ML20024A070

Summary of 830609 Telcon W/Aslb & Parties Re Util Draft Order on Thermal Stress Issue

ML20024A070
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/13/1983
From:	Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
References
NUDOCS 8306150376
Download: ML20024A070 (6)

Text

. . . _ _ _ ._

l i g, '

I 00CKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ug;Pc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'83 JUN 13 P1 :45 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 7o-n-4  !

i In.the Matter of )

\ )

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING '

) Docket /Nos. 50-445 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-446

• / )

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses) r 4

SUMMARY

OF CONFERENCE CALL

'BETWEEN BOARD AND' PARTIES t .k 4 At 3:30 p.m. on Junep9'( 1983, Mr. Bloch, the Chairman i  :

of the Licensing Board, placed a conference call with Mr. Treby_of NRC Staff, Mr's. Ellis of intervenor and

. > ./

M.essrs." Reyholds and Horin oE the Applicants. The substance ofthhtconferencecallisreportedbelow:

-BLOCH: ;The purpose of this call is because beginning this 2

}S ,

morning-I began re' viewing the draft Order submitted

, by Applicants on the thermal stress issue. Concern arose because NF3231.1 contains the celebrated phrase "but not thermal or peak stresses." In reviewing that section dealing with design, normal and upset' conditions, we began thinking about

?

engineering justification for excluding thermal stresses under design conditions, and we had some 8306150376 830613

• b PDR ADOCK 05000445

, 9

O difficulty rem'embering the engineering justification which we recalled as being primarily related to emergency conditions. I then noticed that NF-ll21

, contains almost the identical phrase "but not thermal or peak stresses". Interestingly enough, we had based our decision on NF-3231,but CASE's motion for consideration apparently deals with NF-ll21. The concern is that if the phrase as used in the latter section excludes consideration of thermal stresses, the same phrase used in the

earlier section - the introduction - appears to exclude it from NF-1000. This leaves us with some 1

uncertainty-as to how to decide the application of the Code to thermal stresses related to that question and the possible application of NF-3213.13 which defines thermal stresses and appears to define the stress within-a support as a general thermal stress.

I called the Applicants earlier today and asked three questions: (1) Whether Regulatory Guide 1.124, Revision 1, applies to Comanche Peak. This is raised because it appears that last section did not apply the Reg. Guide to Comanche Peak. Applicants assure that in the FSAR, it voluntarily accepted Reg. Guide 1.124.

l t-s L

. . . . , . , . ~ . , , . . . y ~- -. . . . . - , , . , , - _ . - , , , _ . - - -

l (2) Regarding the meaning of NF-1121(a) - the same question we just discussed - the relationship between that section and the section relied on for the decision. Applicants answered that the earlier section is the general rule - the specifics were spelled out in the latter.

(3) (a) Regarding Regulatory Guide 1.124 at p. 1.124-4:

What t have Applicants been using in calculating S u and (b) Whether the manufacturer's table of S u is based on samples held in constrained position.

Applicants answered that Su is a quantification of material properties and thus does not involve constraints.

HORIN: The Regulatory Guide in the first sentence -

regulatory position C states that "the following methods are used on an interim basis until Section III includes such values . . . .Section III refers to l the ASME Code, which now includes specific values that i

are used at Comanche Peak.

l BLOCH: S ur not Sm?

HORIN: The introductory sentence applies to S u, During the l last hearing, CASE introduced an exhibit which is i

! the correct Code Case, but the particular revision l

j is not adopted for Comanche Peak. The Code Case referred to is 1644 (N-71). It had been referred to as 1644 until a certain date and then it was changed to N-71.

l l

l

BLOCH: Is there a transcript citation?

HORIN: The Code Case was entered into the record following Tr. 6794. The Code Case is in the record - there simply is another revision of the Code Case that applies to Comanche Peak.

BLOCH: There are no material differences in the two revisions?

REYNOLDS: No.

BLOCH: And the Applicants will update the record if this is not correct?

REYNOLDS: Yes, we will.

HORIN: There are other sections of the record which will assist the Board in establishing what temperature is and what S u is used at Comanche Peak.

BLOCH: Is there a citation?

HORIN: Tr. 6833-6836. Mike Vivirito discusses a letter from Gibbs & Hill to Applicants which is in the record as CASE Exhibit 659C - wherein the environmental temperature assumed to occur in the event a LOCA was established at 280*.

BLOCH: Is that the value used?

HORIN: That is the value used.

BLOCH: At the beginning of the hearing on Monday, the parties should spend 20 minutes per side giving oral argument on how to resolve the thermal stress question again.

I will comment that the Board remains impressed by

i the engineering rationale. We still remain persuaded that there are sound engineering reasons for not considering those stresses. But we are quite uncertain as to how to apply the specific provisions of the ASME Code. I am proposing about 20 minutes for each side. Is that acceptable to Applicants and Staff, who will have to share that time?

r REYNOLDS: We can't do any more than summarize what we have already said.

BLOCH: If that is all that can be done - I guess that is what we would like to do.

REYNOLDS: We can work out how to allocate the time with Mr. Treby.

BLOCH: Is that the only matter on our minds?

[ INFORMAL]

REYNOLDS: Does the Board have any feeling on how long it will be examining Mr. Rourer so that we may schedule our people efficiently?

BLOCH: It is highly unlikely that it will be more than one hour.

REYNOLDS: We should have our people there on CAT Report during the morning our first day?

BLOCH: Well, the Staff witnesses will go first.

REYNOLDS: Yes, but we'll want our witnesses to hear the Staff witnesses.

4 I

l BLOCH: I would also hope that the Staff witnesses will be listening to the Applicants' witnesses.

ELLIS: [ asks something about documents]

HORIN: They were to be brought from the site to Dallas.

John Marshall will give you a' call when they are ready.

REYNOLDS: Call John Marshall.

ELLIS: I sent you (Mr. Reynolds) a copy of some documents express. mail today about noon regarding cross-examination.

REYNOLDS: Tell John Marshall what they are. Can you provide a set to him?

ELLIS: I will try to get a copy to him.

REYNOLDS: Please identify them for him.

BLOCH: Have we received a filing on upper lateral restraints?

REYNOLDS: Not-yet.

BLOCH: Juanita Ellis asked that I tell her whether we would be doing that on Monday.

ELLIS: When will we receive Applicants' response?

BLOCH: Will we have it to read over the weekend?

L REYNOLDS: The Board will be served tomd'rrow/ afternoon.

Respectfully s[ bmitted,

. W+

Nicholds S/ Reynolds 1

DEBEVOIpE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seyenteenth Street, N.W.

Washington /D.C. 20555 (202) 857-9817 Counsel for Applicants cc: Service List

.- _ - _ _ __ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _.