ML19331D302
| ML19331D302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ALAB-610, ISSUANCES-A, NUDOCS 8008280559 | |
| Download: ML19331D302 (3) | |
Text
e
./, * ' ~%g g' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' /f s
c.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD NU 4
~
8 l
b
- 9g Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman S-A Richard S. Salzman
b
% 5.%e e-4
- Q ' '^,
C
,g.
a u <-
N I. s ; '
p
)
fg In the Matter of
)
p i
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A
)
50-330A (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER August 26, 1980 (ALAS-610)
On August 4, 1980, the Licensing Board entered an crder 1/
in which it approved the settlement reached by the applicant and the intervenors of the issues remanded by us to that Board in ALAB-452, 6 NRC 892, 1098-1100 (1977).
Because the settlement had the endorsement of both the Department of l
i l
Justice and the NRC staff, understandably no exceptions have 1
been taken to the August 4 order.
l 1.
" Absent extraordinary circumstances", we do not "scru-i f
tinize the resolution of the purely economic issues posed in l
an antitrust proceeding unless one of the litigants is suffi-ciently dissatisfied with that resolution to bring it before us".
-1/
L3P-80-21, 12 NRC psol 5e r 800828o FF7
. Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Generating Sta-tion, Unit No. 3), ALA3-258, 1 NRC 45, 48 fn. 6 (1975).
No such extraordinary circumstances appear here.
Accordingly, the August 4 order will not be reviewed sua sponte by this Boa rd.
2.
We wish to co==end both the parties and the Board below for thus bringing this protracted litigation to an end without the necessity of still further time-consuming and expensive evidentiary hearings on the question of appropriate relief.
It is obviously far preferable for parties to reach a settle-
=ent of such questions through ar=s-length negotiations than it is to compel the adjudicatory tribunal to devise a remedy of its own -- which might prove to be wholly satisfactory to none of the litigants.
In this instance, these considerations were quite apparently recognized by all concerned:
(1) by the applicant and the intervenors in promptly embarking upon good-faith settlement negotiations in the wake of ALA3-452 and in spending the time and effort necessary to bring them to a suc-cessful conclusion; (2) by the Department of Justice and the NRC staff in the discharge of their weighty responsibility of reviewing the propcsed settlement carefully to insure that it was consistent with the public interest; and (3) by the Li-censing Board itself in encouraging the parties' endeavors and
e then fulfilling its role as the ultimate arbiter of the accepta-bility of the settlement.
Parties to other antitrust proceed-ings before this agency might profitably seek to follow this example.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 0-.
,3 C. Jyn Bishop Secretary to the Appeal Board
--w,
,-,.r-e---.-
--,myy
-.- -,.n n-y-,
--w-v,-
-