ML20032D858

Exceptions to ASLB 811027 Order Dismissing Rockford League of Women Voters from Proceeding.Proof of Svc Encl

ML20032D858
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	11/06/1981
From:	CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ROCKFORD, IL
To:
Shared Package
ML20032D857	List: ML20032D856 ML20032D858
References
NUDOCS 8111180172
Download: ML20032D858 (7)

Text

-

e p

4 s

%.g E00Y,y) 9.

l2m

'h

\\

A, '/ ] ) ggg * !i}

RIITED STATES T AMERICA NLCIEAR RIX7JIA'IORY CONISSIOT RJ~..

7u:. -

.l: ?

-l 9

hifuz 'IYE A'luilC SAFLTI AND LICENSING APPEAL ti

• /

g

.h In the Matter of

)

)

CGICEAIEE EDIsai CO.,

)

Docket Nos. C'IN 50-454

)

50-455 Byron Station

)

(Units No.1 and 2)

)

EXc.enWS T TIE ROOTORD IBGJE & NCHEN VCTIEPS

'IO TIE LICENSDG BOARD'S OTER T OC'IOBER 27, 1981 The Rockford Ieague of Wcmen Voters (hereafter "the Ieague"),

by their attorneys, hereby appeals pursuant to 10 C.F.R., Section 2.762 and 2.785, frun the Iicensing Board's Order of October 27, 1981 and lists, without argumer.tation, the factual and legal errors appealed fran as follows:

1.

The error of fact in the first sentence of the Matorandun and order dated October 27,1981, p.1 (hereafter " Order") that the Imague was guilty of any continuire failure or refusal to answer interrogatories.

2.

'Ihe error of fact at Order, pp. 2-3, that the interrogatories in their scope and breadth were."cxxmon and reasonable" particularly in light of the Board's admonition re interrogatories in its August 18, 1981 Order.

3.

The absence of consideration, 'nowhere mentioned in the Order, of the failure of the Staff and Mmn to anser interrogatorie.s outstanding for sane 19 nonths.

4.

The error in law in the Licensing Board not having ruled previously or considered at all in connection with the order the Icague's

.i 8111180172 811106%

EXHIBIT A PDR ADOCK 05000454 G

PDR'

outstanding request both to have intcu.watories served on the Naclear Regulatory Ccmission or to rule on the Imague's outstanding request to canpel answers fran the NBC.

5.

%e absence of consideration of Edison and t'w Staff's failure to respond to ' discovery earlier filed against them, notwithstanding the Board's August 18, 1981 Order which d w past as well as future interrogatories as contimig in nature.

6.

We implicit erroneous finding in the first sentence of the first full paragraph at Order, p.-3, that the Ieague ignored discovery requests.

7.

The conclusion in the first sentence in the second full paragraph at Order, p. 3, that anse.rs to Applicant's interrogatories were due on July 27, 1981, under the circumstances presented by this case and in pahiOOw the Licensing Board'having pemitted Edison and the Staff to 3

rely upon "prenaturity" as a discovery objection.

8.

The factual findings on pp. 3 and 4 of the Order that

~~ 'tilis~1eAgUe's assertions in connection with the disecriery were " excuses."

9.

The factual finding in the first sentence in the second full x

paragraph EOrder, p. 6, that after August 18 the Imague neither requested nor furnished any disecriery in this proceeding.

10. The factual findings in the second full paragraph at Order,

p. 6, that the telephone conversations simply involved interrogatory

/

answers by the League.

11. The factual finding in the third sentence of the second full paragraph at Order, p. 6, that the Icague furnished no response to Applicant's interrogatories.

=

r

12. The factual findings in the third full paragraph at Order, p. 6, resulting frtra improper ira.w.paration of Exhibits A and B to the Order.

13. The factual conclusion in the third full paragraph at Order, p. 6, that the Iaague has willfully failed and refused to obey the Board's August 18, 1981 Order.

14. The factual f4 M ings in the last paragraph at Order,

p. 6, that the league's conduct was ingup.

15. The factual findings in the last paragraph at Order,

p. 6, that the Ieague's arguments and exhibits referred to therein do not relate to the instant NBC proceed.ing.

16. The legal error throughout the Order of not according agreements of counsel re discovery as binding.

17. The legal error-throughout the Order of adopting as facts, without hearing, Applicant's assertions, particularly when they were challenged by Affidavit.

18. The partly factual and partly legal error at the top of p. 7 of the Order that the Illinois Ccmnerce C%rraission and NRC sixw

cause hearing are irrelevant to this proceeding.

19. The inplicit finding of nonccnpliance and express findings of dM iberate failure and refusal to obey Orders in the first full paragraph at Order, p. 7.

20. The factual and legal error in failing to accord counsel's personal problers any degree of credibility under the ci curstances.

Order at pages 6-7.

21. The reliance upon the g parte and without fair notice conversation and the findings made as a result thereof at Order, pp. 7 and 8...

N

-.m

'm--m'--mwM

~M

.I-i.

1

' 22. Se M cipation by the Board in an ex p 'and without f

fair notice conference described at order, pp. 7 and 8.

23. 2 e failure of the Board objectively to deal, in the context of this proceeding, with the Imague's response to the Motion for Sanctions as related in the last paragraph at Order, p. 8.

24. The factual finding that the Imague and its counsel were dilatory. Last paragraph, Order, p. 8.

25. 2 e legal conclusion at order, p. 9, first paragraph, that the Imague and its counsel have deliberately and willfully refused to ccrcply with Court 0:ders.

26. 9e factual findings at Order, p. 9, first paragraph, that the League's argumer.ts are "prete: cts or e:<cuses."

27. The factual finding in the first paragraph at Order, p. 9, th'at the Imague evidenced is-aTsTiance or tht such conduct was a pattern of behavior.

28. The factual finding (or legal conclusion) that the Ieague's

~ ~. _ _ _. - - - -

alleged conduct, as set forth in Order, p. 9, first paragraph, seriously impedes proceedings or impairs the integrity of the Orders of the Board.

_ ~ %_.

29. The conclusion in the last sentence of Order, p. 9, first paragraph, that sanctions against the Icague are an apprcpriate exercise

/ of due process.

/

30. The application of the erroneous legal standard, under the

/

circumstances herein, that sanctions were necessary to " deter" others in the future, a form of punishnent. Order, p. 9, first paragraph.

31. 2e inproper application of the Ccmnission's Policy Statcrent at Order, p. 9. =-

32. %e improper application of the case law applied and cited at Order, p. 9, and note 14 thereon.

33. % e implicit factual finding in the'second paragraph at Order,

p. 9, that the league's conduct (or that of its counsel) was equivalent to an unjustified refusal or failure to otrnply with discove n orders.

34. %e incorporation in the Order and at p. 6 thereof of Edlibits A and B to the Order, without hearing, and which were challenged as contrary to facts.

l

35. %e reredy of sanctions applied by the Board at Order, p.10, in light of the pwcedural circumstances of this case and the seriousness of the Ieague's contentions.

36. The legal conclusion that the Imague should be dismissed as a party, Order, p. 10.

37. The legal conclusion that Applicant's Motion for Sanctions be granted, Order, p.-10.

-+

38. %e finding that the 'Ieague's l'otion for Sanctions against Applicant is meritless and frivolous, Orde, p. 10.

39. %e denial of the Ieague's Motions for Sanctions and the absence of any hearing thereon, Order, p. 10.

40. The failure of the Board to have accorded agreenents reached a: tong counsel concerning discovery as binding (this failure underlies the' entirety of the Order).

l

41. The failure of the Board to have held a hearing to inquire t

i j

into the disagreenent among counsel (as requested in the Imague's response to the bbtion for Sanctions), a conference which was ordered by the Board in its August 18, 1981 Order (this exception goes to the entirety of the Order).

! i I~-

_,i ~

1,_ [

],

42. The failure of the Board to have considered the public inte. rest or fairness in connection with the dismissal of the league's contentions (this exception goes to the entirety of the Order) and the resulting dimiml of the Imague.

43. The ultimate factual and legal conclusions made by the Board as a basis for its dmissal of the league (this goes to the entirety of the Order, and particularly at p. 10).

44. 'Ihe ultimate factual and legal conclusic.s rade by the Board as a basis for denying the Pockford Ieague of Wmen Voters' Motion for Sanctions against the Applicant (this goes to the entirety of the Order, and particularly at p.10).

Respectfttily sulritted, RCOG'OED LEAGUE OF MIS VCrrERS By:

-?_

One of Their Attorneys Pyron M N.erry Peter Flynn CERRY & FIINN, p.c.

One IBM Plaza, Suite 4501 C

60611 7 (hicago, Illinois 312) 565-1177 f

a f

c g'

l:.i 3 81 C

g(

,,,_a L..( _

0 Cri l<s I certify that four copies of the foregoing pleada.ngs were served on the Secreta.:y of the Atcraic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, postage prepaid and properly addressed on Ncwsber 6,1981, and on the same date a copy thereof was mailed postage prepaid and ywyerly addressed to the Secretary of the Nission, and all colmsel of record ( or in the event counsel has not appeared to the party itself) for the parties below.

wh o' W =

n I

l

_