_-_ - . __ -

- ._ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ .

|

1-

.

- - - p' e, .UNITID STATES OF AMERICA S '

3E70RE THE gNUCI.IAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSI - $d' k l0y !2 Il

/ $ 9-

C !In the Matter ot.

% /s O6-

6 $/*#Consumers Power Company ) Docket Nor I50-32

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) M C 330d 2, i .9D

RESPONSE OF MUNIS/CO-OPS TO COMMENTS OF CONSUMF.RS POL'ER COMPANY

Consumers Power Company (" Consumers Pcver") favors 1:mtediate -

review of ALA3-452. In accordance with the Commission's January 13, 1978

Order, Munis/Co-ops respond:{

l. Consu=ars Power Co=pany states (Co=ments , pp.1-2) :

"Since 1970, numerous legal and policy issues have arisenconcerning the Co= mission's responsibilities under section105 (c) . .Immediate review of ALA3-452 will help alleviate. .the present uncertainty about the Co= mission's antitrustauthority and responsibility which currently prevails."

Consu=ers Power has chosen to litigate virtually every legal and policy

issue relating to the Ccmmission's antitrust jurisdiction. There is

little uncertainty concerning the Co=. ission's statutory " responsibilities";.

there is lipigation over how they will be applied.1/-

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS >-

POOR QUAUTY PAGES ;

1/ In the second pre-hearing conference, back in October of 1972,counsel for Consumers Power Company noted:

"It =ay be hulpful to the Board to keep in sind thatwe do have a fairly significant event hanging over thisproceeding, which is the possibilit7 of a decision ofthe Supre=e Court in two cases, particularly the OtterTail case new pending before dem, which could have a

,

definite bearing on de state of de law which wouldcontrol, in part at least, the issues being raised bythe Intervenors and de Department of Justice." (Tr. 10 3-104) .

3e first case was Otter Tail Power Co. v. United S tates , 410 U.S. 366(1973); the second was Gulf S tates Utilities Co. v. ??c, 411 U.S. 747(1973). Consumers Power Company was correct that the cases are "significant"to this proceeding. It appears not to have noticed that the cases weredecided contrary to de Company's positions. '

. - _ . - . . 0 eise. M M*0 .- . 4 - ._ _ . . . _

--.- . - - . . .-.~.- --. -. . . .

, _

'.

.

2--,

. ..

.

2. Consumers Power Company states (Comments, p. 3):,

l" Deferral of review would needlessly waste not only )administrative resources but also the resources of 'lower Michigan's race-payers. The Company and theintervenors 'nerein are electric utilities whose costs-including legal expenses to pursue the instant litigation-are borne by their customers."

To be blunt, immediate review would likely do no more than string out,

the litigation process, delay effective relief and cdlitate against any

realistic hopes of settlement. It will not likely result in faster_

resolution of issues. The Midland plants have been " grandfathered"

so that construction could commence concurrently with antitrust review.,

Thus, there has been lictie incentive for Consumers Power to reach

reasonable agreement. With regard to the cost of litigation, Munis/Co-ops

can assure the Commission that such costs are of greater concern to them

than to Consumers Power Company. Indeed, according to its counsel,

Consumers Power has spent over $1 million on this litigation, which well

illustrates the practical problems by smaller entities litigating against

large companies. See Attachment A. Piecemeal litigation will only add;

to the burden.- .-.

3. Consumers Power Company states (Comments, p. 4),

review is necessary because "many utilities will be making

final 'go or no go' decisions whether to proceed with construction of

presently-deferred nuclear units. . ." What Consumers Power appears to)l

be saying is that if it actively pursues its antitrust jurisdiction, ||'the Commission could deter applicants from investing in nuclear units. .

Considering that the purpose of section 105 of the Atomic Energy Act,

42 U.S.C. 52135, is to provide for meaningful application of antitrust

principles to licensees in connection with their licensed activities,

this is a strange statement. Is Consumers Power saying that utilities

will not construct plants if they are forced to obey the law? We note.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.. . _. . . . - .-

. .,

.

. -3,

, .

.

I

s

that this i=plicit threat that effective exercise of :he Commission's

an:itrus jurisdic: ion will delay or prevent plant cons: rue:1on seems

to be shared by only a handful of utilities, since .los: have seccled : heir

antitrust obligations.

4. Consumers Power Company states (Comments, p. 5) that

immediate review of the findings of the Appeal Board " besmirch" its

good name. The Appeal Board decision speaks for itself. If it does

not have persuasiveness, Consumers Power need not worry. .However, Munis/

' Co-ops suggest that Consumers Power's concern is that the decision g -

convincing. In that event, there is nothing : hat can el1=inate its

persuasiveness. Finally, Consu=ars Power has =ade a co=piste record

for all to make whatever judg=ents they choose concerning its good name.

If the Commission desires to pursue the question of Consumers Power's

" good name" at this time, in addition to the Appeal Board's decision,

it might peruse the documents and deposition material attached :o-

Munis/Co-ops' " Motion to Limit Discovery and Issues and A1:ernatively

_ For Summary Finding Requiring Imposition of License Condi: ions," filed J

August 28, 1973 in this docket. Among those docu=ents is one document

expressing that "[:]he first goal of our Marketing activities or program

concerning other utilities in our service area, is, of course, to acquire

these syscams" (Appendix H) , and another, stating the Company's " expressed

goal to el1=in. ate the possible participation of undesirable third parties"_

from :he Michigan Power Pool. (Appendix G) .

Ultimately, whether 1: will review ALA3-452 is a satter

for Commission judgment. However, a reading of the decision 1:self

demonstra:es i: is likely to #.:hstand review. Although Munis/Co-ops

have always believed that :he issues were much less complica:ed than

_ .._____.___ --- __ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -._

.. . . .- . .

..,

'*-

-4- ;

*Consumers Power would maka them appear, Consumers Power's motion

would imply that the issues are many, broad and complicated. In this

context , intermediate or premature review would not appear to be called

for for the reasons expressed in the Comments of Munis/Co-ops, the

Department of Justice, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff

pleadings and for the reasons discussed by the Commission, as well,

in its brief to the United States Court of Appeals in Central Power & -

Light Company v. Nuclear Regulatorv Commission and United States of

America, CADC No. 77-1464, el g. (January 20, 1978).},

Respectfully submitted,

.</ /, -'

<.

Robert A. Jablon

Attorney for the Cities of Coldwater,Grand Haven, Holland, Traverse City,and Zeeland, the Northern MichiganElectric Cooperative, Inc., WolverineElectric Cooperative, and the MichiganMunicipal Electric Association

February 3,1978. -

,

Law Offi es of:Spiegel & McDiarmid2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20037202-333-4500

.

*MS -hM*" =-ehe -4N w *wme ame hw, esp ++emW_ e=m-gm e

i . ~7 Trse. W.*.LI. sTTdIT 'O t.;Ts.NAL Tasony. Jan. 3.1973~Ac:ach. A- '

\Coimmehs Po1cer.in EffectIs Told to Sell Justice kenc7 Urges -

. THE

A P' art af &cledr Plant tb Competitors ICC to Postpone IUse.

,. ,'

In. Intercity Bus Fares-

-*Sy Jsaa? L.ernAt sa

| ., .nmera =wer ?ss v .:.snaarJerasu. !n de U.S. is goutg :o han :o 'at in anyese' '

eis, gno : g.: al.le *.s knM ha own power %D.E> u| | WASHINGTCN-u a r:Ang 2at mems . rescer.

..

ww ?.4.V'm mmfm.astce Depm:me:t"

t : are :s send.saoc2 vans 2rmgn ce mee- ggg7 3,,p,,, T'd d85{ ::e nuity mausc7. a .aderal appesi Ward whars =ori. Mr. ams saw. cia doct-ta effect commanded C:asunars Power Cs.

saca greany !avars ce **rif2=1 porcon d :upd m utenaacunmar:e een 'D*:2,

, poggpoo, , ."q. ncmase :n marcty has Now-to sad part of 2e axummers huge soc! ear Ce indas:ry. de apops ami antm7mes It .' power pant in Ed1and. Met., a sman JnD* will help mem :n arrn in c=mpecem vt2

|ans schdalad m take eenet .ms miay. ' ,the sensabsidised, mapsymt perunus of me The departnant's Aactmut Dtytnan sad #@tan nanrey.

. industry. < - ce !are Mour. 2e seven2 :s ce past cree D SNT~h11 ha was issued gmady at* the Lei.-g of the Ladiday weesad t!y tas AcmaDr. be appeal board didn't specify

years, shouw w supede am me ICC ce= acne| Nuclear Ragetisary e-= man's Ammte what Fmenme Power usust dq m :stnady , completas aa nventerwur of me has 2ndas. .The Func'I and its ''~ ''""""" .'A 98C:ii:35'satser and r'ement Appeat Board. It is de !!ading d aantmsc noianaus, In part be-

.

The tre taersase has bout sancht my or ct2Walcfcanse the heartsg.nened is un d date and- ' *

-'

based as 2ndtags by as t!nsenemberin ~part beemass me uc!!!y has changed its .Nadenal.3ns Traf"c Wem be me- ' money at -board that c'a===s P:wur vtainted aan- postcas shout-sectag an ownerstep tutarest setung organizacca h ca 2tarcty bus ta- g,ftrust !aws, partcularty in dealtags wim two la 3e trzable plagued !!.7 Akm 3Cdland dustrr, wtisch marmade de hainno=y !s in pg,jg7,electr.e cooperanves in M!ctican and an

| = m.r.pny owned power synams. De plast. me appeal pensi :sstme: ara :! cess. per:'.ous sancal ~=w =- In ~=== a.a a rume

2nanimons ".bdt:g also could sewnfy hand- int board to reopen de rec =rd and dereef. with me ICC. de Anctmut Dty:siott ac. , W est.yf.-' icas de campany is dd=' vert agatast an- tar to fashim spec 5c aatt :st r=mmihn k:owledged that bas fadersato has deci|:ed.: Oc:cated m :::st sat:3. But thoust ce appeal kard Cdstt issue hat it also enat=aded be IC*12 cts adattuats - e| Casamers Power recurved pernusson ta spec 1Sc insc :cf.cas. Mr. Ross said "one g 1 hrmaaott akat be indusc7 and its reve- *. Septa =cer a e=cc:ue worz as ibe party the cond1::as.al:nost certainty weu!d be m m seeds m deter =me weather heter mes E| 58 :s 'mu 5:baz W. sistad h coc:pleeon 2 IE"

setl part of tie p.act." are jn. N M@C.., -2 ac" * ==*r '' c'h. . Is ssh:ctung satt: sit -= nsf'a 2e ap. Me divts:ca als: c:2=usi ICC aspreval EUbl

, ,

:

h,C**pea n n e wr m m ward ee cime m a c .

.

of faut ra:a. ar=g a =e be : mas =y-page eputica. tte ;!ce==ng board shocMa't throuet me Nameca13t:s Trag".c A="~

., c,. ,,re wastaar c:nnme"Ja st. add w ha2sd. sees to 'h d ce elec=:e uttry |a. because. It said. rew=sas of Grvysotmd'

.'.,,a m W 2e %A:t taa sound m y S.dus.try. But it added . Corp.'s Grvytound uses Inc. and Cacemen--'" M 1218 8A 3 U' Cf 3 , ~ 9, gg,,, m,g3,77p,,,,.!ta=se coing1 ul ':1a:lways I:c., a Rol! day has Inc. cut. /c..

. , p^.

Ser.das garacng.dec=:c=7 tz de unh ten-be it a @ ant he whee (2g, asor, acconst he more than 3D% d t:sinstry reve- Ec?.':.

'*d:nacca. ae::ssa. esale of as tn. =ces. De raza barem synam. Se dvtsonay's c=smI:ers. ce pas also is W 2 ,,,,g g3 .una. power.nsf-s , mesnly !are.

