ML20236L863

Memorandum & Order.* Affirms Board 870623 Memo & Order Terminating Proceeding on Util Application for Amends to License.Served on 871105

ML20236L863
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	11/04/1987
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
CON-#487-4762 ALAB-846, ALAB-878, OLA-1, NUDOCS 8711110091
Download: ML20236L863 (5)

Text

__

I y

( l DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD i

Administrative Judges: OFFICE CF SECid.TA6Y l 00CKETING & SERVICf.

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

Howard A. Wilber i SERVED NOV -51987

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

) 5 0 -D 1--OLA-1  ;

(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating ) (Vessel Flux Reduction) {

Plant, Units 3 and 4) )

)

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.2 We did not pass upon, however, the Board's earlier grant of the applicant's motion for summary disposition of Contention (b),3 the only other contention of the joint interveners that was admitted for litigation. As we 1

24 NRC 409 (1986).

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

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

8711110093 g71304 of

{DR ADOCK 05000250 0 PDR

\3

2 explained, in the same decision in which it acted upon Contention (d) the Board announced its inten' tion to.retcin 1 jurisdiction over Contention (b) pending ' the receipt of further information from the NRC staff. In that circumstance, it appeared appropriate to withhold appellate review in connection with Contention (b) to abide the event l

of the final action taken on'it below.5 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. 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 I the facility's technical specifications concerned with the i 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) 4 See LBP-86-23, 24 NRC at'129-30. Inasmuch as the grant of summary disposition on Contention (b) had been interlocutory, the Licensing Board remained empowered to -

retain jurisdiction over the contention at the time it' issued LBP-86-23. .

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

6 See LBP-87-21, 25 NRC .

i

q i

e 1 5'

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 tne applicant replaced the facility's steam

, generators, which had a significant number of plugged j tubes.7 i

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 I 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). i 9

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

1 1

l l

t. \

4 1

1 would provide a sufficiently precise prediction to ensure that the 2200'F limit would not be exceeded. ,

1 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 moJel. O Thereafter, however, the staff informed I the Board that that model. required additions and corrections.11 The staff went on to state that it expected i

that, after the necessary adjustments were made, the ]

computer model would still support the conclusion that the 2200*F limit would not be exceeded. Nevertheless, the 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.

l l As above noted, this development induced the Licensing l

Poard 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 O

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

11 See LBP-86-23, 24 NRC at 130.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 See LBP-87-21, 23 NRC at (slip opinion at 2).

- j

'l

.~  !

d  !

)

l 5

1 Board was told that the required changes in the computer i

model had not resulted in a calculated cladding temperature 5

in excess of the 2200'F limit.

We have examined the explanation given by the Board for l 1

its acceptance of the staff's present conclusion on the matter. 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 l

disposition of Contention (b).

l i

1 l 1 The Licensing Board's June 23, 1987 memorandum and order terminating this proceeding is affirmed.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD l

0.

C. J $ n SKoemaker Secretary to the l

Appeal Board J

15 Id. at (slip opinion at 9).

16 Id_. at _ (slip opinion at 3-11).