ML20135H879

Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor Contention Re Vessel Flux Reduction.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision

ML20135H879
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	09/20/1985
From:	Bauser M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20135H878	List: ML20135H877 ML20135H879 ML20135H883 ML20135H886
References
84-496-03-LA, 84-496-3-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8509240341
Download: ML20135H879 (6)

Text

i f.

k D0LhETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USN4C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '85 Sa) 23 A11 :08 0FF;Ci OF Hat i ,

U3ChtTM a SEW ,

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-1 BRAKCH

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

)

(Turkey Point Nuclear ) ASLBP No. 84-496-03 LA Generating Units 3 & 4) ) (Vessel Flux Reduction)

)

LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF INTERVENORS' CONTENTION (d)

Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL" or " Licensee")

moves, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.749, for summary disposition of Intervenors' Contention (d).I! It is Licensee's position, for the reasons set forth herein, that there is no genuine issue as to any fact material to Contention (d), and that FPL is entitled to a decision in its favor on the Contention as a matter of law. This motion is supported by the (1) Affidavit of Edward A. Dzenis, dated September 10, 1985, attached hereto; (2) Licensee's Statement of Material Facts as to which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard with rt - to Intervenors' Contention (d), dated September 20, 1985; and

• / On September 9, 1985, Licensee moved for the establishment of a hearing schedule, "without prejudice to the filing of such additional pretrial motions as are appropriate (including Motions for Summary Disposition)." In an Order Scheduling Hearing, dated September 18, 1985, the Board established a schedule providing for the commencement of hearings on Tuesday, December 10, 1985. Grant of the instant motion, of course, would eliminate the need for such hearings.

8509240341 850920 PDR ADOCK 05000250 0 PDR

y# ~2 -

+ (3) Licensee's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contentions (b) and (d), dated and submitted with earlier motions for summary disposition on August 10, 1984.

I. BACKGROUND Intervenors' Contentions (b) and (d) were admitted in this proceeding.by the Licensing Board Prehearing Conference Order, dated May 16, 1984. Thereafter, on August 10, 1984, FPL moved for summary disposition of Contentions (b) and (d),

the only contentions placed in issue in this proceeding. In an order dated August 16, 1985, the Licensing. Board granted Licensee's motion for summary disposition of Intervenors' Contention (b), but denied Licensee's motion for summary disposition of Contention (d) on a limited, narrow basis. In its Order, the Licensing Board found that Under this contention (d) three genuine issues as to material facts remain for litigation:

4 1. Whether the DNBR of 1.17 which the amendments impose ~on the OFA fuel in Units 3 and 4 compensates for the three uncertainties outlined by the Staff in its December 23, 1983 SER on the amendments, at 4.

2. Whether, if the DNBR of 1.17 does not compensate for those uncertainties, the SRP's 95/95 standard, Hor a com-parable one, is somehow satisfied.

r o 3. Whether, if that standard is not

'being satisfied, the reduction in the margin of safety has been significant.

i

^

Order, p. 54. As demonstrated below in Part II of this motion, however, application of the DNBR limit of 1.17 to the Optimized

! Fuel Assembly (OFA) fuel at Turkey Point satisfies the 95/95 standard even in view of the uncertainties referred to in the Board' Order, which have been considered. In other words, the DNBR limit of 1.17 as applied to Turkey Point does, in fact, assure with 95% confidence that.there is a 95% probability that departure from nucleate boiling ~(DNB) will not occur.

4 II. DISCUSSION 1

A. The Board's first question is phrased as follows:

Whether the DNBR of 1.17 which the l" amendments impose on the OFA fuel in Units 3 and 4 compensates for the three' uncertainties outlined by the Staff in its December 23, 1983 SER on the amendments, at 4.

t The. answer to this question is: No.

The DNBR acceptance limit of 1.17 for the WRB-1 correlation constitutes the 95/95 bounding value for experi-mental d ta. The 1.17 DNBR acceptance limit provides the 95/95 confidence prescribed by the NRC Staff in its Standard Review

,- Plan, and applies to all Westinghouse plants using OFA fuel.

Attached-Dzenis Affidavit, p. 2.

N ll i, ; - ee-e- y-- - -- +- -t 1--w.w-m y w

In particular, the 1.17 DNBR acceptance limit does not compensate for the three Turkey Point plant specific calculational uncertainties referred to in the Board's question; i.e.: rod bow, mixed Low-Parasitic LOPAR/OFA fuel core, and 15x15 OFA array fuel. As explained below, however, such uncertainties are considered in the Turkey Point plant specific analysis of anticipated operational occurrences. The results are then compared to the 1.17 DNBR limit to determine accept-ability. Id.

B. The Board's second question inquires as to Whether, if the DNBR of 1.17 does not compensate for those uncertainties, the SRP's 95/95 standard, or a com-parable one, is somehow satisfied.

The answer to this question is: Yes.

~

-The SRP's 95/95 confidence (or standard) is satisfied by assuring that minimum DNBR's calculated for all normal and anticipated operational occurrences are greater than the 1.17 DNBR acceptance limit, after accounting for the uncertainties referred to above. In the_ case of the particular amendments under consideration here (Amendment No. 99 to the Turkey Point 3 license, and Amendment No. 93 to the Turkey Point

4. license), the safety analysis minimum DNBR is 1.34 using the WRB-1 correlation. (See SER on Amendments at 4.) The 1.34 safety analysis minimum DNBR--which is calculated from Turkey Point plant specific reactor parameters--is 12.7% higher than a

+ the allowable DNBR limit of 1.17 derived from the WRB-1 correlation.

1.34-1.17

= 12.7%

1.34 The three uncertainties referred to above, however, total only 10.5%.

H5.5% (for rod bow) 3.0% (for mixed LOPAR/OFA fuel core) 2.0% (maximum, for 15x15 OFA array fuel) 10.5%

Since 12.7% is greater than 10.5%, there is sufficient margin in the 1.34 safety analysis minimum DNBR, above the 1.17 allowable DNBR limit, to compensate for uncertainties associated with rod bow, the mixed LOPAR/OFA fuel core, and 15xl5 OFA array fuel. Attached Dzenis Affidavit, p. 3.

In this connection, it is relevant to note that application of uncertainties to results obtained from predictive analysis, rather than to design basis limits, is common in the -

engineering. field. In particular, it is the approach that has been used for all' Westinghouse safety analyses for Turkey Point, independent of fuel design or critical heat flux correlations.

I_d .

C. The Board's third question inquires as to Whether,-if that standard is not being satisfied, the reduction in the margin of safety has been significant.

As described above, the standard is, in fact, being satisfied.

III. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, the attached Affidavit of Edward A. Dzenis, Licensee's September 20, 1985 Statement of 1

e Material Facts as to which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard with respect to Intervenors' Contention (d), and Licensee's August 10, 1984 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contentions (b) and (d), there exists no genuine issue of material fact and'this motion for summary disposition should be granted and Intervenors' Contention (d) should be decided in Licensee's favor.

Respectfully submitted,

~

. W Of Counsel: Hafold F. Rhi,3 Michael A. Bauser Norman A. Coll Steven P. Frantz Steel, Hector & Davis Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

400 Southeast Financial Center 1615 L Street, N.W.

Miami, FL 33131-2398 Washington, D.C. 20036 (305) 577-2800 (202) 955-6600 Dated: September 20, 1985 1