.

said. 2 Hows 5:anciady sausf bus compan:es b .j, .s

;mc:ce larp man *** d procent saam,M =M Cs. has czuracs a ;urttase- closed _t2 d rei:af." to be lu:Irped witi less ef!t est cacerns, hMq bg.c-

- .-

7-2e steam for use at 13 g: ant c==:; mas maar Tft s cm de use of me =tuity's wt:ch may df.stort be acmal amnne'a.eco- ' 'g.,, 3 , m,t dat='c=7 .' ect made ' ditos M 2e ha istuscy..

appes! ' oard's most rect =t opu:ta sur:es mananer Powr's ~ . . . .b te CanncQ at Wage ami'Pitdr StabCthy '' , , t. ors g de viciacces :mi "'*$ 7g.4% D,hd,

g * ;;. *ir ; g ,, 7, ; ;; ,,; L#e*!T*:nes%t*"".s"M '' *p'=.t-1 = ee2r me

p*: 21. rest. **s == ALL Wo!2 "

.,, , 32"f *,,,. 3,,,,, ,, ,,,, ,. ,e u w e d o m d. C: ,3 m g e y re.- :=$ m m = m.est ;cer ;1a=s. Chgnss ac mi to acc!", '

!nsed to ":cor2nate" the W M pcwer Mc e recent!y. $ cuss. as a ev=e"$' soM u~a: aan ==.st sstramzabecauselawmakars with certata smad rcanas est an ".and. c nfrmed. Casc.:nes acpears wC!st to ~he Ce n 'ru

~

saca as tz=arden. Gern Alkan % M lockad" wt2:a e-a=m= s' serf *.::= area. sec. W beca=se d Snancar problems M*e::s:s M'"-"'!ssrud maz :Jcisar Wmost dat "Dese acccas by e'a='-'ws have effee- 2 c:mpleCag de place. Ac:: orang 15 me sp. De Ces=1Se::setaz;sers*--cocM hasar umcpdy . vely preventad *e smag systanss- Cat. peal board. Cass=nrs is :xsw "ac::veiy me.'quetCcer;= me.

8'""d2e"ce=1 Q 2dusu7sumers costpeders b many.5 mar ==- get afhg** 2e possible safe W1"||% ester-3,.,, ,',.3,, , ,3, ,,,, ,,,,,,,11 s,eces,

sc s:":etih!*:*e" : :sarp tatarest to de too esspernew in d=:r anc c==ecr ;a3- e=se =culd ea md ,.mg me.=:m ens. .a s.e M:=nat= mat un bee. e eng me wg om= = tm ..efst:ed by-.y be ocar asse load power." Mr. Salzman's |mgby optmas en!!!y hirJean_ ' ,- cuamagpaneis, se ~-.;e- - * * *

- -

, set %~:s = H.-a bye.peal. board member Richard S. Salzmaa coachdod.. '.-*

. a ~ . *,

7t L n ""'~'~# h - -* 2-. .. .- -wrote as tach-duck act:nca re=lem wett: 07 "De resultis to g!= N=m= s a c um N,.4T T'dh dryd c::::ccitec . A:r.a :D*

t'aewwa= Wmiam Warted Rms. 2e 'and pect:ye edge aver ce sman c: "es:nn.sa CEARU"ll'I. N.CfAP) - take P5wer bud 12t :::aT. asw=lawyer nr Casamers ??our. 'sh=M 2e edge at=.butable to its ear =se of =sangolyCs. has receitui a castrue::ce cer=st tr:str. n aa; w a M es?.ccert d:::7t:1ce."very ct:reme" and safd be ts coo- power. rather ttan da **=w opera:cas. . e t .,: .37

sider"g aH poachie ways tu reverse |2. "Now Nemars vtshme :n intestse itsSe Nuefmar Reg :!a=ry es' - 2:r !:t SI: :::: ::: : ?

.

; reposed =.5 ts!at ^m suctear gta- a c;;a:,;::.av).dDe Cassumers P:ver scar:ey accidgat efncency .4 **ersm y large ::ncient-tred geners ng ut:3. h*ery ** pow = den, a statesman $:e *e : c:7 inad.

)q asma , ts?* ca es caness d me--a but - W,m_.c. ,wt3 On 2:st per=:r was isssed F:1da7:: pea: cart other caservers toot wescar me ret, exacercate. 2e ance w--==-~ve sn=acca approval by me NPCs A::32nc Safety andt

;;a:;:eesand tea:::.;

21amry :m nmuv = or ce fateral catr:s . . . :::e tremmednas :ns:s d defecomtite 14 cans =g Board, ac=srm::g to a 32ae.

c s :::,ne ::a::::.gwtf1 avert::r: 2e asonal hard: F,num==es tacinology r.t % ::ne:aar 1anza was Power spokesmas.

