ML19329E644
| ML19329E644 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek, Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1975 |
| From: | Davidson D, Jablon R MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL COOPERATIVE POWER POOL, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006160424 | |
| Download: ML19329E644 (19) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES OF AMSRICA BEFORE TIIS UUCLCAR EEGULA'10RY CO2 MISSION In~the Matter of:
)
)
Docket Mos. 50-32CA ConsumerJ Power Company
)
Su-330A Midland Plant (Units 1 and 2)
)
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P0OR QUAL.ITY PAGES EXCEPTIONS OF MICHIGAN CITIES AND COOPEI'ATIVES TO THE INITIAL DECISIO OF TI E ATOMIC sal'ETY AUD ' LICENSING EOARD Michigan Cities and Cooperativoc ("Intervenorc") 1/
hereby appeal to the Atc.m.ic Safety and Licensing Aopeals coard of the Muclear Regulatory Conriission by filing the folles ing e'<ceptions to the Ini tj a3 Decision
("I.D.") of the Atc.~. iia Safety and Licensing Board in the above-entitled proceeding:
t 1.
The ruling that the burden of proof reatn n :n Justice, Staf f and Intervenorc rather than on the App 1; cant (I.D., 31-31).
2.
The analogy drawn between a patent and e licens' granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commicsion.
(I.D.,
22-29) 3.
The ruling that creation of a situation inconvis-tent with the antitrust laws was not an issue (I.D.,
2 2 --2 9 ;.
If Michigan Cides and Cooperativas include the Cities cI Cold'ea te r, Iiolland, Grand Haven, Traverso Cit anC Za lec a tiichigan, the Michigan Municipal Electric AssacLation, Pac Molverine Electri o Coopera tive and the Mort?ern Michigtn Electric Cocperativa.
/
l w -
i 8006160 Q
+
4.
The undue restriction of the concept of nenus, (e.g.,
I.D.
60-61, 98).
5.
The analogy drawn between the statutory enengtions ot labor from the antitrust laws and a license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
6.
The conclusion that " Activities under a licenst issued by the Commiscion pursuant to statute-cannot par se create or maintain a situation inconsistent 'eith the antitrust lawc" (I.D. 61).
7.
The conclusion that "Activitics under a license issued by the Commission purcuant to statute, can crcata or maintain a.;ituation inconcistent *. tith the antitcue:t Icus, if, and only if such activitico conctitute a matcrial olomont and c' substantial factor in a ccheme or conspiracf.:he pur-poco or affect of which is to cause the creation or maintenance of a situation inconsictent with the antitrust 18ws.
(I.D. 61) 8.
The conclusion that "if the queatlan is cran".icn of a situation inconsistent with the antitruse Ints; then the alleged situation and the alleged misuse of activities under the license must cccur after the grant of the l ice a s ::,
The only relevarit and material factn or record will bz
'im,a c
ten. ding to provide or disprove the existence of a cchsa_u or consniraav to crea te such situ:~ tion by caid m..<nter "
(I.D.
62).
9.
The cenclusion that "if.
the quea ' ivn ir t ac maintenance of a situation incanaistent ith 1.he antiLrust lawc;.then the alleged situation niunt be in riscem.:u on the date the record is closed and the alleged micane nust occur aftcr the grant of the licanse.
The relevant and naterial facts i
of record will be those tending to prove or disprovo i i
the existence of an alleged scheme or conspiracy to naiutain such situations by said allegod ninnse" (I.D. 62).
10.
Tha conclucion that "the nJ1cgat'en of misucc tu related to future activities under the operau.ng license uhich had not been granted prior to June 20, 1974 [the close of the antitrust evidentiary hearing]"
(I.D. 62-63).
11.
The treat:7.ent of the " pres 2nt jurisdiction of the FPC" and of its ability to prevent " rene c 2d an ti. 'c..p.ti tive contract provisions" as a factor tending to'ca.r:d c f t:"'. inc, of nootness (I.D. 65-66).
12.
