ML20214D925
| ML20214D925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1986 |
| From: | Reis H FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1615 84-496-03-LA, 84-496-3-LA, OLA-1, NUDOCS 8611240297 | |
| Download: ML20214D925 (7) | |
Text
.
(lol$
.~.
,l.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOLKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UN3RC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '85 Nov 21 A11 :49 6FFICI 5
00CKEInc
_,, ter etarp
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-1
,e
)
50-251 OLA-1 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
ASLBP No. 84-496-03 LA (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating
)
(Vessel Flux Reduction)
Units 3 & 4)
)
)
MOTION TO RELINQUISH JURISDICTION AND TERMINATE PROCEEDING INTRODUCTION On July 24, 1986, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) issued an Initial Decision, LBP-86-23 (1986), regarding the two contentions remaining at issue in this proceeding.
With respect to contention (d) dealing with the formation of a steam film around fuel rods in the reactor core, the Board held in Florida Power & Light Company's ("FPL") favor and authorized the requested Operating License Amendments.
The Board's decision with respect to contention (d) was final for purposes of appeal, and, although no appeal was filed, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, conducting a sua sponte review, found "no errors that warrant corrective action".
ALAB-846, Slip Opinion at 3,
(September 16, 1986).
It therefore affirmed the-Initial Decision with respect to Contention (d).
eth222all Behsjho 33o3 a
Although it had earlier granted a motion for summary disposition of Contention (b), dealing with alleged short-comings in one of the computer evaluation models, the Licensing Board retained jurisdiction over that contention pending the receipt of additional inftrmation from the NRC Staff.
The NRC Staff has now provided the additional information relating to Contention (b) and has indicated that no further action need be taken by FPL.
Accordingly, FPL moves that the Licensing Board relinquish jurisdiction over Contention (b) and thereby terminate this proceeding.
DISCUSSION The Licensing Board explained the rationale for retaining jurisdiction over Contention (b) as follows:
On August 16, 1985, the Board granted the Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contention (b), which states:
Whether the entirely new computer model used by the utility, for calculating re-flood portions of accidents meets the Commission's ECCS Acceptance Criteria:
specifically, whether a 2.2% reduction in re-flood rate is misleading because for a small decrease in re-flood rate, there results a large increase in fuel temperature.
Re-flood rates are critical if below 1 or 2 inches per minute.
On June 30, 1986, the NRC Staff, through Board Notification BN-86-17, provided the Board with a copy of a June 2, 1986 Westinghouse Electric Corporation letter and non-proprietary Tropical Report which informed the Staff of the need to make some additions and corrections to the Westinghouse 1981 Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) evaluation model using the FLECHT correlation and the 1981 ECCS evaluation model using the BART computer code.
Although the Licensing Board's grant of summary disposition of Contention (d) [ sic]
i l
was based primarily upon the former, we considered both in connection with the matter.
LBP-85-29, 22 NRC 300 (August l
16, 1985).
The notification stated:
the staff believes that the rationale underlying the Board's summary disposition order will not be adversely affected by the new information.
First, the Board's dismissal of Contention (b) was based primarily on the ECCS evaluation model calculation using the FLECHT correlation and there is only, at most, a 12*F estimated increase
)
in the previously calculated j
PCT (i.e., 2152 F).
- Second, the staff expects that the PCT calculation using the corrected ECCS evaluation model using BART would be below 2200 F.
- Thus, the staff expects that a corrected analysis with both models would satisfy 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K,
and 10 CFR 50.46.
However, the Board Notification also states that, "given the maximum increase resulting from the errors," the Staff is considering the actions necessary for interim and continued operation with respect to both Westinghouse
' plants which will remain within the 2200 F acceptance criterion specified in 10 C.F.R.
S 50.46(b) and plants which may exceed the criterion.
The Staff stated it would keep the Board informed of its actions with respect to the matter.
In view of the information provided in Board Notification BN-86-17, the Licensing Board will retain jurisdiction in this matter pending further actions by the Staff with respect thereto.
LBP-86-23, slip opinion at 39-40.
i
-4_
The Appeal Board, recognizing that the Licensing Board had retained jurisdiction, did not review the Licensing Board's summary disposition of Contention (b).
ALAB-846, Slip Opinion at 3, n. 6.
On October.23, 1986 the NRC Staff, by Board Notification BN-86-21, informed the-Licensing Board'of its actions regarding the Westinghouse' Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS). evaluation models using either the FLECHT correlation or the BART code.
The Board Notification, which includes Generic Letter 86-16, dated October 22, 1986, a Westinghouse letter of June 2,
- 1986, the non-proprietary version of WCAP-9561, and the Nuclear Regulatory-Commission Staff's " Safety Evaluation On Changes In The 1981 Westinghouse ECCS Evaluation Model With BART", sets forth the Staff's final action with respect to the Westinghouse ECCS evaluation model, as follows:
The staff stated in BN-86-17 that they believe the rationale underlying the Board's Summary-Disposition Order will not be adversely affected by the new information provided in the Board Notification.
The subsequent actions taken by the staff as discussed above and detailed in GL 86-16 supports our initial conclusion.
First, the Board's dismissal of Contention (b) was based primarily R
on the ECCS evaluation model calculation using the FLECHT correlation.
There is only, at most, a 12*F estimated increase in the previously calculated PCT, none of the current analysis exceed 2200*F and the staff is not requiring a reanalysis be performed by any applicant or licensee.
Second,'the addendum to the BART. code which the staff finds acceptable mitigates the
. increase in PCT.previously identified due to modifications to the heat transfer model.
The staff is not requiring a reanalysis be performed by any applicant or licensee unless they have a licensing action which uses the BART code currently pending before the staff.
At this time there are no licensing actions pending before the staff relating to the Turkey Point Plant which use the BART code.
In summary, the slight change of 12 F has no significant impact on the previously calculated PCT of 2130*F for the Turkey Point Plant and a reanalysis using the approved addendum to the BART code would result in only a slight change in the previously calculated PCT of 2051 F for the Turkey Point Plant, thus both analysis would result in a PCT less than 2200 F and satisfy 10 CFR 50, Appendix K and 10 CFR 50.46.
BN-86-21 at 3.
Thus the NRC Staff has concluded its review of the Westinghouse ECCS evaluation model and, in the absence of pending licensing action, is not requiring any further action or analysis by licensees, including FPL.
Moreover, the staff continues to support the Licensing Board's August 16, 1985 summary disposition of Contention (b).
Accordingly, FPL submits that it is now appropriate for this Board to relinquish jurisdiction over the contention and thereby terminate this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL Harold F.-Reis Norman A. Coll Michael A.
Bauser Steel Hector & Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
Center 1615 L Street, N.W.
Miami, FL 33131-2398 Washington, D.C.
20036 (305) 577-2800 (202) 955-6600 November 20, 1986
DOCKETED ustlRC UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Tf W)V 21 N).49 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CFFICE C: N ' <-
00C6LI F9 :'ci.-
0F m
)
P In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-1
)
50-251 OLA-1 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(Turkey Point Plant,
)
ASLBP No. 84-496-03 LA Units 3 and'4)
)
(Vessel Flux Reduction)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached " Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction and Terminate Proceeding" were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid and properly addressed, on the date shown below.
Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Chief, Docketing and Service Section (Originals plus two copies)
2 Mitzi A. Young, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Norman A.
Coll, Esq.
Steel, Hector & Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, FL 33131-2398 Martin H.
Hodder, Esq.
1131 N.E.
86th Street Miami, FL 33138 Dated this 20th day of November, 986.
Harold F. Reis V
Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Telephone:
(202) 955-6600 Counsel for Florida Power & Light Company i
n-
,.._,