ML20090H986

Renewal Application for Issuance of Subpoenas Requiring Attendance & Testimony of Witnesses & Production of Evidence Supporting Emergency Planning Contentions.W/Subpoena Schedule & Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20090H986
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	05/16/1984
From:	Guild R CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP, GUILD, R., PALMETTO ALLIANCE
To:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8405220098
Download: ML20090H986 (22)

Text

g, RELATED CORRESPONDENCE -

DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B0$D MY 21 MO %

In the Matter of -

) - .

y DUKE POWER COMPANY. et al. ) Dockets Nos. 50-413 06

) 50-414 o (Catawba Nuclear Station )

Units 1 and 2) ) May 16. 1984 RENEWED APPLICATION BY PALMETTO ALLIANCE AND CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS Pursuant to 10CFR 2.720 Intervenors. Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental Study Group hereby renew their application of April 16. 1984 and'do Sereby further apply for the issuance of subpoenas requiring the 1 attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence in support of Intervenor's claims with regard to the emergency planning contentions which have been admitted for litigation in this proceeding.

Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental Study Group urge that the availability of the right of compulsory process through the issuance of these subpoenas by the Commission is an essential element of administrative due process guaranteed all partie: to Commission adjudications and is a procedural tool particularly essential to Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental Study Group in demonstrating, here, the absence of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at the Catawba Nucl"r Station. cf. 10 84o5 oom o 40516 go e .220098 8.ooo g e

CFR 50.47(a)(1). Most of the persons sought to be subpoenaed are either state and local officials or employees or agents of Applicants responsible in their official capacity or employment for emergency preparedness or protective action with respect to radiological accidents at Catawba. In such official capacity or employment, such persons are believed to have knowledge or to be in control of evidence generally relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding, i.e. emergency planning for the Catawba facility. In many cases the emergency preparedness responsibilities of such persons are identified in the emergency plans themselves; in other cases such responsibilities or knowledge are reflected in discovery materials made available by Applicants and in the prefiled or cross-examination testimony of Applicants' witnesses.

Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental Study Group maintain the adequacy of their Application of April 16. 1984, and assert that the Licensing Board erred in refusing that Application. However, in the interest of seeking to mitigate the harm to our case of such error and to contribute to the completeness of the record for decision in this proceeding, we have reduced the number of persons sought to be subpoenaed and have supplemented the previous showing of general relevance of the evidence sought from such persons.

The Commission's Rules of Practice,10CFR 2.720(a) provide that the presiding officer shall issue such subpoenas on the application of any party. The presiding officer may require a showing of general relevance of the evidence scuoht. but shall not attempt to determine the admissibility of such evidence. The rule, significantly. contemplates no

responsive pleading to the application from any other party: nor consideration,of any other factors with respect to the issuance of a subpoena. Such traditional considerations as burden, privilece and more narrow relevance determinations may be raised by the person to whom the subpoena is directed by way of a motion to quash or modify the subpoena pursuant to 10CFR 2.720(f). Neither Applicants nor the NRC staff have standina to object to the issuance of the subpoenas soucht by Intervenors; any such responses should be striken. Such procedure is directly analogous to that in the federal courts as provided for in Rule 45(e)(1). FRCP. where subpoenas issue "as a matter of course" upon the request of a party.

Moore's. p. 45-82.

Palmet'to. Alliance and Carolina Environmental Study Group ask that the subpoenas be issued with the date, time and place of compliance in blank, subject to specification by Intervenors prior to service as the place and time for schedulina becomes known; or, alternatively. with the time and date of 9:00 a.m.. June 6. 1984. being set out so that Intervenors may specify a more particularized time for appearance by communication with the witness or counsel.' Intervenors are prepared to provide for service and the tendering of fees for attendance as required.

For each person indicated, the subpoena will be accompanied by an attached schedule requirina production of the following documenatary evidence:

Any and all documents of whatever description in your custody or sub.iect to your control reflectina your knowledae of emergency preparedness for the Catawba Nuclear Station, particularl.y includina.

but not limited to, documents identified by you or your organization, acency, or employer in connection with the pre-hearina discovery requests in the NRC licensina proceeding for the Catawba facilit.y.

I i

- Respectfully submitted.

w  :$ ,l Robert Guild 2135-1/2 Devine Street

., Columbia. SC 29205 (803) 254-8132 Attorney for Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental j Study Group Jesse L. Riley 854 Henley Place Charlotte. NC 28207 (704) 375-4342 Carolina Environmental Study Group i .

6 4

i.

l 1 .

j

.i

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

s SCHEDULE PERSONS TO BE SUBPOENAED BY PALMETTO ALLIANCE AND CARDLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP MAY 16. 1984

1. Richard W. Riley Governor of South Carolina

2. James B. Hunt. Jr. Governor of North Carolina

3. Frank A. Sanders Director of Public Safety Programs - Office of the Governor of South Carolina

4. P. LaFontine Odom Chairman. Mecklenburo County

- Board of Commissioners

5. J. Jerry Williams Chairman York County Council

6. Albert Pope Sheriff. York County

7. Judy Turnioseed Public Information Officer. South Carolina Governor's Office of Public Safety

8. L'uther Fincher

. Actina Director. Charlotte-Mecklenbura Emergency Management Office

9. Marilyn Braun Director of Emeroency Plannino.

Greensboro. NC

10. Dr. Gerald Meisner Chairman. Civil Defense Citizens Committee. Greensboro. NC

11. Kathy Gordon Charlotte-Mecklenburg Emeroency Manaaement Planninc Review Committee

12. Marvin Chernoff Chernoff-Silver Associates / Metro Mark Surveys 13 Duke Power Company Emplo.yee

14. Randy Austin Southern Bell Telephone & Telearaoh Co.

15. Don G. Hardister Chief of Security. Heritaqe. U.S.A.

16. Tom Oliphant Loss Prevention Operation Manager.

Carowinds Theme Park

17. LindaSmith American Red Cross. Y0rk. SC

18. Betty Long American Red Cross. Mecklenburg County

19. Brenda Best Teacher. Olympic High School

20. Nat Davis. Jr. York School District #1 l

SCHEDULE PERSONS TO BE SUBP0ENAE0 BY PALMETTO ALLIANCE AND CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP May 16. 1984

1. Richard W. Riley Governor of South Carolina Governor Rilev's testimony is souaht with respect to contentions 8.14

15. and 18. Pursuant to Section 25-1-440 Code of Laws of South Carolina (1983), the Governor is authorized to exercise extraordinar.y emeraency powers upon his declaration of a State of Emeroency includina. inter alia. the control and direction of all state resources includina the performance of all state. county, and municipal officers, and the sole power to " direct and compel evacuation of all or part of the populace .

. . Id. Such authority rests solcly with the Governor or his reaular or interin successor and not with county or municipal covernments or officials under South Carolina law. Opinion of the Attorney General of South Carolina. September 5.1980. Intervenors' Exhibit E.P. 21.

Applicants' prefiled testimony on E. P. Contention 8 asserts to the contrary that local officials have the authority to order evacuation.

Lunsford p. 8. while acknowledaina the Governor's responsibility to declare a State of Emeroency. Lunsford 0.6. and direct establishment of the State and Forward Emergency Operations Centers. No mention is made of the Governor's role in orderina protective action includina evacuation. Intervenors seek to prove throuch the testimony of Governor

l\

l Rile.y that as alleged, effective protective action cannot be taken in a radiological emeraency because of conflict. confusion and lack of coordination amona those officials and agencies with primary and supportino responsibilities that Applicants have seriously underestimated the time required to evacuate the public including the transportation of those without private vehicles and that the public telephone system is inadequate to support necessar.y emergency communications. The testimon) of the Governor is therefore necessary.

relevant and unavailable from a lesser ranking officer. Halderman vs.

Pennhurst State School and Hosoital. 96 F.R.O. 60 (F.O.P. A.1982).

Notwithstanding his rank and the importance of his executive duties the testimon.y of the Governor is subject to the process of a federal proceeding such as this for the protection and relief of private citizens; subject. cf course. to provisions to minimize to the extent possible inconvenience and conflicts. Hadnott vs. Amos. 291 F.

Supp. 309 (M.D. Ala. 1968).

2. ,

James 8. Hunt Governor of Nor.th Carolina Governor Hunt's testimony is sought with respect to Contentions 8.14

15. and 18. Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes 166A. et seq.. the North Carolina Emergency Management Act of 1977. the Governor is vested with authority to direct and control the North Carolina Emergency Management Program. Section 166A-5(1). and, upon his proclamation of a State of Disaster and with the concurrence of the Council of State. "to direct and compel the evacuation of all or part of the population. . ." Section 166A-6(c).

It appears that the Governor of the State of North Carolina could not rel.y upon the determination of the Governor of South Carolina as to the declaration of a state of disaster or emeroency but that he must reach t

such declaration independently. notwithstanding the oriaination of such

, hazard at the Catawba Nuclear Station in South Carolina. See Attorney i

General's Opinion. " Delegation of Governor's Authority." November 9.

i 1981.

I Applicants' Prefiled Testimony on E. P. Contention 8 asserts that local i

i officials have the authorit.y to order evacuation. Pugh and Harris p. 5.

despite the acknowledaement that the Governor's exercise of such authority must be preceded by a declaration of disaster and consultation with the Council of State. Pugh and Harris. p. 6. Such actions "would not cause a serious delay since the Governor will be continuously updated and advised on the situation and would normally be available to

, make the decision to cause the proclamation to be issued." Id.

Intervenors seek to prove through the testimony of Governor Hunt that, as alleaed. effective protective action cannot be taken in a radiological emergency because of conflict. confusion and lack of coordination among those officials and agencies with primary and i supportino responsibilities that Applicants have seriously

, underestimated the time required to evacuate the public including the transportation of those without private vehicles and that the public telephone system in inadequate to support necessar.y emeroency communications. The testimony of the Governor is therefore necessary.

)

relevant and unavailable from a lesser rankina officer. Halderman vs.

Pennhurst State School and Hospital. 96 F.R.D. 60 (E.D.P.A.1982).

l

Notwithstandina his rank and the importance of his executive duties the l

testimony of the Governor is sub.iect to the process of a federal proceedina such as this for the protection and relief of orivate citizens: sub.iect. of course. to provisions to minimize to the extent possible inconvenience and conflicts. Hadnott vs. Amos. 291 F.

Supp. 309 (M.D. Ala. 1968).

3. Frank A. Sanders Director of P,ublic Safety Procrams Office of the Governor of South Carolina Mr. Sanders' testimony is souaht with respect to Contentions 1. 7. 8.

14. 15 and 18. As Director of Public Safety Proarams in the South Carolina Governor's office, he is identified by Mr. Paul Lunsford as the Governor's representative on the South Carolina Executive Team.

Applicants' Prefiled Testimony E. P. Contention 8. Lunsford, p. 6. and as the state official responsible for public information and education for radiological emeroency response. Lunsford testimony cross-examina-tion 5/2/84. (-Intervenors are unable to cite specific transcript references for testimony during the May 1 hearings since they are unable to purchase a transcript and the local Public Document Room in Rock Hill has not received transcripts from the Commission since December 1. 1983.

References are supplied from notes of counsel.) Intervenors seek to prove through the testimony of Mr. Sanders that. as alleaed effective protective action cannot be taken in a radioloaical emergency where the public information and education procram has f ailed to effectively inform ceople about how they will be notified of an I

i

l l

accident and what initial response should be; because of conflict. l confusion and lack of coordination amona those officials and agencies e I with primary and supportina responsibilities; where Applicants have seriously underestimated the time required to evacuate the public.

includina the transportation of those without private vehicles; and, where the public telephone system is inadequate to support necessar.y emeroency communications.

4. La Fontine Odom Chairman. Mecklenbura County Board of Commissioners Chairman Odom's testimony is souaht with respect to Contentions 8. 11.

14. 15. and 18. As Chairman of the Mecklenbura County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Odom is the local official charged with responsibility for activatina the siren and EBS system for Me .kienb4:ra and Gaston counties, and for orderina protectiva action includina evacuation of Mecklenbura County and the City of Charlotte during the initial seven hours of an emergency until the State Emeroency Response Team (SERT) is on site in Charlotte. Applicants prefiled testimony.

Puch and Harris. p. 5: testimony of Phillips on cross examination.

Chairman Odom exercises overall direction and control of emeroency response for Charlotte-Mecklenbura Count.y. NC Plan Part 1. Daae 24.

Part 3 paces 3 and 13. and Part 3. Fiqure 1. Intervenors seek to prove 3 throuch the. testimony of Mr. Odom that. as alleged effective l

l l

1

1 protective action cannot be taken in a radioloaical emeraency where the public information and education program has f ailed to effectively inform ocoole about how they will be notified of en accident and what initial response should be: because of conflict. confusion and lack of coordination among those officials and agencies with primary and supportina responsibilities; where Applicants have seriously underestimated the time required to evacuate the public including the transportation of those without private vehicles; where the public -

telephone sys, tem is inadeauate to support necessary emergency communications; and where the plume EPZ does not extend into the City of Charlotte despite local emeraency response needs and capabilities.

5. J.derryWilliams Chairman York County Council The Chairman of York County Council's testimony is sought with respect to Contentions 8. 14. 15. and 18. As chairman of Count Council. Mr.

Williams is the. senior local official responsible for r otective action prior to the establishment of the state response authority including orderina evacuation. Applicants' Prefiled Testimony. Lunsford 1 p. 6.

York County E0P Section VI, p. vii. Intervenors seek to prove through the testimony of Mr. Williams that. as alleaed. effective protective action cannot be taken in a radiological emeraency because of conflict.

confusion and lack of coordination amona those officials and agencies with primary and supporting responsibilities; where Applicants have i

5 seriously underestimated the time recuired to evacuate the public.

includina the transportation of those without private vehicles, and.

a where the public telephone system is inadeauate to support necessary emergency communications.

6. Albert Pope Sheriff. York County Sheriff Pope's testimony is soucht with respect to contentions 8.14.

15 and 18. As Sheriff he is charaed with responsibility for maintaining the county warning point. York County E0P Part IV 8 5. p. 9.

traffic control durina evacuation and coordinating all law onforcement resources available durina an emergency. Id. IV B7.

Intervenors seek to prove throuah the testimon.y of Sheriff Pope that. as alleged.

effective protective action cannot be taken in a radiological emergency because of conflict confusion and lack of coordination among those officials and acencies with primary and supporting responsibilities:

where Applicants have seriously underestimated the time reauired to evacuate the public including the transportation of those without private vehicles, and, where the public telephone system is inadequate to support necessar.y emergency connunications.

7. Judy Turnipseed

]

Public Information Office i South Carolina Governor's Office of Public Safety Procrams

Intervenors seek Ms. Turnipseed's testimony with respect to Contentions

1. 7. 8, 14, 15. and 18. Ms. Turnipseed is identified by Applicants' witness Paul Lunsford as the key contact for public information and education in the state covernment for radiological emeraency response.

Lunsford testimony cross examination 5/2/84. Intervenors seek to prove throuah the testimony of Ms. Turnipseed that as alleaed. effective protective action cannot be taken in a radioloaical emeraency where the public information and education program has failed to effectively inform people about how they will be notified of an accident and what initial response should be; because of conflict, confusion and lack of coordination amona those officials and aaencies with primary and supportina responsibilities; where Applicants have seriously un'de,restimated the time required to evacuate the public, includina the

~

transportation of those without private vehicles. and. where the public telephone system is inadeauate to support necessary emeroency communications: where the plume EPZ does not extend into the City of Charlotte despite local emergency response needs and capabil' ties.

8. Luther Fincher Actina Director 1

Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Emeroency Management Office Mr. Fincher's testimony is sought with respect to Contentions 1. 7. 8.

11. 14, 15. and 18.- As Actina Director of the Charlotte-Mecklenburo EMO. Mr. Fincher supervises the Administrative Officer. Wayne Broome, and is in charge of plannino. organizing and coordinatina emeroency

response for the County and City. NC Plan. Part 3. II E. p. 2.

Intervenors seek to prove throuah the testimony of Mr. Fincher that as alleaed. ' effective protective action cannot be taken in a radioloaical emeraency where the public information and education proaram has failed to effectively inform people about how they will be notified of an accident and what initial response should be; because of conflict.

confusion and lack of coordination amona those officials and aaencies with primary and supportina responsibilities; where Applicants have seriously underestimated the time required to evacuate the public.

including the transportation of those without private vehicles, and.

where the public telephone system is inadeauate to support necessary emeraency communications: where the plume EPZ does not extend into the City of Charlotte despite local emeraency response needs and capabilities.

9. Marilyn Braun Director - Greensboro-6uilford County Emeroency Manaaement Assistance Aaency Ms. Braun's testimony is souaht with respect to Contention 11. Ms.

Braunhas reviewed a number of emeroency response plans includina the present All Hazards Plan for tne City of Charlotte. and has presented testimony before the Charlotte-Mecklenbura Emeroency Manaaement Plannina Review Committee. Intervenors seek to prove throuah the testimony of Ms. Brown that as alleaed effective protective action cannot be taken in a radioloaical emeraency where the plume EPZ does not extend into the City of Charlotte despite local emeraency response needs and capabilities.

1

10. Dr. Gerald Meisner Chairman. Citizens' Adviscry Committee Greensboro-Guilford County EmeroencY Management Assistance Aaency Dr. Meisner is a professor of ph.ysics at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. His testimony is sought with respect to Contention 11. Dr. Meisner has chaired a citizens' advisory committee which has enhanced emeraency planning for a number of hazards.

Intervenors would seek to prove from Dr. Meisner's testimony that as alleaed. effective protective action cannot be taken in a radiological emergency where the plume EPZ does not extend into the Cit.y of Charlotte desp'.te local emeraency response needs and capabilities.

!1. Kathy Gordon Member. Charlotte-Mecklenbura j Emergency Management Plannina Review Committee Ms. Gordon's testimony is souaht with respect to Contention 11. She and the Committee were charged by the Mecklenburg County Commission with reviewina the adecuacy of current emeroency plannina for the City and County partilcularl.y with respect to the adeauac.y of the existina EPZ for Catawba. Intervenors seek to prove throuah Ms. Gordon's testimony that as alle effective protective action cannot be taken in a radiolooical emeraency where the plume EPZ does not extend into the City y

of Charlotte despite local emeroency response needs and capabilities.

12. Marvin Chernoff Chernoff/ Silver & Associates Mr. Chernoff's testimony is souaht with respect to Contentions 1 and 7.

His firm of public relations consultants assisted Applicants in the conduct of community issues surveys of persons livina in the Catawba EPZ on sub.iects relatina to the effectiveness of Duke's Public Information Proaram. Intervenors' Exhibits E. P. 9 and 10. for identification.

Intervenors seek to prove throuch Mr. Chernoff's testimony that the public information and education proaram has failed to effectively inform people about how theywill be notified of an accident and what initial response should be.

13. Duke Power Co'mpany Employee or Aaent with knowledae of Community Issue Surveys of Catawba EPZ This person or persons unknown are souaht with reaard to Contention 1.

As described above under Item 12. Duke's surveys of EPZ residents were conducted by Metro-Mark Market Research. Inc. of Colur.; .a. South Carolina. Intervenors seek to prove throuch this testimon_y that as alleged effective protective action cannot be taken in a radioloaical emercenCY because the public information and education proaram has failed to effectively inform people about how they will be notified of an accident and what initial response should be.

l

14. Randy Austin Southern Bell Telephone & Telearaoh Co.

O Mr. Austin's testimony is souaht with respect to Contention 11. Mr.

Austin has knowledae of the feasibility and effectiveness rf automatic telephone systems for use in prompt alert and notification of potential EPZ populations in Charlotte. Intervenors would seek to prove throuab Mr. Austin's testimony that as alleaed, effective protective action cannot be taken in a radiological emeraency where the plume EPZ does not extend into the City of Charlotte despite local emeroency response needs and capabilities.

15. Don G. Hardister Chief of Security Heritaae. U.S.A.

Mr. Hardister's testimony is souaht with respect to Contentions 9.14.

and 15. Discovery documents reflect Mr. Hardister's involvement with state and local- emeraency planners in reviewina evacuation plans for Heritage. U.S.A. Intervenors seek to prove through Mr. Hardister's testimony that as alleaed. effective protective action cannot be taken

~

in a radioloaical emeroency where Applicants have seriously underestimated the time required to evacuate the public. includina the transportation of those without private vehicles.

l 1

1

16. Tom Oliphant Loss Prevention Operation Manaaer Carowinds Theme Park Mr. Oliphant's testimon.y is souaht with respect to Contentions 9. 4. and

15. Discovery documents reflect Mr. Oliphant's involvement with state and local officials in reviewina plans for the evacuation of Carowinds Theme Park. Intervenors seek to prove throuch Mr. Oliphant's testimony that as alleaed. effective protective action cannot be taken in a radioloaical emeraenc.y where Applicants have seriously underestimated the time required to evacuate the public, includina the transportation of those without private vehicles.

