ML20049H227

Partially Withheld Commission Paper Informing Commission of Directors Denial of 2.206 Petition

ML20049H227
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/25/1981
From:	Malsch NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20049A602	List: ML20049A600 ML20049A603 ML20049H177 ML20049H227 ML20055C173 ML20057B324 ML20057B598 ML20057B608 ML20057B628 ML20057B639 ML20057B686
References
FOIA-92-436, TASK-AII, TASK-SE 2.206, SECY-81-665, NUDOCS 8201110350
Download: ML20049H227 (11)

Text

_.

O

\\

AY-b,, 0 g

~

Q o s G...%,,;

(.

f j

j SECY 81-665 November 25, 1981

.1 i

1 i

,s.y..i ADJUDICATORY ISSUE (Information)

For:

The Commissioners From:

Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel

Subject:

REVIEW OF DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF 2.206 PETITION 1

Facility:

Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2

Purpose:

To inform the Commission of a Denial of a Petition filed with the Director, Officejf NRR, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 r F. f' which /_i our opinion, Review Time Expires:

December 9, 1981.

Discussion:

On September 8, 1981, Thomas M. Datillo, counsel for Save the Valley (petitioner), submitted a petition to the Commissioners and to the Director, i'

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, (the Director), requesting the institution-of appropriate enforcement j

proceedings with respect to the holders of the construction permits for the I

i CONTACT:

Juan L. Rodriguez, OGC l

634-1465 i

j3 gcr2 dance Withi iC1

" ' " ~ '

