ML20086T829

Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 15AA Re Capacity Factor.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists. Related Correspondence

ML20086T829
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	02/28/1984
From:	Hollar D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20086T831	List: ML20086T829 ML20086T836 ML20086T839
References
OL, NUDOCS 8403070055
Download: ML20086T829 (15)

Text

.

7' -

4 RELATED CORRESPONDENOE 00tVETED UylRC ,

February 28,1984

'84 2 -1 R208 j

. . . . - -- \

UNITED STATEE OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN )

MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL (Shearon Har'ris Nuclear Power Plant, ) 50-401 OL Units 1 & 2) )

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 15AA I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.749 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice, Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of Eddleman Contention 15AA (Capacity

Factor).' For the reasons explained herein, Applicants respectfully submit that there is no genuine issue as to any fact material to this Contention and that Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor on this Contention as a matter of law.

In support of this motion, Applicants rely upon the attached Affidavit of Robert H.

Koppe in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 15AA, Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard On Eddleman Contention 15AA, Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition on Intervenor Wells Eddleman Contentions 64(f),75, o!o og PDR 3 S03

.t 80 and 83/84 (September 1,1983), and the pleadings and discovery filed in this proceeding regarding this Contention.

H. BACKGROUND

] In April 1983, the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued its Drnft Environmental Statement (DES) related to the operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0972. In evaluating the costs and benefits of the Shearon Harris Plant, section 6.4.2 of the DES assumes that both .mits will operate at annual average capacity factors of 55 percent. The DES's determination of the benefits of the plant (in terms of electrical energy production) is premised upon this assumption.I Followirig issuance of.the DES, intervenor Wells Eddleman proffered Eddleman Contention 15AA, which is a revised capacity factor contention that superseded ea.' lier Eddleman Contentions 15 and ISA on that issue. Contention 15AA was admitted to this proceeding by a Licensing Board order dated August 18,1983. The admitted contention states:

The Staff has overestimated the operating capacity factor of the Harris nuclear plants in its draft environmental impact statement, thus exaggerating '

, the benefits of this power being produced by nuclear energy, and distorting

' the NEPA cost-benefit balance at the operating license stage. The Staff also calculated the output at 55% too high even for the design rating.

Discovery commenced shortly after the admission of Contention 15AA and was concluded with the filing of Applicants' final discovery response on January 6,1984.

IH. TIMELINESS A motion fcr summary disposition may be filed at any time in the course of a i

proceeding. Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1),

ALAB-696,16 N.R.C.1245,1263 (1982); see also 10 C.F.R. S 2.749(a).

1 The Final Environmental stetement (FES) for Shearon Harris, NUREG-0972, issued in October 1983, also assesses the plant's benefits on the basis of a 55 percent capacity i.' factor. The FES calculates the annual electrical energy output based on an assumed net

' electrical output of 868 MWe for the remaining Harris unit rather than the 900 MWe design electrical rating used in the DES. This presumably resolves part of what we understand Mr. Eddleman's contention to address,1.c., the Staffs use of the design rating <

in the DES. FES, section 6.4.2.

l In its Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Second Prehearing Conference), dated March 10, 1983, the Board established a schedule for adjudicating the environmental issues admitted in this proceeding. That schedule set i

September __1,1983 as the last day for filing' motions for summary disposition on environmental issues. However, Contention 15AA was not admitted until August 18, 1983 - two weeks prior to the deadline for summary disposition motions. That deadline was predicated on a scheduled January 1984- hearing. Applicants previously had not intended to fDe for summary disposition of Contention 15AA because it was unlikely that a ruling could have been obtained prior to the scheduled January hearing.

In Decen ber 1983, the Board determined that the environmental hearing should be postponed. The hearing has been rescheduled for June 1984. Memorandum and Order Joint (Ruling on Motions for Summary Disposition of Health Effects Contentions:

Contention Il and Eddleman Contentions 37B,8F(1) and 8F(2)), dated January 27, 1984.

Accordingly, this motion will in no way jeopardize orderly progress toward the June 1984 hearing. The instant motion is timely and ripe for summary disposition.

IV. APPLICABLE LAW The well defined standards applicable to motions for summary disposition under 10 5

C.F.R. S2.749 are discussed in detail in Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support of l

Motions for Summary Disposition on Intervenor Wells Eddleman Contentions 64(f),75,80 and 83/84, fred in this proceeding on September 1,1983. Applicants rely upon the g

discussion therein, which is incorporated by reference, and upon the following discussion f

of how those standards should be applied in assessing the absence of an issue of material fact regarding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) cost-benefit balance.

NEPA, 42 . U.S.C. S4331 ett g, mandates that federal agencies give full consideration to environmental values in their decisionmaking processes. _Calvert Cliffs' Coordinatinst Committee v. AEC,449 F. 2d 1109,1112, n. 5 (D. C. Cir.1971). For" major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment," 42 U.S.C.

-3 -

l

. 4.

S4332, this consideration is manifest in a detailed environmental impact statement such as that prepared by the NRC staff in connection with the licensing of the Shearon Harris Plant.

Although environmental values must be considered in the agency decisionmaking process, NEPA does not dictate the ultimate conclusions of that process:

Thus the general substantive policy of [NEPA] is a flexible one. It leaves room for a responsible exercise of discretion and may not require particular substantive results in particular problematic instances.

Calvert Cliffs', supra, 449 F. 2d at 1112. Nor is an agency required under NEPA to predict future events related to environmental policy with certitude. A good faith effort to describe reasonably foreseeable events is all that is required. Scientists' Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. AEC, 481 F. 2d 1079,1092 (D. C. Cir.1973).

An impact statement must provide a basis for " evaluation of the benefits of the proposed project in light of its environmental risks." Natural Resources Defense Coancil, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F. 2d 827 (D. C. Cir.1972). But, consistent with the holdings in Calvert Cliffs' and Scientists' Institute, the agency need not demonstrate that its evaluation of future benefits is unquestionably accurate. ~ The EIS must give the decisionmaker and others enough detail concerning all of the costs and benefits of the proposed action to permit a reasoned evaluation and decision. Sierra Club v. Morton,510 F.2d 813,827 (5th Cir.1975). But the cost-benefit analysis nee <t not be formal and -

mathematically precise. Gloucester County Concerned Citizens v. Goldschmidt,533 F.

Supp.1222,1230 (D.N.J.1982).

Review of agency determinations under NEPA is subject to a rule of reason.

.NRDC v. Morton, supra,- 458 F. 2d at 837; Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos. 3 and 4), ALAB-660,14 NRC 987,1004 (1981). The agency must demonstrate that there was a reasonable basis for its determination of the benefits to be derived from the proposed action. Statistical certainty is not a requisite, nor is it even possible in predicting future benefits. Sierra Club v. Morton, supra.

-4 -

Thus, NRC is no.t required to adopt the most pessimistic assumptions about those benefits. The standard is not what the benefits would be under .the least favorable scenario that could possibly occur. Nor must the NRC Staff be able to " guarantee" that Harris Unit I will operate with a lifetime capacity factor of at least 55 percent.2 Rather, the Staff need only determine what benefits are reasonably foreseeable given the information that is currently available as a basis for the Staff's evaluation. See Sierra Club v. Morton, supra; Florida Power, supra.

V. ARGUMENT A. The NRC Staff's Estimate of a 55 Percent Capacity Factor for the Harris Plant Is Reasona'ble.

Eddleman Contention 15AA generally alleges that the capacity factor estimate of 55 percent used by the NRC Staff in the DES is too high and that the NEPA cost-benefit balance is thereby skewed. In the accompanying " Basis" for Contention 15AA and in discovery responses, Mr. Eddleman asserts that the capacity factor for the Harris Plant:

(1) should be projected on the basis of the capacity factors of a small number of low performing commercial ' nuclear units, (2) will be adversely affected by poor performing steam generators, and (3) should be further reduced due to purported CP&L mismanagement. Contention 15AA: Staff Overestimation of Harris Capacity Factor, by j Wells Eddleman, filed June 30,1983, at 1-2; Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants' Interrogatories on Contentions 15AA and 8F1, filed October 6,1983, at 2-7,9.

1. The Staff's Projection of a 55 Percent Capacity Factor is Fully Supported by the Available Information.

l None of these allegations raises any material issue as to the reasonableness of the capacity factor estimate used by the Staff. The NRC Staff has fulfilled its NEPA i obligation to provide a reasonably foreseeable estimate of benefits from operation of the l

2 l See " Wells Eddleman's Interrogatories to NRC Staff Re 8F1, 8F2 and 15AA (2d I

round; 3d set overall)" dated October 21,1983 at Interrogatory 126.

l L

l l

l .

Harris Plant. As explained in the accompanying Affidavit of Robert H. Koppe in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 15AA (Koppe Affidavit), Mr. Eddleman's approach to estimation of the Harris capacity factor lacks

~

statistical and empirical validity. In contrast, the Staffs 55 percent estimate is fully supported by capacity factor data currently available and other engineering and design information relevant to the likely capacity factor for the Harris Plant. The Staff determined that a reasonable band for the Harris capacity factor projection would be 55 to 65 percent. NRC Staff Response to Interrogatories Dated May 6,1983 Prepounded (sic) By Wells Eddleman and Joint Intervenors, filed June 24,1983, at 43. Indeed, given the availabid information, the Staffs choice of the low end of the band can only be termed a conservative one.3 Mr. Koppe is eminently qualified from the standpoint of education and professional background to address the reasonableness of the Staffs capacity factor estimate. He holds a masters degree in nuclear engineering and has completed all course work toward

a doctorate in that field. Koppe Affidavit at 1. Mr. Koppe worked for a number of years i in the Nuclear Engineering Division of Consolidated Edison Company and was responsible in part for providing operating support for two plants that use Westinghouse Corporation nuclear steam supply systems (NSSS) and turbine generators, as does the Harris Plant. Id. .

at 1-2. Since joining the S. M. Stoller Corporation, he has directed numerous consulting l

projects relating to nuclear power plant safety and availability-the details of which are set forth in the accompanying affidavit. Koppe Affidavit at 2-3.

Based on his expert evaluation, Mr. Koppe concludes that the NRC Staffs 55 percent capacity factor estimate is " conservative," rather then merely a reasonable projection l

for Harris. To evaluate the Staff's estimate, Mr. Koppe relied upon information that can 1^

3 Cons'istent with NEPA, the Staff could have chosen the mid-range point (i.e., 60 percent) as its projected capacity factor. However, applicants need not demonstrate

-that the choice of 55 percent was conservative, only that it was reasonable and thus consistent with NEPA.

I

--- . _ .a ,_. _ . _ - . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ ~ _ . . _ _ _ . - . . . _ . . _ _ . - . _ _ _ . ._ _ _ ,,

.9 be used to predict performance of the Harris Plant, particularly historical data on the performance of plants that are generally similar to Harris and information on design changes for Harris that will affect performance. Koppe Affidavit at 6.

Because most nuclear plant outages are related to the NSSS design, Mr. Koppe focused his comparison with other plants on the NSSS design. M. at 7. As the most relevant group of plants for comparison with Harris, Mr. Koppe chose the 28 commercial units in operation in the United States with modern Westinghouse NSSS's. Those units are listed in Exhibit RHK-1. He omitted three other units with older Westinghouse designs, but those units have capacity factors at least equal to the average for the 28 units. As of Septembeh 30, 1983, the average capacity factor for the 28 units was 61.8 percent over a total of 210.7 unit-years of operation.4 g, The 10 Westinghouse units which have three primary coolant loops, like the Harris Plant, have a somewhat lower capacity factor-58.0 percent. However, for reasons explained in the Koppe Affidavit at 8, Mr. Koppe concludes that the size of a unit (which is reflected in the number of loops) has a small effect upon its capacity factor. Thus, he concludes that a comparison with all 28 units having a modern Westinghouse NSSS is more appropriate than a comparison with just the three loop plants. M. at 9. In any event, the historical experience of both the 28 units and the 10 three loop units has shown average capacity factors above the Staff's estimate for Harris.

2. Mr. Eddleman has no Basis for his Lower Projections.

In contrast to Mr. Koppe's use of performance data for all similar plants, Mr.

Eddleman suggests that the historical experience of a small select group of plants should 4 Note that Mr. Koppe consistently expressed all of his capacity factor data based on net design rating of nuclear plants. Koppe Affidavit at 5. The Staff's projected capacity factor of 55 percent is based on an estimated net electrical ratingef 868 MWe, rather than the net ' design rating of 900 MWe for the Harris Plant. FES, 56.4.2. This is

. equi va l ent to using a net design rating capacity factor of 53 percent. Id. at 19. Thus, the capacity factor data used by Mr. Koppe must be compared with the equivalent 53 percent used by the Staff.

-7 -

~

9 be the basis for predicting the performance of Harris. These plants were chosen simply because _ they are the worst performing units that are arguably similar in design to Harris. When asked on discovery what estimate for the capacity factor should be used by the Staff in connection with assessing the benefits of the Harris Plant, Mr. Eddleman

, replied that "NRC Staff should have used a conservative estimate, e.g., the performance

. of the worst similar plant" and alleged that Beaver Valley 1 is that plant. Wells Eddleman's Response to ' Applicants' Interrogatories on Contention 15AA and 8F1, filed October 6,1983, at 4. Thus, Mr. Eddleman misapprehends the standard upon which the

- Staff should evaluate benefits. Rather than adopt the most pessimistic assumption as Mr. Edo.eman proposes, the Staff must determine what is a reasonable estimate of the Plant's benefits. Certainly, an evaluation premised on the capacity factor of all similar units is more a reasonable predictor of future plant performance than one based solely upon the espacity factor of one or a handful for the worst performers.

Further, Mr. Eddleman's exclusive reliance on Beaver Valley 1 and the other plants to which he alludes is misplaced because he has made no showing that these plants are more similar to Harris than the many other plants with better performance records. As Mr. Koppe points out, there are design differences among all nuclear reactors. Koppe Affidavit at 7. There are substantial differences between Harris and the plants upon which Mr. Eddleman relies. While Beaver Valley 1 and North Anna 1 are both three loop Westinghouse plants, they have a different model steam generator than Harris.

I McGuire 1, another plant with which Mr. Eddleman compares Harris, is not even a three loop plant and also has a different model steam generator. Koppe Affidavit at 16. As p

[. . Mr. Koppe points out, the low capacity factor for Deaver Valley 1 is due to a specific set t

of circumstances that is not likely to be repeated at Harris, and the below average capacity factor for McGuire 1 is due to a steam generator vibration problem that occurred shortly after the unit commenced operation and which has since been corrected. In the absence of the steam generator vibration problem, McGuire's capacity

-8 -

factor would have been about 70 percent. Design modifications have been incorporated into the Harris unit to reduce vibration levels to acceptable limits. These modifications i

have been tested at an operating unit with very satisfactory results. North Anna 1 has actually performed at a capacity factor above 55 percent despite somelong cutages. Id.

- at 16-17.

When asked during discovery to detail his understanding of similarities between the a

plants upon which he relies and Harris, Mr. Eddeman was unable to point to anything but general design similarities. With respect to similarities between Harris and Beaver Valley 1, Mr. Eddeman's interrogatory response lists: " Westinghouse plant NSSS, same generation of designs as Harris, virtually same size (885 MWe); detailed listing of similarities burdensome." He admitted that there are design differences as well but professed to have "no list" in answer to an interrogatory. Wells Eddlemen's Answers to Applicants' Second Set ofInterrogatories on Contentions 8F1 and 15AA, filed November 15,1983, at 7. When asked to identify simDarities between Harris and McGuire 1, Mr.

Eddeman responded: "Both Westinghouse NSSS plants; both with model D steam generators. Listing of generic similarities is most burdensome." He admitted that McGuire is a larger reactor, but objected to listing any other differences as i

! burdensom e. Id. at 6. When asked to list all other commercial nuclear units that he l

considered similar or comparable in design to Harris, Mr. Eddeman listed North Anna 1 and 2 as "slightly less similar" than Beaver Valley 1 and V. C. Summer 1 to Harris. In L reponse to an interrogatory request that he describe in detail the basis for considering each such unit similar or comparable in design to Harris, Mr. Eddleman stated the Model D-4 steam generators are most similar, Model D's are similar, and all Westinghouse steam generators are more similar to Harris than those of other manufacturers. He

. again was unable to provide more detail: " Details would be burdensome to list and I do 1

not have a list." Id.

t l.

l 4

,e , _ . - . _ , . , --_,,,,__.-,,,m, ~ , , . . . ,,.,y ..,.,._....._m.. . , , , ~ , . ,.,,_,,,y,.m., ,, ,. . . -,. ,._ . , , ,,. . . - _ , . _ - _ _ , ,

Thus, Mr. Eddleman has been unable or unwilling to provide any basis during discovery upon which to support his allegation that Harris' capacity factor should be judged solely against this handful of nuclear units. He cites only very general design simRarities with Harris-similarities that Harris also has in common with many other better performing nuclear units. Indeed, one could argue that it would be more appropriate to rely on the performance of the two most recent three-loop plants-North Anna 2 with a capacity factor of 65.0 percent and Farley 2 with a capacity factor of 80.7

- percent. Koppe Affidavit at 17. However, such a selective comparison has no statistical validity. Accordingly, Mr. Eddleman's selective comparisens provide no basis for believing thdt the Harris capacity factor will be less than that of Westinghouse plants generally.

Apart from historical performance data for Westinghouse plants, there are improvements incorporated into the Harris design which support the reasonableness of a 55 percent capacity factor estimate and suggest that the actual capacity factor may be higher. As Mr. Koppe points out, most of these design improvements will eliminate or reduce problems that have arisen in currently operating plants. Koppe Affidavit at 11-12. These design improvements and the reasons they will improve plant performance are described by Mr. Koppe in considerable detail. Id. at 10-13. If all the problems addressed by these improvements were eliminated, the capacity factors of three loop Westinghouse plants would have increased from 58 perc<.nt to 75-80 percent. Id. at 13.

Mr. Eddleman relles heavily on historical problems with Westinghouse steam generators in support of his allegations regarding low capacity factors. Indeed, Mr.

.Koppe points out that to date three-loop Westinghouse plants havelost an average of 8.0 percent of capacity factor due to steam generator corrosion. At the same time, those Westinghouse units which never used phosphates for feedwater treatment and do not employ sea water for cooling (there are 12 such units) have lost only an average of 0.8 percent. -Harris w.ll have significant design improvements to its steam generators, will 10 -

not operate with phosphates and will not be cooled with sea water. M. at 12. Thus, there is overy likelihood that Harris will operate with capacity factor losses due to steam r generator problems closer to 0.8 percent than 8.0 percent. M. at 13. Yet, even with significant historical steam generator problems, Westinghouse plants still have an average capacity factor which exceeds 55 percent.5 While it is possible that the Harris Plant may experience new problems that will prevent it from reaching a 75 percent capacity factor, Mr. Koppe concludes that these problems will affect Harris at a rate which islower than has been previously experienced by commercial nuclear units. In support of this conclusion, he points out that Harris' design features have received more extensive testing than earlier plants and that it has fewer new features. M. at 13-14. In addition, new NRC requirements may have an adverse impact on the Harris capacity factor but that impact is likely to be less because so many regulatory changes have already been incorporated into the Harris design and because the. NRC has recently shown increased flexibility toward scheduling of those plant modifications that are mandated. M. at 14. Finally, there is reason to anticipate that regulations pertaining to the license limit on core thermal power may be relaxed, thereby increasing the Harris capacity factor by 2-3 percent. Id. at 15.

3. There is no Basis for the Allegation that CP&L Involvement in the Design,

! Construction, and Management of the Harris Plant will Result in a Lower Capacity Factor.

l Mr. Eddleman also alleges that the increased f avolvement of CP&L in the design and l: construction of the Harris Plant is a basis for believing that the Plant will have a capacity factor substantially below 55 percent. To bolster this allegation, he develops a syllogistic argument to the effect that because Robinson Unit 2 with little CP&L involvement in design and construction has a higher capacity factor than the Brunswick

! 5 Applicants will demonstrate in the health and safety phase of this proceeding that l the Harris steam generators will operate safely in responding to Joint Intervenors' l

Contention VII. That issue need not be litigated in the context of this contention on i capacity factors.

11 -

1 j

i units which had greater CP&L involvement, the Harris capacity factor should be expected to be even lower since CP&L's involvement there has been greatest of all.

Contention 15-AA: Staff Overestimation of Harris Capacity Factor, by Wells Eddleman, filed June 30,1983, at 1-2; Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants' Interrogatories on

-Contention 15AA and 8F1, filed October 6,1983, at 4-6.

These allegations cannot withstand scrutiny. With respect to CP&L's design p involvement, about 80 to 90 percent of plant outage time involves the NSSS and turbine generatorthe designs of which are not within CP&L's control. Koppe Affidavit at 17.

Further, according to Mr. Koppe, utility involvement in the design of other plant components generally results in design improvements. _If During discovery, Mr. Eddleman admitted that his extrapolated reduction in the Harris capacity factor based upon the degree of CP&L involvement in construction of Robinson and Brunswick and their respective capacity factors cannot be supported by generally accepted statistical methodology. In his own words: "As to statistical validity, I think the sample size is too small to be able to use statistical methods successfully."

' Wells Eddleman's Answers to Applicants' Second Sets of Interrogatories on Contentions 8F1 and 15AA, dated November '15,1983, at 9. Thus, by his own admission, Mr.

Eddleman has made no showing that there ir a relationship between plant capacity factor and the degree of CP&L involvement in construction. Additionally, most nuclear plant outages are attributable to equipment failures; only a very small amount oflost capacity factor results from construction deficiencies. Koppe Affidavit at 18.

.Mr. Eddleman also suggests that CP&L management of the Harris Plant will result in a capacity factor below 55 percent. Contention 15AA, etc., supra at 2. However, he has 4

provided no rationale as to how the purported adverse effect (d' CP&L plant management challenges the reasonableness of the Staff's estimate. Altho,;is plant management does have an effect on plant performance, it is not possible to quantify reliably that effect.

Much of the variability'in plant performance is attributable to chance rather than 12 -

management and these differences should average out over time. Koppe Affidavit at

18. While Mr. Eddleman argues the performance of CP&L's Brunswick Plant (a BWR) supports his contentions, he does not and cannot square this argument with the performance of CP&L's Robinson Ursit 2-a Westinghouse PWR with a three-loop design generally similar to Harris-which has outperformed the industry average. Robinson Unit 2 has a lifetime capacity factor of 62.4 percent since commercial operation commenced in March 1971.6 I_d. at 18. Even assuming for purposes of this Motion for Summary Disposition that the management of the Harris Plant would be below average, the existence of other countervailing factors (such as, design improvements) make it quite reasonable tb project that the Harris Plant will still achieve a 55 percent capacity factor.7 I_d.

B. There Is No Genuine Issue of Material Fact As To Eddleman Contention 15AA.

As noted, Eddleman Contention 15AA challenges the NRC Staffs 55 percent capacity factor estimate for the Harris Plant upon which its evaluation of the benefits of the plant are premised. It need not be shown that the Staffs projection is mathematically precise, but merely that it is a reasonable assessment of future benefits. This fundamental rule of reason permits an informed discretion on the part of NRC in fulfilling its NEPA responsibilities.

Mr. Eddleman ha.= presented no facts that raise a genuine issue as to the l

l reasonableness of the Staffs capacity factor estimate. As discussed above and further I

detailed in the accompanying Koppe Affidavit, the Staffs estimate is fully supported by I 6 Robinson Unit 2 employed phosphate treatment of feedwater and had in original steam generator design with crevices in the tube sheet-both have contributed to l significant steam generator tube corrosion to the extent that those steam generators are i

being replaced. The Harris plant will not use phosphate water chemistry nor does the l design of the Harris steam generator have crevices in the tube sheet. Koppe Affidavit at 13.

7 i Applicants will demonstrate in the health and safety phase of this proceeding the l management capability to operate the Harris Plant safely. That issue need not be litigated in the context of this contention on capacity factors.

l

all available information pertaining to capacity factor projections, including historical performance data on generally similar nuclear units and information on design improvements to alleviate past problems. Even assuming for the purposes of this Motion that the Harris Plant management will be below average, the Staff's estimate remains reasonable. ,I,d.

In contrast, Mr. Eddleman's methodology for projecting the Harris capacity factor lacks any substantial basis. His choice of a select group of plants to compare with Harris lacks support entirely. His allegations regarding steam generator problems ignore design improvements in the Harris steam generators and ignore historical performance of Westinghouse steam generators with fresh water cooling and no phosphate water chemistry from initial operations. Likewise, his efforts to assign a capacity factor reduction to CP&L's involvement in the design, construction and operation of the plant cannot be sustained. Indeed, it is clear from discovery that Mr. Eddleman rests his case on unsupported and unsupportable speculation. No purpose will be served by adjudication of this contention.

VI. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Applicants respectfully request their Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 15AA be granted.

This 28th day of February,1984.

Respectfully submitted, Dale E. liollar, Esq.

Associate General Counsel Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-8161 14 -

.n .

Attorneys for Applicants:

Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

John H. O'N eill, Jr., P.C.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones, Esq. ,

Samantha Francis Flynn, Esq.

Carolina Power & Light Company Post Ofilce Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-6517

=

4

_ . .,, - _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ __.