ML20053D995
| ML20053D995 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1982 |
| From: | Prestemon D Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206070510 | |
| Download: ML20053D995 (2) | |
Text
.
( ?,
g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'51 jug -3 n123 BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION dM#
=
s In the Matter of
)
SERVED JUN 031982 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND P0'ER Docket Nos. STN 50-498 OL W
)
50-499 OL (South TexaTP70 ject,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO FILING OF AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF On May 19, 1982, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, through its Legal Counsel, submitted an amicus curiae brief in this proceeding responding to the issues presented by the Commission in its May 6 Order concerning review of the disqualification of Judge Ernest E. Hill. We prepared this brief because of our conviction (1) that Judge Hill's
~
interest in the vindication of his personal and professional reputation ought to be defended; and (2) that a case on his behalf should be presented by a party having no interest in the outcome of the li' censing proceeding itself.
Intervenor Citizens for Equitable Utilities (CEU) has objected that our brief, as presently titled, creates the impression that all the judges who are members of the ASLBP have " weighed in" in favor of Judge Hill.
CEV argues that the brief should have been filed on behalf of Judge Hill personally in order to make clear that the interests sought to be protected are his and not those of tha Panel.
DOhKOhookhg I
PDR t