ML19305C559
| ML19305C559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1980 |
| From: | Chanania F, Cyphert S JUSTICE, DEPT. OF, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003310064 | |
| Download: ML19305C559 (7) | |
Text
_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)' NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO
)
50-499A CITY OF AUSTIN
)
CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
(South Texas Project. Unit Nos.
)
1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
) NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
JOINT APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS The Nuclear Regulatory Comission Staff and the United States Department of Justice, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 55 2.740, 2.741.hereby apply for the issuance of the attached subpoena. The subpoena calls for a deposition requiring the attendance of the party listed, and for the production of documents in con-nection with the deposition. The document production sought includes, but is not limited to, studies and analyses of possible interconnections and inter-connected operations (interstate and intrastate) involving the Texas Inter-connected System, bulk electric power supply in the Texas Interconnected Systems and surrounding areas, economic and engineering aspects of electric transmission and generation (including fuels), nuclear power projects, and any other matters pertaining to the involvement of the deponent in studies upon which Houston Lighting & F ar has indicated that it may, in full or in.
part, rely as a bases to justify its intrastate-only operations, policy, and practices in the above-captioned proceedings.
f.
8 003 310 ogt M
. Glenn Stagg of Staff Systems, Inc. is an electrical engineer, used by Houston Lighting & Power Company ("HL&P") as a consultant, who has studied various interconnections and interconnection proposals involving TIS-ERCOT utilities and interstate electric utilities. Continuously, HL&P has asserted during the deposition phase of discovery that Mr. Stagg is a non-testifying outside consultant. See Deposition transcript, at pp.13-17, attached hereto. As late as February 7,1980, Mr. D. E. Sininons, HL&P's expert engineeri.ng witness, could not clearly state whether he would rely upon Mr. Stagg's work for HL&P.
See Deposition transcript, at pp. 16, 66-67,99-102, attached hereto. At that point, however, only certain of Mr. Stagg's documents were going to be produced for discovery, although they have not yet been available. See Exhibits 2 and 3, attached hereto.
The joint applicants for the issuance of this subpoena were first informed on February 27, 1980, that Houston Lighting & Power Company intended to rely upon Stagg Systems, Inc. studies in this proceeding, by way of its supplemental response of that date to Department of Justice Interrogatory Number 4.
Since that time, two engineers from Central and South West have inspected Mr. Stagg's work files and have estimated that it would take at least one week to go through and understand which studies and conclusions are derived from the documents located there.
In light of the lateness of HL&P's designation of Mr. Stagg's work as a basis upon which it will rely in this proceeding (and perhaps upon which Mr. Sininons may ultimately rely), the joint movants are requesting two deposition dates - one on March 31, 1980, to determine from Mr. Stagg what he has done for HL&P and a second on May 1,1980 The hiatus
l will give the joint movants time to examine and understand the mass of technical material and documents located at Mr. Scagg's officc. Otherwise, the joint movants may be unable to adequately prepare for a hearing involving HL&P's i
newly-announced reliance upon Mr. Stagg's studies.
Accordingly, the NRC Staff and the Department of Justice request that the Board issue this subpoena, irrespective of the close of discovery. The scheduling of the deposition dates are March 31, 1980, and May 1, 1980.
The joint applicants believe that such a scheduling will not cause any de-lay in the hearing schedule set by the Board in the above-captioned proceed-ings.
SUBPOENA (1) Glenn Stagg, Stagg Systems, Inc.
Respectfully submitted, A l l_
Fredric D. Chanania
~
Counsel for NRC Staff f
h
(
Susan B. Cyphert Attorney for United S es Department of Justic j
l l
~
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland i
l this 14th day of March,1980.
l 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO
)
50-499A CITY OF AUSTIN
)
CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos.
)
1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446A (Comanche PeaFSteam Electric
)
~
Station, Units 1 and R)
)
SUBPOENA TO:
Glenn W. Stagg Stagg Systems Inc.
261 Madison Avenue New York, N. Y.
10016 YOU ARE HEREBY.COM1ANDED, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 C.F.R. $ 2.720, to appear at the U. S. Department of Justice offices, 26 Federal Plaza (Room 3630), New York, New York 10007 on the 31st day of March,1980 at 9:00 a.m. (and thereafter from day to day, if necessary) and then again on May 1,1980 (and thereafter from day to day, if necessary) to testify by deposition on oral examination in the above-entitled action, and to bring with you the document (s) or objects described in the attached schedule.
Your testimony will be required as to the testimony you may give in the trial of this action, all matters relating thereto, and all subject matters covered in the attached schedule of documents, l
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M
By
SCHEDULE TO SUBP0ENA 1
All documents referring or relating to or setting forth the dedrability, feasibility (engineering, economic or otherwise), benefits or detriments of interconnecting the electric systems or electric utilities in the Texas Interconnected Systems and/or the Electric Reliability Council of Texas and (1) any other electric systems engaged in interstate comerce, (2) the South West Power Pool, and/or (3) the Western Systems Coordinating
- Council, 2
All documents referring or relating to or setting forth any adverse effects or positive effects resulting from the present lack of interconnections between the Texas Interconnected Systems and/or the Electric Reliability Council with (1) any other electric utility engaged in interstate comerce, (2) the South West Power Pool, and/or (3) the Western Systems Coordinating Council.
3 All documents provided to or received from D. E. Simmons, of the Houston Lighting & Power Company.
4.
All documents provided to or received from Kermit Williams, of the Houston Lighting & Power Company.
5.
All documents provided to or received from John Meyer, of the Houston Lighting & Power Company.
6 All documents provided to or received from R. McCuistion, of the Houston Lighting & Power Company.
7.
All documents provided to or received from any other employee of or consul-tant to the Houston Lighting & Power Company.
8.
All other document.s provided to or received from anyone which were re-ferned to or consulted during the preparation, and publication of any studies done by Stagg Systems, Inc. or Glenn W. Staff for Houston Lighting
& Power Company which relate to the subject matter of interconnections or the lack of interconnections between electric utilities in the Texas Interconnected Systems and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas and any other electric utilities involved in interstate commerce.
l 9.
All documents which may or will be relied upon or which are related to any actual or perspective testimony by Glenn W. Stagg before the (1) Securities and Exchange Comission, (2) the Federal Energy Regulatory Comission, (3) the Nuclear Regulatory Comission as relates to any electric utilities in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the South West Power Pool, or any adjacent area, p
?
DEFINITIONS 1.
" Document" means, without limiting the generality of its meaning, all original (or copies where originals are unavailable) and non-identical copies (whether different from originals by reason of notation made on such copies or otherwise) of all written, recorded or graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, whether or not now in existence, of correspondence, telegrams, notes or sound recordings of any type of conversation, meeting or conference, minutes of directors' or committee meetings, memoranda, inter-office communications, studies, analyses, notes, books, records, reports, summaries and results of investigations and tests, reviews, contracts, agreements, pamphlets, diaries, calendar or diary entries, maps, graphs, charts, statistical records, computer data or papers similar to any of the foregoing, however denominated, including preliminary versions, drafts or revisions of any of the foregoing and any supporting, underlying or preparatory material.
CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE I
If any document is withheld under claim of privilege, furnish a list which identifies each document for which privilege is claimed and which includes the following information for each such document: date, subject matter, sender, recipient, persons to whom copies were furnished together with their 1
job titles, the basis on which privilege is claimed, and the paragraph of this subpoena to which such documents responds.
l INSTRUCTIONS It is requested that the documents submitted be grouped according to the individual paragraph of the subpoena section to which they are responsive and, within each such group, the documents should be arranged, as much as possible, in chronological order.
In order to facilitate the handling of the documents which will be received it would be appreciated if each of the documents would be numbered consecutively.
It is suggested that in numbering the documents each page be numbered, except in those instances where the documents are bound together, when aumbering only the first page is appropriate. This procedure, if followed, will preserve the identity of all the documents coming from the company, and also insure the accurate and expeditious return of these documents to the company.
In lieu of producing these documents at a deposition, the Department of Justice and the NRC Staff are willing to discuss other arrangements fo? production of documents prior to the deposition which may be agreeable to cornsel.
3 l
i
The time period covered by this subpoena is 1973 to the present.
Should any questions arise concerning this subpoena, please contact Susan B. Cyphert (202-724-6472 or 724-6361) or Fredric D. Chanania (301-492-8665) at the following addresses:
Susan B. Cyphert Fredric D. Chanania Department of Justice U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OELD P. O. Box 14141 Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20044 1
i e
4 O O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
-)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-498A PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO )
50-499A CITY OF AUSTIN
)
4 CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos.
)
1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY, et al.
)
50-446A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of JOINT APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBP0ENAS in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's internal mail system, this 14th day of March 1980.
l Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Donald A. Kaplan, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensi.g Board Panel Susan B. Cyphert U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nancy A. Luque Frederick H. Parmenter, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20555 David A. Dopsovic, Esq.
Michael L. Glaser, Esq.
P. O. Box 14141 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20044 Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. William C. Price Shel don.J. Wol fe. Esq.
Central Power e Light Co.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel P. O. Box 2121 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Washington, D. C.
20555 G. W. Oprea, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Vice President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston Lighting & Power Company Washington, D. C.
20555 P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Robert E. Bathen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission R. W. Beck & Associates
.^
Washington, D. C.
20555 P. O. Box 6817 Orlando, Florida 32803 R. L. Hancock, Director City of Austin Electric Utility Somervell County Public Library P. O. Box 1088 P. O. Box 417 Austin, Texas 78767 Glen Rose, Texas 76043
. R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
John P. Mathis, Esq.
J. A. Bouknight, ESq.
Steven R. Hunsicker, Esq.
William J. Franklin, Esq.
Baker & Botts Peter G. Flynn, Esq.
Suite 300 Douglas G. Green, Esq.
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad Washington, D. C.
20006
& Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
J. K. Spruce, General Manager Washington, D.C.
20036 City Public Service Board P. O. Box 1771 Jerry L. Harris San Antonio, Texas 78203 Richard C. Balough Dan H. Davidson, City Manager Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq.
City of Austin Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
P. O. Box 1088 George Spiegel, Esq.
Austin, Texas 78767 David A. Giacalone, Esq.
J Marc R. Poirier, Esq.
Jerome Saltzman, Chief Spiegel & McDiarmid Antitrust & Indemnity Group 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20037 Washington, D. C.
20555 Jon C. Wood, Esq.
Jay Galt, Esq.
W. Roger Wilson, Esq.
Jack P. Fite, Esq.
Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes
& Barrett 219 Couch Drive 1500 Alamo National Building Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Merlyn D. Sampels Esq.
Mr. W. N.. Woolsey Jos. Irion Worsham, Esq.
Kleberg, Dyer, Redford & Weil Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
1030 Petroleum Tower Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Corpus Christi, Texas 78474 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Dick Terrell Brown, Esq.
800 Milam Building Morgan Hunter, Esq.
San Antonio, Texas 78205 McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore Fifth Floor, Texas State Bank Building E. William Barnett, Esq.
900 Congress Avenue Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
Melbert D. Schwarz, Esq.
Theodore F. Weiss, Esq.
Joseph B. Knotts, Esq.
t J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Baker & Botts C. Dennis Ahearn, Esq.
3000 One Shell Plaza Debevoise & Liberman j
Houston, Texas 77002 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 e
.n Douglas F. John, Esq.
Donald M. C1ements, Esq.
McDermott, Will and Emery Gulf States Utilities Company 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
P. O. Box 2951 Suite 1201 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Washington, D. C.
20036 Robert M. Rader, Esq.
Don R. Butler, Esq.
Conner, Moore & Corber 1225 South West Towers 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Austin, Texas 78701 Washington, D.C.
20006 John W. Davidson, Esq.
Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson & Troilo Mr. G. Holman Xing 1100 San Antonio Savings Building West Texas Utilities Co.
San Antonio, Texas 78205 P. O. Box 841 Abilene, Texas 79604 Linda Aaker Attorney General's Office State of Texas P. O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711 James E. Monahan Executive Vice President and General Manager Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
P. O. Box 6296 Waco, Texas 76706 Frederick H. Ritts, Esq.
William H. Burchette, Esq.
Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Watergate 600 Building
/'
c
. ) KL 1,) -
Washington, D. C.
20037 I
uka w 1
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Fredric D. Cfianania James A. Carney, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff Sarah N. Welling, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1
4200 One First Naticnal Plaza
)
Chicago, Illinois 60603 David M. Stahl, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 701 105017th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Maynard Human, General Manager Western Farmers Electric Cooperative P. O. Box 429 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005
i c
'l UNITED STATES OF AaERICs w
2 NUCL5'AR EOULATO'lY C % ISSIA
t s
I 3
i i'
4 BEFORE Ti!E ATOMIC SAFETY AMO LICENSING BO AR*1 i
5 h,
fj 6
In the '4atter of
)
i lI 7
HOUSTON LIGHTINO & POWER
(
NRC Docket Nos.
9 COMPANY, et a1
)
50-493.A ane! 50-499A 9
(South Texas Project,
(
10 Unit Mos. 1 and 7)
)
11 i
'17 e_e_*_e_.
t 13 g
14 In the Matter of
)
15 TEXAS UTILITIES CENER ATI'1G
(
16 COMPA'lY, et al
)
NRC Docke t '*os.
