ML20029C869
| ML20029C869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1994 |
| From: | Mcgarry J LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH |
| References | |
| CON-#294-14911 ML, NUDOCS 9405020229 | |
| Download: ML20029C869 (26) | |
Text
..
- lqq?il DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'94 APR 18 N1 '.54 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFICE 0F SECRETARY 00CKETlHG & SERVICE In the Matter of BRANCH LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
Docket No. 70-3070--/NI-(Claiborne Enrichment Center) j APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S 3/24/94 INTERROGATORIES Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.,
(Applicant) pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740b(b), hereby responds to "3/24/94 Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Filed by Citizens Against Nuclear Trash and Directed to Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.,
Pertaining to Contentions B, H,
and Q,"
filed March 24, 1994
("Intervenor's 3/24/94 Interrogatorias").I' Applicant's response includes the following answers anj objections, as well as the accompanying Motion for Protect:,ve Order.
j I.
OBJECTIONS Spagific Obiections Applicant objects to Interrogatories Q-4 and Q-5 for the reasons stated in its Responses to those-Interrogatories.
Applicant also objects to providing access to certain documents covered by. Requests for Production Nos. 1 and 3.
Specifically, these are Graystone Corporation financial
?
i l'
Counsel for CANT verbally agreed to Applicant's request for an extension of time to respond, from April 12 to April 15.
l 9405020229 940415 PDR ADOCK 07003070
). $3 C
information and attachments to a May 1, 1992, letter from Applicant to the NRC staff.
These documents contain confidential business information, the disclosure of which can cause substantial harm to Applicant's or Graystone Corporation's i
competitive positions.
H Protective Orders In accordance with 10 C.F.R. S 740(c) a Motion for Protective Order is attached, requesting that discovery not be had in response to Interrogatories Q-4 and Q-5.
Further, on l
April 13, 1994, Applicant submitted to the Licensing Board a joint proposed Motion for Protective Order which would allow access to the Graystone financial information and specified proprietary enclosures to the May 1, 1992, letter in a manner 4
acceptable to the parties, i
II.
REOUESTS TO PRODUCE Applicant will make available for inspection and copying by l
i Intervenor those documents not subject to privileges or objections asserted by Applicant.
On appropriate notice, such documents will be available to Intervonor on, and for a reasonable period of time after, April 15, 1992, at Winston &
1 Strawn's offices, 1400 L Street N.W., Washington, D.C.,
or at another location-mutually agreed upon by the parties.
i III.
RESPONSES TO INTERVENOR'S J /24 /94 INTERROGATORIES 1
Genetal i
The following Respont s were provided by Mr. Peter G.
- LeRoy, whose Affidavit is attached.
The identities of the persons to be 1
called as expert witnesses at the safety hearing on these issues have been provided to Intervenor on March 15, 1994.I' Interrogatory No. B-1:
l Describe the actual and potential processes that have been considered to convert the DUF tails from the CEC facility to Ufh, and include a discussion of the projected time it will take for such processing to be accomplished and the converted tails then shipped to the location of ultimato disposal.
Responso Several methods exist for conversion of DUF6 to Ugh.
LES has considered conversion to UF, Ufh and uranium metal as 4
described in LES' Uranium Hexafluoride Management Study submitted to the NRC by October 1, 1991, letter.
A description of these methods is found in Appendix V of the Martin Marietta report and Section 4.3 of " Depleted DUF Disposition Study."
6 The time period for conversion and shipping to an approved disposal site has not yet been determined.
However, it would be on the order of the same length of time needed to convert natural Ufh to UF.
That is, the length of time needed to ship natural 6
l'
" Applicant's Third Supplemental Response to CANT's 'First Set of Interrogatories' and First Supplemental Response to CANT's Interrogatories ' Pertaining to Contentions L and M.'"
-3
U0 f rom the mill to a converter, convert the U 0, to UF, and 3 3 3
6 deliver it to an enrichment facility.
This is on the order of several months.
Interrogatory No, B-2:
Identify each actual and potential arrangement, including arrangements with third parties, for accomplishing such conversion which you have considered.
Response
The conversion of DUF to Ufh has been discussed with 6
Sequoyah fuels, a conversion facility near Gore, Oklahoma.
