ,_ ___ m_ _ _ _
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGCLATIONS 10 C.F.R 2.714(aH2) interest. standing. and aspects of intersention to be addressed by centioners. LBP 86-6 4. 23 NRC 169 t1986) 10 C F.R 2.714(a)(3) amendment ofintersennon pennons; LBP-86-6 4,23 NRC 171 (!986) 10 C F.R. 2.714(b) particulanty required of matenal supportmg motions to reopen; CLI-86-1,23 NRC 5 (1986) 10 C.F.R 2.714a deadhne for bnenng appeak. ALAB-828,23 NRC 18 n 6 (1986) 10 C F R 2.714af b) deadhnes for bnenng appeak from decisions denymg party status to a petsuoner; AL AB-828. 23 NRC 18 n 6 (19866 10 CJ R. 2 716 consohdanon of operating heense amendment proceedings; LBP 86-6B. 23 NRC 175 (1986) 10 C F R 2.7401bHI) hcensing board discretion m restncimg discoser); AL AB-832,23 NRC 160 n.100 t1986) 10 C F.R 2.740(bH2) apphcanon of prmlege to anal preparation materiah prepared by the party itself. LBP-86-7,23 NRC I80 (1986) 10 C F R 2 743fcl paruculanty required of material supportmg mot ons to reopen. Cl1-861,23 NRC 3 (1986) 10 C.F R 2 752(c) demal of unumely rmuon for reconsideranon; LBP-86-4. 23 NRC 78 n 1 (1986) 10 C F R. 2 758 htigahihty of need-for-power and alternause energy source issues m operate.g hcense proceedings.
DD-86-3,23 NRC 230 (1986) in C F R 2 760a hcensms board authont) to decide iuues not placed m controsersy. AL AB-830,23 NRC 60 (1986) scope of arpellate sua sponte authonty; CLI-86-l. 23 NRC 7 (1986)
'O C F R. 2.762 deadhne for bnenrig appeak. AL AB-828. 23 NRC 18 n 6 (1986) 10 C F R 2 762(ei page hmit on appellate brpefs. AL AB-827,23 NRC 10 n 1 (1986) treatment oflaie-Oled monon to euced page bmit for appellate bnef, AL AB-827,23 NRC 11 n 3 (19861 10 C F R 2 786thHip nhng of untimely reunon for resiew. CLl-86 5,23 NRC 126 (19861 10 C F R 2 786f bH2)tiid content of pennon for res.em. CLI 86 5. 23 NRC 126 (19861 to C.F R 2 788 conwquente of failure to address sta) cntena. CLI-86-6,23 NRC 134 (1986) l') C F R 2.788(e) (1985) standards for grant of a stay of immedi.ite effectneness of constructior permal ettemion, CLI-86-4, 23 NRC 122 (1986) 10 C F R 2. Appendia C NRC acuen against htensee for its failure to comriy *ith quahiy awurance procedural requirement.
DD-86 2. 23 NRC 104 f1986)
NRC enfortement poht) for unlations identined and corrected by bcensee. DD 86 3,23 NRC 195 n 8(1986) to C F R.1912 protedure for workers to bnns health and safety inues to the ettention of rr.anagement. DD-86-3, 23 NRC 207119861 30 l
l
\
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX R EG L'LATIONS 10 C.F R. 20 characterisucs of acuens categoncally escluded from requirement for enuronmental assessment, DD 86-1,23 NRC 45 (1986) reusmn of unhiy's Otisite Dose Calculation Manual. ALAB-828,23 NRC 19 (1986) 10 C.F R 5010 conunuanon of constructen followmg expirahon of construction permit; CLI-86-4,23 NRC 120 n.5 (198ts) 10 C.F R. 5012 failure of peuponer to proside bases for request for esemptions from regulations; DD-86-1,23 NRC
- 44. 46 (1986) 10 C F.R 50 36fc)(21 need for incorporahon of fire protection program m techmcal specificanons; ALAB-831,23 NRC 65-66 (19861 10 C F R. 50.44 scope of esemption from contamn:ent inerting requirement DD 86-1,23 NRC 42 (1986) 10 C.F R. 50 47 definition of the term "special facihty"; AL AB-832,23 NRC 156 (1986) emergency plannmg requirements for nuclet power plan
