l

p %.. -

!.. ..

(2' ' ~Aurust 1,1973...oJ.,. T' .

/C UNITID STATES OF AMERICA4.. ATOMIC ETERGY COhMISSION o?O D

,. ,

\ .q, ,| f, .] ( Beforo the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board oO l,

mon p'[ b.

-

giIn the Matter of )

Ti!E TOLEDO ED130U COMPANY and . 1 61{s J(' U

i

Tile CLEVdRID ELECfRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-3h6)

(Davis-Desse Nuclear Power Station) )

.INTERVHiORS' MOTION 'IO STRIKE TISTIMONY~

1. Intervenors, Coalition for Safo D.ohtric Power, hereby move to strike

Toatimony of Dr. Noman A. Frigerio given at the July,1972, Davic-Desse Hearings

In Clevoland, from the record of this hearing.

2. On July 26, 1973, Tho Transcript of the May and July,1972, Davia-Besse

!!oarings was included by reference in the record of this hearing. Intervonors

move to strike the testimony of Dr. Noman A. Frigorio from the record of this

hearing, on the ground that it is incorrect.

3. Attached hereto are exhibits A, B, C, D, and E as follows:

Ethibit A - Lotter from Dr. John W. Gofman, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory,to Dr. Robert B. Duffield, Director Argonne National Laboratory,dated Septaaber 12, 1972

Fkhibit D - Lotter from Dr. John W. Gofman, Lawrenco Radiation Laboratory,to Dr. Noman A. Friger'o, Division of Biological and Modical

i

Rouoarch, Argonno National Laboratory, dated September 12, 1972 |

FXhibit C - Lotter from Dr. Noman A. Frigorio, Argonno National Laboratory,to Dr. John W. Gofman, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, dated15 Sept 1972

Edtibit D - Letter from Robert B. Duffield, Director, Argonno National Laboratory,to Dr. John W. Gofman, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, datedScyt embor 18, 1972

Exhibit E - Lottcr from Dr. John W. Gofman, M.D., Lawrence Radiation Laboratory,to Dr. Noman A. Frigerio, Argonne National Laboratory, datedSeptember 19, 1972

8 0 03 0 6 0 }|tly g.

k.-

:

.

-

.

- 2 .-

14 . For the reasons establishod by attached Dchibita A, B, C, D, and

E, Intervonor respectfully requests that the Licensing Board strike

Dr. Horman A. Frigerio8s Testimony given at the July,1972, Davis Besse

lioarings from the record of this Hearing.

Respect 1%fl.ly submitted,

Brannon, Ticktin, Barr' and Mancini|

|

BY / Mf 7 WgRubiell Z. Baron /'-"

0Counsel for Intervenors

1

. * *g. .) P. .p. it__ .. .r , -- - - - - - --- --

..

s..' * '-' (, .,*

. . .. ! .

,- - -

,: i,

'''' '

UNIVERSITY.OF; C5LIFORNIAr "

.

91 p . oo, d. lur. e- - '

! 4*hla f'N('t M ittlATidN L/ ft.1RATOftY cu g.

lit.R K ri l') . 4:Atlf 0RNIA 988 n ! TELEX lists! LA% D ADL At: D' t l't

/' TwX git,.164 ti?! f ,a T A/.It 1ASnie rstot.e o:9 so.n.o g119.

cast L uc.tst emny

. . . n. . ,N , .49. 6.,,,

-.

-5 , .i.- -i -

.q. 1- -. a

k } yep [ j September 12, 1972-,

. ** ws.2 -.

,

% hW. '.> ., . ...

Dr. F.cbert B. Euffield, Director ,.I [' . . -

Ar onnc 'iaticnal I.storatory . 50 ' - . r.adonne, Illinois 6%39 - - " *. ' ' ' '' ' '

/"' ' ' -. -.

