ML19294B874

Motion to Compel NRC Expert Witnesses to Respond to Licensee Questions Re Consultations W/Nrc.Consultations Between Attys & Expert Witnesses Discoverable Per ASLB 790625 & 1023 Orders.Supporting Documentation & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19294B874
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas, Comanche Peak
Issue date:	02/22/1980
From:	Green D HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8003060238
Download: ML19294B874 (47)

Text

l '

/f?. .~ 'N

- . i .: 1

/1 ,'""'. o O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f] i .c U.

"o z i3

-s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -( '

• A C :c)..

~

g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD. CP o,! p\\

In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ) Docket Nos. 50-498A et al. ) 50-499A

)

(South Texas Project, Units 1 )

and 2) )

)

• TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,) Docket Hos. 50-445A et al. ) 50-446A

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

MOTION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY CERTAIN DEPONENTS Houston Lighting & Power Company (Houston) respectfully moves the Board, pursuant to Section 2.740 (f) of the Commis-sion's Rules, for an order compelling expert witnesses .

designated by the NRC Staff to respond to questions about oral consultations with NRC bcaff counsel concerning, or occurring during the course of, testimony given by such wit-nesses upon oral deposition.

Factual Background The Board has ruled repeatedly in this proceeding that consultations between attorneys and expert witnesses, both written and oral, are discoverable and must be disclosed.

E.g., Orders dated June 25, 1979, October 23, 1979. Notwith-standing these rulings, counsel for the NRC Staff instructed

(

800306 0lL3lf(

I Robert H. Hartley, an expert engineering witness designated by the Staff, not to answer a series of questions inquir-ing into consultaticns between the witness and NRC Staff counsel concerning his deposition testimony. While the same pat-4 tern of consultations was evident in a previous deposition of Morman C. Lerner, the Staff's economic witness,l/ this motion is prompted specifically by the conduct of Staff counsel during the course of Mr. Hartley's deposition.

As a routine matter, a whispered off-the-record confer-ence was held between Staff counsel and the witness after a substantive question had been asked, but prior to an answer by the witness.2/ On numerous occasions, counse.1 interrupted the witness' answer unbidden, and consulted him at some length before the answer was completed. The transcript .

indicates that such whispered consultations occurred at least twenty-seven times.2/

Staff counsel defended his conduct on the basis of Section 2.740a (i) of the Commission's Rules, which provides that a witness "may be accompanied and advised by counsel 1/ See, e.g., Lerner Deposition at 14, 30, 31, 34, 35, 41, 54, 61, 67, 133, 135, 151.

2/ The relevant portions of the transcript of Mr. Hartley's deposition are annexed as Exhibit A.

2! See Exhibit A hereto. The transcript reflects twenty-seven instances of such "off-the-record" discussions.

(Page 207 of Houston's copy is missing.) Houston believes that each of these references described a whispered confer-ence between counsel and the witness. At points these con-sultations were so frequent that Houston believes that the reporter may have been unable to note all of them.

at a deposition." When counsel for Houston adverted to the rulings of the Board, Staff counsel took the position that the Board's rulings requiring disclosure of all con-sultations between experts and attorneys apply only to testimony to be given at the evidentiary hearing, and have no application to testimony to be given in depositions.1/

The Staff's claim of privilege is unsupportable as a mat-ter of logic and is contrary to the Board's prior rulings.

Argument Although Houston has considered requesting the Board to construe the extent and nature of advice of counsel con-templated by the regulation cited above, and may yet find it necessary to do so, we do not here object to such consulta-tions being held. Our position is simply that, where con-sultations occur, examining counsel should be permitted to discover what the witness has said and what instructions or suggestions he has received. The Board has already pointed out in its rulings that disclosure of such consul-tations is necessary to ensure that testim'ony is not sani-tized or suggested by counsel. This principle applies even more strongly to depositions, where the foundation of a witness' conclusions is being probed, than to testimony at the hearing. Bias or sanitization can hardly be

-4/ Hartley Deposition at 74 -77, 79.

_4_

brought out at the hearing if it is covered up in dis-covery.

Moreover, liouston believes that requiring full dis-closure of the communications between counsel and the wit-ness will help to deter the coaching of witnesses. In any event, such disclosure will provide the Board with a basis for assessing the credibility of the witness' responses which follow these discussions, e.g., an admission that a particular answer has been suggested by counsel has an obvious impact on the Board's assessment of that response.5./

There is plainly no merit to the attorney-client privi-lege claim assorted by the Staff. The relationship between counsel and his expert is identical at both a deposition and an evidentiary hearing. Yet no one would suggest that during the hearing counsel may interrupt his witness' answers during cross-examination, proceed to the witness stand and whisper in his car, and then successfully object to all ques-tioning as to what he has just whispered. This should not be permitted in a deposition either.

-5/ This motion concerns all communications between counsel and expert witnesses, not only those which take place in the midst of the deposition. Where such extensive coaching takes place in full view of other parties, an attorney conducting a deposition is prompted to explore the extent which coaching has tar.en place in private, prior to and during recesses of the deposition.

The Staff's position is directly contrary to the Board's prior rulings. Those rulings have made it crystal clear that disclosure of attorney-expert consultations is manda-tory. This rule was first applied to all written communi-cations between attorneys and experts by Order of June 25, 1979. The Board explicitly advised the parties that this rule also fully applied to oral communications by Order of October 23, 1979, wherein the Board required discovery of draft testimony prepared by Department of Justice engineer-ing witness William E. Scott and advised:

For the information of all counsel, this rule [that disclosure is required]

will aaply to oral consultations with counsel by testifvinc [ expert] witnesses, as well as written communications.

[Footncte omitted.] [ Emphasis added.]

This simply could not be clearer. The Staff's position is just the opposite and is plainly in error.5/ -

Houston is concerned that if ground rules requiring disclosure of these kinds of consultations are not established by the time fixed for further depositions of the Staff's expert witnesses, scheduled during mid-March, those deposi-tions will be substantially obstructed by a repetition of the conduct described above. For this reason, and the reasons

-6/ Furthermore, the Board emphasized that its ruling required disclosure of consultations concerning " prospective testi-many under oath, whether written or oral." [ Emphasis added.]

.The Board thus made it plain that even consultations about oral testimony that might be given under oath were dis-coverable. Consultations concerning oral testimony in a deposition, which actually is given under oath, is discover-able a fortiori.

set forth above and in the Board's prior Orders, the Board should explicitly direct expert witnesses designated by the NRC Staff to respond to questions about consulta-tions with URC Staff counsel concerning, or occurring dur-ing the course of, testimony given by such witnesses upon 0 deposition.

