ML20092J804
| ML20092J804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/21/1984 |
| From: | Rolfe R HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL-4, NUDOCS 8406270132 | |
| Download: ML20092J804 (11) | |
Text
-
c l
~
p,..-
2 sM LILOO, Junegl.gg[984 US?E.;
'84 J0 25 R2:12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Board In tne Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. S0-322-OL-4
)
(Low Power)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), by counsel, moves for a protective order prohibiting the deposition of i
George J.
Sideris or any other LILCO employee or consultant concerning the issues of LILCO's financial qualifications to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, whether it is prudent to engage in low power testing absent assurance that a full power license will be granted and possible uncertainties concerning LILCO's financial health.
In support of this motion, LILCO says as follows:
1.
Among the "public interest factors" which LILCO enumerated in support of its Application for Exemption was the potential savings to the Company from advancing the eventual date 'of commercial operation by concluding low power testing 8406270132 840621 C'
PDR ADOCK 05000322
<h J
Q. Cwen oe A PDR
9
- s >
early.1/ The' sole issue involved in this consideration is whether there will be any potential economic benefit from performing the requested low power testing in advance of the ultimate licensing of TDI diesels or other emergency diesel-generators at Shoreham.
Upon resolution of the diesel generator issue, LILCO would have the right to engage in low power testing as determined by the Partial Initial Decision in this case.
Accordingly, there is no question of whether low power testing should be performed but only a question of the benefits of performing it earlier.
2.
On June 11, 1984, Suffolk County served its Second Discovery Request to LILCO Relating to LILCO's Applica-i tion for Exemption (Attachment A).
This Second Discovery Request was objectionable in multiple respects, including the following:
1/
In its Application for Exemption, LILCO erroneously asserted that the savings may be $90,000,000 to $135,000,000.
Although the actual cost of Shoreham to the Company will be approximately $90,000,000 to $135,000,000 over the two to three month period involved, further investigation has indicated that the actual savings will be less.
The issue raised, however, is the same -- whether substantial savings might potentially accrue if low power testing is permitted prior to licensing of the TDI diesels.
i 4
e (a).The Second Discovery Request consisted mainly of interrogatories.
In its Memorandum and Order Scheduling Hearing on LILCO's Supplemental Motion for Low Power Operating License dated April 6, 1984, at p.
16, the Licensing Board directed that discovery in this case consist of document requests and depositions only.
.(b)
All of the requests are not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery;of admissible evidence.
The requests may generally be characterized as seeking all financial and/or i
economic information concerning LILCO's operations, cash flow and financial health.
They appear to be calculated to address the question of LILCO's financial. qualifications to operate the plant, l
whether it is prudent to engage in low power testing absent assurance that a full power license will be granted and possible uncertainties concerning LILCO's financial health.
0 % "
(c)
The discovery requests are burdensome and oppressive.
(d)
The Second Discovery Request is not timely inasmuch as responses to doc'ument production under the applicable regulations are not due within the discovery period set by the Board.
These objections are more fully set forth in Objections to Suffolk County's Second Discovery Request to LILCO Relating to LILCO's Application for Exemption (Attachment B).
3.
On June 14, 1984, LILCO deposed J.M. Madan and Michael Dirmeier, economic consultants from the Georgetown i
Consulting Group retained by Suffolk County.
Although neither consultant had then reached any opinions, each testified that s
the focus of his inquiry was " financial considerations, economic considerations and public interest considerations.",
Upon further questioning, it became evident that the focus of their work is (a) whether it would be prudent to begin low power testing in the face of uncertainties concerning the issuance of a full power license and given the po_tential costs of decommissioning the plant if a full power license is not
- granted, (b) whether LILCO's financial condition renders it unqualified to operate Shoreham safely, and (c) the impact of
Q
~ possible uncertainties concernin~g LILCO's financial health and the perceived threat of reorganization.2/ Messrs. Madan and Dirmeier testified that they had reached.no-conclusions on
~
these matters because they were waiting for LILCO's responses to the 'Second Discov'ery Request.
They 'estified that they t
participated in the dEafting of the Second Discovery Request
~
and that ea"ch paragraph of the Second Discovery Request was relevant to the issues"into which they inte'ded to inquire as n
described above.3/
1 i
I 2/-
There were other, more particular, potential areas of
~
inquiry subsumed in these,three issues.
3/
The lack of opinions by Messrs. Madan and Dirmeier was surprising in view of their having submitted an affidavit in support of Suffolk County's opposition to LILCO's summary dispositon motions.
(Affidavit of Michael D. Dirmeis and Jamshed K. Madan).
That affidavit contained a plethora of positive assertions about LILCO's financial qualifications to conduct Phase I and II low power activities.
Yet, Mr.
l Dirmeier acknowledged, for example, that he had no knowledge of
~
l facts to support the assertion in paragraph 5 that "in order to I
conduct the proposed Phase I and Phase II activities, LILCO will certainly need to expend monies in addition to those which it currently is expending on Shoreham."