The deterninatic'1 tln t the ir., i mpo a n. as a rec e c '/ c ' nct requirement for coo);diantion that each pLrt; bcncfit and imposas a duty upoa the maang. c.er o.? tha 'pyliac.ni-to seek such ban 2 fits and the rejectio.. cf
>sitim has all that is reqaired is that Applicant rec ;i ; c-
' tc cos t: pl'2s a rennoneble raturn (I.D. 67-72).
13.
The leg,1 conclusion that "th.
m a n c g v.r. _ c. '
.i m tn to cl,:.eger.
c'o ~;.
e.
App,_1canc is for.. -otucen rrca entering agrcements which st.id management believes will recult in a.,et detriment to Applicant (I.D. 72).
14.
The rafusal to find that acch 7; :tc '
g, ng in reserve sharing "sh'.>uld maint:.in reserv^c in tha / r:a proc :-
. in"r.in ro z ':
tion to system lc'1'l as the CC:abined Si. 00n uuC D
.t in rOlu'aiOd to the ccr.31ned syscr-la r.:' " (the "G r. 07 L il.
CO). RU. lC " ) Or OM C' ' ', O t'..G r f o"C'lli*
Ph"-
d ". ' " " ' **. D.. ' ~ 1N 5 P -
against smaller as ccrparc5 to larger util; ' '.ar
( I. r?
72-77>.
me,e l
I l
15.
The use of extremely hypothetical and unrealistic examples in an attempt to demonstrate that under certain conditions application of the Gaincoville foraala rould r.aan that the difference in reserves would not ha split no that cach system received some honefit (I.D. 74-76).
16.
The conclusion that "any approval of a coordination agreement should be determined af ter careful study by the agency with the jurisdiction in the area:
the Federal Power Commission [and not the nuclear Regulatory Commission]"
(I.D.
SL).
17.
The conclusion despite the facts of record, "as a matter of law that unilateral refusal to assist competitors per sc [through refusal to coordinatel is act an ti co:apa titive conduct and is not a scheme of conspiracy the purpose or effect of which is the cause of the creal.icn er r.nint.anance of a situation inconsistent with the antitrust lm n" and tha further t
t conclusion that "such refusal causes no injury to the corpar. tor.
[since] the utility has no duty to benefit its cc:matitor by alleviating the competitor's injuries resulting from extrinsic causes" (and the failure to recognize that such injury results from the Applicants' anticompetitive practices)
(I.D. 85-85)
IS.
The conclusion despite the facts of rococd, "that unilateral refusal to enter voluntarily into coordin tjan agreements with compatitors per se i s not an tic.cpatibi. -
coaduc t and is not a scheme o f conspiracy th ? pbrpose or ef f u:2 of which is to cause che craution c1 w in ta:nmco of _ si tu ? ':ic n inconsistcnt with the antitrust laws".
[since] such tofusal causes no injury to the competitors.
The utility has no legal duty to benefit its competitors by alleviating injury from _
extrinsic causes.
Such refusal would not give rise to a situation inconsistent uith the antitrust laus" (I. D. 86) when the facts of record demonstrate that the Applicant' anticompetitive activities are the cause of the injury to its smaller competitors.
19.
The failure to find that the Applicant had an anticompetitive scheme such as monopolisation and its unilateral voluntary refusal to coordinate with its actual of potantial competitors was a material element and a substantial part of such scheme, thus making its ' refusal to coordinata unlatif ul and giving rise to a situation inconsis tent *11th the entitrust laws (I.D. C$-87).
20.
The deteruination that the l'.pplican' ucs act a monopolist rotusing to dcal as part of a schume to illegalli e:: tend or prolong ita monopoly (I.D. 87-08).
21.
The failure to find that the App.t ien n t and etht; utilities had entered into coordination arranae mits an-i conspired to prevent other utilities frcn entering cuch cco rdinn-tion arrangements with the intent to injure such other utilities in violation of Section 1 of the Shernan Act (I.D. 03).
22.
The conclusion "as a matter of lc.w that the uctile-neck situation applica only to conspiracies anel hence, is applicable to a unilateral refusal to wheel" (I.'.
- 95).
^
23.