- operation. ALAB-832,23 NRC 143 (1986) prosimity of hospital for treatmp contaminated injured indniduals to nuclear power plant; Cll-86-5, 23 NRC 128 d19865 10 C F.R. 50 471alti) emergency preparedness Gndings necewary for nuclear power plant operanon, ALAB-832,23 NRC 143 n 13 (1986) 10 C F.R 50 47ta)(2) basn for Commiwon deciuon on adequacy of emergency preparedness. ALAB-832,23 NRC 144 n.21 (19861 10 C F R. 50 47(bl cntena for emergency response workers; AL AB-832,23 NRC 144 (1986) 10 C F R. 50.47(bH2r and 112) adequacy of L6mench medical sersices arrangements for contaminated injured individuals, LBP-86 3,23 NRC 72 73 (1986) 10 C F.R. 50 47(c)f 2) entent of protectne action plarmng for ingestion pathway EPI, AL AB-832. 23 NRC 144 n 18 (1986) we and cc.nfiguratmn of emergency planmng ione; AL AB-832,23 NRC 145.147 (1986) 10 C F.R 50 48(a) scope of fire protectmn plans for nuclear power plants. ALAB-831,23 NRC 65 n 5 (1986) 10 C F R 50 551 1. 50 60 purpose of staung consuucuon completon date in construcuon permit; CLI 86-4. 23 NRC 118 (19861 10 C F R. 50 57(a) hogability of drug control nsues. LBP 86 6,23 NRC 186 (1986) 10 C F R. 50.109 Commnuon baskfitimg pokcy. DD-86-5. 23 NRC 228 (1986')
10 C F R. 50. Appendia A preoperahonal tests required for heensmg; DD-86 4. 23 NRC 218 (1986) 10 C F R 50. Appendis A. GDC 3 need far incorporanon of Gre protecuon program m technical specificatsofis; ALAB-831,23 NRC 65 (19861 10 C F.R. 50, Append 4s A. GDC 19. 56,61 denial of petinon seekmg reuicaton of exempton from- DD 86-1,23 NRC 41 (1986) 10 C F R 50. Appendnes A and B allegatio.n of quahty awurance deficiencies al Callaway Plant, DD 86-2,23 NRC 101 n 4 (1986) 31 l
\
l l
l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX R EG U L A TIONS 10 C F R. 50 Appenda B adequaq of Perrv quahty assurance program; DD-86-4. 23 NRC 214,222 (1986) adequacy of South Texas quahty assurance program. LBP-86-6,23 NRC 184 t1986) quahfication and certification of quahty assurance uispectors. DD-86-2,23 NRC 100,10211986) 10 C F R. 50. Appenda B, I independence of quahty assurance personnel from and access to Callaway management, DD-86 2.
23 NRC 108-10" (1986) 10 C F R. 50. Appendn B II, XVI need for a drug control program as part of quahiy assurance program; LBP 86-8,23 NRC 185 (19861 10 C F.R 50. Appendn B. V NRC action for heensee's improper quahfication of quahty assurance inspectors, DD-86-2,23 NRC 105 (1986) 10 C F R. 50. Appendn B. XVill adequao of Callaway quahiy awurance audit program. DD-86 2,23 NRC 107 (19861 10 C F R. 50. Appendn E emergency planning requirements for nuclear power plant operation. ALAB-832,23 NRC 143 (1986) proximity of hospital for treating contaminated injured indniduals, CLI-86-5,23 NRC 128 (1980) 10 C F.R. 50, Appendiu E. IV appheant responsibehty for making esacuation time estimatet AL AB-832. 23 NRC 156 n 81 (19861 10 C F R 50. Appenda 3 comphance of Zion Station unh ctmtainment leak rate testing requirements. LBP 86-6. 23 NRC 93 (19861 denial of petition seeking resocation of esemption from. DD 86-1,23 NRC di (1986) 10 C F R 5120tM. !! 21,5122fc) need for enuronmental assewment of impatts of regulatory c. emptiont DD-861. 23 NRC 45-46 (19861 10 C F R 5121,51.23 benefit aspect of cost benefit analyus of nuclear power plants. DD-86 5. 23 NRC 230 (1986) 10 C F R 5122fclf91 characteristics of actions categorically escluded from requirement for enuronmental assenment.
DD-86-1. 23 NRC 45 (19116) 10 C F R 70 23(f) purrow of stating construction completion date in construction permit, CLI-86 4, 23 NRC 118 (1986) 10 C F R.100. Appendn A determination of deugn basis for earthquaket DD 86 4,23 NRC 218 (1986) 10 C F R.140 abihty of Perry Plani hcensee to maintam liabihiy insurance in hght of propowd mergers. DD-86-4 23 NRC 214. 224 25 (19fi6) 44 C F R 350 role of Federal Emergency Management Agency in appraising emergency preparedness. AL (R-832, 23 NRC 143 (19861 47 C F.R 73.3534 (1984:
conscauence of failure to apply for enten. ion of construction cc,mpletion date m construction permit, CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 119 (1986 32
