ML20034G749
| ML20034G749 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION |
| References | |
| CON-#193-13704 CLI-93-04, CLI-93-4, OL, NUDOCS 9303110140 | |
| Download: ML20034G749 (16) | |
Text
._
[370f
- ani.1EU UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v5Hac NUCLEAR REGULATO.RY COMISSION 93 tgR -9 P 1 'Al -
COMMISSIONERS:
Ivan Selin, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers (4 5,ct ar st tatirJV James R. Curtiss 00cKi1E s Wi VICI Forrest J. Remick BRANCH E. Gail de Planque
-l
)
In the Matter of:
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-446-OL COMPANY, et al.
)
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit 2)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI 04 I. Introduction.
This matter is before the Commission on a request by the Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation ("CFUR" or " petitioner") for late intervention in the operating license ("0L") proceedings for Unit 2 of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (" Comanche Peak"). This is the second attempt by CFUR to re--
f intervene in the Unit 2 OL proceeding in as many months. The licensee, Texas Utilities Electric Company ("TU Electric" or " licensee") and the NRC Staff have responded in opposition to the request. After due consideration, we are denying CFUR's request for the reasons stated below.
II. Backaround.
CFUR has been an on-again and off-again player in the litigative history of Comanche Peak's licensing.
In 1979, CFUR filed a timely petition to intervene and a request for a hearing in response to TU Electric's request for an operating license for both Unit I and Unit 2 of Comanche Peak and was j
admitted as a party to the proceeding. Sig Texas Utilities Generatino Co.
9303110140 930309 PDR ADOCK 05000446 i
O PDR 8 #
)5
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), LBP-79-18, 9 NRC M 9 (1979). Subsequently, the Licensing Board issued an unpublished order on April 2, 1982, granting CFUR's request to withdraw from the proceeding. A second intervenor had already withdrawn in 1981.
The proceeding continued with the Citizens Association for Sound Energy
(" CASE") as the sole intervenor until the parties reached a settlement agreement dismissing the OL proceeding for both Unit I and Unit 2 as well as a separate construction permit amendment ("CPA") proceeding involving TU Electric's request for an extension of the Unit I construction pennit which had been consolidated with the OL proceeding. let Texas Utilities Electric
[L. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-88-18A, 28 ::RC 101 (1988); Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-88-188, 28 NRC 103 (1988).
At that time, CFUR filed its first petition for late intervention in an attempt to re-intervene in the proceeding. However, the Comission found that CFUR's petition failed to meet the criteria for late intervention in 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(1)(1)-(v). Egg Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-88-12, 28 NRC 605, 609-12 (1988), n modified, Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-06, 29 NRC 348 (1989). CFUR filed a petition for juN.ial review of that denial but the Comission's decision was upheld.
Citizens for Fair Utility Reculation v. NRC, 898 F.2d 51 (5th Cir.), att.
denied, 111 S.Ct. 246 (1990).
On January 13, 1993, CFUR filed a petition asking the Commission to offer a new opportunity for a hearing on the operating license f
- 7. ache Peak Unit 2.
The Comission denied that request. Texas Utilities Electric Co 2
6 4
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), CLI-93-01, 37 NRC 1 (Jan. 29, 1993) ("CLI-93-01"). The Comission found that CFUR was in effect seeking an opportunity for late intervention in the Unit 2 OL proceeding without meeting the late-filed intervention criteria or explaining why it believes those criteria should not be applied in this case. CLI-93-01, Slip op, at 3.
The Comission pointed out that CFUR could file "a renewed request for a hearing that addresses the relevant regulatory standards." id. at 4 and n.2.
The NRC Staff issued a full power operating license to TU Electric for Comanche Peak Unit 1 on April 17, 1990. On February 2, 1993, after we had issued CLI-93-01, the NRC Staff issued a low-power license to Comanche Peak Unit 2.
On February 19, 1993, CFUR filed the instant petition for late intervention which we now address.
III. Analysis.
A.
The Unit 1 Proceedinas.
Initially, we must address CFUR's apparent attempt to re-intervene in the Unit I proceedings. CFUR captioned its petition as being filed in both the Unit 1 OL and CPA proceedings. However, as we recently noted in rejecting another petition for late intervention in the Comanche Peak proceedings, the issuance of the full power license for Comanche Peak Unit I closed out the opportunity for a hearing on the Unit 1 operating license under the 1979 Federal Register notice and the opportunity for a hearing on the Unit I construction permit extension. Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-92-12, 36 NRC 62, 67 (1992)
("CLI-92-12"). As we noted there, "[a]ny challenge to the Unit I license must take the form of a petition under the form of 10 C.F.R. 62.206 for an order i
3
F issued under 10 C.F.R. 52.202." id. Therefore, we deny CFUR's request insofar as it purports to address the Unit I proceedings.
B.
The Unit 2 Proceedinas.
- 1. The Existence of a Proceedina.
In its response to CFUR's petition, TU Electric argues that "CFUR's Request should be rejected out of hand since no proceeding currently exists for which a hearing... can be granted." TU Electric Response at 5.
- Briefly, TU Electric argues that the issuance of the Unit 2 low power license bars any attempt by CFUR to seek late intervention with regard to "an[y] issue already disposed of by the NRC as part of issuance of the low power license []" and that issuance of an NRC Staff Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report ('SSER")
that approved the Unit 2 fire protection program, including the use of Thermo-Lag, acts as a bar to re-litigating the Thermo-Lag issue. TU Electric Response at S-6.
In essence, TU Electric argues that (1) there is no proceeding and (2) if there is a proceeding, the issue of the use of Thermo-lag is precluded by the SSER. The NRC Staff does not address this issue.
First, it is clear that there is a " proceeding" in which CFUR can seek late intervention and TU Electric unaccountably fails to address our holding in CLI-93-01 affirming that such a proceeding exists. Eta CLI-93-01, Slip op.
at 3 ('until the Lu]l power license for Unit 2 has been issued....").
Egg i
1]jtg Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2), CLI-92-01, 35 NRC 1, 6 n.5 ("CLI-92-Ol"); Mississioni Power & Licht
[L (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725,1727 n.2. (1982). Thus, it is clear that the issuance of the low power license, in j
and of itself, does not bar late intervention in the full power OL proceeding.
4 i
Second, assuming arouendo that issuance of the low power license might act as a bar to re-litigating issues necessarily resolved before the issuance of the low power license, it is clear that under the traditional rules of Egi
.iudicata and collateral estoppel such a bar would apply only to those who were parties to such a proceeding. Clearly, CFUR was not a party to the
" proceeding" that culminated in the issuance of the SSER and the low power license, and TU Electric has not explained how we can disregard the fundamental requirement of " party" status. Therefore, we find that CFUR is not precluded from raising this issue.
In sum, we find that issuance of the SSER and the low power license does not, in and of themselves, preclude CFUR's petition for late intervention in order to challenge the use of Thermo-Lag at Comanche Peak, Unit 2.
- 2. CFUR's Failure to Address Reopenino Standards.
TU Electric also argues that because CFUR has petitioned for late intervention without seeking to reopen the record of the closed proceeding at the same time, the petition is insufficient on its face and must be dismissed for that reason alone. TU Electric Response at 21-22.
As we noted above, in order to obtain a new hearing when the record has been closed, as in this case, a potential intervenor must " satisfy [both] the late intervention and reopening criteria." CLI-93-01, Slip op. at 3.
While neither the late intervention nor the reopening regulations specifically mandate that the two separate criteria be addressed in the 11mg pleadino, our decisions require that both be addressed when a petitioner seeks to intervene late in a proceeding for which the record has closed. Assuming arouendo that CFUR were successful in addressing the late intervention criteria, it would, of course, be required fully to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 52.734 5
in order to have the Unit 2 proceeding actually reopened and to have any proposed contention actually litigated. While a person su file separate pleadings to address the late filing criteria and the reopening standards, booth sets of standards must be addressed and satisfied in order for the petitioner to get a hearing in the circumstances of this case. As we explain below, it is in the petitioner's interest to address both sets of standards contemporaneous 1y', although there is no explicit requirement to that effect in our regulations.
In fact, CLI-92-12, cited above, addresses a request for a hearing in which the petition for late intervention and the motion to reopen the record were filed sequentially, although closely together.
Having concluded that a single filing is not explicitly mandated by our regulations, we hasten to point out that it is in a potential intervenor's best interests to address both the late filing and reopening criteria in the same pleading. Quite simply, filing both requests together clearly allows all parties, including the Comission, to address both pleadings at the same time, saving a substantial amount of time and effort. Leaving these items for a second pleading unavoidably delays resolution of the issue to the detriment of all involved. Finally, any delay in filing and considering a second motion,
'In CLI-93-01, we noted that CFUR 'must first become a party to a proceeding before seeking to reopen that proceeding." CLI-93-01, Slip op, at 4, n.1 (emphasis in original). Ett als CLI-92-01, 35 NRC at 6.
While we were simply trying to explain the legal process for late intervention and reopening, a possible reading of CLI-93-01 -- especially by a non-lawyer -- is that CFUR must "first" seek late intervention and "then" seek to reopen the record. We regret any implication that the two criteria sylt be addressed separately and in sequence, none was intended.
Because of this possible reading of CLI 93-01, we will not reject CFUR's petition in this case on the ground that CFUR failed simultaneously to address both the late filing criteria and the reopening standards. As we explain, infra, however, these criteria should be addressed together, since, as we have made abundantly clear in prior decisions, both sets of criteria must be satisfied for a petitioner to be granted late intervention and a hearing in these cases.
6
h, the motion to reopen the record, could be charged as a part of the delay factor to be considered under 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(1)(v). Thus it is clearly in a petitioner's best interests to address both criteria in the same pleading.a 3.
CFUR's Standina.
Under our regulations, each potential intervenor must demonstrate that it meets the interest requirements of 10 C.F.R.12.714(a)(2); 11., that it has " standing" to participate in the proceeding.
In its petition, CFUR states that
[b]ecause of the numbers of filings CFUR has made in this docket, it respectfully requests the Comission to incorporate by reference CFUR's previous filings establishing its background and standing, as well as the affidavits of CFUR members who live and work and play in the vicinity of the Comanche Peak plant and whose lives and safety could be adversely affected by operation of and/or any accident at or inadvertent release of radiation from the nuclear power plant.
Both the Comission and the NRC staff in previous orders and responses have recognized and established in fact that CFUR has standing through its members to intervene in this docket....
Petition at 2.
Egg, ad h, CL1-88-12, 28 NRC at 608 n.4.
However, CFUR does not take any other affirmative steps to demonstrate that it has standing to participate in this proceeding now.
In response, TU Electric argues that
- Moreover, addressing the issues that are pertinent to a motion to reopen the record clearly would be relevant to a petitioner's chances of satisfying the late filing criteria. For example, satisfying the " timeliness' criteria of 10 C.F.R. 52.734(a)(1) would tend to support a petitioner's claim that it had satisfied the " good cause for lateness' factor of 10 C.F.R. 12.714(a)(1)(1).
Likewise, satisfying the " significance" criteria of 52.734(a)(2) and the " materially different result
- criteria of 10 C.F.R. 52.734(a)(3), could have a bearing on a petitioner's assertion that it could make a contribution to the development of a sound record. 10 C.F.R.
f2.714(a)(1)(iii).
7 1
i
f CFUR's failure to demonstrate affirmatively that it now has standing is fatal.
TU Electric Response at 6-10. The Staff does not address the issue.
1 In arguing that a potential intervenor cannot rely on its participation j
in another proceeding to demonstrate that it has standing to participate in 1h11 proceeding, the licensee relies in the main upon Philadelchia Electric l
A (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-22, 1 NRC 451, 454-55 (1975).
