ML20147J275
| ML20147J275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1978 |
| From: | Barnett E, Borknight J BAKER & BOTTS, LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7810270322 | |
| Download: ML20147J275 (19) | |
Text
r Ed M '] l
~
tc PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM g y
+ // 8 :
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6 '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b .s BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OD In the Matter of:
HOUSTON. LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY )
THE CITY OF' SAN ANTONIO )
THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND ) Docket Nos. 50-498A CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-499A
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos. )
1 and 2) )
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY TO NRC STAFF Preface Pursuant to Sections 2.720, 2.740, 2,744 and 2.790 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Houston Lighting & Power Company propounds the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to the NRC Staff (" Staff"). Each interrogatory should be i
answered separately and fully in writing under oath or affirmation by the person or persons making them, and each document requested should be produced, no later than 30 days after service of these Interrogatories and Requests for Production.
Definitions As used herein the terms listed below are, unless otherwise specifically indicated, intended to have the following meanings:
- 1. " Documents" refers to all writings and records of every type in the possession, control or custody of the 4
Staff, including but not limited to laernoranda, corresponcence, 77r/0703N2
reports, (including drafts, preliminary, intermediate and l
final reports); surveys, studies (including, but not limited to, engineering, economic, and market studies), comparisons, tabulations, charts, books, pamphlets, photographs, maps, bulletins, minutes, notes, diaries, log sheets, ledgers, vouchers, accounting statements, engineering diagrams (including those known as "one line diagrams" ) , mechanical .
and electrical recordings, telephone and telegraphic communication, speeches, and all other records, written, electrical, mechanical or otherwise.
" Documents" shall also refer to copies of documents, even though the originals thereof are not in the possession, custody or control of the Staff, every copy of a document which contains handwritten or other notations or which otherwise does not duplicate the original or any other copy, and all attachments to any document.
- 2. Identification of a person includes stating his or her full name, his or her most recent known home address and telephone number, his or her most recent known business address and telephone number, his or her present position, and his or her prior connection or association with any party to this proceeding.
- 3. " Advice letter" refers to any advice rendered by the Attorney General to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its predecessor pursuant to S105 (c) (1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S2135 (c) (1) .
f- i I
General Instructions The following General Instructions apply to each of the discovery requests contained herein, j
- 1. In the response to each of the interrogatories which follow, identify each person capabie of furnishing testimony concerning the response given to such interrogatory.
- 2. If you claim privilege as to any communication as to which information is requested by these interrogatories j or as to any answer requested by these interrogatories, specify the privilege claimed, the communication and/or answer as to which that claim is made, the topic discussed in l
the communication, and the basis on which you assert that claim. !
- 3. In the event any document requested in these interrogatories is unavailable, describe in detail the reasons therefor.
- 4. Except where otherwise noted, the words or phrases in quotations refer to excerpts from the South Texas operating license advice letter, dated February 21, 1978 , from John H. Shenefield to Howard K. Shapar.
- 5. These interrogatories are continuing and require supplemental answers if you obtain further information with respect to the same between the time your answers are served and the time of the evidentiary hearing.
l
Interrogatories
- 1. With respect to the South Texas construction permit antitrust review, (a) identify those persons with whom the Staff communicated in the course of its South Texas construction i permit antitrust review; and (b) provide all documents relevant to such communications or otherwise to the review.
- 2. With respect to the South Texas operating license antitrust review, (a) identify those persons with whom the Staff communicated in the course of its South Texas operating license antitrust review; and (b) provide all documents relevant to such communications or otherwise to the review.
- 3. With respect to the Allens Creek construction permit antitrust review, (a) identify those persons with whom the Staff
! communicated in the course of its Allens Creek construction .
. permit antitrust review; and l
(b) provide all documents relevant to such communications or otherwise to the review.
- 4. With respect to the Comanche Peak construction permit antitrust review, (a) identify those persons with whom the Staff communicated in the course of its Comanche Peak construction
~
permit antitrust review; and
__ _ __. _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ - . . . _ . - _ . _ . . . . . . ~ - . . . . . _ _ _ . . ~,._.,__ ._,... - _ -
I (b) provide all documents relevant to such communications or otherwise to the review.
