ML20087C801
| ML20087C801 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1984 |
| From: | Mark Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8403130174 | |
| Download: ML20087C801 (38) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ - - _ -. _
A
,gtgzu cc. sus M b/84 UNITED STATED OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 84 M 12 AH :27 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board u ucun: I 'mj e, s e p F R A NCu
)
In the Matter of
)
)
.LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF LILCO'S GROUP II-A TESTIMONY On March 2, 1984, LILCO filed 21 separate pieces of Group 1! testimony.
For convenience of reference, these 21 pieces II-A of testimony are listed in Attachment 1 to this Motion.
In accordance with the schedule established by the Board, Suffolk County now moves to strike portions of the LILCO Group II-A testi-many.
Suffolk County is filing a single motion to strike regarding the LILCO Group II-A testimony because a number of County objec-tions apply _to portions of more than one set of LILCO Group II-A testimony.
For instance, as discussed in detail in Section I.A of this Motion, the County is moving to strike portions of 14 pieces of LILCO Group II-A. testimony because the designated portions are not proper expert testimony but, rather, represent improper 1/ _
The County uses the term " Group II-A" in the same sense as the Board used the term in -its March 2, 1984 Order Confirming
. Schedule Changes.
8403130174 840309 D
PDR ADOCK 05000322 b
O PM
~
f 4
9 attempts to provide legal conclusions.
Since multiple portions of the LILCO testimony have the same defect, the County has addressed such matters in a single consolidated filing.
Therefore, in Sections I.A thru I.E of this Motion, the County sets forth its argumer :s for striking multiple portions of LILCO testimony, each time for the same basic reason.
The County also has discrete additional reasons for striking particular portions of certain of the LILCO Group II-A testimony.
These are discussed in Section II of this Motion.
I.
Suffolk County Motion to Strike Portions of More Than One Set of LILCO Testimony A.
LILCO Witnesses Improperly Attempt to Provide Legal Conclusions It is settled, as this Board already has recognized (Tr.
2407, 2482-83), that the witnesses in this proceeding are not permitted to testify as to legal conclusions.
Nevertheless, repeatedly the LILCO witnesses have not only testified regarding the disputed facts in this proceeding, but also have attempted to testify as to legal conclusions.
These portions of the LILCO testimony do not provide proper or probative expert testimony and must therefore be struck.
The improper LILCO testimony regarding legal matters falls
'into three categories.- First, in a number of instances LILCO
_ witnesses have not only testified as to disputed facts, but also have expressed the purely legal conclusion that LILCO has complied with particular regulatory requirements.
For example, in its.-
-testimony on Contentions 28-32 and 34 (Testimony #7 on Attachment 1 hereto), the LILCO witnesses state that LILCO complies with regulations'and guidelines for offsite emergency planning (page 4,
-lines 2-3).
Later, these witnesses again testify that the LILCO Plan complies with Section II.F.1.c of NUREG-0654.
(see p.
7, Ans. to:Q.8, lines 1-4).
Similarly, in LILCO's testimony on Contention 20 (Testimony #1 on Attachment 1), LILCO witnesses testify that the " Plan complies with 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(5) through its-Prompt Notification System and the Emergency Broadcast System."
(p.
4, Ans.
6, lines 1-3).
This testimony constitutes legal conclusions which are improper.
Accordingly, the following portions of LILCO Group II-A testimony should be struc'k for the same basic reason:
Portion Item on Contention Addressed of LILCO Testimony Attachment l' in LILCO Testimony to be Struck 1
20 p.
4, Ans.
6, first sentence 7
28-32, 3d p.
3, last line, through p.
4, line 3 p.
7, Ans.
8, all
- p. 8, first full sentence (lines 3-5) p.
8, last 3 lines p.
9, Ans. 10, all after quote of con-tention
.2/
For convenience,_the table below and other tables in this Motion list the items which already have been discussed in the text,'as well as other items which fall within the same category.
y
- p. 26, Ans. 32, word "Yes" 10 58
- p. 11, Ans. 14, all Second, in many instances, LILCO witnesses have attempted to interpret what the regulat. ions or other laws require.
For example, in its testimony on Contention 22.D (Testimony #3 on hereto), the LILCO witnesses state that an EPZ cf 13 miles would " violate the requirement that the EPZ boundary approximate a ten-mile radius (p. 21, lines 5-6, emphasis supplied).
This is improper testimony for technical experts.
It would be proper for them to testify regarding what is provided in the LILCO Plan or to quote the regulations, and even to' state what they understand the regulations to require.
However,_it is for the Board to determine whether LILCO has ccm-plied with the regulations and to provide an interpretation of regulatory requirements.
For the same reason, the following portions of LILCO Group II-A testimony also should be struck:
Portion Item on Contention Addressed of LILCO Testimony Attachment ~1 in LILCO Testimony to be Struck h
1 20 p.
6, Ans. 13, lines 1-2 2
21, 21.C p.
7, Ans.
7, lines 1-5 3
22.D
- p. 6, Ans.
5, all p.
21, Ans. 29, lines 3-8 -
5 26.A, C, D&E
- p. 31, Ans. 79, word "No" 6
27
- p. 26, Aus, 16, lines 14-20
- 7 28-32, 34
- p. 4, Ans.
4, line 8, sentence starting "In fact j
- p. 4, Ans.
4, lines 21-22, sentence starting "There is no requirement p. 10, Ans. 11, lines 7-10, beginning L
"There is
- p. 11, Ans. 13, lines 1-6, ending with
. and main-tained."
- p. 26, Ans. 33, word "No" pp. 32-33, Ans. 43, all pp. 36-37, Ans. 49, lines 1-3, ending with ".
. of activities exist."
9 55-57,-59
- p. 12,'Ans. 10, lines 1-3, ending with the sirens."
- p. 14, Ans. 13, lines 1-5, ending with "about 15 minutes" and 10-11, sentence starting "Indeed, no backup.
t
- p. 15, Ans. 14, 2nd.
sentence
- p. 19, Ans. 18, lines 1-4., _.
l l
1 p.
