ML19290B813
| ML19290B813 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1979 |
| From: | Adler T, Selkowitz L THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT, WIDOFF, REAGER, SELKOWITZ & ADLER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912140151 | |
| Download: ML19290B813 (19) | |
Text
, .
- s g\P %
0 67
[7 e
9 g\m v
- 1 . .
F. .
\, ' '
.b 0, s cD,.g '.3 4
UNITED STATES CF AMERICA .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' M,( . /
BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter cf )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Doc.ket No. 50-289
) (Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit No.1) )
INTERVENOR THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT, INC.'S BRIEF ON ISSUE OF PREPARING AN EIS PRICR TO TMI-l RESTART I. Introduction.
By briefs dated October 31,1979, and received by Petitioner en November 2 and November 5, respectively, the Licensee and the NRC Staff responded to the contentien of several Petitioners, including that cf Three Mile Island Alert (TMIA),
that a new or revised final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be completed by the NRC concerning all aspects of the restart of TMI-1. On November 9,1979, Joseph Hendrie, Chairman cf the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, anncunced that a comprehensive EIS concerning the cleanup for restart cf TMI No. 2 would be denn i
by the NRC. The existence of this new EIS and the further reasons set forth herein must propel this Board to a finding that a final environmental impac: statement en moe ..uom the restart of Unit No. I must be ccmpleted and ccmplied with prior to any decisien
.uown s
.,',".",.,L. which allows the Unit's return to ccmmercial service.
.. . ~
\577 514
_.m....
m,........
7 onu o /T/
G
II. The Restart Of Unit I Involves Environmental Factors Net Previously A Part Of An EIS .
The brief cf the Li::ensee relies on the existing environmental reviews cf TMI-l and the r91Mml operational and technical changes made to the plant as a result cf the accident as support for the position that no new ELS is required. It generously provides citations to the regulations cf the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Section 1502.9(c) (1) which detail the circumstances under which a supplemental EIS must be done, then proceeds to " explain" why the restart falls cutside those requirements. The explanation provided fails entirely to address the reasons why a new or supplemental EIS must now be under:aken. For '
, clarity cf review, those requirements are as follows:
Agencies shall prepare supplements to either draft er final environmental impact statements if:
(1) the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (ii) there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing en the proposed action or its impacts. ,
'i 3 As to point (1), TMIA concurs that no such changes are implied by the restart. The unit to be restarted is the same in all important technical aspects as it was before. As to paragraph (ii), the Licensee has missed the point entirely.
The Licensee contends that the existing EIS for the plant already ccvers a ,
wicCfm mgAggm.
s m.aowm: . potential accident cf the type experienced at TMI-2 and, therefore, such a study
.oun . e.
- Musa sys av uw n., . need net be repeated. Assuming, arguendo, that the Licensee is correct on tnis GC?""*SSW8se 8CAO
- ~
,7,,,,, point, it is not the impact cf such an accident that must now be reviewed. It is the
..... _2-1577 315
! restart and atte'adant normal or abnormal operation in light cf new and significantly
- changed circumstances which were never previcusly assessed that must now be i studied. These new factors incude
- 1. The safety and praticality of cperating a nuclear pcwer station adjacent
- to a five-year cleanup cf a damaged station involving levels and volumes cf radio-1 '
. activity never before experienced in the history cf commercial nuclear power.*
- 2. The safe operatien cf Unit I when a significant portien cf its tankage is required by an Order of the NRC to be kept available for use in conjunction with the !
- cleanup cf Unit II (see attached Exhibit "A", Order cf October 16,1979) *
- i
- 3. Cumulative effects cf normal cperating levels cf radiation (assuming it N
h runs normally) en a popuWinn which has received excessive doses as a result of
! the accident at Unit II and the related cleanup .* i
- 4. The pctential thermal pcIlution impact of the operation cf Unit I as related I
l to the levels cf thermal pollution generated from the unprecedented volumes cf j o! water discharged by the Unit II cleanup .
i In the language cf the CEQ regulations, these and other factors are "signifi-t
, cant new circumstances . . . relevant to environmental concerns and bearing en ,
4
- the proposed acticn or its impacts," which give rise to a supplemental environmental i
- impact statement.