In short, Mr.
Dirmeier's " certainty" was no more than speculation and is representative of Suffolk County's willingness to construe
? loosely the oath taken by an affiant.
As importantly, it
. depicts the fishing expedition which Suffolk County.soeks to conduct into the financial qualifications issue.
O I
- . jr
- i t
- 4. At approximately 1:00 p.m. on June 20, LILCO received a telecopied letter from counsel for Suffolk County (Attachment C) advising of Suffolk County's intent to depose George J. Sideris, "LILCO's principal financial officer on July 21, July 22 or July 25.
The basis for the request to depose Mr. Sideris is allegedly LILCO's objection to the Second Discovery Request.
- 5. The deposition of Mr. Sideris will not lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
To the extent that deposition is being sought as a substitute means of discovery i
for the Second Discovery Request, it is being taken to inquire into issues which are simply not material here.
(a)
LILCO's financial qualifications to engage in low power testing is not an issue in this proceeding.
In its Financial Qualification Statement l
of Policy, 49 Fed. Reg. 24111 (June 12, 1984), the Commission has indicated that financial qualifications are not an issue for con' sideration in
. operating license proceedings.4/
l 4/
Moreover, any attempt to raise financial qual,ification issues in this proceeding is untimely.
According to Messrs.
l (cont'd)
L_
n.
.o y
(b)
Similarly, the question of uncertainty l
concerning t'e ultimate licensing of Shoreham is not h
~,
w an issue liti these proceedings.
The Commission has on
\\
at least two occasions held that any uncertainty
' attendant to whether LILCO may receive a full power
[
i s
license for Shoreham does not preclude low power testing.
Long Islan;d Lighting Company (Shoreham 3
5 s
1
, Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),1CLI-84 9, 19 NRC
. (1984);,Long Island-Lighting Company (Shoreham i
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),'CLI-83-1, 17'NRC 1032 (1983).
w
.c (c)
As importantl',,, any tonsideration.of'the N
.c
~
uncertainty concerning the granSing cO a full power license arid the possible costs of decommissioning the
. plant has no relevance to the economic potential
' benefit which LILCO described in its Application for Exemption.
All issues germane to,LILCO's low power
~1' operating license have been favorably resolved in the m
(cont'd) t Madan and Dieref er, "[bjeginning in. 983, t,JLCO's financ[al condition and the' perception of that condition by the. financial community deteribrated rapidly."
Affidavit of Michael D.
.Dierme'ier.and Jamshe'd K. Madan, at 10.
x.,
1
- ,. 9 ?
ew E
g
--s
.3
.[
-+...
Partial Initial Decision, but for issues concerning the diesel generators.
Thus, once LILCO has qualified diesel generators, there will be no litigable issues pertinent to low power.
By requesting the exemption, LILCO merely seeks to engage in low power testing in advance of resolution of the diesel generator issue.
As stated above, the
-question is not whether LILCO will engage in low power testing -- it will as soon as the diesel generator issue is resolved -- but whether there is any advantage to commencing such low power testing early.
6.
LILCO has identified Anthony Nozzolillo as its witness concerning the potential economic benefit.
Suffolk County is scheduled to depose Mr. Nozzolillo on June 28.
In contrast, Mr. Sideris will not be a witness and there has been no showing that Mr. Sideris has any unique knowledge of the potential economic benefit.
Accordingly, there is no need for the County to depose Mr. Sideris concerning the limited issues raised by LILCO's Application for Exemption.
o
_9
- 7. The request to depose Mr. Saderis is not timely in that it affords insufficient notice.
8.
LILCO requests that the Board expedite its consideration of this matter because of the lateness of the County's request to depose Mr. Sideris and the impending June 29 discovery cutoff.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMP By
/
Robert M.' Rolfe M Anthony F. Earley, J.
Hunton & Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
June 21, 1984 s
4 m
9
Attachment A LV UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Board
)
In.the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 Unit.1)
)
(Low Power)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S SECOND DI3COVERY REQUEST TO LILCO RELATING TO LILCO'S APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION I
- Suffolk County hereby requests that LILCO respond to the discovery requests set forth below.
The definition of the term
" document" as used herein and other instructions concerning the response to the requests which follow, are the same as that set forth on pages 1 and 2 of Attachment A of the letter dated April 11, 1984 from Douglas J.
Scheidt to T.S.
Ellis, III, a copy of which is attached hereto for conve.lence.
The documents-requested below are to be produced at the offices of Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips, 1900 M
- Street, N.W., Washington, _D.C.,
or at such other location,as the parties may agree.
1.
Identify all periodic financial reports prepared by LILCO since January 1, 1983 (such as, for example, financial statements, budgets, cash reports, cash flow analysis, and 4
15 f(
operations reports) and set forth, with respect to each such report, the distribution to whi:h such a report is subject (such as, for example, to Beard of Directors:
Chief' Executive Officer; Chief Finan:ial Officer; members of senior management; treasurer's office; public filings; landing banks etc., and furnish a ecpy of the most current version of each such report.
