ML19206A153
| ML19206A153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1978 |
| From: | Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904180335 | |
| Download: ML19206A153 (21) | |
Text
9/15/78 UtlITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY CCMMISSI0tt BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY A!!D LICE?lSI:1G APPEAL BCARD 4/3, --^__-
/i s.
In the Matter of
)
METROPOLITAtl EDISON COMPAt1Y
) Docket tio. 50-320 -
(Three Mile Island 2)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-277 (Peach Bottom Atcmic Power
)
50-278 Staticn, Units 2 and 3)
)
t NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO INTERVENORS' JOINT FILING DATED JULY 27, 1978 Pursuant to paragraph 3 of ALAB-480 (Slip. Op. at pp.18-19), Intervencrs in the two captioned proceedings filed a Joint Filing dated July 27, 1978 in which they ask the Appeal Board in each proceeding to receive further evidence on the raden issue.
Intervencrs allege certain deficiencies in the Perkins record and object to its use without supplementation in the above--captioned proceedings.
For the reasons set forth belcw in Part I, the Staff believes that Inter-venors' procedural objections to the use of the Perkins record in the captioned proceedings are unfcunded and that Intervencrs give no other justification for amplification of the Perkins record in the captioned proceedings.
In Part II, the Staff indicates its belief that the Perkins evidentiary record supports the generic findings and conclusions of the Licensing 7904180 3 3 S 4W 213 C--
Board with respect to the significance of effects associated with raden release from the uranium fuel cycle attributable to fueling of a light water nuclear power reactor of approximately 10C0 MWe, and that such effects do not tip the cost-benefit balance against cperation of Peach Bottom 2 and 3 or against operation of Three Mile Island 1 and 2.
PART I Intervenors show no defect in the Perkins record requiring modification or amolification in connec-tien with the captioned proceedings.
A.
Alleaed Procedural Defects in Perkins Intervenors' Joint Filing is, in the main, an extended, repetitive series of accusations of improper conduct en the part of che NRC Staff, the Perkins Applicant, and the Perkins Licensing Bcard.
Fundamentally Intervenors assert a number of allegedly improper procedural rulings and rulings en the evidence proffered.
Intervenors assert these allegedly 1cproper rulings are " deficiencies" in the Perkins record and assert that they should (or must) be corrected as Intervenors proposed in the Joint Filing.
Briefly, these alleged procedural " deficiencies" relate to:
(1)
Inadequate opportunity for Perkins Intervenors' witness to prepare testimony, (2)
Inadequate opportunity for discovery in Perkins, (3) Refusal by Perkins Licensing Board to admit certain exhibits proffered by P_e_rkins Intervenors, 49 Tid
(4) Refusal by Perkins Licensing Board to admit, as evidence, certain testimony of witness for Perkins Inter.enors offered at deposition of said witness.
Even a very brief review of the backgrcund and the reccrd in the Parkins case makes clear that the alleged " deficiencies" are simply non-existent.
1.
Background - Af ter a pericd of scme months following Dr. Jordan's mentorandum concerning Staff raden release estimates in Table 3-3, the Staff, in January 1978, prepared a series of affidavits, filed with the Three Mile Island proceeding.1/ On January 25, 1978, these affi-davits were appended to the Staff Response to Three Mile Island Inter-venors' Motion for Stay.
A copy of the Staff Response and the attached affidavits was served upcn Dr. Kepford. The Staff also brought to the attention of the Commission its belief that the then current value set forth in Table S-3 for radon release from the uranium fuel cycle was in error.
(SECY 78-99, exhibit J).
Initially, the Commission, on March 2, 1978 (7 NRC 307) in connection with the Three Mile Island Unit 2 proceeding, waived application of the rule with respect to the specific value for radon-222 set forth in Table S-3 and directed the Appeal Board to review the Three Mile Island
--1/
Ine Appeal Boara in ALAB-456 on January 27, 1978 held that challenge to the radon value then contained in Table S-3 was an impermissible attack cn the Commission regulations and took no cognizance of the Staff affidavits in ALAB-456.
2 case as though no raden-222 release figure had been determined by regulation in Table S-3.
Subsequently, on April 11,197', the Ccmnission modified Table S-3 to delete the value for radon release on an interim basis and to permit the value for radon release to be considered in individual proceedings.
(43 F.R.15613, April 14,1978).
Thereafter, on April 14, 1978, the Licensing Board in Perkins ordered that the record
~th respect to the radon release issue be reopened, and that a hearing on the matter be held on May 16, 1978 with oppor-tunity for cross-examination by Perkins Intervenors.
On April 17, 1978, the Staff t. ad with the Perkins Board and parties five affidavits indicating that tne Staff believed such affidavits to be adequate to dispose of the radon matter in absence of contrary evidence.
The Staff noted that if the the Board decided that a hearing was req 0 ired that the affidavits should be considered as its prefiled testimony.2/
On April 27, 1978, the Staff also served its five affidavits on all parties to the 17 cases pending before the Appeal Board on the radon issue.
Dr. Kepford was served at that time with these affidavits, in connection with his participation in the Three Mile Island proceeding.
On May 3,1978, Perkins Intervenors informed the 'Perkins Board in a Motion to Postpone Hearing that it had obtained the services of
-2/ Four of these affidavits were the same as those filed in Three -
Mile Island in January and the fif th, Dr. Gotchy's, contained corrections of minor typographical errors and phrasing errors.
49 7.10
Dr. Kepford as an expert witness and indicated that Dr. Kepford had done " extensive research and is eminently qualified to give testimony Counsel for Intervences indicated in said Moticn that counsel for Intervenors required additional time to educate himself and to con-sult wi th Dr. Kepford.
Intervenors' counsel also indicated that there were various (unidentified) new matters and studies that needed to be studied by Intervenors' counsel and by Dr. Kepford and requested a t
postpcnement of hearing until after July 10, 1978.
On May 4, 1978, Intervences' counsel requested additional time for discovery (the infomation to be disccvered was unidentified except for reference to "the information set out by Intervenors in Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (case 78-1160 of the District of Columbia Circuit Court), amcng other information, be included within the scope of discovery...").
After a conference call among the parties and the Board, the Perkins Board in an Order dated May 10, 1978 granted in part Intervenors' request for additional time for preparation of Dr. Kepford's testimony, ruling that Dr. Kepford's direct testimony could be presented outside the presence of the Board by June 10, 1973.
As noted in the Board Order, Dr. Kepford was to be absent from the country for about a month after June 16, 1978 With respect to Intervenors' request for additional time for discovery, the Board 'noted tna t the schedule they had established, permitting cross-examination of Staff and Apolicant's witnesses, about two weeks before Intervenors' witnesses' testimony was to be served, largely obviated the need for additional discovery before presentation of Staff and Applicant testimonf.
49 217
On May 16 and 17, 1978, the Staff and Applicant witnesses presented their evidence on the issue of raden release, and were extensively cross-examined by Intervenors (abcut 125 pages of the tr anscript) and by the Board (abcut 170 pages of the transcript).
On May 31, 1978, Perkins Intervenors served the parties with " Testimony of Dr. Chauncey Kepford on Behalf of the Intervencrs, June 8,1978 (Perkins 1, 2, and 3)."
?
Dr. Kepford's deposition was taken en June 8,1978 on his testimony.
At the depositicn Perkins Intervencrs also offered a dccument prepared by Dr. Kepford entitled, " Resource Consumption."
Intervencrs also offered 10 exhibits (marked A through J).
Objections were offered to the "Rescurce Consumpticn" document and to certain of the exhibits.
The Board, on June 29, 1978, ruled admissible the "Rescurce Consumption" document and ruled on each of the exhibits, admitting exhibits B, H, I, J and taking notice of C.
It rejected the offer of exhibits A, D, E, F, and G as offered withcut foundation.
The Board also sustained objections to certain portions of the redirect examinaticn of Dr. Kepford.
2.
