Text

NRC-2018-000831 - Resp 14 - Interim, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed, Part 1 of 3
	ML21231A210
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/18/2021
From:	; NRC/OCIO
To:	;
Shared Package
ML21231A208	List: ML21231A209; ML21231A210; ML21231A211; ML21231A212;
References
	NRC-2018-000831
	Download: ML21231A210 (234)
	v • d • e

From: Rosseel Thomas M To: Hiser Matthew Cc: Gerard Yao Noordenoeo

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:35:05 PM Note to requester: The attachment in this Attachments : Harvesting Workshop Draft Summary Report TR,docx record is immediately following this email.

Matt, I have a few minor changes to the report. However since I suggested some changes in Session 4 (Harvesting Experiience), page 12, in the paragraph summarizing Gerry's discussion of the Zion harvesting effort, I have copied Gerry on this message for his review and concurrence.

Best regards, Tom Thomas M. Rosseel, Ph. D.

Past Chair, International Committee on Irradiated Concrete and Materials Aging and Degradation, Deputy Pathway Lead Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program Materials, Science and Technology Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory 4500S MS 6132 PO Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 TEL: 1-865-574-5380 rosseeltm@ornl ,gov From: "Matthew Hjser@nrc ~oy" <Matthew Hiser@nrc eoy>

Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 4:20 PM To: Sherry Bernhoft <sbernhoft@epri com>, Robin Dyle <rdyle@epri com>, "'Jean Smith ljmsmjth@epri com)"' <jmsmjth@epri com>, "'Ahluwa lia, Kawa ljit"' <kahluwal@epri com>, Richard Reister <Richard Rejster@ouclear enerey eoy>, "Leonard, Keith J." <leonardk@orol eoy>, "T. M.

Rosseel" <rosseeltm@ornl PY>, '"William F Zipp (Generation - 4) "' <william f.zipp@dom com>,

Gerard Van Noordennen <epvannoordennen@enereysolutjons com>, "Ramuhalli, Pradeep"

<Pradeep Ramuha lli@pool PY>, '"daniel tello@canada ca"' <daniel tello@canada ca>,

'" Uwe Jendricb@ers de"' <Uwe Jendricb@ecs de>, "'rachid chaouadj@sckcen be"'

<rachid chaouadi@sckcen be>, "Arai, Taku " <arait@criepi denken or jp>,

'"alpanfa@westioehouse com"' <alpanfa@westioebouse com>, Mikhail Sokolov

<sokoloym@orol PY>, "'desire ndomba@canada ca"' <desire ndomba@canada ca>,

'"khuynh@aecl ca"' <kbuyob@aecl ca>, '"bieuchi@criepi denken or jp"'

<bieuchi@crjepi denken or jp>, "'kazunobu sakamoto@nsr P jp"'

<kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go.jp>, "'cb imi,yasuhiro@ jaea.go.jp"" <cbimi,yasuhiro@jaea.go. jp>,

'"Jackson, John Howard"' <john jackson@in l.gov>, 'Roussel Guy' <guy roussel@Belv be>,

"iohn.wagner@in l.gov" <joh n.wagner@ in l.gov>, "'Riccardella, Pete'" <Pricca rde lla@Structiot.com>,

'"RICHTER, Mark"' <mar@nei,org>, "'Amberge, Kyle"' <kamberge@eprj.com>,

"Caroi.Moyer@nrc,gov" <Caroi.Moyer@nrc.gov>, Greg Oberson <Greg,Oberson@nrc.gov>,

"Aud rain, M argaret" <Margaret Audrain@nrc.gov>, "Poehler, Jeffrey" <Jeffrey.Poehler@nrc.gov>,

"H iser, Allen" <Allen H i ser@ re.gov>, "Yoo, Mark" <Ma rk.Yoo@n rc.gov>, "Koshy, Thomas"

<Thomas.Koshy@ nrc.gov>, "Buford, Angela" <Angela.Buford@nrc.gov>, "Sircar, Madhumita "

Cc: "Tregoning, Robert" <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>, "Purtscher, Patrick"

<Patrick Purt scher@n rc.gov>, "Frankl, Istvan" <lstvan.Frankl@ nrc.gov>, " Hull, Amy"

Subject:

RE: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop

Dear Workshop Participants :

I would like to share for your review and comment the workshop summary report (attached). In the report, we tried to capture as much of t he discussion as possible, w hile focusing on the key takeaways that might be useful for all participants as they consider harvesting in the f uture. In particu lar, please review how your presentation and contribution to t he discussion is characterized, in case you feel it should be clarified in any way. Feel free to provide add it ional references to previous research on harvested materials that should be captured in this report. Comments, edits, and suggestions on any other parts of the report are welcome.

Pleaseprovide your input by June 30 at t he latest and we wi ll try to finalize t he report by sometime in Ju ly.

As indicated in action items 4 and 5, we w ill be pursuing further coordination efforts on data needs for harvesting and a sources of materials database and welcome any other parties that may be interested in participati ng in t hese discussions.

Thank you once again for your pa rticipation and engagement in this workshop!

Thanks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and M etallurgy Branch Phone: 301-415-2454 I Office: TWFN 10062 Matthew.H iser@ nrc.gov From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 8:39 AM To: 'Bernhoft, Sherry' <sbernhoft@eprj.com>; 'Dyle, Robin ' < rdyle@eprj.com>; 'Jea n Smith (jmsmjt h@eprj.com)' <jmsm ith@epr j.com>; 'Ahluwa lia, Kawalj it ' <kahluwal@epri.com>; 'Richard Reister ( Rjcha rd. Reister@ n uclea r. energy.gov)' <Richard. Reister@nuclea r. energy. gov>;

'leonardk@orn i.gov' <leonardk@orni.gov>; 'Rosseel, Thomas M.' <rosseeltm@orni.gov>; 'Wil liam F Zipp (Generation - 4)' <willjam,f,zipp@dom,com>; 'Gerard P. Van Noordennen'

<gpvannoordennen@energysolutjons,com>; 'Ra mu haIIi, Pradeep ( Pradeep, Ramu halli@pnnI.gov)'

<Pradeep.Ramuha ll i@pn nl .gov>; 'dan iel.tello@canada.ca' <dan iel.tello@canada.ca>;

'Uwe,Jendrich@grs.de' <Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de>; 'rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be'

<rachid.chaouadi@sckcen be>; 'arait@criepi denken or jp' <arait@criepi denken or jp>;

'aJpanfa@westjnghouse com' <alpanfa@westinghouse.com>; 'sokolovm@ornl.gov'

<sokolovm@ornl.gov>; 'desire.ndomba@canada.ca ' <desire.ndomba@canada.ca>;

'khuynh@aecJ.ca' <khuynh@aed.ca>: 'higuchi@criepj.denken.or,ip' <higuchi@criepi,denken.or. jp>;

'kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go. jp' <kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go. jp>; 'chimi.yasuhiro@jaea go.jp'

<chjmi.yasuhiro@jaea.go.jp>; 'Jackson, John Howard' <john jackson@inl.gov>; 'Roussel Guy'

<guy.rousseJ@Belv.be>; 'john.wagner@inl.gov' <john wagner@in l.gov>; 'Riccardella, Pete'

<Priccardella@Structjnt.com>; 'RICHTER, Mark' <mar@neLorg>; 'Amberge, Kyle'

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

Oberson, Greg <Greg.Oberson@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>; Poehler, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Poehler@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Allen <Allen Hiser@nrc gov>: Yoo, Mark

; Koshy, Thomas <Thomas Koshy@nrc gov>; Buford, Angela

<Angela.Buford@nrc.gov>; Sircar, Madhumita <Madhumita.Sircar@nrc.gov>

Cc: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregon jng@nrc gov>: Purtscher, Patrick

<Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>; Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop

==Dear Workshop

Participants:

==

I have attached a list of participants in last week's workshop, along with their email for contact.

Also, I have not received any concerns from the presenters regarding shari ng slides, so feel free to share the slides, which are available on Google Drive: https://drjve,google.com/open?

jd-0BSDWMLchSVSXcnpZZ0JOS0SSOUU .

We hope to share a detailed workshop summary report in the next two mont hs.

Thanks!

Matt From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 7:03 AM To: 'Bernhoft, Sherry' <sbernhoft@eprj com>; 'Dyle, Robin' <rdyle@eprj com>; 'J ean Smith (jmsmith@epri.com)' <jmsmith@ep ri .com>; 'Ah luwalia, Kawaljit' <kahluwal@epri.com>; 'Richard Reister (Richard Rejster@n uclear energy gov)' <Richard Rejster@nudear energy gov>;

'leonardk@orol gov' <leonardk@orol gov>; 'Rosseel, Thomas M.' <rosseeltm@orol gov>; 'William F Zipp (Generation - 4)' <william f zjpp@dom com>; 'Gerard P. Van Noordennen'

<gpvannoordennen@energysolutions.com>; 'Ramu ha IIi, Pradeep (Pradeep.Ram uhalli@pn nI gov)'

<Pradeep Ramuha lli@pnnl gov>; 'daniel tello@canada ca' <daniel tello@canada ca>;

'Uwe Jendrich@grs de' <Uwe Jendricb@grs de>; 'rachid chaouadj@sckcen be'

<rachid chaouadj@sckcen be>; 'arajt@crjepi denken or jp' <arait@crjepi denken or jp>;

'alpanfa@westi nghouse com' <alpanfa@westinghouse com>; 'sokolovm@ornl gov'

<sokolovm@orol gov>; 'desire ndomba@canada ca ' <desire ndomba@canada ca>;

'khuynh@aecJ ca' <khuynh@aecJ ca>; 'higuch j@crjepi denken or jp' <higucbi@crjepi denken or jp>;

'kazunobu sakamoto@nsr go jp"<kazunobu sakamoto@nsr go jp>; 'cbimi yasuh iro@jaea go jp'

<cbimi yasuhjro@jaea go ip>; "Jackson, John Howard' <john iackson@inl gov>; 'Roussel Guy'

<guy roussel@Belv be>; 'john wagner@inl gov* <john wagner@in l gov>; 'Riccardella, Pete'

<Prjccardella@Structjnt com>; 'RICHTER, Mark' <mar@nej org>; 'Amberge, Kyle'

<kamberge@epri com>; Hull, Amy <Amy Hull@nrc gov>; Moyer, Carol <Carol Moyer@nrc gov>;

Oberson, Greg <Greg Oberson@nrc gov>; Audrain, Margaret <Margaret Audra jn@nrc gov>; Poehler,

Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Poehler@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hjser@nrc.gov>; Yoo, Mark

<Mark,Yoo@nrc gov>; Koshy, Thomas <Thomas Koshy@nrc gov>; Buford, Angela

<Angela.Buford@nrc.gov>; Sircar, Mad hu mita <Madhumita,Sircar@nrc.gov>

Cc: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregon jng@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick

<Patrjck.Purtscher@nrc.gov>; Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Fraokl@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Ex-plant M at eria Is Harvesting Workshop

==Dear Workshop

Participants:

==

Thank you for attending and participating in the workshop this week. I appreciate your active participation in w hat was a very interesting and informative discussion. I hope you were able to come away from the meeting with a better understand ing of how to approach harvesti ng and what to expect in t erms of cost, schedule, complexity, challenges, etc.

NRC will be deve loping a workshop summary report to be shared among meeting pa rticipants. We have also placed all of the presentations into a Google Drive folder for sharing among meeti ng pa rtici pants (https://drjve.google.com/ope o?id=0 BS DWM Le bSYSXcn pZZ0JOS0SSOU U).

I have laid out t he action items and planned next steps to add ress each item below:

1. < !--[end if]-->Sha ring workshop sl ides (Ahluwalia)

a. < !--[end if]-->Next step : Presenters, please reply to this ema il if you have any concerns w ith meeting participa nts sharing your slides with colleagues or other organizations. If I don't hea r from you, we'll assume you're OK with sharing.

2. < !--[endif]-->MRP-320 (Product ID: 1022866) on harvesting from MRP-227 inspections

a. Avai lable to public for fee

3. < !--[endif]-->Cab le surveillance programs in Germany

a. < !--[endif]-->Next step : GRS (Jendrich) to inq ui re with ca ble colleagues and share

4. < !--[endif]-->Sources of Materials database

a. < !--[endif]-->Next step : Opportu nit ies presented in this meeting t o be documented in workshop summary.

b. < !-- [end if]-->Next step: AECL, CNSC, NRC, PNN L, INL NSUF interested in database development. ny other parties interested?

5. < !--[endif]-->Priorit ized data needs

a. <! --[endif]-->Next step : Sma ller group meetings to priorit ize data needs of int erest

< !-- [if !supportlists]--> i. < !--[e ndif]-->Materia l / component of interest, purpose, intended outcome

b. ldea: survey of participants at Environment al Degradation conference

6. < !--[endif]-->EPRI report on SFP liner boric acid transport through concrete

a. NRC (Sircar) to contact EPRI if needed

7. < !--[endif]-->Harvested Materia ls Research Results

a. < !--[end if]-->Next step: A section of the workshop summary report to cover references from previous ha rvested materia ls research

b. Use refere nces from EMDA as starting point

c. <! --[end if]-->Next step: Please send any references to ha rvested materia ls research t hat shou ld be included and its outcome to Matt Hiser1.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or suggestions for documenting the workshop and the next steps moving forward.

Thanks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regu latory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Meta llurgy Branch Phone: 301-415-2454 I Office: TWFN 10062 Matthew. Hiser@ore.gov From: Hiser, Mat t hew Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 8:22 AM To: 'Bernhoft, Sherry' <sbernhoft@epri com>; 'Dyle, Robin' < rdyle@epri com>; 'Jean Smith (jmsmith@epri com)' <imsm ith@epri com>; 'Ahluwa lia, Kawalj it ' <kahluwal@epri com>; 'Richard Reister (Richard Reister@nuclear energy gov)' <Richard Reister@nudear energy gov>;

'leonardk@orn l gov' <leonardk@ornl gov>; 'Rosseel, Thomas M.'<rosseeltm@ornl.gov>; 'Wil liam F Zipp (Generation - 4)' <william f zipp@dom com>; 'Gerard P.. Van Noordennen'

<gpvannoordenneo@energysolutions com>; 'Ramu halli, Pradeep (Pradeep Ramuhalli@pool gov)'

<Pradeep Ramuha ll i@poo l gov>; 'daoiel tello@canada ca' <dan iel t ello@canada ca>;

'Uwe Jendrich@grs de' <Uwe Jendrich@grs de>; 'rachid chaouadi@sckcen be'

<rachid chaouadi@sckcen.be>; 'arait@criepi.denken.or.ip' <arait@criepi.denken.or.jp>;

'alpanfa@westinghouse com' <alpanfa@westinghouse com>; 'sokolovm@ornl gov'

<sokolovm@orn l gov>; 'desire ndomba@canada ca ' <desire ndomba@canada ca>;

'khuyn h@aed ca' <kh uynh@aed ca>: 'higucbi @criepi denken or ip' <higuch i@criepi denken or ip>;

'kazunobu sakamoto@ nsr.go. ip' <kazu nobu sakamoto@nsr.go. ip>; 'chim i.yasuhi ro@jaea .go.ip'

<cbimi yasuhiro@jaea go jp>; Jackson, John Howard <john jackson@iol gov>; 'Roussel Guy'

<guy roussel@Belv be>; ' joh wagner@iol gov' <john wagner@iol gov>; 'Riccarde lla, Pete'

<Priccardella@Structint com>; 'RICHTER, Mark' <mar@nei org>

Cc: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregon ing@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick

<Patrick Purtscher@nrc gov>; Frankl, Istva n <Istvan Fraokl@nrc gov>

Subject:

RE: Ex-plant M aterials Harvest ing Workshop

Dear Harvest ing Workshop Attendees:

You are receiving this email because I have you recorded as attending the upcom ing Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop on March 7-8 at USN RC headquarters in Rockville, MD. I have attached the final workshop agenda as wel l as the workshop introduction sl ides t hat cover meeting logistics, motivation, approach, expected outcome, and session expectations. We are hoping t hese sl ides provide a common vision for the workshop t hat will allow for a focused, productive discussion.

The workshop will be held in NRC's Three White Fli nt North (3WFN) bu ilding, which is di rectly adjace nt to t he White Flint Metro station, in room 1C3 on t he first floor. I have attached a map of the loca l area showing the Metro station and the 3WFN buildi ng.

The workshop is scheduled to sta rt at 8:00 on Tuesday, March 7. I recommend plan ning t o arrive at 3WFN around 7:30-7:45 in order to go t hrough security to enter t he build ing.

If you have not yet responded, please let me know if you plan to j oin for the dinner with other workshop pa rticipants, so I ca n make t he appropriate reservation.

Thank you for your pa rt icipat ion in t he workshop. We are looking forwa rd t o t he discussion and

engagement and appreciate your contribution to a productive and interestin g meeting!

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclea r Regulatory Research Divisi on of Engineeri ng I Corrosion and Meta llurgy Branch Phone: 301-415-2454 I Office: TWFN 10062 Matthew .Hiser@nrc.gov

Ex-Plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Summary Report Workshop held on March 7-8, 2017 at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD NRC staff: Matthew Hiser, Patrick Purtscher, Amy Hull, Robert Tregoning

Table of Contents Background ...................................................... ............................................................................................. l Object ive and Approach ...............................................................................................................................1 Workshop Orga nization and Sessions ..........................................................................................................2 Su m mary of Workshop Discussion .................. ............................................................................................. 2 Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting........... ............................................................................................. 2 Presentation Summaries ......................................................................................................................2 Discussion Summary ................................ .............................................................................................3 Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvest ing .......................................................................................3 Presentation Summaries ..................................................................................................................... .3 Discussion Summary ................................ .............................................................................................5 Session 3 . Sources of M aterials ................... .............................................................................................6 Presentation Summaries ......................... .............................................................................................6 Discussion Summa ry ................................ .............................................................................................9 Session 4 . Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects .............................................. 9 Presentation Summaries ......................... .............................................................................................9 Discussion Summary ................................ ...........................................................................................13 Session 5 . Future Harvesting Program Planning .....................................................................................13 Presentation Summary ............................................................................................... ........................13 Discussion Summary ................................ ...........................................................................................13 Key Takeaways from Workshop ...................... ...........................................................................................14 Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting......................................................................................................14 Session 2. Technica l Data Needs for Harvest ing .....................................................................................14 Session 3 . Sources of Materials ................... ...........................................................................................14 Session 4 . Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practica l Aspects ............................................16 Session 5. Future Harvest ing Progra m Planning .....................................................................................16 Action Items and Next Steps ........................... ...........................................................................................16 References to Previous Harvested M aterials Research ..............................................................................17 Appe ndix I Workshop Participant s .............................................................................................................19 Appendix II Workshop Agenda ........................ ...........................................................................................20 Appe ndix Ill Harvesting Opportun it ies in Germany....................................................................................22 List of Figures

Figure 1 Schematic of Westinghouse ex-vessel neutron dosimetry {EVND) ................................................ 5 Figure 2 Nuclear Fuels and Materials Library {INFML) Database Design .......................................................7 Figure 3 Zorita Internals Research Project {ZIRP) Timeline ........................................................................10 List of Tables Table 1 Ongoing Harvesting Programs ....................................................................................................... 15 Table 2 Potential Future Sources for Harvesting ........................................................................................15 iii

=

Background===

On March 7-8, 2017, t he Office of Nuclear Regu latory Research of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hosted a 2-day workshop on the topic of "Ex-Plant Materials Harvesting." NRC staff worked in close coordination with staff from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to plan and arrange the workshop.

The decision to organize this workshop was driven by developments in the U.S. and global nuclear industry. In the U.S., there is strong interest in extending plant 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, wh ich may benefit from harvesting.

Meanwhile, in recent years, a number of nuclear plants, both in the U.S. and internationally, have shut down or announced plans to shut down. 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 related development, economic challenges for the nuclear industry and limited government spending have limited the resources available to support new research, including harvest ing programs. Given this constra ined budget environment, aligning interests and leveraging wit h other organizations is important to allow maximum benefit and value for future research programs.

Objective and Approach The objective of the workshop was to generat e open discussion of all aspects of ex-plant materials harvesting, including:

1. Deciding whether to harvest,

2. Planning and implementing a harvesting program,

3. Using t he harvested materials in research programs.

Through presentations and open discussion, the workshop was organized to allow for all participants to be better informed of the benefits and challenges of harvesting as well as to identify pot ential areas of common int erest for fut ure harvesting programs. Workshop sessions were aligned in broad topics to cover all aspects of harvesting that allowed the participants to drive the discussion.

To help accomplish the workshop objectives, the workshop organizers iAteAtieAall*( sought 1a diverse Commented [MOU1 ): Intentionally id redundant group of participants. There are a large number of decommissioning plants and interested researchers outside the U.S., so the organizers focused on outreach to international participants through organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Nuclear Energy agency (OECD/NEA), and existing professional contacts.

In addition, a key goal for this workshop was to capture the broader practical perspective from plant owners and decommissioning companies, which are vital to any successful harvesting program, but may sometimes be overlooked in researcher-driven discussions. Workshop part icipa nts were also diverse in terms of technical area of focus, with metal components such as the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and internals being discussed along with concrete and electrica l components. The final list of workshop participants can be found at the end of this report in Appendix I.

4

Workshop Organization and Sessions The workshop was held at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD. Due to limited space in t he meeting room and the need for a limited group size for discussion, a w ebinar was used to allow remote observers to benefit from the workshop. Workshop sessions were organized topica lly with about half the time dedicated to presentations and the remaining time set aside for discussion. Presentations were solicit ed from participants to cover a range of perspectives and technical areas. The final workshop agenda can be found at the end of this summary report in Appendix II.

The workshop was organized into five sessions as follows:

Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting

Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting

Session 3. Sources of Materials

- Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspect s

Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning Summary of Workshop Discussion The subsections below will summarize the presentations and discussion in each session and highlight the key takeaways from the session.

Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting Session 1 focused on the motivation for harvesting and why workshop participants are interested in harvesting. As shown in Appendix II with presentation t itles, speakers for this session included:

Richard Reister from DOE,

Sherry Bernhoft from EPRI,

Robert Tregoning from NRC,

Uwe Jendrich from the Gesellschaft fur Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) in Germany, and

Taku Arai from the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) in Japan.

Present ation Summaries DOE described the role of harvesting within the Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, including the benefits and challenges associated with harvesting. Benefits include the opportunity to fi ll knowledge gaps where there is limited data or experience and to inform degradation models with data from actual plant components. Challenges include cost, complexity, scheduling, logistics, limited opportunities, acquiring sufficient material pedigree information, and potential negative results impacting operating plants.

EPRI discussed the role of harvesting within the context of aging management for Long-Term Operations (LTO), including their experience from past ha,rvesting programs and criteria for future harvesting. Their experience emphasized the challenges of cost, schedule, logistics, complicated cont racting and acquiring material pedigree information. EPRl's criteria fo r harvesting focus on demonstrating va lue to their members by addressing a prioritized need that cannot be addressed through other means. For EPRI, a w ell-developed project plan that covers fund ing, risk management, exit ramps, and clear roles and responsibilities is essential.

5

NRC shared its perspective on the benefits and challenges of harvesting in regulatory research.

Harvested materials are valuable due to the representative nature of their aging conditions, which may reduce the uncertainty associated with t he applicability of the results to operating plants com pared to t ests with alte rn ative aging conditions. Harvested materials may be the best option to address technical data needs identified for extended plant operation. With increasing harvesting opportunities from decommission ing plants, a proactive approach to harvesting planning can optim ize benefits by identifying t he right material with the right aging conditions for the identified knowledge gap. There are sign ificant challenges associated w ith harvesti ng, including cost, schedu le, and logistics, but hopefully these can be mitigated or avoided by leveraging resources with other o rganizations and learning from past experience.

GRS described its role as the main technical support organization in nuclear safety for the German federa l government. GRS provides technical assessment and knowledge transfer for decommissioni ng act ivities, aging management, and long-term operation for German federal and interna,tional organizations.

CRIEPI d iscussed its view of how harvested materials and laboratory prepared materials contribute to addressing technical issues. Harvested materials provide exposure to actual plant cond it ions, but are more limited in availability and the size of the data set that can be generated. Laboratory prepared materials general involve accelerated or simulated aging conditions, but can be used to produce larger data sets and varying parameters can allow understanding of the effect on the mechanism or property of interest. Harvested m aterials offer fact finding of actual plant conditions as well as confirmation and verification of results from laboratory prepared specimens.

Discussion Summary The discussion following the presentations in this sessio n focused on clearly identifying the need to be addressed by a harvesting project and the myriad cost, schedule, and logistical challenges associated with harvesting. Leveraging w i th other organizations to defray costs can also help improve the value of a given program, but also adds complexity as another orga nization may have a different set of priorities that changes the focus of the harvesting effort.

Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting Session 2 focused o n discussing the technical data needs for harvesti ng and what specific knowledge gaps organizations are interested in addressing through harvesting. Th is discussion included general perspectives o n how to determine when harvest ing should be pursued rather than other types of research. As shown in Appendix II with prese111tation t itles, speakers for t his session included:

Pradeep Ramuhalli from the Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL),

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Keith Leonard from [DOE / oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Commented [MOU2]: .To be consistent w ith NL

Rachid Chaouad i from the Belgian Nuclea r Resea rch Centre (SCK-CEN) in Belgium, and participants supported by the US DOE

Arzu Alpan from Westinghouse.

Present ation Summaries PNNL presented their work, under a small NRC contract, to develop a systematic approach to prioritize data needs for harvesting. PNNL proposed five primary criteria for prioritizing harvesting:

6

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

Ease of laboratory replication of degradation scenario (combination of material and environment) o For example, simultaneous thermal and irradiation conditions may be difficult to replicate or mechanism sensitive to dose rate may not be good for accelerated aging

Applicability of harvested materials for addressing crit ical gaps o Prioritize harvesting for critical gaps over less essential data needs

Availability of reliable in-service inspection (ISi) techniques for the material/ component o If inspection methods are mature and easy to apply to monitor and track degradation, perhaps the effort of research with harvested materials is not needed.

Availability of materials for harvest ing o The necessary materials/ components must be available to be harvested.

PNNL then presented t heir application of these criteria to four materials degradation issues as an example: electrical cables, cast austenitic stainless steel (CASS), reactor vessel internals, and dissimilar metal welds. Based on applying these criteria to t he examples, PNNL concluded that electrical cables, CASS, and reactor internals are all higher priority for harvesting due to unique aspects of the degradation that are challenging to replicate in the lab. Meanwhile, dissimilar metal welds are of low priority due to the ease of replication in lab aging studies as well as the significant body of knowledge and research on the phenomena.

NRC presented a summary of data needs it is interested in pursuing through harvest ing. These included RPV materials to validate fluence and attenuation models and to demonstrate the conservatism of regulatory approaches for transition temperature prediction. Other metal components of interest for harvesting would address data gaps in irradiated stainless steels, as well as improve understanding of inspection capabilities and fatigue life ca lculations. Electrical components of int erest include low and medium voltage cables and other electrical components for degradation studies, and electrical enclosures and cables for fire resea rch. Concrete components of interest include irradiated concrete, concrete undergoing alkali-aggregate reactions, post-tensioned structures, reinforcing steel, tendons, and spent fuel pool concrete to assess potential boric acid attack.

DOE/ORNL presented their perspective on dat a needs for harvesting and its role in providing validation of experimental and theoretical research. DOE/ORNL performed a significant RPV harvesting program at the Zion nuclear power plant to reduce uncertainties in the Master Curve methodology, validate modeling predictions and study flux and fluence attenuation effects. The harvesting is largely complete, but the testing program is currently underway. DOE/ORNL also indicated interest in usi ng harvested materials to validate its models for swelling and microstructural changes of stainless steel internals under LWR irradiation conditions. Harvesting concrete components would be of interest due to lack of literature data and the multiple dependent variab les t hat may affect concrete performance. Finally, DOE/ORNL has been involved in harvesting cables from the Crystal River and Zion plants to address cable aging as a function of material composition and environment.

SCK-CEN presented their interest in an international cooperative program to harvest RPV materials. SCK-CEN presented their survey of the literature for past testing programs of harvested RPV materials, and 7

the limitations of t hese past program. Key limitations include a lack of archive materials, generally lower t emperatures, and poor surveillance programs and dosimetry. SCK-CEN then shared some thoughts on their criteria for a new harvesting efforts, including higher fluence levels and temperatures, available archive mat erials and reliable information on operating history, dosimetry and surveillance program.

Other topics relevant to a new RPV harvesting effort include tech nical issues such as material variabil ity and irradiation conditions as well as logistical and fina ncia l considerations.

The final presentation in Session 2 by Westinghouse focused on the need fo r

~

-~/ Support chain harvesting irradiated concret e to better understand the threshold radiation level for sign ificant strength reduction. Westinghouse has installed ex-vessel neutron dosimetry (EVND) at r.,._')

l. (:;,;')

-* Support bar a number of plants in the world and proposed to Dosimetry chain DoS1metry use these dosimetry measurements to validate capsules fl uence model calculations to better understand the uncertainty in these ca lculations. Figure 1 show s a schematic of the EVND setup. If concret e can be harvest ed at one of these plants Westingt,ouse with EVND data, then irradiated concrete Figure 1 Schematic of Westinghouse ex-vessel neutron properties from testing can be paired with dosimetry (EVND) fluence dat a to improve research benefits.

Di scussion Summary The discussion following Session 2 presentations touched on a number of topics. EPRI sh ared that they developed a report related to the topics of Session 2, but more narrowly focused on pressurized water reactor (PWR) internals. MRP-320, "Testing Gap Assessment and Material Identification for PWR Internals," focuses on priorit izing opportunistic harvesting of st ainless steel reactor interna ls component s that may be removed from service following MRP-227 inspections. The methodology and approach in this report may be relevant to the broader harvesting data needs discussion. This report is not p ublicly available, but is available to EPRI member utilities.

Workshop participants discussed the criteria proposed by PNNL in the first presentation. One additional crit eria suggested by EPRI w as to consider fleet -wide vs. plant -specific applicability. M ore broadly applicable materials w ould be of great er interest fo r harvesting than those that represent conditions at only a few plants. Another criteria suggest ed is the availability of material pedigree information, such as composition, processing, environmental cond itions (temperature, humidity, fluence, etc.). Another suggested criteria w as the ease of harvesti ng, which includes the concept of weighing costs vs. benefits as w ell as project risk. For example, highly irradiated internals are probably much more difficult and expensive to harvest than electrical cables or unirradiated concrete. Further discussion touched on the idea that different organizations may priorit ize t he various criteria different ly, but all will probably at least want to consider t he same set of crite ria.

Another key theme from t his discussion was that a successful program should be guided by a clearly defined objective or problem statement to be addressed. This objective should be well-understood at the initiation of a program and used to guide decision-making through implementation of a harvesting 8

project. This also raises a related point or potential criteria: the timeliness of the expected research results relative to the objective. If the resu lts are needed in the next two years, but a harvesting project will not provide results for at least five years, t hat should be a strong consideration.

Session 3. Sources of Materials Session 3 focused on discussing sources of materials for harvesting. This discussion covered previously harvest ed materials as well as sources for new harvesting programs from operating or decommissioning plants. Both domestic and international sources of materials were discussed in this session. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, speakers for this session included:

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Al Ahluwalia from EPRI,

Tom Rosseel from DOE/ORN L,

John Jackson from DOE/Idaho National Laboratory (INL),

Gerry van Noordennen from EnergySolutions,

Arzu Alpan from Westinghouse,

Uwe Jendrich from GRS, and

Daniel Tello from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).

Present ation Summaries NRC presented their perspective on sources o.f materials for harvesting. First, NRC shared informat ion on some of t he harvest ed materials from past research programs that may be available, including irradiated stain less steel internals, RPV materials, nickel alloy welds, neutron absorber material, a,nd electrical components. NRC then summarized the recently and planned shutdown U.S. plants, including their design, thermal out put, and years of operation, to provide participants with an idea of the potential sources from decommissioning U.S. plants. Finally, NRC shared a list of information that would be helpful to acquire from decommissioning plarnts t o determine the value of compo nents for harvesting.

This information included plant design information (component location and dimensions),

environmental conditions (temperature, fluence, humidity, stress, etc.) and operating history, material pedi gree information (fabrication records), and inspection records (for interest in components with known flaws).

The next presentation from EPRI covered harvesting opportunities at decommissioning plants in Korea and Sweden. In Korea, Kori-1 is a Westinghouse 2-loop PWR (sister plant is Kewaunee) that will shut down in 2017 after 40 years of operation. Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Central Research Institute (KHNP-CRI) is planning a comprehensive research program on long-t erm materials aging based on harvesting from Kori-1 and is seeking international participation in the harvesting effort. KHNP-CRl's plan is focused on metallic components, including RPV, internals, primary syst em components, steam generator materials. Harvesting is expected to occur in 2024 with testing to follow through 2030.

In Sweden, Vattenfall is currently harvesting in 2017-2018 RPV material from t he decommissioning Barseback boiling water reactor (BWR) units. This work is focused on irradiation embrittlement, including comparison of surveillance data to actual RPV properties, as w ell as thermal aging embrittlement. In the future, Vattenfall will be shutting down Ringhals 1 and 2 in 2020 and 2019, respectively. Ringhals 1 is a BWR and Ringhals 2 is a Westinghouse 3-loop PWR design. Of particular note, Ringhals 2 has the second oldest replaced Alloy 690 RPV head and steam generators. Other 9

harvesting opportunities at Ringhals include RPV material w ith a significant surveillance program, thermal aging effects on low alloy steel from the pressurizer, as well as concrete structures. Vattenfall is open to working with partners that are interested in joining them fo r harvesting at Ringhals.

The next presentation by DOE/ORNL focused on several harvesting programs that DOE's LWRS program has been involved w ith. DOE/ORNL has led the harvesting of components from the Zion! ........... J .._(!;>}(~)

(b)(4) plstrl1(]in t he U.S. From Zion, DOE/ORNL has harvested electrical cables and components, a large RPV sect ion, and a significant number of records to provide information on material fabri cation, in-service inspection and operating history. Cables from Zion include CROM, thermocouple, and low and medium voltage cables. DOE/ORNL indicated some t hermocouple cables from Zion may be available for other (b)(4) . research~~~ ~()..~.s.~Jr:i.. ~gJJ.~.! l.Qr.atill.e.studies.l.... - - - - - - * * * !

(b)(4)

(b)(4) .....,....,,,...____.._._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. OE/ORNL is also participating in efforts

fo harvest cables from Crystal River (led by EPRI) and co ncrete from the Zorita plant in Spain (led by NRC).

The next presentation by DOE/INL described I NL's Nuclear Science User Facilities (NSUF) and the Nuclear Fuels and Materials Library (NFML). NSUF is

$ME OATA8ASE coordinated by INL and facilitates access to nuclear research facilities around t he world, .._.,D __,0- NEIO OAT.a.BASE

......... ""°"' ~--;:::=:.µ- llfHm.mGfj including neutron and ion irradiations, t.Ht*

lllllt

1-LNI N~*(C.. , _ . , _ ' - - fAC-..ln beamlines, hot cell testing, characterization and ......... C . O , , ~ " ' - " - ~

computing capabilities. NFML is a Web-based l'tlO.IICf lll..... RY

=~!:

searchable database sample library that ,o+-.,_-~::::::::::::

,.....,c.lOtt *.,,_...,. _~~

captures the information from thousands of specimens available to NSUF. NFML is designed to maximize the benefit of previously irradiated "-~~c- -- *-*- r-iN*i ""-0row1f11'4J

-*..,.., ,._..t,....,

r... .,Kl~I r.... r,,,o"I materials for future research. Researchers ca n propose new research projects under NSUF using specimens in NFML using DOE funding.

_,.,_.,.i.clUn' Figure 2 Nuclear Fuels and Materials Library (NFML)

Database Design As seen in Figure 2, the information captured in NFML aligns well with t he goal of t his session to potentially develop a database of previously harvested materials.

The next presentation by EnergySolutions offered a more practical perspective on considering sources of materials for harvesting. From t he plant owner perspective, t here is no financial incentive to support harvesting during decommissioning, therefore researchers need to absorb the costs of harvesting and have a clear scope for harvesting. Flexibility in fund ing for harvesting activities is essential as the decommissioning process and schedule may change quickly.

EnergySolutions provided valuable perspective on the timing in the decommissioning process for harvesting different components. For instance, t he harvesting of RPV surveillance coupons should take pl ace when the RPV internals are cut and removed. Harvesting of RPV materials is only possible from larger RPVs, as smaller RPVs are shipped intact to the disposal facility, rather than cut in to pieces. Spent fuel rack neutron absorber coupons must be harvested either before or after the dry storage campaign to remove spent fu el from the spent fue l pool. Harvesting actual spent fuel rack neutron absorber 10

material must come after the pool is completely empty. Electrica l cab les and other components from mild environment s may be harvested at any time (once temporary power is established and plant power is shut off), while the harvesting of electrical components from high rad iation environments will depend on the timing of source-term removal schedules. Concrete cores are best harvested when other cores are being taken for site characterization to develop the License Term ination Plan. Highly irradiated concrete from the biological shield wall would need to come later in decommissioning after the RPV is removed.

In terms of upcoming decommissioning plants, EnergySolutions indicated that San Onofre and Vermont Yankee will be entering active decommissioning in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Kewaunee, Crystal River, and Fort Calhoun also may ent er active decommissioning in the next 2 years. If resea rchers are interested in harvesting from any of these plants, they should be reaching out to plant owners immediately to begin planning and coordination, Westinghouse followed up their presentation in Session 2 by describing an opportunity to harvest concrete from the M ihama 1 plant in Japan. Westinghouse installed and analyzed additional neutron dosimetry in the reactor cavity for one cycle, which were used to validate the radiation transport calculations. Mihama was shutdown in 2015 and is in contact with Westinghouse about the possibility of extracting concrete cores from the biological shield wall. Westinghouse is seeking partners interested in joining this harvesting effort.

The next presentation by GRS covered opportunities for harvesting from German plants. Regulations in Germany require plants to either immediately dismantle or dismantle after a period of safe enclosure, which is largely consistent with options in the U.S. GRS detailed the status of German commercial reactors, wh ich are predominantly BWR and PWR designs. Seventeen reactors are currently undergoing decommissioning, while seven more are currently shutdown and await a decommissioning license. Eight reactors are still operating with scheduled shutdown dates between 2017 and 2022. German RPVs tend to have lower fluence than U.S. designs due to a larger water gap in the downcomer region. Germany has limited experience wit h harvesting from decommissioning plants. One question that GRS will follow-up on is the "rumored" cable surveillance programs that may be used in Germany and could provide experience and lessons learned for other countries.

The final presentation in Session 3 was by CNSC on harvesting opportunities in Canada. Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) has harvested seven concrete cores from the 20 megawatt electric (MWe)

Nuclear Power Demonstration Plant (NPD), which shutdown in 1988 after 25 years of operation. CNSC and AECL are also considering opportunities to harvest concrete from other decommissioned reactors in Canada such as Gentilly-2, Douglas Point, and Whiteshell Reactor 1. In addition to concrete, CNSC and AECI. are currently harvesting electrical cab les from the 675 MWe CANDU-6 Gentilly-2 r eactor, which shutdown in 2012 after 29 years of operation. The purpose of this work is to study cable degradation from t hermal aging and radiation damage and validate environment al qualification of the cables. CNSC described some of the challenges with this harvesting effort, such as working with plant owners, records, accessibility and contamination of the materials and budgeting with unexpected delays in harvesting.