'2.
Without.. limiting the generality of the request contained in paragraph I hereof, prcduce copies of the following (on a monthly basis for the period January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1985, and on an annual basis thereaf ter):
"~
(a)
All financial runs, reports, statements, analyses, and other docum~ents which show actual and projected cashflow, revenues, expenses, capitalized costs and capital expenses incurred or pr:jected to be incurred by LILCO in connection with the following for Shoreham:
(i)
The acquisition, installa tion, and all activities required prior to full operation of Colt diesels;
(ii)
The acquisition of materials, construction and all activities related thereto, of Colt diesel building; r
(iii)
All other construction activitiec relating tc the Shoreham plant; (iv)
Accomplishing each of the phases of LILCO's pro-I posed fair part low power testing program; (v)
Allowance for Funds Used in Construction
("AFUDC");
(vi)
Personnel costs (whether expensed or capital-ized);
(vii)
Deferred assets; and (viii)
Post-completion capital.
(b)
The balance sheet accounts for Shoreham, including.
gross plant, depreciation reserve, and deferred in-vestment tax credit; (c)
Income statements and supporting tax computation,s for Shoreham; I
I _-
i e
-,n,
,,,-,,-._.-~w.
a
~n
F (d)
Electric, gas, and combined (electric and gas) income statements, supporting tax computations, balance sheets, cashflow statements, together with applicable input sections, payroll and employee count; I
(e)
Interest and dividend coverage computations.
3.
Produce all documents constituting, analyzing, referring, or in any way relating to actual or projected impact on s
LILCO's cashflow and/or its financial condition, of any existing interim, future interim, or permanent rate re-lief.
i 4.
Identify all financial or economic models used by LILCO since January 1, 1983 (such as, for example, "Decom") in making financial projections or forecasts of LILCO's operations' based on various assumptions, and describe the input variables which are capable of being manipulated by
,s each such model.
5.
With respect-to the " austerity plan" which LILCO reportedly implemented in February 1984:
(a)
Produce all documents referring or in any w'ay relating to the austerity plan including, with-out limitation, all drafts of the plan, any k
6 T
m
l 3
predecessors to the plan, all accounting work papers and computer data concerning the plan or any of its predecessors, and all financial projections based on the austerity plan, or any draft or predecessor thereof; (b)
Please furnish, in pro forma tabular form, a de-tailed comparison of the results of LILCO's operations for each of its fiscal quarters since February 1, 1984, together with projected l
year-end results, showing the effect of the presence and absence of the austerity plan on the results of LILCO's operations.
The result-((
ing tables should be sufficiently detailed to permit the County, or its experts, to gauge the impact of the austerity plan on each line on LILCO's pro forma balance sheet, income state-ment, and statement of source and application.of funds which is affected by the austerity plan.
(c)
Identify each component of the austerity plan as the plan is now being implemented.
6.
With respect to statements reportedly made by Dr. Catacosinos at the LILCC Annual Meeting of Shareholders:
III I
I (a)
Produce all documents (including, without limi-tation, financial projections, supporting ac-counting work papers, and computer data) constituting, referring or in any way relating
.o Dr. Catacosinos' reported statements to the effect that LILCO would have a cash deficit of (i) $20 million on or about September 1,
- 1984, and (ii) S65 million by the end of the current calendar year.
(b)
If the projected cash deficits referenced by Dr.
Catacosinos already take into account the aus-terity plan which LILCO announced in February 1984, identify the size of the projected defi-cits in the absence of the implementation of the austerity plan, and provide copies of all documents relating to such projections.
(c)
Identify every communication between any effi-cer, director, employee, or other agent or rep-resentative of LILCO (including, without limita-tion, LILCO's accountants and attorneys) an,d any other person concerning the reported willingness of any financial institution to " step forward"
\\s.
if LILCO asks them for help, and produce all documents constituting, referring or in any way relating to such reported willingness.
(d)
Set forth LILCO's basis for believing that any lender would " step forward" were LILCO to ask for help, and identify each lender as to which LILCO has formed such a belief.
7.
With respect to LILCo's current outstanding debt obliga-tions, provide the following:
f (a)
Copies of all debt instruments, loan agreements, revolving credit agreements, stand-by credit facilities; term loans; trust indentures, trust agreements; mortgages, or other evidence of liens or encumbrances, together with any amend-ments, modifications, extensions or waivers relating to any of the foregoing, including, without limitation:
(i)
All documents setting forth LILCO's "ar-rangements" with Tri-Counties, Resources Trust (" Resources Trust") and Tri-Counties Construction Trust (" Construction Trust"),
I 7-
.-,,, _ _ ~ _ -,,.,.