Rejection of ;-he Ot te r Tail car e u *.u 12 '. t:f _3r the prop wition "that a refumil to wh3el Oy - C i1.i.tr N/lin; most if not all of the high voltage trancmi.ssion in (tha, relevant geographic n.arke t is illegal monopoli m ica" (I.D. 9 5). _
24.
The refusal to find that the Applicant's rejection of transtaiacion constituted an attcapt to (c.onpolize in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (t.D. 96).
25.
In conclusion that Applicant's refucal to provide competitors with either joint venture or unit pc.zer accosn to a nuclear facility in tho instant caso is not anti-competitive conduct (I.D. 97-93).
26.
The refusal to find that the activities en:'er th.:
license will ho a parc of an ancicompntitivo scheme or conspiracy (I.D. 95).
27.
The conclucion on the facts contained in the record that "es a :antter of la.i t'ut, if an igpli. cart for license intendo to construct a nuclear plant facilir.y sc3al.y f o 2. the purposa of supplying pcuer Lo i t.s cua t...u. r s,
e.
'.c s.c ra l 1
refasal to previde its competitors wPch access to such facilitica is an anticonpatit].ve conduct and is not a c rhe -
a e
e e
or conspiracy the purpose or er.c.ect or vthicn
- t. 2 the caurie oc-the creation or maintanance of a cituation inconsist vn t '. -h the antitruct laus (I.D. 99).
28.
The refucal to accord proper weight to e:parc tcatinony (I.D. 104).
29.
The failure to reco'Jni:2 the ar tca t o f
~c'tpa_n.v.,
between Applicant and the Intervencr3 (I.D. 105-115).
30.
The raight given
,_o the fact t.h u s.m ? of 'u municipals have been touc h and r._ig ren tivo comp =21 cora o f
~'gl.aT c for a long tiac and have been coc.vu.:s tively v b.ble (I.D. 11M.
31.
The finding that thc-1pplicants have nevar brd any agreement prohibibir.g eholasala nica beyo:4 it.4 prc er '
servica area and that its policy not to sM 1 outside 02 'Mrhigan is unilateral (I.D. 117).
32.
The failure to recognize the unique qualition c2 nuclear power (I.D. 119).
33.
The failure to find that Applicant enterad into contracts with provisions which prevented coordina tion (I.D.
125-127).
34.
The finding that if Applicant had the contracted po.rer to grant or deny coordination "thare is no evidance that Applicant ever experienced such power" (I.D. 127).
4 35.
The finding that "if Applicant over had the alle: god power [to grant or deny coordination by contract} and 4
if Applicutt ever used it in an entico.petitive fashion and 4
if such ace brought into e>:is tance the situatiori inconsistent with the antitrust lmes; the po;aa., the use of such go.:cr and 4
g the.reaulting cituation have all cocaed" and the conc'. union as a mattir of lau that "no such situation existn."
(~.D.
127).
3G.
The conclucian as a matter of le.v chat "u:wre is l
no nenus between the activitics under the licence c'zon on the assumption that contractual provisions gave and were used by Applicant to deny coordination (I.D. 127).
37.
The conclusion that Applican*.'s refraal to encor into negotiation for coordination in 195 " with repraaenta ci.ws of :!orthern ::ichig:.a and Wolverine, its einilar dm.lnl in 19#'
of '.'al m in<c's requast f o r c o n r e'.n ?.t f ; ~
~ 19% dan.nl of cuardination <:i B Tra nrs2 City and ics 1972 refuni to enter into a coordinatior agrec~an: uith Zdison Saalt I:lectric Ca.
Vere cll situations in which trua coordination uith honofits j.
to both parties uns not feasible and that a.; a natter of lau i-
"the Applicant's management had a duty to its customers and stockholders to refuse such alleged operational coordination" i
(I.D. 129-31).
33.
The finding that the coordination agreements which I
had been negotiated batueen Applicant cad the Ifaabers of the 4
H-C POOL, with the City of Lansing and the City of Holland i
rafiects.d factual differences and the chills of the negotic. tors J
uithout recognition that they involved illegal use 01 ipplicant's J
l nonopoly power (I.D. 132-33).
1 39.