Goocrtunity to Precare Testimony - Centrary to the assertion by Intervenors that Dr. Kepford had less than one week to prepare testimony for the Perkins proceeding (Joint Filing, p. 6), Dr. Kepferd's principal testimony was served (mailed from State College, Pennsylvania) on May 31, 1978. This is (a) sane 28 days after perkins Intervenors informed the Board that it had cbtained Dr. Kepford's service as an expert witness, (b) same 21 days af ter the motion to postpone the hearing 49 018
. set for May 16, 1978 was denied; (c) sane 44 days af ter the Staff testimony was served on Perkins Intervenors;3_/ (d) some 20 days af ter Applicant's testimony was served on Perkins, Intervenors; (e) some 20 days after Staff provided Perkins Intervenors (and the Board) with additional infcnnation prepared for the Pebble Springs case (which was used in cross-exa'nination of the Staff but initially offered and accepted only in veryimited part in the Perkins proceeding); and (f) some 14 days after Dr. Kepford had an opportunity, which he exercised, to cross-examine witnesses for Staff and Applicant.
In this light, it is clear that there is no substance to Intervenors' allegation that Dr. Kepford was deprived of adequate opportunity to prepare testimony for the Perkins proceeding.
3.
Cooortunity for Discovery - Despite the assertion that discovery was needed in the Perkins proceeding, and repeated by Intervenors in this Joint Filing, there is no specific indication of the nature of such discovery and why it may provide a contribution to the record over and above the investigation conducted by cross-examination.
flow, as well as in Ma/ during the course of the preparation for hearings in Perkins, sanething more specific than a generalized assertion of the
'3/
It shoula also oe noted that Dr. Kepford had virtually identical Staff documents some four months before his testimony was filed in Perkins (see note 2 above).
49 T.19
desire to undertake more discovery is required to demonstrate procedural deficiency.
This is particularly true, in this instance, in light of the assartions by Perkins Intervenors of Dr. Kepford's familiarity with the matter of radon releases (see Motion to Postpone Hearing dated May 3, 1978; Tr. 2267-68; 2675-76), and the previous cpportunities, which were exercised by Dr. Kepford in the Three Mile Island' proceeding to obtain from the Staff a fairly extensive producticn of documents en the radon and related matters (see, for example, letters from Staff counsel to Dr. Kepford in Three Mile Island, dated June 14,17 and 27, 1977) and Dr. Kepford's previcus caportunity in the Three Mile Island ce;e to cross-examine, at length (about 400 pages of transcript, June 7 and 8 and July 5,1977), a principal Staff witness, Dr. Gotchy, en the subjects of radon and health effects.
4 Refusal by Perkins Licensing Board to Admit Certain Exhibits Proffered by Perkins Intervenors - Intervenors assert that the Perkins Board improperly refused to admit into evidence in Perkins five exhibits 4/
(A, D, E, F and G).-
The exhibits were refused on the grounds that no foundation had been laid fcr their admission.
(Order dated lune 29,1978).
3/ A - Geological Survey Circular 779 D - Reprint from Origins of Human Cancer, entitled " Estimates of the Cancer Risk Oue to Nuclear Electric Power Generation."
E
" Radiation Exposures of Hanford Werkers Dying frcm Cancer and Other Causes" F - Rebuttal Statement of John W. Gofman, May 26, 1978 G - Introduction, " Study of the Lifetime Health and Mortality Experience of Employees of ERDA Contractors," Final Report
- 13, July 31, 1977
_9 The record i. Clear that Dr. Kepforo's backgreur.d (Tr. 2674-2710) was not sufficient in fields of health physics, biological L.fects of radiaticn or in medicine to sponscr and "vcuch fer" the truth and accuracy of the informaticn contained in these documents.
Perkins Intervenors offer no other qualified person to sponsor these documents.
In fact, exhibit E was brought up initially during cross-examination of qualified Staff and Applicant witnesses and was not accepted as an authoritative work of probative value.
Dr. Hamilton, Applicant's witness, whose qualifications in these fields are unquestioned, was pointed in his rejecticn of Mancuso, et al. (exhibit E) See Tr. 2273.