as described in Note 4 to LILCO's audited financial statements for fiscal year ending December 31, 1983
(" Note 4");
(ii)
The first mortgage securing the Company's "First Mortgage Bonds," and all loan docu-mentation pertaining to such bonds; (iii)
The mortgage securing the Company's
" General and Refunding Bonds" (the "G&R Mortgage"), and all loan documentation per-taining to such bonds; (iv)
The Revolving Credit Agreements of both the Resources Trust and the Construction Trust; (v)
The Revolving Credit Agreement referred to in Note 5 to the Company's audited 1983 fi-nancial statements
(" Note 5"),
and all documents pertaining to such an agreement; (vi)
The Eurodollar Revolving Credit Agreement referred to in Note 5, and all documents pertaining to such an agreement;
_a_
L_
0
I (vii)
All documents pertaining to the "intermedi-Q ate term notes" referred to in Note 5:
(viii)
All documents pertaining to any unsecured short-term notes or commercial paper which LILCO may have issued since December 31, 1983.
(b)
Identify each of the Company's lenders and the principal amount of debt outstanding to each such lender, including, without limitation:
(i)
The banks Who are lenders to (A) The Resources Trust; and (B) The Construction Trust (ii)
The trustees, if any, of the First Mortgage and the G&R Mortgage (iii)
The banks Who are lenders under the Revolv-ing Credit Agreement referred to in Note 5 to the Company's audited 1983 financial statements 9-
(iv)
The banks Who are lenders under the Eurodollar Revolving Credit Agreement referred to in Note 5; (v)
The banks Who are lenders under the " inter-mediate term notes" referred to in Note 5.
(c)
The amount of all debt outstanding, as of:
l (i)
December 31, 1983;
-(11) the most recent date for which such infor-mation is available.
8.
With respect to such of LILCO's preferred stock oustanding which carries mandatory redemption features (e.g.,
Par Value $100 per share, Series L, M,
Q, R,
and S, and Par value $25 per share, Series 0, T,
U, V and X), furnish i
copies of'all documents which describe, set forth, or oth-erwise relate to the rights and preferences of the holders of such preferred stock.
P 9.
Produce all documents constituting, referring or in any way relating to any communication between LILCO, or 'a,ny of its agents or representatives (including, without limita-tion, its attorneys, accountants, consultants or experts) k V i
. - - + ~ -
e-.
..-,n.,q-
me----
and any of LILCO's lenders (including, without limitation, the persons whose identity is sought in paragraph 7 hereof) and their respective agents or representatives (including, without limitation, their attorneys, accoun-tants, consultants or experts), since January 1, 1982 to date.
10.
With respect to LILCO's participation in Nine Mile Point 2, produce all documents constituting, referring, or relating in any way to any agreements or understandings between LILCO and other cotenants in Nine Mile Point 2, including, without limitation:
(a)
All documents referring or in any way relating to the suspension of payments by LILCO for con-struction of Nine Mile Point 2; 1
(b)
All documents constituting, referring, or in any way relating to (i) the notification by Niagara Mohawk (or any other cotenant) that it considers the company to be in default of its obligations to other cotenants (including all the documents constituting the alleged obligations); and (ii)
Niagara Mohawk's (or any other cotenant's) 11 -
\\-
advice to the Company that it may institute litigation; (c)
All studies, analyses, reports, communications or other documents relating to any relationship between (i) LILCO's suspension of payments for Nine Mile Point 2, and (ii) LILCO's relationship with any of its creditors, or actions or re-sponses by any such creditors:
(d)
All documents constituting, referring or in any way relating to communications with other cotenants concerning LILCO's suspension of pay-I ments for Nine Mile Point 2.
11.
Provide copies of all documents analyzing, discussing, re-ferring or in any way relating to any voluntary or invol-untary bankruptcy of LILCO including, without limitation,
- I the ef fect of such a proceeding on LILCO's pending Appli-cation for Exemption, or all or any portion of its request for a low power license.
12.
Unless otherwise being produced in response hereto, I
produce all documents constituting, referring or in any j
way relating to, the advice by the banks, referenced in I
[
P L-1 1
Note 4, that. advances by LILCO to the Construction Trust
.in excess of'the $500,000,000 advanced by the banks vio-lated provisions of the Trust agreements referred to in Note 4, and provide the following information for the period January 1, 1983 to date:
(a)
The amounts of all LILCO advances to the Construction Trusts; (b)
The dates on which each such advance was made; and (c)
The purpose for which each such advance was made.
13.
With respect to the amendments to the Trust agreements referred to-in Note 4, and unless otherwise being produced g
r g,
in response hereto, provide copies of: all documents constituting, referring or in any way relating to such amendments and provide the following information:
l (a)
With respect to each payment by either Trust of in-terest payments under the pertinent Credit Agreement, identify 1
(i) the amount of the payment; I'
(ii) the date of the payment; and 1
13 -
s.
0
r' (iii) the source of funds used for the payment, k
(b)
Identify the date, the amount, and the source of funds for each payment of (i) interest and (ii) principal, which became due, or will beccme duc, under the Revolving Credit Agreements for both Trusts for the period January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985.
