ML20244D661
| ML20244D661 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1989 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8484 CLI-88-12, CLI-89-06, CLI-89-6, CPA, OL, NUDOCS 8904240063 | |
| Download: ML20244D661 (17) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _
SN V$
. . i. T UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'89 APR 20 P3 :39 l COMMISSIONERS:
.. P .
Lando W. Zech,'dr., Chairman 00CM -
"^~
Thomas M. Roberts Kenneth M. Carr Kenneth C. Rogers James R. Curtiss MD APR 2 01989 In the Matter of
)
TEXAS UTILITIES-ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY, ET. AL. ) 50-446-OL (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Docket No. 50-445-CPA Station Units 1 and 2) )
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-89-16 I. Introduction.
This case is before the Commission on two motions by Mr. Joseph Macktal, an individual petitioner. Mr. Macktal asks the Commission for (1) " limited )
intervention" in the Comanche Peak proceedings and (2) reconsideration of its recent order denying a petition by the Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation l
("CFUR")tointervenelateintheComanchePeakproceedings. See Texas i
utilities Electric Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-88-12, 28 NRC 605 (1988) ("CLI-88-12"). The applicant, Texas Utilities Electric Company ("TUEC") and the NRC staff have responded in opposition to both motions. After due consideration, we have decided to deny both motions for the reasons which follow.
- l l
8904240063 890420" gDR ADOCK 05000445 i PDG z)
1 l
l II. Background. .I i
In order to understand how Mr. Macktal's motions fit into the tortured history of the Comanche Peak proceedings, a brief review of history - both ancient and_recent - will be necessary. The Commission publ_ished receipt of TUEC's application for an operating license in the Federal Register on May 12, 1978. See 43 Fed. Reg. 20583. Following publication of the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, 44 Fed. Reg. 6995 (Feb 5, 1979), three organizations filed timely petitions to intervene and requests for hearing:
Citizens Association for Sound Energy (" CASE"), Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation ("CFUR"), and Texas Association of Community Organizations for ,
Reform Now/ West Texas Legal Services (" ACORN"). The State of Texas filed a timely petition to participate as an interested state, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
!2.715(c). Therefore, the Commission established a Licensing Board, 44 Fed.
Reg.15813(March 15,1979), which subsequently admitted CASE, CFUR, and ACORN as interveners and Texas as an interested state. Order Relative to
! Standing of Petitioners to Intervene (June 27,1979). On June 16, 1980, the Board issued an order admitting 25 contentions and three Board questions for litigation.
On July 21, 1981, the Board accepted ACORN's voluntary motion for dismissal from the proceeding. Likewise,_on March 5, 1982, the Board accepted CFUR's voluntary withdrawal from the proceeding. The proceeding then continued unabated with CASE as the sole intervenor. By 1984, the proceeding had resolved all contentions except contention No. 5, relating to l Quality Control /Ouality Assurance ("QA/QC"). In 1986, a second proceeding
L commenced relating to TUEC's request for an amendment to its Construction Permit for Unit 1 seeking additional time to complete construction. !
l 1
On July 1,1988, CASE and TUEC reached a settlement agreement resolving l all matters at. issue between them. Essentially, CASE agreed to withdraw from the proceedings and TUEC agreed to reimburse CASE for certain expenses incurred during the litigation, to install a CASE representative in an oversight position at Comanche Peak, and to provide that representative with i expenses and technical assistance. CASE and TUEC submitted a joint motion to dismiss the proceedings as settled and the Licensing Board granted the motion on July 13, 1988.
I i
Shortly thereafter, on August 11, 1988, CFUR filed a petition before the Licensing Board to "re-intervene" in the proceedings. CFUR also filed two
" Supplements" to its initial petition. The NRC staff and TUEC respcnded to the initial petition and the "First Supplement." Initially, there was some confusion over which Commission tribunal had jurisdiction over CFUR's petition. In order to avoid any confusion and to spare the parties needless expense and delay, the Comission itself took jurisdiction of the matter. j i
On December 16, 1988, while the CFUR petition was still pending, Mr. Macktal filed a motion before the Licensing Board, seeking " leave to proceed as an intervenor limited to questions of the scope . impact and interpretation" of this settlement agreement. Mr. Macktal's motion states that he reviewed the Staff's response in early November and TUEC's response in early December, Motion for Limited Intervention at 1, and that he f11ed
- u. J
4
, 1 this attempt to intervene in order to rebut the interpretations assigned the disputed agreement by the staff and TVEC.I The NRC Staff has responded in 1
opposition, arguing that Mr. Macktal does not meet the criteria for 6 1
late-filed petition for intervention. See10C.F.R.52.714(a)(1)(i)-(v).
1 TVEC did not respond. 1 l \
l On December 21, 1988, the Comission issued CLI-88-12, denying the CFUR l petition to intervene, based upon an application of the five-factor test containedin10C.F.R.92.714(a)(1)(1)-(v). See CLI-88-12, supra. However, the Commission did not rule on Mr. Macktal's motion for limited intervention because the NRC Staff and TVEC had not yet had a chance to respond to it.
Mr. Macktal then filed the second motion before us today seeking reconsideration of CLI-88-12, alleging that he was " prejudiced" by that l
decision. l l
1 Specifically, Mr. Macktal requests that the Comission vacate Section IV of CLI-88-12 (in which we discussed the disputed settlement agreement) or, in l the alternative, stay the entire order and grant M m the relief requested in his earlier motion, i.e., limited intervention status for the purpose of explaining his views on the disputed settlement agreement. Mr. Macktal I We infer from Mr. Macktal's motion that he believes that he was prejudiced because neither he nor his counsel was served with the responses by Staff or TVEC to CFUR's petition to intervene or to the "First Supplement. " We find no indication in the record that either he or his counsel had filed a notice of appearance or had sought to be served by any party to the proceeding. Our last communication from Mr. Macktal's counsel indicated that they were withdrawing from any participation in the case. See i Notice of Withdrawal (July 15,1988). Therefore, we know of no obligttion (Footnote Continued on Next Page) i
l alleges that the Commitsion misconstrued or misinterpreted the settlement agreement in reaching its decision in CLI-88-12 and that the decision 1
contains a number of " serious errors of law." Mr. Macktal does not allege any errors in the Commission's determination that CFUR's petition does not ;
meetthefive-factortestfoundin10C.F.R.$2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v).
In response, the NRC Staff argues that Mr. Macktal does not have 4 standing to seek reconsideration because he had not been admitted as a party to the proceeding at the time CLI-88-12 was issued. In its response, TUEC argues that Mr. Macktal has not attempted to demonstrate that his motion j meets the Commission's criteria for granting a stay of a final order.
III. The Motion for " Limited Etervention" The first matter before us is Mr. Macktal's motion for limited intervention.3 In the motion, Mr. Macktal " requests leave to proceed as an intervenor limited to questions of the scope, impact and interpretation of (Footnote Continued From Previous Page) for counsel for the NRC staff, TUEC, or even CFUR to serve Mr. Macktal with copies of their pleadings.
2 Mr. Macktal has slso filed a pleading which he has styled as a " Reply" to the responses filed by Texas Utilities and the NRC staff. NRC regulations specifically reject such pleadings. "The moving party shall have no right to reply [to an answer in response to a motion], except as permitted by the presidin 10 C.F.R. 9 2.730(c)g officer .
or the Secretary Nevertheless, or thethe in this situation, Assistant Secretary."
Commission has reviewed this pleading in an effort to afford Mr. Macktal every opportunity to present his i case. Texas Utilities has responded with an additional pleading of its own.
l 3
Mr. Macktal styled his motion as being "[b]efore the Nuclear Regulatory Consnission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board." The Staff likewise styied 'its ;
opposition to the motion for limited intervention as "[b]efore the Atomic !
(Footnote Continued on Next Page)
E4 6
the January 2, 1987 illegal settlement agreement." Motion for Limited ,
Intervention at 2. Mr. Macktal claims that he "may be prejudiced in his
' reopened' Department of Labor proceeding as well as other litigation which may occur regarding the correct interpretation of the January 2 1987
' Settlement Agreement [,]'" and that "no party now before this tribunal shares
[his] interest regarding the Settlement Agreement." J_d. .
The motion explicitly states that it seeks only " limited intervention" for a specific purpose, i.e., to brief the Commission on Mr. Macktal's views on the disputed settlement agreement. But the motion makes no attempt to demonstrate compliance with the required criteria for filing an untimely
~
petition to intervene in an ongoing proceeding found in 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v). For example, the motion does not discuss the standing and interest criteria, much less show that they are satisfied. Likewise, the motion includes no discussion of the five factors that a late-filed petition --
for intervention must address.4 Therefore, we cannot grant the motion for limited intervention to gain party status under 10 C.F.R.
! 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v). However, we have considered Mr. Macktal's submission (Footnote Continued From Previous Page)
Safety and Licensing Board." (TUEC did not file an opposition.) Over a month after the last pleading directed to the matter, the presiding officer of the Licensing Board panel which had been hearing the original Comanche -
Peak proceedings notified the Office of the Secretary that it was his belief ~
that no panel of the Licensing Board existed which could review the motion l and that therefore, the Licensing Board did not intend to take any action on the motion whatsoever. Therefore, the Commission has taken jurisdiction to rule on this question.
4 We contrast this approach with that of CFUR which, while not pertuading us that they satisfied the five factors, still attempted to address them - at (Footnote Continued on Next Page)
in our review of the disputed settlement agreement. See 10 C.F.R. 6 2.715(d).
IV. The Motion for Reconsideration and Stay of CLI-88-12 Initially, we find that Mr. Macktal does not have standing to seek a stay or reconsideration of the Commission's decision in CLI-88-12 because he was not a party to the proceeding when the decision was issued.5 Commission regulations specifically provide that "[a] petition for reconsideration may be filed by a_ party within ten (10) days after the date of decision."
10 C.F.R. 6 2.771(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, "[w]ithin ten (10) days after service of a decision or action a_ny n party to the proceeding may file an application for a stay of the effectiveness of the decision or action ...."
10 C.F.P 6 2.788(a) (emphasis added).
Furthermore, Mr. Macktal does not have the requisite interest to seek reconsideration of this decisien, i.e., he has not demonstrated an interest which might be affected by the proceeding. In fact, in his pleadings he argues that only the Secretary of Lauor has jurisdiction to interpret the scope and meaning of his settlement agreement with Brown & Root.
Accordingly, we find no basis for Mr. Macktal to argue that the NRC's (Footnote Continued From Previous Page) least in the context of the Operating License ("0L") proceeding. See 28 NRC at 608-12 and n.7.
5 In his " reply, "Mr. Macktal argues that the filing of his motion for limited intervention made him a party to the proceeding, citing Seacoast Anti-Polution League Of New Hampshire v. NRC, 690 F.2d 1025,1028 (D.C'. Cir.
1982). We have reviewed this case and it does not stand for the proposition (FootnoteConcinuedonNextPage)
comments on the settlement agreement in CLI-88-12 could have caused him legal harm. Nothing in CLI-88-12 hinders Mr. Macktal from presenting his objections to the settlement agreement to the Secretary of Labor or prevents the Department of Labor from invalidating that Agreement if it so chooses.
Furthermore, we do not believe that our statements in CLI-88-12 preclude his litigation of the agreement before the 00L under the principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel because neither Mr. Macktal nor Browi. & Root were parties to CLI-88-12.
Moreover, Mr. Macktal has not even attempted to demonstrate that he meets the Commission's stay criteria. Under Commission regulations and long-standing Commission precedent, a party seeking a stay must show that it meets a balancing of the traditional four factors which would cause a court to grant a preliminary injunction incluoing (1) the moving party's likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm to the moving party absent a stay, (3) harm to any other party in the event of a stay, and (4) the public interest. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.788(e)(1-4). See, e.g., Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-17, 20 NRC 801, 803 n.3 (1984); Boston Edison Compay (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station),
ALAB-81, 5 AEC 348 (1972). See gnerally Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v.
FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C.Cir. 1958).
(Footnote Continued From Previous Page) ,
for which it is cited. In fact, the issue of standing is never discussed in that case, either as a part of the merits of the case or in dicta.
V. Conclusion We have determined that Mr. Macktal is not entitled to intervene as a party and does not have standing to seek reconsideration of the Commission's findings in CLI-88-12. Nevertheless, we take note of Mr. Macktal's concerns regarding his perception that our statements in CLI-88-12 constituted a possible endorsement of the settlement agreement. We emphasize that in CLI-88-12, we examined the agreement solely to determine if it prohibited Mr.
Macktal from bringing his concerns to the NRC staff and found that it did not. Our decision in CLI-88-12 was not intended as a Commission " stamp of approval" on the disputed agreement. We did state that "we do not see a violation of federal law or NRC regulation." CLI-88-12, 28 NRC at 613. But our decision denying CFUR's petition should not have depended on anything in the agreement at all. Assuming arguendo that the agreement violated some law or regulation, neither Mr. Macktal nor CFUR has demonstrated that the disputed agreement constitutes " good cause" for CFUR's late intervention in the operating license and construction permit amendment proceedings under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714.6 The essential basis for denying CFUR's late intervention
- that a party may not rely upon another party to represent its position and interest without assuming the risk that it will not do so - is independent of the validity of the agreement.
We are also aware that Mr. Macktal has chcllenged the settlement agreement before the D0L, which is at this point the appropriate forum for 6
The most that can be said for the agreement regarding the test for late intervention is that Mr. Macktal's presence might support CFUR's ability to (Footnote Continued on Next Page)
such action. See Memorandum of Understanding, 47 Fed. Reg. 54585 (Dec. 3, 1982). Therefore, we withdraw any comment on the agreement's acceptability or legality we made in CLI-88-12 and we decline at this point to comment further on the disputed settlement agreement because it is the subject of a pending D0L case.
Finally, we note that Mr. Macktal admits that he withheld information from the NRC staff during discussions in 1986. See Second Macktal Affidavit at 1. That withholding of information is regrettable. We request Mr. Macktal to promptly bring any concerns he has to the NRC Staff for their resolution.7 The staff will review Mr. Macktal's technical concerns about Comanche Peak. Such review is a normal staff practice.
(Footnote Continued From Previous Page) contribute to the development of a sound record. 10 C.F.R. 62.714(a)(1)(iii). However, such support is not sufficient to overcome CFUR's lack of " good cause" under the required balancing of these five factors.
7 Mr. Macktal signed a confidentiality agreement with the NRC staff which protected the nature of his concerns but not the fact that he brought concerns to the NRC or his identity. See NRC Staff Response to CFUR's First Supplement at 5. Under that agreement, he provided allegations to the NRC staff which were addressed in regular inspection reports at the Comanche Peak facility. Id. The staff has attempted to provide Mr. Macktal with copies of those reports and Mr. Macktal has never explained or expressed any disagreement with resolution of any specific allegation. Id. If Mr. Macktal is dissatisfied with the resolution of those items or if he has other items of concern, including any which he may have deliberately withheld from the NRC staff during interviews in 1986, see Second Macktal Affidavit at 1, he should bring those matters to the attention of the Comanche Peak Division of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR") - formerly the Office of Special Projects - or address them directly to the Director of NRR under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206. While we have in essence " vacated" Part IV of CLI-88-12, we still adhere to our statement in that order t'.at the disputed agreement does not prevent Mr. Macktal from bringing any of his safety concerns direc^tly to the NRC staff.
(Footnote Continued on Next Page)
It is so ORDERED.8 9
For the Comission f
5 I 8
- E 3.= b L D & 1 SAMUEL J. Sl4LK ko '
,0 0 Secretary of tt e Comission Swt* 3 Dated at Rockville, Maryland tc this M cTay of April,1989.
9 Mr. Macktal's motion for oral argument on the motion for reconsideration is denied. Mr. Macktal has also filed a " Motion tc Be Served With Notice of Comission Proceedings," apparently seeking specific notice of the date of issuance of this order. Normally, the Comission publishes weekly in the Federal Register a notice of all Comission meetings for the next four weeks, including affirmation sessions and the matters to be affimed. When matters before the Comission are expedited, the Comission attempts to provide at least one week's notice of the subject of affimation sessions to all interested parties. In this case, the Comission has attempted to expedite the issuance of this order. Accordingly, the Office of the Gener61 Counsel has notified Mr. Macktal's counsel of the date and time of this session.
Therefore, we have in essence served Mr. Macktal with the requested notice of the proceedings in this matter.
9 Commissioner Carr was not present for the affirmation of this order; if he had been present he would have approved it. Commissioner Curtiss was
- unavailable to participate in this decision.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of I I
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY. I Docket No.(s) 50-445/446-OL ET AL. I (Comanche Peak Steam Electric I Station. Units 1 and 2) I I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that cooles of the forecoino COMM M&O (CLI-89-06) 4/20/89 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.
Administrative Judae Administrative Judae Alan S. Rosenthal. Chairman Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensino Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensino Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Raoulatory Commission Washincton. DC 20555 Washington. DC 20555 Administrative Judas Howard A. Wilber Administrative Judoe Atomic Safety and Licensino Appeal Peter A, Bloch, Chairman Board Atomic Safety and Licensino Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washinoton, DC 20555 Washinoton, DC 20555 Elizabeth Johnson Administrative Judas Oak Ridos National Laboratorv '
Walter H. Jordan P.O. Box X. Buildino 3500 ASLB Oak Ridos. TN 37830 801 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Administrative Judoe Colleen P. Woodhead, Eso.
Kenneth A. McCollam Office of the General Counsel 1107 West Knapp U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stillwater, OK 74075 Washington, DC 20555 l
Nicholas S. Reynolds. Esc. Joseph Gallo, Esq.
l Bishoo, Cook Purcell & Reynolds Hopkins and Sutter l 1400 L Street, N.W. 1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
l Washington, DC 20005 Washington, DC 20036
-__ ____._--_ __ __---a_________..____ ___ _.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . __.._.m._ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Docket No.(slS0-449/446-OL COMM MLO (CL1-89-06) 4/20/09 Jack R. Newman. Eso. Robert A. Wooldridae. Esc.
Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & Wooldridae 1615 L Street. N.W.. Suite 1000 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Washington. DC 20036 Dallas, TX 75201 David R. Pigott, Esq.
Anthony 2 Roisman. Esq. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe :
1401 New York Avenue. N.W., Suite 600 600 Montgomery Street Washington, DC 20005 San Francisco, CA 94111 William H. Burchette. Eso. Robert A. Jablon, Esa.
Heron. Burchette Ruckert & Rothwell Scieoal & McDiarmid 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street. N.W. 1350 New York Avenue. N.W.
Washington, DC 20007 Washington. DC 20005 Roy P. Lessy. Jr., Esa. Stephen M. Kohn. Escuire Akin Gump. Strauss. Hauer & Feld Counsel for Joseph J. Macktal 1333 New Hampshire Avenue N.W. Kohn. Kohn & Colapinto. P. C.
Washington, DC 20036 526 U Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001 4
.4Lis W. G. Counsil John W. Beck Executive Vice President Manaoer - Licensino Texas Utilities Generating Company Texas Utilities Generatino Company-400 North Olive Street. L.B. 81 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, TX 75201 Dallas, TX 75201 Juanita Ellis N. H. Williams President Project Manager Citizens Association for Sound Energy Cygna Energy Services 1426 South Polk Street 101 California Street, Suite 1000 Dallas. TX 75224 San Francisco, CA 94111 Billie P. Garde Susan M. Theisen, Esq.
Government Accountability Project - Assistant Attorney General Midwest Office Office of the Attorney General 104 East Wisconsin Avenue P.O. Box 12548 Appleton, WI 54915 Austin, TX 78711
Docket No.(s)50-445/446-OL COMM M&O (CLI-89-06) 4/20/89 Lanny A. Sinkin. Esc. Byron Lee, Jr.
The Christic Institute President & Chief Executive Officer 1324 North Cacttel Street. N.W. Nuclear Management & Resources Council Washington DC 20002 1776 Eye Street. N.W.. Suite 300 Washinoton. DC 20006 Dated at Rockville Md. this 20 day of April 1989
_ Office the Secretary of the Commission 9
e e
p' E. - - _ - - - - _ - - _ - - - - _ - _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - _ - - _
, UNITED STATES OF AMERfCA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of I j l
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, 1 Docket No.(s) 50-445-CPA ET AL. I
'(Comanche Peak Steam Electric I Station, Unit 1) i I
}
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE )
l !
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing CONF. h&O (CLI-89-06) 4/20/89 I
have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except l as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712. l Administrative Judge Administrative Judge )
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Thomas S. Moore i Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555-Administrative Judge i
Howard A. Wilber Administrative Judge !
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Peter A, Bloch, Chairman Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative. Judge Administrative Judge ;
Walter H. Jordan Kenneth A. McCollos {
ASLB 1107 West Knapp l 881 West Guter Drive Stillwater, OK 74075 Dak Ridge, TN 37830 R
Colleen P. Woodhead, Esc. Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1400 L Street, N.W.
- Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20005 9
Joseph Sailo, Esq. Jack R. Newman, Esc.
Hopkins and Sutter Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036
Docket Noits)90-445-CPA-COMM M&D.(CLI-89-06) 4/20/89 Robert A. Wooldridos Esc.
Worsham. Forsythe. Sampels & Wooldridge Anthony Z. Reisman. Esq.
2001 Bryan Tower. Suite 2500 1401 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 600 Dallas. TX '75201 Washington..DC 20005 David R. Pigott, Esq. William H. Burchette, Esq.
Orrick. Herrington & Sutcliffe Heron, Burchette. Ruckert & Rothwell 600 Montgomery Street 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
San Francisco, CA 94111 Washington, DC. 20007 Robert A. Jablon, Esc. Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esc.
-Spiecel & McDiarmid' Akin Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld.
1350 New York Avenue. N.W. 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
-Washington, DC -20005 Washington. DC 20036
~ Stephen M. Kohn, Esquire W. G. Counsti-Counsel for Joseph J. Macktal Executive Vice President Kohn,-Kohn & Colapinto P. C. Texas Utilities Generating Company 526 V' Street. N.W. 400 North Olive Street. L.B. 81 Washington, DC 20001 Dallas,'TX 75201 John W. Beck Jack Reddino Manager - Licensing. Licensing Texas Utilities Generatino Company Texas Utilities Generatino Company 400 North Olive Street, '. 3. 81 4901 Fairmont Avenue Dallas. TX 75201 bethesda MD 20014 James R. Bailey, Esq. Juanita Ellis Texas Municips! Power Acency President P.O. Cox 7000 Citizens Association for Sound Energy Bryan, TX 77005 1426 South Polk Street Dallas,, TX 75224 )
l N. H. Williams Billie P. Garde, Esq.
lj Project Manager Government Accountability Project -
"~ Cygna Energy Services Midwest Office.
101 California Street. Suite 1000 104 East Wisconsin Avenue San Francisco, CA 94111 Appleton, WI 54915 Q'
4 ,
9ecket No.(s)G0-449-CPA COMM M&O (CL1-89-06) 4/20/89 l
i
. Susan M. Theisen.' Esc.' Lanny A. Sinkin. Esc.
' Assistant' Attorney General The Christic Institute l Office of the Attorney General 1324 North Capitol Street. N.W.
I P.O. Box 12548 Washington. DC 20002 Austin. TX 78711 Byron Lee'. Jr.
. President & Chief Execuive Officer Nuclear Management & Resources Council 1776 Eye Street. N.W. Suite 300 1
Washinoton. DC 20006' l
Dated at Rockville. Md. this 20 day of Aorf1 1989
~
Ofiidi~oi'ihe Seireiir~y~bi~tkh~Cbmai$$5bn l
e !
i l