- 5. (a) Does the Staff contend that Houston has denied any other utility access to or participation in the South Texas Project or any other nuclear plant?
(b) If so, describe the circumstances surrounding each such denial, including: (1) identification of the requesting utility, (2) name and title of the person making the request, (3) form of request (i.e., written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present at the time the request was made, (4) date of request, (5) person to whom request was addressed, (6) name of person who responded to request, (7) form of response (i.e., written or oral, in person or by telephone) and, if oral, a list of all persons present at the time the response was given, (8) person to whom the response was addressed, and (9) date of response.
(c) State whether the Staff has knowledge that a utility has considered requesting Houston to grant access to or participation in the South Texas Project but did not communicate such request to Houston. If so, identify each such utility and the circumstances surrounding such consideration.
(d) Provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 6. (a) Does the Staff contend that the South Texas' Project is in.any way essential or uniquely advantageous to a utility which is a member of the Southwest Power Pool?
(b) If so, (1) set forth the facts upon which the Staff relies to support this contention; (2) explain
- why participation in STP is more essential than participation in the nuclear generating facilities which are proposed, under construction, or in operation within the Southwest Power Pool; and (3) provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 7. (a) Does the Staff contend that Houston possesses mono-poly power or some other degree of market power relevant to this proceeding?
(b) If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market in which Houston has such power, (2) describe the type and extent of competition in each such identified market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, .(4) identify every action taken by Houston to acquire or maintain its alleged monopoly power, (5) identify each abuse of each instance of such power by Houston, and (6) identify each change in such conduct since October 1974.
(c) Provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 8. (a) Does the Staff contend that TU possesses monopoly power or some other degree of market power relevant to this proceeding?
t 7-. , , . - . , , , - - , , , , , ., .a,, .n ,- , .. ,-.,,n . , . , .
(b) If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market'in which TU has such power, (2) describe the type
- and extent of competition in each such identified market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) identify every action taken by TU to acquire or maintain its alleged monopoly power, (5) identify each :
abuse of each instance of such power by TU', and (6) identify each change in such conduct since January ,
1974.
(c) provide all documents relevant to this l interrogatory, i
- 9. (a) Notwithstanding the answers to Interrogatories 7 and 8, does the Staff contend that Houston and TU jointly possess monopoly power or some other degree of market power relevant to this proceeding?
(b) If so, (1) identify each product and geographic market in which Houston and TU jointly possess such power, (2) describe the type and extent of competition in each such identified market, (3) state the market share of every utility in each such market, (4) state the basis upon which the Staff contends the market shares of Houston and TU may be aggregated to find joint monopoly power, (5) identify every action taken by Houston or TU to acquire or maintain each such instance of such joint power, (6) identify each abuse by' Houston or TU of each such instance of such joint power, and (7) identify each change in such conduct since January, 1974.
E
,,7y, ,r, y v--- - - -n-r- y o.y-- --y---- ,w
,,,,,,,y-w ,.,,.-w. ,- c-y,, .- , y.,,,,v ,,,v .- _.c,,wn. ,m, .,,,.---+.3,_%-.,e -- . .. . . . , . - . - - - .
(c) Provide all documents relevant to this I 1
Interrogatory. l
- 10. (a) Does the Staff contend that an agreement be-tween Houston and TU existed prior to May 4, 1976, which provided that they would disconnect from any other member of TIS which enters interstate operation?
(b) If so, (1) specify the details of such an agreement, (2) identify the persons involved in making
- the agreement, (3) state the date of the agreement, and (4) state the form of the agreement (e.g., written or oral, in person or by telephone), and, if oral, identification of all persons present.
(c) Provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory,
- 11. (a) Does the Staff contgnd that Houston acted in concert with any other utility when it disconnected from all other TIS systems on May 4, 1976?