The finding that "save for the smaller utilitica 4
with which Applictn
's coordinued, the ca.:ord ubo::c no
ur
{
utility in the reWrant geographic mac%et uhich has m uus_.-
coordina tion a j re== man t" (I. D. 131).
reservas to support I,
40.
The finiing that Applicat.t has never -dused l
oporational coordination 71th a nrnller.:til.ity in t!.a t al mr -
1 geographic market and thal ;.pplicant hea opel:ationa1 coo rd '.r. $ -
i tion a iceanents with avory small utilit/ in the role"nat geographic market capable of coordinating ( I. I.s. 133).
41.
The finding that " there is no a.'idence that Applicant has ever unod in anticompatitive cshion ita power to grant or deny "o1 untary operatiom1 coordination bo W nen Applicant an.1 th?.:..ualler util'.hias" and tha t- "than is.w -
s tan tial and con"inci_cq c'71deaco to tha contrar""
(I.D.
153).
42.
Tha conclusicn n a stattar of ie.
"that ther: 15 no situation'ir;;;.cistant itith the antitruct 1: '; crising
- .n> >
o f A.nolicant's cllc.1ad refusal 20 vc i r.n t. r f 1"a o.u. o r a t i o r. n ( I 'r coordinate uith the saa11cr ut.ilities" (I.D. 133-1341 c
l i o
i r.
-.~,.
<e v._.,_.
-.,m_.
.,r
..,__ -,,,., - -l
43.
The finding "that assuming arguendo that thare is, or could be, a situation inconsistent with tha antitruct laws arising out of Applicant's alleged denial of vo Luntary operational coordination between Applicant and the staaller utilities; there is no evidence of an antico;npatitivo :che:ae or conspiracy" hetving a nexus botueen activitica under che license and the assumed situation (I.D. 134),
44.
The finding that "there is no evidence that Ispplicant hac ever e::2rcised such pouer [to onclude the cm Llar utilities from the Michigan Pool] in an anticonpatitive fctshion (I.D. 136).
45.
Tha conclusion "as a matter or law that the::a in no situation incenaistent uith tha a ntita:c t 1 r.:3.rialna w-of Applicant'u alleged use of its power to encl.?de the amller I
utilities fren the Michigan Pool (I.D. 136).
46.
The conclusion that "acsuming arguendo th _: c there is, or could be a situation inconsiscent uith tho ?>-itrus'.
laws aricing cut of Applicant's alleged enclusion of
.. 4110r utilities from the :lichigan Pool; there is no evidence of an anticompei-itive scheme or conspiracy" having a nonus altl. the proposed license (I.D. 137).
4..
.o.
w
- ~
m:.c<:lon syste to a uniquo faal.:.t, n t.no u,c
- uca tr.a systems cannot coor6inato arcang ther t.M v u (I.D.
13P) 46.
Tha firding
a s 2r.c t ':h - ?>pp liaan t Jo.a na-have the pounr to grant or den. cparn !cnil or p'.an-ing coordination between or among the erniler utility cyctema capable. of coordinatiod' (I.D. 341).
9_
1 49.
The finding that "assumi.ng arguendo that Applicant does have the pouer to grant or deny coordination between or among the smaller utilities by refusal to.aeel cover for them.
(that] there is no evidence that Applicant's refusal to wheel was part of a larger scheme or conspiracy to bring into being a situation inconsiacent with the antitrust laws" (I.D. 141-142).
50.
The conclusion "as a matter of law that thu;e in no Cituation inconsictant with the antitrust laws arising out of Applicant's refusal to wheel to the smaller utilities".
51.
The finding that " assuming arguanda that there is, and could he, a situation inconsictent </ich the ati: rust lanc arising out of the inability of the smallar utilitias to coordinatu '.ilth cach otte because of Applicau. ::cf usal to cheel, thare is no evidenm of an anticc?.'patLti e" schww cr conspiracy having a nexus tith activitica under tha licanse (I.D. 142-143).
52.
The finding that "the grant of access to either unit power or a joint ventura [ arrangement in Midln.nd Plant, Uni.ts 1 or 2] would result in a detriment and c firaaesal burden to Applicant" and hence 'ecould not be pmper (I.D.