20, Ans. 21, all 1
10 58 p.
9, Ans. 10, all 11 66
- p. 13, Ans. 10, lines 4-8, sentence starting with "The presence 16 75 p.
5, Ans.
5, last sentence 18 92
- p. 4, Ans.
7, last 2 lines and all of page 5
19 93-95 p.
19, Ans. 30, all 20 96.A & C p.
6, Ans. 10, 2nd sentence Finally, in a number of instances, the LILCO witnesses cite to decisions in other emergency planning proceedings.
This is not
.an attempt to set the context for discussion of some regulatory standard (such as was done early in this ASLB proceeding where North Anna was cited in testimony as constituting the standard for consideration or unresolved safety issues).
Rather, this testi-mony not only is irrelevant (see Section I.C, infra), it also is purely legal citation which is appropriate, if at all, for post-trial attorney briefs, not expert testimony.
Thus, the following testimony should be struck:
Portion Item on Contention Addressed of LILCO Testimony in LILCO Testimony to be Struck 9
55-57, 59 p.
22, Ans. 25, lines 9-18 i
- p. 23, last sentence 15 74
- p. 12, lines 4-10 16 75 pp. 8-9, Ans.
7, 4th a 5th sentences B.
LILCO Improperly Seeks to Admit into Evidence Documents and Discussion Relating to the County's Pre-1982 blanning Effort In its testimony on Cententions 22.D (EPZ boundary) and 74 and 75 (relocation center location and capacity), the LILCO wit-nesses have testified at length concerning matters which allegedly took place during Suffolk County planning efforts prior to mid-March 1982.
These matters are not pertinent to the contentions 3/
and are yet another effort by LILCO to litigate and put into controversy issues regarding what the County might have done if it had decided to adopt and implement a plan.
The County did conduct planning activities prior to mid-March 1982.A!
The activities of certain County planners did result in a 3/
This latest LILCO effort is similar to LILCO's previous effort in Group I testimony to assert that County personnel would likely participate in LILCO's Plan.
The County moved to. strike such testimony as irreievant since the only issue is whether LILCO's Plan complies with the regulations (see Suffolk County Motion to Strike Portions of LILCO Testimony on Contentions 25, 23 and 65, November 28, 1983, pp. 7-8).
The Board granted the motion.
Tr. 1298.
4/
The County also conducted extensive planning activities Between late March 1982 and February 1983 when the County Legis-lature adopted Resolution 111-1983 by which the County decided not to adopt or implement any plan.
LILCO finds it convenient to rely on selective County planning materials from the earlier period, but to ignore the County's extensive planning efforts after March 1982 -- efforts which, for instance, found that a rigid 10-mile EPZ'such as LILCO has adopted and which at one time was being considered by some County planners was completely inadequate.
Thus,.if LILCO is permitted on Ccntention 22.D to submit data (footnote continued) draft of a portion of a plan, which draft then was categorically rejected by the County.
Indeed, the head of the County Planning Department has testified'during deposition by LILCO that the planning activities in the pre-March 1982 period were plainly inadequate.
Deposition of Dr. Lee Koppelman, at 51-47.
LILCO has now attempted to insert into this litigation these old planning activities.
These are not pertinent or relevant; the issue is whether LILCO's Plan complies with the regulations, not whether County planners several years ago in a draft of portions of a plan which was discarded came up with draft plan provisions which LILCO believes support LILCO today.
If LILCO is permitted to use these discarded County planning materials, the County will be forced to file rebuttal testimony to demonstrate that these prior County materials in fact do not merit any consideration.
See footnote 4.
That will of course delay the proceeding and will widen the controversy so that we are litigat-ing whether the old County planning efforts were good or not.
Again, that simply is not what the litigation is supposed to cov-er.
Rather, the litigation should cover LILCO's Plan and LILCO itself should justify the provisions it has chosen to adopt.
With the foregoing introduction, the County will now desig-nate the precise portions of the LILCO testimony that must be struck.
(footnote continued from previous page) regarding the pre-March 1982 County planning effort, the County must have an. opportunity to present data from its later effort, which show the need for a much larger EPZ and which rejected the very materials LILCO relies upon. L..
1.
Contention 22.D The following testimony should be struck:
pp. 9-10, QaAs 10-12
- p. 10, Q&A 14
- p. 15, lines 7-10
- p. 22, last sentence Attachments 4 and 5 These portions of Contention 22.D and the referenced attach-ments involve a discussion of how County planners in 1980-81 allegedly set about arriving at a draft EPZ boundary and how New York State planners allegedly commented on that' boundary.
All of this discussion and Attachments 4 and 5 must be struck because how certain County planners went about preparing a plan which never was adopted and in fact has been rejected is not relevant.
The Contention alleges that LILCO's proposed EPZ boundary fails to meet the criteria of 10 C.F.R. $ 50.47(c)(2).
Thus, the issue in controversy is whether LILCO's boundary is proper.
The history of that boundary as it allegedly may be connected to prior County
- planning efforts is not relevant at all.
2.
Contention 74 LILCO's discussion and use of prior County planning materials regarding Contention 74 is very similar to.that on Contention 22.D.
Thus, LILCO attempts to introduce evidence to justify the
-location of relocation centers designated in LILCO's' Plan on the basis that County planners allegedly had selected these locations in-its rejected pre-March 1982 draft of a plan, and because State of New YorkLplanners allegedly agreed.
However, this time LILCO even'goes further, attempting to introduce into evidence (Attach-ment 6) the' September 1981 LILCO-County planning agreement that _
r-later was rescinded.
That agreement bears no relevance to the present contention.
The following portions of LILCO's Contention 74 testimony should be struck:
p.
8, line 5 through p. 11, end of Answer 10 Attachments 6-11 The County repeats that the foregoing testimony and attach-ments are not relevant to the conten' on at issue.
The issue is whether LILCO has complied with NRC regulations in its choice of relocation centers.
This " evidence" is not needed in order to address this issue but rather presents new hearsay evidence from early and mid-1981 pertaining to what other planners were doing.