'l move mann j '
scuawirr .
Act.EM
- C.
.m . ., u.
s..a ow
- e s.vaa ao o *Such interrelationships are further evidence cf the need to delay the decision to of,*,[,y,,, restart Unit I until final plans are approved for the total cleanup cf Unit II.
.mn as.is.*
1577 316
III. The Restart Of Unit I Is A Maior Federal Action Significantly Affecting The Human Environment Within The Meaning Of NEPA.
The NRC Staff centends, beginning at page 14 cf its brief, that this restart proceeding, as an enforcement action, need not be the subject cf an EIS, as it is not a =ajor action significantly affecting the human environment. Its first argument is that the IEC requiations cf 10 CFR Section 51.5(d) do not require a NEPA state-ment for every enforcement action. That may be so. However, it is IEPA which entrols when a particular situatien requires an EIS, not the NRC regulations. See Isaak Walton League cf America vs. Schlect.nger, 337 F.Supp. 287 (D.D.C.1971) .
Second, the regulation cited at page 18 cf the Staff brief indicates on its face that some enforcement proceedings may require an EIS. Thus the language, :
- "unless otheivise determined by the Com.aissicn." ,
Next the Staff argues that enforcement actions are exempt frem CEQ quide-lines. However, in a lapse into candc. , the Staff admits that the rule, as inter-preted by the courts, applies only to filing an EIS before commencing an enforcement:
] action. See Gifford-Hill & Co. v. FTC, 523 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir.1975); Mobil Oil j Corp. v. FTC, 562 F 2d 170 (2d Cir 1977) . These cases both address the ques-tion of NEPA at the end cf the enforcement proceeding, and both indicate that NEPA considerations are relevant at that time. Here, it is not the enfcrcement action which is the cause for NEPA review. It is the possible restart, with its attendant
- wtDCFF 4tAGER,
- U7[
.~. . , . -
environmental impacts, which must be the subf ect on EIS . Thus, the argument on
,,,. ""," j "_ pages 17 through 24 cf the Staff be.ef, in the present context, is meaningless.
._.m_....
j}77 3l7
. f Finally, on page 25, the Staff begins to address the real question, calling it an " additional analytical problem", i.e., the " extent to which the renewal cf operation of the facility can er should be separately identified as a federal action
.... " More precisely, is the renewal of operatien of Unit I, under present cir-cumstances, a major federal actica significantly affecting the human environment?
The Staff predictably says "no." TAHA disagrees.
A. Analysis of NEPA.
After identifying the issue at page 25 of its brief, as noted above, the NRC
' Staff takes cff on another tangent, carefully analyzing whether an engoing federal ti action requires an EIS in the middle of the program. That is also not the issue.
Finally, the Staff brief admits, on page 29, that "where environmentally significant i
changes in the project are contemplated . . . or where significant new environme:aal.
" impacts are discovered, there may be some responsibility cf the agency to determine j whether a new or supplemental EIS should issue." That is the issue here. Once l
1; d again, the Staff riiemieses the need under this test by addressing and discounting
.I the psycholcgical stress claim, ignoring all other potential environmental factors 1 such as those enumerated in Section II above.
The Board cannot accept the argument that it should look oilly to operaticn cf Unit I with some sort of blinders, ignoring the proximity of Unit II. The Commissien I
wieor.- auam. Order establishing this proceeding charges the Board to address this relationship.*
.m.xowir . 1 Act.m
- C.
at*ommesve 47 64w ,
n..
e stufte *CAO
~ ~ ~ ^ ~ *See Order cf July 2,1979, Pages 4-5.
.--....... \511 M7
Further=cre, that the restart cf Unit I is itself a major federal ac*.dcn
. significantly affecting the environment is clear from the relevant cases.
As summarized by the courts in Sierra Club v. Bergland, 451 F.Supp.120 (N.D. Miss.1978), quoting City of Rechester v. U.S. Postal System, 541 F.2d 967, 972 (2d Cir.1976):
In ascertaining the significance cf a major federal acticn, the project must be assessed with a view to the overall cumulative impact of the action proposed, related federal acticn and the projects in the area and further actions contemplated.
