ML20082T409
| ML20082T409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1983 |
| From: | Mcmurray M KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8312160007 | |
| Download: ML20082T409 (18) | |
Text
-
13.(,
p\\,.,. ~ 00CMETE0 U UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '83 DEC 14 P2:19 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board v
- CF vcvn '
c : n '( ci..f - ) In the Matter.of ) ) L'ONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 ) (Emergency Planning) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, ) Unit 1) ) ) SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO LILCO'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND RESPONSE TO. POLK TESTIMONY; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND RESPONSE TO LIEBERMAN TESTIMONY AND TO REVISION 2 OF THE LILCO PLAN I. Introduction On November 18, 1983, the parties filed direct-written test-imony on Emergency Planning Contentions 23, 25 and 65. Among the witnesses submitting testimony on behalf of Suffolk County was-Peter A. Polk, of PRC Voorhees, who_ testified regarding Conten-tion 23.D (the effect of the evacuation shadow phenomenon on ~ evacuation time estimates) and Contention 65-(the effect of dis-abled automobiles on. evacuation time ~ estimates)..Much of Mr. Polk's testimony relied on two studies recently completed by PRCL .Voorhees at Suffolk County's-request. Among~the many witnesses testifying on1LILCO'sIbehalf was Edward B. Lieberman of.KLDIAssociates, Inc. -Mr. Lieberman'testi : fied on several contentions, including Contentions 65.A:and'B (\\. (mobilization-. time-for the public).anddContention 65.C.'4 (the 8312160007 831208 PDR ADOCK 05000322 b PDR.L Q 9-
2-effect of non-compliance with prescribed routes on evacuation time estimates). In his testimony on these contentions, Mr. Lieberman relied heavily on two studies never seen by the County before November 18, 1983. The first, entitled " Development of Time Distributions For Evacuation Events and Activities" [here-inafter "KLD TM-139"], is directly related to Contentions 65.A and B (see Attachment 10 to Cordaro, Weismantle and Lieberman Testimony). The second, entitled " Determination of Varying Route Compliance Levels and of a Proposed New Roadway on Evacuation Times Within the Shoreham EPZ" [ hereinafter "KLD TM-140"], i directly addresses the non-compliance issue raised in Contention 65.C.4 (see Attachment 12 to same testimony). On November 28, 1983, LILCO filed a Motion For Discovery And Response To Polk Testimony seeking expedited discovery and the right to file supplemental testimony regarding the following j areas of Mr. Polk's testimony: l. PRC Voorhees' -analysis of-evacuation times for a 10-mile EPZ, accounting for the evacuation shadow phenomenon (Polk Testimony at.3-10 and Attachment 3);1/ 2.' PRC Voorhees' analyses of the. frequency of-accidents in the event of an evacuation of the 10-mile EPZ.(Polk' Testimony at 10-12 and Attachment 4); and + 1[ LILCO notes in its motion that this request is conditioned I upon the Board's failure to grant LILCO's " motion to-Strike Portions of the Testimony of Peter.A. Polk," also filed;on November 28, 1983.
. 3. PRC Voorhees' analyses of the number of automobiles expected 1 a run out of gas 'in the event of an evacuation of the 10-mile EPZ (Polk Testimony at 12-16 and Attachment 4). LILCO's motion is grounded on the assertion that Suffolk County has engaged in " knowing concealment" of the evidence on which Mr. Polk's testimony is based. LILCO contends that it has been unfairly surprised by Mr. Polk's testimony, thus requiring, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.740(e)(2)(ii), that this Board set aside further time for discovery and the opportunity to submit more testimony during the course of litigation of the Group I issues. LILCO's motion is without merit. The motion is based on unsubstantiated and reckless accusations of concealment which have no basis in reality. Moreover, LILCO attempts to set a standard of conduct to which LILCO itself has not adhered during the course of discovery in this case. Thus, the motion should be denied. However, in the event that this Board grants LILCO's motion, Suffolk County hereby moves for reciprocal discovery and the right to submit supplemental testimony regarding KLD TM-139'and KLD TM-140 which LILCO failed to provide to the County prior to November 18. Furthermore, Suffolk County moves for. discovery'on the substantial amount of new material contained in Revision 2 of the LILCO Plan and for discovery, as needed, on all future revi-sions to LILCO's Plan. I
_4-II. Discussion A. Suffolk County Has Not Concealed Evidence From LILCO LILCO complains in its motion that'the discovery process did not reveal the contents or existence of PRC Voorhees' analyses until the time that Mr. Polk's testimony was filed on November 18, 1983. LILCO goes further to accuse ~the County of knowingly. concealing these studies from LILCO. This accusation-is unfounded. The simple answer to LILCO's complaint is that Mr. Polk's analyses were not completed until shortly before the Nov-ember 18 testimony filing date. Thus, they could.not have been made available to LILCO substantially, if at~all, before that' date. The discovery process ~cannct-provide information on analyses or studies until they_ exist. In the case of the PRC Voorhees'Jevaluation of the effect of. the evacuation shadow phenomenon on evacuation time estimates, that analysis was not completed.even in preliminary form until late October of this year.. The final printouts were not supplied to counsel for the County until November 1,,1983. The cruncli.of completing testimony of other witnesses and an illness of.Mr..- S! precluded any meaningful review offthe results for some-Polk f time. Thus, there was no decision to rely upon those.results-l until shortly before the November-18 fitingLdate. -Likewise, PRC f E
- r. Polk was ill during early November with a kidney stone.