P c ectfully submitted, y- , -l ,

ouglas G. Green Att]rney for IIouston Lighting

& Power Company OF COUNSEL:

Baker & Botts ~

3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Dated: February 22, 1980

G 6

EXIIIBIT A

. 8 1 Q All right. And that's the position that you 2 held when you left Arizona Public Service 3 company?

4 A That's correct.

5 Q Who did you report to in that position?

6 A Maybe I should make a minor correction. In the 7 course of things, organizations change and 8 titles change and the last year I was there, 9 the special apparatus group was taken away from 10 me and left in the engineering department, and 11 they transferred my department over to the 12 corporate planning group.

13 Ma. LEssY: Excuse me.

14 15 (Whereupon there is a discussion 16 held off the record.)

17 13 A And yes, in response to your question of who I 19 reported to, I reported to the vice president 20 of engineering for all but the last year.I was 21 th e r e . The las t year I was there, I reported 22 to the vice president of corporate planning.

23 Q Who was the vice president of corporate planning?

24 A Mr. Brussard. .

25 Q And who was the vice president of engineering at

. 14 1 discussed among these utilities, were there 2 discussions that included Arizona Public Service 3 and utilities to the east including El Paso 4 Electric Company about the possibility of 5 transactions?

6 MR. LESSY: What time frame?

7 MR. BOUKNIGHT: The time frame with 8 his app oin tme n t as manager of the consulting 9 services with Arizona Public Service Company.

10 A Yes. I believe they were.

11 Q Did you participate in these discussions? Or 12 were you involved in preparing Arizona Public 13 Service Company's positior in th e s e discussions?

14 A Our vice president of resources was in charge of 15 th a t . I did a lot of input as a planner to his 16 position on th a t subject, however. Contract 17 matters were not under my jurisdiction, so it 18 was a combination of the measured contracts and 19 myself helping guide the vice president of 20 resource development.

21 MR. LESSY: Excuse me. May we go 22 off the record?

23 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Sure.

24 25 (Whereupon the re is a discussion l

15 1 held off the record.)

2 3 MR. LESSY: I'n sorry. Go ahead.

4 Q (3y Mr. Bouknight) These kinds of transactions 5 were considered during that period?

6 A And were carried out, yes, sir.

7 Q All right, sir. In view of the context of the 8 Cactus Pool discussions or in the context of 9 these other negotiations, did you have occasion 10 to consider the appropriate allocation of cost 11 for transmission of power?

12 A Yes.

13 Q All right, sir. And how is that done ordinarily 14 in the dealings among Arizona Public Service 15 Company, Public Service Company of New Mexico, 16 Tucson Gas and Electric and El Paso Electric?

17 What sort of principles control these?

18 MR. LESSY: If it was ordinarily.

19 MR. BOUKNIGHT: I think he just 20 said it was.

21 MR. LESSY: Did he?

- 22 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Yes.

23 A My testimony was that it was being ordinarily 24 considered and there were arrangements. A 25 blanket method that evolved, if that's wha-1

18 1 A Not that I can recollect.

2 Q All right, sir. When were you first contacted 3 by the NRC Staff ab ou t working on this case?

4 A Some time in 1978.

5 Q Do you have any recollection as to the month 6 or. the quarter of 1978?

7 A It was the third or fourth quarter, I believe.

8 Q All right, sir. Would it have been before or 9 after the interview that you had with the 10 National Electric Reliability Council on 11 December 4, 1978 or do you recall?

12 A It was about that same time.

13 Q All right, sir. Can you describe to us the 14 substance of this first contact with the NR' 15 Staff?

16 A The first contact I had with the NRC Staff was 17 to accept an assignment to review, I believe 18 it was eight fundamental documents that they 19 provided to me.

20 Q All right, sir. At th a t time did they suggest 21 to you the possibility of your participating in 22 this case?

23 A My understanding at that time it was a limited 24 assignment of looking at eight documents.

23 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

19 1 (Whereupon there is a discussion 2 held off the record.)

3 4 Q (By Mr. Bouknight) Were you told or did you 5 have any reason to believe when you undertook 6 this assignment that there was a good possibility 7 th a t you might be asked to undertake further 8 assign =ents with respect to this case?

9 A I personally was hoping there would be.

10 Q I see. Who contacted you then?

11 MR. LESSY: At which point.

12 MR. BOUKNIGHT: The first time.

13 A Mr. Gallop. That's G-A-L-L-O-P.

14 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

15 16 (Whereupon there is a discussion 17 held off the record.)

18 19 0 (By Mr. Bouknight) And I gather that Mr. Gallop 20 is a partner in R. W. Beck & Associates?

21 A That's correct.

22 Q Did he relate to you the substance of his

~

23 communications with NRC?

24 A He relayed to me that he had negotiated an 25 umbrella contract which called for several types h

29 1 MR. LESSY: All right.

2 Q (By Mr. B ouknigh t) Mr. Hartley, did you indicate 3

during this meeting on October 6th that you 4 believed power pooling benefits were denied by 5

the intrastate mode of operation pursued by i 6 Houston Power and Lighting Company?

7 A I felt that I could show --

8 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

9 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Sure.

10 11 (Whereupon there is a discussion I 12 held off the record.)

13 14 Q (By Mr. B ouknigh t) On what basis at that time 15 did you feel that you could show that?

16 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

17 18 (Whereupon there is a discussion 19 held off the record.)

20 .

21 MR. LESSY: Excuse me. Go ahead.

22 A With my experience, I felt that that was a 23 worthy item to iray.

24 Q Mr. Hartley, did your counsel suggest that 25 answer a moment ago?

N

. 31 1 MR. LESSY: Could you repeat the 2 question ?

3 4 (Whereupon the requested tes timony 5 was read back by the court reporter.)

6 7 A From the knowledge I had at the time, that 8 was my believe.

9 Q All righ t , sir. And was that -- what knowledge 10 were you basing that on at the time?

11 A Having read these reports, these eight reports 12 and having had experience with developing of 13 the pools and a little bit of judgment on my 14 part.

15 0 All right, sir. Looking at the eight reports, 16 can you tell us which of those eight reports 17 formed in any part, a basis for your belief that

~

18 you could reach that conclusion?

19 MR. LESSY: You may review the 20 report, now.

- 21 Q (By Mr. B ouknig h t) Certainly. Take all the time 22 to look at this as you'd like to.