As the Court reasoned in Bergland, id:
. . . such a statement (EIS), however, is absciutely required where the proposed action may further be said to have a potentially significant adverse effect. (emphasis added)
The Court concluded its reasoning as to the need for an EIS in the Rochester case by stating that:
Considerations of environmental factors "to the fullest extent i possible" and "beginning at the earliest possible point' are necessary. 38 F. Reg.19856,19865 (1973) . As recognised by the Second Circuit in Conservation Society cf Scuthern
! Vermont v. Sec. of Transportation, 508 F.2d 927, 936 (2d q Cir.1974), Congress was quite aware that incremental effects of small, but repetitive, projects could have major long-term effects.
As the Senate report accompanying NEPA expressly warns, one function of
. ths Act is to prevent decision making that affects the environment frem taking place
, , , , , _ , "in small but steady increments which perpetuate rather than avoid the recagnized '
suower= .
^cua ac mistake of previous decades." S. Rep. No. 91, 296, 91st Cong.,1st Sess. 5 (1969) .
.v o- . . , .,
. .. Thus, the federal courts have had no MwMty in requiring impact statements for
...w ... . w
. m, .3. 3 3 1577 5M
f
" major federal actions" which were no more than the cumulative effect cf related minor federal actions. See, e.g., NRDC v. Grant, 341 F.Supp. 356 (1972);
People of Enewetak v. Laird, 353 F.Supp. 811 (1973); Minnescta PIRG v. Butz, 358 F.Supp. 584 (1973) .
The brief cf the Staff acknowledges the line of cases which hold that the subsequent discovery cf now factors involving an engeing project for which an EIS had already been prepared required the filing cf a supplemental EIS. See Aluli v. Brown, 437 F.Supp. 602 (D. Hawaii 1977) cited at page 28 cf NRC brief.
The Aluli decision does not stand alone, as the tone cf the Staff brief would have
., one infer. A further case is very instructive en this point. In Essex City y Preservation Ass'n. v. Campbell, 536 F.2d 956 (1976), the Circuit Court cf Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court ruling (399 F.Supp. 208)
' that a supplemental EIS was required because cf changed circumstances. In this
] case, the Governor cf Massachusetts declared a moratorium on the further ccustruc-d tion of a portion of a federalinterstate highway after the EIS for that construction f
~
and related construction forther north had already been filed. The Court's i
.. opinion, discussing the District Court requirement of a new EIS based en the moratorium, is as follows:
While declining to decide whether the Sargent moratorium actually would have such an envircnmentalimpact, the court ,
.i o e , .u.... held that a supplemental EIS had to be prepared in order to suceza effectuate the basic aims of NEPA which favor disclosure of
,, ',"*" *, L all relevant factors affecting agency decisiens. See Monree n.. om
"""***=
County Conservation Ccuncil, Inc. v. Volpe, 472 F .2d 693,
.'. Z.7,. .,,,, 697 (2d Cir.1972) . We are inclined to agree with this judq-ment. While we cannot detez nine with certainty what the
. J. . .. . .' 1577 520
ultimate environmental effects of the moratorium will be, it would seem to constitute the type cf "sigraficant new irforma-tion . . . concerning (an) actien's environmental aspects" that makes a supplemental EIS necessary. 23 C.F.R. Secticn 771.15. Such a supplemental statement, which receives the same type of public comment and expcsure as an original EIS, is likely to facilitate the "ccmplete awareness on the part of the actor cf the environmental consequences cf his action
. . . , " National Helium Corp. v. Morton, 455 F.2d 650, 656 (10th Cir.1971), mandated by NEPA. It is this type of cutside review that can mitigate against errors or pcssible bias. See I-291 Why? Association v. Burns, 372 F.Supp, 223, 245-46 (D. Conn.1974) , aff'd, 517 F.2d 1077 (2d Cir.1975) . In view of the fact that the reconstruction project at issue here is not yet completed and that certain agency decisicns may " remain open to revision," see Jones v. Lynn, 477 F.2d 885, 890 (1st Cir.1973), we cannot say it was improper for the district couit to require appellees to prepare and circulate a supple-mental EIS directed to the impact cf the Sargent moratorium.
