ML20080P736
| ML20080P736 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1984 |
| From: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Kline J, Laurenson J, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8402230097 | |
| Download: ML20080P736 (16) | |
Text
s
=
. :n
- g 3_, y _
KTwirPATRICK, LONNAWT, HILL, CunrsrOPHER Sc PHILLIPs DO,,C KETED f
A Paarwansarry lucLeopro A Paormesromar. ConninArrow 1900 M Srazzr, N. W.
'84 FE9 22 All:00 WAsnxwoTox, D C. 20006 TEI.Brnours (mos) 4s3 7000 IN FITTWB e A er m:NIFE1 EImErmIEMI lammaat,Josse05 & Et"IG180N TELEX 440eos 7tTFW trI 3000 CEJTER BCIIDENO February 21, 1984
- " ' ~
202/452-7011 James A.
Laurenson, Chairman Dr. Jerry R.
Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon Administrative Jadges Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Long Island Lighting Cumpany; Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
Dear Administrative Judges:
I am writing to bring to the Board's attention a matter which the County would like to be considered when the Group I hearing resumes this week.
This matter concerns LILCO's identification during the last several days of 7-9 additional Group II witnesses from whom the County has never had an opportunity to obtain dis-covery.
The County believes these events are pertinent to the issue whether the March 2 date for filing Group II testimony should be altered.
To put this matter in perspective, the County will describe the recent events chronologically.
I 1.
On February 15, 1983, the Board ruled in a conference call that it would deny the County's Motion to alter the March 2 date for filing Group II testimony.
The County's Motion had sought a March 14 date for filing Group II testimony, a date which would permit the County and other parties to review the FEMA RAC findings prior to filing testimony, and would permit the simul-taneous filing of testimony by all parties.
2.
Also on February 15, 1983, LILCO wrote to the County to inform it that it intended to use six new Group II witnesses in five different subject areas:
ODpr#
G402230097 840221 9
b(f
{DRADOCK 05000322 PDR
EtaxPATRICK, LOCKHART, Hir.z., Cuar.,Toruza 6e Part.r.rvs James A.
Laurenson, Chairman
-Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J.
Shon '
February.21, 1984 Page 2 2 witnesses -- 50 mile ingestion pathway, recovery and reentry (presumably, Contentions 24.R, 82, 85 and 88)
I witness
-- Training of traffic guides (presumably, Contentions 39, 40, 41 and 44) 1 witness
-- Credibility (presumably, Contention 15) 1 witness
-- Issues related to nursing homes (presumably, Contentions 24.F, 24.G 24.J, 24.K, 24.N, 61 and 72) 1 witness
-- Issues related to hospitals (presumably,
~ Contentions 24.F, 24.G, 24.K, 24.N, 61 and 72).
A copy of LILCO's February 15 letter is attached as Exhibit 1.
The County received LILCO's letter on February 16.
Neither the Board nor parties were informed of these new witnesses during the conference call on February 15.
In the County's opinion, the addition of six new witnesses in five different subject areas involving at least 16 separate contentions would have been direct-ly pertinent to the Board's consideration of the County's then-pending motion'to change the Group II tes.timony filing date to March 14.
3.
On February 17-the County telecopied a letter to LILCO, expressing its concern over tha new witness identification and expressing the view that there was not time to take discovery of l
these witnesses prior to March 2, since a Group I hearing is ccheduled for this week and since.all available counsel will be working full time to complete testimony by March 2.
A copy of the County's February 17 letter is attached as Exhibit 2.
4.
On February 20, LILCO telecopied a response to the
' County'sF9pruary17 letter.
This LILCO response is attached as Exhibit 3.-
Surprisingly, in LILCO's February 20 letter, it identified a further witness in yet another subject area -- the Superintendent of the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District who is to testify "on matters relating to p'otective r
l cctions for school children."
Exhibit 3, p.
3.
Presumably, this 1/
Later on February 20, LILCO sent a brief follow up letter I
'which also is part of Exhibit 3.
~
-- - -- +
- ~
~
V ExMEPATEtxCE,1-**T, Exxx, Canscrorumm & Pmxx.x.res
. James A. Laurenson, Chairman Dr. Jerry R.: Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon.
February.21, 1984-Page 3' 1
testimony would relate to Contentions 24.E, 24.F, 24.N, 61, 6 8,-
69,1 70,and 71.
LILColalso informed the County that two other witnesses on.the 'same~' subject are.also being considered by LILCO,
~
meaning.that.the present seven.new witnesses may be further expanded.to nine new witnesses.
Id.
5.
In its February 20 lette'r, LILCO suggested that all of lbs~new witnesses, including the new school witness, be deposed prior to'or on March.2.
By letter dated February 21, 1983, the County informed.LILCO (as it already had in its letter of the 17th) that?LILCO's proposed deposition schedule was not work TheCounty's.letterof. February 21.isattachedasExhibit4.9ple.
=
F For-! reasons'alreadyldiscussed, it is impossible to depose
'LILCO's'new witnesses prior to March 2 Similarly, the LILCO auggestion (Exhibit 1,t p. 3):that prejudice can be eliminated by affording the County the:right to supplemental testimony also is incorrect.
Where that procedure was used before, the new witness-1 os covered narrow, discrete areas and'there was time in.the
' echedule to allow for-depositions.
In contrast, LILCO has now announced new witnesses in six major Group II areas, each involv-
-ing several contentions,-many having several subjects.
The County cannot. fairly be required to pursue. discovery and supplemental
- testimony after March 2 and prior to the' start of the Group II hearing because all attorneys and counsel will be tied up full time' reviewing testimony and preparing for the Group II hearing.-
O' The foregoing are matters which merit the Board's' consider-ation later this week.
In the' County's view, the best procedure
- would be to defer.the testimony filing date to March 14 (as
~
I originally suggested:by_the County), thus_providing a chance to l
. pursue discovery of the new LILCO witnesses prior to filing
' testimony.
-This should avoid the need for supplemental testimony at a later time. 'This also should afford a~ chance to review the l
2/;
Also on. February.21, the County responded to certain
- questions. raised by.Mr..-Irwin in-his letter of the'20th.
The L
- County's response to Mr. Irwin's questions is also part of Exhibit
(-
.4.
r.
o-l 4.
..A...__.,,
.- __.. ~.,. _ _
+ _.
KimKPATRICK, LOCKMA2T, Exx.I., CamrrTorunn & Puzz.r.rrs
~ James A.
Laurenson, Chairman
~
-Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon.
February 21, 1984 Page 4-FEMA RAC findings, again hopefully reducing the need for addi-tional. testimony later in this proceeding.
Sincerely yours, et#mo Lawrence Coe Langher LCL/dk Enclosures cc: ~ Service List (parties by hand or Federal Express)
-~e 7
e e. - - -.
-w
EXHIBIT 1 H u xr o x & WI L LI.A.drs 707 rAst MAIN Sintc7 P. o. Box 8535 WAO N I N GTO N. D. C.
RICMMOND.VIRozMIA 23212 rett eso.
24566.3 Nrw Yan:t. New Yom" o'ac= ='n ao. =o. >==- 8 3 5 7 LDO ANSELES. CALIFORNIA TCLEPHONE 804 738.S200 RAttacN. NomTN CAmOLINA NecroLx.VamGINIA -
KNaxvlLLc. TENNESS EE February 15, 1984 Karla,J. Letsche, Esq.
~
Kirkpatrick,.Lockhart, Bill, BY FEDERAL EXPRESS i
Christopher &'Phillips
-1900 M Street, N.W',
Eighth Floor Washington, D.C.
20036 4
Dear Tip:
This will notify you that LILCO has recently engaged six additional.gexp,erts who may contribute testimony on Group II issues:
Sydrfey W.
Porter -- 50 mile ingestion pathway, recovery and re-entry Richard J. Watt -- 50 mile ingestion pathway, recovery and re-entry Harry N. Babb -- Training of Traffic Guides Steve Barnett -- Credibility David Glaser -- Issues related to nursing homes l
Jay O. Yedvab -- Issues related to hospitals Curricula vitae for these potential witnesses are enclosed.
These are the only known changes to our previous witness
.-list.
Please contact me or Jessine Monaghan if you have any
. questions.
Ok, "
.f.
i
Huxrox & WILLIAxs I assuine that -the County's witness list has not been amended since your most recent letter on the subject, which was dated, I believe, November 10, 1983.
Sine rely yours, CW, Donald P. Irwin 91/730 Enclosures cc w/
Enclosures:
Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
Stewart M.
Glass, Esq.
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Stephen.B. Latham, Esq.
James B.
Dougherty, Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
O g#,
EXHIBIT 2 ETWWATRICE, LO(TW A DT, TTTT.T., Cwnr;TOPun & Purrms A P-====
x.a.o-A P=w nmur. c 1900 M SutzrT, N. W.
WAsmsorox, D. C. 2oose INsm-JM EELEF3ONE (904) 483 e7000
-*"?-m*,JONEBOK & ECTCI1 SON CAELE:NIFEI 1900 OLITER BilIIINED TEI.LE e40ece NIFE t!1
" " " " " ' " " " " " ^ " ' ' " " " *
""***"'2""""'""""""
February 17, 1984
""~
202/452-7011 (By Telecopier)
D nald P. Irwin, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O.
Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Daar Don:
Yesterday we received your February 15 letter informing Ms.
Letsche that LILCO has engaged six additional experts "who may contribute testimony on Group II issues This of course comes as a surprise, p uticularly receiving the notice only one dcy after the Board ruled on the County's then-pending motion to change the Group II schedule due to the timing of completion of FEMA's RAC review.
The addition of six new LILCO witnesses for whom no discovery has been possible would clearly have been p2rtinent to the County's position that the existing schedule nc;ds to be changed.
The County will need to depose each of these witnesses.
The County also may need to seek additional document discovery as well.
The additional discovery necessitated by your letter cannot I
ba accomplished under the present schedule calling for testimony i
to be filed on March 2, since we have-the Group I hearing next w;3k and are busy working on preparation of Group II testimony.
Thus, it appears likely that we will need to bring this matter to' tha Board for consideration.
As a first step, LILCO should immediately update all of its prcvious responses to the County's document requests and inter-l rogatories to include pertinent information from these newly dacignated witnesses.
Please advise us over the weekend or on Tuasday at the latest when we can expect LILCO's updated re-cponses, including the production of all pertinent documents.
Whcn we have such informationjrom LILCO, we can then judge more precisely the additional discovery which will be needed and the l
time required.
- ExecrArarcx, W
, Hzzm, CumznTorunn & Puzzares
. Donald P.
Irwin, Esq.
February 17, 1984 Page 2 In response to your question regarding the' County's witness list, there'are no changes to the witness lists we have previously provided to you.
As you know, the Suffolk County Police Depart-
- ment'has recently been reorganized, and there have been some transfers, promotions, etc.
Captain Ed Michel has been reassigned to the SCPD's Communications Bureau and, at thic time, it.is poasible that both he and Deputy Chief Roberts may be part of the Ccunty's panel on communications issues (Contentions 26, 28-34, and 55-59).
Captain Michel will also be testifying on behalf of thn County on Contention 27 (mobilization).
Both Deputy Chief Roberts and Captain Michel have previously been designated as expert witnesses who will testify on Group II issues on behalf of the County.
In addition, Messrs. Finlayson, Minor and Radford and,
Ms. Saegert probably.will be testifying on behalf of the County on
- Contention 16 (public education).
Again, these individuals have prsviously been designated as expert witnesses for the County on
- Group II issues.
Sincerelyyours, fW Lawrence Coe Lanpher LCL/dk cc:
Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
l Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
' Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
James B. Dougherty, Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
L.
P
<4b 1
ew--
.-,-o, r+=*
---3y..., * - - -
w,,
.my.-
4-. --
7-.,,-.-,mm-wy-.,
-.. -. -- - -, - - - _7-
EHIBI'" 3 Huxrow & WILLIAus 7c7 caer Mim sinist P.o. som isss 24566.000003 ma no.
Rzenworn.VrmezzzA satts l_wowmorow.D.u.
New Y3mn. New YomE,a B357 t.no Awoctes.cAUF'6piNlA Ig L g p pt O n t God. 788
- S200 RALeicM. NomTM CAmolINA TWK = 710 = S B S
- 0 0 51
- N33rct.x.VinstNI A Kwsxvituc.TENNESSCE February 20, 1984 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, BY TELECOPIER Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
washington, D.C.
20036
Dear Larry:
This
'll respond to your February 17 letter concerninc
's ne ;y designated witnesses.
Life would be simpler af se, if we could have told you about them sooner, which <*
would have if we'd known of them soonert in every case, as you may wish to confirm on deposition, these potential witnesses were first contacted only within the last one to three weeks, and we weren't sure we would use them initially.
As to any relationship between the date of my letter Lnd the Board's ruling, there is simply none.
My letter went to Tip at the earliest practicable date.
I do regret, however, and will outline procedures below to minimise, any inconvenience to the County from these witnesses' arrival on the scene.
With respect to the general scope of these witnesses' testi-mony, it will not change either the basic substance or the direc-tion of testimony which LILCo had previously intended to file, and of which the County has received -information from discovery and the Emergency Plan itself.
Rather, these witnesses' contri-butions will focus on specific areas or add depth to a pre-existing panel.
Thus, I am not aware of any truly "new" material being sponsored by these witnesses, and the substantive element of surprise to the County should be basically nil.
Against thiw background, we are taking the following steps to meet the requests in your letter:
1.
We have contacted all of the witnesses over the weekend with respect to their availability for dapositions dur-r ing the next two!-or three weeks.
Their available dates are set forth below.
I
Huxrox & WII.z.zAxo 2.
We are compiling copies of relevant published materials l
listed on these witnesses' curricula vitae, for for-
. warding to~you, in most cases, today.1/
3.
FWe are reviewing previous interrogatory answers to de-termine whether they need to be changed in any way other than by the addition of names to witness panels in various subject-matter areas.
I believe that the answer is in the : negative but I hope to be able to give you a definitive answe: today or Tuesday.
The witnesses' available dates for depositio'n ovar the next two weeks are as follows:
M T
W T
F S-S M
T W
T F
20 21 22 23 24 25-26 27 28 29 1
2 Babb iPM 1PM OK 1PM 1PM OK ON ON-ON ON Watts OR OK OK OK OK OK Porter OK OK7 OK OK Barnett OK?
OK*
1PM*
ON Glaser**
Tedvab**
In California
- To be supplied later today.
Syd Porter has long-standing plans to be out of the country between February 21 and March 1; he would be willing, if neces-sary, to return a day early to accommodate a deposition schedule.
(You might wish to depose him and Rich Watts on the same day, since they are both providing testimony on the same issues.)
1/
Some of Syd Porter's published materials, for instance, are in the field of industrial radiography, are nearly 20 years old, and are technically obsolete.
Various of Dr. Yedvab's unpublished presentations, e.g.,
those dealing with treatment of alcoholics and hospital cost-containment, similarly have only marginal bearing on emergency planning.
I do not propose to undertake to produce these papers.
. TUNTON & WILLIAMU Steve Barnett will, unfortunately, be in California on business from February 22 through February 29, and at a two-day meeting in Orlando ch" March 1 and 2.
He would be available for deposition, however,'pn February 23 or 28 in California, and over the weekend of February 25-26.
At the worst, he could be deposed on March 6 in New York.. Messrs. Babb and Watts will be available on Long Island on the dates indicated.
With the possible exception of Mr. Barnett, I don't agree that these witnesses cannot be deposed during the next two weeks.
I also don't believe that the addition of witnesses in six dis-crete testimony areas justifies slippage of the F. arch 2 schedule, as your letter appears to suggest.
It seems to me that if the County feels that any of these witnesses has contributed testimo-ny to which it feels there is good cause to respond, the most sensible course is for the County, af ter examination of LILCO's March 2 testimony and review of the witnesses' depositions and document discovery already provided, to file supplemental testi-mony addressed to those witnesses' unique areas of testimony, be-tween March 2 and March 20.
This procedure, which has already been 'used successfully several times in thiy proceeding, would seem to minimize the overall inconvenience to all parties.
Over the weekend we have learned that Dr. Richard R.
Doremus, Superintendent of the Shoreham-Wading River Central school District, has agreed
- .o provide testimony for LILCO on matters relating to protective actions for school children.
Two other witnesses on this subject are under immediate consideration by LZLCO.
I will notify you posthaste if it is determined that they will also provide testimony for LILCO.
In the meantime, you should consider Dr. Doremus generally available for deposition, consistent with his normal administrative duties.
With respect to your indication that various of the County's previous witnesses will be testifying on hitherto unannounced areas, we will need to learn several items.
First, have any studies been performed in either the areas of communication or mobilization that have not previoucly been made available by the County?
If there have been, LILCO will need to learn of them even if they are considered by the County to contain privileged material and wishes to withhold their production, second, we would also appreciate the County's reviewing interrogatory an-swers to date to determine whether they should be updated on these subjects in any fashion other than by insertion of these names.
Third, with respect to the proposed testimony witnesses l
of Messrs. Finlayson, - Radford and Minor and Professor Saegert on public information, we would appreciate a general description of these witnesses' proposed testimony, given that all of these wit-nesses other than Professor > 5aegert are technical experts rather than cocial scientists, and that their testimony has been
EcxTow & WII,IIAxo previously struck.. I'd appreciate replies on these matters in time to in, corporate them into our March 2 testimony.
Fourth, we infer thph the County does not intend to uponsor testimony by the school teachers whose testimony was struck in Group I.
In the absence of contrary information from you, I will conclude that our inference was correct.
It is not, at this moment, our intention to seek to depose any of the witnesses mentioned in your letter on their new areas of testimor:y.
If you do seek any form of delay from the Board, however, and one is granted, we will surely consider taking sup-p!.emental depositions of these persons.
We would also need to consider taking the depositions of Dr. Tyree and of the other witnesses designated by-the County since the close of the discov-
~
ery period last fall.
We forewent that opportunity then since we understood, apparently wrongly, that they were being proposed on Group I issues, and~it was our judgment that it was better to get to hearing.
I still believe that judgment, given the safety-valve of supplemental testimony, was well founded.
I believe the same still to be true of the Group II issues.
Unless the Coun-ty's witness reshuffling has prr#5uced large new sets of issues, there do not strike me as being any matters which are not resolvable by prompt discovery and, if necessary, supplemental testimony on the unique aspects of new or newly assigned witness-es' direct testimony.
Please call me at your earliest convenience today or tomor-l row to'let me knew what deposition dates look convenient for Suffolk County, and to let me know preliminarily the County's re-sponse to the questions in this letter.
I'll provide the avail-able dates for Drs. Yedvab and Glaser.
Sincerely yours, I
l Donald P. Irwin 91/730 cc Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
l James B. Dougherty, Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
ag,.:-
Hurrox & WILLI Aus 707 CAST MAIN Statur P.o. Box 1535 wAnNinero N o.c.
Rressuown,vrmorwra esate
,ne " 24566.000003 N 5w Yan n. N sw YO R M i
Loc ANOCLES, CAuroRNIA TCLt5MONE 404 784
- arco
- '"" " "* * * ** '** ~ 8 3 5 7 RAttisN. NonTN CARoWNA Nost rcLu, Vin 0 ins A TWK
- 780
- ese 004 KNDXVILL E. T E N N ES S EC February 20, 1984 Lawrence Coe Lanphe'r, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, NW Mtshington, DC 20036
Dear Larry:
Since my letter to you this morning we have heard from Jay Yedvab.
He is tied up tomorrow and Wednesday but would be available for deposition either February 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 or 29.
David Glaser has been unavailable all day.
I hope that we will have information on him for you tomorrow morning.
With respect to discovery of Andrea Tyree, following up on my discussion in my previous letter today, I believe that i'
we will be able to forego e deposition of her if we can obtain the following document or documents:
all computer runs (input and output listings and any explanatory keys necessary to interpret the printouts) or other data used to generate Table 1 on page 8 of the Rebuttal Testimony of Stephen Cole and Andrea Tyree.
Sincerely yours, l
Donald P. Irwin 91/730 i
I....
EXHIBIT 4 4
EmnATRICK, LOCKHA.RT, HTT T. CHRIOTOPHER Se PTTTTLIPS A Puernamary Incsconne A Pw.
-- Consourrow 1900 M Srazzr, N. W.
WAsuzwoTow, D. C. 20o06 TELEFENMrE (8o8) MS*?Ooo IN PEITEBUBGE ca ns.B w e ar simunruxx.i====r.aonneos a mcscursow
- - monoe maru 3 asco esavam scumna February 21, 1984 (es) ses-seco 202/452-7011 Donald P.