Act, fJeDPliM --

~~~

N.,

F01A._MdM -

c x

U' 0

( i?[D

d 2

Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, (the facility), Public Service Company of Indiana (PSI), and Wabash Valley Power Association (WVPA).

WVPA, an association of 24 rural electric cooperatives, has a 17% ownership interest in the facility which it finances through a long-term debt guaranteed by the Rural Electrification Administration (REA).

WVPA was found to be financially qualified to finance its i

17% share of the project on the basis that the REA loan guarantee satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 50.33 (f). 1/

WVPA requested additional REA financing assistance in the form of a loan guarantee for a defficiency loan to cover the increased cost of its 17%

)

cwnership share of the facility.

The increase in cost is due to an increase in the estimated cost of the facility resulting from the extension of the construction schedule and to design and safety changes associated to the Three Mile Island accident.

On September 4, 1981, REA announced the approval of a

$673,000,000 loan guarantee commitment to WVPA.

This commitment enables WVPA to borrow from lending agencies with a S100% guarantee, funds to finance, inter alia, increased costs associated with its 17% ownership share.

In its petition, petitioner requests the initiation of proceedings to modify, suspend or revoke the facility's construction permit based on the contention that WVPA's request for financing assistance, based on a higher estimate of costs, coupled with its approval by RF?.s constitutes an unlawful amendment of the construction permit.

According to petitioner, this amendment was made without affording the notice and opportunity to be heard 1/

Public Service Co. of Indiana, et al. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-77-67, 6 NRC 1101, 1115-16 (1977), LBP-78-12, 7 NRC 573, 576-77 (1978), aff'd, ALAB-493, 8 NRC 253 (1978).

3 required by Sholly v.

U.S.N.R.C.,

ET AL., No. 80-1691 (D.C. Cir. Nov.-19, 1980).

In addition, petitioner contends that WVPA violated NRC regulations by failing to notify "the parties of record in the proceedings on the Marble Hill construction permit" of its request for additional financial assistance.

On October 13, 1981, the Director denied I

the instant 2.206 petition on the grounds that neither WVPA's nor REA's actions constitute an " amendment"oof the Marble Hill construction permit and that WVPA did not have an obligation under current commission regulations to give notice to the parties of record in the construction permit proceedings of its request for additional financing assistance.

In dismissing the petition, the Director made the following determinations:

1)

That WVPA sought additional loan guarantees "to-maintain its 17%

undivided ownership interest in the plant."

2)

Except in instances involving a transfer of an existing ownership interest in a-license or the exercise of certain creditor's rights, the Commission's authorization need not be obtained in connection with financing arrangements a licensee may make with financing institutions.

3)

REA's extension of further financing assistance does not raise in itself any inference that the REA has interfered with the health

,j and safety responsibilities of either WVPA or PSI.

4)

Since the petition does not allege that WVPA is currently financially unqualified but, conversely, indicates that WVPA has been able to obtain financial assistance to maintain its participation in the facility it is inappropriate to

4 engage in_further inquiry of WVPA's current financial qualifications.

5)

Even though the Appeal Boards have required parties to inform the presiding board and other parties of new information which is relevant and material to the 2/ this matters being adjudicated, le to requirement is not applicab the instant case where there is no pending proceeding with respect to the financial qualifications of-either WVPA or PSI.

h

' sf (42 1o f'

e J

R.E Recommendation:

i i

Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel Attachments: _ ((]

fy

1. Request Letter

2. Director's Letter of Denial

3. Director's Decision 1

DISTRIBUTION Comwis.sioners Comission Staff Offices l

2/

Duke Power Co. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and

?

2), ALAB-143, 6 AEC 623, 625 (1973).

~

i

%Jue

,II)y$f<

TG A 0

%I*b6

^^.,,

't

a.,,Q 7.

g?#.,fe o

a

.'.9 P i I'E f

",s

• Te !

O2 d k/

-iD

,.# /C -.9 BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!G'ISSION3) ((~52.,,*.,.'f./

e

.u.

n,,,.,, "

WASHINGTON. D. C.

s,

/tei-TO THE IGC C01D4ISSIONERS:

NUNZIO J. PAL' ADINO, CHAIPJGN JOSEPH M. HENDRIE PETER A. BRADFORD VICTOR GILINSKY JOHN T. AHERNE AND TO THE DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGU' ATION RE:

'dVPA 30P. ROWERS INVIRO!GiINTAL REPORT AND P.EA FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DATED JUIE 8,,

i PETITION TO MODIFY, SUSPEND OR REVOKE CONSTRUCTION PEPJ4IT DATED APRIL 4, 1978 the Rural Electrification Administration (PJ.A:

On June 8,

1981, acted to allow Wabash Valley Power Association (VVFA) to continue ~1 t

l in the proposed Marble Hill 17% undivided ownership interest Generating Station and/or to purchase the propcsed Marble Hill Indiana fro::: the l

generating station transmission line to Columbus, 1

plant.

In doing so, the REA found that such action did not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting,the quali no new or l

of the human environment, specifically finding that

(

supplemental IIS was necessary to be prepared.

i r

t i

S l-i

WVPA is a co-applicant for the construe:1on permit at Harble Hill.

WVPA participated in the proceedings from January 8, 1975, 50-or before said date, before the NRC under Docket Nos. STN d46 and STN 50-547.

VVPA continues to remain a participant in these proceedings.

On October 22, 1976, the NRC found that VVPA was to own 17% of the Marble Hill project.

In May, 1977, WVPA applied to the REA for a 360 million dollar loan guarantee to finance its 17%

ownership in said proposed plant.

On January 9, 1978, the federal register contained the final EIS on WVPA particip.ation in said projec On April 4,

1978, the NRC granted a full construction permic for the project.

On April 14, 1978, the REA made its loan guarantee for S360,684,000.00 for the purchase by WVPA of 17% of said plant.

That as part and parcel of said construction permit for Ma.*ble Hill, the financial qualifications of WV?I to construct Marble Hill were determined to be adequate, particularly that WVPA had available federal loan guarantees to acquire $360,000,000.00.

Now, WVPA a participant before the NEC Proceedings on Marble Hill under Docket Mos. STN 50-546 and STN 50-547, fails to notify by proper notice the parties of record in said proceedings that they have requested an additional loan' guarantee of $475.1 million as a' deficiency loan to naintain its 17% undivided ownership in said plan:

2.

r STV contends that the construction permit awarded to co-applicar..

'.~VPA has been substantially amended, and for that reason STV respectfully requests a modification, suspension and/or revocation of said pemit and license, and or an opportunity to be heard to protect said improper ac tions, and for all other and proper relief' in the premises.

SAVE THE VALLEY

~~L llv n cn > M J A

sY:

THOMAS V..

EATTILO, ATTORNEY FOR STV MEMORANDUM Pesuant to NRC v.

Sho11y, Mc. 80-1640; Metropolitan Edison Co.

v.

Pecole Against Nuclear Energy, Nc. '80-1656; the U.

S. Court i

s of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court ruled November 19, 1980, that a refusal to provide a hearing to interested parties (within an NRC proceeding in that c as e, Three Mile Island), on a l

license amendment violated Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

'In that c as e, the NRC had found the release of vented gas l

at TMI into the atmosphere "would not constitute a significant environmental impac t".

The Court of Appeals struck down the NRC action in Sholly; the j

?J.A herein has stated their action did not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

i 3.

l a

-u U

m T'

i-"

l i

e l

The REA in.. making this determination has attempted to address the probable costs of said continuance of federal guarantees, which arer and need for power are significantly within the realm and of cost sphere of the NRC proceeding docketed under 50-546 and 50-547.

authority to continuing WPA is a co-applicant with a present

+

WPA by request.

construction of the proposed Marble Hill f acility.

its presently understood 17% financing on the basis o REA to change amended its license to l

$1.9 Billion to $3.4 Billion has in ef fect l

l continue the construction and presumed operation of Marble Hill giving notice through this NRC 50-546 and 50-547 proceeding without The REA has acted as WPA's surrogate to all interested parties.

in granting same; the NRC has s a: idly by and allowed this to occur A rescission of any action of the REA amending any WPA federa Billion has "significantly supplanted loan guarantee to 17% of $3.4 fict the consideration of the NRC in determining the financial quali the financial qualifici of the co-applicant, WPA, and, in essence, of the co-applicant, PSI.

RESPECTFULLY SU3MITTED, SAVE THE VALLEY

~

s 3Y:

/ M..

/M /

M THOMAS M.

DATTILO, ATTORNEY FOR SAVE THE VALLEY it must be noted that PSI has fil<

Footnote:

As an addendum, for app:

before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a request its wholesale power rates by S29 Million; WPA would to increase 4.

I 1

t l

i significantly affected by this increase, potentially allowing an average increase of approximately 29%.

The FIA has determined to continue '.the federal loan guarantee for WPA's 17% involvement of $3.4 Billion alleged cost of Marble I

Hil.

The PIA has, in the least, acted prematurely in making its June 8, 1961 determination in favor of WVPA; the REA has acted j

arbitrarily and without authority 3 omitting proceedings before the NRC and the interested parties it. Jocket Nos. STN 50-546 and i

STN 50-547.-

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l

r I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Petition has been mailed to the following persons by regular. U.S. mail, except where noted, postage prepaid, this 6th day of September,1981:

V I:unzio J. Palladino, Chairman, NRO, Washington, D. C.

20555 Peter A. Bradford, NRC, Washington, D. C. 20555, CERTIFIED MAIL J

i Joseph M. Hendrie, NRC, Vashington, D. C.

20555 Victor Gilinsky, NRC, Washington, D. C. 20555 j

t John F. Aherne, NRC, Washington, D. C. 20555 l

James Keppler, NRC, Roosevelt Rd., Glen Ellyn, Illinois l

t J ames Pope, Public Service Indiana, 1000 E. Main St.,

Plainfield, IK.

46168 l

Harold Denton, Director, Nuclear P.eactor Regulation, NP.C, Washington. ;

20555 NRC Docketing Section, Washington, D. C. 20555 l

~_

f M 'I

\\

s TH0!'AS M.

DATTILO 5.

s b

i

a,

.n A

44

,A.

4,w t

-4 4

.Ls n

s 4

- ~

wa

+

a 5

f

.,b

, e.

I i

4 k

S h

e i

3

?

5

-,t t

)

6 t

P

-/s'

( s' M-V

,d h

+

P E

ATTACHMENT 2

?

t t

r

. 6 b

I r

9 I

1

)

P P

. t i

e 5

1 l

i

- t I

e b

t

=

2 4

P I

)

6 5

f i

b r

e

,~.,

0

• f **%q

[-

k UNITED STATES

.i A

i

'vdCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

00-8l-13 g,[7 j p wAssincron, o. c. ross:

% CT,/

OCT 131331 G

s DC C

7.

s 9

l 2

{

ggt,,

Docket Nos.:

STN 50-546 9

and STN 50-547

/

V Thomas M. Dattilo, Esq.

311 East Main Street c)

Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Dattilo:

j This letter concerns your petition dated September 8,1981, on behalf of Save the Valley in which you requested that the Commission institute i

proceedings against the Wabash Valley Power Association on the basis of l

the U. 5. Rural Electrification Administration's recent extension of l

financing assistance to the Association.

Your-petition has been considered l

under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. For the reasons stated in the enclosed " Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206," your petition has been denied.

A copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c). Copies will also be filed in the Commission's public document room in Washington, D. C., and in the local-public document room s Madison, Indiana.

As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c),

this decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days i

after issuance, unless the Commission acts to review the decision within that time.

Sincerely, j

gu$$

.~-

Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

Enclosure:

i Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 cc w/ incoming:

See next page l

~

N i

f-J

'Mr.'5. W. Shields DCT 131981 i

Senior Vice President-Nuclear Division-Public Service Company of Indiana P. O. Box 190 New Washington, Indiana 47162 cc: Charles W. Campbell, Esq.

- U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice President and General Counsel-Resident Inspectors Office Public Service of Indiana 3738 Marble Hill. Road 1000 E. Main Street Nabb, Indiana 47147 Plainfield, Indiana 46168 Mr. William Kortier General Manager Water Reactor Divisions Wabash Valley Power Association Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 24700 P. O. Box 355 Indianapolis, Indiana 46224 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Administrator, U. S. Rural Mr. P. L. Wattelet Electrification Administration Sargent & Lundy Engineers Washington, D. C.

20250 l

55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 Harry H. Voigt, Esq.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae

~

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

20036 Thomas M. Dattilo, Esq.

311 East Main Street i

Madison, Indiana 47250 Joseph B. Helm Esq.

Brown, Todd & Heyburn Sixteenth Floor Citi: ens Plaza Louisville, Kentucky 40202 David K. Martin, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General i

Room 34, State Capitol 3

1 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Mrs. David G. Frey Sassafras Audubon Society 2625 5. Smith Road Bloomington, Indiana 47401 l

l i

e i

6 i

l t

t f

I t

aff

\\

I ATTACHMENT 3 i

t L

t r

i I

5 i

T t

f i

r i

I

1 l

l 1

.i i

DD 13

~

9 k

UNITED STATES 0F AMERICA pf

'N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O

. py, g

0FFICE OF N0 CLEAR REACTOR REGULATION h

07thg Q@g P

g Harold R. Denton, Director g

a-O L

In the Matter of

)

J y

L WABASH YALLEY POWER ASSOCIATION and )

Docket Nos. 50-546 l

PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF-INDIANA

)

.50-547 (Marble Hill Nuclear Ger.erating

)

(10 C.F.R. 2.205)

Station, Units 1 & 2)

)

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.206 On September 8,1981, Thomas M. Datillo, counsel for Save the Valley, submitted a petition to the Commissioners and 'the Director of NRR which requested institution of a proceeding with respect to the construction pemits for the Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station.

Save the Valley alleges that the Rural Electrification Administration's recent extension of financing assistance to the Wabash Valley Power Association (WVPA) constituted an illegal acendment of the Marble Hill construction pemits.

Save the Valley's petition has been referred to the Director of NRR for consideration under 10 C.F.R. 2.206.

The WVPA, an association o,f 24 rural electric cooperatives, has.a 17t ownership interest in the Marble Hill project.

Both the WVPA and the lead applicant, Public Service Company of Indiana, were found financially qualified under 10 C.F.R. 50.33(f) before the construction

~' ' '-

.n_

permits for the l'arble Hill project were issued.1/ The WPA's financing of its ownership interest is based on long-term debt guaranteed by the Rural Electrification Administration (REA). 2/

On June 8,1981, the REA published a notice in the Federal Register (46 Fed. Reg. 31451) that it had prepared a " Finding of No Significant Impact" in connection with proposed financing assistance to WPA to continue its participation in the Farble Hill project and to purchase a j

j

' certain transmission line.

The notice states that the finding was made f

in accordance with the REA's procedures.

l In,its petition, Save the Valley complains that the WPA failed to notify "the parties of record" in the proceedings on the Marble Hill Save the permits that the WPA had requested additional loan guarantees.

Valley contends that the WPA's request, coupled with its approval by the REA, constitutes an unlawful amendment of the constr$ction permits.

This

" amendment" Save the Valley argues, was made without notice and 80-1656 opportunity to be heard in contravention of Sholly v. NRC, No.

(D.C. Cir. Nov. 19,1950).

On this basis, Save the Valley would have the Commission institute a proceeding to inquire into the WPA's actions and, presumably, to take some sort of enforcement action against the WPA.

Public Service Co. of Indiana et al. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating 1/

5tation, Units 1 & 2), LSP-7 7-67, 6 NRC 1101,1115-16 (1977),

~

LBP-78-12, 7 NRC 573, 576-77 (1978), aff'd, ALAB-493, 8 NRC 253 (1978).

2/

See LSP-77-67, suora, 6 NRC at 1115.

O I

t e

e The petitioner's Save the Valley's petition is wholly without merit.

~

arguments reflect a misunderstanding of the jurisdictional resp'o'n'si ties of the Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission and the regulatory require'-

In the first instance, t'his -

ments governing the Marble Hill permits.

Commission does not sit as a body to review decisions of the REA on natters within the REA's jurisdiction.

If Save the Valley believes that the REA acted improperly in extending financing assistance to 'th'e WVPA

~

r and in finding that such action would have no significant impact, then Save the Valley should pursue whatever remedies are available before the i

While the decisions of sister agencies may REA or in the federal courts.

be relevant to the administration of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulatory program, I will not institute proceedings to determine whethe other agencies have carried out their own unique responsibilities. 3/

Heither the WVPA's nor the REA's actions constitute an " am No condition of the permits or of the Marble Hill construction permits.

of the Commission's regulations require the WVPA to seek the NRC's permission before the RVPA obtains additional financing assistance to l

4 i

Cf. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 2), CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1,,23-24 (1978) (NRC bound to accept EPA's p 3/

i scription of cooling system); Florida Power & Licht Co._ (St Plant, Unit 2), DD-SI-15,13 NRC 1981) (Director will defer to FERC's interpretation of its regulation It is worth noting that section 271 of the and governing statute).

Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2018, provides "Nothing in this Act be construed to affect the authority of any Federal State, or loca 4

agency with respect to the generation, sale, the Commission."

1

~~ ~'

~~

\\

4-support its existing share of the Marble Hill project. 4_/. Except in instances involving a transfer of ownership of an existing interest in a license or the exercise of certain creditors' rights, the Commission's authorization need not be obtained in connection with financing arrange:nents a licensee may make with private or governmental financing institutions. 5_/ Under the Comission's current regime, an applicant for a construction per. nit or operating license must demonstrate in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 50.33(f) and Part 50, Appendix C, that it has 'a

. reasonable financing plan in the light of relevant circumstances".,6/ As noted earlier in this decision, the Licensing Board found both Public Service Company of Indiana and the WPA financially qualified before the Marble Hill construction permits were issued. 7/

4/

Save the Valley indicates that the WPA sought additional loan guaran-tees "to maintain its 17% undivided ownership in the plant".

Petition at 2.

Of course,17% is the WPA's existing share in the project.

Se,e_

LBP-77-67, suora, 6 NRC at 1115.

Thus, the petition does not allege that there has been a transfer of ownership which would require the Commission's approval.

See Atomic Energy Act i 184, 42 U.S.C. ' 2234; 10 C.F.R. 50.S0.

5/

See Atomic Energy Act i 184, 42 U.S.C. 2234; 10 C.F.R. 50.80 and ID 81.

6/

Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire, supra, 7 NRC at 18, aff'd sub nom. New Enolanc Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87

~

(1st Ctr. 1978).

It snould be noted that the Commission is consider-46 Fed.

ing changes to its financial qualifications requirements.

Reg. 41786 ( Aug.18,19'81).

7/

See note i suora.

~

p

- 5,-

Although the Commission may require a licensee. to demonstrate that it

.rema, ins financially qualified after a license has been issued, the

, issuance of a license. amendment is not required each time an electric utility licensee seeks a new loan, issu ' new securities,;or requests a rate increase.

The financing of any undertaking is obviously a dynamic process.

The licensee is generally free to adjust.its financial. plan to new economic conditions, a point that was discussed in an earlier decision under 10 C.F.R. 2.206:

Even after. consideration of the fundamental under-lying assumptions to a financial plan--a viable capital market, and for regulated utilities, the continuation of a rational regulatory environment--

one can only. view a financial plan to be one possible way by which a company's projected capital require-ments, including those resulting from the construction of a facility, might reasonably be obtained.

The inherent dynamics of both a company's individual finances and the state of the economy as a whole (and particularly its effect upon the elec-tric utility industry) lead ont to reasonably expect that a company's financial plan,. will change over i

time to accommodate required adjustments. These changes include revisions to the sources of funds,

)

type of security issues (both publicly issued and privately pla'ced), and the timing and amounts of its financing.

This is where " relevant circumstances" (as discussed by the Commission in Seabrook) come into play, in that they allow the company to depart frcm the proposed financial plan when reasonable, to confonn to changing conditions. 8/

i This description fits the case at hand. From the facts alleged by Save the Valley, it appears that the WVPA is taking steps to assure the financial i

l

~

2

-S/

Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2),

00-79-20,10 HRC 703, 706 (1979).

P

~

. viability of its participation in the P.arble Hill project.

Such adjust-ments may be expected as a licensee assesses new economic conditions. Save the Valley does not allege that the VVPA is transfering a portion of its 17% interest in the Marble Hill project.

The WVPA's request for additional REA guarantees and the REA's actions did not require the Commission's approval and did not otherwise constitute an unlawful amendment to the construction permits. 9/

The Marble Hill construction pennits contain a provision requiring i

the permittees to make a report under certain circumstances:

G.

The applicants are financially qualified to design and construct the proposed facility. How-ever, the applicants are required to inform the Com.'ission if the U.S. Rural Electrification Administration ever attempts to take any action, under color of authority of the loan contract.

w'hich the applicants deem to be at variance with Public Service Company of Indiana's technfcal judgment or any Commission regulations or requirements.

The Licensing Board included this condition in the construction permits "out of an abundance of caution" at the suggestion of the staff. JO/ The condition was intended as a stop-gap measure in the unlikely event that the REA ever t'ook any action which interfered with the Public Service f

Save the Valley's citation to the Sho11y decision is inapposite.

9/

Even if Sho11y is upheld by the Supreme Court, Shelly only requires an opportunity to be heard where there has been an amendment to a As discussed in the text of this decision, no " amendment" license.

to the Marble Hill permits has occurred.

If Save the Valley is com-plaining the REA improperly found that its actions had no significant i

environmental impact, then Save the Valley's complaint lies against

)

the REA, not the NRC.

JO/ LBP-78-12, suora, 7 NRC at 577.

f

I f

Company of Indiana's safety responsibility 'and technical judgf The REA's extension of further' f'inancing assistance to the W

~

h tSe health raise in itself any inference that the REA has interfered wit f

~

h a5d safety responsibilities of either permittee. 'As discusse1 in t l

l t

previous paragraph, the WVPA's request and the REA's app

~

y actions requiring a lic'erise amendment and are' not in themselv Save the Valley makes no allegation that the to Commissio'n requirements.

Service REA has attempted to interfere by its a'ctions with the Public If 'the REA were to attempt such Co#.pany of Indiana's technical iudgmerit.

l l interference. I would fully espect that the permittees, particu ar y ible Public Service Company of Indiana as the permittee primarily re i

tions to the Cormnission, to the Commission, would have reported the REA's ac t

f REA Because Save the Valley has not alleged any such interfere 1

[

ably and because I am not aware of any information which would reaso l

i into the indicate such interference, I do not ficd that further inqu ry f

H/

REA's extension of financial assistance to the WI

' sheer As the staff noted in proposing the condition, it would be i

speculation" to suggest that the REA would take such act d

11/

Letter frcrn L. Brenner, Counsel for NRC Staff, to "struc-between the WVPA and Public Service Company of Indiana (March 1, 1978).

ity and responsi-h tured.in a manner that gives PSI transcedent i " See

~~

LBP-77-67, suora, 6 NRC at 1117.

Station, See Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating

)

ff'd suo nom Porter Nuclear-1), CL1-78-7, 7 NRC 429, 432-3i (1978, aNP.C. 606 f.2d 13 12/

County Chao. of the Iraak Walton teacue. Inc. V.

(D.C. Cir.1979).

i I

8-Save the Valley is under the misimpression that the Commission's rules required the WPA to give Save the Valley, as a party to the NRC's construction pemit proceeding, notice of the request filed with the REA.

i The Appeal Board has required parties to " inform the presiding board and other parties of new information which is relevant and material to the matters being adjudicated in a proceeding.13,/ This requirement applier The only to cendino proceedings irr which no final action has been taken.

' requirement is intended to assure that information relevant to matters As under adjudication can be factored into the Board's decisionmaking.

Save the Valley and its counsel should be awa.a. there is no pending proceeding with respect to the financial qualifications of the Marble e

Hill pemittees.,1_4/

An operating license proceeding has not been 4

instituted for the Marble Hill station.

Consequently, the WYPA had no duty to inform Save the Valley of the WPA's request to the REA.

Save the Valley's petition does not indicate, much less allege, that the WPA is financially unqualified to participate in the Marble Hill proj-To the contrary, Save the Valley indicates that the WPA has been ect.

Duke Power Co. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-143, 6 13/

AEC 623, 625 (1973).

See Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating 14/

Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAS-530, 9 NRC 261 (1979) in which the Appeal Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Save the Valley's motion to reopen the safety hearings after the Appeal Board's final At decision affirming the issuance of the construction pemits.

that time only the radon issue remained open in the Marble Hill construction permit proceeding.

b

. ~.

-9 This case able to obtain financing for its participation in the project.

does not represent, therefore, an instance like Seabrook in which it would be appropriate, in response to a petition under 10 C.F.R. 2.206, i

i to engage in a further inquiry into the permittees' current financial qualifications. J5/, The petitioner has not raised facts that would reasonably suggest further inquiry is warranted. J6/

A For the foregoing reasons; Save the Valley's petition is denied.

copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's l

review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c). As provided in 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c), this decision will become the final action in this matter 25 days

+

after issuance unless the Commission institutes review of the decision l

on its own motion within that time.

+

4 Y

44 w

I Harola R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

Dated at Sethesda, Maryland t

this / 313:ay of October; 1981-i i

i e

15/ See 00-79-20,10 NRC 703 (1979).

NRC at 432-34.

J6/

See Northern Indiana Public Service Co., supra, i

t

-