Surely, if a postponement in a construction prof ect cf a related stretch of highway can trigger a supplemental EIS, then the accident at TMI-2, its pre.t.mity to Unit I, the synergistic impact cf radiation exposures, the need to share facilities with and the unknown plans for the Unit II cleanup must compel a supplemental EIS on the restart cf Unit I.
i l The Board must keep in mind that NEPA requirements are stringent, and that the issue is not resolved merely because the Licensee and Staff conclude that an EIS is not needed.
The National Environmental Policy At . cf 1969, 42 U.S.C. Section 4321, et W1CQ8N. REACEM, seq., has been litigated now for almost a decade. Courts in every circuit have
- S EL.KCwtT2 &
- em - c. recognised its strict requirements. Section 102(2) (c) cf NEPA requires that "to
.v .v. ., m.
,,_",",,2.,.., the fullest extent possible" all federal agencies must include a detailed environ-
_.m..,
.nm s2.... 1577 321
mentalimpact statement "in every rec::mmendaticn or report en proposals fer legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality cf the human environment"; this environmental impact statement is to " accompany the proposal thrcugh the existing agency review precesses . . . Jones v. District cf Columbia Redevelopment Land Aqcy., 499 F.2d 502 (D.C. Cir.1974) Cert. den.
96 S.Ct. 299 (Bazelon, C.J.)
In Calvert Cliffs Cecrdinating Committee vs. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109 (1971), a landmark case under NEPA, the Court, per Judge Wright, 1
. discussed how NEPA is to apply. Judge Wright stated that NEPA required the 1
y Federal Government to "use all practical means and =easures" to protect environ-
] mental values. He further went on to say that the " greatest importance cf NEPA is :
a .
,j the requirement that agencies consider environmental 1scues just as they consider
' other matters within their mandates."
ll In his opinion, Judger Wright states that the procedural requirements cf ti
" NEPA "are not highly flexible . . . they establish a strict standard cf compliance."
0
- j 449 F.2d at 1112; adding that See
- 1on 102's mandate that agencies prepare environ-11 j mental impact statements:
. . . must be complied with to the fullest extent, unless there is a clear conflict of statutory authority. Considerations cf
,' administrative difficulty, delay, or economic cost will not suffice to strip the section of its fundamental importance."
Calvert Cliffs, supra, at 1115.
.uemrz . a
- o m . c. NEPA mandates a case by case balancing judgment on the part
"" cf federal agencies . . . the particular econcmic and technical
. , *[* .. .
bendits cf planned action must be assessed and then weighed e4- ~ against the environmental costs; alternatives must be cen-
_.m......
-.- ....... 1577 322
sidered which would effect the balance of values . . . . The point cf the individualized balaMng analysis is to insure that the optimally beneficial action is finally taken, supra at 1123.
The Ccurt, in Calvert Cliffs, pointed out that impact statements shculd be
, prepared at a tf=e when it is still pcssible to consider alternatives and pcssible approaches to a particular project. h most cases, it is pcssible and reasonable for the courts to insist en strict compliance with NEPA, and actions can, consistently with public interest, be enjcined until such compliance is forthecming. Jones vs.
'D.C. I.and Development Agency, 499 F.2d 502, 513 (D.C. Cir.1974) . In fact, the courts have stated that there is a presumption in favor cf injunctive relief in i, cases cf NEPA non-compliance. This presumption is necessary in order that the
- i o courts may preserve the status quo to allow decision makers the opportunity to
.i .
] choose, with the benefit of advice and counsel, from all affected parties, among the
- options available to it. NOREU. vs. United States,11 E.R.C.1841 (D.C. Cir.
!1978).
e Thus, not only is an EIS required, but also it is in the interest of efficiency i
d and fairness to all, including the Licensee, that it be done now, rather than at the -
- l l end cf a court proceedint/ after the Commusion entered a final order which did not i
include a new EIS .
B. The restart hearings shculd be delayed pending resolution of environ-mental issues at Unit II.
"',**",*[*"~,
, , , Directly related to the problems which give rise to the need for an EIS for ACLEM e C.
' " = = " - Unit Iis a resolution of the issues surrounding II. As noted abcve, the CommMsien n.. m 3 W Su,NB 80 0 u-.
.~.,_
has decided to do a ecmprehensive EIS cn the cleanup cf that unit. However, the
-, -72... 3 +10-1577 323
9 secpe of that EIS has not yet been determined nor is there a timetable for comple-tien. Without a final decision as to the methods of decentamination, the dispcsal cf water, wastes and resins, for intermediate and high-level radica:tivity and related concerns, one cannot understand, nor assess, de pctential enviren= ental impact cf restarting and cperating Unit I. Thus, even if a new EIS is undertaken for Unit I, it will be premature unless the final decisions and assessments cf the Unit II cperation have been made. Such a premature statement will then have to be supplemented and revised when the Unit II plan is finalized, making it an interim statement at best, on which no restart could properly be allcwed. See Environmem 31 Defense Fund v. Armstrong, 352 F.Supp 50 (1950) , affirmed 487 F.2d 814, cert.
I
, denied 94 S.Ct. 2002, 416 U.S. 974.
!i
.i IV. Harm To The Human Environment Frem Psychological Stress Is Recognis-able Under NEPA.
TMIA and other intervenors have requested that the harm to the pecple of 1 the Susquehanna Valley arising frem the stress engendered by the restart of Unit I y be part of the subject of an EIS. Both the Licensee and the NRC Staff contend 1 otherwise. The NRC Staff allows that certain non-direct "seciological" factors
' can be considered if there are also direct eccicgical impacts. As we have shown q above, there are direct ecologicalimpacts to consider in a supplemental EIS, thus
,. we can consider ncn-direct " sociological" enes. However, TMIA asserts that the
~To,% ."
medica.ly demonstrable harm to the public is a direct injury to the human environ-ACLKM 8' C.
((*] "" ment. Further, if fcund not to be direct, it is certainly one of the indirect effects 2-. ....
c*-- ~
-.m.,,.,, ef the restart to be studied in the EIS that otherwise must be done.
,m .2. .= 1577 324
I As the affidavit of Dr. Barneski attests (Exhibit "B" hereto) , the stresses related to the continuing operation cf TMI are having substar.tive, real, medical consequences. Reducing this real harm to a psycho-socic1cgical metaphor, as the Licensee and Staff would have us do by calling it " distress", elevates
- semantics beyond a reasonable beund.
The Hanly* 1ine of cases so aptly cited by the Ccmmonwealth cf Pennsyl-vania and cthers en this topic make it clear that protecting the quality of the human
, environment under NEPA requires a review of the effects of the federal action on such diverse factors as health care delivery systems, sewerage treatment, ccm-munity mental health capabilities and the like.
The stress related medical consequences of TMI-1 returning to operation are
- more directly evident than seme cf the considerations required by Hanly and its U progeny. Although such factors may be somewhat more difficult to measure than 3 conventional environmental woes, such inconvenience is net a sufficient basis to I
deny their inclusion in an EIS. Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Ccmmittee v. AEC,
. 449 F.2d 1109,1115 (1971) . To decide now, before an EIS is done, that such i measurements will prove so difficult as to be cf no value to the decision makers i
9 surely puts the cart before the horse. At this stage, it is cnly to be decided j whether such a review will be done at all, not to deter =nne or predict what the 1 .
w oen amaza. , review will tell us. Let the record first be made, then the preper decisiens S EL.MCwit: 4 ACI.EM
- C.
ammmava af uw sees oss
=-~= = -cao
- Hanly v. Mitchell. 460 F.2d 640, cert. denied 4C9 U.S. 990 (1972); Hanly v.
,,,,[** 7,_,,, Kleindienst. 471 F.2d 823 (2d Cir.1972) cert. denied 412 U.S. 908 (1973) .
1577 325
gleaned therefrem, rather than forec!csing agency censideration cf important public topics by pre-determining that it will be too difficult to do.
V. Conclusien.
The public policy cf this ccuntry as ccdified in NEPA is clear: environ-mental concerns must be made a part cf the Federal Government's decisien making precess. As demonstrated above, and by the other intervenors, the restart of TMI-l has the pctential for adversely affecting the quality cf the human enviren-ment. Thus, an environmental impact statement concerning this federal acticn must be issued, after full public contact, discussion and participation.
i Respectfully submitted, W
' Larry B f Selkcwitz
/ Theodore A. Adler
.4 Counsel for TMIA, Inc.
l Wideff, Reager, Selkowit: & Adler, P.C.
P. O. Box 1547 Harrisburg, PA 17105 (71D 763-1383 a
W1CCFF # EAGER.
' "o""
- Dated: November 21,1979
&ct.EM
- C.
.. .~.
C.* %
-T......
_13_ i577 326
Uff!TED STATES CF AMERICA
?IUCLEAR REGULATCRY C2MI55ICN p, p s$
CCMMISSICNERS: g3
' Joseon M. Hendrie, Chair ::an
~~
9 N pr
'Itet:r Gliinsky ; g$ $j/ C,t Richard I. Kennedy #,$ A' Deter A. Eradforc '
C) 4Y'-
John F. Ahearne
/ bi ,
}
In the Matter of )
)
METROPOLITAtt EDISCN C:MPAtlY,, g af . ) Cocket No. 50-320
)
(Three Mile Islarid Nuclear Station, )
Uni: Z) )
)
M940RANCUM AND CRCER Secausa of c e March 23, 1979 ac:iden: at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear pone plant (TMf-2), substantial amcunts of radioactively c:ntaminated waste water have been collected in tanks at the facility. As the initial steo in a program Oc deal with this accumulation, the C mission's technical staff has rec:menced da: Metropolitan Edison C: meany, the licensee for Three Mile Island, be ; emitted :s caerate an'E?ICCR-II fil:ntion and icn exchange dec:ntaminatien system ts decontaminata intemediata-level radioac:fve westa 4:rr now held in tanks in ce TMI-2 auxiliary and :5:e1 handling building. This rec:rzendation is ac:=ncaniec by :ne staff's environmental assessment of the imcac: of using I?ICCR-II and an analysis of c::ments on de assessment by the public. Tne staff has
- ncluded, based on this assessment and analysis, that the pre:osed use cf I?!CCR-II will no: significantly affect the a
= ental im:act statacent need be prepar DUPLICATE DOCUMEN ocerate !?!CCR.II- Tne Ccmission is Entire document previously entered into system under:
= -O W//c6aso7f No. of pages: h
4
'C'8 f s,g i
, - 9.
Q ./,q $> Q,-
.yv 4.
CCMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
- 3,8 '
t .cpa Y.. ,vY'*
t
. o $~
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN )
QV G?
gj cQ,.* r) ,/
D John F. Barnoski, being duly sworn, says the following:
I am a medical doctor who has maintained a family medical practice in
.Middletown, Pennsylvania, since 1976. Immediately fc11owing the accident at Three Mile Island, I treated, and continue to treat, a substantial number cf patients who, along with their physical symptoms, expressed a heightened awareness cf L' and anxiety concerning any other medical involvements they were experiencing er
. would experience in the future because of their exposures to the radiation emitted ;
it i by TMI during and after the accident. In addition, these and other patienta l'
': continue to consult me reganiing the harm they and their children will experience .
i' from any additional exposures to radiation resulting from present and future
^
- j activity at TMI. These concerns and fears cf the residents cf Middletown and near-Uby communities have also been expressed to me by other citizens who are not my !
patients . '
} The past and continuing psychological effects on the population around
' Three Mile Island are having negative cansequences en the patients I have seen, e ranging frem the mild to the severe, and will continue to have such effects so Icnq wieer- .c4aan. as the NRC and GPU continue to release radicactivity into the environment or -
. awe- .
.eun - e. anncunce that such is imminent or contemplated.
. . . ~ _
.~
1577 528 I:GI3 :~' " 3 "
t Any programs to treat or discharge any radicactive substances at TMI will, because of these psychoicgical effects, have a negative impact on the human environment near TMI, which must be considered before such actions are taken.
John Barneski, M.D.
4 Sworn to and subscribed before me
' this . . .*'- day of November,1979.
.. .. ~ ~
. N . A. _. ( ; ,% -c , . .
.t Notary Public ,
AUCRTt C. NEHLER. NGTARY PRUC
' My Commission Expires: mmsauna. cacFain ccDNR l
'AY COMM:5SiON WGES ;#4.13.1382 Memeer. 7ennsylvama Assecacen of Nmrat
'I 2
l wtCCM 84 EAC EM. 1577 329 SELMQwtT2 &
A CLEM *C aT=omaeave af baw SSSS Oh.1 MeusHB #Cao CAase =uba.
