ML20215L047
| ML20215L047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/31/1986 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V23-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V23-I2, NUDOCS 8610280441 | |
| Download: ML20215L047 (87) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:i I l l l l NUREG-0750 i Vol. 23 index 2
't, -
f($$kkkh[N I
- c .g, g-
, ,; m l 2 .,_ ..I l l
.l' y.
..=.
j hw wp '
$4 ~ .G > w .a. __ .
v E
. :sr SMS=-E!
,a -
_ _ _ _almisti y J, "ny
?H:25 m . j -
~w aev -I
$h?$,. '
9 6 &pa 'l
;NEdp$a{d r3 L !o=b w e
- 2g s- 1 n.
W :r*Avum ~. dP = > gpW#%
- l s.; o bileMIM y'y l
g:y i c. ~
., . g_ -
l l T ,. <
'Es'e bg ..
!@. . - $;,3, ..."'-.. w - wi
*;g m.- --
~
"pk -
2s I
@A.
p \
! 11 .1 .
I wwwa W. . .. m la 1 1
\ q(, \O 2SO W 1
r l l rw t' Available from p p Superintendent of Documents j U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082 i Washington, D.C. 20013-7082
-i i A year's subscription consicts of 12 softbound issues, J 4 indexes, and 4 hardbound editions for this publication.
( Single copies of this publication 7' are available from National Technical L' gs J information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 --- l t i l Brors in this publication may be reported to the Division of l Technical Information and Document Control, Office of Administration, ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301/492-8925) or (301/492-7566)
, , , - -,r-.---- -- - - . - -- , . , - , ..n.- ~, -- -- .-.,. -- - , ~ - - - . . . - - - - -
NUREG-0750 - Vol. 23 , index 2 .
'- - - '. 9 j- . -
j INDEXES TO . .
. 1
-l NUCLEAR REGULATORY
~
COMMISSION ISSUANCES . . l - r - January - June 1986 l -
~
U. 'S. $ i - NUCLE AR REGUL ATOR Y COMMISSIO. N h , , e . 5 D e 9 d, - e m
e i i Foreword .
]
,- i Digests and indexes for inuances of the Commission (CLI), the Atomic - *
~
Safety and ucensing Appeal Panel (ALAB), the Atomic Safety and ucensing . , ,
, q Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative IJw Judge (AU), the Directors' Decisions -
(DD), and the Denials of Petitions of Rulemaking are presented in this document. .: * '- l',- Rose digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the issuances. " [ [ . ', Information elements common to.the cases heard and ruled upon are: -
- Case name (owner (s) of facility) - ;
Full text reference (volume and pagination) 7' Issuance number . Issues raised by appellants legal citations (cases, regulations, and statutes) . . . . Narne of facility, Docket number .,- Subject matter ofissues and/or rulings '. - Type of hearing (for construction permit, operating license, etc.) , Type ofissuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.). ' , nese information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as follows: "
- 1. Case NameIndex ~
He case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of the issuances. Each case name is followed by the type of hearing, the type ofissuance, ' ' docket number, issuance number, and full text referenca. . -
- 2. Digests and Henders . .
De headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows: the Commission (CLI), the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal Panel (ALAB), . the Atomic Safety and ucensing Board Panel (LBP), the Administrative law - c.
~
Judge (AU), the Directors', Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Petitions for
- N Rulemaking.
{>*: ; . i' _ ne header identifies the issuance by issuance number, case name, facility .
., N J, '
name, docket number, type of hearing, date ofissuance, and type ofissuance. . The digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the ' issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuance covers [ '- more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are 0 , designated alphabetically. ' a: . e lii 4 e
- -, - _ _ - - -.-_c,.- - - . - , - , - . - - - , - - - . - , . - . . , y- - v .- -- ,- .---, - , , , , - . . . . -
- 3. Legal Citations Index Dis index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alphanumerical arrangements of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others. Dese citations are listed as given in the issuances. Changes in regulstions'and Statutes may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or applicability of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuance.
He references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular issuance. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.
- 4. Subject Index ,
Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues and subjects covered in the issuances. De subject headings are followed by phrases that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the issuances being indexed. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text reference.
- 5. Facility Index his index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility nara:s from the issuance. De name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date, type of issuance, issuance number, and full text reference.
iv
b i a 4 k l 4 9 CASE NAME INDEX 'U~ ' A.N. TSCH A ECilE , RULEM AKING DENI AL; DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEM AKING; Docket No. ' , PRM-2016 DPRM 861,23 NRC 46I (1986)
- ALABAM A POWER COMPANY ,
REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206; Docket Nos. 50 348A,50-364A; DD 86-7,23 NRC 875 (1986) ARK ANSAS POWER AND LIGitT COMPANY . REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206. Docket No. 50 313; DD-8519,23 NRC 33 (1986) - ~' BABCOCK AND WILCOX - ' M ATERIALS LICENSE. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dockei No. 70-364 (ASLBP No. 815 511-01 ML); LBP-8619,23 NRC 825 (1986)
- CAROLINA POWER AND LIGifT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL -
POWER AGENCY l OPER ATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket No* 50-400-OL; ALAB-837,23 NRC 525 (1986) l OPER ATING LICENSE. FINAL LICENSING BOARD DECISION, Docket No. 50-400-OL (ASLBP No. 82-472-03-OL); LBP-8611,23 NRC 294 (1986) CLEVEL AND ELFCTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al- , OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER. Docke: Nosc 50-440 OL. 50-441-OL; ' AL AB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986); CLI-86-7,23 NRC 233 (1986) REQUEST F OR ACTION, DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206; Docket Nos. . 50 440,50-441. DD-86-4,23 NRC 211 (1986) l COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY l OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-456-OL,50-457-OL; ' CLI-86-8. 23 NRC 241 (1986); LBP-86 7,23 NRC 177 (1986); LBP-86-12,23 NRC 414 (1986) ** OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING. Docket Nos 50 295-OLA,50-304-OLA ( ASLBP No. 34 500-06-L A); LBP-86-6, , 23 NRC 92 (1986) DUKE POW ER COMP ANY, et al *
. REQULST FOR ACTION. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 4 2,206; Docket Not 50-269. 50 270. 50-287. DD 8519. 23 NRC 33 (1986) l LORID A POW ER CORPOR ATION REQUEST FOR ACTION. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. I 2.206; Docket No. ,
50-302. DD-8519,23 NRC 33 (1986) '
+ ' -
GENER AL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLE AR CORPORATION OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. .*
*; *.'.'~
50-289-OL A 1. 50-289-OL A 2 (Sicam Generator Plugsms Cntena). LBP-86-10, 23 NRC 283 (1986). LBP 86-14. 23 NRC 553 (1986), LBP 8617,23 NRC 792 (1986) *
. [
RFQUEST FOR ACTION. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. ( 2.206. Docket No. U 50-289. DD-8519,23 NRC 33 (1986) *
' SPECI AL PROCEEDING. ADVISORY OPINION AND NOTICE OF HEARING. Docket Not 50-289-R A, 50-289-FW: CL186 9. 23 NRC 465 (1986) '
GOVFRNOR OF NEW MEXICO'S REQUEST TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES THE NEW . s,. . 4 MEXICO PROGR AM FOR THE LICENSING OF EXTR ACTION OR CONCENTR ATION OF SOURCr M ATERI AL FROM SOURCE M ATERI AL ORE AND THE RESULTING . SiPRODUCT M ATERI AL *
. 4-' -
l Tk ANSFER OF AGREEMENT STATE AUTHORITY; ORDER; CLl 86-10,23 NRC 475 (1986) ' i I
- l F
a, w~,, , - - - - -n-----ne-n._n.- . , - - . ~ . - - - - , , ,s,---,,-,-.,n-.----___-,---e-,.---,,,,--.,,. ---- . - , - ,s . . - - - - - , - - - . . . - . - - - - . - . -
CASE NAME INDEX HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499 OL ( ASLBP No. 79 42107 OL); LBP-86-5,23 NRC 89 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE; PARTIAL INITI AL DECISION; Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499-OL (ASLBP No. 79-421-07-OL); LBP 86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE; SEVENTH PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER; Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL, STN 50-499 OL ( ASLBP No. 79-42107-OL); LBP-86-8,23 NRC 182 (1986) INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION DISCRETION ARY PROCELDING; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No, LRP; CLI 86 3,23 NRC 5! (1986) - KENNETH L BURTON - SPECIAL PROCEEDING; ORDER TERMINATING PROCEEDING; Docket No. 55-60575 (ASLBP No. 86-515-01-SP) (Senior Operator License for Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3h AL3 86-1,23 NRC 31 (1986) . KERR McGEE CHEMICAL CORPOR ATION M ATERIALS LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Docket No. 40-2061 ML ( ASLBP No. 83-495101 ML ); LBP 86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986)
- SHOW CAUSE; LNITIAL DECISION; Docket No. 40-2061 SC ( ASLBP No. 84-502-01 SCL LBP-8618,23 NRC 799 (1986)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE, DECISION; Docket No. 50 322-OL 3 (Ernergency Planning); ALAB 832, 23 NRC 135 (1986) . OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-322-OL 3; ALAB 827, 23 NRC 9 (1986); CLI 86-1I,23 NRC 577 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE; ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING AS MOOT; Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 ( ASLI:P No. 77-347-01D OL) (Low Power); LSP-86-13,23 NRC 551 (1986)
. LOUISIAN A POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-382-OL; CLI-861,23 NRC I (1986)
OPERATING LICENSE NOTICE; Docket No. 50-382-OL; ALAB-829,23 NRC 55 (1986)
. METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.
SPECIAL PROCEEDING; ORDER; Docket No. 50-289 (Restart); CLI-86-2,23 NRC 49 (1986) NORTH AMERICAN INSPECTION,INC-CIVIL PEN ALTY; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING, Docket No. 30-20982, License Nos. 37-23370-01, EA 85-01 ( ASLBP No. 86-516-010T); AL3-86 2,23 NRC 459 (1986) NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES,INC. REQUEST FOR ACTION: DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R 6 ' *,o. 70-143; DD-86-3,23 NRC 191 (1986) PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Dcaket Nos 50-275-OL A,50 323-OLA ( ASLBP No. 86 523-03-L A); LBP-86-21,23 NRC 849 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING, Docket No. 50-133-OLA (ASLBP No. 77-357 07-LA); LBP-86-1,23 NRC 25 (1986) PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY OPER ATING LICENSE; DECISION; Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-353 OL; ALAB-836,23 NRC 479 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE; FIFTH PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION; Docket Not 50-352-OL, 50-353 OL (ASLBP No. 81-465 07 OL); LBP 86-3,23 NRC 69 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Not. 5049#L,50-353-OL; 4 LAB 828,23 NRC 13 (1986h ALAB-830,23 NRC 59 (1986h rLI-86-o, a NRC 130 (1986); ALAB-834,23 NRC 263 (1986) OPER ATING LICENSE; ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50-353-OL; CLI-86-5,23 NRC 125 (1986) 2 l
-s ." *
. c
, CASE NAME INDEX -
# , i OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No- ^ .' '
50 352-OL A (Check Valveh AL AB-833,23 NRC 257 (1986) ' '
- OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Docket Nos. "* '
50 352-OLA 1 (Check Vahe). 50-352-OLA-2 (Containment Isolaten); ALAB-835. 23 NR" 267 y'
' ' ~.* . ....
e, , (1986) ' l* ' f' OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.( 2.206;
- Docket No 50-352; DD 86-6. 23 NRC 571 (1986)
['
'~
- .~ - -
OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MLMORANDUM AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING , s
~~- -
PROCEEDINGS AND SETTING SCHEDULE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES; Docket .- '
- Nos. 50-352-OL A l ( ASLBP No. 86-522-02-L A) (Check Valves). 50-352-OL A 2 ( ASLBP No.
O_ 86-526-04-L A) (Containment Isolatioch LBP-86-68. 23 NRC 173 (1986) , a OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING AND I ' *
~
DISMISSING PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TERMINATING PROCEEDING; Docket Nos 50-352-OLA 1 ( ASLBP No. 86-522 02-LA) (Check Valves).
,'~* .
50-352-OL A 2 ( ASLBP No. 86-526-04-L A) (Containment isolationh LBP 86-9. 23 NRC 273 (1986) ~ * , , , OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON * * .* ROBERT L. ANTHONY'S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE; Docket No. 50-352-OLA 4 .
~
(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. ( 2.206. Docket No. 50-352. DD-861,23 NRC 39 (1986)
- REQUEST FOR ACTION. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. i 2.206 Docket No. .-
50-35). DD 86-5,23 NRC 226 (1986) PRECISION M ATERIALS CORPORATION ' ' M ATERIALS LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Eocket No. 30-22063 ( ASLBP No. 8f 512-02 MLh LBP 86-2,23 NRC 28 (1986) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDI AN A, INC. ., OPERATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-5464L. 50-547-OL , .. ( ASLBP No. 83-487 02-OL); LBP 86-16. 23 NRC 789 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DIRECTING BRIEFS; Docket Nos. . 50-546-OL. 50 347-OL i ASLBP No. 83 487-02-OLh LBP-8614 A. 23 NRC 565 (1986) - PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE et al OPER ATING LICENSE; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER. Docket Nos. 50-443-OL. 50-444-OL ' * . *. (OfNte Emergency Planmng); AL *B 838,23 NRC 585 (1986) . 5 ACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2.206; Docket No. * -
~
50-312. DD 8519. 23 NRC 33 (19861 .- TEX AS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY. et al.
- OPER ATING LICENSE: MEMOR ANDUM; Docket Nos. 50-445-OL. 50-446-OL ( ASLBP No. . ,
79-430-06-OLL LBP 86 20 23 NRC 844 (1986)
- REQUEST FOR ACTION. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket No. 50-445; CLI-86-4,23 - ' .
NRC 113 (19868
- UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY : '.' . -
REQUEST FOR ACTION; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. j 2.206; Docket No. ;- - , *.~ ,, 50-483. DD-86 2. 23 NRC 97 (1986) ,
, ~
WABASil VALLEY POWER ASSOCIATION. INC. * *
- r OPER ATING LICENSE: MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50 546-OL. 50-547-OL $ .
( ASLBP No. 83-487-02 OLL LBP-86-16,23 NRC 789 (1986) * - OPERAllNG LICENSE: MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER DIRECTING 9RIEFS; Docket Nos. * - e ',* 30 546-OL. 50-547-OL ( ASLBP No. 83-487-02-OLh LBP-8614 A. 23 NRC 565 (1986) ,
; 2. * . . - ,
9 ; r. 7 g . 3 1 e. _.y _- _ , . , , _
3 4 d
~
~
, t ...
DIGESTS - ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
. . a. ; -
~
CLi-861 LOUlslANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), Docket No. 50-382 OL; OPERATING LICENSE; January 30, 1986; MEMORANDUM
- AND ORDER ,
A The Commission denies the remaining aspect of Joint Intervenors' motion to reopen the . . record in this operating license proceedmg on management character and competence. The Com- ' mission finds that Joint Intervenors' motion to teopen. which is based on the pendency of ongo- , . ing investigations of the Office of Investiptions, does not meet the heavy burden required to - reopen a closed record. B The standards for reopening a closed record require consideration of three factors: (1) - whether the motion to reopen is tirrely; (2) whether the information raises a significant safety (or environmental) concern; and (3) whether the information might have led the Licensing Board to reach a different result. See, e g.. Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) CLI-85 2. 21 NRC 282,311 (1985). C The burden of sata ting the reopenmg requirements is a heavy one. See, e.g.. Kansas ' Gas ad Liectne Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station. Unit 1), ALAB 462. 7 NRC 320. 338 (1978); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station. Umts 1 and 2), ALAB-359, 4 NRC 619, 620 21 (1976). Bare allegations or the simple submission of new contentions are not enough to meet these standards. Pacific Gas and Electne Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 +
- and 2), CLI-815,13 NRC 361,363 (1981),
j D At a mmimum, the new materialin support of a motion to reopen must be set forth with j a degree of particulanty in excess of the basis and specincity requirements contained in 10 - C.F R. 9 2.714(b) for admissible contentions. It must be tantamount to evidence and possess the .. attnbutes set forth in 10 C.F.R. { 2.743(d defining admissible evidence for adjudicatory proceed- . - ings. SpeciGcally, the new evidence supporting the motion must be relevant, material and relia. ble. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-775.19 NRC 1361,1366-67, aff'd sub nom. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC. *
- 751 F.2d 1287 (D C. Cir.1984), vacated in part and reh's en bane granted on other grounds. +
760 F.2d 1320 (1985). Information that investigations are under way by itself does not meet this . standard. E A *iovant in seekms to meet the heavy burden required to jusufy reopening a closed , record is not enutled to engage in discovery in order to support the monon. Rather, the issue in
- each case is whether the available information meets the standards for reopening. Metropchtan -
Edison Co. (Three Mile Island t'.iclear Station, Unit 1) CL1 SS-7,21 NRC 1104,1106 (1985). '.- it is not the duty of the adjudicatory boards to search for evidence that might fill in gaps in the movmg party's submissions. * - F
.J' ,
The Commission's Pohey Statement on Investigations, inspections, and Adjudicatory Pro- , I credmgs. 49 Fed. Reg. 36.032 (Sept.13.1984), addresses the conflict between the duty to dis- - ' close investigation or inspection information to the boards and parties and the need to protect that mformation. The provisions of that Policy Statement come into play only when Staff or O!
- have new information matenal and relevant to any " issue in controversy in the proceeding " Pre. ,
viously uncontested issues raised in a motion to reopen are not "tssues in controversy m a pro-ceeding" unless and until both the motion to reopen is granted and the contention is admitted.
, 1'
- G Boards have the authonty to examine issues not placed m controversy by the parties only '
where specific facts are brought to their attention ind'cating tha' there is a senous safety, envi- , ronmental, or common defense and security matter. See 10 C.F R. $ 2.760s: Texas Utilities . d I
- - _ .- - _ . ,- _ _ _ , . . . . - _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ . --* _ . - _ _ _ ~ . . . . - - - , . _ . , . . - - _ . - . _
DIG ESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REUCLATORY COMMISSION Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), CLi-8124,14 NRC 614, 615 (1981). The mere pendency of OI investigations by themselves does not raise a serious safety matter. CLI-86-2 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Unit I), Docket No. 50-289 (Restart); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; February 6.1986; ORDER A The Commission decides that review of ALAB-826,22 NRC 893 (1985), is unwarranted. The Commission reaches no judgment on whether the Licensmg Board statement regardmg INPO's comphance with its own criteria is correct. CLI-86 3 INQUIRY INTO TliREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK R ATE DATA FALSIFICA-TION, Docket No. LRP; DISCRETIONARY PROCEEDING; February 13.1986 MEMORAN-DUM AND ORDER A The Commission denies a request to modify the December 18, 1985 Notice of flearms on leak rate falsincations at TMI 2. CLI 86-4 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, et af. (Comanche Peak Steam Electnc Sta-tion, Umt 1). Docket No. 50-445; REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 13. 1986; MEMORAN-DUM AND ORDER A The Commission demes a motion requestmg that Texas Utihties Electric Company, which neglected to request a timely renewal of its Unit I construction permit prior to expiration of the permit, be required to apply for a new construchon permit. The Commission agrees with the NRC StafTs nnding that the construction permit amendment granting ettension of the con-struction com'pletion date inolves no significant hazards considerations, and it therefore refuses to stay an extension of that construction permit granted by the NRC Staff, to halt further con-struction, or to grant a "preentension' hearing. The Commission refers the request for a hearms on the construction ermit entension to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel for ap-pomiment of a hearing board, and it refers the request for enfoicement action against the Licen-see for construction activin es after espiration of the construction permit, to the NRC Staff for ap. propriate action. B Failure to make a timely application for an extension prior to the espiration date of a construction permit does not have the effect of causirig a complete forfeiture of the permit such as to preclude issuance
- of an extension and to require an entirely new construction permit proceeding.
2 C The filing of a timely request for an estension under 10 C F.R. ( 2.109 keeps a :onstruc-tion permit in force. D An amendment extendmg a construction permit does not necessarily involve a sigmficant hazards consideration, especially when the amendment does not involve substantive changes in construction design or methods, but merely gives a licensee more time to complete construction. E The Commission has delegated the responsibihty for making sigmficant hazards consider-ation findings to the discretion of the NRC Staff. See, e s. 48 Fed. Reg. 14,864,14.867 ( April 6.1983). F Section 189(a)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act allows the Commission to issue a construc-tion permit amendment on an immediately effective basis, without ofTering a prior heanne, upon a nnding that the ameridment involves no significant hazards considerations. 42 U.S C. 6 2239(a)(1) (1985 Supp.). G The scope of the psiestension hearing is limited to challenges to the hcensee's effnrt to show " good cause" for its extension. II After expiration ofits construction permit a hcensee is not free to contmue construction until told to stop.10 C.F.R. H 2.109. 50.10. CLI 86-5 PitiLADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Stanon, Un.ts I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-352-OL,50 353 OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; March 20.198t ORDER A The Commission declines review of ALAB 819 but provides comments on fa) 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 petitions for review within the time hmits prescribed by 10 C F R. l 2.786(b)(1). If parties cannot meet that filing schedule. motions are to be filed seeking an ex-tension of time. 6
e
~
. ~ .. . a - . - -' , . . ' .
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , C A petition for review Gled with the Commission shall contain a concise statement why in ' ' ' ' ~ the petitioner's view the Appeal Board's decision is erroneous.10 C.F.R. ( 2.786(b)(2)(iii). ** *
*L- ....
U... , 1 D The Commission's " Pokey Statement on severe Reactor Acciuents Regardmg Future **'"O' ,..' #. - A Designs and Existmg Plants," 50 Fed. Res. 32,138 ( Aug. 8,1985), bars hiigation in case-related L. .' ~f'c-safety or environmental heanngs of accident mitigation measures beyond those found in Com- ,' -
. T* ;- . ,'
mission regulations. * * -- * * - E The reasonableness of emergency plans must be determined in each case in light of the s specine facts. In areas where many nearby medical facihties are available to treat onsite personnel who are radiologically contammated or traumatically iruured, a prudent course of action under 10
" ./ ' *
.~
C.F.R. 4 50.47 would be to select for a backup hospital a facihty reasonably close to the reactor f ' site, but outside of the ernergency planning zone. CLI-86 6 PHILADELPHI A ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and
- 2), Docket Nos. 50052 0L, '0-353-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; March 20,1986; MEMO-
- R ANDUM AND ORDER *
*'r ' '
A The Commission denies joint intervenors' request to reopen the record and to stay opera- - **
- tion of Limerick Uma 1. The Commission Gnds that the "new information" proffered by interve. '
nors does not meet the criteria required to reopen a closed record, and, that since no signiGcant ' safety issue was raised, there is no basis for a stay. - B The standards for reopening a closed record require consideration of three factors: (1)
- whether the motion to reopen is timely; (2) whether the information raises a signincant safety *
(or environmental) concern; and (3) whether the information might have led the Licensing . Board to reach a difTerent result. See, e s., Metropohtan Edison Co. O hree Mile Island Nuclear Stata,n, Unit I), CLi-85 2,21 NRC 282,318 (1985). ' C In seeking to reopen a record on comentions not within the scope of issues raised pre. viously, parties must address the criteria for determining whether late-Gled contentions should be admitted.10 C.F.R. ( 2.714(a)(!). __ D Summary denial of a motion for stay is appropriate when ttje criteria set forth in 10 g C.F R. ( 2.788 have not been addressed. E The following technicalissues are discussed: Flood Protection; Pipelme Rupture. CLI-86-7 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power . Plant Units I and 2), Docket Ncs. 50-440-OL, 50 441-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; April 18 - - 1186; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER * * ,* A The Commission reiterates that the Board must decide motions to reopen on the plead. ings before it. The Commission Gnds that the Appeal Board's uncertainty as to whether Interve. nor's motion to reopen raised an issue of safety significance should have resulted in the Board's * - denial of the motion rather than its orders setting up exploratory hearings. The Commission . notes that the issues raised by the orders can be handled by Staff outside of the adjudicatory con. - . . text. Because the Board did not Gnd the pleadings were sufGciem to reoren, the Commission va- . .
. 1 .
cates the Board's orders &nd denies intervenor's motion to reopen. '
- B The Commission's inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of NRC adjudications .
geves it the authority to intervene in a proceeding at any time.
/*
C The standards for reopening a closed record require consideration of three factors: (1) ; s.
. t,' ,
whether the motion to reopen is timely; (2) whether the information raises a significant safety , (or environmental) concern; and (3) the motion must demonstrate that a materially different -
,- ,
- i' .
result would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered ini-
- i tially. See, e.g., Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Statior:, Unit 1), CLI 85-2, 21 NRC 282,311 (1985). * -
D The burden of satisfying reopening requirements is on the movant. A Board is to decide *
* ' y a motion to reopen on the information before it and has no authority to engage in discovery in ,
order to supplement the pleadmss before it. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam . *,* * , Electric Station, Unit 3), CLI-861,23 NRC 1 (1986). = E The fact that newly proffered comentions raise serious issues is insufficient justification
- to reopen the record to consider them as Board issues when they are tKing dealt with in the ,
G ~ course of ongoing NRC mvestigation and Staff monitoring. Cincinnati Gas anti Electric Co. (Wil-liam H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Umt 1), CLI-82-20,16 NRC 109 (1982). 7
=
[
5' 4 DIGESTS 3 ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CLI-86-8 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2). Docket Nos. 50-456-OL,50-457 0L; OPERATING LICENSE; Apnl 24,1986. MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER A The Commission dismisses intervenors' quality assurance contention because the Licens-ing Board erred in its findmg that the contention satisfies the five-part balancing of factors test set forth in 10 C.F.R. { 2.714(a)(1). The Commission finds that the contention would not satisfy
~
the test even if reevaluated in light of the developments since admis .un. The Commission directs the Board to evaluate the admissibility of intervenors' inspector harassment contention, which was admitted by a Board-approved stipulation, under the critena set forth in 10 C F.R. { 2.714(a)(1). 8 Acceptance or rejection of nontimely filings is controlled by the five factor test set forth in 10 C.F.R. { 2.714(a)(lp (i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time; (ii) The availabil-ity of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected; (iii) The estent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by eustmg parties; and (v) The enter,t to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. C Absent a showing of good cause for late fihng, a "compelhng" showmg of the other four factors must be made. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Sta-tion, Unit I). LBP 83-58,18 NRC 640, 663 (1983); Mississippe Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAL-704.16 NRC 1725 (1982L D The second and fourth prongs of the test are accorded less weight, under estabhshed Commission precedent, than the other three factors. South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit I), ALAB-642,13 NRC 881,895 (1981). ' E In addressing criterion (iii) of the test, a petitioner should set out with as much particu-
!arity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses. and sum-marize their proposed testimony. Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.
Units I and 2). Al 414.704.16 NBC 1725,1730 (1982). , F in weighing the contribution which a party is likely to make in the development of a sound record, the performance of its counsel in a different proceeding is' not a relevant consideration. G The five-factor test assumes that a contention's signific3nce under factor (iii) may have to be balanced against the hkehhood of delay under factor (v), as part of an overall balancing of factors. It is inappropnate, however, to balance sismficance verst:5 delay in evaluation of the fifth factor alone. H Voluntary withdrawal of other, unrelated contentions from a proceeding does not serve to counterbalance the delaying effect of a late-filed contention I Even a waiver of objections by all parties does not serve to render an otherwise untimely contention admissible. Boston Edison Co. IPilgnm Nuclear Power Station). ALAB-816,22 NRC 461, 466 (1985). CLl-86-9 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit D. Docket Nos. 50-289-R A, 50-289.EW; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; May 15,1986; ADVISORY OPINION AND NOTICE OF HEARING A The Commission issues an adv6sory opinion regarding the involvement of former Licen-see official Robert Arnold in Licensee's December 5,1979 response to an October 25, 1979 NRC Notice of Violation. The Commission finds that there is no reasonable basis to conclude that Arnold made a knowing, willful, or reckless matenal false statement in the response. The Commission grants Edward Wallace's request for a hearms on whether lie made a knowmg. well-ful or reckless material false statement in Licensee's December 5,1979 response. CLI-86-10 GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO'S REQUEST TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES THE NEW MEXICO PROGRAM FOR THE LICENSING OF EXTRACTION OR CONCENTRATION OF SOURCE M ATERIAL FROM SOURCE MATERIAL ORE AND THE ' RESULTING BYPRODUCT MATERIAL; TRANSFER OF AGREEMENT STATE AUTHORI-TY; May 23,1986; ORDER 8 e
+ ,r , .- m.,_ .m ,. . _ . . - , . ,rr - ~ - - - - .,- , - . . -
.r. - . _ _
i . DIGESTS . - ISSUANCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' a A The Commission grants the Governor of New Mexico's request to return a portion of ', . ~ '. New Mexico's regulatory program to NRC junsdiction. On an interim basis, the Commission '* keeps all aNected licerises in effect as currently issued. [ ~ . . , .
...*[. . .
,'. y B The Commission believes that a hearing is not required when the NRC reasserts its
* .c regulatory authority in an Agreement State at the request of the Governor of that State. , -'. ' .f ' -
CLI-86-il LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1), -
. ' '; 1 .
Docket No. 50 322-OL-3; OPERATING LICENSE; June 6,1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
'.' * *( .*~ 4* - -
A i The Commission (1) directs the appointment of a licensing board for immediate initiation -
. , s of a hearing on the emergency plan exercise results; (2) offers guidance on the timing of sum- * * *
- N*
mary disposition motions; and (3) offers guidance on the standard for admissibility of contentions !' concerning emergency exercise results.
- B The Commission continues the Appeal Board's stay of the remand in ALAB-832 (L '
NRC 135 (1986)). instructing the Licensing Board not to initiate proceedings on the remand *
- issues until the Commission completes its review of ALAB-832. *
- D -
C The Commission is in the process of reviewing the " realism" and " immateriality" issues .- -* *
=
D of ALAB-818 (22 NRC 651 (1985)) and expects to issue shortly a decision on those issues. Commission rules provide that summary disposition motions may be filed "within such l , time as may be fixed by the presiding officer." 10 C.F.R. I 2.749(a). The rules further provide . that if essential facts are not available for response to the motion, the Board may deny it or make such other order as is appropriate.10 C.F.R. I 2.749(c).
- E Intervenors are not necessarily entitled to discovery to oppose summary disposition of their contentions. First they must show that discovery is necessary and is likely to produce evi-dence supporting the existence of a genuine issue of matenal fact.
F Under Commission regulations and practice, Staff review of exercise results is consistent . with the predictive nature of emergency planning, and is restricted to determining whether the , , exercise revealed any deficiencies which preclude a findmg of reasonable assurance that protec-
~
tive measures can and will be taken, i.e., fundamental flaws in the plan. Since only fundamental - = naws are material hcensing issues, hearings on the exercise results may be restricted to those issues. O The Com nission's rule change in response to the court's decision in Union of Concerned l - Scientists v. NRC 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir.1984), cert. denied,105 S. Ct. 815 (1985), empha. .. .
' ' ~ .
sizes the predictive nature of emergency planning findings. See 47 Fed. Res. 30,232 Uuly 13, . . 1982); 50 Fed. Res.19,323 (May 8,1985). - H Imposition of an admissibility requirement thai intervenors' contentions must demon-strate fundamental Daws in the emergency plan has the potential to require premature evidentiary
- decisions. What is required is that imervenors' contentions satisfy the specificity and other re. . +
quirements of 10 C.F.R. l 2.714 by (1) pleadmg that the exercise demonstrated fundacnental
- Daws in applicant's plan, and (21 providmg bases for the contentions which, if shown to be true, , .
would demonstrate fundamental Asws in the plan.
**e ~*
.; .' r.
G h. ' o , r * *
*e
- r *. * '
( ' . *
- i .
r; ,
- a s
- e e
3 - i e s
- 6 y e D
.. 1
.. ., ,p* ,
.. l i
~t DIGESTS ,
,~
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS - ,,' ,j
- l AL A B-527 LONG ISLAND LIGitTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit I),
I Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planmng); OPERATING LICENSE; January 9,1986. ' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - i A _.
~ J The Appeal Board denies the intervenors' request for leave to file a 20-page brief in addi.
tion to the 100-page joint brief already filed by them. *
- B The Commission's regulations impose a 70 page hmit on appellate briefs. A motion requesting an increase in this page limit for good cause may be made. but such a motion must
- be submitted at least seven days in advance of the due date for filing the brier.10 C.F.R.
; { 2.762(e). -
I C Not every error of a hearing board justifies an appe!! ate remedy. l D Appellate review is not intended to offer losing parties a forum for simply renewing claims presented to, but rejected by, the trial tribunal. E Proceedings on appeal are intended to focus on significant matters, not every colorable claim of error. See generally Jones v. Barnes,463 U.S 745,752 53 (1983) (the purpose of an ap-I pellate presentation is to select the most promising issues for review). See also id. at 761 (Bren. - nan and Marshall, JJ., dissenting) (good appellate advocacy demands selectivity among arguments). ALAB-828 PillLADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limenck Generating Station, Units I and *
- 2), Docket Nos. 50-3524L, 50-353-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; January 16,1986 MEMO-RANDUM AND ORDER A The Appeal Board affirms the Licensing Board's denial ofintervenors' request to reopen ,
i the record in this operating license proceeding. . B In ruling on a motion to reopen the record, adjudicatory boards consider three factors. (1) whether the motion is timety; (2) whether it addresses a significant safety or environmental ' issue, and (3) whether a different result might have been reached had the newly proffered mate-rial been considered imtially. Metropolitan Edison Co (Three Mile tsland Nuclear Station, Unit . , 1), CLl-85 2,21 NRC 282,285 n.3, reconsideration denied, CLI 85-7,21 NRC l104 (1985). C When a motion to reopen seeks to inject an entirely new issue into the proceeding. a board must consider both the criteria for reopening the record and the standards for admitting .
~
late-filed contentions, set forth in 10 C.F.R. { 2.714(a)(1). See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. , + (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI 82 39,16 NRC 1712.171415 (1982). J. -
- D Section 2.714(a)(1) sets out the standards for admitting late-filed contentions. They * -
a re- (i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time; (ii) The availability of other means I whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected, (iii) The extent to which the petitioner's par. *. . , , *- ticipation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record (iv) The extent to ., [ ' which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties; (v) The extent to which N the petitioner's participation will broaden ,he issues or delay the proceeding. - E The Appeal Board has consister.ily applied to C.F.R. { 2.714a(b) to appeals from orders - that have the effect of completely denying party status to a petitioner. See, e.g , Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Skagit/ilanford Nuclear Power Project, Units I and 2), ALAB-712,17
.'(
- i.
NRC 81,82 (1983). The briefing schedule for appeals from all other types of final orders, howev- .' . er, is that found in 10 C.F.R. { 2.762. . F Parties to adjudicatory proceedings have an obligation to monitor publicly available docu- , ments with a view toward raising issues in a timely feshion. Duke Power Co. (Catamba Nuclear l- . Station Umts I and 2), CLi-8319,17 NRC 1041,1048 (1983). This is particularly so with re-11 l 9
- . - , - - - - - , . - , - ~ ' ~ " ' * "
s e DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS spect to environmental impact statements, which are espressly intended for public scrutiny and. 4 af necessary, litigation. G The most important factor of the three factor test (or reoremns the record is whether the motson raises a signiGcant safety issue. 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 (1985h Houston Lighting and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Sia-tion. Umt 1). ALAB-582,11 NRC 239, 242 (1980). Tennessee Valley Authonty (Hartsville Nuclear Plant. Units I A. 2A 18 and 28). ALAB-463. 7 NRC 341,348 (1978) I issues that a party fails to bneron appeal are considered waived. See Public Service Elee, tric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station. Unit 11. ALAB-650,14 NRC 43. 49 50 (1981), aff'd sub nom. Township of Lower Alloways Creek v Public Sersice Electric and Gas Co. 687 F.2d 732 (3d Cir.1982). 3 An appeal board will not overturn a licensing board's determination weighing the Gve fac. tors speciGed in 10 C.F.R. 4 2.714(aHl) absent a showing that the trard has abused its discre-tion. Detroit Edison Co. (E1nco Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Unit 2). ALAB 707.16 NRC 1760,1763 (1982L a K in a request under 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206. any person may seek the suspension. modifkation. or revocation of a license, or other appropriate action, for alleged regulatory violations or poten-tially hazardous conditions. See 10 C F.R. (6 *.MN 2.202(a). L A petition for relief from the 15.ector of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under 10 C.F R. 4 2.206 will not always provide adequ.te other means to protect a petitioner's interest. so as to satisfy the second factor of section 4714(a)(1). Whether alternative protective means are in fact available depends on the issues sought to be raised, the relief requested, and the stage of the proceeding. In some circumstances. this may well require the equivalence of an adjudicatory hearing. But in other cases, a 10 C.F R. ( 2.206 petition could provide a sufGcient schicle to pro-tect one's interesi.
- M in considering the admissibility of a late-Gled contention, the Gfth factor of 10 C.F.R.
( 2.714(a)(1) requires an adjudicatory board to determine, inter alia. the estent to which the pro-ceeding - not license issuance or plant operation - will be delayed. Fermi.16 NRC at 8 766. ALAB 829 LOUISIAN 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 Bord directs that an order it had entered earlier in this procee.fing be pub. lished in the NRC issuances. That order directed the NRC staff and the Commissiois O'Gce of Investigatiens (OD to provide the Board with information gathered in certain 01 investigations, which had been described in several Board not.Gcations as potentially relevant to two motions then pending before the Board. B As a genera! rule, the NRC staff has a responsibility to disclose to adjudicatory boards
, and the parties allinformation that is potentially relevant and matenal to a pending adjudication.
t 49 Fed. Reg. 36.032 (1984L C In the event of a conGact between the board notiGcation responsibility and the need to protect investigative n.aterial from premature public disclosure. Comminion policy authorizes ad-judicatory boards to conduct a preliminary ex parte, in 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 decision. The authority for deciding if and when disclosure of the disputed information will occur is retained by the Commission. 49 Fed. Res. at 36.033-34. ALAB 830 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station. Units I and r 2). Docket Nos. 50 352 OL. 50-353-OL; OPERATING LICENSE: February 7.1986; MEMO. d RANDUM AND ORDER A In this operating license proceeding. the Appeal Board dismisses intervenor's contention dealing with medical arrangements for the treatment of individi.als contaminated and injured onsite, per the stipulation of the parties. The Board also vacates the Licensing Board decision i that, despite the stipulation contained findings of fact and conclusions oflaw on this matter. I1 7
+ --.- - . . , , . , - - , - - , , - . ,.---,,n.,. . .~ - ~ , , n - . , - _ . - .-n - . - . , , . , ,
'1 ,' q ,-
~.s .