14.
With respect to the amendments to the Trust agreements referred to in Note 4, provide copies of the following:
(a)
All documents constituting, referring or relating in any way to any communications with or from any bank e
I since April 27, 1984 concerning such amendments; and Iw (b)
All documents constituting, referring or relating in any way to studies, analyses or reports concerning the relationship between any potential default under the Trust agreements and LILCO's relationships with any of its creditors.
15.
With respect to the statements made by LILCO in its Posi-tion Paper dated May 30, 1984 (at pages 47-48), state'the bases for, and provide copies of all documents constituting, referring or relating in any way to, any 9
studies, analyses or reports concerning the severity and breadth of the impact of a possible LILCO bankruptcy, including without limitation, the impact of such a possi-ble bankruptcy on:
(a)
The credit of utilities throughout New York, any pos-sible higher financing costs, any possible higher prices of energy, and any possible higher costs of living and conducting business in New York S5. ate; (b)
Utilities outside New York; (c)
Alleged increases or interruption of services that consumers and businesses in Long Island would face; (d)
The credit of New York State, its municipalities and its agencies, as well as the allegedly resulting in-crease in borrowing costs of the State; and (e)
The allegedly precarious banking system and the al-legedly national and worldwide implications LILCO contends would result.
16.
With respect to LILCC's needs for financing during fi, scal years ending 1984 and 1985, provide copies of'the follow-
[
ing l
-ee h
(a)
All documents constituting, referring, or relating in
[
any way to such needs including, without limitation,
' internal LILCO communications as well as communica-f tions with any lending institutions, investment bank-4 t
ers, investment advisers, and any governmental agencies; and i
(b)
All documents constituting, referring or relating in f
4 any way to the relationship, if any, between LILCo's i
obtaining a low power license for all or any phases of LILCO's proposed low power testing program and its f
ability to obtain financing.
17.
With respect to the statement in LILCO's Form 8-K dated I(-
k-February 21, 1984, that "the Company is evaluating the im-pact which any disallowance of the Shoreham costs will have on the Company's financial condition and operating l
results," produce all documents which constitute, refer or 1
relate in any way to such an evaluation.
18.
The LILCO Position Paper of May 30, 1984 (at page 35) states i
I "When the conclusions concerning Shoreham made by the PSC Staff for the Marburger Commission using a 604 capacity factor, are adjusted to 65% to achieve a valid compari-son, the penalty for not operating Shoreham increases to S14.9 billion."
l 4
16 -
e t
,cr-y w,.-,,,,---.y,-,-,
,na,.
,,,w-
,..e n.,
.-,-,n_,
,.,,. _. -,,, - - ~,, -, -.. -
Please state the bases for such assertion and produce all studies, analyses, reports, computations, data, and other documents constituting, referring or relating in any way to such assertion.
19.
With respect to the assumption contained in the Position Paper (at page 50), "that LILCO is relieved of its past and future obligation for Nine Mile Point 2 and that its cash investment in that plant is returned to the Company "
provide copies of all documents constituting, referring or relating in any way to the potential assumption of LILCO's Nine Mile Point 2 obligations by any party other than LILCO.
20.
With respect to the proposed settlement of the "prudency case," described in the May 30, 1984 Position Paper (at pages 50-51), state LILCO's bases for the conclusion that "LILCO arrived at this amount after careful assessment of the contribution the Company could make toward rate reduck I
L tion considering the phase-in time and the rate increases proposed in this paper," and provide copies of all documents constituting, referring or in any way relating to the referenced " assessment".
t M
\\-
O
21.
Identify the number of full-time employee equivalents at Shoreham, by job title and employment shifts, necessary, or assumed to be available, to accomplish each of the four phases of low power testing identified in LILCO's Applica-tion for Exemption.
22.
State the time at which, and the extent to which, LILco began, or intends to commence, expensing (as opposed to capitalizing) personnel and other costs associated with Shoreham.
23.
With respect to each of the four phases described in LILCO's Application for Exemption, identify (a) the monthly cashflow, capital expenditures and other expenses associated with each phase:
(b) the anticipated re-sale value of nuclear fuel assemblies were Shoreham to be abandoned at the end of each phaser and (c) the cost, in real 1984 dollars, of decommissioning Shoreham at the end of each phase, and provide copies of all documents relating to the inf'ormation sou'ght in (a), (b), or (c).
18 -
24.
LILCO 's May 30, 1984 Position Paper (at p. 46) states that the " effects of LILCO's financial crisis are being suffered
. by its customers, who are subject to longer service response times and reduced customer service under the austerity plan; State the basis for LILCO's assertion that its customers are being subjected to (a) longer-service response times; and (b) reduced service, and provide copies of all documents constituting, refer-ring or relating in any way to the effect of the austerity plan on (a) longer service response time; and (b) reduced service, or the relationship between the austerity program 8
and (a) and (b).
l
(
- 2 5.
