Plant License Renewal - October 20, 2000
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION *** ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS *** SUBCOMMITTEE ON PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL Friday, October 20, 2000 U.S. NRC 11545 Rockville Pike Room T2-B1 Rockville, Maryland . P R O C E E D I N G S [8:30 a.m.] CHAIRMAN BONACA: The meeting will now come to order. This is the second day of meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal. I'm Mario Bonaca, Chairman of the Subcommittee. The ACRS members in attendance are Vice Chairman, Robert Seale; Thomas Kress; Graham Leitch; John Sieber; William Shack; and Robert Uhrig. The purpose of this meeting is for the Subcommittee to hear presentations by the Staff and the Nuclear Energy Institute concerning drafts of the Standard Review Plan for License Renewal, the Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report, the Draft Regulatory Guide G1104, Standard Format and Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, and NEI 95-10, Revision 2, Industry Guidelines for Implementing the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54, the License Renewal Rule. The Subcommittee will gather information on relevant issues and facts and formulate positions and actions as appropriate for the deliberation by the full Committee. Mr. Noel Dudley is the cognizant ACRS Staff Engineer for this meeting. The rules for participation in today's meeting have been announced as part of the Notice of this meeting, previously published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2000. A transcript of this meeting is being kept, and will be made available as stated in the Federal Register Notice. It is requested that speakers first identify themselves, and speak with sufficient clarity and volume so that they can be readily heard. We have received no written comments or requests for time to make oral statements from members of the public. We will now proceed with the meeting, and I call upon Mr. Christopher Grimes, Chief of the License Renewal and Standardization Branch to begin. MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Dr. Bonaca. I think my introduction to yesterday's meeting was sufficient for the purpose, and so I'll introduce Rani Franovich, who is going to lead the next section on Engineered Safety Features. MR. FRANOVICH: Good morning. My name is Rani Franovich. I'm a Resident Inspector from the Catawba Plant in Region II, and while I was on rotational assignment to the License Renewal and Standardization Branch, my assignment was to resolve or coordinate the resolution of NEI comments on Chapter 5 of the GALL report, and the associated section of the Standard Review Plan. Chapter 5 is on the engineered safety features of plants. And to my immediate left, I have Dr. Jim Davis from the Division of Engineering in NRR, and to his left, I have Chris Parczewski, also from the Division of Engineering in NRR. To my immediate right, I have Dr. Vic Shah, who is from Argon National Lab, and to his right, I have Chuck Hsu from the Office of Research. I think it was made pretty clear yesterday that one thing we can do assist you all is clarify what has changed significantly from the last rev, the 12/99 rev of the GALL report. So I have modified my presentation to accommodate that request. Before I go through with my presentation with slides, let me just highlight those areas that you might want to focus your attention on: Section E of Chapter 5 used to be fan cooler systems for PWRs. We received comments from NEI that some of the components in that section, predominantly fans, were active components and scoped out of the license renewal rule. So when we deleted those items, we had only two items remaining, and they were both plant-specific aging management programs. So since there was no longer much value-added, we deleted that section. We added a section which we then called Section E to address external surfaces of carbon steel components and bolts, and aging mechanisms associated with those. And that was a generic change to multiple mechanical sections or mechanical chapters of the GALL report. And specifically, we added external surfaces of carbon steel components, which has two aging mechanisms. One is boric acid corrosion of external surfaces. We had this in here before, but only for borated water systems. We added it for non-borated water systems because of the potential for external systems to leak onto non-borated water system piping or components. We also added atmospheric corrosion of external surfaces for PWRs and BWRs, and for those two aging mechanisms, the aging management programs are in Chapter 11, M-5, the Boric Acid Corrosion Program, for the first one, and then for the atmospheric corrosion aging mechanism, in Chapter 11, we have Program S-8, which is the coding program. For closure bolting and high pressure or high temperature systems, we also added generically in multiple chapters, atmospheric corrosion, stress relaxation, and cyclic loading stress corrosion cracking as aging mechanisms. And the aging management program that addresses those aging mechanisms is in Chapter 11, Program M-12, which is the Bolting Integrity Program. Another change to Chapter 5 was more of an internal recognition that for Section Bravo, which is the Standby Gas Treatment Systems, we used to have an aging management program reference to NRC Reg Guide 1.52, which effectively provided controls for humidity. However, since this system is in standby mode most of the time, we removed that reference because humidity would not be controlled unless the system was operating. There are some additional changes to Chapter 5 that I'll bring to your attention as I go through the rest of my presentation. Do I have any questions on what I've presented so far? [No response.] MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. The more significant comments that we received from NEI on Chapter 5 are fairly generic in nature and apply to other mechanical chapters as well. One of NEI's comments was that they didn't feel that one-time inspections were needed for certain aging mechanisms. And for Chapter 5, this applied primarily to water systems that had chemistry control programs associated with them. NEI felt that chemistry programs were adequate, in and of themselves, and that one-time inspections did not provide any additional value. However, the Staff felt that in order to establish the premise that water chemistry control programs are effective, one-time inspection would suffice. Another option could be presented by an applicant, but a one-time inspection would be adequate. So, we decided to keep one-time inspections in the GALL report. DR. SEALE: There are already existing inspection requirements for many of these systems. I can envision a situation where the alternative might be to augment the requirements of an existing program with additional requirements that are focused on some particular aspects of aging, perhaps not to be used or invoked on every inspection, but, say, every third or every fifth or whatever. Has anyone done anything along those lines? MS. FRANOVICH: Let me defer that question, but before I do, I can answer that if an applicant wanted to do that, the Staff would review the proposal and perhaps -- DR. SEALE: I would think so. I was really wondering if anyone had made those -- had seen fit to use this as an opportunity to essentially supplement the inspection requirements? MR. LEE: This is Sam Lee from License Renewal Standardization Branch, NRR. We actually discussed with NEI at the public meeting, exactly the option you are talking about. Okay, they are think -- they have a thing about how do they come about doing that? Because they need to revise the procedure, perhaps, to address that, to actually supplement their existing maintenance by looking at aging effects. DR. SEALE: From an economics point of view, it makes a great deal of sense to do it that way, really, I would think, if it's a legitimate, inspectable need. MR. GRIMES: This is Chris Grimes. I'd like to add that during the review of the first two applications, we ran into some circumstances where there was a question about whether or not a one-time inspection would be sufficient, or whether or not it would need to be conducted on a periodic basis. And that was, I think, a more difficult decision for us, in circumstances where we were really looking for a verification that the aging effect is not occurring to the extent that it needs to be managed. And I think that for these circumstances, even though there are existing -- there may be existing inspection requirements for particular systems, the concept of a one-time inspection is to specifically look for evidence of a particular aging effect that you want to make sure does not need to be managed. So even though you may have inspections of ISI inspection requirements, this concept is to go in and over and above that inspection, to specifically look for a particular aging effect. And I think that the industry concern is that -- not the concern, but their view is that you don't even need to do one-time, because if it isn't going to occur and doesn't need to be managed, their quality assurance process will pick it up if evidence occurs much later in plant life. And we simply want to memorialize that in a specific commitment to go look at least one time. So for our purposes, we're going to make a distinction between one-time inspections to verify that aging does not need to be managed, from augmented inspection activities to periodically look for any evidence of an aging effect that may warrant some action in the future. DR. SEALE: So you're really touching both bases? MR. GRIMES: Yes, sir. MR. DAVIS: This is Jim Davis from the staff. In doing the reviews, I notice that they are now saying when they are going to do the one-time inspection. And then they're committing to, based on the outcomes of inspection, and make the decision whether to do periodic inspections. MS. FRANOVICH: Thanks, Jim. DR. SHACK: Can you send me to a specific example in Chapter 5 where you have a one-time inspection. MR. SHAH: D-2, Section D-2.4, D-2.5. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Sorry, can you repeat that? MS. FRANOVICH: It's page D2-4, we have an item D2.1.1 through D2.1.7, piping and fittings and high pressure coolant injection and various other ECCS type systems. And if you look on the associated right-hand page, the aging management program that is provided is the water chemistry program. And then in the evaluation and technical basis column, it really references where that program is described in Chapter 11. MR. CHOPRA: Maybe I can clarify that. This is Omesh Chopra from Argon National Labs. One time in GALL, one-time inspection is asked for in situations where normal ISI either asked for only a leak test. There is no inspection. For example, in certain -- one case would be pitting and crevice corrosion. The program relied on is just water chemistry. ISI is just leak test. So, one-time -- DR. SHACK: I have a simple-minded question. I just want to see where in the document it says do a one-time inspection. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Right. MR. CHOPRA: One-time is to verify the effectiveness of the program. DR. SHACK: Where does it say that? DR. SEALE: It doesn't. MR. GRIMES: Chapter 11, under the Water Chemistry Program. MS. FRANOVICH: In the Table under Further Evaluation column, it reads, yes, detection of aging effects should be further evaluated, and what that implies is the Water Chemistry Program, as described in Chapter 11, is not in and of itself sufficient. Further evaluation is required, and a one-time inspection is an acceptable means of providing the further evaluation. DR. SHACK: Okay, got it. CHAIRMAN BONACA: And that's in Chapter 11. MR. SHAH: There is one other place where we require the one -- we recommend one-time inspection, the refueling storage tank where there is a concern for the cracking from the inside, but the ASME section requires only visual inspection from the outside. That's another place, Section D-1. MS. FRANOVICH: Any other questions on one-time inspections? MR. GRIMES: For Dr. Shack's benefit, on page 11, M-25, under Program Description for Water Chemistry, towards the bottom of the paragraph it says as set forth below, and acceptable verification program may consist of a one-time inspection of selected components and susceptible locations in the system. CHAIRMAN BONACA: And under monitoring and trending, also there is a reference, okay. DR. SHACK: So, every time an XM-11 is called, you may well be set up then for a one-time inspection also. MR. GRIMES: Correct. DR. SHACK: When you're relying on water chemistry, you want the verification inspection? MR. GRIMES: No. MS. FRANOVICH: I believe there are exceptions to that, but in general, if the applicant would like to take credit for water chemistry control, we, the Staff, think it's fair to ask them to establish the effectiveness of that program before they credit it. So, for the most part, I think you'll find that that's the case, but there are exceptions. MR. SHAH: There are cases where the ASME Section 11 -- DR. SHACK: If you're already doing Section 11 inspections -- MR. SHAH: So you don't need it. So it is only where we have mentioned; that is only place we need a one-time inspection. DR. SHACK: Now, suppose you're looking at MIC problems? Is it the same sort of thing, that you're relying on water chemistry to control MIC, or you're allowed a one-time shot? MR. SHAH: We have a separate program called open cycle water chemistry program and that program addresses that. MS. FRANOVICH: Shall we go on? CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yes, but I would like to make just a comment. This is valuable. You pulled that thing and it went through, and I think it would be good for the full Committee presentation to have an example like this, so that there's an understanding for the members of how it went through. Because without that kind of guidance, at times it wasn't easy to review the Staff and see how you came from the SRP to a program and down to the detail, and this was very valuable. MR. DAVIS: In addition there's the 89-13 Generic Letter that tells you what you're supposed to do to avoid fouling, one of which is heat exchanger efficiency. DR. SHACK: Okay, you actually have a performance measure you can look at, and that -- MR. DAVIS: Right. DR. SEALE: One of the problems with this seems -- just listening to this, is that sometimes it's hard to figure out which string to pull in order to identify this, and I guess at this point, you're at -- probably loggerheads is not an appropriate word -- but there is some negotiation between Staff and NEI as to whether or not one-time inspections are needed. And that's probably a discussion that is specific to individual inspections, rather than the principle of one-time inspections. But nonetheless, somewhere in this, it would seem to me desirable to get some kind of reaction from NEI to the idea that, okay, you are going to have one-time inspections. How easy is it for a given utility to dig the requirement as you envision it being applied, out of these documents, so that when they come in with their initial plan, one -- the first set of RAIs is not dominated by requests for additional one-time inspection program needs and that sort of thing. MS. FRANOVICH: I think that in the meeting we had with NEI, one of the things, as Chris mentioned, that we discussed is actions that they're doing currently, and have done in the past, the recent past, maintenance activities, modifications to the plant, where they can take advantage of that activity, ongoing, to do inspections, document them so that they are retrievable and auditable, and say we did this inspection at this time, and did not see any indications of corrosion or aging degradation. In fact, at Catawba, in their current refueling outage, they are cleaning a lot of service water piping that's buried, and one of the things that the license renewal folks can do -- have asked them to do, is an inspection while they're doing that, that's documented, so that when they submit their application next Summer, that's something they can provide to the Staff, if needed. So I think that is probably a little bit negotiable to avoid, you know, high costs for doing this. DR. SEALE: Well, and that's exactly the reason that it ought not to be an item of extended discussion, but rather prompt agreement one way or the other so that if the opportunity to do these things arises, you just go ahead and do it and get it out of the way. MS. FRANOVICH: Right. As far as I can recall from our meeting, that was an idea that sounded appropriate to us. If they had an opportunity to do it in their normal maintenance and modification processes, that would be fine, as long as it's documented and auditable. DR. SEALE: As long as it is truly a competent inspection. MS. FRANOVICH: Agreed. MR. GRIMES: This Chris Grimes, but, Dr. Seale, I understand the point that you've made about making sure that the guidance is clear in terms of what the expectation is, and as we go through our efforts to improve the packaging of the guidance, that we look to call out -- DR. SEALE: Italics. MR. GRIMES: Big stars on the page or something like that, but I'm sure that there are -- DR. SHACK: Hyperlinks. [Laughter.] MR. GRIMES: I was warned that I'm not allowed to use hyperlinks until we go totally electronic. DR. SEALE: That's more room in Hilbert's space. MS. FRANOVICH: Okay, the next item I want to talk about was touched on yesterday as a result of Bill Shack's question about the use of GALL and whether or not an application that does not list all of the SSCs that are in the GALL report is, indeed, complete. NEI raised the same question. They were concerned that the GALL report would be used by the Staff for scoping implications. And we made it very clear that the GALL report neither implies what should be scoped under the rule, nor does it impose additional requirements. All it is is a compendium of what the Staff has previously evaluated and made a determination on. So, I think we laid NEI's concerns to rest about the scoping question. MR. SIEBER: Does it say that someplace in here that you aren't supposed to rely on GALL as the scoping? MS. FRANOVICH: Yes, it does. MR. LEE: It says it in more than one. Also about the application of GALL, that it's not a scoping document. MS. FRANOVICH: It's clearly articulated. MR. SIEBER: Thank you. MS. FRANOVICH: Sure. Our next item I want to mention was another fairly significant NEI comment. Inservice testing, at one time, was in the GALL report in the December '99 rev it was in the GALL report in Chapter 5 as well as other chapters. And NEI was concerned that inservice testing was referenced as an aging management program because its objective is to reveal problems, failures, of active components. So, when we heard that comment and discussed it, we agreed, and decided to remove reference to inservice testing from the GALL report. In addition to that, for Chapter 5 specifically, NEI was concerned about the reference to Appendix J leak rate testing for containment isolation valves, saying that that is testing an active component's function and it's not appropriate because they're not within the scope of license renewal. So we also removed Appendix J testing from Chapter 5 of the GALL report as well, however, we left it in Chapter 2, Structures, as it pertains to penetration seals and equipment and personnel hatches. DR. SEALE: There is a systemic possibility for difficulty here, it seems to me, especially if you go to an inservice inspection program that is risk-informed, as a lot of people have. They have used these to decrease the number of active inspection that they do by -- to some 25 percent of what they were at one time. And they have a menu that's relatively structured in defining or in deciding what it is that you expect. On the other hand, if you have an aging problem, it's almost implicit that there is, if you will, a kind of -- well, let say, the likelihood of a threshold. And so there may be things which, based on your risk-informed sampling process, or inservice inspection, you might not do, but which, based on concerns about other longer-term aging processes, you might want to look at. The question I have is, if I decided that there was a problem that had to do with a component or system area that was already receiving the tender loving care of an existing inservice inspection program, could I lay on top of that, a one-time inspection requirement to look at this other odd-ball or, let's say, different kind of aging mechanism? MS. FRANOVICH: Aging mechanism, and I feel that that would be acceptable, but I will defer to Dr. Kuo, Dr. Lee, or Chris Grimes. DR. KUO: Yes, I would like to add to it and just give you a little background of why -- how this one-time inspection first came up. When we had our review of the applications in both Calvert Cliffs and Oconee, there was a time that the applicant wanted to say that we don't have any aging effects on certain systems such as water, surface water systems, because we have this effective water chemistry program. So we don't see any corrosion. There is no need to do anything; that there is no need for aging management, and there is no such aging effect. DR. SEALE: And, in fact, you and I know that there well may, in fact, be something that has a 20-year horizon on it where it only looms after that. DR. KUO: Correct. Okay, that's why we say, okay, if that's the case, then we want to have a confirmation, why don't you do a one-time inspection to confirm that? If that's, indeed, the case, yes, we agree, water chemistry program is sufficient. And for that reason, the Calvert Cliffs applicant actually did a one-time inspection for their other water storage tank, and they found no indications whatsoever, any corrosion. We said, okay, we accept that, and that is one example of one-time inspection that really served them well. MR. GRIMES: I'd like to add to that that I'm not concerned about how risk-informed ISI might evolve in the future, because I think that risk-informed decisions on changing frequency or sample sizes are driven by equipment reliability consideration that are on a much shorter frequency than the evolution of aging effects. DR. SEALE: And hopefully equipment and reliability reality. MR. GRIMES: Correct. We would expect that even though the frequencies in sample sizes might change, that if aging effects are occurring which do have long, much longer evolution times that the aging effects will be manifest in time to take corrective action that may result in further changes to the inspection scope and frequency for that purpose, simply because they have now identified a degradation that needs to be managed in a different way, and so we expect that ISI can work in concert with an effective corrective action program to make programmatic changes that will address aging effects. So I still think that even risk informed ISI is an effecting Aging Management Program as it evolves. DR. SEALE: Well, my only concern is once you do get a good ISI, risk informed ISI program you still want to look for wet spots on the floor. [Laughter.] MS. FRANOVICH: And I think, just to add, in our discussions with NEI we heard a lot of "we have never seen aging mechanisms in this system" and when asked, well, have you looked? -- well, no, but we just haven't seen it, so that was another impetus for doing the one-time inspections. DR. SEALE: When I was 55 I didn't think I would ever have a knee problem. [Laughter.] MS. FRANOVICH: Okay. Going on, those were the significant NEI comments on Chapter V, some of which or actually all of which had implications for other chapters in the GALL report. The license renewal issue that is addressed in Chapter V, and my understanding is that the license renewal issues are a list of issues that arose from a 1997 NEI comment period on the GALL report at that time. MR. LEE: The SRP at that time. MS. FRANOVICH: Sorry, the SRP at that time. I don't believe the GALL report existed at that time. The license renewal issue applying to Chapter V was 98-083, stress corrosion cracking of carbon steel. The Staff was asked to develop a position as to whether or not this aging mechanism was viable for this material. The Staff concluded that yes, this is a viable aging mechanism for carbon steel if certain strength characteristics of the material are present. When it came to bolting, we determined that the strength characteristics of bolts would make them susceptible to SCC so we have added an item in Chapter V and other chapters as well, the Bolting Integrity Program, to address stress corrosion cracking of bolts. When it comes to valve bodies, the strength of the material is such that SCC really is not a viable aging mechanism so that is not addressed in the GALL report, so that is how we have handled that license renewal issue. There are several items of interest I want to discuss with regard to Chapter V. A couple of them have generic implications for other chapters and these items of interest are more or less items that were identified by the Staff and contractors as this project has evolved, changes we have made to improve the product. One is at one time general corrosion and loss of material for stainless steel in borated water systems was in GALL in several mechanical system chapters. The Staff determined that that is really not an aging mechanism, a viable aging mechanism in that environment, so multiple items were removed from the GALL report that addressed this general corrosion and loss of material of stainless steel and borated water systems. With regard to Chapter V specifically, when we removed the Aging Mechanism Program reference to Appendix J testing from Chapter 5 for containment isolation valves we discovered that the treatment in GALL of treatment isolation valves was really no different from the treatment of valves in other applications, noncontainment isolation applications. As such, we decided to delete a number of containment isolation valves from Chapter V and address them in the system-specific sections throughout other chapters of the GALL report. We also opted to remove penetration seals and equipment and personnel hatches from Section C, which was the containment isolation barrier section for Chapter V and relocate them to Chapter II on structures, where Appendix J testing was more common to that chapter, so we have no reference to Appendix J testing, leak rate testing, in Chapter V at all anymore. Another item that we added to Chapter V and other mechanical system chapters as well is atmospheric corrosion of carbon steel components, external surfaces, and I touched upon that when I went over the changes that were significant to highlight from the 12-9 Rev. to the current Rev. of the GALL report. MR. SHACK: Is that based on field experience? MS. FRANOVICH: Let me defer to Omesh or -- the question is was atmospheric corrosion of external surfaces of carbon steel components added because of field experience? MR. CHOPRA: These items were covered in Calvert Cliffs application and Oconee application so we decided to add it. MR. SHACK: Oh, so this is a lessons learned from the Calvert Cliffs? MR. CHOPRA: Right. DR. SEALE: Saltwater will do it. MR. DAVIS: This is Jim Davis from the Staff. In addition, the NEI guidance documents discuss the loss of material for carbon steel and they say carbon steel immersed in an aqueous environment with oxygen present causes corrosion when about 90 or 95 percent of the corrosion that we are seeing is in the atmosphere and it is not immersed in a fluid. DR. SEALE: Salt air. MR. DAVIS: Salt air or just humid air. DR. SEALE: The Navy knows about that. MR. DAVIS: That was one reason it was added, to make sure that it is understood that atmospheric corrosion can occur. DR. LEE: That first bullet on your slide there, corrosion and loss of material for stainless and borated systems, was deleted. Could you say again why that was deleted? MR. DAVIS: Because corrosion of borated solutions doesn't corrode stainless steel. There is that code case in 616 now that says if you have stainless steel fasteners in a bolted connection you don't have to remove the insulation to do your system leak test because nothing is going to happen. We have a lot of history on that. DR. LEE: Okay, thank you. MS. FRANOVICH: That concludes my presentation on Chapter V. If there are any other questions -- [No response.] MS. FRANOVICH: Then I think we can move on to Chapter VI. DR. SEALE: Sometimes it might be nice to hear about your overall impressions of your loan assignment and so on. We are very interested in the opportunities that people from the regions get to have the opportunity to look at other parts of the organization and so on. Some people from the regions have made some extraordinarily helpful contributions to some other tasks that they have had assigned up here. MS. FRANOVICH: Cross-pollination is good. DR. SEALE: Yes, we appreciate your being with us today. MS. FRANOVICH: Thank you. Perhaps at the break I could chat with you. DR. SEALE: Okay. [Pause.] CHAIRMAN BONACA: Okay. MR. MITRA: Good morning again. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Good morning. MR. MITRA: This is Eskay Mitra from License Renewal Branch. I am the technical lead on GALL, Chapter VI and with me are three gentlemen who have significant contribution in Chapter VI writeup. To my immediate left is Paul Shemanski of NRR Staff, Mr. Jit Vora next to him is from Office of Research, and to my right Mr. Bob Lofaro of Brookhaven National Lab. With that, we have had a number of conversations and discussions and meetings with NEI regarding Chapter VI electrical components and I can declare victory that almost 99 percent of the comments we have resolved and the one percent we didn't is very insignificant. Most of them are resolved, some of them are partly resolved, so I am not going to even mention those not resolved because they are so insignificant. The first comment is on treatment of inaccessible and buried non-EQ cables. Actually this is two different issues. One is inaccessible cables, which are those cables that are in conduits or in trays or a location which is hard to access. Buried cables are generally medium voltage. When an acceptable condition is identified for a cable or a connection in the inspection sample a determination is made as to whether the same condition is applicable to inaccessible cable in connections. The program also includes inaccessible which is directly buried medium voltage cable within the scope of license renewal that are exposed to significant moisture simultaneously with significant voltage. This topic was not addressed in the original GALL document. We had, as I said, a number of discussions with NEI and then we added these inaccessible buried cable in GALL Chapter XI, Section E-1 and Section E-3, respectively. Section E-1 is treatment of inaccessible cable and Section E-3 is the medium voltage buried cable. Number 2, comments, the bullet we have, elimination -- CHAIRMAN BONACA: Before you move on, I misunderstood. You said there were two issues here. One was inaccessible cables -- MR. MITRA: Yes. CHAIRMAN BONACA: And the other one was? I missed something. MR. MITRA: The other one is buried medium voltage cable which is -- CHAIRMAN BONACA: Okay, but in your bullet it specifically talks about non-environmentally qualified cables. MR. MITRA: Non-EQ cables. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Non-EQ cables, okay, and what was the disagreement with NEI or the comment from NEI? MR. MITRA: The comment was that it was not included in the first original GALL documents. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Okay. MR. MITRA: And we discussed about including it with NEI and we mutually agreed to include it and we included it in Chapter XI, Section E-1 and E-3. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Okay, and there, just to give us a summary, what kind of inspections are suggested in those sections? MR. SHEMANSKI: Paul Shemanski from Electrical Branch. Basically it is -- not a one-time inspection but it is an inspection conducted every 10 years -- once every 10 years, so theoretically the first inspection would be, say, Year 41, and the second inspection would be at Year 51, and we feel that is appropriate because in general these are slow-acting aging mechanisms for cables and by having multiple inspections, one every 10 years, that allows the opportunity to develop at least two datapoints and perhaps some trending could be done, so these are primarily 10-year visual inspections. CHAIRMAN BONACA: These are non-environmentally qualified so they are pre-IEEE standards or simply -- MR. SHEMANSKI: Basically the same type of cables physically. The main difference is that these cables while they may be exposed to a harsh environment they are not required to perform any mitigating functions during the harsh environment, so these in essence are declared non-EQ cables. For the most part they are essentially the same type of cables that are used on the EQ master list. It doesn't make any sense to buy specialized EQ cables and then a lower grade cable for non-EQ so in essence these are the same type of cables physically as you would find on the EQ master list. CHAIRMAN BONACA: We asked a consultant to review some of the issues on cables and he will provide you with his feedback. One comment he had made was the 10 year inspection as again progresses could be accelerated, I mean to have a more frequent inspection interval, if I understand it. Could you comment on that? MR. SHEMANSKI: Well, as a result of going through the Oconee application, for non-EQ cables Oconee initially did not identify the need for a cable Aging Management Program. However, after an inspection down at Oconee and further discussions with them Oconee agreed with the Staff that a cable Aging Management Program should be developed, so we worked very closely with Oconee on this issue as to what would constitute an acceptable Aging Management Program. Of course, one of the elements was how often do you conduct your inspections, and after many discussions we felt a 10 year interval was an appropriate number, again based on the fact that in general the aging mechanisms tend to act fairly slowly with the exception of cables that might be in hot spots for example but that is one area that they will be looking for to identify any hot spots that would lead to more accelerated degradation, so it was a mutually agreed-upon test interval, 10 years. Again by doing it every 10 years you would experience two of these inspections during the renewal period so perhaps you could do some trending. That second datapoint would perhaps tell you if the aging is accelerating. As experience goes on, perhaps in the future maybe that interval will have to be shortened, but for right now we feel generally comfortable with a 10 year inspection interval for these cable.s CHAIRMAN BONACA: For example, Oconee already then is trending now, starting now or is it going to trend starting at 40 years? MR. SHEMANSKI: Well, basically the way the program is set up they would do their first inspection at Year 40 or Year 41 -- CHAIRMAN BONACA: Well, there's isn't much trending you can do with the two. MR. SHEMANSKI: Yes, it's kind of minimal to do trending but it's -- CHAIRMAN BONACA: Trending can maybe only tell you something after 50 years. MR. SHEMANSKI: Yes, the first inspection at Year 41 would basically give you baseline data and then when you conduct your second inspection 10 years later you might be able to get a little better feel to see if the aging is staying relatively the same or accelerating. DR. SEALE: It is going to be fascinating if you have any hot spots after 40 years that you didn't have before. MR. SHEMANSKI: Yes. That would be quite unusual. However, there are occurrences. Back in the mid-'70s I recall one plant where they went through an outage. They removed some insulation in the upper drywell, didn't realize it until two years later when the cables started to degrade so -- although they are rare, it is conceivable that could happen. Generally you would not expect a plant to all of a sudden develop hot spots. DR. SEALE: I certainly hope you could find a direct cause like that if you had that problem. MR. SHEMANSKI: Right. In that case it was fairly easy. DR. SEALE: Yes. MR. SHEMANSKI: Right. MR. GRIMES: This is Chris Grimes. I would like to add that in addition to the specific inspections provided to look for the condition of inaccessible cables, non-EQ cables, we do expect that operating experiences are going to continue to provide a feedback as events like Davis-Besse provide experience and lessons across the industry. Also, as several renewal licenses come into play then there will be some experience that can be shared across the industry for inaccessible cables. If future experience in the future indicates a need, then we would expect that the program would evolve and change as the need arises. DR. UHRIG: You indicated that these are medium voltage. What do you mean? 440 volts? Are these power cables to pumps and motors? MR. SHEMANSKI: These are -- first of all, the event occurred last October at Davis-Besse, and it was on a 4160 medium voltage cable buried -- well, it was underneath the turbine building in a four-inch conduit. I believe it was hooked up to the component cooling water pump and it basically failed. It was a catastrophic failure and the failure mechanism was due primarily to moisture which somehow was trapped inside a four-inch diameter PVC pipe and we don't know exactly how long the moisture was in there, but ultimately it got into the insulation and resulted in cable failure, so that was what got our interest in terms of in that case an inaccessible medium voltage cable subject to significant moisture. DR. UHRIG: And this is a cable that is feeding current to a motor operating continuously or is this one that is called upon as needed? MR. SHEMANSKI: These component cooling water pumps are continuously operated. MR. SIEBER: That is more severe than -- MR. SHEMANSKI: Yes, right. Yes, the combination of moisture ingress into a cable which is energized is where you get into trouble. DR. UHRIG: Do you have any different problems with cables carrying sensor measurements, signal cables as opposed to -- MR. SHEMANSKI: In terms of moisture? DR. UHRIG: Yes, or the failure mechanism. MR. SHEMANSKI: Well, those primarily for the most part are in a dry environment so the main stressors there are radiation and temperature. However, I think as a result of our work on GSI-168 we generally found that cables which are, I&C cables which are exposed to between 20 to 90 percent moisture are generally not affected. If the moisture is above 90 percent, then we would probably have some concern, but typically those cables are not subject, the I&C cables are generally not subject to moisture conditions, submergence, for example. The Davis-Besse event was unique in that the cable was actually a fairly long run, nearly 200 feet. The cable was buried underneath the turbine building underneath the concrete floor running through conduit. Somehow groundwater perhaps got in, so that was sort of a unique situation. DR. UHRIG: You mentioned GSI-168. This is scheduled to be resolved in the near future. Do you anticipate that the method by which it is resolved will have an impact upon the license renewal activities? MR. VORA: This is Jit Vora from Office of Research. Dr. Uhrig, last Friday the Staff had the opportunity to brief you about the state of the GSI-168 and then qualification of low voltage I&C cables and provide and discuss the test results which involve for the current license term of 40 years and for the renewed license consideration for 60 years. Now with regard to the license renewal, the EQ is considered as a time-limited aging analysis and the time limitation is because the long-lived passive components such as cables is not qualified to a specified life of 40 years. What actually happens with the requirement of 10 CFR 54.21(c) it provides the three options to demonstrate the qualification during the new license period and the licensee must comply with one of the requirements and put in place appropriate an Aging Management Program for renewed license consideration. Now since the CLB involving the EQ carries forward during the license renewal term, whatever is the outcome of the resolution of GSI-168 for the current license term will carry forward. One of the important things which you have time to achieve within the next couple of months is that we are evaluating various pros and cons of the various options for the resolution of GSI-168. An important part we need to do is actually disseminate the research results and to hold an open public meeting and dialogue about the research results, publish the technical report and findings and get the feedback from the IEEE, from the industry and the institution, so this is our program for the next couple of months -- the resolution of GSI-168 -- but in the bottom line, in the Part 54.21(c) provides the appropriate method to address any EQ issues for the license renewal consideration. DR. UHRIG: The presentations at these public meetings will be similar to what we received a couple of weeks ago? MR. VORA: Primarily focused on the test results for the six LOCA tests that we accomplished through Brookhaven and Wylie Laboratories and actually provide the results. Now the one portion of the test program which involved cables and some of their experience during the 40 year and 60 year have already been discussed and disseminated and the appropriate NRR interactions are taking place with the industry. We also had a meeting with NEI and we are also getting some feedback about experiences from the operating nuclear power plants, so it was a very good dialogue and discussion, and hopefully we will have similar discussions with other test results too. DR. UHRIG: We have a consultant's report here which I just got hold of yesterday addressing some of the issues, and it makes a point about separating the radiation that is induced here sort of before an incident and after the incident, as far as the testing procedure is concerned, whereas, it seems to be, in the work that you alluded to, it was sort of lumped together. Do you think this will have significant -- would give different results than you obtained with the Wiley testing? MR. VORA: From my experience actually, and we are talking about a simultaneous versus the sequential? DR. UHRIG: Yes. MR. VORA: And we actually, when we actually develop and design our test program for this current series of tests, we factor into the results which are obtained by Sandia where they are done actually, the simultaneous pre-aging. And the program which we developed actually was according to what were the original qualifications which actually were conducted by the supplier and the manufacturer. So we tried to stay within those areas and those profits and parameters. And that was the idea, was to see about the value at the original qualifications and did not make any other changes in that regard. Bob, do you have anything else? MR. LOFARO: This is Bob Lofaro from Brookhaven Lab. In regard to the issue of radiation sequencing, as Jit mentioned, there have been some studies done which looked at the differences in variation of sequences. In other words, if you perform radiation aging prior to thermal aging, or simultaneously with it, would that affect the condition of the cables. DR. UHRIG: That is the issue that is being raised here. MR. LOFARO: Right. And some work has been done actually by Sandia some years ago where they actually looked at the difference. And what they found is that for some cables, there could be some difference. For other cables, it made no difference at all. So it really depends on the materials that you are looking at. In the research program that we looked at, we studied the aging techniques that have been used in the past to qualify cables and looked at how adequately they really simulated the aging that these cables see in actual nuclear service. And what we found from the data that we could gather, that the pre-aging techniques where you used sequential thermal and radiation aging did an adequate job of representing the aging on these cables. So from our results, we feel that there is some evidence to show that the sequential aging of the cables is adequate. MR. GRIMES: Dr. Uhrig, this is Chris Grimes. I would like to add that, as a result of the recommendation by Dr. Seale, we contacted the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Jim Koons is the contact that we talked with, and he is working in the polymeric materials aging program for the DOE weapons program. And we found out, we learned a lot actually about work that they are developing to explore silicone chemistry and silica structure that is primarily for sealing materials, but it is also contributing to models that they are sharing with Sandia. And we already have a Sandia contact through the Office or Research that has been contributing to the exploration of the cable aging effects and the implication of the test results and ways to understand what the test results mean from the standpoint of the reliability and uncertainty and cable qualification. I expect that there is probably going to be more in the future in the way of an improved understanding of what the aging mechanisms are. The weapons program is providing information that might improve the modeling and future research. But I think I would go to the bottom line on your question, it was, could the results of this work affect license renewal? And my expectation is it will probably affect the current license requirements as well as license renewal at some point in the future, but right now we don't see any concern about the existing programs that are relied upon for cabling aging effects. DR. UHRIG: Well, virtually, all of the plants that are coming in are the older plants, for the simple reason that they will need licensing sooner, and all of those are the so-called exempted plants under GSI-168. And most of those go back to the old DOR, Division of Operational -- Operating Reactors regulations in effect in the early '80s. And the testing there is minimal, as I recall. This was the genesis of my question here as to whether it would really have an effect upon the licensing. As I recall, in the Oconee, there was a specific testing program that was laid out in respect to cables, if I remember correctly. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yes, to inspect cables, yes. They agreed to a program, and also for Calvert Cliffs, I believe. MR. GRIMES: But both of those plants also have programs to maintain compliance with 50.49 in terms of the qualification basis for their plant. And, as you mentioned, for the plants that were licensed under the DOR guidelines, I would expect that they would go back and look at the qualification basis for their cables and incorporate the results of the research work in terms of challenging whether or not those qualification tests were sufficient. MR. VORA: This is Jit Vora. I might add something, that is a very good question. And during our research program, when we evaluated some of the older plants, what we have found out, that we believe that most of the plant inventory, it was not required for them to do any pre-aging of the cables. They actually, on their own initiative, have done, first of all, the pre-aging of the cables on their own initiative. The second thing which came out from the research result, we had actually tested some naturally aged cables, one were 10 years old naturally aged cables, and 24 year old naturally aged cables. And in both of the instances, these cables which were actually originally came out from the DOR guideline plants, they performed as good or better that the artificially aged cables, and actually, these cables actually, in the testing program that we implemented, using the latest requirements, more stringent requirements. So I think they gave us a confidence about the vintage of the older cables, and I think they did okay. DR. UHRIG: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Just one last question. Going back to the Oconee event, when they found that -- when they had a problem with a cable buried under the turbine building, -- MR. SHEMANSKI: That was Davis-Besse. CHAIRMAN BONACA: I'm sorry, Davis-Besse. Did they follow with inspections of other cables in the same cable trays? MR. SHEMANSKI: Yes, they did. As a matter of fact, the cable that failed was last October, and it was on component cooling water pump number 2, 4160 volt cable, and, again, there was no indication. It was just a catastrophic failure that failed, the cable basically shorted to ground due to water ingress. In addition, they have component cooling water pumps number 1 and number 3, and what they did shortly thereafter was they removed those cables. They did some preliminary electric measurements to get baseline data, but because of the component cooling water pump number 2 cable that failed, Davis-Besse decided to replace component cooling water pump number 1 and number 3 because all three of these cables are basically in parallel underneath the turbine building, and they were -- they wanted to find out if component cooling water pumps number 1 and 3 also had water in the conduits. They were both dry. So, nevertheless, they did pull out those cables and they were in perfect condition. They replaced them with new cables. In addition, they identified -- CHAIRMAN BONACA: And they are still grounding, however, in the same cable tray? MR. SHEMANSKI: Well, not cable tray, these are underneath. They are plastic, four inch diameter PVC tubes. And they identify the potential for that same failure mechanism to occur on other systems, I believe the makeup water system and the service water system. They apparently are designed in a similar manner where perhaps moisture could get in. Nevertheless, they did run electrical tasks on those cables and they appear to be in good condition. They did some partial discharge testing and I believe some power factor testing, enough electrical tests to give them confidence that those cables are good. So it appears to be a -- we had concerns as to whether or not this was a generic problem, because the moisture, through osmosis, got through the insulation, which is not supposed to happen. But, anyway, according to the root cause report they just sent in, it appears to be just an isolated event that occurred at Davis-Besse. MR. VORA: I might add one more item, for about 23 year old cable, and actually when the moisture actually got into it, and before the water level going up and down, it will go right through the EPR insulation on it. From the experience, I think one of the things which I feel was very important that they actually were able to use some diagnostic and condition monitoring like the power factor measurements and the partial discharge measurement, and to develop enough confidence about their effectiveness to test different types of cables. So I think that was very beneficial I think to the entire industry to learn from this experience. And we are trying to disseminate that result, discuss with IPEEE standards that this is one way, sometime, if somebody wants to evaluate the medium voltage buried inaccessible cable, the electrical techniques might be one way to go about doing that. MR. SHEMANSKI: Just one more comment. Again, this is another example of where we took recent operating experience and tried to incorporate it into GALL and the SRP. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Thank you. DR. LEITCH: In Chapter XI E-3, the description of non-EQ inaccessible medium voltage cables, it speaks about the cable should be tested once every 10 years. Would some of your experience be factored into that testing? It doesn't particularly describe how that testing would be done, or what type of testing is intended there. MR. SHEMANSKI: At this point we don't know exactly what type of electrical measurements will be made. We discussed this with Oconee, this particular aging management program, although the failure occurred at Davis-Besse. We worked very closely with Oconee to develop this particular aging management program for medium voltage cables. And the commitment we have now basically is that they will test this cable, these 4160 volt cables, medium voltage cables once every 10 years. However, Oconee at this point did not commit to the exact test that will be performed. As they get closer to a testing time requirement, say year 41 roughly, at that point they will make a selection as to which is the most appropriate electrical test. They didn't want to tie themselves into a particular test at this point like partial discharge or power factor. Between now and the time these cables are tested, perhaps better techniques, or newer or additional techniques will be available. So they just -- we just left it at the fact that these cables will be tested, recognizing that the method will be determined shortly before the test is conducted. DR. LEITCH: Okay. Thank you. MR. SHEMANSKI: In addition, they are also looking for moisture. They have moisture monitoring programs trying to see if moisture is getting into these conduits or trenches, wherever the cables are installed. They have moisture detection programs. DR. LEITCH: I guess just one further curiosity question is that the Davis-Besse thing, are they sure that moisture got into cable number 2 and moisture did not get into 1 and 3? MR. SHEMANSKI: Yes. As a matter -- DR. LEITCH: I mean is that just hypothesized or is there data? MR. SHEMANSKI: No, that was an actual -- when the failure occurred, that cable was removed from component cooling water pump number 2, and the cable physically was about 1-1/4 inches in diameter. You could actually run your fingers down the cable and water would ooze out. DR. LEITCH: I see. MR. SHEMANSKI: So that cable was essentially saturated. However, the cables in component cooling water pumps number 1 and 3, which were just adjacent to the one that failed, they were just -- they were dry. They were removed, and they came out dry and they tested fine electrically. So, it is sort of a mystery as to how water got in across the conduit seal, somehow it was cracked. Ground water got in. DR. LEITCH: And presumably, that condition still exists, right? MR. SHEMANSKI: Well, the potential still exists, I believe, yes. Yes. MR. VORA: I think with this, because there is no moisture underneath and the cable is removed actually from component cooling water 1 and 3, they almost look like brand new cable after 23 years of experience. So I think that provides a confidence about the continuity for 40 years, even for extended life. And, also, with the development of the new diagnostic techniques, the combination of that experience of the 23 years, and also the diagnostic technique, I think you will see enough insight and tool for the 60 year life if we need to look into it. DR. LEITCH: Okay. Thank you. MR. MITRA: I don't know if we answered Dr. Uhrig's question about medium voltage cable. What about definition? Medium voltage is anything within 2 kv to 15 kv, and anything less than 1,000 volt is the low voltage cable, and over 15 kv is the high voltage, which is very unique in a nuclear power plant. We almost don't have it. DR. UHRIG: This is an IPEEE definition, or is this an NRC? MR. MITRA: No, this is IPEEE. DR. UHRIG: IPEEE. MR. MITRA: Yes. Okay. The second comment we had about elimination of certain known EQ long-lead passive electrical components, and we had considerable discussion with the industry and we concurred. And we removed following components from GALL since their aging effects are not determined to be significant in first two applications, which is Calvert Cliffs and Oconee, such that they will result in a loss of component function and no aging management programs are required for this following components. One is -- number 1 is electrical penetration assemblies, electrical busses, electrical insulators, transmission conductors and ground conductors. These are eliminated based on the actual experience, operating experience. CHAIRMAN BONACA: And you feel that that elimination can be generic, irrespective of the environment? MR. MITRA: Well, -- CHAIRMAN BONACA: I mean you have two applications, but you feel that this conclusion of eliminating that is applicable to all next applications coming? MR. SHEMANSKI: Not necessarily. The reason that these components were put on the -- or we added them to GALL, they originated primarily from the Oconee application. As you recall, Oconee has the Keowee dam and they use the hydro units for their emergency power. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yes. MR. SHEMANSKI: So Oconee scoped in the transmission conductors, ground conductors, large electrical busses. And while they were identified in the Oconee application, the aging mechanisms were not -- or aging effects were not determined to be significant. So Oconee concluded that they do not require an aging management program on these components, and we agreed with them in our safety evaluation report. So we decided that there was really -- since there are no current industry aging management programs for these type of components, we decided to remove them from GALL. However, there is a potential on some of these, for example, there may be plants close to the ocean where salt-spray could be a program. We may have corrosion on some of these components that would be in scope, electrical insulators or transmission conductors. So, in general, most plants should not have a problem in terms of requiring an aging management program for these. However, on a plant-specific basis, as we go through, as applications come in, some of these may pop up in scope and perhaps require an aging management program. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Okay. MR. SHEMANSKI: Oconee is located up in a mountainous area. CHAIRMAN BONACA: No, I understand that. Just I thought from the presentation that it was a generic exclusion, which you are telling me it is not. MR. SHEMANSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN BONACA: I mean there will still be operating experience, for example, the particular site and that will point out whether or not there is some activity, some review that has to be done. MR. SHEMANSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Okay. Thank you. MR. MITRA: Number 3 is inclusion and recognition of industry reports useful for aging management. Staff concurred with NEI to add following industry documents to the reference of Chapter XI: Sandia 96-0344, Aging Management Guidelines for Commercial Nuclear Plants. Electrical Cable and Terminations is September 1996, and EPRI PR-109619, The Guidelines for the Management of Adverse Localized Equipment Environments, which is published in June 1996. The last comments was separation of discussion of aging management program, non-EQ, and time-limited aging analysis for EQ. It used to be addressed in one place before the staff and NEI mutually agreed to separate EQ and non-EQ components to prevent confusion. EQ electric equipment are addressed as TLAA based on 10 CFR 50.49, the aging management program in Chapter VI-B and X E-1, and non-EQ electrical cables and connections are subject to specific aging management program are addressed in Chapter VI-A and XI E-1, E-2, E-3 and E-4. Any question on industry comments? [No response.] MR. MITRA: We have our three license renewal issues, 98-077, which is table consistent with the rule. There is 89, intended function of regulation, and 97 is system, where it says component level functions. These issues are resolved on the basis that they are obsolete. The NEI comments were that the table is in the previous version of GALL, is taken from IPEEE 1205, Aging Assessment of Class 1-E equipment, and it was mainly focused on aging mechanism, but the license renewal rule not focuses the effect of aging on structures on components. Therefore, the tables are removed, so these issues are resolved. That is all we have. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Any other questions? DR. SEALE: I assume that there is some communication of the utility of these fault detecting measurements that were used at Oconee -- or at Davis-Besse with the rest of the industry. It strikes me that that is pretty cheap, I would think, and something that might be very useful to other people. MR. VORA: I think you are absolutely right, Dr. Seale. Both Paul Shemanski and myself, we are members of the working group of the IPEEE subcommittees and working group, both on the aging management and also with regards to the operations, maintenance and surveillance of the electrical equipment. And through that avenue, we are able to disseminate the discussions and results. And, also, we also had the morning report we issued, we talk about the results of this effect. We also, when we have our telephone conversation with the licensees, that is one thing we didn't create, that once the report is out, it should be widely distributed and available so we all can learn from that experience and move on to the next step. So I think it is a very good comment. DR. SEALE: The only thing now, it would be nice to know how good a predictor it is. That is, how much of an early heads-up you get. Of course, it depends on the size of the leak. MR. VORA: Yes, sir. And I think what they did actually, if I remember right, they used the double power factor which is commercially available equipment, and they did the partial discharge to that, and they are able to make a correlationship in the value of the last factor and the partial discharge. And then when actually they removed it and they took these sets of cables into the laboratory and they did some dissections and post-mortum examination and testing. So I think they have a good collection of data. And during our conversation, they did agree that they would like to discuss this widely through probably the course and standards activities. So it is happening, and I think we are pleased with that result. DR. SEALE: Actually, it has nothing to say here, but INPO publishes some sort of things about -- we get copies of that manual or that publication they put out about every quarter, I guess it is, on things like that, decontamination practices, other things, too. It strikes me this would be the kind of thing that might be very useful in propagating that experience. MR. VORA: I think you are absolutely right. And I think we got a couple of points on it, and we thought we might be able to obtain some more data from the other components. Even if they did not find any anomalies in other two sets of cables, even that data itself was also useful. DR. SEALE: Sure. MR. VORA: To put everything together in a package for the future use. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MITRA: Thank you. MR. GRIMES: Would you like to proceed with the auxiliary systems discussion? CHAIRMAN BONACA: I think so. I think we should probably complete this presentation and then take a break at that time. MS. BLOOMER: Chuck. [Pause.] MS. BLOOMER: Hi. I'm Tamara Bloomer. I'm a materials engineer in NMSS, Division of High Level Waste, who for the summer was on rotation to license renewal. I was charged with being the lead for auxiliary systems, which is Chapter VII of GALL and associated section of the SRP. Similarly to what Ronnie went through, I'm just going to give you a brief overview of some of the major changes that occurred between the '99 version and the 2000 version of GALL before I get started on the overheads. In Section C(3), the cooling tower structural elements were removed. They are incorporated in Chapter 3 of the GALL report. For consistency's sake, we found that we were addressing them, looking from different angles, when we put them in structures and how they're all going to be dealt with the same way. In Section E(4) -- actually, all of Section E(4) was removed. The situation was the refueling water tower -- excuse me, the refueling water tank was moved to Chapter 5, and with the removal of stainless steel items and fluoridated water, and the carbon steel items moved to the new additional section that was added, and bolting being moved to that section, which is now Section I as well, there was nothing left in Section E(4), and so that was removed completely. So the E(4) you have now was previously E(5). Liquid waste disposal system, which was the I, Section I of Chapter VII, was removed. Liquid waste disposal is not in scope, and due to the decision on the hatch, 2.206 petition that was brought by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the disposition of that petition, we felt that it was best just to remove it from GALL as a reference. Section I now is, in fact, the carbon steel components section that was universally added in the chapters for GALL. A lot of other items changed that will change the look of Chapter VII. Chapter VII originally was very large. It is still a larger section, but it has decreased by almost half, by moving a lot of the things into Chapter XI, similarly changing a lot of the terminologies and the consistency of terms -- things like the studs and nuts are now closure bolts, so rather than having line items for each, we have a line item that encompasses. That changes the way the chapter looks itself. Also, filter housings were added to Section F(1), F(2) and (3), which came from Chapter V. There were other small changes that you can see, but those are really the major ones. Again, Chapter VII was a very large section. It encompassed easily 45 pages of NEI comments. We had a large number of staff involved in reviewing their comments, as well as GALL itself, Chapter VII. There are four people here, but there were over thirty reviewers from NRC staff. Three of the reviewers here, you have already met, and I will allow -- MR. TAM: Shin-Wing Tam from Argonne National Laboratory. MS. BLOOMER: -- were involved. The ones that I have left -- in fact, some have been touched upon earlier today. I'll just go over them briefly, and if you have any questions. The spent fool -- excuse me. Whoa. [Laughter.] MS. BLOOMER: The spent fuel pool cooling and clean-up corrosion. NEI felt that the water chemistry alone, again, would, is used to mitigate corrosion. And therefore, a "no" in the "further evaluation" column and a no need for one-time inspection was required. We have left the water chemistry program that is referenced in Chapter XI, and the use of a one-time inspection as a possible alternative to, to look for corrosion. The buried piping is an aging management program that is now also in Chapter XI. NEI felt that buried piping is treated differently in each plant and should be listed as a plant-specific activity. We have incorporated a buried piping AMP in Chapter XI, based on a NACE program -- National Association for Corrosion Engineers -- which uses coating, wrapping, and cathodic protection, and feel that if that is followed, this is something that has been reviewed by the staff and is an appropriate AMP. There are other alternatives, but they would be reviewed on a plant-by-plant basis if they choose not to use this. In the aging mechanisms for bolts, across Chapter VII, it countered wear as one of those aging mechanisms. Wear is not considered an aging mechanism in the internals, and that should be the harshest determination of where aging mechanisms occur. If it's not considered relevant there, we felt that we should remove it from the rest of Chapter VII. Boric acid corrosion parameters monitored. NEI felt that the statement that we originally had in the '99 version of, "one or move studs are removed and examined for evidence of boric acid corrosion," was too proscriptive. And we have, in the boric acid corrosion program in Chapter XI, clarified that and request a removal and examination only upon evidence of leaking -- not necessarily evidence of leaking at that bolt, but evidence of leaking in the area for which the bolts would be susceptible. The stand-by liquid control, which is a boiling water reactor system, has sodium pentaborate as one of the elements involved in the water. And we have found that stress corrosion cracking is an issue. NEI felt that the level of sodium pentaborate that is used in most of the plants is insufficient to create this aging mechanism. But we have, in fact, retained reference to that in the evaluation and technical basis column, and say that sodium pentaborate does have a susceptibility or decrease the susceptibility for stainless steels to set up stress corrosion cracking and therefore should be managed. The diesel fuel oil system coating degradation. NEI felt that failure of coatings was, does not result in a lost of component function. Therefore, coatings should not be managed. We have added an outer surface of above-ground carbon steel tanks AMP to Chapter XI, which we require inspection of the paint, coating, sealing, and caulking, and possibly a one-time thickness measurement of the tank bottoms inaccessible areas, so that you can see whether or not any degradation is occurring in fact. CHAIRMAN BONACA: You said there is one-time? MS. BLOOMER: It's not listed specifically as a one-time inspection in that program, but if we do a one-time measurement and find that there is no decrease in thickness, then we're not going to require anything further beyond that point. If they in fact find that there is some corrosion occurring, then of course a whole other set of plans come into requirement. Lastly, stress corrosion cracking of stainless steel below 140^o F -- we have an operating experience associated with an Information Notice 97-019 on safety injection system weld flaw at Sequoia Nuclear Power Plant, in which pipings had through-all cracking due to stress corrosion and were used in environments less than 140^o C. NEI felt that that was a site-specific evaluation, that it is not a generic issue, and for stainless steel, we feel that that may be a correct assumption and have therefore removed that item, currently, from GALL. The only license renewal issue that was relevant to Chapter VII -- DR. SHACK: Just -- MS. BLOOMER: Yes? DR. SHACK: Are those all controlled water chemistry systems? MS. BLOOMER: Are, which? DR. SHACK: Where you've removed the stress corrosion cracking of the stainless steel? MS. BLOOMER: This is stress corrosion cracking at less than 140^o. DR. SHACK: Right. MS. BLOOMER: Anything above that is still a situation. DR. SHACK: But are those all situations where the water chemistry is controlled? MS. BLOOMER: I'm not sure if that is an exclusionary -- MS. PARCZEWSKI: Yes. The water chemistry is controlled in this instance. MS. BLOOMER: In all the systems that we use? MS. PARCZEWSKI: Yes. DR. SHACK: Because you can certainly get stress corrosion cracking with stainless steel at 140^o F in the wrong chemistries. MS. BLOOMER: Again, that would probably be more of a plant-specific basis, if the environment was different than what a generic environment is going to be, and so it wouldn't appear in GALL. It would be evaluated by the staff in an application as plant-specific. DR. SHACK: Well, one always gets concerned in stagnant water systems. MS. BLOOMER: Yes. DR. SHACK: I mean, one has water chemistry and one has water chemistry. MS. BLOOMER: Correct. Correct, and there are some instances of that that we had great debate with NEI over, in GALL, where we felt that the water chemistry, other than the borated water, other water chemistries may not be sufficient in stagnant conditions to alleviate all types of corrosion, including -- DR. SHACK: I mean, your borated one was general corrosion, and I'm willing to grant you that the general corrosion of stainless steel is not, not going to concern me. MS. BLOOMER: As well as [inaudible] borated systems, borated water systems. DR. SHACK: But the stress corrosion cracking's a different beast. MS. BLOOMER: And we do have stress corrosion cracking in a number of areas in Chapter VII that have maintained. Okay. The license renewal issue that we find for Chapter VII is failure detection that was brought up for the SRP in '97. And it was based on the BG&E application and the use of failure detection as an AMP. It was an open issue. We felt that the program, the water-based fire protection program in Chapter XI closes this issue -- that and the use of the fire protection program with further evaluation for specific systems is sufficient and removes the failure detection limitation they saw. And again, an item of interest that came up is the water-based fire protection aging management program. The ones that we have seen, we feel need further evaluation. We have proposed possible other alternatives they can look at. They are basing -- "they" being the plants that have come in -- Conee as well as Hatch, and ANO are basing their fire protection programs on guidance by NFPA. The staff feels that NFPA alone is not necessarily sufficient unless they agree to use specifics in NFPA. NFPA 13, NFPA 25 -- 25 is a one-time inspection for sprinkler heads at or before 50 years. And that would be applicable to the extended period for license renewal. Similarly, we feel that internal visual inspections are not sufficient for fire protection, especially for wet fire, wet systems, and that you do need interior inspections, either by ultrasonic or radiographic or, in case of removal of a piece to inspect it and make sure that the piping is not being corroding or there is not [inaudible] involved. We have listed -- these are not necessarily new requirements that we've put in GALL. They are requirements that came from the experience of working with the other licenses. DR. SEALE: Well, I'm sure our chairman would point out that fire protection is in the category of "what have you done for me lately?" -- MS. BLOOMER: Yes. DR. SEALE: -- kind of thing. And so it deserves some tender loving care from people who are a little bit more objective, if you will, than merely being guided by the, the simple comment. So I think everything you can do to not let the fire protection program sort of slip away. MS. BLOOMER: No. DR. SEALE: That's very important. MS. BLOOMER: GALL being a living document, NFPA has comprised a task force to see what kind of aging programs -- because aging was not something that they were really looking at prior to this, and they're trying to develop some aging programs that may be useful, not only for the nuclear industry, but for a variety of industries. And once that is determined and after the staff has reviewed it and if we find it appropriate, that is something that may in fact find its way into GALL as well. DR. SEALE: Okay. MS. BLOOMER: Are there any other questions at this time? CHAIRMAN BONACA: Thank you very much. SPEAKER: We have one more section on steam and power conversion. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yeah. I would propose that we just complete that, and then we take a break. MR. STRNISHA: I'm Jim Strnisha. I'm the lead reviewer for steam and power conversion systems, and the reviewers here with me -- you've met a couple of them, but to my far left is George Georgiev, Department of Engineering; Kris Parczewski from Division of Engineering; Jim Davis, Division of Engineering; Omesh Chopra, Argonne National Laboratory. I'd like to start off first with the major changes between GALL, the 12/99 version, and the current August version. The first part would be similar to what was changed in Chapter V and Chapter VII. In there, we added Section VIII, External Surfaces of Carbon Steel Components, and we added Closure Bolting. And for External Surfaces of Carbon Steel Components, Boric Acid Corrosion Program was added. And that is in Chapter XI M-5. And we also added the Coating Program, which is Chapter XI S-8. And for the Closure Bolting, the Bolting Integrity Program in Chapter XI M-12 was also added. And one other re-format change that we made, which is generic for all the other chapters, is the aging management programs that were in the technical evaluation block were moved to Chapter XI. Examples of those were the water chemistry Program, Chapter XI M-11; the Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program, Chapter XI, M-6; and the Bolting Integrity Program. So you'll find those back in Chapter XI. Any questions? [No Response.] MR. STRNISHA: Okay. n my overhead slide here -- two of the major issues here that are bulleted, one NEI comment was, "one-time inspections are not needed with the water chemistry program." The staff position on this is, for superheated steam piping where corrosion is negligible, the inspection is not needed. And on piping other than superheated steam, where corrosion is a concern, the inspection is invoked in that section. DR. UHRIG: You're really talking about the B&W plants with the superheat? MR. CHOPRA: Um hmm. DR. UHRIG: Those are the only ones that have superheat. MR. STRNISHA: Okay. Thank you. The other line, the other NEI comment, "flow accelerated corrosion is negligible for superheated steamlines." The staff agrees with that. The reason I'm bringing it up though is, the staff position is to leave superheated steamlines in the FAC program, since the program conducts an analysis to determine which piping is most susceptible to FAC. This approach allows the program to evaluate and select piping to be monitored. And that's the reason we're gonna leave that in. DR. SHACK: I mean, is that true now for operating plants that go -- I mean, they all have flow-assisted corrosion programs. Is that piping in the FAC program now, and they go through the analysis? MR. STRNISHA: I believe it is. MS. PARCZEWSKI: Yes. Actually, if it is superheated steam, there would be no FAC. But however, if all the other pipe, like construction pipe, there might be some moisture present. So obviously, it does [inaudible] to be included in the program. And we don't know exactly which pipe carry pure, in the system pure superheated steam. That's -- some of the include, as I say, safety precautions. DR. SHACK: Okay, but then the plant makes a specific analysis of its piping. MS. PARCZEWSKI: Yeah, that's right. DR. SHACK: As part of the FAC program. MS. PARCZEWSKI: That's right. It's a part of the FAC program. MR. STRNISHA: As far as license renewal issues and items of interest go, in this chapter we have none. So that's the only slide that I have. DR. SEALE: I might suggest to my colleagues that as we look at an entirely different issue -- namely, the consequence of various power upgrade proposals that people are going to be coming forward with -- this is an area where we ought to be very careful. You just reminded us. [Laughter.] CHAIRMAN BONACA: Okay. Any other comments or questions? DR. SHACK: Well, I just noticed in the actual aging management program for FAC, you note that one means of mitigation is to adjust the oxygen concentration. But everybody carefully dances away from specific numbers. Is that all -- it goes into your FAC program, and then it sort of gets screened out at that point? MR. PARCZEWSKI: Usually the FAC's reduced their concentration [inaudible] concentration is about 40 ppb. This is a number from EPRI program. DR. SHACK: No -- I'd certainly buy that. MS. PARCZEWSKI: Obviously, it's very difficult to maintain in some cases. I understand, it's my understanding, he did some of the plant, even they keep adding oxygen, you know, to the -- keep them to the [inaudible]. DR. SHACK: Well, and the Germans make a career out of adding oxygen to water, to eliminate flow-assisted corrosion. It's a bit trickier in nuclear reactors. MS. PARCZEWSKI: After removing oxygen by hydrogen you have different chemistry. DR. SHACK: Right. Well, sometimes it's good to remove it; sometimes it's bad. [Laughter.] CHAIRMAN BONACA: Okay. There are no further questions. I thank you for the presentation. And we will take a break, 15 minutes. We will resume the meeting at 25 of 11. [Recess.] DR. LEE: I'm going to describe the Reg Guide we issued. Back in 1996, we usually draw up Reg Guide to propose to endorse NEI Guidance document 95-10, Revision 0. Since 1996, we have considerably developed the implementation for license renewal. We have reviewed the applications. We have reviewed topical reports, and then we have to tackle the system program Gall & SRP. So since then, the -- we got additional experience, and NEI has revised 95-10. And the current revision is revision 2. So in the draft Reg Guide, 1104, that we issued in office 2000, we proposed to endorse revision 2. Okay, right now, we are proposing to endorse revision 2 with no exceptions. We realize that there might still be inconsistencies between the Board, the SRP, and 95-10 because GALL & SRP were evolving when we were working it through the office. And NEI was working on 95-10 separately. But NEI is expected to make conforming changes to make it consistent. Okay. Unless there's other questions, otherwise, I have NEI discuss 95-10. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Any questions from the members? DR. LEE: Yeah, I thought that in the review that GSRP and the NEI document interfaced well. And clearly they have different purposes, but they overlapped. We retrapped all our raw materials from each other. DR. SEALE: Truly complementary. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Alright so we have now the NEI. DR. SHACK: You passed. MR. WALTERS: Good morning. I did, indeed. Well, at least I hope I did. You got the light on. We just had a license renewal workshop in Florida, and one of the benefits is that you get to use presentations from that here. So it's quite a time saver. DR. SEALE: You mean you're telling them the same story you're telling us. MR. WALTERS: Told them the same thing. My name is Doug Walters. I'm with NEI. I have responsibility for renewal. It's a pleasure to be here today and talk to you about NEI 95-10, which is our guidance document for implementing the requirements of Tensia, Part 54. Before I get into the remarks, I will just make a couple of observations. First of all, I -- sitting in the audience and listening to the staff's presentations, I want to compliment them for the hard work that they put in on developing GALL and the SRP, because we believe that if you look at the significant events that have occurred over the last year, certainly the top one is the fact that we had two license renewal applications submitted and approved, and we have three others under review. But second to that would be these documents because they are extremely important to furthering the stability, predictability, and efficiency of the process that we think we need when we look into the out years and the number of applications that are expected to be submitted. Also, I just wanted to make a comment about some of what I heard, maybe to put in perspective our comments. What we are concerned about when it comes to GALL, and I'm at a very high level here, is that we ought to be capturing lessons learned. And what we found acceptable on the first two applications. And our concern is that GALL can become a document that's a wish list. We'd like you to do X, Y, and Z. And we looked very carefully when the GALL said further evaluation required to see if there was a basis for why some addition or enhancement to the program was needed. And that's really what our comments focused on. One-time inspections are not aging management programs, by the way. I know you're aware of that, but the purpose of the rule is to have aging management programs in place to ensure functionality. And one-time inspections, as an example, are not aging management programs. We don't object to those necessarily, but that's where we're coming from when we looked at GALL. But I'm here today to talk about our guidance document. It was actually developed back in '95, hence the 95-10 number. We have within NEI a license renewal task force and a working group. They were the principal overseers, if you will, of the document. It was actually written by the task force, and it provides guidance to whoever wants to use it for preparing or implementing the requirements of the rule. I'm going to go through the table of contents real quickly. We start off with an introduction, then an overview of Part 54. Then we get into the scoping process, which is in Chapter 3, and I'm going to go through these in a little more detail in a second. And then Chapter 4 provides guidance on preparing the IPA. In Chapter 5, we address time limited aging analyses. And in Chapter 6, the -- we have the -- the title of the chapter is "Renewal Operating License," but this is where -- excuse me -- we have incorporated the -- what we call the standard license renewal application format. We met with the staff, I believe it was earlier this year, and, again, using the -- principally the SERs that were written for Calvert and Oconee and came up with a -- what we thought was a standard application format. It's helpful for us because we know where to put the information. After all, the application really is a packaging issue. And it's also, we hope, beneficial for the staff because they know how to parse it out based on that format. And I'll talk a little bit more about that. Appendix A is merely a copy of the rule and the statements of consideration. And then Appendix B is a list that I will show you one page from of some groupings where we've made some determination about whether the grouping or the component group is active or passive. Section One, as I indicated, is an introduction. It merely goes through the other sections of the guidance document. It talks about Section 3.1, et cetera, et cetera. But as an overview, it talks about the guidance as being an acceptable method for implementing the rule. We talk about the basis for the guidance. In other words, we looked at operating experience. We looked at the maintenance rule. In this case, where we are today, we looked at GALL. We looked at SRP. And we believe that, and I should say the objective of the guidance obviously is that if you follow it, you'll be successful. You'll get a renewed license. It's not to say it's the only method. We always have that caveat. But, as you saw, the intention is that this would be endorsed by the Reg Guide. The major elements of this section, again, it outlines the subsequent sections. 3.1 is scoping. 3.2 is identifying functions. We talk about Section 4, which is really the IPA and the others as well. You know, Section 4 is where you really get into the demonstration. You've heard that terminology. How do you demonstrate that the aging in adequately managed. It talks a little bit about Section 5, which is the TLEAs and how you dispose of those. And then it guides you to Chapter 6, which is the standard application format. We have some other information in the introduction and that's how you can utilize existing programs. And we provide a little bit of guidance about using the maintenance rule, for example -- well, strike that. It suggests that you look at the scoping you did for the maintenance rule as a starting point perhaps for license renewal. It also recognizes GALL and the SRP and suggests to the user that you need to look at those documents. But there is some other information in there. And there's clarifications, like the two over one issue that I have on the last bullet there. Maintenance rule excludes structures based solely on the seismic two over one. We don't do that. That's not an exclusion that's allowed under renewal. We also talk about resolution of GSIs. We point that there are a number of ways that, if the GSI is applicable, if you will, to renewal, that it can be resolved. One is if you've submitted the application, and you've addressed the GSI, but that GSI gets resolved before your renewed license is issued, you could incorporate that resolution. You can do a plan-specific evaluation to show that the CLB can be extended beyond the end of the current term until some further point in time. You could chose to implement an aging management program to address the issue. And example of that would be fatigue. You know, that's GSI, but you can deal with that through an aging management program or you could amend the CLB and basically take the issue off the table. Chapter 2 is merely a reference back to Appendix A, which has the rule and the statements of consideration. In Chapter 3, we get into scoping. We use -- well, the scoping requirements are spelled out in the rule. We use the definition of safety related that's in 5049. You've probably seen that before. Nothing new there. You also have to scope in non-safety related -- SSEs, whose failure could prevent a safety-related SSE, excuse me, from fulfilling its function. And, again, that's I think fairly consistent with what we've seen in the past. The third requirement is regulated events. Fire protection. EQ. PTS. Atlas. Station blackout. And you go back and basically look at your documentation for each of those regulations, if you will, and determine what you need to deal with those events and those become part of the scope of the rule. We provide in the guidance, and this is also in the SRP, a list of potential information sources. We do have a disagreement with the staff on the use of PRA in this area. But to us, this is a list of potential sources, and quite frankly, I don't see that as a big issue from a process standpoint. But we do have this list of information sources that we suggest licensees consult when they do their scoping process. We also talk in Section 3-- CHAIRMAN BONACA: With regard to the list. You know, I raised the question yesterday. The corresponding list of the -- in the SRP has the EOPs as a possible source of information. And, as you know, the EOPs also are a basis in the maintenance rule. MR. WALTERS: Right. CHAIRMAN BONACA: And this list doesn't have any reference to the EOPs. MR. WALTERS: Right. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Is it intentional? MR. WALTERS: I'm sorry, is it intentional? CHAIRMAN BONACA: Is it intentional, yeah. MR. WALTERS: I don't know whether we actually considered that when we initially developed the list. I don't believe it belongs on the list, quite frankly. That scoping criterion under the maintenance rule obviously is not in license renewal. That's not to say though that the equipment, and I think we have looked at this, by the way -- that's not to say that the equipment that scopes in under the maintenance rule, under that criterion, doesn't get in under license renewal. It just comes in perhaps under one of the other scoping criteria. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yeah, I just-- DR. SEALE: Yeah, but in general, even with PRA, PRA is on the docket, right? MR. WALTERS: That's correct. DR. SEALE: It seems to me that you have to be sensitive to everything that's on the docket when you do a license renewal. MR. WALTERS: Yeah, no question. DR. SEALE: So in essence, anything that's on the document is -- maybe in finer print or fainter print on that list, but it's a candidate. MR. WALTERS: Yeah, it -- you could add. Yes, you could put it on the list as an information source. But whether the equipment would scope in or not would be determined by the other scoping criteria. DR. SEALE: Yes, very definitely. MR. WALTERS: So, yeah, it could be on the list. CHAIRMAN BONACA: I recognize that the license renewal explicitly does not mention the EOPs, explicitly mentions them. It mentions for equipment, which is not safety-related. They say, however, that you will include whatever is in the EOPs. And that's because the EOPs really are a part of the licensing basis, if they're referenced in the FSAR. I was thinking that there may be some peculiar situation where you could have a -- you know, a component for which the active element is being, in fact, under the maintenance rule, monitored under the maintenance rule and the passive components are ignored because the license renewal doesn't look at them, okay. So that -- and I just -- and I don't think it's a major issue. Most likely, most components are -- but it seems to be some inconsistency between the two rules. MR. WALTERS: There is clearly an inconsistency. CHAIRMAN BONACA: And I wanted to ask you your perspective of that. MR. WALTERS: Okay. We -- in Section 3, after you do the scoping on the safety-related non-safety and the regulated events, you look at the intended function, and at this point, you could, according to our guidance, you could look at this at a system level, even though the rule goes to a structure and component level. You're going to see this again when I get into Chapter 4. You need to document the scoping process, and we provide some guidance on how you do that. And, you know, we do get into the information sources, and so I don't want to leave you, based on your comment with the impression that the items on the list are the only things that would be looked at. Dr. Seale is very correct. You would be prudent to look beyond. Okay, the -- Chapter 4 talks about the IPA, and this is where we get down into the -- we take what we learned in Chapter 3, which is the scoping and the -- you know, the big part of the bin, and now we're going to identify what's subject to an aging management review. I apologize that this is not clearer in your handout. That was not intentional. But -- and this is fairly straightforward, and you're familiar with the rule. Again, here is the -- what you did in Chapter 3, then you go into asking yourselves some questions about that bigger bin. You say, well, let me pull out the stuff that's passive. If it is passive, do I replace it periodically. If I do, then it screens out, if you will. If it's not, then do I need an aging management program--yes or no. If I do, then I move over and I look at what programs I might have that manage the aging. This, by the way, is obviously where GALL will play an important role. The box that says demonstrate -- we have guidance that suggests typical attributes of an aging management program. Those have been adopted by the staff, and you'll see those in the GALL report, the ten attributes. I would just caution that, at least our position is, not all ten attributes have to be satisfied in order for the program to adequately manage aging. But that's -- this is where GALL plays an important role, and we intend to rely on it. Again, in Chapter 4, because we're now down at the component and structure level, we've got another table, 4.1-1 that identifies typical intended functions for components and structures. And, again, I think this -- you should see the consistency between this and what's in GALL. The next section in our guidance talks about the aging management reviews. Again, you can make a dent -- what we provide are I think three methods to manage aging on a -- or -- let me start over with that -- there are three ways to disposition, if you will, the aging of a -- on a structure or a component. One is you can to the demonstration, which is you look at the aging effects and you identify a program and you demonstrate that those aging effects or that aging effect is managed by the program. The other way to deal with aging management is to reference a previous review. So if -- you know, if there's a topical report, for example, that would be a way to make the demonstration required by renewal. We also have a guidance in 95-10 that talks about performance and condition monitoring, which is -- it's discussed in the SOC. But you need to do a plan-specific justification if you want to take credit for performance and condition monitoring. And the point is that -- at least what's concluded in the statements of consideration is that the condition monitoring only looks at the active piece of the component, and so there was no generic conclusion that performance and condition monitoring would necessarily reveal the aging effects on the passive component. And so you've got to make that argument in the application. We recognize that in some cases, you may want to do an inspection and so we provide some guidance in that regard. We talk -- we very briefly provide guidance on what a program, an inspection program should look like. We talk about the fact that it needs to have a purpose that's tied to the aging, if you will. You need to have a -- some statement about the scope of the inspection, the method of the inspection. How you're going to analyze the results, and your corrective and follow-up actions. We also provide guidance on sampling, population, sample size, and the timing of the inspections. Chapter 5 talks about TLAAs. Again, the I think the important thing in this guidance is individuals or licensees that use this to prepare a renewal application need to know that a TLAA needs to satisfy all six criteria that are delineated in the rule. And those are just listed here. We provided a table, 5.1-2, of potential TLAAs. This is going to change I believe because of the GALL and SRP. But these are some things that we came up with. You may have seen a similar in the SRP. Then we talk a little bit about how you can resolve or address TLAAs. These are the options afforded us in the rule. You can certainly verify that the TLAA, as it is today, is valid for the period of extended operation. You can take that TLAA, and project it to the period of extended operation. Actually, I think I and II are pretty similar. You can also address the TLAA through an aging management program. You also, under this -- let me say, under this guidance, we also provide some guidance on how you addressed exemptions that you may have taken over time. Lastly, we have Chapter 6, which, again, is the standard application format. And the -- under the bullet that says application format and content, that is the standard format that we've come to agreement with with the staff. I don't -- I think that's working fairly well. ANO has used it. Turkey Point has used it, and we may have to do some tweaking to it over time based on, you know, changes to the GALL and the SRP. But, for the most part, it works fairly well. We also in this section provide, excuse me, provide guidance on the requirement that you need to update your application and how you can go about doing that--fairly straightforward stuff. I think, do we have copies of this? I wanted to show you -- I mentioned at the outset -- let me just -- this is the table of contents and Appendix B. This is just a sample page from Appendix B. And I apologize. I didn't have it in the package. But what this shows is a listing of -- we call them structure component or commodity groups, and whether the group is passive. And if the answer is yes, like you see on reactor coolant pumps, we say, yes, and it's the casing, then that's in the scope of the rule. Or it requires an aging management review, more precisely. But if the answer is no, and that fact that this -- our document is going to be endorsed by the Reg Guide, we can rely on this list as a tool. And that's very important, and we were glad that we were able to reach agreement on this with the staff. Just in closing, I -- we do need to make some conforming changes to NEI 95-10. I don't have those identified today, but our guidance I believe will probably the last document that gets updated. We need to see what the final GALL and SRP looks like, and we will have some conforming changes to make. But we do intend to do that and in the time frame to support the staff's schedule to finalize those documents. DR. UHRIG: Would that be considered a Rev. 3? MR. WALTERS: Yes. We will update it to Rev. 3. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yesterday, we posed to the staff a question regarding scoping. MR. WALTERS: Yep. CHAIRMAN BONACA: The feeling at least some members have that is still not very clear process. It's a very -- you know, it's a time consuming process. A lot of sources are being looked at. Is your judgement that anything can be done to make it more -- to facilitate providing additional guidance, or do you think that whatever has been provided by now in the NEI document and the SRP is a much as can be provided? MR. WALTERS: Well, I believe that there are certain areas where it could be streamlined, or less cumbersome, perhaps. And I still don't understand, myself personally, I don't understand why we can't just lift from the maintenance rule scope, the safety related items and put them the license renewal scope. And my comment is not only that I -- that I see a - not a reluctance, but I'm not sure within the staff we've figured that out, but even within the utilities, they don't seem to have figured out how to do that. And I quite frankly am perplexed by that. So I think that's one area where we could, in terms of scoping, we could make some real headway, if we could come to agreement on those two scoping criteria. CHAIRMAN BONACA: That would be a different approach. But, still, you're saying it's an established one and probably will lead to the-- MR. WALTERS: And it's inspected. It's -- but, you know, plants have -- you know different vintage plants have different ways of -- some have Q-lists. Some don't, so I'm not sure that we can do much more. We'd certainly be interested in -- you know, in looking at that. But-- DR. SEALE: You made a comment earlier about your concern that the GALL report and the other documents didn't become a wish list. MR. WALTERS: Right. DR. SEALE: And I think that's a very valid one. I think the extent to which the staff has been able to work with you and come to the kind of agreement that characterizes the presentation you just made is -- indicates that there isn't a dedication, if you will, to turning this into a wish list. At the same time, I think the staff, very rightly, feels that Calvert Cliffs and Oconee are not everything. And in particular, there are about four versions of different kinds of containments on water boilers, and I think containment is one area for water boilers where aging effects might have some significance over the long haul. They want to look at it and kick the tires for a while before they convince themselves that they've got a complete product. And I think you do, too. MR. WALTERS: I would agree with that. DR. SEALE: And so I think meeting your or getting your desired result of a non-wish list dominated process is a two-way street. And so far, you've been able to do that very well, and I think very efficiently. I think all of us have been impressed with the fact that you got five plants now that have gotten their renewals. And, but there's a lot more work to be done. MR. WALTERS: Yeah, I don't disagree with you, Dr. Seale. It's a -- I think we've minimized the number of wishes that are on that list. What I meant to say, though, in all candor, is that when you talk to the people in the field, and they say, well, but this is the program I've been using for 12 years, and it was implemented specifically to address -- I mean look at 89-13 just as an example. We implement a program in response to generic letter 89-13 to address fouling on heat exchangers. All of sudden, because I want to do a renewal, I have to do something more. I'm not suggesting that's what GALL says. That's an example, a hypothetical example. And when you talk to the people in the field, they say why do I need to do that. Why isn't what I'm doing today good enough? They need that technical understanding that if they're going to implement some new action, there's some resulting benefit. And that's all I was trying to get at. And that's a fine line; that's a very fine line that we need to walk because, as you say, on the other hand, we need to take a hard look at some of these things, like containments. And in some cases, the -- what the staff found, we agree with. DR. SEALE: And there's some lessons learned? MR. WALTERS: Yeah, no question. DR. SEALE: For example, this technique for checking out buried cables is something that everybody needs to know. MR. WALTERS: Sure. DR. SEALE: I mean, it's an arrow in your quiver. Whether you need it or not, you need to know about its availability. MR. WALTERS: We do. And there's no disagreement with that. We just don't want renewal to be the playground-- DR. SEALE: Sure. MR. WALTERS: For that kind of, hey, why don't you do this. DR. SEALE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BONACA: One question we had yesterday to the staff was regarding the fact that the GALL report benefitted a lot from the first two applications. But there are additional applications coming in, and there will be more information that it will be helpful to the reviewers and to the licensees to have somewhere what the experience has brought in. For example, in many cases, we're pointing out that when the guidance is you need more than what is being done today, you go back into GALL and you find that -- thus specify what more means. There are not criteria. The answer was, we don't have enough experience yet, because we haven't had. Okay. So one question we asked of the staff was, you know, are you planning to update the GALL report frequently to reflect this additional information. We didn't get any answer to that. I guess we're a little bit ahead of time in asking those questions. Do you have any insights on what -- you know a process by which the future licensees can benefit from this information that I'm sure Hatch will bring and other applications will bring? It will not be documented in GALL. MR. WALTERS: Well, yeah, that's a very good question. I don't know what the staff said in terms of whether GALL was intending, whether they were intending to update GALL or not, but one of the things we're thinking about, for example, is when the further evaluation is a one-time inspection. Well, if five licensees do a one-time inspection of the same thing, and I'll just use an example. Supposed it's some buried commodity, and you could show that your pH in the ground is the same as that utility over there that did the inspection, and you had the same material and the pipe was coated the same way, is there some way to credit that inspection that was done by the first five applicants, if I'm number 10. How are we going to do that? I think we'll probably start some sort of library. We would focus, I would think, on the enhancements or the additional items you need to do. And then maybe at some point, it's appropriate to go back to the staff and say, hey, we ought to get this in GALL and update this. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Well, the fact that the presentation we had from the staff this morning they showed that they, in some cases, they did exactly that. I mean, when you pointed out that, you know, those are some experiences that show that something-- MR. WALTERS: Right. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Then they -- so. Yeah, okay. But the important thing here is that -- you know, the experience from this application is going to help out the next people coming in and somehow they had to have open communication of where that information fits. MR. WALTERS: Yeah, one other thing that we might do at NEI is we have a mechanism called an information forum, where we can, and you've seen the charts with, you know, the next 30 applications that are coming in. And those individuals, those licensees are very interested in getting involved in our working group and task force. That's really not the right mechanism at this point. But we might do is get those folks in what we call an information forum, and meet with them maybe two or three times a year. And if we do that, say, next year in the summer, we'll have four applications that we have the benefit of learning from, you know, with Oconee and Calvert, Hatch and ANO, plus we'll have three others that have submitted, but we would be looking more at the -- what was accepted and how did you deal with certain issues. And we think that would be very valuable for that next wave of applicants to have access to. And we can do that through an information forum. So that's another option that we have that we see. CHAIRMAN BONACA: One observation we had when we looked at the Oconee and Calvert Cliffs was that they spent so much time being the first ones through the gate to look at issues and so on as afford. I really concluded that they were better plants because of the effort they made to look at all the aging issues and management programs and so on and so forth. I mean, clearly it was the depth of understanding. I guess the question I have is, you mentioned 30 plants coming in. MR. WALTERS: Yep. CHAIRMAN BONACA: There is more and more. You know, looking at what somebody else did, and then somewhat of a cookie-cutter approach, okay. You know, are we going to lose some of the benefit because things are going to be speed up and people are going to just simply copy initiatives from other plants, or do you see still the effort is such that the utility will get deep into these issues rather than just making commitments based on what somebody else did? MR. WALTERS: The latter. We do believe that, and we've had this discussion. Notwithstanding what's in GALL, the obligation the applicant has is to still go look. It just gives them a roadmap of where to go and what things need to be looked at and what things don't. But, as an example, if a -- even if a program is in GALL dispositioned as not requiring further evaluation, if you read the SRP, the application will merely say, I have that program and it meets the attributes that were evaluated in GALL. But the work that the licensee has to do to make that statement is still the same work that -- I would argue is still the same work that Calvert did, that Oconee did in looking at those programs. They've got to make a certification. The benefit to them is in the application they can just say I have the program. But they still have to do this. We -- our assessment is that the same amount of work has to be done, but there are -- having said that there are some benefits. I mean, you can go look at what somebody else did, and say do I have -- you know, did I do it the same way. We have some tools. We talk about tools that were developed by the B&W owners group and we have tools that help us get through that. But the digging you have to do and the assurance that you -- or the demonstration -- let me say it that way that you have to make is the same. The GALL helps us focus and it gives us some benefit in what we put in the application, but the work, at least in our discussions certainly the applicants that will come in through 2002 is the same. And I think they are better plants for that. There's no question. CHAIRMAN BONACA: One additional question we asked yesterday was regarding something that probably we should have asked you rather than the staff, which is the commitment behind voluntary initiatives. As we spoke about EOPs, we also spoke about severe accident management, which is really a voluntary initiative. Now it was a voluntary initiative, with the understanding that if it wasn't voluntary, it would probably become, you know, part of the licensing basis. So what's the perspective, from a perspective of the industry. I mean, there isn't anything in the documents that we have reviewed that says the licensees will still commit to have, you know, committed voluntary initiatives during the period of extended operation. I mean, the question is, will these power plants have a severe accident management in place, and will they be able to implement those steps as they were in the first 40 years of operation? MR. WALTERS: Well, certainly, there's no requirement for them to do that, as you point out. But I can't give you an industry position on that. But I would say that I'd be surprised if those things just automatically stopped after 40 years. I don't know what the implication of those -- you mentioned the risk for severe accidents. I don't know what the implications of that is if you go to-- DR. SEALE: Doesn't sound like a terribly wise thing to do. MR. WALTERS: Right. I mean, you know, it's-- CHAIRMAN BONACA: But what I'm saying, do you think it would be wise to clarify the issue of voluntary initiatives. MR. WALTERS: In license renewal space? CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yeah. MR. WALTERS: No. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Well, wouldn't you leave then a number of issues that were negotiated in a certain way hanging there? MR. WALTERS: Well, let me maybe retract what I just said. I don't think it's appropriate to address that issue specifically in our guidance or in the SRP or in the Reg Guide. I would say though that there may be some voluntary initiatives that you credit in license renewal space. Maybe, I don't know. But there could be it seems to me. In which case those would carry their own kind of commitment because they're credited in license renewal. But if they're not, I don't see a reason that license renewal should be dealing with voluntary initiatives. CHAIRMAN BONACA: No, I'm not saying that you should look at the additional commitments for those -- simply a statement that voluntary initiatives that were considered important to safety and implemented over the first 40 years of life should be maintained as we go into the next 20. I mean, you know, there are severe accident management guidelines which are intertwined with the EOPs and the operator is trained on them routinely. And, you know, when the question is hanging there, well, that's not part of the core relicensing basis. MR. WALTERS: Right. CHAIRMAN BONACA: And, well-- MR. WALTERS: Well, I can't give you a satisfactory answer. We've not really discussed that. But kind of off the cuff, I would say that if we're concerned about that, there are mechanisms that the staff has to make them part of the CLB. DR. GRIMES: I think -- This is Chris Grimes. I think I'd like to jump in and provide staff perspective. I think that our expectation in this area is relatively clear, because in formulating the scope of license renewal and the process, the statements of consideration for the rule say that we expect the current licensing basis to carry forward to the same extent and in the same manner as it is for the existing license. And so, and we have recently endorsed guidelines that have been developed on commitment management, and we're in the process now of trying to establish a process for crediting industry initiatives and reflecting those in the regulatory framework. And so I think that the Commission's expectation about the regulatory process and how that in concert with a current licensing basis that's going to continue in the same way that it exists today I think that that is the process that we can rely on. To say that if we see some indication of plant performance or we see some safety concern about the plant's readiness and capability to prevent or mitigate accidents that we've got mechanisms to deal with particular questions without having to cobble up something that might constitute some confusion on doing things different after 40. So it's -- we are constantly reminded that there's nothing magic about year 40. You know, at year 39 and twelve months, you're safe, and at year 41 -- or 40 and one month, you suddenly become unsafe. There's no step change that we expect to see. CHAIRMAN BONACA: We heard many times that this is not part of the CLB. This is not part of the CLB. This is not part of the CLB. At times, I believe that clarity, you know, it's a very important point. I mean, if in fact, voluntary initiatives are there, then it doesn't take much to say we'll carry on the voluntary initiatives. And, you know, we will always assume that we will interpret whatever is there in the same way. You know, I can remind you of 50-59 that everybody evidently when they wrote that they thought was clear and it took 40 years to clarify. So-- DR. GRIMES: 30 years. CHAIRMAN BONACA: 30 years, alright. MR. WALTERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN BONACA: I just wanted to hear about that. Any other questions for Mr. Walters? If not, I thank you very much. MR. WALTERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BONACA: I think that also NEI should be commended for the work they did in support of the license renewal. DR. SEALE: So far, it's a win-win. MR. WALTERS: Yep. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Okay. I think with that we end -- this is the end of the presentations. I think that we should complete the discussion among the ACRS members that we initiated yesterday afternoon and see if there are any additional issues we want to raise now. And after that, we will-- DR. SHACK: Did we invite the UCS people to see if they wanted to make a presentation? MR. DUDLEY: No, we have not. I did inform Mr. Lochbaum that the issues of incorporation of the Union of Concerned Scientists report would be included in the presentations. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Well, as we go through the -- around the table here, we will talk also about what we would like to hear during the May meetings in two weeks. And, Bill, you have a suggestion maybe or should we invite Lochbaum to come and? DR. SHACK: Well, you know, I think if we're going to hear all perspectives, I think-- CHAIRMAN BONACA: That would be very much. DR. SHACK: He has a different perspective on GALL than we've probably heard today. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Any other thoughts on that? DR. SHACK: I think that maybe say no. CHAIRMAN BONACA: It may be worthwhile to invite him. DR. KRESS: Certainly. DR. SEALE: Well, I think if he wants to communicate with the ACRS, we ought to give him an opportunity to communicate with the ACRS, going through the filter of commissioners. If he only talks to them, it doesn't do us a whole lot of good. CHAIRMAN BONACA: So that's a-- DR. GRIMES: Dr. Bonaca? CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yep. DR. GRIMES: And I will work with Noel to make sure that the UCS comments on SRP and GALL have been submitted so we can share those with you in advance of the full committee meeting as well. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Thank you. Going around the table. Bill, do you have any additional comments than -- in addition to the one you provided yesterday? DR. SHACK: No. You know, it seems to me they've made a lot of progress. You know, I do like the new format. I know when it was initially discussed I was somewhat skeptical, but I believe that the Chapter 11 is a very helpful sort of thing. It -- everything comes together. There is still maybe does to be a little bit of need to, as I say, you had to go a ways to find where the one-time inspections were required. That might be made more transparent in some way. DR. SEALE: Yeah. DR. SHACK: Even if, you know, and even in the -- you know, the further evaluation, if, you know, if one-time exams or one time inspections are one of the leading candidates you might call that out in the particular one. But -- and I assume that they will continue to trend everything towards the Chapter 11 format; that is, there is still some sections with large chunks of aging management programs buried in the chapter and that will continue, but to me, I think they've made a great deal of progress here, and it looks good. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Good. Thank you. Bob? MR. UHRIG: I'm looking forward to the outcome of the resolution of GSI-168, and in the light of that seeing what impact it may have. It may have none or it may some impact. We have the consultant's report, and, as you and I discussed in the hall a little bit ago, he comes down very strong on saying that condition monitoring really is not a very good predictor of where things are going in the future. And then at the end says, we don't have anything else. So we're sort of stuck with it. And we were speculating if there were other sources of information and one that occurred to us was -- there's a lot of plants around that are some power plants, some chemical plants, et cetera, that have cables in them; have been operating for 40, 50 years. And it strikes us that some organization, maybe the NRC, maybe somebody else should undertake to look at some of those cables, what they look like after 30, 40, 50 years of operation. I understand there's been some of that already done, but it certainly is not a comprehensive program. The utilities that have older plants would certainly have access to cables that -- when they were shutting those plants down. The problem is that those cables are not the same quality as the cables that we have today. So it's a answer-- DR. SEALE: They may be the quality of the ones that were put in when the plant was built, though. MR. UHRIG: Well, that may be. Okay. But it's just a suggestion that this cable issue is a serious concern. CHAIRMAN BONACA: That's -- when we discuss at the end our recommendations to the staff for presentation. That may be a candidate. Just to hear something about that. MR. UHRIG: Okay. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Graham? MR. LEITCH: As far as issues that I'm left with a little bit of concern about there is still the issue of 10 to the 17th versus 10 to the 21st neutrons, and exactly where specificity of -- where that applies physically in the vessel, what type of steel we're dealing with there. And I'm still a little unclear about that issue. And I think maybe that would be a candidate for some more discussion at the full meeting. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yep. Good. MR. LEITCH: I guess thinking about it some more last night, it seemed to me -- I thought I heard that there were areas where effluents of 10 to the 21st had already been experienced in 30 plus years of operation. So I'm just a little confused about where that whole topic is going. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Good. MR. LEITCH: The other thing, in a very general way, is when -- particularly, you know, when you look at the NUREG and elsewhere or the Reg Guide I should say, there are three important parts of the application that we haven't discussed very much at all. One is the FSAR supplement. And one is the changes to the technical specifications. Perhaps those two are almost self-explanatory. But then the third one is the environmental information that also needs to be submitted as part of the application apparently. And I haven't heard, you know, any real discussion of that, and I'm not sure if there's any real guidance that exists as to the depth of that discussion, the format of that -- just what is the expectation there on that environmental information. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yeah, we have not expressly reviewed the environmental portion. DR. GRIMES: As an organizational matter, we typically don't bring the staff environmental impact statements to the ACRS for review. As a matter of fact, in my description of the process, the whole environmental track is separate, and there's a comparable review to the ACRS review, by the Council on Environmental Quality. So the environmental folks tend to operate in their own little sphere. There is -- it's a well established practice. There is a recently completed, and by recent, I mean September of 2000 regulatory guide on the content of the environmental report from license renewal. But the standard review plan for license renewal is now in final form. That's NUREG 1555 I believe. And at one of the earlier, ACRS meetings, we did do a brief little show on what that guidance consists of. We could run back through that material for you, but, you know, my -- we'll do whatever you'd like, but I'd suggest that you might want to consider whether or not you want to delve into that area at all. There is well-established guidance, and it is -- it's a fairly well running system. MR. LEITCH: I was not familiar with that background. And I appreciate that information. I think I'm just coming up to speed with that. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Sure. And maybe we could just get a brief presentation during one of the next licensing renewal application reviews? DR. GRIMES: We could do that. CHAIRMAN BONACA: I think we could do it during a subcommittee meeting rather than just coming in on the next full committee for the generic documents. Rather than look at the generic documents, so, for that, so-- DR. GRIMES: Correct. We could cover it. As a matter of fact, I'll make a point that we would be prepared at the A&O subcommittee-- CHAIRMAN BONACA: Right. DR. GRIMES: To specifically cover the FSAR supplement tech specs to the extent that we have -- we haven't seen any yet. I think Hatch may have submitted a tech spec change in conjunction with license renewal. But it's my expectation we're going to see the tech specs work separate so that they're not exposed to the license renewal review. And then, of course, we can put together the material from the environmental impact review that we used for our public meetings. We could share that with the committee. That's all I had. MR. LEITCH: Thank you. That's good. DR. GRIMES: Yeah, okay. DR. SEALE: Well, I would agree with Bill's comment about a little bit more transparency on the identification of where one-time inspections are needed. I -- since I'm supposed to be reviewing the chapter on structural materials -- I mean, reactors and so on, I'm certainly interested in this embrittlement of 10 to the 21st versus 10 to the 19th thing. I have a stupid question to ask, and not being shy in that regard, I thought I'd bring it up. And Bill just mentioned that he would expect over the maturation of this process, as more and more information comes in, that Chapter 11 is going to grow and some of the generalities in some of the earlier chapters are going to fade away. Is that a fair? DR. SHACK: No, it's just -- it's mostly going to be moved. DR. SEALE: I'm -- well, that's what I mean. Moved. It -- would it make sense, especially with this format, for GALL to be a looseleaf thing and occasionally be updated in that format rather than being updated in the format of a whole new publication of it? DR. GRIMES: I have a -- for every stupid question, there's an equally good stupid answer. And my immediate reaction is that makes too much sense for us to pursue it. And I -- the reason that I have to sort of make light of it is because every time I get those supplement changes for 0933, I just groan at the prospect of sitting there, leafing through that bloody report, sticking in the page changes. I mean, but we used to do that in the good old days when we'd get the ASR supplements. DR. SEALE: Yeah. Yeah. DR. GRIMES: You know, and I think half the professional staff at the NRC spent their time leafing through -- sliding pages. DR. SEALE: Sure. But this is such a dynamic process right now. You know, if it were just doing clerical stuff, that's one thing. But clearly you're on the front edge of the learning curve. And it -- there's a tremendous benefit for everybody to be able to know that by golly when we come to the application of plant XYZ, that the version of the GALL report of such and such a date is the way we're going to do it. Otherwise, you're going to spend all your time asking yourself well do we take into account the results of what we learned in plant UVW? Yeah. Yeah. There is -- you know. DR. GRIMES: Wait, they don't make looseleaf CD ROMS? DR. SEALE: Well, but you know what I mean. DR. GRIMES: Yes, sir. Dr. Seale, I understand completely and I do think that that would be a wise way for us to publish GALL is to make it looseleaf and to clearly identify the updating practice that we would expect to follow. I think -- my hesitation was when Dr. Bonaca referred to frequent updates. DR. SEALE: Uh huh. DR. GRIMES: And I think-- DR. SEALE: Well, you know. DR. GRIMES: It's the frequency is the only issue. DR. GRIMES: Yeah, well, the thing is that -- yeah, but frequent in the context of knowing that it's a dynamic document, and being aware of that as you use it could reduce the amount of confusion rather than increasing it. And, you know, the first question I raised when I thought about this was well is that going to be so resource intensive that it's going to kill you. And I'd say normally that might be a very appropriate question. But with these different applications coming in and so forth, hey, it's the name of the game around here. And you got to play it. And so it's -- you might want to look at that real carefully. DR. GRIMES: Well, I intend to. As a matter of fact, before the day is out, I'm going to find out how you go about getting a NUREG published in looseleaf form. DR. SEALE: Yeah, and that's a serious question. MR. SIEBER: You have to give us a charge account to do all the filing. DR. SEALE: He'll send you a new disk. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Okay. DR. SEALE: That's all I had. CHAIRMAN BONACA: That's it? Jack. MR. SIEBER: I have no further comments from those of yesterday other than to say that the -- I think this is a well organized program, well coordinated, and it's -- the successes in NRC and NEI have done. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Good. DR. KRESS: I guess I would second what Jack just said. I think this whole process with the standard review plan and Reg Guide that endorses 95-10 and the GALL report has a high probability of being a successful enterprise. I guess I am glad that the NRC has said that one-time inspections can be part of the aging management program, and I share Bill's view that that ought to be more transparent where that applies. I guess I'm a little disappointed, or not disappointed -- amazed a the lack of PRA input in this process. I guess if George was here, he'd get a little appalled at that. But it seems to be -- it doesn't look like it's going to work without out it, without much of it. So I think it's a successful program. And-- DR. GRIMES: Dr. Kress, I would like to say I expect that we will see more PRA input into the process in the future. My concern about getting PRA involved in license renewal in a more explicit way is getting too far in front of risk-informing regulations. DR. KRESS: I fully understand that, and I agree with you. DR. GRIMES: But I do want to point out that in the inspection process, in the manual chapter, and we didn't share that piece -- you know, which is also an important piece of the whole process as we have manual chapter 2516 and the associated inspection procedure. I believe it's 71002. In there, we specifically use PRA in order to identify where the inspection process is going to go looking. DR. KRESS: Yeah, I think that's probably the most appropriate use of it, anyway. DR. SEALE: Sure. DR. GRIMES: Thank you, sir. DR. KRESS: I'm glad you pointed that out. Other than that, I don't -- that's all I have to say right now. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Thanks. And I -- really my comments are -- well, you heard them, I mean, I -- you know I raised some similar issues to the IPE on the EOP's issues that there is some confusion to this -- on the voluntary commitments and then on the update frequency. But in general, I feel that this has been a big effort, and I think that we have a body of guidance documents which are very effective. I mean, if I think of a new applicant having to undertake this between the experience of the first two and this body of guidance, there is clarity to the process. So with that, there are seven questions we pose ourselves. There were actually criteria that we set for ourselves in our review. And we will talk it over with the full committee in two weeks. If I look at those questions for all of them I believe the answer is pretty much yes. The document are well integrated. I think we have concluded that they are. Are there sufficient bases for supporting technical decisions? I think there are. In some areas where we said there's more to be done and there is no further criteria, we understand why that is the case. And maybe the GALL report will looseleaf will help speed up the updates. DR. SEALE: Maturate the-- CHAIRMAN BONACA: We will -- we asked ourselves if the lessons learned are folded in I believe that we are convinced now that they are, from Calvert Cliffs and Oconee. Is the guidance adequate to support effective scoping screening? Probably yes. I mean, the concern was older plants. It's clear that there is not going to be a cookie-cutter approach to that. But still, the answer seems to be yes. Will the NRC staff develop a comprehensive understanding of the technical issues? I am convinced now that they will have to for each one of the applications. So the answer is yes, they'll be involved. It will not be simply a rubber stamping of the process. Is the review of plant specific operating experience adequately emphasized by the SRP? That's a concern that both Bob and I had. And I think that they are -- it's emphasized, and that's important. Have the SRP and supporting documents taken into proper consideration the issues and concerns raised by the -- all stakeholders? I believe they have. I mean, we had a presentation. It was focused on the issues, and I believe that you will see concerns have been addressed, too. And also the license renewal generate issue resolutions again, again, they're adequately folded in. So I think we have a positive message to bring to the full committee. I would like to go through just some of the arguments I heard from you that we should ask the staff to bring to the full committee. You know, a suggestion I would have is that again at the beginning there could be some explanation that measured differences between the documents we saw before and the one we have now. It doesn't have to be very extensive, just, you know, a measure of observations of that. DR. GRIMES: The sense that I got from the dialogue was that not on a section by section basis, but more globally. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Exactly. Globally understand -- you know, there is a significant change to GALL report. We understood that. But I think the issue of formatting those two new chapters and the reasons why that's very important. A second issue I think that would be very useful if you went through an example of how you go from one issue all the way down to the GALL report, the way we did for the one-time inspection. And I would suggest that the same example could be provided, because Dr. Powers had quite an interest in the one-time inspection. And that would allow us also to -- you know, talk about again the philosophy behind those as was discussed during this meeting here. Clearly, we need also a brief summary of disposition of the NEI and the issues. You gave us a very focused presentation on that. I would suggest simply that you highlight the most important points, and give us a head count of whatever is open. And if there is some significant one that is open, then we'll like to hear that -- about that. I think we need to hear something about the cabling issue. There is a significant interest in the part of the committee on cable performance. The presentation on GSI-168 I think sensitized everybody on the committee on this issue. And on that, if there is any sites you have regarding the ability of condition monitoring to predict and what are the ultimates of that that would be useful. The issue of effluents that Graham, Mr. Leitch, brought up I think is very important. I think we'd like to hear about that. He was left hanging. We were a little bit left hanging there with -- on the issue that some areas have already exceeded the 10 to the 21st criterion. When you talk about -- I would suggest when you talk about the GALL report, and you're telling us the reorganization of it, then there is an issue that was raised by a number of members regarding well, yeah, I think Graham raised it regarding the fact that the guidance ends with more is needed. And there are no criteria for that. That is important that one communicates that as experience comes in. Then this experience will be folded in in what more needs to be done. Where the programs in GALL are not sufficient. That could be an opportunity also to talk about, you know, the desire expressed here that there will be some level of updates of the GALL report, with some frequency. Not every three months, but six months. We don't need to talk about frequency, but certainly I mean, there is a valuable information coming in that we need to-- DR. KRESS: After every new license renewal review. MR. SIEBER: Or right before. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Right before. DR. GRIMES: That's going to be really messy in 2002. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Alright. DR. GRIMES: That's right. CHAIRMAN BONACA: I personally would like to just hear briefly from you a perspective on the fact that, you know, EOPs -- EOP equipment is in the maintenance rule as part of the CLB but is excluded from the license renewal rule. I mean, if it is, it is. And, on the other hand, it just leaves you hanging there. Why this inconsistency? Now, I do believe that it is not -- there was some thought behind that. And so if there is any information, it would be valuable to the committee to hear why it was left out, because it's so obvious that -- you know, you look at one rule and then you look at the other one, and in one case it's very explicitly called for, but the other one it's not. And the last thing would be on voluntary commitments. I mean, severe accident management is one, but there are others and I wasn't left with a good feeling about it. I mean, why leave them hanging there. DR. SHACK: Why make those voluntary commitments voluntary, right? CHAIRMAN BONACA: Right. Like I said, we would like to hear about it. DR. KRESS: I think you're always between a rock and a hard place on those. What the expectation is that those will be committed to and followed up by the plants, and although NRC says they don't have any enforcement, they really do have. And, you know, I wouldn't be too explicit on how you deal with those. CHAIRMAN BONACA: No, I understand that. DR. KRESS: I would just assume they're going to be there, and deal with it when the time comes if they're not. CHAIRMAN BONACA: The reason why I raised it is that there are three issues that we discussed and the one was PRA, which has been excluded. Then you have-- DR. KRESS: Virtually excluded. CHAIRMAN BONACA: The issue of EOPs. I'm sorry? DR. KRESS: Almost excluded. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yeah, almost excluded. And then you have voluntary commitments. The question is, clearly the rule is clear that the staff is not in, but we as a committee I think have a responsibility to also speak about the rule. I mean, if we found something really blaring wrong with the rule, I think it would be our obligation to point it out. And so I don't think that -- you know, looking at it is inappropriate. At least, it would be important to hear. MR. SIEBER: I guess when I think about that, though, it's not in the current licensing basis. It's not required now, and license renewal doesn't change anything. DR. KRESS: Yeah, why should you treat it any differently in NUREG 3. MR. SIEBER: And, you know, whatever the ordinary regulatory process to deal with these things should take place and they -- and I don't think it's a factor in license renewal. DR. KRESS: That was my feeling. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Well, I'm no saying license renewal. I'm saying would the licensee still be committed to these voluntary commitments? DR. SHACK: If they volunteer to commit, they'll volunteer? MR. SIEBER: Yeah, that's -- if it's on the record, it's on the record. But like I said, license renewal is not the issue in my opinion. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Well, I mean, that's one -- I would like to hear about that. DR. GRIMES: We'll be prepared to talk about commitment management. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Were there any other issues that we should-- MR. DUDLEY: One question, do you feel it would be worthwhile to have an NEI presentation at the full committee meeting? CHAIRMAN BONACA: I think it would be worthwhile, if nothing else, even if a brief one to, you know, indicate the level of a consensus that the staff and NEI have reached on this. I think that's very important. DR. SHACK: The violent agreement? CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yeah. It doesn't have to be a long presentation, I think it would be very useful and it can be done quickly. Anything else we would like to hear for the full committee? Okay, were there any other comments from the staff? From NEI? DR. GRIMES: Dr. Bonaca? CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yep. DR. GRIMES: I would like to, as I mentioned yesterday, I would like to point out that when we issued the guidance for public comment, we identified four specific questions that we were interested in receiving some feedback on. So far, I haven't seen anybody respond to the four specific questions, but I would like to call to your attention, question number three talks about the treatment of the ASME code and reliance on the 50.55(a) process. And it asks for feedback on whether other national codes and standards that are referenced in GALL, like those published by the ACI and I would add to that or IEEE or other acknowledged standards groups -- whether they should be credited and how should GALL treat them. In the absence of any other guidance, we credit programs that cite specific additions and addenda of particular codes and standards, but we don't, except for the ASME process, we don't give credit for the consensus process to change the practices in the future. And part of that is because we're expected to articulate a safety basis for concluding how particular practices and its aging effects. And it's difficult to do that in a -- and say whatever they decide to change in the future is okay too. So that's sort of our fall back position, but I aks you to think about that in terms of -- you have provided us with some very useful feedback on ways that we can improve the guidance and make it more transparent and improve its readability. And we will be struggling with those questions in the future, so if there's anything that you can add, we'd appreciate that. DR. SEALE: I wouldn't advise you, but I would suggest that Dana is extremely concerned, or let's say aware of the legislative or maybe it's administrative urging at the present time to rely on standards and -- consensus standards where possible. DR. SHACK: If I go to the web site. DR. SEALE: You might want to try to get his input on that question. DR. SHACK: If I go to the web site, will I see your four questions? DR. GRIMES: Yes, if you look at the Federal Register notice. Yes, if you look at the Federal Register notice. Okay. DR. GRIMES: And I'll also -- want to verify. We also made a number of commitments over the past day and half. We're going to provide a sample of the industry comments to you so that you can see the form that they were presented. DR. SHACK: Will you be able to say anything about the public comment by that time or that will be too fresh? DR. GRIMES: Probably too fresh, especially with the letter writing campaign. We're still sorting faxes and e-mails and nuclear power is bad and you folks should be put out of work. But if we find any other -- if we can assemble any of the other public comments that we've got, we'll pass those along. We're going to expand the explanation about dams to address empoundments and earth dams. Yeah, in the table. We're going to provide you with the UCS comments on GALL SRP and we'll make sure that for the subcommittee on the A&O safety evaluation that we describe the other features of the license renewal process. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Yea, we discussed about the FSAR update and the tech specs in the letters that we wrote for Oconee and Calvert Cliffs. DR. GRIMES: And we'll also do a quick review of the environmental review process and illustrate it with the results for Arkansas, so you can see how that process works. CHAIRMAN BONACA: Anything else. If not, I want to thank the staff for the presentation. It was informative, and I adjourn the meeting. [Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 11:59 a.m.]
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, July 12, 2016