Text

NRC-2018-000831 - Resp 9 - Interim, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed, Part 4 of 5
	ML20365A052
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/22/2020
From:	; NRC/OCIO
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20365A047	List: ML20365A048; ML20365A049; ML20365A050; ML20365A051; ML20365A052; ML20365A053;
References
	FOIA, NRC-2018-000831
	Download: ML20365A052 (190)
	v • d • e

From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:20 :51 -0400 To: Hull, Amy;Frankl, Istvan Cc: Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Efforts June NRC-lndustry materia ls mtg 5-28-15 mah.abh .pptx All:

Please just let me know when this is final so that I can send it to NRR for placing in ADAMS.

Thanks ,

Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor fo r Materi als US Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission 21 Church Street, M/S CS-5A24 Rockville, MD 20850 ph : 301-251-7662 Blackberry: .... -_ _-__ _ -__ _ _. . .

_J{p)(6) fax : 301-25 1-7425 From: Hull, Amy Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:03 AM To: Frankl, I stvan Cc: Tregon ing, Robert; Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

Harvesting Efforts June NRC-I ndustry materials mtg 5-28-15 mah.abh .pptx We have made changes suggested. I will drop the 390 form off for you now.

From: Frankl, Ist van Sent: Fri, 29 May 2015 10:03:42 -0400 To: Tregoning, Robert;Hiser, Matthew;Hull, Amy Subject : RE: Harvesting Efforts June NRC-lndustry materials mtg 5-28-15 mah.abh.pptx Rob, This presentation can be put in the public ADAMS as is. The document in ADAMS can be replaced if we can fix slide 15 on Monday.

Thanks, Steve From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:03 AM To: Hiser, Matthew; Hull, Amy; Frankl, Istvan

Subject:

Re: Harvesting Efforts June NRC-I ndustry materials mtg 5-28-15 mah.abh.pptx Matt:

Can I go ahead and put this version in ADAMS? We can still use the clean version for the presentation on Wednesday.

Rob Sent from an NRC Blackberry Robert Tregoning I .... J (b}(fl} _.

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 09:39 AM To: Hull, Amy; Frankl, Istvan Cc: Tregoning, Robert

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Efforts June NRC-Industry materials mtg 5-28-15 mah.abh.pptx Hi Rob, Steve, Amy, I have made the changes in accordance with Kathy's comments as relayed by Steve in the attached PP. One final tweak Amy and I will try to make on Monday is to Slide 15 - if we can clean up the source slide from DOE, just so the information comes through clearly.

Thanks!

Matt From: Hull, Amy Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 10:03 AM

To: Frankl, Istvan Cc: Tregoning, Robert; Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

Harvesting Efforts June NRC-lndustry materials mtg 5-28-15 mah .abh.pptx We have made changes suggested. I will drop the 390 form off for you now.

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:58:23 +0000 To: Lyon, Fred

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Materials from Fort Calhoun Great, thanks Fred! My contact has been with Kristen Jacobsen at OPPD.

I will let you know if I need anything - just wanted to make sure there weren't any surprises if something got mentioned to you or the residents/region.

Thanks!

Matt From: Lyon, Fred Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 7:36 PM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew. Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Materials from Fort Calhoun Thanks for the info, Matt. Please let me know who your engineering contact is at FCS, so that if his name comes up with my licensing contact, I' ll know who it is. Otherwise, just let me know if you need anything. Fred From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 12:39 PM To: Lyon, Fred <Fred .Lyon@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Harvesting Materials from Fort Calhoun Hi Fred, I am a materials engineer in the Office of Research and am involved in a project to look into opportunities to harvest materials from decommissioning plants. I have been working with Bob Hardies (an SL in NRR/DE), who is retiring today.

Through Bob's contacts at Exelon, we reached out to an engineer at Fort Calhoun to inquire about what components they may have available for harvesting from Fort Calhoun, particularly from the vessel and internals. We have had one phone call with their vessel and internals engineer to discuss what materials they have in their vessel and internals. On this call, Bob and I made it very clear that this was purely an information-gathering exercise for research purposes and they were under no obligation to provide any information.

As the NRC PM for Fort Callhoun, I wanted to make you aware of this contact with Fort Calhoun and the potential for some further interaction to discuss harvesting possibilities at Fort Calhoun.

Please advise if there is anything I should be aware of with reaching out to my contact at Fort Calhoun.

Thanks!

Matt

Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch Phone: 301-415-2454 1Office: TWFN 10D62 Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov

From: Doutt, Clifford Sent: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 17:55:08 -0500 To: Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

RE: Harvesting meeting placeholder Hi Matt, Thanks - - will do.

Cliff From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 4 :08 PM To: Doutt, Clifford <Clifford.Doutt@nrc.gov>; Abogunde, Maryann <Maryann.Abogunde@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting meeting placeholder Hi Cliff, For this working group, we were piloting focusing on metallic components. I think our goal will be to expand to electrical and structural components over time.

So it probably won't make as much sense to attend at this point, but it would be good to talk to Roger and stay in the loop. He can share with you where we are heading and hopefully we can really expand as time goes on.

Thanks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch Phone: 301-415-2454 I Office: TWFN 10D62 Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov From: Doutt, Clifford Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 3:53 PM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Abogunde, Maryann <Maryann.Abogunde@nr c.gov>

Subject:

Harvesting meeting placeholder Hi Mat thew, Roger forwarded the meeting place holder to me. I t hought I would check and see whether you wanted DLR electrical at the meeting or is this for none components?

Thanks,

Cliff From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Tue, 15 May 2018 18 :36:13 +0000 To: Purtscher, Patri ck

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Meeting Pre p/ Al ignment Hi Pat, will you be attending or should we call you?

Thanks!

Matt

Original Appointment-----

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Monday, May 07, 2018 4:09 PM To: Hiser, Matthew; Purtscher, Patrick; Tregoning, Robert; Audrain, Margaret

Subject:

Harvesting Meeting Prep/ Alignment When: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:30 PM -4:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: T10D40 Prep/ Alignment for meeting with electrical/ concrete folks the following day.

Note to requester: Attachment is immediately following . The box with the red X in the first email is the PDF attachment (PDF Adobe icon and the file name) imbedded into the body of the email.

From: Moyer, Carol Sent: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 07:56:02 -0400 To: Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Attachments: PLiM 2017 guidelines.pdf Hi Matt, Thank you for doing this. I will take a look at the content for possible suggested improvements. In the meantime, you should review the style guide sent from PLiM, and consider some formatting changes in your file (headers, e.g.).

-Carol From: Hiser, Matthew Sent : Wednesday, October 18, 2017 4:44 PM To: Tregon ing, Robert <Robert.Tregon ing@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy. Hull@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Pu rtscher@nrc.gov>; Ramu hal li, Pradeep (Pradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov)

<Pradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov>

Cc: Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>;

Moyer, Carol <Carol.Moyer @nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants

<< File: IAEA PLiM Hiser 10-18-2017.docx >>

Hi Rob, Amy, Pat, Pradeep, I have adapted our previous poster/ presentation into a paper (attached) on very short notice. The deadline for PLiM papers is technically today, but given the extremely late notice, hopefully they can live with receiving it early next week following staff and management review here.

If you can possibly take a look at this by tomorrow (Thursday) or Friday and provide any feedback, that would be gireat.

I still need to clean up the references section, so don't mind the very casual state of it now. I'll clean that up tomorrow hopefully ...

Thanks!

Matt

Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch Phone: 301-415-2454 I Office: TWFN 10D62 Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:41 PM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol <Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>

Cc: Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants

<< File: NRC PliM slides on Harvesting.pptx >>

Hi Rob, Amy, Pat, Here's is my adaptation of the poster info (along with some additional insights from the workshop) into slides for PLiM.

Please feel free to comment and edit freely. Ideally, we'd like to have these mostly agreed on at a technical level by COB tomorrow (Wednesday) to be able to discuss with NRR on Thursday and enter into management review and concurrence.

Thanks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office ofNuclcar Regulatoiy Research Division of Engineering I Corrosio n and Metallurgy Branch Phone: 301-4 I 5-24541 Office: TWFN I 0D62 Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 8:32 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol

<Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj

<Raj.lyengar@nrc.gov>

Cc: Thomas, Brian <Brian.Thomas@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>;

Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Allen:

Thanks for the head's up and for offering to make a presentation on this for RES. We're targeting to put together a 20 minute presentation on harvesting that we can discuss with you on Thursday morning. We'll also cover your points 2 and 3 at that time.

Cheers, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:27 AM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol <Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj

<Raj.lyengar@nrc.gov>

Cc: Thomas, Brian <Brian.Thomas@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Importance: High Another twist to the harvesting paper/presentation/poster for the PLiM conference.

I am willing to make a presentation at this "side event" if RES will put together slides - I would shoot for 20 minutes.

A couple of questions on this topic:

1. Can RES pull together a presentation in the next day or two, that we can discuss Thursday AM?

2. Has a paper been prepared (it appears from below that this is possible for inclusion in the conference proceedings)? If so, can I get a copy of it, or other background information.

3. When will the poster be available to be mailed to Lyon? (Can I get a copy of what it will look like?)

I am sure that other questii ons will arise.

Allen

Original Message-----

From: KANG , Ki-Sig [mailto:K.S.Kang@iaea.org1 Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:17 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen .Hiser@nrc.gov>

Cc: KHAELSS, Martina <M .Khaelss@iaea.org>; KRIVANEK, Robert

<R.Krivanek@iaea.org>; 4th PLiM Conference - Contact Point <4th-PLiM-Conferen ce. Contact-Poi nt@iaea.org >

Subject:

[External_Sender] Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants

Dear Allen,

Regarding " Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants", now this paper will be presented on poster session in programme.

I think all of participants will be very interesting to this topic. But we have no time slot to present in oral session. Thus I recommend to arrange a side event to introduce this topic from 13:20 -14:00 on 24, Oct (Tuesday) if you want.

We can arrange the meeting room for presentation and discussion. Please think about and let me know.

Ki- Sig KANG Technical Head (PLiM/LTO)

Nuclear Power Engineering Section Division of Nuclear Power International Atomic Energy Agency Tel: +43 1 2600 22796 Fax: +43 1 2600 29598 E-mail: Ki-Sig.KANG@iaea.org

This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy , use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

AUTHOR and OTHER-AUTHOR L t hand pt *1.. runnm h ts uth01 n 11

I c tr l r 11 .,_ n o uthor._ " 1..:

.I IH( IL.al.

PAPER TITLE IN TIMES NEW ROMAN 12 POINT BOLD CAPITALS, INDENTED BY 1 cm WITH NO MORE THAN 40 CHARACTERS PER LINE INCLUDING SPACES Subtitle if needed in Times New Roman 12 point bold italic, sentence case A.N. AUTHOR Organization Town/City, Country Email: address@correspondingauthor.com A.N. OTHER-AUTHOR Organization Town/City, Country Abstract This is an example of how to fom1at an abstract. The title is Times New Roman 10 point bold, indented by I cm. The text is Times New Roman 9 point, with a first line indent of I cm. The abstract is a single paragraph which may be up to 300 words long. It should not contain information not included in the paper. The abstract may not contain references, equations or the word 'we'. Write 'the paper', not ' this paper'.

I. INTRODUCTION This is an example of how a paper for the Proceedings Series should be fonnatted. The text above shows how the running head, title, subtitle (if applicable), author names and affiliations, and abstracts should be fonnatted. The heading immediately above this paragraph is a first level paper heading; it is Times New Roman 10 point regular capitals. The body text of the paper is Times New Roman 10 point regular, with a first line indent of I cm.

Please use these examples to format your paper. Applying the styles saved in this document to your text should fonnat it correctly. Your word processing software may also contain a tool such as a ' format painter' that will enable you to copy the formatting from the example text to your own text. Al ternatively, the information given in this template should enable to select the correct format for each section.

2. ORIGINALITY, COPYRIGHT AN D PUBLICATION The text of a pape r submitted to this conference must be -original and must not have been published elsewhere previously. All papers will be scanned to ensure origina lity; if they are found to contain non-original text, only their abstract will be included in the proceedings.

If text or images included in the paper have been published elsewhere, the paper must be accompanied by evidence that permission has been given for the reuse. If no such evidence is supplied, only the abstract will be inc luded in the proceedings. In addition, text must be properly cited and images properly acknowledged.

Papers will only be included in the proceedings if the IAEA Form B has been submitted prior to the conference. If the Form B is not received, only the abstract may be included in the proceedings, but this may also be omitted.

3. HEADINGS AND SUBHEADINGS If you need to subdivide the sections of your paper, use the headings shown below. You can use second and third level paper headings. To subdivide further, please use lists numbered (a), (b), and so on, but this is usually not necessary in a paper of normal length.

IAEA-C -1 23/45 1 t h d ,a u 1 n' h 1' ts t c pJp 1n I 1 ~ \\ 1 n p I t oln l: tpit I . c tn: l 3.1. Second level paper heading A second level paper heading is Times New Roman IO point bold, in sentence case.

3.1. I. Third level paper heading A third level paper heading is Times New Roman 10 point italic, in sentence case.

4. PAGE AND SECTION BREAKS If you need to move a heading to the following page, please use a page break (usually found in word processing software under the 'insert/page break' menu. Please do not press return several times to move text onto a new page.

5. TABLES Tables must be numbered consecutively and include a table heading. There is no full stop at the end of the heading. lAEA style is to use table borders and lines sparingly. Tables must be mentioned (called out) in the text and should be inserted foUowing the end of the paragraph in wlhich they are mentioned, or on the next page if there is not enough space. Tables are fonnatted in Times New Roman 9 point regular. For an example, see Table I.

TABLE l. EXAMPLE TABLE Column I Column 2 Column 3 Align text left Centre text Centre text Align text left Centre text Centre text

6. FIGURES The figures you use in your publication must be original. Jfthey have been published elsewhere (even in other papers authored by you or one of your co-authors) they cannot be used unless a pem1ission is obtained and sent with the paper.

The figures must be numbered consecutively and mentioned in the text in the order in which they are numbered, using the abbreviation Fig. They should be inserted into the paper without a border and immediately below the paragraph in which they are mentioned, or on the next page if there is no space. They should have a caption, which is set in Times New Roman 9 point italic; the caption should be centred if it is a single line or aligned left if it is two lines or more long. An example of a caption can be seen below Fig. I. Note the capitalization of 'Fig.' in the figure caption.