. . .a . :2 . . .
DIGESTS ' ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC 5AFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS , B Except for significant safety, environmental, and security issues raised sua sponte pur. . , . . suant to 10 C.F.R. l 2.760s, the Commission regulations do not authorire boards in operating ( ,, y y .l y * . * * ** * .*g - , license proceedmss to " decide" matters not in controversy, as *
* =' ..
C Once previously contested issues are no longer in dispute, whether before or after the *
,. . - * ' ,/f'..
hearing, the proceedmg should be dismissed. Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear - . *
,, , (
- Plant). ALAB 796 21 NRC 4,5 (1985L *
. < / .
AL A B-831 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power . Plant Units I and 2), Docket Nos. 50-440-OL,50-441 OL: OPERATING LICENSE: February , 27,1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER . A The Appeal Board denies in part and dismisses in part, without prejudice, an inservenor's . . motion to reopen the record for the purpose of permittmg the submission of new contentions. . B When seeking to reopen an evidentiary record to consider new evidence, a movant must ,- ., satisfy a iripartite test: (1) is the motion timely; (2) does it address a signifkant safety or envi.
- p , .
ronmental issue; and (3) might a different r;sult have been reached had the newly proffered material been considered imtially. Pacific Gas and Elet..ie Co. (Diablo Cenyon Nuclear Power . , - Plant Units 1 and 2), ALAB-598,11 NRC 875,879 (1980s. cited with approvat in Metropolitan **
- Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I), CLI-85 2,21 NRC 282,285 n.3 (1985). .
C Each operating nuclear power plant is required to have a fire protection rJan that satisfies - General Desibn Criterion 3 in Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 50. See 10 C.F.R. 50.48(a). , D Operatmg license technical specifications are meant to be I;mited in scope to "those items that are directif related to maintammg the iniegrity of the physical barriers designed to contain radioactmty." 33 Fed. Reg 18.610 (1968). , E The Atomic Energy Act and the regulations which implement it contemplate that techni- - cal specifications are to be reserved for those matters as to which the imposition of rigid condi.
- tions or limitalmns upon reactor operation is deemed necessary to obviate the possibility of an .- ,
abnormal situation or event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public health and safety. -*
. Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB 53),9 NRC 263,271-74 (1979). ' ' ' * -
F Mere allegations are not enough to satisfy the standard for reopening an evidentiary record. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Didio Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2). CLI-815,13 NRC 361,363 (1981L - G A.nons the 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(l) factors that detern;ine the accep[ ability of late conten- , *. tions, a particularly important one is the extent to which the participation of the contention's sub- - ' ' mitter "may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record." -
- ALAB432 LONG ISLAND LIGitTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit I), , ,
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Eriergency Planning); OPER ATING LICENSE; March 26, 1986, DECISION
,,* t A Deferrms action on the applicant's appeals, the Appeal Board acts on the appeals of the
- miervenors from two Licensms Board decisions on emergency plannmg in this operating license
- proceedmg. The Appsal Board affirms the decisions in part and remands them in part. It directs , .
the Licensing Board, however, not to proceed with the remand ur.iess and until directed to do so .. V ,
, ,. (,
B by the Commission. lt is well-settled that a party may appeal from a Licensmg Board decision only if aggrieved
*? ec by the ultimate result - i e., the party wishes that result altered in some material respect. See + . .
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit II. ALAB-694,16 NRC 958 (1982),and cases there cited. e,
, ?,-."' #
*= <
N , C lt is estabhshed that a party prevaihng on the trial level may defend its favorable result ,- , on any ground that is supported by the record. In this connection, it matters not that the precise .' , claim (s) olTered as a basis for affirmance may have been urged upon and rejected by the trial i. tribunal. Of crucial importance is simply that an adequate record foundation for the claim be O'*',. present. See Commonwealth Edison' Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), .' .. -*. * ;, AL AB-793,20 NRC 1591,1597 n.3 (1984); Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, e , Umts I and 2), ALAB.57),10 NRC 775, 789 (1979); Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble y .- .,' y Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units I and 2), ALAB-459,7 NRC 379,202 (1978); Niagara ..' * , .' t 13
, 1 .
5 8
.I
.h 4
DIGESTS ISSUANCFS OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS ? i Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. Umt 2), ALAB-264,1 NRC 347,357 (1975) feiting Jafne v. Dunham,352 U.S. 280 (1957) and Cahforma Bankers Assn. v. Schuiti. l 416 U.S. 21 (1974D. D Appellate review is not intended to offer losing parties a forum for simply renewmg claims presented to, but rejected by, the trial tribunal Proceedings on appeat are intended to focus on sigmficant matters, not every colorable claim of error. ALAB 827. 23 NRC 9,11 (1986). E The emergency preparedness planning for a nuclear facihty is focused to a large estent ! on assuririg that prompt and efTective actions can be taken to protect the public from esposure
! to released gases or other radioactive material NUREG-0654 (FEM A REP.1). Rev.1. " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluauon 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 contamed in 10 C.F.R. 50 47(cH2) was cal-j culated in order to remove the need for site-specific calculations. NUREG 03% IEPA 4 520/t.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 1517,24and ill 7 through 111-8. j G Although the regulations provide that the esact site and configuration of a particular EPZ is to be determmed with reference to site specific factors, the wholesale enlargement cf the Commission-prescribed EPZs by a state cannot preclude a hcensing decision based upon thU 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 plume EPZ radius of, say, 20 or more miles." Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2) ALAB.781,20 NRC 819, 838 (1984) (quotmg Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generatmg Stanon.'Umts 2 and 31. LBP 8W9.15 NRC 1163.1181 (1982), aff'd, ALAB.717,17 NRC 346 (1983). affd sub nom Carstens v.
NRC, 742 F.2d 1546 (D C. Cir.1984), cert. demed.105 5. Ct. 2675 (19851). H A party seeking to impose a substantial change in the area of the Comnhssion's pre. scribed 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 smgle time on any alleged fact, no matter how inany contentions might rest upon the purported existence of that fact. But once that fact is estabhshed, there is no good reason why it cannot serve more than one purpose - i.e., to d buttress inultiple claims. 4 J "The Commission's emergency planning regulations are premised on the assumption that a serious accident might occur and that evacaation of the EPZ might well be neces-sary. . . As a corollary, a possible deficier.cy in an emergency plan cannot properly be disregard-
, ed because of the low probability that action pursuant to the plan will ever be necessary." Phila.
delphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generstmg Station. Units I and 21. ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 713 (1985).
, K Emergency response planning for nuclear facihines must make provision for the care of l persons removed from the plume EPZ should circumstances necessitate evacuation measures. ! L Section ll.J.10 h of NUREG-0654 provides that a relocation center must be at . cast five j miles, and preferably 10 miles, beyond the boundaries of the plume EPZ.
M Licensing boards are vested with broad discrenon m the conduct of the protecdings before them. Thus, so long as they have a rational foundanon, board determinahons on such questions as the timehness of motions are not hkely candidates for reversal. N Neither the law nor the Commission's regulauons dictase how many opportumnes an ap. phcant has to brmg itself into comphance with the Commission's regulatory rules. Consohdated
, Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point. Uma No. 2). CLI 8316,17 NRC 1006.1014 (1983).
I ALAB 833 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generstmg Station. Uma 1). , Docket No, 50-352-OLA (Check Valve); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; April 4
- 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1.
i e
, . , 5 a -
. - a , , * -
- . ~. a ..
e DIGESTS ' ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS <
, .* *^. -
A The Appeal Bosto denies the licensee's motion for directed certification of a Licensing - *
- Board ruling conditionally admitting an intervenor in this operating license amendment
. 7, ' , ,
proceeding. -. 0'I*' ,', ,
> ' ; P 1,
- B Even though a late petitioner seeking to intervene demonstrates standing to be heard ' ~
- . . 1. ,
and good cause for being late, unless that petitioner also submits an acceptable contention, inter. ' ' vention may still 5 denied. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wm H. Zimmer Nuclear Power , * * " Station), ALAE-D5 11 NRC 860,865 (1980). * ' C The basse structure of an ongoing adjudication is not changed simply because the admis- *
' l '
i - sion of a contention results from a licensing board ruling that is important or novel, or may cor.-
- flict with case law, policy, or Commission regulations. Similarly, the mere fact that a party must , -
litigate an additional issue, or that a matter will be subject to adversarial exploration rather than - staff review, does not alter the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual way so
- as to justify interlocutory review of a licensing board decision. Commonwealth Edison Co- (Braid- ' *
- wood Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-88 7,22 NRC 470,474-75 (1985).
D ** Claimed violations of the Commission's Rules of Practice, standing alone, are not enough to warrant invocation of the Appeal Board's discretionary interlocutory review of a licens-
' (
ing board ruling. This is especially true where another remedy is provided by the Rules of Practice. " E The grant of a petition to intervene is appeatable immediately on tite question whether . the petition should have been wholly denied. See 10 C.F.R. ( 2.714a(c); Zimmer, il NRC 860; ~ Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy Center Units 2 and 3), ALAB-472,7 NRC 570 (!978). ALAB 834 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limenck Generating Station, Units 1 and , 2), Docket Nos 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL; OPER ATING LICENSE; April 9,1986; MEMOR AN-DUM AND ORDER - A The Appeal Board demes an intervenor's motion to reopen the record and introduce a - new contention in this operating license proceedmg. B , To prevail on a motion to reopen the record, a movant must demonstrate that (1) the !
^
motion is timely; (2) it addresses a significant urety or environmental issue; and (3) e different result might have been reached had the newly proffered material been considered initially. Loui- . . siana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Umt 3), ALAB-753,18 NRC 1321, - ' - 1324 (1983), review dechned CLI-85-3, 21 NRC 471,473 n.1 (1985). The most important of - *# these criteria is whether the motion raises a significant safety or environmental issue. * ~ ALAB-828,23 NRC 13,19 (1986).
- AL A B-835 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limenck Generating Station, Unit I), . .
Docket Nos. 50-352 OL A.I (Check Valve), 50-352-OL A 2 (Containment Isolation); OPER AT. -
~+
- ING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Apnlll,1986: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Appeal Board denies intervenor's motion for a stay of the effectiveness of two '
hcense amendments under which Unit I of the Limenck Generating Station is currently operating. ' 8 Whether requesting a tay from an appeal board under 10 C.F.R. I 2.788 or one under '
. e- '-
its broader authonty as the Commission's delegate under 10 C.F.R. I 2.785, a movent must N show that it is entitled to this equitable relief based on an analysis of four factors: (1) Whether
- * *l,' i the moving party has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits; (2) Wheth- * *
[,,'. er the party will be irreparably iryured unless a stay is granted; (3) Whether the granting of a * . , , ; ~- ' stay would harn, other parties; and (4) Where the public interest lies. See Northern Indiana ,# Public Service Co (Bailly Generating Station Nuclear l) ALAB-224,8 AEC 244,272 (1974),
- reh's denied, ALAB-227,8 AEC 416 (1974), rev'd on other grounds, Porter County Chapter of , ,
the Iraak Walter League v. AEC,515 F.2d $13 (7th Cir.1975), rev'd and remanded,423 U.S. . , 12 (1975). ' C The second of the four stay factors, irreparable iryury, ts often the most important in
# ** 'i ,.
- 5 determining if a stay is warranted. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limenck Generating Station, Units
- I and 2), ALAB 789,20 NRC 1443,1446 (1984). *
- D d ,
Speculanon about a nuclear accident does not, as a matter of law, constitute the immi. , nent, irreparable injury required for a stay. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear
- Power Plant, Units I and 21. CLI-84 5,19 NRC 953,964 (1984).
- 15
, 8 9
,, __y --,-__.r-_ - --m.-, , . _ . ,
k i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS E A party seeking a stay is required to demonstrate that the claimed irreparable injury is both certam and great, Cicseland Electric illummatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Umts i 4 and 2). AL AB-820,22 NRC 743. 747 (1985). ALAB-836 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generatmg Station. Umts I and 2). Docket Nos. 50-352-OL. 50-353-OL: OPER ATING LICEN5E; May 7.1986; DECISION A The Appeal Board affirms, subject to an addiuonal license condition, the Licensms Board's third partial imtial decision in this operating license proceedmg. LBP 8514. 21 NRC 1219 (1985), with one exception; that matter relating to the availathhty of an adequate number ' of bus drivers to evacuate students, is remanded to the Licensmg Board for further prompt action. B' Appeals that are not briefed are considered waived. See 10 C.F.R. 4 2.707; Pubhe Service Co of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station. Umts I and 2), ALAB-461. 7 NRC 313. 315 (1978): Mississippi Power and Light (.o. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. Urms I and 2). AL AB 140. 6 AEC 575 (1973). C The purpose of an evacuation time estimate (ETE) is to provide information (i e.. the time required to evacuate the emergency planning tone and any unusual problems) so that emergency coordinators can decide what protective actions (such as sheltenns or evacuation) might be necessary. The Commissmn's emergency plannmg regulations. however. do noi set any particular ume limits for evacuation of the plume emergency planmng zone. Cinemnati Gas & Electne Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. Unit No.1). ALAB 727.17 NRC 760, 770-71 (1983). D NUREG-0654/ FEM A. REP-1 " Criteria for Prepeation and Evaluation of Radiological 4 Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" IRev. I 1980) (hereafter, "NUREG-0654"), simply serves as guidance for the NRC staffs review and 1 does not presenbe regulatory requirements. ALAB-819,22 NRC 681,710 (1985).
- E There are four categories of radiological emergencies. They are (in ascendmg order of sig-mGcance) "(1) notincation of unusual events. (2) alert. (3) site area emergency, and (4) general emergency." 10 C.F.R. Part 50. Appendia E. I IV.C.
F The purpose of an ETE in emergency planning is to provide a representative time frame i for evacuation so that emergency officials can make well-informed realistic decisions about pro-tective action opuons. An ETE need not be based on " worst case" assumptions See NUREG-l 0654. Appendiz .4 f especially at 4-6. 4-7). See also Zimmer,17 NRC at 770-71. # G The low probability that an accident requiring evacuation might occur is not an appropn. 1 ale consideration when determining the adequacy of an emergency plan. ALAB-819,22 NRC at
- 713. This does not mean, however, that the options provided for under the plan must assume. in j
addition, the presence of the worst conceivable estraneous conditions. See generally San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC. No. 84-1410 (D C. Cir. April 25, 1986). H Technical documents are properly excluded from the record in the absence of sponsorship by an appropriate witness See Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station. Units I and 2). ALAB-669.15 NRC 453,477 (1982). I I in general, contested issues should be resolved through the heanns process and not bc left for post-hearing resolution by the NRC staff. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (indian Point Stanon. Unit No. 2) CLI.74-23,7 AEC 947,95152 (1974). J Findings in the emergency planning area are essentially predictive in nature: an emergency plan need not be Gnal in every detail, just sufficiently developed to permit the "rea-sonable assurance" Gnding required by the Commission's regulations,10 C.F.R. ( $0.47(a)(l). ' Consequenoy, in some instances post-heanns venncation by the staff of emergency pinnirs measures is not an improper delegation of decisionmaking authonty to the staff. See Lreu%na j Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station. Unit 3), ALAB-732.17 NRC 1076, 1103 04 (1983). K The determmation of the overall adequacy of medical arrangements, specifically required by 10 C.F R. ( $0.47(b)(12), is not a proper subject for post hearing staff oversight. See ALAB-819. 22 NRC at 711 15. L Even if a licensms board wrongly demes a party cross-examination the complaining party must demonstrate actual prejudice. See Waterford 17 NRC at 1096. i 16 } 1
,_ _ c . , , . .. 4 a ._ m. - :c . DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS , M issues not raised before a licensing board cannot be properly raised on appeal. See ALAB-819,22 NRC at 699 n.20; ALAB-828,23 NRC 13,20 (1986). ,
' %,* *i -
.2 N While Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Gndings constitute rebuttable ' -*4~: *
- 3 '~*
presumptions on the adequacy of state and local emergency plans (10 C.F.R. 4 50.47(a)(2)). it is < .! * , g, , , , , ' not the NRC's function to momtor FEM A's work for comphance with that agency's own regula- - tions. See Memorandum of Understanding Between Federal Emergency Management Agency *
,.* ( .'* "
and Nuclear Regulatory Commission,50 Fed. Reg. 15.485 (1985), which sets forth the respective . , emergency planning responsibihties of, and the areas of cooperation between, FEM A and the , , NRC. . O A hcensms board's consolidauon, on its own initiative, of parties with "nbstantially the ; same interest . . and who raise substantially the same questions"is emphcitly authorized by the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 C.F.R.12.715a. Consohdation can, of course, be improper . if it resulis in prejudice 1o an mtervenor, Statement of Pokey on Conduct of Licensms Proceed- ,. *
- 5 ings, CLI-818,13 NRC 452,455 (1981).
P Although the Commission's Rules of Practice do not expressly refer to the imposition of ~ ,' time restrictions on witness examinahon, this is clearly among the necessary tools an NRC adju. 5 .. dicatory board possesses to regulate .he course of a hearing - providmg there is no prejudice to the rights of any party. See 10 C.F.R. il 2.718,2.743(c),2.757. See also Statement of Pohey,13 - NRC at 453. Q A merc demonstration that a licensing board erred by curtailms cross-exammation is not
- sulTicient to warrant appellate rehef. The complainmg party must demonstrate actual prejudice -
i e., that the ruims had a substanual effect on the outcome of the proceeding. See Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-813,22 NRC 59, 75 76 (1985); Houston ' Lighting & Power Co. (South Texas Project. Umts I and 2), ALAB 799,21 NRC 360,376-77 - (1985). . R A party is bound by the hieral terms ofits own contentions. ALAB 819,22 NRC at 709. -
~~
S Offsite ernergency plans need not be final before a board can make the reasonable assur. -
- ance Gndmg required by 10 C.F.R. l 50 47(a)(1). See, e g.. Waterford,17 NRC at 1104; Detroit '
Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant. Unit 2) ALAB 730,17 NRC 1057,1066 (1983). T A contention that the ten-mile EPZ concept does not afford a 'ree protection to people ressding near a nuclear power plant amounts to a challenge to the Corhn..ssion's emergen-( -. .
=,
cy plannmg regulanons and is thus barred by 10 C.F.R.12.758. - - U Hearsay evidence is generally admissible in NRC proceedings. Cleveland Electric illu- - ' * - mmating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-802, 21 NRC 490, 501 n 67 (1985). See also Mobile Consortium of CETA v. Dep's t4 Labor,745 F.2d 1416,1419 n.2 (lith . . Cir.1984). ** V Neither 10 C.F.R. ( 50 47(bH5) nor Planning Standard E of NUREG 0654 speciGes the *'
- means for nonfymg emergency workers; they simply require that such procedures be estabhshed. .
W lt is the apphcant's burden to prove reasonable assurance that adequate protective mes-sures can and will be taken in an emergency. See 10 C.F.R. 4 50.47(aHI); Consumers Power J, .
, , r, Co. (Mediand Plant, Umts I and 2), ALAB 123,6 AEC 331,345 (1973).
- X- , , -
- t ,c Under 10 C.F.R. ( $0 47(c)(1), emergency planning deficiencies could result in the sus- 'l I '
- pension of an outstandmg heense unless it is demonstrated "that [the] deficiencies . . are not .. -
signi6 cant for the plant in question, that adequate interim compensatmg schons have been or ,
,-[' '
will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons to permit plant operation."
- Y Formal FEM A review of state and local radiological emergency plans is not triggered '
- until the state has reasonable assurance of the adequacy of the plans and apphes to FEMA for
- 3 ,
Gnal approval. See 44 C.F.R. ( 350.7. - ALAB-837 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant). Docket No. . .. 50-400-OL; OPE R ATING LICENSE; May 29.1986; DECISION , A The Appeal Board affirms the first partial initial decision in this operating hcense proceed-ins, LBP-85 5,21 NRC 410 (1985), in which the Licensing Board determined that the final envi-e ronmental statement for the Shearon Harris plant satisfies the National Environmental Pohey . O" O 17 e *
*O 4
- 6
_ g ._
u 1 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATO%IIC SAFETY AND 1.lCENSING APPEAL BOARDS
, Act and the Commission's implementmg regulations The Appeal Board also affirms earlier Licensing Board ruhngs rejectmg certain contentions and denying an intervenor's petition for a waiver of the Commission's rule prohibitmg the htigation of need for power and alternative energy source issues in operating hcense proceedmgs.
B When reviewing factual nndmss of a licensms board. an appeal board will overturn them only where it is " convinced that the record compels a different result." Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mise Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264. I NRC 347, 357 (1975). Accord Pacific Gas and Electne Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2). ALAB-781, 20 NRC 819,834 (1984); Northern Indiana Pubhc Service Co IBmtly Generatmg Station. Nucle-ar I), ALAB-303,2 NRC 858. 867 (1975) C All parties appearms before an appeal board, whether represented by counsel or a lay rep. resentative, have an amtmative obligation to avoid any false coloring of facts See Tennessee Valley Authonty (Hartsville Nuclear Plant. Umts I A. 2A,18 and 28). ALAB 409. 5 NRC 1391. 1395 96, reconsideration denied. ALAB-418. 6 NRC 1 (1977L D On appeal. "it is not enough (for a partyl simply to declare Dany that a particular Board ruhng was in error Rather, it is incumbent upon the appcIlant to confront directly the reasons as-signed for the challenged ruhng and to idenufy with particulanty the in6rmaties purportedly mherent in those reasons." Duke Power Co (Catawba Nuclear Station. Umts I and 2). ALAB-8I3. 22 NRC $9. 84 n.128 (1985L E "lAl party's fadure to submit a bner contammg sumcient information and argument to allow the appellate tnbunal to make an intelligent disposition of the assues raised . .is tanta+ mount to their abandonment." Catawba. ALAB 355. 4 NRC 397, 413. reconsideration demed, ALAB-359. 4 NRC 619 41976L See Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units I and 2), ALAB-693,16 NRC 952. 954-57 (1982); Pubhc Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Stanon Units I and 2). AL AB-573.10 NRC 775. 786-87 (1979), vacated in part and remanded, CLI 80-8.11 NRC 433 (1980).
, F In decidmg the ad nissib?tity of contentions, the validity of the factual allegations compns-i ing the ce . entions should not be considered. See Houston Lightmg and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station Umt 1), ALAB 590,11 NRC 542, 547 50 (IM; Duke 1 Power Co (Transportanon of Spent Fuel from Oconee to McGuire), ALAB 528,9 NRC I46,
, 151 (1979); Virgmia Electne and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 nd 2). ALA3-522. 9 NRC 54,56 (1979h Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear 5 i. hon. Untis I and 2). ALAB 130,6 AEC 423,426 (1973L G lt is settled that the doctnne of collateral estoppel should be apphed in NRC adjudicatory proceed.ngs to preclude a party to the heigation of an issue considered and decided m the con. . struction permit proceedmg from rehugatirig the mue in the operatmg heense proceedmg for the same reactor. Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 21, ALAB 182. 7 AEC 210, 21216, remanded on other grounds. CLI-7412, 7 AEC 203 (1974L See also Toledo Edison Co. (Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1. 2, and 3), ALAB-378. 5 NRC 557. 56I (1977). H Just as in the judicial contest, the purpose of collateral estoppel in administrative r'o-ceedmss is to prevent continuing controversy over matters finally determined and to save sne parties and boards the burden of rehtigalmg old issues. I An operstmg hcense proceeding should not be utihred to senash issues already venidated and resolved at the construction permit stage Farley, CLI 74-12,7 AEC et 203. J In order for the doctrme of collateral estoppel to apply, the individual or emity againu whom the estoppel is asserted must have been a party, or en pnvity with a party, to the carber hnganon Southern Cahforma Ednon Co (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Units 2 and 3), AL AB-673.15 NRC 688, 695, affd. CLi 82 II.15 NRC 1383 (1982); id., AL AB-717.17 NRC 346,353 54 (1983L The issue to be precluded also must be the same as that involved m the pnor proceedmg and the issue must have been actually raised, hogated, and adjudged. Addi. , honally, t*te issue must hee been matenal and relevant to the dispostuon of the Grst action. m that its resolution was necessary to the outcome of the earher proceedmg. Houston Lightmg and , Power Co. (South Teias Proget. Umts I and 2), LBP 79 27.10 NRC 503. 566 (1979). atFd. l 18 t g ,-._ - .m- ,-.,y .- m - . - ,,-- m.-- - - - _,-,---,.-.,--,..u~,w,-, . . , - - - . - - - . ., -y,-,- ...- - . -. --
, 3
'C t-DIGESTS .
ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS < ,, ALAB 575, ll NRC 14,15 (1980). Even where these requirements are met, however, the doc. trine must be "apphed with a sensitive regard for any supported assertion of changed circum. ! , ,,
. ,.' .' J * * ' *
- y
- stances or the possible existence of some special public interest factor in the particular case." ,'
Farley, ALAB 182,7 AEC at 216. fJ -*
- j K "Like a cause of action. *an issue may not be . . split into pieces (to avoid application of
- i. , . .
.l,.
- the doctrine of collateral estoppel' ffit has been determined in a former action, it is binding not. , . . w -
withstanding the parties litigant may have omitted to urge for or against it matters which, if urged, would have produced an opposite result.' Any contention that is necessarily inconsistent ' with a prior a4udication of a material and htigated issue, then, is subsumed in that issue and , . precluded by the prior judgment's collateral estoppel efTect." 1B J. Moore,3. Lucas & T. Currier. ' Moore's Federal Practice 10.443l2] at 76I (2nd ed.1984) (footnotes omitted).
- L A party who did not participate in the construction permit proceeding for 's reactor but -
who wishes to rehtigste in the operating hcense proceeding an issue already fully investigated at , , , the construction permit stage, although not collaterally estopped from doing so, has the burden *
- of providing much greater specificity with his contention than is typically required. Cf. Philadel.
. ~. ,'
phia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-804, 21 NRC $87, ;. t -
$90-91 (1985). See generally Southern Cahfornia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Umts 2 and 3), ALAB 717,17 NRC 346,354 n.$ (1983).
- M ll is well settled that in passing upon the admissibihty of contentions "it is not the func.
- tion of a hcensing board to reach the merits of any contention." Grand Gulf,6 AEC at 426.
Whether the contention ultimately can be proven on the merits is "not the appropriate inquiry at the contention-admission stage." Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station. Units , I and 2). ALAB 819, 22 NRC 681. 694 (1985), review denied, CLI 86-$,23 NRC 12$ (1986). See Allens Creek, ll NRC at $46-49. N A party to a proceeding before a hcensing board has no standing to press before an appeal board grievances of other parties to the proceeding not represented by that party. Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station Unit No.1). ALAB-631,13 ' " NRC 87. 89 (1981L See Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB.$$6,10 NRC 30. 32 33 (1979). Cf. Houston Lighting & Power Co. (South Tenas Project. Units I and 2), AL AB-799,21 NRC 360. 382 83 (1985). . - O The Commission's Rules of Practice require that "la]n appellant's brief . . . clearly identi- ,' * - fy the errors of fact or law that are the subject of the appeal." 10 C.F.R. ( 2.762(d)(l). See - ' Duke Power Co. (Catawbs Nuclear Station Umts I and 2), ALAB 825, 22 NRC 785,792 93 ' (1985L
' ~
AL A B-838 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSHIRE, et al. (Seabrook Station. Umts . N l and 2). Docket Nos. 50-443 OL, 50-444-OL (Offsite Emergency Planning); OPER ATING
- LICENSE; June 25,1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER '
- A The Appeal Board dismisses as interlocutory a state atiorney general's appeal from a
- Licensmg Board ruhng that resccted as the threshold the attorney general's sole pendms conten- . .
tson, on the ground that the denial of the contention did not dernve him of the right to contmue
- to participate in LL proceedmg inasmuch as the state that he represents was earher granted the status of an interested state under 10 C.F.R. 2.71$(c). .
l .' 1 8 If the petition for leave to ir.:er.<ne of a private htisant (necessarily filed under 10 C.F.R. 2.714) is denied in its entirety for want of an acceptable contention, the petitioner has
,l, *.
- the right to take an immediate appeal under 10 C.F.R. 2.714a By the same token. if all of the ac. ' *
/
cepted contentions of an admitted pnvate intervenor are disposed of adversely to that intervenor , during the course of the proceedmg (c 3., by summary disposition under 10 C.F R 2.749) an , . *- . immediate appeal may be leken under the general appellate provisions found bi 10 C F.R. 2.762. ** , Housion Lightmg & Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generstmg Station, Umt No.1), .; ALAB-629.13 NRC 73,77 n.2 (1981L ,
* * , j, C in carving out an enception to the general proscription against appeals from interlocutory . .
orders found in 10 C.F.R. 2.730(f) section 2.714a impincitly recogmzes Ihat the efTect of the ,
** g demal in its entirety of a private heigant's intervemion petition perforce is to foreclose any partic. ' ~7 spation in the proceedmg on the part of the petitioner. See Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick * '
19
=
DIGESTS ISSL'ANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS Generatmg Station. Units I and 2). ALAB 828. 23 NRC 13.18 n 6 (1986). Thus, as to that pets. . tioner, the demal is in essence a final order. D Section 2.715(c) of the Rules of Practice permits the representative of an interested state to participate in a licensing proceeding without the neceswty of submithng (and having accepted) a single contention. By the espress tertr$ of the secuon. that participation may include the intro-duction of evidence, the interrogation of witnesses, the Ghng of proposed Gndings, and the seek-ing of appellate review by an appeal board and the Commission itself. E Although an " interested State" need not take a position with respect to issues raised by other parues, section 2.715(c) provides that its representative may be required "to indicate with reasonable specincity, in advance of the hearing. the subject matters on which he desires to participate." F Only those orders which are directly concerned with the grant or denial of status as an in.
. tervenor are encepted by 10 C.F R. 2.714a from the general prohibition asamst interlocutory review A party may riot envoke that section to obtam interlocutory review of an order which does no more than esclude from consideration in the proceedmg certain of the issues *hich the party has sought to raise. Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Stanon. Umts I and 2).
AL AB-329,3 NRC 607,610 (1976). G Appeal boards employ their directed certification authority only where a licensing board ruims either threatens the party adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irreparable impact that, as a practical matter, could not be alleviated by a later appeal, or affects the basic structure of ths proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner. Pubhc Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generatmg Station. Units I and 2). ALAB 405. 5 NRC 1190.1892 (1977). ll Neither of the Marble Hill tests for directed certification ordinarily is satisfied where a licensing bnard simply admits or rejects particular issues for consideration in a case. Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant). ALAB-330. 3 NRC 613,615 rev'd on other grounds. CLI 76 l) 4 NRC 67 (1976). I Section 50.47(b)(10) of the Commission's regulations requires that a range of protective actions includmg sheltering and evacuation be developed for the public - the overall objective being the avoidance of as much radiation esposure as possible. See Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Po*~er Station. Unit No.1) ALAB-727,17 NRC 760. 765 (1983). 3 The emergency response plans for nuclear power plants rnust meet the specific standards of 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b) - or an applicant must demonstrate pursuant to 10 C.F R. 50 47(c) that compliance with section 50.47(b) is not necessary - in order for the Commission to be able to make the ufumate Gnding required by section 50.47(a)(IL 20 9
I . 1
- - - w . s -
1 .
-. \
l l l _ f. a: . , . . , DIGESTS '
# - . i '
- . - . i ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS * * *4 LBP 861 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Ofumboldt Bay Power Plant. Umi 3), a Docket No. 50133-OL A ( ASLBP No. 77-357-07-LAh OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT;
- January 14.1986. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER TERMINATING PROCEEDING '
A The Licensing Board grants Licensee's monon to withdraw its hcense amendmert apphca- ' lion and dismisses the proceedmg. LBP 86 2 PRECISION MATERIALS CORPOR ATION (Mme Hill. New Jersey irradiator Facihiy). . Docket No. 30 22063 (ASLBP No. 85-512 02 ML); MATERIALS LICENSE; January 28, 1986 ' ,, 3 MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER
! l BP 86-3 PHILADELPHI A ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generstmg Siation. Units I and _
- 25. Docket Nos 50-352-OL. 50 353 OL ( ASLBP No 81465-07-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE.
February 4.1986. FIFTH PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION A In this Parual Ininal Decision, the Licensms Board finds that the Licensce's onsite emergency plans demonstrale that adequale provisions have been made for medical services for ' j contam.nated iryured individuals, and concludes that the issue remanded by the Alomic Safety and Licensmg Appeal Board has been resolved. LBP-86 4 KERR4fcGEE CHEMICAL CORPOR ATION (West Chicago Rare Earths Facihtyh Docket No 40-206).ML (ASLBP No. 83 495-01 ML); M ATERIALS LICENSE. February 10 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensms Board grants mohons by Kerr McGee and NRC Staff to dismiss the i People of the State of Ilknois Contention AG-1 for their failure to comply wilh carher board dis-l covery ruhnss (LBP 85 38. 22 NRC 604 (1985). and LBP-85-46, 22 NRC 830 (1985)). The - Board also demes the People's motion for an entension of ume to comply with their discovery obhganons as the decision to impose tne sanction renders that request moot , 8 in determmmg whether to impose a sanction, and what that sanction should be hcensmg boards are guided by NRC regulanon 10 C.F.R 4 2 707, the Commission's Statement of Pohey - on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings. CLI-81-8.13 NRC 452 (1981). and NRC cases containmg
- other Boards' ruhngs on requests for sanctions. See Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear ,
Power Sianon. Units I and 2). ALAB-678.15 NPC 1400 (1982h Pubhc Sersice Co of New . Hampshire (Seahrook Stabon, Umts I and 2). LBP 83 20A,17 NRC 586 il98)h Duke Power Co (Catawba Nuclear Stat on. Umts I and 2). LBP 83 29A.17 NRC 1121 (1983L Northern - ' States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit I), LBP-77 37,5 NRC 1298 (1977). ' C The NRC Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensms Procedmss. CLI 818.13 NRC 452, 454 (1981) puts parucipants in NRC proceedmst on nouce that they must meet their obhga- *
; +
tions or sanctions may be imposed. In selecimg a proper sanction to impose on parues who disre. . - I ,- gard their obhgations, a board must consider specific factors: "the relative importance of the ' '
' ~
unmet obligation, its potential for harm to other parues or the orderly conduct of the placeedmg, .# whether its occurrence is an isolated incident or a part of a pattern of behavior, the importance , of the safety or environmental cc,ncerns rs'esed by the party, and all of the circumstances " Id
- D Parnes have a responebehly to respond to discovery to enable other parties to gam an un-derstandmg of the bases of their consennons m order to properly prepare their own cases, and be- . ' '
- cause thorough discovery mimmeres the possibehly for surpnse at heanng focusses teshmony
- and cross-enaminshon, and leads to a fully developed record ,
E Of the several factors considered in imposms a sanction, those addressing the relaisse im. portance of the unmet obhgations and potennal harm to othen parties or to the orderly conduct ' of the proceeding may he heavily weighted, as discovery is crucial to the conduct of a fair . proceedmg i I .
, 21 1
i a e e
- . - - - . - - - - . - + , - - - - - , - , - - _ ev ----ww-,.-w.-,,ww- h- - ,+ w g n w. r.w--w
. . . . . - - - . . . ,, . - . -~ - . - - - . . - . - , . .
i i 4 a DIGESTS } ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS i F A party may not delay in answerms emerrogatories even if such delay will not alTect the timing of the proceeding in its later stages. G A Licensing Board may be justified in imposing sanctions on a party for failure to meet discovery obligations because discovery provides the other parties to the proceedmg with factual information undergirdms the admitted contentions. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Sea. l brook Station, Units M 2). LBP 83-20A,17 NRC 586 (1983); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Un- .d 2) LBP 83-29A,17 NRC 1121 (1983). H If a party upt hom sanctions have been imposed files new or revised contentions out i' of time, the sanction will be considered in evalualms whether the petitioner sponsoring the con-tention can be espected to alaist in developing the record. See 10 C.F R. 4 2.714(a)(IHi-v); Duke Powe7 Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station. Umts I and 2), CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041 fl983L LBP 86-5 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. 79 421-07 OL); OPER AT- ! ING LICENSE; February 14. 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i A The Licensms Board grants an intervenor's motion to withdraw one of its contentions. j, Since the contention invohed a previously unresolved generie safety issue, the Board esammed I the Staffs resolution of that issue and determined that such resolution represented a plaus hle method for dealing with the issue.
. B A licensmg board in an operaimg license proceedmg must enamme unresolved generic 1 safety issues, even when they become uncontested, to determine whether the Staffs resolution I of the issue is ** plausible."
. C The following technicalissue is discussed: Overpressurization.
LBP 86-6 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Zion Station, Units I and 21 Docket Nos-50-295-OLA, 50-304-C LA ( ASLBP No. 84-500-06-LA); OPER ATING LICENSE AMEND. M ENT; February 19. 1986. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 1 A The Licensms Board demes petitioner's petition to intervent and dismisses the 4 proceeding.
' LBP 86-6 A PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limenck Generating Station, Umt 1).
Docket No. 50-352 OLA ( ASLBP No. 86 522-02 LA) (Check Valve); OPER ATING LICENSE 7 AMENDMENT; March 13. 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RULING ON ROBERT L. ANTHONY'S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
' LBP 86 68 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY flimenck Generating Station Uma 1).
- Docket Nos. 50-352-OLA 1 ( ASLBP No. 86-522 02 LA) (Check Valves), 50-352 OLA 2 (ASLBP No. 86 526-04-LA) (Containment Isolation); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT, March 14.1986. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING PROCEEDINGS AND 1'
SETTING SCHEDULE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES LBP 86-7 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Umts t and 2), Docket Nos, 50-496-OL. 50-457 OL ( ASLBP No. 79-410-03-OLh OPER ATING j LICENSE: March 28,1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A The Licensms Board rules on a motion to compel dncovery of matters on which attorney- ! client privilege and attorney work product envilege are asserted. B in accordance with recent NRC decisions, Rufe 26(htt4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is applied to permit discovery of a noniestifying espert only upon a showing of etcep-tional vircumstarres,
- C The input of counsel to documents required under the regulatory process and otherwnc
' discoverable cannot immJmle these documeNs from discovery.
'LBP 86-8
- HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POW ER COMPANY, et al. (South Texas Project. Umis I i and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-498-OL. STN 50-499 OL ( ASLBP No. 79-42107 Oth OPER AT-i ING LICENSE: March 28,1986; SEVENTH PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER A The Licensing Board issues a Preheanns Conference Order discussing issues for which i further hearings are sought.
i B There is no programmatic requiremem under the provisions of 10 C F.R Part 50. Appen. din B (setting standards for a quality assurance program for opera: ion) for a program to control the use and/or sale of illegal drugs by plant personnel. l i
! 22 4
l i e .
.m -.4 m.-,,,-,-w%- .-,_., y-,,m p y, y. , , , , , ,~-..%w% .y.y my_ _ _ _ u.,_,,~,..._-- m y,,...,,gy,,. ,y-,,. _%-,m,m ,,eg,w-
4 . - . +
. s A
. ,* -6 l:
g
, - ,i DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS '
C . ' '. ~. j, i Where the Commission has suspended a rulemaking pending the development of stand-ards by industry, and in the absence of any statement by the Commission that issues involved in c.
***g . . ,"?.*',.,.-
such rulemaking should not be htigated, there is no generic bar to a Licensing Board's considera.
'M . ,,?..
tion of issues which may fall within that rulemaking, under standards in effect prior to such
,f.,, ,
rulemaking or under ad hoc " reasonable assurance" cnteria where no programmatic standard:
- l, , , -
~
D exist. The Commission's Rules of Practice require that, for a contention to be htigable, there s
,' ' '3 .., ,
must be " bases for each contention se* forth with reasonable specificity." An anonymous tele- ,* , , E phone call to a party's representativa does not, without more, constitute an acceptable basis. The following technical issue is discussed: Quahty assurance program for operation.
's ,
LBP-86-9 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limenck Generating Station, Unit I), '. ' .- Docket Nos. 50-352-OLA 1 (ASLBP No. 86-$22 02 LA) (Check Valves), 50-332-OLA 2 * ' (ASLBP No. 86-526-04-LA) (Containment isolation); OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; '
* ** b Apnl 4.1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING AND DISMIS$1NG PETITIONS
[,' * , , . , ,. l , . FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TERMINATING PROCEEDING , *. ," LDP 8610 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Three Mile Island - , Nuclear Station. D t I), Docket Nos. 50-289-OLA.I. $0 289-OLA 2 (Steam Generator Plussms Critenah OPERA 1 NO LICENSE AMENDMENT; Apnl 9,1986; MEMORANDUM AND . ORDER , A The Board issues a Memorandum and Order which, inter alia, discusses. rulings on ad- . missibihty of contentions. 8 There are Gwe purposes for the basis for contention requirement in 10 C.F.R. ( 2.714.
- C The degree of specincity required involves the esercise of judgment by licensing boards on a case by-case basis. . '
D Section 2.714 of 10 C.F.R. does not require the petition to detail the evidence which will - be offered in support of the contentions. and it is not the function of a bcensing board to reach
* . =
the ments of a contention at this stage of the proceeding E At the petition level, all that a petitioner is required to do is to state the reasons (i.e., the basis) for each contentson. F - While the doctrme of colla eral estoppel may be raised in opposition to the admissibility !
- of a contention, the petitsoner may resist that afGrmative defense, in whole or in part, on grounds outside the record of the piior proceedmg. e g , he may claim that, since the conclusion .
of the prior proceedmg. *here has been a material change in factual or legal circumstances, or 2 that there esists some special pubhc interest factor in the case _ Confronted with such a claim, a *
- heensms boardJ nay not reject the contention as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. '
LBP 86-Il CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN . MUNICll*AL POWER AGENCY (Shearon Harns N uclear Power Plant). Docket No. 50-400-OL ( ASLBP No. 82-472-03-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; April 28,1986; FIN AL
- LICENSING BOARD DECISION -*. .' .
A . in this Fmal Licensms Board Decision the Board resolves two remainmg contentions in " Apphcants* Iavor and authorites the issuance of an operstmg hcense fcr the Shearon Harris *. Plant. The Board finds that drug use at the Shearon Harns construction sne has not been " wides- * '* pread" as alleged in the intervenor's contention. and further finds no evidence that drug use hat
, * - + _f*,
resuhed in any specine dencient work or any specific safety concerns at the Harris Plant. The *
- Board also Gnds that under summer nighttime conditions the combination cf siren mformal *.,
i siertms, and tone alert radio systems demonstrates comphance with the requirement of "esseru *
- hally 10&n" noti 6 cation withm 15 mmutes in the Grst 5 mdes of the Harris Emergency Plannmg *
- i. *
- Zone IEP7) , . ,
8 Ahhough the NRC has no regulations specifically addressed to drug use at a nuclear
. , 9'* ;*
power plani construction sne, ehere the evidence has estabhshed relationships belween onsite , ,, , use and the possibihty of de6cient work, an effective program to hold employee drug use to a * ! mmimum es an essential element of an apphcant's Quahty Assurance program, whether or not , , . formally no denommated . 23 e O
, t
-- - , , .- , , , , , . , - - , , , , , . . - . , , , y . .--.-.c- - . - , .- - - -
s DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS C In any SRC Inenung proceedmg. '.t FEM A Gndmg edi conustute a rebuttable presump-tion on questions of adequacy and implementation carabihty 10 C F R. 4 50 4NH2L Thus. the FEM A pouimn on an issue may be acceried if than issue is unconteued But er an intersenor contests such an issue. the rebuttabte presumption "dmoises" and the Ff M A teuimony is given no special weight "beyond that to which lit) would be entitled by sartue of the espertise of the witnesses and the bases presented for their views." Metropohtatt Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Uma 1). ALAB-698.16 NRC 1290.1298 (1982), afi's LBP 8159.14 NRC 1211,1460-66 (198D. D The NUREG-0654. Appendes 3 provisions concermns percentages of people to be alerted and times for alertmg m the 0-5 and 5-10-mile EP/s have the legal uatus of a Commisuon m-terpretation of 10 C F R 4 50.47(bH5) and Appendis E to Part 50, and are thus hmdmg on the beenung board. This legal staius does not. however estend to other provimons of NUREG-0654. Appendis 3. E Reasonable assurance of an alertmg raie higher than 95% under summer mghtiime comh-imns is acceptable in the first 5 miles of the EPZ. and therefor.c meets the NURFG.aM4. An-pendes 3 requirement of " essentially 100%" alertmg withm 15 mmutes in the Gru 5 miles The' 90% alertmg withm 15 minutes under summer mghttime conditions to be espected of the shea-ron llarns syseem is acceriable for the 510 mile EP/ LBP 86-12 COMMON % EALTil EDISON COMPANY f Braidwomi Nucicar Power Station. Umis I and 2). Docket Nos. 50-456-OL. 50-457 OL f ASLBP No 79 410-03 oll; OPER ATING LICENSE; Aptd 28.1986. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A In an operstmg bcense proceedmg. the Licenung Board rules on Apphc.mt's motion for partial summary disposnion by dismisung ume of the intervenors'subcomentions and by adopt. irig a number of matenal facts on the subcontentions not dismmed. B The Commisuon's rules govermns summary dispoution are analogous to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Alabama Power Co. IJowph M Farley Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2). ALAB 182. 7 AEC 210,217 f1974). C in operating Isense proceedmss, the burden of proof with respect to summary dispoution is upon the apphcant-movant. who must demonstrate the absence of any genume issue of mate-rial fact. Cleveland Electne lituminatmg Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Umis I and 21. AL AB 443,6 NRC 741,753 (1977L D in determmms whether a motion for summary discoution should he granted. the record must be viewed in the light most fasorable to the opponens of such a motion. Dairyland Power Cooperative (Lacrosse Boding Water Reactor). LBP 82 58.16 NRC 512. $19 il982L E Where the proponent of a motion for summary dispoution has met his burden. his oppew nent must set forth specific facts to demonstrate that there esists a genuine nsue of m.itenal feet for inal. Mere allegations and denials are not suMcient to oscrcome an otherwise persuause summary dispoution request. Virgima Electne and Power Co (North Anna Power Siation. Umts I and 2), ALAB 584. Il NRC 451, 453 (1980); Philadelphia Electne Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stahon Umts 2 and 3), ALAB 562.10 SRC 437,444 (1979L F on motion for summary disposition, the opposmg party need not show that he would pre. vail on the issues but only that there are genume issues to be ined. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Stamslaus Nuclear Project. Umt I), LBP 77 45. 6 NRC 159.163 81rv 77), ciims Poller v. CBS. Inc., 368 U S. 464. 473 (l%2); Amencan Manufacturers Mutual Ins Co. v. Amencan Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres. Inc. 388 F.2d 272. 280 (2d Cir.1%7L G In deciding a motion for summary disposition. the presidmg omcer has some leeway, under 10 C.F.R. ( 2.749, in acceptmg amdavits based in part on rehable hearsay. H in admimstrative proceedings, the presidmg omcer has some leeway in acceptmg hearsay testimony, if reliable, to shortcut what might otherwise be a laborious procedure in estabhshms the facts. I On summary disposition 10 C F R. ( 2.749(b)'s requirement that an amans be "compe. tent to testify to the matters." relates both to competence as an espert witness and competence as a fact witness. J In general, a fact witness is competent only if he has personal knowledge of the facts. t 24
+ . *
- s( . .
_ . . . _ . . ._ -~ s g . .
..,~.
- DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS * .
=,
f,, , . ,
- ~, - ;
K Although an administrative board can accept some hearsay to expedite and facihtate the adjudicatory process, it should not exclude fair opportunity for rebuttal of the evidence.
*N , ;\ y, .,* ,,g I, ,* , ,
L Where material facts appear legitimately in dispute and a witness with personal knowl-
-:- * .4/
*','e .
[ .'* i * ' edge, or a document relied upon, is readily availabic, the witness and document should be ' , *e . presented. . ~* . .* - * , '
. .. . . *< . r-M The leeway giver, an expert witness to base his testimony upon hearsay,if of the type rea-
- sonably rehed upon by experts in that field, does not permit the expert to establish material facts
** ,C "" O .:
of which he lacks personal knowledge. * ,/ , N ,.. A witness, if he is competent as an empert, may base his opinions on hearsay if of the : - , , Iype reasonably relied upon by experts in that field, but he cannot estabhsh material facts about which he lacks competence as a fact witness. ]# .
~
LBP-86-13 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclea< Power Station, Unit 11 . Docket No. 50 322-OL-4 (ASLBP No. 77 347-OlD OL) (Low Power'; OPERATING LICENSE; May 5,1986; ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING AS MOOT
. . ..- b
*
- I LBP-86-14 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATl')N (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit I). Docket Nos. 50-289-OLA l. 50-289-OL A 2 (Sicam Generator Plugging ,'
Criteria); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT: May 19,1986; MEMORANDUM AND *
- ORDER , .
A The Licensing Board issues a memorandum and order which memoriahres a prehearing . conference and rules on an intervenor's motion for a time extension and on scheduhng matters. B 11 is a besse principle that "a person who invokes the right to participate in as NRC pro- , credmg also voluntarily accepts the obligations attendant upon such participation? Duke Power r
. Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station Units I and 2). CLi-83-19,17 NRC 1041,1048 (1983). Mnre- .
over. "the fact that a party may have personal or other obhgations or possess fewer resources i, - than others to devote to the proceeding does not reheve that party of its heanns obhgations? * * - Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceedmss, CLI-818.13 NRC 452,454 (198th Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units I and 2). ALAB-819, 22 NRC . 681. 730 (1985); Wiscons,9 Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1). ALAB-6%, . . 16 NRC 1245.1261 n.29 (1982). Finally. "Id is well-settled that a participant in an NRC pro- ' *
+ .
cc-tding should anticipate having to manipulate its re+aurces however hmited, to meet its obhga- ! - tions " Wisconren Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1). ALAB-719.17 NRC e - * -
- 387, 394 (1983). ,, ,
C Neither the Licensee nor the Staff can be permitted to leave the presiding body and the other parties to the proceeding in the dark about any information which is relevant and material . . to the adjudication. Duke Power Cat (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station. Units I and 2), * * ' AL AB-14),6 AEC 623,625 (1973h Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units , I and 2). ALAB-291, 2 NRC 404, 408 (1975h Duke Power Co (Catawba Nuclear Station, * . Units I and 2), ALAB 355,4 NRC 397. 406 n.26 (1976h Tennessee Valley Authority (Browns
- Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1. 2. and 3), ALAB-677,15 NRC 1387.1394 (1982h Metropolitan . . *
.?
Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1). ALAB-774,19 NRC 1350,1357-58 (1984). Even if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the Board notification obligation, the
* *' q*
N
,(
3- * ,. , information should be disclosed for the Board to decide its true worth. Three Mile Island, supra, .
- at 1358. McGuire, supra,6 AEC at 625 n.15. *-
- D in proceedmg to hear those matters which are ripe for hearing, the Board comphes with
?., .
.j
* ~*
f the Commission's direction that the hearing process should move along at an expeditious pace.
- consistent with the demands of fairness. Statemem of Pohey on Conduct of Licensing Proceed- . . .
ings, CLI 818.13 NRC 452 (1981).
- E The Board's adoption of the procedural mechanism utihred in Commonwealth Edison ,
3
- Co. (Zion Station, Units I and 2), LBP 73 35, 6 AEC 86l. 865 (1973), aff*d, ALAB-226, 8 .I.
. , .,y. ,
AEC 381. 400 (1974) does not confbet with the decision in Union of Concerned Scientists v. F. " * *- NRC,735 F.2d 1437 (1984). . LBP 8614A PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIAN A. INC. and WABASH VALLEY POWER , 1 *
; r.' .t ASSOCIATION, INC. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station. Units I and 2). Docket Nos. * *-
- 50 546 0L, 50 547 OL (ASLBP No. 83-487-02-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE: May 30. 1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER DIRECTING BRIEFS i
i 25 0
, / .
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS LBP-86-15 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, et al. (South Texas Project. Umts t 5 and 2) Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL, STN 50-499-OL (ASLBP No. 79 42107-OL); OPERAT. ING LICENSE: June 13, 1986; PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION A The Licensms Board issues its second Partial Initial Decision in an operating license pro-ceedmg, resolving issues concermns the character and competence of the lead Applicant (HL&P) whi6h were raised by the Commission in CL;-80-32,12 NRC 281 (1980) and not pre-viously resolved by the Board's first Partial Initial Decision LBP-84-13.19 NRC 659 (1984). The Board grants summary disposition of several issues (or portions thereof) and also demes two motions to reopen the record. The Board determines that HL&P properly fulfilled the reporting re,uirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 $0.55(e) with respect to the Quadres Report, except for one addi-tional finding therein, which should have been submitted as "potentially reportable." In addition, the Board rules that, notwithstandmg a few instances of less than-complete disclosure to the Licensing Board, and subject to several conditions or caveats, the Apphcants currently possess adequate managenal character and competence to be permitted ta complete construction of, and to operate, the South Texas Project. The Board denies summary disposition of a portion of a con-tention questiomng the design of the facility to withstand hurncane. generated mistles and will require further development of the record on that contention. B Reportability under 10 C.F R. ( 50 55(e) is determmed by a three-part test, all parts of which must be satisfied; a de6ciency must be found, it must have the potential to affect safety adversely if left uncorrected, and it must fall into one of the four categones specified m 10 C.F.R. 4 $0.55(e)(IHi) through fivL C The ruquirements of 10 C.F.R. ( $0.55(c)(1)(iii) and (iv) apply only to construction defi-ciencies. To be reportable, design deficiencies must fall within 10 C.F R. ( $0.55(eHI)(il or (ii). D Failure to submit a "potentially reportable" item, as identified by Siafr guidance, is not a violation, smce the "potentially reportable" category stems from Staff guidance rather than regu-lation. But failure to submit as a potentially reportable item an item that later proves to have i been reportable constitutes a violation of NRC requirements that may lead to the impoetion of 4 penalties. 1 E Under 10 C.F.R. 4 50.55(e), neither inexperience nor slow accomphshment by a design i engineer is per se reportable. F A failure of an applicant to submit a requisite report to the NRC pursuant to 10 C F.R. j . 4 50.55(e) does r.ot, by iiself, renect a deficiency in character or competence. Additionally, to re. dect such a deficiency, such failure would have to be a dehberate breach of a clearly defined duty, a pattern of conduct to that effect. or an mdication of bad faith. G The McGuire docinne siems from a long line of Appeal Board decisions, entendmg as far back as 1973, which obhgate applicants and hcensees to keep liceneng or appeal boards in-formed - iewly developing information that is " relevant and matenal" to issues pendmg before such boards. The doctnne has been enunciated only through adjudicatory decimons and has not been promulgated into a rule or regulation. l H 18 is not improper for a party, in its proposed findmss of fact and conclusions of law, in seek reconsideration of an earher ruhng of a hcensms board, on the basis of new factualinforma-tion developed durms the course of heanngs and not .vailable when a motion for recontder. tion would normally have been required to have been submitted. I A failure of an applicant to inform a licensms board of information pursuart to the McGuire doctnne does not, by itself, renect a deficiency in character or competence. Additional-ly, it would have to be demonstrated that the failure to notify the Board was itself motivated by i or renective of a character deficiency. The additional showmg wnuld be Jhat the failure was a dehherate breach of a clearly defined duty, a pattern of conduct to that effect. or any indicatmns of bad faith ("a deman to mislead or deceive another"). 1 The timely submission of information to the NRC Stali (although not to a liceneng board) counters a claim that a licensee intentionally acted to conceal from such Board informa. tion that should have been furnished earher. Metropohtan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nucle. at Station, Unit IL ALAB 774.19 NRC 1350 (1984). 26 4 4
, . - - - - - .-m- g- ~.., m-- , ..- , . - , - . , , , ,,-.,.-_y . ._,-.<.y , y-- -.m., -w-.-tm .m .m.-------r--+y. --. ey.-.-. m- 1 y ,
. .* , ~
. .(
. M., . . . ,
'1 1. .<- - . . .-
4 *
.- , s m
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS o , s K Summary disposition of an issue may be granted if the filings demonstrate that there is
?- ' ' ' ~
no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a decision as a #
++ ' , .
*k. . *.'.' **. .
matter of law. The burden of proof is on an applicant /movant to demonstrate the absence of a . genuine issue. The record is viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent of such a ..- , . , T - ., motion. To preclude summary disposition, the opponent must set forth specific facts; naked as. sertions or general denials are insufficient.
*j ,
*, ' , ~. .
I L , , . ~'.,'~._ Failure to respond to a motion for summary disposition does not mean that the motion '
~~
must be gramed. A Board must still find no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Where significant hedth and safety issues are involved, a Board should only grant an Apphcant's motion for summary disposition ifit is convinced from s .
- the material filed that the pubhc heahh and safety will be satisfactorily protected. '
- M Perfecuon in plant construction and the facibiy construction quality assurance program is not a precondition for a hcense under either the Atomic Energy Act or the Commission's regula-tions. What is required is reasonable assurance that the plant, as built, can and will be operated without endangering the pubhc health and safety.
- N Summary disposition procedures may be utilized with respect to all or any part of the *-
matters involved in a proceeding. A licensing board may grant partial summary disposition of an issue, where such result is warranted. , O The purpose of the summary disposition procedures is not to deny a litigant the right to - a full hearms on legitimately disputed issues of material fact but, rather, to ensure that evidenti. . ary hearing time is not unnecessarily devoted to issues as to which there is no genuine issue of material fact. . P Under NRC rules, the structurcs, systems, and componems of nuclear power plants im- , portant to safety are to be designed to withstand the efTects of natural phenomena, including hur- . ricanes and tornadoes. They must also be appropriately protected against dynamic effects, includ- ' ing the effects of missiles.10 C.F.R. Part 50. Appendix A ( I, General Design Criteria 2 and 4. Q Under a currently effective Commission Policy Staiement (Safety Goat Development Pro- * - pram. 48 Fed. Reg.10.772 (Mar.14.1983)). safety goals and prehminary numerical design ob-y:ctives may not replace NRC regulanons as a licensms basis. Safety inferences from probabilistic
- risk analyses also may not be used to reach bottom-hne safety conclusions.
R Under certam circumstances, a failure to ec, form so regulatory requirements may be ' regarded as de mmimis and accepted on that basis. ' S Current NRC requirements regarding shift technical advisors are set forth in a Policy Statement on Engmeenns Empertise on Shift, 50 Fed. Reg. 45.621 (Oct. 28,1985). Since she Commission utshied notice-and-comment procedures comparable to those required for rulemak. *
- ing in adopting the Pohey Sistement, the Slaiement must be accorded considerable regulatory .
we'ght. *
- T Three criteria govern a mounn to reopen a record fiied before a decision has been ren- . .
dered (1) the motion must be timely filed; (2) it must address a significant safety (or environ- . ment 40 issue; and (3) is must demonstrate that the information sought to be added to the ,',
- record might potennally alter the result which would be reached in its absence.
U A licensms hoard cannot authorize discovery to permit a party to develop information to i' ' - ;
^
be used to ascertain whether the record should be reopened. a
- V The followmg technical issues are discussed: Quahty assurance; Reportable occurrences; Hurricanes and tornadoes. Enternally generated missiles; Probabihstic risk assessment; Shift e
. 1
*
- 6 J*
technical advisor program; Soils. ' L B P.86-16 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIAN A, INC., and WABASH VALLEY POWER ' ASSOCI ATION. INC. (Marble Hdt Nuclear Generating Station. Units I and 2), Docket Nos. ..
* ' ~ * * , .. .
50-546 0L. 50-547-OL ( ASLBP No 83-487-02-OL); OPER ATING LICENSE; June 18. 1986; 6 . MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER , , LBP 8617 GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPOR ATION (Three Mile Island , , Nucicar Station. Unis I). Docket Nos 50 289-OLA l. 50 289 0LA-2 (Sicam Generator Pluggms , Criteria). OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; June 18. 1986. MEMORANDUM AND
- ORDER .
b 27 4
+ + . ._ . . _, -. .._ _ _ - _
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS A The Licenung Board demes Licensee's monon to the estent ihai ei requests reconsidera-tion of scheduling as set forth in the Memorandum and Order issued on May 19 1986 i (LBP 86-14. 23 NRC 553). To preclude the Gling of a frnotous moimn to reopen the record. the Board parti.sily grants the motion by ordenng that any party must indicate in such a motion to reopen that the Licensee's test data and the analyses thereof in the Stafra SSER are w ugmn-cant as to change the result of the pnor heanng
. LBP 86-18 KERR-McGEE CllEMICAL CORPOR ATION tKren Creek Decontamination). Docket No. 40-2061 SC 1 ASLBP. No. 84-502-01 Sch SilOW C AUSE; June 19 1986; INITIAL.
DECISION A Upon consderation of an Order to show Cause nsued to require preparation of a reme-dul acten plan to clean up certam radiological contammation. Licenung Board rules that-l Junsdiction esists under the Atomic Energy Act independemly of the Uramum Mdl Tail-ings and Radiation Control Act to require that a remedwl action plan be prepared which is necenary or desirable to protect heahh because of the radiological contamination of Kren Crecit and the West Branch of the DuPage Rner
- 2. The radium in-soil standard pro.nulgated by the U.S. Enuronmemal Protecimn Agency under the Uranium Mill Taihngs and Radiation Comrol Act n not approrrute to protect health in the utuation posed by this radmiogical comaminanon 3 Part 20 of the Commisuoni regulations contains numene.nl radiological dose hmitations which are approprute to protect health m the utuation posed by tius radiological o
contamination. i 4 The record in th s proceeding does not demonstrate that the Part 20 numencal radiologi-cal dose hmitations are esceeded as a result of this contammatmn. j Order to Show Cause dismined. ' B The regulatory scheme set forth in Part 20 of the Comminion's regulations clearly mdi-cates that junsdiction esists to regulate a licensce's actnities to control radological doses regard-leu of whether those doses result from material which may be clasufied as special nuclear, i source, or byproduct material. C The radium-in-soil standards promulgated by the U.S. Ensironmental Protecuan Agency under UMTRCA are not appropriate to protect health in the situation presented by this radiologi-cal contamination because the principal hazard is gamma radution. not radon or thoron D The numerical radiological dose hmitations contained in Part 20 of the NRC regulanons
. are appiicahic to matenals licensees and are appropriale to protect he lth where the pnneipal hasard is gamma radiation.
LBP 86-19 B ABCOCK AND WILCOX (Parks Townshm. Pennsybama. Volume Reduction Faciht9 Docket No. 70 364 ( ASLBP No. Sl5-5ll-014tLh M ATERIALS LICENSE; June 23. 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A In this Memorandum and Order, the preuding Admmntraine Judge rules on the admis-sion of supplemental complaints and establishes procedures and a schedule for further j proceed'ngs. s B The degree of specificity with which the baus for a complamt must be alleged imtully in-j volves the esercise of judgment on a case-by case basis. In the esercise of this judgment. it is ap-I propriate to keep in mind the purpose of the baus-for-contention requirement as set forth by the
- Appeal Board in Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stanon. Units 2 and 3).
ALAB 216,8 AEC 13,20 21 (19741.
- C The procedures to be followed in heanns inues admitted in this informal proceedmg are
- established pursuant to the Commnsion Order directmg the institution of the proceeding.
L' LBP 86-20 TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY. et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electne Sta-tion. Umts I and 2). Docket Nos. 50-445-OL. 50-446-OL ( ASLBP No. 79 430-06 OLh OPERATING LICENSE; June 26.1986; MEMOR ANDU M A In this Memorandum, the Licenung Board espresses prelimmary concerns during the early stages of an intensive program interided to verify the adequacy of the Comanche Peak Plant in order to permit Apphcams to make mid-course corrections in their study plan should they choose to do so. 28
-m._ v.._- . - , - - . ,__ , 4.-#-m-, -..,_r_ _ . , c.-._,- .,,%.- -,.,..m,..,,,. ..r-,y_- y my n,, yms,,m,7 -,e .,.m,,.~m_m-..-y , - .
<y 3 *
- ~~. .~ . -
,j g . . . . ,1 , 't 3 , ' / DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS ,
R , - - h is appropriale for a Board to inform parties ofits preliminary concerns at an early stage . .- of a length study, review process. This permits Applicants to make mid-course corrections that might be more expensive or time-consuming if made at a later date. *
, ,,3 ,. .h ,
C .**
- i'*,
- The following technical issues are discussed: Sampling, to review adequacy of design . .
e - and construction; Trending of discrerencies or deficiencies; Statistics, effect of inter observer
- rehability. ,
L8P-86-21 PACIFIC OAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. - Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50 275 OLA. 50 323 OLA (ASLSP No. 86-$23-03-LAh OPERAT. . ING LICENSE AMENDMENT; June 27,1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER a A In this Memorandum and Order, the Licensir.g Board rules on the admissibility of con-tentions considered at a prehearing conference. The Board finds that all petitioners have filed at
- least one admissible contention, and admits them as intervenors. .
8 The mere fact that otherwise unidentified allegations are under investigation by two Com. mission offices does not constitute a particularized issue for litigation in this proceeding. '
- C The fact that a geologic repository site for nuclear waste is not being considered in Cali-
- fornia, allegedly in part because of seismic conditions, is not relevant to the decision to permit ,
6 - or deny expension of a spent fuel pool. The safety considerations. including engineering criteria and seismic forces governing the design and construction of an aboveground spent fuel pool with
- a life of several decades differ substantially from those for construction of a permanent, under-ground repository that musi remain stable for thousands of years. ,
D The thrust of( 132 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is that federal officials are to encour-age utilities to use and add spent fuel storage capacity. The requirement that the views of the population surrounding a reactor be considered goes to the congressional program of encouraging onsile interim storage, not to the question whether the public health and safety and the environ-
- ment are protected by the terms of any license. This very admimstrative proceeding is one mechanism for ascertaining those views.
e e h , . 4
- S y % .O g
- s. ,
+
e y v*
* *
- e
- s -
r
- e
. b s
- I .
'. , s.
l . 29 I l r .
l . i. i . . B
~
1
- i s
DIGESTS
~; -,, ,
~
ISSUANCES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE '
. . ~
ALJ-86-1 KENNETil L. BURTON, Docket No. 55-60575 ( ASLBP No. 86-515-01 SP) (Senior
- i Operator License for Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3); SPECIAL PROCEEDING; Janu-
- ary 27,1986. ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING ALJ-86-2 NORTH AMERICAN INSPECTION, INC., Docket No. 30-20982. License Nos.
37-23370-01. EA 85-01 (ASLBP No. 86 516-010T); CIVIL PEN ALTY; April 15,1986; MEMO- . RANDUM AND ORDER TERMIN ATING PROCEEDING e
. ~
j e l I i e i I I i a , l i o I I l 6 9 ~ f 4-'
- e e 9 g I.
e e v 4 e e-e 6 0 8 s, * .
> 0 $
0 0 a 38 w v ow,s- --- - - , - , - - - - -
4 4 I
.. ' :. *. ., ...* . ,j
~ .
DIGESTS - ISSU ANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISIONS
- DD-85-19 ARK ANSAS POWER AND 1.lGHT COMPANY (Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit I),
Docket No. 50-313, SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear , Generating Station), Docket No. 50 312; FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION (Crystal River . Unie No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant). Docket No. 50 302; DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. * (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units I. 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 50-269, 50 270, 50-287; GENERAL ' PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), . . . Dockel No. 50 289; REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 29, 1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION
- UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206 A The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies the petition of Mr. John -
Doherly requesting institution of proceedings to show cause why the operating hcenses for certain f named facihties should not be suspended or revoked until alleged problems associated with oper- ( stion of control rod drive mechanisms at the facihties are resolved. D D.86-1 3 PHILADELPillA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Lirr.erick Generating Station Unit I), - Dockei No. 50-352; REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 21, 1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION y e UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206 - A The Acting Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation denies petitions filed by Robert L. Anthony and Frank R. Romano which sought revocation of certain esemptions from NRC regu. ( f ? lat#ons issued by the NRC Staff for operation of Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1. The peti- " - - leoners had not identified any safety or environment'al information that would warrant a change in the StafTs previous conclusions regarding the esemp ions. i/Z
; E B in the absence of an adequate factual bases
- f a petition or a nexus between the issues 1 E .
~
raised in the petition and the request for rehef, no a: tion need be taken on a petition under 10 : l C F.R. ( 2.206. Matters which are before the Board in a licensing proceeding are not the ap. , propriate subject of a ( 2.206 petition. - DD 86-2 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY (Callaway Plani, Unit it Docket No 50 48). RE. J > QUEST FOR ACTION, February to,1986. DIRECTOR'S DECitlON UNDER 10 C.F.R. ' 4 2.206 ' A j . The Director of the Ofrece of Inspection and Enforcement denies a petition filed by Alan - *
$ Nemes on behalf of the Missouri Coahtion for the Environment and Kay Drey. The petition ,
requested action with respect to the Callaway Plane Umi 1, based upon issues concerning the cer- , - tificaison and quahfication of quahty assurance inspectors to conduct inspections at the Callaway , - facihty.
- B The grantmg of an NRC operating hcense does not hinge upon a demonstration of error. ' ' '
free construction. Rather, what is required is simply a finding of reasonable assurance that, as . - . btailt, the facihiy can and will be operated without endangering the public health and safety. , . [, C Sccison 2.206(a) requires petitioners to set forth the facts that consiliute the basis for , their requess
- D The requirements of Regulatory Guiden 1.8 and 1.58 for quahrnaison of inspection rer- '
sonnel are discussed - i E Not every violation compels the suspensson or revocation of an operaimg keense. Such action tould be appropriale if there has been a pervasive breakdown of quahiy isssurance. . . F Acceptabihty of the licensee's quality assurance program under 10 C.F R. Part 50, Appen- ' dis B is discussed t 33
- - . . - , _ . _ m# . _ . _ - + - , _ , _ _ _ , _ , _ _ . . _ _ _ - - _ ..- _, ,_%_,--m,-_. -,- .w.- .,- _ . , , . . , ,v,-
DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS
- DECISIONS DD-86-3 NUCLE AR FUEL SERVICES. INC. (Erwm. Tennessee Pland. Docket No. 70-143. RE-QUEST FOR ACTION; Ntarch 3.1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. 4 2.206 A The Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement demes in part a petition Gled by the Oil. Chemical and Atomic Workers Internatiorial Union requesting that the Commissmn investigate certain allegations and take other action with regard to Nuclear Fuel Services' Erwin.
Tennessee facihty. The request rested on the claim that the nonbargammg umt workers carrymg out hmited operations at the facihty as a result of a strike are neither trained nor quahfied to per. . form the work, thus posmg a threat to pubhc health and safety. The Director determmed ih.it the Staff h.id already investigated the specific allegations raised in the petition and taken appropre-ate enforcement action, and that the further relief requested in the petition was unwarranted B Not every violation of the Commission's regulations o* bcenses compets suspensmn or revocation of a hcense. C In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, a violation mvolvmg a failure to per-form an adequate search, resu' ting in the entry of a weapon on the ute, is noimally clasuflcd as a Seventy Level lil violanon and warrants conuderation by the NRC of the proposed impoution of a civil penalty. D D-804 CLEN ELAND ELECTRIC ILLUNilN ATING CO\lP AM. ei al (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Umts I and 2). Docket Nos. 50-440. 50-441; REQUEST FOR ACTION. Nfarch 18. 1986. . DIRECTOR'S DECISION UN%ER 10 C F R. 4 2.206 A The Director of Ihe Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulahon demes a petition Gled by Donald L Schlemmer on behalf of the Western Reserve Alliance and demes in part a petinon filed by Susan Hiatt on behalf of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy. The petition filed by the Weuern Reserve Alhance requested that the Commission suspend construction and other activi-ties as the Perry plant on the grounds that the seismic design of the facihty is inadequate in hght of an earthquake which occurred January 31. 1986, and take other actions with regard to the Perry facihty The petiuon filed by Ohio Citizens for Responuble Energy requested that the Com-miscon not authortie fuci loading or issue an operating hcense for the Perry plant uniel certam actions have been completed in connection with the earthquake mcluding mspectmg the facihty for damage which may have resulted, invesogatmg the earthquake, and reevaluating local scis-micity. Th e Director determmed that the StalT had already estensively investigated the carth-quake and its effects upon the Perry structure and equipment and is reevaluating the geology , and seismology, and that no adequate bass eusied to grant the additional rehef requeued by the pettisoners B The Commission has ruled that 4 2.206 is not an appropriate avenue for rehef where an issue is pendmg. or has been considered, or could have been raised before a tmard m an ongomg adjudec. Imn C Under 10 C F R. Part 100. Appendis A the deugn basis for carthquakes must he dcier-mined through evaluation of the geologic and scismic history of the site and surroundmg regmn. The largest carthquakes occurring in the ute region must be assessed. D lt is not unusual for an earthquake to have high-amphiude. high-frequency peak accelera-tions of hmited durahon. These high-frequency peak accelerahons are noi used in scahng Reguta-tory Guide 160 design spectra because they are usually of short dura vn and have hitic energy and are not representauve of spectral response at the lower. more ugmfkant frequencies E Appendis A to 10 C F.R. Part 100 descnhes procedures in be followed in determimng whether a fault is capable and whether the nuclear power plant is required to be designed 10 with-stand the effects of surface faultmg.
- F Section 2 206(a) of 10 C F R. requires that a pennoner " set forth the fais that tonstitute the haus for the request " Absent such a showing. no action need be taken on a request G The Director, upon receipt of a request to meteate an enforcement proceeding, is not re-quired to accord presumptive vahdsiy to every assertmn of fact hy ,a petitmner Rather, his role is 10 make an inquiry appropriate to the facts asserted and to obtam and assess the informatmn he beheves necessary to make that determination.
34
=. 4
;. st .
...._m.. r.- -.1
- 4 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS
- DECISIONS ,
DD.86-5 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Lirnerick Generating bation, Unit 2), **< *
- Docket No. 50 353; REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 21. 1986, DIRECTOR *S DECISION * *
, , , . * , , , . . [, ,
. . . . ** * . " ,le . .
UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206 ; -* ;
- A The Director, OfRce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, denies a petition filed pursuant to *
, * [t* ' .-
10 C.F.R. I 2.206 by Marvin 1. Lewis on behalf of himself and Citizen Action in the Nortl. east - requesting the immediate suspension and ultimate revocation of the construction permit for the ,
+ k *
*0 Limerick Unit 2 facility. The Petitioners argued that recent findmss by an Administrative Law '
Judge of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission demonstrate that Unit 2 is economically I * * *
- unviable that the cost / benefit ratio required to be evaluated by the NRC under the National En. -
vironmental Policy Act is now unfavorable and, consequently, the construction permit should be revoked. l
- DD 86-6 , '
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station. Unit I), , Docket No. 50-352; OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; May 13. 1986; DIRECTOR'S DE. ** . CIS!ON UNDER 10 C.F.R. { 2.206 i '
- A A request for a stay of a May I3,1986 amendment to the Limerick Unit i Operating l .
-* . + * ,* '
License wtich was filed by R.L. Anthony and the Friends of the Earth is denied under 10 C.F.R. i ( 2.206 because it failed to ra:se substantial health or safety issues warranting suspension of the license amendment which permits a limited entension of time for certain equipment , surveillances. , DD.86-7 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY Uoseph M. Farley Nuclear Planu Units I and 2),
- Docket Nos. 50 348 A,50 364 A; R EQUEST FOR ACTION; June 16, 1986 DIRECTOR'S DECI-SiON UNDER 10 C.F.R. ( 2.206 >
A The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation grants in part and denies in part a petition y of the Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc., which requested action to enforce the antitrust condi. - tions incorporated in the licenses for Alabama Power Company's Farley Nuclear Plant. A Notice - of Violation under 10 C.F.R. ( 2.201 accompanies the decision and describes the circumstances in which the Director agrees that Abbama Power Company has violated the antitrust license . condissons. 9 . S
- p e
e
* =
. e
, a
- e
- i '. ; -
~
~
- s .. e , '*
e ' e / *
. , p.* ,
t e s, 4 e g . 35 a 0 0 e
- .- -. -- - _ . ~ . . - . _ - - - . -. -
_ .. u. . . _ u - 4 i i i i ) -
.- .
- f. .
1 ' p', . i DIGESTS - ISSUANCE OF DENI Al. OF PETITION FOR RUI.EM AKING . * " 1 i f DPRM-861 A N. TSCll AECllE. Docket No. PRM 20-16. RULFM AKING DENI4l.: Arni 23 1926. DENI AL OF PETITION FOR RULEM AKING A The Nuclear Regulatory Commmion is denyms a petition for rulemaking submitted by ' i . , A.N Tschacche The petitioner requested that the Commisuon amend its regulaisons to sute " ' ' ' i' ' that full complunce with the Commmion's regulaisons is evidence acceptable in a court of law
- l ,,
- that the hcensee was not negligent, and that the Commisuon's regulations must be violated .
} before a pnma facie case is pleades* on the issues of neghgence and causation in any action to recover for injunes claimed to have resulted from esposure in iomimg radution The Commis.
)
j won is denpng the peleison because it es inconument with she intent of the Commmion's regula.
- [
Isons and because the Commisuon lacks the legal authonly to grant the peleisoner's request '
- B The Commmion has no legal authonly to promulgate rules of evidence for the courts. -
l l C Fvidence of comphance with the Commisuon's nucicar safety regulaisons constitutes evi.
.- I dence of a perwn's havmg acied reasonably but is not conclusive proof of the absence of neph.
yence Silkerwxt v Kerr.McGee Corp., 485 F. Supp. 366. 577.79 IW D. Okla 1979). afTd in [: l pari and rev'd m part. 667 F 2d 908 (10th Cir 1981), rev'd and remanded. 464 U.S. 238 (1984). - on remand. 769 F 2d 1451,1457 58 (1985). ' f l D The Commisuon's reduiion protection sundards are noi intended in establish absolute i . } unfe leveh of caposure below which it can be concluuvely presumed that no injury could occur. I - l Rather. in view of scieniiric uncertainty about radiation exposure, the Commisuon requires its - heensees to ensure th.it radiaison caposures are kept "as low as is reasonably achievahic." 7 -- E Pursuant to 10 C F R. 4 2 802(e) the Commission may seek public comments pnor lo - 7 denying a pclition for rulemaking. however, it is not required to do so. ^ ,, l
, l
?
/ . .
T
'e
- r *
. b l
s 7
- 9
* .e* .
"t p
. . . p.
g e , e' O e*
. 4 0 ,
e g _\e & , I a-s .
, e a .' (
b & i e I I q 37 e t
i 4 . l 4
\ -
i i 4 I < ,
)
.[
i , ;. .* .. 1
- LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX .
l CASES , i
+
=
, . i Adsches v Kress & Co.,398 U.S.144,159 (1970) ,
sesult of failure to provide evidentiary support in opposition to summary dispostlion motion,
- 1 LBP-8615,23 NRC 633 (1986) ,
,)
l Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Umts I and 2). ALAB 182, 7 AEC 210, i l 21216, remanded on other grounds, CLI 7412,7 AEC 203 (1974) . j purpose of collateral estoppel docinne in NRC proceedings. AL AB-837, 23 NRC 536 n.30. 537 -
. i n.34 (1986) a 4
Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), AL AB 182,7 AEC 210. 216 l ,, 1 (1974) circumstances appropnate for summary disposition of contentions. LBP-86-19,23 NRC 827 l (1986); LBP-86 21,23 NRC 852 (1986)
- 1 Alabama Power Co (Joseph M Farley Nuclear Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB 182,7 AEC 210,216, 4
218-19, remanded on other grounds, CLI-7412,7 AEC 203 (1974) / j grounds for resistmg the opposition to admission of a contention on basis of coII41eral estoppet. - LBP 86-10. 23 NRC 286 n 4 (1986) Alabama Power Co (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant Umts I and 2), ALAB-182,7 AEC 210. 7 l 217 (1974) / tules governmg summary dispossiion in NRC proceedings. LBP 8612,23 NRC 417 (1986) d , - Amencan Manufacturers Mutualins Co v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc.,388 F.2d 272. 280 (2d Ctr.1967) 3-7 - j showmg necessary by opponent of summary disposition motion; LBP-8612,23 NRC 418 (1986) - - J Ansona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generstmg Station, Units I,2, and 3), ALAB-713, ! - , 17 NRC 83 (l%83) - 1 precedential effect ofissue resultmg from sua sponte review ofissue not clearly withm the scope [ l of the proceedmg. LBP 86-6,23 NRC 186 n 3 (1986) - Barry v Barchi,443 U.S. 55 (1979) ~ comphance of pnsthcarms on admmistrative action with due process requirements CLl 86 4,23
., j NRC 122 (1986) *
~
[ Boston E dison Co (Pilsnm Nuclear Generat.ng Station, Umt 2), ALAB 269,1 NRC 411 (1975)
- esception to prosenption asamst appeals from mterlocutory orders. AL AB-838. 23 NRC 591 .
(1986) ' ,
, e Boston Ldison Co. (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Station). ALAB-816,22 NRC 461,466 (1985) admissibility of late filed contentions in light of waiver of objections by all panies CLl 86-8. 23 . i NRC 251 (1986) ,' i'
- Boston Edison Co (Pilgnm Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-Sl6,22 NRC 461,466-67 (1985) '-
- r need for late petitmners to address five factors and affirmatively demonstrate that those factors '
*
- J' favor granting petition CLi 86-8,23 NRC 253 (1986)
- Brooks v. AEC,476 F.2d 924,928 (D C, Cir.1973) (per curism) .
hearing nghis on construction permet estension. CLt-86-4,23 NRC 121,122 (1986) ', - i Cahforma Bankers Ass'n v Shulit. 416 U.S 21 (1974) , grounds for defense on appeal of favorab.e result; AL AB 832,23 NRC 141 n 9 (1986) *
.' + *
- Carolma Power and Light Co. (5hearon Harns N., clear Power Plant), LBP-85 27A 22 NRC 207
=
(1985)
- standard for grant of summary disposition motions. LBP.86-15,23 NRC 633 (1986) '
Carolma Power and LisSt Co (5hearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant). LBP 85-49,22 NRC 899 (1985) standard for admission of consensions on emer8ency plannmg. CLI-86 II,23 NRC 580 n I (1986) . 39 1 d
- - . ~ - - - - - -
- _. _ . , . _ . .- - - - ~ _ - - . . . , - . -- . . - - - - -
4 4 i-. i - I J
, LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES 1
Carnhna Power and Light Co.15hearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant. Unns I and 2) LBP-82 Il94.16
. NRC 2069,2070-7I (1982) i scope of specincity requirement for contenuons; LBP 86-19. 23 NRC 827 (1986); LBP 86 21. 23 NRC 852 (1986)
C.irohna Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harns Nuclear Power Plant. Unos I and 2). LBP 83 27A.17 j NRC 971. 976 79 (1983) J showmg necessary for discovery of facts or opimons of a nontesofying eurert; LBP-86 7. 23 NRC I?8 n.Il(1986)
- Cincinnati Gas and Electne Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), AL AB 595,11 NRC 860 (1980)
- I appealability ofintervemion orders; ALAB-833,23 NRC 262 n.12 (1986)
, Cincinnati Gas and Electne Co. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station). ALAB 595,11 NRC 1 860. 865 (1980) ! comention requirement for intervention; AL AB 833,23 NRC 261 n 9 (1986) i Cincinnati Gas and Electnc Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Stanon). LBP 812.13 NRC 36.
4 40-41 (1981) i standard for grant of summary disposition motions; LBP 8615. 23 NRC 633 (1986) 1
' Cincinnati Gas and Electne Co. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Stanon. Una 1). ALAB 727.17 NRC 760. 765 (1983) scope of protective measures to be included in emergency plans; ALAB-838. 23 NPC 593 n 25
! (1986) l Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. Umt l). AL AB 727.17 i NRC 760. 770-73 (1983) time hmits for evacuation of EPZ; ALAB 836. 23 NRC 486,490 91 (1986) l a Cincmnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. Umt 1). AL AB-727.17 NRC 760. 772 (1983); LBP 82 47 !$ NRC 1538.15% 98 (1982) i role confhet by bus drivers dunns radiologecal emergency; ALAB-832. 23 NRC 154 n 66 (1986) Cincinnau Gas and Electric Co. (Wilham H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1). ALAB 727.17 i NRC 760. 773 74 (1983) $ , need for a hearing on the adequacy of Applicant's emergency commumcation st stem; j ALAB-836,23 NRC 495 n,23 (1986) Cincmnati Gas and Electric Co (William it. Zimmer Nuclear Power Stanon. Una 1). CL182 20.16 NRC 109 e 1982)
- Staff resoluuon ofissues outside of the adjudicatory comest; CLI-86 7. 23 NRC 236 (1986)
; Cmemnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1). LBP-83 58.18 j N RC 640. 66) (1983) showmg necessary on other factors when good cause is not shown for late 6hng of contenuons. !
3 CLI 86 8. 23 NRC 244 (1986) i Cincmnati Gas and Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Stauon). LBP 812.13 NRC 36,40-41 j (1981) 4 standard for grani of summary disponnion motions. LBP-8615,23 NRC 633 (1986) ! Cleseland Electnc filuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plani. Unos I and 2). AL AB-443. 6 NRC 4 741, 75) (1977) i burden of proof wah respect to summary disposition; LBP 8612. 23 NRC 417 (1986); i LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 632 (1986) Cleveland Electne lilummaung Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 21. ALAB-443. 6 NRC 741, 754 (1977)
] result of failure to provide evidentiary support in opposition to summary disposition motion; LBP 8615,23 NRC 633 (1986)
. Cleveland Efectne Illummaung Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2). ALAB 802,21 NRC j 490. 492 93 (1985) requirements for drug abuse programs; LBP 86 II. 23 NRC 303 (1986) Cleveland Electric illummaung Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Unos I and 2). AL AB 802,21 NRC b 490. 501 n 67 (1985) l admissibihty of hearsay evidence in NRC proceedines. ALAB 836,23 NRC $09 (1986) r I ! 49 i I [ i I i e 4
-,,nn,,. - --en,. -,_,v--,------m-- ,_n..r,,m.m ,,mw,,,~w.,- u,.---.
. ,- . - -n-,,n n_ . _,m,w,,e m
- e, . -
. .,; . _ . --..o . t- - - _.1 i 5 ' p
- LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX '
CASES Cleveland Elecine lilummalms Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Umis I and 2). ALAB-802. 21 NRC *
' y' 490, 502 (1985) , t. ,',
test for esamemns claims of breakdown in quehty assurance program; LBP 86 II,23 NRC 304
..' '- [.*[- .-
n.4 (1986) ' I.* ' ".% . f**.
. ,' > ./;*
7 ", Cleveland Electne lilummaims Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Umts I and 2). ALAB 820,22 NRC -
, , , . , ',i 743, 747 (1985)
- i .
burden on movant for a stay; ALAB-835,23 NRC 271 n.Il (1986) , ; , ,, Cleveland Electne Illuminatms Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plani. Umts I and 2), DD 8514,22 NRC 635,642 n 4 (1985) . , , . , types of reteef contemplated under 10 C.F.R. 2.206; DD-86-4,23 NRC 214 n.1 (1986) sa Cleveland t 9 'nc illuminating Co (Perry Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2). LBP 82 Ild,16 NRC
- 1909. 191I 18 (1982) , ,. ,
Board authonty to grant partial summary disposition of an issue; LBP 8615,23 NRC 634 (1986)
- s Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Umis I and 2), AL AB 817. 22 NRC *
.I.
470, 474-75 (1985) , t , , changes in the basic structure of a proceedmg for purpose of obtaining directed certificalion; i ** *
= '
ALAB 833,23 NRC 261 (1986) * . , Commonwealth Edison Co (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station. Umis I and 21, ALAB 817,22 NRC - 470, 476 79 (1985) claimed violations of Rules of Practice as grounds for discretionary interlocutory review; * ' AL AB-833,23 NRC 261 n.Il (1986) Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power station, Umis I and 2). ALAB-678,15 NRC 1400, 1417 (1982) ' factors considered in determmms whether to impose sanctions for failure to respond to
- discovery; LBP-86-4,23 NRC 81 (1986) ,
Commonwealth Edien Co (Byron Nuclear Power $tation, Umts I and 2), ALAB 770,19 NRC II63, 1175 (1984) , scope of post hearing authority delegated to NRC Staff. LBP 8612,23 NRC 421 (1986) ' Commonwealth Edison Co (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 793,20 NRC 1591, 1597 n.3 (1984) grounds for defense on appeal of favorable result. AL AB 832,23 NRC I41 n.9 (1986) ~ Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station Umts 1 and 2), LBP 8130A,14 NRC 364 369 (1981) need for commencement of discovery to await issaance of Safety Evaluation Report; LBP 8617, 23 NRC 795 n.5 (1986) *
- Commonweatih Edison Co (Byron Nuclear Power station. Umts I and 2),l.BP.84 41,20 NRC 1203, 1220 33. af("d, ALAB 793,20 NRC 1591.1598 99,1607 (1984) s',
cnteria for reesoluation of quahty assurance inspectors' work; LBP 86-ll,23 NRC 356 (1986) * . Commonwealih Edimn Co (Zion Station. Umis I and 2), LBP.73 35,6 AEC 861. 865 (1973), affd, ALAB 226,8 AEC 381. 400 (1974) , .
~*
y
- issuance of decision in advance of confirmatory iesting. LDP 86 le,23 NRC 563 n.7 (1986) *
, , , . . . * *4 standard for reopemng a record where discovery has commenced prior to issuance of Safety . ,* ,-
- Evaluation Report, LBP.8617. 23 NRC 796 (1986) , , ,
Consohdated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point. Umt 2), CLI-74 23,7 AEC 947,95152 (1974) 6ssues appropriate for post hearms resolution by NRC Staff. ALAB-836. 23 NRC 494 (1986) *
- r
e. Consohdated Fdison Co. of New York (Indian Point. Un6 2). CLI 8316,17 NRC 1006.1014 (1983) . , number of opportunities for an Apphcant to bring itselfinto comphance with Commission f * * , emergency plannmg regulations. ALAB-832,23 NRC 160 n.97 (1986) y Consohdated Edison Co. of New York tindian Point. Unit 2). CLl 85 6,21 NRC 104),1092 (1985) , , need to consider additional design alternatives for mitigation of severe accidents in high population density areas. CLi 86 5. 23 NRC 126 (1986)
* ,. ' ,, d'\**.
Consohdated Fdison Co of New York (Indian Point. Umts 1,2, and 3), CLI 75-8. 2 NRC 173,176 . ; (1975) . standard for grant of request for suspension of effectiveness of heense amendment; DD 86 6. 23 . i ['
- NRC 57) (1986) ,,
t 4I 6 0 e i a 3
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Consumers Power Co t %dland Plant. Umts I and 2). AL AB 106. 4 AFC 182,184 l19731 scope of quahty assurance contenoons. LBP 86-8. 23 NRC 187 41986p Consumers Power Co I%diand Plant. L'mts I and 21. AL AB 12). 6 Al C 331,345 (1973> proof that adequate protectne measures will be taken m an emergency. \L All 816. 23 NRC $18 (1986) Consumers Power Co t %diand Plant. Umts I and 2). AL A8 458. 7 NRC 154.162-63 (19781 sigmGcance of cost m euluating alternatne energ) sources. DD-86 3. 23 NRC 231189866 Consumers Power Co I%dland Plani. Umis I and 2), CL183 2.17 NRC 69. 70 n 2 (19836 responubihty of parues in mform Boards of relevant informanon; i BP 86 l$. 23 NRC 67311986)
. Consumers Power Co (%dland Plant, Umts I and 2). LBP-82-6).16 NRC $71. $89 f19821;
. LBP.82.ll8.16 NRC 2034,2017 39 (1982) htigabehty of drug control mues. LBP 86-6. 23 NRC 186 (1986l Dairpland Power Cooper 4tne Il aCrowe Boilms % ster Reactor), LBP 82 $8.16 NRC $12. $19 419221 kghi m whet-h record is reuewed. in determimns summary dnpout on mot.nns. L BP-8612. 23 NRC 417 II986>. LBP 8615. 23 NRC 632 f1926) Defenders of % ddhfe. Inc s I ndangered Speues SciennGc Authorsey. 6$9 F 2d 162.18182 ID C Cir ), tert. demed 434 U.S 9n) i1941) Lnenung floard authority to impose time limits on mtersenor's errm-esammanon, \l \ll 236. 23 NRC $0! n 39 t19A6B Detroit Edmon Co linnco F ermi Atomic Power Plani. L'mt 2p. AL AB 707.16 NRC 17t4.1761 (1982) standard for grant of appeal of Lnenung Board determmanon on 4dmnubdiev of comennons. AL AB 828. 23 NRC 21 n 19 l1986) Detroit Ednon Co (Entno Ferm Aiomic Power Plam. Umt 2). ALAB 730.17 NRC 1047,1066 (19831 , Gnahiy required of emergency plans for reasonable awurance Ondmg At. AB.836. 23 NRC W (19866 Detrmt f dnon Co (Ennco Ierme Atomic Power Plant. Umt 2). DD 84 il.19 NRC 1108. lito n 2
#1984) i) pes of rehercomemplated under 10 C F R. 2 206. 00 86-4. 23 NRC 214 n I (1986)
Detnut Edison Co (Greenwood Energy Cemer. Umn 2 and 31. AL AB 472. 7 NRC $70 t19746 appealahikt) of miersenhon orders. Al AB.833,23 NRC 262 n 12 (1986) Duke Power Co f Amendmens in Alaterials i nense SN\l 177) - Transportanon of 5peni i ucl f rom Oconce Nuclear Station for Storage as \fcGuire Nudear Siation), AL AB.528,9 NRC 146.150 & n 7 (1979) hmited appearance statemene as a means of protectmg a peniumer's mierests. 41 %B-A2A. 23 NRC 22 n 29 419466 Duke Power Co ( Amendment to staienals Lnense SNWif 7) - Transportanon of spent fuel from Ocence Nutlear Slanon for Storage at AttGuire Nuclear Suhon), AL AB-631.14 NRC 307,317 (1981> need for enuronmental awcwmem of esempoons from regulations. DD-86 l. 23 NRC 46 n 9 f1986) Duke Power Co ICaiawN Nustear Sianon, Umts I and 21. AL AB-359,4 NRC 397. 40r. n 26 t19166 obhgaimn of parties to mform Boards of vgni6 cant new mformahon. I BP-A614. 23 NRC $60 f1986) i Duke Power Co 'CatawN Nutlear suison, Umn I and 2). AL A8 393,4 NRC 397. 41). retonuder4 hon demed. Al. AB 339. 4 NRC 619 41976) consequente of f4 dure to bnef mues on appeal. AL AB-817,23 NRC $14 n 2t) f19A6) Duke Power Co ICauwN Nudear Stanon. Umn I and 2). Al AB.)$9. 4 NRC 619,620 21 (1976, burden of sainf)my reoremns requiremems. Cll 861,23 NRC $ (1986) Duke Power Co ICaumba Nudear Suhon. Umts I and 21, AL AB 687,16 NRC 460. 464 819R2), saused in part on other grounds. CLl-8) 19.17 NRC 1041 (1983) thanges n the Nec structure of a proteeding for purpose of obtaining diresled scrtiGulion. AL AB-83). 2) NRC 26118986> 42
.- u 4 . -. - -
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES
.f Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear $tation, Units I and 2), ALAB-813,22 NRC $9,64 72 (1983)
. * +
test for esamining claims of breakdown in quality assurance program; LDP 86-II. 23 NRC 304
- s ...'.'.",,
n.4 (1986) *.
* * *, . + ,'
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-813,22 NRC $9, 73-76 (198$) ~ ' *
- establishment of prejudice in Board's limitation on cross-enamination; ALAB 836,23 NRC $02 *[.
.** * ** * (*
(1986) '
, Duke Power Co. (Catawbs Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-St),22 NRC $9,77 (1983) A s
amount of population to be alerted dunne first 13 minutes of an emergency; LBP 86 il,23 NRC - 372 n.36 (1986) ' Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Umts I and 2), ALAB 813,22 NRC $9,84 n.128 (1983)
- content of bnefs on appeal; ALAB-837,23 NRC $33 n.19 (1986) *
- failure to briefissues on appeal; ALAB 837,23 NRC $43 n.$8 (1986)
- Duke Power Co. (Catawbe Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-823,22 NRC 783,792 93 (1983)
- coment of briefs on appeal, ALAB 837,23 NRC $43 n $8 (1986) *
* 'O Duke Power Co (Catawbe Nuclear $ission Units I and 2), CLI 8319,17 NRC 1041 (1983)
- cntens for admission of new contentions addressing dran FES; LBP 86-4,23 NRC $7 (1986) *
- test applied to monons to reopen that introduce new issues; ALAB-831,23 NRC 64 n.) (1986) l '
Duke Power Co (Catambe Nuclear Sistion, Units I and 2), CLl 8319,17 NRC 1048,1043 (1983)
- deadhne for reopenmg a record where discovery has commenced prior to issuance of Safety Evaluauon Rennrt; LDP 86-17,23 NRC 797 (1986) *
.l Duke Ppwer Co. (Catawbe Nuclear Stauon, Units I and 2), CLI-8319,17 NRC 1041,1048 (1983) responsibihues of partees to momsor pubhcly available documents; ALAB-828. 23 NRC 18 n.9 (1986) '
responebehues of pernes with limited resourses; LBP 8614,23 NRC $$8 (1986) Duse Power Co (Catawbs Nuclear Station, Unite I and 2), LDP 82 Il6,16 NRC 1937,1946 (1982) - specinoty required of contentions about 6ssues not speciGcally covered by NRC rules; LBP-86-19, 23 NhC $28 (1986) specencity required of contentions about issues not specincally covered by NRC rules; LDP 86 21, 23 NRC 832 (1986) Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Stanon Umts I and 2), LDP 83 88,17 NRC 291,293 95 (1983) grounds for rejection of spent fuel transportspon contennons; AL AB-837,23 NRC $43 n.59 - (1986) ., Duke Power Co tCatamba Nuclear $lanon Uneis I and 2), LBP 83 29A 17 NRC 1121,1823 (1983) factors considered in driermemns whether to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery, LBP-86-4. 23 NRC $l (1986)
- Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear $tauon, Unets i and 2), LBP 84 37,20 NRC 933,979,988 89 (1984), alt'd. AL AB-813,22 NRC $9 (1983) adjustments to plume EPZ on the basis oflocal condinons. AL AB-832,23 NRC 149 n 40 (1986) .
Duke Power Co (Cherokee Nuclear 5tation Umts I,2 and 3), AL AB 4$7,7 NRC 70 (1978) , motions to esceed pose limit for appellate bnefs. AL AB 827,23 NRC 11 n 3 (1986) *'
- Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear $ianon. Umts 1,2, and 3), AL AB el$.12 NRC 3$0,352 33 (1980) 5
. , / . ,
- burden of persusuon on lateness factors for admissibehty of late filed contentions; CL186 8,23 '
s, ; * * , . NRC 232 (1986) '
, , , ~.*
- the factor test for admissibihiy oflate-filed contensions; CL186-8,23 NRC 232 (1986) . .
, r, -
Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Stanon, Units 1,2, and 3), AL AB 664,15 NRC 430 (1982) * ' d* * '
- jurisdiction over motion to terminate operaung license proceedms, LBP 8614 A,23 NRC $66 #
o (1986) e ' Duke Power Co. (Transporianon of $nent Fuel from Oconee to M4uire), ALAB 328,9 NRC la6, ', - l$1(1979) . ,- , consideranon of vahdity of a coniennon's factual allegations at the admission stage; AL AB.837, a J.',** 23 NRC $35 n 26 (1986) ' " * ** Duke Power Co (Wilham B M4 Wire Nuclear Stanon, Umts I and 2) ALAB 843,6 AEC 623,623 ', ' (1973) , , obbganon of parties to inform Boards of segmGcant new informanon; LBP 8614,23 NRC $60 ' (1986) 43 f
.-m .j__.__,__-,_. _
s _._ _ _- .m ' _ . - .
. __. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . . . _ . . _ ~ .
I I LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX casts i Duke Power Co. (William B WGuire Nuclear Statinn, Umts I and 2). ALAB l43 6 AEC 623. 4 625 26 (1973) reportabihty under 10 C F R. 50 35(e) of contractor's safety report or Sour'i Tesas Project, LBP 86-15,23 NRC 679 41986) r Duke Power Co. tWilliam B. WGuire Nuclear Stanon. Units I and 2) AL 48-669,15 NRC 453,477 : (1982) admissibility of eudence lackms espert sponsorship; AL AB 836. 23 NRC 494 n 22 (1986) i Duquesne Light Co. (Besver Valley Power Sianon, Uma 1), AL AB 109. 6 AEC 243. 244 t19731 circumstances appropriate for summa 'y disposinon motions; LDP 86 l9. 23 NRC $27 (1986), LBP-86 21,23 NRC 852 (191a) Final Rule on Emergency Planmns. CLI 80 40,12 NRC 63611980) vanation m alerting requirements relative to distance from center of an EPL LBP 86.ll,23 NRC 369 (1986) I Fire Protection for Operaung Nuclear Pnwer Plants (10 CFR 50 48), CLI 81.ll.13 NRC 778. 782 n 2
. (1981) bmding effect of NUREGs and FEM A emergency planmns criteria on Licensms Boards; i LBP 86 II,23 NRC 368 (1986)
Florida Power and Light Co 151 Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. Uma 21 AL AB 420. 6 NRC 8. 23 , i i1977). aft'd, CLI.7812. 7 NRC 939 (1978) i means for protecting a pensioner's interests; ALAB 828,23 NRC 21 n 24 (19116) i General Elecine Co (Vallecitos Nuclear Center, General Electric Test Rextor). AL AB.720.17 NRC 397,402 n.7 (1983) precedential effect ofissue resulting from sua spanie review ofissue not clearly within the scope j of the proceeding; LDP.86 6. 23 NRC 186 n.3 (1986)
- General Electric Co. (Vallecitos Nuclear Center. General Electric Test Reutor). LBP.78 33,8 NRC 461. 463 48 (1978) showmg necessary for discovery of fuss o' opimons of a nonieshfymg espert; LBP 86 7. 23 NRC 178 n I (1986)
, General Pubhc Unlitics Nuclear Corp. (Three %Ie Island Nuclest 5:4han. Umi, I and 2. Oysier . Creek Nuclear Generstms 5 stion) CLI 85 4,21 NRC Sol. 563-64 (1985)
I use of 2.206 remions to obtain relief on 6ssues thei are the sutyect of ongoms licensing l proceedings, DD 861. 23 NRC 43 n 6 (1986); DD 86 4. 23 NRC 214 (19865 j Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogile Nuclear Plant. Umts 1 and 2). ALAB 291,2 NRC 404,408 (1975) obdgat6on of parties to inform Boards of memlicant new enformahon; LBP-8614,23 NRC 560 (1986) Georgia Power Co. ( Alvin W. Vogile Nuclear Plant. Umts I and 21. DD 79 4. 9 NRC $82. 584 85 (1979) j 4 need to reconsider environmental decisions when new informanon becomes available; DD 86 5, a 23 NRC 230 (1986) ,
? Gulf States Ut hties Co. (River Bend Sianon, Units I and 2) ALAB 129,3 NRC 607 41976) j obusanons of interested state participant to indicate issues on whech it wishes to participate.
ALAB-838,23 NRC 590 n.ll (1986) Gulf States Utahues Co (River Bend sianon Umts I and 21, ALAB-444,6 NRC 760. 772 73 (1977)
, bindme effect of NUREOs and FEM A emergency planning criteria on Licensms Snards, ! LBP.86.ll,23 NRC 368 (1986) llouston Lighung and Power Co ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating 5tauon, Umt 1), AL 48.!82, il l N RC 239, 242 (1980) t bats for appellaie decisions. ALAB-828. 23 NRC 20 n 17 (1986) i llouston Lighung and Power Co. ( Allen, Creek Nuclear Generet.ng station, Umt I). AL AB 590,11 1 NRC $42. 54 *.50 (1980) i contdersuon of vahdity of a contention's factual allegations at the admmion siage; AL AB 837, !
l 23 NRC 535 a 26,54l n $3 (1986)
; i i
t J t - l 44 ~ i : i n 5 . L
]
~ . ... ,
,~, . .;,
- r. . s . . - .J:: ..~a.. ~ .. . ., ,
3. 8, LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX - CASES Houston Lighting and Power Co. ( Aliens Creek Nuclear Generating Siauon, Unie II. AL AB-$90, ll NRC $42, $48 (1980) A'
*-:,.3 need to detail evidence supportmg contenoons at the admission siege: LBP-8610. 23 NRC 285 l*1 3 . * * ! ** / ^* ,V*d n.2 (1986) *2i
* ~
,,y' ,
Houston Lishung and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung sianon, Unit I). AL AB $90, il L, .' - + '
.i .6,'
NRC $42, $48, $50 (1980) . circumsiances approprisie for summary disposition of contentions. LBP-8619,23 NRC 527 ) *. 4 * * (1986); LDP 86 21,23 NRC 852 (1986) Houston Lighung and Power Co ( Allens Creek Nuclear Genersung Siation, Umt 1) AL AB409.12 - NRC 172,173 n 1 (1980)
' t ',
obliganons oflawyers a,ed lay reprewntauves to adhere to Rules of Pracuce; CLi-86 8. 23 NRC '* * ' 233 (1986) * * ,- Houston Lighung and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating 5tation, Unit 1), AL AB 629,13 i .- .' NRC 73 (1981) 1
$ 1,. . * *- m burden on opponent of summary disposinon monon LBP 86 l$ 23 NRC 633 (1986) f*'
~~
Houston Lightmg and Power Co ( Allens Creek Nuclear Genereung Sianon, Umt 1). AL AB 629,13 ' i NRC 75,77 n 2 (1981) ' ' .. 6 l appealatulity of coniennons disemed of by summary disposioon; ALAB 838. 23 NRC $89 n.) * * (1986) Housion Lighung and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generaung Stanon Umt 1) AL AB-631,13 *. NRC 37,89 (1981) standing to appeal on hans of another party's snevances; AL AB-837,23 NRC $43 n $8 (1986) Houston Lighting and Power Co (South Tesas Project. Umis I and 2). ALAB $49,9 NRC 644,630 e (1979) # i e60pe of specincity requirement for contentions; LBP.8619,23 NRC 827 (1986); LBP 86-21. 23 . . NRC 852 (1986) " l Houston Lighung and Power Co. (South Tesas Project. Umts I and 2) AL AB 799,21 NRC 360, ', 376-78 (1983) f. . estabhshment of preludice in Board's limitation on cross esammanon. AL AB 836, 23 NRC $02 6 (1986)
- Houston Lightens and Power Co. (South Tesas Project Un is I and 2), ALAB 799,21 NRC 360, . * .
38283(198$) + ' .* . standing to appeal on bases of anothe' party's snevances. AL AB 837,23 NRC $43 n $8 (1986) *
- Houston Lighting and Power Co (South Tesas Project, Umts I and 2), ALAB 799,21 NRC 360,384 n 108 (1985) . .
NRC 5taff review as means of protecting a party's interests ALAB 828,23 NRC 22 n 23 (1986) *
- Houston Lightmg and Power Co (South Tesas Prosect. Umts I and 21 LBP 79 27,10 NRC $63, $66 ,
(1979), aff'd, AL AB $73,11 NRC 14, i$ (19801 ,', , apphcanon of collateral estoppel, AL AB 837,23 NRC $37 n 33 (19861 Internanonal Harvester Ca v. Ruchelshaus,478 F.2d 615,631 (D C, Cir.19731 .' ' , . . ' ' Licenems Board authonty to impose time hmus on intervenor's cross esammanon AL AB 836, 23 NRC $01 n 39 (1986) p ,. a. s' ,', q*>*,,*,, - Jeffhe v. Dunham,332 U 5. 200 (1957)
- grounds for defense on appeal of favorable resuti, AL AB 832,2) NRC 141 n 9 (1986) * *^ .
. 7,.,*.-
Jones v. thornes,463 U.S 745,752 $3 (1983) focus of claims on appeal, AL AB $U,23 NRC 143 n 12 (1986)
.
- s' a , '*
.c ; .*^
purpme of appellate prewntauone. AL AB $27,23 NRC 11 n 6 (1986) Eannas Gas and Ilectric Co (%olf Creek Generstmg 5: anon Und 1), ALAB.279,1 NRC :>9, - '., ,, . -
$76 77 (1973) ' ** ,
allowances made in judgmg sufDciency of intervenuon penhons drawn liy inesperienced counsel. ./ ,
** $ . 4, * * ,
LBP.8619,23 NRC 828 (1986h LDP.86 21,23 NRC 852 (1966) **. *
.*3- '
Kansas Gas and Ilecine Co (%olf Creek Generaung $tauon, Unit 1), ALAB 462,7 NRC 320,338 - * ,
, 3 (1978)
- w' * . s ,' '
lourden of sausfens repremns requiremems, CLI 861,23 NRC $ (1986) F
. ' l '. > >
- t
. 49 o
E
LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CASES KerratcGee Chemical Corp.1%est Chicago Rare Earths Facihty). L8P.83 38. }2 NRC 604. 60910 f198$1 shommg necessary for discovery of facts or opimons of a nontesuf;mg espert; LBP 86.7. 23 NRC 178 n I (19861 long Island Lighung Co ($horeham Nuclear Power Station. Uma 11. ALAB 788. 20 NRC 1102 I141 (19848 test for esammms claims of quahty assurance derkiencies. L8P 86 ll 23 NRC 304 (1986) Long Island Lightmg Co.15horeham Nuclear Power sianon. Umt 1). AL AB.788,20 NRC 1802, 1141 42 (1984) reflection ofisolated Q4 deficiency on adequacy of QA program. LBP 86 I$. 23 NRC 633 (1986) Long Island Lighung Co Ishoreham Nuclear Power Sianon. Unit 13, AL A8 824, 22 NRC 776. 781 f19851 need to include Gre protectmn plans in technecal specifkanons. ALA8 831,23 NRC 66 n il (1986) long litand Lightmg Co Ishoreham Noctear Power Stanon. Uml 11. AL 48 827,23 NRC 9. Il n 6 f19868 focus of claims on appeal. ALA8 832. 23 NRC 143 n 12 (1986) Long liland Lightmg Co. f 5horeham Nuclear Power station. Unit 11. AL 48 832. 23 NRC 133, 143 43 (1986) emergency planmns requirements for a nuclear power plant; ALAB-836,23 NRC 486 n ! (19A66 Long Island Lightmg Co (shoreham Nuclear Power Stanon. Umt 13. LBP 84 33,20 NRC 1$31.1534
. (1984) .
acceptabihty of Licensee commitment to carry out its proposed schons after plant licensmg. LDP 86.ll. 23 N AC 406 (1946) long Island Lighung Co. (5hareham Nuclear Power Stanon. Umi 11. LbP 8512. 21 NRC 644,773 (1985) factors es-nedered m determimes radiatiort esposure rates. L8P 8618,23 NRC 813 i1986) Louivana Power and Light Co. (Waterford 5 team Elecinc Stanon. Uma 31. AL AB 168. 6 AFC 11$$ (1973) escepteon to prosenpimn against appeals from interlocutory orders; AL A8438,23 NRC $91 (19863 Louivana Power and Light Co (Waterford Steam Electnc sianon. Umi 31. At Sn.732.17 NRC 1076 1096 (1983) hierden on party allegms wrongfullimitauon on cross,esaminat on; AL AR 836. 23 NRC 491 (1986) Louivana Power and Light Cn f Waterford Siesm Elecinc Sianon. Unit 36. ALAR 732,17 NRC 1076, 110102 & n 41 (1983) 6ssues appropnate for posi. hearing resolunon hy NRC Staff, AL AB 836. 23 NRC 494 n 22 f1986l Louivana Power and Light Co dwaterford Sicam Elecinc Statmn. Omt 3) AL AR 732,17 NaC 1076, 1103 (19833 scope of post.heanns authoney delegated to NRC Staff. LBP 86 82,23 NRC 42122 (1996) Louivana Power and Light Co (Waterford Steam Flecins 5tauon. Umt 31. AL 48 732.17 NRC 1076 1103 04 (1983) nature o(emergency planmng findmgs. AL A8 436,2) NRC 494. $06 (19861 Louiwana Power and Light Co f Waterford 5 team Electne Stanon. Umt 31. AL 48 732,17 NRC 1076. 1180 13 67 981) resolunon of oserpressuntaten problem. LBP 86.$. 23 NRC 90 f19866 Louiwana Power and Light Co. 4Waterford Sicam Elecine Sianon. Umi 3). ALA8 753. It NRC 1321 132411983), rence occhned. CLI 85 3. 21 NRC 471. 473 n I f19853 most important o(entend for reoremns a record. AL AB 834. 23 NRC 264 n 2 f19866 Louiwana Power and Light Co (Waterford 5:eam Elecinc Stanon. Uma 36. AL AB 753.18 NRC 1321. 1323 n 311983), reues dectmed. CLl 85 3. 21 NRC 471 (1985) cniene to be sausned for renremns a record to titisaie new issues. AL
- 8 834. 23 NRC 266 n 10 (19866 46 e
a - b . . . ~, . . . . % -- ._ . . . _ . . - + . it . s ., p ,- '. . i j,. LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX
- CASES
- Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-812,22 NRC $. *
,', ,[ * .' ,
- 14 13 (1983) ,., ,
, . *
- J.
tess for enemming claims of quakiy assurance denciencies, LDP-86 il,23 NRC 304 (1986)
- 7 *.* [ (* Y*g ' .'., ao. -*a*
~
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (waierford Sieam Electric Station. Unit 3). CLI-861,23 NRC l (1986)
* /, ,*
- Board authority to seek more information before ruling on request to reopen a record; CLl 86 7
- +
23 NRC 235,234 (19861 i
., .- .- ~. ,**
Loumana Power and Light Co. (Waterford steam Electnc Station, Unit 3), CLI 861,23 NRC 1. 4-5 8 . , , .,. (1986)
. =
cnteria apphed to motions to reopen a record. LDP-86 l$,23 NRC 670 (1986)
- Louis.ana Power and Light Co. (Waierford Siesm Electne Station, Unit 3). CLI-86 l. 23 NRC 1. $ * '
(1986) , , s ,=. ~. litigability of unidentined allegations that are unter investigation by Commission omces; , ,. t 3 , LDP.86 21,23 NRC 838 (1986) * '* ** Louisiana Power and Lishi Co. twaterford Sicam Electric Station, Unit 3), Cl 1861,23 NRC I,6 i* ,. . (1986) '- . use of discovery to develop informalion to ascertam whether a record should be reopened, LDP 8613. 23 NRC 673 n.33 (1986) . Mass Commumcators, Inc v. FCC,266 F.2d 681. 683-85 (D C Cir.1959), cert. denied. 361 U.S. 828 (1939) , consequence of failure to apply for essension of construction completion date in construction '
- permit. CLl 86 4,23 NRC 119 (1986)
Mathews v. Eldndge. 424 U.S 319 (1976)
- comphance of pimhearms on admmistral,ve action with due process requiremenis, CL1-86 4,2)
- NRC 122 (1986) ,
MCI Commumcations Corp v. Amencen Telephone and Telegraph Co.,708 F.2d lost,1870 72 (7th l Car ), cert. denied,464 U $ 891 (1983)
- Licensing Board authonty toimpose time timeis on intervenor's cross-esammaison, AL AB 836, 23 NRC Sol n 39 (1986)
Metropohian Edien Co (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit l) AL AS498.16 NRC 1290, t 1298 99 (1982),aff's LDP 8159,14 NRC 1211,1460-66 (1981) *
~
legal effect of FFM A powison on adequacy of emergency notincation system. LBP 86 il,23 . - NRC 363. 370 (1986) Metropolitan Idien Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Siaimn, Uma l), AL AB499,16 NRC 1324, 1326 27 (19821 *
- Appeal Board jurisdwton over motion to reopen. AL A8 834,23 NRC 264 n I (1986) b*
Meiropohtan Idien Co (Three Mile liland Nuclear station. Umi t). AL AB 774,19 NRC 1350 ' (19841 . . , effect ofimiely subm:4sion of de6ciency reports l'y Licensee to NRC Staff. L SP 86 l$. 23 NRC '
- 62$ (19861 * ,- , .