Since that time Sequoyah Fuels has stopped conversion activities.
The conversion also has been discussed with COGEMA.
COGEMA currently operates a facility in France which converts DUF to Ufh.
COGEMA 6
provided LES an estimate for converting DUF6 to Ufh.
COGEMA's letter is listed in Request for Production No. 2 at the end of these responses.
LES also has contacted cameco about possibly converting LES' DUF to Ufh.
(See Request for Production No. 2.)
6 Cameco representatives indicated they would consider this activity in the future, closer to when the conversion services actually would be needed.
No written agreement has been made with any of these companies for the conversion of DUF to U 0, but LES will enter 6
3 s into such an agreement after licensing.
Based upon the current schedule, it would be ill-advised to obtain firm written commitments at this time.
Gaining commitments at this time would
-4
]
i
be premature and could preclude other options for disposition of DUF.
6 Interrogatory No. B-3:
Describe all actual and/or potential locations that have been considered for the conversion of the DUF, tails to UCh.
3 Ilesponse :
The locations that have been considered are the sequoyah Fuels facility located near Gore, Oklahoma, the COGEMA deconversion facility located near Pierrelatte, France, and Cameco facilities located near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
The Department of Energy also is considering deconversion of DUF6 to U 0s at its facilities near Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, 3
Ohio.
Interrogatory No. B-4:
Describe each actual and/or potential place where the DUFg tails which have been converted to U 0, will be 3
stored and/or disposed, and indicate the period of time that the tails will be stored and/or disposed at each such location.
Respgnan:
No sites have been identified for storage and/or disposal of DUCh.
This is more the result of a historical lack of a need to 3
dispose of DUF6 rather than an inability to overcome any technical obstacles.
Further, based upon the current licensing and operation schedule, there is no need to identify the actual ')
place (s) where DUph might be stored and/or disposed.
This would be premature and could preclude other options for disposition of DUF which may result, for example, from DOE studies in progress.
6 Jntotronatory No. B-5:
Describo the methods and/or procedures to be employed in order to set asido the requisito funds during operation of the CEC to cover the cost of converting the DUF, tails to Ufh, and shipping them to the location of ultimato disposal.
Engponse:
The funding methods to be employed to cover the costs of are described in detail in converting and disposing of the DUF6 the LES License Application, Exhibit I.
Interrgantory No. B-6:
Indicate whether there will be a line item in.the CEC operating budget for saving or sotting asido sufficient funds for the costs of conversion and ultimato disposal of the DUF tails.
6 6-
Yes, there will be a line item in the CEC operating budget for funding for conversion and disposal of DUF.
This is 6
described in LES' Financial Plan which was submitted as Attachment D to LES' May 1, 1992 submittal to the NRC.
(See Request for Production No. 3 below.)
Interrocratory Fo. B-7:
Describe where funding for the conversion of the DUF6 tails to U 0,,
and for the ultimato disposal of such 3
tails, will como from if the CEC facility experiences revenue shortfalls and/or ends up bankrupt during tho l
term of its operating license.
l l
Responso:
While conversion and disposal of DUF is not a 6
decommissioning activity, for funding purposes, as noted on pages EX.I-5 and 8 of the LES License Application, Exhibit I, the costs for conversion and disposal of DUF6 are covered in the decommissioning funding mechanism.
This funding mechanism will
)
I provide the necessary funds for conversion and ultimate disposal l
of tails should the CEC facility experience revenue shortfalls or bankruptcy during the term of its operating license.
interro_gntory No. B-8:
Explain each basis for your position that the cost of converting the DUF, tails to Ufh, and the cost for the ultimato disposal of such tails, is an operating expenso rather than a decommissioning cost, and include in your explanation a description of how the cost for tails conversion and disposal will be funded if the CEC
-7
facility experiences revenue shortfalls and/or ends up bankrupt during the term of its operating license.
EpqHPSDDA:
The basis for considering conversion and disposal of DUF6 as an operating rather than D&D cost is explained in the License Application, Exhibit I, page 4, last paragraph.
Nevertheless, as l
l explained in the response to Interrogatory No. B-7 above, funding for conversion and disposal of DUF is contained in the 6
decommissioning funding mechanism.
