ML20198E424

Response Opposing Licensee 850920 Motion & NRC 851015 Supporting Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention (D). DNBR Limit of 1.17 Does Not Compensate for Uncertainties Re Fuel Rod Bowing,Mixed Core & WRB-1 Application

ML20198E424
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	11/07/1985
From:	Hodder M CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, HODDER, M.H., LORION, J.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20198E427	List: ML20198E424 ML20198E431 ML20198E435 ML20198E444
References
CON-#485-123 84-496-03-LA, 84-496-3-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8511140022
Download: ML20198E424 (7)

Text

G' 00

~

((C?

OS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA //gy 7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , .. MS

r. r~

~

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-1

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

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

Units 3 and 4 )

)

INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO LICENSEE' S MOTION AND STAFF'S SUPPORTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF INTERVENORS' CONTENTION (d)

Under the provisions of Rule 2.749 (a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Intervenors, the Center for Nuclear Responsibility Inc. , and Joette Lorion, submit this response, supported by the affidavits of Dr. Gordon Edwards and Joette Lorion attatched hereto, in opposition to both the Florida Power & Light Company's (Licensee's or FPL) Motion for Summary Disposition dated September 20, 1985, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff's (Staff's) Supporting Motion of October 15, 1985, on Intervenors' Contention (d).

INTRODUCcION In an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order dated L August 16, 1985, the Board admitted Intervenors' Contention (d) to this proceeding and ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the issues of material fact identified in the Board's 8511140022 851107 PDR ADOCK 05000250 e, 5

m (2 )

Order at page 54. In denying FPL's first motion for summary disposition on Contention (d), which was dated August 10, 1984, the Board further stated on page 50 of their Order that, "Interven-ors' principal allegation, namely that there has been a lowering of a DNBR to the point of trimming a safety margin, raises a genuine issue of material fact in this proceeding."

On' September 20, 1985, the Florida Power & Light Company filed a second Motion for Summary Disposition that addressed the issues of material fact identified by the Board in their

, Order, thereby renewing their original motion for summary disposition of Contention (d). Intervenors have argued that this is an illegal procedure that is prohibited by the Commission's Rules at 10 C.F.R.2.730 (f) ; and that "a denial of a motion for summary disposition is interlocutory and therefore cannot be appealed." Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Generating Station, Unit 3) ALAB 220, 8 AEC, 93, 94 (1974).

For the reasons stated below both the Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention (d), and the Staff's supporting motion must fail.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION Under both the Commission's and Federal Court's Rules of Practice, "the burden of proof lies upon the movant for summary disposition, who must demonstrate the absence of any issue of material fact." Adickes v. Kress and Co., 398, U.S 144,157, Perry AIAB-443 ma 6 NRC at 753. Again under both NRC and Federal Rules, "the record is to be reviewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the notion."

~.

(3)

Dairyland Power Cooperative , 16 NRC 512, 519 (1982) citing:

Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473 (1962); Crest Auto Supplies Inc. v. Ero Manufacturing Co.,

360 F. 2d, 896, 899 (7th Cir. 1966); United Mine Workers of America , Dist. 22 v. Ronoco, 314 F. 2d 186, 188 (10th Cir.

1963); Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. and Allegheny Electric Cooperative Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),_LBP 81-8, 13 NRC 335, 337 (1981) ; Seabrook , LBP 36, supra, 6 NRC, supra, 7 AEC at 879.

Finally,for a contention to remain litigable, the Intervenors must present to the Board a sufficient factual basis "to require reasonable minds to inquire further." Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. and Allegheny Electric Cooperative Inc., (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2) ALAB 613, 12 NRC 317, 340 (1980). The issues of material fact raised in the Intervenors' response and affidavits to FPL's first motion for summary dispo-sition, and those raised in Intervenors' response and affidavits presented here, demonstrate that a sufficient material basis has been raised on Contention (d), and that the Licensee's and Staff's motions for summary disposition of this contention must be denied.

BACKGROUND Intervenors' Contention (d) states:

The proposed decrease in departure in the nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) would significantly and adversely affect the margin of safety for the operation of the reactors. The restriction of the DNBR safety limit is intended to prevent overheating

( 4i of_the fuel and possible cladding perforation, which would result in the release of fission products from the fuel. If the minimum allowable DNBR is reduced from 1.3 to 1.17 as proposed, this would authorize operation of the fuel much closer to the boundary of the nucleate boiling regime. Thus, the safety margin will be significantly reduced. Operation above the boundary of the nucleate boiling regime could result in excessive cladding temperatures because of the departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) and the resultant sharp reduction in heat transfer coefficient. Thus, the proposed amendment will both signicicantly reduce the safety margin and significantly increase the prob-ability of serious consequences from an accident.

Intervenors' Ccntention (d) was admitted to this-

. proceeding by the Licensing Board Prehearing Conference Order, dated May 16, 1984. Despite an attempt by FPL to have Intervenors' Contention (d) smmmarily dismissed in their Motion for Summary Disposition of August 10, 1984, the Board in l

an Order dated August 16, 1985, ruled three genuine issues as to material fact remained for litigation on Contention (d).

P The issues of material fact identified on page 54 of the Board's Order are:

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

2. Whether, if the DNBR of 1.17 does not compen-sate for those uncertainties, the SRP's 95/95 standard, or a comparable one, is somehow satisfied.

3. Whether, if the standard is not being satisfied, the reduction in the margin of safety has been significant.

f

- . , , ,, ,% + - - , - . - - - - y ,- -,, ,

( 5)

Intervenors do not agree with FPL and the Staff that no issues of material fact remain to be litigated on Contention

'(d). Intervenors restate their position that the DNBR limit of 1.17 allowed by the amendments will significantly reduce the margin of safety for the Turkey Point nuclear reactors.

See Affidavits of Joette Lorion and Dr. Gordon Edwards.

Specifically, in response to the three issues identified the Boards Order, Intervenors conclude the following.

First,the DNBR limit of 1.17 does not compensate for the uncertaintics outlined in the Staff's SER at page 4. Because it does not compensate for these uncertainties, and because this design base limit could some day be used as-the calculated DNBR, the 1.17 may not meet the 95/95 standard prescribed in the Standard Review Plan. Dr. Edwards has also pointed out that the applicability of the DNBR of 1.17 to the OFA fuel in a transitional mixed core is highly questionable.

Second, since the DNBR limit of 1.17 does not compensate for the uncertainties for rod bow of 5.5%, mixed fuel core of 3%, and 2% penalty for application of the WRB-1 correlation to the 15 x 15 OFA core , and because the 1.17 limit consitutes the bounding value for experimental data, it follows that a DNBR design value of 1.17 does not provide the 95% confidence prescribed in the SRP. Dr. Edwards again points out that the uncertainties could be much higher because of the mixed core.

( 6)

Third, if compensation for uncertainties in the 1.17 DNBR design limit causes it to fail to meet the 95/95 standard of the SRP, it is clear that the amendments in question will cause a significant reduction in the margin of safety for the Turkey Point nuclear reactors.

CONCLUSION In short, the 1.17 DNBR limit does not compensate for the uncertainties associated with fuel rod bowing, mixed core, and the WRB-1 application. Because the DNBR limit does not compensate for these uncertainties, and because it is the bounding value for the 95/95 standard, it is questionable whether this limit combined with the penalties outlined in the SER at page 4 will meet the 95/95 standard. If the 1.17 limit after compensating for these uncertainties does not meet the 95/95 standard, it is clear that this will mean a significant reduction in the margin of safety for the Turkey Point Nuclear Reactors. The lower DNBR margin, which allows the reactor to operate at a higher temperature increases the chances that the fuel could overheat and release fission products into the primary coolant.

Affidavits attatched to this motion support the Board's concern"that there has been a lowering of the DNBR to the point of trimming a safety margin." Intervenors have demonstrated to this Board that genaine issues of material fact remain on Contention (d), and that these issues should properly be l

l J

(7) resolved at hearing.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Licensee's Motion for Summmary Disposition of Contention (d), and Staff's Supporting Motion must fail.

Respectfully submitted, Martin H. Hodder 1131 NE 86 Street Miami, F1. 33138 (305) 751-8706 Attorney for the Center for Nuclear Responsibility and Joette Lorion Dated: November 7, 1985

.