ML20154C439

Reply to Intervenors 860217 & NRC 860224 Proposed Finding of Fact & Conclusions of Law,Per 860205 Order.Nrc Filing Adequately Replies to Intervenors Proposed Findings of Facts & Conclusions of Law.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20154C439
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	03/03/1986
From:	Bauser M FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER
To:	Cole R, Lazo R, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#186-294 OLA, NUDOCS 8603050156
Download: ML20154C439 (7)

Text

._.

M/4 ,

i( NEWM.AN & HoLTzIwoza, E C.

isis e sincer, u.w. 00CMETED USNRC JACK R estwo4AN WASHIN GTON. O.C. 2003 6 wituaM E. aAEn.Ja JDMN E MOLT 2issGER.JA DOUGLAS L SERCSFO#D MAmoto F. mEIS DAmeanA A DUNCO*est MA 202 955 66OO JANET L e ECmEm J .U8hCE AltELnAD

. .Co.N.GM1.

WAUL M RECK J . '86 MR -4 M1 :38 ==-r==N STEvCN P FRANT2 GComGEL EDGAA DOmOTMY P GAY or,eLEEN M. S.**

• DAVID G. PowELL March 3i 1986 n . JILL E GRANT DOUGLAS G GaCEN OfflCE e... AMEL A A L ACE,

=A=OL LvN NCwMAN DOCKLi!% .'. :.u auSON LeM*S'Ea JOMN Y STouGM.Ja ggp* FaANM R UNOM REviss J UPSON JA*eCS S vaSaLE MsCMAEL A BA*JSER DavlO 5 RA$ntN AkvlN M GUTTERMAN eJANE I RYAN r.e'vtN P GALLEN DON ALD J. SILVERMAN YMoseAS A SCMMUT2 JJ.COLYN A SsMMONS MtCMAEL F ME ALv ROBERT M SOLOMON ROBERT wMITE JOSEPM E. STUSBS SCOTT A. .eA. MAN ROSENT LOWENSTEIN esORMAN A. FLAMINGAM OF Couestat Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Dr. 'ichard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing At. c Safety and Licensing Board Panel rd Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 f

In the Matter of Florida Power & Light Company (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 & 4)

Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-1 and 50-251 OLA-1 (Vessel Flux Reduction)

Dear Members of the Board:

i On January 21, 1986, Licensee Florida Power and Light Company filed its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this proceeding; those of the Intervenors were filed on February 17, 1986; and those of the NRC Staff were filed on February 24, 1986. Pursuant to your Order of February 5, 1986, Licensee is entitled to file reply findings no later than today. A review of the pleadings already filed leads us to believe, however, that it is not necessary to burden the Board with extensive additional proposed findings of a formal nature. Instead, this letter and its attachment are intended to sarve as the Licensee's reply.

There are, of course, differences in emphasis and detail between the proposed findings and conclusions of the Licensee F

B603050156 060303 PDR ADOCK 05000250 ~'

C PDR ' o e

\ 0 D,

NzwwAw & Hotrzzwozm. R C.

qi 2

and the NRC Staff. Nevertheless, they are in substantial agreement, and Licensee does not consider it necessary to -

reply to the Staff's pleading. In addition, we believe that, in an anticipatory manner, the Licensee's filing and, more l directly since it followed the Intervenors' filing, the NRC Staff's filing in large part already adequately reply to the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted by the Intervenors. However, Intervonors raise two matters which warrant some brief, additional discussion.

First, during the course of the hearing, Intervenors' witness and technical interrogator Dr. Edwards. ultimately ,

recognized, contrary to Intervenors' Propcsed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, that significant tests and mea-surements existed concerning the development and application of the WRB-1 correlation and the quantification of penalties to account for uncertainties. E.g., Tr. 582, 886-87. Specif-ically, as the hearing developed and with respect to the "three uncertainties" referred to in the Board's first question (i.e., application of the WRB-1 correlation to 15x15 OFA array fuel; rod bcw; and mixed LOPAR/OFA fueled core) the ,

primary point of contention among the parties that emerged was the effect of a mixed core. As Intervenors' Dr. Edwards stated in response to questioning by Chairman Lazo concerning the 3% mixed core penalty:

My problem is that in talking about the 95/95 confi- '

dence level regarding the WRB-1 correlation, we learned that there was a bound taken for the data set, but still one could only assert that it was  :

95/95 confident.

That was based upon a very extensive and very ex-haustive sequence of measurements and tests over a long period 9f time, as Dr. Hsii has described.

When we come to the rod bow penalty, we are told that there is also a wealth of statistical informa-tion and measurements to confirm that a 95/95 confi-dence level was met.

When we come to this criterion, I have difficulty I

in seeing where there is any coqpariqpn in terms of scientific cert _i-tude that wco;d allow one to conclude that a 95/Q5 confidenEN f(svel o[ any kind of confidence level has been met sig ly bn_using a code and calculating rathenstical <amberb and saying this is the biggest.nu+her we M ve cc* and I therefore that (3 percent] is14 bondin; [ sic value.  ;

1 l

l -

NCwwAw & Hon.rztwasm. R C.

l-3 I have great difficulty with understanding how this

. can be construed as satisfying that criterion.

Tr. 886-87 (emphasis added),

4 However, the effect of a mixed core has been fully explored and explained by both the NRC Staff and the Licensee. .See, e.g., Hsii, ff. Tr. 733, at 13-15; Dzelis, ff. Tr. 302, at 6-7. A mixed core penalty was applied *n the 1.34 safety analysik minimum DNBR calculated for Turkey Point assuming a homcgeneous core, Hsil, ff Tr. 733, at 13-14. The penalty, of course, is to account for the fact that LOPAR and OFA fuel have different hydraulic resistance characteristics which affect the cross-flow of coolant between the different fuel bundles such that the OFA fuel, which has the higher spacer grid resistance, will receive less flow. Hsii, ff.

Tr. 733, at 13. This reduction in flow was quantified through experiments on the hydraulic characteristics of the two types of f uel assemblies. Tr. 312. The hydraulic characteristics established by these experiments were used in a sensitivity study -- utilizing NRC Staff approved methodology -- to deter-mine the percent difference in the DNBR between a homogeneous ,

core and a mixed core for various reactor conditions. These

• calculations indicated that a 3% DNER reduction, applied to the OPA fuel, was sufficient to bound all effects for the transition core geometry. Hsii, ff. Tr. 733, at 14, 17-18. Since the 3% penalty is a bounding -- or worst case

-- value, it satisfies the 95/95 probability standard. E.g.,

Tr. 884.

Second, Intervenors have attempted to inject confusion i concerning WABA rods in the core, even while admitting that they have no knowledge of any effect. See, e.g., Intervenors' Freposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 1 50; Tr.

608-09, 627-28, 631, However, this matter, too, has been well considered and explained.

The effect of WABA rods has been reviewed and their use approved by the NRC Staff. Quite sinply, reactor coolant flow through the WABA rods is considered in analysis to bypass the core completely. The effect of bypass flow has been analyzed up to that which would result from a large number of such rods. Based on this analysis, the Staff has set a restriction on the number of WABA rods such that -- if the limit is not exceeded -- no separate consideration of WABA red bypass flow is necessary. This limit has not been exceeded at Turkey Point and, thus, the effect of WABA rod bypass flow has been properly evaluated. See, e.g., Tr.

838-51.  :

e 2tanser O Rorraxworo,R C.

i 4

For the convenience of the Board, we have briefly out-lined, in an attachment to this letter, the principal _ issues raised in the Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as to which they differ from the positions espoused by the other parties. The attachment specifies the paragraphs in which the ;'ntervenors make each point, and some of the related paragraphs of the License and Staff findings and conclusions.

Respectfully submitted,

&'"}.

Norman A. Coll Michael A. Bauser Steel, Hector & Davis Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

4000 Southeast 1615 L St., N.H.

Financial Center Washington, D.C. 20036 Miami, Ilorida 33131-2398 (202) 955-6600 (305) 577-2800 Attachment cc: Enclosed Service List b

ATTACEMENT Suecary of issues raised in "Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" with references to where these issues are uddressed by the WRC Staff's and Licenaae's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Interveners NRC STAFF Licensee

h. Intervenors contend that the penalties casigned for particular uncertainties do not satisfy the 95/95 standard of the Standard Reviey Plan in thate

1. Mixed Core Penalty 22-25, 32 39-49 34-37

a. "lTjbe mixed core penalty was not ,72 41-44. 43 34 <

verified by experimental date but was only a calculation perfcrmed by Licensee."

b. "[N]o experimentti data existis] 25 39-40 34-35, 43-44 which actu.cIly measure {s) the effects on CHF of inte-bundle creas-ficu between fuel bundles of different ,

design."

2. Rod Bow Penaltv 26-29, 32 50-56 38-41

a. "There lis) confusies as to whether 26628 52-55 39-40 the 5.5% rod bow penalty is suffi- fns.13 & l4 @ 30 ciently conserv.ative"

b. "There is n o . . . d a t a en rod bov 27 55-56 39 ,

penalty for .. 15 x 15 0FA fuel."

3. Applicability of WR3-1 Correlation 17-18, 30-31, 32 57-60 46-48

a. "(Tlhere (is) no experimental CEF 31 57-60 46-47 data on the [applicabitity of the WRB-1 correlation to] .. 15 x 15 OFA fuel."

b. "[I]mportant tests were not 31 & IB 59-60 48 performed.

B. Thus, In c ervenors conclude that:

1. Reduction in the Safety .'<argin 34-40 71-77, 33, 36-37, 50 see also 26-28, see also 23, a, jslon-compliance with the 95/95 38 ,

Standard of the Srpndard Review 41-49 23, 39, flan ... constitutes .s significant 66-68, 70  !+9 reduction in the Safety Margin ..."

h M

~

~ ~ . .. .. . - - - . . . . . . -. .. .-- - -- - _ --- _

~3  ;

a

.I 4-DCLKETEG r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

% MR 4 M138  :

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '

DFFru W ..:..a *

) 00CeLItnG '. SN MJ. -

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250bh1hk FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-251 OLA-1 i

) ,

(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 ) ASLBP No. 84-496-03 A f and 4) 1 (Vessel Flux Reduction) ,

) -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i

,' I hereby certify that copies of a letter to the Members of the Board from Michael A. Bauser, dated March 3, 1986, +

together with the attachment thereto, were served on the '

follcwing by deposit in the United St3tes mail, first class, i postage prepaid and properly addressed, on the date shown .

, below. ~

Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman i i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [

Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

Dr. IL9meth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

. Washington, D.C. 20555 '

t Dr. Richard P. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel  :

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

Washington, D.C. 20555 '

I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic'a Washington, D.C. 20555 i Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 f

Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Secticn (original plus two copies) i i

r i

4

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

V

.; 2 u

Mitzi A. l'oung, Esq.

Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 Norman A. Coll, Esq.

Steel, Hector &~ Davis 400G Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 d

Martin II. Hodder, Esq. .

1131 N.E. 86th St.

Miami, Florida 33138 Dated this 3rd day of March, 1985.

MichaL1 A. ~'auser B ~

Newman & Holtzinger, P.C,

1615 L St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-6600 4

i i

i i

I i

l I i I - . _ . _ - . . . , . . .. .. . - , . . . , . - _ ... ,. - . _ . . . . . .