Metrorchian Fdimn Co (Three Mile liland Nuclear Station, Umt II AL AB 774,19 NRC I350, 1337,$8 (1984) ,
. ' . ,*g ,
obligation of panies to inform boards of signancani new enformatian, LBP 8614. 23 NRC $60 (1986), LRP 8613,23 NRC 727 (1986) *
.. . **i ' ,
Metropohiait fitsen Co (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Uma 1), CLI.85 2,21 NRC 282,285 ' ' n 3, Jil, reconedersimn den.ed, CLl 85 7,21 NRC 1104 (1985)
- three factor test apphed to motions to recren. AL AB 828. 23 NRC 17 n 3 (1986) At AB.831,23 *
, yd NRC 64, n 3 (1986). CL1861,23 NRC $ (1986). CLI 86 6. 23 NRC 133 (1986), CLl 86 7, .. ':
23 NRC 235 (1986) , , i U* d,*g' Metropohian Idiwn Co (Three Mde I. land Nuclear Station, Uma l), CLi 83 7,21 NRC 1104,1106, . J' ' ..* (19stl .. Board authonty to seek more informaimm before ruhns on requess to reopen a record. CLl 86 7, #
, ,e ,
23 NRC 236 (19861 *
*' , , 7*.
J sovery so suppori nwimns so reopen. CLI.861,2) NRC 7 (1986) .
- b .
47 0 . 5
U' LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX CANES
\l(i.T) Broad m emg Co s i t"C. 404 F 2d 1247 1261 D C Cir 1%8) sonsequense of f.olute in .errly for estenunn of sonsirussion construssion permit. Cl l-86 4. 23 NRC I19 20119466
\lmmerm Powcr and Light Co (Grand Gulf Nustear Station. IJnit it i BP 84 2119 NRC 1412
#1984 need for hearing on operairng lwense amendments, i RP Ah.9. 23 NRC 281119AA)
\lmmiere Power and I ight Co 4 Grand Gulf Nuttear Siaison. Units I and 2L \l \H-l.10. 6 O C 42). 426 (19?31 conuderation of salidity of a contenlinni factual alleganons at the admiwon stage. 4L \H 837, 23 NRC $35 n 26. 441 n 31 (19A66
\limmppi Power and Light Co (Grand Gulf Nusicar biene ll nits I and 21. \L AH-130. 6 O C 423. 426 il97D merais Judgments al contention admimon slage. I BP A619. 23 NRC 52711926). I BP.R6 21. 23 NRC 331 (19861 need in delad eudente supporting (ontentions at the admmion stage. LBP-IIA 10, 2.1 NRC 284
- n 2 fl44M
\lmmerre Power and laghi Co iGrand Gulf Nuslear station i nits I and 2L \l \H 140 6 %iC !?4 i197H result of fadute to brief arreal \L \H Ala 23 NRC 4A4 n 2 il94M
\limm,*p Power and 1ight Co # Grand Gulf Nusicar % alinn. L mis I and 21, Al 48 704.16 NRC 1?23 1730 (1992)
, means for protetiing a reisieoner's inierests. AL 48 828,23 NRC 22 n 28 (19468 showmg necessary on other fastors when good cause is not snown for late filmg of sentenienns.
Cl.1 Ah-R. 23 NRC 244, 24A (19866
\lohde Consortium of CLT \ v Dec'l n L abor. 744 F 2d 1416.1419 n 2 IIlih Cir 19246 admimbolity of hearsay endence m NRC perweedmss. Al.TR 810. 23 NRC $09119A6)
, Niagara \lohawk Pneer Corp INine \lde Point Nusicar 5tation, Unit 21. Al. AB 264. I NRC 347 337 (19736 grounds for defense on arreal of fasorable result. Al AR 832. 23 NRC 141 n 9 fl9AM standard for nserturmng Lnenung Board findings. \L AR-8.17. 23 NRC $31 n 3 fl94M Norihern Irnleana PuNw Seruse Cn (H.nlly Generating Stalinn. Nuclear.it gl AH 224 8 Af'C 244 2': 119741, reh's denied. 41. \B-227,4 \f C 416 ele 74L rev'd on other grounds. Porter County Charter of the I/Jak W allon i cague s %iC, $l$ l' 2J 51.117th Cir 1975). rev'd and remanded. 423 U 5 12 819756 four fastors in be addressed for grant of i stay. AL AR AL9. 23 NRC 2'O n 7 f191M Northern Indiana Pubin 5erute Co 8 haidy Generating Si. mon. Nuclear ll. \l AR 30L 2 NRC 858 867 (1973) weight gisen to Lwenung Roard findings. 4L AB 237, 23 NRC 431 n 4 (198M Northern Indiana PuNic Senice Co iBadly Generaims station. Nuslear.ll. CLt 78 7. 7 NRC 429 43213 Il9?Al role of threstor of NRR retesant in requests for enfortement prnseede%s. DD R6 4. 23 NRC 222119RM Nnrihern Indiana PuNw 5erswe Co inully Generating 5tation. Nuclear.ll. I RP-82 29.15 NRC 762
#19921 need for site resenratinn plan to accompany request for milhdrawal of construs' tion permit arriwaison. LBP.4614 4. 23 NRC $64 n 4 419tM Northern states Power Co IPrairie Island Nuslear Generating Plani. linits I and 21. CLl.7$.l. I NRC i 1897$>
fight of pro se miersenor to cross.esamine esinesses. I BP 86.ll 23 NRC 352 Il98H Northern States Power Co (Tyrnne f nergy Park. l'mt it LBP 77 37. 3 NRC 1299.1301 (1977) fastors cons dered in determmms whether to empose sanstions for fadure in respond to dissovery. L RP-86 4. 23 NRC Al fl94M Nuslear fuel Scruses, Inc. 4%est Valley Reprocewns Planti, CLl 75 4. I NRC 273. 276 (1979 means for pensesting a reimoner's mieresis. \1 AH-424. 23 NRC 22 n 25 (19tM 48
_. . - .~ -- - - , . - ~ . . . - .- ?. . i
, A._ . .
. g . - . ., ,
. ~
- . s .o i
L. f* l . . j
- s. . .
i
- . . i
- - .- t LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX
! CASES I
l j 6
- Pacific Gas and Elecine Co. (Diablo Canyon Nucleet Power Pleni. Unns I and 2). ALAS 590. Il ** ,
{
. , .. *
- M. O, *-
; NRC 876. 879 (1900) t *
- three factor toes for reopemas a record, ALAS 431,23 NRC 64, n.) (1906)
. ./ .
? ... .
J ; *
* ,.' % j.*. * *** -
*A Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nucteer Power Plent. Units I and 2). AL AB 7%. II NRC IMO. IMS (1983), ofrd. Sen Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC. 751 F.2d 1287,1319 21 *
, . . 'a : .
*.}'g** e
.* .. t i
3 (D C. Cir.1904), partiet ren't granted on other grounds 760 F.2d 1320 (1985) quehty of coneiruction required for operating hcense issuence; LDP 06-II,23 NRC 303 f19864 s
.. . .lO ,
1 LDP 8615,23 NRC 633 (1986) - e
' e Pacific Gas and Electr6c Co. (Diablo Canyon Nucteer Power Plent. Units I and 2) AL AB 773.19 j NRC IMI, IM647, ofrd sub nom. Sen Lu6s Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, ?$1 F.2d 1287 (D C. Cir.1904), vocated in port and reh's en benc trenced on other grounds. 760 F.2d 1320 (1985)
4 particularity required of meterial supporting monons to reopen; CLI 86 l. 23 NRC $4 (1906) . i Pacific Gas end Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plent. Units I and 21. AL AB ?II 20 ,- " .
- NRC 019. 831 (1984) j enlargement of plume EPZ beyond retulatory requiremente ALAB432,23 NRC 148 n.33 (1986) o I Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Oict4o Canyon Nueteet Power Plent. Units I and 2). ALAB 781. 20 ; .
NRC B19,832 35 (1984) 1 ,* ' j emergency pienning issues appropnete for post heenne resolution by NRC Steff. ALAB th. 23 . i NRC 495 (1986)
- I' Pacific Gas sad Electric Co. (Diebio Canyon Nuclear Power Plent. Units I and 23. AL AB 781. 20
, .L 3 NRC 019, OH (1984) i' seenderd for overturning Licensing toerd findense; ALAB 837,23 NRC $31 n.$ (1986) .
Pacific Gas and Electr6c Co. IDiablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 21. CLI II.S. I) NRC
, MI. 363 (1911) support needed for motions to reopen; ALAS 431. 23 NRC 67 n.1$ (1986); CLI 061,23 NRC $ ' ; (1906) .
Pacific Gas and Electr6e Co. (Disblo Canygn Nucleet Power Plent. Units I and 2). CLI.016.13 NRC 44), 444 (1901) . l use of 2.206 petitions to obsein rehef on leeues that are the ewigoce of ongoens licensing 6' proceedinst; DD to l. 23 NRC 43 n 6 I1906h DD 06-4,23 NRC 214 (1906)
, Pac 6fic Gee end Electric Co. (Dieblo Canyon Nucteer Power Plent. Units I and 2) CLi 02 39,16 NRC 1712,171415 (1982)
~
I ' 7 tese for motions to reopen that reies new 6ssues; ALAS 428,23 NRC 17 n 4 (1906); ALAB 8H. -
, 23 NRC 266 n.10 (1986); CLI.061,23 NRC 6 n 3 (1906) * ; Pacific Oss and Electric Co. (Desblo Canyon Nuclear Power Plent. Units I and 2). CLi 84 5.19 NRC 9$3. 964 (1984) . . . .
I speculation about nuclear accident as ground for a stey; AL AR 833,23 NRC 271 n.10 (1986) f Pacific Oss and Elecine Co (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Units I and 2). LDP 12 70,16 *
'* I *[ *
- r NRC 756. 774 (1902) ' '
?
smount of populehon to lie eierted dunne first l$ minutes of an emergency; LBP 0611. 2) NRC
- I
- 372 n M (19061 . .. i Pacific Gee end Electne Co. (Stameteus Nuclear Propect. Unit I). LDP 77 4$. 6 NRC 159,163 (1977) *
;* * ' l ~~
j thewing necessary by opponent of summary dispositton monon; LDP 0612,23 NRC 418 (1986) *' ,
* * .l y Pennsylvanie Power and Lishi Co. (Sveguehenne Steam Elecinc Stehon Units I and 2). AL AB441 - ' ' .*
.. *- , .i i 13 NRC $$0 (1901)
Board authoney to great peri 6el summary desposition of en leeue. LPP 8615,23 NRC 6M (1986) N Pennsylvense Power and Lishi Co. (sueguehenne Saeem Electric Stenon. Units I and 21. AL AS49), j j 16 NRC 9$2. 954 57 (1902) ' g; ,, ~P,b coneequence of failure to bnef leaves on appeel. AL AB 837,23 NRC $34 n 20. $43 n 58 (1906) ,
+ ,
- Pennsylvanie Power and Light Co. (Susquehenne Seeam Elecinc Stenon. Units I and 21. LDP.794. 9
- l -
, NRC 291. 311 (1979)
, -i , g, .,' . . , ,
.' .e *
, resolution of overpresounseuen prohlem; L8P.06 $. 23 NRC 90 (1996) '. .
/,4* .
j 1 Petmon for Emergency and Remedial Action. CL1704,7 NRC 400. 405 06 (1978) violehens not requinns suspeneton or revocetion oflicenee; DD46 3. 23 NRC 196 (1986)
./ .
i i i 49 4 J 1
- 1 -
i l , 6 4
- i- .
1 .
---- .----_n-,nv._._. n, s,.
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Petition for Emergency and Remedial Acuon. CLI.78 6,7 NRC 400,406-407 (1978) binding cifect of NUREGs and FEM A emergency planning sniens on Licensing Boards, LBP 86.ll. 23 NRC 368 (1986) Philadelphia Electnc Co. (Fulton Generaung Station Units I and 21. ALAB-206 7 AEC 841 (1974) escepuon to prosenption esamst appeals from interlocutory orders; ALAB 838,23 NRC $91 (1986) Philadelphia Elecine Co. (L6mench Generating Stauon, Units I and 2), ALAB 726.17 NRC 755. 758 (1983) decisions on junsdicuonal questions in absence of Commission guidance;. ALAB-828,23 N RC 18 n.$(1986) Philadelphia Electne Co. (Limench Generating Stanon. Umts I and 2), AL AB 789,20 NRC 1443, 1446 (1984) impr,rtance of irreparable injury factor in determining stay mopons; AL AB 835,23 N RC 270 n 8 (1986) Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limenck Generaung Stanon, Umts I and 2), ALAB 804,21 NRC $87 590-91 (1983) burden on imergenor seeking to rehingate issue fully investigated at construction permit stage; ALAB 837,23 NRC $39 n 48 (1986) Philadelphia Electne Co. flimench Generating 5:enon. Umts I and 2). ALAB.806,21 NRC lit), 1190 92 (1985) negotiation among parties as means of protetung a pennoner's enterestt ALAB 328,23 NRC 22 nn 25 & 28 (1986) Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limenck Generating station, Umis I and 2). ALAB 819,22 NRC 681,694 (1985) rev6ew demed. CLI.86-5. 23 NRC 123 (1986) ments judgments of contentions at the admission stage; ALAB-837,23 NRC $41 n $3 (1986) Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limench Generating 51suon, Umts I and 2) ALAB 819,22 NRC 681,713
' (1985), review declined. CLI 86 5,23 NRC 123 (1986) weight given to low probability hospital evacuanon in determemns adequacy of emergency plan; ALAB-832,23 NRC 136 n 78 (1986)
Philadelphia Elecirie Co. (Limench Genersung Stanon. Umts I and 2). ALAB Il9,22 NRC 681,720 . n.$1 (1983) basis for appellate decisions; AL AB.828. 23 NRC 20 n.17 (1986) . Philadelphia Electne Co. (Limench Generaung 5tation, Umts I and 2), AL AB 819. 22 NRC 681. 730 (1985) responabilines of parties with limited resources LDP 8614,23 NRC $$8 (1986) Philadelphia Elecine Co. (Limerick Generating Sission. Units I and 2). AL AB 828,23 NRC 13.18 n 6 (1986) escephon to proscnption against appeals from interlocutory ordert ALAB-838,23 NRC $89 n 4 (1986) Philadelphia Electne Co. (Limench Genersong Station, Unus I and 2). DD 8213.16 NRC 2113, 2121 (1982) need to coneder routine releases due 10 reiufstory esemptions: DD 86 l. 23 NRC 43 n.$ (1986) showing nectenary to initiate enforcement proceedingt DD 86 4,23 NRC 222 (1986) Philadefehis Electne Co. (Limench Genersong Sisuon, Umts I and 2). D0 8$.11,22 NRC 149, l$4 (1985) showing necessary to iminate enforcement proceedings. DD 86 4. 23 NRC 222 (1986) Philadelphia Electne Co (Limenck Generating Slation. Units I and 2) DD 85.II. 22 NRC 149,161 ,
& nn. 7 A 8 (1985) concern rmed by isolated e shty assurance defkienciet DD 86 2,23 NRC 110 (1986)
Phil.delphia Electne Co. (Limerkk Generaians $tanon, Unite I and 21, LOP 8514,21 NRC I219, 1236 (1985) adjustments to plume EP/ on the hans oflocal condiuono. ALAB 832,23 NRC 149 n 40 (1986) 90
.: ,; v,. ./ +
..-a:.,. - z.'. .~ . . .. w .a .. + ..... - - . . .
..u. . ~
- s.
- e .
- , . s j.. y LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX '
CASES 4 *
=. , . . ,. . L*,4 Phdadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bonom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3h ALAB 216,8 AEC ?* *,.'
13, 20 (1974) l
*i.'.*.*...'**c.,i degree of specincity with whech basis for contention must be alleged LBP-8619,23 NRC 828 (1986) ' ,,**
. * * ,'h {, .
* *. ' ' ,* , 1.*
merits judgmems at contension adminaion stase; LBP 8619,23 NRC 827 (1986h LBP 86 21. 23 ,- *: '
, , f * ;',
NRC 851 (1986) * * **
- Philadelphia Flectric Co. (Peach Bonom Atomic Power 56aison. Umts 2 and 3h ALAB 216,8 AEC I3, 20 21 (1974) 4
'/
~'N ' i purpose of bam with specincity requirement for admission of consentions; LBP-8610,23 NRC . > * * '
- 283 fl986h LBP-86-21,23 NRC 852,837 (1986) I.
- Philadelphia Electric Co (Peach Bottom Atomic Power siation. Umts 2 and 3). AL AB 362.10 NRC 437, 444 (1979) burden on opponene of summary disposition mosson; LBP 8612. 23 NRC 418 (1986)
Poller v CB5. Inc. 368 U.S. 464. 473 (1962) h '
**i' ' ' % ..
*?.' ~* .M
showing necessary by opponent of automary disposition motion; LBP-8612. 23 NRC 418 (1986) ,' . Portland General Electric Co (Tro3an Nuclear Plant). ALAB $31,9 NRC 263. 27174 (1979) ' scope of techmcal specincaisons. AL AB 831,23 NRC 66 n 8 (1986) I *
- Portland General Flectric Co (Trojan Nucesar Planih ALAB 796,21 NRC 4 $ (1985)
- Liceneng Board authority to decide issues not placed in comroversy; ALAB-830,23 NRC 60 .
(1986) , t Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station. Uma I and 2h ALAB 176, ' 7 ALC 131 (1974) , esception to prowriphon agamst appeals from interlocutory orders; AL AB-838,23 NRC $91 i ' (1986) . Project Management Corp. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), ALAB-330,3 NRC 613. 61$ rev'd ? on other grounds, CLI 7613,4 NRC 67 (1976) ^ arvstwahihty of directed certencation authority to demal of intervention. AL AB 838,23 NRC $92 . n.18 81986) * ' Pubig Servwe Co of Indiana iMarNe 11:11 Nuclear Generating $taison, Umts I and 21. AL AB 403. $ , NRC 1190,1892 (1977) . requiremeni for directed cerninession; AL4B-833. 23 NRC 260 n 7 (1986) - standard for grant of directed certincation; AL AB-838,23 NRC $90 n 10 (1986) > PuNw Ser,we Co of Indiana (MarNe lisil Nuclear Generstmg $iation. Umts I and 2h AL AB-459, 7 *
. +
NRC 179,202 (19781 grounds for defenw on appeal of favorable result. AL AB 832,23 NRC lei n 9 (1986) *
- PuNic %erswe Co of Indiana f MarNe flill Nuclear Gerierating Station, Umis I and 21. AL AB 861. 7 ,
NRC 31). 313 (19786 . result of failure to brief appeal, AL AB 836,23 NRC 481 n 2 #1986) . . PuNw 5erswe Co of Indiana tMarNe Ilill Nuclear Generatms station, Uma i and 2h CL1-8010,11 . NRC 418,443 (19806 ** * ,- , bass requirement for enfortemeni proceeding requests DD 86 4,23 NRC 222 (1986)
,, , s. .,
PuNic %ertwe Co. of indiana (MarNe flill Nuticar Generaimg Statmn. Umts I and 2h DD 79 l7.10 N RC 61). 621 (1979)
' *, '
- 1' -
l . ., +
.
- a, need to resonsider ensironmental desmons when new information becomes available; DD 86 $. *
- 2) NRC 230 (1986)
I* * * '* s*
.** (
PuNw Serswe Co of indiana iMarNe tidl Nuclear Generating 5taienn, Umts I and 2h LBP 77 $2,6 ' NRC 294, Ji? (1977) ' * y ,. ; need for soie ressoration plan to accompany request for withdrawal of construction permii ..
' e
, ,1 application, L BP 8614 4,23 NRC $68 n 3 (1986) ; '
PuNis Sertwe Co of New it,impshire ($cabrook staison, Umts i and 2h L BP 83.lf,17 NRC 490,
- 497(1983)
?' '
i'*..*' l4 , e showing necese for disoscry of fasis or opinions of* a riontestifying espert. LBP 86-7,23 NRC ' ' 178 n I (19861 [' i , 4 i . a 6 .
*g 3
. g , .
. .s . ' .
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX Casts Pubbe Sersne Co of New ilampshire (Seabrook Station. Umis I and 28. I BP-A.t.20 %.17 NRC 38h 490 (1983) fxtors tornidered m stetermimny whether la impose unstions for failure to restwnd to discoscry I RP R6-4. 23 NRC Al 119A6B Pubhc Sers ne Cn of Oklahoma IF,lask Fos Station. Umis I and 21. \1 \H 47).10 N RC **4. 'A6. A' f 1979), sasated m part arnt remanded. Cl 1-80 R.11 NRC 4)) i1980s sonsequente of failure lo brief mues on appeal. AL 48 237. 23 NRC 414 n 20 t19N61 Pubhc Sersne Co of Oklahoma tBixk Fos Station. Omis i .md 26. \l \B-37).10 %RC ?73 'R9 (1979) grounds for defense on appeal of favorahic result. At \B-432. 23 NRC 141 n 4 819861 Pubbe Serswe Flectne and Gas Co (Salem Nustear Generatmp Station Uma 16. U 48 650.14 NRC
- 43. 49 5011981). 410d suh nom Township ofI ower Allowa.ss Creek v Puhhc Sersne ilestra and Gas Co. 687 F 2if 732 (3d Car 1982 result of failure to bnef mues on appeal. Al AB-428. 23 NRC 20 n IR f19861 -
Puget Sound Power and Light Co 15kasil Nuclear Power Projett. Umis I and 21. \1 AR-356 10 NRC 30. 32 3) (19741 standmg to appeat on hasn of anoiher party's gneunses. AL 48-A.1?, 2) NR(* 441 n 42 814M4 Pugel Sound Power and I ishi Cn iskapit/if anford Nuslear Power Proies t. t 'rin, I and 21
\l AR.712.17 %RC Al,22 Il9436 ste.idimes Int bne6ng appeals from desninns denvmg pari, staius to a petitioner, gl. \H A22 2)
NRC 12 n 6 (1986) Ruhng on the Siorage and Dispowl of Nustear Wasle iWaste Con 6 dense Rulemaking) 011 A4-14 20 , NRC 288. 213 (1984) enternnmentalimpast of spens fuel stordpe beyond the espiration of the fuihas operating hsene i RP A6 21. 2) %RC $71 f19R6) Sasramento Mumoral Utihi, Dairwi (Ransho seen Nuclear Gencrasing 5taitoni. LBP 79 3) 10 N R C All, 224 (1979) Inigabible of mues being addressed m ongoing rulemakmg. LBP 86-6. 23 NRC 126 819860 San 1.uis Ohncin Mothers for Pexe v NRC. 731 F 2d 1287 (D C. Car 1924}. suaied m part and reh's granitd in part. 760 F 2d 1320 ID C Cir 1945)
, hearing rights on construshon permit estensmn. Cll 86 4, 23 NRC 12) I1946)
San i un Ohisen \fnehere for Pexe v NRC. 741 F 2d 12q7,1)l4 D C Cir 1984), s,nated in part on other grounds. 760 F 2J 1320 (D C. Car 1983) orcumstantes appropriate for Commnsion iniliation of heannst. DD 46 3. 23 NRC 192 f1986) 54n Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v NRC 731 F 2d 1227.131618 (D C. Cir 1984). *xaied m pari and reh's en banc granted on mher grounds. 760 F 2d 1320 (198$1 three futor lest apphed to motions to reopen. AL AB 528. 2) NRC 17 n ) 189861. \l A:1431,
- 2) NRC 64. n 3 t19861 San Lun Ohnpo Mother, for Pexe v NRC,749 F 2d 26 (D C. Cir 1996) len hans)
(nnsideraison of worst possehte enndisinns in formulaimg emergency plans. AL AS 836. 23 NRC 491 n 17 (19R6)
% holly v NRC. 631 F 2d 780 ID C. Cir ), reh's en bane denied,651 F 2J 792 i1980s. tert granted.
431 U $ 1016 (1991), vacated and remanded. 459 U 5 1194. vacated and remanded in the NRC as moni, 706 F 2d 1229 (D C. Cir 1943) hearing righis on construchon permel estensmn. CLl 86-4. 23 NRC 12) (1986l Silkwood v Kerr MsGee Corp ,42$ F. Supp $66. $17.79 (W D Okla 19795. afCd in pari and rev'd I in pari 667 F 2J 908 (loih Cir.1921), rev'd and remanded. 464 0 $ 23411984>. on remand. ?69 F 2d 1431 (1983) efTest of Litensee's somphance enh Commmion regulations on Lwensee's culpahihiy in ecshgense cases. DPR4861,23 NRC 46)-64 (19561 South Carnhna flevtne and Gas Co (Orgit C. Summer Nuclear Stahon Uma l), AL AS 642.13 NRC 841,899 f1991) weighi gnen in availabihey of other means to proiest petitioners imerest in determimny admmehihty of late Gled tonienhons. Cll 86 8. 23 NRC 24$ i19461 92
st ... < -.. .a .. .. . . . . ~
. .n . . . ,
. i< e
- p. :
, N . ...
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX * CA5lts
- s.
South Carohna Liectnc and Gas Co. (%rsil C. Summer Nuclear station. Umt 1). AL AB-694.16 NRC
- 9$8 (1982)
*l * - * ,
s (, .( . *,* [ **. .- porties who may appeal Licenwns Board decisions; AL AB-832,23 NRC 141 n 8 (1986)
- Southern Cahfornia Ediwn Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Genermung 5: anon. Umt 11. CLl-8510. 21 NRC f **
- 3': ;. , '
* *f * * > * " *..;*
- 1569, 1575 (1983)
- r'.
circumsiances apprornate for Commiswon imustion of heannss; DD-86-3. 23 NRC 198 (1986) i
+i ' l*'*
30uthern Cahforma Ediwn Co (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Umts 2 and 3). AL AB 673. * '* * ** s 15 NRC 688. 695, afCd. CLI 82.ll 15 NRC 1383 (1982) * ' apphesuon of collateral essoprel. AL AB 837,23 NRC $36 n 32. 339 n.47 (1986) e
*>
- J *
- Southern Cahforma Ediwn Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Genersung Station. Uniis 2 and 3). ALAB 717 ,
17 NRC 346. 333 54 (1983) , apphcanon of collateral essoppel. AL AB 837,23 NRC $36 n.32 (1986) . . Southern Cahforma Ldison Co (San Onofre Nuclear Genersung Station. Umts 2 and 3), AL AB 717 '
*V 17 NRC.p,334 n.3 (1983) **
= b
- b
,* , f.
burdot on intervenor seeking to relingate issue fully investigated al construcuon permal stage; . ** .**
- ALAB 837,23 NRC $39 n 48 (1986) * * *-
Southern Cahforma Edison Co (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Sianon. Umts 2 and 3). CLI 83 lo, * ' - ' 17 NRC $28. $33 (1983), rev'd in part on other grounds, GUARD v. NRC. 733 F.2d 1844 (D C. Cir.1985) , weight given to low prohamhty hospital evacuauon in determemns adequacy of emergency plan; ,
- AL AB-832. 23 NRC 136 n.78 (1986)
Southern Cahforma Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating 5tation. Umts 2 and 3). LBP 82 39, i 15 NRC 1163.1177 (1982), aff*d. ALAB fl7.17 NRC 346 (1883), afrd sub nom. Carstens v. t
+
NRC 742 F 2d 1546 f D C. Cir 19114), cert. denied.10$ $ Ct. 2675 (l#$) i , need for plume F PZ wiih 20 mile radius on haws of site speciGe niedy; AL AB-832,23 NRC I46 (1986)
- Southern Cahforma Edimn Co (Sag Onofre Nuclear Generating stanon. Unite 2 and 3). LBP 82 39 ,
l$ NRC ll63.1213 (1982) , legal effett of FEM A powuon on adequacy of emergency nouncation system; LBP 86 II,23 NRC 36.$ (1986) , Southern Cahfosaia Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generaung Station Umts 2 and 3). LBP 82 39 - l$ NRC 1163,1216-17 (f982) r post hearms resoluuan of arrangement for emergency medical services for the pubhe; AL AB 836,23 NRC 495 n.24 (1986) Statement of Pohey on Conduct of Licenwns Proceedings CL1818.13 NRC 432 (1981)
- a baus for floard authonty to espedite proceedings; LBP 8614. 23 NRC $62 (1986) * ,*
- factors to be considered m imposing sanctions. LBP 86 4. 23 NRC 79*(1986) c..
5tatement pf Pohty on Conduct of L6 censing Proceedings. CLI-818.13 NRC 432,453 (1981) , ,- Licenung Board suihonty to impose time limits on intervenor's cross-esaminalion. AL AB 836 23 NRC $0! (1986) .* * .' . , 5 easement of Pohey on Conduct of Licenwns Proceedmss. CLI-818.13 NRC 432,454 (1981) ** responsibehues of partsegwith hmised retources. LBP 8614. 23 NRC $$8 (1986) * *'
.'* / * ..
*. ; *.~ ..
Statement of Pohcy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings CLI 818.13 NRC 432. 4$$ (1981) * *
- standard for consohdanon ofintervenors. AL AB 836,23 NRC $0! (1986) i * * ,'
.~' . ,.
Statement of Poko on Conduct of Licenens Proceedings. CLl 818.13 NRC 432,437 (1981) * * * '** *
- I purpose of summary discomuon LBP 86 lj 23 NRC 634 (1986) .
i Tennessee Valle, Authsty (Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Umts I 2. and 3). ALAB-677. l$ NRC . s ,- . * *
- 1387, 1394 (1982) * * *
obhganon of parues to inform Boards of sismficant new information. LDP 8614,23 NRC $60 L, * * * ' . (1986)
- Tennessee Valley Authonty (llarisville Nuclear Plant. Umis 1 A. 2A IB. and 28) ALAB-409. 5 '
d " ' ' . .** s.. NRC l)91,1393 96, reconwderation demed. AL AB 418,6 NRC I (1977) * -
- obbganon of parues to avmd false coloring of facts. AL 48 837. 23 NRC $)1 n 6 (1986) "*
- p, ,
* . e 83 e
i . k g .
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Tennence Valley Authonty filartsville Nuclear Plani. Umis I \. 2 A. IB. and 2B1 \1 \H-461. 7 N RC 341. 344 (19786 basis for appellate decnions. AL AB.828. 23 NRC 20 n 17 f14Nta Tesas Unhues Generaung Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Flectne Sunon. Umts I and 21. 01.5 A124.14 N RC 614. 615 (1981) scope of appellate sua se a authority. CLl-86-l. 23 NRC 7 (1926). Cl!.26 7. 23 NRC 236 (1986) . Three 4fde Island Alert. Inc. v NRC. 771 F 2d 720. 732 (3d Cir.1985) peisoon for tert l'iled suh nom. Aamodi v. NRC. 54 U S L.W. 3463 (U S Dec.18.19851 INo 8510958 three factor tesi for renremns a record. ALAB-828. 23 NRC 17 n 3 (19860 AL 58-811. 23 NRC
- 64. p.3 (1986)
Toledo Eden Co (Dasn-Reue Nuclear Power Stapon). ALAB 300. 2 NRC 752. 758 (19756 appealaNhty of summary dnpmahon of intersenor's sole'contennon. \1 AB. A.12. 23 NRC 5A9 (1946l Toledo Fdnon Co. IDawn-Besse Nuclear Power Stanon. Umts I,2. and 3). Al. A8-378. 4 NRC 5 4' 561 (1977) purpose of collateral estorpel docinne in NRC proceedings. AL \H.A)?. 23 NRC 5.16 n ni e loro inledo Edmon Co. (D us-Be\se Nuclear Power Stanon. Umts 2 and 36. \l 48.h52.14 NRC 62' (1981) need for Ste restoranon plan in accompany requesi for withdrawal of(nnstruchon permo arpheahon' LBP-M614 A. 23 NRC 5671198H Umon Electne Co. (Callaway Plant. Umi 11. AL AB 740.18 NRC 343. 346 81983p construction quality required for grant of operanns hcense. DD-A6 2. 23 NRC 101119R6p Union Electric Cn (Callaway Plam. Umt 1). AL AB 740.18 NRC 34),346 (1983). resonuderanno demed. \L AB 750,18 NRC 1205 (1983). as modified. AL AR 750-\.18 NRC 1282 (19A1) quahty of consieuenon required for operating hcense muante. LBP 86-il. 23 NRC 303 04 f19266 Umnn of Conterned Scientnis v. NRC. 711 F 2d 370 (D C Cir 1983) binding efTect of NUREGs and F EM A cmergent) planmng tnt *na on licenung Roards. , LHP-86-ll. 23 NRC 368 (1986) Uman nf Concerned Soenints v NRC 735 F 2J 1437 (19446 cen denied sum nom glabama pow er and Light Cn s. Umon of Cpncerned Scientnis. 83 L f d 2d Aus i19448 muance of decision in advance nf Licensce's (onllrmaton teshng and Stall % analvus therent i HP 86-14. 23 Ni40 561 n 9 81986) Umon of Concerned Socntnis v NRC. 731 F 2d 1417 D t C,r 19A48. tert demed.105 % 0 it i s (1985) standard for admnuon of comentions on emergeno planmng. 011- A6-il. 23 NRC 5 A0 n i i19m meight given lo cmergency preparedness esercnes in hcenung detiunns. \l. \ H- A36. 21 NRC 509. $22 n 78 (19866 Umted States Department of Energy (Chnsh Rner Breeder Reactor Planti. I flP-35 7. 21 NRC 50? (1985l type of sne redress required upon withdrawal of construction permit appfiunon L BP.RA t 4 L 21 NRC 568 n 3 (L986)
\ ermon Yankee Nuttear Power Corp iV"mant Yankee Nutfear Power si.nonni. CLI.?4.46 A glC A09 811 (1974)
Nndmg effect of NURFOs and FEM A emergency planmny truena on 1isenung Hoard-
# 1 BP.86 ll. 23
- RC 368 (19961 brginia ilettric and Pn cr Co (North Anna Pneer %nnn. Umis I and 26 \L \H 342. 4 NRC 94 107 (19761 ocight gnen in abihty of fate filed contenbon's spnnsor to coninhute in a sound retnrd i RP 86 4. 23 NRC 87 (19861 brgima Flettnc and Po cr Cn (North %nna Power % tion. Um $ l and 2). At 48 491. 8 NRf 244 248 49 n 711978) resoluhon of nserprenurvation problem i BP-46 5. 23 NRC 90 (19461 54
=
* ' i' s , , .
. - y*
- s.
+
' ~
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX -
~
CASES
- a '
~,,, '
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-522,9 NRC 54 -
* ' ' j (1979) s
./ . .. ? -
standing to intervene in operating license amendment proceeding on basis of residence; a
.. ,; ,. * , , . . ' *.* * ? "' **
LBP-86-9,23 NRC 276 n.1 (1986) *
*., .y' '.,--
Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB 522,9 NRC 54, 56 (1979) (,., ' .i
*s e 3, , .
consideration of validily of a conteneion's factual allegations at the admission stage; ALAB-837, .
. 's = =
*[ .
23 NRC 535 n.26 (1986) * - Virgmia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna P wer Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-584, 'l NRC = , . - T - . 451. 453 (1980) . burden on opponens of summary disposition motion; LBP 86-12,23 NRC 43718 (1986); . . LBP 8615,23 NRC 633 (1986) - Virgima Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station Uniis I and 2). ALAB-584, ll NRC , s 451, 457 (1980) - 1 *
. . . .. . k p need for environmental assessment of esemptions from regulations; DD-86-1,23 NRC 46 n.9 .