A future harvesting opportunity is from the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Chalk River, which will shut down in 2018 after operating since 1957. AECL is currently taking an inventory of irradiated materials that can be harvested from NRU In decommissioning. Potential materials for 11

harvesting include metals (steels, nickel alloys, zirconium, aluminum), concret e, graphite, active equipment (pumps, etc.), graphite seals, electrical cables, and thermocouples.

Discussion Summary Following the presentations, there was so me discussion of lessons learned from DO E's Zion harvesting effort. DOE worked with a former senior reactor operator at Zion to identify and acquire the appropriate records fro m Zion for t he components being h arvested. DOE also described their flexible approach to acquiring RPV samples by sending a large chun k of mat erial (weighing ~go tons) to Ener gySolut ions' facility in Tennessee, where smaller pieces (weighing ~soo pounds) were cut to send to ORNL. Most of the decontamination was performed at Zion, wit h minimal additional cleaning (as well as cladding removal) taking place at EnergySolut ions' facility.

Ther e w as also discussion of acqui ri ng mat erials from sources other than com mercial nuclear facilities.

DOE has considered harvesting concrete from other DOE nuclear facilities, but determined that there were compositiona l differences between the DOE facilities and commercia l facilit ies that would make the concrete from DOE facilit ies not useful. DOE/I NL mentioned that the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) replaces their core i nternals every ten years. The ATR internals are composed primarily of 347 stainless stee l and achieve very high fluence levels after ten years of service.

Another key discussion topic was the possibility of developing a database for previously harvested materials or those available for future harvesting. DOE/I NL Indicated that their NSUF sample library may be a good starting point for such a database, although any materials in t hat library shou ld be freely available for use in the research community. CNSC, NRC, and PNNL also expressed interested in working to develop a harvesting database.

Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects Session 4 focused on lessons learned and practical aspects of harvesting. Present ers shared t heir experience with past harvesting programs, particularly common pitfalls to avoid and successful st rat egies to overcome them . Present ations also covered the practical aspects of harvesting from the plant owner and decommissioning company perspective. As shown in Appe ndix II w it h presentation titles, speakers for this session inclu ded:

Jean Smith from EPRI,

Tom Rosseel from DOE/ORNL,

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Taku Arai from CRIEPI,

Gerry va n Noordennen from EnergySolutions, and

Bill Zipp from Dominion.

12

Presentation Summaries EPRI presented their experience and lessons learned from past harvesting programs, particularly harvesting reactor internals and concrete from Zorita and electrical cables from --

Crystal River. From the Zorita reactor ~i.:.~---

- - *- -----,---t-+......--,-,--+-----j internals experience, EPRI emphasized that harvesting projects take significant time, encounter both material retrieval and on-

=~~T--

site cha llenges, and shipping Issues. As Figure 3 Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRP) Timeline shown in Figure 3, the Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRP) took about 10 years to go from initial planning to fina l results, which included about 5 years of project planning, 2 yea rs for material extraction (on-site logistics and shipping), and 3-4 years for testing. EPRl's experience was that decommission ing activities were the top priority and that harvesting was secondary, subject to sched ule and logistical challenges based on the changing decommissioning schedule. Shipping issues were also challenging due to send ing activated materials (which were classified as "waste") acros.s international borders, from the reactor in Spain to the testing facility in Sweden. Currently, further planned shipments of the Zorita materials beyond the initial program continue to be impacted by export license challenges in Sw eden. More positively, EPRI e mphasized that the Zorita reactor internals materials harvesting showed excellent cooperation among many organizations and are now providing valuable techn ical information to numerous research projects.

Lessons learned from the Zorita concrete harvesting focused on the challenges with core sample drilling and handling contaminated concrete. Ult imat ely, an effective core d rilling p rocedure was ident ified, but required some trial and error. Lessons learned from t he Crysta l River cable harvesting included material concerns, t he need for on-site su pport, and cost. In terms of material concerns, rad iation and asbestos contamination created additional challenges for harvesting. On-site support and the ability to visit t he sit e are extremely valuable to ensure clea r communication, retrieval or records for material pedigree information, and awareness of on-site developments in the decommissioni ng process. Cable harvesting at Crystal River was more expensive than anticipated, particu larly in terms of EPRI project management t ime to coordinate the harvest i ng activit ies and engineering support at the plant.

DOE/ORNL presented lessons learned primarily from the experience harvesting RPV materials and electrica l cables and components from the Zion plant. In terms of planning and decision-making, DOE/ORNL had severa l lessons learned. DOE/ORNL hosted a workshop at Zion in 2011 to discuss long-term goals and objectives, which proved very helpful in setting priorities and developing partnerships with other organizations. Partnerships were very valuable to DOE/ORNL's harvesting efforts, allowing for leveraging resources and collaboration and sharing results. There are limited opportunities for harvesting key components, so DOE/ORNL emphasized that participants should take full advantage of the opportunities that arise, understanding that t here is a necessary compromise between the materials available and their va lue in terms of fluence or exposu re to aging conditions. Another consideration is the quant ity of material harvested, which shou ld be sufficient for the objectives of the planned research as well as any collabo rations or partnerships, but limited to contro l costs.

For i mplementing the harvesting program, DOE/ORNL found that flexibi lity was paramount to be able to adjust scope and plans in response to schedule changes and other developments, while remaining within cost constraint s. Working with a former reactor operator w as extremely va luable to benefit from 13

their in-depth knowledge of all parts of the plant, in particular the records for materials pedigree information. Regu lar site visits and contacts w ere also essentia l to stay aw are of t he latest developments in the harvesting planning and decommissioning process, with the understanding that harvesting is not the top priority for the decommissioning company, Other important considerations were hazardous materials handling, transportation, and disposal and logistics, including contracts, liability, shipping and disposal. Finally, DOE/ORNL's experience is that the total costs ofa harvesting program from planning t o execution to testing are very high, so t hey should be carefully weighed against the value of the expected data to be generated.

NRC presented their experience, includ ing benefits from previous harvesting programs, and t echnical and logistical lessons learned from harvesting. As an organization, NRC has extensive experience with t esting harvested materials, including RPV, primary system components, reactor internals, neut ron absorbers, concrete and electrical components. NRC's experience is more limit ed than DOE or EPRI in t erms of managing the logistics of a harvesting effort from a decommissioning plant. NRC has generally participated in a secondary role in cooperative efforts or received fa iled components from operating plant s for research, NRC has found that previous harvest ing efforts have been effective in reducing unnecessary conservatism, understanding in-service flaws more realistically for NOE and leak rat e methodologies, as well as identifying and better understanding safety issues.

For t echnical lessons learned, NRC's perspective is t hat harvesting can provide highly representative aged materials for research, wh ich may be the only practical source of such materials. Harvested materials can be effectively used to validat e models or a larger data set from accelerated aging t ests. It is important to understand as much as possible about the materials and their in-service environment and how this compa res with the operating fleet of reactors before committing to a specific harvesting project. For logistical lessons learned, harvesting is expensive and time-consuming, so a significant techn ical benefit is needed to ensure the program provides value. Leveraging resources with other organizations can help minimize costs, but can also introduce challenges for aligning pr iorities and interests of mult iple organizations. Finally, t ransporting irradiated mate rials, particularl y between countries, is cha llenging and t ime-consuming and should be avoided if at all possible.

CRIEPI presented t heir research experience with harvested materials as w ell as ongoing harvesting from the Hamaoka 1 plant. The fi rst research program involved atom probe tomography (APT) on RPV surveillance materials. CRIEPI found a correlation between t he volume fraction of Ni-Si- Mn clusters and the ch ange in nil-ductility temperature. In the second research project, CRIEPI characterized the w eld and base materials harvested from Greifswald Unit 4 RPV with small-angle neutron scatt ering, APT, and hardness testing. In t he third research project, CRIEPI performed APT on 304L stainless steel reactor internals harvested from control rod and top guide components from 3-13 dpa. Results show ed a strong increase in Ni-Si clusters with increasing fluence, but little variation in Al enriched clusters with increasing fluence.

For future w ork, CRIEPI is collaborating with t he DOE LWRS program to invest igate RPV materials (b)(4) harvested fromZion_L .. .... .. ~ RIEPI also presented activities

..........underway by Chubu Electric Power to harvest RPV and concrete samples from t he Hamaoka 1 plant.

Hamaoka 1 is a 540 MWe BWR-4 that operated for 33 years. Harvesting began in 2015 and will cont inue through 2018.

14

The final two presentations of Session 4 provided the non-researcher's perspective from a decommissioning company and plant owner. EnergySolutions, which Is decommissioning the Zion nuclear plant among other facilities, presented on the decommissioning process and t heir experience and lessons learned from harvesting at Zion. As mentioned previously, surgical harvesting Is not the top priority for decommissioning, so researchers must recognize this and coordinate closely with the decommissioning company. EnergySolutions emphasized the need to gain senior management support at the plant as well as to expect that there may be staff turnover during a multi-year harvesting effort.

Changes in scope and schedule (originating from either side) can cause frustration on booth sides. Early planning, efficient contracting, and frequent site visits are important to avoid lost opportunities and achieve a successful outcome.

At Zi on, EnergySolutions worked with DOE to harvest RPV materials, cables, electrical components, and spent fuel storage racks. DOE hoped to harvest a particular RPV surveillance capsule, but was unable to do so due to the inability to identify the correct capsule in the pool. There were also challenges with harvesting RPV materials. The cut line on the Unit 2 RPV was too close to the weld to be used for research; fortunately, a successful specimen was harvested from Unit 1. For cabling, the initial plan was to harvest from 11 different locations, but ultimat ely, due to unforeseen chal lenges, aRGi}OGf miscommunication and coordination issues, only 4 different cable locations w ere harvested. Harvesting the desired cable lengt h (30 feet) also proved challenging, w ith only shorter sections recovered.

Searches of plant records were largely effective at providing material pedigree information for cables.

Concrete coring was initially planned t o take place at Zion, but not performed due to lack of resea rch interest. The spent fuel storage rack harvesting w ent smoothly, which was assisted by weekend efforts when decommissioning activities we re not occurr ing.

The next presentation from Dominion provided its perspective on harvesting from decommissioning plants, focused on the experience at Kewaunee Power Station. The top priority (beyond safety) in decommissioning is t he preservation and good stewardship of the decommissioning trust fund. Staffing is the largest drain on the trust fund, so at Kewaunee, staff was halved within a few months of shutdown and then halved again, about 16 months after permanent shutdown once offsite emergency response requirements were eliminated. Dominion described the example of harvesting the RPV surveillance capsules at this point at Kewaunee and the significant challenges that would exist. Given the reduced staffing and the current plant state (reactor coolant system drained, pumps retired, crane and rad iation monitoring not maintained), It would be much more difficult than immediately after shutdown.

Kewaunee considered harvesting the RPV surveillance specimens and estimat ed a cost of six to seven figures based on all the activities required to enable it at this point, post-shutdown, compared to a much lower cost just after shutdown. Dominion observed that some components, such as cables or electrical components, may be available and relatively easy to harvest at almost any time during decommissioning. However, other components such as highly irradiated internals or RPV may be best harvested either shortly after shutdown when staffing and capabilities on-site are high or wait until active demolition of the reactor, which may be years or decades later.

Dominion also touched on the discussion of records for plant components. Records requirements are limited to those needed for safety. Once the plant shuts down and the range of potential safety concerns decreases, systems are downgradecl to non-safety and the associated records are no longer required to be maintained. For perspective, Kewaunee still has all its records four years since shutdown, but w ill likely not continue this much longer. Dominion closed its presentation with a broader 15

perspective on harvesting, emphasizing the need to clearly define a problem statement and understand what technical and regulatory purpose this harvesting will serve. Early planning focused on achieving the clear objective of the work including scope, schedule, budget and contact with plant is essential to a successful harvesting effort.

Di scussion Summary The discussion touched on the top lessons learned from past harvesting efforts, which included defining a clear objective and purpose for harvesting, early engagement with the plant, and site coordination during harvesting.

Another suggestion was to get utility managem ent buy-in for the harvesting project by identifying a benefit to the utility. EPRI mentioned that cable harvesting at Crystal River went much more successfully once the utility recognized the potential benefits for SLR. Similarly, when harvesting from an operating plan t, one must recognize and work through the challenges the plant may encounter when restarting operations.

During discussion, the question was raised regarding how it is determined whether harvested materials are waste. The discussion concluded that in the U.S. 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 37 is the important consideration. 10 CFR 37 defines when additional security requirements are imposed, based on the quantity and activity of materials to be transported. The definition of material as waste versus research materials is not as critical in t he U.S. EnergySolutions indicated that their shipments of waste or research material could be handled in the same way in the accordance with Department of Transportation regulations, provided that the limits in 10 CFR 37 w ere not reached.

Session S. Future Harvesting Program Plan nlng Session 5 focused on the information needed for informed harvesting decision-making and harvesting program planning. This session featured a presentation by Pradeep Ramuhalli from PNINL, followed by a discussion period covering harvesting program planning and reflection on the 2-day workshop.

Present ation Summary PNNL presented its perspective on t he information needed for informed harvesting decision-making.

First, the purpose of the harvesting effort needs to be defined by identifying the t echnical knowledge gaps to be addressed. Next, a research plan should be developed demonstrating how the harvested material will be used to address the identified gaps. Finally, the appropriat e source of material to address the technical gap must be identified, along with resources to support the effort and plans and timelines to perform the harvesting. The specifics of these plans depend greatly on the source of materials and must be flexible based on changing conditions on the ground.

In assessing the best source of materials, researchers should consider the material, its environment, and its condition. Material information includes fabrication information such as manufacturer, composition, and dimensions as well as information re lated to installation or construction, such as welding processes and parameters. Environmental information includes temperature, humidity, fluence, flux, stress (service, residua l, installation), and coolant chemistry. Component condition information includes inspection history, such as identified flaws or degradation.

16

Discussion Summary The discussion in Session 5 focused on t he best practical approach to plan future harvesting programs.

Ther e was clear agreement that this approach must begin with ident ifying t he data needs best addressed by harvesting, whether from operating or decommissioning plants. Once a specific need Is identified, the next step is to find a source to acquire the materials of interest as well as other organizations interested in participating in the harvesting effort.

Key Takeaways from Workshop Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting The clear takeaway from the discussion in Session 1 was that harvesting requires significant resources to be done successfully; therefore it is paramount to identify how the planned harvesting will clearly address a significant need to ensure the harvesting project provides strong value. In t he context of the need for data, EPRI suggested t hat the goal of harvesting to support research for operation out to 80 years should not be a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of degradation, but rather a snapshot t o confirm other lab resu lts and models. This i s an important point for all organizations and researchers to keep in mind before investing significant resources in harvesting.

Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting The criteria proposed by PNNL are a good starting point for prioritizing issues to address by harvesting.

Three additional important criteria would be:

Fleet-wide vs. plant-specific applicability of data,

Ease of harvesting (in terms of cost and project risk), and

Timeliness of the expected research results relative t o the objective.

Once a potential harvesting project has reached the point of looking at different sources of materials, the availability of material pedigree information, such as composition, processing, environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, fluence, etc.) is very important to the overall value of harvesting from that particular plant.

Based on the presentations and discussion in Session 2, there appeared to be two areas where participants had broad interest in pursuing fur ther harvesting: high fluence reactor internals and irradiated concrete. The com mon drivers for the interest in these issues is a lack of representative data at the fluences of interest and significant cha llenges with acquiring representative data, th rough other means. High fluence reactor internals have been addressed somewhat by ZIRP, but st ainless steel materials exposed to higher fluence levels at h igher temperatures, where void swelling may become sign ificant, could help validate DOE and EPRI models and provide further technica l basis for PWR internals aging management. Irradiated concrete harvesting is currently being pursued from the Zorita reactor in Spain, with international collaboration and potential testing at the Halden Reactor Project.

Other areas with some, but less widespread, interest expressed from workshop participants for new harvesting efforts included RPV mat erials and electrical cables and components. SCK-CEN and NRC expressed interest in RPV harvesting, and NRC expressed interest in electrical component harvesting.

17

Session 3. Sources of Materials To capture the key takeaways from Session 3 focused on sou rces of materials, two tables of potent ial sources of mat erials are presented below. Table 1 covers recent o r ongoing harvesting programs, while Table 2 details potent ial future harvesting opportunities.

Table 1 Ongoing Harvesting Proitrams Size Years In Country Plant Design Components Organization(s)

(MWe) operation NPD CANDU 2D 25 Concrete Canada AECL Gentilly- 2 CANDU-6 675 29 Cables Japan Hamaoka 1 BWR-4 540 33 RPV, concrete CRIEPI, Chubu Spain Zorita W 1-loop 160 37 Internals, concrete EPRI, NRC Sweden Barseback ABB-II 615 28 RPV Vattenfall W- 4 RPV, cables, Zio n 1/2 1040 24/25 DOE, EPRI, NRC loop neutron absorbe rs Crysta l River 3 B&W 860 36 Cables EPRI U.S.

(b )(4)

Table 2 Potential Future Sources for Harvesti ng Size Years in Potential Country Plant Design Notes (MWe) operation Components 135 AECL; SD:

Canada NRU Test reactor 61 TBD MWt 2018 Germany Numerous plants either in decommissioning o r shutting down soon. See Appendix Ill.

Kansai, Japan M ihama W 2-loop 320 40 Concrete Westinghouse RPV, internals, Korea Kori 1 W 2-loop 576 40 SGs, pressurizer, KHNP, EPRI welds, CASS, Ringhals 1 BWR 883 44 RPV, internals Vattenfall; Sweden SGs, pressurizer, SD: 2020 /

Ringhals 2 W 3-loop 900 44 concrete 2019 Kewaunee W 2-loop 566 39 TBD SD: 2013 SONGS 2/3 CE 2-looo 1070 31/30 TBD SD: 2013 Crystal River 3 B&W 860 36 TBD SD: 2013 Vermont BWR-4/Mk-1 605 42 TBD SD: 2015 Yankee U.S.

Fort Calhoun CE 2-loop 482 43 TBD SD: 2016 Palisades CE 2-loop 805 47 TBD SD: 2018 Pilgrim BWR-3/Mk-1 677 47 TBD SD: 2019 Oyster Creek BWR-2/Mk-1 619 50 TBD SD: 2019 Indian Point w 4-loop 1020/ 48/46 TBD SD: 2021 18

2/3 1040 Diablo Canyon 1138/

W 4-loop 40 TBD SD: 2024-5 1/2 1118 Non-commercia l; Advanced 250 Test reactor 50 Core internals internals Test Reactor MWt replaced every 10 years In addition to the potential sources of materials presented and discussed in Session 3, another takeaway was the suggestion of developing a dat abase for previously harvested materials or those available for future harvesting. The NSUF sample library may be a good starting point for such a database, with appropriate modifications for the purposes of harvesting efforts.

Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects There were several important takeaways from Session 4 that were touched on in multiple presentations and the following discussions. One key takeaway is that researchers should ident ify a clea r purpose and scope for harvesting. Having a clear purpose for harvesting helps to guide later decisions that must be made to adjust course when the inevitable changes in schedule or unexpected realit ies at t he plant arise. A related note is that harvesting is not the top priority for decommissioning. Therefore, researchers must have clear objectives and scope for harvesting that can be communicated to the site.

This understanding should shape assumptions and interactions with the plant owner or decommissioning company as well as planning for costs and schedule.

Another takeaway was the value of strong site coordination, including site visits. Multiple presenters touched on the value of being on-sit e to ta lk to staff and see the components to be harvested. Mockups and 3-D simulations can be valuable to ensure success of the approach or t echnique used to acquire the specimen. A related point is working with reactor operators at the plant. Several harvesting efforts worked with former reactor operators and benefited greatly from their experience t o fi nd records or determine the best method to harvest the desired component. This is a valuable insight that could be effective in future harvesting efforts.

A third key takeaway is early engagement with the plant personnel to express interest in harvesting. This serves to make t he plant aware of interest in harvesting and get their support to work w ith the harvesting process. The other important benefit of early engagement is to gain as much information as possible about the available materials and components, including the associated records and material pedigree information.

Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning The key takeaway in Session 5 was to gather as much information as possible in advance of committing to a specific harvesting project. Ideally, there would be a strong understanding that the material and its aging conditions clearly align with an identified technical data need before committing significant resources to a harvesting effort.

Action Items and Next Steps The following is a summary of the action items discussed at the end of the workshop:

1. Sharing workshop slides 19

NRC emailed attendees to ask their comfort w it h sharing their workshop slides with other organizations and received no objection from any presenters.

The presentations can be accessed here:

https://drive .google.com/open?id=0B5DWMLch5YSXcnpZZ0JOS055QUU .

2. EPRI indicated that MRP-320 (Product ID: 1022866) on knowledge gaps for irradiated austenitic stai nless steel for potential harvesting from MRP-227 inspections is publicly available for a fee.

3. Cable surveillance programs in Germany

GRS to inquire w ith cable colleagues and share any insights.

4. Sources of materials database

Potential sources of materials presented in this workshop are summarized in Session 3 summary above and Appendix Ill below.

NRC will be reaching out to PNNL, INL NSUF, CNSC, AECL, and any other organizations interested i n database development.

5. Priorit ized data needs

Suggestion to contin ue discussions on prioritized data needs with in technical areas (RPV, internals, electrical, concrete) through existing coordination groups if possible Focus on identifying specific material/ aging conditions of interest and purpose

/ intended outcome of harvesting

Idea to survey participant s at the Environmental Degradation conference John Jackson (INL) is o n planning committee

6. EPRI report on spent fuel liner boric add transport through concrete

NRC will contact EPRI for report if needed.

7. Harvested Materials Research Resu lts

Section of workshop summary report (below) devoted to references from harvested materials research.

References to Previous Harvested Materials Research This section of the workshop summary addresses a question that was raised during the discussion at t he workshop regard ing what the outcome or benefit of past harvesting efforts have been. Below is a list of references to research results generated from testing of harvested materials:

1. J.R. Hawthorne and A.L. Hiser, Experimental Assessments af Gundremmingen RPV Archive Material far Fluence Rate Effects Studies, NUREG/CR-5201 (MEA-2286), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1988.

2. O.K. Chopra, and W.J. Shack, Mechanical Properties of Thermally Aged Cast Stainless Steels from Shippingport Reactor Components, NUREG/CR-6275 (ANL-94/3 7), U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Commission, April 1995.

20

3. G. J. Schuster, S. R. Doctor, S.L. Crawford, and A. F. Pardini, Characterization of Flaws in U.S. Reactor Pressure Vessels: Density and Distribution of Flaw Indications in the Shoreham Vessel, NUREG/CR-6471 Volume 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1999.

4. G. J. Schuster, S. R. Doctor, A.F. Pard ini, and S.L. Crawford, Characterization of Flaws in U.S. Reactor Pressure Vessels: Validation of Flaw Density and Distribution in the Weld Metal of the PVRUF Vessel, NUREG/CR-6471 Volume 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2000.

5. D. E. McCabe, et al. Evaluation of WF-70 Weld Metal Fram the Midland Unit 1 Reactor Vessel, NUREG/CR-5736 (ORNL/TM-13748), U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Commission, November 2000.

6. B. Alexandrea nu, O.K. Chopra, and W.J. Shack, Crack Growth Rates in a PWR Environment of Nickel Allays from the Davis-Besse and V.C. Summer Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6921 (ANL-05/55), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 2006.

7. S.E. Cumblidge, et al. Nondestructive and Destructive Examination Studies on Removed-from-Service Control Rad Drive Mechanism Penetrations, N UREG/CR-6996, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com m ission, July 2009.

8. S. E. Cumblidge, et al. Evaluation of Ultrasonic Time-of-Flight Diffraction Data far Selected Control Rad Drive Nozzles from Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant, PNNL-19362, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, April 2011.

9. S. L. Crawford, et al. Ultrasonic Phased Array Assessment of the Interference Fit and Leak Poth of the North Anna Unit 2 Control Rad Drive Mechanism Nozzle 63 with Destructive Validation, NUREG/CR-714 2 (PNNL-21547), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2012.

21

Appendix I Workshop Participants Name Or2anization Email Taku Arai CRIEPI arait@crieoi.denken.or.io Sadao Higuchi CRIEPI higuchi@criegi.denken.or.j12 Japan Kazunobu Sakamoto JNRA kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go.jg Yasuhiro Chimi JAEA chimi.'{asuhiro@jaea.go.ig Uwe Jendrich GRS Uwe.Jendrich@,,rs.de Europe Rachid Chaouadi SCK-CEN rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be Guy Roussel BelV gu'{.roussel@Belv.be Daniel Tello CNSC daniel.tello@canada.ca Canada Desire Ndomba CNSC desire.ndomba@canada.ca Karen Huynh AECL khuynh@aecl.ca Gerrv van Noordennen Energy Solutions 11ovannoordennen@enerllvsolutions.com us Bill Zipp Dominion william.f.zigg@dom.com Industry Mark Richter NEI mar@nei.org Arzu Alpan Westinghouse alganfa@westinghouse.com Sherrv Bernhoft EPRI sbernhoft@eori.com Robin Dyle EPRI rd','le@egri.com EPRI Jean Smith EPRI imsmith@egri.com Al Ahluwalia EPRI kahluwal@egri.com Tom Rosseel ORNL rosseeltm@ornl.eov Rich Reister DOE Richard.Reister@nuclear.energ'{.gov Keith Leonard ORNL leonardk@ornl.gov DOE Mikhail A. Sokolov ORNL sokolovm@ornl.gov John Wagner INL iohn.wagner@inl.gov John Jackson INL iohn.jackson@inl.gov Pradeep Ramuhalli PNNL Pradeeg.Ramuhalli@gnnl.gov Pat Purtscher NRC Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.eov Rob Tregoning NRC Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov Matt Hiser NRC Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov Mita Sircar NRC Madhumita.Sircar@nrc.gov Tom Koshy NRC Thomas.Kosh','@nrc.gov NRC Jeff Poehler NRC Jeffre','.Poehler@nrc.gov Allen Hiser NRC Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov Angela Buford NRC Angela.Buford@nrc.gov Mark Kirk NRC Mark.Kirk@nrc.gov Amy Hull NRC Am'{.Hull@nrc.gov Pete Ricardella NRC/ACRS Priccardella@Structint.com 22

Appendix II Workshop Agenda Tuesday, March 7 Session Time Onzanization Sceaker Presentation Title Michael Weber Intro 8:00 NRC Welcome and Introduction to Workshop Robert Tregoning DOE Rich Reister DOE Perspectives on Material HarvestinJ;?

EPRI Sherry Bernhoft EPRI Perspective o n Harvesting Projects 8:15-8:45 NRC Robert Tregoning NRC Perspective on Motivation for Harvesting 1

GRS Uwe Jendrich Role of GRS in Decom mission ing and LTO CRIEPI Taku Arai CRIEPI Motivations for Harvest ed Material 8:45 - 9:45 DISCUSSION 9:45-10:00 BREAK 10:00 -

PNNL (for NRC) Pradee p Ramuhalli Data Needs Best Addressed By Harvesting 10:20 10:20-NRC Matt hew Hiser High-Priority Data Needs for Harvesting 10:30 10:30 - LWRS Program Perspective on the Technical DOE Keith Leonard 10:55 Needs for Harvestin2 2

10:55 - Review of past RPV sampli ng test programs SCK-CEN Rachid Chaouad i 11:20 and perspective for long t erm operation 11:20 - Importance of Harvesting to Evaluate W estinghouse Arzu Alpan 11:45 Ra diatio n Effects on Conc rete Prooerties 11:45 -

DISCUSSION 12:30 12:30 - 2:00 LUNCH Sources of Mat erials: Past NRC Harvesting and 2:00 - 2:10 NRC Matthew Hiser U.S. Decommission ing Plants Harvesting Plans for Materials Aging 2:10- 2:35 EPRI Al Ahluwalia Degradation Research in Korea and Sweden 2:35 - 2:50 DOE/ORNL Tom Rosseel Materials Harvested bv the LWRS Program 2:50-3:00 DOE/INL John Jackson NSUF Material Sample Library Gerry van 3:00-3:15 Energy Solutio ns Zion Mat erial Harvesting Program Noordennen 3

Potential Harvesting of Conc rete from Mihama 3:15 -3:30 W estinghouse Arzu Alpan Unit 1 3:30 - 3:45 BREAK 3:45 - 4:00 GRS Uwe Jendrich Plant s in Decom missioning in Germany Evaluating Structures, Systems & Components 4:00 - 4:15 CNSC Da n iel Tello from Decommissioned/Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities in Canada 4:15- 5:00 DISCUSSION 23

Wednesday, M arch 8 Session Time OrRanization S0eaker Presentation Title Lessons Learned: Harvesting and Shipping of 8:00-8:30 EPRI Jean Smith Zorita Materials 8:30 - 9:00 DOE Tom Rosseel LWRS Program: Harvesting Lessons Learned NRC Perspective o n Harvest ing Experience and 9:00 - 9:30 NRC M atthew Hiser Lessons Learned CRIEPI Research Activities w ith Harvested 4 9:30 - 10:00 CRIEPI Taku Ara i Materials 10:00-10:15 BREAK Energy Gerry van Zion Harvesting Experience and Lessons 10:15 - 10:45 Solutions Noordennen Learned 10:45 - 11:15 Dominion Bill Zipp Kewaunee Insights on Material Harvesting 11:15-12:00 DISCUSSION 12:00 -1:30 LUNCH PNNL (for Technical Informatio n Needed for Informed 1:30-1:45 Pradeep Ramuha lli NRC) Harvesting Decisions 1:45-2:30 DISCUSSION 2:30 - 3:00 Action Items and Next Steps 5

EPRI Sherry Bern hoft DOE Rich Reister 3:00-4:00 Closing Thoughts NRC Robert Tregoning ALL 24

Appendix Ill Harvesting Opportunities in Germany Past a nd current decommissioning pr ojects of P ototype or Commercial Reactors Name Rheinsberg Compact Natrium Cooled Reactor Multipurpose Research R.

I Abbrev.

KKR KKN MZFR

-W WER SNR PWR/O20 Power MW.

70 21 57 I Oecom.

started 1995 1993 1987

- UC UC UC Obrigheim KWO PW R 357 2008 UC Neckarwestheim 1 GKN-1 PWR 840 2017 UC lsar-1 KKl-1 BW R 91 2 2017 UC Gundremmingen-A KRB-A BWR 250 1983 RCAKRB-11 Greifswald 1-5 KGR 1-5 WWER 440 1995 UC Lingen KWL BWR 268 1985 UC after SE UC: unconditional clearance RCA: radiation controlled area, new license NRC Harvesting Workshop, RoclMHe, March 20 17. Oecormisslonlng in Germany SE: safe enclosure Past and current decommissioning projects of Prototype or Commercial Reactors Name Strategy Stade KKS PWR 672 2005 UC Research Reactor J0lich AVR HTR 15 1994 UC Thorium High- THTR- HTR 308 1993 SE since 1997 Temperature-Reaktor 300 W0rgassen KWW BWR 670 1997 UC M0lheim-Karlich KMK PWR 1302 2004 UC Hot-Steam Reactor HOR HOR 25 1983 UC since 1998 Grosswelzheim N iederaichbach KKN IDRRIOp 106 1975 UC since 1994 Test-Reactor Kahl VAK BWR 16 1988 UC since 2010 25

Shut down Commercial Re ctors

that have no decommissioning license granted yet Name Abbrev. Reactor type frMiihNM Date of application Philippsburg-1 KKP-1 BWR 926 2013 / 2014 Grafenrheinfeld KKG PWR 1345 2014 Biblis-A KWB-A PWR 1225 2012 Biblis-8 KWB-8 PWR 1300 2012 Unterweser KKU BWR 1410 2012 / 2013 Brunsbuttel KKB BWR 806 2012 / 2014 Krummel KKK BWR 1402 2015

Commercial Reactors in operation Name Gundremmingen-8 Philippsburg-2 Gundremmingen-C Abbrev.

KRB-11-8 KKP-2 KRB-11-C Reactor type BWR PWR BWR 1344 1468 1344 Anticipated date of final shutdown 31.12.2017 31 .12.2019 31 .1 2.2021 Grohnde KWG PWR 1430 31.12.2021 Brokclorf KBR PWR 1480 31.12.2021 Emsland KKE PWR 1406 31 .12.2022 lsar-2 KKl-2 PWR 1485 31 .1 2.2022 Neckarwestheim-2 GKN-2 PWR 1400 31 .12.2022 26

Ex-Plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Summary Report Workshop held on March 7-8, 2017 at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD NRC staff: Matthew Hiser, Patrick Purtscher, Amy Hull, Robert Tregoning

Table of Contents Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Objective and Approach ...................................................................... ......................... .......................... ...... 1 Workshop Organization and Sessions........................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Workshop Discussion .......................... .... ............... ......... .................... ..................................... 2 Session 1. Motivation for Har vesting ... ................................... ......... ......................................................... 2 Presentation Summaries ....................................................................................................................... 2 Discussion Summary .................................................................... ......................... ................................ 3 Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting ..................... .............................. .................................... 3 Presentation Summaries .......... ............. ............... ............... ......... .................... .................... .... ............. 3 Discussion Summary ............................................................................................................................. 5 Session 3. Sources of Materia ls ............................ .................. .................................................................. 6 Presentation Summaries .............................................................. ......................................................... 6 Discussion Summary ............................................................................................................................. 9 Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects ................................. ........... 10 Presentation Summaries .......... ......................... ............ ....... ........ .................... ........................ ........... 10 Discussion Summary ........................................................................................................................... 14 Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning .............................. ..................... ............... ......... .......... 14 Presentation Summary ....................................................................................................................... 14 Discussion Summary ..... ........... ............................ ............... ......... .................... ........................ ........... 14 Key Takeaways from Workshop........ ............ ... ......... ... ......... ... .... .... .... ... ................. ........................ ........... 15 Session 1. Motivation for Har vesting ...................................... ................................................................ 15 Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting ...... ............................................................................... 15 Session 3. Sources of Materials .............................................................................................................. 15 Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects ........................................ .... 17 Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning .............................. ............. .......................................... 17 Action Items and Next Steps .................... ..... ............ .................. ......... .................... ................................... 17 References to Previous Harvested Materials Research .............. ......... ............. .......................................... 18 Appendix I Workshop Participants.............................................................................................................. 20 Appendix II Workshop Agenda ................................................... ......... ................................................... .... 21 Appendix Ill Harvesting Opportunities in Germany ............................. ......................... .............................. 23 ii

List of Figures Figure 1 Schematic of Westinghouse ex-vesse l neutron dosimetry (EVND) .......... .. .................... ................ 5 Figure 2 Nuclear Fuels and Materials Library (NFML) Database Design .. ..... .......... .. .. .. ........... ..... .......... .. ... . 7 Figure 3 Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRP) Timeline ........ .. ....... ... .. .. .. ....... ....... .. ....... ... ...... ............ .. 10 List of Tables Table 1 Ongoing Harvesting Programs ................ .. .. ...... .... ...................... ................. .. ... .... .. ........... ....... ..... . 16 Table 2 Potential Future Sources for Harvesting .. .. .. .. ... ..... .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ... .... .... ... .... .. ... ... ..... ... .. ..... ... ... ... .. .. 16 iii

=

Background===

On March 7-8, 2017, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hosted a 2-day workshop on the topic of "Ex-Plant Materials Harvesting." NRC staff worked in close coordination with staff from the U.S. Departm ent of Energy (DOE) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to plan and arrange the workshop.

The decision to organize this workshop was driven by developments in the U.S. and global nuclear industry. In the U.S., there is strong interest in extending plant lifespans through subsequent license renewal (SLR) from 60 to 80 years. Extended plant operation and SLR raise a number of technical issues t hat may require further research to understand aging mechanisms, which may benefit from harvesting.

Meanwhile, in recent years, a number of nuclear plants, both in the U.S. and internationally, have shut down or announced plans to shut down. 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 related development, economic challenges for the nuclear industry and limited government spending have reduced 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 for future research programs.

Objective and Approach The objective of the workshop was to generate open discussion of all aspects of ex-plant materials harvesting, including:

1. Deciding whether to harvest,

2. Planning and implementing a harvesting program,

3. Using the harvested materials in research programs,

4. Lessons learned from prior harvesting.

Through presentations and open discussion, the workshop was organized to allow for all participants to be better informed of the benefits and challenges of harvesting as well as to identify potentia l areas of common interest for future harvesting programs. Workshop sessions were aligned in broad topics to cover all aspects of harvesting that allowed the participants to drive the discussion.

To help accomplish the workshop objectives, the workshop organizers sought a diverse group of participants. There are a large number of decommissioning plants and interested researchers outside the U.S., so the organizers focused on outreach to international participants through organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Nuclear Energy agency (OECD/NEA), and existing professional contacts. In addition, a key goal for this workshop was to capture the broader practical perspective from plant owners and decommissioning companies, which are vital to any successful harvesting program, but may sometimes be overlooked in researcher-driven discussions. Workshop participants were also diverse in terms of their technical expertise, including metals, concrete and electrical component materials. The final list of workshop participants can be found at the end of this report in Appendix I.

1

Workshop Organization and Sessions The workshop was held at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD. Due to limited space in the meeting room and the need for a lim ited group size for discussion, a webinar was used to allow remote observers to participate in the workshop. Workshop sessions were organized topically with about half t he t ime dedicated to presentations and the remaining time set aside for discussion. Presentations were solicited from participants to cover a range of perspect ives and technical areas. The final workshop agenda can be found at the end of this summary report in Appendix II.

The workshop was organized into five sessions as follows:

Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting

Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting

Session 3. Sources of Materials

Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects

Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning Summary of Workshop Discussion The subsections below will summarize the presentations and discussion in each session and highlight the key takeaways from the session.

Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting Session 1 focused on the motivation for harvesting and w hy workshop participants are potentially interested in harvesting materials. As shown in Appendix II wit h presentation t itles, speakers for this session included:

Richard Reister from DOE,

Sherry Bernhoft from EPRI,

Robert Tregoning from NRC,

Uwe Jendrich from the Gesellschaft fur Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) in Germany, and

Taku Arai from the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) in Japan.

Presentation Summaries DOE described the role of harvesting within the Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, including the benefits and cha llenges associated with harvesting. Benefits include the opportunity to fill knowledge gaps where there is limited data or experience and to inform degradation models wit h data from actual plant components. Challenges include cost, complexity, scheduling, logistics, limited opportunities, acquiring sufficient material pedigree information, and potential negative results impacting operating plants.

EPRI discussed the role of harvesting within the context of aging management for Long-Term Operations (LTO), including their experience from past harvesting programs and criteria for future harvesting. Their experience emphasized the challenges of cost, schedule, logistics, complicated cont racting and acquiring mat erial pedigree information. EPRl's criteria for harvesting focus on demonstrating value t o their members by addressing a prioritized need that cannot be addressed through other means. For EPRI, a well-developed project plan that covers fund ing, risk management, exit ramps, and clear roles and responsibilities is essential.

