ML20062H547

Motion for Summary Disposition of Jf Doherty Contention 24 Re Control Rod Drop Accident.Analysis Shows Reactivity Insertion from Dropped Rod Under Adverse Circumstances Will Be within Peak Energy Yield Limits.Pp 156-158

ML20062H547
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/04/1980
From:	BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19331C559	List: ML20062H463 ML20062H470 ML20062H473 ML20062H479 ML20062H485 ML20062H489 ML20062H504 ML20062H514 ML20062H526 ML20062H534 ML20062H543 ML20062H547 ML20062H549 ML20062H556 ML20062H558 ML20062H561 ML20062H572 ML20062H576 ML20062H580 ML20062H586 ML20062H589 ML20062H593 ML20062H597 ML20062H602 ML20062H605 ML20062H609 ML20062H614 ML20062H617 ML20062H620 ML20062H625 ML20062H630 ML20062H638 ML20062H651 ML20062H656 ML20062H662 ML20062H665
References
ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8008190108
Download: ML20062H547 (3)

Text

O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4

1 In the Matter of S

S HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S

j CO:1PANY

~

S Docket No. 50-466 S

(Allens Creek Nuclear S

Generating Station, Unit S

No. 1)

S i

APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ON INTERVENOR DOHERTY'S CONTENTION NO. 24 j

Applicant moves the Board under 10 CFR S 2.749 to I

grant summary disposition with respect to Intervenor Doherty's 1

Contention No. 24 relating to control rod drop accident.

As shown in the accompanying statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine issue to be heard, and affidavit j

of Richard C.

Stirn, there is no issue to try in this proceeding and Applicant is entitled under S 2.749 to have the contention summarily dismissed as a matter of law.

l The Contention Doherty's Contention No. 24, as admitted by the Board, states:

Applicant has not provided a basis for showing that the reactivity insertion from any dropped control rod will be sufficiently small to prevent the peak i

I 10 8 g008190 156 l

energy yield from exceeding 280 calories / gram of

,{

-fuel.

Argument Contrary to Intervenor Doherty's assertions, 3

i Applicant has performed a detailed analysis which demon-l

?

strates that the reactivity insertion.from any dropped rod under the most adverse circumstances will be sufficiently small to prevent a' peak energy yield from exceeding the design limit required by the NRC of 280 calories / gram of fuel.

Intervenor has neither alleged nor in any way indi-

)

cated what is inadequate about this analysis, i

As the Stirn affidavit describes, this comprehensive

.I analysis begins with the postulation of the worst possible i

sequence of events for producing a rapid reactivity insertion.

i The assumed circumstances account for all factors which 1

could maximize individual. control rod reactivity worth i

within the restrictions placed on rod position by the Rod Control Pattern System and operating technical specifications.

i It is then assumed that the maximum reactivicy worth control rod blade completely severs from its drive; the cause of the disconnection is not a concern since the non-mechanistic assumption of failure encompasses all possibilities.

The rod with the highest worth is then assumed to accelerate with gravity over a distance which would result in the most i

severe reactivity addition and addition rate.

These multiple 4

l i t

~

157

assumptions assure that no other conceivable sequence could add a greater amount of positive reactivity, and at a faster rate.

The maximum incremental reactivity to be edded in the accident is fully determined by these assumptions.

A

+

calculation of specific fuel enthalpy follows straightforwardly once the maximum incremental worth is set.

In this case, the peak enthalpy for the maximum incremental worth rod is only 48.2 percent of the design limit.

Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried in this proceeding and Applicant is entitled to summary disposition on this contention as a matter of law.

1 l l l

r l

1ss