17 (Comanche Peak Steari
(
50-445A anc* 50-445A 18 Electric Station,
)
~
19 Units 1 and 2)
(
l 20 21 (Consolidated for Piscovery) 22 23 24 ORAL DEPOSITION OF 25 D.
EUGENE SIMMONS 1
wSC#i32 lo !! 7c T3 ka Ah o
hh d
.D)~FD '3 '
D o
m 2,
t 1
APPEARANCE,S 2
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF J'!3TICE,
'3 BY:
MR. DAVID A.
- DOPSOVIC, 4
Anti-Trust nivision, 5
P. O.
Box 14141, 6
Washington, D.
C.
- 20044, 7
Appearing for the Governnent; 8
ISHAM, LINCOLN & OEALE 9
BY:
MR. JAMES A.
- CARNEY, 10 1P50 17th F t. N.'1.,
11 Washington, D.
C.
- 20036, 12 Appearing for Centrsl Power & Light; 13 DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, 14 BY:
"R.
LYN'1 BELTER, 15 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.V.
16 washington, D.
C.
20035 17 Appearing for Texas Utilites conpany; 13 BA ER & P. C T T S,
19 BY: wR. J. GREGORY COPELAND 20
-and-21 MR. MICilAEL BALnWIN 22 One Shell Plaza, 23 Houston, Texas
- 77002, 24 Appearing for Houston Power & Light; 25 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY IblfblM bIDlIIhflIMMI l
U,uuG9Uu 49UbuWJUuuvuda Il.
5
=~
-. ~.. -.
1 COMMISSION, 2
BY:
FR. NICII A CL BLUwE,
3 washington, D.
C.
- 20036, j
4 Appearing for the Nuclear 5
Regulatory Connission.
6 7
DEPCSITIOPl upon oral exanination, of the 8
- witness, D.
EUC E:1E SIM* 0'JS, taken on behalf of the 9
Government, in the above-entitled cause, in the Matter of 10 Rouston Lighting & Power' Company, et al and Texas 11 Utilities Generatino Conpany, e: al, before DEBORAH S.
12 HARPCR, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the Stato 13 of Texas, on the 7th day of February, A.
D.
1990, Baker 14
& Botts, 3300 One Shell Plaza,.Mouston, liarris County, 15 Texas, between the hours of 10: 50 o' clock 4 M.
and 3:00 16 o' clock P.
w pursuant to due Notice and the following 17 agreenent of counsel:
10 19 It is stipulated and agreed by i
20 and between counsel and the respective parties hereto, 1
21 that the deposition of the witness naned in the caption 1
p 22 hereto, may be taken at this time and place, time and I
{
23 notice being waived, and that the said dep,osition, or any
}
i
' 24 part thereof, when so taken may be used on the trial of J
f 25 this case the same as if the witness were present in
.i W~
f trgza l#.
j-
a 1
A.
I do not know.
I can't toll from thiD 2
description.
3 Q.
Well, if it were not 3tagg II, what Stag 7 4
study could it refer to?
5 A.
I do not know.
I don't recall that 6
specifically when the Stagg I was issued, so I just don't 7
have these dates that clearly in my nind without
.I B
O.
Assuning Stagg I was issued Decenher 1st, 1977 9
MR. COPELANC:
Wait, you're going to 10 get this document.
Why are we continue to asking 11 questions about it?
.12 "9.
DOPSCVIC:
Just to clarify it.
13 I do have reason.
14 MR. C O P C L U :.0 :
Well, but the tenson 15 for your taking his deposition today is to deternine if 16 he's going to rely on any of thece docunents.
17 0
Mr. Simnons, other than the Stagg I and Stag-19 II, were there any other Stagg studies?
19 A.
Basically not.
There were several areas that 20 were wrapped up into Stagg I and Stagg II.
Basically, 21 those were the Stagg studies as I recall.
22 0
When you say other areas that were wrapped up.
23 in Stagg I and Stagg II, could you clarify that for me?
24 A.
Smaller studies in snaller areas of 25 investigation.
_=
..-.- _.?
m-
..... a.. ~.-
L m
11 1
Q.
So, could you specify which areas of q
2 investigation?
3 MR. COPELAMD:
We're not going to 4
talk about this anymore today.
Let's go on to something 5
else.
6 MR. DOPSOVIC:
This is factual 7
discovery 8
M9 COPELAND:
Counsel, you are here 9
today to determine if Mr. Mr. Simmons is going to rely on 10 any of these docunents listed.
That's all we're going to
'll talk about on this subject.
I don't know how many times 12 I have to tell you.
13 MR. DOPSOVIC:
First of all, Mr.