2

NRC shared its perspective on the benefits and challenges of harvesting in regulatory research.

Harvested materials are valuable due to the representative nature of their aging conditions, which may reduce the uncertainty associated with the applicability of the results to operating plants compared to tests with alternative aging conditions. Harvested materials may be the best option to address technical data needs identified for extended plant operation. With increasing harvesting opportunities from decommissioning plants, a proactive approach to harvesting planning can optimize benefits by identifying the right material with the right aging conditions for the identified knowledge gap. There are significant challenges associated with harvesting, including cost, schedule, and logistics, but hopefully these can be mitigated or avoided by leveraging resources with other organizations and learning from past experience.

GRS described its role as the main technical support organization in nuclear safety for the German federal government. GRS provides technical assessment and knowledge transfer for decommissioning activities, aging management, and long-term operation for German federal and international organizations.

CRIEPI discussed its view of how harvested materials and laboratory prepared materials contribute to addressing technical issues. Harvested materials provide exposure to actual plant conditions, but are more limited in availability and the size of the data set that can be generated. Laboratory prepared materials generally involve accelerated or simulated aging conditions, but can be used to produce larger data sets with varying parameters to allow understanding of the effect on the mechanism or property of interest. Harvested materials offer fact finding of actual plant conditions as well as confirmation and verification of results from laboratory prepared specimens.

Discussion Summary The discussion following the presentations in this session focused on clearly identifying the need to be addressed by a harvesting project and the myriad cost, schedule, and logistical challenges associated with harvesting. Leveraging with other organizations to defray costs can also help improve the value of a given program, but also adds complexity as another organization may have a different set of priorities that changes the focus of the harvesting effort.

Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting Session 2 focused on discussing the technical data needs for harvesting and specific knowledge gaps organizations are interested in addressing through harvesting. This discussion included gener.al perspectives on how to determine when harvesting should be pursued rather than other types of research. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, speakers for this session included:

Pradeep Ramuhalli from the Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL),

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Keith Leonard from DOE/ Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),

Rachid Chaouadi from the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK-CEN) in Belgium, and

Arzu Alpan from Westinghouse.

Presentation Summaries PNNL presented their NRC-sponsored work to develop a systematic approach to prioritize data needs for harvesting. PNNL proposed five primary criteria for prioritizing harvesting:

3

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

Ease of laboratory replication of degradation scenario (combination of material and environment) o For example, simultaneous thermal and irradiation conditions may be difficult to replicate or mechanisms sensitive to dose rate may not be appropriate for accelerated aging

Applicability of harvested materials for addressing critical gaps o Prioritize harvesting for critical gaps over less essential data needs

Availability of reliable in-service inspection (ISi) techniques for the material/ component o If inspection methods are mature and easy to apply to monitor and track degradation, perhaps the effort of research with harvested materials is not needed.

Availability of materials for harvesting o The necessary materials/ components must be available to be harvest ed.

PNNL then presented their application of these criteria to four materials degradation issues as an example: electrical cables, cast austenitic stainless steel (CASS), reactor vessel internals, and dissimilar metal welds. Based on applying these criteria to the examples, PNNL concluded that electrical cables, CASS, and reactor internals are all higher priority for harvesting due to unique aspects of the degradation that are challenging to replicate in the lab. Meanwhile, dissimilar metal welds are of low priority due to the ease of replication in lab aging studies as well as the significant body of knowledge and research on the phenomena.

NRC presented a summary of data needs it is interested in pursuing through harvesting. These included RPV materials to validate fluence and attenuation models and to demonstrate the conservatism of regulatory approaches for transition temperature prediction. Other metal components of interest for harvesting would address data gaps in irradiated and cast stainless steels, as well as improve understanding of inspection capabilities and fatigue life calculations. Electrical components of interest include low and medium voltage cables, other electrical components for degradation studies, and electrical enclosures and cables for fire research. Concrete components of interest include irradiated concrete, concrete undergoing alkali-aggregate reactions, post-tensioned structures, reinforcing st eel, tendons, and spent fuel pool concrete to assess potential degradation due to boric acid attack.

DOE/ORNL presented their perspective on data needs for harvesting and its role in providing validation of experimental and theoretical research. DOE/ORNL performed a significant RPV harvesting program at the Zion nuclear power plant to reduce uncertainties in the Master Curve methodology, validate modeling predictions and study flux and fluence attenuation effects. The harvesting is largely complet e, but the testing program is currently underway. DOE/ORNL also indicated interest in using harvested materials t o validate its models for swelling and microstructural changes of stainless steel internals under LWR irradiation conditions. Harvesting concrete components would be of interest due to lack of literature data and the multiple dependent variables that may affect concrete performance. Finally, DOE/ORNL has been involved in harvesting cables from the Crystal River and Zion plants to address cable aging as a function of material composition and environment.

4

SCK-CEN presented their interest in an international cooperative program to harvest RPV materials. SCK-CEN presented their survey of the literature for past testing programs of harvested RPV materials, and the limitations of these past programs. Key limitations include a lack of archive materials, generally lower temperatures, and poor surveillance programs and dosimetry. SCK-CEN then shared some thoughts on their criteria for a new harvesting efforts, including higher fluence levels and temperatures, available archive materials and reliable information on the plant's operating history, dosimetry and surveillance program. Other topics relevant to a new RPV harvesting effort include technical issues such as material variability and irradliation conditions as well as logistical and financial considerations.

The final presentation in Session 2 by Westinghouse focused on the need for harvesting irradiated concrete to better understand the threshold radiation level for significant strength reduction.

Westinghouse has installed ex-vessel neutron dosimetry (EVND) at a number of plants in the world and proposed to use these dosimetry measurements to validate fluence model calculations to better understand the uncertainty in t hese calculations. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the EVND set up. If concrete can be harvested at one of these plants with EVND data, then irradiated concrete properties from testing can be paired with fluence data to improve research benefits.

~

. ~ / Support chain f ~,\ f ~u,\

-~* I , __

\ WIU ,I Support bar Dosimetry chain Dosimetry capsules Westinghouse Figure 1 Schematic of Westinghouse ex-vessel neutron dosimetry (EVND)

Discussion Summary The discussion following Session 2 presentations touched on a number of topics. EPRI shared that they developed a report related to the topics of Session 2, but more narrowly focused on pressurized water reactor (PWR) internals. MRP-320, "Testing Gap Assessment and Material Identification for PWR Internals," focuses on prioritizing opportunistic harvesting of stainless steel reactor internals components that may be remo,ved from service following MRP-227 inspections. The methodology and approach in this report may be relevant to the broader harvesting data needs discussion. This report is not freely available to the public, but is available to EPRI member utilities.

Workshop participants discussed the criteria proposed by PNNL in the first presentation. One additional criteria suggested by EPRI was to consider fleet-wide vs. plant-specific applicability. More broadly applicable materials would be of greater interest for harvesting than those that represent conditions at only a few plants. Another criteria suggested is the availability of material pedigree information, such as composition, processing, environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, fluence, etc.). Another 5

suggested criteria was the ease of harvesting, which includes the concept of weighing costs vs. benefits as well as project risk. For example, highly irradiated internals are probably much more difficult and expensive to harvest than electrical cables or unirradiated concrete. Further discussion touched on the idea that different organizations may prioritize the various criteria differently, but all will probably at least want to consider the same set of criteria.

Another key theme from this discussion was that a successful program should be guided by a clearly defined objective or problem statement to be addressed. This objective should be well-understood at the initiation of a program and used to guide decision-making through implementation of a harvesting project. This also raises a related point or potential criteria: the timeliness of the expected research results relative to the objective. If the results are needed in the next two years, but a harvesting project will not provide results for at least five years, that should be a strong consideration.

Session 3. Sources of Materials Session 3 focused on discussing sources of materials for harvesting. This discussion covered previously harvested materials as well as sources for new harvesting programs from operating or decommissioning plants. Both domestic and international sources of materials were discussed in this session. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, speakers for th is session included:

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Al Ahluwalia from EPRI,

Tom Rosseel from DOE/ORNL,

John Jackson from DOE/Idaho National Laboratory (INL),

Gerry van Noordenne11 from EnergySolutions,

Arzu Alpan from Westinghouse,

Uwe Jendrich from GRS, and

Daniel Tello from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).

Presentation Summaries NRC presented their perspective on sources of materials for harvesting. First, NRC shared information on some of the harvested materials from past research programs that may be available, including irradiated stainless steel internals, RPV materials, nickel alloy welds, neutron absorber material, and electrical components. NRC then summa1rized the recently and planned shutdown U.S. plants, including their design, thermal output, and years of operation, to provide participants with an idea of the potential sources from decommissioning U.S. plants. Finally, NRC shared a list of information that would be helpful to acquire from decommissioning plants to determine the value of components for harvesting.

This information included plant design information (component location and dimensions),

environmental conditions (tern perature, fluence, humidity, stress, etc.) and operating history, material pedigree information (fabrication records), and inspection records (for interest in components with known flaws).

The next presentation from EPRI covered harvesting opportunities at decommissioning plants in Korea and Sweden. In Korea, Kori-1 is a Westinghouse 2-loop PWR (sister plant is Kewaunee) that will shut down in 2017 after 40 years of operation. Korea Hydro and Nuiclear Power Central Research Institute (KHNP-CRI) is planning a comprehensive research program on long-term materials aging based on harvesting from Kori-1 and is seeking international participation in the harvesting effort. KHNP-CRl's 6

plan is focused on metallic components, including RPV, internals, primary system components, and steam generator materials. Harvesting is expected to occur in 2024 with testing to follow through 2030.

In Sweden, Vattenfall is current ly harvesting in 2017-2018 RPV material from the decommissioning Barseback boiling water reactor (BWR) units. This work is focused on irradiation embrittlement, including comparison of surveil lance data to actual RPV properties, as well as thermal aging embrittlement. In the future, Vattenfall will be shutting down Ringhals 1 and 2 in 2020 and 20 19, respectively. Ringhals 1 is a BWR and Ringhals 2 is a Westinghouse 3-loop PWR design. Of particular note, Ringhals 2 has the second oldest replaced Alloy 690 RPV head and steam generators. Other harvesting opportunities at Ringhals include RPV material with a significant surveillance program, thermal aging effects on low alloy steel from the pressurizer, a1s well as concrete structures. Vattenfall is open to working with partners that are interested in joining them for harvesting at Ringhals.

The next presentation by DOE/ORNL focused on several harvesting programs that DOE's LWRS program has been involved with. DOE/ORNL has led the harvesting of components from the Zion j - - l __ _(l:>)(4)

(b)(4) ____ p.lantfl in the U.S. From Zion, DOE/OR NL has harvested electrical cables and components, a large RPV section, and a significant number of records to provide information on material fabrication, in-service inspection and operating history. Cables from Zion include CROM, thermocouple, and low and medium voltage cables. DOE/ORNL indicated some thermocouple cables from Zion may be available for other (b)(4) researchers to use in collaborative studies.

(b)(4)

(b)(4) .,.__________________________, DOE/ORNL is also participating in efforts to harvest cables from Crystal River (led by EPRI) and concrete from the Zorita plant in Spain (led by NRC).

The next presentation by DOE/I NL described IN L's Nuclear Science User Facilities (NSUF) and the Nuclear Fuels and Materia ls Library (NFML). NSUF is coordinated by INl and facilitates access to nuclear research facilities around the world, including neutron and ion irradiations, beamlines, hot cell testing, characterization and computing capabilities. NFML is a Web-based searchable database sample library that captures the information from thousands of specimens available to NSUF. NFML is designed to maximize the benefit of previously irradiated materials for future research. Researchers can propose new research projects under NSUF using specimens in NFML using DOE funding. As seen in Figure 2, t he information captured in NFML aligns well with the goal of this session to potentially develop a database of previously harvested materials.

7

SME DATABASE r PROJECT DATABASE "I P l Name n

Subject Maner

~ PROJECT NAME "I INSTITUTION ~ NEID DATA BASE Pro,ect ID Start Dale Pro1ect Tvoe Proposal End Date Material Type INSTITUT ION CINR# P l Nome Research Area I FACILITY INSTITUTIO .. I RTE # Tech Lead REACTOR NSUF Call Fac,htvTech L~ FACILITY Related Documents REACTOR POSITION Award Date Collaborators

- \. ~

L' SAMPL L IERARY PROJ ECT NAME REACTOR R!ACTOR POSITION Sam pie ID Code #of Samples PLANNED AS RUN Capsule Samples Remaining Temperature Temperature Packet Specmen Availabd11y Dose(DPA) Actual Dose (DPA)

Matenal Code Avai ab11dy Date Fluence (x t ()20) Fluence (x10'°)

Matenal Name CeruficatJon FIUll (x10") Flux (x10")

Matenal Oescnpt.,., Ceruficatoon Code KGT# Sto<age FACILITY ' Envmnment Enworvnent Speomen Type N~es 0 1menstOOS Figure 2 Nuclear Fuels and Mat erials Library (NFML) Database Design The next presentation by EnergySolutions offered a more practical pers1Pective on considering sources of materials for harvesting. From the plant owner perspective, there is no financial incentive to support harvesting during decommissioning, therefore researchers need to absorb the costs of harvesting and have a clear scope for harvesting. Flexibility in funding for harvesting activities is essential as the decommissioning process and schedule may change quickly.

EnergySolutions provided valuable perspective on the timing in the decommissioning process for harvesting different components. For instance, the harvesting of RPV surveillance coupons should take place when the RPV internals are cut and removed. Harvesting of RPV materials is only possible from larger RPVs, as smaller RPVs are shipped intact to the disposal facility, rather than cut into pieces. Spent fuel rack neutron absorber coupons must be harvested either before or after the dry storage campaign to remove spent fuel from the spent fuel pool. Harvesting actual spent fuel rack neutron absorber material must come after the pool is completely empty. Electrical cables and other components from mi ld environments may be harvested any time after t emporary power is established and plant power shut off. Harvesting of electrical components from high radiation environments will depend on the timing of source-term removal schedules. Concrete cores are best harvested when other cores are being taken for site characterization to develop the License Termination Plan. Highly irradiated concrete from the biological shield wall would need to come later in decommissioning after the RPV is removed.

In terms of upcoming decommissioning plants, EnergySolutions indicated that San Onofre and Vermont Yankee will be entering active decommissioning in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Kewaunee, Crystal River, and Fort Calhoun also may enter active decommissioning in the next 2 years. If researchers are interested in harvesting from any of these plants, they should be reaching out to plant owners immediately to begin planning and coordination.

Westinghouse followed up their presentation in Session 2 by describing an opportunity to harvest concrete from the Mihama 1 plant in Japan. Westinghouse installed and analyzed additional neutron dosimetry in the react or cavity for one cycle, which were used to validat e the radiation transport 8

calculations. Mihama was shutdown in 2015 and is in contact with Westinghouse about the possibility of extracting concrete cores from the biological shield wall. Westinghouse is seeking partners interested in joining this harvesting effort.

The next presentation by GRS covered opportunities for harvesting from German plants. Regulations in Germany require plants to either immediately dismantle or dismantle after a period of safe enclosure, which is largely consistent with options in the U.S. GRS detailed the status of German commercial reactors, which are predominantly BWR and PWR designs. Seventeen reactors are currently undergoing decommissioning, while seven more are currently shutdown and await a decommissioning license. Eight reactors are still operating with scheduled shutdown dates between 2017 and 2022. German RPVs tend to have lower fluence than U.S. designs due to a larger water gap in the downcomer region. Germany has limited experience with harvesting from decommissioning plants. One question that GRS will follow-up on is the "rumored" cable surveillance programs that may be used in Germany and could provide experience and lessons learned for other countries.

The final presentation in Session 3 was by CNSC on harvesting opportunities in Canada. Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) has harvested seven concrete cores from the 20 megawatt electric (MWe)

Nuclear Power Demonstration Plant (NPD), which shutdown in 1988 after 25 years of operation. CNSC and AECL are also considering opportunities to harvest concrete from other decommissioned reactors in Canada such as Gentilly-2, Douglas Point, and Whiteshell Reactor 1. In addition to concrete, CNSC and AECL are currently harvesting electrical cables from the 675 MWe CANDU-6 Gentilly-2 reactor, which shutdown in 2012 after 29 years of operation. The purpose of this work is to study cable degradation from thermal aging and radiation damage and validate environmental qualification of the cables. CNSC described some of the challenges with this harvesting effort, such as working with plant owners, records, accessibility and contamination of the materials and budgeting with unexpected delays in harvesting.

A future harvesting opportunity is from the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Chalk River, which will shut down in 2018 after operating since 1957. AECL is currently taking an inventory of irradiated materials that can be harvested from NRU in decommissioning. Potential materials for harvesting include metals (steels, nickel alloys, zirconium, aluminum), concrete, graphite, active equipment (pumps, etc.), graphite seals, electrical cables, and thermocouples.

Discussion Summary Following the presentations, there was some discussion of lessons learned from DOE's Zion harvesting effort. DOE worked with a former senior reactor operator at Zion to identify and acquire the appropriate records from Zion for the components being harvested. DOE also described their flexible approach to acquiring RPV samples by sending a large chunk of material (weighing ~go tons) to EnergySolutions' facility in Tennessee, where smaller pieces (weighing ~soo pounds) were cut to send to ORNL. Most of the decontamination was performed at Zion, with minimal additional cleaning (as well as cladding removal) taking place at EnergySolutions' facility.

There was also discussion of acquiring materials from sources other than commercial nuclear facilities.

DOE has considered harvesting concrete from other DOE nuclear facilities, but determined that there were compositional differences between the DOE facilities and commercial facilities that would make the concrete from DOE facilities not useful. DOE/I NL mentioned that the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) 9

replaces their core internals every ten years. The ATR internals are composed primarily of 347 stainless steel and achieve very high fluence levels after ten years of service.

Another key discussion topic was the possibility of developing a database for previously harvested materials or those available for future harvesting. DOE/I NL indicated that their NSUF sample library may be a good starting point for such a database, although any materials in that library should be freely available for use in the research community. CNSC, NRC, and PNNL also expressed interested in working to develop a harvesting database.

Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects Session 4 focused on lessons learned and practical aspects of harvesting. Presenters shared their experience with past harvesting programs, particularly common pitfalls to avoid and successful strategies to overcome them. Presentations also covered the practical aspects of harvesting from the plant owner and decommissioning company perspective. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, speakers for this session included:

Jean Smith from EPRI,

Tom Rosseel from DOE/ORNL,

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Taku Arai from CRIEPI,

Gerry van Noordennen from EnergySolutions, and

Bill Zipp from Dominion.

Presentation Summaries EPRI presented their experience and lessons learned from past harvesting programs, particularly harvesting reactor internals and concrete from Zorita and electrical cables from Crystal River. From the Zorita reactor internals experience, EPRI emphasized that harvesting projects take significant t ime, encounter both material retrieval and on-site challenges, and shipping issues. As shown in Figure 3, the Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRP) took about 10 years to go from initial planning to final results, which included about 5 years of project planning, 2 years for material extraction (on-site logistics and shipping), and 3-4 years for testing. EPRl's experience was that decommissioning activities were the top priority and that harvesting was secondary, subject to schedule and logistical challenges based on the changing decommissioning schedule. Shipping issues were also challenging due to sending activated materials (which were classified as " waste") across international borders, from the reactor in Spain to the testing facility in Sweden. Currently, further planned shipments of the Zorita materials beyond the initial program continue to be impacted by export license challenges in Sweden. More positively, EPRI emphasized that the Zorita reactor internals materials harvesti ng showed excellent cooperation among many organizations and are now providing valuable technical information to numerous research projects.

10

Task 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 I 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ProJoct Inception feaslblllty Study ProJect Planning

- ~1J 1 I __l

, ~~ , ~

~

Cutllng Plans Equlpmont Design & Manufacturing On*slto Preparation*

Ma1orlal Extraction On-she Loglsllcs I

Shipping Radiation and Temperature Analyses

,_ I

-+-

Matorial lnspoctlon, Inventory, Oocumonlation I I Materials Testing I Reporting I I ~

Figure 3 Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRP) Timeline Lessons learned from the Zorita concrete harvesting focused on the challenges with core sample drilling and handling contaminated concrete. Ultimat ely, an effective core drilling procedure was identified, but required some trial and error. Lessons learned from the Crysta,I River cable harvesting included material concerns, the need for on-site support, and cost. In terms of material concerns, radiation and asbestos contamination created additional challenges for harvesting. On-site support and the ability to visit the site are extremely valuable to ensure clear communication, retrieval of records for material pedigree information, and awareness of on-site developments in the decommissioning process. Cable harvesting at Crystal River was more expensive than anticipated, particularly in terms of EPRI project management time to coordinate the harvesting activit ies and engineering support at the plant.

DOE/ORNL presented lessons learned primarily from the experience harvesting RPV materials and electrical cables and components from the Zion plant. In terms of planning and decision-making, DOE/ORNL had several lessons learned. DOE/ORNL hosted a workshop at Zion in 2011 to discuss long-term goals and objectives, which proved very helpful in setting priorities and developing partnerships with other organizat ions. Partnerships were very valuable to DOE/ORN L's harvesting efforts, allowing for leveraging resources and collaboration and sharing results. There are limited opportunities for harvesting key components, so DOE/ORNL emphasized that participants should take full advantage of the opportunities that arise, understanding that there is a necessary compromise between the materials available and their value in terms of fluence or exposure to aging conditions. Another consideration is the quantity of material harvested, which should be sufficient for the objectives of the planne d research as well as any collaborations or partnerships, but limited to control costs.

For implementing the harvesting program, DOE/ORNL found t11at flexibility was paramount to be able to adjust scope and plans in response to schedule changes and other development s, while remaining within cost constraints. Working with a former reactor operator was extremely valuable to benefit from their in-depth knowledge of all parts of the plant, in particular the records for materials pedigree information. Regular site visits and contacts were also essent ial to stay aware of the latest developments in the harvesting planning and decommissioning process, with the understanding that harvesting is not the top priorit y for the decommissioning company. Other important considerations were hazardous materials handling, transportation, and disposal and logistics, including contracts, liability, shipping and disposal. Finally, DOE/ORN L's experience is that the total costs of a harv,esting program from planning to execution to testing are very high, so they should be carefully weighed against the value of the expected data to be generated.

11

NRC presented their experience, including benefits from previous harvesting programs, and technical and logistical lessons learned from harvesting. As an organization, NRC has extensive experience with testing harvested materials, including RPV, primary system components, reactor internals, neutron absorbers, concrete and electrical components. NRC's experience is more limited than DOE or EPRI in terms of managing the logistics of a harvesting effort from a decommissioning plant. NRC has generally participated in a secondary role in cooperative efforts or received failed components from operating plants for research. NRC has found that previous harvesting efforts have been effective in reducing unnecessary conservatism, understanding in-service flaws more realistically for NOE and leak r ate methodologies, as well as identifying and better understanding safety issues.

For technical lessons learned, NRC's perspective is that harvesting can provide highly representative aged materials for research, which may be the only practical source of such materials. Harvested materials can be effectively used to validate models or confirm results from accelerated aging tests. It is important to understand as much as possible about the materials and their in-service environment and how this compares with the operating fleet of reactors before committing to a specific harvesting project. For logistical lessons learned, harvesting is expensive and time-consuming, so a significant technical benefit is needed to ensure the program provides value. Leveraging resources with other organizations can help minimize costs, but can also introduce challenges for aligning the prioriities and interests of multiple organizations. Finally, transporting irradiaited materials, particularly between countries, is challenging and time-consuming and should be avoided if at all possible.

CRIEPI presented their research experience with harvested materials as well as ongoing harvesting from the Hamaoka 1 plant. The first research program involved atom probe tomography (APT) on RPV surveillance materials. CRIEPI found a correlation between the volume fraction of Ni-Si-Mn clusters and the change in nil-ductility temperature. In the second research project, CRIEPI characterized t lhe weld and base materials harvested from Greifswald Unit 4 RPV with small-angle neutron scattering, APT, and hardness testing. In the third research project, CRIEPI performed APT on 304L stainless steel reactor internals harvested from control rod and top guide components from 3-13 dpa. Results showed a strong increase in Ni-Si clusters with increasing fluence, but little variation in Al enriched clusters witlh increasing fluence.

For future work, CRIEPI is collaborating with the DOE LWRS program to investigate RPV materials (b)(4) h~ry~~t~c:JfrnrnZionj ICRIEPI also presented activities underway by Chubu Electric Power to harvest RPV and concrete samples from the Hamaoka 1 plant.

Hamaoka 1 is a 540 MWe BWR-4 that operated for 33 years. Harvesting began in 2015 and will continue through 2018.

The final two presentations of Session 4 provided the perspective from a decommissioning company and plant owner. EnergySolutions, which is decommissioning the Zion nuclear plant among other facilities, presented on the decommissioning process and their experience and lessons learned from harvesting at Zion. As mentioned previously, surgical harvesting is not the top priority for decommissioning, so researchers must recognize this and coordinate closely with the decommissioning company.

EnergySolutions emphasized the need to gain senior management support at the plant as well as to expect that there may be staff turnover during a multi-year harvesting effort. Changes in scope and schedule (originating from either side) can cause frustration on both sides. Early planning, efficient 12

contracting, and frequent site visits are important to avoid lost opportunities and achieve a successful outcome.

At Zion, EnergySolutions worked with DOE to harvest RPV materials, cables, electrical components, and spent fuel storage racks. DOE hoped to harvest a particular RPV surveillance capsule, but was unable to do so due to the inability to identify the correct capsule in the pool. There were also challenges with harvesting RPV materials. The cut line on the Unit 2 RPV was too close to the weld to be used for research; fortunately, a successful specimen was harvested from Unit 1. For cabling, the initial! plan was to harvest from 11 different locations, but ultimately, due to unforeseen challenges, miscommunication and coordination issues, only 4 different cable locations were harvested. Harvesting the desired cable length (30 feet) also proved challenging, with only shorter sections recovered. Searches of pla nt records were largely effective at providing material pedigree information for cables. Concrete coring was initially planned to take place at Zion, but not performed due to lack of research interest. The spent fuel storage rack harvesting went smoothly, which was assisted by weekend efforts when decommissioning activities were not occurring.

The next presentation from Dominion provided its perspective on harvesting from decommissioning plants, with particular focus on the experience at Kewaunee Power Station. The top priority (beyond safety) in decommissioning is the preservation and good stewardship of the decommissioning trust fund. Staffing is the largest drain on the trust fund, so at Kewaunee, staff was halved within a few months of shutdown and then halved again, about 16 months after permanent shutdown once offsite emergency response requirements were eliminated. Dominion described the example of harvesting the RPV surveillance capsules at th is point at Kewaunee and the significant challenges that would exist.

Given the reduced staffing and the current plant state (reactor coolant system drained, pumps retired, crane and radiation monitoring not maintained), it would be much more difficult than immediately after shutdown. Kewaunee considered harvesting the RPV surveillance specimens and estimated a cost of six to seven figures based on all the activities required to enable it at this point, post-shutdown, compared to a much lower cost just after shutdown. Dominion observed that some components, such as cables or electrical components, may be available and relatively easy to harvest at almost any time during decommissioning. However, other components such as highly irradiated internals or RPV may be best harvested either shortly after shutdown when staffing and capabilities on-site are high or wait until active demolition of the reactor, which may be years or decades later.

Dominion also touched on the discussion of records for plant components. Records requirements are limited to those needed for safety. Once the plant shuts down and the range of potential safety concerns decreases, systems aire downgraded to non-safety and the associated records are no longer required to be maintained. For perspective, Kewaunee still has all its records four years since shutdown, but will likely not continue this much longer. Dominion closed its presentation with a broader perspective on harvesting, emphasizing the need to clearly define a problem statement and understand what technical and regulatory purpose that harvesting will serve. Early planning focused on achieving the clear objective of the work including scope, schedule, budget and contact with plant is essential to a successful harvesting effort.

13

Discussion Summary The discussion touched on the top lessons learned from past harvesting efforts, which included defining a clear objective and purpose for harvesting, early engagement with the plant, and site coordination during harvesting.

Another suggestion was to get utility management buy-in for the harvesting project by identifying a benefit to the utility. EPRI mentioned that cable harvesting at Crystal River went much more successfully once the utility recognized the potential benefits for SLR. Similarly, when harvesting from an operating plant, one must recognize and work through the challenges the plant may encounter when restarting operations.

During discussion, the question was raised regarding how it is determined whether harvested materials are waste. The discussion identified that the U.S. 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 37 is the pertinent regulation. 10 CFR 37 defines when additional security requirements are imposed, based on the quantity and activity of mater ials to be transported. In the U.S., EnergySolutions indicated that t he definition of material as waste versus research materials is not critical. Shipments of waste or research material can be handled in the same way in the accordance with Department of Transportation regulations, provided that the limits in 10 CFR 37 are not reached.

Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning Session 5 focused on the information needed for informed harvesting decision-making and harvesting program planning. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, this session featured a presentation by Pradeep Ramuhalli from PNNL, followed by a discussion period covering harvesting program planning and reflection on the 2-day workshop.

Presentat ion Summary PNNL presented its perspective on the information needed for informed harvesting decision-making.

First, the purpose of the harvesting effort needs to be defined by identifying the technical knowledge gaps to be addressed. Next, a research plan should be developed demonstrating how the harvested material will be used to address the identified gaps. Finally, the appropriate source of material to address the technical gap must be identified, along with resources to support t he effort and plans and timelines to perform the harvesting. The specifics of these pla ns depend greatly on the source of materials and must be flexible lbased on changing constraints.

In assessing the best source of materials, researchers should consider the material, its environment, and its condition. Material information includes fabrication information such as manufacturer, composition, and dimensions as well as informat ion related to installation or construction, such as welding processes and parameters. Environmental information includes temperature, humidity, fluence, flux, stress (service, residua l, installation), and coolant chemistry. Component condition information includes inspection history, such as identified flaws or degradation.

Discussion Sum ma ry The discussion in Session 5 focused on the best practical approach to plan future harvesting programs.

There was clear agreement that this approach must begin with identifying the dat a needs best addressed by harvesting, whether from operating or decommissioning plants. Once a specific need is identified, the next step is to find a source to acquire the materials of interest and identify other organizations interested in participating in the harvesting effort.

14

Key Takeaways from Workshop Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting The clear takeaway from the discussion in Session 1 was that harvesting requires significant resources to be done successfully; therefore it is paramount to identify how the planned harvesting will clearly address a significant need to ensure the harvesting project provides appropriate value. In the context of the need for data, EPRI suggested that the goal of harvesting to support research for operation out to 80 years should not be a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of degradation, but rather a should seek to confirm other lab results and models. This is an important point for all organizations and researchers to keep in mind before invest ing significant resources in harvesting.

Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting The criteria proposed by PNNL are a good starting point for prioritizing issues to address by harvesting.

Three additional important criteria would be:

Fleet-wide vs. plant-specific applicability of data,

Ease of harvesting (in terms of cost and project risk), and

Timeliness of the expected research results relative to the objective.

Once a potential harvesting project has reached the point of identifying potential sources of materials, the availability of material pedigree information, such as composition, processing, environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, fluence, etc.) is very important to the overall value of harvesting material from that particular plant.

Based on the presentations and discussion in Session 2, there appeared to be two areas where participants had broad interest in pursuing further harvesting: high fluence reactor internals and irradiated concrete. The common drivers for the interest in these issues is a lack of representative data at the fluences of interest and significant challenges with acquiring representative data through other means. High fluence reactor internals have been addressed somewhat by ZIRP, but st ainless steel materials exposed to higher flu1ence levels at higher temperatures, where void swelling may become significant, could help validate DOE and EPRI models and provide further technical basis for PWR internals aging management. Irradiated concrete harvesting is currently being pursued from tlhe Zorita reactor in Spain, with international collaboration and potential! testing at the Halden Reactor Project.

Other areas with some, but less widespread, interest expressed from workshop participants for new harvesting efforts included RPV materials and electrical cables and components. SCK-CEN and NRC expressed interest in RPV harvesting, and NRC expressed interest in electrical component harvesting.

Session 3. Sources of Materials To capture the key takeaways from Session 3 focused on sources of materials, two tables of potential sources of materials are presented below. Table 1 covers recent or ongoing harvesting programs, while Table 2 details potential future harvesting opportunities.

15

Table 1 Ongoing Harvesting Programs Size Years in Country Plant Design Components Organization(s)

(MWe) operation NPD CANDU 20 25 Concrete Canada AECL Gentilly-2 CANDU-6 675 29 Cables Japan Hamaoka 1 IBWR-4 540 33 RPV, concrete CRIEPI, Chubu Spain Zorita W 1-loop 160 37 Internals, concrete EPRI, NRC Sweden Barseback ABB-II 615 28 RPV Vattenfall W- 4 RPV, cables, Zion 1/2 1040 24/25 DOE, EPRI, NRC loop neutron absorbers Crystal River 3 B&W 860 36 Cables EPRI U.S.

(b)(4)

Table 2 Potential Future Sources for Harvesting Size Years in Potential Country Plant Design Notes (MWe) operation Components 135 AECL; SD:

Canada NRU Test reactor 61 TBD MWt 2018 Germany Numerous plants either in decommissioning or shutting down soon. See Appendix Ill.

Kans.ai, Japan Mihama W 2-loop 320 40 Concrete W estinghouse RPV, internals, Korea Kori 1 W 2-loop 576 40 SGs, pressurizer, KHNP, EPRI welds, CASS, Ringhals 1 BWR 883 44 RPV, internals Vattenfall; Sweden SGs, pressurizer, SD: 2020 /

Ringhals 2 W 3-loop 900 44 concrete 2019 Kewaunee W 2-loop 566 39 TBD SD: 2013 SONGS 2/3 CE 2-loop 1070 31/30 TBD SD: 2013 Crysta l River 3 B&W 860 36 TBD SD: 2013 Vermont IBWR-4/Mk-1 605 42 TBD SD:2015 Yankee Fort Calhoun CE 2-loop 482 43 TBD SD:2016 Palisades CE 2-loop 805 47 TBD SD:2018 Pilgrim IBWR-3/Mk-1 677 47 TBD SD:2019 Oyster Creek IBWR-2/Mk-1 619 50 TBD SD:2019 U.S.

Indian Point 1020 /

W 4-loop 48/46 TBD SD:2021 2/3 1040 Diablo Canyon 1138 /

W 4-loop 40 TBD SD: 2024-5 1/2 1118 Non-commercial; Advanced 250 Test reactor 50 Core internals internals Test Reactor MWt replaced every 10 years 16

SD = shutdown year (actual or projected)

In addition to the potential sources of materials presented and discussed in Session 3, another takeaway was the suggestion of developing a database for previously ha1rvested materials or those available for future harvesting. The NSUF sample library may be a good starting point for such a database, with appropriate modifications tailored towards harvesting efforts.

Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects There were several important takeaways from Session 4 that were indicated in multiple prese ntations and the following discussions. One key takeaway is that researchers should identify a clear purpose and scope for harvesting. Having a clear purpose for harvesting helps to guide later decisions that must be made to adjust course when the inevitable changes in schedule or unexpected realities at the plant arise. A related note is that harvesting is not the top priority for decommissioning. Therefore, researchers must have clear objectives and scope for harvesting that can be communicated to the on-site personnel. This understanding should shape assumptions and interactions with the plant owner or decommissioning company as well as planning for costs and schedule.

Another takeaway was the value of strong site coordination, including site visits. Multiple presenters stressed the value of being on-site to talk to staff and see the component s to be harvested. Mockups and 3-D simulations can be valuable to ensure success of the approach or technique used to acquire the material. A related point is working with reactor operators at the plant. Several harvesting efforts worked with former reactor operators and benefited greatly from their experience to find records or determine the best method to harvest the desired component. This is a valuable insight that could be effective in future harvesting efforts.

A third key takeaway is early engagement with the plant personnel to express interest in harvesting. This serves to make the plant aware of interest in harvesting and to gain their support to collaborate in the harvesting process. The other important benefit of early engagement is to gain as much information as possible about the available materials and components, includ ing the associated records and material pedigree information.

Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning The key takeaway in Session 5 was to gather as much information as possible in advance of committing to a specific harvesting project. Ideally, there would be a strong understanding that the material and its aging conditions clearly align with an identified technical data need before committing significant resources to a harvesting effort.

Action Items and Next Steps The following is a summary of the action items arising from the workshop:

1. Sharing workshop slides

NRC emailed attendees to ask their comfort with sharing their workshop slides with other organizations and received no objection from any presenters.

The presentations can be accessed here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BSDWMLchSYSXcnpZZ0JOS0SSQUU .

STATUS: Complete 17

2. EPRI indicated that MRP-320 (Product ID: 1022866) on knowledge gaps for irradiated austenitic stainless steel for potential harvesting from MRP-227 inspections is publicly available for a fee.

STATUS: Comp let e

3. Cable surveillance programs in Germany

Input on this topic has been contributed to the Topical Peer Review on Ageing Management iin European countries, which is expected to be published by the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) in December 2018.

STATUS: Complete

4. Sources of materials database

Potential sources of materials presented in this workshop are summarized in Session 3 summary above and Appendix Ill below.

NRC will be reaching out to PNNL, INL NSUF, CNSC, AECL, and any other organizations interested in database development.

STATUS: NRC will initiate action with other interested organizations.

5. Prioritized data needs

Discussions wil I continue on prioritized data needs within technical areas (RPV, internals, electrical, concrete) through existing coordination groups if possible Focus on identifying specific material/ aging conditions of interest and the purpose/ intended outcome of harvesting

STATUS: NRC will initiate action w ith other interested organizations.

6. EPRI report on spent fuel liner boric acid t ransport through concrete

NRC received relevant EPRI report.

STATUS: Complete

7. Harvested M aterials Research Results

Provide references from harvested materials research.

STATUS: Complete - selected references are summarized below.

References to Previous Harvested Materials Research This section of the workshop sum mary addresses a question that was raised during t he discussion at the workshop regarding what the outcome or benefit of past harvesting efforts have been. Below is a list of references to research results generated from testing of harvested materials:

1. J.R. Hawthorne and A.l. Hiser, Experimental Assessments of Gundremmingen RPV Archive Material for Fluence Rate Effects Studies, NUREG/CR-5201 (MEA-2286), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1988.

2. O.K. Chopra, and W.J. Shack,. Mechanical Properties of Thermally Aged Cast Stainless Steels from Shippingport Reactor Components, NUREG/CR-6275 (ANL-94/37), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 1995.

18

3. G. J. Schuster, S. R. Doctor, S.L. Crawford, and A. F. Pardini, Characterization of Flaws in U.S. Reactor Pressure Vessels: Density and Distribution of Flaw Indications in the Shoreham Vessel, NUREG/CR-6471 Volume 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1999.

4. G. J. Schuster, S. R. Doctor, A.F. Pardini, and S.L. Crawford, Characterization of Flaws in U.S. Reactor Pressure Vessels: Validation of Flaw Density and Distribution in the Weld Metal of the PVRUF Vessel, NUREG/CR-6471 Volume 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2000.

5. D.E. McCabe, et al. Evaluation of WF-70 Weld Metal From the Midland Unit 1 Reactor Vessel, NUREG/CR-5736 (ORNL/TM-13748), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 2000.

6. B. Alexandreanu, O.K. Chopra, and W.J. Shack, Crack Growth Rates in a PWR Environment of Nickel Alloys from the Davis-Besse and V.C. Summer Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6921 (ANL-05/55), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 2006.

7. S.E. Cumblidge, et al. Nondestructive and Destructive Examination Studies on Removed-from-Service Control Rod Drive Mechanism Penetrations, NUREG/CR-6996, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 2009.

8. S.E. Cumblidge, et al. Evaluation of Ultrasonic Time-of-Flight Diffraction Data for Selected Control Rod Drive Nozzles from Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant, PNNL-19362, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, April 2011.

9. S.L. Crawford, et al. Ultrasonic Phased Array Assessment of the Interference Fit and Leak Path of the North Anna Unit 2 Control Rod Drive Mechanism Nozzle 63 with Destructive Validation, NUREG/CR-7142 (PNNL-21547), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2012.

19

Appendix I Workshop Participants Name Organization Email Taku Arai CRIEPI arait@crieoi.denken.or.io Sadao Higuchi CRIEPI higuchi@crieQi.denken.or.jQ Japan Kazunobu Sakamoto JNRA kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go.jQ Yasuhiro Chimi JAEA chimi.J'.asuhiro@jaea.go.jQ Uwe Jendrich GRS Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de Europe Rachid Chaouadi SCK-CEN rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be Guy Roussel BelV guJ'..roussel@Belv.be Daniel Tello CNSC daniel.tello@canada.ca Canada Desire Ndomba CNSC desire.ndomba@canada.ca Karen Huynh AECL khul'.nh@aecl.ca Gerry van Noordennen Energy Solutions 1mvannoordennen@ener1?"vsolutions.com us Bill Zipp Dominion william.f.ziQQ@dom.com industry M ark Richt er NEI mar@nei.org Arzu Alpan Westinghouse alQanfa@westinghouse.com Sherry Bernhoft EPRI sbernhoft@eori.com Robin Dyle EPRI rdyle@eQri.com EPRI Jean Smith EPRI jmsmith@eQri.com Al Ahluwalia EPRI kahluwal@eQri.com Tom Rosseel ORNL rosseeltm orn I.gov Rich Reister DOE Richard.Reister@nuclear.energJ'..gov Keith Leonard ORNL leonardk@ornl.gov DOE M ikhail A. Sokolov ORNL sokolovm@ornl.gov John Wagner INL john.wagner@inl .gov John Jackson INL john.jackson@inl.gov Pradeep Ramuhalli PNNL PradeeQ.Ramuhalli@Qnnl.gov Pat Purtscher NRC Patrick.Purtschernrc.l?'OV Rob Tregoning NRC Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov M att Hiser NRC Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov M ita Sircar NRC Madhumita.Sircar@nrc.gov Tom Koshy NRC Th omas.KoshJ'.@nrc.gov NRC Jeff Poehler NRC JeffreJ'..Poehler@nrc.gov Allen Hiser NRC Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov Angela Buford NRC Angela.Buford@nrc.gov Mark Kirk NRC Mark.Kirk@nrc.gov Amy Hull NRC AmJ'..Hull@nrc.gov Pete Ricardella NRC/ACRS Priccardella@Structint.com 20

Appendix 11 Workshop Agenda Tuesday, March 7 Session Time Organization Speaker Presentation Title Michael Weber Intro 8:00 NRC Welcome and Introduction to Workshop Robert Tregoning DOIE Rich Reister DOE Perspectives on Material Harvesting EPRI Sherry Bernhoft EPRI Perspective on Harvesting Proj ects 8:15-8:45 NRC Robert Tregoning NRC Perspective on Motivation for Harvesting 1

GRS Uwe Jendrich Role of GRS in Decommissioning and LTO CRIEPI Taku Arai CRIEPI Motivations for Harvested Material 8:45- 9:45 DISCUSSION 9:45-10:00 BREAK 10:00-PNNL (for NRC) Pradeep Ramuhalli Data Needs Best Addressed By Harvesting 10:20 10:20 -

NRC Matthew Hiser High-Priority Data Needs for Harvesting 10:30 10:30- LWRS Program Perspective on t he Technical DOIE Keith Leonard 10:55 Needs for Harvest ing 2

10:55- Review of past RPV sampling test programs SCK-CEN Rachid Chaouadi 11:20 and perspective for long term operation 11:20- Importance of Harvesting to Evaluate Westinghouse Arzu Alpan 11:45 Radiation Effects on Concrete Properties 11:45-DISCUSSION 12:30 12:30 - 2:00 LUNCH Sources of Materials: Past NRC Harvesting and 2:00-2:10 NRC Matthew Hiser U.S. Decommissioning Plants Harvesting Plans for Materials Aging 2:10 -2:35 EPRI Al Ahluwalia Degradation Research in Korea and Sweden 2:35-2:50 DOE/ORNL Tom Rosseel Materials Harvested by the LWRS Program 2:50- 3:00 DOE/I NL John Jackson NSUF Material Sample Library Gerry van 3:00-3:15 Energy Solutions Zion Material Harvesting Program Noordennen 3

Potential Harvesting of Concrete from Mihama 3:15-3:30 Westinghouse Arzu Alpan Unit 1 3:30-3:45 BREAK 3:45-4:00 GRS Uwe Jendrich Plants in Decommissioning i n Germany Evaluating Structures, Systems & Components 4:00-4:15 CNSC Daniel Tello from Decommissioned/Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities in Canada 4:15 -5:00 DISCUSSION 21

Wednesday, March 8 Session Time Organiization Speaker Presentation Title Lessons Learned: Harvesting and Shipping of 8:00-8:30 EP'RI Jean Smith Zorita Materials 8:30-9:00 DOE Tom Rosseel LWRS Program: Harvesting Lessons Learned NRC Perspective on Harvesting Experience and 9:00- 9:30 NRC Matthew Hiser Lessons Learned CRIEPI Research Activities with Harvested 4 9:30-10:00 CRIEPI Taku Arai Materials 10:00 -10:15 BREAK Energy Gerry van Zion Harvesting Experience and Lessons 10:15 - 10:45 Solutions Noordennen Learned 10:45 - 11:15 Dom inion Bill Zipp Kewaunee Insights on Material Harvesting 11:15 -12:00 DISCUSSION 12:00-1:30 LUNCH PNNL (for Technical Information Needed for Informed 1:30-1:45 Pradeep Ramuhalli NRC) Harvesting Decisions 1:45-2:30 DISCUSSION 2:30- 3:00 Action Items and Next Steps 5

EP'RI Sherry Bernhoft DOE Rich Reister 3:00-4:00 Closing Thoughts NRC Robert Tregoning ALL 22

Appendix Ill Harvesting Opportunities in Germany

Past and current decommissioning projects of Prototype or Commercial Reactors Name Rheinsberg Compact Natrium Cooled Reactor

- KKR KKN Reactor type WWER SNR

--70 21 1995 1993 Strategy UC UC Multipurpose Research R. MZFR PWR/O20 57 1987 UC Obrigheim KWO PWR 357 2008 UC Neckarwestheim 1 GKN-1 PWR 840 2017 UC lsar-1 KKl-1 BWR 912 2017 UC Gundremmingen-A KRB-A BWR 250 1983 RCA KRB-11 Greifswald 1-5 KGR 1-5 WWER 440 1995 UC Lingen KWL BWR 268 1985 UC after SE UC: unconditional clearance RCA: radia tion controlled area, new license SE: safe enclosure NRC Harvesting Workshop, Rockville, March 2017, Decommissioning In Germany 4

Past and current decommissioning projects of r>rototype or Commercial Reactors Name Stade Research Reactor Julich

-KKS AVR Reactor type PWR HTR 672 15 2005 1994 Strategy UC UC Thorium High- THTR- HTR 308 1993 SE since 1997 Temperature-Reaktor 300 W urgassen KWW BWR 670 1997 UC Mulheim-Karlich KMK PWR 1302 2004 UC Hot-Steam Reactor HOR HOR 25 1983 UC since 1998 Grosswelzheim N iederaichbach KKN ORR/O2O 106 1975 UC since 1994 Test-Reactor Kahl VAK BWR 16 1988 UC since 2010 23

Shut down Cor1r1erc*a1 ~Qactors

that have no decommissioning license granted yet Name Abbrev. Reactor type PowerMWe Date of application Philippsburg-1 KKP- 1 BWR 926 2013 / 2014 Grafenrheinfeld KKG PWR 1345 2014 Biblis-A KWB-A PWR 1225 2012 Biblis-B KWB-B PWR 1300 2012 Unterweser KKU BWR 1410 2012 / 2013 BrunsbUttel KKB BWR 806 2012 / 2014 Krummel KKK BWR 1402 2015

Commercial Reactors in operation Name Abbrev. Reactor type Power MWe Anticipated date of final shutdown Gundremmingen-B KRB-11-B BWR 1344 31.12.2017 Philippsburg-2 KKP-2 PWR 1468 31.12.2019 Gundremmingen-C KRB-11-C BWR 1344 31.12.2021 Grohnde KWG PWR 1430 31.12.2021 Brokdorf KBR PWR 1480 31.12.2021 Emsland KKE PWR 1406 31.12.2022 lsar-2 KKl-2 PWR 1485 31.12.2022 Neckarwestheim-2 GKN-2 PWR 1400 31.12.2022 24

Note to requester: The attachment in this record is immediately following this email.

From: Hiser Matthew To: "Bernhoft Sherry": "Pyle Robin"; "Jean Smith fimsmitb@epri com}"; "Ahluwalia Kawaljjt": "Richard Reister

/Richard Rejster@nuclear energy aoy\": "leonardk@ornl aoy"; "Rosseel Thomas M "; "William EZipp /GeneraJioo

~ ; "Gerard P. van Noordennen"; "Ramuhalli Pradeep /Pradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov}";

"danje!.tel!o@canada.ca"; "Uwe.Jendrjch@grs.de": "rachjd,chaouadj@sckcen.be": "araiJ@crjepi.denken.or. iP";

"alpanta@westjnghouse com": "sokoloym@ornl gov": "desire ndomba@canada ca": "khuynh@aec! ca":

"biguchi@criepi denken or io": "kazunobu sakamoto@nsr go io": "chirui yasuhjro@jaea go io"; "Jackson John J:iowimt; "Roussel Guy": "iohn.wagner@inl.gov"; "Riccardella. Pete"; "RICHTER. Mark"; "Amberge. Kyle": Mover.

l&!:QI: Oberson Greg: Audrain Margaret: Poehler Jeffrey: Hjser Allen: Yoo Mark: Koshy Thomas: ~

~ : Sircar Madhumita Cc: Jreaonjna Robert: Purtscher Patrick: Frankl !styan; l:iYIL..&nY

Subject:

RE: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:20:00 PM Attachments : Harvesting Workshop Draft Summary Reoort.docx

Dear Workshop Pa rticipants:

I would like to share for your review and comme nt the workshop summary report (attached). In the report, we tried to capture as much of t he discussion as possible, w hile focusing on t he key t akeaways that might be useful for all participants as they consider harvesting in the future. In particu lar, please review how your present ation and contribution to the discussion is characterized, in case you feel it should be clarified in any way. Feel free t o provide addit ional references to previous research on harvest ed materials t hat should be capt ured in t his report. Comments, edits, and suggestions on any ot her parts of the report are welcome.

~ provide your input by June 30 at the latest and we will try to fi nalize the report by sometime in Ju ly.

As indicated in act ion items 4 and 5, we w ill be pursuing furt her coordination effort s on dat a needs for harvesting and a sources of materials database and welcome any other parties that may be interested in participati ng in t hese discussions.

Thank you once again for your pa rticipation and engagement in this wor kshop !

Than ks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch Phone: 301-4 /5-24541 Office: 7WFN I 0D62 Matthew.H iser@ nrc.gov From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 8:39 AM To: 'Bernhoft, Sherry' ; 'Dyle, Robin'; 'Jean Smith (jmsmith@epri.com) ' ; 'Ahluwalia, Kawaljit' ;

'Richard Reister (Richa rd .Reister@nuclear.energy.gov)'; 'leonardk@orn l.gov'; 'Rosseel, Thomas M .' ;

'William F Zipp (Generation - 4) ' ; 'Gerard P. Van Noordennen'; 'Ram uhalli, Pradeep (Pradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov) ' ; 'daniel.tello@canada.ca'; 'Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de' ;

'rachid.chaouadi@sckce n.be' ; 'arait@criepi.denken.or.jp'; 'alpanfa@westinghouse.com';

'sokolovm @ornl.gov'; 'desire.ndomba@ca nada.ca ' ; 'kh uynh @aecl.ca';

'higuchi@criepi.denken.or.jp' ; 'kazunobu_sakamoto@nsr.go.jp'; 'chi mi.yasuhiro@jaea.go.jp';

'Jackson, John Howard'; 'Rousse l Guy'; 'john.wagner@ inl.gov' ; 'Riccardella, Pete'; 'RICHTER, Mark' ;

'Amberge, Kyle'; Hu ll, Amy; Moyer, Carol; Oberson, Greg; Audrain, Margaret; Poe hler, Jef frey; Hiser, Allen; Yoo, Mark; Koshy, Thomas; Buford, Angela; Sircar, Madhumita Cc: Tregoning, Robert; Purtscher, Patrick; Frankl, Istvan

Subject:

RE: Ex-plant Materia ls Harvesting Workshop

Dear Workshop Pa rt icipants:

I have attached a list of participants in last week's workshop, along with t hei r email for contact.

Also, I have not received any concerns from the presenters regarding sharing slides, so feel free to sha re the slides, which are available on Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/open?

id=0BSDWMLchSYSXcnpZZ0JOS0SSOUU .

We hope to share a detailed workshop summary report in the next two months.

Tha nks!

Matt From: Hiser, Matt hew Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 7:03 AM To: 'Bernhoft, Sherry' <sbe rn hoft@epri.com>; 'Dyle, Robin' < rdyle@epri com>; 'Jea n Smith (imsmith@epri com)' <imsm ith@epri com>; 'Ahluwa lia, Kawalj it' <kahluwal@epri com>; "Richard Reister (Richard Reister@nuclear energy gov)' <Richard Reister@nuclear energy gov>;

"leonardk@orn l.gov' <leonardk@ornl gov>; 'Rosseel, Thomas M.' <rosseeltm@ornl gov>; 'Wil liam F Zipp (Generation - 4)' <william.fzipp@dom .com>; 'Gera rd P.. Van Noordennen'

<gpvan noordennen@energysolutions.com>; 'Ramu ha IIi, Pradeep ( Pradeep. Ram u halli@pn n I gov)'

<Pradeep Ramuha ll i@pnn l gov>; 'daniel.tello@canada.ca' <danjel tello@canada ca>;

'Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de' <Uwe Jendrich@grs de>; 'rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be'

<rachid chaouadi@sckcen be>; 'arait@criepi.denken.or.j p' <arait@criepi den ken or ip>;

'alpa nfa@westi nghouse.com ' <a lpanfa@westinghouse com>; 'sokolovm@ornl.gov'

<sokolovm@orn l gov>; 'desire.ndomba@canada.ca ' <desire ndomba@canada ca>;

'khuyn h@aecl.ca' <khuynh@aecl ca>; 'higuchi@criepi.denken.or.jp' <higuchj@criepj denken or ip>;

'kazunobu_sa kamoto@ nsr.go.jp' <kazu nobu sakamoto@nsr go ip>; 'chim i.yasuh iro@jaea.go.jp'

<chimi.yasuhiro@iaea.go.ip>; 'Jackson, John Howard' <ioh n.iackson@inl.gov>; 'Roussel Guy'

<guy roussel@Belv be>; 'joh111.wagner@inl.gov' <john wagner@in l gov>; 'Riccarde lla, Pete'

<Priccardella@Structiot com>; 'RICHTER, Mark' <mar@oei org>; 'Amberge, Kyle'

<kambenN@epri com>; Hu ll, Amy <Amy Hull@nrc gov>; Moyer, Carol <Carol Moyer@nrc gov>;

Oberson, Greg <Greg.Oberso n@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret <Margaret.Audra in@nrc.gov>; Poehler, Jeffrey <Jeffrey Poeh !er@nrc gov>; Hiser, Allen <Allen Hjser@nrc gov>; Yoo, Mark

; Koshy, Thomas <Thomas Koshy@nrc gov>; Buford, Angela

<Angela Buford@nrc gov>; Sirca r, Madhumita <Madhumita Sjrcar@nrc gov>

Cc: Tregoning, Robert <Robert Tregon ing@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick

<Patrick Purtscher@nrc gov>; Frankl, Istvan <Istvan Frankl@nrc gov>

Subject:

RE: Ex-plant M aterials Harvesting Workshop

Dear Workshop Pa rt icipants :

Thank you for attend ing and participating in the workshop this week. I appreciate your active participation in w hat was a very interesting and informative discussion. I hope you were able to come away from the meeti ng with a better understanding of how to approach harvesting and what to expect in terms of cost, schedule, complexity, challenges, etc.

NRC will be deve loping a workshop summary report to be shared among meeting participants. We have also placed all of the prese ntations into a Google Drive folder for sharing among meet nng participa nts (https-//drive google com/open?id=0BSDWMLchSYSXcnpZZ0JOS0SSOUU).

I have laid out t he action items and planned next steps to address each item below:

1. Sharing workshop slides (Ah luwalia)

a. Next step: Presenters, please reply to this email if you have any concerns w ith meeting participants sharing your slides with colleagues or other organizations. If I don't hear from you, we' ll assume you're OK with sharing.

2. MRP-320 (Product ID: 1022866) on harvesting from M RP-227 inspections

a. Ava il able to public for fee

3. Cable surveilla nce programs in Germany

a. Next step: GRS (Jendrich) to inq uire with cable colleagues and share

4. Sources of Materials database

a. Next step: Opportunities presented in this meeting to be documented in workshop summary.

b. Next step: AECL, CNSC, NRC, PNNL, INL NSUF interested in database development.

ny other parties interested?

5. Prioritized data needs

a. Next step: Smaller group meetings to prioritize data needs of interest

i. Material/ component of interest, pu rpose, intended outcome

b. Idea: survey of participants at Environmental Degradation conference

6. EPRI report on SFP liner boric acid transport through concrete

a. NRC (Sircar) to contact EPRI if needed

7. Ha rvested Mate rials Research Resu lts

a. Next step: A section of the workshop summary report to cover references from previous harvested materia ls research

b. Use references from EMDA as sta rting point

c. Next step: Please send any references to harvest ed materials research that should be inclu ded and its outcome t o Matt Hise .

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or suggestions for documenting the workshop and the next steps moving forward.

Thanks!

Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer US Nuclear Regu latory Commission I Office of Nuclea r Regulatory Research Division of Engineering I Corrosion and Meta llurgy Bra nch Phone: 301-415-2454 I Office: TWFN 10062 Matthew.Hjser@nrc.gov From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 8:22 AM 0

To: Bernhoft, Sherry' <sbe rnhoft@epri .com>; 'Dyle, Robin' < rdyle@epri com>; 'Jean Smith

/ jmsmit h@epri com)' <jmsm ith@epri com>; 'Ahluwa lia, Kawalj it' <kahluwal@epri com>; 'Richard Reister (Richard Reister@n uclear energy gov)' <Richard Rejster@nudear energy gov>;

"leonardk@orn l.gov' <leonardk@ornl gov>; "Rosseel, Thomas M.' <rosseeltm@ornl gov>; 'Wil liam F Zipp (Generation - 4}' <willjam f zipp@dom com>; 'Gerard P. Van Noordennen'

<gpva nnoordennen@energysolutjons com>; 'Ramuha lli, Pradeep (Pradeep Ram uhalli@oool gov}'

<Pradeep Ramuha ll i@pnn l gov>; 'daniel.tello@canada.ca' <dan iel tello@canada ca>;

"Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de' <Uwe Jendrjch@grs de>; 'rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be'

<rachid chaouadj@sckcen be>; 'arait@criepi.denken.or.j p' <arajt@crjepi den ken or jp>;

'alpa nfa@westi nghouse.com' <alpanfa@westinghouse.com>; "sokolovm@ornl.gov"

<sokolovm@ornl.gov>; 'desire. ndomba@canada.ca ' <desire.ndomba@canada ca>;

'khuynh@aecl.ca' <khuynh@aedca>; 'higuchi@criepi.denken.or.jp' <higuchi@criepi.denken.or.ip>;

'kazunobu_sakamoto@ nsr.go.j p' <kazunobu sakamoto@nsr,go.ip>; 'chimi.yasuhiro@jaea.go.jp'

<chimi.yasuhiro@iaea,go.ip>; Jackson, John Howard <iohn,jackson@inLgov>; 'Roussel Guy'

<guy.roussel@Belv.be>; 'johri.wagner@inl.gov' <john.wagner@in l.gov>; 'Riccardel la, Pete'

<Priccardella@Structint.com>; 'RICHTER, Mark' <mar@oei.org>

Cc: Tregoning, Robe rt <Robert.Tregon ing@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick

<Patrick.Purtscher@nrc gov>; Frankl, Istvan <Istvan fraokl@orc,gov>

Subject:

RE: Ex-plant MateriaIs Harvesting Workshop

Dear Harvesting Workshop Attendees:

You are receiving this email because I have you recorded as attending the upcoming Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop on March 7-8 at USNRC headquarters in Rockville, MD. I have attached the final workshop agenda as well as the workshop introduction slides that cover meeting logistics, motivation, approach, expected outcome, and session expectations. We are hoping these slides provide a common vision for the workshop that will allow for a focused, productive discussion.

The workshop will be held in NRC's Three White Flint North (3WFN) building, which is directly adjacent to the White Flint Metro station, in room 1C3 on the first floor. I have attached a map of the local area showing the Metro station and the 3WFN building.

The workshop is scheduled to start at 8:00 on Tuesday, March 7. I recommend planning to arrive at 3WFN around 7:3,0-7:45 in order to go through security to enter the building.

If you have not yet responded, please let me know if you plan to join for the dinner with other workshop participants, so I can make the appropriate reservation.

Thank you for your participation in the workshop. We are looking forward to the discussion and engagement and appreciate your contribution to a productive and interesting meeting!

Please let 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 Matt hew Hiser@n rc gov

Ex-Plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Summary Report Workshop held on March 7-8, 2017 at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD NRC staff: Matthew Hiser, Patrick Purtscher, Amy Hull, Robert Tregoning

Table of Contents Background ...................................................................................................................................................1 Objective and Approach ............................................................................................................................... 1 W orkshop Organization and Sessions .......................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Workshop Discussion ...............................................................................................................2 Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting ........................................................................................................ 2 Presentation Summaries ......................................................................................................................2 Discussion Summary .............................................................................................................................3 Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting ....................................................................................... 3 Presentation Summaries ...................................................................................................................... 3 Discussion Summary .............................................................................................................................5 Session 3. Sources of Materia ls ................................................................................................................6 Presentation Summaries ...................................................................................................................... 6 Discussion Summary ............................................................................................................................. 9 Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects ..............................................9 Present ation Summaries ......................................................................................................................9 Discussion Summary ...........................................................................................................................13 Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning .....................................................................................13 Presentation Summary ....................................................................................................................... 13 Discussion Summary ........................................................................................................................... 13 Key Takeaways from Workshop ................................................................................................................. 14 Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting ......................................................................................................14 Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting .....................................................................................14 Session 3. Sources of Materials .............................................................................................................. 14 Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects ............................................ 16 Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Plann ing ..................................................................................... 16 Action Items and Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 16 References to Previous Harvested Materials Research .............................................................................. 17 Appendix I Workshop Participants ............................................................................................................. 19 Appendix II Workshop Agenda ...................................................................................................................20 Appendix Ill Harvesting Opportunities in Germany .................................................................................... 22 ii

List of Figures Figure 1 Schematic of Westinghouse ex-vessel neutron dosimetry (EVND) .. .. ... .. .. ... .... ....... .. ........ ...... ... .. .. 5 Figure 2 Nuclear Fuels and Materials Library (NFML) Database Design .... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... ..... .... .. ... ....... .. .. 7 Figure 3 Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRP) Timeline ......... .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .... ..... .......... .. .. .......... ........ .. .... 10 List of Tables Table 1 Ongo ing Harvesting Programs ... .. .... ... .. ... ..... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .... ... .. .. .. ... .. ... .......... ... .... ...... ... ..... ...... .. ... 15 Table 2 Potential Future Sources for Harvesting .......... ...... ... ... .............. ..... ... .... ... ...... ... ....... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. ..... 15 iii

=

Background===

On March 7-8, 2017, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hosted a 2-day workshop on the topic of "Ex-Plant Materials Harvesting." NRC staff worked in close coordination with staff from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to plan and arrange the workshop.

The decision to organize this workshop was driven by developments in the U.S. and global nuclear industry. In the U.S., there is strong interest in extending plant 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, which may benefit from harvesting.

Meanwhi le, in recent years, a number of nuclear plants, both in the U.S. and internationally, have shut down or announced plans to shut down. 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 related development, economic challenges for the nuclear industry and limited government spending have limited the resources available to support new research, including harvesting programs. Given this const rained budget environm ent, aligning interests and leveraging with other organizations is important to allow maximum benefit and value for future research programs.

Objective and Approach The objective of the workshop was to generate open discussion of all aspects of ex-plant materials harvesting, including:

1. Deciding whether to harvest,

2. Planning and implementing a harvesting program,

3. Using the harvested materials in research programs.

Through presentations and open discussion, the workshop was organized to allow for all participants to be better informed of the benefits and challenges of harvesting as well as to identify potentia l areas of common interest for future harvesting programs. Workshop sessions were aligned in broad topics to cover all aspects of harvesting that allowed the participants to drive the discussion.

To help accomplish the workshop objectives, the workshop organizers intentionally sought a diverse group of participants. There are a large number of decommissioning plants and interested researchers outside the U.S., so the organizers focused on outreach to international participants through organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Nuclear Energy agency (OECD/NEA), and existing professional contacts.

In addition, a key goal for this workshop was to capture the broader practical perspective from plant owners and decommissioning companies, which are vital to any successful harvesting program, but may sometimes be overlooked in researcher-driven discussions. Workshop participants were also diverse in terms of technical area of focus, with metal components such as the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and internals being discussed along with concrete and electrical components. The final list of workshop participants can be found at the end of this report in Appendix I.

4

Workshop Organizat ion and Sessions The workshop was held at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD. Due to limited space in the meeting room and the need for a limited group size for discussion, a webinar w as used to allow remote observers to benefit from the workshop. Workshop sessions were organized topically with about half the time dedicated to presentations and the remaining time set aside for discussion. Presentations were solicited from participants to cover a range of perspectives and technical areas. The final workshop agenda can be found at the end of this summary report in Append ix II.

The workshop was organized into five sessions as follows:

Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting

Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting

Session 3. Sources of Materials

Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects

Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning Summary of Workshop Discussion The subsections below will summarize the presentations and discussion in each session and highlight the key takeaways from the session.

Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting Session 1 focused on the motivation for harvesting and why workshop participants are interested in harvesting. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, speakers for this session included:

Richard Reister from DOE,

Sherry Bernhoft from EPRI,

Robert Tregoning from NRC,

Uwe Jendrich from the Gesellschaft fur Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) in Germany, and

Taku Arai from the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) in Japan.

Presentation Summaries DOE described the role of harvesting within the Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, including the benefits and cha llenges associated with harvesting. Benefits include the opportunity to fill knowledge gaps where there is limited data or experience and to inform degradation models with data from actual plant components. Challenges include cost, complexity, scheduling, logistics, limited opportunities, acquiring sufficient material pedigree information, and potential negative resullts impacting operating plants.

EPRI discussed the role of harvesting within the context of aging management for Long-Term Operations (LTO), includ ing their experience from past harvesting programs and criteria for future harvesting. Their experience emphasized the challenges of cost, schedule, logistics, complicated contracting and acquiring material pedigree information. EPRl's criteria for harvesting focus on demonstrating value to their members by addressing a prioritized need that cannot be addressed through other means. For EPRI, a w ell-developed project plan that covers funding, risk management, exit ramps, and clear roles and responsibilities is essential.

5

NRC shared its perspective on the benefits and challenges of harvesting in regulatory research.

Harvested materials are valuable due to the representative nature of their aging conditions, which may reduce the uncertainty associated with the applicability of the result s to operating plants compared to tests with alternative aging conditions. Harvested materials may be the best option to address technical data needs identified for extended plant operation. With increasing harvesting opportunities from decommissioning plants, a proactive approach to harvesting planning can optimize benefits by identifying the right material with the right aging conditions for the identified knowledge gap. There are significant challenges associated with harvesting, including cost, schedule, and logistics, but hopefully these can be mitigated or avoided by leveraging resources with other organizations and learning from past experience.

GRS described its role as the main technical support organization in nuclear safety for the German federal government. GRS provides technical assessment and knowledge transfer for decommissioning activities, aging management, and long-term operation for German federal and international organizations.

CRIEPI discussed its view of how harvested materials and laboratory prepared materials contri bute to addressing technical issues. Harvested materials provide exposure to actual plant conditions, but are more limited in availability and the size of the data set that can be generated. Laboratory prepared materials general involve accelerated or simulated aging cond itions, but can be used to produce larger data sets and varying parameters can allow understanding of the effect on the mechanism or property of interest. Harvested materials offer fact finding of actual plant conditions as well as confirmation and verification of results from laboratory prepared specimens.

Discussion Summary The discussion following the presentations in this session focused on clearly identifying the need to be addressed by a harvesting project and the myriad cost, scheduile, and logistical challenges associated with harvesting. Leveraging with other organizations to defray costs can also help improve the value of a given program, but also adds complexity as another organization may have a different set of priorities that changes the focus of the harvesti ng effort.

Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting Session 2 focused on discussing the technical data needs for harvesting and what specific knowledge gaps organizations are interested in addressing through harvesting. This discussion included general perspectives on how to determine when harvesting should be pursued rather than other types of research. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, speakers for this session included:

Pradeep Ramuhalli from the Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL),

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Keith Leonard from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),

Rachid Chaouadi from the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK-CEN) in Belgium, and

Arzu Alpan from Westinghouse.

Presentation Summaries PNNL presented their work, under a small NRC contract, to develop a systematic approach to prioritize data needs for harvesting. PNNL proposed five primary criteria for prioritizing harvesting:

6

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

Ease of laboratory replication of degradation scenario (combination of material and environment) o For example, simultaneous thermal and irradiation conditions may be difficult to replicate or mechanism sensitive to dose rate may not be good for accelerated aging

Applicability of harvested materials for addressing critical gaps o Prioritize harvesting for critical gaps over less essential data needs

Availability of reliable in-service inspection (ISi) techniques for the material/ component o If inspection methods are mature and easy to apply to monitor and track degradation, perhaps the effort of research with harvested materials is not needed.

Availability of materials for harvesting o The necessary materials/ components must be available to be harvested.

PNNL then presented their application of these criteria to four materials degradation issues as an example: electrical cables, cast austenitic stainless steel (CASS), reactor vessel internals, and dissimilar metal welds. Based on applying these criteria to the examples, PNNL concluded that electrical cables, CASS, and reactor internals are all higher priority for harvesting due to unique aspects of the degradation that are challenging to replicate in the lab. Meanwhile, dissimilar metal welds are of low priority due to the ease of replication in lab aging studies as well as the significant body of knowledge and research on the phenomena.

NRC presented a summary of data needs it is interested in pursuing through harvesting. These included RPV materials to validate fluence and attenuation models and to demonstrate the conservatism of regulatory approaches for transition temperature prediction. Other metal components of interest for harvesting would address data gaps in irradiated stainless steels, as well as improve understanding of inspection capabilities and fatigue life calculations. Electrical components of interest include low and medium voltage cables and other electrical components for degradation studies, and electrical enclosures and cables for fire research. Concrete components of interest include irradiated concrete, concrete undergoing alkali-aggregate reactions, post-tensioned structures, reinforcing steel, tendons, and spent fuel pool concrete to assess potential boric acid attack.

DOE/ORNL presented their perspective on data needs for harvesting and its role in providing validation of experimental and theoretical research. DOE/ORNL performed a significant RPV harvesting program at the Zion nuclear power plant to reduce uncertainties in the Master Curve methodology, validate modeling predictions and study flux and fluence attenuation effects. The harvesting is largely complete, but the testing program is currently underway. DOE/ORNL also indicated interest in using harvested materials to validate its models for swelling and microstructural changes of stainless steel internals under LWR irradiation conditions. Harvesting concrete components would be of interest due to lack of literature data and the multiple dependent variables that may affect concrete performance. Finally, DOE/ORNL has been involved in harvesting cables from the Crystal River and Zion plants to address cable aging as a function of material composition and environment.

SCK-CEN presented their interest in an international cooperative program to harvest RPV materials. SCK-CEN presented their survey of the literature for past testing programs of harvested RPV materials, and 7

the limitations of these past program. Key limitations include a lack of archive materials, generally lower temperatures, and poor surveillance programs and dosimetry. SCK-CEN then shared some thoughts on their criteria for a new harvesting efforts, including higher fluence levels and temperatures, available archive materials and reliable information on operating history, dosimetry and surveillance program.

Other topics relevant to a new RPV harvesting effort include technical issues such as material variability and irradiation conditions as well as logistical and financial considerations.

The final presentation in Session 2 by Westinghouse focused on the need for harvesting irradiated concrete to better understand the threshold radiation level for significant strength reduction. Westinghouse has installed ex-vessel neutron dosimetry (EVND) at a number of plants in the world and proposed to Dosimetry Dosimetry chain use these dosimetry measurements to validate capsules fluence model calculations to better understand the uncertainty in these calculations. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the EVND setup. If concrete can be harvested at one of these plants Westinghouse IJ 0 with EVND data, then irradiated concrete Figure 1 Schematic of Westinghouse ex-vessel neut ron properties from testing can be paired with dosim etry (EVND) fluence data to improve research benefits.

Discussion Summary The discussion following Session 2 presentations touched on a number of topics. EPRI shared that they developed a report relat ed to the topics of Session 2, but more narrowly focused on pressurized water reactor (PWR) internals. MRP-320, "Testing Gap Assessment and Material Identification for PWR Interna ls," focuses on prioritizing opportunistic harvesting of stainless steel reactor internals components that may be remo-ved from service following MRP-227 inspections. The methodology and approach in this report may be relevant to the broader harvesting data needs discussion. This report is not publicly avai lable, but is available to EPRI member utilities.

Workshop participants discussed the criteria proposed by PNNL in the first presentation. One addit ional criteria suggested by EPRI was to consider fleet-wide vs. plant-specific applicability. More broadly applicable materials would be of greater interest for harvesting than those that represent conditions at only a few plants. Another criteria suggested is the availability of material pedigree information, such as composition, processing, environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, fluence, etc.). Another suggested criteria was the ease of harvesting, which includes the concept of weighing costs vs. benefits as well as project risk. For example, highly irradiated internals are probably much more difficult and expensive to harvest than electrical cables or unirradiated concrete. Furt her discussion touched on the idea that different organizations may prioritize the various criteria differently, but all will probably at least want to consider the same set of criteria.

Another key theme from this discussion was that a successful program should be guided by a clearly defined objective or problem statement to be addressed. This objective should be well-understood at t he initiation of a program and used to guide decision-making through implement ation of a harvesting 8

project. This also raises a related point or potential criteria: the timeliness of the expected research results relative to the objective. If the results are needed in the next two years, but a harvesting project will not provide results for at least five years, that should be a strong consideration.

Session 3. Sources of Materials Session 3 focused on discussing sources of materials for harvesting. This discussion covered previously harvested materials as well as sources for new harvesting programs from operating or decommissioning plants. Both domestic and international sources of materials were discussed in this session. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, speakers for this session included:

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Al Ahluwalia from EPRI,

Tom Rosseel from DOE/ORNL,

John Jackson from DOE/Idaho National Laboratory (INL),

Gerry van Noordennen from EnergySolutions,

Arzu Alpan from Westinghouse,

Uwe Jendrich from GRS, and

Daniel Tello from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).

Presentation Summaries NRC presented their perspective on sources of materials for harvesting. First, NRC shared information on some of the harvested materials from past research programs that may be available, including irradiated stainless steel internals, RPV materials, nickel alloy welds, neutron absorber material, and electrical components. NRC then summairized the recently and planned shutdown U.S. plants, including their design, thermal output, and years of operation, to provide participants with an idea of the potential sources from decommissioning U.S. plants. Finally, NRC shared a list of information that would be helpful to acquire from decommissioning plants to determine the value of components for harvesting.

This information included plant design information (component location and dimensions),

environmental conditions (temperature, fluence, humidity, stress, etc.) and operating history, material pedigree information (fabrication records), and inspection records (for interest in components with known flaws).

The next presentation from EPRI covered harvesting opportunities at decommissioning plants in Korea and Sweden. In Korea, Kori-1 is a Westinghouse 2-loop PWR (sister plant is Kewaunee) that wiill shut down in 2017 after 40 years of operation. Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Central Research Institute (KHNP-CRI) is planning a comprehensive research program on long-term materials aging based on harvesting from Kori-1 and is seeking international participation in the harvesting effort. KHNP-CRl's plan is focused on metallic component s, including RPV, internals, primary system components, steam generator materials. Harvesting is expected to occur in 2024 with testing to follow through 2030.

In Sweden, Vattenfall is currently harvesting in 2017-2018 RPV material from the decommissioning Barseback boiling water reactor (BWR) units. This work is focused on irradiation embrittlement, including comparison of surveillance data to actual RPV properties, as well as thermal aging embrittlement. In the future, Vattenfall will be shutting down Ringhals 1 and 2 in 2020 and 2019, respectively. Ringhals 1 is a BWR and Ringhals 2 is a Westinghouse 3-loop PWR design. Of particular note, Ringhals 2 has the second oldest replaced Alloy 690 RPV head and steam generators. Other 9

harvesting opportunities at Ringhals include RPV material with a significant surveillance program, thermal aging effects on low alloy steel from the pressurizer, as well as concrete structures. Vattenfall is open to working with partners that are interested in join ing them for harvesting at Ringhals.

The next presentation by DOE/ORNL focused on several harvesting programs that DOE's LWRS program has been involved with. DOE/ORNL has led the harvesting of components from the Zion! .. j...........(l:>)(4)

(b)(4) .............. _plantO in the U.S. From Zion, DOE/ORNL has harvested electrical cables and components, a large RPV section, and a significant number of records to provide information on material fabrication, in -service inspection and operating history. Cables from Zion include CROM, thermocouple, and low and medium voltage cables. DOE/ORNL indicated some t hermocouple cables from Zion may be available for other resea rchers to use in collaborative studies. ! ***-**-**-----*--*- . l (b)(4 )

(b)(4)

- ******"*" ....to__harvest

-""""----------------------'DOE/ORNL is also participating in efforts cables from Crystal River (led by EPRI) and concrete from the Zorita plant in Spain (led by NRC).

The next presentation by DOE/I NL described IN L's Nuclear Science User Facilities (NSUF) and the Nuclear Fuels and Materials Library (NFML). NSUF is

[ SME DATABAS~

coordinated by INL and facilitates access to PI N_ ,

PROJECT DATABASE nuclear research facilities around the world, including neutron and ion irradliations, l'IIIOJl!CT NA.Ml!

CINR*

s1.1110-.

End03ite M~en;i,llype AKetN:hAIN IHST!TUTK>N 7 NEID DATABASE I NSTITUTION ACtL.ITY

-~

RfE* Ttchleadl IMITIT\Jl llttACTOR NSUFC.all Faciity Tech lead r1tCI.ITV beamlines, hot cell testing, cha racterization and AwardOel* ~ M !REACTOR POSITION computing capabilities. NFML is a Web-based

,t"""HK>JICT NAME SAMPL LIE RARY

-c-...... l0-searchable database sample library that ltl.AC1'0R 111!.ACTOR POlmON captures the information from thousands of Pl,Nil'.W =it specimens available to NSUF. NFML is designed to maximize the benefit of previously irradiated

- N- -*-

~A~

c.,,11c ..m ltMJltf--*

l')i)s,e(OPA) rMMC~fllP]

F-11.o: ,.10**1 ACMlll),ose (DPAl F!uitM~ 1* 10..

r'-illf- 101

, o-...... -

M--Otw,pl,onCemtil!IOflCode KOU ~ ~,ACIUTV+--- E ~

materials for f uture research. Researchers can ~IMfllypt

.J propose new research projects under NSUF Figure 2 Nuclear Fuels and Materials Library (NFML) using specimens in NFML using DOE funding. Database Design As seen in Figure 2, the information captured in NFML aligns well with the goal of this session to potentially develop a database of previously harvest ed materials.

The next presentation by EnergySolutions offered a more practical perspective on considering sources of materials for harvesting. From the plant owner perspective, there is no financial incentive to support harvesting during decommissioning, therefore researchers need to absorb the costs of harvesting and have a clear scope for harvesting. Flexibility in funding for harvesting activities is essential as the decommissioning process and schedule may change quickly.

EnergySolutions provided valuable perspective on the timing in the decommissioning process for harvesting different components. For instance, the harvesting of RPV surveillance coupons should take place when the RPV internals are cut and removed. Harvesting of RPV materials is only possible from larger RPVs, as smaller RPVs are shipped intact to the disposal facility, rather than cut into pieces. Spent fuel rack neutron absorber coupons must be harvested either before or after the dry storage campaign to remove spent fuel from the spent fuel pool. Harvesting actual spent fuel rack neutron absorber 10

material must come after the pool is completely empty. Electrical cables and other components from mild environments may be harvested at any time (once temporary power is established and plant power is shut off), while the harvesting of electrical components from high radiation environments will depend on the timing of source-term removal schedules. Concrete cores are best harvested when other cores are being taken for site characterization to develop the License Terminat ion Plan. Highly irradiated concrete from the biological shield wall would need to come later in decommissioning after the RPV is removed.

In terms of upcoming decommissioning plants, EnergySolutions indicated that San Onofre and Vermont Yankee will be entering active decommissioning in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Kewaunee, Crystal River, and Fort Calhoun also may enter active decommissioning in the next 2 years. If researchers are interested in harvesting from any of these plants, they should be reaching out to plant owners immediately to begin planning and coordination.

Westinghouse followed up their presentation in Session 2 by describing an opportunity to harvest concrete from the Mihama 1 plant in Japan. Westinghouse installed and analyzed additional neutron dosimetry in the reactor cavity for one cycle, which were used to validate the radiation transport calculations. Mihama was shutdown in 2015 and is in contact w ith Westinghouse about the possibility of extracting concrete cores from the biological shield wall. Westinghouse is seeking partners interested in join ing th is harvesting effort.

The next presentation by GRS covered opportunities for harvesting from German plants. Regulations in Germany require plants to either immediately dismantle or dismantle after a period of safe enclosure, which is largely consistent with options in the U.S. GRS detailed the status of German commer cial reactors, which are predominantly BWR and PWR designs. Seventeen reactors are currently undergoing decommissioning, while seven more are currently shutdown and await a decommissioning license. Eight reactors are still operating with scheduled shutdown dates between 2017 and 2022. German RPVs tend to have lower fluence than U.S. designs due to a larger water gap in the downcomer region. Germany has limited experience with harvesting from decommissioning plants. One question that GRS will follow-up on is the "rumored" cable surveillance programs that may be used in Germany and could provide experience and lessons learned for other countries.

The final presentation in Session 3 was by CNSC on harvesting opportunities in Canada. Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) has harvested seven concrete cores from the 20 megawatt electric (MWe)

Nuclear Power Demonstration Plant (NPD), which shutdown in 1988 after 25 years of operation. CNSC and AECL are also considering opportunities to harvest concrete from other decommissioned reactors in Canada such as Gentilly-2, Douglas Point, and Whiteshell Reactor 1. In addition to concrete, CNSC and AECL are currently ha rvesting electrical cables from the 675 MWe CANDU-6 Gentilly-2 reactor, which shutdown in 2012 after 29 years of operation. The purpose of this work is to study cable degradation from thermal aging and radiation damage and validate environmental qualification of the cables. CNSC described some of the challenges with this harvesting effort, such as working with plant owners, records, accessibility and contamination of the materials and budgeting with unexpected delays in harvesting.

A future harvesting opportunity is from the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Chal k River, which will shut down in 2018 after operating since 1957. AECL is current ly taking an inventory of irradiated materials that can be harvested from NRU in decommissioning. Potential materials for 11

harvesting include metals (steels, nickel alloys, zirconium, aluminum), concrete, graphite, active equipment (pumps, etc.), graphite seals, electrical cables, and thermocouples.

Discussion Summary Following the presentations, there was some discussion of lessons learned from DOE's Zion harvesting effort. DOE worked with a former senior reactor operator at Zion to identify and acquire the appropriate records from Zion for the components being harvested. DOE also described their flexible approach to acquiring RPV samples by sending a large chunk of material (weighing ~90 tons) to EnergySolutions' facility in Tennessee, where smaller pieces (weighing ~soo pounds) were cut to send to ORNL. Most of the decontamination was performed at Zion, with minimal additional cleaning (as well as cladding removal) taking place at EnergySolutions' facility.

There was also discussion of acquiring materials from sources other than commercial nuclear facilities.

DOE has considered harvesting concrete from other DOE nuclear facilities, but determined that there were compositional differences between the DOE facilities and commercial facilities that would make the concrete from DOE facilities not useful. DOE/I NL mentioned that the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) replaces their core internals every ten years. The ATR internals are composed primarily of 347 stainless steel and achieve very high fluence levels after ten years of service.

Another key discussion topic was the possibility of developing a database for previously harvested materials or those available for future harvesting. DOE/I NL indicated that their NSUF sample library may be a good starting point for such a database, although any materials in that library should be freely available for use in the research community. CNSC, NRC, and PNNL also expressed interested in working to develop a harvesting database.

Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects Session 4 focused on lessons learned and practical aspects of harvesting. Presenters shared their experience with past harvesting programs, particularly common pitfalls to avoid and successful strategies to overcome them. Presentations also covered the practical aspects of harvesting from the plant owner and decommissioning company perspective. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, speakers for this session included:

Jean Smith from EPRI,

Tom Rosseel from DOE/ORNL,

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Taku Arai from CRIEPI,

Gerry van Noordennen from EnergySolutions, and

Bill Zipp from Dominion.

12

Presentation Summaries EPRI presented their experience and lessons learned from past harvesting programs, particularly harvesting reactor internals and concrete ,... 2007 ,.., .... ,.,. )011 ,.,, ,.., 201' ,.,. 2011 2017 P ~ t lnctptlon from Zorita and electrical cables from hnlbllty 6 1,udy

,rl)fMt ,_.Mlflt

?'1 l I I i Cutting Mins Crystal River. From the Zorita reactor ! QUlp mel1t °"'5tff S. ""nl.l!Ktl.lflng On-Mb,l'ot<Mrftiolb I T internals experience, EPRI emphasized that ~::..~*"'

M41...-i.lEll1rlCtiOl'I i

I I

~ adlMIOn and T ~ l l n A~MI harvesting projects take significant time, .... 1111 h'l1---.i- "'""'........ Doot.-...... Won M,.._l1il& Teslln,g

~

encounter both material retrieval and on- ~Ing site challenges, and shipping issues. As Figure 3 Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRP) Timeline shown in Figure 3, the Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRP) took about 10 years to go from initial planning to final results, which included about 5 years of project planning, 2 years for material extraction (on-site logistics and shipping), and 3-4 years for testing. EPRl's experience was that decommissioning activities were the top priority and that harvesting was secondary, subject to schedule and logistical challenges based on the changing decommissioning schedule. Shipping issues were also challenging due to sending activated materials (which were classified as "waste") across international borders, from the reactor in Spain to the testing facility in Sweden. Currently, further planned shipments of the Zorita materials beyond the initial program continue to be impacted by export license challenges in Sweden. More positively, EPRI emphasized that the Zorita reactor internals materials harvesting showed excellent cooperation among many organizations and are now providing valuable technical information to numerous research projects.

Lessons learned from the Zorita concrete harvesting focused on the challenges with core sample drilling and handling contaminated concrete. Ultimately, an effective core drilling procedure was identified, but required some trial and error. Lessons learned from the Crysta1I River cable harvesting included material concerns, the need for on-site support, and cost. In terms of material concerns, radiation and asbestos contamination created additional challenges for harvesting. On-site support and the ability to visit the site are extremely valuable to ensure clear communication, retrieval or records for material pedigree information, and awareness of on-site developments in the decommissioning process. Cable harvesting at Crystal River was more expensive than anticipated, particularly in terms of EPRI project management time to coordinate the harvesti ng activities and engineering support at the plant.

DOE/ORNL presented lessons learned primarily from the experience harvesting RPV materials and electrical cables and components from the Zion plant. In terms of planning and decision-making, DOE/ORNL had several lessons learned. DOE/ORNL hosted a workshop at Zion in 2011 to discuss long-term goals and objectives, which proved very helpful in setting priorities and developing partnerships with other organizations. Partnerships were very valuable to DOE/ORN L's harvesting efforts, allowing for leveraging resources and collaboration and sharing results. There are limited opportunities for harvesting key components, so DOE/ORNL emphasized that participants should take full advantage of the opportunities that arise, understanding that there is a necessary compromise between the materials available and their value in terms of fluence or exposure to agi ng conditions. Another consideration is t he quantity of material harvested, which should be sufficient for the objectives of the planned research as well as any collaborations or partnerships, but limited to control costs.

For implementing the harvesting program, DOE/ORNL found that flexibility was paramount to be able to adjust scope and plans in response to schedule changes and other developments, wh ile remaiining within cost constraints. Working wit h a former reactor operator was extremely valuable to benefit from 13

their in-depth knowledge of all parts of the plant, in particular the records for materials pedigree information. Regular site visits and contacts were also essential to stay aware of the latest developments in the harvesting planning and decommissioning process, with the understanding that harvesting is not the top priority for the decommissioning company. Other important considerations were hazardous materials handling, transportation, and disposal and logistics, including contracts, liability, shipping and disposal. Finally, DOE/ORN L's experience is that the total costs of a harvesting program from planning to execution to testing are very high, so they should be carefully weighed against the value of the expected data to be generated.

NRC presented their experience, including benefits from previous harvesting programs, and technical and logistical lessons learned from harvesting. As an organization, NRC has extensive experience with testing harvested materials, including RPV, primary system components, reactor internals, neutron absorbers, concrete and electrical components. NRC's experience is more limited than DOE or EPRI in terms of managing the logistics of a harvesting effort from a decommissioning plant. NRC has generally participated in a secondary role in cooperative efforts or received failed components from operating plants for research. NRC has found that previous harvesting efforts have been effective in reducing unnecessary conservatism, understanding in-service flaws more realistically for NOE and leak r ate methodologies, as well as identifying and better understanding safety issues.

For technical lessons learned, NRC's perspective is that harvesting can provide highly representative aged materials for research, which may be the only practical source of such materials. Harvested materials can be effectively used to validate models or a larger data set from accelerated aging tests. It is important to understand as much as possible about the materials and their in-service environment and how this compares with the operating fleet of reactors before committing to a specific harvesting project. For logistical lessons learned, harvesting is expensive and time-consuming, so a significant technical benefit is needed to ensure t he program provides value. Leveraging resources with other organizations can help minimize costs, but can also introduce challenges for aligning priorities and interests of multiple organizations. Finally, transporting irradiated materials, particularly between countries, is challenging and time-consuming and should be avoided if at all possible.

CRIEPI presented their research experience with harvested materials as well as ongoing harvesting from the Hamaoka 1 plant. The first research program involved atom probe tomography (APT) on RPV surveillance materials. CRIEPI found a correlation between the volume fraction of Ni-Si-Mn clusters and the change in nil-ductility temperature. In the second research project, CRIEPI characterized t lhe weld and base materials harvested from Greifswald Unit 4 RPV with small-angle neutron scattering, APT, and hardness testing. In the third research project, CRIEPI performed APT on 304L stainless steel reactor internals harvested from control rod and top guide components from 3-13 dpa. Results showed a strong increase in Ni-Si clusters with increasing fluence, but little variation in Al enriched clusters with increasing fluence.

For future work, CRIEPI is collaborating with the DOE LWRS program to investigate RPV materials (b)(4) harvestedJrnrnZionl .... ~ RIEPI also present ed activities underway by Chubu Electric Power to harvest RPV and concrete samples from the Hamaoka 1 plant.

Hamaoka 1 is a 540 MWe BWR-4 that operated for 33 years. Hlarvesting began in 2015 and will continue through 2018.

14

The final two presentations of Session 4 provided the non-researcher1 s perspective from a decommissioning company and plant owner. EnergySolutions, which is decommissioning the Zion nuclear plant among other facilities, presented on the decommissioning process and their experience and lessons learned from harvesting at Zion. As mentioned previously, surgical harvesting is not the top priority for decommissioning, so researchers must recognize this and coordinate closely with the decommissioning company. EnergySolutions emphasized the need to gain senior management support at the plant as well as to expect that there may be staff turnover during a multi-year harvesting effort.

Changes in scope and schedule (originating from either side) can cause frustration on both sides. Early planning, efficient contracting, and frequent sit e visits are important to avoid lost opportunities and achieve a successful outcome.

At Zion, EnergySolutions worked with DOE to harvest RPV materials, cables, electrical components, and spent fuel storage racks. DOE hoped to harvest a particular RPV surveillance capsule, but was unable to do so due to the inability to identify the correct capsule. There were also challenges with harvesting RPV materials. The cut line on the Unit 2 RPV was too close to the weld to be used for research; fortunately, a successful specimen was harvested from Unit 1. For cabling, the initial plan was to harvest from 11 different locations, but ultimately, due to unforeseen challenges and poor communication and coordination, only 4 different cable locations were harvested. Harvesting the desired cable length (30 feet) also proved challenging, with only shorter sections recovered. Searches of plant records were largely effective at providing material pedigree information for cables. Concrete coring was initially planned to take place at Zion, but not performed due to lack of research interest. The spent fuel storage rack harvesting went smoothly, which was assisted by weekend efforts when decommissioning activities were not occurring.

The next presentation from Dominion provided its perspective on harvesting from decommissioning plants, focused on the experience at Kewaunee Power Station. The top priority (beyond safety) in decommissioning is the preservation and good stewardship of the decommissioning trust fund. Staffing is the largest drain on the trust fund, so at Kewaunee, staff was halved within a few months of shutdown and then halved again, about 16 months after permanent shutdown once offsite emergency response requirements were eliminated. Dominion described the example of harvesting the RPV surveillance capsules at th is point at Kewaunee and the significant challenges that would exist. Given the reduced staffing and the current plant state (reactor coolant system drained, pumps retired, crane and radiation monitoring not maintained), it would be much more difficult than immediately after shutdown.

Kewaunee considered harvesting the RPV surveillance specimens and estimated a cost of six to seven figures based on all the activities required to enable it at this point, post-shutdown, compared to a much lower cost just after shutdown. Dominion observed that some components, such as cables or electrical components, may be available and relatively easy to harvest at almost any time during decommissioning. However, other components such as highly irradiated internals or RPV may be best harvested either shortly after shutdown when staffing and capabilities on-site are high or wait until active demolition of the reactor, which may be years or decades later.

Dominion also touched on the discussion of records for plant components. Records requirements are limited to those needed for safety. Once the plant shuts down and the range of potential saf ety concerns decreases, systems are downgraded to non-safety and the associated records are no longer required to be maintained. For perspective, Kewaunee still has all its records four years since shutdown, but will likely not continue this much longer. Dominion closed its presentation with a broader 15

perspective on harvesting, emphasizing the need to clearly define a problem statement and understand what technical and regulatory purpose this harvesting will serve. Early planning focused on achieving the clear objective of the work incliuding scope, schedule, budget and contact with plant is essential to a successful harvesting effort.

Discussion Summary The discussion touched on the top lessons learned from past harvesting efforts, which included defining a clear objective and purpose for harvesting, early engagement with the plant, and site coordination during harvesting.

Another suggestion was to get utility management buy-in for the harvesting project by identifying a benefit to the utility. EPRI mentioned that cable harvesting at Crystal River went much more successfully once the utility recognized the potential benefits for SLR. Similarly, when harvesting from an operating plant, one must recognize and work through the challenges the plant may encounter when restarting operations.

During discussion, the question was raised regarding how it is determined whether harvested materials are waste. The discussion concl uded that in the U.S. 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 37 is the important consideration. 10 CFR 37 defines when additional security requirements are imposed, based on the quantity and activity of materials to be transported. The definition of material as waste versus research materials is not as critical in the U.S. EnergySolutions indicated that their shipments of waste or resea rch material could be handled in the same way in the accordance with Department of Transportation regulations, provided that the limits in 10 CFR 37 were not reached.

Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning Session 5 focused on the information needed for informed harvesting decision-making and harvesting program planning. This session featured a presentation by Pradeep Ramuhalli from PNNL, followed by a discussion period covering harvesting program planning and reflection on the 2-day workshop.

Presentation Summary PNNL presented its perspective on the information needed for informed harvesting decision-making.

First, the purpose of the harvesting effort needs to be defined by identifying the technical knowledge gaps to be addressed. Next, a research plan should be developed demonstrating how the harvested material will be used to address the identified gaps. Finally, the appropriate source of material to address the technical gap must be identified, along with resources to support the effort and plans and timelines to perform the harvesting. The specifics of these plans depend greatly on the source of materials and must be flexible based on changing conditions on the ground.

In assessing the best source of materials, researchers should consider the material, its environment, and its condition. Material information includes fabrication information such as manufacturer, composition, and dimensions as well as information related to installation or construction, such as welding processes and parameters. Environmental information includes temperature, humidity, fluence, flux, stress (service, residual, installation), and coolant chemistry. Component condition information includes inspection history, such as identified flaws or degradation.

16

Discussion Summary The discussion in Session 5 focused on the best practical approach to plan future harvesting programs.

There was clear agreement tha1t this approach must begin with identifying the data needs best addressed by harvesting, whether from operating or decommissioning plants. Once a specific need is identified, the next step is to find a source to acquire the materials of interest as well as other organizations interested in participating in the harvesting effort.

Key Takeaways from Workshop Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting The clear takeaway from the discussion in Session 1 was that harvesting requires significant resources to be done successfully; therefore it is paramount to identify how the planned harvesting will clearly address a significant need to ensure the harvesting project provides strong value. In the context of the need for data, EPRI suggested that the goal of harvesting to support research for operation out to 80 years should not be a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of degradation, but rather a snapshot to confirm other lab results and models. This is an important p,oint for all organizations and researchers to keep in mind before investing significant resources in harvesting.

Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting The criteria proposed by PNNL are a good starting point for prioritizing issues to address by harvesting.

Three additional important criteria would be:

Fleet-wide vs. plant-specific applicability of data,

Ease of harvesting (in terms of cost and project risk), and

Timeliness of the expected research results relative to the objective.

Once a potential harvesting project has reached the point of looking at different sources of materials, the availability of material pedigree information, such as composition, processing, environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, fluence, etc.) is very important to the overall value of harvesting from that particular plant.

Based on the presentations and discussion in Session 2, there appeared to be two areas where participants had broad interest in pursuing further harvesting: high fluence reactor internals and irradiated concrete. The common drivers for the interest in these issues is a lack of representative data at the fluences of interest and significant challenges with acquiring representative data through other means. High fluence reactor internals have been addressed somewhat by ZIRP, but stainless steel materials exposed to higher flu1ence levels at higher temperatures, where void swelling may b,ecome significant, could help validate DOE and EPRI models and provide further technical basis for PWR internals aging management. Irradiated concrete harvesting is currently being pursued from the Zorita reactor in Spain, with international collaboration and potential testing at the Halden Reactor Project.

Other areas with some, but less widespread, interest expressed from workshop participants for new harvesting efforts included RPV materials and electrical cables and components. SCK-CEN and NRC expressed interest in RPV harvesting, and NRC expressed interest in electrical component harvesting.

17

Session 3. Sources of Materials To capture the key takeaways from Session 3 focused on sources of materials, two tables of potential sources of materials are presented below. Table 1 covers recent or ongoing harvesting programs, while Table 2 details potential future harvesting opportunities.

Table 1 Ongoing Harvesting Pr-ograms Size Years in Country Plant Design Components Organization(s)

(MWe) operation NPD CANDU 20 25 Concrete Canada AECL Gentilly-2 CANDU-6 675 29 Cables Japan Hamaoka 1 IBWR-4 540 33 RPV, concrete CRIEPI, Chubu Spain Zorita W 1-loop 160 37 Internals, concrete EPRI, NRC Sweden Barseback ABB-II 615 28 RPV Vattenfall W- 4 RPV, cables, Zion1/2 1040 24/25 DOE, EPRI, NRC loop neutron absorbers Crystal River 3 B&W 860 36 Cables EPRI U.S.

(b)(4)

Table 2 Potential Future Sources for Harvesting Size Years in Potential Country Plant Design Notes (MWe) operation Components 135 AECL; SD:

Canada NRU Test reactor 61 TBD MWt 2018 Germany Numerous plants either in decommissioning or shutting down soon. See Appendix Ill.

Kans.ai, Japan Mihama W 2-loop 320 40 Concrete Westinghouse RPV, internals, Korea Kori 1 W 2-loop 576 40 SGs, pressurizer, KHNP, EPRI welds, CASS, Ringhals 1 BWR 883 44 RPV, interna ls Vattenfall; Sweden SGs, pressurizer, SD: 2020 /

Ringhals 2 W 3-loop 900 44 concrete 2019 Kewaunee W 2-loop 566 39 TBD SD: 2013 SONGS 2/3 CE 2-loop 1070 31/30 TBD SD: 2013 Crystal River 3 B&W 860 36 TBD SD: 2013 Vermont BWR-4/Mk-1 605 42 TBD SD:2015 U.S. Yankee Fort Calhoun CE 2-loop 482 43 TBD SD:2016 Palisades CE 2-loop 805 47 TBD SD:2018 Pilgrim BWR-3/Mk-1 677 47 TBD SD:2019 Oyster Creek BWR-2/Mk-1 619 so TBD SD: 2019 18

Indian Point 1020/

W 4-loop 48/46 TBD SD:2021 2/3 1040 Diablo Canyon 1138/

W 4-loop 40 TBD SD: 2024-5 1/2 1118 Non-commercial; Advanced 250 Test reactor 50 Core internals internals Test Reactor MWt replaced every 10 years In addition to the potential sources of materials presented and discussed in Session 3, another takeaway was the suggestion of developing a database for previously harvested materials or those available for future harvesting. The NSUF sample library may be a good starting point for such a database, with appropriate modifications for the purposes of harvesting effort s.

Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects There were several important takeaways from Session 4 that were touched on in multiple presentations and the following discussions. One key takeaway is that researchers should identify a clear purpose and scope for harvesting. Having a clear purpose for harvesting hellps to guide later decisions that must be made to adjust course when the inevitable changes in schedule or unexpected realities at the plant arise. A related note is that harvesting is not the top priority for decommissioning. Therefore, researchers must have clear objectives and scope for harvesting that can be communicated to the site.

This understanding should shape assumptions and interactions with the plant owner or decommissioning company as well as planning for costs and schedule.

Another takeaway was the value of strong site coordination, including site visits. Multiple presenters touched on the value of being on-site to talk to staff and see the components to be harvested. Mock ups and 3-D simulations can be valuable to ensure success of the approach or technique used to acquire the specimen. A related point is working with reactor operators at the plant. Several harvesting efforts worked with former reactor operators and benefited greatly from their experience to find records or determine the best method to harvest the desired component. This is a valuable insight that could be effective in future harvesting efforts.

A third key takeaway is early engagement with the plant personnel to express interest in harvesting. Th is serves to make the plant aware of interest in harvesting and get their support to work with the harvesting process. The other important benefit of early engagement is to gain as much information as possible about the available materials and components, includling the associated records and material pedigree information.

Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning The key takeaway in Session 5 was to gather as much information as possible in advance of committing to a specific harvesting project. Ideally, there would be a strong understanding that the material and its aging conditions clearly align with an identified technical data need before committing significant resources to a harvesting effort.

Action Items and Next Steps The following is a summary of the action items discussed at the end of the workshop:

19

1. Sharing workshop slides

NRC emailed attendees to ask their comfort with sharing their workshop slides with other organizations and received no objection from any presenters.

The presentations can be accessed here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BSDWMLchSYSXcnpZZ0JOS0SSQUU .

2. EPRI indicated that MRP-320 (Product ID: 1022866) on knowledge gaps for irradiated austenitic stainless steel for potential harvesting from MRP-227 inspections is publicly available for a fee.

3. Cable surveillance programs in Germany

GRS to inqu ire with cable colleagues and share any insights.

4. Sources of materials database

Potential sources of materials presented in this workshop are summarized in Session 3 summary above and Appendix Ill below.

NRC will be reaching out to PNNL, INL NSUF, CNSC, AECL, and any other organizations interested in database development.

5. Prioritized data needs

Suggestion to continue discussions on prioritized data needs within technical areas (RPV, internals, electrical, concrete) through existing coordination groups if possible Focus on identifying specific material/ aging conditions of interest and purpose

/ intended outcome of harvesting

Idea to survey participants at the Environmental Degradation conference John Jackson (INL) is on planning committee

6. EPRI report on spent fuel liner boric acid transport through concrete

NRC will contact EPRI for report if needed.

7. Harvested Materials Research Results

Section of workshop summary report (below) devoted to references from harvested materials research.

References to Previous Harvested Materials Research This section of the workshop summary addresses a question that was raised during the discussion at the workshop regarding what the outcome or benefit of past harvesting efforts have been. Below is a list of references to research results generated from testing of harvested materials:

1. J.R. Hawthorne and A.L. Hiser, Experimental Assessments of Gundremmingen RPV Archive Material for Fluence Rate Effects Studies, NUREG/CR-5201 (MEA-2286), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1988.

2. O.K. Chopra, and W.J. Shack, Mechanical Properties of Thermally Aged Cast Stainless Steels from Shippingport Reactor Components, NUREG/CR-6275 (ANL-94/37), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 1995.

20

3. G. J. Schuster, S. R. Doctor, S.L. Crawford, and A. F. Pardini, Characterization of Flaws in U.S. Reactor Pressure Vessels: Density and Distribution of Flaw Indications in the Shoreham Vessel, NUREG/CR-6471 Volume 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1999.

4. G. J. Schuster, S. R. Doctor, A.F. Pardini, and S.L. Crawford, Characterization of Flaws in U.S. Reactor Pressure Vessels: Validation of Flaw Density and Distribution in the Weld Metal of the PVRUF Vessel, NUREG/CR-6471 Volume 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2000.

5. D.E. McCabe, et al. Evaluation of WF-70 Weld Metal From the Midland Unit 1 Reactor Vessel, NUREG/CR-5736 (ORNL/TM-13748), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 2000.

6. B. Alexandreanu, O.K. Chopra, and W.J. Shack, Crack Growth Rates in a PWR Environment of Nickel Alloys from the Davis-Besse and V.C. Summer Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6921 (ANL-05/55), U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 2006.

7. S.E. Cumblidge, et al. Nondestructive and Destructive Examination Studies on Removed-from-Service Control Rod Drive Mechanism Penetrations, NUREG/CR-6996, I..J.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 2009.

8. S.E. Cumblidge, et al. Evaluation of Ultrasonic Time-of-Flight Diffraction Data for Selected Control Rod Drive Nozzles from Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant, PNNL-19362, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, April 2011.

9. S.L. Crawford, et al. Ultrasonic Phased Array Assessment of the Interference Fit and Leak Path of the North Anna Unit 2 Control Rod Drive Mechanism Nozzle 63 with Destructive Validation, NUREG/CR-7142 (PNNL-21547), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2012.

21

Appendix I Workshop Participants Name Organization Email Taku Arai CRIEPI arait@crieoi.denken.or.io Sadao Higuchi CRIEPI higuchi@crieQi. den ken .or. j12 Japan Kazunobu Sakamoto JNRA kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go.ji:1 Yasuhiro Chimi JAEA chimi.yasuhiro@jaea.go. ji:1 Uwe Jendrich GRS Uwe .Jendrich {1i) e:rs.de Europe Rachid Chaouadi SCK-CEN rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be Guy Roussel BelV guy.roussel@Belv.be Daniel Tello CNSC daniel.tello(a)canada.ca Canada Desire Ndomba CNSC desire.ndomba@canada.ca Karen Huynh AECL kh uynh@aecl.ca Gerrv van Noordennen Enere:v Solutions !!Van noordennen (a)enere:vsolution s.com us Bill Zipp Dominion william.f.zi1212@dom.com industry Mark Richter NEI mar@nei.org Arzu Alpan Westinghouse al12anfa@westinghouse.com Sherry Bernhoft EPRI sbern hoft@epri.com Robin Dyle EPRI rdyle@e12ri.com EPRI Jean Smith EPRI jmsmith@e12ri.com Al Ahluwalia EPRI kah luwal@e12ri.com Tom Rosseel ORNL rosseeltm(a)ornl.e:ov Rich Reister DOE Richard.Reister@nuclear.energy.gov Keith Leonard ORNL leonardk@ornl.gov DOE Mikhail A. Sokolov ORNL sokolovm@ornl.gov John Wagner INL john.wagner@inl.gov John Jackson INL john.jackson@inl.gov Pradeep Ramuhalli PNNL Pradee12.Ramuhalli@12nnl.gov Pat Purtscher NRC Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov Rob Tregoning NRC Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov Matt Hiser NRC Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov Mita Sircar NRC Madhumita.Sircar@nrc.gov Tom Koshy NRC Thomas.Koshy@nrc.gov NRC Jeff Poehler NRC Jeffrey.Poehler@nrc.gov Allen Hiser NRC Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov Angela Buford NRC Anigela.Buford@nrc.gov Mark Kirk NRC Mark.Kirk@nrc.gov Amy Hull NRC Amy.Hull@nrc.gov Pete Ricardella NRC/ACRS Pri cca rdel la@Structint.com 22

Appendix II Workshop Agenda Tuesday, March 7 Session Time Organization Speaker Presentation Title Michael Weber Intro 8:00 NRC Welcome and Introduction to Workshop Robert Tregoning DOE Rich Reister DOE Perspectives on Material Harvesting EPRI Sherry Bernhoft EPRI Perspective on Harvesting Projects 8:15- 8:45 NRC Robert Tregoning NRC Perspective on Motivation for Harvesting 1

GRS Uwe Jendrich Role of GRS in Decommissioning and LTO CRIEPI Taku Arai CRIEPI Motivations for Harvested Material 8:45-9:45 DISCUSSION 9:45-10:00 BREAK 10:00-PNNL (for NRC) Pradeep Ramuhalli Data Needs Best Addressed By Harvesting 10:20 10:20-NRC Matthew Hiser High-Priority Data Needs for Harvesting 10:30 10:30 - LWRS Program Perspective on the Technical DOE Keith Leonard 10:55 Needs for Harvesting 2

10:55- Review of past RPV sampling test programs SCK-CEN Rachid Chaouadi 11:20 and perspective for long term operation 11:20- Importance of Harvesting to Evaluate Westinghouse Arzu Alpan 11:45 Radiation Effects on Concrete Properties 11:45-DISCUSSION 12:30 12:30- 2:00 LUNCH Sources of Materials: Past NRC Harvesting and 2:00 - 2:10 NRC Matthew Hiser U.S. Decommissioning Plants Harvesting Plans for Materials Aging 2:10 - 2:35 EPRI Al Ahluwalia Degradation Research in Korea and Sweden 2:35- 2:50 DOE/ORNL Tom Rosseel Materials Harvested by the LWRS Program 2:50- 3:00 DOE/I NL John Jackson NSUF Material Sample Li brary Gerry van 3:00- 3:15 Energy Solutions Zion Material Harvest ing Program Noordennen 3

Potential Harvesting of Concret,e from Mihama 3:15- 3:30 Westinghouse Arzu Alpan Unit 1 3:30- 3:45 BREAK 3:45 -4:00 GRS Uwe Jendrich Plants in Decommissioning i n Germany Evaluating Structures, Systems & Components 4:00-4:15 CNSC Daniel Tello from Decommissioned/Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities in Canada 4:15 - 5:00 DISCUSSION 23

Wed nesday, March 8 Session Time Ori?anization Speaker Presentation Title Lessons Learned: Harvesting and Shipping of 8:00-8:30 EPRI Jean Smith Zorita Materials 8:30-9:00 DOE Tom Rosseel LWRS Program: Harvesting Lessons Learned NRC Perspective on Harvesting Experience and 9:00 - 9:30 NRC Matthew Hiser Lessons Learned CRIEPI Research Activities with Harvested 4 9:30 -10:00 CRIEPI Taku Arai Materials 10:00 - 10:15 BREAK Energy Gerry van Zion Harvesting Experience a nd Lessons 10:15 - 10:45 Solutions Noordennen Learned 10:45 - 11:15 Domin ion Bill Zipp Kewaunee Insights on Materia l Harvesting 11:15 - 12:00 DISCUSSION 12:00-1:30 LUNCH PNNL (for Technical Information Needed for Informed 1:30 - 1:45 Pradeep Ramuhalli NRC) Harvesting Decisions 1:45-2:30 DISCUSSION 2:30 - 3:00 Action Items and Next Steps 5

EPRI Sherry Bernhoft DOE Rich Reister 3:00 - 4:00 Closing Thoughts NRC Robert Tregoning ALL 24

Appendix Ill Harvesting Opportunities in Germany

Past and current decommissioning projects of Prototype or Commercial Reactors Name Rheinsberg Compact Natrium Cooled Reactor

- KKR KKN Reactor type WWER SNR

--70 21 1995 1993 Strategy UC UC Multipurpose Research R. MZFR PWR/O20 57 1987 UC Obrigheim KWO PWR 357 2008 UC Neckarwestheim 1 GKN-1 PWR 840 2017 UC lsar-1 KKl-1 BWR 912 2017 UC Gundremmingen-A KRB-A BWR 250 1983 RCA KRB-11 Greifswald 1-5 KGR 1-5 WWER 440 1995 UC Lingen KWL BWR 268 1985 UC after SE UC: unconditional clearance RCA: radia tion controlled area, new license SE: safe enclosure NRC Harvesting Workshop, Rockville, March 2017, Decommissioning In Germany 4

Past and current decommissioning projects of ? ototype or Commercial Reactors Name Stade Research Reactor Julich

-KKS AVR Reactor type PWR HTR 672 15 2005 1994 Strategy UC UC Thorium High- THTR- HTR 308 1993 SE since 1997 Temperature-Reaktor 300 W urgassen KWW BWR 670 1997 UC Mulheim-Karlich KMK PWR 1302 2004 UC Hot-Steam Reactor HOR HOR 25 1983 UC since 1998 Grosswelzheim N iederaichbach KKN ORR/O2O 106 1975 UC since 1994 Test-Reactor Kahl VAK BWR 16 1988 UC since 2010 25

Shut down Cor1r1erc*a1 ~Qactors

that have no decommissioning license granted yet Name Abbrev. Reactor type PowerMWe Date of application Philippsburg-1 KKP- 1 BWR 926 2013 / 2014 Grafenrheinfeld KKG PWR 1345 2014 Biblis-A KWB-A PWR 1225 2012 Biblis-B KWB-B PWR 1300 2012 Unterweser KKU BWR 1410 2012 / 2013 BrunsbUttel KKB BWR 806 2012 / 2014 Krummel KKK BWR 1402 2015

Commercial Reacto In operation Name Abbrev. Reactor type Power MWe Anticipated date of final shutdown Gundremmingen-B KRB-11-B BWR 1344 31.12.2017 Philippsburg-2 KKP-2 PWR 1468 31.12.2019 Gundremmingen-C KRB-11-C BWR 1344 31.12.2021 Grohnde KWG PWR 1430 31 .12.2021 Brokdorf KBR PWR 1480 31.12.2021 Emsland KKE PWR 1406 31.12.2022 lsar-2 KKl-2 PWR 1485 31 .12.2022 Neckarwestheim-2 GKN-2 PWR 1400 31.12.2022 26

Note to requester: The attachment in this record is immediately following this email.

From: Hiser Matthew To: "Bernhoft Sherry": "Pyle Robin" ; "Jean Smith fimsmith@epri com}" : "Ahluwalia Kawaljit" : "Richard Re ister fR ichard .ReisJer@nuclear.energy.gov}": "leonardk@ornl.gov"; "Rosseel Thomas M." ; "Wi lliam F Zipp <Generation

.:....il'.'. ; "Gerard P. Van Noordennen" ; "Ramuhalli. Pradeep fPradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov}" ;

"daniel.tello@canada.ca" ; "Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de" ; "rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be": "arait@criepi.denken.or.ip" ;

"alpanla@westinghouse com" ; "sokolovm@ornl gov" ; "desire ndomba@canada ca" : "khuynh@aecl ca" :

"higuchi@criepi.denken.or iP" ; "kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go.io"; "chimi.yasuh iro@ jaea.go.jp" ; "Jackson John Howard"; "Roussel Guy" : "john.wagner@inl.gov" ; "Riccardella. Pete"; "RICHTER. Mark"; "Amberge. Kyle" ; MP¥fil.

Qarol : Oberson. Greg : Audrain. Margaret: Poehler. Jeffrey: Hiser. Allen : Yoo. Mark : Koshy. Thomas: 8u.!ord..

~ ; Sircar Madhumita Cc: Jregoo i Robert: Purtscher Patrick : Frankl Istvan : ~

Subject : RE: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Date: Tuesday, October 24, 201 7 3:02 :29 PM Attachments: Harvesting Workshop Summary Report FINAL.docx

Dear Harvesting Wo rkshop Participants,

Based on feedback from meeting part icipants on the draft report, I am attach in g the final harvesting workshop report. I would li ke to t hank each of you once aga in for you r engagement and participa tion in th is workshop, which was quite usefu l for the NRC and hopefully othe rs as we ll.

We wil l be reaching out in th e context of action items 4 and 5 to those organ izations t hat expressed interest in further coord in ation efforts on data nee ds for harvesti ng and a sources of materials database.

Than ks!

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 Hjser@nrc.gov

Ex-Plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Summary Report Workshop held on March 7-8, 2017 at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD NRC staff: Matthew Hiser, Patrick Purtscher, Amy Hull, Robert Tregoning

Table of Contents Background ...................................................................................................................................................1 Objective and Approach ............................................................................................................................... 1 W orkshop Organization and Sessions .......................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Workshop Discussion ...............................................................................................................2 Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting ........................................................................................................ 2 Presentation Summaries ......................................................................................................................2 Discussion Summary .............................................................................................................................3 Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting ....................................................................................... 3 Presentation Summaries ...................................................................................................................... 3 Discussion Summary .............................................................................................................................5 Session 3. Sources of Materia ls ................................................................................................................6 Presentation Summaries ...................................................................................................................... 6 Discussion Summary ............................................................................................................................. 9 Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects ..............................................9 Present ation Summaries ......................................................................................................................9 Discussion Summary ...........................................................................................................................13 Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning .....................................................................................13 Presentation Summary ....................................................................................................................... 13 Discussion Summary ........................................................................................................................... 13 Key Takeaways from Workshop ................................................................................................................. 14 Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting ......................................................................................................14 Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting .....................................................................................14 Session 3. Sources of Materials .............................................................................................................. 14 Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects ............................................ 16 Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Plann ing ..................................................................................... 16 Action Items and Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 16 References to Previous Harvested Materials Research .............................................................................. 17 Appendix I Workshop Participants ............................................................................................................. 19 Appendix II Workshop Agenda ...................................................................................................................20 Appendix Ill Harvesting Opportunities in Germany .................................................................................... 22 ii

List of Figures Figure 1 Schematic of Westinghouse ex-vessel neutron dosimetry (EVND) .. .. ... .. .. ... .... ....... .. ........ ...... ... .. .. 5 Figure 2 Nuclear Fuels and Materials Library (NFML) Database Design .... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... ..... .... .. ... ....... .. .. 7 Figure 3 Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRP) Timeline ......... .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .... ..... .......... .. .. .......... ........ .. .... 10 List of Tables Table 1 Ongo ing Harvesting Programs ... .. .... ... .. ... ..... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .... ... .. .. .. ... .. ... .......... ... .... ...... ... ..... ...... .. ... 15 Table 2 Potential Future Sources for Harvesting .......... ...... ... ... .............. ..... ... .... ... ...... ... ....... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. ..... 15 iii

=

Background===

On March 7-8, 2017, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hosted a 2-day workshop on the topic of "Ex-Plant Materials Harvesting." NRC staff worked in close coordination with staff from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to plan and arrange the workshop.

The decision to organize this workshop was driven by developments in the U.S. and global nuclear industry. In the U.S., there is strong interest in extending plant 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, which may benefit from harvesting.

Meanwhi le, in recent years, a number of nuclear plants, both in the U.S. and internationally, have shut down or announced plans to shut down. 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 related development, economic challenges for the nuclear industry and limited government spending have reduced the resources available to support new research, including harvesting programs. Given this const rained budget environm ent, aligning interests and leveraging with other organizations is important to allow maximum benefit for future research programs.

Objective and Approach The objective of the workshop was to generate open discussion of all aspects of ex-plant materials harvesting, including:

1. Deciding whether to harvest,

2. Planning and implementing a harvesting program,

3. Using the harvested materials in research programs,

4. Lessons learned from prior harvesting.

Through presentations and open discussion, the workshop was organized to allow for all participants to be better informed of the benefits and challenges of harvesting as well as to identify potentia l areas of common interest for future harvesting programs. Workshop sessions were aligned in broad topics to cover all aspects of harvesting that allowed the participants to drive the discussion.

To help accomplish the workshop objectives, the workshop organizers sought a diverse group of participants. There are a large number of decommissioning plants and interested researchers outside the U.S., so the organizers focuised on outreach to international participants through organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Nuclear Energy agency (OECD/NEA), and existing professional contacts. In addition, a key goal for this workshop was to capture the broader practical perspective from plant owners and decommissioning companies, which are vital t o any successful harvesting program, but may sometimes be overlooked in researcher-driven discussions. Workshop participants were also diverse in terms of their technical expertise, including metals, concrete and electrical component materials. The final list of workshop participants can be found at the end of this report in Appendix I.

4

Workshop Organization and Sessions The workshop was held at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD. Due to limited space in the meeting room and the need for a limited group size for discussion, a webinar was used to allow remote observers to participate in the workshop. Workshop sessions were organized topically with about half the t ime dedicated to presentations and the remaining time set aside for discussion. Presentations were solicited from participants to cover a range of perspectives and technical areas. The final workshop agenda can be found at the end of this summary report in Appendix II.

The workshop was organized into five sessions as follows:

Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting

Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting

Session 3. Sources of Materials

Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects

Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning Summary of Workshop Discussion The subsections below will summarize the presentations and discussion in each session and highlight the key takeaways from the session.

Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting Session 1 focused on the motivation for harvesting and why workshop participants are potentially interested in harvesting materials. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, speakers for this session included:

Richard Reister from DOE,

Sherry Bernhoft from EPRI,

Robert Tregoning from NRC,

Uwe Jendrich from the Gesellschaft fur Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) in Germany, and

Taku Arai from the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) in Japan.

Presentation Summaries DOE described the role of harvesting within the Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, including the benefits and cha llenges associated with harvesting. Benefits include the opportunity to fill knowledge gaps where there is limited data or experience and to inform degradation models with data from actual plant components. Challenges include cost, complexity, scheduling, logist ics, limited opportunities, acquiring sufficient material pedigree information, and potential negative resullts impacting operating plants.

EPRI discussed the role of harvesting within the context of aging management for Long-Term Operations (LTO), including their experience from past harvesting programs and criteria for future harvest ing. Their experience emphasized the challenges of cost, schedule, logistics, complicated contract ing and acquiring material pedigree information. EPRl's criteria for harvesting focus on demonstrating value to their members by addressing a prioritized need that cannot be addressed through other means. For EPRI, a well-developed project plan that covers funding, risk management, exit ramps, and clear roles and responsibilities is essential.

5

NRC shared its perspective on the benefits and challenges of harvesting in regulatory research.

Harvested materials are valuable due to the representative nature of their aging conditions, which may reduce the uncertainty associated with the applicability of the result s to operating plants compared to tests with alternative aging conditions. Harvested materials may be the best option to address technical data needs identified for extended plant operation. With increasing harvesting opportunities from decommissioning plants, a proactive approach to harvesting planning can optimize benefits by identifying the right material with the right aging conditions for the identified knowledge gap. There are significant challenges associated with harvesting, including cost, schedule, and logistics, but hopefully these can be mitigated or avoided by leveraging resources with other organizations and learning from past experience.

GRS described its role as the main technical support organization in nuclear safety for the German federal government. GRS provides technical assessment and knowledge transfer for decommissioning activities, aging management, and long-term operation for German federal and international organizations.

CRIEPI discussed its view of how harvested materials and laboratory prepared materials contri bute to addressing technical issues. Harvested materials provide exposure to actual plant conditions, but are more limited in availability and the size of the data set that can be generated. Laboratory prepared materials generally involve accelerated or simulated aging conditions, but can be used to produce larger data sets with varying parameters to allow understanding of the effect on the mechanism or property of interest. Harvested materials offer fact finding of actual plant conditions as well as confirmation and verification of results from laboratory prepared specimens.

Discussion Summary The discussion following the presentations in this session focused on clearly identifying the need to be addressed by a harvesting project and the myriad cost, scheduile, and logistical challenges associated with harvesting. Leveraging with other organizations to defray costs can also help improve the value of a given program, but also adds complexity as another organization may have a different set of priorities that changes the focus of the harvesti ng effort.

Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting Session 2 focused on discussing the technical data needs for harvesting and specific knowledge gaps organizations are interested in addressing through harvesting. This discussion included general perspectives on how to determine when harvesting should be pursued rather than other types of research. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, speakers for this session included:

Pradeep Ramuhalli from the Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL),

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Keith Leonard from DOE/ Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),

Rachid Chaouadi from the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK-CEN) in Belgium, and

Arzu Alpan from Westinghouse.

Presentation Summaries PNNL presented their NRC-sponsored work to develop a systematic approach to prioritize data needs for harvesting. PNNL proposed five primary criteria for prioritizing harvesting:

6

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

Ease of laboratory replication of degradation scenario (combination of material and environment) o For example, simultaneous thermal and irradiation conditions may be difficult to replicate or mechanisms sensitive to dose rate may not be appropriate for accelerated aging

Applicability of harvested materials for addressing critical gaps o Prioritize harvesting for critical gaps over less essential data needs

Availability of reliable in-service inspection (ISi) techniques for the material/ component o If inspection methods are mature and easy to apply to monitor and track degradation, perhaps the effort of research with harvested materials is not needed.

Availability of materials for harvesting o The necessary materials/ components must be available to be harvested.

PNNL then presented their application of these criteria to four materials degradation issues as an example: electrical cables, cast austenitic stainless steel (CASS), reactor vessel internals, and dissimilar metal welds. Based on applying these criteria to the examples, PNNL concluded that electrical cables, CASS, and reactor internals are all higher priority for harvesting due to unique aspects of the degradation that are challenging to replicate in the lab. Meanwhile, dissimilar metal welds are of low priority due to the ease of replication in lab aging studies as well as the significant body of knowledge and research on the phenomena.

NRC presented a summary of data needs it is interested in pursuing through harvesting. These included RPV materials to validate fluence and attenuation models and to demonstrate the conservatism of regulatory approaches for transition temperature prediction. Other metal components of interest for harvesting would address data gaps in irradiated and cast stainless steels, as well as improve understanding of inspection capabilities and fatigue life calculations. Electrical components of interest include low and medium voltage cables, other electrical components for degradation studies, and electrical enclosures and cables for fire research. Concrete components of interest include irradiated concrete, concrete undergoing alkali-aggregate reactions, post-tensioned structures, reinforcing steel, tendons, and spent fuel pool concrete to assess potential degradation due to boric acid attack.

DOE/ORNL presented their perspective on data needs for harvesting and its role in providing validation of experimental and theoretical research. DOE/ORNL performed a significant RPV harvesting program at the Zion nuclear power plant to reduce uncertainties in the Master Curve methodology, validate modeling predictions and study flux and fluence attenuation effects. The harvesting is largely complete, but the testing program is currently underway. DOE/ORNL also indicated interest in using harvested materials to validate its models for swelling and microstructural changes of stainless steel internals under LWR irradiation conditions. Harvesting concrete components would be of interest due to lack of literature data and the multiple dependent variables that may affect concrete performance. Finally, DOE/ORNL has been involved in harvesting cables from the Crystal River and Zion plants to address cable aging as a function of material composition and environment.

7

SCK-CEN presented their interest in an international cooperative program to harvest RPV materials. SCK-CEN presented their survey of the literature for past testing programs of harvested RPV materials, and the limitations of these past programs. Key limitations include a lack of archive materials, generally lower temperatures, and poor surveillance programs and dosimetry. SCK-CEN then shared some thoughts on their criteria for a new harvesting efforts, including higher fluence levels and t emperatures, available archive materials and reliable information on the plant's operating history, dosimetry and surveillance program. Other topics relevant to a new RPV harvesting effort include technical issues such as material variability and irradiation conditions as well as logistical and financial considerations.

The final presentation in Session 2 by Westinghouse focused on the need for harvesting irradiated concrete to better understand the threshold radiation level for significant strength reduction.

Westinghouse has installed ex-vessel neutron dosimetry (EVND) at a number of plants in the world and proposed to use these dosimetry measurements to validate fluence model calculations to better understand the uncertainty in t hese calculations. Figure 1 show s a schematic of the EVND setup. If concrete can be harvested at one of these plants with EVND data, then irradiated concrete properties from testing can be paired with fluence data to improve resear ch benefits.

~

. ~ / Support chain f ~,\ f ~u,\

-~* I , __

\ WIU ,I Support bar Dosimetry chain Dosimetry capsules Westinghouse Figure 1 Schematic of Westinghouse ex-vessel neutron dosimetry (EVND)

Discussion Summary The discussion following Session 2 presentations touched on a number of topics. EPRI shared that they developed a report related to the topics of Session 2, but more narrowly focused on pressuriz,ed water reactor (PWR) internals. MRP-320, 'Testing Gap Assessment and Material Identification for PWR Interna ls," focuses on prioritizing opportunistic harvesting of stainless steel reactor internals components that may be remo,ved from service following MRP-227 inspections. The methodology and approach in this report may be relevant to the broader harvesting data needs discussion. This report is not freely available to the public, but is available to EPRI member utilities.

Workshop participants discussed the criteria proposed by PN NL in the first presentation. One additional criteria suggested by EPRI was to consider fleet-wide vs. plant-specific applicability. More broadly applicable materials would be of greater interest for harvest ing than those that represent conditions at only a few plants. Another criteria suggested is the availability of material pedigree information, such as composition, processing, environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, fluence, etc.). Another 8

suggested criteria was the ease of harvesting, which includes the concept of weighing costs vs. benefits as well as project risk. For example, highly irradiated internals are probably much more difficult and expensive to harvest than electrical cables or unirradiated concrete. Further discussion touched on the idea that different organizations may prioritize the various criteria differently, but all will probably at least want to consider the same set of criteria.

Another key theme from this discussion was that a successful program should be guided by a clearly defined objective or problem statement to be addressed. This objective should be well-understood at the initiation of a program and used to guide decision-making through implementation of a harvesting project. This also raises a related point or potential criteria: the timeliness of the expected research results relative to the objective. If the results are needed in the next two years, but a harvesting project will not provide results for at least five years, that should be a strong consideration.

Session 3. Sources of Materials Session 3 focused on discussing sources of materials for harvesting. This discussion covered previously harvested materials as well as sources for new harvesting programs from operating or decommissioning plants. Both domestic and international sources of materials were discussed in this session. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, speakers for this session included:

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Al Ahluwalia from EPRI,

Tom Rosseel from DOE/ORNL,

John Jackson from DOE/Idaho National Laboratory (IN L),

Gerry van Noordennen from EnergySolutions,

Arzu Alpan from Westinghouse,

Uwe Jendrich from GRS, and

Daniel Tello from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).

Presentation Summaries NRC presented their perspective on sources of materials for harvesting. First, NRC shared information on some of the harvested materials from past research programs that may be available, including irradiated stainless steel internals, RPV materials, nickel alloy welds, neutron absorber material, and electrical components. NRC then summairized the recently and planned shutdown U.S. plants, including their design, thermal output, and years of operation, to provide participants with an idea of the potential sources from decommissioning U.S. plants. Finally, NRC shared a list of information that would be helpful to acquire from decommissioning plants to determine the value of components for harvesting.

This information included plant design information (component location and dimensions),

environmental conditions (temperature, fluence, humidity, stress, etc.) and operating history, material pedigree information (fabrication records), and inspection records (for interest in components with known flaws).

The next presentation from EPRI covered harvesting opportunities at decommissioning plants in Korea and Sweden. In Korea, Kori-1 is a Westinghouse 2-loop PWR (sister plant is Kewaunee) that will shut down in 2017 after 40 years of operation. Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Central Research Institute (KHNP-CRI) is planning a comprehensive research program on long-t erm materials aging based on harvesting from Kori-1 and is seeking international participation in the harvesting effort . KHNP-CRl's 9

plan is focused on metallic components, including RPV, internals, primary system components, and steam generator materials. Harvesting is expected to occur in 2024 with testing to follow through 2030.

In Sweden, Vattenfall is currently harvesting in 2017-2018 RPV material from the decommissioning Barseback boiling water reactor (BWR) units. This work is focused on irradiation embrittlemenit, including comparison of surveillance data to actual RPV properties, as well as thermal aging embrittlement. In the future, Vattenfall will be shutting down Ringhals 1 and 2 in 2020 and 2019, respectively. Ringhals 1 is a BWR and Ringhals 2 is a Westinghouse 3-loop PWR design. Of particular note, Ringhals 2 has the second oldest replaced Alloy 690 RPV head and steam generators. Other harvesting opportunities at Ringhals include RPV material with a significant surveillance program, thermal aging effects on low alloy steel from the pressurizer, as well as concrete structures. Vattenfall is open to working with partners that are interested in joining t hem for harvesting at Ringhals.

The next presentation by DOE/ORNL focused on several harvesting programs that DOE's LWRS program has been involved with. DOE/ORNL has led the harvesting of components from the Zio~ - ! ._ {l:l)(~)

(b)(4) __ pJantQn the U.S. From Zion, DOE/ORNL has harvested electrical cables and components, a large RPV section, and a significant number of records to provide information on material fabrication, in -service inspection and operating history. Cables from Zion include CROM, thermocouple, and low and medium voltage cables. DOE/ORNL indicated some thermocouple cables from Zion may be available for other researchers to use in collaborative studies. ! ......;;;J_ . . . . (b)(4 )

(b)(4)

(b)(4) 1 ; - ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..,DOE/ORNL is also participating in efforts to harvest cables from Crystal River (led by EPRI) and concrete from the Zorita plant in Spain (led by NRC).

The next presentation by DOE/I NL described IN L's Nuclear Science User Facilities (NSUF) and the Nuclear Fuels and Materials Library (NFML). NSUF is coordinated by INL and facilitates access to nuclear research facilities around the world, including neutron and ion irradiations, beamlines, hot cell testing, characterization and computing capabilities. NFML is a Web-based searchable database sample library that captures the information from thousands of specimens available to NSUF. NFML is designed to maximize the benefit of previously irradiated materials for future research. Researchers can propose new research projects under NSUF using specimens in NFML using DOE funding. As seen in Figure 2, the information captured in NFML aligns well with the goal of this session to potentially develop a database of previously harvested materials.

10

SME DATABA SE r PROJECT DATABASE "I Pl Name Subject Mane,

~PROJECT NAME INSTITUTION +- r "

Pro,ect ID Proposal Start Date End Date ProiectTvoe Material lype 7 NEID DATABASE INSTITUTION CINR# Pl Name Research Area I FACILITY INSTITUTIO" I RTE# Tech Lead REACTOR NSUF Call Foo!IVTech lead FACILITY Award Date Collaborators Related Documents REACTOR POSITION

- '- ~

E PROJl!CT NAMI! SAMPL LIERARY REACTOR REACTOR POSITION

Sam pie ID Code # of Samples PLANNED AS RUN Capsule Samples Remaonong Temperature Temperature Packet Specmen Avaitabllrty Dose(DPA) Actual Dose (DPA)

Matenal Code Ava,lablllly Date Fluence (xtO'OJ Fluence (x10'°)

MatenalName Certrlicallon Material Descnpt,on Ce<llficatJon Code Flux (x10") Flux (x10")

KGT# Storage FACILITY

Envwonment Enwonment Spe<:1men Type Notes 0 1menseons Figure 2 Nuclear Fuels and Materials Library (NFM L} Dat abase Design The next presentation by EnergySolutions offered a more practical perspective on considering sources of materials for harvesting. From the plant owner perspective, there is no financial incentive to support harvesting during decommissioning, therefore researchers need to absorb the costs of harvesting and have a clear scope for harvesting. Flexibility in funding for harvesting activities is essential as the decommissioning process and schedule may change quickly.

EnergySolutions provided valuable perspective on the timing in the decommissioning process for harvesting different components. For instance, the harvesting of RPV surveillance coupons should take place when the RPV internals are cut and removed. Harvesting of RPV materials is only possible from larger RPVs, as smaller RPVs are shipped intact to the disposal facility, rather than cut into pieces. Spent fuel rack neutron absorber coupons must be harvested either before or after the dry storage campaign to remove spent fuel from the spent fuel pool. Harvesting actual spent fuel rack neutron absorber material must come after the pool is completely empty. Electrical cables and other components from mild environments may be harvested any time after temporary power is established and plant power shut off. Harvesting of electrical components from high radiation environments will depend on the t iming of source-term removal schedules. Concrete cores are best harvested when other cores are being taken for site characterization to develop the License Termination Plan. Highly irradiated concrete from the biological shield wall would need to come later in decommissioning after the RPV is removed.

In terms of upcoming decommissioning plants, EnergySolutions indicated that San Onofre and Vermont Yankee will be entering active decommissioning in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Kewaunee, Crystal River, and Fort Calhoun also may enter active decommissioning in the next 2 years. If researchers are interested in harvesting from any of these plants, they should be reaching out to plant owners immediately to begin planning and coordination.

Westinghouse followed up their presentation in Session 2 by describing an opportunity to harvest concrete from the Mihama 1 plant in Japan. Westinghouse installed and analyzed additional neutron dosimetry in the reactor cavit y for one cycle, which were used to validat e the radiation transport 11

calculations. Mihama was shutdown in 2015 and is in contact w ith Westinghouse about the possibility of extracting concrete cores from the biological shield wall. Westinghouse is seeking partners interested in joining this harvesting effort.

The next presentation by GRS covered opportunities for harvesting from German plants. Regulations in Germany require plants to either immediately dismantle or dismantle after a period of safe enclosure, which is largely consistent with options in the U.S. GRS detailed the status of German commercial reactors, which are predominaintly BWR and PWR designs. Seventeen reactors are currently uindergoing decommissioning, while seven more are currently shutdown and await a decommissioning license. Eight reactors are still operating with scheduled shutdown dates between 2017 and 2022. German RPVs tend to have lower fluence than U.S. designs due to a larger water gap in the downcomer region. Germany has limited experience with harvesting from decommissioning plants. One question that GRS will follow-up on is the "rumored" cable surveillance programs that may be used in Germany and could provide experience and lessons learned for other countries.

The final presentation in Session 3 was by CNSC on harvesting opportunities in Canada. Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) has harvested seven concrete cores from the 20 megawatt electric (MWe)

Nuclear Power Demonstration Plant (NPD), which shutdown in 1988 after 25 years of operation. CNSC and AECL are also considering opportunities to harvest concrete from other decommissioned reactors in Canada such as Gentilly-2, Douglas Point, and Whiteshell React or 1. In addition to concrete, CNSC and AECL are currently harvesting electrical cables from t he 675 MWe CANDU-6 Gentilly-2 reactor, which shutdown in 2012 after 29 years of operation. The purpose of this work is to study cable degradation from thermal aging and radiation damage and validate environmental qualification of the cables. CNSC described some of the challenges with this harvesting effort, such as working with plant owners, records, accessibility and contamination of the materials and budgeting with unexpected delays in harvesting.

A future harvesting opportunity is from the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Chal k River, which will shut down in 2018 after operating since 1957. AECL is current ly taking an inventory of irradiated materials that can be harvested from NRU in decommissioning. Potential materials for harvesting include metals (steels, nickel alloys, zirconium, aluminum), concrete, graphite, active equipment (pumps, etc.), graphite seals, electrical cables, and thermocouples.

Discussion Summary Following the presentations, t here was some discussion of lessons learned from DOE's Zion harvesting effort. DOE worked with a former senior reactor operator at Zion to identify and acquire the appropriate records from Zion for the components being harvested. DOE also described their flexible approach to acquiring RPV samples by sending a large chunk of material (weighing ~go tons) to EnergySolutions' facility in Tennessee, where smaller pieces (weighing ~soo pounds) were cut to send to ORNL. Most of t he decontamination was performed at Zion, with minimal additional cleaning (as well as cladding removal) taking place at EnergySolutions' facility.

There was also discussion of acquiring materials from sources other than commercial nuclear facilities.

DOE has considered harvesting concrete from other DOE nuclear facilities, but determined that there were compositiona l differences between the DOE facilities and commercial facilities t hat would make t he concrete from DOE facilities not useful. DOE/I NL mentioned that the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) 12

replaces their core internals every ten years. The ATR internals are composed primarily of 347 stainless steel and achieve very high fluence levels after ten years of service.

Another key discussion topic was the possibility of developing a database for previously harvested materials or those available for future harvesting. DOE/I NL indicated that their NSUF sample library may be a good starting point for such a database, although any materials in that library should be freely available for use in the research community. CNSC, NRC, and PNNL also expressed interested in working to develop a harvesting database.

Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects Session 4 focused on lessons learned and practical aspects of harvesting. Presenters shared their experience with past harvesting programs, particularly common pitfalls to avoid and successful strategies to overcome them. Presentations also covered the practical aspects of harvesting from the plant owner and decommissioning company perspective. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, speakers for this session included:

Jean Smith from EPRI,

Tom Rosseel from DOE/ORNL,

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Taku Arai from CRIEPI,

Gerry van Noordennen from EnergySolutions, and

Bill Zipp from Dominion.

Presentation Summaries EPRI presented their experience and lessons learned from past harvesting programs, particularly harvesting reactor internals and concrete from Zorita and electrical cables from Crystal River. From the Zorita reactor internals experience, EPRI emphasized that harvesting projects take significant time, encounter both material retrieval and on-site challenges, and shipping issues. As shown in Figure 3, the Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRP) took about 10 years to go from initial planning to final results, which included about 5 years of project planning, 2 years for material extraction (on-site logistics and shipping), and 3-4 years for testing. EPRl's experience was that decommissioning activities were the top priority and that harvesting was secondary, subject to schedule and logistical challenges based on the changing decommissioning schedule. Shipping issues were also challenging due to sending activated materials (which were classified as "wast e") across international borders, from the reactor in Spain to the testing facility in Sweden. Currently, further planned shipments of the Zorita materials beyond the initial program continue to be impacted by export license challenges in Sweden. More positively, EPRI em phasized that the Zorita reactor internals materials harvesting showed excellent cooperation among many organizations and are now providing valuable technical information to numerous research projects.

13

Task 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 I 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ProJoct Inception f easlblllty Study ProJect Planning

- ~1J 1 I __l

, ~~ , ~

~

Cutllng Plans Equlpmont Design & Manufacturing On*slto Preparation*

Ma1orlal Extraction On-she Loglsllcs I

Shipping Radiation and Temperature Analyses

,_ I

-+-

Matorial lnspoctlon, Inventory, Oocumonlation I I Materials Testing I Reporting I I ~

Figure 3 Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRP) Timeline Lessons learned from the Zorita concrete harvesting focused on the challenges with core sample drilling and handling contaminated concrete. Ultimately, an effective core drilling procedure was identified, but required some trial and error. Lessons learned from the Crysta1I River cable harvesting included material concerns, the need for on-site support, and cost. In terms of material concerns, radiation and asbestos contamination created additional challenges for harvesting. On-site support and the ability to visit the site are extremely valuable to ensure clear communication, retrieval of records for material pedigree information, and awareness of on-site developments in the decommissioning process. Cable harvesting at Crystal River was more expensive than anticipated, particularly in terms of EPRI project management time to coordinate the harvesting activities and engineering support at the plant.

DOE/ORNL presented lessons learned primarily from the exper ience harvesting RPV materials and electrical cables and components from the Zion plant. In terms of planning and decision-making, DOE/ORNL had several lessons learned. DOE/ORNL hosted a workshop at Zion in 2011 to discuss long-term goals and objectives, which proved very helpful in setting priorities and developing partnerships with other organizations. Partnerships were very valuable to DOE/ORN L's harvesting efforts, allowing for leveraging resources and collaboration and sharing results. There are limited opportunities for harvesting key components, so* DOE/ORNL emphasized that participants should take full advantage of the opportunities that arise, understanding that there is a necessary compromise between the materials available and their value in terms of fluence or exposure to aging conditions. Another consideration is the quantity of material harvest ed, which should be sufficient for the objectives of the planned research as well as any collaborations or partnerships, but limited to control costs.

For implementing the harvesting program, DOE/ORNL found that flexibility was paramount to be able to adjust scope and plans in response to schedule changes and other developments, while remaining within cost constraints. Working with a former reactor operator was extremely valuable to benefit from their in-depth knowledge of all parts of the plant, in particular the records for materials pedigree information. Regular site visits and contacts were also essential to stay aware of the latest developments in the harvesting planning and decommissioning process, with the understanding that harvesting is not the top priority for the decommissioning company. Other important considerations were hazardous materials handling, transportation, and disposal and logistics, including contracts, liability, shipping and disposal. Finally, DOE/ORN L's experience is that the total costs of a harvesting program from planning to execution to testing are very high, so they should be carefully weighed against the value of the expected data to be generated.

14

NRC presented their experience, including benefits from previous harvesting programs, and technical and logistical lessons learned from harvesting. As an organization, NRC has extensive experience with testing harvested materials, including RPV, primary system components, reactor internals, neutron absorbers, concrete and electrical components. NRC's experience is more limited than DOE or EPRI in terms of managing the logistics of a harvesting effort from a decommissioning plant. NRC has generally participated in a secondary role in cooperative efforts or received failed components from operating plants for research. NRC has found t hat previous harvesting efforts have been effective in reducing unnecessary conservatism, understanding in-service flaws mor e realistically for NDE and leak r ate methodologies, as well as identifying and better understanding safety issues.

For technical lessons learned, NRC's perspective is t hat harvesting can provide highly representative aged materials for research, which may be the only practical source of such materials. Harvest ed materials can be effectively used to validate models or confirm results from accelerated aging tests. It is important to understand as much as possible about the materials and their in-service environment and how this compares with the operating fleet of reactors before committing to a specific harvesting project. For logistical lessons learned, harvesting is expensive and time-consuming, so a significant technical benefit is needed to ensure t he program provides value. Leveraging resources with other organizations can help minimize costs, but can also introduce challenges for aligning the priorities and interests of multiple organizations. Finally, transporting irradiated materials, particularly bet ween countries, is challenging and time-consuming and should be avoided if at all possible.

CRIEPI presented their research experience with harvested materials as well as ongoing harvesting from t he Hamaoka 1 plant. The first research program involved atom probe tomography (APT) on RPV surveillance materials. CRIEPI found a correlation between the volume fraction of Ni-Si-Mn clusters and t he change in nil-ductility temperature. In the second research project, CRIEPI charact erized t he weld and base materials harvested from Greifswald Unit 4 RPV with small-angle neutron scattering, APT, and hardness testing. In the third research project, CRIEPI performed APT on 304L stainless steel reactor internals harvested from control rod and top guide components from 3-13 dpa. Results showed a strong increase in Ni-Si clusters with increasing fluence, but little variation in Al enriched clusters wit h increasing fluence.

For future work, CRI EPI is collaborating with the DOE LWRS program to investigate RPV materials (b)(4) _ ~~EIJ~_5.t!:!clfr9111Zionf . . lCRIEPI also present ed activities underway by Chubu Electric Power to harvest RPV and concrete samples from the Hamaoka 1 plant.

Hamaoka 1 is a 540 MWe BWR-4 that operated for 33 years. Hlarvesting began in 2015 and will continue t hrough 2018.

The final two presentations of Session 4 provided the perspective from a decommissioning company and plant owner. EnergySolutions, which is decommissioning t he Zion nuclear plant among ot her facilities, presented on the decommissioning process and t heir experience and lessons learned from harvesting at Zion. As mentioned previously, surgical harvesting is not the top priority for decommissioning, so researchers must recognize t his and coordinate closely with the decommissioning company.

EnergySolutions emphasized the need to gain senior management support at the plant as well as to expect that there may be staff turnover during a multi-year harvesting effort. Changes in scope and schedule (originating from either side) can cause frustration on both sides. Early planning, efficient 15

contracting, and frequent site visits are important to avoid lost opportunities and achieve a successful outcome.

At Zion, EnergySolutions worked with DOE to harvest RPV materials, cables, electrical components, and spent fuel storage racks. DOE hoped to harvest a particular RPV surveillance capsule, but was unable to do so due to the inability to identify the correct capsule in the pool. There were also challenges with harvesting RPV materials. The cut line on the Unit 2 RPV was too close to the weld to be used for resea rch; fortunately, a successful specimen was harvested from Unit 1. For cabling, the initial plan was to harvest from 11 different locations, but ultimately, due to unforeseen challenges, miscommunication and coordination issues, only 4 different cable locations were harvested. Harvesting the desired cable length (30 feet) also proved challenging, with only shorter sections recovered. Searches of plant records were largely effective at providing material pedigree information for cables. Concret e coring was initially planned to take place at Zion, but not performed due to lack of research interest. The spent fuel storage rack harvesting went smoothly, which was assisted by weekend effort s when decommissioning activities were not occurring.

The next presentation from Dominion provided its perspective on harvesting from decommissioning plants, with particular focus on the experience at Kewaunee Power Station. The top priority (beyond safety) in decommissioning is the preservation and good stewardship of the decommissioning trust fund. Staffing is the largest drain on the trust fund, so at Kewaunee, staff was halved within a few months of shutdown and then halved again, about 16 months after permanent shutdown once offsite emergency response requirements were eliminated. Dominion described the example of harvesting the RPV surveillance capsules at this point at Kewaunee and the significant challenges that would exist.

Given the reduced staffing and the current plant state (reactor coolant system drained, pumps retired, crane and radiation monitoring not maintained), it would be much more difficult than immediately after shutdown. Kewaunee considered harvesting the RPV surveillance specimens and estimated a cost of six to seven figures based on all the act ivities req uired to enable it at this point, post-shutdown, compared to a much lower cost just after shutdown. Dominion observed that some components, such as cables or electrical components, may be available and relatively easy to harvest at almost any time duri ng decommissioning. However, other components such as highly irradiated internals or RPV may be best harvested either shortly after shutdown when staffing and capabilities on-site are high or wait until active demolition of the reactor, which may be years or decades later.

Dominion also touched on the discussion of records for plant components. Records requirements are limited to those needed for safety. Once the plant shuts down and the range of potential safety concerns decreases, systems are downgraded to non-safety and the associated records are no longer required to be maintained. For perspective, Kewaunee still has all its records four years since shutdown, but will likely not continue this much longer. Dominion closed its presentation with a broader perspective on harvesting, emphasizing the need to clearly define a problem stat ement and understand what technical and regulatory purpose that harvesting will serve. Early planning focused on achieving the clear objective of the work including scope, schedule, budget and contact with plant is essential to a successful harvesting effort.

16

Discussion Summary The discussion touched on the top lessons learned from past harvesting efforts, which included defining a clear objective and purpose for harvesting, early engagement with the plant, and site coordination during harvesting.

Another suggestion was to get utility management buy-in for the harvesting project by identifying a benefit to the utility. EPRI mentioned that cable harvesting at Crystal River went much more successfu lly once the utility recognized the potential benefits for SLR. Similarly, when harvesting from an operating plant, one must recognize and work through the challenges the plant may encounter when restarting operations.

During discussion, the question was raised regarding how it is determined whether harvested materials are waste. The discussion identified that the U.S. 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 37 is the pertinent regulation. 10 CFR 37 defines when additional security requirements are imposed, based on the quantity and activity of materials to be transported. In the U.S., EnergySolutions indicated that the definition of material as waste versus research materials is not critical. Shipments of waste or research material can be handled in the same way in the accordance with Department of Transportation regulations, provided that the Iimits in 10 CFR 37 are not reached.

Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning Session 5 focused on the information needed for informed harvesting decision-making and harvesting program planning. As shown in Appendix II with presentation titles, this session featured a presentation by Pradeep Ramuhalli from PNNL, followed by a discussion period covering harvesting program planning and reflection on the 2-day workshop.

Presentation Summary PNNL presented its perspective on the information needed for informed harvesting decision-making.

First, the purpose of the harvesting effort needs to be defined by identifying the techn ical knowledge gaps to be addressed. Next, a research plan should be developed demonstrating how the harvested material will be used to address the identified gaps. Finally, the appropriate source of material to address the technical gap must be identified, along with resources to support the effort and plans and timelines to perform the harvesting. The specifics of these plans depend greatly on the source of materials and must be flexible based on changing constraints.

In assessing the best source of materials, researchers should consider the material, its environment, and its condition. M aterial information includes fabrication information such as manufacturer, composition, and dimensions as well as information related to installation or construction, such as welding processes and parameters. Environmental information includes temperature, humidity, fluence, flux, stress (service, residual, installation), and coolant chemistry. Component cond ition information includes inspection history, such as identified flaws or degradation.

Discussion Summary The discussion in Session 5 focused on the best practical approach to plan future harvesting programs.

There was clear agreement tha,t this approach must begin with identifying the data needs best addressed by harvesting, whether from operating or decommissioning plants. Once a specific need is identified, the next step is to find a source to acquire the materials of interest and identify other organizations interested in participating in the harvesting effort.

17

Key Takeaways from Workshop Session 1. Motivation for Harvesting The clear takeaway from the discussion in Session 1 was that harvesting requires significant resources to be done successfully; therefore it is paramount to identify how the planned harvesting will clearly address a significant need to ensure the harvesting project provides appropriate value. In the context of the need for data, EPRI suggested that the goal of harvesting to support research for operation out to 80 years should not be a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of degradation, but rather a should seek to confirm other lab results and models. This is an important point for all organizations and resea rchers to keep in mind before investing significant resources in harvesting.

Session 2. Technical Data Needs for Harvesting The criteria proposed by PNNL are a good starting point for prioritizing issues to address by harvesting.

Three additional important criteria would be:

Fleet-wide vs. plant-specific applicability of data,

Ease of harvesting (in terms of cost and project risk), and

Timeliness of the expected research results relative to the objective.

Once a potential harvesting project has reached the point of identifying potential sources of materials, the availability of material pedigree information, such as composition, processing, environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, fluence, etc.) is very important to the overall value of harvesting material from that particular plant.

Based on the presentations and discussion in Session 2, there appeared to be two areas where participants had broad interest in pursuing further harvesting: high fluence reactor internals and irradiated concrete. The common drivers for the interest in these issues is a lack of representative data at the fluences of interest and significant challenges with acquiring representative data through other means. High fluence reactor internals have been addressed somewhat by ZIRP, but st ainless steel materials exposed to higher flu1ence levels at higher temperatures, where void swelling may b,ecome significant, could help validate DOE and EPRI models and provide further technical basis for PWR internals aging management. Irradiated concrete harvesting is currently being pursued from the Zorita reactor in Spain, with international collaboration and potential testing at the Halden Reactor Project.

Other areas with some, but less widespread, interest expressed from workshop participants for new harvesting efforts included RPV materials and electrical cables and components. SCK-CEN and NRC expressed interest in RPV harvesting, and NRC expressed interest in electrical component harvesting.

Session 3. Sources of Materials To capture the key takeaways from Session 3 focused on sources of materials, two tables of potential sources of materials are presented below. Table 1 covers recent or ongoing harvesting programs, while Table 2 details potential future harvesting opportunities.

18

Table 1 Ongoing Harvesting Programs Size Years in Country Plant Design Components Organization(s)

(MWe) operation NPD CANDU 20 25 Concrete Canada AECL Gentilly-2 CANDU-6 675 29 Cables Japan Hamaoka 1 IBWR-4 540 33 RPV, concrete CRIEPI, Chubu Spain Zorita W 1-loop 160 37 Internals, concrete EPRI, NRC Sweden Barseback ABB-II 615 28 RPV Vattenfall W- 4 RPV, cables, Zion 1/2 1040 24/25 DOE, EPRI, NRC loop neutron absorbers Crystal River 3 B&W 860 36 Cables EPRI U.S.

(b)(4)

Table 2 Potential Future Sources for Harvesting Size Years in Potential Country Plant Design Notes

{MWe) operation Components 135 AECL; SD:

Canada NRU Test reactor 61 TBD MWt 2018 Germany Numerous plants either in decommissioning or shutting down soon. See Appendix Ill.

Kansai, Japan Mihama W 2-loop 320 40 Concrete Westinghouse RPV, internals, Korea Kori 1 W 2-loop 576 40 SGs, pressurizer, KHNP, EPRI welds, CASS, Ringhals 1 BWR 883 44 RPV, internals Vattenfall; Sweden SGs, pressurizer, SD: 2020 /

Ringhals 2 W 3-loop 900 44 concrete 2019 Kewaunee W 2-loop 566 39 TBD SD: 2013 SONGS 2/3 CE 2-loop 1070 31/30 TBD SD: 2013 Crystal River 3 B&W 860 36 TBD SD: 2013 Vermont BWR-4/Mk-1 605 42 TBD SD:2015 Yankee Fort Calhoun CE 2-loop 482 43 TBD SD: 2016 Palisades CE 2-loop 805 47 TBD SD:2018 Pilgrim BWR-3/Mk-1 677 47 TBD SD: 2019 U.S.

Oyster Creek BWR-2/Mk-1 619 so TBD SD:2019 Ind ian Point 1020 /

W 4-loop 48/46 TBD SD: 2021 2/3 1040 Diablo Canyon 1138/

W 4-loop 40 TBD SD: 2024-5 1/2 1118 Non-commercial; Advanced 250 Test reactor 50 Core internals internals Test Reactor MWt replaced every 10 years 19

SD= shutdown year (actual or projected)

In addition to the potential sources of materials presented and discussed in Session 3, another takeaway was the suggestion of developing a database for previously harvested materials or those available for future harvesting. The NSUF sample library may be a good starting point for such a database, w ith appropriate modifications tailored towards harvesting efforts.

Session 4. Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects There were several important takeaways from Session 4 that were indicated in multiple presentations and the following discussions. One key takeaway is that researchers should identify a clear purpose and scope for harvesting. Having a clear purpose for harvest ing hellps to guide later decisions that must be made to adjust course when the inevitable changes in schedule or unexpected realities at the plant arise. A related note is that harvesting is not the top priority for decommissioning. Therefore, resea rchers must have clear objectives and scope for harvesting that can be communicated to the on-site personnel. This understanding should shape assumptions and interactions with the plant owner or decommissioning company as well as planning for costs and schedule.

Another takeaway was the value of strong site coordination, including site visits. Multiple presenters stressed the value of being on-site to talk to staff and see the components to be harvested. Mockups and 3-D simulations can be valuable t o ensure success of the approach or technique used to acquire t he material. A related point is working with reactor operators at the plant. Several harvesting efforts worked with former reactor operators and benefited greatly from their experience to find records or determine the best method to harvest the desired component. This is a valuable insight that could be effective in future harvesting efforts.

A third key takeaway is early engagement with the plant personnel to express interest in harvesting. This serves to make the plant aware of interest in harvesting and to gain their support to collaborate in the harvesting process. The other important benefit of early engagement is to gain as much information as possible about the available materials and components, includling the associated records and material pedigree information.

Session 5. Future Harvesting Program Planning The key takeaway in Session 5 was to gather as much information as possible in advance of committing to a specific harvesting project. Ideally, there would be a strong understanding that the material and its aging conditions clearly align with an identified technical data need before committing significant resources to a harvesting effort.

Action Items and Next Steps The following is a summary of the action items arising from the workshop:

1. Sharing workshop slides

NRC emailed attendees to ask their comfort with sharing their workshop slides with other organizations and received no objection from any presenters.

The presentations can be accessed here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BSDWMLchSYSXcnpZZ0JOS0SSQUU .

STATUS: Complete 20

2. EPRI indicated that MRP-320 (Product ID: 1022866) on knowledge gaps for irradiated austenitic stainless steel for potential harvesting from MRP-227 inspections is publicly available for a fee.

STATUS: Complete

3. Cable surveillance programs in Germany

Input on this topic has been contributed to the Topical Peer Review on Ageing Management in European countries, which is expected to be published by the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) in December 2018.

STATUS: Complete

4. Sources of materials database

Potential sources of materials presented in this workshop are summarized in Session 3 summary above and Appendix Ill below.

NRC will be reaching out to PNNL, INL NSUF, CNSC, AECL, and any other organizations interested in database development.

STATUS: NRC will initiate action w ith other interested organizations.

5. Prioritized data needs

Discussions will continue on prioritized data needs within technical areas (RPV, internals, electrical, concrete) through existing coordination groups if possible Focus on identifying specific material/ aging conditions of interest and the purpose/ intended outcome of harvesting

STATUS: NRC will initiate action with other interested organizations.

6. EPRI report on spent fuel liner boric acid transport through concrete

NRC received relevant EPRI report.

STATUS: Complete

7. Harvested M aterials Research Results

Provide references from harvested materials research.

STATUS: Complete - selected references are summarized below.

References to Previous Harvested Materials Research This section of the workshop summary addresses a question that was raised during the discussion at the workshop regarding what the outcome or benefit of past harvesting efforts have been. Below is a list of references to research results generated from testing of harvested materials:

1. J.R. Hawthorne and A.L. Hiser, Experimental Assessments of Gundremmingen RPV Archive Material for Fluence Rate Effects Studies, NUREG/CR-5201 (MEA-2286), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1988.

2. O.K. Chopra, and W.J. Shack, Mechanical Properties of Thermally Aged Cast Stainless Steels from Shippingport Reactor Components, NUREG/CR-6275 (ANL-94/37), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 1995.

21

3. G. J. Schuster, S. R. Doctor, S.L. Crawford, and A. F. Pardini, Characterization of Flaws in U.S. Reactor Pressure Vessels: Density and Distribution of Flaw Indications in the Shoreham Vessel, NUREG/CR-6471 Volume 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1999.

4. G. J. Schuster, S. R. Doctor, A.F. Pardini, and S.L. Crawford, Characterization of Flaws in U.S. Reactor Pressure Vessels: Validation of Flaw Density and Distribution in the Weld Metal of the PVRUF Vessel, NUREG/CR-6471 Volume 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2000.

5. D.E. McCabe, et al. Evaluation of WF-70 Weld Metal From the Midland Unit 1 Reactor Vessel, NUREG/CR-5736 (ORNL/TM-13748), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 2000.

6. B. Alexandreanu, O.K. Chopra, and W.J. Shack, Crack Growth Rates in a PWR Environment of Nickel Alloys from the Davis-Besse and V.C. Summer Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6921 (ANL-05/55), U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 2006.

7. S.E. Cumblidge, et al. Nondestructive and Destructive Examination Studies on Removed-from-Service Control Rod Drive Mechanism Penetrations, NUREG/CR-6996, I..J.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 2009.

8. S.E. Cumblidge, et al. Evaluation of Ultrasonic Time-of-Flight Diffraction Data for Selected Control Rod Drive Nozzles from Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant, PNNL-19362, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, April 2011.

9. S.L. Crawford, et al. Ultrasonic Phased Array Assessment of the Interference Fit and Leak Path of the North Anna Unit 2 Control Rod Drive Mechanism Nozzle 63 with Destructive Validation, NUREG/CR-7142 (PNNL-21547), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2012.

22

Appendix I Workshop Participants Name Organization Email Taku Arai CRIEPI arait@crieoi.denken.or.io Sadao Higuchi CRIEPI higuchi@crieQi. den ken .or. j12 Japan Kazunobu Sakamoto JNRA kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go.ji:1 Yasuhiro Chimi JAEA chimi.yasuhiro@jaea.go. ji:1 Uwe Jendrich GRS Uwe .Jendrich {1i) e:rs.de Europe Rachid Chaouadi SCK-CEN rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be Guy Roussel BelV guy.roussel@Belv.be Daniel Tello CNSC daniel.tello(a)canada.ca Canada Desire Ndomba CNSC desire.ndomba@canada.ca Karen Huynh AECL kh uynh@aecl.ca Gerrv van Noordennen Enere:v Solutions !!Van noordennen (a)enere:vsolution s.com us Bill Zipp Dominion william.f.zi1212@dom.com industry Mark Richter NEI mar@nei.org Arzu Alpan Westinghouse al12anfa@westinghouse.com Sherry Bernhoft EPRI sbern hoft@epri.com Robin Dyle EPRI rdyle@e12ri.com EPRI Jean Smith EPRI jmsmith@e12ri.com Al Ahluwalia EPRI kah luwal@e12ri.com Tom Rosseel ORNL rosseeltm(a)ornl.e:ov Rich Reister DOE Richard.Reister@nuclear.energy.gov Keith Leonard ORNL leonardk@ornl.gov DOE Mikhail A. Sokolov ORNL sokolovm@ornl.gov John Wagner INL john.wagner@inl.gov John Jackson INL john.jackson@inl.gov Pradeep Ramuhalli PNNL Pradee12.Ramuhalli@12nnl.gov Pat Purtscher NRC Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov Rob Tregoning NRC Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov Matt Hiser NRC Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov Mita Sircar NRC Madhumita.Sircar@nrc.gov Tom Koshy NRC Thomas.Koshy@nrc.gov NRC Jeff Poehler NRC Jeffrey.Poehler@nrc.gov Allen Hiser NRC Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov Angela Buford NRC Anigela.Buford@nrc.gov Mark Kirk NRC Mark.Kirk@nrc.gov Amy Hull NRC Amy.Hull@nrc.gov Pete Ricardella NRC/ACRS Pri cca rdel la@Structint.com 23

Appendix II Workshop Agenda Tuesday, March 7 Session Time Organization Speaker Presentation Title Michael Weber Intro 8:00 NRC Welcome and Introduction to Workshop Robert Tregoning DOE Rich Reister DOE Perspectives on Material Harvesting EPRI Sherry Bernhoft EPRI Perspective on Harvesting Projects 8:15- 8:45 NRC Robert Tregoning NRC Perspective on Motivation for Harvesting 1

GRS Uwe Jendrich Role of GRS in Decommissioning and LTO CRIEPI Taku Arai CRIEPI Motivations for Harvested Material 8:45-9:45 DISCUSSION 9:45-10:00 BREAK 10:00-PNNL (for NRC) Pradeep Ramuhalli Data Needs Best Addressed By Harvesting 10:20 10:20-NRC Matthew Hiser High-Priority Data Needs for Harvesting 10:30 10:30 - LWRS Program Perspective on the Technical DOE Keith Leonard 10:55 Needs for Harvesting 2

10:55- Review of past RPV sampling test programs SCK-CEN Rachid Chaouadi 11:20 and perspective for long term operation 11:20- Importance of Harvesting to Evaluate Westinghouse Arzu Alpan 11:45 Radiation Effects on Concrete Properties 11:45-DISCUSSION 12:30 12:30- 2:00 LUNCH Sources of Materials: Past NRC Harvesting and 2:00 - 2:10 NRC Matthew Hiser U.S. Decommissioning Plants Harvesting Plans for Materials Aging 2:10 - 2:35 EPRI Al Ahluwalia Degradation Research in Korea and Sweden 2:35- 2:50 DOE/ORNL Tom Rosseel Materials Harvested by the LWRS Program 2:50- 3:00 DOE/I NL John Jackson NSUF Material Sample Li brary Gerry van 3:00- 3:15 Energy Solutions Zion Material Harvest ing Program Noordennen 3

Potential Harvesting of Concret,e from Mihama 3:15- 3:30 Westinghouse Arzu Alpan Unit 1 3:30- 3:45 BREAK 3:45 -4:00 GRS Uwe Jendrich Plants in Decommissioning i n Germany Evaluating Structures, Systems & Components 4:00-4:15 CNSC Daniel Tello from Decommissioned/Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities in Canada 4:15 - 5:00 DISCUSSION 24

Wednesday, March 8 Session Time Ori?anization Speaker Presentation Title Lessons Learned: Harvesting and Shipping of 8:00-8:30 EPRI Jean Smith Zorita Mat erials 8:30-9:00 DOE Tom Rosseel LWRS Program: Harvesting Lessons Learned NRC Perspective on Harvesting Experience and 9:00 - 9:30 NRC Matthew Hiser Lessons Learned CRIEPI Research Act ivit ies with Harvested 4 9:30-10:00 CRI EPI Taku Arai Materials 10:00 - 10:15 BREAK Energy Gerry van Zion Harvest ing Experience and Lessons 10:15 - 10:45 Solutions Noordennen Learned 10:45 - 11:15 Domi nion Bill Zipp Kew aunee Insight s on M ateri al Harvesting 11:15 - 12:00 DISCUSSION 12:00-1:30 LUNCH PNN L (for Technical Information Needed for Informed 1:30- 1:45 Pradeep Ramuhalli NRC) Harvesting Decisions 1:45 - 2:30 DISCUSSION 2:30 - 3:00 Action Items and Next Steps 5

EPRI Sherry Bernhoft DOE Rich Reister 3:00 - 4:00 Closing Thoughts NRC Robert Tregoning ALL 25

Appendix Ill Harvesting Opportunities in Germany

Past and current decommissioning projects of Prototype or Commercial Reactors Name Rheinsberg Compact Natrium Cooled Reactor

- KKR KKN Reactor type WWER SNR

--70 21 1995 1993 Strategy UC UC Multipurpose Research R. MZFR PWR/O20 57 1987 UC Obrigheim KWO PWR 357 2008 UC Neckarwestheim 1 GKN-1 PWR 840 2017 UC lsar-1 KKl-1 BWR 912 2017 UC Gundremmingen-A KRB-A BWR 250 1983 RCA KRB-11 Greifswald 1-5 KGR 1-5 WWER 440 1995 UC Lingen KWL BWR 268 1985 UC after SE UC: unconditional clearance RCA: radia tion controlled area, new license SE: safe enclosure NRC Harvesting Workshop, Rockville, March 2017, Decommissioning In Germany 4

Past and current decommissioning projects of ? ototype or Commercial Reactors Name Stade Research Reactor Julich

-KKS AVR Reactor type PWR HTR 672 15 2005 1994 Strategy UC UC Thorium High- THTR- HTR 308 1993 SE since 1997 Temperature-Reaktor 300 W urgassen KWW BWR 670 1997 UC Mulheim-Karlich KMK PWR 1302 2004 UC Hot-Steam Reactor HOR HOR 25 1983 UC since 1998 Grosswelzheim N iederaichbach KKN ORR/O2O 106 1975 UC since 1994 Test-Reactor Kahl VAK BWR 16 1988 UC since 2010 26

Shut down Cor1r1erc*a1 ~Qactors

that have no decommissioning license granted yet Name Abbrev. Reactor type PowerMWe Date of application Philippsburg-1 KKP- 1 BWR 926 2013 / 2014 Grafenrheinfeld KKG PWR 1345 2014 Biblis-A KWB-A PWR 1225 2012 Biblis-B KWB-B PWR 1300 2012 Unterweser KKU BWR 1410 2012 / 2013 BrunsbUttel KKB BWR 806 2012 / 2014 Krummel KKK BWR 1402 2015

Commercial Reacto In operation Name Abbrev. Reactor type Power MWe Anticipated date of final shutdown Gundremmingen-B KRB-11-B BWR 1344 31.12.2017 Philippsburg-2 KKP-2 PWR 1468 31.12.2019 Gundremmingen-C KRB-11-C BWR 1344 31.12.2021 Grohnde KWG PWR 1430 31 .12.2021 Brokdorf KBR PWR 1480 31.12.2021 Emsland KKE PWR 1406 31.12.2022 lsar-2 KKl-2 PWR 1485 31 .12.2022 Neckarwestheim-2 GKN-2 PWR 1400 31.12.2022 27

Note to requester:

Attachment is immediately following this email.

From: Hull, Amy Sent: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:01:22 -0400 To: (b)(6) I !;Hull, Amy;Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

- done to page 9 -- Harvesting Workshop summary Report draft abh 5-19 1145am Attachments: Harvesting Workshop summary Report draft abh 5-19-17-1145am.docx Sending this part-way review to make sure I don't lose it again on citrix .....

Harvesting Workshop USNRC HQ

March 7-8, 2017 Commented [HA1): This document is long enough and Summary [Repor~ complicated enough and valuable enough, please t hink about adding linked table of contents so reader can go direct ly to a section.

Background

On March 7-8, 2017, t he Office of Nuclear Regu latory Research of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hosted a 2-day workshop on the topic of "Ex-Plant Materials Harvest ing." NRC staff worked in close coordination with staff from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)[ and the Electric Commented [HA2]: If t his included PNN L folks on Power Research Inst itute (EPRI) to plan and arrange the workshop. contract, t hen you should call out PNNL, since t hey are not DOE staff- National Lab scient ist s are not federal The decision to organize this workshop w as driven by developments in the U.S. and global nuclear employees.

industry. In the U.S., there is strong interest in extending plant lifespans through subsequent license renewal (SLR) from 60 to 80 years. Extended plant operat ion and SLR raise a number of t echnical issues that may require further research to understand aging 111echanismJ1 wh ich may benefit from harvesting. Commented [HA3]: M aybe restate t he first sentence in Meanwhile, in recent years, a number of nuclear plants, both in the U.S. and internationally, have shut t his paragraph, lifespans extended t hrough proactive management of materials degradation and SLR research, etc down or announced plans to shut down. Unlike in the past when there were very few plants shutting

- operat ing t ime extended t hrough SLR.

down, these new developments provide opportunities for harvesting components that were aged in representative light water reactor (LWR) environments. In a related development, economic challenges for the nuclear industry and limited government spending have limited the resources available to support new research, including harvest ing 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.

Objective and Approach The object ive of the workshop w as to generat e open discussion of all aspect s of ex-plan t mat erials harvesting, including:

1. Deciding whether to harvest,

2. Planning and implementing a harvesting program,

3. Using the harvested materials in research programs.

Through presentations and open discussion, the workshop was organized t o allow for all participants to be better informed of the benefits and challenges of harvesting as well as to identify potential areas of common int erest for future harvesting programs. Workshop sessions were aligned in broad topics to cover all aspects of harvesting, but allow for participants to drive the discussion.

To help accomplish the workshop objectives, the workshop organizers intentionally sought a diverse group of participants. There are a large number of decommissioning plants and interested researchers outside the U.S., so the organizers focused on outreach to international participants through connections such as IIAEA, OECD/NEA,\ and existing professional contacts. In addition, a key goal for this Commented [HA4]: Global comment - define all workshop was to capture the broader practical perspective from plant owners and decommissioning acronymsIn first use.

companies, which are vita l to any successfu l harvest ing program, but may sometimes be overlooked in 1

researcher-driven discussions. Workshop participants were also diverse in terms of technical area of focus, with metal components such as the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and internals being discussed along with concrete and electrical components. The fi nal list of workshop part icipants can be found at the end of this report in Appendix I.

Workshop Organization and Sessions The workshop was held at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD. Due to limited space in t he meeting room and the need for a limited group size for discussion, a webinar was used to allow remote observers to benefit from the workshop. Workshop sessions were organized topica lly with about half the time dedicated to presentations and the remaining time set aside for discussion. Presentations were solicited from participants to cover a range of perspect ives and t echnical areas. The final workshop agenda can be found at the end of this summary report in Appendix II.

The workshop was organized into five sessions as follows:

Session 1, Motivation for Harvesting

Session 2, Technical Data Needs for Harvesting

Session 3, Sources of Materials

Session 4, Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspect s

Session 5, Future Harvesting Program Planning Summary of Workshop Discussion The subsections below w ill summarize the presentations and discussion in each session and highlight the key takeaways from the session.

Session 1! Motivation for Harvesting Session 1 focused on the motivation fo r harvesting and why workshop participants are interest ed in harvesting. As shown in Appendix J9, providing presentation titles, speakers forpreselltati<>AS-were wovises iR this session includedey:

Richard Reister from DOE,

Sherry Bernhoft from EPRI,

Robert Tregoning from NRC,

Uwe Jendrich from the Gesellschaft fur Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherhelt (GRS) in Germany, and

Taku Arai from the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) in Japan.

Presentation Summaries DOE described the role of harvesting within the Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, including the benefits and challenges associated with harvesting. Benefits include the opportunity to fil l knowledge gaps where there is limited data or experience and to inform degradation models with data from actual plant components. Challenges include cost, complexity, scheduling, logistics, limited opportunities, acquiring sufficient material pedigree information, and potential negative results impacting operating plants.

2

EPRI discussed the role of harvesting within the context of aging management for Long-Term Operations (LTO), including their experience from past hairvesting programs and criteria forfuture harvesting. Their experience emphasized the challenges of cost, schedule, logistics, complicated contracti ng and acquiring material pedigree information. EPRl's criteria for harvesting include value to their members that addresses a priorit ized need and knowledge gap that cannot be otherwise filled t hrough other means.

f or EPRI members, a well-developed proj~ct plan that covers funding, risk management, exit ramps, and Commented [HAS]: Sentence is a little awkward, clear roles and responsibilities is considered essential. consider rewriting NRC shared its perspective on the benefits and challenges of harvesting in regulatory research.

Harvested materials are valuable due to the real-world nature of their aging conditions, w hich may reduce the uncertainty associated with the applicability of the results to operating plan ts compared to t ests with alt ern ative aging conditions. Harvested materials may be t he best option to address technical data needs identified for extended plant operation. )ncreasing harvesting opportunities from decommissioning plants suggest s a proactive approach to harvesting planning which may optimize benefit s by identifying the appropriate material with t he aging conditions of interest for the identified knowledge gap.~ here are significant challenges associated with harvesting, including cost, schedule, [ Commented [HA6]: Too much, rewrite for clarity.

and logistics, but hopefully these can be mitig.ated or avoided by ~everaging coordination with other organizations and learning from past experiericej Commented [HA7): There should be a noun following this verb form. leveraging what - insight, collaboration, GRS described its role as the main technical support organization in nuclear safet y for the German coordination?

federa l government. GRS provides technical assessment and knowledge transfer for reactor decommissioning activities, aging management, and long-term operation for German federal and international organizations.

CRIEPI discussed its view of how harvested materials and laboratory prepared materials contribute to addressing technical issues. Harvested materials provide exposure to actual plant cond it ions, but are more limited in availability and the size of the data set that can be generated. Laboratory prepared materials general involve accelerated or simulated aging conditions, but can be used to produce larger data sets and varying parameters can allow understanding of the effect on the mechanism or property of interest. Harvested materials offer fact finding of actual plant conditions as well as confirmation and verification of results from laboratory prepared specimens.

Discussion Summary The discussion following the presentations in this session focused on clearly identifying the need to be addressed by a harvesting project and the myriad cost, schedule, and logistical challenges associated with harvesting. Sharing projects with other organizations t o defray costs can also help improve t he value of a given program, but also adds compl exity as another organization may have a different set of priorities that changes t he focus of t he harvesting effort.

Session 2! Technical Data Needs for Harvesting Session 2 focused on discussing the t echnical data needs for harvesting and what specific know ledge gaps organizations are interested In addressing through harvesting. -Th is discussion included general perspectives on how to determine when harvest ing should be pursued rather t han other types of research. As shown?fesefltations-wet'e-pmvidled in Appendix II, providing presentation titles, speakers for this session includedby:

3

Pradeep Ramuhalli from the Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL),

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Keith Leonard from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),

Rachid Chaouadi from SCK-CEN in Belgium, and

Arzu Al pan from rNest inghouse. Commented (HAS]: pi s define SCK-CEN in line above, since this is the first time the acronym is used.

Presentation Summaries f NNL presented their work, under a small NRC contract, to develop a systematic approach to prioritize Commented (HA9]: Global comment, are you sure that data needs for harvesting. PNNL proposed five primary criteria for prioritizing harvesting: you want to refer to organization In these sectio ns, since the speaker may represent only t hemselves **- certainly Pradeep

Unique field aspects of degradation does not speak for PNNL.

o For example, unusual operating experience or legacy materials (composition, etc.) that may be no longer available

Ease of laboratory replication of environment-material combination {degradation scenario) o For example, simultaneous thermal and irradiation conditions may be d ifficult to replicate or mechanism sensit ive to dose rat e may not be good for accelerated aging

Applicability of harvested material for addressing critical gaps o Prioritize harvesting for critical gaps over less essential data needs

Availability of reliable in-service inspection (ISi) techniques for the material / component o If inspection methods are mature and easy to apply t o monitor and track degradation, perhaps the effort of research with harvested materials is not needed.

Availability of material for harvesting o The necessary materials/ component s must be available to be harvested.

PNNL then presented their application of these criteria to four materials degradation issues as an example: electrical cables, cast austenitic stainless steel (CASS), reactor vessel internals, and dissimilar metal welds. Based on applying these criteria to t he examples, PNNL concludef!s that electrical cables, CASS, and reactor internals are all higher priori ty for harvesting due to unique aspects of the degradation that are challenging t o replicate in the lab. M eanwhi le, dissimilar metal w elds are of low priority due to the ease of replication in lab aging studies as well as the significant body of knowledge and research on the phenomena.

NRC presented a summary of dat a needs it is interest ed in pursuing through harvesting. These included RPV materials to validat e fluence and attenuation models and to demonstrat e the conservatism of regulatory approaches for transition temperature prediction. Other metal components of interest for harvesting would address data gaps in irradiat ed stainless steels, as well as improve understanding of inspection capabilities and fatigue life calculations. Electrical components of interest include low and medium voltage cables and other electrical components for degradation studies, and electrica l enclosures and cables for fire resea rch. Concrete components of interest include irradiated concrete, concret e undergoing alkali-aggregate reactions, post-tensio ned structu res, reinforcing steel, t endons, and spent fuel pool concrete to assess potential boric acid at tack.

Commented (HA 10]: Do you want to cont inue to use the term DOE/ORNL? If ORNL actually did t he work, I think you DOE/ORNL presented their perspective on data needs for harvesting and its role in providing validation should.

of experimental and theoretical research. pOE performed a significant ~eaeter 11ress~re *,essel (RPvt Commented (HA11]: Global comment - you only need

~arvesting program at the Zion nuclear power plant to reduce uncertainties in the Master Curve to define acronym lX, the first time used *** RPV was methodology, validate modeling predictions and study flux and fluence at tenuation effects. The defined on pg. 1 4

harvesting is largely complete, but t he t esting. program is currently underway. DOE also indicated interest in using harvested materials to validate Its models for swelling and mlcrostructural changes of st ainless steel internals under LWR irradiation conditions. Harvesting concrete components would be of interest due to lack of li terature data and the multiple dependent variables t hat may affect concrete performance. Finally, DOE has been involved in harvesting cables from the Crystal River and Zion plants to ad dress cable aging as a functio n of material composition and environment.

SCK- CEN presented their interest in an international cooperative program to harvest reaster presst1re vess,e4RPV} materials. SCK-CEN presented their survey of the literature for past testing programs of harvest ed RPV materials, and the limitations of these past program1. Key limitations include!! a lack of archive materials, generally lower temperatures, and poor surveillance programs and dosimetry. SCK-CEN then shared some t houghts on t heir criteria for a new harvesting efforts, including higher fluence levels and temperatures, available archive materials and rel iable information on operating history, dosimet ry and surveillance program. Other t opics discussed, relevant to a new RPV harvesting effort, include!! technical Issues such as material variability and irradiation conditions as well as logistical and fi nancial considerations.

~he final presentation in Session 2 !by West inghouse focused on the need for harvest ing irradiat ed Commented 1HA12]: Ni ce illustrati on, do you want to concrete to better understand the threshold call It Figure l with a cross*referencw with the narrative?

radiation level for significant strength reduction.

Westinghouse has installed ex-vessel neutron dosimetry (EVND) at a number of plants in the Support bar w orld and proposed t o use these dosimetry measurements to validate fluence model calculations to better understand the Dosimetry Dosimetry chain uncertainty in these calculations. If concrete can capsules be harvest ed at one of these plant s with EVND data, then irradiated concrete properties from t esting can be paired with flu ence dat a t o improve research benefit s. Westingt,ouse Discussion Summary The discussion following Session 2 presentations touched on a number of topics. EPRI shared that they developed a report related t o the topics of session 2, but more narrowly focused on PWR int ernals.

MRP-320, "Testing Gap Assessment and Material Identification for PWR Internals," focuses on prioritizing opportunistic harvesting of stainless steel reactor internals components t hait may be removed from service following MRP-227 inspections. The methodology and approach In this report may be relevant to the broader harvesting data needs discussion. ~his report is not publicly available, but i s available to EPRI member utilit ies.\ Commented [HA13]: Just wondering..are you able to see this through M OU?

Workshop participants discussed t he criteria proposed by PNNL in the first presentation . One additional criteria suggested by EPRI was to consider fleet -wide vs. plant -specific applicability. More broadly applicable materials w ould be of great er interest for harvesting than those that represent conditions at only a few plants. Another criteria suggest ed is the availability of mat erial pedigree Information, such as composition, processing, environmental cond itions (temperature, humidity, fluence, etc.). Anot her suggested criteria was t he ease of harvesting. For example, highly irradiated internals are probably 5

much more difficult and expensive to harvest than electrical cables or unirradiated concrete. This di scussio n would capture the idea of weighing costs vs. benefits as well as project risk. Further Commented [HA14]: Not clear If you are talking about discussio n touched o n the idea that different organizations may prioritize t he various criteria differently, future or past discussion. Please correct verb tense.

but all will probably at least want to consider the same set of criteria .

Another key theme from this d iscussion was that a successful program should be guided by a clearly defined objective o r problem statement to be addressed. This objective sho uld be well-understood at the i nitiation of a program and used to guide decision-making through implementation of a harvesting project. This also raises a related point or pote ntial criteria: the timeliness of t he expected research results relative to t he objective. If the resu lts are needed in t he next two years, but a harvesti ng project will not provide results for at least five yea rs, that shou ld be a strong consideration.

Session 3! Sources of Materials Session 3 focused o n discussing sources of materials for harvesting. This d iscussion covered previously harvested materials as well as sources for new harvesting programs from operating or d ecommissioning plants. Both domestic and international sources of materials were discussed in this session.

As shownPreseAtatiaAs weFe ~raviaea in Appendix II, provid ing prese ntation t it les. speakers for this session includedlly:

M atthew Hiser from NRC,

Al Ahluwalia from EPRI,

Tom Rosseel from DOE/ORNL,

John Jackson from DOE/Idaho National Laboratory (INL),

- Gerry van Noordennen from EnergySolutions,

Arzu Alpan from Westinghouse,

Uwe Jendrich from GRS, and

Daniel Tello from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).

Presentation Summaries NRC presented their perspective on sources of materials for harvesting. First, NRC shared some of the harvested materials from past research programs t hat may be available, including irracliat ed stainless st ee l internals, RPV materials, nickel alloy welds, neutron absorber material, and electrical components.

NRC then summarized the recently and planned shutdown U.S. plants, including t hei r design, therma l output, and years of operation, to provide participants with an idea of the potentia l sources from decommission ing U.S. plants. Finally, NRC shared a list of information that would be helpful to acqu ire from decommissioning plants to determine the value of components for harvesting. This information included plant design information (component location and d imensions), environmental conditions (temperature, fluence, humidity, stress, etc.) and operating history, material pedigree information (fabrication records), and inspection records (for interest in components with known flaws).

The next presentation from EPRI covered harvesting opportunities at decomm ission ing plants in Korea and Sweden. In Korea, Kori-1 is a Westinghouse 2-loop PWR (sister plant is Kewaunee) that will shut down in 2017 after 40 years of operation. Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Central Research Institute (KHNP-CRI) is planning a comprehensive research program on long-term materials aging based on 6

harvesting from Kori-1 and is seeking international part icipation in the harvesting effort. KHNP-CRl's plan is focused on metallic components, including RPV, internals, primary system components, steam generator materials. Harvesting is expected to occur in 2024 with testing to follow through 2030.

In Sweden, Vattenfall is currently harvesting in 2017-2018 RPV material from t he decommissioning Barseback BWR units. This work is focused on irradiation embrittlement, Including comparison of surveillance dat a to actual RPV properties, as well as thermal aging embrittlement. In th e future, Vattenfall will be shutting down Ringhals 1 an d 2 in 2020 and 2019, respectively. Ringhals 1 is a BWR and Ringhals 2 is a Westinghouse 3-loop PWR design. Of particular note, Ringhals 2 has the second oldest replaced Alloy 690 RPV head and steam generators. Other harvesting opportunities at Ringhals include RPV material with a significant surveillance program, thermal aging effects on low alloy steel from the pressurizer, as well as concret e structures. Vattenfa ll is open to working with partners t hat are interested in joining them for harvesting at Ringhals.

(b )(4)

The next presentation by DOE/ORNL focused on several harvesting programs that..QOE's LWRS program has been involved w it h. DOE has led t he harv*esting of component s from the Zion! *-. blant(] fn .... (b)(4) the U.S. From Zion, DOE has harvested electrical cables and components, a large RPV section, and a significant numberam&lffit of records to provide information on material fabrication, in-service inspection and operating history. Cables from Zion include CRDM, thermocouple, and low and medium voltage cables. DOE indicated some thermocouple cables from Zion may be available for other researchers to use in co llaborative studies. . _{b_)(4)

(b )(4)

(b )(4) 1.,,,,,,,,......---===;;;;;.;.;;;;;.;._________J DOE is also participating in efforts t o harvest

. . 'ciibfes from Crystal River (led by EPRI) and concrete from the Zorita plant in Spain (led by NRC).

The next presentation by DOE/INL described I NL's Nuclear Science User Facilities (NSUF) and the Nuclear Fuels and Materials Library (NFML). NSUF is coordinated by INL and facilitates access to nuclear research facilities around t he world, including neutron and ion irradiations, beamlines, hot cell test ing, characteri zation, and computing capabilities.

[NFML is a Web-based searchable database N-CJIIAIIII.

p,-OJ!CT DATABASE

[ *-

SME DATABASE

......t .._

i1

=- :-= : : . -: .

.,.,M\ltlOtl ...., NE.ID DATABASE

~D 91.1\0.. ~,-

sam ple library that captures the information from thousands of specimens available to NSU~. NFML is designed to maximize the

--a-~ ,...,.~

'Ill, *-~

tos,.,1'(.,I , _ ,. .\ . . .

INtTINT

,.-.c:1.,n I

lteACTOlll'Oll1'IOfl Commented [HA15]: Nice illu,tration, maybe c,a.,.

benefit of previously i rradiated materials for - ~=;-- ___

11111(*~.,.,.

SAM_*"'-~ LIi RARY reference as Figure 2 with caption and c.all-out in text.

future research. Researchers can propose new research projects under NSUF using specimens

,__i-.., ,_1,..,

in N FML using DOE funding. The information captured in NFML aligns well with t he goal of this session to potentially develop a database of '--

_o....,._c-_c-KGT*

..._,M:UfT-

"' ..11"!

E-fL*lo-0-'I

~

previously harvested materials.

The next presentation by EnergySolutions offered a more practical perspective on considering sources of materials for harvesting. From the plant owne r perspective, in the decommissioning process there is not a financial incent ive to support harvesting, therefore researchers need to absorb cost s for harvesting and have a clear scope for harvesting. Flexibility in fu nding for harvesting activities is essential as t he decommissioning process and schedule may change quickly.

7

EnergySolutions provided valuable perspective on the timing in the decommissioning processves for harvesting different components. Harvesting RPV surveillance coupons should take place when the RPV internals are cut and removed. Harvesting RPV materials is only possible from larger RPVs, as smaller RPVs are shipped Intact to the disposal facility, rather than cut into pieces. Spent fuel rack neutron absorber coupons must be harvested eit her before or after dry storage campaign to remove spent fuel from the spent fuel pool. Harvesting actual spent fuel rack neutron absorber material must come after

~ pool is completely empty. Electrical cables and other components from mild environments may be harvested at any time (once temporary power is established and plant power is shut off), while electrical component s from high rad environments will depend on tim ing of source term removal schedule.

~oncret~ cores are best harvested when other cores are being taken for site characteri.zation to develop Commented [HA16]: "mild environment" above - do the license Termination Plan. Highly Irradiated concrete from biological shield w all would need to come you want to say something like "benign" environment or define further?

later in decommissioning after RPV is removed.

In terms of upcoming decommissioning plant s, EnergySolutions indicated that San Onofre and Vermont Yankee will be entering DECON is 2018 and 2019, respectively. Kewaunee, Crystal River, and Fort Calhoun also may enter DECON in next 2 years. If researchers are interested in harvestrng from any of these plant s, they should be reach ing out to plant owners immediat ely to begin planning and coordination.

Westinghouse followed their presentation in ~session 2 by describing an opportunity to harvest concrete from the M lhama 1 plant in Japan. Westinghouse installed and analyzed additional neutron dosimetry in the reactor cavity for one cycle, which were used to validate the radiation transport calculations. Mlhama was shut down in 2015 and is in contact with Westinghouse about the possibility of extracting concrete cores from the biological shield w all. Westinghouse is seeking partners interested in joining this harvesting effort.

The next presentation by GRS covered opportunities for harvesting from German plants. Regulations in Germany require plants to either immediately dismantle or dismantle aft er a period of safe enclosure, which is largely consistent with options in the U.S. GRS detailed the status of German commercial reactors, whi ch are predominantly BWR and PWR designs. Seventeen reactors are currently undergoing decommissioning, while seven more are currently shutdown and await a decommissioning license. Eight reactors are still operating with scheduled shutdown dates between 2017 and 2022. German RPVs t end to have lower fluence thant U.S. designs due to a larger water gap in the downcomer region. Germany has limited experience wit h harvesting from decommissioning plants. One question that GRS will follow-up on is the "rumored" cable surveillance programs that may be used in Germany and could provide experience and lessons learned for other countries.

The final presentation in Session 3 was by CN5C on harvesting opportunities in Canada. Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) has harvested seven concrete cores from the 20 MW Nuclear Power Demonstration Plant (NPD), which shutdown in 1988 after 25 years of operation. CNSC and AECL are also considering opportunities to harvest concret e from other decommissioned reactors in Canada such as Gentilly-2, Douglas Point, and Whiteshell Reactor 1. In addition to concrete, CNSC arnd AECL are currently harvesting electrical cables from the 675 MWe CANDU-6 Gentilly-2 reactor, which shutdown in 2012 after 29 years of operation. The pur pose of this work is t o study cable degradation from thermal aging and radiation damage and va lidate envir onmental qualification of the cables. CN5C described 8

some of the challenges with t his harvesting effort, such as working w it h plant owners, records, accessibility and contamination of the materials and budgeting w ith unexpected delays in harvesting.

A future harvesting opportunity Is from the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Chalk River, w hich will shut down in 2018 after operating since 1957. AECL is currently t aking an inventory of irradiated materials that can be harvested from NRU in decommissioning. Potential materials for harvesting include metals (steels, nickel alloys, zirconium, aluminum), concret e, graphite, active equipment (pumps, etc.), graphite seals, electrical cables, and thermocouples.

Discussion Summary Following t he presentations, there was so me discussion of lessons learned from DOE's Zion harvesting effort. DOE worked with a former senior reactor operator at Zion to identify and acquire the appropriate records from Zion for the components being harvested. DOE also described their flexible approach to acquiring RPV samples by se nding a large chun k of material (weighing ~90 tons) to Ener gySolut ions' facility in Tennessee, where smaller pieces (weighing ~soo pounds) were cut to send to ORNL. Most of the decontamination was performed at Zion, w it h minimal additional cleaning (as well as cladding removal) taking place at EnergySolut ions' facility.

Ther e was also discussion of acqui ri ng materials from sources other than commercial nuclear facilities.

DOE has considered harvesting concrete from other DOE nuclear facilities, but determined that there were compositiona l differences between the DOE facilities and commercia l facilities that would make them not useful. DOE/I NL ment ioned that the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) replaces their core internals every ten years. The ATR internals are composed primarily of 347 stainless steel and achieve very high fluence levels after ten years of service.

Another key discussion topic was the possibility of developing a database for previously harvested materials or t hose available for future harvesting. DOE/I NL indicated that their NSUF sample library may be a good starting point for such a database, although any materials In t hat library should be freely available for use in the research community. CNSC and NRC also expressed interested in w orking to develop a harvesting dat abase. [ Commented [HA17]: Also PNNL is interested ....

Session 4!..-Harvesting Experience: Lessons Learned and Practical Aspects Session 4 focused on lessons learned and practical aspects of harvesting. Presenters shared their experience with past harvesting programs, particularly common pitfalls to avoid and successful strat egies to overcome them. Presentations also covered the practical aspects of harvesting from the plant owner and decommissioning compa ny perspective.

As shownPreseAtatiaRs were f!ra*;i!leel in Appendix II, providing presentation t it les. speakers for this session includedby:

Jean Smith from EPRI,

Tom Rosseel from DOE/O RNL,

Matthew Hiser from NRC,

Taku Arai from CRIEPI,

Gerry van Noordennen from EnergySolutions, and

Bill Zipp from Dominion.

9

Presentation Summaries EPRI presented their experience and lessons learned from past harvesting programs, particularly harvesting reactor internals and concrete from Zorita and electrical cables from Crystal River . From the Zorita reactor internals experience, EPRI emphasized that harvesting projects take significant t ime, encounter material retrieval and on-site challenges, and shipping issues. In terms of time, the Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRPl took about 10 years to go from initial planning to fina l results, which included abouts years of project planning, 2 Zorita Internals Research Project Timeline years for material extraction (on-site logistics and shipping), and 3-4 years for testing. EPRl's experience was decommissioning activities were the top priority and harvesting were _ _ r_ _ ....,._

subject to schedule and logistical challenges based on t he changing decommissioning

=":!:..* -, . . --===_=_=_=~t_=_=tf'.=_=+==c=::;::=:r;1 schedule. Shipping issues were also challenging due to sending activated materials (which were classified as "waste") across international borders, from t he reactor in Spain to testing facility in Sweden. Further planned shipments of t he Zorita materials beyond the initial program continue to be impact by export license challenges in Sweden. More positively, EPRI emphasized that the Zorita reactor internals materials harvesting showed excellent cooperation among many organizatioros and are providing valuable technica l information to numerous research projects.

Lessons learned from the Zorita concrete harvesting focused on the challenges with core sample drilling and handling contaminated concrete. Ultimately, an effective core drilling procedure was identified, but required some trial and error. Lessons learned from the Crystal River cable harvesting included material concerns, t he need for on-site support, and cost. In terms of material concerns, rad iation and asbestos contamination created addit ional challenges for harvesting. On-site support and the ability to visit the site are extremely valuable to ensure clear communication, retrieval or records for material pedigree information, and awareness of on-site developments in the decommissioning process. Cable harvesting at Crystal River was more expensive than anticipated, particularly in terms of EPRI project management time to coordinate the harvesting activities and engineering support at the plant.

DOE presented lessons learned primarily from the experience harvesting RPV materials and electrical cables and components from the Zion plant. In terms of planning and decision-making, DOE had several lessons learned. DOE hosted a workshop at Zion in 2011 to discuss long-term goals and objectives, which proved very helpful in setting priorities and developing partnerships with other organizations.

Partnerships were very valuable to DOE's harvesting efforts, allowing for leveraging resources and collaboration and sharing results. There are lim ited opportunities for harvesting key components, so take fu ll advantage of the opportunities that arise, understanding that t here is a necessary compromise between the materials available and their value in terms of fluence or exposure to aging conditions.

Another consideration is the quantity of material harvested, which should be sufficient for the objectives of the planned resea rch as well as any collaborations or partnerships, but lim ited to control costs.

For implementing the harvesting program, DOE found that flexibility was paramount to be able adjust scope and plans in response to schedule changes and other developments, while remaining within cost constraints. Working with a former reactor operator was extremely valuable to benefit from their in-10

depth knowledge of all parts of the plant, in particular the records for materials pedigree information.

Regular sit e visits and contacts w ere also essential to stay aware of the latest developments in the harvesting planning and decommissioning process, with the understanding that harvesting is not t he top priority for decommissioning company. Other important considerations were hazardous materials handling, transportation, and disposal and logistics, including contracts, liability, shipping and disposal.

Finally, DOE's experience is t hat the total cost s of a harvesting program from planning t o execution to testing are very high, so they should be carefully weighed against the value of the expected data to be generated.

NRC presented their experience, includ ing benefits from previous harvesting programs, and t echnical and logistical lessons learned from harvesting. As an organization, NRC has extensive experience with t esting harvested materials, including RPV, primary system components, reactor internals, neut ron absorbers, concrete and electrical components. NRC's experience is more limited than DOE or EPRI in terms of managing the logistics of a harvesting effort from a decommissioning plant. NRC has generally participated in a secondary role in cooperative efforts or received fa iled components from operating plant s for research. NRC has found t hat previous harvesting efforts have been effective in reducing unnecessary conservatism, understanding in-service flaws more realistically for NOE and leak rate methodologies, as well as identifying and better understanding safety issues.

For t echnical lessons learned, NRC's perspective is t hat harvesting can provide highly representat ive aged materials for research, wh ich may be the only practical source of such materials. Harvested materials can be effectively used to validate models or a larger data set from accelerated aging t ests. It is import ant understand as much as possible about the materials and their environmen t in service and how this compares with the operating fleet of reactors before committing to a specific harvesting project. For logistical lessons learned, harvest ing is expensive and time-consuming, so a high technical benefit is needed to ensure the program provides values. Leveraging with other organizations ca n help minimize costs, but can also int roduce challenges for aligning priorities and interest s of multiple organizations. Finally, transporting irradiated materials, particularly between countries, challenging and time-consuming and should be avoided if at all possible.

CRIEPI presented t heir research experience with harvested materials as well as ongoing harvesting from the Hamaoka 1 plant. The fi rst research program involved atom probe tomography (APT) on RPV surveillance materials. CRIEPI found a correlation between t he volume fraction of Ni-Si- Mn clusters and the change in nil-ductility temperature. In the second research project, CRIEPI characterized the weld and base materials harvested from Greifswald Unit 4 RPV with small-angle neutron scatt ering, APT, and hardness testing. In t he third research project, CRIEPI performed APT on 304L stainless st eel reactor internals harvested from control rod and top guide components from 3-13 dpa. Results showed a strong increase in Ni-Si clusters with increasing fluence, but little variation in Al enriched clusters with increasing fluence.

For future work, CRIEPI is collaborating with DOE LWRS to investigate RPV materials harvested from Zion (b)(4) ! !CRIEPI also present ed activities underway by Chubu

Electric Power to harvest RPV and concrete samples from the Hamaoka 1 plant. Hamaoka 1 is a 540 MW BWR-4 that operated for 33 years. Harvesting began in 2015 and will continue through 2018.

The final two presentations of Session 4 provided the non-researcher perspective from a decommissioning company and plant owner. EnergySolutions, which is decommissioning the Zion 11

nuclear plant among other facilities, presented the decommissioning process and their experience and lessons learned from harvesting at Zion. As mentioned previously, surgica l harvesting Is not the top priority for decommissioning, so researchers must recognize this and coordinate close with the decommissioning company. EnergySolutlons emphasized the need to gain senior management support at the plant as well as to expect that there may be staff turnover during a multi-year harvesting effort.

Changes in scope and schedule (originating from both sides) can cause frustration on both sides. Early planning and delays with contracting are important to avoid lost opportunities. Being on-site during harvesting is essential to a good outcome.

At Zi on, EnergySolutions worked with DOE to harvest RPV materials, cables, electrical components, and spent fuel storage racks. DOE hoped to harvest a particular RPV surveillance capsule, but was unable to due t o the inability identify the correct capsul e. There were also cha llenges with harvesting RPV materials. The cut line on the Unit 2 RPV was too close to the weld to be used for research; fortunately, a successful specimen was harvested from Unit 1. For cabling, the init ial plan was to harvest from 11 different locations, but ultimately due to unforeseen challenges and poor communication and coordination, only 4 different cable locations we re harvested. Harvesting the desired cable length (30 feet) also proved challenging, with only shorter sections recovered. Plant records searches were largely effective at providing material pedigree information for cables. Concrete coring was initially planned to t ake place at Zion, but not performed due t o lack of research interest. The spent fuel storage rack harvesting went smoothly, which was assisted by efforts over the w eekend when decommissioning activities were not occurring.

The next presentation from Dominion provided its perspective on harvesting from decommissioning plants, focused on the experience at Kewaunee Power Station. Th e top priority (beyond safety) in decommissioning is t he preservation and good stewardship of the decommissioning trust fund. Staffing is the largest drain on the trust fund, so at Kewaunee staff was halved within a few mon ths of shutdown and then halved again about 16 months after permanent shutdown once offsite emergency response requirements were eliminated. Dominion described the example of harvesting the RPV surveillance capsules at this point at Kewaunee and the significant challenges that would exist. Given the reduced staffing and the current plant state (reactor coolant system drained, pumps retired, crane and rad iation monitoring not maintained), it would be much more difficult now than immediat ely aft er shutdown.

Kewaunee considered harvesting the surveillance specimens and estimated a cost of six to seven figures based on all the activities required to enable it at this point post-shutdown compared to a much lower cost just after shutdown. Dominion observed that some components, such as cables or electrical components, may be available and relatively easy to harvest at almost any time during decommissioning. However, other components such as highly irradiated internals or RPV may be best harvested either shortly after shutdown when staffing and capabilities on-site are high or wait until active demolition of the reactor, which may be years or decades later.

Dominion also touched on t he discussion of records for plant components. Records requirements are limited to those needed for safety. Once the plant shuts down and t he range of potential safety concerns decreases, systems are downgraded to non-safety and the associated records are no longer required to be maintained. For perspective, Kewaunee still has all its records four years since shut down, but will likely not continue this much longer. Dominion closed its presentation with a broader perspective on harvesting, emphasizing the need to clea rly define a problem stat ement and understand what technical and regulatory purpose this harvesting will serve. Early planning focused on achieving the 12

clear objective of the work including scope, schedu le, budget and contact with plant is essential to a successful harvesting effort.

Discussion Summary The discussion touched on the top lessons learned from past harvest ing efforts, which i nclud ed a clear objective and purpose for harvesting, early engagement w ith the plant, and site coordination during harvesting.

Another suggestion was to get utility managem ent buy-in for t he harvesting project by identifying a benefit to the utility. EPRI mentioned that cable harvesting at Crystal River went much more successfu lly o nce the utility recognized the pot ential benefits for subsequent license renewal. Similarly, when harvesting from an operating plant, you need to recogn ize and work through the challenges the plant may encounter when restarting operations.

During discussion, t he question was raised regarding how it is determined whether harvested mat erials are wast e. The discussion concluded that in the U.S. 10 CFR 37 is the important consideration. 10 CFR 37 defines w hen additional security requirements are imposed, based on the quantity and act ivity of materials to be tran sported. The definit io n of material as waste versus research materials is not as critical in the U.S. EnergySolutions indicat ed t hat t heir sh ipments of waste or research material could be handled in the same way in the accordance with Department of Transportation regulations, provided that the limits in 10 CFR 37 were not reached.

Session 5 Future Harvesting Program Planning Session 5 focused o n the information needed for informed harvesting decision-making and harvesting program planning. This session featured a pre*sentation by Pradeep Ramuhalli from PNNL, followed by a discussion period covering harvesting program planning and reflection on the 2-day workshop.

Presentation Summary PNNL presented its perspective on t he information needed for informed harvesting decision-making.

First, the purpose of t he harvesti ng effort needs to be defined by identify t he t echnical knowledge gaps to be addressed. Next, a research plan should be developed demonstrating how the harvested material will be used t o address the identified gaps. Finally, t he appropriate source of material to address the technical gap must be identified, along with resources to support the effort and p lans and timelln es to perform t he harvesting. The specifics of these plans depend greatly on the source of materials and must be flexible based on changing condit ions on the ground.

In assessing the best source of materials, researchers should consid er the material, its environment, and it s condition. Material information includes fabrication informat ion such as manufacturer, composit io n, and dimensions as well as information re lated to installation or construction, such as weld ing processes and pa rameters. Environment al i nformation includes temperatu re, humidity, fl uence, flux, stress (service, residua l, installation), and coolant chemistry. Component cond ition information includes inspection history, such as identified flaws or degradation.

13

Discussion Summary The discussion in Session 5 focused on the best practical approach to plan future harvesting programs.

Ther e w as clear agreement that this approach must begin with ident ifying t he data needs best addressed by harvesting, whether from operat ing or decommissioning plants. Once a specific need is identified, the next step is to find a source to acquire t he materials of int erest as well as other organizations interested in participating in the harvesting effort.

Key Takeaways from Workshop The clear takeaway from the discussion in session 1 was t hat harvesting requires significant resources to be done successfully; therefore it is paramount to identify how t he planned harvesting will clearly address a significant need to ensure the harvesting project provides strong value. In t he context of need for data, EPRI suggested t he goal of harvesting to support research for operation out to 80 years is not a full comprehensive understanding of all aspects of t he degradation, but rather a snapshot to confirm other lab results and models. This is an important point for all organizations and researchers to keep in mind before investing significant resources in harvesting.

Session 2 The criteria proposed by PNNL are a good starting point for prioritizing issues to address by harvesting.

Three additional import ant criteria w ould be:

Fleet-wide vs. plant-specific applicability of data,

Ease of harvesting (in terms of cost and project risk), and

Timeliness of the expect ed research result s relative to the objective.

Once a potential harvesting project has reached the point of looking at different sources of materials, the availability of material pedigree information, such as composition, processing, environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, fluence, et c.) is very important to the overall value of harvesting from t hat particular plant.

Based on the presentations and discussion in Session 2, there appeared to be two areas with broad interest in pursuing further harvesting: high fluence reactor internals and irradiated concrete. The common drivers for the interest in these issues is a lack of representative dat a at t he fluence of interest and significant challenges with acquiring representative data through other means. High fluence reactor internals has been addressed somewhat by t he Zorita Internals Research Project (ZIRP), but st ainless stee l materials exposed to higher fluence levels at higher temperatures, where void swelling may become significant, could help validate DOE and EPRI models and provide fu rther technica l basis for PWR internals aging management. Irradiated concrete harvesting is currently being pursued from the Zorita reactor in Spain, with international collaboration and potential testing at the Halden Reactor Project.

Other areas with some, but less widespread, interest expressed from workshop participants for new harvesting efforts included RPV mat erials and electrical ca bles and components. SCK-CEN and NRC expressed interest in RPV harvesting, and NRC expressed interest in electrical component harvesting.

14

Session 3 To capture the key takeaways from Session 3 focused on sources of materials, two tables of potential sources of materials are presented below. The first table covers recent or ongoing harvesting programs, while the second details potential fut ure harvesting opportunities.

Ongoing Harvesting Programs Si ze Years in Country Plant Design Components Organization(s)

(MWe) operation NPD CANDU 20 25 Concrete Canada AECL Gentilly-2 CANDU-6 6,75 29 Cables Japan Hamaoka 1 BWR-4 540 33 RPV, concrete CRIEPI/Chubu Spain Zorita W 1-loop 160 37 Internals, concrete EPRI, NRC Sw eden Barseback ABB-II 6-15 28 RPV Vattenfall W- 4 RPV, cables, Zion 1/2 1040 24/25 DOE, EPRI, NRC loop neutron absorbers Crystal River 3 B&W 860 36 Cables EPRI U.S.

(b)(4)

Potential Future Sources for Harvesting Size Years in Potential Country Plant Design Notes

{MWe) operation Components 135 AECL; SD:

Canada NRU Test reactor 61 TBD MWt 2018 Germany Numerous plants either in decommissioning or shutting down soon. See Appendix Ill.

Kansa i, Japan M ihama w 2-loop 320 40 Concrete Westinghouse RPV, internals, Korea Kori 1 W 2-loop 576 40 SGs, pressurizer, KHNP, EPRI welds, CASS, Ringhals 1 BWR 883 44 RPV, internals Vattenfall; Sweden SGs, pressurizer, SD: 2020 /

Ringhals 2 W 3-loop 900 44 concret e 2019 Kewaunee W 2-loop 566 39 TBD SD: 2013 SONGS 2/3 CE 2-loop 1070 31/30 TBD SD: 2013 Crystal River 3 B&W 860 36 TBD SD: 2013 Vermont BWR-4/Mk-1 605 42 TBO SD: 2015 Yankee U.S. Fort Calhoun CE 2-loop 482 43 TBO SD: 2016 Palisades CE 2-loop 805 47 TBD SD: 2018 Pilgrim BWR-3/Mk-l 677 47 TBD SD: 2019 Oyster Creek BWR-2/Mk-1 619 50 TBD SD: 2019 Indian Point 1020/

W 4-loop 48/46 TBD SD: 2021 2/3 1040 15

Diablo Canyon 1138/

w 4-loop 40 TBD SD: 2024-5 1/2 1118 Non-commercia l; Advanced 250 Test reactor 50 Core internals internals Test Reactor MWt replaced every 10 years In addition to t he potential sources of materials presented and discussed in Session 3, another takeaway was the suggestion of developing a database for previously harvested materials or those available for future harvesting. The NSUF sample library may be a good st arting point for such a database, with appropriate modifications for the purposes of harvesting efforts.

Session 4 There were several important takeaways from Session 4 that were touched on in multiple presentations and the discussion. One key takeaway is that r esearchers should identify a clear purpose and scope for harvesting. Having a clear purpose for harvesting helps to guide later decisions that must be made to adjust course when the inevitable changes in schedule or unexpected rea lities at the plant arise. A related note is t hat harvesting is not the top priority for decommissioning. Therefore, researchers must have clear objectives and scope for harvesting that can be communicated to the site. This underst anding should shape assumptions and int eractions with the plant owner or decommissioning company as w ell as planning for costs and schedule.

Another takeaway was the value of strong site coordi nation, including site visits. Mult iple presenters tou ched on the value of being on-site to ta lk to staff and see the components to be harvested. Mockups and 3-0 simulations can be valuable to ensure success of the approach or technique used t o acquire the specimen. A related point is working with reactor operators at the plant. Several harvesting efforts worked with former reactor operators and benefit ed greatly from their experience t o fi nd records or determine the best method to harvest the desired component . This is a valuable insight that could be effective in future harvesting efforts.

A third key t akeaway is early engagement with the plant to express int erest in harvest ing. This serves to make the plant aware of your interest in harvest ing and get their support to work with the harvesting process. The other important benefit of early engagement is to gain as much information as possible about the available materials and components, including t he associated records and material pedigree information.

Session 5 The key takeaway in session 5 was to gather as much information as possible in advance of committing t o a specific harvesting project. Ideally, there wou ld be a strong underst anding that t he material and its aging conditions clearly align with an identified t echnical data need before committing significant resou rces to a harvesting effort.

Action Items and Next Steps The following is a summary of the action items discussed at t he end of the workshop:

16

l. Sharing workshop slides

NRC emailed attendees to ask their comfort with sharing their workshop slides with other organizations and received no objection from any presenters.

The presentations can be accessed here:

httos://drive .google ,com/open ?id=0BS DWMLchSYSXcnoZZ0JOS0SSQU u '

2. EPRI indicated that MRP-320 (Product ID: 1022866) on knowledge gaps for irradiated austenitic stain less steel for potential harvesting from MRP-227 inspections is publicly available for a fee.

3. Cable surveillance programs in Germany

GRS to inquire w ith cable colleagues and share any insights.

4. Sources of materials database

Potential sources of materials presented in th is workshop are summarized in Session 3 summary above and Appendix Ill below.

NRC will be reaching out to PNNL, INL NSUF, CNSC, AECL, and any other organizations interested in database development.

5. Prioritized data needs

Suggestion to contin ue discussions on prioritized data needs with in technical areas (RPV, internals, electrical, concrete) through existing coordination groups if possible Focus on identifying specific material/ aging conditions of interest and purpose

/ intended outcome of harvesting

Idea to survey participants at the 2017 Environmental Degradation conference John Jackson (INL) is o n planning committee

6. EPRI report on spent fuel liner boric add transport through concrete

NRC will contact EPRI for report if needed.

7. Harvested Materials Research Resu lts

Section of workshop summary report (below) devoted to references from harvested materials research.

References to Previous Harvested M aterials Research This section of the workshop summary addresses a question that was raised during the discussion at the workshop regarding what the outcome or benefit of past harvesting efforts have been. Below is a list of references to research results generated from testing of harvested materials:

J.R. Hawthorne and A.L. Hiser, Experimental Assessments of Gundremmingen RPV Archive Material for Fluence Rate Effects Studies, NUREG/CR-5201 (MEA-2286), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1988.

G. J. Schuster, S. R. Doctor, A.F. Pardini, and S.L. Crawford, Characterization of Flaws in U.S. Reactor Pressure Vessels: Validation of Flaw Density and Distribution in the Weld Metal of the PVRUF Vessel, NUREG/CR-6471 Volume 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2000.

17

G. J. Schuster, S. R. Doctor, S.L. Crawford, and A. F. Pardini, Characterization of Flaws in U.S. Reactor Pressure Vessels: Density and Distribution of Flaw Indications in the Shoreham Vessel, NUREG/CR-6471 Volu me 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1999.

D.E. McCabe, et al. Evaluation of WF-70 Weld Metal From the Midland Unit 1 Reactor Vessel, NUREG/CR-5736 (ORNL/TM-13748), U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Commission, November 2000.

B. Al exandrean u, O.K. Chopra, and W.J. Shack, Crack Growth Rates in o PWR Environment of Nickel Alloys from the Davis-Besse and V.C. Summer Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6921 (AN L-05/55), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio n, November 2006.

S.E. Cumblidge, et al. Nondestructive and Destructive Examination Studies on Removed-from-Service Control Rod Drive Mechanism Penetrations, N UREG/CR-6996, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 2009.

S.E. Cumblidge, et al. Evaluation of Ultrasonic Time-of-Flight Diffraction Doto for Selected Control Rod Drive Nozzles from Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant, PNNL-19362, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Apri l 2011.

S.L. Crawford, et al. Ultrasonic Phased Array Assessment of the Interference Fit and Leak Poth of the North Anno Unit 2 Control Rod Drive Mechani:sm Nozzle 63 with Destructive Volidotion, NUREG/CR-7142 (PNNL-21547), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 2012.

18

~ ppendix I Workshop Participant~ Commented [HA18]: Does this include the webinar people? If not, ma ybe you should clarify t hat these were In-room Participants or some such word.

Name Orll!anization Email Taku Arai CRIEPI arait@crieoi.denken.or.io Sadao Higuchi CRIEPI h iguch i@crieQl.den ken .or.i Q Japan Kazunobu Sakamoto JNRA kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go.jQ Yasuh iro Chimi JAEA chim i.~asuh iro@jaea.go.jQ Uwe Jendrich GRS Uwe.Jendrichirrs.de Europe Rachid Chaouadi SCK-CEN rach id.chaouadi@sckcen .be Guy Roussel Bel V gu~.roussel@Belv.be Daniel Tello CNSC daniel.t ello@ca nada.ca Canada Desire Ndomba CNSC desire.ndomba@canada.ca Karen Huynh AECL khu~nh@aecl.ca Gerrv van Noordennen Enere:v Solut ions e:ovannoordennenenere:vsolutions.com us Bill Zipp Domi nion w illiam.f .ziQQ@dom.com industry Mark Richter NEI mar@nei.org Arzu Alpan Westinghouse a1Qanfa@westinghouse.com Sherrv Bernhoft EPRI sbernhoft@epri. com Robin Dyle EPRI rd~le@eQri.com EPRI Jean Smit h EPRI jmsmith@eQri.com Al Ahluwalia EPRI kahluwal@eQri .com Tom Rosseel ORNL rosseeltm@orn l.e:ov Rich Reister DOE Richard.Reister@nuclear.energ~.gov Keith Leonard ORNL leonardk@ornl.gov DOE M ikhail A. Soko lov ORNL sokolovm@ornl.gov John Wagner INL john.wagner@inl.gov John Jackson INL john.jackson@inl.gov Pradeep Ramuhalli PNNL PradeeQ.Ramuhalli@Qnnl.gov I Pat Purtscher NRC Patrick. Pu rtsch e rt@n re .irov Commented [HA 19]: M ike Weber gave the keynot e speech. Did Frankl or Brian Thomas attend?

Rob Tregoning NRC Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov Matt Hiser NRC Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov M ita Sirca r NRC Madhumita.Sircar@nrc.gov Tom Koshy NRC Thomas.Kosh~@nrc.gov NRC Jeff Poehler NRC Jeffre~.Poehler@nrc.gov Allen Hiser NRC Allen.H iser@nrc.gov Angela Buford NRC Angela.Buford@nrc.gov Mark Kirk NRC Mark.Kirk@nrc.gov Amy Hull NRC Am~.Hull@nrc.gov Pete Ricardella NRC/ACRS Priccardella@Structint.com 19

Appendix II Workshop Agenda Tuesday, March 7 Session Time Oreanization Soeaker Presentation Title Michael Weber Intro 8:00 NRC Welcome and Introduction to Workshop Robert Tregoning DOE Rich Reister DOE Perspectives on Material HarvestinR EPRI Sherry Bernhoft EPRI Pers pective o n Harvesting Projects 8:15 - 8:45 NRC Robert Tregoning NRC Perspective on Motivation for Harvesting 1

GRS Uwe Jendrich Role of GRS in Decommissioning and LTO CRIEPI Taku Arai CRIEPI Motivatio ns for Harvested Material 8:45-9:45 DISCUSSION 9:45-10:00 BREAK 10:00-PNNL (for NRC) Pradeep Ramuhalli Data Needs Best Addressed By Harvesting 10:20 10:20 -

NRC Matthew Hiser High-Priorit y Data Needs for Harvesting 10:30 10:30- LWRS Program Perspective on the Techn ical DOE Keit h Leonard 10:55 Needs for Harvestine 2

10:55- Review of past RPV sampl ing test programs SCK-CEN Rach id Chaouadi 11:20 and perspective for long t erm operation 11:20 - Importance of Harvesting to Evaluate Westinghouse Arzu Alpan 11:45 Radiation Effects on Concrete Prooerties 11:45 -

DISCUSSION 12:30 12:30 - 2:00 LUNCH Sources of Materials: Past NRC Harvesting and 2:00 - 2:10 NRC M atthew Hiser U.S. Decommissioning Plants Harvesting Plans for Materials Aging 2:10 - 2:35 EPRI Al Ahluwalia Degradation Research in Korea and Sweden 2:35 - 2:50 DOE/ORNL Tom Rosseel Materials Harvested by t he LWRS Program 2:50 -3:00 DOE/INL John Jackson NSUF M aterial Samole Librarv Gerry van 3:00-3:15 Energy Solutions Zion Material Harvesting Program Noordennen 3

Potential Harvesting of Concrete from M ihama 3:15-3:30 Westinghouse Arzu Alpa n Unit 1 3:30 -3:45 BREAK 3:45-4:00 GRS Uwe Jendrich Plants in Decommissioning in Germany Evaluating Structures, Systems & Components 4:00 - 4:15 CNSC Daniel Tello from Decom missio ned/Decommissioning N uclear Facilities in Ca nada 4:15-5:00 DISCUSSION 20

Wednesday, March 8 Session Time Or2anization S0eaker Presentation Title Lessons Learned: Harvesting and Shipping of 8:00-8:30 EPRI Jean Smith Zorita Materials 8:30 - 9:00 DOE Tom Rosseel LWRS Program: Harvesting Lessons Learned NRC Perspective on Harvesting Experience and 9:00 - 9:30 NRC Matthew Hiser Lessons Learned CRIEPI Resea rch Activities w ith Harvested 4 9:30 - 10:00 CRIEPI Taku Arai Material s 10:00 -10:15 BREAK Energy Gerry van Zion Harvesting Experience and Lessons 10:15 - 10:45 Solutions Noordennen Learned 10:45 - 11: 15 Dominion Sill Zipp Kewaunee Insights o n Material Harvesting 11:15 -12:00 DISCUSSION 12:00 -1:30 LUNCH PNNL (for Technical Information Needed for Informed 1:30 -1:45 Pradeep Ramuhalli NRC) Harvesting Decisions 1:45 - 2:30 DISCUSSION 2:30 - 3:00 Action Items and Next Steps s

EPRI Sherry Bernhoft DOE Rich Reister 3:00 - 4:00 Closing Thoughts NRC RobertTregoning ALL 21

Appendix Ill Harvesting Opportunit ies in Germany Past and current decommissioning projects of P ototype or Commercial Reactors Name Rheinsberg Compact Natrium Cooled Reactor Multipurpose Research R.

I Abbrev.

KKR KKN MZFR

-W WER SNR PWR/O2O Power MW.

70 21 57 I Oecom.

started 1995 1993 1987

- UC UC UC Obrigheim KWO PWR 357 2008 UC Neckarwestheim 1 GKN-1 PWR 840 2017 UC lsar-1 KKl-1 BWR 912 2017 UC Gundremmingen-A KRB-A BWR 250 1983 RCAKRB-11 Greifswald 1-5 KGR 1-5 WWER 440 1995 UC Lingen KWL BWR 268 1985 UC after SE UC: unconditional clearance RCA: radiation controlled area, new license NRC Harvesting Workshop, RoclMHe, March 20 17. Oecormisslonlng in Germany SE: safe enclosure Past and current decommissioning projects of Prototype or Commercial Reactors Name Strategy Stade KKS PWR 672 2005 UC Research Reactor J0lich AVR HTR 15 1994 UC Thorium High- THTR- HTR 308 1993 SE since 1997 Temperature-Reaktor 300 W0rgassen KWW BWR 670 1997 UC M0lheim-Karlich KMK PWR 1302 2004 UC Hot-Steam Reactor HOR HOR 25 1983 UC since 1998 Grosswelzheim N iederaichbach KKN [)RR/DP 106 1975 UC since 1994 Test-Reactor Kahl VAK BWR 16 1988 UC since 2010 22

Shut down Commercial Re ctors

that have no decommissioning license granted yet Name Abbrev. Reactor type frMiihNM Date of application Philippsburg-1 KKP-1 BWR 926 2013 / 2014 Grafenrheinfeld KKG PWR 1345 2014 Biblis-A KWB-A PWR 1225 2012 Biblis-8 KWB-8 PWR 1300 2012 Unterweser KKU BWR 1410 2012 / 2013 Brunsbuttel KKB BWR 806 2012 / 2014 Krummel KKK BWR 1402 2015

Commercial Reactors in operation Name Gundremmingen-8 Philippsburg-2 Gundremmingen-C Abbrev.

KRB-11-8 KKP-2 KRB-11-C Reactor type BWR PWR BWR 1344 1468 1344 Anticipated date of final shutdown 31.12.2017 31 .12.2019 31 .1 2.2021 Grohnde KWG PWR 1430 31.12.2021 Brokclorf KBR PWR 1480 31.12.2021 Emsland KKE PWR 1406 31 .12.2022 lsar-2 KKl-2 PWR 1485 31 .1 2.2022 Neckarwestheim-2 GKN-2 PWR 1400 31 .12.2022 23

Note to requester: The attachment is From: Purtscher, Patrick immediately following this email.

Sent: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 06:36:25 -0400 To: Audrain, Margaret Cc: Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

FW: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Attachments: Harvesting Workshop Draft Summary Report.docx Here is the workshop report.

Pat From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:21 PM To: 'Bernhoft, Sherry' <sbernhoft@epri.com>; 'Dyle, Robin' <rdyle@epri.com>; 'Jean Smith (jmsmith@epri.com)' <jmsmith @epri.com>; 'Ahluwalia, Kawaljit' <kahluwal@epri.com>; 'Richard Reister (Richard.Reister@nuclear.energy.gov)' <Richard.Reister@nuclear.energy.gov>; 'leonardk@ornl.gov'

<leonardk@ornl.gov>; 'Rosseel, Thomas M.' <rosseeltm@ornl..gov>; 'William F Zipp (Generat ion - 4)'

<william.f.zipp@dom.com>; 'Gerard P. Van Noordennen' <gpvannoordennen@energysolutions.com>;

'Ramuhalli, Pradeep (Pradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov)' <Pradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov>;

'daniel.tello@canada.ca' <daniel.tello@canada.ca>; 'Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de' <Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de>;

'rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be' <rachid.chaouad i@sckcen.be>; 'arait@criepi.denken.or.jp'

<arait@criepi.den ken.or.jp>; 'alpanfa@westinghouse.com' <allpanfa@westinghouse.com>;

'sokolovm@ornl.gov' <sokolovm@ornl.gov>; 'desire.ndomba@canada.ca' <desire.ndomba@canada.ca>;

'khuynh@aecl.ca' <khuynh@aecl.ca>; 'higuchi@criepi.denken ..or.jp' <higuchi@criepi.denken.or.jp>;

'kazunobu_sa ka moto@nsr.go.j p' <kazunobu_sa kamoto@nsr.go.jp>; 'chim i. yasuhiro@jaea .go.j p'

<chimi.yasuhiro@jaea.go.jp>; 'Jackson, John Howard' <john.jackson@inl.gov>; 'Roussel Guy'

<guy.roussel@Belv.be>; 'john.wagner@inl.gov' <john.wagner@inl.gov>; 'Riccardella, Pete'

<Pricca rdella @Structint.com>; 'RICHTER, Mark' <mar@nei.org>; 'Amberge, Kyle'

<kamberge@epri.com>; Moyer, Carol <Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>; Oberson, Greg

<Greg.Oberson@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>; Poehler, Jeffrey

<Jeffrey.Poehler@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Yoo, Mark <Mark.Yoo@nrc.gov>; Koshy, Thomas <Thomas.Koshy@nrc.gov>; Buford, Angela <Angela.Buford@nrc.gov>; Sircar, Madhumita

<Madhumita.Sircar@nrc.gov>

Cc: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>;

Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop

==Dear Workshop

Participants:

==

I would like to share for your review and comment the workshop summary report (attached). In the report, we tried to capture as much of the discussion as possible, while focusing on the key takeaways that might be useful for all participants as they consider harvesting in the future. In particular, please review how your presentation and contribution to the discussion is characterized, in case you feel it should be clarified in any way. Feel free to provide additional references to previous research on harvested materials that should be captured in this report. Comments, edits, and suggestions on any other parts of the report are welcome.

Please provide your input by June 30 at the latest and we will try to finalize the report by sometime in July.

As indicated in action items 4 and 5, we will be pursuing further coordination efforts on data needs for harvesting and a sources of materials database and welcome any other parties that may be interested in participating in these discussions.

Thank you once again for your participation and engagement in this workshop!

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: Friday, March 17, 2017 8:39 AM To: 'Bernhoft, Sherry' <sbernhoft@epri.com>; 'Dyle, Robin' <rdyle@epri.com>; 'Jean Smith (jmsmith@epri.com )' <jmsmith@epri.com>; 'Ahluwalia, Kawaljit' <kahluwal@epri.com>; 'Richard Reister (Richard.Reister@nuclear.energy.gov)' <Richard.Reister@nuclear.energy.gov>; 'leonardk@ornl.gov'

<leonardk@ornl.gov>; 'Rosseel, Thomas M.'<rosseeltm@ornl.gov>; 'William F Zipp (Generation - 4)'

<william.f.zipp@dom.com>; 'Gerard P. Van Noordennen' <gpvannoordennen@energysolutions.com>;

'Ramuhalli, Pradeep (Pradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov)' <Pradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov>;

'daniel.tello@canada.ca' <daniel.tello@canada.ca>; 'Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de' <Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de>;

'rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be' <rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be>; 'arait@criepi.denken.or.jp'

<arait@criepi.denken.or.jp>; 'alpanfa@westinghouse.com' <alpanfa@westinghouse.com>;

'sokolovm@ornl.gov' <sokolovm@ornl.gov>; 'desire.ndomba@canada.ca' <desire.ndomba@canada.ca>;

'khuynh@aecl.ca' <khuynh@aecl.ca>; 'higuchi@criepi.denken.or.jp' <higuchi@criepi.denken.or.jp>;

'kazunobu_sakamoto@nsr.ga.j p' <kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go.jp>; 'chimi.yasuhiro@jaea .go.jp'

<chimi.yasuhiro@jaea.go.jp>; 'Jackson, John Howard' <john.jackson@inl.gov>; 'Roussel Guy'

<guy.roussel@Belv.be>; 'john .wagner@inl.gov' <john.wagner@inl.gov>; 'Riccardella, Pete'

<Priccardella@Structint.com>; 'RICHTER, Mark' <mar@nei.org>; 'Amberge, Kyle'

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

Oberson, Greg <Greg.Oberson@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>; Poehler, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Poehler@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Yoo, Mark

<Mark.Yoo@nrc.gov>; Koshy, Thomas <Thomas.Koshy@nrc.gov>; Buford, Angela

<Angela.Buford@nrc.gov>; Sircar, Madhumita <Madhumita.Sircar@nrc.gov>

Cc: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>;

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

Subject:

RE: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop

==Dear Workshop

Participants:

==

I have attached a list of participants in last week's workshop, along with t heir email for contact.

Also, I have not received any concerns from the presenters regarding sharing slides, so feel free to share the slides, which are available on Google Drive:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BSDWMLchSYSXcnpZZ0JOS0SSQUU .

We hope to share a detailed workshop summary report in the next two months.

Thanks!

Matt From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 7:03 AM To: 'Bernhoft, Sherry' <sbernhoft@epri.com>; 'Dyle, Robin' <rdyle@epri.com>; 'Jean Smith (jmsmith@epri.com )' <jmsmith@epri.com>; 'Ahluwalia, Kawaljit' <kahluwal@epri.com>; 'Richard Reister (Richard.Reister@nuclear.energy.gov)' <Richard.Reister@nuclear.energy.gov>; 'leonardk@ornl.gov'

<leonardk@ornl.gov>; 'Rosseel, Thomas M.' <rosseeltm@ornl.gov>; 'William F Zipp (Generation - 4)'

<william.f.zipp@dom.com>; 'Gerard P. Van Noordennen' <gpvannoordennen@energysolutions.com>;

'Ramuhalli, Pradeep (Pradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov)' <Pradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov>;

'daniel.tello@canada.ca' <daniel.tello@canada.ca>; 'Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de' <Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de>;

'rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be' <rachid.chaouadi@sckcen.be>; 'arait@criepi.denken.or.jp'

<arait@criepi.denken.or.jp>; 'alpanfa@westinghouse.com' <alpanfa@westinghouse.com>;

'sokolovm@ornl.gov' <sokolovm@ornl.gov>; 'desire.ndomba@canada.ca' <desire.ndomba@canada.ca>;

'khuynh@aecl.ca' <khuynh@aecl.ca>; 'higuchi@criepi.denken ..or.jp' <higuchi@criepi.denken.or.jp>;

'kazunobu_sakamoto@nsr.go.jp' <kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go.jp>; 'chimi.yasuhiro@jaea.go.jp'