. - - ..- - -. ~ - - _ _ - _ . _ _ . _ - . - - _ . - - . - - - . - -
l l
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES i
t I,
! Atomic Energy Act. 52 purpow of stating construction completion date m construction permit; C;.!-86 4. 23 NRC 118 I (1986) j repeal of. CLt-86-4,23 NRC I17 n 3 (1986) l Atomic Energy Act,185,42 U.S C. 2235 j' conwquence of failure to apply for estension of construction completion date in construction permit. CL1-86-4. 23 NRC 117-120 (1986) l Alcmic Energy Act.189 hewang entitlement on operairng hcenw amendment that has already been issued. LBP-86-6 A. 23 NRC 166 170 (19861
! Alomic Energ) Act,189a j circumstases appropriate for Commisuon in'tiation of hearings; DD-86-3. 23 NRC 198 (1986)
. ettenuon of construction perrmt methout 'Mo significant harards conederation"; CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 122 (1986)
- Atomic Energy Act,1894f t) i heanns nght, on construction permit cutension. CLI-86 4. 23 NRC 123 (1986) i Atomic Energy Act,189a(2)( 4)
"no wgnificant hazards determmation' on operating licene amendment. LBP-86-6 A, 23 NRC 165
, (1986>
Communwauons Act of19: . 3194 b). 47 0 $ C. 4 319f b) treatmert of untimely application for renemal of construction permit; CLl-86-4,23 NRC 119-20
. (1986)
National Ensironmental Polwy Act of 1969. 42 0 5 ( . ( 4321 i need to conwJer additional design alternatises for mitigation of sesere accidents in
{ high-population denuty areas, CL1-86 5. 23 NRC 126 (1986)
I 1
1 i
4 I
i l
4 l
I l
1 l
i J
33 p _ _
A I B F
i l
I i
1 i
l t
I i
! LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX i OTIIERS i
l i
FCC Rule 3 21515)
! consequence of failure to arply for estension of construction permit, CLI-86 4,23 NRC 119 (1986)
Federal Rules of Cnil Procedure 26(bH31 dncoser) of trial preparation materials prepared by the party itself, LBP 86-7. 23 NRC 178 79 t1986)
- federal Rules of Ciul Procedure 26(b)146
- discose
- y of facts or opinions of a nontestifying espert. LDP-86-7,23 NRC 178-79 (1986) l Prnate ownerWip of 5pecial Nuclear Materials.1964 Ilearings Before the Subcomm. on Legniation of the Joint Comm. on Atomic Energy,88th Cong ,2d Sess. (1964)
! purpow of statmg constructeon completion date in construction permit. CLI-86-4,23 NRC 118 i t1986)
, Proposed Amendments to the Atomic I nergy Act of 1946 IIcarings on 5. 3323 and il R 8862 Before the Joint Comm on Atomic Energ),83d Cong ,2d Sets 116 (1954) (Representative l
j liinsham p, rernnted in 11 Legniaine llistory of the Atomic F nergy Act of 1954, at 1635,175156
- purpose of stating constructw,n compleimn date in construction permit. CLi-86-4,23 NRC 117 a 2 4 (1986)
I
! l I l i
l I
l l
l 1
4 i
i l
i i
4 35 l
F
7 l
l l
i l
I I
1 i
SUBJECT INDEX 3
d ACCIDENT 5 need to consider effects of regulatory esemptions on analyses of. DD 86-1,23 NRC 39 (1986) severe. in high-population-denuty areas. NRC pokcy on design alternatives for mitiganon of.
l CLl-86 5. 23 NRC 125 i1986)
' ALTERN ATIV E ENI RG) sol:RCF 5 importance of finan6ul com in evalualms. DD-86 5. 23 NRC 226 (1986)
I l
/ A \t LN D\lENTS I See Comtruction Permit Amendment. Operatmg Liceme Amendment Proceedmss. Operating I l'
LKense Amendments i APPE AL BO ARDS j bus for decisions by. AL AB 828. 23 NRC 13 (1986)
, APPEAlf5)
I failure 10 bnef mues on. AL AB-528. 23 NRC 13 (19A6) i focus of. AL AB 827. 23 NRC 9 (1986) mierlocutory, from orden denyms party status to a pensioner; AL AB 828,23 NRC 13 (1986)
{ of IKenung board determmauons on timehness questions. AL AB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986s t
j ATO\ llc LNE RGY ACT i
immediate effectneness of construcuon permit amendment entendmg construction completion date'.