Provide copies of all documents constituting, referring or C
relating in any way to (a)
The purchase, sale, of fer of purchase or sale of LILCO's gas system by Brooklyn Union Gas or any other person (b)
The purchase, sale, or offers of purchase or sale of any other LILCO assets, during the period January 1, 1984 to dater and I
p.
~
e
,_,-.,r u
s..y-..
y,-<-4
+----+<mm
e
" "* w -
(c)
LILCO's suspension of property tax payments with respect to Ehoreham.
26.
Provide the following information as of January 1,
- 1982, and December 31, 1982:
(a). Anticipated completion date and cost (censtruction, AFUDC, total) for Shoreham.
(b)
Anticipated completion date and LILCO share of the total cost for Nine Mile Point 2 (construction, AFUDC, total).
(c)
Bond rating of LILCO.
(d)
Cumulative-to-date expenditures for Shoreham (con-struction, AFUDC, total).
(e)
Cumulative-to-date expenditures for Nine Mile Point 2 (construction, AFUDC, total).
(f)
Capacity to issue additional long-term debt and preferred stock, based on coverage limitations.
(g)
Common stock price and dividend payment rate.
I 27.
Identify by name and title each officer (including each Vice, President) and director of LILCO since January 1, 3
l I
1983, to-date, including date of office and, in the case of termination or resignation, the reason (s) therefor.
I i
28.
Provide copies of all insurance policies, agreements or other sources of financial protection, upon which LILCO l
relies for asserted compliance with 10 C.F. R.
Part 140.
Respectfully-submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York, 11788 h
pg Lawrepce Coe Lan et Karld J. Letsch .[ Cherif Sedky '( KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County DATED: June 11, 1984 l r l i i i - 21 i i i l
~ . ; { '. ' ( UKITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ) In the Matter of ) ) -LONG ISLAND, LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docke No. 50-322-OL-4 ) (Low Power) '(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 11) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I'hereby certify that copies of Suffolk County's second Diccovery Request to LILCO Relating to LILCO's Application for Excmption have been served on the following this lith day of
- June, 1984, by U.S. mail, first class, excep as otherwise
- ( noted below.
- (
I Judge-Marshall-E. Miller, Chairman Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road .W3chington, D.C. 20555-Mineola, ::ew York 11501 . Judge'Glenn O. Bright Honorable Peter Cohalan l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suffolk County Executive .U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission H. Lee Dennison Building W2chington, D.C. 20555 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, ::ew York 11788
- Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson
'Onk Ridge National Laboratory Fabian Palomino, Esq. .P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Special C:unsel to the, 3 00k Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Governor Executive Chamber, Room 229 LElocnor L. Frucci~, Esq. State Capitcl LAtcmic Safety and Licensing Board Albany, New York 12224 ,0.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W2chington, D.'C. 20555 W. Taylcr Reveley, III, E s q.* Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Robert M. Relfe, Esq. 'Edwin J. Reis,.Esq. Hunton & 1:illiams .!fice of Exec. Legal' Director 707 Easc Main. Street %s;;.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, Virginia 23212 ~ W3chington, D.C. 20555 6 v -rv ,v ..y .-4, ...m,, - _,,, m._.-_..-----.-,._y ,,,-.,--,--.--m-
a:-] , i w f Jer. Martin Suubert James Dougherty, Esq. .c/o'Cong.-William. Carney 3045 Porter Street, N.W. l .'1113 Longworth House Office Washington, D.C. 20008 Building .. Washington, D.C. 20515 Mr. Brian McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company Mnrtin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Shoreham Nuclear Power Sta. Suffolk County Attorney P.O. Box 618 H.' Lee'Dennison Building North Country Road Vaterans Memorial Highway Wading River, New York 11792 HEuppauge,. New' York 11788 Jay Dunkleberger, Esq. i Docketing and Service Branch New York State Energy Office i Office of the Secretary Agency Building 2 U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C.. 20555 Albany, New York 12223 l Stephen B..Latham, Esq. John.F..Shea,-Esq. Tuomey, Latham and Shea 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New. York 11901 !( I By' Federal' Express lI John E. Birkenheier i KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER A PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 t' DATE: June 11, 1984 l I 1 6 .q l h i t f
2 6 x _ _.sc _ ve.r. s a ~ The County hereby requests LILc0 := produce the documents listed below. _rcr purposes of this request, the verd " documents" - is to be given its broadest meaning to include, without limi-totion, correspondence, memoranda, r.eports, notes, cc puter printouts an'd other fer=s ' of written data and =aterial, all' whether in draf; er final f or=. Further=:re, (i) If a document has been,:recared in 'several cepies, er additional c= pies have I been made that are not identical (er are no I longer identical by reascn of any sahsequent nctatien en c: ether==dificarica of a copy), i each nenidentical copy is to be c nstrued as i s a separate document if the ne:ations c: other modificatiens thereen are significant to the substance,of the document. Identical ~> copies need not be supplied. (ii) If any document c=vered by these requests is withheld under a claim of privilege,. furnish a list cf such documen (s) with the following information: data, author, addressee or recipient, persens to whc= copies were furnished, subject matter, the privilege which is claimed, and the reque.t a whi=h [ call for such documentis). I
.f' t (iii) If any requested document was 1 'l but is no lencer in your possessien c ( subject to your control, state what dis-positic,n was made of it. ~.- Unless expressly li:ited, documents to be produced include net enly these in the possession er subject,to the c=ntrol of LILCO, but aise documents in the possession er subject Oc the centrol of LILCO's censulta.nts, persens under c=nAr'act with L~ LOO and vend::s of equipment er services e & 9D 9 m - u O. eW .D 3 g3 i e s s e g b D 0 '.3 I I D g i l I I i 1 l 1 4 l e t.