Dr. Gotchy, the Staff witness, indicated only #amiliarity with the work and did not suggest that he accepted it as reliable probative evidence (seeTr.2460,2462-2463).b Again, it is manifest that there is no substance to Intervenors' asser-tien that there v.ere procedural defects in the Perkins proceeding in the refusal of the Board to admit exhibits A, D, E, F and G.
Intervenors assert that the failure to include the rejected exhibits in the Perkins evidentiary record was improper under 10 CR 52.743(e),
-5/ It snould be noted that Intervences' Respcnse at p. 4 is written so as to suggest that the Perkins Licensing Board Order of June 30, 1978 (sic) stated that Dr. Hamilton's testimony quoted "frem a document which was not properly a part of the redirect examination which was then being conducted." That suggestion is erroneous.
The statement of the Licensing Board centained in the Order dated June 29,1978, at p. 6 was directed toward portions of Dr. Kepford's testimony that were rejected.
43~221
. which requires that "[r] ejected exhibits, adequately marked for identifica-tien, shall be retained in the record." This rule assur s that rejected exhibits are retained and are readily available to the appellate review tribunal.
In the Perkins case,10 CFR 52.743(e) is fully canplied with.
The transcript record of the Kepford depositicn has bcund into it all exhibits offered to the reporter.
Hcwever, with respect to Three fiile Island, Peach Bottcm, and other proceedings covered by ALAB-480, the Appeal Board directed the Staff to serve upon all parties to all 17 proceedings the evidentiary record in the Perkins proceeding.
(ALAB-480, p. 18).
The rejected exhibi ts do not fann part of the evidentiary record. Thus, in reproducing the Perkins record,exhf')its rejected in their entirety were not reproduced and distributed to all parties.
Lest there be some possible distortion, the Staff did not delete rejected pages of testimony in the reproduction process nor separate out portions of partially accepted material.
We believe that the Staff reproduction and distribution of the Perkins evidentiary record, without wholly rejected exhibits, is consistent with the direction of the Appeal Scard in ALA3-480.
Upen notification by the Appeal Board that this is not correct and that it would prefer that the rejected exhibits, which are not part of the' evidentiary record, be sent to all parties to all 17 proceedings, we will prcmptly do so (as we will do for any individual party who requests to be sent a ccpy of the deleted exhibits).
e%
However, there can, of course, he no detriment to Three Mile Island er to Peach Bottom Intervenors from failure to receive a ccpy of the deleted exhibits, since Dr. Kepford, who filed the Intervencrs' Joint Filing is fully aware of the cantent of these exhibits, which he offered as witness for Perkins Intervencrs.
5.
Refusal of the Licensina Scard to Admit Certain Testincnv by Dr. Keoford - Contrary to the Intervenors' assertion that Dr.' Kepferd's testimony was " censored," the transcript reproduced and distributed to all parties in the 17 proceedings covered by ALAB 480 contains every work reported by the Reporting Service.
All statements, even those rejected as evidence by the Licensing Board are set forth in their entirety.
With respect to assertions that it was inccrrect to reject such testi-mony, Intervenors assert that Dr. Kepford's statements were not imprcper
" redirect" as characterized by the Licensing Board but simply a continued part of his " direct" exanination.
This is simply incorrect.
Dr. Kepford's direct examination terminates on page 2739 of the Transcript of June 8, 1978; and for most of the material following page 2792, one searches in vain for a predicate in any of the cross-exsnination.
Moreover, much of the deleted information would not have been admissible direct examination; e.g., pages 2S05-28C7 is a reading fran the first few pages of a document not admitted into evidence.
' VN f}3
~,,
. Intervenors assert that the Perkins Board had authorized the deleted statements in response to certain statements made by Staff counsel Scinto.
Staff counsel Scinto, during the course of the presentation of Staff testimony, made certain comments in respense to a concern voiced by a member of the Licensing Board as to whether there had been a Staff coverup of the discovery of an error in ',! ASH-1248 (Tr. 2513).
Mr. Scinto's ccmments were directed tow 3rd the asserticn that there had been no deliberate attempt to hide infonnation. He ccnceded that there was perhaps inadequate emphasis given to areas in which there were gaps in available information and incensistencies in the treatment of various values, sc e of which were quantified and scme not quantified.
(Tr.
2513-2517). Mr. Scinto also indicated that cnce the Staff as a whole was really aware that an error existed in the values in Table S-3, the Staff worked to correct it, and did not go forward with further licensing proceedings until the error was assessed and we cculd inform the presiding boards.
(Tr. 2524).
Dr. Kepford asked for an opportunity to respond to these assertions by Staff counsel and was offered such cpportunity either by statements in the nature of comments or by testimony.
Dr. Kepford, at his July 8, 1978 deposition, offered certain exhibits (H, I, and J) he asserted were in rebuttal to allegations made by Mr. Scinto.
(Tr.
2721).
These were accepted for this purpose by the Licensing Board (Order dated June 29, 1978). But in his proffered testimony, Dr. Kepford went far beyond a response to Staff ccunsel's assertion that there had bean no Staff
'153 ~. ?:?d!
. coverup cr attempt to hida errors frcm the Licensing Boards or the Commissicn.
Dr. Kapford launched into a polemic which was directed in the main er attacking the Commissicn.
It accused the Commission of refusing to accept new scientific information, of instituting dogma, of reinstituting the policies of Lysenko, of ignoring infccmation and automatically refuting those who suggest that radiation effects are more severe than those of the preconceived noticns of the Commissi,cn. These statements go far beycnd the respcnse :o Staff counsel, nonetheless, they remain statements set forth in tre reccrd, as are those of Staff counsel, and are (properly) entitled to.no weight as evidence.
Again, there is no substance to Intervenors' claim of procedural defect in the Perkins record.
B.
Amolification of the Perkins Record Even though the assertions of procedural defect in the Perkins record are ur.fcunded, the Staff has nevertheless reviewed the Joint Filing to ascertain whether it asserts with some specificity how Intervencrs deem the record to be substantively incomplete and if there are any proposals for remedying such alleged substantive defect.
fl[) '.'s.,6:.
A
. In the main, Interveners assert tnat the evidence en low level-lcw dass rate radiation does not adequately portray certain research information tcnding to show greater harm than the linear hypothesis. However, the only specific proposals for curing this alleged dafect are to receive in evidence the rejected Perkins exhibits.
This proposal would seem to have little or no value toward amplifying the record on effects of icw level-low dose radiation.
Simply receiving the documents into the record
- hout opportunity for examination cf the authors and their data base would appe6r to have little to contribute.to the effort to determine whether there is in fact a sericus question as to c'trrently used health effects estimates which are derived from the BEIR Cannittee Reports.
At the minimum, this would require an evidentiary presentation of some length cn both sides to explcre fully varicus assertions of inadequacy of the infonnation derived from the BEIR Camnittee.
Some of the Staff difficulties with the repcrts offered as exhibits E and G, for example, are discussed in the recent Staff report mentioned in Intervenors' Response at page 10.
The report is publicly in the Public Document Roo.a.
Beycnd prcposing this specific remedy of adnitting the rejected Perkins exhibits, a proposal which we believe has nc value, Intervenors make no cther specific proposal concerning this matter.
They do not propose to offer any witnesses to address any specific challenge to the health effects estimates used in the Perkins evidence.
Rather, they simply 49 226
. propose that Intervenors be given five months to search cut such witnesses.
The Staff does not believe that this is a reasonable remedy for such unsubstantiated assertions of inadequacy.
In addition to asserticns concerning icw level radiation effects, Inter-venors also propose to include in the "Perkins reccrd" two briefs filed with the Appeal Board in the Three Mile Island proceeding.
The Staff's response to these triefs in the Three Mile Island proceeding ' sets forth cur positica as to the absence of merit of the allegations made with respect to the Three Mile Island prcceeding. These assertiens similarly have no va'Je as supplements to the Perkins record relating to raden releases from the uranium fuel cycle.
