ML19332A035

Motion to Include Latest Util 10-yr Energy & Peak Demand Forecasts in 790718 Hearings Re Need for Power.Urges Opportunity to Suppl Findings of Fact by All Parties Re Decline in Growth Rates.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19332A035
Person / Time
Site:	05000471
Issue date:	09/03/1980
From:	Wright F MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8009100421
Download: ML19332A035 (9)

Text

.. -

To

~ THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS o

=

A POOR QUALITY PAGES cesTE:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[

SEP -8 m > r r

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~ Off.ce of15.s Sacretary BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFE'"Y AND LICENSING 30A Exteing & service E:nach 0

In the Matter of

)

4

)

' Docket No. 50-471 30STON EDISON COMPANY

)

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating

)

Station, Unit 2)

)

i f 08D MOTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASS CHUSETTS TO SUPPLEMENT THE HEARING RECORD ON THE ISSUE OF NEED FOR POWER The Cecmonwealth of Massachusetts, an intervenor in the above-captioned proceeding, hereby moves thati the hearing record on the issue of need for power be supplemented by inclu-sion of the latest ten year forecasts by Boston Edison Company and NEPCOL.

In support of its motion, the Commonwealth states the foIlowing:

1.

On July 18,

1979, during hearings held before this Soard on the issue of need for power, the Applicant introduced as its Exhibit 20A a document entitled "NEPOOL Forecast for New

England, 1979-1989";

as Exhibit 20B a

document entitled "A

Report of the NEPCOL Load Forecasting Task Force on the NEPCOL Model-Based Forecast of New England Electricity and Energy and Pea % Lead, 1979-1989"; and as Exhibir 20C a document entitled

""ew.

En' gland Load and Capacity

Report, 1973-1989"

[collec-tite'y, the "1979 NEPCOL Forecast").

TR.

10,740.

Said U 091008cli S Sof j

9

?

. f forecast predicted long-term growth rates of 3.95% for electric

. energy output and 3.81% for peak' load.

2.

On March 14,'1980, NEPOOL updated the above-mentioned forecast in a supplemental report entitled "NEPOOL Forecast for 1980-1995" -[the "1980 NEPOOL fo' recast"].

Said New England i

supplement si'gnificantly reduces the earlier long-term growth projections, from 3.95% to 2.66% for electric energy output and f rom 3.81% to 2.1% for peak load.

3.

In addition, the 1979 NEPOOL Forecast predicted that 1989 elec tric energy output would be 135,317 gigawatthours (GWH), while the 1980 NEPOOL forecast lowers this value 20.7%,

to 107,300 GWH.

Similarily, the 1979 NEPOOL forecast for 1989 peak demand has been lowered from 24,120 Megawatts (MW) to 20,040 MW, a 4080 MW reduction that is more than three and a half times the' rated capacity of the Pilgrim 2 unit.

4.

Finally, the 1979 NEPOOL Forecast for 1989 peak icad (24120 MW) is approximately the same as the 1980 NEPCOL Fore-cast for 1995 peak load (24170 MW);

in effect, NEPOOL has pushed back its peak load growth forecast by six years.

The situation is even more extreme for electric energy output:

the 1980 MEPOOL forecast for 1995 (127,750 GWH) is less than the i

j 1979 NEPOOL Forecast for 1987 (127,840 GWH),

representing an i

j

.eight year lag in projected energy grow-h.

-5.

- On May 15, 1979, in response to this Board's Order of May 9,

1979, the Applicant submitted ' to all parties -and the Board copies of " Boston Edison Company Long-Range Forecast of

---

,w, v

w p

r-

f Electric Pcwer Needs and Requirements,-

nnual Supplement 1-C, 1979-1983, Volumes I and II, April 1,

1979" (the "1979 BECO Forecast").

This forecast predicted a 3.1% annual grcwth rate in electrical energy requirements and a. 3,2% annual growth rate in peak demand for the ten year period coverid by the forecast.

See also TR. 10,766.

6.

On May 1,

1980 the Applicant updated the 1979 BECO v.

Forecast in a report entitled " Boston Edison ' Company Long-Range Forecast of Electric Power Needs and Requ'irements, Annual Sup-plement 1-0, 1980-89; May 1, 1980" (the "1980 BECO Forecast").

The 1980 BECO Forecast reduces the earlier forecast from 3.1%

to 1. 9 %, f or annual growth rate in electrical energy require-ments and from 3.2%

to 2.38% for annual growth rate in peak demand.

7.

In addition, the 1979 BECO Forecast for 1990 (the last year projected in both the 1979 and 1980 forecasts) was for 13,525'GWH in energy requirements, which has been revised down-ward to 11,916 GWH in the 1980 BECO Forecast.

Similarly, the 1979 BECO Forecast anticipated a 1990 peak demand of 2973 MW, while the 1980 BECO Forecast predicts only 2596 MW peak demand in 1990.

Indeed, the 1979 3ECO Icrecast predicted a 2596 57 peak demand in 1986; the 1980 SECO

Forecast, therefore, indicates that Boston Edison's growth predictions have fallen off four years.

8.

Sorh the 1979 NEPCCL and 1979 3ECO forecasts were v.g.

relied upon by the Applicant in making its cases that there is

'a need for an additional nuclear power reacror in Plymouth.

e me ne r-~

e

r Inclusion in the record of the latest BECO and NEPCOL forecasts is therefore necessary for accuracy, as well as to demonstrate o

th6 continued downward drift of ant!.cipated growth rates.

9.

The parties to a construction permit proceeding are obliged to keep the Licensing Board informed of new develop-ments pertaining to those issues over which the board has jurisdiction:

In~ all future proceedings, parties must inform the presiding board and other parties of new informa-tion which is relevant and material to the matters being adjudicated.

If the presiding board and other parties are not informed in a

timely manner of such

changes, the inescapable result will be that-reasoned decision-4 making would suffer.

Indeed, the adjudication could become meaningless, for adjudicatory boards will be passing upon evidence that would not accurately reflect existing facts.

The disclosure requirement we impose is not the product of any overly procedural formalism on our part - it goes to the very heart of the adjudicatory process.

Its sacrifice for the sake of expediency cannot be justified and will not be tolerated.

Duke Power Comoany (William B.

McGuire Station 1 and 2), ALAB-143, 6 AEC 6 23, (1973).1/, Units Nuclear 25-26 The Commonwealth has refrained from bringing the 1980 BECO and NE? COL forecasts to the attention of this Board in the expecta-tion that either the Staf f or the Applicant would do so.

Since I

such notification has not been forthcoming,

however, the 1/

Set also Vircinia Electric and Power Comoany (North Anna Nuclear Power 5 :a t :.cn,

Units 1 anc

2),

ALAB-538, 9

NRC 419

('.97 9 ) ; Vircinia Electric and Power Comoany (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Unt s 1 and 2), CLI-76-22, 4 NRC 480, 491 (1976);

cf. Public Service Comoanv of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-513, 3_NRC 694 (1978)

(where " finality" has attached by virtue of the issuance of a licensing board deci-sien, jurisdiction does not exist to reopen the proceedings for i

further. censideration of an issue).

)

\\

/

g

..-,c c

-%..,v.

-.+e

the compelled to ask by ' this motion. that Conmonwealth is now necessary documents be made part of the hearing record in the manner more fully described below.

10.

In opposing earlier requests by the Commonwealth to supplement the hearing record with newly obtained evidence its contentions, the Applicant has pertaining to one or more of d

characterized.said requests as motions to reopen-the record an the sandard set forth has insisted that they be weighed against in cases such as Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corocration (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pcwer Station), ALABI138, 6 AEC 520, 23-24 (1973).

In anticipation that the Applicant will raise similar obj ections to the instant motion, the Commonwealth states as follows:

a.

Given the limited nature of the Commonwe alth' s request (i.e., that the record be updated to reflect the larest revisions in-BECO and NEPOOL growth is f ar more appropriate to characterize f orecasts), it rather than reopening the this action as supplementing

record, the latter term implying a

full procedural undertaking with pre-filed testimony, cross-examina-rion, etc.

b.

There is ample precedent for the supplementing administrative

-(as opposed to re-opening) of an record.

