ML20112D907

Motion to Reopen Record for Limited Purpose of Admitting Encl Seven Documents Re Use of Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as Reception Ctr.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20112D907
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/11/1985
From:	Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20112D910	List: ML20112D907 ML20112D917
References
CON-#185-049, CON-#185-49 OL-3, NUDOCS 8501140542
Download: ML20112D907 (19)

Text

-. -

LILCO, January 11, 19,85 fjfD 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $"" y E9lOp NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

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, ) Proceeding)

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD LILCO hereby moves to reopen the evidentiary record in this proceeding for the limited purpose of admitting seven documents regarding the use of Nassau Veterans Memorial.

Coliseum as a reception center. The proffered documents are an ,

Affidavit of Elaine D. Robinson on Nassau Coliseum, describing the Coliseum, and six Attachments:

1. Letter of Agreement between LILCO and the General Manager of the Coliseum dated September 25, 1984, and approved October 8, 1984, allowing LILCO and the Red Cross to use the Coliseum as a reception cen-ter;

2. Letter of October 1, 1984, from the

' Nassau County Executive.to the General t

Manager of the Coliseum approving use of i

the Coliseum as a reception center;

-3. Letter of Agreement between LILCO and the.

American Red Cross dated October 23, 1984, and approved October 24,-1984, providing for coordination between LERO and the Red Cross for these organiza-  !

b tions' joint use of the Coliseum as a reception center; B501140542 850111 e PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR 5

T

4. Map showing the location of the Nassau Coliseum;

5. Diagram of the Nassau Coliseum; and

6. Letter of December 31, 1984, from the Nassau County Executive to the Chairman of the Long Island Lighting Company.

I. BACKGROUND Contention 24.0 in this proceeding alleges that "there is no relocation center designated" for a significant portion of the anticipated evacuees. Although LILCO's evidence includ-ed a list of the " congregate care" centers where evacuees would be housed, at the time the record closed LILCO had not identi-fied a central " reception center" from which evacuees would be directed to the congregate care centers. The board noted dur-ing the hearings that this was a " void in the record." Tr.

14,806-07 (Judge Laurenson). The record closed on August 29, 1984. Tr. 15,714.

On October 8, 1984, Hyatt Management Management Corporation of New ork, Inc., the lessee of the Nassau Veter-ans Memorial Coliseum, signed a Letter of Agreement for use of the Coliseum as a reception center (Robinson Affidavit, Attach-ment 2 ) , and on October 24, 1984, a Letter of Agreement between LILCO and the American Red Cross for use of the Coliseum was finalized (Robinson Affidavit, Attachment 3). On October 30, 1984, LILCO forwarded those agreements, as well as the October 1, 1984, letter from the Nassau County Executive authorizing

r use of the Coliseum as a reception center (Robinson Affidavit, Attachment 1), to the Board and parties. In its cover letter, LILCO noted', as it had in its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, that it believed these agreements merely confirmed the fulfillment of commitments already reflected in the record. See, for example, LILCO's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Offsite Emergency Planning 11 522, 530, 532 (Oct. 5, 1984). LILCO said that it did not believe it was necessary to formally reopen the record in order i to receive such confirmatory information. Suffolk County wrote the Board on November 7, 1984, disagreeing that the identification of the Coliseum was merely confirmatory.

At the conference of counsel on January 4, 1985, LILCO

' reiterated its argument that this information was merely " con-firmatory" and did not require a reopening of the record. Tr.

15,729 (Irwin). The NRC Staff agreed. Tr. 15,734 (Bordenick).

Suffolk County and the State of New York disagreed. Tr. 15,737 (Letsche), 15,738-39 (Zahnleuter). The Board rejected LILCO's and the NRC Staff's position. Tr. 15,739-40 (Judge Laurenson).

I Accordingly, LILCO asked to submit this motion to reopen the record. Tr. 15,781, 15,782, 15,788 (Irwin).

l II. BASIS FOR THE MOTION TO REOPEN.

f A. The Traditional Reopening Criteria Are Met i

The " traditional" criteria for reopening a closed L

r evidentiary record in a formal licensing proceeding were set out in the "NRC Staff Response to Suffolk County and New York State Motion to Vacate Order Granting LILCO's Motion for Summa-ry Disposition on Contention 24.B and to Strike Portions of LILCO's and the Staff's Proposed Findings" at 4 (Dec. 27, 1984) and in a rule proposed by the Commission on December 27, 1984, 49 Fed. Reg. 50,189 (Dec. 27, 1984).1/ The proponent of a mo-tion to reopen a closed record must satisfy three decision criteria:

1. The motion must be timely, except that an exceptionally. grave issue may be consid-ered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presented.