In that case, the petitioners sought to rely on their prior j
participation in other NRC proceedings to establish their standing. The Peach Bottom Board held that "the interest of the Petitioners and how that interest f
might be affected... must be specifically pleaded in the Petition...." LBP-75-22, 1 NRC at 455. However, in dicta the Peach Bottom Board also opined that "this defect alone would not be sufficient to cause an outright rejection of the Petition since it could be cured by affording the Petitioners j
reasonable time to supply specific details relating to their interest." M.
at 455.
Instead, the Licensing Board dismissed the petition in that case l
because those petitioners failed to submit a valid contention, JA, they had failed to submit an otherwise valid petition.
We agree that a prospective petitioner has an affirmative duty to l
demonstrate that it has standing in nsh proceeding in which it seeks to l
participate since a petitioner's status can change over time and the bases or Its standing in an earlier proceeding may no longer obtain. We would acknowledge that, in certain situations, a petitioner may seek to rely on prior demonstrations of standing if those prior demonstrations are (1) i specifically identified and (2) shown to correctly reflect the current status l
1 of the petitioner's standing. However, in this case, CFUR's latest filing was
}
in its 1988 attempt to re-intervene, well over 4 years ago, and CFUR has not i
i 8
i
i demonstrated that these documents reflect the status of its current membership
~
or the basis for its current claim of standing.3 Thus, we agree that the petition is deficient in this regard.
But while we agree with the licensee that the petition is indeed flawed in this regard, we need not rely on that flaw to deal with this petition.
Rather, we will dismiss this petition for failure to meet other necessary requirements.
4.
The late Intervention Criteria Our standards for late intervention are found at 10 C.F.R. 52.714(a)(1)(1)-(v). Those factors are, respectively: (1) the " good cause,"
if any, for the lateness of the petition; (2) the availability of other means to protect the petitioner's interests; (3) the extent to which petitioner's participation may reasonaM " be expected to assist in developing a sound record; (4) the extent to which petitioner's interests may be represented by existing parties; and (5) the extent to which petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. Accordingly, we must determine whether a balancing of these five factors weighs in favor of granting CFUR's petition.
(a). Good Cause for late Filino.
I In its petition, CFUR alleges that " good cause" for its late filing can be established by the fact that the issue of safety regarding the installation of Thermolag in Unit 2 has become a licensing issue for the NRC since the closing of the hearings in July of 1988 and that since that time the full extent of the Thermolag failures at t
9 3And at this late date, we are not inclined to give CFUR still another opportunity to perfect its pleading and demonstrate its standing -- as it was required to do in its initial petition.
9
Comanche Peak have only recently become known to this
~
cetitioner.
Petition at 4 (emphasis added). However, CFUR incorrectly relies on its alleged "recent" acquisition of knowledge about the installation of Thermo-Lag to support its assertion of ' good cause." Moreover, as we show below, CFUR has been aware of the controversy surrounding the installation of Thermo-Lag at Comanche Peak Unit 2 for a long.elough period of time for us to deny CFUR's assertion that it only "recently" became aware of the issue.
As we noted above, we recently denied another petition for late intervention in the Comanche Peak proceedings. Egg CLI-92-12, supra. As we pointed out there,
[t]he test for " good cause" is not simply when the Petitioners became aware of the material they seek to introduce into evidence.
Instead, the test is when the information became available and when Petitioners reasonably should have become aware of that information.
In essence, not only must the petitioner have acted promptly after learning of the new information, but the information'itself muet be ngg information, not information already in the pubile domain.
CLI-92-12, 36 NRC at 70 (emphasis in original). For example, information publicly available 6 months prior to the date of a petition has been held as insufficient to establish " good cause" for late intervention. Detroit Edison A (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-707, 16 NRC 1760, 1764-65 t
(1982).
It is clear that the question of possible defects in the product Thermo-Lag is not a niew issue. On August 12, 1992, CFUR joined an Addendum to a petition under 10 C.F.R. 52.206 regarding the use of Thermo-Lag filed by the Nuclear Information and Resources Services ('NIRS"). As the NIRS Addendum pointed out, the issue of Therno-Lag's adequacy as a fire protection barrier 10 i
was raised at the River Bend station more than five years previously. NIRS Addendum at 2.
Thus, CFUR is well aware that Thermo-Lag's adequacy has been an issue in the public domain for a number of years, not just months.
Moreover, the NRC Staff has issued numerous information notices, generic letters, and bulletins regarding Thermo-Lag which have been placed in the public domain. Egg Letter from Thomas E. Murley, NRC, to Mr. Michael Mariotte, Nuclear Information and Resource Service (August 19, 1992) at 2-4 (responding to both the NIRS Petition and the NIRS Addendus).
In particular, with regard to thii proceeding, CFUR has clearly been aware of the issue of the installation of Thermo-Lag at Comanche Peak Unit 2 for at least six months.
For example, the NIRS Addendum which CFUR joined asked, inter Alia, for an immediate stop-work order preventing further installation of Thermo-Lag at Comanche Peak Unit 2 and for a suspension of the operating license for Comanche Peak Unit 1.
NIRS Addendum at 3-4.
- Clearly, in joining the NIRS Addendum, CFUR was well aware of the issue of the installation of Thermo-Lag at Comanche Peak by that time, six months before it filed the instant petition for late intervention; yet it did not seek intervention at that time. As we noted above, information that has been in the public domain for six months will not constitute " good cause" for late intervention. Detroit Edison Co., ALAB-707, supra.
In summary, we find that CFUR has been aware of the issue of the installation of Thermo-Lag at Comanche Peak Unit 2 for over six months and that it has been -- or should have been -- aware of the general issue of 3
Thermo-Lag for several years. Therefore, CFUR has failed to demonstrate that it has " good cause" for its late filing.
11
e T
(b). The Remainino Four Factors.
"[W]here no good excuse is tendered for the tardiness, the petitioner's demonstration on the other factors must be particularly strong." Duke Power A (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460, 462 (1977). "When the intervention is extremely untimely... and the petitioner utterly fails to demonstrate any ' good cause' for late intervention, it must make a ' compelling' case that the other four factors weigh in its favor."
Texas Utilities Electric Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-88-12, 28 NRC 605, 610 (1988) (citing cases) (denying CFUR's 1988 petition for late intervention). As we demonstrate below, CFUR has failed to make such a " compelling showing" on the remaining four factors.
The Staff concedes -- and we agree -- that the petitioner satisfies the second and fourth factors of the five-part test. Assuming arouendo that the petitioner has an " interest" in the proceeding, h, that petitioner does have standing to participate, there is no other means by which that interest can be protected.
Likewise, because there is currently no proceeding, there is no other party to represent the petitioner's interest. However, as we noted in CLI-92-12, "these factors are the least important of the five factors." CLI-92-12, 36 NRC at 74 (citing cases).
More importantly, in our view, CFUR's request provides no reason to conclude that it could contribute to the development of a sound record. As we noted in dismissing CFUR's petition for late intervention in 1988,
[w] hen a petitioner addresses this criterion it should set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issees it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses, and summarize their proposed testimony.
CLI-88-12, 28 NRC at 611, cuotino Mississioni Power & Licht Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725,1730 (1982).
" Vague 12
f
~
I I
1 assertions regarding petitioner's ability or resources... are insufficient."
I ALA8-704, 16 NRC at 1730.
Stated otherwise, there appears to us to be no reason to allow an inexcusably belated intervention petition to trigger a hearing unless there is cause to believe j
that the petitioner not only proposes to raise at least one substantial safety or environmental issue but, as well, is equipped to make a worthwhile contribution to it.
i Washinoton Public Power Sunoly System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No.3), ALAB-747, t
18 NRC 1167, 1180-81 (1983). Moreover, this factor " assumes yet greater i
importance in cases... in which the grant or denial of the petition will also l
decide whether there is to be any adjudicatory hearing." M. at 1180 (citation omitted).
In its petition, CFUR simply alleges that it i
will rely on the NRC's own documents *d those of TU as well as documentation developed f d spendently by outside groups such as [NIRS) and 48 's own experts, to develop this [ issue] for litigat a....
l Petition at 6.
However, CFUR fails to list any spechic document it plans to l
introduce or on which it intends to rely, in spite of the documentation i
developed by the NRC as listed above and placed in the public domain. We do-j not believe that CFUR can claim to be unaware of whatever documents do exist related to this issue because all documents related to the Thermo-Lag issue at j
Comanche Peak were placed in the local Public Document Room associated with Comanche Peak in a timely fashion. Moreover, the NRC Staff outlined the i
documents in the public domain in its August 19, 1992 response to the NIRS
}
t Petition and Addendum, which CFUR had joined. Likewise, CFUR fails to f
identify any single expert or summarize their proposed testimony.
In short, l
as we noted in response to its 1988 attempt to re-intervene, CFUR has l
1 i
" identified no special expertise or experience that its members possess which l
13 t
i
f would enable it to address these issues." CLI-88-12, 28 NRC at 611.
- Instead, all we have before us are " vague assertions [that) are insufficient." ALAB-704, suora.'
4 Finally, the fifth factor, the potential for delay if the petition is p
granted, weighs heavily against petitioner. Granting CFUR's request will result in the establishment of an entirely new fomal proceeding, not just the alteration of an already established hearing schedule. As the Appeal Board noted in ALAB-704, addressing a similar situation in which a petition for late intervention was filed after issuance of the low power license in an uncontested proceeding, "it is manifest to us that the grant of an
+
intervention petition at this very late hour, after the Director of Nuclear i
I Reactor Regulation has issued a low power operating license in an uncontested proceeding, will perforce broaden the now non-existent adjudicatory issues and delay conclusion of the proceeding." ALAB-704, 16 NRC at 1730.
itg, n, Lono Island Liohtino Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units I and 2),
I j
ALAB-292, 2 NRC 631, 650-51 (1975) (opinion of Mr. Rosenthal speaking for the i
entire Board on this point).
I i
'While CFUR's petition fails to demonstrate any ability to contribute to the development of a sound record, we have invited CFUR to address its concerns over the installation of Thermo-Lag at Comanche Peak Unit 2 on March 15, 1993 at the meeting in which the licensee and the NRC Staff will review the status of the Unit 2 full power license. We have extended this invitation to speak at this previously scheduled meeting in the interest of openness, recognizing that this will not delay the proceeding or adversely affect any party. This does not confer party status on CFUR and the iaeeting does not constitute an adjudicatory proceeding within the meaning of section-189a of the Atomic Ene.gy Act.
I 14 l
l 1
i l
I
IV. Conclusion.
In conclusion, re-instating a formal OL proceeding for Comanche Peak Unit 2 at this stage would certainly prolong the licensing process and delay the licensing of Unit 2 while CFUR has provided no reason to believe that useful light would be shed on the issue it seeks to raise in the process.
Balancing the unjustified lateness of the petition, CFUR's absolute failure to demonstrate that it can contribute to the development of the record, and the delay that would result from the institution of an adjudicatory proceeding in an otherwise uncontested proceeding in which a low power license has already been issued, against the two minor factors in CFUR's favor, we conclude that the petition for late intervention should be denied.
It is so ORDERED.
for the Comission N
((
e s
gt
%A-v,%
.g ts
/
SAMUEL J. CUILK h e.24+
Secretary of the Comission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this _ Ort
/ day of March,1993.
I j
l e
i 15 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
- ~
I In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No.(s) 50-446-OL i
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 2) l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing CO M M&O (CLI-93-4) DTD 3/9/93 l
have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail,. first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
l Marian L. Zobler, Esquire George L. Edgar, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission 1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20036 i
Betty Brink Board Member
'l Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation l
7600 Anglin Drive Fort Worth, TX 76I40 j
Dated at Rockville, Md. this 9 day of March 1993 Office of the Secretary of the Commission j
h l
l I
r i
5
-. - -.