ML20091E252

Appellate Brief.* Brief Requesting That NRC Reverse & Vacate Board Decision & Rule on Legal Issue Raised in Proffered Contention.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20091E252
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	04/02/1992
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20091E245	List: ML20091E243 ML20091E252
References
CLI-76-27, GL-91-01, GL-91-1, LBP-92-04, LBP-92-4, OLA-3, NUDOCS 9204140016
Download: ML20091E252 (21)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ ._ _ _ ______ -__ _______.

1 1 i

U!JITED STATES OF AMERICA

!JUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO!J Defore the Commission In the Matter of )

)

TliB CLEVELA!JD ELECTRIC )

JLLUMINAT111G Co. et al. )- Docket No. $0-440 OLA-3

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) ' ' '

Unit 1) )

)

)

APPELLATE BRIEP 1

Susan L. liiatt Pstitioner Pro Se and OCRC Representative April 2, 1992 9204140016 920402 PDR ADOCK 05000440 (y- PDR

. . _. . _ = _ _ _ . . _ . . - . _ . _ . . -

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

i ,

i 3 i s

1

• I TABLC Ol' CONTE!1TS l'a g o T A BLE OF A UTilOR I TI ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ,

r

1. BACKGROUND ........................................ 1

.1 1. AltGUMENT ......................;<................. '

8 A. Petitioners llave Standing to Intervene ....... 8

1. No significant flazards Doea Not Mean No Injury ..........._.................... D

2. Legal Injurion Can Confer Standing ...... 10

-3. UCS 11,Does tiot Vitiate Section 189a .... 12 H. The Licensing Doard Abused its Discretion .... 14 s

III. CONCLUSION ...................................... 35

(.

k i

TABLI: OF AUTl!Olt1T11:S Page OnSES Arnow v. N1(C , 8 6 t' P.2d 223 17th Cir. 19 t19 ) ............ 5 e

Bli y. AIX, 502 P.2d 424 ( D ,, C . Cir. 1974) ............. 1.3 Cleveland 1;lectric 111uminatino Ca. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), LDP-92-4, 14 arch 18, 1992 .... 1, 7-1S Co l u ttib i a Broadcasting Syjgerat Inc. v U.S., 316 U.S. 407 (1942) .................................. 0 Commonwealth of 14ansach Jse t t u v. tJite, 878 l' . 2 d 1516 (lut Cir. 148:,1 ............................. 6 Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 P.2d 179 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ......... 3 ...................... 12 11eckler h Chaney. 470 U.S. 821 (1985) ................ b I4a u na chu s e t t s Publ_ic. Interent itonearch Group v.

1,41.(C , 852 P.2d 9 (1st Cir. 19 ti 8 ) .................. S Nuclear Information and !<e n o u r ce Service v. N14C , 918 l' . 2 d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ........................ 11 0C11P. v . N ilC , B93 P.2d 1404 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ........... 5 Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springa IJuclear Plant ,

Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 141(C 610 (1976)...... 14 Professional lleactor Operator. Society y. NijC, 939 P.2d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1991)'....................... 11 Safe Energy _ Coalition of Michigan v. N1(C , 866 P.2d 1473 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ....................... 5 San Luin Obispo Mothern for Peace v . tJI(C , 799 P.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1986) ........................ 10 Sholly v. !_J 1(C , 651 P.2d 780 (D.C. Cir. 1980),

vacated on other arounds t 459 U.S. 1194 (1983) .... 6 ii

/

e

• Pagu Union of Concerned Scientintn V. ?!!<C ,

735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984) . ......... 4,b,7,11,13 Union of Concerned Scieuttiato v. tJitC , 920

~

P.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ...................... 11-13 United Trtansportation Union v. ICC, 891 l' . 2 d 908 (D.C. Cir. 1989) .......................... 11-12 Warth /. Soldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) .................. 11 STATUTl:D AtJD lli:CULATIOIJS Administrative Orders l<eview Act, 28 USC 2342(b) ...... 4 Administrativ? l>rocedure Act, 5 USC 7 01 (a ) ( 2 ) ......... 5 Atomic El. orgy Act, Section 109a (42 USC 2239a) .... passim 10 CFit 2.206 ......................................... 4-5 10 CYit 2.714 .................. *c .* . * .' '  ?

10 CFit 50 Appendix 11 ................................. 3,7 OTi(Cit AUTil0RITIES Generic Lotter 91-01 .............................. 2,7,13 Regulatory Guide 1.99, Iteviulon.2 . . ................... 1 iii

, i UtilTCD STATUS Ol' AMERICA NUCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission .

In the Matter of )

)

TIIE CLEVELAND CLECTRIC ILLUMINATING )

COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket No. 50-440 Oi,A-3

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1) )

)

)

A P P E LLATli 'l(RI C F Petitionera Ohio Citizens for Imsponsible Energy, Inc.

- ( " OC RI:" ) and Susan L. liiatt hereby file thin brief in support of their appeal of LBP-92-4 in the above-captioned proceeding.

t. . BACKGROUND On September 14, 1990 the Cleveland filectric Illuminating Company filed with the fluclear Regulatory Commicslon ("NRC") a request for an amendment to Appendix A of the operating license for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. The requested amendment woulo revise the Technical Specifications to provide new reactor vessel pressure-temperature limitu, recalculated using the formulas of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2. On March 15, 1991, the Licensees filed a supplement to this request which would remove from the Technical Specifications the Reactor Vessel Material Surveillit.ce Program - Withdrawal l '

4

c. . . . ____ _______ __ _ ____ ______ _ ___- _ _ _ _ _ _-

i f

Schedule (Technical Specification Table 4.4.6.1.3-1, p. 3/4 _l i

4 4-22) and place this schedule in the Updated Safety Analysis, Report ("USAR"), pursuant to Generic Letter 91-01, " Removal of i the Schedule for the Withdrawal of Reactor Vessel Material Specimcas from Technical Specifications," January 4, 1991.

The NRC published a " Notice of Consideration of Issuance of .

t Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant llazards _ ConsiderationDbtermination and opportunity

. i for llearing" regarding this amendment request in the rederal' )

Register on July 24, 1991. 56 Ped. Reg. 33950, 33961. Pursuant to this notice,-the Atomic Energy Act (Section 189a, 42 USC 2239) and the NRC's Rules of Practice (10 CPR 2.714), the l Petitioners requested a hearing on this amendment request and filed a petition for leave to intervene.

Petitioners raised one issue of laws that:the proposed amendment violates Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act.

Petitioners only challenged the portion of this amendment which would remove the reactor vessel material specimen withdrawal schedule from the Technical Specificutions;'they did not challenge the revisions to the reactor vessel precsure-temperature limits.

! Petitioners agreed with the Licensee and NRC Staff that this portion of-the proposed amendment is purely an l administrative matter _which. involves no significant hazards l .

considerations.

2

, r t

The contention and its bases are as follows:

B Contention:

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 Atomi Energy Act (42 USC 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.

The reactor vessel material specimen withdrawal schedule subject to this~ amendment request has traditionally been part of the Technical Specifications and could not be changed without notice in the Federal Register and opportunity for a hearing, as required _by Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act.

If'this amendment is granted, the Licensees will bo able to

- change the withdrawal schedule without any public notice.or opportunity for participation. The NRC will still have to review and approve any revisions to the withdrawal schedule, as required by 10 CPR 50 Appendix H, Part II .B. 3. ; the NRC's jurisdiction and enforcement powers are not diminished by the proposed amendment. The only real effect of this amendment is that the public-is excludep from the process.

i This--is contrary to the intent of Congress and the H interpretation of the Atomic Energy Act by the Courts. Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act states that "(i)n any proceeding under this Act for the granting,-suspending, revoking, or amending any license or construction permit . . . the l Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person f

3

_ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ . ~ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . - ,

i e whose interest-may be affected by the proceeding. and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding." Operating license amendment proceedings under the Act are formal, on-the-record adjudicatory proceedings, conducted pursuant to the NitC's rulou_of practice in 10 CPIt part 2, where the parties have the opportunity to present evidence and cross-ex2.ine witnesses. Review of initial decisions is available within the NRC by the Commission. Judicial' review of final orders in operating license amendment proceedings is clearly established by statute. Atomic Energy Act, Section 189b; Administrative Orders Review Act, 28 USC 2142(4).

The Atomic Energy Act reflects a strong Congressional intent to provido for meaningful public participation.

" Congress vested-in the public, as.woll as the !JRC Staf t, a ,

role in assuring safe operation of nuclear power plants." Qt1 3) 1 of concerned Scientists v. 141C, H 735 P.2d 1437, 1447 (D.C. Cir.

1984) ( "_UC S 1").

If this amendment is approved, the >nly mechanism available for public participation is through 10 CPR 2.206; l-lo w e v e r , this option does not provide meaningful participation, nor'does it measure up to the type of proceeding afforded by Section 189a. This regulation permit:s any person to file a request with the appropriate staff-directsc uneking to institute a proceeding to suspend, revuko, or modify a license, or for any other action which:may be copropriate. 10 CPR-2.206 4

l l-

I s s i

does not give the requester the right to a huaring, and simply l

filing a request under section 2.206 does not give the i

requester the right to present evidence and cross-examine i l

l witnesses. There is no right under section 2.206 to appellatu l I

review within the agency; while the Commission, at its own discretion, may review a director's decision, petitions for review of same are not to be entertained. 10 CPR 2. 206 (c) . As the D.C. Circuit has tuled, a 2.206 request is not a section i

l 189a proceeding. UCS I, 735 P.2d at 1443-4.

Most significantly, judicial review is not available for denials of 2.206 petitions. OCRE v. NRC, 893 F.2d 1404 (D.C. i I

.Cir. 1990): gfo Energy Coalition of Michigan v. NRC, 066 P.2d 1473 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Arnow v. N R,C , 868 P.2d 223 (7th Cir.

1989); Mass 3 g ;setts Public Interent Research Group v. NRP, 852 P.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1988). These decisions have held that 2.206 denials are not reviewable because they are " committed to agency discretion by law." S USC 701(a) (2) . This provision of the Administrative Procedure Act was interpreted by the Supreme Court in lieckler v. Chaney, 470 U S. 821 (1985), to include those agency actions in which,the governing statute provided no meaningful standards for judicial review.

This amendment request violates the Atomic Energy Act in that changes to the roactor vessel material specimen withdrawal schedule, which the NRC's regulations make material by >

requiring prior approval by the NRC, will be de facto license i 5

amendments, but will not be formally labeled as licenso amendments and noticed as such in the Federal Register with opportunity for a hearing. Licenseen are trying to evade the l

clear mandato of the Atomic Energy Act by calling these amendments by another name.to avoid invoking the notice and hearing provisions of dhe Act. i However, the law cannot be so easily evaded. Section 189a  !

requires notice and opportunity for hearing on de facto license i

amendments as well as for'those' actions explicitly labeled as l amendments. As the D.C. Circuit has held, an action which ,

grants a licensee the authority to do something it otherwise could not have'done under the existing license authority-is a license amendment within the meaning of the Atomic Energy Act.

Sholly v. NRC, 651 P.2d 780, 791 (1980), vacated on othe,_r grounds, 459 U.S. 1194 (1983). See,also Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. NRC, 878 P.2d 1516, 1521 (1st Cir. 1989): "the particular label placed upon (its action) by the commission is not necessarily conclusive, for it is the substance of what the Commission has_ purported?to do and_has done which_is decisive,"

citing Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. United States, 316 U.S. 407,.416 (1942).

Changes.to the reactor vessel material specimen withdrawal schedule, with' approval'by the NRC, will give Licensees the i

authority to operate in ways in which they otherwise could not.

Thus, they are de facto license amendments, and the public must f

l 6

- _, _ __ _._ -,__-__._.e_ - . , _ - - - , - _ - . _ _ , - , . , _ . - .__ _ _ - _ _ , . . - - . .

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

I l

have notice and opportunity to request a hearing. Anything less is in violation of Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act.  ;

In Generic Letter 91-01, the NIAC justifies the removal of the

- withdrawal s::nedule f rom the Technical Specifications as i

eliminating an unnecessary duplication of controls which are established through 10 CPR 50 Appendix 11. 110 wever, the D.C.

Circuit has addressed the question of whether the NRC may eliminate public participation on a material issue in the

' interest of making the process more officient. The Court held ,

that it may not. UCS 1, 735 P.2d at 1444-1447.

Petitioners requested the Licensing 130ard to'insuo ,

declaratory and injunctive relief by feelaring the proposed amendment to be in, violation of_the Atomic Energy Act and by s

denying the amendment request.

-After providing the parties with an opportunity to brief the-issue of whether; Petitioners had standing to intervene, the Licensing -13oard issued its-opinion,--LDP-92-4,-in which it-found--

that Petitioners lacked standing. The 13oard concluded that i Petitioners had failed to establish an injury in fact resulting >

from-the' license amendment.

4 l.

l 1

I.

I L 7

. u i i

II. ARGUMBNT j

i A. Petitioners Have Standing to Intervene The Licensing Board based its finding that Petitioners '

lacked ~ standing on throu prongsa'(1) that_by agracing that tho' amendment is an administrative matter with no significant hazarda j considerations, Petitioners cannot demonstrate any injury (2) I that legal infuries cannot confer standing; and (3) that Peti-tioners' claim of_ legal-injury under the Atomic Energy Act can simply be disposed- of by noting that Act does not confer an.

absolute right of1 intervention upon anyone. The Licensing Board

- erred on all counts;  !

1. - No Significant flazards Does Not Mean No Injury '

The -Board makes much of the fact that Petitioners agreed ,

with the Licensees and the NRC Staff that the subject license amendment is an administrative matter which involves no signifi-i cant hazards considerations. LBP-92-4, slip op, at 15-16, 22.

?

t In _the Board's view, such an admission " precludes" a showing of

'"a clear potential for offsite conuequences" resulting from the L

amendment whichLis necessary,to pr,ove an injury to support stand-ing. Id . . ' - '

Petitioners. agreed that the amendment involved no signifi-cant hazards considerations because that is the only intellectu- .

ally- honest _ position which they could take. Petitioners' " con-cession 5 has no-bearing-whatsoever.on their standing. The Board's 8

i I

novel interpretation of the no oignificant hazardu finding doen violence to the Sholly amendmentu to the Atomic 1:norgy Nt.

Apparently the board believen that no petitioner can ever chow an injury, and thuu have utanding, in an operating licenre atnendinunt proceeding involving no uignificant hazardu conuidern-Therefore, uuing the Board'a logic, t.here can nuver be a tions.

hearing on a po significant hazardo amendment. But the uholly to the A7t clearly establich that hearing rights do amendments exist for no significant hazards amendmentu. If Congrouu had intended to preclude hearing rightu for no bignificant hazardu amendmento, it obviously would have eliminated them legislative-ly.

The "no significant hazardu" linding is a clauuification establishing the timino of the inuuance of the re-scheme for quested amendment with roupect to any hearing which may he held.

significant hazards amendinent may be incued prior to the A no completion of the hearing; an amendment which does involve uig-hazarda may not be iusued until after the hearing han nificant acen held and the Board han innuud its decision. The "no uignif-icant hazardo" finding in not meant to . prejudge the meritu of the "The Conference Committee Report accompanying the Sholly case.

amendment, which 10 entitled to great weight in analyzing intent, expresuly states that the Congressional . . .

implementing regulations . . . 'should not. require the NRC ntaff

1 to prejudge the merits of the issues raised by a proposed license )

amendment.'" San Luis-Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 799 P,2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). The Licensing  ;

Board has twisted the "no udgnificant hazards" timing clasnifica-4 tion into a final determination on the merits which obviates the need for a hearing.

Petitionebs would note.that although this particular amend-ment presents no significant hazards in and of itself, future changes'to the reactor vessel specimen withdrawal schedule are of i

such safety significance as to requ. ire NRC staff review and 3

-approval. The potential for offsite connequences exists if changes to this' schedule are such that the material specimens are not withdrawn frequently enough to assure that the reactor vessel l

has, not become ' dangerously octbrittled. 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;safoty-significance.

2. Legal Injuries Can Confer' Standing The Licensing Board apparentl'y believes that legal injurf s, as alleged by; petitioners, are innufficient to confer standing.

This is-simply not true.

The Supreme Court has declared that "the actual or threat-

.ened injury required by Art. III may exist solely by virtue of

' statutes creating legal-rights, the invasion of which creatou f

10

, e ,

standing . . . '" Warth y2 Soldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975) ,

(citations omitted). .

1 Indeed, the very caso upon which the Board relies heavily, Union of Concerned Scientists V. NRC, 920 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. l

.1990) (UCS M), was a matter in which the putitioner claimed only legal injuries:- that the NRC's new rules of practice violated Section 1i9a of the Atomic Energy Act. The petitioner therein did j not, and could not, claim-that radiological injuries would result from the new rules of practico. Yet the D.C. Circuit, an Article 111 court, had no reservations about the petitioner's standing.

Some other cases in which the Court of Appeals has addrestad purely . legal- _(and _ f uture) injuries includes UCS 1 (whether NRC regulation . violated Section 189a); Nuclear Information and Re-

--source Service ya NHC, 918 P.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (whether 10 CFR Part 52 violated the Atomic Energy Act) ; - Professional Reactor gperator.SocietyLy2 NRC, 939 P.2d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (whether NRC regulation violated the Administrative Procedure Act's right to counsel provision). In none of these cases did the Court find ,

alleged only I

.that the petitioners lacked standing because tney l

legal injuries that would or might. occur in the future.

The' Licensing Board also cites. United Transportation ' Union y2 ICC, 891 P.2d 908 (D.C. Cir. 1989) in support of its reason-l= ~

ing. The Board quotes-a posited example from that case which it  ;

l i

-claims-1s~" closely analogous to the situation at hand." Slip op. I

~

11 i P

d .. 5,,

-~m. . . . , , , , - . , . - . . - . . . . . -,,-,. .----,~. .-..,s..,,, ,~ ,_, ,.w-_,.., ,%4 ,,w...v.n.-.,r.-,-,-

at 20, footnote 48. Iloweve r , upon close scrutiny, this exaiople is readily distinguished from the instant case, the Court'n e x a n;p l e involved a hypothetical ICC rule allowing public partici-pation which the ICC cubceauently revoked. 'I b e court found that any member of the puolic would not have standing tu challerwe the revocation based colely on procedural injuriec. Apparently, thic hypothetical ' agency rule was entirely discretionary and not in -

response to a statutory rnandate. That is the crucial diifere:'ce.

This case 10 based on the mandate of Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act.

Indeed, the Court in ICC upecifically acknowledges that legal injuries can confer utanding in itu discussion of Dimond v.

District of Columbia, 792 P.2d 179 (D.C. Cir. 1986). In that cace, the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a no- ,

fault insurance law enacted by the District of Columbia Council.

The Coutt notes that the " plaintiff had al1eged Luf 1icie n t injury in fact - his inability to cue under the no-fault insur-ance bill . . .

J_CC, 891 D.2d at 919.

Clearly, legal injuries sucli as those alleged by Petitior.et a are cufficient to establish standing, and the Licenuing Board lu in error to find otherwise.

3. UCS 11 Doon Not Vitiate Section 189a <

The Licensing Board relied heavily on one sentence in UCS II: "we have long recognized that Section 189a 'doeu not confer

\?

f

.-

• o 4

L t

the automatic right of intervention upon anyone.'" UCS 11, 920

~

P.2d at 55, quoting HPI-v. AEC( $02 P.2d 424, 420 (D.C. Cir.

1974). LDP-92-4'at 18. The Board interprets this ventence to mean that Section 189a " bestows no legal or vested right . . . to participate in agency licensing actionn." Id. This ib a radical I departure from the Court's intended meaning.

i The Board apparently believes that the Court in UCS II essentially- erased Section 189a from the Atomic Energy Act.  !

Clearly-the Court did no such thing. Considering the context of the quoted sentence, it is obvious that the Court meant only that the "NRC may exclude-a party from a hearing if, for example, another party has presented a material icsue identical to the one

-the excluded' party seeks to raise." UCS II, 920 P.2d at 55.

Indeed, the UCS II' Court endorsed the holding of UCS I: "UCS 1 thus stands for the' proposition that Section 189a prohibits the NRC.from preventing all parties from ever raising in a hearing on a- licensing decision a specific-issue it agrees is material- to that decision." UCS 11, 920 P.2d at 54. This is preciseJy the -

situation at hand. The amendmen't challenged herein will prevent all parties (not just Petitioners) from ever raising in a hearing a specific issue, the vessel specimen withdrawal schedule, which the NRC's own regulations.have made material. Obviously that was L

tN hh* t of' Generic Letter 91-01.

V: urently-the Licensing Board believes that the only hear-l .

13

r ing rights possesser*. by members of the public are those which the NRC graciously decides-to give them. This interpretation makes a mcchery of the statute. If Section 189a means anything at all,

<it must- set anEindependent' standard that is not swayed by the whima of tno implenenting-agency..

B. The Licensing Board Abused'its Discretion Assumingj,arguendo t;)at the Licensing Board was correct in determining that Petitioners lacked standing to intervene as a matter of. right,-the board could have permitted. discretionary intervention, pursuant to Portland General _ Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units.1 and 2), CL1-76-27, 4 NRC 610

-(1976). A finding-that a-petitioner lacks utanding does not automatically (ompel the denial of the petition. Clearly the ,

instant case raises significant legal and policy issues which the Board had jurisdiction to address by _ permitting discretionary intervention. By denying the petition without even considering this option, the Board abused its discretion.

t 1-4

_ - __ . . - _ . .. - _ - - ~- . _. . . . _ - . .. .- __

l e t' o 1

1 i

1 III. CONCLUSION Por the foregoing reasons, Petitioners requect the Commis-sion to reverse and vacate the Licensing board's deciuion.

Petitioners also request that the Commission itself rule upon the legal issue raised in the proffered contention.

Respectfully submitted, MYA.

Susan L. liia t t Petitioner Pro Se and OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Road Me n to r , 011 44060-2406 (216) 255-3158 DATED: IL , E 0 s. .

l l

l ,

1 15 l

. o ,

% f, b

g# 9

$ Id'E ,,6 $@ O ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA b o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - f\ h Bofore the Corr. mission N / y] G\

In the Matter of- )

) .

THE CLEVELAND ELEC'RIC )  :

ILLUMINATING CC et al. ) Docket No. 50-440 OLA-3 3  ;

(Perry Nuclear' Power Plant, 5

Unit 1) )

)

_)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-1 This is to certify that copies of the forogoing were served by dopouit in the U.S. Mail, first class, pectage prepaid, this

__2N.b_ day of _.32A11, , 1992, to the fo1lowine:

Chairman Ivan Selin U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Comraissioner Kenneth C. Rogers U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmicolon Washington, DC 20555 Commissioner. James R. Curtiss U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiccion.

Wachington, DC 20555 dommiccioner Forrest J. Remick U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commincion Washington, DC 20555 Commissioner E. Gail de Planquo U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC. 20555 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. thelear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 I

o** ,

d

-Office of the Secretary Docheting on' Service U.0 Suclear Regulatory Commission Wanhington, DC 20555 ..

Ad ninistrative Judge Thomas M. Moore, Chairmsu '

Atotr.ic Safety and Licensing board O. S. Nuclonr Regulatory Commiccion Washington, DC 20505 . . , ,

Administrative Judge Richard F Colo Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. G. Nuclear Fogulatory Commiurion Wachington, DC 205b5 ,

Administrativo Judge Charlen N. Kelbor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. C. Nucioar Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 205b5 Co)1een P. Woodhead, Esq.

Office of the General Counsol U.S. Nuclear Bogulatory Commission >

Washington, DC 20556 Jay E. Silborg. Ecq.

Shaw, Pittman, .otte, and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 f

• p, /

Susan L.-Hiatt l

l

_, _, _ _