ML20003H958
| ML20003H958 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1981 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | DOHERTY, J.F. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8105080236 | |
| Download: ML20003H958 (3) | |
Text
.
r-D qf.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e
.g,
./]P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board f
U b
MAY 7;g r-m 3[ge0 7 Jggyg {i h C% g,%
V
- 7' Before Admin';;rative Judges:
.g y,
Ut Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chaiman g-
'\\e d U"-3
'" a#
J Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum 9/
.b Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
' s v
c, SERVED f,y 7 /88/
)
In the Matter of
)
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-466-CP
)
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
)
May 6, 1981 Station, Unit 1
)
)
ORDER (Denying Doherty Motion to Require Applicant to Reissue a Motion in Place of Brief; Rejecting Filing of Doherty Reply)
On April 7,1981, Intervenor Doherty filed the following sub-missions:
(a) Motion To Require Applicant To Reissue, In Form And Title, A Motion In Place Of Its March 30,1981 " Applicant's Brief Addressing The Need To Disqualify Tex Pirg's Counsel Pursuant To Disciplinary Rules 5-101 and 5-102", and (b) Reply To Applicant's Motion Of March 30, 1981 To Disqualify Tex Pirg's Counsel Scott, And [To] Staff's Brief In Response To Board Request.
l In his motion, Mr. Doherty asserts that Applicant's submission of March 30, 1981 was actually a motion to dismiss Tex Pirg's counsel pursuant to DR 5-101 and DR 5-102 and that, said submis-sion, in being deceptively captioned as a "Brief", did not put all parties on notice that tney had ten days within which to I
pS S'fl n a s os o q3G
y respond thereto.
In his Reply, urging that he has a right to res-pond to Applicant's " Motion" of March 30, 1981, Mr. Doherty argues that Tex Pirg's counsel should be permitted to testify as an expert witness for Tex Pirg, should not be disqualified as counsel for Tex Pirg, and should be permitted to testify as an expert witness on Doherty Contention 3.
Mr. Doherty's Motion is without n; erit.
During the March 16, 1981 hearing session, the Board ruled that, after Tex Pirg's counsel filed a brief and an affidavit on March 23, 1981, responses by the other parties were to be filed by March 30,1981 (Tr. 8872, 9076; also, see our Order of April 7,1981). Mr. Doherty failed to file a response by the due date. He cannot be heard to argue that he and other intervenors were misled by the caption of Applicant's submission - obviously this is an effort by Mr. Doherty to shoehorn legal arguments into this proceeding which Tex Pirg failed to sub-mit by March 23 and which he (Mr. Doherty) failed to submit ay March 30,1981. Applicant's brief was properly captioned and was l
properly addressed to the issue of whether Tex Pirg's counsel should l
serve both as Tex Pirg's counsel and as its expert witness. Further, we do not accept for filing and thus do not consider Mr. Doherty's Reply because it was untimely filed.U U In passing, we note that, on April 22, 1981, Applicant has filed a Motion To Preclude Testimony of James M. Scott, and that, i
on April 24th, Mr. Doherty filed a Reply. After receiving timely responses from the other parties, the Board will rule upon Applicant's Motion.
i Accordingly, it is this 6th day of May,1981 ORDERED Than Mr. Doherty's instant Motion is denied, and his instant Reply is not accepted for filing and thus it not considered.
FOR THE ATOMIC AND SAFETY LICENSING BOARD Sheldon J. 4 blfe, CYairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l
l l
l