ML20207C627
| ML20207C627 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1986 |
| From: | Hodder M CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207C631 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#486-2021 84-496-03-LA, 84-496-3-LA, OLA, OLA-2, NUDOCS 8612300194 | |
| Download: ML20207C627 (4) | |
Text
r f
t:
1>d>1st DOCKETED uvmc 16 DEC 29 P6 :43 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO(p{;f^s...
L'
~
tz i' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket nos. 50-250-OLA-1
)
50-251-OLA-2 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(Vessel' Flux Reduction)
(Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4)
)
)
ASLBP NO. 84-496-03-LA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION TO RELINQUISH JURISDICTION AND TERMINATE PROCEEDING On November 20, 1986, the Licensee, Florida Power and Li ht Company, submitted their " Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction 8
l l
and Terminate Proceeding" in the above captioned matter.
The l
Intervenors in this proceeding, Joette Lorion and the Center for Nuclear Responsibility,hereby submit that the Atomic Safety l
and Licensing Board (Board) should oppose the Licensee's l
suggestion that there be a relinquishment of jurisdiction and termination of this proceeding.
BACKGROUND On July 24, 1986, the Board issued an Initial Decision (LBP 86-23) disposing of Intervenors' Contention (d) but retaining jurisdiction over Intervenors' Contention (b), which contended that the BART computer code did not meet the ECCS acceptance criteria.
The Board retained jurisdiction of the 8612300194 B61215 PDR ADOCK 05000250 G
))p3
-~-
)!
( 2
).
contention in view of the information provided in Board Notification (B.N.) 86-17, which notified the Board that the ECCS approved model using the BART computer code, which was utilized to obtain the subject license amendments, contained errors and might not satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 Appendix K and 10 C.F.R. 50.46.
Following this, in a m'emo to the Board dated October 23, 1986, Daniel Mcdonald, NRC Project Manager of Turkey Point, notified the Board that the NRC Staff is not requiring that Florida Power &
Light perform a reanalysis using the corrected data because "at this time there are no licensing actions pending before the Staff relating to the Turkey Point Plant which use the BART code."
This memo to the Board also contains an attatchment in the form of a letter from Harold H. Denton, Director of Reactor Regulation, dated October 20, 1986, which states that for the plants analyzed with the 1981 ECCS evaluation model with BART the change in WREFLOOD and BART could result in approximately 120 F.
Increase in peak clad temperatures.
Mr. Denton goes on to explain that if a utility used the 1981 Westinghouse ECCS evaluation model with BART in a current analysis, reanalysis is not required, but that if an ECCS analysis is,used to support future licensing actions, then that analysis must be performed with a correct evaluation model.
Mr. Denton concludes by stating, " It is our understanding that the 1981 ECCS model with BART which support licensing actions currently
. ~.
1
( 3) under review by the NRC have already been done with the corrected version."
i DISCUSSION It is clear from both the Licensee's Motion to Terminate the Proceeding dated November 20, 1986, and the NRC Staff's Response to the motion dated December 10, 1986, that the Licensee and Staff have adopted Mr. Mcdonald's erroneous conclusion that the Turkey Point nuclear' power plant, which has not had an ECCS analysis performed with the corrected version of the BART code, is somehow grandfathered in by an 1
earlier demonstration of compliance with an outdated and error I
ridden 1981 computer model.
Intervenors contend that for both the Licensee and Staff to ask the Board to relinquish jurisdiction on Contention (b) now that the new and anticipated information has become available, is to ask this Board to evade the very issue that they have decided they want to review.
For clearly, by maintaining jurisdiction, this Board has demonstrated its interest and intent that there be compliance with NRC ECCS acceptance criteria.
Furthermore, Intervenors have reason to believe that if this Board required that the Licensee perform a reanalysis with the corrected version of the BART model, there is every indication that the 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix K, and 10 C.F.R. 50.46 criterion would be exceeded.
Intervenors would remind this Board that previous errors and recalculation of the peak clad temperature (PCT) with both
h i
(4) the BART code and the FLECHT correlation have caused the calculated PCT to creep closer and closer to the 2200 F.
limit.
Even a rough calculation with the corrected version of the BART code brings the Turkey Point plant perilously close to this limit.
It is clear that what the Licensee and Staff once proclaimed to be co.iservative isn't,and that the degree of certainty as to what the calculated PCT really is has steadily eroded.
CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Intervenors ask that this Board retain jurisdiction over Contention (b) and deny " Licensee's Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction and Terminate the Proceeding".
Intervenors also ask that this Board take immediate steps to protect the public health and safety by requiring the Licensee to perform an ECCS analysis with the corrected version of the BART computer model.
Finally, Intervenors would ask that if the reanalysis shows that the Turkey Point plant is not being operated within the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix K and 10 C.F.R. 50.46 requirements, that this Board revoke the subject license amendments until such time that it is determined that the Turkey Point nuclear power plant is operating in compliance with NRC rules and regulations.
Respectfully submitted, (Y\\Gf VO N' 0 Martin H.
Hodder Dated: December 15, 1986 Counsel for Intervenors signed by Joette Lorion