L4 5;.
53.
The failura to find thac 5.pplicaat must sh_ca with its small competitora the bancfits which.:.
pa ::.eacoc 4
due to its larger size, greater financial essets a.'d. anop.21: n--
tic pon cion (I.D. 147).
52 The fin 9i: c; as a f act that Applicant's reluscl to-grant to the s'.c. aller utili tica an op tion to particip?.ca in Midland by purchase of unit poucr o-by joi n c van t': 9 <u not a refusal to entar into develop:nental coordination vittb the smaller utilitics (I.D. 147).
55.
The finding that "there is no evidance that I.pplicant has ever exercised its power to refuse to enter into voluntary developmental coordination with t.he smaller utilities" and "the conclusion as a tr,atter of law that thera is no situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws aricing out of Applicant's alleg.ed use of such po.-ic.r to n.revent develo7-mental coordination between Applicant and said smaller utilities" (I.D. 148).
56.
The finding that "Applic.n c re.a c c a.s to usa um t
4 activitics under tha licanae and the vary u unec under t:1e 1our7oco which the li.cansa ::ran t enc au.'acr zed by 3"r u ta.
verv.
i Such conduc t is not ant. icom. etitiva. "
(I.D. 1 ". 3 ).
I 57.
The finding that "assu:alne arn,uerO thnt ther-1r 1
or could be, a situ.ation inconsistent ulth che a n '.i t r u n i laws aricing out of upp1 Leant's alleg ad refusal to ente: 2 4 m develou. mental coordination there is no evidence of tu r
anticompet.itiva scheine or conspiracy,, n.ava.ng a ne:ms wit.n activities under the license (I.D. 1 '. 8 ).
58.
Despite the f act tha t.;pplicent ' ; g o a l '. m.m f aa:,d to ba "to acquire all the cmaller u til.i ti.er i: the 1 O '. e ' 2 :',
geographic market" and that this ua.c' "anc e
.p e ' :.tiv e s ch 2. a Zorbidden b.
3"caion 2 c.. tn J ?. 7..,
to monopoliza....
- ,,,,. m. v. m u..,.,
- b.. :, r-.m.
u,... a.
A.;.. o.. t,,,
- ...r w.
s n,
- s. p4 & n..
- m.._
I.-
s, h a u
L v
'.. i 1
4 l
.. 3. 0 t ",
4_.1. c,.3 v g...-,.1,,e i
.n..
.,w "I
c4
't. p. n.
7a. :.. 9 n.,.- i -
- r. 3 -
A,. o -
~-
..o a
thO eVi.dOdce totally failO IO S hG ~.1 th 2 POwOf r0 c.'.rry C.l t the saharae no cituc tion inconsistent ith the : n t i r. u n t 1.
H -
arose out of the schemo (I.D. 150-156).
59.
The_ determination that the acquisition program of the A plicant was not uithin the relevant matters ia controversy and not within the scope of the proceeding (I.D. 156).
60.
The finding that even " assuming arguendo that there is, or could be, a situation inconsistent with the anti-trust laws aricing out of Applicant's acquisition policy and accuming that scae way can be found to bring the situatica within the scope of this proceeding, there is no evidance of an anticompetitive schone or conspiracy having" the requiainc nenus with the licenses und2r concideration (I.D. 157).
61.
The failure to find evidence of "a situa. ilon tnconsistant ut.t.n tae antitruc c. lawa cri.:in g ou t or_. ouna. r:y 1
c agreements" (I.D. 16t).
62.
The Sinding that "accuming argueado that anch boundary agreement is a conspiracy ia rostraint et trade or, alternatively thct the ser. total of the boundary agraeonta la an industry-wide conspiracy and restraint of trade, and assuming further arguendo that a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws arises out of encb or all oc such coundary a g re o.'en ts, no such situation has anf connectice with tha relevant matters in controvergf.
[and therefore] no such situation is within the scope of this crcceedin.f f1.D. le2).
63.
The finding that "nasu2in a c cu a.10 - th R cho.. lu, or could bo, a rituation inconsistert '-ith che a.:t ' :.rm t la _
.,ounu, ry agreements anu, ta,at soms
<n*,
can,ce arising out on a
found to bring auch situation within tha scopa of this pracec.d-ing, there is no evidence of an antica.tpatitive scha.it 0:
conspiracy" having th0 requisite no:. in t.-i.th..na ac t ivi*ies under ;
the licensen (I.D. 162-163).
64.
The failure to find the.t Applicant, because cf its monopolistic position must provide the srcaller utilit?.es wheeling co as to give then a wider choice of wholesale i
ponor and I.he abilit; to buy and sell from the regional power exchange nr.rket (I.D. 165).
4 65.
The dotarmination that if the smaller utilic;.ca have a right to wheeling in ordar to b2 able t o o >:c h a.v ia wholesale power with util:.cies other than Applicant -hich right was found not to e::iut and the f urther conclucion that if such a right did exist thic prococh ng is the 'crang foruz Cor the enforcenant of such a ri.gh t (I.D. 166).
66.
The deternination that :f the cr211er utilitia; have a right to uce Applicant's transmission systen to exchan;e f.
' ';olocale po ar with otbar u tili::ica "this ia thu
'.cag forum for the enforccuenc thereof" (I.D. 165).
G7.
The determination that "the alleged rwht 2 :.
such whealing [in ordar to e:: change wholesnic power. ith other utilities using Applicant's transmission syntam] is not within the relevant matter in controversy and hance is not within the scope of this proceeding (I.D. 1 M).
68.
The determinatior, that " assuming arc;uendo t.:a :
there in, or could be, a cituc'. ion inconsiscent eich che eu..i-cruct lxc.*u arislag out of Applicnat's r e f u : 2.i to -hual in the reg:.cnal L.rer c::chancia.v r ;a t, and anu.ing
'f.. c ac:..a u y
+
can be found to bring such cituation cithin che scc 7e of this proceeding there is no a"idence of an anticor.petici ze scheme or conapiracy" having the requisi.te ne.:us ;ith cha licenae (C.D.
167). '
69.
The conci.usions summarized n.t paga 163 of ti. e *nitial Dacinacn as follows:
recoro. '. n
,li s.o ro c 2 e c i n a. aces
,,1.
not dice. Lose substantial evidence of any fact or facts '. lith.i.n the ralevant natter 3 in controversy which constitute a scheme or co n s'e iraov. t,ac ourpace or effec'. or u:1c..'. c to cause the crn' ion or Ir.intena.:ca of a situation incca.3ist ce 'rith the c.titrt's t
,. t a.,.,t e.3.
- i. [. 7. d. t.,.'I L
., a %.,. 4 4 t.'.
Da
.-).
- 7. s ".- _, g wf..,.
1.~a, v 41, 3
t tv6
.v,.
...nA
]
- n..
.n..
t.yt 3 n v, L
- m. p, -....i..,
% ] -f. 3. -_,., a.,.
- 3.,d.
a r. 3 0
s
...,.6 J'.
L
- 3. J 12. L. c.;. s A.
.c.>.. c.,
.{ i., s.,g,w
- .,= b sg...i 3s.
1.p..
I
- 3
. ;. u w w s
3..
.s 4
- w. ~..t. e.-
- b. a..
- "s pa.* - '. r'.' -
.c.=..h.-**
O..r.-
C Q p. a* ;*)
- ag
- t
- s ovo.
y
. s v.
ie s
s.L,.sr,.w s 3..*
e.
A U J*
'., n i
.e
- t. G w,p.
s.,
k..s'.,.
.es - a.e.*,
. vt a
t-
.;.. -,% 4 ;.,.3 1 *t K.n.a. e,.?_
4 n n '...,,
. 13
?, n,
,,i.,...,.-
... 3 e
u
. m.u
.A..m. e 4.J e
.. t r.-.'
3.
". o ". n.... u c
- m..i.< 'u- *., b a v'..' '. >.."..-
.'..,r,s.1 4. C.' 'm- ' 'w '
t
. u.... a 33 unGar Cdc M.lG.On3 3LOGUSGG C.n 3 3 D V.
C' O tu d.L M.
.+
4., s.3 v s ' t '. j
. A '... _.
L s
3
.j t 1 d h.,, d,1
.c wU L.4L.' o O - 4
..n...,.%
s w
u, n3 c. ; u. C L3.,2 v 1,,...a.a s.
.t..
.-,s p,., e.
r,,
p-r l,,. c,. 4. l..,.,s,
- 7. n'.
..A..
L s.
4.*
F Ua, s
- I.,e 1J ws
=
1...
, i.. r..
.s - -.s
- 4. n.a
.1. n.1..
r...._,
v.)
.n o.
w.,
2
-1 w
J 1.
. 3. '. al J )[
5.,
l4 C l ' I ~ I.* ', i;, d, s' (I Ej
_ 2 -- )
... ~.. ~. ' '
s
....,..,. y.1. n.,,.,.. 4
.V..,
c,..,
,;.;c
.o.
.R...-.
- - - 7c
.. -..i c:
u 3
t s
.<v.
.u
,. t s
i r.* b ' g 4. Q.E n I S g 4 ** *.
t.....3.*.*,,-*
('.I.. [',
{"$)
es
- g
,).. g..l y.
i e*.
1.*
,y.,..r..
-u
- 1.i -
71.
The finding that "adequata access to nuclear power is provided to both the citizens and tha competing utilitics by the sale of power by Applicant at its ratailand wholesale rates (I.D. 177).
72.
The failura to impoco any antitrust conditiona i
upon the granting of pcrmits to Consumers Power Company for construction of the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 (I.D. 182-133).
1 73.
Failuro to adopt intervonors propoced license conditions (I.D. 132-183).
Theac conditions eta ::tacP M a.
Appendix A to thic document.
Although we are aware that some of the following exceptions may be duplicative of those alrc.:d3 rcisoc out o?
an access of caution we barehy stato them:
~4.
The E2ilu:.e to find thaF i.h 3 ?.ppi.ic e w: ' a
/
I domination of the bulk po'. tar facilities in the louer :4ichican pennistala has resulted in the situation inconsi.st2nt ti*.h tho an ti trust laws because in ter _a.l..i__a._. (c) Ap[,licant dominates bulk power generation and transainsion facilities,
fb' li p p 3 i c a n : '.
coordination arrangements provides a market for poNer trans-actions frem which Intervencro are iJ. legally enaluded,
(c) Coordination
- ith the smaller :.iichigan rys twc shoulc. not-be on a discriminatory bacia, and (d) App li<:n n t, in a 1 anticem-pe titive.nanner, has used its do;ainatic-on r tha bu'% pyc;cr facilities to iba ad'ra.taga and against its saa'.le-
- 1. e t i t 3..
75.
The failure to fi-/.. hat Appl waat's re'.s.:1s t,
d al on reasonabla terms with he smaller.pplicants haec j
croatad a.situacion inconsistent with the antitrust Iras because,
.~.
. = _. - --
(a) the bottleneck monopoly caces plainly establish the obligation of Applicant to grant intervenore direct access to its bulk power generation and transm esion facilities and (b) by refusing to sell wholesala co.cr services separately, including transmission, Applicant has " tied" itn sells of power, created barriers to entry and forced exclusive dealing arrangements.
76.
The failurn to enercise the broad anchority the Atomic Energy Act gives the Commission to regulato all opera-tions flowing from the activities of the licensee that vould.naintain or Icraace ca ti;ompetitive situa i.ons.
77.
The failure to recognize that ther2 is neither a legal or policy justification for the refusal to ordec th o license conditions that intervenors requested because of the 4
jurisliction of the redoral Power Ccamission.
78.
The fr.ilure to recognize that the activities - nplained of constitute.oer sa violations of the antitrust laws.
79.
The failure to condition the licensan as proposed by the Staff of the Commission (Proposed Findings of racts and Conclusions of Law at pp. 148-151).
80.
The failure to condition the 1.icencen as propa.2ed by the United States Department of Justice (D 12f anu Propo;w rindings of Fact of the United States Dep;.rtment of Justice at pp. 251-52).
31.
Thc failure to follow the precedent of als Ecard 'in its decision dated June 30 in ::nnsas Gas ar.f Electri u --
4.
(
l Compony and Kansas City Power and Light Company (Wolf Creek Gonorating Station Unit No. 1), Docho b ::a. 30-432A.
(
l Rocpectfully submitted, l
)
I L
I t
l
'2,
/
.;. H. -j - :.,..a ; -..,,
l Robert A.~Jablon J
j i
i Da nio !. I.
Dafidson 4
Ahtcrnays fc-Ci"ier of Coldwater, Ilolland, Grand Haven, Traverse Cicy and Seeland, the :i.ichigan Municipa?
Cloc L:lc 7, san":le t ior. Lc4 '!alverim:
and 2:orthern :lichigan Electric Cooneratives September C, 1975 Ls.a offices of:
Spiegel & N Diarntid 2600 Virginia Avenue, M.H.
Suite 312 Unshington, D.C.
20037 1
1 i
, i
.m.
~....,__.,__.m. _,,,,
_,,,_,~~.m..
r
UNITED STATES OF A*4 ERICA BEFORE T:IE NUCLEAR REGULhTORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Mos. 50-325A Consumer Power Company
)
50-330A Midland Plant (Units 1 & 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SIRVICE 1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day served
,t copy of the foregoing document upon the follouing persons by depositing a copy thereof in the Unitod States mail, with first class or air mail postage affi:ced, this S th day of S ap t2?.b er, 1975:
Honorable hugh K. Clark Harold 2.
- creces, F. z.
Enclear Regulato'y Commission V.P. and Gener?'. Om an s' Post Office Eon l')7A C o n m.e w:.
me w Jy,
Kennadyville, Maryland,21645 212 West Michiga-J.v e.
Jackcon, :lichigan 19201 Honorable J.
Vonn Lands, Jc.
Nuclear Regulato ry Cor.saission Jcusph Rutherg, Esq.
Post Offico Box 941 Banjaatn H.
Ve.ler, 2<
Houston, Te::an 77C01 Antitrust Comu;ol. fo-SC Rojulatart; S t n E:'
Atomic Safety and Licencing U.S.
Nuciaar Reguli; ::y Corn.
Board Panel
'3a s hin g ton,
D.C.
2)5:5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wachington, D.C.
20545 Mr. Frank U.
Karan, Chief Public Procaedings Ernnch Chairman, Atomic Safety and Offico of che Seurstary of Licensing Appeals Board the Cornincion U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. 'Nelear nuqulr. tc ry Corr.
Commission Washington, D.C.
205I.5 Machington, D.C.
20545 Fcerest Bernon, 2tc Mr. Abcahan Draitman, Chief Department o# Jestica Offica of Antitrust and Inde"r.i.'
Antit. rust Divini3n U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm/. sci.m W21hiagton, D.C.
2 0 ~. <:
Uashington, D.C.
20545 Jamas T..
Falaaae, W.
Uillira-U. Ross, Esquire Gen 2_al Attorr.ey n 'Jer C&:.pany Keith S.
Uatson, Ecquire Constners o
Mald, Earkrader & Ross 212 Ueat tilchigan Avanue 1320 - 19th St., '. 6. W.
Jackcon, Mich.:.g,n 49201 Washington, D.C.
20036
/
lionorable Frank Kelly Attorna*/ Guneral State of Michigan Lansing, Michigan 46913 Joseph J.
Saunders, EccI.
Departtaant of Justice Antitrust Divinion Washington, D.C.
20530
, V, Hobart A.
2cblon Attorney for Ci ties of Co'dwater, Holland, Grand Haven, Traverse Ci.ty and Zeeland, and the Michigan Municipal Electric AGGociation a: d th 3 Wol"erina and :lorthern l'ic.u.gan Zlaatc.c
- r., ; _ c -
tivos Septunber C, 1975 Law offrcca of:
Spiegel & ::cDiarnid 2500 Virginia hv-un,
'.M.
Washington, D.C.
20037 I
i I
1 I
i l
4 2_
.