. p.a!.Ocrac= Seac-:.::q;s:ct Se Ca -

Power already das sosat 2 :: d$m er more borse by me *:easury . . . am;i Cmgress-

ne tree-mit 'ac2:7 wG be %:2 a 2e.

a titigste tte ite=ref casa vtuct begs:in thin t 1::and tar piume cc:montre to best- Boar:t River to les ssr**e * Ca=:ey A :, ca!:a:sc:se1777 ' , eftt only be faw . . . hat =tians we s:rp is 2 2e westers ;, art d ce stata. Sa | a::. Tera::::::;-

Aa ME". Rose sees ;t. 2e appeal Mard dat'ls ;rs=sety vtat wG haWR 2 this Unie FTeetved a ".=n:51 WTI s2dsr:=1-- - ._,,a*~=----

strayed :ar beyond Congreurs teant. I:s m.sa.".:n ga;,,3, 2.*eE r.M::344=:con from 2e board :n May :rit and !.t=i-latmaa is a m -=er decent." h said. ;x tantesny| 2e speant toant musscans ttad.nte wort has been =ider way nace.

. .

, y.,q,..smsnmers Power and ts :sany cese 2::n. maa e-= ::mst sea ;nrt of :ne Mid. 2nt. accial conse :cena d me plant has been s::.es, a 7as Ear disc are. battdtag e ;sannmg s=r :and ; tans =sy no longer M espea27 mar - 2:2 nMmvacmrs. . . ' . 'oas for ce tsg su: ry. delayed pending San! MEC sopreval d.2s ,- *. . . .. .. conscrec=ca per=st. . . , , , ,"ner opodes :nsulaims 'ac:mm by aar v . ' ' . , -. :r 2e ;ower .swt ucaus=g werd. wench ne erst at be cree 1.:si.coH:Jovast

a:::!!ry tt de U.S as man = Tsat its s: n. :o deci! sed to imm== ar.turze rest:=cas a :n:ts '.s e=N=t :o beg =t ocuracom 2 2e

"i

23 M of y.cimr. PoWW.", Mr. Joe use of 2e plaar. c'.u=".w.T des argued 2at IIld lMIS. vtt1 GifttpleCCsLd me ot21st 190 _,,,,g g sD _. .m - . . .-- --.

.

.. . - . _- - - . . - . .

..*

,

'..

..

*|CEP.TIFICATE OF SERVICE *t

I

I hereby certify that I have this day caused to be served

the foregoing RESPONSE OF MUNIS/CO-OPS TO COMMENTS OF CONSUMERS POWER

COMPANY, by deposit in the United States mail, upon the following persons:

Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire James B. Falahee, EsquireChairman, Atomic Safety and General Counsel.Licensing Appeal Board Consumers Power Company

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 212 West Michigan AvenueWashington, D.C. 20555 Jackson, Michigan 49201

Michael C. Farrar, Esquire William Warfield Ross, EsquireAtomic Safety and Licensing Wald, Harkrader & Ross*Appeal Board 1320 - 19th Street, N.W. .,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 .Washington, D.C. 20555

Keith Watson, EsquireRichard S. Salrman, Esquire Wald, Harkrader & RossAtomic Safety sad Licensing 1320 - 19th Street, N.W.Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20036

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555 Seth R. Burwell, Esquire

Burwell & ShrankHugh K. Clark, Esquire 1020 Washington Square BuildingChairman, Atomic Safety Lansing, Michigan 48933and Licensing Board

Nuclear Regulatory Commission %norable Frank KellyWashington, D.C. 20555 Attorney General

State of MichiganRobert Verdisco, Esquire Lansing, Michigan 48913Antitrust Counsel for Nuclear -Regulatory Cotatission Staff Dr. J. V. Leeds , Jr.

'

Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 941Washington, D.C. 20545 Houston, Texas 77001

Frank W. Karas, ChiefPublic Proceedings BranchOffice of the SecretaryNuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20545

Mark Levin, Esquire.

Forrest Bannon, EsquireAntitrusc DivisionDepartment of JusticeP.O. Box 7513Washington, D.C. 20044

Dated at Washington, D.C. , this 3rd day of February,1978.|'

?-.,,

Robert A. Jablon

_,__ _ . . . . _ . _ . _ _

,