PART II The findings of the Perkins Board with respect to raden emissions and resultant health effects may be accepted generically.
Such effects do not tip the balance against the operation of captioned facilities.
The first questien to be addressed in response to numbered paragraph 4 of ALAB-480 is whether the Perkins evidentiary record supports the generic findings and conclusions of the Licensing Board respecting radon enissions in the mining and milling process and the resultant health effects.
The Staff believes that the Perkins record is adequate to support these findings.
All sides to the issue were effectively repre-sented and the Licensing Board (including Dr. Jordan, wno had earlier 49 227
. raised the raden issue) took an active role in develco' g the record.
We also submit that these findings are equally as applicable to the effects of the fuel cycle supporting the Peach Bottom 2 and 3 and Three Mile Island 2 facilities as that supporting Perkins.
With respect to "the amount of raden emissions," the Perkins Board in the Partial Initial' Decision (PID) dated July 14, 1978 recognized the limitations in available data and the conservative nature of estimates, for example, with respect to cpen pit mines (PID para.12-17) and with respect to stabilization of tailings piles (PID para. 31-32). However, in view of the very small nature of the health effects described in the testimony accepted by the Perkins Board, these limitations in emission data were not of significance to the Board's conclusion that radon releases and impacts therefrem are insignificant in striking the cost-benefit balance for the Perkins facilities.
The validity of the Perkins Board findings as to generic consideration of radon emissions is also suppcrted by the findings en this issue by the Black Fox Licensing Board (PID dated July 24, 1978, para.96-125).
In that proceeding, Intervenors used a different expert witness, Dr. Pchi, whose general area of challenge had a scmewhat different focus from that of Perkins Intervenors' sitness and thus elicited generally more detail on issues of stabilization of piles and release frcri piles.
Nonetheless, the conclusions of the Black Fox Licensing Soard with respect to amounts of radon emission are quite similar overall to that of the Perkins Board and support the same conclusion that the resultant health effects are not significant in striking the cost-benefit balance.
49 228
On this basis, with due recognition to the limitations in available data and the conservative nature of various estimates, we propose that this Appeal Board adopt the findings of the Perkins Licensing Board on radon emissions and the resultant health effects.
The Perkins Partial Initial Decision does have certain passages (for example, the background discussicn in paragraph (1)) which are specific to the Perkins record..In all material respects, however, the Perkins Partial Initial Decision is applicable to these proceedings.
The seccnd question to be addressed in response to numbered paragraph 4 of ALAB-480 is whether the radon emissions and resultant health effects as established in the Perkins record are such as to tip the NEPA balance against cperation of the Peach Bottcm 2 and 3 and Three Mile Island 2 facilities.
The Perkins record demonstrates that the increase in natural background radiaticn associated with the mining and milling of an annual fuel requirement ("AFR") is so small, particularly in view of fluctuations in natural backgrcund radiation, as to be completely undetectable.
(PID para. 51). Based upcn its review of the evidence adduced, the Perkins Board concluded that there would be only a very minimal resulting impact cn health effects.
(PID para. 49).
There was ample basis for the Licensing Board's conclusion, therefore, that the impact of the incremental raden is not significant.
(PID para. 51).
This very small incremental impact could not tip the cost-benefit balance against operation nf the Peach Bottom 2 and 3 and Three tiile Island 2 facilities unless their records indicated that the costs and benefits were virtisally in equipoise. 'The e
. Licensing Board in these proceedings has previously found, however, that the benefits of captioned facilities and cperation of these facilities clearly outweigh the environmental and ecencaic costs which will necessarily be incurred.
(Peach Bottom Initial Decision, para. 35, 7 AEC 1022, at 1032b; Three Mile Island, Unit 2 Initial Decision, para.130, 6 NRC 1185, at 1226).
The cost-benefit balance in these proceedings would not be tipped by the tiny increments associated with ra, don release fran the uranium fuel cycle.
For the reasons set forth above, we request the Appeal Board to adoot the findings of the Perkins Licensing Board en radon emissions and resultant health effects.