a s ATTACHMENT'B-I'I LCO, June 19, 1984 2
- y s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORYsCOMMISSION w t Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l In the Matter of ) ~ s ) sf 'LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPhMY ) Docket No. S0-322-OL-4 m ~(Low Pow'er)' ) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) s Unit 1) ) OBJECTICNS TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S SECOND DISCOVERY REQUEST TO LILCO -RELATING TO LILCO!S APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION Long Island-Lighting Company (LILCO), by counsel, objects as follows to Suffolk County's Second Discovery Re' quest -s I to LILCO Relating to LILCO's Application for Exemption (the .Second Discovery Request). 1. - I'n' its M!dmorandum and Orddr Scheduling Hearing on i' LILCO's Supplemental Motion for Low-Power' Operating License date'd April 6,'19,84, p at page - 16, the Licensing Board directed that discovery in this case' 2ensist of document requests and-depositions only. 'It prohib ted the use,of interrogatories. Accordingly,-tb;theextenethat.theShcond.DiscoveryRequest Q seeks information not contained in documents properly discoverable from LiLCO; they are interrogatories and beyond .the scope of th'e 1ermitted discovery'in this proceeding._ < 6 \\ s t
. = - -. _ -.. $ "D [ J4;f l t V i t i 2. LILCO objects to all of the requests as.not l relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and not -reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible j evidence. .The. requests may be generally characterized as l seeking all~ financial and/or economic information concerning LILCO's operations,- cash flow and financial health. They I t appear to be calculated to address t'he question of LILCO's l financial qualifications to operate the plant, whether it is l i prudent to engage in ~ 1ow power testing absent assurance that a full power license will be granted and possible uncertainties concerning LILCO's financial health. These matters bear no relevance to LILCO's. exemption request and are not relevant to a ~ any unresolved contentions concerning LILCO's request for a low power license. The Partial Initial Decision in.this proceeding has already determined that'LILCO would-be entitled to commence ~ low power testing.-but for resolution of the diesel generator issue.: The requested exemption would merely allow LILCO to commence low-power testing prior to resolution of the diesel generator issue. 'Thus,Jthere is no questien as to whether low power testing ought;to be allowed at all or concerning LILCO's financial qualifications to engage in it. -See Financial Qualification Statement of Policy, 49 Fed. Reg. 24111 (June 12, 1984). 'Moreover, the Commission has on at least two occasions
1 1 s , held that any ur. certainty attendant to whether LILCO may receive a full power license for Shoreham does not preclude low power testing. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-9, 19 NRC (1984); Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-17, 17 NRC 1032 (1983). 3. The discovery requests are burdensome and . oppressive. (a) The number of documents requested is voluminous. Preliminary estimates indicate that more than 500 manhours would be required to search for and I produce the documents requested. For requests 2 and 7 alone, it is estimated that a five-foot high stack of documents would have to be produced. Additional details concerning their number and location will be provided, if necessary In the interest of expediting this response, however, LILCO is filing it before having complete details. Nevertheless, given the lack of relevance and materiality of these requests, such an extensive effort to research and produce these documents is unwarranted. e = . ,e g 9 ) YA ab ,e. +. ~l ~ ~ ' ' ' '
.,.r .r
- ..y..,
s. +... _, -._, ; _. _.. r. _,, ;.. ; _.... ; ~. _4 (b) It will further be unduly burdensome to produce all copies and drafts of the voluminous number of documents requested. (c) It will also be unduly burdensome and oppressive to supply all documents "in the possession or subject to the control of LILCO's consultants, persons under contract with LILCO and vendors of equipment or services to LILCO." The number of such potential vendors and consultants might be large with respect to the subject matter of the requests. 4. Additionally and alternatively, LILCO objects to i the production of any documents that subject to the work-product, trial preparation or attorney-client privileges. If LILCO's other objections are overruled and documents are produced, LILCO will identify those withheld as privileged at that time. 5. The Second Discovery Request is not timely. It was sent to LILCO by Federal Express on June 11 and, accordingly, LILCO's responses would not be due until after the close of discovery. ] f ,j, h', Y j, .e. A g "+ "a ,' 7 4 d [;. M-4 w 'N
- * " ' " ' = * -
- ~ '
- ' ~*