This funding mechanism will provide the necessary funds for conversion and ultimato disposal of tails should the CEC facility experience revenue shortfalls or bankruptcy during the term of its operating license.
Interrogatory t!m _B-9:
If the CEC in forcod to liquidato in bankruptcy before its operating license terminatos and before all DUFs j
tails have boon converted to U 0, and ultimately l
3 disposed of, do you agroo that the costs of such tails l
conversion and disposal will be decommissioning costa?
If you do not agree, please describe your reasons in detail.
EnsDsn_sa:
See responses to Interrogatories B-7 and B-8 above.
JAterrociatorv No. H-1:
Indicate whether (and whoro) you intend to have offsite warning sirons in the area of the CEC facility to be utilized in case of emergencias and accidents, and if you do not intend to have such airons, explain your reasons for not doing so.
EnspJ2nne:
Offsite warning sirens will not be installed or used in the l
vicinity of the CEC for reasons stated in the LES Emergency Plan, Section 5.4.4, page 5-12.
Int;sryocatory No. O-1:
i l
In response to Question 5 of attachment B to the May 1, l
1992, LES Letter to the NRC Btaff regarding financial qualifications, LES indicates that " construction and term debt will be raised from a consortium of major, international project lending banks familiar to the LES partners."
Please identify these lending banks, and indicate the projected date for financial closing.
Please describe all evidence (such as letters of credit or other proof) that LES and its partners have "sufficiently strong relationships with major lending institutions" to obtain financing for this project, and indicate the status of actual commitments from such institutions to fund the CEC project.
RespoDEe:
Lending banks cannot be identified until negotiations, which may be competitive in nature, have been completed to determine which financial institutions will offer the most favorable terms.
This will depend in part on the conditions prevailing in the financial markets at that time.
This is a function of when the license is received and consequently when construction can begin.
The schedule currently assumed is the first quarter of 1995.
The timing would not allow for establishing a detailed financial structure at this time.
)
Commitments will not be sought until the license has been 1
received.
)
l q
_9 l
i i
This statomont regarding financial arrangements is based on the past business relationship each parent company of the LES partners has with members of the financial community, the significant amount of equity the partners plan to commit during construction, and the completion and excellent operating history y
of similar facilities owned and operated by URENCO.
Interrocatory No. O-2:
Describe the commitment of each entity in the LES partnership to remain a partner during the 30 year license period, and include a discussion of all representations made by such entities to any party about their actual or potential departure from the partnership.
Roanonss:
1 The commitment of each entity in the LES partnership is governed, among other things, by Articlo XV of the LES Partnership Agrooment.
(Sco Roquest for Production No. 3 below.)
One document in LES' possession, (sco Roquest for Production No.
3, item 1 below) provides a representation made by Duko Power Company to the North Carolina Utilitics Commission regarding potential departure from the partnership.
Interrocatgry No. 0-3:
With regard-to question 2 of the attachment B to-the May.1, 1992, LED Letter to the NRC 8taff regarding financial qualifications, please describe all evidence of the ability and willingness of the remaining limited partners to " provide the necessary equity and appropriate debt" if some limited partners elect not to invest additional capital at the time of construction. - - _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _
.~
c Pennonse:
As noted in LES' letter to the NRC dated May 1, 1992, the partners in'the LES. partnership have already committed more than
$31 million to securing an NRC license for the facility, marketing its enrichment services to domestic utilities, and seeking funding to begin construction of the facility in 1995.
This demonstrates the ability and willingness of the LES partners to provide the necessary equity and debt to construct and operate the CEC.
It is conceivable that some limited partners may contribute sLbstantially more than other partners and that new investors may partf.cipate as limited partners.
It is premature, however, to identify specific sources of equity and debt at this time.
This l', discussed in the response to Interrogatory Q-1 above.
M errr2gniory No. O-4:
Describe in det. ail all a,
. and/or potential contracts to soll the enriched uranium to be produced at the CEC facility.
l
Response
~
LES objects to providing details of contracts and potential j
contracts to sell enriched uranium produced at the CEC as this is 1
not relevant to the subject matter involved in this proceeding.
The subject matter is limited to the cont eat. ions admitted by the Licensing Board.
