ML19318A054

Motion to Compel Production of Documents Re Applicant Rate Hike Application & Hearing.Requests Access for Indefinite Period Beyond Discovery Limit

ML19318A054
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/11/1980
From:	Baker B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19318A025	List: ML19318A024 ML19318A054
References
NUDOCS 8006180394
Download: ML19318A054 (2)

Text

,. . . .

Q Juno 11, 1980 UNITED STATES OF AIERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORI COIG1ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In tha Pr ter of DOCKET NUMBER l Houston Lighting & Power Company 8 50-466 (Allen's Creek Nuclear Generating  %

Station, Unit 1)  %

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVistY:

Sheldon J.. Wolfe, Esq Chairman,  ;

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel '

Mr Chairman: -

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740 (f), Intervenor Bryan Baker hereby moves that the Board order Applicant to comply with his request to inspect and copy:

(1) Transcript of Applicant's rate-hike hearing before the Texas Public Utilities Commission.

(2) All documents-submitted by Applicant and other parties in connection with rate-hike application.

I first requested' access to these documents in a telephone conversation with J. Gregory Copeland, counsel for the Applicant, in March or early April of 1980.. He informed me that, although he-foresaw no objection to my request, he preferred that I m&ke a for-mal request in writing just to keep things official.

Iri my submittal cf May 9,1980,. I made a Request for Access to Material in Possession of Applicant. About May 30 I received what appeared to be an _q parte communication from Mr. Copeland stating in part: "The transcript of Houston Lighting & Power Company's most recent rate case and the legal file in connection therewith are available for your inspe.ction at our offices upon reasonable advance notice." .

On June 5 I attempted to contact Mr. Copeland about this matter and was told that he would call me back. He did not call that day or June 6, a Friday. On Monday morning, June 9, I again called Mr. Copeland about this matter, and was told that he would be out of town until Wednesday.

I asked to speak to another lawyer on the case and that afternoon Mr. Hancock called, said that he would have to consult with Mr. Copeland by phone and that he would call me back that afternoon or the next morning. The next afternoog, after I made two calls to his office, Mr. Hancock called to inform me that 8006180 3 y4/

Pkg3 2 . , , , , _ ,,, , , ,

l coun:cito espy of tho rata calo waa at the bindery, that ho-had been unablo to loccto HI&P's copy of the rato casa, that ho had been scrambling around to get together a partial set of dccuments, and that he did not know when I would be able to come and look at what he did have.

~

Intervenor would.like to believe that a good faith effort -

is now being made to provide ac;sss to the documents in question..

However, I cannot preclude the possibility that I am being may be of great relevance to my contention.

r~~ I therefore move that the presiding officer compel Applicant -

f 1

to provide access to the documents in question for purposes of hours, without requiring- Intervenor to provide " advance Intervenor further requests that access to said documents be provided for an indefinite pericA beyond file and the transcript 120-day' discovery of any period, and'that-ApplicantJs lega i

subsequent rate-hike proceeding be provided as well.

L I had I have hesitated?to involve the. Board assumed that once this hontention'had bdeft admitted (Fir ~10, .1980) in this matter.

fny right to. Mmine- relevant. documents was clearly establish ~ed, and I.haively believed that Applicant would cooperate in providing immediate necessity ofaccess sending to out documents copies to ofallsuch parties, obvious quoting relevance chapter without and the verse from 10 CFR, and waiting thirty days for a reply I know better now, but the knowledge has cost me time I am scheduled. to be depored by the Applicant on June 13, two days from this writing; it is coo late already for me to make any There meaningful inspection of the rate -case before being deposed. -

are now just 30 to 35 days left in the discovery period, and I have no assurance that)dtill locate and make available these ~ docu-ments at any time in the near future. x (r. Applicant)

I trust that the Board will grant my motion, and give me the c time I need to properly ermine Applicant's rate-hike file.

Respectfully submitted, s

Bryan Baker June 11, 1980 copies to: All Parties i

l l

l

__ _ _ -