Irwin, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Don:
Thank you for your letters of February 20.
As I already had indicated in my letter of the 17th, however, it is impossible to depose your witnesses over the next two weeks.
The County's attorneys are tied up full time during the short time between now and March 2 with the hearing later this week and the completion of Group II testimony.
Accor'dingly, in response to your question, the proposed deposition dates set forth in your letters are neither convenient nor acceptable.
Sincerely yours, Lawrence ce Lanpher LCL/dk 6 N w
. _ ?-
EIREPATRICE, LOCKHART, Hrr.r., CwMTOTOPHER & PwrT.T.IPs A Paarwansnurr TscLcDtFo A PaorsesionAs. Composurrow 1900 M SrazzT, N. W.
MamwoTox, D. C. 20oos IN FITTWBURGE 1=E3FEOptB (808) 489 +7000 IIEDAIIIM ummamT.JOENWOE & ESTMISON C&BIA: NIFBLI
= * " " * * " " *
- February 21, 1984 aa <="sm =*'=*
warrun a mImmer mIu.====
63a) ass esoO BY TELECOPY Donald P.
Irwin, Esq.
Hunton & Williams.
707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Don:
This is in response to the questions you posed to Larry Lanpher on pages 3 and 4 of your letter of February 20, 1984.
First, let me note that the clarification of the issues to
-be addressed by some of the County's witnesses, as set forth in Larry's letter of February 17, 1984, was just that -- a clarifi-cation.
In no case did it add new substance to the County's contentions or intended testimony.
As you noted in your letter, Drs. Finlayson and Radford and Mr. Minor are technical experts.
Accordingly, they will be addressing the technical issues raised in Contention 16, which questions the accuracy of certain state-ments made in LILCO's brochure on technical matters such as acci-dent consequences and health effects.
We have previously identi-fied Drs. Finlayson and Radford and Mr. Minor,as experts on these technical matters.
The purpose of Larry's letter with respect to those witnesses was to make certain there was no mistake (which seems unlikely given the clear technical issues raised in Conten-tion 16) that their technical expertise would be applied to the contents of the brochure.
Of course, Professor Saegert was pre-viously identified as a witness on public education issues in the County's response to interrogatories dated July 22, 1983.
The addition of Chief Roberts and Captain Michel to the communications panel is also not intended to change the substance or content of the County's, testimony.
As you know, Captain Michel was recently assigned to be Commanding Officer for the Communications Section of"the Police Department.
Furthermore, it was always the County's intention to have Captain Michel testify on mobilization with the same panel that testified on Group I
"Ex'aurArmacx LocxxAmt, Hzz.x., Cumscrornza & PHILLIPS Donald P.
Irwin, Esq.
. February 21, 1984' Page 2 issues (i'. e., Monteith, Roberts, McGuire, Turano, Michel).
His omission from the list of mobilization witnesses was an oversight which probably would have come to light if you had deposed Captain Michel.
In any event, his addition to the panel does not alter the substance of the County's mobilization contention (Con-tention 27) or its planned testimony.
Second, the County's responses to LILCO's interrogatories on communications and mobilization need no updating.
I will, how-ever, make the obvious observation that the County's testimony will be supported by certain documents, such as, but not limited to, LERO personnel records, which were provided to the County by LILCO during discovery.
In addition, in the areas of communi-t:
. cations and mobilization, there have been no further formal
" studies" by the County beyond the two SCPD mobilization tests you have already received.
However, in connection with the drafting of testimony, the Police Department has gauged the dis-tances and travel times between various origins, and destinations on Long Island.
Because these data were derived at the request of counsel for the County in preparation for litigation and thus
-are protected by the attorney work product doctrine, and further because these data can easily be collected by LILCO, the County will not provide them to,LILCO at this time.
Finally, the County presently has no intention of submitting testimony by the teachers whose Group I testimony was struck.
Yours truly, N
Christopher M.
McMurray 5
u s.
Y 9
e e-
+, -, - - - - -
+---,,v----h*
~w
-"e w w
---*-----r
-e,--v.- - -v
~ r we n w v --