(b) If so, provide a basis for your answer, including (1) identification of all persons involved in each such action; and (2) date and time of day of such action.
(c) Provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 12. (a) Does the Staff contend that Houston's unilateral reservation of the right to determine whether it operates in interstate commerce during the term of the South Texas operating licenses serves to create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws within the meaning of S105 (c) (5) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S2135 (c) (5) ?
(b) If so, (1) state whether the situation would be created or maintained; and (2) identify the antitrust ;
law or laws with which the inconsistency would arise.
-(c) If not, state whether the Staff contends that the reservation of such a right is inconsistent with the antitrust law or laws only if carried out in concert with another utility; and, if it does so contend,then (1) state whether the situation would be created or 4
maintained; and (2) identify the antitrust law or laws with which the inconsistency would arise.
(d) For each antitrust' law identified in your answer to (b) (2) or (c) (2) , state specifically the legal theory or theories upon which the Staff bases its contention that "a situation inconsistent with the antitrust lay would be created or maintained.
I
- 13. (a) Identify each instance of alleged injury to actual competition from any unilateral decision or policy by Houston to operate in the intrastate mode, in-cluding identification of (1) each injured person; (2) the relevant product and geographic market; (3) the type and extent of competition in each such market; (4) the market share of every utility in each such market; and (5) the specific cause and nature of each such injury, c,
, . -. . . . , . . - , , . . , , ~- . . - , - - - . . . ,--n- -nn, n. e
(b) Provide a basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 14. If the Staff contends that Houston was or is party to an " intrastate only" agreement:
(a) Identify each instance of alleged injury to actual competition from the alleged " intrastate only" agreement, including identification of (1) each injured person; (2) the relevant product and geographic market; (3) the type and ex-tent of competition in each such market; (4) the market share of every utility in each such market, and (5) the specific cause and nature of each such injury.
(b) Provide a basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 15. (a) Identify each instance of alleged injury to poten-tial competition from any unilateral decision or policy by Houston to operate in the intrastate mode, including identification of (1) each injured person; (2) the relevant product and geographic market; (3) the type and extent 1
of competition in each such market; (4) the market share of every utility in each such market; and (5) the specific cause and nature of each such injury.
'(b) Provide a basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 16. If the Staff contends that Houston was or is party to an " intrastate only" agreement:
(a) Identify each instance of alleged injury to poten-tial competion from the alleged " intrastate only" agree-ment, including identification of (1) each injured person; (2) the relevant product and geographic market; (3) the type '
P
, .,-r- +m - -
_w , , . ~ , ,-e , , . , - . . - . < - . . . ~
. ..m-,
' i i
and extent of competition in each such market; (4) the market share of every utility in each such market, and (5) the spec-ific cause and nature of each such injury.
(b) Provide a basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 17. (a) Identify each of the areas in which HL&P and/or TU are.in competition with other utilities, including
, but not limited to:
(1) *each relevant product and geographic market; (2) the nature and extent of competition in each market; 1
(3) identity of each actual competitor (including, if relevant, Houston and TV) in each market, and a r description of such competitor's activities in the market; (4) identity of each potential competitor (in- ,
cluding, if relevant, Houston and TU) in each market, j and a description of such competitor's potential activities in the market; and (5) the market share of every utility in each such market. .
(b) Provide a basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
_. _. . . _ . . . _ . . ~
1 i
1
- 18. (a) Does the Staff contend that the activities !
under the proposed operating licenses will create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust i laws on the basis of significant changes in the Applicants' activities which have occurred subsequent to the previous review by the Attorney General and the Commission?
(b) If so, (1) specifically identify the changes on which the Staff relies, (2) explain the connection between such changes and the alleged situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws, and (3) provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 19. (a) Does the Staff contend that the " changing fuel situation" in Texas constitutes "significant changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities" within the meaning of S105 (c) (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 52135 (c) (2) ?
(b) If so, provide a basis for your answer.