The admission of this " evidence" will vastly expand this litiga-tion, as it will necessitate the presentation of evidence to negate the implications of LILCO's testimony -- namely that the LILCO relocation centers are satisfactory to the County.
We sub-mit that the testimony should stick to the issue in controversy instead of being an historical dissertation.
3.
Contention 75 The following portions of LILCO's Contention 75 testimony should be struck:
p.
6, last 8 lines p.
9, Answer 8 through first two
. lines on page 10
. Attachments 3, 6-8 The reasons for striking these portions are the same as for
' Contention 74 and hence will not be repeated. -
C.
LILCO Improperly Attempts to Introduce Evidence Regarding Other Nuclear Facilities Suffolk County objects to and seeks to strike portions of the LILCO testimony which address emergency planning at other plants.
First, the LILCO witnesses provide no data to demonstrate that they are competent to testify regarding such other plants.
- Hence, this is not reliable evidence and should be struck.
See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.743(c).
Second, the planning at other plants is simply not relevant to the contentions which have been admitted.
For example, on Contention 22.D, at page 7, the following Q & A occurs:
O.
Are there examples at other nuclear power plants where municipal boundaries are crossed by the EPZ boundary?
A.
[Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle]
Yes.
There are a number of instances where municipal boundaries are crossed by the EPZ boundary.
The attached maps of the Browns Ferry emergency planning zone show that the boundary of that EPZ passes through boundaries of Decatur and Athens (Attachment 1-3).
Likewise, at Seabrook Station the 10-mile EPZ boundary divides the two cities of Haverhill and Ports-mouth.
LILCO makes no attempt to document the facts at Browns Ferry or Seabrook which dictated the precise EPZ boundaries which were chosen, much less how those facts (which are not disclosed) provide pertinent data for this Board in considering Contention 22.D.
Rather, LILCO witnesses have made only bald assertions but never have tied the assertions to the precise issues being con-sidered in this proceeding on Contention 22.D.5/
If this testi-mony is allowed to stand, the County submits that it would be without probative value but that, out of caution, the County will need to probe the assertions which are being made, resulting in litigation centered on emergency planning at other plants instead of focusing on the issues pending in the instant case.
The following portions of the LILCO Group II-A testimony should therefore be struck:
Testimony items From Contention (s)
Portions to Attach. 1 Mdressed be Struck Reason (s) for Striking 3
22.D
- p. 7, Q&A 7 See preceding text.
Attach. 1-3 9
55-57, 59
- p. 13, 2nd.
LIIf0 asserts its procedures are similar sentence of to other sites but never even identifies Answer 12 those sites, attaches the allegedly similar procedures, or explains why the fact that procedures are allegedly the same is pertinent to Contention 56.
- p. 22, Ans.
LIIro's assertion that LIICO's notifica-25, all, and tion system is " essentially" the same as Attach. 3 & 4 in Connecticut is irrelevant. If admitted we will need to examine the Haddam Neck and Millstone systems. 'Ihese witnesses are not competent to testify regarding those systems, nor about the Coast Guard letter (Attachment 4).
11 66
- p. 12, Ans. to LIICO discusses "other" evacuation plans 09, 1st two without even identifying them. No effort sentences to tie these " plans" to contention.
1 1
5_/
The County recognizes that the Board earlier in this pro-ceeding permitted some evidence of time estimates at other plants.
See Tr. 1298.
The County submits that in the testimony contested in the. instant motion, however, LILCO has so failed to tie the data for other plants to the contentions being litigated that a
different ruling is required.
18 92
- p. 5, line 15
'Ihese are tables of contents and discus-through p. 6, sion of other New York plants. No showing line 4 and how these other plants' plans are supposed Attach. 3-11 to be relevant or how any of LIICO's wit-nesses can sponsor the Attachments or any other discussion of N.Y. plan.
19 93-95
- p. 14, last 2 Discussion whether other plants in New lines York have backup power for electro-
- p. 15, top 2 mechanical. sirens. Contention does not lines involve other plants. Plus, this "evi-
- p. 21, lines dence" is in support of an inproper legal 11-14 conclusion.
- p. 20, Ans. 32, Discussion of sirens used by " majority" lines 1 & 2 of other utilities is not relevant to contention.
20 96.A & C
- p. 7, Q&A 11 Discussion of whether the witnesses "know" of other plans with measures like those contenplated in contention is irrelevant.
.D.
Improper Speculation Regarding Future Events The purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether the LILCO Plan complies with NRC requirements.
There must, therefore, be a definitive statement from LILCO regarding what it M fact proposes as its Plan and thus what it believes constitutes its compliance with the regulations.
In this regard, the Board has r'ecognized that LILCO's Plan will be revised.
However, the County understands that it is the LILCO Plan, in its most recent version
-- Revision 3 -- which the parties are to address in terms of LILCO's. compliance / noncompliance with regulatory requirements.
LILCO, however, has repeatedly attempted to testify regarding steps it may or allegedly will take in the future.
For example, the LILCO Plan specifies eleven bus transfer points.
The adequacy of these transfer locations is addressed in detail in the County's,
E j
^.
Contention 67 testimony.
In its Contention 67 testimony, however, LILCO states (p. 20):
It should be noted that the exact locations of various of these transfer points are being, or may be, changed permanently or temporarily,.in minor ways.
For instance, the Coram Plaza Shopping Center, adjacent to the Coram Drive-In Theater, is being used.instead of the Coram Drive-In.
An A&P Shopping Center located across the street from the Miller Place right-of-way may be used rather than the right-of-way, which would.
- i..
require improvements subject to local
-permitting.
(Emphasis-added).
This testimony is improper.
It speculates about what may be done instead.of addressing the Plan which is before the Board and parties for adjudication.
Such speculation
.regarding future events is irrelevant and not probative.
It should be struck, The following portions of LILCO. Group II-A testimony consti-
- tute improper speculation regarding future events and thus the County moves that they be struck.