7. REFERENCES In accordance with good academic practice, reference sources should be cited in the text to support the assertions it contains. IAEA style is to use numbered references in square brackets. There are different formats for sources such as books [I), internal reports [2), personal communication [3), unpublished data [4), single chapters from books [5], journal articles [6], websites and on-line databases [7], papers from a proceedings [8],

presentations including slides and handouts [9], and INFCIRCs [10]. Sources 'in preparation' or 'in press' use these terms in place of the year. Titles are given in their original languages if these use Latin alphabets, or translated into English for languages that do not use Latin alphabets. Please see the reference list below for examples of how to format the sources numbered [ 1-1 1). The text in the reference list is Times New Roman 9 poini regular.

AUTHOR and OTHER-AUTHOR L t hand pt *1.. runnm h ts uth01 n 11

I c tr l r 11 .,_ n o uthor._ " 1..:

.I IH( IL.al.

Section I Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 FIG. I. Chari showing the number of words in each section of this e,,;ample paper.

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY A bibliography is an optional section. If a source is not cited in the text but may nevertheless be of interest to the reader, it can be included in a bibliography, which follows the reference list. Sources that appear in the reference list should not be included in the bibliography. Please see the example bibliography at the end of this paper. The text in the bibliography is Times New Roman 9 point regular.

9. FURTHER INFORMATION 9.1. Author affiliation Put the email address after the affiliation of the corresponding author, whether he or she is the first author or not. Please put the name of the authors' organization(s) in English. Do not give the organization's street address or postal code. For international organizations, no country is given. Please use the name of the country as it is given in the IAEA Member State list (for example, use ' Russian Federation', not ' Russia').

ff there is a long list of author names and some of them are from the same organizations or same States, please seek advice from the conference organizer on how to format such a list to save space.

9,2. Bulleted lists If you use a bulleted list in your paper, please format it as below:

First bullet point; Section bullet point; Third bullet point.

If you need to use subpoints, please use this format:

First bullet point.

Section bullet point.

First subpoint;

Second subpoint.

Third bullet point.

Please note the punctuation at the end of the points.

3

IAEA-C -1 23/45 1 t h d ,a u 1 n' h 1' ts t c pJp 1 n I 1 ~ \\ 1 n p I t oln l: tpit I . c tn: l 9.3. Numbered lists If you use a numbered list in your paper, please format it as below, noting the punctuation at the end of the points:

(a) First bullet point.

(b) Section bullet point.

(i) First subpoint; (ii) Second subpoint.

( c) Third bullet point.

Please use (a), (b), etc., unless your text refers to the points elsewhere as ' the first point', 'the second point' and so on - in this case, please use (I), (2), etc.

9.4. General formatting Only the font Times New Roman should be used in the paper. The font Symbol should never be used in files intended for publication as it is not a Unicode font and letters n1ay change during production (for example,

µSv may print as mSv if the characterµ is inserted in Symbol font).

Underlining should not be used. Bold and italic may be used for emphasis, but should be used sparingly.

Paragraph line spacing is 12 point for 9 point text, 13 point for IO point text and 14 point for 12 point text, as used in this example paper. Only one space is used following a full stop.

Fooh10tes 1 should be used only where necessary. They should be inserted at the end of each page, and not at the end of the paper as endnotes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The heading of the acknowledgements section is Times New Roman 10 point bold capitals, centred. The acknowledgements section is an optional section and can be used to list funding bodies and other sponsors of the research, and to mention people who supported the research but whose contribution was not of a type to merit authorship of the paper.

REFERENCES

[I ) AUTHOR, A., Book Title in Title Case, Series No. if applicable, Publis her, Place of Publication (Year).

(2) AUTHOR, A., Inte rnal Report Title in Title Case, internal report, Organization, Location, Year.

(3) LETIER-WRlTER, A., Organization, personal communication, Year.

[4) RESEARCHER, A., Organization, unpublished data.

(5) CHAPTER-AUTHOR, A., "Title of chapter in sentence case", Book Title in Title Case, Publisher, Place of Publication (Year).

(6) AUTHOR, A., AUTHOR, B., AUTHOR, C., Journal article tille in sentence case, Abb. J. Title 1 2 (Year) 120---

123.

(7) AUTHOR, A., Title of Web Page or On-line Database in T itle Case (Year),

www.webpage.com/exact-subpage-being-cited (8) AUTHOR, A., "Paper title in sentence case", Conference Title in Title Case (Proc. Int. Conf. Place of Conference, year), Publisher, Place of Publication (Year).

[9] PRESENTER, A., "Title of presentation in sentence case", Paper No., paper presented at Organization seminar on subject, Location, year.

[ IO) Title of!NFCIRC in Tide Case, JNFCJRC No., IAEA, Vienna (Year).

1 Text in a footnote is Times New Roman 9 point regular.

AUTHOR and OTHER-AUTHOR L t hand pt *1.. runnm h ts uth01 n 11

I c tr l r 11 .,_ n o uthor._ " 1..:

.I IH( IL.al.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AUTHOR, A., Book Title in Title Case, Series No. if applicable, Puiblisher, Place of Publication (Year).

- Title of Book by Same Author in Title Case, Series No. if applicable, Publisher, Place of Publication (Year).

AUTHOR, A., AUTHOR, 8 ., Book Title in Title Case, Series No. if applicable, Publisher, Place of Publication (Year).

ORGANIZATION A (Location)

Book Title in Title Case, Series No. if applicable (Year).

ORGANlZATlON B (Location)

Book Title in Title Case, Series No. if applicable (Year).

5

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Thu, 12 Oct 201718:33:24 +0000 To: Hiser, Allen

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Thank you!

Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory R esearch Division of Engineering I Corrosio n and Metallurgy Branch Phone: 301-4 15-2454 I Office: TWFN 10D62 Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 12:22 PM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew. Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Lyon Marriott Hotel Cite Internationale 70 Quai Charles de Gaulle Lyon 69463 France From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 9:46 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants For further background info, here is the workshop summa ry report and latest version of PNNL harvesting report.

Thanks!

Matt From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 7:57 AM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov >; Hull, Amy <Amy .Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol <Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Frankl, Istvan <Istvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Per IAEA:

All presentations will be uploaded in advance to the conference PC. Please email your presentation and the full paper to email address: PLIM2@iaea.org by Wednesday, 18 October.

See attached 2 of the NRR papers as examples.

Allen From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:52 PM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert. Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy

<Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol <Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plant s

<< File: Harvesting NRC Poster for PLiM_cem_ptp (IF).pptx >> << File: Harvesting IAEA Plim 2 page synopsis final draft.docx >>

I can address #2 and #3.

2. No paper has been prepared, perhaps we can ask IAEA about whether that is still possible. If so, we could pull something together.

For background info, we have the draft PNNL report and workshop summary report that I can share. I've also attached the two page extended abstract that was originally submitted.

3. I am picking up the poster today as I leave and will try to get it mailed as soon as possible.

(see attached PP) Do you have an address to where it should be sent?

Thanks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch Phone: 301-415-24541 Office: TWFN 10D62 Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 8:32 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy .Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol

<Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj

Cc: Thomas, Brian <Brian.Thomas@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; Frankl, Istvan

<lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gQY>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plant s

Allen:

Thanks for the head's up and for offering to make a presentation on this for RES. We're targeting to put together a 20 minute presentation on harvesting that we can discuss with you on Thursday morning. We'll also cover your points 2 and 3 at that time.

Cheers, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materia ls US Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:27 AM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol

<Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj

<Raj.Iyengar@nrc.gov>

Cc: Thomas, Brian <Brian.Thomas@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Importance: High Another twist to the harvesting paper/presentation/poster for the PLiM conference.

I am willing to make a presentation at this "side event" if RES will put together slides - I would shoot for 20 minutes.

A couple of questions on this topic:

1. Can RES pull together a presentation in the next day or two, that we can discuss Thursday AM?

2. Has a paper been prepared (it appears from below that this is possible for inclusion in the conference proceedings)? If so, can I get a copy of it, or other background information.

3. When will the poster be available to be mailed to Lyon? (Can I get a copy of what it will look like?)

I am sure that other questions will arise.

Allen

Original Message-----

From: KANG, Ki-Sig [1]

Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:17 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Cc: KHAELSS , Martina <M.Khaelss@iaea.org>; KRIVANEK, Robert <R.Krivanek@iaea.org>; 4th PLiM Conference - Contact Point <4th-PLiM-Conference.Contact-Point@iaea.org>

Subject:

[External_Senderl Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants

Dear Allen,

Regarding " Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants", now this paper will be presented on poster session in programme.

I think all of participants will be very interesting to this topic. But we have no time slot to present in oral session. Thus I recommend to arrange a side event to introduce this topic from 13:20 -

14:00 on 24, Oct (Tuesday) 1if you want.

We can arrange the meeting room for presentation and discussion. Please think about and let me know.

Ki- Sig KANG Technical Head (PLiM/LTO)

Nuclear Power Engineering Section Division of Nuclear Power International Atomic Energy Agency Tel: +43 1 2600 22796 Fax: +43 1 2600 29598 E-mail: Ki-Sig.KANG@iaea.org This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read , copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

Note to requester: Attachments are immediately following. The boxes with the red X in them in the first email are a Power Point and a Word attachment (Power Point icon From: Hiser, Matthew with its file name, Word icon with its Sent: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:52:15 +0000 file name) that are both imbedded into the body of the email.

To: Tregoning, Robert;Hiser, Allen;Hull, Amy;Moyer, Carol Cc: Frankl, Istvan

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Attachments: Harvesting NRC Poster for PLiM_cem_ ptp (IF).pptx, Harvesting IAEA Plim 2 page synopsis final draft.docx 0 0 I can address #2 and #3.

2. No paper has been prepared, perhaps we can ask IAEA about whether that is still possible. If so, we could pull something together.

For background info, we have the draft PNNL report and workshop summary report that I can share. I've also attached the two page extended abstract that was originally submitted.

3. I am picking up the poster today as I leave and will try to get it mailed as soon as possible. (see attached PP) Do you have an address to where it should be sent?

Thanks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch Phone: 30 l -415-24541 Office: TWFN l 0D62 Matthew.Hiser @nrc.gov From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 8:32 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol

<Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj

<Raj.lyengar@nrc.gov>

Cc: Thomas, Brian <Brian.Thomas@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>;

Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants

Allen:

Thanks for the head's up and for offering to make a presentation on this for RES. We're targeting to put together a 20 minute presentation on harvesting that we can discuss with you on Thursday morning. We'll also cover your points 2 and 3 at that time.

Cheers, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Tu esday, October 10, 2017 7:27 AM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol <Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj

<Raj.lyengar@nrc.gov>

Cc: Thomas, Brian <Brian.Thomas@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Importance: High Another twist to the harvesting paper/presentation/poster for the PLiM conference.

I am willing to make a presentation at this "side event" if RES will put together slides - I would shoot for 20 minutes.

A couple of questions on this topic:

1. Can RES pull together a presentation in the next day or two, that we can discuss Thursday AM?

2. Has a paper been prepared (it appears from below that this is possible for inclusion in the conference proceedings)? If so, can I get a copy of it, or other background information.

3. When will the poster be available to be mailed to Lyon? (Can I get a copy of what it will look like?)

I am sure that other questions will arise.

Allen

Original Message-----

From: KANG, Ki-Sig [mailto:K.S.Kang@iaea.org1 Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:17 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Cc: KHAELSS, Martina <M.Khaelss@iaea.org>; KRIVANEK, Robert

<R.Krivanek@iaea.org>; 4th PLiM Conference - Contact Point <4th-PLiM-Conference.Contact-Point@iaea.org>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants

Dear Allen,

Regarding " Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants", now this paper will be presented on poster session in programme.

I think all of participants will be very interesting to this topic. But we have no time slot to present in oral session. Thus I recommend to arrange a side event to introduce this topic from 13:20 -14:00 on 24, Oct (Tuesday) if you want.

We can arrange the meeting room for presentation and discussion. Please think about and let me know.

Ki- Sig KANG Technical Head (PLiM/LTO)

Nuclear Power Engineering Section Division of Nuclear Power International Atomic Energy Agency Tel: +43 1 2600 22796 Fax: +43 1 2600 29598 E-mail: Ki-Sig.KANG@iaea.org This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read,

copy , use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants M . Hiser", P. Purtscher", P. Ramuhallih, A. B. Hull*, and R. Tregoning*

u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Washington, D.C., USA hPacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USA Plate c 17.811 Background and Motivation Recent developments in the nuclear industry include stronger interest in extended plant operation and plans to shut down a number of nuclear power pllants (NPPs). In the U.S., Potentia I Criteria for Harvesting Prioriti zation there is strong inte rest in extending NPP lifespans through subsequent license renewal (SLR) A number of criteria may be considered when prioritizing the data from 60 to 80 years. needs for harvesting, including:

Applicability of harvested material for addressing critical gaps Extended plant operation and SLR raise a number of technica l issues t11at may require further research to understand and quantify aging mechanisms. U.S. utilities and the U.S. Harvesting for critical gaps prioritized over l ess essential Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have focused on the aging of systems, structures, and techn ical gaps.

components and in particular four key SLR issues: reactor pressure vessel (RPV) Ease of l aboratory replicat ion of the degradation scenario embrittlement, irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking of reactor interna ls, concrete For example, simultaneous thermal and irradiation structures and containment degradation, and electrical cable qualification and condition conditions are difficu lt to replicate, and accelerated aging assessment. may not be feasible for a mechanism sensitive to dose rate.

Meanwhile, in recent years, a number of NPPs, both in the U.S. and internat ionally, have

Unique field aspects of degradation stiut down or announced plans to stiut down for various reasons, including economic, For example, unusual operating experience or legacy materials (fabrication methods, etc.) no longer available.

politica l, and technical chal lenges. Unlike in the past when there were very few plants

Fleet-wide vs. plant- specific applicability of data shutting down, these new developments provide opportunities for harvesting components that were aged in representative light water reactor (LWR) environments. Greater value in addressing an issue applicable to a larger number of plants.

In a th ird related development, economic challenges and limited budgets have restricted

Harvesting cost and complexity the resources available to support new research, including harvesting programs. Given this For example, harvest ing un-irradiated concrete or electrical cables less expensive and less complex tlnan constrained budget environment, aligning interests and leveraging with other organizations harvesting from t he r eactor internals or RPV.

is important to allow maximum benefit and value for future research programs.

Availability of reliable in-service inspection {ISi) techniques for the material/ component Current Activities If mature inspection methods exist and are easy to apply, harvesting may be less va luable.

NRC has recently undertaken an effort, with

Availability of materials for harvesting the assistance of Pacific Northwest National Timeliness of the expected research results relat ive to the objectiive.