(1986) . Virginia Electric and Po er Co (North Anna Power station, Units I and 2), ALAB-741,18 NRC i 6 371. 376 (1983) ' - changes in the baue siructure of a proceeding for purpose of obtamms directed certification;
- AL AB 833. 23 NRC 261 (1986) ,
Viramia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Umts I and 2) LBP.7810,7 NRC 295, 299 (1978) responsibility for definmg events reportable under; LBP 86-15. 23 NRC 618 (1986) ,
. Viramia Petroleum Jobbers Ass *n v. FPC,259 F.2d 921,925 (D C. Cir.1958) -
standards for grant of a stay of immediate effectiveness of construction permit extension-
- CLl-86 4,23 NRC 122 (1986) '
Washmgion Metropolitan Area Transit Commiswon v. Holiday Tours, Inc.,559 F.2d 841 (D C. Cir. . 1977) , standards for grant of a stay ofimmediate effectiveness of construction permit estension; CL1-86-4,23 NRC 122 (1986) Washmston Public Power Supply System (WPP55 Nuclear Project No 2), DD 84 7,19 NRC 899, ,, 905 06 (1984) , NRC action for quality assurance violations. DD 86 2,23 NRC 106 (1986) - ' - Washmston Public Power Supply System (WPP55 Nuclear Project No 2), DD-84 7,19 NRC 899. 923 - (1984) standard for grani of requeu fnr suspenwon of effectiveness oflicense amendment; DD 86-6,23 * -
*e-
- NRC 573 (1986) *
- Washmston Public Power Supply System (% PPS$ Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB 747,18 NRC l167 * *'
1167 68, 1175 76 (1983)
- adequacy of 2.206 petitions to protect a petitioner's interests. ALAB 828. 23 NRC 22 n.25 (1986) , ...~ *
,, Washington Public Power Surply System (% PPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), AL AB 747.18 NRC 1167, r- '
l175 (1983) . .
'?
,. , s ,-
- showing necessary on other factors when good cause is not shown for late fihng of contentions,- .
CL186 8,23 NRC 244,249 (1986) ', * - ' Washington Pubhc Power Supply System (% PPS$ Nuclear Project No. 3). ALAB 747,18 NRC 1167, . . *
. , . , ['* C [,
l178 (1983) , conwderalion of attorneys' capabihties m determimng petitioner's ability to contnbute to . ,, development of the rerord. CLl-86 8,23 NRC 247 (19861 *
,' e Washmpton Pubhc Power Sur:4y System (% PP55 Nuclear Project Nos I and 2). CLl 82 29,16 NRC * * .
* , A 1221. 1229 (1982) a , .' '.
limitation on scope of consitucleon permit estenmon proceedmg. CLl 86 4,23 NRC 121 (1986) *
. i,'
Wisconen Electric Power Co (Pmnt Bexh Nudear Plam, Umt D. ALAB-696,16 NRC 1245,1261 . * + ' n 29 (1982); ALAB 719.17 NRC 387. 394 (1983) *
, ..' r.'
responshihtees of parties with hmited resources, LBP 8614,23 NRC 55819 (1936) P e , b
*0 9 6
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Wesonsin Electre Power Co. (Point Buch Nuclear Plant. Units I and 2). DD 83-13.18 NRC 721' 722 (1983) NRC action for qu.ility assurance vintations. DD-86 2. 23 NRC 106 (1986) wiwonsin Gas Co v FERC,758 F 2d 669. 674 (D C. Cir.1985) weight given to irreparable harm in determining stay requests. CL1-86 4, 23 NRC 123 (1986) 6
$6
n_. ._ i ' ' I 1' s i . LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX . REGULATIONS *
, l j . ,
1
.i
. 10 C.F R. 2 , . -i l orcumstances appropriate for Commission initiation of heannss; DD-86-3,23 NRC 198 (1986) ' i 10 C.F.R. 2.107 . i I jurindection over motion to terminate operating license proceedmg; LBP 86-14 A,23 NRC 566-67 - ' l (1986) * ' 10 C F.R. 2.109 ' , failure to request construction permit estension; CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 115.119,120 n.5 (1986) .- - -- 10 C.F.R. 2.202(a) ,
+ -
I types of rehef available under 2.206 petitions; ALAB 828,23 NRC 21 n.22 (1986) 10 C F R. 2.203 l htigabihty of willement agreements. AL3 86 2,23 NRC 459 (1986) l 10 C.F.R. 2.206 demal of petition alleging seismic design denciencies; DD 86-4,23 NRC 213 (1986) l demat of petition alleging that workforce carrying out operations during strike is untrained and , unquahned, DD 86 3,23 NRC 192 (1986) * ' denial of petition seeking action becauw of alleged problems with control rod drive mechanisms. DD-8519,23 NRC 34 (1986) l denial of petition seeking revocation of exemptions from NRC regulations; DD-861,23 NRC 40 (1986) j denial of request for action relevant to qus'incation and certiGcation of quality assurance inspectors. j DD-86-2,23 NRC 98 (1986) denial of request for action that afleges economic unviabihty of Limerick Unit 2 facihty. DD-86 5, - 23 NRC 226 (1986)
- demat of request for stay oflecenw amendment permitting time estension for equipment surveillances. DD 86-6. 23 NRC 571 (1986) grant of request for action to enforce antitrust conditions incorporated in operating beenws.
DD-86-7,23 NRC 875 (1986) . .
-e means for protecting a petitioner's interests. AL AB-828. 23 NRC 21 (1986) '
request for assessment of penally for unauthorized construction activities after espiration of
- construction permit. CL1-86-4,23 NRC I20.123 (1986) types of rehercontemplated under; DD-86-4,23 NRC 214 (1986) 10 C F R. 2.206(a) - '
. e support required for 2 206 petitions; DD 86 2,23 NRC 101 (1986) * * ' '-
types of relief available under 2.206 petitions; ALAB-828,23 NRC 21 n.22 (1986) . 10 C.F R. 2.701(b) * * - requirements for serving documents offered for fihng in NRC proceedmss LBP-8616,23 NRC 790 . * . - (1986) , 10 C F.R 2.707
- factors considered in determining whether to impose a sanction; LBP 86-4,23 NRC 80 (1986) result of failure to bnef appeal. AL AB-836,23 NRC 485 n.2 (1986)
- 10 CT R 2.708
, ~s, .
treatment of intervention petitions that fail to meet regulatory requirements for . arm. LBP 86-6 A. = . .
+
23 NRC 167 n.3 (1986) . 10 C F R. 2 712 * +
. 4 failure of parties to comply with service requirements of. LBP 86 6B. 23 NRC 175 n I (1986) -
9
. 57 o
h I l
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C F R. 2.713(a) improper attorney sonduct in the form of threats of criminal action or complaints to Bar A eciation agamst Applicant's attorney; LBP 86 l$. 23 NRC 668 (1986) 10 C F.R. 2.71)(c) sanctions appropriate for improper attorney conduct in the form of threats of enmmal action or complamts to Bar Association against Appbcant's attorney; LBP-86-15,23 NRC 669 81986) 10 C.F R. 2.714 intervention in heanns on material false statement by TMI Licensee official. CLl 86 9. 23 NRC 472 (1986) intersention in operating license amendment proceeding; LBP-86-9. 23 NRC 274 (1986) scope of basis requirement for admiss on of contentions; LBP-86 21,23 NRC F51 (1986) standard for admission of comentions on emergency plannms; CLI 86-II. 23 NRC $81 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a) ! basis requirement for contentions; LBP.86 6. 23 NRC 189 (1986) I grant of untimely intervention petitions. LBP-8618,23 NRC 802 (1986) supplying basis for contentions under protective order; LBP 86-l$. 23 NRC 658 (1986) 10 C F R. 2.714(a)(1) adminion of late-filed contentions in spite of failure to address five factors. ALAB.833,23 NRC 260 (1986) cniena to be addrewed by motions to reopen that miroduce new issues. AL AB-828. 23 NRC 17 20,23 (1986); ALAB-831,23 NRC 64 n.3 (1986h ALAB-834. 23 NRC 266 n.10 (1986). CLI 86 l. 23 NRC 6 n.3 (1986); CLl 86-6,23 NRC 133 n 1 fl986) factors to be addressed by intervention petipons; LBP-86 6 A. 23 NRC 167 n.2 (1986) five-factor test for admissibility oflaie-filed contentions; CLI 86-8. 23 NRC 252 $4 (1986h LBP 86 9. 23 NRC 278 (1986) importance of participation by late-filed contention's submitter in developmg a sound record.
. ALAB-83I. 23 NRC 67 n.l$ (1986) means for protecting a peutioner's mierests; AL AB-828. 23 NRC 21 (1986) test for intersention in material false statement hearing; CLI 86 9. 23 NRC 472 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2 714(a)(1)(i-5) criteria for admineon of new contentions addressms draft FES; LBP-86 4. 23 NRC 87 (1986) .
10 C.F R. 2.714(a)(1)(iii) cansaJeration of attorneys' capabihties in determinmg resitioner's abihty to caminbute to development of the record; CLt 86 8,23 NRC 246 (1986) 10 C F R. 2.714(aH2) interess, standing. and aspects ofintervention to be addrewed by petitioners. LBP.86 6 A. 23 NRC 169 (1986) particulanty required of contennons; LBP 8619. 23 NRC $27 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(3) amendment ofintervennon pentions; LBP 86-6A. 23 NRC 171 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2.714(b) haus with specificity requirement for contennons; LBP 8610. 23 NRC 28$ (1986) consideration of a comention's ments at admission stage; AL AB 837,23 NRC $35 (1986) particulanly required of material supporting motions to reopen; CLI 861,23 NRC 3 (19861 spect0 city requirement for admiscon of contenuons; AL AB 837. 23 NRC 541 n 51 (1986); I BP 8619. 23 NRC 827 (1986) 10 C F.R. 2.714(h) (g) contention requirement for imervennon; ALAB-833. 23 NRC 268 n 8 (1986) 10 C.F R. 2.7144 appealabilily ofintervention demals. ALAB 838,23 NRC $89 91 (1986) appealabihty of miervention orders: LBP 86-9. 23 NRC 281 (1986) deadhne for bnefing appeals; ALAB 828. 23 NRC 18 n 6 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2.714af b) deadimes for briel'ing appeals from decmons denying party status to a petiooner; AL AB 828. 23 NRC 18 n 6 (198ol
$8
J . ,. . . . 'L - . . . -. L ..
-+ .
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX - - ' REGULATIONS 10 C.F R. 2.714a(c) (1986) '
~.
s appealabihty ofintervention order; LDP 86 21,23 NRC 373 (1986)
* *?.
10 C.F.R. 2.715(a) (1986) '
*, .. c. . .
+ - * .* ' : ., ? . .4 .! * '.. *' ' ' , , . - * '
mechamsms for obtammg pubhe views on onsite storage of nuclear wastes; LBP 86-21,23 NRC 867 .' 3:1
*i^*
(1986) ' 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c) ' J- '
* '}..-
interested state status as means for intervenor whose contentions have been denied to participate in . proceedms; ALAB-838,23 NRC 589 (1986) * ' 10 C.F.R. 2.715e .'c , Licensing Board authority to consondate parties; ALAB-837,23 NRC 539 n.43 (1986) ' standard for consolidation ofintervenors; ALAB-836,23 NRC 501 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2.716
- conschdation of operating hcense amendment proceedmss: LBP sHB 23 NRC I?5 (1986) ,
10 C.F.R. 2.718 - Licensms Board authorily to impose time limits on intervenor's cross-enamination; ALAB-836,23 * *
.. ' d NRC 501 (1986) 10 C.F R. 2.730(c) . '
deadhne for answers to motions to terminate proceedings; LBP-86-16,23 NRC 790 (1986) 10 C F.R. 2.740(b)(1) ' Licensms Board discretion in restricting discovery; ALAB-832,23 NRC 160 n.100 (1986) , . need for commencement of discovery to await issuance of Safety Evaluation Report: L BP 86-17,23 r NRC 795 n.5 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2.740(b)(2) o apphcation of privilege 10 trial preparation materials prepared by the party itself; LBP 86-7,23 NRC 180 (1986)
- 10 C.F.R. 2.741 ' *
~
reduction of time for a party's written response for production of documents; LBP-86-14. 23 NRC '~
$63 (1986) 3
* *~
10 C.F.R. 2.74)(c) * - Licensms Board authority to impose time hmits on meervenor's cross-enamination: ALAB-836,23 } . NRC 501 (1986) ' - ^-
.+ particularity required of malerial supportmg motions to reopen: CLI 86-1,23 NRC 5 (1986) 10 C F.R. 2.749 - ' '
resolution ofinues on the basis of Gled amdavits. LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 631 (1986) . 10 C.F.R. 2.749(a) Board authority to grant partial summary disposition of an issue. LBP 86-15. 23 NRC 634 (1986) - - 7 legahty of requirms summary dispoution before discosery; CLi-86-II. 23 NRC 582 (1986)
- 10 C.F.R. 2.749(b) '
acceptabihiy of hearsay evidence m support of summary disposition motions; LBP-86-12. 23 NRC
- 419 (1986) ' ,
burden on proponent of summary dispoution motion; LBP 86-15. 23 NRC 632 (1986)
. e compeience of amant supportmg summary disposition motion; LBP 8612. 23 NRC 419 (1986)
- 10 C.F.R. 2.749(c) 5 ,-
i' . action taken when enential facts are unavailable for response to summary disposition motion; * *
- CLi 86-II. 23 NRC 582 (1986)
~ ,
, *[,,'
denial of unismely motion Tor reconuderation, LBP-86 4. 23 NRC 78 n.1 (1986) *". . J. '
't .-
10 C.F R. 2.754(a)
~
* ,"/ '
basis for Board's schedule for Ghng of proposed Gndmst. LBP-8617. 23 NRC 794 nn.2 & 3 (1986) * ' 10 C.F R. 2.754(c) ** ,
. i need for record support for proposed Andmgs; LBP-86 II 23 NRC 335 n.21 (1966) t 10 C F.R. 2357 ,
;i..,*.-
^~
i . Licensing Board authorily to impose time hmits on intervenor's cross-enamination; ALAB-836,23 . . - ' NRC 501 (1986) ! '
- r i
W
$9
\
s
^
l LEG AL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 C F R. 2.758
=
htig.ibihty of need-for-enwer and afternaline-energy-source issues in operating beense proceedings; DD-86-5. 23 NRC 230 (19861 l hingabihty of radium in soit standard. LBP-86-18. 23 NRC 810 (19861 hingabihty of site and con 0guration of EP/.; ALAB-836,23 NRC 507 n 48 (1986) w.inser of proscnption against need-for-power and alternatise-energy-source contenteons. ALAB-837, 23 NRC 546 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2.758(a)
- rey etion of contention challenging Table S-4. AL AB 837. 23 NRC 544 n 62 (1986) in C F R. 2.758(b) showmg necessary for hiigation of need for power and alternalise energy-source contentions; AL AB-837,23 NRC 546 n 69 (1986)
. 10 C.F.R. 2.759 settlement on improper attorney conduct issue; LBP-8615. 23 NRC 669 (19861 10 C F R. 2.760a . appellate suJ sponte authority to seek to obtam information relesant to motion to reopen- CLl-86-7 23 NRC 236 (1986)
Board authont) ta raise emergency planmns iwues sua sponte. LBP-86-il. 23 NRC 397 n 47 (1986) Licc*iung Board authonty to decide issues not placed in comrosersy; AL AB-830. 23 NRC 60 (1986) scope of appellate sua sponte authonty: CLl 86-1,23 NRC 7 (1986) 10 C.F R. 2.762 appeatabihty ofintersention denials. ALAB 838,23 NRC 589 (1986) deadhne far bnefing appeals; ALAB 828,23 NRC 18 n.6 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2.762(b) result of failure to brief appeal. ALAB-836. 23 NRC 485 n 2 (1986) 10 C F.R. 2.762(dHI) content of bnefs on appeal. ALAB-837,23 NRC 543 n.58 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2.762(e) page limit on appellate bnefs; ALAB-827. 23 NRC 10 n.1 (1986) . treatment oflate-filed motion to esceed page limit for appellate bnef. ALAB-827,23 NRC 11 n.) (1986) 10 C.F R. 2.7641D(2)(ii) stay of operations pending completion ofimmediate effectiveness review; LBP-86-il. 23 NRc 409 (1986) 10 C F R. 2.764(O(2)(iii) timmg of immediate effectiveness review; LBP-86 ll. 23 NRC 409 (19861 10 C.F.R. 2.785 Appeal Board authonty to perform Commission review functions; CLI-86-9. 23 NRC 472 (1986) showing necessary for grant of a stay; ALAB-835,23 NRC 270 (1986) i 10 C.F R. 2.786(b)(1) { fihng of untimely petition for review; CLI-86-5. 23 NRC 126 (1986) 10 C.F R. 2.786(b)(2)(iii) content of petition for review; CLI-86 5. 23 NRC 126 (1986) i 10 C.F R. 2.788 consequence of failure to address stay criteria; CLI-86-6. 23 NRC 134 (1986) denial of stay request on ground oflack ofjurisdiction; LSP-86-9. 23 NRC 280 (1986) e showing necessary for pant of a stay; ALAB-835. 23 NRC 270 (1986) standards for grant of a stay ofimmediate effectiveness of construction permit extension; CLI 86-4 j 23 NRC 122 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2.794 circumstances appropnate for surhmary disposition motions; LBP 86-21. 23 NRC 852 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2.794
; circumstances appropriate for summary disposition of contentions; LBP-86-19. 23 N RC 827 (1986)
I 60 i ( . i I r w, , . %- , y .i.,.-s < , - - --s --, ,--.,---- w.--,_ _-_.-_3-,,,nr
, . - ___y-, ,,_ , , .- _ ,. _y.._.. ,_ -- . . , -a .
. e :. .
1
.,a , ;, _ _ __ s. - ',.53 . m-
' * - ~
i-
-= , -
} .
i.-- , LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX -
~
REGULATIONS ' 10 C.F.R. 2.1101 (1986) . requirement to show immediate need in a proposal for fuel pool feracking; LBP-86-21. 23 NRC 871 . - *
.._ o (1986) ,
10 C.F.R. 2, Appendit A, IV(a) . v ;, . '. ' ' , . . , . , , need for commencement of discovery to await issuance of Safety Evaluation Report; LBP 8617. 23 , ... .. *
,? * / ,.;*
E' ; ' NRC 795 n.5 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2 Appendix C ',, . . -
,t'...-*
~, - ' ,
NRC action against Licensee for its failure to con ply with quality assurance procedural requirement; .,, '. DD-86-2,23 NRC 105 (1986) -
, i "
2 NRC enforcement policy for viola: ions identined and corrected by Licensee; DD-86-3,23 NRC 195 ' n.8 (1986) . relation between "open items" and violations; LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 635 (1986) ' '* 10 C.F.R. 2 Appendia C, Supp. II, C.3 - result of failure to report "potentially report able" deGciencies; LBP 8615,23 NRC 619 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 2, Appendia C. V.B ,
.. s violations for which civil penalties are imposed, by severity level; LBP 86-15,23 NRC 743 (1986) C * '
10 C.F.R. 2, Appendia C, V.D , . l . description of violations by severity level; LBP-8615,23 NRC 743 (1986) . 10 C.F.R. 2, Appendia C, V.E(2) ' deDnition of a deviation; LBP-8615,23 NRC 743 (1986) ' 10 C.F.R.19.12 procedure for weekers to bring health and saf6ty issues to the attention of management; DD-86-3, 23 NRC 207 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 20 characteristics of actions categorically excluded from requirement for environmental assessment; DD-861,23 NRC 4) (1986) , effect of ** valley wall" on dispersion of radioactive releases from low-level waste incineration 1 facihty; LBP 86-19,23 NRC 834 (1986) effect of Licensee's compliance with Commission regulations on Licensee's culpability in ne81igence ' cases; DPRM-86-1,23 NRC 462-63 (1986) revision of utehty's Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, ALAB-828,23 NRC 19 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 20.l(c) ,
- ' ~-
radium-in-soil standard appropriate for cleanup of offsite vicinity properties; LBP-86-18,23 NRC ,*
. 813 (1986) , ,
10 C.F.R. 20.2,20.3(a)(13),20.105(a) jurisdiction over regulation of mill tailings; LBP 86-18,23 NRC 805,806,810 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 20.303ta) -
~
standard for radiation doses frem offsite contamination of soil by mill taihngs; LBP-86-18,23 NRC 815 (1986) , 10 C F.R. 20.3 t lia), (d), and (h) '
' ~
need for Licensee plan for momtoring and documentation of radioactive waste during point-to-point -
- transfer; LBP-86-19,23 NRC 829 (1986) '
10 C.F.R. 20, Appenden B ,
- , , . f!
. *
- 5 *
- s. . .
requirements for checking radioactivity of waste to be incinerated; LBP-86-19,23 NRC 831 (1986) - *
- signincance of radioactive releases espected from low-level radioactive waste incineration facility; * *
- LBP 86-19,23 NRC 831 (1996) *
- 10 C.F.R. 21 < , ' ' "
o failure to document reportability review; LBP 86-12,23 NRC 428 (1986) . -
- 10 CF.R. 21.21
- reportabihty of piping that fails to meet minimum wall requirements: LBP-86-12,23 NRC 427,430 . ** s (198o) *
=
10 C.F.R. 50.10 ' I conimustion of construction following empiration of construction permit; CLI-36-4,23 NRC 120 n.5 * (1986)
- d e
9 61
-,p. -
e 1 -
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'LATIONS 10 C.F R. 50.12 failure of petitioner to provide bases for request for exemptions from regulations: DD 86-l. 23 NRC 44, 46 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 50.36(c)(2) need for incorporation of Gre protection program in techmcal speciGeations. ALAB-831,23 NRC 65-66 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 50.44 scope of esemption from contamment inerting requiremem: DD-86-1. 23 NRC 42 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 50.47 definition of the term "special facility"; ALAB 832. 23 NRC 156 (1986) 1 emergency planning requirements for nuclear power plant operation; ALAB-832,23 NRC 143 (1986) prouimity of hospital for treatmg contaminated injured individuals to nuclear power plant. CLI 86 5. 23 NRC 128 (1986) 10 C.F R. 50 47(a)(1) adequacy of protectne action plans in Seabrook Station offsite emergency plan. ALAB-838,23 NRC
$88 n.1. 592 (1986) burden of provmg reasonable assurance that adequate protectne measures mill be taken in an emergency; ALAB-836,23 NRC SIS (1986) demonstration of acceptability of emergency plans: ALAB-838,23 NRC 593 (1986) emergency preparednu Andmss necessary for nuclear power plant operation; ALAB-832,23 NRC 143 n.13 (1986) nature of emergency planning nndings; ALAB-836. 23 NRC 495. 506 (1986) post hearing venfication ofpdequacy of municipal staffing for emergency operations; ALAB-836,23 NRC 512 (1986) .
j 10 C.F.R. 50 47(a)(2) basis for Commission decision on adequacy of emergency preparedness; ALAB 832,23 NRC 144 i n.21 (1986) legal effect of FEM A position on adequacy of emergency notincation s> stem; LBP.86-il. 23 NRC 365 (19861 weight given to FEM A (indmgs on adequacy of emergency plans; ALAB-836,23 NRC 499 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 50 47(b) criteria for emergency response workers. ALAB 832. 23 NRC 144 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 50 47(b)(1) adequacy of muniCfpal staIIIng for emergency operallons: ALAB-836,23 NRC 511 (1986) 10 C F R. 50 47(b)(2) and (12) adequacy of Limerick medical services arrangements for contammated injured individuals; LBP-86 3,23 NRC 72 73 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 50 47(b)(5) legal effect of FEM A position on adequacy of emergency notification system; LBP 86-il. 23 NRC 365, 370 71 (1986) notification of emergency workers. AL AB-836,23 NRC 510 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10) scope of protective measures to be meluded in emergency plans; ALAB 838. 23 NRC 593 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) post-hearing resolution of arrangement for emergency medical scruces for the,public. ALAB-836 23 NRC 445 n.24 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(I4) aspects of emergency plan to be covered by emergency cuercises; ALAB 836,23 NRC $05 n.46 (1986) 3 10 C.F.R. 50 47(cH I) mechanism for dealing with emergency planning deficiencies. AL AB-836,23 NRC 520 (1986) 62 1
+
' ~
, , .1 ,,- -
,c - -
c ;, a . . - . . - '. . - - - . - -
- . . . - -. . - - - - p - , 2- - - - - d- - ------ .+ ,
-u. ..
~ ,
~
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX . - ' REGULATIONS
* ,o *
, . =
10 C F R. 50 47(c)(2)
- . . . , 'a
, ' e '- c entent of protective action planning for ingestion pathway EPZ; ALAB-832,23 NRC 144 n.18 (1986) *4
. J ;, .
site and configuration of emergency planning zone; ALAB-832,23 NRC 145,147 (1986) size and configuration of the EPZ: ALAB-836,23 NRC 497-98 (1986)
' ,* J - 3 '. > q '+ * * * ,'...
10 C.F.R. 50.48(a)
,' ~
t . '
.i ' -
~5.*
scope of fire protection plans for nuclear power plants; ALAB-831,23 NRC 65 n.5 (1986) *
- 10 C.F R 50 55 '
.~. L characterriation of deficiency reportable under; LBP-86 II,23 NRC 356 (1986)
- 10 C.F R. 50.55fa). 50 60 .
~
purpose of statmg construction completion date in construction permit; CLI-86-4,23 NRC 118 * * (1986) * ,, 10 C F.R. 50.55(e) ' absence of documented standards for quahfication of design verifiers; LBP-86-15,23 NRC 722 , (1986) ** .
, ~..
, ..f. *?
adequacy of assumptions for seismic to-nonseismic boundary anchors; LBP-86-15,23 NRC 702 . < (1986) - * ,,* adequacy of modification of mechanical ausiliary building liVAC system to ehminate filter media; i .* * ** LBP-8o-15,23 NRC 704 (1986) ' ' adequacy of utihty's system for esalualmg deficiencies and ascertainmg their reportabihty; LBP 8615,23 NRC 641-43,674,748-53,765 (1986) <
- assumpisons regarding availabihty of various hese sinks; LBP-8615,23 NRC 700 (1986) ;
deficiencies in missile proiection program; LBP-86-15, 23 NRC 6% (1986) failure to correlate radiation iones to shielding design; LBP-86-15,23 NRC 705 (1986) , radure to prepare raduison zone drawmgs based on accident conditions. LBP-86-15,23 NRC 706 (1986) . meerpretation of, LBP 86-15,23 NRC 639 20 (1986)
- O-lad of consistent basis for design. LBP 8615,23 NRC 718 (1986) lack of cnteria for jet impmgement protection on unbroken piping systems; LBP-8615,23 NRC 701 '
(1986) fack of deugn basis governing removable concrete block walls: LBP 86-15,23 NRC 707 (1986) lack of procedures definmg mmimum quahncation requirements for ALAR A reviewers; LBP-86-15, l i ' 23 NRC 703 (1986) ' .* lack of specific equipment relubihty requiremenis; LBP-86-15,23 NRC 720 (1986) , lack of sysicm for assunng that deugns meet FS AR commiiments; LBP-8615,23 NRC 716 (1986) ' ommion of deugn senfication for nonsafety-related items: LBP 86-15,23 NRC 714 (1986) * - orders for equipment, released to sendors without specification ofisolation devices; LBP-86-15,23 * ' ,* NRC 699 (1986) . .-
, ~
outhne of reportmg requiremems of. LBP 8615. 23 NRC 617 (1986) , . reflection of IJdure to report deliciencies on Apphcant's character and competence; LBP 86-15,23 -
- NRC 621 (1986) reportabehty of comractor's safety report on South Texas Project. LBP-86-15,23 NRC 613,616-22. "
679. 685 723. 725-27 (1986) s.. 3 responubihiy and guidehnes for defimng evems reportable under; LBP-8615,23 NRC 61819 ," (1986) , , ,,
* ' ~~'
~
ufet) siatus of shieldmg calculations; LBP 8615,23 NRC 705 (1986) - *
. . . ~
use of prehmmary designs as haus for design and construction activities; LBP 86-15,23 NRC 699 - ', < (1986) , 10 C F.R. 50.55(e)(1)(il . .
~ .-
deugn error m common mstrument air ime; LBP-8615,23 NRC 6% (1986) * * ' lxk of formal methodology for venfying separation requirements and the single-feilure critenon: L BP-86-15. 23 NRC 697 (1986) h . * .** ? '
- satisfaction of potentul-adverse-effect-on-safety test. LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 620 (1986) * * *
.' '. r:
.~ '.-. '
e 63
- I r
7 f LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGL'l AT!DNS 10 C F R 50 $$tel(Im) and inn failure of mtersenor to anal)/e ofet) Ondmg* of contractor retwrt apmst retortabiht) triteria of. 1.BP 8615,23 NRC 615 (19868 interpretation of " safety signiGeant" slesignation. LBP-8615. 23 N RC 614 819861 10 C F.R. 50 $$(cIllitiin lad of setem operatmg temperatures m Sp!cm Design Descripuons. LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 701 l19861 10 C F R 50 55(cif 2) time hmit on reporung of deGeiencies LBP-8615. 23 NRC 616. 683119868 10 C.F R 50 57 findmgs necesury for operatmg twense muance. LBP-86 il. 23 NRC 408119866 10 C F R 50 57(al htigabahty of drug control issues. LBP 86-6. 23 NRC 18A (1986) 10 C F R. 50 57(a)f 3ttil quahty of construction required for operatmg beense issuance. LBP 86 il. 23 NRC 303 f10861 10 C F R 50 92M grounds for a "no signincant hafards" Gndmg. \L \B-833 23 NRC 250 n 2 41986) 10 C F R 50109 Commission bad 6timg pokey. DD-86 5. 23 NRC 228 819866 10 C.F R. 50. Appendices A and B allepuons of quahty assurance deGeiencies at Callawa) Plant. DD 86-2. 23 NRC 101 n 4 819866 10 C F R. 50. Appendn A preoperaimnal tesis required for heensmg. DD 86-4. 23 NRC 218 (19868 purpose of failure analysis. LBP 86-15. 23 NRC 71516 (1986) 10 C F R. 50. Appendis A. GDC 2 scope of design requirements for protectmn against natural phenomena- LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 648. 653. 656. 771 (1986) 10 C F R. 50. Appenda A. GDC 3
- need for mcorporanon of Grc protection program m techmcal speci6casions. AL AB 831,23 NRC 65 i1986) 10 C F R. 50. Appenda A. GDC 4 scope of design requiremenn for protecuan against natural phenomena. I BP-86-15. 23 NRC 648 650. 653. 656. 774 11986) 10 C F R. 50. Appendn A. GDC 19.56.61 demal of petition seekmg revocanon of esemption from. DD-861. 23 NRC 4111986) 10 C F R 50. Arpendn A. GDC 32 failure to show nesus between reusmg plugging criteria and requirements of regulanon. L BP-8610 23 NRC 289 n 8 t19861 10 C F R. 50. Appendis B absence of documented standards for quah6 cation of design seriners; LBP-8615. 23 NRC 722 (1986) adequacy of assumptions for seismic-to-nonseismic boundary anchors; LBP 8615. 23 NRC 702 (1986) adequacy of nuclear related analpes LBP-8615,23 NRC 721 (1986) adequacy of Perry quahty assurance program; DD-86-4. 23 NRC 214. 222 (1986) adcauacy of quahty control for spent fuel pool espansion. LBP-86-21. 23 NRC 859 (1986) adequacy of South Tesas Projects quahiy assurance program. LBP 86-6. 23 NRC 18411986);
LBP-8615,23 N'tC 783-85 (1986) apphcabihty to AL AR A actiuties. LBP 8615. 23 NRC 703 (1986) litigabihty of drug abuse program adequacy as a facet of quahty assurance program. LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 665, 783 (1986) need for group providmg data to techmcal groups to momtor how those data are used. LBP-8615, 23 NRC 711 (19861 quahncation and certincation of quahty assurance mspectors; DD 86-2. 23 NRC 100.102 t1986) reportabihty of design error rates; LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 711 Il986P 64
. c . .- .;_ . .~ , u.. . - - . ~ . . _ . .
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX ' ' REGULATIONS requirement for quainy control verification ofinformation contained in Red Line Drawings; LBP-8612,23 NRC 446,449 (1986)
, . - - 1~ '
requirerr.ents for drug abuse programs; LBP-86 II,23 NRC 303 (1986)
- 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B,1 _ ~,,,
.I M % ,V***
independence of quality assurance personnel from and access to Callaway management; DD-86-2, M- *
- i' 1, -
- 23 NRC 108-09 (1986) 10 C.F R. 50, Appendix B, il . - , *- ,
4 use of Level l quahey control inspectors to inspect electrical welds; LBP 8612,23 NRC 421 (1986) - 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia B. II, XVI * * ' need for a drug control program as part of quahty assurance program: LBP 86-8,23 NRC 185 (1986)
- 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia B, III ,
adequacy of control of design documentation and deviations at Braidwood plant; LBP 86-12,23 , - NRC 423 (1986) - need for integrated systems level review; LBP 8615,23 NRC 700-09 (1986) ' 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia B. V -
. ,s NRC action for Licensee's improper qualification of quahty assurance inspectors; DD-86-2,23 NRC ^
105 (1986) ' ' - ' pipe cleaning by nonsafety related vendor at Braidwood; LBP-8612,23 NRC 432 (1986) violation of piping minimum wall requirements at Braidwood; LBP 86-12,23 NRC 427 (1986) ~ 10 C.F.R. 50, Appends: B. Vil scope of measures required to assure that purchased services conform to procurement documents: LBP 86-15,23 NRC 712 (1986) 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia B, IX incomplete documentation of socket weld joint for instrumentation piping at Braidwood. LBP,8612, 23 NRC 44) (1986) inspection of welds through pamt at Braidwood; LBP-8612,23 NRC 435 (1986) - use of unapproved stmetural steel welding procedures at Braidwood; LBP-86-12,23 NRC 448 (1986) ~ 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendit B XVI , ~ adequacy of Braidwood inspection of piping runs and pipe supports / restraints; LBP-8612,23 NRC 451 (1986)
,' invalidaison of Braidwood Construction Assessment Program observations as example of ;. -
~
noncompliance with; LBP-86-12,23 NRC 447 (1996) *, une of level I inspectors for visual weld inspections; LBP-86-12, 23 NRC 443 (1986) * ' 10 C.F.R.30. Appendia B XVIII - adequacy of Braidwood audits of quahty assurance program; LBP-86-12,23 NRC 455,456 (1986) adequacy of Callaway quahty assurance audit program; DD 86-2,23 NRC 107 (1986) - -
, 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia E ,
emergency plannmg requirements for nuclear power plant operation; ALAB-832,23 NRC 143 11986)
', s proximity of hospital for treating contaminated injured individuals: CLI.86-5,23 NRC 128 (1986)
- 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia E, IV . .
~*
Applicant responsabihty for making evacuation time estimates; ALAB-832,23 NRC 156 n.81 (1986) 10 C.F R. 50, Appendia E, IV.C ,. categories of emergencies in order of significance; ALAB-836,23 NRC 490 n.13 (1986) * *
- 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia l , 7 , ,' ,..
* . * . ; ~
deficier cies in HVAC system dessgn basis LBP-8615,23 NRC 704,713 (1986) ..' , N f effect of Licensee's comphance with Commission regulations on Licensee's culpebility in r 'gligence
- cases; DPRh4-86-1,23 NRC 463 (1986)
- I 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendia 3 ,
I * -
,' compliance (1986) of Zion Station with containment leak rate testing requirements; LBP-86-6,23hRC 93 .
. s , .j , -
, . ** ' i denial of petiteon seeking revocation of esemption frorn; DD-861,23 NRC 41 (1986) . .
, 10 C.F.R. 51.20
= ' *
, r,'
relevant environmental documents to be prepared for espansion of spent f;el storage capa8ty; l '* ' LBP 86-21,23 NRC 870 (1986) -
+
1 ,
/
65 I.
+
t* n i
- a l
I
? 1 e
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGCLATIONS 10 C F R 5120lbr. 5121. 5122fc) need for enuronmental aswssment of impacts of regulatory esemptions. DD-86-1,23 NRC 45 46 81986) 10 C.F.R 51.21. 5123 benefit aspect of cosi.henefit anal >sn of nuclear power plants. DD-86 5. 23 NRC 230 (1986) 10 C F R. $1.21. St.23teHl9838 esclusion of need-for-power and alacrnalise-energy-souref information from Staff EIS. AL AB-837, 23 NRC 545 n 65 (1986) 10 C F R. 5122icH96 th.sr.sclerntics of attions categorwally escluded from requirement for enuronmental .messment. DD-861. 23 NRC 45 (1986) 10 C F R 5123f al i19861 enuronmental impact of spent fuel storage beyond the ciipiranon of the facility operating beense. I BP-86-21. 23 NRC 856. 871 (1986) 10 C F.R 5130f aH illiil need for Enuronmental Awcwment of abernatnet to incinerauon as means of reducmg solume of low-lesel radioacine wasics; LBP.8619. 23 NRC 83611986) need to consnter ahern.itnes to fuel pool rcrackmg. LBP 86-21,23 NRC 864 (19Rol 10 C F R 5153fc6 (19831 hingabild) of need-for. power and ahernatne energy source contentiont AL AB-837. 23 NRC 545 n 65 (19861 10 C F R 5195(al scnpe of enuronmentalimpacts considered for nuclear power plant licensmg. ALAB-837,23 NRC 541 n.58 (1986) 10 C F . 4 5313(cH2) and (36 need ti cowder ahernatnes of fuel pool rerackmg. LBP-86-21,23 NRC 864 n.7 (1986) 10 C F.R. 70 2340 purpose of stating ennstruction completion date in construcuan permit. CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 118 (1986)
*10 C F R.100 probabiht> of radianon releases as a result of mnseles generated h hurrwancs and tornadoes.
1.BP-8615. 23 NRC 653. 777 (19861 10 C f R 100. \ppenda A determmatson of design ham for carthquakes. DD-56-4. 23 NRC 218 (1986)
- 10 C F.R I.10 abihi> of Perr) Plant Licensee to mamtam liabiin) insurance m hght of proposed mergert DD 86-4 23 NRC 214. 224-25 (19861 40 C F R 14115 (19856 maumum tomammant lesels for radium 226 and -228 in cr mmunny water supphet AL AB-834. 23 NRC 264 n 4 (1986) 40 C F R.192. Subparts B, D. and E apprornaieness of radium m-soil standard for cleanup of olkte ucm ty propertiet LBP-86-18. 23 NRC 802. 207 (l986) 44 C F R. 350 role of F ederal Fme geng Management Agency m appranmg emergency prep.eredness. Al.AB-832.
23 NRC 143 I19861 44 C F R 35010 requirement for .: pubhc mecung follommg emergency eserciset AL AB-836. 23 NRC 520-21 (1986) 44 C F.R 350 3f d) need for FFM A in consuti with federal agervies about site and configuration of the EP7..
\L \B-836. 23 NRC 49811986) 44 C F R 350 7 circumstance inggering formal FEM A reuce i( mergency plant ALAB-836. 23 NRC 521 (1986)
t
- sa a s S 4-e
- e ' e
., =~ -. 'L'.,.
s '
.4t'..-. s. . . . . . , *- - . *,
s ~. 6 -
. s
'r .'
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX - REGULATIONS
. S y 44 C.F.R. 350.7(b) *-
' . .'~ ' *.--
- need for FEM A to consult with siste and local governments about size and configuration of the '
1 EPZ: ALAB-036,23 NRC 490 99 (1986) ' .~ . *'-.
.) .-:" .* * ,
47 C.F.R. 75.3534 (1984) **'
. / l;
- i consequence of failure to apply for entension of construction completion date in construction . , "
permit: CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 119 (1986) ~j '_' * .
.*
- ae - ~
. - - ?
4 - , . , .p - . , _ .. - . - g # ' j 8 .% 1
.'.v.,
3 ,
. . U e Ia . ,
, e '
e
. g h
'. U 9 9
& 4 t * * * *p i e-f * . g e
I 9 g
- 9 '
v. p 1 8 g 4 O ) 8 s ,- ,
-er
& O . f I.
3, w . g F g I, # *
.e '
t'
. i ,
- e t
.s. :.
.+, , **
y,
.
- e
* . g .
, s 8 "
~~ . '
67 . 4 f l 4 1 } i i 0 C t
+ 4 S
, -- - - - - - ,, y-w-.-m.%.-----r,, .----..--,,m,wu3
4 i p
- g .
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX - - - ' STATUTES - ' Atomic Energy Act. 42 U.S C. 44 2133(d). 2232(4) '
, I qualiiy of construction required for operating license issuance: LBP-86-ll. 23 NRC 303 (1986) "
Atomic Energy Act. 52 . purpose of staims construction completion date in construction permit; CLI-86-4, 23 NRC 118 , (1986)
- repeal of. CL1-86-4. 23 NRC 117 n.3 (1986) ,
Atomic Energy Act. 62,63, and 161(b) - jurisdiction over regulation of mill taihnss; LBP 86-18. 23 NRC 804 06 (1986) [ . Alomic Energy Act,161(b) radium-in-soil standard appropriate for cleanup of offsite vicinity properties; LBP-86-18,23 NRC a ll (1986)
- Atomic Energy Act,185. 42 U.S.C. 2235 .
I consequence of failure to apply for entension of construction completion date in construction permit. CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 117120 (1986) ' Atomic Energy Act,189 heanng entitlement on operating bcense amendment that has already been issued; LBP-86-6 A. 23 i NRC 166,170 (1986) , Alomic Energy Act,189a { circumstances appropnaie fdr Commission imtiation of heanngs; DD-86-3,23 NRC 198 (1986) '
- estension of construction permit without "no significart hazards consideration"; CLI 86-4,23 NRC 122 (1986) ,
Atomic Energy Act.189atll '
^
- f heanns nghts on construction permit entension; CLl-86-4,23 NRC 123 (1986)
Atomic Energy Act,189a(2)(A). 42 U.S C. 2239(a)(2)(A) effectiveness of heense amendment in hght of "no significant hazards" determination; AL AB 833, 23 NRC 259 n 2 (1986) *
- need for heanns on hcense amendments in hght of"no significant hazards" finding by NRC Staff. ,
LBP-86 9. 23 NRC 274,277 (1986)
"no ugnificant hazards determinaison" on operating license amendment; LB' 86-6A,23 NRC 165 (1986)
Atomic Energy Act,274j(1)
- return of Agreement State authoney to NRC: CLi-8610. 23 NRC 476 (1986)
Communications Act of1934. 319(b),47 U.S C. 319(b) '" -
., ,* _ . , - r, tresiment of untimely apphcation for renewal of construction permit; CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 119-20 , , ,
(1986) ,
- ~,.
Low Level Radioactive Waste Polecy Act of 1980. 42 U.S.C. 2021d ' i disposal afternatnes for states which are not a member of a waste disposal compact; ALAB-837,23 ,, NRC $40 n 49 (1986) , Low Lesel Radioactne Waste Pohey Amendments Act of 1985. Title I of Pub. L. No. 99-240. 99 Stat.
- 1842 (1986) . .
snient of legnlation allowing states to enter into compacts with adjacent states to deal with ' *
- radioactne wastes: LBP 86-19. 23 NRC 839 (1986) , ,
National Ensironmenial Pokey Act. 42 U.S C. 4321 '
~~
need to conuder additional design alternatives for mitigation of severe accidents in . high-populatine* density arcat CLI-86-5. 23 NRC 126 (1986) ~ , 69
=
k I i .__-_._. .-.__.-. - . - . . _ . __ _ _ _ ~ _ _ . _ - _ _ . - _ _ _ _
l e
.~ . _ -
i- - - -- 4 , l . l ,
~
s
. " . . . ~, . *
,, - + .. ,
LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX - OfHERS ~
- Black's Law Dictionary 176 frev 4th ed 1986) '
enterpretations of " unmistakable" and " bad faith" as relevant to Licensee's failure to furnish - mformation to a Board. LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 626 (1986) - FCC Rule 3.215(b) - consequence of failure in apply for evension of construction permil; CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 119 (1986) ' Fed. R Civ. P. 26(b)(4) .
- ~~
dncovery of facts or opomons of a nontestifying espert. LBP 86-7. 23 NRC 178-79 (1986) , Fed R Cn P. 56 rules govermng summary dnpoution in NRC proceedmgs; LBP 86-12. 23 NRC 417 (1986) ~ Fed R Cn. P. 56(a) acceptability of hearsay esidence in support of summary disposition moisons; LBP 86-12. 23 NRC 419 (1986) I Fed R Eud 803(241 acceptabilit.s of hearsay cudence en support of summary disposition motions; LBP 86-12. 23 NRC # l 419 (1986) Federal Rules of Cnil Procedure 26(b)(3) ; i discoscry ofinal preparation materials prepared by the party itself. LBP 86 7. 23 NRC 17d-79 r
- (1986) ,
', il R Rep No 491. 97th Cong . 2d Sess 384 reprmied in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad News 3792.
3803 04 federal polic> concermng onuie storage of nuclear wastes at nuclear power planis; LBP-86-21,23 -
^
1 NRC 867 (1986) . i' IB J Moore, J Luus & T. Curreer. Moore's Federal Practice 10 443(2) ai 761 (2nd ed.1984) ' avmdance of collateral estoppel by sphiling nsues; AL AB-837. 23 NRC 537 n.37 (1986) Prnate Ownership of Special Nuclear Malenals.1964 lleanngs Before the Subcomm. on Legniation of the Jom Comrn on Atomic Energ). 88th Cong 2d Sess. (1964) N
*i purpose of staimg conuruchon completion date in construction permit. CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 118 ,.
i (19k6) Proposed Amendments to the Atomic Energ) Act of 1946- lleanngs on S. 3323 and il R. 8862 Before the Jomi Comm on A tor.uc Energy. 83d Cong 2d Sess.116 (1954) (Representaine
- limshaw), reprmied m 11 L egniative tintory of the Atomic Ecgy Act of 1954, at 1635.175156 - '
ourpose of staims conuruction completion date m construction permit; CLI-86-4,23 NRC 117 n.2 , . N l (1986) ..
^ '
*l
.s.'
l
..a l '.
\ .
- , =
I . . 7I I I
+
l i
\
n _._ .a_____._____.____._
A
. .-. : . . . . . . - .. . . i. l. '
t , I
. .s
. . i s !
l SUBJECT INDEX '
. . . I
,
- i ACCIDENTS class 9, litigability of, in content of rerackms of spent fuel pool; LBP-86 21,23 NRC 849 (1986) .
)
l need to consider effects of regulatory exemptions on analyses of; DD-86-3,23 NRC 39 (1986) l severe, in high population-density areas. NRC policy on design alternatives for mitigation of;
- CLI-86-5,23 NRC 125 (1986) . .. i i speculation about, as basis for stay motion; ALAB-835,23 NRC 267 (1986) '
- See also Fires -*
AGREEM ENTS ' See Settlement Agreements AGR EEMENT STATES I reassenion of NRC authonty m; CLI 86-10,23 NRC 475 (1986) ALERTING
.l See Nolification ALTERN ATIVE ENERGY SOURCES l e importance of financial costs in evaluating; DD-86-5,23 NRC 226 (1986)
ALTERNATIVES I to mcmeration oflow-level wastes. LBP-86-19,23 NRC 825 (1986) # to teracking of spem fuel ponds, need for co'isideraison of LBP-86-21,23 NRC $49 (1986) T AM ENDMENTS 7 See Construction Permit Amendment, Operaimg License Amendment Proceedings; Operating _ License Amendmems ANTITRUST E - license conditions, partial grant of request for enforcement of; DD-86-7,23 NRC 375 (1986) =, APPEAL BOARDS - ' ' - authonty 10 seek additionalinformation before ruling on motion 10 reopen; CLI-86-7,23 NRC 233 ' (1986) . hasis for decisions by: ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) ' APPEAL (S) failure 10 bnefissues on; AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986); AL AB-836. 23 NRC 479 (1986). AL AB-837,23 NRC 525 (1986) focus of AL AB-827,23 NRC 9 (1986) . ofintervention dernals; ALAB-838,23 NRC 585 (1986) ' ' of miertennon orders, LBP 86 9,23 NRC 273 (1986) .- , ' * ,
^ ,
oflicensms board determinations on timelmess questions. AL AB 832, 23 NRC 135 (1986) - ~ .* treatment of mues raised for Grst time on. ALAB 836,23 NRC 479 (1986) # * ' See also Review, Appellate ', ,
. [
A PPE A LS, INTERLOCUTOR Y escepison to proscnption against ALAB 838,23 NRC $85 (1986) , ,
. from orders denying party status to a petitioner, AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) ,
of micrvention orders; ALAB 833,23 NRC 257 (1986) - See also Review, Interlocutory , , APPLICANT - failure nr. to inform Board of signincani new information. LBP 86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) -
- failure 10 submit requisite report to NRC as evidence of character or competence deGeiency. - .
LBP 8615,23 NRC 595 (1986) ' W . 73 - i l l l l
~l I
l
SUBJECT INDEX ATOMIC ENERGY ACT immediate effectneness of construction pernut amendment cuendmg cnnsiruttmn oimpietmn diie. CLI-86 4. 23 NRC 113 (1986) hcensms standards under; LBP 86-15,23 NRC 595 f19861 safety findmss required by, for operating license nsuance: DD-86 2. 23 NRC 9? s 19866 standard of facihty construction required for heenung. LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 595 e 1986 use of safety goals and numerical design objectives as hsenung b.ic. I. HP-86-15. 23 NRC 595 (1986) A U DITS of implementing procedares for quahty assurance at Braidwood. adequass of f BP-Rei-12 23 NRC 414 (1986) BOARD NOTIFICATION responubihises of Staff regardmg. ALAB-829. 23 NRC 55119865 BOARDS See Appeal Boards: Licensmg Boards BRIEFS appellate. Page hmit on. AL AB-827. 23 NRC 9 (19866 scope of. on appeal ALAB-837,23 NRC 525 419H66 BURDEN OF PROOF with respect to summary dispoution. LBP-86-12. 23 NRC 414 (loN66 CARBON 14 achievement of admmistratne controls on releases of. I BP-8619. 23 *.RC 825 s 19RM CERTIFICATION of quahty assurance inspectors. DD-86-2. 23 NRC 97 (19861 COATING SYSTEMS for Braidwood contamments. adequacy of. LBP 8612. 23 NRC 414 f19 Ret COLL ATER AL ESTOPPEL application of. ALAB-837. 23 NRC 525 (1986) purpose of; ALAB-837,23 NRC 525 fl986) raised in oppoution to admission of contention. grounds for resistanse to. LBP-86-lo. 2.1 NRC 283 (1986) sphtims ofissues to avoid. ALAB-837,23 NRC 525 (1986: CONSOLID ATION of partees. ALAB-836,23 NRC 479 (1986) CONSTRUCTION . samphng to renew adequacy of. LBP 86 20. 23 NRC 844119961 standard of. required for heenung; LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 595 t 19AM CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT emmediate (ITectiveness of. CLI 86-4. 23 N RC 113 il986) CONSTRUCTION PERMITS failure to file for estension of; CLI 36 4. 23 NRC 113 1986 jurisdiction over; LBP-8614 A. 23 NRC 565 (1986) CONTAINM ENT airlock testmg. esemption from requirement for. DD 861. 23 NRC 39 (19R68 milial inerting, esemption from requirement for; DD-861,23 NRC 39 (1986) leakage in the event orcheckoalve malfunction. LBP-86-6 k. 23 NRC 165 (19861 leakage through. wa instrument hnes or escess-flow check sahes: 1 BP A6 9. 23 NRC 273 (19261 CONTAINMENT ISOLATION of hydrogen recombiner hnes. reactor enclosure conhng water hnes. drywell shdled mater hnes, esemption from requirement for; DD-851,23 NRC 39 (19866 CONTAMIN ATION, R ADIOLOGICAL at uramum processing plant, allegations of; CD 16-3. 23 NRC 191819866 of Kress Creek and West Branch of DuPage Rii tr. jurndiction to require remedial action plan: LBP 86-18,23 NRC 799 (1986) k~ potential for increases in, through rerackmg of spent fuel pool. LBP-86 21. 23 NRC 849 f19861 1 74 i l l
i
; . .s
+
, ,1,, ,
. u- -
~ . . 6 .
._ J..,___- .... . ' . '. 'UI.I C. . . . , ' {, 7 .
s . 9 SUBJECT INDEX CONTENTIONS t 5 about matters not specincally addressed by an NRC rule; LBP-8619,23 NRC 825 (1986); . LBP-86-21,23 NRC 849 (1986) *'
, ,,'.4 5 basis requirement for; LBP-86-3,23 NRC 182 (1986) e, , .
, ,4 :, .
- comparative cost, litigabihty of; ALAB-837,23 NRC 525 (1986) ,
degree of specireity required for admission of; LBP 86-10,23 NRC 283 (1986) 1 ,* ' - emergency planning, admission requirements for; CLI-86-1I,23 NRC 577 (1986) , , , grounds for resistance when collateral estoppel is raised in opposition to admission of; LBP 8610, 23 NRC 283 (1986) > meritsjudgment of, at admission stage; ALAB 837,23 NRC 525 (1986); LBP-86-19,23 NRC 825 , (1986); LBP-86-21,23 NRC 849 (1986) , need to consider wahdity of allegations in deciding admissibility of; ALAB-837,23 NRC 525 (1986) new, consideration as Board issues; CLl 86-7,23 NRC 233 (1986) - - purpose of basis requirement for admission of; LBP-86-10,23 NRC 283 (1986); LBP-86-19,23 ' NRC 825 (1986); LBP-86-21,23 NRC 849 (1986) , 7 rehtisanon of, at operating hcense stage; ALAB-837,23 NRC 525 (1986) ' scope of specificity required for admission of contentions; LBP-8619,23 NRC 825 (1986); a
~
LBP-86-21,23 NRC 849 (1986) unidentified allegations under investigation by Commission omces as basis for; LBP 86-21,23 NRC
- 849 (1986) i CONTENTIONS, LATE-FILED admissibihty in light of waiver of objections by all parties; CLl-86-8,23 NRC 241 (1986) '
alternatives to admission of, as means of protecting a petitioner's interests; ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 , (1986) . appeals of heensing board decisions on admissibility of; ALAB-828,23 NRC I) (1986) , balancing hegnificance against hkelihood of delay in determining admissibihty; CL1-86-8,23 NRC 241 (1986( , consideration of prior sanctions in determining admissibihty of; LBP 86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986) . counterbalances to delay of proceeding caused by admission of, CLI 86-8,23 NRC 241 (1986) , particularity needed to establish petitioner's abiinty to contribute to a sound record; CLl 86-8,23 NRC 241 (1986)
~
I' showing necessary on other factors in absence of good cause for delay; CL186-8,23 NRC 241 (1986) ' standards for admitting; ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) test for admissibihty of; CLI-86-8,23 NRC 241 (1986) , , type of delay considered in determining admissibihty of; AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) weight given to factors for determming admissibility of; CLI-86-8,23 NRC 241 (1986) weight given to suemitter's abihty to coninbute to a sound record, in determinmg admissibihty; , AL AB.831,23 NRC 62 (1986) CONTROL ROD DRIVE MECil ANISMS . problems associated with; DD-8519,23 NRC 33 (1986) *
,I. .
COOLING SYSTEMS * . . , ,- See Pnmary Coolant Recirculation . - *
- COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS ,' , - * * .
scope of, DD 86 5,23 NRC 226 (1986) - COUNSEL ' ' inesperienced, standard for judgms sumciency of petitions drawn by; LBP-86-19,23 NRC 825 ,- (1986); LBP-86-21. 23 NRC 849 (1986) , CROSS EX AMIN ATION ; ~, - - hmitauons on, AL AB-836,23 NRC 479 (1986) { , of witnesses by pro se miertenors; LBP 86-II,23 NRC 294 (1986) , . .. ruhnss, appellate review of ALAB-836,23 NRC 479 (1986) , , DECISIONS *! . ,- environmental, reconuderation of, on basis of new mformation: DD-86-3,23 NRC 226 (19AM , 1 75
/ ,
_ _ . .- .. - .__-._m.- ___m_ _ .___m _ _ _ _ . _y_ _. i SUBJECT INDEX , DEFICIENCIES quakty assurance, test for examimns claims of; LBP 86-II. 23 NRC 294 (1986) reportabshly ofinexperience or slow accomphshment by a deusn engmeer. LBP 86-15. 23 NRC 595 (1986) j test for reportabihir of; LBP-8615,23 NRC 595 (1986) trendmg of. LBP 86-20,23 NRC 844 (1986)
. DELAY type considered in determining admissibihty oflate filed comentions; AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986)
DESIGN deficiencies, reportabihty of; LBP-8615,23 NRC 595 (1986) , I of meinerator for reduction of radioactive wastes: LBP-8619. 23 NRC 825 (1986) . samphng to review adequacy of. LBP-86 20. 23 NRC 844 (1986) i standards for protection of nudear power plants against natural phenomena and their dynamic cliects LBP 86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) 2 See also Senmic Design DIOXIN EMISSIONS dunns volume reduction oflow-lesel radioactive wastes momionns for: LBP-8619. 23 NRC 825
, f1986)
DISCLOSU RE I ofinvestigative matenalin NRC proceedmss; ALAB-829,23 NRC 55 81986); CL1861,23 NRC 1 (1986) DISCOVERY estension of time for completiorrof; LBP-86-14. 23 NRC $53 (1986) ' need for commencement of, to await issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report: LBP-86-17. 23 NRC 793 (1986) ' of counsel's input to documents required under the regulatory process: LBP-86-7. 23 NRC 177 II986) of nonwitness experts; LBP 86-7. 23 NRC 177 (1986) responsibilitees of parties to respond to; LBP 86-4. 23 NRC 75 i1986) 3 sanctions for failure to meet obhgations concerning; LBP 86-4. 23 NRC 75 (1986) in oppose summary disposesion, nght of intervenors to. CLI 86 il. 23 NRC 577 t1986) use of. to support motons to reopen. CLI 861,23 NRC 1 (1986) I . DIS %tlSSAL OF PROCEEDING because of withdrawal of heanns request; LBP 86-2. 23 NRC 28 (1986)
- on montness grounds. LBP 86-13,23 NRC $51 l1986)
DOCU %t ENT ATION incomplete, of pipe weldmg. as a nonconformance; LBP 86-12. 23 NRC 414 f1986) DOSES See Radiological Dose Limitations Radiological Doses DRAWINGS See Red Line Drawings DRUG ABUSE requirement for program to mitigate, at nuclear power plants: LBP 8&ll,23 NRC 294 f1986) }{ requirement for Q A prngram to counter: LBP-86-8. 23 NRC 182 (1986) l EARTilOUAKES determination of design basis for; DD-86-4. 23 NRC 211 (1986) in northeasiern Ohio on Jan. 31.1986 adequacy of Perry scismee deugn in hght of. Cl 1-86 7. 23
- NRC 233 (1986) postut.iicd flosgri, effect of. on rcracked spent fucI rool; LBP 86-21. 23 NRC 849 41986) with high frequency peak accelerations. importance of; DD-86 4. 23 NRC 2il i1986)
ED.DY CURRENT TESTING ! of plugged steam generator tubes; LBP 86,10,23 NRC 283 (1986) F FFECTIVENESS oflicense amendments, showing necessary for way of; AL AB-835. 23 NRC 267 (1986) of operatmg bcense amendment following "no wgmlicant hanrds' determmatinn. Al. A B-833, 23 NRC 257 (1986) i i i ) 76 i a
^
. st
~
.'- s ; < . ,
._ -. .... _ J. a . . . .. T_ 3 C , . _ , . ,, ',
* . n.
SUBJECT INDEX FM ERGENCY ~* - See Radiological Emergency *, ' * *
* , . ,,~ ,
EMERGENCY EXERCISE 5 - litigability oradeguacy of; ALAB 8%. 23 NRC 479 (1986) r*
- NRC Staff review of results of. CLI 86 II,23 NRC 577 (1986) . ,
EMERGENCY PLANNING . . basis for requirement for. ALAB 832. 23 NRC 135 (1986); AL AB-8M. 23 NRC 479 (1986) - '
- conientions, requirements for adminion of; CLI-86 II,23 NRC $77 (1936) denciencies, result of; ALAB-SM. 23 NRC 479 (1986)
- esceptions to regulations governing; AL AB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) ,
for hospitals; ALAB 832,23 NRC 135 (1986) - legal status of guidance issued by FEM A on; LDP 86-II. 23 NRC 294 (1986) predictive nelure of Gndings on; ALAB 8M. 23 NRC 479 (1986); CLI-86 il,23 NRC $77 (1986) weight given to FEM A nndings on adequacy of; ALAB-8M. 23 NRC 479 (1986) ' EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONES - litigability of site of; ALAB-8M 23 NRC 479 (1986) I . site and con 0gurshon of; ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986)
- EMERGENCY 9 TANS content of, on medical services arranges for contaminaled injured individuals: CLI-86-5, 23 NRC 125 (1986) content of; ALAB-838,23 NRC $85 (1986) evacuation time estimates in: AL AB-BM,23 NRC 479 (1986)
Onality required of, for Board's reasonable assurance 6pding; AL AB-836,23 NRC 479 (1986) d inclusion of care of evacuees in; ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986)
- mechanism triggering formal FEM A review of; ALAB-8M. 23 NRC 479 (1986) ohpective of; ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) opportunines given to an applicant to achieve compliance with regulatory requirements; AL AB 832.
23 NRC 135 (1986) ' provision for medical services for contaminated injured individuals in; LBP-86-3,23 NRC 69 (1986) , range of prosective actions to be included in; ALAB 838,23 NRC 585 (1986) , EMERGENCY RELOCATION CENTER l location of; ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) + ' EMERGENCY WORKERS means for notiGcation of; ALAB 8%,23 NRC 479 (1986) . role conAict by; ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) . ENERGY See Allernative Energy Sources ENFORCEMENT of antitrust conditions cf operating license; DD 86-7,23 NRC 875 (1986) ENFORCEMENT POLICY ' . ' - -
- for security violations; DD-86 3,23 NRC 191 (1986) "
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES 5 MENT of regulatory esemptions, need for; DD-861,23 NRC 39 (1986)
?
s-^
')
EVACUATION * , , ,
, c of EPZ, time limits for; ALAB-8%,23 NRC 479 (1986) * * *
- F.VACU ATION TIME ESTIM ATE 5 basis of, on worsa-case amumpiions; ALAB-8%,23 NRC 479 (1986) . -
need for reconsideration of, in light of rerecking of spent fuel pool; LBP-86 21,23 NRC 849 (1986) . . purpose of, ALAB-8%,23 NRC 479 (1986) '* EVIDENCE ? need for espert sponsorship of; ALAB-8M 23 NRC 479 (1986) *
- use of,10 buttress muhiple claims; ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) ,
F.VIDENCE. H E ARS AY ' edmissibility of,in NRC proceedings; ALAB-8M,23 NRC 479 (1986) .~ in support of summary disposition moiions; LBP 8612,23 NRC 414 (1986) , rebuttal ora LBP 8612,23 NRC 414 (1986) I 77 t 4
. . . ~ .- . - _ . . _ . . - _ . . - -~ - - . . - - .
SUBJECT INDEX EX AMIN ATION See Simulator Enamination; Tesiing EXCEPTION to proscription against interlocutory appeals; AL AB 838,23 NRC $85 (1986) EXEMPTIONS from NRC regulations, demat of petition seeking revocation of; DD 86-1. 23 NRC 39 (1986) EXPERTS nonwitness, discovery of. LBP46-7. 23 NRC 177 (1986) EXTENSION OF TIME . for completion of discovery, because of withdrawal of intervenor's representative. l.BP 8614. 23 NRC 553 (1986) FEM A FINDINGS on adequacy of ernergency planning, weight given to; ALAB-836,23 NRC 479 (1986) weight gisen to, in operating hcense proceedings; LBP-86-II. 23 NRC 294 (1986) FIN AL SAFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT , litigability of issues analyred in: LBP 86 9. 23 NRC 273 (1986) l FIRE PROTFCTION PL ANS need for inclusion in Techmcal Specifications. ALAB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986) FIRES poten.ial for, in o(T gas system of volume reduction facility: LBP 86-19. 23 N RC 825 (1986) j FLOOD PROTECTION j at tm crick facility; CLI 86-6,23 NRC 130 (1986) GEN' MC SAFETY ISSUES hc. nr board consideration of. LBP-86-5. 23 NRC 89 (1986) ilE AM AG entitlements on operating license amendments; LBP-86-6A. 23 NRC 165 (1986) on construction permit euenseon scope of. CLI-86-4. 23 NRC 113 (1986) on operating license amendments. need for; LBP 86 9. 23 NRC 273 (1986) withdrawal of request for; LBP 86-2,23 NRC 28 (1986) See also Notice of Hearing
. IlEARING RIGitTS when NRC reasserts its regulatory authority in an agreement state; CLI-8610,23 NRC 475 (1986)
HEAT REMOVAL See Residual Heat Removal System i HOSPITALS emergency planmns for; AL AB-832. 23 NRC 135 (1986) i HURRICANES ! protection of nuclear power planis from dynamic effects of; LBP 86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) ] INCINERATION oflow-level wastes to achieve volume reduction, alternatives to: LBP 8619. 23 NRC 825 (1986) of radioactive wastes, adequacy of design for; LBP 86-19,23 NRC 825 (1986) INFORM AL PROCEEDINGS procedures to be followed in; LBP-86-19. 23 NRC 825 (1986) INJURY j See irreparable Injury j INTEREST i requirement for intervention in operating license amendment proceeding; LBP 86-6 A. 23 NRC 165 (1986) INTERESTED STATE participation by; ALAB 838. 23 NRC 585 (1986) INTERGR ANULAR ATTACK degradation of steam generator tubes by; LBP 86-10,23 NRC 283 (19864 INTERPRETATIONS of radiation protection standards: DPRM-86-1. 23 NRC 461 (1986) 78 1 l i-
s . .
+ -
b s .
+
,e ,
- o. .. & *. ,
.L7 . . . J- -- .;. . - _ . . . _ m... k - . . c [C T . A . . . _N2 . u .' *
- 4 '-
SUBJECT INDEX . ' -
~
- g. .
s INTERROGATORIES - - ' ' ' delay in answerms; LBP-86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986) ' * .'
, - r - -
INTERVENORS pro se, cross-enemmation of witnesses by; LBP-86-il. 23 NRC 294 (1986) I '; -" . ], 4 - a
' i e
- . .- .. 9 right of to descovery to oppose summary disposition; CLI-86-II,23 NRC $77 (1986) %/'. - *
** s *'
INTERVENTION * ' - ' appeals of denial of, ALAB-838,23 NRC $$$ (1986) contention requirement for; ALAB 833,23 NRC 257 (1986) I ' '
- i
- in hearing on material false statement by licensee omcial; CLl-86-9,23 NRC 465 (1986) -
- requirements for; LBP-86-6A 23 NRC 165 (1986) ' * ' . ,
See also Orders, Intervention - INTER VENTION, LATE !. -,
. a factors considered in determining whether to grant; LBP-86-6A,23 NRC 165 (1986) -
result of failure to address five factors for; LBP 86-9. 23 NRC 273 (1986) -
- INVESTIGATIONS ,'
- disclosure of materials from, in NRC proceedings; ALAB-829,23 NRC $$ (1986); CLI-86-1,23 , ' ,
NRC i (1986) ', - # , LODINE 125 achievement of admmntrative controls on releases of; LBP-86-19,23 NRC 825 (1986) e lRREPAR ABLE INJURY importance of, in determining stay motions; ALAB-835,23 NRC 267 E1986) 3URISDICTION denial of stay molion because of lack of; LBP-86-9. 23 NRC 273 (1986) over construction permits; LBP-86-14A,23 NRC 565 (1986) io require a remedial action plan because of radiological contamination of ofIsite area; LBP 86-18. ' 23 NRC 799 (1986) to termmate operasing hcense proceedms; LBP-86-14A 23 NRC 565 (1986) - LEAK RATE FALSIFICATIONS t denial of request so modify Notice of Hearms on; CLI-86-33,23 NRC 51 (1986) i LEAK R ATE TESTING . adequacy of, at Zion Station. LBP 86-6,23 NRC 92 (1986) ,- , LICENSE CONDITIONS c - g ., See Operstmg License Conditions ~ LICENSING BOARDS
- authority of, to decade matters not placed in controversy; ALAB-830. 23 NRC 59 (1986) consideration of uncontested generic safety is<ues by; LBP 86-5,23 NRC 89 (1986) .
discretion m managmg proceedings. AL AB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) dncretion in managmg proceedingt LBP 86-14,23 NRC 553 (1986) - sua sponte authority of, CLI 86-l,23 NRC I (1986) ' LICENSING PROCEEDINGS . dnmmal of. AL AB-830. 23 NRC 59 (1986) . - ,* .. ' See also Operating Licenw Amendment Proceedmss; Operating License Proceedings "- ' LOSS OF COOL ANT ,- - potenisal for increases in, through reracking of spens fuel pool; LBP 86 21,23 NRC 849 (1986) .
- M AN AGERIAL CHARACTER AND COMPETENCE 'a / ' * * '
of apphcant, reflection of reportins deficiencies on: LBP-8615,23 NRC 595 (1986) - - # .'. - * . M ATERI AL FALSE STATEMENTS 3" - by TMi omcials relaling to Notice of Vmlation on stuck open valve, advisor) peineon on; I
- CLI 86 9. 23 NRC 465 (1986) ,
MEDICAL SERVICES ~, ;;
.c .
adequacy of arrangements for, as subject for post-hearing stalioversight. AL AB 836. 23 NRC 479 e2 e *. , (1986) '* s for contammated injured individuait provision for in emergency plans: LBP 86-3. 23 N RC 69 6. (1986) " for contammated mjured mdiv.1uait prosimity to nuclear plant of facihties provedmg; CLi 86 5. 23 . l NRC 125 (1986) t.* t 4 79
*6 '
5 .,
1 l 1 l SUBJECT INDEX MON 110 RING See Radiation Monitonng MOOTNESS dismissal of proceeding on grounds of LBP 8613,23 NRC 551 (1986) MOTIONS TO REOPEN particularity required of material supporting; ALAB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986); CLI 86-1,23 NRC l (1986) that raise new issues, test applied to; ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986); CLI-86-6,23 NRC 130 (1986) three-factor test applied to; ALAB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986); CLl-86-1,23 NRC l (1986); CLI-86-6, 23 NRC 130 (1986) use of discovery to support; CLI 86-1,23 NRC I (1986) See also Reopening of Record NEED FOR POWER ISSUES litigabihty of; DD 86-5,23 NRC 226 (1986) N EGLIGENCE compliance with regulations as proof of absence of; DPRM-86-1,23 NRC 461 (1986) NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERMIN ATION effectiveness of operating licenw amendment in light of; ALAB-833,23 NRC 257 (1986) htigabihty of heense amendment in light of; LBP-86-9,23 NRC 273 (1986) See also Significant flazards Consideration NOTICE OF HEARING demal of request to modify; CLI 86 33,23 NRC $1 (1986) NOTIFICATION nighttime, of radiological emergency, requirements for: LBP-86 il,23 NRC 294 (1986)
, of emergency workers; ALAB-836,23 NRC 479 (1986)
See also Board Notification NRC POLICY on investigations, inspections, and adjudicatory proceedings; ALAB-829,23 NRC 55 (1986) on severe accident mitigation measures in high g jpulation-densty areas; CLI 86 5,23 NRC 125 (1986) See also Enforcement Policy - NRC POLICY STATEMENTS on engineenng espertise on shift, regulatory weight given to; LBP 8615,23 NRC 595 (1986) NRC $TAFF post hearing resolution ofissues by; AL AB-836,23 NRC 479 (1986) responsibikhes of, to inform boards of material relevant to rending adjudication; AL AB 829,23 NRC $$ (1986) responmbility for making "significant hazards consideration" findings; CLI-86-4,23 N RC 113 (1986) review of emergency eserciw results; CLl 86-il,23 NRC 577 (1986) NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS uw of safety goals and numerkal demsn objectives as licensing basis for: LBP-86-15,23 N RC 595 (1986) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION authonty to promulgate rules of evidence for the courts; DPRM 861,23 NRC 461 (1986) elTect of type of material on junsdiction to regulate licenwe activities to control radiological dows; LBP-86-18,23 NRC 799 (1986) reassertion of authority of,in Agreement States; CLI 86-10,23 NRC 475 (1986) supervisory authonty over conduct of NRC adjudications; CL186 7,23 NRC 233 (1986) NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT intenm storage of spent fuel on sete at nuclear power plants; LBP 86 21,23 NRC 849 (1986) NUREGs legal status of, LBP-86-II,23 NRC 294 (1986) OBJECTIONS waiver of, to admission oflate filed contentions; CLl-86-8,23 NRC 241 (1986) 80
a
.- ;~. . . c ._ a .. ..../... . ... .. . ff. 1. ._ ..' , ,
t,
- g d = '
SUBJECT INDEX OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT PROCEEDINGS 4 - consolidation of. L8P-86-68,23 NRC 173 (1986) i :
~
rewdency requiremenis for standmg to intervene in: LBP 86 9. 23 NRC 273 (1986) - termination of; L8P 861,23 NRC 25 (1986) 3- .
/, '. ,
OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENTS ' effectiveness following "no msnificans harards" GndirF; ALAB-833,23 NRC 257 (19861 ' entendmg time for certain equipment surveillance: DD 86-6. 23 NRC 571 (1986) *-, , , _ hearms entitlements on; LBP 86-6A. 23 NRC 165 (1986) "' hangahMy of, in light of"no signincant hasards" determination; LBP-86 9. 23 NRC 273 (1986) ' ' need for hearing on; LBP 86-9. 23 NRC 273 (1986)
- showing necessary for stay of effectiveness of; AL AB-833. 23 NRC 267 (1986)
- standard for suspenson of; DD-86-6. 23 NRC 571 (1986) '
tesims of check valves; L8P-86-68. 23 NRC 173 (1986) - sesims of primary containment isolation valves; LBP-86-68. 23 NRC 373 (1986) ' OPER ATING LICENSE CONDITIONS
- antitrust, grant of request for enforcement action regarding: DD-86 7. 23 NRC 875 (1986) , .*
OPER ATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS jurisdiction to termmate; LBP-8614 A. 23 NRC 565 (1986) ransms of sua sponte inues in: CLI-861,23 NRC I (1986) OPER ATING LICENSES fire protection plan requirements for; AL AB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986) safety Gndmss required for issuance of; DD-86-2,23 NRC 97 (1986) OPER ATOR LICENSES need for notice and opportunity for hearing on Comminaion action on; CLi 86-33,23 NRC 51 '- (1986) ' See aho Reactor Opersior ORDERS, INTERVENTION appealability of. AL AB 833,23 NRC 257 (1986); LBP-86-9. 23 NRC 273 (1986) OVERPRESSURIZATION NRC Staff resolution of; L8P 86-5. 23 NRC 89 (1986)
- PEN ALTY. CIVIL '
' I '
for failure to perform weapons search. DD 86-3,23 NRC 191 (1986) > heigability of settlement agreements for; ALJ 86-2,23 NRC 459 (1986)
- See also Sanctions PIPELINE RUPTURE accident scenario afTecling Limerick facihty; CLI-86-6,23 NRC 130 (1986) I
- PIPES cleaning of, by nonsafely-related vendor at Braidwood; L8P-8612. 23 NRC 414 (1986) -
PIPING minimum wall requirements, violation of criteria for; L8P-86-12,23 NRC 414 (1986) -' ,- ,, ,. runs and supporis/ restraints, deEciencies in at Braidwood; LBP 86-12. 23 NRC 414 (1986) - POLICY . a ht NRC Pdky _* POW ER ' ? - *- See Need-for Power issues + * -' .". . a. PRIM ARY COOLANT RECIRCULATION mngle loop operation of. ALAB 831,23 NRC 62 (1986) ' PRIVILEGE for trial prepersimn materish, scope of LBP 86-7,23 NRC 177 (1986) , s,
- PROB ABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT g ' -
use of, to reach bottom-hne safety conclus ons; LBP 86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) - -' PROOF . See Burden of Proof ' - PROTECTIVE ACTIONS , range of, to be included in emergency plans; ALAB-838,23 NRC 585 (1986) 8i N
I N SUBJECT INDEX l. QUALIFICATION of nonbargammg umt workers to repixe strikers: DD-86 3. 23 NRC 191 i198M of quahty assurance inspectors: DD-86-2,23 NRC 97 (1986) i QUALITY ASSUR ANCE ' breakdown of audit program; DD 86-2,23 NRC 97 (1986) a deficiencies, test for exammmg claims of; LBP 86-II 23 NRC 294 (19861
, drug abuse program requiremenH; LBP 86 II 23 NRC 294 (1186)
, violations, action required for; DD 86 2. 23 NRC 97 (1986) I QUALITY ASSUR ANCE PROGRAMS acceptabihty of; DD-86-2,23 NRC 97 (1986) at Perry Plant, adequacy of; DD-86-4,23 NRC 211 (1986) i for reracking of spent fuel pool, adequacy of; LBP-86-21, 23 NRC 849 (1986) requirements for drug control program in: LBP 86-8. 23 NRC 182 (1986) QU ALITY ASSUR ANCE/ QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTORS independence of, from management; DD-86-2,23 NRC 97 (1986) Level I, use of for visual weld inspections; LBP-8612,23 NRC 414 (1986) Level I. use of to inspect electrical welds. LSP-86-12. 23 NRC 414 (1986) quahfication and certification of; DD-86-2. 23 NRC 97 (1986)
- reenamination of work of, at Shearon Harns Plant; LBP-86-II. 23 NRC 294 4198N RADIATION MONITORING at uranium processing plant adequacy of; D0 86 3. 23 NRC 191 (1986)
RADIATION PROTECilON STAND ARDS interpretation of. DPAM 86-l,23 NRC 461 (1986) R ADIO ACTIVE RELEASES background, at volume reduction facihty, calculation of. LBP-86-19,23 NRC 825 (1986) maximum contammant levels for, in community water supplies; ALAB-834, 23 NRC 26) (198M routine, resultmg from regulatory enemptions, need to consider; DD-86-l. 23 N RC 39 (1986) . See also Contammation, Radiological R ADIOACTIVE WASTE low level, determming radionuclide conient of; LBP-8619,23 NRC 825 (198o) monitorms and documentation of pomt to-pomt transfer of. LBP-86-19/23 NRC 825 (1986) ( responsibility for deahng with; LBP 8619,23 NRC 825 (1986) R A DIOACTIVE WASTE STOR AGE long-term, effect on structuralintegnty of spent fuel pool. LBP 86 21,23 NRC 849 (1986) 4 onsite, need for population views on; LBP-86-21,23 NRC 849 (1986) RADIOLOGICAL DOSE LIMITATIONS appropriate for protection against gamma radiation contamination of offsite water souree; LBP 8618,23 NRC 799 (1986) R ADIOLOGICAL DOSES from incineration oflow-level wastes, calculation of; LBP-86-19,23 NRC 825 (1986) RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY categories of; ALAB 836,23 NRC 479 (1986) RADIONUCLIDES manimum contammant levels for,in community water supphes; ALAB 834. 23 NRC 263 (1986) RADIUM 4 manimum contaminant levels for iso' topes of, in community water supplies: A L AB-434. 23 NRC
- 26) (1986)
RADIUM IN-Soll STANDARDS applicability to offsite contammation of water source by gamma radiation; LBP 86-18. 23 NRC 799 (1986) 5 i REACTOR OPER ATOR ' + failure of simulator esamination by: ALJ 861,23 NRC 31 (1986) See also Reactor Operator 4 82 i d
. , - ~ - - - , - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - , _ , n-,---,---n - - - - - - - - , -
s e
- Q. .*
a - - - . .- , . _ . _ . n. . _ . . J.. ; . . . . .___.L,.f.... . . N ,, , , b, , ,
,i-,' ,
i; , *.. . , SUBJECT INDEX a , RECONSIDERATION :: - basis for motions for. LBP 86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) i :' . - of environmental decisions when new information becomes available, need for DD-86-5,23 NRC ,
,- ~'- *
- j 226 (1986) y. .. ' - , *~
of scheduling, denial of motion for; LBP 86-lf. 23 NRC 793 (1986) + ' ' RECORD * '
-- e '
d' ' ' ' See Reopening of Record ; . RED LINE DRAWINGS " - QC verification ofinformation contamed in; LBP 8612,23 NRC 414 (1986) * - . . , REGULATIONS . - comphance with, as proof of absence of neghsence; DPRM-86-1,23 NRC 461 (1986) I ' denial of petition seeking revocation of esemptions from; DD-86-1,23 NRC 39 (1986) ' governmg emergency planning, esceptions to; ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) , interpretation of radiation protection standards; DPRM 86-1,23 NRC 461 (1986) ;. lest for reportabihty of deficiencies; LBP 8615,23 NRC 595 (1986) ' ' REGULATORY GUIDES . ,- Purpose of; ALAB 836,23 NRC 479 (1986) a REMOTE SHUTDOWN SYSTEM esemption from requirement for; DD 861,23 NRC 39 (1986) REOPENING OF RECORD basn for Board decision on; CLI-86-7,23 NRC 233 (1986) ; burden of satisfying requirements for CLI 86-1,23 NRC 1 (1986); CLi-86-7,23 NRC 233 (1986) enteria governms; LBP-8615,23 NRC 595 (1986) most important factor of three-factor test for; AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) standard for, where new information is based on a previously unavailable Safety Evaluation Report; LBP-86-17,23 NRC 793 (1986) three-factor test for; AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986); ALAB 834,23 NRC 263 (1986); CLI-86 7,23 NRC 233 (1986) to consider new conientions as Board issues; CL1-86-7,23 NRC 233 (1986) See also Motions to Reopen I RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM r-esemphon from requirement for; DD 861,23 NRC 39 (1986) , REVIEW > - content of petitions for; CLi-86 5,23 NRC 125 (19861 treatment of untimely petitions for; CLI-86-5,23 NRC 125 (1986) , , REVIEW, APPELLATE focus of; AL AB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) of cross esamination ruhngs; ALAB 836,23 NRC 479 (1986) , purpose of, ALAB-827,23 NRC 9 (1986); ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) , scope of AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986); ALAB-836,23 NRC 479 (1986) . . standard for overturmns Licensm's Board findmss; ALAB-837,23 NRC 525 (1986) *
- R E% IEW, INTERLOCUTORY - .
Change in basic structure of a proceedmg as basis for, ALAB-833,23 NRC 257 (1986) * *-
- claimed uolations of Rules of Pracoce as basis for, ALAB-833,23 NRC 257 (1986) - */ - .
RISK i. 's .
- See Probabihshc Risk Assessment
- ROLE CONFLICT t* '
by emergency workers. ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986)
- RULEM AKING ,. s, *
- heigabihiy in operatmg beense proceedings of essues that are the subject of; LBP 86 3,23 NRC 182
-= , .
(19861 * . . need to seek pubhc comments prior to denying petition for; DPRM 86-1,23 NRC 461 (1986) . RULES OF PR ACTICE i acceptabihty of hearsay evidence in support of summary disposition motions; LBP-86-12,23 NRC ,'- * * '- - 414 (1986) 83 t y- ,,-- ,- --
. - .- _ - ~ _ - _. _, -- _=~ . - _ . .- . . . . .
l 1 l SUBJECT INDEX i action required for quahiy assurance violations; DD 86-2,23 NRC 97 (1986) adequacy of 2.206 remedies for protecting a petitioner's interests; AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) admissibthty oflate-filed contention in hght of waiver of objections by all parties; CLI-86 8. 23 N RC 241 (1986)
- I admnsion requirements for emergency plannies contentions; CLI-86-II. 23 NRC 577 (1986) appealabitsiy ofintervention denials; ALAB-838,23 NRC 585 (19861 appeals of licensing board decisions on admisubility of late-filed contentions; AL AB-828, 23 N RC 13 (1986) appellaie review of cross-examination ruhngs; ALAB 836,23 NRC 479 (1986) application of collateral estoppel doctnne; AL AB-837,23 NRC 525 (1986) balancing of late-filed contention's segmficance against hkehhood of delay, in determsmns admissibility: CLi-86-8,23 NRC 241 (1986) basis for motions for reconsideration: LBP 8615,23 NRC 595 (1986) bass requirement for consentions; LBP-86-8,23 NRC 182 (1986)
; briefs on appeal; ALAB 837,23 NRC 425 (1986)
{ burden of proof with respect to summary disposition; LBP 8612,23 NRC 414 (1986) 4 burden of satnf>mg reopening require,nents; CLi 86 l. 23 NRC 1 (1986); CLl-86 7. 23 NRC 233 (1986) burden on opponems of summary dnpoutmn motions. LBP-8612,23 NRC 414 (1986) j burden on party seckmg stay; ALAB-835. 23 NRC 267 (1986) j burden on proponent of summary disposition; LBP-8615. 23 NRC $95 (1986) circumstances appropriate for directed certification; ALAB-838,23 NRC $85 (1986) claimed Siolations of, as bass for interlocutory review; AL AB-833,23 NRC 257 (1986) communication of Board concerns to parties at an early stage of a lengthy review process; , LBP 86-20,23 NRC 844 (1986)
- competence of witnesses; LBP-86-12,23 NRC 414 (1986)
{ consequence of fadure io address stay criteria; CLI-86-6. 23 NRC 130 (1986) consideration ofissues that are the subject of ongoing rulemaking; LBP-86-8,23 NRC 182 (1986) ! consideration of pnor sanctions imposed on party fihng untimely contentmns; LBP 86 4. 23 NRC 75 (1986)
, consohdation of parties; ALAB 836,23 NRC 479 (1986)
- j ontent of 2.206 petitions: DD 86-2,23 NRC 97 (1986) content of petitions for review: CLI 86 5,23 NRC 125 (1986) contention requirement for intervention; ALAB-833. 23 NRC 257 (1986)
} counterbalances to delay of proceedmg caused by admission of late filed contentmn; CLl-86-8,23 NRC 241 (1986) critens govermns motions to reopen a record; LBP-8615. 23 NRC 595 (1986) degree of specificity required for contenuons to be admitted- LBP 86-10,23 NRC 283 (1986) ) delay in answenng interrogatories; l.BP 86-4, 23 NRC 75 (1986) I . disclosure of investigative or inspection material by Office of Investigations: CLI-861,23 N RC l (1986)
; dncovery of counsel's input to documents required under the regulatory process; LBP 86 7,23 NRC 177 (1986) dncovery of nonwiiness caperts; LBP 86-7. 23 NRC 177 (1986)
' escepoon to prosenption *gamst mierlocutory appeals; AL AB-838,23 NRC 585 (1986) factors consdered in selcwns and imposing sanctions; LBP 86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986) failure to bnef. issues on scwal. ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) 4 I focus of appellate review; \t AB 832. 23 NRC 135 (1986) grounds for presailing part)'s defense on appeal; AL AB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) , grounds for rewstance weten < Alateral estoppel is raised in opposition to admisuon of contentions; i LBP 8610,23 NRC 283 (t986) j importance ofirreparable injury in determming if stay is warranted. ALAB 835. 23 NRC 267 (1986)
- imerlocutory appeals from orders denying party status to a petitioner; AL AB-828. 23 NRC 13 (1986) l interlocutory appeals ofintersention orders; AL AB-833,23 NRC 257 (1986) interlocutory review on bass of change in base structure of proceedmg. AL AB 833,23 NRC 257 l' t1986) i i
i
- 84 t
1 i _- , . ,,_ - - ~ - , , , , ,- ,-, - - , . . . - - ., - _ _ , . . - , _ - - - , - - . . - --
,. i
, :c .
+
- , 7
.L c e b . ._ . . . . ._.
. . _ . - A. u . . -- _. 3 q.u- . q ..,
.. .3
.s ,
. ~. ~.
.t SUBJECT INDEX ,
c-,0 "E ***
- issues pending in hcensms proceeding as the subjects of 2.206 petitions: DD 86-1,23 NRC 39 , . >
(1986) * *l. *b '* . '*
- bcense suspension or revocation as penalty for violation of Commission regulations: DD-86-3,23 ', t NRC 191 (1986) * '
- f**** *
- bght in which record in viewed in determming summary disposition motions; LBP 8612. 23 NRC
- 414 (1986). LBP-8615. 23 NRC 595 (1986) ?,,
hminations on cross-esammation; AL AB-836. 23 NRC 479 (1986) ? i
~~'
ments consideration of contentions at admission stage; AL AB-837,23 NRC 525 (1986) ' most important factor of three-factor test for reopenmg a record; ALAB 828. 23 NRC 13 (1986) * "
- need to consider vahdity of allegations in contenteons at admission stage of; AL AB-837. 23 NRC **
- 525 (1986)
[ , N RC guidance for determming whether in impose sanctions; LBP-86-4. 23 NRC 75 (1986) 8 ohhgation of parties to avoid false coloring of facts;. AL AB 837,23 NRC 525 (1986) , ..
^
page hmit on appellate bnefs; ALAB 827,23 NRC 9 (1986)
- i' *- * '
partial grant of summary dispose.on; LBP-86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) ; - participation by an interested state or local government; ALAB-838,23 NRC 585 (1986) [. ' particulaney required of material supportmg motions to reopen; CLI-86-l. 23 NRC 1 (1986) ! - particulanty required to estabhsh a petitioner's contribution to a sound record. CLl 86-8. 23 NRC 241 (1986)
- parties who may appeal hcenung board decimons. ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986)
~
purpose of appellate review; AL AB-827,23 NRC 9 (1986) purpose of haus-for-contention reauirement; LBP 86-10. 23 NRC 283 (1986); LBP-86-19. 23 NRC 825 (1986) purpose of collateral esioppel doctrine; ALAB-837. 23 NRC 525 (1986) i purpose of summary disposition. LBP 86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) ' rehtigation ofissue m operstmg license proceedmg by party who did not participate in construction fermit proceedmg; AL AB-837. 23 NRC 525 (1986) I
- remedies available under 10 C F R. 2.206; AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) t .
responubihties of parties to keep Boards informed of significant new information; LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 595 (1986) i responubihties of parties to monitor pubhcly available documents; ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) .b ' ' ' -- responsihihties of parties 10 notify presidmg body of signincant and relevant new information; LBP 86-14,23 NRC 553 (1986) l.- l . 6 responubihines of parties to respond to discovery; LBP-86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986) respontbihties of parties with hmited resources; LBP 86-14,23 NRC 553 (1986) . result of failure to respond to summary dispostion motion; LBP-8615,23 NRC 595 (1986) ' ' nght ofintervenors to discovery to oppose summary disposition; CLl 86-II,23 NRC 577 (1986) - rules gosernmg summary disponiion; LBP-8612. 23 NRC 414 (1986) ,. ' unctions for failure to meet descosery obhgations; LBP-86-4. 23 NRC 75 (1986) * . scope of hingable issues in NRC proceedmgs; ALAB 836,23 NRC 479 (1986) ' * + showing necessary by opponent of summary disposition motion; LBP 8612,23 NRC 414 (1986); , L.BP 8615. 23 NRC 595 (1986) ,, s showmg necessary for stay of effectiveness oflicense amendments; ALAB-835,23 NRC 267 (1986) I t * ' showing necessary on other four factors in absence of good cause for late-Gling of contentions. CLI-86-8. 23 NRC 241 (1986) .
'.~
[ '
showmg necessary to initiate show cause proceedsngs; DD 86-4. 23 NRC 211 (1986)
- i speculation about accidents as hans for stay of agency action; AL AB-835,23 NRC 267 (1986) '
sphtimg ofissues to avoid collateral estoppel doctrme; AL AB-837,23 NRC 525 (1986) P l standard for admitting laie-Gled contentions; AL AB-828. 23 NRC 13 (1986) h .. <'. ** -
- standard for oserturning Licensing Board Andmss; ALAB-837,23 NRC 525 (1986) L- . ~ ' > . .
siandard for reopening a record. CLI-86-1. 23 NRC 1 (1986); CLI-86-7,23 NRC 233 (1986) ! *
- standmg to appeal based on another party's snevances. ALAB 837,23 NRC 525 (1986) . .; * % ? .,
support necesury for motions to reopen. AL AB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986) test for admissbihty of noniimely consennons; CLi 86-8,23 NRC 241 (1986)
'?
e test for moisons in reopen that raise new issues; ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986); CLl-86-6,23 NRC A
, _ 3 130 (1986) -
t h i 85 I i g'
- 4 4 ,
. e 9
- - ,. , . - , , . - - - - . ,- 4 . , - - _ , ,.,-.,y-,,
s . . - -=.
- i SUBJECT INDEX three factor test for motions to reopen; ALAB 828. 23 NRC 13 (1986). At.49 831. 23 NRC 62 (1986h AL AB-834,23 NRC 263 (1986); CLi-86-6. 23 NRC 130 (1980 time for fihng summary disposinon motions; CLI 86 II,23 NRC 577 (1986>
treatment of untimely retiuons for review; CLI-86 5. 23 NRC 125 (19861
, type of delay considered in determining admissibehty of late filed contentions. AL AB-828. 23 N RC 13 (1986) use of 2 206 petinons to address issues that are the subject of ongoing licensing proceedings -
DD-86-4. 23 NRC 211 (1986)
, use of discoscry to support motions to reopen. CLI 86-1,23 NRC 1 (1986) 3 use of evidence to buttress multiple claims; ALAB 832. 23 NRC 135 (198M t waiver of unbriefed appeals; ALAB-836. 23 NRC 479 (1986) weight given to ability of late filed contention's submitter to contribute to a mund record.
i ALAB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986) weight given to factors for determining admissibehty of late-filed contenuons; CLl R6-8, 23 NRC 241 (1986) SABOTAGE of spent fuel facilities; LBP-86 21,23 NRC 849 (1986) SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT need for commencement of discosery to await muance of. LBP 8617. 23 NRC 79)(19866 l SAFETY FINDINGS required for operating hcense issuance; DD-86-2,23 NRC 97 (1986) S AFETY ISSUES See Generic Safety issues SAMPLING to review adequacy of design and construction; LBP-86-20,23 NRC 844 (1986) SANCTIONS - factors considered in selecting and imposing; LBP-86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986) for failure to meet discovery obhgations; LBP 86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986) > NRC guidance for determining whether to impose; LBP 86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986) ! prior, consideration of, in determimns admissibihty of late-filed contentions;. LBP 86-4, 23 N RC 75 (1986) See also Penalty. Civil . SCHEDULING demal of motion requesung reconsiderauon of. LBP-86-17,23 NRC 793 (1986) . SCRUBBER SYSTEMS I adequacy of, to remove radioactise particulates from incinerator; LBP 8619. 23 NRC 825 (1986) SECURITY ! penalty for violations of; DD 86-3. 23 N RC 191 (1986) SEISMIC DESIGN [, of Perry Plant, adequacy of, in light of recent earthquake; DD 86-4,23 NRC 211 (1986) I of spent fuel pool, need to consider, for reracking proposal; LBP 86-21,23 NRC 849 (1986) SEISMICITY of Perry site; DD-86-4,23 NRC 211 (1986) l SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS ! offered for fihng in NRC proceedings, requirements for; LBP-86-16,23 NRC 789 (1986) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS for civil penalties,litigabihty of; AL3 86-2,23 NRC 459 (1986) SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISORS basis for current NRC requirements regarding; LBP-86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDINGS showing necessary to initiate; DD-86-4,23 N RC 211 (1986) i SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDINGS ( remedies available through; ALAB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) SHUTDOWN i See Remote Shutdown System i l i I 86
-- . . - - - , w. , _. - , . - - . - . , ..c .-- -r -. y---o - . - - - -,-m+,, - - ---.---------m . . _ - - - , . - - - - . --- - - . < - - - - - - c - ,, ,--..
~
, . e -
a- . ' , _ s
. , _'} q . Y
-. .. . - . . . . ~ ~ - - ..s.- . . . .. . u. . . . ... ?, ,v.' ; : .. ,,
. s : ., ,
.., , . ' '[ , .
SUBJECT INDEX e - SIGNIFICANT H AZARDS CONSIDER ATION 1 ...'
- necessity of, for construction permit entension; CLI-86-4,23 NRC 113 (1986)
See also No Significant Hazards Determination
.'*E**'
'f.** . '.
',
- 7 '.
E. ' ' * .- SIMULATOR EXAMINATION **. ,, failure by reactor operator; ALJ-86-1,23 NRC 31 (1986) SIREN SYSTEM p' -, , - . -
*j supplementation of, for emergency notincation; LBP-86 II,23 NRC 294 (1986) ' , >- '
SITE RESTOR ATION need for plan for, following withdrawal of apphcation for construction permit; LBP-86-14A,23 NRC ' , *** 565 (1986) , treatment oflate filed motion to review and approve plan for; LBP-86-16. 23 NRC 789 (1986) I. ... SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS
- adequacy of backfilling operations of South Texas Project; LBP-8615,23 NRC 595 (1986) .
SPENT FUEL a responsibility for interim storage of. LBP-86-21,23 NRC 849 (1986) , * .
- SPENT FUEL POOL (S) *
- increases in radioactive contamination due to reracking ef; LBP-86-21,23 NRC 549 (1986) ,.
need to consider seismic design in contens of reracking proposal; LBP-86-21,23 NRC 849 (1986) reracking, need for showies ofimmediate need in proposal for; LBP 86-21,23 NRC 549 (1986) safety considerations, engineering criteria, and seismic forces relevant to; LBP 86-21r 23 NRC 849 , (1986) structuralintegrily of, after long term radioactive waste storage in: LBP-86-21,23 NRC 849 (1986)
- SPENT FUEL STOR AGE
- long-term effects of. LBP-86 21,23 NRC 849 (1986)
STANDBY G AS TREATMENT SYSTEM exemption from requirement for; DD-861,23 NRC 39 (1986) STANDING requirement for imervemion in operating license amendment proceeding: LBP-86-6 A,23 NRC 165 (1986) [* to appeal hawd on another party's grievances; ALAB-837,23 NRC 525 (1986) t
- 10 intervene in operating beenw amendment proceeding, residency requirements for; LBP-86-9. 23 * -
NRC 273 (1986) J.
- STATISTICS ,'
effect of inter ohnerver rehability on; LBP-86 20. 23 NRC 844 (1986) ST A Y tS) - hurden on party wcking; ALAB-835,23 NRC 267 (1986) denial of moton becauw of lack of junsdiction; LBP 86 9. 23 NRC 27) (1986) , , failure to address cnteria for; CLI 86-6. 23 NRC 130 (1986) ' importance of irreparable infury in determining motmns for; Al.AB-835,23 N RC 267 (1986) *
- i-of efTeceiveness of heenw amendments, showing necesury for; Al AB-835,23 NRC 267 (1986) ,
i speculation ahnui accidents as basis for; AL AB 835,23 NRC 267 (1986) l ,f. . ,, STEAM GENER ATOR TUBES - .. admmeon of comenteons addressing efDeacy of new method for plugging; LBP 8610,23 NRC 283 #. .
,y ,'
STOR AGF (1 9116) [- i
, , ')
- s .
See R.edenactive Wasic Storage ' r, ; , ., , SU A SPONTE ISSUES * *
, v raewd m operstmg licenw prnceedmss: C1.1-861,23 NRC 1 (1986)
SUMM ARY DISPOSITION . -*~
- r ~. - '
accept.shihty of hearuy evidence in support of; i BP-86-12,23 NRC 414 (1986) * '
- hurden of pronf with respect to: LBP 8612. 23 NRC 414 (1986) hurden on opponents of. I BP 8612,23 NRC 414 (1986) 2[
9 * * , . . ',
- s
. hurden on proponem of. LBP-86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) "
circumstances apprnpri.nc for: L RP aa-lo. 23 NRC 825 (1986); LBP-86-21,23 NRC 849 (1986) , - l
- i 87 .
4 A , e
. - - . - g - --- . 4
SUBJECT INDEX light in which record in viewed m determining motions for; LBP 86-I2. 23 NRC 414 (1986); LBP-86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) partial grant of; LBP-86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) purpose of; LBP 86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) result of failure in respond to motion for; LBP-86-15. 23 NRC 595 (1986) nght ofintervenors to discovery to oppose; CLI 86-II 23 NRC 577 (1986) rules govermng; LBP 86-12. 23 NRC 414 (1986) showmg necessary by opponent of; LBP-86-12,23 NRC 414 (1986); LBP-86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) time for filing motions for; CLI 86-il 23 NRC 577 (1986) TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS need for inclusion of fire protection plans in: ALAB-831,23 NRC 62 (1986) TERMINATION of operatmg heense proceedmg. jurisdiction for; LBP 86-14 A,23 NRC 565 (1986) TESTING ofinstrument-line, excess-Cow check valves dunns operation; LBP-86-9,23 NRC 273 (1986) See also Eddy Current Testing. Leak Rate Testmg TilRESilOLD PLEADING use of, to esclude emergency planmng contentions. CLl 86 II,23 NRC 577 (1986) TORN ADOES protection of nuclear power plants from dynamic efTects of; LBP 8615,23 NRC 595 (1986) TR AINING of nonbergammg unit workers to replace strikers. adequacy of; DD-86-3,23 NRC 191 (1986) reactor operator, accreditation of TMI program for; CLI 86-2,23 NRC 49 (1986) TRITIUM achievement of admimstrative controlion releases of, LBP-8619,23 NRC 325 (1986) UNIT POWER ARR ANGEMENT license condition requiring; DD-86-7.-23 NRC 875 (1986) VALVES check, containment leakage because of malfunction of; LBP 86-6 A. 23 NRC 165 (1986) contamment isolation, amendment relative to testing of. LBP 86-68,23 NRC 173 (1986) escess-now check, amendment relative to testing of LBP-86-68. 23 NRC 173 (1986) instrument-ime, cicess-Onw check, testing of durms operation; LBP-86-9. 23 N RC 273 (1986) main steam isolation csemption from leakage tesiing requirement for: DD-86 l. 23 NRC 39 (1986) traversing incore probe guide tube shear, exemption from requirement for DD 86 l. 23 NRC 39 (1936) VIOLATIONS failure to submit "potentially reportable" items; LBP 86-15,23 NRC 595 (1986) heense suspension or revocation for; DD-86-3,23 NRC 191 (1986) WAlVER of objections by all purties. admissibil.ty oflate filed contention in light of; CLl 86-8. 23 NRC 24I (1986) of proscription against necd for-power and alternative energy source contentions; AL AB 837,23 NRC 525 (1986) WASTE See Radioactive Waste; Radioactise Wasic Storage W ATER SUPPLIES maumum contammam levels for radionuclides in: ALAP 834. 23 NRC 263 (1986) offsite, critena for cleanup of radioactive contamination of; LBP 86-18,23 NRC 799 (1986) WEAPONS SE ARCll penalty for forure to perform. DD-86 3,23 NRC 191 (1986) WELD DRIVES adequacy of documentation of use of at Braidwood. LBP 8612. 23 NRC 414 (1986)
, % ELDING structural steel use of unapprosed procedures for at BraideomL LBP 8612,23 NRC 414 (1986) 80 e
s - ,, 9
~
. ? - c. .
.-i. ! :. .
. . .. . . . . ._ s. . . ...:. , . a. ...?:.:g ?.. . _
rg. ,:. L, ,
.V ,
- re .
- r. . . . . - , - -
s
.r.
SUBJECT INDEX *
~
WFLDS ...r - . . .. elecincal. use r41.evel 1 inspectors to check: LBP 8612. 23 NRC 414 (1986) r..".. . .
- inectmn of. through paini: 1.BP R612. 23 NRC 414 I1986) , , ' u. ,- .
WITNFSSF.S * . .' .' '
~*'-
compelence of; l.BP-R6-12. 23 NRC 414 (1986) . ' .-
'P esecrt. haus for opinions of. l.BP R6-12. 23 NRC 414 (1986)
Jf.' ". - -
/ONFS i. * ." , '
^
^*
See Fmergency Phnmny hmes *
- 4 e
- e 5
g .
' O O'
*. g .s.
g 4 b
. 4 9
e t t a 6e "..p,
- e. ,
l . 1
- h. g h
s * *n 4 m. , e b E
. 3 .
.e .p b- . .. * .
t '; *. 1
,. . f .
e 0 $. *
- h.
- E
.'. tE. .
s,*'. ,n a e r e
',
- _s' t .' ,
.?, . t.. <r ;: -
~,
e* 5 5 f O 4 89 9 9
)
O
%a
% s
. :;{ ~ ..
- e. -> . .i i
'tv - -
3 '. " s c,
. ./ * ..; : .
. . r ;- , ; ..
FACILITY INDEX 24- / ' ' ' * * ' -
. , . ,.3 -
3, ARK ANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, Unit I; Docket No. 50 313 REQUEST FOR ACTION, January 29,1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. . . * , . * . { 2.206; DD 8519,23 NRC 33 (1986) BR AIDWOOD NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-456-OL. 50-457-OL
- +
OPER ATING LICENSE; March 28,1986; MEMCR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP 86-7,23 . NRC 177 (1986) . \',' ' ' OPER ATING LICENSE; April 21,1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-86-12,23 NRC ' 414 (1986) < * ' OPER ATING LICENSE; April 24,1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLi-86-8,23 NRC J
- C' '
241 (1986) ' CALLAW AY PLANT. Umt I; Docket No 50-483
~
REQUfST FOR ACTION; February 10. 1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. 6 2.206. DD-86-2,23 NRC 97 (1986) - COM ANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Unit,1; Docket No. 50-445 REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 13,1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-86-4,23 NRC 1IJ (1986) ' COM ANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 445-OL, f 50 446-OL ( ASLBP No. 79-430-06 OL) - OPER ATING LICENSE; June 26, 1986; MEMOR ANDUM; LBP 86 20,23 NRC 844 (1986) C CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 NUCLEAR GENER ATING PLANT; Docket No. 50-302 i ' REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 29,1986. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F.R. -- 4 2.206. DD-85-19,23 NRC 33 (1986) DI ABLO CANYON NUCLEAR, EOWER PLANT. Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-275-OLA. - - 50-323-OLA ( ASLBP No. 86 523-03 LA) OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; June 27,1986. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; ,', LBP-86-21,23 NRC 849 (1986) ~ ERWIN, TENNESSEE PLANT; Docket No 70-143 -. ,' , REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 3.1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. , 4 2.206; DD-86 3. 23 NRC 191 (1986) HUMBOLDT BO POWER PL ANT, Unit 3. Docket No. 50133-OLA ( ASLBP No 77-357-07-L A) OPER AllNG LICENSE AMENDMENT; January 14. 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ' TERMINATING PROCEEDING, LBP 861,23 NRC 25 (1986) ' JOSEPH M FARLEY NUCLE AR PL ANT, Umts I and 2; Dockei Nos 50-348A,50 364 A - REQUEST FOR ACTION, June 16,1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. - i 2 206 DD 86 7. 23 NRC 875 (1986) KRESS CREEK DECONTAMIN ATION, Docket No. 40-2061 SC ( ASLBP No. 84 502-01-SC) ' i,,',
- SHOW CAUSE; June 19,1986, INITI AL DECISION; LBP-8618,23 NRC 799 (1986)
- LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-352
- s OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; March 13, 1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER *
~
RULING ON ROBERT L. ANTHONY'S PETITION FOR LE AYE TO INTERVENE; ** LBP-86-6 A,23 NRC 165 (1986) d.. OPER ATING LICENSE AMEN () MENT; Arni 4,1986. MEMOR ANDUM AND QRDER; ** ' -$ AL AB-833. 23 NRC 257 (1986) OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; May 13. 1986. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 I ( t. C.F.R. 4 2 206. DD 86-6,23 NRC 571 (1986) d I,'N,. B EQUEST FOR ACTION, January 21.1986. DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. 4 2 206 DD-86 l. 23 NRC 39 (1986) 91 0 h e
, -v.- , --
e--- .-.--__y _-.- .n, ,n _ _- a .__ __ ,2
d FACILITY INDEX LIMERICK GENER ATING STATION. Unit 1; Docket Nos. 50-352 OLA 1 ( ASt.BP No 86-522 02 LA) (Check Valves). 50-352-OLA 2 ( ASLBP No. 86 526-04 L A) (Cont.unment Iwlation) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT. March 14.1986. MEMOR ANDUM AND OisOFR CONSOLIDATING PROCEEDINGS AND SETTING SCllEDULE FOR IDENTIFIC ATION OF ISSUES. LBP-86-68,23 NRC 173 (19861 OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT. April 4.1986. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTER \ ENE AND TERMINATING PROCEEDING. LBP 86-9. 23 NRC 273 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; April 11. 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: ALAB-835,23 NRC 267 (1986) LIMERICK GENER ATING STATION, Unit 2; Qockei No. 50-353 REQUEST FOR ACTION; March 21. 1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C F R. ( 2.206. DD-86-5,23 NRC 226 (1986) LIMERICK GENER ATING STATION Umis I and 2. Dockei Nos 50-352-OL. 50-353-OL OPER ATING LICENSE; January 16.1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. AL AB-828,23 NRC 13 (1986) OPER ATING LICENSE; February 4.1986. FIFTH P ARTI AL INITI AL DECISION. I BP 86-3. 23 NRC 69 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE; February 7.1986. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER. ALAB-830. 23 NRC 59 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE; March 20. 1986-. ORDER; CLI 86 5. 23 NRC 125 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE: March 20. 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CL1-86-6. 23 NRC 130 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE; April 9,1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 834. 23 NRC 263 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE; May 7. L986. DECISION; ALAB 836,23 NRC 479 (1986) M ARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50 546-OL. 50-547-OL ( ASLBP No. 83-48742-OL) OPERATING LICENSE; May 30.1986. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DIRECTING BRIEFS. LBP 86-14A. 23 NRC 565 (1986) OPER ATING LICENSE; June 18.1986. MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER. LBP 8616. 23 NRC 789 (1986) MINE HILL NEW JERSEY IRRADI ATOR FACILITY; Docket No. 30-22063 (ASLBP No. 85 512-02-ML) j M ATERIALS LICENSE; January 28.1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LBP-86 2. 23 NRC 28 (1986) , OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION. Umts 1. 2. and ). Docket Nos. 50-269. 50-270. 50-287 REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 29.1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F R. ( 2.206. DD-85-19,23 NRC 33 (1986) i PARKS TOWNSHIP. PENNSYLVANIA VOLUME REDUCTION FACILITY' Docket No. 70-364 (A5LBP No. 815-51101 ML) M ATERI ALS LICENSE; June 23.1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-8619. 23 NRC 825 (1986) PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, Units 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 50-440, 50-441 OPER ATING LICENSE; February 27.1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 831,23 NRC 62 (1986) OPERATING LICENSE; April 18. 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-86-7,23 NRC 233 (1986) 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) 92
i
, - , o L. b:-
. - . . a...a.~.- - - - - : x ,-- ,
;, ,g, p g r.[.l.c bh " . 4, n, . <
, , * .' [r * *~
. .s ; ., -
',. +: W. ..-
.. .t- .
FACILITY INDEX : ,O. ' q . , .,q ..-
. e.,- c.
c., . ."- SEABROOK STATION, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. 50-443-OL,50 444-OL (Offsite Erner8ency Plannin8) b f 9'. e..'.. OPER ATING LICENSE; June 25,1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: ALAB-838,23 NRC 585 (1986) 4 *.g.fc.,. . , ' l J 'I ? . .- , * *, > , N . ' ., ,
. *3..,.* - ?-
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; Docket No. 50 400-OL ,"'t.' 'i ' OPER ATING LICENSE; April 28,1986; FINAL LICENSING BOARD DECISION: LBP-86-II, *P"'- ( . r 23 NRC 294 (1986) t., f 'a
- s t - *N,',
.*.[,*' ,. .* ' 'Y '
OPER ATING LICENSE; May 29,1986; DECISION: ALAB-837,23 NRC $25 (1986) O '* SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit 1: Docket No. 50 322-OL-3 OPERATING LICENSE; January 9,1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; ALAB 827,23
,;s 'O' t' *.?
C '
- NRC 9 (1986) ,
,* i.; -[ , .
OPER ATING LICENSE; March 26.1986; DECISION; ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) ;. '. . 5.T * ,
- OPER ATING LICENSE; June 6,1986, MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; CLi 86-li,23 NRC * ' .
577 (1986) ' , d , *,
- SHOREH AM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 ( ASLBP No. '
77 347-01D-OL) (Low Power) (.' ,f ,,[ OPER ATING LICENSE: May 5,1986; ORDER DISMIS$1NG PROCEEDING AS MOOT;
, y,' . , l *
~.
- LBP.8613,23 NRC 551 (1986)
SOUTH TEX AS PROJECT, Units I and 2; Docket Nos. STN 50-498-O* . STN 50-499-OL (ASLBP
. ' d N- * *
' ~-
No. 79-421-07-OL) ' ' ' ' OPERATING LICENSE; February 14, 1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-86-5,23
- NRC 89 (1926) , .
OPER ATING LICENSE; March 28,1986; SEVENTH PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER; 8 - LBP 86-8,23 NRC 182 (1986) *
- OPER ATING LICENSE; June 13,1986, PARTI AL INITIAL DECISION; LBP-86-15,23 NRC
- 595 (1986) ,.
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit I; Docket No. 50-289 REQUEST FOR ACTION; January 29.1986; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. i. 4 2.206. DD 85-19,23 NRC 33 (1986) ' . SPECIAL PROCEEDING; February 6,1986; ORDER; CLI 86-2,23 NRC 49 (1986) ' THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit I; Docket Nos. 50-289-OLA-1,50-289-OLA 2 ', , (Steam Generator PluS8in8 Cn4eria) >' -J* s . OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; April 9,1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; I' ' LBP-8610,23 NRC 283 (1986) - . , - OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; May 19, 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; * ~ LBP 8614,23 NRC 553 (1986) -
- OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; June 18, 1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; -* ' * * ,
LBP 86-17,23 NRC M2 (1986) _ THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, Unit I; Docket Nos. 50-289 R A. 50-289 EW ' SPECI AL PROCEEDING; May 15.1986, ADVISORY OPINION AND NOTICE OF
- HE ARING; CLl 86-9,23 NRC 465 (1986) ' , ,
W ATERFORD STE AM ELECTRIC STATION, Unit 3; Docket No. 50-382-OL *
- OPER ATING LICENSE; January 30,1986; MEMOR ANDUM AND ORDER; CLI-86-1,23 NRC I (1986) '.'5 -
-J*
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. 83 495-01-ML) c' ]* % ^ -
., ,.r.
. s- - , e -
M ATERIALS LICENSE. February 10, 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; LBP-86-4,23 NRC 75 (1986) .-{'
** 'i ,
ZION ST ATION, Units I and 2. Dorket Nos. 5,0-295-OLA,50-304-OLA ( ASLBP No. 84-500-06-LA) , t, [* , * , OPER ATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; February 19, 1986; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER .', +ri,, DISMIS$1NG PROCEEDING; LBP 86-6,23 NRC 92 (1986) * * , .~ ,, s '. ; . u. ., p } . * \ b' , * .
- e ) 1. .l;f' - '
. , W I
9 93 ; 4
+ 0.5. COVER 44thi HlhflhG OU ICC s1986 191 677:400f8 I ' ' '
I l , ,
, -, , - ___ _ - - y ., - . -. - - - - -}}