l CLl-86-4,23 NRC 113 (19A6) safety findmst required by. for operstmg hcense issuance; DI)-86-2. 23 NRC 97 (1986 l BOARD NOTIFICATION responubilines of Staff regardmg. AL AB-829,23 NRC 55 (1986)
BOARDS See Arreal Boards. LKenung boards BR!TFS appellate, page hmit on. Al. AB-827,23 NRC 9 (1986) i CE RTIFIC ATION 1
of quahty awurance ins,iectors. DD 86-2,23 NRC 97 (1986) l COMTRt'CilON PERMIT
! failure to file for catenuon of. CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 113 (1986)
COMTRL:CTION PERMIT AMLNDMENT immediate effectnenew of. CLI-86 4. 23 NRC 113 (1986) i CONT AIMtE NT airloth testmg, esemption from requirement fer. DD-861,23 NRC 39 (1986) 1 muulinertmg. esemption from requirement for: DD 86-1,23 NRC 39 (1986) j leakage in the eseni of check-valse malfunction. LBP-86-M. 23 NRC 165 (1986) r CONT AINMFNT IV)L ATION of h)drogen recombmer knes, reactor enclosure coolms mater knes, drywell chilled mater hnes, l exempuon from requirement for; DD-861,23 NRC 39 (1986) i CONT AMIN A1 ION l at uranium procewng plant, alleganons of, DD-86-3. 23 NRC 191 (1986) 4 CON f f NilOM baus requirement for, LBP-86-8. 23 NRC 182 (1986)
CONTENilOM. I ATE.flLrp alternatnes to admimon of. as means of protectmg a pennoner's interests. AL AB.828. 23 NRC 13 (146) appeals of IKensms board deciuom on admmibikty of. AL AB-828. 23 NRC 13 (1986)
J l
i I
I
- ~~--- - - - . -p _ e _ __ __ _
SUBJ ECT INDEX conuderation of pnor sanctions m determmmg admisubility of. l.BP 86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986) standards for admitung. ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) 13pe of delay considered in determining admiwbility of. AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) meight gnen to submitter's ability to contnbute to a mund record. in determming admnsibility; AL AB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986)
CONTROL ROD DRIVE MECH ANisMS problems awocuted with. DD-8519,23 NRC 33 (19861 C(X) LING 5) STEMS See Pnmary Coolant Recirculauon COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS scope of. DD 86-5,23 NRC 226 (1986)
DECISION 5 enuronmental reconsideration of. on basis of new informanon DD 86-5,23 NRC 226 (1986)
DELAY type conudered in determining admiwbihty of late-filed contenuons. ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986)
DESIGN See Seismic Dcugn DiSCLOSU R E of msestiganse matenalin NRC proceedmps. AL AB-829,23 NRC 55 (1986); CLI-86-1,23 NRC l (19661 DISCOVE RY of counseli mput to dmt ments required under the regulatory process LBP 86 7,23 NRC 177 (1986) of nonmitness esperts: LBP-86 7,23 NRC !?7 (19861 resprmubihties of parties to respond to. LBP 86 4. 23 NRC 75 (1986) sanctions for failure to meet obligations concerning. LBP-86-4. 23 NRC 75 (1986) use of. to surrort motions to reopen, CLI-861,23 NRC I (1986)
D15 MIS $ Al of proceeding becauw of withdramal of heantig request. LBP-86-2,23 NRC 2811986)
DRUG ABUSE requirement for Q 4 program to counter. LBP.86 8. 23 NRC 182 (1986)
L ARTilQU A AL5 determination of design bavs for. DD-k6 4. 23 NRC 211 (1986) with high-frequenct peak accelerations irriportance of DD-86 4. 23 NRC 211 (1986)
EMERGENCY PL ANNING baus for requirement for; Al AB 832,23 NRC 1.15 (19861 esceptions to regulanons posermng. AL AB 812,23 NRC 135 (1986l for hospitaas. AL AB-832. 23 NRC 135 (1986)
EMERGENCY PL ANNING 70NE5 size and configuranon of. AL AB-8}2. 23 NRC 135 (19861 LME RGINCY l'L ANS content of, on medical scruces arranges for contammated injured indmduals. CLi 86 5,23 NRC 125 fl9A61 mtfuuon of care of esacaces in. AL AB-832. 23 NRC 135 (1956) obiecine of. AL AB 832,23 NRC 135 (19461 opportunities pnen to an appbcant to achicse compliance with regulatory requirements AL AB-832, 23 NRC 135 (19861 prouuon for medaal scrutes for contammated injured mdmduals m. LBP-86 3,23 NRC 69 (19866 EMERGENC) RI LOCATION CENTE R locanon of. AL AB-8.12,23 NRC 135 (1986)
EMIRGFNC) %ORKIRS role confhet by. ALAB-832. 23 NRC 135 (19866 FNIRGY 5ee Alternatne E nergy Sources ENTORCLME NT POLICY for securtly unlations. DD-86-3,23 NRC 191 (1986) 38
SUBJECT INDEX ENVIRONMENTAL A55L55 MENT of regulatory cuempnons. need for. DD-86-1,23 NRC 39 (1986)
ESIDENCE use of, to buttrew multiple claims. AL AB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986)
EXEMPTIONS from NRC regulations, demat of pention seekmg revocanon of. DD-86-1. 23 NRC 39 (1986)
E X PERTS nonwitness, disosery of. LBP-86-7. 23 NRC 177 (1986)
FIRE PROTECTION PL ANS need for mclusion in Techmcal Specifications. AL AB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986)
FLOOD PROTECTION at Limerick facility. CLi-86-6. 23 NRC 130 (1986)
GENERIC SAFET) ISSUES licensms board conuJeration of. I BP-86-5,23 NRC 89 (1986)
HE ARING entitlements on operating license amendments. LBP 86-6A,23 NRC 165 (1986) on construction permit esienuon, scope of. CLi-86-4. 23 NRC 113 (1986) withdrawal of request for; LBP 86-2,23 NRC 28 (1986)
See also Nonce of fleanns lie AT REMOVAL See Reudual lleat Remosal System flO5 PIT ALS emergency planmng for. AL AB-832. 23 NRC 135 (1986)
INTEREST requirement for meersennon in operatmg license amendment proceeding. LBP-86-6A. 23 NRC 165 (1986)
INTERROG ATORIES delay in answenng. LBP-86-4. 23 NRC 75 81986)
INTER 5 LNTION requirements for. LBP 86-6A. 23 NRC 165 (19861 untimel) factors considered m determimns whether to grant. LBP 86-64,23 NRC 165 (1986)
IN5 ESTIG ATlONS disclosure of matenah from, in NRC proceedmgs, AL AB-829. 23 NRC 55 (1986). CLI-86 l. 23 NRC i (1986)
LE 4K R ATE FAL5IF K ATIONS denial of request to modify Notice of llearing on; CLI 86-33,23 NRC 51 (1986)
LE AK R ATE TLSTING sdequxy of. ai Ison Station. LDP-86-6. 23 NRC 92 (1986l LICENSING BO ARD5 authonty of to deude matters not pixed in controsersy; AL AB 830. 23 NRC 59 (1986) conuderanon of uncontested genene safety mues by. LBP 86-5. 23 NRC 89 (1986) disrenen in managms proceedmpv ALAB-832. 23 NRC 13518986) sua sermte authonty of. CLi 86-l. 23 NRC I (1986l LICENSING PRfK ElDING5 dismma' of. AL AB-830, 23 NRC 59 (1986)
See ako Operating Lnense Amendment Pnxcedmss. Operanns Laense Proceedings MLDICAL SERVICL5 for cemiaminated injured andruduak. prosiuon for in emergency plant L BP-86-3,23 NRC 69 (1986p for contaminated mjured momduals, proximity to nuclear plant of facilities prosidmg. CLt 86 5. 23 NRC 125 (19861 MONITORING 5ee Radiation Momtonng 39
___.__m
SUBJ ECT INDEX MOTIONS TO RLOPLN particulanty required of matenal supporting. CLl46-1. 23 NRC I D986) support necessary for; AL AB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986l test aPfb ed to. CLI46-1. 23 NRC I (19R6) that raise new issues. test apphed to: ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986). CLl-86-6. 23 NRC 130 (1986) three-factor test applied to. AL AB-831. 23 NRC 62 (1986); CL1-86-6. 23 NRC 130 (1986) use of dncoser) to support. CLI-86-1,23 NRC 1 (1986)
NEED-FOR PO% ER 155UE5 hogabiht) of. DD-86-5. 23 NRC 226 (1986)
NOTICL OF liL ARING demal of request to modify; CLI 86-33. 23 NRC 51 (1986)
NOTIFIC ATION 5ee Board Notification NRC POLIC) on insesugations. anspections, and adjudicator > proceedmss. AL AB429. 23 NRC 55 (1986) on sescre acudent mitigation measures in high-population-density areas. CLI-86-5,23 NRC 125 (1986)
See aho Enforcemen: Policy NRCSTAFF responsibihnes of, to inform boards of material relevant to pendmg adjudicauon. AL AB-829,23 NRC $5 (1946) responsibihty for making "signincant hatards considerauon" findmgs; CLl46 4. 23 NRC 113 (19868 OPFR ATING LICLNsl AMLNDMLNT PROCFI DINGS consondanon of. LBP-86-68. 23 NRC 173 (1986) termmation of. LBP46-1. 23 NRC 25 0986)
OPI R ATING LICLNSE AMENDMENTS hearmg entitlements on l.BP 86-6A. 23 NRC 165 (1986) testmg of check sabes. LBP46-68. 23 NRC 173 (19861 lestmg of pnm.iry contamment nolanon iahes- LBP 86 6B. 23 NRC 173 (1986)
OPER ATING LICLNSF PROCLLDINGS ramng of sua sponte issues m. CLI-86-1,23 NRC I (1986)
OPER AllNG LICENSLS fire protection plan requirements for. AL AB 831, 23 NRC 62 (1986p safet) findmys required for muance of. DD-86-2. 23 NRC 97 (1986>
OPER ATOR L.lCEN5f 5 need for nonce and opportumiy for heanna on Commmion action on CLI 86-33,23 NRC 51 (19116)
O\ LR PRI SSC RI/ ATION NRC Staff resolution of. LBP46A 23 NRC 89 (1986)
PF.N AI T) . Cl\ lt for failure to paim m =urms u.tn. DD-86-3, 23 NRC 191 (1986)
PIPLLINE RUPTURL aaident scenano affetung tirnenck fauhty; Cl1-86-6. 23 NRC 130 (1986)
PRIM \RY COOL ANT RTCIR(l'l ATION smgle loop operanon of. AL AB-831. 23 NRC 62 (1986)
PRI\ItiGE for in.si preparanon materials. scope of. LBP 86 7,23 NRC 177 (19861 QU AlliICATION of nonbargammg umi morkers to replace sinkers. DD-86 3. 23 NRC 191 (1986) of quahty awurance inspectors. DD46 2. 23 NRC 97 (1986)
QU \ LIT) A550R ANCE breakdown of audit program. DD46 2. 23 NRC 97 (1986) uolanons, action requirtd for. DD46-2,23 NRC 97 (1986)
QU ALITY A55tJR ANC L INSPf CTORS mdependence of, from management. DD 86 2,23 NRC 97 (1986) 1 40
SUBJ ECT IN DEX QUALITY ASSURANCE INSPECTORS qualincanon and certi6 cation ef. DD-86-2. 23 NRC 97 (1986)
QU ALIT) ASSL'R ANCE PROGR AMS acceptaNhty of. DD-86 2. 23 NRC 97 (1986) at Perry Plani. adequacy of. DD-86-4. 23 N RC 211 (1986'i requirements for drug control program in. LBP-86-8. 23 NRC 182 (1986)
R ADI ATION MONITORING at uranium procesung plant, adequacy of. DD-86-3. 23 NRC 191 (1986)
RADIO ACTIVE RELE ASES routme, resultmg from regulatory exemptions, need to conuder; DD-861,23 NRC 39 (1986)
RE ACTOR OPf R ATOR failure of simulator esammauon by: ALJ 86-1,23 NRC 3! (1986)
RFCON51Df R ATION of enuronmemal decisions w hen new informanon becomes available, need for; DD-86-5. 23 NRC 226 (1986)
REGULATIONS dernal of pention weking resocatmn of enemptions from; DD-86-1. 23 NRC 39 (1986) posermng emergency plannmg. caceptions to. AL AB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986)
REMOTE SilUTDOW N SYSTI M esemption from requiremeni for: DD-86-1,23 NRC 39 r1986)
REOPENING OF RECORD burden of satisfyms requirements for, CLI-86-1, 23 N RC 1 (1986) most important factor of three-fastor test for; AL AB-828. 23 NRC 13 (1986) three factor test for. AL AB-828. 23 NRC 13 (1986)
RISIDU AL llE AT Rf MOVAL 5)STt M esemption from requirement for. DD-86-1,23 NRC 39 (1986)
RIVIF%
content of peutions for. CLi-86 5. 23 NRC 125 (19865 treatment of unumely petinons for. CL1-86-5. 23 NRC 125 (1986>
Rf \lf %. APPE I L ATL focus of. AL AB-832. 23 NRC 135 (19861 purpose of. AL AB 827,23 NRC 9 (1986) reawm for. AL AB-812. 23 NRC 135 (1986) ssope of. AL AB-828. 23 NRC 13 (1986)
ROLL CONI LICT by emergency workers. AL AB-832. 23 NRC 135 (1986)
RULLM AKING litig4Nht) m operatmg licenw proceedmss of nsues that are the subject of. LBP-86-8. 23 NRC 182 t1986)
Rt:LI S OF PR ACTIC L acuon teamred for quahty anurance ualat.ons. DD 86 2. 23 NRC 97 (1986) adequaq of 2 206 remedies for protectmp a petitioner's imerests; ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (19861 appeals of liter *ung board deciuons on admisubility of late-filed contenuons. AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (19466 baus requiremeni for contenoons. LBP-86-8 23 NRC 182 (1986) burden of sausfying reopenmg requiremenit CLl-86-l. 23 NRC I (198M consequerwe of failure in adsfrew sta) critena. CLI.86-6. 23 NRC 130 (1986) consideranon of issues thai are the subtect of ongoing rulemaking. LBP 86-8. 23 NRC 182 (1986) conuderauon of rnor sanctmns imposed on party films untimely contentions. LBP-86-4,23 NRC 75 (1996) content of 2 206 pennons. DD-86 2. 23 NRC 97 (1986) content of petitions (cr reuem. Cll 86 5. 23 NRC 125 (1986) delay in answerms meerrogatories. LHP-86-4. 23 NRC 75 (1986) dnclosure of msestigaine or inspecunn malenal by Of0cc of Insestiganons; CLi 86-1,23 NRC I (1989 41 n.
i SUBJECT INDEX discovery of counsers mput to documents required under the regulatory process, LBP-86-7,23 NRC 177 (1986) discovery of nonwitness esperts; LBP-86-7. 23 NRC 177 (1986) factors considered in selecting and imposing sanctions; LBP-86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986) failure to briefissues on appeal ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (19861 focus of appellate review; AL AB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) grounds for presailing party's defense on appeal; ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) interlocutory appeals from orders denying party status to a petitioner; ALAB 828,23 N RC 13 (1986) issues pendmg in hcensms proceedmg as the subjects of 2.206 petitions; DD-861,23 N11C 29 (1986) license suspension or revocation as penahy for violation of Commission regulations; DD-86-3,23 NRC 191 (1986) most important factor of three factor test for reopening a record. ALAB 828,23 NRC 13 (1986)
NRC guid.nce for determinmg whether to impose sanctions; LBP 86-4. 23 NRC 75 (1986) i page limit on appellate bnefs; ALAB-827,23 NRC 9 (1986) particularity required of material supporting motions to reopen; CLl 86-1,23 NRC 1 (1986) parties who may appeallicensing board decisions. ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) purpose of appellate review; AL AB-827,23 NRC 9 (1986) remedies available under 10 C F R. 2.206; ALAB 828,23 NRC 13 (1986) responsibilities of parties to monitor publicly available documents; ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) responsibilities of parties to respond to dncovery; LBP 86-4. 23 NRC 75 (1986) sanctions for failure to meet discosery obhgations; LBP-86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986) showing necesury to initiate show-cause proceedings; DD 86-4,23 NRC 218 (1986) standard for reopening a record; CLI 86-1,23 NRC I (1986) standards for admitting late-filed contentions; ALAB 828. 23 NRC 13 (1986) support necessary for motions to reopen; AL AB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986) test apphed to motions to reopen that tane new issues; CLI 86-6,23 NRC 130 (1986) test for motions to reopen that raise new issues; AL AB-828. 23 NRC 13 (1986) three-factor test for mttions to reopen. ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986); ALAB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986); CLi-86-6. 23 NRC l30 (l986) treatment of untimely petitiens for review; CLl-86-5,23 NRC 125 (1986) type of delay consdered in determining admissibility of late-filed contentions. ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) uw of 2.206 petitions to address issues that are the subject of ongoms licensmg proceedmgs; DD-86-4,23 NRC 218 (1986) use of discovery to support motions to reopen; CLi-861,23 NRC l (1986) use of eudence to buttress multiple claimt ALAB 832,23 NRC 135 (1986) weight gnen to abihty oflate-filed contenteon's submitter to contnbute to a sound record, AL AB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986)
SAFETY FINDl%GS
- required for operstmg license issuance; [)D 86-2,23 N RC 97 (1986)
$ AFETY ISSUE 5 See Genene Safety issues S ANCTIONS factors considered in selectmg and imposing. LBP 86-4, 23 NRC 75 (1986) for failu e to meet discovery obhgations LBP 86 4. 23 NRC 75 (1986)
NRC Suidance for determming whether to impose; LBP 86-4. 23 NRC 75 (1986) pnor, conuderation of, m utterminms admissibehty of late-f led contentions; LBP 86 4,23 NRC 75 i1986)
SECURITY penalty for violations of; DD 86-3,23 NRC 191 (1986)
SE!WIC DE51GN of Perry Plant, adequacy of, in hght of recent earthquakc, DD 86 4,23 NRC 211 (1986)
SEI5%flCITY of Perry site. DD-86-4,23 NRC 211 (19866 42 '
u,,.,
b i
SUBJECT INDEX SilOW CAUSE PROCEEDINGS remedies a$ailable through; ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) shomme necessary to initiate. DD-86-4,23 NRC 218 (1986)
SilUTDOWN See Remote Shutdown System SIGNIFICANT II AZARDS CONSIDER ATION necessity of, for construction permit extension; CLl-86-4,23 NRC 113 (1986)
SIMULATOR EXAMINATIM failure by reacto rn:,nor; ALJ 86-1,23 NRC 31 (1986)
STANDRi G % TREATMENT SYSTEM exemptiof* ; rom requirement for; DD-86 l,23 NRC 39 (1986)
STAND'N J rt wrement for intervention in operating license amendment proceeding. LBP 86-eA,23 NRC 165 #
(1986)
STAYS failure to address criteria for, CLl-86 6,23 NRC 130 (19ts)
SUA SPONTE ISSUES raiard in operatmg license proceedmss; CLi-86 I,23 NRC l (1986)
TECilNICAL SPECIFICATIONS need for inclusion of fire protection plans in; ALAB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986)
TE511NG See Leak Rate Testmg TR AINING of nonbargaming unit workers to replace strikers, adequacy of, DD-86-3,23 NRC 191 (1986) reactor operator, accreditation of TMI program for; CLl 86-2,23 NRC 49 (1986)
VALVES chesk. containment leakage because of malfunction of; LBP 86-6A,23 NRC 165 (1986) contamment isolaten, amendment relatise to testing of. LBP-86-68,23 NRC 173 (1986) exces+llow check, amendment relatne to testmg of; LBP 86-6B,23 NRC 173 (1986) mam steam isolation, esemphon from leakage testmg requirement for; DD 861,23 NRC 39 (1986) trasersms incore probe guide tube shear, exemption from requirement for. DD-861,23 NRC 39 (1986) '
VIOLATIONS license suspension or resocation for; DD 86-3,23 NRC 191 (1986)
% E APON5 5EARCil penalty for failure to perform; DD-86-3, 23 NRC 191 (1986)
ZONES See Emergency Planning /ones a
43
+
e.v wy egespe
I e
1 l
J 1
1 I
l l
l t
l FACILITY INDEX ARK ANS AS NUCLEAR ONE. Umt 1. Docket No. 50-313 REQUEST FOR ACTION. January 29. 1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.
( 2 206. DD-85-19,23 NRC 33 (1986)
BR AfDWOOD NUCLEAR POW ER STATION Units 1 and 2. Docket Nos. 50-456-OL 50-457-OL 4 ASLBP No. 79-4lfLO3-OL)
OPERATING LICENSE; March 28.1986. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 86 7,23 NRC 177 (1986)
CALLAW AY PL ANT. Unit 1; Docket No. 50-483 RTQUEST FOR ACTION. February 10.1986. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R.
( 2 206 DD 86-2. 23 NRC 97 (1986)
, COM ANCllE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50-445
] REQUMT FOR ACTION. March 13.1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-86-4,23 i
NRC 113 (1986)
) CR)STAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT; Docket No. 50-302 j REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 29.1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R.
) 2.206. DD-85-19,23 NRC 33 (1986)
ER%IN. TENNESSEE PLANT. Docket No 70143 REQUEST FOR ACTION. March 3.1986, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.
( 2 206. DD-86-3,23 NRC 191 (1986)
, llUMBOLDT BAY Pow ER PL ANT, Unit 3. Docket No. 50-133-OLA (ASLBP No.77-357 07 LA)
OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 14,1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TE RMIN ATING PROCEEDING- LBP 86-1,23 NRC 25 (1986)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, Unit 1: Docket No 50-352 REQUEST FOR ACTION. January 21.1986. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.
( 2 206. DD 86-1. 23 NRC 39 (1986)
LIMERICK GENER ATING STATION. Unit I; Docket No. 50-352-OL A ( ASLBP No.
86 522 02-LA) (Check Vahe)
OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 13. 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON ROBERT L. ANTHONY'S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE; LBP 86-6 A. 23 NRC 165 (1986)
LIMERICK GENER ATING STATION Unit 1; Docket Nos. 50 3524)LA l (ASLBP No.
86 522 02 L A) (Check Vahes). 50-352-OLA 2 ( ASLBP No.86-526 04-LA) (Containment Isolation) l OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 14, 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONSOLID ATING PROCEEDINGS AND SETTING SCilEDULE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES. LBP-86-6B. 23 NRC 173 (1986)
LIMERICK GENER ATING ST ATION. Unit 2. Docket No. 50-353 REQUEST FOR ACTION. March 21.1986. DIRFCTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.
I 2.206. DD-86 5. 21 NRC 226 (1986)
LIMERICK GENER ATING STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-352-OL 50-353-OL
] OPER ATING LICENSE: January 16.1986. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-828,23 NRC !) (1986)
I OPER ATING LICENSE; February 4.1986 FIFTH PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; LBP 86-3, 23 NRC 69 (1986)
OPER ATING LICENSE; February 7.1986. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-830,23 NRC 59 (1986:
l 45
I FACILITY INDEX OPERATING LICENSE; March 20, 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; C11-86-6. 23 NRC 130 (1986)
OPER ATING LICENSE: March 20,1986; ORDER; CLI-86 5,2) NRC 125 (1986)
MINE filLL. NEW JERSEY IRR ADI ATOR FACIL;TY; Docket No. 30-22063 (ASLBP No.
85 51242-ML)
M ATERI ALS LICENSE; January 28.1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; I BP-86-2,23 NRC 28 (19861 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATlON. Unns I,2. and 3; Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50 28' REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 29,1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R-( 2.206; DD-8519,23 NRC 33 (1986)
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units I and 2. Docket Not 50-440, 50 441 OPER ATING LICENSE; February 27. 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-831,23 NRC 62 (19861 -
t REQUEST FOR ACTION: March 18.1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R.
( 2 206. DD-86-4. 23 NRC 211 (1986)
R ANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENER ATING STATION; Docket No 50-312 REQUEST FOR ACTION: January 29, 1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.
( 2.206. DD-8519,23 NRC 33 (1986)
SHOREllAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION. Unit 1: Docket No. 50-322-OL 3 (Ernergency Planninal OPERATING LICENSE. January 9.1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB-827,23 NRC 9 (19861 OPER ATING I K ENSE; March 26,1986; DECISION; ALAB 832,23 NRC 135 (1986)
SOUTH TEX AS PROJECT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. STN $0-498-OL, STN 50-499-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-421-07 OL)
OPERATING LICENSE; February 14.1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 86 5,23 NRC 89 (1986)
OPER ATING LICENSE; March 28.1986; SEVENTil PREllEARING CONFERENCE ORDER; LBP-86-8,23 NRC 182 (1986)
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLE AR STATION. Unit 1; Docket No,50 289 REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 29,1986; plRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R.
4 2.206; DD-8519. 23 NRC 33 (1986)
SPECI AL PROCEEDING; February 6.1986. ORDER; CLI 86 2,23 NRC 49 (1986)
W ATEREORD STE AM LLECTRIC STATION, Unit 3; Docket No. 50-382-OL '
OPER ATING LICENSE; January 30.1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; CLI 861,23 NRC I (1986)
OPER ATING LICENSE; February 5.1986; NOTICE; ALAB 829,23 NRC 55 (1986)
WEST CHICAGO R ARE EARTHS FACILITY; Docket No. 40 2061 ML ( ASLBP No 83-49541 ML)
M ATERIALS LICENSE; February 10, 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986)
ZION ST ATION, Units I and 2; Docket Non. 50-295-OLA, 50-304-OLA ( ASLBP No. 84-50046-L A)
OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 19,1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING; LBP-86-6,23 NRC 92 (1986) 46