M Indeed, for-a-time he was hospitalized. Mr.-Polk was released'.
- f. rom;the hospital on November 9, as best counsel can. recall (Mr.
Polk was unavailable.to confirm the. precise date)~. -After his . release,.Mr. Polk wasfable to resume-duties on:aJpart. time basis.- at first: and on 'a full' time basis only the week of : November 14. Only-after his--release-from the hospital'was.it possible-for:the l . County ltofconfer.with'Mr. Polk and decide'to use:hisHstudies. k
m 1 Voorhees' preliminary analysis of the effect of accidents and i. cars running out of gas on evacuation times (Polk Testimony, ) was not made available to the County until the beoinning of November. The County did not receive the final version-until_ November 17, 1983 -- the day before testimony was filed. Thus, contrary to LILCO's assertions, the County has not attempted to conceal evidence from LILCO. Rather, the evidence I' at issue did not come into existence until shortly before testi-i mony was due to be filed. In light of this fact, updating the County's discovery responses would have been a meaningless exer-cise. The County is therefore at a loss to'see how LILCO is-i- prejudiced by having received analyses and studies only 'a short t j time after they were received and evaluated by'the County. LILCO also asserts (Motion at 5-6) that it was surprised by Mr. Polk's testimony regarding the frequency of accidents and l cars running out of gas'because the language of Contention 65.D i allegedly " suggested" that the County would rely on'the Suffolk County Police Department witnesses to support its case..LILCO's f complaint is' plainly wrong. While the County has presented l l testimony by the Suffolk County Police Department, witnesses l regarding the'effectsaof accidents on evacuation; times, _there~is absolutely no suggestion in Contention 65.D that.the County.would-rely solely on these witnesses. In fact, the_only mention of the Police Department in Contention :65.D is 'that -it : tabulated:10,000 -accidents on the Long Island Expressway in 1982. That' reference provides no basis for LILCO's conclusions. l b
6.- B. LIL'CO Did Not Amend Its Discovery Responses Or Advise The County Of Two Major Studies Included In Mr. Lieberman's j. ' Testimony At the same time that LILCO has accused the County of fail-l } ing to provide proper discovery on the PRC analyses, LILCO has i ~ l failed to apprise to,the Board that the testimony submitted by ) Mr. Lieberman contained two new studies, KLD TM-139 and KLD TM-140, which the County has never before seen and on which the-County has had no meaningful discovery. j Contentions 65.A and B address the County's concern that 1
- LILCO has not adequately estimated mobilization times for the public -- that is, the time it takesLfor the population to respond to an evacuation and commence evacuation trips -- and the effect of extended mobilization times on overall evacuation i
times. In Contention 65.C.4, the-County also takes issue with LILCO's use of prescribed routes and the effect of' deviation ' rom f those routes on evacuation times. KLD TM-139 is directly related 5 to Contentions 65.A and B. It provides an analysis by KLD:-of'the i time estimated for the public to gather at home, wait for school children,. prepare to leave and then load onto'the evacuation network. Likewise, KLD TM-140 addresses the concern? raised.in Contention 65.C.4 by providing estimates of-the effect of devia-tion from prescribed routes on-evacuation time estimates..The County was provided with neither-of these analyses norfany drafts thereof during discovery or. anytime-before~ November-18. During the course of discovery,-the County made a: number of< discovery requests'regarding_ traffic issues. Among:other/ things,- the County. sought all documents concerning evacuation time esti-
, 1 i mates, public mobilization, traffic congestion and roadway capa-cities. (See Suffolk County Request 3 of August 19, 1983). LILCO's responses never revealed the existence of KLD TM-139 or KLD TM-140 or drafts thereof nor did they provide any substantial insights into the contents of those analyses. Counsel for Suffolk County also deposed Mr. Lieberman on September 19 and 20, 1983. With respect to Contention 65.A and B, counsel for Suffolk County explored Mr. Lieberman's assumption that it would take only 2 hours and 20.ninutes for all of the population to load onto the evacuation network. Table X of Appendix A provides KLD's assumptions for the loading frequencies for each source node. Counsel for Suffolk County inquired as follows with respect to Table X: Q. Have you conducted any studies or analysis of this table to determine whether or not you find it adequate? A. Not as such. Q. What process did you go through, then, to determine that it looked fine to you? A. The only explicit comparison that we did make was with a graphical presentation of loading times that appeared in one of the Voorhees reports, and essentially what we did was plot a represent.ative histogram on top of the[ir]'s and found that it agreed very well. So that, that was one form of confirmation. Other than'-that, we didn't see the need to go to any greather-detail. l
j Lieberman Deposition at 63. KLD TM-139, however, does go into great detail in justifying KLD's loading frequencies. Yet, its existence was never revealed to the County prior to the receipt of Mr. Lieberman's testimony on November 18.d! During the same deposition, counsel for the County learned that Mr. Lieberman was conducting an analysis of the effect of non-compliance with LILCO's prescribed routes. It was clear that Mr. Lieberman 'ad not finished the analysis and therefore could h ) not provide results. In any event, counsel for LILCO prevented any meaningful inquiry into the nature of the analysis. Q. According to your model, Mr. Lieberman, in Appendix A, would that evacuee be allowed to deviate, I guess is the term, from the plan, and go to that destination node that he per-ceived to be the best for his own personal safety? A. The way you would handle that is to conduct sensitivity tests, wherein you would assume-varying degrees of compliance with the i assigned paths. Within the context of Appen-dix A, the assumption is that there is 100 percent compliance, between the actual travel patterns taken by the evacuees and the assigned paths. Q. Have you performed sensitivity analysis such as you have described? A. We are in the process of doing that. Q. You are in the process of doing that? A. Yes, we are. dI The County did receive the results of a telephone survey which was' conducted for KLD and which formed a part of the underlying basis for KLD TM-139. KLD TM-139 relied only in part on that survey, however, and the existence of the survey could not have alerted the County to the existence of the far more extensive analyses contained in KLD TM-139.
_9_ Q. Who asked you to perform such analysis? A. Well, we were requested by Mr. Irwin. MR. IRWIN: Chris, I will just tell you right now, I will object to thin witness providing answers on these, on the basis of privilege and on the base of its ca2. ling for specula-tion, because work is ungoing. Q. Is there a schedule for completion of the work? A. We don't have a schedule as such. We are proceeding as rapidly as we can. Lieberman Deposition at 86-87. Further attempt by counsel for the County to inquire into the nature of the study was again blocked by counsel for LILCO. Q. In order to really test'the sensitivity of the trip assignment model, do you have to test different percentages of deviation? A. Yes. Q. Which percentages are you testing? MR. IRWIN: We are getting close to a point where I'will instruct this witness not to answer. We are really getting into the~ guts of the work in progress. MR. MCMURRAY: I am not trying to intrude into the results. MR. IRWIN: The results are interrelated to-the scenarios posed. MR..MCMURRAY: Are you instructing the wit-- ness? MR. IRWIN: Yes, with! respect to this parti-cular question. 'l Lieberman Deposition at 129-30. The analysis discussed in.the preceding excerpts eventually became.KLD TM-140.- As was the case with KLD TM-139, the County was not.provided.with KLD TM-140 or any draft of'it before Novem-t.
_ 10. _ ber 18, 1983, nor, as is evident from the above passages from Mr. Lieberman's deposition, was the County able to determine the nature of that analysis in any significant way prior to November 18, 1983. Furthermore, with respect to both studies, LILCO did not amend its discovery responses to reflect their existence, although the County's discovery requests clearly covered the analyses performed in KLD TM-139 and KLD TM-140. Thus, it is clear that LILCO, while criticizing the County for failing to update its responses to discovery requests, has failed to scru-tinize its own behavior and apply its own rigid standards to itself. If it had, it would have thought twice about accusing 'the County of knowing concealment of pertinent evidence. C. Further Discovery and-Supplemental Testimony At This Time I~s Not Required By LILCO Having set forth in Part B LILCO's failureEto update its own-discovery responses, Suffolk County is.not willing to follow LILCO's path and accuse LILCO of. knowingly concealing evidence - ' at least not without further facts. There has been no bad-faith-or attempt to.concegl-evidence on the part of the County, and we-assume the same.is true for LILCO. The County was' surprised with the filing of KLD TM-139.and KLD TM-140, but rather than rashly-accusing LILCO of concealing evidence, it has assumed that the ~ reason it did not learn'of these studies was due.to the fact that they were completed only shortly;before November 18.. Indeed, the dates on the covers of-those studies (November 14 for KLD TM-139 and November 16 for KLD TM-140) would appear to confirm this ._a--x- .m -aas-_a
1 assumption. LILCO has been no more prejudiced by surprise than the County has. Yet, its accusations of knowing concealment are both hypocritical and demeaning to LILCO. Since the late spring'of this year, the parties have con-ducted formal and informal discovery on LILCO's so-called Transi-tion Plan. Discovery has consisted of interrogatories, document requests, depositions and requests for admission. Both sides have used the discovery process extensively, expending enormous amounts of time and resources in the-process. The result has been an exchange of a great deal of information between the par-ties relating to Revisions 0 and 1 of the Plan. Although discov-ery officially ended on October 14, 1983, the parties continue to exchange some information informally. The fact is, however, that this case is moving at a swift pace on multiple tracks. There-fore, it is unlikely that the case will ever be frozen in time, allowing the parties to have full and complete discovery on all issues. The County learned this harsh fact recently with respect to th'e 800 page Revision 2 which LILCO sprung on the County only 10 days before testimony was due to be filed. The " surprise" which LILCO is presently lamenting, if at all real, cannot begin to approach the County's surprise at Revision 2. In light of this fact, LILCO is not now entitled to further discovery from the. County or its experts on the much less voluminous analyses contained in the County's testimony, i l ~ ~
D. LILCO's Letter of November 2 Has No Relevance To The Issues Now Before This Board In its motion, LILCO makes much of a letter sent to the County on November 2, 1983. That letter questioned the County's assertion of the work product privilege with respect to certain ongoing work undertaken by the County's experts at the request of counsel for the County in preparation for litigation. Apparent-ly, LILCO was constrained not to file a motion to compel because "[t]he number of issues on which motions to compel could have been filed would have run into the dozens, and if filed piecemeal as they arose, would have driven all concerned to distraction." Motion at 7. LILCO's argument is unsupportable. Counsel for LILCO was advised repeatedly by counsel for Suffolk County that if LILCO was dissatisfied with the County's assertion of the work product privilege, LILCO should file a motion to compel with the Board. Contrary to LILCO's assertion, it would not have been necessary to file a new motion each time the County asserted the work product privilege. Rather, the issue would have been a simple one - _i_.e., whether the scope of the work product doctrine, as asserted by the County, was' proper. Thus, the motion would have resolved any differences between the County and LILCO regarding the scope of the work product privi-lege. LILCO finally did file such a motion on November 10, 1983, to which it attached its November 2 letter.A! Yet, it withdrew I that motion on November 21, 1983 - _three days after it' received 1 A LILCO's Motion To Compel Discovery Of Suffolk County (Novem-l ber 15, 1983). That Motion to compel would'have been subject to summary denial because it was far out of time. See 10.CFR 6 2.740(f)(1). ( l
I the. testimony of the County's witnesses, including Mr. Polk. Therefore, its discussion of its November 2 letter and the Novem-ber 10 motion are not relevant as they have been removed from the. Board's consideration by LILCO's own withdrawal.E! It is further particularly unbecoming for LILCO to allege County improprieties concerning assertion on the work product doctrine when LILCO has done precisely the same thing. Thus, as documented by the deposition extracts quoted in Section B,
- supra, LILCO itself used the same work product doctrine to preclude County discovery of Mr. Lieberman.
Again, LILCO wants to hold the County to a different standard than it has followed itself. E. In The Event That The Board Grants LILCO's Motion For Discovery And Supplemental Testimony, It Should Afford The Same Right To The County a Fairness dictates that if this Board grants LILCO's, motion for discovery and supplemental testimony regarding the PRC Voorhees analyses, it should grant the County an equal opportun-ity for discovery and the filing of supplemental testimony on the 1 new studies revealed in Mr. Lieberman's testimony, as well as on all revisions to the LILCO Plan. Discovery is a two-way street. As discussed above, LILCO has not afforded any meaningful discovery regarding KLD TM-139 and KLD TM-140 and the County has not had the opportunity-to address those studies in its testimony. Thus, if LILCO has been l prejudiced, Suffolk County has been equally prejudiced by the l 5/ LILCO has' suggested that it withdrew its Motion to Compel in-l part in reliance upon the Board's November 14 Order which LILCO. reads to grant an opportunity for LILCO's instant motion. Suffolk County has' reviewed the Board's November 14 Order and fails to understand LILCO's reliance on it. (-
- 14 _ unheralded arrival of KLD TM-139 and KLD TM-140. Those studies raised an number of questions which the County would like to pose to LILCO and Mr. Lieberman. Furthermore, the County's review of Revision 2 has revealed a number of significant changes, particu-larly in LILCO's routing strategies. The County, therefore, anticipates that it would need at least a full day to depose Mr. Lieberman, and may also need to depose other LILCO officials.- LILCO could also expect a number of additional interrogatories on these matters. After discovery, the County expects that it will need to file supplemental testimony. Furthermore, the County has not yet seen Revision 3. It anticipates that it will require discovery on that document, as well as all future revisions to LILCO's Plan. The County is willing to forego this discovery, but not at the expense of allowing LILCO to prepare its case in greater detail. Therefore, if the Board grants LILCO's motion, it should 7 grant the County's reciprocal motion for discovery and the right to file supplemental testimony. III. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Board should deny LILCO's motion for discovery and to file supplemental testimony. If, however, the Board grants LILCO's motion, it should permit the County to conduct discovery on the new materials included in Mr. Lieberman's testimony, as well as on Revision 2 and allLfuture l revisions of the LILCO Plan. l t h k
f I
- - '.. i Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law H.
Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Clk 971MLw Herbert H' Brown \\ ~ ' e#' ' Lawrence Coe Lanpher Christopher M. McMurray KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated: December 8, 1983 J e l l
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ) In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 ) (Emergency Planning) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO LILCO'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND RESPONSE TO POLK TESTIMONY; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND RESPONSE TO LIEBERMAN TESTIMONY AND TO REVISION 2 OF THE LILCO PLAN, dated December 8, 1983, have been served to the following by U.S. mail, first class, except where noted, this 9th day of December 1983.
- James A.
Laurenson, Chairman Ralph Shapiro, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 East 40th Street . Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10016
- Dr.
Jerry R. Kline Howard L. Blau, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, New York 11801 Washington, D.C. 20555
- W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.'
- Mr.
Frederick J. Shon Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O.' Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 707 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Richmond, Virginia. 23212 Edward M. Barrett, Esq. General Counsel Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Long Island Lighting Company New York State Energy Office 250-Old Country Road-Agency Building 2 Mineola, New York 11501 Empire State Plaza Albany, New. York 12223 Mr. Brian-McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company Stephen B. Latham, Esq. 175 East Old Country Road Twomey, Latham & Shea Hicksville,. New' York :11801 33 West Second Street-Riverhead,'New: York 11901 By ' Hand
- By Federal Express (on December 8, 1983)
(
~.... ] Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 195 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Smithtown, New York 11787 Hon. Peter Cohalan Marc W. Goldsmith Suffolk County Executive Energy Research Group, Inc. H. Lee Dennison Building 400-1 Totten Pond Road Veterans Memorial Highway Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Hauppauge, New York 11788 ~ MHB Technical Associates
- Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq. 1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite K Board Panel San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nucl' ear Regulatt y Comm. Washington, D.C. 205L3 Joel Blau, Esq. New York Public Service Comm. Ezra I. Bialik, Esq. The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Assistant Attorney General Building Environmental Protection. Bur. Empire State Plaza New York State Dept. of Law Albany, New York 12223 2 World Trade Center New York, New York-10047 David J. Gilmartin, Esq. Suff61k County Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing H. Lee Dennison Building Appeal Board i Veterans Memorial Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Hauppauge, New York 11788 Washington, D.C.- 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. Board Panel Staff Counsel, New York State U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Service Commission Washington, D.C. -20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223
- Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq. David A. Repka, Esq.
- Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency Stuart Diamond 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Environment / Energy Writer New York, New York 10278 NEWSDAY Long Island, New York 11747 James B. Dougherty, Esq. 3045 Porter Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008
\\ 1 Spence Perry, Esq. Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 Mr. Jeff Smith Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 618 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Christdpher M. McMdrraycD' / KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 DATED: December 8, 1983 9 4 + 0 0 e ~ .}}