Testimony i
Items From Contention (s)
Portions to Attach.-l' Addressed be Struck Reason (s) for Striking 1-~
20
'p.
6, lines 13 LIICO discussion on a prcy edure and other matters it expects to estab-t lish with WALK is unreliable and purely speculative. Also not part
[
of LIICO Plan.
If and when a proce-F dure u ccmpleted, LIICO can move to ham h-cing on it if LIICO believes v
4
.ortant. -.
=w y
y v
7 v
v g
2mr&"
-u-*
- Hr w-w y----v-T
-w
p
- p. 8, Ans. 15, Discussion of future EBS agreements last sentence is speculative. Again, not part of Plan. If and when these are part of Plan, a hearing on them may be pro-per.
4 24
- p. 9, last 1, Inproper speculation regarding ist. sentence contracts LIICO expects to finalize.
- p. 17,~ lines Inproper speculation that a perman-13-14 ent location nearby will be found.
5 26.A, C, D pp. 42-43, Ans. to Inproper to speculate that people Q. 110, second and will be notified when reception third sentences centers have not been identified.
6 27
- p. 8, lines 9-13; Inproper speculation regarding
- p. 26, last 4 lines future plan revisions and all of p. 27 7
28-32, 34
- p. 4, lines 12-17; Inproper speculation regarding steps
- p. 8, lines 19-24 to obtain new radio.
- p. 10, lines 15-20 Discussion of future plan change.
and Attach. 1
'Ihis is slightly different than other instances, since it is a change in Plan that has been made but not formally in a revision of of the Plan. 'Ihis was a surprise to County and depending on inport-ance and ASLB ruling, County may need to rebut.
9 55-57, 59
- p. 12, Ans. 10,-
Inproper discussion of procedures last sentence that apparently are being developed but are not part of Plan.
12 67
- p. 16, lines 8-13' Speculation about what LIIf0 may do if there are excess buses; not part of Plan.
- p. 20, lines 19-27 See discussion in text.
1
' 13 73.'A
. p. 9, lines Speculation regarding list LIICO 9-14; is obtaininrJ.
- p. 13, lines 11-15
~15 & 16.
74, 75
- p. 6, lines 19 Nassau relocation centers are not thru p. 7, line 8, part of Plan and outside scope of
- p. 12,'line 19 contention. Further, the testimony thru p. 13, line constitutes speculation regarding 9, and Attach. 3 &
future Plan changes'to incorporate 4 of testimony on Nassau centers. If LIICO wants to.
Contention 74; and rely on Nassau centers, the Plan pp. 10-11, Q&A 10 &
should be changed and the parties 11, p. 12, lines 3, deserve proper notice and conten-11-22 and Attach.
tion regarding their adequacy will 11 & 12 of test'imony need to be litigated.
on Contention 75 19 93-95
- p. 15, last 2 Speculation regarding future LIICO lines and p. 16, power restoration procedure not part top 5 lines of plan.
E.
Dr. Cordaro Should Be Struck From the LILCO Panels Dr. Cordaro appears as a witness on each of LILCO's Group II-A witness panels.
At the outset of each piece of testimony, Dr. Cordaro explains his participation as follows:
I am sitting on this panel to provide the LILCO management' perspective on emergency planning, and to answer any questions pertinent to management.
My role in emergency planning for Shoreham is to ensure that the needs and requirements of emergency planning are being met, and that.the technical direction and content of emergency planning are being conveyed to corporate management.
None of the Group II-A contentions involve so-called " manage-ment perspective" and thus Dr. Cordaro's participation, in the County's view, adds nothing to the testimony being offered.
Indeed, therefore, to t; extent Dr. Cordaro is present to offer
" management' perspective," his testimony is irrelevant and thus he should not be permitted to testify.
Second, despite the preceding quote which purports to limit Dr. Cordaro's role as a member of each panel, Dr. Cordaro does 3:
attempt =to do more than provide " management perspective."
- Indeed, he attempts repeatedly to sponsor answers to substantive ques-tions.
See Attachment 2 hereto for a listing of all substantive questions on which Dr. Cordaro is listed as a sponsor of the
- answer.
Dr. Cordaro-must be struck as a witness on these answers because Dr. Cordaro does not qualify as a expert on emergency
. planning matters.
There is nothing in the testimony of Dr.
Cordaro on any contention which indicates any qualifications in emergency planning.
Further, a review of Dr..Cordaro's statement of' qualifications (Attachment 5 to the LILCO submittal entitled,
" Professional Qualifications of LILCO Witnesses") reveals that not one word is said about Dr. Cordaro's training, education, or ex-perience in. emergency planning matters.
LILCO has the burden of demonstrating that Dr. Cordaro is qualified to sponsor this testi-mony and such demonstration should have been in the testimony or in Ihr. Cordaro's~ statement of qualifications.
Since it is nowhere to be found, LILCO has failed to demonstrate that Dr. Cordaro is
. qualified and he must therefore be struck.
Since Dr. Cordaro's testimony and resume are completely devoid of any evidence of. emergency planning experience, the
-County'has not gone through each item of Dr. Cordaro's testimony
.to." prove" his lack of qualifications.
Instead, as noted above, the portions to which the County objects are set forth in Attach-ment:2.
However, the County does provide below an example of the extent to which Dr. Cordaro has been listed as a sponsor of tech-
-nical, emergency planning testimony, testimony which he is not qualified to sponsor.
17-r y+--w--
- +-
M 3
-pg gw 3 gy
-my--g--+r-y-'
+
gy--e e-r w-ww--'v
In the.LILCO testimony on Contention 22.D, Dr. Cordaro
~
repeatedly discusses " good' emergency planning principles."
For example, Q&A 6 reads as follows:
6.
Q.
Are there any other principles that planners should. consider when draw-
-ing the boundary'for a 10-mile EPZ?
A..
[Cordaro, Daverio, Weismantle]
Yes.
In general, good emergency planning principles indicate that planners
-should try to avoid splitting major.
coherent populations that fall with-in the 10-mile radius to avoid the possible confusion that could be caused if neighbors received dif-ferent protective action recommen-dations.
Also, planners should
. avoid creating a boundary with elongated appendages.
The. reason is that during an emergency, confusion might result if, for example, pro-tective actions were-recommended for areas distant from Shoreham while closer-in areas were not covered by the protective action recommenda-tions.
(Emphasis supplied).
Dr. Cordaro, however, is not a planner.
To our knowledge, he has never been involved or participated in any way in emergency planning or-in any other aspect of planning which
'would render him qualified-to provide the. foregoing testimony.
His Statement of Qualifications is cilent on any such expertise.
'Thus, he~is not qualified to render any opinion on matters related
.to " good emergency planning: principles."
Similarly, in the LILCO notification / communications testimony
.(Contentions 20, 26, 28-32 and 34, 55-57_and 59,.and 58) Dr. Cor-Idaro. frequently.. discusses technical aspects of LILCO's proposed communications system.
For example, Q&A 25-to LILCO's testimony
~
on Contentions 28-32 and 34 reads as follows: r i... _
-2 5, Q.
The intervenors also allege that simplex frequencies do not permit communications among emergency workers in the field.
World you concur?
A.
[Cordaro, Daverio, Hobbs,.tenz]
This is simply incorrect.
Unlike paired frequencies, which transmit and receive on different frequen-cies, simplex uses a singular frequency for transmission and reception, thereby allowing communication between any two simplex radios crystallized to the same frequency.
LERO field workers could communicate with one another on a simplex frequency.
- However, under the current LILCO Transition Plan the appropriate staging area is the point for communications to and from field personnel.
Although listed as a sponsor of this tesimony, Dr. Cordaro is not a communications engineer.
Nor is he an electrical engineer.
Nor
-to our' knowledge has-he any expertise whatsoever in designing or using communications systems'or equipment.
Thus, he is not qualified to render any opinion on matters related to LILCO's proposed communicat. ions system.
l-The above examples demon,trate that Dr. Cordaro is not qualified to sponsor answers to substantive questions involving l
technical, emergency planning issues.
For this reason, and because none of the Group II-A Contentions involve the so-called
" management' perspective" that Dr. Cordaro claims as his basis for presenting testimony, Dr. Cordaro should not be permitted to testify..
L.
II.
_Suffolk County Motion to Strike Particular Portions of LILCO Group II-A Testimony The bases for this portion of tne County's Motion are that the portions of the LILCO Ltestimony described belowf are not relevant or material co the contentions being discusseo, ano they provide no probative or reliable evidence or data upon
'which the Board could base a finding relevant to the subject contentions.
Each of the referenced portions of the LILCO tes-timony is discussed separately below.
A.
Cordaro, et al. on Contentions 26.A, C,
D and E (Notification of. Emergency Personnel) -- Questions and Answers 65-70, pages 27-28 This' testimony asserts tnat LILCO's Customer Service workers are experienced-in making manual callouts of LILCC per-sonnel and that this experience somehow demonscrates that LILCO's Customer Service workers would be able to carry out tne LILCO Plan's provisions for calling in backup personnel to the Customer Service Office in the event ot a radiological emer-gency.
This assertion is neither relevant nor probative of the 1
issues raised in' Contention 26.
Even if the referenced LILCO employees have performed as described in the LILCO testimony, there is no basis for asserting tnat they will perform the duties assigned to them in the event of an emergency at LShoreham.- Tne described' actions by LILCO employees (during a thunderstorm, for example) have not involved the kina ot role conflict that would be experienced in a radiological emergency.
The examples cited La the testimony ( thunderscorms, wind storms, gas leaks, etc.) have not required LILCO employees to choose between caring for their families or responding.to the emergency at hand.
Nor have the examples required LILCO em-
-ployees.to risk their own safety.
Thus, sucn responses are not probative and do not demonstrate that LILCO employees would carry outithe duties assigned to them under the LILCO Plan.
Similarly, the testimony is not probative with respect to whether-backup personnel would report to the Customer Service Office in the.. event of an emergency at Shoreham.
B.
Cordaro, et al. on Contentions 28-32 and 34 (Communications among Emergency Response Personnel) -- First full sentence on page 20, AnswerE26 (i.e., the sentence beginning "To address the example
")
This testimony by LILCO witnesses Cordaro, Daverio, Hobos and Renziasserts that " Traffic Guides need not communicate di-rectly with.each other to-insure coordinated information con-cerning traffic conditions."
This assertion is entirely outside the expertise of the LILCO witnesses.
LILCO's witnesses are not qualified to provide' expert testimony on mat-ters regarding traffic control functions, nor do they claim to be so qualified.
Furtner, their Statements of Qualification are entirely devoid of any data to suggest such expertise.
Thus, the testimony sought to be stricken is incompetent testimony, i.e.,
testimony which is not established as probative or. material, as required by 10 CFh S 2.743(c).
C.
Cordaro, et al. on Contention 73.A (Preregistration of the Handicappec) -- First two sentences, Answer 7, page 9 The LILCO witnesses assert that "[nj either ' handicapped' not ' disabled' should be used, as they are in this contention, as pejorative terms."
This assertion is not relevant, material or probative and should be stricken.
-The assertion is also false.
At no time has Suffolk County disparaged handicapped persons as alleged ' y the LILCO witnesses.
There is no tactual J
bhsis for the witnesses' assertion, nor is any asserteo in the LILCO testimony.
The County takes sharp exception to this mischaracterization of the Contention.
Such a mischaracterization is inappropriate and should be stricken.1/
The LILCO witnesses also assert that "[i]f a person does
.not consider himself handicapped, then he is not hanoicappeo."
This statement is outside the expertise of the LILCO witnesses and is thus incompetent testimony, i.e.,
testimony wnich is neither probative nor material.
Thus, the statement should be i
stricken.
L 6/
This LILCO testimony is similar to the por tion of LILCO's Group I testimony which asserted that tne Intervenors had put forth "the most derogatory possiole picture of the people of Long Island The County moved to strike tnat testimony (County Nov. 28, 1983 Motion, p.
- 6) and tne Board granted the Motion.
Tr. 1298.
l i
z D.-
Cordaro, et al. on Contention 73.B (Notification and Evacuation of the Handicapped at Home) - Last two sentences, Answer 10, page 10 LILCO w'itnesses Cordaro,. Robinson and Weismantle assert that if approximately 75 handicapped persons at home were to De telephoned, it would take about 45 minutes for five LERO workers toimake the calls, based on an estimate that eacn call would take three minutes.
This assertion is nothing more than sheer speculation by tne LILCO witnesses.
The testimony sougne to be-stricken provides no basis for the estimate of three minutes per telephone call, nor are the LILCO witnesses quali-fled to render such an estimate.
Thus, the testimony is nei-ther probative nor material.
Further, the testimony is unreliable.
Accordingly, the testimony should be stricken.
E.
Cordaro, et al. on Contention 74 (Location of Relocation Centers) - Sentence beginning on page 5 and continuing for first five' lines, page 6 (i.e.,
the sentence beginning beginning "The Suffolk County Red Cross.
")
The LILCO witnesses assert that even though tne Sufro1k County Red Cross has not yet finalizeo written agreements witn the relocation centers listed and relied upon in the L1LCO Plan, "those are the centers the Red Cross is considering to provide shelter during an emergency at Snorenam."
'Inis asser-tion is not probative or reliable and should be stricken.
It is also'not material to the Contention, which deals with tne facilities identified by LILCO in its Plan, which is the L
I subject of this litigation.
Further, the testimony concerning what the LILCO witnesses think the Red Cross "is considering" is offered without any stated or independent basis; it constitutes gross hearsay.
Testimony regarding wnat the Red Cross is or is not doing or considering is not relevant and, in any. event, can only be properly offered by the Red Cross, not LILCO.
F.
Cordaro, et al. on Contention 74 (Location of Relocation Centers) - Questions ano Answers 9 and 10, pages 10-11, and Attachments 9, 10, 11 This testimony is comprised of statements and character-izations of the LILCO witnesses regarding the alleged views of New York State and FEMA with respect to the locations of two or the primary relocation centers designated and relied upon by LILCO in the LILCO Plan.
This testimony and the related At-tachments (Attachments-9, 10 and 11) are outside the scope or Contention 74 and are thus not relevant to issues in tnis pro-ceeding and not admissible as evidence under 10 CFR $ 2.743(c),
which restricts admissible evidence to " relevant, material and reliable evidence As stated in tne Board's June 10, 1983 Order Limiting Scope of Submissions, this litigation is to tocus upon tne LILCO Plan.
The LILCO Plan designates relocation centers which,.in the County's view, fail to comply witn specific regu-latory requirements because of their proximity to the Snoreham plant and the EPZ.
The only issue presented in Contention 74 e-ww
1 is whether the locations of the relocation centers designated by LILCO in the Plan to be adjudicated by this Board comply with the regulatory requirements cited in that Contention.
Therefore, the Board should restrict the testimony on this Con-tention to that issue.
Testimony regarding irrelevant matters such as what various individuals or entities may or may not have said or done regarding the f acilities should be stricken.
G.
Cordaro, et al. on Contention 75 (Capacity of Relocation Centers) - First two paragraphs of Answer 6, pages 5-6, and Attachments 1 ano 2 The LILCO witnesses assert that " evacuees prefer not to go to public relocation centers, but stay instead in the nomes of family or friends,.or in a hotel."
The LILCO witnesses support this assertion by referencing the studies appended to the LILCO testimony as Attachments 1 and 2.-
The LILCO testimony and Attachments are outsiae the expertise of the LILCO witnesses.
LILCO's witnesses are not t.ocial scientists or psychologists, nor do they claim to be qualified in these areas of expertise.
Thus, the testimony sought to be stricken is incompetent testimony, i.e.,
testimony which is neitner probative nor reliable.
H.
Cordaro, et al. on Contention 92 (State Emergency Plan) - Questions and Answers 4, 7, and 9, Answer 8 (second and third sentences and last paragraph), A'nswer 10 (only second sentence, i.e.,
the sentence beginning "In fact, as previously stated
."),
Answer 11 (all but last two sentences, first paragraph, i.e.,
"No site-specific annex license proceeding"), and Attachments 1-11 The LILCO witnesses discuss such matters as New Yorx State's radiological emergency plan, the functions generally performed by New York State personnel in an emergency at a nu-clear plant, and New York State's position with respect to the Shoreham plant.
They also state that, in L1LCO's view, New York would "certainly participate" in a response to an actual emergency.
(See Answer 10, page 8).
This testimony is irrele-vant to this proceeding.
+
As stated in the Board's June 10, 1983 Order Limiting Scope of Submissions, this litigation is to focus on the LILCO Plan.
That Plan calls for LILCO to assume the command and control of a Shoreham emergency and to provide all necessary offsite response through "LERO," which is comprised almost en-tirely.of LILCO personnel.
No New York State agencies belong to LERO.
Thus, the only relevant question before une Board is whether LILCO can implement the LILCO Plan.
5 peculation by
-LILCO's witnesses about whether New York State personnel will or will not respond to an amergency at tne Shoreham plant is equally irrelevant.2/
LILCO asserts cnac its Plan can be 7/
Such speculation by LILCO regarding County, participation was stricken from LILCO's Group I testimony on cne ground of irrelevance.
Tr. 1298..-
s
' implemented by LILCO and the Board should restrict the testimo-nyltol hefissue of wnether LILCO can-and will be capable of im-t plementingLthe Plan.
'In fact, under Contention 92, the_only
- issue is.whether there is a New York State plan to deal with an emergency at Shoreham.
LILCO's_own testimony acknowledges that there--is no such State' plan and other matters, including specu-
+
lation by the LILCO. witnesses as to whether New York State per-sonnel would or~would not respond, should be barred.
- Moreover, the LILCO witnesses-have no basis upon which to speculate on future actions of New York State.
They are not qualitiea or
. competent to testify on that subject, and neither their testi-many nor their professional qualifications provide any basis forL this Board to - find that.they-are qualified to offer such testimony.
I.-
Cordaro, et al. on Contentions 24.F, G, I,
K, L,
O, P,
R, S and T (Lack of Agreements) -
Question and Answer 14, pages 13-14 l-Even though LILCO does not rely in its Plan on so-called i
L
" community ambulances," and even though Contention 24.G does
[.
~ notLpertain-to such ambulances, the LILCO witnesses assert that L
such ambulances would be available for use in an emergency.
Thic: testimony 3is irrelevant-to this Contention and thus to the proceeding.
Further, the' testimony is neither probative nor material and is unreliable, since it consists ot nothing more l.
than the-LILCO witnesses speculating - that community ambulances I
" p I
.. - ~...
?
Shoreham.
As previously would be available in an emergency at this litigation is to focus on admitted contentions and
- noted, the LILCO Plan.
The LILCO Plan does not rely on community am-There-and Contention 24.G does not mention them.
- bulances, fore, the testimony offered by the LILCO witnesses should be stricken.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 22.D (EPZ J.
Boundary) -- Cuestion and Answer 17, last two paragraphs (pages 13-14) and Attachments 8-10 These two paragraphs and accompanying Attachments concern boundaries of areas other than the EPZ, including postal dis-tricts, school districts and fire districts.
There is no ex-to the planation, however, why these boundaries are relevant drawing of the EPZ boundary.
Therefore, these paragraphs and attachments should be stricken for lack of relevance.
K.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 66 (Removal of Obstacles) -, Cuestion and Answer 10, first full sentence at top of pace 3 This sentence states the belief of LILCO's witnesses that local governments huve a responsibility to provide services, The such as snow removal, during an emergency at Shoreham.
witnesses' subjective belief, however, is irrelevant to the and will question of whether local governments have a; reed to, issue raised by the in fact, provide such service, which is the Contention.
Such speculation is similar to LILCC's speculation c
'in its Group I testimony that the County would participate in an emergency.
The Board struck that portion of LILCC's Group I testimony.
(Tr._1298).
l'he re f o r e, this sentence should be stricken.
L.
Cordaro, et al. on Contention 66 (Femoval of Obstacles) -- page 15, footnote 1 This footnote, which takes issue with suffolk County witness Peter Polk's estimate for cars running out of gas, is nothing more than a rehash of testimony already st
'itted to the Board in LILCO's supplemental testimony.
(See b lemental
-Testimony of Cordato, et al. on Contention 65, at 29-31 Therefore, this footnote should be stricken because it is cumu-lative and unduly repetitious, contrary to the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.743(c).
M.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 67 (Evacuation of Persons Without Cars) -- Cuestion and Answer 5, page 10, line 11 through page 11, line 6 In this passage, LILCO describes information derived from telephone calls to bus companies and the Long Island. Railroad during which bus ridership was described as "very few" and train ridership was described as "very low."
This passage is blatant hearsay which is not reliable, meaningful or probative.
First, the information allegedly given by some unidentified persons to some unidentified representative of LILCO over the telephone is so vague as to be subject to a wide range of interpretation.
For instance, is "very few" three or three
.thousand?
Furthermore, the names and titles of the people con-tacted are not listed, so there is no way to determine if'the people contacted are in a position to know the information LILCO was seeking.
In' light of the absence of any indicia of reliability, much less any indication of what these vague terms mean, this passage should be stricken.
N.
Cordaro, et al. on Contentions 24.G, I,
K, L,
O, P,
R, S and T (Lack of Agreements) -- Answer 29, page 24, line 7, (beginning with "The Suffolk County Red
. Cross.
.),
through end of paragraph; page 24, last three lines (beginning.with "In LILCO's view
.")
to eno of Answer 29 on page 25; Answer 32, from page 26, first full paragraph (beginning with "LILCO has also.
.")
to end of Answer on page 27; and Attachmerat 27 The LILCO witnesses assert that the Suffolk County Red Cross
's pursuing agreements for facilities within Suffolk County" to house evacuees-and that, if sufficient facilities are unavailable, "LILCO has an understanding with the Nassau County Red Cross to provide sufficient relocation centers."
This testimony is speculative, irrelevant, and unreliable.
~
First, the LILCO witnesses are not competent to testify about what the-Suffolk County Red Cross may or may not be doing, including whether it is pursuing agreements.
Moreover, the testimony includes no stated basis for the assertion by LILCC concerning.its understanding of what the Red Cross is doing.
LILCO's testimony is speculative and unreliable and should be -
stricken.
More-importantly, the testimony is-irrelevant.
Contention 24.0. deals only with LILCO's designation of the Suffolk: County-Community College as a relocation Center in the LILCO~ Plan, and its' unavailability for LILCO's use.
That is the'only issue presented by the Contention.
LILCO's testimony that it. believes agreements are being " pursued" concerning the use'of unidentified " facilities" in Suffolk County is not tied
'at all to the issue inLContention 24.0 -- that is, the use of
~
'Suffolk County Community College.
Moreover, the LILCO Plan, relies.on 5 specific facilities'in Suffolk County.
The only relevant! question in this proceeding, which deals with the
_LILCO Plan, is whether: there are agreements concerning LILCO's use of.those' facilities.
Testimony.regarding facilities in Nassau' County is not relevant to any' admitted Contentions and tunless~LILCO revises its Plan toidesignate new and different reloc'ation centers and Intervenors amend their contentions to deal with'such.a'new-LILCO proposal, such tesitmony should be stricken.
O.> -Cordaro, et al. on Contention 58 (Notification to Special Facilities and Hearing Impaired Persons at Home
-- Answer'13, second'and third sentences, pages 10-11 LThe LILCO witnesses assert that' telephone calls to special
' facilities-would take about two minutes per phone call, or ap-proximately.45 minutes forfall special facilities.
This asser-
' tion.is1nothing more than sheer speculation by the LILCO 4
C,
witnesses.
The testimony provides no basis for the estimate of two minutes per telephone call, nor are the LILCO witnesses qualified to render such an estimate.
Thus, the testimony is neither probative nor-material.
Further, the testimony is unreliable.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J.
Letsche Michael S.
Miller Christopher M.
McMurray Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County March 9, 1984
LILCO GROUP II-A TESTIMONY Contention (s)
Addressed Sponsor (s)
Subject Matter
- 1
'%H)
Clawson WALK Radio Broad-Cordaro casting at Night Daverio 2
21 Clawson Spanish Translation 21.C Cordaro of Public Information Daverio z3 22.D.
Cordaro
'"xpansion of EPZ Lieberman Boundary Weismantle 4
-24.F,.G, I,
Cordaro Letters of Agreement K,
L, O, P,
Weismantle R, S and T-Robinson
-5 26.A, C, D Cordaro Communications / Noti-and.E fication of emergency workers 6
27 Cordaro Mobilization of LERO Weismantle workers Lieberman Varley 7-28-32 Cordaro Communications
-34 Daverio Hobbs Renz 8
51-Cordaro Preselected Dose Daverio Sampling Points Miele 9
55~
Cordaro Notification to
.56 Hobbs Public 57.
Renz
-59 Schiffmacher Weismantle
-1 01 58 Cordaro Notification to Robinson Special Facilities Weismantle and Hearing Impaired Persons at Home l
L...
t-
- 11' 66 Cordaro Removal of Snow and Weismantle Obstacles Lieberman 12 67 Cordaro Bus Transportation Weismantle Lieberman 13 73.A Clawson Preregistration of Cordaro the Handicapped
-Robinson Weismantle 14 73.B Cordaro Notification and Lieberman Evacuation of the Robiruon Handicapped at Home Weismantle 15 74 Cordaro Location of Weismantle Relocation Centers Robinson
.16 75 Cordaro Capacity of Reloca-Weismantle tion Centers Robinson
-17 77 Cordaro Thyroid Contamination Daverio Equipment at Reloca-Miele tion Centers 18 92 Cordaro State Emergency Plan Weismantle 19 93 Cordaro Loss of Offsite Power 94 Hobbs
.95 Renz Schiffmacher Weismantle 20 96.A, C Cordaro Loss of Offsite Power Robinson Weismantle 21' 97.B Cordaro Evacuation in a Miele Severe Snowstorm Weismantle
Attachm nt 2 Substantive Answers in LILCO Group II-A Testimony on Which Dr. Cordaro is Not Qualified to be a Sponsor Contention Answers 1.
20 4-11, 13 2.
21, 21.C 3-10 3.
22.D 5-31 4.
24.F, G, I, K, L, 5-7, 9-14, 16-20, 22, 25-27 O, P, R,
S and T 29, 31, 32, 34, 37-40 43-46 5.
26.A, C, D and E 5, 6, 13-83,85-103, 105-111 6.
27 3-16 7.
28-32 and 34 3-5, 7-20, 25, 27, 29, 30 32-34, 36-45, 47-54 8.
51 5-8 9.
55-57 and 59 3-7, 9-16, 18-26 10.
58 6-15 11.
66 3-13 12.
67 3-5, 10, 12 13.
73.A 4-10 14.
73.B 7-14, 16, 18, 19 15.
74 6-12 16.
75 5-12 17.
77 6-8, 12, 14
-18.
92 4-11 19.
93-95 3-13, 15-19, 22-31, 34, 35 20.
96.A and 96.C 8-21 21.
97.B 6-12
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 Motion to Strike Positions of LILCO's Group II-A Testimony" have been served on the following by U.S.
mail, first class, except wnere noted, this 9th day of March, 1984.
- James A.
Laurenson, Chairman Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 East 40th Street Washing ton, D.C.
20555 New York, New York 10016
- Dr. Jerry R.
Kline Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbrioge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, New York 11801 Washing ton,
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 Maching ton,
D.C.
20555 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger General Counsel New York State Energy Office Long Island Lighting Company Agency Building 2 250 Old Country Road Empire State Plaza Mineola, New York 11501 Albany, New York 12223
Mr. Brian McCaffrey Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second street P.O.
Box 618 Riverhead, New York 11901 North. Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Nora Bredes.
Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Ehoreham 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 Sufrolk County Executive Energy Research Group, Inc.
H.
Lee Dennison Building 400-1 Totten Pond Road Veterans Memorial Highway Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Hauppauge, New York 11766 MHB Technical Associates
- Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.
1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite K Board Panel San Jose, California 95125 U.S.
Nuclear Reg ulatory Comm.
Washing ton,
D.C.
205S5' Joel Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety ano Licensing New York Public Service Comm.
Appeal Board The Governor Nelson A.
Rockefeller U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Building Washington, D.C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Staff Counsel, New York State Suffolk County Attorney Public Service Commission H.
Lee Dennison Building 3 Rockefeller Plaza Veterans Memorial Highway Albany, New York 12223 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Atomic Safety and Licensing Steward M.
Glass, Esq.
Board Panel Regional Counsel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency hanagemenc Wasning ton,
D.C.
20555 Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, New York 10276 d ernard M.
Bordeniuk, Esq.
James B.
Dougherty, Esq.
B Dtvid A.
Repka, Esq.
3045 Porter screet, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton,
D.C.
20006 Washing ton,
D.C.
20555 Spence Perry, Esq.
Stuart Diamond Associate Generul Counsel Environment / Energy Writer Federal Emergency I!anagement NEWSDAY
_ Agency
. ashington, D.C.
20472 Long. Island, New York 11747 W
ocFabian Palomino,_Esq.
Mr. Jeft Smith Special Counsel to the Governor Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Executive Chamber P.O.
Box 618 Room 229 North Country Road State Capitol Wading River, New York 11792 Albany, New York 12224
- By Hand
- By Federal Express
/ 2 Michael S.
Miller KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washing ton,
D.C.
20036 DATED:
March 9, 1984 l
~