Laboratory (PNNL), to develop a strategic approach to harvesting aged materials from The above potent ial criteria provide a systematic approach to prioritiize data needs for harvesting. Different NPPs. Due to limited opportunities, past organizations may weigh and consider each of these criteria differently based on their interests and perspectives, but harvesting efforts have been reactive to each criterion is I ikely releva nt to some degree for any organization. NRC is interested in engaging with other individual plants shutting down and beginning organizations to prioritize data needs for harvesting and i dentify areas of common interest.

decommissioning. Given the expected availability of materials from numerous plants Harvesting Database and anticipated research needs to better The NRC is pursuing the development of a database for sour ces of materials for harvesting, which could include understand aging out to 80 years of operation, the NRC is pursuing a more proactive approach both previously harvested materials and those available for future harvesting. This database wou ld allow for to prioritize the data needs best addressed by aligning of high-priority data needs to the available sources of materials. The level of detail for the database harvest ing and ident ify the best sources of should be appropriate for the factors influencing decision-making. NRC is interested in engaging with other m aterials to ,address high-priority data needs organizations in developing the database.

for regulatory research.

The first step in this strategic approach is to Path Forwa rd prioritize data needs for harvesting. A data NRC's experience is that harvesting can yield highly representative and valuable data on materials aging, but these need describes a partirnlar degradation scenario and should be defined with as much efforts w ill be challenging. Hav*ing a clearly defined objective and early engagement with other stakeholders are detail as appropriate in terms of the material keys to success. As specific harvesting opportunWes are identified through this strategic approach, t he NRC (alloy, composit ion, etc.) and environment welcomes opportunities for cooperation and leveraging of resour,ces with other interested research organizations.

(temperature, fluence, chemistry, et c.).

Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants M. Hisera, P. Purtschera, P. Ramuhallib, A. B. Hulla, R. Tregoninga, and C. E. Moyera au.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Washington, D.C., USA bPacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USA Recent developments in the nuclear industry include stronger interest in extended plant operation and plans to shut down a number of nuclear power plants (NPPs) In the U.S., there is strong interest in extending NPP lifespans through subsequent license renewal (SLR) from 60 to 80 years.

Extended plant operation and SLR raise a number of technical issues that may require further research to understand aging mechanisms. U.S. utilities and the U.S . N uclear Regu latory Commission (NRC) have focused on the aging of systems, structures, and components and in particular four key SLR issues: reactor pressure vessel (RPV) embrittlement, irradiation~assisted stress corrosion cracking ofreactor internals, concrete structures and containment degradation, and electrical cable qualification and condition assessment. Meanwhile, in recent years, a number of NPPs, both in the U.S. and internationally, have shut down or announced plans to shut down for various reasons, including economic, political, and technical challenges. Unlike in the past when there were very few plants shutting down, these new developments provide opportunities for harvesting components that were aged in representative light water reactor (LWR) environments.

In a third related development, economic challenges and limited budgets have restricted the resources available to support new research, including harvesting programs. Given this constrained budget environment, aligning interests and leveraging with other organizations is important to allow maximum benefit and value for future research programs.

NRC has recently undertaken an effort, with the assistance of Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL), to develop a strategic approach for harvesting aged materials from NPPs. Due to limited opportunities, past harvesting efforts have been reactive to individual plants shutting down and beginning decommissioning. Given the expected availability of materials from numerous plants and anticipated research needs to better understand aging out to 80 years of operation, the NRC is pursuing a more proactive approach to prioritize the data needs best addressed by harvesting and identify the best sources of materials to address high-priority data needs for regulatory research.

The first step in this strategic approach is to prioritize data needs for harvesting. A data need describes a particular degradation scenario (combination of material and environment) and should be defined with as much detail as appropriate in terms of the material (alloy, composition, etc.)

and environment (temperature, fluence, chemistry, etc.).

A number of criteria may be considered when prioritizing the data needs for harvesting, including:

Applicability of harvested material for addressing critical gaps o Harvesting for critical gaps prioritized over less essential technical gaps.

Ease of laboratory replication of the degradation scenario o For example, simultaneous the1mal and irradiation conditions are difficult to replicate or accelerated aging may not be feasible for a mechanism sensitive to dose rate.

Unique field aspects of degradation o For example, unusual operating experience or legacy materials (fabrication methods, composition, etc.) no longer available.

Fleet-wide vs. plant-specific applicability of data o Greater value in addressing an issue applicable to a larger number of plants.

Harvesting cost and complexity o For example; harvesting unirradiated concrete or electrical cables less expensive and less complex than harvesting from the reactor internals or RPV.

Availability of reliable in-service inspection (ISi) techniques for the material / component o If mature inspection methods exist and are easy to apply to monitor degradation, harvesting may be less valuable.

Availability of materials for harvesting

Timeliness of the expected research results relative to the objective.

The above potential criteria provide a systematic approach to prioritize data needs for harvesting.

Different organizations may weigh and consider each of these criteria differently based on their interests and perspectives, but each criteria is likely relevant to some degree for any organization.

NRC is interested in engaging with other organizations to prioritize data needs for harvesting and identify areas of common interest.

Another activity NRC is pursuing is the potential development of a database for sources of materials for harvesting, which cou ld include both previously harvested materials and those available for future harvesting. This database would allow for aligning of high-priority data needs to the available sources of materials. As with the data needs effort, the level of detail for the sources of materials database should be appropriate for the factors influencing decision-making. NRC is interested in engaging with other organizations to develop a database for sources of materials for harvesting.

NRC's experience is that harvesting can yield highly representative and valuable data on materials aging, but these efforts may be expensive and challenging. Having a clearly defined objective and early engagement with other stakeholders, including the NPP from which harvesting will take place, are key to success. As specific harvesting opportunities are identified through this strategic approach, the NRC welcomes opportunities for cooperation and leveraging resources with other interested research organizations.

2

Note to requester: Attachment s are immediately following. The "IAEA-CN-246-082 Hiser 10-24-2017-FINAL.docx" attachment is also publicly available in ADAMS at ML17285A687. The "IAEA-CN-246-KS-6 Wilson 10-24-2017-FINAL.docx" attachment is also publicly available in ADAMS at ML17285A712.

From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 05:56:39 -0600 To: Hiser, Matthew;Tregoning, Robert;Hu ll, Amy;Moyer, Carol Cc: Frankl, Istvan

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Attachments: IAEA-CN-246-082 Hiser 10-24-2017 - FINAL.docx, IAEA-CN-246-KS-6 Wilson 10-24-2017 - FINAL.docx Per IAEA:

All presentations will be uploaded in advance to the conference PC. Please email you presentation and the full paper to email address: PLIM2@iaea.org by Wednesda__y, 18 October.

See attached 2 of the NRR papers as examples.

Allen From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:52 PM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy

<Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol <Carol. Moyer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plant s

<< File: Harvesting NRC Poster for PLiM_cem_ptp (I F).pptx >> << File: Harvesting IAEA Plim 2 page synopsis final draft.docx >>

I can address #2 and #3.

2. No paper has been prepared, perhaps we can ask IAEA about whether that is still possible. If so, we could pull something together.

For background info, we have the draft PNNL report and workshop summary report that I can share. I've also attached the two page extended abstract that was originally submitted.

3. I am picking up the poster today as I leave and will try to get it mailed as soon as possible.

(see attached PP} Do you have an address to where it should be sent?

Thanks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch Phone: 301-415-2454 I Office: TWFN I 0D62

Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 8:32 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol

<Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj

<Raj.lyengar@nrc.gov>

Cc: Thomas, Brian <Brian.Thomas@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; Frankl, Istvan

<lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Allen:

Thanks for the head's up and for offering to make a presentation on this for RES. We're targeting to put together a 20 minute presentation on harvesting that we can discuss with you on Thursday morning. We'll also cover your points 2 and 3 at that time.

Cheers, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:27 AM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol

<Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj

<Raj.Iyengar@nrc.gov>

Cc: Thomas, Brian <Brian.Thomas@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Importance: High Another twist to the harvesting paper/presentation/poster for the PLiM conference.

I am w illing to make a presentation at this "side event" if RES will put together slides - I would shoot for 20 minutes.

A couple of questions on this topic:

1. Can RES pull together a presentation in the next day or two, that we can discuss Thursday AM?

2. Has a paper been prepared (it appears from below that this is possible for inclusion in the conference proceedings)? If so, can I get a copy of it, or other background information.

3. When will the poster be available to be mailed to Lyon? (Can I get a copy of what it will look like?)

I am sure that other questions will arise.

Allen

Original Message-----

From: KANG, Ki-Sig [2]

Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:17 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Cc: KHAELSS , Martina <M.Khaelss@iaea.org>; KRIVANEK, Robert <R.Krivanek@iaea.org>; 4th PLiM Conference - Contact Point <4th-PLiM-Conference.Contact-Point@iaea.org>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants

Dear Allen,

Regarding " Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants", now this paper will be presented on poster session in programme.

I think all of participants will be very interesting to this topic. But we have no time slot to present in oral session. Thus I recommend to arrange a side event to introduce this topic from 13:20 -

14:00 on 24, Oct (Tuesday) 1if you want.

We can arrange the meeting room for presentation and discussion. Please think about and let me know.

Ki- Sig KANG Technical Head (PLiM/LTO)

Nuclear Power Engineering Section Division of Nuclear Power International Atomic Energy Agency Tel: +43 1 2600 22796 Fax: +43 1 2600 29598 E-mail: Ki-Sig.KANG@iaea.org This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

Applying the United States License Renewal Approach to an International Environment Alllen L. Hiser, Jr.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Materials and License Renewal Washington, DC Abstract. The approach used in the United States for license renewal (plant operation to 60 years) and subsequent license renewal (plant operation to 80 years) is implemented within a s tructured regulatory fram.ework that includes regulatory pro,ccss "essential elements" wl1ieh arc integrated to ensure continued safe plant operation. This integrated approach was evaluated by an International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA),

Integrated Reg\llatoty Review Service m ission in 20 ll0, in part using the IAEA Periodic Safety Review for comparison. This mission identified on ly one suggestion related to license renewal: the NRC should incorporate lessons learned from Periodic Safety Reviews performed in other countries as an input to the NRC's assessment processes. For international regulatory frameworks that do not include tlhese regulatory process "essential elements" o r similar provisions, use of the license renewal approach fo llowed in the United States may necessitate enhancement of the framework to include activities which achieve similar objectives, in order to ensu re continued safe long term plant operation.

1. Background

In accordance w ith Section 103c of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, nuclear power plants in the United States are licensed to operate for a term not exceeding 40 years, and may be renewed for up to 20 years. The NRC's regu lations related to renewal of operating licenses fo r nuclear power plants are pro vided in Part 54 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (IO CFR Part 54), "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuc lear Power P lants" [l]. 10 CFR 54.3fl(b) spec ifies that licenses may be renewed for a specified period not to exceed 20 years, with the renewed license term not to exceed 40 years.

In addition, 10 CFR 54.3l(d) states that a renewed license may be subsequently renewed in accordance with all applicable requireme*nts, with no explicit limit to the number of

" subseque nt" renewals for each license.

2. U.S. License Renewal Review Process The license renewal review implemented in the U .S. is a " limited scope" revi.ew, that focuses on ag ing management of long-lived, pass ive struc tures and components in nuclear power plants, s uch as the reactor pressure vessel, steam generators, piping, seismic Category l structures, e lectrical cables and connections, among others. The scope of the license renewal review includes:

(1) safety-related systems, structures, and components (SSCs)

(2) all nonsafety-related SSCs whose fai lme cou ld adversely impact funct ionality of safety-related SSCs (3) all SSCs relied on in certain safety analyses or plant e valuations for specific NRC regulations.

This scope is generally consistent with IAEA safety guidance [2]. After in-scope SSCs have been identified, those structures and components (SCs) that are long-lived and passive are subject to aging management review (AMR). SCs that are not subject to AMR are those that are active, such that their failure will be identified during surveillance and testing in accordance with the M aintenance Rule of 10 CFR 50.65, or replaced on a fixed schedule.

The safety principles of the license renewal rule are :

(1) The ongoing regu latory process is adequate to ensure the safety of operating plants.

(2) The same plant operating rules apply during the renewal tenn (i.e., the plant current licensing basis (CLB) is to be mainta ined).

The combination of these principles means that plants are safe (or the CLB for each plant is adequate) and the regulatory framework in place will ensure that plants will continue to be safe, in part by ensuring that the plant CLB is maintained. The CLB includes the NRC requirements applicable to a specific plant; a licensee's written commitments for ensuTing compliance with and operation within the applicable NRC requirements and the plant-specific design basis; o rders; li cense conditions; exemptions; technical specifications; the plant-specific design-basis information documented in the most recent fi nal safety analysis report, and the licensee's commitments rema ining in effect that were made in docketed licensing correspondence such as responses to NRC bulletins, generic Letters, and enforcement actions, as well as Iicensee commitments documented in NRC safety evaluations o r licensee event reports.

The on-going regulatory process ofNRC, and how it works to ensu re plant safety, w ill be described in a later section.

To assist in the implementation of the license renewal rule and to provide assurance that the CLB of each plant will be ma intained, the NRC has developed several documents to aid in effective and efficient evaluation of license renewal applications (LRAs). The Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Repo rt (NUREG- 180 1) [3] provides generic evaluations of materials and environments to identify applicable aging effects and aging mechanisms, along with acceptab le aging management approaches (e.g., aging management programs (AMPs)).

Use of the GALL report by applicants a nd NRC staff facilitates NRC review of LRAs and provides for a s table review process, subject to findings such as emergent technical issues.

The "Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants," or SRP-LR (NUREG-1800) [4], provides guidance to the NRC staff reviewers in perform ing safety reviews of applications to renew nuclear power plant licenses in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54. The SRP-LR was developed to assure quality and uniformity of staff reviews and to present a well defined techn ical basis from which to evaluate a licensee's application. Availability of the SRP-LR aids in the transparency of NRC staff reviews of LRAs such that applicants can understand the types and detail of information needed by the staff in its reviews. The SRP-LR incorporates by reference the GALL Report.

Both the SRP-LR and the GALL Report were initially issued in 2001 and the last revision, Revision 2, was issued in 2011. Subsequent incremental changes to both the SRP-LR and the GALL Report have been implemented through the License Renewal Interim S taff G uidance (LR-ISG) process. A total of 10 L R-ISGs have been issued for Revision 2 of these documents, as listed on the NRC website.

Since 93 out of 99 operating units either have renewed licenses or have submitted LRAs, further fu ll revisions of the SRP-LR and the GALL Report, e.g., Revision 3, will not be issued because of the limited number of plants that would use these reports.

With some plants in the U.S. approaching 50 years of operation, interest in extending licenses for a subsequent operating period to 80 years has been raised. To support subsequent license

renewal (SLR), the NRC has developed guidance documents analogous to those for license renewal, although they specifically address operating conditions to 80 years. The "Generic Aging Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR) Rep01t" (NUREG-2191) [5] provides acceptab le methods to manage aging effects for 80 years of plant operation. The "Standard Review Plan for Review of Subsequent License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" (SRP-SLR) (NUREG-2192) [6] provides guidance to NRC staff reviewers to perform safety reviews of SLR applications.

A more deta iled description of the U.S. license renewal process, which also applies to SLR, is provided in [7].

3. NRC On-going Regulatory Process The NRC on-going regulatory process includes a number of activities. Foremost are the requirements in regulations at Part 50 of Title IO of the U.S. Code of Federal Regu lations (IO CFR Part 50) [ 8], which plants are obliged to meet at all times. In particular, the Maintenance Rule of 10 CFR 50.65, the Quality Assurance Program of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, Codes and standards, provide the basic framework for aging management that apply from in itia l plant licensing.

The Mainte11ance Rule focuses on monitor ing and testing activ ities to ensure that systems, structures and components are capable of performing their intended functions. The Quality Assurance Program requi rements ensure that licensees programs meet quality standards and incorporate effective corrective actions on operating experience gained from their i.nspecti.on and testing. l O CFR 50.55a focuses on implementation of consensus industry standards, for inspection and testing as well as analysis of results to inform future inspections.

Other provisions to l O CFR Part 50 that provide aging management funct ions include regu lations related to fire protection (10 CFR 50.48), e11vironmental qualification of electrical equipment (10 CFR 50.49), acceptance criteria for fracture prevention m easures for light-water nuclear power reactors for normal operation (l O CFR 50.60), fracture toughness requirements for protection against pressurized thermal shock events (10 CFR 50.61 ), and alternate fracture toughness requirements (10 CFR 50.61a), fracture toughness requirements (Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50), the reactor vessel materials surveillance program requirements (Append ix H to IO CFR Part 50), and pr1mary reactor containment leakage testing for water-cooled power reactors (Appendix J to IO CFR Part 50).

Besides compliance with the regulatio11s outlined above, other elements of the NRC regulatory process that provide a strong regulatory program to ensure safe plant operation include:

Resident inspectors who are Located on-site at each plant.

Frequent inspections out of our regional offices to assess perfonnance at each site, include such topics as plant security, emergency planning, radiation protection, environmental monitoring, and inservice inspection and testing.

A daily assessment of plant events, both domestic and international.

Safety issue resolutions for both generic issues and plant-specific issues.

In particular for materials aging and degradation issues that are important to safety, resolution of these issues can occur through a variety of approaches, including rule changes, generic communications, issuance of orders, and voluntary actions by plants themselves.

As described in [7], several other countries also utilize the U.S. license renewal process, in some cases as a combination with the periodic safety review (PSR) approach of SSG-25 [9]1.

All countries utilizing the U.S. approach should ensure that their regulatory framework achieves the same objectives as the U.S. on-going regulatory process essential elements outlined in this section.

4. Comparison with IAEA Long Term Operation Framework The IAEA framework for aging management and long term operation (LTO) stems from Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-2/2 Rev. I [10]. Requirement 14: Ageing Management specifies "The operating organization shall ensure that an effective ageing management programme is implemented to ensure that required safety functions of systems, structures and components are fulfi lled over the entire operating lifetime of the plant." In addition, Requirement 16: Programme for long term operation states "Where applicable, the operating organization shall establish and implement a comprehensive programme for ensuring the long term safe operation of the plant beyond a time-frame established in the licence conditions, design lim its, safety standards and/or regulations."

To implement these requirements, the IAEA has issued Specific Safety Gu ide No. SSG-25, entitled "Periodic Safety Review," [9] and (i n publication) SSG-48, entitled .. Ageing Management a nd Deve lopment of a Programme for Long Term Operation of N uclear Power Plants" [2]. Supporting these SSGs are two Safety Reports and a Services Series report. One of the Safety Reports is Safety Re ports Series No.. SRS-82, ent itled "Ageing Management for N uc lear Power Plants: International Generic Ageing Lessons Learned (IGALL)" [ 11].

The scope of license renewal review is nearly equivalent to that of the JAEA guidance [2].

The license renewal exclusion of active SCs from aging management review is consistent with a provision (paragraph 5.17) of [2]. 111 addition, paragraph 4. 7 of [2] states " If national requirements do not require periodic safety rev iew [in accordance with [2)), an alternative systematic comprehensive safety assessment that meets the objectives of the periodic safety revi ew is recommended to be performed. " The NRC o n-going regulatory process activities described above represe nt the NRC activities that NRC contends are sufficient to meet the objectives of the PSR.

From the perspective of aging management, the elements of Chapter 5 ofSSG-48 [2] are very consistent with the license renewal approach. Specifically, the scoping process (and screening of active SCs in license renewal), the aging management review (AMR), AMPs, and time limited aging analyses described in Chapter 5 of SSG-48 [2] match those of the license renewal process. f urther, the AMR master tab le, AMPs, and TLAAs of SRS-82 are closely aligned w ith their counterparts in the GALL [3] and SRP-LR [4] reports.

5. IAEA International Regulatory R eview Service Mission to U.S.

The IAEA conducted an Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission to the NRC i11 2010. The purpose of this IRRS mission was to review the regulatory framework for safety of the operating nuclear power plants in the United States and the effectiveness ofregulatory funct ions implemented by NRC. The review compared NRC standards against IAEA safety standards as the international benchmark for safety. The mission also provided exchange of information and experience between the IRRS Review Team and the U.S. counterparts in the areas covered by the IRRS mission. The IRRS mi ssion also included Long-term Operation and Aging Management of nuclear power plants as a Regulatory Policy Issue for discussion.

The NRC prepared several documents for the IRRS that directly relate to license renewal [12]:

Elective Policy Issue #2: Long-Tenn Operation and Aging Management of Nuclear Facilities [13)

Module 11 A: Periodic Safety Review [14]

Module l lB: Feedback of Operating Experience [ 15]

White Paper: U.S. Approach to Enhancing Safety [16]

Module l lA on periodic safety review (PSR) provided NRCs perspective on how the NRC achieves the objectives of IAEA SSG-25 [9], through its comprehensive set of regulations, inspections and safety review programs. As stated in the paper: "'fhis paper presents an overview of the U.S. regulatory structure, salient features of the U.S. regulation cons istent with the PSR approach, and a comparison between the safety factors in the PSR Safety Guide, and the comparable U.S. activities." From a self-assessment described in the paper, the NRC identified the need to review the findings from other PSRs more systematically to verify that internationa l experience is fully evaluated for potentia l applicability to U.S. licensees. The IRRS m ission report identified that the NRC has chosen an alternative approach to PSR, as described in paragraph 2.8 of SSG-25.

The TRRS mission identified the fo llowing Good Practices (GP) related to license renewal.

[ 17):

GP5: The NRC licensing process, and in particular the license renewa l process is carried out in a very transparent manner, providing opp01tunities for hearing and public involvement. A number of meetings a re held in the v ici:nity of the plants to provide the public with information on the license renewal process, solicit input on the environmental review, and to provide the results of the NRC's inspections.

GPl 1: NRC has deve loped and implemented a robust operational experience feedback programme, including also guidance for safety enhancement and corrective actions recomm ended on the basis of lessons learned. The programme and a unique database are avai lable for sharing experiences with all interested parties both nationally and internationally.

GP12: NRC collects and documents unique generic lessons ]earned in U.S. from aging management, and is committed to continue to share them with nuclear community through the IAEA and other international channe ls as essentia l contribution to maintaining safety during long term operation of nuclear power plants.

In addition, the mission identified one suggestion related to license renewal [ 17), which is consistent w ith the NRC's self-assessment:

S9: NRC should incorporate lessons learned from PSRs perfo1med in other countries as an input to the NRC's assessment processes.

6. U.S. Participation in IAEA LTO Activities The IAEA has many activities related to LTO, including the establishment of related IAEA Safety Standards, the International Generic Aging Lessons Learned (IGALL) program, Safety Aspects of Long Te1m Operation (SALTO) missions, and aging management and L TO workshops. The NRC has had strong participation in each of these activities, to support the sharing of technical information, operating experience, and perspectives on aging management and LTO.

From a recent perspective, the NRC has supported the development ofSSG-48 [2], bringing its perspective and extensive experience basis on aging management and LTO review for consideration in the development of the standard.

For the IGALL program, the NRC has been a consistent contributoT within the working groups and steering committee since the inception of the prngram. The initial development of the IGALL program was built upon the basis of the GALL Report, Revision 2, report, in particular the aging management review tab le (which describes materials, environments, aging effects and degradation mechanisms, and appropriate aging management programs) providing the starting point for the IGALL master table, and the GALL Report, Rev ision 2, AMPs. The influence of tbe GALL Report has continued in Phase 3 of the IGALL program, where the draft GALL-SLR document was used as one source of info rmation in updating the TGALL master table, AMPs, and report. This participation has included serving as chairmen of working groups and subgroups, members of working groups and subgroups, and chairman of the steering committee.

The NRC has participated in numerous SALTO missions around the world, including reviews of mechanical compone nts, and civil structures, using its technical knowledge from participation in the IGALL program and reviews of License renewal applications. Similarly, the NRC has participated in numerous aging management and LTO, for both international regu lato rs and for plant operators.

7. Summary The License Renewal Program in the U.S. is implemented with in a larger on-go ing regulatory process with essential elements that ensures safe plant operation in a ll operating periods, from the initial 40 year operating period through operating periods with renewed licenses. The efficacy of the U.S. approach was validated through an IAEA lRRS mission, which identified several good practices and one suggestion.

Countries that rely on the U.S. license renewal approach should evaluate their overall regulatory framework to ens ure that the functions of the U.S. on-going regulatory process essential elements are implemented within their framework, or consider enhancements to their framework.

References

1. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for renewal of operating licenses for nucleaT power p lants, National Archives and Records Administration, USNRC (2017).

2. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Ageing Management and Development of a Programme for Long Term Operation of N uclear Power Plants, SSG-48 (to be published).

3. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, NUREG-1801 , Revision 2, USNRC (2010).

4. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Standai-d Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1800, Revision 2, USNRC (2010).

5. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Generic Aging Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR) Report, NUREG-2191 , Vols. 1 and 2, USNRC (2017).

6. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Standard Review Plan for Review of Subsequent License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-2192, USNRC (2017).

7. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Approaches to Ageing Management in Member States: International Generic Ageing Les ons Learned (IGALL) Final Report, IAEA-TECDOC-1736 (2014).

8. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic licensing of production and utilization faci lities, ational Archives and Records Adminjst::ration, USNRC (20 I 7).

9. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Periodic Safety Review for Nuclear Power Plants, SSG-25 (2013).

10. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Safety of Nuclear Power Plants:

Commissioning and Operation, Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-2/2, Revision l (2016).

11 . INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC NERGY AGENCY, Ageing Management for Nuclear Power Plants: International Generic Ageing Lessons Learned (IGALL), SRS-82 (2015).

12. UNITED STAT S NUCL AR REGULATORY COMMISSION, 2011 lntegrat d Regulatory Review Service Mi ion to the United Stat - Executive Summarie ,

U NR , Ag ncywide Document Acces and Manag ment Sy t m (ADAMS)

Acee sion No. MLl 12510045 (2011) .

13. UNITED STAT NU L AR REGULATORY OMMISSION, Elective Policy J u # 2: Long-Term Operation and Aging Manag m nt ofNucl ar Faci lities, U NR , ADAM Acee sion o. MLI 12510163 (2011).

14. UNITED TAT NU L AR REGULATORY OMMISSION, Module llA:

P riodic ty i

R , ADAM Ace ion No. ML112510453 (2011).

15. UNITED T NU R REGULATOR OMMI SION, Module 11B:

eedback of Operating xperience, USNR , ADAM Accession No. MLI 12510459 (2011).

16. UNITED TAT NU L AR REGULATORY OMMISSION, Whit e Paper: U.S .

Approach to Enhancing Safety, U NR , ADAMS Acee ion o. MLI 12510467 (2011).

17. INTERNATIONAL A.TOMI NERGY AGENCY, Integrated Regulatory Review ervice (IRRS) Report to the United States of America, IAEA-NS-IRRS-2010/02 (2010).

Assuring Safe Subsequent License Renewal for Commercia l N uclear Power Reactors in the USA George A. Wilson U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Materials and License Renewal Washington, DC Abstract. Renewal of licenses for operating nuclear power plants in the United States is a mature, stable process, with 86 reactors possessing renewed licenses for operation !o 60 years. Using the same regulatory process as initial license renewal, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued guidance documents to address subsequent license renewal, for plant operation to 80 years, in July 20 17. Although the license renewal (and subsequent license renewal) review is a Iimited scope review that focuses on managing the effects of aging for long-lived, passive structures and components in nuclear power plants during the period of extended operation, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has in place a number of regulatory programs (e.g., the analysis of the operating experience, the Reactor Oversight Process, the generic upgrades and regulatory changes, and the use of risk informed regulation) that are integrated to ensure safe plant operation at all stages, including the initial operating li cense period, the period of extend operation, and the subsequent period of extended operation. The combination of the ex isting on-going NRC regulatory processes with the detailed license renewal and subsequent license renewal reviews wi II corntinuc to ensure safe pl ant operation thrOLtgh the 80 year operating period.

1. Background

In accordance with Sectio n 103c of the Atom ic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, nuclear power plants in the Un ited States are licensed to operate for a term not exceeding 40 years, and may be renewed. Th is origii1al 40-year license term for reactor licenses was based on econom ic and antitrust considerations - not on lim itations of nuclear technology.

The NRC's regulations related to renewa l of operating licenses for nuclear power plants are provided in Patt 54 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 54).

l O CFR 54.31 (b) specifies that licet1ses may be renewed for a spec ified period not to exceed 20 years, with the renewed license term not to exceed 40 years. In addition, 10 CFR 54.3 l(d) states that a renewed license may be subsequently renewed in accordance with all applicable requirements, with no expl icit limit to the number of "subsequent" renewals for each license.

2. Assuring Plant Safety in th e First 40 Years of Operation From a regulatory perspective, p lant safety is assured throughout the first 40 years of p lant operatio n by an interrelated combination of regulations and guidance, licensing processes, oversight activities and consideration of operating experience, which prov ide for adequate protection of public health and safety at every point during the plant's life. The role of operating experience is a key element because it provides valuable information to adjust our oversight activities and, when necessary, to change regu lations or requirements. This is accomplished as the issues are identified for both specific and generic plant activities.

Aging management begins during the plant design and construction phases, and is accomplished through a variety of means, w ith in the context of our existing regulatory processes. Aging management is primarily accomplished through implementation of the NRC's regulations in Part 50 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR Part 50) [1]. In particular, the Maintenance Rule of I O CFR 50.65, the Quality Assurance Program of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and the requirements of IO CFR 50.55a, Codes and standards, provide the basic framework that assures adequate aging management for both active and! passive components and structures.

The Maintenance Rule focuses on monitoring and testing activ ities to ensure that systems, structures and components are capable of performing their intended functions. The Quality Assurance Program requirements ensure that licensees programs meet quality standards and incorporate effective corrective actions on operating experience gained from their inspection and testing. IO CFR 50.55a focuses on impleme ntation of consensus industry standards, fo r inspection and testing as well as analysis of results to inform future inspections. Other provisions to 10 CFR Pai1 50 also provide aging management, such as the environmental qualification of electrical equipment (10 CFR 50.49) and the reactor vessel ma terials smveillance prog ram requ irements (Appendix H to LO CFR Part 50).

There are other elements of our regulatory process that provide reasonable assurance of safe plant operation. These e lements include:

Resident inspectors who are Located on-site at each plant.

Frequent inspections out of our regional offices to assess performance at each site, include such topics as plant security, emergency planning, radiation protection, environmental monitoring, and inservice inspection and testing.

A daily assessment of plant events, both domestic and internationa l.

Safety issue resolutions for both generic issues and plant-specific issues.

In particular fo r materials aging and degradation issues that are important to safety, resolution of these iss ues can occur through a variety of approaches, including rule changes, generic communications, issuance of orders, a11d voluntary plant actions.

3. Assuring Plant Safety from 40 to 60 Years - License RenewaE Review and Guidance Plant safety in the operating period from 40 to 60 years follows the same processes and framework identified previously for the first 40 years, with the exception that additional aging management is implemented for operation beyond 40 years. The requirements to identify and implement tbe additional aging management are established through development of a specific regulation for license renewa l, 10 CFR Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for N uclear Power Plants" [2]. The NRC licensing process ensures the implementation of both generic and plant-specific aging management programs (AMPs) that include operating experience to ensure components. continue to perfom1 their intended funct ions. The NRC's inspection programs verify licensee implementat ion of the aging management programs.

The scope of license renewal includes (1) safety-related systems, structures, and components (SSCs) ; (2) all nonsafety-related SSCs whose failure could adversely impact functionality of safety-related SSCs; and (3) a ll SSCs relied on in certain safety analyses or plant evaluations for specific NRC regulations. After in-scope SSCs have been identified, those structures and components (SCs) that long-lived and passive, such as the reactor pressure vessel, steam generators, piping, seismic Category I structures, electrical cables and connections, among others, are subject to aging management review (AMR). SCs that are not subject to AMR are those that are active, such that their failure will be identified during surveillance and testing in accordance with the Maintenance Ru le, or replaced on a fixed sch edule.

The fundamental premise of the License Renewal Ru le, provided at IO CFR Pai1 54, is that the current licensing basis (CLB) for plants is adequate to ensure the safety of operating plants. In this case the CLB includes the NRC requirements applicable to a specific plant; a licensee's written commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation within the applicable NRC requirements and the plant-specific design basis; orders;. license conditions;

exemptio ns; technical spec ificatio ns; the plant-specific design-bas is informat io n documented in the most recent final safety analysis report, and the licensee's commitments remaining in effect that wer e made in docketed licensing correspondence such as responses to NRC bulletins, generic letters, and enforcement actions, as well as licensee commitments documented in NRC safety evaluations or licensee event reports.

A basic aspect of the License Renewal Rule is a licensee's integrated plant assessm ent that demonstrates that the SCs requiring AMR have been identified and the effects of ag ing on the ir fun ctiona lity wi ll be managed in order to m aintain the CLB such that there is an acceptable leve I of safety during the period of extended operation from 40 to 60 year s.

License renewal also involves applicant consideration of time-lim ited aging analyses (TLAAs), which are those licensee calculations and analyses in the CLB for the SSCs within the scope of license renewal. Eac h application must include a supplement to the environmental report that complies with the requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 5 1 [3].

The NRC has developed several documents to a id in effective and efficient evaluation of license renewal applications (LRAs). The Gene ric Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) R eport (NUREG- 180 1) [4] provides generic evaluations of materials and env ironments to identify applicable aging effects and aging mechanisms, along wi th acceptab le aging m anagement approaches (e.g., AMPs). Use of the GALL Repo rt by applicants and N RC staff fac ili tates NRC rev iew of LRAs and provides for a stable review process, subj ect to fi ndings such as emergent technical issues.

The "Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuc lear Power Plants," or SRP-LR (NUREG -1800) [5], prov ides guidance to the NRC staff rev iewers in perfo rm ing safety reviews of applications to renew nuclear power plant licenses in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54. The SR.P-LR was developed to assure quality and unifo rmity of staff reviews and to present a well defined technical basis fro m which to evaluate a licensee's application. Availability of the SRP-LR aids in the h*ansparency of NRC staff reviews of LRAs such that applican ts can unders tand the types and detai I of information needed by the staff in its reviews. The SRP-LR incorporates by reference the GALL Report.

Bo th the SRP-LR and the GALL Report were initially issued in 2001 and the last rev ision, Revision 2, was issued in 2011. Subsequent changes to both the SRP-LR and the GALL Report have been implemented through the License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance (LR-ISG) process, wherein incremental changes are made to these documents. A total of l OLR-ISGs have been issued for Rev ision 2 of these documents, as listed on the NRC web site.

It should be noted that fur ther full revisions of the SRP-LR and the GALL Report, e.g.,

Revis ion 3, will not be issued because of the limited number of plants that would use these reports.

A more detailed description of the license renewal process is provided in TECDOC- 1736 [6].

4. A ssuring Plant Safety from 40 to 60 Years - Subsequent License Renewal W ith the maturity of license renewal, utilities have expressed an interest in renewing their licenses for an additional 20 years. 'Ih is is called "subsequent license renewal," or SLR, consistent with the terminology of 10 CFR 54.3 1( d). The Commission has stated that the license renewa l rule has provided an effective basis for ensuring safe operation during the license renewal period and will continue to be an effective basis for SLR. Thus the process for SLR is the same as that for license renewal. Consistent with the license renewal rule, the focus

of SLR is on the adequacy of additional aging management activities to ensure safe p lant operation during the subsequent period of extended operation.

To support SLR, the N RC has developed guidance documents analogous to those for license renewal, although they specifically address operating conditions to 80 years. The "Generic Aging Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR) Repo11" (NUREG-2191) [7] provides acceptable methods to manage aging effects for 80 years of plant operation. The "Standard Review Plan for Rev iew of Subsequent License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" (SRP-SLR) (NUREG-2192) [8] prov ides guidance to NRC staff reviewers to perform safety r ev iews of SLR applications.

Revis ions of the license renewa l guidance documents have focused on operating experience, specifi cally the lessons learned and findin gs fro m these events. Because plants have operated for less than 50 years, other infonnatio n beyond a n exclusive reliance on operating experience was used to identify and address the ag ing concerns for the operating period up to 80 years.

In 2014, the NRC Office of N uclear R egulatory Research, in collaboration with the U .S.

Department of Energy, published the fi ve vo lume **Expanded Materials Degradation Assessment," known as the EMDA [9]. This study covered 80 years of operation and systems, strnctures, and components, including core internals, piping systems, the reacto r pressure vessel (RPV), e lectrical cabJes, and concrete and civil structures. The EMD A used the phenomena identification and ranking table, the PIRT approach, where in an expert pane l is convened to rank potentia l degradation scena rios according to the ir judgment of suscep tibility and current state of knowledge.

At the invitation of Constellatio n Energy and Duke Ene rgy, NRC staff conducted " AMP Effectiveness Audits" at three plants that were operating in the ir period of extended operatio n.

The purpose of these information collecti.on audits was to understand how their AMPs have been implemented and how effective their AMPs were in identify ing aging and unexpected aging phenomena. The findings fro m these audits were used with info rmation from other sou rces to inform the AMPs fo r subsequent license renewal.

The s taff also searched internatio nal and natio nal ope rating experience databases for age-related operating experience since the last revision of the licen se renewal guidance in 20 11.

In addition, comments from stakeho lders were collected during public meetings and a public comment peri od , as well as comments fro m the staff.

To develop the SLR guidance document, the NR C created ninety-seven internal expert panels to review and d!isposition the comments and issues. These panels started with the Revision 2 versions of the GALL Re port and the SRP-LR that were developed fo r license renewal. The panels then reviewed and deliberated on the information provided by the sources identified above. Draft SLR guidance documents (the GALL-SLR Report and the SRP-SLR) w ere then made available for public conunent. Subsequently, the staff held public meetings to provide interested! stakeholders information on the dispos ition of the expert panels and to solicit stakeholder comments. The SRP-SLR and GALL-SLR Report were issued as final documents in July 2017.

5. Status of License Renewal and Subsequent License Renewal As of the September 2017, licenses have been renewed for a total of 89 nuclear power plant units in the U.S. , with 86 units out ofa population of99 units operating with renewed licenses. An additional 7 units have applications under review and 4 units have stated an

intent to apply for license renewal between 2020 and 2022. Forty-seven units wi ll be in the operating period beyond 40 years by the end of 201 7.

The U.S. nuclear industry has expressed intent to apply for subsequent license renewal, to enable plant operation to 80 years. These include one application by the end of2017, and one application each in 2018 and 2019.

6. Technical Issues fo r Subsequent License Renewal Based on various workshops, evaluations and public discussion, there has been a consensus that the top four tec hnical issues to provide assurance of safe operation of nuclear power plants for operation from 60 to 80 years are:

Neutron embrittlement of the reactor pressme vessel Confirm predictive methods using operating experience and Assess embrittlement at higher fluerice levels Stress corrosion cracking and other types of degradation of reactor pressure vessel internals Evaluate impacts of irradiation assisted stre ss corros ion cracking, loss of fracture toughness, and void swelling Test materials at higher fluence levels Concrete and containment degradation to Evaluate effects of alkali-silica reaction on structural pe rformance of concrete Confirm structural integrity for susceptible plant configurations E lectrical cable qualification and cond ition monitoring to Evaluate effects of gamma radiation and thermal exposure in low voltage cables Confirm assessment of med ium voltage cable submergence qualification It is industry's responsibility to develop the tec hnical basis for long-term operation. Lacking resolution of these issues on a generic basis, the fi rs t SLR applications will need to add:ress each of these issues o n a plant-specific basis as necessary. Once gene ric resolutions o f these topics are identified, the NRC will implement the technical resolutions into the SLR process.

The NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research is collaborating on research activities to address these topics with both domestic indust1y organizations (l.e., E lectric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)) as well as international partners.

7. Conclusions The NRC's License Renewal Program has successfully evaluated and renewed licenses for more than 80% of the fleet of operating nuclear power plants in the United States. These reviews have focused on ensuring that licensees have adequate aging management in place to ensure safe plant operation during the period of extended operation to 60 years. The limited focus review of license renewal is supported by many other activities in the NRC's on-going regulatory process, including some essential e lements identified previously.

With the development of guidance documents for subsequent license renewal, the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission is positioned to review SLR applications, subject to plant-specific consideration of certain technical issues. In conjunctions with the on-going regulatory process, this will ensure safe plant dming the subsequent period of extended operation, out to a possible 80 years of operating time.

References

1. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.MMISSION, 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities, National Archives and Records Administration, USNRC, 2017.

2. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.MMISSION, 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants, National Archives and Records Administration, USNRC, 201 7.

3. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.MMISSION, subpa1t A of 10 CFR Part 51 , National Environmental Policy Act- Regulations Implementing Section 102(2), National Archives and Records Administration, USNRC 2012.

4. UNITED STAT S NUCL AR REGULATORY CO.MMISSION, Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, NUREG-1801 , Revision 2, USNRC, December 2010.

5. UNITED STAT S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1800, Revi ion 2, USNRC, December 2010.

6. "Approaches to Ageing Management in Member States: International Generic Ageing Lessons Learned (IGALL) Final Report," IAEA-TECDOC-1736, 2014.

7. UNITED STAT S NUCL AR REGULATORY OMMISSlON, Generic Aging L on Learned for Sub qu nt Lie n R n wa l (GALL- LR) Report, NUREG-2191 , Vols. 1 and 2, USNR , July 2017.

8. UNITED STAT NU L AR REGULATORY OMMISSION, Standard Review Plan for Revi w of Sub equ nt Licen Renewal Application for Nucl ar Power Plant , NUREG-2 192, US RC, Ju ly 2017.

9. UNITED TAT NU L AR REGULATORY OMMISSION, Expanded Material Degradation A e ment (EMDA) , UREG/ R-7153 , Volum 1-5, U NR , Octob r 2014.

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 19:07:56 +0000 To: Frankl, Istvan Cc: Hull, Amy

Subject:

RE: Harvesting One Pager Hi Steve, That sounds good to me. I also would have no problem w ith Aloysius taking over GSl-191 as well. It matches his background in CSGB well. At this point, it has mostly been supporting NRR as requested on reviewing submittals with the support of our chemical effects expert.

l ______..--__.~ nd my calendar should be up to date for next week.

I am ...

(b)(6).

Thanks!

Matt From: Frankl, Istvan Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 12:53 PM To: Hiser, Matthew Cc: Hull, Amy

Subject:

RE: Harvesting One Pager Thanks, Matt.

I implemented your clarifications in the attachment.

I will schedule meeting with Aloysius and you for early next week to discuss this assignment.

am also thinking about reassigning the GSl-191 effort to him. Any thoughts on this?

Steve From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 12:16 PM To: Frankl, I stvan Cc: Hull, Amy

Subject:

RE: Harvesting One Pager Hi Steve, OK, I accepted your revisions (attached). To answer your questions:

1. What is the status of UNR?

a. As far as I know, Amy has had some limited discussion with DLR staff and management and they support this effort and would like to put in UNR. I don't th ink there has been much more progress made on that front, which is something that Aloysius could hopefully lead.

2 . Is this a different UNR, or the new one?

a. I was referring to the same one as above . There are already UNRs for RES support for SLR, so whether it is "updating" those old ones or creating a "new" UNR from scratch is not much different in my mind .

Thanks!

Matt From: Frankl, Istvan Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 12:00 PM To: Hiser, Matthew Cc: Hull, Amy

Subject:

RE : Harvesting One Pager Thanks , Matt.

Nice one-pager.

I have a few comments and revisions . Please see the attachment for details.

Thanks ,

Steve From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 10:05 AM To: Frankl, I stvan; Hull, Amy

Subject:

Harvesting One Pager Hi Steve and Amy, Please find attached the one-pager on the harvesting project to help facilitate transition w ith Aloysius.