17. Linda Smith American Red Cross York. South Carolina Ms. Smith's testimon.y is souaht with respect to Contention 3. Testimony by ennis Johnson on Ma.y 4. 1984, indicates that Ms. Smith was responsible for reviewina the adecuacy of shelters in or near York Cou nt.y. Intervenors seek to prove throuah Ms. Smith's testimony tcat effective protective action cannot be taken where emeraency shelter facilities are inadequate.

.o

18. Betty Lona American Red Cross Mecklenbura County .

Ms. Long's testimony is sought with respect to Contention 3. Testimony by Wayne Broome on Ma.y 4.1984. indicates that Ms. Lona was responsible for reviewina the adeauacy of shelter f acilities in Mecklenburg County.

Intervenors seek to prove throuah Ms. Lona's testimony that effective protective ac, tion cannot be taken where emer ency shelter f acilities are inadeauata.

19. Brenda Best Teacher Olympic Hiah School Ms. Best's testimony is sought with respect to Contentions 1. 7.14. and

15. Ms. Best has knowledae of the effectiver.ess of the exercise conducted of the Catawba Emeraency Plan on Februar.y 15-16. 1984.

particularly as schools students and teachers are involved.

Intervenors seek to prove through Ms. Best's testimon_y that as alleaed.

effective protective action cannot be taken in a radioloaical emergency where the public information and education proa am has f ailed to effectively inform people about how they will be notified of an accident and what initial response should be and where Applicants have seriously underestimated the time required to evacuate the public including the transportation of those without private vehicles.

20. Nat Davis Jr.

York Schools a

Mr. Davis' testimony is needed with respect to Contentions 14 and 15.

Nat Davis. Jr. is responsible for school bus transportation in the York School System. Discovery documents from Applicants reflect that Mr.

Davis is involved in plannino for the evacuation of students in the York School System. Intervenors seek to prove through Mr. Davis' testimony

, that as alleoed. effective protective action cannot be taken in a radiolooical emeroency where Applicants have seriously underestimated the time required to evacuate the public including the transportation of those without private vehicles.

J s

00tKETED UStNC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '84 kET 2l hs).56 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSTNG ROARD In the Matter of )

b DUKE POWER COMPANY. et al. Dockets Nos. 50-413 0 --

) 50-414 0 (__.

(Catawba Nuclear Station )

Units 1 and 2) ) May 16. 1984 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Renewed Application by Palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental Stud _y Group for Issuance of Subpoenas" in the above-captioned matter have been served upon the followina by depos' in the the United States mail this 16th day of May 1984.

Morton B'. Maraulies. Chairman Richard P. Wilson. Esa.

Atomic Safety and Licensina Assistant Attorne.y General Board Panel State of South Carolina U. S Nuclear Reaulatory Commission Post Office Box 11549 Washinaton. D. C. 20555 Columbia. South Carolina 29211 Dr. Robert M. Lazo Dr. Frank F. Hooper Atomic Safet.y and Licensina Board University of Michiaan Panel School of Natural Resources U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission Ann Arbor. Michican 48109 Washinaton. D. C. 20555 Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensina Atomic Safety and Licensina Board Panel Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Washinaton. D. C. 20555 Commission Washinaton. D. C. 20555 Georae E. Johnson. Esa. Scott Stucky Office of the Executive Leaal Docketina and Service Section U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Washington. D. C. 20555 Commission Washington. D. C. 20555

.- 1 Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General Don R. Willard N. C. Department of Justice Mecklenbura County Department Post Office Box 629 of Environmental Health 1200 Blythe Boulevard Raleich. North Carolina 27602 Charlotte. NC 28203 Spence Perr.y. Esq.

Associate General Counsel J. Michael McGarry III Federal Emergency Management Agency Joseph B. Knotts. Jr.

Room 840 BISHOP. LIBERMAN. COOK.

500 C Street. S.W. PURCELL & REYNOLDS Washincton. D. C. 20472 1200 Seventeenth Street. N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Albert V. Carr. Jr.

Ronald V. Shearin Duke Power Compan,-

Post Office Box 33189 Charlotte. NC 28242 Respectfull.y submitted.

Robert Guild 21351 Devine Street Columbia. SC 29205 3 (803) 254-8132 $

Attorney for-Palmetto Alliance

+

5'

=

F A

e