ML20198E444

Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is Genuine Issue Re Contention (D).Dnbr of 1.17 Does Not Compensate for Fuel Rod Bow,Mixed Fuel Core & Fuel Array Uncertainties as Outlined in NRC Ser.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20198E444
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
84-496-03-LA, 84-496-3-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8511140028
Download: ML20198E444 (6)

Text

"

t 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 ) (Vessel Flux Reduction)

Units 3 and 4 )

)

INTERVENORS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS A GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HERAD WITH RESPECT TO INTERVENORS' CONTENTION (d)

Pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.749 (a),

and in response to the Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention (d), dated September 20, 1985, and in response to the Staff's supporting Motion, dated August 15, 1985, Intervenors offer the following statement of material facts as to which there is a genuine issue to be heard in support of Intervenors' Contention (d).

A. As to Whether the DNBR of 1.17 which the amendments impose on the OFA fuel in Units 3 and 4 compen-sates for the three uncertainties outlined by the Staff in its December 23, 1983 SER on the amendments at 4, the answer is: No.

8511140028 851107 PDR ADOCK 0 % 2DR G

- - . . = _ _ ..

~~

T

( 2)

(1) The DNBR acceptance limitc for the WRB-1 correlation constitutes the 95/95 bounding value for experimental data. The DNBR limit of 1.17 does not compensate for the uncertainties outlined in page 4 of.the Staff's SER; i.e. fuel' rod bow, mixed LOPAR/OFA fuel core, and 15 x15 OFA fuel array.

(2) Neither the Staff nor FPL has proven that the 1.17 DNBR design limit, after compensation for the uncertainties associated with rod bow of 5.5%, mixed fuel core of 3%, and use of the.15 x 15 fuel array at 2%, will meet the Standard Review Plan's 95/95 standard '(NUREG 0800) -

., that it will assure with 95%

confidence that there is a 95% probability that departure fran nucleate boiling (DNB) will not occur. Lorion Affidavit, p. 4 (November 6, 1985).

(3) Both the WRB-l_ correlation and-the Licensee's own plant specific analysis have been predicated on the assumption of a homogenous core. Therefore, the applicability of the DNBR of 1.17 to the OFA fuel in a transitional mixed core is highly questionable. Edward's Affidavit, p. 2 ('ovenber N 5, 1985).

(4) It would seem prudent not to countchance the use of a DNBR of 1.17 for the OFA fuel in Units 3 and 4 until the transitional period has passed and the core is truly homogenous.

Edward's Affidavit, p. 3 (November 5, 1985). .

B. As to ,1 3 i

Whether, if the DNBR of 1.17 does not cogpensate '

for those uncertainties, the SRP's 95/95 standard, s or a comparable one,'is somehow satisficd,

, \'

t N

, _ _ . - - . _ - - - - . . , - , - _ -..___,r ..._.__~. ___ . _ . _ . . . . . . . . , --- .

.. - = -

e

( 3) the answer is: No.

(1) The 1.'17 DNBR design limit constitutes the 95/95 bounding value for experimental data. If the 1.17 does not compensate for uncertainties listed in the Staff's SER, and neither FPL or the Staff have proven that it does, it follows that a 1.17 design limit DNBR, which may someday be used for 4

the calculated DNBR, does not provide the 95% confidence prescribed in the Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, Section 4.4.

Lorion Affidavit, p. 4 (November 6,1985) .

(2) The Licensee and the Staff have not made an adequate l showing that the mixed fuel core calculated DNBR limit of 1.34 meets the 95/95 standard. Dr. Edward's points out that FPL and

the Staff have performed only a crude linear estimate of the actual result of combining the three penalties outlined in the

!- + SER. If we make the reasonable assumption that the three penalties i

h, are not independent of each other, but interact with each other, the resulting maximum penalty could go considerably higher than that calculated by FPL and the Staff. Edward's Affidavit,

p. 5 (November 5, 1985).

(3) Neither FPL or the Staff has proven that a DNBR design

(  !'. s limit of t,1.17, which does not compensate for the uncertainties v

a outlined above, meets the 95/95 standard of the SRP or any comparable standard.

+

i l

l l

(4)

~

C. As to- ,

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

significant. j the answer to this is: Yes.

(1)- Under 10 C.F.R. 50.91 a proposed amendment involves a significant hazard if it' involves the following: A significant relaxation of the criteria used to establish safety limits.

l When the NRC Staff issued their no signficant hazards determination for these amendments they specified that the change would be a'

clearly within all,accpetable criteria with respect to the Standard Review Plan.

(2) There is every indication that the DNBR design limit of 1.17 will result in a significant' reduction in the margin of safety for the Turkey Point reactors because it will allow these reactors,after compensation for uncertainties,toioperate outside of the criteria prescribed in the Standard Review Plan's 95/95 standard and it will cause FPL to exceed it's own Bases for Safety Limit Reactor Core, outlined in Technical Specification B2.1-1. Lorion Affidavit 4 and 5, (November 6, 1985).

(3) The adoption of a DNBR of 1.17 for the OFA fuel in the transitional core is unwarranted unless detailed studies are done, proceeding from the assumption of a' mixed core, and confirming i

that a DNBR of 1.17 is indeed appropriate under such circumstances.

Edward's Affidavit, p. 6 (November 5, 1985).

l

( 5)

Respectfully submitted, l 0

Martin H. Hodder 1 1131 NE 86 Street Miami, F1. 33138 (305) 751-8706 Attorney for the Center for Nuclear Responsibility and Joette Lorion Dated: November 7, 1985.

4

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

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-3

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

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

-Units 3 and 4 ) .

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the "Intervenors' Response to Licensee's and Staff's Motions for Stamary Disposition of Contention (d)," with attatched affidavits of Gordon Edwards and Joette Iorion, and "

Statment of Material Facts As 'Ib litich 'Ihere Is A Genuine Issue 'Ib Be Heard With Respect to Intervenors' Contention (d)" have been served upon the following parties by Express Mail Overnight Delivery, except for the parties marked with an asterisk, on the date shown below.

J

• • Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Harold F. Reis, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Newman and Holtzinger, P.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1615 L. Street NW Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, DC 20036

• • Dr. Emmeth A. Leubke

• Norman A. Coll, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Steel, Hector & Davis U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission 4000 SE Financial Center Washington, D.C. 20555 Miami, Fl. 33131-2398

• • Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington,'D.C. 20555 ) s

• Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Martin H. Hodder Washington, D.C. 20555 1131 NE 86 Street Miami, F1. 33138 Mitzi A. Young, Esquire (305) 751-8706

. Counsel for NRC Staff Attorney for the Center for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Responsibility Inc.

Washington, DC 20555 and Joette Lorion DATEDt November 7, 1985 i I Designates parties served by first class mail.

• • 'Ihe Board was served by Federal Express Sane Day Service to assure that the doctament was in their office by the close of business on this date.

. - . _ - _ . . . - . ._ -