Indeed, after close of the c'ecord in these proceedings the Staff submitted further testimony on

" 2.TT. ~'"'~'

l 1

the issue of theft and sabotage pursuant to a request

~

styled Motien to Admit Supplemental Testimony (January 17, 1980).

t c.

To the extent that the instant motion might be treated as a request to reopen the record, the stand-l ard to be applied is that not suggested by the Appli-cant.

As the Staff noted -in supeorting an earlier Commonwealth motion to supplement the record, "where an. initial decision has not been rendered on an impor-tant-environmental

issue, the record should be i

reopened to receive updated testimony if

'there is good reason to believe that there may have been an 1

appreciable - and material change in the factual situa-s T

tion'.

Commonwe al th Edison Comoany (LaSalle County f

Nuclear Station, Units 1.and 2), ALAB-153, 6 AEC 821,

' 824- (19 7 3 ). " '

Staff

Response

in Support of Second Motion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Supple-ment the Hearing Record.on the Need for Power Issue, pg.

2.

("S taf f ' Response"].

Here, the predicted growth' rates.have ' f eelined significantly, as demonstrated by 4

- the latese 3ECO and NE?OOL forecasts.

Even if one were to argue -:ha: declining growth in demand would~

not in' itself Obviate the need for Pilgrim II, it at the - very leas: woulf suggest a significant change in the ' time > frame: 'for bringing the unit on

line, a

O g

e r'

y

.v,

.--p.

g-.

,_-.4,,,.s,.

• ,..-,,..,-.,,n 39

material change that should be considered by the Board in rendering its initial decision.

See generally Staff Response, pp.2-3.

The Applicant and the Staff have relied on the BECO and NEPOOL forecasts, as updated through 1979, in their direct testimony.

With the 1980 revisions now available,' there is no reason why they should not be incorporated into the record.

WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.hereby moves that this Board order the Applicant to submit a ' exhibits in the above-captioned proceeding the 1980 updates of the BECO and NEPOOL energy and peak demand forecasts, and further to allow all parties reasonable opportunity to supplement their proposed finding of fact with reference to these latest figures and the decline in growth rates they indicate.

Respectfully submitted, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS By:

FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI ATTORNEY GENERAL

\\

FRANCIS'5. WRIGH U Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2265 Dated at Boston:

September 3,1980 l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m;g7sc g

Ur"^

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING.

Rggp g g p Office of the SamtEr 7.,

k:!.gits & Se*

In the Matter of:

)

)

• g3

~

BOSTON EDISON COMPANY, et al.

)

)

(Pf.lgrim Nuclear Generating

)

Docket No. 50-471 Station, Unit 2)

)

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,

FRANCIS S.

WRIGHT, hereby certify that the foregoing

" Motion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Supplement the Hearing Record on the Issue of Need for Power" have been served on the following this 3rd day of September 1980 by depositing copies thereof in the United States Mail, f i r r *. class postage prepaid:

ANDREW C. GOODHOPE, Esquire RICHARD J. GODDARD, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Office of the Executive Licensing Board Legal Director 3320 Estelle Terrace U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Wheaton, Maryland 20906 Washington, D.C.

20555 DR. A. DIXON CALLIHAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Union Carbide Corporation Board Panel P.O. Box Y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.

20555 DR. RICHARD F. COLE WILLIAM S. ABBOTT, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 50 Congress Street, Suite 925 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boston, MA 02109 Washington, D.C. 20555 l

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal

• OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Board Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' O.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 MR. DANIEL F. FORD MR. AND MRS. ALAN R. CLEETON 1208 Massachusetts Avenue 22 Mackintosh Street Cambridge, MA 02138

. Franklin, MA 02038 HENRY HERRMANN, Esq.

GEORGE H. LEWALD, Esq.

151 Tremont Street Ropes and Gray

. Boston, MA 02111 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 CHIEF LIBRARIAN Plymouth Public Library EDWARD L. SELGRADE, Esq.

North Street PATRICK J. KENNY, Esq.

Plymouth, MA 02360 GovernoE!s Massachusetts Office of Energy Resources 73 Tremont Street Boston, MA 02108

^

i

~

/

FRANCIE/S. WR HT \\ Q Assistant Attorney er.al.

Environmental Protect Divisior.

Public Protection Bureau

.One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2265 e

6 9