ML20058M876
| ML20058M876 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| CON-#493-14345 CLI-93-21, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9310070098 | |
| Download: ML20058M876 (18) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:a _ f .l' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7 ,, ~ ; MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , i 33 'T 30 ?? :36 i' COMMISSIONERS: , Ivan Selin, Chairman [ Kenneth C. Rogers Forrest J. Remick j E. Gail de Planque - i.
) Off 301993 ~ f In the Matter of ) i
) !
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) Docket No. 50-440-OLA-3 COMPANY, et al. )
) .
(Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1) )
) >
I l MEMORANDUM AND ORDER , CLI 21 , i I. Introduction f i The Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. (OCRE) and Susan L. Hiatt have appealed the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order, LBP-92-4, 35 NRC 114 (1992), which i denied their petition for leave to intervene and for a hearing on ; i an amendnent to the operating license for the Perry Nuclear Power , Plant. The amendment deletes the reactor vessel material ' surveillance program withdrawal schedule from the Perry plant's technical specifications and transfers the schedule to the facility's updated safety analysis report. Both the Nuclear i Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and the licensee oppose the appeal, on the ground that the petitioners have failed to establish standing to intervene in this license amendment proceeding. For the reasons stated in this Memorandum and Order, , 9310070098 930930 gDR ADDCK 0500 0 $c 2
. t l 2 ! i
-we grant the appeal and reverse the Licensing' Board's denial of f standing. !
-i II. Background j f
On July 24, 1991, the NRC staff published in the Federal- i i Feaister a notice of opportunity for hearing on a prep sed -{ amendment to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant operating license. 56 ; i Fed. Reg. 33,961 (July 24, 1991). Under the amendment, the i schedule for the w.thdrawal of reactor vessel material specimens is moved from the Perry technical specifications to tr.e facility's updated safety analysis report (USAR). The licensee, l Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, had supplemented a l j pending license application on March 15, 1991, to seek this j
?
transfer of the withdrawal schedule to the USAR. In the notice, l t I the staff indicated its determination that the amendment involved i no significant hazards considerations. The staff issued the - amendment on December 18, 1992. 58 Fed. Reg. 5438 (Jan. 21, 1993). I The proposed amendment came in response to the staff's issuance of Generic Letter 91-01,1 which noted that the Commission's regulations under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix H, j 5 II.B.3, already mandate prior NRC approval of any changes to the withdrawal schedule. The staff found that the removal of the schedule from the technical specifications "willEnot result in ! 1 Generic Letter 91-01, " Removal of the Schedule for the i Withdrawal of Reactor Vessel Material Specimens from Technical l Specifications," (Jan. 4, 1991). l i i
-. ..- . ,.. ~ . - - . . = . -
i ~ i
.I L
]
any loss of regulatory control because changes to this schedule 'l are controlled by the requirements.of Appendix H to 10 C.F.R. [ t Part 50."2 consequently, the staff guidance letter concluded j i that it was redundant for the agency to retain regulatory control over the withdrawal schedule through the' license amendment f process. In accordance with an agency effort to improve the- [ i technical specifications by pruning unessential or duplicative l l provisions,3 the staff encouraged licensees to propose the ! removal or the withdrawal schedule from tncir technical f
?
specifications. j OCRE and Ms. Hiatt filed their petition for leave to { intervene and for hearing on the withdrawal schedule portion of the operating license amendment on August 23, 1991. The petition j I was referred to an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board established to rule on such petitions and to preside over the proceeding if a ! hearing was ordered. On the ground.that the petitioners lacked j l i standing to intervene, both the staff and the licensee opposed ; I the intervention.' In an unpublished order dated October 28, 1991, the Licensing Board established a schedule for the ( I 2 Enclosure to Generic Letter 91-01, at 2. 3 See Proposed Policy Statement on Technical Specifications ; Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors, 52 Fed. Reg. 3788 (Feb. 6, 1987); Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors, 58 Fed. Reg. 39132 (July l 22, 1993). l
' Licensee's Answer to Ohio Citizens For Responsible Energy, j Inc. and Susan L. Hiatt Petition for Leave to Intervene and !
