. . . _ _ _ ._ .._ . _ , _ ..

',

l

i '

g,

I00CKETEDUNITED STATES OF AMERICA ug;Pc

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'83 JUN 13 P1 :45BEFORE 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 forStation, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses)

r

4

.

SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE CALL'BETWEEN BOARD AND' PARTIES

.kt

At 3:30 p.m. on Junep9'( 1983, Mr. Bloch, the Chairman4

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

}S morning-I began re' viewing the draft Order submitted2

,

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 * bPDR ADOCK 05000445

9* "", ,

- . .. - _ _ _ .. -- _ -- -. - _ .

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

,

.-

O''

-2-'

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 considerationof 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.|

,

t-

s

L

. . . . , . , . ~ . , , . . . y ~- -. . . . . - , , . , , - _ . - , , , _ . - - - m._- - - ,~_m,- _.,m._ o ,. _ _ . _ . . . _ - . - _ , - _ . _ _ , . _ , . _ _ , _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ . . _ . - - _ _ _.

.

l.,

' - 3-

(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 isu

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-2 - states that "the following

methods are used on an interim basis until Section III

includes such values Section III refers to". . . .

| the ASME Code, which now includes specific values thati

are used at Comanche Peak.

| BLOCH: S not S ?ur m

HORIN: The introductory sentence applies to S During theu,,

| last hearing, CASE introduced an exhibit which isi

! the correct Code Case, but the particular revision|

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.

;

|

|

|.. . . - . . - .-

.

$'

-4-

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 is used at Comanche Peak.u

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<

-5-

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

|

,,-6-

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/ Reynolds1

DEBEVOIpE & LIBERMAN1200 Seyenteenth Street, N.W.Washington /D.C. 20555(202) 857-9817

Counsel for Applicants

cc: Service List

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