See 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740(b) (1); Allied Genqral Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuels Receiving and Storage Station),
LBP-7 7-13, 5 NRC 489, 492.
The subject matter of Contention Q is 1 l
i e
that "LES has not demonstrated that it is financially qualified to build and operate CEC because partners are not committed to fund the building and operation of the facility Lgnipiana Enerav Services, L.P.
(Claiborne Enrichment Center),
~
LBP-91-41, 34 NRC 332, 358 (1991).
Details of contracts, as re]uested in Interrogatory Q-4, are not relevant the partners' ;ommitments to fund the CEC, nor do these details appear " reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
10 C.F.R. S 2.74 0 (b) (1).
Nor are these details relevant to other subject matter in this proceeding.
"When the information sought is irrelevant to the roceeding the interrogatories are objectionable and need not be answered."
Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Discovery Disputes Pertaining to Contentions B, H,
I, J and K), June 18, 1992, gitipjl, EACDw211, 34 NRC at 358.
liltRCrogilt_orv No. O-E:
Indicate whether and when you have and/or intend to sock permission to recover any costs associated with the licensing of CEC facility from the rate base of any of the entities who are members of the LES partnership.
EgnD9n;R*
LES objects to this interrogatory on two grounds.
- First, the information requested is not relevant to the subject matter involved in this proceeding.
As stat ed in the LES' Response to Interrogatory Q-4, Contention Q relates to the partners' commitments to fund the project.
Interrogatory Q-5 is not -l
rte?.evant to commitments made by the partners, nor does it appear to be reasonably calculated-to lead to the discovery of r
admissible evidence.
Therefore, as stated in Applicant's Response to Interrogatory Q-4, the interrogatories are objectionable and need not be answered.
Second, as LES stated in its May 4, 1992, " Applicant's RespH6rotteet of Interrogatories And Request For Production Of Documents Filed by Citizens Against Nuclear Trash And Directed To Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
Pertaining To Contentions A, H,
I, J And K,'"
in section I,
" Proper Designation of Applicant,"
and which is incorporated herein by reference, LES is the party to this proceeding, not the partners of LES.
LES, as a Delaware Limited Partnership, which is an entity separate from the partners, cannot seek permission for its utility partners to recover costs from their rate bases.
Therefore, Interrogatory Q-5 is irrelevant to the proceeding, and as stated in Applicant's Response to Interrogatory Q-4, is objectionable and need not be answered.
By this second objection to Interrogatory Q-5, Applicant is.
not seeking to shield its partners from the need to respond to discovery of LES-related matters.
Applicant concurs with the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of June 18, 1992.
If discoverable matter is within a partner's possession.and control, it should be produced, llowever, even if Interrogatory Q-5 had asked for partners' rate base intentions (rather than LES' intentions), this likely would be not be relevant to LES business 4
- 13 WY U*
1 we
activities as partners and officers of LES, and discovery would not be proper.
1 I
IDISrrocatory No. O-6:
With regard to question 2 of attachment B to the May 1, 1992, LES Lotter to the NRC Staff regarding financial qualifications, please indicato if'the "new infusions by limited partners" have irrevocably been committed to, and givo details.
BgsnoAse:
As noted in LES's May 1, 1992 letter to the NRC, the limited partners are, in accordance with the terms of the LES Partnership Agreement, the principle sources of equity for financing construction of the CEC.
It is premature for the limited partners to commit irrevocably until a license is received and the financing arrangements available in the financial markets can be determined.
As explained in response to interrogatory Q-1, this must be examined after the licence has been received.
I n t e r r_o_g p t o r y N o. O-7:
Please describe how market conditions at the time of CEC plant start-up, and conditions reasonably projected for the life of the plant, would impact the financial health of LES.
