ML19289F343
| ML19289F343 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1979 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906070255 | |
| Download: ML19289F343 (5) | |
Text
-
NRC PUBLIC DOCU'EAI ROU'd UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c'
R COMMISSIONERS:
Joseph fi. Hendrie, Chairman I
2
[ 3g/
Victor Gilinsky
/
Richard T. Kennedy 9-7 Peter A. Bradford John F. Ahearne W
s '%
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-400
)
50-401 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
50-402 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4)
)
50-403
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Intervenors, Conservation Council of North Carolina and Wake Environ-ment, Inc., have filed with us a motion for a remand and reopened hear-ings on the issue whether the Shearon Harris facility is needed.
This motion is based solely on a prediction of a downward turn in the growth rate for electricity in North Carolina as reported by the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) in a report entitled Future Electricity Needs for North Carolina: Local Forecast and Lapacity Plan - 1978.E E
The NCUC Report, filed in accordance with North Carolina law, is based on an independent report of its Publ'.c Staff.
That Public Staff report was incorporated into the record before the Licensing Board and given " great weight" by the Appeal Board.
Matter of Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4), LBP-78-2, 7 NRC 83, 86-87 (Order Correcting Record), LBP-78-4, 7 NRC 92,137-138 (Initial Decision), aff'd ALAB-490, 8 NRC 234, 240-241 (1978).
The Licensing Board declined intervenors' request to relitigate the need-for-power issue based on the NCUC Public Staff Report.
LBP-78-2, suora.
2233 187 7906070 % [ g
i 2
We have reviewed the filings of the intervenors, the applicant, and the staff and the NCUC Report and the applicable NRC practice. We deny the motion.S/
The NCUC Report found a probable growth rate of demand for elec-tricity of 5.2%, down from the 6.7% predicted by its staff. This con-clusion was drawn from the Public Staff Report, and was based on pre-sumptions about the effcctiveness of energy conservation measures and utilities' lead management programs. These programs are encouraged as part of the public policy of North Carolina.
The potential impact of the NCUC Report is that the applicant may be directed to defer its schedule for facilities about one year. The NCUC, however, ordered hearings ~ for 1979 in which it expects testimony on current schedules and reasons why they should not be deferred along the lines suggested in the NCUC Report.
i It is important to note that the NCUC never concluded that the power frcm the applicant's Harris facilities is not needed, nor did it find any immediate delay is warranted. Sased on its own assumptions and absent conclusive evidence on the effects of energy conservation, the NCUC only projected a downward forecast in growth rates and ordered further hearings to test those findings. At that time, the applicant can present its case in support of its construction schedule.
For the purposes of the motion row before us, there is no cuestion from the NCUC Sl The Commission has received a letter of February 27, 1979 from the NCUC. Our order was drafted prior to its receipt.
No reliance at all has been placed on it in this decision.
223
}bh e
t l
1 i
i Report that the Harris facility is needed; the only question is when.
i Intervenors have failed to show that the NCUC Report is information of the type or substance likely to have an effect on the need-for-power issue such that relitigation is warranted.
See ICC v. Jersey City, 322 U.S. 503, 514 (1944). On the contrary, the possible one-year slip in need-for-power forecasts found by the NCUC Report is legally insuffi-cient to order relitigation of this issue.
i The general rule applicable to cases involving differences or changes in demand forecasts was stated in Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
(Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264,1 NRC 347, 352-69 (1975).
In that case the Appeal Board found the question was "not whether Niagara Mohawk will need additional generating capacity but when."
Id. at 357.
The intervenors in that case urged that the power would not be needed until 1981, the applicant urged 1979 as the date.
1 The Board responded (id. at 365):
[W]e do not consider the difference in predicted year of need --
1979 vs.1981 -- a statistically meaningful distinction.
If there was one thing agreed upon in the proceeding below, it is that inherent in any forecast of future electric power de-mands is a s'Jbstantial margin of uncertainty. As with most methods of predicting the future, load forecasting involves at least as much art as science. The margin of error implicit in such predictions is at least of sufficient magnitude to encompass the two year difference between the applicant's and the intervenors' forecasts.
2233 189
4 This rule has been consistently followed.2/
The Nine Mile Point rule recognizes that every prediction has an associated uncertainty and that long-range forecasts of this type are especially uncertain in that they are affected by trends in usage, increasing rates, demographic changes, industrial growth or decline, the general state of the economy, etc.
These factors exist even beyond the uncertainty that inheres to demand forecasts: assumptions on continued use from historical data, range of years considered, the area con-sidered, extrapolations from usage in residential, commercial, and indus-trial sectors, etc.
Applying that rule to the instant case, a possible one-year slip in construction schedule is clearly within the margin of uncertainty.
The NCUC recognizes that there exists uncertainty in its own findings such that it ordered a further hearing on them. NCUC Report at 27.
Most importantly, the NCUC did not conclude there was no need for the facility.
The Commission has decided the Shearon Harris proceeding is now concluded except for the radon question pending before the Appeal S/
See, e.o., Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-7657 4 NRC 397, 405-411, reconsideration denied, ALAB-359, 4 NRC 619 (1976); Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units l A,18, 2A anc 28), ALAB-367, 5 NRC 92,94-101 (1977);
Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 91-92 (1977), aff'd on other crounds, CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1, aff'd sub nom. New Encland Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Cir. 1978); Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit 1), ALAB-477, 7 NRC 766, 770 (1978).
2233 1C(t)
O Board and the management qualification issue which we remanded to the Licensing Board.
In the future, the appropriate remedy for those seek-ing to modify, amend, suspend or revoke the construction permits is by m2ans of a request for enforcement action under our regulations.
See 10 CFR 2.206.
It is so ORDERED.
Fo the Commission 0
AAbs y
SAMUEL J. I,HILK Secretary of the Commission Dated at Washington, DC, this M day of May, 1979.
22331Cjl
--