ML18230A579
| ML18230A579 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1978 |
| From: | Blake E, Trowbridge G Carolina Power & Light Co, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18230A579 (22) | |
Text
March 13, 1978 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safet and Licensin A eal Board Zn the Matter of CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT Docket Nos. 50-400 COMPANY 401 402 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 403 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 6 4)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE ZN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS'XCEPTIONS I. INTRODUCTION On February 21, 1978, Intervenor-Appellants filed "Appel'lants'rief" in support of their February 6, 1978, exceptions to the Licensing Board's Initial Decision, dated January 23, 1978, which authorized issuance of construction permits for the four units of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Carolina Power and 'Light Company ("Applicant" or "CP&L") opposes Intervenors'ppeal, which presents one question whether the Licensing Board's finding of future need for the power to be generated by the Shearon Harris units is reasonable where projections by Applicant, a state utility commission, and NRC Staff generally agree on the total future load but, differ in their estimates of the components of future consumption by individual consumer classes.
t, II. DISCUSSION Intervenors'ppeal presents a narrow question. All fifteen exceptions initially filed by,Intervenors on February 6, 1978, were concerned with the Licensing Board's consideration of future load projections, the need for the Harris units and Applicant's revenue production .from future sales. In their brief of February 21, 1978, Intervenors have further narrowed the scope of their appeal, expressly dropping their exceptions 1/
3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14, (on witness qualifications, the Licensing Board's own load forecast, substitution, and financial qualifications), and focusing their argument on exceptions 1 and 2 relating to the differences between the component parts of load forecasts by Applicant, the North Carolina Public Utilities
~2 Commission (NCUC) and the NRC Staff.
There were three principal witnesses who presented 3/
testimony on load forecasts. Applicant's Vice President 1/ See Intervenors'rief, at 1, where they refer to exceptions 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12 and 15 as being the subject, of their argu-ment in Section II. Since all the argument in Intervenors'rief follows this single heading and no argument is included in Section II in support of exceptions 3, 4., 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14, Applicants regard these exceptions as waived. See, ~e , Florida Power & Li ht Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. 2) ALAB- 35, 6 NRC 541, 542 (1977); Union Blectric Co. (Callaway Units 1 and 2) ALAB-347, 4 NRC 216 (1976).
2/ Intervenors also refer to exceptions 5, 6, 10, ll, 12 and 15 as supported by their Argument. In fact, these exceptions are not directly addressed in their Brief. Intervenors'otal brief is directed at the differences between the three projections advanced by .Applicant, the state utility commission and the NRC Staff, and the impact of those differences.
3/ Other witnesses concentrated on special topics such as con-servation or use of solar power as an alternative.
0
,I
System Planning 6 Coordination, Mr. Wilson Morgan, presented CPGL's load projections for its service area into the 1990's Dr. Robert Spann, who had assisted the Staff of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) in its preparation of an independent forecast through 1990 of future demands on Appli-7, ~f' cant's system, addressed the state's official forecast (Testimony was an economist 7 1).
- from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1'itness Dr. Robert C. Spore, who addressed the NRC Staff's review of 1
the methodologies and results of the Applicant and NCUC fore-
/
casts for the CPaL system and the analysis performed by the NRC Intervenors presented no load forecast.
The Applicant's forecasts (addressed by Mr. Morgan) demonstrate a need for all four units of the Shearon Harris facility on the pscheduled completion dates of 1984, 1986, 1988 and 1990 in order to meet forecasted demand and provide reserves (Morgan, at Tables 3, 4 and 5). Indeed, Mr. Morgan observed that, even with the Harris units on their current schedule, projected reserves did not assure the reliability CP&L would like to provide. Tr. 1726. The Applicant's forecasts of demand and the NCUC'forecasts, although performed independently (Spann, at 2), yielded almost identical results (Spann, at, 3). While they conducted cross-examination of Mr. Morgan, Intervenors asked no questions at all of Dr. Spann, and .raised no objection to the
introduction of his testimony or to the NCUC forecast and under-4/
lying documentation. I The NRC Staff conducted a review of the methodologies and results of Applicant's and the NCUC forecasts for the CPGL system. Not only did it evaluate the forecasts done by Appli-cant and by NCUC, it also did an independent analysis using its own regional econometric model and data on future needs in North
, Carolina and South Carolina as a confirmatory test of the fore-5/
casts by Applicant and NCUC. . Dr. Spore viewed as remarkable the agreement. between the total energy forecasts arrived at inde-pendently by CPGL,- NCUC and the NRC Staff, regarded their overall agreement as'onfirmatory of each other, and stated that his confidence. in the results would not have been disturbed by a greater variation between them (Spore Testimony, at 1-44; tr.
2027, 2050). Based on its review, the NRC Staff found the Appli-cant's forecast reasonable (Spore at 1-44). It was Applicant's forecast, then, that the NRC Staff used in performing its assess-ment of need for new base-load generating capacity (Id.).
The sole question presented by Intervenors'ppeal is whether the record evidence described above reveals that Applicant 4/ See tr. 1732. The NCUC forecast and NCUC Order adopting that forecast are Applicant's Exhibits CC and DD sponsored by Dr. Spann (tr. 1731-32). This forecast, was adopted by the NCUC as the state's official forecast following an adjudicatory hear-ing in which one of the instant Joint Intervenors participated.
5/ See Spore 1-44; tr. 2047-48. The NRC Staff's forecast, done as a check on the reasonableness of Applicant's and the NCUC fore-casts,. was based on different physical areas and different future periods than the area and periods used in either Applicant's or NCUC's forecast.
~
I'
has demonstrated with reasonable specificity a need for the Shearon 6/
Harris units. Intervenors argue that the record does not reveal such a demonstration because it includes three projections of future loads and, while all three demonstrate a need for the Harris units, their components of future need (residential usage, commercial usage and industrial usage) are so different that none can be credible. Intervenors'rief, at 5. The Licensing Board in this proceeding having rejected Intervenors'osition and determined that, need for power was more than adequately demonstrated (Initial Decision, slip opinion at 96, <l)[ 158 and 159), the Appeal Board must now decide whether Intervenors'xceptions to the contrary are well placed. In deciding the appeal, the Appeal Board is not bound by the "substantial evi-dence" rule but by the same token may not. ignore the Licensing Board's evaluation and its disposition of questions similar to those posed on appeal; the Appeal Board must, in fact, attach significance to the Licensing Board's evaluation of evidence and its determinations based on the evidence. See Duke Power C~om an (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 ann 2) ALAR-355, 4 NRC 397, 403-04 (1976) and cases cited therein. 'Applicant,. of course, disagrees with Intervenors'osition and submits that the record adequately demonstrates a need for the Harris units and that the Licensing Board's Initial Decision should be affirmed.
6/ Applicant has the burden of showing that its demand projec-tions are reasonable and that additional or replacement generating capacity is needed to meet that demand. See Public Service Com an of New Ham shire, Et Al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 90 (1977), and cases cited therein.
The subject matter of Intervenors'ppeal revolves about the accuracy of power projections, a subject which appeal boards have considered in a number of prior decisions. It has been recognized that ".[a]s with most methods of predicting the future, load forecasting involves at least as much, art as science."
Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration {Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2) ALAB-264, 1 NRC 347, 365 (1975). A substantial margin of uncertainty is inherent in any forecast of future electric power demands. See Duke Power Com an (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397, 410 (1976) (~citin ALAB-264,
~su ra) . Most recently, for example, an appeal board has had occasion to consider in the Wolf Creek case, projections of annual growth rate for the total system load of 2.6% and 5.3%, and to choose .between them. Kansas Gas and Electric Com any, et al.
(Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1) ALAB-462, 7 NRC (March 9, 1978) (see slip opinion, at 10-24).
Despite the inherent uncertainty, future power demand must be predicted with the reasonable accuracy that circumstances permit to determine whether the additional or replacement genera-ting capacity is needed to meet that demand. Duke Power Com an ALAB-355, ~su ra, at 405 and cases cited therein. Forecasts have been found sufficient where, for a period of operation just five years'nto the future, different, forecasters disagreed by two years on the predicted year of need (Bee ALAB-264, ~su ra, 1 NRC at 365-66). Zn Wolf Creek, ~su ra, forecasts differing by 100$
in annual growth rate were considered, yet they were not both
rejected merely because a difference eristed. ALAB-462, ~su ra (slip opinion, at 24) . Finally, that the need for construction of power plants should be based not only on meeting the demand actually forecast, but also on providing as well an adequate reserve margin, is recognized. See, e.cc., Tennessee Valle ALAB-367, 5 NRC 92 (where reserve margin was as much as 23%).
In the instant case, there is no disagreement with the total system loads projected in the three forecasts presented.
The three forecasts generally agree on the combined future loads.
See, ~e , Spore Testimony, Table 1-9. Intervenors concede this to be the case. Intervenors'rief, at 2-3. The quarrel 'Inter-4 venors have with the Licensing Board's finding a need for the Harris units stems from their assertion that differences exist as between the sector components in each of the forecasts. Inter-venors'rief, at 3. Applicant submits that. whereas predicting total combined future loads has been characterized as more art than science. and therefore distinguishing between total load forecasts has proved less than a perfect scientific practice, attempting here as Intervenors do'to discern great significance from differences in component parts of the whole may be even 7/
less fruitful. In any event, for at least two basic reasons, Intervenors'ttack fails on the adequacy of the need for power demonstration in this record.
7/ This may be "mere craft." ~Ccm are ALAB-462, ~su ra (slip opinion at 13; fn. 17) .
l i
First, as described above, Applicant and the NCUC each performed independent, projections of future power needs in Applicant's service area. These two forecasts'provide virtually identical total load forecasts, either of which standing alone is 8/
sufficient to demonstrate need for the Harris units. Even the sector (residential, commercial and industrial) components of these two independent forecasts are very similar, notwithstanding Intervenors'ontrary assertions. See Spore Testimony, Table 1-9 (recognizing the differences in forecasting periods). Thus, we submit Applicant ' and the NCUC forecast s are complementary, enhance the credibility of either taken alone, and provide an even stronger demonstrated need for the Harris Plant than had either forecast appeared alone in the record.
Second, Intervenors'ttack on the credibility of the Applicant and the NCUC load forecasts by comparing them with the NRC Staff's forecast is misdirected. The NRC Staff forecast was done merely as a check on the other two forecasts. The NRC Staff's witness who performed this analysis acknowledged that it was performed using different input data, and the forecasts were for different future time periods and different geographical regions than Applicant's and the NCUC forecasts. Nevertheless, the NRC witness felt that the NRC's independent analysis provided further confidence in the other two forecasts because of their 8/ Intervenors never questioned Dr. Spann. Nor did they rebut or otherwise challenge the NCUC forecast. Under these circum-stances, Applicant views Intervenors'resent challenge to the NCUC forecast as particularly inappropriate. Cf ALAB-.355, ~su ra, at 411.
overall similarity in results. There was no contrary opinion expressed. In any event, as Dr. Spore observed, the NRC did not use its own forecast but used that of the Applicant in the assessment of need for new base-load generating capacity. See Spore Testimony, at 1-44; Initial Decision, 1( 152.
Under these circumstances, Intervenors'ttack must be rejected.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set out above, Intervenors'xceptions should be dismissed and Intervenors'equest for further remand hearings should be denied. The Licensing Board's Initial Deci-sion should be upheld. in its determination that there exists an adequately demonstrated need for the power to be produced by the four Shearon Harris units on their current construction schedule.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW g I P TTMANg POTTS 6 TROWBRI DGE By George F. Trowbridge Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
Counsel for Applicant Dated: March 13, 1978
l I
March 13, 1978 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safet, and Licensin A eal Board In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT ) 'Docket Nos. 50-400 COMPANY ) 401
) 402 -.
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power ) 403 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 6 4) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "Applicant's'esponse In Opposition To Intervenors'xceptions" dated March 13, 1978, have been served by mail, postage prepaid, to those persons listed on the attached service list this 13th day of March, 1978.
Ernest L. Blake, Jr.,
Counsel for Applicant Dated: March 13, 1978
0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safet and Licensin A eal Board In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT ) Docket Nos. 50-400 COMPANY ) 401
) 402 (Shearon Harris Nuclear ) 403 Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 & 4) )
.SERVICE LIST Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Charles A. Barth, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Appeal Board Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. John H. Buck Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.
Atomic Safety .and Licensing P.O. Box 928 Appeal Board 115 West Morgan Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27602 Washington, D.C. 20555 Michael C. Farrar, Esq. Jesse C. Brake, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Associate Attorney General Appeal Board State of North Carolina U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 629 Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, NC 27602 Ivan W. Smith, Esq. Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. J. V. Leeds, Jr.
10807 Atwell Drive Houston, TX 77096
]I