Request for Hearing (Sept. 6, 1991); NRC Staff Answer to Petition l for Leave to Intervene Filed By Ohio Citizens For Responsible i Energy and Susan L. Hiatt (Sept. 12, 1991). { f
)
l I i
-, . -.- - -- -. - .. . ~- . .. .
.' '[
t
- h petitioners to amend their petition to address the arguments of f the licensee'and staff, and to explain why several standing cases j cited by the Board were not persuasive-in the circumstances. The
]i petitioners filed their amended petition on November-22, 1991, l 1
followed by replies by the staff and the licensee.5 In the petition, OCRE described itself as.a private, non- i E profit corporation under the laws of Ohio, dedicated to research l r and advocacy on issues of nuclear reactor safety, with the goal { of promoting the highest safety standards. Some of OCRE's f i ' members reside within fifteen miles of the Perry facility. Ms. ; 1 Hiatt attached an affidavit to the petition stating that she:is a i member and officer of OCRE who resides and owns property approximately thirteen miles from the Perry plant. 4 She further .
?
I stated that she authorized OCRE to represent her interests in the j proceeding, and that OCRE had empowered her, as an officer of'the organization, to represent OCRE before the agency. Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing at 2-4 (Aug. 23, 1991){ hereinafter Petition). ! The petitioners claimed an interest "in the preservation of their lives, their physical health, their livelihoods, the value , i j' of their property, a safe and healthy environment, and the f' I cultural, historical, and economic resources of Northeast Ohio." l Petition at 4. They also asserted an interest in preserving i 5 Licensee's Response to Ohio Citizens For Responsible i Energy, Inc. and Susan L. Hiatt Amended Petition for Leave to l Intervene (Dec. 17, 1991); NRC Staff Response to OCRE's Amended , Petition (Dec. 17. , 1991). ) l ' j
- . . - - --. -. - . --= _ ~ _ .. - = - .
l 5 { their legal right to participate meaningfully in those Perry , 3 I clant issues that could' affect their health and safety or other ; 1 listed concerns. See id. The petition challenged cnly the ) portion of the proposed license amendment that wou'ld remove tr material specimen withdrawal schedule from_the technical ; specifications. The petitioners agreed with the staff and the , licensee that the challenged portion of the amendment was purely j i an administrative matter that involved no significant hazards ! I consideration. Petition at 4-5. In their challenge to the proposed amendment, OCRE and Ms. Hiatt raised only one issue of law -- that the amendment violates I section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 42 U.S.C. S 2239(a). , t The petitioners contended that the specimen withdrawal schedule ; traditionally has been included in the technical specifications j and, therefore, could not be changed without notice in the , Federal Reaister and an opportunity for a hearing in accordance ! i with section 189a.6 The petitioners argued that the removal of , the withdrawal schedule from the technical specifications would l violate the AEA by depriving the public of the right to notice I and an opportunity for a hearing on any future changes to the . i schedule. If the license were amended, the public's only means ! to participate in future schedule changes would be through a [ request for action under 10 C.F.R. S 2.206. Because the agency
+
6 Technical Specifications are included in each license for [ production or utilization facility. 10 C.F.R. S 50.36(b). a Licensees may seek changes to technical specifications through an i amendment application. 10 C.F.R. S 50.90. i B h i k
6 ; t would still need to approve any changes to the withdrawal , i schedule, the petitioners argued that any future MRC approvals of proposed changes to the withdrawal' schedule would be "de facto" license amendments that would be issued without' notice, [ opportunity for a hearing, and opportunity for judicial review- t l i Petition at 4-8. The petitioners concluded that they would ! suffer irreparable injury from the loss of their procedural ! rights, and that this injury would be traceable to the challenged action, for if the proposed amendment were granted without [ affording them the opportunity to challenge its legality, the petitioners' rights under section 2.206 to challenge any future , changes to the withdrawal schedule would be " woefully inadequate." Petitioners' Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene at 4-5 (Nov. 22, 1991) (hereinaf ter Amended Petition] . ; On March 19, 1992, the Licensing Board denied OCRE and Ms. , t Hiatt's petition to intervene. The Board ruled that OCRE and Ms. l l Hiatt had failed to allege sufficient interest in the proceeding, as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 (a) (1) , and therefore had not , established injury in fact for standing.7 More specifically, j the Board found that the petitioners' asserted interests were j generalized and conjectural, and did not constitute concrete, l palpable injury. LBP-92-4, 35 NRC at 122. The fact that Ms. l 7 The Board noted its divergence from the reasoning and l ruling of an earlier Licensing Board decision involving the Perry ;
- facility which found that OCRE had standing to intervene in a !
similar license amendment proceeding. LBP-92-4, 35 NRC at 125-26 ' (referring to.LBP-90-15, 31 NRC 501, reconsid. denied, LBP-90-25, 32 NRC 21 (1990)). j i
. = . ._ . . _ . -- . .
' l t
~i i
7 '; Hiatt and certain OCRE members reside within fifteen miles of the , f Perry plant was by itself inadequate for standing. The Board ; t
~
concluded that there was no connection or causal nexus established between the professed interests and the proposed l l amendment, because the amendment was an administrative change i that would merely remove the withdrawal scheddle from the ! i technical specifications and transfer it to the updated safety. f s analysis report. Id. The Board noted that the petitioners had , concurred with the licensee and staff that the amendment was a purely administrative matter that involved no significant hazards consideration. '! Lastly, the Board found that the petitioners' asserted . procedural injury from the alleged loss of rights under section ! 189a did not confer standing. LBP-92-4, 35 NRC at 123-24. Any such injury was deemed to be speculative in view of the ; uncertainty over whether changes will ever be made to the , i withdrawal schedule. The Board reasoned that the petitioners have no guaranteed right to participate in NRC proceedings and, , thus, their claim of legal injury was footed on an erroneous - l premise. LBP-92-4, 35 NRC at 123. Moreover, the Board stated . l' that to confer standing a legal injury must be linked to a substantive underlying injury that would result from the instant amendment and that otherwise would confer standing. LBP-92-4, 35 NRC at 124-25. The Board found no such concrete injury. OCRE and Ms. Hiatt filed a timely notice of' appeal and appellate brief with the Commission in accordance with 10 C.F.R. l I
,. - , . , - -_--_--_A
i i I a
?
S 2.714a. On appeal, the' petitioners challenge the Licensing j Board's denial of-standing. They argue that their. concurrence ! with the staff's determination of "no significant hazards" does not bviate their claim of injury. As particularly relevent to ; our consideration of their appeal, they stress that procedural ! injuries can confer standing, and that they confront the loss of significant procedural rights under section 189a. ) III. The Petitioner's Standing 4 Under section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission [ must grant a hearing upon the request of any person "whose interest may be affected by the proceeding." 42 U.S.C. ; 5 2239(a). Accordingly, NRC regulations provide that a petition f 4 to intervene and for a hearing "shall set forth with j particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, ! t how that interest may be affected by the results of the ; proceeding, including the reasons why petitioner shculd be ; j permitted to intervene." 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(2). To determine i whether a petitioner has established the requisite " interest" to t intervene, the Commission has long applied contemporaneous ; I judicial concepts of standing. See Sacramento M'2n. Util. Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 56 , (1992), aff'd, Environmental & Resources Conservation Oro. v. l l NRC, No. 92-70202 (9th Cir. June 30, 1992); Metropolitan Edison j j Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-25, 18
'l NRC 327, 332 (1983).
i
?
- _ _ . - - . _ ?
. f l
i 9 f' To demonstrate standing, the petitioner must allege a l concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and is likely-to be redressed by a l favorable decision. See cenerally Luian v. Defenders of- ) I Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992); Dellums v. NRC, 863 F.2d 968, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Public Serv. Co.~of New Hannshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-14, 34 NRC 261, 266-67 (1991). t i This injury must be to an interest arguably within the zone of v interests protected by the governing statute. Metropolitan l Edison, 18 NRC at 332. Injury may be " actual or threatened." ; Wilderness Soc'y v. Griles, 824 F.2d 4, 11 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting Valley Force Christian Collece v. Americans United for-Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982)). In addressing Ms. Hiatt's8 asserted interests in the *
?
proceeding, the Licensing Board found that: l Generalized interests of the kind asserted by [ the petitioner do not comprise an injury that is distinct and palpable or particular and , concrete. Rather, the petitioner's-asserted { interests are abstract and conjectural grievances that fall far short of the kind of ! real or threatened harm essential to , establish an injury in fact. , LBP-92-4, 35 NRC at 122 (footnote omitted). The Board also l concluded that Ms. Hiatt's grievances lack a causal nexus to the l 5 proposed amendment. We disagree. i i 8 Since both OCRE and Ms. Hiatt alleged the same interests, and OCRE's standing as the representative of its members is ! dependent upon that of Ms. Hiatt, the Licensing Board addressed l only Ms. Hiatt's claimed interests. Because Ms. Hiatt's claims y were found insufficient for standing, OCRE's claims likewise failed. LBP-92-4, 35 NRC at 121. ; i i 5 m u + - + -
.i 10 t The petitioners have satisfied threshold standing i
requirements, OCRE and Ms. Hiatt allege a particularized injury l that is f airly traceable to the. challenged amendment and likely. f to te redressed by a favorable decision. The loss of tne rights f to notice, opportunity for a hearing, and opportunity for . judicial review, constitutes a discrete-and palpable--- not hypothetical -- injury. This alleged procedural injury is linked i to this amendment. With the license amendment in effect, future ; changes to the withdrawal schedule no longer require notice and an cpportunity for a hearing under section 189a. After the amendment, the only opportunity to challenge changes. to the , withdrawal schedule is through a petition under 10 C.F.R. i S 2.206, which the petitioners maintain is inadequate because no l opportunity exists under section 2.206 to present evidence, i cross-examine witnesses, or to appellate review of the final l decision. Petition at 7-8. j We note that the issues raised in this case are similar to those raised previously by OCRE in Cleveland Electric , t Illuninatina Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), LBP-90-25, ; 32 NRC 21 (1990), in which OCRE challenged a proposal to delete ; cycle-specific parameter limits from the Perry plant technical ; specifications. As in this case, OCRE alleged the amendment f would unlawfully deprive the petitioner of hearing rights under' I section 189a of the AEA. The Licensing Board in LBP-90-25 found that DCRE had alleged a " direct and immediate injury," and noted f that the loss of hearing rights, instead of speculative, was "one j l i j 1 I
i 11 .; or the intended results of the license amendment," and that "[ijf i OCRE does not assert it as a basis for standing now, but rather i f permits the license amendment to go into effect, there will be no future opportunity to raise the issue before the Commission." ! Id. ac 24 (footnote omitted). Similarly, we reject the Licensing i Board's claim here in LBP-92-4 that the alleged procedural injury. ; is speculative. The Board reasons that "[bjefore the alleged harm can occur, a number of uncertain and unlikely events must take place, including most obviously, a change in the withdrawal schedule." 35 NRC at 123. Although future changes to the : withdrawal schedule are by no means certain, the likelihood of [ changes cannot be discounted, particularly when a goal of the j i. license amendment is to simplify the required procedural steps ; l for such changes. OCRE and Ms. Hiatt allege that they are entitled to the ; rights accorded interested petitioners under section 189a because l future changes to the withdrawal schedule would in fact be de facto license amendments, and "[t]he only real effect'of this .
't amendment is that the public is excluded from the process." The l fact that the NRC will continue under Appendix H to require prior -f i
staff approval of any schedule changes -- and to otherwise ! exercise the same degree of control over the licensee -- is- ! indicative of the significance of the withdrawal schedule, . i t changes to which should be deemed license amendments under .j section 189a, whether labeled as such or not, argue the ; petitioners. Petition at 8. In sum, OCRE and Ms. Hiatt allege ! 1
'l
.~ . - -. . . _. . ._ . - - ._ ~
J 12 i the loss of the acility under section 189a to meaningfully l participate in proposed future changes to the withdrawal j l schedule. i i Standing may be based upon the alleged loss of a procedural ! I right "so long as the procedures in question are designed to protect some threatened concrete interest" that is the ultimate j basis of the individual's standing.' Although the Licensing ; Board correctly stated that to confer standing a procedural ; injury must be linked to a concrete injury, the Board's 5 1 compartmentalized reading of the petitioners' pleadings led it to I conclude that the alleged procedural injury is unconnected to any substantive harm. LBP-92-4, 35 NRC at 124. However, a fair reading of the petitioners' claims indicates that, at bottom, ) OCRE and Ms. Hiatt fear that if they are deprived of the opportunity to challenge future proposals to alter the withdrawal j schedule, the surveillance of the Perry reactor vessel may become j l l lax and prevent detection of a weakened reactor vessel, and i ultimately result in an accidental release of radioactive fission 1
.k
- Luian v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2143 n.8 )
(1992). See also id. at 2142 n. 7 ("one.living adjacent to the i site for proposed construction of a federally licensed dam has standing to challenge the licensing agency's failure to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement") ; McGarry v. Secretary of the Treasury, 853 F.2d 981, 985 (D.C. Cir. 1988)("[h]aving been given a procedural right by Congress to help protect these interests, appellants must have standing to challenge an alleged deprivation of the right"). Indeed, procedural rights are "special," and the person who has been accorded a procedural right to protect his ' concrete interests can assert that right without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and immediacy." Luian, 112 S. Ct. at 2142 n.7. I i
i 13 products into the environment if the vessel should' fail. As the petitioners outlined in their appeal: [A]lthough this particular amendment presents ! no significant hazards in and of itself, future changes to the reactor vessel specimen '; withdrawal schedule are of such safety ; significance as.to require NRC. staff review and approval. The potential for offsite ; consequences exists if changes to this i schedule are such that the material specimens j are not withdrawn frequently enough to assure t that the reactor vessel has not become i dangerously embrittled. What petitioners ; seek to preserve in this. proceeding is the ~ right to participate in a matter which the ! NRC's regulations have made material and which does have safety significance. .1 Petitioners' Appellate Brief at 10 (Apr. 2, 1992). I Although the petitioners' claims on appeal provide a more ; I cogent specification of their ultimate concerns, namely by 5 depicting the reactor vessel embrittlement scenario, their. pleadings before the Licensing Board sufficiently presented a link between the loss of procedural opportunities under section > 189a and their asserted health and safety interests. For example, in their Amended Petition, OCRE and Ms.-Hiatt refer to i the removal of " safety-significant" material from the operating license. Amended Petition at 8. They express an interest in the
" safe operation" of the Perry plant, given their residence near the facility. Amended Petition at 7. Clearly, they seek to
- i vindicate the loss of an alleged procedural right that relates to !
a potential substantive injury -- radiological harm to them as ! l 1 i h t t
, . .~ _. . . _ _ _ - _
4 14 residents in the plant's vicinity." The petitioners' radiological safety concerns unquestionably fall within the zone j of interests regulated and protected by the Atomic Energy Act. ! The petitioners' fear of reactor vessel embrittlemc r' and , its potential consequences certainly would be insufficient for . standing if they had little contact with the geographic area that could be affected by a release of radiation. Here no one contests that Ms. Hiatt, herself a member of OCRE, lives within l l 15 miles of the Perry plant. For construction permit and j > operating license proceedings, the Commission generally has , recognized a presumption in favor of standing for those persons , i who have frequent contacts with the area near a nuclear power , plant. See Vircinia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear f l Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979). In j license amendment proceedings, residence near a nuclear facility ; i is sufficient to establish injury for standing if the proposed j action involves an " obvious potential for offsite consequences." : i See Florida Power & Licht Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, i Units 1 & 2), CLI-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 329-30 (19 8 9 ) ("St . Lucie"). Here, the petitioners have claimed that the material specimen withdrawal schedule is safety-related. Amended Petition at 8. Unlike in St. Lucie, which involved a change in the use of f
" In finding that the petitioners sufficiently have raised ;
an injury for standing, we did not accept their claimed interests l in preserving the " cultural, historical, and economic reneurces" ! of northeastern Ohio. Standing requires more than general , interests in a geographic area. See Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 ! U.S. 727, 734-35 (1972); Wilderness Soc'v v. Griles, 824 f.2d 4, l 15 (D.C. Cir. 1987). i s P
r i. 15 . [ respirators by plant workers, without a potential risk to the :! general public, the instant amendment directly involves surveillance of the reactor vessel's integrity. The surveillance schedule exists to ensure that the structural integrity of the , reactor vessel is monitored as one measure to guard against its f brittle fracture. At this stage in deciding threshold standing, ; we cannot conclude that no potential for offsite consequences is posed by the loss of notice and opportunity for a hearing to t challenge future changes to the withdrawal schedule. The material condition of the plant's reactor vessel obviously bears I on the health and safety of those members of the public who i reside in the plant's vicinity. IV. The Petitioners' Contention , Although we have found that OCRE and Ms. Hiatt have j standing, petitioners must also proffer at least one admissible -! contention to be admitted as a party. 10 C.F.R. S 2. 714 (b) . The i petitioners submitted only one contention, which reads as follows: l The Licensee's proposed amendment to remove the. reactor vessel material specimen , withdrawal schedule from the plant Technical : Specifications to the Updated Safety Analysis ! Report violates Section 189a of the Atomic l Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2239a) in that it deprives members of the public of the right to notice and opportunity for hearing on any changes to the withdrawal schedule. Petition at 5. 1 The petitioners aver that their contention raises only a question of law, and, as such, is capable of resolution on the-
~
t
'l!
16 i basis of briefs or oral argument, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. r 5 2.714(e). Id. at 5. An acceptable contention may raise only a pure issue of law. See 10 C.F.R. SS 2.714(b)(2) and (e). i Because the Licensing Board concluded that the petitioners lacked standing,.the Board-never addressed the adequacy of the j petitioners' contention. We therefore remand the contention.to j the. Board. [ our decision does not signify any opinion on the i admissibility or the merits of the petitioners' contention. l Although we have found that the petitioners' claim of injury is sufficient to establish threshold standing, we'do not hold that the amendment is therefore unlawful. We only hold that the . petitioners should have an opportunity to raise and have l resolved, subject to our rules of practice on the admission and ! litigation of contentions, whether'the removal of the withdrawal . schedule from the technical specifications is indeed an unlawful ; act. r I [ r I f t i i 3 9 i I
. .. .-- - . . - -, -- .- r
17 V. Conclusion and Order For the reasons stated in this decision, the appeal of petitioner OCRE and petitioner Hiatt is aranted and the Licensing Board's order in LBP-92-4 is reversed. We remand the ; petitioners' contention to the Licensing Board for further proceedings consistent with our decision. ' It is so ORDERED. For the Commission" E 8 .
- . 8 1
i \- (
/
S # %._ 1 SAMUEL e Da
. CHILK \
4** Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this}2)_MayofSeptember1993. 4 1 l l l l l 1
" The Chairman was not present for the affirmation of this ,
Order; if he had been present, he would have approved it. l 1 l l
a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING Docket No.(s) 50-440-OLA-3 COMPANY, ET AL. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1) - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMM M & 0 (CLI-93-21) - 9/30 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. Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Thomas M. Moore, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Charles N. Kelber Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Colleen P. Woodhead, Esq. Jay E. Silberg, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissior. 2300 N Strer.t N.W. Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20037 : t Susan L. Hiatt , Petitioner Pro Se and Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 30 day of September 1993 . hM) L~ Office \of the Sec~retary of the Commission}}