ML19294A699
| ML19294A699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000471 |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1979 |
| From: | Beverly Smith NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19294A697 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903080194 | |
| Download: ML19294A699 (2) | |
Text
.....,.,
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMEE ituoM 2/14/79 WI0IW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
//
f$$ gSy 4
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
%f>
In the Matter of l
b c
BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY, g d.
)
Docket No. 50-471 (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2)
NRC RESPONSE TO CLEETONS' MOTION N0. 3:
THAT THE BOARD ORDER THAT THE HEARING RECORD BE RE-0PENED WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF NEED FOR POWER AND THAT UPDATED TESTIMONY BE FILED THEREON Cleetons' Motion No
.3 requests that the record on need for power be re-opened because v,' decision No. 78-12 issued by the Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Council (E.F.S.C.) regarding the Boston Edison Company long-range forecast (1978-1987) of electric power needs and requirements dated December 31, 1977.
The Staff opposes Motion No. 3.
Motion No. 3 is essentially the same as the April 27,1978 " Commonwealth of Massachusetts Motion to Supplement the Hearing Record" except that the Cleetons have asserted, as an additional reason, the E.F.S.C.
decision. The Staff objects to the Cleetons' motion on the same grounds set forth in the May 10,1978 "NRC Staff Response In Opposition to Commonwealth of Massachusetts Motion to Supplement The Hearing Record."I The E.F.S.C.
If The Board has not ruled on the Commonwealth's Motion.
790308019
.. decision does not support the Cleetons' or Commonwealth's respective motions. As noted in the Staff's response in opposition to the Cleetons' Motion No.1, the E.F.S.C. specifically stated that its decision could have no impact on Pilgrim Unit 2.
Even though, E.F.S.C. commented on BEC0's improvements in its forecasting methodology, it pointed out specific areas where there could be further improvement., The fact that there can be improvement in forecasting does not mean that this record must be reopened.
The Board has several forecasts before it.
It must detemine if they are reasonable in light of the fact that forecasting is an art rather than a science.
See: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264,1 NRC 347, 365.
In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, the Cleetons have not shown that the E.F.S.C. decision would materially change any of the fact in this record or provide any significant new information.
Accordingly, the Cleetons' Motion No. 3 should be denied.
Respectfully Submitted, Barry H. Smith Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland thi.s 14th day of February,1979.
- -,,. - -