Based upon a consideration of the level of incremental impacts involved and the cost-benefit balance in this case, we further request the Appeal Board to find that the balance is not tipped against operation of these plants.
Respectfully sub&tted
_a,
l
,4wY 0 Josech~ F. Scinto Deputy Director, Hearing Division Office of the Executive Legal (pirector Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of September,1978
-5/ See note 4 or tne Peach Bottcm Initial Decision, 7 AEC 1022 at 1031, regarding the aoplicability of the Beard's finding to Unit 2.
49 030
UtlITED STATES OF AMCRICA flVCLEAR REGULATORY C0t"tISSICil PCFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AilD LICE ISI:'G APPEAL BOARD In tne Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITA:t EDIS0fl COMPAtlY,
)
)
)
(Three Mile Island fluclear Station,
)'
Unit 2)
)
x x
x x
x In the Matter of
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPAtlY
)
Docket flos. 50-277
)
50-278 (Peach Bottom Atomic Pcwer Station,
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
CERTIFICATE OF. SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "fiRC STAFF'S AtiSWER TO IllTERVE?t0RS' JOIiT MOTIOil FILIliG DATED JULY 27,197E" 'in the above-captioned procdding have been served en the following by depnsit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 15th day. of September 1978:
Michael C. Farrar, Esq., Chairman
- Atomic Safety dad Licensing Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman "
Appeal Coard Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal panel U.S. ?luclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulat<>ry Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. John H. Buck
- Atomic Safety and Licensing J" '"e E. Sha rfnuin. Esq.. Membe r
- Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal U.S. Iluclear Regula tory Connai s s ion Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0'.
'd.
Reed Johnson
- Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic Sa fet'/ and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. iluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
~
49 T31 a
_2_
Eugene J. Bradley, Esq.
Edwa rd L"t"", Esq.. Chairman
- Philadelphia Electric Ccapany Atomic Safetf and Licensing Board 2301 Market Street U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Washington, D. C. 20555 Troy 8. Conner, Jr., Esq.
nner, Moore and Corber Mr Gustave A. Linenberger*
47 Pennsylvanta Avenue' N'W'
^ " " ".'
Y ""
"" "U """"d Washington, D.C.
20006 U.S. Nuclear Regulator" Commission Washington D. C.
20555 Raymond L. Hovis, Esq.
Stack and Leader 35 South Duke Street George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw. Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge York, Pennsylvania 17401 1800 M Street N. W.
W. U. Anderson, Esq.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice Dr. Ernest O. Salo apitol Annex Professor, Fisheries Research liarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Instttute, U. li_10 Edwar'd G. Bauer, Jr., Esq.
College of Fisheries Vice President and General Counsel University of Washington Philadelphia Electric Company Seattle, Washington 98195 1000 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105 D i-Chauncey R. Kcpford Citizens, for a Safe Environment Myron !!1oo:a, 1:sq.
4 33 Orlando Avenue U.S. Environmental Protection State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Agency Region III, Curtis Building h.arui U.. Carta, Assistant horney 6th and Walnut Streets CC"" I P.:iladelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Office of Enforcement Karin Carter, Esq.
Department of Environmental Department of Environmental Resources Resources Coelonwealth of Pennsylvania 709 Ilealth and Welfare Building 505 Executive Ucuse
!!arrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 "IIl h II ' J"h""""d John B. Griffith, Esq.
4 3 3 0 " I " " ' ' " ^ " " " "
Special Assistant Attorney General St te College, Pennsylvania 16501 Tawes State Office Buil< ting (C-4)
Annapolis, Maryland 21401 O
O
Atomic Sa f e t.y.uul I.icens ing Appea l !!narti l'a ne l +
U.S. I:uclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- U.S. l!uclear Regulatory Connai ssion Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service
- Of fice of the Secretary V,5. Iluclear Pe';ulatory Con:nission Washington, D.C.
20555
~
[
!\\
N K
\\
4/)
/
Josepn Scinto '
Counsel for fiRC Staff O
a 49 233