. 1Sar D.ff: ',

L. .4

As the attached xerox cf my letter to your nr. IIorman. Frigerio I

wi31 ir.dicate, I am appallm! beycnd be~ief at 1:is grcss .-instatemant ct' '|.

'

cur wcr/ and his, therefore, grossly errenecus enical aticns a .d cenclu-s ic r'n . -

It is unceliertabic tc' r.e that sui pccr scit.nce can erranite frc.~a Lai ere.'. cry 7u dir= n . /:.d a serious hat'.er inde .-d that a fla rar.tr.!cr prormtaticn of car werk has*been used ir. !! earings en the Davis-resse

1

Iiuclear Fire t by .Gr. Frigerio. -.

I b'lieve it is incumbent upcn-ycu. if necessary, to set the,

reccrd straicht in ccnnection uith such 1: earings. Unbelievable, in theextrcme' ' '

e.

'

Eest regards.'

,

Sincerely,'

|

.

,, .,

if f'

'.*

.f |9 ..W ..,.,iI

. ., u .s .- * * ,r- - ' "'. i

i

f'

f .r W. Ocfman-

.

JITG:ms /.

Inc. V '

.

.., -,

t

$. 9 8

; ,,

, *, O

.q e .

'

[4'*

P

q. -

r *

'

C.'

.

b .

.

.

.,

.

o . .. . .- .. -

-

,.,

.' -

.. .. . g- ' - *

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA i

- . - . ,. . - )- . . ... . .. .

i

LAW M :E R ArtATIOh* LAti:RATORY /.

TELEX 315331 LA% P et+L AH 1!Prlit RK't!T. C ALIFI'!tNIA 98720 .

n towse om unt.., d D0CKEiEDg TWX 9P u% 7172 I AW R AD L A3

c ,,,t, g,,t,:, ,,,,, y

MC;

tE AUG 71973* :5 j-

,

.;

. .i a. um sep > =ter 12, 195 i-

w a me:ct.ucs no |

r.: re r. A. .:r c. ric 0 0E D ic;cr e. f . ?':.T ,nl :dd Eod;ca' F.esearch

b @ uwAr: . . 'ti:.0 12 .r nt er,, co omg2

7-

._ . . . . . . x. '.1, c. 0 fg. .. . : .t - ,.

, > , a. -( - .J, . .

Cear Dr. Friscrie: ;; . . ''

"',

. . . ~. . .

*

Sc <.cne recently scnt ne a copy of yoitr "Crncer E_citricicgy and the !Raliation inck"rcund" . I have studied it carefully, ::aking the a pricri assurption 1

th:v , '.s a tr. .r. r of the Arr. cine ;:2tien:1 Latcratcr:. ;-... ttat bc a cerious !ese:^r'' '. I a: r' adil, ai:le to cvericck the arregance cf .. cur treatnant cf the

prci l 1. bitt M r- is no wa;; to c.sricek the a't'rurdity cf ycur en tlysis, in teto. |.

'le rey r.e 1 est, I um sittly appalled by ycur creas nic titemer.t of ot.r .

h|y t 2. ce!c 4 ; ': incr.-;;c::Pli.: h.vp. theses ). f.fi er Crcr.C.y a:.3 cv.'rti/ cf cct sit'.r.cur ;c:!as<r 7cu pre:Md Fy a ac"ies.of totnDy . rrencous m:lcula',icns te,.

st: ,- i c r1 .c i t c : tPo cer'ractb ctoted hypotherr-c. If you hr.ve nct.ha'i necc :c:. c .' : .ar ,r.tlicaticn (otn: rs h res found them canily), th.: misctaterent ofcue i.;pf :. v r v. ;1d be p rhaps understand tble, even if not easily excusible. Ycu

1~'- . 'u .c. in ycur list of references that you have seen a few of curi.-

p 1; J icn: , .:1 yott riastate the hypctheces that are c!:arly 'obvicus ir. thoser ''. r . ~ c vu i i .:t. I rr!:ain, therefere, at a lczs to understand the tetive foran evert]y incorrect and Lbsurd misctatement of our hypotheses. o

Over and cver again, in publications.and in lectures, we have made thectatcment extrc:uly clearly that radiation appears to opara .c as a t itiplier -fct).cr caicinoc-:nic influences, Yet veu quote un as statinr; that radiation is"a cc:..plete enecinogen". 'That an cutragccus, overt n.ic tatcment of everything'-

we hava ctated and publisned., r *

Tcu qqcto us correctly as saying "all forms c.f cancer chow very similarparconte, e incroases in mortality per ren of exposure". Put then you deliberatclydo ,ng 4:30 th:.L statement in your calculations cf Icble 1. Ycu conccet a fi nen;tof vcur ir.s-itation that there is an identical abcelute incre?se in cancermer' n ity pe/ rem for all the Mn tyy.s, which in no wa: , 3 .npc. cr for t cculdcur . ave b. ~ centertef out of the pu'elicatiens c f Ccfuan-1 r.plin.

True, every calculation in your T7hle 1 is erronaous. Enat we statedto ::rriv. nt a figure of 32,000 ca'1cer deathn fer the i,'.S. pcpulation is bere1

'

upen '' . incr e O cver ti.a spontanecus rate pe r rec and a 30-yaar pericien thet i nti u. 1. r:fere, at 170 nrea p er year, the 30-year a :cumulaticn O' 3.0 ren./e. 2 a 1:, :o we hwa assirne.3105 incre.ncc crer th.' spentanscr e r:;e as the-

: !:. ? r- in ennecr cert'!.t;. 1- l t.: a .:p : t r.c c.. rate e f ~,C , :'. ' ir"

. . . . _ . . , ' . . . - ,. e ....,.: ,v.-,.. .

.. m.,,.4..,,..u,... ..

. .. . . . . r. ., . . , , . . . , . . - . - - -. . . . ....

c, r .." .rc- 3 ren './, .u .. ul:.. e f et r:.', ! Se :: i .:.. ' ~ u a:. -'

~,,

." li: e r:t'. fe . t . ; .e: ieula.r . tr : 1.. .a vu.; .

-.

. .

3

Or; Noman A.~Frir6rlJ ' ''

-2- septemn;r Ja, Tfn.

* . . - .

,- + .,

,

Instead of even attempting to use our hypothcces correctly;, you pull cut '-

of thin air your assumpticn that all cancers increace in a5colute mortality.tc the l

same extent p*.-r rem of exposure - a bit of nonsense which in no conceivable stretchof tac ima.;inati. n r:mctoly resembles any-hin;; sW:-:d .ver ':7 acfcar. ar.d Ta.plir.nrrr.t: r .

For er.~nple, ha1 you uned your quotaticn of us tMt "all forms of cancerchow very similrir p ircentam increases in mortality rate per rad", the a'esurdity -|of your ascier.ir.c an r value (age adjected rate) of abcut 0.3 par 100,CCC poytlatienper Mn t/pe >cu13 he evident tn yeu. *:ad ycu uced our hypctheze: ccrre:tly ; j

(as ycu at sted it), ycu 1:culd have realized inmedit.tcly t$.at fcr a cancsr with a ;

"cr anecui ~^r"tlit:. rntt of x per 100,.C00, tha eff;ct cf 1 rem wc tid prch:e . N

:@:''- rc:: !.. r c.f : cr:nl? ties pr -100,0C0. that is ten tic:s 1: r.ich e.s it wcul:i (v. t

prct.:- fc c a canca.r with a " spor. tar. ecus" ncrtality rate cf 0.1 x par 100,000, "l

an! c. aisclate rcrtality that is 100 times a's high as for a cancer with a" spontaneous" mortal.ity of 0.01< 3er 100,U00.: ' ', ' - ';- t .

.Yei , cu' cf your in.nci:.2tien ycu conocer a ficure cf 0.'3 per 1C0,0C0

per 'n type p :r ,. ar, u.!ich is cempletely cppccite tc the Gcfman-Tcmplin hypo :heses.And then you calmly accribe your nonsensical ascumption to Gofc2n-Tamplin. Cutrageat this is cn u".derstat-nnt cf cxtrens degree.

Sc. everything -in your Tadle 1 casci upcn ycur r values cf C.3, 0. ~ 3, cr0.003 are ecnecctie.s of yours, tctally erreneous, and totally in dier.=tric cppcsi-tien tc. what p a uculd have "cxpected" frc= ths prcper us-: cf the Gefran ~s.p_.inhypc '' hr s e s . ,

.-Ycu have in Table 1 and in your text crviwaly accumed that i rem prcvck.e: 1

t h.: sa e ai sc1"'.s certulity per cancer t'.pe per IC'),CCO pernc:.c at rich. :.cwr/ r . , ,|

an-1 I t cpiat nc .are, in the Gefman-Tamplin publications cculd ycu pcssibly arriveat cuch an erronecus concept. .

. < . ,

I Euve enclosed the Hcusten paper whi:h ycu referenced. Since you

reference it, ene mir,ht presume you have read it. If ycu lock at pages 5 and a

cf tLe ~cnclosed xerox copy cf the Housten papd, you'll find:

"Since spontaneous age-specific cortality rate changes with age, the ab cluteincrease in mortality rate due to irradietica changes tco. Thuc, if the pla.e au

re;;ien repres, cuts a 500 increase in mortality rate, there vill be a 1,C00 extrad. t* ::,,per 1&' persons per year if the rpentanecu: tortalicy rate is 2,000 desthsper IC' personc per,,ycar. At a later cgs, with a spcntanecua mortslig rat ofh,000 deaths per 103 persens per year, the increment due te radiaticn wculd be2,000 deaths per 100 persons per year. Thus, absolute mertality rate due toirradiation can increase over a time span while percentage increase remains const:nt.". .

.

And en page 2 cf the Houston paper: ,,

"Generalisation II All forms of c'ancer sh'cu clocely c$milar doubling docesand elecely similar percentage increases in cancer r.crtalicy per rad.",

' cu, the doubline dese had just been defined in Gcneralization I 2:::

"the dpse required to double the spentnnccus cortality rate for each cancer."- o' mD

~

DJcon ~

o 'o l 'il T A

_. S .. _aw1

A

. .- ..;. . . _ _

. 3. S;pt;mber 12, 1972 9' ' ' *,I?:', Orman A. Frig;rio .

u -d.

*,. y,* 1,

. -. .. \

. Therc is r3 way, -had you read these Generalizations, that you could have-'

'

av ervpittely miarg resented our wcrh. l.

Y-

.

*Th"re :. r.o point in going into the rtmainder of your paper since it istcc r.mac typ e,f '.Mully errcr.ucus ::isrepresent'itjen as ch tractr rises Tabla 1.

>

I am at a loss to understand why ycu chose to misrepresent our hypcthesesso ce.rpletely. Aid by the way, frem all of cur publications, ycu would havere21ied, h.td you read them ccrrectly, that in two population sanples characteri:v.dby q 11 expusures, cut with spcntanecus rates (" observed" rates) for a particularcan :ar differin t a factor of three, we would predict a factor cf three difference1:. crtality ra:es due tc irradiatien. . , ,

What you have done with ycur absurd!;r- =- O' 3 (or r = 0.03 cr r = 0.003) |.

f.:r every Pn type is to crcssit everestimate'the expected certality rate for cany I

types of cancer. (your .h?/potheses, not Go'fman-Tanplin) and then you na!!e :te . .ilr :-'s::H e "disecvery" that in nany pcpulaticn samples, the "expec.ted" cancer rate lcn:c :: .:e "c t s e.rved" . 75 is sencw:.at shcrt cf miracu'.cus to everestimate scu:-thing at the cutset by a facter of 5.or:lo 'and them " discover" that the " estimate"

scens hich. '

. ,

1I understand that ycu have caused these false arcl errenecut calculati.ons - !

cstensible tests of the Gefran-Iamplin. hypotheses ' ~te be insertcd in Hearinc.i l

cencern'r7 t'e h ris-Pesse i:uelear Pcwer Plant. If.this be true. it is a sericus/

nat'er indeci fcr it will be up to you to e cplain how and why ycu totally dis'ertede.:1 : *.2 stated the German-Ta:.plin hypotheses'. I celieve you shculd, at the sarliestoppc rt'tnity request that that "eari:( Pkcord be corrected, censiderin,ftfie Cr"Vit7

.|"

of ti. iacu'. r' . . , v.

. .., .-

.

. .

Bcycnd all that I have already said, it shculd have been obvious te ycufren inspecticn cf T*les 5, 6, and " cf the hcusten paper that,tb.e radiaticnincren nt per rem is expressed in peretntage, and to citain absclute mortalities, * '

this p;rcentage i,s cultiplied by the spentenecus certality re te. 1:cwhcre in thosetailas would anyt'cing suggest a statement by us that there is tha same absclute

"-mortality rate per rem.

,

.

.

It can hardly have escaped your;nctic'e, if ycu've read all the documentsin this field, that the EC staff criticized our use of a percents;c increase 'in

mortality rate for each type of cancer per rad., Ti.ey cbvious'.y usierstod that

ue utre .n..o.t. assignine., the come absolute nortality' rate per r:.d fcr thc varicus forn1of cans r. They criticized us for not doir.g so. So they clearly unbrstec1 raw to .

read the Gdftr.an-Titap3 in papers. I have had cer=unicaticns. with scientists through- |cut this country and abrcad. The first scientist who doesn't.sec= abic to readwhat we have written is Ilcrnan FriSerio.

~"

,

c -

!

I am also enclcsing a paper we ga*.*e od a year' ase' at the VIth Synpcsium ,

en Statistics a id Prcbability in Berkeley. It is sinilar, in General, to theEcuaten paper. .Perhaps, hcwever, it will~be easier fer ycu'tc read. h.d chculdyou d< sire them, I'd be happy to provide yctr 91th a ecnpletc . set of cur documents'de'.aiiinC over and ever the peints you have.misrepreser.ted. N.d; by the way, everyen.' cf :. hose documents has been published in Cencressienal Sarinps, c.i~.ar cf theJ.-ir.'. ":r nitte en Atemic Energy cr the Subcennittee en Air cad *.,iat cr g 9%

.D I' /' - cre Pacdly bn:vdicble, had ycu cared te read tF:n. f.' n

J. O .O J L. p-Sin.v rely.m y). , 1.1

- ... . . .

uA

,

.' n+

a. . . R - r - n. m' p* .

:*,., .

,!. . " . . .

<, ,.

. . . . . , . ,.<.; . :. . ..

I , y,;. ,

., =-

\ ..-

a s r\

[......4..

_

fy kkARGONNE NATIONAL l.ABORATdRY f6, 0415 Sept 1972 s/,v

Dr. John W. Gormtn f ., , g e !. l i l 3 yf .1

/ @.g %' ' y ',} :! [gD hlg. ')O, Dn. 1110

|,

Lawrence Rid htien I.d. oratory $11

University of California3 s'

'

, f ,/Berkeley, Calf. 94720 '' . P/-W QQ /kp thDear Dr. Gorman:

I hasten to answer your letter of 12 September 1972 becaunc* of the obvious, andcerious, minunderstanding which has arisen. Checking my files, and fron) the fact \

* that you cited only a Table 1 of rqy " paper" I can only conclude that ycu must inve \received r.g very car 31 cat, crude draf t. To ny Enculedge, at. Icast, this dr tf t never \3cf t my office beyond going down to the typictn and back. If it han a rAcrence . I.that citca yourilounton paper, then th.ic is curely tirtt draft. A col 3cague h. d t old ne sthat he had a copy of thin jnnr, and I had oketched it into the draft. I stor, 't

turned out that he had only a few acribbled not.ca. I couldnt get a cery frme :.. .Anderson, and comcone at your office told me on the 'fonc th.it che hadnt any at ;.e

poraent, no I removed that reference sin the next .irrtft. I havent any ide- ho.: thatdraf t could have gotten circulated unlcon it wa) via the IIidlando hearing. At cheutthat tjac I was carrying copica of it in 1:7 briefcace to uark on it, eini might mailyhave lef t come around. Alternatively one of the AEC staff might h,vc taken a copyof it inadvertently while cweepinS Tnpers off the table. At ccme chage anything v:e !writo in cent to AEC for prelimin7ry clearance. It is possible that the secretary '

bundled this early draf t off to them thinking to cave time. It u.uld have beenwithout my knowledge, and I havent been abic to find out frca her. An far as I know1 he earlient draft that I rc16 aced (for AEC and in-house increction only) would havehad two tables and a reviced bibliography, an ucl1 ao a beginning in dealing with *

the multiplicativo qucntion, nnd en identification of the f. et ihat ec -tere nbvingwith the additivo model at first.That one un"entent dractic revicion, etc. etc.

All I can cay in OUCil ! I cant even cay I'm corry, becavac it wac dcnc uithoutmy knou3cdr,c or concent. I hope you'll agree that an author shouldnt b: held toaccount for his first dictated effor.t ! Thin would h"vc been about Jaot April.

Meanwhile let me thank you for your liouston paner, and i.he copy er the Hcrke]ySymponium paper. I had been able to get the latter, but not the fonner. Elena yr,u.

.

Af t er all thin I hardly have the temority to ack a favor but, yea, I would veryr'uch appreciate copica of whatever you have avaibbic. I've checked into uhTt I couldfind, but could canily have missed scmething of in portance.

Rt current draft version is junt back frem the typiata, after having h"en revredin line with the commento of the editora, revicwers etc. I?cedic:,n to say (well,1 howneedlenn, lil!) cven my t bird draft had corrected unat, perharn a.il, of the itoia tnuh3ch you objected. 7 intend to revit:0 ove:i thin one a ld L run, w,u l. hat ) haveyour conw nta, and the data in your liounton p tp> r ( l hm! b. en working from roon notenand a crude table copied during your talk by a colleague), t| hen its done 1 wouldbo delighted to send you a copy if you would concent to review it . C

D D

Igain, Bldns you, CO,, w_ m, _. _- -, Normn A. Ff mo

3,

0700 South Cass Avenuo, Ar0onno, Hhn is 60439 Telephono 312-739 7711 TWX 910.'58-3282 * W L A c, D b) in> '

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. . - - . . ._.

./ , , \.'ui'.

./ ' . >.' '\ ' . /. /y ' ,_.,J\ ...a *

.......,.w_

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

::,.pi.. .a... i n. i :-

/c s co/ \

tETEU'

2/7 ts'.Gq s73" g J

,

* 2 -

D r. Jolui W. ' Gofrnan gi- bm ' ' '-

"{ '. ." ,''lhiildini; 90 Rooin 3110 ,

I..iwience Berkeley I,aboratory g s, y f4 ', 'liniver:;ity of California x,,;s. ' ~ -..

Deckeley, California 94720 N i , . :,/ ',.

*

Dear Jack: ,

Your lutter of Septeinbar 12 expron:tes strors cli.;<igreeinontwith the c.ilculation:: maelo by l'rigerio in a recent repmt. I nhall

look into thin linmediately and be in further conimunic.i, tion with you.,

Sincerely,

fl. /'o

Robert .,/ 3uffieldDirect c'

.

RBD:jnd -

.

.

D({g' 9

Gu uQ>.

em -

Of l 1'

.

JJUA ug 4.

.

0/00 Couth Casa Avenuo Ar00nno, Illinois 60439 Tolophono 312-739-7711 * TWX 910-250-3285 - WUX LB, Arge,nno. Illinois.

u ..g. ,. --

.. -. - -- - --- -, . . . -

.

*.. .

/. .

- u .-,

UNIVERSITY OF CM.IFORNIA

ill.ic. 00, Rin , fl la s

gi w arni n nainATiora s.An..n Alon1r on , e < * nin i : Awn as,s v. iis r rg

ru nn nr. cat uunmA v.no / t fN a s v. , e ' . , e a c . e .v

mtruese pen asi neoP. . 4: r c a s ai u "8t ti

DOCgtitu\,

3~,uw.

j gg 719;/3 e I ' , ""P' "''b'~ r P '- 3"7',

'

g %f m.t

[dr' -

6 ,/Dr. Norman A. FricerioArgonne National Laboratory tg9'/00 South Cass Avenue NArgonne, illinois 60439

..

Dear Dr. Frigerio:.

Many thankn for your letter of explanation dated September 19 1972.I chnl.1 be hnppy to review and corrnenL upon your final r" tined ecpy cfyour manuncript,

linder n*>parath cover, all the documents on our radiation-cancer* calculat.ionn hwe been forwarried to you.

The ennene", of "onene, of our findings would be t b ri f, in any

geot;raphic-race-nex-age group with a lower-thon-ucual spentaneous cancerincidence (for a p'trticular cancer), then we would predict a correspond-ingly reduced radiction production of that particular cancer.

One itern remainc -- bow can we set the record straight of the'Midland and Davis-Eccce Hearings? ,

Sincerely,'

.1 ,

'. I|,** j', ,, i

N 'c i > > ' ei(;- << s u. .e ' /. ja..

s I,e

l.(chn W. Gorman, M.D..nKi:mn

.

a

#

t

w6mpTrWJ1L &pr3

m41 3

-

,

.

..

..

**UNITID STATIS OF AMERICAAT01EC HIERGY COMMISSION>

Before the Atomic Safety and Liconsing Board

'In t.ho Mat.ter of ))

T fi. Tol.iDu 10I:;o!! COMI Afff an:1 )TilS CLEV!1AH9 lLECTRLC Il1U!iiMTING COMPANY Dockot No. ''0-3h6

(Davis-Desso Nuclear Power Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hareby certify that copies of "Intervenors' Motion to Strike Testimony"

were served to the following individuals, this lat day of August,1973, by deposit

in '. S. Mail:J

Mr. Frank W. Karas Mr. Frederick J. ShonCldof, Public Proccodings Branch Atomic Safety and Licensing board i

Offico of the Secretary U.S. Atomic Energy CorraissionII.S. Atomic Diergy Commission Washington, D. C. 205h5hasilington, D. C. 205h5

Dr. Cadot H. Hand, Jr.Atonic Safety nnd Licensing Appeal Board Bodega Marino Laboratoriesfl.S. Atomic Jhercy Ccamission University of CaliforniaWashington, D. C. 20$h5 P.O. Box 2h? i |

'Bodega bay, California 9h923Francis X. Davis, Esq.OfCico of General Counsel Gerald Charnoff, Esq.J.S. Atonic hiergy Commissica Shaw, Pittman Potts, & TroubridgeL'asinngton, D. C. 205h5 Barr Bldg.

91017th St. U.W.John B. Farmakidos, Esq. Washington, D. C. 20006f. tonic Saroty and Licensing Board11.S. Atomic lhergy Commission'Jasidni' tun, D. C. 205h5.

.

f.; . } O' 4t>df | - [ f4y

l'773'-))).y. reicou z. cargy '/ '

t..."" *1 # " '"* "* " ""

[. . -

g .rr / -/'

Y. 7, /'

\'

, th) ,\ -x . ...: .*~

j * '' /.

.