14 Simmons was issued a subpoena months ago end has a 15 continuing obligation under a subpoena if we sant to call 15 him and I think from the Board order of a week ago, core 17 than a week ago, it was fairly clear that 13 MR. COP ELA A'D :
I don't have any 19 order.
Do you have one?
20 M7. DOPSOVIC:
k' ell, if you had
[
l 21 participated in the conference call, you might have 22 understood it.
23 Mit. CorcLAND:
If you show me an 24 order that says you can go beyond the Scope of the I
25 subpoena today, I'll go beyond the scope of the subpoena.
e es s
k" 7.^
lJW 1-Wa'ro horo to cnsvar the questions in the subpeans.
2 sq. DOPSOVIC:
Well, we can ask hir 3
in March, Greg.
We just want to expedite things now.
4 Q.
What were the smaller studies that you 5
indicated --
6 MR. COPELAN7:
I instruct you not to 7
answer.
8 0
Was one of the areas of investigation, "r.
9 Simmons, DC interconnection?
'10 MR. C-
. LAND:
I instruct you not to 11 answer.
12 MR. DOP30VIC:
On what oasis?
13 That's within the scope of the subpoena, Mr. Copeland.
l 14 MR. COPCLANO:
Are you asking hin if 15 Stagg inve;tigated the DC interconnection?
1G MG. DOPF0VIC:
I'n askin?
"r.
17 Simmons if any of the smaller studies, paraphrasing you.
18 in the other specific areas, did any sf that include a 7C 19 interconnection?
20 Mn. COPELAN7:
I instract you not to 21 answer.
It's relating to work by non-testifying expert.
22 MR. DOPSOVIC Greg, just for 23 clarification, are you saying that Mr. Stagg did this 24 Work for attorneys for Houston L!ghting & Power?
I j
25 MP.. COPELAND:
Nope.
l l
l Il~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~;.C ~ _Z_
TGZ.~,T;7~ ~ ~ ~ Z.2,i9.~..~
~
.__.._m..
L
1 MR. coPsovIC: Would you clarify your 2
instruction?
3 MR. COPCLA'30:
I'm saying he is a 4
non-testifying expert in this case.
Therefore, the 5
Board has ruled you're not entitled to inquire.
I've L
l 6
been very lenient in letting you go beyond that and I 7
think we're wasting time.
J 8
MR. 00PSOVIC Ne're not allowed to 9
inquire of Mr. Stagg, t'it that doesn't say we can't 10 inquire of ".r.
Simnons.
I 1.1 MR. COPCLAND:
You can ask Pr.
12 Simmons what studies he's done.
13 0
Mr. Siemons, are you going to rely on the 14 Stagg study in your future testinony in any forr.?
15 A.
I do not know.
16 Q.
Okay.
So you do not know, then, whether or 17 not you would use any of these other studico that you're 18 ret' erring to which nay include a DC interconnection, is 19 that correct?
20 A.
That's correct.
21 MR. POPSOVIC:
And on that basic, 22 Greg.
On that basis, Greg, I mean --
23 MR. COPELAND:
tie 'll answer the
- 24 question.
25 MR. DLUME: M.s v I have the question l
\\
I i
1 I
l
a l.
17 I
read b ck, plosso?
f 2
M.9. Cor CL A. ;D:
The question is, did i
3 Stagg look at DC interconnections in any of his studies?
>+.
(
4 MR. DCP30VIC:
That's fine.
I'll I,-
5 accept that.
6 A.
To the best of my knowledge, he did not.
7 Q.
Are any outside consultants for fiouston S
Lighting & Power considering OC interconnection?
l 9
A.
No.
10 Q.
Is anyonc from flouston Lighting & Power
'll considering a DC interconnection?
12 A.
Well, what do you mean by "consiTering ?
13 Q.
Lookin.) at it a. an option?
~
14 A.
Yes.
15 Q.
And are those all what we could characterize 16 as in-house employees, consultants?
17 A.
Yes.
18 Q.
And one of those enployees is "r.
McCuistfor.'
19 A.
He has involvenent in it.
20 Q.
Mr. W1111a.ms?
21 A.
Yes.
[
22 Q.
Mr. Meyer?
23 A.
Possibly.
24 Q.
When you say possibly, would you clarify that 25 for me?
MR. 30PSOVIC:
I have no further g: gf 1
2 questions at this tine.
MR. COPELANO:
Do you have questions?
3 4
MR. SLUME:
Of course.
MR. COPELAND:
'4 ell, we have a 5
luncheon engage.ent which we're going to have to break m
6 7
for.