In such a description, considor all rolovant factors, including, but not limited to, the following:
the shrinking market for EWU services, as evidenced in the recent past by the permanent shutdowns of the Yankoo Rowe, San Onofro-1 and. Trojan reactors; the projection by shearson Lehman Brothers that as many as 25 nuclear reactors will be shut down by the year 2000; -
the effect of President Clinton's campaign pronouncement that "no new nuclear reactors should be built" pending adequate prcof of economic viability and progress on radioactive waste storage; the effort of President Clinton's proposed slashing of the nuclear power research and development budget, and his statement in the State of the Union address that unnecessary programs "such.as nuclear power research and development will be eliminated" from the federal budget; the recent contract between Russia and the United States which requires the United States to buy weapons grade enriched uranium (at a very cheap price) from the former U.S.S.R.
and downgrade the uranium to a level of enrichment required by American domestic nuclear reactors; reports that an agrooment similar to the contract between i
the United States and Russia is also being considered with South Africa; the fact that the United States itself already has on hand an abundance of weapons grado uranium which it intends to downgrade for sale to nuclear power plants; and the effects of the NRC's stalled license renewal plan for LES's potential market over the over 30 years.
F^Enons3*
It ia inappropriate for LES to speculate about the undocumented allegations, hypotheticals and projections listed in this interrogatory.
LES has pursued the licensing of the CEC with the intention of providing an efficient, high-technology alternate producer that will compete favorably in a free market.
The U.S.
is the largest market for these services and there is adequate room for a domestic competitor.
Any action by governments to affect this market are difficult to measure but are expected to be conducted in a way that will minimize impact on the domestic market as is required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.,
At the time the decision to begir construction of the CEC is made, many factors will be considered.
The market for enrichment services will be scrutinized, as will the ability and reliability of competing enrichment services companies to provide the enriched uranium needed by nuclear utilities.
Included in these considerations is the amount of enrichment services required by nuclear utilities, and any government activities that affect nuclear power in general and the enrichment market in particular.
LIltSLt9fJsitpry No. O-8:
According to the response to question 3 of attachment D of the May 1, 1992, LES Letter to the NRC Btaff regarding financial qualifications, LES apparently plans to " employ less (than 100%) leverage in the construction phase to reduce capitalized interest."
Please indicate projected figures, and explain the basis for believing that LES can pay for less than 100%
lavorage, given LES' balance shoot which indicates cash reserves of only $24,067 (12/31/90) and deferred start-up costs of only $16,799,933 (12/31/90).
Also discuss how LEB plans to leverage assets of less than 5% of construction costs, and cash of less than 0.01% of such costs into cash sufficient to pay for a potontially billion-dollar facility.
Esfp211Ee:
The cash reserves and deferred start-up cost figures referred to in the interrogatory have no bearing on the financial arrangements that will be concluded to support construction.
To suggest otherwise is to micunderstand the process of project M
financing and the nature of the venture phase of the LES project.
During this phase, the partners have committed, by an accepted mechanism of capital calls, to that capital necessary to pursue 16 -
A
=
.-a-.u a
~
all aspects of licensing and pre-construction activities preparatory to financing and construction.
LES financial statements only reflect that phase's funding.
The projected figures for construction of the CEC are included in Attachment C of the May 1, 1992, letter from LES to NRC, which is to be provided as described in the joint proposed Protective Order submitted to the Licensing Board on April 13, 1994.
IV.
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Recuest for Production No. 1:
Current financial statements, balance sheets, and auditors' reports for all entities that are partners in the LES partnership.
Response
LES will make available to CANT the latest available financial reports, except for financial information for Graystone Corporation which is covered by the joint proposed Protective Order sont to the Licensing Board on April 13, 1994.
.1 Beguest for Production No. 2:
Each and overy document which pertains in any way to j
actual and/or potential plans to convert the CEC's DUF, i
tails to U/h, and the ultimate disposal plan for such tails. l i
~
1
^Responne:
The following documents either have been provided by LES to CANT, are available to the public, are available in the NRC Public Document Room, or will be made available, as indicated.
i 1.
"The Ultimate Disposition of Depleted Uranium,"
i prepared by Martin Marietta, published December 1990, (Publicly available.)
2.
" Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Management Study,"
prepared by Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.,
submitted by LES to the NRC.
(Copy acnt to D.
Curran October 1,
1991.)
3.
" Depleted DUF, Disposition Study," prepared by Duke Engineering & Services, Inc., for Louisiana Energy Services, dated September 1990.
(Will be made available.)
4.
Memorandum for Richard L.
Bangert, Director, Division of Low Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS, from Richard Cunningham, Director, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS dated January 16, 1992,
Subject:
Disposal of Depleted Uranium From Louisiana Energy Services (LES) Project.
(Available in PDR Docket No. 70-3070.)
5.
NRC Memorandum for Robert Bernero from Richard Cunningham and Richard L.
Daigert, dated September 4, 1992,
Subject:
Disposal of Depleted Uranium From Louisiana Energy Services (LES) Project.
(Available in.
PDR Docket No. 70-3070) 6.
Letter to LES from John Hickey, NRC, dated September 22, 1992.
(Copy sent to D.
Curran and N. Walker.)
7.
SECY-91-019, dated January 25, 1991,
Subject:
Disposition of Depleted Uranium Tails From Enrichment Plants.
(Available in PDR.)
8.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992.
(Publicly availabic.)
9.
Letter to NRC from LES, dated December 14, 1992.
(Copy sont to D.
Curran and N. Walker.)
10.
Letter to LES from NRC dated June 18, 1993.
(Copy sent to D.
Curran and N. Walker.) <
a v
-e e
.=
11.
Letter to NRC from LES, dated June 30, 1993.
(Copy sent to D.
Curran and N. Walker.)
12.
Letter to Mr.
W.
Howard Arnold, LES, from Frank A.
Shallo, COG EMA, dated October 16, 12991.
This letter provides an cotimate for conversion of DUF6 to DU (h.
3 (Will be made available.)
13.
Letter to Mr. Leo Duffy, US Department of Energy, from Mr. Howard Arnold, LES, dated November 6, 1992.
This letter is an attachment to LES' letter to NRC dated December 14, 1992.
(See document 9 sbove.)
14.
LES ER section 4.4, LES SAR sections 4.7 and 11.8, and LES License Application, Exhibit 1.
(Copies are maintained by D.
Curran and N. Walker.)
15.
Letter to Mr.
P.L.
Lenny, Cameco, from Mr. Howard Arnold, LES, March 7, 1994.
(Will be made available.)
Rgqu_qst f or Ptojuct ion No. 3:
Each and overy document to which you refer in your answers to tho' foregoing interrogatories, as well as each and every document which you consulted in preparing your answers to the foregoing interrogatories, llanponse:
Besides those documents listed in response to Requests for Production Nos. 1 and 2, the following documents were listed in our responses to these inter;r stories or were consulted in preparing responses to these interrogatories.
1.
Letter from W.S.
Le9 (Duke Power Company) to W.
W.
Redman (Chairman, North Carolina Utilities Commission) dated June 20, 1990,
Subject:
Report on Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
(Copy provided to Mr.
M.
Mariotte, NIRS.)
2.
LES Partnership Agreement (non-proprietary version).
(Copy is available in PDR Docket No. 70-3070.)
, )
l
3.
Letter from LES to NRC dated May 1, 1992.
(This letts was provided without proprietary attachments to CANT o.
May 1, 1992.
Proprietary attachments to this letter are subject to the joint proposed Protective Order sent to the Licensing Board on April 13, 1994.)
Respectfully submitted,
/ i r
'11 s I, h ML) r t1A '.
Ji M i c h a e l M c G a r r y), III WINSTON & STRAWN,'
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005-3502 April 15, 1994 Attorneys for Louisiana Energy
- Services, L.P.,
.... ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD i
i In the Matter of LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
Docket No. 70-3070 (Claiborne Enrichment Center) l I
AEEIJ.QANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER On this dete, April 15, 1994, Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
(Applicant) is filing " Applicant's Response to Intervenor's 3/24/94 Interrogatories"U Applicant, in its April 15 Response, objects to Interrogatories Q-4 and Q-5, and objects to production of (1) Graystone Corporation financial information.and (2) l certain proprietary portions of a May 1, 1992, letter from LES to the NRC.
Applicant objects to Interrogatories Q-4 and Q-5 as not relevant to the subject matter involved in this proceeding for
)
i the reasons stated in Applicant's Responses to Interrogatories Q-j l
4 and Q-5, which Responses are incorporated herein by reference.
l l
Although Applicant objects to providing Graystone Corporation financial information and proprietary portions of the May 1, 1992, letter to the NRC, on the grounds that these documents contain confidential business information, the
~f disclosure of which can cause substantial harm to Applicant's or F
Applicant's
Response
is to "3/24/94 Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Filed by Citizens Against i
Nuclear Trash and Directed to Loulciana ' Energy Services, L.P.
'l Pertaining to Contentions B, II, and Q," March 24, 1994.
Graystone corporation's competitive positions, Applicant does not seek a protective order for these documents in this Motion.
These documents are the subject of a joint proposed Protective l
Order submitted to the Licensing Board on April 13, 1994.
Applicant requests, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740(c), that the Licensing Board issue an order, based or. the issues and objections set forth in this Motion and in Applicant's April 15 Responses regarding Interrogatories Q-4 and Q-5, directing that l
l the information requested by these Interrogatories need not be provided.
i i
Respectfully submitted, b l g/ l_
eh h-CIi
~
Jy Michael McGarry, III WINSTON & STRAWN',
1400 L Street,'U.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005-3502.
. April 15, 1994 Attorneys for Louisiana Energy
- Services, L.p.
l l
l l
1
-2 l
________.._m..._-__._
L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
IIE EORE_ Tile _ATDMIC_SAEETLAND_LICENSINGJ10ARD_
i.
In the Matter of 6
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
Docket No. 70-3070 i-(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
AEEIDAYIT I, Peter G. LeRoy, being duly sworn, hereby state that I am employed by Duke Engineering and Services, Inc., as an Engineering Supervisor, II, contracted to provide services to t
Louisiana Energy Services, L.P., as Licensing Manager of the Claiborne Enrichment Center.
I have been responsible for furnishing the basic information used in the responses in " Applicant's Response to '3/24/94 Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Filed by Citizens Against Nuclear Trash and Directed to Louisiana Energy Services, L.P., Pertaining to Contentions B, H, and Q "'
. k,
+
.1
My business address and phone number are:
Duke Engineering and Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 1004 Charlotte, NC 28201 1004 (704) 382-2834 M
Peter G. LeRoy Subscribed and sworn to before me this _/MIday of A d/,1994.
f
- l. A0AY3 k$0L '. GJ d
NoTiry Public
~
r dcf.de4zdcv/9,/99f bIy Commission expires:
i 2
l
DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IlEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETLAILD LICENSING BOARD 1
0FFICE OF SECRETARY DOCXETING & SERVICE In the Matter of
)
BRANCH
)
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
)
Docket No. 70-3070-ML
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
)
1 C.E_R_TIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copics of " Applicant's Response to Intervenor's 3/24/94 Interrogatories" and the accompanying Motion for Protective Order and Affidavit have been served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, thin 15th day of April, 1994:
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Thomas S.
Moore, Chairman Richard F.
Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing
. Board Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 (2 copies)
Administrative Judge Secretary of the Commission Frederick J.
Shon U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Attention: Chief, Docketing and Commission Service Section Washington, D.C.
20555 (Original plus 2 copics)
Office of Commission Appellate Eugene Holler, Esq.
Adjudication Office of the General Counsel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 r
Ronald Wascom, Deputy Assistant Joseph DiStefano Secretary Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
Office of A!r Quality &
2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Radiation Protection Suite 610 P.O.
Box 82135 Washington, D.C.
20037 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 Peter G.
LeRoy Marcus A.
Rowden Duke. Engineering and Services, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
Inc.
Jacobson 230 South Tryon Street 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
P.O.
Box 1004 Suite 900 South Charlotte, NC 28201-1004 Washington, D.C.
20004 i
Diane Curran Nathalie Walker Harmon, Curran, Gallagher &
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund Spielberg
-400 Magazine St.
c/o The Institute for Energy Suite 401 2
and Environmental Studies New Orleans, LA 70130 6935 Laurel Avenue, Suite 204 Takoma Park, MD 20912 i
Adjudicatory Filo Dr.
W.
Howard Arnold Atomic Safety and Licensing Louisiana Energy' Services, L.P.
Board Panel 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Suite 608 Commission.
Washington D.C.
20037-Washington, D.C.
20555 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
/
l} }
3bhn 4. Ma'cEvoy )
I dINSTON & STRAWN, ATTORNEYS FOR LOUISIANA ENERGY
- SERVICES, L.P.
a
-