ML20058P449

Summary of 931206 Meeting W/Entergy Operations,Inc in Rockville,Md Re 931021 Submittal of Proposed Alternative to 10CFR50.55a(f) & (g),10-Year Inservice Insp & Inservice Testing Update. List of Attendees Encl

ML20058P449
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf, Arkansas Nuclear, Waterford
Issue date:	12/15/1993
From:	Oconner P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9312270137
Download: ML20058P449 (69)

Text

...

ecem er 15, 1993 i

Docket Nos. 50-313 3

a 50-368 l

50-416 l

50-382 t

g j

LICENSEE:

Entergy Operations, Inc.

FACILITIES: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3

(

i

SUMMARY

OF DECEMBER 6, 1993, MEETING REGARDING ENTERGY'S PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 50.55(f) AND (g),

t "10-YEAR INSERVICE INSPECTION AND INSERVICE TESTING UPDATE" l

On December 6, 1993, representatives of Entergy Operations, Inc. (the 3

l licensee), met with the NRC staff at the NRC offices in Rockville, Maryland, j

to discuss Entergy's October 21, 1993, submittal of a " Proposed Alternative to 10CFR50.55a(f) and (g), 10-Year Inservice Inspection & Inservice Testing l

j Update." Enclosure I lists the meeting attendees.

j i

The licensee provided a detailed discussion and examples of (1) the analytical l

j methods that they will use to evaluate the safety significance of ASME Code changes and (2) the probabilistic risk criteria that they will utilize to

]

determine whether such changes will be incorporated in the 10-year updates to i

their inservice inspection and inservice testing programs.

l' j

During the meeting, the licensee responded to some of the questions that the j

staff had identified by letter dated December 3, 1993 (Enclosure 2).

Entergy i

j will supplement their October 21, 1993, submittal with additional clarifying a

information and answers to questions raised at the meeting.

In approximately 1

2 weeks, the staff will provide Entergy with a request for additional

]

information in which the staff's original questions will be clarified based on j

i discussions during the meeting.

l contains the visual aids used by the licensee during the meeting.

l I

ORTGINAL SIGNED BY:

l l

Paul d. O'Connor, Senior Project Manager i

Project Directorate IV-1 j

Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV/V

Enclosures:

DISTRIBUTION w/all enclosures:

~

1.

List of attendees Docket File NRC & Local PDRs

)

2.

Comments and Questions PD4-1 Reading E. Merschoff, RII l

3.

Licensee's Viewgraphs P. O'Connor A. B. Beach, RIV i

l cc w/ enclosures:

w/ Enclosures 1 and 2:

]

See next page T. Murley/F. Miraglia L. J. Callan J. Roe E. Adensam i

W. Beckner L. Plisco, EDO i

220008-OGC E. Jordan NRC Participants ACRS (10) 4 0FC LA:PD4-1714 PM:PD4-1 h 'D:PD4-1(M r

NAME PNoonan7 P0'Connor:pk WBeckner i

DATE p////93 Ik/ /Y/93 1if h93

.(

10.PY,,Y[Skk _

YES/NO YE.SLN0

_mqo m

p gy g

9312270137 931215 ADOCK0500g3 PDR a

i a

l.

p*=ovy 1

/ I k

UNITED STATES l

[ h j[ (/

W j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20RiS-0001 gp December 15, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-313 50-368 i

50-416 50-382 LICENSEE:

Entergy Operations, Inc.

FACILITIES: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 l

SUMMARY

OF DECEMBER 6, 1993, MEETING REGARDING ENTERGY'S PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 50.55(f) AND (g),

"10-YEAR INSERVICE INSPECTION AND INSERVICE TESTING UPDATE" l

On December 6,1993, representatives of Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), met with the NRC staff at the NRC offices in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss Entergy's October 21, 1993, submittal of a " Proposed Alternative to 10CFR50.55a(f) and (g),10-Year Inservice Inspection & Inservice Testing 1

Update." Enclosure 1 lists the meeting attendees.

The licensee provided a detailed discussion and examples of (1) the analytical methods that they will use to evaluate the safety significance of ASME Code changes and (2) the probabilistic risk criteria that they will utilize to determine whether such changes will be incorporated in the 10-year updates to their inservice inspection and inservice testing programs.

During the meeting, the licensee responded to some of the questions that the staff had identified by letter dated December 3,1993 (Enclosure 2).

Entergy will supplement their October 21, 1993, submittal with additional clarifying information and answers to questions raised at the meeting.

In approximately 2 weeks, the staff will provide Entergy with a request for additional information in which the staff's original questions will be clarified based on l

discussions during the meeting. contains the visual aids us d by the licensee during the meeting.

3 Paul W. O'Connor, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV/V

Enclosures:

1.

List of attendees 2.

Comments and Questions l

3.

Licensce's Viewgraphs cc w/ enclosures:

I See next page l

i s

Mr. Jerry W. Yelverton Entergy Operations, Inc.

Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 & 2 t

cc:

Mr. Harry W. Keiser, Executive Vice Mr. Jerrold G. Dewease President & Chief Operating Officer Vice President, Operations Support Entergy Operations, Inc.

Entergy Operations, Inc.

P. O. Box 31995 P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, Mississippi 39286 Jackson, Mississippi 39286 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager Mr. Robert B. McGehee Washington Nuclear Operations Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway ABB Combustion Engineering P. O. Box 651 Nuclear Power Jackson, Mississippi 39286 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Admiral Kinnaird R. McKee, USN (Ret) 214 South Morris Street Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds Oxford, Maryland 21654 Winston & Strawn l

1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20005-3502 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Licensing Representative j

B&W Nuclear Technologies 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 i

Rockville, Maryland 20852 Senior Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Nuclear Plant Road Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Honorable C. Doug Luningham County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Ms. Greta Dieus, Director Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-3867 i

l

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

I

)

Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson Entergy Operations, Inc.

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station cc:

Mr. H. W. Keiser, Exec. Vice President Mr. D. L. Pace and Chief Operating Officer GGNS General Manager Entergy Operations, Inc.

Entergy Operations, Inc.

P. O. Box 31995 P. O. Box 756 Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 l

Robert B. McGehee, Esquire The Honorable William J. Guste, Jr.

1 Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway Attorney General P. O. Box 651 Department of Justice Jackson, Mississippi 39205 State of Louisiana P. O. Box 94005 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W. - 12th Floor Dr. F. E. Thompson, Jr.

Washington, D.C.

20005-3502 State Health Officer State Board of Health Mr. Sam Mabry, Director P. O. Box 1700 Division of Solid Waste Management Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Mississippi Department of Natural Resources Office of the Governor P. O. Box 10385 State of Mississippi Jackson, Mississippi 39209 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 President, Mike Morre, Attorney General l

Claiborne County Board of Supervisors Frank Spencer, Asst. Attorney General t

Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 State of Mississippi l

Post Office Box 22947 Regional Administrator, Region II Jackson, Mississippi 39225 i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

101 Marietta St., Suite 2900 Mr. Jerrold G. Dewease Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Vice President, Operations Support Entergy Operations, Inc.

l Mr. W. W. Watson P.O. Box 31995 Project Manager Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995 Bechtel Power Corporation P.O. Box 808, 4600 W. Main Mr. Michael J. Meisner Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Director, Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs Mr. K. G. Hess Entergy Operations, Inc.

l Bechtel Power Corporation P.O. Box 756 P. O. Box 2166 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 Houston, Texas 77252-2166 Mr. Rudolph H. Bernhard Senior Resident Inspector l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 399 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 t

c

]'s Mr. Ross P. Barkhurst i

Entergy Operations, Inc.

Waterford 3 CC:

Mr. Hall Bohlinger, Administrator Regional Administrator, Region IV Radiation Protection Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Air Quality and Nuclear Energy 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 82135 Arlington, Texas 76011

]

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2135 Resident Inspector /Waterford NPS i

Mr. Jerrold G. Dewease Post Office Box 822 4

Vice President, Operations Killona, Louisiana 70066 Support i

Entergy Operations, Inc.

Parish President Council i

P. O. Box 31995 St. Charles Parish Jackson, Mississippi 39286 P. O. Box 302 j

Hahnville, Louisiana 70057 William A. Cross l

Bethesda Licensing Office Mr. Harry W. Keiser, Executive Vice-3 Metro Center President and Chief Operating Officer Suite 610 Entergy Operations, Inc.

j Bethesda, Maryland 20814 P. O. Box 31995 Mr. Robert B. McGehee i

Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway Chairman P.O. Box 651 Louisiana Public Service Commission i

Jackson, Mississippi 39205 One American Place, Suite 1630 l

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825-1697 Mr. D. F. Packer General Manager Plant Operations Mr. R. F. Burski, Director Entergy Operations, Inc.

Nuclear Safety i

P. O. Box B Entergy Operations, Inc.

j Killona, Louisiana 70066 P. O. Box B 4

Killona, Louisiana 70066 l

Mr. L. W. Laughlin, Licensing Manager Entergy Operations, Inc.

P. O. Box B j

Killona, Louisiana 70066 4

i Winston & Strawn Attn:

N. S. Reynolds 1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005-3502 l

l l

1 d

~.

l i

a ENCLOSURE 1 December 6. 1993 Meetino on Alternative to 10-Year Inservice Insoection and Testina Update Enterov Operations. Inc.

List of Attendees Paul W. O'Connor NRC/NRR/PD4-1 Patricia L. Campbell NRC/NRR/EMEB James A. Norberg NRC/NRR/EMEB William Beckner NRC/NRR/PD41 James T. Wiggins NRC/NRR/DE Francis Akstulewicz ED0/RRGTIF Gil Millman NRC/RES/DE R. H. Bernhard NRC/RII/ SRI-Grand Gulf Roby Bevan NRR/PD4-1 D. L. Wigginton NRR/PD4-1 James Wing NRC/NRR/SPSB Tom Alexion NRC/PD4-1 Mike Meisner E01/GGNS John Dosa E01/AN0/ Licensing Gary W. Smith E01/GGNS/ Engineering Tom Bromback E0I/ Central Design Engineering Ted Sullivan NRC/NRR/DE/EMEB George Johnson NRC/NRR/DE/EMEB Keith Wichmann NRC/NRR/DE/EMEB i

)

i i

ww-----

~.

e-1

i t

ENCLOSURE 2 Coassents and Questions for Entergy Neeting December 6, 1993 I.

Demonstrate Process A.

Identification of revisions in applicable Code edition.

B.

Determination of which revisions are safety significant and how these will be implemented. Criteria.

C.

For medium impact revisions, describe criteria for addressing the accumulated impact from a safety standpoint.

D.

Determination of revisions that are relaxations of previous j

requirements and the implementation of these.

E.

Flow-chart the process, if possible.

II.

Questions or Items to be Addressed.

A.

List the assumptions for the breakdown of the costs savings of $3M estimated for Grand Gulf.

B.

Because a number of points Entergy makes in the request seem to be related to the ASME Code process rather than representing regulatory issues, discuss why the request was made to the NRC rather than working for changes to concerns.the utility has with the ASME Code process.

C.

Page 10:

Entergy uses the word " worthwhile" to characterize the t

justification for many of the Code changes. Code changes are either editorial or technical.

" Worthwhile" is not a criterion.

~

Changes are made by the Code comittees because they are deemed necessary for clarity or for technical reasons. Why does Entergy feel that the Code consensus process is not sufficiently i

structured to prevent incorporation of unnecessary revisions? The i

NRC's view is that the industry, through the consensus process,

{

believes that many of the revisions are necessary because they address impracticalities or relax requirements determined not to be necessary to safety. Entergy's representatives on the Code i

comittees have been involved in a number of the revisions made to the Code.

D.

Page 11: Entergy claims that licensees have historica?ly objected to the Code incorporation process of 10 CFR 50.55a not being justified in accordance with the backfit provistor.s of 10 CFR 50.109 and that the Comission has ' consistently responded by quoting the General Counsel opinion" that the incorporation is not 1

a backfit because it is based on a consensus standard. What is l

the basis for Entergy's contention that the objections by i

licensees is widespread? The staff is aware of only one licensee comenting one time during a public coment period for proposed 1

l

... - ~

_.~,----,...m

. ~.

.r m.

f e

staff is not aware of any informal objections being made at any previous Code meetings.

E.

Page 12: The alternative appears to be internally inconsistent.

l The first paragraph indicated that the applicable Code edition for successive 120-month inspection intervals will be the latest edition and addenda " committed to by the licensee as of the approval date of this proposed alternative... and subject to the following paragraphs." The next paragraph states that "[1]n lieu of the above referenced Code edition and addenda, inservice examinations...

will comply with the requirements of the latest edition and addenda of the Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 50.55a 12 months prior to the start of the 120-month inspection interval... for which there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety...." What does Entergy intend for the portions of the Code which do not represent the " substantial increase" in safety? Will the requirements of the prior edition be maintained? If so, the language "in lieu of" should probably be "in addition to."

Please clarify the intent.

F.

Page 13: Related to the discussion in "E" above, do options (1) and (2) imply that Entergy will declare having updated to the later edition which in fact only portions of the later revision were incorporated? How will Entergy determine whether or not the Commission has " reviewed or approved" the combination of requirements as "related" requirements?

G.

Page 14:

In option (3), Entergy indicates that, in updating at the 120-month interval, the " licensee would still be required to evaluate the regulatory analyses of the latest edition and addenda of the Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 50.55a 12 months prior to the start of the 120-month inspection interval." This implies that the regulatory analysis of revisions incorporated in the intervening 120 months will not be reviewed.

How will the licensee ensure that changes which were made in earlier editions, carried through to the later edition, which the Commission identified in the regulatory analysis as significant are incorporated into the inspection and testing programs? Does the statement also imply that Entergy will be depending solely on the NRC's regulatory analysis, which has a general industry basis, to identify safety significant issues? How does this ensure that any issues that may be safety significant on a plant-specific basis are addressed?

Entergy further states that "[t]here would be no requirement to evaluate generalizations about potential safety increases contained in the regulatory analyses which are not referenced to specific Code changes or specific combinations of changes." The regulatory analysis does not address the cumulative effect of each change, but rather relies on the integration of the overall changes to ensure an acceptable level of safety which allows endorsement of the edition 2

i and addenda into the regulations. The regulatory analysis has never been structured to be used in the manner Entergy describes.

H.

Page 15:

In support of the justification for the proposed process ensuring an acceptable level of quality and safety, Entergy indicates that "[1]ater NRC approved Code editions and addenda (or portions thereof) would be adopted provided a substantial increase in safety would result and was cost justified." When the NRC authorizes alternatives pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(1), cost is not an acceptable basis. The statement seems to imply that the regulatory analysis is always based on cost justification, when in fact, even under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.109, there are three criteria where "backfit" does not apply:

(1) compliance, (2),

adequate protection, and (3) defining or redefining what level of protection to the public should be regarded as adequate. The regulatory analysis for incorporation of Code changes is not per se a backfit analysis.

In fact, the NRC does not "backfit" Code editions. When a change to 10 CFR 50.55a implements requirements which are beyond those in the Code or accelerates a schedule for requirements in the Code, a "backfit" analysis is performed and is discussed in the regulatory analysis, such as was the implementation schedule for reactor vessel weld examinations in the ru12 making effective September 8, 1992. Additionally, the majority of the revisions in the Code are relaxations which tend to " redefine" what level of safety should be regarded as adequate and tend to decrease costs, other than procedure and program administrative type changes.

Technological changes may be necessary over the life of a plant due to the accumulated effect of Code revisions, particularly in light of industry experience identifying problems areas where more emphasis is needed and the allowance for relaxations where less emphasis may be acceptable.

I.

Page 15: Entergy states that the "' automatic Code endorsement' process as currently implemented tends to undermine processes subject to 10 CFR 50.109" by demanding utility resources to perform facility or procedure modifications which do not routinely provide substantial increases in safety, and that the regulatory relief process may also create a burden. Would not the proposed process described in the alternative, if adequately implemented on a plant-specific basis which does not rely on the NRC regulatory analysis, require a substantial allocation of resources on the level of implementing the latest edition of the Code and requesting relief where necessary?

J.

Page 16: What is the " additional licensee evaluation" which is referenced in the context of determining the safety impact of a potential change?

K.

Page 16: Entergy states that 10 CFR 50.55a " currently prohibits licensees" from using later editions without Commission approval.

l The original basis for the regulations requiring Commission approval for using later editions, or portions thereof, was to preclude 3

i a

implementation of requirements (or relaxations) that, in combination with requirements of earlier editions could result in a decrease in overall safety, while still including an allowance for a licensee to request implementation if it could show that overall safety would not be decreased. The NRC has a process of approving later editions or portions thereof through endorsement of ASME Code cases through reference in footnote 6 of 10 CFR 50.55a. Therefore, to state that the regulations " prohibit" licensees from using later editions of the Code is an inappropriate characterization of the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv).

L.

Page 16:

Entergy states that "[c]hanges (i.e. backfits) to the Code editions and addenda which do provide a substantial increase to public health and safety have been, and would continue to be, imposed upon licensee by the Commission through processes separate from the update of Code references in 10 CFR 50.55a (e.g. specific rulemaking, Generic Letters, Bulletins)." The Comission does not perform a backfit analysis of the changes to the Code, as noted above. The two cases where a backfit analysis may be performed for rulemaking for 10 CFR 50.55a are (1) when requirements are imposed that are beyond the scope of the Code or the previous regulations, and (2) where an accelerated schedule of Code requirements of an edition incorporated in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) is imposed. The Comission has required an accelerated schedule only in a few cases over the existence of 10 CFR 50.55a. The basis for allowing licensees to wait to incorporate changes during the 120-month updates is that the integrated effect of Code editions, taken in their entirety, balance out safety. While Entergy may see a concern in the Comission not more frequently imposing Code requirements on an accelerated basis, it could also be viewed from another perspective which is inherent to the basis for the use of Codes and Standards in the regulations.

Similarly, if the Comission believed that the Codes and Standards decreased safety in revisions that are consider?d for incorporation, limitations and modifications to the editions cre stated in the regulation.

M.

Pages 16 and 17:

Explain Paragraph (c) N garding using portions of late editioni of the Code.

It is uncle.r what is meant by "[i]t is noted that ar/ increase to public health ad safety would not be substantial r,ince such changes are processed by the Comission separate from the ' incorporation by reference.'"

N.

Page 17: /,s discussed above, the NRC's regulatory analysis does not explicitly address the integrated effect of revisions to the Code.

Entergy states in Paragraph (e) that "the regulatory analyses are sufficiently detailed in expressing the Comission's opinion on the interrelationships of any changes to the Code editions and addenda" and implies that the licensee will rely on the regulatory analysis to determine the related requirements for implementing only portions of later editions. The regulatory analysis addresses changes on a change-by-change basis and only generally states that the integrated 4

i effect provides an acceptable level of safety.

In light of this discussion, is Entergy's position in Paragraph (e) affected?

0.

Page 21: What failure rates for motor-operated valves and pumps were used for the reduction in core damage frequency discussed?

P.

Page 21, Item 6: Give examples of the "various pilot studies" and identify the level of resources diverted to Code changes. What resources are currently being diverted to implement Code changes that "the Commission has already determined will only provide slight changes to public risk, if any," and what is the basis for this statement?

Q.

Page 21:

In the burden reduction, it discusses that the submittal of relief requests imposes resource and financial burden.

Entergy has not requested an alternative to the provisions in 10 CFR 50.55a (f)(6)(1) or (g)(6)(1) for impracticalities necessitating relief from the Code requirements.

Entergy further states that the relief request process does not represent a substantial cost, yet the proposed alternative is "less burdensome." Please explain the basis for this conclusion.

R.

Explain how IPEs will be used in this process.

Entergy's discussion under Item 5, Page 19, appears to make a risk-based argument that inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice testing (IST) have an inconsequential impact on plant safety. How does this relate to your intended implementation of the proposed alternative? Is it Entergy's contention that ISI and 15T requirements can be eliminated from, or not incorporated in, the programs if it is determined they l

do not impact safety based on a PRA/IPE type analysis?

S.

Generic Letter (GL) 89-04 allowed licensees to continue to rely on relief requests that had been previously submitted and did not conflict with the eleven positions included in Attachment I to the generic letter. The basis of this provision of GL 89-04 was to eliminate the backlog of inservice testing relief request review.

Part of the justification for this not creating a safety concern was, aside from the fact that most utilities were implementing the relief requests upon submittal rather than upon NRC approval, was that all relief requests submitted in the plants' next 10-year update would be reviewed. Except for ANO-2, each of the Entergy plants has relief requests that were approved under this provision of GL 89-04 which have not, in fact, been specifically evaluated and which possibly would not be approved in cases where technology changes preclude the need for relief. Technological changes form part of the basis for 10-year updates required by 10 CFR 50.55a.

How will Entergy address this issue at the next 10-year update under the proposed alternative?

T.

Does Entergy intend to " standardize" the ISI and IST programs at the four plants? If not, except for the differences between specific designs, how will implementation of certain Code requirements at one 5

e site impact the justification for not implementing the requirements at the other sites? How will Entergy justify not implementing

" substantial safety" issues on an accelerated basis, much as the concerns expressed in the NRC allowing later implementation during 10-year updates?

U.

Explain how the licensees will maintain a status of the programs and which requirements of which editions apply. How will decisions of the use or nonuse of certain portions be documented?

I 6

lil 3

E R

U s

e S

O L

n v

C N

E o

it it a

a n

r r

3 e

e 9

p t

9

.~

l 1

O A

6, r

y T

e g

/

b I

S m

r e

e I

t c

n r

e a

D Ee C

Y R

0 N

1 r e r

.cn I

,sn o

i h

t c

a ek a e

nn b ah p

~ [A'

. e n

si msiO t

iZ e

oomy s

e r

MgB DS g s

d we e r r

k omhnye r

t i e oo a n MGTJGE

, i ; i 2v l

i nf k i$

m2$ s i f3:s.

4 y i.h l1&*s(^

t 1 ::

l i

&eh NeQef'Bc s

\\

I ll,l.\\l\\

,i

I

i g

n i

t r

r r

e r

e e

e e

k e

e e-n n

n n

n v,is s

s i

s Z

M i

i i

e e

e e

ia-3 e

M M

M M

t g

s9 r

e e

e e

n9rn k

k k

o k

i i

i e

i M

M M

G M

o1 e

i t

t a 6,A l

r e r e

T.

pbIe/.

t l

a a

i d

t w

A t

oms.

p n

e L

s u

a i

I B

e t

v ye

.C u

d s

e r

q e

b r

gc a

s e

s u

d r e e o

T p

f n

r o

s n

e a

tDY i

/

o o

t I

a S

r n

p nt n

r I

i o

of i

0.

e f

d E

i t

p o

t e c

n an u

1 O

w a

ne d

C ym e

t s ibmy ey i

ns ga R

eg r

rt rr v

ee rt i

t r rc e e so t

e r

N o

t f o

v u r e a oi nr r

Ep O

CP Ds Cp

+

+

+

+

+

J"M J ?o f,1 e

pf aQ$f g

.1!l '

~

h3 i

4 9Fnh

l si r

i 4

l

aa.

4

}

I a

.r T

l C

l

.O E

N-h m

L L

Q Q

Q L

l O.

A O

J e

QQ o

e cW 1

i 4

t A

E-' -

, ?

Wpy

> q,,a

' ?-: $,

• 4&

... ~,

n.

h,.{5.};_

_}'ff;

'v'

.WSEW#d EGklDS[MM W.9N.y?"M?s*M'**w f

_,mm...,

e%-2

--et*=4 d"*'-^

~

Entergy Operations l

CBLA Program

~

+ Entergy nuclear business philosophy l

To be world class by 1995, i.e., top quartile in three l

\\

areas:

.,,na h?h l

kgf

- High regulatory /safetyperformance i

- High operatingperformance

- Low costperformance

_,l

n

<y l

)

+ Site and corporate programs are aligned to strategic

ca areas jf Business plan QiTm)

Departmentalgoals qq Programmatic initiatives b!

Rj hbh Nuclear exceIIence is achieving success in each area udi

Entergy Operations ll CBLA Program

+ Positive results to-date Improved regula tory / safety performance l,

3m

- strong SALP andINPO evaluations Improved plant operating performance Wk Increased generation equivalent to an additional

1. )

550 Mw plant ~ n Eh ^ Increased performance results in lower cost per kilowattproduced ,j B gk + Reaching the point of diminishing returns in improved plant performance; significant new gains are not expected u h]a Cost performance is major area lagging behind p a if i

Resource Allocation Based on Requirement Requirements Commitments GDCs MOVs h App.B APP. R App.B l ATWS f ma! ' Emerg. 50.55a SSW kh~K'{N }w ~ hi$ Planning Security IGSCC App.J Available Resources P* E $ayg w h ater Shutdown f f,y,f IPE conditions measurement insights 1 ECCS suction Unnecessary hghh blockage regulatory Plant-specific {jd .Themo-iag burden emergent ,J issues > :w RF8 ($ Emergent RegulatoryIssues Safety / Risk Significant Areas ea --,a e..%- ,..,. - -. + + -. - - - - e. .-.---.-4i-----*--

Resource Allocation ~ Based on Safety Significance -.,~ Requirements Commitments GDCs MOVs l t-App.B l l App. R App.B I ATWS m u eza # Q f=f' 7 i Emerg. 50.55a SSW F Planning J= a Security IGSCC 1 App.J Available l PDS Resources 15}h [ Shutdown Rx water IPE conditions f.y level insights $M measurement 50.55a hl, ECCS Unnecessary l jng; suction App.B regulatory Plant-specific [f[) d blockage burden emergent Thermo-lag issues k App. J l ish by Emergent RegulatoryIssues Safety / Risk Significant Areas wi

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ ' - - - - ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ' e 4 4 a.- k O .e D e O-0 e O g

i A

4 ) I 1 s v ') i kV T'$$ILM, 'r' ggy

i2 Ed>gm.,; y:..::4.

tt?A O,ll-q$*PY n m;g...; }w,f:<; h.4 5f5 . ;4 -.. '.g',.

f f5'5f. N

,n ..e, ^ www e ewesw .? Y 4[$MNY 7'.T [,{ '] ggdsg:NNE.i.ipS.a$p:4 F.N;. 7-' j ..J:i s,y.,ca::::?;y.y;:pg.,:.;-;.; :.::(:(.,;: ;: ;;;

f o e t d e o v d iC t e i t t f fi - aEn-e it n s e. s e u nMmie r m b j eSe.. e y e t t ra f t e a s lAs d t s o s A r. c a l o c i c dio M E tn n td. a o ea S t i nA s t smE d a b t u n o e s e pto v a m ou o r e e l p v r p P A p e m i e a h i t c e n a s d o t m a e h n h l t a w p m I + sY a im l e td ta as1 e ::y wh#t h{ Mk %oj"9 ) t ;s; l* hAhp!tg .w t

l

.3

)<!

iIj', i

t

?

l 9 ~ t t a o t h h t g s s u e t c n o r e r u h o m t s e y e r t e i r e v u f d q a i e e s t x r d a f e i r n m.f o u a f a t y o n u t f i e o l t i f a e el t o a u c s n q sA oe o f ~ o l i i l t t o ~ ai a l pd v n e eit i v re e r c m e ha il us gt ei es l l a Po un c bm w l w oa hi rc gf aa p hf u pg i e t r ti o o yn r e eo a n cr r t g hb cp w ei t f s y-ae P dt ay ee nin st f al t ~ df ra e e ea es e s vs vt v a r o ao eb r e t n pr s sT o o e eI/ m m Car rS PI I + + + fff f%g fBg f%O m, ,)pfy g ,sY-hr h { b i. u 1 j. 2$g, li$Ld w i: .d !'k ,I1l! l ,1l'll4 i l 1.

'I l

ll

I i r t a d y l n e e t d d a d e r a a wn p s /s oi e o l t s t n ap l n i t o s m t t o e n e id nx e m e /e m e e rf e e d ae r i i l o sl u t e c E nr q m-E ed er Me mra d Sn t d e i i Al mn t e n a ds mt e a r ea os m g vb ot cw g o rn eo u .~ pe nl a l i a r pr l o o5 r P oc sl a ef u t5 y0 l t ai l t y yh bs p5 e ot pn l e nt t s ai on s uh td K s a emc oe eh g a nfi tr n eo i i pe a s r st l en e pt hep o e hp d p Ala Ct a Di oc S + +

s "w

I a% ~ JdE l, g1A4 - M)i 3 y i i s !th?a y s. 1 ,i l }!'

!i,

1 i g s t n s m r r i i o i u c l d a a t y, s n l s s a i ne t o es la p va n v y ec r e e n ee r t a om m n t a mo i s r e )d a d dn e e ai l y t Ee p r d, e 0 o u 1 d sa pn min s /a el n d ba a n t ia e v t t dr r o n a l e ~ i u ut g on o (c a l i m a c v r r e e ga ne g e i P y n b k a a0 y h n e1 c al pt ca u e d v e o e s r c K s e e rh o gt ug p nn ou s i l a o a so e v r he e r h h.t i r P Ct Rt s e t n I + iwmwg

Mw%

i n ag mMvQ a !@f f i a %<g $is i83$. ji. a 3di l %ll ( <:[ e I ^)M ^ lf4kg. j

t i

l il 1l, llill

~ t o n i nn g g o s r n d "g i i t e a ao m n n ud i t u t l s at n o it i vf a b l t ee c p y s n i s n f l e i s n s r e eb g i s a nty i o h l m s r ue g f h r e) da t a e i v d es w n lEe. wl o o oi d d a l t e d u~ e l mi_ n a n n e r atn_ o nb d d f i t t c o a f t e u v n o s a r o. su y n e it g (c u n a a c l i s r o b a o ot e ll l r a i l e i v t a c b w e ah P l t t s l n y n i i t e s w o i e l t y e mt a s a f a i e a e r t n t t n o n s l K ps a t i e la mn a m t i s iot b l i l t us e na nmi u as p s oex S va ts Nde Eb m I bu S + n i y]Q%s? ? ;. S iw 1 p eq muk

)*

l .i i l\\

Key Program Elements (continued) _ ~ + Implementation of ASME code changes 1 l i t; Changes may be implemented without evaluation - in the r it extreme, the latest approved editions / addenda may be k? adoptedin their entirety 5 so i Implementation is required for: e E [h - Changes that are of substantial safety benefit and d cost-beneficial c - Individual changes separately supported by ~ 10CFR50.109 evaluation (e.g., augmented ll$; requirements) mg da W' Otherwise, implementation is optional p ?bh$ Odd 4 ,e_ ee..--.. ....--,w.,.-.s -....----.,.~,----,-..-.--..--e- .n

Key Program Elements l (continued) ~ i + Documentation Y ? Evaluation basis for code changes which are not !?T**R implemented - permanent plant records available for NRC inspection l CurrentISI/Tbaseline commitments i _e t IM$f$ i l 1jtl%l j $\\[ - For Grand Gulf, changes to baseline are approved i l Bil under 50.59 program (screened, if changes have l received prior NRC approval) - Grand Gulf is l considering a change to this approach i i ?h l rdl - Docketed at the beginning of each 10 yearinterval i g' :.h 1 g l t - Available for NRC inspection at other times p !!h

d n l a l f ~ t a o s rog ts f n u i m )e d l n ba s n at t o l s i i t a r n a v e o t ad e t n n f n e i( u m o m dr p s e u e u t l e o l). d e n p w Ed. e e c e m e ir e-inm i vu l u. e a e n es r c r o rn mi i n. ei u n ee f i b nq f bo at ge o l tt r n, oi r l h t t iwdiag s s r o(c-go i n d s ye o l a et p s ns y yt i en f a p sdi r a ma e u yd y l P n sr s l t a s aa e i e e n n /s f y y s nn i a r yii n a n s o l s a mm nw yo t e ris a n r r oo oif t' K l e e ir tdf u at t t e e ai a ea g 's dd uh ueS e l t er C l f R at gd e e o vn e oh N Eo Rct s U + hI yh w' gh y fI, ;lfV k l3

1. w*?

kQa aE! i;i n l 1tr 2 Fs ~ l 1lll. ll 1. lj: 1 t

ts Key Program Elemen ued) (con in at each site cooperation rograms + inter-site standardize ISI/T p i ning baselinesimp not to each plant has different beg ,i Goalis may depend on plan design a fy ite is % % p. safety significa Mai! velized and inter-q! W &:. haed of changes d can be le Regardless, workloaking current basimpa eline d efficiencies gaine c mon pproach to tracanalyzing s SE i J a ch to com shared approa of changes in - pooled revieweditions/ addend w{ / ff lff* s

N b O 0 9e O kw e n g e g g i N k o e s ) h ~3,, ~ ~ es,q,

t Current ISI/IST l Update Process ~~. c.. Existing Program Separate Rulemaking (Approved Baseline) f U Identify Differences $$$Ihf(n E g e from New Code 9 1 2 y y Request Relief or Adopt b;;~i$h Develop Updated ~1 Optional Code Cases !j 1i Program L 2 0 V c ted l Mi y h; i Yes } Implementation Process y

sf b

Maintain Defined Position hsIj EW h3 1 4

A 1 f 1 89 r o 8 n 9 o 1 e r i 1 f m e t t f a o m n o n i i r r e u w re m a t s t a e n g n x g n i y i w n id w e 0 i ,a1 d d g d u g e m ef n a n u l i l c n t i n d c n d d o u n i e a i u m d rdd l l c d n c a n n n a n g g /s e i i u a ne d h d a o oh n h g n s t t a g u a L r.i i t u o P ~. e d a h o r h G g r h g e u h t u s e c t ed o a n o B a a r ol ndo r C d nfc p h oni h n t t at sR e iei i e oi (s o od de n n ) n nidd d t l N d n t o s d i e ei e s a n c nit t s ot oiai7 a0dia uG /s t ddd e i 7 98ddd q i a c f, d 0e 6 1 t t 9 79a e neR n ene i e e 91 r BI 0e o o 8 1T0 8df e8 d I i I 8 t i l o e e9 d 9 t f e i r d1 a1 SoIS9 9di s d c I 1 1 al t e n s e e nO ON o r e s e e e c1 2 S d msd t h t n e et a o vi c c . l N NG 3 e m i o m l ni eA AG W t r e r md s pmd e i s miB ACCL t o a = po o a e r a o e - B c p + + + + + n wk hmQh a g b ws ga[bll4l8 y]{l;% 1d 8

&y1 yfV?E

, ll5 1l 1ll i

~ Key Program Elements (continued) inter-site cooperation + Goal is not to standardize ISI/T programs at each siG g - each plant has different beginning baselines a () - safety significance (and, therefore, implementat a of changes may depend on plant design i nd

• Regardless, workload can be levelized and inter-efficiencies gained jQ I

d - common approach to tracking current baselin } - shared approach to analyzing safety impact } - pooled review of changes in new code fln]l l editions / addenda H e1 $$bb

r,_ d e s s s 's o ec 'n p o. o r r P P y e p,. d t e n a a d y t p s sy n U / e r T r /

• y o,

I u S N, a ~ C I A, s 'g 4 9 JJ 6 .q p pg k k $,a !t ny}o.ya n in i J! f j,d3ft)

N' a hb i

t lI i-l 7Q':ff]yg.F!s 3 ' h. f )1) t [ ke$- I S

Key Program Elements (continued) ~ .-~ Inter-site cooperation + e i Goalis not to standardize ISI/Tprograms at each site c. Ih!!M g - each plant has different beginning baselines - safety significance (and, therefore, implementation) of changes may depend on plant design Regardless, workload can be levelized and inter-site

R efficiencies gained

- common approach to tracking current baseline laln - shared approach to analyzing safetyimpact l?* - pooled review of changes in new code L: editions / addenda hfk 1 a tu

a m m.W43d**-4+h h*+-*N54"-'"^'"M" ' " ^ "

• O s

I. l 7 e M o o 4 o 0. l x D %e 1 C N m D 1 k i i c D 5 I L wD D O t l s l 7 l w:,,k' l 5it#e:se 8 *. J w i!! W a;g% 4 Y$ E ?/ss+g ) 4-RT.22%%:5QQ $[$$2F2E65? w w, m u7 ~m mppvmvmgarm:w m9 l I

Current ISI/IST Update Process Existing Program Separate Rulemahing (Approved Baseline) U I fs identify Differences ,,,,d n gw i from New Code t /i V V i i Request Relief or Adopt git Develop Updated bdhn Optional Code Cases Program b V i 'N pted ce V y Yes f implementation Process k% y FK ij$ i hkk Maintain Defined Position n SI 'bd} d

Baseline Program Baseline - the collection of code editions / addenda, I commitments, relief, etc. in place at the end of a 10 year j Period i gual% + Baseline code edition (s) vlib lR%:i ANO 1 - 1980 edition through and including winter of 1981 Man % addenda ANO 2 - 1986 edition l y) GGNS - 1S1-1977 edition through and including summer l 92 of1979 addenda l n% IST-1980 edition through and including winter of i i u@ 1980 addenda J W3-1980 edition through and including winter of 1981 i 3 addenda mh + Approved relief requests w l pf + Commitments to RGs, NRCBs, GLs, augmented examination nab + Code cases n .; 4 Q + Later code editions / addenda nd e w --w - -, -,w-e,-~ -, ~, w e-

~~ Identify Differences from Baseline Code edition / approved 12 months prior Code # to interval end case b ?1 l- $$x $$$$$ !st M@$1l Commitments Adoption {dh! l oflater, f editions \\ s a Wd l wg L

d? y k(di

_ N f bi

A,;;

Baseline Relief N g jy Intermediate af ~ ~ editions /addeg if i, k;.,s Process is the same for full update or attemative approach g: in NRC may have issued multiple code edition approvals ove

Identify Differences from Baseline ] ~.. ~. ~ Code Code edition / + approved 12 case months prior k to interval end ..i j tq@* udi Adoption Commitments of later, l

f y;1 0ll hh54

b editions

\\ M l y / C: g,gg,y a intermediateapp y a% sil Baseline ~~ ~~ editions / adde 1 jy roach 3 for full update or alternative ap R. [Ml . Process is the same d multiple code eGition a . fly:k d Q

• NRC may have issue

Program Update g + Draftprogram to newrequi 4 T I! rements ll$hph; Review Evaluate exemptionsexisting bound k0lb}$ Evaluate categories v54)

• Evaluatepopulations withi

,l Perform selections and n categories yp Develop reliefrequestsschedule exams + \\. t Update standards +

w;o.

y

• NDE m

Repair / replacement ia taR sal Pressure test Surveillance test /IST

Identify Differences from Baseline Code edition approved 12 / months prior to interval end Code c. case NN??b$ h [*!slWt$ $$dCommitments Adoption i oflater A editions sRM \\ 9:a my 1is ? En f L Baseline ~

Relief f

Ih ,;h intermediate approved $$~ ~ ~ ditions/ addenda e knl Process is the same for full update or altemative approach bll NRC may have issued multiple code edition approvals over 10 yearperiod !231 1 i

Program Update m_;. _ + Draftprogram to new requirements t' s Review existing boundaries ,a,n s m M* y Evaluate exemptions q h g_ = Evaluate categories Evaluate populations within categories l Perform selections and schedule exams yb j* ~ d:L% + Develop relief requests k &[ + Update standards i 4 i NDE @se Repair / replacement ? p=oL Pressure test

. 2 y

Surveillance test /IST i. 88 i

Role of ASME Code Committees f + Like all national standards groups the role of an ASME code i committee is not to serve the regulator role but rather to _L provide suggested rules of good practice as an aid to lfflft}dil tl owners and regulators i Rf + Code committees neither apply criteria to determine l substantial safety benefit nor criteria to determine if l implementation costs are commensurate with safety benefit l [ + Code committees are not regulators and should not be j ftf compromised by requiring them to both regulate and l recommend bestpractices

• EOl's proposalpreserves the essential role of the code committees while restoring the regulatory responsibility to i

the regulatoryprocess ke w W((jd Ef a v3 $5 Nh b$I

"Related" Requirements of Respective Code Additions or Addenda ~ -. - - - -. - - 4 Those requirements which 1) must be used togetherin order g to achieve the assumed safety benefit, and 2) could result in pf an unassumed reduction in safety if separated. ll? ( + Implementation e )g Ownerresponsibility s l i Implementation not new I ,y Repair / Replacement decisions (IWA 4170) ( ReliefRequests y. Q Requires knowledgeable and capable people to determine = i "related"

3

+ Process f Determine if code change is dependent on other code = } d changes in order to work o flle Determine if code change relaxationjustification is i W dependent on other code changes (e.g. scope, acceptance l hQ criteria, frequency, methods, design rules, etc.) tid ,-~,....,.-...r .m--,,----.--------.-,--,e,.w----------m ' " ' ' ' ' " * * " ~ - - - - - - ^ - " '

Relationship to State /ANI Requirements Effects of proposed change on State /ANI requirements have + no bearing on NRC approval of the change ? l EOI will carefully work out any State /ANI interface needs s gits n + State 1 1 _e;

• Each State is differentin approach j

M Forinstance, the Mississippi Boiler and Pressure Vessel Act of 1974 exempted B&PVs licensed by NRC es! l + ANI hh ANII's reviews are to the licensee's applicable code tf edition, addenda and code cases NM pg At Grand Gulf, the ANIIsigns off on the ISI/Tprograms to i ? ?il document ANII review of the programs na $kNb

w e ~ u m s dra )t d ca m n r a at n x t n n_ s o e / o i o_ /n t c t n a r i e c o o i i m f t t a_ i c e t ps r e l t e i n u u e pt n~ n q o c sn ne seh ei o r m e et s g s i(n /g / ts u m_ re ne ne c pat s it o e yh wt n md n i p_ f c e e a rd l i r t e n t o n r r m f e u et d r a m_ r s e e cdi s pt d e uu t j c l nc qd ed u I a oc a l ns r a e a e t f s p /e f s r e a t l e e ptat c ut t o ,l c s g ud a e neir e n d el u m ivb k i a r nh a t r e a a r o c v i TDFM u CSE e c On e R + + t$ i ??h fU Pn; M I:s hfa I jam

x@i4l$llhhhN

~i? i' j h !!( llil:l: l1!;;*,l; {4lI).

e Alternate Approach Update Process ,~ ~- c. . ~ - ~ Existing Program Separate (approved baseline) Rulemaking erform U mNWf"th screening / l T' A identify Differences Request implement g" as written? From New Code Relief p Yes t No 4 Bh valuat ev jl}; ify Substantial Yes oeyegop up egeg No g Safety Program ACePted ~ Benefit ?/ j y NO y y egj3 Maintain Existing implementation Maintain Defined Requirements Process Position ktu$! l??a aQ h $$lN

Altemate Approach Screening + Determine which changes will be implemented without further evaluation 4 l l' + Only two outcomes are possible I L Implement as written N+pkg!@ Evaluate to determine if substantial safety benefit exists l$N$$ + Screening considerations i = Net burden increase changes yf - Cost of burden increase .y . n;:aL* - Cost of evaluation Me Net burden reduction changes l l f - Costsavings of burden reduction f, - Cost of adding related requirements (if applicable) s e. f - Is a substantial safety increase possible if l3 implemented im i I?l} Editorialchanges km 4 yjj - Need for consistency 6d

l Alternate Approach Update and Implementation + Program update Extent of engineering effort to update program will be i l somewhat a function of the number of changes to be l implemented, but largely insensitive to number of 5 m;&,L. changes Roadmap will be developed to clearly indicate commitments to varying editions / addenda + Implementation aff

• Extent of effort to implement changes will be a direct Q

function of the number and type of changes i&& Primary resource demands j - Procedure changes - Scope and frequency of tests / exams h Secondaryimpacts y("k l - Training / certification - New test equipment / standards (d) - Specialcosts u

+ 4 1 ? I 4 k I i l i = I N= i G i i C l O C i l o A c i l L M G i 1 [ g g O M u m u 'c Q l i Q %m i i 2 .o 3 i ) 5 l I 1 l L 7 J ? K gt% i . qct!..A3M NMEWYSI:l fl$SM - m$i2l.;&az'w$$ assm,a --- t i i A$u $I.? ',(w/ s fd mW,n.::n,-.c=,,m m,,n i . - ~ - ... :5,y d.:j h. ': ' Ystt M _ me m e n.~ n f j [ n

Evaluation V I l No i Provide Substantia ~ Safety Benefit Practical for ??;g A ga ~ mi Dusiness or g* y y Yes Engineering yy yo Reasons b$b @@ %s t Yes Cost Beneficial - W@ah b No k Yes l s i %h hhefl x .t % ' V V NiAA Maintain Existing fg implement 4 l i? i bd Requirements i aa i I

l i i Risk-Based Decision Making l + Has always been fundamentalpart of regulatory decision i making mj fr + Early regulations based on ff{f qualitative analysis reliability principles and practices (e.g. worst case analysis) me l lsh defense-in-depth i ~ _ l , ':as) single failure criterion h d J + Regulatory activities have progressively relied more on j quantitative risk assessment results and insights (e.g. genenc safety issue prioritization process, NUREG 0933) u ns) v l iba e 4 c

.i I I Risk-Based Decision Making Regulatory analyses have progressively used risk + j i assessment tools as the technology advanced { J w 9, ? PRA is NRC's tool of choice for evaluating safety + enhancement backfits l l Current probabilistic risk assessment technology provides + sii good toolfor decision making eu g.. r, _- =,-..-,

NUREG/BR-0058 Rev 2 Draft Safety Goal Decision Criteria i 1E-03 l V } ( Proceed to WIportion of regulatory analysis an)$ ~

• WMd 1E-04

?" 28 Management decision d$$ whether to proceed ,m I A CDF with WIportion of regulatory analysis d) 1E-05 m e, !L*bl. Management decision ca E No Action whether to proceed with l ?$ WIportion of regulatory l analysis %w 1E-06 1 i4l .,n 'i 1E-02 1E-01 1 ] Estimated Conditional Containment Failure Probability - 1 l 5 a i

Relationship of Code Change to Overall Protection of Public Health and Safety ..-,c ... ~.. i } l 14h ef3%g$ud f% 4l f'$$l Safety Parameter Bounding .,.,) Code Diract Effect on

1) Core Damage gg Change Effect of Detected Frequency 4

i ~;L Item Change and/or

2) Conditional l

4$$ Undetected Containment Failure Failure Probability fi i sjit i M j I fe Lsj

Substantial Safety Benefit Evaluation . ~, Item Identified for a PotentialNon-ubstantial No l implementation afety ractical for t Benefit Business or i g y Engineering hgfi Data Gathering Yes Reasons y No + h Perform Yes l gj Value/ impact I")) Establish Analysis i ,~Q 'Q Methodology for y Bounding PRA e Model, and Maintain Existing l $l$ Assumptions Cost No Requirements and Beneficial Document l l u Non-implementation T. V \\ .c ?. Yes y}a Analysis [;a Implement Iba;q y d

l 7

E-1 e e s a s e l a re e y t c n r n e ca. e m n.n u n q i i e. e ta r f n y.t o n e t c g eC-a t n f m a a a c ~ i )a n d f i So i r e ne r git l.i o i r i.s c s c a i n r og t c i f n n i ne l o r an tD i i e a t a t ce n e r uy e c s dr os t eo b rt p2 u dc dl a e e e e v S t t m /r mL a ae 6 i E-iE t t s1 s E> E (P I + + $@g ? i! yg " f jb&. j. hb [j ~,Y7 1 %[w y 3 i 9L <d$ss (ar i M_ ilg l d g; +,. 'i.

Example 1 - Bolting Procedure at Leaking Connection 4 + Current no specific requirements 4 4 I g currentpractice allows tightening i l 5 connections under Work Control Program v;p 3 1 j (

r i

+ IWA-5250 92 Addenda - requires bolt removal and i i subsequentinspections 3 e {,k!f. W .w l I: k$dd I n i sq a N na

t a e ) c ed iv re r uu e )s s t n n u di i n t t s m e en e r s co o (c r g t e o t e o l u r s s n Pn s o e )n e l( k l op c r t a yio l gi o e ct t g b a l nc l d ad n d e a ir e s mr it e u d u r g l n d e e a a o n c h d r n o g s .t t Bo i e s k gl t s d a a e c c n h e ga (e b C e r s ( l n e a n f mnn 1 n c h o o t a o o o n i g y i i c o l a s dt t end c a d e a a m a s e r r l t r u c a a i e l pk t o o g a fa pp lo b n e c t e e mab e e s s a )e d l l t i kut a k gt t a e i s nnn asl a t a t o esb n a aii n xL e gf o o k e l li j j a t t E L P P e o = o + + + )1hE 1ki l as u p4' $bqd $d 43sAI ui1 11 l

13sA#%f' i !'

I v w * [F i

l Example 1 - Bolting Procedure at ? ?'"U? ""? "? ?'?"? 1 l + Operating experience review 1 1 s-I boltingproblems %gg iW43 history ofleaks during testing related to bolt problems 4kadh i + Otherprograms/ processes which provide protection difa$ i t mamtenance program ,y gg corrective action program operating experience program i s, [ routine operations and other walkdowns 1aj( leak detection systems andprograms ffg erosion / corrosion program jijj g e3 4 4 ..n, .we

Example 1 - Bolting Procedure at Leaking Connection (continued)

1. Probability ofIcak during test i

~

2. Probability ofleak associated with bolt degradation

$w""g 7 m ,V 'n. 3. Probability of further bolt degradation

4. Probability of new leak during power operation men Um f'Q

5. Probability of non-detection and/or corrective action i

6. Probability ofleak progressing to LOCA/ SCRAM 4,&

7. Probability of non-mitigation leading to core damage h$l wafs TotalProbability Core Damage gF was

l l I l \\ Example 1 - Bolting Procedure at Leaking Connection (continued) i LOCA a i e v,. an, iJ, LOCA n k. ) 3 ' s 3% SMALL- $$B SMALL SMALL FLANGES [@M J4Es ff INTERMEDIATE l LARGE 4, BOLTS M3 ' v:.. s' g : u s; 6.:!:s k ' " - - - - * ^ ^ - - ~ ' ' - ' - - - - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' * - - ^ ^ - - '

' Example 1 - Bolting Procedure at Leaking Connection (continued) s. .-..~ r i Disassembl p e m-j Direct Effect: 2 Leaking Subsequent y Potentially Evaluate code _ g Bolted Effect: Potential Discover change and eeslw,l Connection Potentially Reduction Bolt PRA model; $~ h ;lw k Reduce CDF = -1E-7 ,faku+%,j Degradation establish <' x Probability w } Earlier bounding w ofLOCA ,w assumptions y: and/or "1 System f@ auwdl m Bounding Failures Case: Assume 10% Q? );j;f reduction I;llil in LOCA, gjd' ervice/ cooling p s g m water pl V c F)k ni initiating 8 aun Code change does notprovide substa ti -t u events n alincrease in safety e'

I I Example 2 IST Valve Stroke Time I Criteria (>10 sec) ~ ~ = inoperable $; + Current GGNS - > Max Limiting Value - r-l ,~,,$$$ (1980 Edition) w increased test l c >1.5 x previous frequency j K. OM-1987 > Max Limiting Value = inoperable 2 Qfb w immediate retest + k >1.15 Fixed Value (MOV) 96 hours to analyze add >1.25 Fixed Value (AOV) j potentiallyinoperable f m$ analysis documented $2 in " record of test" f Wiy pl'aM l bh 2

9 Example 2 IST Valve Stroke Time Criteria (>10 sec) . ~ .. ~ .,~..,, ,.. - ~. ,-~ ~ z t i gwu_ Change Direct Subsequent Evaluate ACDF= (wm} ~ E-7 In Valve Result: Effect: Code Change i f Stroke Detect Potentially and PRA l 1 Time Valve Reduce Model; _gs 1%ngf1 g4 Criteria Degration Undected Establish i 'b Earlier Failure Bounding .~ ~ Rate Assumptions l l Conservatively .;ri %gg Estimate Failure i l Reduced by w4 i i-a bhk i pH 9;;! 4 sb

f o tnA e1 A 1 mC C 1 1 A A e T 2)].. T-T T T C C s N T-T- r T- (a S N N oN0 on S S d S 0 i n n ti o o n 3 d i i t t Ef2 e i i d d o-5 e e 7 sA 9 0 4 8 8 3nW 1 9 9 o 1 1 eoI d d d t l i ([ ~ e e e t s s pit t r r i o o md m d d m n n aE o e e c e e x d d t o o E n C C e r 0 9 r 8 8 u 9 9 C 1 1 + + +

• 4 )a

) v' ~ s@l;% ; J og$ k .y U h. I gI 1f' f bqI I 1 ,1

l l

!i l! l lit \\

Example 3 - Endorsement of )l Editions of SNT-TC-1A [(IWA-2300a(2)] \\ _ ~ ~ ~. c inspector PotentialIY Potentially By '" P"U*" / Certification Identify Reduce f,h Change Requirements Deficient Probability l w Conditions of LOCA l Earlier and/or 5 Small i System $@~ g Failures i ?,

siN) 4 m.

'l + Code change does not provide substantial change in safety + Change would be adopted at appropriate time based on business considerations ms 0 ki$ pt)

p M9Sh 1

i

1 l l: v g e n n i ) h n Y a t ia R m g / ( m n e s n i t t r o n n i t e r e s m e v v e o (e u e l s. q p s e i g g n m s. n n i i t i a d y. v h )s n e n a la-c r s a d a y e i a c c g l n u n (y c n i a p )s n e e A-e n u f e o r i l a r a q l h ell t o f e t t vo l c ot r n r c. a e a o d (d t s n f t ea e l f a i t p g p e p. m c ul f n a af a g s oo l i b p vo n o t t mid sa m. mt e u a n oc s I E /e emd i n i c cf i a i i l l P u si e m b )m tad t r e I l ee o e u o f a rf e o u-C R Pr Tm i V Pl lu l G )o a. r = = = = = = d ? V n v< a V r G S P F T D C = m o er F S r e h w + 2ih3y* .kk $ f ll lljl f b 1l lllllll

,1 se iro s g e t h e a t t t i a s w c e )s e g .s eSa a n s s U. e m a u l a m e i s nr d s i i t ys s n y eke a t ( l f sid l x ai p a sRv AY inp t ) o E n n ct r P e F r I e e d D d )s h i t c C ni A )m t i ec n w c tc" gc a /a (e a "" fAl s r of P e m n or r e = n-i p" r t a ee o ot s inws g n o /m m a eo o e e a t I !" C0 d t m 0 imp a a t z t c c l m 6 a0 isr i e rsal ei E u1 oeeb st 1 n$ l u is c a s u l (p s up e e 7 n( r m Ax a 3 (A N d l e e e rs = e d )t r l nn V 90c a gd e 30a t o -n u e 04im n s d a oi 1 r is a i r /m Bc G et a e c EHms pid t 0 r c e s R Smd mv r 0 e /a o o 0 pm UAo n o r 1 pe NWCa Cp W Ur + + + + + +W ?a ?&! j laxQn x .f# gfAkMsl:ee y l .i i' h -1 l1ll 11 ll' 1

l ll! !

s es s o n i p g "g r r u a n p m it r t s o e il f d p i i s w s s is r y y w a i l l a o h a n h a s r n) d e I/ v V l Ad-u o e-e o d s h e t u. u s r cn r, s o i v ai. e s a tn v y f po. es l f e a e m ig n b I (c - ,n a l l ma y w i e oh t dc e f n l u eT a o l sI s i / t S l a a oI a t t i n V ~. sg n e t t n ci a m e s t s s e pe b p l x s u e m s S I I a O f Eo + g; %* . f'fg )$ ' rnf}h_ ^' h. i ![I s $c A i ah.k1 w&rbeI IlI h6 t! I I I N l u k 1 l1Il l\\ l!llti

j' l l F t i lD f l e iwC o n n e o .t ne l e b en rb t,

i. e oi d

y r r g o t ,r ei a s u l l c e f p t n c bg e a n ed gn i e v s i me i it l t d, e e ge a l c g a e c c eb i e t s n x ne e n n l a a ei e s f a a b ht vw f s. d t o o l n s g n n Ee-i e n oe a bu y g n vk g i e t r e a nl v "s s fe a r c l i e a yi v n-m l i t t t i r n a w l sc l ia-s o a s y ee at o f l t y e gf c th. p d p r f ne pf ic f e a l I a a a f lC s o O d s he yf i ot c h E t e v s ci uf a e s s nt t i t s e ef e r rf r o b a nea e v mo ae h f u c edl gi u t mo na l e s s i t f e cm al u a i cg d t d n rf u e hu l C in e u e gi ocl cm pa s s s i u yh o e o sqyb nu t a Tc p r p eeirt oc o E o v r repi-t r r ae owe ct .} P P P hnaoc u c j I sli ml cda e Fa ep t ~. nstDs rm s aa aCi ni 8 l b p v h ey a 7 s 5 4 0 g 0 g 0 0 T e cdt / evi r e I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i f OI hrh u a EI TdwBs S C D F + + + i _yl%l h( hfj d l1

i

'l4 ll iil!4

w -,__a-,m _a u s t . *' s 4 N N ? ? ,I k i l I I t I + i b k } L i ? 3 m u i l

• • n==

( t i i o O D k \\ 0., e C l

Q Q

5 e i =% h i O e !O t 4 _4 3 i i 4 d v ) i i 5 + -y e i k j i l i i

17;n +.

I M +- ?

$$w$$. wd. w $ gimp %^ -.,$$, Th ti5.$..$. 7.i-m .,,ws.,,..,. dsEENUiS I ww4;.2-w.v. Q.w w. .v. l - - - ~- --> ggggL. :.jg;,x..yg I e l

. ~. .~ dn e ee n h vd o t e r p h iu hb t u o c g b ad e n r s s id e i a n d e e e n vr n p u it c e e an ni d l o. b rf e a eo i t p v lt n o e a o c. c i s h dit u c ea d. n e g a st o n e-ys r pe i om re a s R ag ss pl re v n ee p ea gc e t vh no hm c a r t i s. o hp on l o ~. ve t o nd cd C_ io n e en l c e s u l h wE do d i g rp nu eM uo oo d A dr ch tS br ir a p t t u pf e o u o s d ys l t a eier n r ag t yn e r r e t n sma e r et c r v x e u oirh Ee Dc C pc + + + gk[ G h}g i]"\\]p ang i 1 il. l 1 yh a! w d s e

I il;

j s tne n op m o c f s o t s x o k q ~ k 0 e C 0 0 3 r 0 k 5 f 1 5 k k x et + k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 k t i~ 4 3 3 3 1 1 5 an~ dU. pr. s k d Ue. r r a o s d P w n n l m o s a a a n i c g s t e t x i d a r /s /e i s r c u t e a f d n n i p d d t i e e o i t t y y n r c m s c T r a e o t c r p o e a i n s /g p u c p i l s e n e q a n m t i t e i i i a n a c / t t d d l i e a s e s r p r p e p e P U T U T S T + + + + + + + ~\\;n a ta }l l i $ h u s'$ i yg N s

l 4 '

. uaaWt ? ji fh l l l l

Role of ASME Code Committees 4 + Like all nationalstandards groups the role of an ASME code committee is not to serve the regulator role but rather to i provide suggested rules of good practice as an aid to )L owners and regulators I k + Code committees neitherapply criteria to determine substantial safety benefit nor criteria to determine if l implementation costs are commensurate with safety benefit k + Code committees are not regulators and should not be f7 compromised by requiring them to both regulate and s recommend bestpractices ^ i i + EOl's proposalpreserves the essential role of the code committees while restoring the regulatory responsibility to a the regulatoryprocess 9 m /*f,kj ho y b i i

"Related" Requirements of Respective Code Additions or Addenda j yg ,,g_,, -.. - - .g.f' 'm;," ,,,gj, j',- 4 p- -- :. h O a.Ad m/p/ s f.9,, + Definition Those requirements which 1) must be used togetherin order to achieve the assumed safety benefit, and 2) could result in \\ f an unassumed reduction in safety if separated. $$$ + Implementation ll g$$@; Ownerresponsibility j = Implementation not new j Repair / Replacement decisions (IWA 4170) j$pg! ReliefRequests ,i l& Requires knowledgeable and capable people to det. ermine "related" + Process Determine if code change is dependent on other code changes in order to work Determine if code change relaxationjustification is VG dependent on other code changes (e.g. scope, acceptance fjf criteria, frequency, methods, design rules, etc.) w

i l Relationship to State /ANI Requirements - - ~ ~. ~ d Effects ofproposed change on State /ANIrequirements have + no bearing on NRC approval of the change s i ti + EOI will carefully work out any State /ANIinterface needs 3 r a a r + State Each State is differentin approach For instance, the Mississippi Boiler and Pressure Vessel Act of 1974 exempted B&PVs licensed by NRC ah% + ANI dk+_[ ANII's reviews are to the licensee's applicable code @lf edition, addenda and code cases \\ At Grand Gulf, the ANIIsigns off on the ISI/Tprograms to (lh document ANII review of the programs mwl 4 .}}