ML19309H081
| ML19309H081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas, Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1979 |
| From: | JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309H074 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005080325 | |
| Download: ML19309H081 (13) | |
Text
800508032S g
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
"'fPIb a nq p pI' l
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAllsA APR 5 1979 j
d-l'i_
./
3Q.ccu. :, l '..:'. 6 - 'h
)
/..r.;...L i: 1J In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A CO., et al (South Texas
)
50-499A Project, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A COMPANY (Comanche Peak Steam
)
50-446A Electric Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
)
RESPONSE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO THE SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM HOUSTON LIGHTING A POWER COMPANY TO ANTITRUST DIVISION, U.S.
DEPT. OF JUSTICE
(
In compliance with the Board's order issued during the recent March 20, 1979 Prehearing Conference in the above-captioned proceedings, the Department of Justice
(" Depart-ment") proffers the following responses to Houston Lighting
& Power Company's (" Houston") second set of interrogatories to the Department.
1.
(a) Identify each witness, other than an expert witness, who the Division may call in this proceeding, and provide a summary of the testimony which each such witness is expected to offer.
(b) Identify all documents upon which each such witness may rely in any way, and provide copies of any such document not already in the possession of Houston.
O
- 1. (a) The following individuals may testify for the Department, by subpoena or otherwise, regarding, among other things, their electric utility systems, their present and potential bulk power suppliers, their customers, the competitive situation with respect to electrical energy both inside and outside the state of Texas and the effect on the planning and operation of their systems of the applicants' policy against interstate operations:
Fred S. Buchanan, Manager Cherokee County Electric Cooperative, Assn.
P.O.
Box 257 Rusk, Texas 75725 (214) 683-2248 James C. Driver, Manager Gate City Electric Cooperative,
(
Inc.
1900 Avenue C, NW P.O.
Box 69 Childress, Texas 79201 (817) 937-2565 James D. Eiland, Manager Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc.
P.O.
Box 158 Stanton, Texas 79782 (915) 756-3381 L.H.
Fish, Assistant General Manager Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp.
C000 Scott-Hamilton Drive Box 9469 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (501) 562-0220 James Hammett, Administrator and/or Richard Bulman, Deputy
{
Administrator and/or Walter Bowers, Chief, Division of Power Marketing and/or James McClanahan, Chief, Power Branch and/or Kenneth Kerr, Chief, Power Resource Production Branch Southwestern Power Administration P.O. Drawer 1619 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 (918) 581-7474 Donald J.
Hart, Manager Taylor Electric Cooperative, Inc.
P.O.
Box 250 Merkel, Texas 79536 (915) 928-4715 Maynard Human, General Manager Western Farmers Electric Cooperative P.O.
Box 429 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 (405) 247-3351 h
Dr. Caroline Smith J.W. Wilson & Associates, Inc.
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW Washington, D.C.
20037 (202) 333-7442 (Likely testimony - regard'.ng the Texas Public Utility Commission and the competi:ive situation in the electric utility industry in Texas),
James R.
Smith, Manager and/or Jack Gambrel, Ass't Manager Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
P.O.
Box 578 New Roads, Louisiana 70760 (504) 638-6326 Carl Stover, Consulting Engineer C.H. Gurnsey, Inc.
3555 NW 58th Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112 g{
(405) 947-5515 o
It is likely that the Department, in its continuing investigation and pursuant to its own discovery, may decide not to call as witnesses some of the individuals on this list and/or may add some names.
Houston will be notified at the earliest possible time of any such deletions and/or additions.
(b) The Department previously produced, in response to Houston's initial set of interrogatories, all unprivileged documents which it had in its possession at the time of its advice letters of February 21, 1978 (re South Texas Project) and August 1, 1978 (re Comanche Peak).
According to the Board's order of March 20, 1979, it is only these documents which the Department is presently obliged to produce. */
The Department does not presently know which of those documents, if any, each of the above-named potential wit-nesses may rely upon in any way; nor is this something which, according to the eoard's order, the Department must disclose at this time.
- / During the March 20, 1979 Prehearing Conference, Chairman Hiller outlined the Department's obligation to respond as follows:
Answer the interrogatories in that light, then. The information available to the Department at or near the time of the advice letter, and then, in the future, when you get the additional information that you described for us [ inter alia, Houston's full responses to the Department's first discovery request], then supplement the answers in order to bring into play the additional information, including that as you approach trial, say, in September, whatever it might be.