8 (Luncheon Recess.)
9 10
.11 CROS5 EXAMIN ATIO'l l'2 j
13 QUESTIONS SY MR. BLU S'E :
14 O.
Good afternoon, "r.
Sinnons.
15 A.
Good afternoon.
U 16 0
I'll reintroduce nyself for sake of clarity.
t 17 I'm Michael Plume and I represent the NRC St.sff.
If you 18 want to take a break at any time, just say so.
19 Mr. Sinnons, what is your understanding of the 20 purpose of Mr. Stagg 's work ior Houston Lightin3 & Power l
21 Company?
\\
is involved with the 22 A.
To denonstrate what and coordination of planning and operations within ERCOT i
23 24 within Southwest Power Pool.
. ~.
for And -is all of his work which is being done 25 O.
I h
-.________________b e
&7 1
Reucten rolsvent to thoco natters w51ch yeu.just opske of?
f 2
A.
I believe sc.
3 Q.
You testified before. I believe, and correct l
e 4
me i f I'm wrong, that presently, there is no need for any 5
kind of tie between ERCOT and Southwest Power Pool; is 6
that indeed correct?
7 A.
Yes.
8 Q.
Is that conclusion based in part upon the work 9
that Mr. Stagg has done for Houston Lighting & Power 10 Company?
, 11 A.
I'n not sure whether it is or not.
'12 Q.
Could you elaborate on that for no?
13 MR. COPELANo:
You rean is It I
14 consistent with that or did he have to have the studien i
i 15 before he concluded that?
The question is very vague, l
16 counsel.
If you can answer it i
17 A.
Well, I think the Staqq studies support that i
19 conclusien that there is littic economic benefit towards
~
19 interconnection of ERCOT and Southwest' Power Pool.
I 20 Q.
What role had Messrs. =ccuistion, W1111ans.
21 McCuistion and Williams played in assisting you in l
22 deciding whether or not a DC tie between ERCOT and 23 Southwest Power Pool is necessary currently?
24 MR. CorELAND:
Object to the form of 25 the question.
l5 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __._ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
1 Q.
In discussing tho rocoonc flou ten docidad to 2
decline the TU of fer of a sale to !!ouston an ! buy-bac6 3
arrangenent for Forest Grove, I think you ln'dicated 4
financial considerations were the reason for turning It 5
down; am I correct there?
6 A.
Yes.
I 7
Q.
By financial, I got the inpression and please 3
correct me i f I'n wrong, that you neant nore than just
.t 9
the price tag?
10 A.
That is correct.
11 Q.
Okay.
tlould it be fair'to describe it as the
'12 structure of the deal had financial i mplications that 13 were unacceptable?
14 A.
I an not that knowledgeable, simply that our 15 accounting department indicated that there were some 16 problens associated with doing the dcal in that ranner.
,j 17 0
Okay.
You indicated earlier, excuse ne, that 1
18 the Staqq study surnorts your own conclusion th a e.
asynchronous a
19 operation between Southwest Power Pool and EMOT woul:
8
~20 not be bene fi cial econonically beneficial.
Do you recall 21 making a statement along that
~
22 A.
Yes.
23 Q.
Do I understand you correctly. though, that g
24 your conclusion was reached without reference to the 1
25 Stagg study?
i r
i 4
?
$'l- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
m-mummmu. _ esemus ausmeo _ ememm. m.msnm. _N e e.
.m
jcu 1
A.
Yos.
2 Q.
And an I fair in assuning you've conluctne!
3 some studies of your own on which.you base.that 4
conclusion?
5 A.
No, 6
Q.
I see.
On w: sat do you beso that conclusion?
7 MR. COPELANO:
You want him to 8
repeat all of his testimony that he's q,1ven in his 9
deposition already that he gave in trial, that he's given i
10 in Docket 147 11 Q.
I assume you're relying on sone studies other 12 than the Stagg study?
i 13 A.
Well, I an relying on the overall aspects of l
I i
14 what's been involved in this controversy and what I have 6
15 indicated in ny previou3 testinony.
[
16 WR. COPELAND:
Which we're not goin" t
k l
17 back into now, by the way.
18 Q.
Is it fair to say you're relying on several 19 other studies?
Counscl. this 19 i
lf 21 clearly outside the scope of what we're here today to 1
22 cover in the subpoena.
This man has testified many nany 23 times about what he's relied upon, what he's done and I I
24 think it's totally improper question in the context of
[
25 this subpoena.
' d 1
}
1 0
Lot me approach it thic way.
Nas the
/c/
2 conclusion that you have reached perconally reached 3
'tefore.you ever even saw the Stagg' study?
4 A.
I believe so.
5 Q.
Do you recall when you first announced your 6
own conclusion?
8 7
MR. COPCLAND:
I object and instruct It's clearly outside the scope of the j
8 him not to answer.
9 subpoena.
Mr. Carney, you've had a chance to ask hin c
10 that in three depositions in this case already.
You 11 aske.d hin that in a deposition at the Federal District 12 Court.
The nan testified at length in Federal District f
13 Court about this subject and I think it's clearly g
U 14 improper.
M9. CAnNEY:
Well, the frane of 15 1G reference 5ere, "r. Copeland is in reference to the 17 tir.ing of the Stagg study.
l MP.. COPELAND:
Which is not a IS I
19 subject of this subnoena,
- ir. Carney, in any way, shano j
20 or form.
f 21 MR. CARNEY:
Well, there are L
1 22 certainly doeurents on that list --
i 23 MR. COPCLAND:
hhich we have agreed I
24 to produce.
I 25 MR. CARNEY:
I will abandon this iI L
k l
- - - - -.7
4,
/C.L
- 1 wholo lina of. quostioning if you'ro ccying you're ready j
t 2
to produce anything relative to the Staqn study.
[
3 MR. COPELAND:
I believe that 4
everything on this list that was done by Mr. Stagg, I i
5 agreed to produce.
6
- m. CARNEY:
All right.
7 MR' ELUME:
I believe that's correct.
8 0
(BY MR. C%R!4EY) : When was the last 9
conversation you had with anybody at TU representing the 10 Texas Utilities Conrantes regarding the Forest c'. rove 11 discussions?
12 A.
I have never ha? any discussions with Texar.
13 Utilities people concerning Torest Grove.
14 0
What is the last discussions you've 5cen 15 informed of by anybody at 11ouston with TU personnel c
16 regsrding that matter?
17 A.
I don't know of any.
l' O.
Okay.
Wasn't there a le'tter in late Decenber 19 in which you declined, Houston declined, I want to get my i
20 time frane correct here, there ws: a 1ctter in late o
21 December in which Houston decline 6 the TU proposal; is 22 that correct?
l 23 A.
That's what I understand.
.I 24 Q.
Okay.
Are you aware of any discussions since I
25 that time?
l 1
i
.~
' jv - --vg o,
UNITED STATES 8 %.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EXHIBIT 2
.i gyy' i
@. y wasmucros. o. c. mss
$f/,/
February 11, 1980 c...
o EXPRESS MAIL J. Gregory Copeland,.Esq.
Baker and Botts 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 HAND DELIVER Douglas G. Green, Esq.
' Lowenstein, flewman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025. Connecticut Avenue,' N.W.
Washington 0.C.
20036 Re:
Houston Lighting & Power Company,
~
et al., (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), Docket i:os. 50-498A and 50-499A; Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al., (Comanche Peak Steam Electric O
Station, Units 1 & 2, Docket tios.
50-445A and 50 t:6A Gentlemen-0n January 25, 1980 I confirned Staff's belief that there are outstanding discovery requests to HLIP requiring the production of documents relating both to HL&P's purchase or lease of lignite deposits from Cow Chemical and Hcuston's negotiations for generation additions.
In the conference call of January 25,
~1980, Chairman Miller ordered HL&P to produce documents relating to the HL&P/Dow lignite transaction within one week, that is, until February 1,1950, or cote forward within that time with a proposed protective order to shield the confi-dentiality of those documents.
Staff has, to cate, received neither the documents in question nor any proposed protective order.
Instead, Staff received a letter dated February 6,1980, which explains that HLIP's contract with Cow prohibits disclosure of this information.
This does not constitute compliance with Chairrar.
Miller's order.
The second issue discussed in the conference call of January 25th related to
~
negotiations between HL&P and another unidentified part.y regarding a joint generating unit.
In my letter of January 25, 1980, I set forth the Staff's position which is and has been that discussics and documents regarding
. Houston's plans and negotiations for energy and coacity purchases and additions
' are the subject of prior discovery requests cy D., Staff and are subject to S
Bdx?327(N17
a a continuing obligation on Houston to fulfill the requests.
Your offer of
(
February 6th was to rcspond to Staff"s request for cocuments relating to Houston's
(
negotiations and considerations on generation additions two weeks from the date your letter was written.
This would be nearly four weeks subsequent to the conference call with Chairman Miller. The Staff does not consider this as ad-hering to Cnaf r: an Miller's order, which accorcodated your raquest to maintain the confidenciality of those negotiations in a " critical" stage.
Thus, if Houston has any docu ents relating to its considerations regarding energy purchases or capacity additions, it is under a continuing obligation to produce those documents as well, and must do so immediately.
I hope that we can quickly resolve these problems arong ourselves, as factual discovery is rapidly drawing to a close.
Thus I hope to receive by February'13th the documents responsive to Staff's outstanding requests, or a proposed protective order.
This will also confirm Staff's requests of February 7,1980, made to counsel at the deposition of Mr. D.E. Simmons, for:
(1) Document !!as. 207, 208, 238, 242, and 260 identified in Appendix C to th'e July 11,1979 " Motion of the Department of Justice to Compet Production
.by Houston 1.ighting & Power Company of Certian Documents '.1hich It Contends Are Privileged." Counsel represented that these documents have either been produced -
or will be procuced.
(2) All documents relating to the' determination, estimation, or comparison of costs, ber.efits, or other factors pertaining to interconnections, or possibly interconneccin; TIS with S'IPP, including all cost estfrates for D.C. intercon-O nections.
Such dccuments were requested by Sta ff in Intarrogatory !;o. 3 of Staff's " Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to HL3P," dated ';over.ber 26, 1979.
(3) Mr. 0.E. Simeens' notes crepared for his presentation in October 1979 regarding direct current interecnnections between TIS and S'.!PP.
This request is l'n response to your offer at Mr. Sincons' deposition of February 7 to produce those notes.
(4) Any analyses, evaluations, or studies relating to Houston's considera-tion of the purchase of energy or capacity out of TV's Forest Greve Unit.
Sta ff's Interrogatcry llo. 3(d) of its " Third Set" requests this type of inforcation.
I will take this accortunity as 'well to renew, once again, my requests for a current, full-si:ed can snoaing HL1P's service area and dual or cultiple certi-fication areas, as well as for full-siced, color copies of caps showing HLIP's current and planned transmission facilities 69 kv and above.
Thank you for your continuing cooperation and assistance.
Yours truly, Michael B. Blume Counsel for NRC Staff Service List Occ:
4 i
i u
l
-. s w. c.e --....-., m m -
_ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~' ~
=~ ~
BAKER & BOTTS f EXHIBIT 3 d
ONE C=C6L osata MouSToN, TCXAs 77oo2 TELEPHON E 1783) 229*s234 wicushCTCae CFFICg 1738 FCPe% Sv6vaNia a,C.N w b
wt;MimGfcas. O C 2Coce p.1. I r31 22 9 iS 2 3 M C'J S f".L O
TELEPMOast (202) aSF S SCO M 457 553: waSmsmCTCs 3 &
H-1706-10-G February 1 9, 1 9 8 0,,,)
Mr. Michael Blume Counsel for N.R.C. Staff United States Nuclear j
~ Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Blume:
'In response to your letter of February 11, 1980, our understanding of the conference call is that we were only ordered to respond to the request for production of documents in connection with the Dew lignite deposits.
We have responded to that request.
Any discussion during that conference call of a protective order was in the context of representations by Sr. Dopsovic that Dow had no problem in
( q producing the documents under a protective order.
It is 1' 3 our understanding that this representation has proved to be an error.
Houston is, however, still willing to abide by whatever agreement the Department may reach with Dew on this question.
I have sent you copies of the docu. ants requested in the second p:;agraph of ycur letter as well as the maps you have requested.
With respect to the foui numbered items which you list as being requested during the deposition of Mr. Sinmons, I an enclosing the dccuments requas ed in Item No. 3, i.e. Mr. Simmons' notes of the conference.
I do not remember the requests noted in Items No. 2 and 4.
I do not know what docu..tants you have in mind other than the ones that have already been produced ~in response to your inter-rogatories.
With respect to Item No. 1, we have been in the process of moving our documents to Washington, and as a re-sult of scme logistical problems, I have been unabic to locate the requested documents.
As soon as I do locate them, copies will be sent to you.
Very truly yours, sp J. Gr8 cry Ccpoland Attofney for Hous:pn Lighting l
& Power Company gX 3 2 9 0 I 2 S, cJ' (,(
JGC:201 vu.-]ggg Encl.
pa s
~
J
.xgp & COTTD p'., ' '
l Mr. Michael Blume i February 19, 1980 cc:
Mr. David Dopsovic (w/ encl.)
Mr. Jim Carney (w/ encl.)
6 l
\\
I t
4 9
6 4
e O
f e
e s
1 1
o G
i O
e
- e g e 0
{
l 0 I
L
.. --