ML20237B647

Forwards Aslab 871104 Decision ALAB-878,affirming on Sua Sponte Review of ASLB Grant of Summary Disposition of Contention (B) in OL Amend Proceeding

ML20237B647
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	11/06/1987
From:	Jenny Murray NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-#487-5094 ALAB-846, ALAB-878, LBP-87-21, OLA, NUDOCS 8712170033
Download: ML20237B647 (1)

Text

c

• DOCKET NUMBER gM[d 8b NY 4 ~7 PRO D. Si UTIL FAC.,..-- - - -- :

_j sno

, [o n%, UNITED STATES DOCKETED

["' y, < I ,g

.. K NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGToN, D. C. 20555 USNRC

)

$, .e

%, ...../ '87 DEC -9 P1 :08 November 6, 1987 0FFICE C; SEGF it#r 00CKCim A M bVICI.

BRANCH MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  !

FROM: James P. Murray Deputy General Counsel j

SUBJECT:

APPEAL BOARD DECISION IN TURKEY POINT OLA-1 (VESSEL FLUX REDUCTION)

On November 4, 1987, the Appeal Board in Florida Power and Light Com3any (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), issued ALAE,-878 (attached) wherein it affirmed on sua sponte review the Licensing Board's grant of summary disposition of Contention (b) in this operating license amendment proceeding. Contention (b) questioned whether the computer code used in the emergency core cooling system evaluation model to predict peak cladding temperature provided a sufficiently precise prediction to ensure the 2200 F limit in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.46(b)(1) would not be exceeded.

Previously, in ALAB-846, 24 NRC 409 (1986), the Appeal Board affirmed on sua sponte review the Licensing Board's resolution of the other admitted issue, Contention (d), in the licensee's favor, but had withheld appellate review of Contention (b) as a result of the Licensing Board's retention of jurisdiction over the contention pending receipt of further information from the Staff as to whether the computer model required additions or corrections.

ALAB-878, silp op, at 1-4. In a board notification issued October 23, 1986, the Staff informed the Licensing Board that the required changes in the computer model had not resulted in a calculated peak cladding temperature in excess of the 2200oF limit. Id. at 4-5. The Licensing Board concluded that there was no reason to withTraw the prior grant of summary disposition of Contention (b), and granted a motion to terminate the proceeding.

L B P-87-21, 25 NRC (June '3, 1987). The Appeal Board, in ALAB-878, affirmed that decision.

JG

~

w g James P. Murray I Deputy General Counsel  !

Attachment:

As stated cc w/ attachment:

Victor Stello, EDO J. Nelson Grace, Administrator, R !!

8712170033 871106 l PDR ADOCK 05000200 G PDR

)b

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges: ,

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman November 4, 1987 i Dr. W. Reed Johnson (ALAB-878)

Howard A. Wilber i

)

In the Matter of ) ,

)

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

) 50-251-OLA-1 (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating ) (Vessel Flux Reduction)

Plant, Units 3 and 4) ) l

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

1. This is a proceeding on .the application of the Florida Power and Light Company for amendments to the operating licenses for Units 3 and 4 of its Turkey Point nuclear power facility. In ALAB-846,1 we affirmed on sua sponte review the Licensing Board's resolution in the applicant's favor of Contention (d), submitted by joint interveners Center for Nuclear Responsibility and Joette Lorion. We did not pass upon, however, the Board's earlier f grant of the applicant's motion for summary disposition of Contention (b),3 the only other contention of the joint l

,, interveners that was admitted for litigation. As we 1

4 1

24 NRC 409 (1986).

2 See LBP-86-23, 24 NRC 108 (1986).

3 See LBP-85-29, 22 NRC 300, 310-20 (1985).

f L1.LYYS f.

I _ . _ . _ . . ._..a

9 2

explained, in the same decision in which it acted upon Contbntion (d) the Board announced its intention to retain jurisdiction over Contention (b) pending the receipt of i further information from the NRC staff.4 In that circumstance, it appeared appropriate to withhold appellate review in connection with Contention (b) to abide the event j of the final action taken on it below.

On June 23, 1987, having received the desired information from the staff and concluded that there was no reason to withdraw the prior summary disposition of Contention (b), the Licensing Board granted the applicant's motion to relinquish jurisdiction and to terminate the proceeding.6 No appeal having been taken from that action, it now is before us for sua sponte review.

2. The requested license amendments were directed to ,

the facility's technical specifications concerned with the i

limits on the temperature of the fuel assemblies in the reactor core. The applicant desired the revision of those technical specifications to accomplish two objectives: (1)

I 4

See LBP-86-23, 24 NRC at 129-30. Inasmuch as the grant of summary disposition on Contention (b) had been i interlocutory, the Licensing Board remained empowered to retain jurisdiction over the contention at the time it issued LBP-86-23. ,

See ALAB-846, 24 NRC at 411 n.6.

1 6

See LBP-87-21, 25 NRC .

3 the reduction of the neutron flux at the reactor pressure vessel wall, which in turn would mitigate vessel embrittlement and therefore the consequences of pressurized thermal shock; and (2) the removal of restrictions on ~

facility operation that had been imposed prior to the time at which the applicant replaced the facility's steam generators, which had a significant number of plugged tubes.7 one of the acceptance criteria for facility emergency core cooling systems stipulates that, in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident, the " calculated maximum fuel element cladding temperature shall not exceed 2200*F." To establish that the proposed amendments were consistent with the observance of that criterion, the applicant employed a computer model for the purpose of predicting the peak cladding temperature on the fuel rods.9 In Contention (b),

the interveners questioned whether the chosen computer model 7

Although prompted by the number of plugged tubes in the former steam generators, the restrictions apparently were not automatically lifted when those generators were replaced.

8 10 CFR 50.46 (b) (1) .

8 The peak cladding temperature is the highest temperature to be found on the surface of any of the fuel rods in the reactor core.

.)

4 woul.d provide a sufficiently precise prediction to ensure that'the 2200*F limit would not be exceeded.

In granting the applicant's motion for summary disposition of the contention, the Licensing Board determined that the interveners had not raised a genuine issue of material fact respecting the adequacy of the computer model.10 Thereafter, however, the staff informed the Board that that model required additions and corrections.ll The staff went on to state that it expected that, after the necessary a6justments were made, the computer model would still support the conclusion that the  :

2200*F limit would not be exceeded. Nevertheless, the i i

staff felt it necessary to consider taking some unspecified I action with respect to the interim and continued operation of facilities such as Turkey Point.

As above noted, this development induced the Licensing Board to retain jurisdiction over Contention (b) to await further word from the staff. That word came in the form of a Board Notification issued on October 23, 1986.14 The

- 0 See LBP-85-29, 22 NRC at 316.

See LBP-86-23, 24 NRC at 130, 12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 See LBP-87-21, 25 NRC at (slip opinion at 2).

V 5

Board was told that the required changes in the computer' model had not resulted in a calculated cladding temperature i in excess of the 2200*F limit.15 We have examined the explanation given by the Board for its acceptance of the staff's present conclusion on the  !

matter.16 That examination satisfies us that the explanation is not flawed and provides a sufficient basis for the Board's adherence to its previous grant of summary disposition of Contention (b).

The Licensing Board's June 23, 1987 memorandum and order terminating this proceeding is affirmed.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD

b. b C. JQn SKoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board

)

l 1

Id. at (slip opinion at 5).

16 Id. at (slip opinion at 3-11).

.