ML20216D054

Memorandum & Order (Terminating Proceeding).* Grants Licensee 861120 Motion to Terminate Proceeding & Allows Amends 99 & 93 to Licenses DPR-31 & DPR-41,respectively,to Remain in Force.Served on 870624

ML20216D054
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	06/23/1987
From:	Cole R, Lazo R, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
CON-#287-3873 84-496-03-LA, 84-496-3-LA, LBP-87-21, OLA-1, NUDOCS 8706300440
Download: ML20216D054 (12)

Text

AS? LBP-87-21. i

(

OCCKE((O I UNITED STATES-0F. AMERICA

• I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' l 87 J 23 P3 :44 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOARD Before Administrative Judges:- ff0 'b m < 5 W' i

Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Enuneth A. Luebke I

In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-250-0LA-1 l '

) 50-251-0LA-1 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT. COMPANY ASLBP No. 84-496-03 LA I (Turkey Point Plant, (Vessel Flux Reduction)  !

i

. Units 3 & 4)

June 23, 1987_ ]

1 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Termiriating Proceeding)~

l I. INTRODUCTION On July 24, 1986, the Licensing Board in the_ above-captioned proceeding issued an initial decision (LBP-86-23, 24 NRC'108J in which it found that the amendments for Turkey Point' Units 3 and 4 'shall' 1 remain in full force and'effect without modification." Id. at 130.- The l Licensing Board resolved Contention (d), the sole remaining contention, j in Licensee's favor by finding that: (1)theLicensee'sanalysisof departure from nucleate boiling ratio'was performed using:NRC

' Staff-approved methodology and compensates for appropriate uncertainties and (2) the issuance of the amendments has not reduced the margin of-  ;

safety for the operation of.the plant. ._Id. at 129. The Board, _ however,-  ;

B706300440 870623 PDR G'

ADOCK 05000250 -

i PDR '

h,$O&

1 i

2' 1

l

. retained jurisdiction with respect to an issue related to Contention (b)

-- a contention the Board had .sumarily disposed of'-- pending receipt. I of further information from the Staff in' view of the' Staff's June 30,

~

1986 Board Notification (BN-86-17).. Id_. at 130-31.1

.l In BN-86-21 dated October 23,.1986, the Staff provided information

~

h about the Staff's follow-up actions in the matter and reiterated its }j previous. conclusion that the Board's grant of summary disposition of

. Contention (b);is not. adversely. affected by the need for changer in the .j Westinghouse ECCS evaluation models using either..the FLECHT correlation or the BART code.. j l

'j On November 20, 1986, Licensee filed a motion (Motion to Relinquish ]

t

- Jurisdiction and Terminate Proceeding) requesting. that the Board i l

terminate this proceeding. As grounds for:its motion that the-Board relinquish jurisdiction .and . terminate the; proceeding,r Licensee' states that the additional' infomation relating to ContentionL(b) which then 1

1 In BN-86-17, the Staff stated that'it had been informed by: . '

. Westinghouse Electric Corporation of the.need to make certain:

additions and corrections to the 1981 Westinghouse Emergency Core-- 3 Cooling System-(ECCS) evaluation models.using the FLECHT1 . . _ . . l correlation and the-BART computer-code. _The Stafffalso; indicated ]

. in'BN-86-17 that it was considering the actionsfnecessary for .-

interim and continued operation of Westinghouse' plants which, after = 1 taking into account the maximum increases in peak cladding temperature-resulting from the errors, remain within or exceedIthe 2200 *F acceptance criterion. specified in 10 C.F.R. 51 50.46(b).

, .i

-i

t. W. i!

J

3.  !

1 Board was awaiting has now been provided and that the Staff'has" indicated that no further action is required of the. Licensee.. Motion at 2.

l The Staff filed an ar.swer on December 10, 1986, fully supporting .

1 Licensee's motion.2 Intervenors submitted an opposing Response on l December 15, 1986, ten days out of. time.3 Intervenors' Response was-accompe%d by,a motion for extension of time.4 II. DISCUSSION i

i I

Before the Board was informed of the need to make corrections or additions to the ECCS models used by Licensee, the calculated peak )

cladding temperature (PCT) using the FLECHT correlation was 2130 'F .plus 10 *F for the effects of the transitional core, and the calculated PCT using the BART. code was 2051. *F (plus:10,*F for the. effects of the transitional core). Supplement To The Safety Evaluation.In Support Of

\.

2

" Staff Response To Motion To Terminate Proceeding" (December 10, 1986).

3 I "Intervenors' Response t'o Licensee's Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction and Terminate Proceeding" _(December:15,1986) ,

(hereafter "Intervenors' Response"). >

4 ,'Intervenors' Motion For Extension Of Time .To Respond To~ Licensee's.

. Motion For Termination Of Proceeding" (December:15,#1986). For.

good cause shown, the motion is granted.

,h-

n3 1

ll ,

4-1

- Amendment Nos. 99'and 93 For The Turkey Point Plant '(SSE)7 dated May 14, j q 1985,El.4.2.

1In 'BN-86-17, the Staff. opined that the' rationale underlying tihe .

Board's sunnary disposition ruling would not'-be adversely affected by f the new information concerning .the model errors.. Specifically, the L. l Staff stated that:.

1 First, the. Board's. dismissal of Contention (b) was based primarily. 1 on the-ECCS- evaluation' model . calculation using the FLECHT; correla- I

' tion and there is only, at most,1a 12 *F estimated. increase in:the' j

-previously. calculated' PCT (i.e., 2152 *F). :Second, theJ staff l expects,that.the PCT calculation using the corrected ECCS.evalua-  !

tion model using BART would.be below 2200 *F. Thus, the staff l expects: that a- corrected analysis with both models 'would.. satisfy 10 CFR -Part 50, Appendix K, .and.10 CFR 50.'4G.

BN-86-17'at 5. The Licensing Board, noting that (1) the Board's grant

.of sunnary disposition of ' Contention '(b), although based primarily upon the Licensee's .ECCS analysis using the: FLECHT correlation,- also ,

considered the ECCS analysis using.the BART: computer code, (2) the . Staff I indicated in BN-86-17 that it was considering' actions necessary for' j interim'and continued operation with respect to Westinghouse plants: 1 which would continue to meet, or may exceed,ythe-10 C.F.R. 5 50.46(b). .!

acceptance criterion of 2200 *F, and (3) the Staff would keep the Board - 1

~

informed of-Staff actions in the matter, concluded that it would' retain: .

=6 jurisdiction pending further actions by the Staff.J 24 NRC 108,130.

r- ,

I g i n , j 5 j l

l In BN-86-21, dated October 23, 1986,- the Staff informed the. Board -

that the calculated PCTs resulting from both the corrected ECCS model l l

with the FLECHT correlation and a reanalysis using the approved addendum l i

to the BART code are less than 2200 'F and satisfy 10 C.F.R. Part 50, l

Appendix K, and 10 C.F.R. 5 50.46. The. Staff also told the Board that the Staff is not requiring a reanalysis to be performed by.any applicant .i or licensee using the FLECHT correlation and the Staff-is not requiring I

any- applicant. or licensee to perform a reanalysis using the corrected' j evaluation model using the BART code unless such applicant or licensee has a licensing action which uses the BART code pending before.the NRC.

BN-86-21 at 3.  !

In their Response to Licensee's Motion the Intervenors asked the- j l

Licensing Board to require "the Licensee to perform an ECCS analysis with the corrected version of the BART computer code" and to revoke the subject license amendments" if the results of the analysis do not comply.

with the requirements in 10 C.F.R. ~f 50.46.and Part 50, Appendix K.-

Intervenors' Response at 4. Since these requested actions are without justification based upon the evidence currently .in the record, the J

requests necessarily contemplate a reopening of 'the record on Contention (b) in this proceeding. However, it is apparent that the Intervenors have not provided a sufficient basis for reopening the record on Contention (b).

i

)

n

).

,8 6

i 10 C.F.R. 6 50.46 and Part 50, Appendix K, set forth acceptance:-

criteri_a for emergency core cooling systems (ECCS)'and the models used )

to evaluate these systems. Among other , things,. these criteria state

- that an ECCS is accep_ table if the peak clad temperature (PCT) calculated by an acceptable evaluation model does not exceed 2200 F in the event ofi i 'a' loss-of-cooling accident (LOCA). . . Contention (b) questions whether a model used by the Licensee..in support of.its amendment' application meets'

'the Comunission's ECCS acceptance criteria.

In-an Order dated' August 16, 1985, the Licensing Board granted summary disposition o'f Contention.(b).5 22NRC'300(1985). This Order

)

. recited the facts that:the-Licensee. performed evaluations using two l

-different ECCS models approved by the NRC (one model used,the-FLECHT correlation and the other used BART code), that the Intervenors only )

raised concerns regarding BART, and that the PCT calculated by'each model was:less than 2200 F. Since the Intervenors raised no genui  :

issue about FLECHT or whether the PCT predicted by. FLECHT meets the  ;

2200 "F' standard, the Board granted summary disposition.of, Contention. (b) notwithstanding the Intervenors' concerns'.regarding BART.

5 This Order necessarily found that the Intervenors .had presented no genuine issue of material fact requiring an-evidentiary hearing d

- with . respect to Contention (b). Nothing in-the.Intervenors'- ' -.

. Response raises a genuine issue of material fact on. Contention (b)'  !

or calls into question'the correctness of. that Order.

i e

7 After issuance of this Order, the NRC Staff submitted Board' Notification'BN-86-17 on June 30, 1986. .BN-86-17. stated that there was

' a "need for additions and corrections- to the currently approved 1981 Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), evaluation' model [ including FLECHT]'

and the 1981 ECCS evaluation model including BART.:" In particular, j' i BN-86-17 stated that both of these models did not properly account .for j the effect of control rod thimbles, which results in a 6 to 12 *F {

increase in PCT calculations.using FLECHT and a 10 to 20 F increase in '

PCT calculated using.BART. . Additionally, BN-86-17 stated:that 100 *F should-be added:to the PCT calculated usingLBART to' account for removal of a hot' assembly. power adjustment. BN-86-16 further. stated that, when these increases are-taken into account, the PCT calculated by each model would still be 1ess than the mgulatory limit of.2200' *F., Consequently,

~

BN-86-17 concluded that this.information doe.r not adversely affect the rationale underlying the Board's grant of'sunnary disposition of Contention (b). . Finally, BN-86 noted. that the ' Staff..was considering -

whether additional action was necessary 'and promised to keep the Board' l infomed of the Staff's actions regarding this matter..

J Thereafter, the Staff issued Board Notification BN-86-21 ,

(October 23,1986) which, among other things, pointed out again that a j

~

reanalysis using the FLECHT correlation would result.in at most.a 12.*F estimated increase in the previously calculated peak cladding  ;

temperature, and that the 120' *F increase using.the .BART_ code.would be: 1 a 8 4

m

i

'E ,

I 8

I largely mitigated by an addendum in the code approved by the NRC. Thus, (

BN-87-21 concluded:  ;

1 I

In sumary,-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 . :j 2051.'F for the Turkey Point Plant, thus'both analysis would result

-1 in a PCT less than 2200 F and satisfy 10 CFR 50, Appendix K and 10' 1 CFR 50.46.

l 1

The Intervenors' requests _for Board action regarding Contention (b) )

i are based almost entirely upon.BN-86-17. However, BN-86-17 does not y l

form a-sufficient basis for reopening the record on Contention (b).  ;

1 Under 10 CFR 5 2.734, a motion to reopen a closed record to consider.

i additional evidence will not be granted unless-(1) the motion is timely, ]

addresses a significant safety or environmental issue, and demonstrates  ;

that~a materially different' result would be or would have been 'likely _

had the newly proferred evidence been considered initially;1and-(2) .the

-motion 'is accompanied by one or-more affidavits by competent individuals.

t or experts in the appropriate disciplines which set forth the factual or -j technical bases for the movant's claim that the criteria.in (1) are-satisfied. Thus, a party seeking to reopen the record has a " heavy.

burden" to bear. Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Station, Unit.

i No.1),ALAB-462,7'NRC320,338(1978). Intervenors' reliance on .

l BN-86-17 does not satisfy this burden. -

-i

'i i

s, 1

44 9

BN-86-17 does not raise a significant safety-or environmental: issue and does not support a result which is materially different from the Board's order granting summary disposition of. Contention (b). As BN-86-17 itself notes, use of a corrected ECCS model with FLECHT would only cause a 6 to 12 "F increase in calculated PCT. A change of this magnitude is not significant.. See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix K, 1 II.1.b.(which defines a "significant change" in an ECCS evaluation model as a change that.would result in a change of more than 20 *F in PCT). Furthermore, as noted in BN-86-17, use of corrected models including either FLECHT or BART would not result in a calculated PCT temperature which exceeds the 2200 'F regulatory limit. Therefore, the performance of a reanalysis using these corrected models would not resutt in a material change in the Board's conclusions granting suninary disposition of Contention (b).

Interveners state that they "have reason to believe" that the

[

regulatory criterion would be exceeded if t'ne Board were to require the Licensee to perfonn a reanalysis with the corrected version of BART.

Intervenors' Response at 3. However, the Intervenors have effered no evidence in support of this speculation and have not supplied any affidavits from competent experts to justify this. claim. As the Appeal Board stated in Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear-Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-775, 19 NRC 1361, 1366-67 (1984),

" supporting information must be more than mere. allegations; it must be

j

.A 10

'l tantamount-to evidence." Consequently, the Intervenors" " belief" is not'

] '

sufficient to warrant'a reopening of the record on Contention (b).

The Intervenors appear to be of the opinion that the Board should. ]

require a reanalysis of whether the license amendments comply with the Commission's. limits, merely because the analysis performed in support of the amendments did not use the corrected BART code. See-Intervenors' i i

Response . at 3-4. However, the Staff has concluded, based upon its review, that these limits would not be exceeded; in the absence of any  ;

evidence to the contrary..it would be a pointless (and expensive) q exercise to perform such'a reanalysis. Furthermore, the Board has no authority to order the Licensee to perform a reanalysis for the purpose of determining whether the record should be reopened. As the Connission stated in Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Plant, 4

Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-7, 23 NRC 233, 235-(1985):

[A] Board is to decide a motion to reopen on the information before.

it and has no authority to engage in discovery in order to supplement the pleadings before it. Simply put, the burden of satisfying reopening requirements is'on the movant and Boards must.

base their decisions on what is before them.

i Thus, it would be improper for the Board to order the Licensee to .

perform a reanalysis .in order to-decide whether-the record on Contention (b) should be reopened.

i

b i-i 4

11 1

The.Intervenors have not presented sufficient justification to - j reopen the record.

III. CONCLUSION 1

The validity. of the Licensing Board's ultimate conclusion on suninary disposition that the Licensee's analysis meets 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix- K, and 10 C.F.R., 61.50.46 has not been altered and there..are: l no longer any . issues pending concerning . Contention (b). . Accordingly, we are relinquishing jurisdiction and terminating this proceeding before 1

the Licensing-Board.

i IV. ORDER For all the foregoing reasons and upon consideration of the entire record in this matter, it is this 23rd. day of June,1987:

ORDERED

1. That Licensee's Novemb'er 20, 1986 Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction.and Terminate Proceeding _ is. granted;

2. License Amendment Nos. 99 and 93 to Operating License Nos.

DPR-31 and DPR-41, respectively, issued by the Office of Nuclear Reactor-

1 o ,

l 12 {

. Regulation on December 23, 1983, shall remain in full force and effect without modification; and

)

3. This proceeding before the Licensing Board is terminated. j 1

i

/

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND I

LICENSING BOARD.

l 1

b GAAf Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chfirman ]

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE q

)

41& Q Dr. Richard F. Cole ,

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ]

A+M L Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke i ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 1

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 23rd day of June 1987.

i

?

,