- 20. Does the Staff contend that there is the need and opportunity for coordination between interstate and intrastate utilities? If so, explain how intrastate utilities can coordinate or cooperate with interstate
utilities and still maintain their intrastate status under the legal standards of Florida Power & Light Company v. FPC, 404 U.S. 453, 92 S.Ct. 637 (1972).
- 21. (a) Does the Staff contend that, even given proper advance planning, CP&L and WTU cannot withdraw from TIS and operate in interstate commerce without operating difficulties, and without impairing their
" competitive viability"?
(b) If so, state in detail the factual and legal basis for this conclusion, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 22. (a) Does the Staff have any evidence showing the effect, or lack of effect, of CSW's preferred mode of integration of its operating companies (i.e., Mode 4),
as proposed by CSW in SEC Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-4951, upon (1) the reliability of Houston's electric service, (2) Houston's capital expenditures, (3) Houston's operating costs, (4) Houston's electric i
rates to its customers, and (5) Houston in any other way.
(b) Does the Staff contend that CSW's Mode 4 integration plan will result in a net benefit to Houston?
l l If so, state the basis for this conclusion and set forth facts upon which the Staff will rely on to support this conclusion.
(c) Provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
l t
+ e- r.- a
_ _ _ . _ . _ __ . _ . . . - __ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ ~ . _ . _ . . ~ - _ _ . . - . - ___ . . _.
_14_ l
) i
- 23. (a) Does the Staff contend that the City of Austin is- !
responsible for the creation or maintenance of a situa- I i
tion inconsistent with the antitrust laws, within the !
i meaning of S105(c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as t
amended, 42 U.S.C. 52135(c), in connection with the South ;
Texas Project?
(b) If so, state the basis for your answer, and j s
4 provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory. l
- 24. (a) Does the Staff contend that the City of San l i
Antonio is responsible for the creation or maintenance of f r
a situation-inconsistent with the antitrust laws, within :
the meaning of S105 (c) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 4 ,
4 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5213 5 (c) , in connection with the [
i South Texas Project?
(b) If so, state the basis for your answer, and :
provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory.
- 25. (a) Does the Staff contend that CP&L is responsible }
l for the creation or maintenance of a situation inconsistent ;
1 with the antitrust laws', within the meaning of 5105(c) of the ;
l l Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5 2135 (c) , ,
i
- in connection with the South Texas Project? l (b) If so, state the basis for your answer, and provide all documents relevant to this interrogatory. I I
i i !
t 4
- 26. Describe each condition to Houston's license which the Staff seeks or will seek if it is ultimately determined that the granting of the license to Houston would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
t
- 27. Except as otherwise disclosed in answer to this discovery request, state whether the-information furnished is within the personal knowledge of the affiant answering the interrogatories, and, if not, the name, address, occupation and title of each ?
t person to whom the information is a matter of personal know-ledge, if known, or from whom information was obtained upon which said answer or a part thereof was based.
Respectfull subgitted, O .
/,%6/ </'/- .,
lf v7c W ' ' - -
Of Counsel: .A.
Bouknightp rJ r. / 4 Baker & Botts ,
1701 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. E. W. Barnett -
Washington, D.C. 20006 Baker & Botts 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 J.A. Bouknight, Jr.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. l Washington, D.C. 20036 ,
Attorneys for Houston Lighting & Power Company >
Dated: October 17, 1978 i e
P
1 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of: ) ,
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, )
THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, )
THE CITY OF AUSTIN, and )
Docket Nos. 50-498A '
50-499A CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY )
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos. )
1& 2) )
NOTICE OF APPERANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance on behalf of Houston Lighting
& Power Company in the captioned matter. In accordance with Section 2.708(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice 10 C.F.R. Part 2, service on.the foregoing companies should be made on the undersigned. In accordance with Section 2.713, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, the following information is provided:
Name -
William J. Franklin Address - Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone Number - Area Code 202 862-8400 Admission -
United States District Court for the District of Columbia United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit District of Columbia Court of Appeals Name of Party - Houston Lighting & Power Company O s William J. Frghkl'.n Dated at Washington, District of Columbia this 17th day of October, 1978
a ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of: )
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-498A THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, ) 50-499A THE CITY OF AUSTIN, and )
CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY )
)
(South Texas Project, Unit Nos. )
1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the foregoing:
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODt.'CTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM HOUSTON LIGHTING
& POWER COMPANY TO NRC STAFF and NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF WILLIAM J. FRANKLIN was sarved upon the following persons, by hand *, or by deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, this 17th day of October.