2. It must address a significant safety or environmental issue.

3. .It must be shown that a different result might be or might have been reached had the newly proffered material been consid-ered initially.

49 Fed. Reg. 50,189 col. 2 (Dec. 27, 1984). As has often been noted before, a party seeking to reopen the record bears a

" heavy-burden." Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-756, 18 NRC 1340, 1344 (1983). LILCO believes it meets these three criteria and that therefore the reopening of the record for the limited purpose 1/ Although this rule is only proposed - that is, subject to change following the receipt of comments -- it purports to cod-ify existing case law on the reopening criteria. Accordingly, i it is as reliable and authoritative a statement of those

criteria as presently exists.

r of admitting the documents about the Nassau Coliseum is justi-fied, even under the traditional criteria (though, as we argue below, a somewhat different standard may apply here).

1. Timeliness First, under the traditional criteria a motion to reopen the record must be timely. The Intervenors may well argue that because the principal evidentiary documents that LILCO now seeks to introduce were generated in October 1984, some three months before this motion, the motion is untimely. A less su-perficial analysis, however, shows that this is not the case.

As noted above, LILCO believed that the void in the record identified by the Board was not so significant as to require a reopening of the record but rather could be left to a license condition, compliance with which could be monitored by the NRC Staff and FEMA. That this was not an unreasonable judgment is demonstrated by the fact that the NRC Staff agreed with it.

It seemed reasonable to LILCO because the emergency plan, which proposes to use a central reception center to moni-tor and decontaminate people and then to send them to "congre-gate care centers," had been thoroughly litigated. Indeed, just about every aspect of relocation centers except the identity of the central reception center was aired at the hear-ings. See, for example, Tr. 14,816-17 (sheltering people 40-50 miles ~from their homes), 14,825-30, 14,854, 14,878-82, 14,888

r- ,

(monitoring and decontamination). The list of congregate care centers was put into the record, and it was these congregate care centers that were the subject of, for example, Contention 75 about the number of showers and toilets, cooking facilities, and so forth. None of the admitted contentions about moni-toring and decontamination depends on the location of the cen-tral reception center; Contention 77, for example, deals nar-rowly with the type of instrument used for monitoring. Only Contantion 24.0, a narrow contention alleging that "there is no relocation center" is affected by the identification of Nassau Coliseum.

Nor does the identity of the reception center raise new issues. The activities to be conducted at the central recep-tion center are straightforward and have been discussed in tes-timony in the record. LERO personnel monitor'and decontaminate people if that is necessary; then the Red Cross directs people to congregate care centers. See LILCO's Testimony on Phase II f Emergency Planning Contentions.24.0, 74, and 75 (Relocation l

Centers), ff. Tr. 14,707; Tr. 14,801 (Rasbury). .

Nevertheless, LILCO's opinion en this matter (and the NRC Staff's) was ruled wrong by the Board on January 4. -This l

motion, preceded by notice of intent to file, comes only a week later. It is timely.

There is no danger here that any party has been sur-l prised or otherwise prejudiced by the timing of this motion.

The documents that LILCO seeks to submit could not possibly i

l

r

+

4 t

have been submitted befo,re the record .::losed, L-ecause they did not exist until several weeks thereafter. Once they did exist, l l

LILCO promptly provided them to the other parties.

s, Accordingly, there has been no dilc.torin1iss on LILCO's + .

part. LILCO can be faulted only for'having made a reasonable.;

but ultimately wrong, judgment about the evidentiary pfgnifi-conce of*the itentity of the central reception center.

s

2. Significant Safety Issue Second, a motion to reopen must address a "significant

\ s safety or environmental issue." As noted above, although LILCO s

3 thought that the identification of the Nassau Coliseum was not ;

such a significant issue, we mu'st conclude that the Board's ruling of January 4 rea:hes the contrary conclusion.

r, Presumably the Intervenors will Agree that the Coliseum

, O -

identification is a significarit% safety issue.

3. Different Result Might Be Reached s

. Third,'a motion to reopen must show that a "difi@.5rent y *.

result might be or might h. ave .:

been reached had the newiv ~

proffered materialJIeen considered initially." Again, LILCO did not think that the identity o$. the central refception center -

q s-would cause-a change in result, but we must conclude that the -

, 4 4

^

Board has now ruled o'herwise. t Likewise, the Intervenors^ have argued that without the ic'?ttification of the reception . center, ,

c .

the Board cannot find C t T.LCO on the identity and adequacy of f) r1  ?

k g

,? .

. U S) Q .'

i

.[ ; , -.

1 y -

e k~ .

i

.). - - . , . -

f~

A the relocation / reception centers. See Letter from Suffolk County Counsel to the Board at 2 (Nov. 7, 1984); Tr. 15,739 (counsel for New York State argues that Board should rule for Intervenors on Contentions 24.0, 74, and 75).

For these reasons, LILCO satisfies all three traditional criteria for reopening, and reopening for the limited purpose explained above should be granted.

B. A Different Standard May Be Applicable Here Under these circumstances, however, and given that it is the applicant who seeks the reopening, the " traditional" reopening standard may not apply. A standard that is sometimes applied is that the request be timely and that the supplementa-ry information or evidence be of substance and importance.

This point was made by a Licensing Board faced with a request

.to reopen a record after findings had been filed but before a decision had been reached:

y Many of the cases cited to us by the 3rties are addressed to motions to re-

'open the record of a case after an ini-

.tial decision on all or a portion of the record has been written. Those prece-dents are not applicable here. Instead, we need only find that OCRE's motion is

'*. timely and that it raises an issue of

.+ substance. We need not find that it w .

would change the result of an issue that i i' we have not yet decided, even.though findings of fact have already-been filed.

C eveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant,

' 'Y Units 1 & 2'), LBP-83-52, 18 NRC 256, 257 (1983).

u

.g.

The application of a different standard to an appli-cant's motion to reopen is consistent with the approach taken by the Appeal Board in Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear

~

Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-770, 19 NRC 1163, 1169 (1984). There, additional inspections and other activities with the potential to affect the Licensing Board's decision were underway before the conclusion of the hearings. That Licensing Board declined to delay its decision to consider these significant activities. The Appeal Board reversed, holding that the Licensing Board should have provided for further proceedings to allow the applicant to introduce additional evidence. In essence, the Appeal Board recognized the principle that licensing boards should be flexible in per-mitting applicants to introduce additional evidence of the sort here in issue.

' The reopening of the record by an applicant also-pres-ents important policy questions that need to be considered by the Board in ruling on such a request. Under the traditional reopening standard, the movant must show that the issue is l significant and'is likely to have an effect on the outcome of I

'the case.

Where an applicant has developed new information i

(

which relates to an important matter in dispute, it is faced-with a significant dilemma. Under traditional analyses, to

{

l meet the reopening standard, the applicant must essentially concede that its proof to date is insufficient in order to l

argue _that the new information is likely to affect the result.

i

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

~ , - ,-

( - - , -. - . __

- 10-On the other hand, the applicant may defer any attempt to inject the new information until after the Board rules on the merits. If the ruling is adverse, the applicant can seek reopening. But the applicant then risks being told that its motion is untimely and incurs substantial delay by waiting until the case is decided to present its new evidence.

At least one licensing board has recent'ly recognized that the reopening standard is not entirely symmetrical. In Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-10, 19 NRC 509 (1984), the Board applied a less stringent standard to an hpplicant's request to reopen:

We are permitting Applicant to reopen the record without a showing of good cause because it does not seem to us logical or proper to close down a multi-billion-dollar nuclear plant because of a defi-ciency of proof. While there would be some " justice" to such a proposition,.

i there would be no sense to it.

Furthermore, we note that intervenors receive several procedural advantages in our proceedings that also are not fully synmetrical and that compensate for the application of different standards for reopening the record.

19 NRC at 530.

As a consequence of the above, LILCO believes that the appropriate inquiry when an applicant moves to reopen the record is whether: the new information is timely and whether it relates to a significant issue. Given that any reopening has the potential to delay the licensing process, there should be a i

~. . - - -

,__.e.__ - . . . . _ , . . _ . - . , , . _ , _ . . . ~ . _ , - _ . , - . - - - _ _ , -

f. .

strong presumption of significance when the applicant seeks to reopen. LILCO's motion meets this standard for reopening.

First, LILCO's request is timely, as noted above. Second, the subject matter of LILCO's motion relates to a substantial issue, as shown by the Board's decision that a reopening is necessary.

Having considered arguments analogous to those set out above, the Brenner Board recently reopened the record at LILCO's request in the diesel generator portion of this pro-ceeding after the close of part of the record. Order Con-firming Grant of LILCO's Motion to Reopen Diesel Engine Hear-ing, Doc. No. 50-322-OL (Dec. 4, 1984). Having found LILCO's request to be timely, the Brenner Board said that the test that is " applicable . . . at a time before a Board is well into the process of drafting a decision on the merits'and therefore is relatively close to issuing such a decision" is "(w]hether the l

proposed new evidence relates to a significant safety (or envi-f ronmental) question and reasonably might materially affect the outcome of the proceeding." Id. at 2. Close to or at the de-

[ cision stage, the Board said, the standard would be the more-stringent one of whether the new evidence would materially af-feet the outcome on a significant issue. Id. at 3. 'If the choice of the test does indeed depend on the progress of the Board's work on its decision,-then this Board is the only one in a. position to decide which test applies. LILCO's view is t

'~

that the reopening of the record'to include the identity of the l

l l

l

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

~

c Nassau Coliseum, while apparently dispositive on one discrete issue, will not have any broader effect on preparation of an initial decision that must encompass scores of other issues.

Nor would it prejudice the other parties.

III. FURTHER PROCEEDINCS The other parties have seven days from service of this motion (that is, until January 18, 1985) to respond to the ar-guments in section II above. Tr. 15,794 (Judge Laurenson).

Assuming that after considering those responses the Board agrees that the record should be reopened, as LILCO believes it must under the Byron decision cited above, a decision as to further proceedings will be necessary. In the hope of expediting that decision and ultimate resolution of this issue, LILCO offers its views here.

A. Nothing But the Admission of the Documents Is Needed Given the' extremely limited self-contained nature of the reopening, which'LILCO believes is signaled by the context of i the Board's statement last August of a " void" in the record, I, LILCO submits that nothing is required except the admission of the proffered documents into evidence. This is because all

! _that LILCO is' requesting is the formal placing on the record of information requested by the Board and available to all parties for months, and indeed information that is extremely narrow:

l i

1

r the identity of the central reception center from which evacuees will be dispersed to congregate care centers.2/ The Board's identification of the " void" in the record suggested a very limited void; citing Contention 24.E, which says that there is no relocation center designated, the Board observed as follows:

However, we note that there is a void in the record on this matter and that LILCO has not at this stage sustained its burden of proof that a relocation center has been designated.

Tr. 14,806 (Judge Laurenson). With the evidence proffered by l LILCO today there is no longer even the shadow of a real issue i

under Contention 24.0 as to whether a reception center exists.

B. In the Alternative, Written Responses Should Suffice 3

If the Board rejects the above suggestion, then in the alternative it should allow the other parties to respond in writing to the proffered documents. This-procedure was followed in the Limerick proceeding recently, where the Board accepted revised implementing procedures into the record, while allowing written comments by the other parties:

i 2/. While some of the specific details about Nassau Coliseum in-the attached Affidavit of Elaine D. Robinson on Nassau Coli-

- seum may not have been provided before now, all of it is pub-

licly accessible information of which any interested party could have informed itself at any time following the designa-L tion of'the Coliseum as a reception center.

As the reader may note, almost none of our citations to implementing proce-dures are to the record. This is because only early revisions of the pertinent implementing procedures appear in the record, in App. Ex. 33, and yet we early on discovered that the latest revisions of these procedures, filed by the Appli-cant after the completion of the hearing on this subject, made moot some of the controversies in this proceeding. Thus, we acquired the habit of referring to tne latest revisions, even on matters which have-remained unchanged from revision to revision. The parties were given an op-portunity to set forth, in writing, any specific objections or other points they wished to make regarding these revisions.

Philadelphia Elec. Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 &

2), LBP-84-31, 20 NRC 446, 516 (1984).

In their written comments, LILCO submits, the Interve-nors would have a considerable burden to bear in justifying more fulsome proceedings, such as further evidentiary hearings.

This is because the reopening on this matter is something prompted by the Board, and it is the Board that must be satisfied, not the Intervenors. The situation is analogous to the strike issue of last summer, which was raised by the Board and which the Board declined to expand at the Intervenors' re-t quest.

! At the very least, to justify further proceedings the Intervenors would have to show either that the existing conten-tions cover their new concerns or assert entirely new l

! contentions with adequate basis and specificity, with a nexus L

to the Nassau Coliseum, and with attention to the standards for l

I

late contentions, keeping in mind that the identity of the Nassau Coliseum was revealed to them last October. That the identity of the Coliseum was not put formally into the record,

- ~

and that Intervenors could therefore afford to ignore it, will not suffice as an answer. The Intervenors knew in fact in October that the Nassau Coliseum would serve as the central re-

- ception center under the LILCO Plan; the only'open issue was the evidentiary one of whether information about it must be en-tered formally into the record; and if Intervenors had concerns

- -about the Coliseum, they could and should have raised them long ago.

On the face of it, there do not seem to be any new issues raised by the identification of Nassau Coliseum. The present Contention 74, which alleges the relocation centers are too close to Shoreham, has been rendered moot. As for the

issue suggested by-the Board (Tr. 15,730-31, 15,736) that Nassau Coliseum may'be too far away, the location of the Coli-seum, provided in the documents submitted today, plus the ex--

isting FEMA testimony are sufficient for a decision that the Coliseum is acceptable. See Tr.-14,622-24, 14,616-18, 14,620 (Keller) (distance is less critical because= transfer points are ,

used; beyond New York City is probably too far;-explains state-ment about 20 miles at- Tr. 14,212), 14,625 (Keller) (witness's recoll'ection is that the Palo Verde primary monitoring center

'is on the order of 40 miles from the edge of the EPZ), 14,621.

(Keller), 14,625.(McIntire) (acceptability depends.in part on i

i i

y . . ~ , . . , . . . . , # ..m+, ...,e~,-,-r--- ,,y ,,,.m_-. ,.~.,.m -,#-_._---,-~,,,,-r-ac  % - -y w +r ? ,-e- --  % ,-,w

- r v *

(-- ,

i what is available), 14,201. Any issue about the continuous availability of the Coliseum should have been laid to rest by the Nassau' County Executive's letter of December 31, 1984 (Attachment 6) and the promptness with which the Coliseum can be cleared (Affidavit of Elaine D. Robinson on Nassau Coliseum 1 7).

IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons recited above, LILCO moves that the Board reopen the record for the .imited purpose of admitting the affidavit and attachments that accompany this motion into the record; and that if the information supplied there fills the " void" of concern to the Board, that it thereupon close the record following receipt of the other parties' comments permit-ted-by the Board's order of January 4.

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY BY - . vA Donald P. Irwin James N. Christman Kathy E. B. McCleskey Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 DATED: January 11, 1985

r LILCO, Jcnucry 11, 1985 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid or, as indicated by an asterisk, by Fed-eral Express, or, as indicated by two asterisks, by hand, or as indicated by three asterisks, by telecopy:

James A. Laurenson,** Secretary of the Commission Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing East-West Tower, Rm. 402A Appeal Board Panel 4350 East-West Hwy. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, MD 20814 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline**

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East-West Tower, Rm. 427 Washington, D.C. 20555~

4350 East-West Hwy.

Bethesda, MD 20814 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.**

Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.

Mr. Frederick 'J. Shon** Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 7735 Old Georgetown Road Commission '

(to mailroom)

East-West Tower, Rm. 430 Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West Hwy.

Bethesda, MD 20814-

7

. o l

Donna Duer, Esq.** Stewart M. Glass, Esq.*

Attorney Regional Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency Management Board Panel Agency U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Commission New York, New York 10278 East-West Tower, North Tower 4350 East-West Highway Stephen B. Latham, Esq.*

Bethesda, MD 20814 Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.*** P.O. Box 398 Special Counsel to the Riverhead, New York '11901 Governor Executive Chamber Ralph Shapiro, Esq.*

Room 229 Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.

State Capitol 9 East 40th Street Albany, New York 12224 New York, New York 10016 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.** James Dougherty, Esq.

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. 3045 Porter Street Christopher McMurray, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20008 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 8th Floor . Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

1900 M Street, N.W. New York State Department of Washington, D.C. 20036 Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza MHB Technical Associates Albany, New York 12223 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K Spence W. Perry, Esq.

San Jose, California 95125 Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Agency .

New York State Energy 500 C Street, S.W.

Office Room 840 Agency. Building 2 Washington, D.C. 20472 Empire State Plaza

-Albany, New York 12223 Ms. Nora Bredes Executive Coordinator Shoreham Opponents' Coalition 195 East Main Street ~

Smithtown, New York 11787

Gerald C. Crotty, Esq. Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.

Counsel to the Governor Suffolk County Attorney Executive Chamber H. Lee Dennison Building State Capitol Veterans Memorial Highway Albany, New York 12224 Hauppauge, New York 11788 i

i .

{.

Don"ald P. Irwin

.x Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street '

P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 11, 1985 I

e