(Transcript at 153).
l 1 l
l -
l I
r l
EXHIBIT A
6 LAW OFFICES LoWENSTEIN. NEWMAN REIs, AXELRAD & Tott.
102 5 CON N CCTICUT AVE N U C N. W.
wasamcTo". o c =oose
,,x............
"'%".'.ll1.
aor sea-e4oo
.S v s 0.,0 4...
I' *..',' " 'c~l.'l ~ '.' "'
March 13, 1980
- 9..e
.......c.....
HAND DELIVER Susan B. Cyphert, Esquire U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Energy Section 414 Eleventh Street, N.W.
Room 8308 Washington, D.
C.
20530 Re:
In the Matter of Houston Lighting
(-}
& Power Company, et al. (South Texas
(/
Project, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos.
50-498A-50-499A; Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445A-50-446A 1
Dear Ms. Cyphert:
Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1980 (copy attached).
Houston is willing, as I indicated, to accept that letter in lieu of the immediate interrogatory answer contemplated by the Board's ruling at the March 7 prehearing conference, based on your representation that the Department simply cannot now give us any more information.
I wish to emphasize, however, that your letter does not provide what 1
we need in order to take a meaningful deposition of Mr. Stover and does not resolve the problems Houston has been presented with concerning his testimony.
J By virtue of the Department's representation that it now intends to call Mr. Carl Stover as an expert witness, we will have to redepose Mr. Stover regarding his expert l
opinion.
Before we do undertake to redepose Mr. Stover, how-ever, I need clarification from you as to whether you have now reached an agreement with Mr. Stover and his attorney
{}
that Mr. Stover will give expert testimony.
l
LowENstr:N, Newnax. Hr s, AxEtnAn & Tot.L Susan B. Cyphert, Esquire
{
March 13, 1980 Page Two In the deposition of Mr. Stover taken on July 24, 1979, we were prevented from asking Mr. Stover questions about his expert opinion.
Prior to the beginning of the deposition, Mr. Galt represented that Mr. Stover had not been retained as an expert witness by the Department and, therefore, he was not going to let Mr. Stover answer any questions relating to Mr. Stover's expert opinions.
Mr.
Galt did, in fact, instruct Mr. Stover not to answer ques-tions on matters which the Department now states he is going to testify about.
Ms. Harris agreed with the position taken by Mr. Galt and likewise objected to questions in the deposi-tion on the grounds that they called for expert opinion.
Accordingly, I am requesting immediate confirmation that the Department has now retained Mr. Stover, and that his attor-ney will not object to Houston asking him expert opinion questions when we redepose him.
In addition, Mr. Stover has refused to produce the studies which the Department.has indicated he is now going to testify about.
He claimed that these studies were priv-ileged and would not be produced because he was not going
(
to testify about them in the hearing.
Again, if Mr. Stover is now going to testify about those studies, we would expect the Department to produce them immediately along with all of the workpapers and correspondence relating to the studies.
As you know, Mr. Stover's clients have also refused to pro-duce these studies.
If the Department intends to call any of Mr. Stover's clients as fact witnesses, we request that you provide us with their copies of Mr. Stover's studies along with any of his workpapers they may have.
I concur in the suggestion in year letter that the Board should be advised of our agreement and of the status of this matter.
Accordingly, I have forwarded copies of our correspondence on this matter to the Board members and the Service List.
The exigencies of time are such that the Department's immediate attention to the matters set forth above would be much appreciated.
ery tru
- yours, N
\\
/^
onglas G. Green v
Attorney for Houston Lighting
& Power Company DGG/nm t
cc:
Service List
O 9
EXHIBIT C
j
.g UNITED ST.iTES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
-kh.
(
w4sinscros. n.c. ::osso
%Jv'
'",'-"*'",.'4 March 12, 1980 n.
i.4~
,a n.r.. i.. i.. 4 s 6.
DAK:SBC 60-415-105 HAND-DELIVERED Douglas G.
Green, Esquire Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Re:
In the Matter of Houston Lighting &
Pcwer Company, et al. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos.
50-498A-50-499A; Texas Utilities Gene-rating Company, et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
Docket Nos. 50-445A-50-446A
Dear Mr. Green:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation on March 11, 1980, I am sending you this letter to confirm our agreement.
On February 19, 1980, Houston Lighting & Power Company
("IIL & P " ) filed its Motion to Compel further answers from the Department of Justice
(" Department") re: Carl Stover.
On March 5, 1980, the Department filed its Response which sets forth our present knowledge regarding Mr. Stover's proposed testimony.
On March 7, 1980, the Board ordered the Department to provide HL&P with further answers to its Fourth Set of In-terrogatories to the Department regarding Mr. Stover.
On March 11, 1980, I contacted you to clarify that the above-mentioned Response, filed by the Department on March 5,
- 3980, provides the totality of the Department's present knowledge regarding Mr. Stover at this time and contains the info'cma-tion requested by your inter.' >gatories.
I agreed to provide you with any further information as it became available regard-ing the scope of Mr. Stover's proposed testinony or any other 1
k
(
information sought by those interrogatories.
I further rareed to provide you with any documents sent to or received from Mr. Stover, in compliance with the Board's Order relatina to expert witnesses. l/
Finally, if HL&P desires, the Department is available to attend another deposition of Mr. Stover at any nutually convenient time prior to trial.
It is my understanding, that based on the aforegoing rep-resentations that IIL&P presently is satisfied that its inter-rogatories have been answered.
I would like to inform the Board of this agreement at your earliest convenience, prefer-ably today or tomorrow.
Sincerely, O
l0 Susan Braden Cyphert Attorney Energy Secticn cc:
Carl Stover Enclosure 1/ Pursuant to that agreement I am enclosing a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Stover on March 11, 1980.
s-UNITED STATES DEPART. MENT OF JUSTICE
(
b$
WASillNGTON D.C.
20530
'q, MAR 111980 m.........,.
n,.%..m.a
.a n r.. i.....t...n a
DAK:SBC 60-415-105 Carl N.
Stover C.
H. Guernsey, Inc.
3555 N.W.
58th Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Re:
In the Matter of Houston Lighting & Power Company, et al. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-498A-50-499A; Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al. (Coman-che Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445A-50-446A
Dear Mr. Stover:
(
Pursuant to our telephone conversation, enclosed please find a copy of :
(1)
E.
Dale Scarth's direct testimony in the SEC proceedings; (2) a copy of E. Dale Scarth's deposition tes-timony in this proceeding to date (he is scheduled to be de-posed again in Dallas on March 27-28, 1980); and (3) a copy of
.the deposition testimony in this proceeding of D. Eugene Sim-mons.
Mr. Simmons will be redeposed on April 4-5, 1980, here in Washington.
s Texas Utilities has designated Mr. Scarth as its expert engineer in this case.
Houston Lighting & Power Company ("HL&P")
has designated Mr. Simmons and Herb Woodson of the University of Texas as its expert engineering witnesses.
Mr. Woodson is being deposed in Austin, Texas, today.
I will send you a copy of his transcript next week.
For your information, I am also enclosing a copy of a motion the Department recently received regarding your proposed testimony and a copy of the Department's response which is self-explanatory.
Since the Department has now listed you an a potential expert witness, I am obligated by Order of the Board to provide copies of any correspondence to you or from you to all counsel, which I have done with this letter.
(
At a pretrial conference last Friday, the Board indicated that trial would commence May 14, 1980, as scheduled.
We are obligated to provide a summary of the proposed testimony of all witnesses in our case to the Board and all counsel by April 14, 1980.
In that regard, I would like to schedule a convenient time prior to that time to discuss this matter with you.
At-torneys for HL&P have requested an opportunity to redepose you if your testimony will expand beyond the scope of your previ-ous deposition.
Thank you for your continuing cooperation and interest in this matter.
Please feel free to contact me regarding a con-venient time and place we can meet and if I can be of further assistance to you or your client (telephone: 202-724-6667).
Sincerely,
$W
'f Susan Braden Cyphert Attorney Energy Section Antitrust Division
{
Attachments cc:
all counsel of record
~
.... =.
~ -.,.
l l
t
e i
f 1
i f
EXHIBIT D t
i i
m ryomrm rp'ra l - ' - ' " "
UNITED STATES OF AliURICA f
{J
.,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.11 l
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
....1..
w *..
In the Matter of
)
IIOUSTON LIGilTING & POWER
)
COMPANY, et al. (South
)
Docket Hon. 50-498A Texas Project, Units 1
)
50-499A and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING
)
COMPANY, et al.
(. manche
)
Docket Nos. 50-445A Peak Steam Electric
)
50-446A Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
RUSPONSE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO FOURTil SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM fiOUSTON LIGilTING & POWER COHPANY TO ANTITRUST DIVISION, U.S.
DEPT. OF JUSTICE The Department of Justice
(" Department") hereby submits pq
\\)
its Response to Interrogatories propounded by llouston Lighting
& Pouer Company ("flL&P"). 1/
The answers and information provided herein are complete to the Departnent's information and belief as of February 4, 1980.
The Department, however, reserves its right pursuant to Section 2.740(e) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice to supplement or amend these Responses prior to trial to include any additional information which may become available.
1/ Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents f rom flouston Lighting & Power Company to Antitrust
/ 's
- Division, U.S.
Dept. of Justice, filed on January 21, 1980.
~
b LLH d I
900 z 22 0 / /9 '
HL&P Interrogatory 1(a) 1.
With respect to the statement contained in the January 15, 1980 letter from Susan Braden Cyphert, counsel for the Department of Justice, to J. Gregory Copeland, counsel for Houston Lighting
& Power Company (Attachment A to these interrogatories) that:
The Department does, however, anticipate providing engineer.ing testimony through individuals who have already been designated as expert witnesses in these proceedings.
(a)
Identify each expert witncss who the Division expects to rely upon or utilize as a provider of engineering testimony in this proceeding.
Department's Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(a)
The Department has not presently determined that it will rely on any specific expert engineering witness to provide
(
engineering testimony at trial.
The Department, anticipates, however, that it may choose to adopt part or all of the anticipated testimony of the expert engineering witnesses, who have already been designated by tb7 other parties to these proceedings.
HL&P has or will have deposed all of these expert engineers Oy the close of discovery other than Carl Stover.
The Department will inform HL&P prior to March 1, 1980, if it will rely on Mr. Stover to provide expert testimony so that he may be deposed during the expert deposition period in March. 1/
1 l
l 1/ Carl Stover was already deposed by HL&P on July 24, 1979, as a potential fact witness to these proceedings.
(
. HL&P Interrogatory 1(b)
State (i) any understandings between the Division and each such expert witness, and (ii) the substance of any communication between the Division and any other person, which partially or completely provides the basis for the Division's anticipation that it can provide engineering testimony through each such expert witness.
Department's Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(b)
The Department has no understandings with any designated expert engineering witness to these proceedings regarding their proposed testimony.
The basis for the Department's belief that it may choose to adopt part or all of the anticipated testimony of these experts is their deposition testimony, of which HL&P has knowledge.
j(
HL&P Interrogatory 1(c)
I~
Provide a summary of the testimony which each such expert witness is expected to offer on behalf of the Division.
Department's Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(c)
The Department's knowledge of the testimony of the designated engineering witnesses in these proceedings is the deposition transcripts and documents produced by counsel for these experts during discovery in these proceedings.
HL&P Interrogatory 1(d)
State the basis for each conclusion or opinion each such i
expert witness expects to present or draw in his/her testimony on behalf of the Division.
Department's Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(d)
Refer to Department's Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(c) gg herein.
l l
l
(
-4~
HL&P Interrogatory 1(e)
Identify all documents prepared by, for, or under the supervision of each such expert witness, or reviewed or relied upon in any way by such expert in the performance of his/her duties, formulation of his/her conclusions or opinions, or preparation of his/her estimony, including particularly work papers, status reports, preliminary outlines and memoranda, drafts of testimony, and communications between such expert and the Division, any party to the proceeding, or any person with knowledge in any way relied upon by such expert, and provide copies of any such document not already in the possession of Houston.
Department's Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(e)
Refer to Department's Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(c) herein.
(
HL&P Interrogatory 1(f)
~
Identify each such party to the proceeding and any person with knowledge in any way relied upon by such expert with whom such expert has communicated.
Department's Response to HL&P Interrogatory 1(f)
The Department does not know with whom the designated expert witnesses in these proceedings have communicated or the basis for their reliance, if any, on such communications other than what has been discovered by HL&P in the deposition testimony and documents produced during discovery in these proceedings.
+
. (
Based on the information presently in the Department's possession, the supplemental information provided herein is, to the best of the Department's present belief and knowledge, true and correct.
Respectfully submitted,
/97?
A Susan Braden Cyphert
"/
Washington, D.
C.
Attorney, Energy Section February 4, 1980 Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Telephone:
(202-724-6667)
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 1st day of February 1980.
(
L e:sJ%EKac Notary Public My Commission expires January 1, 1981.
.. ' ' - I ', I :
- i. J,\\ O I ' 4,-
['.
, i.I'lJ n n,i#
,s',q,
'%,,l.:,,,.: s l
l
O e
5 EXHIBIT B I
l l
t l