ML19294B078

Motion to Determine Procedures & to Compel Responses by DOJ Re First Set of Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents.Doj Failed to Identify Documents Pertaining to DOJ 800201 Second Supplemental Response.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19294B078
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas, Comanche Peak
Issue date:	02/12/1980
From:	Bouknight J HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19294B066	List: ML19294B065 ML19294B078
References
NUDOCS 8002270098
Download: ML19294B078 (20)

Text

.:,.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

(~ ~

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

HOUSTON ~ LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-498A et al.

)

50-499A

)

(South Texas Project, Units 1

)

and,7.)

7 2

arr 1r r 72 _

-_ _ TEXAS.. UTILITIES _ GENERATING COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-445A

. ~'#2 1~

2 50-446k2~

^ ~

~~~

- -- --ed'd3;

~

)

~~~

)

72 2~

2'~

E (Comanche Peak Steam Electric

)

Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

~~

MOTION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY TO COMPEL THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO DETERMINE PROCEDURES AND TO PROVIDE FULLER RESPONSES TO HOUSTON'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.740 (f), Houston Lighting & Power Company

(" Houston") moves to compel the Antitrust Division of the U.S.

Department of Justice

(" Division" or " Department") to provide fuller answers to Houston's First Set of Interrogatories _and,.

~

~

Requests for Production of Documents, August 1, 1978, addressed to the Department.

Additionally, because of the short time remaining before the close of discovery, Houston moves co have the Department respond to this motion by February 19, seven days af ter its hand del and to have the issues stated herein decided by ae also seeks to have the Dep onses, including docu-

@MN4ocumenty"n]']fier-1v.

men enteraght tremy (f#d37~,

-siESj$Di fensh)"

g j

-EI*fSPages;,

TMOS

_2-The Department first responded to the First Set of Interroga-tories on October 1, 1978.b/

As set out in Houston's November 30,.

_,;__1979, Motion to Compel with respect to these same Interrogatories, the Department's initial response declined to answer certain

_ significant interrogatories because "the Department has not yet had. the opportunity to complete its review of discovery materials to the extent necessary to respond to this part. of.tdut. int.errogatory_._". _

Initial Response to Interrogatory 10, quoted in Motion to Compel 3-.

1-

--t

-- n iat-2.- 3.

4-Houston filed its earlier Motion to Compel because._it_.

required substantive answers to its Interrogatorib's to the Depart-

~

~

. ' :- Ement in order to prepare a meaningful defense in the upcoming hear _ -

' ~. :- ::: :~:5 J :. :ing.

In response to the Motion to Compel, however',~th'e D'e[ar'tment filed a series of pleadings, each seeking to relieve the Depart-ment of its responsibilities under the NRC Rules of Practice to

~

respond substantively and completely to Houston's Interrogatories.27

.- ~

_:- :f

~ 1980 '"- -..~~ -=

The Board declined to do so, and in fact in a Wan'ury 17, a

4:'-+

Conference Call explicitly commanded the Department to answer

:::_. =.

- Houston's Interrogatories as to relevant markets, competition, a;:.-_

c.

.-~

~

~ ~~

-~

injury to competitions, and other central iss'ue'sof this Section'

.: r: :' - r c _..-.

7, 105 (c) proceeding.

- :..=

_e

.::==:-

--.=L

-1/ The Department corrected typographical errors in this response

'in a supplemental filing on December 4, 1978.

. 27

=

See, e.g.,

Department of Justice Motion for E' tension of Time, x

December 14, 1979; Department of Justice's Response to Response of Houston Lighting & Power Company to Department of Justice Motion for Extension of Time, Dated December 14, 1979, Decem-ber 26, 1979; Department of Justice's Response to Houston Lighting

& Power Company January 3, 1980 Request for Conference Call, January 4, 1980.

~

7 " 22' Ih tbst ~5ebruary 1, 1980, Second Suppl.smental' Response to

~"

Houston's Interrogatories (at issue here), the~ Department again failed to supply sufficient and complete information required by the Interrogatories.

This Motion to Compel follows.

The deficiencies in the Department's responses fall into First, the Department did~not in any' instance' two basic areas:

rr

.-

c. =.

identify dccuments responsive to each separate interrogatory,-

~ despit' iti being called upon to do so Although certain of the'"#22 222#

~

i i

Department's responses represent that documents which relate to

=

• - ~ - * ~

'a pa'rticular interrogatory are available for inshection, the'

- - ;. r-

~

Department has made no effort to segregate such" documents from'

~

th ' Department's' - ' ' - ~ " -

__s.

tens of' thousands of other documents contained ~in:

e 2n- - + L : :: -

.. - :_.~ " ~ '. -.

files; accordingly, the opportunity for "inspectidn"~ of such doen' -

m'ents is illusory.

