ML19326D319
| ML19326D319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1977 |
| From: | Watson K CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006090751 | |
| Download: ML19326D319 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
p..
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION APPEALS BOARD
- shb, In the Matter of
)
)
, Consumers Power Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A (Midland Units 1 and 2)
)
50-330A RESPONSE OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO LODGE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT On April 26, 1977, several Michigan Cities and Cooperatives who are Intervenors in the instant case filed a Motion to lodge with the Appeals Board a settlement agree-ment from a Federal Power Commission proceeding (FPC Docket No. ER76-4 5).
The FPC,se.ttlement agreement was filed with the Motion.
Consumers Power Company, the Applicant in the instant case, hereby responds to the Motion.
It-would be fruitless for Consumers Power to oppose the Intervenors ' Motion since the Intervenors have already brought to the Board's attention the very document which they seek leave to file.
Despite being faced with this unauthorized fait accompli, Consumers Power believes that a response to the Motion is in order.
The Intervenors' Motion is grounded on the unstated premise that the recent FPC settlement involving Consumers Power and several municipal and cooperative wholesale custo-mers is relevant to the Appeals Board's consideration of the 8006090 7 5/
m o
p*
. appeal of the Initial Decision in the instant case.
We emphatically disagree with this premise and urge the Appeals Board to disregard the agreement in its deliberations.
The settlement agreement arose out of proceedings at the Federal Power Commission involvin'g a proposed whole-sale rate increase.
In that proceeding the intervening municipal and cooperative systems raised antitrust claims identical in substance to the allegations which the Initial Decision in the instant case held to be groundless.
In set-tlement of that aspect of the FPC proceeding, Consumers Power agreed not to ask an appellate court to stay a final order of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in this case, subject to several conditions not relevant to this response.-/
Nothing in the agreement affects the Company's right to pursue any action or remedy before the Commission or this tribunal.
Under these circumstances, we cannot discern any legitimate basis for bringing the FPC settlement agreement
- /
Eecause the Initial Decision held that no antitrust license conditions should be imposed in this case and because Consumers Power believes this Initial Decision to be fully supported by the record, the Company con-cludad the FPC antitrust settlement provision was unlikely to affect it adversely and therefore consti-tuted an appropriate disposition of the groundless antitrust claims raised at the FPC.
,.y
to the Appeals Board's attention.
Accordingly, we urge that the agreement be disregarded by the Board.
Respectfully submitted, Keith S. Watson WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS 1320 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 296-2121 Attorney for Consumers Power Company CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing' RESPONSE OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY TO INTERVENORS ' MOTION TO LODGE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT upon all parties of record, by mail, this 5th day of May, 1977.
Keith S. Watson I
t i
T
._