ML20210B753

Memorandum & Order ALAB-846,affirming ASLB 860724 Initial Decision LBP-86-23,authorizing Requested Amends to Tech Specs for Licenses DPR-31 & DPR-41 Re Vessel Flux Reduction. Served on 860917

ML20210B753
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	09/16/1986
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
CON-#386-719 ALAB-846, LBP-86-23, OLA-1, NUDOCS 8609180160
Download: ML20210B753 (3)

Text

'

DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL $6AdgP 17 N0:49 Administrative Judges: OFFICE Or t,cya MM Y 00CKETite & SEP','W.

Gary J. Edles, Chairman SeptembdfATD, 1986 Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy (ALAB-846)

Howard A. Wilber SERVED SEP 171986

)

In the Matter of )

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-250-OLA-1

) 50-251-OLA-1 (Turkey Point Plant, ) (Vessel Flux Reduction)

Units 3 & 4) )

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On July 24, 1986, the Licensing Board issued what it styled an " initial decision" (LBP-86-23) disposing of one of the two admitted contentions in this license amendment proceeding. The Board ruled in the applicant's favor on Contention (d), dealing with the formation of a steam film around the fuel rods.1 The Board's decision authorized requested amendments to the technical specifications for 1

The onset of this steam film is defined as the

" departure from nucleate boiling." When the film is established, there is a reduction in the capability for the transfer of heat from the fuel rods, with a resulting large increase in cladding temperature and a greater probability of cladding damage. See LBP-85-29, 22 NRC 300, 323-24 (1985).

8609180160 860916 PDR ADOCK 05000250

[$0} G PDR

2 operating licenses for Units 3 and 4 at the Turkey Point facility.

The Board, however, retained jurisdiction over Contention (b), dealing with alleged shortcomings in one of the computer evaluation models, in order to obtain further information from the NRC staff concerning proposed additions and corrections to the models for the emergency core cooling system. Earlier, the Board had relied on these models in summarily disposing of Intervenors'-Contention (b) .3 No appeal has been taken from the Board's decision within the period prescribed by the Commission's Rules of Practice. We thus have the decision before us for our The notice of hearing included a proposal that the license amendments involve a "no significant hazards" determination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2239 (a) (2) (A) . If such determination is made, the Commission may issue an amendment and make it immediately effective notwithstanding any request for a hearing. The hearing, however, may take place after issuance of the amendment. Metropolitan Edison Co.

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-807, 21 NRC 1195, 1200 n.12 (1985). The Commission followed that procedure here. 49 Fed. Reg. 3364 (1984).

3 See LBP-85-29, 22 NRC at 310-20.

4 See 10 C.F.R. 2.762.

1 3

customary sua sponte review.5 On such review, we have found no errors that warrant corrective action.6

~

LBP-86-23 is affirmed.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD

b. h e. --

C. J((n Shbemaker SecreNary to the Appeal Board ,

P 5

See Offshore Power Systems (Manufacturing License for Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-689, 16 NRC 887, 890-91

& n.4 (1982). We had earlier deferred that review. See Order of August 19, 1986 (unpublished). -

6 We have not reviewed the Licensing Board's summary .

disposition of Intervenors' Contention (b) because that matter remains in the Licen-ing Board's hands. See Ho_uston -

Lighting & Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-/99, Z1 NRC 360, 369 (1985) (appeal boards generally do ,

not review licensing board determinations that do not constitute a final resolution on the merits). At such time as the Board concludes all deliberations regarding that part .

of the case, its decision on Contention (b) will be subject to appellate review. -

O

_ --. --