ML20135H883

Affidavit of EA Dzenis Re Vessel Flux Reduction at Facilities

ML20135H883
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	09/20/1985
From:	Dzenis E FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20135H878	List: ML20135H877 ML20135H879 ML20135H883 ML20135H886
References
84-496-03-LA, 84-496-3-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8509240346
Download: ML20135H883 (4)

Text

,. . .

I l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-1

) 50-251 OLA-1 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY )

) ASLBP No. 84-496-03 LA (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating ) (Vessel Flux Reduction)

Units 3 & 4) )

)

AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD A. DZENIS I, Edward A. Dzenis, being duly sworn, say as follows:

1. I am Manager.of Core Design, Section C, for the Nuclear Fuel Division of Westinghouse Electric Corporation. My business address is Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Monroeville Mall Office Building, P.O. Box 3912, Pittsburgh, PA 15230. A summary of my professional qualifications and experience is included as part of.my August 8, 1984 affidavit, which was submitted in this proceeding as part of Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contention (d), dated August 10, 1984. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein, and believe them to be true and correct.

2. In an Order dated August 16, 1985, the Licensing Board, among other things, granted Licensee's motion for summary dispo-sition of.Intervenors' Contention (b), but denied Licensee's motion for summary disposition of Contention (d). [E.g., Order, pp. 54-55.]

8509240346 850920 PDR ADOCK 05000250 0 PDR

-. .-. - - - . , = - . -. .

9 In connection with this latter motion, the Board presented three l

questions.

3. The Board's first question is presented in terms of I

Whether the DNBR of 1.17 which the amendments impose on the OFA fuel in Units 3 and 4. compensates for the three uncertainties outlined by the Staff in its December 23, 1983 SER on the amendments, at 4.

4 The. answer to this question is: No.

4. The DNBR acceptance limit of 1.17 for the WRB-1 corre-lation constitutes the 95/95 bounding value for experimental data.

The method for determining this limit is described in paragraph 21 of my earlier affidavit, referenced above.

4

5. The 1.17 DNBR acceptance limit provides the 95/95 confidence

prescribed by the.NRC Staff in it~s Standard Review Plan. [See generally, Order, p. 44.] It applies to all Westinghouse plants using Optimized Fuel Assembly (OFA) fuel.

I

6. In particular, the 1.17 DNBR acceptance limit does not i

compensate for the three Turkey Point plant specific calculational uncertainties referred to in the Board's question; i.e.: rod bow, mixed Low-Parasitic LOPAR/OFA fueled core, and 15x15 OFA array fuel. As explained below, such uncertainties are considered in

.the analysis of anticipated operational occurrences. The results are then compared to the 1.17 DNBR limit to determine acceptability.

7. The Board's second question inquires as to Whether, if the DNBR of 1.17 does not compensate for those uncertainties, the SRP's 95/95 standard, or a comparable one, is somehow satisfied.

The answer to this question is

Yes.

i 4

. - , _ _ --r~- , y-- r-,- - .m-. ,-,-, , ,9- ,- . . , , . , _ _ _ - , , - , , , . - - , - , , - - _ _ . , - - , -

O

8. The SRP's 95/95 confidence (or standard)'is satisfied by assuring that minimum DNBR's calculated for all normal and anticipated operational occurrences are greater than the 1.17 DNBR acceptance limit, after accounting for the uncertainties referred to above. In the case of the particular amendments under consider-ation here (Amendment No. 99 to the Turkey Point 3 license, and Amendment No. 93 to the Turkey Point 4 license), the safety analysis minimum DNBR is 1.34 using the WRB-1 correlation. [SER on Amendments at 4.] As demonstrated by the equation below, the 1.34 safety analysis minimum DNBR--which is calculated from Turkey Point plant specific reactor parameters--is 12.7% higher than the allowable DNBR limit of 1.17 derived from the WRB-1 correlation.

1.34-1.17 1.34

= 12.7%

[See also, id.] The three uncertainties referred to above, however, total only 10.5%.

5.5% (for rod bow) 3.0% (for mixed LOPAR/OFA fuel core) 2.0% (maximum, for 15x15 OFA array fuel) 10.5%

[See also, id.] Since 12.7% is greater than 10.5%, there is sufficient margin in the 1.34 safety analysis minimum DNBR, above the 1.17 allowable DNBR limit, to compensate for uncertainties associated with rod bow, the mixed 'LOPAR/OFA fuel core, and 15xl5 OFA array fuel.

9. It is relevant to note that application of uncertainties l

to results obtained from predictive analysis, rather than to design I basis limits,'is common in the engineering field. In particular, l 1

it is the approach that has been used for all Westinghouse safety analyses for Turkey Point, independent of fuel design or critical heat flux correlations.

4 i

l 9 I

10. The Board's third question inquires as to Whether, if that standard is not being satisfied, the reduction in the margin of safety has been significant.

As described above, the standard is being satisfied.

Further deponent sayeth not.

Edward A. DzenisC7 h%

STATE OF [Meh" ME OF h

-ET g ss.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this /o Yk day of MMW

'/

, 1985.

My commission expires: /=2 -/ Y- 87 3

NOTARY PUBLIC h.hrba a '

LORRAINE M. PIPilCA. NOTARY PUBLIC MONROEVILLE BORD ALLEGHEhV COUNif MY COMMIS$10N EXPIRES CEC 14.1987 Member. Pennsylvania Association of Notaries

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