ML081300688

03/05/2008 Meeting Minutes of Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal Regarding Wolf Creek Generating Station

ML081300688
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	05/09/2008
From:	Wen P Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Wen P
References
Download: ML081300688 (12)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, DC 20555 - 0001 May 9, 2008 MEMORANDUM TO: ACRS MEMBERS FROM: Peter Wen, Senior Staff Engineer /RA/

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

SUBJECT:

CERTIFICATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL REGARDING WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ON MARCH 5, 2008 - ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND The minutes of the subject meeting, issued on May 9, 2008 have been certified as the official record of the proceedings for that meeting. A copy of the certified minutes is attached.

Attachment:

As stated cc via e-mail: ACRS Staff Engineers S. Duraiswamy J. Flack

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, DC 20555 - 0001 MEMORANDUM TO: Peter Wen, Senior Staff Engineer ACRS FROM: J. Sieber, Chairman Plant License Renewal Subcommittee

SUBJECT:

CERTIFICATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL REGARDING WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ON MARCH 5, 2008, IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND I hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the minutes of the subject meeting on March 5, 2008, are an accurate record of the proceedings for that meeting.

______/RA/______________4/24/2008_______

J. Sieber, Chairman Date Plant License Renewal Subcommittee

Certified by: J. Sieber Issued on: May 9, 2008 On: April 24, 2008 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL REGARDING WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION MARCH 5, 2008, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND INTRODUCTION On March 5, 2008, the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal held a meeting regarding Wolf Creek Generating Station (Wolf Creek) in Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Wolf Creek application for license renewal and NRC staff review of it. In addition to the NRC staff, representatives from Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (the Wolf Creek operator and the licensee) made presentations to the Committee. The meeting was convened at 10:30 a.m. and adjourned around 3:20 p.m.

ATTENDEES ACRS Members John Sieber, Subcommittee Chairman Otto Maynard, Member William Shack, Member Mario Bonaca, Member Said Abdel-Khalik, Member John Stetkar, Member J. Barton (Consultant)

Maitri Banerjee (DFO)

Principal NRC Speakers P.T. Kuo, NRR L. Louise, NRR T. Tran, NRR K. Chang, NRR G. Wilson, NRR G. Pick, Region IV Wolf Creek Presenters T. Garrett E. Blocher L. Bell A. Turner L. Solorio D. Hooper Other Attendees NRC Staff Wolf Creek OTHER R. Frannich D. Huang P. Guevel D. Filchner R. Auluck L. Lois P. Crawley G. Stereus L. Smith P. Wen D. Dixon H. Hombuckle R. Matthew E. Dickson D. Gerber C. Myor E. Sayoc M. Heath R. Skhella G. Ecklolc K. Green G. Meyer M. Dingler T. Moser D. Nguyen G. Thomas T. Card D. Mannai S. Ray Q. Gan M. Berg G. Warner

NRC Staff OTHER OTHER S. Sakai R. Hernandez J. Woodsfield M. Fallin B. Rogers W. Koo D. Lach A. Aldridgo O. Yee C. Fairbanks M. Metell P. Soeuey E. Gettys V. Rodriguez J.Butler D. Berry D. Diec J. Keys J. Holbigh G. Young D. Stevens A. Cox C. Willson R. Stewart J. Caves The presentation slides and handouts used during the meeting are attached to the office copy of these minutes. The presentations to the Subcommittee are summarized below.

OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIRMAN SIEBER Chairman Sieber convened the meeting by introducing the ACRS members present.

Chairman Sieber stated that the purpose of the meeting was to review the Wolf Creek license renewal application, with particular focus on the open items in the staffs draft safety evaluation. He stated that the Subcommittee would hear presentations from representatives of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), and the applicant, Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation. He said the Subcommittee would gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed position and action, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee. The rules for participation in the meeting were announced as part of the notice of the meeting previously published in the Federal Register. Chairman Sieber acknowledged that the Committee had received no written statements or requests for time to make oral statements from members of the public.

DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS Staff Introduction and General Discussion on Open Items Dr. P.T. Kuo, Director of Division of License Renewal in NRR, introduced the NRC staff presenters and the management present. He made a general description on the five open items. He stated that two open items are related to station blackout (SBO) and three open items are related to metal fatigue issues.

Applicant Presentation Mr. Terry Garrett, Vice President Engineering for Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC), introduced the Wolf Creek team present at the meeting to support their presentation to ACRS. Mr. Garrett then started his presentation by describing the general information related to plant location, design, plant status, licensing history, and upgrades made to the plant over the years. Mr. Garrett also described a recent event of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) voids occurred at Wolf Creek. Mr. Garrett stated that Wolf Creek is an active member with the Strategic Teaming and Resource-Sharing Alliance (STARS). This alliance is formed to provide a cost and resource sharing and technical collaboration with its members in a fleet-like atmosphere. He also described the license renewal (LR) project, which utilized the

STARS Alliance plant aging management project team for development of Wolf Creek license renewal application (LRA). He stated that the LR commitments were tracked and updated on Wolf Creeks regulatory commitment management system. These commitments also were captured in the corrective action program to ensure implementation. He pointed out that the Wolf Creek LRA was prepared to address the Revision 1 of the Standard Review Plan for License Renewal and the NRCs Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) report, in addition to in-house and industry lessons learned findings. Out of the 39 aging management programs (AMPs), seven (7) new programs are required to be developed before the period of license renewal.

Mr. Eric Blocher, STARS Project Manager for License Renewal, started his presentation by describing Wolf Creek LRA AMP exceptions. There are 15 AMPs with exceptions.

He pointed out that these exceptions can be categorized into four groups. The first group, also the majority, involves the use of a different code or standard revision than that identified in the GALL Report. Examples in this group includes: ASME Section XI, ISI, and Flow-Accelerated Corrosion AMP. The second group involves conflicts between the Wolf Creek current licensing basis and the GALL Report. Examples in this group includes: reactor head closure studs, fuel oil chemistry, and halon system functional test in fire protection program. The third group involves plant-specific considerations. The fourth group involves alternate aging management considerations other than those identified in GALL Report, for example, close-cycle cooling water system AMP.

NRC Staff Presentation Mr. Tam Tran, the NRR License Renewal Project Manager for Wolf Creek, provided an overview of the staffs license renewal review. He stated that the staff found the applicants scoping and screening methodology meets the requirements pursuant to 10 CFR 54.4 and 54.21. The audit team activity determined that there are no omissions of systems, structures, or components in the scope of the LRA for Sections 2.1 and 2.2.

He stated that relative to mechanical systems and structures (Sections 2.3 and 2.4), the staff identified a number of components that were later brought within the scope by the applicant. As a result of the staff review, the LRA was amended. The staff concludes there are no omissions of mechanical systems and structures within the scope of license renewal. For Section 2.5, Scoping and Screening Results: Electrical and Instrumentation & Control Systems, he stated that the staff identified one open item, which is associated with the SBO recovery paths.

Mr. Greg Pick, team leader of the Region IV inspection team, provided a summary of Region IV inspection regarding the license renewal program scope and implementation of the aging management program. Mr. Pick stated that the inspection team concluded that the screening and scoping of the nonsafety-related systems, structures and components was implemented as required by the rule. He also stated that the aging management portions of the license renewal activities were conducted as described in the LRA and the on-site processes. Therefore, he concluded that these AMPs would be able to manage the effects of aging.

Mr. Tam Tran also presented the findings of the audit team and TLAA Section 4.2, Reactor Vessel Neutron Embrittlement Analyses. He stated as a result of the staffs audit and review, one open item was identified. The staff found that the underground medium voltage cable, from13.8 kV switcher to transformer, was not included in the

scope of license renewal. For reactor vessel neutron embrittlement analyses TLAA, he stated that the analyses met the review criteria in the Standard Review Plan.

SER Open Items There are five open items in the staffs safety evaluation report (SER).

1. Scoping and Screening Related to Station Blackout (SBO) Recovery Paths (Open Item 2.5-1)

Mr. Terry Garrett of WCNOC addressed the first open item, which is related to the station blackout scoping boundary. Mr. Garrett stated that the WCGS scoping of the plant system portion of the offsite power system is in accordance with the SBO rule and past NRC license renewal practice (ISG-2). He believed that a plants current licensing basis (CLB) is a primary focus of Wolf Creek scoping activities because the plants CLB defines the means by which licensees comply with the SBO rule. He stated that the NRC staff is requiring inclusion of switchyard circuit breakers at transmission voltage to be included in the scope of license renewal. He stated that Wolf Creek does not rely on these switchyard circuit breakers to cope with the SBO event. Therefore, he believed that the staffs requirement is beyond the Wolf Creek CLB, and believed that the circuit breakers at transmission voltage need not be included in the scope of license renewal.

Mr. Luis Solorio, Senior Electrical Design Engineer for WCNOC then used a simplified, electrical, one-line diagram to describe the WCGS offsite power distribution system. He pointed out that SBO boundary at WCGS, as stated in the original LRA, is at disconnect switches 345-163, 13-21, and 13-23 (Wolf Creeks Presentation Slide#24.) He described Wolf Creeks switchyard, which is comprised of two 345 kV buses (i.e., West bus and East bus), with three breaker strings (total 8 breakers) connecting between them. He described the Wolf Creeks two SBO recovery paths, the protection of downstream safety circuits for both recovery paths, and the plant operator control to energize and de-energize safety circuits. Mr. Solorio stated that Wolf Creek is proposing to include the underground cable from the normally closed disconnect switch 13-23 up to and including the transformer breaker 13-48 to be within the scope of license renewal.

However, he stated that the staffs position for including breakers between the two 345 kV buses to be in the scope of the license renewal for SBO recovery is not consistent with the guidance originally issued in ISG-2.

Member Stetkar asked what is the technical basis for drawing the interface line of the SBO boundary. Mr. Roy Matthew, the NRR staff in Division of Engineering, replied that the license renewal rule requires the applicant to comply with the provisions of SBO rule.

The rule was written based on the technical information available at the time, which took into consideration for (a) the coping time needed to bring up the power to the switchyard breaker and (b) maintaining the power to the bus during the coping period. He stated that the breakers should be included in the scope of SBO recovery boundary. He also stated that this position was again stated in the recent staff issued ISG for public comments. This 3/5/2008 version of the ISG-2 clarifies the previous ISG statement.

Chairman Sieber and Members Stetkar and Maynard asked which particular breakers should be included in the SBO boundary and why the proposed Wolf Creek revised input does not meet the license renewal SBO requirement.

Mr. George Wilson, Branch Chief of Electrical Branch in Division of Engineering, NRR, replied that the original scoping of the SBO recovery path in the Wolf Creek LRA covered only up to the point before the transformer. The revised Wolf Creek SBO recovery configuration was just presented during this meeting. Once the staff receiving the formal proposal, the staff will review it. He also stated that the staff did not ask the applicant to include all the breakers, between the East bus and West bus, to be included within in the scope of license renewal.

Member Stetkar and Mr. Barton asked which organization controls the operation of the breakers along with the stability and reliability related questions for the break control.

Mr. Solorio replied that the particular breaker was owned by Westar Energy, but Wolf Creek has a written agreement with Westar Energy on maintenance and operating activities performed on the breakers.

Chairman Sieber and Member Maynard commented that this issue appears to be a legal issue; the applicant and the staff need to work together to come to a resolution that is satisfactory to both and meeting the SBO rule.

2. In accessible Medium Voltage Cable Related to SBO Recovery Paths (Open Item 3.0.3.1.10-1)

The second open item involved the inaccessible medium voltage cable. Mr. Luis Solorio stated that in the original Wolf Creek LRA, the inaccessible medium voltage cable beyond disconnect 13-23 was not included in the scope of license renewal. He stated that Wolf Creek is revising the SBO boundary, and the revised boundary will include disconnect switches 345-163, 13-21, 13-23, and equipment beyond 13-23 through breaker 13-48, the No. 7 Transformer, and disconnect switch 345-167. The revised boundary will be up to the East and West switchyard bus connection points.

Mr. Roy Matthew and Ms. Louise Lund of the NRR staff stated that the staff will review the applicants revised proposal regarding the inclusion of the underground cable to be within the scope of the license renewal.

The remaining three open items are related to metal fatigue issues.

Dr. Arthur Turner, License Renewal Technical Lead for WCNOC, described Wolf Creeks Fatigue Monitoring Program. He stated that this program use a computer software to monitor the design transients cycles and to calculate the cumulative usage factors (CUFs). He stated that there are two approaches to calculate the CUFs: cycle-based usage factor calculation and stress-based usage factor calculation. He explained that the cycle-based method assumes that each cycle experienced by the plant has the same severity as defined by the design basis, and that CUF is obtained by multiplying the number of cycles accrued with the fatigue usage per cycle, which is found in the original design calculations. On the other hand, he said that the stress-based usage factor calculation involves calculating the fatigue usage using the actual plant parameters (including temperature and pressure) and, therefore, may not have the same severity as the design basis.

Dr. Turner stated for locations where the environmental effects of fatigue need not be considered, Wolf Creek is able to demonstrate that they are within the design basis by

simply counting the cycles; no need to perform either cycle-based usage factor calculation or stress-based usage factor calculation. He then described how Wolf Creek considered the effects of the reactor coolant environment at selected seven locations in accordance with NUREG/CR-6260. He stated that reactor vessel lower head to shell juncture, which is one of the seven locations, needs not be monitored because the expected 60-year fatigue usage factor is less than one. He stated that the usage factors for the remaining six locations need be tracked either by cycle-based fatigue monitoring or by stress-based fatigue monitoring. He stated that the cycle-based fatigue monitoring was used to track fatigue usage for four locations: the RPV inlet nozzles, the RPV outlet nozzles, the safety injection nozzles, and the accumulator safety injection and RHR connection nozzles. He stated that the stress-based fatigue monitoring was used to track the fatigue usage for the remaining two locations: the surge line hot leg nozzle and the charging and alternate charging nozzles.

Currently, the NRC staff disagrees with Wolf Creeks stress-based fatigue monitoring approach, which uses 1-D virtual stress methodology. The disagreement arises in the areas of: (1) the compliance of stress-based fatigue monitoring methodology with ASME Code, NB-3200 and (2) the accuracy of baseline CUF value.

3. Stress Based Monitoring Methodology (Open Item 4.3-1)

Dr. Turner described the stress based monitoring methodology. He stated that Wolf Creeks methodology is designed to be fully compliant with the intent of the ASME code (NB-3200). This methodology took advantage of the symmetry of the analyzed components and knowledge of the types of loads. Wolf Creek uses 1-D scalar parameter in lieu of six stress tensors as described in NB-3200. He stated that although this is a simplified methodology, it is also conservative.

Dr. Turner stated that 1-D virtual stress methodology is applied to some specific locations only. It is used at the inside surface of nozzle near the pipe-to-nozzle connection, where the geometry is cylindrical. At this location, the inside surface is a free surface, subjected to no shear stresses. He stated that to account for the axisymmetric nature of the bending load, the calculation was performed around the circumference where the bending stress is expected to be at maximum. The thermal stresses are calculated by using the green function methodology and one-dimentional heat transfer model. He stated that the maximum stresses from these loads (pressure, bending, and thermal), at different but closely spaced locations, are then combined to give a stress value that is conservative for fatigue evaluation.

Dr. Abdel-Khalik questioned why this methodology would be reasonable at the junction of a nozzle with a large component.

Dr. Turner replied that all analyzed locations, using this methodology, are located well away from the junction between the branch pipe and the run pipe. The analyzed locations are at the nozzle safe end where the thickness of the nozzle is close to the wall thickness of the pipe. He stated that these locations were selected based on Wolf Creeks design stress analysis.

Dr. Chang of the NRR staff stated that Wolf Creeks selecting of the right locations for analysis is in question. He stated that Wolf Creeks design analysis was performed at time when the environment effects were not needed to be considered. The new criteria

associated with the environment effects may shift the worst location in the fatigue analysis. He stated that based on his review of other license renewal applications, the worst location had been seen in other location such as nozzle corner or blend radius area.

Dr. Abdel-Khalik asked the choice of the locations and its justification for which the analyses have been made.

Dr. Turner replied that Wolf Creek may need to resolve this issue through benchmarking, thereby performing addition calculations with extended portion of the pressure boundary.

In addition to the above issue (whether the applicant has analyzed the right location), Dr.

Chang of the NRR staff, stated that the staff questioned the validity of the 1-D virtual stress methodology. Dr. Turner stated that some sort of benchmarking calculations, using finite element analysis, may be needed to resolve this issue.

Dr. Shack asked how to judge the validity of the simplified 1-D model.

Dr. Turner replied that his understanding of the staffs position is that the staff is only looking for a site-specific benchmarking. Dr. Chang added that the staff is only talking about benchmarking the application to the particular plant configuration, not benchmarking the computer code.

Dr. Abdel-Khalik asked how would the benchmarking answer the question of whether or not the worst point was picked.

Dr. Turner replied that by performing 3-D finite element analysis with extended detail, thus will be able to identify where the maximum stresses are. The extended detail may include either the entire nozzle and run pipe or at least a portion of the run pipe.

Regarding the worst locations, Dr. Shack asked whether the applicant needs to redo the analyses to determine these locations. Dr. Chang of the NRR staff replied that the staff is only looking for the locations identified in NUREG/CR-6260. However, because the nozzle is a component, it could have three locations: pipe to nozzle weld, safe end, and blend radius region. Dr. Turner stated that the locations identified by NUREG/CR-6260, were only termed as nozzle. It doesnt say where on the nozzle that should be evaluated. He stated that he believe that the Wolf Creek methodology is conservative for those specific locations they picked.

Dr. Chang of the staff stated that to resolve the different opinions on benchmarking issue, the applicant will be requested to perform ASME Code NB-3200 analysis without using Greens function or transfer function. The analysis is expected to be applied to the surge line nozzle and the charging nozzles.

4. Baseline CUF (Open Item 4.3-3)

Dr. Turner described the original Wolf Creek baseline CUF calculations. He stated that Wolf Creek has been using a data acquisition system, as a part of its Fatigue Monitoring Program to calculate the stress-based CUF value for certain components. To account for the baseline CUF value, which is the CUF accrued prior to monitoring by the data acquisition system, Dr. Turner stated that a backward projection method was used. This

methodology uses almost ten years of data from operation of the data acquisition system. He agreed with the staffs assessment that this backward projection may not be conservative, because some cycles only occurred early in plant life, which were not picked up by the data acquisition system.

Dr. Turner stated that Wolf Creek has recounted the transients that were listed in the baseline calculation, with more accurate information. However, he stated that the issue related to the fatigue usage factor at the surge line hot leg nozzle due to thermal stratification has not been resolved. Wolf Creek is working to resolve this issue.

Dr. Chang stated that Wolf Creek has implemented Modified Operation Procedure, which essentially eliminated the insurge transients. The staffs concern is that the backward projection method did not properly account for the number of such transient occurred during the period before monitoring.

Dr. Abdel-Khalik asked how to recover that old data.

Dr. Chang responded that it can be done by reviewing the operating log, charts, and operating history. He mentioned that Beaver Valley is also trying to recover the data.

5. Fatigue Analyses (Open Item 4.3)

ASME Code Section NG specifies the fatigue analysis of reactor vessel internals needs to consider high cycle fatigue effects. This information of high cycle effects contribution to the overall fatigue usage was not available to the staff during the time when the staff was on-site. Dr. Turner stated that Wolf Creek has since received this information from Westinghouse.

In addition, Dr. Turner also stated that Wolf Creek has also received the reactor coolant sample line fatigue analysis, which properly assumed the thermal cycle count for allowable secondary stress range reduction factor per ASME Code Section III, Class 2 component. This information was also not available when the staff was on-site.

Dr. Shack asked whether the high cycle contributes virtually nothing to overall fatigue usage. Dr. Turner replied: yes. He explained that the majority of fatigue usage for the core support components comes from gamma heating. The stresses from gamma heating are worst in massive components, which dont experience high cycle effects.

Chairman Sieber asked if these issues are resolved.

Both Dr. Turner of Wolf Creek staff and Dr. Chang of the NRR staff agreed that these issues could be closed, when the staff has opportunity to review the documents.

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS Scoping

• Mr. Barton of the ACRS asked why the condensate storage tank is not in scope for license renewal, yet the foundation and valve house are in scope. Mr.

Blocher of Wolf Creek staff replied that the condensate storage tank is in scope, and is covered in the mechanical section.

• Mr. Barton of the ACRS asked why it is okay to leave a crack in the concrete block masonry wall in the inaccessible area of the turbine building and what kind of monitoring is being done. He also asked what the function the wall is serving.

Mr. George Thomas of the NRR staff responded that the wall serves as a fire barrier. Chairman Seiber asked whether the wall should be within the scope of license renewal. The staff did not have a complete answer for these questions.

Dr. P.T. Kuo of the NRR staff stated that the staff will come back to the Committee with a complete response.

AMP

• Dr. Bonaca asked the staffs rational for approving the applicants exception to the AMP of Bolting Integrity Program. Specifically, for the RPV studs, he noted that as recommended by the GALL report, the loss of pre-load is a parameter that needs to be monitored. He asked the staff why monitoring leakage in lieu of monitoring loss of pre-load is acceptable. The staff did not have a complete answer to the question. Dr. P.T. Kuo of the NRR staff stated that the staff will come back to the Committee with a complete response.

• Related to adequate performance monitoring for the heat exchangers supplied by the CCW system, Member Stetkar and Dr. Abdel-Khalik asked the staff why monitoring the performance of CCW heat exchange is an adequate proxy method to infer the RHR heat exchanger performance. The staff did not provide sufficient information. Dr. P.T. Kuo of the NRR staff stated that the staff will come back to the Committee with a complete response.

SBO/Inaccessible Medium Voltage Cable

• Mr. Barton of the ACRS had a concern on water was found in the manhole, where medium voltage cable is located. Mr. Pick of the Region IV staff responded that although the submerged cable issue is a current licensing basis issue, as far as license renewal is concerned, NRC Region IV will evaluate it again within two years of the period of extended operation. Wolf Creek is expected to make sure that, through its corrective action process, the manholes are dry.

TLAA

• Regarding the secondary system hydrostatic test, which had already been performed four times up through 2005, Mr. Barton of the ACRS asked why this transient will not be experienced over the remaining years of plant operation. Dr.

Turner, replied that Wolf Creek will not perform that test anymore. Dr. Chang of the staff supplemented the information, and stated that the requirement to perform this test is exempt by ASME Code Case N-498 and N-416.

Other

• Regarding the staffs presentation on applicants groundwater samples (Slide#17), which showed the sulfates concentration jumping from 30 ppm to 717

pm within one year. Dr. Abdel-Khalik asked the staff whether it has concern on this information. Ms. Louis Lund of NRR staff replied that the readings were taken to establish license renewal baseline information, it is not meant to be trending. Mr. Dan Hoang of NRR staff supplemented the information and stated that the data taken in 2006 which showed a high value, was taken in the winter time at a particular well near the road.

• Member Maynard commented that Wolf Creek license renewal application is one of the best submittal, including the USAR, from the perspective of its ability and easiness to find needed information. He was appreciated that the electronic copy employed the hyperlink techniques that really helped search and retrieval information.

SUBCOMMITTEE DECISIONS AND ACTIONS Following the staff and applicant presentations and discussions, Chairman Sieber asked members if they had additional issues, concerns that needed to be discussed. Other than those issues described above, no additional issues were identified. He asked members if interim letter was needed. All the members agreed that no interim letter was needed. He then adjourned the meeting by thanking everyone attending the meeting.

BACKGROUND MATERIALS PROVIDED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE

1. WCNOC License Renewal Application for Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1, dated October 4, 2006

2. Draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER) with Open Items, dated February 1, 2008

3. NRC License Renewal Inspection Report 05000482/2007007, dated December 5, 2007

4. Audit Summary Report for Plant Aging Management Reviews and Programs for Wolf Creek Generating Station, dated February 14, 2008

NOTE:

Additional details of this meeting can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, (301) 415-7000, downloading or view on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/ can be purchased from Neal R.

Gross and Co., 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 234-4433 (voice), (202) 387-7330 (fax), nrgross@nealgross.com (e-mail).