Additionally, in several instances'the~ Depart-- ~"

~

~

ment'prodided nonresponsive answers.

' " ~~

~ - ' ~

~

ThesEdeficienciesintheDepartment'sSlipplembnth'ry~ Response

~

~ 1 22 -*

' alirdholvearoundonecentralissue:

whetheh Uh'e Debh~rtmeh~t l's

~

I

~

2' 3-in;

'suNheet to the law of the case, a Board Ord'er' ~ oliing that h party'-

~

2^*"

h

- ~ -

responding to interrogatories must segregate"its~ documents' '(or

f : r. _..+:: --

~_.. ___.

document identifications) responsive to each interrogatory ~sepa-rately.3/ Apparently disregarding this Orde'r', the D'epartment instead takes the position, solely because Houston possesses copies of all documents produced and depositions taken-both-in the.

i istrict Court trial and in this proceeding to date, that the D

d!' Order C6ncerning Houston Lighting & Power Company's Motion for -Protective Order Regarding Department's-Discovery Request,

-March 6~,

1979, at 1 - 2.

e

1. W @ g e

':4 Department need not separately produce or identify documents

-e 1 r --responsive to each of Houston's interrogatories.

Paradoxically, the Board Order controlling this dispute was issued at the behest of the Department.

--- - Mindful that the close of factual discovery is.at hand,

~ :1

Houston:has limited this Motion to apply only to. interrogatories-

I rr ~ nd: do'cument requests which are central to _the : preparation - of _ - -

. +

a

~

• rHouston's defense.

Although Houston believes:that.it is_ entitled

tbi complbte responses to all its interrogatories and document --

~

76 0:- requests, Houston has not moved to compel further : production -in

r r+

3 many instances where it would have been justified 4/

' r

' tr i - i'1C~nsidering the short time remaining f.or: completion of dis--

o cov ri, it can be anticipated that the Department 3will-respond -

~~

227 :wi~thiits'now familiar refrain:

that it lacks-the time and resources to provide proper responses to Houston requests in a prompt iF+Ufhihi6 nit The short answer to that is that a party cannot : escape

'Alts ibsponsibilities simply because its lawyers -are ~ pressed :for -

~*

+ - - '

-- 7 time. E Howhver, in this instance the circums.tances -are..such that :.

_2 i

~

2 2 Ihhe Dephrtment's complaint should receive short :shrif t..

.The; inter ___= -

l i;r:7 rogatoribs and requests for production were. served on the Depart-22'meht '~re than 18 months ago, on August 1,.19.7.8, and1the. Depart _

2

~

mo 2

mint has hhd= a continuing duty since that date -to supplement its 7

initial answers.

If no effort has been devoted during this time to identify documents which relate to specific-interrogatories and requests for production, that is the Department's responsibility, For example, in 37 instances the Department: failed to respond to requests to produce or identify documents on which it relies in support of its answer.

Houston has moved to compel further production in only 19 of those cases.

_;an_d it_ should not be permitted to profit from its_ own neglect.

..Moreover,. the Department has revealed that it is organizing the materials available to it with the aid of a computer.5./ This organization should permit the Department efficiently and expedi-

.. _tiously to identify materials which relate to its interrogatory.

_;..respo_nses.._if it did not in fact do so when_ supplementing its

- - - -- - - ponse s.

i r.. _:: _r.=:

.~ - - res Als.o..because of the short time available for discovery, Hous. ton

.._ r.e. quests _ the Board to exercise its power under 10.CFR S2.711 to ir ;r:e_s. tab.lish..-the following schedule for resolving;the issues. presented _ _

. by this Motion:

_ 3 : _ :.- J.ebruary 19, 1980 Department's response _(and that,

of any other. party desiring to

_+.

_3-respond) hand-served on the Board _

and Houston.

r

.Eebr.uary 20, 1980 Conference call to resolve the issues presented.herein.

125 :r t r it

. _ Jeb.r.uary 29, 1980 Due cate for.any further.produc-

.. = =_

tion ordered.by the Board.... _

.= _: +:-

-- 1

!"r-

.s:.._:

C. L ~;"

- s::

::. =-

E_d~17-

-5/ Deposition of Gordon C. Taylor (designated expert witness ~~~

for the Department), October 25, 1979, Tr! 15~6, 174-75.

^...:.

.. ' ' ~

~

~

I THE DEPARTMENT MUST IDENTIFY l'i 2-

~

DOCUMENTS AND TRANSCRIPT REFERENCES-RnSPONSIVE TO INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSING FUNDAMENTAL ANTITRUST ISSUES In 37 instances the Department refused to produce or identify documents and transcript references which relate to c.

its response to particular interrogatories.

Instead, it flip-lba..

z,

. pant,1y refer _s_ Houston to all documents produced and all deposi-

..:.i- : - :. e

__.tions tak_en in this proceeding and in the previous, related r-ener:_2:

proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District

=~..z.__.

.. =

- =... = -...

of Texas.

For example, here is the Department's response to

- ~~Inte_rrogatory 1(c)-(d) :

=_....

Refer to Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P Inter-rogatory 1, 26 (b)-(c) and 29 herein.

The information sought by the remainder of this interrogatory is contained in the deposition

~

J

- transcripts in these proceedings, the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al., the documents provided to the Department during discovery, to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents 2

J'provided"to the Department by other parties.

Anysdocuments the:

~

Department has which have not been produced either by HL&P or TU, Urin: in discovery, are being provided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting & Power Company's Third Interrogatories, f "lfilled Eerewith.

- =_: _2; Mo ~d'ocuments were provided in the Department's Supplemental Response 21 to Interrogatories 1, 26 (b)-(c), or 29.

Language virtually identical to that quoted above (excluding the first sentence of the quote) appears in 32 other responses sub-mitted by the Department.

Four other responses are to the same effect.

For the purposes of this Motion to Compel, Houston has selected subparts of only 15 interrogatories to which it seeks

-- production or identification of responsive documents and responsive.

m e

e deposition or District Court transcript pages.5/

These inter-rogatories and subparts, identified in Exhibit A of this Motion, seek vitally important information on such topics as the intent and anticompetitive effect of the alleged " intrastate only" agree-ment, extent and abuse of monopoly power by Houston, and the feasibility of interconnecting TIS /ERCOT and the Southwest Power it---

..- :+; -

...= '

Pool.

Identification of responsive documents and transcript refer-ences will permit Houston to ascertain the facts upon which the

-c=-

.:+=;_.:

Department relies, and will permit Houston to prepare its rebuttal.

2 Indeed, Houston's position is exactly the same as the Depart-

=: :

ment's when the shoe was on the other foot.2/.g-Early in the dis-

. r covery for this proceeding, the Department propounded its First 2:

. -.T

.: r: -

i.

.c-10-Set ~ of~ Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Houston.

~

Houston provided answers to the interrogatories but declined to index the District Court trial documents previously,'rodubid to the-

~

Department _to correspond to its interrogatory answers.

.The~. Depart-r:.

z.

n-

.3

=. -

.r e_

2Lu. ^

..: =.

-6/ Thus, in the expediencies caused by the close of~ discovery,

~ - -

Houston.at this time does not move to compel such identifica-

..-.=

tion with respect to Interrogatories 3 (a), 4 '.a ) - ( f ), 10 (a)~,

--;.. - 11.(a)- (d),: -12 (a) - (c), 13 (c), 17, 31 (a) (1).- (6 )_,

34 (a) (1), _(b).,

(f), (g), (i), (j ), and 37.

Houston reserves the right to do

~~

so should a demonstrable need for such information arise.

2/ See RespJnse of the Department of Justice to Houston Lighting

& Power Company's Objections and Motion for a Protective Order

- Regarding the Department's Discovery Request, February 6, 1979,_

at 4 - 7.

If anything, Houston's position is much stronger.

= The-interrogatories in issue here do not extend a dragnet - for.

- n general information.

They seek, with specificity, to identify the evidence on which the Department relies in support of cer-tain basic contentions.

,,, ment sharply replied, calling such a response "; tantamount to.no.

.an. s.wers a.t all. "8/

=.

Specifically, the Department took the position that specific identification of documents is required:

~

~"~ HL&P simply responded that to the extent it has any

~

~fnformation, that information is contained in the

--. _. ; ;. documents previously furnished.

.. For the. reasons.

- i-

~~~"^~~

prev' ously discussed, if a party responding ~to inter - '-

~

r_ies chooses to answer by producing docume_nts,...

rs...::r.roga;to_ documents must be specifically identified ~and 'a -- ---'.. _... _ _ _.

i those planket reference to thousands of previ_ously produce.d -- _. -~ --'

x7 docum_ents is inadequate.9/

-" --,~~~

~

~

. --. The~=Departm'en't'also sought specific transcript" citations:--..

""-._ ^'--

.c-..--

~

~ ' ~

