Prior to this presentation, Rob noted that this presentation was not included in the handout, but will be put on the ftp site. Rob also asked that the base case team provide him in an electronic format with any references that they used so that the references can be put on the ftp site.

It was first noted that we have not been successful in locating additional failure data for several of the components where we were lacking data. Fred Simonen had spoken with Spencer Bush and was not able to locate additional data. Rob and others were also somewhat unsuccessful.

Based on the leak rate versus opening area from one of the prior presentations, Pete Riccardella questioned if we needed multiple failures for the heater sleeves as shown in slide 3 in Rob’s presentation. Bruce Bishop indicated that thermal fatigue needed to be added to the degradation mechanisms for vessel

head bolts (slide 4). Rob indicated that these tables are not filled in completely at the present time. These tables are neither comprehensive nor as complete as the piping component table. We focused more on the piping issues at the kick off meeting than we did on the non-piping issues.

For all of the major groups, we initially listed at least one component (bolded item in the original non­piping tables in presentation and kick-off meeting notes document) where the panel thought that failure (leaks or cracks) data is available. It was thought that these bolded items represented potential non­piping base cases for anchoring. If these non-piping base cases can’t be develop, then we will have to use a piping base case for anchoring. As Bruce Bishop indicated earlier that would be an unnatural comparison, making it somewhat difficult. The question was asked how we develop these non-piping base cases. It was thought that areas where we could come up with passive-system failure data, e. g., steam generator tubes, would be logical first choices. It was thought that data on steam generator tube failures should be easy developed.

Bruce Bishop indicated that there was an INEEL NUREG report by Vic Shah that has piping and non­piping failure data that could possibly be used for base cases. Obviously, this would be a good place to start. It was noted though that this INEEL report is for PWRs only, and the steam generator tube failure data will be included in this report. Bill Galyean and Rob Tregoning are to locate and distribute copies of this report to the panel members.

Pete Riccardella volunteered to run a base case analysis for feedwater nozzles and the belt line region for the RPV due to LTOP. Pete thought he could have some analysis results by the end of the month. These would be for BWRs and will be done using predetermined flaw distributions. Note, to date there have only been cracks, there have been no leaks to date.

Another potential non-piping base case for anchoring is the PTS study for the belt line region of the RPV. This would be for PWRs. Rob Tregoning will extract this data. Gery Wilkowski noted that we should use caution in using the PTS results and should only use the contribution from non-pipe break transients to ensure that the comparison is consistent. In a related action, Bruce Bishop volunteered to provide a Westinghouse nozzle study for PWRs and will also provide PWR vessel failure probability for areas outside the beltline region covered by the PTS study.

Pete Riccardella suggested classifying the alloy 600 penetrations as non-piping failures for consistency with other nozzles. A suggestion was made to move the in-cores and CRDMs to the non-piping category. Fred Simonen suggested putting them all under a separate category called vessel penetrations, with a separate bin for RPVs and pressurizers. Karen Gott and Pete Riccardella are to create a base case for penetrations using the CRDM data based on a prior MRP study. Rob Tregoning will move all the vessel penetrations from piping to the vessel bin and supply updated tables.

Bengt Lydell has a non-piping data base that he will query by end of the month. He will also query the IRS data base (Incident Reporting System by INEA) by end of the month. Note the IRS database only includes data countries chose to include. It was also noted that MITI and NUPEC (both in Japan) have a data base for non-piping components. The NRC supposedly has a copy of this database. Rob will check into relevancy and availability. Bill Galyean volunteered to examine his database to see any relevant non­piping events, i. e., stream generator tube rupture statistics, incidents of bolting connections, etc., by the end of the month. Rob will be the conduit for getting the results from the various individuals searching the databases out to the rest of the group. Results will be posted to the ftp site and more important items will be bulk emailed to the panel.

The question was asked if the panel members could take home the modified tables for the pressurizer, RPV, pumps, valves, and steam generators and fill them out and return them back to Rob within two weeks. Rob will modify these non-piping tables (Tables B.1.7 and B.1.8 from the First Elicitation Minutes) with the additions made during the second meeting discussions and send them out to the panel members. Each panel member is to modify these non-piping tables and get them back to Rob Tregoning.

Fred Simonen has an electronic version of the GALL report (Generic Aging Lessons Learned) which identifies the key degradation mechanisms that could be used to help fill out these tables. Fred will extract the relevant tables to be used in identifying the key degradation mechanisms.