ML17346B201
| ML17346B201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1986 |
| From: | Mcdonald D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Cole R, Lazo R, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| TASK-AS, TASK-BN86-017, TASK-BN86-17 BN-86-017, BN-86-17, OLA-1, TAC-62166, NUDOCS 8607070045 | |
| Download: ML17346B201 (13) | |
Text
~pgE REJIG (4
~4 O~
~~i n
)i**y4 UNITED STATES NUC LEAR R EG ULATORY COMMISS ION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 June 30, 1986 Docket Nos.
50-250 OLA-1 and 50-251 OLA-1 MEMORANDUM FOR'ROM:
SUBJECT'udge Dr. Robert M. Lazo, ASLB Judge Dr. Richard F. Cole, ASLB Judge Dr.
Emmeth A. Luebke, ASLB Daniel G. McDonald, Acting Director PWR Project Directorate L52 Division of PWR Licensing-A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation BOARD NOTIFICATION (BN-86-17)
VESSEL FLUX REDUCTION, TURKEY POINT PLANT UNITS 3 AND 4 In accordance with NRC procedures for Board Notifications, the following information is being provided directly to the Board.
The parties are being informed by copy of this memorandum.
In response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention (b),
dated August 10, 1984, the staff filed an affidavit by Summer B. Sun in the above referenced proceeding regarding Contention (b), dated September 4, 1984.
By letter dated April 10, 1985, the staff provided to the Board an additional affidavit by Messrs.
Sumer B. Sun and G.
Norman Lauben.
The second affidavit addressed the acceptability of the Westinghouse revision to the input methodol-ogy (data transfer procedure) between the REFLOOD and BART codes which are used in the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) evaluation model for Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4.
The April 10, 1985 letter and the affidavit are included as Enclosure 1 to this memorandum.
By memorandum dated May 16, 1985 (RN-85-055), the staff'rovided the Board with a supplement to the Safety Evaluation (SSE) on the BART code and also revised 8607070045 860630 PDR ADOCK 05000250 P
PDR I/O
0
the safety evaluation in support of'mendment Nos.
99 and 93 for the Turkey Point Plant Units 3 and 4, respectively, to re. lect the corrected peak clad temperature (PCT) using the BART code.
The revised SE for Amendments 99 and 93 supported the conclusion in the above referenced affidavits that the BART code and the PCT of 2057'F for Turkey Point Plant meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, and 10 CFR 50.46.
BN-85-055, with its enclosures, is included with this memorandum as Enclosure 2.
On August 16, 1985, the Board granted the Licensee's Notion for Summary Dispo-sition of Intervenors'ontention (b), which states:
Whether the entirely new computer model used by the utility, for calculat-ing reflood portions of accidents meets the Commission's ECCS Acceptance Criteria:
specifically, whether a 2.2K reduction in re-f'lood rate is misleading because for a small decrease in re-flood rate, there results a
large increase in fuel. temperature.
Reflood rates are critical if below 1
or 2 inches per minute.
By letter dated
.tune 2, 1986, which included a proprietary and non-proprietary Westinghouse Topical Re'port (WCAP) as Addendum 3, the NRC staff was informed by Westinghouse that an assessment recently completed has indicated that the effects of control rod thimbles on core hydraulics result in the need for additions and corrections to the currently approved 1981 Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) evaluation model and the 1981 ECCS evaluation model including BART.
The letter and non-proprietary version of the WCAP are included as Enclosure 3.
The effect of the thimbles on flooding rate was found to result in a 6 to 12'F increase in PCT for plants analyzed with the previously approved 1978 ECCS model and the 1981 ECCS model not using BART.
The effect on the 1981 ECCS evaluation model using BART resulted in a 10 to 20'F increase in PCT.
In addition, the Westinghouse-designed plants utilizing the 1981 ECCS evaluation model including BART are further affected by the need to remove a hot assembly power adjustment (originally included to account for thimbles) which was found inappropriate for BART based on the recent Westinghouse assessment.
This change results in approximately 100'F increase in PCT.
The staff will notify all licensees of Westinghouse designed pressurized water reactors (PWR), including Florida Power and Light, of the errors that Westinghouse has identified in their ECCS evaluation models (1978, 1981 and 1981 including BART).
The staff is also considering the actions necessary for interim and continued operation of those plants which, given the estimated maximum increase resulting from the errors, remain within the 2200'F acceptance criteria stated in 10 CFR 50.46(b)(l) and those plants which may exceed the 2200'F acceptance criteria.
We will keep the Board informed of the staff's actions regarding this matter.
The errors in the BART code and the increases in the PCT are relevant and material to Intervenors'ontention (b), which alleges that the BAPT code does not meet the ECCS acceptance criteria and the reduction in reflood rates calculated using the 1981 ECCS evaluation model including BART is significant.
As noted in Enclosure 1, the staff's SSF. in support of Amendment Nos.
99 and 93 indicated the ECCS evaluation model using the BART code satisfied the applicable requirements of the Commission's regulations and resulted in a PCT of 2051'F plus 10'F for the transition core.
With the maximum increases identified by Westinghouse in PCT of 20'F for the effect of the thimbles and 100'F for the hot assembly power adjustments, the revised PCT would be 2181'F.
This value remains within the 2200'F acceptance criteria stated in 10 CFR 50.46(b)(l).
As indicated in our initial Safety Evaluation (SE) dated December 23, 1983, in support of Amendment Nos.
99 and 93 for the Turkey Point Plant, the licensee submitted the results of a large break LOCA analysis by letter dated December 17, 1983, which used the previously approved ECCS evaluation model using the FLECHT correlation (i.e. the approved 198l ECCS model without BART).
This evaluation, without using BART, resulted in a
PCT of 2130'F plus 10'F for the transition core.
This calculation is also affected by the recent Westinghouse information concerning the effect of thimbles.
With a maximum increase of 1P'F for this effect, a revised PCT of 2152'F would be derived, which would also remain within the acceptance criterion of 2200'F.
The staff also noted in the SE in support of the amendments, that the results of both ECCS evaluation models are below the previously approved PCT of 2195'F for the Turkey Point Plant.
Both analyses supporting the amendments, when adjusted by the amount estimated by Westinghouse for the errors identified by Westinghouse, would still remain below the previously approved value of 2195'F and the acceptance criteria of 2200'F.
The staff's affidavits in support of summary disposition indicated that the ECCS evaluation model using BART A-1 and the previously approved model using the FLECHT correlation satisfy the applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, and 10 CFR 50.46.
As indicated above, both the previously approved models and the approved model using BART contain errors and thus, may not satisfy the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix K and 10 CFR 50.46.
Therefore, the information provided in this Board Notification could influence the Board's ruling on Contention (b) that using the previously approved ECCS model with the FLECHT correlation satisfies Appendix K.
Order, August 16, 1985, at 28-30.
However, for the following reasons, the staff believes that the rationale underlying the Board's summary disposition order will not be adversely affected by the new information.
First, the Board's dismissal of Contention (b) was based primarily on the ECCS evaluation model calculation using the FLECHT correlation and there is only, at most, a 12'F estimated increase in the previously calculated PCT (i.e., 2142'F}.
- Second, the staff expects that the PCT calculation using the corrected ECCS evaluation model using BART would be below 2200'F.
Thus, the staff expects that a corrected analysis with both models would satisfy 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, and 10 CFR 50.46.
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
ACRS (10)
EDO Parties to the Proceeding See next page
- See previous concurrence Daniel G. McDonald, Acting Director PWR Project Directorate ¹2 Division of PWR Licensing-A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION NRC PDR PAD¹2 Rdg T. Novak OELD S. Black D. McDonald ',
D. Miller-LA:PAD¹2 Dh1il le r 6/
/86
- AD:PAD¹2 DMcDonald:hc 6/
/86
+TOSB SBlack 6/
/86
- OELD
- OELD, MYoung EChristenbury 6/
/86 6/
/86
- AD:DPLA TNovak-6/
'/86
i F'
4 1
l I
models and the approved model using BART contain errors and thus, do not satisfy the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix K and 10 CFR 50.46.
Therefore, the information provided in this Board Notification could influence the Board's ruling on Contention (b) that using the previously approved ECCS model with the FLECHT correlation satisfies Appendix K.
Order, August 16, 1985, at 28-30.
Howeve~, for the following reasons, the staff believes that the rationale underlying the Board's summary disposition order will not be adversely affected by the new information.
First, the Board's dismissal of Contention (b) was based primarily on the ECCS evaluation model calculation using the FLECHT correlation and there is only, at most, a 12'F estimated increase in the previously calculated PCT (i.e., 2142'F).
- Second, the staff expects that the PCT calculation using the corrected ECCS evaluation model using BART would be below 2200'F.
Thus, the staff expects that a corrected analysis with both models would satisfy 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, and 10 CFR 50.46.
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
ACRS (10)
EDO Parties to the Proceeding See next page
- See previous concurrence Daniel G. McDonald, Acting Director PMR Project Directorate ¹2 Division of PWR Licensing-A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION oc et e
NRC PDR PAD¹2 Rdg T. Novak OELD S. Black D. McDonald D. Miller LA:PAD¹2 DMiller 6/
/86 "AD:PAD¹2
- TOSB
- OELD
- OELD DMcDonald:hc SBlack MYounq EChristenbury T
vak 6/
/86 6/
/86 6/
/86 6/
/86 6/%86
I
~,I ll d
P n
1
, lf I
~
k I
t~
/
h I
M f
Fr
models and the approved model using BART contain errors and
'do not satisfy the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix K and 10 CFR 50.46.
Therefore, the information provided in this Board Notification could influence the Board's ruling on Contention (b) that using the previously approved ECCS model with the FLECHT correlation satisfies Appendix K.
Order, August 16, 1985, at 28-30.
However, for the following reasons, the staff believes that the rationale underlying the Board's summary disposition order will not be adversely affected by the new information.
First, the Board's dismissal of Contention (b) was based primarily on the ECCS evaluation model calculation using the FLECHT correlation and there is only, at most, a 12'F estimated increase in the previously calculated PCT (i.e., 2142'F).
- Second, the staff expects that the PCT calculation using the corrected ECCS evaluation model using BART is expected to be below 2200'F.
Thus, the staff expects that a corrected analysis with both models would satisfy 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, and 10 CFR 50.46.
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
ACRS (10)
EDO Parties to the Proceeding See next page Daniel G. McDonald, Acting Director PWR Project Directorate ¹2 Division of PWR Licensing-A Office, of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION Doc et F>
e NRC PDR PAD¹2 Rdg T. Novak OELD S. Black D. McDonald D. Miller L :
D¹2 DM ler 6
6 AD:PAD¹2 TO DMcDonald:hc gSB ack 6/y+86 f 6/gl/86 L
OELD
, AD:DPLA oung EChristenbury TNovak 6/g.7/86 6/g( /86 6/
/86
~,
4 I
~
~
N
't P 4 q
E l'h II,
)
~
A;\\
'I r1 ~ f lr), "
CC:
Harold F. Reis, Esquire Newman and Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Mr. Jack Shreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Norman A. Coll, Esquire Steel; Hector and Davis 4000.Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Mr. C.
M. Wethy, Vice President Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power and Light Company P.O.
Box 029100 Miami, Florida 33102 Mr. M. R. Stierheim County Manager of Metropolitan Dade County Miami, Florida 33130 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station Post Office Box 57-1185 Miami, Florida 33257-1185
'r. Allan Schubert, Manager Public Health Physicist Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Intergovernmental Coordination and Review Office of Planning 5 Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Administrator Department of EnviroQental Regulation Power Plant Siting Sec'tion
'tate of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 2900
...10l..Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Martin H. Hodder, Esquire 1131 NE, 86th Street Miami, Flori da 33138 Joette Lorion 7269 SW, 54 Avenue Miami, Florida 33143 Mr. Chris J. Baker, Plant Manager Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power and Light Company P.O.
Box 029100 Miami, Florida 33102 Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
e 4
~
~
~