ML20040E517

Exceptions to 811222 Partial Initial Decision.Proof of Svc Encl

ML20040E517
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	01/17/1982
From:	Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, INTERVENORS OTHER THAN DOW
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8202050023
Download: ML20040E517 (3)

Text

,

u i

.1 4gh> .< > -

- :n.:E.

g. .

.E:

'82 FEB -3 P2:56 w -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Fr':E r.: 3 - ,t J NUCLEAR RD3UIA'IORY CCMIISSICN DOLEI.N3 L SEC!

EP.M; H A'IOMIC SAFEIY AND LICENSDG APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CONSUMERS POWER CCEPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 CP g o,

) 50-330 g (Midland Plant, ) (

) Units 1 and 2) )

9 nECE M c

, e823{

gr 'njf { $ $ l ?)

EXCEPTIONS 'IO PARI'IAL INITIAL DECISICH rOs w f/

(Panand Proceeding)

DATED DECE2EER 22,1981

/ N T((( ' '/

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.762 (and an earlier Atcrnic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Order permitting these Exceptions to be filed on or before January 18, 1982), the Saginaw Valley hw: lear Study Group, one of _the Intervenors other than Dow (hereafter "Intervenor")

makes the following Exceptions:

1. The conclusion in the second sentence of the first full par & graph at page 40 that sanctions are neither necessary nor appropriate.

2. The conclusion in the second sentence of the second full paragraph at PAge 40 that there was to conspiracy to countenance perjury or to comit fraud upon the Board.

3. The conclusion in the third sentence in the second full paragraph at page 40 that there is no evidence of any attorney deliberately engaging in unethical conduct or willfully deceiving the Licensing Ecard.

3 D50s .

/.

G202050023 820117 // /.

PDR ADOCK 05000329 /

G PDR /

1

/-

4

4. The applicability of the legal standards set forth in the first sentence of the th.trd full paragraph at page 40.

5. The applicability or relevancy of the legal conclusion in the second sentence of the third full paragraph at page 40 and continu.try to page 41.

6. The applicability (and relevancy) of the legal standard in the first full sentence at page 41.

7. The applicability dnd relevancy of the observation (or legal test) in the first sentence of the first full paragraph at page 41.

8. The application of the mitigating factor test in the second sentence in the first full paragraph at page 41.

9. The conclusion in the third sentence in the first full paragraph at page 41.

10. The inconsistency between the conclusions of fact and law contained in Part V " Conclusion" with the Findings of Fact contained in the preceding sections constituting the Board's factual findings and conclusions (up through page 39) .

11. Accepting the Board's Fi. % s of Fact through page 39 (up to " Conclusion"), the conclusions of law and fact and the failure to issue sanctions are totally inconsistent and unsupportable and do not follow as a matter of law.

Respectfully suhritted,

/ /'

ONE OF THE INTERVENORS OITER THM DOh7 m/

j

/, /

Pet k By: / L/ !l / /

OERRY & FLYNN Orye of 7ts Attorneys One IBM Plaza, Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 -

[

(312) 565-1177 2-I l

~

e .

g 3r, .--*'

PROOF OF SL%7CE

'82 FEB -3 P 3 :06 I certify that three copies of the foregoing Exceptions . _

EtlCh.hG & 5Et-to Partial Initial Decision dated Decernber 22, 1981 were served iipon:H the Atanic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel; upon counsel for Consumers Power Ctrupany, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge,1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; and upon the Official Service List by first class mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed, L this 17th day'of January,1982.

(. ---

fih ,

l h

i l

- - - - - - - - --a