ML20062F868
| ML20062F868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1978 |
| From: | Blume M, Lessy R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812210262 | |
| Download: ML20062F868 (22) | |
Text
p
=j.
56-Y% M f_,(-
. % :u
=
.. -.s L
~., p y\\
k,;...- M M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~ *
- O.
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- M w'j' p"
- ,3 p g"i6
[
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h9 A.,
In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
NRC Occket Nos. 50-498A
/
/d[/ [78 l
PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTOllIO )
50-499A CITY OF AUSTIN
)
CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos.
)
1 and 2)
)
RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF TO HOUSTON LIGHTING
& POWER COMPANY'S FIRST SET OF IllTERROG4 TORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 00CUMENTS
- 1. (a)
Ray Phillips, Attorney, Department of Justice
(
J. Alejandro, City Manager, Robstown G.W. Oprea, Jr., Executive Vice President, HL&P William B. Saxbe, Attorney General, Department of Justice.
Joseph J. Saunders, Chief, Public Counsel Section, Department of Justice Dan Lamke, Assistant General Counsel, FPC/00E Aaron Levy, SEC Staff personnel directly involved included Abraham Braf tman, Argil Taalston, Maurice Messier, David Penn, and Robert Verdisco, Esq.
- 1. (b)
Documents are provided in Appendix "A".. hereto.
- 2. (a)
Tom Sweatman, Chief Engineer, Texas PUC J. Bishop Attorney, Texas PUC Dr. Caroline Smith, Chief Econcmist, Texas PUC Garrett Morris, Commissioner, Texas PUC Ernest Casstevens, Attorney, Austin, Texas Charles Moore, Records Officer, SEC Andrew MacDonald, Attorney, SEC David Owens, Chief Engineer, SEC Jim Aakers, SEC James Monahan, General Manager, Brazos Electric Cooperative William Townsend, Engineer, Brazos Electric Cooperative Dan Swenke, Brazos Electric Cooperative Walt Gunderson, Engineer, FPC/ DOE Joseph Gallo, Attorney, Isham, Lincoln & Beale Richard Cudahy, Attorney, Isham, Lincoln & Beale Michael Miller, Attorney, Isham, Lincoln & Beale David Stahl, Attorney, Isham, Lincoln & Beale Thomas Ryan, Attorney, Isham, Lincoln & Beale Donald Flexner, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice 78122102/i S
__.___-_m__-
O=,-
iw.
/.
),/'
2-t John Whitler, Attorney, Energy Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice Ronald H. Clark, Attorney, Energy Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice Frederick Parmenter, Attorney, Energy Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice Judith Harris, Attorney, Energy Section. Antitrust Division, Department of Justice Donald Kaplan, Chief. Energy Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justica Steven Hunsicker, At'.orney, Baker & Botts Abraham Braitman, Consulting Engineer, Bethesda, Md.
E. William Barnett, Attorney, Baker & Botts Douglas John, Attorney, Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld James Hammett, Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration /
DOE, Tulsa, Oklahoma David Croucher, U.S. District Court (S.D. Tex.), Houston, Texas (s
Walter Bowers, Engineer, Southwestern Power Administration /00E, Tulsa, Oklahoma J. McClanahan, Engineer, Southwestern Power Administration /00E, Tulsa, Oklahoma Dick Terrell Brown, Soules & McCamish, San Antonio, Texas Henry Strozier, Consulting Engineer, Southern Engineering Company, Atlanta, Georgia William Esler, Vice President for Engineering and Construction, Southwest Public Service Company, Amarillo, Texas P. Eaton, Attorney, Roswell, New Mexico Maynard Human, General Manager, Western Farmers Electric Cooper-ative. Anadarko, Oklahoma Clyde Hukills, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative W. Wood, City of Lubbock, Texas J. Driver, Gate City Electric Cooperative J. Gayle, City of Tulia, Texas
(.
M.D. Waggoner, City of Tulia, Texas J.G. Copeland, Attorney, Baker & Botts J.A. Bouknight, Attorney, Lowenstein,'Newman, Reis & Axelrad Robert Lowenstein, a.ttorney, Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad William Wise, Attorney, 1019 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Leland Leatherman, Attorney, Little Rock, Ark.
Morgan Hunter, Attorney, Austin, Texas Dan Pleitz, Attorney. Naman, Howell, Smith and Muldrow, Waco, Texas Rodney Lee, Attorne, Naman, Howell, Smith and Muldrow, Waco, Texas s
R.L. Hancock, Director, City of Austin Electric Department H.L. Peterson, City of Austin Electric Department George Elbrecht, Attorney, City of Austin Don Butler, Attorney, Austin, Texas Charles Thrash, Attorney, Baker & Botts Theodore Weiss, Jr., Attorney, Baker & Botts
.__ j
/-
' - f M.D. Sampels, Attorney, Worsham, Forsyth and Sa'mpels i
Joseph Irion Worsham, Attorney, Worsham, Forsyth and Sampels Spencer Relyea, Attorney, Worsham, Forsyth and Sampels Fred Slicker, Attorney, Worsham, Forsyth and Sampels Jon Wood, Attorney, San Antonio, Texas W. Roger Wilson, Attorney, San Antonio, Texas Jesse Poston, Engineer, San Antonio City Public Service Board S. Zimmerman, Attorney, Fulbright and Jaworski Phillip McConnell, General Counsel, Central and Southwest L.E. Gross, General Manager, Medina Electric Cooperative Mr. Langfeld, Medina Electric Cooperative Jim Morriss, President, Texas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.,
Austin, Texas Gary Burch, Engineer, Texas Electric Cooperatives, Inc., Austin, Texas Elof Soderberg, Chief Enginear, Lower Colorado River Authority Charles Herring, General Manager, Lcwer Colorado River Authority Mac Ulmstattd, General Counsel, Lower Colorado River Authority William S. Robson, General Manager, South Texas Electric Cooperative, Victoria, Texas Lenard Young, Regional Engineer, FPC/00E, Fort Worth, Texas William Scott, Engineer, FPC/ DOE, Fort Worth, Texas Ray Johnson, Engineer, FPC/ DOE, Fort Worth, Texas George Wehmann, Engineer, FPC/ DOE, Fort Worth, Texas Joe Flood, Engineer, FFC/005, Fort Worth, Texas H.E. Striedell, Tex-La Cooperative E.R. Rhodes Tex-La Cooperative J.D. Solomon, Consulting Engineer, Southern Engineering.
Atlanta, Georgia R. Raymond, Tex-La Cooperative J.D. Robertson, Tex-La Cooperative
~
John H. Butts Tex-La Cooperative Fred Buchanan, Tex-La Cooperative
(< /
Juan D. Nichols, President, Tex-La Cooperative, P.O. Box 398, Quitman, Texas I
J.W. Cunningham, Tex-La Cooperative R. Cavender, Tex-La Cooperative Fredarick H. Ritts, Attorney, Law Offices of Northcutt Ely, 600 Watergate, Washington, D.C.
20037 William Burchette, Attorney, Law Offices of Northcutt Ely, 600 Watergate, Washington, D.C.
20037 Jack Swidensky, General Counsel, Southwestern Power Administration, Tulsa, Oklahoma Jay Galt, Counsel, Committee on Power for the Southwest, Cklahoma City, Oklahcma Knoland Plucknett, Executive Director, Committee on Power for the Southwest, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Carl Stover, Consulting Engineer, C.H. Gurnsey, Inc., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Gordon Taylor, ' lice President Oklahoma Gas & Electric Com:acy
_4 Duane Stratton, General' Counsel, Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company Richard Day, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company Andrew Moore, Central Louisiana Electric Company, Alexandria, Louisiana I
Robert Shapiro, Attorney, FPC/ DOE, Hasnington, D.C.
Norman Lee, President, Gulf States Utilities Company, Beaumont, Texas Benny Hughes, General Counsel, Gulf States Utilities Company, i
Beaumont, Texas Al Naylor, Vice President for Engineering, Gulf States Utilities Company, Beaumont, Texas M.V. Brooks, General Counsel, Taylor Electric Cooperative, Ferkle, Texas Tom W. Gregg, Jr., Attorney for Southwest Texas Electric Cooperative, San Angelo, Texas Andrew Kever, Governor's Staff, State of Texas, Austin, Texas
(~
Lee Yerington, DOE, Office of Utility Systems, Division of Regulatory Proceedings, Washington, D.C.
Glen Stover, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, DOE, Washington, D.C.
Harold Tynan, Executive Secretary, ERCOT, San Antonio, Texas R.D. Woofter, President, Community Public Service Company F.G. Von Huben, Community Public Service Company John W. Davidson, Attorney for City of Brownsville, Texas; San Antonio, Texas Robert Jablon, Attorney, Spiegel & McDiarmid, Washington, D.C.
Susan White, Spiegel & McDiarmid, Washington, D.C.
Richard Fossey, Attorney, Texas Attorney General's Office Linda Aaker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Texas Attorr.ey General's Office Kevin Pratt, Attorney, Texas Attorney General's Office Joseph Knotts, Jr., Attorney, Debevoise & Liberman, Washington, D.C.
Nicholas Reynolds, Attorney, Debevoise & Liberman, Washingten, D.C.
,,(,
W. Tom Thompson, Texas Office of Federal / State Relations, Washington, D.C.
As to NRC personnel conducting this review, see response to Interrogatory No. 27.
(
3.
The Allens Creek antitrust review has been terminated due to a settlement. Accordingly, the Staff does not believe this request is relevant to this proceeding. However, if any documents were provided in connection with this subject matter, they have been included in Appendix A.
i
. f
- 4. (a)
In addition to those named in Staff's answer to Interrogatory 1
No.1, Staff had contact with the following persons:
Ross Segrest, General Manager, Brazos Electric Cooperative Coke Mills, Brazos Electric Cooperative William Townsend, Brazos Electric Cooperative 1
Leonard Herring, Brazos Electric Cooperative William Traumerhausen, Consulting Engineer, R.W. Beck, Inc.,
Denver, Colorado Paul Cunningham, Executive Director, Texas Municipal Power Pool T.L. Austin, TU Perry Brittain, TU R.D. Ledbetter, TU N.D. Anderson, TU Joseph Knotts, Attorney, Washington, D.C.
Nicholas Reynolds Attorney, Washington, D.C.
Raymond Phillips, Esq., Department of Justice e-i Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General, Department of Justice E.J. Bauser, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Washington, D.C.
t The Staff also had contact with representatives from the following entities, but the Staff's records, at this point in time, do not indicate the specific-individuals contacted: Personnel from West Texas Utilities Company; the City of Commerce, Texas; Southwestern Electric Service Company; i
South Texas Electric Cooperative; Medina Electric Cooperative; City of Austin Electric Department; City Public Service Board of San Antonio; and Lower Colorado River Authority.
Staff personnel familiar with this investigation include those named in 1. (a) above.
i
- 4. (b)
Cocuments are provided in Appendix "A", hereto.
l N,
5.
The Staff is not able to answer this interrogatory in detail at this time. However, the Staff is concerned about the effects of the intra-state only policy on the planning opportunities of small utilities who, because of the econcmies of scale inherent in nuclear generation, have by themselves, no opportunity to participate.
Any relevant documents are provided in Appendix A.
6.
The Staff has considered such a theory in light of current and future restrictions on other baseload fuels in this area. The Staff will formally respond to this request as it completes its discovery efforts. Any documents relevant to this request have been provided in Appendix "A".
. i
- 7. (a)
Yes.
(b)
The response to t:11s subpart requires an economic analysis which the Staff has not, as yet, obtained. As this infor-mation becomes available to us, we shall undertake to more fully respond to this interrogatory.
- 8. (a)
Yes.
(b)
See answer to 7. (b) above.
- 9. (a)
Yes.
(b)
See answer to 7. (b) above.
- 10. (a)
Yes, and Staff Senerally agrees with the opinion of the Attorney General in his advice letter of February 21, 1978 which stated, in relevant part:
[t]he clear intent of the agreement is to prevent the parties from entering into interstate commerce. Tne enforcement mechanism is the underlying right of the dominant utilities to refuse to deal with any utility that breaches the agreement.
In short, it is this threat of boycott which reinforces the intrastate only agreement.
Id. at 8.
(b)
See, e.g., the " Power Interchange Agreement Setween Texas Power
& Light Co. and Houston Lighting & Power Co." of February 1, 1962. Article II specifies that
[t]he parties hereto presently operate, and intend to
('
continue to coerate, their respective systems so that power and energy cannot flow from either of such systems to any point outside the State of Texas into either of such systems [except tith FPC exemption]. Operating conditions, whether normal, inadvertent or emergency, which would result in the transmission, ove'r the line covered by this agreement, of electric power and energy in interstate commerce shall be cause for the discon-tinuance of the use of the line covered by this agreement
[except during an emergency, as declared by the FPC under section 202(d) of the Federal Power Act].[ emphasis added].
Article X specifies that the earliest termination of this Agreement, which was executed by the presidents of HL&P and TP&L, is Cecember 31, 1986.
l
Collateral agreements between Houston, TP&L, and the entities with which they are respectively interconnected specify that all interconnections shall be operated so that all energy and power crossing such interconnections shall be generated wholly within the State of Texas. See, e.g., Article VII of " Purchase, Sale, and Interchange Agreement Between Lower Colorado River Authority and Houston Lighting & Power Co.," dated June 17, 1953. Section 1 of Article VII specifies that all energy and power supplied shall be generated wholly within the State of Texas. Similar terms are contained in the " Agreement Between LCRA and TF&L" dated October 14, 1949. Article VI of this agree-ment states, inter alia, that if interstate power is transmitted between the parties,
...then, in addition to any remedies available to either of the parties hereto at law or in equity, the purchase and sale of power and energy may be immediately suspended... Each of
,s
(
the parties ~ shall permit the other and shall cause any other purchaser of its power and energy... to permit the other party in the event the system of such purchaser... is
[ operating in interstate commerce], to make such inspections...
necessary to... determine whether or not [all such inter-connections are being operated solely in intrastate commerce].
These agreements and other similar agreements have the combined effect of allowing Houston and/or TU to disconnect from those parties with which they are interconnected to preserve their intrastate status.
- 11. (a) Yes.
(b) As evidenced by, inter alia, the contractual terms cited in the preceding answer, it was and is the intent of TU and HLSP not just to engage solely in intrastate operations, but also to continue
(' '
to engage in intrastate operations until at least 1987. As each party obligates itself to remain non-jurisdictional, each must disconnect from any entity which is jurisdictional. A failure to disconnect could be construed as breach of the agreement.
(c) Relevant documents are included in Appendix A.
12.
Staff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is predicated upon the false assumption that Houston's refusal to deal with interstate utilities is unilateral. The Staff also objects to this interrogatory on the ground thtt it seeks to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of attorneys, contrary to 10 CFR 12.74Cb(2) and FED.R.
CIV.P. 25(b)(3).
~__
t 8-
- 13. (a)
The Staff cannot fully respond to this interrogatory for the reasons stated in re::ponse to Interrogatory 7. (b). As of this point in time, the Staff generally agrees with the assess-ment of the Department of Justice in its answer to Houston's Interrogatory No. 23, and the Staff notes the May 17, 1977 letter from the President of Gulf States Utilities Co. to the Texas Public Utilities Commission in its Docket 14 proceeding.
To the extent that Houston's refusal to deal with interstate a
utilities has precluded a GSU interconnection with a TIS entity, 4
I which would save GSU an estimated $11 million in construction costs alone according to Mr. Lee, denial of such an interconnection has harmed a substantial actual competitor of HL&P, and thus actual competition.
Other forms of harm to actual competition including that of Gulf States include, but are not limited to the following:
i impossibility of access to the South Texas Project, impossibility for TIS entities to consider participation in the now cancelled Blue Hills nuclear units, inability of STEC/MEC to plan sales of excess energy from its San Miguel coal units, and the inability of various members of STIS to even consider the options for power sales, purchases, and exchanges with non-TIS entities.
s The Staff will update this response at a later date.
- 13. (b)
Relevant documents have been provided in Appendix A.
14 Those portions of this interrogatory which require an economic analysis or which would necessarily be based upon conclusions drawn from such an analysis will be deferred pending receipt and evaluation of such an analysis as described in response to interrogatory 7. (b).
In addition to the instances of harm to actual competition listed as examples in its answer to the preceding question, Staff believes that HL&P's agreement with TU to refuse to deal with interstate utilities has unduly limited consideration of power supply alter-natives for ERCOT members and surrounding entities.
l Some examples, which will be updated in the future, include the inability of Western Farmer's Electric Cooperative, Inc. to con-4 sider purchase of power from TV or interconnection with Brazos Electric Cooperative, inability of the interstate portions of Tex-La Cooperative to coordinate their operations with their intra-state counterparts, inability of Southwestern Power Acministration to coordinate its Texas operatiens with those outside of Texas, all to the detriment of these entities and to the detriment of actual competition.
15.
The Staff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is predicated upon the false assumption that Houston's refusal to deal with interstate utilities is unilateral.
As to the economic conclusions requested see response to interrogatory 7. (b). Any relevant documents, however, have been provided in Appendix A.
1 16.
See response to interrogatory 7. (b). Any relevant documents, j
however, have been provided in Appendix A.
17.
See response to interrogatory 7. (b).
18.
The Staff objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks to elicit the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of attorneys, contrary to 10 CFR 92.740b(2) and FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(3). The Staff notes, however, that the 7
Commission has already determined that there have been "significant s
changes" in the activities of HL&P, sufficient to trigger the initiation of an operating license antitrust review, Houston Lighting & Power Comoany, et al. (South Texas Project. Units 1
& 2), CLI-77-13, 5 tiRC 1303,1319 (June 15,1977). Moreover, on April 5,1978, the Commission re-affirmed this finding and denie d HL&P's request to " order procedures" to determine whether such a hearing should be convened, Houston Lightina & Power Ccmcany, et al. (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), CLI-78-5, 7 tiRC 397 (April 5,1978). Thus, the ultimate issue for hearing, as the Licensing Board has ordered, is whether Applicant's activities under the [ operating] license will create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the laws or policies specified in section 105a of the Act. "Special Prehearing Conference Order," p. 3 (July 13, 1978).
In this context, the Staff does contend at this time that HLiP's activities under the operating licenses will create or maintain a
(
situation inconsistent.with the specified antitrust laws, or clearly underlying policies.
19.
See response to Interrogatory 18 above.
20.
The Staff has not as of this date completed its analysis of issues pertinent to this interrogatory. A more detailed response will be forthcoming.
d
- 21. (a)
Staff contends that separation of the existing TIS network into an interstate TIS group and an intrastate TIS group would be injurious to entities in both groups.
Finding No.
44 of the Texas PUC Cocket No.14 Final Order is indicative of the injuries suffered by entities in both groups in a separated TIS system.1/
The report entitled Staff Recort on Electric Reliability Council of Texas - Southwest Power Pool Electric Systems, Interconnection and Reliability Evaluation (Preliminary),
(Federal Power Commission, April 1977), also indicates that there are detriments to separated TIS networks.
For example, the Interstate ERCOT's 2/ required reserves after about 1980 in percent of peak demand are 7.8% higher than for Intrastate ERCOT. On the same basis, a composite ERCOT/SWPP 3/ intl.-
connection results in required reserves 1.15 lower than those required for an Interstate ERCOT/SWPP system. The report also states that " composite ERCOT.... can be interconnected with SWPP at 345 kv at about one-third the cost as for interconnecting Interstate ERCOT and SWPP.... "
The increased required reserves as well as the reduced relia-bilities and efficiencies of a TIS separated into two groups would ultimately result in increased costs.
- 21. (b)
Relevant documents have been provided in Appendix A.
g 1/ 44 That the period between May'3,1975, and May 2,1977, during which the TIS was bifurcated, was characterized by reduced reliability, increased spinning reserves, higher costs, and greater consumotion of natural gas than had been the period
(
preceding May 3,1976; that such undesirable conditions can be expected to recur if this Commission were to permit the TIS again to be bifurcated.
2/ The FPC referred to those electric utility ERCOT entities that were in interstate operation between May 3,1976 and May 2',1977 as Inter-state ERCOT. The other ERCOT members were referred to as Intrastete ERCOT.
3/ Composite ERCOT Interstate ERCOT Plus Intrastate ERCOT
=
4 11
- 22. (a)
Staff does not contend that Houston will not be financially affected by "CSW's preferred mode of integration of its operating companies..."
(b)
In a document produced in the West Texas Utilities Company discovery of Texas Utilities Company, Mr. Ralph G. Helyer, Manager of System Planning for the Lower Colorado River Authority and the 1975 Chairman of the TIS System Planning Committee, indicated that '... most of the benefits of inter-e:
connecting [with the Southwest Power Pool] would accrue to Houston Lighting and Power." Staff finds no reason to dis-agree with that assertion.
Relevant documents have been provided in Appendix A.
23-24.
The Staff's analysis of the posture under the antitrust laws and the issues in controversy in this proceeding of Austin
(-
and San Antonio is continuing. The Staff will complete this A
response after completion of this analysis including initiation of pertinent discovery.
25.
The Staff's investigation into this question (which necessarily includes an evaluation of the claims of the City of Brownsville) is continuing and will be supplemented at a later date.
However, all relevant documents to date have been provided in Appendix B.
26.
The Staff's delineation of appropriate relief in this antitrust proceeding relative to HL&P must await further analysis of the situation which is or may be inconsistent with the antitrust laws. At this poir' in time, the Staff is considering license conditions which would be similar to (1) those discussed with HL&P immediately prior to the Department's advice letter of February 28, 1973
(_,
and/or (2) those contained in the intervention petition filed in this proceeding by Central Power & Light Co.
27.
This antitrust review is being conducted by Roy P. Lessy, Jr.
and Michael S. Blume of the Office of the Executive Legal Director, and William Zelinsky (Engineer), Argil Toalston (Chief Engineer),
William Lambe (Economist), and Maurice Messier (Chief Economist) of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Antitrust and Indemni ty Group.
i t
I I
a
,y,..my
.,m y
,-,,.-,y,-
c,
.~w,_-2
-.,m.
y e
y,g_.-.
t 12-Respectfully submitted, l
A o
U /J Rof P. f' essy, Jr.
Counsel for NRC Staff I t
'-l I
h-1 -n <.,l t lu..<.s_
/
/
Michael S. Blume Counsel for NRC Staff l.
i
(
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this ist day of December 1978.
t t
l I
I f
('
i I
I i
9 I
4
--w-m,,
a w,
,,,-~,,-s.-
-,,.w,-
i-s APPENDIX A 4
Aopendix A, Part I As requested by HL&P, the Staff has produced and delivered those documents in its possession, with the exception of those privileged
(
documents listed below. Any other party may also arrange for the inspection and/or copying of the documents produced this date for HL&P.
1 1
4 e
4
. ep e
e-n
~
,n.
.. ~...- -
- Aopendix A, Part II In accordance with General Instruction No. 2 of these interrog-atories, listed below are those documents for which privilege is claimed
I The Communication Topic Privilege (Basis) 4/22/77 Memorandum from South Texas Project -
Work Product / Attorney-M. Bl ume to Mess rs.
Procedure and Juris-Client Privilege Shapar, Engelhardt &
diction Rutherg 7/6/77 Memorandum from Commission Antitrust Work Product / Attorney-(
M. Blume to J. Rutberg Jurisdiction Client Privilege Memoranda from M. Blume to Messrs. R. Lessy and J. Rutbero:
a.
8/3/77 Field Irivestigation Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege b.
8/17/77 Meeting wi th Inter.
Work Product / Attorney-venors - Analysis Client Privilege c.
9/23/77 Phone Calls to FPC Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege d.
10/21/77 Joint Hearings for Work Product / Attorney-South Texas, Comanche Client Privilege ri Peak, and Allens Creek e.
11/2/77 Memoranda of Law Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege f.
12/7/77 Meeting with Inter-Work Product / Attorney-venor - Analysis Client Privilege g.
1/5/78 Field Investigation Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege h.
1/1 7/78 Fie'id Investigation Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege l
q
J_
F
. The Communication Topic Privilege (Basis _)
t
- i. 1 /31/78 Meetings with Counsel Work. Product / Attorney-Client Privilege
- j. 2/13/78 Field Investigation Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege k.
2/17/78 Field Investigation Work Product / Attorney -
Client Privilege 1.
2/23/78 South Texas-OL Hearing Work Product / Attorney-Options Client Privilege m.
2/27/78 Outline of Response to Work Product / Attorney.
(To T. Engelhardt HL&P Motion Client Privilege
~
also) n.
2/28/78 Outline of Response to Work Product / Attorney-(To T. Engelhardt HL&P Motion Client Privilege also) u.
5/22/78 STEC's Petition to Work Product / Attorney-Intervene Client Privilege l
o.
9/6/78 Meeting Summary Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege b 10/3/78 Interview notes Work Product / Attorney-i Client Privilege r.
10/27/78 Possible Comanche Peak Work Product / Attorney-Enforcement Action Client Privilege
(
s.
11/13/78 Interview Summary Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege 11/2M/79 Note from Antitrust Review for -
Work Product / Attorney-J. Salt nan to R.
Comanche Peak-OL Client Privilege Lessy ll/26/e8 Note from J.
Antitrust Review for Work Product / Attorney-Rutberg to H.K. Shapar Comanche Peak-OL Client Privilege enclosing V25/78 Memo from R. Lt sy to J. Rutberg i
t e
=
,*w.
~
j
. i
~
The Communication Topic Privilege (Basis)
Memoranda from ff. Blume to Privileced File (cc's to R. Lessy & J. Rutbero):
a.
3/11/77 Texas P.U.C.
Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege b.
3/25/77 Summary of conversa-Work Product / Attorney-tions with counsel Client Privilege c.
6/9/77 Summary of meeting with Work Product / Attorney-TMPA Client Privilege d.
8/77 Summary of meeting with Work Product / Attorney-Brazos Client Privilege
(
e.
1/24/78 Phone conversation with Work Product / Attorney-CSW counsel Client Privilege f.
9/2/77 Phone conversation with Work Product / Attorney-coop counsel Client Privilege g.
10/13/77 Phone conversation with Work Product / Attorney-utility counsel Client Privilege h.
1/26/78 lieeting with DJ and Work Product / Attorney-CP&L counsel Client Privilege
- i. 2/1/78 Conversation with DJ Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege
['
- j. 2/16/78 Meeting with DJ and Work Product / Attorney-HL&P counsel Client Privilege k.
7/10/78 Tex-La Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege 1.
8/10/78 Meeting with SWEPCO Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege m.
8/16/78 STEC Meeting Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege n.
8/31/78 Summary of interview Work Product / Attorney-notes Client Privilege o.
11/6/78 Interview questions Work Product /att:rney-Client Privilege L
5-The Communication Toofc Privilece (Basis) p.
11/14/78 STP Field Investi-Work Product / Attorney-ga tion Client Privilege q.
11/17/78 ERCOT Report Work Product / Attorney-Client Privilege 7/10/78 Memorandum of Law Antitrust Review Work Product / Attorney-from R. Lessy to H.K.
(HL&P)
Client Privilege Shapar (cc to T. Engel-hardt) 10/11/78 Memo from R.
Allens Creek Work Product / Attorney-Lessy to J. Saltzman Client Privilege (cc to T. Engelhardt)
(~'
10/16/78 Note from H.K.
Allens Creek Work Product / Attorney-Shapar to R. Lessy (cc Client Privilege to J. Rutberg)
Staff Recorts and Analyses Recuested 3y Staff Counsel In Contemolation of Hearina a.
Undated from W.
March 1978 FERC Report Work Product / Attorney-Zelinsky to R. Lessy Client Privilege and M. Blume b.
Undated by W. Lambe Summary of Certain Work Product / Attorney-Discovery Files Client Privilege c.
6/17/77 by W.
Engineering summary Work Product / Attorney-
{,
Zelinsky to M. Blume of interviews Client Privilege d.
4/28/78 from A.
March 1978 FERC Report Work Product / Attorney-Toaiston to R. Lessy Client Privilege and M. Blume e.
Undated from W.
Interconnections and Work Product / Attorney-Zelinsky to M. 31ume System Frequency Client Privilege a
f.
6/23/78 from W.
Future Field Trips Work Product / Attorney-Zelinsky and W. Lambe Client Privilege to R. Lessy and M.
Blume
L.-_-___
The Communication Topic P..Ilege (Basis) g.
Undated from W.
Stagg Study.
Work Product / Attorney-I Zelinsky to R. Lessy, Client Privilege M. Blume h.
2/9/78 from A.
Stagg Study Work Product / Attorney-Toalston to R. Lessy Client Privilege 1.
7/78 from W. Lebe to Economic Issues Work Product / Attorney-R. Lessy Client Privilege J.
8/22/77 from W.
1977 FPC Report on Work Product / Attorney-Zelinsky to M. Blume ERCOT/SWPP Inter-Client.Pri vilege connection k.
8/24/78 from W.
Engineering Summary Work Product / Attorney-(
Zelinsky to R. Lessy, of Interviews Client Privilege M. Blume 1.
10/5/77 from W.
Engineering Summary Work Product / Attorney-Zelinsky to M. Blume of Interviews Client Privilege m.
10/5/78 from W.
Engineering Summary Work Product / Attorney-Zelinsky to M. Blume of Interviews Client Privilege n.
5/18/78 from W.
James E. Brown's Paper Work Product / Attorney-Zelinsky to M. Blume on El Paso Inter-Client Privilege connection o.
8/22/77 liemo from W.
Economic Summary of Work Product / Attorney-Lambe to R. Lessy Interviews Client Privilege
( '
p.
11/10/77 Memo and map Engineering Analysis Work. Produc t/A ttorney-from A. Toalston to and Data.
Client Privilege R. Lessy q.
Undated from W. Lambe Field Investigations
-Work Product / Attorney-to R. Lessy, M. Blume Client Privilege r.
Undated from W. Lambe Texas Generating Entities Work Product / Attorney-to R. Lessy, M. Blume Client Privilege i
i s.
9/21/73 letter from M.
Comanche Peak Work Product / Attorney-Messier to R. Phillips Allens Creek Client Privilege i
a f
-l
.L.
. The Communication Tooic Privilege (Basis) t.
6/1/73 Msmo to File Meeting with DJ on Work Product / Attorney-by M. Messier Comanche Peak, Allens Client Privilege Creek u.
11/13/78 Memo from W.
Engineering Summary of Work Product / Attorney-Zelinsky to R. Lessy, Interview Client Privilege M. Blume v.
9/17/73 Meno to File Meeting with DJ on Work Product / Attorney-by M. Messier Comanche Peak, Allens Client Privilege Creek w.
4/5/76 Memo to File Meeting with TMPA Work Product / Attorney-by A. Taalston Client Privilege x.
5/13/76 Memo to Files May 11, 1976 Meeting Work Product / Attorney-(
by J. Saltzman with Counsel for CSW Client Privilege y.
5/25/76 Memo to Files Conversation with TMPA Work Product / Attorney-by A. Toalston Client Privilege z.
12/8/76 Meus from M.
"Some Issues Raised In Work Product / Attorney-Messier to D. Penn South Texas" Clie nt Privilege aa.
12/7/77 Note to Files Status of South Texas Work Product / Attorney-by V. Lambe Proceeding Client Privilege bb. 5/1/73 Note to Files Telephone Conversation Work Product / Attorney-by W..Zelinsky with Texas PUC Client Privilege cc. 8/31/76 Memo from W.
Proposed South Texas Work Product / Attorney-(
Lambe to D. Penn Investigation Client Privil'ege dd, 8/20/76 Memo from A.
Texas Investigation -
Work Product / Attorney-Toalston and D. Penn Client Privilege to J. Saltzman ee. 1/78 Note to M.
South Texas Project -
Work Product / Attorney-Messier by W. Lambe economic issues Client Privilege (This document was not requested by Staff counsel, but was written immediately after consultation with Staff counsel and contains Staff counsel's work product).
t I
e
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATCMIC 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)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF TO HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMfANY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 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 Commission's internal mail system, this 1st day of December 1978.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman Donald A. Kaplan, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ray Phillips. Esq.
Panel John D. Whitler, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ronald H. Clark, Esq.
Judi th L. Harris, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O. Box 14141 Michael L. Glaser, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20044 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Roff Hardy l
Chairman and Chief Executive Sheldon J. Wol fe, Esq.
Officer Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Central Power & Light Cccoany Panel Corpus Christi, Texas 78403
('
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission R.L. Hancock, Director Washington, D.C.
20555 City of Austin Electric Utility Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1088 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Austin, Texas 78767 Washington, D.C.
20555 Robert E. Bathen Docketing and Service Section R.W. Beck & Associates i
Office of the Secretary P.O. Box 6817 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Orlando, Florida 32803 Washington 0.C.
20555 J.K. Spruce, General Manager J.A. Bouknight, Esq.
City Public Service Board Lowenstein, Neuman, Reis & Axelrad P.O. Box 1771 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
San Antonio, Texas 78203 Washington, D.C.
2CC26 a
J y
2 t__...__ _ _ _ _
. Robert C. McDiarmid, Esq.
Jerome Saltzman, Chief Robert A. Joblon, Esq.
Antitrust & Indemnity Group David A. Giacalone, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Spiegel & McDiarmid Washington, D.C.
20555
- 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Jerry L. Harris Richard C. Balough G.W. Oprea, Jr.
Dan H. Davidson, City Manager Executive Vice President City of Austin Houston Lighting & Power Company P.O. Box 1088 P.O. Box 1700 Austin, Texas 78767 Houston, Texas 77001 Don R. Butler, Esq.
Jon C. Wood, Esq.
1225 Southwest Tower W. Roger Wilson, Esq.
Austin, Texas 78701 Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane
& Barrett John E. Mathews, Jr., Esq.
1500 Alamo National Building Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, c
San Antonio, Texas 78205 Gobelman & Cobb 1500 American Heritage Life Buildi1g R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Jacksonville, Florida 32202 John P. Mathis, Esq.
Baker & Botts Tracy Danese, Esq.
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Vice President Washington, D.C.
20006 Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 013100 Richard D. Cudahy, Esq.
Miami, Florida 33101 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Robert H. Loeffler, Esq.
Jay Galt Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Jack P. Fi te, Esq.
Suite 701 Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes 1050 17th Street, N.W.
219 Couch Drive Washington, D.C.
20036 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (s.
J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
John W. Davidson, Esq.
Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esq.
Sawtelle, Goode Davidson & Troilo E. William Barnett, Esq.
1100 San Antonio Savings Building Theodore F. Weiss, Esq.
San Antonio, Texas 78205 Baker & Botts 3000 One Shell Plaza Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Houston, Texas 77C)2 Joseph B. Knotts, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman M.D. Sampels, Esq.
700 Shoreham Building Jos. Irion Worsham, Esq.
806 15th Street, N.W.
Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20005 2500 - 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201
_. _ _. ~
..__.. ~ -
. 1 Douglas F. John, Esq.
Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld i
j 1100 Madison Office Building 1155 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Washington 0.C.
20005 Morgan Hunter, Esq.
McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore Fifth Floor Texas State Bank Building 900 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Richard E. Powell, Esq.
David M. Stahl, Esq.
Thomas G. Ryan, Esq.
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
! sham, Lincoln & Beale
(
One First Mational Plaza Sui tes 4200, 4300 Chicago, :llinois 60603
(
h a
Ro) P. @ssy,~ Jr.
) '4/
Counsel /for NRC 5:Mf I
e
,-e2
--,.