23 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

24 25 (Whereupon there is a discussion be

32 1 held off the record.)

2 3 MR. LESSY: Okay. Go ahead.

4 A I found incomplete work in four basic documents 5 th a t were provided to me.

6 Q All right.

7 A Based on those four which were report 1 and 2 8 of the Federal Power Commission for FERC.

9 Report 1 was entitled " Staff Report of Electric 10 Reliability Council of Texas, Southwest Power 11 Pool Electric Systems, Interconnection and t 12 Reliabili.ty. Evaluation by the Federa.'. Power 13 Administration, dated April 1977."

14 And the second report was entitled 15 " Staff Report on Electric Reliability council 16 of Texas, Interconnection and Reliability 17 Evaluation by Federal Energy Regulatory 13 Commission, March 1978."

19 Q Now --

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

20 A And the Stagg report. Th a t's S - T- A- G- G , which is 21 entitled " Review of Generation and Transmission 22 Planning S tudy of the Electric Facilities of 23 the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, by 24 Stagg System, Inc., dated December 1, 1977."

25 And finally, the study entitled,

33 1 " Review of Expansion Study of the Central and 2 the Southwest Corporation Electric Powe r Sys tem, 3 by Power Technologies, Inc., dated November 14, 4 1975."

5 0 All right.

6 A That led me to believe --

7 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

8 9 (Whereupon there is a discussion 10 held off the record.)

1 11 1 12 A That led me to believe that I could perform and 13 present a study program which would improve those 14 four items.

15 Q Improve them in what respect, Mr. Hartley? I'm 16 not suggesting that you list the technical 17 areas in which you may disagree with those 18 studies, but what would your objective be in 19 improving them?

20 MR. LESSY: Excuse me. Do yod mean

'_ 21 as a whole as opposed to each one?

22 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Yes.

23 A Well, there was considerable d o ub t at that point 24 in my mind what the cost benefits of inter-25 connections would be. I, at that point, proposed bh

• 35 1 A I'd like tne question repeated.

2 Q All right. Are you in a position today to 3

e nelude r preclude that if both ERCOT and the a Southwest Power Pool were to be interconnected, 5

the benefits would outweigh the costs?

6 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

7 g (Whereupon there is a discussion i

9 held off the record.)

10 11 A I think that question is too vague for me'to 12- answer. It's based on what kind of interconnec-13 ti n would be best.

14 Q All right. Let's go back just a little bit, 15 Mr. Hartley. Mr. Hartley, let's recap just a 16 moment. I believe that you testified a few 17 minutes ago, and looking at this outline on 13 Exhibit 1 that you believed that when you walked 19 into the meeting on October 6th, that you could 20 show th at interconnection between ERCOT and

'__ 21 the Southwest Power Pool sys tems would result 22 in pooling benefits. Is that a correct 23 characterization of what you said?

24 MR. LESSY: I object. I don'r 25 believe -- the re are two answers that impact on

. 39 1 in te rc onne c tion .

2 You may answer, Mr. Hartley.

3 A I'm not prepared to defend the Federal Power 4 Connission study. I am not prepared to defend ,,

g f,v 5 f+ee points of interconnection. I'm not preparec 6 to --

7 MR. LESSY: He's not asking you 8 that.

9 MR. BALDWIN: Don't interrupt him.

10 Let hir . sh his answer.

11 MR. LESSY: Excuse me for.a second.

12 13 (Whereupon the re is a discussion 14 held off the record.)

15 16 Q (By Mr. Bouknight) Would you please complete 17 your answer? Perhaps if the reporter could 18 read back your last response.

19 MR. LESSY: Why don' t you read 20 the original question.

21 A I'm not prepared to defend any type of in te r-22 connection at this point.

23 Q All right, sir. Do you know of anyone who is 24 doing the kinds of studies they recommended to 25 the NRC?

Y

41 1 the area, and some depositions.

2C Were you told --

MR. LESSY: Let him finish.

3 4 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Have you finished?

5 I'm s rry if I interrup ted you.

6A That's as much as I can remember.

All right. Now, who gave you -- well, who 7Q g specified the documents that you were being 9

asked to review?

10 A Mr. Lessy.

11 Q All right. And can you --

12 A Specified is a mischaracterization. I think 13 supplied would be better applied.

14 Q All right, sir. And what did he ask you to do

_ 15 with the documen ts ?

16 A To further review them and become familiar with 17 them.

18 Q Did he indicate any purpose in mind?

19 A We were to have a future oral discussion of those 20 docume n ts .

- 21 MR. LESSY: One second.

22 23 (Whereupon there is a discussion 24 he ld of f the record.)

25

. 44 1 NRC was present?

2 A A Mr. Toalston. That's T-O-A-L-S-T-O-N.

3 From NRC , that is.

4 Q Who not from the NRC was present?

5 A one member of my staff.

6Q Who is that?

7 A A Mr. Hunkins. That's H-U-N-K-I-N-S.

8Q Is he helping you with your assignment?

9 A He and several others are helping me with my 10 assignment, yes, sir.

11 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

i - 12 MR. SOUKNIGHT: All right.

13 14 (Whereupon there is a discussion i

l 15 off the record.)

16 17 Q Who else, other than Mr. Hunkins is working 18 with you or for you?

{ 19 A At this time?

L 20 Q Yes, sir. With respect to this case. Let's .

21 talk from the beginning of the case, Mr. Hartley.

22 I'm talking about from the first assignment 23 that you were given by the NRC in the middle of 24 1978. Who was or has worked with you or under 25 your supervision in carrying out your assignments me

45 1 for the NRC?

2 MR. LESSY: You don't mean secre-3 tarial support personnel, do you?

4 MR. BOUKNIGHT: No. I don' t mean 5 that. Professional or para-professional 6 personnel.

7 A Mr. Ronald Wasson. That's W-A-S-S-O-N. Are you 8 looking for engineering assis tants ?

9Q I don't know what an engineering assistant is, 10 so I don't know.

11 A Beginning level engineers.

12 Q I'm looking for anyone who might have helped 13 you in a subs tantive way in your work on this 14 case. Someone who might have contributed toward 15 what you were doing.

16 A Mr. Ch arle s Revell. That's R-E-V-E-L-L. And Mr.

17 Harvey Hunkins.

18 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

_ 19 20 (Whereupon there is a discussion 21 held off the record.) ^

22 23 Q (By Mr. B ouknigh t) Now, are these people working 24 on this assignment working under your supervision ?