- tPepeevbwanna **O*e
+7971 '9 3.t 3 83 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that I served a trus and correct ccpy cf the attached document, Intervenor Three Mile Island Aler:, Inc.'s Brief On Issue Of Preparing An EIS Prior To TMI-1 Restart, on the below listed parties, by hand delivering a copy to the TMI Observation Center in Middletown, Pennsylvania, directed to the attention cf Ichn Wilson, on November 21,1979, for reproduction and first-class mailing, in acccrdance with Licensee's memo dated November 13, 1979.
Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Atcmic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 0 881 West Outer Drive
. Oak Ridge, TN 37830 D J/ 4 Dr. Linda W. Little g,, 4 5000 Hermitage Drive bg q
- g. Sf -
Raleigh, NC 27612 ; #p' np .4'pf .7
- 7 'lj
-l George F. Trowbridge, Esquire q .. e # . .
j Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge f*'f . Pj/
1800 M Street, N.W. g l', Washington, DC 20006 *I
'l
. Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Executive Legal Direc:or U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission -
wioer- anas".
SELMCwtT2 & Washington, DC 20535 ACLER
- C.
.e-e-. . , u.
.... ~
~.
uj j
.. m m . . ,,
Theodore A. Adler
"" S='um Dated: Ncvember 21,1979 1577 330
1 m 2__ . . ___._ ._ _ Da t e : November 21, 1979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC %FETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of . )
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289
) (Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit No. 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Intervenor Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.'s Brief On Issue Of Preparing An EIS Prior To TMI-1 Restart dated November 21, 1979, which was hand delivered to Licensee at Three Mile Island Observation Center, Middletown, Pennsylvania, on November 21, 1979 we.e served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in tha United States mail, postage paid, this 21st day of November, 1979.
[ohn F. Wilson Dated: November 21, 1979 dPt l@f
@ges - 9.
g- p\gs7 -
5?$$tylh
~
\577 D\
a .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BJARD In the Matter of )
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) ,r
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear )
Station, Unit No. 1)
SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esquire Karin W. Carter, Esquire Chairman Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board Panel 505 Executive House U. S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 2357 Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert L. Knupp, Esquire Dr. Walter H. Jordan Assistant Solicitor Atomic Safety and Licensing County of Dauphin Board Panel P. O. Box P 881 West Outer Drive 407 North Front Street Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Dr. Linda W. Little John E. Minnich Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman, Dauphin County Board of Board Panel Commissioners 5000 Hermitage Drive Dauphin County Courthouse Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Front and Market Streets Harrisburg, Pennsylvania -17101 James A. Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Walter W. Cohen, Esquire Director Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20555 14th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Actorney for Newberry Township Washington, D.C. 20555 T.M.I. Steering Co=mittee 2320 North Second Street ,
John A. Levin, Esquire Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Assistant Counsel Pennsylvania Public Utility
- Theodore A. Adler, Esquire Consission Widoff Reager Selkevitz & Adler P. O. Box 3265 P. O. Box 1547 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
- Person on whose behalf service is being made. Only Certificate of Service is enclosed.
1577 332
,. , 4-Ellyn Weiss, Esquire Rob ert Q. Pollard Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Chesapeake Energy Alliance Suite 506 609 Montpelier Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W. Balti= ore, Maryland 21218 Washington, D.C. 20006 Chauncey Kepford Steven C. Sholly Judith H. Johnsrud 304 South Market Street Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Frieda Berryhill Chairman, Coalition for Nuclear Marvin I. Lewis Power Plan?. Postponement 6504 Bradford Terrace 2610 Glendon Drive Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Wilmington, Delaware 19808 Marjorie M. Aamodt Holly S. Keck R. D. 3 Lagislation Chairman Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 Anti-Nuclear Group Representing York Jane Lee 245 West Philadelphia Street R. D. 3 Box 3521 York, Pennsylvania 17404 Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 Karen Sheldon, Esquire George F.Troworidge, Esquire Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Suite 506 1800 M Street, N.W.
1725 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20006
- Person on whose behalf service is being made. Only Certificate of Service is enclosed, i577 333