~~~-

m

~= ~

~~

~ He~re,"HL&P refers, without any specific page' citation,"

~~~ ' ~

..to.the. deposition testimony of P.

H. Robi.nson taken

'in ~the civil case.

That deposition tessLmony' consists'

~"~_...~~ ~ ~ '__of.approximately 300 pages.

It is simp _1y..not.possible

__= " - ~ -

foY^the Department to reread this entire ~ deposition'-in

an.. effort to determine which portions of it HL&P believes

. =J'

~

dr~~

r

- += 17 ;

~ ~

" adfe responsive to this interrogatory.10,/ -

~

~

~'

'In-a March 6, 1979 Order, the Board totally' upheld th'e Department's '

~

-- ;ition:

2

.~

pos

[HoilstonT has the option either to prodtide ail documentJ=" 2T; r

~

relevant to particular requests, er to list and describe those documents it regards as duplicative (of earlier production to the Lcpartment].

In either event, a docu-ment and file review is required of HL&P

.11/

The Board, accepting the Department's arguments _. submitted..a_ year nago, has set the ground rules for this case; It is beyond perad _

y-p.

_.2

-. venture that the Department must abide by those._ rules.. Yet. wait _

5 8,/ Motion of the Department of Justice to Compel HL&P to Provide Fuller Responses to the Department's First Set of Interrogatories

~ ~ '

'and Requests for Production of Documents, February 6, 1979, at 2.

~

9/ Id.- at 27 - 28.

- - :[10)Id.:at29-30.

~'

~

=

11/ Id. Order concerning Houston Lighting & Power Company's Motion

~-

for Protective Order Regarding Department's Discovery Request, March 6, 1979, at 2.

A. : a.. r.

ing until the eleventh hour the Department h..as submitted responses-which completely ignore the requirements imposed by the Board and p' lace Houston at a substantial disadvantage.

This performance

~

cannot be excused and should not be tolerated.

For the foregoing reasons, the Department should be ccmpelled

_.. to pFovide or identify documents and deposition or trial transcript

- + pages responsive to Interrogatories 1(c)-(d), 8 (]a_),

_9,. 10 (c) - (d):,.

^

~

~

~

13'(a) & (d), 14(c), 15(c), 16 (c), 20 (b)-(c), 21 (a){.(c), 2 3 (a) - (b),.

... _ _24 ( a ) - (b), 29 (a) & (d), 32 (d) & (f), and 33 (a).

^^

^.: ;..^.*.

~ ~ "

' d ? E.' *. ~ ; ~

1..

L

• T 'l.~ E T ~.

3.. _

L '. i

• E: :.:.

74.

=

=# ~

-.a.

i *: -

-~ 41:._ -

' ~'

L'...-

^

J-

.!~

E Ji _.

09' : ". i

'372 : -

g.

..., 2

.Ei a

e 9

y

.e

~

o II

+5 THE DEPARTMENT MUST PROVIDE RESPONSIVE

~

ANSWERS TO CERTAIN INTERROGATORIES In subparts of five additional interrogatories, the

.. Department simply failed to provide responsive answers.

For.

.the.same reasons set forth in Part I, Houston moves to compel,

. responsive answers to three of them.12/

_;_=

_ __\\

3

- : Interrogatory 3 (b) 3.

State the basis for, and provide all documents.

relating to, the Division's allegation that'" membership 'in TIS

~~

~

was essential if the smaller electric systems were to compete effectively with the larger systems that were members of TIS" (p.6), and in so doing:

(b) identify (1) all product and geographic markets in which each such " smaller electric system" competes with each such larger system that was a member of TIS, (2) the type and extent of competition in each such market, and (3) the market shares of each utility in each such market.

Department's Supplemental Amsponse to Interrogatory 3 (b)

The " smaller electric systems" are listed in the Department's Supplemental Response to HL&P's Interrogatory 27 and 28 herein.

The " larger systems" are TIS members except Brownsville.

The

" smaller electric" systems compete with the " larger systems" in these four relevant produce markets:

(A) retail service market; (B) wholesale power market; (C) coordination services market; and the (D) trancmission services market The Department then stated its view of the extent of these four markets, and that description -- as far as it goes -- is acceptable for the purposes of this Motion to Compel.

12/

The other two are Interrogatories 33 (b), (c), (e) and (f) and 34 (c), to which the Department failed to provide sufficient detail as requested by each interrogatory.

Houston reserves its rights to seek such detail in the future, as set forth above in footnote 6.

...~- -

However, this answer is incomplete to the point of non-responsiveness.

As quoted above, Interrogatory 3 called for "the basis for" and "all documents relating to" the Department's

... answer.

Aside from a naked identification of market shares, the...

i Department stated no facts supporting its determination that

the.-

identified markets are those relevant to this : proceedings iIden-