25 MR. LESSY: That assumes that they M

51 1 Q All right, sir. Mr. Hartley, aside from review-2 ing documents, have you talked with anyone 3 othe r than counsel for the NRC about this case?

4 A No, sir.

5 Q All right.

=

6 MR. CHANANIA: Excuse me. What is 7 the answer?

i 8 MR. LESSY: No, sir.

9 MR. BOUKNIGHT: You need a minute?

r 10 MR. CHANANIA: Wait a minute. I'd 11 like to hear the ques tion .

12 Would you read back the question?

13 14 (Whereupon the requested testimony 15 was read back by the court reporter.)

16 17 MR. LESSY: Go ahead and finish 18 your answer.

19 THE WITNESS: Okay.

20 A Counsel and his staff --

21 MR. LESSY: Wait a minute.

22 23 (Whereupon there is a discussion 24 held off the record.)

25 ww.---h,-- en m - -=m-

• 57 1 explain what you mean by finally"in that answer.

2 A I don't believe I am able to answer that 3 question. could you be more specific?

4 MR. LESSY: Let me just talk to him I

5 for a minute.

6 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Sure.

t 8 (Whereupon there is a discussion 9 held off the record.)

-' 10 I

11 MR. LESSY: Go ahead.

12 0 (By Mr. Bouknight) Mr. Hartley, let me try to

~

13 ask you a question that's more to the point.

14 Right now, .are you being delayed in doing work 15 that you think should be done or you should be 16 doing in the nature of reviewing the documents 17 because of the lack of contractual authorization 18 from the NRC to do the work?

19 A

~

I have been delayed for two reasons. I made a 20 special trip to Houston to ge t material, and it 21 wasn't made available. Subsequent to that, I 22 assisted in making another request, and have 23 just now received that material, i

24 0 Okay.

, 25 A So, I'm not aware that I recdived all of it.

I

58 1 Q Are you going to review it now?

2 A I intend to review it, yes.

3 Q You have been authorized to review it?

~

4 MR. BLUME: Objection. Asked and 5 answered.

6 Q (By Mr. Bouknight) You may answer the question.

~~

7 Have you been authorized to review it?

8 A I don't have an extension of contracts to do 9 it at this point.

10 0 All right. And then --

i 11 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

12

~

13 (Whereupon there is a discussion 14 held off the record.)

15 16 0 (By Mr . Bouknight) Did you want to modify your 17 answer on the basis of comments by your counsel?

18 A Yes. I'll be reviewing those documents.

19 Q All right, sir. And does that mean that you 20 just learned that you will be contractually 21 authorized to review the documents?

22 A No. That's not true. It means that I have a 23 workload before me and haven't gotten to it yet.

i 24 Q All right, sir. What did you mean a few moments 25 ago then when you said that you intended to

. 63 1 Q Mr. Hartley, can you verify that answer for us?

2 As I understand, you have now reviewed the 3 response that was provided by the NRC to 4 Houston interrogatories or a response which was 5 provided under oath describing the expected 6 areas of your testimony. can you clarify for i 7 us what you mean by saying that you don't know I

8 whether it encompasses all the creas that you

\

9 will testify about?

l~ 10 A Well, my dilemma here is that that certainir i

11 encompasses broad areas. I have been informed 12 several times that this is oral testimony to

be given. I don't know where oral examination 13 14 will take us.

(. ,

15 Q I understand. Do you anticipate, at this time, 16 being asked questions about any subjects that t

17 are not compassed within this answer?

! 18 A I havE no anticipation one way or the other.

I 19 I don't know.

k 20 Q Mr. Hartley, you're not telling us that you will I anticipate testifying completely extemporaneous 1y 21 ,

22 are you?

23 A I don't believe any engineer tes tifies without

[ 24 material.

25 0 I presume -- do I assume correctly that you and i

. 64 1 counsel for the NRC Staff will confer with each 2 other, plan and outline in considerable detail 3 the areas of testimony that you will be asked

~

4 to give in the proceeding?

5 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

- 6

^

7 (Whereupon there is a discussion 8 held eff the record.)

P 9

~

10 A Would you repeat that?

i 11 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Would you read back F

12 the last question?

13 14 (Whereupon the requested testimony 15 was read back by the court reporter.)

16 17 A I would certainly expect that to be so.

18 Q Has any of that been done to date?

19 A In a preliminary way, yes.

20 Q All right, sir. Can you tell us if the pre-21 liminary discussions that you have had with the 22 NRC Staff counsel are in any respect different ---

23 well, let me rephrase that.

24 Can you te ll us if the preliminary 25 discussions you have had with counsel for the NRC

' 73 1 (The instrument referred to was marked for identification Hartley Exhibit 3, 2

and a py is attached hereto.)

3 g

5 0 (By Mr. B uknight) Mr. Hartley, have you ever 6 seen this before?

- A Yes, sir.

7 g Q Have you read it?

g A Yes, sir.

Q All right, sir. And for clarification, Exhibit

~

10 11 3 is testimony presented by Mr. E. D. Scarth, 12 a vice president of Texas Electric Service 13 Company in the Securities and Exchange Commission 14 which is entitled "In the Matter of Central and 15 Southwes t Corporation, Et Al."

16 MR. LESSY: And it's dated 17 approximately July 2nd, 1979, or filed approxi-

. 18 mately July 2nd,'1979.

19 Q (By Mr . Bouknight) Mr. Hartley, would you turn 20 to page 8 of Exhibit 3, please, sir?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Would ye : read the full paragraph that appears 23 on that page? Just read it to yourself, and 24 think about it for a moment.

25 MR. LESSY: Off the record.

N

74 W

l (Whereupon there is a discussion 2 held off the record.)

3 4 MR. BOUKNIGHT: All right. We'll 5 see you later.

6 7 (Luncheon recess.)

8 9 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Are we ready?

~

10 MR. LESSY: Yes, sir, 11 Q (By Mr. Bouknight) Mr. Hartley, during the lunch 12 break today, did you discuss your testimony with 13 your attorney?

14 MR. LESSY: Objection. Do you f

15 want to handle that?

16 MR. B LUME : I'll instruct the 17 witness not to answer that question, Mr.

18 Bouknight, for the purposes of this deposition.

19 I believe there's an attorney-client relation-20 ship, and I'm not going to let the witness 21 answer that.

22 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Mr. Blume, I have 23 to point out th a t the Board's order last week 24 could not have been clear (< on that subject.

25 Have you read the Board's order?

e

- W%

75 1 MR. BLUME: I've read it, and I'm 2 instructing the witness not to answer for 3 purposes of this deposition. If you wish to 4 question Mr. Hartley at the hearing, that may 5 be another matter.

6 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Would you read 7 back the question, please?

8 9 (Whereupon the requested testimony r- __ 10 was read back by the court reporter.)

11 12 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Are you instructing

~

13 him not to answer?

I 14 MR. CHANANIA: So we are clear, c

15 are you talking about testimony which he may or 16 may not have expectation of giving at trial, or 17 testimony that he gave under oath this morning?

I

~

18 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Testimony that he

' gave this morning, or may give under oath this 19 20 afternoon.

21 MR. BALDWIN: All he's asking is 22 whether or not he discussed it.

23 MR. BLUME: Okay. I suppose you

, 24 can answer that.

23 A In what context?

76 1 Q Any context. Did you, over lunch today, discuss 2 with your attorney or any of the other attorneys, 3 your testimony here today?

4 A I discussed the te s timony that took place, 5 yes.

6 Q All right. Did you receive any advice or 7 instructions on how you should answer questions 8 this afternoon?

9 MR. LESSY: Objection.

10 MR. BLUME: Objection. Mr.

11 Bouknight, I instruct the witness not to answer 12 that. There's an attorney-client relationship

~~

13 and for purposes of this deposition, I'll 14 continue to instruct the witnes s not to answer

(.

15 as long as you try to delve into the substance 16 of any of the conversations between Mr. Hartley 17 and_ourselves.

18 MR. BOUKNIGHT: All right. And i 19 .

I shall continue to delve.

\

20 M". BALDWIN: Certify that.

21 MR. B OUK' .I GHT : Well, we'll certify 22 these questions.

i 23 Q (By Mr. Bouknight) Mr. Hartley, did you discuss

! 24 with your attorneys the answers you gave this I 25 morning to answers --

l

77 1 MR. LESSY: Excuse me. Objection.

2 MR. BLUME: I'm instructing the 3

witness not to answer that.

4 Q (By Mr. Bouknight) Did you discuss wi th the 5 attorneys during the lunch recess today the 6 testimony which you might give in this case?

7 MR. LESSY: Objection.

8 MR. BLUME: And I'm instructing 9 the witness not to answer. If yoi: continue, 10 Mr. Bouknight, we're going to have to consider 11 closing this deposition down.

12 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Mr. Blume, you're 13 on rather weak grounds. I certainly have the 14 right. However, you are --

7. .

15 MR. BLUME: If you want to call the 16 Board --

___ 17 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Excuse me. May I f

18 complete my sentence?

r 19 I certainly have the right to ask 20 those ques tions and build a record of the 21 answers you instructed him not to answer.

22 MR. LESSY: I don't have a problem 23 with that. As long as we do it in reasonable 24 length.

25 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Certainly. I

8 78 1 don't plan to go through this all afternoon.

2 Can we agree at this point, Mr.

3 Lessy, Mr. Blume, that without the necessity 4 of my asking any further questions along these 5 lines, th a t if the Board upholds our position 6 on thes e ques tions , that we will be free to 7 pursue thic line of questioning without restric-8 tion to the questions that we have asked right 9 now?

~

10 MR. BLUME: To the extent that 11 you're asking questions about Mr. Hartley's 12 deposition testimony, I will agree to that.

r-13 MR. LESSY: As long as the questions 14 are not otherwise objected to.

(..

I 15 MR. BOUKNIGHT: I'll just ask 16 Mr. Hartley about his trial testimony.

17 MR. BLUME: You asked him if we 18 discussed it in the context of this deposition, t 19 I believe.

20 MR. BALDWIN: No he didn't.

21 MR. 3OUKNIGL f: Mr. Blume, let's 22 cut through all of this, one, I am asking a 23 witness a line of questions which you don't

. 24 want him to answer.

25 Now, number two, you apparently h

79 1 are offended by the thought of sitting here 2

and objecting one by one as I ask th(s question.

MR. BLUME: I agree.

3 4 MR. BOUKNIGHT: That leads me to 5

ask you what seems to be a very logical 6 question. Can we dispense with the necessity r 7 of my having to build a copius record by g asking the questions one after th e other?

9 MR. BLUME: I answered you before 10 insofar as your quesuions relating to any 11 communications between Mr. Hartley and our-12 selves regarding his deposition. We can agree 13 that there is no need for you to ask individual 14 questions.

15 MR. LoUKNIGHT: All ri trt.

16 0 (By Mr. Bouknight) Mr. Hartley, have you had 17 today any discussions with your attorney con-18 cerning your testimony, the testimony which you 19 anticipate giving at the hearing?

20 MR. LESSY: Wait a second.

21 .

22 (Whereupon there is a discussion 23 held off the record.)

_ 24 25 MR. LESSY: Go ahead.

0 w

89 1 of the system?

2 MR. LESSY: I object to it. It's asked and answered twice. He answered the 3

4 question. You may not like his answer, but he 5

did answer it.

6 Y u may answer it again..

7 Q (By Mr. Bouknight) You may answer, Mr. Hartley.

g MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

9 10 (Whereupon there is a discussion

{

11 held off the record.)

12 .

13 A could you repeat my attempted answer?

~

14 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Would you repeat 15 his previous answer?

16 17 (Whereupon the requested testimony 18 was read back by the court reporter.)

19 20 A I have stated to you that load ahedding relays L 21 are an accepted practice in all parts of the 22 country for preventing one means of minimizing 23 cascading outages.

_ 24 Now, f rom the re , I'm unable to

( 25 get more specific and have you tell me what types I

125 1 MR. BOUKNIGHT: All right. Let's 2 go on the record.

3 Q (By Mr. B uknight) Mr. Hartley --

4 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

5 6 (Whereupon there is a discussion 7 held off the record.)

8 9 A There was one -- I was rattling off a number of 10 things before that I haven't been provided with.

I 11 Q Yes, sir.

I 12 A You know, the things that I would like to have,

~

13 and I left one out.

14 0 All right.

15 A Is it too late to specify that one?

16 MR. LESSY: No.

17 Q (By Mr. Bouknight) I guess that our position is 18 first that if we have been requested to provide 19 these materials and haven't provided them, then 20 Mr. Copeland and I will get on it and see to 21 it that we respond to the extent we can. If 22 we haven't been requested to provide something, t

23 then we're not committing ourselves in response 24 to your testimony here this afternoon that we 23 will go home and do it.

i

132 1 Q Yes, sir. Are there any others?

2 A Certainly. The great one was in 1965 that sM 3 everybody is knowledgeable of.

-- 4 Q All right, sir. And would you classify any 5 of the difficulties that have occurred from 6 time to time in the State of Florida in that

~

7 category?

8 A You have just jumped from one problem to a 9 completely different arena. But in answer to 10 that question, there have been cascading outages 11 in Florida.

r- .

12 Q Do you know of any situation where there have 13 been cascading outages on the ERCOT system?,

t 14 A I think I'd be talking here of a matter of i-15 degree.

~

16 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

17

' 18 (Whereupon there is a discussion

held off the record.)

19 20 21 A I believe I know of one.

22 Q All right, sir. What did Mr. Lessy just whisper 23 in your ear?

24 MR. LESSY: Objection. I'll 25 instruct him not to answer that. That's legal t

w

s 133 1 advice in the context -- it wasn't the answer, 2 if that's what you're concerned about. It's 3 legal advice.

r' 4 A As I'm sitting here, I remember two.

5 0 Why don't you tell us about them.

. 6 A I would classify that blackout in San Antoine

~

7 as cascading outage.

/

8 0 Tell us what happened when this happened and

__ 9 what happened.

_ 10 A All I know is that they went black, and that's 11 serious when the town goes black. That's what 12 I would call a cascading outage that you don't f

13 want to have happen.

14 0 What does the word " cascading" mean to you?

l 15 MR. LESSY: What is the definition l' 16 of a cascading outage?

17 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Yes.

18 0 (By Mr. Bouknight) What does it mean to you, I 19 Mr. Hartley?

I.

20 A A series of events, is what it means to me.

' 21 Q All right. Do you have anything else to add 22 in light of Mr. Lessy's suggestion?

23 MR. LESSY: What suggestion is that ?

24 MR. BOUKNIGHT: The one that you 25 just whispered a moment ago.

(

l

134 1 MR. LESSY: I instructed him not to 2 answer that and I gave Mr. Hartley legal advice 3 in this context. It's been my practice here

~~

4 throughout this deposition.

5 MR. BOUKNIGHT: I'm not denying i-6 that you have the right to advise the witness, 7 Mr. Le.ssy. I am certainly challanging your 8 position that I can't inquire as to what he's 9 been advised of.

11 MR. LESSY: Maybe we ought to i

11 invite you for lunch with us so we don't get r-12 into these controversies.

~

13 MR. BOUKNIGHT: All right. I 14 accept.

I

' l~ Q (By Mr. Bouknight) What's the other one, Mr.

! 15 Hartley?

t 17 MR. LESSY: The other what?

i d

18 Cascading outage?

[! 19 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Yes. On the ERCOT 20 system.

' (By Mr. Bouknight) You said that you could think 21 Q 22 of two.

23 A The other one was when the airplane flew into I

24 your P. H. Robinson system.

25 Q Well, what was there about that event that

149 1 one. Are any of the utilities that are in ERCOT 2 now participants in a power pool?

3 A Would you tell me what a power pool is?

4 Q Will you tell me what a power pool is? When you 5

wrote the words here in B on number 5, what did 6 you mean by the words, " power pooling"?

7 A I think I have things listed here. I have four 8 items of types of pooling that could benefit the 9 area.

10 0 I'm sorry. I just don't follow that, Mr. Hartle'7 11 When you were with Arizona Public Service 12 Company, did you have the occasion to consider, 13 as I b eliev e yot- testified this morning, possibl a 14 membership of that company in a power pool?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And, in your experience as an engineer with 17 R. W. Beck & Associates, have you been called 18 upon to consider the benefits and disadvantagec 19 associated with power pools?

20 A Yes.

21 0 Do you have a working definition in your mind of?

22 what a power pool is?

23 A Well --

24 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

25 me.

• 150

~

l (Whereupon there is a discussion 2 held off the record.)

3 4 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Do I correctly 5 assume that the conferences between counsel and 6 the witness are notbfor the record? v' 7 MR. LESSY: That fact that I gave 8 the witness advice?

9 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Yes.

~

10 MR. LESSY: Every time I speak you

(

11 put th at down? .

12 THE REPORTER: Yes.

" MR. BOUKNIGHT: Let the record 13 14 show that counsel just whispered in the r

15 witness' ear.

16 A Well, power pooling is a very general term. I t

17 don't believe that it has any complete accurate L

18 definition per se. I have argued that and 19 others have argued that. In my mind, a power L

20 pool is when any two companies have contractual 1

21 relationships with another pool or with another 22 company that is a pool.

23 Now, as a whole -- there's a whole l 24 host of complexities of power pooling starting 25 from the very beginning of the thing on upward.

I i

157 1 ERCOT?

2 A I have no knowledge at this point in time of 3

how many economy exchanges have taken place.

4 Q Do you have any basis for believing that any 5

system in ERCOT has been denied the opportunity 6 to participate in any exchange of power or 7 energy with any other system in ERCOT as O 8 result of the limitations on the availability of 9 transmission?

10 A This was a study that I suggested. If I had 11 done this study, I would answer those questions.

r' -

12 0 All right. ,And right now, you don't know of 13 any such instance; is that correct?

(

14 A I heard - .I hear rumors and things, but I'm 15 not passing those onto you.

16 Q All right.

17 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Let the record 18 show that Mr. Lessy, again, advised the witness.

~

19 MR. LESSY: Let the record show 20 that Mr. Bouknight again took a drink of his 21 iced tea.

22 MR. BOUKNIGHT: It's a tab, t

23 Mr. Lessy.

( 24 MR. LESSY: It's out of the same 25 significance.

158

~

l MR. BOUKNIGHT: It's of much 2 greater significance, because in this deposi-3 tion you have taken the position that you will

~

4 not allow the witness to testify about the 5

communications that he's receiving from his 6 counsel. In the depositions that I have 7 participated in, there havc been far, far more 8 communications between counsel and the witness 9 here today than I've seen in this case.

10 That's the reason I'm making it a point.

11 MR. BLUME: You should come to 12 Dallas.

, 13 MR. LESSY: It says legal advice

(

14 is --

15 MR. BALDWIN: It doesn't say 16 anything about answers.

17 MR. BOOKNIGHT: I recall everything 18 that lawyers say to their expert witnesses are 19 discoverable.

20 MR. LESSY: There are a lot of 21 Board ruling there. Let's get on .r i th the 22 deposition.

23 Q (By Mr. Bouknight) Mr. Hartley, I believe there 24 was, before this colloquy, a cuestion pending.

25 I believe you had just said to me that you

195 1 exchanges?

2 A Yes.

3 Q What's the nature of that equipment?

4 A Telemetering equipment.

5 Q In addition to effect, if any, on the ties 6 themselves, what effects might such large 7 inadvertent flows as we have just been talking 8 about have on sub-transmission lines?

9 A That's too general for me to answer. In my

" planning in the past, I've tried to design so 10 11 that there's a balance between the sub-

<. 12 .

transmission and the overlay high voltage 13 transmission, so I just won't know without

_ 14 knowing the flows on the specific network 15 you're referring to.

16 Q As a general propcmition, would you agree that 17 sub-transmission has to be sized to handle 18 some quantity of flows in excess of normal 19 loading?

20 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

21 22 (Whereupon there is a discussion

-- 23 held off the record.)

24 25 A Transmission lines have normal and emergency a.e.= eum e -+emw e- he.- .--=w.--ewm* m.e.-.

. 203 1

-~

l answered, but I'm going to note an objection 2 on the record. Mr. Lessy earlier today took 3

the position that he would bar Houston Lighting 4 and Power Company from inquiry into these 5 communications. And I object to it on the 6 basis that the question you have just asked

_ 7 is inconsistent with that objection.

8 MR. LESSY: You may answer.

9 THE WITNESS: Mr. Lessy has given 10 me legal counsel. There was no interchange 11 of anything techni cal in our conversations.

12 MR. LESSY: I resent the implica-13 tion that there might have been. It was pure i.

14 legal advice.

15 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Well, Mr. Hartley, 16 do you have a legal problem of some kind?

17 THE WITNESS: Only one of in-18 experience with you lawyers.

19 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Yes, sir. But 20 Mr. Lessy is giving you advice with respect 21 to your deposition today, is he not?

2 .', THE WITNESS: Yes.

L 23 MR. BOUKNIGHT: Would you kindly 24 tell us how you distinguish advice from Mr.

25 Lessy as between legal advice on the one hand M

^

. 213 1 reserves in dollars per killowatt year would 2 be worth on a system.

3 Q All right.

~

4 A I dis agree with some of the numbers as I look 5 at them, but it's a jumble of different i 6 approaches.

l' 7 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

3 MR. KNOTTS: Sure.

i i 9 10 (Whereupon there is a discussion 11 held off the record.)

12 13 MR. LESSY: Go ahead.

.t..

14 Q (By Mr. Knotts) Just for the sake of clarifica-

}

15 tion, Mr. Hartley, before we go on, I see that 16 the answer uses the word " cost of reserves,"

17 and that in your answer, I believe you used the f

18 term "value" and the term " worth."

19 Now, Mr. Hartley, are they 20 interchangeable terms, or do you mean something

'- 21 slightly different when you use the term "value" 22 or " worth"?

23 A The two terms are the same.

24 Q All right. Thank you. You say that chere is 25 some numbers in here that you agree with and he

W P

250 1 (Whereupon there is a discussion 2 held off the record.)

3 4 MR. LESSY: Well, let Mr. Hartley 5 review this document.

E- 6 MR. KNOTTS: Fine.

{ 7 8 (Whereupon a recess was had.)

9 10 MR. LESSY: All right. T.iere is 11 a question pending.

12 0 (By Mr. Knotts) Mr. Hartley, we're back on the r It's been about an hour or so, i 13 record now.

14 and the reporter has very kindly provided us I 15 with a typewritten version of the pending 16 question. You may refer to that if you wish.

[

17 MR. LESSY: Well -- never mind.

13 A sefore I start to answer that question, I 5 19 would like to apologize. To the extent possible ,

20 I will try to keep this to an engineering 6

' 21 session.

22 Q Fine.

23 A The testimony is so engrained with emotion and 24 the lack of rationale that I may get into areas 25 that I apologize for beforehand. I don't in te nd !

W

. 255 1 some of the lightning problems of transmission.

2 Then Mr. Scarth goes on to 3 proliferate a discussion between Arkansas Pcwer 4 and Light and other things, all in a time frame 5 that refuses to recognize the tremendous i 6 technological advanceme.nt of the area of power

{ 7 transmission available to the industry from

_ 8 about 1958 to today. His statements are a

( 9 obsolete.

j 10 Now, I'm on page 4. Excuse me.

11 Interruption here. Are these the kind of things 12 you want to know?

- 13 0 Yes. Fine.

14 MR. LESSY: Excuse me.

(

l 15 16 (Whereupon there is a discussion 17 held off the record.)

13 19 MR. LESSY: Go ahead.

20 A Now, I am on page 4, the large paragraph at the 21 center there. I h've a heard a great deal about 22 the Hoffman tie. The cursory analysis that 23 I've been exposed to of the Hoffman tie singly 24 demonstrates a principle that any system planner 25 sould also agree that insufficient ties are bad.

i

, - i LAW OFr CES LOWENSTEIx. NEw> tax, RErs. AxELHAn & TOLL B 0 2 5 C O N N E C T I C U T AV E N U E , N. W.

WAS H I N GTO N, D. C. 2 0 0 3 6 nasc ar tow t =stri%

a *0 6 D F f S " "' S**

.. ..c A. <...

C L"c.'.'.',-,.

J A. Boua N'Gw r, se.

.. . m .....~ .

M2 cme [( A PAJSER CEROman L.BERN5rtiN ALef et vCamm s m

"l"',"

, .o, ,

February 22, 1980 W'L L Au . F D A % a g e s, F R g r;( atC S Geae DO vG6 A S G GREEN HAND DELIVER David Stahl, Esquire Isham, Lincoln & Beale Counselors at Law 1050 17th Street, N.W.

Seventh Floor Washington, D. C. 20036 Re: Documents Identified And Requested During The Deposition Of Durwood Chalker

Dear Mr. Stahl:

During Mr. Chalker's deposition on February 19, 1980, -

his testimony revealed that he maintains personal files on CP&L operations. Included in these files are documents received from Mr. Borchelt's department. It is my under-standing that Mr. Borchelt is the Executive Vice-President and the Chief Engineering Officer of CP&L and that he super-vises CP&L's Engineering 1;cy rtment, including such pertinent matters as system planning, guveration design and construc-tion, transmission design and cc'struction, and transmission operations. Mr. Borchelt reports directly to Mr. Chalker.

According?_y, I requested in the deposition that CP&L pro-

'. ace all documents in Mr. Chalker's personal files which he received from Mr. Borchelt's department.

This will formally reiterate my request for all such documents. Please have all these documents copied and mailed to me, and Houston will reimburse you for the expense.

During the deposition you indicated you would object to producing these documents on the grounds that Houston's request was untimely. Given that the request was made well

s

1. LOW E! TI:IN, NI:W)f A N, ({ El s, .\ XE LII A n & To r.L David Stahl, Esquire February 22, 1980 Page Two before the cut-off date then in effect by Order of the Board, that objection is particularly without merit; indeed since the deposition the Board has extended the cut-off date until March 14, 1980. If CP&L will refuse to produce these documents, please advise me in writing by February 21, 1980, and I will file the appropriate motion with the Board.

• \ery ly yours,

/

D as G. Green DGG/nm cc: Service List

3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC S'.PETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POUER COMPANY, ) Docket Nos. 50-498A et al. ) 50-499A

)

(South Texas Project, Units 1 )

and 2) )

)

)

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-445A et al. ) 50-446A

)

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric )

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the foregoing:

MOTION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY CERTAIN DEPONENTS and Letter to David Stahl, Esquire were served upon the following persons, by hand *, or by deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, this 22nd day of February, 1980.

1

}]

ouglas G. Green

i

• Marshall E. Miller, Esquire

• Roy P . Lessy, Jr., Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Frederic D. Chanania, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Michael B. Blume, Esquire Ann P. Hodgdon, Esquire

• Michael L. Glaser, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Roff Hardy

• Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Chairman and Chief Executive U.S. Nuclear Re_ '.atory Commission Officer Uashington, D.C. 20555 central Power and Light Company Post Office Box 2121 Atomic Safety and Licensina Corcua Christi, Texas 78403 Aupeal Board Panel U.F. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic' G.K. Soruce, General Manager Washington, D.C. 20555 City Public Service Board Post Office Box 1773

• Chase R. Stephens, Supervisor (20) San Antonio, Texas 78203 Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Perry G. Brittain Washington, D.C. 20555 President Texas Utilities Generating Company Mr. Jerome D. Saltzman 2001 Brvan Tower Chief, Antitrust and Indemnity Dallas,' Texas 75201 Grouc U.S. N'uclear Pegulatory Commission G.W. Oprea, Jr.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Executive Vice President Houston Lighting & Power Comoany J. Irion Worsham, Esquire Post Office Box 1700 Merlyn D.

~

Sampels, Esquire Houston, Texas 77001 Sooncer C. Relyca, Esquire Worsham, Forsyth & Sampels R.L. Hancock, Director 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 City of Austin Electric Utility Dallas, Texas 75201 Post Office Box 1086 -

Austin, Texas 78767 Jon C. Food, Esquire Matthews, Nowlin, Macfarlane Joscoh Gallo, Esquire

& Barrett Robert H. Loeffler, Esquire 1500 Alamo National Buildin0 Isham, Lincoln & Beale San Antonio, Texas 78205 1050 17th Street, N.W., Suite 701 Washington, D.C. 20036 Charles G. Thrash, Jr., Esquire E.W. Barnett, Esquire Michael I. Miller, Esquire Theodore F. Weiss, Esquire James A. Carney, Esquire J. Gregory Copeland, Esquire Sarah Wellina, Esquire Baker & Botts Isham, Lincoln & Beale 3000 One Shell Plaza One First National Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 R. Gordon Gooch, Esquire Steven R. Hunsicker, Esquire David M. Stahl, Esquire Baker & Botts Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue 1050 17th street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 Suite 701 Washington, D.C. 20036 Martha E. Gibbs, Esauire Ishan, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603

Don R. Butler, Esquire David A. Dopsovic, Esquire Sneed, Vine, Wilkerson, Selman Fredarici H. P a rs..a n t e r , Esquire

& Perry Susan B. Cyphert, Esquire Post Office Box 1409 Nancy A. Luque, Esquire Austin, Texas 78768 Energy Section Antitrust Diviaien U.S. Department of Justice Mr. William C. Price P.O. Box 14141 Central Power & Light Comoany Washington, D.C. 20044 P.O. Box 2121 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Morgan Hunter, Esquire Bill D. St. Clair, Esquire Mr. G. Holman King McGinnis, Lockridge & Ki: gore West Texas Utilities Company Fifth Floor P.O. Box 841 Texas State Bank Building Abilene, Texas 79604 900 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Jerry L. Harris, Esquire Richard C. Balough, Esquire W.S. Robson City of Austin General Manager P.O. Box 1088 South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Austin, Texas 78767 Route 6, Building 102 Victoria Regional Airport Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esquire Victoria, Texas 77901 Nicholas S. Pevnolds, Esquire Debevoise & Liberman Robert C. McDiarmid, Esquire 1200 17th Street, N.N. Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20036 Marc R. Poirier, Esquire Spiegel & McDiarmid Don H. Davidson 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.

City Manager Washington, D.C. 20037 City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 Kevin B. Pratt Austin, Texa3 78767 Texas Attorney General's Office P.O. Box 12548 Jay Galt, Esquire

~

Austin, Texas 78711 Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hays 219 Couch Drive William H. Burchette, Esquire Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Frederick H. Ritts, Esquire Law Offices of Northcutt Ely Knoland J. Plucknett Watergate 600 Building Executive Director Washington, D.C. 20036 Committee on Power for the South-west, Inc. Tom W. Gregg, Esquire 5541 East Shelly Drive P.O. Bon Drawer 1032 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135 San Angelo, Texas 76902 John W. Davidson, Escuire Leland F. Leatherman, Esquire Sawtell, Goode, Davidson & Tioili McMath, Leatherman & Woods, P.A.

1100 San Antonio Savings Duilding 711 West Third Street Sen Antonio, Texas 78205 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Douglas P. John, Esquire Paul W. Eaton, Jr., Esquire Akin, Gumn, Hauer & Feld Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley 1333 New Hamushire Avenue, N.W. 600 Henkle Building Suite 400 P.O. Box 10 Washington, D.C. 20036 Roswell, New Mexico 89201

Robert M. Rader, Esquire Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 W.H. Woolsey, Esquire Kleberg, Dyer, Redford & Weil 1030 Petroleum Tower Corpus Christ, Texas 78474

- Donald M. Clements, Esquire Gulf States Utilities Company P.O. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Dick Terrell Brown, Esquire 800 Milam Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 C. Dennis Ahearn, Esquire Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

.