= -.. - . c. . l 1 t Respectfully submitted, l LONG ISLAND-4IGHTING COMPA Y [ t ~. t + / i g' By [ ~ i Robert M. R61fe. ' / Anthony. P. Earley, Jr. ' 'Hunton & Williams ~ Post Office Box 1535 t Richmond, Virginia,23212 i . DATED: June'19, 1984 1 y i f i 4 9 1 1 I i i f ? r 4 .t i t ( L f I f I i L 1 f (; 6 [c L p l i -. ; c
.,~ m ., m ..m.-
- l Attachment C
[ IN*ATR1,CK,10r'rwe, H2LL, Marorssa & P=m A DemsstemmP pmanese & Poepammenstaa esstramarmee neoo M Srner, N. W. YAsmzotor, D. C. mooos i was sam sast, m as s manmes:m 4samme maa m.m m u s=* zum,naam see musases.ntmaranza==== m. Ded) 08&e5 MN June 20, 1984 vanzart sumer asu, zuussa t (202) 452-7027 VIA TEL3 COPIER Robe.rt M. Rolfe, Esq. !!unton & Williana P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main street Richmond, VA 23212 Dear Bob We received today LILCO's objections to suffolk county's ' Second Discovery Request to LILCO Relating to WM's Appli-cation fet Exessption (the 'Cbjections"). The objections stats that' "to the extent that the Second Discovery Request. decks infonation not contained in documents properly dis-coverable fresa p"G, they are interrogatories and beyond r the scope of the permitted discovery in this proceeding. " (Objectionse 1). We will be responding separately to your Objections, i. In our view, the inforzation sought in the Second Discovery Raquest is. relevant to the."public internat" i critarion which LILCO must meet in its pending Application., for 2xemption. We thought it would be easier for LILCO to' I reapcod to writtan requests for information than to require its management to beccuse subject to deposition==4 nation. In light of LILco's position concerning the 'intarro-
- gatories," however, Suffolk county has de** mined to take r
the. deposition of George J. Sideris, L"M's principal i financial officer. Furthermore, in order to be.able to ecraplete discovery by July 29, 1984, it is assential that Mr. Sideris' deposition ce===mm on Thursday, July 21, i Friday, July 22, or Monday, July 25. Suffolk county will need the time betareen July 25 and July 29 to obtain addi-o tional discovery of LILCO witnesses, if necessary as a O e e a.* Is *.
- I
's t-f p[ ,~n
l a t ganzmesoca, Lvi=v Exss, h=Turuza & Pzzsmap Robert M. Rolfe, Esq. I Page 2 June 20, 1984 i result of Mr. Siderts' testimony, or to access the licensing board, if necessary. Please advise ts by the close of business today whether LILCO will produce voluntarily Mr. Sideris on one of +J:e days j enumerated above.. In the absence of hearing from you, we i will.have no recouraa but to subpoena Mr. Sideris for a , day of our choosing. Since
- urs, t
Qu y f [ I i l l E h i ~ I k e i e t 9 e, e--,-,- --.,e-
e n..- - LILCO, June 21, 1984::c~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE '84 JE! 25 R2:12 In the Matter of i;hh' i:t.' t - LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY WO (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 (Low Power) I 'ereby certify that copies of MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE h ORDER were served this date upon the following by U.S. mail, first-class, postage prepaid, and in addition by hand (as indi-cated by one asterisk) or by Federal Express (as indicated by two asterisks). Judge Marshall E. Miller
- Honorable Peter Cohalan Atomic Safety and Licensing Suffolk County Executive l
Board County Executive / U.S. NRC Legislative Building 4350 East-West Highway Veteran's Memorial Highway Fourth Floor (North Tower) Hauppauge, New York 11788 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.** Special Counsel to the i Judge Glenn O. Bright
- Governor Atomic Safety and Licensing Executive Chamber, Room 229 Board State Capitol U.S. NRC Albany, New York 12224 4350. East-West Highway Fourth Floor (North Tower)
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Alan R. Dynner, Esq.* Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson ** Herbert H. Brown, Esq. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Christopher & Phillips 1900 M. Street, N.W., 8th Floor Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.* Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Martin Suubert U.S. NRC c/o Congressm'an William Carney 4350 East-West Highway 113 Longworth House Office Bldg. Fourth Floor (North Tower) Washington, D.C. 20515 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
/* ,r. 2-James Dougherty, Esq. 3045 Porter Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. i Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Jay Dunkleberger, Esq. Veterans Memorial Highway New York State Energy Office Hauppauge, New York 11788 Agency _ Building 2 Empire State Plaza Docketing and Service Branch Albany, New York, 12223 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Edwin J. Reis, Esq.* Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Bldg. -7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Attn: NRC 1st Floor Mailroom ' Robert M. Rolf'e " \\ i Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: June 21, 1984 p w w ,w e-, - --c-r-- -}}