Thanks!

Matt

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Fri, 29 Jan 201617:16:14 +0000 To: Frankl, Istvan Cc: Hull, Amy Note to requester: Attachment is

Subject:

RE: Harvesting One Pager immediately following.

Attachme nts: Harvesting One Pager.docx Hi Steve, OK, I accepted your revisions (attached). To answer your questions:

1. What is the status of UNR?

a. As far as I know, Amy has had some limited discussion with DLR staff and management and they support this effort and would like to put in UNR. I don't th ink there has been much more progress made on that front, which is something that Aloysius could hopefully lead.

2. Is this a different UNR, or the new one?

a. I was referring to the same one as above. There are already UNRs for RES support for SLR, so whether it is "updating" those old ones or creating a "new" UNR from scratch is not much different in my mind.

Thanks!

Matt From: Frankl, Istvan Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 12:00 PM To: Hiser, Matthew Cc: Hull, Amy

Subject:

RE: Harvesting One Pager Thanks, Matt.

Nice one-pager.

I have a few comments and revisions. Please see the attachment for details.

Thanks, Steve From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 10:05 AM To: Frankl, Istvan; Hull, Amy

Subject:

Harvesting One Pager Hi Steve and Amy, Please find attached the one-pager on the harvesting project to help facilitate transition with Aloysius.

Thanks!

Matt

Strategic Approach to Ex-Plant Harvesting (1/29/2016)

Background

Understanding the causes and control of degradat ion mechanisms forms the basis for developing aging management programs (AMPs) to ensure the functionality and safety margins of NPP systems, structures, and components (SSC). The resolution to these issues should provide reasonable assurance of safe operation of the components in the scope of license renewal during the subsequent period of extended operation.

In many cases, the scientific basis for understanding and predicting long-term environmental degradation behavior of materials in NPPs is incomplete. A strategic approach to the harvesting, examination and testing of materials and components from decommissioned reactors can dramatically increase our knowledge-acquisition rate in this very important area.

This project is to develop a strategic approach to ex-plant harvesting and was originally conceived and initiated through the NRC's Long-Term Research Program (LTRP).

Facts

A new task order (NRC-HQ-60-15-T-0023) was pllaced with the Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL) Enterprise Wide Agreement (NRC-HQ-25-14-D-0001) in September 2015 to support NRC in developing a strategic approach to ex-plant harvesting. Task 1 focuses on a scoping study to pull in information from other sources (EMDA; GALL; ASME code; etc.) to populate an information tool that will allow the prioritization of harvesting opportunities.

An internal NRC working group consisting of staff from RES and NRR was formed to advise the strategic harvesting effort.

NRR/DLR staff and management have expressed strong support and interest in this project and intend to develop a user need request (UNR) to support this effort in the context of Subsequent License Renewal (SLR).

Status

Under Task 1 of the task order, PNNL is currently working on developing examples for dissimilar metal welds and cables of what type of information will be captured and how it will be presented.

The working group has met once in December and has another meeting scheduled for February to review some information put together by PNNL.

Next Steps

By mid-February, PNNL should provide examples for dissimilar metal welds and cables in the information tool. This will allow NRC (likely through the working group) to review what type of information will be captured and how it will be presented.

NRC staff should work with PNNL to organize a public workshop to discuss the topic of ex-plant harvesting and engage relevant stakeholders, particularly EPRI, industry, and DOE that can help provide information and cooperation in these efforts.

RES staff should work with NRR staff to develop an updated UNR incorporating this strategic harvesting effort.

From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:02:32 -0600 To: Hiser, Matthew;Tregoning, Robert

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster All's well ...

Original Message --------

From: "Hiser, Matthew" <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Date: Mon, October 23, 2017 3:00 PM +0200 To: "Hiser, Allen" <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>, "Tregoning, Robert" <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster They should be the same ones I sent to IAEA. ..

About the poster, I followed the size requirement - didn't catch until just now that it was supposed to be portrait orientation .... Oops!

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTC D/Meetings/PDFplus/2017/cn246/cn246PosterGuidelines.pdf From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 8:54 AM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew. Hiser@nrc.gov>; Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster Poster arrived in good condition. Poster space was 1 meter wide, but there was an internal corner bay "next door" that I could utilize.

Hopefully the slides I am prepared for are the same ones IAEA has! @

Original Message --------

From: "Hiser, Matthew" <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Date: Mon, October 23, 2017 2:45 PM +0200 To: "Tregoning, Robert" <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>, "Hiser, Allen" <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster Here's the latest version of the paper (at division level management for approval).

I also attached the slides, which I had sent a couple weeks back.

Did the poster make it to the hotel?

Thanks for presenting and good luck!

Matt From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 8:41 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster Allen:

Do you have the final presentation and latest version of the paper? I'll ask Matt to send you the latest version just in case. Then you can peruse the paper for some additional information.

Thanks again for covering ......

RT Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 8:38 AM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matt hew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Harvesting Poster Importance: High FYI - The poster presentation has gone from lunchtime to in-session in 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months due to a cancellation.

Any last minute thoughts to convey?

From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 06:55:50 -0600 To: Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster Thanks matt for closing the loop on this; I didn't think I had the latest version of the paper to send .. ..

Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Monday, Oct ober 23, 2017 8:45 AM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster Here's the latest version of the paper (at division level management for approval).

I also attached the slides, which I had sent a couple weeks back.

Did the poster make it to the hotel?

Thanks for presenting and good luck!

Matt From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 8:41 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE : Harvesting Poster Allen:

Do you have the final presentation and latest version of the paper? I'll ask Matt to send you the latest version just in case. Then you can peruse the paper for some additional information.

Thanks again for covering ... ...

RT Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials

US Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph : 301-415-2324 fax : 301-415-6671 From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 8:38 AM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc .gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Harvesting Poster Importance: High FYI - The poster presentation has gone from lunchtime to in-session in 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months due to a cancellation.

Any last minute thoughts to convey?

From: Frankl, Istvan Sent: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:44:21-0400 To: Moyer, Carol Cc: Hull, Amy;Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

RE: Harvesting poster abstract Thanks , Carol.

The proposal for the poster looks good . I will pass it along to the TA.

Steve From: Moyer, Carol Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 7:52 AM To : Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>

Cc: Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Harvesting poster abstract

Steve, The attached abstract is for a RIC poster on harvesting . Please edit it, if necessary.

I am planning to go to the Standards Forum this morning, so if this needs changes, please feel free to make them .

At the Standards Forum , I will mention that we are starting to look at standards for AM, including having participated in an ANSI collaborative program kick-off. I will not specifically "plug" the public meeting that we are planning for this fall , since we do not have full management buy-in on that just yet.

Carol

From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:28:14 -0600 To: Tregoning, Robert;Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster Yep, I knew most of the "facts", but I was not going to share that in a later discussion with an IAEA staffer from Japan!

From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 3:26 PM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster Thanks for feedback Allen and once again for covering the presentation for us.

Just FYI, we did consider the Japanese effort a few years ago but the driver behind that program was basically the Japanese industry and government looking to get funding out of a decommissioning plant without considering whether the materials in the plant had any real worth w.r.t. outstanding technical issues. Also, cloaking this effort as an IAEA-CRP, at least in the US, was viewed negatively because it didn't appear that IAEA was adding any substantive value and would only add to the cost of such an effort. The outcome of that "effort" was to make it clear that the Japanese should pursue any harvesting partners directly, outside of IAEA. Not surprisingly, nothing else came of the activity when it became apparent that countries were not going to line up to hand out money for something so ill-defined. In fact, it was, in part, the abject failure of this particle effort that made it apparent that we needed a better strategy related to harvesting and not what we've done in the past which is to just grab stuff from plants that present themselves as "opportunity targets". Note that my bias and cynicism has been added to the summary of this effort.

Cheers, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 2:42 PM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew. Hiser@nrc.gov>; Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster

The presentation went OK.

The session was scheduled to end at 5:40 but I didn't start until 5:55 and ended at about 6:15. I am not sure of how they managed to get so far behind, since I had a GALL/GALL-SLR paper in a different session at the same time.

The only substantive comment was a question about whether we had considered the Japanese effort a few years ago that was cloaked in an IAEA CRP. My response was that we prefer multilateral collaborations. I said that I wo1uld pass the comment on - here it is.

Allen From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 9:01 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster They should be the same ones I sent to IAEA . ..

About the poster, I followed the size requirement - didn't catch until just now that it was supposed to be portrait orientation . ... Oops!

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2017/cn246/cn246PosterGuidelines.pdf From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 8:54 AM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew. Hiser@nrc.gov>; Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster Poster anived in good condition. Poster space was 1 meter wide, but there was an internal comer bay "next door" that I could utilize.

Hopefully the slides I am prepared for are the same ones IAEA has! @

Original Message --------

From: "Hiser, Matthew" <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Date: Mon, October 23, 2017 2:45 PM +0200 To: "Tregoning, Robert" <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>, "Hiser, Allen" <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster Here's the latest version of the paper (at division level management for approval).

I also attached the slides, which I had sent a couple weeks back.

Did the poster make it to the hotel?

Thanks for presenting and good luck!

Matt From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 8:41 AM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen .Hiser@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Poster Allen:

Do you have the final presentation and latest version of the paper? I'll ask Matt to send you the latest version just in case. Then you can peruse the paper for some additional information.

Thanks again for covering ..... .

RT Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 8:38 AM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Harvesting Poster Importance: High FYI - The poster presentation has gone from lunchtime to in-session in 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months due to a cancellation.

Any last minute thoughts to convey?

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:59:15 +0000 To: Tregoning, Robert;Purtscher, Patrick;Audrain, Margaret

Subject:

RE: harvesting presentation for NRC/NRA meeting Yeah, I just looked back - there was no second sub-bullet there on the first version of what we sent you.

Somehow I managed to add that second sub-bullet when I was adding the slide on the workshop ... I don't think there was any burning point there I was trying to add From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 1:53 PM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew. Hiser@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>;

Audrain, Margaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: harvesting presentation for NRC/NRA meeting I might add something there but just wanted to see if there was a burning point that you guys were meaning to make . ...

Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 1:15 PM To: Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>; Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>;

Audrain, Margaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: harvesting presentation for NRC/NRA meeting I would just delete that second sub-bullet, I think the first bullet covers the thought we were trying to convey ...

Thanks!

Matt From: Purtscher, Patrick Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 11:07 AM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>;

Audrain, Margaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: harvesting presentation for NRC/NRA meeting You could consider replacing "Developing" w ith " Proposing new p rotocol for harvesting"?

Pat From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 10:56 AM To : Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Audra in, Margaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc .gov>;

Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>

Subject:

harvesting presentation for NRC/NRA meeting Guys:

Slide 6, 2nd sub-bullet of first bullet just says "Developing". What point did you want to articulate here?

Thanks ,

Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materi als US Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockvil le Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph : 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 18:53 :03 +0000 To: Sircar, Madhumita

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Prio ritiza t ion Follow-up Sure Q From: Sircar, Madhumita Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 2:53 PM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting Prioritization Follow-up

Matt, Can we move this meeting to Monday, Sep 10th ?

Thanks ,

olftut

Original Appointment-----

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:14 AM To: Hiser, Matthew; Sircar, Madhumita

Subject:

Harvesting Prioritization Follow-u p When: Thursday, September 06, 201811:00 AM-11 :30 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US &

Canada).

Where: HQ-TWFN-10A73-8p

Note to requester: The attachments are immediately following.

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:09:23 +0000 To: Kirk, Mark Cc: Gordon, Matthew;Tregoning, Robert;Raynaud, Patrick

Subject:

RE: Harvesting prioritization for RPV Attachments: Copy of Harvesting Needs Prioritization 8-31-18 rlt.xlsx, Harvesting Needs Prioritization 8-31-18 [+MTK].xlsx Hi Mark, Thank you for taking a look at this prioritization and providing your input. I took a look at this for the sake of consistency with how we've done the ranking in other areas (not that it will ever be perfect, but just a high-level look). I had a couple comments/ questions that stood out to me:

1. For the "regulatory considerations" field, you didn't put a ranking and indicated RPV embrittlement isn't (and realistically can't be) inspected for. For that field, we're thinking about the context for regulating the relevant component. In many instances, it is inspections. (For example, if there is no good way to inspect a component, we'd probably rate it high for harvesting since we need to have high confidence in how it will behave if we can't inspect for flaws.) However, for the RPV, although it isn't directly inspected, the use of surveillance specimens is a critical aging management activity t hat provides confidence in the material performance during extended operations. That, along with specific considerations for 80 years (how well will surveillance specimens be able to address higher fluences?), would be what I would focus on for that criteria. In my mind, that's probably driving you to a Mor ML given the surveillance specimens, but that's from a non-RPV expert perspective.

2. For the second row on comparing Charpy to direct measurement approaches, you've got a MH for the importance of harvested materials over lab aging. Do you really have to have harvested materials in order t o compare the Charpy and direct measurement approaches? That seems to me like something that doesn't really have to be done with harvested materials, but could be accomplished through a test reactor irradiation as well . But maybe there's a good reason it would need to be from real ex-plant materials.

(b)(6)

I also received some input from Rob, which I want ed to share with this gro'up for consideration and consolidation with Mark's input. I know Rob and Patrick are !

Iso this might take a litt le while to get everyone's thoughts incorporated, but appreciate your efforts to give us your input.

Hopefully with everyone back the week after next we can finalize this for RES.

Thanks!

Matt From: Kirk, Mark Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 9:28 AM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew. Hiser@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gordon, Matthew <Matthew.Gordon@nrc.gov>; Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>;

Raynaud, Patrick <Patrick.Raynaud@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: Harvesting prioritization for RPV

Matt -

See attached. I added some explanations for my ranking, although t hey may be somewhat cryptic.

Let me know if you need more explanation.

mark From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 8:40 AM To: Kirk, Mark

Subject:

RE: Harvesting prioritization for RPV Thanks Mark!

From: Kirk, Mark Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 8:36 AM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Gordon, Matthew <Matthew.Gordon@nrc.gov>;

Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Cc: Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: Harvesting prioritization for RPV Matt -

Thanks for the reminder. This fell off of my radar. I will reply later today.

mark From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 7:27 AM To: Kirk, Mark; Gordon, Matthew; Tregoning, Robert Cc: Purtscher, Patrick; Audrain, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Harvesting prioritization for RPV Hi guys, I just wanted to follow up on this earlier email to see if you have had the opportunity to take a look at this. Ideally we'd like to have something to compile with the other areas by the end of this week.

Thanks!

Matt

Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch Phone: 301-415-2454 1Office: TWFN 10D62 Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:36 AM To: Kirk, Mark <Mark.Kirk@nrc.gov>; Gordon, Matthew <Matthew.Gordon@nrc.gov>;

Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Cc: Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret

<Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting prioritization for RPV I should also say, please feel free to add or subtract from the rows (ie propose new or eliminate from consideration certain RPV harvesting needs) and to provide feedback (edits, comments, etc.) on the criteria and the guidance to use the criteria.

Thanks!

Matt From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:33 AM To: Kirk, Mark <Mark.Kirk@nrc.gov>; Gordon, Matthew <Matthew.Gordon@nrc.gov>;

Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Cc: Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret

<Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Harvesting prioritization for RPV Hi Mark, Matt, and Rob, We would like to request your input as the RPV technical experts on the prioritization of harvesting opportunities for RPV materials. I have attached a template of the prioritization of harvesting needs in the non-RPV metals area. Can you follow that template (check the scoring guidance on the first sheet) to provide input for the RPV technical area?

Ideally, it would be good if we could receive your input in the next two weeks by September 14. We're hopiing to pull all of the input from the different areas into a broader harvesting draft deliverable to share with NRR for feedback by October.

Please me know if you have any questions.

Thanks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch Phone: 301-415-2454 I Office: TWFN 10D62 Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov

Criteria T itle Description Scoring Guidance H = high risk significance/ little to no available data MH = Medium-high risk significance/

limited data available Crilicalness of Technical Gap Harvesting to address critical gaps should be prioritized over less M = Moderate risk significance I some Addressed essential technical saps data available ML= low to moderate risk signficance / H = High sufficient data available for regulatory MH = Medium-high decisions M = Medium L = Low risk significance I large amount ML= Medium-low of data available L = Low Key considerations are the ease of laboratory replication of aging H = Nearly Impossible to replicate mechanism and unique. field aspects of the aging mechanism. service enviroment I critically important Degradation mechanisms that are harder to replicate with simulated to use harvested materials aging conditions would be of higher priority for harvesting, For MH = Challenging to repl icate service example, simultaneous thermal and irradiation conditions arc enviromenl / important lo use harvested difficult to replicate outs ide of the plant environme nt. Alternatively, materials Importance of Harvested accelerated aging may not be feasible for a mechanism sensitive to M = Possible w ith some limitations to Materials over Laboratory Aging dose rate. T hese two degradat ion mechanisms may be best evaluated replicate service enviroment / moderately using harvested materials. for unique field aspects, legacy materials important to u:.e harve:.ted material:.

(e.g., fabrication methods, comr>0sition) that are no longer available, ML= Not challenging to replicate service but may play an important role in a potential degradat ion enviroment I less important to use mechanism, would have a higher priority than harvesting materials harvested materials that can be oblained from other sources with represen1ative L = Very easy to r eplicate service properties. enviroment I not important to use harvested materials H = All plants There is greater value in developing knowledge to address an issue MH=AII PWRs Applicability to US Operating that may be appl icable to a larger number of plants compared to one M = All BWRs or most PWRs Fleet that may only affect a relatively small number of plants. ML= ~10-15 plants L = <5 plants H = No or very limited inspection methods available / low confidence in AMPs If mature inspection methods exist and are easy to apply to monitor MH = Limited inspection met hods degradation, harvesting may be less valuable. lfinspecl ion methods available / low-to-moderate confidence i n Regulatory Considerations do not exist. harvesting may be essential 10 ensure confidence in the AMPs Related to Inspections and AMPs assessment of age-related degradation in that particular M = Some inspection methods available I component.T he less confidence that NRC staff has in the moderate confidence in AMPs efTectiveness of the relevant AMP, the higher priority for harves1ing. ML= Good i nspection methods available

/ medium-high confidence in AMPs L = Effective, well-accepted inspection methods exist/ high confidence in AMPs H = Highly irradiated (>5 dpa)

Activities with higher costs and comp lexity are less attractive than MH = Lightly irradiated / contaminated s imilar activities wilh lower costs and 1hat are s impler to execute .. M = Minimal contamination or high effort Harvesting cost and complexity For example, harvesting unirradiated concrete or electrical cables is unirradiated less expensive and less complex than harvesting from the RPV ML= Unirradiated, moderate effort internals or 1he RPV. expected L = Unirradiated, low effort expected T he ability of a potential harvesting program to provide timely results to support either a technical or regulatory need is important.

Timeliness of results Having high confidence that results w ill be timely increases the priority.

Availability of m aterials for T he availability of materials to harvest for a particular dala need is harvesting c\e.arly essential and increases the priority.

Basic Info Technlcal C riteria Proiect s-- Ifie Cost I Complexity Av11llablllty of Purposa / TSting C ritical ness of Technical l mporta11ce of Harvested Regulatory Considerations Timelin ess. of Need De.scrlpUon Technic al K nowledge Gai ned Al)l)llcab llhy to US Oper ating Fleet Scor e Average Basi s for Tec hnic al Priority m aterials for Plannad Gap Addressed Mal*rial& over Laboratory Aging R elated to Inspe ctions and AMPS results harvesting RPV Score Comment Score Comment Scor,e Comment Score Comment Score Comment The results would b e l imefy T tie aitteou:atton models if they are have the le-ast amoui,t or d9...,91oped This work has beE!fl supporting information Material is i rradiated before 2024 or done before b ut the a dC,itiOna!work Shol.ldl'ocuson Ther~ ar e not many studies that irTadiate 6 to 9 ind"ies Vv'hlle the Information stioold be generieally appri(;al)le, ii. for compared t o other 9$pe,cls related to RPV embrittleme nt. HOWIJ'ler, The 8't lenut1tion stuc,y ls s llgtitty rnc,re i mportant to me,, jusl which will .iffect all a,spectsofspecimen pr eparation anc, so tocoincicle additional Othe r than Zion h iger fluE!floeS to of ste.el so, from that some reason, the results .are studies to date have because there are fewer such testing. Fisther. rlformaoon materials. I'm RPV - Hl!l'ftuence&hlgh Meast.1re fluenoe, verify that the standpoint, getting only appllc&ble to Mhlgh fluenceM vahd ated the st!Jdles tha t have been oone. taking !Speclmeos at bel.ng collected n04 owareof Shift Y'eSS91wi1h well- toughn.ess. & CMmiStry a s attenuation trends specimen s from an RPV materials/locatiOns. this might conservativism 04 e x isting Being able to confirm expected several th1ough- from i ndustl)I otha-1 RPVs that etSU!blished uni rrediated a fund i an of through- Through thickness section to valida te e xpected are are importan l for studying result in less relevance I() lower e fflenuatiom models ,used Fl trends al h igher fluen ce level s ihdness locations survielanoe are available ior

- ~- n ies thickne,!j,JJ nositk;tn fluenoe & :;11ter1,1ation mQodel, M maintaiined. MH a1ter1,1atiQn M flueooe Ian~ r.-.cludino B VVR$\. Ml I r@OUla tory ep plic.ilion $. M WQUld there*fore be uSf;!ful. MH will i ncrease cosa. raorllff)!jl. h arve$ting.

Pro<M!es data s uppotting evolution enougti data ha~ my mir'ld foe ha'\ling YffSel confldenc4!!1 i n RPV While irs at.vays usel ut to haY@ Ma terial is i rradiat&d would be tim ely materials. rm Enable measure,men l of from the use of corralaliYe (Charpy- been developed material fot 1his study rs embrittleme nt 1han vi rtually more data. ei;pecially on RPV which will affect alt if they are not swaraof both 1he Charpy ttansition, b ased) to direct measurement from both 1esa and that there are n o (J.JeSlio ns erny other degra dation lhat m 1:11erie1s. 1*feel 1hat o ur models: as.peel$ of specimen de...,eloped o thet RPVs tha t RPV

Samples from wtoal y CUf\oe 8'nC, maste r <:curve (ft actu re tougtmess.-based) SOt"\'el"l lanoe about the Any Information developed we stu dy, 1'he onty ,eal already nave a gooo *technlcal pr ~ aratlon anc, before 2024 01 are available "for a~ves.sel tra~n tem=rature TO a~roaches M SrVICimens such ML I reoresentaliv en ess 01 anv MH shOuld be oenerieally aoolicabl& Ml issue iS makinn sure that M *ML b a.sis. MH l ~i= . so toeoincid e harvestino.

Basic Info Technlcal C riteria Proiect s-- Ifie Cost I Complexity Av11llablllty of Purposa / TS ting C riticalness of Technical Importance of Harvested Regulatory Considerations Timeliness. of Need De.scripUon Technic al Knowledge Gained Al)l)llcabllhy to US Oper ating Fleet Scor e Average Basis for Tec hnic al Priority m aterials for Plannad Gap Addressed Mal*rial& over Laboratory Aging R elated to Inspe ctions and AMPS results harvesting METAL S Score Comment Score Comment Scor,e Comment Score Comment Score Comment EP RI performing R& D Qn L&boralory repli cation ~ ry NOE for yo<<j swell<<'lg : MRP diffieull to impossibkl to 227 usM J'.)t'i mar ily viSual Signifieanea Of void s welling al likely extent of vOO swelli ng in Fils dai s !JiiP fo,r achieve ftuences with last.ig, w hi di could <letac.t h ig hec flueBCes is u ncertain, Very high cost fo r Void swell ing, m echanicall PWRs du ring e:,,:tended o peration and elflended plant representative ii'radiation App licab le to hi9h-fluenoe void swelling once fairly and i nspections may detect h ighly i rradiated 1-fil'lh flu8ne& reactor internals roM rtKls. IASCC imaet. on eraeleiM M oooration MH eondilions MH eotnl'M'lc'IGn\S n most PINRS MH I9tlnifieant 3.75 onset Of si J'litiean t de aradatiOttl VH inttimal:!i TBD Moderete CO$! fo r P'u1pose of wort. would l>e W ould gr eatly increase contaminattld, b ut Fractu re tough ness data in real Vaida1e to i:wovide r eal-world c.onfldence i n large set of nol irradiated, Therm~ ly :aged unirradia tl;!d CASS Fractur l;! toughnl;!$$ :and mlcrosttucrure cond ~ IQ oompar1;1 to aocelera1,ed aoin o d a ta MH a ocele,rated agrlg d ata H Yalid1;11ion of :acCli!le~ted I aoloo i n lab tes.tJno May be p ossible. but M

MO$! :aippicflble to a $Ub$.el of PWRs H N,o 1$1 meth od :av,3i lable to measure bss of FT .... a cCli!lerated aging daaa with te stiM of un lrrad!ated materlal:s M primary $1.,e m comoonents difficult to replic;a1e long- t*Hgh CO$! for Modet"ate ftuenee (1*2 dp a) Fractur e toughness and Fra cture tougl1r.ess data near Nmit Conftrm regu la!CM'y term aging and lrradtation Most a.p~bte to a subset of No ISi meu,oo availa b le 10 W.oold lnctease confid ence ., ltradlated CASS microstruclure re~irina further evaluation ML 06it io n MH affect, M PWR, H measure b ss of FT 3.5 r eQu1ator;, nncinnn H comoonoots Moderate cost for Deter'mi ne whe~her sec miUgation Pu rpose of this woitt is to contaminaltld, b ul methods are effective al p re-venting Vaida1e NDE and P'u!pOse of wort would be a:ssess inspection an d nol irradiated, Metallic comJ):)nen1s with NDE Sfld destructive sec; effectiveness of NOE at nitigation melhod to provide ,eaJ.wodd mitigation method Increase confidence i n NDE primar;,stsem known flaws examin ation d~ectl on and slzlno MH e ffeciivenes.s MH Yalidatlon of lab tes11nQ H Applicab le to ah p lants ML effectiveness 3.75 and m ltJQatl<m methods M components Moderate cost for contamin.i1ed, bu1 Purpose of ~ would t>e F;:itlgve calOJla1Ions Inform not lmlldklted, Metallic oomponenl s with NDE end destructiYe Determi ne whether fatigue flaws are Veida1e fatigue ife to i:wovide r eal-world sampling i n spections of Increase oonfidence i n fatigue primarystsem limitino far ioue life examin ation resen1 in hioh usaoe localions MH methcxtolooies ML Yalida1ion of lab testino H Aoolicab le to all olants ML limi1ino faticJue locali<lns 3.2S l ife c alc:tAarions M comoonoots

Baslc:lnfo Technlc..al Crlte,ta Pro]ect Specific lmportsnce of Hlarvested C-o &t I Complox.ily Availa'b llity of Purpos* I THtil'lg Cr-lticalnu.s of Technic al Rog ulatoiy Considerations Timolinossof Nee-d 0escrlptlon Technlcal Knowledge Gained Materials over L;i,bo,atol'")' Ap pllcablllt:y t o US Operat ing Fleet Score Average BHls for Priority materials for Planned Gap Addressed Related t o Inspections arad AMPs results A ina hal"Ytistina ELECTRICA L Sc ore Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Commerat Score Comment Low and m edium voltage

cable, Cables pcOlected with fire retardant coating 1 E MOVs from harsh and mild ooW oome nts 1 E Air oe,erated \lalves: 4160 1 E txeakers 1 E Moldod case br.eakers 480V, 250V DC, 125 VOC, 1 E Rela~ from mild environme nt GE - H FA.

Agastal tlmlng relays, any from Weslinghollse. Potier B rumfield. Stuthers Dunn etc.,

Ba1terie1-

~ " ' e u a t;on*

rch interest enclosure s OlstribuUoo: swltch9ear, MCCs, LCs I Contt,ol:

Horseshoe, SSCP, ASP, etc.

Baslc:lnfo Technlc..al Crlte,ta Pro]ect Specific lmportsnce of Hlarvested C-o &t I Complox.ily Availa'b llity of Purpos* I THtil'lg Cr-lticalnu.s of Technic al Rog ulatoiy Considerations Timolinossof Nee-d 0escrlptlon Technlcal Knowledge Gained Materials over L;i,bo,atol'")' Ap pllcablllt:y t o US Operating Fleet Score Average BHls for Priority materials for Planned Gap Addressed Related t o Inspections arad AMPs results A ina hal"Ytistina CONCRET E Sc ore Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Commerat Score Comment StruClures e:icposed to high radialio n Posl-tensi'ioned s1J1Jctures Corrosion or reinPOl'Cing steeil.

t~ don. 1.-ier. embCJdment Spenl ruel pool and transfet canal-boric add arrad:: on Concrete in f>'INRs Alkali Ag!)l'egate Reaction Large slructural sections for tesling

Criteria Title Description Scoring Guidance H = high risk significance / little to no available data MH = Medium-high risk significance /

limited data available Crilicalness of Technical Gap Harvesting to address critical gaps should be priori1ized over less M = Moderate risk significance/ some Addressed essential technical gaps data available ML= low to moderate risk signficance / H = High sufficient data available for regulatory MH = Medium-high decisions M = Medium L = Low risk significance/ large amount ML= Medium-low of data available L=Low Key considerations are the ease of laboratory replication of aging H = Nearly impossible to replicate mechanism and unique field aspccls oflhe aging mechanism. service enviroment / critically important Degradalion mechanisms that are harder to replicate with simulated to use harvested materials aging condi1ions would be of higher priority for harvesting. For MH = Challenging to replicate service example, simultaneous thermal and irradiation cond itions are enviroment / important to use harvested difficult to replicate oulside of the plant environment. Ahematively, materials Importance of Harvested accelerated aging may not be feasible for a mechanism sensitive to M = Possible with some limitations to Materials over Laboratory Aging dose rate. These two degradation mechanisms may be best eva luated replicate service enviroment / moderately

µsing !mves1ed materials. for unique field aspects, legacy n1a1erials import.int to !l'>e harve,;tel;l material,;

(e.g., fabrication me thods, composition) that are no longer available, ML= Not challenging to replicate service but may play an important role in a potential degradat ion enviroment / less Important to use mechanism, would have a higher priority than harvesting materials harvested materials that can be obtained from other sources wi1h representative L = Very easy to replicate service properties. enviroment / not important to use harvested materials H = All plants There is greater value in developing knowledge to address an issue MH=AII PWRs Applicabili1y to US Operating that may be appl icable to a larger number of plants compared to one M = All BWRs or most PWRs Fleet that may only affect a relatively small number of planls. ML= ~10-15 plants L = <5 plants H = No or very limited inspection methods available/ low confidence in AMPs If mature inspection me1hods exist and are easy to apply to monilor MH = Limited inspection methods degradation, harvesting may be less valuable. If inspection methods available/ low-to-moderate confidence in Regulatory Considerations do not exist, harvesting may be essential to ensure confidence in the AMPs Rela1ed to Inspections and AMPs assessment ofage*related degradation in that particular M = Some inspection methods available/

component.The less confidence that NRC staff has in the moderate confidence in AMPs effectiveness of the relevant AMP, the higher priority for harves1ing. ML= Good inspection methods available

/ medium-high confidence in AMPs L = Effective, well-accepted inspection methods exist/ high confidence In AMPs H = Highly irradiated (>5 dpa)

Acrivilies w ith higher costs and complexity are less auracrive than MH = Lightly irradiated/ contaminated s imilar activities with lower costs and that are s impler to execute .. M = Minimal contamination or high effort Harvesting cost and complexity For example. harvesting unirradiated concrete or electrical cables is unlrradiated less expensive and le-ss complex than harvesting from the RPV ML= Unirradiated, moderate effort internals or the RPY. expected L = Unirradiated, low effort expected The ability of a po1ential harvesting program to provide timely results to sup11ort either a tech nical or regulatory need is important.

Timeliness of results Having high confidence that results will be timely increases the priority.

Avai lability of materials for The availabi lity of materials to harvest for a particular data need is harvesting clearly essential and increases the priority.

Pt oj ectSpe,cif"te Cost I Comple11.ity Avall.;1b,llltyof Critit.SIIMH Of Te.cll.nieal lmportanre Of Hlll'YHle-d Ne.c:!Oucriptio,n Tlmellnu, of Nl$Ultl ffi-ilt1ri&l1for G;11p Addru**d M;ater i;i,1$ -er Labor.ltory Aging tlar'lle6tln RPV Score Comment Score ComMent RPV - Hlgfl fluMce & l'llgh Al~a~on r.:irmula ha!i ~n ,,dell 101 yean. ln!!.ldei the beltline, s~ wsse, with w,ell-c;l;,bll$1\ed unirr.,d~1od M o.illllro -.ic,nto, kltlghne>>.

& diem;~ iH&flll'letiOtl ol lhrough-thk:knessl)06itioo Th!Qugh thil;kncn $0!.lion to va!idat4!- Muetioe & at1er.ia~on MH ltlebettHne.

C~g11:toH MH Againcr:r:.:~ ootslde MH embri1tlemert la not ir1$pei;lodJor il'a accepted aoo bel lYed ooose,n,atlve. aoo this IS probabtf true.

Gr~_,.- imp.M;t a,~tod l'loith t.iirvc,~ da1;, ovt$idc of pr,openle!I beyondlllebel~lne bel!Jloe.

Very Rmilled ex-pla,ic dlK8 ex~ts WOl'tll'ride (pefflap,s 6 plaflt'S) lo Pr-o,iidi:$ dab $1.1PPQr1ing ~olution

&labia meo:sr.m;,meril Clf bo1h comp.n to 5~ ence ~ T ~ (lau, ch.It 00 Q}lisl coml)r,Jre rrom ll'le uie o, com~talive (Cl'la1py-RFV

S,mplci fr'Qffl vil"IU/llly 11'11:t Ch:wpy l r;wi$itir;ln <;LWVCI cmbrit11eimcit i; no t r~$0f'lllbly wc,1, &!or ha~ c xpl/lin:sblo f0i1$01'1$ for b85&C1} to <lifflct mea1,Uf~t MH MH # NIA MH any ve11&el aoo ma51er cuf'le lramilUOn lospeciedior dlsagraem&nl. We nave

n1e pflyslcal reasoo to e,;pect (fracture loU{tlne-ss-based) teffll(llraliqTO di~C,$ botwecn, cx,pt;m1 j h ;i,n,~lod) tiat;l ;,nd $ll,VCIINlflot appr0t1d'l&6 dalil ..* oot (115 ll01ed)'IY9 have oot dlec+;ed In llletmanycaat'6.

Basic Info Te-chnlcal C riter ia Pro le ct s~c lflc Cost I Complexity Avallablt!ty o f Pur pose I r .sung CritiealneH o f Technic;al l m portan.ce of Hal"Veste d Regul a,tory Con.sideration s Tirmelinus o f Neet.1 Descrip tion Technical K n owledge Gained Applicablltty to US Operating F leet Score Ave-.rage B a s is for Tech n i cal P r l01fty ma t erials f or P lannod Gap Add reHed Matcni al s ove r Labofa-tory Aging R ela ted to- In specti en s an d A MP s res ults h a rvesting META L S Scor e Comm ent Soon, Comm ent Score Com m,en t Score Com ment Score Comment EPRI performing R&O oo L abor.atory replieation vaty difficu ll to impossib le 10 NOE '°' void SW811ing ;

MRP -227 u:.ses primairily Sign ificance o f void swelling at Likely exten t of void swelling in Fills data g ap for a chieve lluences with vis u;;1I testing, w hich could ~her fluences is u ncienain, Very hig h cost for Vold swelling, mech9nlcal PWRs during e11,1en<Jed opetatlon and eJ(teoded plan( r ep rese,nta1lve l rradiatloo Apptlcab le to hlgh-fluenoe detect ~oid .swelllng o nce and Inspectio ns ma~ detect hlghly lrTa<lated H IOO fluooce reactor Internals rvt'IN!lr1i&s.. IASC.C impact on r.r.vt.inn M l oo8f'ation MH conditiOm- MH comPOl'ents in most PWRs MH lairtv s~nffica.nt 3.75 ooget o, Sian i licanl <l~radaliOn VH internal$ TBD Moderate cost for P u, ~ ol WO~ WO\ld ~ Wo uld greatly i ncrease contami nated. but Fracture toughness d ata i n real Validat e to p l"O'Vide real-world confidence in large se*t o f not irra d ial ed.

T hermally a ged unirracli ate d Fr$C1Ure toughn ess and conditions to com pare 10 ;aocelerated aocelerated ~ irlQ validation o f oocelE!(ate d Most applteable t o a subset of No 1$ 1method aw ilatile 10 ~ lera ted ~ ing <la te v.ith primary stsem CASS mlcrostlucture j!Q!nodat9 MH da ta H a oino in lat> 1es,loa M PWRs H measure loss of FT 4.25 tes1Jna of unitradlate<I materials M componients M ay be possible, b UI dlfficu ll to repllcale long- Hlgticosl fCM' M od9fate nuence (1-2 dpa) Fractur e toughness and Fractur e looghneM d a ta riear limit Confirm regulatOf'Y' term aging and irradiation Most applteable to a subset of No ISi mech o d availatile lo Would i ncrease coolidence in irra diated C ASS microstructure reau iriff'KI h.Jrther evalla tion ML I oasition MH effect,; M PWRs H measure Joss of FT 3.5 reau lal ""' ...,..sil ion H com...,....,nts Moderate cost for oe1e1mine w hether SCC m iligaUOn Purpose of this ~ is to contami na te d, but methods are effective at prevenmg Validale NDE an d P ur pose o f wort< WOl,jd 00 as.sess inspection an<l not irra d ia1ed, Me1all!c oomponenl.s w.th NOE an d destrud lve SOC; effedl~ene$S o f NOE al mi~g at Ion method to prO"lkle real--wor1d mitigation method Increase confidence In NOE !)Omary stsem k nown ftaws e.xamin.ation oetecti on and si.:zina MH effecth,.eness MH valil.1ation o f lab teslina H Aoolicable to all Dian i$ ML el klctiveness 3.75 and mitioation methods M com...........,nts Moderate <<1st for contaminated, but P ut po,se Of WO~ WO\ld 00 Faligue cateulations i nfOl'm not in'a d ialed.

Metallic component s with NDE an d destructive Determine whether fatigue flaws ar,e Validaie fatigu e life to p rovide real-world sampling in:spections of Increase confidence in fatigue primary sts.em limitino fa1ioue life e xamin ation oresent Fl hiah u saae locations MH me thodolooies ML valida*tion o f lal> testina H Aoollcab le to all n lan ts ML limitino faricme locations 3.25 W fe CfllcUl<'ltions M com........,,n1s

Basic Info Technlcal Crtterta P-rolect Specific Importance of H:arvested Cosl I Comp~xity Availability of Purpose I Testing CrltiealnHs of Tech nieal Rogu latory Considorat iOns Tlmetiriou of Need Descrip tion Technical !Knowledge Gained Miiterfal!s oYer Ll!lboratory Appllciiblllty to US O periitlngi Fleet Score A'Yera9f: 8Hls for Pr-lorlty materfels for Planned Gap Addressed IRelat&d to Inspections and AMPs res.ults Aaina harvH l ina ELECTRICAL Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Commenl Scol"e Com ment Low and m edium YOH.age cables Caoles pwcected Yloith fire retardant coating 1 E MOV!. from harsh and mitd enWonmems 1 E Air operated valves; 4160 1 E britakllfS 1 E Molded case breakers 4f,OV, 250V DC, 125VOC, 1 E Relays from rrild envi'onme nt G E - HFA, Agastal timing relays, any from Westinghouse, Potter B rumfield. Stultlers Dunn etc.,

Ballet"ies

~ l~ I p~~1r1;1ti1;;mJ Fire research Interest E loctrical .ondosures Dis.tributioo: switch~ear, M CCs. LC s I Control:

Horseshoe. SSCP. ASP, etc,

Basic Info Technlcal Crtterta P-rolect Specific Importance of H:arvested Cosl I Comp~xity Availability of Purpose I Testing CrltiealnHs of Tech nieal Rogu latory Considorat iOns Tlmetiriou of Need Description Technical !Knowledge Gained Miiterfal!s oYer Ll!lboratory Appllciiblllty to US Operiitlngi Fleet Score A'Yera9f: 8Hls for Pr-lorlty materfels for Planned Gap Addressed IRelat&d to Inspectio ns and AMPs res.ults Aaina harvH l ina CONCRET E Score Comment Score Comment Score Comment Score Commenl Scol"e Com ment Structures exposed to high radialion Posl-tensf:oned structUfes Corrosion of reinfCNfdng stee,1, t endon, liner, embedment S penl fuel pool and transfer canal-boric acid a tlack on concrete iri P'VVRs A lkali Agg:regate Re action Large s11ucturl'!I seciJons for testing

From: Kirk, Mark Sent: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:27:39 +0000 To: Hiser, Matthew Cc: Gordon, Matthew;Tregoning, Robert;Raynaud, Patrick

Subject:

Re: Harvesting prioritization for RPV ~N~o~

te-t~o-r-eq_u_e-st~e-r:- ~

At~ta- c~h-m-e-nt~ i~ s~

Attachments: Harvesting Needs Prioritization 8-31-18 [+MTK].xlsx immediately following.

Matt -

See attached. I added some explanations for my ra nking, although they may be somewhat cryptic.

Let me know if you need more explanation.

mark From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 8:40 AM To; Kirk, Mark

Subject:

RE: Harvesting prioritization for RPV Thanks Mark!

From: Kirk, Mark Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 8:36 AM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew. Hiser@nrc.gov>; Gordon, Matthew <Matthew.Gordon@nrc.gov>;

Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Cc: Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: Harvesting prioritization for RPV Matt -

Thanks for the reminder. This fell off of my radar. I will reply later today.

mark From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 7:27 AM To: Kirk, Mark; Gordon, Matthew; Tregoning, Robert Cc: Purtscher, Patrick; Audrain, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Harvesting prioritization for RPV Hi guys,

I just wanted to follow up on this earlier email to see if you have had the opportunity to take a look at this. Ideally we'd like to have something to compile with the other areas by the end of this week.

Thanks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch Phone: 30 l-415-24541 Office: TWFN I OD62 Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:36 AM To: Kirk, Mark <Mark.Kirk@nrc.gov>; Gordon, Matthew <Matthew.Gordon@nrc.gov>;

Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Cc: Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret

<Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Harvesting prioritization for RPV I should also say, please feel free to add or subtract from the rows (ie propose new or eliminate from consideration certain RPV harvesting needs) and to provide feedback (edits, comments, etc.) on the criteria and the guidance to use the criteria.

Thanks!

Matt From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 9:33 AM To: Kirk, Mark <Mark.Kirk@nrc.gov>; Gordon, Matthew <Matthew.Gordon@nrc.gov>;

Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Cc: Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret

<Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Harvesting prioritization for RPV Hi Mark, Matt, and Rob, We would like to request your input as the RPV technical experts on the prioritization of harvesting opportunities for RPV materials. I have attached a template of the prioritization of harvesting needs in the non-RPV metals area. Can you follow that template (check the scoring guidance on the first sheet) to provide input for the RPV technical area?

Ideally, it would be good if we could receive your input in the next two weeks by September 14. We're hoping to pull all of the input from the different areas into a broader harvesting draft deliverable to share with NRR for feedback by October.

Please me know if you have any questions.

Thanks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Mate rials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Res earch Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Metall urgy Branch Phone: 301-415-2454 I Office: TWFN 10D62 Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov