ML19319B832

Applicants' Initial Interrogatories & Request for Documents for DOJ & Aec.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19319B832
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Perry
Issue date:	08/26/1974
From:	Reynolds W CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8001280663
Download: ML19319B832 (15)

Text

e 1.]

August 26, 1974 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )

COMPANY )

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Docket Nos. -

Unit 1) ) .

0A

) 50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )

COMPANY, ET AL. )

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units . and 2) )

APPLICANTS' INITIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE AEC REGULATORY STAFF Applicants propound the attached Initial Interroga-tories And Request for Documents to the Department of Justice and the AEC Regulatory Staff, respectively, with the request that the interrogatories be answered under oath and the docu-ments requested be produced, both to be completed on or before the 31st day of October, 1974.

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By: O-' .

4 .I b . d &_.t

)

Wm. Bradford Reynolds\ 1 l Gerald Charnoff l Counsel for Applicants I

8 0 01280 h3 4J--1 l

APPLICANTS' INITIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE AEC REGULATORY STAFF I. DEFINITIONS As used herein the following terms and abbreviations are, unless otherwise specifically indicated, intended to have the following meanings: .

(a) " AMP-Ohio" refers to American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc., a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of Ohio,whic'h is an intervenor in this proceeding.

(b) "CAPC0" refers to the Central Area Power Co-ordination Group, which is composed of the following five members:

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, and The Toledo Edison Company.

(c) "CCCT" refers to Combined CAPCO Company Territories, which is the area bounded by the outer perimeters of the res-pective geographic service areas of the five CAPCO members.

(d) "CEI" refers to The Cleveland Electric Illumi-nating Company, one of the joint applicants for licenses to construct the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear facilities.

(e) " Cleveland" refers to the City of Cleveland, in-cluding each and every department, agency, and other division or subdivision thereof.

(f) " Describe," when used herein with reference to l

l any document, means to identify the type of document, state when, l

l

,' / /

J and by whom,.it was prepared, recorded or written, and set forth the shbst'ance of the contents thereof. Whenever a re-

7. ws

, quest'is made herein to describe a document, a true copy of h said do'cument may be produced in lieu of the requested des-cription. '

f. < (g) " Document" refers to memoranda, correspondence (ideluding notes and reports of telephone conversations and conferences), recordings, minutes, transcripts, contracts, agreements, books and booklets, pamphlets, circulars, bulletins, catalogs, lists, periodicals and articles therefrom, newspapers and magazines and a/ticles therefrom, letters, telegrams, mes-sages, reports, compilations, tabulations, studies, comparisons, ,

analyses, not.es, invoices, vouchers, purchase orders, pictures, charts, maps, surveys, graphs, electrical or geographic diagrams (including those known in the industry as "one line diagrams"),

statistical compilations, questionnaires, and all other writings of any kind or nature whatsoever.

A (h) "DOJ" refers,to the Department of Justice, any department or subdivision thereof, and any person employed by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Attorney General or the De-j partment of Justice. -

(1) " Electric entity" refers to any cosmercial firm, cooperative, governmental unit or similar organization that generates, transmits or distributes electric power, whether or not it is located within the area of CCCT.

/

(j ) " Identify," when used herein with reference to any person, corporation, association, cooperative or other entity, means to state the name and current address of said person, corporation or other organization, and, if the current address is unknown, to provide the last known address.

(k) "Painesville" refers to the City of Painesville, Ohio, including each and every department, agency, and other division or subdivision thereof.

(1) "PASNY" refers to the Power Authority of the State of New York, which is responsible for the sale to neigh-boring states of that portion of power generated at the Niagara Power Project which has been allocated to distribution outside of the State of New York.

(m) " Staff" refers to the AEC Regulatcry Staff, any division thereof, and any person employed by, or acting for or on behalf of, the AEC Regulatory Staff.

1 i

-4 II. INITIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS The interrogatories propounded below, and the re-quests for documents, are addressed both to the Department of Justice and to the AEC Regulatory Staff. Each question and request is to be answered separately by the DOJ and the Staff, but s' aid responses may be combined and submitted in a single document.

Each request for documents extends to all relevant documents presently or hereafter within the possession, custody or control of D0J and the Staff, respectively, whether in con-nection with this or any other case, proceeding, or investi-gation. If any document requested is available, but is with-held by reason of any assertion of privilege or other claim, describe each such document, identify and state the position of the persons preparing and receiving it, and indicate the sub-ject matter to which such document relates. In addition, provide a brief statement of the grounds on which privilege or other claim is being asserted.

In any case where a refusal to respond to an inter-rogatory is based on an assertion of privilege or other claim, provide a brief statement of the circumstances involved, identify any person concerned, and state the grounds on which privilege or other claim is being asserted.

1. Describe fully the nature and extent of any investigation undertaken by the DOJ and/or the Staff relating to the Attorney General's Advice Letter of July 9, 1971, in the Davis-Besse proceeding, including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) provide the dates on which said investi-gation(s) commenced and terminated; (b) identify each and every person who partici-pated in said investigation (s) for or on behalf of the DOJ and the Staff, the particular investigation involved, and the nature and extent of said individual's participation; and (c) identify each person, group, organization, municipality, cooperative, or other entity from whom information was sought in connection with said investigation (s), or by whom information was provided, specifying in each case the par-ticular investigation in question.

2. With respect to each and every investigation des-cribed in response to Interrogatory No. 1, furnish copies of all documents relating thereto, including, but not limited to,

_. all correspondence from, to and between D0J and the Staff, and all memoranda, reports, analyses, studies or other records prepared by or for DOJ and the Staff, or either of them.

3. Describe fully the nature and extent of any in-vestigation undertaken by DOJ and/or the Staff relating to the

Attorney General's Advice Letter of December 17, 1973, in the Perry proceeding, including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) provide the dates on which said investi-gation(s) commenced and terminated; (b) identify each and every person who par-ticipated in said investigation (s) for or on behalf of the DOJ and the Staff, the particular investigation involved, and the nature and extent of said individual's participation; and (c) identify each person, group, organization, municipality, cooperative, or other entity from whom informa-tion was sought in connection with said investigation (s), or by whom information was provided, specifying in each case the particular investigation in question.

4. With respect to each and every investigation des-cribed in response to Interrogatory No. 3, furnish copies of all documents relating thereto, including, but not limited to, all correspondence from, to and between DOJ and the Staff, and all memoranda, reports, analyses, studies or other records pre-pared by or for DOJ and the Staff, or either of them.

5 Describe in detail each activity engaged in by the respective Applicants (identifying whether they were acting alone, in combination, or through CAPCO) which D0J and/or the Staff allege, or will allege, to be inconsistent with the anti-trust laws, including, but not limited to, the following:

w

(a) the time period in which said Applicant (s) engaged in each such activity; (b) the nature of said activity; (c) the basis for its being deemed " inconsistent with the antitrust laws"; and (d) the statute or policy with which it is al-leged to be inconsistent.

6. As to each activity specified in response to Interrogatory No. 5, state whether DOJ and/or the Staff claims or will claim that the granting of the Davis-Besse and Perry licenses will create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. If so, explain the basis for such affirma-tive answer, and identify in detail the relationship between each such activity and the above licenses which DOJ and the Staff rely upon for purposes of establishing nexus.

7 Furnish copies of all documents prepared in con-nection with the Davis-Besse and Perry Advice Letters which refer to, discuss, evaluate or comment upon the structure or operation of the electric utility industry in the CCCT.

8. Furnish copies of all documents which refer to, describe, evaluate or comment upon the financial, operating, or past, present or future " competitive viability" of any of Applicants' competitors, including, but not limited to, all documents which reflect the revenues, expenditures, rates, costs l

of service, bill frequency analysis, cost or profitability analysis -- whether by customer class, kilowatt-hour sales, peak load, load factor, load diversity or generating capacity --

of any such competitor alone, or in conjunction with other competitors, or in comparison to CEI or any other Applicant.

9. Furnish copies of all documents discussing or relating in any way to the actual or potential competition be-tween Applicants, or any of them, and any other electric entity for wholesale or retail customers, including, but not limited to:

(a) the effect of any local or state law or con-stitutional provision on the ability of any municipal system in the States of Ohio and Pennsylvania, to compete with Appli-cants for existing or potential wholesale or retail customers, to construct, own (severally or jointly) or finance the con-struction of system facilities, or to interconnect, coordinate, or integrate in any way with another system; (b) tax, low interest or other financial advan- ,

tages benefiting municipal electric systems in Ohio and Penn-sylvania; (c) tax or other financial advantages benefiting Applicants.

10. Describe each condition to Applicants' Davis-Besse and Perry licenses which DOJ and/or the Staff seeks to impose t-

in the event that it is ultimately determined that the granting of said licenses to Applicants would create or maintain a situ-ation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.

11. State the basis for the statement made in the Perry Advice Letter, Part III, para. 2, p. 3, that: "It is CEI's objective to ' reduce and ultimately eliminate' the systems of both of these municipal competitors."

12. State whether it is the position of DOJ and the Staff that unless Painesville "can secure either access or in-terconnection and coordination, it will be unable to remain a virble competitor" (Perry Advice Letter, Part III, para. 3,

p. 4). If so, explain fully the basis for this position. If not, state in detail the respective positions of DOJ and the Staff regarding (a) Painesv111e's competitive position as it relates to CEI and the other applicants, j ointly and severally, and (b) the effect thereon, if any, of the Davis-Besse and Perry licenses.

13. State whether it is the position of DOJ and the Staff that "without coordination, including wheeling, reserve sharing, and joint planning of and participation in large-scale generating units, [ Cleveland] cannot continue to compete with CEI" (Perry Advice Letter, para. 5, p. 4). If so, explain fully the basis for this position, specifying particularly why, if all the other designated elements of " coordination" are provided

to Cleveland, " wheeling" is also deemed necessary to Cleveland to continue to compete with CEI.' If not, state in detail the respective positions of DOJ and the Staff regarding (a) Cleve-land's competitive position as it relates to CEI and the other applicants, jointly and severally, and (b) the effect thereon, if any, of the Davis-Besse and Perry licenses.

14. State the basis for the statement in the Perry Advice Letter, Part III, para. 10, p. 6, that CEI's refusal to wheel to Cleveland 30 mw of PASNY power for AMP-Ohio suggests "further anticompetitive conduct by CEI."

15 Explain in detail in what manner the refusal by CEI to wheel 30 mw of PASNY power to Cleveland relates to ac-tivities under the Perry license.

16. Describe fully the commitment CEI would have to make with Painesville and Cleveland with respect to granting access to either coordination or large-scale nuclear generation in order to "be free of anticompetitive effect" (Perry Advice Letter, para. 11, p. 7).

17. State the basis for the statements made by DOJ in its brief filed on April 9, 1974, with the Securities and Ex-change Commission in In the Matter of American Electric Power Company, Inc. (Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935),

Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-1476, at p. 78, to the fol-lowing effect: "The CAPCO companies have three nuclear generating

t plants at various stages of the Commission's licensing process.

^

None of the Ohio municipal interests has sought participation in any of the units, except for the Cleveland municipal system, and there is some doubt whether that request is in earnest."

l 1

Y b

t l

t

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety'and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )

COMPANY )

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, ) Docket Nos. 50-346A Unit 1) ) 50-440A

) 50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )

COMPANY, ET AL. )

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing

" Applicants' Initial Interrogataries And Request For Documpnts For The Department Of Justice And The AEC Regulatory Staff" were served upon each of the persons listed on the attached Service List by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 26th day of August, 1974.

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By: 1. e.JN 4 Wm. Bradford'Reyno1Ms Counsel for Applicants l

Dated: August 26, 1974.

l

.j.

T NITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and )

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC )

ILLUMINATING COMPANY )

)

(Davis-Besce Nuclear Power ) Docket Nos. 50-346A Station, Unit 1) ) ~50-440A

) 50-441A THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC )

ILLUMINATING COMPANY )

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) .

Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST John B. Farmakides, Esq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens Chairman Docketing & Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Atomic "nergy Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 1717 H Street, NW Washington, D. C. 20545 Washington, D. C. 20545 John H. Drebbia, Esq. Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of General Counsel Alston, Miller & Gaines Regulation 1776 K Street, N. W. U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20006 Washington, D. C. 20545 Dr. George R. Hall -

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Robert J. Verdisco, Esq.

Office of General Counsel U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Regulation Washington, D. C. 20545 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Andrew F. Popper, Esq.

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Office of General Counsel Regulation .

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545

~

Joseph J. Saunders, Esq. John R. White, Esq.

Steven Charno, Esq. . Executive Vice President Antitrust Division Ohio Edison Company Department of Justice 47 North Main Street Washington, D. C. 20530 Akron, Ohio 44308 Reuben Goldberg, Esq. Thomas J. Munsch, Esq.

David C. Hjelmfelt, Esq. General Attorney 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Duquesne Light Company Washington, D. C. 20006 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Frank R. Clokey, Esq.

Special Assistant John Lansdale, Esq.

Attorney General Cox, Langford & Brown -

Room 219 21 Dupont Circle, N. W.

Towne House Apartments Washington, D. C. 20036 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Wallace L. Duncan, Esq.

Mr. Raymond Kudukis Jo_n T. Brown, Esq.

Director of Utilities Duncan, Brown & Palmer City of Cleveland 1700 Penn.ylvania Avenue, N. W.

1201 Lakeside Avenue Washington, D. C. 20006 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 C. Raymond Marvin, Esq.

Herbert R. Whiting, Director Assistant Attorney General Robert D. Hart, Esq. Chief, Antitrust Section

. Department of Law 8 East Long Street -

1201 Lakeside Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43215 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Deborah M. Powell, Esq.

John C. Engle, President . Assistant Attorney General AMP-O, Inc. Antitrust Section Municipal Building 8 East Long Street 20 High Street Suite 510 Hamilton, Ohio 45012 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Donald H. Hauser, Esq. Christopher R. Schraff, Esq.

Managing Attorney Assistant Attorney General The Clevelund Electric Environmental Law Section Illuminating Company' Eighth Floor 55 Public Squa're 361 East Broad Street Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Leslie Henry, Esq. .

Fuller, Henry, Hodge.& Snyder

• 300 Madison Avenue -

Toledo, Ohio 43604 O

9 9

- ,