Marshall E. Miller, Esquire Mr. Jerome D. Saltzman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chief, Antitrust and Indemnity Washington, D.C. 20555 Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael L. Glaser, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 1150 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 J. Irion Worsham, Esquire Merlyn D. Sampels, Esquire Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Spencer C. Relyea, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Washington, D.C. 20555 s.
2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Jon C. Wood, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W. Roger Wilson, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane
& Barrett Chase R. Stephens, Supervisor (20) 1500 Alamo National Building Docketing and Service Branch San Antonio, Texas 78205 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esquire Michael I. Miller, Esquire E.W. Barnett, Esquire Richard E. Powell, Esquire Theodore F. Weiss, Esquire David M. Stahl, Esquire J. Gregory Copeland, Esquire Thomas G. Ryan, Esquire Baker & Botts Isham, Lincoln & Beale 3000 One Shell Plaza One First National Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Chicago, Illinois 60603 '
R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire John D. Whitler, Esquire Baker & Botts U.S. Department of Justice 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Antitrust Division Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20530 Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Don R. Butler, Esquire Michael B. Blume, Esquire Sreed, Vine, Wilkerson, Selman & Perry U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1409 Washington, D.C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78767 Roff Hardy Jerry L. Harris, Esquire Chairman and Chief Executive Richard C. Balough, Esquire Officer City of Austin Central Power and Light Company P.O. Box 1088 P.O. Box 2121 Austin, Texas 78767 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esquire G.K. Spruce, General Manager Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire City Public Service Board Debevoise & Liberman P.O. Box 1771 700 Shoreham Building San Antonio, Texas 78203 806 15th Street, N.W.
i Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Perry G. Brittain President Don H. Davidson Texas Utilities Generating Company City Manager 2001 Bryan Tower City of Austin Dallas, Texas 75201 P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 R.L. Hancock, Director City of Austin Electric Utility Jay M. Galt, Esquire P.O. Box 1086 Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hays Austin, Texas 78767 219 Couch Drive Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 G.W. Oprea, Jr.
Executive Vice president Knoland J. Plucknett Houston Lighting & Power Company Executive Director P.O. Box 1700 Committee on Power for the South-Houston, Texas 77001 west, Inc.
5541 East Skelly Drive Richard D. Cudahy, Esquire Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 Joseph Gallo, Esquire Robert H. Loeffler, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1050 17th Street, N.W., Suite 701 Washington, D.C. 20036
S John W. Davidson, Esquire Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson & Tioilo 1100 San Antonio Savings Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 Douglas F. Jo hr. , Esquire Akin, Gump, Eaver & Feld 1100 Madison Office Building 1155 15th Street, N.W.
1;ashington, D.C. 20005 Ronald Clark, Esquire Energy Section U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 14141 Washington, D.C. 20044 Frederick H. Parmenter, Esquire Antitrust Division U.S. Depar*xant of Justice P.O. Box 14141 -
Washington, D.C. 20044 Morgan Hunter, Esquire Bill D. St. Clair, Esquire Mcginn 10 Lockridge & Kilgore Fifth Floor, Texas State Bank Bldg.
900 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 W.S. Robson General Manager South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Route 6, Building 102 Victoria Regional Airport Victoria, Texas 77901 Robert C. McDiarmid, Esquire i Robert A. Jablon, Esquire e Spiegel & McDiarmid ^
2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W. y Washington., D.C. 20037 3 ,
3 i ll
,l>~ /W%
J.A. Bouknight,jJr.
} o
(\ L.
'~
i
.,m- ,ey :-,.-.--- - , ., .-- - - ..