..r==

tification of market shares is insufficient.as a. basis,- because e :urthis information presupposes the existence of a defined: market +

_.-i._- _- ~:-

r..

and..therefore cannot serve simultaneously to dustify.that _defini-3.-

7

..- =

tion.

. r.e: Additionally, the Department provided or identified <.no. --

s

= documents, nor cited to any deposition or transcript -page, relating to or supporting its selection and: listing.of the.rele-vant markets in its response.

... :e: Wi-thout. knowledge of the underlying f acts (or assumptions). : :.

z;

.. ~.

. -: : s. :

-:++:=. =i=- -

--. :upon which the Department bases its selection 2of.. relevant rmar-T

-=

= : 1:-

=~ 2...

kets, Houston is severely limited in testing or.rebuting that selection.

Relevant markets are of course central tocany. anti-trust case.

For this reason, the Department should be: compelled to state the factual basis for its selection of the relevant 2 :. - s

+ - s:.

markets identified in its answer, and to provide or identify documents and transcript references supporting its market analy-sis.

Interrogatory 18

- - ~ ' ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

This important interrogatory asks whetder the. Department

^

$-_. has any evidence showing that CSW's plan for interstate inter-connection would not adversely affect Houston in certain

. specified ways.

The Department simply has declined to answer

_ Interrogatory 18 in any meaningful way in either its initial or supplemental response thereto.

Houston's assertion that interstate interconnection in accordance with CSW's proposal would adversely affect it and its customers is an important justification for its opposition s s :L.

=-

--:2-

^:- :.

,.:._to sy-@, interconnection proposals.

Although the, Department admits,_ _.=

=-

,__ that_it has documents potentially responsive to this interroga-tory, it has never searched them for relevant information, never

~ _ - -

c :

.r -

stated a basis for its position as to the effects of interstate interconnection upon Houston, and never provided or identified relevant documents or transcript pages.

The Department should 77.-_

be compelled to do so now.

~

Interrogatory 25 (a) and (c)

This interrogatory asks the Department to define and

'. : - = r : :::

=.

2-

=

describe each relevant product and geographic market in which

...: 5.-

1:-

==

Houston and/or TU are in actual or potential competition with

- =. ;;_.~ :.._-

other electric utilities.

The Department did not independently'-

answer this. interrogatory.

Instead, it referred Houston _to three other answers, all of which are themselves non-responsive.13/

.. 2:

.^

Additionally, the Department failed to produce or identify re-

_sponsive documents and transcript pages.

m.

13/

For subpart

.a !, the Department citcd its answer to Inter-rogatory '?D,

The non-responsive nature _of_the Department's answer ta Ir. ' Jogatory 3 (b) is discussed above.

For sub-

= ' ' -part (c) it clied its answers to Interrogatories 23 and 24, neither of which incAuded production or identification of

~ -

-responsive documents.

In Part I and Exhibit A of this Motion, Houston requests such production or identification with respect to Interrogatories 23 and 14.

~

... -. _... For the same reasons set forth in Part ;I,and in _ connection

_. with Interrogatory 3 (b), above, the Department should be com-pelled to provide a responsive answer to Interrogatory 25.14/

~ =

CONCLUSION Houston requests that the Board should order the Depart-.

~

'hent(an'd any other party so desiring) to re'spons'e to this

~

~~

~ ~

~

~~- -

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

~' ~.-'-'

' 'Mb tio'n Ey ~ February 19, 1980, with hand-delivery'bf respo'nses

~

~~

~

~

-. ~ 'o~ ='th'e' ~ Boa rd and Hous ton, and additionally, th'e ' Board should~

~' ~~

'~' t

~

~

r :. --

e e.

---e

-. + -

schedule a conference call to resolve the i:ssues rai.=..d ~by ;this se

' ~ ~ ~

M'ht'ib'n' fo' ' February 20, 1980.

~

- ~~ '

~ ~~

r

. - - :. =.

~ - _--.. _..

the Dep5'bse'nt'~should b'e

~~

~,.

~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' F'o'r'all the foregoing reasons,

~

r

---=--- c.-.--

-m g

~

1.

Provide or identify documents and deposition on 2

~

District Court trial transcript pages specifically respon-' - --

~

~

sive to Interrogatories 1(c)-(d), 8 (a), 9, 10'(c)~~ (d)~,

~

.e :

~ = - - - -

u.

-.... =... - - - -.-..

13 (a) & (d), 14(c), 15(c), 16 (c), 2 0 ( b ) - (c )',~ ~ 21' ( a )2 ( c )',

...=

w.--

- =---.- ~

~~- ~

~~~~~

23 (a)-(b), 24 (a)-(b), 29 ( a) & (d), 32 (dfs (f),- ~ and 33 (a)'.

~

. ;+ +:-.;-.

2.

Provide complete responsive answers ds further requestdd'

~ ~

3

- -.

, - =., _. - -..

above to Interrogatories 3 (b), 18, and ' ~2 5 (a) & (c). ' '

~~

^'

' ~ -

~

a----

. -.. +..... _.

Houston requests that all such further production be completed by__

~ ~ ~ ~ "

F'ebruary 29, 1980.

' ~~

I.-

~

-._14/

Houston would accept the Department's responEe to Inter-

- rogatory 25 (a) & (c), as written, if the Department would~

... respond to Interrogatories 3 (b), 2 3 (a)- (b) e. sand 24(a)-

-. _, _ 1(b);.as requested herein,

1.: ::-.--..

Respectfully submitted,

'J. A.

Bouknight, Jr.

Attorney for Houston Lighting

& Power Company r tre _ +:_r:-

r....--

OF COUNSEL:

25 ::

1.~.-.'

e:

=_

r

..=. :.r:

s:

e:

BAKER AND BOTTS

r*30003One Shell Plaza 7 :

% -- - = r'

'" ~

. Houston, Texas 77002

_==ar s..: - :

- - - i

= --

2.

Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, ri 3 +:AselradF& Toll 5rt--

2 ' ' : : : " i 21--

1-ri 1025 Connecticut Avenue,. N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036

~

~

~

'l 3 DatediF February 12, 1980 1--

1. - ": '*:~: rii3:

r-^-

7--

- I 5

'+

- I

~ ~ ~ ~.~ 5 : : 2. C.-. ?

- 1 3. :

? :

~

-2

! U :. t 3 *. ; I

~

5.

'+-

-- _+ e;

-2 3.

.mm.ne-emum.

.2-e :

.~ L

EXHIBIT A

-Listing of Interrogatories and subparts thereof which require production or identification of responsive documents and deposi-tion or District Court transcript pages.

Interrogatory General Topic 1(c)-(d)

Enforcement and intent of alleged "ir* astate only" agreement 8(a)

Nature of changed fu 1 situation in Texas Effect of changed _ fuel bltuatlon Upon_

9 competition 10 (c)- (d)

Alleged anticompetitljel)[ctions by...

Houston; nature o_f changed._ fuel-situation in Texas r __

t 13 (a) & (d)

Market and market; power definition;-~~

~~

alleged abuse of market power by

~~~

Houston 14(c)

Alleged monopoly power possessed by Houston 15(c)

Alleged monopoly power possessed by TU 16(c)

Alleged monopoly power possessed jointly by Houston and TU 20 (b)- (c)

Enforcement of alleged " intrastate only" agreement by disconnection 21 (a) - (c)

Concerted action to enforce alleged

" intrastate only" agreement by' dis-connection 23 (a)- (b)

Injury to actual competition from alleged " intrastate only" agreement 24 (a)- (b)

Injury to potential competition from alleged " intrastate only" agreement 29 (a) & (d)

Alleged anticompetitive effect of alleged " intrastate only" agreement 32 (d) & (f)

Availability of fuel supplies for alleged surplus in generating capa-city; economic feasibility of inter-state interconnections

. 3 3_ (a) __

Alleged anticompetitive effect upon Bryan, Texas of alleged " intrastate only" agreement The Department responded to the requests for production

--- or identification of documents in connection with each of the ei [ UUiov<e~ ~ interrogatories or subparts (with the exception of Inter-

rogatory.32(f) and three other subparts) substantially as follows

' 2

=-

The documents responsive to this interrogatory request 3;;.;-

in.p.l_ude the deposition transcripts in these proceedings,

_;_~-

the deposition transcripts and testimony in West Texas Utilities Co. v. Texas Electric Service Company, et al.,

the documents provided to the Department by HL&P or TU,

.; 3 : ;

7. 3 g_ _ the documents provided to the Department during discovery,

- --?

to which HL&P and TU have had access, and the documents provided to the Department by other parties.

Any docu-2 ments the Department has which have not.been produced

.c i [{.,';[_y ~ j.~e~ither by HL&P or TU, or in discovery, ard being pro-f r-]{

'vided in the Department's Response to Houston Lighting

- = -

~~

~

& Power Company's Third Interrogatories, filed herewith.

This quoted response is the Department's entire response to

. 3..Inte_rrogatory 33 (a!.

That substantially the same response could

-Ag3_ sed a total of thirty-three (33) times in the Department's u

Supplemental Response demonstrates the general pattern of

~~

72-

-- [ e~vSsion permeating the Response.

The Department's response

~

2 IT'-

9. =.-

m _ _ to In.te_rrogatory 32 ( f) and the other three subparts, while worded

'differeEtly, had the same effect.

J~--

~~=

~ :~

'".L':

~~ ~ _ ~

~'

~

~~

^

~

• -_e e

_4 *.

- s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

~~

' ~f"2~

2~~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

=

.r. ras:sti

- 7.

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

+ ' -

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos.

50-498A

~'

~~

~~~

et al.

.)

. 50-499A 5 - -..

)

3-.

H :XSouth' Texas Project, Units 1

)::__.'r a r. : ::.c r.

-.i. s and 2)

)

rer_6-.

)

.y

g. _..,.; _.

IT2'-~2 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY

)

Locket.Nos.: 30.445A.--

T2"2.

et al.

)

.- :- n e : : _. _ -5 0.4 4 6 A- : r ; ; ; ;

~

- ~

^

}

~:^~].~?~- (Comanche Peak Steam Electric

)

. $ 5 '.777;'.

-i-I.

r-

~ ~~ ; ~~^"-2rStation, Units 1 and 2)

)

t.

r r-

r'.:r

=

c.

~~

2r'-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE a_-

.- :r

- :.. : r.

g.

7.

=.-

. "=..

I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the foregoing:

~

Motion of Houston Lighting & Power Company to Determine c _ ecir: _ 1.

Procedures and to Compel the Department of Justice to Provide

?::=r- :-

_ -.._. -. = - -.

5.=---,-

Fuller Responses to Houston's First Set of Interrogatories and rs2=-'..

. _ _.. _._ ~. _

,g._-

,=

.,^-

.Reguests for Production of Documents and accompanying cover

-,.:5..

1 letter, both dated February 12, 1980 were served upon the 1-3: :-

following persons, by hand *, or by deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, this 12th day of February, 1980.

L William /J. Frank 12.n

• Marshall E. Miller, Esquire

• Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Frederic D. Chanania, Esquire Washington, D.C.

20555 Michael B.

Blume, Esquire Ann P. Ho.dgdon, Esquire

• Michael L. Glaser, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioh-, ~ }'l 1150 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20555

.. _ Washington, D.C.

20555 Roff Hardy u

Chairman and Chief Executive.

• Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Officer Washington, D.C.

20555 Central Power and Light Company Post Office Box 2121 2 2 2'ntomici Sadetiy and Licensing Corous Christi, Texasi 78403- - -

2

- ' ~ ~ -

~

Appeal Board: Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission G.K. Spruce, General Manager Washington, D.C.

20555 City Public Service Board ~r er inL' Post Office Box =1771

• Chase R. St.eph. ens, Supervisor (20)

San Antonio, Texas 78203

_02" Docketing and-Service Branch TF -!

'Til!!:I: 'ZSEFAT I U.S. Nucidar~ Regulatory Commission Mr. Perry G.

Brittain Washington, D.C.

20555 President Texas Utilities: Generating CompanyE_+:

Mr. Jerome D.

Saltzman 2001 Bryan Tower i

..:: - an: -

Chief, Antitrust and Indemnity Dallas, Texas 75201 Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission G.W.

Oprea, Jr.

Washington, D.C.

20555 Executive Vice President

ZET:T::7 Houston Lighting & Power Company J.

Irion Worsham, Esquire Post Office Box 1700 Merlyn D.

Sampels, Esquire Houston, Texas 77001

2riSpencer C.

Relyea, Esquire

- scr::

Worsham, Forsyth & Sampels R.L. Fancock, Director 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 City c f Austin Electric Utility 5; Dallas,' Texas 75201 Post Office Box 1086:d

.: ~

_ : n : 1.-

Austin, Texas 78767

~2J6n:C. Foodi" Esquire

+" ris a r. -

::n:#_

Me.tthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane Joseph Gallo, Esquire

. _ 7 ^- - & Barrst~ tit r-Robert H.

Loe'fflerc, Esquire:-

1500 Alamo National Building Ishami' Lincoln & Beale 12 :Sah ' Antonid ',' ! Texas 78205 1050 17th' Street,+N.W., S uite:. 701_ ;

Washington, D.C.

20036 F rCharlss G.inThrash, Jr., Esquire

_ar r

r-r_3 E.W.

Barnett, Esquire Michael I.

Miller, Esquire

-Theodore:F?fWeiss;-Esquire James A.

Carney., Esquire. -

r-Gregory Copeland, Enquire Sarah Welling, Esquire J.

Baker ~&:Botts r' Isham, Lincoln: :&_ Beale: -

?

- s: w: -

3000 One Shell Plaza One First National Diaza Houston, Texas 77002 Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois R.

Gordon Gooch, Esquire 60603 Steven R.

Hunsicker, Esquire David M.

Stahl, Esquire Baker _& Botts Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue 1050 17th Street, N.W.

m :Washin g o,n,_.-D.C..x20006 Suite 701

~

Washington, D.C.

20036 Martha E.

Gibbs, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza Chicago,' Illinois 60603 Ubn"R;;Butlefi Esquire

• David A.

Dopsovic, Esquire

~~ ~

Sneed~,~Vihe, Wilkerson, Selman Frederick H. Parmenter, Esquire

. : & Perry.

Susan B. Cyphert, Esquire

~

-Post Office Box"1409 Nancy A.

Luque, Esquire

'Adstin,' Texas 78768 Energy Section Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Mr. William C.

Price P.O. Box 14141 Central Power & Light Company Washington, D.C.

20044 P.O. Box 2121

~(Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Morgan Hunter, Esquire Bill D. St. Clair, Esquire Mr. G."Holmas King McGinnis, Lockridge & Kilgore -

West..rexas. Utilities Company Fifth Floor

PlO!: Box _~841~ -

Texas State Bank Building

Abilenei Texas 79<S4 900 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas

78701, Jdrry L.' Harris, Esquire

-?;,_=;-

Richard _C.

Balough, Esquire W.S.

Robson ~ i ~- -

~

~~~ ' ' ~ '

Citi of~ Austin General Manager

~ - " " -

_.P.O.. Box _1088 South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Austin,-~Tdxas ~78767 Route 6, Building 102 Victoria Region'al~ Airport;j]27_,, _ _ _ _, _.

"* Joseph B.

Knotts, Jr., Esquire Victoria, Texas 77901 -

= --

. Nicholas S.

Reynolds, Esquire

_Debevoise_& Liberman Robert C. McDiarmid, Esquire _____

='--

1200 17th; Street,_N.W.

Robert A.~Jahlon,T Esqcire - -

Washington, D.C.~

20C36 Marc R. Poirier, Esquire

~

Spiegel & McDiarmid Don H. Davidson 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.

City Manager Washington, D.C.

20037 City _ of Austin TP.O~.~ Box'1088~~~

Kevin B..Pratt J Austini Texas 78767 Texas Attorney General's Office P.O. Box 12548

~

Jay _Galt, Esquire Austin, T'exas 7871-1

~~L 7~~

Iooney,lNichols, Johnson & Hays

-~ _-

_ '219~ Couch Drive William H... Burchette, Escuire

_.Oklahome City,_ Oklahoma 73102 Frederick-H.'.Ritts, Esquire : - "-

~

T

' - ~ ~

~

Law Offices of Northcutt Ely

~Knoland J.

Plucknett Watergate.600 Bui.lding

_ _ - - ~

Executive.. Director Washington, D.C.

20036:_

~ Committee;on Power for the South-

~'

~ west, Inc.

Tom W. Gregg, Esquire, 5541._ East Skelly Drive P.O. Box Drawer 1032

= _

Tulsai Oklahoma 7413.5 San Angelo, Texas-76902 John W.

Davidson, Esquire Leland F.

Leatherman, Esquire Sawtell, Goode, Davidson & Tioili McMath, Leatherman & Woods, P.A.

1100 San Antonio Savings Building 711 West Third Street San Antonio, Texas 78205 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Douglas F.

John, Esquire Paul W. Eaton, Jr., Esquire

. Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

600 Henkle Building Suite 400 P.O. Box 10 Washington, D.C.

20036 Roswell, New Mexico 88201 O

_II.

~ ~ ~

~

-2 ' '- 7 Robert M.

Rader, Esquire 7

I'^ 2 Conner}-Moore & Corber

': - -- 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

~

Washington, D.C.

20006 W.N. Woolsey, Esquire

=--

-Kleberg, Dyer, Redford & Weil

~ 52*

-1030rPetroleum Tower

~

_. Corpus Christ, Texas 78474 3

,__,.,2

[9 ;. :

~

Donald M. Clements, Esquire Gulf States Utilities Company

-.r

- ;~..;-

P.O. Box 2951 3:

Beaumont, Texas 77704

+: r_: : :::e; :_ -

em u

e

~,-f J~ ~ Dick Terrell Brown, Esquire

- 800 Milam Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 m

~ ~

C.

Dennis Ahearn, Esquire Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

~~

Washington, D.C.

20036 31 s : _ _ s : ff :

- ~ ~ ' _.

_r ~ '

- ~. _ _.

~_, ;

~

^

2

-9 e

e o

a e

h e

D

.